THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
FROM THE LIBRARY OF
ERNEST CARROLL MOORE
;,
r
Tt : CHRISTIAN PLATONISTS
OF ALEXANDRIA
BIGG
Yorfe
MACMILLAN AND CO.
112, FOURTH AVENUE
THE CHRISTIAN PLATONISTS
OF
ALEXANDRIA
EIGHT LECTURES
PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
IN THE YEAR 1886
ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE LATE REV. JOHN HAMPTON, M.A.
CANON OF SALISBURY
CHARLESlBIGG, D.D.
( , -*
Assistant Chaplain of Corpus Christi College, formerly Senior Student of
Christ Church, Oxford
OXFpRD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
NEW^YORK
MACMILLAN AND CO.
' i 886
[ All rights reserved ]
EXTRACT
FROM THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT
OF THE LATE
REV. JOHN BAMPTON,
CANON OF SALISBURY.
" I give and bequeath my Lands and Estates to the
" Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Oxford
" forever, to have and to hold all and singular the said Lands or
" Estates upon trust, and to the intents and purposes hereinafter
" mentioned ; that is to say, I will and appoint that the Vice-
" Chancellor of the University of Oxford for the time being shall
" take and receive all the rents, issues, and profits thereof, and
" (after all taxes, reparations, and necessary deductions made)
" that he pay all the remainder to the endowment of eight
" Divinity Lecture Sermons, to be established for ever in the
" said University, and to be performed in the manner following:
" I direct and appoint, that, upon the first Tuesday in Easter
' Term, a Lecturer may be yearly chosen by the Heads of Col-
" leges only, and by no others, in the room adjoining to the
" Printing-House, between the hours of ten in the morning and
"two in the afternoon, to preach eight Divinity Lecture
" Sermons, the year following, at St. Mary's in Oxford, between
"the commencement of the last month in Lent Term, and the
"end of the third week in Act Term.
-2298
vi Extract from the Rev. John Bamptons Will.
" Also I direct and appoint, that the eight Divinity Lecture
" Sermons shall be preached upon either of the following
" Subjects to confirm and establish the Christian Faith, and
"to confute all heretics and schismatics upon the divine
"authority of the holy Scriptures upon the authority of the
"writings of the primitive Fathers, as to the faith and practice
" of the primitive Church upon the Divinity of our Lord and
" Saviour Jesus Christ upon the Divinity of the Holy Ghost
"upon the Articles of the Christian Faith, as comprehended in
" the Apostles' and Nicene Creed.
"Also I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity Lec-
" ture Sermons shall be always printed, within two months after
" they are preached ; and one copy shall be given to the Chan-
" cellor of the University, and one copy to the Head of every
" College, and one copy to the Mayor of the city of Oxford, and
"one copy to be put into the Bodleian Library; and the
" expense of printing them shall be paid out of the revenue of
" the Land or Estates given for establishing the Divinity Lecture
" Sermons; and the Preacher shall not be paid, nor be entitled
" to the revenue, before they are printed.
" Also I direct and appoint, that no person shall be qualified
"to preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons, unless he hath taken
" the degree of Master of Arts at least, in one of the two Uni-
"versities of Oxford or Cambridge; and that the same person
" shall never preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons twice."
PREFACE.
NOT many words will be necessary by way of Prole-
gomena to this book. A glance at the Synopsis will
explain what I have undertaken; and the Lectures
themselves will prove with what means, in what spirit,
and with what success, the undertaking has been
achieved.
A Bampton Lecturer labours under some peculiar
difficulties. His eight discourses eight Stromatcis or
. Carpet Bags, if I may use the quaint phrase of Clement
will not pack away more than a limited, if somewhat
elastic, number of articles. I have preferred to omit
what could not comfortably be included, rather than
force things in, to the destruction of their proper shape
and utility. It is better to travel expcditus than to carry
about a mere collection of samples. But then it becomes
necessary to keep to the main lines of country, and not
wander off into every tempting nook, or down each
shadowy lane. The voyager may do this with safety, if
he makes careful note of the finger-posts and by-roads,
which others with more leisure and ampler means may
wish to investigate. I trust I have given such landmarks
as may enable the reader to check my own aberrations
from the king's highway, and to gather for himself any
further information that he may desire.
viii Preface.
The accomplished student will notice other deficiencies
of a more serious kind ; and here again the high-sounding
title of Bampton Lecturer entails a penalty. Quid
dignum tanto feret hie promissor hiatti ? I wish I could
take for my motto the words of Clement (Strom. i. i.
1 7), ' No book can be so fortunate, but that some will
find fault ; and that may be reckoned to have fared not
ill, which none can with justice censure.' It was a wise
as well as a graceful practice of older times to begin
every preface with the address Lectori Benevolo. All I
can hope is that my shortcomings are not due to slack-
ness or indolence, to want of consideration for my readers,
or of reverence for those bright stars of holiness, of
wisdom, of erudition, whose names occur in the following
pages. Here I may observe that the Bishop of Durham's
monumental work on Ignatius did not come into my
hands till too late to be of much service. I had deferred
the perusal till the completion of my own task should
have set me at freedom once more to become a learner,
not anticipating (as I ought to have done) that it would
in so many ways shed light upon my theme. It is
necessary to mention this, lest the reader should suspect
me, on one or two points, of a desire to controvert, with-
out reason given, the opinion of so illustrious a scholar.
One such point arises out of a passage in the Epistle
of Ignatius to the Romans (chap. 7) : ($>v yap y/3a</>o> vy.lv
ep<3i> TOV aiiodavtlv. 6 e/zos epcos eoravpcorai, /cat OVK CVTIV v
fj.ol irvp (J)iX6v\ov, v$b)p 8e &v nal \a\ovv ey e/xoi, eo-oo0eV juoi
\iyov' Aevpo Ttpbs TOV Trarepa. Origen (see Lecture V.
p. 1 88) translated the words 6 e/xo?
Preface. ix
' Meus autem Amor crucifixus est.' Dr. Zahn objects
to this ; ' Non Christum, quern solum amet, crucifixum
esse dicit Ignatius, quemadmodum plerique post
Origenem intellexerunt, nee vero eum, qui crucifixus est
amorem suum vocavit, sicuti graecorum verborum ignari
nonnulli halucinati sunt, sed suam rerum terrestrium
cupiditatem quasi crucifixam esse profitetur (cf. Gal. vi.
14).' It did not appear to me that a comment, which
attributed ignorance of Greek to Origen, called for special
notice. But as Dr. Zahn's conclusion has been adopted
and supported by the high authority of the Bishop of
Durham, it is no longer safe or respectful to pass over
the matter in silence. It is not indeed a necessary part
of my task to consider whether Origen was right or
wrong. Nevertheless as the Commentary on the Song
of Songs fostered, if it did not initiate, a remarkable
change in the expression of Christian love, it is of interest
to trace this change as near the fountain-head as possible.
I do not quite understand the point of Dr. Zahn's
assertion that Origen's rendering is bad Greek. He
may mean that e/xos ought not to be confounded with
dyaTrrj. Or he may mean that e/xos, which signifies the
passion of love, or the god by whom the passion was
supposed to be inspired, does not signify the object of
the passion, the darling or beloved one.
To the first question it is almost sufficient to reply, that
whether the confusion of epo>s and aya-nt] ought to have
been made or not, it certainly was made, not only by
Origen but by Clement (6 epao-ros of Christ, Strom, vi. 9.
72). And if by them why not by Ignatius? Origen, a
x Preface.
good Greek scholar pace Dr. Zahn, asserts that Ignatius
employed this hyperbole in the present passage. And
what other sense can the words convey? Can epo)?.
when used without limiting additions, signify ' earthly
passions,' ' carnal appetites ? ' Like our ' love,' of which
it is almost an exact equivalent, it may be applied to
base uses, but it is not, like k-iiiBv^ia, a base word. From
the time of Parmenides it had been capable of the most
exalted signification ; it is introduced here by the
participle ep<3i> in the sense of ardent spiritual desire ; it
is opposed in true Platonic fashion to TrCp <f>i\6vXov (we
have other Platonic phrases in this same Epistle : chap,
iii, ovSey ijnuv6ftPOV K.aX6v : chap, vi, /xTjSe v\r] KoA.a/cevo-rjre).
The second point is but a trivial one. It has been
remarked that epto? is almost an exact equivalent of
'love.' The exception is that in classical Greek it
perhaps never signifies 'the beloved.' Yet it may be
urged that all words indicative of strong feeling may
be used to denote the person by whom the feeling is
aroused my life, my joy, my dread, and so on and it
certainly would not be a very hazardous stroke to employ
in the same manner, though the usual term is 6
or 6 epacrros. Thus Fritzsche explains Theoc.
ii. 151, aiev Ipcoro? d/cparco e7rex*~o, and, even if this
instance is dubious, phrases like that of Meleager,
Anthol. Pal. v. 166, 77 vtos aAAos epco?, via vaiyvia, or that
of Euripides, Oed. frag. 551, Bind., fvbs 5' e/xoro? ovros ov
pC 77801/7], show how difficult it is to keep the senses
apart. Again, we have the closely allied words e/xoriAos
(Theoc. iii. 7), epom's (Theoc. iv. 59), and the common
Preface. xi
proper names Erotion (Plautus, Men. i. 2. 60 ; Martial,
v. 34 ; 37 ; x. 61) and Eros (Martial, x. 80 ; other
instances in Pape and Benseler), all blending in the same
way the ideas of ' love,' ' Cupid,' ' darling ; ' and the latter
at least denoting not sexual passion but the love of parent
for child (cp. Eurip. Erech. frag. 360, Dind., epare /^Tjrpo's,
TratSes, a>? OVK ear' Ipcos rotoCros aA.A.09 oorts fjbtav epay).
Lastly, in Alciphron, Epp. i. 34, we have the very phrase
of which we are in quest, 6 ejuos epcos Evdvbr]iJ.e. If then
there is any violation of usage in the expression of
Ignatius (on the supposition that Origen is right), it is
but slight, and cannot cause surprise in the case of
a writer who treats grammar like a slave.
The Bishop of Durham does not, as I understand him,
deny that Origen's rendering is admissible as a question
of Greek, but maintains that it ' tears the clause out of
the context.' But is this so?
What is Ignatius saying ? ' For I that write unto you
am living, but in love with death. My Love is crucified,
and in me there is no earth-fed fire, but living water
speaking in my heart and saying Come hither to ne
Father.' Why is he in love with death? Because
Christ, his Beloved, is crucified, and perfect union with
Him will be attained by death, a martyr death like His.
Because, his heart being with Christ, there is no fire of
sin to drown the voice that calls him. If we translate
as proposed by Dr. Zahn and the Bishop of Durham, we
not only do great violence to the word epco?, but lose an
impassioned phrase quite in harmony with the general
colour of this highly figurative and enthusiastic passage.
xii Preface.
Origen rarely misunderstands, except where some
strong prepossession deflects his judgment, and here his
mind was biassed rather in the other direction. Not-
withstanding the difference of time he was a strong con-
servative precisely where Ignatius was a bold innovator,
but in this one instance he sanctioned the new modes of
expression, which, as Liicke pointed out, were brought
into vogue largely through the influence of the martyrs,
and of Ignatius above all.
It remains only to express my gratitude to those who
have helped me on my way; to the authorities of the
Bodleian ; to Corpus Christi College (my alma nutrix to
whom I am indebted not merely for the loan of books
but for the will and power to profit by them) ; to the
Librarian of Christ Church, whose iron discipline has
been relaxed in my behalf ; and to many friends whose
advice, assistance and sympathy have been of supreme
value to me. One there is in particular, of a communion,
alas, that is not my own, on whose patience and erudition
I have been suffered to make prodigal drafts. To him I
could have wished to dedicate this book, Quicquid hoc
libelli Qualectmque, did I not know too surely that there
is much in it of which he cannot approve, and that I
should vex the modesty, which veils learning that would
grace a professed theologian, by adding his name.
CHARLES BIGG.
OXFORD :
Sept.1%, 1886.
SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS.
LECTURE I.
INTRODUCTION. PHILO AND THE GNOSTICS.
PAGE
THE MUSEUM OF ALEXANDRIA i
Influence of the Pagan University upon Christian thought only
distant and indirect .......
THE EGYPTIAN JEWS were the active mediators between
European and Oriental ideas ...... 2
Their wealth, numbers, and privileges ..... 3
The Septuagint and consequent outbreak of literary Activity .
Propaganda 4
Hellenism
Aristeas , 6
Aristobulus ........
Greek Philosophy ' stolen ' from the Jew .
Logos Doctrine before Philo .....
PHILO
Opposition to Anthropomorphism 7
Negative Conception of Deity 8
Limitation of the Analytic Method in Philo ... 9
Evil of Matter ......... 1 1
Hence Creation and Providence delegated to Subordinate
Powers .........
Relation of Powers to Angels, Logoi, Ideas, Demons . 1 2
The Two POWERS of GOODNESS and JUSTICE
Their indistinct Personality . . . . . . 13
Relation to earlier Jewish speculations . . . . 14
The LOGOS
History of the Term 15
Relation of the LOGOS to GOD
Wisdom .......... 1 6
Intelligible World
xiv Synopsis of Contents.
Schechinah .........
Eldest Son
Second God ......... 17
Relation of the LOGOS to the Two POWERS ....
Book of Creation ........
King's Architect
Charioteer .........
Relation of the LOGOS to the World
Seal. Divider. Bend .......
High Priest's Vesture
Creator 18
Helmsman, Pilot of Creation ......
Vicegerent of God
Relation of the LOGOS to Man
Heavenly Man
Mediator as Prophet and Law 19
as High Priest and Atoner ....
The Two LIVES, corresponding to the distinction between
GOD and the LOGOS 21
Faith and Wisdom. The Sensible and the Ideal
The Three Paths ........ 22
Vision, Ecstasy ........
Relation of Philonism to historic Judaism . . . . 23
Relation of Philonism to the Christian Church ... 24
Facilitated the definition of the Trinity . . . . 25
Impeded the understanding of the Atonement .
Intellectualism its good and evil . . . . . 26
THE GNOSTICS
Subordinate interest of Gnostic Metaphysics . . . . 27
Their predominant Ethical motive 28
Plutarch and the Heathen Gnostics . . . . . 29
The Chiistian Gnostics .........
Their Dualism ......... 30
Their Exegesis . .
Their Theory of Salvation ......
Christology of Theodotus . . . . . . 31
The Three Natures of Man 32
Eschatology 33
Relation of Gnosticism to Platonism 34
Mazdeism .....
Ebionitism
St. Paul
General Character and Effects of Gnosticism .... 35
Synopsis of Contents, xv
LECTURE II.
CLEMENT.
THE ALEXANDRINE CHURCH ......
Founded according to tradition by St. Mark .... 36
Its wealth and importance at the end of the second century
Its conservatism in ritual and discipline 38
Changes effected by Demetrius . ...
The College of Presbyters . . . . . . 39
The Suffragan Bishops ....... 40
The CATECHETICAL SCHOOL
Object of the Institution 41
Course of Instruction 43
The first Master ATHENAGORAS (?) . . . . 43
PANTAENUS
T. FLAVIUS CLEMENS .......
His Life 45
His Character and Attainments . . . . . . 46
His Love of Literature
And of PHILOSOPHY ........
Unity of Truth . 48
Science a Covenant of God
Apologists not unfriendly to Philosophy ^ 49
Philosophy brought into discredit by the Gnostics .
Clement proclaims its necessity to the Church . . 50
His position on one side Rationalist, on another M) stic . 5 1
The CANON OF SCRIPTURE
How far settled in Clement's time . . . . . 52
'Paulinism' . 53
The Unity of Scripture
Denied on moral grounds by the Ebionites . . 54
and by the Gnostics
Clement defends the Moral Law by maintaining the
essential identity of Justice and Goodness . . 55
And the Sacrificial Law on the ground of its per-
manent doctrinal value 56
ALLEGORISM the Key to the Unity of Scripture
General character of Alexandrine Allegorism .
Opposition to popular Theology .-7
Reserve . . 5^
xvi Synopsis of Contents.
PAGE
THE HOLY TRINITY
Universal admission of the doctrine in some shape or other . 59
Previous Speculation on the subject. Emanationism. Modalism
Difference between the Philonic and the Christian Logos
Doctrine .......... 60
The Prophoric Logos ........ 61
THE FATHER . .
Method of Clement
The Revelation of Scripture 62
Analysis or Elimination .......
The Monad 63
The Son the Consciousness of God 64
Kelation of Clement to Neo-Platonism ....
Futility of his Method 65
THE SON
His Personality. Coequality. Coetemity ... 66
Terminology of Clement . . . . . . . 67
Use of Philonic phraseology
Clement rejects the term ' Prophoric Logos ' . 68
Subordinationism strictly secondary in Clement . . 69
THE HOLY SPIRIT
His Personality not yet clearly defined .... 70
How far explained by Clement
Office of the Holy Spirit
Jealousy of Pantheism . . . . . . . 71
THE INCARNATION AND REDEMPTION .
The Human Soul of Jesus
Semi-Docetism
The Passion of Jesus undesigned by God .... 72
Christ the Light of the World
Hellenism in Clement's view of Redemption .... 73
The Ransom
Forgiveness ..........
Reconciliation and Propitiation . . . ' . . 74
Clement's Typology
Manifestation of Christ as Man in the Lower Life, as Physician,
Shepherd, Tutor, Lawgiver ......
In the higher Life as God, as Light, Truth, Life ... 75
As High Priest
Redemption the consummation of the spiritual development of
mankind
Synopsis of Contents. xvii
LECTURE III.
CLEMENT.
PAGE
CREATION
Denial of Pre-existence and of Eternity of Matter ... 76
The Six Days allegorised . . . . .
The Soul of Man . 77
THE ORIGIN OF EVIL
Opposition to Gnosticism . . . .
THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL 78
Departure from Plato and St. Paul 79
Rejection of Determinism .......
Indifferentism
Doctrine of ORIGINAL SIN unknown to Clement .... 80
Adam potentially not actually perfect
The Soul does not descend from Adam
Allegorism of the Fall 8 r
Infant Baptism not the rule at Alexandria ....
FAITH AND GRACE 82
THE BAPTISM OF REGENERATION 83
THE Two LIVES
Historical Conditions of Clement's view
Gnosticism and Paulinism
Legalism .........
Necessity of Discipline enhanced by the rapid expansion
of the Church 84
Social, moral, spiritual inequality amongst the brethren . 85
Distinction between Visible and Invisible Church not yet
familiar .........
Documentary sources of his view
Heathen Philosophy 86
Apostolic Fathers ........
Scripture
Characteristic Notes of the Two Lives
Faith, Fear, Holiness
Knowledge, Love, Righteousness .....
The Compromise between the Church and the World . . 87
Criticism of this VIA MEDIA
How different from Gnosticism
Breach of continuity between the Two Lives .
Egotism 88
Clement's treatment of Faith
And of Hope
And of Fear 89
b
xviii Synopsis of Contents.
PAGE
THE LOWER LIFE as described in the Pedagogue ....
Stoicism .......... 90
Aristotelianism
THE HIGHER LIFE
Described in terms borrowed from the Greek Mysteries . 91
Knowledge. Gnosis. The true Gnostic .
Indefectibility of Knowledge ......
Object of Knowledge 92
Holiness the indispensable condition of Knowledge .
Connection with Allegorism ......
Necessity of mental cultivation 93
Love
Relation to Knowledge
How affected by Stoicism and Platonism . .
Apathy
Disinterested Love 94
Relation of Clement's view to Mysticism .... 95
Stress laid upon Holiness
And upon Righteousness 96
And upon due use of the Means of Grace . . . 97
Silent Prayer
The indefectibility of Gnosis excludes Ecstasy ... 98
Connection of Christian Mysticism with the Song of
Songs 99
THE CHURCH
One 100
Holy ,
The Priesthood
The Gnostic the only Hiereus 101
Sacrifice. Altar. Incense
Penance
Spiritual Direction 102
The Eucharist .
Not separate at Alexandria from the Agape . . . 103
The Public Agape
The Aoxi? .........
The House-Supper
The Eucharistic Grace 105
It is Gnosis
ESCHATOLOGY ....
Resurrection
Pagan doctrine of Immortality 108
Variety of opinion in the Church
Synopsis of Contents. xix
PAGE
Resurrection of ' this flesh ' ... . 109
Chiliasm . . . . . . .
Belief in the nearness of the End of the World .
Various opinions as to Rewards and Punishments . no
Prayers for the Dead ......
Clement's own view in
The glorified body .......
The double office of Fire
Punishments ..........
Spiritual in nature ........
The prayers of the Saints . , , . . . 112
Possibility of Repentance till the Last Day
The State of the Blessed
All purged by Fire 113
The Seven Heavens ........
The Ogdoad of Rest . 114
The Poena Damni
The Beatific Vision .
LECTURE IV.
ORIGEN.
His LIFE AND CHARACTER 115-123
His WORKS
Textual Criticism .,.,.....
The New Testament . 123
The Hexapla 125
Origen's knowledge of Hebrew
The Controversy with Africanus . . . . 126
Exegesis
The Scholia 127
The Homilies
Church-buildings, Liturgy, Character of the Congre-
gation 128
Origen as a Preacher 129
The Commentaries
Their general plan 131
Origen's services as an Expositor of the real sense of
Scripture ........
ALLEGORISM
General difference between Clement and Origen . . 134
ba
xx Synopsis of Contents.
The Law of Correspondence
The Three Senses of Scripture 136
How distinguished .......
The Negative use of Allegorism . . . . 137
Denial of the Literal Sense
Reasons for this 138
Biographical interest of Origen's view . . 139
The Positive use of Allegorism
The Discovery of Mysteries
Economy or Reserve . . . . . . 141
The Two Lives in Origen
Scope and Purpose of Alexandrine Reserve
Erroneous inferences that have been drawn
from it 143
How far capable of defence . . . . 144
Objections to the Alexandrine method of Allegorism
It is seen at its worst on its Apologetic side . . 146
May be charged with dishonesty
Reasons for modifying this judgment
Its Positive use . .
Differing judgments 148
In application to the Old Testament it confounds
symbol with proof
In application to the Church of the Present it is the
expression of spiritual freedom and enlightenment . 150
In application to the Church of the Future it is open
to the charge of presumption ....
But this may be extenuated ....
LECTURE V.
ORIGEN.
The Regula Fidei .... ^ .... 152
Anxiety of Origen to keep within the Canon
His teaching always Scriptural 154
The Three Methods of Pagan Theology 155
The Christian Method
THE NATURE OF GOD.
The Negative Attributes .......
The Positive Attributes 157
God not Impassible 158
Our knowledge of Him inadequate but true
Synopsis of Contents. xxi
PAGE
God is Perfect, not Absolute . . . . . . . 159
Limitation of Creation
Eternity of Creation .
Optimism ......... 160
Divine Power conditioned by Goodness and Wisdom . 161
THE HOL Y TRINITY
Theodotus 162
The Noetians
Hypostasis. Ousia. Person. Substance .... 163
The Mystery of the Economy . ...... 166
THE FATHER 167
THE SON
His Hypostasis .
Coeternity. Coequality ........
Epinoiai of the Son 168
Essential Wisdom, Word, Light, Truth .... 169
Accidental Propitiation, Redemption, Mediation .
In what sense the office of Mediation ceases . . . 1 70
THE HOLY SPIRIT 171
His Relation to the other Persons undetermined
The title ' God ' 172
Coeternity and Coequality . . . . . . . 173
His Office .
THE UNITY IN TRINITY
The Translations of Rufinus . . . . . 1 75
Persons numerically but not locally distinct . . . . 1 76
The Allegorism of the Shew Bread
The Eternal Generation 177
Rejection of the terms ' Projection," ' Prophoric ' . . 178
UNITY OF PERFECT HARMONY
UNITY OF SUBSTANCE
The term Homoousios 1 79
UNITY OF DERIVATION 180
Subordinationism
Origen's view Scriptural, not Metaphysical . . 181
His object is to restrict the ancient idea of Subordina-
tion and expand that of the Equality of the Persons 182
Prayer to the Son 183
How limited by Origen .....
Conservatism of his language . . . . 1 86
Influence of his Commentary on the Song of
Songs . . . . . . J 88
xxii Synopsis of Contents.
THE INCARNATION Tscj
The God-Man
The Human Soul of Jesus .......
The Flesh of Jesus 190
The last trace of Docetism 191
The Humanity of Jesus eternal . . . . 192
LECTURE VI.
ORIGEN.
CREATION 193
The Eternity before and after this World ....
Disorder of Creation 194
Injustice, Inequality 195
Pre-existence
The First Heaven and Earth 196
Free Will. The Fall 197
The Visible Heaven and Earth
The Soul of Man 199
Philosophical objections to Origen's theory
Scriptural objections
Predestination ........ 200
Grace . 201
Original Sin 202
Origen did not at first hold this tenet
Grounds of his later belief
Infant Baptism
Law of Purification ...... 203
' Families ' in earth and Heaven
' Seed of Abraham ' 204
Fall of Adam
Descent of Sinless Souls . . . . . 205
The ' Reign of Death ' . . .
Sense of Guilt stronger in Origen than in Clement 206
THE FOUR REVELATIONS
THE NATURAL LAW 207
Position of the Gentiles
THE LAW OF MOSES 208
Not the cause of Sin
Idea of Development not so clear in Origen as in
Clement
Synopsis of Contents. xxiii
THE GOSPEL
The Two Lives
Faith and Wisdom 209
The object of Faith. ' Jesus my Lord and Saviour '. 210
The Epinoiai in their subjective aspect
Levitical Typology
Ransom. Redemption
Propitiation . . . . . . . 211
The Duplex Hostia 212
The Church
One and Catholic 213
The Promise to Peter
Rome ........
The Clergy 214
Symbolised by the Mosaic Hierarchy
The Dominion of Grace 215
Confession 216
Penance. Absolution ....
History of the Question ....
Origen's View 217
The Eucharist . . . . . . . . 219
Growing sense of reverence and mystery
In what sense the Eucharist is a Mystery . . 220
The Presence of Christ, in what sense Real . 221
THE ETERNAL GOSPEL 222
The Spiritual Church
Meaning and scope of the Eternal Gospel . . . 223
Hades and Paradise 224
The Day of Judgment
The Resurrection of the Flesh 225
The ' Germinative Principle '
Details of his View 226
The Aeons to Come 227
Enduring Freedom .......
Rise and Fall of the Soul 228
Uncertainty of Origen's opinion
The ' Refiner's Fire' 229
Punishment, its nature and object
General Principles of Origen . . . . 230
Scriptural basis
The word ' Eternal ' 231
The voice of Scripture ....
Vacillation of Origen. The Wedding Guest 232
The Demons .
xxiv Synopsis of Contents.
PAGE
The Consummation of All Things 233
The Beatific Vision . . . . . . . 234
The Poena Damni .
LECTURE VII.
THE REFORMED PAGANISM.
The Second Century an Age of Revival 235
ORIENTAL HENO THEISM 236
MlTHRA 237
Previous history of Mithraism ......
Redemption ....,.,... 238
Atonement *
The Taurobolium. Regeneration
The Mithraic Messiah
Mithraic Eschatology 239
Hierarchy. Sacraments
SARAPIS
Connection with Ebionitism and Valentinianism
And with Christianity 240
THE PHILOSOPHERS
The Belief in the Immortality of the Soul
THE PYTHAGOREANS 241
Their General Character
Their Rivalry with Christianity , . . . 242
THE LIFE OF APOLLONIUS ...... 243
Its Origin and Purpose 244
Outline of the Book 245
The Imperial Eirenicon ..... 247
THE TRINITARIAN PLATONISTS .... 248
History of the Platonic Trinity ....
The Platonic Letters 249
Platonic Monotheism, Ditheism, Tri theism . 250
NUMENIUS OF APAMEA
His Trinity 251
His Obligation to Philo 252
And to Christianity
His relation to Plotinus 253
Synopsis of Contents. xxv
THE UNITARIAN PLATONISTS ....
CELSUS 254
The True Word
Origan's Reply
Celsus not an Epicurean
His character, attainments, and temper . . . 255
Legal position of Christianity at this time . . 256
His criticism of the Gospel and the Law .
The One God 257
The Demons .258
Special Providence
Mediation. Revelation. Miracles .
The Two Lives ...... 260
Chief Points in the Debate .....
Knowledge of God in Christ. The Incarnation
A Priori Objections of Celsus . . . 261
Answer of Origen .......
Historical Objections of Celsus . . . 262
Answer of Origen. Christian Evidences . 263
The Word of God ....
Miracles
Prophecy 264
Sufferings of the Apostles .
Nature and Origin of Evil
Resurrection of the Body 265
Celsus' attempt at Reconciliation . . . . 266
Why not serve Two Masters ? . . . .
The real difficulty ; Form and Matter . . 268
LECTURE VIII.
SUMMARY.
CLEMENT
His after History
The Index of Gelasius 269
Photius 270
Neglect of Clement's Writings . . . 271
Clement VIII erases his name from the Martyrology . 272
Benedict XIV defends and maintains the erasure
Is Clement a Saint ? . ....
xxvi Synopsis of Contents.
PAGE
ORIGEN 273
His books condemned by Theophilus and Epiphanius . 275
And by Pope Anastasius and others ....
Condemnations of the Home Synod and the Fifth Council 2 76
Treatment of his Name . . . . . . 277
Importance of the Historical point of view . . . 279
ALEXANDRINE EXEGESIS 281
In what sense it survived .......
SPECIAL DOCTRINES
PRE-EXISTENCE . . , , , , . . 282
PAULINISM
How far understood by the Alexandrines . . . 283
FREE WILL AND GRACE
Doctrine of the Alexandrines 284
Doctrine of Augustine ...... 285
Confusions of Augustine's treatment of the Will
Superiority of his view of Grace . . . 288
Errors arising out of the incompatibility of
Augustine's doctrine of Grace with his general
ecclesiastical theory . . . . . 289
REDEMPTION 290
Doctrine of Origen .......
of Augustine ......
of Anselm
RESURRECTION 291
RESTITUTION ..,.,....
Clement and Origen not strictly speaking Universalists 292
In what sense Punishment is Eternal
Other opinions on the subject ..... 293
The Monks of Egypt and Palestine .
Diodorus and Theodore
The two Gregories ......
Jerome 294
The Doctrine of Purgatory .....
In the Greek Church 295
In the Roman Church
Distinction between the Doctrine of Purgatory and
the speculations of Origen . , . . 296
Relation of Origenism to our own belief . . . 298
Morality of the Alexandrine speculations . . . 299
Synopsis of Contents. xxvii
PAGE
QUIETISM
Relation of the Quietists to Clement . . . 300
Substantial justice of their condemnation . . . 30 1
GENERAL MERITS OF THE ALEXANDRINES . . 302
Reasonableness
Services against Gnosticism, Chiliasm, and Montanism . 303
Their Preaching of the Fatherhood of God
LECTURE I.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and*
the Word was God. ST. JOHN i. i.
I PROPOSE to offer in the Lectures, which I am to have
the privilege of delivering, a contribution towards the
history of Alexandrine Platonism in the Christian
Church. It will be my endeavour to sketch the con-
ditions out of which it arose in the teaching of Philo
and the Gnostics, to describe its full development in
Clement and Origen, to measure its reflex action on
Pagan religion and philosophy, and in conclusion to
estimate the value of its results, to ascertain, as far as
may be, the services it was enabled to render to the
Church and to humanity. It is not possible within
the limited time at my command to reap the whole
harvest of a field so large and so fruitful. But I shall
be able at any rate to show what profit is to be
looked for. And though we can only follow the
main outlines of the subject, we shall succeed perhaps
in gaining a just conception of a great crisis in the
history of the Church, and of the great men who
played a conspicuous part in it.
It was not without reason that the first systematic
attempt to harmonise the tradition of faith with the
free conclusions of human intellect was made neither
at Rome nor at Athens, but in Egypt. Yet it is not
to the famous University that we must look for its
2 The Pagan University. [Lect.
source l . Alexandria still possessed its three great
royal foundations, the Museum, the Serapeum, and the
Sebastion ; its three libraries, its clerical heads, its
well-endowed staff of professors and sinecure fellows.
Nor did these misuse their advantages. Though the
hope of imperial favour drew the more ambitious
teachers of philosophy and rhetoric irresistibly towards
Rome, letters were still cultivated, and the exact
sciences flourished as nowhere else by the banks of
the Nile. But the influence of the Pagan University
upon Christian thought was distant and indirect. The
Greek professor, throned beneath the busts of Homer
and Plato, regarded himself as an apostle of Hellenic
culture in the midst of an alien and barbarous race ;
and though a few, like Chaeremon 2 , may have bestowed
serious attention upon the monuments of the Pharaohs,
the impulse would scarcely have passed the limits of
a learned curiosity had it acted upon the Greeks alone.
It was in the mind of the Jew that Eastern and Western
ideas were first blended in fruitful union.
The Jews of Egypt, if we may credit Philo, numbered
not less than a million souls. In no city of the Empire
were they so wealthy or so powerful as at Alexandria.
Of the five regions of the town two were almost entirely
given up to them, and they swarmed in the other three.
1 The history of the Alexandrine University may be read in Matter,
Histoire de tcole (T Alexandrie, 2nd ed., Paris, 1840, or in Parthey's
excellent little book, Das Alexandrinische Museum, Berlin, 1838. There
is some interesting information in Mommsen's fifth volume. The ' sinecure
fellows ' are the dre\fis <f>t\6cro<poi. Hadrian gave one of those places to
a successful athlete; see Parthey, p. 94. I infer that the Sebastion or
Claudianum had a clerical Head : there is no doubt that it was so in the
case of the Museum or the Serapeum; cp. Mommsen, v. 569, 579.
a According to Mommsen, v. 579, Chaeremon was an Egyptian. See
Muller, Frag. Hist. Grace, iii. 495.
I.] The Alexandrine yews. 3
Many dwelt in the country districts also, and the con-
vents of their Therapeutae were to be found in every
nome 1 . They had their own senate and magistrates,
who apportioned the taxation and settled the disputes
of the community. They enjoyed -the rights of iso-
polity 2 , standing on an equal footing with the Greek
burgesses, and possessing immunities denied to the
native Copts. It is probable that the great corn-trade
offered them facilities which, with the commercial genius
of their race, they were not slow in turning to profit.
In more than one respect their position offers a striking
resemblance to that afterwards enjoyed by their country-
men in Spain.
For our present purpose the first great event in their
history is the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into
Greek. In whatever way this most ancient and famous
of all Versions came into existence, whether it grew up
gradually out of the interpretation of the daily lessons,
or was made by the order, and under the patronage of
Ptolemy 3 , it gave the signal for a remarkable outbreak
1 Philo, De Vita Cont. 3.
2 As to isopolity, see Dahne, i. p. 19. Egypt was governed by the
Emperor as a crown colony, and the dignity of all citizens was lower there
than in other provinces. But the Jews possessed the same privileges as the
Greeks. Burgesses were scourged when necessary by different officers, with
a different kind of rod, from the Coptic non-burgesses. Philo complains
bitterly that Flaccus had ordered eminent Jews to be flogged like Copts,
and not ra?y e\fvOepiojT(pats Kal iroXiTiKwrtpais pt&nftr. Tiberius Julius
Alexander, a Jew and nephew of Philo, attained to the equestrian dignity
and was made governor of Egypt by Nero, though at the cost of apostasy.
A vivid picture of the numbers, wealth, privileges, and unpopularity of the
Jews in Egypt will be found in Philo, In Flaccum. See Siegfried, Philo,
p. 5 ; Dahne, Geschichtliche Darstdlung der jiidisch-alexandrinischen Re-
ligions-philosophic, i. 16 sqq. For the magnificence of the Onias Temple
at Leontopolis and the great Synagogue at Alexandria, see Delitzsch, Znr
Gesch. der jiidischen Poesie, pp. 25 sqq.
3 The story of Aristeas has long been given up. Even that of Aristo-
B 2
4 The Alexandrine Jeivs. [Lect.
of literary activity. So far as this was apologetic and
propagandist, a branch of that new-born zeal which com-
passed sea and land to make one proselyte, its history,
character, and effect on pagan life and literature, interest-
ing as they are, lie beyond our scope *. But side by
side with this outward aggressive movement ran another
and a different one, the object of which was to appro-
priate, and to justify the appropriation, of Greek wisdom,
to reconcile Judaism with the culture of the Western
world. Even before the completion of the Septuagint
this tendency was at work. Platonism is discoverable
in the Pentateuch, Stoicism in the Apocrypha 2 . It is
bulus appears to be now generally rejected. According to the latter the
translation of the Law was made by the order and at the expense of
Ptolemy Philadelphia, whose instigator and agent was Demetrius Phalereus;
Eus. Praep. Ev. xiii. 12. 2. But, as Scaliger first pointed out, Hermippus,
a writer of very good note, relates that Demetrius Phalereus was banished
by Philadelphus, whose succession to the throne he had endeavoured to
prevent. This error discredits the whole statement of Aristobulus, and it
is accordingly more than doubtful whether the translation of the Pentateuch
was in any way encouraged by Philadelphus, though such a work suits very
well with his general character as a magnificent patron of literature.
Hence by some the translation is supposed to have grown up gradually out
of a custom introduced by Ezra. By the side of the reader of the Law
stood an interpreter (Meturgeman) who translated the lesson from Hebrew
into the vernacular tongue. See Delitzsch, Zur Geschichte der jiidisc hen
Poesie, p. 19; Redepenning, Origenes, ii. 158, 217; Siegfried, Philo, p. 7.
It is certain that the Septuagint Version was made at different times by
different hands. The Pentateuch, the oldest portion, dates from the first
half of the third century B. c. ; the Hagiographa, the most recent portion,
was in existence about 150 B.C. Schiirer {Geschichte des jiid. Volkes,
zweit. Theil, 1886, pp. 697 sqq.), says nothing about the Meturgeman, but
regards it as clear that the translation was originally a private work, and
gradually acquired official recognition. Tischendorf, Proleg. in Vettts Test.,
leaves the question of Ptolemy's co-operation undecided. Dr. Edersheim,
Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. i. p. 26 sq., accepts the account
of Aristobulus as substantially correct, and thinks that the whole transla-
tion was completed by 221 B. c. at latest.
1 The student will find full information in Schiirer.
2 The extent to which the translation of the Hebrew books is coloured
L] The Alexandrine Jews. 5
probable that every school of Greek philosophy, except
the ' godless Epicurean,' had its representatives among
the Alexandrine Jews. But the favourite was Platonism
as it was then understood, Platonism that is to say
hardened into a system, filled up and rounded off, in its
theology with Peripateticism, in its ethics with Stoicism.
The myths of the poet-philosopher have become dogmas,
and the central point of the whole is the enigmatical
Timaetis.
But in yielding thus to the fascinations of Greek
wisdom the Jew stumbled on many difficulties. His own
Scriptures he had been taught to regard as divine and
sufficient. If the doctrines of the Academy were true,
they were true only in so far as they coincided with the
word of God. Thus it became incumbent on the party
of the new learning for the satisfaction of their own
conscience to find Plato in the Law, and for the satisfac-
tion of their more scrupulous countrymen to find the
Law in Plato. These objects, though to some degree
facilitated by the Septuagint translators themselves,
could only be fully secured by violent means. Hence
by Greek philosophy is matter of doubt. Dahne, ii. 1 1 sqq., and Gfrorer,
Urchristenthum, ii. 8-18, find many traces of adaptation which are disal-
lowed by Frankel, Zeller, and Siegfried. But Siegfried admits that in Gen.
i. 2, % S( -yfj -qv aoparos ai aKaraaKtvaaros, there is an unmistakeable
reference to the Koa^os vorjros. The difficulty of decision arises in part out
of the fact that many ideas were common to the Rabbinical and the Hellen-
istic schools. But the statement in the text that the work of the latter
was facilitated by the LXX translators is amply borne out by the way in
which the latter (i) avoid anthropomorphic phrases thus the ' repentance
of God,' Gen. vi. 6, disappears ; (ii) substitute 0(6s and Kvptos for the
Tetragram; (iii) introduce the later doctrine of Guardian Angels, Deut.
xxxii. 8. This verse in its Septuagint form became in fact the foundation
of the doctrine which, if Rabbinical, is also certainly Platonic. The
influence of Platonism and Stoicism on the Book of Wisdom and Mace. iv.
is unquestioned. See Siegfried, Philo, pp. 6 sqq. ; Schiirer.
6 The Alexandrine Jews. [Lect.
the fable of Aristeas, which, transferring to the Greek
text the literal inspiration claimed for the Hebrew,
rendered possible the application of those modes of
interpretation, by which any language could be forced
to yield any sense desired. Hence again the fiction of
Aristobulus *, which asserted the existence of a previous
and much older translation of the Law. By this means
it was possible to argue that Plato was but ' an Attic
' Moses 2 ,' and a swarm of treatises on Plagiarism solaced
the weaker brethren with ample proof that all the best
sayings of all the Greek philosophers were ' stolen ' from
the Jew, and might lawfully be reclaimed. Thus fortified
the Hellenising party moved steadily onward in the
development of those ideas, which we now associate with
the name of Philo, because he is to us their sole expo-
nent. But in truth even the Logos doctrine, the key-
stone of the whole structure, was already in place when
he took up the work 3 .
1 Eus. Praep. Ev. xiii. 12. This positive statement is a pure fiction
(see Ewald, Gesch. des V. /., iv. 337, ed. 1864), made for the purpose of
supporting his assertion that the peripatetic philosophy was based upon the
Law and the Prophets. Clem. Strom, v. 14. 97. For the character and
influence of Aristobulus, see Valckenar, Diatribe ; Dahne, ii. 73 sqq. ;
Ewald; Zeller, iii. 2. 219 sqq. Schiirer defends Aristobulus against the
charge of forgery, maintaining that he was himself deceived by the
adulterated passages which he quotes. Cobet holds the same view; see
Preface to Dindorfs edition of Clement, xxv. But there is no ground for it.
2 The phrase is ascribed to Numenius by Clement, Strom, i. 22. 150.
Eusebius, Praep. Ev. xi. 10. 14, only says that it is with good reason attri-
buted to Numenius. But Clement's language is so clear and positive
(Nov i*.r}vios , . . avTiicpvs ypd<f>ei) that Schiirer (p. 830) cannot be right in
doubting whether that philosopher was really the author of the phrase.
3 Siegfried, p. 223 : ' Dass er auch hierin Vorganger hatte, deutet er selbst
an. So erwahnt er de somn. i. 19 (i. 638) eine altere Auslegung von Gen.
xxviii. n, welche den TOKOS auf den Logos bezog.' Zeller, iii. p. 628, insists
upon the remarkable passage in de Cherubim, 9 (i. 143) where Philo speaks
of both doctrines, that of the Two Powers and that of the Logos, as given to
I.] Philo. 7
It is only in a peculiar sense that Philo is to be called
a philosopher l . His works form a discursive commentary
upon the Law, taking up point after point, not in their
natural order, but as they spring out of the text before
him. And his object is not to investigate but to har-
monise. The idealism of Plato is to be discovered in
the history of the Patriarchs and the precepts of the
Law, and amalgamated with the products of Rabbinical
speculation. The religious interest is with Philo the
predominant ; hence he starts not with the analysis of
the act of knowledge, but with the definition of God. On
this theme two very divergent views were entertained.
Some of the Rabbis, relying upon those passages of the
older Scriptures, where the Deity is spoken of as wearing
the form and actuated by the feelings of humanity, were
Anthropomorphists 2 , and expressed this opinion in the
simplest and most direct fashion. Others, following the
him by special revelation. Philo, however, may mean only that the convic-
tion of their truth and the sense of their full import were imparted to him in
a divine ecstasy, as the knowledge of Christ was given to St. Paul in the
same way.
1 My guides to the understanding of the text of Philo have been Dahne,
GeschichtlicheDarstellungderjiidisch-alexandrinischen Religions-philosophic,
Halle, 1834 ; Grossmann, Quaestiones Philoneae ; Zeller ; and Siegfried, Philo
von Alexandria, Jena, 1875. The last is excellent and indispensable. All
other authorities on the subject will be found in Siegfried or in Schiirer, by
whom the list of German literature is continued down to the present year.
I have seen also the French writers Reville, Soulier, Vacherot, Simon.
For the relation between Philo and Rabbinical speculation, a point on
which I cannot pretend to form an independent judgment, I have relied
implicitly on Siegfried, with some assistance from Gfrorer and Maybaum. I
may refer the reader also to Dr. Edersheim's forthcoming article in the
Dictionary of Christian Biography, the proof-sheets of which I have been
enabled to use by the kindness of the learned author.
Zeller rates him higher than Dahne; iii. p. 594, ed. 1852: 'Was den
Philo von semen Vorgangern unterscheidet ist die Vollstandigkeit und
Folgerichtigkeit, mit der er ihren Standpunkt zum System ausgefuhrt hat.'
2 See Gfrorer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, Stuttgart, 1838, i. p. 276 sqq.
8 Pkilo. . [Lect.
lead of the Prophets, and developing the conception of
the Ineffable Name, refused to think or speak of Jehovah
except as a pure spirit. ' God sees,' said one, ' and is not
seen ; so the soul sees and is not seen V
For the Hellenist truth lay wholly in the latter con-
ception, which was maintained by the Peripatetic Aristo-
bulus, and developed by the Platonist Philo. In one
remarkable passage he comments upon the words 'it
repented God that He had made man 2 .' To accept such
language in its literal sense is impiety greater than any
that was drowned in the Flood. In truth God is not as
man, is not as the world, is not as heaven. He is above
space, being Himself Space and Place, inasmuch as He
embraces all things and is embraced of none; above time,
for time is but the register of the fluctuations of the
world, and God when He made the world made time
also. His Life is Eternity, the everlasting Now, wherein
is neither past, present, nor future. He is unchanging,
for the Best can change only by becoming worse, which
is inconceivable. Change, again, is the shifting of rela-
tions, the flux of attributes, and God has neither relations
nor attributes. Hence He has no name. Man in his
weakness is ever striving to find some title for the
Supreme. But, says Philo, 'names are symbols of
created things, seek them not for Him who is uncreated.'
Even the venerable and scriptural titles of God and Lord
are inadequate, must be understood as metaphors, and
used with reserve. The phrases that Philo himself
prefers to employ are ' the One/ ' He that is/ ' Himself.'
1 Gfrorer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, i. p. 289.
7 Qtiod Dcus Immtitabilis, 5 (i. 275) sqq. But I need not give detailed
references for this section. See Siegfried, 199 sqq. ; Dahne, i. 118 sqq.
I.] The Deity. 9
From all this it follows that God is incomprehensible.
, We know that He is, to know what He is transcends
the powers vouchsafed to man.
Thus in the extravagance of his recoil from materialism
Philo transformed the good Father and Lord of the Bible
into the Eternal Negation of dialectics. But Philo,
though he marked out the way for later transcenden-
talism, does not himself push his argument to its extreme
conclusion. He does not mean all that he appears to
say 1 . The analytic method is Aristotelian rather than
Platonic, and the influences of the Timaeus, of Stoicism,
of the Bible, all combine as yet to modify its rigour.
When Philo tells us that God has no qualities, we are
to understand that He is immaterial, and can therefore
experience none of those passions that attach to the
body 2 . Hence again He cannot be said to possess any
of those virtues, that depend upon the regulation of the
passions by the reason. But reason itself He possesses
in the same sense as man 3 . If He has no relations, this
1 Dahne, i. p. 127 sqq., regards Philo's conception of God as practical
Atheism. ' Er philosophirte aber auch gar nicht (wenigstens nicht znerst)
im Interesse des menschlichen Geschlechts, dem er freilich auf diese Weise
seinenGott raubte, sondern lediglich im Interesse dieses Gottesselbst' (p. 136).
Siegfried too thinks that he was only able to save religion by a want of
philosophic perspicacity, which enabled him to mix up the Stoic doctrine of
the Immanence of God with this theory of the Absolute without perceiving
that the two were irreconcileable. It is certain that Philo often speaks in
Stoic language of God, advancing at times to the very verge of Pantheism ;
Siegfried, p. 204 ; Dahne, i. 280 sqq. But he never for a moment ceases to
think of God in Platonic fashion as pure Spirit opposed to Matter. Whereas
to the Stoic Matter and Spirit were at bottom the same thing ; all is ulti-
mately resolved into Matter; Zeller, vol. iii. p. 77, ed. 1852. On the side
of theology Philo was no more really Stoic than St. Paul, who also did not
hesitate to use the language of Aratus. Those who wish to see what
theology becomes in the hands of a Stoic should read the Homilies.
2 See especially Quod Dtus Imm. n (i. 280).
3 See especially QuodDeus Imm. 6 (i. 276). God is changeless, not because
IO Philo. [Lect.
merely means that He wants nothing, and depends on
nothing, because He is perfect and the source of all that
is 1 . Philo does not intend to exclude the relation of
subject and object like Plotinus, who denies that God
can be said to think 2 . Again, if God is One, is incom-
prehensible, so too is the human mind. Of this also,
though it is our self, we know only that it is 3 . ' God,'
says Philo, ' possesses not intelligence only but reasoning,
and using these powers He ever surveys all that He has
made, suffering nothing to transgress its appointed
order V Neo-Platonism is already in view, but between
Plotinus and Philo there are several stages to be passed.
One of these is marked by the name of Basilides, another
by that of Clement.
It is evident that Philo was not prevented by any
metaphysical bar from attributing the work of Provi-
dence, or even of Creation, to the Deity. There was
however a grave moral difficulty. For the world was
He is a blank, but because He is perfect. ' Since then the soul of man by the
soft breezes of science and wisdom calms the surge and seething, roused
by the sudden bursting of the fierce blast of vice, and allaying the swelling
billows reposes in sunny and windless calm, canst thou doubt that the In-
corrupt and Blessed, He who has girded Himself with the might of the
virtues and perfection itself and happiness, suffers no change of mind ? ' He
is by no means the Aristotelian Deity who ' thinks Himself.' ... ' It is
clear then that the father must know his children, the artist his works, the
steward his charge, and God is in truth Father, Artist, Steward of all that
is in heaven or in the world.' Consciousness of the external does not in
Philo 1 s view imply change in God, who sees not as man sees in time, but
in eternity.
1 The idea of Relation is defined De mutatione Nominum, 4 (i. 583).
2 Enn. iii. 9. 3.
3 Legis Alleg. i. 30 (i. 62) : '/COTODS ovv o 'ASa.fi, rovreanv 6 vovs, r<i aXAa
ovoftafav ai KaTaXanfiavcav eavry ovofj.a OVK eirtTiOrjcriv OTI eavTov ayvoti ical
rfjv ibiav (pvffiv. De mut. Nom. 2 (i. 579) : KOI ri Oavfuicruv, ti TO ov avOpiii-
TTOJS a.Ka.Ta.\T)TTTov, oirore at 6 kv exaffTy vovs dyvuffTos fifjuv tan ; Ti'y ^nx^s
ovffiav fiStv ;
* Quod Deus Immut. 7 (i. 277).
I.] The Powers. 1 1
created out of pre-existing matter. And matter, though
eternal, was evil 'lifeless, erroneous, divisible, un-
equal 1 .' It seemed impossible to bring the Perfect
Being into direct contact with the senseless and cor-
ruptible 2 . Hence when Philo speaks of the royal or
fatherly operations of the Deity, he is generally to be
understood as referring not to God Himself but to His
Powers or Ministers. ' Though throned above Creation
He nevertheless fills His world, for by His power, reach-
ing to the utmost verge, He binds together each to each
by the words of harmony.' Here the meaning is so
obscure that it might pass without detection, but the
language that follows is more explicit : ' Though He be
far off, yet is He very near, keeping touch by means of
His creative and regulative Powers, which are close to
all, though He has banished the things that have birth
far away from His essential nature 3 .'
What are these Powers? On one side they are the
Angels, on whom a world of curious ingenuity had been
expended in the Jewish schools. On the other they are
1 Quis rer. div. haeres. 32 (i. 495). The idea that Matter is Evil, which exer-
cises so important an influence on the whole system of Philo, rests especially
on his explanation of Gen. i. 31, ' God saw everything that He had made,
and behold it was very good.' But He had not made Matter, and spoke no
praise of this. The belief in the pre-existence of Matter had found acceptance
among the Jews before Philo ; Siegfried, p. 230.
3 Devict. offer. I3(ii. 261): ovycip fyOefius dirtipovKoi irtfpvp/j.fj'TjsvXrjsif'a.veit'
. . . Oeuv. De confus. ling. 34 (1.431) : xpeios fj.ev yap ovSevos tarty u TOV iravrus
irarrip, us StioOai TJJS a<p' tTfpow ft (0t\oi 5i]fj.iovpyfjffai' rb 5 irpeirov opaiv kavrSi
re Kal TOIS fivofjifvois TUIS viTTjKoois Swd/jLeoiv lOTiv a 5iair\aTTttv (<pfJKtv.
Another more tender and certainly more beautiful way of expressing the
same thing is found hi passages like De mundi op. 6 (i. 5), where it is said
that God's goodness is bounded by the receptivity of His creatures. A
full revelation, an unlimited gift, would undo us. Compare p. 13, below.
Even God's Powers must divest themselves of their ' fire ' before they can
touch our weak and tainted nature without consuming it.
3 De post. Caini, 5 (i. 229).
1 2 Pkilo. [Lect.
the Logoi of the Stoic, the Ideas of the Platonist, the
thoughts of God, the heavenly models of things upon
earth, the types which, imprinted upon matter like a seal
upon wax, give to it life, reality, durability 1 . The Ideas,
again, could be identified with the discrowned gods of
Olympus, the heroes and demons, who in the Platonic
religion play a part analogous to that of the angels 2 .
In either aspect they are innumerable 3 . But considered
as types they may be summed up in two great master-
types, considered as Angels they are ruled by two great
Archangels, representing one the Goodness, the other the
1 They are t5'a, apxervnoi lotat, TVTTOI, nerpa, atypayTSes. These are
Platonic terms denoting the Essence or Form, the principle of reality.
Again, \6foi, \6yoi airtpfj.aTi.Koi, ffTrtp/j.ara KCU picu KadeOetaai virb rov Oeov.
These are Stoic terms denoting, not the Essence which to the Stoic was
matter, but the principle of Life, Force, the particle of divine spirit inherent
in things. Again, they are Swa/teis, affu^aroi 5vva/j.eis, oopv<popoi Swa^tis,
dyyf\oi, "xapiTts. These are Jewish terms. See Grossmann, Quaest. Phil.
p. 23; Dahne, i. 205 sqq., 253 sqq.
What the student has most to be afraid of is the giving to Philo more consis-
tence and system than he really possesses. In a rapid account it is impossible
to avoid this fault. What I have said in the text is I believe in the main
correct, but everything is floating and hazy. Thus De conf. ling. 34 (i. 431)
the Powers are distinct from the Ideas which they create, and apparently
from the Angels. They are certainly distinct from the Angels, De Man. ii. i
(ii. 222). But De Mon. i. 6 (ii. 218, 219) they are the Ideas. Nor can I find
that the Powers are anywhere expressly identified with the Angels, though
Siegfried, p. 211, says that they are.
The Angels and the Logoi are identified, DeSomniis,i. 19 (i. 638) : aOavdrois
\6yois ovs KO.\(IV (Oos dyyt\ovs. And when we consider the close affinity
of \6yos and t'St'a, and the fact that the Logos is the Sum of the Powers, it
is very difficult to see how the Angels can be kept apart.
2 De gigantibus, 2 (i. 263) ; De somniis, i. 22 (i. 642) : ravras oai/j.ovas (iev
ol d\\ot (pi\6ffo<f>oi, 6 5e iepos Xoyos ayyeXovs ticaOe KaXfTv.
3 As Ideas certainly: see note above. Zeller, p. 619. De proftigis, 18
(i. 560) Philo counts six powers corresponding in number to the Cities
of Refuge. His enumeration is: (i) 6tios \6yos; (2) fj TTOITJTIKTI 8vva/us;
(3) jy fiaaiXiKr] ; (4) ^ i\eajs ; (5) 77 vop,o&fTiuri ; (6) 6 Koapos vot)T6s. 2 and
4 belong to Goodness, 3 and 5 to Justice, 6 is a mere etcetera = all the
Ideas.
I.] The Powers. 1 3
Justice of the Eternal 1 . The former, the older and
stronger Power, is generally intended in Scripture by
the word God, the latter by the word Lord, which Philo
apparently did not understand to be used merely as a
substitute for the Ineffable Name 2 .
If it be asked whether the Powers are persons or not,
it is difficult to find a satisfactory reply. In one point
of view they are mere abstractions. But in the mind
of the Jew these scholastic entities tend inevitably to
become things, living beings. The Powers are ideas,
but then again they are God's agents, who create the
ideas, and stamp them on matter. They are the two
Cherubim 3 who keep the gates of Paradise, the two
Angels who entered Sodom 4 . Yet Philo never for a
moment regards them as existing apart from their
source. They are the breath of God's mouth. They
are as rays of the sun, which at first are pure, and as
incomprehensible as their source, but, as they shoot
down through the dim air, lose their fire while retain-
ing their light. Otherwise they would destroy what
their mission is to cherish and preserve 5 .
1 The names vary. The First, the better and elder, is Of 6s, i) notrjTticri,
dyaOorrjs, x a pi aTlK '']i fvtpftns ; the Second is Kiipios, i) fiaaiXtKT), dpxf],fovcria,
TI vofio0(Tiieri, % KoKaariKT]. Siegfried, p. 213; Dahne, i. 231.
2 Siegfried, p. 203.
'' De Cherub. 9 (i. 144).
4 De Abr. 24. 25 (ii. 19). In Gen. xvii. i the words uxpOrj icvpios are
explained to mean that the @aai\iitT) Svvafus appeared to Abraham. In
Gen. xviii. 2 the three men are 6 0efo 8opv<popovfj,evos VIT& Svefv raiv dvajrarca
Svvdfj,faiv, dp\rjs re av KO.I dyaBorrjros, but the following words again seem
to destroy the personality of the Powers, tls &v 6 /it'cros rpiTrds (pavraoias
evdpfd^eTo rrj opariK^ ^1>XV> de SS. Abelis et Caini, 15 (i. 173).
5 Leg. Alleg. i. 13 (i. 51); Quod Deus Im. 17 (i. 284) ; Sieg. p. 216. A
^ point which makes against the personality of the Powers is the way in
which they can be broken np and combined ; see Dahne, i. p. 242 sqq. ;
14 P/lllo. [Lect.
In all this Philo was following in the track of earlier
Jewish speculation 1 . The Rabbis of Palestine had
made many efforts to penetrate the mystery of the
creatures who in Ezekiel's vision sustain the chariot-
throne of the Almighty, and found in them a symbol
of the divine justice and goodness. The subject was
treated as a profound mystery, and there was a party
which discouraged all attempts to pry into it. Only
four men, it was said, had penetrated this magic garden,
and one only, the great Akiba, had returned in safety.
But the Hellenists of Alexandria were more audacious.
They had ' eaten too much honey/ and intoxicated by
the sweets, of which they had ' rifled the hives of the
Greeks, they dared to speak of the Powers in a way
that seemed to impair the unity of God. They had
ventured even farther. The duality of Persons did not
satisfy their craving for philosophic completeness.
Behind this pair of persons, or personifications, there
must be one more puissant Being, one more compre-
hensive generalisation. This was the Logos, a term
which Philo found already in use.
Logos 2 is a phrase of the Hellenic schools. It has a
Gfrorer, Philo, p. 239. The fact is that Philo wavers between the one
mode of conception and the other. This applies to the Logos also. See
Zeller, iii. 626.
1 For this section see Siegfried, p. 211 sq.
2 An excellent account of those Jewish speculations which paved the way
for the Alexandrine Logos theory will be found in Siegfried, pp. 219 sqq.
The actual title Logos comes to Philo in a direct line from the Greek
Pantheists Heraklitus and the Stoics. The reason why he preferred this
title to that of Idea is to be found in the Biblical ' Word of God.' To the
Stoic the \6yos Koiv6s, the \6yos ffirtpiMTiKos is the Divine Force, the Anima
Mundi of which Virgil sings Aen. vi. 724 : ' Principio caelum ac terras . . '
Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus Mens agitat molem et magno
se corpore miscet.' It is resolvable ultimately into the Divine Matter. ' Es
durfte nur dieser stoischen Logoslehre durch die Unterscheidung des Logos
I.] The Logos. 1 5
long history, and had already gathered round itself many
associations, that fitted it for the new part it was now to
assume. It denotes with equal facility the uttered word,
' the reasoning mind, or again a plan, scheme, system. It
is the Platonic Idea of Good, the Stoic World-Spirit, or
Reason of God, immanent in creation which it fosters and
sustains. Round this heathen stem clustered a number
of ideas that were floating in solution in the schools of
the Jews the Shechinah, the Name of God, the Ten
Words of Creation that might perhaps be One, the great
Archangel and chief of the Chariot-bearers, Metatron, the
Heavenly Man, the High Priest. Philo has gathered
together from East and West every thought, every
divination, that could help to mould his sublime con-
ception of a Vicegerent of God, a Mediator between the
Eternal and the ephemeral. His Logos reflects light
from countless facets. It is one of those creative phrases,
struck out in the crisis of projection, which mark an
epoch in the development of thought.
What the Logos became in the hands of Philo we
shall see most clearly by considering him in his fourfold
relation to God to the Powers to the World and
to Man.
In his relation to God he is first of all Wisdom l .
von der Gottheit ihr pantheistisches, durch seine Unterscheidung von dem
gebildeten Stoff ihr materialistisches Geprage abgestreift warden, und der
Philonische Logos war fertig' (Zeller, iii. 630). The word is emptied, that
is to say, of its true Stoic significance, and becomes partly the Idea, partly
the Agent by whom the idea is impressed upon matter.
1 The precise relation of Wisdom to the Logos is by no means without
difficulty, for here as everywhere Philo's language fluctuates. Some have
maintained that they are identical. Dahne, i. p. 221, thinks that Sophia is
^ a ' theilkraft ' of the Logos ; so that Logos may always be used for Sophia,
but not the reverse. But Siegfried points out (p. 222, cp. p. 215) that
Sophia is sometimes spoken of as the higher principle, the Fountain or
1 6 Philo.
Already, in the Book of Proverbs 1 , Wisdom appears
as the eternal Assessor of the Most High ' When He
prepared the heavens I was there.' In the Alexandrine
Book of Wisdom 2 , written probably under Stoic influ-
ences, this Power assumes new titles and significance.
He is 'the loving Spirit of the Lord that filleth the
earth,' holy, only-begotten, ' the brightness of the ever-
lasting light, the unspotted mirror of the Power of God,
the image of His Goodness.' Philo is but translating
this hymn of praise into scientific terminology, when he
calls the Word the Intelligible World, that is the sum of
the thoughts of God, or again the Idea of Ideas, which
imparts reality to all lower ideas, as they in turn to all
sensible kinds 3 . The Word is the whole mind of God,
considered as travelling outside itself, and expressing
itself in act. Hence he is styled its Impress, its Like-
ness, its House. This is his abstract Greek side. In his
more realistic Hebrew aspect he is the Schechinah or
glory of God ; or again, as that glory falls upon our sight
only veiled and dimmed, he is the Shadow of God. And
Mother, of the Logos. The differing gender of the two words in Greek,
the one being feminine and the other masculine, was a difficulty. This
Philo endeavoured to solve in the curious allegorism on the name of
Bethuel, De Prof. 9 (i. 553). Bethuel signifies 'daughter of God,' that is,
Wisdom. But this virgin daughter is father of Rebecca, that is, Patience.
So all the virtues have feminine names (in Greek), because in relation to
God they are derivative and receptive. But in relation to us they are mas-
culine. Hence we may say that Wisdom, the daughter of God, is a man
and a father, begetting in the soul knowledge, understanding, and all good
and praiseworthy actions. The drift of this passage is no doubt to blend
the Logos with Sophia. The confusion of gender with sex offers a curious
instance of the tendency of Philo's mind to turn abstractions into things.
1 viii. 27.
2 i. 6, 7 5 vii. 22 sqq.
* De Mundi Opif. 6 (i. 5). For the numerous other passages referred to
in this account of the Logos it is sufficient to refer generally to Siegfried
and Grossmann.
L] The Logos. 17
growing ever more definite and personal, he is the Son,
< the Eldest Son, the Firstborn of God. Many of the
divine titles are his by right. He too is the Sun, the
Darkness, the Monad, God 1 , the Second God.
In his relation to the other Powers, again, there is the
same graduated ascent from the abstract to the real. If
* the Powers are Ideas, the Word is their .Sum. He is
the Book of Creation, in which all the subordinate
essences are words. But, again, he is their Creator,
the King's Architect, in whose brain the plan of the
royal city is formed. He stands between them divid-
ing, yet uniting, like the fiery sword between the
Cherubim at the gates of Eden. He is their leader,
their Captain, their Charioteer, the. Archangel of many
names.
As regards the world he is on the one side the Arche-
typal Seal, the great Pattern according to which all is
made. He is the Divider, in so far as he differentiates,
and makes each thing what it is. He is the Bond, in so
far as all existence depends on the permanence of form.
Hence in him both worlds, the intelligible and the sen-
sible, form one great whole, a figure of which is the
vesture of the High Priest. On the head is the plate of
gold with its legend ' Holiness to the Lord ; ' the blue,
the purple, the scarlet of the robe are the rainbow web
of Nature ; the bells about the feet, whose silver sound
is heard when Aaron goeth into the Holy Place, signify
the rapt joy of the human spirit when it penetrates into
the divine mysteries. The robe is woven of one piece,
and may not be rent, because the Word binds all
1 &fos, but not 6 Qe6s, De Somn. 39 (i. 655) ; the distinction recurs in
Origen.
1 8 PJlllo. [Lect.
together in life and harmony 1 . So far we are still
breathing Greek air. But then again the Word is the
Instrumental Cause, the Organ of Creation. He is the
Creator, the Helmsman, and Pilot of the universe.
' God with justice and law leads His great flock, the
four elements and all that is shaped thereof, the circlings
of sun and moon, the rhythmic dances of the stars,
having set over them His upright Word, His Firstborn
Son, who will receive the charge of this holy flock as a
Vicegerent of the Great King 2 .' Here Philo is thinking,
not of Wisdom, but of the mighty ' God said ' of the
Book of Genesis. The word is, not the Spirit only, or
the Mind, but the Will of God 3 .
But the crowning interest of these speculations
depends on their relation to human life. What is this
Son of God to us ?
The answer is given by the peculiar position of the
Logos, who stands between God and Man partaking of
both natures. For Man, as regards his reason, is the
image of the Logos, as the Logos is the image of God.
Hence the Logos is the Mediator, the Heavenly Man 4 ,
who represents in the eyes of God the whole family
upon earth. He is not indeed the point of union,
because we may rise above him. The knowledge which
1 See the beautiful passage in De migrat. Abr. 18 (i. 452). Cp. De Vita
Mas. iii. 14 (ii. 155).
2 De Agric. 12 (i. 308).
3 Canon Westcott {Introd. to the Gospel of St. John, p. xvi) maintains
that the Logos of St. John is derived , not from Philo, but from the Palestinian
Schools, mainly on the ground that in Philo Logos is Reason and not Will.
But to a Platonist like Philo there is no difference between Reason and
Will. And the passages referred to in the text are sufficient to show that
the Logos of Philo is conceived of as ' a divine Will sensibly manifested in
personal action.'
* Siegfried, p. 221.
I.] The Logos. 19
he gives is a lower knowledge, the knowledge of God in
Nature, and our allegiance to him is therefore but
temporary and provisional. But he is necessary as the
door, through which we must pass to direct communion
with his Father.
Here Philo could borrow no light from the Greeks, to
whom the idea of Mediation was foreign ; though, as we
shall see, there were elements in the current Platonism,
which were readily adapted to this end J .
The Logos then is first the Prophet of the Most
High, the Man whose name is the Dayspring, the
Eternal Law. He is the Giver of the divine Light and
therefore the Saviour, for to the Platonist sin is dark-
ness. But it is not enough that our eyes should be
opened. For the visual ray within us is weakened or
quenched by vice, our rebellions have alienated us from
God. We need therefore an Atonement. Still more
do we need strength and sustenance.
All these requirements are satisfied by the Logos.
For his atoning function Philo found a fitting symbol
ready to hand in the High Priest 2 , who since the days
of the Exile, in the abeyance of the throne, had risen in
Jewish eyes to a dignity almost superhuman. His
vesture, as we have seen, was the type of the whole
world, for which he interceded with its Maker. He alone
1 See the doctrine of the Demons in Lecture vii.
2 See Siegfried, p. 221. The four prayers uttered by the High Pnest on
the Day of Atonement, ' most precious fragments of the Liturgy of the Old
Testament Temple worship,' will be found in Delitzsch (Zur Geschichte
der Jiid. Poesie, pp. 184 sqq.). The first three, pronounced by the High
Priest with his hand on the head of the sin offering, were (i) for himself
and family ; (ii) for the sons of Aaron ; (iii) for the whole people. The
fourth was uttered immediately on leaving the Holy of Holies. In each
the Ineffable Name was pronounced three times.
c a
2O Philo. [Lect.
might pronounce the Ineffable Name. He alone might
enter into the Holy of Holies, behold the glory of God,
and yet live. He held this high prerogative, because
when he entered into the sanctuary he was, says Philo
with an audacious perversion of the text, ' not a man V
The true High Priest is sinless; if he needs to make an
offering and utter prayer for himself, it is only because
he participates in the guilt of the people, whom he
represents. Thus the Word is the Supplicator, the
Paraclete, the Priest who presents the soul of man
' with head uncovered ' before God 2 . He is figured by
Aaron, who stands with burning censer between the
living and the dead. ' I stand,' Philo makes him say,
' between the Lord and you, I who am neither un-
created like God nor created like you, but a mean
between the two extremes, a hostage to either side 3 .'
And as he teaches, as he atones, so he feeds and sus-
tains his people, falling upon every soul as the manna
fell like dew upon the whole earth. In this sense he is
Melchisedech, priest of the Most High God, King of
Salem, that is of peace, who met Abraham returning
from his victory over the four kings, and refreshed him
with the mystic Bread and Wine 4 .
1 De Somn. ii. 28. (i. 684) : orav yap, <f>r]criv, elairj (is rcL ayia rwv dylaiv
6 apxiepevs, avQpcaitos OVK ecrrai (Lev. xvi. 17). Tis ovv el ^7) avOpairos ; apd
ye 0e6s ;
2 De Cher. 5 (i. 141). 3 Quis Rerum Div. Her. 42 (i. 502).
* Ammon (= Sense) and Moab (=the Intellect divorced from God)
refused Israel bread and water. ' But let Melchisedec give wine instead of
water, and refresh the soul with pure juice of the grape, that it may be
possessed by divine intoxication, more sober than sobriety itself. For he is
the Priest Word,' Leg. Alleg. iii. 26 (i. 103). Ibid. 56 (i. 119) Philo
goes on to explain what is this heavenly food of the soul. It is Light,
true Education, the knowledge of God, which is given by the Word. The
passage is referred to by Clement, Strom, iv. 26. 161.
I.] The Two Lives. 21
Such a division in the divine nature leads to a
corresponding distinction in the moral and spiritual
life. To know God in His Powers is one thing, to know
Him in Himself is another and a higher. The first is
the life of Faith, Hope, Discipline, Effort, the second is
that of Wisdom, Vision, Peace. Those who are still
struggling upwards in obedience to the Word are
servants, whose proper food is milk ; those who have
emerged into the full light are grown men, the friends
of God, the seeing Israel l .
' How terrible is this place,' cried Jacob awaking from
his dream, ' this is none other than the House of God.'
So the soul starting up from the sleep of indifference
1 Philo divides men into two great classes, in each of which there are
several subdivisions. I. The godless, the non-moral, the Fool. His guide
is the lower intelligence ; see De Migr. Abr. 1 2 (i. 446) : iropevtrai 81 6
afypajv SL aptporepcav, QVJJ.OV re /cal fTridvpias dei, firjSfva Sia\(iTTCtii' \povov,
rbv f/vioxov /ecu ftpaptvTrjv \6-yov airo^a\wv. His highest faculty is lost or
debased ; he has nothing but the vovs jrjtvos, (pi\offufMTos, (f>i\oira.0-fis. To
this class belong the Sensualist, such as Ham ( = 6ep/j,Tj, Fever) ; the vain
Sophist, such as the ' archer ' Ishmael ; the Sceptic, such as Cain ; the self-
seeking politician, such as Joseph. II. The Moral, Spiritual Life. This
has two stages that of the Babe, that of the Perfect. De Migr, Abr. 9 (i.
443) : erfpos vrjiriajv KOI tripos TfXtiwv xupos fffnv, & piy oco/iafd/wi/os
aatcrjais, 6 Se Ka\ov]j.evos cro<pia. Their food is injiria ical ya\a/fTu8r)s : ibid.
6 (i. 440). The Lower Stage has three subdivisions daKrjffis, ftdOrjcris,
<pvats: De Som. i. 27 (i. 646). The consummation the Higher Stage
whether attained by moral discipline, intellectual training, or natural
development, is Wisdom, Perfection.
See Siegfried, pp. 249 sqq. ; Dahne, pp. 341 sqq. The two stages
are the ftios trpaicTiKos, the /3/os Ofupijnicos of the Greek philosophers ; the
TrpoKoirf) and aofyia of the later Stoics ; but with this difference, that in Philo
both stages are religious. The three avenues to perfection are given by
Aristotle, Diog. Laert. v. 18 : rpiwv (<prj Stiv iraiSeiav <pvatcas fiaOrjfffajs
aaicfoecus. But Philo regards them as characteristic of three distinct classes
of learners, while the pagan philosopher regarded them as means of im-
provement which must be employed in combination by every learner.
Hence the three classes of Proficients in Seneca, Epistle 75, answer to
different degrees of progress, not to different lines of progress. This, as
will be seen, is nearly Clement's view.
22 Pkilo. [Lect.
learns with a shock of amazement, that the world is,
not a tavern, but a temple. Wherefore it exclaims, ' It
is not as I fancied, for the Lord is in this place.'
This sensible world is indeed the House of God, the
gate of Heaven. For the spiritual world of ideas can
be comprehended only by climbing upwards from what
we see and feel. ' Those who wish to survey the beauty
of a city must enter in at the gate ; so those who would
contemplate the ideas must be led by the hand by the
impressions of the senses V We must know God as He
is manifested to us in the experience of life, first by fear
of His Justice, then by love of His Goodness, before we
can attain to Jerusalem, the Vision of Peace. But the
Powers are summed up in the Word. Hence the In-
terpreter Word is the God of those that are imperfect,
but of the wise and perfect the First God is King 2 .
The knowledge of the Most High is Vision, the direct
personal communion of a soul that no longer reasons
but feels and knows. It was reached by Abraham
through learning, by ' the wrestler ' Jacob through moral
effort, by Isaac, ' the laughter of the soul,' through the
natural development of a sweet and gracious spirit. It
is attainable, if not by all, yet by the purest and keenest
sighted, if not in permanence, yet frequently. ' I will
not be ashamed to relate,' says Philo, ' what has hap-
pened to myself a thousand times. Often when I have
come to write out the doctrines of philosophy, though
I well knew what I ought to say, I have found my mind
1 De Somn. 32 (i. 649).
2 Leg. Alleg. iii. 73 (i- 128) : OVTOS yelp fjnuv rwv o.rt\uiv av (ir) 0e6s,Twv SI
ffo<f>5iv ai Tt\flaif 6 irpSiros. The difference between the knowledge of God
in His works and the knowledge of God in Himself (the latter Philo calls the
Great Mysteries) is explained in the sublime passage beginning Leg. Alleg.
iii. 31 (i. 106).
I.] Ecstasy. 23
dry and barren, and renounced the task in despair. At
other times, though I came empty, I was suddenly filled
with thoughts showered upon me from above like snow-
flakes or seed, so that in the heat of divine possession
I knew not the place, or the company, or myself, what I
said, or what I wrote V
Here then, but still in a singularly cool and tem-
perate form, we have the second great doctrine of Neo-
Platonism Ecstasy, the logical correlative of the
Absolute God. As held by Numenius and his fol-
lowers it is certainly derived from Philo, though here
again there was in Paganism a germ, which only needed
fertilisation. The idea of a personal Revelation comes
to Philo from the Prophetic Vision of the Old Testa-
ment. It is already found in Plutarch 2 , by whom it is
connected with the frenzy of the Pythoness or the
Corybant. But its later systematic form and scientific
grounding are historically connected with the specula-
tions of the Alexandrine Jew.
Such was the teaching of Philo so far as it falls within
our present scope. We need not dwell upon its rela-
tion to historic Judaism. Philo remained to the last
a devout 'and trusted Jew. Yet he placed a new re-
ligion, a Greek philosophic system, above the faith of
1 De Migr. Abr. 7 (i. 441). See also the account of the ' divine in-
toxication ' of Samuel's mother, De Ebrietate, 36 (i. 380) ; Quis Rerum Div.
Heres. 14 (i. 482). De Vita Contemp. 2, 3 (ii. 473, 475) actual vision
seems to have been enjoyed by the Therapeutae only in dreams. De Cher. 9
(i. 144) Philo says that he had learned the significance of the two Cherubim
and the fiery sword : irapa if/vxfjs ^775 elaiOvias rcL iroX\ci OfoKrj'nrfiaOai.
2 See De Pythiae Orac. 21, 22 ; De def. Orac. 48 ; Amatorius, xvi. 4.
Plutarch recognises only the official ecstasy of priest and prophetess. His
attitude is apologetic; he has to explain how it is that the revelation is
sometimes imperfect, deceitful, impure. Enthusiasm is a part of his religion,
but not of his philosophy. See Zeller, vol. iii.
24 Philo. [Lect.
his fathers. He retained the Law as the worship of
the Logos ; high over this stands the free spiritual
worship of the Eternal. The one is but the preparation,
and in its ancient national form not even a necessary
preparation, for the other. It will be obvious how this
facilitated the task of the Christian teacher 1 .
But what concerns us at present is his direct influence
upon the Church. This falls into two branches, for it
is probable that Philonism coloured the New Testament
itself, and it is certain that it largely affected the after
development of Christian doctrine. The first conse-
quence is no doubt capable of exaggeration. The ideas
of the purely Palestinian schools coincided in many
points with those of the Alexandrines, of which they
formed the basis, and it is perhaps by this fact rather
than by any immediate contact that we should explain
the resemblances of St. Paul, St. James, and even of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, with Philo. But there can
be little doubt that St. John acquired from Alexandria
that conception of the Word, which first brought
Christian theology within the sphere of metaphysics 2 .
1 Siegfried, pp. 157 sqq.
" Not necessarily from Philo, if, as seems probable, the Logos dqctrine is
somewhat older than Philo's time. The question turns mainly upon (i) the
exact significance and (ii) the date of the Memra of the Targums. May-
baum, Die Anthropomorphien und Anthropathien bei Onkelos, Breslau,
1870, maintains that in Onkelos 'Word of God' is a mere periphrasis for
God, and is never regarded as having a hypostatic existence. Gfrorer,
Jahrhundert des Heils, i. 310 sqq., maintains the opposite, but regards the
idea as unquestionably Alexandrine in origin. With this agrees the view of
Dr. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. i. pp. 46, 56.
Siegfried (p. 317) asserts that 'it is universally acknowledged that John
borrowed from Philo the name of Logos to express the manifestation of
God.' He refers to Ballenstedt, Dahne, Gfrorer, Liicke, de Wette-Briickner,
Dorner, Neander, Tholuck, Lutterbeck. Nevertheless his language is too
peremptory. Ewald (v. 153 sqq. ; vi. 277) holds that the doctrine of the
I ] Influence of Ms Teaching. 25
Philo's influence upon the mind of post-apostolic
times was partly helpful, partly detrimental. It was
given to the Alexandrine Jew to divine the possibility
and the mode of an eternal distinction in the Divine
Unity, and in this respect the magnitude of our debt
can hardly be overestimated. How large it is we may
measure in part by the fact that the doctrine of the
Holy Spirit, which has no place in his system, remained
for a long time meagre, inarticulate, and uncertain. But
the Logos is not Christ, is not the Messiah l . Far less is
he Jesus, for from the Platonic point of view the Incar-
nation is an impossibility. Hence though Philo supplied
the categories, under which the work of Jesus continued
to be regarded, his influence on this side was upon the
Word grew up among the Jews and had become an article of the
popular belief as well as a tenet of the schools. And that the book of Enoch
shows that before the beginning of the second century B.C. the Word was
identified with the Messiah. (Other authorities however regard the Book
of Enoch as, in part at any rate, Christian.) Harnack, Dogmengeschichte,
p. 79, note, says, ' Die Auffassung des Verhaltnisses von Gott und Welt im
vierten Evangelium ist nicht die Philonische. Daher ist auch die Logos-
lehre dort im wesentlichen nicht die Philo's.' This is maintained at length
by Dr. Westcott, Introduction to the Gospel of St. John, pp. xv. sqq., and by
Schanz,a recent Roman Catholic editor of the same Gospel. But the difference,
while sufficient to show that St. John is applying a partially heathen phrase to
a wholly Christian conception, is byno means such as toexclude the possibility
of connection, and in any case very little weight can be attached to this line
of argument in default of proof that a homegrown Logos doctrine existed in
Palestine before the time of St. John. Some importance is perhaps to be
attached to the fact that in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, a work which
seems to be built upon a Palestinian system, we have God and the Two Powers
but not the Logos. Yet the writer was acquainted with St. John, and would
surely have given this title to the Son if he had found it current in the
Palestinian schools.
1 The traces of a Messianic hope in Philo are very indistinct. De Execr.
9 (ii. 436) the dispersed of Israel shall return from exile : tv ayovptvot irpos
nvot OfioTtpas $ Kara <pvaiv dvepamivi)* (we should surely read avOpwmvr]v}
fyeoas. Siegfried (p. 222) refers this to the Logos. Dahne, p. 437, thinks
it not improbable that the Logos is meant.
26 Influence of Philo. [Lect.
whole hurtful. To Philo religion is the emancipation
of the intelligence from the dominion of sense. In
such a scheme knowledge is more than Faith 1 , For-
giveness has no real place, and Vicarious Suffering no
meaning. Such words as Atonement, Mediator, High
Priest, could not mean to the Platonist what they must
mean to the Christian, and down to the time of Clement
Philo's great name stood between the Church and a
clear understanding of. their real signification.
Other parts of his legacy were more questionable
still his vicious Allegorism, his theory of the Absolute
God. But upon these we shall be compelled to dwell
at some length further on, and therefore need speak no
more in the present place. Let us only add that
Alexandrine iritellectualism, though it leads to an over-
estimate of human effort and to a self-centred concep-
tion of virtue, has yet the great merit of finding blessed-
ness in the soul itself. The Kingdom of God is within
us, even in this life. Thus it affords the means for
rectifying a tendency very prevalent in the early
Church, that of looking for happiness only in another
world as a compensation for suffering in this. Its
1 Philo speaks of Faith the most perfect of virtues, the queen of virtues
in very splendid terms. See especially De Abrahamo, 46 (ii. 39) ; Quis
Rerum Div. Heres. 18 (i. 486). But in section 21 of the last-named treatise
it appears to be distinguished from aotyia iri the same way as by Clement,
as the cause of obedience, as the characteristic of the lower stage of the
spiritual life. This indeed is a consequence of his system. But Philo
has a clearer view that spiritual health is the one thing desirable, and is
not hampered by the question that pressed heavily on Clement what
is the minimum condition of salvation? Hence his conception of Faith is
nobler, it may be said more Pauline, than Clement's. So again, not being
troubled by the problem of Responsibility, he uses much stronger and
grander language on the subject of Grace. See Siegfried, p. 307 ; Denis,
Philosophic <fOrigne, p. 222.
