FOOTNOTES

The sex tabus.

477.It would seem that here we have touched a fundamental point in the historical development of the moral sentiments. The sexualtabusare the most primitive and deeply-seated in human history. From this point of view woman is by nature impure, the sex-functions which play so large a part in her mature life being to the savage both dangerous and abhorrent. Hence the view, so strongly held by St Paul, that woman as a part of the creation is inferior to man. But man too becomes by his sex-functions impure, though for shorter periods; and by union with woman lowers himself to her level. Hence the unconquerable repugnance of St Paul to the sexual relation under any conditions whatever[117]; a repugnance which reason and religion keep within limits[118], but which yet always breaks out afresh in his writings. Hence also he assumes as unquestionable the natural unseemliness of the sexual parts of the body; in all these points not going beyond feelings which are to-day as keen as ever, though no philosopher has found it easy to justify them. But in certain points St Paul outpaces the general feeling, and shows himself an extreme reactionary against the philosophic doctrines which he shared with the Stoic. He extends his dislike, in accordance with a most primitivetabu, to woman’s hair[119]; he desires the subordination of woman to man to be marked in her outward appearance[120]; and he forbids women to speak in the general meetings of church members[121].

Hebrew feeling.

478.This intense feeling on the part of St Paul required, as his writings assume, no justification; it was therefore an inherited feeling, as familiar to many an Oriental as it is usually strange and unsympathetic to the ancient and modern European. It appears also to be rooted in Hebrew tradition; for if we are at liberty to interpret the myth of Adam and Eve by the parallel of Yama and Yamī in the Rigveda[122], the fall of man was nothing else than the first marriage, in which Eve was the suitor and Adam the accomplice. In the dramatic poem of the Rigveda Yama corresponds to the Hebrew Adam, his sister Yamī to Eve[123]. Yamī yearns to become the mother of the human race; Yama shudders at the impiety of a sister’s embrace. Zeno had already conceived the world-problem in much the same shape[124]; but to the Oriental it is more than a problem of cosmology; it is the fundamental opposition of sex attitude, the woman who longs for the family affections against the man who seeks an ideal purity. In Genesis the prohibition of the apple appears at first sight colourless, yet the meaning is hardly obscure. After touching the forbidden fruit man and woman first feel the shame of nakedness; and Eve is punished by the coming pains of child-bearing, and a rank below her husband’s. None the less she has her wish, for she becomes the mother of all living. It is hard to think that Paul, who always traces human sin back to the offence of Adam, and finds it most shamelessly displayed in the sex-relationships of his own time, could have conceived of the Fall in any very different way.

The taint in procreation.

479.According then to a point of view which we believe to be latent in all the teaching of Paul on the subject of sin, the original taint lay in procreation, and through the begetting of children has passed on from one generation of mankind to another; ‘through the succession from Adam all men become dead[125].’ As an ethical standpointthis position is very alien from Stoicism; with the Stoic it is a first law of nature which bids all men seek for the continuance of the race; with the Apostle the same yearning leads them to enter the pathway of death. It would lead us too far to attempt here to discuss this profound moral problem, which has deeply influenced the whole history of the Christian church. We are however greatly concerned with the influence of this sentiment on Pauline doctrine. For it follows that in order to attain to a true moral or spiritual life man needs a new begetting and a new birth[126]; he must become a son of God through the outpouring of his spirit[127]. This is one of the most familiar of Pauline conceptions, and for us it is easy to link it on to the Stoico-Pauline account of the creation, according to which man was in the first instance created through the Word of God, and endowed with his spirit. But to the community at Jerusalem all conceptions of this kind appear to have been hardly intelligible, and tended to aggravate the deep distrust of the teachings and methods of St Paul and his companions, which was rooted in his disregard of national tradition.

The quarrel.

480.This difference of mental attitude soon broke out into an open quarrel. So much was inevitable; and the fact that the quarrel is recorded at length in the texts from which we are quoting is one of the strongest evidences of their general accuracy. The Christians at Jerusalem formed themselves into a nationalist party; they claimed that all the brothers should be in the first instance conformists to Hebrew institutions. Paul went up to Jerusalem[128], eager to argue the matter with men of famous name. He was disillusioned, as is so often the traveller who returns after trying experiences and much mental growth to the home to which his heart still clings. Peter and the others had no arguments to meet Paul’s; he could learn nothing from them[129]; they had not even a consistent practice[130]. At first Paul’s moral sense was outraged; he publicly rebuked Peter as double-faced. After a little time herealized that he had met with children; he remembered that he had once thought and acted in the same way[131]. Jews in heart, the home apostles still talked of marvels[132], still yearned for the return of Jesus in the flesh[133]. A philosophic religion was as much beyond their grasp as a consistent morality. Through a simple-minded application of the doctrines of the Sermon on the mount they had slipped into deep poverty[134]; they were ready to give Paul full recognition in return for charitable help. This was not refused them; but to his other teaching Paul now added a chapter on pecuniary independence[135]; and in his old age he left to his successors warnings against ‘old wives’ fables[136]’ and ‘Jewish legends[137].’

The development of Christian mythology.

481.Thus for the first time the forces of mythology within the Christian church clashed with those of philosophy. For the moment Paul appeared to be the victor; he won the formal recognition of the church, with full authority to continue his preaching on the understanding that it was primarily directed to the Gentile world[138]. External events were also unfavourable to the Hebraists: the destruction of Jerusalem deprived them of their local centre; the failure of Jesus to reappear in the flesh within the lifetime of his companions disappointed them of their most cherished hope. But their sentiments and thoughts remained to a great extent unchanged. To Paul they gave their respect, to Peter their love; and the steady tradition of the Christian church has confirmed this judgment. No saint has been so loved as Peter; to none have so many churches been dedicated by the affectionate instinct of the many; whilst even the dominant position of Paul in the sacred canon has hardly secured him much more than formal recognition except by the learned. So again it was with Paul’s teaching; formally recognised as orthodox, it remained misunderstood and unappreciated: it was even rapidly convertedinto that mythological form to which Paul himself was so fiercely opposed.

The Virgin birth and the resurrection.

482.This divergence of view is illustrated most strikingly in the two doctrines which for both parties were the cardinal points of Christian belief, the divine nature of the Founder and his resurrection. On the latter point the standpoint of the Hebraists is sufficiently indicated by the tradition of the gospels, all of which emphatically record as a decisive fact that the body of Jesus was not found in his grave on the third day; to the Paulists this point is entirely irrelevant, and they pass it by unmentioned[139]. To Paul again the man Jesus was of human and natural birth, born of the posterity of David, born of a woman, born subject to the law[140]; in his aspect as the Christ he was, as his followers were to be, begotten of the spirit and born anew[141]. His statement as to descent from David (which hardly means more than that he was of Jewish race) was crystallized by the mythologists in two formal genealogies, which disagree so entirely in detail that they have always been the despair of verbal apologists, but agree in tracing the pedigree through Joseph to Jesus. The phrase ‘begotten of the spirit’ was interpreted with equal literalness; but the marvel-lovers were for a time puzzled to place the ‘spirit’ in the family relationship. In the first instance the spirit seems to have been identified with the mother of Jesus[142]; but the misunderstanding of a Hebrew word which does not necessarily connote physical virginity[143]assisted to fix thefunction of fatherhood upon the divine parent. The antipathy to the natural process of procreation which we have traced in St Paul himself, and which was surely not less active amongst many of the Hebraists, has contributed to raise this materialisation of a philosophic tenet to a high place amongst the formal dogmas of historic Christianity.

