Chapter 23

[358]Wisdom, 11. 18, κτίσασα τὸν κόσμον ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης: Justin M.Apol.1. 10. 59 (quoted in note, p. 194): Athenag.Legat. 15, ὡς γὰρ ὁ κεραμεὺς καὶ ὁ πηλός, ὕλη μὲν ὁ πηλός, τεχνίτης δὲ ὁ κεραμεύς, καὶ ὁ θεὸς δημιουργός, ὑπακούουσα δὲ αὐτῷ ἡ ὕλη πρὸς τὴν τέχνην.[359]Hippol. 7. 22 (of Basilides), τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σπέρμα ὃ ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ πᾶσαν τὴν πανσπερμίαν ὃ φησιν Ἀριστοτέλης γένος εἶναι εἰς ἀπείρους τεμνόμενον ἰδέας ὡς τέμνομεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ζῴου βοῦν, ἵππον, ἄνθρωπον ὅπερ ἐστὶν οὐκ ὄν. Cf.ib.10. 14.[360]Orat. ad Græc.5 (following the text of Schwartz).[361]Suppl. pro Christ.4.[362]Ad Autol.2. 5 and 10; but in the former of these passages he adds, τί δὲ μέγα εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐξ ὑποκειμένης ὕλης ἐποίει τὸν κόσμον.[363]The most important passage is Hermas,Mand.1, which is expressed in strictly philosophical language, ὁ θεὸς ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας καὶ ποιήσας ἐκτοῦ μὴ ὄντοςεἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα (the passage is quoted as Scripture by Irenæus, 4. 20. 2 = Eusebius,H. E.5. 8. 7: Origen,de princip.1. 3. 3, vol. i. p. 61, 2. 1. 5, p. 79, and elsewhere): this must be read by the light of the distinctions which are clearly expressed by Athenagoras,Legat.4 and 19, where τὸ ὂν = τὸ νοητόν, which is ἀγένητον: τὸ οὐκ ὂν = τὸ αἰσθητόν, which is γενητόν, ἀρχόμενον εἶναι καὶ παυόμενον: the meaning of τὸ μὴ ὂν appears from the expression, τὸ ὂν οὐ γίνεται ἀλλὰ τὸ μὴ ὄν, whence it is clear that τὸ μὴ ὂν = τὸ δυνάμει ὄν, or potential being (see Möller,Kosmologie, p. 123). In some of the other passages in which similar phrases occur, it is not clear whether the conception is more than that of an artist who, by impressing form on matter, causes things to exist which did not exist before: 2 Maccab. 7. 28, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ ὁ θεός: 2 Clem. i. 8, ἐκάλεσεν γὰρ ἡμᾶς οὐκ ὄντας καὶ ἠθέλησεν ἐκ μὴ ὄντος εἶναι ἡμᾶς: Clementin.Hom.3, 32, τῷ τὰ μὴ ὄντα εἰς τὸ εἶναι συστησαμένῳ, οὐρανὸν δημιουργήσαντι, γῆν πιλώσαντι, θάλασσαν περιορίσαντι, τὰ ἐν ᾅδῃ ταμιεύσαντι καὶ τὰ πάντα ἀέρι πληρώσαντι: Hippolyt. inGenes.1, τῇ μὲν πρώτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς ὅσα ἐποίησεν ἐκ μὴ ὄντων ταῖς δὲ ἄλλαις οὐκ ἐκ μὴ ὄντων. In Theophilus, these expressions are interchanged with that of ἡ ὑποκειμένη ὕλη in such a way as to suggest their identity: 1. 4; 2. 10, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν: 2. 4, τί δὲ μέγα εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐξ ὑποκειμένης ὕλης ἐποίει τὸν κόσμον ... ἵνα ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν. In the later books of the Clementine Homilies, τὸ μὴ ὂν = void space: the whole passage, 17. 8, gives a clear and interesting exposition.[364]In Euseb.Præp. Evang.7. 22, and elsewhere; reprinted in Routh,Reliquiæ Sacræ, ii. 87.[365]Justin M.Tryph.62; Iren. 1. 24, 25; Hippol. 7. 16, 20: so Philo.de profug.13 (i. 556), where, after quoting the passage of Genesis, he proceeds, following the Platonic theory, διαλέγεται μὲν οὖν ὁ τῶν ὅλων πατὴρ ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεσιν αἷς τὸ θνητὸν ἡμῶν τῆς ψυχῆς μέρος ἔδωκε διαπλάττειν, μιμουμέναις τὴν αὐτοῦ τέχνην.[366]The Peratæ in Hippol. 5. 17.[367]The Jew through whom Celsus sometimes speaks says, “If yourLogosis the Son of God, we also assent to the same.” Origen,c. Cels.2. 31.[368]Cf. Origen,c. Cels.4. 54.[369]Hippol.c. Noet.11.[370]It is not the least of the many contributions of Professor Harnack to early Christian history that he has vindicated Marcion from the excessive disparagement which has resulted from the blind adoption of the vituperations of Tertullian: see especially hisDogmengeschichte. Bd. i. pp. 226 sqq., 2te aufl.[371]1. 22: cf. 4. 20.[372]Hippol. 10. 32, 33.[373]ap. Euseb.H. E.6. 19.[374]De princip.2. 9. 1, 6.[375]De princip.1. 2. 2.[376]Ibid.1. 2. 2, 10.[377]Ibid.1. 3. 5, 6, 8.[378]Ibid.2. 6. 3.[379]Ibid.3. 5. 3.[380]Ibid.2. 9. 4.[381]Aetius ap. Plut.de plac. phil.2. 1. 1 (Diels, p. 327), Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ὠνόμασε τὴν τῶν ὅλων περιοχὴν κόσμον ἐκ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τάξεως.[382]Aetius,ibid.1. 25 (Diels, p. 321), Πυθαγόρας ἀνάγκην ἔφη περικεῖσθαι τῷ κόσμῳ· Παρμενίδης καὶ Δημόκριτος πάντα κατὰ ἀνάγκην.[383]For the numerous passages which prove these statements, reference may be made to Nägelsbach,Homerische Theologie, 2. 2. 3;Nachhomerische Theologie, 3. 2. 2.[384]Aetius,ut supra, 1. 