The influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian church

by Edwin Hatch

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.

INDEX,
CONTAINING THE CHIEF TOPICS, PROPER NAMES, AND TECHNICAL TERMS, REFERRED TO IN THE LECTURES.

Italicized subdivisions of a title are elsewhere treated in more detail as separate titles

• Abstract ideas, Greek tendency to, [116-118].
• Æon, common Gnostic idea, [190];
• two ways of viewing the Æons, [258 fin.], [259].
• Africanus, Julius, as an exegete, [81].
• Alexandrine School, its philosophy, [81];
• on moral probation, [232];
• on God’s transcendence, [255].
• See also [Philo] and [Origen].
• Allegorism, [58 ff.];
• connection with the “mysteries,” [59], cf. [66];
• ethical, [60];
• physical, [61];
• the Stoics, [61-63];
• later exponents, [64];
• The temper widespread in religion, [65];
• Hellenistic Jews, [65 ff.], e.g. Aristobulus and Philo, [66-69], [72], [128];
• early Christian exegesis, especially Gnostic, [69 ff.];
• compared with Philo’s, [72];
• prophecy its main subject, [72-74];
• an O. T. Apologetic, [77-79];
• Reactions, [79-82];
• dogmatic complication, [82];
• irony of its history, [ib.];
• use and abuse, [83];
• its place in modern life, [83-85].
• Alogi, [252, n. ²].
• Ambrose of Milan, his ethics Stoic, [169].
• Antiochene School, its exegesis, [81], [82].
• Apologists mark transition, e.g. [126-131];
• idea of creation, [196];
• free-will, [231];
• transcendence of God, [252], [253];
• Logos doctrine, [261-263], [267], [268].
• Apostolic doctrine, idea of, [316], [317];
• “Apostles’ Creed,” [317-319].
• Apostolical Constitutions, Bk. i., its ethical type of teaching, [161], cf. [132], [336];
• Bk. ii., on place of discipline, [162], [163];
• Bks. ii. and viii., on Lord’s Supper, [301].
• Aristobulus, his allegorism, [66 fin.]
• Aristotle, his use of ousia, [269], [270];
• of pistis, [311].
• Askesis (ἄσκησις), Greek, [148 ff.];
• in Philo, [148];
• reduced to system, e.g. “retreats,” [148-150], Christian, [164 ff.];
• its germ, [164], [165];
• ran parallel to Greek, [166], [167];
• Monachism, [167], [168].
• Association at first voluntary, [334], [335].
• Associations, Greek religious, [290 ff.]
• Syncretistic, akin to “mysteries,” [290], [291];
• purity of life required, [141];
• mixed elements, [291], [292];
• effects on Christianity, [292-295], cf. [141].
• Athenagoras on absolute creation, [196];
• transcendence of God, [253];
• his Monism, [265].
• Baptism and dualism, [19].
• Primitive simplicity, [294], [295];
• its formula, [315];
• its ethical character among the Elchasaites, [337];
• later change in name, [295], [296];
• in time, [296], [297];
• minor features—“symbolum,” lights, &c., [298], [299];
• late ritual, [299], [300];
• Gnostic realism, [306];
• and unction, [307].
• Its importance, [341], [342].
• Basilides characterized, [9, n. ²];
• his view of creation, [195], [196];
• of transcendence, [254], [255];
• genesis of the Logos, [263].
• Bishops, and the “rule of faith,” [317], [318];
• speculative interpretation by consensus, [326], [327];
• results, [327 ff.]
• Canon of N. T., development of the idea, [319-321].
• Catholic Church, its genesis, [11], [132];
• put an end to “prophesying,” [107];
• a fusion of Christianity and Greek philosophy, [125];
• unconsciously Hellenized, [132-135];
• as a “corpus permixtum,” [164].
• Celsus, his and Porphyry’s polemic against Christian allegorism, [80];
• on relation of Christianity and philosophy, [127], [128], cf. [11 init.]
• Christianity, primitive:
• the New Law, [158-162];
• its ethical idea of God, [224], [225];
• its theological basis, [238], [239], [251], [252].
