The Influence of Greek Ideas upon the Christian Church

Lecture XII The Transformation of the Basis of Christian Union: Doctrine in the Place of Conduct

I spoke in the last Lecture of the gradual formation under Greek influence of a body of doctrine. I propose to speak in the present Lecture of that enormous change in the Christian communities by which an assent to that body of doctrine became the basis of union. I shall have to speak less of the direct influence of Greece than in previous Lectures: but it is necessary to show not only the separate causes and the separate effects, but also their general sum in the changed basis of Christian communion.

---

There is no adequate evidence that, in the first age of Christianity, association was other than voluntary. It was profoundly individual. It assumed for the first time in human history the infinite worth of the individual soul. The ground of that individual worth was a divine sonship. And the sons of God were brethren. They were drawn together by the constraining force of love. But the clustering together under that constraining force was not necessarily the formation of an association. There was not necessarily any organization.709 The tendency to organization came partly from the tendency of the Jewish colonies in the great cities of the empire to combine, and to a far greater extent from the large tendency of the Greek and Roman world to form societies for both religious and social purposes.

But though there is no evidence that associations were in the first instance universal, there is ample evidence that, when once they began to be formed, they were formed on a basis which was less intellectual than moral and spiritual. An intellectual element existed: but it existed as an element, not by itself but as an essential ingredient in the whole spiritual life. It was not separable from the spiritual element. Of the same spiritual element, “faith” and “works” were two sides. The associations, like the primitive clusters which were not yet crystallized into associations, were held together by faith and love and hope, and fused, as it were, by a common enthusiasm. They were baptized, not only into one body, but also by one spirit, by the common belief in Jesus Christ as their Saviour, by the overpowering sense of brotherhood, by the common hope of immortality. Their individual members were the saints, that is, the holy ones. The collective unity which they formed—the Church of God—was holy. It was regarded as holy before it was regarded as catholic. The order of the attributes in the creed is historically correct—the holy Catholic Church. The pictures which remain of the earliest Christian communities show that there was a real effort to justify their name. The earliest complete picture of a Christian community is that of the “Two Ways.” There are fragments elsewhere. From the Acts of the Apostles and the canonical Epistles, and the extra-canonical writings of the sub-apostolic age, it is possible to put together a mosaic.

But in the “Two Ways” we have a primitive manual of Christian teaching, and the teaching is wholly moral. It professes to be a short exposition (διδαχὴ) of the two commandments of love to God and love to one’s neighbour. The exposition is partly a quotation from and partly an expansion of the Sermon on the Mount. “Bless those that curse you, and pray for your enemies.” “If any one give thee a blow on the one cheek, turn to him the other also.” “Give to every one that asketh thee, and ask not back.” “Thou shalt not be double-minded nor double-tongued.” “Thou shalt not be covetous nor grasping.” “Thou shalt not be angry nor envious.” “Thou shalt not be lustful nor filthy-tongued.” “But thou shalt be meek and long-suffering and quiet and guileless and considerate.”710 The ideal was not merely moral, but it was also that of an internal morality, of a new heart, of a change of character.

The book which is probably nearest in date, and which is certainly most alike in character to this simple manual, is the first book of the collection of documents known as the Apostolical Constitutions. It pictures the aim of the Christian life as being to please God by obeying His will and keeping His commandments. “Take heed, O sons of God, to do everything in obedience to God, and to become well-pleasing in all things to the Lord our God.”711 “If thou wilt please God, abstain from all that He hates, and do none of those things that are displeasing to Him.”712 Individual Christians are spoken of as servants and sons of God, as fellow-heirs and fellow-partakers with His Son, as believers, i.e., as the phrase is expanded, “those who have believed on His unerring religion.”713 The rule of life is the Ten Commandments, expanded as Christ expanded them, so as to comprehend sins of thought as well as of deed. It was a fellowship of a common ideal and a common enthusiasm of goodness, of neighbourliness and of mutual service, of abstinence from all that would rouse the evil passions of human nature, of the effort to crush the lower part of us in the endeavour to reach after God.714

It is even possible that the baptismal formula may have consisted, not in an assertion of belief, but in a promise of amendment; for a conservative sect made the candidate promise—“I call these seven witnesses to witness that I will sin no more, I will commit adultery no more, I will not steal, I will not act unjustly, I will not covet, I will not hate, I will not despise, nor will I have pleasure in any evil.”715

The Christian communities were based not only on the fellowship of a common ideal, but also on the fellowship of a common hope. In baptism they were born again, and born to immortality. There was the sublime conception that the ideal society which they were endeavouring to realize would be actually realized on earth. The Son of Man would come again, and the regenerated would die no more. The kingdoms of this world would become the kingdom of the Messiah. The lust and hate, the strife and conflict, the iniquity and vice, which dominated in current society, would be cast out for ever; and over the new earth there would be the arching spheres of a new heaven, into which the saints, like the angels, might ascend. But as the generations passed, and all things continued as they had been, and the sign of the Son of Man sent no premonitory ray from the far-off heaven, this hope of a new earth, without changing its force, began to change its form. It was no longer conceived as sudden, but as gradual. The nations of the world were to be brought one by one into the vast communion. There grew up the magnificent conception of a universal assembly, a καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία.716 There would be a universal religion and a universal society, and not until then would the end come: it would be a transformed and holy world.

---

The first point which I will ask you to note is, that this very transformation of the idea of a particular religion into that of a universal religion—this conception of an all-embracing human society, naturally, if unconsciously, carried with it a relaxation of the bonds of discipline. The very earnestness which led men to preach the Gospel and to hasten the Kingdom, led them also to gather into the net fish of every kind. There was always a test, but the rigour of the test was softened. The old Adam asserted itself. There were social influences, and weakness of character in the officers, and a condonation by the community. It became less and less practicable to eject every offender against the Christian code. It was against this whole tendency that Montanism was a rebellion—not only against the officialism of Christianity, but also against its worldliness.717 The earlier conception of that code, in which it embraced sins of thought, came to be narrowed. The first narrowing was the limitation to open sins. The Christian societies fell under the common law which governs all human organizations, that no cognizance can be taken of the secret thoughts of the heart. The second limitation was, that even when a man had committed an open sin, and had been therefore excluded from the community, he might be re-admitted. The limitation was not accepted without a controversy which lasted over a great part of two centuries, and which at one time threatened to rend the whole Christian communities into fragments. The Church was gradually transformed from being a community of saints—of men who were bound together by the bond of a holy life, separated from the mass of society, and in antagonism to it—to a community of men whose moral ideal and moral practice differed in but few respects from those of their Gentile neighbours. The Church of Christ, which floated upon the waves of this troublesome world was a Noah’s ark, in which there were unclean as well as clean.

Side by side with this diminution in the strictness of the moral tests of admission and of continued membership, was a growth in the importance of the intellectual elements, of which I spoke in a previous Lecture. The idea of holiness and purity came to include in early times the idea of sound doctrine. Hegesippus,718 in speaking of a church as a virgin, gives as his reason, not its moral purity, but the fact that it was not corrupted by foolish doctrines. The growth, both within the Church and on its outskirts, of opinions which were not the opinions of the majority—the tendency of all majorities to assert their power—the flocking into the Christian fold of the educated Greeks and Romans, who brought with them the intellectual habits of mind which dominated in the age—gave to the intellectual element an importance which it had not previously possessed. Knowledge, which had always been in some sort an element in Christianity, though not as a basis of association, came to assert its place side by side with love. Agreement in opinion, which had been the basis of union in the Greek philosophical schools, and later in the Gnostic societies, now came to form a new element in the bond of union within and between the Churches.719 But the practical necessity, when once an intellectual element was admitted, of giving some limitations to that element by establishing a rule of faith and a standard list of apostolic documents, caused stress to be laid at once upon the intellect and the region within which it moved. It was, that is to say, necessary to ensure that the intellectual element was of the right kind, and this of itself gave emphasis to the new temper and tendency. The profession of belief in Christ which had been in the first instance subordinate to love and hope, and which had consisted in a simple recognition of him as the Son of God, became enucleated and elaborated into an explicit creed; and assent to that creed became the condition, or, so to speak, the contract of membership. The profession of faith must be in the words of the Christian rule.720 The teaching of the catechumens was no longer that which we find in the “Two Ways”—the inculcation of the higher morality; it was the traditio symboli, the teaching of the pass-word and of its meaning. The creed and teaching were the creed and teaching of the average members of the communities. In religion, as in society, it is the average that rules. The law of life is compromise.

There were two collateral causes which contributed to the change and gave emphasis to it.

(1) The one arose from the importance which was attached to baptism. There is no doubt that baptism was conceived to have in itself an efficacy which in later times has been rarely attached to it. The expressions which the more literary ages have tended to construe metaphorically were taken literally. It was a real washing away of sins; it was a real birth into a new life; it was a real adoption into a divine sonship. The renunciatio diaboli—the abjuring of false gods and their wicked worship—was also an important element.721 These elements were indeed even more strongly emphasized by certain Gnostic societies than by the more orthodox writers; but they directly suggested a question which soon became vital, viz. whether all baptism had this efficacy. Was the mere act or ceremonial enough, or did it depend on the place where, the person by whom, and the ritual with which it was administered? In particular, the question of the minister of baptism became important. It came to be doubted whether baptism had its awful efficacy, if the baptizer were cut off from the general society of Christians on the ground of either his teaching or his practice. It became important to ensure that those who baptized held the right faith, lest the baptism they administered should be invalid, and should carry with it all the evil consequences of a vitiated baptism. The rules which were laid down were minute. There were grave controversies as to the precise amount of difference of opinion which vitiated baptism, and the very fact of the controversies about opinion accentuated the stress which was laid upon such opinion. It drew away attention from a man’s character to his mental attitude towards the general average of beliefs.

(2) There was another feature of early Christian life which probably contributed more than anything else to strengthen this tendency. It was the habit of intercourse and intercommunion. Christians, like Jews, travelled widely—more for trade and commerce than for pleasure. The new brotherhood of Christians, like the ancient brotherhood of the Jews, gave to all the travelling brethren a welcome and hospitality. A test had been necessary in the earliest times in regard to the prophets and teachers. It is mentioned in the Teaching of the Apostles. But the test was of moral rather than of intellectual teaching. “Whoever comes to you and teaches you all these things” (i.e. the moral precepts of the “Two Ways”), “receive him. But in case he who teaches, himself turns and teaches you another teaching722 so as to destroy (this teaching), listen not to him: but if he teaches you so as to add to your righteousness and knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.”723 So of the prophets: “Not every one who speaks in the spirit is a prophet, but only he who has the moral ways of the Lord (τοὺς τρόπους Κυρίου): by these ways shall be known the false prophet and the true prophet.... Every prophet who teaches the truth, if he does not what he teaches, is a false prophet.”724 So also of the travelling brethren: “Let every one who comes in the name of the Lord be received; afterwards ye shall test him and find out.... If he wish to settle among you and is a craftsman, let him work and so eat. If he be not a craftsman, provide some way of his living among you as a Christian, but not being idle. If he be unwilling so to do, he is χριστέμπορος—making a gain of godliness.”725

The test here also is a test of character and not of belief. But when the intellectual elements had asserted a prominence in Christianity, and when the acceptance of the baptismal formula had been made a test of admission to a Christian community, it gradually became a custom to make the acceptance of that formula also a condition of admission to hospitality.726 It was, so to speak, a tessera or pass-word. By being a pass-word to hospitality, it became also a form which a man might easily strain his conscience to accept, and in religion no less than in politics there are no such strenuous upholders of current opinion as those who are hypocrites. The importance of the formula as a passport attached not only to individuals, but also to whole communities.727 The fact that the Teaching of the Apostles makes the test personal and individual, shows that in the country and at the time when that book was written the later system had not yet begun to prevail. This later system was for a community to furnish its travelling members with a circular letter of recommendation. Such a letter served as a passport. The travelling Christian who brought it received an immediate and ungrudging hospitality. But when churches had wide points of difference, they would not receive each other’s letters. The points of difference which thus led to the renunciation of fellowship, related in the first instance to discipline or practice. They came to relate to belief. Points of doctrine, no less than points of discipline, came to be discussed at the meetings of the representatives of the churches in a district, concerning which I spoke in the last Lecture. Doctrine came to be thus co-ordinate with character as the basis on which the churches joined together in local or general confederations, and accepted each other’s certificates. The hierarchical tendency grew with it and out of it. The position of the bishops, which had grown out of the assumed desirability of guarding the tradition of truth, tended to emphasize that tradition. It gave to tradition not only a new importance, but also a new sanction. It rested belief upon living authority. Men were no longer free to interpret for themselves.

---

This elevation of doctrine to a co-ordinate position with life in the Christian communities was the effect of causes internal to those communities. Those causes were in themselves the effects of other causes, the influence of which I have traced in previous Lectures: but in their direct operation within the churches they were altogether internal. But that which gave importance to their operation was not internal, but external. It was the interposition of the State. The first instance of that interposition was in the days of Aurelian, in the case of Paul of Samosata. The principle which was then established has been of enormous importance to the Christian communities ever since. It is clear that confederation of churches was so far established in Syria in the middle of the third century, that the bishops of a district claimed a right to interfere in the affairs of a neighbouring church. There was not yet the complete confederation, on the basis of the organization of the Empire, which we find after the Nicene Council; it was a question only of neighbourhood. The Bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, who was a statesman as well as a theologian, had a difference of opinion with the leading bishops of Syria on one of the new questions of the metaphysical theology, which was forcing its way into the Christian churches. Meetings were held, at the first of which there appears to have been a compromise. At the second, Paul was condemned. He was formally deposed from his see. He refused to recognize the authority of the meeting, and probably with the support of his people, remained in possession of the church-buildings. An appeal as of “civil right” was made by his opponents to the Emperor. The answer of the Emperor determined the principle already referred to. The tenant of the buildings held them on condition of being a Christian. The Emperor did not determine what Christianity was. But he determined that whatever was taught by the bishops of Italy might be properly taken as the standard. This determined Roman policy, and it went far to determine Christian doctrine for the future.

When Christianity came to be recognized by the State, Constantine adopted the plan of assembling the bishops on his own authority, and of giving whatever sanction the State could give to their resolutions. He said in effect, “I, as Emperor, cannot determine what Christian doctrine is, but I will take the opinion of the majority, and I will so far recognize that opinion that no one shall have the privileges of Christians, a right to hold property and an exemption from civil burdens, who does not assent to that opinion.” The succeeding Christian Emperors followed in his track. The test of being a Christian was conformity to the resolutions of the Councils. One who accepted them received immunity and privileges. One who did not was liable to confiscation, to banishment, to death. I need hardly draw out for you, who know what human nature is, the importance which those resolutions of the Councils assumed.

---

Against this whole transformation of the basis of union there were two great lines of reaction.

1. The one was the reaction of the Puritan party in the Church—the conservative party, which was always smouldering, and sometimes burst forth into flame. The most important of such reactionary outbursts were those of the Novatians in the third century, and of the Donatists in the fourth. I will speak now only of the former. Its first cause was the action of the Roman bishop, Callistus, who allowed the return to the Church of those who had been excluded on account of sins of the flesh, and of return to idolatry. The policy was continued. In 250, a determined stand was made against it. The election of a bishop who belonged to the lax party forced on a schism. The schism was strong. It had sympathizers all over the Christian world—in Egypt, in Armenia, in Asia Minor, in Italy and Spain. It involved the whole theory of the Church—the power of the Keys. It lasted long. It was so strong that the State had to recognize it. It did not die out until at least five centuries after its birth. It lingered on in detached communities, but it ceased to be a power. The majority, with the support not only of the State, but also of human nature, dominated the Christian world.

2. The other reaction was stronger and even more permanent. It consisted of the formation within the Christian community of an inner class, who framed for themselves and endeavoured to realize a higher than the common ideal. They stood to the rest of the community as the community itself stood to the rest of the world. The tendency itself came, as I have tried to point out in a previous Lecture,728 mainly from the Greek philosophical schools, and was fostered to a large extent by the influence on the main body of Christians of the philosophic parties upon its borders. But it asserted its place as a permanent element in the Christian world mainly as a reaction against the change of the basis of the Christian communities, and the lowering of the current standard of their morality. Henceforward there was, side by side with the τάγμα τῶν κληρικῶν and the τάγμα τῶν λαϊκῶν, a third rank, τάγμα τῶν ἀσκητῶν. The ideal has been obscured by its history: but that ideal was sublime. It was impracticable and undesirable; and yet sometimes in human life room must be found for impossible ideals. And the blurred and blotted picture of it which has survived to our own times, cannot take the place of the historical fact that it began as a reaction against Christianity as it was and as it is—an effort to regenerate human society. But Monachism, by the very fact of its separation, did not leaven the Church and raise the current morality. The Church became, not an assembly of devout men, grimly earnest about living a holy life—its bishops were statesmen; its officers were men of the world; its members were of the world, basing their conduct on the current maxims of society, held together by the loose bond of a common name, and of a creed which they did not understand. In such a society, an intellectual basis is the only possible basis. In such a society also, in which officialism must necessarily have an important place, the insistence on that intellectual basis comes from the instinct of self-preservation. But it checked the progress of Christianity. Christianity has won no great victories since its basis was changed. The victories that it has won, it has won by preaching, not Greek metaphysics, but the love of God and the love of man. Its darkest pages are those which record the story of its endeavouring to force its transformed Greek metaphysics upon men or upon races to whom they were alien. The only ground of despair in those who accept Christianity now, is the fear—which I for one cannot entertain—that the dominance of the metaphysical element in it will be perpetual.

---

I have now brought these Lectures to a close. The net result is the introduction into Christianity of the three chief products of the Greek mind—Rhetoric, Logic, and Metaphysics. I venture to claim to have shown that a large part of what are sometimes called Christian doctrines, and many usages which have prevailed and continue to prevail in the Christian Church, are in reality Greek theories and Greek usages changed in form and colour by the influence of primitive Christianity, but in their essence Greek still. Greece lives; not only its dying life in the lecture-rooms of Universities, but also with a more vigorous growth in the Christian Churches. It lives there, not by virtue of the survival within them of this or that fragment of ancient teaching, and this or that fragment of an ancient usage, but by the continuance in them of great modes and phases of thought, of great drifts and tendencies, of large assumptions. Its ethics of right and duty, rather than of love and self-sacrifice; its theology, whose God is more metaphysical than spiritual—whose essence it is important to define; its creation of a class of men whose main duty in life is that of moral exhortation, and whose utterances are not the spontaneous outflow of a prophet’s soul, but the artistic periods of a rhetorician; its religious ceremonial, with the darkness and the light, the initiation and the solemn enactment of a symbolic drama; its conception of intellectual assent rather than of moral earnestness as the basis of religious society—in all these, and the ideas that underlie them, Greece lives.

It is an argument for the divine life of Christianity that it has been able to assimilate so much that was at first alien to it. It is an argument for the truth of much of that which has been assimilated, that it has been strong enough to oust many of the earlier elements. But the question which forces itself upon our attention as the phenomena pass before us in review, is the question of the relation of these Greek elements in Christianity to the nature of Christianity itself. The question is vital. Its importance can hardly be over-estimated. It claims a foremost place in the consideration of earnest men. The theories which rise out of it are two in number. It is possible to urge, on the one hand, that Christianity, which began without them—which grew on a soil whereon metaphysics never throve—which won its first victories over the world by the simple moral force of the Sermon on the Mount, and by the sublime influence of the life and death of Jesus Christ, may throw off Hellenism and be none the loser, but rather stand out again before the world in the uncoloured majesty of the Gospels. It is possible to urge that what was absent from the early form cannot be essential, and that the Sermon on the Mount is not an outlying part of the Gospel, but its sum. It is possible to urge, on the other hand, that the tree of life, which was planted by the hand of God Himself in the soil of human society, was intended from the first to grow by assimilating to itself whatever elements it found there. It is possible to maintain that Christianity was intended to be a development, and that its successive growths are for the time at which they exist integral and essential. It is possible to hold that it is the duty of each succeeding age at once to accept the developments of the past, and to do its part in bringing on the developments of the future.

Between these two main views it does not seem possible to find a logical basis for a third. The one or the other must be accepted, with the consequences which it involves. But whether we accept the one or the other, it seems clear that much of the Greek element may be abandoned. On the former hypothesis, it is not essential; on the latter, it is an incomplete development and has no claim to permanence. I believe the consideration of this question, and practical action on the determination of it, to be the work that lies before the theologians of our generation. I claim for the subject which we have been considering an exceptional importance, because it will enable us, if on the one hand we accept the theory that the primitive should be permanent, to disentangle the primitive from the later elements, and to trace the assumptions on which these later elements are based; and if on the other hand we adopt the theory of development, it will enable us, by tracing the lines of development, to weld the new thoughts of our time with the old by that historical continuity which in human societies is the condition of permanence. I am not unaware that there are many who deprecate the analysis of Christian history, and are content to accept the deposit. There has been a similar timidity in regard to the Bible. It seemed a generation ago as though the whole fabric of belief depended on the acceptance of the belief that Genesis is the work of a single author. The timidity has virtually ceased. The recognition of the fact that the Book of Genesis was not made, but grew, so far from having been a danger to religion, has become a new support of the faith. So it will be with the analysis of Christian doctrine and of Christian history; and therefore I am earnest in urging its study. For though the Lectures are ended, the study of the subject has only begun. I have ventured as a pioneer into comparatively unexplored ground: I feel that I shall no doubt be found to have made the mistakes of a pioneer; but I feel also the certainty of a pioneer—who after wandering by devious paths through the forest and the morass, looks out from the height which he has reached upon the fair landscape—and speaking as one who has so stood and so looked, I am sure that you will find the country to be in the main what I have described it to be, and that you will find also that it is but the entrance to a still fairer landscape beyond. For though you may believe that I am but a dreamer of dreams, I seem to see, though it be on the far horizon—the horizon beyond the fields which either we or our children will tread—a Christianity which is not new but old, which is not old but new, a Christianity in which the moral and spiritual elements will again hold their place, in which men will be bound together by the bond of mutual service, which is the bond of the sons of God, a Christianity which will actually realize the brotherhood of men, the ideal of its first communities.