27 (Diels, p. 322), Ἡράκλειτος πάντα καθ’ εἱμαρμένην, τὴν δὲ αὐτὴν ὑπάρχειν καὶ ἀνάγκην: the identification of ἀνάγκη and εἱμαρμένη is also made by Parmenides and Democritus in a continuation of the passage quoted above. But in much later times a distinction was sometimes drawn between the two words, ἀνάγκη being used of the subjective necessity of a proposition of which the contradictory is unthinkable: Alex. AphrodisQuæst. Nat.2. 5 (p. 96, ed. Spengel), τέσσαρα γοῦν τὰ δὶς δύο ἐξ ἀνάγκης, οὐ μὴν καθ’ εἱμαρμένην εἴ γε ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις τὸ καθ’ εἱμαρμένην; but, on the other hand, οἷς καθ’ εἱρμὸν αἰτιῶν γινομένοις τὸ ἀντικείμενον ἀδύνατος, πάντα εἴη ἂν καθ’ εἱμαρμένην.[385]Nägelsbach,Nachhomerische Theologie, p. 142.[386]Hesiod,Theog.218, 904.[387]Chrysippus, ap. Theodoret.Gr. affect. curat.6. 14, εἶναι δὲ τὴν εἱμαρμένην κίνησιν ἁΐδιον συνεχῆ καὶ τεταγμένην: so, in other words, ap. Aul. Gell. 6. 2. 3.[388]Aetius ap. Plut.de placit. philos.1. 28, οἱ Στωικοὶ εἱρμὸν αἰτιῶν: Philo,de mut. nom.23 (i. 598), ἀκολουθία καὶ ἀναλογία τῶν συμπάντων, εἱρμὸν ἔχουσα ἀδιάλυτον: Cic.de divin.1. 55, ‘ordinem seriemque causarum cum causa causæ nexa rem ex se gignat.’[389]The Stoical definition of a πόλις was σύστημα καὶ πλῆθος ἀνθρώπων ὑπὸ νόμου διοικούμενον, Clem. Alex.Strom.4. 26; cf. Arius Didymus, ap. Diels, p. 464.[390]The idea is found in almost all Stoical writers: Plutarch;de Alex. Magn. virt.6, speaks of ἡ πολὺ θαυμαζομένη πολιτεία τοῦ τὴν Στωικῶν αἵρεσιν καταβαλομένου Ζήνωνος: Chrysippus ap. Phædr. Epicur.de nat. Deorum, ed. Petersen, p. 19: Muson.Frag.5, ed. Peerlk. p. 164 (from Stob.Flor.40), τοῦ Διὸς πόλεως ἣ συνέστηκεν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων καὶ θεῶν: Epict.Diss.1. 9. 4; 2. 13. 6; 3. 22. 4; 3. 24. 10: most fully in Arius Didymus ap. Euseb.Præp. Evang.15. 15. 4, οὕτω καὶ ὁ κόσμος οἱονεὶ πόλις ἐστὶν ἐκ θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων συνεστῶσα, τῶν μὲν θεῶν τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ἐχόντων τῶν δ’ ἀνθρώπων ὑποτεταγμένων.[391]Philo,de Josepho, 6 (ii. 46), λόγος δέ ἐστι φύσεως προστακτικὸς μὲν ὧν πρακτέον ἀπαγορευτικὸς δὲ ὧν οὐ πρακτέον ... προσθῆκαι μὲν γὰρ οἱ κατὰ πόλεις νόμοι τοῦ τῆς φύσεως ὀρθοῦ λόγου.[392]Epict.Diss.3. 22. 5.[393]Epict.Diss.1. 1. 10; cf. Seneca,de Provid.5. 7, ‘non potest artifex mutare materiam.’ But Epictetus sometimes makes it a question, not of possibility, but of will, e.g.Diss.4. 3. 10.[394]The data for the long history of the moral conceptions of Greek religion which are briefly indicated above are far too numerous to be given in a note: the student is referred to Nägelsbach,Die Nachhomerische Theologie, i. 17-58. One may note the list of titles applied to God, e.g. in Dio Chrysostom, and the diminishing use of ἱλάσκεσθαι.[395]Epict.Diss.1. 6.[396]Diss.3. 11. 1.[397]Diss.3. 24. 42, 43.[398]Destiny is Reason: Heraclitus ap. Aet.Placit.in Plut.de placit. philos.1. 28. 1; Stob.Ecl.1. 5. 15 (Diels, p. 323), οὐσίαν εἱμαρμένης λόγον τὸν διὰ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ παντὸς διήκοντα: Chrysippus,ibid.εἱμαρμένη ἐστὶν ὁ τοῦ κόσμου λόγος ἢ λόγος τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ προνοίᾳ διοικουμένων ἢ λόγος καθ’ ὃν τὰ μὲν γεγονότα γέγονε τὰ δὲ γινόμενα γίνεται τὰ δὲ γενησόμενα γενήσεται: Zeno ap. Ar. Did.Epit. phys.20, in Stob.Ecl.1. 11. 5 (Diels, p. 458), τὸν τοῦ παντὸς λόγον ὃν ἔνιοι ἑιμαρμένην καλοῦσιν.[399]Destiny, or Reason, is Providence: Chrysippus, in the quotation given in the preceding note: Zeno ap. Aet.Placit.in Stob.Ecl.1. 5. 15 (Diels, p. 322).[400]Destiny, Reason, Providence, is God, or the Will of God: Chrysippus in Plut.de Stoic. repug.34. 5, ὅτι δ’ ἡ κοινὴ φύσις καὶ ὁ κοινὸς τῆς φύσεως λόγος εἱμαρμένη καὶ πρόνοια καὶ Ζεύς ἐστιν οὐδὲ τοὺς ἀντίποδας λέληθε· πανταχοῦ γὰρ ταῦτα θρυλεῖται ὑπ’ αὐτῶν· καὶ, Διὸς δ’ ἐτελείετο βουλὴ’ τὸν Ὅμηρον εἰρηκέναι φησὶν [sc. ὁ Χρύσιππος] ὀρθῶς ἐπὶ τὴν εἱμαρμένην ἀναφέροντα καὶ τὴν τῶν ὅλων φύσιν καθ’ ἣν πάντα διοικεῖται: id.de commun. not.34. 5, oὐδὲ τοὐλάχιστόν ἐστι τῶν μερῶν ἔχειν ἄλλως ἀλλ’ ἢ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Διὸς βούλησιν: Arius Didymus,Epit.ap. Euseb.Præp. Ev.15. 15 (Diels, p. 464): Philodemus,de piet.frag. ed. Gompertz, p. 83 (Diels, p. 549). The more exact statement is in the summary of Aetius ap. Plut.de placit. philos.1. 7. 17, Stob.Ecl.1. 2. 29 (Diels, p. 306), where God is said to comprehend within Himself τοὺς σπερματικοὺς λόγους καθ’ οὓς ἅπαντα καθ’ εἱμαρμένην γίνεται. The loftiest form of the conception is expressed by Lucan,Pharsal.2. 10, ‘se quoque lege tenens:’ God is not the slave of Fate or Law, but voluntarily binds Himself by it.