Chapter 24

[486]The word σκία seems to be used, in relation to theLogos, not of the shadow cast by a solid object in the sunlight, but rather, as in Homer,Odyss.10. 495, and frequently in classical writers, of a ghost or phantom: hence God is the παράδειγμα, the substance of which theLogosis the unsubstantial form,Leg. Alleg.3. 31 (i. 106): hence also σκία is used as convertible with εἰκών (ibid.), in its sense of either a portrait-statue or a reflexion in a mirror: inde confus. ling.28 (i. 427), theLogosis theeternalεἰκών of God.[487]De somn.1. 41 (i. 656).[488]Quod det. pot. ins.23 (i. 207).[489]De agric.12 (i. 308):de confus. ling.28 (i. 427): spoken of as γεννηθείς,ibid.14 (i. 414).[490]De profug.20 (i. 562): so God is spoken of as the husband of σοφία inde Cherub.14 (i. 148). But inde ebriet.8 (i. 361), God is the Father, Knowledge the Mother, not of theLogosbut of the universe.[491]Quod a Deo mit. somn.i. 683.[492]i.e. Sethiani ap. Iren. 1. 30. 1.[493]Ptolemæus,ad Flor.7.[494]Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 10. 2-4.[495]Cf. the Ebionites, Alogi, and theClementines.[496]Origen,c. Cels.7. 36; cf.de princ.1. 1. 7.[497]Con. Cels.7. 37, καὶ δογματίζειν παραπλησίως τοῖς ἀναιροῦσι νοητὰς οὐσίας Στωϊκοῖς; cf. Keim, p. 100. See also Orig.in Gen.vol. ii, p. 25 (Delarue), and Eus.H. E.iv. 26, for a view ascribed to Melito.[498]Harnack,Dogmengesch.p. 160.[499]Dial. c. Tryph.c. 127.[500]Legatio, 10.[501]Ad Autolycum.1. 3; cf. Minuc. Felix,Octavius, 18, and Novatian,de Trin.1. 2.[502]Adv. Marc.1. 3.[503]Adv. Prax.7.[504]ap. Hippol. 7. 21, p. 358.[505]ἀνεννόητος καὶ ἀνούσιος,ibid.6. 42, p. 302; cf. 12 ff., pp. 424 ff., for Monoïmus, and also Ptolemæus,ad Floram, 7.[506]Pædag.1. 8.[507]Möller,Kosmologie, p. 26, cf. 124, 129, 130.[508]Strom.5. 12.[509]c. Cels.6. 19 sqq.[510]De princ.1. 1. 2, 5, 7.[511]Ibid.1. 1,passim; cf. 4. 1. 36.[512]e.g. Min. Felix, c. 10; cf. Keim,Celsus, 158.[513]The older sort, who clung to tradition pure and simple, were dubious of the introduction of dialectic methods into Christianity: see Eus. v. 28; cf. v. 13. “Expavescunt ad οἰκονομίαν,” Tert.adv. Prax.3. Cf. Weingarten, p. 25.[514]Pantænus, when asked by outside philosophers, “How can God know the world, if like knows like?” replied (Routh,Rel. Sac.i. p. 379): μήτε αἰσθητῶς τὰ αἰσθητὰ μήτε νοερῶς τὰ νοητὰ· οὐ γὰρ εἶναι δυνατὸν τὸν ὑπὲρ τὰ ὄντα κατὰ τὰ ὄντα τῶν ὄντων λαμβάνεσθαι, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἴδια θελήματα γινώσκειν αὐτὸν τὰ ὄντα φαμέν ... for if hemadeall things by His will, no one can deny that He knows His own will, and hence knows what His will has made. Cf. Julius Africanus (Routh, ii. 239), λέγεται γὰρ ὁμωνύμως ὁ θεὸς πᾶσι τοῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἐπειδὴ ἐν πᾶσιν ἐστίν.[515]γίνομαι ὃ Θέλω καὶ εἰμὶ ὃ εἰμί, as used by the Naassenes, ap. Hipp. 5. 7.[516]Cf. Harnack, art. inEncycl. Brit.“Sabellius.”[517]Hipp. 9. 10; Schmid,Dogmeng.47,n.[518]Tert.c. Valent.4; cf., διαθέσεις of Ptol. ap. Iren. 1. 12. 1.[519]ap. Iren. 1. 12. 3.[520]Hipp. 6. 12.[521]Ptolemy ap. Iren. 1. 12. 1; cf. Hipp.c. Noet.10, πολὺς ἦν.[522]ap. Iren. 1. 2. 1, 5 (Valentinians).[523]ap. Iren. 1. 24. 3 (Basilides): cf. Clem. Al.Protrep.10, the Logos is the Son of νοῦς.[524]Iren. 1. 14. 1, προήκατο λόγον ὅμοιον αὑτῷ.[525]As compared with Philo, who emphasizes the Logos in relation to the work of creation, Justin lays stress on the Logos as Revealer, making known to us the will of God: cf. ἀπόστολος,Tryph.61.[526]Justin,Apol.i. 63.[527]Apol.ii. 8.[528]It would be beyond our present purpose to go into Christology. It will be sufficient to indicate three theories: (1) Modal Monarchianism; (2) Dynamical Monarchianism; (3) Logos theory. Cf. Harnack,Dogmeng.i. 161, 220, for Gnostic Christology.[529]Iren. 4. 6. 3, 5, 6; cf. Clem. Alex.Strom.7. 2.[530]Cf. Hipp. 7. 21, 22; Schmid,Dogm.52.[531]Tert.Apol.51; Hipp.c. Noet.p. 62.[532]Leg.16; cf. Clem. Al.Strom.5. 1; cf. Theophilus, 2, 22, for distinction of λόγος προφορικός as well as ἐνδιάθετος, denied by Clement (loc. cit.), but repeated in Tert.adv. Prax.5; cf. Hipp.c. Noet.10. See Zahn’s note in Ign.ad Magn.8. 2, on προελθὼν in relation to eternal generation.[533]Philo applied the phrase “Son of God” to the world: cf. Keim,Celsus, 95.[534]Justin,Dial. c. Tryph.61 A, cf. 62 E, προβληθὲν γέννημα; and Hipp.c. Noet.8, 10, 16; Tatian, c. 5; Irenæus ap. Schmid, p. 31.[535]Justin,Dial. c Tryph.56 C, p. 180.[536]Hipp. 9. 12; Callistus, while excommunicating the Sabellians (cf. Schmid, 48; Weing. 31), also called Hippolytus and his party ditheists. For Callistus’ own view, cf.ibid.9. 11. See Schmid, p, 50; also p. 45 for Praxeas ap. Tert.