Chapter 25

[615]The most elaborate account is that of the Arval feast at Rome: cf. Henzen,Acta fratrum Arvalium.[616]μύσται is used of members of a religious association at Teos (Inscr. inBullet. de Corresp. Hellénique, 1880, p. 164), and of the Roman Monarchians in Epiph. 55. 8; cf. Harnack,Dogm.628.[617]Clem. Alex.Protrep.2; Hippol. 1,proœm.Cf. Philo,de sacrif.12 (ii. 260), τί γὰρ εἰ καλὰ ταῦτ’ ἐστὶν ὦ μύσται κ.τ.λ.[618]They also had the same sanction—the fear offuture punishments, cf. Celsus in Orig. 8. 48. Origen does not controvert this statement, but appeals to the greater moral effect of Christianity as an argument for its truth. They possibly also communicated divine knowledge. There is an inscription of Dionysiac artists at Nysa, of the time of the Antonines, in honour of one who was θεολόγος of the temples at Pergamos, as θαυμαστὸν θεολόγον and τῶν ἀπορρήτων μύστην.Bull. de Corr. Hellén.1885, p. 124, 1. 4; cf. Porphyry in Eusebius,Præp. Ev.5. 14.[619]This revival had many forms, cf. Harnack,Dogm.p. 101.[620]Similar practices existed in the Church and in the new religions which were growing up. Justin Martyr speaks of the way in which, under the inspiration of demons, the supper had been imitated in the Mithraic mysteries: ὅπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Μίθρα μυστηρίοις παρέδωκαν γίνεσθαι μιμησάμενοι οἱ πονηροὶ δαίμονες:Apol.1. 66. Tertullian points to the fact as an instance of the power of the devil (de præsc. hær.40): “qui ipsas quoque res sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis æmulatur.” He specifies, inter alia, “expositionem delictorum de lavacro repromittit ... celebrat et panis oblationem.” Celsus, too, speaks of the μυστήρια and the τελεταὶ of Mithras and others: Orig.c. Cels.6. 22.[621]The objection which Celsus makes (c. Cels.1. 1; Keim, p. 3) to the secrecy of the Christian associations would hardly have held good in the apostolic age. Origen admits (c. Cels.1. 7) that there are exoteric and esoteric doctrines in Christianity, and justifies it by (1) the philosophies, (2) the mysteries. On the rise of this conception of Christian teaching as something to be hidden from the mass, cf. the Valentinians in Tert.c. Valent.1, where there is a direct parallel drawn between them and the mysteries: also the distinction of men into two classes—πνευματικοὶ and ψυχικοὶ or ὑλικοί—among the Gnostics: Harn.Dogm.222, cf. Hipp. 1,proœm., p. 4, who condemns τὰ ἀπόρρητα μυστήρια of the heretics, adding, καὶ τότε δοκιμάσαντες δέσμιον εἶναι τῆς ἁμαρτίας μυοῦσι τὸ τέλειον τῶν κακῶν παραδιδόντες, ὅρκοις δήσαντες μήτε ἐξειπεῖν μήτε τῷ τυχόντι μεταδοῦναι κ.τ.λ. Yet this very secrecy was naturalized in the Church. Cf. Cyril Hier.Catech.vi. 30; Aug. inPsalmciii.,Hom.xcvi. inJoan.; Theodoret,Quæst.xv.in Num., andDial.ii. (Inconfusus); Chry.Hom.xix.in Matt.Sozomen’s (1. 20. 3) reason for not giving the Nicene Creed is significant alike as regards motive and language: εὐσεβῶν δὲ φίλων καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐπιστημόνων, οἷα δὲ μύσταις καὶ μυσταγωγοῖς μόνοις δέον τάδε λέγειν καὶ ἀκούειν ὑφηγουμένων, ἐπῄνεσα τὴν βουλήν· οὐ γὰρ ἀπεικὸς καὶ τῶν ἀμυήτων τινὰς τῇδε τῇ βίβλῳ ἐντυχεῖν.[622]Acts ii, 38, 41; viii. 12, 13, 36, 38; x. 47, 48; xvi. 15, 33; xviii. 8; xix. 5.[623]c. 7.[624]Apol.1. 61; cf. Otto, vol. i. p. 146, n. 14; Engelhardt, p. 102.[625]Clem. Alex.Pædag.1. 6; Can. Laod. 47, Bruns, p. 78; Greg. Naz.Orat.xl. pp. 638, 639. Hence οἱ φωτιζόμενοι = those being prepared for baptism, οἱ φωτισθέντες = the baptized. Cf. Cyr. Hier.Catech.13. 21, p. 193et passim.[626]Lobeck,Aglaoph.p. 36, cf. 31 ff.[627]Apol.8: talia initiatus et consignatus = μεμυημένος καὶ ἐσφραγίσμενος. See Otto, vol. i. p. 141; cf.ad Valent.1.[628]For the seal in baptism, cf. Clem. Al.Strom.2. 3;Quis dives, 42, ap. Euseb.Hist.3. 23; Euseb.Vita Const.1. 4. 62; Cyr. Hier.Catech.5; Greg. Naz.Orat.40, p. 639; Orig.c. Cels.6. 27. For the use of imagery and the terms relating to sealing—illumination—initiation—from the mysteries, Clem. Al.Protrep.12. The effect of baptism is illumination, perfection,Pædag.1. 6; hence sins before and after baptism, i.e. enlightenment, are different,Strom.2. 13. Early instances of σφραγὶς are collected in Gebhardt on 2 Clem. pp. 168, 169; cf. also Cyr. Hier.Catech.18. 33, p. 301.[629]Greg. Naz.Orat.39, p. 632; Chrys.Hom.85in Joan.xix. 34; Sozomen, ii. 8, 6.[630]Sozomen, i. 3. 5.[631]Dion. Areop.Eccles. Hierar.3, p. 242.[632]Clem. Alex.Pædag.1. 6, p. 93; Athan.Cont. Ar.3, p. 413 C.; Greg. Naz.Orat.40, p. 648; Dion. Areop.Eccles. Hier.3, 242.[633]Chrys.Hom.99, vol. v.; Theod.in Cantic.1.[634]Dion. Areop.Eccles. Hier.1. 1;Mys. Theol.1. 1.[635]Chrys.Hom.1in Act.p. 615;Hom.21ad popul. Antioch; Sozomen, ii. 17. 9.[636]Sozomen, i. 3. 5; ii. 7. 8; iv. 20. 3; vi. 38. 15; vii 8. 7,et passim. These examples do not by any means exhaust or even adequately represent the obligations in the sphere of language, and of the ideas it at once denotes and connotes, which the ecclesiastical theory and practice of baptism lies under to the mysteries; but they may help to indicate the degree and nature of the obligation.[637]For the sphere of the influence of the mysteries on the language and imagery of the New Testament, see 1 Cor. ii. 6 ff.; cf. Heb. vi. 4.[638]Apost. Const.8. 