[401]Plat.Rep.2, pp. 379, 380;Tim.p. 41. Philo,de mund. opif.24 (i. 17),de confus. ling.35 (i. 432), θεῷ γὰρ τῷ πανηγεμόνι ἐμπρεπὲς οὐκ ἔδοξεν εἶναι τὴν ἐπὶ κακίαν ὁδὸν ἐν ψυχῇ λογικῇ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ δημιουργῆσαι· οὗ χάριν τοῖς μετ’ αὐτὸν ἐπέτρεψε τὴν τούτου τοῦ μέρους κατασκευήν:de profug.13 (i. 556), ἀναγκαῖον οὖν ἡγήσατο τὴν κακῶν γένεσιν ἑτέροις ἀπονεῖμαι δημιουργοῖς τὴν δὲ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἑαυτῷ μόνῳ: so also in the (probably) post-Philoneande Abraham.28 (ii. 22). The other phase of the conception is stated by Celsus, not as a philosophical solution of the difficulty, but as one which might be taught to the vulgar, ἐξαρκεῖ δὲ εἰς πλῆθος εἰρῆσθαι ὡς ἐκ θεοῦ μὲν οὐκ ἔστι κακὰ ὕλῃ δὲ πρόσκειται.[402]This is one of the solutions offered by Chrysippus: the concrete form of the difficulty, with which he dealt, was εἰ αἱ τῶν ἀνθρώπων νόσοι κατὰ φύσιν γίνονται, and his answer was that diseases come κατὰ παρακολούθησιν, ‘non per naturam sed per sequellas quasdam necessarias,’ Aul. Gell. 7 (6). 1. 9. So also in the long fragment of Philo in Euseb.Præp. Ev.8. 13 (Philo, ii. 648, 644), θεὸς γὰρ οὐδενὸς αἴτιος κακοῦ τὸ παράπαν ἀλλ’ αἱ τῶν στοιχείων μεταβολαὶ ταῦτα γεννῶσιν, οὐ προηγούμενα ἔργα φύσεως ἀλλ’ ἑπόμενα τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις καὶ τοῖς προηγουμένοις ἐπακολουθοῦντα.[403]Diss.1. 12. 24.[404]Chrysippus,de Diis, 2, ap. Plut.de Stoic. repug.35, ποτὲ μὲν τὰ δύσχρηστα συμβαίνει τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς οὐχ ὥσπερ τοῖς φαύλοις κολάσεως χάριν ἀλλὰ κατ’ ἄλλην οἰκονομίαν ὥσπερ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν.[405]Diss.2. 5. 24.[406]Diss.2. 10. 5.[407]Aul. Gell. 7 (6). 2. 12-15.[408]Ench.1.[409]E.g. Sext. Empir.Pyrr.3. 9.[410]Seneca,Ep.107. 11: a free Latin rendering of one of the verses of Cleanthes quoted from Epictetus in Lecture VI. p. 157.[411]Seneca,Dial.1. 5. 8: quid est boni viri? præbere se fato. grande solatium est cum universo rapi. quicquid est quod nos sic vivere, sic mori jussit, eadem necessitate et deos adligat. inrevocabilis humana pariter ac divina cursus vehit. ille ipse omnium conditor et rector scripsit quidem fata, sed sequitur. semper paret, semel jussit.[412]Epict.Diss.1. 6. 37-40.[413]Ibid.1. 16. 15-21.[414]S. Matthew, 5. 12; S. Luke, 6. 23.[415]Ibid.6. 1.[416]Ibid.10. 42; S. Mark, 9. 41.[417]Revelation, 22. 12: so Barnab. 21. 3: ἐγγὺς ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτοῦ.[418]Hebrews, 11. 6.[419]Didaché, 4. 7, γνώσῃ γὰρ τίς ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ μισθοῦ καλὸς ἀνταποδότης.[420]Barnab. 4. 12.[421]These conceptions of the earliest Christian philosophers are stated, in order to be modified, by Origen,de princ.2. 5. 1: existimant igitur bonitatem affectum talem quemdam esse quod bene fieri omnibus debeat etiam si indignus sit is cui beneficium datur nec bene consequi mereatur.... Justitiam vero putarunt affectum esse talem qui unicuique prout meretur retribuat ... ut secundum sensum ipsorum justus malis non videatur bene velle sed velut odio quodam ferri adversus eos.[422]The title of Marcion’s chief work was Ἀντιθέσεις, ‘Contrasts’: the extent to which his opinions prevailed is shown both by contemporary testimony, e.g. Justin M.Apol.1. 26, ὃς κατὰ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων διὰ τῆς τῶν δαιμόνων συλλήψεως πολλοὺς πεποίηκε βλασφημίας λέγειν, Iren. 3. 3. 4, and also by the fact that the Churches into which his adherents were organized flourished side by side with the Catholic Churches for many centuries (there is an inscription of one of them, datedA.D.318, in Le Bas et Waddington, vol. iii. No. 2558, and they had not died out at the time of the Trullan Council inA.D.692,Conc. Quinisext.c. 95): the importance which was attached to him is shown by the large place which he occupies in early controversies, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, the Clementines, Origen, Tertullian, being at pains to refute him.[423]Iren. 3. 25. 2.[424]Tert. c.Marc.2. 11, 12.[425]Homil.4. 13; 9. 19; 18. 2, 3.[426]Recogn.3. 37.[427]EspeciallyPædag.1. 8, 9.[428]See below,p. 233.[429]ap. Tert.c. Marc.2. 5.[430]Apol.2. 7.[431]Tatian,Orat. ad Græc.7.[432]Iren. 4. 37.[433]Ad Autol.2. 27.[434]Legat.31.[435]c. Marc.2. 5.[436]E.g. Clem. Alex.Pædag.1. 1, Origen,de princ.2. 10. 6;c. Cels.6. 56: so also Tert.Scorp.5.[437]Origen,de princ.2. 9. 5.[438]The passage which follows is, with the exception of one extract from thecontra Celsum, a catena of extracts from thede principiis.[439]De princ.1. 6. 2.[440]1. 8. 2; 2. 9. 7.[441]2. 9. 6.[442]1. 8. 4.[443]1. 5. 5; 1. 6. 2.[444]3. 1. 4.[445]3. 1. 5.[446]1. 5. 2, 5.[447]1. 6. 2.[448]1. 6. 3.[449]3. 3. 5; 3. 5. 3.[450]3. 1. 20, 21: but sometimes beings of higher merit are assigned to a lower grade, that they may benefit those who properly belong to that grade, and that they themselves may be partakers of the patience of the Creator, 2. 9. 7.