-^^«^ OF pmc^ 
 
 ■^fOtOGiCAL SE»*f^^ ' 
 
 
THE CHURCH 
 
 FIRST THREE CENTURIES: 
 
 OR, 
 
 NOTICES OF THE LIVES AND OPINIONS OF 
 THE EARLY FATHERS, 
 
 WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO 
 
 THE DOCTEINE OF THE TRINITY; 
 
 ILLUSTRATING ITS 
 
 LATE ORIGIN AND GRADUAL FORMATION. 
 
 BT 
 
 ALVAN LAMSON, D. D. 
 
 REVISED AND ENLARGED EDITION. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 HOUGHTON, OSGOOD AND COMPANT. 
 
 1880. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1865, by 
 
 A. W. Lamson, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts 
 
 RIVERSIDE, CAMBRIDGE: 
 
 STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BT 
 
 H. O. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY. 
 

 PREFACE. 
 
 The title prefixed to the present work sufficiently 
 indicates its purpose. Of the articles contained in it, 
 some have a more direct reference to the opinions of 
 Christian antiquity, respecting the Son and the Spirit, 
 than others. In some, this topic is most largely 
 dwelt upon; in one or two, it is but slightly no- 
 ticed ; in all, it receives more or less attention. As 
 to the other matter contained in the volume, histor- 
 ical and biographical, or such as relates to the 
 opinions, usages, and social habits, which marked the 
 early ages, and the merits and defects of the Fathers 
 as critics and expositors, it is sufficient to say, that I 
 have proceeded on the supposition, that its intro- 
 duction would enhance the value and interest of the 
 work. 
 
 I have not written as the organ of any party. I 
 have wished simply to make the volume a repository 
 of facts, particularly connected with the opinions of 
 Christians of the first three centuries, on the nature 
 and rank of the Son and the Spirit ; and I have 
 spared no pains in the endeavor to give the exact 
 expressions of the great church teachers of the period 
 included in my survey, with copious and minute 
 references. I ofier the book as a help to inquirers 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 who may wish to know what the early Fathers really 
 thought and said. A portion of the materials was 
 given to the public, many years ago, in the pages of 
 a review. These materials I have elaborated with 
 some care, dividing the whole into chapters, and 
 omitting, changing, and adding, to render the work 
 better suited to the end I have had in view. I have 
 endeavored to exclude all personalities, and every- 
 thing which might give just cause of offence to any 
 individual, or any class of Christians. 
 
 With these few prefatory remarks, I leave the 
 book to the charitable judgment of the public. 
 
NOTE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 The first edition of this work was published in 1860, and 
 has been for some time out of print. The present edition 
 contains large additions, the Preliminary Chapter on the 
 Apostolic Fathers being entirely new, as are also the Note 
 on the Epistle to Diognetus, and the principal part of the 
 articles on the " Fathers subsequent to Justin Martyr and 
 before the time of Clement of Alexandria," and on the 
 " Writers subsequent to the time of Origen and before the 
 rise of the Arian Controversy." These additions give a com- 
 pleteness to the work, so far as it relates to the history of early 
 opinions on the subject of the Trinity, which greatly enhances 
 its value. Considerable additions and alterations have been 
 made in other parts of the volume, the whole having been 
 carefully revised by the lamented author, before his decease, 
 with a view to the printing of a new edition. The materials 
 left by him for this purpose were, in accordance with his 
 expressed wish, placed in the hands of the present editor for 
 revision and publication. He has verified nearly all the quota- 
 tions and references in the volume, and has added a few notes, 
 which are followed by the abbreviation " Ed.," and enclosed 
 in brackets. In two instances, also, (pp. 10, 67, 68,) it ap- 
 peared necessary to insert in brackets short additions to the 
 text, founded on manuscript memoranda of the author, which, 
 though indicating his purpose to make such additions, were 
 not left in a condition suitable for pubhcation. 
 
 EZRA ABBOT. 
 
 Cambridge, Mass., May 27th, 1865. 
 
GGIGAL 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PRELIMINARY CHAPTER. 
 
 WRITINGS ASCRIBED TO THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS, SO 
 
 CALLED. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Reasons for noticing them. Clement of Rome. Claim of One of the 
 Epistles attributed to him to be received as Genuine. Its Date and 
 Character. Its Theology. Christ a Distinct Being from the Father, 
 and Subordinate. Shepherd of Hermas. Its Authorship and Date. 
 Asserts the Preexistence of the Son, but excludes his Supreme Di- 
 vinity. The Ignatian Letters. Recently discovered Syriac Ver- 
 sion. Polycarp. Epistle ascribed to him. Its Theology. Not 
 Trinitarian. Barnabas. The Epistle which goes under his Name 
 of Uncertain Authorship. Teaches Christ's Preexistence, but not 
 his Equality with the Father. General Summary. Concluding 
 Remarks. 3-2< 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR, AND HIS OPINIONS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Claims of Justin to our Notice. Birth, and Early Studies. Dissatis- 
 faction with his Teachers. His Despondency. His Reception of 
 Platonism. His Conversion. His Dialogue with Trypho. Writes 
 his First Apology. His Second. His Last Days, and Martyrdom. 21-30 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Justin's "Writings. Extravagant Praise bestowed on him. Reverence 
 for the Fathers declines. Examination of Justin's Larger Apology. 
 His Mode of Argument. Topics and Tone of his Address. Proph- 
 ecy and Miracles. Topics of his Second Apology. Dialogue with 
 Trypho 31-40 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 General Defects of Justin's Intellectual and Literary Character. His 
 Love of the Marvellous. His Account of the Origin of Demons. 
 Feats performed by them. His Chronological Errors. His Care- 
 lessness in Quotation. An AUegorist. Specimens of his Fanciful 
 Interpretation of the Old Testament. Types of the Cross. His 
 Learning. Eminently Uncritical 41-49 
 
Vm CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. PAGB 
 
 Theology of Justin. Origin of the Trinity. Justin's Doctrine of the 
 Logos. His Language cited. The Logos a Hypostatized Attribute 
 of the Father. Converted into a Real Being in Time, and not from 
 Eternity. The Son numerically Different from the Father. Volun- 
 tarily begotten 50-57 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The Views of Justin and the Fathers not derived from the Old Testa- 
 ment. Language of the Old Testament examined. Of the New. 
 Justin ingrafted on Christianity the Sentiments of the later Platon- 
 ists. Statements of Learned Trinitarians. Philo's Doctrine of the 
 Logos. Attempts to soften the Charge of Platonism against the 
 Fathers 58-G9 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The Inferiority of the Son uniformly asserted by the Ante-Nicene 
 Fathers. Concessions of Trinitarians. The Father and Son not 
 numerically One, nor Equal. Proofs from Justin. The Son not an 
 Object of Direct Address in Prayer. Sum of the Argument. Disin- 
 genuous Use made of two Passages from Justin. The Spirit an In- 
 fluence. Justin's Account of the Humanitarians of his Day. . 70-85 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Justin's Account of the Christian Rites as administered in his Day. 
 Baptism. The Lord's Supper. Sunday Worship. Calumnies of 
 the Jews. The Memory of Justin. ...... 86-91 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS. 
 
 Question of its Genuineness and Date. Its Theology. Supremacy of 
 the Father. Mission of the Son. Implanted or Insown Logos. 
 Authorship and Doctrine of the Concluding Portion of the Epistle. 92-94 
 
 FATHERS SUBSEQUENT TO JUSTIN MARTYR, AND 
 
 BEFORE THE TIME OF CLEMENT OF 
 
 ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Tatian the Syrian. His History. The Son a Hypostatized Attribute. 
 Had a Beginning. Numerically distinguished from the Father, and 
 
CONTENTS. ix 
 
 PAGB 
 
 Subordinate. TheopJiilus of Anlioch. The Son originally the 
 Logos, or Reason of God. Begotten in Time. The Instrument of 
 the Father in the Creation. The Father alone an Object of Su- 
 preme Worship. The Term Trinity first used. The Spirit con- 
 founded with the Logos. Athenagoras. Preserves the Supremacy 
 of the Father. How he speaks of the Logos. The Spirit an 
 Influence. . . . 95-101 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 IrencBus. His History and Writings. The Son a Separate Being 
 from the Father, and Subordinate. Quotations. Christ suffered 
 in his Whole Nature. The Logos supplied the Place of the Rational 
 Soul in Jesus Christ. Terlullian. Character and Writings. Makes 
 the Father and Son two Beings. The Son Inferior. Not Eternal. 
 TertuUian's Creeds. Omission of the Spirit. The Father more 
 Ancient, Nobler, and more Powerful than the Son. The Unlearned 
 Christians. Their Horror of the CEconomy, or Trinity. How Ter- 
 tullian saves the Unity. The Catacombs. .... 102-114 
 
 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Martyrdoms after that of Justin. Time of Clement. Alexandria. ' 
 Biography of Clement. Pantasnus. Clement's Conversion. Be- 
 comes Head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. W^as there 
 in 211. Disappears from History. Direction of Studies in the 
 Alexandrian School. Clement's Writings. .... 115-121 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Clement's Theology. He does not ascribe to the Son a Distinct Per- 
 sonal Subsistence from Eternity. Clement makes him originally an 
 Attribute. Asserts his Inferiority in Strong Terms. Antiquity of 
 Christianity. Inspiration of Plato and the Philosophers. Influence 
 of the Art of Sculpture among the Greeks. Man not born De- 
 praved 122-12S 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 ' Clement's Paedagogue. His Precepts of Living. Social Life among 
 the Egyptians in his Day. Food. Use of Wine. Convivial En- 
 tertainments. Music. Garlands. The Ladies of Alexandria. The 
 " Fine Gentlemen." Clement as a Reformer. .... 130-14C 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Clement's Stromata : its Character. Mysteries and Allegories. Clem- 
 ent's Idea of the True Gnostic, or Perfect Christian. Knowledge. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 I'AGE 
 
 Motives. Grand Conceptions of God. Prayer. The whole Life a 
 Festival. Spirituality 141-151 
 
 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 CHAPTER 1. 
 
 The Alexandrian Theology. Birth and Parentage of Origen. His 
 Childhood. He pants for the Honors of Martyrdom. Reduced to 
 Poverty, and becomes a Teacher. At the Head of the Catechetical 
 School. His Self-Denial. Studies. Biblical Criticism. . . 152-159 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Influence of Ambrose. Origen's Immense Labors. His Arabian Jour- 
 ney, and Visit to Palestine. Reception by the Palestinian Bishops. 
 Anger of Demetrius. Origen's Journey to Greece. Ordained in 
 Palestine. Deposed and Excommunicated 160-164 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Origen retires to Palestine. New Pupils. His Critical and Theologi- 
 cal Studies. Imprisoned, and put to the Rack. Dies at Tyre. His 
 Memory long persecuted. Question of his Salvation. His Intellect- 
 ual Character. Merits and Defects as an Expositor. . . 165-171 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Writings of Origen. Commentaries. Principles of Interpretation. 
 His Book " Of Principles." His " Hexapla." His Work against 
 Celsus 172-178 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Inferiority of the Son. Hippolytus; a new AVitness. Origen asserts 
 that the Father and Son are two Distinct Beings ; that the Father is 
 Greater than the Son. Specimens of his Language and Reasoning. 
 Christ is not an Object of Supreme Worship, and not to be ad- 
 dressed in Prayer. The Spirit below the Son. Eternal Generation. 
 The Material Creation Eternal. The Logos Doctrine and the Ro- 
 man Church. The Monarchians, Theodotus, Artemon, Praxeas, 
 Noetus, Beryllus. The Atonement 179-193 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Origen's System of Rational and Animated Natures. All Souls Pre- 
 existent. Purpose of the Material Universe. The Stars animated, 
 and will be judged. Tutelar Spirits. Demons. Present Condition 
 the Result of Former Trial. Extent of Christ's Redemption. Ce- 
 lestial Natures. Origin of Sin. Human Ability. No Uncondi- 
 tional Election. ... .... 194-201 
 
CONTENTS. XI 
 
 CHAPTER VII. PAGE 
 
 Origen's Views of the Future. The Resurrection. Form of the Fu- 
 ture Body, Round. Bodies of the Damned, Black. The Final 
 Consummation will be the Perfection and Happiness of all, includ- 
 ing Fallen Spirits of Darkness. Matter to become spiritualized. 
 Variation in his Opinions. Perpetual Lapses and Returns. Fate 
 of the Oi'igenian Doctrines. Appealed to by the Arians. Con- 
 demned a Century and a Half after Origen's Death. Origenism 
 finds Shelter in the Monasteries. Freedom of Theological Specula- 
 tion 202-213 
 
 WRITERS SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME OF ORIGEN, 
 
 AND BEFORE THE RISE OF THE ARIAN 
 
 CONTROVERSY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Sabellius and Sabellianism. Paul of Samosata. The Scholars of 
 Origen. Dionysius of Alexandria. Accused of Heterodoxy. Ex- 
 tracts. The Term " Consubstantial." Gregory Thaumaturgus. 
 Depresses the Son to the Rank of a Creature, or Work. Thcog- 
 nostus. Quoted. Pierius. Photius's Report of his Opinions. Me- 
 thodius. His Language savors of Arianism. Lucian. His Learn- 
 ing and Merits. His Opinions. Most of the Arian Chiefs were of 
 his School ... 214-226 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 Cyprian, Makes the Son Subordinate. Confounds the Spirit with 
 the Logos. Novatian. Believed in the Derived Nature and Inferi- 
 ority of the Son. Proofs. How he preserved the Unity of God. 
 His Views of the Spirit. Arnobius. How he speaks of the Father 
 and the Son. Lactantius. His Learning and Eloquence. Un- 
 sound on the subject of the Trinity in the Modern Sense. Passages 
 quoted 227-238 
 
 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Conflict of Doctrine. Belief of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Account 
 of Arius. Origin of the Controversy. Popularity of Arius. His 
 Person and Msinners. Progress of the Controversy. Arius is ex- 
 pelled from Alexandria, and retires to Palestine. How received by 
 the Bishops there. Eusebius of Nicomedia. Palestinian Council. 
 
S-li CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Anus's Letter to his Bishop. Alexander writes Letters to all parts. 
 Tongues instead of Spears 239-250 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Constantine interferes. Council of Nice. Its Character. Opinions 
 of Arius. Proceedings of the Council. Difficulty in Framing a 
 Symbol. Eusebius of Cfesarea offers a Creed. Result. Non- sub- 
 scribing Bishops. Condemnation and Exile of Arius. Constantine 
 afterwards espouses his Cause. His Return to Alexandria. Atha- 
 nasius. Council of Jerusalem readmits Arius to Communion. Exile 
 of Athanasius. Last Days of Arius. Death, Character, and Writ- 
 ings. The " Thalia." 251-272 
 
 CHAPTER ni. 
 
 Success and Decline of Arianism. Long survived in the West. The 
 Goths receive it. Influence of the Ladies. The Friends and Co- 
 adjutors of Arius. Eusebius of Nicodemia, Theognis of Nice, and 
 Eusebius the Historian. Fortunes of Athanasius : his Wanderings 
 and Death, Writings and Character 273-281 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The Nicene Faith. Meaning of " Consubstantial." Athanasius's Ex- 
 planation of it. Father and Son relatively Unequal : so the Coun- 
 cil of Nice taught. Sentiments of the Orthodox afterwards undergo 
 a Change. The Holy Spirit not defined by the Council. Not as 
 yet safe to speak of its Divinity. Variations. Doctrine of the 
 Trinity still unsettled 282-28S 
 
 EUSEBIUS, THE HISTORIAN. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Claims of Eusebius to our Notice. His Early Life. Bishop of Caes- 
 area. His Studies. The Arian Controversy. The Part he took 
 at the Council of Nice. Subscribes the Creed. His Pastoral Letter 
 in Explanation. Want of Firmness. Presides at the Council of 
 Tyre. Dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The 
 Emperor warmly attached to him. Death and Character. His 
 real Belief. Not a Consubstantialist. Held the old Doctrine of the 
 Derived Nature and Inferiority of the Son. Proofs from his Writ- 
 ings. ... 290-305 
 
CONTENTS. XIU 
 
 CHAPTER n. PAGB 
 
 Credit to which Eusebius is entitled as an Historian. Charges against 
 him. Value of his Materials. His Authorities. Tradition. Lost 
 Writings. Writings still extant. Contemporaneous History. Lit- 
 erary Merit of Eusebius's Work 306-314 
 
 THE APOSTLES' CREED. 
 
 CHAPTEE I. 
 
 The Apostles' Creed not the Primitive Creed. Was not framed by 
 the Apostles. Testimonies of the Learned. Unfounded Tradition 
 as to its Origin. Older Creeds. Original Form of the Apostles' 
 Creed. Comparison of it with the Roman and Oriental, and that 
 of Aquileia. The Clause " Descended into Hell." The Apostolical 
 Constitutions. No Early Notice of them. Not of Apostolic Origin. 
 Time of their Composition. Their Arian Complexion. Old Form 
 of Ascription 315-330 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 The Fathers as Expositors. Change in the Meaning of Terms and 
 Phrases. Language of the Fathers. Examples. In what Points 
 the Trinity of the Fathers differed from the Modern. Testimony 
 of the Learned. Petavius, Huet, Prof Stuart. The Fathers testify 
 against each other. Councils. The Athanasian Creed. . 331-342 
 
 HYMNOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Hymnology of the Ancient Church not Trinitarian. Singing 
 among the Early Christians. First Regular Choir. Flavian of 
 Antioch. Ambrose. Gregory. Hymns of the Primitive Church 
 lost. Earliest Writers of Hymns. Bardesanes. Harmonius. 
 Ephrem. Attempt of Paul of Samosata to restore the Old Music 
 and Hymns 343-352 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Arius and Others, Writers of Hymns. The " Te Deum." Prudentius. 
 The Poetical Fathers. Nocturnal Street-singing at Constantinople. 
 Council of Laodicea attempts to regulate Church Music. Sim- 
 plicity of the Ancient Doxology. No Trace of the Trinity. 353-359 
 1 
 
Xiv CONTENTS. 
 
 ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. PAGk 
 
 Remains of Ancient Christian Art bear Testimony to the Late Origin 
 of the Trinity. The Father : how represented. Earlier and Later 
 Representations of the Son 360-365 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 The Glory, or Nimbus, in Symbolic Art. Nature of the Glory. Forms 
 of the Nimbus and the Cross. Significance of the Nimbus. Repre- 
 sentations of the Holy Spirit. Later Representations of the Trinity. 
 No early Relic recognizes a Co-equal or Undivided Three. . 368-376 
 
 FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Festivals of the Ancient Christians disclose no Element of the Trinity. 
 Weekly Festival of Sunday. Easter, the Oldest Annual Festival. 
 Old Ideas of Lent. Pentecost, or Whitsunday. No other Annual 
 Festival known in the Time of Origen. Epiphany. . . 377-387 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Christmas : first celebrated on the Fifth of January. Uncertainty 
 about the Time of Christ's Birth. Testimony of Clement of Alex- 
 andria. Chrysostom's Testimony to the Late Origin of the Festival 
 in the East. Order of the Christian Festivals. Dr. Milman's State- 
 ment. Late Origin of Christmas explained. No Trinitarianism in 
 either of the Old Festivals 388-396 
 
 Index 399-41C 
 

 flMOLOGIOitL 
 PRELIMINARY CHAPTER 
 
 WRITINGS ASCRIBED TO THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS^ 
 SO CALLED. 
 
 Reasons for Noticing them. — Clement op Rome. — Claim op one of 
 THE Epistles attributed to him to be received as Genuine. — Its 
 Date and Character. — Its Theology. — Christ a Distinct Being 
 FROM THE Father, AND Subordinate. — Shepherd op Hermas. — Its 
 Authorship and Date. — Asserts the Preexistence of the Son, but 
 excludes his Supreme Divinity. — The Ignatian Letters. — Re- 
 cently discovered Syriac Version. — Polycarp. — Epistle ascribed 
 TO HIM. — Its Theology. — Not Trinitarian. — Barnabas. — The 
 Epistle which goes under his Name of Uncertain Authorship. — 
 Teaches Christ's Preexistence, but not his Equality with the 
 Father. — General Summary. — Concluding Remarks. 
 
 In treating of the lives and opinions of some of the Fathers 
 of the Church, down to the time of the Council of Nice, the 
 question may possibly occur. Why begin with Justin Martyr ? 
 Were there none before him ? The reply is, most of those who 
 went before are to us little else than shadows seen through the 
 dim mist of antiquity, — their outlines too imperfectly defined 
 to admit of accurate description or analysis. They are blood- 
 less phantoms, well-nigh formless and void. The record of 
 their lives has perished, or is so blended with fable, that it is 
 impossible to separate fact from fiction. If we inquire for their 
 writings, we encounter darkness and uncertainty at every step. 
 Some curiosity, however, may be felt to know which, if any, 
 of the writings ascribed to those fathers are entitled to respect 
 as probably, or possibly, genuine ; and what, genuine or forged, 
 they teach on topics particularly discussed in the present vol- 
 ume. Our purpose in this preliminary chapter is to say 
 something on these subjects. The writings to which we refer 
 are those generally which pass under the name of the Apos- 
 
4 APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 
 
 tolic Fathers, so called from having been, as tradition says, 
 hearers, or, at least, contemporaries of the Apostles. We 
 begin with 
 
 Clement of Rome. 
 
 Clement presided over the Church of Rome at an early 
 period, and is called its bishop. Whether he was the Clem- 
 ent mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians 
 (iv. 3) as his fellow-laborer, is uncertain. The genuineness, 
 in the main, of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, attributed 
 to him, — written in the name of the church at Rome, — 
 though not established beyond dispute, has no shght external 
 evidence in its favor. It may be accepted as, for the most 
 part, genuine, though it has come down to us only in a single 
 manuscript, and, as Mr. Norton observes, " this copy is con- 
 siderably mutilated ; in some passages the text is manifestly 
 corrupt, and other passages have been suspected of being 
 interpolations." * This opinion Mr. Norton shares with many 
 learned and judicious critics, who have been unwilling to 
 acknowledge the whole piece to have been a pure fabrication. 
 Neander asserts that it is " not exempt from important inter- 
 polations," and that we find in it a " possible contradiction," 
 showing that if genuine in part, it is not wholly so.f 
 
 The Epistle, which was written in Greek, was, according to 
 the testimony of Eusebius, publicly read in many churches 
 before his time, and in his own day.$ In some places it con- 
 tinued to be read in public, it would seem, down to the time 
 of Jerome, who lived in the latter part of the fourth and early 
 in the fifth century. § Neither of these writers expresses any 
 doubt of its genuineness. 
 
 But whether genuine or not, it is undoubtedly an early 
 document, supposed to have been written near the end of the 
 
 * Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i., Additional Notes, p. ccxli., 2d edit. 
 
 t Bist. of the Christian Religion and Church, i. 668, Torrey's translation. 
 
 $ Hist., iii. 16, and iv. 23. [It was received as genuine, apparently by Heg- 
 esippus, and certainly by Dionysius of Corinth (a. d. 170), Irenasus, Clem- 
 ent of Alexandria, and Origen. Eusebius (iii. 38) speaks of it " as univer- 
 lally acknowledged." — Ed.] 
 
 § De Viris Illust., o. 15. 
 
CLEMENT OF ROME. 6 
 
 tirst century.* If that be the date of the composition, it was 
 in existence from a third to half a centmy before Justin Mar- 
 tyr — in whose works, still extant, no mention of it occurs — • 
 wrote his first Apology. Independently of the position of its 
 reputed author, its antiquity, if nothing else, entitles it to notice 
 in the inquiry in which we are now engaged. What traces, 
 then, does it contain of the modern doctrine of the Trinity? 
 It contains not the faintest trace of the supreme divinity of the 
 Son or of the Spirit. 
 
 The contents of the Epistle are almost entirely practical, and 
 it has very little to do with speculative theology of any sort, 
 quotations from the Old Testament constituting a large portion 
 of it. Speaking of the Christology of Clement, Bunsen, as 
 above referred to, says, " It is preposterous to ask him after the 
 three Persons of the Pseudo- Athanasian creed." Nor, we add, 
 does Justin's doctrine of the Logos, as a great preexistent 
 power, a hypostatized attribute, by whom, as his instrument or 
 minister, God performed the act of creation, appear in tlie 
 Epistle. God made all things by a direct exertion of his 
 power. " By his almighty power he established the heavens, 
 and by his incomprehensible wisdom he adorned them. He 
 also divided the earth from the water, .... and the living 
 creatures that are upon it he called into being by his com- 
 mand With his holy and pure hands he also formed man, 
 
 the most excellent of all, and in intellect the most exalted, the 
 impress of his own image." f " Let us make man in our own 
 image, after our own likeness," etc., is quoted, but no intima- 
 tion is given that the author supposed it addressed to the Son. 
 God is sole, infinite, and supreme Creator of the material uni- 
 verse, using no instrument or artificer (rational power or Logos) 
 to execute his commands. The doctrine of Philo and the 
 Alexandrians is not found in the Epistle. Its language is far 
 more simple than that of Philo and the Platonizing fathers. 
 
 If we turn to the new moral or spiritual creation, we shall 
 find, that, whenever God and Christ are spoken of in con- 
 nection with it, the author makes a broad distinction between 
 
 * Bunsen says, between the years 78 and 86. Christianity and Mankind, (oi 
 Hippolytus and his Age,) i. 44. 
 t Cap. 33. 
 
6 APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 
 
 the supreme, infinite One, the fountain of all peace and love, 
 and Jesus Christ, through whom the benefits of his mercy were 
 conveyed to the world. Of this we have an example at the 
 very commencement of the Epistle. Thus, " by the will of 
 God, through Jesus Christ our Lord " ; and again, " Grace and 
 peace from Almighty God, through Jesus Christ, be multi]:)lied 
 unto you." And this distinction is observed throughout the 
 Epistle. Prayer is mentioned as addressed to God and not to 
 Christ. God " sends ";■ Jesus is "sent." "The Apostles 
 preached to us from our Lord Jesus Christ ; Jesus Christ from 
 God. Christ thei'efore was sent from God, the Apostles from 
 Christ; both being fitly done according to the will of God."* 
 
 Jesus Christ is " the high priest of our offerings Through 
 
 him we look up to the heights of heaven Through him 
 
 the eyes of our hearts were opened Through him would 
 
 the Sovereign Ruler (6 oeo-7roT??s) have us to taste the knowledge 
 of immortality." f So all is of God. Referring to the resur- 
 rection the author says, God has " made our Lord Jesus Christ 
 the first fruits, raising him fi-om the dead." J He is mentioned 
 as the " chosen " of the Father, but nothing is said of his 
 nature, nor is his preexistence distinctly asserted in any part 
 of the Epistle, though some have professed to find an intima- 
 tion of it in certain expressions employed by the writer, which, 
 however, prove nothing to the point.§ He is called " the scep- 
 tre of the majesty of God," || language which implies instru- 
 mentality, not identity or equality of person. The term God 
 is not once applied to him. But he is clearly distinguished 
 from the one only God in the following passages, in addition to 
 those already given. " Have we not one God, and one Christ, 
 and one spirit of grace (or love) poured out upon us ? " 
 Again, the writer speaks of "the true and only God"; the 
 " great artificer and Sovereign Ruler of all " ; " the all-seeing 
 God and Ruler of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose our 
 Lord Jesus Christ." ^ In what different language the Son is 
 spoken of has been already seen. 
 
 * Cap. 42. t Cap. 36. % Cap. 24. 
 
 § See Martini, Versuch einer pragmat. Geschichte des Dogma von der Gottheii 
 Christi, etc., p 24. 
 II Cap. 16. ir Cap. 46, 43, 20, 68. 
 
CLEMENT OF EOME. 7 
 
 We have quoted, we believe, the highest expressions applied 
 to Christ in the Epistle. Certainly his supreme divinity is 
 nowhere t<aught in this relic of Christian antiquity. That he 
 is a distinct being from the Father, and altogether subordinate, 
 is the prevailing idea of the whole composition. Photius, Pa- 
 triarch of Constantinople in the ninth century, complains that 
 the writer of the Epistle, though " he calls our Lord Jesus 
 Christ our high priest and leader, yet does not ascribe to him 
 the divine and higher qualities." * That is, says Lardner, " in 
 modern language, it is a Socinian Epistle." Certainly the 
 language of Photius is very significant, coming from such a 
 source, f 
 
 The ascription of "glory," or "glory, dominion," etc., 
 occurs six times in the Epistle. In four of these cases God is 
 expressly, clearly, and unequivocally the object. Thus, " the 
 omnipotent God, .... to whom be glory forever and ever." $ 
 Again, " the Most High, .... to whom be glory forever and 
 ever." § Again, " God who chose our Lord Jesus Christ, . . . 
 
 * Bib/iolk., cod. 126 ; torn. i. p. 95, ed. Bekker. 
 
 t An argument for the deity of Christ, founded on the misconception of a 
 passage in Clement's Epistle, is thus disposed of by a writer in the Christian 
 Examiner for May, 1860 : — " Nor does Clement anywhere use the expression 
 ' the passion of God,' or anytliing like it. Tiie passage referred to is cap. 2 
 of his genuine Epistle to tlie Corinthians, where we have the expression 
 na&ri^aTa avTov, — rov ■Qeov indeed being the nearest antecedent. If we insist 
 that he wrote with strict grammatical accuracy, and reject the conjectural 
 emendation of Junius (Young), a Trinitarian, of /la&fjiiaTa for na^TJiiara, (the 
 Epistle being extant in but a single manuscript,) we simplj- make Clement a 
 Patripassian ; for the term -deoc in every other pnssage of the Epistle unques- 
 tionably denotes the Father. But even Dorner, in his great work {Lchre von 
 der Person Christi, i. 139), says that he 'does not venture to use this passage 
 as a proof that Clement calls Christ God.' He adopts the easy supposition of 
 a negligent use of the pronoun ahro^, referring to Christ in the mind of the 
 writer, though not named in the immediately preceding context. The same 
 view of the passage is taken by Bunsen, Hippolytus and his Age, i. 46, note, 
 2d ed. ; by Martini, Ferswc/i, etc., p. 24, note; and by Reuss, Theologie Chre- 
 tienne, ii. 326, 2e ed. Of this use of avTog we have another remarkable exam- 
 ple in Clement, c. 36, and it is not uncommon in the New Testament, especially 
 in the writings of John; see Winer, Gram. § 22. 3. 4, 6th ed., and Robinson's 
 N. T. Lex., article airof, 2. b. ad Jin. This passage is the sole straw to which 
 those can cling who maintain that Clement of Rome believed in the deity of 
 Christ ; a notion in direct contradiction to the whole tenor of his language it 
 every other part of his Epistle." — pp. 466, 467. 
 
 X Cap. 32. § Cap. 46. 
 
8 APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 
 
 through whom be glory and majesty, power, honor unto him 
 both now, and forever and ever." * Once more, in the ascrip- 
 tion at the close of the Epistle, we have, " The grace of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all that are anywhere 
 called by God through him ; through whom be unto him (God) 
 glory, honor, might, and majesty, and eternal dominion, from 
 everlasting to everlasting." In these passages the "glory, 
 dominion," etc., are expressly ascribed to God, either abso- 
 lutely and without reference to Christ, as in the first and sec- 
 ond instances, or through Jesus Christ, as in the last two. In 
 one of the remaining instances we have simply, " Chosen by 
 God, through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be glory forever 
 and ever " ; f and in the other a similar construction.^ If the 
 ascription here is to be referred to the nearer, and not, as is 
 possible, to the remoter antecedent, by a negligence of syntax 
 of which there are known examples in the New Testament 
 and in the writings of Christian antiquity, there is no difficulty 
 in reconciling it with the supremacy of the Father, so strongly 
 asserted, or necessarily implied, in the current language of the 
 Epistle. The Scriptures ascribe glory and dominion to Christ, 
 but a derived glory and dominion, God having '•'•made him 
 both Lord and Christ," and ^'- given him a name above every 
 name." § With this the language of the Epistle is throughout 
 consistent. 
 
 We repeat, in conclusion, one searches in vain, in the Epistle 
 ascribed to this Apostolic Father, for those views of the Logos, 
 as a personified attribute of the Father, which are so promi- 
 nent in the writings of the philosophical converts to Christian- 
 ity. The language employed is more scriptural, the thoughts 
 less subtle and metaphysical, the author being content to rep- 
 resent God as the fountain of all power and blessing, and Jesus 
 Christ as his Son, sent by him to be the Saviour of men. The 
 Father is above all ; his glory and majesty are underived ; the 
 Son derives from him his power and dignity, his offices and 
 dominion. Such are the teachings of this old relic of the 
 primitive ages. The personality of the Spirit is not one of its 
 doctrines. 
 
 * Cap. 58. t Cap. 60. J Cap. 20. 
 
 § See Acts, ii. 33, 36 ; Philippians, ii. 9 ; Ephesians, i. 20-22 ; 1 Peter, 
 ; 21. 
 
THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 9 
 
 What is called Clement's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 or the fragment of it which is preserved, has no title, as the 
 best critics agree, to be received as genuine. Eusebius says 
 that it was quoted by no ancient writer.* There are other 
 compositions which have been ascribed to Clement, but they 
 are all by competent critics now rejected as spurious. 
 
 The Shepherd of Hermas. 
 
 There is a Hermas mentioned by St. Paul (Romans xvi. 14), 
 to whom this work has been attributed. It is undoubtedly an 
 ancient writing. Eusebius speaks of it as publicly read in the 
 churches,! and Jerome tells us that it was read in some 
 churches of Greece, that is, if we understand him, in his day, 
 but that it was almost unknown to the Latins. J Both name 
 Hennas as the reputed author, but neither affirms that he was 
 so. Both speak with hesitation and reserve. The work is 
 also quoted or referred to by Iren^us, Clement of Alexandria, 
 Tertullian, and Origen. Justin Martyr does not quote it. It 
 has been ascribed to the end of the first century. But Mr. 
 Norton, who discusses the question of its date with his usual 
 acuteness and learning, concludes from evidence furnished by 
 a " fragment " of Christian antiquity published by Muratori 
 in 1740, that it was " not written till about the year 150." § 
 
 Bunsen, who also uses the Muratorian fragment, attributed 
 by him to Hegesippus, arrives at a conclusion not very dis- 
 similar. He supposes that the "fragment " was written- about 
 the year 170. It says of the Shepherd of Hermas, that it was 
 " written at Rome very recently, in our own times, by Her- 
 mas ; while his brother Pius occupied the episcopal chair. 
 Now, according to the vulgar chronology, Pius became Bishop 
 of Rome a. d. 142 ; Bunsen makes the time of his episcopate 
 xo extend from a. d. 132 or 133 to 157. Either chronology, 
 Bunsen's or the vulgar, would authorize Mr. Norton's infer- 
 ence in regard to the time of the composition. Bunsen, how- 
 ever, thinks that he is able to show, " from the book itself,'' 
 
 * Hist., iii. 38. t Hist., iii. 3 and 25. J De Vir. lIlusL, c. 10. 
 
 § Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i., Additional Notes, p. ecxlviii., etc. 
 
10 APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 
 
 that it was written in 139 or 140.* This, if it be so, does not 
 conflict very materially with Mr. Norton's opinion. But 
 whether we adopt the year 140 or 150 as the date, is of little 
 importance so far as concerns our present inquiry. We may 
 safely refer its origin to about the middle of the second cen- 
 tury, or a little earlier.f It was written in Greek, but the 
 original was long supposed to be lost, with the exception of a 
 few fragments preserved in quotations ; and until lately we have 
 possessed it only in an ancient Latin translation. [The Greek 
 text was first published at Leipsic in 1856, or rather in De- 
 cember, 1855, by Rudolph Anger, with a preface by William 
 Dindorf, and more accurately by Tischendorf in Dressel's 
 edition of the Apostolic Fathers, Leipsic, 1857. These edi- 
 tions were founded on a manuscript of Hermas discovered by 
 the notorious Constantino Simonides at Mount Athos, three 
 leaves of which, with a copy of the rest, he sold to the Uni- 
 versity of Leipsic. The defects of that manuscript, which is 
 of the filieenth century, and presents a very corrupt text, have 
 been partially supplied by Tischendorf 's great discovery of the 
 " Codex Sinaiticus," which he assigns to the middle of the fourth 
 century.] This manuscript was found in the monastery of St. 
 Catharine, on Mount Sinai, in 1859, and contains the greater 
 part of the Old Testament (in Greek), and the whole of the 
 New, together with the Epistle of Barnabas, and about one 
 fourth of the Shepherd of Hermas, in the original Greek. J The 
 
 * Christianity and Mankind, i. 184. See the Muratorian Fragment itself, 
 in Bunsen's Analecta Ante-Niccena, i. 137. 
 
 t Neander (Hist., i. 660) mentions the hypothesis which ascribes its origin 
 to about the year 156, and thinks that there are some objections to tlie suppo- 
 sition of so late a date ; but how much earlier he would place it, he does not 
 say. He attributes but little weight to the Muratorian document. 
 
 I [The Codex Sinaiticus was published in the Litter part of the year 1862, 
 in four folio volumes, magnificently printed in fac-simile type, at the expense 
 of the Russian government. The edition consisted of three hundred copies, 
 of which only one hundred were placed on sale, for the benefit of the editor, 
 the remainder being distributed as presents by the Emperor of Eussia. A 
 cheap edition, however, in ordinary type, of the portion containing the New 
 Testament, with the Epistle of Barnabas, and fragments of Plermas, was pub- 
 lished by Tischendorf at Leipsic in 1863, in one volume, quarto. The same 
 year the unsold copies of Dressel's edition of the Patres Apostolici were issued, 
 with a Supplement, also sold separately, containing a complete collation of the 
 Epistle of Barnabas and the portion of Hermas found in the Sinaitic manu- 
 
THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 11 
 
 two latter books, when the manuscript was written, appear to 
 have been classed, in some churches, with the canonical writ- 
 ings of the New Testament ; though as to the production of 
 Hermas, Niebuhr, as Bunsen tells us, used to say that he 
 " pitied the Athenian Christians for being obliged to hear it 
 road in their assemblies." 
 
 The work consists of three books, — Visions, Commands, 
 and Similitudes, the two latter being communicated to the 
 writer, as he says, by an angel in the guise of a shepherd ; 
 hence the title of the work. It is a wild book. The writer 
 seems to have been, in some sense, an imitator of St. John in 
 the Revelation, at least to have read the Apocalypse ; and in his 
 visions and similitudes he gives great license to his imagination. 
 Mr. Norton's comparison of the work to Bunyan's " Pilgrim's 
 Progress " is sugp'estive and forcible. 
 
 In a writing of such a character we can hardly expect to 
 find much which admits of quotation, relating to the doctrines 
 of a speculative theology. It has a great deal to say of God, 
 and " living to God," of allegorical personages and angels, and 
 little, in comparison, of Jesus Christ. God appears in it, and 
 God only, as the Supreme and Infinite One, the sole inde- 
 pendent creator and governor of the universe, who alone is 
 eternal. The first Command begins : " First of all believe 
 that there is one God, who created and formed all things out 
 of nothing. He comprehends all, and is alone immense ; who 
 can neither be defined by words, nor conceived by the mind." 
 
 Similar phraseology ascribing the act of creation directly 
 to God repeatedly occurs. Thus, " God, who dwelleth in 
 heaven, hath made all things out of nothing " ; * — " who by 
 his invisible power and his excellent wisdom made the world " ; f 
 — who " ruleth over all things and hath power over all his 
 creatures." ^ Thus he is supreme, sole maker and governor 
 
 script, with tha Greek text previously published. Besides the common Latin 
 text of the Shepherd of Hermas, Dressel's edition of the Apostolic Fathers 
 rontains another ancient Latin version, discovered by him in the Codex Pala- 
 tinus 150, of the fourteenth century. The readings of this version he describes 
 as often better than those of the common text, and in doubtful cases almost 
 always preferable. In 1860 an ancient iEthiopic version of Hermas was pub- 
 lished at Leipsic, with a Latin translation, by A. d'Abbadie. This also afForda 
 »ome assistance in settling the text. — Ed.] 
 * Vis. i. c. 1. t lb. c. 3. t Sim. ix. c. 28. 
 
12 APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 
 
 of the universe. True, in the Simihtude just quoted, the 
 writer, referring to the name of the Son of God, says the 
 " wliole world is supported by it." * This, if it do not point 
 to the new spiritual creation under Christ its head, seems to 
 conflict with what is elsewhere asserted, that God created and 
 governs all things by a direct act of his power. Possibly the 
 writer may have believed, according to the doctrine about that 
 time beginning to develop itself, that the Fathei" made use of 
 the Son as his instrument in creating and ruhng the world, 
 though the prevailing form of expression throughout the work 
 implies the contrary. Martini ascribes this belief to him.f 
 
 Throughout the work, however, the highest titles and epi- 
 thets are applied to God, never to the Son, who is subject, and 
 receives all from the Father. Thus in the fifth Similitude : 
 " Having blotted out the sins of his people, he showed to them 
 the paths of life, giving them the law which he had received 
 
 of the Father He is Lord of his people, having received 
 
 all power from his Father." 1^ 
 
 By the " first created Spirit," in the following passage, emi- 
 nent critics. Martini and Bunsen among the number, suppose 
 is meant Christ. This seems to us incontestable. The pas- 
 sage, according to the text adopted by Martini, reads thus : 
 " That Holy Spirit, which was created first of all, God placed 
 in a body in which it should dwell, in a chosen body, as it 
 pleased him." § Bunsen varies the punctuation somewhat in 
 the latter part of the passage, giving what he calls a " recon- 
 stituted text," which, however, does not affect what is said of 
 the Spirit as " created || first of all," the reading which he 
 
 * Sim. ix. c. 14. t Versuch, etc., pp. 27, 28. 
 
 J Sim. V. c. 6. § Sim. v. c. 6. 
 
 II " Created" (creatus). There is here a difference of reading. In the text 
 of some editions we have infusus instead of creatus. Creatus, we conceive, 
 has tlie best manuscript authorities in its favor. Martini says, tliat the old 
 manuscript authorities have creatus, and tliat infusus is a later interpolation. 
 Bunsen adopts creatus on the authority of the Dresden and other manu- 
 scripts. The Lambetii, Carmelite, and Vatican have creatus ; and thus 
 t'roin a collection of manuscripts and editions Grabe corrects the te.xt. [This 
 is also the reading of the independent Latin version contained in tlie Codex 
 Palatinus; and Dressel, in his edition of the Apostolic Fathers, adopts it as 
 genuine. The Greek text of the passage in the manuscript of Simonides is 
 peculiar, and, when compared with the old Latin versions, leads one to sus- 
 pect that the original has been altered on dogmatic grounds. It is as follows . 
 
THE IGNATIAN LETTERS. 13 
 
 adopts, and which Archbishop Wake also follows. The " Son 
 of God," says Bunsen, " is the Holy Spirit." He claims that 
 his explanation is neither Athanasian nor Arian ; certainly it 
 is not Athanasian. It savors strongly of Arianism, however, 
 as it makes Christ a created being, and possibly this work, 
 ascribed to Hermas, may have been one of the ancient writings 
 referred to by the Arians, when they asserted that their doc- 
 trine was that of the old Christians. The early Fathers, 
 it is to be observed, frequently confounded the Son with the 
 Spirit, 
 
 The following passage, which affirms the preexistence of 
 the Son, but not his eternity, the Arians might have used 
 without scrapie. " This rock and this gate are the Son of 
 God. I replied. Sir, how can that be ? seeing the rock is old, 
 
 but the gate new He answered. The Son of God is 
 
 indeed more ancient than any creature, so that he was in 
 counsel with his Father at the creation of all things. But the 
 gate is therefore new because he appeared in the last days, 
 even the fulness of time." * The preexistence of the Son, 
 which is not distinctly asserted in Clement's Epistle, no doubt 
 an earlier writing, here clearly enough appears. 
 
 The Ignatian Letters. 
 
 We pass over the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius with slight 
 notice, regarding them as of too uncertain authorship, and too 
 hopelessly corrupt, to justify the use of them in connection with 
 our present inquiry.f As to the bearing of the Epistles in 
 
 rd nvEi<(ia to uyiov to npoov, to KTiaav naaav tt/v ktIoiv, KarcjKiaev 6 iJcof eig cupKa 
 tjv 7j^ov2.ETo, " the preexisting holy spirit which created the whole creation God 
 caused to dwell in a body which he chose." The ^thiopic version, which 
 gives a very free rendering of the whole chapter, reads, " The holy spirit 
 which created all things dwelt in a body which he chose." The fragment 
 of Hermas contained in the Codex Sinaiticus does not include this passage. — 
 Ed.] See Notes to the Amsterdam and recent Paris editions ; also Bunsen, 
 Christianity and Mankind, vol. i. pp.211, 212 (Hippolytus) ; Martini, Versuck, 
 etc., p. 28. Archbishop Wake seems to have followed the Lambeth manuscript. 
 
 * Sim. ix. c. 12. 
 
 t We shall not attempt to argue the question of the genuineness of the 
 fgnatian Letters, but shall content ourselves with a few observations and 
 references. What is called the " testimony of antiquity " in their favor ia 
 too meagre, too loose, and not sufficiently early, and one of the pieces referred 
 
14 APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 
 
 the recently discovered Syriac version on the question of the" 
 behef of the old Christians on the subject of the Trinity, we 
 
 to of too suspicious a eliaracter to prove anj'thing against the internal evidence 
 of the Letters themselves. The passage quoted in this connection from Poly- 
 carp cannot be reconciled with other parts of his Epistle, and there can be 
 little doubt is an interpolation. As to the " general consent of the learned," 
 it may well surprise one to hear it appealed to at the present day in favor of 
 either of tiie old recensions, though the shorter has found more advocates than 
 the longer. They, however, if such there be among living men, who imag- 
 ine that Pearson's Vindicire, etc., preceded by the labors of Usher and 
 Vossius, and intended as an answer to Daille, set the question of the genuine- 
 ness of this recension "at rest forever," cannot have given attention to the 
 record of theological literature in Germany from the time of Larroque's "Re- 
 ply " in 1674 to the publication of the recently discovered Syriac version, as 
 is clearly enough shown by Cureton in his Vindicice, etc., (pp. 15-19, and 
 Appendix.) London, 1846 ; and in his Corpus Ignatianwn, (Preface and 
 Introduction,) London, 1849. Cureton thinks that "many of the arguments 
 which he (Pearson) advances, to say the least, very much weaken, if they do 
 not nullify, one another" ; to which remark he appends the following note: 
 " In the whole course of my inquiry respecting the Ignatian Epistles I have 
 never met with one person who professes to have read Bishop Pearson's cele- 
 brated book ; but I was informed, by one of the most learned and eminent of 
 the present Bench of Bishops, that Person, after having perused the Vindicice, 
 had expressed to him the opinion that it was a very unsatisfactory work." 
 (Corpus Ifputtianum, Preface, p. xiv.) 
 
 The publication of Cureton's Syriac manuscripts, in 1845, introduced a new 
 element of uncertainty into the controversy. Cureton claims that his Syriac 
 version, which is much shorter than the shortest of the old Greek recensions 
 (the English translation of the whole three Letters being comprised within 
 five pages of his Corpus Ignaiianum), represents the authentic text of all the 
 genuine Epistles we possess of the old Martyr. Some learned men of Ger- 
 many, among whom Bunsen was conspicuous, sustained Cureton's view ; 
 others, and among the rest Hilgenfeld, Hefele, and Baur, took decided ground 
 against it. The opinion of English critics, too, was much divided. The result 
 of all is, that the arguments of those who would be glad to believe that we 
 possess some relic of the venerable martyr of Antioch, entitled to be pro- 
 nounced genuine, and who look for it in either of the old recensions, have 
 been weakened rather than strengthened within the last few years, and we 
 are further than ever from being able to appeal to the " general consent of the 
 learned " in favor of any genuine text or version of these celebrated Letters. 
 
 For some account of the opinions and controversy respecting the Epistles 
 in question, see Cureton's volumes already referred to in this note ; also the 
 copious references given by Hagenbach [Text-Book of the Histori/ of Doc- 
 trines, vol. i. pp. 65, 66, New York, 1861). These references relate more par- 
 ticularly, but not exclusively, to the questions raised by the publication of the 
 Syriac text of Cureton. We now hear little of the Syriac version; and we 
 ♦v'ill add only that the discussion which grew out of its discovery and pub- 
 lication has not shaken our confidence in the conclusion, that the time for 
 quoting the Ignatian Letters, in one or another form, as genuine, in support 
 of any point either of history or doctrine, has gone by. 
 
POLYCARP. 15 
 
 Inay affirm, without fear of contradiction, that what Martini 
 asserts of the shorter recension of the seven Epistles, — which 
 critics generally have preferred to the longer, as entitled to be 
 pronounced genuine if the claim could be established in favor 
 of either, — that the divinity of the Son cannot be found in it, 
 at least, in such form as would satisfy " Nicene-Athanasian 
 orthodoxy," is equally true of the recently produced Syriac 
 text.* The most material difference we notice is, that while 
 the Syriac text of the Epistle to the Romans closes with "Jesus 
 Christ our God," the Greek and old Latin recensions both have 
 simply "Jesus Christ," — "our God" being added in the 
 Syriac version. This has a suspicious look. But even this 
 will not satisfy Athanasian orthodoxy. No one doubts that 
 Christ was called God before the time of the Council of Nice, 
 but not God in the highest sense. 
 
 Epistle of Polycarp. 
 
 We now come to the Epistle of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, 
 to the Philippians. Irenaeus tells us that he, in his youth, 
 knew Polycarp well, that he was acquainted with his manner 
 of life, his person, and discourses. f Polycarp, he says, was 
 a disciple of the Apostles, and conversed with those who had 
 seen the Lord. Jerome makes him a disciple particularly of 
 John ; J and Irengeus says, that he was in the habit of relating 
 to him conversations he had with that venerable man. Accord- 
 ing to Jerome he was ordained by John. The time of his 
 birth and death cannot be ascertained, though it is certain that 
 he lived to a very great age, and that he ended his days by 
 martyrdom. The learned diifer as to the date of this event, 
 some placing it as early as 147, others, among whom is Bun- 
 sen, § as late as 169. His death, if the relation given in the 
 Letter of the church of Smyrna to the other churches on the 
 subject of his martyrdom is to be relied upon, was in the last 
 degree noble and affecting, though portions of the narrative 
 certainly have the air of fable. The genuineness, in the main, 
 of the Epistle to the Philippians ascribed to him, though called 
 
 * Versuch, etc., p. 28. t Euseb. Hist., iv. 14, and v. 20. 
 
 } De Vir. Illust., c. 17. § Christianity and Mankind, i. 224. 
 
16 APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 
 
 in question by some among the older, as well as more recent 
 critics, and denied by those of the Tiibingen school, who make 
 Polycarp a " mythical personage," there is no sufficient reason, 
 perhaps, for doubting. Mr. Norton receives it as a genuine 
 relic of the martyr, with the exception of a passage near the 
 end relating to the Ignatian Epistles, to which he, in common 
 with other critics, takes exception, as bearing clear marks of 
 interpolation or forgery.* It is supposed to have originally 
 ended with the doxology in the twelfth chapter. The early 
 part of the second century is assigned as the probable date of 
 its composition. 
 
 The Epistle, which is mostly hortative, and retains the old 
 simplicity of thought and expression, is brief, and will help us 
 very little in our inquiry as to what Christians of that day 
 believed concerning the origin and precise rank of the Son. 
 Its testimony to the supremacy of the Father, and the subordi- 
 nation of the Son, however, is clear and decisive. Thus we 
 are saved " by the will of God through Jesus Christ " ; — 
 *' who died, and was raised again by God for us." f Again, 
 the writer speaks of believing in "him who raised up our 
 Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave him glory and 
 a throne at his right hand; to whom all things in heaven 
 and on earth are made subject, whom every living creature 
 shall worship " ; $ not, however, as siipreme. The prevailing 
 language of the Epistle teaches the contrary. So in the fol- 
 lowing quotation : " Now the God and Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and he himself, the everlasting high-priest, the 
 Son of God, Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth." § 
 Here the Son is sufficiently distinguished from the Father. 
 The high-priest makes an offering to God, but is not God 
 himself. 
 
 Such passages, scattered over the short Epistle, show clearly 
 enough that this old martyr had no conception of Jesus Christ 
 as equal with God, or as one with him except in will and pur- 
 
 * Genuineness of (he Gospels, vol. i., Additional Notes, p. ccxliv., etc. 
 
 t Cap. 1, 9. 
 
 J Cap. 2. [(jnuaa nvorj TMTpevaei (so two MSS. ; common reading lar/jfm). 
 "to wlioni every living creature will pay religious service." Comp. 1 Cor 
 XV. 27 ; Phil. ii. 9-11 ; 1 Pet. iii. 22 ; Rev. v. 13. — Ed.] 
 
 § Cap. 12. 
 
BARNABAS. " 17 
 
 pose. Here are no metaphysics, no confusion or obscurity, no 
 hair-splitting distinctions. The Father is separated from the 
 Son by a broad and distinct hne, one as supreme, tlie other as 
 subordinate ; one as giving, the other as receiving ; the Father 
 granting to the Son a " throne at his right hand." 
 
 Epistle of Baenabas. 
 
 This has been ascribed to Barnabas, the companion of St. 
 Pauh But the best modern critics generally agree in assert- 
 ing that he was not the author. Mr. Norton, who has no hes- 
 itation in saying that it was not written by Barnabas, the 
 companion of St. Paul, thinks that it dates from about the 
 middle of the second century, not far from the time when 
 Justin Martyr wrote his Dialogue with Trypho.* It was not, 
 as he argues from internal evidence, written by a Jew, or a 
 Jewish Christian. Bunsen says that it was written by a Gentile, 
 and that it is an " Alexandrian production." f He attributes 
 to it a " high antiquity " ; he thinks that it was written soon 
 after the fall of Jerusalem, that it is as old as the Epistle of 
 Clement, and consequently was anterior by about fifteen years 
 to the Gospel of John. But it is difficult to answer Mr. 
 Norton's arguments, referring it to a later period, which, as 
 he observes, would preclude it from occupying a place with 
 " writings of Apostolical Fathers." 
 
 Neander says, " we cannot possibly recognize in this pro- 
 duction the Barnabas who was deemed worthy to take part as 
 a companion in the apostolical labors of Paul." But unlike 
 Mr. Norton and Bunsen, he ascribes it to a " Jew of the Alex- 
 andrian school, who had embraced Christianity." In support 
 of this opinion he assigns several reasons. He allows Bar- 
 nabas, the companion of St. Paul, no part in the composition. 
 " The Epistle," he says, " is all of a piece, and cannot possi- 
 bly be separated into two parts, of which Barnabas was the 
 author of one, and somebody else of the other." J 
 
 * Genuineness of the Guspels, vol. i., Additional Notes, p. ccl., etc. 
 
 t Christianity arid Mankind, i. 53-57. 
 
 t Hist, of the Christian Religion, etc., i. 667, 658. 
 
 2 
 
18 APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 
 
 Until the recent discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript by 
 Tischendorf, pubhshed in 1863, we possessed the Epistle only 
 in a corrupt and mutilated form. Its value, in any view we 
 may take of it, is not great. Portions of it are weak, puerile, 
 and extravagant ; and the author betrays a fondness for alle- 
 gory, far-fetched conceits, and forced and mystical interpreta- 
 tions, conformable to the Alexandrian taste. 
 
 But what does it teach of the Saviour? It undoubtedly 
 recognizes his preexistence. He is called the " Lord of the 
 whole earth, to whom God said before the constitution of the 
 world, ' Let us make man,' " etc.* As God's instrument in 
 the creation it might be said that the sun was the " work of his 
 hands." f Throughout the Epistle, however, the supremacy 
 of the Father is maintained. This it is impossible to deny. 
 The author refers to Psalm ex. 1 and Isaiah xlv. 1, to prove 
 that both David and Isaiah call Jesus " Lord, and the Son of 
 God." But in both these texts Jesus, if referred to at all, is 
 clearly distinguished from the supreme God, with whom the 
 writer of the Epistle has evidently no intention of confounding 
 him, or making him a co-equal. Nor in speaking of Jesus as 
 the Son of God does he make any allusion to the metaphysical 
 doctrine of the Logos, so prominent in the writings of Justin 
 Martyr and the Platonizing Fathers after his day. 
 
 TJie meaning of the words, " In him and to him are all 
 things," J is sufficiently explained by the connection in which 
 they stand. All things in the old dispensation, as the writer 
 believed and argued, had reference to Christ. " In him and 
 to him " were all. The brazen serpent, as he says, and much 
 else, pointed to him. All types and figures had their fulfilment 
 in him, who in the fiilness of time was to come. So reasoned 
 a certain class of writers, to which the author of this Epistle 
 belonged, adopting in full extent the allegorical and mystical 
 mode of interpretation, indulging their fancy rather than con- 
 sulting their reason. § 
 
 The personality of the Spirit does not appear in the Epistle, 
 but only such expressions as these : " The Spirit of God 
 orophesieth, saying," etc. ; " The Holy Spirit put it into the 
 
 * Cap. 5. t Ibid. J Cap. 12. 
 
 § See Souverain, Le Plotonisme devoile, p. 170. 
 
CONCLUDING REMAEKS. 19 
 
 heart of Moses," — phraseology which it needs no argnment at 
 this time of day to prove does not imply personality. 
 
 Thus of the mass of writings ascribed to the Apostolic Fa- 
 thers we find two only — the first Epistle of Clement and the 
 very brief one of Polycarp — whose claims to be considered as 
 wholly or in part genuine can be admitted. Even the genu- 
 ineness of these has been contested by critics of note, and we 
 possess neither of them in its entireness and purity. Two 
 of the others may be considered as dating from about the 
 middle of the second century, and are not therefore to be 
 numbered among the writings of Apostolic Fathers. Of the 
 rest the date and authorship cannot be determined, though 
 they want evidence of a very early Christian antiquity.* 
 
 One word in regard to the Logos-doctrine, as developed by 
 Justin Martyr and the learned writers of a subsequent age. 
 
 * The reader who has accompanied us in the foregoing examination of tiie 
 writings ascribed to the Apostolic Fathers, so involved in obscurity and 
 doubt, will be prepared to appreciate the beauty and force of the following 
 extract from the Introduction to Dr. Stanley's History of the Eastern Church. 
 In passing from Christianity as we see it in the New Testament to the Chris- 
 tianity of the Fathers, we witness a great change. 
 
 " No other change equally momentous," says Dr. Stanley, "has ever since 
 affected its fortunes, yet none has ever been so silent and secret. The stream, 
 in that most critical moment of its passage from the everlasting hills to the 
 plain below, is lost to our view at the very point where we are most anxious 
 to watch it ; we may hear its struggles under the overarching rocks ; we may 
 catch its spray on the boughs that overlap its course ; but the torrent itself 
 we see not, or see only by imperfect glimpses. It is not so much a period for 
 ecclesiastical history as for ecclesiastical controversy and conjecture. A frag- 
 ment here, an allegory there ; romances of unknown authorship ; a handful 
 of letters of which the genuineness of everj' portion is contested inch by inch ; 
 the summary examination of a Roman magistrate ; the pleadings of two or 
 three Christian apologists ; customs and opinions in the very act of change ; 
 last, but not least, the faded paintings, the broken sculptures, the rude epi- 
 taphs in the darkness of the catacombs, — these are the scanty, though attrac- 
 tive, materials out of which the likeness of the early Church must be repro- 
 duced, as it was working its way, in the literal sense of the word, ' under 
 ground,' under camp and palace, under senate and forum, — ' as unknown, 
 yet well known ; as dying, and behold it lives.' This chasm once cleared, 
 vie find ourselves approaching the point where the story of the Church 
 once more becomes history." — pp. xxxvi., xxxvii. 
 
20 APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 
 
 That it does not appear in the writings ascribed to any of the 
 Bo-called Apostolic Fathers of whom we possess any hterary 
 remains, may be regarded as an estabhshed fact ; and a most 
 significant one it is. The absence of all traces of the doctrine 
 in these writings can be explained only on the supposition that 
 the authors " did not," in the words of Souverain, " find it in 
 the Christian religion, nor in the Jewish, and not having studied 
 in the school of Plato, they could not import it from that school 
 into the church of Christ." * Hagenbach concedes that the 
 authors of these writings " do not make any use of the peculiar 
 doctrine of the Logos." f Semisch, after observing that the 
 most ancient Fathers of the Church, in their speculative 
 inquiries relating to the person of Christ, took their direction 
 from Philo, whose doctrine of the Logos was their " starting- 
 point," adds : " We except, however, the so-called Apostolic 
 Fathers. Every such application of the idea of the Logos was 
 foreign to their minds." J A most important exception truly, 
 as bearing on the argument of the present volume. 
 