[537]The Gnostic controversies in regard to the relation to God of the Powers who were intermediate between Him and the world, had helped to forge such intellectual instruments.[538]Justin,c. Tryph.128: δυνάμει καὶ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ ἀλλ’ οὐ κατ’ ἀποτομὴν ὡς ἀπομεριζομένης τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας; cf. Plotinus ap. Harn.Dogm.493: κατὰ μερισμὸν οὐ κατ’ ἀποτομὴν in Tatian, 5, is different; cf. Hipp.c. Noet.10.[539]Justin,Dial. c. Tryph.61 C, where the metaphor of “speech” is also employed.[540]ap. Tert.c. Hermog.3.[541]For metaphor of light, cf. Monoïmus ap. Hipp. 8. 12; also Tatian, c. 5.[542]There is uncertainty as to eternal generation in Justin; see Engelhardt, p. 118. It is not in Hippolytus,c. Noet.10. Though implied in Irenæus (Harn. p. 495), it is in Origen that this solution attains clear expression, e.g.de princ.1. 2 ff., though his view is not throughout steady and uniform. Emanation seemed to him to imply division into parts. But he hovers between the Logos as thought and as substance. For Clement and Origen in this connection, see Harnack, pp. 579, 581.[543]God unchangeable in Himself comes into contact with human affairs: τῇ προνοίᾳ καὶ τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ,c. Cels.4. 14. His Word changes according to the nature of the individuals into whom he comes,c. Cels.4. 18.[544]Justin,Apol.i. 22. 23. 32,c. Try.5.[545]ad Autolyc.ii. 22.[546]He held that side by side with God existed, not ἐξουσία, but οὐσία, φύσις, ὑπόστασις: see Clem. Alex.Strom.5. 1.[547]Cf. Harnack,Dogmeng.p. 580.[548]οὐσία ἥ τε ὕλη καὶ τὸ εἶδος καὶ τὸ ἐκ τούτων,Metaph.6. 10, p. 1035a, “ousiais matter, form, and the compound of matter and form.”[549]οὐσίαν δὲ θεοῦ Ζήνων μέν φησι τὸν ὅλον κόσμον καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Χρύσιππος ... καὶ Ποσειδώνιος, Diog. L. 7. 148: so in M. Anton. e.g. 4, 40, ἕν ζῶον τὸν κόσμον μίαν οὐσίαν καὶ ψυχὴν μίαν ἐπέχον, paraphrased in the well-known lines of Pope:“All are but parts of one stupendous Whole,Whose body Nature is, and God the soul.”[550]τῆς ζωτικῆς δυνάμεως,Quod det. pot. insid.25, i. 209.[551]οὐσία δέ ἐστιν ἡ κυριώτατά τε καὶ πρώτως καὶ μάλιστα λεγομένη ἣ μήτε καθ’ ὑποκειμένου τινὸς λέγεται μήτε ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ τινί ἐστιν· οἷον ὁ τὶς ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὁ τὶς ἵππος,Categ.5, p. 2a: but in theMetaphysicsa different point of view is taken, and the term πρώτη οὐσία is used in the following sense, i.e. of the form, e.g. 6, 11, p. 1037.[552]Frequently in theMetaphysics, e.g. 6. 7, p. 1032b, 7. 1, p. 1042a.[553]Arist.Metaph.6. 11, p. 1037a.[554]Ibid.12. 5, p. 1079b.[555]e.g.Parmen.p. 132e. οὗ δ’ ἂν τὰ ὅμοια μετέχοντα ὅμοια ᾖ, οὐκ ἐκεῖνο ἔσται αὐτὸ τὸ εἶδος.[556]οὐσία ἐστὶν ὄνομα κοινὸν καὶ ἀόριστον κατὰ πασῶν τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτὴν ὑποστάσεων ὁμοτίμως φερόμενον, καὶ συνωνύμως κατηγορούμενον, Suidas,s. v.[557]νοητὰ ἄττα καὶ ἀσώματα εἴδη ... τὴν ἀληθινὴν οὐσίαν εἷναι· τὰ δὲ ἐκείνων σώματα ... γένεσιν ἀντ’ οὐσίας φερομένην τινὰ προσαγορεύουσι, Plat.Sophist.p. 246.[558]e.g. it is stated by Celsus and adopted by Origen: Origen,c. Cels.7. 45 sq.[559]ἡ οὐσία ἀνωτάτω οὖσα, τῷ μηδὲν εἶναι πρὸ αὐτῆς, γένος ἦν τὸ γενικώτατον, Porphyr.Eisag.2. 24.[560]ἕκαστος μὲν ἡμῶν κατὰ μὲν τὸ σῶμα πόρρω ἂν εἴη οὐσίας, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ ὃ μάλιστα ἐσμὲν, μετέχομεν οὐσίας, καὶ ἐσμέν τις οὐσία. τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν οἷον σύνθετόν τι ἐκ διαφορᾶς καὶ οὐσίας, οὔκουν κυρίως οὐσία οὐδ’ αὐτοουσία· διὸ οὐδὲ κύριοι τῆς αὐτῶν οὐσίας, Plotin.Enn.6. 8. 12.[561]Arist.Anal. post.2. 3, p. 90b;Top.5. 2, p. 130 b;Metaph.6. 4, p. 1030b.[562]Sext. Empir.Pyrrh. Hypotyp.3. 1. 2.[563]εἴ γε ὁμοούσιοι αἱ τῶν ζῴων ψυχαὶ ταῖς ἡμετέραις, Porphyr.de Abstin.1. 19.[564]τοὺς πόδας ὡς ὁμοουσίων ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωποι ἔνιψαν,Clement. Hom.20. 7, p. 192.[565]c. Cels.6. 64.[566]e.g. in S. Athanas.ad Afr. episc.4, vol. i. 714.[567]Dionys. Areop.de div. nom.5.[568]Philo,Leg. Alleg.1. 30, vol. i. 62; cf.de post. Cain.8, vol. i. 229: there is a remarkable Christian application of this in a dialogue between a Christian and a Jew who was curious as to the Trinity, Hieronymi Theologi Græci,Dialogus de sancta Trinitate, in Gallandi,Vet. Patr. Bibl.vol. vii., reprinted in Migne,Patrol. Gr.vol. xl. 845.[569]διῃρημένον ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς, Athan.ad Antioch., 3, vol. i. 616.[570]Cf. Harnack, i. 191, 219, 476 sqq., 580. In the Valentinian system, the spiritual existence which Achamoth brought forth was of the same essence as herself, Iren. 1. 5. 