[451]1. 2. 1.[452]c. Cels.6. 56;de princ.2. 10.[453]De princ.3. 1. 14, 17.[454]3. 6. 3.[455]Cf. Justin,Dial. c. Tryph.2.[456]The more common conception of the earliest Greek philosophy was that of τὰς ἐνδιηκούσας τοῖς στοιχείοις ἢ τοῖς σώμασι δυνάμεις, Aetius ap. Stob.Ecl. Phys.2. 29.[457]The form in which it is given by Sextus Empiricus, in whose time the distinction was clearly understood, implies this: ἓν εἶναι τὸ πάν καὶ τὸν θεόν συμφιῆ πᾶσι,Pyrrh. Hypotyp.225.[458]This is a post-Platonic summary of Plato’s conception; into the inner development, and consequently varying expressions, of it in Plato’s own writings it is not necessary to enter here. It is more important in relation to the history of later Greek thought to know what he was supposed to mean than what he meant. The above is taken from the summary of Aetius in Plut.de plac. philos.1. 7, Euseb.Præp. evang.14. 16 (Diels,Doxographi Græci, p. 304). The briefest and most expressive statement of the transcendence of God (τὸ ἀγαθόν) in Plato’s own writings is probablyRepublic, p. 509, οὐκ οὐσίας ὄντος τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἔτι ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας πρεσβείᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ὑπερέχοντος.[459]It was a struggle between this and Stoicism.[460]Plutarch,de Ei ap. Delph.18; cf. Ocellus Lucanus in the Augustan Age, ap. Diels, 187, Mullach, i. p. 383 sq. The universe has no beginning and no end: it always was and always will be (1. 1. p. 388). It comprises, however, τὸ ποιοῦν and τὸ πάσχον, the former above the moon, the latter below, so that the course of the moon marks the limit between the changing and changeless, the ἀεὶ θέοντος θείου and the ἀεὶ μεταβάλλοντος γενητοῦ (2. 1, p. 394, 2. 23, p. 400).[461]Max. Tyr.Diss.8. 9.[462]Max. Tyr. 17. 9.[463]Plotinus,Enneades, 5. 1. 6; cf. 1. 1. 8, where νοῦς is ἀμέριστος, distinguished from ἡ περὶ τὰ σώματα μεριστὴ (οὐσία). We are between the two, having a share of both. The κάθαρσις of the soul consists in ὁμοίωσις πρὸς θεόν, 1. 2. 3; the love of beauty should ascend from that of the body to that of character and laws, of arts and sciences, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἀρετῶν ἤδη ἀναβαίνειν ἐπὶ νοῦν, ἐπὶ τὸ ὂν, κάκεῖ βαδιστέον τὴν ἄνω πορείαν, 1. 2. 2.[464]De mut. nom.4; i. 582, ed. Mangey.[465]De mund. op.2; i. 2.[466]De post. Cain, 5; i. 228, 229.[467]Quod deus immut.12; i. 281.[468]De Abrah.16; ii. 12.[469]i. 224, 281, 566; ii. 12, 654;Frag. ap Joan. Dam.ii. 654.[470]De prœm. et pœn.7; ii. 415.[471]De post. Cain, 48; i. 258.[472]De mut. nom.2; i. 580; cf. 630, 648, 655; ii. 8-9, 19, 92-93, 597. Cf. in general Heinze,Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, Oldenburg, 1872, pp. 206, 207, n. 6.[473]The necessity for such intermediate links is not affected by the question how far, outside the Platonic schools, there was a belief in a real transcendence of God, or only in His existence outside the solar system. In this connection, note the allegory in thePhædrus. The Epicureans coarsely expressed the transcendence of God by the expression, διῄρηται ἡ οὐσία, Sext. Emp.Pyrrh.p. 114, § 5; cf. Ocellus Lucanus, cited above, p. 242. Hippolytus describes Aristotle’sMetaphysicsas dealing with things beyond the moon, 7. 19, p. 354; cf. Origen’s idea of the heavens inde princ.ii. 3, 7, and Celsus’ objection that Christians misunderstand Plato by confusing his heaven with the Jewish heavens. Origen,c. Cels.vi. 19; cf. Keim, p. 84.[474]Benn,Greek Philosophers, 2. 252.[475]Cf. Hesiod in Sext. Emp. ix. 86. Similarly, Thales, τὸ πᾶν ἔμψυχον ἅμα καὶ δαιμόνων πλῆρες (Diels, 301); Pythagoras, Empedocles in Hippolytus, διοικοῦντες τὰ κατὰ τὴν γῆν (Diels, 558); Plato and the Stoics (Diels, 307), e.g. Plutarch, Epictetus, 1. 14. 12; 3. 13. 15 (Diels, 1307); Athenagoras, 23; Philo, ii. 635; Frag. ap. Eus.Præp. Evan.8. 13; see references in Keim’sCelsus, p. 120; cf. Wachsmuth,Die Ansichten der Stoiker über Mantik u. Dämonen, Berlin, 1860.[476]Philo,de confus. ling.20 (i. 419).[477]De post. Cain.6 (i. 229).[478]De somn.1. 11 (i. 630).[479]Ibid.1. 41 (i. 656).[480]De profug.1 (i. 547); sode Cherub.1 (i. 139).[481]Leg. Alleg.3. 62 (i. 122).[482]De somn.1. 15 (i. 633).[483]Ibid.1. 33 (i. 649).[484]Quis rer. div. her.42 (i. 501).[485]De sacrif. Abel. et Cain.18 (i. 175), ὁ γὰρ θεὸς λέγων ἅμα ἐποίει μηδὲν μεταξὺ ἀμφοῖν τιθείς· εἰ δὲ χρὴ δόγμα κινεῖν ἀληθέστερον, ὁ λόγος ἔργον αὐτοῦ:de decem orac.11 (ii. 188), commenting on the expression of the LXX. in Exodus xx. 18, ὁ λαὸς ἑώρα τὴν φωνήν, he justifies it on the ground ὅτι ὅσα ἂν λέγῃ ὁ θεὸς οὐ ῥήματά ἐστιν ἀλλ’ ἔργα, ἅπερ ὀφθαλμοὶ πρὸ ὤτων διορίζουσι:de mund. opif.6 (i. 5), οὐδὲν ἂν ἕτερον εἴποι τὸν νοητὸν εἶναι κόσμον ἢ θεοῦ λόγον ἤδη κοσμοποιοῦντος.