 * Le Platonisme devoil^, p. 176. 
 
 t Text-book, etc., First Period, § 42. 
 
 I Justin Mai-tyr, ii. 177, 178, Ryland's translation. 
 
JUSTIN MARTYR, AND HIS OPINIONS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Claims op Justin on our Notice. — Birth, and Early Studies. — Dis- 
 satisfaction WITH his Teachers. — His Despondency. — His Recep- 
 tion OF Platonism. — His Conversion. — His Dialogue with Try- 
 PHO. — Writes his First Apology. — His Second. — His last Days, 
 and Martyrdom. 
 
 Among the great writers and teachers of the ancient church, 
 Justin, called the Philosopher and Martyr, claims our first 
 notice ; not as the brightest and most transcendent of the 
 group, yet as a learned man and a sincere Christian, and the 
 first of the disciples of the cross of whom, after the days of 
 the Apostles, we possess any remains the genuineness of which 
 has not been brought into question. It is true, we have a mass 
 of writings ascribed to an earlier period. But, with slight 
 exceptions, their date and authorship, as we have seen, are 
 involved in uncertainty. Many of them are palpable forgeries ; 
 and others have come down to us in so corrupt a state, or are 
 so disfigured by interpolations, that, for any purpose of history 
 or doctrine, their value as authorities is nearly worthless. 
 
 Of the writings just referred to, ascribed to the so-called 
 " Apostolic Fathers," we have treated at sufficient length in 
 our Preliminary Chapter. Next follow the Apologists, two of 
 whom preceded Justin. These are Quadratus, and Aristides 
 of Athens, both of whom pi'esented "Apologies for Christian- 
 ity," addressed to the Emperor Hadrian, the immediate prede- 
 cessor of the first Antonine. Of these two Apologies nothing 
 is preserved except a few lines from Quadratus, quoted by 
 Eusebius the historian.* In this fragment he speaks of some 
 
 * Hist., iv. 3. 
 
22 JUSTIN MAKTYR. 
 
 who were healed and some who were raised from the dead by 
 Christ as having hved to his own times. We know not the 
 date of Quadratus's birth. His Apology is said to have been 
 offered in the tenth year of Hadrian's reign, — the year 1 26 
 of our era. His recollection, however, might have extended 
 back some distance into the first century. He is i*eportcd to 
 have been a hearer of the Apostles, and certainly might have 
 been of John. 
 
 This, as we have seen, is an obscure period of Christian 
 history. With Justin Martyr, we emerge from a region of 
 darkness, and find, at least, some straggling rays of light. His 
 writings possess peculiar interest from the age to which they 
 belong, and the circumstances which gave them birth. They 
 carry us back to the former part of the second century, — a 
 period not very remote from the death of the last of the little 
 band who saw and conversed with Jesus, and were commis- 
 sioned to teach in his name. As a record of facts, they 
 furnish useful, though not very ample, materials of history. 
 They have excited attention, too, if they do not derive impor- 
 tance, from the rank and early studies of their author. He is 
 the first to make us acquainted with Grecian culture in its 
 connection with Christian thought. Jerome speaks of him as 
 imitating the earlier apologist, Aristides ; but how much is 
 meant by the assertion, it is impossible to say. Aristides is 
 called by Jerome a " most eloquent " man : but what his phil- 
 osophical opinions were, we are not informed ; nor is it known 
 how far he may have been chargeable with having taken the 
 mitiatory step in destroying the simplicity of the Christian 
 doctrine, which disappeared amid the decided Platonism of 
 Justin and his successors, especially the great teachers of the 
 Alexandrian School. That the writings emanating from this 
 school, along with those of Justin, who led the way, introduced 
 darkness and error into the theology of the period — error 
 which was transmitted to subsequent times, and from the over- 
 shadowing effects of which the Christian world has not yet 
 fully recovered — admits, in our opinion, of no denial. 
 
 There was that, however, in the character of Justin, which 
 commands our admiration. He was, in many respects, a light 
 and ornament of his age. He labored with zeal, if not with 
 
BIRTH AND EARLY STUDIES. 23 
 
 discretion, in the cause of his Master ; and, having obtained 
 the honors of martyrdom, left a name which the gratitude of 
 Christians has dehghted to cherish. 
 
 Materials are wanting for an extended biographical notice 
 of Justin. The little we know of him is culled chiefly from 
 his own writings. They have preserved a few incidents of 
 his life ; and tradition has added a little, though but little, to 
 the stock. From himself we learn that he was a native of 
 Palestine, and was born at Flavia Neapolis, the ancient She- 
 chem, — called Sychar in the New Testament, now Nablus, — 
 a city of Samaria, and, as Josephus informs us, the metropolis 
 of that country at the time Alexander entered Judaea. Here, 
 probably, his ancestors had for some time resided, since he 
 calls the Samaritans his nation and race ; though we are 
 authorized to infer, from his own expressions, that he was of 
 Pacran extraction : and his education was certainly Heathen. 
 Of his father and grandfather he has told us only the names. 
 That of the former was Priscus; and that of the latter, 
 Bacchius. 
 
 The precise time of Justin's birth cannot be ascertained with 
 certainty : but it must have very nearly coincided with that 
 of the death of St. John the evangelist ; being late in the first 
 century, or very early in the second (probably about the year 
 103); though there have not been wanting those who have 
 carried it as far back into the first century as the year 89. Of 
 this number are Fabricius, Grabe, and others ; whom Otto, 
 Justin's latest editor, seems inclined to follow. To this e^rly 
 date, however, there are serious historical objections. 
 
 Justin must, as it would appear, have been born and bred 
 in easy circumstances. He possessed a liberal curiosity and 
 an ardent thirst for knowledge, and early devoted himself to 
 philosophical studies. He had conceived a high opinion of 
 the objects and uses of philosophy, as the term was then under- 
 stood. It was, in his view, the only treasure worth the attain- 
 ment ; comprehending, as he believed, a knowledge of all that 
 pertained to God and to human felicity.* This had been 
 sought by him, as he informs us, in the schools of Zeno, Aris- 
 
 * Dial, cum Tryph., p. 102, ed. Par., 1742 ; to which all our references are 
 made, unless Thirlby's or Otto's is specified. 
 
24 JUSTIN MAETYR. 
 
 totle, and Pythagoras, but in vain. He first, he tells us in his 
 Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, put himself under the tuition 
 of a certain Stoic. With him he remained long enough to 
 discover that he could impart little knowledge of God ; for he 
 possessed little, and did not esteem such knowledge of any 
 great worth. Justin then left him, and betook himself to one 
 of the Peripatetic School, who passed with himself, says he, 
 for a very astute philosopher. But, demanding a stipulated 
 fee for teaching, Justin leaves him in disgust, thinking that 
 very unphilosophical. Still burning with a desire of knowl- 
 edge, he next selects for his teacher a conceited Pythagorean. 
 This man demanded of those who proposed to become hia 
 pupils a previous knowledge of music, astronomy, and geome- 
 try, as tending to refine and elevate the conceptions, and thus 
 assist the mind to comprehend abstract mental truths, and rise 
 at last to the contemplation of the sole good and fair. Of this 
 preparatory information Justin professed himself destitute ; and 
 was therefore compelled to leave him, much to his regret : for 
 this man, he says, really " appeared to know something." 
 
 Disappointed, humbled, and chagrined, Justin now seems 
 for a time to have resigned himself to grief and melancholy, 
 ignorant whither next to turn. The lofty pretensions of the 
 Platonists at length awoke him from his dream of suspense. 
 This sect was then in great repute, as teaching transcendent 
 truths relating to God and the universe ; upon which subjects 
 its founder had discoursed with a copiousness and eloquence 
 which charmed the imagination, though his obscurity and 
 mysticism might occasionally baffie the understandings, of his 
 hearers. To one of these, who had recently taken up his 
 abode at Neapolis (where, it seems, Justin continued to reside), 
 he joins himself; and his fondest hopes appear now about to 
 be realized. His attention is directed to subjects congenial 
 with his tastes and feelings. Plato's incorporeal essences de- 
 lighted him. The contemplation of ideas or intelligible forms, 
 the patterns and archetypes of things visible, added wings to 
 his imagination. He thought himself already wise ; and, in his 
 folly, flattered himself that he should soon obtain a vision of 
 God : for this, he adds, " is the end of Plato's philosophy." * 
 * Dial, cum TrypL, pp. 102-104 ; Otto, cc. 1, 2. 
 
HIS CONVEESION. 25 
 
 Justin was ardent, imaginative, and strongly inclined to 
 mysticism ; and hence the most extravagant dreams of the Pla- 
 tonists found a ready reception with him ; and his mind soon 
 acquired a taint from this source, which was never removed. 
 He retained, after his conversion, his former partiality for the 
 doctrine of ideas, as taught in the Platonic schools, which he 
 considered too difficult and sublime a doctrine to have origi- 
 nated in the subtilest human genius ; and he therefore con- 
 cluded that Plato must have stolen " so great a mystery " from 
 Moses, who speaks of an exemplar, type, and figure (pre- 
 existent forms) shown him on the mount. 
 
 Full of enthusiasm, and impatient of interruption, he now 
 resolves to fly from the society of men, and bury himself in 
 the depths of solitude, — there to deliver himself up to his 
 favorite contemplations, by which he was to rise to a vision 
 of the Divinity. For this purpose, he selects a retired spot 
 near the sea. As he approached this spot, he observed, he 
 tells us, an aged man, of a venerable aspect, grave, but with 
 a look of meekness, following him at a little distance ; and, 
 turnino;, he entered into conversation with him. The con- 
 ference was a long one ; and the old man, adopting somewhat 
 of the Socratic method, appears often to have perplexed his 
 youthful antagonist. He exposed the absurd pretensions of 
 the philosophers ; pointed out the futility of their specula- 
 tions ; and concluded by directing his attention to the Hebrew 
 prophets, who were older than the philosophers, and who 
 alone, he affirmed, saw and taught the truth, and, speaking 
 by divine inspiration, unfolded visions of the future. But 
 " pray," says he, " that the gates of light may be opened to 
 thee ; for none can perceive and comprehend these things, 
 except God and his Christ grant them understanding." Say- 
 ing this, the old man departed, and was seen no more.* 
 
 Justin is impressed. He had previously witnessed the con- 
 stancy of the martyrs ; he had observed the tranquillity and 
 fortitude with which they encountered death, and all other 
 evils which appear terrible to man ; and he justly inferred, 
 that they could not be pi'ofligate who could so patiently endure. f 
 He had long believed them innocent of the crimes imputed 
 * Dial, cum Tryph., cc. 3-8, Otto. t Apol. II. c. 12, p. 96, 
 
26 JUSTIN MAKTTR. 
 
 to them. He was now prepared to think that they held the 
 truth. He reflected on the words of the venerable stranger, 
 and was convinced that they inculcated the " only safe and 
 useful philosophy." * 
 
 Such is his own account f of the manner in which he became 
 a Christian, or, as he expresses it, a philosopher ; for he was 
 fond of retaining the name, as he also continued to wear the 
 dress, of a Grecian sage. Eusebius $ informs us that he 
 preached Christianity in the philosophers' garb, — a sort of 
 coarse or cheap mantle, usually of a dark color, similar to that 
 
 * Dial, p. 108 ; Otto, c. 8. 
 
 t This account, as we have said, is given in his Dialogue witli Trypho ; 
 and may therefore be received, we suppose, as a genuine history of his con- 
 version, even if the dialogue be a fictitious composition, after the manner of 
 Plato's Dialogues. This species of writing, in which imaginary personages 
 are introduced as engaged in real discourse or argument, appears to have been 
 a favorite one with the ancients. Plato had adopted it with success, and the 
 charms of his dialogues were universally felt and acknowledged ; and Cicero 
 and others employed it after him. It is not improbable that Justin, wlio, as 
 we know, was a warm admirer of Plato, might have been influenced by his 
 example to attempt a style of composition which possessed so many attrac- 
 tions. That this was actually the case, we think the pervading tone, in fact 
 the whole air and costume, of the dialogue, if we may be allowed so to express 
 ourselves, afford abundant evidence. We can never persuade ourselves that 
 Justin's meek and supple Jew was a real personage. He is too patient of 
 abuse, and concedes too much to his antagonist. Nor, had lie been a learned 
 Jew, as is supposed, — whether Rabbi Tarphon, as some will have it, or any 
 other Rabbi, — would he have allowed Justin's gross blunders in Hebrew chro- 
 nology, historj% and criticism, to have passed without censure. That he might 
 have held a dispute or disputes with the Jews, is highly probable ; for he was 
 not accustomed to shrink from a trial of his strength in debate : and that the 
 substance of one or more of these interviews may have been retained in the 
 dialogue, or, at least, have furnished hints of which he made some use, is quite 
 as probable. From these and other materials suggested by conversation and 
 reading, the piece was no doubt made up ; but the style and dress, tlie rhetor- 
 ical embellishment, the whole form and structure, are Justin's. It is no more 
 a real dialogue, we are persuaded, than similar compositions of Cicero or of 
 Bishop Berkeley. He borrowed, unquestionably, like the authors of fictitious 
 vritings generally, from real life, but worked up his rough materials accord- 
 ing to his own fancy and judgment; and, as he was not deficient in a very 
 complacent opinion of his own abilities, his imaginary antagonist is made to 
 treat him with great respect, <and yield him advantages in argument which a 
 real Jew of ordinary shrewdness would not have given. But whether the 
 dialogue be fictitious or not is of no importance ; since, in either case, we 
 must suppose it to furnish a true record of Justin's opinions, and of the pro 
 Teas by which he became a Christian. 
 
 I Hist., iv. 11. 
 
HIS CONVERSION. 27 
 
 afterwards worn by monks and hermits. It was this garb, as 
 we learn from himself, which attracted the notice of Trypho 
 the Jew, and led him to address him as a philosopher. " Hail, 
 philosopher ! " is his first salutation. " When I see a person 
 in this garb, I gladly approach him, with the expectation," he 
 adds, "of hearing something useful," — or perhaps in the hope 
 of amusement ; for he was surrounded by some jeering com- 
 panions of his own faith.* 
 
 Of the date of his conversion, nothing can with certainty 
 be affirmed. The year 132 or 133 of the common era, how- 
 ever, is usually assigned ; probably with some near approach 
 to truth. Of his history after his conversion, few notices 
 occur in his own writings ; and little on which we can rely is 
 to be gathered from other sources. In a treatise which bears 
 his name, though its genuineness has been strongly contested, 
 we find incidental mention of him as having been in Campania 
 and Egypt ; f and Ephesus is the scene of his celebrated Dia- 
 logue with Trypho. It is not improbable that his zeal in the 
 cause of Christianity may have led him to visit these and other 
 places. His usual residence, however, as Eusebius informs 
 us, J was at Rome. He was certainly much there ; and if the 
 piece called the " Acts of his Martyrdom " be entitled to any 
 credit as an historical memoir, he dwelt at a place called Tim- 
 othy's Baths, on the Viminal Mount, where he conversed 
 freely with all who resorted to him, and, b}' discourse and 
 writings, engaged, as occasion offered, in defence of Christian- 
 ity, and fearlessly met and repelled the foul charges brought 
 against its professors. 
 
 He is supposed to have written his first or larger Apology, 
 addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, to his adopted sons, 
 Marcus Antoninus the philosopher, and Lucius Verus also 
 called philosopher, and to the senate and people of Rome, about 
 the year 138 or 139. § It was occasioned by the suffering of 
 the Christians under a severe persecution, instigated in this 
 
 * Dial, cc. 1, 8, Otto. t Cohort, ad Grcecos, cc. 13, 37, Otto. 
 
 J Hist., iv. 11. 
 
 § This date is adopted by Dodwell, Petau. Le Clerc, Basnage, Scaliger, 
 Pagi, Mohler, Semisch, Neander, Otto, and others ; thougli some prefer A. r>. 
 •40 as the period of its composition, and others of no small critical repute — 
 as Tiilemont, Grabe, Fleury, and Maran — name as late a date as 150. 
 
28 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 instance, it seems, by the frenzy of the populace, who were 
 accustomed at the pubhc games, and whenever opportunity 
 offered, to clamor for their blood, and urge the civil authorities 
 to put in execution the imperial edicts then existing against 
 them, but which the humanity of the magistrates appears some- 
 times to have allowed to sleep. This Apology is alluded to in 
 the Dialogue with Trypho : which must, therefore, have been 
 written at a subsequent period ; Pearson thinks, in the year 
 146 ; * but this is conjecture. The second Apology appears 
 to have been written at a still later period, and not long before 
 his martyrdom. f 
 
 Justin was roused to offer this Apology by the sufferings of 
 three persons who had been recently put to death by Urbicus, 
 prefect of the city, for no crime, but only for acknowledging 
 themselves the followers of Christ. This act of Urbicus he 
 regarded only as a prelude to still further severities ; and, with 
 the exalted courage of a martyr, he stepped forward, and en- 
 deavored to avert the storm which seemed ready to burst on 
 the heads of his fellow-Christians. The consequences of his 
 zeal and activity he seems fully to have anticipated. His 
 ability, the weight of his character, his powerful appeals and 
 remonstrances, and his unsparing censure of the follies of Pa- 
 ganism, provoked the hostility of the enemies of the Christian 
 name ; and they now, more than ever, panted for the blood of 
 so noble a victim. Near the beginning of his Apology, he 
 expresses his belief that the fate of his companions would soon 
 be his own. He had a determined, and, as the event proved, 
 a powerful adversary in one Crescens, a Cynic philosopher, 
 whom he describes as a person of infamous character, but fond 
 of popularity, and willing to resort to any arts, however base, 
 
 * Just., ed. Thirlb., p. 439. 
 
 t It was addressed, according to Eusebius (iv. 16), to Marcus Antoninus the 
 philosopher, and liis associate in the empire ; though some modern critics — as 
 Dodwell, Thirlby (Just., ed. Thirlb., p. 110), and Pearson — have inferred, from 
 internal evidence, that this as well as the former was offered to Antoninus 
 °iu8. So also Neander ; the testimony of Eusebius, and, we may add, also 
 of Jerome, notwithstanding. Semisch does not attempt to settle the date 
 with precision, but places it between A. d. 161 and 1G6. Otto names 164. The 
 theory that tliis originally constituted only the introduction to the larger 
 Apology, and that tlie other Apology has been lost, has been proved, we 
 ^ink, by Otto and others, to be entitled to no respect. 
 
HIS MARTYRDOM. 29 
 
 for the purpose of obtaining it. The odium shared by the 
 Christians, already virulent enough, appears to have been ren- 
 dered still more deadly by his exertions. He went about to 
 inflame the minds of the people against them ; shamelessly 
 reiterating the then stale charge of immorality and atheism, 
 though, as Justin affirms, entirely ignorant of their principles. 
 He appears, however, to have obtained the ear of the emperor ; 
 for his machinations succeeded, and Justin was sacrificed. 
 He was apprehended ; brought before Rusticus, prefect of the 
 city ; and, on his refusal to oflTer sacrifice, was condemned to die. 
 
 Of his death by martyrdom there can, we think, be no 
 reasonable doubt. The little treatise, already mentioned, called 
 the "Acts of the Mai-tyrdom of Justin and Others," would 
 furnish an affecting account of the concluding scene of his life, 
 could its authenticity be established. But this is considered 
 as more than questionable. The piece is one of acknowledged 
 antiquity ; but the date of its composition cannot be ascer- 
 tained : nor have we any means of determining whether the 
 Justin whose sufferings it recounts is the saint of whom we are 
 speaking, or another individual of the same name. In these 
 Acts, he is said to have been beheaded ; and we can easily 
 credit them, when they assert that he met death with the 
 calmness and fortitude becoming a follower of the crucified 
 Jesus. The precise year of his death is unknown.* There is 
 a tradition in the Greek Church, that, hke Socrates, he drank 
 the hemlock ; but this tradition has been considered as entitled 
 to little respect. 
 
 Some writers of the Romish communion would persuade us 
 that he was admitted to the order of priest or bishop hi that 
 church ; but, in support of this hypothesis, they offer only 
 
 * Fabricius (Biblioth. Grcec, t. v. p. 52) and Grabe {Spic. Patr., t. ii. pp. 146, 
 147) place it at a. d. 163, — or perhaps 165, says the latter; Tilleraont (Eccles. 
 Mem., vol. ii. p. 145), at 167 or 168 ; others, at one of the intervening years 
 165 or 166. Dodwell has expressed an opinion that he was born a. d. 119, 
 and suffered death a. d. 149, at thirty years of age (Dissert, in. in Irenoeum, 
 § Id) ; but this opinion is not supported by any good authority. Epiphanius, 
 indeed, says that Justin perished during the reign of Hadrian, at thirty years 
 of age. But it is beyond question, as has been generally observed, either that 
 Epiphanius was deceived, or that his text has been corrupted ; it being quite 
 certain that Justin survived Hadrian. Otto adopts the date of a. d. 166. in 
 the consulship of Orphitus and Pudens. 
 
80 JUSTIN MAETYR. 
 
 vague conjectures. The ancients observe the most profound 
 silence on the subject ; nor do the Romanists of modern times 
 venture to assign him any particular church or see. Neander 
 calls him an " itinerant preacher, in the garb of a philosopher ; " 
 and Semisch, an " itinerant evangelist." The Romish Church 
 observes his festival on the 13th of April ; and the Greek, on 
 the 1st of June ; both having canonized him. 
 
Justin's weitings. 81 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Justin's Writings. — Extravagant Praise bestowed on him. — Rev- 
 
 ERENCK FOR THE FATHERS DECLINES. — EXAMINATION OF JuSTIN'S 
 
 larger Apology. — His Mode of Argument. — Topics and Tone 
 OF HIS Address. — Prophecy and Miracles. — Topics of his Second 
 Apology. — Dialogue with Trypho. 
 
 Several of the works of Justin are lost; among which, 
 unfortunately, is his book " Against all Heresies," mentioned 
 by himself; and one against Marcion, if both were not parts 
 of the same work. His first Apology, placed second in the 
 earlier editions of his works, has reached us nearly, if not 
 quite, entire. The second is somewhat mutilated at the 
 beginning, and, in other respects, appears imperfect. The 
 genuineness of the Dialogue with Trypho has been questioned 
 by a few ; but, we think, for very insufficient reasons. The 
 " Hortatory Address to the Greeks " has been rejected by 
 several modern critics ; * and Thirlby has not admitted it into 
 his edition of the works of the saint. Of the several other 
 treatises formerly published under his name, and included in 
 the later editions of his works, with the exception of Thirlby's, 
 none are now considered as entitled to a place among his gen- 
 uine and acknowledged remains. Most of them are universally 
 rejected as spurious ; f and the two or three short pieces or 
 
 * Its genuineness was attacked by Casimir Oudin, a writer of some little 
 note in his time, who died at Leyden in 1717. Others have doubted or re- 
 jected. Mohler (Pa/;o/o(7/e, p. 224) is among the latter. Neander hesitates. 
 Otto [De Justini Martyris Scriptis et Doclrina, p. 88, etc.) and Semisch (vol. i. 
 pp. 118, etc) argue the question, the latter at great length, and decide for its 
 genuineness. Augusti, De Wette, Credner, Baumgarten-Crusius, and several 
 others, are referred to as pronouncing the same judgment. So far as the au- 
 thority of eminent critics goes, the evidence on this side now decidedly pre- 
 dominates ; tliough much doubt remains, and ever will remain. 
 
 t These are the Epistle to Zenas and Serenus, the Exposition of the Right 
 Faith, Questions and Responses to the Orthodox, Christian Questions to the 
 Greeks, and Greek Questions to the Christians, and the Confutation of Certain 
 Dogmas of Aristotle, all thrown into the Appendix in the Paris edition of 1742 
 as manifestly supposititious. 
 
82 JUSTIN MAETYR. 
 
 fragments, still sometimes referred to as his, are of too doubt- 
 ful a character to authorize us to cite them as part of his gen- 
 uine works.* 
 
 Justin has been the subject of much extravagant panegyric. 
 
 * Such are the Oration to tlie Greeks, the short fragment on the Monarchy 
 of God, and the Epistle to Diognetus, — a work of undoubted antiquity, of 
 which we shall speak hereafter. Semisch claims the fragment of a work on 
 the Resurrection as Justin's ; but there is not that historical and critical evi 
 dence in its favor which is necessary to procure its general reception. Few, 
 we think, at the present day, will venture to quote from it as a work of 
 Justin. 
 
 The first printed edition of the collected works of Justin, in Greek, is that 
 of R. Stephens in 1551. This edition includes nearly the whole of what has 
 been attributed to Justin, Stephens having published the spurious, along with 
 the genuine, from a manuscript belonging to the Royal Library. The Address 
 to the Greeks or Gentiles, and the Epistle to Diognetus, however, were not 
 embraced in it, but were published by Henry Stephens in 1592 and 1595. An 
 edition of the works of this Father was published by Sylburgius, at Heidel- 
 berg, in 1593. This edition was reprinted at Paris in 1615, and again in 1636. 
 That bearing the latter date was highly esteemed, and is the edition generally 
 intended when reference is made to the Paris edition by several writers dur- 
 ing the century subsequent to its publication. 
 
 Tliirlby's edition of the two Apologies, and Dialogue with Trypho, was 
 published in Loudon in 1722. This edition is beautifully printed, and con- 
 tains some valuable notes, generally brief, and not encumbered with useless 
 learning. On points involving doctrinal controversy, however, Thirlby has 
 studiously avoided entering into any discussion. 
 
 The last Paris edition is that of Prud. Maran, or Maranus, a Benedictine 
 monk of the congregation of St. Maur, 1742. This edition includes all the 
 treatises, as well spurious as genuine, which have been at different times pub- 
 lished under the name of Justin. The volume contains likewise the remains 
 of several other Greek writers of the second century ; as Tatian, Justin's 
 disciple, Athcnagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, and Hermias. Maran gave a 
 new Latin version of the two Apologies and the Dialogue. Of portions of 
 the writings of Justin there have been more recent editions; but his entire 
 works, for a hundred years from the time of Maran, found no new editor. 
 
 The first volume of Otto's edition appeared at Jena in 1842, — exactly a cen- 
 tury after the date of the celebrated Paris edition of Maran. The remaining 
 volumes subsequently appeared ; and a second edition, in five volumes, was 
 published in 1847-1850. This is an octavo edition, and embraces all the works 
 which have passed under the name of Justin, genuine and spurious. It is 
 very carefully edited, with a corrected text, critical annotations and com- 
 ments, original and selected, and presents the writings of Justin in a more 
 convenient form than any before possessed. No one who has access to this 
 ■jdition will hereafter use any other. 
 
 [This edition of Justin by Otto forms a part of his Corpus Apologetarum 
 Chrislianorum SoecuU Secundi. Of this collection, three volumes have since 
 appeared, containing the remains of Tatian (1851), Athenagoras (1857), and 
 Theophilus (1861), all admirably edited. — Ed.] 
 
JUSTIN EXTRAVAGANTLY PRAISED. 33 
 
 Profound learning, penetration, wit, judgment, and eloquence 
 (almost every quality which goes to make a great writer) have 
 been ascribed to him by his too partial admirers. Antiquity 
 is loud in his praise. Tatian, his disciple, calls him a " most 
 wonderful " man ; and Methodius, a writer of the third cen- 
 tury, tells us that he was " not far removed from the Apostles 
 either in time or virtue." Photius, too, though he admits that 
 his style wants attractions for the vulgar, extols his solidity of 
 matter, and vast and exuberant knowledge. Of the biograph- 
 ical notices of him, furnished by comparatively modern writers, 
 — as Cave, Tillemont, and others, — most are composed less 
 in the style of impartial history than of fond eulogium. 
 
 As a blind reverence for antiquity, however, yielded at 
 length to a spirit of independent research and just criticism, 
 the credit of the Fathers, and of Justin among the rest, rapidly 
 sunk. Daille in his " Treatise on the Use of the Fathers," 
 Le Clerc in his various writings,* Barbeyrac,f and we might 
 add a multitude of others, and, above all, the learned and 
 accui'ate Brucker, J contributed their proportion to bring about 
 this revolution in public opinion, and settle the question of 
 their merit and defects. Far be it from us to justify every 
 expression of contempt and sweeping censure, much less the 
 tone of heartless levity and ridicule, in which modern writers 
 have occasionally indulged in speaking of them. The subject 
 is too grave for derision. The Fathers, with whatever imper- 
 fections and weaknesses they are chargeable as authors, are 
 certainly entitled to our respect and sympathy as men and 
 Christians. They performed an important office in society. 
 They received and transmitted the religion of the humble and 
 despised Jesus ; transmitted it (disfigured and corrupted, to be 
 sure, but still transmitted it) in the face, too, of torture and 
 death. They helped to carry forward the triumphs of the 
 cross. The fortitude in sufferings exhibited as well by the 
 learned advocates for the truth of Christianity, whose position 
 
 * See his Ars Critica, also Historia Ecclesiastica, and Bibliotheque UniverselU 
 st Hislorique, Choisie, and Ancie7ine et Moderns ; a rich storehouse of information, 
 in eighty volumes, into which Gibbon, as he tells us, dipped with delight ; 
 jind in which the curious will be ever sure to find entertainment. 
 
 t Trait€ de la Morale des Peres. 
 
 } Historia Critica Pkilosophice. 
 
 3 
 
34 JUSTIN MAETYE. 
 
 rendered them objects of special mark, as by the crowd of more 
 obscure behevers, was matter of admiration and astonishment 
 to the Pagan world ; and the church was nurtured by their 
 blood. 
 
 Of such men we cannot speak with levity, or cold, illiberal 
 sarcasm. But, though we venerate them as men who dared 
 and suffered nobly, truth compels us to say, that, as writers, 
 we cannot think them entitled to any profound respect. We 
 think, with Jortin, that " it is better to defer too little than 
 too much to their decisions." We do not except even Justin. 
 His writings deserve the attention of the curious, as furnishing 
 examples of the manner in which Christianity was defended, 
 and the objections of Pagans and Jews met and refuted, in 
 the primitive ages. They are valuable, too, in other respects. 
 But, however they may be calculated to increase our reverence 
 for the moral qualities, the sincerity, the zeal, the self-devotion 
 and courage, of their author, they will not give us any very 
 exalted opinion of his penetration, taste, or judgment. Whoever 
 reads them with the expectation of finding in them specimens 
 of just and well-sustained argument and eloquence, — whoever 
 looks for discriminating remark, or a neat and graceful style, 
 perspicuity, or method, — will rise from the perusal of them 
 with a feeling of sad disappointment. 
 
 Let us take his first and larger Apology. It was not neces- 
 sary that its author, in order to attain his object, should estab- 
 lish the truth of Christianity. Christianity might be true or 
 false ; its founder might have been divinely commissioned, or 
 he might have been an impostor or enthusiast : yet the suffer- 
 ings inflicted on Christians might be undeserved ; the charges 
 alleged against them might be false, and their punishment, 
 therefore, an act of gross injustice and cruelty. Neither the 
 public tranquillity nor the safety of the throne, neither justice 
 nor policy, might require that the rising sect, infected by the 
 " new superstition," as it was called, should be crushed. These 
 w'^ere topics which the early apologists, one might think, would 
 particularly urge, and urge with all their strength of reasoning 
 and eloquence. 
 
 The popular charges against the Christians were those of 
 profligacy and atheism. The latter arose from their neglect 
 
EXAMINATION OP HIS WRITINGS. 35 
 
 of the gods, whose images filled every temple and grove, and 
 the worship of whom was enjoined by tlie Roman laws. For 
 this crime, for their alleged impiety and contempt of the gods, 
 they were punished. Pliny, in his well-known letter to Tra- 
 jan, expresses his concern that the contagion of the new opin- 
 ions had not only infected cities, but spread through the remoter 
 towns and villages ; that, in consequence, the temples were 
 deserted, the public rites of religion neglected, and the victims 
 remained unsold. The old fabric of superstition seemed tot- 
 tering, and ready to fall. But this fabric it was deemed mat- 
 ter of policy to support ; and whatever tended to weaken and 
 overthrow it, was, therefore, regarded with extreme jealousy 
 and aversion. Hence the virulence manifested against the 
 growing sect of Christians. They were the enemies of legalized 
 superstitions ; and were therefore viewed as in some sense dis- 
 turbers of the public peace, and dangerous to the State. The 
 calamities which afflicted the empire increased the hatred 
 against them. Of these calamities they were accused of being 
 the authors ; and by their blood alone, it was urged by a super- 
 stitious populace, they could be averted, and the anger of 
 Heaven appeased. If the Tiber overflowed its banks, or the 
 Nile did not rise, or there was earthquake or famine or pesti- 
 lence, the Christians must pay the penalty by their lives. 
 " Away with the Atheists ! " was the cry : " The Chi'istians to 
 the lions ! " Such were the feelings and opinions, and such 
 the mode of reasoning, which Justin found it necessary to 
 combat : and several of the views and considerations he sug- 
 gests have great weight ; though, from his want of skill in 
 argument, he fails of making the most of them. 
 
 He demands only, he says, that Christians be placed on a 
 footing with other subjects of the empire ; that the charges 
 brought against them should be examined ; and, if they were 
 found guilty, he wishes not, he says, to screen them from pun- 
 ishment. But let them not be put to death without an 
 opportunity of establishing their innocence ; let them not be 
 condemned simply for bearing the name of Christians. Names 
 are indifferent : the things signified by them are alone of im- 
 portance. If Christians are what they are represented to be 
 (workers of all iniquity, not only holding opinions in the last 
 
86 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 degree impious and detestable, but sanctioning every enormity 
 by their practice), let it be proved against them. Show them 
 to be malefactors, and we will not complain that they are 
 punished as such. But, if their lives are blameless, it is mani- 
 fest injustice to sacrifice them to popular frenzy and hatred. 
 
 Thus far, Justin proceeds on unquestionable ground. He 
 asserts the great principles of justice and equity ; he contends 
 for liberty of opinion ; he is a strenuous asserter of that liberty : 
 and happy for the repose of Christendom, had Christians never 
 lost sight of the sentiments in the pi-esent instance uttered by 
 this early Father. They were worthy the noble cause he was 
 advocating, and might with advantage have been further 
 pressed ; for this was Justin's stronghold. While urging these 
 considerations, he was pleading the cause of common justice 
 and humanity ; and his sentiments must have found an echo 
 in every breast which retained the least portion of sensibility 
 or correct feeling. But he injudiciously breaks off a truly val- 
 uable train of thought, the moment he has entered upon it, to 
 introduce some observations about demons, to whose active 
 malice he attributes the odium under which Christians lay. 
 As regards these evil demons, he says, we confess we may be 
 denominated Atheists ; for we reject their worship : but not as 
 regards the true God and his Son sent by him, the host of good 
 angels and the prophetic spirit ; for these we reverence and 
 adore. He then speaks of the objects of Heathen adoration, 
 and the folly of honoring them with victims and garlands ; and 
 observes that God wants not material offerings. Christians, 
 he continues, look not for an earthly kingdom ; and, as their 
 hopes are not fixed on present things, death by the hands of 
 the executioner has no terrors for them : " You may slay, but 
 you cannot hurt." They are good subjects, and promoters of 
 virtue and peace ; for they teach that all men, whatever their 
 characters, are subject to God's inspection, and will be here- 
 after rewarded or punished as their actions merit. He then 
 cautions those whom he was addressing against listening to 
 calumnies which originated with deceptive demons. These 
 demons were enemies of the Christians ; since the latter, in 
 embracing Christ, renounced their dominion, and became re- 
 formed in temper and Ufe. To prove that he is not playing 
 
MODE OF ARGUMENT. 37 
 
 the sophist in thus speaking, he says that he will quote a few- 
 precepts of Christ ; and he proceeds to give copious extracts 
 from the Sermon on the Mount, and other parts of the 
 Saviour's teachings of a strictly practical character, not omit- 
 ting tlie rendering " to Caesar the things that are Csesar's, and 
 to God the things that are God's." He thus shows that Chris- 
 tianity inculcates purity of heart, charity, patience, forbids 
 rash oaths, enjoins obedience to magistrates ; that it teaches 
 the doctrine of immortality, and retribution for the just and 
 unjust acts of the present life. 
 
 As to what is said of Christ's birth, death, and ascension, it 
 cannot, he thinks, sound strange to a heathen ear accustomed 
 to the fabulous narratives of the poets ; for similar things are 
 related of the sons of Jove. 
 
 Such is the train of Justin's remarks, so far as they liave any 
 consecutiveness, through one third, and that by far the least 
 exceptionable part, of his Apology. What remains consists 
 of observations and theories on the subject of the incarnation ; 
 expositions of prophecies, generally extravagant and fanciful 
 enough ; accounts of the miraculous feats, the craft and malice, 
 of demons, who appear perpetuall}^ to haunt his imagination, 
 and whom he considers the authors of the Heathen mythology, 
 and inspirers of the poets; the abetters of heresy, and insti- 
 gators of all the calamities under which Christians were groan- 
 ing. After adding a description of the sacred rites of Chris- 
 tians, — Baptism and the Supper, — and their worship, or mode 
 of passing Sunday, he concludes with beseeching the clemency 
 of the emperor, and calls his attention to a rescript of Hadrian 
 in favor of the Christians, which he subjoins. 
 
 Such are the general topics introduced into the first Apology. 
 It contains some truth, and some just views and representa- 
 tions ; enough surely to show that the Christians were the vic- 
 tims of great injustice and cruelty, but nothing which bears 
 any resemblance to regular and well-sustained argument. A 
 large portion of the thoughts, or rather crude and incoherent 
 conceptions and comments and strange conceits, obtruded upon 
 the notice of the emperor, are such as could have no weight 
 with him, and produce no effect but to inspire contempt for 
 the author's understanding. He injures his cause by weak and 
 
38 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 inconclusive arguments, and by the immense mass of irrelevant 
 and trifling or absurd matter with which he encumbers the 
 defence. 
 
 With regard to the tone of his address, we may observe, 
 that it was anything but mild and conciliating. Justiif seems 
 to have possessed a harsh and overbearing temper, which he 
 had not the prudence to keep under restraint when motives of 
 interest and common decorum alike required it. On this sub- 
 ject, Thirlby, who was sufficiently indulgent in his judgment 
 of the Fathers, expresses himself with much point and truth. 
 After observing in substance, that, though not a writer of the 
 first merit, he is lively and pungent, and though not suited 
 to the fastidious taste of an effeminate age, yet, for the times 
 in which he lived, he had no ordinary degree of leai'ning and 
 eloquence, he adds, " These excellences were shaded by two 
 faults : he is beyond measure rash and careless, and wrote in 
 a style angry, contentious, and vituperative ; utterly wanting 
 in respect for the emperor, and urbanity to others." * He is 
 destitute of complaisance alike to the fugitive Jews, and to the 
 Romans, the masters of the world. His language certainly 
 cannot be referred to as illustrating the Christian precepts of 
 gentleness and forbearance, meekness and charity. 
 
 We have said that it was not necessary that Justin, in order 
 to show the injustice of the persecutions under which Christians 
 suffered, should establish the absolute truth of Christianity in 
 opposition to Heathenism. It was enough that he should prove 
 that the followers of Jesus led innocent, pure, and useful lives ; 
 that they were the friends of peace, obedient to the laws, and 
 in no way enemies to the State. Still it could hardly be that 
 those who undertook the defence of their fellow-Christians 
 should leave out of sight the reasons which operated in pro- 
 ducing that change from Heathenism to Christianity which 
 was the source of all their calamities and sufferings. They 
 would be naturally led to speak of the follies of Pagan super- 
 stitions, and to urge the higher claims of Christianity. This 
 they did successfully ; for the superior excellence of Christianity 
 was such as to appear on the slightest comparison of it with 
 Heathen systems. 
 
 * Dedication prefixed to his edition of Justin. 
 
HIS TREATMENT OF MIRACLES. 39 
 
 But we must not look to the early Apologists for systematic 
 and masterly defences of the divine origin of Christianity. 
 In this particular, Justin is deficient. On the argument from 
 prophecy he dwells at length, but not in such a manner as to 
 satisfy a reader of the present day. Of the evidence from 
 miracles he scarcely takes any notice. Perhaps the cause 
 may be traced to the popular belief of the age. The efficacy 
 of incantations and magic formed part of this belief, common 
 alike to Christians and Pagans. Miracles were regarded as 
 of no rare occurrence, and they were supposed to be wrought 
 by magical arts. Christianity might, then, have the support of 
 miracles ; but this support would be regarded as of trifling 
 importance by those who were believers in the reality of 
 charms and sorcery. The miracle might be admitted ; but the 
 evidence derived from it could be invalidated by ascribing it 
 to the effects of magic. That the early Fathers and Apolo- 
 gists really felt a difficulty of this kind, there can be no doubt. 
 The Jews had set the example by attributing the miracles of 
 our Saviour to a demoniacal agency. That the Heathens trod 
 in their steps, by ascribing them to magical influences, we 
 gather from a hint Justin himself has incidentally dropped ; 
 and Origen expressly affirms it as regards Celsus. Here, 
 then, was a grand objection to the evidence from miracles, and 
 one which the Fathers, who were themselves firm believers in 
 the powers of magic and demoniacal influences, must have 
 found it exceedingly difficult to remove. So Tertullian, refer- 
 ring to Matthew xxiv. 24, expresses distrust of the evidence 
 of miracles when not accompanied with that of prophecy. 
 This feeling seems to have very generally prevailed among the 
 old Fathers.* 
 
 The topics of the second Apology — which, as we possess it, 
 is brief — are similar to those of the first, and are treated with 
 
 * Origen clearly places the evidence from prophecy above that of miracles ; 
 (ind moral miracles, such, for example, as opening the eyes of the spiritually 
 Mind, he pronounces greater than physical. Nor was the testimony of the 
 soul itself wholly discarded. Origen seems to prize as the highest of all, that 
 faith which is founded on a conviction of the truth of the doctrine, that is, on 
 the intuitions of the soul itself; and Tertullian {ApoL, c. 17) once speaks of 
 the soul as "naturally Christian." See Hagenbach, Text-Book, etc., First 
 Per., §§ 28 and 29. 
 
40 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 no more judgment. It breathes a martyr-spirit, but contains 
 the same blending of just thought with trifling remark and 
 weak reasoning, which we have noticed as characteristic of 
 the first ; and its tone is not more concihatory. The fierce 
 denunciation of the rehgion of the empire, and the charge 
 brought against the emperors, and urged in no measured 
 language, that they were instruments in the hands of wicked 
 demons, would serve only to irritate, and put the oppressed 
 Christians on a worse rather than a better footing with the 
 State. It was certainly impolitic. 
 
 The Dialogue with Trypho exhibits in still greater promi- 
 nence Justin's defects of conception and style : his loose 
 reasoning; his rambling, incoherent course of remark; his 
 tautology ; his false rhetoric, and utter contempt of all the 
 laws of good writing. Our readers will readily pardon us, 
 we think, for not attempting an analysis of the work. 
 
INTELLECTUAL DEFECTS. 41 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 General Defects of Justin's Intellectual and Literary Charac- 
 ter. — His Love of the Marvellous. — His Account of the Origin 
 OF jJemons. — Feats performed by them. — His Chronological Er- 
 rors. — His Carelessness in Quotation. — An Allegorist. — Speci- 
 mens of his Fanciful Interpretation of the Old Testament. — 
 Types of the Cross. — His Learning. — Eminently Uncritical. 
 
 The general defects of Justin's intellectual and literary 
 character appear from what has been already said. Our read- 
 ers, however, may be pleased with some instances and specifi- 
 cations ; and as they will illustrate his opinions, and the opin- 
 ions and modes of thinking of Christians of his day, we will 
 proceed to give them ; simply remarking, before we enter on 
 our task, that, if it appears incredible that a writer of the 
 second century, well educated, taught in the schools of philos- 
 ophy, a man of great repute in the Church, and an eminent 
 apologist for Christianity, could so think and write, the char- 
 acter of the times must be taken into view. In him, as it has 
 been said, " we perceive' the influence of the spirit of the age. 
 The excellences and defects of his times, and of Christian 
 antiquity, are visibly blended in his person " ; the defects in 
 rather undue proportion, we think, so far as the intellect is 
 concerned. Nor is it enough to say in explanation, as it has 
 been said, that the better-educated converts " designedly di- 
 vested their writings of all ornament and splendor of diction, 
 from a mistaken regard to Christian truth." Possibly some 
 did so ; unfortunately, we think, if they did. Still it is true, 
 as Irenseus confesses of himself, and Lactantius of others, 
 that the early Christian writers were generally rude of speech ; 
 and their want of intellectual culture, and their errors of taste 
 and reasoning, were obvious, — were real, and not affected. 
 They wrote as well as they knew how. Let Justin have the 
 benefit of all the indulgence to which he is entitled from the 
 delinquencies of the times. With this observation, we proceed 
 with our specimens. 
 
42 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 Of Justin's inattention to dates we have a well-known and 
 striking example in the account he gives of the origin of the 
 Septuagint version of the Old Testament ; in which, as it 
 stands in his first Apology,* he makes Ptolemy Philadelphus, 
 King of Egypt, contemporary with Herod the Great, King of 
 Judaea; thus committing a chronological error of about two 
 hundred and fifty years. If the " Hortatory Address to the 
 Greeks " be his, the story furnishes a remarkable instance of 
 his credulity and love of the marvellous, as well as of his 
 haste and negligence : for he there relates, that the seventy 
 who were sent from Judsea, at the request of Ptolemy, to trans- 
 late the Hebrew Scriptures, — of which he had previously 
 obtained a copy, — were, by his command, shut up in as 
 many separate cells on the island called Pharos, and pro- 
 hibited all intercourse one with another till each should have 
 finished a translation of the whole ; and that their several 
 translations were then found, upon comparison, to agree to a 
 letter ; which was regarded by the astonished king as evidence 
 that they had received divine assistance. This, the writer 
 adds, is no fable ; for, on visiting Alexandria, he was shown 
 the remains of the very cells in which the task was performed. f 
 He received the story, he says, ft-om the inhabitants of the 
 place, who had the tradition from their fathers ; and writers, 
 — wise men, and men of repute, — Philo, Josephus, and many 
 others, give the same account. Of the truth of the narrative 
 he entertained no shadow of doubt, any more than of the 
 story, that, during the forty years' sojourn of the Israelites in 
 the wilderness, not only did not the thongs on their sandals 
 
 * P. 62; Otto, c. 31. See also Cohort., c. 13. 
 
 t Pp. 16, 17. The inspiration of the Septuagint version appears to have 
 been the common belief of the Fathers before the time of Jerome ; and this 
 fact Le Clerc adduces as evidence of their ignorance of the Hebrew. " Si 
 .68 Peres," he observes, " Grecs et les Latins, qui ont vecu avant S. Jerome, 
 avoient entendu I'Hebreu, ils n'auroient jamais cru que les LXX. interpretes 
 avoient ete inspirez; puis qu'ils auroient trouve mille fautes dans leur version, 
 pour avoir suivi des cxemplaires fautifs, ou n'avoir pas su lire le leur, ou 
 n'avoir pas bien entendu la langue Hebraique, ou n'y avoir pas apporte assez 
 d'attention, ou enfin pour avoir traduit licentieusement. II est vrai que Philon 
 et Joseph ont dit la meme chose de I'inspiration des Septante ; mais le premier 
 ne savoit point d'llebreu, et le second semble avoir manage, en cela, les Juifs 
 Hellenistes." — Biblioth. Anc. et Mod., torn. vi. p. 329. 
 
HIS ACCOUNT OP DEMONS. 43 
 
 become broken, or their shoes torn, or their garments grow 
 old upon them, but the clothes of the younger Hebrews actu- 
 ally increased in size as they grew up ! * 
 
 What he says of demons, in different parts of his writings, 
 shows how easily he could be led, on occasion, to credit the 
 wildest and most monstrous fictions. God, he very gravelv 
 tells us, having formed man, committed him, together with all 
 sublunary things, to the care of angels, whose too susceptible 
 natures caused them to trespass with the frail daughters of 
 earth ; f and hence sprang the race of demons. These demons 
 did not long remain idle. They mixed in all human affairs, 
 and soon obtained universal sway in the world. They deceived 
 men by arts of magic, frightened them with apparitions, caused 
 them to see visions and dream dreams, perpetrated crimes, and 
 performed numerous feats and prodigies, which the fabulous 
 poets of antiquity, in their ignorance, transferred to the gods. 
 They presided over the splendid mythology of the Heathen, 
 instituted sacrifices, and regaled themselves with the blood of 
 victims, of which they began to be in want after they became 
 subject to passions and lusts. J They were the authors of all 
 heresies, fraud, and mischief. Their malice was chiefly di- 
 rected against the Saviour ; whose success, they well knew, 
 would be attended with their overthrow : and therefore, long 
 before his appearance on earth, they tasked their ingenuity to 
 defeat the purpose of his mission. They invented tales about 
 the gods of the nations, corresponding to the descriptions of 
 him given by the Hebrew prophets ; hoping so to fill the 
 minds of men with " lying vanities," that the writings which 
 predicted his advent might be brought into discredit, and all 
 that related to him pass for fable. For example, when they 
 heard the prophecy of Moses, § Gen. xlix. 10, 11, — " The 
 
 * Dial, e. 131, Otto. 
 
 t This notion, founded on a misconception of Gen. vi. 4, of which the Sev- 
 enty had given a faulty translation, did not originate with Justin. Philo and 
 Josephus had advanced the same before him ; and succeeding Fathers, one 
 after another, copied it without examination. " Cela fait voir," says Le Clerc, 
 "qu'il ne faut pas tant vanter le consentement des Peres en matieres de theo- 
 logie." — Bib. Choisie, torn. ii. p. 3.36. 
 
 X Apol. I., p. 51 ; II., p. 92. Otto, c. 14 and c. 5. 
 
 § The prophecy belongs, not to Moses, but to Jacob. 
 
44 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver fi'om be- 
 tween his feet, until Shiloh come ; and he shall be the expec- 
 tation of the nations, binding his foal to the vine, and washing 
 his garment in the blood of the grape," — they got np, as a 
 counterpart, the story of Bacchus, the son of Jupiter and 
 inventor of the grape, and introduced wine into the celebra- 
 tion of his mysteries, and represented him as finally ascending 
 into heaven. They were exceedingly sagacious, but, with all 
 their astuteness, found some difficulty in interpreting parts of 
 the above-mentioned prediction of Jacob. The prophet had not 
 expressly said whether he who should come was to be the son of 
 God, or the son of man ; nor whethfer he was to make use of the 
 foal spoken of while he remained on earth, or only during his 
 ascent into heaven. To get over this difficulty, these crafty 
 demons, in addition to the story of Bacchus, trumped up that 
 of Bellerophon, who was a man born of men ; and who, as 
 they tell us, mounted on his Pegasus, ascended into heaven. 
 The prediction of Isaiah relating to the virgin (vii. 14), they 
 said, was fulfilled in Perseus ; that in Ps. xix. 5, " strong as a 
 giant to run a race," (which Justin seems to have applied to 
 the Messiah,) in Hercules, who was a man of strength, and 
 travei^sed the whole earth. Again : when they found it pre- 
 dicted that he should cure diseases and raise the dead, they 
 appealed to the case of ^sculapius, who also recalled the dead 
 to life, and was taken up into heaven.* Nor did they cease 
 from their mischievous industry after the death of Christ. As, 
 before this event, they had made use of the poets as agents 
 in disseminating their delusions, so after it they raised up 
 heretics, — Marcion on the banks of the Euxine, and the Sa- 
 maritans Menander and Simon, — who seduced many by their 
 magical miracles ; and with the latter of whom the senate 
 and the people of Rome, he tells us, became so infatuated dur- 
 ing the reign of Claudius Caesar, that they numbered him 
 with the gods, and honored him with a statue, which he prays 
 may be thrown down.f They "hover about the beds of the 
 dying, on the watch to receive the departing soul." The 
 spirits of just men, and prophets equally with others, he 
 
 * A-pol I., pp. 75, 76 ; Otto, c. 21 and c. 54. Dial., c. 69. 
 t ApoL I., pp. 77, 78; Otto, c. 56. 
 
HIS WANT OF ACCURACY. 45 
 
 assures us, fall under their power ; of which we have an in- 
 stance in the case of Samuel, whose soul was evoked by the 
 witch of Endor. Hence, he continues, we pray, in the hour 
 of death, that we may be preserved from the power of 
 demons.* 
 
 All this, if we except the last-mentioned opinion and the 
 story of the garments that grew, occurs, with much more 
 of the same stamp, in the two Apologies, and furnishes a 
 fair specimen of Justin's participation in the errors of the 
 times. 
 
 We pass over his belief of the Jewish " dream of the Mil- 
 lennium," which he took from Papias, a very weak man, and 
 the " Father of Traditions," as he has been called ; and his 
 strange proof-texts, one of which is, " The day of the Lord is 
 as a thousand years" ; and another, "As the days of a tree 
 shall be the days of my people." His mistake about the statue 
 of Simon Magus we let go ; as also his credulity in placing the 
 Sibylline books on a level with the writings of the Hebrew 
 prophets, or nearly so, attributing to them a real inspiration, 
 and quoting them as authority, — sad proof of the sort of evi- 
 dence which could satisfy him. We have noticed one of his 
 chronological errors. It would be easy to multiply specimens. 
 Thus he seems to place Moses, whom he calls first of the 
 prophets, five thousand years before Christ ; David, fifteen 
 hundred ; and the last of the prophets, eight hundred : f in the 
 two latter cases, committing an error in chronology of about 
 four hundi'ed years ; and, in the first, a much greater, even 
 supposing that the prophecy in question is to be attributed to 
 Adam, and that all he meant to say, by calling Moses the first 
 prophet, is, that he was the first recorder of prophecy. 
 
 His want of accuracy in citing from the Old Testament has 
 often and justly been made a subject of complaint. He fre- 
 quently misquotes, ascribing to one prophet the words of 
 another, — as to Isaiah the words of Jeremiah, J or to Jere- 
 miah the language of Daniel. § When a passage does not 
 exactly suit his purpose, he does not hesitate to add to the 
 3riginal to render it more appropriate ; an instance of which 
 
 * Dial, p. 200. t Apol. I., pp. 62, 63, 68. 
 
 } Apol. I., p. 75. § Ibid., p. 73. 
 
46 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 occurs in his manner of citing Ps. xxiv. 7, " Lift up the gates 
 of heaven," * the last two words being supphed to make the 
 passage apphcable to Christ's ascent into heaven, which, he 
 says, it is designed to predict. 
 
 With regard to his quotations, indeed, the most indulgent 
 critics have found it impossible to exculpate him from the 
 charge of the utmost carelessness. His want of exactness is 
 admitted ; and the best excuse which has been offered for him 
 is, that he quotes from recollection, and that his errors must 
 therefore be attributed to a treacherous memory. This sup- 
 position acquits him of intentional fraud ; but, unfortunately, 
 his inaccuracies are often of such a character, that a detection 
 of them is sufficient to overthrow the whole train of reasoning 
 founded on the citations in which they occur. 
 
 As a critic and interpreter, it is not saying too much to 
 affirm that he is of no authority. He is exceedingly deficient 
 in discrimination, and a knowledge of the laws and usages of 
 language. He gives in to the allegorical mode of interpreta- 
 tion adopted by Philo and his school. He is perpetually beat- 
 ing about for hidden meanings, and far-fetched and mystical 
 constructions, and typical representations and fanciful resem- 
 blances. Thus he considers the tree of life planted in Paradise 
 a symbol of Christ's cross, through Avhich he achieved his 
 triumphs ; and he goes on to descant at great length on the 
 symbolic properties of wood. Moses, he tells us, was sent 
 with a rod to deliver, his people : with a rod he divided the 
 sea, and brought water out of the rock. By a piece of wood 
 the waters of Marah were made sweet. With a rod, or staff, 
 Jacob passed over the Jordan. Aaron obtained his priesthood 
 by the budding and blossoming of his rod ; Isaiah predicted 
 that there should come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse ; 
 and David compares the just to a tree planted by the waters. 
 From a tree, God was seen by Abraham : as it is written, 
 " at the oak of Mamre." By a rod and staff, David, says he, 
 received consolati m of God. The people, having crossed the 
 Jordan, found seventy willows ; and, by casting wood into it, 
 Elisha made iron to swim. In a similar strain he proceeds ; f 
 W'hich furnishes no unapt occasion for the sarcastic Middleton 
 * Apol. I., p. 73. t Dial., pp. 183, 184 ; Otto, c. 86. 
 
TYPES OF THE CllOiiS. 47 
 
 to say, that he " applies all the sticks and pieces of wood in 
 the Old Testament to the cross of Christ." * 
 
 The virtue of the cross, the emblem of Christ's power and 
 majesty, Justin observes, is discovered in things which fall 
 under notice of the senses ; for consider, says he in his first 
 "Apology to the Romans," whether anything can be trans- 
 acted, of all that is done in the world, without this figure. 
 The sea cannot be traversed without that trophy called a sail ; 
 without this figure, the land could not be ploughed ; nor could 
 any manual arts be carried on without instruments having th? 
 form of the cross. And the human figure, he remarks, differs 
 from that of other animals, only as it is er< ct and has exten- 
 sion of hands, and a nose projecting from the face, answering 
 the purposes of respiration ; showing no other than the figure 
 of the cross. The prophet, he continues, has also said,f " The 
 breath before our face, Christ the Lord " ; an illustration or 
 application which will be considered, we suppose, sufficiently 
 fanciful. Moreover, he continues, addressing the emperor, 
 your standards, which are borne before you in public as ensigns 
 of power and royalty, demonstrate the efficacy of this figure. 
 In this form, too, ye conseci'ate the images of your dead empe- 
 rors, and number them with the gods. J 
 
 God, he observes to Trypho, teaching us the mystery of 
 the cross, says, in the blessing with which he blesses Joseph, § 
 " The horns of a unicorn are his, and with them shall he push 
 the nations to the end of the earth." Now, the horns of the 
 unicorn, he continues, exhibit, as it can be demonstrated, no 
 other figure than that of a cross ; and this he attempts to show 
 by a very minute analysis. Then as to the assertion, " With 
 them shall he push the nations to the extremities of the 
 earth " : this is no more than what is now taking place among 
 all people ; for, struck by the horn, that is, penetrated by the 
 mystery of the cross, they of all nations are turned from idols 
 and demons to the worship of God.|| 
 
 Again : when the people warred with Amalek,^ and Jesus 
 (Joshua), the son of Nun, led the battle, Moses, he says, 
 
 * Free Inquiry, p. 29. t Lam. iv. 20. Apol. I., p. 76 ; Otto, c. 56. 
 
 } Apol. I., c. 55, Otto. § Deut. xxxiii. 17. 
 
 II Dial., p. 188 ; Otto, c. 91. 1 Exod. xvii. 
 
48 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 prayed with his arms extended in the form of a cross : and if 
 they were at any time lowered, so as to destroy this figure, 
 the tide turned against the Israehtes ; but, as long as this 
 figure was preserved, they prevailed. They finally conquered, 
 he gravely remarks, not because Moses prayed, but because, 
 while the name of Jesus was in the van of the battle, the 
 former, standing or sitting with his arms extended, exhibited 
 the figure of a cross. His sitting or bent posture, too, he 
 observes, was expressive ; and thus the knee is bent, or the 
 body prostrated, in all effectual prayer. Lastly, the rock on 
 which he sat had, says he, " as I have shown," a symbolic 
 reference to Christ.* 
 
 Such is the use to which this Father converted his knowl- 
 edge of the Scriptures, and such the arguments by which he 
 hoped to convince the philosophic Emperor of Rome, and win 
 to the faith of the cross the obstinate and " stiff-necked " Jew. 
 In interpreting the several parts of the Old Testament, his- 
 torical and prophetical, and reasoning upon them, he follows 
 his own wayward fancy, and capricious and perverted taste. 
 He appears to have considered any application, and almost 
 any construction of its language, however visionary or improb- 
 able, justifiable, upon the notion he had taken up, that some 
 hidden meaning or mystery lay couched under every sentence, 
 and almost every word. The business of interpretation he 
 seems to have regarded as little more than a task of inven- 
 tion : and he gives evidence, we confess, of having possessed 
 an imagination sufficiently prolific ; for his writings teem with 
 the most odd and grotesque fancies. 
 