• Church, its early character, [335];
• holiness, [335-337];
• hope, [337], [338].
• Clement of Alexandria, his allegorism, [70];
• appeal to hieroglyphics, [71];
• and N. T. allegories, [76];
• on Christianity and philosophy, [127];
• on the Conservatives, [130], [131].
• Clementines, the: their Old Testament criticism, [71];
• God just and good, [229], [230].
• Consecration of the elements: the formula secret, [302, n. ⁶].
• Conservatism: Clement and Tertullian on it, [130], [131];
• in Ebionites and Elchasaites, [252], [337];
• often not recognized as such (cf. [Ebionites]), e.g. in Origen, [323];
• the simpler sort, [324];
• Paul of Samosata, [327], cf. [345], [346];
• in Puritanism, [347], [348];
• Monachism, [348], [349].
• Creed, the, [313 ff.];
• its germs, [313], [314];
• the baptismal formula, [314], [315];
• becomes a test, [315];
• expanded, [315], [316];
• by “Apostolic teaching,” [316], [317];
• the “Apostles’ Creed” of the Bishops (παράδοσις ἐκκλησιαστική), [317-319].
• Cyprian characterized, [8].
• Dæmons, [246], especially [n. ³].
• Definition among the Greeks, [118];
• influence on Catholic Church, [135], [330], [331].
• Development not arrested, [332], [351], [352].
• Dialectic, Greek, [118 fin.]
• Didaché, the: the “Two Ways” emphasizes conduct, [160], [161], [335], [336];
• and the idea of wages, [225];
• its simple theology, [251], [252];
• Baptism, [294], [295], cf. [315];
• the Lord’s Supper, [300], [301];
• intercommunion based on moral test, [343], [344].
• Dio Chrysostom characterized, [6];
• on “askesis,” [150].
• Dionysius Areopagites sums up the influence of the “mysteries,” [303], [304].
• Discipline, early Christian, [162 ff.];
• in Apost. Const. Bk. ii., [162], [163];
• its Puritan ideal, [163];
• later “corpus permixtum” idea, [164].
• Dogma (δόγμα), its original sense, [119], [120];
• later Dogmatism, [121-123];
• the age of Dogmatism, [280].
• Dualism and Baptism, [19];
• and Stoicism, [ib.];
• its basis, [175];
• Platonic, [177];
• variously expressed, [178-180];
• later modified, [181];
• in Christian theories of creation, [194], [195];
• transition in Tatian, [195].
• Ebionites become “heretics,” [132];
• as Conservatives, [252, n. ²].
• Education, Greek, [26 ff.];
• its forms literary, [27];
• mainly Grammar and Rhetoric, [28 ff.];
• the poets its main study, [30];
• also a littérateur philosophy, [32 ff.];
• spite of protest, [34];
• its extent, [35 ff.]
• Epictetus characterized, [6];
• as moral reformer, [142 ff.];
• his attitude, [143], [144];
• quoted, [144-147];
• on “askesis,” [149];
• his two planes of ethics, [152]:
• “follow Nature,” [152-155];
• “follow God,” [155-158].
• Essentia: its bad Latinity a source of disuse, [277], especially [n. ³].
• Ethics, Greek, [139 ff.]
• Average morality, [139];
• philosophic ethics, [140];
• moral reformation in first centuries A.D., [140], [141];
• in religious guilds and philosophy, [141];
• its relation to Logic and Literature, [142], [143];
• in Epictetus, [143 ff.];
• moral gymnastic, [147];
• askesis, [148 ff.];
• the “philosopher,” [150 ff.];
• contents of ethical teaching, e.g. in Epictetus, [152 ff.]
• Ethics, Christian, [158-170].
• Compared with Greek, [158];
• its basis and characteristic idea (sin), [158], [159];
• agreement upon value of conduct, [159];
• the “Two Ways,” [160], [161];
• Apost. Const. Bk. i., [161];
• discipline, earlier and later, [162-164];
• Christian askesis, [164-168];
• deterioration of average ethics, [168], [169];
• victory of Greek ethics in Roman Law of Rights, [169], [170].