[359]Hippol. 7. 22 (of Basilides), τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σπέρμα ὃ ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ πᾶσαν τὴν πανσπερμίαν ὃ φησιν Ἀριστοτέλης γένος εἶναι εἰς ἀπείρους τεμνόμενον ἰδέας ὡς τέμνομεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ζῴου βοῦν, ἵππον, ἄνθρωπον ὅπερ ἐστὶν οὐκ ὄν. Cf.ib.10. 14.

[360]Orat. ad Græc.5 (following the text of Schwartz).

[361]Suppl. pro Christ.4.

[362]Ad Autol.2. 5 and 10; but in the former of these passages he adds, τί δὲ μέγα εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐξ ὑποκειμένης ὕλης ἐποίει τὸν κόσμον.

[363]The most important passage is Hermas,Mand.1, which is expressed in strictly philosophical language, ὁ θεὸς ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας καὶ ποιήσας ἐκτοῦ μὴ ὄντοςεἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα (the passage is quoted as Scripture by Irenæus, 4. 20. 2 = Eusebius,H. E.5. 8. 7: Origen,de princip.1. 3. 3, vol. i. p. 61, 2. 1. 5, p. 79, and elsewhere): this must be read by the light of the distinctions which are clearly expressed by Athenagoras,Legat.4 and 19, where τὸ ὂν = τὸ νοητόν, which is ἀγένητον: τὸ οὐκ ὂν = τὸ αἰσθητόν, which is γενητόν, ἀρχόμενον εἶναι καὶ παυόμενον: the meaning of τὸ μὴ ὂν appears from the expression, τὸ ὂν οὐ γίνεται ἀλλὰ τὸ μὴ ὄν, whence it is clear that τὸ μὴ ὂν = τὸ δυνάμει ὄν, or potential being (see Möller,Kosmologie, p. 123). In some of the other passages in which similar phrases occur, it is not clear whether the conception is more than that of an artist who, by impressing form on matter, causes things to exist which did not exist before: 2 Maccab. 7. 28, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ ὁ θεός: 2 Clem. i. 8, ἐκάλεσεν γὰρ ἡμᾶς οὐκ ὄντας καὶ ἠθέλησεν ἐκ μὴ ὄντος εἶναι ἡμᾶς: Clementin.Hom.3, 32, τῷ τὰ μὴ ὄντα εἰς τὸ εἶναι συστησαμένῳ, οὐρανὸν δημιουργήσαντι, γῆν πιλώσαντι, θάλασσαν περιορίσαντι, τὰ ἐν ᾅδῃ ταμιεύσαντι καὶ τὰ πάντα ἀέρι πληρώσαντι: Hippolyt. inGenes.1, τῇ μὲν πρώτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς ὅσα ἐποίησεν ἐκ μὴ ὄντων ταῖς δὲ ἄλλαις οὐκ ἐκ μὴ ὄντων. In Theophilus, these expressions are interchanged with that of ἡ ὑποκειμένη ὕλη in such a way as to suggest their identity: 1. 4; 2. 10, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν: 2. 4, τί δὲ μέγα εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐξ ὑποκειμένης ὕλης ἐποίει τὸν κόσμον ... ἵνα ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν. In the later books of the Clementine Homilies, τὸ μὴ ὂν = void space: the whole passage, 17. 8, gives a clear and interesting exposition.

[364]In Euseb.Præp. Evang.7. 22, and elsewhere; reprinted in Routh,Reliquiæ Sacræ, ii. 87.

[365]Justin M.Tryph.62; Iren. 1. 24, 25; Hippol. 7. 16, 20: so Philo.de profug.13 (i. 556), where, after quoting the passage of Genesis, he proceeds, following the Platonic theory, διαλέγεται μὲν οὖν ὁ τῶν ὅλων πατὴρ ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεσιν αἷς τὸ θνητὸν ἡμῶν τῆς ψυχῆς μέρος ἔδωκε διαπλάττειν, μιμουμέναις τὴν αὐτοῦ τέχνην.

[366]The Peratæ in Hippol. 5. 17.

[367]The Jew through whom Celsus sometimes speaks says, “If yourLogosis the Son of God, we also assent to the same.” Origen,c. Cels.2. 31.

[368]Cf. Origen,c. Cels.4. 54.

[369]Hippol.c. Noet.11.

[370]It is not the least of the many contributions of Professor Harnack to early Christian history that he has vindicated Marcion from the excessive disparagement which has resulted from the blind adoption of the vituperations of Tertullian: see especially hisDogmengeschichte. Bd. i. pp. 226 sqq., 2te aufl.

[371]1. 22: cf. 4. 20.

[372]Hippol. 10. 32, 33.

[373]ap. Euseb.H. E.6. 19.

[374]De princip.2. 9. 1, 6.

[375]De princip.1. 2. 2.

[376]Ibid.1. 2. 2, 10.

[377]Ibid.1. 3. 5, 6, 8.

[378]Ibid.2. 6. 3.

[379]Ibid.3. 5. 3.

[380]Ibid.2. 9. 4.

[381]Aetius ap. Plut.de plac. phil.2. 1. 1 (Diels, p. 327), Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ὠνόμασε τὴν τῶν ὅλων περιοχὴν κόσμον ἐκ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τάξεως.

[382]Aetius,ibid.1. 25 (Diels, p. 321), Πυθαγόρας ἀνάγκην ἔφη περικεῖσθαι τῷ κόσμῳ· Παρμενίδης καὶ Δημόκριτος πάντα κατὰ ἀνάγκην.

[383]For the numerous passages which prove these statements, reference may be made to Nägelsbach,Homerische Theologie, 2. 2. 3;Nachhomerische Theologie, 3. 2. 2.

[384]Aetius,ut supra, 1. 27 (Diels, p. 322), Ἡράκλειτος πάντα καθ’ εἱμαρμένην, τὴν δὲ αὐτὴν ὑπάρχειν καὶ ἀνάγκην: the identification of ἀνάγκη and εἱμαρμένη is also made by Parmenides and Democritus in a continuation of the passage quoted above. But in much later times a distinction was sometimes drawn between the two words, ἀνάγκη being used of the subjective necessity of a proposition of which the contradictory is unthinkable: Alex. AphrodisQuæst. Nat.2. 5 (p. 96, ed. Spengel), τέσσαρα γοῦν τὰ δὶς δύο ἐξ ἀνάγκης, οὐ μὴν καθ’ εἱμαρμένην εἴ γε ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις τὸ καθ’ εἱμαρμένην; but, on the other hand, οἷς καθ’ εἱρμὸν αἰτιῶν γινομένοις τὸ ἀντικείμενον ἀδύνατος, πάντα εἴη ἂν καθ’ εἱμαρμένην.