I.] The Gnostics. 27
reward is holiness, the vision of God ; its punishment
is that of being what sinners are. Thus it is directly
opposed in principle, if not always in practice, to the
vulgar paradise of Chiliasm, and even to Asceticism.
For Asceticism, as distinguished from temperance, rests,
not upon the antithesis of spirit and matter, but upon
' other-worldliness,' the delusion that heaven can be
purchased by self-torture in this life.
Our view of the conditions out of which Christian
Platonism sprung would be incomplete without a brief
notice of Gnosticism 1 . It will be needless to enter into
the confused details of the so-called Gnostic systems.
The Aeons of Valentinus and others are but the Ideas
of Plato seen through the fog of an Egyptian or Syrian
mind. They were not understood to affect the unity of
God, and, except as guardian Angels, play no practical
part. Clement and Origen scarcely ever allude to them,
and they have no place at all in the systems of Marcion
and Basilides 2 . For us they have mainly this interest,
1 The standard authorities on the subject of Gnosticism are Neander,
Church History, vol. 2 ; Baur, Die Christliche Gnosis, Tubingen, 1835 ;
Matter, Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme, 2nd edition, Strasbourg and Paris,
1843; Lipsius, article Gnosticismus in Ersch and Gruber, Leipzig, 1860;
Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, 1875. All except the last two are anterior in date
to the publication in 1851 of six additional books of the Philosophumena
which have given an entirely new view of Basilides. We are concerned
entirely with what Lipsius counts as the second or Alexandrian stage of
Gnosticism. The view takn in the following pages rests mainly on the
Gnostic fragments which will be found collected in Stieren's edition of Irenaeus,
on the Excerpta ex Theodoto, and the general impression left on the mind by
the study of Clement, Origen, and the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies.
2 To Valentinus the Aeons were simply the ideas, the thoughts of
God. Tertullian, Adv. Valentin, iv : Earn postmodum Ptolemaeus
intravit, nominibus et numeris Aeonum distinctis in personales substantias,
sed extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divini-
tatis ut sensus et affectus motns incluserat.' This is confirmed by a striking
extract from an Epistle of Valentinus given by Clement, Strom, ii. 20. 114;
28 The Gnostics. [Lect.
that they complete the work of the Philonic analysis.
God is finally separated from His attributes, the Aeons
of Reason and Truth, and becomes the Eternal Silence
of Valentinus, the Non-existent God of Basilides 1 .
It is a mistake to approach the Gnostics on the meta-
physical side. There is a certain wild poetical force in
Valentinus, but otherwise their world - philosophy is
purely grotesque. The ordinary Christian controver-
sialist felt that he had nothing to do but set out at
unsparing length their tedious pedigrees, in the well-
grounded confidence that no one would care to peruse
them a second time. The interest, the meaning, of
Gnosticism rest entirely upon its ethical motive. It
was an attempt, a serious attempt, to fathom the dread
mystery of sorrow and pain, to answer that spectral
doubt, which is mostly crushed down by force Can
the world as we know it have been made by God?
' Cease,' says Basilides, ' from idle and curious variety,
and let us rather discuss the opinions, which even bar-
barians have held, on the subject of good and evil 2 .'
' I will say anything, rather than admit that Providence
is wicked 3 .' Valentinus describes in the strain of an
ancient prophet the woes that afflict mankind. ' I durst
Stieren, Irenaeus, p. 910. ut the same thing is probably true of Ptolemy
and of Heracleon. The use of the word aeon by the Gnostic writers them-
selves is obscure. I find it used to denote, (i) God ; Heracleon apud
Origen in loan. ii. 8 (Lomm, i. 117), rov alwva ff TO. kv TO) aluivi. Hence
6 tv alSnfi, ibid. xiii. 19 (Lomm, ii. 33^, is Jesus: (ii) Aeons = Ideas?
= Emanations ? Exc. ex Theod. 23. ibid. 32, tKaaros rSjv aluvaiv tSiov ex fl
ir\7]paifjui, TTJV av^iry'iav ; (iii) Angels; Exc. ex Theod. 25, the Valentinians
\tyovffi TOWS alojvas Gfj.aivv{*cas T \6yca \6yovs, Here Aeon = \6yos = Angels
= Stars. So in section 7, dyvcacrros ovv 6 irarfip uiv f/0e\r]fffv fvcaaOffvai rois
alwaiv : cp. St. Paul, Eph. ii. 7. As to the Guardian Angels, see below, p. 33.
1 Philos. vii. 21 : OVTOJS OVK aiv Oeos firoirjfff tcoaftov oitc ovra t ovic uvrcuv.
1 Stieren's Irenaeus, p. 901.
3 Stieren's Irenaeus, p. 903 ; Clem. Strom, iv. 12. 82.
I.] Their Ethical Motive. 29
not affirm,' he concludes, ' that God is the author of all
this V So Tertullian says of Marcion, ' like many men
of our time, and especially the heretics, he is bewildered
by the question of evil V
They approach the problem from a non-Christian
point of view, and arrive therefore at a non-Christian
solution. Yet the effort is one that must command our
respect, and the solution is one that a great writer of
our own time thought not untenable 3 . Many of them,
especially the later sectaries, accepted the whole Chris-
tian Creed 4 , but always with reserve. The teaching
of the Church thus became in their eyes a popular
exoteric confession, beneath their own Gnosis, or Know-
ledge, which was a Mystery, jealously guarded from
all but the chosen few. They have been called the
first Christian theologians. We may call them rather
the first Freemasons.
There is no better example of the cultivated Gnostic
than Plutarch. Perplexed by the nightmare of physical
and moral evil this amiable scholar could see no light
except in the dualism of Zoroaster 5 . The world was
created by Ormuzd, the spirit of Good, but Ahriman,
the dark and wicked, had. broken in and corrupted all.
1 From the remarkable fragment of the Dissertation on the Origin of
Evil, Stieren's Irenaeus, p. 912.
" Adv. Marcion. i. 2.
3 See J. S. Mill, Three Essays on Religion, ed. 1874, PP- 2 5>37> 5%- Mr.
Mill himself rejected the Dualistic solution; ibid. p. 185.
* Basilides accepted the whole of the Gospel narrative, Philos.\\\. 27. So
did Theodotus. Tertullian, Adv. Val. i : ' Si subtiliter tentes per ambiguitates
bilingues communem fidem adfirmant.' Irenaeus, Preface, 2 : ovs <j>v\&aativ
irafrfifytXtttv r^uv Kvpios o/xofa (itv \a\ovvTas, dt/6fj.oia 5% Qpovovvras. See the
accounts of Cerdon, Irenaeus, iii. 4. 3, and Apelles, Eusebius, H. E. v. 13 ;
Harnack, Dogmengesch. p. 186.
5 De Iside et Osiride, 45 sqq.
3O Gnostic Exegesis. [Lect.
From Plutarch sprang a succession of purely heathen
Gnostics, against whom, more than a century later,
Plotinus felt it necessary to take up the pen l . Between
these and the Gnostics known to Christian controversy
there is no essential difference. Both start from the
same terrible problem, both arrive at the same conclu-
sion, the existence of a second and imperfect God.
They identified this Being with the Creator or Demi-
' urge, and ascribed to him the authorship of the whole,
or the greater part, of the Old Testament. For, though
they allegorised the New Testament, the Gnostics did
not, in any of their voluminous commentaries, apply
this solvent to the Hebrew Scriptures. These they
criticised with a freedom learned from the Essenes 2 .
They found there, side by side with the eternal
spiritual law, the code of an imperfect and transient
morality ; worse than all, they found there passion,
revenge, and cruelty ascribed to the Most High. It
is not possible to read the remarkable letter of Ptolemy
to Flora, without perceiving that Old Testament exegesis
was the real strength of Gnosticism. It was so power-
ful because it was so true. On this one point they
retained their advantage to the last. The facts were
in the main as they alleged, and the right explanation
depended on principles equally foreign, at that time, to
Gnostic and to orthodox.
Their views of religion, of salvation, were as various
as their strange and perplexing cosmogonies. We may
1 Porph. Vita Plotini, 16.
3 Compare the exegesis of the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies with that of
Ptolemy's Epistle to Flora. The author of the Homilies considered that
he was refuting Gnosticism, but there was certainly a historical connection
between his views and those of the Valentinians. See below, p. 34.
I.] Gnostic Christology. 31
leave out of sight the Paulinism of Marcion, and take as
a type the system of Theodotus, a leader of the Eastern
Valentinians, with whose writings Clement had an in-
timate acquaintance *. Christ came, he taught, not for
our redemption alone, but to heal the disorders of the
whole universe. For Earth, and Heaven, and even God
Himself, were diseased by the revolt of Wisdom, who in
blind presumption had given birth to she knew not
what. But for man's sake Christ became Man 2 , taking
1 It is doubtful what the Excerpta ex Theodoto really are. ' Descripta
videntur ex libris Hypotyposeon,' says Valesius on Eus. H. E. v. n. 2.
Zahn, Forschungen zurGesch. des N. T. Kanons, Erlangen, 1884, vol. iii. p.
122, thinks that they are a collection of extracts from the eighth book of
the Stromateis. Renan, Marc-Aurtle, p. 118, regards them as a collection
of extracts from the writings of the Valentinian Theodotus made by Clement
for his own use, and this seems the best view. It is doubtful again who
Theodotus was. Neander and Dorner think him the same as Theodotus the
money-changer. Zahn inclines, rather fancifully, to identify him with the
Theodas (if that is the right name ; the reading is doubtful) of Strom, vii.
1 7. 106, the disciple of Paul and teacher of Valentinus, and thinks that there
may have been a book bearing the name of this supposed pupil of the
Apostle. It should be added that Theodotus is referred to by name only
five times, and that much of the information for which Clement refers vaguely
to ' the Valentinians ' may come from some other source. The text is ex-
ceedingly obscure and corrupt. Bunsen, Anal. Ante-Nic. vol. i, gives the
conjectural emendations and Latin translation of Bernays. The accusations
brought byPhotius against the orthodoxy of Clement may rest in part upon a
misunderstanding of this curious and difficult treatise. See also Dr. West-
cott's article, Clement of Alexandria, in the Dictionary of Christian
Biography.
2 The Christology of Theodotus diners somewhat from that ascribed to
Valentinus by the author of the Philosophumena. (i) The Only-Begotten
God ( 6 ; this is I suppose the earliest authority for this reading in John
i. 1 8), Nous, Aletheia, Logos, Zoe appear to be only different names for
the Spirit of Knowledge, the irpo^oAiy, or externalised thought of God.
(ii) Christ is a irpof)o\T) of exiled Wisdom who returns to the ir\r)paifjia to
beg aid for his mother, is detained there, and apparently united to the
Only-Begotten; 23, 39, 44. (iii) Jesus the rrpo/SoAij of all the Aeons
is sent forth to comfort Wisdom ; 23. (iv) Jesus is never separated from
the Only-Begotten ; 7, 43. (v) Jesus descends to the world through the
realm of Space, that is the Demiurge, and takes to himself the Psychic
32 The Gnostics. The Three Natures. [Lect.
upon Him our threefold nature, body, soul, and spirit,
though His body was spiritual, not gross as ours. Yet
He is not the Saviour of all, but of those only who can
receive Him, and in so far as they can receive Him 1 .
Some there are who cannot know Him. these are they
who have flesh but not soul, who perish like the beasts.
Some again, the spiritual, are predestined to life
eternal 2 . They are akin to the light, knowledge once
given leads them on inevitably to perfection, annihil-
ating all their earthly passions. Between these hover
'the psychic,' the feminine souls, to whom faith is
granted, but not knowledge. Before the coming of
Christ these were creatures of destiny, the sport of evil
angels, whom they could not resist 3 . But the Incarna-
tion and Baptism of our Lord broke their bonds, and
by faith and discipline they become capable of eternal
life 4 .
In that future existence the soul needs no body, for
. Christ, 59, the irpo0o\^ of the Demiurge, 47 that is to say, his vovs
assumes a tyvxfi and weaves for Himself a body tic rfjs dtyavovs if/vxtieijs
ovalas, 59. (vi) He was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin; 23.
The whole of the Gospel narrative then follows.
1 7 : 6 8 CLVTOS tan TOIOVTOS wv tKaaTca otos Kfx<*>pi]ffO<u Siivarat.
2 56 : TO /j.Zv ovv TTVfvp.aTi.Kov <j>vati aca^ofitvov, TO Se if/vxticov avTf ovffiov
ov firiTijStioTTjTa % irpos T6 irianv KOI atyOapaiav Kal npbs aTriariav KOI
<}>6opav KO.TCL rf)v oiKtlav aiptfftv, TO Si v\mov <pvaei dir6\\vTCu. The
Spiritual, the Elect, are masculine, children of Adam ; the Psychic, the
Called, are feminine, children of Eve; 21. This idea is found in the
Homilies. The Spiritual must be 'shaped' by knowledge; 57, 59:
the Psychic must be ' grafted on to the fruitful olive ; ' 56, ' changed '
from slavery into freedom, from feminine into masculine, 57, 79. Unless
they become spiritual they are burnt up in the fire, 52, body and soul
perish in Gehenna (proved by Matt. x. 28), 51, that is to say before
they rise to Paradise the fourth heaven, which earthly flesh may not
enter, 51 : this last idea is based upon 2 Cor. xii. 2.
3 69-75-
4 76-78.
I.] Gnostic Eschatology. 33
it is itself a body, as the Stoics taught *. It is im-
mortal and for ever blessed. But there are degrees of
felicity. The spiritual soar up at once through the
seven planetary orbits to the Ogdoad, the region of
the fixed stars, where is no more labour nor change.
There they await the consummation, when Christ, the
great High Priest, shall lay aside His soul, and enter
through the Cross that is the upper Firmament into
the Holy of Holies, taking with Him His children, now
become pure Words like Himself. The Psychic are
cleansed by fire, the sensible and the intellectual fire 2 ,
the pangs of sense, the stings of remorse. Aided and
comforted by guardian angels 3 , who were 'baptised for
them,' while yet they were ' dead in trespasses and
1 14, dA\<i at 17 ^x^ ffw/io. For how, the author asks, can the souls
who are chastised feel their punishments if they are not bodies ? Corporeal
also, though in an ever-ascending scale of fineness, are the demons, the
angels, archangels and Protoctists, the Only-Begotten, and apparently even
the father; 10, u.
2 81.
3 Theodotus appears to distinguish two classes of Angels ; those created
by the Demiurge, who like all his works are imperfect copies of the
existences of the spiritual world, 47, and the ' male angels,' the creation
of the Only-Begotten, 21. It is by union with these that the 'female
soul' becomes masculine and capable of entering the Pleroma. It is
these angels that are ' baptised for the dead ' (t Cor. xv. 29). Hence
the Valentinian was baptised tls \vrpcaaiv ayytXueriv, in the same Name
in which his guardian Angel had previously been baptised; 22. The
male Angels came down with Jesus for our salvation, 44, and ' pray for
our forgiveness that we may enter in with them. For they may be said
to have need of us that they may enter in, for without us this is not
permitted to them ; ' 35. Similar ideas will be found in the religion of
Mithra, see below, Lecture vii, and in the Homilies, ix. 9 sqq. (though
here the union is between the bad man and his demon). So Heracleon
says (apud Origen in Joan. xiii. n) that the Samaritan woman's husband
is her Pleroma. Cp. also Irenaeus, iii. 15. 2 : ' est inflatus iste talis, neque
in caelo neque in terra putat se esse, sed intra Pleroma introisse et conv-
plexum iam angelum suum.' Also the Valentinian epitaph quoted by
Renan, Marc-AurZle, p. 147.
D
34 Gnostic Eschatology. [Lect.
sins,' who love them, and yearn for them as their
spiritual brides, they rise, through three 'mansions' or
stages of discipline, to the Ogdoad their final home,
their Rest J . Thus spirit, soul, and body, the com-
mingling of which is the cause of all evil and suffering,
are finally separated into their appointed places, and
the healing work of Christ is achieved. It is not diffi-
cult to trace here a barbaric Platonism, mingled with
Mazdeism, coloured by the influence of the Ebionites,
and strangely refracted echoes of St. Paul 2 . St. Paul
1 Jesus in his descent puts on the Psychic Christ in TOTTOJ, Space, the
realm of the Demiurge ; 59. It was the Psychic Christ, that is the
Human Nature, that died, 61, and now sits on the right hand of the
Demiurge, 62, till the Restitution, 'in order that he may pacify Space
and guarantee a safe passage for the Seed into the Pleroma,' 38. Then
He lays aside ^v\r) and ou>fj.a and passes through the Veil, 27, taking
with him His children, His Body, the Church, 42. Till then the
elect await Him in the Ogdoad, the eighth heaven, the changeless region
of the fixed stars, 26, 63, becoming Words, Intelligent Aeons, \6yoi,
aluves voepoi, 27, 64. At the same time the Psychic rise from the
Kingdom of the Demiurge to the Ogdoad, 63.
a The barbaric cast of their Philosophy may be seen in the grotesque
character assumed by the Logoi or Aeons in the popular systems, in
the crude description of the Non-Existent God by Basilides, and generally
in the Gnostic incapacity for abstract ideas. Thus the inner Veil which
divides the Ogdoad from the Pleroma, the world of Ideas, is Heaven.
But one derivation given for the word ovpavos is opos, a boundary or
division. Horos might mean a pole, such as Greeks employed to mark
the limits of a field. Hence the upper firmament might be called ^ravpos,
the Cross which divides believers from unbelievers ; Excerpta, 42. The
passions were conceived of in Stoic fashion as actual bodies hanging on
to the soul, the Trpoffaprrj/Mra or Trpoffipvrjs tyvxh- Man thus becomes, says
Clement, a kind of Trojan Horse; Strom, ii. 20. 112 sqq. As to the
Mazdeism, there is clear historical proof of the connection of Gnosticism
with the system of Zoroaster ; cp. Lect. vii, the passages referred to above
from Plutarch and Porphyry, Duncker, vol. v. pp. 53 sqq. of the English
translation. As to Ebionitism, I notice the following points of resemblance
between Theodotus and the Homilies Anthropomorphism the Syzygies
the antitheses of Male and Female, Fire and Light, Right and Left the
union of the soul with its Angel the idea that the Water of Baptism
quenches the fire of sin, suggesting or suggested by the ancient reading in
I.] Results of Gnosticism. 35
was held in high esteem by these sectaries, and to their
sinister admiration is largely due the neglect of his
special teaching in the early Church.
This Dualism, this Fatalism, for the three natures are
a modified fatalism, are vain and worse than vain.
They belong to a lower stage of religious life, above
polytheism, yet far- below Christianity. From this
semi-barbarism spring all the faults of Gnosticism, its
conceit, its uncertain morality, its chimeras, its peremp-
tory solutions of the insoluble. Like all half-truths it
perished self-convicted, melting away like Spenser's
woman of snow in presence of the living Florimell. It
left a certain mark upon Catholicism, and partly by
shaking the older faiths, partly by preparing men's minds
for a better belief, partly by compelling the leaders
of the Church to ask what they believed and why they
believed it, aided not inconsiderably in the triumph of
the Gospel, and in the development of the Creed 1 . But
in the second century, while it was yet living and
aggressive, it constituted a danger greater than the
Arian controversy, greater than any peril that has ever
menaced the existence of the Faith.
Matt. iii. 15, which tells how a fire shone in the Jordan at the baptism
of Jesus. Lastly, the doctrine of several Incarnations of Jesus is found
in the Excerpta, 19. Zahn is therefore mistaken in saying (p. 123) that
there is no trace of Ebionitism in the Christology of Clement's Theodotus.
1 The first philosophical statement of the Real Presence is to be found
Excerpta, 82. To Gnostics is due the importation of the words ovaia,
vwoffraols, 0/j.oovatos into theology. They held the Virgin in high honour ;
Kenan, Marc-Aurele, p. 145. They were the first to speculate on the date
of the Nativity, Strom, i. 21. 145, and to attempt the portraiture of Christ ;
Iren. i. 25. 6. Beyond this I see nothing but the influence of antagonism.
See however Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, pp. 185 sqq.
D 2
LECTURE II.
That -was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh
into the world. ST. JOHN i. 9.
ACCORDING to the earliest tradition, that which is
preserved in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, Chris-
tianity was first preached in the streets of Alexandria
by Barnabas a . But for ages the Egyptians have attri-
buted the foundation of their Church to St. Mark, the
interpreter of St. Peter. At a later date the Patriarchs
of Alexandria were elected beside the tomb of the
Evangelist in the great church of Baucalis, the most
ancient ecclesiastical edifice in the city, in close prox-
imity to the wharves and corn-magazines of the crowded
harbour.-
At the close of the second century the Church of
Alexandria was already a wealthy and flourishing com-
munity. Its warfare is said to have been comparatively
bloodless. Three times within a hundred years Egypt
had endured all the horrors of unsuccessful rebellion, and
once a sanguinary riot had been occasioned by the dis-
1 Horn. i. 8 sqq. The claims of Mark find no support from Clement.
But Bishop Lightfoot thinks there is no reason to doubt the tradition ;
Philippians, p. 223, ed. 1873. See Redepenning, Origenes, i. p. 185, note.
The sources employed for this sketch of the history of the Alexandrine
Church are Contextio Gemmarum sive Eutychii Pair. Alex. Annales,
Pocock, Oxford, 1656 ; Eutychii Origines Eccl. Alex., Selden, London,
1642 ; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus ; Renaudot, Historia Patriarcharum
Alex. Jacobitarum ; Neale, Holy Eastern Church. Some information is
to be gathered from the Oracula Sibyttina, see Excur. in Alexandre's ed.,
and much from Clement. Origen's church was that of Palestine. The
letter of Hadrian to Servianus in Vopiscus, Vita Saturnini, is regarded as a
forgery by Mommsen, v. p. 579 note. .
T/ie Alexandrine Church. 37
covery of the Apis bull *. Amid scenes like these the
Christians no doubt bore their full share of suffering.
But down to the time of Severus there appears to have
been no definite persecution of the faith 2 . The execu-
tion of Christians was in general a concession to the
mob, and it is probable that in Alexandria in ordinary
times the populace was held down by a much more
severe restraint than elsewhere, the Emperors being
always nervously apprehensive of any disturbance by
which the supply of corn might be interrupted. Under
these favouring circumstances the Church had spread
with great rapidity. Already the house-church of the
first age had been replaced by buildings specially con-
structed for the purposes of Christian worship 2, and it
would seem therefore that the right of holding land was
enjoyed, perhaps under some legal fiction, by the
Alexandrine, as it certainly was by the African and
Roman communities 4 . In other matters the Egyptian
1 In 115 the Jews of Egypt and Cyrene revolted, and were quelled by
Marcius Turbo. The rebellion of Barcochba extended to Egypt, and in
the reign of Marcus occurred the insurrection of the Bucoli ; see Mommsen,
v. 581. The Apis sedition is recorded in Spartian's Life of Hadrian, 12.
2 Clement says (Strom, ii. 20. 125), fjfuv Se a<p9ovoi ^aprvpoiv irrjyal
enaaTrjs ij/x/xzs ev 6<0aA/tofs f/fiwv Qfaipovptvai impoirr 'ptvcav dvaaKtvSvXtvo-
Htvcuv ras Kt<pa\ds a.TTOT(fj.vofJLfvaiv. He may be speaking of sufferings in
other countries, or Christian blood may have been shed in Alexandria
before the official commencement of the persecution of Severus. See Aube,
Les Chretiens dans V Empire Romain, pp. 117 sqq. Nevertheless persecution
was always going on more or less in every province where the governor
happened to be weak or hostile. Since the discovery of the Greek text of
the Acts of the Scillitan martyrs, this tragedy is known to have occurred in
180, a time otherwise of peace : see Gorres, Jahrb. fur Prot. Theol. 1884,
parts ii and iii.
3 Clement speaks of ' coming from church 'just as we do, Paed. ii. 10. 96,
prjSe (KK\rjaias, </>'/>*> ^ ayopds IJKOVTCI, but does not like Origen refer to
the arrangements of the building. See on this subject Probst, Kirchliche
Disciflin, pp. 181 sqq.
* ' Areae Christianorum ' are mentioned by Tertullian, Ad Scapulam, 3.
38 The Alexandrine Church. [Lect.
Church seems to have moved less rapidly than its neigh-
bours. The traces of a written liturgy in Clement are
scanty and vague 1 . The Eucharist was not yet disjoined
from the Agape. Infant Baptism was not yet the rule.
Discipline was not so severe as elsewhere. The Bishop
was not yet sharply distinguished from the Presbyter,
nor the Presbyter arfd Deacon from the lay-brother.
The fidelity, with which the Alexandrines adhered to
the ancient democratic model, may be due in part to
the social standing and intelligence of the congregation.
The same reason may account for their immunity from
many of the ecclesiastical storms of the time. Gnosti-
cism indeed was rampant in this focus of East and
West. But of Noetianism, of the Easter controversy,
of Montanism hardly a sound is to be heard 2 .
About the same time Callistus was overseer of the cemetery at Rome ;
Philos. ix. 12.
1 Probst (Liturgie, p. 9) gives reasons for supposing that the first sketch
of a written Liturgy existed in the middle of the second century, and (ibid.
pp. 135 sqq.) finds in Clement traces of a Liturgy resembling in its main out-
lines that given in the eighth book of the Apostolical Constitutions. It is most
difficult to say what precise facts underlie Clement's allusive phrases. The
only passages, so far as I know, in which written formularies may be re-
ferred to are Strom, vii. 12. 80, where TO. 0)0 TO. Sofu\oya TO. Sia 'Haaiov dA-
XTjyopovufva seem to allude to the Trisagion uttered by the Cherubim and
Seraphim (Renaudot, Liturgiarum Orient. Collectio,\. p. 46), and Protrep.
xi. in, where the 'outstretched hands of Christ' may be explained by a
phrase in the ancient Alexandrine Liturgy translated by Ludolfus, from the
Ethiopic (in Bunsen, Hippolytus, iv. p. 242), ' ut impleret voluntatem tuam
et populum tibi efficeret expandendo manus suas.' For the Agape and
Infant Baptism, see next Lecture.
2 Of Noetianism Clement does not speak. He wrote a treatise Ilfpt TOV
ndffxo-, in which he considered the relation of St. John's narrative to that of
the Synoptists ; see the Fragments, the best account is that of Zahn, Forsch-
ungen, iii. p. 32) ; and the Kavuv iKKXrjaiaariKbs TJ irpbs TOUS lovSai^ovras
may have been directed against the Quartodecimans (see Zahn, ibid. p. 35).
The Treatises (Sermons, Zahn thinks) on Fasting and the promised but
not written treatise on Prophecy were certainly aimed at the Montanists,
whom he mentions with forbearance, Strom, iv. 13. 93; vi. 8. 66. But
ii.] The Alexandrine Church. 39
Nevertheless wealth and numbers brought dangers of
their own, and Alexandria was driven along the same
road which other Churches were already pursuing. The
lowering of the average tone of piety and morals among
the laity threw into stronger relief the virtues of the
clergy, and enabled them with a good show of justice
and necessity to claim exclusive possession of powers,
which had originally been shared by all male members
of the Church.
We can still trace the incidents, by which this mo-
mentous change was effected. The most interesting
feature in the Alexandrine Church was its College of
twelve Presbyters, who enjoyed the singular privilege of
electing from among themselves, and of consecrating,
their own Patriarch l . They were the rectors of the
twelve city parishes, which included certain districts
he does not seem to have been troubled at home by either Montanism or
Judaism.
1 Contextio Gemmarum, p. 331 : ' Constituit autem Evangelista Marcus,
una cum HananiaPatriarcha, duodecimPresbyteros, qui nempe cum Patriarcha
manerent, adeo ut cum vacaret Patriarchatus unum e duodecim Presbyteris
eligerent, cujus capiti reliqui undecim manus imponentes ipsi benedicerent et
Patriarcham crearent ; deinde virum aliquem insignem eligerent quern secum
Presbyterum constituerent loco eius qui factus est Patriarcha, ut ita semper
extarent duodecim. Neque desiit Alexandriae institutum hoc de Presbyteris,
ut scilicet Patriarchas crearent ex Presbyteris duodecim, usque ad tempora
Alexandri Patriarchae Alexandrini qui fuit ex numero illo cccxvin. Is
autcm vetuit ne deinceps Patriarcham Presbyteri crearent et decrevit ut
mortuo Patriarcha convenirent Episcopi qui Patriarcham ordinarent. . . .
Atque ita evanuit institutum illud antiquius.' In Selden, p. xxxi.
Cp. Jerome, Ep. 146 (in Migne), Ad Evangelum : ' Nam et Alexandriae a
Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri
semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum
nominabant : quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat.' Eutychius also
tells us that Demetrius was the first to appoint Suffragans. See Bishop
Lightfoot, Philippians, Excursus on the Christian Ministry. The inference
that there was a prolonged struggle between the two orders is Ritschl's
Entstehung dcr Altk. Kirchc, 2nd ed. p. 432.
4O The Alexandrine Church. [Lect.
outside the walls. Even in the time of Epiphanius
they exercised a sort of episcopal jurisdiction 1 . They
formed a chapter, of which the Patriarch was President,
and to this chapter all provincial letters were addressed.
But towards the close of the second century their chief
and distinguishing prerogative had been lost. While
the Patriarch Julian lay upon his death-bed, he was
warned by an angel in a vision, that the man, who next
day should bring him a present of grapes, was destined
to be his successor. The sign was fulfilled by Deme-
trius, an unlettered rustic, and, what to later ages seemed
even more extraordinary, a married man. In obedience
to the divine warning Demetrius was seated almost by
force in the throne of St. Mark. He proved a stern
and enterprising ruler. He stripped the people of one
of their few remaining privileges by the censure, which
he pronounced on Origen for preaching while yet a
layman, and he broke the power of the Presbyteral
College by the appointment of a number of Suffragan
Bishops, whom he afterwards persuaded to pass sentence
of degradation upon Origen, a sentence which the Pres-
byters had refused to sanction 2 . From this time the
Chapter never succeeded in regaining its prerogative,
though the struggle appears to have been protracted
till the incumbency of the Patriarch Alexander. Thus
was finally abolished this most interesting relic of a
time, when there was no essential difference between
. Bishop and Priest, and of a later but still early time,
when the Bishop was chairman or life-president of a
1 Epiph. Ixix. I.
2 Redepenning, Origenes, i. p. 412 ; Huet, Origeniana,'\. 2. 12 (Lomm.
xxii. 44) ; Photius, cod. cxviii.
II.] The Catechetical School. 41
council of Priests, by whom the affairs of a great city-
church were administered in common.
A large and rich community, existing in the bosom of
a great University town, could not long submit to exclu-
sion from the paramount interests of the place. Their
most promising young men attended the lectures of the
heathen professors. Some like Ammonius relapsed into
Hellenism, some drifted into Gnosticism like Ambrosius,
some like Heraclas passed safely through the ordeal, and
as Christian priests still wore 'the pallium, or philoso-
pher's cloak, the doctor's gown we may call it of the
pagan Academy. Learned professors like Celsus, like
Porphyry, began to study the Christian Scriptures with a
cool interest in this latest development of religious
thought, and pointed out with the acumen of trained
critics the scientific difficulties of the Older Testament
and the contradictions of the New. It was necessary to
recognise, and if possible to profit by, the growing con-
nection between the church and the lecture-room.
Hence the catechetical instruction, which in most other
communities continued to be given in an unsystematic
way by Bishop or Priest, had in Alexandria developed
about the middle of the century into a regular institu-
tion.
This was the famous Catechetical School 1 . It still
continued to provide instruction for those desirous of
admission into the Church, but with this humble routine
it combined a higher and more ambitious function. It
was partly a propaganda, partly we may regard it as a
1 Schools of a similar description existed at Antioch, Athens, Edessa,
Nisibis ; Gnerike, De Schola Alex. p. 2 ; Hamack, Dogmengeschichte, 501
sqq.
42 The Catechetical School. [Lect.
denominational college by the side of a secular univer-
sity. There were no buildings appropriated to the
purpose. The master received his pupils in his own
house, and Origen was often engaged till late at night
in teaching his classes or giving private advice or in-
struction to those who needed it. The students were
of both sexes, of very different ages. Some were con-
verts preparing for baptism, some idolaters seeking for
light, some Christians reading as we should say for
orders or for the cultivation of their understandings.
There was as yet no rigid system, no definite classifica-
tion of Catechumens, such as that which grew up a
century later. The teacher was left free to deal with
his task, as the circumstances of his pupils or his own
genius led him. But the general course of instruction
pursued in the Alexandrine school we are fortunately
able to discover with great accuracy and fulness of detail.
Those who were not capable of anything more were
taught the facts of the Creed, with such comment and
explanation as seemed desirable. Others, Origen tells us,
were taught dialectically. The meaning of this phrase
is interpreted for us by Gregory Thaumaturgus, one of
the most illustrious and attached of Origen's disciples.
At the outset the student's powers of reasoning and exact
observation were strengthened by a thorough course of
scientific study, embracing geometry, physiology, and
astronomy. After science came philosophy. The writ-
ings of all the theological poets, and of all the philoso-
phers except the 'godless Epicureans,' were read and
expounded. The object of the teacher was no doubt in
part controversial. He endeavoured to prove the need of
revelation by dwelling on the contradictions and imper-
II.] The Catechetical School. 43
factions of all human systems, or he pointed out how the
partial light vouchsafed to Plato or Aristotle was but an
earnest of the dayspring from on high. But the attitude
of Clement or Origen towards Greek thought was not
controversial in any petty or ignoble sense. They looked
up to the great master-minds of the Hellenic schools
with a generous admiration, and infused the same spirit
into their disciples.
Philosophy culminated in Ethics, and at this point
began the dialectic training properly so called. The
student was called upon for a definition of one of those
words that lie at the root of all morality, Good or Evil,
Justice or Law ; and his definition became the theme of
a close discussion conducted in the form of question and
answer. In the course of these eager systematic con-
versations every prejudice was dragged to light, every
confusion unravelled, every error convicted, the shame
of ignorance was intensified, the love of truth kindled
into a passion. So far the course pursued did not differ
essentially from that familiar to the heathen schools.
But at this point the characteristic features of the Chris-
tian seminary come into view. We find them in the
consistency and power, with which virtue was represented
as a subject not merely for speculation but for practice
in the sympathy and magnetic personal attraction of
the teacher but above all in the Theology, to which all
other subjects of thought were treated as ancillary x .
It may be doubted whether any nobler scheme of
Christian education has ever been projected than this,
1 The materials for this account will be found in Guerike and the
Panegyric of Gregory Thaumaturgus (in Lomm. xxv. 339). Gregory is
describing the teaching of Origen as he had profited by it in Caesarea. But
the description will hold good of his earlier work at Alexandria.
44 Clement. [Lect.
which we find in actual working at Alexandria at the
end of the second century after Christ. I have dwelt
upon it at some length, partly because of the light it
throws upon the speculations of the great Alexandrine
divines, partly in view of the charges of ignorance and
credulity so often levelled at the early Christians. The
truth is, that so far as the Church differed from the rest
of society it differed for the better. Whatever treasures
of knowledge belonged to the ancient world lay at
its command, and were freely employed in its service,
and it possessed besides the inestimable advantage of
purer morals and a more reasonable creed.
The first master of the Alexandrine school is said to
have been the Apologist Athenagoras. But the state-
ment rests upon evidence so insufficient that we may be
permitted to disregard it 1 . The teacher, under whom
the institution first attains to a place in history,
is Pantaenus, a converted Stoic philosopher 2 , who in
the course of a mission journey to India is said to have
discovered a Hebrew version of the Gospel of St. Mat-
thew. He was an author of some eminence, but all that
we possess of his writings is a fragment of some half-dozen
lines, containing however a sensible and valuable remark
on the relations of the Greek and the Hebrew verb.
His pupil and successor was the more famous Clement.
. Titus Flavius Clemens was a Greek, and probably an
Athenian 3 . He was born about the middle of the
1 The name of Athenagoras is found first in the list of masters of the
Alexandrine school given by Philippus Sidetes in a fragment discovered by
Dodwell. Guerike inclines to accept the statement. Redepenning, i. 63,
regards it as highly doubtful. See also Otto, Proleg. to Athenagoras,
p. xxii.
2 See Guerike, Routh.
3 Epiph. xxxii. 6 : KAiy/x^s ov </>a0i Ttv 'A.\(av8p(a trtpoi 5 'AOrjvaTov, It
II.] His Life. 45
second century, and inherited his name in all likelihood
from an ancestor enfranchised by Vespasian or his son.
He was the child apparently of heathen parents l , and
Eleusis and the Schools had been to him the vestibule
of the Church. Like many another ardent spirit in that
restless age he wandered far and wide in quest of truth,
till at last in Egypt he ' caught ' Pantaenus, ' that true
Sicilian bee,' hidden away in modest obscurity, and in
his lessons found satisfaction alike for soul and mind.
Here at Alexandria he made his home. He received
priestly orders 2 , and was appointed master of the Cate-
chetical School, at first probably as assistant to Pan-
taenus. He appears to have fled from the persecution
of Severus in 203, and did not return to Egypt. After
this date we catch but one uncertain glimpse of him 3 ,
and it would seem that he died about 213.
It is not an eventful biography. Clement was essen-
tially a man of letters, and his genial contemplative
seems a natural inference from the account of his wanderings in Strom, i.
i. ii that he was not a native Alexandrine, and that his starting-point
was Hellas. The statement that he was an Athenian is rendered probable
by the character of his style, which is deeply tinged with Homeric phrases
and bears a strong resemblance to that of Philostratus and the Sophists
whom Philostratus describes, and again by his familiarity with Attic usage.
See for this last point Paed. i. 4. n ; 5. 14; ii. n. 117; 12. 122. But
Dindorf, Preface, p. xxvii, tries to make him more Attic than he is. For
the special bibliography of Clement the reader may consult Guerike, Dr.
Westcott in Dictionary of Christian Biography, Jacobi's article in Herzog,
and Dr. Harnack's Dogmengeschichte.
1 Eus. Praep. Ev. ii. 2. 64, iravrtav fiev 5id irdpas (\0iijv avr/p, Odrr6v ye
nty rfjs Tr\avrjs dvavevoas. We may perhaps infer from the knowledge of
the Mysteries displayed in Protrep. ii. that he had been initiated. But the
teachers to whom he expresses his obligations in Strom, i. i. n were all
Christians. See the note in Heinichen's Eusebius, H.E.v.ii. 3.
8 Paed. i. 6. 37.
3 Heinichen's Eus. H. E. vi. n. 6. For further information as to the
life of Clement see Guerike or Dr. Westcott's article in Dictionary of
Christian Biography.
46 Clement. [Lect.
temper rendered him averse to direct controversy and
the bustle of practical life. His writings are the faithful
mirror of his studies and thoughts, but tell us little of
incident. In later times he was considered a marvel of
learning. Nor was this estimate ill-grounded, for the
range of his acquaintance with Greek literature, eccle-
siastical T , Gnostic, and classical, was varied and extensive.
There are indeed deductions to be made. His citations
are often taken at second-hand from dubious sources,
and he did not sift his acquisitions with the scholar's in-
stinct 2 . He passes many a sharp remark on the rhetori-
1 Clement was acquainted with Barnabas, Hermas, Clemens Romanus,
with Melito, Irenaeus (Eus. H. E. vi. 13. 9; compare Strom, vii. 18. 109
with Irenaeus v. 8, and perhaps Protr. xi. in with Irenaeus iii. 22. 4; in
both Adam is created as a child, and Eve is at first his playmate), possibly
with Papias (but the ^oi/ew iroiKi\ai may come from Irenaeus v. ad Jin. or
elsewhere ; see Routh, Papias, frag. 5) and Tatian. With Justin (or the
author of the Cohort, ad Gentiles and de Man.} and Athenagoras he has certain
quotations in common. These however are probably drawn by all three from
Hecataeus; cp. Strom, v. 14. 113. He has no knowledge of Ignatius or
Tertullian. Of other books quoted I may name the Gospels according to
the Hebrews and Egyptians, the Revelation of Peter, the Preaching of Peter,
the Preaching of Paul (a distinct book), the Acts of Peter (?), the
Assumption of Moses (Adumb. p. 1008), the Syllogisms of Misael, the
Ji/larOiov TrapaSoaeis, Doctrina Apostolomm, Duae Viae, Enoch (Adttmb.
1008), Sophonias (Strom, v. II. 77). Others, the prophecies of Ham,
Nicolaus, Parchor, &c., seem to be distinctively Gnostic. References will
be found in editions of the Pp. App., Hilgenfeld, Bryennius, &c. I think
it probable that he had read the Homilies. See Lardner, Credibility,
vol. 2. A list of quotations from unknown Apocryphal sources will be
found in Bishop Kaye.
2 On the cucpiaia of Clement see Dindorf, Preface, xxii. Even when he
quotes KO.TCL \fw there can be no doubt that he is generally following some
secondary authority, often dishonest Jews, Hecataeus or Aristobulus.
Anthologies abounded at Alexandria, and often bore fanciful names, such as
\ei/jui>v, f\ifsut>, KTjpiov, irtTr\os, irapdSficros (Strom, vi. i. 2). A mere refer-
ence to the indices will show that Clement's knowledge of the dramatists is
not to be compared with that of Athenaeus. The lengthy passage begin-
ning Strom, i. 21, with all its imposing array of authorities, is compiled from
Tatian and Casianus. Lastly, though Clement refers to Varro and to Roman
ii.] His Learning and Character. 47
cians l , but at bottom he is himself a member of their
guild, cloudy, turgid, and verbose. But Theology had not
yet driven out the Muses. His love of letters is sincere,
and the great classics of Greece are his friends and coun-
sellors. Even the comic poets are often by his side. If
we look at his swelling periods, at his benignity and
liberality and the limitations of his liberality, at his
quaint and multifarious learning, at his rare blending of
gentle piety and racy humour, we shall find in him a
striking counterpart to our own author of the Liberty
of Prophesying.
Clement is not a great preacher, for he has neither
acted nor witnessed such a soul's tragedy as that dis-
closed by Augustine in his Confessions. He is no such
comforter for the doubting and perplexed as the fearless
Origen. Still less is he one of those dialecticians who
solace the logical mind with the neatness and precision
of their statements. He is above all things a Mis-
sionary. For one thus minded the path of success lies
in the skill, with which he can avail himself of the good,
that lies ready to his hand. He must graft the fruitful
olive on to the wild stem, and aim at producing, not a
new character, but a richer development of the old.
This is his guiding principle. The Gospel in his view
is not a fresh departure, but the meeting-point of two
customs and history in four or five places, he seems to have been almost
wholly ignorant of the West.
1 They are ' a river of words, a drop of sense,' or like old boots of which
all but the tongue is worn out (Strom, i. 3. 22), full of quibbles and disputes
about shadows (Strom, vi. 18. 182 ; Strom, i. 5. 29). Clement says of those
who give themselves up to Rhetoric, ' as most do,' that they have fallen in
love with the handmaid and neglect the mistress. This last figure is
from Philo, De Congr. Erud. Grat. 27 : the handmaid is Hagar, secular
knowledge ; the mistress Sarah, divine philosophy. He disparages style,
Strom, i. 10. 48 ; ii. i. 3.
48 Clement.
converging lines of progress, of Hellenism and Judaism.
To him all history is one, because all truth is one.
' There is one river of Truth,' he says, ' but many
streams fall into it on this side and on that V Among
Christian writers none till very recent times, not even
Origen, has so clear and grand a conception of the
development of spiritual life. The civilisation of the
old world had indeed led to idolatry. But idolatry,
shameful and abominable as it was, must be regarded
as a fall, a corruption 2 . The fruits of Reason are to be
judged not in the ignorant and sensual, but in Hera-
clitus, in Sophocles, in Plato. For such as these Science
had been a covenant of God 3 , it had justified them as
the Law justified the Jew 4 . He still repeats the old
1 Strom, i. 5. 29. So a drachma is one and the same, but if you give it
to a ship-captain it is called ' fare,' if to a revenue officer ' tax,' if to a land-
lord ' rent,' if to a schoolmaster ' fee,' if to a shopkeeper ' price ;' Strom, i.
20. 97, 98. Truth is like the body of Pentheus, torn asunder by fanatics,
each seizes a limb and thinks he has the whole ; Strom, i. 13. 57. This last
famous simile is borrowed from Numenius, Eus. Praep. Ev. xiv. 5. 7.
8 It was a corruption of Star- worship which God gave to the Gentiles
as a stepping-stone to a purer religion ; Strom, vi. 14. no sq. This idea,
which is also found in Origen (Redepenning, ii. 27), is based partly on a mis-
interpretation of Deut. iv. 19 (see Potter's Note), partly on the history of
Abraham as told by Philo. The origin of Mythology Clement has analysed
with considerable skill ; Protrep. ii. 26. But in general he hovers between
the two views prevalent in the early Church. Sometimes he speaks of the
gods, with Euemerus, as ' dead men,' sometimes as ' demons.' Athenagoras,
Tertullian, Minucius Felix combine these two beliefs and represent the gods
as dead men whose temples, images, and tombs were haunted by the
demons for the sake of the steam and blood of the sacrifices.
3 Strom, vi. 8. 67.
4 Strom, i. 5. 28 ; vi. 5. 42 sqq. Philosophy is an imperfect gift bestowed
ov irpoi]yov/j.tvcas dAAd tear' eira.KO\ovOr)na, i. e. not by special revelation
but as a natural consequence of the possession of reason. Hence its right-
eousness is imperfect and preparatory, and cannot avail those who deli-
berately reject the Gospel ; Strom, i. 7. 38. It justified the Philosopher
when it led him to renounce idolatry, vi. 6. 44. and carry his principles into
practice, vi. 7. 55. But Sixaios Sixaiov icaOo 8iKcu6s (<JTIV ov 8ta(f>(pet, vi. 6. 47.
II.] Value of Philosophy. 49
delusion that the Greek philosopher had ' stolen ' his
best ideas from the books of Moses 1 . But his real belief
is seen in the many passages where he maintains that
Philosophy is a gift not of devils 2 but of God through
the Logos, whose light ever beams upon his earthly
image, the intelligence of man. 'Like the burning
glass, its power of kindling is borrowed from the sun 3 .'
It was not only a wise but a courageous view. The
Apologists had not as a rule been hostile to secular
learning, but they made little use of it. Pleading for
toleration, for life, to educated men they laboured to
prove that the Christian doctrines of God, the Word,
Virtue, Immortality, are those of all true philosophy,
that Revelation is the perfection of Common Sense 4 .
But they did not go beyond this ; their object was not to
set out the whole of Christian teaching, still less to
coordinate it. The Gnostics alone had attempted this.
But the Gnostics endeavoured to combine the Evan-
gelical theory with wholly alien beliefs. Hence, rejecting
the Old Testament, they denied what all Chfistians
Christ preached in Hades not only to Jews but to Greeks ; it would be ' very
unfair,' Tr\foveias ov rrjs rvxovarjs fpyov, that the latter should be condemned
for ignorance of what they could not know. See for other quotations,
Guerike, Redepenning, Origenes, i. 139 sqq.
1 Clement refers to the Greek Philosophers the words of onr Lord, John x. 8.
Yet all their knowledge was not 'stolen;' Strom. i. 17. 87. But he maintains
the hypothesis of ' theft ' at great length, v. 14. 89 sqq.
3 Here too Clement vacillates. Strom, v. I. 10 he adopts the doctrine of
the Homilies (or Enoch?) that the fallen angels betrayed the secrets of
heaven to their earthly wives. Elsewhere philosophy is a fruit of the in-
dwelling of the divine spirit, the lnq>var\\w., Protr. vi. 68 ; Strom, v. 13. 87.
Its doctrines are kvava^ara riva rov \6yov, Protr. vii. 74. Or it is given
by the good Angels, Strom, vi. 17. 156 sqq.
3 Strom, vi. 17. 149. Strom, i. 5. 37 it is finely compared to God's rain
which falls upon all kinds of soil and causes all kinds of plants to grow.
* See Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, pp. 379 sqq.
E
50 Clement. [Lect.
regarded as the principal evidence of the Divinity of
Christ, their Docetism reduced Redemption to a purely
moral and intellectual process, their Dualism cut away
the testimony of Scripture and of experience to the
existence and character of God 1 . There arose a violent
reaction. Irenaeus maintains that God has given to
us two infallible criteria, our own senses and Scripture,
and that all beyond is superfluous and fallacious. Tatian
inveighs against the Schools with fierce derision. Her-
mias and Tertullian 2 assert with the Book of Enoch
that Greek Science is the invention of devils, the bridal
gift of the fallen Angels to the daughters of men.
This opinion was strongly represented at Alexandria,
which was indeed the hotbed of Gnosticism. The
ruling party there was that of the Orthodoxasts, whose
watchword was ' Only believe/ who took their stand
upon the Creed and refused to move one step beyond 3 .
Even in that age and place Clement saw and dared
to proclaim, that the cure of error is not less knowledge
but more. Hence he strenuously asserted not only the
merits of Philosophy in the past but its continuous
necessity in the Church 4 . Not merely does learning
1 This argument against Dualism is nowhere so forcibly expressed as by
the ingenious editor of the Recognitions, i\. 52 : 'Aperi nobis . . . quomodo tu ex
lege didiceris deum quern lex ipsa nescit.' Ibid. 60 : ' Da ergo nobis . . . sensum
aliquem novum per quem novum quern dicis deum possimus agnoscere ; isti
enim quinque sensus, quos nobis dedit creator deus, creatori suo fidem
servant.' Simon Magus replies that the sixth sense required is Ecstasy, and
Peter in answer finely exposes the vanity of such a source of knowledge.
2 See Irenaeus, ii. 26, 27; Tert. Apol. 35; De Idol. 9; Hermias, ad
init. (cp. Otto's Prolegomena, pp. xliii. sqq.); Tatian, 25 sqq.
3 The opOoSoaffrai, Strom, i. 9. 45. He calls them also <f>i\e'yK\ri(j.ovfs,
ifttxpoSfets. They demand tyiXriv rrjv vianv, i. i. 18 ; 9. 43. For a lively
but malicious picture of this party by the hand of a clever unbeliever, see
Origen, Contra Celsum, iii. 44-78.
4 Strom, i. 5. 28.
II.] Value of Philosophy. 51
grace the preacher, not merely does it impart clearness,
security, elevation to the convictions, but it is essential
to conduct. For Christianity is a reasonable service.
The virtue of Justice in particular is impossible without
intelligence. Science is the correlative of Duty. And
though Scripture is the all-sufficient guide, even here
the Christian must borrow assistance from the Schools.
For Philosophy is necessary to Exegesis. ' Even in the
Scriptures the distinction of names and things breeds
great light in the soul 1 .'
Thus, however much the field of enquiry is limited by
Authority, learning is still indispensable as the art of
expression, as logic, as ethics, as sociology, as philology.
But the Alexandrines went further. They professed
and exhibited the most entire loyalty to the Creed.
But outside the circle of Apostolical dogma they held
themselves free. They agreed with the Orthodoxasts
that Scripture was inspired. But their great Platonic
maxim, that ' nothing is to be believed which is un-
worthy of God,' makes reason the judge of Revelation 2 .
They held that this maxim was a part of the Aposto-
lical tradition, and accordingly they put the letter of the
Bible in effect on one side, wherever, as in the account of
Creation or of the Fall, it appeared to conflict with the
teaching of Science. But though there is in them a
1 Strom, i. 2. 19, 20; 20. 99, too; vi. 6 sqq., 10 sqq. The Lord an-
swered Satan with a play upon the word ' bread,' i. 9. 44, ' and I fail to see
how Satan, if he were, as some consider, the inventor of philosophy and
dialectics, could be baffled by the well-known figure of amphiboly.' For
the relation of Science to Duty see especially Strom, i. 9. 43 ; 10. 46 ; for
its service to Exegesis, i. 9. 44 sq. ; vi. 10. 82.
2 This maxim is enunciated by Clement, Strom, vi. 15. 124 ; vii. 16. 196,
and lies at the root of Allegorism. It is the guiding principle also of the
Homilies (ii. 40, vdv \(x Gtv % "ffMvpZv Kara rov Qtov ifsfvSos effriv), and of
the Gnostics.
E 2
52 Clement. [Lect.
strong vein of Common Sense or Rationalism, they
were not less sensible of the mystic supernatural side
of the religious life than Irenaeus. The difference is,
that with them the mystical grows out of the rational,
that they think always less of the historical fact than of
the idea, less of the outward sign than of the inner
truth. Their object is to show, not that Common Sense
is enough for salvation, but that neither Faith without
Reason nor Reason without Faith can bring forth its
noblest fruits, that full communion with God, the
highest aim of human effort, can be attained only by
those who in Christ have grown to the stature of the
perfect man, in whom the saint and the thinker are
blended together in the unity of the Divine Love.
Hence they represent on one side the revolt of Pro-
testantism against Catholicism, on the other that of
Mysticism against Gnosticism. And their great service
to the Church is, that they endeavoured faithfully to
combine the two great factors of the spiritual life.
The Canon of Scripture had already assumed very
nearly its permanent form *. Gradually, with infinite
care and discussion, those documents, which could be
1 See Dr. Westcott, On the Canon, pp. 354 sqq., ed. 1881 : 'Clement it
appears recognised as Canonical all the books of the New Testament
except the Epistle of St. James, the second Epistle of St. Peter, and the
third Epistle of St. John. And his silence as to these can prove no more
than that he was not acquainted with them.' Most of the references to
James given in the Index are doubtful. But in Strom, vi. 18. 164 there
seems to be a clear allusion to the ' royal law ' of love. And the mention
of James with Peter, John, and Paul as the founders of Christian Gnosis,
Strom, i. i. n ; vi. 9. 68, would be very remarkable unless James were
known to Clement as a Canonical writer. Again, Eusebius (H. E. vi. 14) and
Cassiodorius both testify that James was commented upon in the Hypoty-
poses. On the authority attributed by Clement to Barnabas and the
Revelation of Peter (both were included in the Hypotyposes), see Dr. West-
cott, App. B.
ii.] The Canon. 53
regarded as possessed of Apostolical authority, had been
set apart to form the New Testament. And as the
circle was drawn closer, as the living voice of Prophecy
died away, so the reverence for the canonical books grew
higher, till they were regarded as inspired in the same
sense as the older Scriptures. But, as soon as men began
to read the New Testament as a divinely given whole,
they could not fail to be struck by the violent contrast
between the teaching of St. Paul and the whole system
of the existing Church. Down to this time no trace of
' Paulinism ' is to be found, except among the Gnostics.
Even Clement apologises for treating ' the noble Apostle 1 ,'
as he calls him, with the same deference as the Twelve.
But he does so without hesitation, and the working of
the new leaven is seen at once in his view of Knowledge,
of the Resurrection, of Retribution. Indeed, we may
characterise this period as the first of those Pauline
reactions, which mark the critical epochs of theology.
It is the age of Irenaeus and the Alexandrines. But
while the leading motive of the former is the Incarna-
tion, the mystical saving work of Christ, the guiding
principles of the latter are the goodness of God and
the freedom of Man. Hence Paulinism assumed very
1 'O dirooroAos, 6 waXoj, Oecrirefftos, fevvaios dir6ffTo\os. The passage
referred to is Strom, iv. 21. 134, 'Icrrtov fj.fvroi on, el leal 6 IlauAos rofy
Xpovois vtdfi evOiis /tera TTJV TOV Kvpiov dvd\r]tyiv dn/jtaffas, d\\d ovi> 17 ypcupfl
a\ni (K TTJS im\aids ^prrjrat SiaOrjKijs Ket0fv dvairvfovffa /cal \a\ovffa.
Clement maintains against the Ebionites that St. Paul is in complete
accordance with the Jewish Scriptures. At the same time he regards him,
like Origen, as one of the chief authorities for the use of Allegorism. On
the terms 'Judaism,' 'Jewish Christian,' 'Paulinism,' see Dr. Harnack's
excellent remarks (Dogmengeschichte, pp. 215 sqq.). Dr. Harnack also sets
the Simon Magus myth in a true historical light (ibid. p. 179). It is
cheering to notice the dying away of the wilful Tubingen theories, on
which so much erudition and ingenuity have been wasted.
54 Clement. [Lect.
different shapes in the Western and the Eastern doctors *.
In the former the antithesis of the First and the Second
Adam is already pointing the way to the Augustinian
doctrine of Grace, in the latter the vision of the great
day, when Christ shall deliver up the kingdom to His
Father, leads on to Universalism.
The second great question arising out of the com-
pletion of the Canon was that of the Unity of Scripture.
This the Catholic strenuously asserted, the Gnostic denied
or admitted only with large reservations.
What is the relation of the Old Testament to the
New? What is that Law which Jesus came not to
destroy but to fulfil ? The Ebionites replied that it was
the Spiritual Law, that is to say the Moral Law, with
the addition of certain positive precepts circumcision,
the sabbath, abstention from blood 2 . The general body
1 Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, pp. 424 sqq.
2 I refer to the Homilies. Circumcision is there regarded as of eternal
obligation ; thus in the Epistle of Peter and The Contestation it is ordered that
the sacred books of the sect shall be entrusted to none but a circumcised
believer. In the body of the work this condition is not insisted upon. But
Clement had become a Jew at Rome; iv. 22. The observation of the
Sabbath, again, is not insisted upon, but it underlies the effSonaSos itvarriptov
of xvii. i o. The precepts of the Spiritual Law are given in vii. 4. Abstention
from blood was the law of the whole Church (see Or. Sibyllina, ii. 96 ; viii.
402 ; Eusebius, H. E. v. i. 26 ; Tert. Apol. 9 ; Clement, Paed. ii. i. 17 ;
Origen, In Rom. ii. 13, Lorn. vi. 1 28). It was falling into desuetude in the
time of Augustine ; see note in Heinichen on Euseb. H. E. v. i. 26. The
Sabbath was kept as a holy day ; see Bingham, xiii. 9. 3. It was still
necessary to argue the higher sanctity of the Lord's Day, the eighth day.
Hence the earnest iteration with which Clement dwells on the 'Oyoodoos
fjvffrripiov, Strom, iv. 17. 109; v. 6. 36 ; 14.106; vi. 14. 108 ; 16. 138.
In the last passage he argues that Light was created on the first day, then
follow six days of creative work, then the eighth a repetition of the first.
I may notice here that in one passage (Strom, v. ii. 74) Clement speaks of
the Law as actually forbidding Sacrifice. This is the view of the Homilies,
of Barnabas, ii. 9, of the Epistle to Diognetus, iii. iv, and of the Praedicatio
Petri apud Strom, vi. 5. 41. It is a good instance of Clement's erudite
uncertainty.
II.] Unity of Scripture. 55
of the Church differed from this definition only in so far
as they rejected the rite of circumcision. But the Ebion-
ites went on to declare, that the whole of the Old Testa-
ment, so far as it was not in strict agreement with this
standard, is a forgery of the Evil Spirit. They involved
in one sweeping condemnation the Temple ritual, the
history of the wars, and the Monarchy, and a large part
of the prophetic writings 1 . This was in substance the
view of the Gnostics also. These maintained that the
Author of the Old Testament is described sometimes
as evil, sometimes as imperfect, commanding fierce wars
of extermination, caring for sacrifice, governing by pay-
ment and punishment. He is Just, they said, at best,
but surely not Good.
Clement, whose intellect is penetrating but not syste-
matic, did not grasp the whole range of the problem
before him. He leaves for Origen the task of dealing
with those passages, in which, as the Gnostics aiftrmed,
the Scriptures attribute direct immorality to Jehovah,
and confines himself to the proposition that goodness is
not inconsistent with severity, that He who teaches must
also threaten, and He who saves correct. Justice, he
insists, is the reverse side of Love. ' He, who is Good
for His own sake, is Just for ours, and Just because He
is Good 2 .' The moral Law then, though inferior to the
Gospel Law, because it works by fear and not by love,
and reveals God as Lord but not as Father, is yet one
1 Not all the prophets; see the references in Lagarde's edition of the
Homilies. In particular, Is. vii. 6, ix. 6 are applied to Christ, Horn. xvi. 14,
from which it would seem that the first chapter of Matthew was not omitted
by the Ebionites. This was quite consistent with a denial of Chribt's
Divinity, as in the case of Theodotus of Byzantium ; Philos. vii. 35.
2 Paed. i. 10. 88 ; the theme is dwelt upon at great length in this book
from chap. 8 onwards. Cp. Strom, i. 27. 171 ; ii. 7. 32 sqq. ; iv. 3. 9.
56 Clement. [Lect.
with it in the way of development, as a needful prepara-
tory discipline, as a step in the divine education of the
world, or of the individual 1 . The rest of the Old Testa-
ment, though in one sense transient, has yet an eternal
significance as the shadow of good things to come, as
revealing Christ throughout, though but in riddles and
symbols. It has therefore a high doctrinal value for
those who can read it aright. Already the Sacrificial
Law was looked upon as the charter of the Christian
hierarchy 2 . But this opinion, so pregnant of conse-
quences in later times, Clement deliberately rejects. In
this point he differs from Origen, by whom the Priest
and Levite are regarded as types of the Christian
Presbyter and Deacon, though even he does not carry
the parallel so far as was afterwards done.
The method by which this inner harmony is discover-
able, the key to the riddles of the Old Testament, is Alle-
gorism. What this singular system effected in the hands
of the Alexandrine Jew, we have already seen. By the
Christian it was adapted to fresh purposes the explana-
tion of Prophecy and of the .New Testament itself. It
was in universal use, and was regarded by all as one
of the articles of the Ecclesiastical Canon or Tradition 3 .
1 For the unity of Inspiration, and so of all Scripture, see Strom.
ii. 6. 29 ; iii. n. 76 ; iv. 21. 132 ; iv. 22. 135 ; vi. 13. 106 ; vi. 15. 125; vii.
16. 95 ; vii. 18. 107. The Law is inferior to the Gospel as teaching only
abstinence from evil, yet this is the way to the Gospel and to well-doing ;
iv. 21. 130. The Law and Prophets taught in riddles what the Gospel
teaches clearly; vi. 7. 58; 15. 123. The Law governs by fear, ii. 6. 30,
and reveals God as Lord, i. 27. 173, a very Philonic passage.
2 In the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. See Lightfoot, Philip-biuns,
pp. 252 sqq.
3 Origen, De Princ., Preface, 8. Clement appears to distinguish between
two traditions, the Ecclesiastical and the Gnostic, the KO.VWV TTJS tKKkrjaias,
Strom. i. i. 15 ; 19. 96 ; vii. 15. 90 ; 16. 95, 104, and the yvaiffTiKr) TrapaBoais,
ii.] Alkgorism. 57
We shall be compelled to revert to this topic at a later
period, and it will be sufficient here to notice, that the
Alexandrines differed from their contemporaries in three
important points. They regarded Allegorism as having
been handed down from Christ and a few chosen Apostles,
through a succession, not of Bishops, but of Teachers 1 .
They employed it boldly, as Philo had done before them,
for the reconciliation of Greek culture with the Hebrew
Scriptures. And lastly they applied it to the New Testa-
ment, not merely for the purpose of fanciful edification, but
with the serious object of correcting the literal, mechanical,
hierarchical tendencies of the day 2 . This is in truth the
noblest side of Allegorism, for here it deals with cases,
where the antithesis of letter and spirit is most real and
Strom, i. i. 15, or yi-cuais, iv. 15. 97. The latter was communicated by
Christ to James, Peter, John, Paul, and the other Apostles, vi. 8. 68, but
only to the Four, i. i. n ; cp. iv. 15. 97. The former is the Little, the
latter the Great Mysteries. The former gives the facts of the Creed, and
Faith and Obedience, being ' watered ' by Greek philosophy, lead up to the
spiritual interpretation of the facts. See the opening of Strom, i. generally.
The Gnostic tradition is secret in so far as all Christians do not as a matter
of fact understand it, yet not secret in so far as all ought to understand it.
Hence Clement, Paed. i. 6. 33, denies that the Church has SiSaxas a\\as
airopprjTovs, while he yet speaks of TO rrjs yvwpTjs aTrupprjTof, Quis Dives
Salmis, 5; Strom, i. i. 13. The difference between this teaching and
Origen's is merely verbal.
1 See Strom, i. i. n ; vi. 9. 68.
2 I may notice here that Clement speaks of Four Senses of Scripture.
The MS. reading Tfrpax^s in Strom, i. 28. 1 79 is quite right, in spite of the
doubts of Bishop Potter and Sylburg. Compare 176, 17 ptv ovv Kara
Mcavaea <pi\oao<pia rtrpa\ri Te/j.verai, that is to say into History, Legislation
( = Ethics), Sacrifice ( = Physics), and Theology or Epopteia ( = Dialectic
or Metaphysics). Here the three higher divisions answer to the branches
of Philosophy as taught in the Greek schools. In 1 79 Clement repeats
this : ' \Ve must interpret the law in four ways as giving a type, or a moral
command or a prophecy.' The literal sense is omitted. The identification
of Sacrificial Typology with Physics is very arbitrary. Theodotus, Ex-
cerpta, 66, speaks of Three Senses, the Literal, the Parabolic, and the
Mystical, just like Origen, but finds them only in the New Testament.
58 Clement. [Lect.
vital. Yet it was this crowning merit of the Alexandrines
that led to one of their most serious errors. On many
points the explanation of those much-contested words,
Priest, Altar, Sacrifice, the Body and Blood of Christ,
the Power of the Keys, Eternal Life, Eternal Death
they were at variance with the spirit of the age. Hence
they were driven to what is known as Reserve. The
belief of the enlightened Christian becomes a mystery,
that may not be revealed to the simpler brother, for
whom the letter is enough. They strove to justify them-
selves in this by texts of Scripture, but their Reserve is
in fact the 'medicinal lie 1 ' of Plato, the freemasonry of
the Gnostics, and their best defence is that in practice it
is little more than a figure of speech.
From the Unity of Truth flows the necessity of Reve-
lation. For all knowledge must rest ultimately on the
same small group of Axioms, which cannot be proved, as
the Greek understood proof 2 . 'There is then no third term
between a self-communication of the Divine and absolute
scepticism.
The ultimate and therefore, strictly speaking, only in-
demonstrable axiom of religious philosophy is that, which
concerns the Being and the Nature of God. By the
grace of the Logos He has been known though imper-
fectly in all ages and climes to those, who diligently
sought Him. But to us He is revealed in the New
Testament as a Triad 3 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
1 Strom, vii. 9. 53, of the Gnostic : a\r)&fj re yap <ppovet a/jui KOL a\t)0ev(i,
irXr)i/ ! /7 iroTf kv Sfpcurfias fifpd, teaffairtp iarpbs irpos voaowras eirl aoirrjpia
runs KayaiQVTOiv \fttvfftTai fj if/tvSos eptT Kara TOVS ao<f>t<TTas.
2 Strom, ii. 4. 13 ; vi. 7. 57 sq.
3 Strom, v. 14. 103. The word is used by Theophilus, Ad Autol. ii. 15.
But it is doubtful whether Theophilus was the first to employ it. Cp.
Excerpta ex Theod. So, where it is said that the believer 5<d Tpiuv ovo^aTiav
II.] The Trinity. 59
What is the exact signification of these titles ? What
is the precise relation to one another and to us of the
Entities they denote ? The answer to these questions was
the first and most difficult task of Christian Theology.
From the very outset all Christian sects baptised and
pronounced the benediction in the Triple Name. Even
those, who could not understand, did not venture to abjure
this authoritative formula, and the problems agitated,
serious as they undoubtedly were, turned solely upon
the manner of its explanation. Some like the author of
the Homilies, and the Gnostics generally, tried to fit it
on, by the most violent methods, to opinions derived
from external sources 1 . Others endeavoured to recon-
cile the One with the Three, by what is known as
Emanationism. The Son, the Holy Spirit, were occa-
sional expansions of the Divine Nature, shooting forth
like rays from a torch, and again absorbed into the
parent flame 2 . Others, again, regarded the Three Names
as three phases, or manifestations, of the One Divine
Activity 3 . But the main body of the Church asserted
irdarjs TTJS eo <j>dopa, rpiaSos airij\\a"fr). The form of the antithesis seems
to imply that the Three Namls were already spoken of as a Trias.
1 The Homilies afford perhaps the most striking of all external proofs of
the authenticity of the Baptismal Formula. The Son, one of the two powers
of God, is emphatically ' not God.' The Holy Spirit is a mere occasional
emanation, ' a hand put forth ' for the purpose of creation and then
' drawn back again,' xvi. 12 ; 15 ; xx. 8. Yet the sect which adhered to this
Jewish ante-Philonie system baptised in the Triple Name, ix. 19, and used
the doxology, iii. 72. The point is urged by Dorner, vol. i. p. 168 of the
English translation. A widely different view is maintained by Harnack,
Dogmengeschichte, p. 56 ; Scholten, Die Taufformel.
* The Son, Justin, Trypho, 128 (p. 458 in Otto's ed.). This passage is
wrongly referred to by Bishop Potter, and apparently by Siegfried, p. 334,
as giving Justin's own opinion. The Holy Spirit, Athenagoras, p. 48 of
Otto's ed.
3 Perhaps the Alogi, see Domer ; but Dr. Schaff (Diet, of Christian Biog. t
Alogians) doubts this. The Monarchians, Neander, ii. p. 295 of the English
60 Clement. [Lect.
the Deity and Personality of the Son, and, though with
less unanimity, those also of the Holy Ghost, and spoke
of the Three as united in Power or in Spirit.
The Christian doctrine differed from that of Philo in
many important features. In the latter, as we have
seen, a certain doubt hangs over the number and even
the existence of the Powers. They are a divination, a
poet's vision of what may be, of what must be, but hardly
more. And, because they form an indefinite series, the
Powers are essentially inferior to their source. The
Divine Energy is degraded as it approaches the sphere
of material existence, the Logos has the light but not
the fire of God. It is because he is inferior that he is
the Demiurge, the Eternal Himself may not be brought
into contact with evil. But the Christian held that God
made the world out of nothing, and made it good.
Hence the concrete is no longer polluted, and creation
is a mark rather of the exaltation than of the inferiority
of its Agent. ' In Him was Life.' Thus there remains
no other difference between the Father and the Logos
than that between the One and the Many, an eternal
antithesis, which in Clement's view implies the mutual
necessity of the two terms, in that of Origen, who lays
more stress upon the idea of causation, a distinction of
dignity but not of nature. This mode of thought was
immensely strengthened by the Incarnation, by which
translation. Monarchianism was especially strong in Rome, Ens. H. E. v.
28 ; Philos. ix ; Tert. Adv Prax. It is to be regarded neither as the pre-
vailing view of the Roman Church, nor as a heresy introduced at a late
date, but as an ancient opinion which had always existed side by side with
the belief in a Personal Trinity. The incompatibility of the two modes of
conception was not distinctly realised till towards the end of the second
century. The chronology and details of the history of Monarchianism are
very obscure. See Harnack, 564 sqq.
ii.] Previous Speculations. 61
humanity is taken up into the bosom of the Divine, and
the deepest humiliation becomes a gauge of the Love
and Wisdom that prompted it. Again in Philo there is
scarcely a trace of any Messianic hope, while, in the belief
of the Christian, Christ is at once the Giver, the Sum, and
the Accomplisher of all Revelation. Other functions,
that especially enhance the distinction between the two
points of view, are those of Pardon and of Judgment.
On the other hand, in one remarkable point the ideal
of Christianity was in danger of falling below that of
Philo. For there was a tendency in less philosophical
minds to distinguish between the unspoken and the
spoken Word, to conceive of the Son, the Divine Reason
or Logos, as at first immanent in the mind of the Father
and assuming hypostasis for the purpose of Creation 1 .
It is at this point that Clement takes up the thread.
But it must be observed, that he is never controversial
nor even historical in his method. His horizon is limited
by the Eastern world. He never glances at Monarch-
ianism, which was already perhaps the subject of fierce
debate in Rome. Hence it is difficult to trace the exact
relation of his ideas to those of his predecessors or
contemporaries.
The knowledge of God is necessarily the starting-point
of the religious philosopher. But how is God to be
known? Philo dwells upon the lessons to be learned
from the order and beauty of Creation. These give a
true though inadequate picture of Jehovah, and form the
1 Philo does not apply to the Divine Logos the distinction of evdidOeros
and irpo<f>opiKos. It is employed by Theophilus, Ad Aut. ii. 10. 22, by
Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 5, and the author of the Philos. x. 33. Irenaeus rejects
these terms as Gnostic, ii. 28. 6. See Baur, Dreieinigkeit, pp. 163 sqq. ;
Lehrb. der Chr. Dogmengesch, p. 105.
62 Clement. [Lect.
creed of the lower life, of those who have not risen above
the guidance of the Logos. But Clement knows the
world only through books, and hardly touches upon this
fruitful and persuasive theme 1 . For him the channels of
revelation are only Scripture and abstract reason. He
ought on his own principle to have regarded the second
as merely ancillary to the first. This however is far
from being his real view. Scripture gives us such an idea
of God, as is sufficient to start and guide us in our efforts
to attain moral purity. But purity is only a negative
state, valuable chiefly as the condition of insight. He who
has been purified in Baptism and then initiated into the
Little Mysteries, has acquired that is to say the habits
of self-control and reflection, becomes ripe for the Greater
Mysteries 2 , for Epopteia or Gnosis, the scientific know-
ledge of God. From this point he is led on by the
1 He touches upon it, Protrep. i. 5 ; iv. 63. But we should notice that
the Protrepticus is addressed to the unconverted heathen.
2 The three stages are represented loosely by the three surviving treatises
of Clement. The Protrepticus is an exhortation to the heathen world to
turn to the Word, the Light, and leads up to Baptism. The Paedagogus
shows how the baptised Christian is further purified by discipline which
eradicates passion = r<i Kadapvia, ra fjmcpii ftvarripia. The Stromateis as we
have them are a rambling account of the moral side of Gnosis. They
describe Book i the relation of Faith to Education ; Book ii the definition
of Faith and its relation to Knowledge ; Book iii the Gnostic virtue of
Temperance ; Book iv Courage and Love ; Book v Relation of Faith to
Symbolism ; Book vi Knowledge, Apathy, the use of Philosophy ; Book vii
description of the Gnostic life. The last two books conclude what he calls
the riOiitos ronos, and were to be followed by an investigation of the a.p\ai,
the Gnosis proper. This he never wrote. The logical treatise which
forms Book viii may have been intended as an introduction to the Christian
metaphysics. Thus Clement never really reached the /j.tyd\a /^var-^pia or
ftroirrfia. See Strom, i. i. 15 ; v. u. 71 ; vi. i. i ; vii. 4. 27 ; Protrep. xii.
118 sqq. ; Paed. i. i. For a fuller analysis of his writings, see Westcott,
Clement of Alexandria, in Diet, of Ch. Biog. ; Overbeck, Theol. Lit. Ztg.,
1879, No. 20; and Hist. Ztschr., N. F., Bd. xii. pp. 455-472 ; Zahn,
Forschungen. Other information in Fabricius, Dahne, De fvwati.
II.] The Deity. 63
method of Analysis or Elimination 1 . 'Stripping from
concrete existence all physical attributes, taking away
from it in the next place the three dimensions of space,
we arrive at the conception of a point having position.'
There is yet a further step, for perfect simplicity has not
yet been gained. Reject the idea of position, and we
have reached the last attainable abstraction, the pure
Monad.
This is God. We know not what He is, only what
He is not. He has absolutely no predicates, no genus,
no differentia, no species. He is neither unit nor
number, He has neither accident nor substance. Names
denote either qualities or relations. God has neither.
' He is formless and nameless, though we sometimes
give Him titles, which are not to be taken in their proper
sense, the One, the Good, Intelligence, or Existence, or
Father, or God, or Creator, or Lord.' These are but
honourable phrases, which we use, not because they
really describe the Eternal, but that our understanding
may have something to lean upon 2 .
The next step must obviously be to find some means
of restoring to the Supreme Being the actuality, of
which He has been deprived in this appalling definition.
This Clement effects through the doctrine of the Son.
' The God then, being indemonstrable, is not the object
1 dvd\vais, Strom, v. II. 71, or /card atyaipfffiv, Alcinous, chap. lo. The
same method is applied by Maximus Tyrins, xvii. 5 sqq. See Lecture V ad in.
2 The leading passages are Strom, v. n. 71 ; 12. 81 sq. ; vi. 18. 166 ; cp.
also ii. i. 6. God is iitiittiva. rov epos KOI virtp avrjjv fj.ova.Sa, Paed. i. 8. 71.
But though this really means the same as 1-ntKtiva. rrjs ovaias, Clement
avoids the use of this Platonic phrase. God is or has ovaia, Strom, ii. 2. 5 ;
iv. 26. 162 ; v. 10. 66 ; Fragment of ittpl irpovoias, Dmdorf, iii. 497 ; Zahn,
iii. 40. Clement departs from Plato again in applying the term Infinite to
God.
64 Clement. [Lect-
or knowledge, but the Son is Wisdom, and Knowledge,
and Truth, and whatever else is akin to these, and so is
capable of demonstration and definition. All the powers
of the Divine Nature gathered into one complete the
idea of the Son, but He is infinite as regards each of
His powers. He is then not absolutely One as Unity,
nor Many as divisible, but One as All is One. Hence
He is All. For He is a circle, all the powers being
orbed and united in Him.'
The Son in this Pythagorean mode of statement is
the circle, of which the Father is the central point. He
is the ideal Many, the Mind, of which the Father is the
principle of identity. He is in fact the consciousness of
God 1 .
We are here brought into contact with one of the
most pregnant thoughts of the second century. Clement
it will be seen, though Philo is before his eyes, has
taken the leap from which Philo recoiled. He has
distinguished between the thinker and the thought, be-
tween Mind and its unknown foundation, and in so
doing has given birth to Neo-Platonism 2 .
1 Strom, iv. 25. 156. If Zahn is right (Forsch. iii. 77) in ascribing to
the Hypotyposes the fragment preserved by Maximus Confessor, Clement
expressly denied to God any consciousness of the external world. He sees
the object only as mirrored in the Son. This will then be the signification
of the words us iSia 6t\ijp.ara 6 Otos ra ovra fivwfficei. Routh (vol. i. p.
378) with better reason attributes the fragment to Pantaenus. But in any
case Clement's meaning seems to be clear.
2 The doctrine of the Absolute God Clement may have drawn through
Basilides or Valentinus from Aristotle. The conception of the Son as the
Father's complement, the vorjats which the Father voeT, is not, so far as
I am aware, to be found in any Gnostic writer. Contrast with Clement's
language Excerpta, 7. The doctrine of Nnmenins, as I shall endeavour
to show in Lecture vii, is quite different. Nor can Clement have been
indebted to Ammonius Saccas. For Ammonius would be only about
thirty years of age in 290 A. D. Philosophers rarely began to teach before
II.] The Deity. 65
It is essentially a heathen conception, and can be
developed consistently only on heathen principles.
Clement has gone astray from the first by his mode of
approaching the subject. The question as he has posed
it is, not what is Spirit ? or what is the Idea of Good ?
but a very different one, what is the simplest thing con-
ceivable? And he assumes that this is, and that it is
the cause of all that exists. Nothing that is part of the
effect can belong to the Cause. Hence, instead of
seeking for the Perfect Being, he has fallen upon this
futile method of Analysis, which deals with words not
with things, and asks, not what is divisible in reality,
but what is divisible in logic. The result is a chimera,
a bare Force, which neither is nor is not, neither thinks
nor thinks not, a Cause divided by an impassable gulf
from all its effects. Nor has Clement been at any pains
to surround his doctrine with the needful explanations
and safeguards. This work he left entirely to Plotinus.
Some indeed of the consequences Clement foresaw.
Thus he tells us that man may become by virtue like
the Son, but not like God 1 . Others he does not appear
to have felt at all. The transcendental God, who is not
the object of knowledge, can be approached only by a
faculty other than reason, by direct Vision or Ecstasy,
that age, and Ammonius, who is said to have been originally a porter, prob-
ably did not attain any eminence till even a later period of life. This
renegade Christian was most likely himself indebted to Clement. On the
relation of Clement to Plotinns, see especially A. Richter, Neu-Platoniscke
Studien, Halle, 1867. Also Dahne, De yv&att : Vacherot, Histoire de
locale d'Alexandrie.
1 Strom, vi. 14. 114, it is impious to suppose (as the Stoics did) that the
virtue of God and that of man are the same. ' Some Christians," however,
maintained that man by virtue becomes like God, Strom, ii. 22. 131. See
Irenaeus, v. 6; Tert. De Bapt. 5; Recognitions t v. 23 ; Dahne, De
p. 103 note.
F
66 Clement. [Lect.
but Clement does not teach this J . He believed in the
revelation of God by His Son. But what gospel has
revealed this Monad, how could He be revealed, what
good would the revelation do us if given, or how could
we test the revelation? The true conclusion from
Clement's premisses is the moral paradox, which has
been maintained with consummate ability from this
very place 2 , that, as we can know nothing of God, we
must accept without question whatever we are told.
But he was far from thinking this, and his whole argu-
ment against Gnosticism proceeds upon the assumption,
that the Goodness and Justice of God are the same in
kind as our oWh. It is true that he sometimes draws a
distinction between having virtue and being virtue, from
which we might suppose that, like Philo, he regarded
the difference between human and divine morality as
lying in the mode of its possession. But this merely
proves, that in practice he denies, what in theory he
asserts, because to the Christian conscience God is, and
must be, not the Everlasting No, but the Everlasting Yea ;J> .
Clement's mode of statement is such as to involve
necessarily the Unity, Equality, and Eternity of the
First and Second Persons 4 . It has been asserted, that
1 Strom, v. ii. 74. Direct Vision is granted only in heaven ; the instru-
ment of knowledge in this life is Dialectic. See next Lecture.
2 The allusion is to Dean Hansel's Limits of Religious Thought, the
Bampton Lectures for 1858. The reader who is interested in the discussion
of the point should refer also to the controversy between Dean Mansel and
Mr. Goldwin Smith, and to F. D. Maurice's What is Revelation ? Cambridge,
1859; and Sequel to the Inquiry what is of Revelation, Cambridge, 1860.
with the Reply of Dean Mansel.
3 The distinction between having virtue and being virtue is applied, not to
God but to the Gnostic,' Strom, iv. 6. 40 ; vii. 7. 38. God is vovs ; Pro-
trep. x. 98 ; Strom, iv. 25. 155 ; vi. 9. 72 : is good, just, beneficent, omniscient ;
v. 14.141; vi. 15. 141; 17. 155.
* See passages in Bull, ii. 6.
ii.] The Son. 67
he hardly leaves sufficient room for a true distinction of
Hypostasis x . But, though he possesses no technical
name either for Substance or Person 2 , there is no
doubt that the latter conception was clearly present to
his mind. 'O mystic wonder,' he exclaims, ' One is the
Father of All, One also the Word of All, and the Holy
Ghost is One and the same everywhere 3 .' His method
of developing this proposition is determined partly by
language inherited from his predecessors, partly by
veins of thought afterwards seized and expanded by
Origen. But he differs in a marked degree both from
his pupils and his teachers.
Many of the phrases which he applies to the Son
the Name, the Face, the House of God, and so on are
'borrowed from Philo 4 . From Christian writers he had
learned to speak of Christ as ' begotten of the Will of
1 Dorner, vol. i. p. 288 ; Cognat, Clement d" 1 Alexandrie, p. 448.
2 Substance is T& dpprjrov, nvtvfui, Averts. But the word ovaia. is already
emerging into use as the distinctive expression. See note above, p. 63.