The doctrine of the Word.

483.But if the tendency to myth-making was still alive in the Christian church, that in the direction of philosophy had become self-confident and active. The Paulists had taken the measure of their former opponents; they felt themselves superior in intellectual and moral vigour, and they knew that they had won this superiority by contact with the Gentile world. More than before they applied themselves to plead the cause of the Christ before the Gentiles; but the storm and stress of the Pauline epistles gave way in time to a serener atmosphere, in which the truths of Stoicism were more generously acknowledged. A Stoic visitor of the reign of Trajan would meet in Christian circles the attitude represented to us by the fourth gospel, in which the problem of the Christ-nature stands to the front, and is treated on consistently Stoic lines. St Paul had spoken of Jesus as ‘for us a wisdom which is from God[144]’ and had asserted that ‘from the beginning he had the nature of God[145]’; his successors declared frankly that Christ was the Logos, the Word[146]; and in place of the myth of the Virgin Birth they deliberately set in the beginning of their account of Christ the foundation-principles of Stoic physics and the Paulist account of the spiritual procreation of all Christians.

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing that exists came into being[147].’‘To all who have received him, to them—that is, to those who trust in his name—he has given the privilege of becoming children of God; who werebegotten as such not by human descent, nor through an impulse of their own nature, nor through the will of a human father, but from God.‘And the Word came in the flesh, and lived for a time in our midst, so that we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, sent from his presence. He was full of grace and truth[148].’

‘To all who have received him, to them—that is, to those who trust in his name—he has given the privilege of becoming children of God; who werebegotten as such not by human descent, nor through an impulse of their own nature, nor through the will of a human father, but from God.

‘And the Word came in the flesh, and lived for a time in our midst, so that we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, sent from his presence. He was full of grace and truth[148].’

The Stoic character of this teaching is no longer latent, but proclaimed; and the Church Fathers recognise this in no doubtful terms[149].

The doctrine of the Trinity.

484.During the whole of the second centuryA.D.men trained in Stoic principles crowded into the Christian community. Within it they felt they had a special work to do in building up Christian doctrine so that it might face all storms of criticism. This effort gradually took the shape of schools modelled upon those of the philosophic sects. Such a school was founded by an ex-Stoic namedPantaenusat Alexandria in 181A.D.; and his successorsClemensof Alexandria (ob. c. 215A.D.) andOrigenes(c. 186-253A.D.) specially devoted themselves to developing the theory of the divine nature upon Stoic lines. Not all the particulars they suggested were accepted by the general feeling of the Christian body, but from the discussion was developed gradually the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity[150]. The elements of this doctrine have been already traced in St Paul’s epistles, in which the dominating conceptions are those of God the Father, the Christ, and the divine spirit. For these in the next generation we find the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and the last term of the triad becomes increasingly identified with the ‘holy spirit’ of Stoicism. But these three conceptions(with others) are in Stoic doctrine varying names or aspects of the divine unity. Seneca, for instance, had written in the following tone:

‘To whatever country we are banished, two things go with us, our part in the starry heavens above and the world around, our sole right in the moral instincts of our own hearts. Such is the gift to us of the supreme power which shaped the universe. That power we sometimes call “the all-ruling God,” sometimes “the incorporeal Wisdom” which is the creator of mighty works, sometimes the “divine spirit” which spreads through things great and small with duly strung tone, sometimes “destiny” or the changeless succession of causes linked one to another[151].’

Here the larger variety of terms used by the early Stoic teachers[152]is reduced to four aspects of the first cause, namely God, the Word, the divine spirit, and destiny. The Christian writers struck out from the series the fourth member, and the doctrine of the Trinity was there. Its stiff formulation for school purposes in the shape ‘these three are one’ has given it the appearance of a paradox; but to persons conversant with philosophic terminology such a phrase was almost commonplace, and is indeed found in various associations[153]. The subsequent conversion of the members of the triad into three ‘persons’ introduced a simplification which is only apparent, for the doctrine must always remain meaningless except as a typical solution of the old problem of ‘the One and the many,’ carried up to the level of ultimate Being[154].

Subsequent history.

485.In the ages that have since followed mythology and philosophy have been at work side by side within the Christian church. At no time had Christians of philosophic temperament entirely thrown off the belief in marvels, and this in increasing degree infected the wholeHellenistic world from the second century onwards. But this spirit of concession proved no sure protection to men who, after all, were guilty of thinking. It was substantially on this ground that the first persecutions began within the church. Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria (circ. 230A.D.), excommunicated Origen, and obtained the support of the great majority of the Christian churches for his action; still Origen steadily held his ground, and has found advocates in all ages of Christian history[155]. Throughout the ‘dark ages’ philosophical thought lay almost extinguished, and a childish credulity attained such monstrous dimensions as to threaten the very existence of social life. In the ecclesiastical chronicles of the middle ages miracles are so frequent that the orderly course of nature seems the exception; angels and devils are so many that men are almost forgotten. To these hallucinations and fictions of the monastery, so deservedly ridiculed in theIngoldsby Legends[156], the practical experience of daily life must always have supplied some corrective; the swollen claim of ‘faith’ to say yes to every absurdity had to be met by the reassertion of criticism, the right to say ‘no.’ The Reformation, at the cost of infinite effort and sacrifice, swept away the miracles of the saints; modern criticism has spared none of the marvels of the Old Testament, and is beginning to lay its axe to the root of those of the New. Every day the conviction that ‘miracles do not happen’ gains ground amongst intelligent communities; that is (in philosophic language) the dualism of God and Nature is being absorbed in the wider monism according to which God and Nature are one.

Christian philosophy.