 We intended to have added some distinct specimens of his 
 weak and inconclusive reasoning; but we are weary of our 
 theme, and doubt not that our readers are so too. Nor, after 
 what Ave have said, will they deem further illustration of his 
 intellectual character and habits necessary. They will readily 
 credit us, we trust, when we affirm that his logic is entitled 
 to as little respect as his talent for criticism and exposition ; 
 though the latter, particularly, he claims to have received as a 
 special gift of God's grace. This power, he says, is not in 
 me ; but, by the grace of God alone, it is given me to un- 
 derstand his Scriptures. 
 
 * Dial., pp. 187, 188 ; Otto, c. 90. 
 
HIS LEARNING. 49 
 
 He has been extolled, as we have said, for his multifarious 
 and profound acquisitions. Yet he began by despising the 
 exact sciences ; and seems, through life, to have treated them 
 with thorough contempt. That he could have possessed only 
 scanty stores of philological learning is rendered evident by 
 the whole tenor of our foregoing remarks. He was ignorant, 
 or knew very little, of the original language of the Old Testa- 
 ment, as appears from the criticisms he occasionally introduces 
 on Hebrew words. He often, however, quotes the poets of 
 Greece, and refers to the writings of her philosophers ; and 
 with the doctrines of her distinguished schools he appears to 
 have been tolerably well acquainted. Yet it is evident that 
 his reading was neither exact nor profound. Photius extols 
 his affluence of historical knowledge and varied learning, as 
 well as his sublime attainments in philosophy ; but his writ- 
 ings fail of confirming this judgment. We have seen what his 
 pretensions in chronology are. He never appears to have 
 thought of sifting his authorities, and was eminently " uncriti- 
 cal " in everything, — history, philology, exegesis, and what- 
 ever else is involved in the subjects of which he treats. 
 
60 JUSTIN MARTIB. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Theology of Justin. — Origin of the Trinity. — Justin's Doctrine 
 OF THE Logos. — His Language cited. — The Logos a Hypostatized 
 Attribute of the Father. — Converted into a Real Being in Time, 
 AND not from Eternity. — The Son numerically different from 
 THE Father. — Voluntarily begotten. 
 
 We proceed now to speak of the theology of Justin ; and, 
 first, of what occupies a prominent, we may say the most 
 prominent, place in it, — his doctrine of the Logos, or divine 
 nature of Christ, as it has been since called. The topic is one 
 of special importance to those who would understand the the- 
 ology of the Fathers, or would know what support the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity really derives from the writings of early 
 Christian antiquity. It is a topic which, on proceeding to the 
 inquiry how far the general belief of the Christian Church in 
 later times is sanctioned by the authority of these writings, 
 presents itself at the very threshold, and one on which it is 
 desirable that we should obtain precise ideas ; since, without 
 them, the writings of the subsequent Fathers will present a 
 labyrinth which it will not be easy to thread. But having 
 once settled the meaning of Justin's terms, and the real pur- 
 port of his opinions, we shall find some gleam of light to guide 
 us on our way. These considerations must constitute our 
 apology for the length of some of the discussions introduced Ik 
 this and some subsequent chapters. We are aware, that, to 
 the general reader, discussions of this sort must necessarily be 
 somewhat dry ; as is the whole subject, in fact, of the histori- 
 cal development of the Trinity, to which they belong. But 
 they who would understand the theology of the Fathers have 
 no very smooth road to travel. 
 
 The points to be settled are, in what sense Justin used the 
 term " Logos," as applied to Jesus ; what were the nature 
 and rank assigned him by this early Father ; and whence his 
 
OEIGIN OF THE TRINITY. 61 
 
 peculiar views were derived. The great similarity between 
 his doctrine of the Logos and that taught by Philo and the 
 Alexandrian Platonists, is not denied. They, however, who 
 ascribe a scriptural origin to the doctrine of the Trinity, con- 
 tend that " the substance of Justin's idea of the Logos rests 
 on a purely scriptural and Christian foundation " ; though they 
 are compelled to admit that this idea was modified, and re- 
 ceived its scientific form, through the influence of the " Alex- 
 andrian and Philonic theosophy." The early Fathers, says 
 Semisch, from whom the expressions just used are taken, 
 " only poured the contents of the Scriptures into a Philonian 
 vessel : they viewed the biblical passages through a Philo- 
 nian medium. The matter of their idea of the Logos is 
 essentially scriptural ; but its construction betrays a Philonian 
 ground-plan. Thus it is with Justin." * To this statement 
 we cannot assent. We believe, and trust that we shall be 
 able to show, that, for the original and distinctive features of 
 the doctrine of the Logos, as held by the learned Fathers of 
 
 * Vol. ii. p. 180. The work referred to is, Justin Martyr, — his Life, 
 Writings, and Opinions, by the Rev. Charles Semisch. Translated from the 
 German, by J. E. Ryland. 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1843. 16mo. 
 
 These volumes are the fruit of much labor ; and though they lead to no new 
 results in regard to the life, character, position, and writings of Justin, yet, in 
 some particulars, they contain a useful summary of his views ; wliile, in oth- 
 ers, they present, as we think, a most distorted representation of tliem. The 
 best parts are those which relate to liis mode of defending Christianity, and his 
 attacks on Judaism and Heathenism, vol. i. pp. 306-332, and vol. ii. pp. 1-128. 
 From these the careful reader will learn, not what arguments for the truth 
 and divine origin of Christianity are most solid, but what arguments presented 
 themselves to the mind of a well-educated Christian of the second century, 
 and what he considered as most valid against the objections urged in his day. 
 How miracles were regarded appears from vol. ii. pp. 100-128. This part is 
 well executed. The writer's statement of Justin's doctrine of the Logos, 
 vol. ii. pp. 165-206, has in it many features of truth ; but, when he comes to 
 trace this doctrine to its source, he is, in our opinion, wholly at fault. The 
 chapter on the Holy Spirit contains a total misrepresentation of the opinions 
 of Justin. It is, from beginning to end, a tissue of bad reasoning, and false 
 and contradictory statement. The chapter on Justin's Doctrine of Salvation, 
 too, contains several misstatements of his views. Tlie writer's general esti- 
 mate of Justin's literary and intellectual character, however, is sufficiently 
 correct ; and the work, to one who knows how to use it, may form a profit- 
 able study. But the misfortune is, that a person must be already well ac- 
 quainted with the writings and opinions of Justin, in order to distinguish what 
 IB true from what is false in its statements. 
 
52 JUSTIN MARTYE. 
 
 the second and third centuries, we must look, not to the Jew- 
 ish Scriptures, nor to the teachings of Jesus and liis Apostles, 
 but to Philo and the Alexandrian Platonists. In consistency 
 with this view, we maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity 
 was of gradual and comparatively late formation ; that it had 
 its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish 
 and Christian Scriptui'es ; that it grew up, and was ingrafted 
 on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers ; 
 that in the time of Justin, and long after, the distinct nature 
 and inferiority of the Son were universally taught ; and that 
 only the first shadowy outline of the Trinity had then become 
 visible. 
 
 On the subject of the Logos, Justin has expressed himself 
 much at length ; and, though he is occasionally somewhat 
 obscure and mystical, a careful examination of the several 
 terms and illusti^ations he employs leaves little doubt as to 
 his real meaning. His system presents one or two great 
 and prominent features, which we can hardly fail to seize, 
 and which will serve as the basis of our future reasonings. 
 Before we proceed to our citations, however, we must request 
 our readers to bear in mind, that both Jews and Heathens 
 constantly alleged the humble origin and ignominious death 
 of Jesus as a reproach on Christianity. Other sects borrowed 
 lustre from the names of their founders ; but the " new 
 superstition," as it was called, which now began widely to 
 diffuse itself, was derived, as it was urged, from an obscure 
 individual, who perished as a malefactor, with every mark of 
 ignominy. This stigma Paul had disregarded : he gloried in 
 what was " to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks 
 foolishness." But the Christians of Justin's time occupied a 
 different position ; and whether or not the learned defenders 
 of Christianity, in what they taught of the preexistent Logos, 
 and the great stress they laid on the miraculous birth, were, 
 as has been maintained, influenced, consciously or uncon- 
 sciously, by a desire to wipe off" the reproach of the cross, 
 certain it is, their doctrines had a tendency this way. Both 
 the Jewish and the Heathen objections were, to a certain ex- 
 tent, met by the doctrine of the Logos. 
 
 Let us see what Justin says of the Logos. In his second 
 
HIS LANGUAGE RESPECTING THE LOGOS. 53 
 
 Apology he speaks of the " Son " as the " Logos, that, before 
 created things, was with God, and begotten, when, through 
 him, he [God] in the beginning created and adorned all 
 things." * The meanino- is, that he was converted into a real 
 being, having a separate personal subsistence, at the time God, 
 using him as his instrument, was about to proceed to the work 
 of creation. That this is the meaning is obvious from the use 
 of the term " when " (we use Otto's text) : he was begotten 
 of God " when through him he created and embellished all 
 things," — language which makes the two acts almost simul- 
 taneoiis, the one taking place immediately before the other. 
 The doctrine of the " eternal generation " of the Son is ex- 
 cluded : this was no doctrine of Justin. The attribute, like all 
 the divine attributes, was eternal ; but it became hypostatized^ 
 or converted into a real person, in time ; that is, just before 
 the creation of the world. Justin elsewhere, as we shall 
 presently see, speaks of the Son as the " beginning " of 
 God's " ways to his works." 
 
 Again : Justin says, " In the beginning " (or, as Otto un- 
 derstands it, "As the beginning"), "before all creatures, 
 God begat of himself a certain rational power, which, by the 
 Holy Spirit, is also called the Glory of the Lord, — now Son, 
 now Wisdom, now Angel, now God, now Lord, and Logos 
 (reason, wisdom, or speech) ; and by himself is called Chief 
 Captain (Captain cf the host. Josh. v. 14), Avhen in the form 
 of man he appears to Joshua, the son of Nun : for all these 
 appellations he has, because he ministers to the will of the 
 Father, and, by the volition of the Father, was begotten." f 
 To explain this process of generation, Justin takes the exam- 
 ples of human speech and of fire. " For, in uttering speech " 
 (logos), he says, " we beget speech ; yet not by abscission, 
 so that the speech (logos) that is in us," or power of speech, or 
 reason whence speech proceeds, " is by this act diminished." 
 So, too, he adds, " One torch is lighted from another, without 
 diminishing that from which it is lighted ; but the latter re 
 
 * Apol. II., c. 6, Otto. See also Dial, cum Tryph., c. 62, where similar lan- 
 guage is found. 
 
 t Dial, cum Tryph., c. 61, Otto. " In," or "As the beginning," or God so 
 making a beginning, this being the first act of creation. See Otto's note. 
 
64 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 maining unaltered, that which is hghted from it exists and 
 appears, without lessening that whence it was lighted." * 
 These are intended to be illustrations of the mode in which 
 the Son is produced from the Father. In confirmation of his 
 views, Justin quotes from the Septuagint version the passage 
 in Proverbs, f in which Wisdom, by which he supposes is 
 meant the Son, is represented as saying, " The Lord created 
 me the beginning of his ways to his works : before the ages 
 he founded me ; in the beginning, before he made the earth 
 or the abyss, before the hills, he begat me." This Wisdom 
 Justin regarded as God's offspring, produced as above de- 
 scribed ; and him, this first of his productions, he supposes 
 God to address, when he says (Gen. i. 26), "Let us make 
 man in our own image." J 
 
 Language similar to the above occurs in the first Apology, 
 with an additional observation worthy of notice. Christ is 
 " the first-born of God, and that reason [logos, ambiguous in 
 the original, meaning either reason or speech, word] of which 
 the whole human race partakes ; and those who have lived 
 according to reason are Christians, though esteemed atheists. 
 Such among the Greeks were Socrates and Heraclitus, and 
 others like them ; and, among the Barbarians, Abraham, 
 Ananias, Azarias, Misael, Elias, and many others." § So, in 
 the second Apology, we are told that Socrates " knew Christ 
 in part; for he is that reason (logos) which is in all " : || and 
 whatever was well said or done by philosophers and legislators 
 is to be attributed to the Logos in part shared by them. He 
 calls it the " insown " or " implanted " logos, or reason ; of 
 the seed of which all possess some portion. These and other 
 equivalent expressions occur more than once. They seem 
 intended to refer to a principle different from the ordinary 
 faculty of reason in man ; that is, to a peculiarly existing 
 
 * Dial, cum Tryph., c. 61, Otto. 
 
 t Ihid., Prov. viii. 22-36 : " The Lord created rae the beginning of his ways," 
 etc. So Origen and Tertullian, as well as Justin, understood the passage. 
 See Otto, in loc, notes 1 and 12. Tertullian (Adv. Hermog., c. 3) says ex 
 pressly, " There was a time when the Son was not." 
 
 I Dial, pp. 158, 159 ; Thirlby, pp. 266, 268 ; Otto, c. 62. 
 § Apol. I., p. 71 ; Otto, c. 46. 
 
 II Apol. II., p. 95 ; Otto, c. 10. 
 
THE LOGOS CONVERTED INTO A EEAL BEING. 55 
 
 Logos, or reason, which has in its nature something divine, 
 being derived immediately from God. This Logos was Christ, 
 who afterwards became flesh. It guided Abraham and the 
 patriarchs ; inspired the prophets : and the seed of it being 
 implanted, as just said, in every mind, all, as well illiterate 
 as philosophers, who in former ages obeyed its impulse, were 
 partakers of Christ, the Son of God ; and might therefore 
 be called Christians, and, as such, were entitled to salva- 
 tion.* The Gentile philosophers and legislators, knowing the 
 Logos only in part, fell into error ; but Christ is the " whole 
 Logos," which Christians possess, and are therefore more en- 
 lightened, f 
 
 That Justin believed this divine principle of reason to be 
 converted into a real being, the following passage, among 
 numerous others, plainly and expressly shows. We give the 
 passage, which in the original is exceedingly prolix, in an 
 epitomized form, but without injury, we believe, to the sense. 
 There are, he says, some who suppose that the Son is only a 
 virtue or energy of the Father, emitted as occasion requires, 
 and then again recalled : as, for example, when it comes to 
 announce the commands of the Father, and is therefore called 
 a messenger ; or when it bears the Father's discourse to men, 
 and is then called Logos. They, as he observes, think that 
 the Son is inseparable from the Father, as the light of the sun 
 on the earth is inseparable from the sun Avhich is in the heav- 
 ens, and is withdrawn with it at its setting. But from these, 
 he tells us, he differs. Angels have a separate and permanent 
 existence : so this virtue, which the prophetic spirit calls God 
 and Angel, is not, as the light of the sun, to be distinguished 
 from the Father in name only, but is something numerically 
 different; that is, it is not the Father under another name, 
 but a real being, wholly distinct from him. J 
 
 Justin frequently draws comparisons and illustrations from 
 the Heathen mythology. The following, in which Mercury 
 s introduced, presents a coincidence of language a little re- 
 
 * Apol. II., p. 95; Otto, c. 10; also Dial., c. 45, Otto. 
 
 t Apol. II., c. 8-13, Otto. 
 
 t Dial., p. 221 ; Thirlby, pp. 412, 413 ; Otto, c. 128. 
 
56 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 markable : " When we say that Jesus Christ, our teacher, was 
 the Logos, the first progeny of God, born without commixtion ; 
 that he was crucified, and died, and arose, and ascended into 
 heaven, — we affirm nothing different from what is said by 
 you of the sons of Jove, and nothing new. You know how 
 many sons your esteemed writers attribute to him. There is 
 Mercury, the interpreting logos, and teacher of all; JEscula- 
 pius," and the rest ; between whom and Jesus, Justin pro- 
 ceeds to draw a paralleh* 
 
 Again : speaking of the generation of the Son, he says, 
 " When we call him the Logos of God, born of him in a 
 peculiar manner, and out of the course of ordinary births, 
 we speak a common language with you, who call Mercury 
 the angelic logos fi'om God."f The meaning seems to be: 
 " We speak of a true and real person, so born, as we have 
 said, whom we call Logos (speech) : a term you apply to 
 Mercury." 
 
 From the extracts above given, it is evident, that, although 
 Justin employs the term " Logos " in different senses, the 
 primary meaning he usually attributes to it, when used with 
 reference to God, is reason, considered as an attribute of the 
 Father ; and that, by the generation of the Son, he under- 
 stood the conversion of this attribute into a real person. 
 The Logos, which afterwards became flesh, originally existed 
 in God as his reason, or perhaps his wisdom or energy. Hav- 
 ing so existed from eternity, it was, a little before the creation 
 of the world, voluntarily begotten, thrown out, or emitted, 
 by the Father, or proceeded from him ; for these terms are 
 used indiscriminately to express the generation of the Son, or 
 the process by which what before was a quality acquired a 
 distinct personal subsistence. That such was the doctrine of 
 Justin, and of the ante-Nicene Fathers generally, concerning 
 the generation of the Son, the whole strain of their writings 
 affords abundant evidence. They supposed, we repeat, that 
 the logos, or reason, which once constituted an attribute of the 
 Father, was at length converted into a real being, and that 
 
 * Apol I., p. 56 ; Thirlby, p. 31 ; Otto, c. 21. 
 t Ibid., p. 57 ; Thirlby, p. 33 ; Otto, c. 22. 
 
GENEn.ATTON OP THE SON. 6? 
 
 this was done by a voluntary act of the Father. To this 
 process they applied the term " generation," and sometimes 
 " emission " or " prolation " ; nor do they appear originally to 
 have objected to that of " creation." * 
 
 * Trypho is allowed, without contradiction, to speak of Christ as " made 
 by God" (Dial, cum Tryph., c. 64). Tatian calls him the "first-begotten 
 work of the Father," hpyov npuroTOKOV tov iraTpoi ( Oral, ad Grcec, c. 5). 
 
58 JUSTIN MARIYM. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The Views of Justin and the Fathers not derived from the Old 
 Testament. — Language of the Old Testament examined. — Or 
 THE New. — Justin ingrafted on Christianity the Sentiments of 
 the Later Platonists. — Statements of Learned Trinitarians. — 
 Philo's Doctrine of the Logos. — Attempts to soften the Charge 
 
 OF PLATONISM AOAIITST IHB FaTHEBS. 
 
 The inquiry now presents itself, Whence were these views, 
 which evidently constitute the germ of the Trinity, derived ? 
 From the Jewish and Christian Scriptures ? or from the doc- 
 trines of Plato, as expounded by his later followers, and espe- 
 cially the Jew Philo ? We say, without hesitation, the latter. 
 The term " Logos," which Justin and the other Fathers use 
 to express the divine nature of the Son, frequently occurs, as 
 our learned readers well know, in the Septuagint version of 
 the Hebrew Scriptures, and is rendered in our Bibles by 
 "Word." But neither the original Hebrew term, nor the 
 corresponding term, " Logos," in the Septuagint, ever bears 
 the meaning which these Fathers attach to it, but is used in a 
 totally different sense ; nor do we find, in the whole Bible, the 
 least trace of the generation of the Son by the conversion of 
 an attribute of the Father into a real person. In passages 
 like the following, " By the word of the Lord were the 
 heavens made," Justin supposes that it was meant to be 
 asserted that they were made by the rational power, or Son, 
 here referred to. The expressions in Proverbs — " The Lord 
 created me the beginning of his ways " ; " before the depths 
 he begat me" — were adduced as referring to his birth, or 
 production. Numerous other expressions, occurring in the 
 Old Testament, may be referred to the same class, and were 
 txplained in a similar manner. But the Jews attributed no 
 such meaning to the language in question ; nor does it appear 
 naturally fitted to suggest it. The notions it conveyed to 
 
LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 59 
 
 their minds were very simple and obvious. The sentiments 
 of the Fathers savored of a metaphysical and speculative 
 philosophy, evidently the growth of a different soil. The 
 Jews were not familiar with the abstractions of philosophy, 
 as their current phraseology bears ample testimony. They 
 describe the perfections and agency of the Divine Being in 
 precisely the language which we should expect would occui 
 to the minds of an exceedingly primitive, and in some respects 
 rude, people. They resort, as was natural, chiefly to compar- 
 isons and images, borrowed fi'om sensible objects and human 
 modes of action. Their views were very little spiritualized ; 
 and many of the expressions they employed in reference to 
 the Deity were strictly anthropomorphitical. 
 
 We will explain our meaning by a few examples, in which 
 the attributes and agency of God are illustrated by allusions, 
 which to us, familiar as we are with the sublimer discoveries 
 of Christianity and the improvements of modern science, ap- 
 pear feeble and inadequate. Thus, to convey a notion of his 
 eternity, they speak of him as existing before the hills. To 
 aid the imagination in comprehending his immensity and great- 
 ness, they are content to draw illustrations from human sover- 
 eignty. They represent hira as a mighty King, having the 
 heavens for his throne, and the earth for his footstool. To 
 give some conception of his power, his universal presence, and 
 knowledge embracing all objects, they describe him as having 
 human organs, — as hands, eyes, and ears, — ever active and 
 vigilant. His eyes run to and fro over the whole earth ; his 
 arm is outstretched to punish or to save ; he whets his sword, 
 he bends his bow, he discharges the swift arrows of his wrath. 
 When he wishes to know what is passing on earth, he is ex- 
 hibited to our view as descending from a height above us ; 
 thus : " The Lord came down to see the tower which the 
 children of men builded." * Again : hearing reports of the 
 wickedness of Sodom, he resolves to " go down," and ascer- 
 tain whether they are correct ; " and, if not," he is introduced 
 as saying, " I will know." f He is described as walking 
 abroad, and conversing familiarly with man ; as having human 
 passions and affections ; as repenting and grieved for what he 
 * Gen. xi. 5. t Gen. xviii. 21 
 
60 JUSTIN MARTTE. 
 
 had done ; as angry and taking revenge ; as laughing at 
 the distresses of his enemies ; as mocking and deriding. In 
 consistency with this language, which ascribes to him human 
 organs, affections, and modes of action, he is represented, 
 when about to exert his power, or produce an effect he wills, 
 as speaking^ or issuing his word^ or command. Thus, in the 
 process of creation, he is introduced as proclaiming an order at 
 every step : " Let there be light. Let there be a firmament. 
 Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into 
 one place, and let the dry land appear. Let us make man." 
 Everything is said to be done by a command, because human 
 sovereigns are accustomed to issue a word^ or order, when 
 they wish their designs to be carried into effect. In conform- 
 ity with this usage, the Psalmist says, " By the word of the 
 Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the 
 breath of his mouth. He spake, and it was done ; he com- 
 manded, and it stood fast." * In all this there is no mystery.f 
 God issues his command, or his word, and it is executed, and • 
 the heavens and the earth appear : that is, he produces an 
 effect ; there is an exertion of his power ; he wills, and the 
 event corresponds to his will. Here is no allusion to any 
 intermediate agent, — to a Son, who receives and executes his 
 commands : a rational power, emanating from his own sub- 
 stance, and forming a link between him and his creatures. 
 All this is a fiction of later times. 
 
 Such is the meaning of the term " word," or " word of the 
 Lord," as used by Moses, the patriarchs, and by David. The 
 notion the Jews attached to it was the simplest and most 
 obvious imaginable. There is no obscurity whatever attend- 
 ing it. The term formed part of their anthroporaorphitical 
 language, and is to be classed with other terms constantly used 
 by them in reference to the Deity, — as hands, mouth, nos- 
 trils, all of which they apply to him. A similar explanation 
 
 * Ps. xxxiii. 6, 9. 
 
 t All the effects of his provident designs, every occurrence which takes place 
 by his remote agency, is spoken of in similar language ; thus : " He sendeth 
 forth his commandment upon earth ; his word runnetli very swiftly. He giv 
 eth snow like wool ; he scattereth the hoar-frost like ashes. He sendeth out 
 his word, and melteth them." (Ps. cxlvii. 15, 16, 18.) 
 
FIGURES OF SPEECH. 61 
 
 Is to be given of the term when it occurs in such phrases as 
 the following : " The word of God came to Nathan," or to 
 the propliets. This is a mere idiom of speech, growing out of 
 the very primitive notions of the people who employed it. 
 It was not the result of policy or reflection, but rather of 
 untutored and childlike simplicity. The meaning is, simply, 
 that the prophets received divine communications. The Apos- 
 tle very correctly expresses this meaning, when he says, " Holy 
 men of God spake as moved by the Holy Ghost" ; that is, 
 by a divine impulse.* 
 
 Let us now proceed to the Proverbs, or the ethical writings 
 of the Old Testament. Justin and the other Fathers, as before 
 stated, imagined that by Wisdom, of which we have a magnifi- 
 cent description in the eighth chapter of Proverbs, was meant 
 the Logos, or Son, — a real being, the agent or minister of the 
 Father in the work of creation. f But the author of the chap- 
 ter in question had evidently no such thought. Nothing, in 
 fact, was further from his meaning, as the whole structure and 
 connection of the passage put beyond doubt. The Oriental 
 imagination, as every one knows, delighted in metaphor and 
 bold and striking imagery. The strongest figures were often 
 employed to express a very obvious and simple fact or senti- 
 ment ; and, among these, a favorite one was personification, 
 by which abstract qualities are clothed with the properties of 
 a real being, and represented as speaking and acting as such. 
 This figui-e frequently occurs in the sacred writings of the 
 Jews, particularly in their poetical books. Thus truth, justige, 
 mercy, and other abstract properties, are often introduced as 
 possessing proper personality ; in other words, as real beings : 
 as, " Mercy and Truth are met together ; Righteousness and 
 Peace have kissed each other. Truth shall spring out of the 
 
 * 2 Pet. i. 21. 
 
 t Dr. Watts once supposed, that by Wisdom, in this place, was meant 
 Christ's preexistent human soul united with the divine nature { Glori/ of Christ, 
 Disc. iii. § 5). He was led into a belief of this strange doctrine of the pre- 
 jxistence of Christ's human soul from the circumstance tliat the Scriptures, 
 in several passages in which, as he supposes, they speak of his existence be- 
 fore his incarnation, evidently ascribe to him a nature inferior to God. We 
 are not surprised that Dr. Watts, entertaining these views, afterwards became 
 a Unitarian. 
 
62 JUSTIN MARTYE. 
 
 earth, and Righteousness shall look down from heaven." * 
 By the same lively figure, the author of the Proverbs gives 
 Wisdom a voice, and represents her as offering counsel and 
 admonition, and calling on men to listen : and, to show her 
 title to respect, she proceeds to describe her antiquity and 
 excellence ; speaks of herself as guiding the great and noble 
 of the earth ; as having her residence of old with God, as one 
 brought up with him, and rejoicing always in his presence. 
 The purport of this language, no one, at the present day, mis- 
 takes. All admit it to be only a bold personification of the 
 attribute of wisdom, as it is possessed by the Divine Being, 
 and, in a feebler degree, by his intelligent offspring ; in other 
 words, only a well-known rhetorical figure. f Such language 
 could never have suggested to the early Fathers their peculiar 
 views of the Logos, or Son of God. J That they should have 
 considered it as having reference to him, after those views 
 had been imbibed from other sources, need not, however, sur- 
 prise us. 
 
 If we proceed to examine the writings of the Jews which 
 belong to a period subsequent to the formation of the sacred 
 canon, and which, though not of authority as a rule of faith, 
 are yet valuable as a record of opinions, we arrive at conclu- 
 sions similar to the foregoing. We find instances of bold 
 personification, but discover no traces of the metaphysical doc- 
 trine of the Logos, or generation of the Son, as held by the 
 early Christian Fathers. § 
 
 * Ps. Ixxxv. 10, 11. 
 
 t Similar instances of personification occur in the literature of all nations, 
 and are resorted to occasionally by the gravest writers. Hooker, in his Eccle- 
 siastical Polity, (b. i. ch. 16,) has a specimen of it, remarkable for its beauty. 
 Speaking of Law, he says, " Her seat is the bosom of God, her voice the har- 
 mony of the world. All things in heaven and earth do her homage : the very 
 least, as feeling her care ; and the greatest, as not exempted from her power." 
 
 J "The Logos did not grow outof the Old Testament," says Bunsen (i. 76). 
 On the poetical personifications of tlie Old Testament, see Hagenbach, First 
 Per., § 40. 
 
 § Thus, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon, the work of some Alexan- 
 drian Jew, though he sometimes uses expressions which savor a little of the 
 Egyptian school, had evidently no conception of the conversion of an attri- 
 bute into a real being. After speaking of Wisdom as " the breath of the 
 power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty, 
 the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and an image of his goodness," he 
 
LANGUAGE OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. 63 
 
 If we turn to the authors of the Gospels and the Epistles 
 of the New Testament, we find that their views agree, in all 
 essential points, with those inculcated by the writers under 
 the old dispensation. Their language and conceptions are 
 more spiritualized and refined. There is less of grossness in 
 their modes of representing the Deity. Still, much of the 
 ancient phraseology is retained ; and, where a departure is 
 made from it, this departure is not such as indicates that the 
 opinions of the Jews, or Jewish Christians, concerning the 
 divine nature and operations, had undergone that change 
 which the supposition of their belief in the doctrine of the 
 generation of the Son, as explained by the Fathers, would 
 imply, but the reverse. The New Testament, if we except 
 the introductory verses to John's Gospel, is remarkably free 
 from expressions which have the least appearance of favoring 
 the metaphysical notions of the Fathers concerning the nature 
 of the Son ; and these verses favor them only in appearance.* 
 The remaining part of the Gospels and Epistles is, in our view, 
 totally opposed to those notions, and everything resembling 
 them. The language of Jesus and his Apostles certainly 
 never could have suggested them ; and the general strain of 
 it cannot, by the greatest exercise of ingenuity, be distorted 
 into a shape which lends them the feeblest support. To those 
 who doubt the truth of this statement we would say. Take 
 the language of Justin, as we have represented it, faithfully, 
 as we believe ; render your minds familiar with it ; and then 
 
 proceeds (chap. viii. 3, 4) : "In that she is conversant with God, she magni- 
 fieth her nobility ; for she is privy to the mysteries of the knowledge of God, 
 and a lover of his works." In a prayer, recorded in the next chapter, the fol- 
 lowing expressions occur : " God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who 
 hast made all things with thy word, and ordained man through thy wisdom ! 
 
 .... give me Wisdom, that sitteth by thy throne And Wisdom was 
 
 with thee, which knoweth thy works, and was present when thou madest the 
 
 world Oh ! send her out of thy holy heavens, and from the throne ol 
 
 thy glory " (chap. ix. 1, 2, 4, 9, 10). Again: the son of Sirach (Ecclus. 
 xxiv. 3, 4, 9) introduces Wisdom as saying, " I came out of the mouth of the 
 Most High : he created me from the beginning, before the world. I dwell in 
 high places, and ray throne is in a cloudy pillar." But who does not see that 
 these instances are only specimens of the style in which the Oriental genius, 
 ever fond of glowing representations, metaphor, and fiction, is accustomed tc 
 give utterance to its thoughts ? 
 * See Norton's Statement of Reasons, etc., p. 307, etc., third edition. 
 
64 JUSTIN MAETYR. 
 
 sit down, and read over carefully the writings of the Apostles 
 and Evangelists : you will rise from the penisal, we are confi- 
 dent, with a firm conviction, that, with the exception above 
 made, no trace of such language is found in those writings, 
 and that they could not possibly have been the source whence 
 it was derived. This conviction, we think, must force itself 
 upon the mind of every one, who, without prejudice, com- 
 pares the style of the authors of the New Testament with 
 that of Justin and subsequent Fathers, who trod in his steps. 
 He must be struck with the total dissimilarity between the 
 two classes of writings ; not a dissimilarity in modes of ex- 
 pression merely, but a real dissimilarity, or rather opposition, 
 of sentiment. The plain inference is, that the Fathers alluded 
 to drew from other sources besides the Bible, and that they 
 suffered their learning to corrupt the simplicity of their faith.* 
 This inference is strengthened by the fact, that the Logos- 
 doctrine, as developed by Justin Martyr and the learned writ- 
 ers of a subsequent age, does not disclose itself, as we have 
 seen in our preliminary chapter, in the compositions ascribed 
 to any of the so-called Apostolic Fathers of whom we possess 
 any literary remains the authenticity of which can be estab- 
 lished on even probable grounds. This we regard as a signifi- 
 cant fact. Considering the date of these compositions, so far 
 as it can be ascertained with any approach to certainty, they 
 furnish conclusive evidence, we think, against the scriptural 
 origin of the doctrine referred to ; and confirm our argument, 
 if it needed confirmation, that Justin, in what he teaches of the 
 Logos, drew fi:'om other sources, and not from the sacred writ- 
 ings, or from primitive Christian antiquity. 
 
 * It may be said, possibly, that there is a class of passages in the Now Tes- 
 tament which favors the doctrine of the Fathers, that God employed the Son 
 as his agent in creating the universe. We refer to those (they are very few) 
 in which the following language, or something like it, occurs : " By whom also 
 he made the worlds," or ages (Heb. i. 2). " For by him [that is, Jesus as 
 an instrument] were all things created " (Col. i. 16). These and similar 
 phrases, however, may refer to the ages, periods, or dispensations ; and we 
 may say, " By, or for, whom he constituted the ages or dispensations." That 
 is, they may refer not to a physical, but to a moral creation, or constitution of 
 things. (See Grotins and Rosenmiiller in he.) But whether we put this or 
 any other construction on the passages, they exhibit no traces of the peculiar 
 Logos-doctrine of the Fathers. 
 
PLATONISM OF THE EARLY FATHERS. 65 
 
 The inference just stated, we conceive, would be author- 
 ized, were the evidence that Justin's sentiments respecting the 
 Logos corresponded in their essential features with those of the 
 later or Alexandrian Platonists far less satisfactory than it is. 
 But this evidence is absolutely irrefragable. Look at tlie con^ 
 cessions of Trinitarians themselves. Few names stand higher 
 in the Romish Church than those of Petavius and Huet, or 
 Huetius : the latter, Bishop of Avranches, a leai'ned man, and 
 the original editor of Orio;en's Commentaries on the New 
 Testament ; the former, a Jesuit, profoundly versed, as his 
 writings prove, in a knowledge of Christian antiquity. Among 
 Protestants, Cudworth, author of the " Intellectual System," 
 stands preeminent for erudition ; and Mosheim, and many 
 will add Horsley, the antagonist of Dr. Priestley, have no 
 mean fame. Yet all these — and we might mention several 
 others, all belonging to the ranks of Trinitarians — admit, in 
 substance, the charge of Platonism brought against the Fa- 
 thers.* Horsley says expressly that the Platonizing Fathers 
 were " the Orthodox of their age," and contends for " such a 
 similitude " between the doctrine of the Fathers and Plato- 
 nists " as speaks a common origin " ; f and Cudworth has insti- 
 tuted a very labored comparison to show that " there is no so 
 great difference," as he expresses it, " between the genuine 
 Platonic Trinity, rightly understood, and the Christian." $ 
 Brucker, the historian of Philosophy, also a Trinitarian, gives 
 in his learned work the result of a diligent examination of 
 the writings of Justin, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Athe- 
 nagoras, Ireneeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, 
 and others. His conclusion, in which he is fully borne out by 
 his citations, is, that the taint of Platonism strongly adhered to 
 these Fathers ; and that, through their writings, the whole 
 Church, in fact, became infected. § 
 
 * Petav. Theol. Dogmata, t. ii. lib. i. c. iii. et seqq. ; Huet. Origeniana, lib. ii. 
 c. i., and c. ii. qusest. 2. See also Norton's Statement, of Reasons, etc., pp. 94, 
 95, third edition, where the language of Mosheim is quoted. 
 
 t See General Repository and Revieiv, vol. iii. pp. 18, 19. 
 
 } The whole subject is treated with great learning, hitell. Syst., b. i. ch. iv. 
 p. 557, etc., ed. Lond., 1678. 
 
 § Hist. Crit. Phil. See especially t. iii. pp. 313-459. To the above men- 
 tioned authorities we may add that of James Basnage, also a learned man and 
 
 5 
 
66 JUSTIN MARTYE. 
 
 The great points of resemblance between the views of the 
 Platonists and those of the Christian Fathers, and of Justin 
 in particular, on the subject of the Logos, Son, or second God, 
 may be stated in few words. Plato had spoken of God, and 
 his reason or logos, embracing the patterns or archetypes of 
 things afterwards formed. The latter, sometimes called also 
 the intellect of God, he pronounces " the divinest of all 
 things," and admits it into the number of his primary princi- 
 ples. Whether he regarded it as having a real and proper 
 subsistence, or as only an attribute represented as a person by 
 a sort of poetical fiction, it is of no consequence to determine. 
 It is acknowledged that he sometimes speaks of it in terms 
 that, literally understood, (which, however, they probably 
 were never intended to be,) would lead to the supposition 
 that he considered it a real being, distinct from the Supreme 
 God, or united with him only as proceeding from the fountain 
 of his divinity. Certain it is that it was so explained by his 
 later followers of the Egyptian school, especially after they 
 had become acquainted with the Oriental doctrine of emana- 
 tions. 
 
 Of the opinions of this school, Philo, a learned Jew of 
 Alexandria, who flourished soon after the Christian era, — 
 and who has been called the Jewish Plato, from the striking 
 resemblance of his opinions to those of the Athenian sage, — 
 may be regarded as a fair representative ; and his writings 
 were the immediate source whence Justin and the Fathers 
 derived their doctrine of the Logos. Fortunately, these writ- 
 ings, the bulk of them at least, have been preserved ; and 
 from them we may gather the sentiments of the Alexandrian 
 Platonists of his time. He admits that there is one Supreme 
 God ; but supposes that there is a second God, inferior to him, 
 and begotten of him, called his reason, Logos : the term, as 
 we have seen, employed by Plato to designate his second 
 principle. To this Logos, or intelligent natui'e, emanating 
 from God, as he considers it, he attributes all the properties 
 
 a Trinitarian ; History of the Jews, b. iv. ch. iv. §§ 21, 22. Among more recent 
 writers, see Baumgarten-Crusius, Lehrhxich der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, i. 
 167, ff., and Otto, De Justini Martyris Scriptis et Doctrina, p. 78, et seqq. ; also 
 Hagenbacli, Text-Book, etc., First Period, § 19. 
 
PHILO'S VIEWS OP THE LOGOS. 67 
 
 of a real being, and calls him God's " first-born Logos, the 
 most ancient angel, as it were an archangel with many 
 names." * To this " archangel, the most ancient Logos, the 
 Father omnipotent," he says, "granted the preeminent gift, 
 to stand on the confines of both, and separate the created from 
 the Creator ; he is continually a suppliant to the immortal 
 God in behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to afflic- 
 tion and misery ; and is also the ambassador sent by the ruler 
 of all to the subject race ; being neither unbegotten as God, 
 nor begotten as man, but occupying a middle place between 
 the extremes, being a hostage to both."f He apphes the title 
 " God " to him ; not using the term, he is careful to say, in 
 its highest sense. When used without the article, as here, he 
 says, referring to the passage in Genesis on which lie is com- 
 menting, it can be understood only in its secondary sense, the 
 article being prefixed when the Supreme God is referred to. 
 What is " here called God," he says, " is his most ancient 
 Logos. "^ At other times, he speaks of him as the image of 
 God; "the image of God," he says, "is his most ancient 
 Logos " ; § and, again, as the Reason of God, embracing, like 
 Plato's Logos, the ideas or archetypes according to which the 
 sensible world was framed. He calls God the fountain of the 
 Logos, and the Logos his instrument, or minister, in forming, 
 preserving, and governiyg the world ; his messenger, and the 
 interpreter of his will to man. [In a fragment preserved by 
 Eusebius,|| Philo remarks upon a passage in Genesis (ix. 6), 
 which reads, according to the Septuagint version, " For in the 
 image of God did I make man." " This divine oracle," he 
 says, " is full of beauty and wisdom. For it was not possible 
 that anything mortal should be formed after the image of the 
 Most High, the Father of the universe ; it could only be 
 formed in the image of the second God, who is his Logos (or 
 lleason). It was necessary that the stamp of reason on the 
 
 * De Confus. Ling., c. 28 ; 0pp., i. 426, 427, ed. Mang. 
 
 t Quis Rerum Div. Hceres, c. 42 ; 0pp., i. 501, 502. 
 
 } De Somniis, lib. i. c. 39 ; 0pp., i. 655. 
 
 § De Confus. Ling., c. 28 ; 0pp., i. 427. 
 
 II [Prcep. Evang., lib. vii. c. 13, or Philo, 0pp., ii. 625. The passage is taken 
 Dy Eusebius from Philo's Questions and Solutions on Genesis. In the Armenian 
 version of this worli, published by Aucher in 1826 with a Latin translation, 
 t is found in Senn. ii. c. 62. — Ed.] 
 
68 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 soul of man should be impressed by the divine Logos ; * for 
 the God above (or before, Trpd) the Logos is superior to every 
 rational nature ; and it was not lawful that anything begotten 
 should be made like Him who is above (virlp') the Logos, and 
 subsists in a form the most excellent and peculiar to himself."] 
 Thus using the term Logos in the sense of Reason, having 
 a proper subsistence, and distinct from God, though emanating 
 from the fountain of his divinity, Philo departed from the 
 usage of the sacred writers, who, as we have seen, never 
 attribute to it this meaning. The sum of the matter is, the 
 authors of the Septuagint version and the Platonists employed 
 the same term to express totally different views : the former 
 intending by it simply a mode of action in the Deity ; the lat- 
 ter, a real being, his agent and minister in executing his will. 
 Philo was the first, we believe, who attributed to the Logos 
 a permanent personal subsistence ; thus proceeding one step 
 beyond Plato : which was the more easy for him, in conse- 
 quence of his acquaintance with the principles of the Oriental 
 philosophy ; for, in the general influx and confusion of opin- 
 ions at that time in Alexandria, these entered into a strange 
 union with Grecian speculations and Judaism. f 
 
 * e^ei yap tov ?.oyiKbv tv av&punov ibv^y tvkov vno ^siov "kbyov xo-P^X^^'"'^'- 
 t "We do not say that Philo is always consistent with liimself. He certainly 
 wavers. The double sense of the Greek term logos, meaning either "reason" 
 or " discourse " [i. e., the internal or uttered logos, or word), favored a certain 
 indistinctness or fluctuation of thouglit. The internal loijos Philo describes as 
 the "idea of ideas," or "archetypal idea," the " intelligible world," or world 
 of ideas, containing the perfect form of all things afterwards made. The 
 " uttered " or external logos is the same hijpostatized, or converted into a real 
 person. That he should sometimes blend or confound the two senses, need 
 not surprise us. On the Logos as hypostatized by Philo, see Norton's State- 
 merit of Reasons, pp. 314-316, and p. 332, etc., 3d edit. ; Semisch, Justin Martyr, 
 ii. 173-177 ; Hagenbach, Text-Book, etc., First Per., § 40. [See also Gross- 
 mann, Qucestiones Philonecv, Partic. 1, 2, (1829,) who gives all the passages in 
 which the term T^yo^ occurs in Philo ; Gfrorer, Philo und die jtldisch-alexandri- 
 nisclie Theosophie, (1831,) i. 168, ff., esp. 243, ff. ; Liicke, Comm. iiber das Evang. 
 des Johannes, 3e Aufl. (1840), i. 249, ff., translated by Dr. Noyes in the Christ. 
 Examiner for March and' May, 1849 ; Dorner, Lehre von der Person Christi, 
 (1845,) i. 22, ff., Eng. trans, i. 19, etc., also transl. by Prof. Stuart in the 
 Biblioth. Sacra for Oct. 1850 ; Keferstein, Philo's Lehre von den gottlichen Mittel- 
 wesen (1846) ; Niedner, De Subsislentid tu i?etw /loycj apud Philonem Judcenm et 
 Joannem Apostoluin trtbutd, in his Zeitschrift flir die hist. TheoL, 1849, Heft 3 ; 
 Jowett's Essay on St. Paul and Philo, in his Epistles of St. Paul, etc., vol. i. ; 
 Ritter's History of Ancient Philosophy, iv. 426, etc., Eng. trans. ; Zeller's Phil- 
 osophie der Gricchen, iii 594, ff. — Ed.] 
 
BORROWED HIS VIEWS PROM PHILO. 69 
 
 The subject might be further illustrated by an appeal to 
 later writers of the same school, as Plotinus and others ; but 
 it is unnecessary. Justin and the subsequent Fathers, we 
 know, read Philo ; and their thoughts and expressions often 
 exhibit a remarkable coincidence with his. Indeed, so deeply 
 are their writings imbued with his sentiments and spirit, that 
 without him, as Mosheim observes, they would often be " al- 
 together unintelligible." No one who compares their senti- 
 ments in reference to the Logos with those entertained and 
 expressed by him, can doubt, we think, that they must have 
 been derived from a common source ; and this could be no 
 other than the doctrines of Plato, as explained by his later 
 followei's of the Alexandrian School. Justin, as related in 
 a former chapter, expressly informs us that he became ac- 
 quainted with these doctrines before his conversion to Chris- 
 tianity, and took incredible delight in them. The process by 
 which he ingrafted them on the original truths of the gospel, 
 without any premeditated design of corruption, which we do 
 not impute to him, it is not difficult to explain.* 
 
 * Some attempts, we know, have been made to soften the charge of Plato- 
 nism against the Fatliers ; and Semisch, already alluded to in this connection, 
 has a labored argument on the subject. Yet, however, he grants to the "Alex- 
 andrian riiilonic theosophy an essential share in the formation of Justin's 
 doctrine of tlie Logos." Whether the source of the influence thus acknowl- 
 edged be denominated Platonism or "heathen culture," in which, especially 
 in Alex.andria, we know that Platonism ruled, is of little consequence. It is 
 difficult to separate the "Alexandrian Philonic theosophy," or " Jewish Alex- 
 andrianism," from the new Platonism, as it developed itself in the Alexandrian 
 schools. All admit that Philo " Platonized." 
 
 Semisch states very correctly, that " the doctrine of the Logos, especially 
 in the form [in which] it was held by Philo, served as a starting-point and 
 direction to the speculative inquiries of the most ancient Fathers relative to 
 the person of Christ." After this, is he quite consistent in affirming that 
 Justin, who certainly was speculative enough, derived the doctrine directly 
 from the Scriptures 1 But to say nothing of his inconsistency', seeming, at 
 least, how happens it, one is tempted to ask, if Justin drew his knowledge 
 of the Logos from the Scriptures, that the so-called Apostolic Fathers, who 
 stood so much nearer the fountain, (or whoever wrote what passes under their 
 names,) were ignorant of it, as he admits they were, saying that "every such 
 application of the idea of the Logos was foreign to their minds '' ? Was Jus- 
 Jin's doctrine of the Logos, as Semisch says, the "faith of the church imme- 
 diately succeeding the Apostles " 1 How then could the earliest writers after 
 the Apostles have been ignorant of it ? See Hagenbach's Text- Book, etc., First 
 Period, § 19 ; Semisch, Justin Martyr, ii. 177, 178, 198, 200. 
 
70 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The Inferiority of the Son uniformly asserted by the Ante-Nicenb 
 Fathers. — Concessions of Trinitarians. — The Father and Son 
 not numerically One, nor Equal. — Proofs from Justin. — The 
 Son not an Object of Direct Address in Prayer. — Sum of the 
 Argument. — Disingenuous Use made of Two Passages from Jus- 
 tin. — His Views op the Spirit. — Jcstin's Notice of the Human- 
 itarians OF HIS Day. — Bishop Watson did not deem the Peeex- 
 iSTENCE OF Christ necessary to the Accomplishment of his Mis- 
 sion. 
 
 That the inferiority of the Son was generally, if not uni- 
 formly, asserted by the ante-Nicene Fathers, has been admit- 
 ted by several learned advocates of the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 Cudworth fully and expressly asserts it* of "the generality 
 of the Christian doctors for the first three hundred years after 
 the Apostles' times " ; and Brucker, Petavius, and Huetius, 
 already referred to, and we may add Le Clerc, entertained 
 substantially the same opinion. That the opinion is well 
 founded, has been incontestably proved, we conceive, by 
 Whiston, author of " Primitive Christianity Revived " ; f and 
 by Whitby, in a work which never has been, and, we hazard 
 nothing in saying, never can be, refuted. J That they viewed 
 the Son as distinct from the Father is evident from the cir- 
 cumstance that they plainly assert his inferiority. Besides, 
 they often either directly affirm it, or use language which 
 necessarily implies it.§ They considered him distinct and 
 
 * Intellectual System, b. i. ch. iv. p. 595. 
 
 t See vol. iv. 
 
 t Dhquisitiones Modestce in CI. Bitlli Defensionem Fidei Nicena. 
 
 § III fact, the Fathers of the council of Nice, and their predecessors, never 
 thought of asserting that the Son and the Fatlier were nwnerically one. This 
 was a refinement of later times. Tiie term " consubstaiitial," as used by 
 tliese Fathers and by the Platonists, the learned well know, implied, not a 
 numerical,, but only a specific identity. By saying that two beings were con- 
 Bubstantial, as that tiie Son was consubstantial with the Fatlier, they only 
 Tieant to affirm that they partook of the same common or specific nature, just 
 
THE SON DISTINCT FROM GOD. 71 
 
 subordinate. This appears, as it regards Justin, from the 
 passages ah'eady adduced, in the account given of his views 
 of the Logos a few pages back. We shall now exhibit further 
 evidence of the fact. 
 
 First, we would observe that Justin expressly contends for 
 two Gods and two Lords, against what he considered the 
 cavils of the Jews. He speaks of the " Lord in heaven " as 
 " Lord of that Lord who appeared on earth," and the source 
 of all his power, titles, and dominion ; " the cause of his being 
 powerful and Lord and God."* The expression, " The Lord 
 rained fire from the Lord out of heaven upon Sodom," he 
 contends, shows that they are really two in number. The 
 same is implied, he says, in the words, "Adam has become as 
 one of us " : words, he maintains, which are not to be regarded 
 as a mere figure of speech, as sophists contend. He then 
 quotes the passage from Proverbs already repeatedly referred 
 to ; and adds, whence " you may understand, if you will at- 
 tend, that this progeny of the Father was begotten of him 
 before all creatures ; and that which is begotten, as all know, 
 is different in number from tiiat which begets it " ; that is, 
 they constitute two beings numerically distinct. f Again : 
 " There is another God and Lord under the Creator of the 
 universe, who is also called Angel, because he announces to 
 men what the Creator of the universe — above whom there 
 
 is no other God — wishes to declare He who is said to 
 
 have appeared to Abraham, to Jacob, and to Moses, and is 
 called God, is other than the God who made all things. 1 
 say, in number, but not in will ; for he never did anything 
 except what the Creator of the universe — over whom there 
 is no other God — willed him to do and say." J On this point, 
 the language of Justin is too plain to be misunderstood. Try- 
 pho had challenged him to show that there is mentioned in 
 the Old Testament any other Lord and God except the Su- 
 preme. In reply, he maintains that there is another often 
 spoken of, who appeared to the patriarchs, — the Son and 
 
 us two individual men partake of a common nature, — that is, a human na- 
 ture, — though they constitute two distinct beings, having a separate will and 
 lonsciousness. 
 
 * Dial., p. 222; Thirlby, pp. 413, 414; Otto, c. 129. t Ibid. 
 
 I Dial., 0. 66. See also cc. 57-62, Otto. 
 
72 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 minister of the Supreme ; voluntarily begotten of him, not 
 from eternity, — this he nowhei-e asserts, — but before the 
 creation of the world, that he might be employed as his agent 
 in its production and afterwards in executing his commands : 
 for all the Old Testament theophanies, according to Justin, 
 belong to the Logos, or Christ ; not to the Supreme God, 
 whose visible personal appearance upon earth he regarded as 
 impossible and absurd.* 
 
 Again : Justin frequently applies to the Son such phrases 
 as these, — ''next in rank," or "next after" God; as the 
 Logos, or Son, is " the first power after God the Father and 
 sovereign Lord of all."f Again : " We reverence him next 
 after God." And he sometimes states the ground of this rev- 
 erence ; which is, not because he is of one essence with the 
 Father, but " because for our sakes he became man, and par- 
 took of our infirmities, that through him we might be healed." J 
 Such phrases, implying inferiority, we say, occur, not once, 
 but repeatedly ; and their import cannot be mistaken. 
 
 Of the derivation of the Son from the Supreme God, and 
 his subjection to him as the minister of his will, of his names 
 and offices, and especially of his title to be called God in an 
 inferior sense of the term, the following account is given. He 
 is God, because he is the first-born of every creature ; § the " Lord 
 of hosts, by the ivill of the Father giving him the dominion " ; 
 and, "according to the will of the Father, God."|| Again: 
 he " received of the Father, that he should be King and Christ 
 and Priest and Angel, and whatever other such things " (that 
 is, titles, rank, and offices) " he has and had."^ Again : he 
 " came according to the power of the Omnipotent Father given 
 to him." ** God gave glory to Christ alone, whom he consti- 
 tuted a light to the nations.f f Again : the Lord and Father 
 
 * Dial., c. 127, Otto, 
 t Apol. I., p. 63 ; Otto, c. 32. 
 
 X Apol. II., p. 97; Otto, c. 13. See also Apol. I., cc. 12, 13; and DiaL, 
 cc. 120, 127. 
 § Dial, p. 218; Otto, c. 125. 
 II Rid., pp. 181, 182, 221 ; Otto, cc. 85, 127. 
 1 Ihid., p. 184 ; Thirlby, p. 327 ; Otto, c. 86. 
 ** Diid., p. 230 ; Thirlby, p. 432 ; Otto, c. 189 
 tt Dial, pp. 162. 163; Otto, c. 65. 
 
THE SON NOT ADDRESSED IN PRAYER. 73 
 
 of the universe is represented as raising him from the earth, 
 and placing him at his right hand.* He expressed rehance 
 on God, says Justin, for support and safety ; nor, he continues, 
 does he profess to do anything of his own will or power. He 
 refused to be called "good"; replying, "One is good, — my 
 Father, who is in heaven." f Again: Justin speaks of him in 
 the following terms : " Who, since he is the fast-begotten Logos 
 of Crod, is God^\'1^ that is, he is God by virtue of his birth: 
 in other words, he derived a divine nature from God, just as 
 we derive a human nature from human parents. This was 
 what Justin and others meant when they spoke of the divinity 
 of Christ. 
 
 Justin uses another class of expressions, which show that 
 the supremacy of the Father was still preserved in his time. 
 He represents Christians as approaching the Father through 
 the Son. Through him, he says, they offered thanks and 
 prayers to God ; as w^e do always beseech God, through Jesus 
 Christ, to preserve us from the power of demons. § In the 
 account he gives of the celebration of the Supper, he observes 
 that the person presiding " offers up praise and glory to the 
 Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and the 
 Holy Spirit." II Again: "In all our oblations we bless the 
 Maker of the universe, through his Son Jesus Christ, and 
 through the Holy Spirit." ^ From these passages, as Avell as 
 fi'om the whole strain of Justin's writings, it is evident that 
 the Son was not regarded in his time as an object of direct 
 address in prayer. No expression occurs, in any part of his 
 works, which affords the slightest ground for the supposition, 
 that supreme religious homage was ever rendered him, or that 
 his name was ever directly invoked in the devotions of Chris- 
 tians. Prayer was as yet uniformly offered to God through 
 the Son, according to the models left in the Scriptures. 
 
 We might multiply proofs ; but it is unnecessary. We have 
 adduced evidence sufficient, and more than sufficient, we con- 
 ceive, to demonstrate beyond the possibility of cavil, that Jus- 
 tin regarded the Son as distinct from God, and inferior to him : 
 
 * Dial., p. 129; Otto, c. 32. t Dial., p. 196 ; Otto, c. 101. 
 
 t Apol. I., p. 81 ; Otto, c. 63. § Dial., p. 128 ; Otto, c. 30. 
 
 i; Apol. I., p. 82 ; Otto, c. 65. T Apol. I., p. 83 ; Otto, e. 67. 
 
74 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 distinct, not, in the modern sense, as forming one of three 
 hypostases,* or persons, — three "distinctions," or tliree 
 " somewhats,'' — but distinct in essence and nature; having 
 a real, substantial, individual subsistence, separate from God, 
 from whom he derived all his powers and titles ; being consti- 
 tuted under him, and subject in all things to his will. The 
 Father is supreme ; the Son is subordinate : the Father is the 
 source of power ; the Son the recipient: the Father originates; 
 the Son, as his minister or instrument, executes. They are 
 two in number, but agree, or are one, in will ; the Father's 
 will always prevailing with the Son. They have, according 
 to Justin, no other unity. 
 
 Thus, then, the argument stands. The views which Justin 
 entertained of the Logos, or Son, as a rational power begotten 
 of God, and his instrument in forming the world, distinct 
 fi'om him and subordinate, cannot be traced in the Jewish or 
 Christian Scriptures. Neither the language of the Septuagint 
 version, in which the term occurs, nor the corresponding 
 Hebrew, was regarded by the Jews as teaching them. They 
 are not alluded to by the Apostles and writers of the New 
 Testament and their immediate successors ; or, if indirectly 
 alluded to in one instance, it was only that they might be 
 condemned. But they occur in the writings of the Alexan- 
 drian Platonists, as represented by Philo, precisely or nearly 
 in the same form in which they appear in Justin, who is the 
 first Christian writer in whom they are met Avith ; and who, 
 as we learn from himself, was a Platonic philosopher before 
 he was a Christian. To us the conclusion appears irresistible, 
 that he derived them from the Platonists, and, on his conver- 
 sion, undesignedly incorporated them with the Christian faith. 
 Nor is there anything surprising in all this. It would have 
 been more surprising if the Fathers, educated as Heathen 
 philosophers, should have taken along with them none of their 
 former sentiments on going over to Christianity. The human 
 mind does not so easily part with early and long-cherished 
 
 * Ilypostash was used by the Fathers, in the time of Justin, as synonymous 
 with substance. The teclinical sense in whicli it has since been employed by 
 theologians was at that time wholly unknown. A /ti/postalizcd attribute is an 
 ittribute converted into a distinctly subsisting, personal being. 
 
SUMMARY OP THE ARGUMENT. 75 
 
 opinions and prejudices. Then, in the case of the Fathers, it 
 should be considered, their fondness for allegory and mystical 
 interpretations, and general want of skill as critics, — a fault 
 common to them with their Heathen contemporaries, — de- 
 prived them of almost the only means of correcting their 
 misapprehensions by a careful and discriminating study of the 
 sacred writings.* 
 
 The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity, it will be per- 
 ceived from the foregoing remarks, derives no support from 
 the language of Justin : and this observation may be extended 
 to all the ante-Nicene Fathers ; that is, to all Christian writers 
 for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they 
 speak of the Father, Son, and prophetic or holy Spirit, but 
 not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in 
 
 * The Fathers appear to liave felt that some apology was necessary for the 
 very frequent use they made of Platonic sentiments and illustrations; and 
 hence contended, with great pertinacity, that Plato stole from Moses. To 
 take from him, therefore, was, in their view, no plunder : it was only to re- 
 claim pilfered treasures. That he borrowed from the Hebrews is repeatedly 
 asserted by Justin ; but the notion did not originate with him. It was prop- 
 agated long before by the Jews ; who, with the exclusive spirit which always 
 characterized them, claimed to be the sole depositaries of truth. The opinion 
 may be traced to Aristobulus, a Jew, who lived in the time of Ptolemy Philo- 
 metor, about one hundred and fifty years before Christ ; and who, it seems, 
 dealt plentifully in fables. Aristobulus affirms tiiat both Pythagoras and Plato 
 drew information from the Jewish Scriptures ; of whicli, he says, a Greek 
 translation was made before that of the Seventy. But of this translation no 
 vestige remains ; nor, we believe, is any mention made of it by any other 
 writer. The autiiors of tiie Septuagint version make no allusion to it; and 
 it therefore, probably, never existed. Josephus asserted, after Aristobulus, 
 that Plato took Moses for his model ; and they were followed by Justin, 
 Clement of Alexandria, and others, who found tlie doctrine exceedingly con- 
 venient, as it served, in a measure, to justify what might otherwise have ap- 
 peared an extravagant admiration of Plato and his opinions. We think, 
 however, that the evidence adduced to show that Plato derived assistance 
 from the compositions of Moses is very unsatisfactory. He probably knew 
 nothing either of the Jewish lawgiver or of his writings. The testimony of 
 the above-mentioned authors, in this case, is entitled to no credit, as it is 
 founded wholly on conjecture. Then the whole spirit of Plato's theological 
 speculations is opposed to the Mosaic doctrines, as may be seen from the 
 slight comparison above instituted with regard to his Logos, or second Prin- 
 ciple, to which there is nothing corresponding in the theology of Moses. 
 This subject is amply discussed by Le Clerc (Epist. Crit., vii. and viii.). See 
 *lso some observations of Brucker, t. i. pp. 635-639 ; and Basnage's History 
 ^ the Jews, b. iv. ch. iv. 
 