Footnotes

1 πᾶσα διδασκαλία καὶ πᾶσα μάθησις διανοητικὴ ἐκ προϋπαρχούσης γένεται γνώσεως (Arist. Anal. post. i. 1, P. 71). John Philoponus, in his note on the passage, points out that emphasis is laid upon the word διανοητική, in antithesis to sensible knowledge, ἡ γὰρ αἰσθητικὴ γνῶσις οὐκ ἔχει προϋποκειμένην γνῶσιν (Schol. ed. Brandis, p. 196 b).

2 Tertullian (adv. Valentin. c. 5) singles out four writers of the previous generation whom he regards as standing on an equal footing: Justin, Miltiades, Irenæus, Proculus. Of these, Proculus has entirely perished; of Miltiades, only a few fragments remain; Justin survives in only a single MS. (see A. Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. i. 1, die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten Jahrhunderts); and the greater part of Irenæus remains only in a Latin translation.

3 Marcion, in the sad tone of one who bitterly felt that every man’s hand was against him, addresses one of his disciples as “my partner in hate and wretchedness” (συμμισούμενον καὶ συνταλαίπωρον, Tert. adv. Marc. 4. 9).

4 Examples are the accounts of Basilides in Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus, compared with those in Irenæus and Epiphanius; and the accounts of the Ophites in Hippolytus, compared with those of Irenæus and Epiphanius. The literature of the subject is considerable: see especially A. Hilgenfeld, die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums (e.g. p. 202); R. A. Lipsius, zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios; and A. Harnack, zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus.

5 The very names of most of the heathen opponents are lost: Lactantius (5. 4) speaks of “plurimos et multis in locis et non modo Græcis sed etiam Latinis litteris.” But for the ordinary student, Keim’s remarkable restoration of the work of Celsus from the quotations of Origen, with its wealth of illustrative notes, compensates for many losses (Th. Keim, Celsus’ Wahres Wort, Zürich, 1873).

6 This was the common view of the Stoics, probably following Anaxagoras or his school; cf. Plutarch [Aetius], de Plac. Philos. 4. 3 (Diels, Doxographi Græci, p. 387). It was stated by Chrysippus, οὐδὲν ἀσώματον συμπάσχει σώματι οὐδὲ ἀσωμάτῳ σῶμα ἀλλὰ σῶμα σώματι· συμπάσχει δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ τῷ σώματι... σῶμα ἄρα ἡ ψυχή (Chrysipp. Fragm. ap. Nemes. de Nat. Hom. 33); by Zeno, in Cic. Academ. 1. 11. 39; by their followers, Plutarch [Aetius], de Plac. Philos. 1. 11. 4 (Diels, p. 310), οἱ Στωικοὶ πάντα τὰ αἴτια σωματικά· πνεύματα γάρ; so by Seneca, Epist. 117. 2, “quicquid facit corpus est;” so among some Christian writers, e.g. Tertullian, de Anima, 5.

7 The conception underlies the whole of Tertullian’s treatise, de Baptismo: it accounts for the rites of exorcism and benediction of both the oil and the water which are found in the older Latin service-books, e.g. in what is known as the Gelasian Sacramentary, i. 73 (in Muratori, Liturgia Romana vetus, vol. i. p. 594), “exaudi nos omnipotens Deus et in hujus aquæ substantiam immitte virtutem ut abluendus per eam et sanitatem simul et vitam mereatur æternam.” This prayer is immediately followed by an address to the water, “exorcizo te creatura aquæ per Deum vivum... adjuro te per Jesum Christum filium ejus unicum dominum nostrum ut efficiaris in eo qui in te baptizandus erit fons aquæ salientis in vitam æternam, regenerans eum Deo Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto....” So in the Gallican Sacramentary published by Mabillon (de Liturgia Gallicana libri tres, p. 362), “exorcizo te fons aquæ perennis per Deum sanctum et Deum verum qui te in principio ab arida separavit et in quatuor fluminibus terram rigore præcepit: sis aqua sancta, aqua benedicta, abluens sordes et dimittens peccata....”

8 These conceptions are found in Xenophon’s account of Socrates, who quotes more than once the Delphic oracle, ἥ τε γὰρ Πυθία νόμῳ πόλεως ἀναιρεῖ ποιοῦντας εὐσεβῶς ἂν ποιεῖν, Xen. Mem. 1. 3. 1, and again 4. 3. 16: in Epictet. Ench. 31, σπένδειν δὲ καὶ θύειν καὶ ἀπάρχεσθαι κατὰ τὰ πάτρια ἑκάστοις προσήκει: repeatedly in Plutarch, e.g. de Defect. Orac. 12, p. 416, de Comm. Notit. 31. 1, p. 1074: in the Aureum Carmen of the later Pythagoreans, ἀθανάτους μὲν πρῶτα θεούς νόμῳ ὡς διάκεινται, τίμα (Frag. Philos. Græc. i. p. 193): and in the Neoplatonist Porphyry (ad Marcell. 18, p. 286, ed. Nauck), οὗτος γὰρ μέγιστος καρπὸς εὐσεβείας τιμᾶν τὸ θεῖον κατὰ τὰ πάτρια. The intellectual opponents of Christianity laid stress upon its desertion of the ancestral religion; e.g. Cæcilius in Minucius Felix, Octav. 5, “quanto venerabilius ac melius....majorum excipere disciplinam, religiones traditas colere;” and Celsus in Origen, c. Cels. 5. 25, 35; 8. 57.

9 The following is designed to be a short account, not of all the elements of later Greek education, but only of its more prominent and important features: nothing has been said of those elements of the ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία which constituted the mediæval quadrivium. The works bearing on the subject will be found enumerated in K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitäten, Bd. iv. p. 302, 3te aufl. ed. Blumner: the most important of them is Grasberger, Erziehung und Unterricht im classischen Alterthum, Bd. i. and ii. Würzburg, 1864: the shortest and most useful for an ordinary reader is Ussing, Erziehung und Jugendunterricht bei den Griechen und Römern, Berlin, 1885.

10 Litteratura is the Latin for γραμματική: Quintil. 2. 1. 4.

11 Adv. Gramm. 1. 44.

12 γραμματιστική, which was taught by the γραμματιστής, whereas γραμματικὴ was taught by the γραμματικός. The relation between the two arts is indicated by the fact that in the Edict of Diocletian the fee of the former is limited to fifty denarii, while that of the latter rises to two hundred; Edict. Dioclet. ap. Haenel, Corpus Legum, No. 1054, p. 178.

13 Adv. Gramm. 1. 91 sqq., cf. ib. 250. This is quoted as being most representative of the period with which these Lectures have mainly to do. With it may be compared the elaborate account given by Quintilian, 1. 4 sqq.

14 1. 10.

15 The substance of Basil’s letter, Ep. 339 (146), tom. iii. p. 455. There is a charming irony in Libanius’s answer, Ep. 340 (147), ibid.

16 προφῆτις, Sext. Emp. adv. Gramm. 1. 279.

17 Strabo, 1. 2. 3, οὐ ψυχαγωγίας χάριν δήπουθεν ψιλῆς ἀλλὰ σωφρονισμοῦ.

18 Dio Chrys. Orat. xxxvi. vol. ii p. 51, ed. Dind.

19 These are printed in Walz, Rhetores Græci, vol. i.: the account here followed is mainly that of the Progymnasmata of Theo of Smyrna (circ. A.D. 130). There is a letter of Dio Chrysostom, printed among his speeches, Orat. xvii. περὶ λόγον ἀσκήσεως, ed. Dind. i, 279, consisting of advice to a man who was beginning the study of Rhetoric late in life, which, without being a formal treatise, gives as good a view as could be found of the general course of training.

20 Diss. 3. 23. 20.

21 Philostr. V. S. 2. 21. 3, of Proclus.

22 Lucian, Dial. Mort. 10. 10.

23 Hermotim. 81.

24 There is a good example of the former of these methods in Maximus of Tyre, Dissert. 33, where § 1 is part of a student’s essay, and the following sections are the professor’s comments; and of the latter in Epictetus, Diss. 1. 10. 8, where the student is said ἀναγνῶναι, legere, the professor ἐπαναγνῶναι, prælegere.

25 Enchir. 49: see also Diss. 3. 21, quoted below, p. 102.

26 Orat. iv. vol. i. p. 69, ed. Dind.

27 i. 7.

28 This higher education was not confined to Rome or Athens, but was found in many parts of the empire: Marseilles in the time of Strabo was even more frequented than Athens. There were other great schools at Antioch and Alexandria, at Rhodes and Smyrna, at Ephesus and Byzantium, at Naples and Nicopolis, at Bordeaux and Autun. The practice of resorting to such schools lasted long. In the fourth century and among the Christian Fathers, Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, Augustine and Jerome, are recorded to have followed it: the general recognition of Christianity did not seriously affect the current educational system: “Through the whole world,” says Augustine (de utilitate credendi, 7, vol. viii. 76, ed. Migne), “the schools of the rhetoricians are alive with the din of crowds of students.”

29 There is an interesting instance, at a rather later time, of the poverty of two students, one of whom afterwards became famous, Prohæresius and Hephæstion: they had only one ragged gown between them, so that while one went to lecture, the other had to stay at home in bed (Eunap. Prohæres. p. 78).

30 Diss. 1. 9. 19.

31 Ib. 2, 21. 12; 3. 24. 54.

32 Ib. 2. 21. 12, 13, 15; 3. 24. 22, 24.

33 Ib. 3. 16. 14, 15.

34 Ib. 1. 26. 9.

35 De audiendo, 13, vol. ii. p. 45. The passage is abridged above.

36 Quis rer. div. heres. 3, vol. i. p. 474.

37 For example, Verrius Flaccus, the father of the system of “prize essays,” who received an annual salary of 100,000 sesterces from Augustus (Suet. de illustr. Gramm. 17). The inscriptions of Asia Minor furnish several instances of teachers who had left their homes to teach in other provinces of the Empire, and had returned rich enough to make presents to their native cities.

38 The evidence for the above paragraph, with ample accounts of additional facts relative to the same subject, but unnecessary for the present purpose, will be found in F. H. L. Ahrens, de Athenarum statu politico et literario inde ab Achaici fœderis interitu usque ad Antoninorum tempora, Göttingen, 1829; K. O. Müller, Quam curam respublica apud Græcos et Romanos literis doctrinisque colendis et promovendis impenderit, Göttingen (Programm zur Säcularfeier), 1837; P. Seidel, de scholarum quæ florente Romanorum imperio Athenis exstiterunt conditione, Glogau, 1838; C. G. Zumpt, Ueber den Bestand der philosophischen Schulen in Athen und die Succession der Scholarchen, Berlin (Abhandl. der Akademie der Wissenschaften), 1843; L. Weber, Commentatio de academia literaria Atheniensium, Marburg, 1858. There is an interesting Roman inscription of the end of the second century A.D. which almost seems to show that the endowments were sometimes diverted for the benefit of others besides philosophers: it is to an athlete, who was at once “canon of Serapis,” and entitled to free commons at the museum, νεωκόρον τοῦ μεγά[λου Σαράπιδ]ος καὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ Μουσείῳ [σειτου]μένων ἀτελῶν φιλοσόφων, Corpus Inscr. Græc. 5914.

39 The edict of Antoninus Pius is contained in L. 6, § 2, D. de excusat. 27. l: the number of philosophers is not prescribed, “quia rari sunt qui philosophantur:” and if they make stipulations about pay, “inde iam manifesti fient non philosophantes.” The nature of the immunities is described, ibid. § 8: “a ludorum publicorum regimine, ab ædilitate, a sacerdotio, a receptione militum, ab emtione frumenti, olei, et neque judicare neque legatos esse neque in militia numerari nolentes neque ad alium famulatum cogi.” The immunities were sometimes further extended to the lower classes of teachers, e.g. the ludi magistri at Vipascum in Portugal: cf. Hübner and Mommsen in the Ephemeris Epigraphica, vol. iii. pp. 185, 188. For the regulations of the later empire, see Cod. Theodos. 14. 9, de studiis liberalibus urbis Romæ et Constantinopolitanæ; and for a good popular account of the whole subject, see G. Boissier, L’instruction publique dans l’empire Romain, in the Revue des Deux Mondes, mars 15, 1884.

40 Lucian’s Convivium is a humorous and satirical description of such a dinner. The philosopher reads his discourse from a small, finely-written manuscript, c. 17. The Deipnosophistæ of Athenæus, and the Quæstiones Conviviales of Plutarch, are important literary monuments of the practice.

41 An interesting corroboration of the literary references is afforded by the mosaic pavement of a large villa at Hammâm Grous, near Milev, in North Africa, where “the philosopher’s apartment,” or “chaplain’s room” (filosophi locus), is specially marked, and near it is a lady (the mistress of the house?) sitting under a palm-tree. (The inscription is given in the Corpus Inscr. Lat. vol. viii. No. 10890, where reference is made to a drawing of the pavement in Rousset, Les Bains de Pompeianus, Constantine, 1879).

42 Lucian, de merc. cond. 32.

43 Ib. 34.

44 Ib. 36.

45 Ib. 38.

46 Timon, 50, 51.

47 Profiteri, professio, are the Latin translations of ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι, ἐπαγγελία: the latter words are found as early as Aristotle in connection with the idea of teaching, τὰ δὲ πολιτικὰ ἐπαγγέλλονται μὲν διδάσκειν οἱ σοφισταὶ πράττει δ’ αὐτῶν οὐδείς, Arist. Eth. N. 10. 10, p. 1180 b, and apparently τοὺς ἐπαγγελλομέvους is used absolutely for “professors” in Soph. Elench. 13, p. 172 a. The first use of profiteri in an absolute sense in Latin is probably in Pliny, e.g. Ep. 4. 11. 1, “audistine V. Licinianum in Sicilia profiteri,” “is teaching rhetoric.”

48 See note on p. 33: an early use of prælegere in this sense is Quintil. 1. 8. 13.

49 Facultas is the translation of δύναμις in its meaning of an art or a branch of knowledge, which is found in Epictetus and elsewhere, e.g. Diss. 1. 8. tit., 8, 15, chiefly of logic or rhetoric: a writer of the end of the third century draws a distinction between δυνάμεις and τέχναι, and classes rhetoric under the former: Menander, Περὶ ἐπιδεικτικῶν, in Walz, Rhett. Gr. vol. ix. 196.

50 Instances of this practice are: (1) grammaticus, in Hispania Tarraconensis, Corpus Inscr. Lat. ii. 2892, 5079; magister artis grammaticæ, at Saguntum, ibid. 3872; magister grammaticus Græcus, at Cordova, ibid. 2236; grammaticus Græcus, at Trier, Corpus Inscr. Rhenan. 801: (2) philosophus, in Greece, Corpus Inscr. Græc. 1253; in Asia Minor, ibid. 3163 (dated A.D. 211), 3198, 3865, add. 4366 t 2; in Egypt, ibid. 4817; sometimes with the name of the school added, e.g. at Chæronea, φιλόσοφον Πλατωνικόν, ibid. 1628; at Brundisium, philosophus Epicureus, ibid. 5783.

51 Marcus Aurelius himself nominated Theodotus to be “Regius Professor of Rhetoric,” but he entrusted the nomination of the Professors of Philosophy to Herodes Atticus, Philostrat. V. S. 2. 3, p. 245; and Commodus nominated Polydeuces, ibid. 2. 12, p. 258.

52 Lucian, Eunuchus, 3, after mentioning the endowment of the chairs, says, ἔδει δὲ ἀποθανόντος ἀυτῶν τινος ἄλλον ἀντικαθίστασθαι δοκιμασθέντα ψήφῳ τῶν ἀρίστων, which last words have been variously understood: see the treatises mentioned above, note 1, p. 38, especially Ahrens, p. 74, Zumpt, p. 28. In the case of Libanius, there was a ψήφισμα (Liban. de fort. sua, vol. i. p. 59), which points to an assimilation of Athenian usage in his time to that which is mentioned in the following note.

53 This was fixed by a law of Julian in 362, which, however, states it as a concession on the part of the Emperor: “quia singulis civitatibus adesse ipse non possum, jubeo quisquis docere vult non repente nec temere prosiliat ad hoc munus sed judicio ordinis probatus decretum curialium mereatur, optimorum conspirante consilio,” Cod. Theodos. 13. 3. 5; but the nomination was still sometimes left to the Emperor or his chief officer, the prefect of the city. This has an especial interest in connection with the history of St. Augustine: a request was sent from Milan to the prefect of the city at Rome for the nomination of a magister rhetoricæ: St. Augustine was sent, and so came under the influence of St. Ambrose, S. Aug. Confess. 5. 13.

54 This is mentioned in a law of Gordian: “grammaticos seu oratores decreto ordinis probatos, si non se utiles studentibus præbeant, denuo ab eodem ordine reprobari posse incognitum non est,” Cod. Justin. 10. 52. 2. A professor was sometimes removed for other reasons besides incompetency, e.g. Prohæresius was removed by Julian for being a Christian, Eunap. Prohæres. p. 92.

55 Alexander of Aphrodisias, de Fato, 1, says that he obtained his professorship on the testimony, ὑπὸ τῆς μαρτυρίας, of Severus and Caracalla.

56 The existence of a competition appears in Lucian, Eunuchus, 3, 5: the fullest account is that of Eunapius, Prohæres. pp. 79 sqq.

57 Eunapius, ibid. p. 84.

58 Olympiodorus, ap. Phot. Biblioth. 80; S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 43 (20). 15, vol. i. p. 782; Liban. de fort. sua, vol. i. p. 14. The admission was probably the occasion of some academical sport: the novice was marched in mock procession to the baths, whence he came out with his gown on. It was something like initiation into a religious guild or order. There was a law against any one who assumed the philosopher’s dress without authority, “indebite et insolenter,” Cod. Theodos. 13. 3. 7.

59 The last traces are in the Christian poets: for example, in Sidonius Apollinaris († 482), Carm. xxiii. 211, ed. Luetjohann, “quicquid rhetoricæ institutionis, quicquid grammaticalis aut palæstræ est;” in Ennodius († 521), Carm. ccxxxiv. p. 182, ed. Vogel, and in Ep. 94, which is a letter of thanks to a grammarian for having successfully instructed the writer’s nephew; in Venantius Fortunatus († 603), who speaks of himself as “Parvula grammaticæ lambens refluamina guttæ, Rhetorici exiguum prælibans gurgitis haustum,” V. Martini, i. 29, 30, ed. Leo; but there are traces in the same poets of the antagonism between classical and Christian learning which ultimately led to the disappearance of the former, e.g. Fortunatus speaks of Martin as “doctor apostolicus vacuans ratione sophistas,” V. Martini, i. 139.

60 “La période bénédictine,” Leon Maitre, Les écoles épiscopales et monastiques de l’Occident, p. 173.

61 “Dictæ per carmina sortes,” Hor. A. P. 403. But it may be inferred from the title of Plutarch’s treatise, Περὶ τοῦ μὴ χρᾶν ἔμμετρα νῦν τὴν Πυθίαν, that the practice had ceased in the second century.

62 Cf. e.g.. Pindar, Frag. 127 (118), μαντεύεο μοῖσα προφατεύσω δ’ ἐγώ; and, in later times, Ælius Aristides, vol. iii. p. 22, ed. Cant.

63 Dio Chrysostom, Orat. i. vol. i. p. 12, ed. Dind.

64 Id. Orat. xxxvi. vol. ii. p. 59: καί πού τις ἐπίπνοια θείας φύσεώς τε καὶ ἀληθείας καθάπερ αὐγὴ πυρὸς ἐξ ἀφανοῦς λάμψαντος.

65 It was a natural result of the estimation in which he was held that he should sometimes have been regarded as being not only inspired, but divine: the passages which refer to this are collected in G. Cuper, Apotheosis vel consecratio Homeri (in vol. ii. of Polenus’s Supplement to Gronovius’s Thesaurus), which is primarily a commentary on the bas-relief by Archelaus of Priene, now in the British Museum (figured, e.g. in Overbeck, Geschichte der griechischen Plastik, ii. 333). The idea has existed in much more recent times, not indeed that he was divine, but that so much truth and wisdom could not have existed outside Judæa. There is, for example, a treatise by G. Croesus, entitled, ομηρος εβραιος sive historia Hebræorum ab Homero Hebraicis nominibus ac sententiis conscripta in Odyssea et Iliade, Dordraci, 1704, which endeavours to prove both that the name Homer is a Hebrew word, that the Iliad is an account of the conquest of Canaan, and that the Odyssey is a narrative of the wanderings of the children of Israel up to the death of Moses.

66 Plat. Protag. 72, p. 339 a.

67 Ibid. 22, p. 317 b: ὁμολογῶ τε σοφιστὴς εἶναι καὶ παιδεύειν ἀνθρώπους. For detailed information as to the relation between the early sophists and Homer, reference may be made to a dissertation by W. O. Friedel, de sophistarum studiis Homericis, printed in the Dissertationes philologicæ Halenses, Halis, 1873.

68 Cf. H. Schrader, über die porphyrianischen Ilias Scholien, Hamburg, 1872.

69 Strab, 1. 2. 8.

70 Id. 1. 2. 3.

71 Dio Chrys. Orat. 2, vol. i. pp. 19, 20.

72 Dio Chrys. Orat. 1, vol. i. p. 3.

73 Plat. Theæt. 9, p. 152 d, quoting Hom. Il. 14. 201-302. In later times, the same verse was quoted as having suggested and supported the theory of Thales, Irenæus, 2.14; Theodoret, Græc. Affect. Cur. 2. 9.