Strom, vi. 16. 138. Person is (pvais, Strom, vii. 2. 5 ; ri tv, Paed. i. 6. 42 ;
and even viroaraais, Strom, ii. 18. 96 : TTJS Tpirys TjSrj /j.ovfjs (so we should
read, not IJIOVTJS, as Potter, Klotz, Dind.) awairTovaqs tnl rrjv rov Kvpiov
7TapTrjv vnoaraaiv. The third 'mansion' is Charity, which joining on
to the Person of the Lord makes up the rerpas of Virtues. Potter is quite
mistaken in explaining this obscure passage so as to make Tfraprrj viroaraats
signify ' humanam Christi naturam quae cum tribus divinis personis numerata
quaternionem quodammodo efficit.'
3 Paed. i. 6. 42 ; iii. 12. 101 ; Strom, vi. 7. 58.
4 Name of God, Strom, v. 6. 38 : Face, Paed. i. 7. 57 ; Strom, v. 6. 34 :
Image, avOpco-nos diraGr]*, Heavenly Man, Paed. i. 12. 98 ; Strom, v. 14. 94 :
High Priest, Strom, v. 6. 32: Charioteer, Paed.\\\. 12. 101 : Pilot (perhaps
directly 1'rom Numenius), Strom, vii. 2.5: Idea or Sum of Ideas, Strom.
v. 3. 16: Sum of the Powers, Paed. i. 8. 74; Strom, iv. 25. 156: House
of God, Paed. i. 9. 81 : Melchisedech, Strom, iv. 25. 161 : The Mystic
Angel, Paed. i. 7. 56 sqq. Ebionite is the identification of Christ with
' the Beginning,' Strom, v. 6. 38 ; vi. 7. 58. Valentinian probably is the
Angel of the Great Council, Paed. i. 5. 24, cp. Excerpta, 43 and the
representation of Christ as chief of the Seven Protoctists, Strom, v. 6. 32,
35 ; vii. 6. 143.
F 2
68 Clement. [Lect.
the Father,' as 'coming forth for the sake of creation 1 .'
But to Clement such words could only mean, that the
difference of Persons is first manifested in their external
relations. He rejects the distinction between the
Spoken and the Unspoken Word 2 . There was no
doubt in his mind as to the timeless Personality of the
Logos. ' If God is Father,' he says, ' He is at the same
time Father of a Son 3 .' Again God is Just from all
eternity because the Son is in, yet distinct from, the
Father, so that the ' equipoise ' of knowledge and love
between the Two is the first idea of justice 4 .
He does not indeed shrink from giving expression to
the ministerial capacity implied in the very name of
Son. In a famous passage of the Stromateis 5 all
rational existence is figured as a vast and graduated
hierarchy, like a chain of iron rings, each sustaining and
sustained, each saving and saved, held together by the
magnetic force of the Holy Spirit, which is Faith. It is
the belief in the solidarity of all that thinks and feels,
which was afterwards the master-thought of Origen.
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are succeeded by the
orders of Angels, and these in their turn by men. If
we look upwards, the Son is ' next to the Almighty,' ' a
kind of Energy of the Father.' If we look downwards,
He is the Great High Priest, in whom all are reconciled
1 Strom, v. 3. 16. Similar language is used by Tatian, Ad Graecos, 5 ;
Theophilus, Ad Aut. ii. 22 ; Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 5.
2 Strom, v. i. 6 ; Nitzsch, Dogmengesch. i. 203 ; Redepenning, Origenes,
i. 112. But Zahn, Forsch. iii. 145 note ; Harnack, Dogmengesch. 531 note,
explain the passage differently. In Strom, vii. 2. 5, the words OVK cnro-
T(fa>6fjievos imply a rejection of the word wpooAij by which the Generation
of the Son was sometimes described.
8 Strom, v. i. i.
4 See the three remarkable passages, Paed. i. 8. 71, 74 ; 10. 88.
s vii. 2. 9.
II.] The Son. 69
to God. But the idea of subordination is strictly
secondary in Clement. The text ' none is good save
One' does not mean to him, what it meant to his
scholar 1 . Always he recurs to the essential Unity of
the Father and the Son. He has no scruple about
prayer to the latter 2 . ' Let us pray to the Word Be
propitious, O Teacher of thy children, Father, Chario-
teer of Israel, Son and Father, Lord who art Both/
So complete is the union, that he does not hesitate to
transfer to the Son the peculiar titles of the Father. If
the one is ' beyond all intelligible,' so also is the other, if
the one is Almighty, so also is the other, and, following
the example of Philo and Justin. Clement applies to the
Son passages of the Old Testament, where Lord is
employed as the substitute for Jehovah 3 .
1 Paed. i. 8. 74.
* Paed. iii. 12. 101 ; Strom, vii. 12. 72. See also the first Hymn to the
Saviour Christ appended to the Pedagogue. It is probably genuine ; Rede-
penning, i. 121.
3 The Son is eirticfiva rov vorjrov, Strom. \. 6. 38. He is TTO.VTOK pinup,
Paed. i. 5. 24 ; iii. 7. 39 ; Protrep. viii. 81 ; Strom, iv. 3. 148 : Kvptos, Paed.
i- 7- 56, 57 : the Father alone is perfect, for in Him is the Son, and in the
Son the Father, Paed. i. 7. 53. The passages usually quoted as showing
Clement's tendency to Subordinationism are Strom, vii. I. 2, irpea&vrepov iv
yeveaei ; vii. 2. 5, the Father is 6 /twos -aa.vroKpa.rsap \ Strom, v. I. 6, the
Son is a tivvapis, vii. 2. 8 an ivfpyeia, Paed. iii. i. 2 a Statcovos of the
Father; Protrep. x. no He is made equal to the Father; Paed. iii. 12. 98
He is the dyaOov ^ovX^na of the Father; Strom, vi. 7. 59 Creation runs up
to the Father, Redemption to the Son. Rufinus, Epil. in Apol. Pamphili,
Clement sometimes ' filium Dei creaturam dicit.' This must refer to the word
Krifav used of Wisdom (Prov. viii. 22), Strom, v. 14. 89. Even iroitTv might be
used, Strom, vi. 7. 58 (in a quotation from the Herpov ljp.), 6s apx^v rwv
airavTfuv tiroirjaev. Cp. Adumb. in i Joan. p. 1009, ' hae namque primitivae
virtutes ac primo creatae ' of the Son and Holy Spirit. On the interpretation
of this passage of the Book of Proverbs, see Huet, Origeniana, ii. 2. 21
(Lomm. xxii. 176); Rosenmiiller, Hist. Interp. iii. 216, 229; Baur,
Dreieinigkeit . Bull and Domer do not regard Clement as a Subordina-
tionist. Huet maintains the opposite view. Redepenning occupies an
intermediate position. The statement of Photius that Clement spoke of two
70 Clement. The Holy Spirit. [Lect.
Down to this point the expansion of Christian doc-
trine had been facilitated by the speculations of Philo.
But here the light of philosophy fails. Philo had no
Trinity, unless the World be counted as the third term.
Hence perhaps it resulted, that a certain doubt hangs over
the Personality of the Holy Spirit in Hermas, in Athena-
goras, and even m Hippolytus 1 , not to speak of later times.
Clement proposed to enter at length upon the subject
in a separate treatise, perhaps with a special view to
Montanism 2 . But the plan was never carried out. Hence,
though there is no doubt that he regarded the Spirit as
a distinct hypostasis 3 , we cannot state with precision how
he considered the Third Person to be related to the First
and Second. It is the Holy Spirit, equally with the Logos,
who speaks by the Prophets 4 . It is He, as we have seen,
who binds together the Church Visible and Invisible 5 .
It is He whose ' dew' washes away our sins, and sanctifies
both soul and body 6 . Out of this last office of sancti-
fication arises the only point, that Clement has deemed
it needful to define. The Third Person of the Platonic
Trinity is the World Spirit, of which the soul of man is
a part or effluence. Clement is jealous of the slightest
approach to Pantheism, and takes occasion more than
once to warn his readers, that the Holy Spirit, though
Logi must rest upon a blunder ; see Dr. Westcott, Clement of Alexandria,
in Diet. Christ. Biog. ; Zahn, Forsch. iii. 144 ; and Lect. viii.
1 See the commentators on Hermas, Sim. v. 6 ; Athenag. Supplicatio, 10 ;
Hippolytus, Contra Noetum, 14. p. 52, ed. Lagarde. The author of the
Philosophumena in the sketch of vital Christian doctrine with which he
concludes his work omits all mention of the Holy Spirit.
2 Strom, v. 13. 88.
3 Paed. i. 6. 42 ; iii. 12. 101 ; Strom, v. 14. 103 ; vii. 2. 9 ; Redepenning,
i. 122; Guerike, ii. 134.
* Protrep. i. 8 ; viii. 79. 5 Strom, vii. 2. 9.
6 Quis D. Salvus, 34; Strom, iv. 26. 163.
ii.] The Incarnation. 71
said to be breathed into the believer, is present in the
soul not as a part of God, not in essence, but in power.
What he means he explains by a quotation from the
Apostolic Barnabas. 'Wherefore in us as in a temple
God truly dwells. But how ? By the word of His faith,
by the calling of His promise, by the wisdom of His
statutes, by the precepts of His doctrine 1 .'
We have yet to speak of the Incarnation and the
redeeming work of Jesus.
The Word, the whole Word, took flesh of the Virgin
Mary, and became Man. Jesus alone is both God and
Man 2 . He who is God became Man, that we might
become gods 3 . It has been doubted whether Clement
ascribed to the Lord a human soul, but without reason,
for it is the soul of Jesus that was our Ransom 4 . But
His Flesh was not wholly like ours, inasmuch as it was
exempt from all carnal desires and emotions, even the
most necessary and innocent 5 . And as his Platonic dis-
1 Strom, vii. 14. 87 ; vi. 16. 138 ; ii. 20. 117 ; v. 13. 88.
2 See esp. Strom, iii. 17. 102 ; Protrep. i. 7 ; x. 106 ; Quis D. Salvus,
37. In the last very striking passage the words TO app^Tov aiiTov irar^p, TO
81 TJIUV ovfjaraGls ytyovt nrjTrjp refer to the Eternal Generation, from which
Clement passes on to the Incarnation.
3 Protr. i. 8 ; cp. Strom, iv. 23. 152 ; vii. 3. 13; 10. 56 ; 13. 82, referring
to John x. 34. The same strong phrase is used by the author of the Philos.
x. 34, yeyovas yap 6e6s . . . ov yap iiTaixfvfi 0efc Kal at Qfbv iroi^aas is
86av avTov. It is a favourite with Origen also.
4 Redepenning, i. 401 : ' Clemens nur von einer Verbindnng des Logos mit
einem menschlichen Korper ohne Seele weiss.' But Paed. i. 2. 4, He is
arrowy TTJV tyvxf)v ; cp. ibid. i. 9. 85, 6 T& pfyiffTov iiir^p i^Miv T^V ifjv\^if
OVTOV (iriSiSovs, and Q. D. S. 37. Clement probably held with Origen that
the Ransom was specially the Soul and not the Body of Christ.
* Strom, vi. 9. 71, He was diraaw\cvs aira&ris, and ate and drank only to
forestall Docetism. Strom, iii. 7. 59 the opinion of Valentinus is quoted,
apparently with approval. Indeed the view of Clement differs but little
from that of Valentinus and Apelles, who held that the Saviour's body was
propriae qualitatis, Tert. de Res. Carnis, 2 ; Adv. Marc. iii. 1 1 ; Philos. vii.
72 Clement. [Lect.
like of the body has led Clement here, though no
Docetist, perilously near to the confines of Docetism,
so another Platonic theory, that all suffering is corrective,
has induced him to speak of the Passion of Jesus as
undesigned by God. ' We must say then that God did
not prevent it, for this alone saves both the providence
and the goodness of God.' But in truth Clement has
saved neither. What he has done is to introduce dis-
sension into the counsels of the Most High 1 .
Clement's Christology is often spoken of as meagre
and unsatisfactory. In one aspect this is unjust. For
Clement's idea of the Saviour is larger and nobler may
we say less conventional ? than that of any other doctor
of the Church. Christ is the Light that broods over all
history, and lighteth every man that cometh into the
world. All that there is upon earth of beauty, truth,
goodness, all that distinguishes the civilised man from
the savage, the savage from the beasts, is His gift. No
later writer has so serene and hopeful a view of human
nature as Clement, and though this may seem to depress
his estimate of the Redeemer, it surely exalts in the
same measure his belief in the fostering bounty of the
Eternal Word. Especially is the goodness of Christ
manifested towards His Church, to whom He has given
a life, and promised a future, which He alone can bestow.
But if we ask why the Birth, the Passion, the Cross ?
why Jesus redeemed us in this way, and no other?
Clement has no answer. It may be urged that all
38. This was also the teaching of Theodotus, see above, p. 32. The curious
tradition recorded Adumb. in Epist.Joan. i. p. 1009 refers apparently to
the flesh of Jesus after the Resurrection, but it is doubtful whether this pas-
sage is not an interpolation. See Dr. Zahn's note.
1 Strom, iv. 12. 86.
II.] Redemption. 73
answers are but formal. Or that Clement speaks the
language of the whole sub-apostolic age. But this is
only partially true. The spirit of Hellenism lies heavier
on Clement than on others, and led him to draw a line
between the Cross and the Ascension, between the
'death unto sin' and the 'new life unto righteousness,'
which though it has connections with Scripture, is yet
not Scriptural. We shall see farther on how he regards
the Passion of our Lord, Redemption, as the source of
Fear and Hope, but most strangely not of Love.
By His death Christ Ransoms us from the powers of
evil 1 , and bestows upon us Forgiveness, relieving us
thereby not merely from the punishment, or guilt, but
from the ignorance, which is the power of sin. Forgive-
ness was undoubtedly a most difficult idea to the Alex-
andrines, who believed firmly in the changelessness of
God, and carried their faith in the wholesome necessity
of correction so far, that they admitted a quantitative
relation between the offence and its chastisement. They,
held that Pardon can be freely bestowed only in Baptism,
and that the Christian should be taught to look, not upon
the Crucified, but upon the Risen Lord, the fountain not
of pardon, but of life 2 . Jesus again reconciles us to God.
1 For the \vrpov, see Q. D. S. 37 ; 42 ; Paed. i. 5. 23, and elsewhere.
Clement does not say expressly to whom the ransom is paid ; see however
Protrep. xi. in. Distinguish from anoKinpoiais, complete emancipation
from sin, perfected only in the other life, Strom, vii. 10. 56.
3 The free pardon purchased for us by Christ is expressly limited to actual
sin committed before Baptism, Q. D. S. 40, raiv plv ovv trpoyfyefrjfj.evajv Oeos
SiSaiatv d<peatv ruiv 5 iirtuvTuv avros tteaaros favrcjj. Cp. Strom, ii. 14. 58;
iv. 24. 153; 25. 154. Christ, as God, forgives sins, and then disciplines the
believer as Man, Paed. i. 3. 7. It should be observed that forgiveness in
Clement's mind signifies not merely the cancelling of a penalty, but the
cure of that ignorance which is the cause and strength of sin. Sin done
before Baptism, in darkness, does not necessarily imply badness of heart,
74 Clement. [Lect.
He is our Propitiation, but this word, which, if more than
a figure of speech, is so supremely difficult, Clement leaves
unexplained 1 . Notwithstanding his Allegorism Clement
quotes few Messianic prophecies, and, in respect of typo-
logy, does not venture beyond the track marked out by
Phik> and Barnabas, except when authorised by the New
Testament. Hence the only sacrificial title, which he
distinctly applies to our Lord, is that of the Lamb of
God 2 .
To the Christian pilgrim, in the lower life, Christ
manifests Himself as Physician, Shepherd, Tutor, Law-
giver, calming the fever of passion by gentle words of
admonition or bitter roots of fear. This He does as
Man, by virtue of His humiliation and perfect obedience
hence for this no remedy is necessary except light. In all other cases the
penalty is itself the earnest of forgiveness.
1 He rarely touches upon this aspect of Redemption. Paed. iii. 12. 98,
Kai avr&s l\aap.6s tan irtpl rwv a/jiapTiwv rifJ-uv, us <prjaiv 6 'luavvrjs (i. 2. 2),
6 lajfitvos TI\UUV na.1 au/j.a KO.I tf/vxrjv. Protrept. i. 6, vlovs airttO(Ts 8ta\\dai
irarpi: x. no, 6 icaOdpcnos teal aarr-qpios na.1 f*ei\ixios . . . 6 airov5o<f>6pos KO.L
8iaX\aT7)s teal aaiTrjp fip.Siv \6yos. Paed. iii. I. 2, neaiTrjs yap 6 \6yos.
Everywhere the barrier is not God's wrath, but man's impurity.
2 Paed. i. 5. 24, Christ is afivbs TOV Oeov in respect of His innocence : Strom.
v. 6. 32, He is the Lamb with seven eyes of Rev. v. 6 : Strom, v. n. 70 ;
vii. 3. 14, He is 6\oKapira)fM, in the latter passage littp -fjiMuv ifpfvOtvra. :
Paed. i. 5. 23, Isaac is Itpeiov us 6 icvpios : Paed. i. 6. 47, the blood of Abel
is a type : Paed. i. 8. 61, Joshua : Paed. i. n. 97, Christ is our Itpttov :
Protr. xi. in, the outstretched hands of Moses are a type : Paed. ii. 8. 75,
the burning bush foreshadows the crown of thorns: Paed. ii. 9. 81, Lot the
Just: Paed. iii. 12. 85, (\vrpwOr}fiev . . . TI/J.'IO> ai'nan us apvov a/j.cu/j.ov ai
affiri\ov Xpiffrov (Peter i. i. 19) : Strom, v. n. 72, the Tree of Life : v. i. 8,
Abraham, the Elect Father of Sound, is the Logos (from Philo) ; Strom.
vi. ii. 84, the 318 servants of Abraham signify Christ (from Barnabas ; this
is the only passage where Clement appears to imply literal inspiration ; 318,
in Greek writing TIH, denotes the Cross and the name IH2OT2) : iii. 12. 86,
Land of Jacob (from Barnabas; another very forced allegory) : v. 6. 32, the
High Priest's Mitre signifies Christ the Head of the Church (adapted from
Philo) : vi. n. 88, David's lyre is a type : iv. 25. 161, Melchisedech (from
Philo).
ii.j Redemption. 75
unto death 1 . Gradually He makes Himself known to
us in the higher life as God, feeding us in the Eucharist,
or Agape, with His Body and Blood, the sacred food of
Gnosis, becoming our Light, our Truth, our Life, bestow-
ing upon us the Adoption of Sons, binding us in closest
unity with the Spirit, leading us on to the holy mountain,
the better Cithaeron, the spiritual Church 2 . Clement
speaks of Jesus as our High Priest, but only in the
Philonic sense, as our Representative and Intercessor 3 .
The idea of the 'Recapitulation' of all men in Christ
as the second Adam, so fruitful in the brooding soul of
Irenaeus, is strange to him. He looks upon Redemption,
not as the restitution of that which was lost at the Fall,
but as the crown and consummation of the destiny of
Man, leading to a righteousness such as Adam never
knew, and to heights of glory and power as yet un-
sealed and undreamed. 'The Word of God became Man,
in order that thou also mayest learn from Man, how
man becomes God V
1 Protrept. i. 7, r& <3 tfjv e8iSaev eTrupavels us 5i5dcr/caA.os, tVa rb del fjv
varepov us Oebs X o P r rfh <J1 ' Paed. i. 3. 7, TO, fi.lv d/zapi-iy/jara us Oe&s atpieis,
(Is St TO /XT) ffcafJ.apTa.veiv TratSayaryuv us dv9puiros.
2 See especially the fine outburst at the close of the Protrepticus, and the
opening of the Paedagogus.
3 Protrept. xii. 120; Strom, vii. 2. 9. But Strom, v. n. 70, though
'Apxifpevs is not used, Christ offers Himself to the Father as a 00/xa dirvpov,
a phrase borrowed from Euripides, ' the scenic philosopher.' In v. 10. 66
He is the diropov Ovfta of Plato, Rep. ii. p. 378 A. So closely are Clement's
reminiscences of the Classics intertwined with his theology.
4 Protrept. i. 8. The reader will find it instructive to compare with this
sketch of the Christology of Clement, Dr. Haraack's account of the teach-
ing of Irenaeus, Dogmengeschichte, p. 478 sqq.
LECTURE III.
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three : but the greatest of
these is charity. i COR. xiii. 13.
CLEMENT did not admit the pre-existence of the soul
or the eternity of Matter \ but in other respects followed
closely the Philonic view of Creation. God of His
goodness and love created the world of Ideas, the in-
visible heaven and earth, and in accordance with this
divine model the Word gave shape and substance to the
material universe 2 . The six days are not to be under-
stood literally. They express in an allegory the differ-
ing dignity of the things recorded to have been created
on each in succession 3 . The pre-eminence of Man is
further shown by the fact, that he was. not called into
existence by a mere command, but moulded, if we may
so speak, by the very hands of God 4 , who breathed into
his nostrils the ' spirit,' or ' intellect,' the ' sovereign
faculty ' of the tripartite soul 5 . Thus Man received at
1 The eternity of matter is denied, Strom. \. 14. 89. The pre-existence
of the soul is rejected, Strom, iii. 13. 93 ; iv. 26. 167 ; Eclogae Proph.
17. Yet it appears to be implied, Q.D.S. 33, 36 ; Strom, vii. 2. 9.
2 Strom, v. 6. 39 ; 14. 93 sq.
3 Strom, vi. 16. 142.
4 Paed. i. 3. 7.
8 Clement analyses the ^v\i\, a. philosophically into t-niGvfua, Ovfj.6s and
\oyiffnos from the ethical point of view, Strom, iii. 10. 68, and into the
rpia fj.tr pa or Kpir-fjpia, aiaOr/ais, \6yos, vovs from the logical, Strom, ii. n.
50 (the latter is from Philo, see Potter's note) ; b. theologically, Strom.
vi. 1 6. 134 sqq., into ten parts, corresponding mystically to the Decalogue.
From the point of view of the New Testament these ten faculties may
be summed up in two, the Sicrad irvtvfiara. The first <rap, aapxiKov irvtiifta,
T<) vnoKtipei'ov, the animal and emotional nature, is actually materialised
Creation. Freedom. 77
birth the ' image,' and may acquire by a virtuous life the
' likeness/ of God, or rather of the Son. The ' image,'
the Reason, may be blurred and defaced, but can never
be wholly destroyed. It is the l love-charm,' which
makes Man dear to God for his own sake *. It is the
fountain of that natural yearning, which makes the
child always unhappy, when banished from his Father's
home. It is by this that he receives, understands,
recognises his Father's voice.
But here there arises a difficulty, which had never
before been felt in all its force. If God made all things
out of nothing, what is the cause of Evil ? According to
the heathen Platonist, and even in the eyes of Philo, it
was Matter. God's purpose was limited and frustrated
by the nature of the substance, on which He was com-
pelled to work. The Gnostics carried this view so far
as to maintain, that creation was the act of a rebellious
spirit, who mingled together things that ought to have
been kept apart. But the Christian believed that
Matter, as well as Form, was created by God. How
then were the imperfections of the universe, pain, sin,
waste, inequality, to be accounted for? They can be no
by sin and is cast off in heaven, Strom, v. 6. 52 ; the second is the -nvtvyua pro-
per, the vovs or \6yos in Platonic, the ffttnovticov in Stoic, the (n<f>vffi)fta in
Philonic language. In the latter consists the likeness to God, or rather
to the Son ; Protrept. x. 98 ; Paed. i. 3. 7 ; Strom, ii. 19. 102 ; v. 13. 87 ;
vi. 9. 72. It is to be distinguished from the Holy Spirit which is said
irpoatinirvtiaBat., Strom, v. 13. 88. M. Denis is quite mistaken in ascribing
the error of Tatian to Clement, Philosophic cTOrigtne, p. 225.
1 Paed. i. 3. 7, the (n<f>var)na is a (pi\rpov which makes man dear to God
for his own sake. See also Protrept. x. 100, irityvnt yap d\\eas 6 dvOpoJiros
oiKdais ex 6 "' W P S & f v ' Strom, v. 13. 87, man has an ffupaau 0eov <pvaiKT).
But on the other hand, Strom, ii. 16. 74, God has no (pvffiK^i ffx'<ns with
man. Man's spirit is not a part of God as on the Pantheistic theory.
Otherwise He would be partaker in our sins.
78 Clement. [Leci.
part of the intention of Him, who gave all things being
because He is Good.
Here again Clement does not grasp the whole range
of the problem. He is not affected by the disorder of
external Nature, as was the troubled and far-glancing
spirit of Origen. To the former all that seems to
demand explanation is the existence of Sin, and for this
he found an adequate reason in the Freedom of the
Human Will.
This conception is as new as the difficulty out of
which it sprang. It is to be found in the Apologists,
but the Alexandrines were the first to define it and
make it the foundation of a system.
St. Paul speaks of Freedom from conflicting motives,
but never of Freedom of the Will. There are those who
being servants of sin are free from righteousness, those
again who being free from sin are servants to God.
Between these stand a third class, who are in bondage
yet longing to break their fetters 'to will is present
with me, but how to perform that which is good I find
not.' This is in fact the doctrine of the Platonist, who
held that the soul has two instinctive and antagonistic
movements, that of Reason towards the Ideal and that
of Sense towards Gratification, and that the man is then
only truly free, when his sovereign faculty soars freely
towards the Good unimpeded by the clamour of Desire.
In what sense Will itself is free the Greeks did not
attempt to decide. Generally speaking they regarded
it as the expression of character, and did not or could
not clear up the previous question, how character itself
is formed J .
1 The difficulty was felt but not removed by Aristotle. See especially
in.] Freedom. 79
Yet precisely at this point, where Plato and St. Paul
are in substantial agreement, the Alexandrines broke
loose from their allegiance. There were strong reasons
for this revolt. They had to account for the Fall of the
First Man. This was no mere academical thesis, it was
pressed upon them by an active, subtle, and formidable
antagonist. If Adam was created perfect, said the
Gnostic, he could not have fallen. He was then created
imperfect, and in that case the Creator was the cause of
his imperfection, and must therefore be imperfect Him-
self 1 . Closely connected with this argument is the
Gnostic Dualism and their peculiar doctrine of pre-
destination. At a later period, when gnosticism was
practically vanquished, Augustine did not hesitate to
maintain that, though God predestines, He is yet not the
author of evil. But to the Alexandrines this did not
seem possible. Determinism in any shape appeared to
them to impugn both the divine goodness and the divine
right to punish sin, and though they held that in truth
God does not punish, they would not acknowledge this
in set terms. Hence they were driven to make Will an
independent faculty, knowing both good and evil and
choosing between them, selecting and in fact creating its
own motive. The actual phrase Free Will, Liberum
Arbitrium, is due to Tertullian, but it expresses with
Eth. Nic. iii. 5. 17, i Stris \tyoi on iravrts f<f>i(vrat TOV (pcuvofitvov dyaOov,
TTJy Se <f>avraaias ov icvpioi, dAA" oirotos iro&' ttcaaros ton TOIOVTO Kal TO re'Aos
faivtrai avrw, K,T.\.
1 The Gnostics went so far as to assert that 6 JIT) euAu<ras curios, he
who did not prevent evil is the cause of the evil. The argument is retorted
upon them with unanswerable force in the Recognitions, ii. The Demiurge
is evil because he tolerates evil. Why then does God tolerate the Demiurge ?
The difficulty was strongly felt by Clement, whom it drove to the assertion
that Christ's Passion was not ordained by the Father, Strom, iv. 12. 86 sq.
8o Clement. [Lect.
Latin precision what Clement and Origen really
mean.
No wise man will attempt to find a precise solution
for the eternal antinomy of Freedom and Necessity. It
is enough to point out what the Alexandrines did. In
their recoil from Gnosticism they abolished Necessity
altogether, and gave Freedom a new meaning. We can
only judge of their action by its results. It has become
possible to ask whether God can do wrong, and almost a
heresy to speak of Christ as begotten by the Will of the
Father. And already the door is opened for all the
barren disputes, that troubled the Church and the
Schools from the days of Augustine to those of Pascal 1 .
Evil then in Clement's view is, not a Power, but an
Act. It is not the Platonic 'lie in the soul,' nor the
Pauline 'law of sin,' not a vicious motive nor a false
belief, because these have no constraining force. Vice
consists in acting the lie, and we need not act it unless
we choose. Clement could not then believe in any
inherited depravity of human nature. This follows
indeed already from his opinion, that the Reason comes
in each case fresh from the hands of its Maker. Adam
1 Origen has formally explained the Alexandrine doctrine of Freedom
in the third book of the De Principiis. Neither he nor Clement clearly saw
what Jeremy Taylor insists upon, that ' in moral things liberty is a direct
imperfection, a state of weakness, and supposes weakness of reason and
weakness of love.' But practically they admit, as we shall see, that at
a certain point in the upward progress Grace absorbs the Will, and that at
a certain point in the downward progress evil becomes second nature. Thus
the demons have sinned so deeply ' ut revocari nolint magis quam non possint^-
De Princ. i. 8. 4. But this point of irremediable depravity, of complete
a.Ko\aaia, they refused to fix. This seems to be the essential difference
between the Alexandrines on the one hand and the Gnostics and Augustine
on the other. Mehlhorn, Die Lehre von der menschlichen Freiheit nach Or.,
Zeitsch. fur Kirch. Gesch. 2 Band, p. 234, is referred to by Dr. Harnack, but
I have not seen the article.
in.] Grace. 81
was created perfect, yet not perfect ; perfect inasmuch as
every faculty was sound and apt for virtue, not perfect
inasmuch as virtue was not yet actualised by obedience.
He fell by lust, and so we all fall 1 . There is no entailed
necessity between his sin and ours. But though Free
Will and Reason, both gifts of God, are enough for
guidance in this world, they cannot tell us fully what
God is, they cannot bring us into living communion
with Him. 'Each of us justifies himself.' 'The true
Gnostic creates himself.' Men may ' choose to believe
or to disbelieve V Yet Faith itself is a grace 3 ; ' the
ball-player cannot catch the ball unless it is thrown to
him.' We are created capable of wisdom, goodness,
1 The soul does not come from the parent, Strom, vi. 16. 135. For
the original estate of Adam see Strom, iv. 23. 150; vi. 12. 96. The
Serpent was pleasure, Protrept. xi. in, and the precise sin may have been
that the first parents anticipated the time fixed by God for their marriage,
Strom, iii. 17. 103. Compare Philo, De Mundi Op. 55 (i. 37) sqq. 'Ita
vix alia Adamum primo vixisse conditione noster censet quam posterorum
infantes,' Guerike, i. p. 143. Clement does not admit any hereditary guilt.
For (i) God punishes only voluntary sins, Strom, ii. 14. 60 ; and again,
those sins which are not imputed are those which are ^ KOTO, irpoaiptaiv,
Strom, ii. 15. 66. (ii) The sins forgiven in Baptism are always spoken
of as actual sins, (iii) Infant Baptism, a practice which is very closely
connected with the tenet of Original Sin, is never certainly mentioned by
Clement. Mr. Marriott (article Baptism in Diet. Christian Antiquities')
cites Paed. iii. II. 59, rSiv If vSaroj avaairointvcav iraiSiwv, but in this treatise
wcuSiov is used of ' babes in Christ ' without any reference to age. (iv) In
Strom, iii. 16. 100 Clement replies to the Encratites, who forbade marriage
on the ground that the children are accursed, XtftTuaav fjiuv irov iiropvevaev
TO yfiri/rjO^v ircuoiov, i) ir>s VTTO rfjv TOV 'Aocifi viroiriirTtaKtv apav TO jtTjSlv
fvfp-yrjffav. (v) The causes of sin are v\rjs affOtveta and ayvoia, Strom, vii.
3. 16. Yet Adam is the type, though not the source, of sin, Protrept.
xi. ill. So also Adumb. in Ep. Judae, p. 1008, 'Sic etiam peccato Adae
sub^icemus secundum peccati similitudinem,' where the negative is omitted,
as by Origen, in the well-known verse, Rom. v. 14. But I doubt very much
whether this passage, which goes on to lay down the doctrine of Reprobation,
is from the hand of Clement.
2 Strom, iii. 9. 65 : vii. 3. 13 : iv. 25. 157.
3 Strom, ii. 4. 14: iii. 7. 57.
G
8 2 Clement. [Lect:
felicity, which yet we can only attain by grasping the
Divine Hand outstretched to lift us up. ' Not without
special grace does the soul put forth its wings V
The secrets of this diviner life cannot be expressed in
rules and formulas. But there is a point where grace
and nature meet, which is the proper field of discipline.
Knowledge must be gradually assimilated. Love must
creep before it can fly. Christ has revealed to us all
truth, but truth is precept before it is conviction. It is
by obedience to Authority, that the carpenter and the
pilot acquire their skill. So the Christian life begins in
Faith 2 , that is belief in the desirability of the End, and
willing submission to the Means in their regular pro-
1 The ball-player, Strom, ii. 6. 25. So in Paed. i. 6. 28 regeneration
is compared to waking or the removal of a cataract ; we open our eyes
and the light streams in. The words 'no man can come to Me except
my Father draw him,' Clement explains differently at different times,
Strom, iv. 22. 138 ; v. 13. 83. In the latter passage he quotes with approval
the saying of Plato in the Meno, that virtue comes to those to whom
it comes, Oficf, po'ipa. Compare also v. I. 7 ; vi. 6. 45 ; Q. D. S. 10, 21.
2 See especially Strom, ii. 2, 3, 4. Clement was very anxious to connect
Faith, the Christian watchword, with philosophy. Plato, who refers it
(Rep. vi. adfineni) to the T///*a TOV al<r6r)Tov and regards it as unintelligent
belief in material objects, gave him no assistance, and perhaps helped to
mislead him. He found better definitions in Aristotle, Topics, iv. 126 B.
18, TI marts viroXrjtyis a<po5pa, in the irpoaipecris of the Ethics, in the Epicurean
irp6\t]ipis, in the Stoic avyKaraBeffis. It is the faculty by which we grasp
the apxai These to Clement are not, as to the Stoic and Epicurean, the
facts of sense alone, but the a priori data of deduction identified with
the articles of the Creed. Hence Faith in Strom, ii. 4. 13, 14 is an act
of vovs conditioned by ataOrjffis. That is to say, experience brings home
to us and ratifies the dicta of Revelation. Hence Knowledge and Faith
may be spoken of as in substance identical ; Strom, iv. 16. 100 ; v. 1.2;
vi. 17. 155; vii. 2. 5. But generally speaking i^jXi) immy is sharply
distinguished from Gnosis. It is the /ito KadoXuci) awrrjpia, Paed. i. 6. 30,
or rather the irpuirr] vpos CKurrjpiav vtvais, Strom, ii. 6. 31. But 'honour'
is more than salvation, vi. 13. 109. Faith is in fact the minimum condition
of admittance into the Kingdom of Heaven. But it is not full spiritual
life, Paed. i. 1.3, lacu 8' OVK karbv vyida KCU yvaiais.
in.] Faith and Baptism. 83
gression. But we can learn only within the school, and
we must first be cleansed. Hence the gate of the
Church is the Baptism of Regeneration. Herein we
receive Forgiveness, the only free forgiveness, of all past
sins, which leaves the mind like a sheet of blank paper,
not good yet ' not bad,' we are brought within the circle
of light, within reach of all wholesome sacraments and
aids. We have started fairly in the race for the eternal
crown a .
Beyond this point stretches out the Christian Life,
and here begins the most distinctive portion of Cle-
ment's teaching. We shall fail to do him justice unless
we bear steadily in view the two influences that deter-
mined his path on the one hand the love of St. Paul,
on the other the dread of Gnosticism, a dread which did
not prevent him from seeing that this peculiar form of
error answered to a real and pressing need of the human
mind. Gnosticism was in one aspect distorted Paulinism.
The cure lay in a full and true presentation of the
Apostle's teaching. But Clement only half understood
1 The locus dassicus on Baptism is Paed. i. 6. It carries with it a double
grace, Forgiveness and Light. For the first see 30, travra /uv ovv
diro\ov6fif0a rcL a.fmapr'fjfiara ovxtn Sf tafifv trapa Tr6Sas Katcoi. Light in a
sense has been given before, for irians and Karrix r } ffis precede Baptism. But
mcms d'/xa pairTiaiuiTi ayiy iraiSci/erac Trvtvfiari. The gift is perfect,
because it is the gift of the perfect God. That is to say, it is objectively
perfect ; our subjective perfection, TO rt\os, the Promise, Rest, is attained
only in the Resurrection. It is a perfect gift at first imperfectly grasped.
Clement gives no details about icar^x r ] ffl ^- Strom, i. 19. 96 he speaks of
the OVK olKtiov teat yv-fjcriov vScup of heretical baptism. The only ritual usage
he mentions is that of giving milk and honey to the newly baptised at their
first communion, Paed. i. 6. 35. See Tertullian, De Cor. Mil. iii ; Bingham,
xii. 4. 6; Probst, Kirchliche Disciplin, p. 321. Probst finds allusions to
Confirmation and to a week of instruction and daily communion succeeding
Baptism, Sakramente, pp. 159 sqq., 193 sqq.,but they are very dubious. Infant
Baptism appears to have been not the rule at Alexandria, see above, p. 81.
G 2
84 Clement. [Lect.
St. Paul, and in his desire to win back the sectaries he
draped Christianity in a Gnostic garb.
He saw around him a system little better than the
liberal form of Judaism out of which it sprang. The
new wine was fermenting in old bottles, the Christian
still trembled beneath the handwriting of ordinances.
If we read the Doctrine of the Apostles, we find there a
law which differs from the Mosaic mainly in being more
searching and elaborate. The circumstances of the
time were such as to confirm and even justify this
legalism. Crowds were pressing into the Church,
mostly ignorant and undisciplined, some rich and wilful.
They brought with them the moral taint, the ingrained
prejudices of their old life. We learn from many
sources that the same incongruous blending of the
Gospel with pagan superstitions, which recurred during
the conversion of the Northern Barbarians, existed in
some degree in the second and third centuries 1 . Disci-
pline, teaching, supervision, direction, were absolutely
necessary to the purity and maintenance of the Faith,
and no wise man would attempt to weaken the growing
authority of the Priest.
Yet there were those again for whom this atmosphere
was not the best, devout souls whose life was hidden
with Christ in God, men and women of cultivated
thoughtful minds, who fretted under a system of routine
and dictation administered, we may suppose, not unfre-
quently, by ignorant and fanatical officers. Social and
1 See Miinter, Primordia Ecclesiae Africanae, pp. 6, 68, 95. The curses
on tombstones by which the grave was secured against violation were often
copied with slight alterations from the formulas in use among Pagans. See
Mr. Ramsay's article, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, Journal of
Hellenic Studies, Oct. 1883, p. 400.
in.] The Two Lives. 85
personal distinctions were perhaps greater in those days
than they have ever been since, and in times of intense
religious excitement these distinctions shape themselves
into forms of character, which, though held together by
the most powerful of all bands, are yet as different as it
is possible for children of the same family to be. No-
where do we see this more clearly than in the history of
the Martyrs. There were those who died, as Polycarp,
Perpetua, Blandina, Christlike blessing their persecutors ;
there were those who brought their fate on their own
heads by wild defiance, and went to meet it like Pris-
tinus drugged to insensibility by the fumes of wine;
there were others again, like Peregrinus, who found
suffering for the Name an easy road to profit, and if the
worst happened to notoriety 1 . It was out of this diver-
gence of type that the Gnostic made his gain. What
was the Christian teacher to do ? How was he to deal
with the spirit of discontent and disillusion which he
knew to be at work? It was impossible to alter the
existing framework of the community. But there might
be a life within a life, a Church within a Church, a quiet
haven for the spiritually free.
Had Clement written a few years later he would have
taken refuge in the distinction between nominal and real
Christianity, between the Visible and the Invisible
Church. But he lived in a time of transition. As yet
the ancient view that all the brethren were in process of
1 For Pristinus see Tertullian, De Jej. 12 ; Miinter, Prim. Eccl. Afr. p.
183. The history of Peregrinus will be found in Lucian. He was actually
a confessor, and it was not his own fault that he was not a martyr. That
these were not isolated instances is clear from the earnestness with which
Clement maintains against Heracleon that even those who had denied Christ
in their lives washed away their sins by martyrdom ; Strom, iv. 9. 72 sqq.
86 Clement. [Lsct.
salvation, though shaken, was not abandoned. Hence he
falls back upon his philosophy, and finds the solution in
the Two Lives of Philo, the practical and contemplative
Life of Plato and Aristotle, still more exactly in the
Stoic distinction between Proficiency and Wisdom 1 . He
thought he found the same idea in certain antitheses of
St. Paul's the milk and the solid food faith and
knowledge or mysteries the spirit of bondage and the
spirit of adoption faith and hope which are less than
charity. There were indications in the Roman Clement,
in Hennas, in Barnabas 2 , that pointed in the same
direction. Other cherished ideas appeared to fit in the
opposition between the servant and the son of God, be-
tween God the Lord and God the Father, between the
letter and the spirit, between the Human and the Divine
Natures of Christ. Gathering all these hints into one,
Clement proclaims that the life of the ordinary believer,
that is to say of the great body of the Church, is a
lower life. Its marks are Faith, Fear and Hope 3 un-
questioning obedience to the letter of Authority, a
selfish motive, a morality of abstinence from wrong.
It is the sphere of discipline, of repression, of painful
effort. Its crown is Holiness 4 , the negative virtue of
1 See the description of the Stoic TT/XWOITJJ or Proficiency in Seneca,
Ep. 75-
2 Clem. Rom. i. i. 2 ; 7. 4 ; 36. 2 ; 40. i ; 41. 4 ; 48. 5 ; Hennas, Vis. i.
2. I; Barnabas, i. 5 ; ii. 2. 3 ; v. 4; vi. 9; ix. 8 ; x. 10 ; xiii. 7. In
Hennas and Barnabas the connection of Gnosis with Allegorism is clearly
asserted.
s Strom, ii. 12. 55 ; iv. 7. 53. Sometimes he drops Fear, and speaks of
the ayia Tpids, Faith, Hope and Charity, corresponding to the three man-
sions in the Father's House.
* Strom, iv. 22. 135, % diroxr) rwv KCIKUV, trnfiaOpa yap avrrj
Hf"fiaTT]s : vi. 7. 60, TI dirox^ ruv KO.KWV ffv rives reXfiojaiv r/yovvrai teal
dirAws rov KOIVOV iriarov 'lovSaiov re KOI "E\\rjvos r) T(\fi(aais avrrj.
TIL] The Two Lives. 87
Self-Control. It is a state of salvation, but not of peace
or joy. Above it stands the Higher Life, that of the true
Gnostic, the life of Love, Righteousness, Knowledge,
of serene and reasonable convictions, of glad and spon-
taneous moral activity, in .which the spirit of man is so
closely wedded to the spirit of his Lord that there is no
more recalcitrance, and freedom is merged in the beata
necessitas non peccandi.
Thus Clement insisted as against the Gnostic that
purity is the condition of insight, as against the Ortho-
doxast that law is meant to issue in freedom. On these
two piers he built his Via Media the Christian Gnosis.
It is a compromise between the Church and the world,
but the later history of Catholicism is enough to prove
how inevitable is such a concession to a body that will
govern and yet purify society.
As against the Gnostic, again, Clement protests that
the Two Lives are not divided by any law of nature.
The one must and should grow out of the other, the one
is incomplete without the other. All men, all women are
called, as he says, ' to philosophise V to strive upwards '
to the highest ideal. Yet the distinction in itself is evil,
and Clement has expressed it in such a way as to make
not a distinction but a real difference, a breach of prin-
ciple and continuity. The spiritual life is one because
Love, its root, is one. But this Faith, which in the
Lower Life leads through Fear and Hope to Love, is
itself not Love, but imperfect intellectual apprehension ;
1 Paed. i. 4; 6.33: Strom, iv. 8. 59, 63; 19. 118-124. In this last
passage he refers to Judith, Esther, Susanna, Miriam, and a host of women
famous in Greek story, but to none of those mentioned in the New Tes-
tament, and quotes from Euripides the character of a good wife as a pattern
for the Christian matron.
88 Clement. [Lect.
not personal trust in the Saviour, but a half-persuasion
of the desirableness of what the Saviour promises *.
The belief, the morality, the reward are all external.
Fear and Hope are the lifej not the outer husk which
shields and protects the life till it is strong enough to
act by itself. Clement has attempted to seize the
Pauline doctrine of Grace without the Pauline doctrine
of Faith 2 . He has superposed the Gospel freedom
upon the Aristotelian theory of Habit, upon ' reasonable
self-love,' upon the legal Christianity of his time, with-
out seeing that between these two an entirely new
element must come into play.
This element he has endeavoured to supply by
banishing Fear and Hope from the Higher Life. ' Perfect
Love casteth out Fear,' which indeed is not a motive but
a check. But disinterestedness, which is what Clement
wants, does not depend upon the presence or absence of
Hope, but on the nature of the thing hoped for. That
which was mercenary in its original conception does not
become less mercenary because Hope is swallowed up in
fruition. In Clement's view the supreme End of all is
1 Clement partly realised all this. To the Platonist the vovs has an tpais
for the vorjrd. The spark of knowledge contains the spark of desire, and
this is kindled to a flame by better knowledge gained through practice,
Strom, vi. 17. 150 sqq.
2 How little Clement understood what St. Paul means by Faith will be
seen from the following quotations. Strom, vi. 13. 108, 'thy faith hath
saved thee ' was said not to Gentiles, but to Jews who already abounded in
good works, vi. 12. 98, Faith is not good in itself, but as leading to Fear
and Hope. vi. 13. in, every act of the Gnostic is a KaTupOcofjui, every act
of the simple believer a pcffT] irpais. He constantly uses these Stoic phrases,
vi. 12. 103, 'Faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness when he
had advanced to that which is greater and more perfect than faith. For he
who merely abstains from wrong is not righteous unless he adds well-doing
and knowledge of the reason why he ought to do some things and not do
Bothers.' iv. 18. 113, Love is the motive of the Gnostic, Fear that of Faith.
in.] The Lower Life. 89
not Love but Knowledge, and this misplacement of the
Ideal involves an egotism which he vainly struggles to
escape. He succeeds in placing felicity within the soul,
in the fulness of spiritual life, but he has not really
advanced beyond the point of view of Philo.
But Fear he has handled in a truly Christian spirit.
It is not the fear of the slave who hates his master, it is
the reverence of a child for its father, of a citizen for the
good magistrate. Tertullian, an African and a lawyer,
dwells with fierce satisfaction on terrible visions of tor-
ment. The cultivated Greek shrinks not only from the
gross materialism of such a picture, but from the idea of
retribution which it implies. He is never tired of re-
peating that Justice is but another name for Mercy.
Chastisement is not to be dreaded, but to be embraced.
' The mirror is not evil to the ugly face because it shows
it as it is, the physician is not evil to the sick man
because he tells him of his fever. For the physician is
not the cause of the fever.' Still more evidently true is
this of Jesus. ' The Lord who died for us is not our
enemy.' Here or hereafter God's desire is not ven-
geance but correction. In truth it is not He that
punishes, but we that draw chastisement on our own
heads 1 .
The life of Faith, as he has described it in the later
books of the Pedagogue, is in beautiful accordance with
these maxims 2 . It is a life, like that of the Puritans in
1 Paed. i. 8. 62, tK\a6ufitvoi 5e TO pfyiorov avrov ri}y (piKavB 'paiirias on
8C jj/xas avOpajiros iyevfro : ibid. 67, us d\T)9ais dyaOd rtdaxovaiv of biicrjv
SiSovrfs : ibid. 69, a'tptirai 5e tKaffros fjpxuv rds ri^oipias auT^y tKwv dfiap-
TO.V.WV, atria 5 eXo/iti/ou 6eos dvatrtos. For the mirror see Paed. i. 9. 88.
The same simile is found in Epictetus, ii. 14. 21. It was probably a Stoic
commonplace.
3 Clement's doctrine on the subject of Pleasure is to be found in Paed. }j,
90 Clement. [Lect.
Milton's youth, of severe self-restraint, but built on broad
principles, not captious and not gloomy. It should be
as the Stoics taught, ' according to Nature,' hence all
artificial desires are evil. But Clement condemns on
the one hand the self-torture in which some of the
Gnostics emulated the Hindoo Fakirs, on the other the
Stoic paradox that things external are things indifferent.
Here again he is Aristotelian. Innocent pleasure is
the salt of life. Wealth rightly used is a blessing. The
first requisite is the beauty of virtue, the second the
beauty of health ; -Christ Himself was not beautiful in
person J . Many thoughts are suggested by this charming
iii ; Strom, iii. iv. His general aim is to moderate the antique rigour in
favour of the wealthier classes. His leading principle is the ^\v KO.TO, <pvaiv
of the Stoics, but he rejects the older Stoic doctrine of the dSiatpopa, Strom.
iv. 5. 19, and adopts the more modern distinction of external circumstances
into irpoT)y/j.(va. and aTToirporj'Y^eva, which comes to the same thing as the
threefold division of Good characteristic of Peripateticism, Strom, iv. 26.
164, 166. His chief axioms are that pleasure as such is not to be desired
by the Christian, and that to be ' according to nature ' it must be strictly
limited to the end which God intended it to promote. Hence the rule of
marital continence, the prohibition of the use of the 'bones of dead
animals,' ivory and tortoiseshell, of dyes, and artificial hair. No ring is
allowed but a signet. There is a natural and an unnatural use of flowers.
' For in spring-time to walk abroad in meadows dewy and soft and springing
fresh with jewelled flowers delights us with a natural and wholesome
fragrance, and we suck their sweetness as do the bees. But it is not meet
for grave men to carry about in the house a plaited chaplet from meads
untrodden.' The stern prohibition of the use of cut flowers is one of the
most singular features of primitive Christian discipline. It is hardly
necessary to refer to the De Cor. Mil. of Tertullian. Art he disparages, but
the signet may tear a simple Christian emblem, a dove, a fish, a ship
in full sail, a lyre, an anchor, a fisherman. But he was quoted on this
account in the Iconoclastic controversy as a favourer of Christian imagery,
Photius, Cod. no. Generally speaking, he gives innocent pleasure a liberal
scope. ' Wine,' he says, quoting Plato, ' makes a man good-tempered, agree-
able to his company, more lenient to his slaves, more complaisant to his
friends.' He is much less austere than Origen.
1 Strom, iii. 17. 103 ; vi. 17. 151.
Hi.] The Higher Life. 91
and authentic picture of daily Christian life. We see the
vulgarity and thinly -veneered barbarism of Roman
luxury giving way to true courtesy and refinement. We
see the Church, no longer oppressed by instant expecta-
tion of the Last Day, settling quietly down to her task
of civilising the world. Already her victory is assured.
Those who have been trained in the school of Jesus
the Pedagogue are fitted for, are imperatively summoned
to a better service. Clement delights to speak of the
Higher Life in terms borrowed from Eleusis. It is the
Greater Mysteries, of which Christ is the Hierophant and
Torchbearer. Such language is partly conventional and
common to all the Platonists of the time 1 . Again it
is intended to conciliate the Gnostics and the religious
heathen, who had all been initiated, as probably Clement
himself had been in his youth. But it is also connected
with, and tends to strengthen, the unfortunate doctrine
of Reserve.
In the Higher Life Faith gives way to Knowledge,
Fear and Hope to Love, while Holiness is merged in
Righteousness.
Knowledge, Gnosis, demerit has defined in words
taken partly from Philo, partly from the Stoics. From
the first he learned that it is the intuitive communion of
the intelligence with the Ideas, from the latter that being
science it is indefectible 2 . To the Christian doctor
1 It is to be found in Plato himself and Aristotle (see Lobeck, Aglao-
phamus, p. 128), in Philo, and in Plutarch.
2 It is '(?, SidOfats, KaTa\r)if/is rts fiefiaia. KOI a^trdrnwros, (iriaT-fipij
dvairopkrjTos. Clement uses he strongest language to express the union of
the Gnostic with his knowledge; it is (VOTTJS, oitcdcaffis, dvditpaffts, the dt'Sios
Bfcapia becomes his ovaia, his uiaa vnoaraffis. He no longer has goodness,
he is goodness, Strom, iv. 22. 136; 25. 157 ; vi. 9. 71; vii. 12. 79. This
92 Clement. [Lect.
Christ is not only the Sum of the Ideas, but the co-
equal Son of God, and Gnosis therefore is the ' appre-
hensive contemplation ' of God in the Logos, and not, as
in Philo, of God above the Logos 1 . Yet there is a
progress in the object of Knowledge, measured by the
varying aspect of Christ, who in the Lower Life is mani-
fested chiefly on the human side as Physician, Tutor, and
so on, in the Higher chiefly on the divine as Light,
Truth, Life. Holiness is the indispensable preliminary
of knowledge, which is partly Theology, but still more
the experimental knowledge of Christ. The Gnostic is
the ' pure in heart ' who ' sees God.' ' He that would
enter the fragrant shrine,' says Clement, quoting the in-
scription over the temple gate of Epidaurus, ' must be
pure, and purity is to think holy things V He is the
' approved money-changer,' whose ' practised senses ' are
the touchstone of truth. His Faith has become Con-
viction, Authority is superseded by the inner light. To
him the deep things of Scripture are revealed. He reads
the spirit beneath the letter. In Christ he understands
past, present, and future, the theory of Creation, the
symbolism of the Law, the inner meaning of the Gospel,
the mysteries of the Resurrection 3 . He sees the vital
harmony of dogma with dogma, of all dogmas with
Reason 4 . In a word, he is an Allegorist. Moral purity
and assiduous study of Scripture are the only training
language is important as bearing on his doctrine of Grace. We have here
the beata necessitas non peccandi. Again it entirely excludes Ecstasy.
1 Gnosis is always in Christ; Strom, iv. 25. 155; v. 3. 16 ; vi. 9. 78..
Nay, the Saviour is our knowledge and spiritual paradise ; vi. I. 2.
2 Strom, v. I. 13. Another favourite quotation is from Plato's Phaedo,
p. 67, oil Koffapca ycip KaOapov ((fMnrtaOai /XT) ov Qfpnbv .
3 Strom, vi. 7. 54.
4 The ffvi>a.(f>T) rwv Soy/MTuy, Strom. L.2. 20.
III.] The Higher Life. 93
that is absolutely necessary 1 . But Clement well knew
the importance of mental cultivation. His Gnostic still
reads Plato in his leisure moments. ' He is not like the
common run of people who fear Greek philosophy as
children fear a goblin lest it should run away with
them 2 .'
Of Knowledge Love is at once the life-element and
the instrument. For ' the more a man loves the more
deeply does he penetrate into God 3 .' But here again,
most unhappily, Stoicism comes in, and casts the chill
shadow of Apathy over the sweetest and simplest of
Christian motives. Platonism also helped to mislead.
For though the Alexandrines held that Matter is the
work of God, they could not wholly divest their minds of
the old scholastic dislike of the brute mass and the emo-
tions connected with it. The first thought suggested
by the Incarnation is Fear. Love is not of Jesus, but of
the Logos, the Ideal. Clement could not bear to think
that the rose of Sharon could blossom on common soil 4 .
This was the price he paid for his Transcendental
Theology.
Love makes man like the beloved. But Christ, like
God, was absolutely passionless. So too were the
Apostles after their Master's Resurrection. So too
must the Gnostic be. Self-control, Holiness, has made
1 The majority of the Christians had not received a regular education
and some did not know their letters, Strom, i. 20. 99. Erudition is some-
times hurtful to the understanding, as Anaxarchus said, iro^vfiaOir) xdpra
plv uxp(\fei Kapra 5e P\dirT(i TOV txovra, Strom, i. 5. 35.
2 Strom, vi. 10. 80; 18. 162.
Q. D. S. 27.
* The most singular instance of Clement's disparagement of human love
is to be found in Strom, vii. 12. 70, where married life is regarded as supe-
rior to celibacy because it offers so many more temptations to surmount.
94 Clement. [Lect.
the reason absolute master of the brute in the centaur
man. He will feel those desires which, like hunger or
thirst, are necessary for self-preservation, but not joy
nor sorrow nor courage nor indignation nor hatred. He
lives in the closest union with the Beloved, so absorbed
in the Divine Love that he can no longer be said to love
his fellow-creatures in the ordinary sense of the word x .
There were many in Clement's own time who shrank
from this too ethereal ideal, which, to use his own phrase,
' touches earth with but one foot.' If we take away hope
and joy, they urged, will not the Christian be swallowed
up by the sorrows of life ? And if all union with the
Beautiful is preceded by aspiration, how can he be pas-
sionless who aspires to the Beautiful 2 ? How can we
rise without desire, and how can we desire the extinction
of desire ? It is the argument afterwards pressed with
irresistible force by Bossuet and Bourdaloue against
Fenelon. Clement replies, ' Love is no more desire but
a contented self-appropriation, which restores the Gnostic
into oneness with Christ by faith, so that he needs
neither time nor place. For by Love he is already in
that scene where he will one day dwell. And having an-
ticipated his hope by Gnosis he desires nothing, for he
holds in closest possession the very object of desire.' It
is the Love which we mortals feel ' in our diviner mo-
ments, when Love is satisfied in the completeness of the
beloved object.' So absolute is its content, that if it
were possible to separate eternal salvation from the
knowledge of God, and a choice were given to the
1 The leading passages on the subject of Apathy and disinterested
Love are Strom, iv. 6. 30; 18. in; 22. 135-146; vi. 9. 71; 12. looj
16. 138.
2 Strom, vi. 9. 73.
III.] The Higher Life. 95
Gnostic, he would without hesitation choose the latter.
It is the paradox of Mysticism :
Be not angry ; I resign
/Henceforth all my will to thine:
I consent that thou depart,
Though thine absence breaks my heart ;
Go then, and for ever too ;
All is right that thou wilt do 1 .
Of this Ideal (for it is perhaps no more 2 ) enough has
been said. Clement no doubt overshot the mark. It
remains to be seen whether by so doing he encouraged
presumption, or led weakness astray. The answer is to
be found in the rigour with which he insists upon Holi-
ness as the indispensable condition, on Righteousness
as the indispensable fruit of Love.
Like all the early Fathers he attached a very real
sense to the word Righteousness. ' Ye were justified by
the name of the Lord, ye were made just as He is, and
joined in the closest possible union with the Holy
Spirit 3 .' It is not mere abstention from evil, which
1 It was insisted upon by the' Quietists. It is a paradox because the
separation is impossible. The Kingdom of Heaven is within you. Milton
makes Satan complain, ' Which way I go is hell, myself am hell ;' and the
converse is true also. But Clement knew this well ; cp. Strom, v. 10. 63,
TO 8 asyvotiv TOV iraTtpa Oavaros tanv, us rb fvuivai car) aluvios. Nor did
the Quietists think otherwise. Bossuet did not venture directly to deny the
mystic paradox, which is in fact admitted in the Articles of Issy. But
I must refer my readers to Mr. Vaughan's charming Hours with the Mystics,
vol. ii. pp. 170, 217, 380, ed. 1856.
2 Clement ascribes Apathy to Christ and to the Apostles after the Resur-
rection, Strom, vi. 9. 71. As regards men he uses sometimes very strong
language. The Gnostic becomes a god upon earth, iv. 23. 149 ; vii. 3. 13 ;
10. 56 : he is iaayythos tvravOa <parreivbs S% 77877, vi. 13. 105. On the other
hand, Paed. i. 2. 4; Strom, iv. 21. 130 ; Q. D. S. 40, more sober language is
employed ; Christ is the only perfect man, passion cannot be wholly
eradicated in this life, the wise man touches no known sin. It is the posse
non peccare, not the non posse peccare. But Clement is less introspective
than Origen. The mere frailty of human nature does not distress him so
long as he feels that his heart is safe in Christ.
3 Strom, vii. 14. 87. On Righteousness, see especially the fine passage,
96 Clement. [Lect.
is Holiness, the virtue of the Lower Life, but the free
active joyous service of those who are sanctified. It is
life which needs no rule. The Gnostic, says Clement in
language very like that of Madame de Guyoh, has no
virtue, because he is virtue. Nature is absorbed by
Grace. It is easier to do good than to leave it undone,
hence ' good works follow Gnosis as shadow follows sub-
stance 1 .' Contemplation is the Gnostic's chief delight,
the next is active beneficence, the third is instruction,
the work of making others like himself. God gives him
an exceeding great reward, the salvation of other men 2 .
Thus Apathy, Detachment, make the sanctified be-
liever not less but more useful to his kind. It is
important to add, in view of the objections afterwards
urged against the Quietists, that Clement lays great
stress upon the observance of the existing Church disci-
Strom. vi. 12. 102. Origen distinguishes two modes of Righteousness,
Innocence, the effect of Baptismal Forgiveness, and the active virtue of
Justice. Clement speaks only -of the latter. The just man is faithful, but
the faithful man is not necessarily just. Faith is salvation, but not righteous-
ness ; it gives the will, but not immediately the power to do right. Faith is
life, righteousness is health (v-yifia'). It would seem then that we might be
' saved ' without good works, but Clement never expressly deals with this
question. He seems to assert the opposite, Strom, v. i. 7, \apni yap
ffw^oftfOa OVK avfv pevTOi rwv Ka\uv epjeav, but here perhaps aairrjpia is used
in the sense of vyitta. On the necessity, the 'merit' of good works, see
Strom, v. 13. 86; vii. 12. 72 ; 14. 108.
1 Strom, vii. 13. 82.
2 Strom, iv. 22. 136. In ii. II. 46 the three characteristics of Gnosis are
Ofoipia 77 rOav kvroKoiv Imre \fffis avdpuv dyaOuiv KaraffKfvr) : vi. 17. 160 the
Gnostic is compared to a iraiSoTpifirjs who teaches in three ways, Kara irapaKO-
XovOrjaiv, putting the pupil in the requisite posture and making him do the thing
required ; KOL&' 6p.oi(oatv, by example and emulation ; Kara irpocrragiv, when the
pupil has mastered all his exercises and simply requires to be told which he
is to perform : the last may refer to spiritual direction : vii. I. 3 the life of
the Gnostic is a constant Gepairtia of two kinds, @e\ricoTiKri, in which he
resembles the presbyter, vmjpfTtKri, in which he resembles the deacon. See
Baur, Christliche Gnosis, p. 507.
in.] The Higher Life. 97
pline, the regular use of all the ordinary means of Grace.
I will not here dwell upon what he says about Public
Worship, iJ^e reading of Scripture, the Eucharist, Alms-
giving, Falting 1 . It will be sufficient to state his views
on the subject of Prayer 2 , the point on which the
Quietists departed most widely from the lines he laid
down.
The Gnostic prays without ceasing. He would rather
forego the grace of God than enjoy it without prayer.
But indeed this is impossible. For our holiness must
cooperate with the providence of God, if the blessing is
to be perfect. Holiness is a correlative of Providence 3 .
For God Himself is a voluntary agent. He does not
' warm like fire ' as Plutarch thought, nor can we receive
His best gifts involuntarily, even if they be given before
we ask.
But God reads the heart, and therefore few words are
needed or none. ' Ask,' He says, ' and I will do, think,
and I will give 4 .' Good is the prayer which Christians
utter in the church, with head and hands uplifted, and
foot raised at the Amen, as if to soar above earth.
1 Public Worship in the morning, Patd. ii. 10. 96: Fasting on Wednesday
and Friday, Strom, vii. 12, 75- The Scripture says (Tobit xii. 8), dyaffov
vrjortia fifTO. irpoatvx^, vrjartiat 8^ airoxas KOKUJV firjvvovatv eiTraf cnrAais : ob-
servance of the Lord's Day, Strom, vii. 12. 76 : Reading of Scripture, Paed. ii.
10. 96 ; Strom, vii. 7. 49 ; Almsgiving, Q. D. S. 33 ; Strom, ii. 15. 96,
f\tr)iioffvvais ovv nal mareat anoxaOaipovTai at d/xa/mat : on the Eucharist
see below.
* See generally Strom, iv. 23. 148 ; viii. 7. 35 sqq.
3 avTtmaTpcKfir), avTiarpfxpos, Strom, vii. 7. 42. The reference to Plutarch
(an author whom Clement several times quotes) is non posse suavitcr vim
sec. Epic, xxii, ovrt yap Otppov ri ifvxftv oAAd vb Oepnaivtiv Sicrrrtp ovS'
d-yaOov T& BXatTTtiv. This will further illustrate what was said in Lecture I
on Plutarch's connection with Gnosticism.
4 alrrjaai ual TJoirfaca' tvvorjOrjTi ical Swaca, a favourite quotation (see Strom.
vi. 9. 78 ; 12. 101 ; vii. 7. 40 ; 12. 73) from some apocryphal book.
H
98 Clement. [Lect.
Good is prayer at the three hours 1 , with face turned
towards the East, as even pagans use. But better still
is the inner colloquy of unspoken supplication for
which no place or time is set apart, the praise of him
who ploughs, of him who sails upon the sea. The
Gnostic's prayer is chiefly Thanksgiving and Interces-
sion, as was that of our Saviour. Beyond this he will
ask only for the continuance of the blessings he enjoys,
for he desires nothing that he has not, and the Father's
Will is enough for him.
The prayer of the Gnostic, even when speechless, is
still conscious and active. It is far removed from the
blank vacuity of the soul which, as Molinos says, ' lies
dead and buried, asleep in Nothingness 2 : -thinking
without thought of the Unconditioned. The Silent
Prayer of the Quietist is in fact Ecstasy, of which there
is not a trace in Clement.
For Clement shrank from his own conclusions.
Though the father of all the Mystics he is no Mystic
himself. He did not enter the 'enchanted garden' which
he opened for others. If he talks of ' flaying the sacrifice,'
of leaving sense behind, of Vision, of Epopteia, this is
but the parlance of his school. The instrument to
which he looks for growth in knowledge is not trance,
but the disciplined reason. Hence Gnosis when once
attained is indefectible, not like the rapture which Plo-
tinus enjoyed but four times during his acquaintance
with Porphyry, which in the experience of Theresa
1 Strom, vii. 7. 40 ; the Gnostic rose also at intervals during the night to
pray, Paed. ii. 9. 79 ; Strom, vii. 7. 49.
* ' Endormie dans le neant,' Molinos, Guide Spirituelle, iii. 20. 201. I
owe the reference to La Bruyere, Dialogues sur le Quietisme, vol. ii. ed.
Servois.
in.] The Church. 99
never lasted more than half-an-hour 1 . The Gnostic is
no Visionary, no Theurgist, no Antinomian.
These dangers were not far away in the age of Mon-
tanus and the Neo-Platonists. The Alexandrines have
perhaps too much ' dry light,' but their faith was too
closely wedded to reason and the written word to be
seduced by these forbidden joys. Mysticism is as yet a
Pagan solace. The time for a purely Christian mysti-
cism, which Gerson evolves not from the reason but
from the emotions, had not yet arrived. Yet Clement
laid the fuel ready for kindling. The spark that was
needed was the allegorical interpretation of the Song of
Songs. This was supplied, strange to say, by Origen,
the least mystical of all divines.
Every baptised Christian, who has not been ' cut off'
like a diseased limb by solemn judicial process, is a
member of the Church upon earth, is therefore within
the pale of salvation. The Church 2 is the Platonic City
of God, ' a lovely body and assemblage of men governed
by the Word,' ' the company of the Elect.' She is the
Bride of Christ, the Virgin Mother, stainless as a Virgin,
loving as a Mother. She is One, she is Catholic, be-
1 Porphyry, Vita Plotini, 23, p. 116, ed. Firmin-Didot. For St. Theresa
see Barthelemy Saint-Hilaire, l?cole d'Alexandrie, pp. xlv, Ixxix; for
Gerson, ibid. Ixii, xcviii. Vacherot in his third volume traces the connec-
tion of the Alexandrines with mediaeval mysticism. Dahne, De Tvwaei,
p. 112, insists that Clement himself was a mystic. It depends upon the
meaning which we attach to the word. In one sense all believers in the
unseen are Mystics ; in another, all believers in whom the emotional element
predominates largely over the intellectual. I have taken Mysticism as co-
extensive with Ecstasy. Of this again there are several degrees, ranging
from the inarticulate communion of the Qnietists to pictorial visions. Such
visions were regarded with suspicion by Mystics of the higher class, such as
St. John of the Cross. See Vaughan, Hours with the Mystics.
3 Strom, iv. 26. 172; vii. 5. 29; iii. 6. 49; u. 74; Paed. i. 6. 42;
Strom, vii. 17. 107 (one, true, ancient, catholic), 108 (apostolic).
H 2,
ioo Clement. [Lect.
cause the doctrine and tradition of the Apostles is one ;
the heretic who has forsaken her fold has ' an assembly
devised by man,' ' a school,' but not a Church x . One in
belief, but not in mechanism. Peter is the first of the
Apostles 2 , but the See of Peter is never named. The
West is as unknown to Clement as it was to his
favourite Homer. Yet in this One Church there is a
distinction. There are those who within her fold live as
do the Gentiles, these are the flesh of Christ's Mystical
Body; there are those who cleave to the Lord and
become one spirit with Him, the Sons of God, the
Gnostics ; these are the Holy Church, the Spiritual
Chufch ; these, and they who are in process to be-
come as these, are the rings which have not dropped
from the magnetic chain, but in spiritual union with
saints and angels ' wait for the Rest of God 3 .'
The Stromateis were written during the Patriarchate
of Demetrius amid the bustle and excitement of a revo-
lution. But no echo of the strife penetrated the tranquil
q, Strom, vii. 15. 92 : avBpwtrivai. awrjKvffeis, vii. 17. 106. The
notes of heresy are contempt of apostolical tradition, vii. 16. 95, 6
avaKaKriaas rrjv (KK\r]aiaaTiK^v irap&Soo'iv, and defiance of Scripture, which
the Gnostics reject in part, vii. 16. 97, irapeire^avro ras ypa<pas, or inter-
pret by vicious methods out of </>iAatm'a. Those who use only water in the
Eucharist are heretics, i. 19. 96 ; and there is also a heretical baptism, ibid.
On the asceticism and in some cases lax morality of the Gnostics, see
Strom, iii. The ' Phrygians ' are not called heretics, iv. 3. 93.
2 Q.D. S. 21, 6 fMKapios irerpos 6 (K\tKTos 6 ifaiperos 6 irpOaTos ruiv
fj.a.BrjTOjt' vir(p ov n6vov teal eavrov rbv <f>6pov 6 acarr^p IT Aef.
3 Strom, vii. n. 68 : in vii. 14. 87 the Gnostics are the Holy Church, the
Spiritual Body of which those who only bear the name of Christian and
do not live according to reason are the flesh. Had this point of view been
habitual to him Clement must have written very differently about the Lower
Life. The Invisible Spiritual Church, the Communion of Saints, is compared
to a chain of rings upheld by a magnet, vii. 2.9. It is the Church of the
First Born, Protrept. ix. 82.
in.] The Clergy. 101
seclusion in which Clement lectured and composed.
He reflects with calm fidelity the image of the antique
times in which he had himself been reared. His heart
is with the Republic ; he is the Samuel of the new
monarchy.
One of the chief pillars of the aggressive theory of
Church polity was the claim of the Christian ministry
to be regarded as lineal successors of the sacrificial
hierarchy of the Jews. But to Clement the true anti-
type of Levite or Hiereus is the Gnostic, the son or
daughter of God, who has been anointed like King,
Prophet, or High Priest of the Law, but with the
spiritual unction of the Holy Ghost 1 . The Gnostic
sacrifice is that of praise, of a contrite spirit, of a soul
delivered from carnal lusts ; the incense is holy prayer ;
the altar is the just soul, or the congregation of
believers 2 . Beyond this there is no sacrifice except the
' costly,' the ' fireless ' Victim once offered upon the
Cross 3 . Clement quotes the famous verse of Malachi,
but the ' pure offering ' is the knowledge of God as
Creator derived by the heathen from the light of the
universal Word 4 . The much disputed text about the
power of the keys he never cites at all, and in the
Penance controversy, which was already agitating men's
minds, he follows Hermas, allowing but one Absolution
for mortal sin after Baptism, a view highly unfavourable
1 itpeTs, Strom, iv. 25. 157 sq. ; vii. 7. 36. In Strom, vi. 13. 106 the
Gnostic is a true Presbyter, though he be not honoured irpcaTOKaOfSpiq,.
' J The sacrifice, Paed. iii. 12. 90 ; Strom, ii. 18. 79, 96 ; v. u. 67 (imme-
diately after an allusion to the Eucharist) ; vii. 3. 14 ; 6. 31, 32. The last
cited passage explains the terms altar, incense.
3 Strom, v. ii. 66, 70. See also passages quoted in Lecture II.
4 Strom, v. 14. 136. The verse had already been applied to the Eucharist
in the Doctrine of the Apostles, Irenaeus and Justin.
IO2 Clement. [Lect.
to the growing authority of the Bishop *. He rarely
mentions the three orders of Clergy 2 , and never in con-
nection with the Sacraments. The rich man should
have a domestic chaplain or spiritual director, who is to
be ' a man of God V The unlearned brother is not to
trust his private judgment, but the interpreter of Scrip-
ture is no doubt the Gnostic. The one office assigned
to the Presbyter is that of ' making men better,' and this
is also the special function of the Gnostic.
It seems most probable that at this time, in the
Church of Alexandria, the Eucharist was not yet dis-
1 Strom, ii. 13. 56. Clement follows Hennas, Mand. iv. 3, almost
verbally, though without naming his authority. He supports this view
by Heb. x. 26, 27. Clement nowhere expressly draws a distinction between
mortal and venial sins, but it is implied here and in Strom, vi. 12. 97, where
he speaks of fitravoia Siaa^, the first being conversion, the second repentance
for minor daily sins. It is the first, repentance of mortal sin, that could
only be repeated once after baptism. It is singular that in Q. D. S. he does
not enter upon the question. (I observe that in 39 the right reading is un-
doubtedly toy fj^i {nrevijvexGai Tf\tov, OVTOS ov Ka.Tfifff)<piffTOi.) For further
information see Lecture vi.
2 Strom, vi. 13. 107.- Bishop, Priest, and Deacon symbolise the ' three
Mansions,' the three degrees of the Angelic Hierarchy: iii. 12. 90, Priest
and Deacon distinguished from Xaios : vii. I. 3, Priests exercise the
/SeATKWTiKjj, Deacons the virrjpeTiiti) Ofparrda : vi. 13. 106, Priests have
wfKUTOKaOfSpia, sitting probably in a semicircle with the Bishop in their
centre round the east end of the church: Paed. i. 6. 37, Tsoiptvts kaptv ol
TOIV (KK\Tjatn/ irpoT/yoviJiti'oi.
3 Q.D.S.4I. Probst, Sakramente, p. 261, unhesitatingly identifies the
Man of God with the Priest. It is just possible that we have here the same
admonition as in Origen, Sel. in Psalmos, Horn. ii. 6 (Lorn. xii. p. 267),
4 tantummodo circumspice diligentius, cui debeas confiteri peccatum tuum.
Proba prius medicum.' He may mean that the chaplain is to be a priest, but
a worthy priest. But were there more than twelve priests in Alexandria,
and in any case can there have been enough to supply domestic chaplains to
all the rich men who needed them ? I do not doubt that the chaplain is to
be a Gnostic who is a judge in spiritual matters, Strom, vii. 7. 45. Rufinus,
before his ordination, seems to have held such a post in the household of
Melania. Compare note above, p. 96. Probst, I may add, endeavours to
prove that the Gnostic is the Priest by combining what Clement says of the
Gnostic, of Moses, of the Law, and of Christ the Shepherd.
III.] The Eucharist. 103
tinguished in time, ritual, or motive from the primitive
Supper of the Lord 1 . Of this, the Agape, the Love-
Feast, or Banquet, there were two forms, the public and
the private, the first celebrated at a full gathering of the
brethren on fixed evenings in the church, the second in
private houses 2 .
1 This statement, that the Eucharist at Alexandria was not yet separated
from the Agape and that both were celebrated together in the evening, may
seem doubtful, and indeed I make it with some hesitation. It may be argued,
on the other side, (i) That the separation was already made in the West, as
we see from Justin and Tertullian, and is found immediately after Clement's
time in Palestine, teste Origen. (ii) That the word Eucharist is employed
by Clement for the Elements, Strom, i. I. 5, and for the rite, Paed. ii. 2. 20;
Strom, iv. 25. 161. (iii) That there was a morning service at Alexandria,
though we are not told that it included the Eucharist, Paed. ii. 10. 96. On
the other hand, (i) the Liturgy, so far as we can judge, is not nearly so
developed in Clement's church as in that of Origen ; (ii) the Agape in both
its forms is distinctly mentioned, the Eucharist as a separate office is
not ; (iii) the word Eucharist is employed of the Agape, Paed. ii. 10.
96. (iv) The Agape is mentioned in the Sibylline Oracles Or. viii. 402, 497,
temp. Trajan or Hadrian ; Or. v. 265, temp. Antoninus Pius while the
Eucharist is not : see Alexandre, ii. 547. It is true that both these authori-
ties are anterior in date to Clement, (v) Dionysius of Alexandria still uses of
the rite of Communion the same word, lortacns, which in Clement means the
Agape, Eus. H. E. vi. 42. 5, ai irpoawxuiv aurofs- KO.I kffTidaav eKoivuvrjaav.
(vi) Lastly, I do not know of any passage in an Oriental writer before
Clement's time in which the Eucharist appears as a distinct and substan-
tive office. In the Doctrine of the Apostles Hilgenfeld observes upon the
word fp.-n\r]adr)vai in chap. 10, ' eucharistia vere coena communis nondum
separata ab Agape.' And from Socrates, v. 22, it appears that the Agape
lingered on in the churches of Upper Egypt longer than elsewhere. We
may infer from this perhaps that Alexandria also had clung to the primitive
usage after it had been abandoned by others.
2 The public Agape is the Sr)wii5r)s iariaffis of Paed. ii. i. 12. But we
read of TOV Kfn\rjKura, ibid. 10. This is the 80x17- Yet further the ' Feast'
is universal and daily, Paed. ii. 10. 96, taittpas 5% dvairavaaadai KaOr)Kti
Herd ^r|v toriaaiv Kal fjifrd TTJV Iir2 rais diro\avff(ffiv (\i\apiariav. Here
Clement obviously means the ordinary house supper. So again, Strom, vii.
7. 49, at Trpb TT)S eff-riaaews tvr(v(is TWV ypa<pu>v, \f/a\fj.ol St Kal VJJLVOI wapd rf)v
(ffriacriv irp6 ff TTjy KO'ITTIS. No priest can have been present in the vast
majority of cases ; the devotional exercises of the family and the ' thanks-
giving' constituted the meal an Eucharist. The phrase in Q. D. S. 23, ir6na
jta$' fjp.fpav fvSiSovs dOavaaias, may perhaps thus be explained. The private
io4 Clement. [Lect.
The first was still disfigured by those excesses and
disorders, which St. Paul sharply rebuked, but a century
of discipline had not eradicated. It was preceded by
reading of the Scriptures, psalms and hymns. After
this the Bread and Wine were blessed, and then dis-
tributed by the deacons x . Viands of every kind, often
costly and richly dressed, were provided by the liberality
of the wealthier brethren. Clement does not attempt to
lay any puritanical restrictions upon social enjoyment.
He enforces the rule prohibiting the taste of blood or of
meat offered to idols, he explains the code of good
manners, and insists upon moderation. The Christian
must eat to live, not live to eat. He must not abuse the
Father's gifts. He must show by precept and example
that the heavenly banquet is not the meat that perisheth,
but love, that the believer's true food is Christ 2 .
All that Clement says upon this subject is of the
highest value to those who wish to recast for themselves
a faithful image of the Church life of the end of the
Agape is the ordinary evening meal also in Cyprian, Ep. 63. 16. p. 714,
ed. Hartel. In a somewhat later time the clergy appear to have been gene-
rally but not always present at the 80x17, which has become a charity dinner,
to which especially poor old women were invited, Const. Ap. ii. 28. The
Council of Laodicea prohibited the Agape in churches, can. 28, and in
private houses, can. 58. Mansi, iii. 563. Hefele. 'Hoc modo in totum
eucharistia ab agapis distincta et separata fuit,' Bohmer, Dissertatioms
Juris Eccles. Lipsiae, 1711, diss. iv. The consecration of the Eucharist by
laymen was not unknown in Tertullian's church, Exhort. Cast. vii.
1 Supper followed the Eucharist, see Paed. ii. i. n, /*er<i -TT)V tv \6yq>
rpv<f>T)v. The deacons carried round the supper as well as the consecrated
bread and wine ; see the following words, avfjLntTa<p(pofj.evris avraiv, uis eiirtiv,
7TJs diepaffias nptis raiv SiaKovoav.
2 The description of the Agape will be found at the opening of Paed. ii.
For a similar and equally graphic account of the coarse vulgarity of Alex-
andrine luxury, see Philo, De Vita Cont. 5 (ii. 477)- The contrast between
the heathen man of the world and the Christian gentleman as drawn by
Clement is most instructive.
ill.] Ttie Eucharist. 105
second century. But of all his phrases the most im-
portant are those which assure us, that the ordinary
evening meal of a Christian household was in a real
sense an Agape. It was preceded by the same acts of
worship ; it was blessed by thanksgiving ; it was a true
Eucharist. The house father is the house priest. The
highest act of Christian devotion is at the same time the
simplest and most natural. Husband, wife and child,
the house slave, and the invited guest gathered round
the domestic board to enjoy with thankfulness the good
gifts of God, uplifting their hearts in filial devotion, ex-
panding them in brotherly bounty and kindness. To us
the word Eucharist has become a term of ritual, whose
proper meaning is all but obsolete. To the Greek it
was still a word of common life thanksgiving, the
grateful sense of benefits received, of good gifts showered
by the good Father on mind and heart and body. ' He that
eateth eateth unto the Lord and keepeth Eucharist to
God ... so that a religious meal is an Eucharist V
All these good gifts sum themselves up in one, the
gift of the Son. In the Eucharist, in its narrower sense,
we eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, ' hallowed
food,' of which the bread and wine given by Melchise-
dech to Abraham was a type 2 . It is ' a mystery pass-
ing strange V ' I will, I will impart to you this grace
also, the full and perfect bounty of incorruption. I give
1 Paed. ii. I. 10, us tlvai TT)I/ SiKaiav rpcHprjv fiix
2 Strom, iv. 26. 161. The figure is from Philo, and must be interpreted
by Philo's light.
3 fivffTrjptov irapaooov, Paed. i. 6. 43 : the following quotation is from
Protrept. xii. 120. The chief passages on the subject of the Eucharist are,
besides these two, Paed. ii. 2. 19 sq. ; Strom, v. 10. 66. Other notices in
Paed. i. 5. 15; 6. 38; Strom, i. 10. 46; 19. 96; v. 11. 70; vi. 14. 113;
Q.D.S. 23.
io6 Clement. Lect.
to you the knowledge of God. I give to you my perfect
Self.' Christ's own Sacrifice, the charter of His High
Priesthood, is the condition of His sacramental agency.
But what is the special boon that He conveys in that
supreme moment, when His sacrifice co-operates with
ours, when ' in faith ' we partake x of the nourishment
which He bestows? Not forgiveness that gift is be-
stowed in the laver of Regeneration, and if lost must be
regained by the stern sacrament of Penance but incor-
ruption, immortality 2 . The Bread, the Wine mingled
with Water, are an allegory. ' The Blood of the Lord
is twofold. One is fleshly, whereby we have been ran-
somed from corruption ' in Baptism ' one is spiritual,
with this we have been anointed' in the Eucharist.