1. In that of Basilides, the three-fold sonship which was in the seed which God made, was κατὰ πάντα τῷ οὐκ ὄντι θεῷ ὁμοούσιος, Hippolytus, 7. 22: so as regards τὸ ἓν in Epiphanes (Valentinian?), ap. Iren. 1. 11. 3 (Hipp. 6. 38), it συνυπάρχει τῇ μονότητι as δύναμις ὁμοούσιος αὐτῇ. Cf.Clem. Hom.20.7; Iren. ap. Harn. 481, “ejusdem substantiæ;” Tert.Apol.21, “ex unitate substantiæ;” Harn. 488, 491.[571]It was expressly rejected at the Council of Antioch in connection with Paul of Samosata; and Basil,Ep.9, says that Dionysius of Alexandria gave it up because of its use by the Sabellians: cf.Ep.52 (300).[572]It is found, e.g., in Athan.ad Afr. episc.4, vol. i. 714, ἡ γὰρ ὑπόστασις καὶ ἡ οὐσία ὕπαρξίς ἐστι. The distinction is found in Stoical writers, e.g. Chrysippus says that the present time ὑπάρχει, the past and future ὑφίστανται. Diels,Doxogr. Græci.462. 1.[573]Diels,ibid.372; cf. 363, where it is contrasted with φαντασία.[574]Sext. Empir. p. 192, § 226.[575]Diels, 318.[576]Ib. 469. 20: so κατὰ τὴν τῆς οὐσίας ὑπόστασιν, p. 469, 26.[577]Epict. 1. 14. 2.[578]Ath.Dial. de Trin.2: ἡ οὐσία τὴν κοινότητα σημαίνει, while ὑπόστασις ἰδιότητα ἔχει ἥτις οὔκ ἐστι κοινὴ τῶν τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας ὑποστάσεων. He elsewhere identifies it with πρόσωπον inAth. et Cyril. in Expos. orthod. fid.: ὑπόστασις ἐστιν οὐσία μετά τινων ἰδιωμάτων ἀριθμῷ τῶν ὁμοειδῶν διαφέρουσα· τουτέστι πρόσωπον ὁμοούσιον. Still the identity of the two terms was allowed even after they were tending to be differentiated: cf. Athan.ad Afr. Ep.4, vol. i. 714, ἡ δὲ ὑπόστασις οὐσία ἐστι καὶ οὐδὲν ἄλλο σημαινόμενον ἔχει ἢ αὐτὸ τὸ ὄν. Soad Antioch., 6. (i. 617), he tolerates the view that there was only one ὑπόστασις in the Godhead, on the ground that ὑπόστασις might be regarded as synonymous with οὐσία. Cf. objection at Council of Sardica, against three ὑποστάσεις in the Godhead, instead of one ὑπόστασις, of Father, Son and Spirit.[579]Cf. Harn.Dogm.693.[580]ἰδίαν ὑπόστασιν, Sext. Empir.de Pyrrh.2. 219.[581]Ed. Kühn, 5. 662.[582]Ep.210; Harn.Dogm.693.[583]Cf. Quintilian, who ascribes it in turn to Plautus and to Sergius Flavius, 2. 14. 2; 3. 6. 23; 8. 3. 33: Seneca,Ep.58. 6, to Cicero, and more recently Fabianus. Forsubstantia, cf. Quint. 7. 2. 5, “nam et substantia ejus sub oculos cadit.”[584]Cf. Harnack, 489, 543; for its use by Sabellius, &c., ib. 679; also Orig.de princ.1. 2. 8.[585]E.g.Ath. et Cyr. in Expos. orth. fid., ὑπόστασις = πρόσωπον ὁμοούσιον. In Epictetus, 1. 2. 7, 14, 28, it denotes individuality of character, that which distinguishes one man from another.[586]In Ath.ad. Ant.7. 25, ἡ τὰ ὅλα διοικοῦσα φύσις is distinguished from οὐσία τῶν ὅλων: so 7. 75, ἡ τοῦ ὅλου φύσις ἐπὶ τὴν κοσμοποιΐαν ώρμησεν. For φύσις in Philo, seeLeg. All.3. 30 (i. 105).[587]Leontius of Byzantium says that both οὐσία and φύσις = εἶδος,Pat. Græc.lxxxvi. 1193.[588]E.g.adv. Prax.2 (E. T. ii. 337), where he makes the distinctions within the œconomia of the Godhead to begradu,forma,specie, with a unity ofsubstantia,status,potestas; cf. Bp. Kaye, in E. T. ii. p. 407.[589]De Sententia Dionys.18, quoted inDict. of Christ. Biog.under Homoousios.[590]Thus the Roman Dionysius, in a fragment against the Sabellians (Routh,Reliq.iii. pp. 373, 374), objects to the division of the μοναρχία into τρεῖς δυνάμεις τινὰς καὶ μεμερισμέναςὑποστάσειςκαὶ θειότητας τρεῖς.[591]ἀγνοούμενον ὑπὸ τῶν λαῶν, Athan.de Synod.8 (i. 577).[592][As this summing up never underwent the author’s final revision, and the notes which follow stand in his MS. parallel with the corresponding portion of the Lecture as originally delivered, it has been thought well to place them here.—Ed.](1) The tendency to abstract has combined with the tendency to regard matter as evil or impure, in the production of a tendency to form rather a negative than a positive conception of God. The majority of formularies define God by negative terms, and yet they have claimed for conceptions which are negative a positive value.(2) We owe to Greek philosophy—to the hypothesis of the chasm between spirit and matter—the tendency to interpose powers between the Creator and His creation. It may be held that the attempt to solve the insoluble problem, how God, who is pure spirit, made and sustains us, has darkened the relations which it has attempted to explain by introducing abstract metaphysical conceptions.[593]It may be noted that even in the later Greek philosophy there was a view, apparently identical with that of Bishop Berkeley, that matter or substance merely represented the sum of the qualities. Origen,de Princ.4. 1. 34.[594]These Lectures are the history of a genesis: it would otherwise have been interesting to show in how many points theories which have been thought out in modern times revive theories of the remote past of Christian antiquity.