• Evolutionary ideas among the Gnostics, as regards creation, [177], [190-193];
• revelation, [257 ff.];
• genesis of the Logos, [263 ff.]
• Exorcism in relation to Monism, [20], especially [n.];
• in Baptism, [307], [308, n. ¹].
• Faith (πίστις), history of its usage, [310 ff.];
• in Old Testament, [310], [331];
• Greek philosophy, [311];
• Philo, [311], [312].
• Christian form issuing in the Creed, [313 ff.];
• relation to New Testament Canon, [319 ff.]
• Further speculative development, [321], [322];
• “gnosis” by the side of “pistis,” [323 ff.] and [339-341];
• check found in consensus of Bishops, [326];
• expansion of Creed, [327];
• contrasted uses of term “belief,” [328];
• majority and minority views, [229];
• recapitulation, [330].
• Fitting, the, as a Stoic category, [153], [154];
• root of “officium” and “debitum,” [154], [155].
• “Generation, eternal,” [267];
• essential, [268];
• Origen’s contributions, [ib.]
• Gnosis (γνῶσις) as a tendency, [129], [130];
• side by side with “pistis” in Catholicism, [130-134], cf. [323 ff.] and [339-341];
• as well as in Neo-Platonism, [133].
• Gnosticism between two fires, [9];
• allegorizes the Old Testament, [70];
• also the Gospel, [75].
• Its cosmogonies, [190];
• evolutional types, [190-198];
• hypothesis of a lapse, [198];
• opposition from without and within, [193 fin.];
• Basilides on matter and God, [195], [196].
• Idea of transcendence, [251]:
• e.g. Basilides and Marcus, [254].
• Modalism, [257 ff.]
• Connecting link with the Mysteries, [305 ff.];
• e.g. unction and sacramental realism, [306], [308], [309].
• Attitude to tradition and the Scriptures, [325].
• Grammar in Greek education, [28 ff.]
• γραμματική, and γραμματιστική, [28 fin.];
• its elements, [29], [30].
• Guilds: see [Associations].
• Hellenism characterized, [13], [14].
• Heresy, original use of term, [340, n. ³].
• Hippolytus, [6];
• his theory of creation, [203].
• History, its difficulties and rewards, [22-24].
• Homer in Greek thought, [51 ff.];
• in Christian theology, [69], [70].
• Homily, the, [109-113].
• Homoousios (ὁμοούσιος) shared senses of “ousia,” [272];
• first used of God by the Gnostics, [274];
• its ambiguity, [274-276].
• Hyparxis (ὕπαρξις) = “hypostasis,” [275], especially [n. ²].
• Hypostasis (ὑπόστασις), relation to “ousia,” [275];
• gradually specialized = πρώτη οὐσία, [276 f.];
• further defined by aid of “prosôpon” (πρόσωπον) through use of “persona,” [277], [278];
• usage often doubtful, [278].
• ἱεράρχης and cognate terms for ministrants, [303, n. ¹].
• Immortality in the Mysteries, [289], [290].
• Initiation (τελετή): its stages, [284, n. ³];
• its idea, [285].
• Proclamation, [285], [286];
• confession and baptism (κάθαρσις, λουτρόν), [287];
• sacrifice, procession, &c., [287], [288];
• mystic drama, its nature, [288-290].
• Inspiration in Greece, connected with rhythm, [51].
• Irenæus, [8]:
• his theory of creation, [202], [203];
• on Justice and Goodness in God, [228];
• on free-will, [231];
• his Logos doctrine, [262], [263], cf. [266, n. ¹], [267, n. ⁴];
• view of the Eucharistic elements, [302, n. ¹].
• Judaism as basis of Christian theology, [238], [239].
• Justin Martyr, [8];
• on Christianity and philosophy, [126];
• on free-will, [231];
• on God’s transcendence, [253];
• Logos doctrine, [261], [262];
• genesis of the Logos, [266];
• nature of the Logos, [267], [268].