The Body is Faith, the Blood is Hope, which is as it
were the lifeblood of Faith. 'This is the Flesh and
Blood of the Lord, the apprehension of the Divine
power and essence.' ' The Blood of His Son cleanseth
from all sin. For the doctrine of the Lord which is
very strong is called His Blood V
The elements are ' hallowed food ' ; ' the meat of
babes, that is to say the Lord Jesus, that is to say the
Word of God, is spirit made flesh, hallowed flesh from
heaven V These phrases have been interpreted in very
1 Paed. ii. 2. 20, fjs of Kara irianv nTa.Xa.p,ftavovTts.
1 Paed. ii. 2. 19; iii. i. 2.
3 For these four quotations see Paed. ii. 2. 19 ; i. 6. 38 ; Strom, v. 10.
66 ; Adumb, in Ep. foan. I. p. 1009. I quote the last book always with
hesitation.
* Strom, iv. 26. 161 ; Paed. i. 6. 43. The two opposing views are
maintained by Dollinger, Die Eucharistie in den drei erstenjahrb., Mainz,
1826, and Probst, Liturgie, on the one hand, and by Hofling, Die Lehre
der altesten Kirche vom Opfer im Leben und Cultus, Erlangen, 1851.
Upon the whole Hofling's view appears to me to be correct. But I must
in fairness add, what I do not remember to have seen mentioned, that the
III.] The Eucharist. 107
different senses. One writer sees in them the doctrine
of Transubstantiation, another the doctrine of Zwinglius.
Those who read Clement as a whole, who reflect upon
his strong antithesis of the letter, the flesh, to the spirit,
who take into due account his language on the subject
of Priest and Sacrifice, and his emphatic declaration that
' knowledge is our reasonable food 1 ,' will be inclined to
think that the latter view is far nearer to the truth.
Christ is present in the Eucharist as Gnosis, ' in the
heart, not in the hand.' The Elements are a symbol, an
allegory 2 , perhaps a vehicle, an instrument, inasmuch as
they are ordained by Christ Himself, and to substitute
doctrine of the Real Presence is stated, Excerfta, 82, 6 apros KCU TO eAeuov
ayia^frai TTJ Swdfiti rov ovofnaros ov ra avrd ovra Kara ro <paiv6fievov ola
e\ri<p0T), d\\a Sui/d/xet els Svvafuv itvtvuaTiitty /j. ( ra/3 (ft \ijrat. And the
precise idea of transubstantiation was familiar to Clement, Paed. L 6. 40,
aa.a\ti 8 rr/v nfra&o^v Kara irotorrjra ov tear' ovaiav. He is speaking of
the change of the mother's blood into milk, and his point is that the Faith
of the Lower Life is the same in substance as the Gnosis of the Higher. It
is barely possible that there may be also some allusion to the Elements, but
I do not think there is.
1 Strom, v. 1 1. 70, \oyiicov TJ/J.IV Ppa/M 17 yvwais : L IO. 46, iva 8?) <pdyjjfj.ev
\oyiKu>s: v. lo. 66, fipuiffis yap KO.I troais rov Oelov \6yov fj yvwffis earn rfjs
Otias ovaias: Adumb. in Ep.Joan. /. p. ion, sanguis quod est cognitio.
There is a remarkable departure from the ordinary symbolism in the very
obscure passage, Paed. ii. 2. 19, 20. Clement's drift is that those are to
be praised who abstain from wine altogether, and he illustrates this by the
mixed chalice. The Wine is the Blood, the symbol of Redemption, Bap-
tism, Faith, and Discipline ; the Water is the Spirit, the better gift.
3 Paed. ii. 2. 32, at/ia rrjs ap.iri\ov, ibv \6yov rov wept iro\\uv tuxtofjitvov
(Is d<peaiv apapTituv tixppoavvrjs ayiof d\\rjyopfi vapa.: i. 6. 47, ^ yap ifal
oi>xi oivos a\\T)yop(iTai. Much depends on the meaning of the word
Allegory and the purpose of the Alexandrine Disciplina Arcani. On this
I shall speak in Lecture iv. It may be noticed here that Clement mentions
the kiss of peace, Paed. iii. ii. 81 ; the practice of anointing the eyes with
a drop of the wine from the lips (a bare allusion), Paed. ii. 12. 129 ; and
tells us, Strom, i. i. 5, that some clergymen made the communicant take
his piece of bread instead of giving it to him, lest they should become
partakers in the sin of the unworthy recipient; see Probst, Liturgie,
pp. 135 sqq.
io8 Clement. [Lect.
any other figure for the one so ordained is heresy. But
the veil, though a holy thing because it belongs to the
sanctuary, is not the mystery that it shrouds, the alle-
gory is not the truth that it bodies forth.
The chief article of the Christian Gnosis was that of
the Future Life. It was as interesting to Pagans as to
Christians. ' What will become of the soul after death ? '
asks Plotinus, as he enters upon this universally fascinat-
ing theme. The immortality of the soul was positively
denied by none but the ' godless Epicureans.' But the
doctrine of the Resurrection was peculiar to the Church,
and, while it strengthened her hold upon the masses,
was a great stumbling-block in the way of the educated.
The Platonist looked upon the body as the ' dungeon of
the soul,' and could not understand how any pious man
should expect a good God to renew and perpetuate that
degrading bondage.
Within the Church itself there was some variety and
much confusion of thought. Tertullian and many others
held that the soul itself was material *. From this fol-
lowed the terrible belief of Tatian, that it dies with the
body, and is raised again with the body, by an act of
Divine power, for an eternity of suffering or joy. Others,
especially Arabian Christians, held that after dissolution
the soul sleeps unconscious, till awakened to life by the
restoration of its organism. But the majority believed
in an intermediate yet conscious state of existence in
Hades or Paradise, extending to the Day of Judgment,
1 A Montanist sister in one of her visions saw a soul ' tenera et lucida et
aerii coloris et forma per omnia humana,' De Anima, 9. Tatian's doctrine
in Oratio ad Graecos, 13. For the Arabians, Eus. H. E. vi-. 37; Rede-
penning, Origenes, ii. 105 sqq. The if/vxotravwxia may perhaps be found
also in Athenagoras, De Res. 16, though Otto thinks not.
in.] Resurrection. 109
when the soul is reunited to the body, from which it has
been for a time divorced.
The Resurrection itself they interpreted in the most
literal sense. It would be a resurrection of ' this flesh,'
of the identical body which had been dissolved by death.
The ' change,' spoken of by St. Paul, was strictly limited
to the accession of the new attribute of incorruption *.-
Closely allied to this view was the widespread opinion
of the Chiliasts, who, resting upon the prophecies of
Isaiah and the Apocalypse, believed that after the first
Resurrection the saints should reign in the flesh upon
earth for a thousand years under the sceptre of Christ.
Chiliasm, which in vulgar minds was capable of the most
unhappy degradation, was in turn strengthened by the
urgent expectation of the End of the World. In the
lower strata of Christian society prophecies on this
subject were rife At this very time a calculation, based
on the numerical value of the letters composing the
word Rome, fixed the downfall of the Empire and the
coming of Christ for judgment for the year 195 A. D. 2
The Montanists held that the appointed sign was the
appearance of the New Jerusalem in heaven ; and this
sign was given during the expedition of Severus against
the Parthians, when for forty consecutive mornings the
vision of a battlemented city hanging in the clouds
was beheld by the whole army 3 .
1 See Irenaeus, v. 13 ; Athenagoras, De Res.
8 The four letters composing the word foifo] 948, hence it was sup-
posed the empire would last that number of years, Or. Sib. viii. 148. When
this expectation was frustrated by the course of events, the authors of the
last four Sibylline books struck off 105 years from the Roman Fasti and
fixed upon the year 305 in the reign of Diocletian. See much curious
information upon similar speculations which recurred again and again from
the persecution of Nero downwards, Alexandre, ii. pp. 485 sqq.
8 Tertullian, Adv. Marc. iii. 24; Miinter, Primordia Eccl. Afr. p. 141.
no Clement.
There were differences of opinion again as to the
nature, object, duration, of the sufferings that await the
wicked in the life to come, especially among the outlying
sects. The Valentinians, as we have seen, taught ' con-
ditional immortality,' and regarded the future life as a
state of education, of progress through an ascending
series of seven heavens. The Clementine Homilies, a
work composed under strong Judaic influences, expresses
different views in different places. In one the sinner is
warned that eternal torments await him in the life to
come. In another St. Peter proclaims that those who
repent, however grievous their offences, will be chastised
but for a time, that those who repent not will be tortured
for a season and then annihilated 1 . The Church at large
believed in an eternity of bliss or of woe. Yet among
the Montanists prayers and oblations were offered up on
behalf of the departed, and it was thought that these
sacrifices could in certain cases quicken the compassion
of God towards those who had died in sin. The widow
prayed that her lost husband's pangs might be alleviated,
and that she might share with him in the First Resurrec-
tion. Perpetua, the matron lily of martyrs, in that jail
which seemed to be a palace while her baby was at her
breast, cried for mercy upon the soul of her little brother,
who had died unbaptised 2 .
1 Eternal torments in i. 7 ; xi. II : the other view in iii. 6.
2 Tertullian, De Monogamia, 10, the widow prays for her husband's soul ;
' enimvero et pro anima eius drat, et refrigerium interim adpostulat ei et in
prima resurrectione consortium, et offert annuls diebus dormitionis eius :' De
Cor. Mil. 3, 'oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis, annua die facimus'
(here he rests the usage on tradition, and not on Scripture : but he may mean
only that the oblation is not scriptural as the use of prayer is sanctioned by
2 Tim. i. 18) : see also De Exhort. Cast. n. All these treatises are Mon-
tanist according to Miinter. Montanist also in the opinion of Valesius are
ill.] Resurrection. 1 1 1
Clement never composed his promised treatise on the
Resurrection, and it is not always easy to attach a definite
meaning to his allusive style. But the general outline of
his teaching is sufficiently clear. He rejects with scornful
brevity the fancies of Chiliasm 1 . The Resurrection body
is not ' this flesh,' but, as St. Paul taught, a glorified frame,
related to that which we now possess as the grain of corn
to the new ear, devoid in particular of the distinctions of
sex 2 . The change is wrought by fire. Even Christ rose
' through fire.' Fire is here the agent not of chastise-
ment, but of that mysterious sublimation by which our
organism is fitted for existence in a new sphere.
For the sinner the fire burns with a fiercer intensity,
because it has a harsher office. It is the pang of un-
satisfied lusts that gnaw the soul itself for want of food,
the sting of repentance and shame, the sense of loss. It
the Acta of St. Perpetua. As to the latter it should be observed that the
little brother Dinocrates for whom Perpetua intercedes had certainly died
unbaptised. For his father was a Pagan Perpetua herself was baptised in
the prison and the effect of her prayer is that Dinocrates is admitted to the
benefits of baptism. ' I saw Dinocrates coming forth from a dark place
very hot and thirsty, squalid of face and pallid of hue . . . And hard by
where he stood was a tank full of water, the margin whereof was higher
than the stature of the child, and he stood on tiptoe as if he would drink. '
Again, 'on the day on which we lay in the stocks,' she prays, and sees
Dinocrates cleansed, dressed, and cool, drinking eagerly of the water.
' Then I knew that he was released from pain." Further, the privilege of
intercession is granted to Perpetua by revelation as a special mark of favour.
So Clement appears to restrict it to the Gnostic. The practice of prayer for
the dead was certainly uncommon at the end of the second century. It is not
found in Origen, for in Rom. ix. 1 2 is confessedly from the hand of Rufinus.
1 Strom, vii. 1 2. 74, the Gnostic, iwv Koa\tiKuiv KCUTOI Oficav ovrcav (iraf-
yt\iuns KaTfntya\o<f>p6vrj<j(v. Guerike considers that these words refer to
Chiliasm, ii. p. 163.
2 Paed. i. 4. 10 ; 6. 46. In this last passage it is said that Christ rose
' through fire,' which changes the natural into the spiritual body, as earthly
fire changes wheat into bread. But the resurrection body may still be
called flesh, Paed. ii. 10. 100; iii. i. 2.
112 Clement. [Lect.
is ministered not by fiends but by good angels 1 , it is
alleviated by the prayers of the saints on earth 2 .
There can I think be no doubt (though it has been
doubted) that Clement allowed the possibility of repent-
ance and amendment till the Last Day. At that final
Assize there will be found those who, like Aridaeus 3 , are
incurable, who will still reject, as man always can reject,
the proffered grace. But he nowhere expressly limits
probation to this brief life. All his theory of punish-
ment 4 , which is strictly Platonic, for he hardly ever
quotes Scripture in this connection 5 , points the same
way. And many passages might be adduced which
prove how his maxims are to be applied. ' Let them
be chastised,' he says of the 'deaf serpents' who refuse
to hear the voice of the charmer, 'by God, enduring His
paternal correction before the Judgment, till they be
ashamed and repent 6 .' In that fiery trial even Sodom
1 Strom, v. 14. 90 ; vii. 2. 12.
2 The Gnostic, oi/rmpet roi/s /^ra 6a.va.Tov natSevofjifvovs Sid TTJS KoXdaeojs
aKovatcvs fo/j.o\oyovpevovs, Strom, vii. 12. 78. Yet Clement does not ex-
pressly say that he prays for them.
3 Strom, v. 14. 90 : in iv. 24. 154 the ' faithless' are as the chaff which
the wind driveth away.
* The object of ($Aa<ns is threefold amendment, example, and protection
of the weak, Strom, i. 26. 168 ; iv. 24. 154; vi. 12.99. The distinction
between K6\ao~is and rifitapla, Strom, iv. 14. 153 ; Paed. i. 8. 70, the latter
is the rendering of evil for evil, and this is not the desire of God. Both
Ko\ao-is and rifjioipia are spoken of in Strom, v. 14. 90, but this is not to be
pressed, for in Strom, vi. 14. 109 the distinction between the words is
dropped and both signify purgatorial chastisement.
6 Isaiah iv. 4 is quoted, Paed. iii. 9. 48, and Cor. i. 3. 10-13, Strom.
v. 4. 26.
6 Strom, vii. 16. 102. Repentance is attributed to the dead again in
Strom, vi. 14. 109. If it be asked which repentance Clement speaks of
here (see note above, p. 102), the instance of Sodom and Gomorrha, Adumb.
in Ep.Jtidae, p. 1008, is very strong. It rests upon Ezekiel xvi. 33, 55, and
is employed by Origen in the same way. Even stronger is the language of
Strom, vii. 2. 12, ircudfvffeis . . . roiis iirl irXtov a.Ttrj\fr)KoTa^ itc@iaovTcu
in.] The Future Life. 113
and Gomorrha cried unto God and were forgiven. There
is no difference between his teaching and that of Origen,
except that he generally seems to be thinking of the
doom of Christians, that he regards probation as ceasing
at the Day of Judgment 1 , and that he does not contem-
plate the possibility of a fall from grace in the after-life.
Even the just must be purged by the ' wise fire 2 ,' before
they are fit for the presence of the Most Holy God. Not
at once can they see face to face, or enter into possession
of those good things which 'eye hath not seen nor ear
heard.' When the burden of sin has been laid down,
when the angels have taken their appointed ' toll 3 ,' the
spirit must still grow in knowledge, rising in due course
through the seven heavens of the Valentinian, through
the three ' mansions' or 'folds' prefigured by the triple
hierarchy of the Church 4 . Some those who have
peravottv. The question of the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of the Alexan-
drines in this part of their teaching turns entirely upon the word ' repent-
ance,' to which we shall recur in Lecture VIII.
1 See Strom, vii. 2. 12. It should be observed that the word irpoiepiffeis
here may refer to ' previous judgments ' in this life ; that is to say, to the
Sacrament of Penance : compare Adumb. in Ep. Petri. \. p. 1007.
2 Strom, vii. 6. 34, irvp ov TO irafj.tp&yov KOI pdvavffov dAAd TO <ppovifiov
\ffovTts, TO oiiKvovf^tvov oto. ^v\r)s Trjs Sifpxopfvrjs TO irvp. Cp. Eclogae
Proph. 25. p. 995, and Minucius Felix, xxxv, illic sapiens ignis membra
urit et reficit ; carpit et nntrit. There is an allusion to Isaiah iv. 4, but the
actual phrase ' wise fire ' comes from Heraclitus and the Stoics.
3 The Angels who guard the road up to the highest heaven 'take toll' cf
the passer-by, Strom, iv. 18. 117.
* Clement may have taken the seven heavens from Valentinus or from the
Revelation of Sophonias, Strom, v. II. 77. He found allusions to them in
Plato's Timaeus, p. 31 ; in Clemens Romanus, i. 20 (of the 'lands' beyond
the ocean) ; in St. Paul, and elsewhere. The same idea is found in the
book of Baruch (Origen, De Princ. ii. 3. 6), and in Aristo, Fragment iv. in
Otto, Corp. App. vol. ix. p. 363. See also Hennas, Vis. iii. 4, and note
there in the ed. of Gebhardt and Harnack. The seven days of purification
are a type, Strom, iv. 25. 158. The /lorai iroiKi\ai are from Papias (Fragm.
v. in Routh). They answer to the three stages of Fear, Hope, and Love,
I
ii4 Clement. The Future Life.
brought forth thirty, or sixty, or a hundredfold, yet
have fallen short of what they might have been mount
no higher than this 1 . But the Gnostic, scaling from
glory up to glory, will attain at last to the stature of the
perfect man, and find rest upon the holy mountain of
God, the Church that is above all. There in the change-
less Ogdoad, a name borrowed from the Valentinian by
the Catholic, as indeed is the greater part of this descrip-
tion, he shall dwell for ever with Christ, the God and
Guardian of his faith and love, beholding the Father no
longer ' in a glass darkly,' but with the direct unclouded
vision of a pure heart, in light that never fades 2 .
Clement speaks of this final consummation as Rest.
But it is the rest of God, ' who ceases not from doing
good 3 .' There is no absorption, no confusion of subject
and object. It is the rest not of unity but of perfect
similarity, perfect reciprocity, the polar rest of a soul
energising in unimpeded knowledge and love. Farther
than this Clement does not dare to pry into the sanctuary
of Light. ' I say no more glorifying the Lord *.'
to the three divisions of the Temple, to the three kinds of seed, Strom, vi.
14. 114, to the three grades of the hierarchy, vi. 13. 107.
1 This seems to be clearly meant in Strom, iv. 18. 114 ; vi. 14. 108, 114;
cp. also Ed. Proph. 56. But if so, the foena damni never wholly ceases,
Strom, vi. 14. 109.
8 Strom, iv. 25. 158 ; vi. 14. 108; vii. 10. 56, 57.
3 Strom, vi. 12. 104.
* Strom, vii. 3. 13.
LECTURE IV.
Again the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in afield ; the
which when a man hath found he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and
selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. ST. MATT. xiii. 44.
CLEMENT as we have seen is a philosopher of a
desultory and eclectic type and so far as the needs
of his tranquil spirit led him on. Egypt is his world,
Gnosticism his one trouble. Origen had travelled to
Rome in the West and Bostra in the East, and had
found everywhere the clash of arms. But apart from this
he was not one of those who discover the rifts in their
harness only on the morning of the battle. His sceptical
intelligence pries unbidden into every defect, and antici-
pates the hostile thrust. He stands to his arms for life
or death, like a Dominican theologian of the thirteenth
century, or an English divine of the nineteenth. The
range of his activity is amazing. He is the first great
scholar, the first great preacher, the first great devotional
writer, the first great commentator, the first great
dogmatist. But he is nothing else. Already we have
entered upon the joyless age of erudition. The beauties
of Hellenism, in which Clement still delighted, are a
withered flower, and Christian art is as yet unborn.
The life of Origen extended from 185 A.D. to 254 A.D.,
from the reign of Commodus to that of Valerian and
Gallienus. During this long and eventful period his
activity was constant, varied and distinguished, and
friends and enemies, both equally ardent, have left us
large materials for his biography. It is impossible here
I 2
1 1 6 Origen. [Lect.
to deal exhaustively with a subject so wide. We must
content ourselves with touching upon the most charac-
teristic features l .
He was 'by race an Egyptian,' a Copt, one of the
children of the soil, despised by the Greek colonists for
their animal-worship and their petulant turbulence, and
treated even by the upright Roman law on the footing
of slaves. Son a's he was of Christian parents he yet
bore the name of one of his country's deities, Origenes,
* child of Hor, the god of Light 2 . From his blood he
drew that fiery ardour which long tribulation softened
but could not quench. He was a martyr by race, but a
stern schooling was needed before he learned to drink
the cup as God had mixed it for him. When his father
1 For fuller information about the biography of Origen the reader should
consult Thomasius, Redepenning, or Huet. Denis, Philosophic d'Origtne,
is a most valuable aid to the study of his system of doctrine. Dr. Har-
nack's Dogmengeschichte is also very useful. Redepenning, ii. 472, gives a
list of editions. The special literature will be found in Moller's article in
Herzog, in Nitzsch, Dogmengeschichte, or in Ueberweg, Grundriss der Gesch.
der Philosophic. All my references are to the edition of Lommatzsch, the
volume and page have been noted where it seemed desirable.
2 G. J. Voss was the first who gave the right derivation of the name of
Origen ; Redepenning, i. 421. Suidas, Erasmus, Halloix, Cave were satis-
fied with the impossible etymology, 'born in the mountains.' Origen is
commonly spoken of by the by-name Adamantius, which, according to
Photius, Cod. 1 18, means the same as Doctor Irrefragabilis, on dSanavrivois
Sffffiois ewKfffav ots ai> Sijereie \6yovs, according to Jerome denotes his inde-
fatigable capacity for labour (hence Jerome also calls him xaXictvTepos),
according to Huet the firmness with which he stood like a rock against
Heretics. For the heathen philosopher of the same name see Porphyry,
Vita Plotini, 20 ; Eunapius, Vita Porphyrii, p. 457 ; Ruhnken, Diss. philo-
logica de -vita et scriptis Longini, in his ed. of Longinus, Oxford, 1806.
v Epiphanius endeavoured to save the reputation of Origen by inventing
a second author of the same name, to whom he ascribed the more heterodox
articles of Origenism, Haer. Ixiii. I ; Ixiv. 3. The Praedestinati auctor,
Haer. 42, calls this phantom heresiarch Syrus sceleratissimus, and adds
a third Origen, who denied the Resurrection. See Huet, Origeniana,
i. I. 7.
IV.] His Life. 117
Leonidas fell a victim to the persecution of Severus,
nothing but the womanly sense of his mother prevented
Origen, then a boy of seventeen, from drawing destruc-
tion on his own head by open defiance of the authorities.
The destitute orphan found shelter in the house of a
wealthy Alexandrine lady, but neither gratitude nor the
sense of a common misfortune could induce him to
behave with civility to her Gnostic chaplain. Shortly
afterwards, at the age of eighteen, he found independence
in the mastership of the Catechetical School, left vacant
by the flight of Clement. He breathed his own spirit
into his pupils, of whom six at least perished. Nor was
it Origen's fault that he did not share their fate. He
visited them in prison, he acted as their advocate, and
gave them the brotherly kiss in open court. We are
not surprised to hear that he narrowly escaped stoning
in the streets, or that he was hunted from house to house
by the gendarmery. What is remarkable is that he
escaped, and even contrived throughout the reign of
terror to keep his school together. It is probable that
the edict of Severus, which was directed against converts
only, did not touch him, and that so long as he abstained
from formal defiance he was personally safe 1 . And he
had already learned that formal defiance was suicide.
The second path that allures the wilful martyr is that
of self-torture. Like Buddha, like Marcus Aurelius, like
Wesley, like many another enthusiast in every age and
clime and church, Origen flung himself into asceticism
only to learn the truth of the old Greek adage, ' He who
starts in the race before the signal is given is whipped.'
1 An excellent account of the persecution of Severus will be found in
Aube, Les Chretiens dans V 'Empire Remain. See also Miinter, Primordia
Ecd. Afr.
1 1 8 Origen. [Lect.
He sold the manuscripts of the Greek classics, which he
had written out with loving care, for a trifling pension, in
order that he might be able to teach without a fee, and
subjected himself for some years to the severest discipline
by night and day. This was the time of his bondage to
the letter. He would carry out with severest fidelity
the precept of the Saviour, ' provide neither gold nor
silver . . . neither two coats, neither shoes.' He went, as
is well known, even farther than this, and did what was
condemned at once by the wholesome severity of the
Roman law, and the conscience, if not the actual ordin-
ance of the Church. This error too he learned to
renounce, but not wholly nor frankly, for to the last he
looked with a sombre eye on the affections of the flesh.
Rebellion is the third temptation of undisciplined zeal,
and this charge also may be laid to Origen's account.
Here unhappily our materials are too scanty for a clear
and dispassionate judgment. The bare facts are that in
the year 215 Origen, being then at Caesarea, accepted
the invitation of Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, and
Theoctistus, Bishop of Caesarea, to expound the Scrip-
tures before the assembly of the Church, though as yet a
layman, and that in 228 he was ordained at the same
place by the same Bishops. We cannot tell how far
these acts were in violation of the existing discipline.
Both were lawful in Palestine, both were regarded by
Demetrius as unlawful. If the rule was more stringent
at Alexandria, it was possibly a recent innovation. We
do not know how far the dispute was complicated by
the character of the Patriarch, by the teaching and
conduct of Origen, or by the peculiar position of the
Alexandrine Presbytery. But it is significant that the
iv.j His Life. 119
extreme penalty of degradation was carried only by the
voices of the newly created suffragan bishops, against
the inclination of the priests. These latter could not but
sympathise with a victim of the same usurpation that
lay so heavy on themselves.
For our present purpose the importance of the incident
is that it marks the final renunciation by Origen of that
narrow legal spirit, which leads by many paths to the
one goal of servitude. He was learning in strange and
unexpected ways the true meaning of the Christian
sacrifice. He had been willing and eager to 'give his
body to be burned,' he had ' given all his goods to feed
the poor,' and his reward had been not the martyr
crown but the martyr spirit, 'love which beareth all
things.' Now, when he had found his true career in
indefatigable labour for the Word of God, and sought to
sanctify his toil and enlarge his influence by the name
and authority of a priest, what he sought was given to
him, but at the cost of banishment and obloquy. Such
discipline was needed before this high impatient spirit
could obey with docility the bridle of God.
Many years before this it had become manifest in
what direction Providence was leading him. As a child
he had received by his father's care not only a minute
knowledge of Scripture, a great part of which he learned
by heart, but a thorough training in what was called the
encyclic discipline the grammar, rhetoric and science
which formed the ordinary education of a youth of good
family. Hebrew, a rare accomplishment, and philo-
sophy J , he acquired while so absorbed in school work
1 Origen does not name the professor whose lectures he attended. The
belief that it was Ammonius Saccas rests upon the statement of Porphyry.
1 20 Origen. [Lect.
that he could find time for study only by curtailing the
hours of sleep. His literary activity began in 223, when
he would be thirty-eight years old, and continued inces-
santly to the end of his life. Like many other men of
studious habits he found the labour of composition
irksome, but Ambrosius, a wealthy and intelligent man
whom Origen had reclaimed from Gnosticism, continually
spurred him on, and overcame the physical difficulty by
providing him with a number of shorthand writers and
copyists. From this time his labours were unremitting.
' The work of correction,' he says in one of his letters,
' leaves us no time for supper, or after supper for exercise
and repose. Even at these times we are compelled to
debate questions of interpretation and to emend MSS.
Even the night cannot be given up altogether to the
needful refreshment of sleep, for our discussions extend
far into the evening. I say nothing about our morning
labour continued from dawn to the ninth or tenth hour.
For all earnest students devote this time to study of the
Scriptures and reading V
Such was his life during the progress of the Hexapla,
and indeed at all times. The volume of writing thus
produced was enormous. But it is evident that no man
can accomplish the best work of which he is capable
under these conditions, harassed by the demands of
Porphyry, who was an excellent man, no doubt spoke in good faith,
but he has confused the heathen Origen whom he once knew with the
Christian Origen whom he can never have known, and therefore no weight
at all can be attached to what he says. The teacher may well have been
Ammonius, but it is by no means certain. For even if that distinguished
man was already in the chair, it appears from the opening of the Eunuchus
ascribed to Lucian, that at a great school there were two professors of each of
the four sects of philosophy. Their stipend was 10,000 drachmas per annum.
See notes in Heinichen on Eusebius, H. E. vi. 19.
1 From the Epistle to a Friend about Ambrosius, in Lomm. xvii. p. 5.
IT.] His Life. 121
pupils, toiling with feverish anxiety to master the ever-
growing mountain of minute facts, and in hardly won
intervals pouring out the eager flow of extemporaneous
thought to nimble-fingered stenographers 1 . The marvel
is' not that Origen composed so much, but that he
composed so well.
And to these professional labours must be added a
far-reaching personal influence, with all its responsibilities
and engagements. Origen was essentially a man of the
student type, but he wielded that powerful charm which
attaches to high intellectual gifts when combined with
an ardent and sympathetic nature. His pupil Gregory
Thaumaturgus speaks of his 'sweet grace and persua-
sion mingled with a certain constraining force 2 ,' and uses
towards him that strong Greek word by which Plato
describes the love of the soul for its ideal. Such a
charm is a practical power, and works with more
freedom and pungency in a private station of life. It
1 Ambrosius, whom Origen calls his fpyotitwKTijs, taskmaster, provided
him with seven stenographers, and the same number of calligraphists. We
may compare them with the staff of a modern lexicographer. But Origen
used them for his commentaries and other composition. Thus In Joan. vi. i
(Lorn. i. p. 176) he complains that his work has been at a standstill
because the ffwfjOca ra\vypa<poi were not with him. After the year 246
his extemporaneous Homilies were taken down by shorthand writers.
2 From the Panegyric of Gregory Thaumaturgus, 6 (in Lom. xxv). The
student of Origen should certainly begin with this graphic and loving though
too rhetorical sketch of the great master. Gregory was on his way to the
Roman law school at Berytus, where he was to study for the bar. But by a
series of accidents, which he regarded afterwards as divinely ordered, he fell
in with Origen at Caesarea, and could not tear himself away. ' It was as if
a spark fell into my soul and caught fire and blazed up, such was my love for
the Holy Word and for this man its friend and advocate. Stung by this
desire I forgot all that seemed to touch me most nearly, my studies, even my
beloved jurisprudence, my country, my relatives, my present mission, the
object of my travels.' Gregory stayed with Origen for five years, became a
bishop, and was famed for his miracles.
1 2 2 Origen. [Lect.
constituted Origen the unofficial representative, arbiter,
peacemaker of the Eastern Church. A provincial
governor consults him on affairs of the soul, the
Christian or half- Christian Emperor Philip corresponds
with him, the Empress Mother Mammaea summons him
to Antioch and provides him with a guard of honour l .
The Churches of Achaea and Arabia make him their
umpire, and peace follows his award. In the furnace of
affliction he has grown to be one of those magnetic
natures that test the capacity for love and veneration
in every one that comes within their sphere.
Origen had long learned to acquiesce in the prevalent
view of the Easterns that martyrdom involves a high
responsibility, that the Christian has no right either to
fling away his life or to fix the guilt of blood upon ' the
powers ordained of God.' The Church would gladly
have restricted this Olympian contest to her chosen
athletes. Hence he quitted Alexandria during the Fury
of Caracalla, which though not specially directed against
Christians, no doubt involved them. Once again he fled
from the persecution of Maximin to Caesarea of Cappa-
docia, where in the house of Juliana he whiled away the
stormy days in labour upon the Hexapla. What thoughts
solaced him during this dry and gigantic task we know
from the treatise on Martyrdom, composed at this time
for the benefit of his friend Ambrosius, who had been
thrown into prison, ' a golden book ' it has been called
1 The date of the interview with Mammaea is doubtful. Baronius, Tille-
mont and De la Rue (see Huet) place it in 218. Redepenning, i. 372, in 223 ;
this is Huet's own opinion. Aube, pp. 306 sqq. throws it forward to 232,
on the ground that it was after the ordination of Origen, but I am not aware
what reason he has for this statement. On the vexed question of the relation
of Philip to Christianity see Huet and Aube, pp. 470 sqq.
IV.] Text of the New Testament. 123
with truth, for it touches not a single false note. At
last his own summons came. He was incarcerated in
the persecution of Decius, and treated with a severity
which shattered his frame already enfeebled by labour
and old age.
He was buried in Tyre, where for centuries his tomb,
in the wall behind the high altar, formed the chief orna-
ment of the magnificent cathedral of the Holy Sepulchre.
Tyre was wasted by the Saracens, but even to this day,
it is said, the poor fishermen, whose hovels occupy the
site of that city of palaces, point to a shattered vault
beneath which lie the bones of ' Oriunus V
We may consider his voluminous and many-sided
works under three heads Textual Criticism, Exegesis,
and Religious Philosophy. The first of these does not
properly fall within the scope of our enquiry, but a brief
notice may be permitted for the sake of the side-light
which it throws upon the character of our author.
He devoted much time and labour to the text of the
New Testament, which was already disfigured by corrup-
tions, 'some arising from the carelessness of scribes,
some from the evil licence of emendation, some from
arbitrary omissions or interpolations 2 .' Already the
records were perverted in numberless passages, not only
by Gnostic audacity, but by those minor variations
which constitute what are known as the Western and
Alexandrine families. Between errors of the latter class
and the genuine reading he had no means of deciding
except the perilous canon of intrinsic probability, which
1 I owe this fact to Dr. Westcott's article, Origen and the beginnings of
Christian Philosophy, in the Contemporary Review for May, 1879.
2 In Matth. xv. 14 (Lorn. iii. 357).
124 Origen. [Lect.
he applies with much acuteness, but at the same time
with severe caution 1 . All that he could hope was to
purify his own MS. or MSS. 2 (for he used more than
one, and those of different families) from mani.est faults
of transcription and from recent and obvious deprava-
tions. This he effected with care and ability. The
Exemplaria Adamantii acquired the authority of a
standard, and derived additional importance from the
fact that a copy was presented by Eusebius to the
Emperor Constantine. But Origen's fame as a critic
rests chiefly upon the Hexapla. In controversy with
the Jews the Christian disputant was constantly baffled
by the retort, that the passages on which he relied were
not found, or were otherwise expressed, in the Hebrew.
Several new translations or recensions of the whole or
part of the LXX had been produced, in which the
discrepancies of the Alexandrine Version from the
original were brought into strong relief. Origen saw
clearly the whole of the difficulties involved, and with
1 See the Diss. critica de Cod. IV Evang. Origenis in Griesbach, Opus-
cula Academica, vol. i. Origen sometimes makes conjectures in his
Commentaries, but never admitted them into his text. Thus he thought
the words ' thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself spurious in Matt. xix.
19 (see In Matth. xv. 14), but he does not venture to expunge them. He sup-
ports the reading TepyeaTjvcjv in Matt. viii. 28 and the parallel passages, but it
is doubtful whether he actually inserted it in his MS. ; see In Joan. vi. 24 ;
Redepenning, ii. 184 note ; and Tischendorf. Bethabara he found in some
copies. In Rom. v. 14 the majority of his MSS. omitted the AMJ, In Rom.
v. I (Lorn. vi. 344). There were bolder critics in his time. Some wished
to set aside the story of Dives and Lazarus, In Joan, xxxii. 13 (Lorn. ii.
447) ; the words ' to-day thou shalt be with me in Paradise,' In Joan.
xxxii. 19 (Lorn. ii. 481) ; and the advice given to slaves, I Cor. vii. 21, In
Rom. i. i (Lorn. vi. 12).
2 Redepenning, ii. 182 sqq. ; Griesbach, p. 240. The latter scholar
pointed out that the text of Mark used by Origen for In Matth. was Western,
while that quoted in the In Joan, is Alexandrine. See Gregory, Pro-
legomena to Tischendorf, p. 189 ; Westcott and Hort, p. 113.
IV.] The Hexapla. 125
characteristic grandeur and fearlessness determined
upon producing an edition of the Old Testament that
should exhibit in parallel columns the Hebrew text and
the rival versions, thus bringing before the eye of the
enquirer in one view the whole of the evidence attain-
able 1 . At the same time he corrected and supple-
mented the LXX from the other versions, chiefly those
of Theodotion and Aquila. This gigantic and costly
scheme was rendered feasible by the munificence, and
facilitated by the active cooperation, of Ambrosius.
The Hexapla, the first great achievement of Christian
erudition, is impressive in many ways, not least as a
proof of the intelligence and sincerity of the community
to which it was addressed. But with all his devotion
and learning Origen was not a consummate master in
the higher functions of criticism. His equipment was
insufficient. His knowledge of Hebrew was respectable,
and for his age remarkable, but not profound. He had
a fair acquaintance with the grammar and dictionary,
but had not penetrated into the genius of the language 2 .
1 Field, in his magnificent work, Origenis Hexapla, xlviii. does not think
that Origen had a distinctly controversial purpose in view. But see Rede-
penning, i. 234. 375; ii. 170. The locus classicus is In Matth. xv. 14.
Partly owing to the plan followed by Origen, partly to the haste and
inaccuracy of transcribers, the Hexapla caused very serious changes in the
text of the LXX. Jerome, Praefatio in Librum Paral., Migne, vol. xxviii.
p. 1323; Schiirer, p. 701.
2 Redepenning, i. 367 ; ii. 166. 198 ; Ernesti, Opuscula Philologica et
Critica. There is however some reason for lowering this estimate. In
JVum.,Hora. xiv. i, Aiunt ergo qui hebraicas literas legunt, in hoc loco Deus
non sub signo tetragrammati esse positum, de quo qui potest requirat
(Redepenning thinks these words may have been inserted by the translator) ;
Contra Celsum, i. 34, i) n\v At'f is 77 'AaX/wi, fjv ol niv l/SSo/^/covTa peTti\'fiipaai
vp&s TJJJ/ irapOfvov, aAAoi SJ (Is TT)I/ vtaviv, Kfirai, us (jxj.ai, Kal tv TOI Aevrf-
povofiicu tirl irapdfvov. Origen does not speak of his own knowledge on this
important and much debated point, and the authorities on whom he relied
misled him, for the word almah is not found in the passage to which
126 Origen. [Lect.
Again he was hampered by prejudice. He regarded the
LXX as an independent and inspired authority, and, like
Justin, accounted for its variation from the Hebrew by
supposing that the latter had been deliberately falsified
by the Jews 1 . In this way he explained the absence
from the Canon of the Apocryphal Books. On one
occasion he had employed in a public debate doctrinal
proofs taken from the History of Susanna. This drew
upon him an epistle from Julius Africanus, in which it
was shown with great force and ingenuity that this addi-
tion to the Book of Daniel could not have been com-
posed in Hebrew 2 . Origen with much learning and
some little warmth refused to be convinced, but the
honour of arms remained with Africanus, whose letter
indeed is a signal refutation of the epithets ' credulous '
and ' uncritical ' so often applied to the age in which, and
the men by whom, the Canon of the New Testament was
settled.
Of the stately Hexapla time has spared us nothing
but a gleaning of scattered fragments. The original MS.
perished probably when the library of Caesarea was
destroyed by the Arabs in the middle of the seventh
century, and its immense size it consisted of not less
than fifty great rolls of parchment must have prevented
its ever being copied as a whole, though the revised LXX
he refers, Deut. xxii. 23-26. It is evident from the Ep. ad Afric. that
Origen could not walk alone in Hebrew. Hence Boherellus inferred ' Ori-
genem hebraice plane nescivisse.' See Rosenmiiller, iii. 63. 23. 153.
1 Justin, Trypho, 71 ; Otto, p. 256.
2 The chief point urged by Africanus is the play of words (TXIVOS ff\iffis,
wptvos irpiois. Origen struggles against this cogent argument in the Ep. ad
Afric. But in a Fragment from Strom, x. (Lorn. xvii. p. 74) he admits
that if the paronomasia does not exist in Hebrew the objection is fatal.
The z/"is not critical but theological. See Schiirer, p. 717.
IV.] The Scholia. 127
was circulated separately, and indeed still exists in a
Syriac translation T . But of the exegetic work of Origen
a very considerable mass is still extant, partly in the
authentic Greek, partly in Latin translations. The
surviving remains cover a large part both of the Old
and of the New Testaments, and afford ample material
for judging the method and substance of his teaching.
Yet they are but a portion of what he accomplished.
In the form of Scholia, Homilies or Commentaries he
expounded nearly every book in the Bible, and many
books were treated in all three ways.
The Scholia 2 were brief annotations, such as are com-
monly found on the margin of ancient MSS. The
Homilies and Commentaries require a fuller notice.
Already the old prophesyings and speaking with
tongues, except among the Montanist sectaries, have
disappeared before the growing reverence for Scripture
and the increasing stringency of discipline. Their place
1 The Syro-Hexaplar text is probably nearly all -in existence, though till
all the Fragments have been published it cannot be known what deficiencies
may exist. See the articles Versions in Diet, of Bible by Tregelles and
Syrische Bibeliibersetzungen by Nestle in Herzog ; Field ; Ceriani, Codex
Syro-hexaplaris Ambrosianus, Milan, 1874; Lagarde, V. T. ab Origene
recensiti frag, apud Syros servata quinque, Gottingen, 1880; Dr. T. Skat
Roerdam, Librijudicum et Ruth, Hauniae, 1861 ; the last-named authority
gives full and elaborate prolegomena.
2 Jerome, Preface to his translation of the Homilies on Ezekiel, ' Scias
Origenis opuscula in omnem Scripturam esse triplicia. Primum eius
Excerpta, quae Graece axo\ia nuncupantur, in quibus ea quae sibi videbantur
obscura atque habere aliquid difficultatis summatim breviterque perstrinxit.'
In the Preface to his Comm. on Matthew, Jerome calls them ' commaticum
interpretandi genus.' The word arjudcaais, which also occurs, appears to be
used in the general sense of ' notes,' which were sometimes perhaps <rxoAo,
sometimes extracts from the Commentaries or Homilies, Origeniana, iii. 1. 4,
but see Redepenning, ii. 376 ; Emesti, Opuscula Philologica. Such are the
fragmentary extracts, chiefly from Catenas and of somewhat doubtful
authenticity, published as Selecta. See the monita in De la Rue. Gallandi,
vol. xiv.,^f//., has collected many fragments that are not given in Lommatzsch.
128 Origen. [Lect.
was supplied by the Homily 1 or Discourse, a name
derived from the philosophic schools, expressive of the
character of Christian eloquence, which was didactic and
not rhetorical. In the days of Origen, and in Palestine,
(for his priestly activity belongs wholly to the time after
his exile from Egypt) public worship was held no longer
in the large room of some wealthy brother's house, but in
buildings definitely appropriated for the purpose, in which
the Bishop and his clergy were seated in a semicircle
round the decorated Altar 2 . The service was divided
into two portions, corresponding to what were afterwards
known as the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of
the Faithful. To the first, which was held daily, belonged
the reading of Scripture, the Sermon, and apparently
certain prayers 3 ; to the second, celebrated on Sundays
and festivals, the prayers properly so called and the
Eucharist. At the first catechumens, even heathen, were
allowed to be present ; from the second all, save the
baptised, were rigidly excluded.
The Lessons were often of considerable length, com-
prising as much as three or four of our modern chapters,
and went on in regular order, and the preacher ex-
pounded the whole or a portion of each according to
the direction of the presiding bishop 4 . It is probable
1 Redepenning, ii. 2 1 2 sqq. The terms KTipv-ypa and StaXt^swere also in use.
2 In Jesu Nave, Horn. x. 3 (Lorn. xi. 104) ; Injudices, Horn. iii. 2 (Lorn.
xi. 237) ; Probst, Kirchliche Disciplin, p. 212.
3 Many of the Homilies end with the admonition to stand up and pray, e.g.
In Luc. xxxix. Catechumens were addressed In Luc., Horn. vii. Heathen
were sometimes present, Injerem., Horn. ix. 4 (Lorn. xv. 210).
* The Lesson read before the Sermon on the Witch of Endor included
I Sam. xxv. xxvi. xxvii. xxviii. Origen, standing in the pulpit, asks which
of the four irtpiKoirai he is to take for his subject, o TL irore Povkerai o
tmoKonos irpoTtivcna) TUJV Tfaaapuv, iva. irtpi TOVTO aaxo^-rjOSafitv, and the
Bishop replies, ' the Witch of Endor.' There was as yet only one lesson,
taken sometimes from the Old, sometimes from the New Testament. At
IV.] The Homilies. 129
that the friendly prelate of Caesarea suffered Origen to
follow his own plan ; hence his Homilies form a continuous
exposition of the several books. They were delivered
before a mixed, shifting, and not always orderly congre-
gation. The services were daily and long. Some of the
brethren would attend only on feast-days, and not always
then. Some left the church before the sermon began, or
if they remained, gathered in knots in the farther end of
the building, the place of the heathen and unbaptised,
' turning their backs on the Word of God and busying
themselves with secular gossip.' There were broad
differences again in knowledge and morality. Some
thought it not inconsistent with their Christian profes-
sion to haunt the circus or the amphitheatre ; some fluc-
tuated between Gnosticism and the Church ; some were
still tainted with heathen superstitions ; some, sincere
but ignorant, interpreted the promises of the Gospel in
the most gross and carnal sense, or ' believed of God what
would not be believed of the crudest of mankind.' Hence
the duty of Reserve, which Origen everywhere professes,
weighs upon him with especial urgency in the Homilies 1 .
The Homilies are rather what we should call Lectures
than Sermons. His object in the pulpit, Origen tells us,
is not the explanation of the letter so much as the
a somewhat later period there were four, divided into two pairs, the first
pair from the Old, the second from the New Test., and between the two
readings a psalm was sung, Const. A pp. ii. 57, but no trace of this usage is
found in Origen, Redepenning, ii. 221 sqq. ; Probst, Liturgie, 152. Many
of Origen's Homilies must have taken an hour and a half in the delivery.
1 The behaviour of the women was especially troublesome, ' quae tantum
garriunt, quae lantum fabulis obstrepunt, ut non sinant esse silentium. lam
quid de mente earum, quid de corde discutiam, si de infantibus suis aut de lana
cogitent aut de necessariis domus,' In Exod. Horn. xiii. 3 : cp. In Num.
Horn. v. i ; In Lev. Horn. ix. 5. 7. 9 ; In Gen. Horn. x. i ; Philocalia, i.
8 ad fin. ; Redepenning, ii. 229.
K
1 30 Origen. [Lect.
edification of the Church ; hence he dwells here almost
entirely upon the moral and spiritual sense l . There is
abundance of allegory but little exhortation, still less
unction or pathos. Origen does not wind himself into
the heart. He has not the blithe geniality of Clement,
whose cloistered life seems never to have felt a storm.
In Origen there is a subdued fire that reveals the tale of
mental suffering and exhausting toil. Hence that austere
solemnity, that absolute sincerity, that breadth and
dignity of mind, which still grasp and detain the reader
with the same spell that was cast upon Gregory.
Origen is emphatically { a man of God,' strong and
subtle yet infinitely humble and gentle, a true Ductor
Dubitantium, because he knew there was much that he
did not know and yet was not afraid. His style is
almost everywhere loose and prolix, owing to his habit
of extemporaneous speech or dictation. This applies
to the Commentaries as well as to the Homilies.
Where he used the pen it is terser and more collected.
But it is always simple and direct, flowing straight from
the heart, devoid of every ornament, and owing its force
entirely to that glowing fusion of thought and feeling
by which it is informed.
1 In Lev. Horn. i. I ; In Num. Horn. xiv. I . The reader may acquire a
just idea of Origen as a preacher by perusing In Gen. viii ; In Lev. vii ; In
Luc. xiv. The Homilies on Judges we know to have been written, though
extempore passages were added in the delivery, see Horn. i. 3 : ' Sed et illud
quod dicentibus nobis occurrit,' &c. Beyond this passage I am not aware
of the existence of any positive evidence as to which of his works were
written with his own hand, though some, e.g. the In Joan., we know were
not. But I cannot think that the De Principiis, the De Oratione, or the De
Martyrio belonged to the latter class. Eustathius complains of Origen's
aperpos <p Xvapia ; Theophilus called him 'Seminariumloquacitatis;' Erasmus
on the other hand praises his brevity, Huet, Orig. iii. i. i ; Redepenning, ii.
352. Some interesting remarks will be found in Rothe, Geschichte der
Predigt, Bremen, 1881.
IV.] The Commentaries. 131
The plan which he laid down for himself in the Com-
mentaries l was to give first the literal, then the moral,
then the spiritual sense of each verse in regular succes-
sion. The text is but the threshing-floor on which he
pours out all the harvest of his knowledge, his medita-
tions, his hopes. Any word may open up a train of
thought extending throughout all Scripture and all time.
Hence there is much repetition and confusion. Even
here the object is not so much instruction as the deep-
ening of the Christian life. We lose in perspicuity, but
we never miss the inspiriting sense of immediate contact
with a great character.
To us, though not to himself nor to the men of his
time, Origen's merit as an expositor rests mainly upon
the skill and patience with which he evolved the real and
natural sense of the Bible 2 . He himself saw clearly that
1 I may recommend to the reader the allegory on the Treasury In Joan.
xix. 2 ; the passage on the Death of Christ, ibid, xxviii. 14 ; on Faith, ibid.
xxxii. 9 ; the allegory on the Mercy Seat, In Rom. iii. 8, and the Exposition
of the Parables in St. Matthew. The latter Commentary is generally superior
to that on St. John. But those who wish to see Origen at his best will seek
him where he is least allegorical, in the Contra Celsum, or the treatises on
Prayer and on Martyrdom.
a Perhaps the best instance of Origen's merits and defects in dealing with
the literal sense is to be found in his comments on the opening words of
St. John's Gospel In Joan. i. 16 onwards. In the New Testament he is
always excellent, but we must compare him with the ancient commentators
on Homer, not, as Rosenmiiller practically does, with the best modern
divines. I have adhered to Origen's own distinction of the literal from the
mystic sense. But it must be remembered that many of the most important
passages in the N. T. are figurative, and that it is precisely in the explanation
of these that the merit of Origen is to be found. Perhaps his supreme excel-
lence lies in his clearness and courage in pointing out difficulties, the moral
anomalies which beset the Gnostic and the ignorant Christian, the apparent
non-fulfilment of the Messianic hope which rebuffed the Jew (see for all
this the opening of the Philocalia} ; the contradictions of the Evangel-
ists, In Joan. x. 3 sqq. ; the chronological difficulty involved in the 'four
months before harvest,' In Joan. xiii. 39 ; the historical difficulty in the title
Paffi\ii(6s, In foan. xiii. 57. If he often creates perplexities out of insigni-
K 2
132 Origen. [Lect.
this is the foundation of everything. If we measure
him by the best modern commentators, we may be
struck by his deficiencies. But in relation to his own
age his services are extraordinary. He need not fear
comparison with the great pagan grammarians. He
took great pains as we have seen to ascertain the text ;
he insists on the necessity of fixing the precise meaning
of the words, and for this purpose will hunt a phrase
through the whole Bible with a fertility of quotation
truly prodigious, when we remember that it rests upon
unaided memory. He never slurs a difficulty, raising
and discussing every doubt that can by any possibility
suggest itself. Hebrew he knew but imperfectly, and
this is a fatal defect in dealing with the LXX. But in
the New Testament he displays an accurate and intelli-
gent appreciation of Greek grammar. Where he fails it is
from preconceived ideas, from the hairsplitting and over-
subtlety which are the Nemesis of Allegorism, or from
deficiency of that sense of humour which corrects the
extravagances of Clement. He cannot understand irony,
and the simpler a thing is the more difficult he makes
it l . Such scientific knowledge as the times could supply
is at his call 2 , and he had travelled in Palestine with a
ficant verbal distinctions, this is still a fault on the right side. For details
see Redepenning, ii. 200 sqq. ; Rosenmiiller. Ernesti, Opuscula Philologica et
Critica, rates him very high as the founder of textual criticism and scientific
inductive exegesis.
1 A good instance of this is this treatment of the gift of Caleb to his
daughter Achsa (Joshua xv. 19"), 'Et accepit Gonetlam superiorem et
Gonetlam inferiorem . . . Videtis quia vere auxilio Dei opus est ut haec
explanari queant,' Injesu Nave, Horn. xx. 4.
2 It did not amount to much. See the ac'count of the different kinds of
pearls In Matt. x. 7. Origen thought that the popular beliefs that serpents
spring from the spinal marrow of dead men, bees from oxen, wasps from
horses, beetles from asses, that serpents have a knowledge of antidotes, that
the eagle uses the dmrijs \iOos as an amulet for the protection of its young
IV.] The Commentaries. 133
keen eye for the geography of the Gospels. Philosophy
too was at his command, though he does not rate it so
high as Clement 1 . ' Few,' he says, 'are those who have
taken the spoils of the Egyptians and made of them the
furniture of the tabernacle.' Learning is useful, he tells
his pupil Gregory, but the Scriptures are their own best
key. ' Be diligent in reading the divine Scriptures, yes,
be diligent . . . Knock and the doorkeeper will open unto
~thee . . . And be not content to knock and to enquire,
for the most necessary aid to spiritual truth is prayer.
Hence our Saviour said not only " knock and it shall be
opened," and "seek and ye shall find," but "ask and it
shall be given you V :
were possibly true, Contra Celsum, iv. 57. 86. But he is no worse than
Celsus himself or Pliny. Similar absurdities are to be found in Clement.
For Origen's other accomplishments, see Origeniana, ii. I ; Redepenning,
i. 219. M. Denis, p. 14, rates them very low. Indeed absorbed as Origen
was in the drudgery of tuition from his eighteenth year, it is impossible
that he can have gone profoundly into any line of knowledge not immedi-
ately connected with his special studies.
1 For the use that he made of philosophy, see the Panegyric of Gregory,
and the account of his method of teaching in Lecture II. M. Denis, Philo-
sophic fOriglne, p. 30, says : ' II ne conservait de 1'esprit philosophique qne
1'insatiable curiosite,' and complains, in the chapter on Anthropologie, of his
neglect of ethics, psychology and politics. The duties of citizens would not
have been a safe theme for a Christian writer under the heathen Empire.
Psychology again is for another reason an exceedingly difficult subject for a
Christian, because he cannot isolate it, because he has to regard above all
things the point of junction with metaphysics, and with the metaphysics of
Revelation. Clement and Origen were the first to attempt the problem from
this point of view. The same difficulty attaches to the theory of Ethics.
The practice of Ethics is undervalued both by Clement and Origen, though
not so markedly by the latter. Hence it is a just criticism, ' Qu'il y a bien
plus a apprendre sur 1'observation interieure non settlement dans Saint
Augustin ou dans Saint Jerome, mais encore dans Tertullien.' The remarks
of M. Denis are brilliant and in the main accurate, but the plan of his work
compels him to approach Origen obliquely, and view him in a false light.
Origen is before all things a theologian, but a philosophical theologian. The
reader may consult with advantage Harnack, Dogmengeschichte , pp. 514 sqq.
3 From the Epistola ad Gregonum. The difference between the attitude of
1 34 Origen. [Lect.
But it is when the sense is ascertained, or as he calls it
'cleansed/ that the supreme task of the Commentator
first comes into view. By all the means that science
can bring to our aid we can do no more than attain to
the ' letter that killeth,' that bald first sense of Scripture
which fluctuates between Atheism and Superstition.
We must believe only what is worthy of God. Where
then are we to find the true divine message ? Origen
like Clement held firmly to the unity and inspiration of
all Scripture, and therefore like Clement he was driven
to find the answer to this question in Allegorism.
There is however considerable difference in detail
between the two teachers.
Clement is content to accept Allegorism as a fact, as
a part of Tradition. It was sanctioned by the practice of
Philo and Barnabas, and appeared to derive authority
from certain passages of Scripture. This is not enough
for Origen, whose reason works always with a broad
poetic sweep, and never rests till it has brought the
particular affirmation under the scope of some all-
embracing law. To him Allegorism is only one mani-
festation of the sacramental mystery of Nature. There
are two heavens, two earths the visible is but a blurred
copy of the invisible. The divine wisdom and goodness,
which are the cause of both, are in this world of ours
distorted by refraction arising from the density of the
medium. Yet they may be discerned by those that
have eyes to see. Allegorism, Teleology, the argument
from Analogy are all different aspects of one great
truth. God made man in His own image and likeness,
Clement and Origen towards philosophy is well described by M. Denis,
Introduction.
IV.] Allegorism. 135
and so perhaps He made other creatures in the image
and likeness of other heavenly things. Hence the grain
of mustard, which, though it is the least of all seeds,
when grown is the greatest among herbs, and becometh
a tree, may be a parable of the kingdom of heaven . . .
What is true of seeds is true also of trees, of animals.
Again in the grain of mustard lurks more than one
analogy to eternal verities, for it is a symbol also of
faith. ' If a man have faith as a grain of mustard seed
he may say unto this mountain, Be thou removed!' There
are then in this one seed many virtues serving as symbols
of heavenly things, and of these virtues the last and
lowest is that whereby it ministers to our bodily needs.
So with all else that God made it is good for the use
of man, but it bears also the imprint of celestial things,
whereby the soul may be taught, and elevated to the
contemplation of the invisible and eternal. Nor is it
possible for man, while he lives in the flesh, to know any-
thing that transcends his sensible experience, except by
seizing and deciphering this imprint. For God has so
ordered His creation, has so linked the lower to the
higher by subtle signatures and affinities, that the world
we see is, as it were, a great staircase, by which the mind
of man must climb upwards to spiritual intelligence 1 .
From this Law of Correspondence springs incidentally
the profound observation that suggested the Analogy.
' He, who believes the Scripture to have proceeded from
Him who is the Author of Nature, may well expect to
find the same sort of difficulties in it as are found in the
1 The passage quoted is from In Cant, Canticorum, iii. (Lorn. xv. 48).
Consult also In Lev. Horn. v. i (Greek text in Philoc. chap. i. ad fin.') and
De Princ. iv.
136 Origen. [Lect.
constitution of Nature.' But the antagonists whom
Origen had in view were not so much the Platonic
Deists as the Jew and especially the Gnostic. Hence
.the turn which he gives to the argument is in the main
different from that of Bishop Butler.
Scripture has in general three senses the literal, the
moral, and the spiritual 1 . Not that every passage is
susceptible of all three modes of interpretation. Many
texts have no literal sense at all. Some, like the Deca-
logue, have a moral signification, of such a kind that it is
needless to seek farther. The distinction between the
two higher senses is not always very clearly drawn, as
there are regions where the one shades off into the other
by very fine gradations. But there is an abundance of
passages where they are so sharply defined as to show
us exactly what Origen meant. Thus the grain of
mustard is first the actual seed, then faith, then the
Kingdom of Heaven. So again the 'little foxes ' of the
Song of Songs are typical, in the second sense of sins
affecting the individual, in the third of heresies distract-
ing the Church 2 . The moral embraces all that touclies
the single soul in this life, in its relation to the law of
right, or to God ; the spiritual includes all ' mysteries,' all
1 Redepenning, i. 299 sqq. ; Origeniana,\\. 2. 13 (Lorn, xxiii. 254). For
the spiritual sense Origen uses more than a score of different terms, Red.
p. 305. Some have thought that he made a triple division of the spiritual
into allegoric, tropologic, and anagogic, or a double into allegoric and ana-
gogic, but without sufficient reason. That there were neither more nor less
than three senses was proved by Prov. xxii. 20, xal ov 5e airoypaif/ai avra
aeavTcu rpiyaws fls @ov\r)v KOI yvcacnv em TO TrXdros TTJJ KapS!as crov. They
answer to body, soul, and spirit, and are alluded to in the waterpots holding
' two or three firkins apiece,' and in the Shepherd of Hermas, a book, ' qui a
nonnullis contemni videtur,' where Grapte, Clement, and Hermas represent
the three classes of believers. De Princ. iv. n.
a In Cant. Cantic. iv. (Lorn. xv. p. 83 sqq.)
IV.] Negative Use of Allegorism. 137
the moments in the history of the community, the
Church, in time and still more in eternity.
To interpret and set forth these mysteries, these moral
enigmas, is the task of Allegorism. But we must now
notice that this Biblical alchemy is capable of applica-
tion to two distinct purposes. One is negative and
apologetic, the other is positive and didactic. Origen
employed it in both directions with singular freedom
and address. But it is his use of the negative side that
is the more characteristic.
He held that innumerable passages in both Testa-
ments have no sense at all except as Allegories 1 .
Neither Clement nor Philo expressly affirmed this,
though the idea certainly lurked within their minds 2 .
But Origen was not the man to disguise from himself
or from others the exact nature of what he was doing.
Many passages of Scripture, he says, are excluded from
belief by physical impossibility. Such are those which
speak of morning and evening before the creation of the
Sun, the story of the Fall, and the carrying up of our
Lord into an exceeding high mountain by Satan in the
Temptation. Others again imply moral impossibilities.
Such are those which speak of the child as punished for
the sin of the parent, the law that on the Sabbath no
Jew should take up a burden or move from his place,
the precepts of the Saviour not to possess two coats, to
pluck out the offending eye, to turn the right cheek to
him that has smitten the left. Yet another class are
rejected by the enlightened conscience. Such are the
1 De Princ. iv. 15 sqq.v
* Philo comes very near denying the literal sense in De Ebriet. 36 (i. 379),
Sa/^ovTJA S( ytfovf ptv iffois avdpcDiros, iraptiXriirrai 81 oi/x ws aiivdtrov ^uiov
a\\' us vow \arpeia ai Otpairtia 0(ov (tuvov x a ' i p cat '-
138 Origen. [Lect.
adventures of Lot, the cruelties of the Jewish wars, the
execrations of the Psalms. All these antinomies of
Scripture were forced upon him on one side by the
Ebionite and Gnostic, on the other by the Greek
philosopher, who was beginning to study the Bible in
a spirit of not wholly unfriendly curiosity, and was
violently repelled by these proofs, as he thought them,
of Jewish barbarism. Origen . felt the embarrassment
most acutely, and his fearless logic saw but one way of
escape. These passages, he admitted, in their literal
sense are not true. Why then, urged the adversary,
are they found in what you Christians call the Word of
God ? To this he replied that, though in one sense
untrue, they are in another the highest, the only valuable
truth. They are permitted for an object. These im-
possibilities, trivialities, ineptitudes are wires stretched
across our path by the Holy Spirit, to warn us that we
are not in the right way. We must not leap over them ;
we must go beneath, piercing down to the smooth broad
road of the spiritual intelligence. They are the rough
outer husk, which repels the ignorant and unfit reader,
but stimulates the true child of God to increased exer-
tion. The letter is the external garb, often sordid and
torn, but 'the king's daughter is all glorious within.' It
is as if the sunlight streamed in through the crannies of
a ruinous wall ; the wall is ruinous in order that the
sunlight may stream in l .
Origen could not rest content with an easy, optimism
like that of Clement, who stopped short at the assertion
of the unity of Divine Justice and Goodness. For there
1 The foundations of this section will be found in De Princ. iv. and the
Philocalia.
IV.] Positive Use of Allegorism. 139
was that in Scripture which appeared to him irreconcile-
able with both. These passages were in fact the key
of the Gnostic position. What the Gnostic asserted was
not merely that Justice and Goodness are different
things, but that God as He is depicted in the Old Testa-
ment is certainly not good, though He may be called
just in the sense in which that epithet is applied to
earthly rulers, who, though harsh and vindictive, do not
punish without a reason. The difficulty is certainly
there, and Origen with his far-sighted intrepidity fixes
and grapples with it. It is a serious effort to solve a
serious and, if left unsolved, fatal objection.
We may notice also in passing the biographical inter-
est of his mature teaching on this point. If we compare
what he says in the De Principiis^ where he treats the
command about the two coats as purely figurative,
with the passionate asceticism of his youth, we shall
see how the letter had been to him in very truth at
once a stumbling-block and a cranny in the wall. It
was by bruising himself in the fiery endeavour to obey,
that he learned what obedience really means.
On its negative side Allegorism then is apologetic, on
its positive it is the instrument for the discovery of
Mysteries 1 . What these are we have seen already in
1 The word Mystery is used in two senses. First of the Christian worship
or ritual, the modern Sacraments. Of these, though their general nature
could not be kept secret, all minute knowledge was reserved for those who
had the right to be present at their enactment. In this respect they resem-
bled the Mysteries of Samothrace or Eleusis, hence the name. So Ignatius,
Ad Eph. 1 2, speaks of Christians as avpnvarai : cp. Ad Trail, ii. 3 : see
also Ep. ad Diognetum, i ; Tertullian, Apol. 7. In this sense that of natural
reserve, of reluctance to lay bare the whole organism of the Church to un-
sympathetic hearers, the Disciplina Arcani is no doubt very ancient, though
its growth can be traced. It cannot have been viewed as a rule of con-
science by St. Paul who on the ship ' took bread and gave thanks to God
I4-O Origen. [Lect.
the case of Clement, and shall see more clearly still as
we advance. In both respects it must be handled with
a certain reserve. The rule of Economy was directed
partly against the mocking heathen ; that which is sacred
must not be given to dogs. But it had also another
and even more serious application as a law of forbear-
ance towards the weaker brethren. From these too ' it
is good to hide the mystery of the King V Origen does
not distinguish between the higher and lower Life quite
in the same way as Clement, who regards all Christians
as members of the true Church, though ranked in an
before them all.' Second, of what we may call Theology the doctrine of the
Trinity, of Angels, of the Resurrection, the explanation and idealisation of
rites, the hidden meaning of the Law. In this sense the word Mystery
is found in the New Testament. Ignatius hints at mysteries concerning the
unseen world which he is not at liberty to divulge, Ad Smyrn. vi. i ; 7^rall.
v. 2. The word might be used of the visions of the Montanists. But in
the Alexandrines it means almost always intellectual interpretation, in fact
theology. See Probst, Kirchliche Disciplin, 303 sqq. ; Bingham, x. 5, and
Mr. Haddan's article Disciplina Arcani in Diet, of Christ. Ant.
1 Tobit xii. 7 quoted Contra Celswn, v. 19. Many passages were thought
to inculcate the duty of Reserve. Clement, Strom, v. 10. 63, cites nvarrjpiov
f/jLov tfj.ol teal rots vtoii Tov oiKov (JLov, Theodotion's version of Isaiah xxiv. 16
(but he quotes it from a Gospel, probably the Gospel according to the
Egyptians ; Hilgenfeld, Novum Test, extra Can. Rec. iii. p. 46. The verse
is used in the same way in the Homilies, xix. 20. See note in Field), and
Strom, ii. 2. 8, Proverbs v. 16, /iij virepdcxtiaQai ffot vSara e r^y arjs ^777779,
where the negative is not found in the Hebrew. In the New Testament it
was based mainly upon Matt. vii. 6 ; Mark iv. 34. In Clement and Origen
it is almost always spoken of as intended for the protection of the weaker
brethren. Thus the main reason why Scripture speaks in allegories is to
stimulate enquiry, and one principal difference between the simple believer
and the Gnostic is that all allegories are withheld from the former. See
especially Paed. ii. 8. 73, where Clement breaks off his explanation of the
mysteries involved in the Crown of Thorns with the words, d\\' ftfflTjv yap
Tov iraiSaycayiKov rvirov TO SiSaaKaXiKov flSos irapeiffdfcav. Origen professes
his inability to say all that might be said on the mysteries of the Trinity and
Eternal Punishment in an exoteric treatise, Contra Celsum, vi. 18. c6, yet it
is not the doctrines but the allegories involved that he finds it impossible to
explain to unbelievers. See also the passages referred to above, p. 129.
IV.] Economy. 141
ascending scale of faith and knowledge. He takes a
much severer view of the insufficiency of nominal
Christianity, and on the other hand accentuates the
distinction between theology and acquiescence. Hence
the difference between the Two Lives has a marked
tendency to pass over, on the side of knowledge into
that between professional and unprofessional, between
cleric and lay, on the side of conduct into that between
the Visible and Invisible Church *.
' The holy Apostles,' he says, ' in preaching the faith
of Christ declared with the utmost clearness whatever
they thought necessary to salvation, even to those who
are slothful in the investigation of divine science, leaving
the reason of their assertions to be sought out by those
who should deserve the excellent gifts of the Spirit, and
especially the graces of utterance, wisdom and knowledge.
But as to other things they affirmed indeed that they
are, but why or whence they did not explain 2 .' He
1 Origen speaks of the three degrees of Christian perfection, distinguished
by Faith, Hope, and Charity, In Rom. iv. 6 (Lorn. vi. 271) and elsewhere.
The distinction between the Two Lives is laid down In Joan. xx. 26 sqq. as
by Clement, the airXovarfpov irtaTevoi/rts who do not understand the word
which they obey, the slaves whose motive is Fear, are opposed to the sons, ot
SiopariKwrtpoi' Karavoovvres (the Seeing Israel). Even Paul was by nature a
child of wrath, so are we all ; we become adopted sons by using the light
and power given to us, especially by loving our enemies. Compare In Joan.
xx. 15 ; Pro/, in Cant. C antic., where again the stress is laid upon Love.
Elsewhere more value is assigned to Knowledge, and so the distinction at
times seems to coincide very nearly with that between Clergy and People,
Contra Celsum, i. 9 ; Injesu Nave, Horn. xvii. But even among the Clergy
there were those who could speak only of the literal and moral senses, and
so belonged to the lower class, In Lev. Horn. xiii. i. 3. The difference be-
tween the Visible and Invisible Church in the sense of nominal and real
Christianity is very forcibly expressed In Matt. xii. 12. See further in Lec-
ture VI.
8 De Princ. i. 3. The following passage is from In Num. Horn. v. i. It
will be observed that though the_son of Kohath is a communicant, the rule of
142 Origen. [Lect.
found a symbol of this distinction of believers in the
arrangements for carrying the Tabernacle on the march.
Aaron and his sons were to wrap the sanctuary and
all the vessels of the sanctuary in the appointed covering
of badgers' skins or cloths of blue and scarlet, ' after that
the sons of Kohath shall come to bear them, but they
shall not touch any holy thing lest they die . . . they
shall not go in to see when the holy things are covered
lest they die.' So in our ecclesiastical observances there
are some things that all must do, but that all cannot
understand. Why for instance we should kneel in
prayer, or why we should turn our faces to the East,
could not I think be made clear to everybody. Who
again could easily expound the manner of celebration
of the Eucharist, or of its reception, or the words and
actions, the questions and replies of Baptism ? And yet
all these things we carry veiled and covered upon our
shoulders, when we so fulfil them as they have been
handed down to us by the Great High Priest and his
Sons.' Only the son of Aaron, the man of spiritual
intelligence, might gaze upon the holy things naked and
unveiled. To the son of Kohath belonged unquestion-
ing obedience ; he carried the burden, but was forbidden
to demand the reason. Nor might the son of Aaron
declare it. To uncover the mystery, to explain that
which the bearer was not able to comprehend, was
spiritual homicide.
The nature and scope of the Alexandrine Disciplina
Reserve, 'nolite mittere sanctum canibus,' applies to him, In Lev. Horn. vi. 6 ;
xii. 7. In Num. Horn. iv. 3, ' Aut si res poscit proferre et inferioribus, id est
imperitioribus, tradere, ne nuda proferat, ne aperta ostendat et penitus
patentia ; alioquin homicidium facit et exterminat plebem.'
IV.] Economy. 143
Arcani 1 are sufficiently clear from these extracts, which
might be indefinitely multiplied. The Reserve or
Economy of Clement and Origen was directed mainly
against Christians of the simpler sort, and its object was
5 to save them from waters too deep for them, to guard
them from discussions involving doubts that would cer-
tainly perplex, and might altogether mislead, a faith
earnest and correct, though supported by slender in-
tellectual gifts. In plain words the faith of the son of
Kohath is Catholicism, and that of the son of Aaron
is Idealism, and the Allegorism of Clement and Origen
is a plea for the utmost freedom of thought, on con-
dition that it keeps within the teaching of Christ and
His Apostles, and is couched in a learned language.
Only by perverse ingenuity can it be twisted into an
argument in defence of the very mode of conception
against which it is especially directed 2 . The Eucharist
1 Probst would restrict this phrase (first used by Meier, a professor of
__ Helmstadt in 1677) to the rule forbidding the revelation of the Christian
rites to heathen and distinguish it from the pedagogic Economy, which may
be expressed in the words of the Council of Trent : ' Apud radem vero
plebem difficiliores ac subtiliores quaestiones quaeque ad aedificationem
non faciunt,et ex quibus plerumque nulla fit pietatis accessio, a popularibus
concionibus secludantur. Incerta item vel quae specie falsi laborant evul-
gari ac tractari non permittunt,' Kirchliche Disciplin, pp. 303 sqq. Perhaps
the distinction is not ill grounded, for Origen is certainly reticent as to the
ritual of the Eucharist, In Lev. Horn. ix. 10. It may be noticed here that
he uses the phrase ' sancta sanctorum ' to express not the secrecy but the
spiritual nature of the Eucharist, the difference between worthy and unworthy
recipients, In Lev., Horn. xiii. 6 ; Prol. in Cant. Cantic. (Lorn. xiv. 314).
As regards theology there is really no secret at all. So far as Clement and
Origen had explicit views they declared them in one place or another. M.
Denis says of the latter, ' Nul parmi les docteurs de 1'Eglise n'use moins de
la methode de parler par 1'economie quoiqu'il en reconnaisse 1'utilite et la
sagesse.'
a As by Eellarmine and his followers, see Bingham, x. 5. The argument
from the Disdplina Arcani, in its strict logical form, proceeds on the axiom
1 44 Origen, [Lect.
is doubtless one of the mysteries, to be spoken of with
guarded reserve in the presence not only of heathen, but
of simple or careless believers. But it is a mystery
in precisely the same sense as any other, and precisely
the same solvent must be applied, before we can obtain
the spiritual truth hidden beneath the rough ore of the
words. ' Even in the New Testament there is a letter
which killeth him who does not spiritually consider
what is said. If according to the letter you follow the
very words of Christ . . . unless ye eat my Flesh and
drink my Blood, this letter killeth 1 .' Nor was it the
greatest of the mysteries. There was doubtless a party
in the Church who attached a very literal sense to these
words of the Saviour, and bitterly resented any attempt
to idealise them. But the danger of wounding the
simple faith and suggesting doubts that might weaken
the sanctions of morality lay in a different direction in
speculations upon foreknowledge, predestination and
birth-sin, in attempts to penetrate the secrets of the
Eternal Gospel, the doctrine of angels and demons, and
the history of the soul after death. Of these it is said
they are ' mysteries which may not be entrusted even
to paper 2 .'
It is possible to defend the practice of Reserve, if it
that complete silence is absolute proof, and that, failing this, the less the
evidence the more certain the conclusion. This is obviously absurd. Hence
the Disciplina Arcani, as a controversial weapon, has been superseded by
the doctrine of Development, though it is still employed to eke out insuffi-
cient evidence.
1 In Lev. Horn. vii. 5 (Lorn. ix. 306).
3 In Rom. ii. 4, of the mode in which the souls of good men operate
after dissolution as good angels, those of the wicked as bad angels, it is
said that these things are ' ne chartulae quidem committenda mysteria.'
Compare the Prol. in Cant, Cantic. (Lorn. xiv. 320).
IV.] Economy. 145
be taken to represent the method of a skilful teacher,
who will not confuse the learner with principles beyond
his comprehension l . This however is by no means what
the Alexandrines intended. With them it is the screen
of an esoteric belief. They held that the mass of men
will necessarily accept the symbol for the idea, will, that
is, be more or less superstitious. It is enough if their
superstition is such as to lead them in the right direction.
This is a necessary corollary of the new compromise be-
tween the Church and the world, a taint inherited from
z the Greek schools in which Truth was not a cardinal
virtue. Freedom remains, but it is a freedom of the
Mite, which may be tolerated so long as it does not cry
aloud in the streets. But let us remember the Alex-
andrines were pleading for the freedom, not for the
restriction. It was not altogether their fault, if they
were driven to approximate on this point to the dreaded
Gnostics.
Origen differs from Clement in regarding Allegorism
' rather as a personal gift than as an inherited tradition ' 2 .
He differs from him still more in the volume, ingenuity,
beauty of his applications of the method. All Scripture
becomes transparent beneath his touch ; the ' crannies
1 It is so defended by J. H. Newman, Arians, i. 3. pp. 40 sqq. 3rd ed. ; see
also the Apologia pro Vita Sua ; and by Origen himself, Contra Celsum, iii.
52 sqq.
2 Clement's few Allegorisms are almost without exception borrowed. We
may say that he regarded not only the sanction but the substance of this
mode of interpretation as given by Tradition. Origen feels that he has a
personal illumination : In Levit. Horn. viii. i, 'putas possumus veteris instru-
menti formas novi testamenti gestis et sermonibus coaptare ? Possumus, si
nos ipsum Dei Verbum et juvare et inspirare dignatur.' In this respect he
is more of a Mystic than Clement, but Rosenmuller, iii. p. 146, is harsh in
comparing him to the fanatics of the Inner Light.
L
1 46 Origen. [Lect.
in the wall' multiply and widen, till the wall itself
disappears. The dangers of such a mode of procedure
are obvious, and there were not wanting those who
urged them, though they directed their protest mainly
against its application to the New Testament *. Many
probably were offended by precisely those features of
Origen's teaching which were of the deepest and most
permanent value. But there are objections which may be
pressed without suspicion of narrowness or prejudice.
The Alexandrine method as applied by Origen is
undoubtedly unsound. He appeals to the examples of
Christ and St. Paul 2 , and to a certain limited extent
with justice. But his rules of procedure, his playing
with words and numbers and proper names, his bound-
less extravagance are learned not from the New Testa-
ment, but through Philo from the puerile Rabbinical
schools 3 . Yet we must distinguish. On its apologetic
side Allegorism is seen at its worst. When the Stoics
assure us that the heathen deities are but symbols of
the forces of Nature, and turn the hideous myths of Zeus
or Dionysus into a manual of physical science ; when
Philo makes Tamar represent the soul widowed from
sensual delights ; when Clement turns the unclean meats
1 In Lev. Horn. xvi. 4, ' dicet fortassis auditor quid iterum hie euresilogus
agit:' In Gen. Horn. xiii. Here the objection is to Allegorism in general.
But in application to the Old Testament it was in universal use among
orthodox Christians.
2 In Num. Horn. i. 3, Apostolo nobis Paulo spiritualis intelligentiae
semina respergente ; In Num. Horn. iii. 3, Non possum illuc adscendere
nisi praecedat me Paulus. He is referring to the Epistle to the Hebrews, which
he certainly regarded as the work of St.Pa.nl, DePrinctflns, preface, I ; though
he thought that the actual wording of the Epistle was due not to the Apostle
himself but to one of his disciples, Eus. H. E. vi. 25. u.
* For the relation of Origen's allegorism to that of Philo, see Siegfried,
pp. 351 sqq.
I V .] A llegorism, 147
into vices that are to be shunned, we rebel. This is
not the meaning. Such paltering with the text is not
honest, and in this respect there was reason in the re-
proach of Celsus that Jews and Christians alike were
ashamed of their Bible. Yet let us not be harsh. To
us it is not difficult to allow that the Old Testament is
the history of a people and not merely of a religion, that
God's revelation is progressive, that He speaks by human
messengers, that something has been permitted because
of the hardness of men's hearts. But to the Alexandrines,
bound as they were by their Jewish theory of inspiration
and beset by eager foes, it was not easy to admit all
this. Concessions are not readily made by men struggling
for all that they hold dear. Nor indeed was the notion
of historical development familiar to their times. Per-
haps we may say that its first fruitful germ is found in
the Church, in the qualified admission of the inferiority
of the Old Testament to the New. The Alexandrines
went so far as to explain certain passages those which
attribute human figure and emotions to God by the
principle of accommodation or condescension, and Origen
even admitted the existence of degrees of inspiration 1 .
Through these observations lay the way to a clear
solution of the difficulty. But though the key was
actually in the lock, Origen did not turn it. The time
had not yet come.
1 See especially In Joann. i. 4 onwards. The Law is inferior to the
Gospel ; in the New Testament the Epistles stand below the Gospels, and
of the Gospels the dnapxri is that of John, ' whose sense none can grasp
unless he has fallen upon the breast of Jesus and received from Jesus Mary
to become his mother.' Compare also Contra Celsum, iv. 8, where again he
hints at the subject, but declines to pursue it because it is a Mystery : ex ei ^~
rt 6 irtpl Tovroiv \6yos [wariKwrtpov Kal ffaOvrtpov at JJ.T) Travv n <}>6<ivfiv
Swd/Atvov fwl Tty Sr](j.(u8fOT(pav dtcorjv.
L 2
148 Origen. [Lect.
Again, of the positive use of Allegorism it is not
possible to speak without qualification. What is the
value of the mysteries which it aims at discovering?
Does it really discover mysteries at all? One critic
regards it as wholly futile, 'an excellent means of
rinding what you already possess.' To another it is
fecunda mater errorum, superstitionum, fanaticarum-
que opinionum. Yet a third considers it to have been
the bulwark of orthodoxy against the sceptical literal
method of the school of Antioch 1 . The truth is that it
means very different things in relation to the Law and
to the Gospel, and within the sphere of the latter in
relation to the Church of the Present and to the Church
of the Future.
As regards the Old Testament, it is a dangerous and in
its actual use a delusive method, delusive because it
proceeds upon the exaggeration of a truth. If we think
of that long Revelation, unfolding itself gradually through
centuries, and growing ever fuller and clearer as it pro-
ceeds, we cannot deny that its earlier stages contained
the germ of the later, that much was anticipatory and
preparative, that God granted to chosen spirits a vision
more or less distinct of the long-hoped-for consummation.
The Priest, the King, the Prophet foreboded with in-
creasing clearness the Lamb of God, the Son of David,
the Man of Sorrows. There were shadows of good things
to come ; there were vaticinations ; there were types. But
it does not follow that all was type ; it does not follow
that the type is a perfect and elaborate figure of the
1 The first reference is to M. Denis, who has many clever epigrams on
this subject ; the second to Rosenmiiller ; the third to Cardinal Newman,
Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 343, ed. 1878.
IV.] Allegorism. 149
antitype. The Alexandrines erred in both ways. They
found symbols where there was no symbol ; they treated
symbols not as indications, as harbingers, but as proofs.
Thus they undertook to demonstrate Christian doctrine
by passages which in the belief of the Jew were not
Messianic at all, or, if Messianic, had not been fulfilled.
They neglected the difference between before and after.
As we look back, we see many things in the Old Testa-
ment which find their explanation only in the New.
We see how the providence of God was leading his
people up to precisely this issue and no other. Like
the minister of Queen Candace, we recognise under
Philip's guidance that Isaiah prophesied not of himself
but of Jesus. So the old in a thousand points illustrates,
prognosticates, confirms the new. But the shadow is not
a demonstration, for the very reason that it is a shadow.
The road by which we are guided is the right road, but
until we reach the goal we cannot be certain whither
it will lead us. The early Christians forgot this, forgot
the doubts and perplexities through which they had
themselves attained their bourne. Hence their angry
amazement at the blindness and obstinacy of the Jew.
The Alexandrines are open to this animadversion.
They found in the Old Testament what they already
possessed, what they could not have found unless they
had possessed it. But at any rate they found nothing
more. They avoided the worst excesses. They are
always intelligent and reasonable, and their extravagance
is that of the poet-philosopher, not that of the dogmatist.
