Chapter XIV: The Christian Church and the Greek Philosophy. Part II (2)

3. A god who was not personal and did not make man,—man in whom freewill, the mark of personality, was not recognised, so long as he lived, and in whom after death no personal agent continued to exist,—these correspond to each other, and these were the last result of Græco-Roman philosophic thought up to the time of Claudius. But what sort of duty did man, being such, owe to such a god? Cicero’s book on Offices had been written upwards of eighty years, but nothing that followed it during that time equalled it in reputation or ability. It was the best product that his Roman thought could draw from all the preceding Grecian schools: and it was accepted for centuries as the standard of heathen morality. Let us, then, first note that in this book(457) there is nothing like a recognition of God as the Creator and Common Father; no call upon the human soul to love him as such, and for his own perfections; no thought that the duty of man consists in becoming like to him, nor his reward in attaining that likeness. The absence of such a thought gives its character to the whole book, and measures its level. The second point to be noted is, that the happiness of man consists not in being like God, and consequently, in union with him, but in virtue, which is living according to nature. In his reasonable nature everyone possesses a sufficient standard of moral action under every circumstance which may arise. Thirdly, throughout the whole of his treatise Cicero makes no use of the doctrine of man’s immortality. His happiness, then, is left to consist in virtue—life according to reason, which again is life according to nature—without respect to any future state of existence. Now, if Cicero stood alone in these three points, his book would only represent his own authority, but he is in fact the mouthpiece herein of that whole preceding heathen philosophy which he criticised, and from which he selected. Even Plato himself, by far the highest and best of Greek philosophers in this respect, though he had in single expressions indicated that the happiness of man was to be made like to God, constructed no system of ethics in dependence on that conception, which, if it be true, is of all-constraining influence, and is to the whole moral system what the law of gravity is to the material universe. Plato’s ethical system was a strict deduction from his physical theory of the three parts in man, to each of which he assigned its virtue. Far less did Aristotle connect morality with God. The Stoics, indeed, who occupy by far the largest space in Greek philosophy, seem to be an exception. It is said that “their whole view of the world springs from the thought of the Divine Being who generates all finite beings from himself, and includes them all in himself, who penetrates them with his power, rules them with his unchangeable law, and thus merely manifests himself in them all;” so that their system “is fundamentally religious, and scarcely an important statement in it which is not in connection with their doctrine of God;” and so with them “all moral duties rest on a religious ground, all virtuous actions are a fulfilment of the divine will and law;”(458) but then this God is but a name for the sternest and most absolute system of material necessity: a God without a moral nature; without freedom; without personality; under that name, in fact, force and matter making up one thing are substituted for a living God, who, in virtue of the laws of nature, is swept out of his own universe. So, again, Cicero’s statement that man’s happiness consists in virtue, which virtue is life according to nature, is the general doctrine of philosophy, which the Stoics in particular had elaborated. If there be any one expression which would sum-up in a point the whole heathen conception of what man should do, it would be “Life according to nature.” So, again, the exclusion of any thought of immortality, and a consequent retribution, in its bearing on morality, was common to all the schools of Grecian thought, if we except the faltering accents and yearning heart of Plato, and most of all was truly stoic. The imperfection and unclearness of their view as to the divine personality, and as to the human, in the reasonable being, the image and reflection of the divine, accords but too truly, while it accounts for, this detachment of man from God in the field of moral duty.

4. What, then, remained to man after such deductions? There remained the earthly city, the human commonwealth. And when, passing beyond the bounds of any particular nation, and man’s civil position therein, philosophy grasped the moral life as the relation between man as man,(459) and conceived human society itself as one universal kingdom of gods and men, it made a real progress and reached its highest point. But this was the proper merit of the Stoics.(460) Plutarch attributes to Zeno, their founder, this precise idea, that we ought not to live in cities and towns, each divided by peculiar notions of justice, but esteem all men as tribesmen and citizens, who should make up one flock feeding in a common pasture under a common law. The grandest passages of Cicero are those in which he clothes in his Roman diction this stoic idea, as for instance:(461) “They judge the world to be ruled by the power and will of the gods, and to be a sort of city and polity common to gods and men, and that everyone of us is part of this world.” The bond of this community is the common possession of reason,(462) “in which consists the primal society of man with God. But they who have reason in common, have also right reason in common. And as this is law, we are as men to be considered as associated with the gods by law also. Now they who have community of law, have likewise community of rights. This latter makes them also to belong to the same polity. But if such pay obedience to the same commands and authorities, then are they even much more obedient to this supernal allotment, this divine mind and all-powerful God. So that this universal world is to be considered one commonwealth of gods and men.” “Law is the supreme reason, implanted in nature, which commands all things that are to be done, and prohibits their contraries.” “The radical idea of right I derive from nature, under whose guidance we have to draw out the whole of this subject-matter.” Thus the great Roman lawyer and statesman, robing philosophy in his toga, propounded to his countrymen, full of the greed of universal conquest, with no less lucidity than truth and beauty, the result of stoic thought, that human society in general rested on the similarity of reason in the individual, that we have no ground for restricting this common possession to one people, or to consider ourselves more nearly related to one than another. All men, apart from what they have done for themselves, stand equally near to each other, since all equally partake of reason. All are members of one body, since the same nature has formed them out of one stuff, for the same destination.(463)

Greek philosophy has undoubtedly the merit of bringing out into clear conception this purely human and natural society. It thus expressed in language the work of Alexander, and still more the work of the Roman empire, as it was to be; and more than this, it herein supplied a point of future contact with Christian morality. The advance from the narrowness of the Greek mind in its proud rejection of all non-hellenic nations, and no less from the revolting selfishness of Roman conquest, is remarkable. And it is an advance of philosophic thought. As the older thinkers considered the political life of the city to be an immediate demand of human nature, so the Stoics considered the unitedness of man as a whole together, the dilatation of the particular political community to the whole race, in the same light. Its ground was the common possession of reason. The common law which ruled this human commonwealth was to live according to the dictation of reason, that is, according to nature, in which therefore virtue consists,(464) being one and the same in God and in man, and in them alone.(465) Such virtue branches into four parts, the prudence which discerns and practises the truth; the justice which assigns his own to each; the courage which prevails over all difficulties; the self-restraint and order which preserves temperance in all things. These being bound up together cover the whole moral domain, and embrace all those relations within which human society moves, and, as having their root in the moral nature of man, are a duty to everyone.