[595]For what follows, reference in general may be made to Keil,Attische Culte aus Inschriften, Philologus, Bd. xxiii. 212-259, 592-622: and Weingarten,Histor. Zeitschrift, Bd. xlv. 1881, p. 441 sqq. as well as to the authorities cited in the notes.[596]Foucart,Le culte de Pluton dans la religion éleusinienne, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 1883, pp. 401 sqq.[597]The successive stages or acts of initiation are variously described and enumerated, but there were at least four: κάθαρσις—the preparatory purification; σύστασις—the initiatory rites and sacrifices; τελετὴ or μύησις—the prior initiation; and ἐποπτεία, the higher or greater initiation, which admitted to the παράδοσις τῶν ἱερῶν, or holiest act of the ritual. Cf. Lobeck,Aglaoph.pp. 39 ff.[598]An interesting inscription has recently come to light, which shows that the public slaves of the city were initiated at the public expense. Foucart, l.c. p. 394.[599]Cf. Origen,c. Cels.3. 59.[600]Philostratus,Vita Apoll.4. 18, p. 138.[601]Alex.38.[602]Cf. Lobeck,Aglaoph.pp. 39 ff. and 89 ff.; Welcker,Griech. Götterl.ii. 530-532. “The first and most important condition required of those who would enter the temple at Lindus is that they be pure in heart and not conscious of any crime.”—Professor W. M. Ramsay inEncy. Brit.s. v. “Mysteries.” For purification before admission to the worship of a temple, see, inC.I.A.iii. Pt. i. 73. 74, instances of regulation prescribed at the temple of Mên Tyrannus at Laurium in Attica, e.g. μηθένα ἀκάθαρτον προσάγειν, various periods of purification being specified. Cf. Reinach,Traité d’Épigr. Grecque, p. 133, on the inscr. of Andania in Messenia,B.C.91; the mysteries of the Cabiri in Le Bas and Foucart,Inscr. du Peloponnèse, ii. § 5, p. 161; and Sauppe,die Mysterieninschr. von Andania.[603]Tertullian,de Baptismo, 5, “Nam et sacris quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur ... ipsos etiam deos suos lavationibus efferunt;” Clem. Alex.Strom.Bk. 5. 4: “The mysteries are not exhibited incontinently to all, but only after certain purifications and previous instructions.”Ibid.5. 11: “It is not without reason that in the mysteries that obtain among the Greeks,lustrations hold the first place, as also the laver among the Barbarians. After these are the minor mysteries, which have some foundation of instruction and of preliminary preparation for what is to come after; and the great mysteries, in which nothing remains to be learned of the universe, but only to contemplate and comprehend nature and things.” We have thus a sort of baptism and catechumenate.[604]The fast lasted nine days, and during it certain kinds of food were wholly forbidden. Cf. Lobeck,Aglaoph.pp. 189-197.[605]There was a lesser and a greater initiation: “It is a regulation of law that those who have been admitted to the lesser should again be initiated into the greater mysteries.” Hippol. 5, 8: see the whole chapter, as also cc. 9, 20.[606]Cf. Clem. Alex.Protrept.12: “O truly sacred mysteries! O stainless light! My way is lighted with torches and I survey the heavens and God: I am become holy whilst I am initiated. The Lord is the hierophant, and seals while illuminating him who is initiated,” &c. Ib. 2: “Their (Demeter’s and Proserpine’s) wanderings, and seizure, and grief, Eleusis celebrates by torchlight processions;” and again p. 32. So Ælius Aristid. i. p. 454 (ed. Canter), τὰς φωσφόρους νύκτας.[607]“I have fasted, I have drunk the cup,” &c. Clem. Alex.Protrept.2.[608]Cf. Ælius Aristid. i. 454, on the burning of the temple at Eleusis. The gain of the festival was not for this life only, but that hereafter they would not lie in darkness and mire like the uninitiated.[609]Fragm. ap. Stob.Florileg.120. Lenormant,Cont. Rev.Sept. 1880, p. 430.[610]Synes.Orat.p. 48 (ed. Petav.), οὐ μαθεῖν τι δεῖν ἀλλὰ παθεῖν καὶ διατεθῆναι γενομένους δηλονότι ἐπιτηδείους. But the μυσταγωγοὶ possibly gave some private instruction to the groups of μύσται who were committed to them.[611]Cf. Lenormant,Cont. Rev.Sept. 1880, p. 414 sq.[612]Soph.frag.719, ed. Dind.: so in effect Pindar,frag. thren.8; Cic.Legg.2. 14. 36; Plato,Gorg.p. 493 B,Phædo.69 C (the lot of the uninitiated). They were bound to make their life on earth correspond to their initiation; see Lenormant,ut sup.p. 429 sqq. In later times it was supposed actually to make them better; Sopatros in Walz,Rhet. Gr.viii. 114.[613]See Garrucci,Les Mystères du Syncretisme Phrygien dans les Catacombes Romaines de Prætextat, Paris, 1854.[614]There was a further and larger process before a man was τέλειος. Tert.adv. Valent.c. 1, says that it took five years to become τέλειος.