76 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very 
 reverse is the fact. The doctrine of the Trinity, as explained 
 by these Fathers, was essentially different from the modern 
 doctrine. This we state as a fact as susceptible of proof as 
 any fact in the history of liunian opinions.* 
 
 There are two passages in Justin Martyr, often quoted in 
 support of the Trinity, which deserve a more particular notice. 
 The first is the famous passage so often referred to in the con- 
 ti'oversy relating to the worship of angels. A late learned 
 prelate of the English Church, in an " Exposition of the 
 Thirty-nine Articles," quotes it thus : f " We worship and 
 adore the Father ; and the Son, who came from him, and 
 taught us these things ; and the prophetic Spirit." Now, not 
 to insist on the ambiguity of the words here rendered " wor- 
 ship and adore," — which, if any regard is due to the usage of 
 the best writers, admit with equal propriety of being rendered 
 " reverence and honor," — the passage above given is in a 
 mutilated form. As it stands in Justin, it reads thus : " We 
 reverence and honor him (the Father) ; and the Son, who 
 came from him, and taught us these things ; and the host of 
 other good angels, who follow and resemble him ; and the 
 prophetic Spirit."^ In this form, as it will be readily per- 
 ceived, it may be adduced to sanction the Romish doctrine of 
 the adoration of angels, with as much propriety as in support 
 of the worship of the three persons of the Trinity. It is one 
 of the passages usually appealed to by Catholics as evidence of 
 the antiquity of that doctrine. If it prove anything, there- 
 fore, it proves too much for Protestant Trinitarians. This 
 
 * Martini states the tliree chief antl essential points of difference between 
 Justin's system and that of the Nicene-Athanasian ortliodoxy whicli lias since 
 prevailed, tlius : Athanasian ortliodoxy maintained the everlasting, begin- 
 ningless generation of the Son ; Justin believed that it took place a little 
 before the creation of the world. According to the Athanasian orthodoxy, 
 this generation had its ground in an inner necessity of the divine nature ; 
 iccording to Justin, it originated in an act of God's free will. And finally, 
 in the Athanasian system, the Son was in all respects equal with the Father, 
 and was numericallj- one and the same being; Justin viewed him as subordi- 
 oate and dependent. Versnc/i, etc., p. 52. 
 
 t Elements of Christian T/ieoloQi/, etc., by George Tomline, D. D., F. R. S-, 
 Lord-Bishop of Lincoln ; vol. ii. p. 92, 4th edit. 
 
 J Apol. I., p. 47 ; Thirlby, p. 11 ; Otto, c. 6. 
 
TWO PASSAGES IN JUSTIN. 77 
 
 objection can be met only by putting on the passage in ques- 
 tion a construction manifestly forced and unnatural.* 
 
 The other passage referred to is not more to the purpose ; 
 in fact, it teaches a doctrine decidedly opposed to the Trin- 
 itarian views of the worship due to the Father, Son, and 
 Spirit : — 
 
 " That we are not atheists, worshipping as we do the Maker of 
 this universe, . . . offering up to him prayers and thanks, . . . what 
 person of sound mind will not confess ? And that we with reason 
 honor {tljxmjjxv) Jesus Christ, our teacher of these things, and born 
 
 * This has been sometimes attempted with a singular contempt of the laws 
 of interpretation. We will give the passage as it stands in the original : uAA' 
 EKelvov re, /cot tov nap' avrov vlbv h'kdovTa kuI dtSa^avra T/fj-ug ravra, /cat tov tuv 
 uXkuv STTO/iEvuv Kol i^ofioiovfiEvuv uja&uv uyyiXuv arpuTOv, nvevfiu ts to TrpocpTjTiKbv 
 CE^o^eda /cat npoaKvvovfiEv. Now it is maintained by some that Justin only 
 meant to say, that Christ taught us those things of which he has been speak- 
 ing, and also the things relating to angels; by others, that he taught us and 
 the angels those things. Bishop Bull contends for the first of these construc- 
 tions ; Grabe and Cave, for the second. Langus also gives the same, and 
 Thirlby has retained it. Both constructions, however, do the utmost violence 
 to the original. Le Clerc, more honest, gives the sense very correctly as fol- 
 lows : "Nous le servons et nous I'honorons, et son Pils, qui est venu de vers 
 lui, et qui nous a instruits de ces choses, et I'Armee des autres bons Anges, 
 qui I'ont suivi, et qui lui ressemblent, et I'esprit i^rophetique " (Biblioih. Anc. 
 et Mod., t. xxiii. pp. 18, 19). Whiston {Prim. Christ., vol. iv. p. 66) gives a 
 similar version ; and Dr. Priestley very accurately expresses the sense of the 
 passage, thus : " Him (God), and the Son that came from him, and the host 
 of other good angels who accompany and resemble him, together with the 
 prophetic Spirit, we adore and venerate" (Hist. Corruptions, part i. sect. 7). 
 Catholic writers, for assigning this sense to the words of Justin, — the only 
 sense, we repeat, of which tliey admit, — were accused by the earlier Protes- 
 tants of " playing the Jesuit," and " knavishly dealing with their author." 
 This construction is sustained by Otto [DeJustini M. Scriptis et Doclrina, p. 142, 
 et seqq.). See also his note to the passage (Apol. I., c. 6). A good account 
 of the controversy is given by Semisch (vol. ii. p. 251, et seqq.), with ample 
 references. He supposes that Justin meant to say that a certain reverence 
 and honor were to be given to angels, without defining the precise degree. 
 This is certainly consistent with the spirit of Justin's writings, and follows 
 from the only admissible construction of his language in the passage under 
 notice. 
 
 [The natural construction of Justin's language, which Dr. Lamson adopts, 
 is also followed in the recent translation of his writings, published in the Ox- 
 ford Library of the Fathers. Burton, in his Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers 
 to the Doctrine of the Trinity (p. 17), candidly remarks respecting the diflferent 
 constructions contended for by Bull and Grabe, — "I cannot say that they 
 are satisfactory ; or that I am surprised at Roman Catholic writers describing 
 them as forced and violent attempts to evade a difl&culty." — Ed.] 
 
78 JUSTIN MARTYE. 
 
 for this end, (who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of 
 Judsea in the time of Tiberius Ca3sar,) receiving him as the Son of 
 the true God, and holding him in the second place, and the prophetic 
 Spirit in the third rank, I shall show. Hence we are accused of 
 madness ; because, as they say, we assign the second place after the 
 immutable and eternal God, the Creator of all things, to a crucided 
 man."* 
 
 No language could more clearly distinguish between the 
 "worship" rendered to the only true God, the Father, and 
 the " honor " given to the Son and Spirit. The readers of 
 Justin know in what reverence he held the Avri tings of the 
 Hebrew prophets ; and to reverence these writings was to 
 honor the " prophetic Spirit " that spoke through them. 
 There is nothing here, that we can see, of the modern 
 Trinity. Equal worship of the Father, Son, and Spirit is 
 excluded in express terms. 
 
 We are fully aware of the difficulty of ascertaining pre- 
 cisely what Justin's notions of the Spirit were. His expres- 
 sions, taken literally, sometimes conflict with each other. 
 Neander,f Baumgarten-Crusius,J Otto,§ and others, suppose 
 him to have made the Spirit one of the angels, as the chief or 
 highest angel. " Without doubt," says Otto, " Justin placed 
 him in the number of angels." That a doctrine so extraordi- 
 nary, and so directly at vai'iance with what is taught clearly, 
 as we think, in other parts of the writings of this Father, 
 however, should have been held by him, requires, in our view, 
 more evidence than is afforded by the passages adduced in 
 proof. If such Avas his belief, he certainly ascribed person- 
 ality to the Spirit, but took it out of the number of the 
 Trinity. 
 
 We will not say that Justin did not sometimes attribute 
 personality to the Spirit. He may have done so in the two 
 passages just quoted, possibly in some others. If so, how- 
 ever, he certainly was inconsistent and» wavering, as were 
 several of the Fathers, now saying one thing, and now another 
 
 * Apol I., p. 61 ; Otto, c. 13. 
 
 t IJIst. of the C/irlst. ReJit/. and Church, i. 609. 
 
 } Lehrhuch dcr christlirhen Doc/mmgeschichte, ii. 1054. 
 
 § De Just. Script, et Doct., p. 138. 
 
THE SPIRIT AN INFLUENCE. T9 
 
 This might be. Semisch, though he believed that Justin 
 " adjudged to the Spirit a personal self-subsistent being and 
 life," yet speaks of the " constant vacillation " of the Fathers 
 concerning it, the Scriptures giving " no precise explanations 
 on its nature and origin." " Something indistinct and vacil- 
 lating," he says, "naturally and unavoidably pervades the 
 representation of the Fathers respecting the Spirit. It is often 
 a difficult task to bring their expressions into connection and 
 harmony, either with themselves, or still more with their 
 Christology," * 
 
 But we see not how any one can doubt that, in a vast 
 majority of instances in which Justin alludes to the Spirit, he 
 uses language which necessarily implies that he regarded it as 
 an influence or mode of direct agency in the Deity. God, 
 according^ to his representation, gave to the prophets of the 
 Old Testament severally one or another gift of the Spirit, as 
 the " spirit of wisdom to Solomon, the spirit of understanding 
 and counsel to Daniel, of fortitude and piety to Moses," etc. ; 
 but all these were united and finally rested in Jesus, through 
 whom similar gifts were bestowed on the early believers. f 
 Speaking of the inspiration of the pro])hets, however, he gen- 
 erally uses some such phraseology as this : " The prophets 
 spoke only those things which they saw and heard, being 
 filled with the Holy Spirit," or " a holy spirit," for the article 
 is wanting. He had just before said, J " speaking by a divine 
 spirit (6'etw TTveu/xari), they foretold things to come." Here, 
 surely, is an influence, not a person. As to the phrases 
 "honoring the Spirit," "reverencing the Spirit," and others of 
 the kind, they present no more difficulty, and no more imply 
 personality than a multitude of expressions which we use 
 every day ; as we " honor " a person's courage or sincerity ; 
 we " do homacre " to moral greatness : we " reverence " truth 
 and right ; we " venerate " the martyr spirit. 
 
 Justin sometimes confounds the Spirit with the Logos. The 
 " power of God came and overshadowed the Virgin," he ob- 
 serves, in allusion to Luke i. 35 ; and adds, that by the Spirit 
 or power of God we understand no other than the Logos, the 
 
 * Juslin Martyr, etc., ii. 207, 208. 
 t Dial., cc. 87, 88, Otto; also c. 39. 
 t Dial... c. 7. 
 
80 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 first-begotten of God.* He sometimes speaks of the prophets 
 as inspired by the Logos, and sometimes by the Spirit. Oth- 
 ers among the early Fathers confounded the Logos or Son, the 
 first production of God, with the Spirit ; a fact which shows 
 how very imperfectly the first rudiments of the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, as explained in subsequent ages, had then disclosed 
 themselves. f 
 
 Justin nowhere asserts that the Father, Son, and Spirit 
 constitute one God, as became the custom in later ages, after 
 the doctrine of the Trinity w^as fully matured. Strictly speak- 
 ing, he was a Unitarian, as were the Orthodox Fathers gener- 
 ally of his time : that is, they believed the Son to be a being 
 really distinct fi'om the Father, and inferior to him ; which we 
 take to be the very essence of Unitarianism. With regard to 
 the origin of the Son, their views differed from thqse after- 
 ward taught by Arius. With reference to his distinct and 
 subordinate nature, however, they often used expressions which 
 the Arians found no difficulty in retaining. The germ of the 
 Trinity, however, was now introduced ; and, though the 
 features it was afterwards to assume were not yet defined, it 
 from time to time received modifications and additions, till, 
 about the end of the fourth century, amid the storms and agi- 
 tations of controversy, it was moulded into a form somewhat 
 resembling that which it has since retained. 
 
 There was some diversity of opinion, in Justin's day, re- 
 specting the nature of the Son. He was himself, as we have 
 seen, a believer in Christ's preexistence ; but this, he tells us, 
 was not the universal belief of his age. There were some 
 who rejected it, being believers in the simple humanity of 
 Jesus ; but, though he expresses his dissent from their opin- 
 ions, he treats them with respect, and readily grants their 
 title to the Christian name, character, and hopes. The whole 
 passage in which his views on this subject are contained is 
 worth quoting, as an instance of his liberality which does him 
 great credit, and should put the spirit of modern intolerance 
 to the blush. It proves that this Father, whatever his faults, 
 was no exclusionist. 
 
 * Apol. I., p. 64 ; Otto, c. 33. 
 
 t See Hiigenbach, Text-Book, etc., First Per., § 44 ; Neander, Hist, of Chris 
 Han Dogmas, i. 172, etc. 
 
THE HUMANITARIANS OF HIS DAY. 8l 
 
 To his views of Christ's preexistence, Trypho, who may- 
 be regarded as uttering the sentiments of the Jews of his and 
 of all times, objects that they appear strange, and incapable of 
 proof: " For as to your assertion, that this Christ preexisted, 
 being God, before the ages, and then submitted to be born and 
 made man, and was not a man born of man, to me," he says, 
 "it appears not only paradoxical, but foolish." Justin replies, 
 " I know that this assertion appears paradoxical, especially to 
 you Jews. Nevertheless, Trypho, the proof that he is the 
 Christ of God stands, if I cannot show that he preexisted, the 
 Son of the Creator of the universe, (so) being God ; and that 
 he was born of the Virgin as man. But, since it is fully dem- 
 onstrated that he is the Christ of God, whatever be his nature, 
 even if I do not succeed in proving that he preexisted, and, 
 according to the will of the Father, submitted to be born man, 
 of like passions with us, having flesh, in this latter respect 
 only would it be just to say that I have erred. You would 
 still not be authorized to deny that he is the Christ, although 
 it should appear that he was a man, born of human parents, 
 and it should be shown that he became Christ by election : for 
 there are some of our race * who acknowledge that he is the 
 
 * " Some of our race," yevoc, that is, as has been generally supposed, 
 Christians. Otto, Justin's editor, supposes that tlie Ebionite Christians are 
 referred to. Martini says, tlie "Palestinian Jewish Christians." Bishop 
 Kaye says, " Christians as opposed to Jews." Semisch {Justin Marfi/r, ii. 
 137) thinks the writer had in view the " Ebionitish Jewish Christians," with 
 ■whom, from the place of his early residence, he must have been well ac- 
 quainted, and whom he treats witli peculiar tenderness, saying simply, " I do 
 not agree with them," while he is very severe in his condemnation of the 
 Gnostics. As to the secondary meaning of the word translated " race," that 
 is, as referring not to relationship by birth, or natural descent, but as desig- 
 nating a class of men, or men holding a certain set of opinions, or agreeing in 
 certain habits of life, it is not witliout precedent in classical usage. Thus 
 Plato has the "race of philosophers." In Latin, too, we have the "genus 
 vatum " of Horace. Philo speaks of the " Therapeutic race." 
 
 Dr. Priestley, however, {Hist, of Earlt/ Opinions, b. iii. eh. 14,) thinks that 
 "not Christians in general, but Gentile Christians iji particular," are meant 
 in this passage of Justin. The Rev. F. Huidekoper, who has given much 
 time and thought to subjects connected with Christian antiquity, is also very 
 confident that the writer had in view Gentile Christians, — a result to which 
 he arrived, it seems, before being aware that Dr. Priestley had adopted the 
 same conclusion. His reasons we give in his own words, Dr. Priestley not 
 having argued the point at length. 
 
 " 1. In determining what Justin meant by the word yivo^, its customary 
 
 6 
 
82 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 Christ, but affirm that he was a man, born in the ordinary 
 way : from wliom I dissent." To this, Trypho replies, 
 
 classical use is at least worth noting. This fixvors the idea that he meant to 
 distinguish two races of men rather than two classes of thinkers. 2. Its sig- 
 nification among Christians in tiie second century is still more important. 
 This may be ascertained from Tertullian's use, at the close of that century, 
 {Ad Nationcs, lib. i. cc. 7, 8,) of the term 'third race/ as applied to Chris- 
 tians, an allusion which implies on the part of liis readers and others a well- 
 settled prior recognition of two races, — unquestionably the Jews and the 
 Gentiles, — without which the allusion would have been unintelligible. 3. The 
 Dialogue professes to have taken place between Justin, a born Gentile, 
 and Trypho, a born Jew. Between two such speakers, I should regard that 
 interpretation as much the most probable which makes the word refer to Jews 
 and Gentiles. 4. This interpretation is, in my opinion, greatly strengthened 
 by the following antithesis in the context. In the beginning of the section 
 Trypho is made to say, ' The statement that this Christ preexisted as a divine 
 being .... and that he is not a man of human parentage, appears to me 
 not only paradoxical but foolish.' To which Justin answers, ' I know that 
 this doctrine seems paradoxical, and especially to those of your race .... 
 and indeed there are some .... from our race who confess him to be 
 Christ, but deem him a man of human parentage ' (Dial., c. 48). In the first 
 clause of the above antithesis, I cannot imagine that Justin should intend to 
 contrast the Jews and the Christians, since his meaning would then have 
 merely been, ' The doctrine of Christ's divine nature and miraculous birth is 
 especially difficult to you before conversion to Christianity'.' The only nat- 
 ural meaning to mj' mind is, (since neither Jew nor Gentile, before their con- 
 version to Christianity, can have accepted the doctrines in question,) that, 
 after conversion, persons of Jewish descent accepted these two views with 
 more difficulty than did those of Gentile origin. If this be the true render- 
 ing of tlie first clause, then the obvious antithesis requires that we should 
 understand by the term ' our race ' in the second clause persons of Gentile 
 descent, that is, Gentile Christians. 5. The foregoing interpretation is still 
 further corroborated by its accordance with what we learn from Origen, 
 namely, that no Jewish Christians believed the divine nature of Christ, and 
 that his miraculous birth was less readily believed among Jewish than among 
 Gentile Christians. See quotation in Christ's Mission to the Under-wodd, note 
 on p. 151, from Origen on Matt. xvi. 12; 0pp., iii. 733 A, 734 A. 6. There 
 is yet another consideration with which I was unwilling to complicate the 
 argument under No. 2. It is this : Tertullian's language fairly implies that 
 the term ' third race ' was one of scorn and derision, applied to the Christians 
 as nondescripts, neither Jews nor Gentiles. He asks, ' Have Christians a differ- 
 ent kind of teeth, or a different opening for their jaws 1 . . . . We are called 
 a third race, — dog-tailed perhaps, or shadow-footed [alluding to a fabulous 
 Libyan race who could cover themselves by the shadow of their feet], or it 
 may be Antipodes from below the earth .... Ridiculous madness .... 
 But we are deemed a third race because of our [alleged] superstition, not be- 
 cause of our national origin as Homans or Jews.' (Ad Nationes, lib. i. cc. 7, 
 8, p. 53 A, 1).) Elsewhere, Tertullian blames the Gnostics for their willing- 
 ness to find a place in heaven, not only for the persecuting Jews, but for the 
 
THE PREEXISTENCE OF CHRIST. 83 
 
 ' Those who suppose him to have been a man, and affirm that 
 he was anointed, and became Christ by election, appear to me 
 to hold an opinion much more probable than that you have 
 expressed ; for we all believe that Christ will be a man born 
 of human pai'entt, and that, when he com.es, he will be 
 anointed by Elias." * 
 
 The late Bishop Watson agreed with Justin in the opinion 
 that Christ's preexistence was not necessary to the accomplish- 
 ment of his mission. " His authority as a teacher is the same," 
 he says, " whether you suppose him to have been the eternal 
 God, or a being inferior to him and commissioned by him." 
 Then, speaking of our redemption, he says, " I see no diffi- 
 culty in admitting that the death of an angel or of a mere 
 man might have been the price which God fixed upon." He 
 rejects the supposition, that, on the Socinian hypothesis (that 
 is, that Christ was a man, who had no existence before he Avas 
 born of Mary), " an atonement could not have been made for 
 the sins of mankind by the death of Jesus." So of the Arian 
 hypothesis : " There is no reason," he says, " for thinking that 
 the death of such a being" (that is, as the Arians suppose 
 Christ to have been) " might not have made atonement for 
 the sins ^^ mankind. All depends on the appointment of God ; 
 and if, instead of the death of a superangelic or of an angelic 
 or a human being, God had fixed on any other instrument as 
 a medium of restoring man to immortality, it would have been 
 
 ' Gentile populaces ' witii their circus, where they may cry out, ' How long to 
 the [exhibition of the] third race.' (Scurpiace, c. 10, p. 628 B.) If Ter.tullian 
 revolted at, and defended the Christians from the charge of being a distinct 
 race, it is at least unlikely that the Christians should favor a use of language 
 based on that distinction. In the absence of all evidence to that effect, I 
 would not attribute to Justin a meaning which implied it. 
 
 " 7. Besides the foregoing positive, there is one negative reason which Aveighs 
 with me for supposing that Justin meant, not Christians generally, but Chris- 
 tians of Gentile descent. It is this. Though I find opinions — some of them 
 entitled to respect — in favor of the former interpretation, yet I have looked 
 fruitlessly for evidence of its probable correctness. Had such evidence ex- 
 isted, I think that it would have been adduced. In the apparent absence, 
 therefore, of evidence favoring, and the certain presence of evidence against 
 the metaphorical translation of yhog, I prefer to adopt its usual and well-set- 
 lied meaning as designating a different descent, not a difference of opinions." 
 
 The length to which this note has already extended precludes further com- 
 ment. We leave the subject to the judgment of the learned. 
 
 * Dial., pp. 143, 145; Thirlby, pp. 233-235; Otto, cc. 48,49. 
 
84 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 highly improper in us to have quarrelled with the mean which 
 his goodness had appointed, merely because we could not see 
 how it was fitted to attain the end." * 
 
 Justin's distinction was an intelligible one. The question 
 whether Jesus were tlie Messiah, the Christ of God, or not, 
 did not involve the question of his nature. He might be pre- 
 existent or not ; yet he might be the Christ of God, exalted 
 by him to be "a Prince and a Saviour." Justin believed him 
 to have been preexistent ; yet he freely accords to the believ- 
 ers in his simple humanity the name of Christians. For them 
 there was a Christ. Whetlier the Bishop of Llandaff had ever 
 read Justin or not, we cannot say ; but he was clear-headed 
 and reverential enough to perceive that the question of Christ's 
 nature or of his preexistence had nothing to do with the ques- 
 tion of his sufficiency as a Saviour, but all depended on God's 
 appointment. Whatever instrument God chose and appointed, 
 must, from the very fact that he had so chosen and appointed 
 it, be adequate to the purpose for which it was designed ; and 
 it would be arrogant in man to question its sufficiency. So 
 the bishop reasoned ; and so Justin Martyr could say, that, 
 admitting his inability to prove Christ's preexistence, it did 
 not follow that he was not the Christ of God. That fact he 
 considered as established by irrefragable proofs ; and that he 
 regarded as the all-important and only essential flxct. 
 
 With regard to the great points, which, since the days of 
 ;\.iigustine, have divided the Christian world, usually called 
 :he Calvinistic points, Justin held moderate and rational 
 views. He nowhere states his opinion of the precise effect of 
 Adam's fall, though he is decidedly opposed to the doctrines 
 of hereditary depravity, original sin, and the inability of man 
 to do the will of God, as explained in later times. He evi- 
 dently knew nothing of the imputation of Adam's sin to his 
 posterity.! He is a firm advocate for human freedom, and the 
 capacity of man for virtue or vice. Man has power, he main- 
 tains, to choose the good and refuse the evil, — power to " do 
 well." He earnestly combats the doctrine of destiny or fate. 
 
 * Charges delivered in 1784 and 1795. 
 
 \ " Original sin and the imputation of Adam's guilt," says Hagenbach. 
 " are conceptions foreign to him." - - Text-Book, etc., First Per., § 63. 
 
HIS OPINIONS ANTI-CALVINISTIC. 85 
 
 All will be rewarded or punished, he says, according to their 
 merits. If character and actions were fixed, he argues, there 
 could be no such thing as virtue and vice ; for these suppose 
 freedom, or the ability to choose and follow the one and avoid 
 the other. Men, he adds, would not be proper subjects of 
 reward and punishment, if they were good and evil by birth, 
 not by choice ; for no one is accountable for the character he 
 brings into the world with him.* This, certainly, does not 
 look like the doctrine of predestination ; and we are author- 
 ized to assert, with Bishop Kaye, that, "if Justin held the 
 doctrine of predestination at all, it must have been in the 
 Arminian sense." 
 
 Of the effects of Christ's death, and of justification, he 
 usually speaks in general and figurative terms, much resem- 
 bling those which occur in the sacred writings, and capable 
 of a similar construction. He cannot, with any propriety, be 
 adduced as an advocate for the modern popular doctrine of 
 the atonement. 
 
 * Apol I., cc. 28, 43 ; Apol. II., c. 7 ; Did., c, 88, Otto. 
 
86 JUSTIN MARTTB. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Justin's Account of the Christian Rites as administered in ni8 
 Day. — Baptism. — The Lord's Supper. — Sunday Worship. — Cal- 
 umnies OF THE Jews. — The Memory of Justin. 
 
 With the opinions of Justin we have now done : but there 
 are some facts he has preserved, relating to Christian worship 
 and rites, which every one will desire to know ; as he is the 
 earliest witness we possess, after the time of the Apostles, 
 from whom we can learn anything authentic on the subject. 
 He describes Baptism and the Supper as administered in his 
 day, and the Sunday worship of Christians, with a good degree 
 of minuteness. This, we must recollect, was just about a 
 century after Christ had left the earth. One would like to 
 look in upon the religious assemblies of Christians as they 
 then existed, could the past, by any possibility, be made to 
 stand before us. Justin speaks not from report of what 
 Christians did in those days : he tells us what passed beneath 
 his own eye. His account shows that the simplicity of Scrip- 
 ture forms was yet in a great measure, though not in all 
 respects, retained. To prevent misconception and error, he 
 says that he shall " explain in what manner, being renovated 
 through Christ, we dedicate ourselves to God. As many," he 
 continues, " as believe and accept for true those things which 
 are taught by us, and profess their determination to live con- 
 formably to them, are required, by fasting and prayer, to seek 
 of God the remission of their former sins, we fasting and 
 praying with them. They are then led to a place where 
 there is water, and are there regenerated in the same manner 
 as we were regenerated : for they are laved in water, in the 
 name of God, the Father and Lord of all ; and of our Saviour 
 Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. For Christ," he adds, 
 " has said, that, except ye be regenerated, ye cannot enter the 
 kingdom of heaven." * This regeneration, as we have seen, 
 * ApoL I., p. 79 ; Otto, c. 61. 
 
BAPTISM. THE LORD'S SUPPER. 87 
 
 Justin supposes takes place at baptism. He states the neces- 
 sity of it: which is, not that men inherit a corrupt nature 
 from Adam; " but since," he says, " we are born without our 
 knowledge and^ consent, and (as Heathen) educated in corrupt 
 morals and customs, therefore, in order that we may not 
 remain children of necessity and ignorance, but may become 
 children of choice and of knowledge, and obtain by water 
 the remission of sins before committed, the name of the Father 
 and Lord of all is pronounced over him who wishes to be 
 regenerated, and has repented of his transgressions." * This 
 washing, or baptism, Justin says, was also called " illumina- 
 tion," on account of the illuminating power of Christ's doc- 
 trines ; and the " Holy Spirit " was that " which foretold all 
 things relating to Jesus." Justin's formula of baptism was 
 virtually, and as he understood it, " in the name of the one 
 God and Father of all ; and of the Son, his instrument, and 
 the revealer of his will to man ; and of the prophetic Spirit, 
 which foretold his coming," — a Trinity which no old-fash- 
 ioned Unitarian would feel any hesitation in acknowledging. 
 Regeneration is explained by what, as above expressed, we 
 become by " choice and knowledge," — repentant, purified, 
 and consecrated in heart and life to God. 
 
 Having received baptism, the person was considered as 
 entitled, by virtue of it, to all the privileges of a follower of 
 Christ ; and immediately participated in the rite of the Sup- 
 per, there being at that time no distinction between the church 
 and the congregation of believers. On the subject of the 
 Supper, the most exact description which has been transmitted 
 to us by Christian antiquity is that of Justin. " After we 
 have thus laved the consenting believer," he tells us, " we 
 take him to the place where those who are called brethren 
 are assembled, there to oflPer up earnest prayers in common 
 for ourselves and for him who has been enlightened (or bap- 
 tized), and for all others everywhere ; that, having learned 
 the truth, we may be deemed worthy to be found living in 
 good works and keeping the commandments, that so we may 
 obtain eternal salvation. Prayer ended, we salute each othei 
 with a kiss. Bread and a cup of water and wine are then 
 *Apol. I., p. 80; Otto, c. 61. 
 
88 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 brought to him who presides over the brethren ; and he, 
 taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the 
 universe, through the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit, 
 and offers up many thanks that we are counted worthy to 
 receive these gifts. Prayers and thanksgivings being ended, 
 all the people present say amen. . . . Those we call deacons 
 then distribute the bread and wine and water, — over which 
 thanks have been offered, — to be partaken of by each of 
 those present; and carry a portion to the absent."* 
 
 Justin adds, " We do not receive these as common food and 
 di'ink " ; and proceeds to speak of them as the flesh and blood 
 of Jesus, in terms which the Catholics regard as teaching the 
 doctrine of Tran substantiation, but to which the Lutheran 
 and Reformed churches appeal with equal confidence as 
 clearly containing the elements of their faith on the subject. 
 Justin is certainly a little obscure and mystical. He quotes, 
 fi'om the " Memoirs by the Apostles," called, he says, " Gos- 
 pels," the expressions, " This is my body," — " This is my 
 blood " ; but his language is too indefinite to authorize us to 
 say that he understood them in any other than a metaphorical 
 sense, — a sense which the general strain of his writings 
 would lead us to suppose that he attributed to them. The 
 language of the Scriptures on this subject is strongly figura- 
 tive. We believe that Justin meant to be understood as 
 speaking in a similar figurative style. In his Dialogue with 
 Trypho, he speaks of the elements of bread and wine as sim- 
 ply commemorative. f He concludes by saying, that, through 
 the agency of wicked demons, the same elements were used 
 (by anticipation) in the ceremony of initiation into the mys- 
 teries of Mithras, in imitation of the Eucharist, as the Chris- 
 tian rite, he tells us, was called. 
 
 It is worthy of observation, that, in the above account, 
 the person who administers the Eucharist is called simply the 
 president of the brethren. No mention is made of bishops, 
 priests, or presbyters, in this or in any other part of Justin's 
 writings. Further : nothing is said of the consecration of the 
 elements, in the technical sense in which the term is used by 
 Bome Protestant churches. We are told only that the presi- 
 * Apol. I., pp. 82, 83 ; Otto, cc. 65, 66. f Dial., c. 70, Otto. 
 
SUNDAY WORSHIP. 89 
 
 dent of the brethren offered thanks over the bread and wine, 
 and that they were then distributed. Nothing is said of the 
 Supper, as, at this time, connected with a common meal, ac- 
 cording to the earher practice ; and prayers would seem to 
 have been uttered without the iise of forms. Nor is anything 
 said of the position of the recipients. The term "altar" does 
 not occur ; and Jurieu asserts that it is not found in the ac- 
 knowledged remains of any writer of the second century.* 
 
 Justin proceeds to give an account of the services of Sun- 
 day ; not the " Sabbath," which was not then the Chi'istian 
 designation of the day, though the term was used figuratively 
 to express a rest, or ceasing from iniquity, in which sense 
 Christians were bound to keep a perpetual sabbath ; the only 
 one, Justin tells Trypho, which is acceptable to God.f " On 
 the day called the day of the Sun," he says, " all, whether 
 in town or country, assemble in one place ; and the Memoirs 
 by the Apostles, or Writings of the Prophets, are read as time 
 permits. When the reader has finished, the person presiding 
 instructs the people in an address, and exhorts them to imi- 
 tate the excellent things they have heard. We then all rise 
 together, and pray ; after which, as before related, bread and 
 wine and water are brought " for the Eucharist ; which, it 
 appears, was administered every Lord's Day. Justin here 
 repeats the account already given of the rite, very nearly in 
 the same words. He adds, that a collection was then taken, 
 to which they who were wealthy, and chose, contributed 
 according to their ability and disposition ; and " what is col- 
 lected," he continues, "is deposited with the president, who 
 assists with it orphans and widows, and those who, in conse- 
 quence of illness or any other cause, are in want ; those who 
 are in bonds, and strangers sojourning among us ; and, in a 
 Avord, takes care of all who have need. J 
 
 The reasons Justin assigns for assembling on Sunday are, 
 simply, that this was the " first day, on which God, having 
 wrought a change in darkness and matter, made the world ; 
 that, on the same day, Jesus Christ, our Saviour, rose from the 
 dearl ; for he was crucified the day before that of Saturn ; and 
 
 * Pastoral Letters, vi. t Dial., c. 12, Otto. 
 
 X Apot. I., c. 67, Otto. 
 
90 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 the day after, which is the day of the Sun, he appeared again 
 to his disciples.* 
 
 These are matters of history, and, coming as they do from 
 a contemporary writer, are of great value. From Justin we 
 gather also various notices of the character and condition of 
 Christians of his day, and of their persecutors, — all credita- 
 ble to the disciples of the cross. The worst enemies of the 
 Christians were the Jews, more implacable than the Heathen. 
 They sent persons, as Justin tells us, into all parts of the earth, 
 to denounce them as an atheistic and lawless sect ;f they 
 cursed them in their synagogues ; J and the people were 
 solemnly charged to hold no intercourse with them, particu- 
 larly to listen to no exposition or defence of their opinions. § 
 To the calunmies of the Jews, industriously propagated over 
 all parts of the civilized world, Justin attributes the odium to 
 which Christians were subjected on account of their supposed 
 profligacy ; and there can be little doubt that they were the 
 authors of the foul slander. Certainly it could have origi- 
 nated only in the bitterest hatred ; and this hatred, as thorough 
 as ever rankled in the human breast, they appear, according 
 to the testimony, not of Justin only, but of Tertullian, Ori- 
 gen, Eusebius, and others, to have cherished. 
 
 Justin was not the first martyr, but he was the first great 
 writer and apologist for Christianity, whose name we meet on 
 the roll of Christian martyrology. We have given the few 
 incidents which can be gathered from the storehouse of antiq- 
 uity respecting the life and death of this old witness of the 
 faith. His intellectual traits, and his opinions on various sub- 
 jects of theology, we learn from his works. He was not, as 
 we have seen, an exact or polished writer; he was not critical; 
 he had not a logical intellect ; he wrote in a harsh, rambling, 
 and somewhat impulsive style. He was not wholly free from 
 credulity ; indeed, had a large measure of it ; and many of 
 his opinions will now be pronounced extravagant and absurd. 
 But so, in reality, will many of those entertained at the pres- 
 ent day appear to a future age. Yet, whatever his defects, his 
 
 * ApoL I., c. 67, Otto. t Dial., pp. 117, 202; Otto, cc. 17, 108. 
 
 t Dial., cc. 16, 47, 93, 96, Otto. [See Otto on c. 16, note 9. —Ed.) 
 § Dial., cc. 38, 112, Otto. 
 
THE MEMORY OF JUSTIN. 91 
 
 merits were very great. We honor his courage, his sincerity, 
 his ardent thirst for truth, his moral elevation, his boldness in 
 defending the cause of Christ, and pleading for the rights of 
 common humanity before throne.", — looking death calmly in 
 the face. In such men, we can overlook intellectual defects, 
 and pardon some errors of opinion and some absurd fancies. 
 These are thrown into the shade by their great qualities. It 
 may be cause of gratitude to any of us, if, through God's help, 
 we are enabled to walk as firmly on the way of duty, and be 
 as faithful to our convictions, as was this philosopher and 
 martyr of the elder days of the church. 
 
NOTR 
 
 EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS. 
 
 QuBSiiON OF ITS Genuineness and Date. — Its Theology. — Suprem- 
 acy OF THE Father. — Mission of the Son. — Implanted or Insown 
 Logos. — Authorship and Doctrine of the Concluding Portion op 
 the Epistle. 
 
 We will add in a note a few words on the Epistle to Diognetus, which, 
 though generally found among the collected works of Justin, is, as before 
 stated, of uncertain authorship. Semisch * and Otto f give at some length 
 the arguments and authorities for and against the genuineness of the Epis- 
 tle, which was first published by Henry Stephens, in 1592. Several among 
 the older critics, and some in more recent times, place it among the genuine 
 works of the Martyr. But learned authorities greatly preponderate on the 
 other side ; they deny its genuineness. So Neander and Semisch, the lat- 
 ter of whom maintains that the spuriousness of the piece may be " deter- 
 mined to a degree of certainty that is seldom attainable in critical inquiries." 
 Otto is undecided, but inserts the Epistle along with other pieces of doubt- 
 ful or unknown authorship, in his edition of the works of Justin. Its gen- 
 eral style and cast of thought, we think, clearly show that it is not Justin's, 
 though probably written, or the main body of it at least, in his age. Tille- 
 mont and several others, however, assign to it an earlier date. Neander 
 refers it to the " early part of the second century." 
 
 It is, in its more practical parts, at least, a much admired production, of 
 great value and interest as presenting a vivid picture of Christian life at 
 the period at which it was written. Neander places it among the " finest 
 remains of Christian antiquity." Bunsen strongly commends it. " It is," 
 says he, " indisputably, after Scripture, the finest monument we know of 
 sound Christian feeling, noble courage, and manly eloquence." He is very 
 confident that it was written, the conclusion, as we shall presently see, 
 excepted, by Marcion, before he separated from the Church of Rome, that 
 is, in the year 135, and that Diognetus was the early tutor of Marcus 
 Aurelius. All this, however, is mere hypothesis. Bunsen adduces no ex- 
 ternal testimony in favor of any part of the statement ; but says, that 
 " there is nothing in the Epistle to Diognetus which might not have been 
 written by Marcion, but there is much in it which, as far as history goes, 
 
 * Justin Martyr, i. 193-207. 
 
 t De Just. Mart. Scriptis et Doctrina, pp. 53-60. 
 
EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS. 93 
 
 nobody could have written except young Marcion, or his unknown foster- 
 brother in soul." * This is very unsatisfactory. 
 
 We will give one or two extracts from the work, which will show that 
 the writer, whoever he was, taught the current doctrine of the supremacy 
 of the Father, and was no Athanasian. We use Otto's text, second edi- 
 tion, 1849. 
 
 " But the truly Omnipotent God, the Creator of all things, and invisible, 
 himself implanted from heaven and fixed in the hearts of men the truth 
 and the holy and incomprehensible Logos ; not, as one might suppose, send- 
 ing to men any servant, either angel or chief ruler, or any one of those 
 who direct the affairs of earth, or who minister in heaven, but the artificer 
 and maker of the universe himself; by whom he [God] created the heav- 
 ens ; by whom he enclosed the sea within its bounds," etc. " Him he sent 
 to them. Was it, as one might think, for the purpose of tyranny, or to pro- 
 duce fear and consternation ? No, indeed. But in mercy, in lenity ; as a 
 king, sending his royal Son, he sent him ; sent him as God ; f sent him 
 as unto men ; sent him to save, to persuade, not to force, for violence is not 
 of God; sent him to call, not to pei-secute; sent him in love, not for judg- 
 ment." X 
 
 Here is no Trinitarian ism and no Augustinlanism. The supremacy of 
 the Father, and subordination of the Son, are asserted as strongly as they 
 well can* be ; and neither here, nor in any other part of the Epistle, is there 
 the remotest allusion to the Holy Spirit. God appears full of love and 
 compassion, not as a wrathful judge. His benevolence, mercy, and love 
 are brought out in prominent relief in the next chapter, the eighth. " He 
 always was," says the writer, " and is and shall be benignant and good, 
 wrathless and true, and alone is good." The phrase, " he (God) took our 
 sins," which occurs in the ninth chapter, and savors strongly of Patripas- 
 sianism, is probably, as Sylbui-g and Otto suppose, a gloss, which crept into 
 the text from the margin, where it might have been placed as a citation 
 from Isaiah liii. 4, 11. If not, the writer contradicts himself, for in the 
 same sentence he says, that "he (God) gave his Son to be a ransom for 
 us." It was the Son, not the Father, who bore our sins. 
 
 The writer's doctrine of the " insown, or implanted Logos," resembles 
 that of Justin Martyr. This is taught in the passage first quoted. Again, 
 " God loved men, on account of whom he made the world, to whom he 
 subjected all things in the earth ; to whom he gave reason (Logos), to 
 whom understanding ; whom alone he permitted to look upward to him ; 
 
 * Christianity and Mankind, i. 170-173. Bunsen (pp. 174-181) gives a translation 
 of the Epistle, and in another part of his work (vol. v.), Analecta Ante-Nicana (i, 
 03-121), the original Greek. 
 
 t " That is, one who by his nature is good and benignant, and a lover of men." — 
 Otto's note. [Otto refers for illustration to c. 10 of this Epistle, where we read, " He 
 who, by bestowing upon the needy the things which he has received from God, be- 
 comes a God to those who receive them, -Qeo^ ylvETai tuv TiauBavovTuv, is an imitatoi 
 of God."— Ed.] 
 
 t Cap. 7. 
 
94 EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS. 
 
 whom he formed in his own image ; to whom he sent his only-begotten Son ; 
 to whom he pi-omised the kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who 
 love him." 
 
 This language is taken from the tenth chapter. Two chapters, called by 
 Semisch and Otto an "Appendix," follow, which there is ground for con- 
 eluding, partly from the evidence of manuscripts and partly from internal 
 evidence, are supposititious.* There is in them little which is to our present 
 purpose. In the eleventh chapter we hear of the Logos "manifested," and 
 
 of the same as " sent preached by the Apostles, believed in by the 
 
 Gentiles." Then follows a somewhat obscure passage, in which this Logos 
 is spoken of as "from the beginning," — who, it is added, "appeared as 
 new and is found to be old, and who, ever young, is begotten in the hearts 
 of the sanctified." It is the Logos " that was always " (as an attribute), 
 but " to-day is accounted a Son," in reference, it would seem, to Psalm ii. 
 7 : " Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee." 
 
 There is nothing in this language, which somewhat resembles that of 
 Clement of Alexandria, which is not readily explained on Justin's theory 
 of God's indwelling Logos or reason. Nothing is said of the eternal gen- 
 eration of the Son ; that doctrine is excluded by the terms employed.f 
 There is nothing in the language which conflicts with the supremacy of the 
 Father, or the derived nature of the Son. The supremacy of the Father, 
 Infinite, Omnipotent, One, the Original of all things, whose minister the 
 Logos, or Son was, sent by him, is preserved intact ; and the Holy Spirit, 
 as before observed, is not so much as alluded to, we think, in the whole 
 letter. 
 
 * See Semisch's note, i. 195, 196. " That part of the Epistle," says he, " is a spuri- 
 ous addition not belonging to the original writer." It " betra3's a much later date 
 than the second centur}'." See also Otto's note at the commencement of the elev- 
 enth chapter. Bunsen argues at some length that this fragment appended, in the 
 manuscript, to tlie Epistle to Diognetus, constituted no part of the original Epistle, 
 but formed the missing conclusion of the work of Hippolytus, — a " Refutation of all 
 Heresies." " We want," he says, " an end to our great work in ten books, a wind- 
 ing up worthy of the grand subject Now we find such a concluding fragment, 
 
 which wants a beginning and an author. Whether we consider its contents, or its 
 style, if it is not, it might very well be, the close of our work." This appears to us 
 to be rather loose reasoning. — Christianity and Mankind, i. 415-417, and v. 119 
 {Analecta, vol. i.). Others find " differences of style between the Epistle and the Ap- 
 pendix." The latter probably had an Alexandrian origin, as late, at least, as the 
 middle of the third century, perhaps later. 
 
 t It is not difficult to speak of the eternity of the divine Wisdom or Reason — 
 Logos. This is a very different thing from saying that the Son was eternal, which was 
 not a doctrine of this age. The personality of the Son, as a self-subsisting being, 
 was not till sometime afterwards represented as eternal. The Son was not said to 
 36 eternal except as an attribute, that is, the Reason, Wisdom, Logos of God. 
 
FATHERS SUBSEQUENT TO JUSTIN MARTYR, 
 
 AND BEFORE THE TIME OF CLEMENT 
 
 OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 CHAPTER L 
 
 Patian the Syrian. — His History. — The Son a Hypostatized At- 
 tribute. — Had a Beginning. — Numerically distinguished from 
 the Father, and Subordinate. — Theophilus of Antioch. — Thr 
 Son originally the Logos, or Reason of God. — Begotten in Time. 
 — The Instrument of THE Father in the Creation. — The Father 
 ALONE AN Object of Supreme Worship. — The Term Trinity first 
 used. — The Spirit confounded with the Logos. — Athenagoras 
 preserves the Supremacy of the Father. — How he speaks of the 
 Logos. — The Spirit an Influence. 
 
 The Fathers who Hved between the time of Justin Martyr 
 and that of Clement of Alexandria, were no better Trinitari- 
 ans than Justin himself; that is, they beheved in no undivided, 
 coequal Three, but taught a doctrine wholly irreconcilable 
 with this belief. A rapid glance at the writings of the prin- 
 cipal of these Fathers will make this plain. 
 
 Tatian the Syrian. 
 
 First comes Tatian. Born in the " land of the Assyrians,*' 
 as he himself informs us, Tatian was educated in the Greek 
 religion and philosophy, and was by pi'ofession a sophist, or 
 teacher of rhetoric, and perhaps also of philosophy. He had 
 no mean knowledcre of Greek literature. He travelled over 
 many countries, engaging, it would seem, in different pursuits, 
 and finally came to Rome. In his opinions he appears to have 
 been a Platonist, but, like many others at that period, he 
 lost his reverence for philosophy, which did not satisfy his 
 
96 FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OP ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 higher aspirations. The Pagan rehgion, too, with its impuri- 
 ties, filled his mind with disgust. At this time the writings of 
 the Old Testament fell into his hands, and his conversion to 
 Christianity followed soon after. Whether this event took 
 place before or after his acquaintance with Justin Martyr com- 
 menced, is not certain. At all events, he was his hearer and 
 disciple. At a subsequent period, probably not till after the 
 death of Justin, he became the founder of an ascetic and 
 heretical sect. While at Rome, where he was at the time of 
 Justin's martyrdom, he appears to have remained in fellowship 
 with the Church there. He afterwards returned to the East. 
 Of his subsequent history little is known. Of the time and 
 place of his death we have no information. His writings were 
 numerous. Eusebius says that he " left many monuments of 
 himself in his works," — left a " great number of books," — * 
 and Jerome tells us that he wrote a countless multitude of 
 volumes.f We still possess his " Oration against the Greeks." 
 He flourished about the year 170. 
 
 In terms similar to those employed by Justin, Tatian de- 
 scribes God alone as without beginning, invisible, ineffable, 
 the orifiinal cause of all thino-s, visible and invisible, — lano-uaore 
 confined by the early Christian writers to the Father, and 
 never applied to the Son. The following language occurs in 
 his " Oration against the Greeks." Speaking of the beginning 
 in relation to God, he says : — 
 
 " This beginning was the rational power (Logos, reason as 
 it existed in God). The Lord of all, being himself the essence 
 (or principle) of all things, was, in relation to things not yet 
 created, alone. Now inasmuch as he is the original of all 
 power, and the principle (or cause) of all things visible and 
 invisible, all things were with him. With him by virtue of 
 his rational power was also the Logos itself, which was in him. 
 By his simple volition the Logos leaped out of him, not as an 
 empty voice, but was the first begotten work of the Father. 
 This Logos was the beginning of the world, and was begotten 
 by communication, not by abscission. . . . For the Logos, 
 proceeding from the power of the Father, did not leave the 
 Father without Logos (reason). "J 
 
 * Hist., iv 16, 29. t De Tir. lllusL, c. 29. J Cap. 6. 
 
THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH. 97 
 
 The idea or theory is the same as Justin's. Like him it is 
 evident that Tatian regarded the Son as originally and from 
 eternity in and with God, not as a real being or person, but 
 only as an attribute, or by virtue of his power of begetting 
 him ; in him and with him, only as all things created were ; 
 that is, not as the actual, but as the possible. This, indeed, 
 he asserts almost in so many words. He speaks of the Son as 
 having a beginning, that is, considered as a real subsistence 
 or person ; and he evidently regarded him, after his produc- 
 tion, as a being distinct fi'om the Father, and subordinate to 
 him. The Son was produced by the Father, he tells us, as 
 one torch is lighted from another, the lighted torch not lessen- 
 ing that from which it is lighted ; or as speech is produced in 
 us from the faculty of speech within, that faculty remaining 
 undiminished, — illustrations which were common with the 
 Fathers, and imply a numerical distinction of being and 
 essence. This distinction is expressly asserted by Justin, 
 Tatian's master, who contends, in words as plain and une- 
 quivocal as language affords, that the Father and Son are t\,'o 
 in number ; two beings : the one visible, the other invisible ; 
 the one remaining fixed in his place, the other capable of 
 motion from place to place ; and Tatian evidently trod in his 
 steps. 
 
 Theophilus of Antioch. 
 
 Another writer of some repute at this time was Theophilus, 
 who became Bishop of Antioch, the chief seat of Christianity 
 in the East, in the year 169. He was a convert from hea- 
 thenism, having been won over to Christianity, as he himself 
 informs us, by reading the ancient books of the Jews. He 
 wrote several works mentioned by Jerome, which are lost. 
 But we have his three books to Autolycus, his friend, yet a 
 heatben, whom he was desirous to bring over to Christianity. 
 A contemporary with Tatian, he taught the same doctrine. 
 He speaks of God as Supreme, the "true and only God," 
 without beginning, invisible, unbegotten, and as such immu- 
 table ; and of the Son as inferior, having as a real being or 
 7 
 
98 FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 person a beginning, visible, begotten, and therefore, according 
 to his philosophy, not possessing the attribute of immutability, 
 which belonged only to the unbegotten One.* 
 
 Here is his account of the generation of the Son. " God," 
 he says, " having the Logos within himself (the Logos in him 
 being what Reason is in man), begat him before all things. 
 This Logos was his helper in all the works brought into exist- 
 ence by him, and through him [as his minister] he made all 
 things. . . . He being the Spirit of God and the beginning, 
 the Wisdom and Power of the Most High, inspired the proph- 
 ets. The prophets existed not when the world was made, but 
 the Wisdom of God, which was in him and of him, and his 
 holy Logos, were always present with him.f He spoke, as the 
 writer supposed, through Solomon (Proverbs viii. 22, etc.). 
 Again, " God the Father of all things," he says, " cannot be 
 confined to space, or be found in place." So he refers the 
 theophanies in the Old Testament to the Logos or Son. It 
 was he who walked in Paradise ; it was his voice which Adam 
 heard. " Of him, before the creation, God took counsel, he 
 being his own reason, or wisdom. And when he willed to 
 create what he had designed, he begot this Logos, the emitted 
 first-born of every creature, not emptying himself of Logos 
 (Reason), but begetting it, and always holding converse with 
 his own Logos (Reason)." :j: 
 
 Thus the uttered or begotten Logos or Reason of God be- 
 came a real person, having a proper subsistence in himself, 
 without diminishing, or taking from, God's understanding, 
 Logos or Reason. This distinction between the internal and 
 the uttered or begotten Logos, more marked in Theophilus, in 
 language, at least, than in those who preceded him, pervades 
 all the writings of subsequent Fathers. 
 
 Again, Theophilus contends expressly that " the true God," 
 by whom he always understands the Father, is alone to be 
 worshipped. § But it is unnecessary to adduce further evi- 
 dence of his views of the Son, whom he clearly regarded as 
 begotten or produced from the reason of the Father, a little 
 before the creation of the world ; thus becoming a distinct 
 
 * Ad AutoL, lib. i. cc. 4-6. t Ibid., lib. ii. c. 10. 
 
 t Ibid., lib. ii. c. 22. § Ibid., lib. i. c. 11. 
 
THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH. 99 
 
 being, subject to the will of the Father, and not entitled to 
 equal adoration.* 
 
 Theophilus was the first Christian writer who used the term 
 "Trias," Trinity, in reference to the Deity; but it is deserv- 
 ing of remark, that, to adopt the modern phraseology, the 
 three "distinctions," or three "somewhats," designated hy it, 
 are, according to him, " God, his Logos, and his Wisdom " ; f 
 not, however, asserting their equality, which is opposed to 
 his plainest teachings. Then there may be a Trinity of attrib- 
 utes as well as of persons. Names signify little. It is the 
 ideas attached to them which we want, — what they stand 
 for. By wisdom, Theophilus may mean the Spirit; though, 
 in the theology of the Fathers, it was generally considered as 
 synonymous with the Logos, or Word. It was often, how- 
 ever, confounded with the Spirit.^ Theophilus adds, " and in 
 the fourth place is man." 
 
 * When Theophilus speaks of God as consulting his Logos, or Wisdom, 
 before the generation of the Son, he evidently uses a figurative mode of ex- 
 pression. So a man is said to take counsel of his understanding or of his 
 affections ; he consults his sense of duty or his inclination ; but no one sup- 
 poses this phraseology to imply that the understanding or afiections or con- 
 science are real beings, persons. Such expressions are fimiiliar in all lan- 
 guages ; and they serve to explain what is meant by the early Fathers, when 
 they speak of God as consulting his Logos, Reason, or Wisdom, before the 
 event called by them the generation of the Son, — and perhaps even after, as 
 in one of tlie above quotations which appears somewhat obscure (lib. ii. c. 22). 
 The phraseology is not of a nature to create the least embarrassment. Every 
 school-boy knows better than to construe it as implying an actual consultation 
 between real beings. 
 
 t Ad Autol., lib. ii. c. 15. 
 
 X The Fathers often confounded the Spirit with the Logos, adhering to the 
 old Jewish phraseology, but attributing to it an entirely new sense. Thus, in 
 Ps. xxxiii. 6, — " By the ivord of the Lord were the heavens made ; and all 
 the host of them, by the breath of his mouth," or spirit, — the two terms, ivord 
 and spirit, are used to express the same thing ; that is, a divine operation. 
 There is no allusion whatever to persons or separate agents, but only to a 
 mode of divine agency. Such was the Jewish sense of the terms ; and in 
 this sense they were synonymous. When the Platonizing Fathers had affixed 
 a new sense to the term " Logos," or " Word," considering it as designating 
 a real person, they still for a time retained former Jewish modes of expres- 
 sion, though utterly at variance with their system. Thus they speak indis- 
 criminately of the Spirit and Logos as inspiring the prophets ; and of the 
 Spirit, or Power of God, or Logos, as overshadowing Mary. According to 
 the sense the Jews attributed to those terms, there was no inconsistency in 
 this use of them ; the breath, spirit, power, or word of the Lord, being only 
 
100 FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OP ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 Athenagoras. 
 
 Athenagoras, a learned Athenian, also flourished during the 
 latter part of the second century. That he was ever, as has 
 been asserted, connected with the celebrated Catechetical 
 School at Alexandria, is not probable. He was an Athenian 
 by birth, but of his personal history nothing is known. Neither 
 Eusebius nor Jerome mentions his name. He wrote an Apol- 
 ogy for Christians in the time of Marcus Aurelius and his 
 son Commodus, and was also the author of a treatise on the 
 Resurrection, both of which are preserved. He was equally 
 careful, with the writers above quoted, to preserve the suprem- 
 acy of the Father, and seems to have entertained similar views 
 of the nature and rank of the Son. 
 
 " The Son of God," he says, " is the Logos (Reason) of the 
 Father in idea and operation." " Through it all things were 
 made." " The Son of God is the understanding and reason 
 of the Father." " God from the beginning being eternal 
 reason, had in himself the Logos (Reason), being always 
 rational." * The attribute reason, or wisdom, was eternal, but 
 not the Son as a personal being. Of him it could be said, 
 " The Lord created me the beginning of his ways to his 
 works." Athenagoras, with the other Fathers, made a dis- 
 
 different modes of expressing a divine influence, or act of power. But when 
 the Logos, or Word, came to be considered a person or being, distinct from 
 the Father and Spirit, whether the last was regarded as a person or an influ- 
 ence, the phraseology became absurd. The Fathers, however, continued to 
 use it occasionally, from the effect of habit. The history of the phraseology 
 in question ; the signification it bore in the writings of the Jews ; its incon- 
 sistency with the doctrine of the Fathers, though from custom they continued 
 to employ it, — afford to our minds conclusive evidence, had we no other, that 
 they were innovators. The doctrine of the Trinity was, as yet, very imper- 
 fectly formed. As it became further advanced, the phraseology alluded to 
 was gradually dropped. 
 
 Commenting on the above quoted passage of Theophilus, Hagenbach says, 
 "Here we have indeed the word rpius, but not in the ecclesiastical sense of the 
 term Trinity ; for as uvdpunoc is mentioned as the fourth term, it is evident 
 that the rpiug cannot be taken here as a perfect whole, consisting of three 
 joined in one ; besides, the term aofla is used instead of rb irvev/ia uyiov." — 
 Text-Book, First Period, § 45. 
 
 * Legal., c. 10. See also c. 16. 
 
ATHENAGORAS. 101 
 
 tinction. The supremacy of the Father, who was invisible, 
 impassible, and who, himself " unbegotten and eternal," 
 created all things by his Logos, or Reason,* was not infringed. 
 The Holy Spirit Athenagoras describes as something flow- 
 ing out from God, as rays flow from the sun, and are re-ab- 
 sorbed, that is, not a person, but an influence. f 
 
 * It has been made a question, indeed, whether Athenagoras believed that 
 the Divine Logos, or Keason, became permanently hypostatized in the Son ; 
 or in speaking of the creation used the word in the older Platonic sense, as 
 meaning the reason, power, or wisdom of God in action. He says in one 
 place, " God is in himself all things, — light unapproachable, the perfect world, 
 spirit, power, logos." Justin Martyr, however, could have used the same 
 language, and we think, some obscure expressions which look the other way 
 notwithstanding, that Athenagoras agreed with him and with the early 
 Fathers generally, in assigning separate personality, or self-subsistence to the 
 Son as the begotten Logos, Reason of the Father. See Martini, Versuch, etc., 
 p. 55. 
 
 t Td kvepyovv rolg iK(l>uvovm npo(})7]nKC)g ayiov nvevfia a.n6/)^oiav elvai (pajxev Toi 
 ^eov, airol)()EOV Kol knava^epoftevov ug oKTiva tiTuov. — Legat., c. 10 ; comp. c. 21. 
 
102 FATHEES BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OP ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 [ken^ds. — His History and Writings. — The Son a Separate Be- 
 ing FROM the Father, and Subordinate. — Quotations. — Christ 
 
 SUFFERED IN HIS WhOLE NaTURE. — ThE LoGOS SUPPLIED THE PlACE 
 
 of THE Rational Soul in Jesus Christ. — Tertullian. — Character 
 AND Writings. — Makes the Father and Son Two Beings. — The 
 Son Inferior. — Not Eternal. — Tertullian's Creeds. — Omission 
 of the Spsrit. — The Father more Ancient, Nobler, and more 
 Powerful than the Son. — The Unlearned Christians. — Their 
 Horror op the OEconomt, or Trinity. — How Tertullian saybs 
 THE Unity. — The Catacombs. 
 
 iRENiEUS. 
 
 We pass to Irenaeus. He is supposed to have been a native 
 of Smyrna, or at least, of some part of Lesser Asia. He was 
 thus a Greek by birth. In his youth, as he informs us in a 
 letter to Florinus, a portion of which has been preserved by 
 Eusebius,* he was well acquainted with the venerable Poly- 
 carp. Jerome calls him a man of the apostolic times, and 
 says that he was a discij)le of Papias, who was a hearer of 
 John the Evangelist.f When and under what circumstances 
 he went to Gaul, history does not inform us. We only know 
 that he became Bishop of Lyons, in that province, after the 
 martyrdom of Pothinus, a. d. 177. He survived till very late 
 in the second century, and possibly till after the commence- 
 ment of the third. He wrote a work, in five books, against 
 the Gnostic heretics, the original of which, with the exception 
 of a considerable part of the first and some fragments of other 
 books, is lost, the remainder being preserved only in an old 
 and barbarous Latin translation. 
 