[385]Nägelsbach,Nachhomerische Theologie, p. 142.

[386]Hesiod,Theog.218, 904.

[387]Chrysippus, ap. Theodoret.Gr. affect. curat.6. 14, εἶναι δὲ τὴν εἱμαρμένην κίνησιν ἁΐδιον συνεχῆ καὶ τεταγμένην: so, in other words, ap. Aul. Gell. 6. 2. 3.

[388]Aetius ap. Plut.de placit. philos.1. 28, οἱ Στωικοὶ εἱρμὸν αἰτιῶν: Philo,de mut. nom.23 (i. 598), ἀκολουθία καὶ ἀναλογία τῶν συμπάντων, εἱρμὸν ἔχουσα ἀδιάλυτον: Cic.de divin.1. 55, ‘ordinem seriemque causarum cum causa causæ nexa rem ex se gignat.’

[389]The Stoical definition of a πόλις was σύστημα καὶ πλῆθος ἀνθρώπων ὑπὸ νόμου διοικούμενον, Clem. Alex.Strom.4. 26; cf. Arius Didymus, ap. Diels, p. 464.

[390]The idea is found in almost all Stoical writers: Plutarch;de Alex. Magn. virt.6, speaks of ἡ πολὺ θαυμαζομένη πολιτεία τοῦ τὴν Στωικῶν αἵρεσιν καταβαλομένου Ζήνωνος: Chrysippus ap. Phædr. Epicur.de nat. Deorum, ed. Petersen, p. 19: Muson.Frag.5, ed. Peerlk. p. 164 (from Stob.Flor.40), τοῦ Διὸς πόλεως ἣ συνέστηκεν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων καὶ θεῶν: Epict.Diss.1. 9. 4; 2. 13. 6; 3. 22. 4; 3. 24. 10: most fully in Arius Didymus ap. Euseb.Præp. Evang.15. 15. 4, οὕτω καὶ ὁ κόσμος οἱονεὶ πόλις ἐστὶν ἐκ θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων συνεστῶσα, τῶν μὲν θεῶν τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ἐχόντων τῶν δ’ ἀνθρώπων ὑποτεταγμένων.

[391]Philo,de Josepho, 6 (ii. 46), λόγος δέ ἐστι φύσεως προστακτικὸς μὲν ὧν πρακτέον ἀπαγορευτικὸς δὲ ὧν οὐ πρακτέον ... προσθῆκαι μὲν γὰρ οἱ κατὰ πόλεις νόμοι τοῦ τῆς φύσεως ὀρθοῦ λόγου.

[392]Epict.Diss.3. 22. 5.

[393]Epict.Diss.1. 1. 10; cf. Seneca,de Provid.5. 7, ‘non potest artifex mutare materiam.’ But Epictetus sometimes makes it a question, not of possibility, but of will, e.g.Diss.4. 3. 10.

[394]The data for the long history of the moral conceptions of Greek religion which are briefly indicated above are far too numerous to be given in a note: the student is referred to Nägelsbach,Die Nachhomerische Theologie, i. 17-58. One may note the list of titles applied to God, e.g. in Dio Chrysostom, and the diminishing use of ἱλάσκεσθαι.

[395]Epict.Diss.1. 6.

[396]Diss.3. 11. 1.

[397]Diss.3. 24. 42, 43.

[398]Destiny is Reason: Heraclitus ap. Aet.Placit.in Plut.de placit. philos.1. 28. 1; Stob.Ecl.1. 5. 15 (Diels, p. 323), οὐσίαν εἱμαρμένης λόγον τὸν διὰ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ παντὸς διήκοντα: Chrysippus,ibid.εἱμαρμένη ἐστὶν ὁ τοῦ κόσμου λόγος ἢ λόγος τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ προνοίᾳ διοικουμένων ἢ λόγος καθ’ ὃν τὰ μὲν γεγονότα γέγονε τὰ δὲ γινόμενα γίνεται τὰ δὲ γενησόμενα γενήσεται: Zeno ap. Ar. Did.Epit. phys.20, in Stob.Ecl.1. 11. 5 (Diels, p. 458), τὸν τοῦ παντὸς λόγον ὃν ἔνιοι ἑιμαρμένην καλοῦσιν.

[399]Destiny, or Reason, is Providence: Chrysippus, in the quotation given in the preceding note: Zeno ap. Aet.Placit.in Stob.Ecl.1. 5. 15 (Diels, p. 322).

[400]Destiny, Reason, Providence, is God, or the Will of God: Chrysippus in Plut.de Stoic. repug.34. 5, ὅτι δ’ ἡ κοινὴ φύσις καὶ ὁ κοινὸς τῆς φύσεως λόγος εἱμαρμένη καὶ πρόνοια καὶ Ζεύς ἐστιν οὐδὲ τοὺς ἀντίποδας λέληθε· πανταχοῦ γὰρ ταῦτα θρυλεῖται ὑπ’ αὐτῶν· καὶ, Διὸς δ’ ἐτελείετο βουλὴ’ τὸν Ὅμηρον εἰρηκέναι φησὶν [sc. ὁ Χρύσιππος] ὀρθῶς ἐπὶ τὴν εἱμαρμένην ἀναφέροντα καὶ τὴν τῶν ὅλων φύσιν καθ’ ἣν πάντα διοικεῖται: id.de commun. not.34. 5, oὐδὲ τοὐλάχιστόν ἐστι τῶν μερῶν ἔχειν ἄλλως ἀλλ’ ἢ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Διὸς βούλησιν: Arius Didymus,Epit.ap. Euseb.Præp. Ev.15. 15 (Diels, p. 464): Philodemus,de piet.frag. ed. Gompertz, p. 83 (Diels, p. 549). The more exact statement is in the summary of Aetius ap. Plut.de placit. philos.1. 7. 17, Stob.Ecl.1. 2. 29 (Diels, p. 306), where God is said to comprehend within Himself τοὺς σπερματικοὺς λόγους καθ’ οὓς ἅπαντα καθ’ εἱμαρμένην γίνεται. The loftiest form of the conception is expressed by Lucan,Pharsal.2. 10, ‘se quoque lege tenens:’ God is not the slave of Fate or Law, but voluntarily binds Himself by it.