[487]De somn.1. 41 (i. 656).

[488]Quod det. pot. ins.23 (i. 207).

[489]De agric.12 (i. 308):de confus. ling.28 (i. 427): spoken of as γεννηθείς,ibid.14 (i. 414).

[490]De profug.20 (i. 562): so God is spoken of as the husband of σοφία inde Cherub.14 (i. 148). But inde ebriet.8 (i. 361), God is the Father, Knowledge the Mother, not of theLogosbut of the universe.

[491]Quod a Deo mit. somn.i. 683.

[492]i.e. Sethiani ap. Iren. 1. 30. 1.

[493]Ptolemæus,ad Flor.7.

[494]Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 10. 2-4.

[495]Cf. the Ebionites, Alogi, and theClementines.

[496]Origen,c. Cels.7. 36; cf.de princ.1. 1. 7.

[497]Con. Cels.7. 37, καὶ δογματίζειν παραπλησίως τοῖς ἀναιροῦσι νοητὰς οὐσίας Στωϊκοῖς; cf. Keim, p. 100. See also Orig.in Gen.vol. ii, p. 25 (Delarue), and Eus.H. E.iv. 26, for a view ascribed to Melito.

[498]Harnack,Dogmengesch.p. 160.

[499]Dial. c. Tryph.c. 127.

[500]Legatio, 10.

[501]Ad Autolycum.1. 3; cf. Minuc. Felix,Octavius, 18, and Novatian,de Trin.1. 2.

[502]Adv. Marc.1. 3.

[503]Adv. Prax.7.

[504]ap. Hippol. 7. 21, p. 358.

[505]ἀνεννόητος καὶ ἀνούσιος,ibid.6. 42, p. 302; cf. 12 ff., pp. 424 ff., for Monoïmus, and also Ptolemæus,ad Floram, 7.

[506]Pædag.1. 8.

[507]Möller,Kosmologie, p. 26, cf. 124, 129, 130.

[508]Strom.5. 12.

[509]c. Cels.6. 19 sqq.

[510]De princ.1. 1. 2, 5, 7.

[511]Ibid.1. 1,passim; cf. 4. 1. 36.

[512]e.g. Min. Felix, c. 10; cf. Keim,Celsus, 158.

[513]The older sort, who clung to tradition pure and simple, were dubious of the introduction of dialectic methods into Christianity: see Eus. v. 28; cf. v. 13. “Expavescunt ad οἰκονομίαν,” Tert.adv. Prax.3. Cf. Weingarten, p. 25.

[514]Pantænus, when asked by outside philosophers, “How can God know the world, if like knows like?” replied (Routh,Rel. Sac.i. p. 379): μήτε αἰσθητῶς τὰ αἰσθητὰ μήτε νοερῶς τὰ νοητὰ· οὐ γὰρ εἶναι δυνατὸν τὸν ὑπὲρ τὰ ὄντα κατὰ τὰ ὄντα τῶν ὄντων λαμβάνεσθαι, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἴδια θελήματα γινώσκειν αὐτὸν τὰ ὄντα φαμέν ... for if hemadeall things by His will, no one can deny that He knows His own will, and hence knows what His will has made. Cf. Julius Africanus (Routh, ii. 239), λέγεται γὰρ ὁμωνύμως ὁ θεὸς πᾶσι τοῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἐπειδὴ ἐν πᾶσιν ἐστίν.

[515]γίνομαι ὃ Θέλω καὶ εἰμὶ ὃ εἰμί, as used by the Naassenes, ap. Hipp. 5. 7.

[516]Cf. Harnack, art. inEncycl. Brit.“Sabellius.”

[517]Hipp. 9. 10; Schmid,Dogmeng.47,n.

[518]Tert.c. Valent.4; cf., διαθέσεις of Ptol. ap. Iren. 1. 12. 1.

[519]ap. Iren. 1. 12. 3.

[520]Hipp. 6. 12.

[521]Ptolemy ap. Iren. 1. 12. 1; cf. Hipp.c. Noet.10, πολὺς ἦν.

[522]ap. Iren. 1. 2. 1, 5 (Valentinians).

[523]ap. Iren. 1. 24. 3 (Basilides): cf. Clem. Al.Protrep.10, the Logos is the Son of νοῦς.

[524]Iren. 1. 14. 1, προήκατο λόγον ὅμοιον αὑτῷ.

[525]As compared with Philo, who emphasizes the Logos in relation to the work of creation, Justin lays stress on the Logos as Revealer, making known to us the will of God: cf. ἀπόστολος,Tryph.61.

[526]Justin,Apol.i. 63.

[527]Apol.ii. 8.

[528]It would be beyond our present purpose to go into Christology. It will be sufficient to indicate three theories: (1) Modal Monarchianism; (2) Dynamical Monarchianism; (3) Logos theory. Cf. Harnack,Dogmeng.i. 161, 220, for Gnostic Christology.

[529]Iren. 4. 6. 3, 5, 6; cf. Clem. Alex.Strom.7. 2.

[530]Cf. Hipp. 7. 21, 22; Schmid,Dogm.52.

[531]Tert.Apol.51; Hipp.c. Noet.p. 62.

[532]Leg.16; cf. Clem. Al.Strom.5. 1; cf. Theophilus, 2, 22, for distinction of λόγος προφορικός as well as ἐνδιάθετος, denied by Clement (loc. cit.), but repeated in Tert.adv. Prax.5; cf. Hipp.c. Noet.10. See Zahn’s note in Ign.ad Magn.8. 2, on προελθὼν in relation to eternal generation.

[533]Philo applied the phrase “Son of God” to the world: cf. Keim,Celsus, 95.

[534]Justin,Dial. c. Tryph.61 A, cf. 62 E, προβληθὲν γέννημα; and Hipp.c. Noet.8, 10, 16; Tatian, c. 5; Irenæus ap. Schmid, p. 31.

[535]Justin,Dial. c Tryph.56 C, p. 180.

[536]Hipp. 9. 12; Callistus, while excommunicating the Sabellians (cf. Schmid, 48; Weing. 31), also called Hippolytus and his party ditheists. For Callistus’ own view, cf.ibid.9. 11. See Schmid, p, 50; also p. 45 for Praxeas ap. Tert.

[537]The Gnostic controversies in regard to the relation to God of the Powers who were intermediate between Him and the world, had helped to forge such intellectual instruments.