 Irenaeus has left on record a summary or summaries of the 
 faith of Christians of his day, in language, however, which 
 will not satisfy the demands of a later orthodoxy.^ With the 
 
 * Hist, V. 20. t Epist. 29, ad Theod. 
 
 t Contra Hcer., lib. i. c. 10, § 1. See also lib. iv. c. 33, § 7, ed. Migne. Par 
 1867 
 
IREN^US. 103 
 
 preceding Fathers already named, he agreed in assigning to 
 the Son a separate existence, making him inferior to the 
 Father ; but the mode of his generation he would not discuss, 
 deeming it inexplicable. In his antagonism to the Gnostic 
 doctrine of emanations, he was led to connect with the Son 
 the terms " always " and " eternal " ; it is difficult to define in 
 what sense. He wants clearness, and his notions seem not to 
 have been well defined even to himself. " Who," he asks, 
 with the prophet, " can declare his generation ? No one. 
 No one knows it ; not Valentinus, not Marcion, neither Satur- 
 ninus, nor BasiHdes, nor angels, nor archangels, nor princes, 
 nor powers, none but the Father who begat, and the Son who 
 was begotten." He is very careful, however, on all occasions 
 to distinguish the Son fi*om the " One true and only God," 
 who is " supreme over all, and besides whom there is no 
 other." Take two or three passages as specimens. " The 
 Father is above all, and is himself the head of Christ." * 
 " John preached one God supreme over all, and one only-be- 
 gotten Son Jesus Christ."f " The Church dispersed through- 
 out all the world has received from the Apostles and their 
 disciples this belief — in one God the Father, supreme over 
 all ... . and in one Jesus Christ .... and in the Holy Spirit, 
 that through the prophets preached the dispensations," etc.J 
 We could fill pages with similar passages. No language could 
 more clearly and positively assert the supremacy of the Father. 
 
 The Father sends, the Son is sent ; the Father commands, 
 the Son executes, ministering to his will. The Father grants, 
 the Son receives power and dominion. The Father gives him 
 the " heritage of the nations," and " subjects all his enemies 
 to him." § These and similar expressions which form his cur- 
 rent phraseology, — which are interwoven, in fact, with the 
 texture of his whole work against heresies, — could not have 
 been employed by one who conceived of the Son as numerically 
 the same being with the Father, or as in any sense his equal. 
 
 Again : he quotes the words of the Saviour (Mark xiii. 32) 
 
 * Conira Rcer., lib. v. c. 18, § 2. 
 t Ibid., lib. i. c. 9, § 2. 
 J Ibid., lib. i. c. 10, § 1. 
 
 § See, among other passages, Ibid., i. 22, § 1 ; iii. 6, § 1 ; iii. 8, § 3 ; iy. t, 
 §7; iv. 38, §3. 
 
104 FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OP ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 " But of that day and that hour knoweth no man ; no, not the 
 angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father," 
 without any attempt to explain them away, or evade the ob- 
 vious inference. He admits their truth in the simplest and 
 broadest sense, and thence adduces an argument for humility. 
 " If the Son," says he, " vi^as not ashamed to refer the knowl- 
 edge of that day to the Father, neither should we be ashamed 
 to reserve the solution of difficult questions to God." * He 
 goes further. Far from denying the inference to be drawn 
 from the expression referred to, he expressly admits it. Our 
 Saviour, he observes, used this expression that " we might 
 learn from him that the Father is above all ; for ' the Father,' 
 he says, 'is greater than I.' "f The doctrine of two natures, 
 by the help of which modern Trinitarians attempt to evade 
 the force of this and similar passages, was not as yet invented. 
 
 It was the doctrine of the apostolic age, and of primitive 
 antiquity generally, that Jesus Christ suifered in his whole 
 nature. Such certainly was the opinion of Irenaeus, if we can 
 credit his own language. He believed that Jesus Christ suf- 
 fered in his superior as well as in his inferior nature. There 
 were some sects of the Gnostics, especially the followers of 
 Cerinthus, who maintained that a certain exalted intelligence 
 called Christ descended on Jesus at his baptism, and left him 
 and ascended at his crucifixion. This opinion Irenaeus strenu- 
 ously combats, in a formal argument of some length. Paul, 
 he says, knew no Christ but him who suffered. If there was 
 a Christ who left Jesus before the crucifixion, then there were 
 two Christs. The Apostle knew but one. Christ, we are 
 told, " suffered for us." According to the doctrine referred 
 to, this is not true. Again, Christ predicted that he should 
 suffer. It " behoved him to suffer," he says. And he pro- 
 posed himself as an example to his disciples. " If any man 
 will come after me," he says, " let him take up his cross and 
 follow me." Why, asks Irenaeus, this exhortation, if Christ 
 himself did not suffer ? 
 
 Besides all this and much more in the same strain, J we 
 have the express assertion of Irenseus, that Jesus Christ suf- 
 
 * Contra Ear., lib. ii. c. 28, § 6. t Ihid., lib. ii. c. 28, § 8. 
 
 X Ibid., lib. iii. cc. 16, 18. 
 
TERTULLIAN. 105 
 
 Pered in his superior nature. " Jesus," he says, " who suffered 
 for us and dwelt among us, is the Logos of God." * Again, 
 the " Logos of God became flesh and suffered."! Again, the 
 " Word of God when on the cross prayed for his persecutors 
 and murderers."^ From the whole we may infer that he sup- 
 posed Christ to have suffered in his most exalted nature. § It 
 is hence quite obvious that he did not regard him as one in 
 essence with God. 
 
 Like the old Fathers generally, before the time of Origen, 
 Irenasus did not attribute to the Saviour a rational human soul, 
 but supposed that the Logos supplied the place of it.|| 
 
 Tertullian. 
 
 Hitherto we have been occupied with Greek writers. We 
 must now turn to the Latin Church, of which the great repre- 
 sentative man of the period is Tertullian. Tertullian was an 
 African by birth, and, according to Jerome,^ a native of Car- 
 thage, and son of a Proconsular centurion. He held the rank 
 of Presbyter, but whether at Carthage or Rome, has been dis- 
 puted. If Jerome's account be correct, that the envy and ill 
 
 * Contra HcEr., lib. i. c. 9, § 3. t Ibid., i. c. 10, § 3. % Ibid., iii. c. 18, § 5. 
 
 § Yet with strange inconsistency he speaks in one passage (hb. iii. c. 19, 
 § 3) of the Logos as quiescent during the crucifixion. [Here, however, the 
 old Latin version of Irenaeus differs somewhat from the Greek as preserved 
 by Theodoret, who, as has been suggested, may have altered the expres- 
 sions to conform them to his own opinions. See Stieren's note, in his edition 
 of Irenffius, and Norton's Statement of Reasons, 3d edit., p. 112, note. — Ed.] 
 
 II Hagenbach {Text-Book, etc., First Period, § 66) refers to Duncker as " en- 
 deavoring to make it probable . . . that Irenaeus taught the perfect humanity 
 of Christ as regards the body, soul, and spirit." On many points the Fathers 
 are greatly deficient in precision, both of thought and expression. But that 
 before the time of Origen, they generally, IreuEeus not excepted, used language 
 which, according to any reasonable construction, teaches that the human 
 rational soul was wanting in Christ, appears to us as undeniable. Justin, as 
 we have seen, so tauglit expressly. Hagenbach also refers to Neander. But 
 Neander (Hist. Christ. Dogm., p. 197, Bohn) expresses himself with hesitation 
 in regard to Irenaeus, diSering somewhat from Duncker. See also his Aniig- 
 nostikus, p. 477. In connection with the error of Beryllus, however, Neander 
 (iffirms that the " doctrine of a rational [human] soul in Christ had not, at 
 that time, been generally received, though Origen had done much for its de 
 relopment." — Hist. Christ. Dogm., pp. 152, 153. 
 
 1 De Vir. Illust., c. 53. 
 
106 FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 usage of the clergy of Rome were the cause of his defection 
 from the Church, it would favor the supposition that, for a time 
 at least, lie lived at Rome. He was, says Jerome, of an 
 " acrid and vehement temper," which, indeed, his writings 
 clearly enough show. He was rash, impetuous, fiery ; his 
 thoughts are often obscure, and his style harsh, abrupt, abound- 
 ing in bold rhetoric and exaggeration, which often increases 
 the difficulty of ascertaining his precise meaning. He has had 
 his admirers, but many have turned from his pages with dis- 
 gust, finding there, as they have thought, more nettles and 
 thorns than flowers and fi'uit. But, the Montanism of his 
 later years notwithstanding, his authority has always stood 
 high in the Church. 
 
 The incidents of his life are very imperfectly known. Je- 
 rome's account is brief. It speaks of the multitude of his 
 writings, many of which, it asserts, were not even then ex- 
 tant ; and tells us that he lived to a decrepit age. Where 
 and when he died we are not informed. He flourished about 
 the year 200 ; and may have survived Clement of Alexandria. 
 He is the earliest Latin Father whose writings are extant. 
 
 His testimony on the subject of the Trinity, as received in 
 his time, is full and explicit. He has transmitted to us three 
 creeds, or summaries of the belief of Christians in his day ; * 
 similar in sentiment, though differing somewhat in expression. 
 All these teach the supremacy of the Father, — a doctrine, in 
 fact, which stands prominent in all the writings of Tertullian, 
 especially in his treatises against Hermogenes and Praxeas. 
 We might fill page after page with expressions in which it is 
 either directly asserted or necessarily implied. 
 
 Tertullian admits that the Son is entitled to be called God, 
 on the principle, that "whatever is born of God is God," just 
 as one born of human parents is human. He speaks of him 
 as possessing "unity of substance " with God; but by this 
 ind similar phrases, as the learned well know, the ante-Nicene 
 Fathers never meant to express a numerical unity of essence, 
 
 * De Vin/inibus Velandis, c. 1 ; De Prmscrip. Hceret., c. 13 ; Ado. Prax., c. 2. 
 These and all our references to the writings of Tertullian will answer equally 
 well for tl\e Paris editions of 1646 and 1675, and the recent edition by Leopold 
 (Gersdorf ), which is more convenient for consultation tlian the old editions. 
 
TERTULLIAN ON THE INFERIORITY OP THE SON. 107 
 
 but only a specific, that is, a common nature. Tims all hu- 
 man beings, as such, are of one substance : the son is of one 
 substance with the father. In this sense, Tertullian evidently 
 uses the phrase in question, as he immediately proceeds to 
 explain ; for, after saying that the Son has " unity of sub- 
 stance " with God, he adds, " For God is spirit " ; and " from 
 spirit is produced spirit ; from God, God ; from light, light." * 
 Thus he supposes the Son to be in some sort divine by virtue 
 of his birth, and of one substance with God, as he is a spirit, 
 and God is spirit. At the same time, he regarded him as a 
 different being from the Father ; that is, numerically distinct 
 from him. This all his illustrations imply ; and, moreover, he 
 expressly affirms it. " The Son," he says, " is derived from 
 God, as the branch from the root, the stream from the foun- 
 tain, the ray from the sun." " The root and the branch are 
 two things, though conjoined ; and the fountain and the stream 
 are two species, though undivided ; and the sun and its ray 
 are two forms, though cohering."! And so, according to him, 
 God and Christ are two things, two species, two forms. Things 
 " conjoined," or " cohering," must necessarily be two. We 
 do not use the terms of one individual substance. Asain : 
 referring to John i. 1, he says, " There is one who was, and 
 another with whom he was." J Again : he observes, " The 
 Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater ; 
 as he who begets is different from him who is begotten ; he 
 who sends, different from him who is sent; he who does a 
 thing, different from him through whom (as an instrument) it 
 is done."§ Again: alluding to 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28, he says, 
 " From this passage of the apostolical Epistle, it may be shown 
 that the Father and Son are two, not only from a difference in 
 name, but from the fact, that he who delivers a kingdom and 
 he to whom it is delivered, he who subjects and he who re- 
 ceives in subjection, are necessarily two."|| 
 
 That he regarded the Son as inferior, is evident from the 
 following declarations. He was produced by the Father. 
 " The Lord created me," as he quotes from the Septuagint, 
 "the beginning of his ways" (Prov. viii. 22). Thus he waa 
 
 * Apol adv. Gentes, c. 21. \ Adv. Prax., c. 8. t Ibid., c. 13. 
 
 § Ibid., c. 9 11 Ibid., c. 4. 
 
108 FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OP ALEXANDRIA, 
 
 the first of all beings produced, "the beginning " of the crea- 
 tion, the first work of God, who, as Tertullian adds, being 
 about to form the world, " produced the Word, that by him," 
 as his instrument, " he might make the universe." * " The 
 Father," he says, " is a whole substance ; the Son a derivation 
 and portion of the whole, as he professes, saying, ' The Father 
 is greater than I,' "f which Tertullian understands according 
 to the literal import of the terms. He speaks of God as the 
 " head of Christ," and of the latter as deriving all his power 
 and titles from the former. Thus he is " most high, because 
 by the right hand of God exalted, as Peter declares (Acts ii. 
 33), Lord of hosts, because all things are subjected to him by 
 the Father." J He " does nothing except by the will of the 
 Father, having received all power from him."§ And hence, 
 TertulHan contends, the supremacy of the Father, or mon- 
 archy, as he calls it, which the innovations of the learned 
 Platonizing Christians were thought by the more simple and 
 unlettered to impau', is preserved ; the Son having received 
 from the Father the kingdom, which he is hereafter to restore. 
 
 Tertullian, though he admits the preexistence of the Son, 
 expressly denies his eternity. " There was a time," he tells 
 us, "when the Son was not."|| Again: "Before all things, 
 God was alone, himself a world and place, and all things to 
 himself." That is, as he explains it, nothing existed without 
 or beyond himself. " Yet he was not alone ; for he had his 
 own reason, which was in himself, with him. For God is 
 rational," a being endued with reason.^ 
 
 This reason, or Logos, as it was called by the Greeks, was 
 afterwards, as Tertullian believed, converted into the Word, 
 or Son, that is, a real being, having existed from eternity only 
 as an attribute of the Father. Tertullian assigned to him, 
 however, a rank subordinate to the Father ; representing him 
 as deriving from the Father his being and power, subject in all 
 things to his will, and one with him as he partook of a similar 
 spiritual and divine nature, and was united with him in affec- 
 tion and purpose.** The Father, he says, is " more ancient, 
 
 * Adv. Prax., cc. 6, 7. t Ibid., c. 9. t Ibid., c. 17. 
 
 § Ibid., c. 4. II Adv. Hermog., c. 3. Tf Adv. Prax., c. 6. 
 
 ** Ibid., c. 22. " With respect to Wisdom and the Son, Sophia and 
 
TEBTULLIAN. 109 
 
 nobler, and more powerful than the Son."* This is one of 
 the passages selected for animadversion by the learned Jes- 
 uit Petavius, who speaks of the writer in terms of strong 
 censure, making him exceed the Arians in " impiety and 
 absurdity." f 
 
 We might multiply our quotations without number, but it 
 is unnecessary. Judged according to any received explana- 
 tion of the Trinity at the present day, the attempt to save 
 Tertullian from condemnation would be hopeless. He could 
 not stand the test a moment. His creeds, compared with 
 those of subsequent times, are particularly defective. Here 
 is one of them, very much resembling the Apostles' Creed 
 in its more ancient and simple form : " We believe in one 
 only Grod, omnipotent, Maker of the world ; and his Son Jesus 
 Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius 
 Pilate, raised from the dead the third day, received into the 
 heavens, now sitting at the right hand of the Father, and 
 who shall come to judge the living and the dead through the 
 resurrection of the flesh. "J 
 
 This, Tertullian gives as the one only fixed and unalterable 
 "rule of faith." But this is no Trinitarian creed. The Fa- 
 ther and Son are clearly distinguished, and the supremacy of 
 the Father is preserved. Not one word is said of the Spirit, 
 though the writer afterwards mentions it, explaining it as 
 " vicarious," that is, in the place of Christ ; referring to the 
 words of Jesus (John xvi. 13), which he quotes. Nothing is 
 said of its personality ; which, indeed, is plainly excluded. 
 One desires nothing more liberal than the creed of this old 
 Father. 
 
 Besides the omission of the Spirit in that here given, there 
 is no mention in it of Chi'ist's " descent into hell," of the 
 "holy Catholic Church," the "communion of saints," or the 
 
 Filius," says Bishop Kaye, " Tertullian assigns to both a beginning of exist- 
 ance : Sophia was created or formed, in order to devise the plan of the uni- 
 verse ; and the Son was begotten in order to carry that plan into effect." 
 Again, by making matter self existent and eternal, Hermogenes, as Tertullian 
 argued, " placed it above the Word or Wisdom ; who, as begotten of God, 
 had both an author and beginning of his being." — Writings of Tertullian, 
 pp. 523, 535, 3d edit. 
 
 * Adv. Hermog., c. 18. t Dogm. TheoL, hb. ii. c. 1, § 5. 
 
 X De Virg. Vdand., c. 1. 
 
110 FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 
 
 "remission of sins," which appear in the Apostles' Creed in 
 its present form. So brief were the older creeds. Here is 
 one, composed about the end of the second century, which 
 is shorter and simpler than the so-called Apostles' Creed. 
 Tertullian does not admit that the corruption of man's nature 
 is " total," or that the seeds of good are altogether extinguished 
 in it. " There is a portion of God," he says, " in the soul. 
 In the worst, there is something good ; and in the best, some- 
 thing bad : " and he speaks of infancy as the " age of inno- 
 cence. * 
 
 We cannot pass over without notice a very remarkable 
 passage in the writings of Tertullian, which has been adduced 
 to pi'ove that the great bulk of Christians in his time were not 
 believers in the doctrine held by the Platonizing Fathers, relat- 
 ing to the nature and rank of the Son. It certainly has an 
 important bearing on the question, as to what plain, unlettered 
 Christians at that day believed, or rather did not believe, re- 
 specting the nature of the Son. But on this question we do 
 not touch. We have another object in quoting the passage, 
 which is, to show by attention to Tertullian's reasoning how 
 he disposed of the objection, that he and others who thought 
 with him made two Gods ; how they reconciled their teach- 
 ings with the Divine Unity. The party of Tertullian, it must 
 be remembered, had adopted the word " CEconomy," an ob- 
 scure term, which they applied to the relations of God with 
 the Son and Spirit, or to the Trinity as it was then understood. 
 This perplexed the unlettered Christians, as well it might. 
 
 " The simple," says Tertullian, " not to say the unskilful 
 and unlearned, who always constitute the greater part of be- 
 lievers, since the rule of faith itself transfers their worship of 
 many Gods to the one only and true God, not understanding 
 that the unity (of God) is to be believed, but with the vecono- 
 my^ are frightened at this oeconomy. This number and dis- 
 position of the Trinity they regard as a division of the unity. 
 , . . Thus they declare that we proclaim two or three Gods ; 
 but they, they affirm, worship only one. . . , We, say they, 
 Aold the monarchy. . . . The Latins shout aloud for the 
 
 * De Anima, c. 41 ; De Baptismo, c. 18. " Original goodness," says Neander 
 " he held to be indelible." — Hist. Christ. Dogm., p. 184. 
 
TEETULLIAN. Ill 
 
 monarchy; and the Greeks will not understand the oecon- 
 omy. * 
 
 How does Tertullian reply? Monarchy, he says, is one 
 rule or dominion, but may be administered through many offi- 
 cials ; or the monarch may associate his son with him, all 
 power still emanating from him. The monarchy then re- 
 mains. So with the divine monarchy. Around the throne 
 of the heavenly king may stand " ten thousand times ten 
 thousand, and thousands of thousands, of angels executing his 
 commands. But that does not destroy the monarchy. And 
 how can we say that it is destroyed, if, instead of these angels 
 whom no man can number, who are of a nature foreign to 
 him, he employs the Son and Spirit:, who are second and third 
 to him, and of a similar nature as begotten of his substance ? " 
 Tertullian then proceeds to say that the Son does " nothing 
 without the Father's will," — that all his "power was received 
 from the Father " who granted it, that as the Son receives all, 
 " the Father subjecting all things to him," he shall in the end 
 '■'-restore all," delivering up all to the Father, to whom "he 
 shall also himself be subjected," that God may be "all in all."f 
 So the monarchy is not overthrown, saj^s Tertullian. True. 
 But what becomeg of Christ's supreme divinity and of his 
 numerical identity with the Father? They are excluded. 
 Thus Tertullian could find no other unity than this, — The 
 Son was of Divine origin, and his will always harmonized with 
 the will of the Father, — which is no unity at all in the later 
 Athanasian sense. Well might Tertullian explain the cele- 
 brated text, " I and my Father are one " (John x. 30), as 
 meaning " one thing, not one person, the neuter gender being 
 used." It " pertains," he says, " only to unity of affection, to 
 the love which the Father bore to the Son, and the obedience 
 of the Son who did the Father's will," making himself, " not 
 God himself, but the Son of God. "J But here is no homoou- 
 sian Trinity. 
 
 We may observe, in conclusion, that Tertullian has been 
 supposed, like the older Christian Fathers generally, to have 
 believed that Christ did not possess a human rational soul, the 
 Logos supplying its place. And from the language he some- 
 
 * Adv. Prax., c. 3. t Ibid., cc. 3, 4. See also c. 13. } Ibid., c. 22. 
 
112 FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 times employs, it is difficult to avoid this inference. Neander 
 rejects it, and says that this Father " is the first writer by 
 whom a perfect human nature consisting of body and soul is 
 distinctly asserted." * 
 
 But " of the eternal generation — eternal personality of the 
 Son, and numerical unity of being of the Father and Son," 
 in the language of Martini, " he knew nothing, and so there 
 was between his and the Athanasian orthodoxy a wide gulf 
 fixed." t 
 
 We cannot close this chapter without adding a word re 
 specting the class of Christians to which Tertullian refers — 
 the common and uneducated. It has often occurred to us, as 
 these pages containing notices of the early Fathers have been 
 passing through the press, to ask ourselves where, all this time, 
 were these simple and unlearned Christians, and what were 
 their thoughts and feelings ? How did the abstruse contro- 
 versies and sublimated speculations with which the more 
 learned and philosophical church teachers and writers were 
 occupying themselves, affect the minds of the plain and un- 
 educated men and women of the day ? Did they concern 
 themselves at all about them ? We are inclined to think 
 that persons of this class in the early ages took very little in- 
 terest in these speculations and controversies, — that, when 
 they did interest themselves in them, urging objections and 
 uttering remonstrances, it was the exception and not the rule. 
 What cared they for Marcion, and Valentinus, and Basilides, 
 and Manes, and Praxeas, and Hermogenes, and Sabellius, and 
 
 * Hist. Christ. Dogm., p. 199, Bohn ; Antignostikus, p. 477. So also Hagen- 
 bach, Text-Book, etc., First Period, § 66. See Tert. Adv. Pra.r., cc. 16, 27 ; 
 De Came Christi, cc. 11-13, and 18. Origen strenuously argues tlie necessity 
 of a human soul as well as body in Christ, and his argument finally tri- 
 umphed. 
 
 t Versiich, etc., p. 110. Schwegler, as quoted by Hagenbach (First Per., 
 § 42), s.ays, " We find in Tertullian, on the one hand, the efl^ort to hold fast 
 the entire equality of the Father and the Son; — on the other hand, the 
 inequality is so manifestly conceded, or presupposed, it is everywhere ex- 
 pressed in so marked and, as it were, involuntary a way, and it strikes its 
 roots so deeply into his whole system and modes of expression, that it must 
 doubtless be considered as the real and inmost conception of TertuUian's sys- 
 tem." — [See Schwegler's Montanismus, p. 41. — Ed.] 
 
THE CATACOMBS. 113 
 
 Paul of Saraosata, and the rest, who gave the Fathers such 
 infinite trouble, lighting up controversies which for ages were 
 not extinct ? 
 
 For the most beautiful and affecting evidences of the prac- 
 tical character ar>d ennobling influences of the religion of the 
 Son of Mary we must turn, not to the folios of the Fathers, 
 or acts of councils engaged in defining dark and subtile points 
 of theology, but to the remains of early Christian art in the 
 Catacombs in and about Rome. These served as a refuge and 
 a sanctuary to the ancient church in times of persecution, and 
 a place of burial for their dead long after the days of Tertul- 
 lian. Since the opening of the Catacombs, in modern times, 
 numerous slabs and tiles containing inscriptions have been 
 taken out and brought into the light of day. Many of them 
 have been inserted in the walls of the " Lapidarian Gallery," 
 in the Vatican, where the inscriptions and epitaphs may be 
 read by all eyes. They are records of faith and affection, not 
 of theology. For the most part they contain only the baptis- 
 mal name, and the words, often misspelt, and the letters irreg- 
 ular, were evidently written by the " unlettered muse." They 
 clearly belong to the simple and uneducated Christians, — not 
 to the learned, but to the unlearned, — not to those who wrote 
 ponderous tomes of theology, and wrangled in councils, but to 
 humble believers — the class to whom TertulHan refers. The 
 " Fathers of the Church," it has been remarked, " live in 
 their voluminous works ; the lower orders are only represented 
 by these simple records, from which, with scarcely an excep- 
 tion, sorrow and complaint are banished ; the boast of suffer- 
 ing, or an appeal to the revengeful passions, is nowhere to be 
 found. One expresses faith, another hope, a third charity. 
 The genius of primitive Christianity — to believe, to love, and 
 to suffer — has never been better illustrated. These ' ser- 
 mons in stones ' are addressed to the heart and not to the head 
 — to the feelings rather than to the taste." * 
 
 The epitaphs and inscriptions thus disinterred, of these old 
 Christians, possess, indeed, a touching beauty and simplicity. 
 Some of them are traced back to the end of the first or begin- 
 ning of the second century, and constitute almost the onlji 
 * Maitland's Church in the Catacombs, p. 13. London, 1846. 
 
114 FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 
 
 authentic monument of the period which remains. The name 
 of Christ, or its monogram, perpetually appears ; often the 
 good shepherd ; and the cross, either alone, or accompanied 
 with the emblematic crown or palm, is everywhere met. 
 
 Such was the religion of the unlettered Christians ; and 
 these rude epitaphs and memorials many will think of more 
 value than all the controversial divinity of the Fathers ; and 
 the triumphs of patience, gentleness, and love which they 
 record did more for the establishment of Christianity on the 
 ruins of Pao-anism than all the writings of the learned con- 
 verts. The subtleties of controversialists have no charm by 
 the side of these artless -records of faith and affection. It is 
 refreshing to turn from Tertullian and the rest, with their 
 disputes about the " oeconomy " and the " Logos " produced 
 in time or before time, to the relics of these simple believers, 
 spoken of almost with contempt by the Fathers in their pride 
 and conceit of learning. A fragment of one of these primi- 
 tive epitaphs is worth more than a whole treatise of the old 
 Latin Father who has stood before us. 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, AND HIS TIMES. 
 
 CHAPTER L 
 
 Martyrdoms after that of Justin. — Time of Clement. — Alexan 
 DRiA. — Biography of Clement. — Pant^nus. — Clement's Conver- 
 sion. — Becomes Head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. 
 — Was there in 211. — Disappears from History. — Direction of 
 Studies in the Alexandrian School. — Clement's Writings. — His 
 Hortatory Address. 
 
 We have been thus far occupied, in great part, with the life 
 and opinions, and especially the theological opinions, of Justin 
 Martyr, who lived mostly in Palestine and at Rome where he 
 suffered. We must now ask our readers to accompany us to 
 the land of the Pharaohs, — whither " the young child " Jesus 
 and "his mother" went, — and to Alexandria, its capital. 
 The time is about the year 200, that is, two centuries after 
 the infant Jesus was there. What a revolution had these two 
 centuries brought about ! Fifty years nearly have elapsed 
 since Justin's death. During these fifty years the relations 
 of Christians to the State, and the intense popular hatred 
 against them, had little changed. They remained very much 
 as described at the time of Justin's death. 
 
 The martyrdoms under the second Antonine, Marcus Au- 
 relius the philosopher, embraced, besides that of Justin, those 
 of the aged Polycarp of Smyrna, the martyrs of Vienne and 
 Lyons in Gaul, and others. Marcus passed away in a. d. 180, 
 and with him ended the golden days of the Roman Empire. 
 His successors, most of them, had a short reign. " They flit- 
 ted," says the historian, " like shadows along the tragic scene 
 of the imperial palace," — "Africans and Syrians, Arabs and 
 Thracians," — seizing, in turn, "the quickly shifting sceptre 
 
116 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 of the world." Septimius Severus obtained the purple in 193 ; 
 and the cruel Caracalla, in 211, — his reign ending with his 
 death in 217. Clement, the subject of our present notice, 
 flourished under the reigns of the two last-named emperors, — 
 Septimius and Caracalla, — that is, between the years 193 and 
 217. Like Justin, he was a learned man, — the more schol- 
 arly of the two ; like him, too, he was born and bred in 
 heathenism, and was an adept in philosophy before he became 
 a Christian ; — his place, Alexandria in Egypt. 
 
 Alexandria was at this time the seat of learning and refine- 
 ment, of wealth and luxury, and the centre of the commerce 
 of the world. Here we meet the Jewish, the Oriental, and 
 the Grecian culture, mingled with the old Egyptian supersti- 
 tions, — all combined in bitter opposition to the religion of 
 the Son of Mary, now grown to be a thing of might and sig- 
 nificance. Here had lived and taught the learned Philo. 
 Here was the celebrated school of the later Platonists. Here, 
 too, was the great library of the ancient world, containing, it 
 is said, four hundred thousand volumes. Learning was now 
 passing over to the Christians. Here was their great school 
 of theology. Here now was Clement ; and, soon after, the 
 more famous Origen, a prodigy of learning, and a great genius. 
 Here, in the city of Alexander, was now congregated all that 
 was elevated and all that was vile, all that could command 
 reverence and all that could inspire disgust, — high, dreamy 
 mysticism on one side, and the coarsest profligacy on the 
 other. 
 
 The biography of Clement must, from poverty of materials, 
 be of the briefest kind. We will state what is known of him ; 
 then look a little at his arguments for the truth of Christian- 
 ity ; at his theology, which was not Trinitarian ; at the private 
 and social life of the Alexandrians of his day, so far as it can 
 be gathered firom his writings ; and at Clement's idea or con- 
 ception of the perfect Christian. 
 
 Titus Flavins Clemens was his whole name. So far as his 
 personal history is concerned, he is little more than a shadow 
 seen through the dim mist of ages. A few lines will tell all 
 that can be gleaned concerning it fi*om himself, Eusebius, Jer- 
 ome, and other sources. Eusebius the historian, who was inti- 
 
HIS BIOGRAPHY. 117 
 
 mately acquainted with the writings of Christian antiquity, 
 many of which are now lost, wrote in the earher part of the 
 fourth century ; and Jerome, who was universally learned, 
 flourished at the end of the same century. The latter, in his 
 book on " Illustrious Men," devotes but part of a page to 
 Clement and his writings ; and the former is scarcely more 
 copious ; so completely had the materials for anything like a 
 biography of him perished even in their day. That he lived 
 and wrote in the times of Severus and Caracalla (that is, at 
 the end of the second and beginning of the third century), is 
 asserted by Jerome ; but the time of his birth and death he 
 does not tell us, and probably did not know, and history has 
 preserved no recoi^d of it. The place of his birth is equally 
 uncertain. Both Athens and Alexandria are mentioned by 
 different writers, but on no better ground than conjecture. 
 We have the authority of Eusebius for saying that he was a 
 convert from Heathenism. Plis great Christian teacher was 
 Pantasnus. To him he is supposed to refer when, in his 
 " Stromata," speaking of his instructors, after enumerating 
 several, — as (if we understand him, for the passage is some- 
 what obscure) one in Greece, one in Italy, the former from 
 Coele-Syria, the latter from Egypt ; besides two more, one an 
 Assyrian, and the other a native of Palestine, by descent a 
 Hebrew, — he says that the last with whom he met was the 
 first in merit ; that he found him concealed in Egypt ; and, 
 having discovered him, he desisted from further search. Of 
 him he was a great admirer. " He was," says Clement, "in 
 truth, a Sicilian bee, who, cropping the flowers of the pro- 
 phetic and apostolic meadow, caused a pure knowledge to grow 
 up in the minds of his hearers." * 
 
 Whether he became a convert to Christianity before or 
 after his acquaintance with Pantsenus, he does not distinctly 
 inform us. We infer, however, that he owed his conversion, 
 in part at least, to him. One thing is certain, — that, after 
 ranging over all the systems of ancient religion and philosophy, 
 he became a Christian, abandoning the " sinful service of 
 Paganism for the faith of the Redeemer," at the age of man- 
 hood, and in the full exercise of a free and inquiring mind ; 
 * Stromata, lib. i. c. 1 ; 0pp., t. i. p. 322, ed. Potter. 
 
118 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 and thus, like Justin, he furnishes an example of a learned 
 convert, who became a disciple of the cross from conviction, 
 in the prime and vigor of his faculties. No man that ever 
 lived was better acquainted with the ancient heathen religions, 
 philosophy, and mythology, than Clement ; yet he gave up all 
 for the simple teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, in which he 
 found the only religion that satisfied his intellect, and encour- 
 aged his soul's best and highest aspirations. 
 
 Of his teachers he preserved an ever-grateful recollection ; 
 and in one of his principal works, the " Stromata," he records, 
 as he tells us, what he learned from them as an antidote 
 against forgetfixlness, and a treasure against old age. They 
 received it by tradition, he says, from the Apostles Peter, 
 James, John, and Paul. He became, first, assistant, and 
 afterwards successor, of Pantsenus, in the Catechetical or 
 Theological School at Alexandria, and was presbyter of the 
 church there. He would seem to have left Alexandria during 
 the persecution under Septimius Severus, about 202. It is 
 certain that he was at Jerusalem, visiting the hallowed spots 
 there, early in the reign of Caracalla ; whence he took a com- 
 mendatory letter, a fragment of which is preserved by Euse- 
 bius, to the Christians of Antioch. In the letter he is spoken 
 of as already known to them of Antioch. He returned to 
 Alexandria, and was head of the school there in 211. He 
 then vanishes from our sight. How or where he died, it is in 
 vain to search. It was not many years after. 
 
 In philosophy, Clement was an eclectic. " I espoused," 
 i says he, " not this or that philosophy, not the Stoic, not the 
 Platonic, not the Epicurean, not that of Aristotle, but what- 
 ever any of these sects had said which was fit and just, wdiich 
 taught righteousness and a divine and religious knowledge, — 
 all that, being selected, I call philosophy." 
 
 His studies took direction from his position and the demands 
 of the age. The school of Alexandria, in his time, required 
 learned teachers who had received a philosophical education, 
 and were acquainted with the Grecian religion and culture. 
 For they had not simply to teach the young the elements of 
 the Christian faith : they were surrounded by learned Pagans, 
 some of whom frequented the school ; and with these they 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND GRECIAN LEARNING. 119 
 
 must discuss great questions in a manner to satisfy the specu- 
 lative and wisdom-loving Greeks. If the Jews required a 
 sign, the Greeks sought after wisdom. They were specula- 
 tive; they could not be treated as babes. Hence the spec- 
 ulative turn which Christian studies took in the Alexandrian 
 school. Here, properly. Christian theology first sprang up. 
 Here was the great battle-field of the old and the new, — 
 Heathenism and Christianity. Here it was, as before said, that 
 the faith of Jesus — two hundred years after Joseph, taking 
 " the young child and his mother by night," went down with 
 them as fugitives into Egypt — was brought into conflict, hand 
 to hand, with all the religions, and all the philosophy, and all 
 the traditions, of the then ancient world ; and, time-hallowed 
 as they were, and defended by the ablest men, and sustained 
 by court influence and the whole weight of the imperial 
 power, they all fell before the vigorous blows of such cham- 
 pions of the cross as Clement, Origen of the adamantine arm, 
 and others. As to the necessity of learning in the Christian 
 teachers of Alexandria, we may hear what Clement himself 
 says. There is much truth in what he asserts : " He who 
 would gather from every quarter what would be for the profit 
 of the catechumens, especially if they are Greeks, must not, 
 like irrational brutes, be shy of much learning ; but he must 
 seek to collect around him every possible means of helping his 
 hearers." 
 
 Eusebius, in the sixth book of his History,* and Jerome, in 
 his short account of " Illustrious Men," have left us a cata- 
 logue of Clement's writings ; apparently, however, incomplete. 
 Of these, some are lost ; f but we have still the " Hortatory 
 
 * Cap. 13. 
 
 t Of these, the work entitled " Hypotyposes," in eight books, is particularly 
 to be regretted, on account of tlie historical information which, according to 
 Eusebius, it contained; particularly an abridged account of the canonical 
 writings of the New Testament, together with tliose then considered as of 
 doubtful genuineness ; as the Book of Jude and the other Catholic Epistles, 
 as also the Epistle of Barnabas and Revelation of Peter. The tradition relat 
 ing to the order in which the Gospels were written ; to the origin, in particu- 
 lar, of Mark's Gospel; and the ])urpose of John in writing his, — is given by 
 Eusebius as a quotation from the " Hypotyposes." From the same source it 
 appears tliat Clement asserted that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by 
 Paul in Hebrew, and translated by Luke (Euseb. Hist., lib. vi. c. 14; also 
 
120 CLEMENT OP ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 Address to tlie Greeks," the " PaBdagogue," the " Stromata," 
 and a httle tract entitled, " Who is the Rich Man that sliall 
 be Saved ? " besides a few inconsiderable fragments of other 
 works. The hymn appended to his works is, to say the least, 
 of doubtful genuineness. 
 
 The " Hortatory Address," in one book, is designed to 
 recommend Christianity to the reception of the heathen. 
 Like the other pi'oductions of Clement, and most of the pro- 
 ductions of the Fathers, it is written with very little attention 
 to method. It is not what would now be called a systematic 
 defence of the divine origin of Christianity ; yet it contains 
 many forcible and striking thoughts, some strains of elevated 
 sentiment, and some vigorous and animated passages, which 
 may even now be read with pleasure and profit. It was no 
 difficult task for Clement, familiar as he was with the mytho- 
 logical fables of antiquity, to expose the absurdity of the old 
 superstitions. The comparison of Christianity with Paganism 
 in regard to their pervading spirit and tendencies, and espe- 
 cially with reference to the great principles of piety and 
 morality, could not fail of demonstrating the immense superi- 
 ority of the former. Of this, Clement and the early apologists 
 were fully aware ; and accordingly they insist very much on 
 what may be called the moral alignment for the truth of Chris- 
 tianity. This they evidently felt to be their strong point ; at 
 least, it was one which, in consequence of the peculiar belief 
 of the age, they could urge with more effect than any other ; 
 not even excepting that of miracles, the reality of which no 
 one thought of questioning, but which, as it was supposed, 
 
 lib. ii. c. 15). The work, no doubt, embodied several traditions ■which it 
 would be desirable to possess. It contained, according to Photius, some 
 errors of doctrine, or what in his time were esteemed such. In it, he says, 
 Clement makes the Son a creature ; matter he represents as eternal ; and he 
 asserts the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, and says that there was a 
 succession of worlds before Adam. These and several other doctrines which 
 he enumerates, Photius says, Clement attempted to defend by quotations from 
 the Scriptures. That Clement might have held these, and other views men- 
 tioned by Photius, however some admirers of the Fathers may be shocked at 
 the thought, is by no means improbable, as they are found among that assem- 
 blage of philosophical opinions which obtained a ready reception in the school 
 of Alexandria in the time of Clement; and many of which, as his writings 
 show, he incorporated into his theology. 
 
HIS DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 121 
 
 might be attributed to magic or theurgic art, and therefore 
 furnished no decisive criterion of a revelation. 
 
 Many of the arguments employed by the Fathers in defence 
 of Christianity — and by Clement among the rest — appear 
 to us, at the present day, altogether futile or irrelevant. But 
 we must recollect the sort of minds they addressed, and the 
 peculiar prejudices they were compelled to combat. We must 
 go back to their times, and make ourselves familiar with the 
 intellectual character and habits of those by whom they were 
 surrounded, and for whose benefit they wrote. Until we do 
 this, we are not in a condition to do justice to their merits. 
 Trains of reasoning, which would have no weight with us, 
 might be convincing at that day ; and faults of taste, a ram- 
 bling method, specimens of unsound criticism and interpre- 
 tation, violent and far-fetched analogies, and instances of 
 credulity and superstition, which would doom a modern per- 
 formance to neglect, would give little offence in an age unac- 
 customed to much order and precision in thinking and writing, 
 and abounding in all sorts of extravagant opinions. 
 
122 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Clement's Theology. — He does not ascribe to the Son a Distinct 
 Personal Subsistence from Eternity. — Makes him originally an 
 Attribute. — Asserts his Inferiority in Strong Terms. — Antiq- 
 uity OP Christianity. — Inspiration of Plato and the Philoso- 
 phers. — Influence of the Art of Sculpture among the Greeks. 
 — Man not born Depraved. 
 
 We give an extract from Bishop Kaye's "Account of the 
 Writings and Opinions of Clement " ; which furnishes a good 
 specimen of Clement's general style of argument, and further 
 contains his views of the Son, Logos, or Word. The passage 
 occurs near the commencement of the " Hortatory Address." 
 Clement introduces it, fancifully enough, as was his way, by 
 an allusion to the fabled power of music among the Greeks, 
 who taught that Amphion raised the walls of Thebes by the 
 sound of his lyre, and that Orpheus tamed savage beasts and 
 charmed trees and mountains by the sweetness of his song. 
 The Christian musician, or Christ, he says, had performed 
 greater things than these ; for he had " tamed men, the most 
 savage of beasts " ; instead of " leading men to idols, stocks, 
 and stones," he had " converted stones and beasts into men." 
 
 " He who sprang from David, yet was before David, the Word of 
 God, disdaining inanimate instruments, the harp and lyre, adapts this 
 world, and the little world man, both his soul and body, to the Holy 
 Spirit, and thus celebrates God. What, then, does the instrument, 
 the Word of God the Lord, the New Song, mean? To open the 
 eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf; to guide the lame and 
 the wanderer to righteousness ; to show God to foolish man ; to put 
 an end to corruption ; to overcome death ; to reconcile disobedient 
 children to their Father. The instrument of God loves man. The 
 Lord pities, disciplines, exhorts, admonishes, saves, guards, and, of 
 his abundance, promises the kingdom of heaven as the reward of 
 learning from him ; requiring nothing from us but that we shall be 
 saved. Think not, however, that the Song of Salvation is new. We 
 
Clement's writings and opinions. 123 
 
 existed before the foundation of tlie world, existing first in God him- 
 self, inasmucli as we were destined to exist ; we were the rational 
 creatures of tlie Reason (or Word) of God ; we were in the begin- 
 ning through the Word, because the Word was in the beginning. 
 The Word was from the beginning, and therefore was and is the 
 divine beginning of all things ; but now that he has taken the name 
 which of old was sanctified, the Christ, he is called by me a New 
 Song. Tliis Word, the Christ, was from the beginning the cause 
 botli of our being (for he was in God) and of our well-being. Now 
 he has appeared to men, being alone both God and man, the Author 
 to us of all good ; by whom, being instructed how to live well, we 
 are speeded onwards to eternal life. This is the New Song, — the 
 manifestation, now shining forth in us, of the Word, who was in the 
 beginning and before the beginning. The preexistent Saviour has 
 appeared nigh unto us ; he who exists in the Self-existent has 
 appeared ; the Word, wlio was with God, has appeared as our 
 Teacher; the Word, by whom all things were made, who in the be- 
 ginning, when he formed us, gave us life as our Maker, appearing as 
 our Teacher, has taught us to live well, in order that hereafter he 
 may, as God, give us life eternal. He has appeared to assist us 
 against the serpent who enslaves men, binding them to stocks and 
 statues and idols by the wretched bond of superstition. He offered 
 salvation to the Israelites of oltl by signs and wonders in Egypt and 
 the desert, at the burning bush, and in the cloud which followed the 
 Hebrews like a servant-maid. He spoke to them by Moses and 
 Isaiah and the whole prophetic choir; but he speaks to us directly 
 by himself. He is made man, that we may learn from man how man 
 may become God. Is it not, then, strange that God should invite us 
 to virtue, and that we should slight the benefit, and put aside, the 
 proffered salvation?" — pp. 11-14.* 
 
 Those who will be at the pains carefully to analyze this 
 passage will perceive, that, though Clement believed the Son 
 to have existed before the world, and does not hesitate to 
 bestow on him the title God, he is far from ascribing to him 
 supreme, underived divinity. The phrases "in the begin- 
 ning" and "before the world was," and others of similar 
 import, which Clement, in common with most of the early 
 Fathers, applies to him, by no means implied their belief that 
 he had a personal existence from eternity. This is evident 
 
 * Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria. 
 By John, Bishop of Lincoln. London, 1835. 8vo. 
 
124 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 from the fact, that, in the passage above quoted, the very same 
 expressions are applied by him to the human race. " We," 
 says Clement, " existed before the foundation of the world ; 
 existing first in God himself, inasmuch as we were destined to 
 exist." 
 
 The Fathers ascribed to the Son a sort of metaphysical or 
 potential existence in the Father ; that is, they supposed that 
 he existed in him from all eternity as an attribute, — his 
 logos, reason, or wisdom ; that, before the formation of the 
 world, this attribute acquired by a voluntary act of the Father 
 a distinct personal subsistence, and became his instrument in 
 the creation. The germ of this doctrine will be found in the 
 passage above given. 
 
 That the Logos was originally regarded by Clement, in 
 common with the other Fathers, as the reason or wisdom of 
 God, is undoubted. Like other attributes or qualities, it was 
 sometimes represented figuratively as speaking and acting. 
 By a transition not very difficult in an age accustomed to 
 speculations of the subtilest nature, if intelligible at all, it came 
 at length to be viewed as a real being or person, having a dis- 
 tinct personal subsistence. Still the former modes of expres- 
 sion were not for a long time wholly laid aside. Traces of the 
 old doctrine are visible among the Fathers of Clement's time. 
 Clement himself sometimes speaks of the Logos as an attrib- 
 ute. He calls the Son expressly " a certain energy or opera- 
 tion of the Father." * And, again, he speaks of the Logos 
 of the Father of the universe as " the wisdom and goodness 
 of God most manifest," or most fully manifested.! 
 
 None of the Platonizing Fathers before Origen have ac- 
 knowledged the inferiority of the Son in more explicit terms 
 than Clement. Photius, writing in the ninth century, besides 
 charging him, as already said, with making the Son a " crea- 
 ture " (^Cod. 109), says that he used other "impious words 
 fiall of blasphemy," in a work which has since perished. 
 Rufinus, too, accuses him of calling the " Son of God a 
 creature." % 
 
 We might quote numerous passages from Clement in which 
 
 * Stromata, lib. vii. c. 2, p. 833, ed. Potter. 
 
 t Stromata, lib. V. c. 1, p. 646. t Jerome, Apol. adv. Rufin., lib. ii 
 
CLEMENT ON THE INFERIORITY OF THE SON. 125 
 
 the inferiority of the Son is distinctly asserted. Thus, after 
 observing that " the most excellent thing on earth is a most 
 pious man, and the most excellent thing in heaven an angel," 
 he adds, " But the most perfect, and most holy, and most 
 commanding, and most regal, and by far the most beneficent 
 nature, is that of the Son, which is next to the only omnip- 
 otent Father." He " obeys the will of the good and omnipo- 
 tent Father '" ; "rules all things by the will of the Father"; 
 " he is constituted the cause of all good by the will of the 
 omnipotent Father."* — "If thou wilt be initiated," that is, 
 become a Christian, " thou shalt join in the dance around the 
 uncreated and imperishable and only true God, the Word" 
 (Logos, Son) of God hymning with us." f We are astonished 
 that any one can read Clement with ordinary attention, and 
 imagine for a single moment that he regarded the Son as nu- 
 merically identical — one — with the Fatlier. His dependent 
 and inferior nature, as it seems to us, is everywhere recog- 
 nized. Clement believed God and the Son to be numerically 
 distinct ; in other words, two beings, — the one supreme, the 
 other subordinate, the "first-created of God," first-born of 
 all created intelligences, and with them, as their elder brother, 
 hymning hallelujahs around the throne of the one Infinite 
 Father. 
 
 He calls the Son, or Logos, the " image of God," as man 
 is the "image of man " ; again, his "hand," or instrument. 
 He describes God as the " original and sole Author of eternal 
 life; which the Son," he says, "receiving of God, gives to 
 us." He makes the great requisite of eternal life to be, to 
 " know God, eternal, giver of eternal blessings, and first and 
 supreme and one and good ; and then the greatness of the 
 Saviour after him " ; J according to the declaration of Jesus, 
 ' This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only 
 true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.' " 
 
 Clement's views of the Logos had nothing marked or pecu- 
 liar in them by which he was distinguished from those who 
 went before ; if we except, possibly, the very slight differ- 
 f nee mentioned in the note below, — too insignificant almost 
 
 * Stromata, lib. vii. c. 2, pp. 831-833. t Cohort., c. 12, p. 92. 
 
 I Quis Dives salvetur, cc. 6-8, p. 939. 
 
126 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDBIA. 
 
 for notice. Those of the present day who talk of the eternal 
 generation of the Son cannot allege, as authority, the Church 
 or the Fathers of the first three centuries. They are all on 
 the other side ; * Origen, possibly, excepted. 
 
 The antiquity of the Son, or Logos, was a topic to which 
 Clement and the Fathers often adverted ; and it should be 
 observed that they had a particular motive for this. One 
 i^reat obstacle to the reception of Christianity, and one to the 
 consideration of which Clement allots no small space, was 
 custom, prescription. Christianity, it was urged, was new ; a 
 thing of yesterday ; an institution which had suddenly risen 
 up, and ventured boldly to attack the time-hallowed religions 
 and philosophy of the old world. To forsake these in its 
 favor, it was represented, would be great impiety. This 
 argument the early apologists for Christianity met, partly by 
 dwelling on the superior antiquity of Moses, from whom, as 
 they erroneously contended, Plato and the Grecian sages had 
 borrowed the most valuable of their philosophical opinions ; f 
 and partly by insisting that these sages derived gleams of 
 
 * Neandcr (History of Christian Dogmas, p. 144, Bohn) says, that "in Clem- 
 ent we first meet with the attempt to set aside the idea of time in its applica- 
 tion to the transition of the Logos into reality." Justin and others believed 
 that this transition took place when God was about to proceed to the work of 
 creation. But the idea of any specific time could be excluded, without the 
 supposition that the transition, called the generation of the Son, took place 
 from eternity. This neither Clement, nor the Fathers generally, believed. 
 They could say, that he was begotten without reference to time, or before 
 time, or the measure of time ; but this was very different from referring the 
 event to eternity, which they never thought of doing. This distinction Ne- 
 ander himself recognizes. Arius, who believed that the Son was created out 
 of nothing, discarded the idea of time as connected with the event. Some of 
 the Fathers taught that the Son was begotten when the world lay in chaos. 
 How they would have expressed themselves had they been acquainted with 
 the modern science of geology, it is impossible to say. 
 
 t This is often distinctly asserted. Thus Clement, after quoting a senti- 
 ment from Plato, proceeds : " Whence, O Plato ! did you learn this truth ? 
 Whence that exhaustless affluence of words with wliich you inculcate the 
 reverence due to the Divinity ? I know your masters, though you would 
 conceal them. You learned geometry of the Egyptians ; astronomy, of the 
 Babylonians ; from the Thracians you received the healing song ; Assyrians 
 taught you maiij'^ things : but laws (as many as are agreeable to truth), and 
 the opinions you entertain concerning God, you owe to the Hebrews " { Cohort., 
 c. 6, p. 60). These plagiarisms of the Greek philosophers are a favorite topic 
 with Clement in the " Stromata." 
 
ANTIQUITY OF CHRISTIANITY. 127 
 
 truth immediately from the same divine Logos, or reason, 
 which had inspired the Jewish prophets, and which had now 
 given to the world the clearer light of Christianity. This 
 Logos, they asserted, was of old, " in the beginning," before 
 time was, with the Father ; that Christianity, therefore, far 
 from being, as was represented, the growth of yesterday, 
 dated far back in the ages, before the birth of the oldest of 
 the sages, or the existence even of the world they inhabited. 
 The wise men of Greece, they said, partook from the same 
 fountain, but only " shallow draughts." The Word, Clement 
 denominates, figuratively, the Sun of the Soul. " From this 
 divine fountain of light," says he, " some rays had flowed 
 even to the Greeks, who had thereby been able to discover 
 faint traces of the truth. But," he adds, " the Word liimself 
 has now appeared in the form of man to be our teacher." * 
 
 Clement attributes a sort of inspiration to Plato and the 
 philosophers. In so doing, he is not singular. Most of the 
 early Fathers of the church do the same. Indeed, the at- 
 tempt to say or do anything without the inspiration of the 
 Logos, or Word of truth, they maintained, was as idle as to 
 think of Avalking without feet : a figure which Clement uses. 
 The motive in all these representations, as we have said, was 
 to prove the superior claims of Christianity, and especially 
 its chiim to antiquity, in refutation of the argument of the 
 philosophers, overwhelming, as it appeared, to the adherents 
 of Paganism, that it was the mushroom growth of a day, as 
 novel as it was arrogant and exclusive. 
 
 For this purpose, as we have stated, a twofold argument was 
 employed : first, that the few scattered rays of truth, which 
 might be gathered from the writings of the Grecian sages, 
 were derived from the same fountain as Christianity, in which 
 the full light beamed ; and, secondly, that the Logos, or divine 
 reason, from which this light emanated, was more ancient 
 than the worlds, being, in the beginning, with God. How, 
 then, could Chi-istianity be described as recent, while the 
 religions and philosophy it was designed to supplant numbered 
 centuries ? If there was a little subtilty in this reasoning, it 
 was at least suited to the genius of the age, and especially to 
 * CohoH. ad Gent., c. 7, p. 64. 
 
128 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, 
 
 the speculative Grecian mind. Such were the weapons Clem- 
 ent wielded ; such the defences of Christianity growing out of 
 the demands of the times. 
 
 Clement regarded the art of sculpture among the Greeks 
 as exerting a debasing influence ; for it " dragged down piety 
 to the ground." Men adored, he says, according to his appre- 
 hension, the material image, and not the Divinity it repre- 
 sented. The following passage will put our readers in posses- 
 sion of his views on the subject : — 
 
 " The makers of gods worship not, as far as I can understand, gods 
 and demons, but earth and art, of which the images are composed ; 
 for the image is, in truth, dead matter, formed by the hand of the 
 artificer. But our God, the only true God, is not an object of sense, 
 made out of matter ; he is comprehended by the understanding. 
 Alas for your impiety ! You bury, as much as lies in your power, 
 the pure essence ; and hide in tombs that which is uncontaminated 
 and holy, robbing that which is divine of its true essence. Why do 
 you thus give the honor due to God to those who are no gods ? 
 Why, leaving heaven, do you honor earth ? For what are gold and 
 silver and adamant and iron and brass and ivory and precious stones, 
 but earth, and from the earth ? Are not all these objects which you 
 behold the offspring of our mother, the earth? Why, vain and fool- 
 ish men, blaspheming the celestial abode, do you drag down piety to 
 the ground, forming to yourselves earthly gods, and, following these 
 created things in preference to the uncreated God, immerse your- 
 selves in thickest darkness? The Parian stone is beautiful, but is 
 not Neptune ; the ivory is beautiful, but is not Olympian Jove. 
 Matter always stands in need of art ; but God needs nothing. Art 
 comes forth, and matter puts on a form ; the costliness of the sub- 
 stance makes it convertible to the purposes of gain ; but the form 
 alone renders it an object of veneration. Your statue is gold or 
 wood or stone or earth ; if you consider its origin, it received its 
 form from the workman. I have learned to tread upon the earth, 
 not to adore it ; nor is it lawful for me to trust the hopes of my soul 
 to things wuhout a soul." 
 
 Again : " But, though the artisan can make an idol, he has never 
 made a breathing image or formed soft flesh out of earth. Who 
 liquefied the marrow ? who hardened the bones ? who extended the 
 nerves? who inflated the veins? who infused blood into them? who 
 stretched the skin around them ? who made the eye to see ? who 
 breathed a soul into the body? who freely gave righteousness ? who 
 
CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. 129 
 
 has promised immortality ? The Creator of all things, alone, the 
 Supreme Artisan, made man a living image; but your Olympian 
 Jove, the image of an image, far diiFering from the truth, is the dumb 
 work of Attic hands." * 
 
 Christianity, as Clement taught, left men at liberty to pur- 
 sue their ordinary occupations ; and he expressly mentions 
 military service along M^ith navigation and agriculture. His 
 words are, " Give attention to agriculture, if you are a hus- 
 bandman ; but, while you cultivate the earth, acknowledge 
 God. Are you engaged in a maritime occupation ? navigate 
 the waters, but invoke the celestial Governor. Does Chris- 
 tianity find you bearing arms? obey the just commands of 
 your general." f 
 
 We might glean more from the address ; but we do not 
 know that there are any opinions expressed in it, in addition 
 to those already given, which possess sufficient interest to 
 authorize a recital. We will only say, in taking leave of it, 
 that Clement interprets the Mosaic account of the fall alle- 
 gorically, supposing that by the serpent is to be understood 
 pleasure. He did not believe that man comes into the world 
 " absolutely depraved " ; no one, he thinks, " commits iniquity 
 for its own sake " ; and the imputation of original sin to chil- 
 dren he rejects in the most decided terms. According to him, 
 " man now stands in the same relation to the Tempter, in v^hich 
 Adam stood before the fall.":^ 
 
 * Kaye's Clement, pp. 15, 24. t Cohort., c. 10, p. 80 
 
 I See Hagenbach, Text-Book, etc., First Period, § 63. 
 
130 CLEMENT OP ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Clement's P^edagogue. — His Pkecepts of Living. — Social Life 
 
 AMONG THE EGYPTIANS IN HIS DaT. FoOD. — UsE OF WiNE. CON- 
 VIVIAL Entertainments. — Music. — Garlands. — The Ladies of 
 Alexandria. — The "Fine Gentlemen." — Clement as a Keformek. 
 
 The " Hortatory Address " is followed by the " Pseda- 
 gogue," in three books. The object of the " Hortatory Ad- 
 dress " was to prove the truth of Christianity, and make 
 converts from Heathenism. But, being converted, men would 
 need to be further taught their duty, and the due regulation 
 of their conduct according to the moral standard of Christian- 
 ity ; and the design of the " Paedagogue" is to meet this want. 
 Du Pin calls it a " discourse entirely of morality " ; but it is 
 not a systematic treatise, nor was intended to be such. Bar- 
 beyrac finds much fault with it. He says that " it explains 
 nothing as it should do ; that there is no one duty which it 
 puts on the right foundation ; that the obligations growing out 
 of the social relations are in no one instance traced to their 
 true principles, or so explained as to admit of general applica- 
 tion." * All this, and much more, no doubt, may be said with 
 truth ; but, in thus stating the defects of the work, it should 
 occur to us that we are censurino; Clement for what he never 
 attempted, that is, to give to the world a system of Christian 
 ethics. His task was a more humble one, though not, per- 
 haps, less useful. It was to furnish Christians of his time with 
 practical rules for the direction of their conduct in ordinary 
 every-day life. In doing this, he is exceedingly minute, and 
 often goes into details which are somewhat offensive to deli- 
 cacy ; and many of his precepts and distinctions are ill-founded 
 or puerile. But many of them are just and discriminating, 
 and must have been found in the highest degree useful to 
 Christians, situated as believers then were, — living in the 
 * De la Morale des Peres. 
 
Clement's pedagogue. 131 
 
 midst of Pagans, and often uncertain, as they must have been, 
 how far compliance with existing customs was justifiable, and 
 where precisely the line of distinction was to be drawn be- 
 tween the manners of the Heathen, and the conduct which 
 should distinguish themselves as disciples of Jesus. Nor are 
 they wholly without interest to us. Taken together, the pre- 
 cepts and directions which Clement has left in the work 
 referred to show in what he (and we suppose he may be taken 
 as a fair specimen of enlightened Christians of his age) sup- 
 posed Christian morality to consist ; what was its extent, and 
 its bearing on common life, — a subject on which minds accus- 
 tomed to liberal inquiries may be supposed to feel some curios- 
 ity. Further : the work throws no little light on Pagan cus- 
 toms, and modes of living, particularly on domestic and social 
 life at Alexandria, at the time Clement wrote, that is, at the 
 commencement of the third century. In either point of view, 
 the performance is not devoid of value ; and such is the pure 
 religious tone in which, as a whole, it is written, and the noble 
 and elevated spirit which breathes through many parts of it, 
 that no one, even at the present day, can read it without ben- 
 efit to himself, except by a fault of his own. 
 
