[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.