This human commonwealth enfolds in idea the whole earth. It is the society of man with man. But it closes with this life. It has no respect to anything beyond. It was the Stoics who most completely worked out this system of moral philosophy; who urged the duty of man’s obedience to nature, of his voluntary subjection to that one universal law and power which held all things from the highest to the lowest in its grasp; and who likewise most absolutely cut him off from any personal existence in a future state. The virtue in which they placed his happiness was to be complete in itself; it was the work of man without any assistance on the part of God.(466) It made man equal to God. It found its reward in itself. If it was objected that the highest virtue in this life sometimes met with the greatest disasters, sorrows, pains, and bereavements, the system had no reply to this mystery. It did not attempt to assert a recompense beyond the grave.

As little did it attempt to account for or to correct the conflict between man’s reason and his animal nature. That perpetual approval of the better and choice of the worse part stood before the Stoic as before us all. He admitted that the vast majority of men were bad, and his wise man was an ideal never reached. But he had no answer whatever to the question, why, if vice is so evil in the eye of our reason, it so clings to our nature; why, if so contrary to the good of the mass, it dwells within every individual.(467)

The human city or community of men is the highest point which this moral philosophy contemplates. Each particular commonwealth should be herein the image of the one universal commonwealth which their thought had constructed. But what, then, is the relation of the individual man to the whole of which he is a part? This nature, which is the standard to the whole ideal commonwealth, is, as we have seen so often, in fact a law of the strictest necessity. If virtuous, man follows it willingly; if vicious, he must follow it against his will. There was no real freedom for the individual in the system as philosophy. What was disguised under the name of law, reason, and God, was a relentless necessity before which everyone was to bow. But transfer this philosophy to any political community, and consider in what position it placed the individual with regard to the civil government. Human society is considered as supreme: but his own state represents to him that society, and as all things end with this life, no part of man remains withdrawn from that despotism which requires the sacrifice of the part for the good of the whole. Man’s conscience had no refuge in the thought of a future life; no reserve which the abuse of human power could not touch. And so we find that in matter of fact there was no issue out of such a difficulty but in the doctrine of self-destruction. They termed it in truth _The Issue_,(468) when disease, or disaster, or pain, or the abuse of human power, rendered it impossible any longer to lead a life in accordance with nature. In this case all the Stoic authorities justified it, praised it, and termed it the Door which divine Providence had benignantly left ever open.

While therefore it must be acknowledged that the stoical conception of the whole earth as one city(469) was a true result of Greek thought, and at the same time the highest point it reached, and a positive result of great value, yet it must also be said that it was one rather big with rich promises for the future than of any great present advantage: for it required to be impregnated and filled with another conception of which its framers had lost their hold, the doctrine, that is, of a future retribution, redressing the inequality, the injustice, the undeserved suffering so often falling upon virtue in the present life. When that conception came to complete and exalt the Stoic idea, the need of self-destruction as an issue of the wise man, as soon as he could not live according to nature, ceased, for man himself ceased to be a part of a physical whole governed by necessity. The human city relaxed its right over the individual in presence of a divine city, which embraced indeed man in his present life, but taught him to look for its complete realisation in another.

The human commonwealth, however, extended in idea to the race itself, as possessing reason in common, and individual man therein, as well as the whole aggregate, viewed as being ruled by the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance, but both the commonwealth and the individual terminating with this life, was the last word of heathen philosophy up to the time of Claudius.

We have seen that from the time the Greek race was absorbed in the Roman empire the systems of philosophy were broken up by the eclectic spirit, which, engendered within already by the ferment of opinions, was strengthened and developed by the accession of the practical Roman mind. Variety of belief is indeed marked as “the essential feature of Greek philosophy” from its outset, and “the antagonist force of suspensive scepticism” as including some of its most powerful intellects from Xenophanes five hundred years before to Sextus Empiricus two hundred years after the Christian era. One of its historians stamps it as “a collection of dissenters, small sects each with its own following, each springing from a special individual as authority, each knowing itself to be only one among many.”(470) It is therefore no wonder that if Plato’s grand conception of an immortal line of the living word thus came to nought, philosophy proved itself much more incapable of founding a society impregnated with its principles than it had even been of constructing a coherent doctrine which should obtain general reception. And to judge of the actual impotence of philosophy in the century ending with the principate of Claudius, we must rest a moment on this second fact. Philosophers calling themselves Platonic, Peripatetic, Sceptic, Stoic, Epicurean, or these in various mixtures, were to be found at the various seats of learning, Athens, Rhodes, Alexandria, for instance, or at Rome as the seat of empire, or travelling like wandering stars over her vast territory, but these scattered, nebular, and disjointed luminaries shone with a varying as well as a feeble light, which rather confused than satisfied human reason. They were utterly powerless to transfer their doctrine into any number of human hearts living in accordance therein. The only exception to this statement seems to prove its real truth. By far the most united of the sects was that of the Epicureans, who held with great tenacity to their founder’s views and mode of life, which may be summed up in denial of God and Providence, and enjoyment to the utmost of this world’s goods; the fair side of it being a general benevolence, courtesy, friendship, in short, a genial appreciation of what we understand by the word civilisation. These antagonists of Stoic principles and of the highest morality which heathen thought had constructed were the most numerous of existing sects, and we are told that hundreds of years after their founder’s death they presented the appearance of a well-ordered republic, ruled without uproar or dissension by one spirit, in which they formed a favourable contrast to the Stoics. With the exception of a single fugitive, Metrodorus, never had an Epicurean detached himself from his school.(471) We must give philosophy the credit of this single instance of a capacity to create a social life in accordance with its tenets in a sect whose doctrines were a reproach among the heathens themselves. The failure of Pythagoras, of Plato, of Aristotle, of Zeno, was the success of Epicurus, and at the same time the announcement that the age of Augustus and Tiberius was ready to expire in sensuality and unbelief, and even in exhaustion of the philosophic mind, for no period is so barren of scientific names, which carry any weight, as the fifty years preceding Claudius.(472) We have seen above that all these philosophers aimed at forming a society which should carry out their principles; that this was their original and their only idea of teaching; that with a view to make it permanent they created a chair of teaching, a living authority who was to continue on their doctrine. But the chair of Plato alone presented(473) five Academies with dissentient doctrines; and a Platonic or Stoic city no one had seen. Thus viewing their united action upon the polytheistic idolatry we may say that while they could discredit its fables in reflecting minds, while they could even raise an altar in their thoughts “to the unknown God,” they left society in possession of the temples and observant of a worship which they pronounced to be immoral, monstrous, and ridiculous. They had destroyed in many the ancestral belief; they had awakened perhaps in some a sense of one great Power ruling the universe; but having taken up the religious ground and professed to satisfy man’s desire for happiness, they had been utterly powerless to construct a religion. They failed entirely in the union of three things,(474) a dogma and a morality founded on that dogma, both of which should be exhibited, brought before the eyes and worked into the hearts of men by a corresponding worship. To unite these three things was needed an authority of which above all they were destitute. Their dogma was without the principle of faith; their morality without binding power; but the worship which should blend the two they had not at all. And so they presented no semblance of the society which should carry these three things in its bosom, and they could not in the least satisfy the doubts or the yearnings which they had raised.