486.As the credit of Christian mythology diminishes, the philosophic content of the new religion is regaining its authority. The doctrine of the ‘spiritual life’ has not yet lost its freshness or its power; but the more closely it is examined, the more clearly will it be seen that it is rooted in the fundamental Stoic conceptions of providence and duty, and that, in the history of the Christian church, it is specially bound up with the life and writings of the apostle Paul. It isnot suggested that the sketch of Christian teaching contained in this chapter is in any way a complete or even a well-proportioned view of the Christian faith; for we have necessarily thrown into the background those elements of the new religion which are drawn from Judaism[157]or from the personality of the Founder. Nor have we found in Paul a Stoic philosopher: it remains for a more direct and profound study to determine which of the forces which stirred his complex intellect most exactly represents his true and final convictions. No man at any rate ever admitted more frankly the conflict both of moral and of intellectual cravings within himself; no man ever cautioned his followers more carefully against accepting all his words as final. With these reservations we may perhaps venture to join in the hopes of a recent writer who was endowed with no small prophetic insight:

‘The doctrine of Paul will arise out of the tomb where for centuries it has lain buried. It will edify the church of the future; it will have the consent of happier generations, the applause of less superstitious ages. All will be too little to pay the debt which the church of God owes to this “least of the apostles, who was not fit to be called an apostle, because he persecuted the church of God[158].”’

Stoicism in the present.

487.When that day comes, it will be recognised that Stoicism is something more than what the Church Fathers meant when they described it as part of the ‘preparation of the gospel’; that it may rather be regarded as forming an integral part of the Christian message, or (as it has been recently called) a ‘root of Christianity[159].’ If this view is correct, Stoicism is not dead nor will it die; whether it is correct or not, the study of Stoicism is essential to the full understanding of the Christian religion, as also to that of manyother fundamental conceptions of our modern life. Still the Christian churches celebrate yearly in quick succession the twin festivals of Pentecost and Trinity, in which the groundwork of the Stoic physics is set forth for acceptance by the faithful in its Christian garb; whilst the scientific world has lately in hot haste abandoned the atomic theory as a final explanation of the universe, and is busy in re-establishing in all its essentials the Stoic doctrine of an all-pervading aether. In the practical problems of statesmanship and private life we are at present too often drifting like a ship without a rudder, guided only by the mirages of convention, childishly alarmed at the least investigation of first principles; till the most numerous classes are in open revolt against a civilisation which makes no appeal to their reason, and a whole sex is fretting against a subordination which seems to subserve no clearly defined purpose. In this part of philosophy we may at least say that Stoicism has stated clearly the chief problems, and has begun to pave a road towards their solution. But that solution will not be found in the refinements of logical discussion: of supreme importance is the force of character which can at the right moment say ‘yes’ or say ‘no.’ In this sense also (and not by any more mechanical interpretation) we understand the words of the Founder of Christianity: ‘let your language be “Yes, yes” or “No, no”; anything in excess of this comes from the Evil one[160].’ To the simple and the straightforward, who trust themselves because they trust a power higher than themselves, the future belongs.