32. Cf. passages quoted from Clem. Alex. and others,supra,p. 287, note 1;p. 295, notes 2and5. See Bingham, vol. iii. pp. 443-446.[639]De præsc. hær.41. Cf. Epiphan. 41. 3;Apost. Const.8. 12.[640]ἃ οὐδὲ ἐποπτεύειν ἔξεστι τοῖς ἀμυήτοις,de Spir. Sanct.27; cf. Orig.c. Cels.3. 59ad fin.and 60, e.g. “then and not before do we invite them to participation in our mysteries,” and “initiating those already purified into the sacred mysteries.” Cf.Dict. Christian Antiquities, s. v.Disciplina Arcani.[641]Seep. 293, note 1; alsoDict. Christian Antiquities, s. vv.Baptism,Catechumens, especially p. 318, andCreed.[642]Histoire de l’église d’Alexandrie, p. 12: Paris, 1677.[643]De baptismo Christi, 4. ii. 374, τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρόντος, τῶν ἀγγέλων παρεστώτων, τῆς φρικτῆς ταύτης τραπέζης προκειμένης, τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου μυσταγωγουμένων ἔτι. Cyril,Præfatio ad Catech.15.[644]Mabillon.Com. præv. ad. ord. Rom.;Museum Ital.II. xcix.[645]It was one of the points to which the Greeks objected in the discussions of the ninth century.[646]c. 9.[647]Bk. ii. 57, p. 87; cf. viii. 5, p. 239, lines 18, 19.[648]viii. 11. 12, p. 248.[649]Origen,c. Cels.3. 59. Persons who have partaken of the Eucharist are οἱ τελεσθέντες (Chrys.de compunct. ad Demet.1. 6. i. p. 132), and οἱ μεμυημένοι (id.Hom.vi.de beat. Phil.c. 3. i. p. 498, and inEp. ad Hebr.cap. x.,Hom.xvii. 4, vol. xii. 169). Degrees and distinctions came to be recognized within the circle of the very initiated themselves,Apost. Const.vii. 44, viii. 13.[650]The earlier offerings were those of Irenæus, 4. 17. 5, where he speaks of Christ “suis discipulis dans consilium, primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis;” and again the Church offers “primitias suorum munerum in Novo Testamento ei qui alimenta nobis præstat.” The table in the heathen temple was important; upon it were placed the offerings: Th. Homolle inBulletin de Corresp. Hellén.1881, p. 118. For the Eucharist itself as a mystery, cf. φρικωδεστάτη τελετὴ, Chrys.de sacerdot.3. 4, vol. i. 382. He argues for silence on the ground that they are mysteries,de bapt. Christ.4. ii. 375. Cf. Greg. Naz.Orat.44, p. 713; Conc. Laod. 7, Bruns, p. 74.[651]Found in Chrys. e.g.Hom. in Ep.ii.ad Corinth.v. c. 3, vol. x. 470: τοιαύτῃ τὸ θυσιαστήριον ἐκεῖνο φοινίσσεται σφαγῇ.[652]Ad Ephes.5; see Lightfoot’s note. Cf.Trall.7;Philad.4;Mag.7;Rom.2.[653]Ap. Const.ii. 57, p. 88. But see for θυσιαστήριον in a highly figurative sense, iii. 6, iv. 3.[654]H. E.x. 4, 44.[655]Isid. Pelus.Epist.3. 340, p. 390, προσῆλθε μὲν τῷ σεπτῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ τῶν θείων μυστηρίων μεταληψόμενος; also 4. 181, p. 516, τὰ θεῖα μῂ διδόσθαι μυστήρια. Cf. Chrys.de comp. ad Demet.1. 6, vol. i. p. 131; Theodoret,dial.2, vol. iv. 125. There was a sacred formula. Basil says that no saint has written down the formula of consecration:de Spir. Sancto, 66, vol. iv. pp. 54, 55. After saying that some doctrines and usages of the Church have come down in writing, τὰ δὲ ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων παραδόσεως διαδοθέντα ἡμῖν ἐν μυστηρίῳ παρεδεξάμεθα, he instances the words of the Eucharistic invocation as among the later; τὰ τῆς ἐπικλήσεως ῥήματα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναδείξει τοῦ ἄρτου τῆς ἐυχαριστίας καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου τῆς ἐυλογίας τίς τῶν ἁγίων ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν.[656]In Dionysius Areop. (s. v. ἱεράρχης, ed. Corderius, i. 839), the bishops are τελεσταί, ἱεροτελεσταί, τελεστάρχαι, μυσταγωγοί, τελεστουργοί, τελεστικοί; the priests are φωτιστικοί; the deacons, καθαρτικοί; the Eucharist is ἱεροτελεστικωτάτη (c. 4). The deacon, ἀποκαθαίρει τοὺς ἀτελέστους (c. 5, § 3, p. 233), i.e. dips them in the water; the priest, φωταγωγεῖ τοὺς καθαρθέντας, i.e. leads the baptized by the hand into the church; the bishop, ἀποτελειοῖ τοὺς τῷ θείῳ φωτὶ κεκοινωνηκότας.[657]Dion. Areop.Eccles. Hier.c. 3, par. 1, §§ 1, 2, pp. 187, 188.[658]For in the decree mentioned in a previous note (p. 292, n. 2), among other honours to T. Ælius Alcibiades, he is to be πρῶτον τοῖς διπτύχοις ἐνγραφόμενον.[659]Cf. for the use of lights in worship, the money accounts, from a Berlin papyrus, of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus at Arsinoê,A.D.215, in Hermes, Bd. xx. p. 430.[660]Adv. Valent.1. Hippolytus (1,proœm; 5. 23, 24) says the heretics had mysteries which they disclosed to the initiated only after long preparation, and with an oath not to divulge them: so the Naassenes, 5. 8, and the Peratæ, 5. 17 (ad fin.), whose mysteries “are delivered in silence.” The Justinians had an oath of secrecy before proceeding to behold “what eye hath not seen” and “drinking from the living water,” 5. 27.[661]E.g. Marcus, in connection with initiation into the higher mysteries Hipp. 6. 41, and the Elkasaites as cleansing from gross sin, 9. 15.[662]Eus.H.E.iv. 7.[663]Hipp. 5. 27, of the Justinians. Cf. Hilgenfeld,Ketzergesch.p. 270.[664]For the Eastern custom, see Cyril Hier.Catech. Myst.ii. 3, 4, p. 312: the candidate is anointed all overbeforebaptism with exorcised oil, which, by invocation of God and prayer, purifies from the burning traces of sin, but also puts to flight the invisible powers of the evil one. Cf.Apost. Const.vii. 22, 41, iii. 15, 16; theCoptic Constitutions, c. 46 (ed. Tattam), cf. Boetticher’s Gr. translation in Bunsen’sAnal. Ante-Nic.ii 467;Clem. Recog.3. 