And they did not invert their Allegorism. They found
the New Testament in the Old, but they had far too
clear a sense of the spirituality of true religion to
1 50 Origen. [Lect.
attempt to carry the Old over into the New. They
evaporated the letter ; they did not stereotype the spirit.
What Allegorism signified as applied to the Church
of the Present and to the Church of the Future has been
partly explained, and we shall have to recur to the point
again. Let us only notice here that it is to speculations
on the latter subject, on Eschatology, that the charge of
presumption applies. Here too there is a truth. All
language that we use, that even Christ could use, of the
world behind the veil, is necessarily mythical, figurative.
But in this case we have not yet reached the bourne, and
therefore the key to the hieroglyph is wanting. This
Irenaeus saw ; this Origen refused to see. There were
questions to which he felt some answer must be found.
There were questions on which he obtained real though
limited and uncertain light. Indeed it was not his
nature to rest content. He held with Philo, that even if
truth be unattainable the happiness of man lies in the
ceaseless pursuit of this ideal, that ever flies as he
advances. ' If we see some admirable work of human
art,' he says, ' we are at once eager to investigate the
nature, the manner, the end of its production ; and the
contemplation of the works of God stirs us with an
incomparably greater longing to learn the principles, the
method, the purpose of creation.' ' This desire, this
passion,' he continues, 'has without doubt been im-
planted in us by God. And as the eye seeks light, as
our body craves food, so our mind is impressed with the
characteristic and natural desire of knowing the truth of
God and the causes of what we observe V
1 De Princ. ii. n. 4. In the translation of this passage I have borrowed
the language of Dr. Westcott, Cont. Review, May, 1879, P- 335-
IV.] A llegorism. 151
This is noble language, and the modest devotion with
which he strove to fulfil it is equally noble. If we are
less aspiring, let us not say presumptuous, it is because
we have learned from him, because we dare not gaze
upon the darkness of excessive light that even ' the eagle
eye of Origen J ' failed to pierce.
1 The phrase is from Cardinal Newman's lines on the Greek Fathers,
Verses on Various Occasions, 1868, p. 83.
LECTURE V.
Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. ST. JOHN
xiv. ii.
Why callest thou me good? there is none good but One, that is, God.
ST. MATTHEW xix. 1 7.
WE have already seen what Origen regarded as the
proper task of the Christian philosopher. Tradition,
embodying the teaching of the Apostles, has handed
down certain facts, certain usages, which are to be
received without dispute, but does not attempt to
explain the why or the whence. It is the office of
the sanctified reason to define, to articulate, to co-
ordinate, even to expand, and generally to adapt to
human needs the faith once delivered to the Church.
What then is the utterance of Tradition ? It tells us
that there is One God who created all things out of
nothing, who is Just and Good, the Author of the Old
as of the New Testament, the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ : that Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father
before every creature, that through Him all things were
made, that He is God and Man, born of the Holy Spirit
and the Virgin Mary, that He did truly suffer, rise
again, and ascend into heaven : that the Holy Ghost
is associated in honour and dignity with the Father and
the Son, that it is He who inspired the saints both of
the Old and of the New Dispensation : that there will
be a Resurrection of the dead, when the body which is
sown in corruption will rise in incorruption, and that in
The Regula Fidel. 153
the world to come the souls of men will inherit eternal
life or suffer eternal punishment according to their
works : that every reasonable soul is a free agent,
plotted against by evil spirits, comforted by good angels,
but in no way constrained : that the Scriptures were
written by the agency of the Spirit of God, that they
have two senses, the plain and the hidden, whereof the
latter can be known only to those to whom is given the
grace of the Holy Spirit in the word of wisdom and
knowledge 1 .
Here then we have the pith and substance of that
doctrine which, in Alexandria at any rate, was taught to
all Christians in the time of Origen. It differs from the
Nicene Creed in that it does not use the terms ' Very
God ' or ' Homoousian ' of the Son, in that it asserts the
moral attributes of God, the creation of the world out of
nothing, the spiritual nature of the Resurrection Body,
the connection of punishments and rewards with conduct,
the eternity of punishment, the existence of Angels, the
freedom of the Will, the double sense of Scripture. It
is rather a Regula Fidei 2 than a Creed in the strict
sense of the word. But the language is already so
1 De Principiis, preface, 4 onwards. Origen, like Clement, had the
strongest persuasion that all his speculations lay within this norm. ' Servetur
vero ecclesiastica praedicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita,
et usque ad praesens in ecclesiis permanens : ilia sola credenda est veritas
quae in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione.' Yet there
is a sense in which the perfect Christian rises above Tradition, Injoann. xiii.
16. This thought also is shared by Clement. In both Knowledge is more
than P'aith, and Ordinances, though always obligatory, cease to be
necessary.
2 The KOVUIV (KKXrjffiaariKos, icavuv TTJS fKK\rjatas, or rijs impaSoaeus, or rov
fvayyt\iov, or again, 17 airoarokiKf) xal (K/c\rjataaTi>cr) opOorofua rwv Soffjtdrojv
of Clement. The latter has nowhere set out his creed in the same systematic
way as Origen, but there is a complete agreement between the two.
1 54 Origen. [Lect.
framed as definitely to exclude the Gnostics, the Noe-
tians, possibly the Chiliasts, and certainly all those who
doubted the Personality of the Holy Spirit.
Within these limits all is open ground. Even the
definition of the terms, especially of the word ' eternal,' is
subject to reverent but free discussion. And Origen has
availed himself of this liberty to the fullest extent.
One of his earliest works is the De Principiis, ' On First
Principles,' that is to say on the data of the Creed, in
which he maps out the field of investigation, and ex-
presses with fearless candour all his doubts, beliefs,
suggestions, divinations about each article in turn. He
was already of mature age when he composed this
treatise, and his voluminous later writings are little more
than an expansion of the ideas there set down. Much
might be said of the De Principiis, the most remarkable
production of ante-Nicene times, but it has three merits
at least that must not be omitted. Origen never slurs
a difficulty, never dogmatises, never consciously departs
from the teaching of Scripture. It is in this last point
that he differs most, in point of method, from Clement,
who not unfrequently leaves us in doubt as to the precise
Scriptural basis of his ideas. Sometimes Origen's in-
terpretations are wrong ; sometimes again he attaches
undue weight to particular expressions. Certain texts
seem to dominate him and colour all his views 1 . But
his most daring flights always start from some point in
the written Word. The connection with the particular
passage under discussion may be of the most fanciful
kind, but the opinion itself is never arbitrary.
We shall obtain the clearest view of Origen's teaching
'
1 Denis, p. 56.
V.] The Method of Theology. 155
by following in the main the plan traced in the De
Principiis, and proceeding from those high problems
that touch upon the nature of God to the consideration
of His Economy, His dealings with the Church and the
soul of man.
The heathen Celsus lays down three methods l by
which men may attain to a certain, though limited,
knowledge of God. They are Analysis, Synthesis, and
Analogy. The nature and results of the first we have
seen in the case of Clement. Synthesis is the inductive
mode, by which we gather from the constitution of the
world an idea of Him by whom the world was made.
Analogy is the poet's faculty bodying forth in a myth,
a simile, that which language is inadequate to express.
Thus Plato in the Republic compares the Idea of Good
to the Sun. Origen insists on the contrary that the
Christian knows God in a way better than any of these,
as revealed in the Incarnate Christ. Yet to some extent
he admits the use of Synthesis. For the world was made
by God through Christ, and still bears the legible imprint
of its Author.
Accordingly he takes his point of departure from the
words of our Saviour ' God is a Spirit,' from the words
of St. John ' God is Light V ' It must not be supposed
then that God is a body, or in a body, but a simple
1 Contra Cetsum, vii. 42. 44. They are defined also by Alcinous, chap. 10.
Compare Maximus Tyrius, xvii. 8. The three methods of Celsus appear to
answer to his three classes of religious teachers, ao<f>oi, <pi\uacxfoi, and ZvOeoi
iroiT)rai. M. Denis complains, p. 85, that the passage in Celsus is 'tres
brouille.' But the text as given in Lomm. is quite clear. M. Vacherot,
cole <T Alexandrie, iii. p. 220, has a chapter on the Method of the
Alexandrines, but the references given above will suffice to show that he
is entirely wrong in his assertion that ' la pensee qui la domine et 1'inspire
est etrangere aux ecoles grecques.'
3 De Principiis, i. i .
156 Origen. [Lect.
intellectual nature, admitting of no addition at all. There
is in Him no greater or less, no higher or lower, for He
is the Monad, the Unit, Mind, the Fountain of all
mind.' From this first conception flow the negative
attributes of the Divine Nature, and here Origen is
compelled in spite of his disclaimer to make a certain
use of the method of Analysis. Being Mind God is
incorporeal l . This point, owing perhaps to the in-
fluence of Stoicism, had as yet been very imperfectly
apprehended in the Church, and it is not the least of
Origen's merits that he seizes upon it with insight and
decision, proving the immateriality, that is in fact the
existence of the soul, and so of God, by an argument
resembling the famous Cogito ergo sum 2 . Being in-
corporeal God is independent of the laws of Space
and Time, omniscient, omnipresent, unchanging, incom-
prehensible. His dwelling-place is the -thick darkness.
' How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways
past finding out.' He has in a sense no titles, and His
fittest name is He That Is.
Thus far Origen is in agreement with his predecessors,
though rather with Philo than with Clement. But here
he strikes off into a wholly different train of thought.
Our knowledge of the Divine spreads out on all sides
1 In the view of the Homilies, the Valentinians, Melito (see Routh, and
Heinichen's note on Eus. H. . iv.-26. 2), Tertullian, Adv. Praxeam, 7,
God is corporeal. Even Irenaeus finds the image of God in the body of man,
v. 6. i , and not as the Alexandrines in the vovs. Anthropomorphism lingered
on long in the East. It is one of the chief merits of the Alexandrines that
they treated this point with no less emphasis and distinctness than Philo.
Two great difficulties were the facts that the term aaw^aros is not Scriptural,
though found in the Doctrina Petri, where the words ' Non sum daemonium
incorporeum ' were attributed to the Saviour after the Resurrection, and that
vvfvfM. does not in itself connote immateriality. See De Princ., praefatio, 8 ;
Injoann. xiii. 24 ; De Oratione, 23, 24.
2 De Princ. i. I. 7 ; ii. II. 4 ; iv. 36 ; Denis, p. 310.
V.] The Negative Attributes. 157
into the inconceivable, but it is rooted in the positive.
Before we can know what He is not, we must know what
He is ; the titles Good, Wise, Just, which we apply to
Him, are inadequate but not untrue.
God is incomprehensible. But the cause of the in-
comprehensibility is in us, not in Him. His dwelling
is the thick darkness, but He Himself is Light ; and the
more nearly we approach Him the more completely will
the darkness melt away into light. There will come a
time when, becoming one spirit with the Word, we shall
see Him face to face, and know even as we are known.
Even now we are not left without some understanding of
Him which, imperfect as it may be, is yet true as far as
it goes. We see Him dimly revealed in Creation. The
order, the beauty of Nature are scintillations of the
Divine goodness, as far inferior to their source as the
sunbeams that stream through a keyhole to the Sun
itself; yet authentic, homogeneous. Still more veritably
we see Him in the Word, for ' he who hath seen the Son
hath seen the Father,' seen Him in the express Image
of His Person, though only in such degree as the divine
grace has enabled him l .
Again, God being unchanging, eternal, must needs be
passionless. Scripture attributes to Him wrath, hatred,
repentance, but only in condescension to our infirmities.
He is righteous and good, and desireth not the death
of a sinner. Punishment is not His work, but the
necessary consequence of sin 2 . There will come a time
in the restitution of all things when it will no longer
1 De Princ. i. I.
a The justice and goodness of God are maintained, De Princ. ii. 5, with
great force and subtlety.
158 O rig en.
be possible to speak of the wrath of God. But though
Origen cannot think of the Deity as agitated by passions
in the narrower sense of the word, by mental disturbance
or unreason of any kind, it follows from the language
already cited that he was far from regarding Him as
devoid of attributes. 'The Father Himself and God
of all,' he says, ' is longsuffering, merciful and pitiful.
Has He not then in a sense passions? The Father
Himself is not impassible. He has the passion of
Love 1 .'
Hence when Celsus, in true Platonic fashion, using
almost the very words of Philo or Clement, asserts that
God has no name, because He has no passions in the
sense of attributes that can be denoted by a name,
Origen replies with a distinction. It is true, he admits,
in a sense, that no name can express the exact nature
of the properties of God, just as no single word will
express the difference between the sweetness of a date
and the sweetness of a fig. Yet both are sweet; we
know what the term means in each case, and the dis-
parity of the meanings is not so great but that they
1 In Ezech. Horn. vi. 6. See also the exceedingly beautiful passage, In
Num. Horn, xxiii. 2, where he dwells on the same subject at length. But
he concludes with a retractation, as if he felt that he had been carried-too far :
' Haec autem omnia, in quibus vel lugere vel gaudere vel odisse vel laetari
dicitur Deus, tropice et humano more accipienda sunt ab Scripturis dici.
Aliena porro est divina natura ab omni passionis et permutationis affectu, in
illo semper beatitudinis apice immobilis et inconcussa perdurans.' Yet
Origen had experienced that state of consciousness, exemplified for us by all
exalted Christian spirits, in which joy and sorrow cease to be passions and
are no longer contraries. He did not clearly see that what is true of Good-
ness and Justice is true of Love and Sympathy. They differ not in themselves,
but in their objects. Or again, we may say he did not clearly see that self-
sacrifice is divine, and that the Incarnation is only the most striking instance
of an universal law. Yet in the passages quoted he has given expression to
this truth, though with timidity.
V.] The Positive Attributes. 159
are in substance identical 1 . The same reasoning will
apply to those epithets which are common to virtuous
men and to God. We cannot comprehend God, we
cannot explain Him, for He is infinitely better than all
we can think about Him. But if we argue from the
justice of man to the justice of God, we are proceeding
like the geometer from the imperfect to the perfect, not
like the alchemist from the known to the unknowable.
It will be seen that the God of Origen is no longer
the Unconditioned. He is not Absolute but Perfect,
and perfection is itself a condition. He is perfectly wise,
perfectly just, perfectly mighty, but the perfection of
these attributes consists precisely in the fact that they
are limited by one another 2 . From this consideration
flow Origen' s peculiar views as to Creation. Nature
is not infinite ; God created all things by number and
measure because perfect wisdom cannot comprehend
an unlimited object. Nature again is eternal. The ex-
istence of the universe can in a sense be measured by
time, for time and the world began together, time is
1 Contra Celstim, vi. 65.
2 See De Princ. ii. 9. I : ' Non enim, ut quidam volunt, finem putandum
est non habere creaturas ; quia ubi finis non est nee comprehensio ulla nee
circumscriptio esse potest.' So the Wisdom of Solomon says, xi. 20, that
God created all things ' in numero et mensura ; ' De Princ. iv. 35 (Greek,
text), fj.t]5fls Se irpoffKoirreTU T$ \6ya> el fitrpa (mTiOeptv Kal rrj rod Otov
5vvdfj.fi, aTrtipa ~fap iKpiXa&tiv ry <pvaet aSvvarov rvyx^ vet - Other passages
in Redepenning, ii. 290. Like the English Platonist Henry More, Origen
finds the idea of God in that of the Perfect Being. His point of view is
moral, not like that of Clement pseudo-metaphysical. Hence all the so-
called negative attributes sink at once into a secondary place. The more
the reader reflects upon this the more important I feel persuaded he will see
it to be. What an absurd yet mischievous word is ' infinite,' purely material
in all its associations, and as unmeaning when applied to spirit as ' colour-
less ' or ' imponderable ' would be. Yet it is habitually used as if it were the
highest term of reverence. To a Platonist ' infinite ' means almost the same
as ' evil.' Limitation is of the essence of truth and of beauty.
1 60 Origen. [Lect.
the register of the world's life. But in another sense
creation is timeless. Creator and Creation are correla-
tive notions ; the one cannot be thought of without the
other. God must indeed precede logically, as the cause
is in conception prior to the effect, but His inner per-
fection implies external realisation. From the first He
was King, He was righteous, because there was some-
thing not Himself that He could rule in righteousness.
Otherwise we must suppose a change in Him, a de-
velopment, a passage from the potential to the actual.
But this it would be impious to think of God, who from
the first is Act, is Perfect. Readers of Lucretius will
recollect the Epicurean argument against Creation which
Origen appears to have here in view. And it is evident
how little he would have been embarrassed by modern
geology \
From the same mode of thought flows a qualified
Optimism similar to that of Leibnitz or Butler. Origen
does not shut his eyes to the manifold traces of disorder
and inequality in Nature. Nevertheless, despite the
existence of ' hideous monsters and vermin,' of physical
1 De Princ.'\. 2. 10 : ' Quemadmodum pater non potest esse quis, si filius
non sit, neque dominus quis esse potest sine possessione sine servo, ita ne
omnipotens quidem Deus dici potest, si non sint in quos exerceat potentatum ;
et ideo ut omnipotens ostendatur Deus omnia subsistere necesse est.' See the
whole section. Origen is of course speaking of the first heaven and earth,
not of that world in which fallen men live, the ' mundus hie qui ex certo tern-
pore coepit' of De Princ. iii. 5. i. The Epicurean argument against crea-
tion was based upon the impossibility of God beginning to do anything.
Cicero, De Nat. Deorum, i. 9 : ' Quid autem erat, quod concupisceret Deus
mundum et signis et luminibus, tamquam aedilis, ornare ? Si ut ipse melius
habitaret ; antea videlicet tempore infinito in tenebris tamquam in gurgustio
habitaverat : ' Lucretius, v. 165 sqq. The same argument in Origen's mind
proved the Eternal Generation of the Son and the eternity of Creation.
Later theologians regarded it as admirable in the first case and abominable
in the second.
v.] Self -Limitation of God. 161
and moral wrong, he held that the world is good because
it answers to the plan of a wise Creator 1 . Nay it is the
best of all possible worlds. For if there could have
been a better, we must suppose either that the Divine
Power was insufficient to realise it, or that the Divine
Wisdom failed to conceive it. Such an optimism was
peculiarly easy to the Platonist, who regarded the world
as a scene not of probation only but of correction, and
linked the imperfections of man's environment with the
sin of a previous life. But this tenet does not affect
the main position, which is in fact that of Bishop Butler,
' that we are not competent judges of this scheme from
the small parts of it that come within our view in the
present life.'
But Origen went farther than this, and drew or ap-
peared to draw the startling conclusion that God cannot
do anything that He has not done. This was actually
maintained by Abelard, ' though,' as he adds, ' this opinion
of ours has few 6r no supporters, and differs widely from
the utterances of the Saints, and somewhat from reason
itself 2 .' It is not indeed certain that Origen formally
inferred this consequence, though it was laid to his
account by enemies who accused him of teaching that
God is All-Ruler but not Almighty. But the inference
does not seem to involve any distortion of the facts.
For Origen regarded the Divine Goodness, Wisdom,
Power as working in perfect harmony and co-extension,
so as to be in fact different aspects of the same energy.
If God's Power is limited, it is limited 'not by the re-
sistance of matter, for God created matter and made
1 Injoann. xiii. 42.
3 I owe the quotation to Huet, Origeniana, ii. i. I.
M
1 62 Origen. [Lect.
it what it is, but by His own reason and His own bene-
ficence. That He can do nothing that is evil is admitted
by all. Origen possibly, Abelard certainly, advanced
a step farther, and declared that He can leave undone
nothing that is good. For otherwise in our desire to
get rid of one restriction we are compelled to admit
another of a far more dangerous kind, because impeach-
ing either the Wisdom or the Goodness of Him who,
if any gradation of His virtues is conceivable, is Good
and Wise even before He is Mighty.
The Christian Deity is One in Three. But in what
sense One, in what sense Three? These questions were
already the subject of fierce debate, especially at Rome,
where the fire that had long been smouldering had been
kindled into a blaze by the action of two Popes. Victor
had excommunicated Theodotus, who denied in some sense
the Divinity of Jesus 1 . Callistus had expelled from the
1 Eus. H. E. v. 28. 6 : "BiKToip Qf65oTov TOV anvTta,Tbv dpxrjyov KOI irarepa
TavTijs rfjs dpvijaiOeov diroaraaias, dirfK^pv^e TTJS Koivowias, irpuTov eiirovra
tyiXbv avQparnov TOV Xpiar6v. See notes in Heinichen. But the anonymous
writer quoted here is by no means accurate in his statements. Theodotus,
if he is the same as Theodotus of Byzantium, did not assert that ' Christ
was a mere man,' nor was he the inventor of his doctrine. He belonged to
the Ebionite school, and taught that 'Jesus was a man born of the Virgin,
according to the will of the Father, who having lived the life of other men
but in perfect piety, afterwards at his baptism in Jordan received the Christ,
who came down from above in likeness of a dove. Hence the miraculous
powers did not work in Him till the Spirit which Theodotus calls Christ
came down and was manifest in Him ; ' Philos. vii. 35. The passage con-
tinues : Ofbv be ovSfifOTe TOVTOV yfyoffvat OVTOI Oe\ovffiv tm rf) KaBoSy TOV
irvev/jiaTOs, trtpoi SI /xerd rr)v etc vfKpuv dvaaraaiv. There must be some
error in the text here, as ovStirore cannot be reconciled with ITTI TJ) Ka$6St(> TOV
irvfvpaTos. Probably the words OVTOI . . . ava.aTO.aiv are a gloss. What
Theodotus taught was that the preexistent Christ was not God ; cp. x. 23.
He held doubtless with the Homilies that he was the Eldest Power but yet
not God in the strict sense of the word. I observe that the party violence
of this anonymous author has turned what is an argument in favour of the
doctrine of the Trinity into an argument against it. See Lecture ii. p. 59.
V.] Hypostasis and Ousia. 163
Church the Noetians, who denied the Personality of the
Son and the Holy Ghost 1 . Origen had visited Rome
during the papacy of Zephyrinus 2 , and was keenly
alive to the perils of the crisis. Hence his views and
language exhibit a marked advance upon those of his
predecessor.
The terminology indeed is still fluctuating and un-
certain, but the later usage is already all but established.
The word for Person in Origen is commonly Hypostasis,
that for the Divine Nature is less determinate but is
frequently Ousza 3 . The two expressions were current
Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, p. 573 sqq., gives the latest authorities on the
subject.
1 'Ka.n\a.c]a,Dogmengeschic'hte, pp. 601 sqq. ; Philos. ix. n sqq. Noetianism,
Monarchianism, Patripassianism, Modalism, Unitarianism should be regarded
in one sense as an ancient, in another as a recent opinion. Doubtless in
some form or another it had existed before the debate reached the acute
stage. But the sentiment which prevails is the sentiment of the majority.
2 Eus. H. E. vi. 14. 10 : 6 \.kvroi 'AoapavTios, ical TOVTO yap rfv rS>
'flpiytvei ovofia, Zf(f>vptvov Kara TOvaSe rovs XP OVOVS T 5 S 'Poi/Jtaiojv eKK\r]aias
fj-fovftevov fTri8r]/j.T)ffa.i TT/ 'Pw/xj; Kal avTos irov ypd(pft \tyoiv ' (vgdnevos rrjv
ap\aiorarr]v 'Pa}/j.aicav (KK\r)o~iav !5etV.'
3 For Person we have viroaraais, In Joann. ii. 6, i^iefs pevroi ye rpfis
viroardatis TrttOo/j.ei'oi Tvyxdvew : ovaia I8la, ibid., Soyftarifav prjS^ ovatav
rivd ISiav v<pfffTavai TOV ayiov irvfv/MTOS : ISiorrjs and ovaia. Kara irepiypa^v,
In Joann. ii. 2 : ovaia alone, In Joann. i. 30 ad fin., ii. 18 : viroKtipevov, In
Jerem. Horn. viii. 2 : the two combined, De Orat. 15, trepos KO.T' ovaiav nal
vTTOKti/j.(v6v (so English ed. and de la Rue, al. viroKeifjiev6s') lanv 6 vios TOV
irarpos. For Substance, ovaia is used, In Joann. x. 21 (Lorn. i. p. 350),
oiovrai (K TOVTUV TrapiaraaOai f^T) Sta<pfpeiv rSi apiOfica ruv vibv TOV vaTpos,
dAX' ti> ov fji6vov ovaia d\\a Kal inro/cfintvy Tvy\dvovTas aivportpovs Kara.
Tivas eirtvoias Sta<f>6povs ov naTa viroffTaffiv \tytaQai iraripa Kal viov : De Orat.
23 (Lorn. xvii. p. 183), olovel dotards TT^V ovaiav TOV Oeov dirb iravTQiv TUJV
ytvvTjTuv : In Matth. xvii. 14 (Lom. iv. 116) we have TO !i/ viroKfipevov :
Cels. viii. 12, OVTO. Svo TQ VTroardatt irpdy/j.aTa tv 8^ TTJ o/jiovoiq, Kal T?)
avn<p<aviq Kal Tainan TOV 0ovXr)naTos. I have not noted other instances of
the use of ovaia, but in the Latin translations substantia occurs frequently ;
In Num. Horn. xii. i ; In Rom. vii. 13 ; viii. 5 ; De Princ. i. 2. 5 ; In Levit.
Horn. xiii. 4 ; In Cant. Cantic. iii. (Lom. xv. 56), qui ibi Trinitas propter
distinctionem personarum, hie unus Deus intellegitur pro unitate substantiae.
But here we may trace the hand of Rufinus.
M 2
1 64 Origen. [Lect.
in the philosophy of the time, and mean precisely the
same thing. The difference between them appears to
be merely this, that Ousia is properly Platonic, while
Hypostasis, a comparatively modern and rare word, is
properly Stoic. To the Platonist Ousia denoted the
Idea, by participation in which the thing is what it is,
* which is prior to and above the thing. To the Stoic both
words signified the thing itself, the essential substratum
which, having no qualities, is yet the vehicle of all
qualities *. Hypostasis bears also the meaning of an
1 The definition of ovaia is given at length by Origen, De Oral. 2 7 (Lorn,
xvii. 210) : ff nfVTOi Kvpiws ovaia rofy fj.fv Trpoij-fovntvijv TTJV ruv aacafMroiv
viroaraaiv fivai <pda>covai (that is by the Platonist) V(v6fitarai Kara rci
dad/para TO ivai fifpaicus t~xoi>Ta .... rots ot (iraKo\ov9r)TtKf)v avrfjv tivat
vo/j.iovai TrpoTjyov^evrjv Se TTJV TOJV ff<afj.dra}v (that is to the Stoics) opoi avrrjs
ovTOt elai' ovala early 57 irpdiTt] TWV ovrcav V\TJ . , . . jj TO irpurov inroararov
airoiov. In this latter sense it is identical with frrtHrttfurar, which already in
Aristotle means the substantia materialis, vXTjquae determinaturper formam,
or ovaia. cui inhaerent nddrj avu^f^Kora. See the Index of Bonitz. This
was the view of the Stoics ; see Ritter and Preller, Hist. Phil. Gr. et Rom.
403. In this sense the ovala was said ixpiaraaOai or v^tardvai, and from
this verb is formed viroffraais. The latter in the precise sense of substance
is exceedingly rare, and as far as I can gather distinctively Stoic. It became
naturalised in Latin as Substantia in the time of Seneca and Quintilian.
Cicero attempted to represent ovaia by Essentia Seneca, Ep. 58 ad in.,
cupio, si fieri potest, propitiis auribus tuis, essentiam dicere. Si minus
dicam et iratis. Ciceronem auctorem huius verbi habeo, puto locu-
pletem but this harsh form did not live in classic Latin. There is a
remarkable passage in Socrates, H. E. iii. 7, where we are informed
that Irenaeus, a grammarian, in his Atticistes calls the word Hypostasis
barbarous because the ancients did not use it or gave it a wholly
different sense. But he continues, lariov nkv-roi OTI, ei aal ol ira\aiol
<pi\6ao<poi TT)I> \tiv iraptXiirov, d\\' o/us ot vtwrepot rSiv (f>t\oao<p<av awtxaii
avrl TTJS ovffias TT) \fti rrjs vTroaraffeus a-ncxpriaavTO. The ffvve\S>s
is a great exaggeration. The reader will find ovaia fifty times when he
finds vtroffraffis once. Lastly, these scientific terms were introduced into
theology by the Gnostics : ovaia, vnoaraais, vTroKfi^evov, dftoovaios all occur
in Irenaeus, i. 5. I. Yet it should be added that vnoaraais is used byTatian
(Otto, pp. 22, 28); ovaia and vrroaraais by Athenagoras, De Res. i. Suppl.
24 (Otto, pp. 130, 188) ; viroaraais in the Ep. ad Diog. 2 ; and ovaia by
V.] Person and Substance. 165
actually subsisting entity, the manifestation of the es-
sence in the phenomenon. But this sense belongs to
Ousia also, so that the theological distinction between
the two terms is purely arbitrary. In the West Persona
and Substantia are already familiar to Tertullian l . Of
these terms, Persona, a singularly material word, belongs
not to the schools but to the Latin law courts, and
means ' a party,' ' an individual,' with all his legal duties
and rights. Stibstantia is a translation of Hypostasis.
Thus it came about that the same word, which in the
metaphysical East signified Person, was employed by
the prosaic and law-loving West for Substance ; an un-
happy confusion which gave rise to much acrimonious
debate 2 .
Melito, De Incar. Christi (Routh, i. p. 121), ras Svo avrov ovffias, of the two
natures in Christ.
1 Adv. Prax. 2. Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. xxi. 46, regards Persona as
a translation of irpbaomov. It is true that irpoffonrov, under Hebrew influ-
ences, had imbibed the notion of individuality. But we may venture to
think that Gregory has inverted the actual course of things. The reason
why the Westerns adopted the word Hypostasis for Substance is no doubt
that Substantia existed in Latin, while Essentia did not. In this sense in
Latin theology Hypostasis is a translation of Substantia. The same is true
I believe of the word itpocranrov, which is first found in Hippolytus,
Contra Noetum, 14, ed. Lagarde, p. 52, and the Philos. ix. 12. These
authors (or this author, for Dr. Dollinger appears to have demonstrated
that the Philos. is the work of Hippolytus) write in Greek but think in
Latin. Their style is steeped in Latin idioms. And besides, it is
highly unlikely that they would have selected a Greek phrase to
emphasise the point of a dispute which was being eagerly debated on all
sides in colloquial Latin. For the legal use of Persona compare dc.pro
Milone, 12, itaque illud Cassianum cui bono fuerit in his personis valeat.
For other information on these famous words see Baur, Dreieinigkeit, i. 446,
note; Liddon, Bampton Lectures, ed. 10, p. 33, note; Huet, Origeniana,
ii. 2. 3; Redepeuning, ii. p. 82 ; Bull, Defence of the Nicene Creed, vol. i.
pp. 1 88, 236, English translation of 1851.
2 See the account of the Council of Alexandria in 362, Mansi, iii. p. 350.
Jerome, Ep. xv. ad Damasum (in Migne, vol. xxii. p. 355), complains that
he is looked upon as a heretic in the East because he would not use the
1 66 Origen. [Lect.
The controversy of the times turned mainly upon
what was called by Western divines ' the mystery of
the Economy 1 ,' the right mode that is to say of appre-
hending the personal difference, especially as regards
the relation of the Father to the Son. The problem
of the Unity was of course involved in this, but it was
not the immediate point at issue ; hence the phraseology
on this side was less guarded and precise. For Origen
and the men of his time the great object was to establish
the true Personality of Christ, to show that though God
He yet was not the Father. Their reasoning applies
also to the Holy Spirit, but not so pointedly; and as
regards the Third Person, there is still some degree of
hesitation and obscurity which the Alexandrines, and
in particular Origen, did much to dissipate.
phrase ' tres hypostases.' He objects that the formula is not Apostolical,
but this applies equally to his own mode of statement.
1 Tertullian, Adv. Praxeam, 2 : Quasi non sic quoque unus sit omnia, dum
ex uno omnia, per substantiae scilicet unitatem, et nihilominus custodiatur
oiKovofilas sacramentum, quae unitatem in trinitatem disponit. Ibid. 3 :
Sed monarchiam sonare student Latini, O\KOVO\UOV intelligere nolunt etiam
Graeci. Hippolytus, Contra Noetum, 14 (ed. Lagarde, p. 52), Svo ptv OVK
epui Oeovs d\\' rj tva, trpoaojira 8e Svo, otKOVOpia 5e rpirrjv rr)v XP tv T v dytov
irvevfiaTos, Trarf/p u.\v ycip fis irpoffcaira 8% Svo ort KO! 6 vlos, TO 8% Tpirov TO
afiov Trvev/JLa. TTOTT)/) fVTf\\(Tai, \6yos a.TTOT(\(T, vlos 8% SeiKVVTai, Si' ov iraT^p
iriffTeveTai, oiKovo/j.ias avfiKpaivia (this is surely the right reading ; Lagarde has
oiKovon'iq ffvptyuvia) avvdyeTai els eva Otov. Ibid. 4 (p. 46, Lagarde),
u.vaTj\piov otKOPOfjiias. A little lower down the word appears to bear even in
this usage its ordinary sense of 'dispensation.' Ibid. 14 (p. 53, Lagarde),
yivwffKcav ovv o iraTpyos \6yos TTJV o'tKOVopiav Kal TO 6(\rj/j.a TOV ira.Tp6s,
OTI OVK oAAws 0ov\eTai 8oafa0at ij OVTOK. But it has evidently acquired
a technical sense. Baur, Dreieinigkeit, ed. 1841, p. 178, ' Es liegtin ihm der
Begriff einer durch eine Vielheit sich vermittelnden Einheit.' Tatian, Ad
Graecos, 5 (p. 24 of Otto's ed.), yeyove 8t (o \6yos~) KUTCL u.tpiav.()v, ov icaTa
diroKoirrjV TO yap airoTfirjO^v TOV irpwTov Ke~)(wp lOTai > T0 8 p.tpia6tv oiKovop.ias
TT)V diptaiv Trpoa\a(}bv OVK tvSfd TOV o6ev efarjjrTai itt-noirjKev, If he were
asked how the Son could be distinguished from the Father without impairing
the perfections of the Father, Tatian replies, ' this is the mystery of the Divine
Will.' But see the note in Otto.
V.] The Son. 167
The definition of the Father is already contained
in its main outlines in what has been said about the
Deity. The specific attributes of the First Person will
be best ascertained by considering His relation to the
Second and the Third.
The Son then is a Hypostasis, Living Wisdom, or, as
He is entitled in the Acts of Paul, in the first rude
attempt at definition, 'a living animal 1 .' He is verily
and substantially God, and therefore of necessity co-
eternal and coequal with the Father. On the first
point there is no shadow of doubt as to Origen's mean-
ing. ' There never can have been a time when He was
not. For when was that God, whom John calls the
Light, destitute of the radiance of His proper glory, so
that a man may dare to ascribe a beginning of existence
to the Son . . . Let a man, who ventures to say there
was a time when the Son was not, consider that this
is all one with saying there was a time when Wisdom
was not, the Word was not, the Life was not 2 / Nor, if
1 De Principiis, i. 2.3: Unde et recte mihi dictus videtur sermo ille, qui
in Actibus Pauli scriptus est, quia ' hie est verbum animal vivens.'
3 De Princ. iv. 28. Nothing can be stronger than Origen's language on
the co-eternity of the Son : ' Qui autem initium dat Verbo Dei, vel Sapientiae
Dei, intuere ne magis in ipsum ingenitum Patrem impietatem suam iactet,
cum eum neget semper Patrem fuisse, et genuisse Verbum, et habuisse
Sapientiam in omnibus anterioribus vel temporibus vel saeculis vel si quid
illud est quod nominari potest.' Origen is the inventor of the phrase ou/t
i<ST(.v ore OVK fy, famous afterwards as the watchword of the Catholics
against the Arians, De Princ. i. 2. 9 ; iv. 28 ; In Rom. i. 5. Nor can we
suspect here the hand of Rufinus, for the phrase is guaranteed not only
by Pamphilus in his Apology, but by Athanasius, De Deer. Syn. Nic.
chap. 27, ed. Migne. Further, as if this were not enough, Origen warns his
reader that when we say the Son ' never ' had a beginning we are speaking
not of Time but of Eternity : Nam et haec ipsa nomina temporalis vocabuli
significantiam gerunt, id est quando vel nunquam ; supra omne autem tempus,
et supra omnia saecula, et supra omnem aeternitatem intelligenda sunt ea,
quae de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto dicuntur ; De Princ. iv. 28. Father,
if we may so speak, is the most ancient title of God : De Princ. i. 2. 10, non
1 68 Origen. [Lect.
we keep in view his most deliberate and emphatic ut-
terances, can there be any doubt about the second.
The proof is taken from the Epistle to the Hebrews,
where the Son is called ' the express image of the
Hypostasis of God ; ' from the Book of Wisdom, where
He is ' the unspotted mirror of the power of God.' For
the property of a mirror is to reflect every feature, every
act of him that looks therein, without the slightest change.
Hence the Saviour Himself says, 'All mine are thine
and thine are mine,' ' What things soever the Father
doeth these also doeth the Son likewise ; ' and St. John
in the Apocalypse applies to Christ the Ineffable Name,
Thus saith the Lord God, who is, and who was, and
who is to come V
But Scripture carries us beyond this, giving to the
Son a number of titles to denote His Epinoiai, His
economic functions, His relations to the world 2 . In
this sense the Father is One and Simple, while the Son
is Many. He is, firstly, Wisdom, the perfect image of
the mind and will of God, which He expresses in crea-
potest antiquior esse in Deo Omnipotentis appellatio quam Patris : per
Filium enim omnipotens est Pater. On this point of the Coeternity there
cannot be any doubt as to Origen's meaning. See the Excursus of Maranus
in Lorn. vol. xxii. p. 351.
1 De Princ. \. 2.
2 In Cant, Cant. iii. (Lorn. xv. p. 29) : Et ne mireris, si idem ipse et
arbor vitae et diversa alia dicatur, cum idem et panis verus, et vitis vera, et
agnus Dei, et multa alia nominetur. Omnia namque haec Verbum Dei
unicuique emcitur, prout mensura vel desiderium participantis exposcit :
secundum quod et manna, qui cum esset unus cibus, unicuique tamen desi-
derio (desiderii ?) sui reddebat saporem. The peculiarity of Origen's view
is that he endeavours to arrange these titles of Christ in an ascending scale,
and regards them as denoting successive stages of the believer's progress and
receptivity. This was a Valentinian idea. Excerpta ex Theodoto, 7, 6 8
avr6s tort TOIOVTOS &v edoT<j> 010$ Kt\<apfia6ai Svvarai, and a similar view
gave their name to the Docetae (see the Diet, of Christ. Biog.). But the
graduation of the titles is necessarily difficult, obscure, and fluctuating.
V.] Epinoiai of the Son. 169
tion. Secondly, He is the Word, ' because He is as it were
the interpreter of the secrets of the divine intelligence,'
the channel of Revelation 1 . Hence He is also the Life
and the Truth, the giver and sustainer of physical being
and spiritual well-being. These are properties of His
Deity which can never change. Others He has as the
God-Man, Propitiation, Physician, Shepherd, Redemp-
tion, the True Bread, the True Vine, the Lamb of God.
These are accidental, for had man never fallen into sin
they would have been needless 2 . Origen compares these
1 Wisdom is the first and highest of the Epinoiai : Injoann. ii. 6, Trpoem-
voov(j.(vi]s rov \6yov atxpias. In this sense Christ is the Mind of God,
continens in semet ipsa universae creaturae vel initia vel formas vel species,
De Princ. i. 2. 2. All things were created according to the ideas which God
had previously brought to consciousness (Trporpavai9(vras) in Wisdom, as
a house, a ship is built according to the plan or scheme existing in the mind
of the builder ; Injoann. i. 22. Here we have the King's Architect of Philo.
In this sense He may be the K6fffj.os vorjros, In Joann. xix. 5 ; cp. Contra
Celsum, v. 22, 39 ; vi. 64. In the De Princ. ii. 3. 6 Origen does not reject
the doctrine of Ideas, but merely denies the independent existence of the
Koa^os vorjTos : utique a nostris alienum est mundum incorporeum dicere, in
sola mentis phantasia vel cogitationum lubrico consistentem. As Wisdom
Christ is Creator ; Injoann. i. 22, Srj/juovpyos 5e 6 Xpiaros usdpxri, Ka86 o~o<f>ia
fffri. The Epinoia of the \Vord comes after that of Wisdom, De Princ. i. 2. 3 ;
Injoann. i. 2 2. It is the outer aspect, if we may so say, of the Son's Divinity,
the side on which He communicates with the world, the first link in the chain
between God and man. See Denis, Philosophic cFOrigtne, pp. 89 sqq.
- Origen distinguishes, Injoann. i. 22, between the Epinoiai which belong
to Christ as properties of His eternal Nature and those which are accretions,
assumed for the purpose of Redemption. It is in respect of the latter that
the Son is Many, while the Father is One. To the latter class belong First-
bom from the Dead, iKaaTrjpiov, Light, Shepherd ; to the former, W T isdom,
Word, Life, Truth. Taxa yap ffotyia Zpfve fiovov, tj /cat \6yos, rj ical arf],
iravrais oe KOI aMjdeia' ov nty 5f ical TO, d\\a ova 81' i^tas irpoad\ri<pt. In
Joann. i. 30, the latter are the alaQrjra, the former the vorjrd, and here comes
in the distinction between the Two Lives as in Clement. Those who know
Christ only as aladrjros are ruled by Him as Man ; those who have risen to a
perception of the vorjrd are fiaatKevontvoi viro rfjs npor]"fovfi.tvr]s (piifffois rov
povo-ffvovs, governed by Christ as God. The reader will observe how
closely this is connected with the teaching of Philo, though the Christian
could not admit that the Word is God only of the imperfect.
1 70 Origen. [Lect.
Epinoiai to the steps of the Temple leading up to the
Holy of Holies. The lower flight is the Humanity, the
upper the Divinity, the whole make up our knowledge
of the Saviour 1 . We have already seen the same idea
in Clement, though not so clearly developed.
' Let no one think,' says Origen, ' that we are intro-
ducing a distinction into the essence of the Son V But the
mode of expression has given rise to misunderstanding.
It is not meant that Christ will ever put off His Hu-
manity 3 or that we shall ever cease to need Him, for
even at the climax of all things He will still be the Life
and the Truth. We shall see the Father face to face, but
only because we shall be ' one spirit with the Lord.'
In this sense only Origen believed that the work of
Redemption and Mediation will have an end. We shall
see the Father no longer in the Son, but as the Son sees
Him, in the day when God shall be all in all 4 . But to
1 In Joann. xix. i (Lorn, ii, 149). In this passage in oiairtp rGivavapaOiuav
6 (j.ovoyevr)s Ian irpuros lirl rci KCLTOI read 6 ptv tart Trpwros. In Joann.
xxxii. 19 there are Epinoiai of the believer corresponding to those of Christ.
He is first the slave, then the disciple, the little child, the child, the brother
of Jesus, the son of God.
* In Joann. i. 30 ad fin. Huet charges Origen with asserting that the
title Word belongs to the Son only accidentally, like those of Light and
Shepherd, but he is entirely wrong. The reader of the Origeniana must be
on his guard throughout. Huet's timidity leads him into frequent errors, in
spite of his learning and his sincere desire to do justice. Maranus and de
la Rue are not only more generous but safer guides.
3 See the end of this Lecture.
* In Joann. xx. 7. The reader may consult M. Denis, p. 379. There is,
however, an important distinction. We shall no longer see the Father
in the Son, but we, being in the Son, shall see the Father face to face. And
in this sense the work of Mediation does not cease. See De Princ. iii.
5. 6 sq., Cum ipsis et in ipsis Ipse quoque subiectus dicitur Patri. De
Princ. iii. 6. I Origen quotes John xvii. 21, 24, ' Pater, volo ut ubi ego
sum et isti sint mecum, et sicut ego et tu unum sumus ita et isti in nobis
unum sint.' This is one of his favourite texts. The same idea is developed,
In Levit. Horn. vii. 2. Here again the reference is to i Cor. xv. 28. Why
v.] The Holy Ghost. 171
Origen, as to Clement, the belief in Jesus as Redeemer is
the note of the lower life. We must rise above the
sensible to the intelligible, from obedience to love and
knowledge, from Jesus to the Word. Redemption is
forgiveness and healing discipline, and the true Christian
has ceased to need these. Hence the startling phrase
that ' to know Christ crucified is the knowledge of babes V
Or again, ' Blessed are those who want the Saviour no
longer as Physician, Shepherd, Redemption 2 .' But
Origen's outlook is darker than that of Clement. He
throws the higher life farther and farther back, and
exhibits a growing intensity of devotion towards the
Son of Man.
The heathen Platonists have attained, says Origen, by
the light of Nature to a knowledge of the Father and
even of the Son ; but the belief in the Holy Ghost is
the distinguishing prerogative of Christianity 3 . The
statement marks his sense of the importance of this
article of the Creed, which he did much to strengthen
and expand. He has indeed no technical word to
denote the relation of the Third to the other Persons,
does the Apostle say ' then shall the Son Himself be subject to the Father ? '
Not that He needs subjection to the Father, but on my account, in whom
He has not yet perfected His work, He is said to be as yet not subject. But
when He shall have finished His office and brought all His creatures to the
top of perfection, then He Himself shall be called subject in those whom
He hath put under the Father, and in whom He has perfected the work
that the Father gave Him to do, that God may be all in all. Then and
not till then Christ's joy shall be full.
1 Injoann. i. 20, tyvati p.tv avrov apx?) f) Gearys, irp&s ^fj.ds 8, pi) diro rov
fifftOovs avrov Swaptvovs apaaOai rijs irtpl avrov a\r)0eias, f) dvOpcuTroTrjs
avrov, Ka6o rofy vrjiriois KaTayy(\\(rai 'lijcrovs Xpj<rTos,/zt OVTOS karavpaifj.tvos.
So also Ibid. xix. 3.
2 Injoann. i. 22.
3 The leading passages on the subject of the Holy Spirit are De Princ. \.
3 ; ii. 7 ; Injoann. ii. 6.
172 Origen. [Lect.
nor does he ever definitely bestow upon Him the title
of God l . But the idea, if not the word, is clearly there.
1 In De Princ. ii. 7. I he appears even to deny it: ' Nam ut concedamus
Marcioni vel Valentino posse differentias deitatis (of Father and Son) in-
ducere . . . quid inveniet ut differentiam Spiritus Sancti introducat.' But he
certainly spoke of the divinity of the Holy Spirit ; Ibid. 3, the Mon-
tanists ' minora quam dignum est de ejus divinitate sentientes erroribus se ac
deceptionibus tradiderunt.' Basil (De Spir. Sancto, vol. ii. p. 358, ed. Paris,
1638), who considers that the doctrine of Origen was not sound on all
points, quotes from the In Rom., ai iepal Swdfteis ^cu^Tt/ccu T v
Kal rrjs TOV ayiov irveiifMTOs OforrjTos, and adds, ovrois. olp,ai rb
l<j\vpov fvrjye Tro\\aKis TOVS avSpas Kal TOIS olxfiots avruiv Soyp-aviv dv
The latter remark is unjust. Tradition was certainly on the side of Origen
as against Basil ; for the title Deus is first expressly bestowed upon the
Holy Spirit by Tertullian in his Montanist treatise Adv. Praxeam, 3. 13 ;
cp. Baur, Dreieinigkeit, ed. 1841, p. 177 note. In the Preface to the
De Principiis, 4, it is affirmed that the praedicatio apostolica does
not decide of the Spirit utrum natus an innatus. Jerome has utrum
factus an infectus. Apparently Rufinus read yevvrjTos rj dytvvrjros,
Jerome yevrjTos fj dyevqTos. The words are constantly interchanged in
MSS. In Joann. ii. 6 Origen starts several questions whether the Spirit
has a hypostatic existence ; whether He is one of the all things which
were made (tyevero) through the Son ; whether He is less or greater
than the Son. The first he answers by affirming the Three Hypostases.
The reply to the second is very hesitating and tortuous. It is perhaps the
worst instance of the evil of his extemporaneous method of composition. At
first (p. no Lorn.) he regards it as the more pious and true conclusion that the
Spirit is not included in the ' all things ' that were made by the Son. But
TOV vlov XP*l flv fOiKe TO ayiov Trvevfui, SIOKOVOVVTOS avTov ry VTroardffei ov
(jiovov tls TO tivai d\\oL nal aotpbv etvai Kal \oytKov ical SiKaiov, KOI nav
ornroTovv xpJ) o,i>T(> voetv Tvyx. avelv Kara fifro'^v TUV irpofiprjuevcav f)\uv
Jipiarov tmvoiuv. And three pages further on (p. 113 Lorn.) he slides into
the affirmative, Tavra Se eiriiro\v (^rjTaffrai ffafftearfpov ISftv @ov\ofj,evois TJUJS,
(I TrdvTa Sid TOV \6yov tyevero, Kal TO irvtvfj.a Sid TOV \6yov eyevfTO ev TUIV
ndvTcav Tvfxdvov. Thus the relation of the Spirit to the Son appears to be
analogous to that of the Son to the Father. Perhaps this need not be under-
stood as directly contradicting De Princ. i. 3. 4, neque enim putandum
est quod etiam Spiritus Filio revelante cognoscit. Si enim revelante Filio
cognoscit Patrem Spiritus Sanctus, ergo ex ignorantia ad scientiam venit.
De Princ. ii. 2. i we read, Sicut ingenitum Filium generat Pater et Spiritum
Sanctum profert ; In Rom. vii. i, Qui vere ex ipso Deo procedit ; De
Princ. i. 2. 13, In eo fonte de quo vel natus est Filius vel procedit Spiritus
Sanctus. But in these passages Rufinus is hardly trustworthy. To the
third question he replies finally that the Spirit is viroSeeaTfpov TOV dt' ov
V.] The Holy Ghost. 173
The full divinity of the Holy Spirit lay enfolded in the
Baptismal formula, and is the logical consequence of the
assertion of His hypostasis. His eternity Origen teaches
as distinctly as that of the Son ; His equality is virtually
though not so clearly contained in many passages.
Thus He is ' associated in honour and dignity with the
Father and the Son.' He is one of the adorable Trinity
which is wholly present in each of the Persons. And
Origen himself invokes the Holy Spirit in prayer 1 .
It is He that in the beginning moved upon the face of
the waters 2 ; He that is to be understood both in Old and
eyevfTo. ri-yveoOat, yevrjros, were not in themselves incorrect words to use
either of the Son or of the Holy Spirit ; see Orig. ii. 2. 23 (Lorn. xxii.
p. 184), with the note of Maranus, and Exc. v. at end of volume. But the
Bishop of Durham, Apost. Fathers, part ii. vol. 2. sect. I. p. 90, inclines to
doubt this. How cautious Origen is may be seen, De Princ. i. 3. 3 :
Verumtamen usque ad praesens nullum sennonem in scriptis sanctis
invenire potuimus per quern Spiritus Sanctus factura esse vel creatura
diceretur, ne eo quidem modo, quo de Sapientia referre Salomonem supra
edocuimus. He found /m'fetv used of Wisdom but not of the Holy Spirit.
The idea suggested, Injoann. ii. 6, that the work of redemption was properly
the function of the Holy Spirit, but that He, being unable to sustain the
task, delivered it over to the Son, is, as Maranus pointed out, a mere
scholastic diropia illustrating only the freedom with which Origen moved.
1 See De Princ. i. 3 throughout; In Joann. vi. 17 (Lorn. i. 227), TO)
(/ATrapfXOVTi tavrov Trj GewrrjTi rfjs 5vvdfius TOIV rfjs irpoffKin'rjTfjs TptdSos
firiKXrjaetov, quoted by Basil, De Spir. Sancto, 29 ; De Princ., Preface, 4,
Honore ac dignitate Patri ac Filio sociatum tradiderunt Spiritum Sanctum ;
In Levit. Horn. i. i, Ipse igitur nobis Dominus, ipse Sanctus Spiritus
deprecandus est, ut omnem nebulam omnemque caliginem, quae peccatornm
sordibus concreta visum nostri cordis obscurat, auferre dignetur ; In Isai.
Horn. i. 4, Denique ut unitatem Deitatis in Trinitate cognoscas solus
Christus in praesenti lectione nunc peccata dimittit, et tamen certum est a
Trinitate peccata dimitti ; Ibid. iv. I, Non iis sufficit semel clamare
' Sanctus/ neque bis, sed perfectum numerum Trinitatis assumunt, ut mnlti-
tudinem sanctitatis manifestent Dei, quae est trinae sanctitatis repetita com-
munitas, sanctitas Patris, sanctitas unigeniti Filii et Spiritus Sancti. See
Denis, pp. 117 sqq.
2 De Princ. i. 3. 3. Participation in the work of Creation is again assigned
to the Holy Spirit, De Princ. iv. 30, on the authority of Psalm xxxiii. 6,
Verbo Domini coeli firmati sunt, et spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eomm.
1 74 Origen. [Lect.
New Testament by the words Spirit or Holy Spirit.
But His special work is that of sanctification. The
Father gives being to all that exists ; the Son imparts
reason, Logos, to all that is capable of it ; the Holy
Ghost works life in those that believe. Hence though
all men may be said to participate in the First and
Second Persons, not all men share in the Third. It is
He that creates in man the capacity to receive Christ,
first as Justice, then as Wisdom, and so on in ever-
deepening affinity, till at last the gift of being becomes
worthy of the Giver. Man is made what God meant
him to be, good and permanently good, by the ceaseless
ministrations of the Holy Spirit. Thus it may be said
that the Son and the Holy Spirit are the cause of the
knowledge of God, that the Holy Spirit is the substance
of the graces of the Father *. *
Thus far the Alexandrines cleared and defined the
notion of the Divine Persons. But a not less difficult
task remained behind. Granting the triple Personality,
where then is the Unity, or as it was called the Monarchy ?
The question was involved in Noetianism, it was pressed
upon the Church from without by Celsus, the champion
of reformed Heathenism. It involved the very essence
and existence of the faith. If Christianity was Mono-
theism in the sense of Noetus, where was the reality of
the work of Jesus? if it were not Monotheism in the sense
This is important, as showing that in De Princ. i. 3. 5 the words ' ut operati-
onem specialem Spiritus Sancti et specialem Patris ac Filii describamus ' are
not inserted by Rufinus. This is a sufficient answer to the strictures of
Theophilus, Jerome and Justinian, for which see the Origeniana.
1 De Princ. i. 3. 5 ; Prol. in Cant. Cant. (Lorn. xiv. 307) ; Injoann.
ii. 6 ; In Jerem.'ttora.. viii. i. Substance of the graces, v\rj ruiv \apio {J.O.TOIV.
As the Son is f/jaf'vxos ffotyia, so the Holy Spirit is epfrvx * X^P iS > though this
phrase is not actually used.
V.] The Unity in Trinity. 175
of Celsus, in what was it better than the religion of
Mithra, and what became of its exclusive claims?
We enter here upon one of the most fiercely decried
portions of Origen's teaching 1 . Let it be observed by
way of caution that he had no paper money, no accepted
phrases to pass current instead of thought ; that speaking
of the most awful mystery that can exercise the mind of
man, he expresses himself by no means with neatness
and precision, but with becoming hesitation, as of one
who hears only ' fragments of the mighty voice,' and
faithfully endeavours to render the whole of what he
hears. Hence his language is partly that of later
times, partly not ; most startling when most Biblical.
Rufinus, the translator of the De Principiis, has doubt-
less tampered with his text. But we have abundant
means of checking his divagations. There is no im-
portant point on which we cannot produce the exact
meaning of Origen 2 .
1 The chief among the ancient assailants of Origen and Origenism were
Methodius, De Resurrectione, fragments only are extant, bat there is an ab-
stract of the work in Photius, Cod. 234 ; Eustathius, De Engastrimytho,
in Migne, vol. xvii. 614; Epiphanius, Haereses, Ixiv; Ep. ad Joann. Ep.
Hieros., Latin translation in Jerome's Epistles, 51, Migne, vol. xxii ; Theo-
philus, Paschal Letters, i. 2. 3, Greek fragments in Migne, vol. Ixv. 54,
Latin translations in Jerome's Epistles, 96, 98, 100, Migne, vol. xxii ;
Jerome, Epp. 84, Ad Pammachium et Oceanum, 124 Ad Avitum, Migne,
vol. xxii ; Apologia adv. libros Rufini ; Justinian, Adv. Origenem or Ad
Menam, Mansi, ix. 487 ; Migne, Ixxxvi. 946 ; Labbe, v. 635.
a The life and works of Rufinus (whose cognomen is variously given as
Toranus, Turranius, or Tyrannius) will be found in Migne, vol. xxi. See
also Origeniana, ii. 4. 10 ; Redepenning, ii. 61, 68, 254; Neander, iv.
447 (Eng. Trans.) ; Gieseler, Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, 1824, part i.
p. 284 sqq. Rufinus, a monk of Aquileia, in 372 accompanied a pious and
wealthy lady Melania to the East as a kind of domestic chaplain, though
not yet ordained. In Palestine, where he remained till 397, living for a part
of the time with the hermits on the Mount of Olives, he had a serious
quarrel with Jerome, arising out of the dispute between Epiphanius and
1 76 Origen. [Lect.
Let us begin with passages representing the line of
thought that was afterwards predominant. Origen insists
that both terms of the antinomy, the One and the Many,
must be equally kept in view. Thus in the Homily on
the Shew Bread, one of his most remarkable allegories,
the bread, he says, is made of two-tenths of flour. It is
significant then of the two Persons, for ten, the perfect
number, is emblematic of Deity. The loaves are laid
one upon another to show that they are one mass, one
John of Jerusalem. The latter was accused of Origenism and Rufinus took
his part. On his return to Italy he began to translate Greek theological
works into Latin at the request of friends, in particular the De Principiis.
This led to a renewal of hostilities with Jerome, and drew upon Rufinus the
censure of Pope Anastasius, though he does not appear to have been formally
condemned. He died in Sicily, whither he had fled for shelter during the
invasion of Alaric. Here in sight of the blazing villages of Calabria, in the
midst of horrors that might seem to denote the approaching end of all
things, he found comfort in the mystical commentary on the Song of Songs.
Besides the De Principiis he gave to Latin the pseudo-Clementine Recogni-
tions. The Westerns appear to have been at this time profoundly ignorant
of Greek speculations, and Rufinus was much in the position of the scholars
who first introduced modern German theology into England. To him we
owe the Latin version of the Homilies on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, Joshua, Judges, i Samuel (the last probably, Red. ii. 255),
Psalms 36-38, the Commentaries on the Song of Songs, and Romans, and
the De Principiis, with the Apology of Pamphilus. The translation of the
Homilies on the Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Luke, is by
Jerome. The author of the version of the latter part of the Commentary on
Matthew is unknown. We have also some fragments of the translation of
the De Princ. by Jerome, and of a Homily on Job by Hilarius Pictaviensis.
Rufinus has described his mode of translation very candidly (see his Pre-
faces to Numbers, Joshua, Psalms, De Princ. i. and iii, and the peroratio to
In Rom.). He dealt with great freedom, expanding, condensing, com-
bining, expurgating, and amending. The gist of Jerome's attack upon the
translation of the De Princ. is not that Rufinus had softened or omitted un-
orthodox expressions on the subject of the Trinity (for he had done the same
thing himself in his version of the Homilies on Isaiah), but that he had
supported and strengthened Origen's views on the subject of the Fall, Resti-
tution, &c. The worst that can be said of Rufinus is that his judgment
and temper were not perfect. Huet treats him very harshly in order to
relieve Jerome.
V.] The Unity in Trinity. 177
Bread. ' For I cannot separate the Son from the Father,
the Father from the Son.' Yet again, the loaves are
placed in two layers to denote the Personal distinction.
'We call Him Father who is not Son, Him Son who is
not Father V Again, elsewhere the Persons are numeri-
cally distinct 2 . But this is not to be taken to imply local
division. ' For to ascribe division to an incorporeal
substance is the act not only of extreme impiety but of
the dullest folly 3 .' Hence the Generation of the Son is
to be regarded as a continuous process. ' The Father did
not beget His Son and let Him go from Himself, but
always begets Him 4 .' For this reason he rejects the
phrases which earlier writers had employed, that of
1 In Levit. Horn. xiii. 4.
2 The Noetians hold yd\ Sia<pfpfiv rw apiOp-Si rov vlbv rov iraTp6s, In Joann.
x. 21. So Justin, Apol. i. 22, the Son erep6s tan rov 6(ov dpiOfJUu dXX' ov
fvwu.T). Again, Trypho, 56 (Otto, p. 192).
3 De Princ. i. 2. 6 : Observandnm namque est ne quis incurrat in
absurdas fabulas eorum qui prolationes quasdam sibi ipsis depingunt, ut
divinam naturam in partes vocent, et Deum patrem quantum in se est divi-
dant, cum hoc de incorporea natura vel leviter suspicari non solum extremae
impietatis sit verum ultimae insipientiae.
* Injerem. Horn. ix. 4, ad Jin. : ov\l iytvvrjffev 6 irarrip rov vl&v ical
airf \vaev avrov o irarfip airo TTJJ ffvtataK avrov dAA'dei fevvq avrov. Origen
goes on to illustrate his meaning by the simile of the Torch and the Ray.
Huet regards with suspicion this figure, which was indeed used by unorthodox
writers to give the idea of an occasional emanation, emitted from and again
absorbed into the parent flame. See above, p. 59, note. But de la Rue.
defends it with perfect success, though the language of De Princ. i. 2. 7, 1 1
hardly needs defence. Cp. also In Joann. xxxii. 18 (Lorn. ii. 470), S\rjt
ptv ow oifj.ai TT/S Sofas rov Oeov avrov diravyaa JJM tlvat rov v\6v. The idea
of occasional emanation attaches also to the phrase Prophoric Logos, that is
Spoken Word,which Origen rejects, In Joann. i. 23 (Lorn. i. 50): teal fid\tffra,
iwfl awe\us \pSjvrai r> eTjpevaro f/ KapSia fi.ov \6yov ayaOuv, oi6ft(vot
vpo<popav irarpiKT)v olovd (v av\\a0aTs Kttfj.tvr)v elvai rov vlov rov Ofov iced
icarcL rovro vttoffraaiv avry, et dnpi^Sis avrwv rrvvOavoifitOa, ov StSoao'iv. De
Princ. i. 2. 4 Origen rejects also the Adoption theory. Ibid. i. 2. 6 the
Son's existence depends upon the Will of the Father and the Divine Genera-
tion is illustrated by the relation of volition to intelligence.
N
178 Origen. [Lect.
Projection, that of the Prophoric Logos, and prefers
the beautiful simile of the Torch and the Ray. So far
his view is that known as Circumincession, the idea of
perfect mutual interpenetration. He has addressed him-
self mainly to the relation between Father and Son. But
what is true of them is true of the whole Trinity.
But still it may be asked in what precisely does the
unity consist ? In this particular form the question had
as yet hardly been posed, and it would have been better
had it never been stated. The most we can do is to
agree upon a word, and at such altitudes words lose their
vitality. But it was not Origen's nature to gloss over a
difficulty, and in those days of Polytheism it would not
perhaps have been safe to do so. He will give then
what answer he can, though he well knows what the
answer is worth. At one time in reply to Celsus he
places the unity in perfect moral harmony. ' We worship
the Father of Truth, and the Son who is Truth, Two in
Person, but One in agreement and concert and identity
of will.' It is a union -like that of the Church, ' the multi-
tude of them that believed were of one heart and one
soul V At another time he uses the expression One in
1 Contra Celsum,\\\\. 12. After quoting John xiv. n,'I am in the Father
and the Father in Me,' Origen proceeds, ei 5e rts ! TOVTOJV irepiairaaOriafrai
{trf irrj a.vrofio\ov[i.tv irpos TOVS dvaipovvTas Svo flvat viroffraffeis irarepa Kal
vlov, fTriffrrjaarca T$ rjv 5k iravrcav ruiv iriartvaavTiav j) KapSia Kal ff ^v
tva, Geaiprjcrri rb eyu KOI 6 irarfjp ev tfffitv. "Eva ovv 0t6v, us d
T&V irarepa Kal TOV vlbv 6(patrtvop.(v .... ovra Svo rrj viroffraffd irp
If St T{) bpovoiq KOI TT) avfttycavia Kal ry Tavrorrjn rov }OV\T]/MTOS. The
same definition supported by the same illustration was censured in the case
of Abbot Joachim by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 ; see Mansi, xxii.
981 sqq., or Denzinger, Enchiridion, 358. Abbot Joachim preached also
' the Eternal Gospel,' though he gave to the phrase a political significance
and used it to express the social and religious reformation yearned for by
the enthusiasts of his time. M. Denis, pp. 576 sqq., appears to me to
underrate the connection between Origen and Joachim.
V.] The Mode of Unity. 179
Substance, and Pamphilus even ascribes to him the famous
Homoousion of the Nicene Fathers l . This however could
not be his definite opinion, partly because the word Ousia
or Essence still means at times Person or Hypostasis ;
partly because from either point of view, the Stoic or the
Platonic, it was by no means clear whether God could
be spoken of as having Ousia at all, because He is rather
' above all Ousia 2 ; ' partly again because the term belongs
1 Frag. 3 from commentary In Hebr. quoted by Pamphilus in \\isApology,
Quae utraeque similitudines (vapor virtutis Dei and 'aporrhoea gloriae
Omnipotentis purissima) manifestissime ostendunt communionem substantiae
esse Filio cum Patre. Aporrhoea enim 6/j.oovfftos videtur, id est unius sub-
stantiae cum illo corpore ex quo est vel aporrhoea vel vapor (Lorn. xxiv.
359). The word 6/j.oovaios is used by Heracleon to denote the natural affinity
which he in common with the other Valentinians conceived to exist between
the Pneumatic and God and between the Hylic and the Devil, Injoann. xiii.
25 ; xx. 18 (Lorn. ii. 43, 241). This idea is rejected both by Clement, Strom.
ii. 16. 74 ; iv. 13. 91, and by Origen. In this usage the word means made
of the same stuff, of the same genus, governed by the same laws, but does not
imply equality. In this sense it is applied to the Son by the author of the
Homilies, xx. 7. The Son is ojttoovcrios rw 6t> laoSwafios 8 ov. As a term
of theology the word appears to have been first employed in these ways by
Gnostics and Ebionites. In the passage quoted above from Origen it
appears for the first time in its later Nicene sense, for I cannot regard the
passage in the Adumbrationes, p. 1009, as Clement's, though Zahn, Forsch-
ungen,^. 138, thinks otherwise. The word was not regarded as orthodox
by the Antiochene Fathers, see Routh, iii. p. 314. Like many other words
it acquired a technical meaning which at first undoubtedly it did not possess.
Bull, book ii. chapter i, may still be read with advantage, though he
endeavoured to prove too much. 'Oftoouo-tos is certainly not ' a word of
which the precision and exactness precluded all attempt at equivocation.'
See also Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, pp. 531 sqq.
" See Contra Celsum, vi. 64. Celsus says, ou8' ovffias pertx** o 6(6s.
No, replies Origen, /T*XTCU -yap /jia\\ov r) (terexfi. So the Saviour, ov
/iTtx l&v SiKaioavvrjr Sitcaioavvij 8 wv fierexfrat inrb TUV SiKaicuv. . . .
rioA.ii? 56 6 itfpl TJJJ over/as \6yos /cat SvaGtuiprjTOS .... ir6r(pov int/cuva
ovaias la-rl Trpfff&tiq /cat 5vi/(i/xet o Otos /itraSiSovs ovoias . . f) Kal avros (ffny
ovffia. . . . ZrjTrjTfov 8^ KOI ti ovaiav fJLtv ovfftwv \fKTtov Kol IStav ISfSiv teal
apXyv T OV fiovoyfvfj /cat irp<uT6TOKOv irdarjs Kriatcas, (jriKfiva 8^ -navTtav TOVTOJV
TOV -nartpa avrov /cat Otov. In Joann. xix. I (Lorn. ii. p. 149), "iv OUTCUS
f\0ri firt TO (ViSftf T ouaia fj rrj v-ntptKtiva. TTJS ovaias Svvdfj.(i ical </>i5crt TOW
N a
1 80 Origen. [Lect.
to the vocabulary of science and not of Scripture, and
even in science denotes not knowledge but the absence
of knowledge. For the Ousia is precisely that about a
thing of which we are wholly ignorant. Hence again,
taking his stand upon the words of our Saviour ' that
they may know Thee the only true God,' upon the words
of St. Paul ' to us there is but One God the Father,' he
seeks for the ground of unity in the derivation of the
Second Person from the First, of the Third from the
Second and First. The Father is 'the God,' 'the only
true God.' The Son is ' God ' without addition, because
His Deity is derived 1 .
The Son, as we have seen, possesses all the attributes
of God, His Goodness, His Wisdom, His Power. He
possesses them in full and perfect measure, not acci-
dentally but substantially and unchangeably, not pre-
cariously but by virtue, if we may so speak, of a law of
the Divine Nature. He is begotten, not created. The
Son is in the Father, the Father in the Son, and no
schism is conceivable between them. Yet the Word is
the Splendour of the Divine Glory, the Image of the
Father's Person, in a word He is the Son. The Father
is the ' Fountain ' from whom His Divinity is ' drawn V
6eo5. If ovffta be taken in its Platonic sense as signifying Idea it is prior
to the Thing, and thus the Idea of God would be above God ; again, the
Ideas are sometimes spoken of as created by God. If the word be taken in
its Stoic sense, we arrive at a distinction between the irpurr} v\rj and the iraOij
of the Deity. Words like these, which represent or are supposed to repre-
sent the teaching of sensible experience, explain without explaining that
which ' eye hath not seen.'
1 Injoann. ii. 2, 3, 18 ; xiii. 25 ; xxxii. 18 ; Contra Celsum, viii. 14, 15.
* In Joann. ii. 2, airaaas TTJS Otorrjros tls favrov. ' Hoc est portionem
divinitatis non divinitatem ' remarks Huet, with whom agrees M. Denis, p.
1 10. This is laying far too much stress upon a word. Besides, had Origen
written rrjv Bforrjra, he would have meant that the Son had deprived the
Father of Deity.
V.] Derivation. Subordination. 181
It is the difference between Cause and Effect, and in this
aspect it sometimes seems to Origen immense 1 . Yet if
we look downwards, if we compare the God Son with
the highest of created things, with principalities and
archangels, there is a gulf more enormous still, because
of another kind.
We shall however wrong Origen, if we attempt to
derive his Subordinationism from metaphysical con-
siderations. It is purely Scriptural, and rests wholly
and entirely upon the words of Jesus, ' My Father is
greater than I,' ' that they may know Thee the only true
God,' ' None is Good save One.' The dominant text in
Origen's mind was the last. Hence he limits the rela-
tivity to the attribute to which it is limited by Christ
Himself. The Son is Very Wisdom, Very Righteous-
ness, Very Truth, perhaps even Very King, but not Very
Goodness. Perfect Image of the Father's Goodness, but
not the Absolute Good, though in regard to us He is the
Absolute Good 2 . There are indeed passages where
1 In Joann. xiii. 25, travrcav n\v ru>v fevrjTuv virtpexew ov ffVfKpifffi a\\'
vtr(ppa.\\ovari virtpox'tj <pa/j.fv TOV ^Soirrjpa Kal TO itvtviM TO ayiov virfpf\6-
[ttvov TOOOVTOV r) Kal irKtov airo TOV irarpos, offy virepex f i avTos Kal TO afiov
TTI>(V/M TUIV \oiiruiv. Observe the words ov avfupiafi, the Son and Holy
Spirit are not to be compared with created things. With this passage
should be contrasted In Matth. xv. 10, ir\eicav -yelp r) virepo\^i irpos rcL
irnoSetcTTtpa ayada tv Ty ^carfjpi, tca06 fOTiv (IKOJV TTJS dfaOoTTjros CLVTOV TOV
0(ov, ijtrep J) vrr(po\r) TOV 6(ov OVTOS ayaOov irpbs TOV tlirovTa ^carrjpa o irai^p,
o irtfi^as pc, ptifav fiov kaniv OVTO. irpos tTtpovs Kal ftKova TTJS ayaQoTijTOS
TOV 0(OV.
2 The boldness with which Rufinus corrected his text is nowhere more
evident than in De Princ. i. 2. 13. The most important passage of the
original Greek is given in Justinian, Ad Menam : OVTCJ ro'ivvv ^yov^ai ical tirl
TOV auirrjpos Ka\ws av KtxOrjafaOat OTI tixajv dyaOuTTjTOs TOV Ofov taTiv, a\\'
OVK avToayaQuv. Kal Ta\a Kal vlos ayaOos, dAA.' ovx. ws drrAcDs dyaOos. Kal
Siffirtp tlxuv fffTt TOV Otov TOV dopaTOV Kal Kara TOVTO Oeos, d\\' ov irepl ov
\ejfi avTos 6 X/uoroy, tva yivuaKoiai ae TOV povov d\t]6ivov 0t6v OVTCUS IIKUIV
1 82 Origen. [Lect.
Origen hesitatingly suggests the question whether there
may not be in the Father abysses of knowledge, glory,
power beyond all that is given to the Son l . These
however must not be insisted upon. Where he pro-
nounces his real thought, the difference between the
Persons is conceived not as quantitative nor as quali-
tative, but as modal simply. The Son qua Son is
inferior to the Father qua Father.
' Speculate not,' says Gregory Nazianzen, ' upon the
Divine Generation, for it is not safe ... let the doctrine
be honoured silently ... It is a great thing for thee to
know the fact ; the mode we cannot admit that even
ov\ &s o -irarrfp aTra/wAAa/fTwy ayaOos. The best comment
on this passage is afforded by In Matth. xiv. 7, avros yap tanv 6 BaatAeui
rtav ovpavwv, Kal Siatrtp avros kariv 17 avToao<pia Kal f) avToStKaioffvvij Kal 17
avToa\rjOtia, ovrca prjiroTe KOI $ a.vTofiaai\tia. But here again it will be
observed not rb avroayaOov. Now as the whole existence of the Son is
derived from the Father, and He is therefore strictly speaking no more
avroffo(pia than avroayaOov, it will be evident that Origen is here struggling
against his own principles and endeavouring to reduce the doctrine of
Derivation and Subordination, which he had inherited from his predecessors,
to the narrowest limits consistent with the direct teaching of Scripture.
There is a sense even in which the Son may be called the Absolute Good,
if not in respect of God yet in respect of man : ws filv irpbs rbv irarepa tlKwv
fffrtv ayaQ6TT]T05, us S irpbs TO. \otna orrfp 'fj TOV irarpbs dyaOoTTjs irpbs avr6v,
In Matth. xv. 10. What struck later ages as the novelty and audacity of
Origen's doctrine was in truth its archaism and conservatism. ' La verite,
c'est que la pensee d'Origene se meut dans deux directions tout opposees.
Lorsqu'il ne suit que la logique et les idees ou sa fervente piete 1'inclinait,
il va a 1'egalite des personnes divines. Lorsqu'il s'en tient a la tradition . . .
il recule devant les consequences de sa piete et de la logique, et se jette a
1'extremite opposee ; ' Denis, p. in.
1 De Princ. iv. 35, ware Kal \v rtf votiv 6 narrjp nti6v<us KOI rpavorfpcas
teal T(\ttoT(pws vofirai v<f>' iavrov $ virb TOV vlov : In Joann. xxxii. 18 the
glory which the Father has in Himself is greater than that which He has in
His Son. On the other hand, In Joann. i. 27 the Son's knowledge is equal
to that of the Father. Redepenning, ii. 277 sqq. ; Denis, in sqq. ; Ori-
geniana, ii. 2. 19 (Lorn. xxii. p. 172); Bull, ii. 9. At any rate Origen
did not think himself debarred from considering the question.
v.] Subordination. 183
angels understand, much less thou 1 .' It is a wise
admonition, but it is double-edged, and must not be so
applied as to smite Origen alone. Nor indeed is it just
to blame him here for presumption. He could not, he
dared not, shrink back where the word of God led him
on. He could not think that a truth three times at
least pressed upon the Church by Christ Himself might
safely be ignored. To his dauntless spirit these words
of the Master seemed to be not a scandal but a flash of
light. They spoke of the supreme anchor of all our
hopes, the transcendental Goodness of Him from whom
all things ultimately proceed, of that day when Christ
shall render up His Kingdom to the Father, and God,
the Good, shall be all in all. Lastly, let us remember, he
is speaking, though more emphatically than others, the
belief of his time 2 . He was condemned by Jerome and
Justinian ; but he has been acquitted by Athanasius and
theologians of every school to whom history and Scripture
do not speak in vain.
The objections urged in ancient times against Origen's
Subordinationism, objections resting in many cases on
the most serious misapprehension, may for the present
be dismissed 3 . But there is one true consequence of his
view so momentous that it must not be passed over.
I refer to his teaching on the subject of prayer offered to
the Son.
He has declared himself upon this point many times,
1 Orat. xxxv. 29. 30 ; in Migne, xxix. 8.
* See the catena of patristic explanations of John xiv. 28 given by Dr.
Westcott, Gospel of St. John, p. 213, ed. 1882. ' Towards the close of the
fourth century the opinion began to gain currency that the superior greatness
of the Father was referred to the human life of the Son.'
* The curious reader will find them in the Origeniana.
1 84 Origen. [Lect.
especially in the Celsus. 'Away with the advice of
Celsus that we should pray to demons. For we must
pray only to the Supreme God, yes, and we must pray
to the Only-Begotten and Firstborn of every creature,
and beseech Him as our High Priest to offer to His God
and our God, to His Father and the Father of all that
live, our prayers as they come first to Him.' The
meaning of these words is explained at large in the
Treatise upon Prayer. Starting from the text of St.
Paul, ' I exhort therefore that first of all supplications,
prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks be made for
all men 1 ,' he proceeds to draw a distinction between
these four terms. Prayer in its proper sense, he con-
cludes, is that which the soul sends up with clearest
1 I Tim. ii. I : irapcucaXSj ovv irpSirov navrcav iroifTffdai Str/cnis, irpoafvxfe,
vrev(is, evxapiarias virlp iravrcav avOpw-noiv. There is a difficulty in ex-
plaining Origen's meaning because ' prayer ' must be used as the equivalent
- both of tvx'h and of npoatvx'n. E&X 5 ? seems to be regarded as the genus
including these four species. Aerjais is defined rty irtpl (so the English
editor) lAXenrwros rivi fjied' lieealas irtpl rov eaeivov TVX*IV ava.-nt\jmo)i.iwr\v
tvxnv. It is prayer without worship (itpoaKiivrjais}. Intercession is a con-
fident appeal for benefits to oneself or to others, rfjv virb irapprjcriav rtvdk
nKtiova. txovros irepi TIVWV ai<aaiv irpbs Oeov : the difference here lies in the
character of the speaker, it is the address of a son to his father. It should
be added that Origen lays down not only that we must pray to God through
Christ, but that we must not pray to Him in any other way. In the opening
of the eighth book Contra Celsum where Origen is replying to the reproach
of Celsus that the Christian served two Masters and so introduced araais,
hostile division, between the old Deity and the new, he uses of Christ not
merely rtfjidv and Ofpairtvtiv, but fft@tiv, Oprjatceveiv, Sov\evfir, referring to John
v. 23; x. 30; xiv. ii; xvii. 22. Ibid. i. 51 Christ is 6 virb XpiffTiavuiv
irpoffKvvovn(i>os. Worship, the highest adoration, is offered to God through
Christ, and to Christ as He is in, as He is One with the Father. This will
explain the language of the De Oratione where it is said that worship
(irpoaKvi'rjais) belongs to Christ only in a figurative sense, not absolutely or
in His own right. Everywhere Origen's language is the same. With the
fullest recognition of the Divinity of the Son there is the constant warning
that we must not forget that God is our Father and the Father of all that is.
V.] Prayer to Christ. 185
insight for the higher spiritual gifts, and is accompanied
by a Doxology. The three lower forms of petition
may be addressed to men for help or pardon, or to
saints or angels, or to the Holy Spirit or Christ, the
last and highest only to the Father in the Son's
name l .
He does not, it will be observed, forbid the Christian
to pray to Christ as God. He refers to the prayers of
the Penitent Thief, of Stephen, of the father of the
lunatic child, all addressed to the Son and the Son
alone, and he himself prays to the Son in the same
way 2 . We may throw light upon his meaning by refer-
1 Contra Ce!sum,v. 4 ; viii. 13, 26 ; De Orat. 14, 15. The words 'with
clearest insight ' are given as a translation of ueya\o(pv(orepov in De Orat.
14 (Lorn. xvii. 142). It is justified by the observation that (i(ya\o<pv(s is
frequently used of the mystic spiritual sense. Prayer in the sense of suppli-
cation, Sevens, to saints, ibid. (Lorn. xvii. 146), rf)v SJ Strjatv povois dyiots, ft
ns evp(6firj Hav\os f] Tlfrpos, I'va uxpfkriauaiv f)/j.ds diovs notovvrts rov rvxtiv
TTJs SfSofj.ffTjs avroTs tovaias irpos ro afiaprrifjara d(pi(vat. Origen no doubt
regarded this kind of prayer as lawfully offered to saints, whether on earth
or in heaven. As regards the Angels see Contra Celsztm, v. 4; viii. 57, but
especially viii. 13, where Origen says that a sort of Otpairtia may be offered
to the angels if we understand exactly what we mean by the word. In De
Mart. 6, 7 he denies that either \arptia or irpoaKvvrjais could be offered to
Angels, but this language does not exclude prayer provided that in prayer
we do not confound these high servants of the Almighty with their Maker
and Master. In this sense Origen may be said to pray to the guardian
Angel of the newly baptized, In Ezech. Horn. i. 7 (Lorn. xiv. 20), Omnia
angelis plena sunt, veni Angele, suscipe sermone conversum ab errore pristine.
2 Contra Celsum, v. 4, ScrjoofifBa Se Kal avrov rov \6yov /cal fvr(v6fj,t0a avry
nal fvx a piffrrjffofji(v Kal irpooevgofitOa Sf, tdv SwufjitOa Ka-raicovftv rfjs irfpl irpoa-
i/X'7 J icvpio\tias Kal KaTaxpr)ff<us : explained ibid. viii. 26, p6vf(> ycLp itpoatvie-
reov rcf (m iraai 6ty KOI TrpofftvKTtov "ye rw novo-ytvtt teal TtptarorfiKw iraffrjt
Kriaicas, \d~fw 6tov, teal dicuTtov avr&v us dpxitpta rrp> fir' ainov <pOaaaoav ij/xwv
tvxty avafptpttv tnl rov Oeov avrov Kal 8tbv fjfiwv, KCU irartpa avrov Kal irartpa
TUV fiiovvroiv KarcL rov \6yov rov 6fov. Hymns were sung to the Father
and to Christ, Ibid. viii. 67. See also In Exodum, Horn. xiii. 3, Domine
Jesu, praesta mihi ut aliquid monumenti habere merear in tabernaculo tuo :
In Levit. Horn. i. I, ipse igitur nobis Dominus, ipse Spiritus Sanctus depre-
1 86 Origen. [Lect.
ence to his favourite idea of the Epinoiai. We may
address the Saviour, in immediate supplication, for those
boons which it is His special province to bestow. But
in the supreme moment of adoration, when the soul
strains upwards to lay itself as a sacrifice before the
highest object of thought, we must not stop short of
Him who is above all. Such prayer is necessarily
attended by a 'doxology,' a clear recognition of the
Nature of Him before whom we stand, and in the
doxology the Father's Name is first. Origen appeals
to the express command of Jesus, ' Whatsoever ye shall
ask the Father He will give it in My name/ to the usage
of Scripture, and lastly to the usage of the Church.