 By the " paedagogue," Clement understands Christ, or the 
 Word. The office of Christ designated by this term, it seems, 
 is not so much to teach doctrines as to give precepts of holy 
 living ; not to unfold those mystical interpretations of Scrip- 
 ture, the knowledge of which is essential to the perfect Chris- 
 tian, or true Gnostic, as Clement calls him, but by regulating 
 the heart and life of the convert, to fit him for the reception 
 of the highest knowledge. This knowledge it is the object of 
 the " Stromata," the third of the larger works of Clement 
 which have come down to us, to impart. Thus the Word, or 
 Christ, has three offices : the first is hortatory ; he then acts 
 the part of the pedagogue ; and, lastly, that of a teacher. 
 The pupils of the paedagogue are Christians generally, the 
 Jews having been his former pupils, whom he addressed 
 through Moses and the prophets. These matters are suffi- 
 ciently explained in the first book of the " Pasdagogue " ; and 
 Clement enters into an argument to show that the justice of 
 God is not incompatible with his goodness ; that the air of 
 
132 CLEMENT OP ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 severity which the Jewish dispensation appears sometimes to 
 wear, and the threatenings and chastisements so frequently 
 occurring under it, do not prove, as some heretics contended, 
 that the God of the Jews was not also the God of the Chris- 
 tians ; for tliey are parts of a salutary discipline. Punishment, 
 as Plato taught, is remedial, and souls are benefited by it by 
 being amended. Far from being incompatible with God's 
 goodness, then, it is a striking proof of it. For " punishment 
 is for the good and benefit of him who is punished ; it is the 
 bringing back to rectitude that which has swerved from it." 
 So Clement argues, " But," says he, " I do not admit that 
 God wishes to avenge himself; for vengeance is the retribu- 
 tion of evil for the benefit of the avenger ; and he who teaches 
 us to pray for those who insult us cannot desire to avenge him- 
 self." The discipline God administers through his Son, or 
 Christ, is various, but all designed for the salvation of men. 
 Thus the paedagogue adopts at dliferent times different meas- 
 ures, some more mild and others more severe, but all for the 
 accomplishment of the same benevolent end. " Those who 
 are sick," says Clement, " need a Saviour ; they who have 
 wandered, a guide ; they who ai'e blind, one who shall lead 
 them to the light ; they who thirst, the living fountain, of 
 which he who partakes shall thirst no more ; the dead need 
 life ; the sheep, a shepherd ; children, a psedagogue ; all man- 
 kind need Jesus." 
 
 We now turn to the habits of private and social life of the 
 Alexandrians, a little after the year 200 of our era, as far as 
 they may be collected from what we may call Clement's pre- 
 cepts of living. In the second and third books of the " Peda- 
 gogue " he goes into some very curious details, from which a 
 writer who should undertake to portray the social life, and 
 especially the luxurious habits, of the Alexandrians at the end 
 of the second century, would derive essential aid. The fidel- 
 ity of his representations there is no reason for doubting ; and 
 from the prohibitory precepts he delivers, even when he does 
 not attempt a formal description, much may be inferred as to 
 the manners of the age ; for there is a tacit reference to the 
 existing state of things, and to the dangers to which Christians 
 were on all sides exposed in that gay city. Clement is ad- 
 
FOOD AND ITS USES. 133 
 
 dressing Christians ; but it is not a necessary inference that 
 they participated in all the faults and excesses he condemns. 
 If so, they had been little benefited by their conversion. 
 That so many cautionary precepts were deemed necessary, 
 however, if they were not designed especially for the use of 
 recent converts, may suggest the suspicion, that the prevalent 
 conceptions of the requisitions of Christianity, regarded as a 
 rule of life, were somewhat low and imperfect. 
 
 Clement first treats of food and its uses. We should " eat 
 to live," he says, and not "live to eat," — having regard to 
 health and strength, which are best promoted by simplicity 
 of diet. Food is not our business, nor pleasure the end ; and 
 he draws a picture of tiie gourmand of his day, and gives a 
 catalogue of the delicacies most prized by him. The word 
 agapce^ in some sort sacred, was, it seems, in his time applied 
 to luxurious entertainments, and was made to sanction intem- 
 perance : of this he complains as an abuse of which, as it 
 would appear. Christians w^ere guilty. His description of an 
 i^picure, with his " eyes turned downward to the earth, always 
 bending over tables which are furnished from the earth "; and 
 his account of the conduct of many at feasts, of the " eager- 
 ness with which they scrutinized the various dishes, and the 
 ridiculous gestures by which it was expressed " ; of the im- 
 peded utterance, and other indecencies witnessed, — contain 
 some graphic touches. Many of the habits he condemns cer- 
 tainly exhibit great coarseness of manners ; and, if we may 
 credit his representations, an Egyptian entertainment, at the 
 period alluded to, presented a scene one would not wish often 
 to witness. Clement, however, has no narrow and bigoted 
 notions : for he allows Christians, when invited, to attend the 
 feasts of the Heathen, and to partake of a variety of food ; 
 observing, in the mean time, the laws of temperance and 
 propriety. 
 
 From eating, Clement proceeds to drinking. The " wine 
 question," as it is called, is not new : it seems, it was agitated 
 in Clement's day ; and, as he is an authority which has been 
 appealed to in recent discussions, some of our readers may 
 feel a little curiosity to know his views on the subject more 
 fully. We give the following summary and quotations from 
 
134 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDEIA. 
 
 Bishop Kaye's " Clement " ; after which we will add a pas- 
 sage wliich the bishop has omitted, having an express bearing 
 on the controversy as it existed in Clement's time. We are 
 not, let it be observed, arguing for or against the use of wine : 
 we do not enter into any argument on the question ; we are 
 simply, and because it comes in our way, giving Clement's 
 views as a matter of history. 
 
 " ' Water is the natural drink of man : this the Lord gave to the 
 Israelites while they were wandering in the wilderness ; though, 
 when they came into their rest, tlte sacred vine brought forth the 
 prophetic grape. Boys and girls ought to be confined strictly to 
 water: wine heats the blood and inflames the passions.' Clement 
 allows only bread, without any liquid, for breakfast or luncheon, to 
 those who are in the flower of their age. At supper, he allows wine 
 in small quantities.* 'They who are advanced in life may drink 
 more freely, in order to warm their chilled blood : they must not, 
 however, drink so much as will cloud their reason or affect their 
 memory, or cause them to walk unsteadily.' These permissions and 
 restrictions, Clement grounds on medical reasons. He quotes an 
 author named Artorius, who wrote on> longevity, and said that men 
 ought only to drink enough to moisten their food. * Wine may be 
 used on two accounts, — for health and relaxation. Wine, drunk in 
 moderation, softens the temper. As life consists of that which is 
 necessary and that which is useful, wine, which is useful, should be 
 mixed with water, which is necessary.' f After describing the effects 
 of drunkenness, Clement proceeds to refute the opinion of those who 
 contended that no serious subjects should be discussed over wine. 
 He argues, that perfect wisdom, being the knowledge of things human 
 and divine, comprehending everything in its superintendence of the 
 human race, becomes, as it were, the art of life ; and is always pres- 
 ent through the whole of life, producing its proper effect — a good 
 life. If, then, wisdom is driven away from our entertainments, 
 drunkenness follows, with all its train of evils ; of which Clement 
 draws a picture, at once, to use his own expressions, ridiculous, and 
 exciting i)ity. He compares the body of him who drinks to excess 
 
 * Clement's expression is, " In the evening, at the time of supper, wine is 
 to be used, wlien we have laid aside our more serious studies." One reason 
 he assigns is tlie chilUness of the air, and the failing warmth within, which 
 requires to be restored. — Peed., Hb. ii. c. 2, p. 179. 
 
 t "Botli," says Clement, "are the works of God; and for that reason, the 
 mixture of both water and wine is conducive to health." — Peed., Ub. ii. c. 2, 
 p. 180. 
 
THE USE OF WINE. 135 
 
 to a ship absorbed into the abyss of intemperance ; while the helms- 
 man, the understanding, is tossed about in the billows, and, dizzy 
 amidst the darkness of the storm, misses the harbor of truth, steers 
 towards that of pleasure, and, striking on sunken rocks, makes miser- 
 able shipwreck. ' Wine may be used in the winter to keep out the 
 cold ; at other seasons, to comfort the bowels. As we ought to drink 
 only because we are thirsty, we ought not to be curious about wines. 
 In drinking, as in eating, we must be careful not to show any inde- 
 cent eagerness : we must not drink with so much haste as to hiccough, 
 or spill the wine over our beard or dress.' Clement observes, that 
 the most warlike nations were those mo-t given to drinking. Chris- 
 tians, therefore, a peaci^ful race, should drink in moderation, as Christ 
 drank when he was made man for us. In conclusion, Clement 
 cautions females to be guarded in their manner of drinking, and not 
 to fall into any indecency. In this chapter, Clement has borrowed 
 much from Plato." — pp. 72-74. 
 
 Clement enumerates the foreign whines most in repute in his 
 time, but thinks that native wines ought to satisfy a temperate 
 man, and is very decided in his condemnation of all luxurious 
 tastes and indulgences. The following passage, already al- 
 luded to, stands in connection with those quoted by Bishop 
 Kaye : " How do you think the Lord drank, Avhen for our 
 sakes he became man ? Immoderately as we ? not with de- 
 corum ? not temperately? not considerately ? For be assured," 
 he adds in opposition to the Encratites, who held wine in 
 abhorrence, and even substituted water instead of it in the 
 celebration of the Supper, — " be assured that he also partook 
 of wine ; for he also was man. And he blessed the wine, 
 saying, ' Take, drink : this is my blood,' — the blood of the 
 vine. And that those who drink should observe sobriety, he 
 clearly showed ; since he taught at feasts, which is the office 
 of a sober man. And that it was wine which he blessed, is 
 again evident from his saying to his disciples, ' I will not drink 
 of the fruit of this vine until I drink it with you in the king- 
 dom of my Father.' Moreover, that it was Avine which our 
 Lord drank, again appears from his observation respecting 
 himself, when, upbraiding the Jews for their hardness of 
 heart, he says, ' The Son of man came, and they say, Behold 
 a gluttonous man and a winebibber, — a friend of publi- 
 
136 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 sans!'"* This Clement thinks sufficient to refute the En- 
 cratites. 
 
 The third chapter of the " Paedagogue " is devoted to the 
 consideration of drinking-cups, furniture, and articles of ex- 
 pensive luxury connected with the table. " In his food, his 
 dress, his furniture," says Clement, "a Christian ought to 
 preserve a decent consistency, according to his person, age, 
 pursuits, and the particular occasion." " Wealth ill-directed," 
 he says, is a " citadel of wickedness." The best wealth is 
 poverty of desires ; and true greatness consists, not on priding 
 ourselves on wealth, but in despising it." 
 
 Clement treats, in the next chapter, on the proper conduct 
 at convivial entertainments. The pipe and the flute he would 
 have banished from these entertainments, as accompaniments 
 of unholy revelry ; yet he does not condemn music altogether, 
 but allows the singing of praises to God to the lyre and the 
 harp. 
 
 We then have a chapter on " laughter." Buffoons and 
 imitators Clement would banish from Christian society, and 
 whatever would indicate in ourselves a light and frivolous 
 mind. " We may be facetious," says Clement, " but must not 
 lay ourselves out to excite laughter." What is natural we 
 must not attempt to eradicate, but only to restrain. " Man," 
 says he, " is a laughing animal ; but he must not always be 
 laughing. Like rational animals, we must rightly temper our 
 cares and anxieties by relaxing ourselves according to rule, 
 and not by disregarding all rule." Clement describes the 
 different species of laughter, distinguishes them by their 
 names, and shows how and when it may be proper to indulge 
 it. Thus, "we should not laugh in the presence of those 
 older than ourselves, or whom we ought to reverence, unless 
 they say something facetious to make us gay. We must not 
 laugh with every one we meet, or in all places, or with all 
 men, or at everything." Yet we must not, he says, wear a 
 severe and morose countenance. He set a value on cheerful- 
 ness. 
 
 Clement proceeds in the remaining chapters to treat of 
 ^' immodest speech " ; of the rules to be observed by those 
 * Peed., lib. ii. c. 2, p. 186. 
 
GARLANDS, SLEEP, DRESS. 137 
 
 who would conduct themselves generally with propriety ; in 
 doing which, he descends to the minutest particulars : and of 
 o-arlands and ointments, the use of which he thinks unneces- 
 sary, and to be discouraged, as favoring luxury. He describes 
 the several varieties of ointment most in esteem, and says 
 that the makers of them, as well as " the dyers of wool," 
 were banished from all well-regulated states. " Silly women," 
 he says, " anoint their hair ; of which the only effect is to 
 render them gray at an earlier period than they would other- 
 wise be." Flowers placed on the head, in garlands, he con- 
 siders as perverted from their natural use, " The ancient 
 Greeks wore no garlands ; neither the suitors of Penelope, 
 nor the luxuriovis Phaeacians, wore them : the}^ were intro- 
 duced after the Persian War, and first worn by the victors at 
 the games." Again : many of them were consecrated to 
 Heathen divinities ; and should not, therefore, says Clement, 
 be woi'n by Christians ; as the '* rose to the Muses ; the lily 
 to Juno ; the myrtle to Diana." — " It was the custom also," 
 he observes, " to crown the statues of the gods ; but the liv- 
 ing image of God ought not to be adorned like a dead idol. 
 A crown of amaranth is reserved for him who leads a holy 
 life ; a flower which the earth is not capable of bearing, and 
 heaven alone produces." This conception is preserved by 
 Milton : — 
 
 " With solemn adoration, down they cast 
 Their crowns inwove with amaranth and gold, — 
 Immortal amaranth ! a flower which once 
 In Paradise, fast by the tree of life, 
 Began to bloom ; but soon for man's ofifence 
 To heaven removed, where first it grew, there grows." 
 
 Paradise Lost, b. iii. 
 
 In another chapter, Clement delivers rules concerning sleep. 
 The soul, he says, is active during the sleep of the body ; and 
 dreams afford the wisest counsels. Again : in a chapter pur- 
 porting to be on the married life, he takes occasion to speak 
 of the proprieties of dress, and particularly female dress ; and 
 enters minutely into a description of a lady's toilet. He con- 
 demns all extravagance, and a disposition to seek " the rare 
 and expensive in preference to that which is at hand and of 
 low price." He will not allow ladies to wear " dyed gai> 
 
138 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 ments " ; bvit he insists on the use of veils, which must not be 
 purple to attract the gaze of men. A chapter follows on cov- 
 ering for the feet, as sandals and slippers, on which it was 
 customary to bestow great expense ; and another, on orna- 
 ments of gold and precious stones. On this subject, it seems, 
 the ladies of Alexandria did not unresistingly submit. They 
 ventured to argue the case with the holy Father. " Why," 
 say they, " should we not use what God has given ? Why 
 should we not take pleasure in that we have ? For whom 
 were precious stones intended, if not for us ? " This was 
 bringing the argument home : but Clement found means to 
 reply, by pointing out the distinction between what is neces- 
 sary, as water and air, and lies open to all ; and what is not 
 necessary, as gold and pearls, which lie concealed beneath the 
 earth and water, and are brought up by criminals, who are 
 "set to dig for them." Other arguments he employs. But 
 the advocates for the use of ornaments rejoin, " If all are to 
 select the common and frugal, who is to possess the more ex- 
 pensive and magnificent ? " To this Clement replies, some- 
 what obscurely and clumsily, by a reference to what it may be 
 proper for men to use, if they avoid setting too high a value 
 on it, and contracting too great a fondness for it. He con- 
 cludes the discussion by objecting to particular articles of 
 female ornament, or ornaments of a particular form ; that of 
 the serpent, for example, which was the form under which 
 Satan tempted Eve, and therefore to be abjured. 
 
 The third book of the " Psedagogue " is in a similar strain. 
 The first question Clement proceeds to discuss is, in what 
 true beauty consists. He speaks of the folly of anxiety to 
 adorn the outward man, while the inward man is neglected ; 
 he dwells on the mischievous consequence of a love of dress, 
 and inveighs against a multitude of female fashions. The use 
 of mirrors especially moves his indignation. The reason he 
 assigns against the use of them is curious enough. Every 
 woman who looks in the glass makes her " own likeness by 
 reflection " ; and Moses has forbidden " to make any likeness 
 in opposition, as it were, to the workmanship of God." * 
 
 * False hair was on no account to be worn by a woman ; and one reason 
 was, tliat the priest, in blessing her, would lay his hand, not on her head, but 
 TO the hair of another, and, through it, on another head. 
 
MORALS AND MANNERS. 139 
 
 Tlie " fine orentlemen " of the day are next " served up." 
 Among other things which Clement could not abide were the 
 attempts made to conceal the effects of age. " They think," 
 says he, " that, like snakes, they can cast off old age from 
 their heads, and make themselves young." For this purpose, 
 they were accustomed, it seems, to dye the hair ; which Clem- 
 ent thought was absolutely intolerable, because it was in direct 
 contradiction of the Saviour, who said that man could not 
 make one hair of his head white or black ! Clement, too, had 
 the true Oriental veneration for a beard. He condemns shav- 
 ing altogether. " The beard," he says, " is older than Eve, 
 and the sign of a superior nature." The number of servants 
 maintained by the rich, and the sums expended on dogs, mon- 
 keys, and birds, is a subject of very grave remonstrance. 
 The picture he draws of the morals of the day, and particu- 
 larly of female morals, is really appalling. Bathing establish- 
 ments, as conducted at the time, come in for a share of his 
 censure ; justly, no doubt. The use of wealth is treated of; 
 and much is said in favor of modesty, fi'ugality, temperance, 
 and simplicity in habits and dress. Women are allowed more 
 liberty in the last particular, as they are compelled to study 
 dress to please their husbands ; but they should endeavor, says 
 Clement, to bring their husbands to a better mind. By show- 
 ing too much attention to ornament, they cast a reflection on 
 their Creator, as if he had not sufficiently adorned them. 
 Men are allowed to wear rings only on their little finger. The 
 emblems on our rings should be a dove, or a fish, or a ship 
 sailing before the wind, or a lyre, or an anchor ; not the figure 
 of an idol, which a Christian is forbidden to reverence ; or a 
 sword or a bow, ill suited to a follower of peace ; or a cup, ill 
 suited to the temperate ; still less a naked figure. Clement 
 notices with disapprobation the lounging habits of some in his 
 time. " Men," he says, " ought not to waste their time in 
 shops, in order to look at the females as they pass ; " which, it 
 seems, was the custom of idlers in his day. 
 
 We cannot dwell longer on this work of Clement ; nor can 
 we stop to describe the feelings with which one rises from its 
 perusal. They are certainly feelings of reverence for Chris- 
 tianity, which is here presented, contending as an antagonist 
 
140 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 principle with deep-seated depravity and sin. In attempting 
 to reform the Alexandrians, Clement had undertaken a Hercu- 
 lean labor ; and, notwithstanding the puerility and absurdity 
 of many of his precepts and distinctions, there was a dignity, 
 a consciousness of strength and moral purity, in his bearing, a 
 loftiness of aim and earnestness of performance, which must 
 command the respect and admiration of every honest mind, 
 and pleads eloquently for the Christian cause. As writers, 
 the Fathers have been greatly overrated ; the value of their 
 opinions has been exaggerated : but as champions of Christi- 
 anity, contending manfully and unhesitatingly with the power 
 of the whole Pagan world, the power of the sword, the power 
 of superstition, wit, and ridicule against them ; the cham- 
 pions of a pure and inflexible morality in ages of extreme 
 degeneracy and corruption ; the defenders of a faith which 
 recognized the principle of human brotherhood as the germ of 
 all social duty, and inculcated a spirit of self-sacrifice and 
 benevolence as constituting the only sure test of discipleship ; 
 a faith, under the banner of which they cheerfully met death, 
 and often a death by violence, and left traces of their toil and 
 blood on every soil, — no tribute of veneration we can render 
 them can exceed their merits. To their spirit of noble cour- 
 age it is to be attributed, under Providence, that Christianity 
 was not crushed in its infancy ; through them its blessings 
 have been bequeathed to us ; their labors purchased our peace, 
 their sufferings our consolation, their martyrdom our hope ; 
 and, to turn on theni a look of contempt on account of some 
 superstitious weaknesses which belonged to the age, or were 
 the result of their Pagan education, and which, on emerging 
 from the night of Heathen darkness, they had not the strength 
 at once to throw off", argues, we think, — if the effect is not 
 to be ascribed to want of reflection, — a degree either of illib- 
 erality of mind or of heartlessness, which constitutes no envi- 
 able distinction. 
 
HIS STEOMATA. 141 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Clement's Stromata : its Character. — Mysteries and Allegories. 
 Clement's Idea of the True Gnostic, or Perfect Christian. — 
 Knowledge. — Motives. — Grand Conceptions of God. — Prayer. 
 The whole Life a Festival. — Spirituality. 
 
 The last considerable work of Clement which lias escaped 
 the devouring tooth of Time, and the largest of the three, is 
 the " Stromata." Even this has not wholly escaped ; for a 
 fragment is wanting at the beginning, and the last book is 
 maimed or imperfect. The work is wholly unlike either of 
 the two preceding. It is, in fact, a book of miscellanies. 
 " Peace be with the soul of that charitable and courteous 
 author, who, for the common benefit of his fellow-authors, 
 introduced the ingenious way of miscellaneous writing ! " 
 The words are Shaftesbury's. We believe, however, that 
 Clement is not entitled to the honor of inventing the " mis- 
 cellany." Plutarch, it seems, Avrote a work, with the title of 
 " Stromata," before him. Origen, after him, wrote one, which 
 Jerome quotes by the same title. The " Stromata " of Clem- 
 ent is intended to be a sort of repository of choice things. It 
 contains a collection of thoughts on a great variety of subjects, 
 put down with little or no regard to connection or method. 
 Du Pin compares it to a " Turkey-work carpet " ; and Clem- 
 ent himself, to a " garden, meadow, or wood, containing all 
 sorts of herbs, fi"uit, flowers, from which each one may cull 
 what he likes. It resembles," he says in another place, " not 
 a garden laid out with symmetry to please the eye, but rather 
 a thick and shady mountain, in which a multitude of trees (as 
 the cypress, the linden, the laurel, the apple, olive and fig, 
 and others) stand in one blended mass. The confusion which 
 reigns through it," he says, " is designed, as he writes partly 
 for the initiated and partly for the vulgar : for all sorts of 
 knowledge are not suited to all, and the skilful will be able to 
 select from the work what is valuable, and reject the worth- 
 
142 CLEMENT OP ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 less ; while tlie unskilful will not be injured by that of the use 
 of which he is ignorant: just as, in the mountain forest alluded 
 to, the laborer or adept will know where to find the trees 
 loaded with fruit, which will remain concealed from those who 
 would rifle them." 
 
 The work is divided hito eight books. We are not about 
 to tax the patience of ourselves or of our readers by attempt- 
 ing to give a minute account of its contents. The following 
 subjects among othei's are introduced in the first book : The 
 benefits writers confer on their readers ; Clement's apology 
 for making so free a use of the writings of philosophers ; 
 against sophists, and pretenders to useless science ; human 
 arts, not less than a knowledge of divine things, derived 
 from God ; philosophy, the handmaid of theology ; virtue 
 depends on culture, and is aided by learning ; philosophy con- 
 ducts to Christ and to virtue, — philosophy not of a particular 
 sect, but eclecticism ; the sophistical and other arts, con- 
 versant with words only, useless ; human science necessary 
 to the right understanding of the Scriptures ; * we should be 
 more solicitous to do than to speak Avell ; the wisdom of this 
 world, and the ]:)hilosopliy which the Apostle commands us 
 to shun ; the mysteries of faith are not to be promulgated to 
 every one, since all are not fit auditors of the truth ; of the 
 various sects of philosophers, no one possesses the whole truth, 
 but each a portion of it ; succession of philosophers among 
 the Greeks ; Grecian philosophy derived mostly from the 
 Barbarians ; other arts traced to the same source : in what 
 sense the Greek philosophers, coming before Christ, may be 
 called "' thieves and robbers " ; how philosophy aids the com- 
 prehension of divine truth ; the laws and institutions of Moses 
 more ancient than the Greek philosophy and the sources of 
 it ; the Greeks derived not only philosophy, but the military 
 art also, from Moses ; the Greeks were children in respect to 
 the Hebrews and their institutions. 
 
 The second book treats of various questions relating to faith, 
 
 * " It is true," Clement says, " the Apostles were unlearned ; but they were 
 guided by the Spirit. We can only arrive at the right understanding of the 
 lacred volume by study and the usual modes of instruction." (See Kaye's 
 Clement, p. 119.) 
 
MYSTERIES AND ALLEGORIES. 143 
 
 its nature and end ; of the use made of fear under the Mosaic 
 dispensation, to which, it seems, Basilides and Valentinus ob- 
 jected ; of repentance of two kinds ; of hope and fear ; of the 
 manner in which those passages of Scripture are to be under- 
 stood which ascribe human affections to God ; of the laws of 
 Moses, as the source whence the Greeks derived their whole 
 knowledge of ethics ; of other things pilfered by the Greeks 
 from the sacred writers ; of marriage. This is defended in 
 the third book against various heretics, who, for different 
 reasons, condemned it. 
 
 The fourth book contains the praises of martyrdom, with 
 various observations on Christian perfection, or true Gnosti- 
 cism ; of which, however, the voluntary offering one's self a 
 candidate for martyrdom constituted no part. 
 
 The prevailing topic of the fifth book is mysteries and 
 allegories, in which religious truths have been wrapped up 
 among almost all nations, being divulged only to the initiated. 
 " Thus it was," Clement says, " among the Hebrews, the 
 Egyptians, and the Greeks." Obscurity was sometimes af- 
 fected to stimulate cu.riosity, and excite to diligence. The 
 apothegms of the wise men of Greece exhibit truth under a 
 kind of veil, being delivered in a symbolical or enigmatical 
 dress : as, for example, that communicated by Pythagoras to 
 his disciples, "not to sail on dry land ;" which, according to 
 Clement, contained a caution not to engage in public life. 
 Clement, too, instances the Egyptian hieroglyphics, in the 
 celebrated passage to which the attention of the public, has 
 been directed by recent labors of the learned, and particularly 
 by the discoveries of Cliampollion.* The " Ephesian Letters'" 
 were another example. This symbolical mode of instruction 
 Clement regarded as favorable to " sound theology, to piety, 
 to the manifestation of intelligence and wisdom, and to the 
 cultivation of brevity." Tnitli, he thinks, appears " more 
 grand and awful " by having the veil of mystery thrown 
 around it. " Symbols also, being susceptible of various inter- 
 pretations, exercise the ingenuity, and distinguish the ignorant 
 man from the Gnostic." Then, as before said, he thinks that 
 all doctrines ought not to be revealed to all, as all are not 
 
 * Stromata, lib. v. c. 4, p. 657. 
 
144 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 capable of receiving them. There must be milk for babes, 
 and solid food for grown men. Milk is catechetical instruction, 
 the first nourishment of the soul : soHd food is contemplation, 
 penetrating all mysteries. Christ himself imparted secret 
 doctrines to the few; and "the arcana," or mysteries, says 
 Clement, " are committed to speech, and not to writing." * 
 Towards the close of the fifth book, Clement returns with 
 vigor to his old charge against the Greek philosophers, of 
 having stolen all that was valuable of what they taught from 
 the Hebrew Scriptures ; though they had not always the sense 
 to understand what they stole, and often disfigured it by their 
 absurd commentaries and speculations. 
 
 There is one subject treated of somewhat at large in the 
 " Stromata," and to which the sixth and seventh books espe- 
 cially are devoted, which, as connected with the history of opin- 
 ions, is not destitute of interest, and which seems deserving 
 of a more particular notice. We are so accustomed to think 
 and speak of the Gnostics as a heretical sect or sects, that it 
 hardly occurs to us that the term was ever used by the Fathers 
 in a good sense. Yet so it was. There was the true or 
 Christian Gnostic, and the philosophical or heretical Gnostic. 
 Clement attempts to draw a portrait of the former ; in doing 
 which, he gives what, in his view, constituted the beautiful 
 ideal, or finished conception of the perfect Christian, corre- 
 sponding to the wise man of the Stoics, from which some 
 features of the portrait are evidently borrowed. 
 
 We know not whether we shall succeed in so bringing 
 together Clement's materials as to present to our readers a 
 distinct image on a sufficiently reduced scale. The task is no 
 easy one ; for, besides that we must study brevity as much as 
 possible, Clement's description is in many respects loose and 
 disjointed, and we must collect and unite in juxtaposition the 
 scattered members as we can. However, we will do our best. 
 
 Who, then, is the true or Christian Gnostic ? To what 
 does he aim ? and how attain the perfection he seeks ? In 
 what does he differ from the common believer, in regard to 
 knowledge, in regard to the motives of action, the desires 
 and affections, the discharge of the moral and social duties, 
 * Stromata, lib. i. c. 1, p. 323. 
 
THE TEUE GNOSTIC, OR PERFECT CHRISTIAN. 145 
 
 his piety and devotions, and the general complexion of his 
 life? 
 
 The highest point of Gnostic perfection — that at which he 
 constantly aims, and which is to constitute the consummation 
 of his felicity in heaven — is the contemplation of God ; for 
 the true Gnostic dwells much in contemplation, and, through 
 knowledge and love, is to rise at last to the condition of seeing 
 God face to face. According to an expression of Plato, he 
 contemplates the unseen God now ; and is already, as it were, 
 an angel, " a god walking in the flesh." He attains not this 
 perfection at once, but by degrees and through long discipline. 
 His progress is from faith to knowledge ; and knowledge, per- 
 fected by love, elevates him to the likeness of God. His final 
 state is "perpetual contemplation of God." In this consists 
 his blessedness. The Gnostic soul, in the grandeur of con- 
 templation, " passes beyond the state of the several holy 
 orders, with reference to which the blessed mansions of the 
 gods are allotted, and, advancing continually from better to 
 better places, embraces, not the divine contemplation in a 
 mirror or through a glass, but feasts eternally upon the vision 
 in all its clearness, — that vision with which the soul, smitten 
 with boundless love, can never be satiated ; and enjoys inex- 
 haustible gladness for endless ages, honored by a permanent 
 continuance in all excellence." * 
 
 The Gnostic Christian differs from the common believer in 
 several respects. First, in knowledge. The ordinary Chris- 
 tian has faith ; the heretical Christian, opinion : but the true 
 Gnostic, or perfect Christian, has passed beyond faith and 
 opinion to knowledge and certainty. With him, truth, un- 
 mixed with error, is a direct object of perception ; and he 
 sees in it all its native lustre. His knowledge, however, is 
 derived through faith ; for faith is the foundation on which the 
 Gnostic edifice is reared : but knowledge is superior to faith ; 
 and this is his distinguishing possession. This knowledge 
 Clement makes almost boundless. It is " conversant with 
 things beyond the world, the objects of the intellect, and even 
 with things more spiritual, which eye hath not seen nor ear 
 heard, nor had it entered into the heart of man to conceive, 
 * Stromata, lib. vii. c. 3, p. 835 ; Kaye's Clement, pp. 254, 255. 
 
 10 
 
146 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 until our Teacher revealed the truth concerning them to us. 
 For we affirm that the Gnostic knows and comprehends all 
 things, — even those which pass our knowledge : such were 
 James, Peter, John, Paul, and the other Apostles."* — 
 "Knowledge is a contemplation by the soul of one or more 
 existing things, — pei'fect knowledge of all." The Gnostic, 
 and he alone, knows God : he comprehends the first Cause, 
 and the Cause begotten by him, and all revelation of divine 
 trutli from the foundation of the world. These revelations 
 embrace, not only written doctrine, but unwritten tradition, 
 sometimes called by Clement Gnostic tradition, which was 
 committed to the above-named Apostles, to be by them com- 
 municated to their successors in the Church. " It was not 
 designed for the multitude, but communicated to those only 
 who were capable of receiving it; orally, not by writing." 
 This knowledge, Clement says, must be cautiously imparted. 
 The Gnostic, too, possesses the spiritual and hidden meaning 
 of the Scriptures, and penetrates the mystical sense of the 
 Ten Commandments. He is versed in all common learning, 
 — arithmetic, geometry, physiology, music, astronomy, and 
 especially logic ; for " though the principal end of man's 
 creation is that he may know God, yet he cultivates the 
 earth and measures it, — and studies philosophy that he may 
 live, and live well, and meditate on those subjects which ad- 
 mit of demonstration." 
 
 * Kaye's Clement, p. 192. In anotlier place, Clement says that the true 
 Gnostic, or perfect Christian, may be numbered with the Apostles. Peter, 
 James, John, and Paul were the first four, and the greatest Gnostics. The 
 first three were with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, and were treated 
 by him with peculiar distinction ; and Paul affirms that he received all things 
 from immediate revelation. The last named was supposed to allude to the 
 Gnostic tradition or discipline, when he speaks of the wish to communicate 
 to the Romans, in person, some spiritual gifts which he could not impart in 
 writing; and when, addressing the Corinthian converts, he says that he could 
 not speak unto them as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. In what this esoteric 
 instruction, in the opinion of the Fathers to be transmitted orally, consisted, 
 iocs not clearly appear, except that it pertained to the formation of the Gnos- 
 tic, or perfect character, and to a more full knowledge of mysteries, and the 
 spiritual meaning of the Scriptures, than was befitting the common ear. The 
 belief of it among the Fathers is to be traced, we conceive, to that strange 
 mixture of philosophy with religion which took place on the conversion of thb 
 later Platonists to Christianity. 
 
THE TRUE GNOSTIC, OR PERFECT CHRISTIAN. 147 
 
 The Gnostic, too, clitFers from the common believer in re- 
 gard to the motives of action. Every action of the Gnostic 
 is perfect, being performed according to reason and knoAvl- 
 edge ; those of the common behever, not being so performed, 
 are of a middle nature ; while those of the Heathen are posi- 
 tively sinful, wanting the right motive and object. The ordi- 
 nary Christian is influenced by fear, or hope of reward. Not 
 so the Gnostic : he does good " through love, and because he 
 chooses it for itself." In seeking the knowledge of God, he 
 has no reference to any consequences which are to flow from 
 its attainment : " the knowledge alone is the motive of his 
 contemplation." " Were the choice proposed to him, either 
 to know God or to obtain eternal salvation (on the supposition 
 that the two could be separated), he would choose the former." 
 Again : " The Gnostic, if he could obtain permission of God 
 to do what is forbidden, and be exempt from punishment ; or 
 if he could receive the happiness of the blessed as a reward 
 for doing it ; or if it even were possible for him to be per- 
 suaded that he could escape the eye of God, — would do 
 nothing contrary to right reason, having once chosen that 
 which is fair and eligible, and desirable for itself."* The 
 distinction is further illustrated in the case of martyrdom, 
 to which the common Christian submits from fear, or hope 
 of reward ; the Gnostic, or perfect Christian, through love. 
 There is a difference in actions as " performed through fear 
 or perfected in love " ; and, consequently, the Gnostic will be 
 more highly rewarded than the simple believer. Dishonor, 
 exile, poverty, death, cannot wrest from him "liberty and 
 a prevailing love towards God, which bides all things and 
 endures all things ; for love is persuaded that the Divine 
 Providence orders all things well." We pass through fear, by 
 which we are led to abstain from injustice, and through hope, 
 by which we aim at what is right, to love, which perfects us, 
 instructing us through knowledge (gnostically). 
 
 Next, as respects the passions and desires. The character- 
 istic of the Gnostic is, not moderation of the passions, but 
 exemption from them. He retains those appetites necessary 
 
 * Kaye's Clement, pp. 169, 170. 
 
J.48 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 to the preservation of the body; as hunger, thirst, and others.* 
 But passion and desire are wholly eradicated from his breast. 
 He is not subject to pleasure or pain, to fear or to anger. 
 " To have passiojis which require to be controlled, is not to be 
 in a state of purity." Even those emotions which have a sem- 
 blance of good, as " boldness, emulation, joy," are not felt by 
 the true Gnostic. Clement will not allow that the perfect 
 man desires even good. He says, in the true spirit of mys- 
 ticism, that " divine love," by which the Gnostic is distin- 
 guished, " is not a -desire on the part of him who loves, but 
 a possession of the object loved. The Gnostic, by love, has 
 already attained to that in which he is to be : he anticipates 
 hope through knowledge ; he desires nothing, because he al- 
 ready possesses, as far as it is possible, the object of desire." f 
 
 The Gnostic discharges faithfully all the moral and social 
 duties, and is particularly active in doing good. " His first 
 object is to render, first himself, then his neighbors, as good 
 as possible." To this end he is ready to instruct them, espe- 
 cially in the way of salvation. He freely forgives injuries, 
 and cherishes malice against none. He freely parts with 
 money to those who have need. He adheres inflexibly to 
 truth and sincerity at every cost. He refuses to take an 
 oath, for his whole life is an oath. From moderating his pas- 
 sions, and finally from exemption from passion, he advances 
 to the " well-doing of Gnostic perfection " ; and is, " even 
 here, equal to an angel, — shining Hke the sun by his benefi- 
 cence." 
 
 The Gnostic is distinguished for the " surpassing greatness 
 of his piety ; " but his prayers differ in some respects from 
 those of the common believer. " The Gnostic alone," says 
 Clement, " is truly pious, and worships God in a manner 
 worthy of God." He has grand and honorable conceptions 
 of God, to whom he prays in thought, and not with the voice ; 
 'or the language of God to him is, " Think, and I will give." 
 
 * From these appetites the Saviour was exempt, according to Clement. 
 " He ate, but not for the body, which was held together by a holy power," 
 but that he might be regarded by his followers as a real man, and not a man in 
 appearance only. 
 
 t Kaye's Clement, p. 194. 
 
HERETICAL GNOSTICS. 149 
 
 He never fails of obtaining that for which he prays ; for he 
 prays with knowledge and discrimination. " His confidence 
 that he shall obtain that for which he asks, constitutes in itself 
 a species of prayer." " He prays for the permanent posses- 
 sion of that which is really good, — the good of the soul " ; 
 " prays for perfect love " ; " prays that he may grow and 
 abide in contemplation ; prays that he may never fall away 
 from virtue." "At the same time he prays, he himself laboi's 
 after perfection ; for he who holds intercourse with God must 
 have a pure and spotless soul." Prayer, united with righteous- 
 ness, the Gnostic considers as the " best and holiest sacrifice." 
 " The really holy altar is the righteous soul." " He does 
 not," says Clement, " pray only in certain places and at stated 
 times, but makes his whole life a continued act of prayer. He 
 knows that he is always in the presence of God ; and what- 
 ever the occupation in which he is engaged, whether he is till- 
 ing the ground or sailing on the sea, he sings, and gives thanks 
 to God." Again : " His whole life is a holy festival ; his sac- 
 rifices are prayers and praises, and reading of the Scriptures 
 before meals ; psalms and hymns during meals, and before he 
 retires to rest ; prayers again during the night." He is " the 
 truly kingly man " ; he is " the holy priest of God." " He 
 admits not even in his dreams that which is said or done or 
 seen for the sake of pleasure. He neither gratifies his smell 
 with expensive perfumes, nor his taste with exquisite dishes, 
 and variety of wines ; he renders not his soul effeminate by 
 wreaths of fragrant flowers." * Such, according to Clenient, 
 is tlie perfect Christian, or true Gnostic, as distinguished from 
 the common believer. 
 
 We are indebted to Clement for no inconsiderable part of 
 the knowledge we possess of the several sects of heretical 
 Gnostics, But we have, at present, no space to devote to 
 these sects, were we disposed to enter on the subject. Of all 
 the heresies which sprung up in the bosom of the early Church, 
 Gnosticism, from the conspicuous part it long played, the lofti- 
 ness of its pretensions, the learning and skill of several of its 
 chiefs, and the traces it left behind, and which remained long 
 
 * See Kaye's Clement, pp. 211-213, 247-249. 
 
150 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 visible after the system itself had crumbled away and disap' 
 peared, furnishes most matter of curiosity and wonder, and 
 presents the strongest claim to the attention of the philo- 
 sophical inquirer. Some of its fables have a charm for us. 
 In their origin, the Gnostics were the purists, the spiritualists, 
 the dreamers, of their day : but, in their speculations, were 
 wild, hardy, reckless ; yet, withal, dogmatists of the first 
 water. They occasionally delight us with ingenious fictions 
 and beautiful and significant allegories ; but, in our attempts 
 to follow them, we soon find ourselves involved in intricate 
 and precipitous passes, over which broods a darkness that may 
 be felt. 
 
 We conclude with a quotation which might, perhaps, have 
 been more appropriately introduced in connection with the 
 passage, a part of which we extracted in our second chapter, 
 in which Clement compares Jesus Christ, and the effects he 
 wrought, to the Grecian Orpheus and his wonder-working 
 music* The language and the sentiment of the quotation, in 
 themselves sufficiently remarkable, will present, to those who 
 are fond of tracing analogies and resemblances, matter of 
 somewhat curious speculation, from their coincidence, singular 
 enough if accidental, with those of the old Father. In truth, 
 the wayward and fantastic genius to which we owe that iinique 
 work, "Sartor Resartus," — for from that we quote, — has 
 but given us Clement in a different dress. " Were it not 
 wonderful," this is its language, " for instance, had Orpheus 
 built the walls of Thebes by the mere sound of his lyre ? 
 Yet tell me, who built these walls of Weissnichtwo, summon- 
 ing out all the sandstone rocks to dance along from the Stein- 
 bruch (now a huge troglodyte chasm, with frightful, green- 
 mantled pools), and shape themselves into Doric and Ionic 
 pillars, squared ashlar houses, and noble streets ? Was it not 
 the still higher Orpheus, or Orpheuses, who in past centuries, 
 by the divine music of wisdom, succeeded in civilizing man ? 
 Our highest Orpheus walked in Judea, eighteen hundred 
 years ago. His sphere-melody, flowing in wild native tones, 
 
 * The comparison (of Christ to Orpheus) appears also in works of Chris- 
 tian art. Thus in the Catacombs, Christ is represented in paintings in the 
 •brm of this old master of song, holding the lyre in his hand 
 
CHRIST AND ORPHEUS. 151 
 
 took captive the ravished souls of men ; and being, of a truth, 
 sphere-melody, still flows and sounds, though now with thou- 
 sand-fold accompaniments and rich symphonies, through all 
 our hearts, and modulates and divinely leads them."* 
 
 • Pp. 264, 265. 
 
ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Alexandrian Theology. — Birth and Parentage of Origen. — 
 His Childhood. — He pants for the Honors of Martyrdom. — 
 Reduced to Poverty, and becomes a Teacher. — At the Head op 
 the Catechetical School. — His Self -Denial. — His Studies. — 
 Biblical Criticism. — Worth of Secular Learning. 
 
 We must detain our readers a little longer in the land of 
 the Pyramids and the Nile, whither we recently went to pass 
 a little time in companionship with Clement, contemplating 
 the state of things there at that period, and looking at his 
 defences of Christianity and his theology, at the habits and life 
 of the Alexandrians of his day, and at his idea or conception 
 of the perfect Christian. We alluded to one of his pupils, — 
 a greater than he. This was Origen, one of the most emi- 
 nent of the early Fathers, not only for his intellectual gifts and 
 attainments, but also on account of the influence of his opin- 
 ions on subsequent ages, and the violent controversies to which 
 they gave rise, — controversies which continued down to mod- 
 ern times. He had a brilliant reputation in his day, and his 
 substantial merits and the prestige of his name entitle him to 
 a prominent place in Christian biography. What was said 
 in connection with Clement of the speculative character of the 
 Greek mind, and the condition of theology at Alexandria, late 
 in the second and early in the third centuries, must be borne 
 in mind by those who would comprehend fully the position, 
 labors, and merits of Origen. The materials for his life are 
 far more copious than for that of Justin Martyr or Clement. 
 
 Origen, called Adamantius, or the Adamantine, from his 
 "iron diligence" and almost incredible labors, or as others 
 
HIS YOUTH. 153 
 
 say, from the irrefragable strength of his arguments, was a 
 native, as is generally supposed, of Alexandria, — certainly 
 of Egypt. Unlike Justin and Clement, who were born and 
 educated Heathens, he was of Christian parentage. He was 
 born in the year 185 or 186 ; and, while yet a child, exhib- 
 ited that patience of labor, inquisitive spirit, and ardor, which 
 marked the future man. He was an example of extraordinary 
 precocity, which led Jerome to call him a " great man from 
 his infancy." His father was Leonides, an earnest Christian, 
 and, as Ave are told, a teacher of rhetoric. He gave his son a 
 thorough literary education, instructing him in the rudiments 
 of the sciences, but especially directing his attention to a study 
 of the Scriptures, a portion of which he every day committed 
 to memory, often perplexing his father with deep questions 
 about the sense. For this, the father made show of chiding 
 him, and told him that he must remain satisfied with the plain 
 and obvious meanino; of what he read, and not eno;ao;e in 
 researches beyond his years. But the overflowings of parental 
 affection could not be repressed ; and the happy father, re- 
 strained by a sense of duty to his child from manifesting all 
 he felt, was accustomed to avail himself of the opportunity, 
 while he slept, of repairing to his couch ; and, bending over 
 him, would kiss his breast, in reverence for the divine spirit 
 which lay enshrined there. 
 
 Eusebius, who has preserved some notices * of his life, 
 gathered, as he informs us, partly from his letters and partly 
 from the reports of his pupils (of whom some still survived to 
 his day), dwells at some length on the evidences of piety and 
 zeal in the cause of Christianity exhibited by the youthful 
 Origen. He was warm and enthusiastic ; and, even in child- 
 hood, the zeal of a martyr burned in his breast. Persecution 
 now raged at Alexandria, and it was with difficulty that he 
 could be prevented from imperilling his life. When his father 
 was thrown into prison, he was eager to go and die with him ; 
 and was prevented, at last, only by a stratagem of his mother. 
 Alarmed for his safety, she used every method of remonstrance 
 and entreaty to inspire him with reserve and caution. In vain 
 she urged a mother's love. In despair of other means, she at 
 * Hist. Eccles., lib. vi. 
 
154 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGT. 
 
 last resorted to the artifice of hiding his clothes ; in conse- 
 quence of which, he was compelled to remain at home. Thus 
 debarred the privilege of visiting his father in prison, he com- 
 posed and sent him a letter full of noble and elevated senti- 
 ments on the subject of martyrdom, and especially urging him 
 to constancy. The letter has perished ; but a single sentence 
 of it, preserved by Eusebius, sufficiently indicates the strain in 
 which it was written. " Beware that you do not change your 
 purpose on account of us ! " Leonides remained firm ; and 
 by his death (a. d. 202), and the confiscation of his goods 
 which followed, Origen, at about seventeen years of age, with 
 six brothers and his now widowed mother, was reduced at 
 once to extreme poverty.* How the mother and younger 
 children fared ; how they struggled through and finished the 
 great battle of life, — serious to them as it has been to multi- 
 tudes since, — we are not told. They are now dropped from 
 the narrative, which follows the fortunes of the eldest son. 
 
 A youth of such promise — ardent, noble, and full of aspira- 
 tion — could not be long without friends. A lady of great 
 wealth and high standing at Alexandria received him to her 
 house, and generously provided for his wants. But she had 
 another guest (one Paul of Antioch), whom she had adopted 
 as her son, and whom she allowed to give lectures in her 
 house. He was a man of some celebrity, according to Euse- 
 bius ; but, unfortunately, an arch-heretic. Yet such were the 
 charms of his eloquence, that his society was generally sought ; 
 and multitudes pressed to hear his discourses, — heretics among 
 the rest. But Origen, having been from a child " sound in the 
 faith " himself, and " abominating all heretical doctrines," says 
 the historian just referred to, could never be induced to unite 
 with him in prayer.f In truth, he could not endure the man, 
 who was probably a Gnostic. Whether his aversion to Paul 
 induced him voluntarily to withdraw, or his departure is to be 
 attributed to some other cause, certain it is, that he soon left 
 his patroness, and supported himself by teaching grammar and 
 the studies connected with it, to which he added instruction in 
 Christianity to such of the Pagans as desired it. For this task 
 he was well qualified by the pious care of his father and his 
 * Jerome, De Vir. Illust., c. 64. t Hist., vi. 2. 
 
HIS SELF-DENIAL. 155 
 
 own studious habits, and from having been, when a boy, a 
 pupil of Clement, who for several years presided over the 
 Christian School at Alexandria, with no ordinary fame. 
 Clement, however, had now retired or been driven from the 
 province ; and the most eminent Christians having been put 
 to death, or dispersed by the terrors of the persecution, the 
 catechetical chair remained vacant. At this time, Origen, 
 being now in his eighteenth year, consented to occupy it,* 
 surrounded as it was with danger ; and was afterwards, as 
 Jerome informs us, confirmed in the office of catechist by De- 
 metrius, his bishop, f Of his early pupils, several, in a short 
 time, obtained the honors of martyrdom, — some while yet 
 receiving the rudiments of Christianity. Among the latter 
 was a female by the name of Herais, who, to use Origen's 
 expression, " received baptism by fire." 
 
 That the youthful and ardent Origen escaped with his life, 
 appears almost miraculous ; for his labors in the cause of 
 Christianity were open and unremitted. He continued to 
 make converts ; and, when they were apprehended and thrown 
 into prison, he sought them out, and afforded them the con- 
 solation of his presence and conversation. He sometimes 
 followed them to the place of execution, and was with them 
 in their last moments. His boldness, indeed, seems to have 
 been near costing him his life. He became an object of popu- 
 lar hatred, on account of the number of converts who I'esorted 
 to his standard. For a time, he was hotly pursued : he fled 
 from house to house for shelter ; and, as Eusebius seems to 
 intimate, was compelled to leave the city. If so, however, his 
 absence was short. His sufferings served only to fan the flame 
 of his piety ; and the multitudes who were eager to listen 
 to his eloquent expositions of the Christian faith daily aug- 
 mented. About this time, he broke up his grammar-school, 
 finding that his attention to his pupils interfered with his devo- 
 tion to sacred learning, and with his duties as a teacher of 
 religion. He also sold his library of Heathen authors, which 
 is said to have been choice and extensive, for an annuity of 
 about fivepence a day, to be paid by the purchaser. On this 
 he subsisted for many years ; subjecting himself to fatigue and 
 * Euseb. Hist., vi. 3. t De Vir. lllust., c. 54. 
 
156 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 labors during the day, and consuming the greater part of the 
 night in study. He often slept on the earth, disdaining the 
 effeminacy of a bed. He interpreted rigorously, to the letter, 
 some of the precepts of our Saviour, which have been gen- 
 erally considered as either local and temporary, or as requir- 
 ing to be somewhat modified in their application to practice. 
 Among them were those in which he exhorts his disciples, as 
 Eusebius expresses it, not to have two coats, nor to wear 
 shoes. Another instance of his absurd compliance with the 
 letter of the command, for which he afterwards blamed him- 
 self, is sufficiently well known. In fact, he imposed on himself 
 the most severe restraints ; going barefooted for many years, 
 and abstaining from wine and all generous food. His friends 
 were alarmed for the consequences, and begged him, with tears 
 and grief for his apparent misery, to accept of their substance 
 for the supply of his wants ; but he persevered till symptoms 
 of impaired health at length convinced him of his folly and 
 danger.* 
 
 His ascetic and " philosophical course of life," as it is called, 
 contributed to heighten the effect produced by his fervid genius 
 and eloquence ; and he obtained an unbounded popularity and 
 influence. 
 
 At what period he listened to the instructions of Ammonius 
 Saccas, the celebrated Platonic philosopher, we are not in- 
 formed. It was probably not until some time after he had 
 entered on his labors as master of the Catechetical School. 
 That he was for some time his pupil, is expressly asserted by 
 Porphyry, as quoted by Eusebius, f and may be inferred from 
 a letter of Origen himself, part of which is preserved by the 
 same historian. Among the disciples of Ammonius, however, 
 thei'e aj)pears to have been another of the same name, who, as 
 is generally admitted by the best modern critics, has been im- 
 properly confounded with Origen Adamantius. The latter 
 had, no doubt, acquired a partiality for the Platonic philosophy, 
 as then taught in Egypt, under his early preceptor, Clement. 
 This partiality was confirmed in the school of Ammonius ; from 
 whom, and from the writings of Plato and other philosophers, 
 which were now constantly in his hands, having imbibed, saya 
 » Euseb. llist., vi. 3. t Hist., vi. 19. 
 
HIS HEBREW STUDIES. 157 
 
 Porphyry, tlie " allegorical mode of explaining the Grecian 
 mysteries, he applied it to the Jewish Scriptures." Of his 
 proficiency in the Platonic and Ammonian philosophy, how- 
 ever, and the unnatural and absurd expositions of the language 
 of the Bible to which he and his fellow-laborers resorted in 
 order to reduce its doctrines into harmony with that corrupt 
 and fanciful system, we have testimony less exceptionable than 
 that of Porphyry. But we shall have occasion to advert to 
 this topic hereafter, especially in treating of the opinions of 
 this celebrated Father. 
 
 After the death of Severus, Origen allowed himself the rel- 
 axation of a journey to Rome ; having a desire, as he expresses 
 it, to " see the most ancient church of the Romans." This 
 journey, as Eusebius and Jerome inform us, took place while 
 Zephyrinus was Bishop of Rome ; that is, some time before 
 the year 219. After a short stay, he returned to Alexandria, 
 where he resumed his duties as catechist. Soon after this, the 
 increasing multitude of inquirers and pupils — by which he 
 was continually surrounded from morning till evening — made 
 it necessary for him to engage an assistant. The person ap- 
 pointed to the office was Heraclas, formerly Origen's pupil, his 
 fellow-student under Ammonius, and afterwards Bishop of 
 Alexandria. Origen continued to give instruction in the more 
 recondite doctrines to the higher classes, the task of teaching 
 the simpler and more elementary principles being committed 
 to his associate ; who still, however, as Jerome tells us, con- 
 tinued to wear the philosopher's garb. 
 
 From this time, Origen devoted himself with great ardor to 
 the study of the sacred writings ; and, as a preparatory step, 
 set about acquiring a knowledge of the Hebrew language. 
 He is mentioned as the earliest among the Fathers who 
 attempted to obtain an acquaintance with this language ; and 
 by " what he did in it," says Jerome, " acquired fame all 
 over Greece." The taste of his nation and age opposed a 
 barrier to acquisitions of this sort. The Hebrew language 
 and literature boi'e among the Greeks the epithet barbaric; 
 but Origen had the courage, in this instance, to despise the 
 silly prejudices of the times. Though he never appears to 
 have become a profound critic in Hebrew, and his knowledge 
 
158 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 of it, compared with that of more modern scholars, was super- 
 ficial and scanty, yet, taking into view the character of the 
 age, we must allow that his efforts entitle him to no mean 
 praise. With him originated what has since been called the 
 science of bibhcal criticism. The Greek version of the Sev- 
 enty, as it was called, was to Christians of his time what the 
 English version of King James's translators is to common 
 Christians of the present day. But errors had crept into the 
 text ; and Origen, as we shall hereafter see, applied his knowl- 
 edge of Hebrew, whatever it was, to the very laudable pur- 
 pose of removing them. This was the origin of the " Hexa- 
 pla," for which he probably began to collect materials about 
 this time. 
 
 The fame of Origen was now wide-spread ; and it drew 
 around him, as we are told, a multitude of heretics, and not 
 a few Gentile philosophers, some of them men of repute : for, 
 besides divinity, he at this time taught geometry, mathematics, 
 and all parts of secular learning, embracing the tenets of the 
 various philosophical sects ; through which he conducted his 
 hearers, commenting on the most distinguished writers of each 
 sect, and explaining the principles of all. He thus obtained 
 the reputation of a philosopher among the Pagans. He was 
 an advocate for the study of philosophy and secular literature, 
 thinking that they formed a good preparation for the investi- 
 gation of divine truth. He therefore cheerfully received all 
 who applied to him for instruction ; hoping, while teaching 
 them human science, to be able to convert them to the faith 
 of Jesus. In this benevolent design he often succeeded. 
 Many who afterwards became celebrated teachers of the 
 church proceeded from his school, having been first won over 
 to Christianity by his persuasive eloquence. 
 
 His devotion to philosophy did liot escape censure. In a 
 letter, he justifies his attention to secular learning, on the 
 ground of its utility ; for as many heretics and others, skilled 
 in the Grecian philosophy, resorted to him, it seemed desirable, 
 and almost a matter of necessity, that he should thoroughly 
 investigate the principles of the several philosophical sects. 
 He, moreover, appeals to examples ; and, among others, to 
 that of Pantaenus, formerly president of the Catechetical 
 
SECULAR LEARNING. 159 
 
 School. The taste for philosophy, thus introduced, was des- 
 tined not to be soon extinct. A controversy for some years 
 existed between the friends and enemies of philosophical 
 studies ; but the advocates of philosophy triumphed ; and the 
 consequence in this instance was, that the simplicity of the 
 Christian faith was corrupted, and an infinity of errors flowed 
 into the Church. 
 
160 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 Influence of Ambrose. — Oeigen's Immense Labors. — His Arabia:* 
 Journey, AND Visit to Palestine. — Reception by the Paiestinian 
 Bishops. — Anger of Demetrius. — Origen's Journey to Greece. 
 — Ordained in Palestine. — Demetrius causes him to be deposed 
 
 AND excommunicated. — DeATH OF DeMETRIUS. 
 
 Among Origen's pliilosopliical converts was tlie Gnostic 
 Ambrose, whose acquaintance, soon ripening into the warmest 
 friendship, was destined to exert a marked influence over his 
 future pursuits. Ambrose was a man of weahh and rank. 
 He was, says Jerome, " of a noble family, and of no mean and 
 inelegant genius, as his letters to Origen testify." Eusebius 
 calls him a Valentinian ; others, a Marcionite ; but, becoming 
 a hearer of Adamantius, he was soon converted by him to the 
 true faith, and afterwards greatly assisted in promoting his 
 biblical studies. He devoted his wealth to his service in the 
 purchase of manuscripts. He also furnished him with more 
 than seven scribes, who should relieve each other as his aman- 
 uenses ; and as many others, besides girls, who should tran- 
 scribe in a fair hand what the first had hastily Avritten from 
 dictation. Origen calls him his " work-driver." His admira- 
 tion of Origen was unbounded ; and he urged him to consent 
 to the publication of his writings, for the benefit of the world. 
 
 Origen, all this time, was undoubtedly overworked. The 
 zeal of his friend he did not wish to outstrip his own. In a 
 letter, he says that the collation of manuscripts left him no 
 time to eat ; and that, after meals, he could neither go out nor 
 enjoy a season of rest. Even the night, he says, was not 
 granted him for repose. His mind was tasked every hour. 
 Along with the collation and correction of manuscripts pro- 
 cured him by the wealth of his friend, his " work-driver," he 
 was writing commentaries, afterwards published, on the Old 
 and New Testament, and producing other works ; among 
 which was that entitled " Of Principles," in Avhich he mixed 
 
HIS POPULARITY. 161 
 
 up with Christian truth some wild philosophical speculations 
 or Platonic extravagances, which afterwards, when the tide 
 partially turned against him, gave him some trouble. He 
 subsequently, in a letter to Fabian, Bishop of Rome, affirmed 
 that there were some things contained in the book which he 
 no longer approved, and that the work was published by his 
 friend Ambrose against his will. Origen was a hasty writer, 
 of a warm and prolific imagination ; and, throwing off his 
 productions at a heat, would be very likely to say things 
 which his calmer judgment might condemn. 
 
 At this moment, his fortunes seemed at full tide. No 
 voice appears to have been lifted against him, and his fame 
 was filling all Christendom. Honors were ready to drop on 
 his head ; but, at the same moment, there was stirred up a 
 spirit of envy and hatred ; and he was about to taste the bitter 
 cup' of persecution, presented by Christian hands. Of this 
 cup he drank copiously during his life ; and, ages after his 
 death, the storm of controversy beat on his memory, which 
 was tossed, as it were, on a raging sea that knew no rest. 
 The prelatical zealots were prepared to attack him ; but pri- 
 vate passions hastened the conflict. 
 