But the period beginning with the rise of Greek philosophy and ending with the principate of Claudius will ever remain of the highest interest and importance as showing what human reason, putting forth its highest powers in the race in which it culminated, but at the same time more thoroughly separated from belief, tradition, and authority than anywhere else, did actually achieve. It is in this respect that the heathen philosophers, together with the poets and historians who precede the publication of the Christian religion in the Roman world, possess a value far beyond any intrinsic merit of their own. It is a study of pathology the results of which are far as yet from being gathered in. It is only by carefully examining what the philosophers taught in theology and morals—for they aspired to be and were both the theologians and the moralists of those ages—that we can at all form an adequate judgment of the real work which the Christian Church has wrought in the world. It is only by using the historians and poets as a mirror of that general society to whose cultured classes the philosophers spoke, that we can estimate what the great mass of mankind then was, and what effect the philosophers produced on them. The difference between their world and their society and ours is the measure of Christian work. The hundred years preceding Claudius, which include in them almost all the greatest names of Roman literature, are the most important of all in this point of view, both as containing the result of scientific thought in the five preceding centuries, and as giving the depth of the moral and intellectual descent. We learn from this whole long period the fulness of the truth conveyed in those words of the angelic doctor at the commencement of his great work: “Even for those things which can be investigated concerning God by the force of human reason, it was necessary for man to be instructed by a divine revelation, because few only, and they after long inquiries, and with the admixture of many errors, would convey to man the truth concerning God as searched out by reason.”(475)

What the philosophers from the time of Thales had taken as their special work was to measure and estimate the visible world. And for the last four centuries of this period especially they made the nature and the needs, the supreme good and the happiness of man their chief concern, in subordination to which they continued their physical inquiries. And surely the judgment which an inspired writer formed of their travail must recur to the mind with great force at the end of the preceding review: “If they knew so much as to be able to estimate the visible world, why did they not more easily discover its Lord?”(476) Why from the goods which they beheld had they not power to know the sole possessor of being, nor when they gave attention to his works, recognised their artificer? Why did they esteem fire or breath, rapid air or circling stars, or the force of water, or the lights of heaven rulers of the universe? For if the visible beauty of these delighted them so that they conceived them to be gods, how did they not draw the conclusion that the Lord of these was so much better than they? for it was the Author of beauty who created them. If they were struck dumb with the sense of their power and operation, why did they not conceive how much more powerful He who made them was? For from the greatness and the beauty of creatures the parent of them is by the force of reason discerned.(477)

From their capital error in this—which the same writer declares to be inexcusable(478)—proceeded their other errors concerning man, his nature, his supreme good, and his final end. It is here sufficient to note that down to the age of Claudius there is no appearance that either of these great errors would be corrected: and still less any appearance of the rise of a great religion which would cause the multitudinous altars of heathenism to disappear before the altar of the unknown God, and would construct a City of God in the midst of that population in the thinking minds of which divergent systems of philosophy had eaten out belief in the babel of false gods without implanting belief in a personal Creator, the author and the end of man.

INDEX.

_Academies_, the five, of Plato’s school, 480.

_Adam_, his headship, 60, 62, 65;
its result seen in his fall, 67.

_Alexander_ the Great, effects of his conquests on Greek life, 436, 455.

_Alexander Severus_, his treatment of Christians, 244.

_Antoninus Pius_, extension of the Church in his reign, 197;
treatment of it under him, 227-233;
what aspect the Church bore to him, 233-7.

_Apollonius_, a senator, martyred under Commodus, 302, 209, note 37.

_Apostolic age_, result of, 186-7.

_Aristotle_, his character as a philosopher, 429;
his view of the soul, 430;
relation of his philosophy to religion, 433;
conception of the method of teaching, 420;
what he says of Socrates, 390;
his account of the generation of the Platonic doctrine of Ideas, 400.

_Athanasius, S._, 26, 32, 34, 37, 98.

_Athenagoras_, 182.

_Athens_, worship at, 5.

_Augustine, S._, his contrast of Heathenism with Christianity, 172-5;
on the moral influence of Polytheism, 21-4, 27, 30, 33;
how the Second Divine Person is the Truth, 51;
Adam and Christ, 76, 77, 84, 110;
the Church Christ’s Body, 99;
and at once his Temple, House, and City, 88;
also the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon men, 97;
dowered with Christ’s Blood, 144;
Christ and the Church one Man, 57, 144;
believing Christ, without believing the Church, is decapitating Christ,
105;
crime of denying that the Catholic Church will for ever continue in its
unity, 106;
the Word made flesh that He might become the Head of the Church, 107;
the Holy Spirit Vicarius Redemptoris, 115, 119, 124, 125, 139;
asserts the perpetual Principatus of the Roman See from the beginning,
290;
describes the uses of heresy, 281-2;
admits of no charity but in the unity of the Body, 130, 139;
coherence of the natural and mystical Body of Christ in the Eucharist,
103;
what the Church will be hereafter, 112.

_Augustus_, his idea of the Roman empire, 2;
prospects of Polytheism at the end of his reign, 46.

_Aulus Gellius_, 421.

_Beugnot_, Destruction du Paganisme, 43, 44.

_Captivity_ of man to the devil, 27-30, 33-8, 69;
its full reversal as seen in the Body of Christ, 112.

_Carneades_, 447.

_Catholic_, term used of the Church by S. Ignatius about A.D. 115, and by
the Church of Polycarp fifty years later, 206.

_Celsus_, 179, 197, 230, 231, 234.

_Champagny_, 16, 182, 241, 243, 305, 475, 480.