• Logoi (λόγοι), Stoical (= laws), [180];
• compared with Platonic “ideas,” [181], [182], cf. [180];
• appear in Philo’s “forces,” [185];
• their sum the Logos, [176], [180], [182].
• Logos, the, in Philo, [247 ff.];
• relation to God, [249], [250];
• and “logoi,” [259-261];
• growth of Logos doctrine, [261-263];
• genesis of the Logos, [263], [264];
• προφορικὸς and ἐνδιάθετος, [265, n. ¹];
• nature of the Logos, [267], [268].
• Lucian and the Antiochene exegesis, [81], [82].
• Marcion, his ditheistic tendency, [227], [230];
• his idea of a Canon, [321];
• his literal method, [325].
• Marcus: syncretistic grouping of metaphors under term “logoi,” [190];
• God’s transcendence, [255].
• Maximus of Tyre, [6];
• quoted for God’s transcendence, [242].
• Mediation of God’s transcendence: see [Logos].
• Metaphysics and revelation, [137], [138].
• Modalism, its two types, [257 ff.]
• Monachism: parallel of Greek and Christian, [167], [168];
• a reaction, [348], [349].
• Monarchianism a witness to older “Monarchia,” [206], [207].
• Monism, in baptism and exorcism, [20];
• its basis, [175];
• Stoic, [175-177];
• self-evolution of God, [177].
• Montanism: a survival of “prophecy,” [107];
• a reaction, [339].
• Mysteries: their connection with allegory, [66];
• Greek, [283];
• initiation at Eleusis, [284 ff.];
• together with religious guilds affect Christianity, [292 ff.];
• generally, [293];
• specially as to Baptism, [294 ff.];
• and Lord’s Supper, [300 ff.];
• culmination of influence, [303-305];
• Gnostics a bridge, [305 ff.]
• General result, [309].
• μύησις, μυσταγωγός, [296], [297].
• Natura: see [φύσις].
• νόμος καινός, [158], cf. [159-162] (especially [note]).
• Novatianism a Puritan reaction, [347], [348].
• Ocellus Lucanus on idea of transcendence (supra-cosmic), [242, n. ¹].
• Origen, [8]:
• his apologetic use of allegorism, [77], [78];
• defence of it, [80];
• his cosmogony a theodicy, [204-206];
• its grand scale, [233-237];
• shapes Logos doctrine, [267] (especially [n. ⁴]), [268];
• his De principiis the first dogmatic system, [323].
• Ousia (οὐσία), three Aristotelian senses [(i.) = hylê; (ii.) = substantia concreta; (iii.) = subst. abstracta], [269], [270].
• Its later history in Platonic realism, [271], [272].
• Difficulties in its application to God, [273 f.];
• not popularly understood, [279].
• Paul of Samosata, his case, [345], [346], cf. [326].
• Persona appropriated for hypostasis, [277], [278].
• Philo and Philonian writings a valuable bridge, [7], [128], [182];
• his allegorism, [67-69];
• his “literal” v. “deeper” sense compared with Christian exegesis, [72];
• God the ultimate cause, [182], [183];
• monistic elements, [183], [184];
• dualistic, [184], [185];
• his “forces,” in plurality, [185], [186];
• and unity, [186], [187];
• but God is Creator or Father, [187], [188];
• God’s transcendence, [244 ff.];
• intermediaries, [247];
• distinctions in God’s nature, [247 ff.]
• Philosophy in Greek education, [32 ff.];
• as a profession, [40 ff.];
• its “damnosa hereditas,” [138];
• its decay amid dogma, and legacy to Christendom, [280], [281].
• Philosopher, the, as moral reformer, [150];
• outward marks, [151].
• Platonism and Christianity, [81], [129];
• its theological affinity, [238];
• Plato author of transcendence proper, [240], [241], and [n. ¹];
• God’s transcendence, [241-243];
• dæmons, [246].
• Plotinus on transcendence, [243];
• genesis of Logos, [266, n. ⁵].