[401]Plat.Rep.2, pp. 379, 380;Tim.p. 41. Philo,de mund. opif.24 (i. 17),de confus. ling.35 (i. 432), θεῷ γὰρ τῷ πανηγεμόνι ἐμπρεπὲς οὐκ ἔδοξεν εἶναι τὴν ἐπὶ κακίαν ὁδὸν ἐν ψυχῇ λογικῇ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ δημιουργῆσαι· οὗ χάριν τοῖς μετ’ αὐτὸν ἐπέτρεψε τὴν τούτου τοῦ μέρους κατασκευήν:de profug.13 (i. 556), ἀναγκαῖον οὖν ἡγήσατο τὴν κακῶν γένεσιν ἑτέροις ἀπονεῖμαι δημιουργοῖς τὴν δὲ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἑαυτῷ μόνῳ: so also in the (probably) post-Philoneande Abraham.28 (ii. 22). The other phase of the conception is stated by Celsus, not as a philosophical solution of the difficulty, but as one which might be taught to the vulgar, ἐξαρκεῖ δὲ εἰς πλῆθος εἰρῆσθαι ὡς ἐκ θεοῦ μὲν οὐκ ἔστι κακὰ ὕλῃ δὲ πρόσκειται.

[402]This is one of the solutions offered by Chrysippus: the concrete form of the difficulty, with which he dealt, was εἰ αἱ τῶν ἀνθρώπων νόσοι κατὰ φύσιν γίνονται, and his answer was that diseases come κατὰ παρακολούθησιν, ‘non per naturam sed per sequellas quasdam necessarias,’ Aul. Gell. 7 (6). 1. 9. So also in the long fragment of Philo in Euseb.Præp. Ev.8. 13 (Philo, ii. 648, 644), θεὸς γὰρ οὐδενὸς αἴτιος κακοῦ τὸ παράπαν ἀλλ’ αἱ τῶν στοιχείων μεταβολαὶ ταῦτα γεννῶσιν, οὐ προηγούμενα ἔργα φύσεως ἀλλ’ ἑπόμενα τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις καὶ τοῖς προηγουμένοις ἐπακολουθοῦντα.

[403]Diss.1. 12. 24.

[404]Chrysippus,de Diis, 2, ap. Plut.de Stoic. repug.35, ποτὲ μὲν τὰ δύσχρηστα συμβαίνει τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς οὐχ ὥσπερ τοῖς φαύλοις κολάσεως χάριν ἀλλὰ κατ’ ἄλλην οἰκονομίαν ὥσπερ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν.

[405]Diss.2. 5. 24.

[406]Diss.2. 10. 5.

[407]Aul. Gell. 7 (6). 2. 12-15.

[408]Ench.1.

[409]E.g. Sext. Empir.Pyrr.3. 9.

[410]Seneca,Ep.107. 11: a free Latin rendering of one of the verses of Cleanthes quoted from Epictetus in Lecture VI. p. 157.

[411]Seneca,Dial.1. 5. 8: quid est boni viri? præbere se fato. grande solatium est cum universo rapi. quicquid est quod nos sic vivere, sic mori jussit, eadem necessitate et deos adligat. inrevocabilis humana pariter ac divina cursus vehit. ille ipse omnium conditor et rector scripsit quidem fata, sed sequitur. semper paret, semel jussit.

[412]Epict.Diss.1. 6. 37-40.

[413]Ibid.1. 16. 15-21.

[414]S. Matthew, 5. 12; S. Luke, 6. 23.

[415]Ibid.6. 1.

[416]Ibid.10. 42; S. Mark, 9. 41.

[417]Revelation, 22. 12: so Barnab. 21. 3: ἐγγὺς ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτοῦ.

[418]Hebrews, 11. 6.

[419]Didaché, 4. 7, γνώσῃ γὰρ τίς ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ μισθοῦ καλὸς ἀνταποδότης.

[420]Barnab. 4. 12.

[421]These conceptions of the earliest Christian philosophers are stated, in order to be modified, by Origen,de princ.2. 5. 1: existimant igitur bonitatem affectum talem quemdam esse quod bene fieri omnibus debeat etiam si indignus sit is cui beneficium datur nec bene consequi mereatur.... Justitiam vero putarunt affectum esse talem qui unicuique prout meretur retribuat ... ut secundum sensum ipsorum justus malis non videatur bene velle sed velut odio quodam ferri adversus eos.

[422]The title of Marcion’s chief work was Ἀντιθέσεις, ‘Contrasts’: the extent to which his opinions prevailed is shown both by contemporary testimony, e.g. Justin M.Apol.1. 26, ὃς κατὰ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων διὰ τῆς τῶν δαιμόνων συλλήψεως πολλοὺς πεποίηκε βλασφημίας λέγειν, Iren. 3. 3. 4, and also by the fact that the Churches into which his adherents were organized flourished side by side with the Catholic Churches for many centuries (there is an inscription of one of them, datedA.D.318, in Le Bas et Waddington, vol. iii. No. 2558, and they had not died out at the time of the Trullan Council inA.D.692,Conc. Quinisext.c. 95): the importance which was attached to him is shown by the large place which he occupies in early controversies, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, the Clementines, Origen, Tertullian, being at pains to refute him.

[423]Iren. 3. 25. 2.

[424]Tert. c.Marc.2. 11, 12.

[425]Homil.4. 13; 9. 19; 18. 2, 3.

[426]Recogn.3. 37.

[427]EspeciallyPædag.1. 8, 9.

[428]See below,p. 233.

[429]ap. Tert.c. Marc.2. 5.

[430]Apol.2. 7.

[431]Tatian,Orat. ad Græc.7.

[432]Iren. 4. 37.

[433]Ad Autol.2. 27.

[434]Legat.31.

[435]c. Marc.2. 5.

[436]E.g. Clem. Alex.Pædag.1. 1, Origen,de princ.2. 10. 6;c. Cels.6. 56: so also Tert.Scorp.5.

[437]Origen,de princ.2. 9. 5.

[438]The passage which follows is, with the exception of one extract from thecontra Celsum, a catena of extracts from thede principiis.

[439]De princ.1. 6. 2.

[440]1. 8. 2; 2. 9. 7.

[441]2. 9. 6.

[442]1. 8. 4.

[443]1. 5. 5; 1. 6. 2.

[444]3. 1. 4.

[445]3. 1. 5.

[446]1. 5. 2, 5.

[447]1. 6. 2.

[448]1. 6. 3.

[449]3. 3. 5; 3. 5. 3.

[450]3. 1. 20, 21: but sometimes beings of higher merit are assigned to a lower grade, that they may benefit those who properly belong to that grade, and that they themselves may be partakers of the patience of the Creator, 2. 9. 7.