74 Celsus in Origen, c. Cels. 6. 42, referring to Hom. Il. 15. 18 sqq.

75 Cic. N. D. 1. 15: “ut etiam veterrimi pœtæ, qui hæc ne quidem suspicati sint, Stoici fuisse videantur.”

76 Xen. Sympos. 4. 6; 3. 5.

77 Ps-Plutarch, de vita et poesi Homeri, vol. v. pp. 1056 sqq., chapters 148, 164, 182, 192, 216.

78 The earliest expression of this feeling is that of Xenophanes, which is twice quoted by Sextus Empiricus, adv. Gramm. 1. 288, adv. Phys. 9. 193:
πάντα θεοῖς ἀνέθηκαν Ὅμηρος θ’ Ἡσίοδός τε
ὅσσα παρ’ ἀνθρώποισιν ὀνείδεα καὶ ψόγος ἐστί.

79 Plutarch, de aud. poet. c. 4, pp. 24, 25.

80 Lucian, Jupit. confut. 2.

81 The connection of allegory with the mysteries was recognized: Heraclitus Ponticus, c. 6, justifies his interpretation of Apollo as the sun, ἐk τῶν μυστικῶν λόγων οὓς αἱ ἀπόρρητοι τελετὰι θεολογοῦσι: ps-Demetrius Phalereus, de interpret. c. 99, 101, ap. Walz, Rhett. Gr. ix. p. 47, μεγαλεῖόν τί ἐστι καὶ ἡ ἀλληγορία... πᾶν γὰρ τὸ ὑπονοούμενον φοβερώτατον καὶ ἄλλος εἰκάζει ἄλλο τι... διὸ καὶ τὰ μυστήρια ἐν ἀλληγορίαις λέγεται πρὸς ἔκπληξιν καὶ φρίκην: so Macrobius, in Somn. Scip. 1. 2, after an account of the way in which the poets veiled truths in symbols, “sic ipsa mysteria figurarum cuniculis operiuntur ne vel hæc adeptis nuda rerum talium se natura præbeat.” That a physical explanation lay behind the scenery of the mysteries is stated elsewhere, e.g. by Theodoret, Græc. Affect. Cur. i. vol. iv. p. 721, without being connected with the allegorical explanation of the poets.

82 Pausan. 3. 25. 4-6.

83 Plat. Phædr. p. 229 c.

84 Plat. Resp. p. 378 d.

85 Diogenes Laertius, 2. 11, quotes Favorinus as saying that Anaxagoras was the first who showed that the poems of Homer had virtue and righteousness for their subject. If the later traditions (Georg. Syncellus, Chronogr. p. 149 c) could be trusted, the disciples of Anaxagoras were the authors of the explanations which Plato attributes to οἱ νῦν περὶ Ὅμηρον δεινοί, and which tried by a fanciful etymology to prove that Athené was voῦv τε καὶ διάνοιαν (Plat. Cratyl. 407 b).

86 Diog. Laert. 2. 11: Tatian, Orat. ad Græcos, c. 21, Μητρόδωρος δὲ ὁ Λαμψακηνὸς ἐν τῷ περὶ Ὁμήρου λίαν εὐήθως διείλεκται πάντα εἰς ἀλληγορίαν μετάγων. A later tradition used the name of Pherecydes: Isidore, sun of Basilides, in Clem. Alex. Strom. 6, p. 767.

87 On the general subject of allegorical interpretation, especially in regard to Homer, reference may be made to N. Schow in the edition of Heraclitus Ponticus mentioned below; L. H. Jacob, Dissertatio philosophica de allegoria Homerica, Halæ, 1785; C. A. Lobeck, Aglaophamus, pp. 155, 844, 987; Gräfenhan, Geschichte der klassischen Philologie, Bd. i. p. 211. It has been unnecessary for the present purpose to make the distinction which has sometimes (e.g. Lauer, Litterarischer Nachlass, ed. Wichmann, Bd. ii. p, 105) been drawn between allegory and symbol.

88 The most recent edition is Heracliti Allegoriæ Homericæ, ed. E. Mehler, Leyden, 1851: that of N. Schow, Göttingen, 1782, contains a Latin translation, a good essay on Homeric allegory, and a critical letter by Heyne. It seems probable that the treatise is really anonymous, and that the name Heraclitus was intended to be that of the philosopher of Ephesus: see Diels, Doxoyraphi Græci, p. 95 n.

89 The most recent, and best critical, edition is by C. Lang, ed. 1881, in Teubner’s series. More help is afforded to an ordinary student by that which was edited from the notes of de Villoison by Osann, Göttingen, 1844.

90 c. 1, πάντως γὰρ ἠσέβησεν εἰ μηδὲν ἀλληγόρησεν: he defines allegory, c. 5, ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλα μὲν ἀγορεύων τρόπος ἕτερα δὲ ὧν λέγει σημαίνων ἐπωνύμως ἀλληγορία καλεῖται.

91 c. 2.

92 c. 8.

93 c. 61.

94 c. 66.

95 c. 69.

96 c. 16.

97 c. 18.

98 Sallust, de diis et mundo, c. 4, in Mullach, Fragmenta Philosophorum Græcorum, vol. iii. p. 32.

99 Incerti Scriptoris Græci Fabulæ aliquot Homericæ de Ulixis erroribus ethice explicatæ, ed. J. Columbus, Leiden, 1745.

100 Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. 8, p. 673.

101 Marcellinus, Vita Thucydidis, c. 35, ἀσαφῶς δὲ λέγων ἀνὴρ ἐπιτηδὲς ἵνα μὴ πᾶσιν εἴη βατὸς μηδὲ εὐτελὴς φαίνηται παντὶ τῷ βουλομένῳ νοούμενος εὐχερῶς ἀλλὰ τοῖς λίαν σοφοῖς δοκιμαζόμενος παρὰ τούτοις θαυμάζηται.

102 The analogy is drawn by Clem. Alex. Strom. 5, chapters 4 and 7.

103 It is impossible not to mention Aristobulus: he is quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1. 15, 22; 5. 14; 6. 3), and extracts from him are given by Eusebius (Præp. Evang. 8. 10; 13. 12); but the genuineness of the information that we possess about him is much controverted and has given rise to much literature, of which an account will be found in Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 2er Th. p. 760; Drummond, Philo-Judæus, i. 242.

104 Philo, de somniis, i. 20, vol. i. p. 639.

105 Hom. Il. 2. 204.

106 Ps-Justin (probably Apollonius, see Dräseke, in the Jahrb. f. protestant. Theologie, 1885, p. 144), c. 17.

107 Hom. Il. 18. 483.

108 Ps-Justin, c. 28.

109 Hom. Il. 14. 206; Clem. Al. Strom. 5. 14, p. 708.

110 Il. 22. 8; Clem. Al. Strom. 5. 14, p. 719; but it sometimes required a keen eye to see the Gospel in Homer. For example, in Odyss. 9. 410, the Cyclopes say to Polyphemus:
εἰ μὲν δὴ μή τίς σε βιάζεται οἶον ἐόντα,
νοῦσόν γ’ οὔ πως ἔστι Διὸς μεγάλου ἀλέασθαι.

Clement (Strom. 5. 14) makes this to be an evident “divination” of the Father and the Son. His argument is, apparently, μήτις = μῆτις; but μῆτις = λόγος: therefore the νόσος Διός, which = μῆτις = (by a μαντείας εὐστόχου) the Son of God.

111 Hippol. Philosophumena, 6. 14.

112 Herod. 4. 8-10.

113 Hippol. 5. 21.

114 Clementin. Hom. 2. 43, 44.

115 Ib. 2. 51.

116 Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. 4, p. 237.

117 These are given by J. G. Rosenmüller, Historia Interpretationis librorum sacrorum in ecclesia Christiana, vol. i. p. 63.

118 Athenag. Legat. c. 19: ps-Justin (Apollonius), Cohort. ad. Græc. c. 8, uses the analogous metaphor of a harp of which the Divine Spirit is the plectrum.

119 Tertull. adv. Marc. 3. 5.

120 Justin M. Apol. i. 54.

121 Ib. i. 35.

122 Ib. i. 32.

123 Ib. Tryph. 78.

124 Iren. 1. 8. 4, of the Valentinians.

125 Ib. 1. 8. 2.

126 Clem. Al. Strom. 1. 3, p. 329.

127 Ib. 6. 11, p. 787.

128 Id. Pædag. 2. 8, p. 76.

129 This was the contention of Marcion, whose influence upon the Christian world was far larger than is commonly supposed. By far the best account of him, in both this and other respects, is that of Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, 1er Th. B. i. c. 5.

130 Euseb. H. E. 6. 19. 8.

131 Origen, de princip. 1. 16.

132 Ib. c. 15.

133 Clement. Recogn. 10. 36.

134 Clement. Hom. 6. 18.

135 Tatian, Orat. ad. Græc. 21.

136 Euseb. Præp. Evang. 2. 6, vol. iii. p 74: θεραπεία became a technical term in this sense; cf. Gräfenhan, Geschichte des klass. Philologie im Alterthum, vol. i. p. 215.

137 Porphyr. ap. Euseb. H. E. 6. 19. 5.

138 Origen, c. Cels. 4. 48-50.

139 Origen, in Gen. Hom. 13. 3, vol. ii. p. 94; in Joann. Hom. 10. 13, vol. iv. p. 178.

140 Euseb. H. E. 7. 24.

141 Kihn, Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus als Exegeten, Freib. im Breisg. 1880, p. 7.

142 J. G. Rosenmüller, Hist. Interpret. iii. p. 161. The letter is printed, with the other remains of Julius Africanus, in Routh, Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. ii.

143 See the chapter on “Scripture and its Mystical Interpretation” in Newman’s “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” especially p. 324 (2nd ed.), “It may almost be laid down as an historical fact that the mystical interpretation and orthodoxy will stand or fall together.”

144 I have endeavoured to confine the above account to what is true of Greek Rhetoric: the accounts which are found in Roman writers, especially in Quintilian, though in the main agreeing with it, differ in some details. The best modern summary of Greek usages is that of Kayser’s Preface to his editions of Philostratus (Zürich, 1844; Leipzig, 1871, vol. ii.).

145 E. Rohde, der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer, Leipzig, 1876, p. 297.

146 There is a distinction between τὰ δικανικὰ and τὰ ἀμφὶ μελέτην, and both are distinguished from τὰ πολιτικὰ in Philostratus, V. S. 2. 20, p. 103. Elsewhere Philostratus speaks of a sophist as being δικανικοῦ μὲν σοφιστικώτερος σοφιστοῦ δὲ δικανικώτερος, “too much of a litterateur to be a good lawyer, and too much of a lawyer to be a good litterateur,” 2. 23. 4, p. 108.

147 θέσις is defined by Hermogenes as ἀμφισβητημένου πράγματος ζήτησις, Progymn. 11, Walz, i. p. 50: ὑπόθεσις as τῶν ἐπὶ μέρους ζήτησις, Sext. Emp. adv. Geom. 3. 4: so τὰς εἰς ὄvομα ὑποθέσεις, Philostr. V.S. proœm. The distinction is best formulated by Quintilian, 3. 5. 5, who gives the equivalent Latin terms, “infinitæ (quæstiones) sunt quæ remotis personis et temporibus et locis cæterisque similibus in utramque partem tractantur quod Græci θέσιν dicunt, Cicero propositum... finitæ autem sunt ex complexu rerum personarum temporum cæterorumque: hæ ὑποθέσεις a Græcis dicuntur, caussæ a nostris, in his omnis quæstio videtur circa res personasque consistere.”

148 Philostr. V.S. 1. 25. 7, 16.

149 Ib. 2. 5. 3.

150 Dio Chrysost. lvi. vol. ii. p. 176.

151 προσωποποιΐα, for which see Theon. Progymnasmata, c. 10, ed. Spengel, vol. ii. 115: Quintil. 3. 8. 49; 9. 2. 29. The word ὑποκρίνεσθαι was sometimes applied, e.g. Philostr. V.S. 1. 21. 5, of Scopelianus, whose action in subjects taken from the Persian wars was so vehement that a partizan of one of his rivals accused him of beating a tambourine, “Yes, I do,” he said; “but my tambourine is the shield of Ajax.”

152 “They made their voice sweet with musical cadences, and modulations of tone, and echoed resonances:” Plut. de aud. 7, p. 41. So at Rome Favorinus is said to have “charmed even those who did not know Greek by the sound of his voice, and the significance of his look, and the cadence of his sentences:” Philostr. V. S. 1. 7, p. 208.

153 Orat. lix.

154 Rohde, pp. 336 sqq.

155 This trained habit of composing in different styles is of importance in relation to Christian as well as to non-Christian literature. A good study of the latter is afforded by Arrian, whose “chameleon-like style” (Kaibel, Dionysios von Halikarnass und die Sophistik, Hermes, Bd. xx. 1875, p. 508) imitates Thucydides, Herodotus, and Xenophon, by turns.

156 Philostratus, V. S. 1. P. 202, τὴν ἀρχαίαν σοφιστικὴν ῥητορικὴν ἡγεῖσθαι χρὴ φιλοσοφοῦσαν. διαλέγεται μὲν γὰρ ὑπὲρ ὧν οἱ φιλοσοφοῦντες ἃ δὲ ἐκεῖνοι τὰς ἐρωτήσεις ὑποκαθήμενοι καὶ τὰ σμικρὰ τῶν ζητουμένων προβιβάζοντες οὔπω φασὶ γιγνώσκειν ταῦτα ὁ παλαιὸς σοφιστὴς ὡς εἰδὼς λέγει: ib. p. 4, σοφιστὰς δὲ οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐπωνόμαζον οὐ μόνον τῶν ῥητόρων τοὺς ὑπερφωνοῦντάς τε καὶ λαμπρούς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων τοὺς ξὺν εὐροίᾳ ἑρμηνεύοντας.

157 On the distinction, see Kayser’s preface to his editions of Philostratus, p. vii.

158 Philostratus, V. S. 2. 3, p. 245, says that the famous sophist Aristocles lived the earlier part of his life as a Peripatetic philosopher, “squalid and unkempt and ill-clothed,” but that when he passed into the ranks of the sophists he brushed off his squalor, and brought luxury and the pleasures of music into his life. On the philosopher’s dress, see below, Lecture VI. p. 151.

159 Epictetus, Diss. 3. 21. 6; 3. 23. 6, 23, 28: so Pliny, Epist. 3. 18 (of invitations to recitations), “non per codicillos (cards of invitation), non per libellos (programmes, probably containing extracts), sed ‘si commodum esset,’ et ’si valde vacaret’ admoniti.” Cf. Lucian, Hermotimus, 11, where a sophist is represented as hanging up a notice-board over his gateway, “No lecture to-day.”

160 Philostratus, V.S. 2. 10. 5, says that the enthusiasm at Rome about the sophist Adrian was such that when his messenger (τοῦ τῆς ἀκροάσεως ἀγγέλου) appeared on the scene with a notice of lecture, the people rose up, whether from the senate or the circus, and flocked to the Athenæum to hear him. Synesius, Dio (in Dio Chrys. ed. Dind, vol. ii. 342), speaks of θυροκοπήσαντα καὶ ἐπαγγείλαντα τοῖς ἐv ἄστες μειρακίοις ἀκρόαμα ἐπιδέξιον.

161 Orat. 23, p. 360, ed. Dind.

162 De sanit. præc. 16, p. 131.

163 V. S. 2. 5. 3.

164 Pseudolog. 5 sqq.

165 Orat. viii. vol. i. 145.

166 Epict. Diss. 3. 23. 35, ἐν κομψῷ στολίῳ ἢ τριβωνίῳ ἀναβάντα ἐπὶ πούλβινον: but Pliny, Epist. 2. 3. 2, says of Isæus, “surgit, amicitur, incipit,” as though he robed himself in the presence of the audience.

167 Pliny, Epist. 2. 3, says of Isæus: “præfationes tersæ, graciles, dulces: graves interdum et erectæ. Poscit controversias plures, electionem auditoribus permittit, sæpe etiam partes.” Philostratus, V.S. 1. 24. 4, tells a story of Mark of Byzantium going into Polemo’s lecture-room and sitting down among the audience: some one recognized him, and the whisper went round who he was, so that, when Polemo asked for a subject, all eyes were turned to Mark. “What is the use of looking at a rustic like that?” said Polemo, referring to Mark’s shaggy beard; “he will not give you a subject.” “I will both give you a subject,” said Mark, “and will discourse myself.” Plutarch, de audiendo, 7, p. 42, advises those who go to a “feast of words” to propose a subject that will be useful, and not to ask for a discourse on the bisection of unlimited lines.

168 Plin. Epist. 2. 3. 4; cf. Philostr. V.S. 1. 20. 2. His disciple Dionysius of Miletus had so wonderful a memory, and so taught his pupils to remember, as to be suspected of sorcery: Philostr. V.S. 1. 22. 3.

169 Rhet. præc. 18.

170 V.S. 2. 26. 3.

171 Orat. xxxiii. vol. i. p. 422.

172 Epict. Diss. 3. 23. 24.

173 Plut. de audiendo, 15, p. 46, speaks of the strange and extravagant words which had thus come into use, ‘θείως’ καὶ ‘θεοφορήτως’ καὶ ‘ἀπροσίτως,’ the old words, τοῦ ‘καλῶς’ καὶ τοῦ ‘σοφῶς’ καὶ τοῦ ‘ἀληθῶς,’ being no longer strong enough.

174 Rhet. præc. 21.

175 De audiendo, 4, p. 39.

176 Diss. 3. 23. 11.

177 Diss. 3. 23. 19.

178 ἐτυράννει γε τῶν Ἀθηνῶν, says Eunapius of the sophist Julian, Vit. Julian, p. 68.

179 Philostr. V. S. 1. 21. 6, of Scopelianus, βασίλειοι δὲ αὐτοῦ πρεσβεῖαι πολλαὶ μέν, καὶ γάρ τις καὶ ἀγαθὴ τύχη ξυνηκολούθει πρεσβεύοντι: ib. 1. 24, 2, of Mark of Byzantium: 1. 25. 1, 5, of Polemo: 2. 5. 2, of Alexander Peloplaton.

180 Philostr. V. S. 1. 22, of Dionysius of Miletus, Ἀδριανὸς σατράπην μὲν αὐτὸν ἀπέφηνεν οὐκ ἀφανῶν ἐθνῶν ἐγκατέλεξε δὲ τοῖς δημοσίᾳ ἱππεύουσι καὶ τοῖς ἐν τῷ Μουσείῳ σιτουμένοις: so of Polemo, ib. 1. 25. 3.

181 The inscription of one of the statues which are mentioned by Philostratus, V. S. 1. 23, 2, as having been erected to Lollianus at Athens, was found a few years ago near the Propylæa: Dittenberger, C. I. A. vol. iii. No. 625: see also Welcker, Rhein. Mus. N. F. i. 210, and a monograph by Kayser, P. Hordeonius Lollianus, Heidelberg, 1841. It is followed by the epigram:
ἀμφότερον ῥητῆρα δικῶν μελέτησί τ’ ἄριστον
  Λολλιανὸν πληθὺς εὐγενέων ἑτάρων.
εἰ δ’ ἐθέλεις τίνες εἰσὶ δαήμεναι οὔνομα πατρὸς
  καὶ πάτρης, αὐτῶν τ’ οὔνομα δίσκος ἔχει.

Philostratus, V. S. 1. 25. 26, discredits the story that Polemo died at Smyrna, because there was no monument to him there; whereas if he had died there, “not one of the wonderful temples of that city would have been thought too great for his burial.”

182 ἡ βασιλεύουσα Ῥωμὴ τὸν βασιλεύοντα τῶν λόγων, Eunap. Vit. Prohæres. p. 90.

183 Μόδεστος σοφιστὴς εἷς μετὰ τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν μὴ γεμίσας εἰκοσι πέντε ἔτη, Bulletin de correspondence Hellénique, 1886. p. 157.

184 ὅσ πάντα λόγοις ὑποτάσσει, Mittheilungen des deutsches archæol. Institut, 1884, p. 61.

185 Philostratus, V. S. 1. 25. 3, p. 228, narrates the incident with graphic humour, and adds two anecdotes which show that the Emperor was rather amused than annoyed by it. It was said of the same sophist that “he used to talk to cities as a superior, to kings as not inferior, and to gods as an equal,” ibid. 4.

186 Dio Cassius, 71. 35. 2, παμπληθεῖς φιλοσοφεῖν ἐπλάττοντο ἵν’ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ πλουτίζωνται.

187 For example, the father of Herodes Atticus gave Scopelianus a fee of twenty-five talents, to which Atticus himself added another twenty-five: Philostr. V. S. 1. 21. 7, p. 222.

188 Dio Chrysost. Orat. xxxii. p. 403: so Seneca, Epist. 29, says of them, “philosophiam honestius neglexissent quam vendunt:” Maximus of Tyre, Diss. 33. 8, ἀγορὰ πρόκειται ἀρετῆς, ὤνιον τὸ πρᾶγμα.

189 Orat. xxiii. p. 351. The whole speech is a plea against the disrepute into which the profession had fallen.

190 ap. Aul. Gell. 5. 1. 1.