 There is one incident, however, we must mention, before 
 we proceed to notice the effect of these passions, — Origen's 
 Arabian journey. This was undertaken in compliance with 
 letters from an Arabian prince, to whose ears his fame had 
 penetrated. They were brought by a soldier, and addressed 
 to Demetrius, his bishop, and to the Governor of Egypt, 
 requesting that Origen might be sent to him to explain the 
 Christian doctrines. This task accomplished, he returns to 
 Egypt.* 
 
 The cruel Caracalla now filled the throne of the Caesars ; 
 and having, as he conceived, some cause of displeasure against 
 the Alexandrians, he resolved on their destruction, and un- 
 known multitudes were slaughtered. Origen, finding his 
 residence there now unsafe, yields to his long-cherished desire 
 to visit his friends in Palestine, especially his old fi'iend and 
 fellow-student Alexander, now Bishop of Jerusalem, and The- 
 octistus, Bishop of Cassarea. Here he took up his abode for a 
 
 * Euseb. Hist., vi. 19. 
 11 
 
162 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 time. He was received with demonstrations of great respect, 
 and was urged by the bishops to preach and expound the 
 Scriptures pubhclj in their presence. Witli this request he 
 comphed, though he had not yet received ordination. This 
 moved the wrath of Demetrius, the Alexandrian bishop, who 
 was full of hierarchical pride, and was jealous of the brilliant 
 fame of Origen ; and he writes letters of remonstrance to the 
 Palestinian bishops. It was irregular, he said, nay, was un- 
 heard of, that a layman should preach in the presence of bish- 
 ops. The bishops of Palestine are not intimidated. They 
 write back to him of Alexandria, telling him that he is in 
 error, and specifying several instances which might be adduced 
 in justification of themselves and of Origen. Demetrius is 
 obliged to be quiet ; but the arrow rankled in his breast. 
 Origen is soon after recalled to Alexandria, and is allowed to 
 resume his catechetical laboi's and his commentaries. He was 
 at this time a little over thirty years of age. 
 
 Origen 's next journey was into Greece ; whither he was 
 sent for the purpose of counteracting the designs of certain 
 heretics then in high repute there. On his way, he visited 
 Palestine ; and while there, wholly unsolicited on his part, the 
 bishops of Jerusalem, Cgesarea, and others of the province, 
 ordained him presbyter, at the age of about forty-three or 
 forty-four. Demetrius was outrageous at this second act of 
 disrespect and insult, as he regarded it, to himself. Origen 
 pursues his journey, during which he visits the schools of 
 philosophy at Athens, and converses with the eminent sages 
 found there. It was probably during this journey that he 
 had the interview, mentioned by Eusebius, with Mammsea, 
 mother of the emperor, Alexander Severus. Mammaea has 
 been considered a Pagan; yet, being at Antioch, she felt a 
 curiosity to see and converse with a man of whom she had 
 heard so much ; and she sent a military guard to insure his 
 safety, and escort him to her presence.* 
 
 But he had now to return to Alexandria, and face his bishop, 
 
 the angry Demetrius, who could never forget nor forgive the 
 
 Palestinian ordination. No reconciliation can be effected ; and 
 
 Demetrius soon after assembles a synod, composed of his own 
 
 * Euseb. Hist., vi. 21 ; Jerome, De Vir. Illust., c. 64. 
 
HIS EXCOMMUNICATION. 163 
 
 presbyters and of other Egyptian bishops, who proceed to de- 
 prive Origen of the rank of presbyter, and prohibit him from 
 ever after exercising the office of teacher in the Alexandrian 
 church. Origen remains awhile at Alexandria, then bids 
 adieu to the city forever, and takes refuge with his friends in 
 Palestine. But the hatred of Demetrius still pursues him. 
 Turning over the writings of Origen, especially his book " Of 
 Principles," just referred to, he now snuflPs, or aifects to snuff, 
 the taint of heresy in some of the writer's idealistic specula- 
 tions ; on which he assembles a larger synod of Egyptian bish- 
 ops, who cut off Origen from the communion of the Church, 
 and issue against him a violent invective. 
 
 Behold now the most celebrated scholar, biblical critic, and 
 commentator of his times, — who knew more than all his per- 
 secutors combined, and performed mox'e labor in the cause of 
 Christianity than any dozen of them put together, — behold 
 him now an excomnmnicated man. His heresy served well 
 enough for a pretext ; but it was not the cause of his persecu- 
 tion at this time. Hear what the very learned and orthodox 
 Jerome says on the subject, about a hundred and fifty years 
 after Origen's death. Alluding to the proceedings against 
 him at Alexandria, he says that he was condemned, " not on 
 account of the novelty of his dogmas ; not on account of her- 
 esy, for which he is now barked at by the rabid dogs ; but 
 because they could not endure the fame of his eloquence and 
 learning." * 
 
 Demetrius wrote letters to the bishops everywhere, loading 
 Origen with execrations, and endeavoring to render his name 
 a byword and a reproach in all Christian lands. But this was 
 more than he could accomplish. It is true, the West, gener- 
 ally, declared against him, — even Rome itself; such was the 
 deference shown at that time to the see of Alexandria. But 
 the Bishops of Csesarea and Jerusalem, as also those of Arabia, 
 Phoenicia, and Greece, the old friends of Origen, still adhered 
 to him, despising the anathemas of the synods of Egypt. In 
 these several provinces, Origen was still allowed to discharge 
 the functions of priest. 
 
 Demetrius did not long survive to enjoy his triumphs ot 
 * Epist. 29, ad Paulam. 
 
164 ORIGEN, AND HH THEOLOGY. 
 
 mourn over his defeat. He died soon after Origen had bidden 
 adieu to Alexandria, and Avas succeeded in the bishopric by 
 Heraclas, who was promoted to that office, as Eusebius tells 
 us,* on account of his deep knowledge of Pagan literature and 
 philosophy ; a circumstance which shows the esteem in which 
 secular learning was then held by the Alexandrian Christians. 
 Heraclas, we have said, was the pupil and friend of Origen ; 
 and he had succeeded him, before he was made bishop, in the 
 Catechetical School. But, notwithstanding his regard for his 
 old preceptor, — now the most celebrated man of the age, — 
 the sentence of excommunication pronounced against him by 
 the synod was not revoked during his life ; nor by his suc- 
 cessor, Dionysius, also one of Origan's scholars ; and Origen 
 was ever, therefore, regarded by the Egyptians as an excom- 
 municated person. 
 
 The reasons for his excommunication, and the sole reasons, 
 are given above. He was charged with no immorality. The 
 story, set afloat some time after, that he had consented in an 
 evil hour to offer incense to idols, and that the contempt and 
 ridicule which this act of wickedness brought on him com- 
 pelled him to leave Egypt, is entitled to no credit. It is 
 related by Epiphanius, a very credulous writer of the fourth 
 century ; and seems to have been invented by the enemies of 
 Origen, some years after his death. The story is in itself, and 
 in the several circumstances which attend it, highly improb- 
 able ; it is alluded to by none of the more ancient writers, 
 even those most hostile to the fame of Origen, and is utterly 
 at variance with the testimony of Eusebius, Jerome, and other 
 writers entitled to most respect. There is a better anecdote 
 related of him by Epiphanius. At a certain time, the Pagans 
 seized him, and, dressing him up in the robes of a priest of 
 Serapis, conducted him to the steps of the temple. They then 
 piit palm-leaves into his hands, commanding him to present 
 them to those who entered. He accepted the ofterings ; but 
 on presenting them boldly said, "Accept not the idol's palm, 
 but the palm of Christ." f 
 
 * Euseb. Hist., vi. 31. t Epiphan. Haer., Ixiv. 1. 
 
RETIRES TO PALESTINK — NEW PUPILS. 165 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Okigen retires to Palestine. — New Pupils. — His Critical and 
 Theological Studies. — Imprisoned, and put to the Rack. — Dies 
 at Tyre. — His Genius and Character. — Question of his Salta- 
 tion. — Merits and Defects as a Writer, Critic, and Expositor. 
 
 Origen left Egypt soon after the year 230, when a Httle 
 more than forty-five years of age. He retired to Csesarea in 
 Palestine, where he continued to preach with the approbation 
 of the bishops of the province. Here, as in Egypt, a crowd 
 of young men gathered around him, who, warmed by his 
 enthusiasm and instructed by his learning, afterwards became 
 eminent teachers in the church. Among them were Gregory, 
 called Thaumaturgus, the Wonder-worker, and his brother, 
 Athenodorus. They are described by Eusebius as having 
 been passionately fond of the Roman and Greek learning. 
 The former was engaged in the study of the Roman law, at 
 Csesarea, where he became acquainted with Origen ; by whose 
 winning eloquence he was induced to abandon it, and transfer 
 his affections to divinity. He was accompanied by his brother. 
 They remained five years with Origen ; and afterwards be- 
 came, while yet young, bishops in Pontus, their native coun- 
 try.* Thus was Origen's expulsion from Egypt the means of 
 exalting his fame and extending the sphere of his usefulness. 
 
 * Thaumaturgus has left sufficient testimony of his veneration and love of 
 Origen, in a " Panegyrical Oration " which he delivered on his departure ; a 
 somewhat extravagant and inflated performance, but interesting from the sub- 
 ject, and the occasion on which it was delivered. It was pronounced, it 
 seems, in the presence of Origen, and is a lofty encomium on his merits ; 
 written, however, with warmth, and apparently with great sincerity of feel- 
 ing. The circumstances which led to the first interview of his pupils with 
 him, his efforts to detain them, his bland and insinuating eloquence, his ani- 
 mated description of the nature and end of true philosophy, his praises of it, 
 his benignant temper, his urbanity and modesty, by all which their admira- 
 tion was awakened and their affections won ; their resolution to abandon their 
 former studies, and remain with this fascinating man ; the method he pursued 
 
166 OBIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 Origen now pursued his design of writing commentaries, 
 being engaged, as Eusebius tells us, on Isaiah and Ezekiel. 
 The latter were finished some time after at Athens. He had 
 previously, as we have seen, while at Alexandria, written his 
 book " De Principiis "; to which we may add his " Stromata," 
 in imitation of Clement ; and parts of his expositions on Gen- 
 esis and on the Gospel of John.* 
 
 During the persecution under Maximin, a. d. 235, he ap- 
 pears to have consulted his safety by withdrawing himself from 
 Palestine. It was at this time, probably, that he accepted the 
 invitation of Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, to 
 visit that place. He remained there some time, employed on 
 his " Hexapla." For two years he was concealed in the house 
 of a wealthy lady by the name of Juliana ; from whom he 
 received some manuscripts very important to him in his criti- 
 cal labors, undertaken, as before said, for the emendation of 
 the Alexandrian version of the Old Testament. He had pre- 
 viously discovered in an old cask or wine-bag, at Jericho, an 
 ancient translation not before known to exist. From Juliana 
 he obtained that of the Ebionite Symmachus, to whose writ- 
 ings she had become heiress. 
 
 Thus enriched, he returned to Palestine in 238. He makes 
 a second journey into Greece ; during which he continues his 
 theological labors. We afterwards find him in Bostra in 
 Arabia ; whither he was summoned to hold a conference with 
 Beryllus, Bishop of Bostra, who denied the preexistence of 
 Christ.f He made a third journey into Arabia some time 
 after, being called to refute the opinions of some Arabian 
 Christians, who maintained that the soul dies, and is raised 
 again with the body. J 
 
 with them ; his mode of instruction in philosophy, ethics, and theology ; his 
 profound wisdom and piety ; and their regret on leaving him, — are among 
 the topics introduced. The expulsion of Adam from paradise, and the misery 
 endured by the Jews in Babylon, are among the extravagant similes em- 
 ployed to express their sense of the loss they should sustain on being deprived 
 of his counsels and presence. The piece is disfigured by all the faults of the 
 Asiatic style ; but as a panegyric on Origen by one of his most ardent ad- 
 mirers, and one who had opportunity of thoroughly knowing him, it becomes 
 in object of curiosity. 
 
 * P^useb. HisL, vi. 24, 25. 
 
 t Jerome, De Vir. Illust., art. " Beryllus." { Euseb. Hist., vi. 37. 
 
HIS DRATTT. 167 
 
 Thus, if a cloud hung over his fame in Egypt and the West, 
 he had the consolation of knowing; that he was still regarded 
 with unbounded admiration in the East. 
 
 Origen returned to Palestine. He was now, according to 
 Eusebius, more than sixty years of age, yet did not relax the 
 industry which, through life, formed one of the most promi- 
 nent features of his character. His powers were yet in their 
 full vigor ; and among the works produced after this period 
 were some of his best. His celebrated work against Celsus, 
 undertaken at the request of Ambrose, was one of the num- 
 ber. He continued also to write commentaries. The subjects 
 on which he was now employed were Matthew's Gospel and 
 the twelve Minor Prophets. 
 
 Having from long use acquired the habit of speaking extem- 
 pore with great accuracy, he now, for the first time, permitted 
 the discourses delivered by him in public to be taken down, 
 and published by reporters and copyists. These homilies were 
 delivered almost every day ; and the number thus preserved 
 and transmitted to posterity as a monument of his diligence, 
 amounted, we are told, to more than a thousand.* 
 
 Origen was not allowed to finish his days in peace. The 
 persecution under Decius had commenced ; during which, 
 Alexander, the aged Bishop of Jerusalem, (Origen's firm and 
 tried friend,) perished in prison. Origen himself was confined 
 in chains in the inmost recesses of a prison, and subjected to 
 exquisite torture by the rack ; the most consummate skill 
 being exerted to push his sufferings to the utmost point' of 
 endurance, without causing his death, f He bore all, how- 
 ever, with immovable constancy, though now sixty-five years 
 of age ; and the death of Decius, as may be conjectured, 
 finally procured his release. Worn out with years, toil, and 
 sufferings, he sunk quietly to rest at Tyre, at the age, says 
 Eusebius, of sixty -nine years J (a. d. 254). His remains 
 were deposited, as tradition says, in the Cathedral Church of 
 the Holy Sepulchre at Tyre, near the great altar. A marble 
 
 * Euseb. Hist., vi. 36 ; Pamph. Apol. pro Orig.; Jerome, Epist. 41, al. 65, ad 
 Pammach. 
 t Euseb. Hist., vi. 39. 
 J Hist., vii. 1. See also Jerome, De Vir. Illust., c. 64. 
 
168 OEIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 column, bearing his name and epitaph, and adorned with gold 
 and gems, was visible, it is said, so late as near the end of the 
 thirteenth century ; but all vestiges of the tomb have long 
 since disappeared.* 
 
 Ambrose, his distinguished patron and admirer, died before 
 him, and was censured, says Jerome, because, though rich, he 
 bequeathed nothing to his friend, who was then poor and old. 
 The censure may have been unjust. Origen, as we have seen, 
 in early life remained in a state of voluntary poverty, and 
 persevered in resisting the earnest entreaties of his friends to 
 partake of the gifts of their liberality. He probably retained 
 in age the feelings and views by which he was influenced in 
 youth ; and Ambrose, tliei'efore, forbore to offer what he knew 
 his friend would refuse to accept. 
 
 Tlie foreffoincr narrative embodies all that is known of the 
 personal history of Origen Adamantius. Of the chronologi- 
 cal order of several of the incidents related, there exists some 
 uncertainty. Eusebius, from whom the greater part of the 
 materials for a life of Origen must be drawn, is very sparing 
 of dates; and his narrative, though on some points copious, 
 is not a little confused. Jerome, in the very brief account 
 of this Father inserted in his " Catalogue of Ecclesiastical 
 Writers," has preserved a few dates ; but, in the order of his 
 narration, he often differs from Eusebius. 
 
 Of Origen's genius and character we shall not attempt any 
 labored analysis. The prominent features of both are well 
 known, and several of them have been incidentally noticed 
 in the above sketch of his life. That he had qualities fitted 
 to inspire admiration and love, can be doubted by none. His 
 merits won him many distinguished and warm friends ; and it 
 should be mentioned as equally to their credit and to his, that 
 many of them remained true to him in the hour of his greatest 
 adversity. He was regarded by multitudes with extravagant 
 fondness ; yet, amid the marks of flattering attention which he 
 was daily receiving, he appears to have retained, in a remark- 
 able degree, his natural simplicity and modesty. He was pur- 
 
 * Huet. Orig., lib. i. c. 4, § 9, note. Maundrell found remains of a church, 
 supposed to be the catliedral, in 1697; but, according to a more recent trav- 
 eller, they are no longer to be seen. 
 
QUESTION OP HIS SALVATION. 169 
 
 sued in his lifetime, as was his memory after his death, by 
 envy and hate ; he was abused, anathematized, and driven 
 from his country ; but seems to have contracted no bitterness 
 or misanthropy of feeling. If it be the lot of few to experience 
 to an equal extent the extremes of adulation and censure, few 
 will be found to exhibit brighter examples of moderation and 
 self-command. Of the amenity of his disposition, his bland- 
 ness, and winning address, his history and writings afford 
 abundant evidence. 
 
 His piety cannot be questioned, though he has never been 
 allowed to bear the title of saint in the Roman calendar, and 
 the question has been seriously debated, whether he won 
 heaven by his merits, or was doomed to the penal fires of 
 hell for his errors ! * Such is human folly and absurdity. 
 
 * " There are many divines in the communion of Rome," says Bayle, 
 " who believe this Father is in hell." And the skeptical writer proceeds to 
 amuse himself and his readers with several curious extracts and references. 
 One is from Dallasus's reply to M. Cottibi, whom he convicted of isjnorance 
 of Christian antiquity in applying the title of saint to Origen, which he never 
 bore. We will give a short specimen : " It is scarce two hundred years since 
 Johannes Picus Mirandulanus, having published at Rome, among his nine 
 hundred propositions, that it was more reasonable to believe Origen's salva- 
 tion than his damnation, was thereupon taken up by the doctors in divinity, 
 who affirmed that this conclusion is rash and blameworthy." 
 
 " The Jesuit Stephen Binet," says the same writer, " publishing a book at 
 Paris, in 1629, concerning the salvation of Origen, durst not take the affirma- 
 tive without trembling. He lays out the matter in the form of an indictment 
 and trial, and produces the witnesses and pleaders pro and con, with tlie inter- 
 vention of the conclusion of the King of heaven's council. At last he brings 
 in this verdict : ' Considering all that has been said on one side and the other, 
 and the conclusions of the King of heaven's council, it is decreed, that the 
 affair be left to God's secret counsel, to whom the definitive sentence is reserved. 
 Nevertheless, by provision, and for the benefit of Origen, it is judged, upon 
 the balance of the whole, that the proofs of his salvation are stronger and 
 more conclusive than that of his damnation.' This, we suppose, may be con- 
 sidered as, on the whole, a very judicious verdict. We will next give a short 
 extract from the arguments of the council for and against Origen. The fol- 
 lowing passage, taken from the vision of a ' good and honest ' abbot in the 
 Pratiim Spirituale, a book cited with apparent approbation by a general coun- 
 cil, occurs in the argument of the council against him : 'A good man, under 
 great concern about the salvation of Origen's soul, did, after the ardent prayer 
 of a holy old man, plainly see a sort of hell laid open to him, where he dis- 
 tinguished and knew the heresiarchs, who were all called over before him by 
 Aeir names ; and in the midst of them he saw Origen, who lay there damned 
 among the rest, and covered with horror, flames, and confusion ! ' To this 
 the council on the part of Origen reply, ' Here the vision of a simple abbot is 
 
170 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 He led a life of uncommon sanctity and abstemiousness, 
 treading under foot the wealth and pleasures of earth, and 
 leaving monuments of zeal, diligence, and constancy, which 
 will endure while the religion he labored to defend and illus- 
 trate has an abode in the world. 
 
 His intellectual character is strongly marked. He seemed 
 formed to exemplify the greatness and imbecility of human 
 nature. As a writer, his merits and defects are alike con- 
 spicuous. He had a quick and comprehensive understanding, 
 subtilty, and penetration ; a memory uncommonly tenacious, 
 a rapid and teeming imagination, and a fervid and enthusiastic 
 temperament. But he was wanting in sound judgment, in 
 accuracy and method. He threw off his compositions in haste, 
 or rather dictated them extempore to his numerous scribes, 
 whom he fatigued by his celerity and protracted labors day 
 and night ; and what was once committed to writing seems 
 never to have been subjected to revision. Prohxity and ver- 
 boseness, diffuseness and redundancy, in matter and style, 
 were the inevitable consequence. These defects run through 
 all his writings, but characterize particularly his commentaries. 
 Hence one of his enemies, after his death, took occasion to 
 say, that he left the world the " heritage of his garrulity as a 
 pestiferous possession." * 
 
 As a critic and expositor, he is not entitled to any profound 
 respect. His fondness for allegory and mysticism amounted 
 to a sort of frenzy. His learning was vast, but he had too 
 little discrimination in the use of it ; and his attachment to 
 the idealistic philosophy (to use Neander's word), then preva- 
 lent in Egypt, was the means of vitiating all his views of 
 theology. Under the name of Christianity, he retailed most 
 of the reveries and extravagances of the Alexandrian Pla- 
 tonists of the school of Potamon and Ammonius. 
 
 With all his defects, however, we cannot withhold from him 
 a title to the praise of extraordinary genius. He Avas among 
 
 alleged : and I allege the vision of a great saint called Mechtildis, to whom 
 God revealed that he would not have the world to know what was become of 
 Samson, Solomon, and Origen ; with the intent to strike the greatest terror 
 \nto the strongest, the wisest, and the most learned men of this world, by 
 keeping them in suspense and uncertainty.' " Poor Origen ! 
 * Theophilus of Alexandria, Lib. Pasch. 1. 
 
HIS INTELLECTUAL CHAKACTER. 171 
 
 the great men of his age, and would have been great in any 
 age. The germ of most of his errors, as we have intimated, 
 existed in the prevalent modes of thinking, and they are such 
 as a person placed in his circumstances, and possessing a bold, 
 ardent, and speculative mind, united with precipitancy of 
 judgment, but with great goodness of heart, — the religious 
 element, too, strong in his nature, — might very naturally 
 adopt. Yet, with all his extravagances, (and they were great 
 enough,) there was that in him which wins our love and 
 reverence ; and his pages may still both delight and instruct. 
 " I acquire more knowledge of Christian philosophy," says 
 Erasmus, " from one page of Origen, than from ten of 
 Augustine." 
 
172 OBIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Wbitings of Origen. — Commentaries. — Principles of iNTERrREXA 
 TiON. — His Book "Of Principles." — His "Hexapla." — His Work 
 
 AGAINST CeLSDS. 
 
 Of several of Origen's writings only the title remains ; 
 and of many, even that seems to have perished. Eusebius 
 informs us * that he had inserted a catalogue of his works in 
 the " Life of Pamphilus," which is now lost ; and Jerome, as 
 we learn from himself, gave one in a letter to Paula, of which 
 only a fragment has been preserved. Ancient writers speak 
 of the number of volumes produced by him as vast and almost 
 infinite. Rufinus and others make it amount to six thousand ; 
 but Jerome asserts,! that he did not find in Eusebius's cata- 
 logue one third part of that number. At the same time, he 
 bears ample testimony to the immense bulk of his writings. 
 "All Greek and Roman authors," he tells us, "were surpassed 
 by the labors of this one." — "Who," he asks, " can read so 
 much as he wrote ? " J 
 
 His exegetical writings were of three kinds. The first were 
 called Scholia, and consisted of brief notes intended to illus- 
 
 * Hist., vi. 32. t Apol. adv. Rujin., lib. ii. 
 
 t Epist. 29, ad Paulam. The account which supposes him to have written 
 six thousand volumes, seems, at first view, extravagant. That he might have 
 produced that number, however, appears by no means impossible, when we 
 consider that each of the homilies or discourses — which were, in some sort, 
 extempore performances, and of which a thousand were given to the public by 
 him after he was sixty years of age — seems to have been enumerated as a 
 volume; and that his commentaries, which are said by Epiphanius to have 
 extended to all the books of Scripture, — and which, as we know from the 
 remains of them now extant, were uncommonly diffuse, — were divided into 
 very small tomes. That these tomes were exceedingly numerous is sufii- 
 ciently evident from the fact, that the first thirteen embraced only the three 
 first and part of the fourth chapters of Genesis. By this metliod of distribu- 
 tion, it is obvious that the works of Origen would amount to a prodigious 
 number of volumes, — possibly even to six thousand. Had he written less, 
 bis productions would have acquired in value what they lost in bulk. 
 
HIS COMMENTARIES. 173 
 
 trate the more difficult passages. The second, denominated 
 Tomes, or Commentaries, were diffuse expositions of the sev- 
 eral books of the Bible ; in these, Origen indulged in full 
 extent his fondness for recondite and mystical meanings. The 
 third class consisted of Homilies, delivered by him, chiefly at 
 Csesarea, late in life ; in which he explained select portions of 
 the sacred writings in a style adapted to the popular ear. 
 
 His Commentaries exhibit little accuracy. Indeed, the prin- 
 ciple on which he proceeded precluded a sound and rational 
 exposition of the language of his author. The greater part 
 of Scripture contains, according to him, three senses : the lit- 
 eral or historical, or, as he frequently calls it, the sensuous ; 
 then the allegorical, that is, moi^al or mystical ; and, highest 
 of all, the spiritual, sometimes confounded with the mystical ; 
 the three corresponding to body, soul, and spirit in man. Of 
 the first he had but a very mean opinion. Going on this princi- 
 ple, it is not surprising that he became not a little visionary and 
 wild. In fact, he mystifies and allegorizes almost everything. 
 Jerome accuses him of allegorizing paradise in such a manner 
 as to destroy tlie faith of history, — by trees, understanding 
 angels ; and by rivers, celestial powers.* Again : by the gar- 
 ments of skins with which God is said (Gen. iii. 21) to have 
 clothed Adam and Eve, he supposed were meant bodies, with 
 which they became clothed after the fall ; they having previ- 
 ously existed in paradise without flesh and bones. f It should 
 be observed, however, that Origen, in his commentary on the 
 passage referred to, (which is preserved,) does not state this 
 opinion as an undisputed dogma. He mentions a difficulty 
 attending it ; still he seems inclined to receive it.^ By the 
 waters which are said to be above the firmament, we are to 
 understand, according to him, the holy and supernal powers ; 
 and by those over and under the earth, the opposite and de- 
 moniacal. § To such an extent did he indulge his fondness 
 for allegorical and tropological senses. || 
 
 * Epist. 38, al. 61, ad Pammach. t Epist. 38, al. 61, ad Pammach. 
 
 X 0pp., t. ii. p. 29. § Jerome, Ad Pammach. 
 
 II Generally speaking, Origen thought the literal sense of Suripture to be 
 sufficient for the unlearned ; at least, all they were capable of receiving. But 
 -he letter often contains what is false, absurd, repugnant to itself, impossible. 
 
174 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 Several of tlie Homilies, and large fragments of the Tomes, 
 or Commentaries, have been transmitted to us, constituting 
 together nearly three fourths of all the works of Origen which 
 are extant. Of a part, we possess the original Greek ; of other 
 parts, only the Latin translations of Rufinus, Jerome, and 
 others. Those by Jerome are entitled to much respect ; and 
 those by Rufinus, for reasons stated below, to very little. 
 
 Of the other works of Origen, one of the most considerable 
 is the four books " Of Principles," written before he left 
 Egypt. The original of the work, fragments excepted, is lost. 
 It was translated into Latin, at the close of the fourth century, 
 by Rufinus ; who, under the absurd pretext that it had been 
 
 etc. ; whence an infinity of errors have sprung. The mystical or allegorical 
 sense is necessary to defend the truth of Scripture against its adversaries, and 
 make it appear worthy of God. It is difficult, not to say impossible, to pene- 
 trate the mystical senses of Scripture ; yet there are certain rules, the observ- 
 ance of which will conduce to a knowledge of them. And, first, whatever is 
 said relating to the ceremonial law is always to be understood, not literally, 
 but mystically. Again : whatever is said of Jerusalem, Egypt, Babylon, 
 Tyre, and other places on earth, is to be referred wholly to corresponding 
 spiritual localities, where souls have a habitation ; for in heaven is a region 
 corresponding to Judsa, a city corresponding to Jerusalem, a people cor- 
 responding to the Jewish people. There is a spiritual Egypt, a spiritual 
 Babylon, a spiritual Tyre and Sidon, and other cities and places of this sort, 
 corresponding to cities and regions of the same name on earth. Finally, the 
 mystical sense must be resorted to, and the letter deserted, whenever the latter 
 appears false, uncdifying, or unworthy of God. This summary is mostly 
 taken from Origen's work on " Principles." Origen appears not to have dis- 
 tinguished between the literal and metaphorical sense ; between what was 
 meant to be understood strictly, according to the natural signification of the 
 words, and what the views and purpose of the writer, the connection of the 
 discourse, and other considerations to be taken into view by the laws of ap- 
 proved criticism, require us to understand in a modified or restricted sense. 
 lie therefore often resorts to mystical or spiritual senses, when the supposition 
 of a popular or figurative use of language would have answered his purpose 
 quite as well. For example : commenting on Gen. iii. 21, in which it is said, 
 "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and 
 clothed them," he says that it would be foolish, and unworthy of God, to sup- 
 pose that he took the skins of animals slain, or which had otherwise perished, 
 and, by sewing them together, reduced them to the form of a coat. He there- 
 fore resorts to a mystical sense. Now the foundation of his error, it is obvi- 
 ous, lay in the supposition, that it is necessary either to take the words of 
 Moses in their most literal acceptation, or to assign to them an allegorical or 
 mystical sense ; that there was no medium between the two. See Delarue's 
 Preface to Origen's Commentaries. Also Neander, Hist. Christ. Religion and 
 Church, vol. i. pp. 555, 556, Torrey's translation. 
 
HIS " HEXAPLA." 175 
 
 corrupted by the Arians, took the hberty of altering what did 
 not please him. For this he was severely censured by Jerome, 
 whom he had offended by some sinister praises bestowed on 
 him in the preface, and which were designed to draw upon 
 him the suspicion of Origenism. Rufinus admits that he had 
 changed, expunged, and modified certain passages, which would 
 not have been tolerated by Latin ears ; but asserts that he had 
 substituted others, taken from the acknowledged writings of 
 Origen. This Jerome denies, and Rufinus fails of proving ; 
 and much intemperate language passed between them. The 
 result was, that Jerome gave a new, and, as he affirms, a faith- 
 ful translation of the work in question. But this, with the 
 exception of a few small fragments, has been suffered to per- 
 ish ; and, for our knowledge of the work, we are indebted 
 almost solely to the corrupt version of Rufinus. The loss 
 of the original is the more to be regretted, as this was one of 
 Origen's most elaborate performances, and contained a full 
 exposition of his views respecting the nature of the Saviour.* 
 The work, in its present form, can afford us little help in 
 settling the question of the opinion of Origen on the subject 
 of the Trinity. It was on this point that Rufinus undertook 
 to correct it. On others, as Jerome informs us, he left Origen 
 to speak his own sentiments. 
 
 Origen's great work was the " Hexapla." f Of this work 
 
 * Rufin. Invect. ; Jerome, Apol. adv. Rujin. 
 
 t The design of the Hexapla was to correct the text of the Greek version 
 of the Old Testament, which was then in common use, but was found to con- 
 tain many false readings, which occasioned some embarrassment in the contro- 
 versies between the Christians and the Jews, who often appealed to the He- 
 brew original as differing from the version of the Seventy. For this purpose, 
 Origen collected all the versions of the Old Testament within his reach, which 
 he transcribed and arranged in parallel columns. First stood the Hebrew 
 text ; then the same in Greek characters. This was followed by the very lit- 
 eral version of the Jew Aquila, then recently published. The next column 
 was occupied by the more free, but, as it is said, faithful translation of Sym- 
 machus, an Ebionite. Then followed the version of the Seventy, corrected 
 by a comparison of it with the Hebrew text. After this stood the Greek ver- 
 sion of Theodotion, also an Ebionite. To these he added two obscure anony- 
 mous versions then recently brought to light ; and, on the Psalms, still 
 another, making the seventh. The work was called Biblia Hexapla, either 
 because it contained six versions, — the fragment on the Psalms not being 
 taken into account, — or because it was originally composed of six columns : 
 the Hebrew text, and the same in Greek characters, forming two ; and the 
 
176 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 only a few fragments have come down to us. The original, 
 which never seems to have been copied entire, was deposited 
 in the libraxy of Ca3sarea by Pamphilus, its founder. The 
 library was destroyed during the eruption of the Saracens ; 
 and this monument of noble industry was thus lost to the 
 world. The parts containing the corrected version of the 
 Septuagint had been transcribed by Eusebius and Pamphilus, 
 with occasional extracts from other versions ; but only frag- 
 ments of these are now extant. 
 
 The eio-ht books " Asainst Celsus " contain much good rea- 
 soning, and many acute and striking remarks. But Origen 
 was trammelled by the superstitions and errors of the age. 
 A belief of the power of magic, and force of names and in- 
 cantations, was common, as well among Christians as Pagans ; 
 and appeared sensibly to impair the evidence of Christianity 
 from miracles. To this belief, Origen was not superior. 
 " Magic," he says, " is not, as the disciples of Epicurus and 
 Aristotle maintain, a futile thing, but certain and constant," 
 and belongs to a recondite theology. 
 
 Many of Celsus's objections, too, were levelled, as have been 
 those of unbelievers since his time, not against Christianity 
 itself, but against its corruptions, which even then abounded ; 
 and to these objections Origen, of course, could furnish no 
 satisfactory reply. 
 
 Again : sevei'al of the narrations of the Old and New Tes- 
 tament were treated by Celsus with levity and ridicule ; and 
 Origen thought to blunt the point of his weapons by inter- 
 posing the shield of allegory and mysticism ; and no doubt his 
 esteem for allegory was increased by the vain belief, that it 
 would help to defend Scripture against profane cavil. But 
 this was to yield the victory to the enemy. Minds formed 
 
 translations of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion, making up 
 the remaining four. Tiie two anonymous versions being afterwards added, it 
 obtained tlie name of tlie Octapla, as it tlien consisted of eiglit columns; and 
 finally of Enncapla, because, witli the version of the Psalms last added, it 
 exhibited nine. Eusebius informs us that Origen afterwards prepared the 
 Tetnipla, consisting of the four principal versions already enumerated. In 
 opposition, however, to this testimony, several modern critics have contended 
 that the wliole formed originally but one work, variously denominated accord- 
 ing to the number of columns, or number of translations, entire or partial, 
 which it contained. 
 
HIS WOKK AGAINST CELSUS. 177 
 
 after the mould of Celsus's were not to be convinced by these 
 methods ; which, in their view, only exposed the weakness of 
 the cause they were meant to serve.* It should be recol- 
 lected, however, that the design of the performance was less 
 to convince minds of this sort than to confirm weak, and per- 
 haps faltering. Christians. With all its defects, however, it 
 was a noble effort ; and is generally esteemed the best defence 
 of Christianity which has descended to us from the early ages. 
 Celsus was a man of superior intellect: learned, acute, witty; 
 a complete master of the art of ridicule. He appears to have 
 been the first who wrote a work intended as a direct attack on 
 Christianity. While the State was using the sword with a 
 design to crush this religion, — then grown to be a formidable 
 power, — Celsus was employing against it all the weapons 
 furnished by his lively and penetrating intellect. He was the 
 Voltaire of his day. His work consisted of two books, called 
 " The True Doctrine." It has now perished, except such parts 
 as are preserved in Origen's " Reply." In this, Celsus's 
 objections are minutely stated and examined. We dismiss 
 the work Avith a single reflection ; which is, that, on certain 
 subjects, the human mind seems to labor and move forever in 
 a circle. Ideas, which pass for novelties at a later epoch, will 
 often be found, upon examination, to be old ideas resuscitated, 
 or called up from the tomb of preceding ages. Thus, if we 
 
 * Beausobre has some just reflections on this subject. Alluding to a re- 
 mark of Origen in his seventh Homily on Leviticus, that if we adhere to the 
 letter, and adopt the Jewish or vulgar exposition, we must blush to think that 
 God has given such laws, since those of the Romans and Athenians were in- 
 comparably more equitable, he says, " It must be acknowledged, that these 
 confessions of the Fathers are verj"^ prejudicial to the Old Testament. The 
 heretics, who were not prepossessed in favor of the Hebrew revelation, knew 
 well how to profit by tliem, and had not docility enough to submit their reason 
 and their faith to allegorical expositions. In fact, what autliority, what evi- 
 dence, can allegories possess, which necessity alone invents ; which are only 
 the sport of imagination ; only meteors, formed, so to speak, of vapors ex- 
 haled by a spirit pressed with difficulties ? The Christians derided the Gen- 
 tiles, when, to conceal the shame of their religious fables, they pretended that 
 they were only veils designed to envelop natural truths. It is not, then, sur- 
 prising, that not only the Pagans, but heretics, in turn, laughed at the ortho- 
 dox, when, to defend the history and laws of Moses, they employed the 
 weapons which they had been the first to break in pieces." — Histoire Critique 
 de Manich€e et du Manicheisme, t. i. p. 287. 
 
 12 
 
178 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY, 
 
 look through the writings of modern cavillers and objectors, 
 we find that they have originated very little. They have 
 done little else than revive and repeat old objections. Celsus 
 doubtless thought, that, by wit, argument, and ridicule, he had 
 put an end to Christianity. But Christianity went on its way, 
 feeling no wound, — went on conquering ; and so, we are con- 
 fident, it will. We may predict the future from the past. 
 If the power or wit of man could overthrow it, it would long 
 ago have fallen ; but it stands, and will stand when all the 
 puny weapons lifted against it, with the hands that wielded 
 them, shall be buried in rubbish and dust. 
 
INFERIORITY OP THE SON. 179 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Inferiority of the Son. — Hippolttus ; a New Witness. — Origen 
 
 ASSERTS THAT THE FATHER AND SON ARE TwO DiSTINCT BeINGS J THAT 
 
 THE Father is Greater than the Son. — Specimens of his Lan- 
 guage AND Reasoning. — Christ is not an Object of Supreme 
 Worship, and not to be addressed in Prater. — The Spirit 
 
 BELOW THE SoN. ETERNAL GENERATION. ThE MATERIAL CrEATIOS 
 
 Eternal. — The Logos Doctrine and the Roman Church. — The 
 Monarchians, Theodotus, Artemon, Praxeas, Noetus, Beryllus. — 
 Efficacy of the Death of Christ. — The Atonement. 
 
 We have traced the doctrine of the distinct nature and in- 
 feriority of the Son from Justin down to Clement of Alexan- 
 dria, who was Origen's master. Before proceeding to detail 
 Origen's views on the subject, we will pause for a moment 
 over a recently discovered work, published at Oxford, in 1851, 
 as a lost work of Origen ; * but Avhich, we think, has been sat- 
 isfactorily proved, by the erudite Bunsen, to be, not a produc- 
 tion of Origen, but of Hippolytus, a Roman presbyter, and 
 Bishop of Portus, the harbor of Rome, near Ostia. Hippo- 
 lytus lived and wrote about the year 220. Bunsen makes 
 him Origen's senior by twenty-five years, and pronounces him 
 "one of the leading men of ancient Christianity," — ".one 
 of those Christian teachers, governors, and thinkers, who made 
 Christianity what it became as a social system, and as one 
 of thought and ethics." He places him " among the series 
 of leading men of the first seven generations of Chris- 
 tians." The title of the work is, " A Refutation of all Here- 
 sies." The tenth book contains what Bunsen calls " the 
 confession of faith of Hippolytus " ; which he pronounces 
 " the real gem of his writings," — " his sacred legacy to 
 posterity." 
 
 The history of Hippolytus has been involved in great ob- 
 scurity ; and all is not yet perfectly clear. Photius makes him 
 * The " Philosophumena." 
 
180 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 a scholar of Iren^eus. He wrote numerous works, the titles 
 of which are preserved by the old writers. He is styled 
 bishop, and both Eusebius and Jerome more than once men- 
 tion him ; but neither of them knew where he had his abode 
 or see. Some have assigned him a residence at Portus Roma- 
 nus in Arabia, that is, Adan or Aden ; others at the port of 
 Rome, where Bunsen places him. It is not improbable that 
 he might have resided at both places at different periods of his 
 life. He wrote in Greek. His death by martyrdom is referred 
 to the early part of the third century. In 1551, a statue in 
 marble was dug up in the vicinity of Rome, representing a 
 venerable man seated in a chair, and having the title of several 
 of Hipj)olytus's works engraved upon it ; and there can be little 
 doubt that it is his. Few of his writings have been supposed 
 to remain. 
 
 The fragments we before possessed, however, showed the 
 opinions he entertained on the subject of the Trinity. He 
 was no believer in a co-equal Three. His Trinity, says Nean- 
 der, was " strictly subordinational." He asserted that " God 
 caused the Logos to proceed fi*om him when he would and as 
 he wovild." In regard to the words, " I and my Father are 
 one," he observes, that Christ " used the same expression 
 respecting his own relation to the disciples." * 
 
 But he comes to us now, since the discovery of this work, 
 as a new Avitness against the antiquity of the modern doctrine 
 of the Trinity. The confession just referred to, as given by 
 Bunsen, clearly exhibits the superiority of the Father, and the 
 dependent and derived nature of the Son. The Father, ac- 
 cording to the confession, is " the one God, the first and the 
 only One, the Maker and Lord of all," who " had nothing co- 
 eval with him, no infinite chaos, no measureless water or solid 
 earth, no thick air or hot fire or subtile spirit ; not the blue 
 vault of the great heaven. But he was One, alone by him- 
 self; who, willing it, called into being what had no being be- 
 fore, except that when he willed to call it into being, he had 
 full knowledge of what was to be." Here is the One Infinite 
 Father, who is above all, without co-equal, the Originator of 
 adl things. But, like the other ante-Nicene Fathers, Hippo- 
 * Hist. Christ. Dogm., p. 163. 
 
HIPPOLYTUS; A NEW WITNESS. 181 
 
 lytiis believed, that, in creating the world, God made use of 
 a subordinate being, or instrument, which was the Logos, or 
 Son. " This sole and universal God," Hippolytus says, " first 
 by his cogitation begets the Word (Logos), . . . the indwell- 
 ing Reason of the universe." " When he (the Logos) came 
 forth from Him who begat him, being his first-begotten speech, 
 he had in himself the ideas conceived by the Father. When, 
 therefore, the Father commanded that the world should be, 
 the Logos accomplished it in detail, pleasing God." Again : 
 this or that effect took place, " so far as the commanding God 
 willed that the Logos should accomplish it." Here is subordi- 
 nation as unequivocally expressed as language can declare it. 
 God is the Original : he commands, and the Son, or Logos, 
 performs. " These things he (God) made by the Logos," the 
 " only-begotten child of the Father, the light-bringing voice, 
 anterior to the morning star." In common with the other 
 Fathers, Hippolytus applies to the Son the title " God," be- 
 cause begotten of the substance of God, and not created out 
 of nothing, as other things were ; but he clearly distinguishes 
 him from the Supreme, Infinite One. We discover in the 
 confession, as Bunsen gives it, no mention of the Spirit as a 
 distinct manifestation. Bunsen quotes G. A. Meier as assert- 
 ing " the fact, that Hippolytus decidedly ascribes no person- 
 ality to the Holy Spirit." * 
 
 The creed of this old bishop, who, as we are told, " received 
 the traditions and doctrine of the Apostolic age fi-om an unsus- 
 pected source," is certainly not Athanasian. Well might 
 Bunsen pronounce the " doctrinal system of the ante-Nicene 
 Church," among the teachers of which he assigns to Hippo- 
 lytus so elevated a place, " irreconcilable with the letter and 
 authority of the formularies of the Constantinian, and, in gen- 
 eral, of the Byzantine councils, and with the medigeval systems 
 built upon them." He subjoins, " I say that it is irreconcil- 
 able with that letter and that authority, as much as these are 
 with the Bible and common sense ; and I add, it would be 
 fiilly as irreconcilable with the Byzantine and Roman churches 
 If Arianism had pi'e vailed." In what sense this latter asser- 
 
 * [See Meier's Lehre von der TriniUit, i. 88; Bunsen's Christianity and Man- 
 kind, i. 464. — Ed.] 
 
182 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 tion is true, will appear when we come to treat of Arius and 
 the Arian controversy.* 
 
 We now proceed to Origen's views of the Son and Spirit. 
 Like the preceding Fathers, he regarded the Son as the first 
 production of the Father ; having emanated from him as light 
 from the sun, and thus partaking of the same substance ; that 
 is, a divine. He believed, however, that God and the Son 
 constituted two individual essences, two beings. This belief 
 he distinctly avows in more than one instance, and the general 
 strain of his writings implies it. He disclaims being of the 
 number of those " who deny that the Father and Son are two 
 substances"; and proceeds to assert that they "are two things 
 as to their essence, but one in consent, concord, and identity 
 of will."! He quotes the Saviour's words, "I and my Father 
 are one," which he explains as referring solely to unity of will 
 and affection ; and refers, in illustration, to Acts iv. 32 : "And 
 the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one 
 soul." Again : from the circumstance that Jesus is called 
 
 * For the above quotations from Bunsen we refer our readers to his 
 " Christianity and Mankind, their Beginnings and Prospects "; a work in 
 seven volumes, in which will be found a second edition of his " Hippolytus 
 and his Age " (London, 1854). See especially the preface to the first volume, 
 and pp. 400-404, where the confession of Hippolytus is given; also p. 464. 
 "I doubt not," says Bunsen, "that some people will think it their duty to 
 prove that Hippolytus had the correct doctrine respecting the Athanasian 
 definition of the three persons. It is true, he says the contrary ; but tiiat 
 does not signify with the doctors of the old school." — Vol. i. p. 466. 
 
 Hippolytus was, says Bunsen, the " first preacher of note whom the 
 Church of Rome ever produced." Tliere were "no homilies by a bishop of 
 the Church of Rome known before those of Leo the Great," a. d. 440. Clem- 
 ant, " the only learned Roman bishop of the old time, wrote an Epistle, but 
 no homily." From that time to the end of the second century, the Shepherd 
 of Hernias is the "only specimen of (Christian) literature connected with 
 Rome." — Vol. i. pp. 265, 472. 
 
 t Cont. Cfls., lib. viii. § 12. " Two in essence." The term in the original is 
 hypostasis, essence. In this sense it was always used by the early Fathers, 
 and not in the modern sense. Huet says, " TnoaTaaig pro ovaia priscis tem- 
 poribus solebat usurpari ab Ethnicis et Christianis." He refers to Jerome 
 (Episl. 57, ad Damas.), from whom he quotes the assertion, " Tola scecularium 
 literarum schola nihil aliud viroaraaiv nisi ovaiav novlt." He then adds, " Ita 
 Bumpserunt Nica^ni Patres, ita Sardicenses" (Orig., lib. ii. c. ii, qusest. 2, § 3). 
 That such was the meaning of the term, as used by the ancient Fathers, ad 
 mits of no dispute. So Brucker, Petavius, Du Pin, and the learned Trinita 
 rians generally, decide. 
 
INFERIORITY OF THE SON. 183 
 
 "light" in the Gospel of John (i. 4, 5, 9), and, in his Epistle 
 (1 John i. 5), God is said to be " light," some, he observes, 
 may infer that " the Father does not differ from the Son in 
 essence." But this inference, he proceeds to say, would be 
 wrong ; for " the light, which shines in darkness, and is not 
 comprehended by it, is not the same with that in which there 
 is no darkness at all." The Father and the Son, he then 
 says, are " two lights." * This, surely, is not the reasoning of 
 a Trinitarian. Once more : he expresses his disapprobation 
 of the hypothesis that " the Spirit has no proper essence 
 diverse from the Father and Son," and adds, " We believe 
 that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three essences, or 
 three substances." f 
 
 Let us next hear what he says of the inferiority of the Son. 
 Jerome, who had access to several of his works which are now 
 lost, or have come down to us in a corrupt and mutilated form, 
 accuses him of saying that " the Son was not begotten, but 
 made "; that, " compared with the Father, he is a very small 
 light, which appears great to us on account of our feebleness." 
 Again : Origen, he says, " takes the example of two images, 
 a larger and smaller ; of which one fills the world, and be- 
 comes in some sort invisible by its magnitude ; the other falls 
 within the limits of distinct vision. To the former he com- 
 pares the Father; to the latter, the Son." He attributes, 
 continues Jerome, " perfect goodness " only to the " Omnipo- 
 tent Father," and does not allow " the Son to be good " (that 
 is, in an absolute sense), " but only a certain breath and image 
 of goodness." J 
 
 But let us listen to Origen himself. In his commentaries 
 on John, he pronounces " God the Logos," or Son, to be 
 " surpassed by the God of the universe." § Commenting on 
 John i. 3, "All things were made by him," he observes, that 
 the particle by or through (8ia), is never referred to the pri- 
 mary agent, but only to the secondary and subordinate ; and 
 he takes, as an example, Heb. i. 2, " By whom also he made 
 the worlds," or ages. By this expression, he says, Paul meant 
 
 * Comm. in Joan., t. ii. § 18; 0pp., iv. 76. 
 
 t Ibid., § 6 ; 0pp., iv. 61. J Epist. 94, al. 59, ad Avit. 
 
 § Comm. in Joan., t. ii. § 3 ; 0pp., iv. 53. 
 
184 OEIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 to teach us that " God made the ages by the Son " as an in- 
 strument. So he adds, in the place under consideration, " If 
 all things were made (8ta) through the Logos, they were not 
 made (utto) by him " (that is, as the primary cause), " but by 
 a greater and better ; and who can that be but the Fathei'.?" * 
 Again : Jesus is called the " true light "; and in " proportion 
 as God, the Father of truth, is greater than truth, and the 
 Father of wisdom is more noble and excellent than wisdom, — 
 in the same proportion," says Origen, "he excels the true 
 lio-ht." f Again : the Son and Spirit, he says, " are excelled 
 by the Father, as much or more than they excel other beings." 
 — " He is in no respect to be compared with the Father ; for 
 he is the image of his goodness, and the effulgence, not of 
 God, but of his glory and of his eternal light ; and a ray, not 
 of the Father, but of his power, and a pure emanation of his 
 most powerful glory, and a spotless mirror of his energy." $ 
 Again : " The Father, who sent him (Jesus), is alone good, 
 and greater than he who was sent." § 
 
 Ao-ain : Origen contends that Christ is not the object of 
 supreme worship ; and that prayer, properly such, ought never 
 to be addressed to him, but is to be oflPered to the God of the 
 universe, through his only-begotten Son, who, as our interces- 
 sor and high priest, bears our petitions to the throne of his 
 Father and our Father, of his God and our God. On this 
 subject he is very full and explicit. " Prayer is not to be 
 directed," he says, " to one begotten, — not even to Christ 
 himself; but to the God and Father of the universe alone, to 
 whom also our Saviour prayed, and to whom he teaches us 
 to pray. When his disciples said, ' Teach us to pray,' he 
 taught them to pray, not to himself, but to the Father, saying, 
 ' Our Father, who art in heaven.' For if the Son," he con- 
 tinues, " be different from the Father in essence, as we have 
 proved in another place, we must either pray to the Son, and 
 not to the Father, or to both, or to the Father alone. But no 
 one is so absurd as to maintain that we are to pray to the Son, 
 and not to the Father. If prayer is addressed to both, we 
 ought to use the plural number, and say, ' Forgive, bless, pre- 
 
 * Comm. in Joan., t. ii. § 6 ; 0pp., iv. 60. t Ibid., t. ii. § 18 ; 0pp., iv. 76. 
 X Ibid., t. xiii. § 25; 0pp., iv. 235, 236. § Ibid., t. vi. § 23; 0pp., iv. 139, 
 
THE SON NOT AN OBJECT OP PRAYER. 185 
 
 serve ye us,' or something like it ; but as this is not a fit mode 
 of address, and no example of it occurs in the Scriptures, it 
 remains that we pray to the Father of the universe alone." 
 He adds, " But as he, who would pray as he ought, must not 
 pray to him who himself prays, but to Him whom Jesus our 
 Lord taught us to invoke in prayer (namely, the Father), so 
 no prayer is to be offered to the Father without him ; which 
 he clearly shows when he says (John xvi. 23, 24), ' Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you. Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in 
 my name, he shall give it you. Hitherto ye have asked noth- 
 ing in my name : ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may 
 be full,' For he does not say, 'Ask me,' nor 'Ask the Fa- 
 ther,' simply ; but, ,' If ye shall ask the Father in my name, 
 he shall give it you.' For, iintil Jesus had thus tauglit them, 
 no one had asked the Father in the name of the Son ; and 
 what he said was true : ' Hitherto ye have asked nothing in 
 my name.' " And again : " What are we to infer," asks 
 Origen, " fi'om the question, ' Why call ye me good ? There 
 is none good but one, — God the Father.' What but that he 
 meant to say, ' Why pray to me ? It is proper to pray to the 
 Father alone, to whom I pray, as ye learn from the Scriptures. 
 For ye ought not to pray to him who is constituted by the 
 Father high priest for you, and who has received the office of 
 advocate from the Father, but through the high priest and 
 advocate, who can be touched with the feeling of your infirmi- 
 ties ; having been tempted in all respects as ye are, but, by 
 the gift of the Father, tempted without sin. Learn, therefore, 
 how great a gift ye have received of my Father ; having ob- 
 tained, through generation in me, the spirit of adoption, by 
 which ye have a title to be called the sons of God and my 
 brethren, as I said to the Father concerning you, by the 
 mouth of David, " I will declare thy name to my brethren ; 
 in the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to thee." But 
 it is not according to reason for a brother to be addressed in 
 prayer by those who are glorified by the same Father. Ye 
 are to pray to the Father alone, with and through me.' " * 
 
 This we take to be sound Unitarianism. Indeed, the ques- 
 tion of the impropriety of addressing the Son in prayer could 
 * De Orat., § 15 ; 0pp., i. 222, 223. 
 
186 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 not have been better argued by the most strenuous advocate 
 for the divine unity at the present day. 
 
 We have thus shown, as we think, conclusively, that Origen 
 believed God and the Son to be two essences, two substances, 
 two beings ; that he placed the Son at an immense distance 
 from the Infinite One, and was strongly impressed with the 
 impropriety of addressing him in prayer, strictly so called ; 
 that he viewed him, however, as standing at the head of all 
 God's offspring, and with them, and for them, as his younger 
 brethren, whom he had been appointed to teach and to save, 
 offering prayer at the throne of the Eternal. Still Origen 
 does not liesitate to apply the terms " creature " and " made " 
 to him, and asserts that he was begotten, not from an inner 
 necessity, but '' by the will of the Father, the first-born of 
 every creature." 
 
 To the Spirit, Origen assigned a place below the Son, by 
 whom, according to him, it was made. To the Spirit the 
 office of redeeming the human race properly pertained ; but, 
 it being incompetent to so great a work, the Son, who alone 
 was adequate to accomplish it, engaged.* The Father, he 
 says, pervades all things ; the Son, only beings endowed with 
 reason ; and the Holy Spirit, only the sanctified, or saved. 
 
 We have reserved for the last place a very remarkable pas- 
 sage relating to the comparative rank of the Father, Son, and 
 Spirit. It contains a plain and direct assertion, and is enough 
 of itself to decide the question respecting Origen's opinions. 
 He says, " Greater is the power of the Father than 
 
 THAT OF the SoN AND THE HoLY SpIRIT ; AND GREATER 
 THAT OF THE SoN THAN THAT OF THE HoLY SpIRIT ; AND 
 AGAIN, THE POWER OF THE HOLY SpiRIT SURPASSES THAT 
 
 OF OTHER HOLY THINGS." Sucli language needs no com- 
 ment.f 
 
 Neander asserts that Origen was the first who clearly " ex- 
 pressed the idea of eternal generation." But this was in 
 connection with some refined and idealistic speculations con- 
 
 * Comm. in Joan., t. ii. § 6; 0pp., iv. 60-64. See also Jerome, Epist. 94, ad 
 Avit. 
 
 t De Princip., lib. i. c. 3, § 5 ; 0pp., i. 62. Justinian quotes the passage in 
 his Epistle on the errors of Origen, addressed to Menas or Mennas, Patriarch 
 of Constantinople. ConciL, t. vi. p. 145, ed. Coleti. 
 
ETERNAL GENERATION. 187 
 
 serning the relation of God to time ; the same which, accoid- 
 iiig to Neander, led him to "advance the idea of an eternal 
 creation, — a derivation of the creation from God by virtue of 
 an eternal beginning." We are willing to admit, that if the 
 material creation, according to the opinion of this Father, was 
 eternal, the generation of the Son might have been so too. 
 
 The above-qiToted expi*essions of Neander are taken from 
 his " Lectures on the History of Christian Dogmas," derived 
 from notes furnished by his hearers after his death. In his 
 " History of the Christian Religion and Church," we find a 
 somewhat more explicit statement of his views on the subjects 
 referred to. He there speaks of the difficulty of conceiving 
 that Almighty Power and Goodness could exist without being 
 forever active. " The transition fi'om a state of inactivity to 
 the act of creation," he says, " is inconceivable, wdthout a 
 change which is incompatible with the being of a God." If 
 this was Origen's view, he might well find " reasons against 
 a beginning of creation generally "; and Avould, of course, 
 attempt to divest the generation of the Son of all " temporal 
 conditions." " He," says Neander, " who fixed no begin- 
 ning to creation, but supposed it to be eternal, would far less 
 fix any beginning here. He strove to banish all notions of 
 time from the conception of the generation of the Logos. 
 It was necessary here, as he thought, to conceive of a timeless 
 present, an eternal now "; and this he supposed to be inti- 
 mated by the expression " to-day," in the second Psalm. 
 Origen was led into this view, Neander says, by his " philo- 
 sophical education in the Platonic school." * He held the 
 " Platonic idea of an endless becoming.''^ He was careful, 
 however, to affirm that the generation of the Son was by act 
 
 * Others deny that Origen taught the doctrine here ascribed to him relat- 
 ing to tlie eternity of the Son. Tlie expressions mainly reHed upon to prove 
 that he lield this doctrine, it is to be observed, are talien from Athanasius, 
 who may not have reported them correctly. (See Martini, Versuch, etc., 
 p. 159.) " Though from liis idealistic position," says Hagenbach (First 
 Period, § 47), " Origen denied eternity to matter ... he nevertheless assumed 
 the eternal creation of innumerable ideal worlds, solely because he, as little aa 
 Clement, could not conceive of God as unoccupied," "for to say the nature 
 of God is idle and inactive, is alike impious and absurd." It is not surprising 
 that a species of reasoning so abstract and refined should be found irrecon- 
 cilable with what Origen elsewhere states relating to the facts of creation. 
 
188 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 of the " divine will "; and, by the acknowledgment of Nean- 
 der, he believed the Son to be subordinate. " It appeared to 
 him something like a profanation of the first and supreme 
 essence," says Neander, "to suppose an equality or a unity 
 between him and any other being whatever, — not excepting 
 the Son of God. As the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are 
 incomparably exalted above all other existences, even in the 
 highest ranks of the spiritual world, so high, and yet higher, 
 is the Father exalted above them." 
 
 A similar account is given by Gieseler. He states, as one 
 of the two great principles which " ran through the whole of 
 the Alexandrian theology," that " the Godhead can never be 
 unemployed ; so that an endless series of worlds preceded the 
 present, and an endless series of worlds will follow it." Giese- 
 ler adds, " The Alexandrians speak of the Logos as a highly 
 exalted being ; evidently, however, they make him inferior to 
 the Supreme God. ' The wish to remove everything that 
 would be unworthy of God from the notion of the generation 
 of the Son led at last to the doctrine taught by Origen, that 
 the Logos did not proceed from the essence of the Father, but 
 was produced by the will of God, generated from all eternity. 
 He taught also that the Holy Ghost was created by the Son." 
 In support of the statement relating to the inferiority of the 
 Son, Gieseler adduces ample testimony from the writings of 
 both Clement and Origen ; and, for other parts of the state- 
 ment, he quotes largely from Origen. How these views are 
 to be reconciled with the modern Trinity, we do not see.* 
 
 * Neander's Lectures on the History of Christian Dogmas, pp. 120, 146-148 ; 
 History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. i. pp. 568, 588, 590, Torrey's 
 trans. ; Gieseler's Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. pp. 138-140, ed. Philadelphia, 
 1836. 
 