FOOTNOTES[1]As to supposed instances to the contrary see Winckler,Stoicismus, pp. 5 to 14.[2]For material of this kind see Winckler’s dissertation just quoted, and Lightfoot’sPhilippians, pp. 278-290.[3]‘For we are also his offspring’ Acts xvii 28.[4]1 Cor. i 20-25.[5]John i 1.[6]In the references to the New Testament books in this chapter no attempt is made to apply any precise critical theory of their origin or date. Since we suppose that all Christian doctrine was enunciated orally long before it was committed to writing, the date and circumstances of the written record become for the present purpose of secondary importance. Translations from the New Testament are, as a rule, taken from Dr R. F. Weymouth’sNew Testament in Modern Speech(London 1903). This admirable translation has for the present purpose the great negative advantage of keeping in the background the mass of associations which hinder the modern reader from taking the words of the writers in their simple and natural sense; but on the other hand, Dr Weymouth sometimes disguises the technical terms of ancient philosophy so far as to make them unrecognisable. In such cases the Revised Version is quoted, and occasionally the Greek text.[7]Matt. xiii 55, Luke ii 48; and see below, §482.[8]Luke ii 46, 47. Such men would of course be typical of the spirit of ‘Judaism,’ see §22above.[9]See the treatment of the Jonah myth (Matt. xii 40 and 41), and of the prophecy of the return of Elijah (Matt. xvii 10 to 13).[10]Matt. xxiii 13.[11]Matt. iv 1 to 11; Mark i 13; Luke iv 1 to 14.[12]Matt. xii 1 to 13; Mark ii 23 to 28; Luke vi 1 to 10.[13]John iv 21.[14]Matt. v 5.[15]Matt. vi 9 to 13; a doxology is first found in theMSof theTeaching of the Apostles, and it was probably not specifically connected with the prayer originally.[16]John xiii 21.[17]Luke xxii 44.[18]John viii 6 and 8.[19]Matt. v 48; Luke vi 40.[20]Matt. xxvi 41; Mark xiv 38. The author of theEpistle to the Hebrewsadopts the technical terms of Stoicism more completely. According to him Christ was touched with all the passions of weak men, but to a degree falling short of sin; οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα μὴ δυνάμενον συμπαθῆσαι ταῖς ἀσθενείαις ἡμῶν ... χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας Heb. iv 15. Thus the agony in the garden, though accompanied by loud cries and tears, did not pass the limits of the healthy affection of caution (εὐλάβεια), or (as we might say) ‘anxiety’;ib.v 7.[21]John xx 28.[22]Mark x 15.[23]Acts xii 15.[24]This antipathy to the Roman government finds biting expression in theApocalypse of John.[25]There seems to be no definite reference even to the Lord’s prayer, or to any of the parables, in the books named above.[26]For instance, that of ‘love’ in 1 Cor. xiii, and of ‘faith’ in Hebrews xi.[27]For the conflict between St Paul and the church at Jerusalem, see below, §480; for his tone towards those who differed from him, see Galatians i 8 and 9; Col. ii 4; 1 Tim. i 20, vi 3 to 5; Titus i 10. A gentle expostulation as to this style of controversy is found in the epistle of James, see note 39.[28]‘With such zeal do the inhabitants [of Tarsus] study philosophy and literature, that they surpass Athens, Alexandria, and all other schools of learning.... Rome knows well how many men of letters issue from this city, for her streets swarm with them’ Strabo xiv p. 673.[29]Juv.Sat.iii 117 and 118; and see above, §25, note 65.[30]Romans viii 20 and 21.[31]Romans vi 17, 1 Cor. i 10.[32]2 Cor. xii 2 to 5.[33]‘a knowledge of the conduct which the Law requires is engraven on the hearts [of the Gentiles]’ Rom. ii 15.[34]ib.[35]‘my conscience adds its testimony to mine’ Rom. ix 1.[36]ib.[37]‘Faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope’ Heb. xi 1. Thus whilst sense-knowledge, and especially sight, calls for acceptance because it is ‘objective,’ and detached from personal bias, faith is essentially subjective, and suggests a power by which (in harmony with a divine source) personality dominates fact.[38]2 Cor. i 19.[39]‘Do not be eager to become teachers; for we often stumble and fall, all of us’ James iii i and 2.[40]‘He who does what is honest and right comes to the light’ John iii 21; ‘if any one is willing to do His will, he shall know about the teaching’ib.vii 17.[41]‘The cravings of the [flesh] are opposed to those of the spirit, and the cravings of the spirit are opposed to those of the [flesh]’ Gal. v 17; cf. Romans viii 12 and 13.[42]See above, §460, note 20.[43]‘There are bodies which are celestial and there are bodies which are earthly’ 1 Cor. xv 40; ‘as surely as there is an animal body, so there is also a spiritual body’ib.44.[44]2 Cor. v 16.[45]1 Cor. xi 24, 25.[46]‘which are a shadow of the things to come, but the body is Christ’s’ Col. ii 17 (Revised Version).[47]‘The universe (τὰ πάντα) owes its origin to Him, was created by Him, and has its aim and purpose in Him’ Rom. xi 36 (Weymouth’s translation); ‘of him and through him and unto him are all things’ib.(Revised Version); ‘God, the Father, who is the source of all things’ 1 Cor. viii 6. See furtherib.xv 24 and 28.[48]‘Christ, who is the image of God’ 2 Cor. iv 4; ‘he brightly reflects God’s glory and is the exact representation of His being’ Hebr. i 3.[49]‘Christ is the visible representation of the invisible God, the First-born and Lord of all creation’ Col. i 15; ‘it is in Christ that the fulness of God’s nature dwells embodied’ib.ii 9.[50]‘in him were all things created ...; all things have been created through him and unto him’ib.i 16 (Revised Version); ‘through whom [God] made the ages’ Hebrews i 2. Compare the discussion on the four causes above, §179, and the phrase of Marcus Aurelius: ἐκ σοῦ πάντα, εἰς σὲ πάντα, ἐν σοὶ πάνταTo himself, iv 23.[51]‘Those he has also predestined to bear the likeness of his Son’ Rom. viii 29; ‘a man is the image and glory of God’ 1 Cor. xi 7.[52]‘woman is the glory of man; woman takes her origin from man’ 1 Cor. xi 7 and 8 (with special reference to Eve); cf. 1 Thess. iv 4 (R. V.), 1 Pet. iii 7.[53]‘there were heavens which existed of old, and an earth, the latter arising out of water by the [word] of God’ 2 Pet. iii 5.[54]‘the heavens will pass away with a rushing noise, the elements be destroyed in the fierce heat, and the earth and all the works of man be utterly burnt up’ib.10. But compare 1 Cor. iii 13 to 15.[55]The omission is due to contempt of dumb creatures, see 1 Cor. ix 9.[56]‘It is in closest union with Him that we live and move and have our being’ Acts xvii 28; ‘one God and Father of all ... rules over all, acts through all, and dwells in all’ Eph. iv 6.[57]‘God is dealing with you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?’ Heb. xii 7.[58]‘for those who love God all things are working together for good’ Rom. viii 28.[59]‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself’ 2 Cor. v 19; cf. Col. i 20.[60]‘these men are without excuse, for ... their senseless minds were darkened ... in accordance with their own depraved cravings’ Romans i 20 to 24. The point is brought out still more plainly by a writer of the opposite party, James i 13 to 15.[61]‘ours is not a conflict with mere flesh and blood, but with the despotisms, the empires, the forces that control and govern this dark world, the spiritual hosts of evil arrayed against us in the heavenly warfare’ Eph. vi 12.[62]‘let your thanks to God the Father be presented in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’ib.v 20.[63]‘it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins’ Hebr. x 4.[64]‘in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any importance’ Gal. v 6.[65]‘if you receive circumcision Christ will avail you nothing’ib.v 2.[66]‘you scrupulously observe days and months, special seasons, and years. I am alarmed about you’ib.iv 10 and 11; cf. Col. ii 16 to 19.[67]παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν Rom. xii 1.[68]2 Cor. xiii 5.[69]1 Cor. xiv 15.[70]1 Tim. ii 8.[71]Rom. xvi 25 to 27; 1 Cor. i 4; 2 Cor. i 3; Eph. i 3 to 14, iii 20 and 21; 1 Tim. i 17. Compare 1 Peter i 3 to 5.[72]‘The whole body—its various parts closely fitting and firmly adhering to one another—grows by the aid of every contributory link, with power proportioned to the need of each individual part’ Eph. iv 16; cf. Rom. xii 4 and 5.[73]1 Cor. xv 44.[74]The point is continually emphasized that there is only one spirit. In English translations the double printed form, Spirit and spirit, disguises the real meaning, ‘if there is any common sharing of the spirit’ Philipp. ii 1.[75]‘You may, one and all, become sharers in the very nature of God’ 2 Peter i 4.[76]ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία Rom. i 21.