It is probable that at this very time a change was
creeping into the language of worship. 'Are we not
candus est, ut omnem nebulam, omnemque caliginem, quae peccatorum
sordibns concreta visum nostri cordis obscurat, auferre dignetur : In Levit,
Horn. v. 5, Dominum meum Jesum invocare me oportet ut quaerentem me
faciat invenire et pulsanti aperiat : In Num. Horn. xxv. 3, nos autem oremus
ex corde Verbum Dei, qui est unigenitus eius, et qui revelat Patrem quibus
vult, ut et nobis haec revelare dignetur : In Ezech. Horn. iii. 4, Praesta mihi,
Christe, ut disrumpam cervicalia in animarum consuta luxuriam : In Rom.
viii. 4, Sed et in principio Epistolae, quam ad Corinthios scribit, ubi dicit
1 cum omnibus qui invocant nomen Domini nostri Jesu Christi, in omni loco
ipsorum et nostro,' eum cuius nomen invocatur Dominum (al. Deum) Jesum
Christum esse pronuntiat. Si ergo et Enos et Moses et Aaron et Samuel
' invocabant Dominum et ipse exaudiebat eos,' sine dubio Christum Jesum
Dominum invocabant : et si invocare nomen Domini et orare Dominum
unum atque idem est, sicut invocatur Deus invocandus est Christus, et sicut
oratur Deus ita et orandus est Christus . . . Unum namque utrique honorem
deferendum, id est Patri et Filio, divinus edocet sermo, cum dicit ' ut omnes
honorificent Filium sicut honorificant Patrem.' But this last passage goes
beyond Origen's usual language and may have been amended by Rufinus.
It will be observed that he insists upon the difference between the itvpio\fia
and KaTaxpr/ffts, the absolute and relative sense, of Prayer, and that his own
Prayers to the Son are ejaculatory and brief. The reader may consult
Liicke, De Invocations Jesu Christi in precibus Christianorum accuratius
definienda, Gottingae, 1 843 ; Redepenning, Origenes,\i. 38 sqq. ; Bingham,
xiii. 2. 3.
v.] Prayer to Christ. 187
divided,' he asks, ' if we pray some to the Father, some
to the Son, falling into the error of ignorant men because
we have never enquired into the real nature of what we
are doing l ? ' Strange and innovating as his words may
seem to us, they are really the very opposite of this.
They are a plea for ancient usage in a time of change.
It has been thought that his protest refers specially to
the Eucharist, the Anaphora or Missa Fidelium, in which
for long after this time there was no direct address to
the Son 2 . But in truth it has a wider scope. He is
warning his readers not against excessive devotion to
' the Lord and Saviour Jesus,' for in this Origen himself
yields to none, nor against the fullest belief in Christ's
Divinity, for here also Origen's doctrine, in the judgment
of those most worthy of our deference, stands above
suspicion, but against the language, if I may risk the
1 De Or at. 16.
2 At the time when Gregory the Great introduced the Christe Eleison into
the Roman Mass it was not found in the Greek Liturgies. Greg. Epp. ix.
1 2, Ad Joannem Syracusanum Episcopum : ' Kyrie Eleison autem nos neque
diximus neque dicimus sicut a Graecis dicitur, quia in Graecis simul omnes
dicunt, apud nos autem a clericis dicitur et a populo respondetur, et totidem
vicibus etiam Christe Eleison dicitur, quod apud Graecos nullo modo dicitur.'
The Kyrie Eleison had been introduced into the Western Mass about the be-
ginning of the sixth century ; see Canon 3 of Cone. Vasense III. in Mansi, viii.
727. In the Church of Africa a protest was made at the end of the fourth
century against the insertion of prayers to the Son in the Mass. See the 2ist
of the second series of Canons of the Synod of Hippo held in 393 (Hefele,
vol. ii. p. 398, Eng. trans.) : ' In prayers no one shall address the Son instead
of the Father or the Father instead of the Son, except at the altar, when
prayer shall always be addressed to the Father. No one shall make use of
strange forms of prayer without having first consulted well-instructed brethren.'
Probst, Liturgie, pp. 141 sqq., finds in the four words defined by Origen an
outline of the whole Liturgy. Atrjcrts, he thinks, means the prayers of the
Catechumens and Penitents ; irpoatvxri, the Thanksgiving, Trisagion, and
Confession ; fvrfvts, the Memento ; and ux a P (<Tr( ' a > the Thanksgiving after
Communion. His view is too ingenious, but it seems not unlikely that by
npoatvxn Origen means particularly the prayers that accompanied the
Eucharist.
1 88 Origen. [Lect.
phrase, of partial adoration, which verges on the one
hand towards Noetianism, on the other towards some
form of Gnosticism, that is of moral opposition. Is it
too much to assert that the latter and graver danger has
more than once been perilously near at hand, that the
Father has, in appearance at any rate, been obscured
behind the Son, as the Son in turn behind the Virgin
and the Saints ?
It is curious to observe that Origen himself contributed,
perhaps more than any one else, to direct and feed this
movement by his Commentary and Homilies on the
Song of Songs. He undertook the work with many
misgivings, for he was startled at finding the Greek word
which denotes sexual affection used, as he thought, of the
love between Christ and His mystical Bride. But he
persuaded himself that there is no real difference between
the Eros of poetry and the Agape of the New Testament.
' It matters not therefore which word we use of God.
Nor do I think any one can be blamed if he calls God
Eros, as John called Him Agape. Lastly, I remember
that one of the Saints, Ignatius by name, said of Christ,
" My Eros is crucified ; " nor do I think he should be
censured.' Jerome said of the Homilies on the Canticles
that Origen, who had surpassed all other writers in his
other books, had in this surpassed himself. It gave
welcome expression to what after the triumph of Atha-
nasius was the dominant feeling, and redeemed in some
degree the fame of its author, damaged by his supposed
inclination to Arianism. And thus Origen, the first
pioneer in so many fields of Christian thought, the
father in one of his many aspects of the English Lati-
tudinarians, became also the spiritual ancestor of Bernard,
V.] The Incarnation. 189
the Victorines, and the author of the De Imitatione, of
Tauler and Molinos and Madame de Guyon l .
In Subordinationism, in the theory of the Two Lives,
above all in Allegorism, we may still discern the hand of
Philo. But the influence of the illustrious Jew was far
weaker on Origen than it had been on Clement. No-
where is this emancipation so visible as in the doctrine of
the Incarnation. Greatest of all miracles is this, that the
Very Word and Wisdom of God should have dwelt
within the frame of that Man who appeared in Judaea,
should have been born and wailed as an infant, should
have died and risen again. The understanding of man
is stupefied and knows not whither to turn. If we think
of Him as God, behold He is Man ; if as Man, we see
Him returning from the grave, bearing in triumph the
spoils of conquered death 2 .
Origen's view of the God-Man a term which he first
employed differs from the ordinary view, generally
speaking, only in so far as it is conditioned by his
opinions of the preexistence of the Soul and of the
nature of the resurrection body.
He is the first to speak at large of the Human Soul of
Jesus. Like other souls, it was eternal and eternally
1 See the Prologue to the Commentary on the Song of Songs, and Jerome's
Preface to his translation of the Homilies on the same book. It need
hardly be said that Origen himself remains faithful to the ideal point of
view, and is never betrayed into the imagery of earthly passion used by the
monastic writers on the subject of ' the Bridegroom's Kiss ' and similar
phrases. These widowed spirits transferred to Jesus that ' mortal yearning '
which they were forbidden to indulge towards wife or husband. Hence
the Mysticism of the Middle Ages, so alluring in its finer manifestations, so
revolting, so nearly allied to the most frightful form of hypocrisy in its
coarser shapes.
3 De Princ. ii. 6. a.
1 90 Origen. [Lect.
united with the Word. From the first it received Him
wholly, and clove to Him inseparably. It was like in all
things to all other human souls, free as they, but the
perfection of love, the singleness of worthiness bound it
so closely to the Godhead, that the union of the two may
be compared to a mass of iron glowing for ever with a
white heat. He who should touch the iron would feel not
the iron but the fire. Hence in Scripture we commonly
find the titles proper to the Humanity of our Lord
transferred to His Divinity and conversely. It is the
Communicatio Idiomatum l .
The flesh of Jesus was pure from all birth stain, from
all defilement of every kind 2 . It was real flesh. His
1 De Princ. ii. 6. 4 sqq. ; Injoann. i. 37 ; xx. 17; Contra Celsum, i. 32,
33. Nevertheless the properties of the Two Natures remain in truth
distinct, Contra Celsum, iv. 15 ; vii. 16. Redepenning, ii. 387, points out
that the soul of Christ being sinless was in Origen's theory not a soul at all.
For the word if^x 1 ? is derived fancifully from ^v\o), and explained to mean
'the spirits whose love had grown cold' through their defection from God.
There is certainly an inconsistency here ; but Origen held, as we shall see in
the next Lecture, that many sinless or nearly sinless spirits had assumed
flesh to aid in our redemption. Other difficulties have been raised by those
who are determined to see something unsound in all that Origen wrote. If
the soul of Christ existed before the union, can it be said to have deserved
the union ? Again, ' ex unione hypostatica Verbi cum anima aut peccatrice
aut quae peccare et damnari potuisset sequereter de Verbo sic ei unito idem
ob communionem idiomatum dici posse,' see the Origeniana. This how-
ever is absurd. According to Origen the soul of Christ was created sinless
but free. It was in the same position as the soul of Adam before the Fall,
and by its union with the Word was removed" for ever from the possibility of
sin. Origen proves the existence of Christ's human soul partly by Scripture,
'e.g. Matth. xxvi. 38, 'My soul is exceeding sorrowful,' partly by the con-
sideration that it was necessary as a link of connection between the Godhead
and the Flesh, see De Princ. ii. 6.
a In Levit. Horn. xii. 4. Hence when, as In Levit. Horn. ix. 6, Origen
regards the High Priest Joshua ' clothed in filthy garments ' (Zech. iii. 3) as
a type of the Incarnation, we must understand him to be speaking merely of
the Saviour's humiliation. This is expressly stated In Lucam, Horn, xiv,
' ut autem scias Jesum quoque sordidatum sentiendum secundum ignominiam
V.] The Incarnation. 191
Life, His Passion were in no sense fantastic 1 . So real
was His Body that we cannot accept in the literal sense
the story of His being carried up into a mountain by the
Tempter 2 . But as the pellucent alabaster vase shows
the fire within, so the flesh of Jesus was at times suffused
by the glory of the indwelling Deity. So it was espe-
cially at the Transfiguration, so it was according to an
ancient tradition throughout the year of His ministry.
Some saw but the figure without grace or comeliness of
the carpenter's son, but those whose eyes were opened
by the Spirit discerned the beauty of the Word flashing
through the veil of matter. Hence it came to pass that
the followers of Judas at the Betrayal knew not who He
was ; the darkness of their own souls was projected
upon the features of Him they sought. In this beautiful
fancy we may perhaps recognise the last faint trace of
Docetism 3 .
crucis, non secundum ipsam quam assumpsit sanctam camem.' So again, In
Levit. Horn. viii. 2, the law of purification applies to every woman ' quae
susceperit semen et pepererit.' The last words are intended to exclude the
Virgin. See also In Rom. vi. 1 2.
1 Contra Celsum, iii. 23 ; iv. 19. As Man He was not aTrafairXws airafljfc,
as Clement taught : icaOb 5% avOpornos TJV, iravrbs fj.d\\ov dvOpuirov KfKOffnijutvos
TTJ aicpa nfToxy TOV avro\6^ov KCU. rijs avroootyias, virffiftvtv ws ffo<f>tis teal
Tf\tios arrfp i\pr)v virof^tLvai rbv vit\p iravr&s TOV ytvovs ruiv avBp&nroJv, ff ical
rSiv XoyiK&v, uavra irpdrrovra, Contra Celsum, vii. 17. He suffered sorrow
at Gethsemane, In Matth. Comm. Series, 92 ; temptation, In Luc. Horn,
xxix.
2 De Princ. iv. 16, Quod secundum literam quomodo fieri potuisse
videbitur, ut vel in excelsum montem ednceretur a diabolo Jesus, vel etiam
carnalibus oculis eius tanquam subiecta, et adiacentia uni monti omnia
mundi ostenderet regna.
s In Matth. Com. Series, 100; Contra Celsum, ii. 64. Connected with
this perhaps is his refusal to accept the ancient view that the human form of
Jesus was wanting in beauty or dignity. See Contra Celsum, vi. 75, where
he contrasts Is. liii. 1-3 with Psalm xlv. 3, 4, -nepifaaai TTJV po^<paiav oov
firl TOV ftrjpov ffov, Swart, rrj uipau.6rrjTi aov ital ry icd\\n ffov. Origen
appears to have thought that Jesus resembled John the Baptist in features,
192 Origen. The Ascension.
Jesus truly rose from the dead, not in this flesh but in
that glorified Body of which St. Paul speaks. Pure as
it is, as it was,, it is the Body of our Brother, and our
High Priest may be said to need purification for the sins
of the people that are laid upon Him 1 . Hence the
mysterious ' Touch Me not.' ' At even He washed His
garment in wine, that is His blood.' ' It was necessary
that my Lord and Saviour should not only be born
among men but also descend into hell, that as a man
prepared He might lead the scapegoat into the wilder-
ness, and returning thence, His work being now achieved,
might ascend to the Father, and there be purified more
fully at that heavenly altar, that He might endow with
perpetual purity the pledge of our flesh which He had
carried up with Him.'
hence the mistake of Herod, Matth. xiv. 2 ; In Joann. vi. 30. He was
baptized in the month of January ; In Ezech. Horn. i. 4.
1 In Levit. Horn. ix. 5 ; In Joann. vi. 37. Redepenning therefore is
wrong in speaking of Origen 's 'Auflosung der menschlichen Natur des Herrn
bei der Erhohung desselben.' Whatever criticisms attach to Origen's view of
the Resurrection of men attach also to his view of the Resurrection of Jesus,
but no others.
LECTURE VI.
That God may be all in all. i COR. xv. 28.
CREATION, as the word is commonly understood, was
in Origen's views not the beginning, but an intermediate
phase in human history. Aeons rolled away before this'
world was made ; aeons upon aeons, days, weeks, months
and years, sabbatical years, jubilee years of aeons will
run their course, before the end is attained.
The one fixed point in this gigantic drama is the end,
for this alone has been clearly revealed, ' God shall be
all in all.' There will come a time when man, com-
pletely subjected to Christ by the operation of the Holy
Ghost, shall in Christ be completely subjected to the
Father. But now, he adds, the end is always like the
beginning 1 . The manifold diversity of the world is to
close in unity, it must then have sprung from unity.
1 De Princ. i. 6. 2, Semper enim similis est finis initiis, et ideo sicut
unus omnium finis, ita unus omnium intelligi debet initium. The end of
all intelligent work is perfection ; it cannot be regarded as ended till per-
fection is attained. ' Finis vel consummatio rerum perfectarum consumma-
tarumque esse videtur indicium.' But the beginning is the desire of perfection ,
and though absolute Wisdom plans the beginning in such a way that it
carries within itself the means of its own fulfilment, each stage in the de-
velopment is preparatory to all that follow, and in this sense inferior to
them, and in this sense evil, relatively evil and relatively good. Even in
God's work then it is not strictly true that the end is always like the be-
ginning. The caution given by Origen at the commencement of this
chapter applies to all his speculations outside the letter of the Creed and
must never be forgotten : ' Nunc autem disputandi specie, magis quam
definiendi, prout possumus, exercemnr.' Compare i. 6. 4, Certius tamen
qualiter se habitura sit res, scit solus Deus, et si qui eius per Christum et
Spiritum Sanctum amici sunt ; ii. 6. 6, Si quis sane melius aliquid poterit
invenire, et evidentioribus de Scripturis sanctis assertionibus confirmare quae
dicit, ilia potius quam haec recipiantur. Innumerable passages of the same
O
1 94 Origen. [Lect.
His expansion of this theory is in fact an elaborate
commentary upon the eighth chapter of the Epistle to
the Romans and the fifteenth chapter of the First
Epistle to the Corinthians. These he felt were the
two keys, the one to the eternity before, the other to
the eternity after.
What is it that we see ? A vast creation orderly and
beautiful, yet manifestly out of joint. Everywhere the
order is crossed and marred, yet the disorder is not
intentional. It is that of an organism striving to shake
off a mortal disease. The soul wrestles with the body,
and the thrill of man's agony is felt by the great system
of which he is a member. ' The whole creation groaneth
and travaileth together in pain until now.' What do
these words mean? If we look upwards, we see Sun,
Moon and Stars, intelligent creatures like ourselves,
condemned to minister to our needs, nourishing the
fruits of earth for our subsistence, marking the seasons
for our direction. If we search the Scriptures, we read
of Angels and Archangels, who are all of them ' min-
istering spirits.' So 'the creature was made subject
unto vanity,' ordained to help the vain and corruptible
body of man, not willingly, but by reason of God who
hath subjected the same in hope. And the hope is ' the
manifestation of the sons of God,' the day when those
things shall be revealed, which God has prepared for
those who shall deserve to be His Sons, or when, the
veil being taken away, it shall be known that they are
His Sons. Nay the trouble of sin reaches higher still.
kind might be cited, but these will suffice. The reader will understand that
Origen never dogmatises. This point is insisted upon by Pamphilus in the
Apologia.
VI.] Disorder of Nature. 195
As yet even the Saviour will not ' drink wine ' in the
kingdom of God. He will not drink it, for He is alone.
He waits for us. He will not receive His perfect glory
without thee, that is without His people, which is His
Body. Thus all evil is resolved into sin. And sin is not
isolated or individual. For all intelligent creatures are
knit together in a solidarity so close, that the defect
of one clouds the felicity and impedes the energies of all.
But again, we see apparent injustice. Everywhere
there is inequality. Star differeth from star in glory.
Among the angels themselves there are grades thrones,
dominations, princedoms, powers there are even those
who have fallen wholly from their high estate. On
earth it is the same. One man is born within the fold
of God's Church, another in polished Athens, a third
is a lawless Scythian or a cannibal Ethiope. There are
the wise man and the fool, the rich and the poor, the
civilised and the squalid savage. Everywhere Jacob is
chosen, while Esau is cast out. The facts of life led
the Gnostics to predestination, the sense of violated
justice to the belief in conditional immortality. But it
appeared to Origen, that the equity of God was imper-
fectly vindicated by a theory, which assigned to the
majority of mankind a life of misery rounded off by
annihilation. Thus opposition to Gnosticism becomes
the motive of his practical theology, as it was also of
his exegesis. Yet on one main point he is in agreement
with the great Gnostic chief Basilides. Evil flows from
precedent evil. But, as differences of circumstance and
faculty are congenital, it follows that this life must be re-
garded as the continuation of one that has gone before l .
1 For the foundation of the preceding sections, see De Princ. ii. 9 ; In
o a
1 96 Origen. [Lect.
Whence then comes Evil? Not from God, for God
would then not be God. Not from Matter, for this is
another form of fatalism, leading directly to the hope-
less Stoic doctrine, that the quantity of evil is fixed and
unalterable. It must then be the work of man l .
In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth, that is the perfect heavens and earth, and peopled
this world with Intelligences, forming in the Son the
Rom. vii. 4 sqq. ; In Num. Horn, xxiii. 2 ; In Lev. Horn. vii. 2 ; Denis,
Philosophic d'Origine, chapter on Cosmologie ; Redepenning, ii. 315 sqq.;
Guerike, ii. 185 sqq. ; Harnack, pp. 539 sqq.
1 On the Stoic doctrine, see Lecture vii. It was held also by some at
any rate of the Platonists, as for instance Celsus. So Contra Celstim, iv. 62,
naica 5' iv roTs ovffiv ovre TrpoffOev, ovrf vvv, ovre avOts ffrrca Kal trXeicii yevotr'
av. Mia fap rj -rSiv o\cw <pv<Jts Kal r) avrrj, ical KaKwv ytveffis ad 17 avrr). The
same fatal notion is at the bottom of the smiling toleration of M. Aurelius.
To philosophers of this school nothing is intolerable but enthusiasm.
Celsus continues, ' It is not easy for any one but a philosopher to understand
the nature of evil ;' Ibid. 65. Origen replies, ' It is not easy even for the
philosopher, nor perhaps possible \av ^77 Ofov (irnrvota. Evil is not of God,
nor yet of matter, rb yap etcaarov faftfuvutbr atnov rrjs vwoffTairrjs tv avrw
Kaxias tariv, ijns effri TO KUKOV,' Ibid. 66. The subject is recurred to Ibid.
vi. 54 sqq. Virtue and Vice are good and evil Kvpicas. Bodily goods or
ills, ra TTporjff^fva, diroTrprirjyfMfva, are good or evil KaraxprjaTLKwrepov. To
these latter refers Isaiah xlv. 7. 'Evil then, if by the word we understand
that which is essentially evil, God did not create, though some evils, few in
number if compared with the order of the whole world, followed as a con-
sequence upon the plan of His work, just as spiral shavings and sawdust
follow as a consequence upon the plan of a carpenter's work, just as builders
seem to "make " the heaps of broken stone and mortar that are left lying by
the side of their buildings.' As to evils then in the secondary sense, we may
admit that God is their author, iVo SicL TOVTOJV eniarpi^ TIVO.S, as similar
so-called evils are caused by fathers, teachers, surgeons, for corrective pur-
poses. Of moral evil Origen speaks sometimes as if it were positive, some-
times as if it were negative. De Princ. ii. 9. 2, Certum namque est malum
esse bono carere ; but again just below, in contrarium boni, quod sine
dubio malum est, trahebatur. But God does not know evil or the evil man.
Tnis is illustrated by the words, 'Adam, where art thou?' of Gen. iii. 9.
This is- from Philo, cf. In Psalm, i. 6 (Lorn. xi. 392) with Leg. Alleg. iii. 17
(i. 97). See also below, p. 200. For the mode in which God brings good
out of evil the reader should turn to In Num. Horn. xiv. 2, one of the finest
passages in all Origen.
VI.] Creation. The Fall. 197
ideas, which were then realised by the Son as Agent *.
The Intelligences were limited in number, for Wisdom
is finite, and cannot comprehend the infinite. Except
the Holy Trinity nothing is incorporeal. Each of the
created spirits had from the first an envelope, a principle
of differentiation, a body, adapted to the nature of its
environment, at first then of fine ethereal texture fitted
in all respects for its celestial habitation. The spirits
were equal and like, but they were free. Some sinned
and fell, some remained stedfast in their first estate, or
rose to higher levels of power and goodness. The latter
are the stars, the angels in the various degrees of their
hierarchy. Of those who rebelled some became devils,
fiends or archfiends, according to the manifold pro-
portions of their transgression. But those whose error
was less, whose love of God is cold yet not extinct (it
is one of Origen's fanciful etymologies 2 ), turned into
' souls,' better or worse according as the faculties of
sense and desire gained the upper hand over the in-
telligence. For these at any rate there is hope of resti-
tution, yet only through chastisement. The appointed
scene of their discipline is this world, a later and grosser
model of the first. It is infinitely various, to afford scops
for the treatment proper to every phase of character, ' like
a great house, in which are vessels of gold and silver,
of wood and clay, some to honour and some to dis-
honour.' ' Wherefore neither will the Creator seem
1 De Princ. ii. 9. Philo and Clement explained the first verse of Genesis of
the creation of the Ideal World. To Origen it denotes the creation of the first,
the perfect, but still material world. Thus he tells us of two creations and
if we may add the creation of Ideas in the Son (see above, p. 169), of three.
2 ^!\i\i), from tyvx<>>, to make cold. Plato, Cratylus, 399 E, suggests the
same derivation in a different sense. It is called ^fx 1 ? because it avaif,vxti
198 Origen. [Lect.
unjust, when He distributes to each his earthly lot, nor
will any "one think, that birth happy or unhappy is ruled
by chance, nor that there are different creators, nor that
souls have different natures.'
Origen rejected the Platonic doctrine of Metempsy-
chosis 1 , but he adopted that of pre-existence, and that
which ascribes a soul to the stars. Both he found in
Philo, and both were' regarded as open questions in
the Church 2 . It is not necessary to dwell at any length
upon the philosophic difficulties attending his theory.
He has not attempted to get rid of the break of con-
1 Origen no doubt held that at the Resurrection the soul passes from one
body into another. He himself insisted that the Resurrection body was in
a true sense the same as the body of this life, but it is open to any one to
argue that he has not proved the identity. See further on in this Lecture.
But Metempsychosis in the sense of a migration of the soul into another
human body or into the body of a beast, a plant, and so forth in another
life on this same earth (and this is the only meaning of the word) he cer-
tainly did not hold ; see Contra Celsum, iv. 7 ; v. 49 ; viii. 30 ; In Rom. v.
I ; vi. 8 ; In Mat. x. 20 ; xi. 17 ; xiii. i ; In Joan. vi. 7. Yet Justinian
and Jerome charged him with asserting it. Unfortunately the passage on
which their accusation is based, De Princ. i. 8. 4 ad fin., has been modified
by Rufinus. A fragment of the Greek will be found in the Ad Menam, a
Latin abstract in Jerome's Ep. ad Avitum. Both are given in the footnote
in Lommatzsch. Jerome himself allows that Origen concluded his dis-
cussion with the words ' haec iuxta nostram sententiam non sint dogmata,
sed quaesita tantum atque proiecta, ne penitus intractata viderentur.'
Proiecta here means ' rejected ;' ' discussionis gratia dicta sint, et abiiciantur'
is the version of Pamphilus, Apologia, ix. ad fin. Pamphilus adds that
the words objected to were not Origen's own but were put into the mouth
of an adversary or interlocutor. See Origeniana, ii. 6. 17 sqq. ; Denis,
pp. 19 s qq-
2 He found them also in Scripture. Psalm cxlviii. 3, ' Praise Him, all ye
stars of light;' Job xxv. 5, ' The stars are not pure in his sight.' Neither
Jerome nor Augustine ventures to deny that the stars may have souls.
Ambrosius agrees with Origen, and even Aquinas regards the question as
open ; Origeniana, ii. 8. 2 sqq. The great support of the pre-existence
doctrine was John ix. 2, ' Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that
he was born blind?' Jerome himself at one time held pre-existence.
Augustine did not deny it, and down to the time of Gregory the Great the
VI.] Inherent Difficulties. 199
sciousness between the two lives, as Plato did, by the
idea of partial reminiscence *. Yet if in this life we have
no recollection of what happened to us before our birth,
why it may be asked should we have any knowledge,
in a future existence, of what befell us here on earth?
What is the value of a schooling, in which each lesson
is forgotten as soon as learned ? Again, if the soul ac-
cording to his fanciful etymology is the 'cold' sen-
sualised intelligence, how does this agree with what
he tells us about the sinless soul of Jesus ? These are
minor flaws, but there is one of a far more serious kind.
If the spirits were all alike, all subject to precisely the
same , conditions, why did any fall away ? Because, he
tells us, they were free. But this is no answer. What
is the faculty, which can thus oscillate between perfect
virtue and vice ? What is this mysterious paralysis, but
the very fatalism he is struggling to avoid? In the
Phaedrns myth the souls are neither pure nor equal ;
the unruly steed Desire is yoked from the first by the
side of Reason, and the charioteer who cannot curb his
wanton plunges, is flung down from the cope of heaven.
This did not satisfy Origen's craving for justice. But
all he could accomplish by. his departure from Plato was
to push the insoluble problem a step farther back, and
to stereotype Clement's vicious theory of the indiffer-
entism of the Will.
But there were other difficulties arising out of the
question remained undecided. See his Epistles, vii. 53 ; Origeniana, ii.
6. 8 sqq. Mr. Neale, Holy Eastern Church, i. p. 36, regards the belief in
pre-existerice as erroneous but not heretical.
1 The only passage, so far as I know, where Origen hints at the doctrine
of Anamnesis is De Orat. 24 (Lorn. xvii. p. 186), ray -re rpavuiv KOI ra
irf pi TOV Ofov u7ro/ti/W7jcr/fTai fj.d\\ov rj fj.avOa.vtt, KO.V dir6 TWOS aicovfiv 60/07,
ff evpiffKfiv von'ify TO, TTJS OtoatlBtias fjtvffrrjpia.
2OO Origen. [Lect.
language of Scripture itself. Most perplexing, in view
of the Alexandrine theory of Freedom, were the words
of St. Paul, ' Whom He did foreknow He did also pre-
destinate.' The passage was at this time the sword
of Gnosticism, as at a later date, by one of those singu-
lar exchanges of weapons that have often occurred in
the chance medley of controversy, it became the sword
of Augustinianism. But Origen could admit neither
election nor reprobation. If, he argues, God predestines
only those whom He foreknows, it follows that He does
not foreknow those whom He does not predestine. This
is absurd. We are compelled therefore to drop the
preposition. Foreknow is the same as know, know in
countless passages of Scripture is equivalent to love.
God knows only the good, whom He loves ; of evil He
has no knowledge. Again, ' whom He did predestinate
them He also called according to purpose.' According,
that is, to their own purpose; or if according to the
purpose of God, then because He knew that they
desired salvation. Origen in fact held that man is
free in such a sense that God Himself cannot foresee
what he may choose to do J .
1 The passage cited in the text is In Rom. vii. 8, with which should be
read the preceding chapter. Here Origen expressly denies foreknowledge
in the ordinary sense of the word. ' Non enim secundum communem vulgi
opinionem putandum est bona malaque praescire Deum, sed secundum
Scripturae sanctae consuetudinem sentiendum . . . "Novit enim Deus
eos qui sunt eius "... Caeteri autem praesciri non dicuntur ; non
quod aliquid latere possit illam naturam quae ubique est et nusquam
deest, sed quia omne quod malum est scientia eius vel praescientia ha-
betur indignum (see above, p. ic,6). Sed et hoc intuere si praescire et
praedestinare dici potest Deus de his qui nondum sunt, an de his qui sunt
quidem, nondum tamen conformes sunt imaginis Filii sui ; et si praesci-
entiam in hoc magis esse convenit, quam in eo quod futurum sit id quod
nondum est. In hoc enim voluntas magis est quam praescientia conditoris.
Nam praescientia in quo videbitur, cum id quod futurum est pendeat in
'VI.] Predestination. Grace. 201
Another text which distressed him beyond measure
was 'whom He will He hardeneth.' But even these
terrible words he thought he could explain. Let us
remember, he says, how the kindness of a lenient
master makes the bad slave worse, how the same sun-
shine melts the wax but hardens the clay. God may
be said to harden the sinner in this sense, that the
contemptuous disregard of His goodness produces hard-
ness. Or again, He hardens the wicked man, inasmuch
as He abandons him, withdrawing from him His fatherly
chastisements, and deferring the cure of his sins to the
next life. And this is doubtless right, better for the
sinner himself. For God alone knows both the disease
and the remedy, and can measure out the time of
healing l .
The same considerations determine his view of Grace,
which is that of Clement. God perpetually incites,
surrounds, sustains, rewards, but does not constrain
factoris arbitrio ?' Then follows the passage the sense of which is given in
the text. Origen continues, ' Hoc ergo pacto neque in praescientia Dei vel
salutis vel perditionis nostrae causa consistit, neque justificatio ex sola voca-
tione pendebit, neque glorificari de nostra penitus potestate sublatum est.'
But, he adds, if foreknowledge be taken in the ordinary sense of the word,
' Non propterea erit aliquid quia id scit Deus futurum, sed quia futurum est
scitur a Deo antequam fiat.' Language more in accordance with the general
view is to be found In Rom. i. 2,3, 18 sqq. ; De Oral. 6. Jansen, who in
his Augustinus vehemently attacked Origen's doctrine of predestination,
complains that he makes election depend ' ex praevisis hominum meritis '
and vocation proceed ' secundum propositum hominis non Dei.' Huet
replies that the first proposition is still open in the Catholic Church, and
that the second was maintained by Chrysostom and Theodoret, Origeniana,
ii. 7. But neither Huet nor Jansen appears to grasp the full scope of
Origen's teaching. Semi-Pelagianism was merely his Sevrtpus ir\ovs, the
second line of defence on which he fell back if foreknowledge was to be
taken in the vulgar sense of the word.
1 De Princ. iii. i. 7 sqq. ; Fragment from Comm. in Exodum in Philo-
calia, xxvii. It should be borne in mind that all these passages were
Gnostic strongholds.
2O2 Origen. [Lect.
the will. To use the language of a later time, Grace
is prevenient, concomitant, peculiar, but not efficacious.
We must go to Christ, that He may open our eyes.
'As if,' retorts Bishop Huet, 'the will, that makes us
go, were not given to us by God.' ' But,' replies Origen,
' he who does not know his sickness, cannot seek the
physician, or, if healed, will not thank the physician.'
And if pressed with the text ' God worketh in us both
to will and to do,' he will answer, that the Apostle
means the general faculty, not the special determination
of volition 1 .
A further and still more serious difficulty arises out
of the doctrine of Original Sin. This tenet is found
in Irenaeus and Tertullian, but not in Clement 2 or the
De 'Princifiis, and we may perhaps infer, that Origen
did not seriously consider the question, or perceive
its bearing upon his other views, till after his settlement
at Caesarea. There he found the practice of Infant
Baptism, with which the doctrine of birth-sin is closely
connected, in general use, and the difficulty at once
pressed upon his mind. The Church, he says, in
obedience to a tradition received from the Apostles,
1 De Princ. iii. i. 19. I shall recur to the Alexandrine doctrine of
Grace in Lecture viii, and it will therefore be sufficient here to refer to
Origeniana, ii. 7, with the Excursus from De la Rue given in Lommatzsch,
xxiii. p. 333.
3 See Irenaeus, iii. 2 2 sq. ; Tertullian, De Anima, xli. Neither regarded
the depravation consequent upon Original Sin as absolute. Justin is wrongly
referred to by Bingham ; see the note in Otto's ed. p. 320, on Trypho,
88. Justin held that before Baptism men are children of necessity ; Af. \.
61, Otto, p. 166. Theodotus and the Homilies also teach that before the
birth of Christ men were creatures of Necessity. That is to say, being
ignorant and weak, they were doomed to sin. But there is no connection
between this frailty of nature and the sin of Adam. Fragment 5, Otto,
vol. iii. 256, is wrongly ascribed to Justin. For Clement's doctrine, see
Lecture iii.
VI.] Original Sin. 203
baptizes even infants. ' For those, to whom are com-
mitted the secrets of the divine mysteries, know, that
there is in every human being a real stain of sin, which
must be washed away by water and the Spirit 1 .'
But whence comes this stain? It is sufficiently ac-
counted for by the doctrine of pre-existence, and at times
Origen appears to rest in this explanation. But there
are traces in Scripture, which point in a different direc-
tion, and when these are before his mind he stumbles
and hesitates. Such was the Law of Purification. We
see from this, that a certain impurity attaches to birth,
though what this can be is a great mystery. So David
says ' in sin hath my mother conceived me,' showing
that every soul, that is born in the flesh, is polluted by the
filth and iniquity of sin. Occasionally Origen seems to
apply these words to the material uncleanness of the
body, for in his system the flesh is more nearly akin to
evil than in that of Clement. But the notion of physical
pollution runs up into that of moral guilt. ' If there were
nothing in little children to call for remission and indul-
gence, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous 2 .'
And this is connected with the Fall. Our body is the
' body of sin,' because Adam's children were not born till
after his disobedience 3 .
Other passages again speak of heredity, of transmitted
qualities of body and mind. There are ' families,' we
read, in heaven and on earth. Souls have ' marks,' which
1 In Rom. v. 9.
3 In Lev. Horn. viii. 3. In this passage Origen makes the curious remark
that in Scripture we read of none but wicked men celebrating their birthday.
He regarded the body and its affections with fastidious disgust, In Rom. vii.
4. but he distinguishes the physical uncleanness of birth from sin, In Lev.
Horn. xii. i ; In Lucam, Horn. xiv.
3 In Rom. v. 9.
204 Origen. [Lect.
express themselves through the body in the face, in the
handwriting 1 . The difference here thought of is one of
texture rather than of kind. Peter and Paul are both
-good men, but the goodness of each has its own peculiar
colour. But again, we read of the ' seed of Abraham V
The soul then has a pedigree as well as the body. As
the latter reproduces the features of this or that of its
countless ancestors, so the former comes into life bringing
with it ' spermatic germs ' of good and evil. It may be,
that he conceived of the soul as waiting till a body like
itself and fit for its reception should be born 3 , but he
has not cleared up this point. And probably heredity
as regards the soul is a figure of speech, denoting merely
affinities, which the soul creates for itself. For he refers
us for its explanation to the doctrine of pre-existence.
But it is evident, that we have here two radically incon-
gruous trains of thought..
But there are places, where his vacillation is more con-
spicuous still. Writing against Celsus he treats the Fall
as a pure allegory. Adam is Man. His sin is a mystical
presentation of the defection of the souls, that fell away
from God. The ' coats of skins ' may perhaps be the
bodies, in which they were clothed on their expulsion
from Paradise 4 . Yet again, ' The Lord God expelled
1 In Num. Horn. ii.
2 In Joan. xx. i sqq.
3 This is the opinion of Redepenning, ii. 21, but he rests it upon a wrong
explanation of Origen's commentary on the Parable of the Labourers in the
Vineyard, In Matt. xv. 31.
* Contra Celstim, iv. 40. He is replying to the scoff of Celsus that ' God
made one man with his own hands and could not persuade that one to do
right.' Again, In Lev. Horn. vi. 2, the ' coats of skins ' are a symbol of
mortality. Julius Casianus, a Gnostic teacher, gave this explanation ; see
Clement, Strom, iii. 14. 95. It is found also in the Kabbalah, Ginsburg,
p. 30, and no doubt comes from a Rabbinical source.
VI.] Original Sin. 205
Adam from Paradise, and planted him in this earth.
This was the punishment of his sin, which without doubt
has extended to all men. For all of us have been set in
this place of humiliation, this valley of tears, whether
because all Adam's descendants were in the first father's
loins and banished with him, or whether each, one is
thrust out of Paradise in some other way ineffable and
known to God alone 1 .' The latter words are a salvo,
but it is evident that Origen is here on the very point of
abandoning the belief in pre-existence with all its con-
sequences.
Hence men are evil not only because they are ' the
sons and disciples of sinners 2 ,' but by the entailed sin of
the first father. Yet not all alike. Some stainless spirits,
like that of John the Baptist, have been sent down to
labour for us ; some not wholly pure have descended for
our sakes lower than the law of their own purification
required 3 . And even in ordinary men Origen was far
from admitting a complete depravation. By Adam's sin
death, that is spiritual death, entere^d into the world and
' passed upon ' all, affected that is with some touch of its
contagion even the just. But it ' reigned ' over none but
those, who sinned after the similitude of Adam's trans-
gression. The sense of the last words is doubtful. They
may have a mystical meaning, that is they may refer to
the character of the antenatal sin. Or they may denote
1 In Rom. v. 4 ad Jin. Compare In Joan. xx. 21 (Lorn. ii. p. 257 .
Rut In Joan. xx. 3, it is still a question among some whether Adam is to be
reckoned among the righteous or the unrighteous. The author of the
Homilies vehemently asserts the former. Injerem. Horn. xvi. 4, the sin of
Adam was not so grave as the sin of Cain.
3 In Rom. v. i (^Lom. vi. 342).
3 The KaOoSos ruiv (vyevtarepcav if/vx&v, In Joan. xiii. 43 ad Jin. ; 'cp.
Ibid. ii. 24, 25 ; In Matt. xii. 30; Origeniana, ii. 5. 24.
206 Origen. [Lect.
our inherited wickedness, or the evil imprinted on us by
bad education. 'In any case Christ has provided a
remedy. Our mortal generation is changed by the
regeneration of Baptism, and the doctrine of piety shuts
out the doctrine of impiety V
Thus Theology finally triumphs over Ethics. Clement's
Apathy is a Stoic phantasm ; his language is loose and
presumptuous, but it breathes a joyous confidence in the
assured victory of good over evil even in this world.
Origen looks habitually on the darker side. Life is an
expiation. Earth is a prison house. Man may be just
and holy compared with his fellow-men or even with
angels, but never in comparison with God. The son of
God indeed is not the servant of sin ; he sins, but he is
not a sinner. Or again, ' he that believes sins not, that is
to say falls not into sins unto death.' But ' if any man
say that he has no sin, he is a liar, and the truth is not
in him.' ' I do not think any one's heart can become so
pure, that thoughts of evil never stain it.' There will
come a time, when Jesus will ' wash our heads,' but the
time is not yet. Such thoughts necessarily colour his
view of Grace and Redemption, even where his language
seems to be the same as that of Clement 2 .
1 In Rom. v. i. Origen, it should be observed, omitted the negative in
Rom. v. 14. But he remarks that the reading twi rovs ^ d/MprTjffavTas
was found in some copies. In the Commentary on Romans Origen appears
to accept almost without reserve the literal sense of the story of the P'all.
On the question of Original Sin, see Origeniana, ii. 7. 24.
2 In Joan. xix. 6, ris ovv dpa tarlv o iriartvoiv, rj 6 irt-novQujs (K TOV SiaKtiaQcu.
Kara TOV \6yov xal avfj.Trf>vKtvai avrw rb JJLT) inirffftiaOat av, offov ftrl TOVTOIS
TOIS PATOIS, th TO. \f-^6(ji(va irpos Oavarov tlvai afjLapTrjfuiTa. So In Rom. he
distinguishes ' peccatorem esse' from 'peccare.' In Rom. i. i, Qni etenim in
carne quis positus adipisci integram libertatem ut in nullo iam serviat carni ?
sicut nee adoptionem filiorum quis in corpore positus habere ex integro
potest ; Ibid. v. 9, Nam omnino ex integro nescire peccatum solius Christi
VI.] Laws of Natiire and of Moses. 207
Looking back over history Origen distinguished three
separate progressive revelations of God, the Natural Law,
the Law of Moses, and the Gospel. A fourth is still to
come. It is the Eternal Gospel.
The first two we may pass over with brief notice. His
view is substantially that of Clement, though with a sweep
of imagination reminding us of Hooker and Wordsworth
he regards the Natural Law, the ' stern daughter of the
voice of God,' as swaying not men only, but angels and
stars. But he places the Gentile 1 and even the Jew
est ; In Jesu Nave, Horn. xxi. 2, Non puto cniquam tantum in corde
puritatis evenire ut nunquam adversae cogitationis contagione maculetur.
See also the commentary on Jesus washing the disciples' feet, In Joan, xxxii.
ad in. The passages referred to by Huet, Orig. ii. 7. 18, where sinlessness
is attributed to the perfect Christian, are all to be understood in this light.
1 The Natural Law, the Law of Conscience, is tfonos opposed to 6 No/xoy,
the Mosaic Law, In Rom. iii. 7 ; it is the Law which binds men, angels and
all reasonable creatures, In Rom. v. I. Commenting on the words 'there
is none that doeth good, no, not one,' ' What none,' he asks, ' who sheltered
a stranger, or gave bread to the hungry, or clothed the naked, or rescued the
innocent from the gripe of the oppressor ? I do not think that Paul the
Apostle wished to make so incredible a statement.' But a man is said
irotftv xpijffTOTTjra, as he might be said to build a house. If he has only got
together material, or laid the foundations, or built a room or two, he has
not built a house. ' Ita arbitror et hie Apostolum dicere neminem fecisse
bonitatem, hoc est a nullo earn ad perfectum et ad integrum consumma-
tam,' In Rom. iii. 3. Again, the Gentile who has followed the guidance of
the law of reason, ' licet alienus a vita videatur aeterna, quia non credit
Christo, et intrare non possit in regnum coelorum, quia renatus non est ex
aqua et Spiritu, videtur tamen quod per haec quae dicuntur ab Apostolo
bonorum operum gloriam et honorem et pacem perdere penitus non possit,'
In Rom. ii. 7. There is a reward for him, then, though not the highest.
See also iii. 6. Jansen, who held the absolute reprobation of the heathen,
found great fault with Origen here. In the passage quoted above the
Gentiles are excluded from the 'kingdom of Keaven,' the Beatific Vision,
because they do not believe in Christ. This is modified, though it is doubt-
ful to what precise extent, by what we read elsewhere. Thus, In Matt.
Comm. Series, 39 (Lorn. iv. 271), Quid autem dicamus de Britannis aut
Germanis qui sunt circa Oceanum, vel apud Barbaros Dacas et Sarmatas et
Scythas, quorum plurimi nondum audierunt evangelii verbum, audituri sunt
2o8 Origen. [Lect.
decidedly lower in the scale of God's favour. We may
say that his idea of development is not so clear or serene.
' History tells us,' he says, ' that the wickedness of the
world is greater than it was V He would not go so far as
to allow that the Greek was 'justified ' by his philosophy.
To his mind there is a certain breach of continuity, though
probably he would not have admitted this. The Gospel
is not the natural crown of Reason and the Law, but
rather a remedy for their failure 2 .
Again, as regards the Gospel itself there are numerous
differences. On one side Origen is far more evangelical,
on another far more ecclesiastical than his master. He
speaks like Clement of the Two Lives, but as we have
already noticed in a very different way ; he no longer
autem in ipsa saeculi consummatione ? This was proved by Matth.
xxiv. 14.
1 Contra Celsum, iv. 63.
* In Rom. v. 6, ' Law (there is no article) which entered that offence
might abound ' (Rom. v. 20) is the law of our members which rises up to
resist the natural law. So too is the ' law which worketh wrath,' though it
may be the Law of Moses, inasmuch as it fixes definite punishments for sins.
Again, in chap. vii. 7, ' I had not known sin but by law/ law is the natural
law. Origen will not admit that the Law is in any sense the cause of sin.
On the contrary, it struck the first effective blow at the power of sin.
The locus classicus for this is In Rom. v. i, 'Per legem enim purificatio
peccatorum coepit aperiri et ex parte aliqua tyrannidi eius obsisti per hostias,
per expiationes varias, per sacrificia varia, per praecepta.' Being insuffi-
cient it was supplemented by the Prophets, by Christ. But it is not
abolished so much as absorbed into the Gospel, In Rom. iii. 1 1 ; In Lev.
Horn. vi. 2, ' Lavet te igitur Moses.' The works of the Law by which no
flesh could be saved are not works of justice, but circumcision, sacrifice,
keeping of new moons and sabbaths, In Rom. viii. 6. The Faith of Law
and Gospel is One, In Jesu Nave, Horn. xvii. 2 ; cp. In Joan. xx. 12, but
the Law is inferior, because to the Jews, except a few, God was known only
as Lord, that is to say, was obeyed through fear, In Joan. xix. i ; again,
because ' legis observantia poenam tantummodo effugit, fidei vero meritum
spem repromissionis expectat,' In Rom. iv. 3. The Law is the clay figure
which the artist afterwards casts in bronze, In Lev. Horn. x. I ; it is ' the
lantern ' opposed to 'the light.' In Lev. Horn. xiii. 2. M. Denis, p. 41 sqq.,
lays too much stress on the inferiority of the Law.
VI.] The Gospel. 209
clings to the primitive belief, that all members of the
Church are ip so facto in a state of salvation. The general
relation of Faith and Conduct is the same, but in Origen
Knowledge, or as he prefers to call it Wisdom, is only a
deeper and fuller faith *. We hear no more of Apathy
or of Disinterested Love 2 . There is a difference also in
the object of Faith. To Clement Christ is principally
1 Faith in Origen, as in Clement, means Belief determining Action and
leading up through Obedience to Love. A leading passage is In Jocyi.
xxxii. 9, where taking his start from the words ' Increase our Faith,'
' Though I have all Faith,' Origen distinguishes between perfect and im-
perfect Faith. They are different in extension, not in intensity. The
contents of Faith are the articles of the Creed, to which we may add the
Epinoiai of Christ. The distinction between Knowledge and Faith in
Origen is evanescent. In Rom. iv. 5 he speaks of Two Faiths, a human
and a divine. The addition of the latter makes perfect justifying faith.
The one is of reason, the other of grace, the special gift of God, and both
must coexist. As to the relation of Faith and Conduct, we know that men
are justified by Faith without the works of the Law, for instance the Peni-
tent Thief; and works without Faith justify no man, for instance the
Pharisee of Luke xviii. 10 ; In Rom. iii. 9. This point is not brought out by
Clement. But there are two justifications, one by faith, one by works.
The former makes man just in the sight of God, it is forgiveness, known to
God alone ; the latter makes him just also in the sight of saints and angels.
The former is strictly only the 'initium iustificari ;' it is imperfect faith.
The faith which was imputed to Abraham for righteousness was perfect
faith, which had already manifested itself in obedience. This is ' justified
by God,' the man is made really and truly righteous. Then his faith is no
longer ' imputed to him for righteousness,' for he is righteous. This is
further illustrated from Ps. xxxii. i, 2, 'Blessed is he whose transgression
is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord
imputeth not iniquity.' First the soul leaves its evil and obtains pardon.
Next by good deeds it covers its sins. Ubi vero iam ad perfectum
venerit, ita ut omnis de ea malitiae radix penitus amputetur, eo usque ut
nullum in ea vestigium possit inveniri nequitiae, ibi iam summa perfectae
beatitudinis promittitur, cum nnllum possit Dominus imputare peccatum ;
In Rom. iv. I sqq.
2 Injesu Nave, Horn. ix. 6, the six tribes who stood on Ebal are those
who only desire to escape punishment, the six on Garizin are those who
long for the blessing and the promises. Otherwise he speaks of the three
degrees of perfection, the two classes of hearers, the milk and solid food
much in the same way as Clement ; Injesu Nave, Horn. xxii. 2.
P
2io Origen. [Lect.
the Word and the Light ; to Origen He is more emphati-
cally ' my Lord and Saviour Jesus.' The life of the
Christian is a growing receptivity of the Incarnate Son
in His successive Epinoiai. But we cannot attain beyond
the lower Epinoiai, those of Redemption and Mediation,
in this world, nor for aeons yet to come. The Cross in
all its wonder, its bounty, its power, is always before the
eyes of Origen. ' We are justified,' he says, ' by faith,
but far more by the blood of Jesus V Those mysteries,
which Clement scarcely dared to gaze upon, Qrigen has
endeavoured to explain. He is the first to attempt a
philosophy of the Atonement. Christ is our Teacher
and Example, but above all He is our Sacrifice, and
under the touch of Allegory the whole ritual of Leviticus
becomes eloquent of Him, who bore our sins upon the
tree.
Christ is our Ransom, our Redemption. By His
precious Blood, that is not by His body but by His
human soul, which the God within the Man, the Great
High Priest, laid as a lamb upon the altar, He bought
us from the powers of sin. His Death in some mystic
way broke the powers of sin, as even now martyrs by
Christlike self-surrender daunt and diminish the army of
Satan. The spirits of evil were terrified and conscience
stricken, some of them were even converted, by that
immeasurable defiance 2 .
1 In Rom. iv. 1 1 (on Rom. v. 8, 9), Ex quo ostendit quod neque fides
nostra sine Christ! sanguine, neque sanguis Christi nos sine fide nostra iusti-
ficat ; ex utroque tamen multo magis sanguis Christi nos quam fides nostra
iustificat. See also the passage quoted below, p. 221.
2 In Matt. xvi. 8 (Lorn. iv. 28), Ae'Sorcu 5e \vrpov vtrep ^fj.aiv r) ^t>x*7
roO vlov TOV Oeov Kal ovre TO Trvfvpa avrov . . . ovre TO atjj^a, ovSev yap
evponsv irca TOIOVTOV irtpl avrov ytypafifitvov. The ^vxh would include the
Blood which is its ovaia, De Princ. ii. 8. a. In Joan. vi. 35 the Victim is
vi .] The t Gospel. 211
Again, He is our Propitiation. ' The true High Priest,
He hath made God propitious to thee by His Blood, and
reconciled thee to the Father.' ' For God,' says Origen
in language that seems, but only seems, to anticipate
Anselm, 'is just, and the just cannot justify the unjust.
Therefore He willed the intervention of a Propitiator,
that those might be justified by faith in Him, who could
not be justified by their own works V
the Man which is laid upon the altar by the God the great High Priest, but
this does not contradict the former passage. In Rom. iii. 7 Christ paid his
own Life as a Ransom to the powers of evil by whom man was held in cap-
tivity ; Ibid. iv. 1 1 , Tradens sanguinem suum principi huius mundi, se-
cundum sapientiam Dei, quam nemo principum huius mundi cognovit ; si
enim cognovissent nunquam Dominum maiestatis crucifixissent, ne sanguis
ille quern sitierant, non tarn sitim quam vires eorum exstingueret regnumque
destrueret. See also In Matt. xvi. 8. Some of the Guardian Angels of
Nations were converted at the sight of Jesus, and this may account for the
rapid spread of the Gospel in those regions over which they presided, In
Joan. xiii. 58. But In Lucam, Horn, xii, this is put differently. Each
Nation, like each individual, has two Angels who watch over it, one good,
the other evil. The Incarnation strengthened the hands of the good Angels.
For the manner in which Christ's Death broke the power of the evil spirits,
see especially the grand passage In Joan, xxviii. 14. Origen attributes the
same power to all acts of self-sacrifice, especially to the martyr's death ; In
Jesu Nave, Horn. xv. 6, Puto sane quia sancti . . . imminuant exercitum
daemonum ; cp. In Num. Horn. x. 2 ; xxiv. I ; In Levit. Horn. ix. 3 ; In
Joan. vi. 35. 36 ; In Matt. xv. 34 ; Contra CeZsum, viii. 44 ; De Mart.
30. 50. But while the sacrifice of Christ is the one sufficient atonement for
all the sins of the whole world, the benefit of the martyr's example extends
but to a few, and owes its efficacy to the Cross of Jesus. The merits of
Christ's Death are conveyed through seven channels of remission, Baptism,
Martyrdom, Almsgiving, Forgiveness, Conversion of a Sinner, Charity,
Penitence ; In Lev. Horn. ii. 4. To these must be added the Eucharist ; In
Matt. Comm. Series, 86. Nevertheless Origen's view coincides with that of
Clement, that the only free forgiveness is that conveyed in Baptism ; In
Lev. Horn. ii. 4, Apud nos una tantummodo venia est peccatorum quae
per lavacri gratiam in initiis datur. For though these words are put into
the mouth of an interlocutor, Origen appears to adopt them. We are to
distinguish free 'venia' from purchased 'remissio.'
1 See especially In Rom. iii. 8 ; iv. 8. In the former passage will be
found the fine allegory on the Mercy Seat. Here God is spoken of as
reconciled to man. But ' God declares His righteousness ' (Rom. iii. 25) is
P 2
2 1 2 Origen. [Lect.
Nay the salvation of man seems to be an inadequate
object for that unspeakable effort of Divine Goodness.
To Origen as to the Gnostics, as to Ignatius, the death
of Jesus is a world-sacrifice 1 . ' Christ was a double
Victim, meet for those in heaven, as for those on earth.'
The blood, which was shed in Jerusalem, was mystically
sprinkled on the altar above, where the Saviour pleads
His Atonement, till sin shall be no more. Wide as the
violated order of God is the healing influence of His
Love. All creation groaning and travailing in sympathy
with man's distress is soothed and strengthened, and will
be restored to perfect harmony, by Him, who in the blood
of Jesus reconciles all things unto Himself, whether they
be things in earth or things in heaven 2 .
explained to mean, manifests, confers upon man His righteousness. In
the second passage the reconciliation is of man to God. Jesus Christus
nos per hostiam sanguinis sni reconciliavit Deo, sicut scriptum est, ' cum
essemus inimici Dei, reconciliati sumus Deo per sanguinem crucis Filii
eius (Rom. v. 10).' Et alibi idem Panlus addidit his dicens ' rogamus pro
Christo, reconciliamini Deo (2 Cor. v. 20).' Christ is our Peace because
He breaks down the hedge ' quam peccando texuimus.' The idea seems
to be that prior to the Atonement of Christ God could not pardon, not
because He had not received a sufficient price for His forgiveness, but
because man could only be made good enough to receive pardon through
faith in a crucified Saviour.
1 Ignatius, Ad Smyrn. vi; Ad Trail, ix. i ; Dorner, i. I. p. 113, Eng.
trans.
2 In Lev. Horn. i. 3, Nisi quia forte hoc intellegi voluit, quod sanguis
Jesn non solum in Jerusalem effusus est, ubi erat altare . . . sed et quod
supernum altare quod est in coelis, ubi et ecclesia primitivorum est, idem
ipse sanguis adsperserit; sicut et apostolus dicit, quia 'pacificavit per san-
guinem crucis suae sive quae in terris sunt sive quae in coelis ' (Col. i. 20) . . .
Vis autem scire quia duplex hostia in eo fuit conveniens terrestribus et apta
coelestibus? But In Lev. Horn. ii. 3 on earth He is offered 'pro peccato,'
in heaven ' pro munere.' That the Passion of Christ ' profuisse coelestibus '
is stated also In Luc. Horn, x; In Rom. v. 10 ; In Matt. xiii. 8. It was
proved not only by Col. i. 20 but by Hebr. ii. 9, where Origen preferred the
reading x<"/>ts "yap Qtov virep travrbs fffvffaro Oavarov, He tasted death for
all except God, In Joan. i. 40. Eph. iii. 10 was held by many of the early
VI.] The Church. 213
In discipline as in doctrine Origen is the exponent of
a later age than Clement. The Catholic Church is one,
but still with a spiritual, not an administrative unity.
Hence Origen speaks of ' the Churches ' as often as of
'the Church.' The famous words of Christ to Peter,
' whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven,' are spoken also to all Christians,
whose faith is like that of Peter 1 . But the majesty of
the ' most ancient Church ' of Rome exercised a certain
fascination upon his mind. He did not think his educa-
tion complete,, till he had seen with his own eyes and
heard with his own ears the ritual and the doctrine of
Fathers to mean that the Angels received some benefit from the Incarnation.
Origen thought that in His descent Christ actually took upon Himself the
form of an Angel ; In Gen. Horn. viii. 8, Unde puto quod sicut inter hom-
ines habitu repertus est ut homo, ita et inter angelos habitu est repertus ut
angelus. So also In Matt. xiv. 7 ; In Joan. i. 34 ; In Rom. i. 4, Si ergo
cum apparuit nobis hominibus non sine Evangelic apparuit, consequentia
videtur ostendere, quod etiam angelico ordini non sine Evangelio apparu-
erit, illo fortassis quod aeternum Evangelium a Joanne memoratum supra
edocuimus. Huet comments, Singulis angelorum ordinibns in sua uni-
cuique forma apparuisse, Evangelium praedicasse et in coelo denique mortem
pro its obiisse sciscere videtur aliquando. I can find no . authority for the
words italicised. All benefits to whatever recipients flow from the one
death of Christ upon Calvary ; see In Rom. v. 10. But Jerome and Jus-
tinian allege that according to Origen Christ was to be crucified again for
the sins of the Demons, not once but many times. They refer to De Princ.
iv. 25, where again Rufinus has altered his text. But Origen there (see
Jerome's translation and the Greek fragment given by Justinian, both in
Lorn. ) seems to mean that the Passion of Christ in a sense endures to the
Consummation of All, referring no doubt to the altar on which stood ' a
Lamb as it had been slain.' Origeniana, ii. 3. 23 sq. The difficult words
In Lev. Horn. i. 3, 'et hie quidem pro hominibus ipsam corporalem materiam
sanguinis sui fudit, in coelestibus vero ministrantibus, si qui illi inibi sunt,
sacerdotibus vitalem corporis sui virtutem, velut spirituale quoddam sacrifi-
cium immolavit,' whatever thej may mean precisely, do not refer to a
sacrifice numerically different. See Redepenning, ii. 400 ; Hofling, ii. 25.
1 In Matt. xiii. 31 ; De Orat. 14 (Lorn. xvii. 146).
214 Origen. [Lect.
the great Italian see, which was already designated by its
wealth and splendour, its authority and orthodoxy, as
the leader, the champion, the arbiter of Christendom.
He seems to have felt the acquiescence of Rome in the
sentence of Demetrius as a heavy addition to his mis-
fortune, and somewhere about the year 246 despatched a
letter to Fabian, the reigning Pope, in which he pro-
tested his orthodoxy 1 , and solicited readmission to
communion. We must not however lay too much stress
upon this fact. The same letter appears to have been
addressed to the Bishops of all the Churches, which had
ratified his condemnation. It was written after the
accession of his pupil and friend Dionysius to the Patri-
archate of Alexandria towards the end of Origen's life,
when for the first time he felt it possible to make over-
tures towards reconciliation without disparagement to
his self-respect.
The history of his career shows how little he thought
the judgment of one Bishop ought to influence the action
of another. Nor does he appear to have felt his disgrace
as a bar to his activity or a burden on his conscience.
Yet, rebel as he was, he ranked far higher than Clement
the authority and privileges of the clergy. The analogy
between the Christian and the Mosaic hierarchy is con-
1 Eus.
re irkeiarois &p\ovaiv fKK\rjffiuv, jrepl TTJS tear' avrbv 6p0o5oias. Jerome,
Ep. Ixv. ad Pammachium (in Migne, Ixxxiv), Ipse Origenes in epistola
quam scribit ad Fabianum Romanae urbis episcopum, poenitentiam agit
cur talia scripserit, et causam temeritatis in Ambrosium confert, quod
secreto edita in publicum protulerit. Origeniana, i. 3. 13. That Origen
in this letter recanted doctrines which he continued to teach to the end of his
life, or that he endeavoured to throw the blame of his heterodoxy on his
friend and benefactor is not to be believed on the unsupported testimony of
Jerome. See, however, Dr. Westcott's article on Ambrosius, Diet. Christ.
Biog.
VI.] The Priest. 215
stantly in his mind, and if he does not draw from it all
the consequences that have been supposed, it is no less
true that in his view the priest is no longer the minister
of the congregation, but the vicar of God. The ordinary
Christian is indeed a priest, but only in the moral or
spiritual sense, that is to say only in a figure, inasmuch
as he offers to God the sacrifice of his own heart and
mind l . We still trace the working of the ancient mode
of thought in the emphasis laid by Origen upon the
moral and spiritual qualifications of the minister. His
doctrine of clerical authority is not unlike that of Wiclif.
The power to bind and loose depends upon the spiritual
worthiness of him who wields it 2 . He who is not holy
1 Origen constantly speaks of the true Christian as a Priest, In Lev. Horn,
iv. 6 ; vi. 5 ; ix. i. 8 ; xiii. 5. But the layman is a priest only ' secundum
moralem locum ; ' In Lev. Horn. i. 5 ; ii. 4 ; ix. 6 ; or ' secundum spiritualem
intelligentiam,' In Lev. Horn. xv. 3. A very modern sounding phrase may
be noticed, In Num. Horn. ii. i, where it is said of priests, virgins, ascetics,
that they are in professione religionis. Injesii Nave, Horn. xvii. 2, shows
that there was a strong tendency in Origen's mind to restrict the language
concerning the Priesthood of the Christian to these ' religious.''
- The locus classicus is In Lev. Horn. v. 3. The Priest ' eats the sins of
the people,' that is, takes them upon himself and remits them, ' secundum
imaginem eius qui sacerdotium ecclesiae dedit.' But he must ' eat the sin '
in a clean place, that is, he must have charity, faith, and a good conscience.
He is said again ' repropitiare delictum,' and this phrase is explained to
mean the moral amendment which the good Priest works in the sinner.
Probst, Sakramente, p. 267, argues that Origen means only that the sin
destroys the force of the priestly judgment if it affects him in respect of
the particular act. If the Priest was generally speaking a good man,
but absolved a particular penitent from personal affection, his absolution
would be of no avail. But if, though generally speaking a bad man, he
condemned a particular sinner after conscientious examination of his
case, the condemnation would hold good just as a secular judge may pro-
nounce just and valid sentences though his private life may be thoroughly
vicious. This implies entire ignorance of the Alexandrine doctrine of
spiritual knowledge, and is refuted by the entire run of the Homily referred
to. The Priest is to have for himself ' the breast,' ' the right shoulder,' that
is to say, he must have a heart pure from sin, a hand fruitful of good works.
' Nisi habeat pectus ex omnibus membris electum non est sacerdos et nisi
2i6 Origen. [Lect.
is no priest, and his sentence has no effect at all. Nor is
the priestly absolution in itself of force. The priest
declares, but does not bestow forgiveness. Nevertheless
he alone may teach. He has received judgment of souls.
It is his office to stablish the sinner, who is converted
from his sin. He is to invite confession both public and
private, and to declare the conditions of absolution, the
kind and degree of penance, by which the sinner may
gain his restoration to the peace of the Church l .
How far this power extended was matter of grave
doubt. The disputes, which afterward issued in the
Novatian schism, were already smouldering in the
Church. In many communities the opinion prevailed,
that for mortal sins, especially for unchastity, murder,
and idolatry, committed after Baptism, there was no
forgiveness on earth. Early in the second century Hermas
at Rome pleads for a mitigation of this stern rule, and
would allow of one absolution for even the worst offences.
This was, as has been said, the opinion of Clement also.
In the time of Origen even a more lenient practice
appears to have been adopted in the Church of Rome.
At first perhaps those guilty of sins of unchastity, but
soon afterwards all offenders of every grade, were de-
habeat brachium dextrum non potest adscendere ad altare Dei et sacerdos
nominari? To this end he needs the priestly science (De Orat. 28 ;
Probst wrongly explains it to mean casuistry}, but this he cannot have unless
he is spiritual and pure, ' et ita demum ernditionis capax fiat, si prius capax
fuerit sanctitatis.' Compare In Psalm, xxxvii. Horn. ii. 6 (Lorn. xii. 267),
Tantummodo circumspice diligentius, cui debeas confiteri peccatum tuum.
Proba prius medicum ; In Matt. xii. 1.4, if the gates of hell prevail against
the Priest, in vain does he bind or loose.
1 The Priest has 'iudicium animarum,' In Lev. Horn. v. 12. For con-
fession see In Lev. Horn. ii. 4 ; In Psalm, xxxvii. Horn. ii. 6. The judgment
of any righteous man has power to bind and loose, as was shown above,
but not as regards the discipline of the Church.
VI.] Absolution. 217
clared capable of forgiveness on proper evidences of
contrition. Thus the gates of mercy were thrown wide
open, and the sin against the Holy Ghost, the unpar-
donable sin, was declared to be defiance of the Church,
obdurate refusal of the terms of pardon. It is possible
that in some communities this view had prevailed from
the first J .
On this point, as on some others, Origen's views
underwent a modification. It may be that he was
softened by age ; it may be that he was carried along
by the changing sentiment of the Church around him.
In his earlier writings 2 he gives unflinching expression
1 See the letter of Dionysius of Corinth, circa A.D. 169, to the Churches
of Pontus, Eus. H. E. iv. 23. For the obscure and difficult history of the
Penance Controversy the student may consult Dollinger, Hippolytus and
Callistus, p. 117 sqq., Eng. trans. ; Probst, Sakramente, p. 296 sqq. ; Har-
nack, article Novatian in Herzog, ed. 1882, Dogmengeschichte, p. 331 sqq.
An interesting monument of the triumph of the more merciful view is to be
found in the Jonah pictures in the Chapel of the Sacraments in the Cemetery
of Callistus ; Probst, Kirchliche Disciplin, p. 239.
2 In De Orat. 28 (written about A.D. 236) idolatry, adultery, forni-
cation and wilful murder are death-sins. The distinction between mortal
and venial sins is based upon the Law of Moses, ot KC.TO. vofiov j'epefs
KuXvovTai Trepi tivtav irpoff<p(peti' d^aprrjfjidTcav Ovatav, and on I Sam. ii. 25.
(Other texts appealed to by the severe party, and with good reason, were
I John v. 16; Hebr. vi. 4; the precise meaning of Matt. xii. 31 is in
dispute.) For these sins there is no forgiveness in the Church, though
some tavroTs tmrptyavrfs rd virtp rfiv UpariK^v diav, rd\a /wjS* d/tpiPovvrts
rf)v IfpartK^v emarrifirjv, presume to think they may be forgiven, Sid TTJS
fi>Xns avrwv. De la Rue considered that Origen meant to blame the rash-
ness of Priests who ventured to give absolution for mortal sins without
proper evidence of contrition, but the reader will see, I think, that he denies
the possibility of absolution for these sins on any terms. With this is to
be compared In Ezech. Horn. iv. 8, where Origen reproves ' nonnullorum
insipientiam, qui sensum animi sui Dei esse asserunt veritatem et frequenter
dicunt " futurum est ut unusquisque nostrum precibus suis eripiat quoscunque
voluerit de gehenna." ' These words may seem to refer to Prayers for the
Dead, but it is better to explain them in the same way as the passage of the
De Oratione. Origen goes on to icprove those who ' qui in sanctis fiduciam
habent.' The influence of confessors and martyrs was largely instrumental
in breaking down the antique rigour.
2 1 8 Origen. [Lect.
to the stern old rule. No death-sin can be forgiven,
and those priests, who presume to pronounce absolution
in cases of this nature, are ignorant of the priestly science.
Not that the sinner is forbidden to hope. ' God alone
knows,' he says, speaking of the crime of apostasy, ' what
evils He will bring upon those who deny and do not
repent, what upon those who deny and repent V The
Church cannot pardon them, but God may. The sin,
which has no forgiveness . in this aeon or the aeon to
come, may be atoned for in some one of the countless
aeons of the vast hereafter.
But in his later works he speaks with another voice.
Even death-sins may be forgiven once they may be
forgiven a second and a third time there are no limits
to the Church's power of absolution. One crime alone,
obdurate impenitence, has no forgiveness. The sinner
who refuses to hear the Church, whether his offence be
light or heavy, is cast forth, and when once expelled
from the fold can never again re-enter. Yet even so it is
better for him to repent, that he may have fewer sins to
atone for in the Day of Judgment 2 .
1 In Matt. Comm. Series, 114. This passage belongs to those that
express the later and more lenient view, but the particular words here quoted
are applicable in either case.
2 In Lev. Horn. xv. 2, In gravioribus enim criminibus semel tantum
poenitentiae conceditur locus ; ista vero communia quae frequenter incurri-
mus semper poenitentiam recipiunt ; In Lev. Horn. xi. 2, Quod et si
aliquis est qui forte praeventus est in huiuscemodi peccatis admonitus nunc
verbo Dei, ad auxilium confugiat poenitentiae ; ut si semel admisit, secundo
non faciat, aut si et secundo, aut etiam tertio praeventus sit, ultra non addat.
Contra Celsum, iii. 51, the sinner is readmitted to communion, after pro-
longed penance, but cannot be promoted to office in the Church. There are
two remarkable passages in the Commentary on Matthew. In Tom. xiii.
30 Origen is explaining Matth. xviii. 15, 'If thy brother shall trespass
against thee,',&c.' Some, he says, take this to mean that even death-sins
may be forgiven. Others that even the lightest sins are shut out from for-
VI.] The Eucharist. 219
On another important subject, the Eucharist 1 , we
observe a similar advance beyond the position of
giveness. Both have erred through not keeping closely to the text. Jesus
says if the sinner repents on the first admonition, 'thou hast gained thy
brother.' But what happens if he does not repent ? This Jesus does not
say. In that case then he is neither wholly gained nor wholly lost. We know
not what he will suffer. God knows ; we judge not, that we be not judged.
In the words that follow a superfluous negative appears to have crept into
the text, on OVK tfecm Sis fijs (IT) aKovaavra. T& Tpirov ajcovffai. The ov
should surely be omitted. If, Origen says, this rule seems hard upon those
who have committed only light sins, let us remember that they have three
chances of amendment. He goes on to say that it is better in any case to
repent, \vaire\(i \tt<? oitoaaow d/zapTjy/xara utravotiv, that we may have less
to atone for at the Last Day. He certainly teaches here that if the shiner
after three admonitions refused to submit to penance he was cut off from
the Church, and this excommunication was final, whatever the gravity of the
sin that had brought it about. But apparently there is no limit to the
number of times that the sinner might be admitted to penance. In the
Comm. Series, 1 14, Peter's apostasy was pardoned because he repented at
the crowing of the cock, before the break of day, that is before the
descent of the Holy Spirit. Since that time there is no remission of this
sin for those who deny Christ ' in the day.' But, he adds, the denial itself
proves that the day has not really dawned upon them. ' Forsitan autem
et omnes homines quando denegant Jesum, ita ut peccatum denegationis
eorum recipiat medicinam, ante galli cantum denegare eum videntur.'
Origen appears in these last words to be defending with some reluctance the
practice of granting absolution even to apostates. Hence even this passage
belongs to those in which the more lenient view is maintained.
1 The best account of Origen's doctrine on this subject is that given by
Hb'fling, Die Lehre der altesten Kirche vom Offer im Leben und Culhis
der Christen, 1851. The controversy on the subject between Romanists
and Protestants in the Reformation times will be found hi the Origeniana.
Both parties claimed Origen as a friend. Against Hofling may be set
Db'llinger, Die Eucharistie in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten, 1826. The
Alexandrines held a real but spiritual and in no sense material Presence of
Christ in the Eucharist. But there was undoubtedly a party which believed
in Transubstantiation, though probably there was as yet no set philosophical
explanation of this belief. See In Joan, xxxii. 16, voeiffda Se 6 dpros xal
rofy fjilv air\ovffTfpois Kara TTJV KOivortpav irepl T?;J eux a P'" r '' as
jjv, rofy S( ffaBvrepov aicovfiv nt/M0T]K6<nv Kara TT)V Oeiortpav not irfpl rov
rpo<}ii/j.ov TTJS dXrjOttas Ao-yoti fTrayyt\iav (Lorn. ii. 459). Here the belief
in a Corporal Presence is regarded as belonging to the Lower Life, the life
of those who do not go beyond the letter. Transubstantiation rests upon
Aristotelic or Stoic Realism, and is diametrically opposed to Platonism.
220 Origen. [Lect.
Clement, though here probably the difference is greater
in language than in reality. The Church has its 'altar,'
' consecrated by the precious Blood of Christ V The
Bread is ' Sacerdotal Bread,' ' a kind of holy Body.'
The communicant is said to ' receive the Body of the
Lord,' ' the sacraments of the Lord's Body V In these
and similar phrases we trace the growing reverence and
mystery attached to the material of this greatest of
Christian rites. Yet we must not be carried too far.
The Eucharist is a Mystery, one of the chiefest Mys-
teries, for here too there is a letter that killeth, a spirit
that giveth life 3 . The Bread and Wine are an allegory,
Leading passages on the subject of the Eucharist are, In Matt. xi. 14 (Lorn,
iii. 106 ; quite decisive as to the opus operatum and the value of the i/'A.?;) ;
Comm. Series, 85 ; In Lev. Horn, xiii (the whole Homily should be read);
In Num. Horn, xxiii. 6. It has been observed above, p. 143, that the
Eucharist is a mystery in a double sense, firstly as regards its ritual, secondly
as regards its doctrinal explanation.
1 Injesu Nave, Horn. ii. i ; x. 3 ; Injud. Horn. iii. 2 ; Probst, Kirch-
liche Disciplin^ p. 212. Injesu Nave, Horn. viii. 6, Christ is Priest, Victim,
Altar. Ibid. Horn. ix. Origen uses the language of Clement. The believers
are the altar on which Christ offers His sacrifice to the Father. The 'or-
natus altaris ' is the Law in the type engraved by Joshua on stones, in the
antitype by Christ on the heart ; and all true Christians are Priests and
Levites. Compare Contra Celsum, viii. 17.
2 In Exodum, Horn. xiii. 3, Cum suscipitis corpus Domini, cum omni
cautela et veneratione servatis, ne ex eo parum quid decidat, ne consecrati
muneris aliquid dilabatur; Contra Celsum, viii. 33, dprovs ta6iofj.fv OW/M
yeco/iei'ovs 5id rrjv fv^y aytov 11 /cal a-yidfov TOVS /(?' vyiovs Trpo6tffus
avrSi xpcu/zeVous ; In Lev. Horn. xiii. 6, Ille sacerdotalis panis qui est
secretus et mysticus sermo.
3 In Lev. Horn. vii. 5. The whole passage is one of the most important :
Jesus ergo quia totus ex toto mundus est, tota eius caro cibus est, et torus
sanguis eius potus est, quia omne opus eius sanctum est, et omnis sermo
eius verus est. Propterea ergo et caro eius verus est cibus et sanguis eius
verus est potus. Carnibus enim et sanguine verbi sui tanquam mundo cibo
ac potu, potat et reficit omne hominum genus. Secundo in hoc loco post
illius camem mundus cibus est Petrus et Paulus et omnes Apostoli. Tertio
loco discipuli eorum. ' Das Wort, die Verheissung des Herrn ist der
heilskraftige Leib und das heilskraftige Blut, das wir sowohl innerhalb als
VI.] The Eucharist. 221
a symbol. ' For it was not that visible bread, which He
was holding in His hand, that God the Word called His
Body ; it was the word as a symbol whereof that bread
was to be broken. Nor was it that visible cup, that He
called His Blood, but the word as a symbol whereof that
wine was to be poured out . . . Why did He not say, this
is the Bread of the New Testament, as He said, this is
My Blood of the New Testament ? Because the bread
is the word of righteousness, but the wine is the word of
the knowledge of Christ. Since then the covenant of
God is placed in the blood of the passion of Christ, so
that we are saved by faith and not by righteousness, it is
said of the chalice alone, this is the cup of the New
Testament V There is a sacrifice in the Eucharist, and
there is a. commemoration of a sacrifice, the first is that
of the believer himself, the second is that of Christ -.
There is a Presence of Christ, but it is a spiritual, and
therefore in Origen's view the only real, Presence, real pre-
cisely because in nowise material. It is worth while to
ausserhalb des Sakramentes empfangen und geniessen sollen.' Hence it is
sometimes difficult to decide when Origen is speaking of the Eucharist and
when of general spiritual communion with Christ, as In Matt. Comnt. Series,
86 ; Cels. viii. 22 ; De Orat. 27 ; In Jer. Horn. xii. 2. Hbfling.
1 In Matt. Comm. Series, 85.
2 In Lev. Horn. ix. 8. 9, at the heavenly altar, till the end of this world,
Christ offers the incense which we must put into His Hands. Our sacri-
fices can have no propitiatory value unless He thus takes them, receiving
from us both the incense and the coals, the fire of love. For the Christian's
sacrifice, see In Num. Horn. xii. 3 ; xxiv. 2 ; In Exod. Horn. xiii. 2 ; De
Orat. 12. But In Lev. Horn. v. 3, Ipse Christus solus est hostia pro pec-
catis et ipse est hostia sancta sanctorum. He is the only sacrifice in the
sense of sin-offering. In Lev. Horn. iii. 5, Omnis quidem paene hostia
quae offertur habet aliquid formae et imaginis Christi. Especially the
young bullock of Lev. iv. 3, the ram of the trespass-offering, and the Paschal
Lamb. But not the scape-goat. In the Eucharist we plead the death of
Christ ; In Lev. Horn. xiii. 3, Quod ista est commemoratio sola quae
propitium facit hominibus Deum.
222 Origen. [Lect.
repeat that Origen held the Sacrifice of Christ to have
consisted not of His Body but of His Soul. The Soul
answers to the Wine, for according to the book of Genesis
the blood is the soul or life. This one fact is enough to
prove that, as regards the bread at any rate, Origen
cannot have held the doctrine of transubstantiation in
any shape whatever.
But the thoughts of Origen turn with constant hope
and longing from the Church on earth, where tares grow
side by side with the wheat, to the spiritual invisible
Church, the Church of the faithful and true, which has
neither spot nor blemish nor wrinkle. It is linked in
close and vital union to the Church above, the Church of
the first-born, of saints and martyrs and angels. These
two form the Body, the Temple of the Lord, older in
the counsels of God than creation itself. This is the
saving Ark, the Church outside of which is no salvation.
Men might belong to the visible Church, and yet be dead
in trespasses and sins ; they might be cut off from the
visible Church, and yet be true brothers of Christ. So
different is the view of Origen from that of the organising
law-loving West a .
1 Church buildings, Injesu Nave, Horn. ii. i, Cum videris . . . ecclesias ex-
trui; their disposition, Ibid., Horn, x-3 ; Injtid. Horn. iii. 2. The Church had
been corrupted by prosperity, Injer. Horn. iv. 3 (Lorn. xv. 140) : ' If we judge
things by truth and not by numbers we shall see now that we are no longer
faithful. But in bygone times we were faithful when the people suffered mar-
tyrdom, when from the cemeteries to which we had escorted the bodies of
the martyrs we returned to our places of meeting, and the whole church was
gathered together, none falling away, and the catechumens were instructed
in martyrdom and in the deaths of those who confessed the truth even unto
blood, not yielding to temptation or being confounded before the living
God. Then we know they saw signs and wonders ; then few were faithful,
but they were faithful indeed, treading the strait and narrow path that
leadeth unto life. But now when we have become many for it is not pos-
sible that there should be many elect, for Jesus truly said many are called
VI. ] The Eternal Gospel. 223
To the Spiritual Church belongs the Eternal Gospel,
a phrase taken from the Book of Revelation 1 . The
Eternal Gospel bears the same relation to the actual
Gospel, as this to the Law, or as Deuteronomy to
the rest of the Pentateuch. It is that full disclosure
of the purposes of God, which could not be given in the
New Testament because of the nature of human lan-
guage and the limitations of the flesh-bound mind. Yet
there are hints, fragments, shadows, which he, who un-
derstands the reading of the Mystic Sense, can seize
and interpret. These hints, these ' crannies in the wall,'
Origen finds abundantly in the Books of Joshua and
Leviticus ; the earthly altar is a type of the heavenly
altar ; the earthly Canaan is a model of the Promised
but few chosen out of the multitude of them that profess godliness there
are very few that attain to the election of God and blessedness.' Compare
Injesti Nave, Horn. xxi. The true Church, 17 Kvplais lA^<ria, is holy and
undenled, De Orat. 20 ad in. Outside the Church is no salvation, Injesii
Nave, iii. 5, Nemo semet ipsum decipiat ; extra hanc domum, id est extra
ecclesiam nemo salvatur. Contrast however with this Infer. Horn. xx. 3,
Qui extra ecclesiam est neque vas misericordiae est neque irae . . . sed vas in
aliud quiddam reservatum (see above, p. 207, note). But there are those within
the Church who do not belong to it, there are those who have been driven
forth wrongfully and yet remain members ; In Lev. Horn. xiv. 3. Christ, the
Angels, the holy dead are all present at the public worship of the Church ; In
Lucam, Horn, xxiii, Duplex hie adest ecclesia una hominum altera angelorum ;
cp. De Orat. 31. In Lev. Horn. ix. 8. 9, there are two Temples, the Holy
Place and the Holy of Holies, the Church on earth, the Church in heaven.
The former is the irapaSeicros rpvtyTjs, 'paradisus deliciarum,' a phrase
borrowed from Philo, Leg. All. i. 14 (i. 52), In Cant. Cant, in (Lorn. xv.
29), but this term expresses the Holy Church as a whole on earth or in
heaven ; see In Ezech. Horn. xiii. 2. The Church in Heaven is the 'eccle-
sia primitivorum ' (from Heb. xii. 23), In Jesu Nave, Horn. ix. 4. We find
the phrases ecclesia catholica, catholice, doctores catholici, and even catho-
licus, a Catholic, the last In Lev. Horn. xiv. 2.