191 De audiendo, 12, p. 43.

192 It is clear that the word “sophist” had under the Early Empire, as in both earlier and later times, two separate streams of meaning. It was used as a title of honour, e.g. Lucian, Rhet. Præc. 1, τὸ σεμνότατον τοῦτο καὶ πάντιμον ὄνομα σοφιστής; Philostr. V. S. 2. 31. 1, when Ælian was addressed as σοφιστής, he was not elated ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος οὕτω μεγάλου ὄντος; Eunap. Vit. Liban. p. 100, when emperors offered Libanius great titles and dignities, he refused them, φήσας τὸν σοφιστὴν εἶναι μείζονα. But the disparagement of the class to whom the word was applied runs through a large number of writers, e.g. Dio Chrys. Orat. iv. vol. i. 70, ἀγνοοῦντι καὶ ἀλαζόνι σοφιστῇ; ib. viii. vol. i 151, they croak like frogs in a marsh; ib. x. vol. i. 166, they are the wretchedest of men, because, though ignorant, they think themselves wise; ib. xii. vol. i. 214, they are like peacocks, showing off their reputation and the number of their disciples as peacocks do their tails. Epict. Diss. 2. 20. 23; M. Aurel. 1. 16; 6. 30. Lucian, Fugitiv. 10, compares them to hippocentaurs, σύνθετόν τι καὶ μικτὸν ἐν μέσῳ ἀλαζονείας καὶ φιλοσοφίας πλαζόμενον. Maximus Tyr. Diss. 33. 8, τὸ τῶν σοφιστῶν γένος, τὸ πολυμαθὲς τοῦτο καὶ πολυλόγον καὶ πολλῶν μεστὸν μαθημάτων, καπηλεῦον ταῦτα καὶ ἀπεμπολοῦν τοῖς δεομένοις. Among the Christian Fathers, especial reference may be made to Clem. Alex. Strom. 1, chapters 3 and 8, pp. 328, 343.

193 Epict. Diss. 3. 23.

194 The functions are clearly separable in the Teaching of the Apostles, 15, αὐτοὶ [sc. ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι] γάρ εἰσιν οἱ τετιμημένοι ὑμῶν μετὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων; but they are combined in the second book of the Apostolical Constitutions, pp. 16, 49, 51, 58, 84, ed. Lagarde.

195 Euseb. H. E. 6. 36. 1.

196 Sozom. H. E. 8. 2.

197 Eusebius, H. E. 6. 36. 1, speaks of Origen’s sermons as διαλέξεις, whereas the original designation was ὁμιλίαι. So in Latin, Augustine uses the term disputationes of Ambrose’s sermons, Confess. 5. 13, vol. i, 118, and of his own Tract. lxxxix. in Johann. Evang. c. 5, vol. iii, pars 2, p. 719.

198 Phot. Biblioth. 172.

199 Sozomen. H. E. 8. 5. Augustine makes a fine point of the analogy between the church and the lecture-room (schola): “tanquam vobis pastores sumus, sed sub illo Pastore vobiscum oves sumus. Tanquam vobis ex hoc loco doctores sumus sed sub illo Magistro in hac schola vobiscum condiscipuli sumus:” Enarrat. in Psalm. cxxvi. vol. iv. 1429, ed. Ben.

200 Adv. Jud. 7. 6, vol. i. 671; Conc. vii. adv. eos qui ad lud. circ. prof. vol. i. 790; Hom. ii. ad pop. Antioch. c. 4, vol. ii. 25; adv. eos qui ad Collect. non occur. vol. iii. 157; Hom. liv. in cap. xxvii. Genes. vol. iv. 523; Hom. lvi. in cap. xxix. Genes. vol. iv. 541.

201 S. Chrys. Hom. xxx. in Act. Apost. c. 3, vol. ix. 238.

202 Greg. Naz. Orat. xlii.

203 Socrates, H. E. 6. 11; Sozomen, H. E. 8. 10.

204 An indication of this may be seen in the fact that words which have come down to modern times as technical terms of geometry were used indifferently in the physical and moral sciences, e.g. theorem (θεώρημα), Philo, Leg. alleg. 3. 27 (i. 104), θεωρήμασι τοῖς περὶ κόσμου καὶ τῶν μερῶν αὐτοῦ: Epict. Diss. 2. 17. 3; 3. 9. 2; 4. 8. 12, &c., of the doctrines of moral philosophy: sometimes co-ordinated or interchanged with δόγμα, e.g. Philo, de fort. 3 (ii. 877), διὰ λογικῶν καὶ ἠθικῶν καὶ φυσικῶν δογμάτων καὶ θεωρημάτων: Epictet. Diss. 4. 1. 137, 139, and as a variant Ench. 52. 1. So definition (ὁρισμός) is itself properly applicable to the marking out of the boundaries of enclosed land. So also ἀπόδειξις was not limited to ideal or “necessary” matter, but was used of all explanations of the less by the more evident; e.g. Musonius, Frag. ap. excerpt. e Joann. Damasc., in Stob. Ecl. ii. 751, ed. Gaisf., after defining it, gives as an example a proof that pleasure is not a good.

205 ὁ δὲ νόμος βασιλέως δόγμα, Dio Chrys. vol. i. p. 46, ed. Dind.

206 The use of the word in Epictetus is especially instructive: δόγματα fill a large place in his philosophy. They are the inner judgments of the mind (κρίματα ψυχῆς, Diss. 4. 11. 7) in regard to both intellectual and moral phenomena. They are especially relative to the latter. They are the convictions upon which men act, the moral maxims which form the ultimate motives of action and the resolution to act or not act in a particular case. They are the most personal and inalienable part of us. See especially, Diss. 1. 11. 33, 35, 38; 17. 26; 29. 11, 12; 2. 1. 21, 32; 3. 2. 12; 9. 2; Ench. 45. Hence ἀπὸ δογμάτων λαλεῖν, “to speak from conviction,” is opposed to ἀπὸ τῶν χειλῶν λαλεῖν, “to speak with the lip only,” Diss. 3. 16. 7. If a man adopts the δόγμα of another person, e.g. of a philosopher, so as to make it his own, he is said, δόγματι συμπαθῆσαι, “to feel in unison with the conviction,” Diss. 1. 3. 1. Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrh. Hypot. 1. 13, distinguishes two philosophical senses of δόγμα, (1) assent to facts of sensation, τὸ εὐδοκεῖν τινι πράγματι, (2) assent to the inferences of the several sciences: in either sense it is (a) a strictly personal feeling, and (b) a firm conviction, not a mere vague impression: it was in the latter of the two senses that the philosophers of research laid it down as their maxim, μὴ δογματίζειν: they did away, not with τὰ φαινόμενα, but with assertions about them, ibid. 1. 19, 22: their attitude in reference to τὰ ἄδηλα was simply οὐχ ὁρίζω, “I abstain from giving a definition of them,” ibid. 1. 197, 198.

207 Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. Hypot. 1. 3.

208 Ibid. 4, δογματική, ἀκαδημαϊκή, σκεπτική.

209 For example, Sextus Empiricus, in spite of his constant formula, οὐχ ὁρίζω, maintains the necessity of having definable conceptions, τῶν ἐννοουμένων ἡμῖν πραγμάτων τὰς οὐσίας ἐπινοεῖν ὀφείλομεν, and he argues that it is impossible for a man to have an ἔννοια of God because He has no admitted οὐσία, Pyrrh. Hypot. 3. 2, 3.

210 Origen, c. Cels. 3. 44: see also the references given in Keim, Celsus’ wahres Wort, pp. 11, 40.

211 Origen, c. Cels. 1. 9.

212 Apol. i. 20.

213 De testim. animæ, 1.

214 Apol. 46.

215 Apol. 2. 13.

216 Octav. 34.

217 Apol. 47.

218 Strom. 2. 1.

219 Origen, c. Cels. 3. 16.

220 Origen, c. Cels. 5. 65; 6. 1, 7, 15, 19: see also the references in Keim, p. 77.

221 Ibid. 7. 58. So Minucius Felix, in Keim, p. 157.

222 The above slight sketch of some of the leading tendencies which have been loosely grouped together under the name of Gnosticism has been left unelaborated, because a fuller account, with the distinctions which must necessarily be noted, would lead us too far from the main track of the Lecture: some of the tendencies will re-appear in detail in subsequent Lectures, and students will no doubt refer to the brilliant exposition of Gnosticism in Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, i. pp. 186-226, ed. 2.

223 Strom. 1. 1: almost the whole of the first book is valuable as a vindication of the place of culture in Christianity.

224 Adv. Prax. 3.

225 Quoted by Euseb. H. E. 5. 28. 13.

226 Orat. ad Græc. 2.

227 Apol. 46.

228 Refut. omn. hæres. 5. 18.

229 H. E. 5. 13.

230 The evidence for the above statements has not yet been fully gathered together, and is too long to be given even in outline here: the statements are in full harmony with the view of the chief modern writer on the subject, Friedländer, Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms, see especially Bd. iii. p. 676, 5te aufl.

231 This is sufficiently shown by the fact, which is in other respects to be regretted, that in most accounts of Stoicism the earlier and later elements are viewed as constituting a homogeneous whole.

232 “How am I to eat?” said a man to Epictetus: “So as to please God,” was the reply (Diss. 1. 13). The idea is further developed in Porphyry, who says: “God wants nothing” (281. 15): the God who is ἐπὶ πᾶσιν is ἄϋλος; hence all ἔνυλον is to Him ἀκάθαρτον, and should therefore not be offered to Him, not even the spoken word (163. 15).

233 M. Aurelius owed to Rusticus the idea that life required διόρθωσις and θεραπεία (i. 7 and ii. 13).

234 τὸ ὑλακτεῖν, Philostr. 587.

235 The title of Diss. 3. 22, in which the ideal philosopher is described, is περὶ Κυνισμοῦ.

236 H. Schiller, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, Bd. i. 452.

237 Diss. 1. 17. 4, ἐπείγει μᾶλλον θεραπεύειν, the interpolated remark of a student when Epictetus has begun a lecture upon Logic: the addition, καὶ τὰ ὅμοια, seems to show that the phrase was a customary one.

238 Diss. 1. 4.

239 Sext. Emp. iii. 239.

240 The Stoics defined wisdom as θείων τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων ἐπιστήμην, and philosophy as ἄσκησιν ἐπιτηδείου τέχνης, Plutarch (Aetius), plac. phil. 1. 2; Galen, Hist. Phil. 5; Diels, Doxogr. Gr. pp. 273, 602.

241 De Abraham. 11 (ii. 9); de Joseph. 1 (ii. 41); de prœm. et pœn. 8, 11 (ii. 416, 418). Philo is quoted because his writings are in some respects as faithful a photograph of current scholastic methods as those of Epictetus. It is also possible that some of the writings that stand under Philo’s name belong to the same period.

242 Quod det. potior. 12 (i. 198, 199): so de congr. erud. caus. 13 (i. 529); de mut. nom. 13 (i. 591).

243 De congr. erud. caus. 28 (i. 542).

244 Leg. alleg. 3. 6 (i. 91).

245 Quis rer. div. heres. 51 (i. 509).

246 M. Aurel. 1. 7.

247 Enchir. 47: cf. Diss. 3. 14. 4. In Diss. 3. 12. 17, part of the above is given as a quotation from Apollonius of Tyana.

248 Diss. 2. 18. 27; cf. 3. 2. 1; 3. 12. 1; 4. 1. 81.

249 Nigrin. 27.

250 Orat. xx. vol. i. pp. 288 sqq. (Dind.), περὶ Ἀναχωρήσεως.

251 Vol. ii. p 240.

252 Vol. ii. p. 246.

253 Ench. 4, 13, 30.

254 The χρῆσις φαντασιῶν is an important element in the philosophy of Epictetus. Every object that is presented to the mind by either the senses or imagination tends to range itself in the ranks of either good or evil, and thereby to call forth desire or undesire: in most men this association of particular objects with the ideas of good or evil, and the consequent stirring of desire, is unconscious, being the result of education and habit: it is the task of the philosopher to learn to attach the idea of good to what is really good, so that desire shall never go forth to what is either undesirable or unattainable: this is the “right dealing with ideas.” Diss. 1. 28. 11; 1. 30. 4; 2. 1. 4; 2. 8. 4; 2. 19. 32; 3. 21. 23; 3. 22. 20, 103.

255 ἐφαρμογὴ τῶν προλήψεων τοῖς ἐπὶ μέρους, Diss. 1. 2. 6; 1. 22. 2, 7; 2. 11. 4, 7; 3. 17. 9, 12, 16; 4. 1. 41, 44: προλήψεις are the ideas formed in the mind by association and blending.

256 Diss. 1. 1. 31; 1. 4. 18; 1. 17. 21; and elsewhere.

257 Diss. 1. 4. 23.

258 The distinction between (1) ὄρεξις, ἔκκλισις, the desire to have or not to have, and (2) ὁρμή, ἀφορμή, the effort to do or not to do, is of some importance in the history of psychology. It probably runs back to the Platonic distinction between τὸ ἐπιθυμητικὸν μέρος and τὸ θυμοειδὲς μέρος.

259 Diss. 2. 10.

260 1. 9. 6, 13.

261 1. 14. 6.

262 3. 13. 15.

263 1. 14. 6; 1. 17. 27; 2. 8. 11.

264 1. 14. 6.

265 2. 14. 11.

266 2. 8. 12-14.

267 1. 9. 5; 2. 8. 11.

268 1. 9. 4.

269 1. 3. 1.

270 2. 14. 13.

271 1. 6. 13: cf. 1. 29. 29.

272 1. 9. 4; 1. 17. 15; 1. 29. 46, 56; 2. 16. 33; 4. 7. 7.

273 3. 24. 2, 3.

274 3. 24. 3.

275 4. 1. 82, 90, 100.

276 2. 16. 13.

277 1. 24. 1, 2; 1. 29. 33, 36, 46; 3. 10. 7; 4. 4. 32.

278 1. 12. 5, 8; 1. 20. 15.

279 ἕγογνωμονεῖν τῶ θεῷ, 2. 16. 42; 2. 19. 26.

280 εὐαρεστεῖν τῇ θείᾳ διοικήσει, 1. 12. 8; 2. 23. 29, 42.

281 4. 1. 90, 98.

282 3. 24. 95.

283 1. 29. 18; 4. 4. 21.

284 2. 16. 42.

285 Enchir. 52: Diss. 4. 1. 131; 4. 4. 34: a quotation from Cleanthes.

286 2. 16. 46; 3. 11. 1; 3. 24. 42; 4. 4. 32.

287 1. 9. 16.

288 1. 29. 29.

289 2. 13. 14.

290 3. 24. 97; cf. 3. 5. 8-10, 4. 10. 14 sqq.

291 3. 24. 110-114.

292 Καινὸς νόμος, Barn. 2. 6, and note, in Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition.

293 See especially Harnack, die Apostellehre und die Jüdischen Beiden Wege, Leipzig, 1886.

294 Teaching of the Apostles, 1. 4.

295 Teaching of the Apostles, 2. 2-7.

296 Ibid. 3. 6-8.

297 Ibid. 4. 7, 8.

298 Const. Apost. 1. 1, p. 1, ed. Lagarde. This may be supplemented by the conception of Christianity as a new law in Barnabas ii. 6, Justin passim, Clem. Alex. E. T. i 97, 120, 470: see Thomasius, Dogmengesch, i. 110 sqq.

299 Const. Apost. 2. 11, p. 22.

300 Ep. ad Diogn. 5.

301 Side by side with the average ethics were the Pauline ethics, which had found a certain lodgment in some.

302 Teaching of the Apostles, 6. 2.

303 Of a type of Gnosticism, Harnack, Dogmengesch. 202.

304 Strom. 7. 11.

305 e.g. Euseb. Dem. Ev. 3. 6: “Not only old men under Jesus Christ practise this mode of philosophy, but it would be hard to say how many thousands of women throughout the whole world, priestesses, as it were, of the God of the universe, having embraced the highest wisdom, rapt with a passion for heavenly knowledge, have renounced the desire of children according to the flesh, and giving their whole care to their soul, have given themselves up wholly to the Supreme King and God of the universe, to practise (ἀσκήσασθαι) perfect purity and virginity.” So also id. de Vit. Constant. 4. 26, 29; Sozom. 6. 33, of the Syrian monks.

306 ἀσκητήριον, Socrat. i. 11; distinguished from μοναστήριον, ibid. 4. 23, as the smaller from the larger: φροντιστήριον, Evagr. i. 21.

307 Clem. Alex. Pædag. 3. 11.

308 P. Ewald, der Einfluss der stoisch-ciceronianischen Moral auf... Ambrosius, Leipzig, 1881; Dräseke in the Rivista di filologia, Ann. v. 1875-6.

309 Theophrastus ap. Simplic. in phys. f. 6 (Diels, Doxographi Græci, P. 479).

310 νόος ὁρῇ καὶ νόος ἀκούει· τἄλλα κωφὰ καὶ τυφλά, quoted in Plut. de fort. 3, p. 98, de Alex. magn. fort. 3, p. 336, and elsewhere: cf. Lucret. 3. 36; Cic. Tusc. Disp. 1. 20.

311 Pseudo-Arist. de mundo, 7, p. 401 a.

312 De Isid. et Osir. 67, p. 378.

313 Theophrast. ap. Simplic. in phys. f. 6 (Diels, p. 476), πρῶτος τοῦτο τοὔνομα κομίσας τῆς ἀρχῆς: so Hippol. Philosoph. 1. 6.

314 Heraclit. ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. 14, κόσμον τὸν αὐτὸν ἁπάντων οὔτε τις θεῶν οὔτε ἀνθρώπων ἐποίησεν· ἀλλ’ ἦν ἀεὶ καὶ ἔσται πῦρ ἀείζωον, ἁπτόμενον μέτρα καὶ ἀποσβεννύμενον μέτρα.

315 Lucan, Phars. 9. 579.

316 ἀπόῤῥοια, M. Anton. 2. 4: ἀπόσπασμα, Epict. Diss. 1. 14. 6; 2. 8. 11; M. Anton. 5. 27: ἀποικία, Philo, de mund. opif. 46 (i. 32). The co-ordination of these and cognate terms in Philo is especially important in view of their use in Christian theology: de mund. opif. 51 (i. 35), πᾶς ἄνθρωπος κατὰ μὲν τὴν διάνοιαν ᾠκείωται θείῳ λόγῳ, τῆς μακαρίας φύσεως ἐκμαγεῖον ἢ ἀπόσπασμα ἢ ἀπαύγασμα γεγονώς: he considers the term ἐκμαγεῖον to be more appropriate to theology, τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ψυχῆς ἀπόσπασμα ἢ ὅπερ ὁσιώτερον εἰπεῖν τοῖς κατὰ Μωυσῆν φιλοσοφοῦσιν, εἰκόνος θείας ἐκμαγεῖον ἐμφερές, de mutat. nom. 39 (i. 612): and he is careful to guard against an inference that ἀπόσπασμα implies a breach of continuity between the divine and the human soul, ἀπόσπασμα ἦν οὐ διαιρετόν· τέμνεται γὰρ οὐδὲν τοῦ θείου κατ’ ἀπάρτησιν, ἀλλὰ μόνον ἐκτείνεται, quod det. pot. insid. 24 (i. 209).

317 Phileb. 16, p. 28 e, νοῦν καὶ φρόνησίν τινα θαυμαστήν: in the post-Platonic Epinomis, p. 986 c, λόγος ὁ πάντων θειότατος.

318 The best account of Plato’s complex, because progressive, theory of matter is that of Siebeck, Plato’s Lehre von der Materie, in his Untersuchungen der Philosophie der Griechen, Freiburg im Breisg. 1888. The conception of it which was current in the Platonist schools, and which is therefore important in relation to Christian philosophy, is given in the Placita of Aetius, ap. Stob. Ecl. 1. 11 (Diels, p. 308), and Hippol. Philosoph. 1. 19.

319 Plat. Tim. p. 30, πᾶν ὅσον ἦν ὁρατὸν παραλαβὼν οὐκ ἡσυχίαν ἄγον ἀλλὰ κινούμενον πλημμελῶς καὶ ἀτάκτως εἰς τάξιν αὐτὸ ἤγαγεν ἐκ τῆς ἀταξίας.

320 In Tim. P. 41, the θεοὶ θεῶν are addressed at length by ὁ τόδε τὸ πᾶν γεννήσας (= ὁ δημιουργός): the most pertinent words are, ἵν’ οὖν θνητά τε ᾖ τό τε πᾶν ὄντως ἅπαν ᾖ, τρέπεσθε κατὰ φύσιν ὑμεῖς ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν ζώων δημιουργίαν, μιμούμενοι τὴν ἐμὴν δύναμιν περὶ τὴν ὑμῶν γένεσιν. The whole theory is summed up by Professor Jowett in the Introduction to his translation of the Timæus (Plato, vol. ii. p. 470): “The Creator is like a human artist who frames in his mind a plan which he executes by means of his servants. Thus the language of philosophy, which speaks of first and second causes, is crossed by another sort of phraseology, ‘God made the world because he was good, and the demons ministered to him.’”

321 λόγοι σπερματικοί, frequently in Stoical writings, e.g. in the definition of the πῦρ τεχνικὸν, which is the base of all things, as given in the Placita of Aetius, reproduced by Plutarch, Eusebius, and Stobæus, Diels, p. 306, ἐμπεριειληφὸς πάντας τοὺς σπερματικοὺς λόγους καθ’ οὕς ἕκαστα καθ’ εἱμαρμένην γίνεται. The best account of this important element in later Stoicism is in Heinze, die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, 1872, pp. 110 sqq.

322 Hence the definition which Aetius gives: ἰδέα ἐστὶν οὐσία ἀσώματος, αὐτὴ μὲν ὑφεστῶσα καθ’ αὑτὴν εἰκονίζουσα δὲ τὰς ἀμόρφους ὕλας καὶ αἰτία γινομένη τῆς τούτων δείξεως, ap. Plut. de plac. philos. 1. 10; Euseb. præp. evang. 15. 45; with additions and differences in Stob. Ecl. 1. 12 (Diels, p. 308).