[77]‘our mortal bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor will what is perishable inherit what is imperishable’ 1 Cor. xv 50; ‘if we have known Christ as a man (κατὰ σάρκα), yet now we do so no longer’ 2 Cor. v 16. The Pauline doctrine of the spiritual resurrection, in spite of its place in the sacred canon, has never been recognised by popular Christianity, but it has found notable defenders in Origen in ancient times, and in Bishop Westcott recently. ‘No one of [Origen’s] opinions was more vehemently assailed than his teaching on the Resurrection. Even his early and later apologists were perplexed in their defence of him. Yet there is no point on which his insight was more conspicuous. By keeping strictly to the Apostolic language he anticipated results which we have hardly yet secured. He saw that it is the “spirit” which moulds the frame through which it is manifested; that the body is the same, not by any material continuity, but by the permanence of that which gives the law, theratioas he calls it, of its constitution (Frag.de res.ii 1, p. 34). Our opponents say now that this idea is a late refinement of doctrine, forced upon us by the exigencies of controversy. The answer is that no exigencies of controversy brought Origen to his conclusion. It was, in his judgment, the clear teaching of St Paul’ Westcott,Religious Thought in the West, p. 244.[78]‘my earnest desire being to depart and to be with Christ’ Philipp. i 23.[79]‘We shall be with the Lord for ever’ 1 Thess. iv 17. So another Paulist writer: ‘we see them eager for a better land, that is to say, a heavenly one. For this reason God has now prepared a city for them’ Heb. xi 16.[80]The term used is κόκκος ‘grain’ in 1 Cor. xv 37, but σπέρμα ‘seed’ib.38. The Stoic term σπερματικὸς λόγος is found in Justin MartyrApol.ii 8 and 13.[81]1 Cor. xv 16, 17.[82]‘while we are at home in the body we are banished from the Lord; for we are living a life of faith, and not one of sight’ 2 Cor. v 6; ‘we by our baptism were buried with him in death, in order that we should also live an entirely new life’ Rom. vi 4; ‘surrender your very selves to God as living men who have risen from the dead’ib.13.[83]‘He is not the God of dead, but of living men’ Matt. xxii 32.[84]Matt. x 39, xvi 25, John xii 25.[85]John v 24.[86]‘the end eternal life’ Rom. vi 22 (Revised version); ‘you have the Life of the ages as the final result’ib.(Weymouth).[87]‘the end sought is the love which springs from a pure heart, a clear conscience, and a sincere faith’ 1 Tim. i 5.[88]‘it is as the result of faith that a man is held to be righteous, apart from actions done in obedience to Law’ Rom. iii 28.[89]Titus i 15.[90]Romans xiv 14.[91]1 Cor. xii 23.[92]1 Tim. iv 4.[93]Eph. ii 19.[94]‘in Him the distinctions between Jew and Gentile, slave and free man, male and female, disappear’ Gal. iii 28.[95]See above, §355.[96]πρᾳότης καὶ ἐπιείκεια 2 Cor. x 1.[97]1 Cor. xiii. For the constancy of Caution see §460, note 20.[98]Justice (δικαιοσύνη) 1 Tim. vi 11; Courage (ὑπομονή) 1 Tim. vi 11, (δύναμις) 2 Tim. i 7; Soberness (ἐγκράτεια) Gal. v 23.[99]Rom. i 26 to 30; Gal. v 19 and 20; Col. iii 5.[100]2 Cor. ii 7, vii 10.[101]‘I shall go on working to promote your progress’ Philipp. i 25; ‘with my eyes fixed on the goal I push on’ib.iii 14. There is also (paradoxically) progress in wrongdoing; ‘they will proceed from bad to worse in impiety’ 2 Tim. ii 16.[102]The technical term used is τὰ ἀνήκοντα (Eph. v 4, Philem. 8), once only (in negative form) καθήκοντα (Rom. i 28).[103]In the sense in which the word ‘political’ is used above, §§302-311.[104]Rom. xiii 1 to 9; Ephes. v and vi; Col. iii 18 to 25; Titus ii 1 to 10; 1 Peter ii and iii.[105]‘You are a priesthood of kingly lineage’ 1 Peter ii 9.[106]‘as poor, but we bestow wealth on many; as having nothing, and yet we securely possess all things’ 2 Cor. vi 10.[107]‘where the spirit of the Lord is, freedom is enjoyed’ 2 Cor. iii 17.[108]‘every one who commits sin is the slave of sin’ John viii 34.[109]‘if I am destitute of love, I am nothing’ 1 Cor. xiii 2.[110]It is ἱκανότης not αὐτάρκεια (2 Cor. iii 5 and 6), the latter word being used in a different sense, for which see §480, note 135.[111]The term (ἁμαρτία,peccatum) is Stoic.[112]Lightfoot,Philippians, p. 296. This view has become familiar through Milton’s treatment of the Fall of man inParadise Lost. There the prohibition of the forbidden fruit is nothing but a test of readiness to obey. This point of view seems quite foreign to St Paul, who always speaks of sin as sinful in itself, not in consequence of the Creator’s will.[113]Eph. v 12 (R. V.).[114]Rom. i 26.[115]1 Cor. v 1.[116]1 Cor. vii 1 to 8.[117]‘It is well for a man to abstain altogether from marriage. But because there is so much fornication every man should have a wife of his own’ 1 Cor. vii i and 2.[118]‘If you marry, you have not sinned’ib.28.[119]‘if a woman will not wear a veil, let her also cut off her hair’ 1 Cor. xi 6. For the savage tabu of women’s hair see Jevons,Introduction to the History of Religion, p. 78.[120]1 Cor. xi 10.[121]ib.xiv 34 and 35.[122]Rigveda x 10.[123]See the author’s translation in hisRigveda(London, 1900).[124]See above, §307.[125]‘just as through Adam all die, so also through Christ all will be made alive again’ 1 Cor. xv 22.[126]‘God in his great mercy has begotten us anew’ 1 Peter i 3; ‘you have been begotten again from a germ not of perishable, but of imperishable life’ib.23.[127]‘you are all sons of God through faith’ Gal. iii 26.[128]Gal. ii 1.[129]ib.6.[130]ib.12.[131]1 Cor. xiii 11.[132]ib.i 22.[133]James v 8.[134]James i 27, ii 15 to 17, v 1 to 3.[135]2 Cor. ix 8 (the technical term is αὐτάρκεια); ‘if a man does not choose to work, neither shall he eat’ 2 Thess. iii 10.[136]‘worldly (i.e. materialistic) stories, fit only for credulous old women, have nothing to do with’ 1 Tim. iv 7.[137]Titus i 14.[138]Galatians ii 9.[139]‘[Christ] was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit’ 1 Peter iii 18.[140]‘[Jesus Christ] who, as regards His human descent, belonged to the posterity of David, but as regards the holiness of His Spirit was decisively proved by the Resurrection to be the Son of God’ Romans i 4; ‘God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born subject to Law’ Gal. iv 4.[141]1 Peter i 3.[142]In the account of the transfiguration in theGospel to the Hebrews(p. 15, 36 Hilgenfeld; PreuschenAntileg.4) Jesus says ‘Lately my mother, the holy spirit, seized me by one of my hairs and carried me away to the great mountain of Thabor.’ Here Origen restores a philosophical interpretation by referring to Matt. xii 50; ‘whoever shall do the will of my Father ... is my mother’Comm. in Joh.ii 12, p. 64 D. Modern writers find an identification of Mary with the Wisdom (σοφία) of God. See Gruppe,Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte, vol. ii p. 1614.[143]Matt. i 23.[144]1 Cor. i 30.[145]Philipp. ii 6.[146]‘That which was from the beginning ... concerning the Word of life’ 1 John i 1; ‘his name is the Word of God’ Rev. xix 13.[147]John i 1 to 3.[148]John i 12 to 14.[149]‘apud vestros quoque sapientes λόγον (id est sermonem atque rationem) constat artificem videri universitatis’ Tert.Apol.21; ‘Zeno opificem universitatis λόγον praedicat, quem et fatum et necessitatem et animum Iovis nuncupat’ Lact.Div. inst.iv 9. Naturally the Christian writers regard the Stoic doctrine of the Logos as an ‘anticipation’ of their own, exactly as in modern times the Darwinists, having borrowed from Epicurus the doctrine of atoms, regard the original doctrine as a ‘marvellous anticipation’ of modern science. Justin Martyr goes further, and concludes that all believers in the Logos were (by anticipation) Christians: οἱ μετὰ λόγου βιώσαντες Χριστιανοί εἰσι κἂν ἄθεοι ἐνομίσθησανApol.i 46.[150]The term is first used by Theophilus (c. 180A.D.), of God, his Word, and his Wisdom.[151]In this passage an ‘anticipation’ of the doctrine of the Trinity has many times been discovered; for instance in the 18th century by the Jesuit Huet (Winckler,der Stoicismus, p. 9); in our own country by Dr Heberden (see Caesar Morgan,An investigation of the Trinity of Plato, Holden’s edition, 1853, p. 155); and again recently by Amédée Fleury and others (Winckler, p. 8).[152]See above, §242.[153]For instance in 1 John v 8, and (in substance) in 1 Cor. xiii 13.[154]Whatever may be the ecclesiastical or legal sense of the word ‘person,’ in its original philosophical meaning it expresses an aspect of individuality, and not an individual: see Cicero’s use of the term quoted above, §271, note 42.[155]See above, §470, note 77.[156]This book claims rank as a classic; amongst others of similar purpose may be mentioned R. Garnett’sTwilight of the gods(New edition, London 1903).[157]Amongst these elements we include all that Christianity has drawn from Persism through Judaism. We have indeed referred to the Persian beliefs embodied in the ‘Lord’s prayer’; but it has lain outside our scope to discuss the Eschatology which figures so largely in popular conceptions of Christianity, but is now thought to be but slightly connected with its characteristic message. On this point see especially Carl Clemen,Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen Testaments(Giessen, 1909), pp. 90-135.[158]Matthew Arnold,St Paul and Protestantism(Popular edition, p. 80).[159]The full title of Winckler’s book from which we have often already quoted isDer Stoicismus eine Wurzel des Christenthums.[160]Matt. v 37.