67; Chrys.Hom.6. 4,in Ep. ad Col.xi. 342, ἀλείφεται ὥσπερ οἱ ἀθληταὶ εἰς στάδιον ἐμβησόμενοι, here also before baptism and all over; Dionys. Areop.Eccles. Hier.2. 7; Basil,de Spir. Sanct.66, vol. iv. 55. For earlier Western as distinct from Eastern thought on the subject, cf. Tert.de bapt.6 and 7;de resurr. carnis.8;adv. Marc.i. 14; Cyprian,Ep.70. For the later Western usage, introduced from the East, seeConc. Rom.402, c. 8, ed. Bruns. pt. ii. 278;Ordo6,ad fac. Catech.in Martène,de ant. eccl. rit.i. p. 17; Theodulfus Aurel.de ord. bapt.10; unction of the region of the heart before and behind, symbolizing the Holy Spirit’s unction with a view to both prosperity and adversity (Sirmond, vol. ii. 686); Isid. Hisp.de off. eccl.2. 21; Catechumensexorcizantur, sales accipiunt et unguntur, the salt being madeut eorum gustu condimentum sapientiæ percipiant, neque desipiant a sapore Christi(Migne, lxxxiii. col. 814, 815); Cæs. Arelat.serm.22.[665]Apol.1. 66.[666]ap. Hipp. 6. 39.[667]Tert.ad Scap.2, holds that sacrifice may consist of simple prayer.[668]Cf. Celsus’ idea of faith: Orig.c. Cels.3. 39; Keim, p. 39.[669]Philo’s view of faith is well expressed in two striking passages,Quis rer. div. Heres, 18, i. 485; andde Abrah.46, ii. 39.[670]Cf. “He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that seek Him,” Heb. xi. 6; and “He that is of God heareth God’s words,” John viii. 47.[671]It was one of Celsus’ objections to Christianity that its preachers laid more stress on belief than on the intellectual grounds of belief: Orig.c. Cels.1. 9. Origen’s answer, which is characteristic rather of his own time than expressive of the belief of the apostolic age, is that this was necessary for the mass of men, who have no leisure or inclination for deep investigation (1. 10), and in order not to leave men altogether without help (1. 12).[672]E.g. Rom. vi. 17, εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς; 2 John, 9, ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ; 2 Tim. i. 13, ὑποτύπωσιν ἔχε ὑγιαινόντων λόγων ὧν παρ’ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσας; 1 Tim. vi. 12, ὡμολόγησας τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν; Jude 3, ἡ ἅπαξ παραδοθεῖσα τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστις. Polycrates, ap. Eus.H. E.5. 24, ὁ κανὼν τῆς πίστεως: see passages collected in Gebhardt and Harnack’sPatres Apost.Bd. i. th. 2 (Barnabas), p. 133.[673]Cf. Schmid,Dogmeng.p. 14, Das Taufsymbol.[674]c. 7. 4.[675]See Acts viii. 16, xix. 5, with which compare Rom. vi. 1-11, Acts xxii. 16.Didaché, 9. 5, οἱ βαπτισθέντες εἰς ὄνομα Κυρίου; andApost. Const.Bk. ii. 7, p. 20, οἱ βαπτισθέντες εἰς τὸν θάνατον τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ οὐκ ὀφείλουσιν ἁμαρτάνειν οἱ τοιοῦτοι· ὡς γὰρ οἱ ἀποθανόντες ἀνενέργητοι πρὸς ἁμαρτίαν ὑπάρχουσιν, οὕτως καὶ οἱ συναποθανόντες τῷ Χριστῷ ἄπρακτοι πρὸς ἁμαρτίαν; cf. 148, 7, and elsewhere, in composite form. Against this Cyprian wrote, inEp.73,ad Jubaianum, 16-18; cf. Harnack,Dogmeng.176.[676]Cf. von Engelhardt,Das Christenthum Justins, p. 107.[677]Cf. Harnack,Dogmeng.p. 130 ff.[678]Cf. Clement’s account of Basilides’ conception of faith in contrast to his own,Strom.5. 1.[679]Orig.c. Cels.5. 65.[680]Cf. Ptolemæusad Floram, c. 7, ed. Pet.[681]See instances in Harn.Dogm.p. 134.[682]Thus Basilides, ap. Hippol. 7. 20, preferred to follow a tradition from Matthias, who was said to have been specially instructed by the Saviour. The Naassenes, ib. 10. 9, traced their doctrine to James, the Brother of the Lord. Valentinus, Clem. Alex.Strom.7. 17, was said to be a hearer of Theudas, who was a pupil of Paul. Hippol. 1,proœm, argued against all heretics that they had taken nothing from Holy Scripture, and had not preserved the τινος ἁγίου διαδοχήν. Cf. Tert.c. Marc.1. 21. But see the very remarkable statement of Origen as to the cause of heresies,c. Cels.3. 12; cf. Clem. Al.Strom.7. 17.[683]Cf. Clem. Alex.Strom.7. 17, μία ... παράδοσις, and the contention of Tert.de præsc. hær.32, Sicut apostoli non diversa inter se docuissent, ita et apostolici non contraria apostolis edidissent; Harnack, pp. 183 ff., especially note 2, pp. 134-136. Eusebius,H. E.4. 7, mentions that very many contemporary church writers had written in behalf τῆς ἀποστολικῆς καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικῆς δόξης, against Basilides, especially Agrippa Castor.[684]Adamantius (Origen, ed. Delarue, i. 809) says that the Marcionites had ἐπισκόπων, μᾶλλον δὲ ψευδεπισκόπων διαδοχαί.[685]For the παράδοσις ἐκκλησιαστική, especially of “ecclesiæ apostolicæ,” cf. Tert.de præsc. hær.cc. 21. 36; Iren. 3. 1-3; Orig.de princ.;præf.2: for the κανὼν τῆς πίστεως, Iren. 1. 9. 4; Tert.adv. Marc.1. 21 (regula sacramenti);de Virg. vel.1;adv. Prax.2;de præsc. hær.cc. 3. 12. 42;de monog.2. In general, see Weingarten,Zeittafeln, s. 17. 19.[686]De præsc. hær.cc. 25. 26.[687]4. 20.[688]See Overbeck,die Anfänge der patrist. Literatur, in theHist. Zeitschrift, N.F. Bd. xii. 417-472.[689]Cf. Hegesippus, ap. Eus.H.E.4. 22. 3, ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει οὕτως ἔχει ὡς ὁ νόμος κηρύσσει καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ Κύριος, for this practical co-ordination; see Gebhardt and Harnack on 2 Clement, p. 132, for examples; also Harnack,Dogm.131.[690]Cf. Weingarten,Zeittafeln, p. 19, where he cites the Muratorian fragment, Origen (ap. Eus.H.E.6. 25), and Athanasius, in the last of whom he traces the first use of the term “canon” in our sense. But we must carefully distinguish theideaof a canon and thecontentsof the canon. It is uncertain whence the idea of a canon of Scripture came, whether from the ecclesiastical party or from the Gnostics; and if from the latter, whether it was from Basilides, or Valentinus, or Marcion. Most likely the last. Harnack,Dogm.215 ff.; cf. 237-240 for Marcion as the first Biblical critic.[691]Harnack, pp. 317 f.[692]Tertullian, though in his treatisede præsc. hær.he abandons argument with the Gnostics, yet in hisadv. Marc.1. 22, relaxes that line of argument, and enters into formal discussion.[693]c. 2.[694]Tert.de præscr. hær.cc. 8, 18.[695]Theories were framed as to the relation of γνῶσις and πίστις; e.g. the former was conceived to relate to the Spirit, the latter to the Son, which Clem. Alex. denies (Strom.5. 1).[696]See Harnack, 549.[697]Adv. Prax.3.[698]Which had been the contention of the heretics whom Tertullian opposed:de præsc. hær.cc. 16, 17.[699]Origen (de princ.,præf.3) follows in the line of those who rested upon apostolic teaching, but gives a foothold for philosophy by saying (1) that the Apostles left the grounds of their statements to be investigated; (2) that they affirmed the existence of many things without stating the manner and origin of their existence.[700]Valentinus accepted the whole canon (integro instrumento), and the most important work of Basilides was a commentary on the Gospel: Tert.de præsc. hær.38.[701]Tert.de præsc. hær.18. It is important to contrast the arguments of Tertullian with those of Clement of Alexandria, and of both with the practice which circumstances rendered necessary. InStrom.7. 16 and 17, Clement makes Scripture the criterion between the Church and the heretics, though he assumes that all orthodox teaching is apostolic and uniform.[702]The combination is first found inApost. Const.Bk. ii. pp. 14, 10. 16, 25. 51. 17, 20. 58, 22.[703]Routh,Rel. Sacr.iii. p. 290; Harnack, p. 644.[704]Cf. the definitions of faith in Clem. Al.Strom.2. cc. 2 and 3.[705]αἵρεσις is used in Clem. Al.Strom.7. 15, of the true system of Christian doctrine: ἡ τῷ ὄντι ἀρίστη αἵρεσις: as in Sext. Empir. (Pyrrh.p. 13, § 16) it meant only adherence to a system of dogmas (no standard implied).[706]Ad Scap.2.[707]Philosophers had abused each other. Theologians followed in their track. The “cart-loads of abuse they emptied upon one another” (ὅλας ἁμάξας βλασφημιῶν κατεσκέδασαν ἀλλήλων, Lucian,Eunuch.2) are paralleled in, e.g. Gregory of Nyssa.[708]SeeLecture V. p. 135.[709]Socrates,H. E.p. 177, ἕνασις τοῦ σώματος, of the corporate unity of a philosophical school.[710]Didaché, cc. 1-3.[711]Apost. Const.p. 1. 15-17.[712]Ib.5. 20-22.[713]Ib.1. 6.[714]“We Christians are remarkable,” says Tertullian (Ad Scap.2), “only for the reformation of our former vices.” The plea of the Apologists was based on the fact that the Christians led blameless lives:de causâ innocentiæ consistam, Tert.Apol.c. 4.[715]The Elchasaites, ap.Hipp.9. 15.[716]Weingarten,Zeittafeln, p. 12. See also Lightfoot,Ignatius, vol. ii. pp. 310-312.[717]Weingarten, p. 17.[718]Eusebius,H. E.4. 22, 4.[719]The very terms heresy and heterodox bear witness to the action of the Greek philosophical schools on the Christian Church: αἵρεσις is used in Sext. Empir.Pyrrh.p. 13, of any system of dogmas, or the principle which is distinctive of a philosophical school: cf. Diels,Doxogr. Gr.pp. 276, 573, 388. In Clem. Alex.Strom.7. 15, it is used to denote the orthodox system. Ἑτεροδόξους is used of the dogmatics from point of view of a sceptic: Sext. Empir.adv. Math.p. 771, § 40. Josephus uses it of the men of the other schools or parties as distinguished from the Essenes,de Bell. Jud.2. 8. 5. For the place of opinion in Gnostic societies, with its curious counterpart in laxity of discipline, see Tert.de præsc.42-44. He speaks of the Valentinians,adv. Val., as “frequentissimum plane collegium inter hæreticos.” Cf. Harnack, 190 ff., also 211. The very cultivation of theGnosismeans the supremacy of the intellect.[720]Tertullian,de Spectaculis, c. 4. If γνῶσις was important as an element in salvation side by side with πίστις—or if πίστις included γνῶσις—then also the rejection of the right faith was a bar to salvation: hence heresy was regarded as involving eternal death: Tert.de præsc.2.[721]Tert.de Spect.c. 4.[722]διδαχή, here expressly used of the moral precepts in c. 2. 1.[723]c. 11. 1, 2.[724]c. 11. 8, 10; cf. Herm.Mand.11. 7 and 16.[725]c. 12. 1, 3-5.[726]Thejura, i.e. thecommunicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et contesseratio hospitalitatis, were controlled (regit) by the tradition of the creed (unius sacramenti traditio), Tert.de præsc.20.[727]Communicamus cum ecclesiis apostolicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa; hoc est testimonium veritatis, Tert.ibid.21.[728]Lect. vi. p. 164 sq.