[538]Justin,c. Tryph.128: δυνάμει καὶ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ ἀλλ’ οὐ κατ’ ἀποτομὴν ὡς ἀπομεριζομένης τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας; cf. Plotinus ap. Harn.Dogm.493: κατὰ μερισμὸν οὐ κατ’ ἀποτομὴν in Tatian, 5, is different; cf. Hipp.c. Noet.10.

[539]Justin,Dial. c. Tryph.61 C, where the metaphor of “speech” is also employed.

[540]ap. Tert.c. Hermog.3.

[541]For metaphor of light, cf. Monoïmus ap. Hipp. 8. 12; also Tatian, c. 5.

[542]There is uncertainty as to eternal generation in Justin; see Engelhardt, p. 118. It is not in Hippolytus,c. Noet.10. Though implied in Irenæus (Harn. p. 495), it is in Origen that this solution attains clear expression, e.g.de princ.1. 2 ff., though his view is not throughout steady and uniform. Emanation seemed to him to imply division into parts. But he hovers between the Logos as thought and as substance. For Clement and Origen in this connection, see Harnack, pp. 579, 581.

[543]God unchangeable in Himself comes into contact with human affairs: τῇ προνοίᾳ καὶ τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ,c. Cels.4. 14. His Word changes according to the nature of the individuals into whom he comes,c. Cels.4. 18.

[544]Justin,Apol.i. 22. 23. 32,c. Try.5.

[545]ad Autolyc.ii. 22.

[546]He held that side by side with God existed, not ἐξουσία, but οὐσία, φύσις, ὑπόστασις: see Clem. Alex.Strom.5. 1.

[547]Cf. Harnack,Dogmeng.p. 580.

[548]οὐσία ἥ τε ὕλη καὶ τὸ εἶδος καὶ τὸ ἐκ τούτων,Metaph.6. 10, p. 1035a, “ousiais matter, form, and the compound of matter and form.”

[549]οὐσίαν δὲ θεοῦ Ζήνων μέν φησι τὸν ὅλον κόσμον καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Χρύσιππος ... καὶ Ποσειδώνιος, Diog. L. 7. 148: so in M. Anton. e.g. 4, 40, ἕν ζῶον τὸν κόσμον μίαν οὐσίαν καὶ ψυχὴν μίαν ἐπέχον, paraphrased in the well-known lines of Pope:“All are but parts of one stupendous Whole,Whose body Nature is, and God the soul.”

“All are but parts of one stupendous Whole,Whose body Nature is, and God the soul.”

“All are but parts of one stupendous Whole,

Whose body Nature is, and God the soul.”

[550]τῆς ζωτικῆς δυνάμεως,Quod det. pot. insid.25, i. 209.

[551]οὐσία δέ ἐστιν ἡ κυριώτατά τε καὶ πρώτως καὶ μάλιστα λεγομένη ἣ μήτε καθ’ ὑποκειμένου τινὸς λέγεται μήτε ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ τινί ἐστιν· οἷον ὁ τὶς ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὁ τὶς ἵππος,Categ.5, p. 2a: but in theMetaphysicsa different point of view is taken, and the term πρώτη οὐσία is used in the following sense, i.e. of the form, e.g. 6, 11, p. 1037.

[552]Frequently in theMetaphysics, e.g. 6. 7, p. 1032b, 7. 1, p. 1042a.

[553]Arist.Metaph.6. 11, p. 1037a.

[554]Ibid.12. 5, p. 1079b.

[555]e.g.Parmen.p. 132e. οὗ δ’ ἂν τὰ ὅμοια μετέχοντα ὅμοια ᾖ, οὐκ ἐκεῖνο ἔσται αὐτὸ τὸ εἶδος.

[556]οὐσία ἐστὶν ὄνομα κοινὸν καὶ ἀόριστον κατὰ πασῶν τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτὴν ὑποστάσεων ὁμοτίμως φερόμενον, καὶ συνωνύμως κατηγορούμενον, Suidas,s. v.

[557]νοητὰ ἄττα καὶ ἀσώματα εἴδη ... τὴν ἀληθινὴν οὐσίαν εἷναι· τὰ δὲ ἐκείνων σώματα ... γένεσιν ἀντ’ οὐσίας φερομένην τινὰ προσαγορεύουσι, Plat.Sophist.p. 246.

[558]e.g. it is stated by Celsus and adopted by Origen: Origen,c. Cels.7. 45 sq.

[559]ἡ οὐσία ἀνωτάτω οὖσα, τῷ μηδὲν εἶναι πρὸ αὐτῆς, γένος ἦν τὸ γενικώτατον, Porphyr.Eisag.2. 24.

[560]ἕκαστος μὲν ἡμῶν κατὰ μὲν τὸ σῶμα πόρρω ἂν εἴη οὐσίας, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ ὃ μάλιστα ἐσμὲν, μετέχομεν οὐσίας, καὶ ἐσμέν τις οὐσία. τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν οἷον σύνθετόν τι ἐκ διαφορᾶς καὶ οὐσίας, οὔκουν κυρίως οὐσία οὐδ’ αὐτοουσία· διὸ οὐδὲ κύριοι τῆς αὐτῶν οὐσίας, Plotin.Enn.6. 8. 12.

[561]Arist.Anal. post.2. 3, p. 90b;Top.5. 2, p. 130 b;Metaph.6. 4, p. 1030b.

[562]Sext. Empir.Pyrrh. Hypotyp.3. 1. 2.

[563]εἴ γε ὁμοούσιοι αἱ τῶν ζῴων ψυχαὶ ταῖς ἡμετέραις, Porphyr.de Abstin.1. 19.

[564]τοὺς πόδας ὡς ὁμοουσίων ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωποι ἔνιψαν,Clement. Hom.20. 7, p. 192.

[565]c. Cels.6. 64.

[566]e.g. in S. Athanas.ad Afr. episc.4, vol. i. 714.

[567]Dionys. Areop.de div. nom.5.

[568]Philo,Leg. Alleg.1. 30, vol. i. 62; cf.de post. Cain.8, vol. i. 229: there is a remarkable Christian application of this in a dialogue between a Christian and a Jew who was curious as to the Trinity, Hieronymi Theologi Græci,Dialogus de sancta Trinitate, in Gallandi,Vet. Patr. Bibl.vol. vii., reprinted in Migne,Patrol. Gr.vol. xl. 845.