[1]As to supposed instances to the contrary see Winckler,Stoicismus, pp. 5 to 14.

[2]For material of this kind see Winckler’s dissertation just quoted, and Lightfoot’sPhilippians, pp. 278-290.

[3]‘For we are also his offspring’ Acts xvii 28.

[4]1 Cor. i 20-25.

[5]John i 1.

[6]In the references to the New Testament books in this chapter no attempt is made to apply any precise critical theory of their origin or date. Since we suppose that all Christian doctrine was enunciated orally long before it was committed to writing, the date and circumstances of the written record become for the present purpose of secondary importance. Translations from the New Testament are, as a rule, taken from Dr R. F. Weymouth’sNew Testament in Modern Speech(London 1903). This admirable translation has for the present purpose the great negative advantage of keeping in the background the mass of associations which hinder the modern reader from taking the words of the writers in their simple and natural sense; but on the other hand, Dr Weymouth sometimes disguises the technical terms of ancient philosophy so far as to make them unrecognisable. In such cases the Revised Version is quoted, and occasionally the Greek text.

[7]Matt. xiii 55, Luke ii 48; and see below, §482.

[8]Luke ii 46, 47. Such men would of course be typical of the spirit of ‘Judaism,’ see §22above.

[9]See the treatment of the Jonah myth (Matt. xii 40 and 41), and of the prophecy of the return of Elijah (Matt. xvii 10 to 13).

[10]Matt. xxiii 13.

[11]Matt. iv 1 to 11; Mark i 13; Luke iv 1 to 14.

[12]Matt. xii 1 to 13; Mark ii 23 to 28; Luke vi 1 to 10.

[13]John iv 21.

[14]Matt. v 5.

[15]Matt. vi 9 to 13; a doxology is first found in theMSof theTeaching of the Apostles, and it was probably not specifically connected with the prayer originally.

[16]John xiii 21.

[17]Luke xxii 44.

[18]John viii 6 and 8.

[19]Matt. v 48; Luke vi 40.

[20]Matt. xxvi 41; Mark xiv 38. The author of theEpistle to the Hebrewsadopts the technical terms of Stoicism more completely. According to him Christ was touched with all the passions of weak men, but to a degree falling short of sin; οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα μὴ δυνάμενον συμπαθῆσαι ταῖς ἀσθενείαις ἡμῶν ... χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας Heb. iv 15. Thus the agony in the garden, though accompanied by loud cries and tears, did not pass the limits of the healthy affection of caution (εὐλάβεια), or (as we might say) ‘anxiety’;ib.v 7.

[21]John xx 28.

[22]Mark x 15.

[23]Acts xii 15.

[24]This antipathy to the Roman government finds biting expression in theApocalypse of John.

[25]There seems to be no definite reference even to the Lord’s prayer, or to any of the parables, in the books named above.

[26]For instance, that of ‘love’ in 1 Cor. xiii, and of ‘faith’ in Hebrews xi.

[27]For the conflict between St Paul and the church at Jerusalem, see below, §480; for his tone towards those who differed from him, see Galatians i 8 and 9; Col. ii 4; 1 Tim. i 20, vi 3 to 5; Titus i 10. A gentle expostulation as to this style of controversy is found in the epistle of James, see note 39.

[28]‘With such zeal do the inhabitants [of Tarsus] study philosophy and literature, that they surpass Athens, Alexandria, and all other schools of learning.... Rome knows well how many men of letters issue from this city, for her streets swarm with them’ Strabo xiv p. 673.

[29]Juv.Sat.iii 117 and 118; and see above, §25, note 65.

[30]Romans viii 20 and 21.

[31]Romans vi 17, 1 Cor. i 10.

[32]2 Cor. xii 2 to 5.

[33]‘a knowledge of the conduct which the Law requires is engraven on the hearts [of the Gentiles]’ Rom. ii 15.

[34]ib.

[35]‘my conscience adds its testimony to mine’ Rom. ix 1.

[36]ib.

[37]‘Faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope’ Heb. xi 1. Thus whilst sense-knowledge, and especially sight, calls for acceptance because it is ‘objective,’ and detached from personal bias, faith is essentially subjective, and suggests a power by which (in harmony with a divine source) personality dominates fact.

[38]2 Cor. i 19.

[39]‘Do not be eager to become teachers; for we often stumble and fall, all of us’ James iii i and 2.

[40]‘He who does what is honest and right comes to the light’ John iii 21; ‘if any one is willing to do His will, he shall know about the teaching’ib.vii 17.

[41]‘The cravings of the [flesh] are opposed to those of the spirit, and the cravings of the spirit are opposed to those of the [flesh]’ Gal. v 17; cf. Romans viii 12 and 13.

[42]See above, §460, note 20.

[43]‘There are bodies which are celestial and there are bodies which are earthly’ 1 Cor. xv 40; ‘as surely as there is an animal body, so there is also a spiritual body’ib.44.

[44]2 Cor. v 16.

[45]1 Cor. xi 24, 25.

[46]‘which are a shadow of the things to come, but the body is Christ’s’ Col. ii 17 (Revised Version).

[47]‘The universe (τὰ πάντα) owes its origin to Him, was created by Him, and has its aim and purpose in Him’ Rom. xi 36 (Weymouth’s translation); ‘of him and through him and unto him are all things’ib.(Revised Version); ‘God, the Father, who is the source of all things’ 1 Cor. viii 6. See furtherib.xv 24 and 28.

[48]‘Christ, who is the image of God’ 2 Cor. iv 4; ‘he brightly reflects God’s glory and is the exact representation of His being’ Hebr. i 3.

[49]‘Christ is the visible representation of the invisible God, the First-born and Lord of all creation’ Col. i 15; ‘it is in Christ that the fulness of God’s nature dwells embodied’ib.ii 9.