[615]The most elaborate account is that of the Arval feast at Rome: cf. Henzen,Acta fratrum Arvalium.

[616]μύσται is used of members of a religious association at Teos (Inscr. inBullet. de Corresp. Hellénique, 1880, p. 164), and of the Roman Monarchians in Epiph. 55. 8; cf. Harnack,Dogm.628.

[617]Clem. Alex.Protrep.2; Hippol. 1,proœm.Cf. Philo,de sacrif.12 (ii. 260), τί γὰρ εἰ καλὰ ταῦτ’ ἐστὶν ὦ μύσται κ.τ.λ.

[618]They also had the same sanction—the fear offuture punishments, cf. Celsus in Orig. 8. 48. Origen does not controvert this statement, but appeals to the greater moral effect of Christianity as an argument for its truth. They possibly also communicated divine knowledge. There is an inscription of Dionysiac artists at Nysa, of the time of the Antonines, in honour of one who was θεολόγος of the temples at Pergamos, as θαυμαστὸν θεολόγον and τῶν ἀπορρήτων μύστην.Bull. de Corr. Hellén.1885, p. 124, 1. 4; cf. Porphyry in Eusebius,Præp. Ev.5. 14.

[619]This revival had many forms, cf. Harnack,Dogm.p. 101.

[620]Similar practices existed in the Church and in the new religions which were growing up. Justin Martyr speaks of the way in which, under the inspiration of demons, the supper had been imitated in the Mithraic mysteries: ὅπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Μίθρα μυστηρίοις παρέδωκαν γίνεσθαι μιμησάμενοι οἱ πονηροὶ δαίμονες:Apol.1. 66. Tertullian points to the fact as an instance of the power of the devil (de præsc. hær.40): “qui ipsas quoque res sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis æmulatur.” He specifies, inter alia, “expositionem delictorum de lavacro repromittit ... celebrat et panis oblationem.” Celsus, too, speaks of the μυστήρια and the τελεταὶ of Mithras and others: Orig.c. Cels.6. 22.

[621]The objection which Celsus makes (c. Cels.1. 1; Keim, p. 3) to the secrecy of the Christian associations would hardly have held good in the apostolic age. Origen admits (c. Cels.1. 7) that there are exoteric and esoteric doctrines in Christianity, and justifies it by (1) the philosophies, (2) the mysteries. On the rise of this conception of Christian teaching as something to be hidden from the mass, cf. the Valentinians in Tert.c. Valent.1, where there is a direct parallel drawn between them and the mysteries: also the distinction of men into two classes—πνευματικοὶ and ψυχικοὶ or ὑλικοί—among the Gnostics: Harn.Dogm.222, cf. Hipp. 1,proœm., p. 4, who condemns τὰ ἀπόρρητα μυστήρια of the heretics, adding, καὶ τότε δοκιμάσαντες δέσμιον εἶναι τῆς ἁμαρτίας μυοῦσι τὸ τέλειον τῶν κακῶν παραδιδόντες, ὅρκοις δήσαντες μήτε ἐξειπεῖν μήτε τῷ τυχόντι μεταδοῦναι κ.τ.λ. Yet this very secrecy was naturalized in the Church. Cf. Cyril Hier.Catech.vi. 30; Aug. inPsalmciii.,Hom.xcvi. inJoan.; Theodoret,Quæst.xv.in Num., andDial.ii. (Inconfusus); Chry.Hom.xix.in Matt.Sozomen’s (1. 20. 3) reason for not giving the Nicene Creed is significant alike as regards motive and language: εὐσεβῶν δὲ φίλων καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐπιστημόνων, οἷα δὲ μύσταις καὶ μυσταγωγοῖς μόνοις δέον τάδε λέγειν καὶ ἀκούειν ὑφηγουμένων, ἐπῄνεσα τὴν βουλήν· οὐ γὰρ ἀπεικὸς καὶ τῶν ἀμυήτων τινὰς τῇδε τῇ βίβλῳ ἐντυχεῖν.

[622]Acts ii, 38, 41; viii. 12, 13, 36, 38; x. 47, 48; xvi. 15, 33; xviii. 8; xix. 5.

[623]c. 7.

[624]Apol.1. 61; cf. Otto, vol. i. p. 146, n. 14; Engelhardt, p. 102.

[625]Clem. Alex.Pædag.1. 6; Can. Laod. 47, Bruns, p. 78; Greg. Naz.Orat.xl. pp. 638, 639. Hence οἱ φωτιζόμενοι = those being prepared for baptism, οἱ φωτισθέντες = the baptized. Cf. Cyr. Hier.Catech.13. 21, p. 193et passim.

[626]Lobeck,Aglaoph.p. 36, cf. 31 ff.

[627]Apol.8: talia initiatus et consignatus = μεμυημένος καὶ ἐσφραγίσμενος. See Otto, vol. i. p. 141; cf.ad Valent.1.

[628]For the seal in baptism, cf. Clem. Al.Strom.2. 3;Quis dives, 42, ap. Euseb.Hist.3. 23; Euseb.Vita Const.1. 4. 62; Cyr. Hier.Catech.5; Greg. Naz.Orat.40, p. 639; Orig.c. Cels.6. 27. For the use of imagery and the terms relating to sealing—illumination—initiation—from the mysteries, Clem. Al.Protrep.12. The effect of baptism is illumination, perfection,Pædag.1. 6; hence sins before and after baptism, i.e. enlightenment, are different,Strom.2. 13. Early instances of σφραγὶς are collected in Gebhardt on 2 Clem. pp. 168, 169; cf. also Cyr. Hier.Catech.18. 33, p. 301.

[629]Greg. Naz.Orat.39, p. 632; Chrys.Hom.85in Joan.xix. 34; Sozomen, ii. 8, 6.

[630]Sozomen, i. 3. 5.

[631]Dion. Areop.Eccles. Hierar.3, p. 242.

[632]Clem. Alex.Pædag.1. 6, p. 93; Athan.Cont. Ar.3, p. 413 C.; Greg. Naz.Orat.40, p. 648; Dion. Areop.Eccles. Hier.3, 242.

[633]Chrys.Hom.99, vol. v.; Theod.in Cantic.1.

[634]Dion. Areop.Eccles. Hier.1. 1;Mys. Theol.1. 1.

[635]Chrys.Hom.1in Act.p. 615;Hom.21ad popul. Antioch; Sozomen, ii. 17. 9.

[636]Sozomen, i. 3. 5; ii. 7. 8; iv. 20. 3; vi. 38. 15; vii 8. 7,et passim. These examples do not by any means exhaust or even adequately represent the obligations in the sphere of language, and of the ideas it at once denotes and connotes, which the ecclesiastical theory and practice of baptism lies under to the mysteries; but they may help to indicate the degree and nature of the obligation.