_Christ_, declares Himself to be a king, 49;
His kingdom that of Truth, 50-4;
the counterpart of Adam as an individual, 76;
as Head of a race, 77;
as making one Body with His people, 79;
parallel in His natural and mystical Body, 96;
analogies between them, 97;
coherence of both in the Eucharist, 103;
His action permanent in His kingdom, 81;
in His House, 86;
in His Body, 88;
in His Bride, 91;
in the Mother of His race, 92;
His five distinct loves, 93;
His Body imperishable, 104;
crime of imputing falsehood to it, 105;
force of its corporate unity, 110;
gifts which He bestows on it, 125;
connection of Truth with His Person the principle of persecution, 182;
His Passion repeated in His people, 185;
His work summed up by S. Augustine, 172-5.

_Chrysostom, S._, 87, 101, 109, 220, 224.

_Church_, the, the Kingdom of Truth, 81;
the House of Christ, 86;
the Body of Christ, 88;
the Bride of Christ, 91;
the Mother of His race, 92;
the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon men, 97;
as such, the treasure-house of Truth and Grace, 100, 120-2;
conveys the fruits of the Incarnation, 101, 143;
is imperishable and incorruptible, 105;
possesses Unity, Truth, Charity, and Sanctity as coinherent gifts of the
Spirit, 125-8;
bestows forgiveness of sins, faith, adoption, and sanctification on the
individual, 128-31;
unity of its jurisdiction, 146;
analogy between it and the relation of soul and body, 133;
between it and the human commonwealth, 134;
between it and the natural unity of man’s race, 135;
transmission of truth in it, 148, 166;
by a triple succession, 156-161;
development of the Truth its proper work, 168;
its divine life as opposed to heathenism, 171;
its witness of Christ’s confession in the first ten generations, 184;
its first persecution by Nero, 191;
growth in the time of Antoninus Pius, 195;
picture of it by S. Ignatius, 199;
its treatment of heresies, 204, 206, 258, 265, 274, 276;
bearing of Trajan to it, 209, 215;
of Hadrian, 221;
of Antoninus Pius, 226;
of Marcus Aurelius, 292;
of Commodus, 302;
of Septimius Severus, 302;
its position in the third century, 308;
its organic unity as set forth by S. Cyprian, 325-334;
power of its idea on Christians, 340;
expresses Christ in its moral character, its worship, and its
government, 341-5;
persecuted by Decius, 356;
by Valerian and Aurelian, 361;
by Diocletian, 362;
obtains freedom from Constantine, 371;
how affected by Roman law between A.D. 64 and 313, 371-3.

_Church_, a mother or cathedral church only so called, 253.

_Churches_, public, when first known to exist at Rome, 308.

_Cicero_, states the work of Socrates, 391;
representative of Eclecticism, 450;
sources of his philosophical works, 451;
what he says of the atomic theory, 464;
his book _de Officiis_ the standard of heathen morality for centuries
after him, 468;
his statement of the Stoic idea of the world as one republic of gods and
men, 471;
his conception of virtue in general, 471, 473;
his partition of the cardinal virtues, 473;
virtue not a gift of God, but the work of man, 474.

_Cleanthes_, his hymn quoted, 461.

_Clement_, Pope S., 191, 194.

_Clement_, of Alexandria, 278, 287, 303.

_Commodus_, 243, 302.

_Cyprian, S._, his statement of the Church’s organic unity founded on the
Primacy given to Peter, 326-331;
puts the force of the Episcopate in its unity, 147, 332-4;
repudiates a parallel between the twelve tribes of Israel and the
Church, on the question of unity, 334;
agreement of his witness with that of S. Paul, S. Ignatius, and S.
Irenæus, 349;
his conversion, described by himself, a type of heathen conversion in
general, 336-8;
describes the relaxation produced by the long peace of the Church before
the Decian persecution, 350-2;
his martyrdom, 358;
says the Emperor Decius would much rather endure the appointment of a
rival emperor than of a Bishop of Rome, 356.

_Cyril, S._, of Alexandria, 54, 55;
on the Fall and the Restoration, 136;
to become a Christian is to enter into unity with Christ both physical
and spiritual, 137.

_Dante_, 422.

_Decius_, 356.

_De Rossi_, 252.

_Diocletian_, 362.

_Diognetus_, author of letter to, marks the Christians as one body and
people, but diffused everywhere, circ. A.D. 100, 318.

_Dionysius, S._, archbishop of Alexandria, prizes martyrdom for the unity
of the Church more highly than for resistance to idolatry,
345.

_Döllinger_, Heidenthum und Judenthum, quoted or referred to, 5-13, 25,
196, 386, 401, 402, 407, 409, 410, 429-31, 438, 441, 442,
445-47, 456, 458, 461, 479, 480;
Hippolytus und Kallistus, 248, 256, 257.

_Domitian_, his persecution, 94.

_Eclecticism_, how it arose in Greek Philosophy, 448;
becomes universal, 450.

_Epicurus_, his conception of the method of teaching, 424;
his doctrine, 442.

_Episcopate_, the, triply defended by scripture, by institutions, and by
continuous personal descent, 163;
one and undivided, 327;
like the unity of the Godhead, 333;
which is effected by the Primacy, 334.

_Eucharist_, coherence of natural and mystical Body of Christ in, 102-3;
called by S. Ignatius that flesh of our Saviour Christ which suffered
for our sins, 202, note.

_Eusebius_, 150, 209, 251, 253, 302, 304, 361, 363, 364, 366, 367, 369.

_Forgiveness of sins_, doctrine of, guarded by triple succession of
teaching, of men, and of sacraments, 162.

_Freewill_, no room for it in the physical theory of Greek philosophy,
_e.g._ in Plato, 410, 411;
in Aristotle, 432;
in Stoicism, 440-1;
in all the schools, as to God, 461-5;
as to man, 465-7;
bearing of this on civil government, 475.

_Future life_ of man as a personal being, why not held by Greek
philosophy, 467, 470;
absence of it from Cicero’s _de Officiis_, 468.

_Grace_, Adam created in, 62, 64;
loss of this gift in the Fall, 66;
grace as restored in Christ, 136;
grace in the God-man, 77;
as in Adam and as in the God-man compared, 53;
as bestowed through the headship of the God-man, 78;
as seen in the Body of Christ, the counterpart of the body of Adam, 79;
grace, with truth, makes “the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon men,”
97, 117;
the human fountain of this double power in the created nature of Christ,
121;
whence it is transfused into the Church, His Body, 122, 123-6;
grace, as given to the Church complete and indefeasible, 127;
as given to the individual may be withdrawn, 131;
actual bestowal of this grace on the Church, 138-142;
grace necessary for the acceptance and maintenance of truth, 155-6, 167,
170-2, 269;
grace, truth, and unity, viewed by S. Cyprian as inseparable, 332-3.