1 Rev. xiv. 6. See De Princ. iv. 25 ; In Joan. i. 9. 10; In Rom. i. 4 ;
ii. 5 ; In LevTRom. xiii. 2. The imperfection of Revelation in the usual
sense of the word, the alaOrjTov eva.-fli\iov t appeared to be proved, especi-
ally by i Cor. xiii. 9, 10, and John xxi. 25.
224 Origen. [Lect.
Land above. But the most significant are furnished by
St. Paul. Pieced together by his cunning hand they
form what is called his Eschatology, his vision of the
life to come. He differs from Clement mainly in detail
and the anxious care with which he discussed, debated,
explained away the language of Scripture.
He learned from the Bible that the soul passes at
death into one of two abodes, which in accordance with
the general belief of his time he regarded as situated
beneath the earth. The first is Hades, the prison of the
imperfect. It is guarded by the Cherubim, who with
their fiery sword keep the way of the Tree of Life.
Nor had any been suffered to pass these stern sentinels,
till Christ descended, and carried the souls of the Patri-
archs and Prophets in His train to Paradise, the man-
sion of the blessed. Since that day the true believer
passes at once into Paradise, unharmed by the fiery
sword 1 . Even in this place of rest the soul still has
a bodily form, such as that which clothed it before its
entry into life.
At the close of this present Aeon will come the
Great Day, when Christ will return to judgment. As
in Clement, we hear nothing of the imminence of this
catastrophe ; what the more refined minds are pondering
is not the time, but the manner of the great change, the
1 In libr. I Sam. Horn. 2 (Lorn. xi. 331) ; De Princ. ii. n. 6, Puto
enim quod sancti quique discedentes de hac vita permanebunt in loco
aliqno in terra posito, .quern Paradisum dicit Scriptura divina, velut in
quodam eruditionis loco, et, ut ita dixerim, auditorio vel schola animarum.
' In terra,' I presume, is ' within the earth,' ' under the earth.' Compare
also In Lucam, Horn, xxiv; De Mart. 36. All pass 'the fiery sword,'
' the fire,' but the righteous are not harmed nor stopped by the screen of
flame because there is in them no fuel for it to fasten upon. That the soul
in Hades or Paradise has a body was proved by the Parable of Dives and
Lazarus; Redepenning, ii. 126.
VI.] The Resurrection. 225
meaning of the Resurrection, the nature of the reward l .
The first of these questions Origen passes over, content
to warn his readers that the Gospel prophecy must not
be taken in its literal sense 2 . Enough that there will be
a new heaven and a new earth. And yet it is but ' the
fashion ' of this world that passeth away. The new uni-
verse will still be material, still infinite in variety, and
apt as this for the discipline of those that dwell therein 3 .
In that Great Day men will be reunited to their
bodies. This is the undoubted assurance of Scripture.
But it constituted one of the great difficulties of the
time. Christians were perplexed by it ; heathen con-
troversialists poured upon it unmixed ridicule and scorn.
Origen like Clement found a solution of all his doubts
in the teaching of St. Paul, but he refined upon this in
a way peculiar to himself. The resurrection body will
be the same as that we now inhabit, and yet not the
same. Not the same because spiritual and glorious,
because again its material substance will be entirely
different. Yet the same, as our body of to-day is the
same with our body of twenty years ago ; every particle
is changed, yet the body as a whole is not changed.
Origen found an explanation of this identity in difference
in what he calls the 'germinative principle,' a power
similar to that, by which the ear of corn is evolved from
the seed. The soul has a vital assimilative 'spark,' or
' principle,' which lays hold of fitting matter, and shapes
1 Chiliasm is emphatically condemned, De Princ. ii. 11.2. The First and
Second Resurrection are distinguished, Sel. in Psalm, i. (Lorn. xi. 392), as
that of righteous and that of wicked. But In Joan. xx. 2 1 (Lom. ii. 259) the
First Resurrection is for the ' dead in Christ,' the imperfectly righteous, who
need resurrection most.
1 In Matt. Comm. Series, 49.
3 De Princ. i. 6. 4 ; ii. i. 3.
Q
226 Origen. [Lect.
it into a habitation suited to its needs. The same pro-
cess, by which it repairs the daily waste of our organism
now, will enable it then to construct a wholly new tene-
ment for itself 1 .
It has been urged that Origen's system leaves no
real place for the Resurrection 2 . This he would most
strenuously have denied. And it is in fact untrue.
The body of the soul in Paradise, though different from
that which it inhabited in life, is still a body belonging
to this Aeon, this world ; the resurrection body is the
body of another Aeon, another world. Hence though
its features are the same, because these are the natural
outward expression of its abiding individuality, its tex-
ture is far different, because adapted on the one hand
to its new element, on the other to the varying degrees
of the soul's purity or impurity 3 . Man, he tells us, will
1 De Princ. ii. 10. 3; iii. 6. 4 sqq. ; Sel. in Psal. i. 5 (Lorn. xi. 392) ;
Contra Celsum, v. 2 2 sqq. The ' germinative principle ' is the ^.0705, sub-
stantiae ratio, ffmv0r)piffiJ.6s, (vrtpiuvr].
3 Redepenning, ii. 127; Denis, 325.
3 The principles laid down by Origen are four. The Resurrection body
will be infinitely more beautiful ; it will retain its general type and be
recognisable ; it will be adapted to the requirements of its new environment ;
it will have no superfluous organs. In consequence of the latter rule the
' gnashing of teeth ' is not to be literally understood. The Resurrec-.
tion body of the wicked will differ from that of the righteous, De
Princ. ii. 3 ; 10. 2 sq. ; iii. 6. 4. Origen taught the Resurrection of
' this body,' and even of ' the flesh ' (Pamphilus insists upon this point,
Apol. 7), but not of 'this flesh.' Even in his own time many were
offended at his doctrine, De Princ. ii. 10. i, and Jerome and others
attacked him with great vehemence. The Origenist monks are said to have
believed that the Resurrection body would be spherical, and this opinion is
charged upon Origen by Justinian, The accusation rests probably upon
De Orat. 31 (Lorn. xvii. 278), where this shape is attributed to the bodies
of the stars. The same general principles applied to the Body of our Lord
as to that of man ; see Contra Celsum, ii. 62 ; iii. 41, and passages referred
to at end of last Lecture. Some charged Origen with asserting that the
Saviour laid aside His Body in the Sun. Some Christians, according to
VI.] The Future Life. 227
eventually cease to be 'a soul ' at all. When his re-
demption is complete, his love will be no longer ' cold ' ;
he will become a pure Intelligence, as he was before he
lapsed from his first estate. But even so he will still be
corporeal, for except the Trinity no spirit can exist
without a shroud. The same law will apply to the
Saviour, in so far as He is perfect Man.
Clement figured the future life as an upward pro-
gress of the soul through seven heavens to rest in the
Ogdoad. But Origen doubted whether this Gnostic
conception had sufficient Scripture warrant. Hence,
following the hint conveyed in the phrase 'aeons of
aeons,' he speaks of a vast stretch of cycles reaching
onwards in almost illimitable extension to the Consum-
mation of All. There is in this a certain resemblance
to Stoicism, but it is merely superficial 1 .
In that future life the soul is still free, is still tested
by its use of freedom, rises and falls, is punished or
Pamphilus, Apol, 7, actually held this strange tenet, interpreting in this way
Psalm xix. 4, in sole posuit tabernaculum suum. It is perhaps a Gnostic
idea; see the account of Theodotus in Lecture i. Any stone was good
enough to fling at Origen. See for the whole subject, Origeniana, ii. 9 ;
Denis, p. 297 sqq. ; Redepenning, places cited in Index. De la Rue con-
sidered that there was nothing in Origen's speculations opposed to the
Catholic faith, ' si modo quasdam exceperis quaestiunculas quas luxurians
Origenis ingenium curiosius persequens paullo longius prosequitur.' The
reader should also bear in mind De Princ. i. 5. 4, Certius tamen qualiter
se habitura sit res scit solus Deus et si qui eius per Christum et Spiritum
Sanctum amici sunt.
1 Contra Cehum, vi. 21, the canonical scriptures do not speak of seven or
any definite number of heavens, yet do speak of heavens in the plural,
whether these are to be identified with the Greek spheres or understood in a
mystical sense. De Princ. ii. 3. 7, the eighth heaven, the dir^av^s atyupa.
There are three heavens, In Matt. xxx. 5 1 ; In Psalm, xxxix. Horn. i. 8 ; De
Mart. 13. De Princ. ii. 3. 5, Multorum saeculorum finis dicitur esse hie
mundus qui et ipse saeculum dicitur : compare De Oral. 2 7 (Lorn. xvii.
226) ; In Matt. xv. 31.
Q2
228 . Origen. [Lect.
rewarded, according to its works *. All punishment is
medicinal, at least in the purpose of the good God 2 .
And the reward is not payment like that of an earthly
master, who gives money in return for toil. The King-
dom of God is within us, and what He promises is not
happiness, still less pleasure, but the full satisfaction of
that restless love of truth which He has implanted in
the soul, most surely not in vain 3 . But all revelation
must be gradual, must be willingly received. Hence
1 De Princ. i. 6. 3, Ex quo, ut opinor, hoc consequentia ipsa videtur
ostendere, unamquamque rationabilem naturam posse ab uno in alterum
ordinem transeuntem per singulos in omnes, et ab omnibus in singulos
pervenire, dum accessus profectuum defectuumve varios pro motibus vel cona-
tibus propriis unusquisque pro liberi arbitrii facultate perpetitur. The drift of
the passage compels us to apply these words to the future as well as to the past
and present life. Still more distinct is De Princ. iii. 1.21, Ex quo opinamur
quoniam quidem, ut frequenter diximus, immortalis est anima et aeterna, quod
in multis et sine fine spatiis per immensa et diversa saecula possibile est, ut
vel a summo bono ad infima mala descendat, vel ab ultimis malis ad summa
bona reparetur : and more explicit still are De Princ. ii. 3. 3 ad Jin., and
the Fragment from Jerome's translation of De Princ. in the Ad Avitum
(Lorn. xxi. 133). The possibility of a fall in the future life is the special
characteristic of Origen's view. It appeared to flow necessarily from the
doctrine of Free Will, on the other hand it is limited by the doctrine of Grace ;
see below at the end of this Lecture. But I have not noticed any passage
where Origen affirms this possibility outside of the De Principiis, and it is
expressly denied In Rom. v. 10.
2 The best passage for the curative nature of all punishment is to be found
in the Selecta in Exodum on the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. Origen's
belief is summed up very forcibly in the words fKaaros ovv aweiSws a^aprias
eavry (v\iaOca Ko\aaQr)vai (Lorn. viii. 328). Compare also De Princ. i.
6. 3. The weak part of his doctrine is the tendency to regard the relation
between vice and punishment as quantitative. In Lev. Horn. xiv. 3 there
are three degrees of sinfulness, denoted by the ' wood, hay, straw ' of
i Cor. iii. 12, which the fire burns up in a longer or shorter time. In Lev.
Horn. xi. 2 ; xiv. 4 the death, which was the punishment of certain sins
under the Law, wiped out the sin. The Christian must make atonement
either by penance ; this is the ' tradidi in interitum carnis ' of i Cor. v. 5 ; or by
fire in the next world. Here, as often, Origen is drawn in different directions
by three irreconcil cable principles discipline, literalism, and spiritualism.
3 De Princ. ii. n. 4 sqq.
VI.] The Future Life. 229
the future life is to be looked upon as one of progress
through discipline.
' The Lord is like a refiner's fire.' ' It is certain that
the fire which is prepared for sinners awaits us, and we
shall go into that fire, wherein God will try each man's
work of what kind it is .... Even if it be a Paul or a
Peter, he shall come into that fire, but such are they of
whom it is written, " though thou pass through the fire,
the flame shall not scorch thee.'" The holy and the
just are cleansed, like Aaron and Isaiah, with coals from
off the altar. But sinners, ' among whom I count my-
self,' must be purged with another fire. This is not of
the altar, it is not the Lord's, but is kindled by the
sinner himself within his own heart. Its fuel is our own
evil, the wood, the hay, the straw, sins graver or lighter,
which we have built upon the foundation laid by Christ.
Anger, envy, remorse, these rack men even in this life
with anguish so intolerable, that many perish by their
own hand rather than bear their torments longer. How
much fiercer will b'e the smart, when the soul in the
light of eternity surveys the history of all its wickedness
written in indelible characters upon its own. texture l ;
when it is ' sawn asunder ' by the pangs which attend
the separation of the guilty passions from the pure
spirit ; when it bewails in ' outer darkness ' its banishment
from Him, who is the Light and the Life 2 .
1 The soul never really forgets anything, but retains within itself ' signa
quaedam et formas ' of all its misdeeds, De Princ. ii. 10. 4. The same
idea, that sin leaves an imprint on the soul, is expressed by the x.eip6^pa<pov
of De Orat. 28 ; the cicatrix of In Lev. Horn. viii. 5 ; the rinros written on
the heart with iron pen and nail of adamant, Infer. Horn. xvi. 10.
2 In Psal. xxxvii. Horn. iii. i ; In Lev. Horn. ix. 8 ; In Lucam, Horn, xiv,
Ego puto quod et post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus sacramento
eluente nos atque purgante ; nemo enim absque sordibus resurgere poterit ;
230 Origen. [Lect.
Origen's view we must not say his doctrine rests
largely upon general principles : that justice and good-
ness are in their highest manifestation identical; that
God does not punish, but has made man so, that in
virtue only can he find peace and happiness, because He
has made him like Himself; that suffering is not a tax
upon sin, but the wholesome reaction, by which the
diseased soul struggles to cast out the poison of its
malady ; that therefore, if we have done wrong, it is
good to suffer, because the anguish is returning health,
will cease when health is restored, and cannot cease till
then. Again, that evil is against the plan of God, is
created not by Him but by ourselves ; is therefore pro-
perly speaking a negation, and as such cannot be eternal.
These are in the main Greek thoughts ; their chief
source is the Gorgias of Plato. But his final appeal is
always to Scripture. The texts on which he mainly relies
are those of St. Paul, He shall be saved yet so as by
fire,' ' God shall be all in all.' But starting from these he
finds a thousand hints and 'crannies,' especially in the
Old Testament 1 . He laboured to answer objections.
nee ullam posse animam reperiri quae universis statim vitiis careat ; De Princ.
ii. 10. 4 sqq. Injerem. Horn. ii. 3 Origen speaks as if the saints donot need this
baptism of fire. But this must be understood in the light of the above passages.
1 Besides the famous texts Luke iii. 16, I Cor. iii. 15, Is. iv. 4, Origen
quotes Is. xii. i, 'Though Thou wast angry with me, Thine anger is turned
away;' xxiv. 22, 'And they shall be gathered together as prisoners are
gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days
shall they be visited;' xlvii. 14, 15, on x f ' s avepaieas irvpos, KaBiaai k-n
auTofy OVTOI tffovrai ffot QoriOfia. : Micah vii. 9, ' I will bear the indignation
of the Lord, because I have sinned against Him . . . He will bring me forth
to the light ; ' Ezekiel xvi. 53, 55, Restituetur Sodoma in antiquum ; Jerem.
xxv. 15, 1 6, Per Hieremiam prophetam iubetur calix furoris Dei propinari
omnibus gentibus ut bibant et insaniant et evomant. In quo comminatur
dicens quia si quis noluerit bibere non mundabitur ; Matth. xviii. 30, ' Went
and cast him into prison till he should pay the debt;' John x. 16, ' There shall
VI.] The Future Lije. 231
The word ' eternal ' as applied to death does not neces-
sarily mean ' endless V The sin, which is not forgiven
in this aeon or the aeon to come, might yet be blotted
out in some one of the aeons beyond 2 . But he could
not be blind to the fact, that there are in Scripture
passages that make directly against him. Hence Resti-
tution is a great and terrible mystery. It is taught in
Scripture not explicitly but in allegories. And there is
a reason for this, because many men are so vile, that
even the dread of endless torments will scarcely curb
their evil passions. Considerations such as these lay
heavy upon his candid spirit. Hence though un-
doubtedly his prevailing hope is. that all men shall be
healed in that far-off day, when there shall be one flock
and one shepherd, and even Sodom, as Ezekiel pro-
phesied, shall be restored, at times his vision fails. ' Who
be one fold and one shepherd;' Rom. xi. 25, 26, 'Blindness in part is hap-
pened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel
shall be saved ;' Rom. xi. 32, 'God hath concluded them all in unbelief that
He might have mercy upon all;' i Peter iii. 18-21, 'Christ went and
preached to those who perished in the Flood ; ' Ps. Ixxviii. 34, ' When He
slew them then they sought Him.' Other texts are given by Huet, Ori-
geniana, ii. u. 20.
1 In Exodum, Horn. vi. 13, Domine qui regnas in saeculum et in saeculum
et adhuc ; De Princ. ii. 3. 5 ; In Lev. Horn. xiii. 6, Legitimum namque
et aeternum est omne quod mysticum est. Contra Celsum, vi. 26, Origen
seems to allow that aluvios implies endless duration, but argues that the
word is used Sia rows poyis tyofiy TTJS alwvtov oAd<recuy KO.V avart\\ovras
iiri itooov XT}? ica/cias teal riuv air' avrfjs apapravofjitvajv -xvaiv. The word
alwv in the usage of the Platonists of the time, certainly included the idea
of endless, changeless duration, see Plutarch, De Ei apud Delphos, 20 ;
and it must be admitted that the arguments employed in the passages quoted
above are not sufficient to prove Origen's point. Origen speaks of eternal
punishments in many passages. Vincenzi, In S. Greg. Nyss. et Origenis
Scripta et Doctrinam, Rome, 1865, refers to In Lev. Horn. ix. 4. 5 ; xiv. 4 ;
In Jesu Nave, Horn. xvi. 3 ; In Ezech. Horn. vi. 26 ; In Matt. Com. xvi.
22; De Mart. 25, and others, but he endeavours to prove far too much.
See Origeniana, ii. 1 1 .
2 In Matt. Com. xv. 21.
232 Origen.
is that guest who is bound hand and foot, and cast into
outer darkness ? You will ask whether he remains bound
in the outer darkness for ever ? for the words ' for this
aeon,' or ' for the aeons,' are not added or whether he
will in the end be loosed ? for it does not appear that
anything is written about his future release. It does not
seem to me to be safe, seeing I have no full understand-
ing, to pronounce an opinion, especially in a case where
Scripture is silent 1 .' The same hesitation is apparent,
where he is led to speak of the final doom of the evil
spirits 2 .
Indeed the Alexandrine doctrine of Volition is such,
that it is hard to reconcile with the hope of final unity.
If the will is wholly free, unconditioned, indifferent, what
after all is the use of these long ages of discipline?
What can they produce, but an eternity of sterile change,
in which each rise is balanced by a fall, and after the
lapse of a million ages the end is no nearer than it was 3 .
1 In Joan, xxviii. 7; see also In Rom. viii. 12 ; In Jer. Horn, xviii. 15.
2 De Princ. i. 6. 3, the salvability of some of the evil spirits is an open
question.. Ibid. i. 8. 4, the ' adversariae virtutes' are divided into two
classes, I. ' principatus, pot estates mundi rectores ;' of these he only says that
they are not essentially evil : 2. another class has sunk so deep ' ut revo-
cari nolit magis quam non possit.' Ibid. iii. 6. 5, 'The last enemy that
shall be destroyed is Death.' That is to say, not the substance but the
wicked will of the Devil will at last be annihilated. He will cease to be
an enemy. But this is denied, In Rom. viii. 9, Istius autem qui de coelo
cecidisse dicitur nee in fine saeculi erit ulla conversio. In the Epistola ad
Amicos (Lorn. xvii. 8) according to the version of Jerome certain of Origen's
adversaries taught that the Devil ' posse salvari,' according to that of Ru-
finus they affirmed that Origen taught 'diabolum esse salvandum.' Both
translators agree in the sense of the following words, ' quod ne mente
quidem quis captus dicere potest.'
3 Jerome, Ad Avitum, considers that the result of Origen's speculations
is ' rursum nasci ex fine principium et ex principio finem.' But Origen ex-
pressly denies this, De Princ. iii. 6. 6. See Denis, pp. 176, 328, 347.
Redepenning raises other difficulties on which it is unnecessary to enter.
vi.] The Future Life. 233
This is Jerome's criticism, and it has been pressed by
later writers. It may be a logical sequence, but it is
certainly not the meaning of Origen. Some spirits may
be rebellious to the last, and it is certain that God
Himself can constrain no man to goodness. But who
shall presume to say from observation of this life, which
is but a pin-point in the boundless ocean, that the soul
will always be obdurate. Great is the truth and it will
prevail, if it have but time to work in. Slowly yet cer-
tainly the blessed change must come, the purifying fire
must eat up the dross, and leave the pure gold. Per-
haps not till after many ages, not till after discipline
prolonged through geologic cycles, the sinner will learn
to kiss the rod, and submit to be healed. But at last
his eyes will be opened, the prodigal will fall on the
Father's bosom, and becoming ' one spirit with the Lord'
will thenceforth sin no more. One by one we shall
enter into rest never to stray again. Then when Death
the last enemy is destroyed, when the tale of His children
is complete, Christ will ' drink wine in the Kingdom of
His Father.' This is the End, when ' all shall be one,
as Christ and the Father are One,' when ' God shall be
all in all.'
From this time forth there is no further change, but the
soul remains secure in the fulness of intellectual fruition.
Yet not all alike. To the Beatific Vision none can be
admitted save the pure in heart. Though all other
chastisements cease, when their object is fulfilled, the
poena damni may still endure. . Star differeth from star
in glory. There are many mansions, many degrees 1 .
1 The many mansions are typified by the stages on the march of the
Israelites from Egypt to the Promised Land. The end of the journey is
234 Origen. The Fixture Life.
There are those, who bring forth thirty-, sixty-, a hun-
dred-fold. ' The righteous shall shine as the sun. And
upon whom shall they shine but on those beneath them?'
If we do not misinterpret these expressions, they
appear to mean, that the soul by sin may lose capacities,
which can never be -wholly regained, and in this sense
at least Origen teaches the eternity of punishment.
the ' river which makes glad the city of God,' In Num. Horn. xxvi. 4. 5 ;
xxviii. 2.3. But again, Injesu Nave, xxv. 4, there are different abodes even
in the last degree figured by the final settlements of the tribes in East, West,
South and North. Again, In Num. Horn. xi. 4. 5, as in this world the
Gentile races are under the care of Guardian Angels, while Israel is the
special portion of God, ' ita credo et in fine huius mundi atque in initio
saeculi alterius futurum ut iterum dividat excelsus filios Adam, et qui non
potuerint ita mundi esse corde ut ipsum videant Dominum et esse portio
Domini videant sanctos angelos et sint secundum numerum angelorum Dei.
It may be doubted here whether Origen is speaking of the Day of Judg-
ment or of the Consummation, but In Num. Horn. xxi. I he is certainly
speaking of the latter. The same uncertainty attaches to In Luc. Horn,
iii, where it is said that though all the redeemed will be in one place, only the
pure in heart will be able to see God. But here again I think he refers to
the End. So again, Ibid, xvii, the Siyafios is excluded from the church of
the firstborn, ' non quo in aeternum mittatur incendium sed quo partem non
habeat in regno Dei.' He may be saved but is not crowned. So again, In
Lev. Horn. xiv. 3, he who is spotted with vices not of a mortal kind, ' huic
etiamsi secundum Apostoli sententiam negantur regna coelorum non tamen
alterius beatitudinis abscinditur locus.' Similar language is used of the
Gentiles (see above, p. 207). To these passages may be added De Mart.
13. 14; In Matt. x. 3. The point is of importance because it is the only
ground on which Jerome attacks Origen's doctrine of the Restitution of Man,
alleging (Ep. Ixxxiv. Migne, Ad Pammachium et Oceanum) that he taught
' post multa saecula atque unam omnium restitutionem id ipsum fore
Gabrielem quod diabolum, Paulum quod Caipham, virgines quod prosti-
bulas.' See Origeniana, ii. n. 21.
LECTURE VII.
No man can serve two Masters. ST. MATT. vi. 24.
OUR account of Origen would be essentially defective
without a notice of his controversy with Celsus. We
have seen how the Church utilised philosophy; we
must now reverse the picture, and consider what the
philosophers had to say on their side. It will be inter-
esting to observe the attitude they took with regard
to Christianity, the points they conceded, the points
they denied, and to ascertain, as clearly as we can, what
they treated as the vital issues of the great debate.
But we shall be enabled to do this better, if we permit
ourselves a wider scope, and review not the controversy
with Celsus alone, but the mutual action and reaction
of Christianity and Paganism during this period.
It would be a serious error to regard the Second
Century as a time of irreligion. On the contrary it
was an age of revival. Everywhere men were seeking
with restless eagerness for deeper, more positive, more
vital beliefs. The ancient mythology had perished with
the Republic, and the old Greek and Roman deities
appear henceforth for the most part as intermediate
beings, angels or demons, who people the spaces of
air between man and the supreme object of his worship.
This is no longer Zeus or Jupiter, but a God of Syrian,
or Persian, or Egyptian nationality. The altars of
the Great Mother, of Isis and Serapis, of Mithra, are
236 The Reformed Paganism. [Lect.
to be found all over the world, from Bactria to Gaul,
in Northumberland, on the Rhine, in Numidia, wherever
the Roman eagles flew, in the provinces, in Rome, in
Caesar's palace.
The change is significant in many ways. It shows,
firstly, the irresistible tendency of the times towards
a Monotheistic worship. For these Oriental Gods,
though many in name, are in reality but one. As we
gaze upon them they seem to melt into one another.
Who is the Syrian Goddess ? She is the Aramaic
Astarte, the Babylonian Mylitta, she is the Great
Mother, she is Isis, Universal Nature, the maternal
feminine aspect of God. And God is the Sun, whose
ray-crowned head is to be seen on Roman coins from
the reign of Commodus to that of Constantine. Osiris,
Mithra, Elagabalus, are all the same. They are the
fatherly, fostering, masculine side of the Divine, aptly
figured by the orb of day 1 .
1 The same idea, that of the substantial identity of deities, regarded by
the vulgar as distinct, is found in Aeschylus, Prom. Vine. 210, efus ai
Tufa TroXAcDi/ ovofj-aroiv popfprj /ita. This mode of conception it has been
called Henotheism is an intermediate stage between Polytheism and Mono-
theism. It had prevailed from very early times in Egypt (see M. Le Page
Renouf, Hibbert Lectures for 1879 ; G. Maspero, Histoire Ancienne des
Peuples de F Orient, 4th ed., Paris, 1886) and obtains full expression in the
De hide et Osiride of Plutarch, the De Dea Syria of Lucian. See also
Mommsen, v. 454. It is the chief reason for the great fascination exercised
by the Egyptian religion, notwithstanding its zoolatry, upon Greek minds.
Henotheism, however, preserves in a confused way the personality of the
different deities, and does not go so far as to assert that the different names
only mark more or less perfect or imperfect ideas of the same God. This
was asserted in one passage by Clement, Strom, v. 14. 101, where he
affirms that God is meant by the Zeus of the poets. Origen would not
admit this. When Celsus insists that all mankind worship the same Father,
whether they call Him ' Jehovah, Jove or Lord,' he replies that words have
a natural affinity to things, that language is <f>vcrti not Gecret, that the different
names of the pagan gods have a real connection with demon-worship, as is
VIL] Mithra. 237
But besides this striving after unity, so natural to all
civilised men, there were other motives at work. What
these were we shall best see by a brief account of Mithra,
the most popular and powerful of all the new order of
deities.
Mithra was a God of the world-old Arian stock 1 .
In the Vedas he is the giver of light, life, and truth,
the assessor, almost the double of Varuna, the Lord
of Heaven. In the new dualism of the Iranian peoples
he is degraded to a subordinate place, and becomes,
as Plutarch says, a mediator between Ormuzd the good
and Ahriman the evil spirit, or between God and Man.
proved by their efficacy in magical incantations, and finally quotes Plato,
TO 8' efj.ov Stos, w Upwrax*, iff pi TO. bvofjMra TUIV Qvav OVK oklyov, Contra
Celsum, i. 24 ; v. 44.
1 The history of Mithra worship in its original home will be found in the
admirable Introduction of Darmsteter to his translation of the Vendidad in
Sacred Books of the East. Duncker also may be consulted. For the
spread of Mithra worship in Europe, see Preller, Rb'mische Mythologie ;
Renan, Marc Aurele, 576; Dollinger, The Gentile and the Jew; Keim,
Rom und das Christenthum. An account of Mithraic monuments in
England will be found in the C. I. L. vol. vii ; and Bruce, Wallet Book of
the Roman Wall. Almost any volume of the Inscriptions will supply in-
teresting information ; see especially the account of the Mithraic cave at
Constantine in Algeria, vol. viii. pt. i. no. 6975. The Mithra monuments
were erected mainly by Roman officers. This fact proves how worthless is
the distinction between licitae and illicitae religiones which used to be re-
garded as explaining the Christian persecutions. The birthday of Mithra,
the Sol Invictus, was December 25, on which day the festival of the Nativity
of Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, began to be celebrated not long before
the time of Chrysostom. It may be that the heathen festival was retained
under a Christian name from a politic desire to soften the change from the
old order of things to the new, though the positive evidence for this rests
upon a Homily formerly attributed to Chrysostom but of doubtful date and
authorship. See King, The Gnostics and their Remains, p. 47 ; and
Mr. Sinker's article Christmas in Diet. Christ. Ant. The same motive
may account for the fact that the figure of the Sun, with the legend ' To the
Invincible Sun, my Companion,' is found upon copper coins of Constantine ;
though not after the year 323, when his victory over Licinius raised him above
the necessity of dissimulation. See Eckhel, vol. viii. pp. 75, 79.
238 The Reformed Paganism. [Lect.
He is the Sun, who shoots his rays down into this world
to fight for man against cold, darkness, and disease.
Hence he was worshipped in caves, and depicted as a
youth slaying a bull. The cave is this dim earth ; the
bull is the changing world or evil, whose death is the
life of the soul. So Mithra is a Redeemer, and the
blood of the slain bull is an Atonement. His monu-
ments exhibit beneath these figures a dog, emblem
of the purified soul, lapping up the blood ; and beneath
all is the legend ' A holy stream,' or ' The stream that
is shed for all V
Connected with Mithra worship, though properly be-
longing to that of the Great Mother, was the barbarous
rite of the Taurobolium. The devotee was seated in
a trench, so that the blood of the slaughtered bull
gushed all over him. Monuments which commemorate
this hideous baptism speak of him by whom it was
received as ' regenerate ' Renatus in aeternum Tauro-
bolio 2 .
Mithraism had also its Messiah 3 . In the fulness of
time shall come a Saviour, a divine son of Zarathustra,
the lawgiver. He shall bring to a glorious close the
aeonian strife between good and evil. Death and Hell
shall be destroyed, and men shall live in blessedness
1 Na/Hi crefiriffiov : nama cunctis ; Preller, p. 761.
1 ' Der Einzuweihende wurde mit einem armlichen Gewande bekleidet,
um so recht eigentlich als "armer Siinder" die reinigende Bluttaufe iiber
sich ergehen zu lassen.' The oldest monument in commemoration of the
Taurobolium is at Naples and dated 133, the most recent is at Rome and
belongs to 390. Preller thinks the word renattis is borrowed from Christi-
anity. It was in common use in the Isis mysteries ; Apuleius, Metam.
xi. 21.
3 He was known by the name of Saoshyant. A tolerably precise outline
of the doctrine is given by Theopompus, Fragments 71, 72 in Muller's
Frag. Hist. Grace.
vii.] Mithra. 239
for evermore, ' casting no shadow,' children, as we say,
of light. Even before that consummation there is a
heaven for the righteous. It is figured as a staircase with
seven portals l . These are the seven heavens, the abode
of the six great Emanations and of Mithra. Through
these the soul ascends, protected by its guardian angel,
into the eighth, where it rests in the presence of Ormuzd.
It is peculiar to the religion of Mithra and to that of
Serapis, which is in other respects very similar, that
the guardian angel is the intelligence, the better and
purer half of human nature, which becomes after death
the champion, or spiritual bride, of the lower soul.
How closely all this resembles the ideas derived by
Clement from the Valentinian Theodotus will be dis-
cerned without further comment.
1 Contra Celsum, vi. 22. ' The priests held that only the pure and bright
part of the soul could live on after death. Hence even in the living they
distinguished this part from the polluted part, and in the pure immortal
half they saw the side ereated by the good gods, its true being, the Fra-
vashi, or protecting spirit allotted to each man ; ' Duncker, v. p. 1 80, Eng.
trans. So in the Egyptian Mysteries, 'At death the intellect (Khu or Ka)
becomes a demon ; the soul passes into the under world and appears at the
judgment bar of Osiris-Khent-Ament, and his thirty-two assessors. Its
conscience, or as the Egyptians say its heart, accuses it. It is weighed in
the balance of truth and justice. According as it is found light or heavy the
righteous doom is pronounced, and the intellect, the demon, becomes the
executioner. It reminds the soul how it neglected its warning and would
none of its reproof ; it flogs it with the scourge of its sins, and delivers it up
to the storm and the whirlwind;' Maspero, Germ, trans, of 1877, p. 39.
The account is taken from the Book of the Dead, a copy of which was
buried with every mummy. But I observe that in his last edition M. Mas-
pero does not bring out this peculiar relation of the intellect to the soul as
its guardian angel or avenging demon. Compare p. 33 above, and Le Page
Renouf, p. 147. Serapis or Sarapis (both spellings are found in inscriptions)
is Osiris- Apis, that is, ' the dead Apis.' All men after death were regarded
as entering into union with, as becoming Osiris. ' A partir de la xii e
dynastic le defunt est nomine couramment 1'Osiris .A 7 ";' Maspero, pp. 31,
35, 38, ed. Paris, 1 886.
240 The Reformed Paganism. [Lect.
The disciples of Mithra formed an organised church
with a developed hierarchy. They possessed the ideas
of Mediation, Atonement, and a Saviour, who is human
and yet divine, and not only the idea, but a doctrine of
the Future Life. They had a Eucharist, and a Baptism,
and other curious analogies might be pointed out be-
tween their system and the Church of Christ l . Most
of these conceptions, no doubt, are integral parts of
a religion much older than Christianity. But when we
consider how strange they are to the older polytheism
of Greece and Rome, and when we observe further that
Mithraism did not come into full vogue till the time
of Hadrian, that is to say till the age of Gnosticism,
we shall hardly be wrong in judging that resemblances
were pushed forward, exaggerated, modified, with a
special view to the necessities of the conflict with the
new faith, and that differences, such as the barbarous
superstitions of the Avesta, were kept sedulously in the
background with the same object. Paganism was copy-
ing Christianity, and by that very act was lowering
her arms.
This process of approximation, so visible in the popu-
lar religions, was carried to even greater lengths in the
region of philosophy. The old scepticism was still
represented by the Stoics, who combined the worship
of humanity with speculative doubt, and by the Epi-
cureans, who were practically Atheists. But these were
the creeds of a few rebellious intellects. The belief
' A
in a future life, which Cicero had ridiculed in a court
1 Justin, Apol. i. 66 ; Try f ho, 70 ; Tertullian, De Baft. 5 ; De praescr.
Haer. 40 ; Preller, p. 759 ; Dollinger, The Gentile and the Jew, \. 416, Eng.
trans.
VII.] The Pythagoreans. 241
of law, and Caesar and Cato had repudiated in the
open Senate, had become a test. At Athens one who
like Demonax stood aloof from the Mysteries was a
marked man, much as a non-communicant would have
been in the last century. This was the chief reason
why Stoicism, for all its noble morality and its high
services to law and to humanity, was swept away by the
rise of the Platonising schools l .
We may divide the heathen Platonists into two main
branches, according to the predominance in their cast
of thought of the religious or the philosophic vein. To
the former belong the Pythagoreans. These gave a
general adherence to the teaching of Plato, but combined
with it a high veneration for all 'philosophers, wise men,
and inspired poets ; ' for the shadowy figures of Pytha-
goras, Orpheus. Linus, Abaris, Zamolxis ; for the much
talked of but little known Brahmins and Buddhists 2 ;
1 The 'godless Epicureans' were not popular, hence Origen thinks that
Celsus was afraid to come forward openly in his true character as a professed
Epicurean, lest he should be regarded even by the Greeks as dOeos. For the
denial of the future life by Cicero, see Pro Cluentio, 61 (in the Tusculan
Disptitations he professes to delight in the Platonic doctrine of immor-
tality) ; by Caesar and Cato, Sallust, Cat. 51, 52. For Demonax, see n
of Lucian's charming sketch. When accused of Atheism on the ground that
ou (pvrjOT) /xoi/os airavTajv rats 'TZXtvaivicus, he replied that if the mysteries
were bad he should have denounced them, and if they were good he should
have revealed them to all men ; a noble sentiment in which he agrees with
Philo. Stoicism, the ancient Positivism, was always sceptical. Their prayer
always begins, ' O God, if there be a God.' The hypothesis was not neces-
sary to their system. See the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, ix. 28. They
did not absolutely deny the Future Life, though they were vague on the
point, and admitted at most a possible immortality for a few illustrious souls ;
so Tacitus, Agricola, 46. Stoicism throve because, like Christianity, it is a
philosophy of suffering ; it fell because, unlike Christianity, it is a philosophy
of despair.
2 There was no doubt a certain kind and degree of intercourse between the
West and India by way of the Red Sea, and overland through the half
Hellenised kingdom of Bactria (see Lassen, Zur Geschichte der Griech. und
R
242 The Reformed Paganism. [Lect.
for Magi, Thracians, Egyptians, Jews. They profess
to distil an elixir from all religions, from all that is
except Christianity, which they never name. Yet the
Church, from which they avert their eyes as from the
angel of doom, is really the prompter and guide of all
their efforts. If their beloved Hellenism was to be saved,
it must be by reforms borrowed from this hated rival.
And so they set to work with the energy of despair to
prove that so far as Christianity was true it was not new.
What was the secret, they asked, of the formidable
growth of this new sect? They could not miss the
external conditions. Christianity was a development
of an ancient faith ; it had been preached by a divine
person, whose mission was accredited by miracles. It
taught a pure morality, and kindled a zeal that was
stronger than the fear of death. It had its sacred books,
dictated or inspired by the Spirit of God. Were not
similar weapons to be found in their own armoury ?
If they were not to be found, at any rate they were
easy to manufacture. There were books of Orpheus,
Hermes, Zoroaster, Osthanes, which would serve for
Gospels. If Christ was Son of God, so were Plato,
Pythagoras, Apollonius. If Christ wrought signs and
wonders, Pythagoras also caused a miraculous draught
of fishes and fasted for forty days, Theosebius cast out
devils, the death of Proclus was foreboded by a super-
natural darkness so thick that the stars were seen at
Indo-skyth. Konige in Baktrien, Kabul und Indien, Bonn, 1838), but in
default of accurate literary information it cannot have been of such a nature
as seriously to affect the course of European thought. The merchant
mariners brought back little knowledge, see Strabo, xv. 4. What knowledge
there was appears to be derived chiefly from Megasthenes ; see the fragments
in Mu'ller, Frag. Hist. Grace, ii. p. 437. But it is sufficient to refer to Bishop
Lightfoot, Colossians, p. 151 sqq., ed. 1875.
vii.] The Pythagoreans. 243
noonday. If Christ taught in parables, so too did
^ Pythagoras. If the Church had martyrs, philosophy
could boast of Damon and Phintias, of Myllius and
Timycha, and of Anaxarchus. It was Pythagoras who
* first proclaimed the golden rule 'thou shalt love thy
friend as thyself,' and his morning and evening hymn
were cited as models of devotion 1 . In all this we may
surely discern the reflex of Christian ideas. On the
other hand it must be conceded that the doctrinal
Reserve and the severe Asceticism attributed by the
Pythagoreans to their founder affected sensibly the
practice of the Church.
Very little is really known of Pythagoras, and the
twenty biographies which were current in the second
century are little better than a mass of fiction 2 . The
same thing is true of the Life of Apollonius, yet this
extraordinary romance has a genuine historical interest
of its own 3 .
1 The miraculous draught of fishes, Porphyry, Vita Pyth. 25 ; the fast of
forty days, Ibid. 57 ; for Theosebius, see Damascius, Vita Isidori, 56 ; for
Proclus, Marinus, Vita Prodi, 37 ; the philosopher healed the daughter of
Archiades when at the point of death, Ibid. 29. Porphyry also tells us that
Pythagoras first taught TOV <pi\ov a\\ov kavrov iivai, 33 ; that no one ever
saw him weep (whereas Jesus wept), 35 ; that he taught all but his chosen
disciples in parables, 37 ; and speaks of his morning and evening hymn,
40. For Damon and Phintias, Myllius and Timycha, see Ibid. 60, 61 . Anax-
archus, Contra Celsum, viii. 53. The Platonists were very anxious to prove
that all Christianity taught was better taught in their own books ; see Augus-
tine's Confessions, vii. 9.
3 More than a score of complete or partial biographies of Pythagoras are
referred to by Clement, Strom, i. 14. 62 sqq., and Porphyry in the Life.
The only documentary foundation for all this mass of literature was the
brief account of their master's teaching said to have been drawn up by Lysis
and Archippus, and certain viro/j.vf)fiaTa K}>a\atw5r) asserted to have been
composed by anonymous individuals for their private edification and handed
down from father to son ; Porph. Vita, 58.
* The Life of Apollonius has been dealt with by Gibbon, Neander, Meiners,
R 2
244 The Reformed Paganism. [Lect.
It was composed by the courtly sophist Philostratus
at the command of Julia Domna, wife of Severus, mother
of Caracalla, aunt of Elagabalus and Alexander Severus.
This princess was well acquainted with the faith and
practice of Christians, who abounded in the royal house-
hold. Nor was she hostilely disposed towards them.
But she was deeply interested in the Syrian worship
of the Sun, to which her family owed its consequence,
and she presided over a coterie of lawyers and men of
letters, which was ardent in the defence of Paganism.
To a lady so learned and so august the settlement of
ecclesiastical disputes was a tempting, and seemed an
easy, task. Let paganism be set forth at its best, let
it be shown that the old mythologies also carried in
their bosom the germ of their own regeneration, and
could provide rational satisfaction for all the cravings
of heart and mind, and then the reformed Judaism
would be compelled to renounce its exclusive pre-
tensions, and fall at once into its proper place in the
new Pantheon. The necessary ideas were already cur-
rent in the imperial saloons. What was wanting was
a Messiah, some personage, not too ancient and not too
modern, who would inspire the system with the need-
ful human interest and vitality. Such a figure was to
be found in Apollonius, a sage, though some said a
charlatan, of the first century, and Philostratus was
Buhle, Jacobs, Letronne, Baur. I have made much use of Aube, Histoire
des Persecutions de Vglise, to which I may refer the reader for further
information. Of the three main authorities referred to by Philostratus,
Damis the Ninevite is probably his own invention, Maximus of Aegae
wrote an account only of such part of the life of Apollonius as was spent at
Aegae, and Moeragenes (cp. Contra Celsum, vi. 41) appears to have treated
the sage much as Lucian dealt with Alexander.
Vii.] Apollonius. 245
commissioned to employ his facile pen and his rhetorical
tropes in the great cause.
The birth of Apollonius was announced by Proteus,
the changing god of Nature, the World Spirit, or Platonic
Holy Ghost. 'What is it that I shall bring forth?'
asked the mother. The god replied ' Myself.' At the
age of sixteen the divine child entered on his mission.
He gave away his patrimony, vowed perpetual chastity,
and submitted to the law of five years' silence. His
flowing hair, his bare feet and white linen robe, his rigid
abstinence from flesh, marked him as a Pythagorean.
His speech was sententious and authoritative, his radiant
beauty imposed awe upon the most profane, and he
dwelt in temples, especially those of Aesculapius the
Healer, like a child in his father's house. One further
testimony was needed, and to obtain this he journeyed
on foot to the land of the Brahmins, who dwell with the
gods, and for their purity and wisdom have been dowered
with miraculous gifts. Thence he returned to be the
saviour of the Hellenic world. He is described as wan-
dering from city to city, in East and farthest West,
attended by disciples, who like those of Jesus are
devoted yet slow of heart to understand, as possessing
all languages even that of birds, as healing diseases, as
raising the dead to life. The heathen priests oppose
him, but the people hang upon his words. There were
no bounds to his mysterious power ; the downfall of
Nero and Domitian, the elevation of the good emperors
Vespasian and Nerva, were due to the influence of this
holy man.
Hearing of the persecution of the philosophers by
Domitian he resolves at once to offer himself as a volun-
246 The Reformed Paganism. [Lect.
tary sacrifice to the tyrant's rage, and gently reproving
the fears of his disciples makes his way to Rome. There
he is charged with the crime that was so commonly
urged against the Christians, that of having immolated
a child in secret magic rites ; he is insulted, thrown into
chains, and mockingly invited to save himself, if he can,
by a miracle. But the child of God suffers only so far
as is worthy of his Father. From the very tribunal of
Domitian Apollonius vanishes away, and appears the
same day to two of his disciples, who are seated in a
grotto of the Nymphs at Puteoli, talking sadly about
their lost Master. Damis, one of the two, cannot
believe his eyes, and is convinced by a grasp of the
hand.
After this Apollonius renews his beneficent activity
for a time. Where or when the end came no man knew,
but according to one story which Philostratus probably
intends his readers to accept, it befell in Crete. The
priests of Dictynna had confined him in their temple.
But at midnight the sage arose before his gaoler's eyes,
the chains fell from his limbs, the great gate swung open,
and he went forth. A choir of angels was heard to salute
him with the cry ' Away from earth to heaven, away ; '
and Apollonius was seen in the flesh no more. Yet
once again after this translation he appeared to a mourn-
ing disciple, to confirm his faith and assure him of the
truth of immortality.
It is the story of the Gospel corrected and improved.
Apollonius is what the enlightened circle of Julia Domna
thought Christ ought to have been. His portrait is
copied with minute care from that of the Son of Mary,
but it has been adorned and dignified according to
vn.] Apollonius. 247
heathen notions. It is interesting to notice the point
at which his passion ceases. To the Sun-worshipper,
as to the Gnostic, the details of the Crucifixion seemed
degrading. If Christ were what he professed to be, he
could not have fallen so low. This was in the eyes of
Celsus also one of the gravest objections to Christianity.
We see from this curious romance precisely how far
the authorities, with whose sanction it was published,
were ready to advance on the path of concession.
Apollonius refuses to be present at a bloody sacrifice,
and contents himself with scattering incense on the altar
of the Sun. He preaches against image worship, and
against the barbarous shows of the amphitheatre. On
the other hand, he loyally accepts the Emperor as Head
of Church and State. At Alexandria, when the philoso-
pher Euphrates exhorts Vespasian to restore the Re-
public, Apollonius replies that monarchy is the only
form of government suited to the times. ' For me all
constitutions are indifferent, for I depend upon God
alone, but I do not wish the flock to perish for want
of a good and faithful shepherd.' These were the terms
now offered to the Christians, and had they accepted
them they would have been protected against the hos-
tility of the heathen priests, which Apollonius is repre-
sented as defying, a hostility just as bitterly irritated
against the new Imperial religion as against the Church.
Such was Pythagoreanism at its best. It is needless
to exhibit its lower forms, or to describe at length that
grovelling theurgy which represents with such startling
exactness the coarse impositions of modern spiritualism.
Sufficient to say that they are all there, the table-rapping,
the apparitions, the aerial music, the floating in the air,
248 The Reformed Paganism. [Lect.
the magic writing, the thought reading, the medium with
his sham miracles. The same causes produced the same
effects, and then as now the most determined enemies
of the quack were, as the arch-quack Alexander com-
plains, the Epicurean Agnostic, and the Christian l .
But we must turn from the Pythagoreans to the more
scientific family of Platonists. Of these there were two
branches, the Trinitarian and the Unitarian. We may
take as representatives of the first Numenius 2 , of the
second Celsus.
The genesis of the Platonic Trinity is one of the most
perplexing questions in the history of philosophy. Like
almost all the leading ideas of the time it had its roots
1 ' The famous oracle which predicted the death of Valens was obtained
by certain men who sat round a table and noted letters of the alphabet,
which were spelt out for them by some automatic agency after a fashion
which, from the description of Ammonius, we cannot precisely determine.'
Mr. F. W. H. Myers, Greek Oracles in Hellenica, p. 467. The reference is
to Ammon. Marc. xxix. 2 ; xxxi. i. Compare for talking tables, Tertullian,
Apol. 23 ; dancing furniture in the Homilies, ii. 32 ; ' levigation ' in the
account of the Brahmins in Philostratus, Vita Ap. ; magic writing in
Macrobius, Sat. i. 23, and Lucian's Alexander. See also the Philopsevdes,
and 'Lob&c\i ) Aglaophamus. ' Telepathy,' thought-reading, are very common ;
there is a good story in the account of Sosipatra in the life of Aedesius ;
Eunapius, p. 469, ed. Firmin-Didot. These ' miracles ' attracted the notice
of the police magistrate, and ceased or were concealed after the accession of
Constantine ; Eunapius, p. 461. The dislike of the famous impostor
Alexander for the disciples of Christ was expressed with the most outspoken
candour. He complained that ' Pontus was full of Christians and Atheists,'
25, and denounced them by solemn proclamation at the commencement of
his mystic rites. ' First of all there was an expulsion of strangers, and
Alexander cried aloud, "Out with the Christians," to which the congrega-
tion replied, " Out with the Epicureans ;" ' 38.
a For this philosopher, see Zeller, iii. p. 545 sqq. ; Vacherot, i. p. 31 9 sqq. ;
Siegfried, p. 277; Ritter and Preller, 525 sqq.; and the fragments
preserved by Eusebius, Praep. Ev., by Porphyry and lamblichus in Stobaeus,
Ed. i. 836 ; and by Nemesius, De Nat. Horn. ii. 69 ; iii. 129-137. There
was also a school of Platonists who held by the Timaeus and spoke of Two
Gods. It was represented in the second century by Alcinous (see below,
p. 250), but is not of sufficient interest to call for separate notice.
VII.] The Platonic Trinity. 249
in the manysided speculations of Plato himself, and was
largely modified by influences from other quarters. In
the Republic we have, beside or above God, the Idea of
Good, the cause of truth, knowledge and existence, itself
above existence in majesty and power. If God is good,
his goodness must be derived from this source, and it
would seem at first as if we had here two divinities, the
Father and the Son. Yet again in the same dialogue
God is the creator at least of the subordinate Ideas. In
the Timaeus the Demiurge forms the World-Spirit
according to the pattern of the Ideas, which appear
to be independent eternal existences. We have here
three conceptions, God, the Ideas, the World-Spirit.
Plato has nowhere explained or harmonised this triad.
This was done in some way by the author of the Epistles^
who speaks, in obscure language and with much parade
of mystery, of Three Gods. Unfortunately the author-
ship and date of the Epistles in general, and of this
passage in particular, are highly uncertain 1 .
1 The passage is Ep. ii. p. 312 E. It is quoted by Athenagoras, Suppl.
23; Justin, Apol. i. 60; Clement, Strom, v. 14. 104; Eus. Praep. Ev. xi.
17. 20, and others. Karsten, Commentatio Critica de Platonis quae feruntur
Epistolis, Traiecti ad Rhenum, 1864, gives a history of opinion as to the
authenticity and date of the letters, and concludes that all are spurious,
by different hands at different times, the Second being one of the latest
and worst. Cobet, Var. Lect. ed. 1873, p. 235, says of Ep. vii, ' Platonis ipsius
esse et argumentum et stilus clamant ; ' and Dr. Thompson ( Gorgias, p. xii)
appears inclined to follow Mr. Grote in regarding all the Epistles as the
work of Plato himself. Zeller thinks that their composition falls at
latest in the second half of the first century before Christ, but regards
fcheir spuriousness as beyond all question. I find it impossible to believe
that this particular passage, which, though containing a most remarkable
and important doctrine, is unknown to Philo or any of the heathen Platonists
before Numenius, is much earlier in date than the last-named philosopher.
It is to be observed that in Ep vi. 323 C, D, only two Gods are spoken of.
The two Epistles represent different schools, for in Origen's time some of
the Platonists believed in two Gods, some in three ; Contra Celsum, v. 7.
250 The Reformed Paganism. [Lect.
In the time of Plutarch many regarded the Ideas as
thoughts existing in the divine Mind \ For those who
held this view there were two principles, as they were
called, God and the World; and the latter might be
regarded as a divine Being or not. Others, like Moder-
atus 2 and Nicomachus, assigned to the Ideas a substan-
tive existence outside the divine Mind. For these there
were accordingly three principles. But, though the Ideas
might doubtless be gathered up into one, none of the
later Platonists had as yet personified the Arch-Idea, or
spoken of it as a God. This was the work of Numenius,
a Syrian of Apamea, whose date falls probably about the
middle of the second century 3 .
1 Plutarch, De Placitis Phil. i. lo. I, ScaKparrjs at nXarcui/ x a} P'" ras TTJS
vAj/y ovaias rds ISe'as viTO\afji@avfi tv TO?S vorjuaai Kal rafs (pavraaiais TOV
Oeov, TOVTeffTi TOV vov v<f>effTwffas.
2 See Zeller, iii. p. 514 note. Simp. Phys. f. 50 b, OVTOS yap Kara TOVS
Hvdayoptiovs TO n\v itpGijTov virep TO eivai Kal iraTav ovo'iav viro<paivTai' TO oe
ofVTtpov (V, oirep lerri TO OVTCOS KOI VOTJTOV, TO, fiSi] (ptjalv tTvai' TO Se Tpirov,
oirep IOTI fyvxiKQV, /<T6x "' T0 ^ * vos /fa ' r '" v fioaiv. Moderatus of Gades
then (temp. Nero) summed up the Ideas in the one Idea of Good, but did
not apparently personify them. Zeller insists that OVTOS is Plato, not Mode-
ratus, but this makes no real difference, for Simplicius is describing what
Moderatus held to be the doctrine of Plato. M. Vacherot has therefore no
ground for regarding Moderatus as the first propagator of the Platonic
Trinity. Nor is he better advised in attributing the same doctrine to Alci-
nous. For, though Alcinous speaks (chap. 10) of the ovpavios vovs and 17
i[>v\ri TOV Koffpov as distinct from God, these are merely two parts of the one
Anima Mundi, as appears from chap. 14, Kal TT)J/ tfvx^v TTJV del ovffav TOV
Koapov oi>xl iroief 6 0ebs ciAAa KaraKoanei' Kal rainri. Ae-ycnr' av Kal iroifTv,
iyf'ipow Kal InffTpfyw Trpos avrbv TOV Te vow avTrjs Kal avTrjv uffirep IK Kapov
TWOS fj ftaOeus vnvov orj\ov ovv OTI >ov av eirj 6 Koff/J.os Kal votpov . . . iffaK
oi>x oiov Tf OVTOS vov avev if>vxrjs vnoaTTJvat. The doctrine of Apuleius
(De Habit. Doctr. Plat. i. p. 162 Bip. ; Ritter and Preller, 530) appears to
agree with that of Alcinous. The question is perplexed by the difficulty of
the dates. All we know of Alcinous and Nicomachus is that they are older
than Plotinus. But, with the exceedingly dubious exception of the Second
Platonic Epistle, it may be confidently affirmed that no Trinity is to be found
in any Pagan philosopher who was not well acquainted with Christianity.
3 All we know as to his date is that he is older than Clement, who refer
VII.] Numenius. 251
That Numenius differed from all his predecessors in
this article is clear from the fact that he claimed to be
regarded as the regenerator of philosophy on this very
account. He boasts that he has gone back to the
fountain head, to Plato, Socrates and Pythagoras, to
the ancient traditions of Brahmins, Magi, Egyptians and
Jews, and has restored to the schools the forgotten
doctrine of Three Gods 1 . Of these the first is Mind,
simple and changeless, good and wise 2 . Being change-
less he cannot create, hence there is derived from him a
second God, the Creator 3 . The Son is no longer simple,
to him by name and borrows from him not only the well-known comparison
of Truth to the body of Pentheus (above, p. 48), but probably that also of
the Pilot, and the phrase about the Son of God never leaving his irtpicuirq ;
cp. Strom, vii. 2. 5 ; Eus. Praep. Ev. xi. 18. 10, 24. Apamea was one of
the centres of Neo-Platonism. There lived Amelius, who quoted the
Gospel of St. John in support of the doctrine of the Logos, Eus. Praep. Ev.
xi. 19, and his adopted son Hostilianus Hesychius ; Porphyry, Vita Plotini,
2, 3. Numenius was a foolish, gossiping man ; see the long and absurd
story about Lacydes, Eus. Praep. Ev. xiv. 7.
1 Eus. Praep. Ev. xiv. 5. 5, ainov 6e on, rpffs Oeovs riOtfjifvov "ScaKpaTOVs
KOI <pi\ocro([>owTos avrois tv rots Trpocrfjicovaiv tKaarai pvOp-ots, ol SiaKovaavrts
TOVTO nlv fftvoow, K.T.\. Numenius is no doubt referring to the Second
Platonic Epistle, the author of which not only makes Plato ascribe his
Trinity to Socrates, but actually affirm that he himself had never written
upon theological questions at all ; 314 C, Sici ravra ovotv TTOJITOT' tyu irtpl
TOVTcaif ytypfxpa, ov5' fart ffvyy pap.[J.a HXdraovos ovS^v ovo' tcrrai, TO. 5e vvv
\(y6fj.fva ~5.caKpa.rovs effri fca\ov /cat veov yeyovoros. I understand the author
to mean not that Plato did not write the dialogues but that they are
what they profess to be, mere verbatim reports of the teaching of Socrates.
3 For the attributes of the Supreme God, see Eus. Praep. Ev. xi. 22. 3 sqq.,
and xi. 10. It will be observed that the Deity of Numenius still possesses
moral and intellectual qualities. Richter thinks that his doctrine of the
Absolute did not differ from that of Clement or Plotinus, Neu-Platonische
Studien, p. 60; but see Praep. Ev. xi. 18. 20, where even 'movement' is
attributed in some sense to the Supreme. The doctrine of Ecstasy, in a
form not unlike the self-induced mesmerism of the Quietists, is to be found
in the extract from the irtpl rdyadov given by Eus. Praep. Ev. xi. 22. i.
3 Zeller, iii. 547, note, thinks that Numenius derived his doctrine of the
Son-Creator from the Gnostics. This is quite impossible, for there is no
trace of hostility between the two Deities.
252 The Reformed Paganism. [Lect.
like the Father, but twofold. ' Condescending to Matter,
which is multiple, he gives to it unity, but is himself
divided.' Part of him is incorporated in the things that
he has made, becomes in fact the World Spirit; part
hovers over the world as its guide, ' riding on Matter as
a pilot on his ship,' and maintaining it in harmony with
the will of God. ' He touches the sensible and cares for
it, drawing it up to his own nature, because he yearns
for it V Hence, as Proclus says, the Trinity of Numenius
consists of the Father, the Creator, and the World.
Numenius is but repeating the fashionable language
of his school when he talks of Brahmins, Magi and
Egyptians. The real source of his doctrine is un-
doubtedly Jewish. We learn that he allegorised the
Old Testament with some skill and success, and, when
he called Plato an Attic Moses, he must have had Philo
in his mind. But there is an element in his doctrine
which is not Philonic. He speaks of Matter not as the
cause of evil, but as something which the Son loves and
cares for, so much so that in a peculiar sense he conde-
scends to take its nature upon him. And in strict con-
formity with this he regarded sin as the result of a
conflict riot between Mind and Matter, but between the
higher and lower spirit of man. This is the language of
St. Paul ; and, when we consider that he was well ac-
1 Eus. Praep. Ev. xi. 18. I, 24. It will be observed that even in Nu-
menius the doctrine of the Trinity has not yet attained to clearness and
consistency. Though he speaks of Three Gods, the Son is still in part the
same as the Anima Mundi : 6 Otos fitvroi 6 Seurepos KOI rpiros iarlv tfs'
avfuptpoftevos 5% rrj V\TJ SvaSt 01)077, kvoi fj.\v O.VTTJV, ffj(itTCU 8e I/TT' avrrjs,
firi9vfit]TiKc>i' rjQos txovfffjs teal fifovarjs. Matter is a dyad, I presume,
because it has a ^ux 7 ?. tuat is Ovpos and irnQviua, but no vovs till this regu-
lative unifying principle is infused into it by union with the Son. Numenius
then has Three Gods but not Three Hypostases. Plotinus speaks of rpefs
s, but not till after this phrase was current among Christians.
VIL] Numenius, 253
quainted with t,he Gospels and possibly with the Epistles,
it seems reasonable to conclude that in this peculiar
view, on which he is in direct and violent contra-
diction with Philo and the heathen Platonists in a
body, he is reflecting the ideas proper to Christianity l .
The same thing is, I believe, true of his doctrine of
the Trinity, which marks a distinct advance on the
teaching of Philo, and an advanced/in the direction of
the Church.
Numenius may not unfairly be regarded as the founder
of Neo-Platonism, with the reservation already pointed
out in favour of Clement 2 . But I should be carried
far beyond my limits, if I were to attempt to define
his relation to the great Plotinus. I must turn away
from this tempting subject to the system of Unitarian
Platonism as it is depicted in the extant fragments of
Celsus 3 .
1 Contra Celsum, i. 15; iv. 51. The story of Jannes and Jambres he
may have learned either from 2 Tim. iii. 8 or from pseudo-Jonathan ; see
Siegfried. In the latter case he must have had a very remarkable acquaint-
ance with Rabbinical literature, and we can hardly avoid the suspicion that
he was a Jew. For his doctrine of Evil as arising out of the strife between
the two souls of man, see Zeller. No true Greek would have explained the
theory of Ideas in so materialistic a way as "Numenius. God, the Good, is
the Idea of the Son, whom He consequently creates. Just so every sensible
Kind has its Idea, and the concrete Man, Ox, Horse, are created by the Ideal
Man, Ox, Horse; Praep. Ev. xi. 22. 9. This is the view also of Philo
and Clement. I suspect that the motive of Numenius' treatise Tlepl totrov
was given by Philo, in whose terminology Place is another name for the
Son. Of the same school and about the same date are Cronius and Harpo-
cration, who are known to us only by name.
2 Porphyry ( Vita Plotini, 21) would not admit that Plotinus was indebted
to Numenius. Nevertheless there was a historical connection between the
two teachers. Numenius was, as Longinus pronounced, far inferior in
a.Kpi&fia to Amelius and Plotinus, but, as Zeller says, he pointed out the
way for them.
3 The author of the 'AXrjOfy \6-yo? may or may not have been the Celsus
to whom Lucian addressed his exposure of the tricks of Alexander of Abo-
254 The Reformed Paganism. [Lect.
Celsus wrote his True Word against the Christians
amid the civil troubles that clouded the latter days of
M. Aurelius. Half a century afterwards the treatise
fell into the hands of Ambrosius, who sent it to Origen,
with a request that he would reply to it. Origen
was reluctant to undertake the task, thinking that the
one effective answer to all opponents lay in the actual
triumph of the Gospel. But as soon as he began to
read the book he perceived the gravity of the attack,
and threw himself heart and soul into the controversy.
Like most of Origen's work the Contra Celsum is marred
by the fiery impetuosity of its author. He alters and
enlarges the plan of his defence. With such haste does
he pour out the eager flood of dictation, following and
combating his antagonist sentence by sentence, that he
often does not catch the point of an argument till he
has wandered round it for many a page, and even to
noteichos. The name was not uncommon. Nor perhaps is it necessary to
suppose that the friend of Lucian was an Epicurean, though that is certainly
the natural inference from the words TO TrXe'ov Sf, oirtp KOI aol rjSiov, 'ETTJ-
Kovpy rifuapSiv, avSpl us dXrjGws l(pw ical Oeairtaica rrjv (pvffiv, Alexander, ad
fin. The author of the True Word was undoubtedly a Platonist, though
Origen charges him with masking atheism under the garb of Platonism,
Contra Celsum, i. 8 ; ii. 13 ; iii. 35. 80 ; iv. 4. 54 ; v. 3. He seems to have
jumped at this conclusion from the way in which Celsus spoke of the
miracles of Jesus, admitting some of them to be true but ascribing them to
vulgar magic ; see Contra Celsum, i. 68, opas ws Sia TOVTUV olovd irapaSe-
Xtrat ftaytiav tlvai- OVK oida el 6 avros wv T> ypaif/avrt Kara paytias &i@\ia
nXtiova. Now the Celsus who was Lucian's friend had written Kara fj.djwv,
Alex. 2 1 . Origen no doubt identified the two, and took it for granted that
Lucian's friend was an Epicurean. Keim shows good reason for supposing
that he was right in the first inference and wrong in the second. The date
of the True Word is about 178. Nearly the whole work is found em-
bedded in the reply of Origen. The fragments have been collected, trans-
lated, and commented on by several hands, especially by Theodor Keim,
Celsus'' Wahres Wort, Zurich, 1873, and with less erudition but great clear-
ness and an interesting criticism by B. Aube in the Histoire des Persecutions
deftiglise, Paris, 1878.
Vii. ] Celsus. 255
the last he does not clearly realise that Celsus was
not an Epicurean but a Platonist.
Celsus is scarcely to be called a philosopher, for he
is deficient in system, penetration and sympathy. But
he is a favourable specimen of the highly cultivated
man of the world, keen, positive and logical, sceptical
and mocking, yet not without genuine moral convictions,
a student of the science of religion, an enlightened ad-
vocate of the reformed Paganism. He was well armed
for his task, for he had studied the four Gospels and the
books of Genesis and Exodus, possessed some knowledge
of the Prophets and Epistles, and had read more or less
of Gnostic and Jewish, or Jewish-Christian, literature : .
Besides he had travelled widely, and sought conversation
with religious professors of every shade, especially with
Christians. He had gained, as he thought, full know-
ledge of his subject before he took up the pen. Nor
is he consciously unjust. He pours out his scorn with
perfect impartiality upon the begging priests, and
mountebanks, and gross superstitions of the popular
religions. He does not repeat the old and not yet
extinct slanders against the Church, and pays a grudg-
ing respect to the purity of Christian morals. Yet
1 According to Tischendorf and Volkmar, Celsus used all the canonical
and some uncanonical Gospels ; according to Meyer and Zeller, the Synop-
tics but not John ; according to Redepenning and Mosheim, no canonical
Gospel at all but Jewish and Apocryphal documents. The question is dis-
cussed by Keim, p. 219 sqq., who concludes that Celsus was well acquainted
with all four canonical Gospels, that he makes most use of that of Matthew,
that the general colouring of the Christology known to him is Johannine,
and that there is no certain trace of his employment of any apocryphal
Gospel. Of the Pauline Epistles Keim thinks he knew only a few phrases
picked up in conversation, and his acquaintance with Old Testament
prophecy is general and vague. See also Dr. Westcott, On the Canon,
p. 404.
256 The Reformed Paganism. [Lect.
when he charges the Christians with sorcery, want of
patriotism and disloyalty, when he asserts with emphasis
that every church is an illicit college, he is deliberately
giving a new edge to the most deadly of all the ac-
cusations under which the Christians suffered 1 . Well
did he know the fatal significance of these cruel in-
sinuations.
We need not follow in detail his criticism of the
Scriptures. He treats the Gospel from the point of
1 Their churches are illicit colleges, i. i. 7 ; the charge of magic is
made, i. 6. 68; vi. 39; that of want of patriotism, faction, viii. 2. 21.
- The law against illicit clubs or colleges was severe and bore very hard
on the Christians. See the exceedingly interesting treatise of Mommsen, De
Collegiis et Sodaliciis Romanorum, Kiliae, 1843. A Senatus Consultum
passed probably under Augustus, while recognising the ancient collegia
opificum, rendered all other clubs except burial societies illegal. They
were allowed to meet once a month for business purposes, when the subscrip-
tion (the ' stips menstrua') was collected, but they had other unrestricted
meetings for the purpose of offering sacrifice in the temple of the patron God
and feasting together. The qualified toleration of benefit societies by the
Sctum of Augustus appears to have been confined to Rome, and was extended
to Italy and the Provinces by Severus (Digest xlvii. 22). Before this time
clubs of all kinds and denominations appear to have been illegal in Italy and
the Provinces without special authorisation from the Emperor, and this was
very grudgingly conferred (see the Rescript of Trajan in Pliny, Ep. x. 42, 43 ;
Tac. Ann. xiv. 17). The language of Tertullian, Apol. 39, shows how
easily the Christian Churches could be brought under this law. He does not
deny that each Church is a collegium ; all he aims at proving is that its
objects are good, and its management exemplary. The very phrases that
are used of colleges occur in his description, and no doubt are used purposely
' coimus in coetum si quod arcae genus est,' the regular word for the treasure
chest of a collegium ' modicam unusquisque stipem menstrua dievelquum
velit et si modo velit et si modo possit apponit ' the money was applied
' egenis alendis humandisque? They had coenae also, but how different
from those of the colleges ! He concludes, ' quum probi quum boni
coeunt, quum casti congregantur, non est factio dicenda sed curia? 'Curia' is
apparently equivalent to ' collegium licitum,' as 'factio ' to ' collegium illicitum. '
The charge of factiousness, want of patriotism, brought the Christian under
the law of Maiestas, and magic was a capital crime. The subject of the
laws under which Christians suffered has been investigated by M. E. Le Blant,
Note sur les bases juridiques des poursuites dirigees contre les Martyrs,
Acad. des Inscr. Nouvelle Serie, vol. 2 (1866), p. 358. It seems probable
VII.] Celsus. 257
view of the Jew, the Law from that of an educated
Greek. This enabled him to insist upon the factious
nature of the new faith, the Christians being renegade
Jews as the Jews themselves were renegade Egyptians ;
and at the same time to set in the strongest and most
repulsive light whatever had been or could be urged
against their documents. He was under no inherited
restraint, and whatever his biting wit could find to say
he said. But what we are concerned with is the more
serious part of his work, his own belief, his intellectual
relation towards Christianity, his view of the general
religious position of the time.
In the creed of Celsus there is one supreme God.
He is good, beautiful and happy, but has no movement,
attribute or name. He created all reasonable immortal
beings, the soul of man and the lower deities, and the
lower deities created the world. His work is perfect, so
that there never was any law against Christianity as such. But there were
several Rescripts directing how the laws in point were to be enforced. Of
these the most important were that of Trajan forbidding anonymous
accusations, that of Hadrian ordering that Christians should not be con-
demned except for definite offences against the laws, and another or others
unknown directing that when convicted they should be put to death by
decapitation, and that torture should only be applied in the usual way to
force confession. See Tertullian, Ad Scapulam, 4 : Quid enim amplius
tibi mandatur quam nocentes confesses damnare, negantes autem ad tormenta
revocare sine accusatore negans se auditurum hominem secnndum
mandata Nam et nunc a praeside Legionis et a praeside Mauri-
taniae vexatur hoc nomen, sed gladio tenus sicut et a primordio mandatum est
animadverti in huiusmodi. The same treatise shows how little these wise
restrictions were regarded by many of the governors. Severus is said to
have gone further. ludaeos fieri sub grandi poena vetuit : idem etiam de
Christianis sanxit ; Spartian, Vita Severi, 17. That he made sharp
enactments against conversion to Judaism seems to be certain ; see Julius
Paullus, Sent. v. 22. 3, in Huschke, Jurisp. Antejust.; the incident
recorded in Spartian's Life of Caracalla, chap. i. ; and Origen, Contra
Celsum, ii. 13. But it is almost certain from Tertullian, Apol. 5 and Ad
' Scap., that he made no new and special enactment against Christianity.
S
258 The Reformed Paganism. [Lect.
that He never needs to interfere for its correction or
improvement. And being absolutely just and good, He
is untouched by pity. Man's relation to Him may alter,
but His relation to man must ever be the same 1 . It is
still the old conception of God as pure Intelligence.
God is the supreme ruler of Nature, whose laws are
the expression of His reason, and in this sense He may
be considered as exercising a general providence. But
something more than this was demanded by the con-
science of the times in which Celsus lived. To satisfy
this need he inserts between God and the world the
hierarchy of the inferior gods or Demons. These sub-
ordinate powers fill a very remarkable place in all the
Platonic systems of the time. They change philosophy
into religion, they are the mediators between God and
man, and, what is even still more important, they form
the connecting link between the old and the reformed
Paganism.
It is not indeed a novel conception, for the Demons
are as old as the poems of Hesiod, and appear in the
Timaeus and the Symposiiim. But in the modern
Platonists, Plutarch, Maximus Tyrius, or Celsus, they
are no longer a subordinate accidental feature. Like
the Powers of Philo, they are the real creators of all
except the soul of man. Some of them are demons
in the lowest sense of the word, spirits of evil banished
1 On this point it is worthy of notice that Origen does not contradict
Celsus : /xera ravra 8' lavra) Xanfiavti TO pi) StSo/^evov inro TWV \oytKtarfpov
viarevovruv, rdxa iirro TIVOW dvorjrcav vo/jufyntvoi', us dpa ofioicvs rots olfcrq)
Sov\vov<n 5ov\(vaas, oiKrca rwv otxnfo/l&W 6 6(os TOVS Kaxovs Kov<piti, teal
HqStv TOIOVTO Spuivras roiry dyaOovs aTroppiirrff oirtp karlv dStKUTaTov, iii. 71.
But God, in the view of Celsus, is still moral and intelligent, though He has
no name. For He knows what goes on upon earth ; iv. 3.
vii.] C els us. 259
from the presence of God. But for the most part they
are of mixed nature, some almost wholly divine, some
little better than man. They exercise rule over special
provinces of Nature, sending the lightning and the
rain ; they are the ' invisible farmers,' who make the
crops to grow and the cattle to increase. They are
the ' lords of the prison-house,' rulers of the darkness
of this world in which the fallen spirit of man is con-
fined for its purification. They are the gods of the
old national mythologies, whom in times past men
ignorantly worshipped as the Supreme. They give
oracles, prophecies, revelations, send and cure diseases,
work miracles. They claim honour and service from
man, the lower delighting in the steam and blood of
sacrifices, the higher accepting no offering but that of
a pure and holy spirit. Thus the Platonist found still
a way to believe in the personal loving care of God
for His creatures. He who denies the Demons, says
Plutarch, denies providence, and breaks the chain that
unites the world to the throne of God 1 .
1 Plutarch, De defectu Orac. 1 3. Special Providence and Mediation were
the two great religious needs supplied by the doctrine of Demons. Both are
very clearly brought out by Maximus Tyrius. For the latter, see Oration xv.
Without the Demons no relation could exist between God and man. Awo
ydp Trpayfiarcuv K(\(apiafJ.(V<av ry <f>vofi \<apiaOiifftrai teal fj iirtfuficnrai'Tdira.criv,
fav /j.r] ns KOIVOS opos dfttporepa viroSfgrjToi. It is necessary then that there
should be a class of beings partaking of both natures, rj arraOts Gvrjrov $
aSavcnov f/jLiraOts. For the former see xvii. 12, where there is an elaborate
picture of the world as the palace of God. ' There is the great King
tranquil as Law, bestowing upon his subjects the salvation that exists in
him. There are the partners of his rule, many visible gods, many invisible.
Some wait at his threshold, as it were his ushers (ticrayyfXtrs) ; some are
kinsmen of the king, who share his table and his hearth ; some are ministers
again of these, and some are still lower in degree. Thou seest the hierarchy
and graduation of rule which stretches down from God to earth.' Maximns
distinguishes Two Lives in almost exactly the same way as Philo. The
lower is the knowledge of God in His works. For God is beautiful, and all
S 3
260 The Reformed Paganism. [Lect.
There are so many coincidences between the Pagan
doctrine of the Demons and the Christian doctrine of
Angels and demons, that we are justified in assuming
a close historical connection between the two. But
the relation of these discrowned gods to the life of the
soul is Philonic or Gnostic rather than Christian. They
are the Gods of the imperfect, the saviours of those
who are capable of virtue but not of knowledge. Here
again we have the theory of the Two Lives, but they
are separated by an impassable gulf. All but the
gifted few are debarred by the law of Nature from the
higher.
This brings us to the first cardinal difference between
Celsus and Origen. How can God be known ? ' It is
hard to find Him out,' replied the heathen, ' impossible
to reveal Him to all.' The knowledge of God cannot
be conveyed in words, but from much meditation and
close personal converse with the wise a spark is kindled
in the soul. Philosophy can give us ' some conception,'
which the mind of the elect must develope for itself. The
Christian replied, ' God is known to us, as far as He can
be known, in the Incarnate Christ.'
that is beautiful will guide us to Him, the beauty of the human frame, of a
flowering mead, of a fair-flowing river, of the sea and sky and the gods in
the sky, that is the stars. ' If these are enough for thee, thou hast seen
God.' But for higher minds there is higher knowledge. To them (xvi. 7)
the sensible suggests the suprasensual ; as the song of Demodocus suggested
to Odysseus the siege of Troy, as the lyre suggests the beloved one who
played on it, so the mind mounts up from lower to higher by a process
resembling the thrill which vibrates through the slender shaft of a lance
when you grasp the butt. The same ideas will be found in Plutarch, and
indeed in Plato, Symposium, 202 E. But in Maximus and Celsus they have
grown immensely in relative importance, and the reason for this is to be
found no doubt in the conflict with Christianity. The doctrine of the
Demons properly understood would, it was hoped, make the belief in Christ
unnecessary.
VII.] Celsus. 261
This was the great rock of offence. Celsus flung
himself with all his force against the doctrine of the
Incarnation. He resisted it on a priori grounds. Why
should God come down to earth ? Does He not already
know what is happening there, and can He not remedy
what is amiss without descending in person? How can
He forsake His proper abode, when, if you make the
least change in the order of Nature, all must go to
wreck? God is perfectly good, beautiful, happy; if He
descends into the world in human shape, He must
change, and suffer in the change an unutterable degra-
dation. And why should He need like a bad workman
to correct what He has once made? Or if at all, why
not till after the lapse of so many ages, waking out of
sleep, as it were, and proceeding in unseemly haste to
amend the consequences of His long neglect ?
The answer to all this from the Christian point of
view was easy. Celsus does not realise, as Origen with
truth insists, either the nature of God, or the value of
the human soul, or the necessary operation of its free-
dom. No Christian asserted that God ' came down,'
in such a sense as that His throne in heaven should be
left untenanted. Nor was it His own work that needed
correction, but the work of man. Nor was the resolve
a late and sudden one, for law-giver, priest, and prophet
had borne their part in the progressive revelation, and
the birth of Christ is but the crown of a long develop-
ment 1 . Nor was God degraded by taking upon Him
the form of a servant. For He who knew no sin knew
1 Contra Celsum, iv. 4. 7. But in the next chapter Origen goes on to say,
<?X T < ^ wept TOVTQJV \6yos fjivarmwrfpoi' KOI fiaOvrtpov. The full explana-
tion, that is to say, depends on the doctrine of pre-existence and the varying
needs of purification entailed by the ante-natal sin.
262 The Reformed Paganism. [Lect.
.no shame. But here the Christian and the heathen
move in different planes, and their minds do not touch.
To the one moral evil is the only pollution ; to the
other mere contact with matter is, in the case of God,
inconceivable. Even the Christian is here betrayed
into weakness by mental associations which he could not
wholly shake off. Christ came ' out of condescension
to those who cannot look upon the dazzling radiance of
the Godhead; He becomes Man till he that has received
Him in this guise, being little by little lifted up by the
Word, is able to contemplate His proper shape 1 .' Origen
held, and it is, as we have seen, one of his characteristic
thoughts, that the Incarnation was a weakening and
obscuring of the divine glory. It is not with him the
highest and profoundest revelation of the divine love.
In the historical argument of Celsus again we see this
Platonic hatred of matter come out in strong relief.
Jesus, he affirmed, making use of Jewish fables still
to be found in the Talmud, was an impostor, who suf-
fered the death he deserved. He was not the promised
Messiah, for the Prophets spoke only of a King and
Conqueror. He was not a Son of God, for then His
mother would have been a queen like Semele or Andro-
meda. His person would have been beautiful ; His flesh
would not have been liable to pain ; He would have
vanished from the Cross, and appeared again in majesty
to confound His enemies. His miracles, allowing them
genuine, prove nothing, as He Himself admitted. His
1 Contra Celsum, iv. 15. 19. In the latter passage we read the singular
words, xal ycLp OVK aroirov tern rov i&fjitvov <pi\ovs voffowras laaaaOai TO
<pl\ov TWV avOpunrcav yfvos rofs rotofcrSe oh OVK av TLS \p-qaairo Trporjyov/jLtvcas
dAA.' etc irfpiarafffcas. The language is to be explained by Origen's view of
the Epinoiai ; see Lecture v.
vir.] Celsus. 263
Resurrection rests upon the testimony of ' a hysterical
woman V Above all He failed, for the Jews who were
yearning for their Saviour rejected Him, and His own
disciples abandoned and denied Him.
It did not occur to this singularly able man that,
when the assigned cause is so inadequate to the manifest
result, there must be some flaw in the calculation.
Celsus dashes against the facts in passionate derision.
' He has failed,' he cries, ' and yet you believe Him.'
The Christian's rejoinder was triumphant. He had but
to point to the churches, springing up on all sides like
grass after rain, and answer, ' He has not failed because
we believe Him.' This is in fact the chief of the external
supports on which the faith of Origen reposed. He
believed Scripture to be the Word of God, yet as we
have seen he did not insist upon its literal truth. He
believed in Miracles, and held that the power of working
them was still bestowed upon the Church. Yet he con-
fesses that, however powerful these signs and wonders
had once been in calling forth faith, they had come to
be regarded as myths, and themselves needed proof 2 .
1 Jesus warned His disciples that false Christs would work miracles ; ii.
48. 49. 54. As pointed out above, Celsus did not wholly deny the miracles
of Jesus, though he denied their significance. The ' hysterical woman ' is
the Magdalene. See ii. 55, ris TOVTO tlSe ; Twij irapoiarpos, us <pa.T(, KOI ti
TIS d\\OS TUJV (K TTJS OUTTJJ -yO^TfiaS, fjTOi KO.TO. TWO. SiadfOlV OVftpwaS (the
theory of Strauss) TJ Kara rfjv CLVTOV &ov\T)aiv oori TrcirXavrj/^fvri (fiavraatoidfis,
oirfp STJ [ivpiois avf*P(l3r)Kev' 77, oirtp /iaAAof, eKir\r)a.i TOVS \ourovs Trj Tfpareia
Tavrr) 0(\ri(ra.s ical Sid. rov TOIOVTOV if/evfffjuiTos a<[>opfjiT)v aAAois afvprais
irapaffxfw (the theory of deliberate imposition).
2 In Joan. ii. 28 (Lorn. i. 152), ical TOVTO Se (TriVKfirTeov, OTI at pif
TfpdffTtoi ovvdfieis TOVS KO.TCL TOV xpovov TOV XpitrroC yfvofJitvovs TTpoKa.\tiaQai
im TO iriaTevfiv tovvavTcr oiiie ta<vov ol TO t/j.<pa.Ttitbv fitrci xpovovs w\fiovas,
TJSr/ ical fj.vOoi twai iinovorjOfiaai. Some miracles Origen doubted or explained
away ; the carrying of Christ up into a mountain by the Tempter he
thought impossible, and (Cels. ii. 48) the daughter of the Ruler of the
264 The Reformed Paganism. [Lect.
The argument from the fulfilment of prophecy he con-
sidered as among the greatest of all the evidences 1 .
But the one crowning proof of the truth of the Gospel,
the miracle of all miracles, was the Christian life and
the Christian society. To this he recurs again and
again. He who questioned all things could doubt of
nothing, when he fixed his eyes on the figure of the
Church advancing swiftly onwards with the star of
victory on her brow 2 .