[637]For the sphere of the influence of the mysteries on the language and imagery of the New Testament, see 1 Cor. ii. 6 ff.; cf. Heb. vi. 4.

[638]Apost. Const.8. 32. Cf. passages quoted from Clem. Alex. and others,supra,p. 287, note 1;p. 295, notes 2and5. See Bingham, vol. iii. pp. 443-446.

[639]De præsc. hær.41. Cf. Epiphan. 41. 3;Apost. Const.8. 12.

[640]ἃ οὐδὲ ἐποπτεύειν ἔξεστι τοῖς ἀμυήτοις,de Spir. Sanct.27; cf. Orig.c. Cels.3. 59ad fin.and 60, e.g. “then and not before do we invite them to participation in our mysteries,” and “initiating those already purified into the sacred mysteries.” Cf.Dict. Christian Antiquities, s. v.Disciplina Arcani.

[641]Seep. 293, note 1; alsoDict. Christian Antiquities, s. vv.Baptism,Catechumens, especially p. 318, andCreed.

[642]Histoire de l’église d’Alexandrie, p. 12: Paris, 1677.

[643]De baptismo Christi, 4. ii. 374, τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρόντος, τῶν ἀγγέλων παρεστώτων, τῆς φρικτῆς ταύτης τραπέζης προκειμένης, τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου μυσταγωγουμένων ἔτι. Cyril,Præfatio ad Catech.15.

[644]Mabillon.Com. præv. ad. ord. Rom.;Museum Ital.II. xcix.

[645]It was one of the points to which the Greeks objected in the discussions of the ninth century.

[646]c. 9.

[647]Bk. ii. 57, p. 87; cf. viii. 5, p. 239, lines 18, 19.

[648]viii. 11. 12, p. 248.

[649]Origen,c. Cels.3. 59. Persons who have partaken of the Eucharist are οἱ τελεσθέντες (Chrys.de compunct. ad Demet.1. 6. i. p. 132), and οἱ μεμυημένοι (id.Hom.vi.de beat. Phil.c. 3. i. p. 498, and inEp. ad Hebr.cap. x.,Hom.xvii. 4, vol. xii. 169). Degrees and distinctions came to be recognized within the circle of the very initiated themselves,Apost. Const.vii. 44, viii. 13.

[650]The earlier offerings were those of Irenæus, 4. 17. 5, where he speaks of Christ “suis discipulis dans consilium, primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis;” and again the Church offers “primitias suorum munerum in Novo Testamento ei qui alimenta nobis præstat.” The table in the heathen temple was important; upon it were placed the offerings: Th. Homolle inBulletin de Corresp. Hellén.1881, p. 118. For the Eucharist itself as a mystery, cf. φρικωδεστάτη τελετὴ, Chrys.de sacerdot.3. 4, vol. i. 382. He argues for silence on the ground that they are mysteries,de bapt. Christ.4. ii. 375. Cf. Greg. Naz.Orat.44, p. 713; Conc. Laod. 7, Bruns, p. 74.

[651]Found in Chrys. e.g.Hom. in Ep.ii.ad Corinth.v. c. 3, vol. x. 470: τοιαύτῃ τὸ θυσιαστήριον ἐκεῖνο φοινίσσεται σφαγῇ.

[652]Ad Ephes.5; see Lightfoot’s note. Cf.Trall.7;Philad.4;Mag.7;Rom.2.

[653]Ap. Const.ii. 57, p. 88. But see for θυσιαστήριον in a highly figurative sense, iii. 6, iv. 3.

[654]H. E.x. 4, 44.

[655]Isid. Pelus.Epist.3. 340, p. 390, προσῆλθε μὲν τῷ σεπτῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ τῶν θείων μυστηρίων μεταληψόμενος; also 4. 181, p. 516, τὰ θεῖα μῂ διδόσθαι μυστήρια. Cf. Chrys.de comp. ad Demet.1. 6, vol. i. p. 131; Theodoret,dial.2, vol. iv. 125. There was a sacred formula. Basil says that no saint has written down the formula of consecration:de Spir. Sancto, 66, vol. iv. pp. 54, 55. After saying that some doctrines and usages of the Church have come down in writing, τὰ δὲ ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων παραδόσεως διαδοθέντα ἡμῖν ἐν μυστηρίῳ παρεδεξάμεθα, he instances the words of the Eucharistic invocation as among the later; τὰ τῆς ἐπικλήσεως ῥήματα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναδείξει τοῦ ἄρτου τῆς ἐυχαριστίας καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου τῆς ἐυλογίας τίς τῶν ἁγίων ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν.

[656]In Dionysius Areop. (s. v. ἱεράρχης, ed. Corderius, i. 839), the bishops are τελεσταί, ἱεροτελεσταί, τελεστάρχαι, μυσταγωγοί, τελεστουργοί, τελεστικοί; the priests are φωτιστικοί; the deacons, καθαρτικοί; the Eucharist is ἱεροτελεστικωτάτη (c. 4). The deacon, ἀποκαθαίρει τοὺς ἀτελέστους (c. 5, § 3, p. 233), i.e. dips them in the water; the priest, φωταγωγεῖ τοὺς καθαρθέντας, i.e. leads the baptized by the hand into the church; the bishop, ἀποτελειοῖ τοὺς τῷ θείῳ φωτὶ κεκοινωνηκότας.

[657]Dion. Areop.Eccles. Hier.c. 3, par. 1, §§ 1, 2, pp. 187, 188.

[658]For in the decree mentioned in a previous note (p. 292, n. 2), among other honours to T. Ælius Alcibiades, he is to be πρῶτον τοῖς διπτύχοις ἐνγραφόμενον.

[659]Cf. for the use of lights in worship, the money accounts, from a Berlin papyrus, of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus at Arsinoê,A.D.215, in Hermes, Bd. xx. p. 430.

[660]Adv. Valent.1. Hippolytus (1,proœm; 5. 23, 24) says the heretics had mysteries which they disclosed to the initiated only after long preparation, and with an oath not to divulge them: so the Naassenes, 5. 8, and the Peratæ, 5. 17 (ad fin.), whose mysteries “are delivered in silence.” The Justinians had an oath of secrecy before proceeding to behold “what eye hath not seen” and “drinking from the living water,” 5. 27.

[661]E.g. Marcus, in connection with initiation into the higher mysteries Hipp. 6. 41, and the Elkasaites as cleansing from gross sin, 9. 15.

[662]Eus.H.E.iv. 7.