323 The three ἀρχαί are expressed by varying but identical terms: God, Matter, and the Form (ἰδέα), or the By Whom, From What, In view of What (ὑφ’ οὗ, ἐξ οὗ, πρὸς ὅ), in the Placita of Aetius, 1. 3. 21, ap. Plut. de placit. phil. 1. 3, Stob. Ecl. 1. 10 (Diels, p. 288), and in Timæus Locrus, de an. mundi 2 (Mullach F P G 2. 38): God, Matter, and the Pattern (παράδειγμα), Hippol. Philosoph. 1. 19, Herm. Irris. Gent. Phil. 11: the Active (τὸ ποιοῦν), Matter, and the Pattern, Alexand. Aphrod. ap. Simplic. in phys. f. 6 (Diels, p. 485), where Simplicius contrasts this with Plato’s own strict dualism.

324 De mundi opif. 5 (i. 5): cf. Plat. Tim. p. 30 (of God), ἀγαθὸς ἦν ἀγαθῷ δὲ οὐδεὶς περὶ οὐδενὸς οὐδέποτε ἐγγίγνεται φθόνος· τούτου δ’ ἐκτὸς ὤν πάντα ὁτιμάλιστα ἐβουλήθη γενέσθαι παραπλήσια αὑτῷ.

325 De cherub. 9 (i. 144): cf. ib. 35 (i. 162).

326 The most frequent word is δημιουργός, but several others are used, e.g. πλάστης, de confus. ling. 38 (i. 434); τεχνίτης, ibid.; κοσμοπλάστης, de plant Noe, 1 (i. 329); κοσμοποιός, ibid. 31 (i. 348), οὐ τεχνίτης μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ πατὴρ τῶν γιγνομένων, Leg. alleg. 1. 8 (i. 47). The distinctions which became important in later controversies do not appear in the writings which are probably Philo’s own, but are found in those which probably belong to his school: the most explicit recognition of them is de somn. 1. 13 (i. 632), ὁ θεὸς τὰ πάντα γεννήσας οὐ μόνον εἰς τὸ ἐμφανὲς ἤγαγεν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἃ πρότερον οὐκ ἦν ἐποίησεν, οὐ δημιουργὸς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ κτίστης αὐτὸς ὤν: cf. also de monarch. 3 (ii. 216), θεὸς εἷς ἐστι καὶ κτίστης καὶ ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων.

327 De somn. 2. 37 (i. 691).

328 De mundi opif. 46 (i. 32): cf. ib. 51 (i. 35): quod deus immut. 10 (i. 279), and elsewhere.

329 Quod det. pot. ins. 24 (i. 208, 209).

330 De profug. 36 (i. 575).

331 De mundi opif. 5 (i. 5): this is the most explicit expression of his theory of the nature of matter. It may be supplemented by de plant Noe, 1 (i. 329), τὴν οὐσίαν ἄτακτον καὶ συγκεχυμένην οὖσαν ἐξ αὑτῆς εἰς τάξιν ἐξ ἀταξίας καὶ ἐκ συγχύσεως εἰς διάκρισιν ἄγων ὁ κοσμοπλάστης μορφοῦν ἤρξατο: quis rer. div. her. 27 (i. 492): de somn. 2. 6 (i. 665): οὐσία is the more usual word, but ὕλη is sometimes found, e.g. de plant Noe, 2 (i. 330): the conception underlying either word is more Stoical than Platonic, i.e. it is rather that of matter having the property of resistance than that of potential matter or empty space: hence in de profug. 2 (i. 547), τὴν ἄποιον καὶ ἀνείδεον καὶ ἀσχημάτιστον οὐσίαν is contrasted, in strictly Stoical phraseology, with τὸ κινοῦν αἴτιον.

332 De sacrif. 13 (ii. 261).

333 The terms λόγοι and ἰδέαι are common. Instances of the other terms are the following: angels, de confus. ling. 8 (1. 408), τῶν θείων ἔργων καὶ λόγων οὓς καλεῖν ἔθος ἀγγέλους: de somn. i. 19 (i. 638), ἀθανάτοις λόγοις οὓς καλεῖν ἔθος ἀγγέλους: Leg. alleg. 3. 62 (i. 122), τοὺς ἀγγέλους καὶ λόγους αὐτοῦ: δαίμονες, de gigant. 2. 2 (i. 263), οὓς ἄλλοι φιλόσοφοι δαίμονας, ἀγγέλους Μωϋσῆς εἴωθεν ὀνομάζειν: so, in identical words, de somn. 1. 22 (i. 642): ἀριθμοὶ and μέτρα, quis rer. div. heres. 31 (i. 495), πᾶσιν ἀριθμοῖς καὶ πάσαις ταῖς πρὸς τελειότητα ἰδέαις καταχρησαμένου τοῦ πεποιηκότος: de mund. opif. 9 (i. 7), ἰδέαι καὶ μέτρα καὶ τύποι καὶ σφραγῖδες: cf. de monarch. 6 (ii. 219), τὰ ἄπειρα καὶ ἀόριστα καὶ ἀσχημάτιστα περατοῦσαι καὶ περιορίζουσαι καὶ σχηματίζουσαι.

334 The clearest instance of the identification is probably in de monarch. 6 (ii. 218, 219), where God tells Moses that so far from Himself being cognizable, not even the powers that minister to Him are cognizable in their essence; but that as seals are known from their impressions, τοιαύτας ὑποληπτέον καὶ τὰς περὶ ἐμὲ δυνάμεις ἀποίοις ποιότητας καὶ μορφὰς ἀμόρφοις καὶ μηδὲν τῆς ἀϊδίου φύσεως μεταλλομένας μήτι μειουμένας.

335 De mund. opif. 6 (i. 5), οὐδὲν ἂν ἕτερον εἴποι τὸν νοητὸν εἶναι κόσμον ἢ θεοῦ λόγον ἤδη κοσμοποιοῦντος: vit. Mos. 3. 13 (ii. 154), τῶν ἀσωμάτων καὶ παραδειγματικῶν ἰδεῶν ἐξ ὧν ὁ νοητὸς ἐπάγη κόσμος: so de confus. ling. 34 (i. 431): cf. the Stoical definition of λόγος in Epictet. Diss. 1. 20. 5, as σύστημα ἐκ ποιῶν φαντασιῶν.

336 De mund. opif. 4 (i. 4): the same conception is expressed in less figurative language in Leg. alleg. 1. 9 (i. 47), πρὶν ἀνατεῖλαι κατὰ μέρος αἰσθητὰ ἦν τὸ γενικὸν αἰσθητὸν προμηθείᾳ τοῦ πεποιηκότος.

337 δύναμις κοσμοποιητική, de mund. οpif. 5 (i. 5); δύναμις ποιητική de profug. 18 (i. 560).

338 Leg. alleg. 1. 9 (i. 47), τῷ γὰρ περιφανεστάτῳ καὶ τηλαυγεστάτῳ λόγῳ, ῥήματι, ὁ θεὸς ἀμφότερα (i.e. both heaven and earth) ποιεῖ: quod deus immut. 12 (i. 281), λόγῳ χρώμενος ὑπηρέτῃ δωρεῶν ᾧ καὶ τὸν κόσμον εἰργάζετο: more expressly, it is the instrument, ὄργανον, Leg. alleg. 3. 31 (i. 106), de cherub. 35 (i. 162).

339 De somn. 2. 37 (i. 691).

340 De profug. 20 (i. 562), de migrat. Abr. 18 (i. 452): cf. Wisdom, 18. 24.

341 De profug. 19 (i. 561).

342 ὁ τῶν ὅλων πατήρ, de migrat. Abrah. 9 (i. 443); ὁ θεὸς τὰ πάντα γεννήσας, de somn. 1. 13 (i. 632), and elsewhere.

343 De ebriet. 8 (i. 361).

344 1 Clem. Rom. 33. 3, 4: but it is a noteworthy instance of the contrast between this simple early belief and the developed theology which had grown up in less than a century later, that Irenæus, lib. 4, præf. c. 4, explains the ‘hands’ to mean the Son and Spirit: “homo... per manus ejus plasmatus est, hoc est per Filium et Spiritum quibus et dixit Faciamus hominem.”

345 Derivatio: Iren. 1. 24. 3, of Basilides (or rather one of the schools of Basilidians).

346 This is probably the metaphor involved in the common word προβολή, e.g. Hippol. 6. 38, of Epiphanes.

347 The conception of the double nature of God, male and female, is found as early as Xenocrates, Aetius ap. Stob. Ecl. 1. 2. 29 (Diels, p. 304); and commonly among the Stoics, e.g. in the verses of Valerius Soranus, which are quoted by Varro, and after him by S. Augustine, de civit. Dei, 7. 9:
Jupiter omnipotens regum rex ipse deusque
Progenitor genitrixque deum, deus unus et omnia.

So Philodemus, de piet. 16, ed. Gomp. p. 83 (Diels, p. 549), quotes Ζεὺς ἄρρην, Ζεὺς θῆλυς; and Eusebius, præp. Evang. 3. 9, p. 100b, quotes the Orphic verse:

Ζεὺς ἄρσην γένετο, Ζεὺς ἄμβροτος ἔπλετο νύμφη.

348 The Valentinians in, e.g., Hippol. 6. 29; 10. 13: so of Simon Magus, ib. 6. 12, γεγονέναι δὲ τὰς ῥίζας φησὶ κατὰ συζυγίας ἀπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς.

349 Hippol. 6. 43 (of Marcus), τὰ δὲ ὀνόματα τῶν στοιχείων τὰ κοινὰ καὶ ῥητὰ αἰῶνας καὶ λόγους καὶ ῥίζας καὶ σπέρματα καὶ πληρώματα καὶ καρποὺς ὠνόμασε.

350 Hippol. 5. 19 (of the Sethiani), πᾶν ὅ τι νοήσει ἐπινοεῖς ἢ καὶ παραλείπεις μὴ νοηθέν, τοῦτο ἑκάστη τῶν ἀρχῶν πέφυκε γενέσθαι ὡς ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῃ ψυχῇ πᾶσα ἡτισοῦν διδασκομένη τέχνη.

351 Hippol. 8. 8 (of the Docetæ), θεὸν εἶναι τὸν πρῶτον οἱονεὶ σπέρμα συκῆς μεγέθει μὲν ἐλάχιστον παντελῶς δυνάμει δὲ ἄπειρον: ibid. c. 9, τὸ δὲ πρῶτον σπέρμα ἐκεῖνο, ὅθεν γέγονεν ἡ συκῆ, ἐστὶν ἀγέννητον. A similar metaphor was used by the Simonians, Hippol. 6. 9 sqq., but it is complicated with the metaphor of invisible and visible fire (heat and flame). It is adopted by Peter in the Clementines, Hom. 2. 4, where God is the ῥίζα, man the καρπός.

352 Ibid. 8. 8,... ὁ καρπὸς ἐν ᾧ τὸ ἄπειρον καὶ τὸ ἀνεξαρίθμητον θησαυριζόμενον φυλάσσεται σπέρμα συκῆς.

353 The chief authorities for this theory, which was expressed in language that readily lent itself to caricature, are the first seven chapters of the first book of Irenæus, and Hippolytus 6. 32 sqq.

354 This was especially the view of the Peratæ, Hippol. 5. 13.

355 Notably by Plotinus, Enn. ii. 9. 2-5.

356 The conception appears in Justin Martyr, Apol. i 10, πάντα τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀγαθὸν ὄντα δημιουργῆσαι αὐτὸν ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης: ib. c. 59, ὕλην ἄμορφον οὖσαν στρέψαντα τὸν θεὸν κόσμον ποιῆσαι: but Justin, though he avowedly adopts the conception from Plato, claims that Plato adopted it from Moses.

357 Plutarch, de anim. procreat. 5. 3, οὐ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἡ γένεσις ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ καλῶς μηδ’ ἱκανῶς ἔχοντος: ibid. ἀκοσμία γὰρ ἦν τὰ πρὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως: cf. Möller, Kosmologie, p. 39.

358 Wisdom, 11. 18, κτίσασα τὸν κόσμον ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης: Justin M. Apol. 1. 10. 59 (quoted in note, p. 194): Athenag. Legat. 15, ὡς γὰρ ὁ κεραμεὺς καὶ ὁ πηλός, ὕλη μὲν ὁ πηλός, τεχνίτης δὲ ὁ κεραμεύς, καὶ ὁ θεὸς δημιουργός, ὑπακούουσα δὲ αὐτῷ ἡ ὕλη πρὸς τὴν τέχνην.

359 Hippol. 7. 22 (of Basilides), τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σπέρμα ὃ ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ πᾶσαν τὴν πανσπερμίαν ὃ φησιν Ἀριστοτέλης γένος εἶναι εἰς ἀπείρους τεμνόμενον ἰδέας ὡς τέμνομεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ζῴου βοῦν, ἵππον, ἄνθρωπον ὅπερ ἐστὶν οὐκ ὄν. Cf. ib. 10. 14.

360 Orat. ad Græc. 5 (following the text of Schwartz).

361 Suppl. pro Christ. 4.

362 Ad Autol. 2. 5 and 10; but in the former of these passages he adds, τί δὲ μέγα εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐξ ὑποκειμένης ὕλης ἐποίει τὸν κόσμον.

363 The most important passage is Hermas, Mand. 1, which is expressed in strictly philosophical language, ὁ θεὸς ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας καὶ ποιήσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα (the passage is quoted as Scripture by Irenæus, 4. 20. 2 = Eusebius, H. E. 5. 8. 7: Origen, de princip. 1. 3. 3, vol. i. p. 61, 2. 1. 5, p. 79, and elsewhere): this must be read by the light of the distinctions which are clearly expressed by Athenagoras, Legat. 4 and 19, where τὸ ὂν = τὸ νοητόν, which is ἀγένητον: τὸ οὐκ ὂν = τὸ αἰσθητόν, which is γενητόν, ἀρχόμενον εἶναι καὶ παυόμενον: the meaning of τὸ μὴ ὂν appears from the expression, τὸ ὂν οὐ γίνεται ἀλλὰ τὸ μὴ ὄν, whence it is clear that τὸ μὴ ὂν = τὸ δυνάμει ὄν, or potential being (see Möller, Kosmologie, p. 123). In some of the other passages in which similar phrases occur, it is not clear whether the conception is more than that of an artist who, by impressing form on matter, causes things to exist which did not exist before: 2 Maccab. 7. 28, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ ὁ θεός: 2 Clem. i. 8, ἐκάλεσεν γὰρ ἡμᾶς οὐκ ὄντας καὶ ἠθέλησεν ἐκ μὴ ὄντος εἶναι ἡμᾶς: Clementin. Hom. 3, 32, τῷ τὰ μὴ ὄντα εἰς τὸ εἶναι συστησαμένῳ, οὐρανὸν δημιουργήσαντι, γῆν πιλώσαντι, θάλασσαν περιορίσαντι, τὰ ἐν ᾅδῃ ταμιεύσαντι καὶ τὰ πάντα ἀέρι πληρώσαντι: Hippolyt. in Genes. 1, τῇ μὲν πρώτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς ὅσα ἐποίησεν ἐκ μὴ ὄντων ταῖς δὲ ἄλλαις οὐκ ἐκ μὴ ὄντων. In Theophilus, these expressions are interchanged with that of ἡ ὑποκειμένη ὕλη in such a way as to suggest their identity: 1. 4; 2. 10, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν: 2. 4, τί δὲ μέγα εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐξ ὑποκειμένης ὕλης ἐποίει τὸν κόσμον... ἵνα ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν. In the later books of the Clementine Homilies, τὸ μὴ ὂν = void space: the whole passage, 17. 8, gives a clear and interesting exposition.

364 In Euseb. Præp. Evang. 7. 22, and elsewhere; reprinted in Routh, Reliquiæ Sacræ, ii. 87.

365 Justin M. Tryph. 62; Iren. 1. 24, 25; Hippol. 7. 16, 20: so Philo. de profug. 13 (i. 556), where, after quoting the passage of Genesis, he proceeds, following the Platonic theory, διαλέγεται μὲν οὖν ὁ τῶν ὅλων πατὴρ ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεσιν αἷς τὸ θνητὸν ἡμῶν τῆς ψυχῆς μέρος ἔδωκε διαπλάττειν, μιμουμέναις τὴν αὐτοῦ τέχνην.

366 The Peratæ in Hippol. 5. 17.

367 The Jew through whom Celsus sometimes speaks says, “If your Logos is the Son of God, we also assent to the same.” Origen, c. Cels. 2. 31.

368 Cf. Origen, c. Cels. 4. 54.

369 Hippol. c. Noet. 11.

370 It is not the least of the many contributions of Professor Harnack to early Christian history that he has vindicated Marcion from the excessive disparagement which has resulted from the blind adoption of the vituperations of Tertullian: see especially his Dogmengeschichte. Bd. i. pp. 226 sqq., 2te aufl.

371 1. 22: cf. 4. 20.

372 Hippol. 10. 32, 33.

373 ap. Euseb. H. E. 6. 19.

374 De princip. 2. 9. 1, 6.

375 De princip. 1. 2. 2.

376 Ibid. 1. 2. 2, 10.

377 Ibid. 1. 3. 5, 6, 8.

378 Ibid. 2. 6. 3.

379 Ibid. 3. 5. 3.

380 Ibid. 2. 9. 4.

381 Aetius ap. Plut. de plac. phil. 2. 1. 1 (Diels, p. 327), Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ὠνόμασε τὴν τῶν ὅλων περιοχὴν κόσμον ἐκ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τάξεως.

382 Aetius, ibid. 1. 25 (Diels, p. 321), Πυθαγόρας ἀνάγκην ἔφη περικεῖσθαι τῷ κόσμῳ· Παρμενίδης καὶ Δημόκριτος πάντα κατὰ ἀνάγκην.

383 For the numerous passages which prove these statements, reference may be made to Nägelsbach, Homerische Theologie, 2. 2. 3; Nachhomerische Theologie, 3. 2. 2.

384 Aetius, ut supra, 1. 27 (Diels, p. 322), Ἡράκλειτος πάντα καθ’ εἱμαρμένην, τὴν δὲ αὐτὴν ὑπάρχειν καὶ ἀνάγκην: the identification of ἀνάγκη and εἱμαρμένη is also made by Parmenides and Democritus in a continuation of the passage quoted above. But in much later times a distinction was sometimes drawn between the two words, ἀνάγκη being used of the subjective necessity of a proposition of which the contradictory is unthinkable: Alex. Aphrodis Quæst. Nat. 2. 5 (p. 96, ed. Spengel), τέσσαρα γοῦν τὰ δὶς δύο ἐξ ἀνάγκης, οὐ μὴν καθ’ εἱμαρμένην εἴ γε ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις τὸ καθ’ εἱμαρμένην; but, on the other hand, οἷς καθ’ εἱρμὸν αἰτιῶν γινομένοις τὸ ἀντικείμενον ἀδύνατος, πάντα εἴη ἂν καθ’ εἱμαρμένην.

385 Nägelsbach, Nachhomerische Theologie, p. 142.

386 Hesiod, Theog. 218, 904.

387 Chrysippus, ap. Theodoret. Gr. affect. curat. 6. 14, εἶναι δὲ τὴν εἱμαρμένην κίνησιν ἁΐδιον συνεχῆ καὶ τεταγμένην: so, in other words, ap. Aul. Gell. 6. 2. 3.

388 Aetius ap. Plut. de placit. philos. 1. 28, οἱ Στωικοὶ εἱρμὸν αἰτιῶν: Philo, de mut. nom. 23 (i. 598), ἀκολουθία καὶ ἀναλογία τῶν συμπάντων, εἱρμὸν ἔχουσα ἀδιάλυτον: Cic. de divin. 1. 55, ‘ordinem seriemque causarum cum causa causæ nexa rem ex se gignat.’

389 The Stoical definition of a πόλις was σύστημα καὶ πλῆθος ἀνθρώπων ὑπὸ νόμου διοικούμενον, Clem. Alex. Strom. 4. 26; cf. Arius Didymus, ap. Diels, p. 464.

390 The idea is found in almost all Stoical writers: Plutarch; de Alex. Magn. virt. 6, speaks of ἡ πολὺ θαυμαζομένη πολιτεία τοῦ τὴν Στωικῶν αἵρεσιν καταβαλομένου Ζήνωνος: Chrysippus ap. Phædr. Epicur. de nat. Deorum, ed. Petersen, p. 19: Muson. Frag. 5, ed. Peerlk. p. 164 (from Stob. Flor. 40), τοῦ Διὸς πόλεως ἣ συνέστηκεν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων καὶ θεῶν: Epict. Diss. 1. 9. 4; 2. 13. 6; 3. 22. 4; 3. 24. 10: most fully in Arius Didymus ap. Euseb. Præp. Evang. 15. 15. 4, οὕτω καὶ ὁ κόσμος οἱονεὶ πόλις ἐστὶν ἐκ θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων συνεστῶσα, τῶν μὲν θεῶν τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ἐχόντων τῶν δ’ ἀνθρώπων ὑποτεταγμένων.

391 Philo, de Josepho, 6 (ii. 46), λόγος δέ ἐστι φύσεως προστακτικὸς μὲν ὧν πρακτέον ἀπαγορευτικὸς δὲ ὧν οὐ πρακτέον... προσθῆκαι μὲν γὰρ οἱ κατὰ πόλεις νόμοι τοῦ τῆς φύσεως ὀρθοῦ λόγου.

392 Epict. Diss. 3. 22. 5.

393 Epict. Diss. 1. 1. 10; cf. Seneca, de Provid. 5. 7, ‘non potest artifex mutare materiam.’ But Epictetus sometimes makes it a question, not of possibility, but of will, e.g. Diss. 4. 3. 10.

394 The data for the long history of the moral conceptions of Greek religion which are briefly indicated above are far too numerous to be given in a note: the student is referred to Nägelsbach, Die Nachhomerische Theologie, i. 17-58. One may note the list of titles applied to God, e.g. in Dio Chrysostom, and the diminishing use of ἱλάσκεσθαι.