_Greek mind_, its standing-point, 380;
represents human reason more than any other ancient race, 382;
aided by a matchless language, 379;
ripens in the most beautiful of climates, 378;
pervades the whole East from the time of Alexander, 455;
is married to Roman power in the empire, 456;
is the great intellectual opponent of the Christian mind and Church,
375;
criticises polytheism for six hundred years, 376;
its outcome up to the time of S. Peter’s founding the Roman Church,
475-484;
why its philosophy disbelieved a future life, 467, 470.

_Grote_, Plato, 377, 402, 412, 413, 420, 421, 427, 478.

_Hadrian_, grandeur of Rome in his days, 240;
treatment of the Church, 221-3;
puts to death S. Symphorosa and her sons, 224-6.

_Hagemann_, die römische Kirche in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 209,
257, 273, 289, 352, 354.

_Hasler_, Verhältniss der heidnischen und christlichen Ethik, 468.

_Heathenism_, what it is, 59, 70, 72;
contrasted with Christianity, 79, 170-2;
by S. Augustine, 172-5;
its disregard of the value of moral truths, 177-9.

_Heresy_, subserves the enucleation of doctrine, 281;
the determining the Canon of the New Testament, 284;
brings out full statements of the principle of tradition, 286;
promotes extension and corroboration of the hierarchy, 288;
temper of, described by Irenæus, 270;
by Tertullian, 276;
by Clement of Alexandria, 278, 279;
by S. Augustine, 282.

_Herodotus_, the travelled Greek gentleman, 377.

_Idolatry_, Asiatic, its turpitude, 25;
division of gods, how far it could go, 27.

_Ignatius, S._, Bishop of Antioch, his picture of the Church in his day,
199-203;
his martyrdom, 215;
his recognition of the Roman Primacy, 218;
power of his intercession attested by S. Chrysostom, 219;
the Eucharist, that flesh of our Saviour Christ which suffered for our
sins, 202;
“Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”, 206;
completeness of a diocesan church called τὸ ἴδιον σωματεῖον, of the
whole church τὸ ἒν σῶμα τῆς ἐκκλησίας, 220.

_Innocent I._ Pope S., 255, 347.

_Irenæus, S._, 113, 264;
guilt of those who divide the great and glorious Body of Christ, 138;
on the Church’s unity of belief, 264-6;
gives the descent of the Roman See to his time, 267;
affirms its superior principality, 267;
sets forth the Church as the treasure-house of truth and grace, 268-9;
distinguishes the perpetual teaching office in her, 269, 287;
contrasts her truth with the variation of heresies, 270;
summary of his doctrine on the Church, heresy, the Primacy, tradition,
271-4;
one of a chain between S. Paul, S. Ignatius, and S. Cyprian, 349;
speaks of the number of martyrs, 339;
himself martyred with many of his people, 303;
speaks of “the tradition of the Apostles” as the whole body of truth
which they communicated, 198;
speaks of the “founding and building” of Sees, 255.

_Junius Rusticus_, 293.

_Jurisdiction_, spiritual, its unity, 146;
emanates from Christ’s Person, 342;
is the expression of His sovereignty, 345.

_Justin, S._, his martyrdom, 294-8;
his _Apologia_ quoted, 227-30;
marks Christians as one people and body, 319;
censures Jewish conduct in defaming Christians, 189;
describes the extension of Christianity in his time, 197.

_Kellner_, Hellenismus und Christenthum, 182, 197, 306.

_Kleutgen_, die Theologie der Vorzeit, 62, 63, 287.

_Kuhn_, Einleitung in die katholische Dogmatik, 291.

_Lactantius_, 363, 364, 365, 366.

_Lasaulæ_, Fall des Hellenismus, 192.

_Laurence, S._, his martyrdom, compared with a contemporaneous incident,
358.

_Liguori, S. Alphonso_, 141.

_Man_, various states of: state of pure nature, 60;
state of integrity, 61;
state of original justice, 62;
state of, after the fall, 67;
how summed up in Adam, 64, 71;
effect of his being a race, 59;
force of his social nature, when fallen, 72;
when restored, 108-110;
his corruption viewed as a fact of modern science, 58.

_Marcus Aurelius_, treatment of the Church, 292, 299-301.

_Martyrdom_, said by S. Irenæus to be frequent in the Church, but not
deemed necessary by the sects, 339;
losses to the Christian body by it contrasted with those of civil war,
by Origen, 324;
a continuation of Christ’s confession before Pilate, 184;
its spirit the tissue of early Christian life, 238;
identified with “perfect charity” by S. Ignatius, 217;
termed “the chalice of Christ” by S. Polycarp, 300.

_Maximus of Tyre_, a teacher of Marcus Aurelius, his notions of God, 293.

_Merivale_, History of the Romans, 19, 203, 210.

_Möhler_, 59, 132, 135, 159.

_Nero_, importance of his act in raising the first persecution, 191.

_Newman, Dr._, the natural beauty of Greece, 381;
the martyrs soldiers of Christ, 185.

_Oral teaching_, viewed as the only adequate instrument for conveying
doctrine by Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and all subsequent
Greek philosophers, 411-425;
the means by which the Word of God declared that His kingdom should be
propagated for ever, 166;
which, as a fact, is fulfilled in the apostolic age, 148;
and in all subsequent times, 157.

_Origen_, his heroic conduct in youth, 303;
agrees with Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, in the
principle of tradition, 280;
states the unity of the Church, 286;
treats the Church as a polity, and compares it with other polities, 320;
the Christian people one people, formed on the imitation of Christ, 322;
dies of ill-treatment under the Decian persecution, 323;
how Christ leaves His Father and Mother to espouse the Church, 114, note
43;
anticipates the universal prevalence of Christianity, 306;
on the number of martyrs, 324.

_Pantheism_, Stoic, and _Polytheism_, how they fitted into each other,
Zeller, 464, note.

_Passaglia_, 92, 97.

_Patriarchal Sees_, the three original all Sees of Peter, 343.

_Penance_, doctrine and practice of, in first half of third century, 351.

_Personality_, defective conception of, by Plato, in God, 409;
in man, 411;
by Aristotle, in both, 432;
by Stoicism, in both, 439, 440;
by all the Greek schools as to God, 460-5;
as to man, 465-7.

_Petavius_, 90, 56, 123.

_Peter, S._, his personal work in building the Church, 346.

_Peter and Paul, SS._, their martyrdom, 191.

_Phileas_, Bishop of Thmuis, his account of persecution in Egypt, 367-9.