Other questions mooted in this famous debate, con-
cerning the estate and destiny of man, are of secondary
importance. Evil, Celsus held, was caused by the
resistance of Matter to the moulding hand of God.
Now, as the quantity of Matter is fixed and its resist-
Synagogue perhaps only slept. But the latter is accepted as a real
instance of raising the dead, In Galatas (Lorn. v. 269), where it is said
that Christ's miracles were historically true, and continue in the Church in
a spiritual sense. In Jerem. Horn. iv. 3, the power of miracles has been lost
by the Church because of her corruption. But this refers only to the greater
miracles, and indeed only with some limitation even to these ; see Contra
Celsum, ii. 8, tx vr t * 7r ' iroabv irapa "X.piaria.voi's tvpiffKfrai, al rtva 76 pti^ova,
Koi ei iriaroi \ypev \tyovTfs, fupa.KafKi' not -qntis. The tx. VT l are Exorcism,
Healing, Prophecy, Ibid. i. 46. But the disciples of Jesus work even greater
miracles in opening the eyes of the spiritually blind, Ibid. ii. 48. Miracles
prove the divinity of Christ, and are themselves proved by prophecy, Ibid.
viii. 9. The spread of Christianity was at first due to Miracles, Ibid. viii.
47. Chrysippus, Plutarch, Numenius tell of Pagan miracles, which even
Celsus believed in. Why then are Christian miracles false? Care and
study are requisite to distinguish true miracles from imposture, Ibid. v. 57.
Miracles are virtp <pioiv, not irapa <pvaiv, Ibid. v. 23 ; see also the following
chapter. Another great evidence was to be found in the voluntary sufferings
of the Apostles, Ibid. i. 31 ; iii. 23.
1 Prophecy is more important than Miracles, In Joan. ii. 28 ; cp. In Joan.
xxxii. 9, ad Jin. ; Contra Celsum, vi. 10 ; viii. 48.
* Contra Celsum, iii. 9 ; iv. 32 ; vii. 26 ; In Cant. Cant. iii. (Lorn. xv. 43).
There are many other passages of the same tenor. If we may rely upon In
Lucam, Horn. vi. (Lorn. v. 106), Christianity had already been preached
in Britain, but this appears to be contradicted by the passage quoted above,
p. 207. In Contra Celsum, iii. 65, Origen tells us that the converts were
not as a rule drawn from the vicious classes.
VII. ] Celsus. 265
ance is uniform, it follows that the quantity of Evil also
is capable neither of increase nor of diminution. Man
again, he taught, was by no means the chief object of
divine care, many of the animals being equal, or even
superior, to him in wisdom and in piety 1 . These two
ideas caused in him a cynical scorn of all endeavours to
raise the vulgar masses from their degradation, and here
again, surely from no truly philosophic reason, he was in
fierce antagonism to the active, and oftentimes doubtless
ignorant, Christian missionaries. His doctrine of a Future
Life was that of his school. The main point at issue
here was the belief in the Resurrection of the Body.
To the Platonist this was revolting. ' They say,' he
exclaims, ' that everything is possible to God. But
God cannot do what is shameful, and will not do
what is unnatural 2 .' His arguments are levelled
1 For the fixed quantity of Evil, see iv. 62. 69. 99 ; for its connection
with Matter, iv. 65 ; viii. 55. Keim maintains that Celsus departs from
Socrates and Plato in denying that God made the world for man any more
than for brutes ; that man as regards his body is no better than the brutes ;
that God is no more angry with man than with apes or flies, and that many
of the animals are better than man, iv. 52-99. It must be allowed that his
language on the subject of Evil is rather Stoic than Platonic. But all that
he says is a natural consequence of the doctrines of the independence of
Matter and of Metempsychosis. The Cynics, who were indefatigable street
preachers (and in other respects also bore a striking resemblance to the
Mendicant Friars), were in this honourably distinguished from their Stoic
cousins. See Contra Celsum, iii. 50. It was the Cynic Demonax who
Advised the Athenians to destroy the altar of Pity if they persisted in their
plan of introducing gladiatorial shows into the city ; Lucian, Demonax, 57.
To this love of souls rather than to the reason assigned by Augustine we
may ascribe the singular fact that Cynicism outlived Stoicism. See Aug.
Contra Academ. iii. 19 : Nunc philosophos non fere vidimus nisi aut Cynicos
aut Peripateticos aut Platonicos. Et Cynicos quidem, quia eos vitae quaedam
delectat libertas atque licentia.
2 The hope of the Resurrection is aiKoX-qitcav iKir'is, v. 14; the Christians
are Sei\tiv KCU <pikoau^.a.Tov yivos, vii. 36, and mureAws TTJ aapicl (vStoepfvot,
vii. 42. In vii. 36 again he says, OVK uvOpuirov n^v ou5J 7779 ifivxijs dAAa
TT?S aapwos fi <ji(uvr]. ' For this use of the word " flesh " by Stoics and
266 The Reformed Paganism. [Lect.
against the cruder forms of the belief, and we have
already seen what was Origen's reply.
Celsus was a bitter foe to Christianity, but he was
also a man of far-sighted practical vision, and his hostility
had its limits. He forgot philosophy, and even justice,
in his anger against these wilful sectaries, whose growth
threatened destruction to temple and school. But he
was the first of the governing classes who clearly dis-
cerned the rift that was beginning to divide society, and
he viewed with alarm the danger that might arise from
a large, intelligent, ill-used and alienated class, at a time
when the state was called upon to struggle for its exist-
ence against the barbarians of the Danube. And so
while Marcus Aurelius was lamenting in neatly turned
phrases the 'dogged obstinacy' of the martyrs of Vienna,
whom he had himself condemned to death on the most
ridiculous accusations, this unknown scholar was asking
whether it was already too late to heal the breach.
Changing his tone of angry mockery for one of stern
but not unfriendly remonstrance, he presses the Chris-
tians to consider whether after all it is impossible to
serve Two Masters. Every good citizen ought to respect
the worship of his fathers. And God gave to the Demons
the honour which they claimed. Why then should the
Christian refuse to eat at the Demons' table? They
give us corn and wine and the very air we breathe ; we
must either submit to their benefits or quit the world
Platonists cp. Seneca, Ep. 65 ; Consol. ad Mar. 24 ; Persius, ii. 62 (pulpa).'
Zeller, Theol.Jahrb. 1852, pp. 293 sqq. It may perhaps be doubted whether
this word was borrowed from the Christian vocabulary. But this doubt
will hardly apply to the word 'angel.' Maximus Tyrius, xvii. 9, 6 ef
'AicaSTjuias i^uv a~f~f(\os of Plato. I have seen also the phrase ' angelic life,'
but cannot now recover the reference.
Vii.] Celsus. 267
altogether. All that is really important in Christianity
is the belief in the immortality of the soul, in the future
blessedness of the good, the eternal punishment of the
wicked. Better suffer any torments than deny this
faith 1 . But why not swear by the Emperor, the dis-
penser of all temporal blessings, as God of all spiritual?
Why not sing a paean to the bright Sun or Athena, and
at any rate kiss the hand to those lower deities who can
do us harm if neglected 2 ? It cannot be supposed that
the great Roman Empire will abandon its tried and
ancient faith for a barbarous novelty. ' He who thinks
this knows nothing 3 .' If there is to be unity the Church
must make concessions, and Christ must accept a place,
as in the Lararium of Alexander Severus, side by side
with Apollonius and the chief gods of Rome.
And so Celsus concludes with an almost pathetic
exhortation to the injured Christians to have pity on
their country, to rally round Caesar's eagles against the
common foe, and not to refuse to serve in public offices,
but in this way also to give their support to the laws and
piety. The conclusion of the True Word is creditable
both to the sagacity and to the temper of its author.
But, when the persecutor thus found his weapons break-
ing in his grasp, and stooped to appeal to the generosity
of his victim, it is evident that the battle was already lost.
1 Contra Celsum, viii. 53. 66.
1 AftovffOcu, not Oprjaietijtiv or Otpairtveiv or Sov\tvtiv, is all the obser-
vance Celsus claims for those inferior demons, like the Egyptian Decani,
whose influence was chiefly malefic ; viii. 58. Yet what a concession is this !
Gibbon might well have reckoned amongst the causes of the triumph
of Christianity the immorality and absurdity of the best alternative that the
best Pagans could offer. On kissing the hand to idols, see Dr. Holden's
note to Minucius Felix, Octavius, 2,
3 Contra Celsum, viii. 72.
268 The Reformed Paganism.
' Did Celsus know/ says Origen in one place 1 , ' what
to think of the immortal soul, its nature, its destiny, he
would not mock at the Incarnation which is due to the
great love of God for man.' There is justice in this
reproach as regards Celsus, but it is hardly applicable to
the Platonists generally. The real root of the difficulty
lay in their sharp antithesis of Form as good to Matter
as evil. Had Philo ever considered the question, he
must have rejected Christ on the same grounds as
Celsus, though assuredly without denying, as Celsus
did, the moral beauty of the Saviour's life. Connected
with the abhorrence of Matter was the disapproval of all
emotion, which was regarded as inseparably linked with
the perishable body. Hence the ancient world, with all
its noble and intelligent devotion to truth and justice
and the masculine virtues generally, was unable to per-
ceive that the one cure for moral evil is Love, and that,
as Love is necessarily self-sacrificing, so vicarious suffering
is the deepest and most universal law of Ethics. This
was then, as it is now, the leading difference between
the ' wisdom of the world ' and the preaching of the
Cross. Even the Church hardly realised the full mean-
ing of the truth of which she was the custodian. But
the truth was given to her not in a doctrine, nor in a
tradition, but in a life. The love of Jesus, like
the power of light, may be wrongly analysed, but its
width and its potency are none the less for our failure to
explain them. It is one of the powers of Nature ; it is
enough that it is there.
1 Contra Celsum, iv. 17.
LECTURE VIII.
Blame not before thou hast examined the truth : understand first
and then rebuke. ECCLESIASTICUS xi. 7.
WE have traced in the previous Lectures the rise of
the Eclectic Alexandrine Platonism and the mode of
its application to Christian life and doctrine. In the
latter sphere its effect is to be traced mainly in the
development of those articles of the Creed which treat
of the mystery of the Trinity ; in the former in the
attempt to reconcile the peculiar teaching of St. Paul,
or, to employ a much abused word, Paulinism, with the
older disciplinary theory of the Church. We have seen
also how heathen Platonism borrowed light from the
Gospel. There can be little doubt that in all essential
points, especially as regards the doctrine of the Trinity,
the indebtedness lies not upon the Church, but upon the
School. It remains for us in the present Lecture to
pass in hasty review the later history of Alexandrinism,
and to estimate in some degree the permanent value of
their contribution to Christian thought.
Clement had no enemies in life or in death. He did
not, it is true, escape censure. Pope Gelasius is said to
have placed his writings in the first Index librorum pro-
hibitorum, but the statement probably refers to the
author of the Pseudo- Clementine Homilies and Recogni-
tions 1 . More serious was the attack of Photius in the
1 The decree of Gelasius will be found in A. Thiel's Epistolae Pont. Rom.
Genuinae, pt. i. p. 461. Gelasius amongst other books condemns 'Itinera-
rium nomine Petri Apostoli quod appellatur Sancti Clementis, libri numero
2 7O Summary. [Lect.
ninth century, though even this was temperate and not
unkindly. The censures of Photius were directed against
the Hypotyposcs, a commentary on the Bible in eight
books, of which we now possess only a few Greek frag-
ments, and an adulterated Latin version of the notes on
the Catholic Epistles. Some of his charges can rest
upon nothing but error. Others are accurate but insig-
nificant and uncritical 1 . In Egypt a certain suspicion
decem, apocryphum.' This probably refers to the Recognitions. Then
after a considerable number of other works, ' Opuscula alterius dementis
Alexandrini apocrypha.' Benedict XIV considered this to refer to our
Clement ; the Bollandists to ' another,' the pseudo-Clement. Not less than
three words in this brief sentence are obscure, opuscula, alterius, and
apocrypha. The first can hardly refer to works of the bulk of the Stromateis
and Hypotyposes ; the second, standing as it does practically by itself, may
distinguish Clement of Alexandria from the author of the Recognitions or
our Clement from another Alexandrine Clement ; the third may refer to the
professions of mystery so common in the Stromateis and elsewhere, or may
refer to ' spurious ' works. Zahn (Forsch. iii. 140) is inclined to think that
the genuine works of our Clement are meant. But I doubt whether the
works of our Clement were known at Rome, seeing that the much more
famous Origen was wholly unknown to Pope Anastasius before the Rufinian
commotion, and almost wholly unknown to Augustine.
1 Photius thought the Stromateis unsound in some points which he does
not specify {Cod. cxi), and enumerates several definite errors which he
detected in the Hypolyposes. Clement, he says, here taught the Eternity of
Matter, Metempsychosis, and the existence of several worlds before Adam,
that is to say Pre-existence. All these Clement in his extant works denies
(but the last with some uncertainty, see above, p. 76). Photius is right in
affirming that Clement held the doctrine of Ideas, but wrong if he means
that he attributed to the Ideas an independent existence outside of the Son.
He is probably right again in his statement that Clement applied the verb
Kri^iv to the Generation of the Son (see above, p. 69), and certainly right
in his statement that Clement interpreted Genesis vi. 2 of actual marriage
between the fallen angels and the daughters of men. Again, he asserts that
Clement described the creation of Eve from Adam in a manner that con-
tradicted Tradition. To what this refers we do not know. Again, that he
taught fir) aa.pKuQrjva.i TOV \6yov a\\d 56ai. This is a grave exaggeration.
It is incredible that Clement should have taught Docetism pure and simple
in the Hypotyposes, though there is that in the Stromateis which shows us
how the exaggeration might arise (see above, p. 71). Lastly, Ao-youy roC
irarpos ovo TeparokoySiiv dirf\(fx frat - This most probably rests on some
vm.] Clement. 271
appears to have fallen upon Clement, owing to his
personal connection with Origen *. But with these
exceptions his posthumous history has been like his
life, peaceful, honourable and obscure. Among Mystic
writers he has enjoyed a certain fame, but he has been
little read, and Bishop Potter is almost the only scholar
of note who has cared to spend much labour upon his
writings. Partly this is due to his antique cast of
thought ; partly to his style, which elaborate as it is
does not lend itself to quotation ; partly to the extreme
difficulty of the text. Yet his books are in many ways
the most valuable monument of the early Church, the
more precious to all intelligent students because he
lived, not like Origen in the full stream of events, but in
a quiet backwater, where primitive thoughts and habits
lingered longer than elsewhere. It is much to be desired
that some competent editor should present his writings
to the world in a less repulsive form than they bear
at present, overlaid as they are with the rust of long
neglect.
Down to the seventeenth century the learning, virtues
confusion between the universal logos, the voSy of man, and the hypostatic
Logos, the Son (see Zahn, Forschungen, iii. p. 144). The accusation is
especially based upon the Hypotyposes, otherwise we might suppose with
Dr. Westcott that it rests upon a misunderstanding of the Excerpta. Origen
also (see Pamphilus, Apologia, and Huet, Origeniana, ii. 3. 15) was charged
with preaching ' two Christs,' as afterwards was Nestorius. In all three
cases the accusation has no other root than an unreasoning bitterness of
which the most ardent controversialist would now feel ashamed. Photius
showed his kindly feeling towards Clement, not by trying to understand
him, but by supposing that his writings had been adulterated : at oAAa 81
pvpia <p\vap(i teal &Kaa$r)ii.ii err* avroy, tire ris trepos TO avrov
1 Dr. Zahn, Forschungen, iii. p. 141, refers to a Coptic Synaxarium in
which Clement, Origen, and Arius are said to have been excommunicated
by the Patriarch Demetrius.
272 Summary. [Lect.
and orthodoxy of Clement were held to merit for him
the title of Saint. His name filled a place in the Mar-
tyrologies, and his festival was fixed for the fourth of
December. But, when the Roman Martyrology was
revised by Clement VIII, the name of the Alexandrine
doctor was omitted from the roll on the advice of Car-
dinal Baronius. Benedict XIV maintained the decision
of his predecessor, on the grounds that Clement's life
was little known, that he had never obtained public
cultus in the Church, and that some of his doctrines
were, if not erroneous, at least suspect. The last article
refers chiefly to the accusations of Photius l . But the
Abbe Cognat does not hesitate to discuss the reasons
upon which this verdict is based. It is not he urges an
ex cathedra judgment, and therefore though valid may
be reversed. Its effect is simply to banish the name of
Clement from the Martyrology, and to refuse him the
honour oidttlia. But in his own mind the candid Roman
Catholic priest still appears to regard as a saint the
saintly advocate of Disinterested Love, and few deserve
the title better than this most reasonable, humane, and
sunny spirit 2 .
1 Benedict justified the omission of Clement's name in the course of his
elaborate Letter to King John of Portugal, who had undertaken to bear the
expense of a new edition of the Martyrology. The Letter will be found in
the Bullarium of Benedict XIV published at Venice 1778, no. liv. in vol. ii.
p. 195. Abbe Cognat refers to the Mechlin Bullarium of 1827, vol. vi.
p. 122. Benedict rested his doubts upon the Decree of Gelasius, the remarks
of Cassiodorus (or Cassiodorius) upon the Adumbrationes (see Zahn, iii.
133 sqq.), the criticisms of Barbeirac and Petavius, and those of Photius.
2 See C lenient cCAlexandrie, par 1'Abbe J. Cognat, Paris, 1859. In. France
Clement has never lost his title. ' Ni 1'autorite de Benoit XIV ni celle du
Martyrologe Romain n'ont jamais empeche les Eglises de France de celebrer
sa fete le 4 decembre, snivant le martyrologe et 1'autorite d'Usuard ; ' Die-
tionnaire de Patrologie, Migne. His name will be found in the popular
lists of saints whose names may be given to French children at baptism (see
Viii.] Origen. 273
Very different has been the fate of Origen. Even
before his death he was the mark of the most devoted
affection and of the bitterest hostility 1 , and for many
ages the same stormy halo surrounded his name. Down
to the end of the fourth century he retained upon the
whole the high estimation to which his learning, his
piety, and his sufferings entitled him. If portions of
his doctrines were assailed by Methodius and Eustathius,
Pamphilus and Eusebius cherished his memory with
loyal veneration, and protested against the ignorant mis-
representations of those who could not understand the
greatness they decried ; Athanasius stamped with high
approval his doctrine of the Trinity ; Basil and Gregory
Nazianzen edited the Philocalia, a selection from his
works, including passages from the De Principiis, reputed
the most dangerous of all ; Gregory of Nyssa repeated
a large portion of his speculations ; Hilary of Poitiers,
Eusebius of Vercellae, Ambrose translated into Latin
certain of the Commentaries or Homilies. Even Jerome,
in his earlier and better days, could find no language
too strong to express his admiration for one who was ' a
teacher of the Church second only to the great Apostle 2 .'
for instance Bouillet's Atlas d'Histoire et de Geographic, Hachette, 1877).
Bossuet speaks of him as St. Clement after his erasure from the Roman
Martyrology.
1 In Lucam, Horn, xxv : Quod quidem in ecclesia patimur ; plerique
enim dum plus nos diligunt quam meremur haec iactant et loquuntur
sermones nostros doctrinamque laudantes, quae conscientia nostra non
recipit. Alii vero tractatus nostros calumniantes, ea sentire nos criminantur
quae nunquam sensisse nos novimus. De Princ. ii. 10. i : Offenduntur
quidam in ecclesiastica fide, quasi velut stulte et penitus insipienter de
resurrectione credamus ; praecipue haeretici : cp. De Princ. i. 16. I, the
Epistola ad Arnicas, and the Apologia of Pamphilus. The foundation
of the following sections will be found, where not otherwise specified in the
note?, in Huet and Denis.
. ' In the Preface to his translation of the Homilies 'on Ezekiel. In the
T
2 74 Summary. [Lect.
But towards the end of the fourth century the clouds
began to gather. The Church was distracted by a series
of heresies, and though none of these could be traced
directly to Origen, there were expressions in his endless
discussions that might seem to favour them all. The
Arians never appealed to him ; yet he was called the
father of Arianism. Pelagius considered that he was
refuting Origen ; yet Jerome, not without reason, treated
the two doctrines as closely allied. The name of Origen
again was brought into question by the Eutychian and
Nestorian disputes. All this fostered a sense of uneasi-
ness, which was aggravated by the growing but obscure
popularity of his teaching on the subjects of Pre-existence
and the Resurrection. Many of the monks in Egypt
and Palestine brooded in the silence of their Lauras over
the fascinating visions of the Eternal Gospel, and it be-
came a question with the rulers of the Church whether
books so dangerous ought not to be taken by force out
of the hands of the faithful.
The commotions that ensued form one of the most
painful episodes in ecclesiastical history. There was
zeal for truth no doubt in the victors, but it was a base
and cruel zeal. Origenism was laid under the ban in
Preface to his translation of the Homilies on the Song of Songs he applies to
Origen the text, ' introduxit me rex in cubiculum suum.' In his later days
Jerome pressed very unfairly upon Origen, and is not to be acquitted of
inconsistency, sophistry, harshness, and duplicity. Yet let us notice here he
always spoke with the profoundest respect of Origen's services : Hoc unum
dico ; vellem cum invidia nominis eius, habere etiam scientiam Scripturarum,
flocci pendens imagines umbrasque larvarum, qnarum natura esse dicitur
terrere parvulos, et in angulis garrire tenebrosis ; Liber Hebraic. Quaest. in
Gen., Preface. Again, in the Letter to Pammachius and Oceamis: Non
imitemur eius vitia cuius virtutes non possumus sequi. . . . Sed dicas, Si
multorum communis est error cur solum persequimini ? Quia vos laudatis
ut apostolum. Tollite amoris virfp&o\riv et nos tollimus odii magnitudinem.
VIII.] Origen. 275
the synods of Alexandria and Cyprus 1 . In Italy, where
Origen was as yet only known by versions of his exe-
getical writings, the translation of the De Principiis
caused a storm that was only allayed by the condemna-
tion of Origenism and the disgrace of Rufinus at the
instigation of Jerome 2 . In the East the quarrel of the
bad Theophilus with the Nitrian monks led to a far
more deplorable catastrophe. Expelled from Egypt,
the monks found shelter at Constantinople. Theophilus
1 Matters were brought to a crisis by three disputes that between
Theophilus and the Nitrian monks ; that between Epiphanius and Jerome
on the one side and John of Jerusalem on the other ; and that between
Jerome and Rufinus. Origenism was condemned by Synods held at
Alexandria and in Cyprus, and according to Jerome the sentence was
adopted by the Bishops of Rome, Milan, Aqtiileia, ' et omnis tarn Orientis
quam Occidentis Catholicorum Synodus.' Jerome's statement is to some
extent confirmed by the Letter of Pope Anastasius to John of Jerusalem,
which will be found in Mansi, vol. iii. 943. Anastasius, who frankly con-
fesses that he had never heard of Origen before the translation of the De
Principiis, appears to have personally approved of the action of Theophilus.
But he says nothing about Western Synods. And it is certain that Origen
was not condemned as a heretic, though Jerome appears to assert this ;
Adv. Ruf. ii. 22 ; Ad Painm. et Marc. 97 (Migne). For long after this in.
the deliberations which preceded the Fifth Council the question was de-
bated whether anathema could be pronounced against the dead (Evagrius,
iv. 38). The sentence applied only to his books, and to them with some
restriction, whether some of these were condemned and some allowed, as
afterwards by Pope Gelasius ; or whether all were directed to be read with
caution by the learned. The latter is the more probable supposition ; see
Jerome, Ad Tranquillinum, Ep. 62 (Migne). And there is a story that
Theophilus himself was found reading the works of Origen after the down-
fall of Chrysostom, and defended himself by saying (Socrates, vi. 1 7), rd
'ftpcyei/ous eo(/c /3tj3A/a \etfj,uivt iravrcav dvOfaiv. Et rt ovv kv aurofy e(pfvpa>
Ka\uv, TOVTO Spfiro^iai' ei 8e ri ftot dicavOu/Ses (pave'ir), TOVTO a;? Kevrpov
vtTfp0aiv(u. Socrates however (vi. 10) and Sozomen (viii. 14) say that the
reading of the books of Origen was absolutely forbidden. So also Anasta-
sius, Letter to Simplicianus, Mansi, iii. 945.
a Pope Siricius supported Rufinus, but the next Pope, Anastasius, at the
instance of Marcella, a disciple of Jerome, joined in the condemnation of
Origen and censured Rufinus for his rashness in translating the De Principiis,
but did not molest him any further. Jerome calls this ' a glorious victory.*
T3
2 76 Summary, [Lect.
eagerly caught the opportunity of humbling the rival
Patriarch, and, aided by the wounded vanity of the
empress Eudoxia, drove the holy Chrysostom to exile
and death. Of his two allies, one, Epiphanius, repented
too late, when he learned from Eudoxia's own lips the
nature of the service expected from him. But Jerome
was not dismayed by the tragic issue. He exulted over
the ruin of a great and good man, whose only fault was
that he had extended the hand of charity to the hunted
exiles, whose innocence Theophilus himself was not
ashamed to acknowledge when once his vengeance was
secured. ' Babylon,' Jerome wrote to his accomplice, 'is
fallen, isf alien.' Babylon was Chrysostom 1 .
The same excited state of feeling continued during
the next century and a half. In 496 A.D. Origen was
branded as a schismatic by Pope Gelasius 2 ; and the
fierce disputes of the Origenist and orthodox monks for
possession of the convents of St. Saba in Palestine led
to fresh condemnations in the reign of Justinian 3 . From
1 Jerome, Ep. 88, Ad Theophilum. But in Migne this letter (numbered
113) is ascribed to Theophilus.
3 Gelasius forbade the use of all those works of Origen which Jerome had
not sanctioned by turning them into Latin. ' Item Origenis opuscula
nonnulla quae vir beatissimus Hieronymus non repudiat legenda suscipimus.
Reliqua autem omnia cum auctore suo dicimus renuenda.' In the next
sentence the epithet schismaticus is applied to Origen ; Thiel, Epistolae.
Rom. Pont. Genuinae, pt. i. p. 461.
8 What these condemnations precisely were is an intricate, thorny, and in
part perhaps insoluble question. I. Huet refers to a Synod of Antioch ;
Origeniana, ii. 3. 19 (Lorn, xxiii. 328), Antiochena Ephraemii Synodus
anathema dixit Origeni ; and again, ii. 4. 3. 6 (Lorn. xxiv. 78), Qua
circiter tempestate harum regionum Origenistas collecta.ab Ephraernio
Antiocheno praesule synodus anathemate damnavit, ut narrat auctor
Synodici, quod nuper in Bibliotheca Juris Canonici recudi curavit erudi-
tissimus et humanissimus Henricus Justellus. The reference is to the Bill.
Jur. Can., Paris, 1661, vol. ii. p. 1202 ; and the notice runs thus, 'Ev <5 Kaipta
TOL wpiftvda 5o7/iara VTTO nvwv rwv HaXatarivrjs (J.ova)(wv fKpaTvvero' KO.&'
VIII.] Origen. 277
that time throughout the Middle Ages the name of
Origen was a byword in the East, and the margins of
>v 6 fjifyas 'Eixppaipios, ' 'ArTtoxeias 'Svpias dpx< 7R ' <J ' /foiroy > Gflav avvoSov teal
Ifpav ffvffTT]oa(j.tvos dvaOt/j-an TOVS vpoacrmaTas ainwv KareSiicafff. Huet's
first notice then is incorrect ; the sentence of this Synod was launched not
against Origen but against the ringleaders of the turbulent Origenist monks
by name. II. In the Epistle of Justinian to Menus nine anathemas are
propounded by the Emperor, covering the whole list of Origen's ' errors.'
They will be found in Mansi, ix. 534. The nine anathemas given by
Nicephorus (H. E. xvii. 27) are these nine, which were framed by the
Emperor himself and never sanctioned by any ecclesiastical authority.
They appear to have been laid before the Home or Domestic Synod of
Bishops habitually resident in Constantinople, by Menas in 541, and the
Synod in reply enacted fifteen anathemas (they will be found in Mansi, ix.
395), embodying the substance of those of Justinian, but with considerable
difference, and far inferior accuracy, of expression. III. Origen's name
occurs also in the eleventh anathema of the Fifth General Council, though
in somewhat singular company and without reason given (Mansi, ix. 377).
This anathema was reaffirmed, as it stood, by the First Lateran Council
in 696 (Mansi, x. 1051). Origen's name is mentioned again in combination
with those of Evagrius and Didymus in the Imperial Edict recited at the
Sixth General Council (the Third Council of Constantinople, A.D. 680):
Suscepimus quoque et quae in temporibus Justiniani divae memoriae in
praedicta a Deo conservanda nostra felicissima civitate complosa est synodus
contra Dei impugnatores Origenem, Didymum et Evagrium ; Mansi, xi. 710.
This probably is intended to repeat the sentence of the Fifth Council,
though it may refer to that of the Home Synod. It is difficult to suppose
that the theologians of the Lateran Council were imposed upon by a forgery,
yet it has been maintained upon very serious grounds that the name of
Origen was added to the anathema of the Fifth. Council at a later date.
The point has been discussed at length by Walch, vol. vii ; Huet, Origeniana,
ii. 3. 14 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 558 ; Garnerius, in Gallandi, xii. 168 ; Caidinal
Noris, Diss. de Synodo V, vol. i. p. 638, ed. Ballerini ; Hefele, Concilien-
geschichte, vol. ii. p. 834, ed. 1856 ; Dr. Pusey, What is of Faith, &c., p.
137; F. N. Oxenham, What is the Truth as to Everlasting Punishment,
part ii ; Vincenzi, In S. Greg. Nyss. et Origenis scripta et doctrinam. It
will be observed that the Fifth Council, though it probably denounced
Origen by name as a heretic, did not specify, and apparently did not discuss,
any one of his erroneous opinions. ' Allerdings hat die fiinfte Synode auch
den Origenes anathematisirt, aber nicht in einer besondern Sitzung und
nicht in Folge von besondern Verhandlungen, sondern nur transeundo und
in cumulo, indem sie in ihrem Xlten Anathematismus unter einer Anzahl
alterer Haretiker auch seinen Namen auffiihrte ;' Hefele. The documents
referred to, with the exception of the Epistola ad Menam, are given by
2/8 Summary. [Lect.
his MSS. are found scrawled over with fierce execrations
of his heresies and his blasphemies 1 . But the Westerns,
among whom the respect for learning never wholly died,
took a more generous view. Leo III inserted passages
from his works among the readings from the Fathers in
the Roman breviary 2 . Mechtildis, a saintly woman of
the fourteenth century, saw a vision in which she was
assured that God had been merciful to his errors. Books
were written to prove that his salvation might be believed
in, notwithstanding the anathemas of the Church 3 . His
works continued to be studied, and all that seemed un-
sound was charitably ascribed to heretical interpolation 4 .
Denzinger, who, with others, still ascribes the Fifteen Anathemas to the
Fifth Council. '
1 ~B\aa<pr)[j.iis aiperiKf et similia. Even in the West fierce notes of the
same kind are to be found. Thus in three MSS. of Jerome's De Viris
lllustribus Martianaeus found the following scholion on the life of Origen :
' Haec laus Origenis et falsa est et deceptio plurimorum, qui in amorem
eius provocantur, cum constet eum super omnes haereticos venenato ore
inauditas et intolerabiles blasphemias spiritu diabolico in Dominum nostrum
Jesum Christum locutum fuisse : quique a sanctis Patribus, episcopis et
monachis anathematizatus, etiam bona illius minime legi debere.'
2 Huet, Origeniana, ii. 3. 19 (Lorn, xxiii. 331).
3 Robert Curzon, an Englishman, wrote a book De Salvatione Origenis ;
Bale, Centtir. 3 : Picus Mirandulanus maintained in a printed treatise
' Rationabilius esse credere Origenem esse salvum quam credere ipsum esse
damnatum : ' Stephanus Binetus also wrote ' De Salute Origenis.' See
Huet, Origeniana, ii. 4. 3. 18 sqq. (Lom. xxiv. 98 sqq.), where other
interesting information on the same point will be found collected.
* The foundation for this mode of defence is to be found in the Epistola
ad Amicos, where Origen complains that reports of public disputations
between himself and Gnostic teachers had been manipulated by the latter,
and in one case at least actually manufactured. There is no reason what-
ever for supposing that his works, as we have them, have been tampered
with. But the theory furnished a convenient shelter for timid friends, as we
have already seen in the case of Photius and Clement. It is found in
Rufinus' Preface to his translation of the De Principiis, and though justly
set aside by Jerome, Adv. Rufinum, ii. 4. 5, held its ground throughout the
Middle Ages. So in the well-known passage of Vincentius Lirinensis, Comm.
i. 17, which deserves quotation also as showing the strange problem which
VIII.] Origen. 279
Probably Luther, whose passionate phrase, Origenem
jam dtidum dirts devovi, is one of many that lie heavy
on the great Reformer's fame, is the only man of emi-
nence that ever spoke of Origen in language like this ;
though the Augustinian divines of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries were scarcely more just towards
the great Alexandrine than the Graeculi of the Lower
Empire 1 . Even Methodius, even Theophilus, were dili-
gent students of his books. Augustine, Bede, Bernard,
respect the memory of one with whom they had little
in common but learning and greatness of soul. Origen's
name has been a kind of touchstone. There has been
no truly great man in the Church who did not love him
a little.
In later times he has not missed the respect which is
Origen presented to a saintly and not unlearned man in uncritical times :
' Sed forte discipulis parum felix ? Quis unquam felicior ? Nempe innumeri
ex sinu suo doctores, innumeri sacerdotes, confessores et martyres extiterunt
... Sed dicet aliquis corruptos esse Origenis libros. Non resisto ; quin
potius et malo. Nam id a quibusdam et traditum et scriptum est, non
Catholicis tantum verum etiam Haereticis. Sed illud est quod nunc de-
bemus animadvertere, etsi non ilium, libros tamen sub nomine eius editos,
magnae esse tentationi.' Others, as has been said (above, p. 1 16), had recourse
to the hypothesis of two and even of three Origens.
1 The quotation from Luther, which I have not been able to verify, I owe
to Huet. Melanchthon (ed. Wittebergae, 1564. vol. iii. p. 1060) criticises
Origen at some length ; approves his doctrine of the Trinity, but rejects that
of Faith and Justification. He says of Rom. viii, ' hoc totum caput Pauli
sceleste contaminatum est ab Origene.' The Alexandrine teaching on the
subject of Free Will, &c. was harshly criticised by Jansen in his Au^ustinus.
On the other hand Erasmus writes (vol. iii. p. 99, ed. Basel, 1558), Quid
aliis usu veniat nescio ; in me certe comperio quod dicam ; plus me docet
Christianae philosophiae unica Origenis pagina quam decem Auguslini : and
again (vol. ix. p. 75), Nam Origenis exemplum fortassis reiecturi sunt,
etiam si nemini plus tribuendum arbitror exceptis dogmatibus aliquot : and
yet again (praef. in opera Origenis ; this quotation also I borrow), ' He
loved that of which he spoke, and we speak with delight of the things which
we love.'
280 Summary. [Lect.
his due. He has had zealous friends, liberal critics,
editors whose erudition and industry are beyond all
praise. But only in recent times has it been possible to
treat him with justice. For all depends upon the point
of view. Those who judge him in the light of later
opinion must either condemn him with reluctance, like
Vincent of Lerins, or defend him as from a brief like
Halloix and Vincenzi. But in no other field of know-
ledge would such a course be tolerated. Theology is
the only ungrateful science. She crushes her builders
with the very stones they helped to pile. Among the
greatest of these builders were Clement and Origen.
We must ask what they found to build with. We must
throw ourselves back into the days when tradition was in
the making, and beliefs, which afterwards seemed eternal
truths, had as yet occurred to no man. We must com-
pare them not with Anselm, or Augustine, or Basil, or
Athanasius, but with Irenaeus, or Tertullian, or Hip-
polytus, or Justin ; and where these disagree we must
allow that there was as yet no definite creed.
If we compare the creed of the fourth century with
that of the second, we cannot deny that there has been
development. There has been no demonstrable change,
if by change we mean shifting of ground or alteration of
principle. Yet- doctrine is not the same thing as senti-
ment, nor technical formularies as implicit belief. The
Church of Origen is no more the Church of the Athana-
sian Creed, than the Parliament of Charles I is the
Parliament of Queen Victoria.
Where does this process of expansion, governed as it
is not by Scripture but by philosophy, cease to be
wholesome and necessary ? The problem of the earliest
VIII.] Development. Exegesis. 281
Christians was to harmonise the Three Names of God
with Monotheism, in such a way that they could justify
their faith and live by it. That of later ages was the
repression of error, a very different thing. At what
point this later motive, in itself not indefensible, becomes
purely mischievous, each party, each 'heresy,' will decide
for itself. The Alexandrines were animated by the
earlier purer motive. They did not see all that their
successors saw; but the question arises whether they
did not see all that there was to be seen. In any case
the later faith passed through theirs, grew out of theirs.
And certainly if sufficiency of knowledge is to be tested
by fulness and purity of the moral life, they will not be
found to fail.
It has been said that their Exegesis survived while
their Philosophy perished 1 . This is true in a sense.
They left behind them a strong influence, but they
founded no school. Their spell was laid on Eusebius
and his circle, on Didymus who, blind from his fifth
year, became one of the leading scholars of his time and
never dissembled his love for Origen, on Basil and the
two Gregories. Their mode of thought may be traced
far down into the sixth century, when it vanished,
crushed out by tyranny and the leaden ignorance of
the age. But in truth their exegesis was too closely
wedded to their philosophy not to share its fortunes.
Allegorism in a sense survived ; so far, that is, as its
object was to multiply types, symbols, Messianic pro-
phecies, proof-texts 2 ; or to give meaning to what in the
1 By M. Denis ; Philosophic efOi'igtne, p. 416.
8 Basil rejected the theory of the Ideal world and accepted the history of
Creation in the literal sense. What I have called the negative apologetic
282 Summary. [Lect.
prevailing oblivion of Hebrew, and in the West of Greek
also, was unintelligible. But its great principles perished.
Origen held that God can do nothing which is not just ;
Augustine that what God does must be just. The pro-
positions are convertible, but they lead to very different
interpretations of Scripture. To Origen again the 'letter
which killeth ' was the transient, mechanical, carnal,
whether in the New Testament or in the Old. The
Ceremonial Law was symbolical of Christ, but only in a
very limited degree of the Christian hierarchy. Here
his weapons were turned against him, and became the
instrument, not of freedom, but of servitude.
In this last respect the Reformation divines recurred
to the Alexandrine method without realising that they
had done so. For the word Allegorism, like many
others, has changed its meaning. When Clement ex-
plains the precept ' Sell all that thou hast and give to
the poor ' in such a way as to legitimatise the retention
of wealth, when he says that the Christian altar is the
congregation, when he defines spiritual death as aliena-
tion from God, or the Heavenly Bread as Gnosis, all
these in his view are Allegories. We should call them
by another name.
We need not pause on Origen's idea of Pre-existence,
use of Allegorism disappeared entirely, and thus the door which had been
opened for the partial admission of philosophy and science was again closed.
Those Allegorisms again by which Christian dogmas were discovered in the
Old Testament came very early to be regarded as the indisputable literal
sense of the several passages and not allegorisms at all. A remarkable in-
stance of this is furnished by the decrees of the Council of Sirmium in 357 :
Si quis Faciamus hominem non Patrem ad Filium dixisse, sed ipsum ad
semetipsum dicat Deum locutum, anathema sit. See Rosenmiiller, iii. p. 290.
Thus the word Allegorism gradually drifted into its modern sense and came
to mean loosely any metaphorical application of the language of Scripture
to the purpose of edification.
VIII.] Pre-existence. Paiilinism. 283
on which time has delivered a sufficient verdict. It is
enough to repeat that it was no mere arbitrary crotchet,
but a serious and systematic attempt to explain and
vindicate the distributive justice of God. Origen was
the first to apply it in this way; but the belief itself was
one that had an imposing array of authority, both
Pagan and Jewish, in its favour, and might even claim
support from the well-known passage in St. John's
account of the healing of the man who was born
blind.
But what we have called the Paulinism of the Alexan-
drines is far too important to be dismissed without
further notice. It is here that we have to appreciate
their contribution to religion, to the grasp of opinion
upon conduct. They endeavoured to show that Christi-
anity is not a doctrine but a life, not a law but a spirit.
The Christian must be holy yet free, obedient yet intel-
ligent, able to judge and act for himself, a true son of
God, needing no earthly director because guided by his
Father's eye.
This they achieved. They showed that, though Habit
is good, Knowledge and Love are better. They taught
how Freedom is to be harmonised with Reverence and
Order ; the spontaneity of individualism with unity
through the trained and sanctified intelligence. They
struck the golden mean between Anarchy and Des-
potism, a lesson which after times discarded, which even
at this day is not sufficiently apprehended. It was not
their fault, if they failed to grasp the true relation
between the beginning and the end of the spiritual pro-
gress. Their errors were two, both given to them by
the modes of thought in which they had been trained.
284 Summary. [Lect.
They regarded Habit as the cause, or rather as the indis-
pensable condition, of Love ; and Love as the Platonic
love of the Ideal in itself, not of the Ideal as discerned
in and through the perfect Humanity. The influence of
St. Paul did not rise high enough to sweep away these
misconceptions till the time of the Pelagian controversy.
Even then the real lesson of the debate was obscured by
the misplacement of the point. It was made to hinge
on the insoluble problem of the Freedom of the Will.
But this is in truth a side issue. The really fruitful
question is the nature of the Motive, not the mode of its
operation. Yet it will conduce to the justice of our
estimate, if we compare the teaching of the Alexandrines
with that of Augustine on both points.
The Alexandrines held, as we have seen, the theory
of IndifTerentism. The Will is a non-moral faculty, the
power of choosing motives. They did not clearly see
that the state of liberty, as they understood it, is a state
of imperfection. Practically they admitted that at a
certain point the soul, through union with Christ, be-
comes so pure that it can no longer sin. But generally
and in this life they maintained that man can do what
he likes. Thus they accounted for the fall of Adam.
Since that lapse the whole world has been prone to sin.
But men are still so far free that they can choose at any
rate the beginnings of amendment. Beyond this the
Alexandrines distinguished between Virtue and Salva-
tion. To the former man could attain by reason, which
is itself a gift, a general grace, of God. But goodness
varies in direct relation to knowledge, and perfect know-
ledge is revealed in Christ alone. Hence salvation,
spiritual health, life eternal, sonship, is in the fullest
VIII. ] A ugustinianism. 285
sense a gift of God. For it is the union of the soul
with God, and that there may be this union God must
come to us. We cannot claim His coming. But we can
at least desire it. We can go to meet Him ; we can
hold out our hand for His gift. This one point, the
initial desire of amendment, is all that Origen and even
Clement postulates ; and even this, being reasonable, is,
let us repeat, a grace, inasmuch as it is the voice of that
word which God breathed into us at Creation 1 .
Small as the postulate may seem, it involves an insu-
perable speculative difficulty. For it requires us to
admit that man can do not only what he likes, but
what ex hypothesi he does not like. Origen knew this.
It was not through failure of insight that he adopted a
theory, which, if scientifically imperfect, is consistent
with itself, is in harmony with the facts of experience
and involves no moral paradox.
The theory of Augustine is open to objection on all
these grounds. We may say indeed that he has no theory.
He approaches the subject from the side of Scripture,
which may be quoted with equal facility in either sense,
and his language varies with the point that he desires to
establish. He explained the Fall on the Alexandrine
1 The difference between Origen and Augustine as to the necessity of the
Divine Grace is very like that between Law and Wesley. After his conver-
sion Wesley wrote a somewhat petulant letter to Law, whose Serious Call
had for years been his model and guide. It had taught him, he says, that
the law of God is holy, but he had learned also that he had not the power
to fulfil it, and in this state he might have groaned till he died had not the
Moravian Bohler showed him the better way of salvation by Faith. Why
then, he asks, did you never give me this advice ? Law replies, ' You have
had a great many conversations with me, and you never were with me for
half an hour without my being large upon that very doctrine which you
make me totally ignorant and silent of.' See Tyerman's Life of Wesley,
vol. i. p. 185.
286 Summary. [Lect.
view, though this is far more difficult for him, because
he regarded Adam as originally perfect. This is the
first terrible weakness in his position. He is driven into
it not only by the nature of the case, but by the sup-
posed necessity of justifying the reprobation of the
entire world, which sinned in Adam 1 . Here again
there is another and even more startling breach of se-
quence. For, as he refuses to deny that each soul
comes fresh from the hand of God, the phrase that
* in Adam all die ' cannot have the meaning that he
gives it 2 .
But, as regards the actually existing race of men he
asserts a wholly different thesis. ' The Will,' he says,
' is always free, but it is not always good. It is either
free from Righteousness, and then it is evil ; or it is free
from sin, and then it is good 3 .' His sense is confused
1 De Corrept. et Gratia, 10: Quia vero (Adam) per liberum arbitrium
Deum deserait, iustum indicium Dei expertus est, ut cum tota sua stirpa,
quae in illo adhuc posita tota cum illo peccaverat, damnaretur. Ibid. 1 1 :
Posset enim perseverare si vellet : quod ut ncllet de libero descendit arbitrio;
quod tune ita libenim erat, ut bene velle posset et male.
2 Ep. 169. 13 : Scripsi etiam librum ad sanctum presbytenim Hierony-
mum de animae origine {Ep. 166) consulens eum, quomodo defend! possit
ilia sententia, quam religiosae memoriae Marcellino suam esse scripsit, sin-
gulas animas novas nascantibus fieri, ut non labefactetur fundatissima ecclesiae
fides, qua inconcusse credimus quod in Adam omnes moriuntur, et nisi per
Christum liberentur, quod per suum Sacramentum etiam in parvulis operatur,
in condemnationem trahuntur. Augustine then was quite aware of the diffi-
culty. But again, Opus Imperf. iv. 104, he writes, Argue de engine animarum
cunctationem meam, quia non audeo docere vel affirmare quod nescio.
3 De Gratia ct Libero Arbitrio, 15 : Semper est autem in nobis voluntas
libera, sed non semper est bona. Aut enim a iustitia libera est quando servit
peccato, et tune est mala : aut a peccato libera est, quando servit iustitiae et
tune est bona. Gratia vero Dei semper est bona, et .per hanc fit ut sit homo
bonae voluntatis, qui prius fuit voluntatis malae. He ridiculed the ' balance '
theory of the Pelagians, Opus Imperfect, iii. 117: Libra tua, quam conaris ex
ntraque parte per aequalia momenta suspendere, ut voluntas quantum est
ad malum, tantum etiam sit ad bonum libera. But this is exactly what he
himself maintained as regards the First Parent. Nor does he get out of this
VIII.] Augustinianism. 287
here by an inherited phrase, which to him has no
meaning, which he ought to have rejected, and retains
only for a purpose. What he says amounts in fact to
this, that there is no such thing as Freedom of Will, but
that the man himself is free when his energy is un-
impeded. He can do what he likes, but never what he
dislikes. It is a tenable view, but it carries with it
obligations ; and if these are disregarded, it becomes at
once immoral. Augustine did disregard them. Action,
he maintains, follows the strongest motive, and the
strongest motive is given to us, either by the direct
operation of God, or by Nature. But Nature is tainted ;
hence prior to Grace the strongest motive is invariably
evil.
Thus Augustine explains with facility those dark and
reluctant utterances of the Epistle to the Romans under
which Origen writhes in vain. Yet even he has not
exactly caught the meaning of the Apostle, who speaks
of man as free when enabled by grace, and not free yet
yearning for freedom while sold under sin. ' For to will
is present with me, but how to perform that which is
good I know not.' Nor can his view be made to fit his
theology without additional machinery, like the Ptole-
maic epicycles. For though Grace furnishes the stronger
motive, and so constrains the will, it is in itself valueless.
Man may fall away by Free Will, which here again has
difficulty by distinguishing two kinds of Grace of which the first only was
given to Adam; De Correptione et Gratia, n, Prima est enim qua fit ut
habeat homo iustitiam si velit ; secunda ergo plus potest, qua etiam fit ut
velit. For what is the first except Free Will in the Alexandrine sense ? No
Greek and no philosopher could have written as Augustine wrote here. It
would have been far better if he had made the same confession of ignorance
as regards Free Will that he makes frankly as regards the origin of the souL
But then the Pelagians could not have been condemned.
288 Summary. [Lect.
to reappear. For upon this phantom phrase hangs
nothing less than the Divine Justice. Hence above
Grace Augustine is compelled to place the gift of Per-
severance x ; and this, and not Grace, is the cause of
Salvation, which is here conceived of in the archaic
fashion as something not to be attained till after death.
Augustine has been called more logical than Origen.
But surely on insufficient grounds.
But by far the more important question remains.
What is Grace? According to the Alexandrines it is
anything that makes men better. According to Augus-
tine it is Love, the one and only thing that makes men
better. ' For when it is asked,' he says, ' whether any
one be a good man, it is not asked what he believes, or
what he hopes, but what he loves. For he who loves
rightly without doubt he rightly believes, and rightly
hopes ; but he who loves not believes in vain, hopes in
vain V ' Little love is little righteousness ; great love is
great righteousness ; perfect love is perfect righteous-
ness.' Here we have the full meaning of the Gospel.
Such language is far in advance of the Alexandrines,
who puzzle themselves and their hearers with their
moral alchemy, seeking to distil love out of hope and
fear, or to climb to it by the ladder of discipline, which
without love has no ground to stand upon. The whole
cumbrous structure of the Two Lives disappears at once.
Henceforth except among the Mystics, who will be some-
thing more than Christians, there is but One.
1 See especially the De Dono Perseverantiae.
3 Concerning Faith, Hope, and Charity, i. 1 1 7 (I quote the Enchiridion
here from Mr. de Romestin's Translation, Parker, 1885). The following
passage is from De Natura et Gratia, 70 : Caritas inchoata inchoata iustitia
est ; caritas provecta provecta iustitia est ; caritas magna magna iustitia est ;
caritas perfecta perfecta iustitia est.
VIII. ] A iigustinianism. 289
Had Augustine rested here all would have been well.
For Determinism loses its terrors when we call it by its
heavenly name of Charity. But here again his theology
was too strong for his ethics. He has to combine his
Determinism, not only with the terrible doctrine that all
men are reprobate for a sin that was not their own, but
with the scarcely less terrible doctrine that the healing
love of God flows only through the ordinances of a
Church, from which all but a fraction of humanity have
been shut out by His own direct act. The unbaptised
infant is doomed to eternal exclusion from the Beatific
Vision 1 . Fabricius will be punished less than Catiline,
not because he is good, but because Catiline is worse 2 .
St. Paul never taught Augustine this. If he is asked,
how then God is just, he replies, ' He is just ; I know
not how.'
It is not difficult to understand why his opponents
asserted that Augustine had never ceased to be a
Manichee. His system is in truth that of the Gnostics,
the ancestors of the Manichees. For it makes no real
1 This has been held to be the sole penalty of Original Sin as such. It
implies no poena sensus, no suffering, and has been called ' a natural beati-
tude.' See the decree of Pope Innocent III (Deer. iii. 42. 3 in Denzinger,
Enchiridion, p. 145, ed. 1865) : Poena originalis peccati est carentia visionis
Dei, actualis vero poena peccati est gehennae perpetuae cruciatus. The same
view is maintained by Thomas Aquinas. Before this time the state of un-
baptised infants after death is spoken of as one of punishment, but of punish-
ment in its most attenuated form. So Augustine, Concerning Faith, Hope, and
Charity, i. 93 : ' The mildest punishment indeed of all will be theirs, who
have added no sin further besides the sin of origin.' And even at a much
later date the same language was used. See the Professio Fidei Graecis
praeuripta a Gregorio XIII (in Denzinger, Enchiridion, p. 295, ed. 1865) :
Illorum autem animas qui in actuali mortal! peccato, vel solo original! de-
cedunt, mox in infemum descendere, poenis tamen disparibus puniendas.
I might therefore have used a stronger phrase in my text.
a Contra Julianum, iv. 3 : Minus enim Fabricius quam Catilina punietur
non quia iste bonus, sed quia ille magis malus.
U
290 Summary. [Lect.
difference whether our doom is stamped upon the nature
given to us by our Creator, or fixed by an arbitrary
decree. It is Gnosticism without the consolatory belief
in conditional immortality. He could never have written
as he did, had Gnosticism still borne as menacing a
front as in the days of Origen. As regards the doctrine
of Redemption he still occupies the ground of earlier
theology. It was reserved for Anselm, centuries after-
wards, to array the Justice against the Goodness of God,
and thus to complete the resemblance of Christianity to
its ancient deadly foe 1 .
1 Anselm's doctrine rests upon the idea that sin constitutes a debt to
God. God has been defrauded and must be repaid, The obligation is so
huge that man cannot satisfy it. Christ pays it for him ; and receives from
God Forgiveness, which, as He does not need it Himself, He bestows upon
man. Cur Dais Homo, i. 23 : Quid abstulit homo Deo cum vinci se
permisit a diabolo ? . . . Nonne abstulit Deo quidquid de humana natura
facere proposuerat ? Non potest negari. Intende in districtam iustitiam ;
et iudica secundum illam, utrum ad aequalitatem peccati homo satisfaciat
Deo ; nisi id ipsum quod, permittendo se vinci a diabolo, Deo abstulit,
diabolum vincendo restituat ; ut quemadmodum, per hoc quod victus est,
rapuit cliabolus quod Dei erat, et Deus perdidit ; ita per hoc quod vincat,
perdat diabolus et Deus recuperet. Ibid. ii. 20 (Migne) : Quantum autem
sit quod Filius sponte dedit non est opus exponere. Sufficienter patet.
Eum autem qui tantum donum sponte dedit Deo sine retributione debere
esse non iudicabis. Immo necesse esse video ut Pater Filio retribuat ;
alioquin aut iniustus esse videtur, si nollet, aut impotens si non posset ;
quae aliena sunt a Deo. ... Si voluerit Filius quod sibi debetur alii dare,
poteritne Pater iure ilium prohibere aut alii cui dabit negare ? Immo et
iustum et necessarium intellego, ut cui voluerit dare Filius a Patre reddatur ;
quia et Filio quod suum est dare licet, et Pater quod debet non nisi alii
reddere potest. According to Anselm, then, Christ redeems mankind from
God. Redemption is thus conceived of as a kind of mercantile transaction ;
its moral and spiritual significance is thrown into the background. Again,
it is impossible, on this mode of statement, to avoid the suspicion of moral
opposition between Him who exacts and Him who pays the debt. This is
of course not so violently expressed by a pure Trinitarian like Anselm as by a
Gnostic, in whose idea the God from whom man was redeemed was the
Demiurge, an imperfect Being and not a member of the Trinity. Neverthe-
less the difficulty is inherent in Anselm's theory, and has often led to the use
VIII. j The Resurrection. 291
The Alexandrines were blamed also for their view of
the nature of that body which the soul will receive at
the Resurrection. It may still be doubted whether
Origen does not offer a fair explanation of the words
' flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God.'
As on the question of the Will so here Augustine, before
he became Bishop, held an opinion undistinguishable
from that of the Alexandrine. Even his later revised
belief is more like that of Origen than it is like that of
Athenagoras 1 ; and it is probable that Origen's specula-
tions would have escaped rebuke, had they not been
of language that is most earnestly to be deprecated. The old view was
that Christ redeemed man from the Powers of Evil. This again is capable
of being understood in two very different ways. According to Origen the
death of Christ partly daunts and weakens the Powers of Evil conceived as
external entities, partly breaks the grasp of evil conceived as a moral force
existing in the soul ; and thus by making man better reconciles him to God.
See in addition to passages quoted above (p. 210) In Rom. v. 10 (Lorn. vi.
406). But here also the mercantile theory obtruded itself. By Augustine
God is regarded as buying man from the Devil by the sacrifice of Christ.
De Trinitate, xiii. 12 : Quaclam iustitia Dei in potestatem diaboli traditum
est genus humanum. ... Si ergo commissio peccatorum per iram Dei iustam
hominem subdidit diabolo, profecto remissio peccatorum per reconciliationem
Dei benignam emit hominem a diabolo. And again, Ibid. 14 : Quae est
ergo iustitia qua victus est diabolus? Quae nisi iustitia Christ! ? 'Et
quomodo victus est? Quia cum in Illo nihil dignum morte inveniret,
occidit tamen. Et utique iustum est ut debitores quos tenebat liberi
dimittantur, in eum credentes quern sine ullo debito occidit. Hoc est quod
iustificari dicimur in Christi sanguine. Augustine was still keenly alive to
the danger of introducing any shadow of antagonism into the relation
between Father and Son. So Ibid. 1 1 : Sed quid est iustificati in sangtdnt
ipsius? Quae vis est sanguinis huius, obsecro, ut in ea iustificentur
credentes ? Et quid est reconciliati per mortem Filii eius ? Itane vero,
cum irasceretur nobis Deus Pater, vidit mortem Filii sui pro nobis et
placatns est nobis ? This cannot be, for omnia simul et Pater et Filius et
amborum Spiritus pariter et concorditer operantur. The ancient view also,
like its successor, is capable of degradation and caricature. But, if under-
stood as it is meant, it is far profounder than that of Anselm.
1 Retractationes, i. 17 ; Concerning Faith, Hope, and Charity, i. 84 sqq.
(Trans, of Mr. de Romestin.)
U 2
292 Summary. [Lect.
seized upon and caricatured by the ignorant Eastern
monks. Far greater is the interest that attaches to the
doctrine of Restitution or Catharsis. Here again Au-
gustine is in opposition to Origen. Yet let us observe
his opposition is managed with forbearance. If in one
passage he speaks of this tenet as one ' which the Church
rightly detests,' in another he regards those who hold it
as yet Catholics, and ' deceived by a certain human
kindness V
Neither Clement nor Origen is properly speaking a
Universalist. Nor is Universalism the logical result of
their principles. ForSf the goodness of God drew them
in one direction, the Freedom of the Will, their negative
pole, drove them with equal force in the other. Neither
denied the eternity of punishment. What is known
as the Poena Damni exclusion that is from the sight
of God they held would never cease. The soul that
1 Hoc in Origene dignissime detestatur Ecclesia ; De gestis Pelagii, iii.
i(X Nevertheless Augustine always treated Origen with great respect and
forbearance. He refused to be entangled by Jerome in the controversy with
John of Jerusalem. In Ep. 8 he expresses the wish of the African Church
that Jerome would continue his work of interpreting the Greek divines,
especially Origen, and when warned by Jerome that he should be careful
how he read Origen, merely begged to be informed what the errors of
Origen were ; Origeniana, ii. 4. i. 14. In the De Civitate Dei, xxi. 17, it
is noticeable that he does not attribute Universalism to Origen : Qua in re
misericordior profecto fuit Origenes, qui et ipsum diabolum atque angelos
eius post graviora pro meritis et diuturniora supplicia ex illis cruciatibus
eruendos atque sociandos sanctis Angelis credidit. Sed ilium et propter
hoc, et propter alia nonnulla, et maxime propter altemantes sine cessatione
beatitudines et miserias, et statutis seculorum intervallis ab istis ad illas
atque ab illis ad istas itus ac reditus interminabiles, non immerito reprobavit
Ecclesia. . . . Longe autem aliter istorum misericordia hnmano erat affectu,
qui hominum illo iudicio damnatorum miserias temporales, omnium vero,
qui vel citius vel tardius liberantur, aeternam felicitatem putant. Of these
last he says (Concerning Faith, Hope, and Charity, i. 67), 'But they who
believe this and yet are Catholics seem to me to be deceived by a certain
human kindness.'
VIII.] Restitution. 293
has sinned beyond a certain point can never again
become what once it might have been. The ' wise fire '
will consume its evil fuel; anguish, remorse, shame,
distraction, all torment will end when 'the wood,
the hay, the straw' are burnt up. The purified spirit
will be brought home ; it will no longer rebel ; it will
acquiesce in its lot ; but it may never be admitted within
that holy circle where the pure in heart see face to face.
Even this general cessation of ' the pain of sense ' they
hoped, but did not venture to affirm. Man tramples on
God's goodness here ; he may scorn and defy it for ever.
And so long as he answers ' I will not ' to the eternal
' Thou shalt,' so long must his agony endure.
The hope of a general Restitution of all souls through
suffering to purity and blessedness lingered on in the
East for some time J . It was widely diffused among the
monasteries of Egypt and Palestine. It was taught by
Diodorus and Theodore 2 . The names of these liberal
theologians are regarded with suspicion. But there is
no stain on the orthodoxy of the two Gregories. Yet
Gregory Nazianzen regarded it as an open question 3 ;
while Gregory of Nyssa, one of the most revered leaders
in the Church of the fourth century, proclaims it more
1 See M. Denis, Philosophic d'Origtne, pp. 535 sqq.
2 The opinion is attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of
Tarsus by Salomon, Metropolitan of Bassora in A.D. 1222. See Assemanni,
Bibl. Orient, iii. 323.
3 Oratio 40. 36 : OlSa KO.I irvp KaOaprripiov . . . 0180. teal irvp ov Kadap-
TTjpiov dAAa Ko^affTripiov. . . . travra fap TO.VTO. rfjs cupai'io'TtKrjs tan Swdfitcas'
fl fj.ii TO) (pi\oi> KavravQa votiv TOVTO <pi\avOpanroTfpov, Kal TOV KO\O.OVTOS
(iraficus. Poemata de Seipso, i. 543 (Migne, xxxvii. 1010) he says of God,
T Oy pa. KOI ovSlv eovras firrj^aro teal nfrtireira, \vofnivovs Trrj^fi ff xal ts Riov
aXXov tpvafftt, fi -nvpos, } QfoTo <par<p6pov avnaaovras. fl Sf fov nod
airavras eavartpov ; d\\oOi iciiaOtu. It is evident that Nazianzen regarded
the doctrine as tenable, if he did not hold it himself.
294 Summary. [Lect.
emphatically and absolutely than the Alexandrines 1 .
Even Epiphanius and Theophilus, the fierce antagonists
of Origenism, appear to have regarded this particular
article with indifference, except in so far as it embraced
the fallen angels. The attitude of Jerome is highly
ambiguous 2 . Origen's speculations on the subject of
Catharsis were drowned in the general condemnation of
1 Or. in I Cor. xv. 28 (Opp. ii. 6, ed. Paris, 1638) : ' What then is the
scope of the word which the Apostle authoritatively uses in this passage ?
That one day the nature of evil shall pass into nothingness, being altogether
destroyed from among things that are ; and that the divine and unsullied
goodness shall embrace within itself all intelligent natures, none of those
whom God hath made being exiled from the kingdom of God ; when, all
the alloy of evil that has been mixed up in things that are having been
separated by the refining action of the purgatorial fire, everything that was
created by God shall have become such as it was at the beginning, when as
yet it had not admitted evil. . . . This is the end of our hope, that nothing
shall be left contrary to the good, but that the divine life penetrating all
things shall absolutely destroy death from among things that are ; sin
having been destroyed before him, by means of which, as has been said,
death held his kingdom over men." De Anima et Resurrectione (Opp. ii.
pp. 226-229, ed. Paris, 1638) is equally strong. St. Germanus, Patriarch
of Constantinople, in his Retribuens et Legitimus maintained that the
latter treatise had been interpolated by heretics. We have seen the same
subterfuge adopted in the case of Origen. Dr. Pusey and Vincenzi quote
numerous passages in which the Nyssen speaks very clearly and strongly of
eternal punishments. This again is true of Origen.
2 Jerome at one time asserted (see Rufin. Apol. ii. 20) that Origen had
been banished and degraded out of mere envy, 'non propter dogmatum
gravitatem, non propter haeresim, ut nunc contra eum rabidi canes simulant,
sed quia gloriam eloquentiae eius et scientiae ferre non poterant, et illo
dicente omnes muti putabantur.' In his preface to the translation of the
Homilies on Ezekiel he called Origen ' alterum post Apostolum Ecclesiarum
magistrum.' Yet in these Homilies Origen's doctrine of Restitution is very
clearly expressed, and at the time when Jerome wrote these words he must
have been familiar with the De Principiis. Afterwards he inveighed strongly
against the belief of the salvability of the Demons and against that of the
restitution of man so far as it implied or seemed to imply restitution of the
best and worst to an identical grade of blessedness (see above, p. 234). His
own doctrine is that the demons and impii, that is men who never knew God
or, having known, abandoned Him, will be punished for ever, but that all
' Christians' will be cleansed by fire. Huet speaks of this view as unortho-
VIII.] Restitution. 295
his name and teaching l ; but their place was to a large
extent supplied by the doctrine of Purgatory. This
existed in germ in the days of the Alexandrines 2 , and
is found fully developed in the Church of Augustine.
From that time the Greek and Latin communions, that
is to say the great majority of Christians, have held the
faith that some sinners are punished but for a time 3 .
dox, but, if impii means those dying in mortal sin, it appears to coincide
very nearly with the general doctrine of Purgatory, at any rate in its earlier
form. For it was held by many that all Christians must pass through the
Purgatorial flame. See especially Ambrose, In Psalm, xxxvi. 1 5 and cxviii.
153 ; Alexandre, Oracula Sibyllina, ii. p. 531 ; Huet, Origeniana, ii. n. 25.
1 The Greek Church holds that Origen was condemned by the Fifth
Council principally on this ground. Confessio Orthodoxa, i. 66 (in Kimmel,
Monumenta Fidel Eccl. Orient.} : De Purgatorio autem igne quid nobis
iudicandum ? Nihil usquam de eo in sacris literis traditur, quod temporaria
ulla poena, animorum expurgatrix, a morte exsistat. Imo vero earn prae-
cipue ab causam in Secunda Synodo Constantinopolitana Origenis damnata
est sententia. But, as has been pointed out above, it is doubtful whether he
was condemned by the Fifth Council at all7and probable that if he was no
reason was assigned. The only express condemnation of his Restitution
theory is to be found in the Fifteen Anathemas ascribed to the Home Synod,
of which the first runs, TLS rty fj.v9u>Sr] npovirapfiv j-aiv \fv\wv KO.I rr)v ravry
(irofitvrji' TfpaTajSr) diroKardo'Tainv Trptfffievfi, avdQtp.a eara) : and the fifteenth,
i TIS \eyfi OTI T) dyaryti rwv vouiv ff avrfj fffrai TTJ uporepa, ore OVJTOJ viro@f-
fJrjKfffai' $i KaTairfirruKfiffav, us rfjV dp^f/v r ty aiir^v eivat T<2 rt\ft teal rd
rt\os rfjs d.px*i s ptTpov ftvai, dvd9fj.a tarai. But the Home Synod consisted
only of a handful of Bishops resident in the capital, and has no claim to be
regarded as the mouth-piece of the Church at large. As to the condemnation
by the Fifth Council (if it was really pronounced), our sense of its gravity
must be profoundly modified by the fact that it was 'pronounced not less than
three hundred years after the death of Origen.
* In the Montanist treatises of Tertullian see above, p. 1 10. For Augus-
tine's view see Enchirid. ad Laur. 67 ; De Civ. Dei, xx. 18 ; De gestis
Pelagii, iii. 10.
* Mr. H. N. Oxenham (Catholic Eschatology and Universalisnt) regards
the teaching of the two Churches as identical. There is however consider-
able difference in detail. The Greeks have no word for Purgatory, and
certainly do not admit the existence of Purgatory as a distinct state. So
Confessio Orthodoxa, \. 64: Annon et aliqui sic diem suum obeunt ut
beatorum damnatorumque medii sint ? Huiusmodi homines nulli reperiuntur.
Again, the Greek belief rests upon a different foundation. They make no
296 Summary. [Lect.
What then is the true difference between this ancient
and all but universal belief and that of the Alexandrines?
It is by no means easy to define. For this question
lies so near the roots of life, it is united by such tender
fibres to our dearest hopes and fears, that it cannot be
touched without a thrill. Hence it is seen through the
mist of love and horror, and these two emotions intensify
one another. The thought of the City of Destruction
adds wings to the pilgrim's feet ; and while he rejoices
with trembling over his own salvation, he cannot wish
that the pursuing fury should seem less vengeful to
others. Hence there has been much diversity. Words
have been employed in very different senses. Points,
upon which high authorities have insisted as vital, are
treated by other authorities not less high as subordinate
and immaterial. Yet if we fix our attention upon the
use of the texts I Cor. iii. 15, Matth. iii. II, on which according to Cardinal
Newman the Roman doctrine reposes. They find no mention in Scripture
of any ' purgatorial fire ' or of any punishments that are not eternal. On
the other hand, they attach great importance to Luke xii. 5, ' Fear Him which
after He hath killed hath power to cast into hell.' It is to be inferred from
this that God does not in all cases use this power ; that there are some souls
whom He releases from torment. Nor does the Greek Church attempt to
ascertain who these souls are. This lies entirely in the hand of God ; Conf.
Orthod, i. 65. Whereas the Roman Church defines that none are admitted
to Purgatory except those ' qui vere poenitentes in Dei caritate decesserint,
antequam dignis poenitentiae fructibus de commissis satisfecerint et omissis.'
Both Churches believe in the efficacy of prayers and sacrifices for the dead,
but the indefiniteness of the Greek doctrine has saved it from the practical
abuses that have arisen out of the Roman view. So indefinite is the Greek
doctrine that it was possible for Cyril'Lucar to deny that his Church believed
in Purgatory ; and Gerganus declared that ' the Popish Purgatory was the
invention of Virgil.' The Greek view will be found in the Confessio Ortho-
doxa in Kimmel or Schaff ; Cyrilli Lucaris Patr. Const. Confessio Christi-
anae fidei cui adiitncta est gemina eiusdem confessionis censura, 1 645 ;
Hofmann, Symbolik, p. 186, and article Fegfeuer in Herzog; Loch, Das
Dogma der Gr. Kirche vom Purgatorium. The Roman doctrine will be
found most conveniently in Denzinger's Enchiridion.
vin. ] Restitution. 297
language of the wisest teachers, there is also considerable
agreement. As to the instruments of the Divine Retri-
bution *, there is no longer any serious dispute. Nor
perhaps will any one now deny, that the first object of
chastisement is the amendment of the sinner, and that if
in any case it appears to lead to a different issue, the
cause is in the sinner himself.
But if we compare the teaching of Origen or Clement
with that of Augustine or Aquinas, we shall find two
points of antagonism, of which the first is real, the
second verbal only.
Both would agree that, if the grace of God is dead
within the soul, hope can shine no more. But to the
Alexandrines every man that lives is a child of God,
a possessor of the divine grace, inasmuch as he bears
within him, in his reason and his conscience, the image
of the Divine Word. It may be that he has cast down
and broken the image, that he has wholly embruted
himself. But unless he has sunk to this frightful depth
by his own free will, unless he has ceased to be a man,
the Alexandrines held that we may leave him with fear-
ful hope to the judgment of God. The later theologians
took a far more sombre view. They who are in the
Church and they only are within the pale of the Divine
Love. Upon the excommunicate, the unbaptised, the
heathen, the door is shut 2 . This is the real distinction
between the two.
1 The Greek Church believes only in mental, spiritual punishment. The
Roman Church does not define this point ; but what her best minds think
may be seen in the Dream of Gerontius or the meditations of St. Katharine
of Genoa (in Loch, p. 150).
8 The Council of Trent mitigated this. Qu.ie quidem translatio (in
statum gratiae) post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis
aut eius voto fieri non potest ; Sess. vi. c. 4. We may observe here that
298 Siimmary. [L3ct.
The other, though it has been regarded as of the
essence of the question, is in reality a purely verbal
difference. It is this, whether the soul that is admitted
to purgation can be said to repent or not ? This Origen
affirmed, this the Roman and the Greek deny. But it
matters little what language we employ, so long as the
thing signified is the same. As the stress of its anguish
passes, so the soul is braced to completer submission ;
so it wakes to more fervent love, to deeper knowledge ;
so it turns from its evil, and fixes its gaze with intenser
faith upon its Judge and Saviour. Origen meant no
more than this ; nor do the Roman and the Greek mean
less 1 .
With respect to the bearing of Origenism on the
teaching of our own Church I may venture to observe
there are several expressions (chiefly Eastern) of a belief that' great power
attached to the prayers of persons eminent for sanctity. Thus Perpetua
(above, p. no) is said to have rescued the soul of her unbaptised brother
Dinocrates ; Gregory the Great to have obtained pardon for the Emperor
Trajan ; Thecla for her heathen mother Falconilla ; and Johannes Dama-
scenus for his Mahometan father. See Loch, p. 79, and the Bishop of
Durham, Apostolic Fathers, part ii. vol. i. p. 3.
1 The Greek Church has denned this point strictly and repeatedly. Con-
fessio Orthodoxa, i. 64 : Qnibus ex verbis clarum evadit ab excessu suo
liberari per se animam poenitentiamque agere non posse, nihilque eiusmodi
moliri quo infernis eximatur vinculis. The Roman Church does not appear
to have decided it further than by condemning a proposition of Martin Luther,
' nee probatum est ullis aut rationibus aut Scripturis ipsas (animas in Purga-
torio) esse extra statum merendi aut augendae charitatis ' (Denzinger, 662),
and by the definition already quoted that the soul must have 'truly re-
pented' in this life. Mr. H. N. Oxenham (Catholic Eschatology and
Universalisni) holds that the words ' repentance,' ' probation,' cannot be
applied to the future life. ' The acts of the soul in Purgatory are moral,
though they are not strictly speaking meritorious ; they do not affect its final
destiny which is already fixed.' ' We cannot admit that Purgatory includes
the idea of a second probation for those who have already had their trial and
failed.' All depends upon what we mean by ' repentance,' ' probation,' and
especially 'failure.'
VIIL] Restitution. 299
that here again there are two points involved. The first
is as before as to the nature, the scope, still more the
degree of saving grace. Few among us would desire to
bar the gates of heaven against the Unitarian Channing,
against the Buddhist ascetic, against even the naked
savage who on his sea-swept coral reef, forsaken as he
may seem of God and man, is yet just and grateful and
kind to wife and child. Yet few would think that for
these maimed souls no instruction is needed, that the
mere rending of the veil can make tolerable the splendour
which it reveals. We believe in the many stripes and
the few. We believe that star differeth from star in
glory, and in these words lies all that any sober-minded
man has ever maintained.
' God shall be all in all.' These words were never out
of Origen's mind. He looked upon the hope that they
enshrine as the golden key to every doubt. Nor can his
hope, even in its fullest sweep, be thought unscriptural
so long as this text remains part of the Bible. For we
can hardly say that an explanation adopted by Origen
and by Gregory of Nyssa is wholly baseless.
It is not for me to defend the moral character of
Clement or of Drigen. Yet, as it has been argued that
their teaching implies an inadequate conception of sin,
a few words may be permitted.
It is not possible to exaggerate the horrors of that
abyss, when we figure to ourselves all that it holds within
its dark recesses. Nor will any one who lifts up his eyes
to Him, in Whose sight the very heavens are not clean,
dare to extenuate the measure of his own transgressions.
But guilt may be exaggerated, our own and still more
easily our brother's. The mote is not as the beam. Is
300 Summary. [Lect.
it not an exaggeration to say, or to imply, or to dream,
that because God is infinite all offences against His Holy
Law are also infinite, or to think of Him as angry with
sin, as losing by sin? The Alexandrines protested
against such errors, but they regarded sin as spiritual
death ; as separating us from Him, who is the joy and
glory and life of the soul; as needing, as doomed', to be
eradicated by anguish sharper than a sword. They
knew well ' the agony of seeing all past sins in the sight
of Jesus V But they believed above all things in the
Father's love. They did not understand how His Crea-
tion could for ever groan and travail, or how the Saviour
could ' drink wine ' in the sight of endless misery and
wrong.
Origen's view has been called a cruel view 2 , because
aeonian probation implies aeonian change, and so eternal
hope seems to issue in never-ending fear. Neither
Clement nor 'Gregory admitted the possibility of a fall
from grace in the future life. Even Origen held that
there is a point, here or hereafter, at which love takes
complete possession of the will, and the spirit is secure in
the bosom of God.
Space does not permit me to cast more than a flying
glance upon the pathetic history of Quietism. The
opinions which drew shame and ruin upon Molinos,
F&ielon. Madame de Guyon, in a hypocritical court and
1 The phrase is from Dr. Pusey, What is of Faith, p. 116.
a By Mr. H. N. Oxenham. In Rom. v. TO (Lorn. vi. 407 sqq.) Origen
expressly denies the possibility of declension from grace in the future life, on
the ground that ' charity never faileth ' and that ' nothing can separate us
from the love of God ' (Rom. viii. 35, 39 ; I Cor. xiii. 8). And I do not
feel sure that the passages quoted above, p. 228, are sufficiently clear to
demonstrate that he ever held the opposite opinion. At any rate the love
of God in Christ, when once kindled in the soul, is indefectible.
VIII.] Quietism. 301
a timeserving Church, were in substance those of Cle-
ment. Again, we read of the Absolute Good, the Two
Lives, Apathy, Disinterested Love, Silent Prayer. But
that which in the Alexandrine was largely traditional
and academic has become personal and impassioned,
that which was intellectual and Platonic has passed over
into the emotional and even sensuous. It rests no
longer upon the Phaedrus or St. John, but on the
Song of Songs.
The Quietists were but lightly touched by the charac-
teristic infirmities of Mysticism. They were guarded
from these not only by deep piety, but by their high
social standing and cultivated minds. Like all their
class they sought to ' antedate the peace of heaven '
an impossible and to untutored spirits a perilous effort.
The moral dangers of this presumption were not far
distant when Madame de Guyon was pressing the doc-
trines of Silent Prayer and Disinterested Love upon a
bevy of school-girls at St. Cyr. But their real offence
was not this. Quietism is a form of spiritual liberty,
and this was a fatal blot in an age of directors and
confessors. But there is no need to dwell upon a subject
so fascinating in itself and so accessible to all. Those
who wish to know what Quietism really was can peruse
the Maxims of the Saints. Those who care to see how
readily it lends itself to perversion and ridicule may read
Bossuet or La Bruyere. A just and temperate censor
will be found in Bourdaloue, a sympathising critic in
Vaughan l .
1 The instruments condemnatory of Molinos and the doctrine of Dis-
interested Love will be found in Denzinger, pp. 333-348, ed. 1865. It is
impossible not to feel and express sympathy for the Quietists, who but for
political reasons would probably have been left unmolested, and were
f
2 Summary. [Lect.
As we turn the pages of the Alexandrines, it is, to use
a well-worn simile, as if we were walking through the
jistreets of some long-buried city. Only with effort, only
imperfectly, can we recall the vanished life. Even when
we succeed in reconstructing the image of the past our
first impulse is an ungenerous one How different these
men were to ourselves, how different and how inferior !
A second and finer thought teaches us better. They
were as we are. We have drifted far away from them,
and experience has taught us many things. But our
* horizon is no wider, and our light no fuller. We know
no more than they. The only way in which we can
hope to surpass them is by the renunciation of vain
endeavours, and the concentration of all our efforts on
the ideal of Duty.
They were too subtle, too inquisitive, but the good
sense of the world has already judged their presump-
tuous sallies. It has been urged that they are too intel-
lectual and cramp the play of the emotions. This is
true, and it is a fault, but on the other hand they are
not effeminate. Their tone is bracing and salutary.
Their use of Scripture is often wild and fantastic, but
it has not the faults of the Middle Age ; it is free, un-
prejudiced, reasonable in endeavour if not always in
result. The one point on which we may justly blame
certainly harshly used. Nevertheless the authorities who condemned them
were in the right. Beautiful as Quietism is m its highest expression, in
cultivated and truly saintly spirits, it is yet rooted in error ; it is a revolt against
reason and the facts of life, as well as against the teaching of Revelation.
Hence in grosser natures it leads inevitably to moral depravation. Sufficient
proof of this will be found in the account of Wesley's struggle with Quietism
of the lower type given in Tyerman's Life. The Dialogues on Quietism re-
ferred to above will be found in M. Servois' edition of La Bruyere, but there
is some doubt as to their real author. They are written somewhat in the
style of Pascal, but with a far coarser touch.
VIII.] Merits of the Alexandrines. 303
them is their immoral doctrine of Reserve. Yet it is
precisely this blot in their conduct which has most com-
monly escaped censure, because it was capable of being
turned to profit.
But this is the stain of the age in which they lived
and cannot obscure their great services to Christianity.
His work upon the text of Scripture alone would entitle j
Origen to undying gratitude. It was he and his prede- \
cessor, more than any others, who saved the Church not
only from Noetianism but from Gnosticism, Chiliasm,
Montanism, that is from Paganism, Sensualism, Fana-
ticism. In that age so like our own, when the Church
had not yet acquired that civil support, that prescriptive
hold upon the imagination, which now again she is rapidly
losing, they broke the power of the Stoic Religion of
Humanity, of Epicurean Agnosticism, of Platonic Spiri-
tualism. . Almost alone they strove to reconcile the
revelation of God in Jesus with the older revelation of
God in Nature. What could be done at that time they
did, and their principles are of permanent value. They
never wrestle with Science for a few inches of doubtful
ground. For the ground of Science is not theirs, and
that sense of Scripture, which alone can conflict with
Science, is not the ' spirit that giveth life.'
Last and highest among their merits we must place
their preaching of the Fatherhood of God. It may be
that on some points they erred, like Fcnelon, ' from
excess of love,' but such errors, if they are really there,
must be treated in the spirit from which they flow.
Their teaching is associated, in Origen at least, with
ideas on which most Christians fear to dwell, though
they are impressed upon us by the authority of the
304 The Kingdom of God.
4
Saviour Himself. They taught that the Just One is
Good, as few since have taught that highest and most
lifegiving of all truths. Origen added that Goodness is
the source of all that is, that in all the efforts of our
soul we should strive through Christ to Him who is
the First Source of Redemption as of all other blessings,
that there will come a time when the work of Media-
tion and Salvation will be achieved, when Christ will
present the Church, His Sanctified Body, to the Father,
Whom we shall see ' face to face.'
It is the teaching of St. Paul. ' Then cometh the
End when He shall have delivered up the Kingdom to
God, even the Father . . . Then shall the Son also
Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under
Him, that God may be all in all V
1 In two passages, Contra Cekum, viii. n ; De Orations, 25 (where he
is commenting on ' Thy Kingdom come '), Origen speaks of the delivering
up of Christ's Kingdom to the Father. There will come a time when the
Church and each of its members, being purified from all stain of sin, will be
' governed by God alone.' These passages must be read in connection with
those cited above (pp. 169-170) as to the cessation of the Mediatorial office
of Christ, and In Matth, xiv. 7, where it is said that Christ is 'perhaps'
avrofiaffiXfia. Some light again may be thrown upon Origen's meaning
by other passages where it is intimated that the Father Himself has
Epinoiai as ' consuming fire ' and ' light,' and again as ' Lord ' and
' Father ' ; not that He changes, but that we change in relation to Him.
See M. Denis, p. 378. Christ does not cease to be the Head of the Church
or the King of Heaven. But He brings man when sin is dead within him,
when he is now capable of the highest revelation of all, into immediate
contact with the Father, so that he may see Him ' face to face,' ' as He is.'
This contact depends on our complete and eternal union with Christ, and this
again on the complete and eternal union of Christ with His Father. We
have here no doubt the final expression of Origen's Subordinationism. But
it must be observed ' subjection ' means absolute harmony with the Arche-
typal Will. At the End all will be one because the Father's Will is all in all
and all in each. Each will fill the place which the Mystery of the Economy
assigns to him.