[569]διῃρημένον ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς, Athan.ad Antioch., 3, vol. i. 616.

[570]Cf. Harnack, i. 191, 219, 476 sqq., 580. In the Valentinian system, the spiritual existence which Achamoth brought forth was of the same essence as herself, Iren. 1. 5. 1. In that of Basilides, the three-fold sonship which was in the seed which God made, was κατὰ πάντα τῷ οὐκ ὄντι θεῷ ὁμοούσιος, Hippolytus, 7. 22: so as regards τὸ ἓν in Epiphanes (Valentinian?), ap. Iren. 1. 11. 3 (Hipp. 6. 38), it συνυπάρχει τῇ μονότητι as δύναμις ὁμοούσιος αὐτῇ. Cf.Clem. Hom.20.7; Iren. ap. Harn. 481, “ejusdem substantiæ;” Tert.Apol.21, “ex unitate substantiæ;” Harn. 488, 491.

[571]It was expressly rejected at the Council of Antioch in connection with Paul of Samosata; and Basil,Ep.9, says that Dionysius of Alexandria gave it up because of its use by the Sabellians: cf.Ep.52 (300).

[572]It is found, e.g., in Athan.ad Afr. episc.4, vol. i. 714, ἡ γὰρ ὑπόστασις καὶ ἡ οὐσία ὕπαρξίς ἐστι. The distinction is found in Stoical writers, e.g. Chrysippus says that the present time ὑπάρχει, the past and future ὑφίστανται. Diels,Doxogr. Græci.462. 1.

[573]Diels,ibid.372; cf. 363, where it is contrasted with φαντασία.

[574]Sext. Empir. p. 192, § 226.

[575]Diels, 318.

[576]Ib. 469. 20: so κατὰ τὴν τῆς οὐσίας ὑπόστασιν, p. 469, 26.

[577]Epict. 1. 14. 2.

[578]Ath.Dial. de Trin.2: ἡ οὐσία τὴν κοινότητα σημαίνει, while ὑπόστασις ἰδιότητα ἔχει ἥτις οὔκ ἐστι κοινὴ τῶν τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας ὑποστάσεων. He elsewhere identifies it with πρόσωπον inAth. et Cyril. in Expos. orthod. fid.: ὑπόστασις ἐστιν οὐσία μετά τινων ἰδιωμάτων ἀριθμῷ τῶν ὁμοειδῶν διαφέρουσα· τουτέστι πρόσωπον ὁμοούσιον. Still the identity of the two terms was allowed even after they were tending to be differentiated: cf. Athan.ad Afr. Ep.4, vol. i. 714, ἡ δὲ ὑπόστασις οὐσία ἐστι καὶ οὐδὲν ἄλλο σημαινόμενον ἔχει ἢ αὐτὸ τὸ ὄν. Soad Antioch., 6. (i. 617), he tolerates the view that there was only one ὑπόστασις in the Godhead, on the ground that ὑπόστασις might be regarded as synonymous with οὐσία. Cf. objection at Council of Sardica, against three ὑποστάσεις in the Godhead, instead of one ὑπόστασις, of Father, Son and Spirit.

[579]Cf. Harn.Dogm.693.

[580]ἰδίαν ὑπόστασιν, Sext. Empir.de Pyrrh.2. 219.

[581]Ed. Kühn, 5. 662.

[582]Ep.210; Harn.Dogm.693.

[583]Cf. Quintilian, who ascribes it in turn to Plautus and to Sergius Flavius, 2. 14. 2; 3. 6. 23; 8. 3. 33: Seneca,Ep.58. 6, to Cicero, and more recently Fabianus. Forsubstantia, cf. Quint. 7. 2. 5, “nam et substantia ejus sub oculos cadit.”

[584]Cf. Harnack, 489, 543; for its use by Sabellius, &c., ib. 679; also Orig.de princ.1. 2. 8.

[585]E.g.Ath. et Cyr. in Expos. orth. fid., ὑπόστασις = πρόσωπον ὁμοούσιον. In Epictetus, 1. 2. 7, 14, 28, it denotes individuality of character, that which distinguishes one man from another.

[586]In Ath.ad. Ant.7. 25, ἡ τὰ ὅλα διοικοῦσα φύσις is distinguished from οὐσία τῶν ὅλων: so 7. 75, ἡ τοῦ ὅλου φύσις ἐπὶ τὴν κοσμοποιΐαν ώρμησεν. For φύσις in Philo, seeLeg. All.3. 30 (i. 105).

[587]Leontius of Byzantium says that both οὐσία and φύσις = εἶδος,Pat. Græc.lxxxvi. 1193.

[588]E.g.adv. Prax.2 (E. T. ii. 337), where he makes the distinctions within the œconomia of the Godhead to begradu,forma,specie, with a unity ofsubstantia,status,potestas; cf. Bp. Kaye, in E. T. ii. p. 407.

[589]De Sententia Dionys.18, quoted inDict. of Christ. Biog.under Homoousios.

[590]Thus the Roman Dionysius, in a fragment against the Sabellians (Routh,Reliq.iii. pp. 373, 374), objects to the division of the μοναρχία into τρεῖς δυνάμεις τινὰς καὶ μεμερισμέναςὑποστάσειςκαὶ θειότητας τρεῖς.

[591]ἀγνοούμενον ὑπὸ τῶν λαῶν, Athan.de Synod.8 (i. 577).

[592][As this summing up never underwent the author’s final revision, and the notes which follow stand in his MS. parallel with the corresponding portion of the Lecture as originally delivered, it has been thought well to place them here.—Ed.](1) The tendency to abstract has combined with the tendency to regard matter as evil or impure, in the production of a tendency to form rather a negative than a positive conception of God. The majority of formularies define God by negative terms, and yet they have claimed for conceptions which are negative a positive value.(2) We owe to Greek philosophy—to the hypothesis of the chasm between spirit and matter—the tendency to interpose powers between the Creator and His creation. It may be held that the attempt to solve the insoluble problem, how God, who is pure spirit, made and sustains us, has darkened the relations which it has attempted to explain by introducing abstract metaphysical conceptions.