_Philosophy_, what it is, 376, 377;
the Presocratic, 384;
its second period opened by Socrates, 386;
its four great schools at Athens, 436;
effect of the empire’s establishment on it, 457;
its negative effect, 458;
its positive effect, 460;
as to the divine unity and personality, 461-5;
as to man’s personality, 465-7;
as to man’s duties to God, 467;
as to the duties of man to man, 470;
its conception of the human commonwealth, 472;
its failure to construct a society ruled by its principles, 477.

_Philostratus_, 306.

_Plato_, applies Socratic principles to an ethical, logical, and physical
system, 398;
his doctrine of Ideas, 399;
his filiation with Socrates, 400;
his philosophy, and his idea of God, 401-6;
with which, however, he retains the inculcation and practice of the
popular religion, 406;
his God not absolutely personal, nor free, nor a creator, 408;
his ethical system, 410;
his conception of the method of teaching, 411;
his contrast between oral teaching and writing, as means of imparting
doctrine, 414-18;
his account in his own person of how real knowledge, ἐπιστήμη, is to be
attained, 425;
calls the art of Socrates mental midwifery, 392;
the highest point of virtue to become like to God, 433.

_Pliny_, the younger, his report of Christians to Trajan, 210;
compared in his conduct to them with Trajan and Junius Rusticus, 210,
note 38.

_Plutarch_, his statement of Zeno’s Politeia, 471.

_Polytheism_, of the Græco-Roman world, its multiplicity, 4;
universality, 12;
grasp on daily life, 13;
moral influence, 19;
absence of moral teaching in it, 23;
its internal cause in man, 26;
its external cause, 27;
its injuriousness to man, 30;
illogical character, 31;
superhuman power, 33;
relation to civilisation, 38;
to the empire’s constitution, 42;
to national feelings, 44;
to despotism and slavery, 45;
its prospects about A.U.C. 750, 46;
is the summing-up of human history before Christ, 58.

_Primacy_, S. Peter’s, defended by specific scriptural proof, unbroken
succession, and perpetual recognition, 164;
attested by S. Ignatius, 218;
by S. Irenæus, 267;
by Tertullian, 352;
by S. Cyprian, 326-331;
necessary to the Church’s unity, 146-8;
is linked with jurisdiction, and is the expression of Christ’s
sovereignty, 345;
brought out by the questions of penance, rebaptising heretics, and
keeping Easter, 351-5;
in it lies the unity of the Episcopate, 334.

_Pythagoras_, 377;
his attempt to construct a philosophic religious community, 412;
his conception influences Plato, and all subsequent Greek philosophy,
414.

_Real Presence_, defended by the succession of doctrine, of men, and of
institutions, 162.

_Rebaptisation_ of heretics, 353.

_Ruinart_, Acta Sincera Martyrum, quoted, 184, 207, 217, 226, 294, 300,
301.

_Sabbath_, the day changed, and the observance modified, by authority of
the Church alone, 165.

_Schmidt_, Geschichte der Denk- und Glaubensfreiheit, 194.

_Schwane_, Dogmengeschichte der vornicänischen Zeit, 261, 285, 287, 288.

_Scripture_, not used as the means for the first foundation of
Christianity, 148-50;
introduced as subsidiary to oral teaching, 150-2;
its great value in this light, 152-4;
relation hence arising of Scripture to the Church, 154;
instances of this relation, 161-5;
this relation set forth by our Lord for perpetual guidance of His
Church, 166-8;
the same, urged by Tertullian, 274;
by S. Irenæus, 268, 269;
by Clement of Alexandria, 278.

_Sects_, their multitude in early times, 204, 261, 270, 315.

_Septimius Severus_, maxims of government, 243, 248-50;
his persecution, 302.

_Socrates_, his person, 388;
influence on Greek philosophy, 387;
the Stoic type of the wise man, 424;
Zeller’s account of his special principle, 389;
that of Ueberweg, 390;
his opinion on the gods and the Godhead, 392-5;
his last words to his judges, 395;
last words of his life, 396;
halts between unity and plurality in the Godhead, 396, 397;
absence from his mind of the sense of impurity, 397, note.
Plato makes an ethical, logical, and physical system from his
principles, 398;
the filiation between them, 400;
his art termed mental midwifery by Plato, 392;
one of his statements compared with that of S. Paul, 393, note.

_Stoicism_, Epicureanism, Scepticism, three branches on one stem, 449.

_Suarez_, 60-2.

_Suicide_, termed the _Issue_ in Stoic philosophy, 476.

_Tacitus_, 190, 247, 248.

_Teaching office_, created by Christ, 166;
witnessed by S. Ignatius, 202;
by S. Irenæus, 266, 268, 269, 272;
by Tertullian, 274, 276;
by Clement of Alexandria, 278;
by Origen, 280;
alone carries both Tradition and Scripture as a living gift of the
Spirit, 287.

_Tertullian_, 4, 32, 37, 188, 192, 194, 197, 209, 246, 250, 251, 274, 276,
352.

_Thierry_, Amadée, 313, 481.

_Thomas Aquinas, S._, 28, 57, 81, 125, 483.

_Tillemont_, 209, 245, 249, 263.

_Tradition_, the whole body of Apostolic teaching so called, 149, 150;
ἡ παράδοσις, by S. Irenæus, 198;
Tertullian, 274-7;
Clement of Alexandria, 278;
Origen, 280.

_Trajan_, his treatment of Christians, 213;
of S. Ignatius, 215;
importance of his answer to Pliny, 221.

_Truth_, as meaning the whole body of the divine revelation, 140;
committed for its propagation to a society, 155, 166;
secured in it by a triple succession, 156-60;
its root in the Person of Christ, 51, 121, 181;
the gift of His Spirit, 121, 125, 127;
development of, 168;
in the hall of Pilate, 49;
its first transmission by oral teaching only, 148.

_Ueberweg_, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie des Alterthums,
quoted or referred to, 385, 387, 390, 398, 399, 400, 401, 412,
413, 414, 421, 422, 424, 428, 442, 450, 451, 453, 462, 479,
480.

_Varro_, divides theology into fabulous, natural, and civil, 19.

_Xenophon_, 390-5.

_Zeller_, Philosophie der Griechen, quoted or referred to, 377, 380, 381,
383, 385, 386, 388, 389, 400, 401, 403-6; 407, 408, 409, 410,
411, 412, 425, 429, 433, 434, 436, 437, 438, 443, 444, 445,
446, 447, 448, 449, 462, 469, 471, 472, 476.