395 Epict. Diss. 1. 6.

396 Diss. 3. 11. 1.

397 Diss. 3. 24. 42, 43.

398 Destiny is Reason: Heraclitus ap. Aet. Placit. in Plut. de placit. philos. 1. 28. 1; Stob. Ecl. 1. 5. 15 (Diels, p. 323), οὐσίαν εἱμαρμένης λόγον τὸν διὰ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ παντὸς διήκοντα: Chrysippus, ibid. εἱμαρμένη ἐστὶν ὁ τοῦ κόσμου λόγος ἢ λόγος τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ προνοίᾳ διοικουμένων ἢ λόγος καθ’ ὃν τὰ μὲν γεγονότα γέγονε τὰ δὲ γινόμενα γίνεται τὰ δὲ γενησόμενα γενήσεται: Zeno ap. Ar. Did. Epit. phys. 20, in Stob. Ecl. 1. 11. 5 (Diels, p. 458), τὸν τοῦ παντὸς λόγον ὃν ἔνιοι ἑιμαρμένην καλοῦσιν.

399 Destiny, or Reason, is Providence: Chrysippus, in the quotation given in the preceding note: Zeno ap. Aet. Placit. in Stob. Ecl. 1. 5. 15 (Diels, p. 322).

400 Destiny, Reason, Providence, is God, or the Will of God: Chrysippus in Plut. de Stoic. repug. 34. 5, ὅτι δ’ ἡ κοινὴ φύσις καὶ ὁ κοινὸς τῆς φύσεως λόγος εἱμαρμένη καὶ πρόνοια καὶ Ζεύς ἐστιν οὐδὲ τοὺς ἀντίποδας λέληθε· πανταχοῦ γὰρ ταῦτα θρυλεῖται ὑπ’ αὐτῶν· καὶ, Διὸς δ’ ἐτελείετο βουλὴ’ τὸν Ὅμηρον εἰρηκέναι φησὶν [sc. ὁ Χρύσιππος] ὀρθῶς ἐπὶ τὴν εἱμαρμένην ἀναφέροντα καὶ τὴν τῶν ὅλων φύσιν καθ’ ἣν πάντα διοικεῖται: id. de commun. not. 34. 5, oὐδὲ τοὐλάχιστόν ἐστι τῶν μερῶν ἔχειν ἄλλως ἀλλ’ ἢ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Διὸς βούλησιν: Arius Didymus, Epit. ap. Euseb. Præp. Ev. 15. 15 (Diels, p. 464): Philodemus, de piet. frag. ed. Gompertz, p. 83 (Diels, p. 549). The more exact statement is in the summary of Aetius ap. Plut. de placit. philos. 1. 7. 17, Stob. Ecl. 1. 2. 29 (Diels, p. 306), where God is said to comprehend within Himself τοὺς σπερματικοὺς λόγους καθ’ οὓς ἅπαντα καθ’ εἱμαρμένην γίνεται. The loftiest form of the conception is expressed by Lucan, Pharsal. 2. 10, ‘se quoque lege tenens:’ God is not the slave of Fate or Law, but voluntarily binds Himself by it.

401 Plat. Rep. 2, pp. 379, 380; Tim. p. 41. Philo, de mund. opif. 24 (i. 17), de confus. ling. 35 (i. 432), θεῷ γὰρ τῷ πανηγεμόνι ἐμπρεπὲς οὐκ ἔδοξεν εἶναι τὴν ἐπὶ κακίαν ὁδὸν ἐν ψυχῇ λογικῇ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ δημιουργῆσαι· οὗ χάριν τοῖς μετ’ αὐτὸν ἐπέτρεψε τὴν τούτου τοῦ μέρους κατασκευήν: de profug. 13 (i. 556), ἀναγκαῖον οὖν ἡγήσατο τὴν κακῶν γένεσιν ἑτέροις ἀπονεῖμαι δημιουργοῖς τὴν δὲ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἑαυτῷ μόνῳ: so also in the (probably) post-Philonean de Abraham. 28 (ii. 22). The other phase of the conception is stated by Celsus, not as a philosophical solution of the difficulty, but as one which might be taught to the vulgar, ἐξαρκεῖ δὲ εἰς πλῆθος εἰρῆσθαι ὡς ἐκ θεοῦ μὲν οὐκ ἔστι κακὰ ὕλῃ δὲ πρόσκειται.

402 This is one of the solutions offered by Chrysippus: the concrete form of the difficulty, with which he dealt, was εἰ αἱ τῶν ἀνθρώπων νόσοι κατὰ φύσιν γίνονται, and his answer was that diseases come κατὰ παρακολούθησιν, ‘non per naturam sed per sequellas quasdam necessarias,’ Aul. Gell. 7 (6). 1. 9. So also in the long fragment of Philo in Euseb. Præp. Ev. 8. 13 (Philo, ii. 648, 644), θεὸς γὰρ οὐδενὸς αἴτιος κακοῦ τὸ παράπαν ἀλλ’ αἱ τῶν στοιχείων μεταβολαὶ ταῦτα γεννῶσιν, οὐ προηγούμενα ἔργα φύσεως ἀλλ’ ἑπόμενα τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις καὶ τοῖς προηγουμένοις ἐπακολουθοῦντα.

403 Diss. 1. 12. 24.

404 Chrysippus, de Diis, 2, ap. Plut. de Stoic. repug. 35, ποτὲ μὲν τὰ δύσχρηστα συμβαίνει τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς οὐχ ὥσπερ τοῖς φαύλοις κολάσεως χάριν ἀλλὰ κατ’ ἄλλην οἰκονομίαν ὥσπερ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν.

405 Diss. 2. 5. 24.

406 Diss. 2. 10. 5.

407 Aul. Gell. 7 (6). 2. 12-15.

408 Ench. 1.

409 E.g. Sext. Empir. Pyrr. 3. 9.

410 Seneca, Ep. 107. 11: a free Latin rendering of one of the verses of Cleanthes quoted from Epictetus in Lecture VI. p. 157.

411 Seneca, Dial. 1. 5. 8: quid est boni viri? præbere se fato. grande solatium est cum universo rapi. quicquid est quod nos sic vivere, sic mori jussit, eadem necessitate et deos adligat. inrevocabilis humana pariter ac divina cursus vehit. ille ipse omnium conditor et rector scripsit quidem fata, sed sequitur. semper paret, semel jussit.

412 Epict. Diss. 1. 6. 37-40.

413 Ibid. 1. 16. 15-21.

414 S. Matthew, 5. 12; S. Luke, 6. 23.

415 Ibid. 6. 1.

416 Ibid. 10. 42; S. Mark, 9. 41.

417 Revelation, 22. 12: so Barnab. 21. 3: ἐγγὺς ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτοῦ.

418 Hebrews, 11. 6.

419 Didaché, 4. 7, γνώσῃ γὰρ τίς ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ μισθοῦ καλὸς ἀνταποδότης.

420 Barnab. 4. 12.

421 These conceptions of the earliest Christian philosophers are stated, in order to be modified, by Origen, de princ. 2. 5. 1: existimant igitur bonitatem affectum talem quemdam esse quod bene fieri omnibus debeat etiam si indignus sit is cui beneficium datur nec bene consequi mereatur.... Justitiam vero putarunt affectum esse talem qui unicuique prout meretur retribuat... ut secundum sensum ipsorum justus malis non videatur bene velle sed velut odio quodam ferri adversus eos.

422 The title of Marcion’s chief work was Ἀντιθέσεις, ‘Contrasts’: the extent to which his opinions prevailed is shown both by contemporary testimony, e.g. Justin M. Apol. 1. 26, ὃς κατὰ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων διὰ τῆς τῶν δαιμόνων συλλήψεως πολλοὺς πεποίηκε βλασφημίας λέγειν, Iren. 3. 3. 4, and also by the fact that the Churches into which his adherents were organized flourished side by side with the Catholic Churches for many centuries (there is an inscription of one of them, dated A.D. 318, in Le Bas et Waddington, vol. iii. No. 2558, and they had not died out at the time of the Trullan Council in A.D. 692, Conc. Quinisext. c. 95): the importance which was attached to him is shown by the large place which he occupies in early controversies, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, the Clementines, Origen, Tertullian, being at pains to refute him.

423 Iren. 3. 25. 2.

424 Tert. c. Marc. 2. 11, 12.

425 Homil. 4. 13; 9. 19; 18. 2, 3.

426 Recogn. 3. 37.

427 Especially Pædag. 1. 8, 9.

428 See below, p. 233.

429 ap. Tert. c. Marc. 2. 5.

430 Apol. 2. 7.

431 Tatian, Orat. ad Græc. 7.

432 Iren. 4. 37.

433 Ad Autol. 2. 27.

434 Legat. 31.

435 c. Marc. 2. 5.

436 E.g. Clem. Alex. Pædag. 1. 1, Origen, de princ. 2. 10. 6; c. Cels. 6. 56: so also Tert. Scorp. 5.

437 Origen, de princ. 2. 9. 5.

438 The passage which follows is, with the exception of one extract from the contra Celsum, a catena of extracts from the de principiis.

439 De princ. 1. 6. 2.

440 1. 8. 2; 2. 9. 7.

441 2. 9. 6.

442 1. 8. 4.

443 1. 5. 5; 1. 6. 2.

444 3. 1. 4.

445 3. 1. 5.

446 1. 5. 2, 5.

447 1. 6. 2.

448 1. 6. 3.

449 3. 3. 5; 3. 5. 3.

450 3. 1. 20, 21: but sometimes beings of higher merit are assigned to a lower grade, that they may benefit those who properly belong to that grade, and that they themselves may be partakers of the patience of the Creator, 2. 9. 7.

451 1. 2. 1.

452 c. Cels. 6. 56; de princ. 2. 10.

453 De princ. 3. 1. 14, 17.

454 3. 6. 3.

455 Cf. Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. 2.

456 The more common conception of the earliest Greek philosophy was that of τὰς ἐνδιηκούσας τοῖς στοιχείοις ἢ τοῖς σώμασι δυνάμεις, Aetius ap. Stob. Ecl. Phys. 2. 29.

457 The form in which it is given by Sextus Empiricus, in whose time the distinction was clearly understood, implies this: ἓν εἶναι τὸ πάν καὶ τὸν θεόν συμφιῆ πᾶσι, Pyrrh. Hypotyp. 225.

458 This is a post-Platonic summary of Plato’s conception; into the inner development, and consequently varying expressions, of it in Plato’s own writings it is not necessary to enter here. It is more important in relation to the history of later Greek thought to know what he was supposed to mean than what he meant. The above is taken from the summary of Aetius in Plut. de plac. philos. 1. 7, Euseb. Præp. evang. 14. 16 (Diels, Doxographi Græci, p. 304). The briefest and most expressive statement of the transcendence of God (τὸ ἀγαθόν) in Plato’s own writings is probably Republic, p. 509, οὐκ οὐσίας ὄντος τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἔτι ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας πρεσβείᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ὑπερέχοντος.

459 It was a struggle between this and Stoicism.

460 Plutarch, de Ei ap. Delph. 18; cf. Ocellus Lucanus in the Augustan Age, ap. Diels, 187, Mullach, i. p. 383 sq. The universe has no beginning and no end: it always was and always will be (1. 1. p. 388). It comprises, however, τὸ ποιοῦν and τὸ πάσχον, the former above the moon, the latter below, so that the course of the moon marks the limit between the changing and changeless, the ἀεὶ θέοντος θείου and the ἀεὶ μεταβάλλοντος γενητοῦ (2. 1, p. 394, 2. 23, p. 400).

461 Max. Tyr. Diss. 8. 9.

462 Max. Tyr. 17. 9.

463 Plotinus, Enneades, 5. 1. 6; cf. 1. 1. 8, where νοῦς is ἀμέριστος, distinguished from ἡ περὶ τὰ σώματα μεριστὴ (οὐσία). We are between the two, having a share of both. The κάθαρσις of the soul consists in ὁμοίωσις πρὸς θεόν, 1. 2. 3; the love of beauty should ascend from that of the body to that of character and laws, of arts and sciences, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἀρετῶν ἤδη ἀναβαίνειν ἐπὶ νοῦν, ἐπὶ τὸ ὂν, κάκεῖ βαδιστέον τὴν ἄνω πορείαν, 1. 2. 2.

464 De mut. nom. 4; i. 582, ed. Mangey.

465 De mund. op. 2; i. 2.

466 De post. Cain, 5; i. 228, 229.

467 Quod deus immut. 12; i. 281.

468 De Abrah. 16; ii. 12.

469 i. 224, 281, 566; ii. 12, 654; Frag. ap Joan. Dam. ii. 654.

470 De prœm. et pœn. 7; ii. 415.

471 De post. Cain, 48; i. 258.

472 De mut. nom. 2; i. 580; cf. 630, 648, 655; ii. 8-9, 19, 92-93, 597. Cf. in general Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, Oldenburg, 1872, pp. 206, 207, n. 6.

473 The necessity for such intermediate links is not affected by the question how far, outside the Platonic schools, there was a belief in a real transcendence of God, or only in His existence outside the solar system. In this connection, note the allegory in the Phædrus. The Epicureans coarsely expressed the transcendence of God by the expression, διῄρηται ἡ οὐσία, Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. p. 114, § 5; cf. Ocellus Lucanus, cited above, p. 242. Hippolytus describes Aristotle’s Metaphysics as dealing with things beyond the moon, 7. 19, p. 354; cf. Origen’s idea of the heavens in de princ. ii. 3, 7, and Celsus’ objection that Christians misunderstand Plato by confusing his heaven with the Jewish heavens. Origen, c. Cels. vi. 19; cf. Keim, p. 84.

474 Benn, Greek Philosophers, 2. 252.

475 Cf. Hesiod in Sext. Emp. ix. 86. Similarly, Thales, τὸ πᾶν ἔμψυχον ἅμα καὶ δαιμόνων πλῆρες (Diels, 301); Pythagoras, Empedocles in Hippolytus, διοικοῦντες τὰ κατὰ τὴν γῆν (Diels, 558); Plato and the Stoics (Diels, 307), e.g. Plutarch, Epictetus, 1. 14. 12; 3. 13. 15 (Diels, 1307); Athenagoras, 23; Philo, ii. 635; Frag. ap. Eus. Præp. Evan. 8. 13; see references in Keim’s Celsus, p. 120; cf. Wachsmuth, Die Ansichten der Stoiker über Mantik u. Dämonen, Berlin, 1860.

476 Philo, de confus. ling. 20 (i. 419).

477 De post. Cain. 6 (i. 229).

478 De somn. 1. 11 (i. 630).

479 Ibid. 1. 41 (i. 656).

480 De profug. 1 (i. 547); so de Cherub. 1 (i. 139).

481 Leg. Alleg. 3. 62 (i. 122).

482 De somn. 1. 15 (i. 633).

483 Ibid. 1. 33 (i. 649).

484 Quis rer. div. her. 42 (i. 501).

485 De sacrif. Abel. et Cain. 18 (i. 175), ὁ γὰρ θεὸς λέγων ἅμα ἐποίει μηδὲν μεταξὺ ἀμφοῖν τιθείς· εἰ δὲ χρὴ δόγμα κινεῖν ἀληθέστερον, ὁ λόγος ἔργον αὐτοῦ: de decem orac. 11 (ii. 188), commenting on the expression of the LXX. in Exodus xx. 18, ὁ λαὸς ἑώρα τὴν φωνήν, he justifies it on the ground ὅτι ὅσα ἂν λέγῃ ὁ θεὸς οὐ ῥήματά ἐστιν ἀλλ’ ἔργα, ἅπερ ὀφθαλμοὶ πρὸ ὤτων διορίζουσι: de mund. opif. 6 (i. 5), οὐδὲν ἂν ἕτερον εἴποι τὸν νοητὸν εἶναι κόσμον ἢ θεοῦ λόγον ἤδη κοσμοποιοῦντος.

486 The word σκία seems to be used, in relation to the Logos, not of the shadow cast by a solid object in the sunlight, but rather, as in Homer, Odyss. 10. 495, and frequently in classical writers, of a ghost or phantom: hence God is the παράδειγμα, the substance of which the Logos is the unsubstantial form, Leg. Alleg. 3. 31 (i. 106): hence also σκία is used as convertible with εἰκών (ibid.), in its sense of either a portrait-statue or a reflexion in a mirror: in de confus. ling. 28 (i. 427), the Logos is the eternal εἰκών of God.

487 De somn. 1. 41 (i. 656).

488 Quod det. pot. ins. 23 (i. 207).

489 De agric. 12 (i. 308): de confus. ling. 28 (i. 427): spoken of as γεννηθείς, ibid. 14 (i. 414).

490 De profug. 20 (i. 562): so God is spoken of as the husband of σοφία in de Cherub. 14 (i. 148). But in de ebriet. 8 (i. 361), God is the Father, Knowledge the Mother, not of the Logos but of the universe.

491 Quod a Deo mit. somn. i. 683.

492 i.e. Sethiani ap. Iren. 1. 30. 1.

493 Ptolemæus, ad Flor. 7.

494 Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 10. 2-4.

495 Cf. the Ebionites, Alogi, and the Clementines.

496 Origen, c. Cels. 7. 36; cf. de princ. 1. 1. 7.

497 Con. Cels. 7. 37, καὶ δογματίζειν παραπλησίως τοῖς ἀναιροῦσι νοητὰς οὐσίας Στωϊκοῖς; cf. Keim, p. 100. See also Orig. in Gen. vol. ii, p. 25 (Delarue), and Eus. H. E. iv. 26, for a view ascribed to Melito.

498 Harnack, Dogmengesch. p. 160.

499 Dial. c. Tryph. c. 127.

500 Legatio, 10.

501 Ad Autolycum. 1. 3; cf. Minuc. Felix, Octavius, 18, and Novatian, de Trin. 1. 2.

502 Adv. Marc. 1. 3.

503 Adv. Prax. 7.

504 ap. Hippol. 7. 21, p. 358.

505 ἀνεννόητος καὶ ἀνούσιος, ibid. 6. 42, p. 302; cf. 12 ff., pp. 424 ff., for Monoïmus, and also Ptolemæus, ad Floram, 7.

506 Pædag. 1. 8.

507 Möller, Kosmologie, p. 26, cf. 124, 129, 130.

508 Strom. 5. 12.

509 c. Cels. 6. 19 sqq.

510 De princ. 1. 1. 2, 5, 7.

511 Ibid. 1. 1, passim; cf. 4. 1. 36.

512 e.g. Min. Felix, c. 10; cf. Keim, Celsus, 158.

513 The older sort, who clung to tradition pure and simple, were dubious of the introduction of dialectic methods into Christianity: see Eus. v. 28; cf. v. 13. “Expavescunt ad οἰκονομίαν,” Tert. adv. Prax. 3. Cf. Weingarten, p. 25.

514 Pantænus, when asked by outside philosophers, “How can God know the world, if like knows like?” replied (Routh, Rel. Sac. i. p. 379): μήτε αἰσθητῶς τὰ αἰσθητὰ μήτε νοερῶς τὰ νοητὰ· οὐ γὰρ εἶναι δυνατὸν τὸν ὑπὲρ τὰ ὄντα κατὰ τὰ ὄντα τῶν ὄντων λαμβάνεσθαι, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἴδια θελήματα γινώσκειν αὐτὸν τὰ ὄντα φαμέν... for if he made all things by His will, no one can deny that He knows His own will, and hence knows what His will has made. Cf. Julius Africanus (Routh, ii. 239), λέγεται γὰρ ὁμωνύμως ὁ θεὸς πᾶσι τοῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἐπειδὴ ἐν πᾶσιν ἐστίν.

515 γίνομαι ὃ Θέλω καὶ εἰμὶ ὃ εἰμί, as used by the Naassenes, ap. Hipp. 5. 7.

516 Cf. Harnack, art. in Encycl. Brit. “Sabellius.”

517 Hipp. 9. 10; Schmid, Dogmeng. 47, n.

518 Tert. c. Valent. 4; cf., διαθέσεις of Ptol. ap. Iren. 1. 12. 1.

519 ap. Iren. 1. 12. 3.

520 Hipp. 6. 12.

521 Ptolemy ap. Iren. 1. 12. 1; cf. Hipp. c. Noet. 10, πολὺς ἦν.

522 ap. Iren. 1. 2. 1, 5 (Valentinians).

523 ap. Iren. 1. 24. 3 (Basilides): cf. Clem. Al. Protrep. 10, the Logos is the Son of νοῦς.

524 Iren. 1. 14. 1, προήκατο λόγον ὅμοιον αὑτῷ.

525 As compared with Philo, who emphasizes the Logos in relation to the work of creation, Justin lays stress on the Logos as Revealer, making known to us the will of God: cf. ἀπόστολος, Tryph. 61.

526 Justin, Apol. i. 63.

527 Apol. ii. 8.

528 It would be beyond our present purpose to go into Christology. It will be sufficient to indicate three theories: (1) Modal Monarchianism; (2) Dynamical Monarchianism; (3) Logos theory. Cf. Harnack, Dogmeng. i. 161, 220, for Gnostic Christology.

529 Iren. 4. 6. 3, 5, 6; cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. 2.

530 Cf. Hipp. 7. 21, 22; Schmid, Dogm. 52.

531 Tert. Apol. 51; Hipp. c. Noet. p. 62.

532 Leg. 16; cf. Clem. Al. Strom. 5. 1; cf. Theophilus, 2, 22, for distinction of λόγος προφορικός as well as ἐνδιάθετος, denied by Clement (loc. cit.), but repeated in Tert. adv. Prax. 5; cf. Hipp. c. Noet. 10. See Zahn’s note in Ign. ad Magn. 8. 2, on προελθὼν in relation to eternal generation.