(1) The tendency to abstract has combined with the tendency to regard matter as evil or impure, in the production of a tendency to form rather a negative than a positive conception of God. The majority of formularies define God by negative terms, and yet they have claimed for conceptions which are negative a positive value.

(2) We owe to Greek philosophy—to the hypothesis of the chasm between spirit and matter—the tendency to interpose powers between the Creator and His creation. It may be held that the attempt to solve the insoluble problem, how God, who is pure spirit, made and sustains us, has darkened the relations which it has attempted to explain by introducing abstract metaphysical conceptions.

[593]It may be noted that even in the later Greek philosophy there was a view, apparently identical with that of Bishop Berkeley, that matter or substance merely represented the sum of the qualities. Origen,de Princ.4. 1. 34.

[594]These Lectures are the history of a genesis: it would otherwise have been interesting to show in how many points theories which have been thought out in modern times revive theories of the remote past of Christian antiquity.

[595]For what follows, reference in general may be made to Keil,Attische Culte aus Inschriften, Philologus, Bd. xxiii. 212-259, 592-622: and Weingarten,Histor. Zeitschrift, Bd. xlv. 1881, p. 441 sqq. as well as to the authorities cited in the notes.

[596]Foucart,Le culte de Pluton dans la religion éleusinienne, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 1883, pp. 401 sqq.

[597]The successive stages or acts of initiation are variously described and enumerated, but there were at least four: κάθαρσις—the preparatory purification; σύστασις—the initiatory rites and sacrifices; τελετὴ or μύησις—the prior initiation; and ἐποπτεία, the higher or greater initiation, which admitted to the παράδοσις τῶν ἱερῶν, or holiest act of the ritual. Cf. Lobeck,Aglaoph.pp. 39 ff.

[598]An interesting inscription has recently come to light, which shows that the public slaves of the city were initiated at the public expense. Foucart, l.c. p. 394.

[599]Cf. Origen,c. Cels.3. 59.

[600]Philostratus,Vita Apoll.4. 18, p. 138.

[601]Alex.38.

[602]Cf. Lobeck,Aglaoph.pp. 39 ff. and 89 ff.; Welcker,Griech. Götterl.ii. 530-532. “The first and most important condition required of those who would enter the temple at Lindus is that they be pure in heart and not conscious of any crime.”—Professor W. M. Ramsay inEncy. Brit.s. v. “Mysteries.” For purification before admission to the worship of a temple, see, inC.I.A.iii. Pt. i. 73. 74, instances of regulation prescribed at the temple of Mên Tyrannus at Laurium in Attica, e.g. μηθένα ἀκάθαρτον προσάγειν, various periods of purification being specified. Cf. Reinach,Traité d’Épigr. Grecque, p. 133, on the inscr. of Andania in Messenia,B.C.91; the mysteries of the Cabiri in Le Bas and Foucart,Inscr. du Peloponnèse, ii. § 5, p. 161; and Sauppe,die Mysterieninschr. von Andania.

[603]Tertullian,de Baptismo, 5, “Nam et sacris quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur ... ipsos etiam deos suos lavationibus efferunt;” Clem. Alex.Strom.Bk. 5. 4: “The mysteries are not exhibited incontinently to all, but only after certain purifications and previous instructions.”Ibid.5. 11: “It is not without reason that in the mysteries that obtain among the Greeks,lustrations hold the first place, as also the laver among the Barbarians. After these are the minor mysteries, which have some foundation of instruction and of preliminary preparation for what is to come after; and the great mysteries, in which nothing remains to be learned of the universe, but only to contemplate and comprehend nature and things.” We have thus a sort of baptism and catechumenate.

[604]The fast lasted nine days, and during it certain kinds of food were wholly forbidden. Cf. Lobeck,Aglaoph.pp. 189-197.

[605]There was a lesser and a greater initiation: “It is a regulation of law that those who have been admitted to the lesser should again be initiated into the greater mysteries.” Hippol. 5, 8: see the whole chapter, as also cc. 9, 20.

[606]Cf. Clem. Alex.Protrept.12: “O truly sacred mysteries! O stainless light! My way is lighted with torches and I survey the heavens and God: I am become holy whilst I am initiated. The Lord is the hierophant, and seals while illuminating him who is initiated,” &c. Ib. 2: “Their (Demeter’s and Proserpine’s) wanderings, and seizure, and grief, Eleusis celebrates by torchlight processions;” and again p. 32. So Ælius Aristid. i. p. 454 (ed. Canter), τὰς φωσφόρους νύκτας.

[607]“I have fasted, I have drunk the cup,” &c. Clem. Alex.Protrept.2.

[608]Cf. Ælius Aristid. i. 454, on the burning of the temple at Eleusis. The gain of the festival was not for this life only, but that hereafter they would not lie in darkness and mire like the uninitiated.

[609]Fragm. ap. Stob.Florileg.120. Lenormant,Cont. Rev.Sept. 1880, p. 430.

[610]Synes.Orat.p. 48 (ed. Petav.), οὐ μαθεῖν τι δεῖν ἀλλὰ παθεῖν καὶ διατεθῆναι γενομένους δηλονότι ἐπιτηδείους. But the μυσταγωγοὶ possibly gave some private instruction to the groups of μύσται who were committed to them.

[611]Cf. Lenormant,Cont. Rev.Sept. 1880, p. 414 sq.

[612]Soph.frag.719, ed. Dind.: so in effect Pindar,frag. thren.8; Cic.Legg.2. 14. 36; Plato,Gorg.p. 493 B,Phædo.69 C (the lot of the uninitiated). They were bound to make their life on earth correspond to their initiation; see Lenormant,ut sup.p. 429 sqq. In later times it was supposed actually to make them better; Sopatros in Walz,Rhet. Gr.viii. 114.

[613]See Garrucci,Les Mystères du Syncretisme Phrygien dans les Catacombes Romaines de Prætextat, Paris, 1854.

[614]There was a further and larger process before a man was τέλειος. Tert.adv. Valent.c. 1, says that it took five years to become τέλειος.

Back to Index Next