[50]‘in him were all things created ...; all things have been created through him and unto him’ib.i 16 (Revised Version); ‘through whom [God] made the ages’ Hebrews i 2. Compare the discussion on the four causes above, §179, and the phrase of Marcus Aurelius: ἐκ σοῦ πάντα, εἰς σὲ πάντα, ἐν σοὶ πάνταTo himself, iv 23.

[51]‘Those he has also predestined to bear the likeness of his Son’ Rom. viii 29; ‘a man is the image and glory of God’ 1 Cor. xi 7.

[52]‘woman is the glory of man; woman takes her origin from man’ 1 Cor. xi 7 and 8 (with special reference to Eve); cf. 1 Thess. iv 4 (R. V.), 1 Pet. iii 7.

[53]‘there were heavens which existed of old, and an earth, the latter arising out of water by the [word] of God’ 2 Pet. iii 5.

[54]‘the heavens will pass away with a rushing noise, the elements be destroyed in the fierce heat, and the earth and all the works of man be utterly burnt up’ib.10. But compare 1 Cor. iii 13 to 15.

[55]The omission is due to contempt of dumb creatures, see 1 Cor. ix 9.

[56]‘It is in closest union with Him that we live and move and have our being’ Acts xvii 28; ‘one God and Father of all ... rules over all, acts through all, and dwells in all’ Eph. iv 6.

[57]‘God is dealing with you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?’ Heb. xii 7.

[58]‘for those who love God all things are working together for good’ Rom. viii 28.

[59]‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself’ 2 Cor. v 19; cf. Col. i 20.

[60]‘these men are without excuse, for ... their senseless minds were darkened ... in accordance with their own depraved cravings’ Romans i 20 to 24. The point is brought out still more plainly by a writer of the opposite party, James i 13 to 15.

[61]‘ours is not a conflict with mere flesh and blood, but with the despotisms, the empires, the forces that control and govern this dark world, the spiritual hosts of evil arrayed against us in the heavenly warfare’ Eph. vi 12.

[62]‘let your thanks to God the Father be presented in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’ib.v 20.

[63]‘it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins’ Hebr. x 4.

[64]‘in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any importance’ Gal. v 6.

[65]‘if you receive circumcision Christ will avail you nothing’ib.v 2.

[66]‘you scrupulously observe days and months, special seasons, and years. I am alarmed about you’ib.iv 10 and 11; cf. Col. ii 16 to 19.

[67]παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν Rom. xii 1.

[68]2 Cor. xiii 5.

[69]1 Cor. xiv 15.

[70]1 Tim. ii 8.

[71]Rom. xvi 25 to 27; 1 Cor. i 4; 2 Cor. i 3; Eph. i 3 to 14, iii 20 and 21; 1 Tim. i 17. Compare 1 Peter i 3 to 5.

[72]‘The whole body—its various parts closely fitting and firmly adhering to one another—grows by the aid of every contributory link, with power proportioned to the need of each individual part’ Eph. iv 16; cf. Rom. xii 4 and 5.

[73]1 Cor. xv 44.

[74]The point is continually emphasized that there is only one spirit. In English translations the double printed form, Spirit and spirit, disguises the real meaning, ‘if there is any common sharing of the spirit’ Philipp. ii 1.

[75]‘You may, one and all, become sharers in the very nature of God’ 2 Peter i 4.

[76]ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία Rom. i 21.

[77]‘our mortal bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor will what is perishable inherit what is imperishable’ 1 Cor. xv 50; ‘if we have known Christ as a man (κατὰ σάρκα), yet now we do so no longer’ 2 Cor. v 16. The Pauline doctrine of the spiritual resurrection, in spite of its place in the sacred canon, has never been recognised by popular Christianity, but it has found notable defenders in Origen in ancient times, and in Bishop Westcott recently. ‘No one of [Origen’s] opinions was more vehemently assailed than his teaching on the Resurrection. Even his early and later apologists were perplexed in their defence of him. Yet there is no point on which his insight was more conspicuous. By keeping strictly to the Apostolic language he anticipated results which we have hardly yet secured. He saw that it is the “spirit” which moulds the frame through which it is manifested; that the body is the same, not by any material continuity, but by the permanence of that which gives the law, theratioas he calls it, of its constitution (Frag.de res.ii 1, p. 34). Our opponents say now that this idea is a late refinement of doctrine, forced upon us by the exigencies of controversy. The answer is that no exigencies of controversy brought Origen to his conclusion. It was, in his judgment, the clear teaching of St Paul’ Westcott,Religious Thought in the West, p. 244.

[78]‘my earnest desire being to depart and to be with Christ’ Philipp. i 23.

[79]‘We shall be with the Lord for ever’ 1 Thess. iv 17. So another Paulist writer: ‘we see them eager for a better land, that is to say, a heavenly one. For this reason God has now prepared a city for them’ Heb. xi 16.

[80]The term used is κόκκος ‘grain’ in 1 Cor. xv 37, but σπέρμα ‘seed’ib.38. The Stoic term σπερματικὸς λόγος is found in Justin MartyrApol.ii 8 and 13.

[81]1 Cor. xv 16, 17.

[82]‘while we are at home in the body we are banished from the Lord; for we are living a life of faith, and not one of sight’ 2 Cor. v 6; ‘we by our baptism were buried with him in death, in order that we should also live an entirely new life’ Rom. vi 4; ‘surrender your very selves to God as living men who have risen from the dead’ib.13.

[83]‘He is not the God of dead, but of living men’ Matt. xxii 32.

[84]Matt. x 39, xvi 25, John xii 25.

[85]John v 24.

[86]‘the end eternal life’ Rom. vi 22 (Revised version); ‘you have the Life of the ages as the final result’ib.(Weymouth).

[87]‘the end sought is the love which springs from a pure heart, a clear conscience, and a sincere faith’ 1 Tim. i 5.

[88]‘it is as the result of faith that a man is held to be righteous, apart from actions done in obedience to Law’ Rom. iii 28.

[89]Titus i 15.

[90]Romans xiv 14.

[91]1 Cor. xii 23.

[92]1 Tim. iv 4.

[93]Eph. ii 19.

[94]‘in Him the distinctions between Jew and Gentile, slave and free man, male and female, disappear’ Gal. iii 28.

[95]See above, §355.

[96]πρᾳότης καὶ ἐπιείκεια 2 Cor. x 1.

[97]1 Cor. xiii. For the constancy of Caution see §460, note 20.

[98]Justice (δικαιοσύνη) 1 Tim. vi 11; Courage (ὑπομονή) 1 Tim. vi 11, (δύναμις) 2 Tim. i 7; Soberness (ἐγκράτεια) Gal. v 23.

[99]Rom. i 26 to 30; Gal. v 19 and 20; Col. iii 5.

[100]2 Cor. ii 7, vii 10.

[101]‘I shall go on working to promote your progress’ Philipp. i 25; ‘with my eyes fixed on the goal I push on’ib.iii 14. There is also (paradoxically) progress in wrongdoing; ‘they will proceed from bad to worse in impiety’ 2 Tim. ii 16.