[663]Hipp. 5. 27, of the Justinians. Cf. Hilgenfeld,Ketzergesch.p. 270.

[664]For the Eastern custom, see Cyril Hier.Catech. Myst.ii. 3, 4, p. 312: the candidate is anointed all overbeforebaptism with exorcised oil, which, by invocation of God and prayer, purifies from the burning traces of sin, but also puts to flight the invisible powers of the evil one. Cf.Apost. Const.vii. 22, 41, iii. 15, 16; theCoptic Constitutions, c. 46 (ed. Tattam), cf. Boetticher’s Gr. translation in Bunsen’sAnal. Ante-Nic.ii 467;Clem. Recog.3. 67; Chrys.Hom.6. 4,in Ep. ad Col.xi. 342, ἀλείφεται ὥσπερ οἱ ἀθληταὶ εἰς στάδιον ἐμβησόμενοι, here also before baptism and all over; Dionys. Areop.Eccles. Hier.2. 7; Basil,de Spir. Sanct.66, vol. iv. 55. For earlier Western as distinct from Eastern thought on the subject, cf. Tert.de bapt.6 and 7;de resurr. carnis.8;adv. Marc.i. 14; Cyprian,Ep.70. For the later Western usage, introduced from the East, seeConc. Rom.402, c. 8, ed. Bruns. pt. ii. 278;Ordo6,ad fac. Catech.in Martène,de ant. eccl. rit.i. p. 17; Theodulfus Aurel.de ord. bapt.10; unction of the region of the heart before and behind, symbolizing the Holy Spirit’s unction with a view to both prosperity and adversity (Sirmond, vol. ii. 686); Isid. Hisp.de off. eccl.2. 21; Catechumensexorcizantur, sales accipiunt et unguntur, the salt being madeut eorum gustu condimentum sapientiæ percipiant, neque desipiant a sapore Christi(Migne, lxxxiii. col. 814, 815); Cæs. Arelat.serm.22.

[665]Apol.1. 66.

[666]ap. Hipp. 6. 39.

[667]Tert.ad Scap.2, holds that sacrifice may consist of simple prayer.

[668]Cf. Celsus’ idea of faith: Orig.c. Cels.3. 39; Keim, p. 39.

[669]Philo’s view of faith is well expressed in two striking passages,Quis rer. div. Heres, 18, i. 485; andde Abrah.46, ii. 39.

[670]Cf. “He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that seek Him,” Heb. xi. 6; and “He that is of God heareth God’s words,” John viii. 47.

[671]It was one of Celsus’ objections to Christianity that its preachers laid more stress on belief than on the intellectual grounds of belief: Orig.c. Cels.1. 9. Origen’s answer, which is characteristic rather of his own time than expressive of the belief of the apostolic age, is that this was necessary for the mass of men, who have no leisure or inclination for deep investigation (1. 10), and in order not to leave men altogether without help (1. 12).

[672]E.g. Rom. vi. 17, εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς; 2 John, 9, ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ; 2 Tim. i. 13, ὑποτύπωσιν ἔχε ὑγιαινόντων λόγων ὧν παρ’ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσας; 1 Tim. vi. 12, ὡμολόγησας τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν; Jude 3, ἡ ἅπαξ παραδοθεῖσα τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστις. Polycrates, ap. Eus.H. E.5. 24, ὁ κανὼν τῆς πίστεως: see passages collected in Gebhardt and Harnack’sPatres Apost.Bd. i. th. 2 (Barnabas), p. 133.

[673]Cf. Schmid,Dogmeng.p. 14, Das Taufsymbol.

[674]c. 7. 4.

[675]See Acts viii. 16, xix. 5, with which compare Rom. vi. 1-11, Acts xxii. 16.Didaché, 9. 5, οἱ βαπτισθέντες εἰς ὄνομα Κυρίου; andApost. Const.Bk. ii. 7, p. 20, οἱ βαπτισθέντες εἰς τὸν θάνατον τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ οὐκ ὀφείλουσιν ἁμαρτάνειν οἱ τοιοῦτοι· ὡς γὰρ οἱ ἀποθανόντες ἀνενέργητοι πρὸς ἁμαρτίαν ὑπάρχουσιν, οὕτως καὶ οἱ συναποθανόντες τῷ Χριστῷ ἄπρακτοι πρὸς ἁμαρτίαν; cf. 148, 7, and elsewhere, in composite form. Against this Cyprian wrote, inEp.73,ad Jubaianum, 16-18; cf. Harnack,Dogmeng.176.

[676]Cf. von Engelhardt,Das Christenthum Justins, p. 107.

[677]Cf. Harnack,Dogmeng.p. 130 ff.

[678]Cf. Clement’s account of Basilides’ conception of faith in contrast to his own,Strom.5. 1.

[679]Orig.c. Cels.5. 65.

[680]Cf. Ptolemæusad Floram, c. 7, ed. Pet.

[681]See instances in Harn.Dogm.p. 134.

[682]Thus Basilides, ap. Hippol. 7. 20, preferred to follow a tradition from Matthias, who was said to have been specially instructed by the Saviour. The Naassenes, ib. 10. 9, traced their doctrine to James, the Brother of the Lord. Valentinus, Clem. Alex.Strom.7. 17, was said to be a hearer of Theudas, who was a pupil of Paul. Hippol. 1,proœm, argued against all heretics that they had taken nothing from Holy Scripture, and had not preserved the τινος ἁγίου διαδοχήν. Cf. Tert.c. Marc.1. 21. But see the very remarkable statement of Origen as to the cause of heresies,c. Cels.3. 12; cf. Clem. Al.Strom.7. 17.

[683]Cf. Clem. Alex.Strom.7. 17, μία ... παράδοσις, and the contention of Tert.de præsc. hær.32, Sicut apostoli non diversa inter se docuissent, ita et apostolici non contraria apostolis edidissent; Harnack, pp. 183 ff., especially note 2, pp. 134-136. Eusebius,H. E.4. 7, mentions that very many contemporary church writers had written in behalf τῆς ἀποστολικῆς καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικῆς δόξης, against Basilides, especially Agrippa Castor.

[684]Adamantius (Origen, ed. Delarue, i. 809) says that the Marcionites had ἐπισκόπων, μᾶλλον δὲ ψευδεπισκόπων διαδοχαί.