_Zeno_, the Stoic, his conception of the method of teaching, 424;
his doctrine upon God and the soul, 438-442;
his conception of men as one flock feeding in a common pasture under a
common law, 471.

_Zukrigl_, 468.

FOOTNOTES

1 Tertull. _Apolog._ xxiv, “Ideo et Ægyptiis permissa est tam vanæ
superstitionis potestas, avibus et bestiis consecrandis, et capite
damnandis qui aliquem hujusmodi Deum occiderint. Unicuique etiam
provinciæ et civitati suus Deus est, ut Syriæ Astartes, ut Arabiæ
Disares, ut Noricis Belenus, ut Africæ Cælestis, ut Mauritaniæ
Reguli sui,” &c.; and Minucius Felix, Octavius vi., in like manner.

2 See Aug. _de Civ. Dei_, l. viii. 24.

3 Döllinger, _Heidenthum und Judenthum_, pp. 528, 529.

4 From _Heidenthum und Judenthum_, pp. 101-2.

_ 5 Heidenthum und Judenthum_, p. 480.

_ 6 Heidenthum und Judenthum_, p. 107.

_ 7 Heidenthum und Judenthum_, p. 469.

8 Ibid. pp. 468, 480.

_ 9 Heidenthum und Judenthum_, p. 344.

10 Ibid. p. 312.

11 “Epulæ, lectisternia, nudipedalia.”

12 These incidents are taken from various places in _Heidenthum und
Judenthum_, pp. 531, 549, 550, &c.

13 Champagny, _Les Antonins_, liv. v. c. 3.

_ 14 De Divinat._ ii. 72.

15 Valerius Max. i. c. 2, 3.

16 Merivale’s _History of the Romans_, ii. 447.

17 See Varro, quoted by S. Aug. _De Civ. Dei_, lib. vi. 5.

_ 18 De Civ. Dei_, l. vi. 5, 6, 7.

19 “Illam theatricam et fabulosam theologiam ab ista civili pendere
noverunt, et ei de carminibus poetarum tanquam de speculo resultare:
et ideo ista exposita, quam damnare non audent, illam ejus imaginem
liberius arguunt.” _De Civ. Dei_, vi. 9; id. vi. 7.

20 “Quæ sunt ergo illa sacra quibus agendis tales elegit sanctitas
quales nec thymelica in se admittit obscœnitas.” _De Civ. Dei_, vi.
7.

21 “Omnes cultores talium deorum—magis intuentur quid Jupiter fecerit,
quam quid docuerit Plato vel censuerit Cato.” _De Civ. Dei_, ii. 7.

_ 22 De Civ. Dei_, ii. 6. “Demonstrentur vel commemorentur loca—ubi
populi audirent quid dii præciperent de cohibenda avaritia,
ambitione frangenda, luxuria refrænanda.” See also sec. 28.

23 See _Heidenthum und Judenthum_, p. 398. Herodotus, i. 199. Baruch,
vi. 42-3.

24 See S. Athan, _con. Gentes_, 5-9. In like manner S. Theophilus, lib.
i. ad Autolyc. c. 2.

25 In order to form a notion how far this division of gods could
descend, and what an incredible depth of turpitude it reached, see
_De Civ. Dei_, l. vi. c. 9, de officiis singulorum deorum. Its
foulness prevents any adequate representation of it.

26 See S. Thomas, _Summa_, 2, 2, q. 94, a. 4.

27 Of this whole polytheism in the mass S. Paul pronounces the
judgment: Οἵτινες μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύδει, καὶ
ἐσεβάσθησαν καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα. Rom. i. 25.
And the Psalmist adds: Ὅτι πάντες οἱ θεοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν δαιμόνια; ὁ δὲ
Κύριος τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἐποίησεν. Sept. xcv. 5. See also Ps. cv. 37.

28 See John xii. 31; xiv. 30; xvi. 11; Luke xxii. 53; x. 19; Apoc. xii.
9; Heb. ii. 14; 1 John v. 18; Ephes. vi. 12; ii. 2; 2 Cor. iv. 3.

29 These two subjects occupy respectively the first five and the second
five books of S. Augustine’s _City of God_, where the argument is
carried out in great detail.

30 Rom. i. 20. See the Stoical argument for the unity of the deity in
Cic. _de Nat. Deor._ 2.

31 Tertullian _de Testimonio Animæ_, 2.

32 Οὔτω τοίνυν ἀλογωθέντων τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ οὕτω τῆς δαιμονικῆς πλάνης
ἐπισκιαζούσης τὰ πανταχοῦ, καὶ κρυπτούσης τὴν περὶ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ Θεοῦ
γνῶσιν. S. Athan. _de Incar._ 13.

33 See S. August. _de Civ. Dei_, viii. 24. “Immundi spiritus, eisdem
simulacris arte illa nefaria colligati, cultorum suorum animas in
suam societatem redigendo miserabiliter captivaverant.”

34 Called by S. Athan. ἡ τῶν δαιμόνων ἀπάτη—μανία—φαντασίαι. Thus _De
Inc._ 47. πάλαι μὲν δαίμονες ἐφαντασιασκόπουν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους.
προκαταλαμβάνοντες πηγὰς ἢ ποταμοὺς, ἢ ξύλα, ἢ λίθους, καὶ οὕτω ταῖς
μαγγανείαις ἐξέπληττον τοὺς ἄφρονας. Νῦν δὲ τῆς θείας ἐπιφανείας τοῦ
Λόγου γεγενημένης. πέπαυται τούτων ἡ φαντασία.

35 “Humana ante oculos fœde quam vita jaceret
In terris, oppressa gravi sub religione,” &c. Lucret. i. 63.

“Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas,
Atque metus omnes et inexorabile fatum
Subjecit pedibus, strepitumque Acherontis avari.”

Virg. _Geo._ ii. 491.

36 Acts xvi. 16.

37 1 Cor. x. 21.

38 Tertullian, _Apologeticus_, 23; S. Athanas. _de Inc._ 48; S. Aug.
_de Civ. Dei_, xxi. 6, who says, “Ut autem demones illiciantur ab
hominibus, prius eos ipsi astutissima calliditate seducunt, vel
inspirando eorum cordibus virus occultum, vel étiam fallacibus
amicitiis apparendo, eorumque paucos discipulos suos faciunt,
plurimorumque doctores. Neque enim potuit, nisi primum ipsis
docentibus, disci quid quisque illorum appetat, quid exhorreat, quo
invitetur nomine, quo cogatur, unde magicæ artes carumque artifices
exstiterunt.”

