Chapter III: God as the Supreme Being (5)

[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. 100_b_, 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.