[102]The technical term used is τὰ ἀνήκοντα (Eph. v 4, Philem. 8), once only (in negative form) καθήκοντα (Rom. i 28).

[103]In the sense in which the word ‘political’ is used above, §§302-311.

[104]Rom. xiii 1 to 9; Ephes. v and vi; Col. iii 18 to 25; Titus ii 1 to 10; 1 Peter ii and iii.

[105]‘You are a priesthood of kingly lineage’ 1 Peter ii 9.

[106]‘as poor, but we bestow wealth on many; as having nothing, and yet we securely possess all things’ 2 Cor. vi 10.

[107]‘where the spirit of the Lord is, freedom is enjoyed’ 2 Cor. iii 17.

[108]‘every one who commits sin is the slave of sin’ John viii 34.

[109]‘if I am destitute of love, I am nothing’ 1 Cor. xiii 2.

[110]It is ἱκανότης not αὐτάρκεια (2 Cor. iii 5 and 6), the latter word being used in a different sense, for which see §480, note 135.

[111]The term (ἁμαρτία,peccatum) is Stoic.

[112]Lightfoot,Philippians, p. 296. This view has become familiar through Milton’s treatment of the Fall of man inParadise Lost. There the prohibition of the forbidden fruit is nothing but a test of readiness to obey. This point of view seems quite foreign to St Paul, who always speaks of sin as sinful in itself, not in consequence of the Creator’s will.

[113]Eph. v 12 (R. V.).

[114]Rom. i 26.

[115]1 Cor. v 1.

[116]1 Cor. vii 1 to 8.

[117]‘It is well for a man to abstain altogether from marriage. But because there is so much fornication every man should have a wife of his own’ 1 Cor. vii i and 2.

[118]‘If you marry, you have not sinned’ib.28.

[119]‘if a woman will not wear a veil, let her also cut off her hair’ 1 Cor. xi 6. For the savage tabu of women’s hair see Jevons,Introduction to the History of Religion, p. 78.

[120]1 Cor. xi 10.

[121]ib.xiv 34 and 35.

[122]Rigveda x 10.

[123]See the author’s translation in hisRigveda(London, 1900).

[124]See above, §307.

[125]‘just as through Adam all die, so also through Christ all will be made alive again’ 1 Cor. xv 22.

[126]‘God in his great mercy has begotten us anew’ 1 Peter i 3; ‘you have been begotten again from a germ not of perishable, but of imperishable life’ib.23.

[127]‘you are all sons of God through faith’ Gal. iii 26.

[128]Gal. ii 1.

[129]ib.6.

[130]ib.12.

[131]1 Cor. xiii 11.

[132]ib.i 22.

[133]James v 8.

[134]James i 27, ii 15 to 17, v 1 to 3.

[135]2 Cor. ix 8 (the technical term is αὐτάρκεια); ‘if a man does not choose to work, neither shall he eat’ 2 Thess. iii 10.

[136]‘worldly (i.e. materialistic) stories, fit only for credulous old women, have nothing to do with’ 1 Tim. iv 7.

[137]Titus i 14.

[138]Galatians ii 9.

[139]‘[Christ] was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit’ 1 Peter iii 18.

[140]‘[Jesus Christ] who, as regards His human descent, belonged to the posterity of David, but as regards the holiness of His Spirit was decisively proved by the Resurrection to be the Son of God’ Romans i 4; ‘God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born subject to Law’ Gal. iv 4.

[141]1 Peter i 3.

[142]In the account of the transfiguration in theGospel to the Hebrews(p. 15, 36 Hilgenfeld; PreuschenAntileg.4) Jesus says ‘Lately my mother, the holy spirit, seized me by one of my hairs and carried me away to the great mountain of Thabor.’ Here Origen restores a philosophical interpretation by referring to Matt. xii 50; ‘whoever shall do the will of my Father ... is my mother’Comm. in Joh.ii 12, p. 64 D. Modern writers find an identification of Mary with the Wisdom (σοφία) of God. See Gruppe,Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte, vol. ii p. 1614.

[143]Matt. i 23.

[144]1 Cor. i 30.

[145]Philipp. ii 6.

[146]‘That which was from the beginning ... concerning the Word of life’ 1 John i 1; ‘his name is the Word of God’ Rev. xix 13.

[147]John i 1 to 3.

[148]John i 12 to 14.

[149]‘apud vestros quoque sapientes λόγον (id est sermonem atque rationem) constat artificem videri universitatis’ Tert.Apol.21; ‘Zeno opificem universitatis λόγον praedicat, quem et fatum et necessitatem et animum Iovis nuncupat’ Lact.Div. inst.iv 9. Naturally the Christian writers regard the Stoic doctrine of the Logos as an ‘anticipation’ of their own, exactly as in modern times the Darwinists, having borrowed from Epicurus the doctrine of atoms, regard the original doctrine as a ‘marvellous anticipation’ of modern science. Justin Martyr goes further, and concludes that all believers in the Logos were (by anticipation) Christians: οἱ μετὰ λόγου βιώσαντες Χριστιανοί εἰσι κἂν ἄθεοι ἐνομίσθησανApol.i 46.

[150]The term is first used by Theophilus (c. 180A.D.), of God, his Word, and his Wisdom.

[151]In this passage an ‘anticipation’ of the doctrine of the Trinity has many times been discovered; for instance in the 18th century by the Jesuit Huet (Winckler,der Stoicismus, p. 9); in our own country by Dr Heberden (see Caesar Morgan,An investigation of the Trinity of Plato, Holden’s edition, 1853, p. 155); and again recently by Amédée Fleury and others (Winckler, p. 8).

[152]See above, §242.

[153]For instance in 1 John v 8, and (in substance) in 1 Cor. xiii 13.

[154]Whatever may be the ecclesiastical or legal sense of the word ‘person,’ in its original philosophical meaning it expresses an aspect of individuality, and not an individual: see Cicero’s use of the term quoted above, §271, note 42.

[155]See above, §470, note 77.

[156]This book claims rank as a classic; amongst others of similar purpose may be mentioned R. Garnett’sTwilight of the gods(New edition, London 1903).

[157]Amongst these elements we include all that Christianity has drawn from Persism through Judaism. We have indeed referred to the Persian beliefs embodied in the ‘Lord’s prayer’; but it has lain outside our scope to discuss the Eschatology which figures so largely in popular conceptions of Christianity, but is now thought to be but slightly connected with its characteristic message. On this point see especially Carl Clemen,Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen Testaments(Giessen, 1909), pp. 90-135.

[158]Matthew Arnold,St Paul and Protestantism(Popular edition, p. 80).

[159]The full title of Winckler’s book from which we have often already quoted isDer Stoicismus eine Wurzel des Christenthums.

[160]Matt. v 37.

Back to Index Next