• Plutarch, [6];
• quoted for transcendence, [242];
• immortality through “initiation,” [289].
• Poetry, its place in the Greek mind, [51 ff.]
• Political analogies in the Church, [331].
• Preaching and “prophesying,” [105 ff.];
• of composite origin, [107-109];
• the “homily,” [109-113].
• Prophecy and divination, [72], [73];
• and apologetic, [74];
• died with formation of Catholic Church, [107].
• πρόσωπον, how used, [278], especially [n. ¹];
• see [hypostasis].
• Ptolemæus, on God’s transcendence, [251];
• his idea of “Æons,” [258 fin.], [259].
• Puritanism in early Church, [347], [348].
• Pythagoreanism and Christianity, [81], [129].
• Religion, its political aspect to the Roman, [21];
• connected with usage (νόμος), [21, n.]
• Revelation and metaphysics, [137], [138].
• Rhetoric, Greek, [87], [88].
• “Rule of Faith:” see [Faith].
• σοφός, its later usage, [26].
• Sophistic, its genesis, [87], [88];
• mainly on lines of the older Rhetoric, [88-90];
• popularized in διαλέξεις, [91];
• and itinerant, [92-94];
• manner of discourse, [94-97];
• its rewards, [97], [98];
• and airs, [99].
• Objections, [99-101];
• reaction led by Stoics like Epictetus, [101-105].
• Speculation, its true place in Christianity, [332], [333].
• State, its interference with doctrine, [279 f.], [345-347].
• Stoicism: its view of substance, [19, n.];
• and the moral reformation, [141 ff.];
• its ethics in Ambrose, [169];
• ethical affinities with Christianity, [238];
• dæmons, [246].
• Substantia at first = hypostasis, then ousia, [277], cf. [278].
• Supper, the Lord’s:
• extra-biblical developments, [300 ff.];
• in Didaché, [300], [301];
• Apost. Const. Bks. ii. and viii, [301];
• the “altar,” its “mysteries,” the sacred formula, [302] and [n. ⁶];
• “priest,” [303];
• culmination in Dionysius, [303], [304];
• realism first among Gnostics, [308], [309].
• Symboli traditio, [298]:
• cf. contesseratio, [344].
• σφραγίς, of baptism, [295].
• Tatian:
• his view of creation, [196];
• free-will, [231];
• on genesis of Logos, [266, n. ¹] and [n. ⁵], [267, n. ³].
• Teaching profession, [37 ff.];
• endowed, [38];
• excused public burdens, [39].
• τελετή, τελεῖσθαι: see [initiation], cf. [296].
• Tertullian, [8];
• his Stoic view of substance, [19, n.], [20, n.], cf. [254];
• on Christianity and philosophy, [126], [127];
• the Conservatives, [131], [257, n. ¹];
• on creation, [197];
• on God as just and good, [229];
• on free-will, [232];
• transcendence in him supra-cosmic, [254];
• genesis of the Logos, [265, n. ¹];
• nature of the Logos, [268];
• on ecclesiastical tradition and speculation, [322].
• Theodore of Mopsuestia as exegete, [82].
• Theophilus on creation, [196];
• God’s transcendence, [253];
• on genesis of Logos, [265, n. ¹], cf. [268].
• Transcendence, as of absolute Unity, Being, Mind, [240];
• in Plutarch and Maximus, [242];
• Plotinus, [243];
• its two forms, [244];
• Philo, [244], [245].
• Absent from earliest Christian teaching, [251 f.];
• appears in Apologists, [252], [253];
• Gnostics, [254 f.];
• Alexandrines, [255 f.];
• mediation of, [256 ff.], especially [257, n. ²].
• Unction of (1) exorcism, (2) thanksgiving, [307], [308], especially [n. ¹].
• φύσις (= natura), later use = ousia, [278];
• sometimes = hypostasis, [ib.]
• φωτισμός, of baptism, [295].
• Writing as mysterious, [50].

Richard Clay and Sons, Limited,
BRUNSWICK STREET, STAMFORD STREET, S.E.,
AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.