533 Philo applied the phrase “Son of God” to the world: cf. Keim, Celsus, 95.

534 Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. 61 A, cf. 62 E, προβληθὲν γέννημα; and Hipp. c. Noet. 8, 10, 16; Tatian, c. 5; Irenæus ap. Schmid, p. 31.

535 Justin, Dial. c Tryph. 56 C, p. 180.

536 Hipp. 9. 12; Callistus, while excommunicating the Sabellians (cf. Schmid, 48; Weing. 31), also called Hippolytus and his party ditheists. For Callistus’ own view, cf. ibid. 9. 11. See Schmid, p, 50; also p. 45 for Praxeas ap. Tert.

537 The Gnostic controversies in regard to the relation to God of the Powers who were intermediate between Him and the world, had helped to forge such intellectual instruments.

538 Justin, c. Tryph. 128: δυνάμει καὶ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ ἀλλ’ οὐ κατ’ ἀποτομὴν ὡς ἀπομεριζομένης τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας; cf. Plotinus ap. Harn. Dogm. 493: κατὰ μερισμὸν οὐ κατ’ ἀποτομὴν in Tatian, 5, is different; cf. Hipp. c. Noet. 10.

539 Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. 61 C, where the metaphor of “speech” is also employed.

540 ap. Tert. c. Hermog. 3.

541 For metaphor of light, cf. Monoïmus ap. Hipp. 8. 12; also Tatian, c. 5.

542 There is uncertainty as to eternal generation in Justin; see Engelhardt, p. 118. It is not in Hippolytus, c. Noet. 10. Though implied in Irenæus (Harn. p. 495), it is in Origen that this solution attains clear expression, e.g. de princ. 1. 2 ff., though his view is not throughout steady and uniform. Emanation seemed to him to imply division into parts. But he hovers between the Logos as thought and as substance. For Clement and Origen in this connection, see Harnack, pp. 579, 581.

543 God unchangeable in Himself comes into contact with human affairs: τῇ προνοίᾳ καὶ τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ, c. Cels. 4. 14. His Word changes according to the nature of the individuals into whom he comes, c. Cels. 4. 18.

544 Justin, Apol. i. 22. 23. 32, c. Try. 5.

545 ad Autolyc. ii. 22.

546 He held that side by side with God existed, not ἐξουσία, but οὐσία, φύσις, ὑπόστασις: see Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. 1.

547 Cf. Harnack, Dogmeng. p. 580.

548 οὐσία ἥ τε ὕλη καὶ τὸ εἶδος καὶ τὸ ἐκ τούτων, Metaph. 6. 10, p. 1035 a, “ousia is matter, form, and the compound of matter and form.”

549 οὐσίαν δὲ θεοῦ Ζήνων μέν φησι τὸν ὅλον κόσμον καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Χρύσιππος... καὶ Ποσειδώνιος, Diog. L. 7. 148: so in M. Anton. e.g. 4, 40, ἕν ζῶον τὸν κόσμον μίαν οὐσίαν καὶ ψυχὴν μίαν ἐπέχον, paraphrased in the well-known lines of Pope:
“All are but parts of one stupendous Whole,
Whose body Nature is, and God the soul.”

550 τῆς ζωτικῆς δυνάμεως, Quod det. pot. insid. 25, i. 209.

551 οὐσία δέ ἐστιν ἡ κυριώτατά τε καὶ πρώτως καὶ μάλιστα λεγομένη ἣ μήτε καθ’ ὑποκειμένου τινὸς λέγεται μήτε ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ τινί ἐστιν· οἷον ὁ τὶς ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὁ τὶς ἵππος, Categ. 5, p. 2 a: but in the Metaphysics a different point of view is taken, and the term πρώτη οὐσία is used in the following sense, i.e. of the form, e.g. 6, 11, p. 1037.

552 Frequently in the Metaphysics, e.g. 6. 7, p. 1032 b, 7. 1, p. 1042 a.

553 Arist. Metaph. 6. 11, p. 1037 a.

554 Ibid. 12. 5, p. 1079 b.

555 e.g. Parmen. p. 132 e. οὗ δ’ ἂν τὰ ὅμοια μετέχοντα ὅμοια ᾖ, οὐκ ἐκεῖνο ἔσται αὐτὸ τὸ εἶδος.

556 οὐσία ἐστὶν ὄνομα κοινὸν καὶ ἀόριστον κατὰ πασῶν τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτὴν ὑποστάσεων ὁμοτίμως φερόμενον, καὶ συνωνύμως κατηγορούμενον, Suidas, s. v.

557 νοητὰ ἄττα καὶ ἀσώματα εἴδη... τὴν ἀληθινὴν οὐσίαν εἷναι· τὰ δὲ ἐκείνων σώματα... γένεσιν ἀντ’ οὐσίας φερομένην τινὰ προσαγορεύουσι, Plat. Sophist. p. 246.

558 e.g. it is stated by Celsus and adopted by Origen: Origen, c. Cels. 7. 45 sq.

559 ἡ οὐσία ἀνωτάτω οὖσα, τῷ μηδὲν εἶναι πρὸ αὐτῆς, γένος ἦν τὸ γενικώτατον, Porphyr. Eisag. 2. 24.

560 ἕκαστος μὲν ἡμῶν κατὰ μὲν τὸ σῶμα πόρρω ἂν εἴη οὐσίας, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ ὃ μάλιστα ἐσμὲν, μετέχομεν οὐσίας, καὶ ἐσμέν τις οὐσία. τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν οἷον σύνθετόν τι ἐκ διαφορᾶς καὶ οὐσίας, οὔκουν κυρίως οὐσία οὐδ’ αὐτοουσία· διὸ οὐδὲ κύριοι τῆς αὐτῶν οὐσίας, Plotin. Enn. 6. 8. 12.

561 Arist. Anal. post. 2. 3, p. 90 b; Top. 5. 2, p. 130 b; Metaph. 6. 4, p. 1030 b.

562 Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. Hypotyp. 3. 1. 2.

563 εἴ γε ὁμοούσιοι αἱ τῶν ζῴων ψυχαὶ ταῖς ἡμετέραις, Porphyr. de Abstin. 1. 19.

564 τοὺς πόδας ὡς ὁμοουσίων ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωποι ἔνιψαν, Clement. Hom. 20. 7, p. 192.

565 c. Cels. 6. 64.

566 e.g. in S. Athanas. ad Afr. episc. 4, vol. i. 714.

567 Dionys. Areop. de div. nom. 5.

568 Philo, Leg. Alleg. 1. 30, vol. i. 62; cf. de post. Cain. 8, vol. i. 229: there is a remarkable Christian application of this in a dialogue between a Christian and a Jew who was curious as to the Trinity, Hieronymi Theologi Græci, Dialogus de sancta Trinitate, in Gallandi, Vet. Patr. Bibl. vol. vii., reprinted in Migne, Patrol. Gr. vol. xl. 845.

569 διῃρημένον ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς, Athan. ad Antioch., 3, vol. i. 616.

570 Cf. Harnack, i. 191, 219, 476 sqq., 580. In the Valentinian system, the spiritual existence which Achamoth brought forth was of the same essence as herself, Iren. 1. 5. 1. In that of Basilides, the three-fold sonship which was in the seed which God made, was κατὰ πάντα τῷ οὐκ ὄντι θεῷ ὁμοούσιος, Hippolytus, 7. 22: so as regards τὸ ἓν in Epiphanes (Valentinian?), ap. Iren. 1. 11. 3 (Hipp. 6. 38), it συνυπάρχει τῇ μονότητι as δύναμις ὁμοούσιος αὐτῇ. Cf. Clem. Hom. 20.7; Iren. ap. Harn. 481, “ejusdem substantiæ;” Tert. Apol. 21, “ex unitate substantiæ;” Harn. 488, 491.

571 It was expressly rejected at the Council of Antioch in connection with Paul of Samosata; and Basil, Ep. 9, says that Dionysius of Alexandria gave it up because of its use by the Sabellians: cf. Ep. 52 (300).

572 It is found, e.g., in Athan. ad Afr. episc. 4, vol. i. 714, ἡ γὰρ ὑπόστασις καὶ ἡ οὐσία ὕπαρξίς ἐστι. The distinction is found in Stoical writers, e.g. Chrysippus says that the present time ὑπάρχει, the past and future ὑφίστανται. Diels, Doxogr. Græci. 462. 1.

573 Diels, ibid. 372; cf. 363, where it is contrasted with φαντασία.

574 Sext. Empir. p. 192, § 226.

575 Diels, 318.

576 Ib. 469. 20: so κατὰ τὴν τῆς οὐσίας ὑπόστασιν, p. 469, 26.

577 Epict. 1. 14. 2.

578 Ath. Dial. de Trin. 2: ἡ οὐσία τὴν κοινότητα σημαίνει, while ὑπόστασις ἰδιότητα ἔχει ἥτις οὔκ ἐστι κοινὴ τῶν τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας ὑποστάσεων. He elsewhere identifies it with πρόσωπον in Ath. et Cyril. in Expos. orthod. fid.: ὑπόστασις ἐστιν οὐσία μετά τινων ἰδιωμάτων ἀριθμῷ τῶν ὁμοειδῶν διαφέρουσα· τουτέστι πρόσωπον ὁμοούσιον. Still the identity of the two terms was allowed even after they were tending to be differentiated: cf. Athan. ad Afr. Ep. 4, vol. i. 714, ἡ δὲ ὑπόστασις οὐσία ἐστι καὶ οὐδὲν ἄλλο σημαινόμενον ἔχει ἢ αὐτὸ τὸ ὄν. So ad Antioch., 6. (i. 617), he tolerates the view that there was only one ὑπόστασις in the Godhead, on the ground that ὑπόστασις might be regarded as synonymous with οὐσία. Cf. objection at Council of Sardica, against three ὑποστάσεις in the Godhead, instead of one ὑπόστασις, of Father, Son and Spirit.

579 Cf. Harn. Dogm. 693.

580 ἰδίαν ὑπόστασιν, Sext. Empir. de Pyrrh. 2. 219.

581 Ed. Kühn, 5. 662.

582 Ep. 210; Harn. Dogm. 693.

583 Cf. Quintilian, who ascribes it in turn to Plautus and to Sergius Flavius, 2. 14. 2; 3. 6. 23; 8. 3. 33: Seneca, Ep. 58. 6, to Cicero, and more recently Fabianus. For substantia, cf. Quint. 7. 2. 5, “nam et substantia ejus sub oculos cadit.”

584 Cf. Harnack, 489, 543; for its use by Sabellius, &c., ib. 679; also Orig. de princ. 1. 2. 8.

585 E.g. Ath. et Cyr. in Expos. orth. fid., ὑπόστασις = πρόσωπον ὁμοούσιον. In Epictetus, 1. 2. 7, 14, 28, it denotes individuality of character, that which distinguishes one man from another.

586 In Ath. ad. Ant. 7. 25, ἡ τὰ ὅλα διοικοῦσα φύσις is distinguished from οὐσία τῶν ὅλων: so 7. 75, ἡ τοῦ ὅλου φύσις ἐπὶ τὴν κοσμοποιΐαν ώρμησεν. For φύσις in Philo, see Leg. All. 3. 30 (i. 105).

587 Leontius of Byzantium says that both οὐσία and φύσις = εἶδος, Pat. Græc. lxxxvi. 1193.

588 E.g. adv. Prax. 2 (E. T. ii. 337), where he makes the distinctions within the œconomia of the Godhead to be gradu, forma, specie, with a unity of substantia, status, potestas; cf. Bp. Kaye, in E. T. ii. p. 407.

589 De Sententia Dionys. 18, quoted in Dict. of Christ. Biog. under Homoousios.

590 Thus the Roman Dionysius, in a fragment against the Sabellians (Routh, Reliq. iii. pp. 373, 374), objects to the division of the μοναρχία into τρεῖς δυνάμεις τινὰς καὶ μεμερισμένας ὑποστάσεις καὶ θειότητας τρεῖς.

591 ἀγνοούμενον ὑπὸ τῶν λαῶν, Athan. de Synod. 8 (i. 577).

592 [As this summing up never underwent the author’s final revision, and the notes which follow stand in his MS. parallel with the corresponding portion of the Lecture as originally delivered, it has been thought well to place them here.—Ed.]
(1) The tendency to abstract has combined with the tendency to regard matter as evil or impure, in the production of a tendency to form rather a negative than a positive conception of God. The majority of formularies define God by negative terms, and yet they have claimed for conceptions which are negative a positive value.
(2) We owe to Greek philosophy—to the hypothesis of the chasm between spirit and matter—the tendency to interpose powers between the Creator and His creation. It may be held that the attempt to solve the insoluble problem, how God, who is pure spirit, made and sustains us, has darkened the relations which it has attempted to explain by introducing abstract metaphysical conceptions.

593 It may be noted that even in the later Greek philosophy there was a view, apparently identical with that of Bishop Berkeley, that matter or substance merely represented the sum of the qualities. Origen, de Princ. 4. 1. 34.

594 These Lectures are the history of a genesis: it would otherwise have been interesting to show in how many points theories which have been thought out in modern times revive theories of the remote past of Christian antiquity.

595 For what follows, reference in general may be made to Keil, Attische Culte aus Inschriften, Philologus, Bd. xxiii. 212-259, 592-622: and Weingarten, Histor. Zeitschrift, Bd. xlv. 1881, p. 441 sqq. as well as to the authorities cited in the notes.

596 Foucart, Le culte de Pluton dans la religion éleusinienne, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 1883, pp. 401 sqq.

597 The successive stages or acts of initiation are variously described and enumerated, but there were at least four: κάθαρσις—the preparatory purification; σύστασις—the initiatory rites and sacrifices; τελετὴ or μύησις—the prior initiation; and ἐποπτεία, the higher or greater initiation, which admitted to the παράδοσις τῶν ἱερῶν, or holiest act of the ritual. Cf. Lobeck, Aglaoph. pp. 39 ff.

598 An interesting inscription has recently come to light, which shows that the public slaves of the city were initiated at the public expense. Foucart, l.c. p. 394.

599 Cf. Origen, c. Cels. 3. 59.

600 Philostratus, Vita Apoll. 4. 18, p. 138.

601 Alex. 38.

602 Cf. Lobeck, Aglaoph. pp. 39 ff. and 89 ff.; Welcker, Griech. Götterl. ii. 530-532. “The first and most important condition required of those who would enter the temple at Lindus is that they be pure in heart and not conscious of any crime.”—Professor W. M. Ramsay in Ency. Brit. s. v. “Mysteries.” For purification before admission to the worship of a temple, see, in C.I.A. iii. Pt. i. 73. 74, instances of regulation prescribed at the temple of Mên Tyrannus at Laurium in Attica, e.g. μηθένα ἀκάθαρτον προσάγειν, various periods of purification being specified. Cf. Reinach, Traité d’Épigr. Grecque, p. 133, on the inscr. of Andania in Messenia, B.C. 91; the mysteries of the Cabiri in Le Bas and Foucart, Inscr. du Peloponnèse, ii. § 5, p. 161; and Sauppe, die Mysterieninschr. von Andania.

603 Tertullian, de Baptismo, 5, “Nam et sacris quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur... ipsos etiam deos suos lavationibus efferunt;” Clem. Alex. Strom. Bk. 5. 4: “The mysteries are not exhibited incontinently to all, but only after certain purifications and previous instructions.” Ibid. 5. 11: “It is not without reason that in the mysteries that obtain among the Greeks, lustrations hold the first place, as also the laver among the Barbarians. After these are the minor mysteries, which have some foundation of instruction and of preliminary preparation for what is to come after; and the great mysteries, in which nothing remains to be learned of the universe, but only to contemplate and comprehend nature and things.” We have thus a sort of baptism and catechumenate.

604 The fast lasted nine days, and during it certain kinds of food were wholly forbidden. Cf. Lobeck, Aglaoph. pp. 189-197.

605 There was a lesser and a greater initiation: “It is a regulation of law that those who have been admitted to the lesser should again be initiated into the greater mysteries.” Hippol. 5, 8: see the whole chapter, as also cc. 9, 20.

606 Cf. Clem. Alex. Protrept. 12: “O truly sacred mysteries! O stainless light! My way is lighted with torches and I survey the heavens and God: I am become holy whilst I am initiated. The Lord is the hierophant, and seals while illuminating him who is initiated,” &c. Ib. 2: “Their (Demeter’s and Proserpine’s) wanderings, and seizure, and grief, Eleusis celebrates by torchlight processions;” and again p. 32. So Ælius Aristid. i. p. 454 (ed. Canter), τὰς φωσφόρους νύκτας.

607 “I have fasted, I have drunk the cup,” &c. Clem. Alex. Protrept. 2.

608 Cf. Ælius Aristid. i. 454, on the burning of the temple at Eleusis. The gain of the festival was not for this life only, but that hereafter they would not lie in darkness and mire like the uninitiated.

609 Fragm. ap. Stob. Florileg. 120. Lenormant, Cont. Rev. Sept. 1880, p. 430.

610 Synes. Orat. p. 48 (ed. Petav.), οὐ μαθεῖν τι δεῖν ἀλλὰ παθεῖν καὶ διατεθῆναι γενομένους δηλονότι ἐπιτηδείους. But the μυσταγωγοὶ possibly gave some private instruction to the groups of μύσται who were committed to them.

611 Cf. Lenormant, Cont. Rev. Sept. 1880, p. 414 sq.

612 Soph. frag. 719, ed. Dind.: so in effect Pindar, frag. thren. 8; Cic. Legg. 2. 14. 36; Plato, Gorg. p. 493 B, Phædo. 69 C (the lot of the uninitiated). They were bound to make their life on earth correspond to their initiation; see Lenormant, ut sup. p. 429 sqq. In later times it was supposed actually to make them better; Sopatros in Walz, Rhet. Gr. viii. 114.

613 See Garrucci, Les Mystères du Syncretisme Phrygien dans les Catacombes Romaines de Prætextat, Paris, 1854.

614 There was a further and larger process before a man was τέλειος. Tert. adv. Valent. c. 1, says that it took five years to become τέλειος.

615 The most elaborate account is that of the Arval feast at Rome: cf. Henzen, Acta fratrum Arvalium.

616 μύσται is used of members of a religious association at Teos (Inscr. in Bullet. de Corresp. Hellénique, 1880, p. 164), and of the Roman Monarchians in Epiph. 55. 8; cf. Harnack, Dogm. 628.

617 Clem. Alex. Protrep. 2; Hippol. 1, proœm. Cf. Philo, de sacrif. 12 (ii. 260), τί γὰρ εἰ καλὰ ταῦτ’ ἐστὶν ὦ μύσται κ.τ.λ.

618 They also had the same sanction—the fear of future punishments, cf. Celsus in Orig. 8. 48. Origen does not controvert this statement, but appeals to the greater moral effect of Christianity as an argument for its truth. They possibly also communicated divine knowledge. There is an inscription of Dionysiac artists at Nysa, of the time of the Antonines, in honour of one who was θεολόγος of the temples at Pergamos, as θαυμαστὸν θεολόγον and τῶν ἀπορρήτων μύστην. Bull. de Corr. Hellén. 1885, p. 124, 1. 4; cf. Porphyry in Eusebius, Præp. Ev. 5. 14.

619 This revival had many forms, cf. Harnack, Dogm. p. 101.

620 Similar practices existed in the Church and in the new religions which were growing up. Justin Martyr speaks of the way in which, under the inspiration of demons, the supper had been imitated in the Mithraic mysteries: ὅπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Μίθρα μυστηρίοις παρέδωκαν γίνεσθαι μιμησάμενοι οἱ πονηροὶ δαίμονες: Apol. 1. 66. Tertullian points to the fact as an instance of the power of the devil (de præsc. hær. 40): “qui ipsas quoque res sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis æmulatur.” He specifies, inter alia, “expositionem delictorum de lavacro repromittit... celebrat et panis oblationem.” Celsus, too, speaks of the μυστήρια and the τελεταὶ of Mithras and others: Orig. c. Cels. 6. 22.

621 The objection which Celsus makes (c. Cels. 1. 1; Keim, p. 3) to the secrecy of the Christian associations would hardly have held good in the apostolic age. Origen admits (c. Cels. 1. 7) that there are exoteric and esoteric doctrines in Christianity, and justifies it by (1) the philosophies, (2) the mysteries. On the rise of this conception of Christian teaching as something to be hidden from the mass, cf. the Valentinians in Tert. c. Valent. 1, where there is a direct parallel drawn between them and the mysteries: also the distinction of men into two classes—πνευματικοὶ and ψυχικοὶ or ὑλικοί—among the Gnostics: Harn. Dogm. 222, cf. Hipp. 1, proœm., p. 4, who condemns τὰ ἀπόρρητα μυστήρια of the heretics, adding, καὶ τότε δοκιμάσαντες δέσμιον εἶναι τῆς ἁμαρτίας μυοῦσι τὸ τέλειον τῶν κακῶν παραδιδόντες, ὅρκοις δήσαντες μήτε ἐξειπεῖν μήτε τῷ τυχόντι μεταδοῦναι κ.τ.λ. Yet this very secrecy was naturalized in the Church. Cf. Cyril Hier. Catech. vi. 30; Aug. in Psalm ciii., Hom. xcvi. in Joan.; Theodoret, Quæst. xv. in Num., and Dial. ii. (Inconfusus); Chry. Hom. xix. in Matt. Sozomen’s (1. 20. 3) reason for not giving the Nicene Creed is significant alike as regards motive and language: εὐσεβῶν δὲ φίλων καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐπιστημόνων, οἷα δὲ μύσταις καὶ μυσταγωγοῖς μόνοις δέον τάδε λέγειν καὶ ἀκούειν ὑφηγουμένων, ἐπῄνεσα τὴν βουλήν· οὐ γὰρ ἀπεικὸς καὶ τῶν ἀμυήτων τινὰς τῇδε τῇ βίβλῳ ἐντυχεῖν.