39 Merivale, iii. 496.

40 Beugnot, _Destruction du Paganisme_, i. 8.

41 ῥώμη, strength; _ruma_, a mother’s breast.

42 Beugnot, i. 17.

43 Οἱ ἐγχώριοι θεοί.

44 S. Aug. _de Trin._ l. xv. c. 14, tom. viii. 984.

45 S. Cyril. Alex. tom. v. 1, pp. 544, 557 a.

46 S. Cyril. Alex. _in Joh._ x. p. 858 b.

47 Petav. _de Trin._ lib. viii. c. 7.

48 An exception must be made in favour of Persia, where the original
monotheism was preserved with more or less corruption.

49 “Das Heidenthum ist nichts anderes als der gefallene und nicht
wiedergeborne Mensch im Grossen.” Möhler, _Kirchengeschichte_, i.
169.

50 Suarez, _de Gratia_, Proleg. 4, cap. i. sec. 3.

51 Suarez, _de Gratia_, Proleg. cap. ii. sec. 3.

52 Kleutgen, _die Theologie der Vorzeit_, ii. p. 559.

53 Suarez, _de Grat._ Proleg. 4, cap. v. sec. 3.

54 Kleutgen, _die Theologie der Vorzeit_, vol. ii. 650.

55 This is called by S. Peter 1. i. 18 ἡ ματαία ἀναστροφὴ
πατροπαράδοτος.

56 The apostle speaks here not of “wickedness,” but of a personal
agent, “the wicked or malignant one;” as the context shows. “He who
is born of God keeps himself, and the malignant one touches him not.
We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the
malignant one.” 1 John v. 18, 19.

57 Gal. iv. 4. τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου.

58 τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος. Rom. v. 14. “Forma futuri e contrario Christus
ostenditur.” S. Aug. tom. x. 1335.

59 “Adam unus est, in quo omnes peccaverunt, quia non solum ejus
imitatio peccatores facit, sed per carnem generans pœna: Christus
unus est, in quo omnes justificentur, quia non solum ejus imitatio
justos facit, sed per spiritum regenerans gratia.” S. Aug. tom. x.
p. 12 c.

60 John xvii. 4.

61 S. Thomas, _Summa contra Gentiles_, l. i. c. 1.

62 John xviii. 37. “Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I
born, and for this cause came I into the world, to bear witness unto
the truth.”

63 Acts i. 8; Luke xxiv. 49.

64 See S. Aug. tom. iv. 1039 e. “Ipse ergo Adam,” &c.

65 Οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐσμὲν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος ὅλος ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ
κεῖται; οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἥκει, καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν
διάνοιαν ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν; καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ
υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. 1 Joh. v. 19. Two persons are here opposed
to each other, ὁ πονηρός and ὁ ἀληθινός. Compare the Lord’s Prayer,
ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. Matt. vi. 13 and Joh. xvii. 14, 15. ἐγὼ
δέδωκα αὐτοῖς τὸν λόγον σου, καὶ ὁ κόσμος ἐμίσησεν αὐτοὺς, ὅτι οὐκ
εἰσὶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. οὐκ ἐρωτῶ ἵνα
ἀρῇς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα τηρησῇς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ.

66 Heb. iii. 1-6; Ephes. ii. 19-22; 1 Cor. iii. 9, 10-15; 2 Cor. vi.
16; 1 Peter ii. 4, 5.

67 Τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστὶ τὸ συνέχον τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα. S. Chrys. in
loc. Compare S. Irenæus, lib. i. c. 10. Τοῦτο τὸ κήρυγμα
παρειληφυῖα, καὶ ταύτην τὴν πίστιν, ὡς προέφαμεν, ἡ Ἐκκλησία, καίπερ
ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ διεσπαρμένη, ἐπιμελῶς φυλάσσει, ὡς ἕνα οἶκον
οἰκοῦσα.

68 S. Aug. in Ps. ix. tom. iv. 51.

69 Ibid. in Ps. cxxxi. tom. iv. 1473.

70 Petavius on the Headship of Christ.

71 Passaglia _de Ecclesia_.

72 S. Cyprian _de Unitate_, 5.

73 All these five relations between Christ and the Church are mentioned
in one passage of S. Paul, Ephes. v. 22-33.

74 Luke i. 35. Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπί σε, καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου
ἐπισκιάσει σοι. Acts i. 8. λήψεσθε δύναμιν, ἐπελθόντος τοῦ ἁγίου
Πνεύματος ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς. Luke xxiv. 49. ἕως οὗ ἐνδύσησθε δύναμιν ἐξ
ὕψους.

75 The Church is so called by S. Augustine.

76 These five are taken from Passaglia _de Ecclesia_, lib. i. cap. 3,
p. 34, 5.

77 Compare S. Athanasius _cont. Arian. de Incarn._ p. 877 c.—καὶ ὅταν
λέγῃ ὁ Πέτρος, ἀσφαλῶς οὖν γινωσκέτω πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραὴλ ὅτι καὶ Κύριον
καὶ Χριστὸν αὐτον ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὂν ὑμεῖς
ἐσταυρώσατε, οὐ περὶ τῆς Θεότητος αὐτοῦ λέγει, ὅτι καὶ Κύριον αὐτὸν
καὶ Χριστὸν ἐποίησεν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος αὐτοῦ, ἥτις ἐστι
πᾶσα ἡ ἐκκλησία, ἡ ἐν αὐτῷ κυριεύουσα καὶ βασιλεύουσα, μετὰ τὸ αὐτὸν
σταυρωθῆναι; καὶ χριομένη εἰς βασίλειαν οὐρανῶν, ἵνα συμβασιλεύσῃ
αὐτῷ, τῷ δι᾽ αὐτὴν ἑαυτὸν κενώσαντι, καὶ ἀναλαβόντι αὐτὴν διὰ τῆς
δουλικῆς μορφῆς.

78 S. Aug. serm. 267, tom. v. p. 1090 e.

79 Luke xxiv. 49 and John xvi. 13. ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας,
ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν; and 14, 15. ἐγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν
Πατέρα, καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν, ἵνα μένῃ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν
αἰῶνα, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας.

80 Plato.

81 πανταχοῦ συνάπτει καὶ συγκολλᾷ τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην, θαυμαστήν
τινα ξυνωρίδα. S. Chrys. 3d Hom. on Ephes. tom. xi. p. 16.