[685]For the παράδοσις ἐκκλησιαστική, especially of “ecclesiæ apostolicæ,” cf. Tert.de præsc. hær.cc. 21. 36; Iren. 3. 1-3; Orig.de princ.;præf.2: for the κανὼν τῆς πίστεως, Iren. 1. 9. 4; Tert.adv. Marc.1. 21 (regula sacramenti);de Virg. vel.1;adv. Prax.2;de præsc. hær.cc. 3. 12. 42;de monog.2. In general, see Weingarten,Zeittafeln, s. 17. 19.

[686]De præsc. hær.cc. 25. 26.

[687]4. 20.

[688]See Overbeck,die Anfänge der patrist. Literatur, in theHist. Zeitschrift, N.F. Bd. xii. 417-472.

[689]Cf. Hegesippus, ap. Eus.H.E.4. 22. 3, ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει οὕτως ἔχει ὡς ὁ νόμος κηρύσσει καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ Κύριος, for this practical co-ordination; see Gebhardt and Harnack on 2 Clement, p. 132, for examples; also Harnack,Dogm.131.

[690]Cf. Weingarten,Zeittafeln, p. 19, where he cites the Muratorian fragment, Origen (ap. Eus.H.E.6. 25), and Athanasius, in the last of whom he traces the first use of the term “canon” in our sense. But we must carefully distinguish theideaof a canon and thecontentsof the canon. It is uncertain whence the idea of a canon of Scripture came, whether from the ecclesiastical party or from the Gnostics; and if from the latter, whether it was from Basilides, or Valentinus, or Marcion. Most likely the last. Harnack,Dogm.215 ff.; cf. 237-240 for Marcion as the first Biblical critic.

[691]Harnack, pp. 317 f.

[692]Tertullian, though in his treatisede præsc. hær.he abandons argument with the Gnostics, yet in hisadv. Marc.1. 22, relaxes that line of argument, and enters into formal discussion.

[693]c. 2.

[694]Tert.de præscr. hær.cc. 8, 18.

[695]Theories were framed as to the relation of γνῶσις and πίστις; e.g. the former was conceived to relate to the Spirit, the latter to the Son, which Clem. Alex. denies (Strom.5. 1).

[696]See Harnack, 549.

[697]Adv. Prax.3.

[698]Which had been the contention of the heretics whom Tertullian opposed:de præsc. hær.cc. 16, 17.

[699]Origen (de princ.,præf.3) follows in the line of those who rested upon apostolic teaching, but gives a foothold for philosophy by saying (1) that the Apostles left the grounds of their statements to be investigated; (2) that they affirmed the existence of many things without stating the manner and origin of their existence.

[700]Valentinus accepted the whole canon (integro instrumento), and the most important work of Basilides was a commentary on the Gospel: Tert.de præsc. hær.38.

[701]Tert.de præsc. hær.18. It is important to contrast the arguments of Tertullian with those of Clement of Alexandria, and of both with the practice which circumstances rendered necessary. InStrom.7. 16 and 17, Clement makes Scripture the criterion between the Church and the heretics, though he assumes that all orthodox teaching is apostolic and uniform.

[702]The combination is first found inApost. Const.Bk. ii. pp. 14, 10. 16, 25. 51. 17, 20. 58, 22.

[703]Routh,Rel. Sacr.iii. p. 290; Harnack, p. 644.

[704]Cf. the definitions of faith in Clem. Al.Strom.2. cc. 2 and 3.

[705]αἵρεσις is used in Clem. Al.Strom.7. 15, of the true system of Christian doctrine: ἡ τῷ ὄντι ἀρίστη αἵρεσις: as in Sext. Empir. (Pyrrh.p. 13, § 16) it meant only adherence to a system of dogmas (no standard implied).

[706]Ad Scap.2.

[707]Philosophers had abused each other. Theologians followed in their track. The “cart-loads of abuse they emptied upon one another” (ὅλας ἁμάξας βλασφημιῶν κατεσκέδασαν ἀλλήλων, Lucian,Eunuch.2) are paralleled in, e.g. Gregory of Nyssa.

[708]SeeLecture V. p. 135.

[709]Socrates,H. E.p. 177, ἕνασις τοῦ σώματος, of the corporate unity of a philosophical school.

[710]Didaché, cc. 1-3.

[711]Apost. Const.p. 1. 15-17.

[712]Ib.5. 20-22.

[713]Ib.1. 6.

[714]“We Christians are remarkable,” says Tertullian (Ad Scap.2), “only for the reformation of our former vices.” The plea of the Apologists was based on the fact that the Christians led blameless lives:de causâ innocentiæ consistam, Tert.Apol.c. 4.

[715]The Elchasaites, ap.Hipp.9. 15.

[716]Weingarten,Zeittafeln, p. 12. See also Lightfoot,Ignatius, vol. ii. pp. 310-312.

[717]Weingarten, p. 17.

[718]Eusebius,H. E.4. 22, 4.

[719]The very terms heresy and heterodox bear witness to the action of the Greek philosophical schools on the Christian Church: αἵρεσις is used in Sext. Empir.Pyrrh.p. 13, of any system of dogmas, or the principle which is distinctive of a philosophical school: cf. Diels,Doxogr. Gr.pp. 276, 573, 388. In Clem. Alex.Strom.7. 15, it is used to denote the orthodox system. Ἑτεροδόξους is used of the dogmatics from point of view of a sceptic: Sext. Empir.adv. Math.p. 771, § 40. Josephus uses it of the men of the other schools or parties as distinguished from the Essenes,de Bell. Jud.2. 8. 5. For the place of opinion in Gnostic societies, with its curious counterpart in laxity of discipline, see Tert.de præsc.42-44. He speaks of the Valentinians,adv. Val., as “frequentissimum plane collegium inter hæreticos.” Cf. Harnack, 190 ff., also 211. The very cultivation of theGnosismeans the supremacy of the intellect.

[720]Tertullian,de Spectaculis, c. 4. If γνῶσις was important as an element in salvation side by side with πίστις—or if πίστις included γνῶσις—then also the rejection of the right faith was a bar to salvation: hence heresy was regarded as involving eternal death: Tert.de præsc.2.

[721]Tert.de Spect.c. 4.

[722]διδαχή, here expressly used of the moral precepts in c. 2. 1.

[723]c. 11. 1, 2.

[724]c. 11. 8, 10; cf. Herm.Mand.11. 7 and 16.

[725]c. 12. 1, 3-5.

[726]Thejura, i.e. thecommunicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et contesseratio hospitalitatis, were controlled (regit) by the tradition of the creed (unius sacramenti traditio), Tert.de præsc.20.

[727]Communicamus cum ecclesiis apostolicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa; hoc est testimonium veritatis, Tert.ibid.21.

[728]Lect. vi. p. 164 sq.

Back to Index Next