622 Acts ii, 38, 41; viii. 12, 13, 36, 38; x. 47, 48; xvi. 15, 33; xviii. 8; xix. 5.

623 c. 7.

624 Apol. 1. 61; cf. Otto, vol. i. p. 146, n. 14; Engelhardt, p. 102.

625 Clem. Alex. Pædag. 1. 6; Can. Laod. 47, Bruns, p. 78; Greg. Naz. Orat. xl. pp. 638, 639. Hence οἱ φωτιζόμενοι = those being prepared for baptism, οἱ φωτισθέντες = the baptized. Cf. Cyr. Hier. Catech. 13. 21, p. 193 et passim.

626 Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 36, cf. 31 ff.

627 Apol. 8: talia initiatus et consignatus = μεμυημένος καὶ ἐσφραγίσμενος. See Otto, vol. i. p. 141; cf. ad Valent. 1.

628 For the seal in baptism, cf. Clem. Al. Strom. 2. 3; Quis dives, 42, ap. Euseb. Hist. 3. 23; Euseb. Vita Const. 1. 4. 62; Cyr. Hier. Catech. 5; Greg. Naz. Orat. 40, p. 639; Orig. c. Cels. 6. 27. For the use of imagery and the terms relating to sealing—illumination—initiation—from the mysteries, Clem. Al. Protrep. 12. The effect of baptism is illumination, perfection, Pædag. 1. 6; hence sins before and after baptism, i.e. enlightenment, are different, Strom. 2. 13. Early instances of σφραγὶς are collected in Gebhardt on 2 Clem. pp. 168, 169; cf. also Cyr. Hier. Catech. 18. 33, p. 301.

629 Greg. Naz. Orat. 39, p. 632; Chrys. Hom. 85 in Joan. xix. 34; Sozomen, ii. 8, 6.

630 Sozomen, i. 3. 5.

631 Dion. Areop. Eccles. Hierar. 3, p. 242.

632 Clem. Alex. Pædag. 1. 6, p. 93; Athan. Cont. Ar. 3, p. 413 C.; Greg. Naz. Orat. 40, p. 648; Dion. Areop. Eccles. Hier. 3, 242.

633 Chrys. Hom. 99, vol. v.; Theod. in Cantic. 1.

634 Dion. Areop. Eccles. Hier. 1. 1; Mys. Theol. 1. 1.

635 Chrys. Hom. 1 in Act. p. 615; Hom. 21 ad popul. Antioch; Sozomen, ii. 17. 9.

636 Sozomen, i. 3. 5; ii. 7. 8; iv. 20. 3; vi. 38. 15; vii 8. 7, et passim. These examples do not by any means exhaust or even adequately represent the obligations in the sphere of language, and of the ideas it at once denotes and connotes, which the ecclesiastical theory and practice of baptism lies under to the mysteries; but they may help to indicate the degree and nature of the obligation.

637 For the sphere of the influence of the mysteries on the language and imagery of the New Testament, see 1 Cor. ii. 6 ff.; cf. Heb. vi. 4.

638 Apost. Const. 8. 32. Cf. passages quoted from Clem. Alex. and others, supra, p. 287, note 1; p. 295, notes 2 and 5. See Bingham, vol. iii. pp. 443-446.

639 De præsc. hær. 41. Cf. Epiphan. 41. 3; Apost. Const. 8. 12.

640 ἃ οὐδὲ ἐποπτεύειν ἔξεστι τοῖς ἀμυήτοις, de Spir. Sanct. 27; cf. Orig. c. Cels. 3. 59 ad fin. and 60, e.g. “then and not before do we invite them to participation in our mysteries,” and “initiating those already purified into the sacred mysteries.” Cf. Dict. Christian Antiquities, s. v. Disciplina Arcani.

641 See p. 293, note 1; also Dict. Christian Antiquities, s. vv. Baptism, Catechumens, especially p. 318, and Creed.

642 Histoire de l’église d’Alexandrie, p. 12: Paris, 1677.

643 De baptismo Christi, 4. ii. 374, τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρόντος, τῶν ἀγγέλων παρεστώτων, τῆς φρικτῆς ταύτης τραπέζης προκειμένης, τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου μυσταγωγουμένων ἔτι. Cyril, Præfatio ad Catech. 15.

644 Mabillon. Com. præv. ad. ord. Rom.; Museum Ital. II. xcix.

645 It was one of the points to which the Greeks objected in the discussions of the ninth century.

646 c. 9.

647 Bk. ii. 57, p. 87; cf. viii. 5, p. 239, lines 18, 19.

648 viii. 11. 12, p. 248.

649 Origen, c. Cels. 3. 59. Persons who have partaken of the Eucharist are οἱ τελεσθέντες (Chrys. de compunct. ad Demet. 1. 6. i. p. 132), and οἱ μεμυημένοι (id. Hom. vi. de beat. Phil. c. 3. i. p. 498, and in Ep. ad Hebr. cap. x., Hom. xvii. 4, vol. xii. 169). Degrees and distinctions came to be recognized within the circle of the very initiated themselves, Apost. Const. vii. 44, viii. 13.

650 The earlier offerings were those of Irenæus, 4. 17. 5, where he speaks of Christ “suis discipulis dans consilium, primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis;” and again the Church offers “primitias suorum munerum in Novo Testamento ei qui alimenta nobis præstat.” The table in the heathen temple was important; upon it were placed the offerings: Th. Homolle in Bulletin de Corresp. Hellén. 1881, p. 118. For the Eucharist itself as a mystery, cf. φρικωδεστάτη τελετὴ, Chrys. de sacerdot. 3. 4, vol. i. 382. He argues for silence on the ground that they are mysteries, de bapt. Christ. 4. ii. 375. Cf. Greg. Naz. Orat. 44, p. 713; Conc. Laod. 7, Bruns, p. 74.

651 Found in Chrys. e.g. Hom. in Ep. ii. ad Corinth. v. c. 3, vol. x. 470: τοιαύτῃ τὸ θυσιαστήριον ἐκεῖνο φοινίσσεται σφαγῇ.

652 Ad Ephes. 5; see Lightfoot’s note. Cf. Trall. 7; Philad. 4; Mag. 7; Rom. 2.

653 Ap. Const. ii. 57, p. 88. But see for θυσιαστήριον in a highly figurative sense, iii. 6, iv. 3.

654 H. E. x. 4, 44.

655 Isid. Pelus. Epist. 3. 340, p. 390, προσῆλθε μὲν τῷ σεπτῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ τῶν θείων μυστηρίων μεταληψόμενος; also 4. 181, p. 516, τὰ θεῖα μῂ διδόσθαι μυστήρια. Cf. Chrys. de comp. ad Demet. 1. 6, vol. i. p. 131; Theodoret, dial. 2, vol. iv. 125. There was a sacred formula. Basil says that no saint has written down the formula of consecration: de Spir. Sancto, 66, vol. iv. pp. 54, 55. After saying that some doctrines and usages of the Church have come down in writing, τὰ δὲ ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων παραδόσεως διαδοθέντα ἡμῖν ἐν μυστηρίῳ παρεδεξάμεθα, he instances the words of the Eucharistic invocation as among the later; τὰ τῆς ἐπικλήσεως ῥήματα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναδείξει τοῦ ἄρτου τῆς ἐυχαριστίας καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου τῆς ἐυλογίας τίς τῶν ἁγίων ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν.

656 In Dionysius Areop. (s. v. ἱεράρχης, ed. Corderius, i. 839), the bishops are τελεσταί, ἱεροτελεσταί, τελεστάρχαι, μυσταγωγοί, τελεστουργοί, τελεστικοί; the priests are φωτιστικοί; the deacons, καθαρτικοί; the Eucharist is ἱεροτελεστικωτάτη (c. 4). The deacon, ἀποκαθαίρει τοὺς ἀτελέστους (c. 5, § 3, p. 233), i.e. dips them in the water; the priest, φωταγωγεῖ τοὺς καθαρθέντας, i.e. leads the baptized by the hand into the church; the bishop, ἀποτελειοῖ τοὺς τῷ θείῳ φωτὶ κεκοινωνηκότας.

657 Dion. Areop. Eccles. Hier. c. 3, par. 1, §§ 1, 2, pp. 187, 188.

658 For in the decree mentioned in a previous note (p. 292, n. 2), among other honours to T. Ælius Alcibiades, he is to be πρῶτον τοῖς διπτύχοις ἐνγραφόμενον.

659 Cf. for the use of lights in worship, the money accounts, from a Berlin papyrus, of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus at Arsinoê, A.D. 215, in Hermes, Bd. xx. p. 430.

660 Adv. Valent. 1. Hippolytus (1, proœm; 5. 23, 24) says the heretics had mysteries which they disclosed to the initiated only after long preparation, and with an oath not to divulge them: so the Naassenes, 5. 8, and the Peratæ, 5. 17 (ad fin.), whose mysteries “are delivered in silence.” The Justinians had an oath of secrecy before proceeding to behold “what eye hath not seen” and “drinking from the living water,” 5. 27.

661 E.g. Marcus, in connection with initiation into the higher mysteries Hipp. 6. 41, and the Elkasaites as cleansing from gross sin, 9. 15.

662 Eus. H.E. iv. 7.

663 Hipp. 5. 27, of the Justinians. Cf. Hilgenfeld, Ketzergesch. p. 270.

664 For the Eastern custom, see Cyril Hier. Catech. Myst. ii. 3, 4, p. 312: the candidate is anointed all over before baptism with exorcised oil, which, by invocation of God and prayer, purifies from the burning traces of sin, but also puts to flight the invisible powers of the evil one. Cf. Apost. Const. vii. 22, 41, iii. 15, 16; the Coptic Constitutions, c. 46 (ed. Tattam), cf. Boetticher’s Gr. translation in Bunsen’s Anal. Ante-Nic. ii 467; Clem. Recog. 3. 67; Chrys. Hom. 6. 4, in Ep. ad Col. xi. 342, ἀλείφεται ὥσπερ οἱ ἀθληταὶ εἰς στάδιον ἐμβησόμενοι, here also before baptism and all over; Dionys. Areop. Eccles. Hier. 2. 7; Basil, de Spir. Sanct. 66, vol. iv. 55. For earlier Western as distinct from Eastern thought on the subject, cf. Tert. de bapt. 6 and 7; de resurr. carnis. 8; adv. Marc. i. 14; Cyprian, Ep. 70. For the later Western usage, introduced from the East, see Conc. Rom. 402, c. 8, ed. Bruns. pt. ii. 278; Ordo 6, ad fac. Catech. in Martène, de ant. eccl. rit. i. p. 17; Theodulfus Aurel. de ord. bapt. 10; unction of the region of the heart before and behind, symbolizing the Holy Spirit’s unction with a view to both prosperity and adversity (Sirmond, vol. ii. 686); Isid. Hisp. de off. eccl. 2. 21; Catechumens exorcizantur, sales accipiunt et unguntur, the salt being made ut eorum gustu condimentum sapientiæ percipiant, neque desipiant a sapore Christi (Migne, lxxxiii. col. 814, 815); Cæs. Arelat. serm. 22.

665 Apol. 1. 66.

666 ap. Hipp. 6. 39.

667 Tert. ad Scap. 2, holds that sacrifice may consist of simple prayer.

668 Cf. Celsus’ idea of faith: Orig. c. Cels. 3. 39; Keim, p. 39.

669 Philo’s view of faith is well expressed in two striking passages, Quis rer. div. Heres, 18, i. 485; and de Abrah. 46, ii. 39.

670 Cf. “He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that seek Him,” Heb. xi. 6; and “He that is of God heareth God’s words,” John viii. 47.

671 It was one of Celsus’ objections to Christianity that its preachers laid more stress on belief than on the intellectual grounds of belief: Orig. c. Cels. 1. 9. Origen’s answer, which is characteristic rather of his own time than expressive of the belief of the apostolic age, is that this was necessary for the mass of men, who have no leisure or inclination for deep investigation (1. 10), and in order not to leave men altogether without help (1. 12).

672 E.g. Rom. vi. 17, εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς; 2 John, 9, ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ; 2 Tim. i. 13, ὑποτύπωσιν ἔχε ὑγιαινόντων λόγων ὧν παρ’ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσας; 1 Tim. vi. 12, ὡμολόγησας τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν; Jude 3, ἡ ἅπαξ παραδοθεῖσα τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστις. Polycrates, ap. Eus. H. E. 5. 24, ὁ κανὼν τῆς πίστεως: see passages collected in Gebhardt and Harnack’s Patres Apost. Bd. i. th. 2 (Barnabas), p. 133.

673 Cf. Schmid, Dogmeng. p. 14, Das Taufsymbol.

674 c. 7. 4.

675 See Acts viii. 16, xix. 5, with which compare Rom. vi. 1-11, Acts xxii. 16. Didaché, 9. 5, οἱ βαπτισθέντες εἰς ὄνομα Κυρίου; and Apost. Const. Bk. ii. 7, p. 20, οἱ βαπτισθέντες εἰς τὸν θάνατον τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ οὐκ ὀφείλουσιν ἁμαρτάνειν οἱ τοιοῦτοι· ὡς γὰρ οἱ ἀποθανόντες ἀνενέργητοι πρὸς ἁμαρτίαν ὑπάρχουσιν, οὕτως καὶ οἱ συναποθανόντες τῷ Χριστῷ ἄπρακτοι πρὸς ἁμαρτίαν; cf. 148, 7, and elsewhere, in composite form. Against this Cyprian wrote, in Ep. 73, ad Jubaianum, 16-18; cf. Harnack, Dogmeng. 176.

676 Cf. von Engelhardt, Das Christenthum Justins, p. 107.

677 Cf. Harnack, Dogmeng. p. 130 ff.

678 Cf. Clement’s account of Basilides’ conception of faith in contrast to his own, Strom. 5. 1.

679 Orig. c. Cels. 5. 65.

680 Cf. Ptolemæus ad Floram, c. 7, ed. Pet.

681 See instances in Harn. Dogm. p. 134.

682 Thus Basilides, ap. Hippol. 7. 20, preferred to follow a tradition from Matthias, who was said to have been specially instructed by the Saviour. The Naassenes, ib. 10. 9, traced their doctrine to James, the Brother of the Lord. Valentinus, Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. 17, was said to be a hearer of Theudas, who was a pupil of Paul. Hippol. 1, proœm, argued against all heretics that they had taken nothing from Holy Scripture, and had not preserved the τινος ἁγίου διαδοχήν. Cf. Tert. c. Marc. 1. 21. But see the very remarkable statement of Origen as to the cause of heresies, c. Cels. 3. 12; cf. Clem. Al. Strom. 7. 17.

683 Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. 17, μία... παράδοσις, and the contention of Tert. de præsc. hær. 32, Sicut apostoli non diversa inter se docuissent, ita et apostolici non contraria apostolis edidissent; Harnack, pp. 183 ff., especially note 2, pp. 134-136. Eusebius, H. E. 4. 7, mentions that very many contemporary church writers had written in behalf τῆς ἀποστολικῆς καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικῆς δόξης, against Basilides, especially Agrippa Castor.

684 Adamantius (Origen, ed. Delarue, i. 809) says that the Marcionites had ἐπισκόπων, μᾶλλον δὲ ψευδεπισκόπων διαδοχαί.

685 For the παράδοσις ἐκκλησιαστική, especially of “ecclesiæ apostolicæ,” cf. Tert. de præsc. hær. cc. 21. 36; Iren. 3. 1-3; Orig. de princ.; præf. 2: for the κανὼν τῆς πίστεως, Iren. 1. 9. 4; Tert. adv. Marc. 1. 21 (regula sacramenti); de Virg. vel. 1; adv. Prax. 2; de præsc. hær. cc. 3. 12. 42; de monog. 2. In general, see Weingarten, Zeittafeln, s. 17. 19.

686 De præsc. hær. cc. 25. 26.

687 4. 20.

688 See Overbeck, die Anfänge der patrist. Literatur, in the Hist. Zeitschrift, N.F. Bd. xii. 417-472.

689 Cf. Hegesippus, ap. Eus. H.E. 4. 22. 3, ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει οὕτως ἔχει ὡς ὁ νόμος κηρύσσει καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ Κύριος, for this practical co-ordination; see Gebhardt and Harnack on 2 Clement, p. 132, for examples; also Harnack, Dogm. 131.

690 Cf. Weingarten, Zeittafeln, p. 19, where he cites the Muratorian fragment, Origen (ap. Eus. H.E. 6. 25), and Athanasius, in the last of whom he traces the first use of the term “canon” in our sense. But we must carefully distinguish the idea of a canon and the contents of the canon. It is uncertain whence the idea of a canon of Scripture came, whether from the ecclesiastical party or from the Gnostics; and if from the latter, whether it was from Basilides, or Valentinus, or Marcion. Most likely the last. Harnack, Dogm. 215 ff.; cf. 237-240 for Marcion as the first Biblical critic.

691 Harnack, pp. 317 f.

692 Tertullian, though in his treatise de præsc. hær. he abandons argument with the Gnostics, yet in his adv. Marc. 1. 22, relaxes that line of argument, and enters into formal discussion.

693 c. 2.

694 Tert. de præscr. hær. cc. 8, 18.

695 Theories were framed as to the relation of γνῶσις and πίστις; e.g. the former was conceived to relate to the Spirit, the latter to the Son, which Clem. Alex. denies (Strom. 5. 1).

696 See Harnack, 549.

697 Adv. Prax. 3.

698 Which had been the contention of the heretics whom Tertullian opposed: de præsc. hær. cc. 16, 17.

699 Origen (de princ., præf. 3) follows in the line of those who rested upon apostolic teaching, but gives a foothold for philosophy by saying (1) that the Apostles left the grounds of their statements to be investigated; (2) that they affirmed the existence of many things without stating the manner and origin of their existence.

700 Valentinus accepted the whole canon (integro instrumento), and the most important work of Basilides was a commentary on the Gospel: Tert. de præsc. hær. 38.

701 Tert. de præsc. hær. 18. It is important to contrast the arguments of Tertullian with those of Clement of Alexandria, and of both with the practice which circumstances rendered necessary. In Strom. 7. 16 and 17, Clement makes Scripture the criterion between the Church and the heretics, though he assumes that all orthodox teaching is apostolic and uniform.

702 The combination is first found in Apost. Const. Bk. ii. pp. 14, 10. 16, 25. 51. 17, 20. 58, 22.

703 Routh, Rel. Sacr. iii. p. 290; Harnack, p. 644.

704 Cf. the definitions of faith in Clem. Al. Strom. 2. cc. 2 and 3.

705 αἵρεσις is used in Clem. Al. Strom. 7. 15, of the true system of Christian doctrine: ἡ τῷ ὄντι ἀρίστη αἵρεσις: as in Sext. Empir. (Pyrrh. p. 13, § 16) it meant only adherence to a system of dogmas (no standard implied).

706 Ad Scap. 2.

707 Philosophers had abused each other. Theologians followed in their track. The “cart-loads of abuse they emptied upon one another” (ὅλας ἁμάξας βλασφημιῶν κατεσκέδασαν ἀλλήλων, Lucian, Eunuch. 2) are paralleled in, e.g. Gregory of Nyssa.

708 See Lecture V. p. 135.

709 Socrates, H. E. p. 177, ἕνασις τοῦ σώματος, of the corporate unity of a philosophical school.

710 Didaché, cc. 1-3.

711 Apost. Const. p. 1. 15-17.

712 Ib. 5. 20-22.

713 Ib. 1. 6.

714 “We Christians are remarkable,” says Tertullian (Ad Scap. 2), “only for the reformation of our former vices.” The plea of the Apologists was based on the fact that the Christians led blameless lives: de causâ innocentiæ consistam, Tert. Apol. c. 4.

715 The Elchasaites, ap. Hipp. 9. 15.

716 Weingarten, Zeittafeln, p. 12. See also Lightfoot, Ignatius, vol. ii. pp. 310-312.

717 Weingarten, p. 17.

718 Eusebius, H. E. 4. 22, 4.

719 The very terms heresy and heterodox bear witness to the action of the Greek philosophical schools on the Christian Church: αἵρεσις is used in Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. p. 13, of any system of dogmas, or the principle which is distinctive of a philosophical school: cf. Diels, Doxogr. Gr. pp. 276, 573, 388. In Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. 15, it is used to denote the orthodox system. Ἑτεροδόξους is used of the dogmatics from point of view of a sceptic: Sext. Empir. adv. Math. p. 771, § 40. Josephus uses it of the men of the other schools or parties as distinguished from the Essenes, de Bell. Jud. 2. 8. 5. For the place of opinion in Gnostic societies, with its curious counterpart in laxity of discipline, see Tert. de præsc. 42-44. He speaks of the Valentinians, adv. Val., as “frequentissimum plane collegium inter hæreticos.” Cf. Harnack, 190 ff., also 211. The very cultivation of the Gnosis means the supremacy of the intellect.

720 Tertullian, de Spectaculis, c. 4. If γνῶσις was important as an element in salvation side by side with πίστις—or if πίστις included γνῶσις—then also the rejection of the right faith was a bar to salvation: hence heresy was regarded as involving eternal death: Tert. de præsc. 2.

721 Tert. de Spect. c. 4.

722 διδαχή, here expressly used of the moral precepts in c. 2. 1.

723 c. 11. 1, 2.

724 c. 11. 8, 10; cf. Herm. Mand. 11. 7 and 16.

725 c. 12. 1, 3-5.

726 The jura, i.e. the communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et contesseratio hospitalitatis, were controlled (regit) by the tradition of the creed (unius sacramenti traditio), Tert. de præsc. 20.

727 Communicamus cum ecclesiis apostolicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa; hoc est testimonium veritatis, Tert. ibid. 21.

728 Lect. vi. p. 164 sq.