[451]1. 2. 1.

[452]c. Cels.6. 56;de princ.2. 10.

[453]De princ.3. 1. 14, 17.

[454]3. 6. 3.

[455]Cf. Justin,Dial. c. Tryph.2.

[456]The more common conception of the earliest Greek philosophy was that of τὰς ἐνδιηκούσας τοῖς στοιχείοις ἢ τοῖς σώμασι δυνάμεις, Aetius ap. Stob.Ecl. Phys.2. 29.

[457]The form in which it is given by Sextus Empiricus, in whose time the distinction was clearly understood, implies this: ἓν εἶναι τὸ πάν καὶ τὸν θεόν συμφιῆ πᾶσι,Pyrrh. Hypotyp.225.

[458]This is a post-Platonic summary of Plato’s conception; into the inner development, and consequently varying expressions, of it in Plato’s own writings it is not necessary to enter here. It is more important in relation to the history of later Greek thought to know what he was supposed to mean than what he meant. The above is taken from the summary of Aetius in Plut.de plac. philos.1. 7, Euseb.Præp. evang.14. 16 (Diels,Doxographi Græci, p. 304). The briefest and most expressive statement of the transcendence of God (τὸ ἀγαθόν) in Plato’s own writings is probablyRepublic, p. 509, οὐκ οὐσίας ὄντος τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἔτι ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας πρεσβείᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ὑπερέχοντος.

[459]It was a struggle between this and Stoicism.

[460]Plutarch,de Ei ap. Delph.18; cf. Ocellus Lucanus in the Augustan Age, ap. Diels, 187, Mullach, i. p. 383 sq. The universe has no beginning and no end: it always was and always will be (1. 1. p. 388). It comprises, however, τὸ ποιοῦν and τὸ πάσχον, the former above the moon, the latter below, so that the course of the moon marks the limit between the changing and changeless, the ἀεὶ θέοντος θείου and the ἀεὶ μεταβάλλοντος γενητοῦ (2. 1, p. 394, 2. 23, p. 400).

[461]Max. Tyr.Diss.8. 9.

[462]Max. Tyr. 17. 9.

[463]Plotinus,Enneades, 5. 1. 6; cf. 1. 1. 8, where νοῦς is ἀμέριστος, distinguished from ἡ περὶ τὰ σώματα μεριστὴ (οὐσία). We are between the two, having a share of both. The κάθαρσις of the soul consists in ὁμοίωσις πρὸς θεόν, 1. 2. 3; the love of beauty should ascend from that of the body to that of character and laws, of arts and sciences, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἀρετῶν ἤδη ἀναβαίνειν ἐπὶ νοῦν, ἐπὶ τὸ ὂν, κάκεῖ βαδιστέον τὴν ἄνω πορείαν, 1. 2. 2.

[464]De mut. nom.4; i. 582, ed. Mangey.

[465]De mund. op.2; i. 2.

[466]De post. Cain, 5; i. 228, 229.

[467]Quod deus immut.12; i. 281.

[468]De Abrah.16; ii. 12.

[469]i. 224, 281, 566; ii. 12, 654;Frag. ap Joan. Dam.ii. 654.

[470]De prœm. et pœn.7; ii. 415.

[471]De post. Cain, 48; i. 258.

[472]De mut. nom.2; i. 580; cf. 630, 648, 655; ii. 8-9, 19, 92-93, 597. Cf. in general Heinze,Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, Oldenburg, 1872, pp. 206, 207, n. 6.

[473]The necessity for such intermediate links is not affected by the question how far, outside the Platonic schools, there was a belief in a real transcendence of God, or only in His existence outside the solar system. In this connection, note the allegory in thePhædrus. The Epicureans coarsely expressed the transcendence of God by the expression, διῄρηται ἡ οὐσία, Sext. Emp.Pyrrh.p. 114, § 5; cf. Ocellus Lucanus, cited above, p. 242. Hippolytus describes Aristotle’sMetaphysicsas dealing with things beyond the moon, 7. 19, p. 354; cf. Origen’s idea of the heavens inde princ.ii. 3, 7, and Celsus’ objection that Christians misunderstand Plato by confusing his heaven with the Jewish heavens. Origen,c. Cels.vi. 19; cf. Keim, p. 84.

[474]Benn,Greek Philosophers, 2. 252.

[475]Cf. Hesiod in Sext. Emp. ix. 86. Similarly, Thales, τὸ πᾶν ἔμψυχον ἅμα καὶ δαιμόνων πλῆρες (Diels, 301); Pythagoras, Empedocles in Hippolytus, διοικοῦντες τὰ κατὰ τὴν γῆν (Diels, 558); Plato and the Stoics (Diels, 307), e.g. Plutarch, Epictetus, 1. 14. 12; 3. 13. 15 (Diels, 1307); Athenagoras, 23; Philo, ii. 635; Frag. ap. Eus.Præp. Evan.8. 13; see references in Keim’sCelsus, p. 120; cf. Wachsmuth,Die Ansichten der Stoiker über Mantik u. Dämonen, Berlin, 1860.

[476]Philo,de confus. ling.20 (i. 419).

[477]De post. Cain.6 (i. 229).

[478]De somn.1. 11 (i. 630).

[479]Ibid.1. 41 (i. 656).

[480]De profug.1 (i. 547); sode Cherub.1 (i. 139).

[481]Leg. Alleg.3. 62 (i. 122).

[482]De somn.1. 15 (i. 633).

[483]Ibid.1. 33 (i. 649).

[484]Quis rer. div. her.42 (i. 501).

[485]De sacrif. Abel. et Cain.18 (i. 175), ὁ γὰρ θεὸς λέγων ἅμα ἐποίει μηδὲν μεταξὺ ἀμφοῖν τιθείς· εἰ δὲ χρὴ δόγμα κινεῖν ἀληθέστερον, ὁ λόγος ἔργον αὐτοῦ:de decem orac.11 (ii. 188), commenting on the expression of the LXX. in Exodus xx. 18, ὁ λαὸς ἑώρα τὴν φωνήν, he justifies it on the ground ὅτι ὅσα ἂν λέγῃ ὁ θεὸς οὐ ῥήματά ἐστιν ἀλλ’ ἔργα, ἅπερ ὀφθαλμοὶ πρὸ ὤτων διορίζουσι:de mund. opif.6 (i. 5), οὐδὲν ἂν ἕτερον εἴποι τὸν νοητὸν εἶναι κόσμον ἢ θεοῦ λόγον ἤδη κοσμοποιοῦντος.

Back to Index Next