 It has been made a question, whether, according to the Alexandrian doc- 
 trine, Origen taught, as it has been asserted of him, that matter originally 
 flowed from the bosom of God. The principle well accords with several parts 
 of his system, though we are not aware that he has anywhere expressly as- 
 serted it as regards the origin of matter. Beausobre thinks that his real 
 opinion was, not that matter originally emanated from the substance of God; 
 that all lie meant to affirm was, that God never existed for a moment without 
 exercising his perfections, and, consequently, without an act of creation ; and 
 that, in this sense, he supposed matter to be eternal. On the emanative prin- 
 ciple, it might be said to be eternal, as proceeding from the bosom of the 
 Eternal One. It is easy to see, that, along with such speculations on the cos- 
 
THE MONARCHIANS. 189 
 
 That the whole " Logos doctrine," as it is called, was by 
 many regarded as an innovation, very clearly appears. Nean- 
 der, in his " Lectures on Christian Dogmas," notices what he 
 calls a " Unitarian monotheistic interest " as manifesting itself 
 about the time of Origen, or a little earlier. He quotes Ter- 
 tullian as saying that " ignorant people " were " alarmed at 
 the names of the Trinity, and accuse us (that is, the philo- 
 sophical Christians) of wishing to teach three Gods, while 
 they would be worshippers of one God." These were the 
 Monarchians, as they were denominated ; one class of whom 
 was represented by Artemon, who appeared about this time. 
 The history of Artemon is obscure. Whether or not he had 
 any connection with Theodotus, a worker in leather and here- 
 siarch from Byzantium, the learned are unable to decide. It 
 is worthy of notice, that he claimed for his opinions the author- 
 ity of antiquity. Eusebius, in the twenty-seventh and twenty- 
 eighth chai)ters of the fifth book of his history, alludes to 
 several books written by persons whose names were unknown 
 to him ; and, among others, one against the heresy of Arte- 
 mon, from which he gives an extract. There is an uncer- 
 tainty attending the views of both Theodotus and Artemon, 
 some attributino; to them the belief that Jesus was the son of 
 Joseph and Mary ; others telling us that one or both of them, 
 Artemon certairdy, believed him to have been born of a virgin 
 by the Holy Spirit, and so to have had something divine in 
 him : a " certain divine energy " uniting itself with him from 
 the first, the divinity of the Father in some way acting in 
 him. But what is important is, that Artemon, in thus believ- 
 
 mogony, the generation of the Son might be disengaged from the idea of 
 time. We are willing that the doctrine of the eternal generation should stand 
 on the ground on which Origen virtually put it ; that is, eternity may be 
 ascribed to the Son in the same sense in whicli it may be ascribed to the 
 material creation, and only in that sense. This is not what modern Trinita- 
 rians mean. 
 
 According to Jerome (Epist. 94, al. 59, ad Avit.), Origen taught that all 
 bodies, that is, all of the grosser sort, will be finally converted into spiritual 
 substances; that all corporeal nature will be reduced back to the divine, which 
 is the " most excellent"; and then " God will be all in all." See Beausobre, 
 Eistoire de Manichee et du Maniche'isme, t. ii. pp. 284, 285. Also Brucker, Hist. 
 Crit. Phil., t. iii. p. 443 ; and Huet. Origeniana, lib. ii. c. ii. qutest. 2, § 24 ; and 
 3uaest. 12, § 2. 
 
190 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 ing, claimed to hold the primitive doctrine. In the extract 
 just referred to, given by Eusebius, we read, " They affirm 
 that all the ancients, and the very Apostles, received and 
 taught the same things which they now assert ; and that the 
 preaching of the truth was preserved till the times of Victor, 
 who, from Peter, was the thirteenth Bishop of Rome ; but, 
 from the times of his successor Zephyrinus, the truth has been 
 adulterated." Against the accuracy of these assertions, the 
 author quoted by Eusebius stoutly argues; but there the asser- 
 tions stand, made with great confidence and evidently in good 
 faith. Artemon's claim to hold the ancient doctrine has some- 
 what perplexed the advocates of the antiquity of the " Logos 
 doctrine." It is to them an ugly fact, difficult to be disposed 
 of. Dr. Baur, as represented by Neander, supposed the 
 "Logos doctrine" to have been a compromise, or an "attempt 
 at mediation," between diffi^rent parties. This, it will be per- 
 ceived, supposes it not to have been the ancient doctrine. 
 
 Neander says, that, " since it has been found that the Mon- 
 archians of the third century appeal to the agreement of the 
 older Roman bishops with their views, modern inquirers have 
 been led to infer from this circvunstance that the Monarchian 
 tenet was in this church originally the prevailing one, while 
 the doctrine of the Lojios was unknown to it." . Again : 
 " When they (the Artemonites) asserted, that, from the time 
 of Victor's successor Zephyrinus, the true doctrine of this 
 church became obscured, some fact must be lying at the bot- 
 tom of this assertion ; which, unhappily, in the absence of his- 
 torical data, it is impossible, at present, accurately to ascer- 
 tain." The problem is not one in which we feel any special 
 interest; and we leave the solution of it to those who maintain 
 that the modern doctrine of the Trinity is the old doctrine. 
 We will only add, that the book from which Eusebius made 
 the extract above referred to is supposed by Bunsen to have 
 been the " Little Labyrinth," which he thinks was, without 
 doubt, written by Hij^polytus.* 
 
 The Artemonites were many of them men of scientific cul- 
 
 * See Eusebius, Hist., v. 27, 28; Neander, Hist. Christ. Dogm., pp. 149- 
 153; IliHt. Christ. Rilig. and Church, i. 576-582; Bunsen, Chrislianitij and Man- 
 kind, i. 402, 439, etc. 
 
THE MONARCHIANS. 191 
 
 ture. They " busied themselves a good deal with mathe- 
 matics, dialectics, and criticism." They were reflective and 
 philosophical ; their intellectual tendencies led them to elimi- 
 nate almost entirely the mystical element from their theology. 
 They were admirers, says Eusebius, of Aristotle and Theo- 
 phrastus. Neander has a remark in this connection, Avhich is 
 worth noticing. " We perceive here," says he, " the different 
 kinds of influence exerted by the systems of philosophers ; the 
 Platonic being employed to defend the doctrine of Christ's 
 divinity, while the opposite direction of mind, tending to com- 
 bat that docti'ine, leaned to the side of the Aristotelian." 
 The Artemonites brought criticism to bear on the text both 
 of the Old Testament and the New. They had, according to 
 Eusebius, copies of the Scriptures corrected by different hands, 
 to which they appealed. 
 
 The other class of Monarchians, which appeared about the 
 same time, consisted of Praxea's, Noetus, and Beryllus. In 
 their opinions they differed somewhat from Theodotus and 
 Artemon, though equally with them they stood in antagonism 
 to the prevailing Logos doctrine. The precise shades of their 
 belief it is difficult to determine. Of Praxeas we know little 
 except what we gather from the pages of TertuUian, who 
 hated him for the active part he took against Montanus and 
 Montanism. He was called by his antagonists a Patripassian. 
 He came from Asia Minor, the " fatherland of Monarchian- 
 ism " ; thence he went to Rome, where his opinions met no 
 opposition. He afterwards proceeded to Carthage, where he 
 encountered the stern -faced TertuUian. His ideas of the 
 union of the Father and Son are not very clear ; only he was 
 understood to deny the personality of the Logos in the Son, 
 referring all to the Father. It is certain that he strenuously 
 iisserted the unity of God ; and one of the charges he brought 
 against the prevailing orthodoxy, which TertuUian attempted 
 to refute, was that it taught a " plurality of Gods ; " that is, 
 by means of the Logos doctrine. 
 
 Noetus, who was, too, of Asiatic origin, and who found an 
 op])onent in Hippolytus, as Praxeas did in TertuUian, and 
 Beryllus afterwards in Origen, was also strongly in the " Uni- 
 tarian Monotheistic interest." His views are not more pre- 
 
192 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 cisely defined, at least in any writing which has come down tc 
 us, than those of Praxeas, to which they bore a certain resem- 
 blance. He believed in one God the Father, who manifested 
 himself in the Son, the Logos not, however, becoming in him 
 a separate personality. He claimed that his doctrine only 
 tended to " honor Christ," while it preserved the unity of God. 
 He, as well as Praxeas, was called a Patripassian. 
 
 Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia, was another of the 
 group.* He held, so far as we can gather on a subject con- 
 fessedly very obscure, and about which writers materially 
 differ, that Christ had no personal existence before his appear- 
 ance on earth, though while on earth the divinity of the Father 
 dwelt in him, having united itself with him at his birth. 
 Neander ascribes to him a " conciliatory position," a " midway 
 tendency," more successfully developed afterwards in Sabel- 
 lius. He finally yielded through the influence of Origen, and 
 became reconciled to the Church. He was classed with the 
 Patripassians. It was the Council assembled against Beryllus, 
 as Neander thinks, which established the doctrine, firmly held 
 by Origen, that Christ possessed a rational human soul, before 
 denied, the Logos, from the time of Justin Martyr at least, 
 being supposed to supply the place of it.f 
 
 So unsatisfactory to multitudes of minds was the doctrine 
 of the Plutonizing Fathers concerning the Logos, or Son. It 
 called forth vigorous opposition, and this opposition was not 
 confined to the "simple" and unlettered to whom Tertullian 
 refers. Those just named were generally learned men. Such 
 was the state of opinion when Origen wrote. His doctrine 
 was antagonistic to these Monarchian opinions, and developed 
 itself partly from conflict with them. 
 
 On the subject of Christ's human soul, Origen seems to 
 have held some views peculiar to himself. He supposed that 
 
 * Euscb. Uht., vi. 33 ; Neander, Hist. Christ. Relig. and Church, i. 593, 594. 
 For a general view of the whole group, see Martini, Versuch, pp. 128-150. 
 See also Neander, Hist., i. 576-585, 591-594 ; Dogm'., pp. 149-163 ; and Kurtz, 
 Text-Book, First Period, § 40. 
 
 t So Justin Martyr makes Christ to consist of three principles, " auua Koi 
 x6yov Kal -ipvxnv." {Apol. II., c. 10.) "The Divine Logos," says Semisch 
 " occupied in Christ the place of reason in man," that is, according to Justia 
 {Justin Martyr, ii. 312.) Sec also Hagenbach, First Period, § 66. 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 193 
 
 the Logos, or divine nature in Christ, became united with a 
 human rational soul before his incarnation. He believed all 
 souls to be preexistent, all endowed with freedom. Of these 
 souls, which, from the moment of their production, were placed 
 in a state of probation, one, having used well its liberty, was, 
 on account of its distinguished sanctity, taken into union wuth 
 the Logos, or Son, and became one spirit with it, one sub- 
 stance. This union, as Origen supposed, prepared the way 
 for a future union with flesh ; a divine nature being incapable 
 of union with body, without some medium.* The soul thus 
 honored was selected, as just intimated, for its merits. Retain- 
 ing its immaculate purity, and love to its Maker, it was re- 
 warded by being raised into union with the divine Logos ; and 
 we, as Origen further taught, if we imitate the singular love 
 of Christ to God, shall be made partakers of the same Logos, 
 and, in proportion to our merits, be taken into union with it.f 
 Origen had elevated conceptions of the moral efficacy of 
 the death of Christ ; but his views of the atonement would be 
 pronounced exceedingly defective and erroneous by those who 
 should judge him by the Calvinistic standard. He was fond 
 of regarding Christ as the light, the guide and pattern, of the 
 human soul, as its purifier, its Redeemer and Saviour, as well 
 by his teachings as by his death. He was the wisdom of the 
 Father, and the image of his goodness and truth ; as such, it 
 was his appropriate office to shed light on the human spirit, 
 and, through the love of goodness, win it back to God. " Like 
 ^11 the Fathers before him, Justin (to a certain degree) ex- 
 cepted, Origen," says Bunsen, " had no idea of the atonement 
 in the sense of the Anselmo-Calvinistic theory, — of satisfac- 
 tion given by the death of Jesus to the Divine Justice." J 
 
 * De Prina'p., lib. ii. c. 6. 
 
 t On the obscure subject of Christ's preexistent human soul, see Neander, 
 Hist. Christ. Relig. and Church, i. 635-639. 
 X Christianity and Mankind, i. 293. 
 
 13 
 
194 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Oeigen's System of Rational and Animated Natures. — All Souls 
 Preexistent. — Purpose of the Material Universe. — The Stars 
 Animated, and will be judged. — Tutelar Spirits. — Demons. — 
 Present Condition the Result of Former Trial. — Extent of 
 Christ's Redemption. — Celestial Natures. — Origin of Sin. — 
 Human Ability. — No Unconditional Election. 
 
 With regard to the extent of the benefits intended to be 
 conveyed by the death of Christ, Origen entertained some 
 very singular, and, as will be admitted by all, exceedingly wild 
 and visionary notions. But, to enable our readers readily to 
 comprehend his opinion, or perhaps his conjectures, on this 
 subject, we must first make them acquainted with his views 
 of the great sj'stem of rational and animated natures, com- 
 prehending angels, men, and demons, sun, moon, and stars. 
 These views, it will be perceived, Avere derived from the very 
 fanciful philosophy of the age ; and, though they may consti- 
 tute bad theology, they are entitled, some of them at least, to 
 our admiration, as beautiful creations of a poetic imagination. 
 
 All beings endowed with reason, according to Origen, are of 
 one nature, or essence,* and were produced long before the 
 
 * All beings endowed with reason, including, according to Jerome, " the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, angels, powers, dominations, and other vir- 
 tues," — all these, says Jerome, he asserted to be of one substance ; though, 
 at other times, he would not allow the Son to be of the same substance with 
 the Father, dreading the appearance of impiety (Epist. 95, ad Avit.). The 
 expression, "of one substance," or one essence, which is here employed by 
 Origen in reference to God, angels, and the souls of men, is deserving of 
 notice, as it is precisely that which is often employed by the Fathers in speak- 
 ing of God and the Son. The inference is obvious. Origen " does not hesi- 
 tate," says Jerome, " to ascribe the nature of the omnipotent God to angels 
 and men." And why should he refuse to ascribe it to the Son 1 Yet he did 
 gometimes refuse from a principle of piety, so careful was he not to infringe 
 the Divine Unity. To the Oriymiana of the learned Huet, we acknowledge 
 ourselves indebted for much assistance in the preparation of this and the fol- 
 lowing chapter. 
 
ALL SOULS PEEEXISTENT. 195 
 
 foundation of the visible world. In this opinion he was not 
 singular. The preexistence of souls was a dogma of the 
 reigning philosophy. At first, as Origen maintained, they 
 were pure intelligences, all glowing with love to their Maker. 
 They, however, possessed entire freedom, and the capacity of 
 virtue and vice. The consequence was, their primeval love 
 grew cold, and they became in various degrees estranged from 
 God, the fountain and centre of moral life and heat. They 
 were hence reduced to different ranks of beings, and doomed 
 to occupy different stations, more or less exalted or depressed, 
 according to their acquired character and habits ; and this visi- 
 ble, material world was created for their reception. 
 
 Some were placed in the bodies of the sun and stars, and 
 were appointed to the noble office of enlightening and adorning 
 the universe ; and continue to shine with greater or less splen- 
 dor, according to their moral merits. The stars are thus 
 animated, endowed with reason, and have partaken of sin. 
 They receive the commands of God, and move in their pre- 
 scribed courses ; they still retain the attribute of freedom ; 
 their virtue is capable of increase or diminution ; and they 
 will hereafter be judged. They are able, by their positions 
 and aspects, to prefigure future events ; and apostate spirits, 
 deriving their knowledge from them, transmitted the arts of 
 astrology to man.* 
 
 Of others was formed the community of angels, who, accord- 
 ing to Origen, are clothed with light, ethereal vehicles ; to 
 which, in consistency with the philosophical tenets in w.hich 
 he was reared, he seemed inclined to add bodies of a grosser 
 sort ; thus making them compound beings, like man, consist- 
 ing of body and soul. He assigns them various offices. He 
 sometimes speaks of each individual of our race as constantly 
 attended by a good and bad angel. Christians, especially, 
 enjoy the benefit of a tutelar spirit ; but, whether appointed 
 at their birth or baptism, he does not afford us the means of 
 determining. Some preside over communities and churches ; 
 and hence, in the Revelation, we hear of the " angels of the 
 
 * Comv}. in Gen., t. iii. § 5 ; 0pp., iii. 8, 9. Philo, with whose writings 
 Origen must have been familiar, speaks of the stars as animals endowed with 
 intelligence. [De Mundi Opif., c. 24 ; 0pp., i. 17.) 
 
196 OEIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 churches"; some over inanimate objects, the operations of 
 nature, and human inventions and arts ; over plants and ani- 
 mals : each having received the charge for which he is, by 
 disposition, best fitted ; regard being had to his merit or de- 
 merit in a preexistent state. Thus Raphael is the patron of 
 the medical art ; to Gabriel are assigned the affairs of war ; 
 and to Michael, for his piety, the offering of the prayers of the 
 saints.* They assist in transmitting souls into bodies, in dis- 
 engaging them at death, and conducting them to judgment. 
 Like the souls of stars, they retain their freedom, and will be 
 rewarded or punished for the use or abuse of their liberty. 
 Finally, they are entitled to a degree of reverence and w^or- 
 ship corresponding to their nature and offices ; though we 
 must be careful not to confound the regard which is their due 
 with the supreme adoration due to God, who alone is to be 
 addressed in prayer.f 
 
 The more guilty spirits were depressed into the rank of 
 demons, who possess bodies far grosser than those of angels, 
 as, in their prior state, they contracted greater impurity. 
 These, too, retain their moral liberty; are still capable of 
 virtue ; and may yet 
 
 " Eeascend, 
 Self-raised, and repossess their native seat." 
 
 Others were destined to become human souls ; and, for the 
 punishment of their sins, were imprisoned in bodies of flesh, 
 and are subjected to the discipline best fitted for their re- 
 covery. 
 
 Such, according to this Father, is the general system of 
 rational natures. All existed in a prior state ; all were made 
 capable of virtue or vice ; but, abusing their liberty, were 
 degraded from a superior to inferior orders of beings. Some 
 
 * De Princip., lib. i. c. 8; 0pp., i. 74. 
 
 t From the above account of the offices attributed to angels, we perceive 
 how completely the Heathen notion of tutelar spirits and genii was trans- 
 ferred to Christianity. According to the splendid mythology of the Pagans, 
 every grove, temple, stream, and fountain, all seasons and arts, business and 
 pleasure, had their presiding deities. Christianity banished these fiilse divini- 
 ties from the earth ; but in the theology of the Fathers angels succeeded to 
 their places. All the operations of Providence were supposed to be performed 
 by their ministrations ; and they became objects of reverence, as the guardian 
 divinities of the Heatlien had been before them. 
 
REDEMPTION OF ALL RATIONAL NATURES. 197 
 
 became angels, and some demons ; some, the souls of sun, 
 moon, and stars; and some were imprisoned in bodies of flesh.* 
 The present condition of all is the result of their conduct in a 
 former state of trial ; it is a state of punishment and continued 
 probation. They are still capable of recovering themselves ; 
 are still free. By new sin, or new virtue, they may be still 
 further depressed, or rise ; they may regain a higher order, 
 and again relapse and sink : from men, become angels ; and 
 from angels, men. 
 
 We are now prepared to resume the subject of the extent 
 of the benefits ascribed by Origen to the death of the Saviour. 
 On this subject, subsequent Fathers preferred against him 
 many and grievous complaints. Thus he maintained, it is 
 said, that Christ suffered for the redemption of all rational 
 natures, including the souls of men, angels, demons, sun, 
 moon, and stars. He asserted, says Theophilus of Alexan- 
 dria,! that Christ was " fixed to the cross for demons, and 
 wicked spirits above "; and Jerome accuses him of saying that 
 he had " often suffered, and would suffer in the air, and places 
 above, for the salvation of demons. ":|: Theophilus complains 
 that he would save even " the Devil "; and, in the language 
 of the prophet,§ calls on the heavens " to be astonished, and 
 to be horribly afraid," at such daring impiety. 
 
 But let us consult Origen himself In his tenth Homily on 
 Luke, he says expressly that the advent of Christ " profited 
 celestials "; || and, in support of the assertion, refers to Col. i. 
 20. In his first Homily on Leviticus, he speaks of a " double 
 sacrifice " and " double victim "; of the blood of Christ sprin- 
 kled on the earthly, and also on the " supernal " altar ; and 
 he asserts explicitly, that he was " offered a victim, not only 
 for terrestrial, but also for celestial beings "; ^ and more to 
 
 * To Origen's general principle, that the souls of men were shut up in 
 bodies as a punishment for sins committed in a preexistent state, he admits a 
 few exceptions. These are cases of men of distinguished sanctity, who have 
 lived in times past, and whose souls were, in fact, angels, sent on an extraor- 
 dinary legation, as in the case of John, to testify to the truth, and conduct 
 men to virtue and happiness. 
 
 t Lib. Pasch., ii. 
 
 J Apol. adv. Ruf., lib. i. ; and Epist. 95, al. 59, ad Avit. 
 
 § Jer. ii. 12. || 0pp., iii. 943. T 0pp., ii. 186. 
 
198 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 the same purpose. Again : in his Commentary on the Epistle 
 to the Romans, he says, " So great was the efficacy of Christ's 
 cross and death, that it was sufficient, not only for the human 
 race, but for celestial powers and orders. For, according to 
 the sentiment of the Apostle Paul, Christ pacificated, by the 
 blood of his cross, not only " things in earth," but also " things 
 in heaven";* that is, angels, sun, moon, and stars. Again: 
 " He is the great High Priest, who offered himself, not only 
 for men, but also for every being partaking of reason ; he died 
 not only for men, but likewise for other rational beings ; he 
 tasted death for every creature ; for it is absurd to say that he 
 tasted death for human sins, but not also for whatever other 
 beings, besides man, have committed sin ; for example, for the 
 stars, the stars not being pure in his sight, as we read in Job 
 XXV. 5, 'Yea, even the stars are not pure in his (God's) sight'; 
 unless, perchance, this is said hyperbolically."f Such, accord- 
 ing to Origen, was the extent of the redemption through 
 Christ. 
 
 It may well be doubted whether there is any solid founda- 
 tion for the other part of the accusation brought against him 
 by Theophilus, Jerome, and others, that he believed that 
 Christ had repeatedly suffered, or would suffer, in the heavens 
 and in the air. This doctrine is not expressly taught in any 
 of his writings now extant ; and the contrary seems to be 
 often implied. True, he alludes to an offering in the heavens, 
 but apparently speaks of it as accompanying his sacrifice on 
 earth, and not as an act to be repeated. 
 
 With regard to the points afterwards agitated during the 
 famous Pelagian controversy, the authority of Origen, as well 
 as that of all preceding Fathers, could be adduced in opposi- 
 tion to the Augustinian doctrines. These doctrines seem to 
 have been regarded as a novelty at the time ; and many of 
 those who condemned the opinions of Pelagius were not pre- 
 pared to adopt, in fall extent, the views of his celebrated 
 antagonist. Origen has been called the Father of Pelagian- 
 ism ; and certainly the germ and substance of the Pelagian 
 doctrines are found in his writings. 
 
 His views of the effects of Adam's sin were censured by 
 
 ♦ 0pp., iv. 568. t Comm. in Joan., t. i. § 40 ; 0pp., iv. 41, 42. 
 
MORAL FREEDOM AND ABILITY. 199 
 
 the orthodox of subsequent ages, but were apparently in 
 unison with the opinions of the Church at the time he wrote. 
 He has the phrase, " sin of nativity "; and speaks of the 
 " simihtude of Adam's transgression, not only derived from 
 birth, but contracted''; but in what sense he understood these 
 and similar expressions, is matter of doubt ; certainly not in 
 the modern. He had no notion of any such consequences 
 attending Adam's transcrression as have been ascribed to it in 
 orthodox systems, from the time of Augustine down to the 
 present day. In a moi-al view, he seems, in fact, hardly to 
 attribute anything to the fall, and, in his general reasoning, 
 does not distinguish between what is called a " state of fallen 
 nature " and a state of primitive integrity ; at least, so far as 
 the sin of our first parents is concerned. All souls, he sup- 
 posed, sinned in a preexisting state, and consequently came 
 into the world under certain disadvantages ; but they are sub- 
 jected to these disadvantages, not by the disobedience of 
 Adam, but by the guilt contracted by our abuse of liberty in 
 a prior state. 
 
 Origen allows to the soul in its fallen state the most perfect 
 freedom and moral ability ; the power to choose and pursue 
 virtue, and reject and fly from sin ; and this power is retained 
 by demons, and even the Devil. Good as well as evil mo- 
 tives originate in the heart. To live well is " our OAvn work," 
 the result of our own volitions and efforts : " God demands 
 it of us, not as his work, but as our own." And he goes on 
 to show, from numerous texts of the Old and New Testament, 
 that it is in our power to live as God requires, and that " we 
 are the cause of our perdition or salvation." He then pro- 
 ceeds to explain certain passages, which, it seems, were ad- 
 duced by some heretics of the Oriental or Gnostic sects to 
 establish a different doctrine ; and these, it is deserving of 
 notice, are precisely those which, in modern times, have been 
 brought to prove that our goodness is the work of God, and 
 not of ourselves ; that it is the result of the special agency of 
 his Spirit, and not primarily of our own volitions. On all 
 these he puts a construction which would now be called de- 
 cidedly Arminian. The passages referred to are — the hard- 
 sning of Pharaoh's heart, Exod. iv. 21 ; the taking away a 
 
200 OEIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 heart of stone, and giving a heart of flesh, Ezek. xi. 19; "It 
 is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God 
 that showeth mercy," Rom. ix. 16 ; " He hath mercy on 
 whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth," 
 and the following verses, containing the illustration of the pot- 
 ter and the clay, Rom. ix. 18-23 ; and some others. All 
 these he so explains as to leave man entire freedom and abil- 
 ity, moral as well as physical, to do good or evil, and make sin 
 or virtue his own act. He attributes to God, not our voli- 
 tion, but only the power of volition. Thus, in explaining the 
 phrase, " To will and to do is of God," as he quotes Phil. ii. 13, 
 he observes, " The Apostle does not say, that to will good or 
 evil, and to do better or worse, are of God, but only generally 
 to will and to perform "; that is, the power to will and to per- 
 form. He draws an illustration from the power of motion. 
 That we are capable of motion, he says, is of God ; but the 
 particular direction of our motions depends on ourselves ; so 
 " we receive of God the power to will ; but we may use this 
 power for good or for evil, as also the power to perform." * 
 
 Origen speaks in general terms of the necessity of divine 
 grace to enable us to attain to the perfection of the Christian 
 character ; but it was his belief, that this grace is granted as 
 the reward of our goodness, that it is in no sense the exciting 
 cause, and that the measure of it is determined by the exer- 
 cise of our own wills ; that is, it is bestowed in proportion to 
 our previous merits, and not by an arbitrary act of God's 
 sovereignty. He seems afraid almost of attributing too much 
 to God's agency. Holiness originates in our own wills : we 
 must sow the seeds ; but, the plant once introduced, God 
 fosters and cherishes it. 
 
 God thus grants the assistance of his Spirit, as Origen sup- 
 posed, in proportion to our merits, and in consideration of 
 them. But in our merits are included the good actions done 
 in a preexistent state, as well as those performed in the pres- 
 ent ; so that God may make a distinction between one and 
 another, bestowing his grace on one and withholding it from 
 another, loving one and hating another, before they "have 
 
 ♦ De Princip., lib. iii. c. 1, De Arbitrii Libertate ; 0pp., i. 108, et seqq 
 
NO UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION. 201 
 
 done good or evil," that is, in the present life, as in the case 
 of Jacob and Esau (Rom. ix. 11—13).* 
 
 Origan admits of no unconditional election, but makes pre- 
 destination depend altogether on our works foreseen. f God 
 is said to make " one vessel to honor, and another to dis- 
 honor " ; but the cause, says Origen, is in ourselves. He who 
 purges himself from impurity is made a vessel of honor ; he 
 who suffers himself to remain polluted with sin is made a 
 vessel of dishonor. " Each one is made by God a vessel of 
 honor or of dishonor, according to his- merits" in this or a pre- 
 existent state. " It is just," he adds, " and in every respect 
 agreeable to piety, that each one should be made a vessel of 
 honor or of dishonor from preceding causes " ; and these, he 
 insists, are our merits, our actions. These, foreseen, are the 
 ground, and the only ground, of predestination. J 
 
 * De Princip., lib. iii. c. 1 ; also lib. i. c. 7. 
 t Huet. Orig., lib. ii. c. ii. qusest. 7. 
 
 } De Princip., lib. iii. c. 1 ; Comm. in Bom., lib. i. and vii. ; 0pp., iv. 464, 604, 
 S16. 
 
202 OKIGEN, AND HIS THEOIiOGY. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Okigen's Views of the Future. — The Resurrection. — Form of thk 
 FUTURE Body round. — Bodies of the Damned black. — The Final 
 Consummation will be the Perfection and Happiness of all, in- 
 cluding Fallen Spirits of Darkness. — Matter to become spir- 
 itualized. — Variation in his Opinions. — Perpetual Lapses and 
 Returns. — Fate of the Origenian Doctrines. — Appealed to by 
 the Arians. — Condemned a Century and a Half after Origen's 
 Death. — Origenism finds Shelter in the Monasteries. — Free- 
 dom of Theological Speculation. 
 
 We have treated of the opinions of Origen relating to the 
 past and present character and condition of rational natures, 
 and especially man. We now turn to his representation of 
 the future. 
 
 His views of the resurrection have been a subject of con- 
 troversy. He was accused by several subsequent Fathers, 
 and by Jerome among the rest, of denying it in reality, and 
 retaining only the name. And if by the resurrection we are 
 to understand the restoration of the flesh of the present body 
 in substance and figure, he undoubtedly did deny it ; thinking 
 with St. Paul, that " flesh and blood cannot inherit the king- 
 dom of God." He could, in consistency with himself, enter- 
 tain no other opinion ; for, according to his system, the flesh 
 is the prison-house of the soul, which it is doomed to occupy 
 for the punishment of its sins. All spirits become clothed 
 with bodies more or less gross, according to their degree of 
 moral pollution. They remain, however, in a state of disci- 
 pline, and may be restored. When they shall have purified 
 themselves from their stains, and regained their pristine beauty 
 and excellence, they will drop the encumbrance of their mate- 
 rial or fleshy chains, and become once more subtile and ethe- 
 real. So Origen undoubtedly thought. The souls of the 
 faithful, at death, will part forever with their present earthly 
 and corruptible integuments. The body, compacted as it now 
 
THE CONSUMMATION. 203 
 
 is, will not be restored : it will rise, but other and different, 
 more pure and splendid. The present is but the germ of the 
 future, according to the illustration of Paul, who says, "It is 
 sown a natural body ; it is raised a spiritual body." 
 
 With regard to the form of the future body, it has been 
 generally inferred, from the manner in which Origen has ex- 
 pressed himself and from the analogy of his system, that he 
 regarded it as round. Such is the figure esteemed most per- 
 fect ; such that of the heavenly bodies, — those more glorious 
 intelligences ; and such, as he seems to have supposed, will be 
 ours ; though he has not, we believe, directly asserted it in 
 any of his writings we now possess. Certain it is, that his fol- 
 lowers professed to have derived the doctrine from him ; and 
 it was prevalent among the Origenian monks of Palestine in 
 the time of Justinian.* 
 
 Origen believed in the final restoration of all beings to vir- 
 tue and happiness. All are subjected to influences, which, 
 sooner or later, will prove successful. Superior orders of 
 intelligences are appointed to instruct, guide, and perfect the 
 lower. Of the glorious spirits who have imitated the divine 
 perfections, some, as the reward of their merits, are placed in 
 the " order of angels ; others, of virtues ; othei's, of princi- 
 palities ; others, of powers, because they exercise power over 
 those who require to be in subjection ; others, of thrones, 
 exercising the office of judging and directing those who have 
 need." To the care and rule of these noble orders the race 
 of man is subjected, and, using their assistance, and reformed 
 by their salutary instructions and discipline, will, in some future 
 though perhaps distant age, be restored to their primitive state 
 of felicity, f 
 
 The sufferings of a future life, as Origen taught, are all 
 piacular and remedial. We shall all, he says, be subjected 
 to trial by fire. But those who have few impurities and many 
 virtues will escape with slight pain ; but the fire will take hold 
 
 * Among the anathemas subjoined to Justinian's Epistle to Menas already 
 referred to, on the errors of Origen, is the following : " Whoever says oi 
 thinks that men's bodies -will be raised spherical, and not erect, let him be 
 anathema." — ConciL, t. vi. p. 353, ed. Coleti. 
 
 t De Princip., lib. i. c. 6 ; 0pp., i. 69 ; Jerome, Epist. 94, ad Avitum. 
 
204 OEIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 of the wicked, and their iniquities will be burned, and their 
 evil affections purged away. Some, however, in consequence 
 of inveterate habits of sin, will be reserved to a great intensity 
 and long continuance of suffering, of which their blackened 
 bodies will be witness.* 
 
 So he sometimes expresses himself; but in other parts of 
 his writings he is careful to teach us that this and similar lan- 
 guage is altogether metaphorical. By the fire which shall burn 
 the wicked, he tells us, is meant the worm of conscience. 
 The evil of their whole lives will, by an act of Divine power, 
 be vividly presented to their thoughts ; the picture of all the 
 wrong they have done or intended will be spread out before 
 their eyes ; forgotten things will be remembered ; and they 
 will have a horrible consciousness of guilt. This is the flame 
 by which they are to be tormented ; not an outward and ma- 
 terial, but an inward fire, of which their sins furnish the fuel ; 
 just as the peccant humors of the body, consequent upon ex- 
 cess and repletion, furnish the fuel of fever.f These humors 
 may be purged away, and the patient restored, after a season 
 of suffering. Just so with regard to the impurities of sin 
 which occasion so much anguish. By the salutary discipline 
 of suffering, the soul may and will be cleansed from them. 
 Such is its design, such its tendency, and such will be its 
 result. All will be chastised exactly in proportion to their 
 demerit ; but their sufferings will have an end, and all will 
 be finally restored to purity and to love. This Origen re- 
 peatedly asserts. 
 
 The end and consummation of all things, he observes, is the 
 perfection and happiness of all. " To this one end," condi- 
 tion, or state, he says, " we think that the goodness of God, 
 through his Christ, will recall his universal creation ; all things 
 becoming finally subjected to Christ. ' For all things must be 
 subject to him.' J Now, what is this subjection," he asks, 
 " with which all things must be subject to Christ ? I think 
 the same with which we also desire to be subject to him ; with 
 which the Apostles, and all the saints who have followed Christ, 
 
 * In Exod., Horn. vi. ; In Ps. xxxvi., Horn. iii. ; 0pp., t. ii. 
 
 t De Priiidp., lib. ii. c. 10 ; 0pp., ii. 100 ; Jerome, Epist. 94, ad Avitum- 
 
 } 1 Cor. XV. 24-28. 
 
FINAL RESTITUTION OF ALL THINGS. 205 
 
 are subject to him. For the very term ' subjection,' in this 
 case, imphes that they who are subject have obtained the 
 salvation which is of Christ." Then it is that " Christ him- 
 self shall also be subject to the Father, with and in those who 
 have been made subject." This, he observes, is asserted by 
 the Apostle, when he says, "And, when all things shall be 
 subdued to him, then shall the Son also himself be subject 
 unto Him that put all things under him ; that God may be all 
 in all." And this subjection of all Christ's enemies to himself, 
 as that of himself to the Father, Origen contends, " is a good 
 and salutary" subjection. If the latter is such, the former is 
 so too : and hence, " as, when it is said the Son is subject to 
 the Father, the perfect restitution of the universal creation 
 is declared ; so, when the enemies of the Son are said to be 
 subject to him, the salvation, through him, of those subject, 
 and the restitution of the lost, are implied." * 
 
 Again : in his seventh Homily on Leviticus, he contends that 
 subjection to Christ implies subjection of the will and affec- 
 tions ; and that, as long as anything remains opposed to him, 
 — in other words, as long as there is sin, — his work is not 
 consummated. "But," he adds, "when he shall have con- 
 summated his work, and brought his universal creation to the 
 summit of perfection, then he himself shall be subject in those 
 whom he has subdued to the Father, and in whom he has 
 consummated the work which the Father gave him to do ; 
 that God may be* all in all." f 
 
 Such, according to Origen, will be the end, or final consum- 
 mation, of all things. His train of reasoning throughout, as it 
 will be perceived, implies his belief of the final restoration and 
 happiness, not merely of the human race, but of all rational 
 natures, including demons and fallen spirits of darkness ; other- 
 wise the universal creation could not be said to be subjected 
 and made perfect. When, in connection with the train of 
 reasoning above exhibited, we take the fact before stated, that 
 he supposed Christ died for the heavenly hosts and for de- 
 mons, for all rational beings who had sinned, we cannot doubt 
 that such was his belief. Such it was understood to have been 
 in the time of Theophilus, above referred to, and of Jerome, both 
 * De Princip., lib. i. c. 6 j lib. iii. c. 5. t 0pp., ii. 222. 
 
206 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY, 
 
 of whom made it one of the capital articles in the catalogue 
 of his heresies, that he taught that " the Devil " would be 
 finally saved. In fact, there are passages in his writings which 
 appear expressly to inculcate this doctrine. Thus he observes, 
 " The last enemy, which is called Death, is spoken of as de- 
 stroyed." By death, it seems, he understood the Devil, or 
 " him that had the power of death " (Heb. ii. 14) ; and he 
 proceeds to explain what is meant by his destruction. " The 
 last enemy," he says, " is not to be understood as so destroyed, 
 that his substance, which was derived from God, shall perish ; 
 but only that his malignant will and purpose, which proceeded 
 not from God, but from himself, shall cease to exist. He shall 
 be destroyed, therefore, not so that he shall not continue to be, 
 but so that he shall not continue to be an enemy and death." * 
 Nothing more can be needed to show that a belief of the final 
 restoration of all fallen beings formed part of the creed of Ori- 
 gen.f The more deeply fallen, however, will be subjected, as 
 he taught, to protracted and severe sufi^erings ; and God alone 
 knows their termination. But all will mount, step by step, till 
 they attain " to the invisible and eternal state, some in the 
 first, some in the second, and some in the last ages ; corrected 
 and reformed, by rigorous discipline and very great and griev- 
 ous punishments, by the instructions of angels, and afterwards 
 by superior orders of intelligences." 
 
 The rewards of the blessed Origen makes to consist in an 
 intimate union, or oneness, with God, according to the prayer 
 of Christ (John xvii. 21-24). They do not, however, rise to 
 the summit of this felicity at once, but through several suc- 
 cessive steps : as, first, by knowledge and instruction, which 
 remove the darkness of their understandings ; then by being 
 brought into a moral resemblance to God ; then by being taken 
 into union with him, in which consists the supreme good. 
 This union is explained as a union of affection, will, and pur- 
 pose. The soul, on leaving the body, is first conducted, as 
 he tells us, to a part of the earth called Paradise, J where it 
 
 * De Princip., lib. iii. c. 6. See also lib. i. c. 6. 
 
 t See, on this point, the letter of Jerome, already repeatedly referred to. 
 
 X It is curious to observe, that Origen, while he places Eden, or the ter- 
 restrial Paradise, in the third lieavens (imagining that by Adam and Eve 
 dwelling in it we are to understand souls residing in heaven ; and, by their 
 
PEEPETUAL LAPSES AND KETURNS, 207 
 
 remains for some time, enjoying the instruction of angels, and 
 gradually depositing its earthly concretions. It then mounts 
 into the air, and afterwards into various regions of the heav- 
 ens, continuing in these several places, under different mas- 
 ters of the superior orders of intelligences, for a longer or 
 shorter term, according to the degree of impurity to be purged 
 off, till by vatious progressions it reaches the invisible and 
 incorporeal heavens, where God resides ; where, as we have 
 said, it becomes united with him as in its first state of felicity 
 and love, and he becomes " all in all," dwelling in all, and all 
 in him. Matter will then become spiritualized, and be reab- 
 sorbed in God, from whom it flowed. Thus all ends where all 
 began : — 
 
 " From thee, great God ! we spring ; to thee we tend." 
 Such was Origen's great system ; yet he occasionally ex- 
 presses views which appear in some respects to militate against 
 it. Thus he seems to say that there will be perpetual lapses 
 and returns from sin to holiness, and from superior orders of 
 beings to inferior, and the reverse, in consequence of that 
 moral liberty w^hich all will retain, and which they may for- 
 ever use or abuse. Thus Peter may, at some future time, 
 become a Judas ; and Judas, a Peter : Paul, a Caiaphas ; and 
 Caiaphas, Paul. Men may become angels or demons ; and 
 angels or demons, men. Demons and angels may change 
 characters : the Devil may become an archangel ; and arch- 
 angels, devils ; all things mingling and revolving in unceasing 
 succession. Upon this hypothesis, there can be no fixed con- 
 dition either of happiness or suffering. Neither the punishment 
 of the damned nor the joys of the blessed are necessarily 
 eternal. All beings are in a state of perpetual progression and 
 
 expulsion, the exile of souls doomed, as the punishment of sin, to be clothed 
 with bodies), he supposes the future or celestial Paradise to be situated some- 
 where on the earth. " I think," says he, " that saints, departing this life, will 
 remain in a certain part of the earth, called, in the Scriptures, Paradise, as in a 
 school of instruction." The same, he supposed, was intended by "Abraham's 
 bosom." Here all which they have witnessed on earth is to be explained to 
 them ; and they are to receive revelations of the future, not now permitted. 
 This place the more pure will soon leave, and mount through various man- 
 sions, called, by the Greeks, spheres ; but in the Scriptures, heavens {De 
 Princip., lib. ii. c. 11, §6). 
 
208 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 retrogression. The material universe will undergo correspond- 
 ing changes. There was a succession of worlds before the 
 present, and will be a succession after it ; the new springing 
 from the old, as the bird of fable from the ashes of its sire. 
 Souls will fall into sin, and, for their punishment, must be 
 again imprisoned in gross bodies ; and this will always ci'eate 
 a necessity for the existence of matter, which will be absorbed 
 and produced, reabsorbed and reproduced, in successive and 
 never-ending periods.* It may well be doubted, however, 
 whether such was Origen's fixed opinion. On many points, he 
 is uncertain and vacillating ; but with regard to the final res- 
 toration of all beings to a union with the fountain of Divinity, 
 when Christ shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and 
 God shall be all in all, he is clear and express. He often 
 recurs to the topic, and his views on the subject are fully un- 
 folded. We may be pardoned if we hesitate to admit, upon 
 the evidence of a few slight expressions, his belief of a doctrine, 
 which, in opposition to the general tenor of his reasonings, 
 teaches that sin shall never be abolished, and the time will 
 never come when " all things shall be subdued to the Son," 
 and all shall be " of one heart and of one mind." It would be 
 no easy task, however, to defend Origen against the charge of 
 inconsistency and self-conti"adiction. It was his fate to lose 
 himself in the mazes of a wild and wandering philosophy. 
 How thoroughly he had imbibed its spirit, the foregoing sum- 
 mary of his opinions abundantly shows. We mean not to be 
 his apologist. Our aim has been to be simply the historian of 
 his opinions, not to combat or defend them. 
 
 The fate of the Origenian doctrines, after the brilliant but 
 erratic spirit which had contributed to give them currency had 
 been withdrawn from the earth, is exceedingly interesting. 
 The storm raised against him during his life, as has been 
 already shown, had, in reality, no reference whatever to doc- 
 trine ; nor have we any evidence that his orthodoxy was 
 formally impugned until long after his death. f The first 
 
 * De Princip., lib. i. c. 6 ; also Jerome, Epist. 94, ad Avitum. 
 
 t We are aware that Eusebius (Hist., vi. 36) alludes to a letter written by 
 Origen to Fabian, Bishop of Rome, " concerning his own orthodoxy " ; which 
 would seem to imply that it was, by some, drawn into suspicion ; but on what 
 
FATE OP THE ORIGENIAN DOCTRINES. 209 
 
 writer who ventured to censure the doctrines of Origen after 
 his decease, as we are informed by Socrates the historian,* wa3 
 Methodius, Bishop of Olympus in Lycia, afterwards of Tyre, 
 who died early in the fourth century, fifty years after Origen 
 left the world. He wrote a book on the Resurrection, against 
 Origen ; and another, says Jerome, f on " the Pythoness " 
 (1 Sam. xxviii.). The attack on Origen, however, seems to 
 have been deemed a rash one. Origen's writings were now 
 held in unbounded admiration, and Methodius found it con- 
 venient to recant. 
 
 Origen's reputation for orthodoxy contmued unsullied till 
 the celebrated Arian controversy broke out ; when he was 
 claimed by both parties, though his opinions coincided with ^ 
 neither. The Arians could of right claim him, as asserting 
 that the Son was inferior to the Father, but not as affirming 
 that he was made out of nothing, which was their distinguish- 
 ing dogma. The Athanasians could claim him, as asserting, 
 with the ante-Nicene Fathers generally, that he had an exist- 
 ence from eternity, not with, but in, the Father ; not as a real 
 being or person, but an attribute. On the whole, the orthodox 
 had, at this time, receded ftirther from the views of Origen, if 
 not in letter, at least in spirit, than the Arians. The former, 
 however, regarded him as too important an ally to be sur- 
 rendered. They continued to defend him as long as with 
 decency they could ; and even Athanasius quotes him with 
 approbation. From this time, however, Origen had a strong 
 party against him ; though his friends and admirers were yet 
 numerous, and many of them among the most learned and ac- 
 complished writers of the age. Eusebius and Pamphilus, with 
 a tender regard for his memory, composed an Apology for him, 
 
 points, we are not told. The matter appears to have produced no excitement • 
 if so, it was soon allayed. Among the charges brought against him by his 
 enemies at Alexandria, in consequence of which he was deposed and banished, 
 not one related to doctrine ; which is sufficient evidence that he was not re- 
 garded as deviating, in any essential particular, from the popular faith. 
 
 * Eccles. Hist., lib. vi. c. 13. 
 
 t De Vir. Illust. Jerome also mentions a treatise of Methodius on " Fre* 
 Will." This, it seems, was written in the form of a dialogue between a Val- 
 entinian and a Catholic, and was designed to prove that evil arises from abuse 
 of liberty in free agents ; which was also the doctrine of Origen. 
 
 14 
 
210 OEIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 in six books ; and his writings were collected and deposited in 
 the library at Ciesarea.* 
 
 It appears, then, that the soundness of Origen's opinions on 
 the subject of the Trinity first began to be called in question 
 after the rise of Arianism. But the defection from him was 
 by no means general even then. The majority, even, of the 
 orthodox, were still friendly to his memory. Socrates, it is 
 curious to observe, after mentioning some authors who had 
 written against him down to the close of the fourth century, 
 says, that though they collected whatever they supposed blame- 
 worthy in Origen, — some mentioning one thing, and some 
 another, — yet they found no fault with him on the subject of 
 the Trinity.f This assertion is made without any qualifying 
 phrase whatever. From the days of Arius, we know, down to 
 the time of Theophilus the Alexandrian, and Epiphanius, near 
 the close of the fourth century, the adherents and friends of 
 Origen formed a very large proportion of Christians. Another 
 tempest then arose, more violent than the former. The monks 
 of Egypt and Palestine were at this time decided Origenists. 
 Theophilus, having embroiled himself in a dispute with some 
 of the former, who inhabited the monasteries of Nitria, as- 
 sembled a Provincial Synod at Alexandria, about the year 
 400 ; in which — to gratify, as it would seem, a passion of 
 revenge or hatred — he caused the writings of their favorite, 
 Origen, to be condemned a century and a half after his death. 
 This is the first time sentence of condemnation was pronounced 
 against the errors of Origen by a synod. Theophilus, who had 
 
 * In this Apology, nine charges are mentioned as brought against him by 
 his enemies. Some of them, however, are evidently unfounded ; and a part 
 inconsistent with the rest. He was accused of saying that " the Son of God 
 was not begotten " ; of retailing the fabulous opinions of Valentinus concern- 
 ing his birth ; of maintaining, with Artemon and Paul of Samosata, that he 
 was a mere man ; of saying that the account of him given by the evangelists 
 is a mere allegory, and not a history of events that actually occurred ; of as- 
 serting that there were two Christs; of allegorizing, generally, the lives of the 
 saints recorded in the Scriptures; of holding some unsound opinions concern- 
 ing the resurrection of the dead, and of denying that sinners will be punished; 
 of entertaining erroneous views of the state of the soul ; and, lastly, of main- 
 taining that human souls will hereafter pass into the bodies of beasts, fishes, 
 and serpents. 
 
 t Eccles. Hist., lib. vi. c. 13. 
 
HIS ASSAILANTS AND DEFENDERS. 211 
 
 a talent for intrigue, immediately wrote to the bishops generally, 
 and to Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus, in particular, urging him 
 to the same step. Tiie latter, duped by the arts of the wily 
 Egyptian, called a council of the Cyprian bishops, who pro- 
 ceeded to pass sentence of condemnation both on Origen and 
 his writings. This controversy, which was long and fierce, 
 involved John, Bishop of Jerusalem, and John Chrysostom of 
 Constantinople, both favorers of Origen ; also Rufinus and 
 Jerome, who were soon engaged in terrific battle. In fact, 
 the whole East and West were now shaken with tremendous 
 commotions.* Theophilus boasts that he had " truncated the 
 serpents of Origen with the evangelic sword." Epiphanius 
 adds, " Amalek is destroyed," and boasts that he will sweep 
 the heresy of Origen from the face of the earth. Jerome 
 swells the note of triumph. " Where now," he asks, " is the 
 crooked serpent ? where the venomous vipers ? " 
 
 We may give, as a specimen of the hate engendered by this 
 controversy, the parting words which passed between John 
 Chrysostom of Constantinople, and Epiphanius, when the latter, 
 after a violent altercation, was about to leave Constantinople 
 for Cyprus. " May you not die a bishop ! " says Epiphanius 
 to John. " May you never live to reach home ! " retorts the 
 golden-mouthed John. The wishes of both were granted. 
 Chrysostom was soon after deposed, and died in exile, a. d. 
 407 ; t and Epiphanius, having embarked for Cyprus, died 
 on the passage, A. d. 403. Theophilus, who had rendered 
 himself odious by the indulgence of his violent and revengeful 
 passions, died a. d. 412. On his death-bed, as tradition 
 says, he expressed great remorse ; and the ghost of the in- 
 jured Chrysostom, whose downfall had been procured chiefly 
 
 * See Jerome, Epist. 38, al. 61, ad Pammach. ; also Epist. 39, al. 62, ad 
 Theoph., with other letters of Jerome to Theophilus, and of Theophilus and 
 Epiphanius to Jerome. Jerome, 0pp., t. iv., ed. Par. 1706. Socrates, Eccles. 
 Hist., lib. vi. c. 10 ; Huet. Oric/., lib. ii. c. iv. 
 
 t He was finally banished to a place called Pityus, " on the northeast coast 
 of the Black Sea, at the foot of Mount Caucasus, in a desolate region at the 
 extreme limits of the Roman Empire." He did not live to reach the place of 
 his exile, but, worn out with toil and suffering, he died on his journey; at the 
 age of 60. — Life, by Perthes. 
 
212 ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY. 
 
 by his machinations, standing at his pillow, shook his soul with 
 terror. 
 
 Though Origenism had now received some 'heavy blows, it 
 yet gave symptoms of life. The publication of a translation of 
 Origen's book " Of Principles," at Rome, by Rufinus, had 
 been the occasion of awakening the spirit of Pelagius, whose 
 doctrines were, in fact, only a certain modification of Origen- 
 ism. Anastasius, however, the first pope of the name, had 
 condemned Rufinus for heresy, and passed sentence against 
 Origen and his writings ; and the friends of his name and 
 doctrines had certainly some reason to indulge desponding 
 anticipations. 
 
 This explosion past, a long period of comparative quiet fol- 
 lowed. Meantime, Origenism found shelter in the monasteries 
 of Palestine ; where, a little more than a century after, it con- 
 tinued to prevail to an alarming extent. Complaints were 
 made to the Emperor Justinian, who caused sentence of 
 anathema to be pi'onounced against Origen by several bishops 
 (among whom were Menas, Patriarch of Constantinople ; Eph- 
 rem of Antioch ; Peter, Bishop of Jerusalem ; and Vigilius of 
 Rome), about the year 538. This sentence was confirmed 
 by the fifth General Council, holden at Constantinople, a. d. 
 553 ; * and again, by the sixth, holden also at Constantinople, 
 A. D. 680. The acts of this council were confirmed by Pope 
 Leo II., A. D. 683 ; and thus Origen was formally placed in 
 the rank of heretics. His works are still, however, per- 
 mitted to be perused by Catholics, with a Caute lege, in the 
 margin, against the offensive passages, to put the reader on 
 his guard. 
 
 Oi'igen was the great head of the liberal school of theology 
 of his day, and he left the authority of his name and example 
 a valuable heritage to after ages. Alluding to the disputes 
 which rent the church at a subsequent period, Gieseler f says 
 that " to the wide-extended influence of his writings it is to be 
 attributed, that, in the midst of these furious controversies, 
 
 * See Evagrius, Ecdes. Hist., lib. iv. c. 38 ; and Valesius's note. Huet 
 Orig., lib. ii. c. iv. § 3. 
 t Ecdes. Hist., vol. 1., p. 207, ed. Phil. 1886. 
 
WIDE INFLUENCE OF HIS WRITINGS. 213 
 
 there remained any freedom of theological speculation what- 
 ever." 
 
 Bunsen expresses himself quite as strongly. " Origen's 
 death," says he, " is the real end of free Christianity, and, in 
 particular, of free, intellectual theology." * 
 
 * Christianity and Mankind, i. 286. 
 
WRITERS SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME OF ORIGEN 
 
 AND BEFORE THE RISE OF THE ARIAN 
 
 CONTROVERSY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Sabellids and Sabellianism. — Paul of Samosata. — The Scholars of 
 
 OrIGEN. DiONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. ACCUSED OF HETERODOXY. 
 
 — Extracts. — The Term " Consubstantial." — Gregory Thauma- 
 TURGUS. — Depresses the Son to the Rank of a Creature or 
 Work. — Theognostus. — Quoted. — Pierius. — Photius's Report 
 OF HIS Opinions. — Methodius. — His Language savors of Arian- 
 ISM. — LuciAN. — His Learning and Merits. — His Opinions. — Most 
 OF THE Arian Chiefs were of his School. 
 
 Sabellius. 
 
 We have, in the preceding pages, traced the doctrine of the 
 separate being and inferiority of the Son, from Justin Martyr 
 down to Origen. There was now, on the one side, something 
 which was thought, at least, to savor of Tritheism, and on 
 the other, as we have seen, a strict Monarchianism, which, by 
 its mode of defending the unity of God, subjected itself to the 
 charge of Patripassianism, and to the denial of the divinity of 
 Christ, by maintaining that the Logos as a separate subsistence 
 formed no part of his nature. " Origen," says Hagenbach,* 
 " carried to such an extreme his system of hypostases, includ- 
 ing the subordination scheme, that orthodoxy itself threatened 
 to run over into heterodoxy, and thus gave rise to the Arian 
 controversy, in the following period." Thus it was the Ortho- 
 dox Fathers themselves who opened the way to Arianism. 
 Sabellianism, and the kindred beliefs of Praxeas, Noetus, 
 Beryllus, and the rest, pointed in the opposite direction. 
 * Text-Book, etc., First Period, § 46. 
 
SABELLIUS. 215 
 
 Tintlieism and Sabelllanism were the Scylla and Charybdis of 
 the Fathers. 
 
 We will treat further of the orthodoxy of the age presently ; 
 but we must first say a few words of Sabellius and Paul of 
 Samosata, two eminent teachers of the Monarchian party, who 
 flourished about the time of Origen's death, or a little later. 
 
 Neander pronounces Sabellius the " most original and acute 
 thinker among the Monarchians." He was of Ptolemais in 
 Pentapolis, in Egypt ; at least it is asserted by Eusebius that 
 his opinions were first propagated there. This was a little 
 after the middle of the third century, — about a. d. 255—257, 
 as the date is generally computed by critics. His doctrine was 
 a protest against the orthodoxy of the age, Sabellianism is 
 generally described as a trinity of attributes, names, or mani- 
 festations. God exists in one hypostasis or person, but in three 
 relations : first, as manifest in creation, and the giving of the 
 law ; secondly, in the person of Jesus Christ ; and thirdly, in 
 a purifying and elevating influence, called the Holy Spirit. 
 These are not three " self-subsistent personalities, but only 
 three different characters — forms of revelation in which the 
 Divine Being presents himself." 
 
 The Saviour was the immediate manifestation of God. The 
 Logos, or Power of God, was hypostatized in him during his 
 abode on earth, but the personality was not permanent ; it 
 was transient only. It " neither existed previously to his in- 
 carnation, nor does it continue to exist in heaven, since that 
 divine ray which beamed forth in Christ returns again to 
 God." But whether Sabellius made it return at the ascension 
 of Christ, or only after the Kingdom of God should be com- 
 pleted, is not certain. The denying the permanent self-sub- 
 sistence of the Logos in Jesus Christ was the great point on 
 which Sabellius differed essentially from the Orthodox Plato- 
 nizing Fathers. The Power of God, or Logos, at the appointed 
 time, according to Sabellius, united itself with the man Jesus 
 wrought in him as in no other man, made him sufficient foi 
 his great work, and left him when that work was accomplished. 
 The Platonizing Fathers believed in the permanently self-sub- 
 sisting Logos of God in Christ. In common with most of 
 those who had spoken of the Holy Spirit, and distinguished 
 
216 WKITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS. 
 
 it from the Logos, Sabellius appears to have regarded it simply 
 as the power of God. 
 
 SabelHus's doctrine of the Logos as a power occasion-ally 
 manifested, (leaping out from God and then drawn back and 
 reabsorbed,) but having no separate, abiding personality, was 
 not new. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, men- 
 tions a similar opinion as held by some in his day.* There 
 seems to have been something congenial with the minds of the 
 age in the Sabellian views. They rapidly spread, not only in 
 Egypt, the land of their birth, so that, as Athanasius says, in 
 Pentapolis in Upper Libya, the Son of God was " scarcely any 
 longer preached in the churches," f that is, in the Orthodox 
 sense. Sabellianism pervaded far - off regions, and in the 
 fourth and fifth centuries the Fathei's are still found contend- 
 ing against it. J Yet a " sect of Sabellians, properly so called," 
 says Hagenbach, " did not exist." 
 
 The Sabellianism of antiquity has been the belief of mul- 
 titudes within the pale of Orthodox churches, in modern 
 times. Milman, the historian, says, " a more modest and un- 
 offending Sabellianism might perhaps be imagined in accord- 
 ance with modern philosophy." § 
 
 ' Paul of Samosata. 
 
 Paul of Samosata appeared a little later. He enjoyed the 
 fiiendship of Zenobia, the celebrated queen of Palmyra, and 
 became Bishop of Antioch in 260. Of the various complaints 
 against him our purpose does not require us to speak. We 
 are concerned only with his opinions as a Monarchian. In his 
 main principle it is often said that he differed but little from 
 Sabellius. But Neander thinks that he more nearly resem- 
 bled Artemon, with whom he is frequently compared by the 
 ancient writers. He held that there was in the divine nature 
 only one hypostasis, or person ; that Christ was man by 
 nature, yet was higher than other men, as conceived by the 
 
 * Cap. 128, Otto. t De Sentent. Dionysii, c. 5. 
 
 X Euseb. Hist., vii. 6 ; Epiphanius, Hcer., Ixii. ; Neander, Hist, of Christ. 
 Dogmas, pp. 164-168 ; Martini, Versuck, etc., pp. 188-198 ; Hagenbach, Text 
 Book, etc., Second Period, § 88. 
 
 § Hist, of Christianity, p. 312 ; ed. New York, 1841. 
 
PAUL OF SAMOSATA. 217 
 
 Holy Spirit. He first began to exist when born of Mary 
 The divine Logos united itself with him and dwelt in him as 
 in no other ever sent of God, but did not, properly speaking, 
 incarnate itself in him ; it had in him no personal subsistence. 
 The divine Reason itself, the Wisdom or Power of God, re- 
 vealed itself in him as it had never revealed itself in any other 
 prophet. So great was the illumination he hence received, 
 and so was his nature exalted by means of it, that he could 
 with propriety be called the Son of God. 
 
 There existed great bitterness of feeling against Paul, for 
 he had personal qualities which were very offensive. The 
 bishops fi'om furthest Egypt and Pontus combined to crush 
 him ; council after council was held, and he was finally con- 
 demned and deposed between 269 and 272. The same Synod 
 of Antioch which deposed and excommunicated him, it is 
 worthy of note, rejected the term Jiomoousios, " consubstan- 
 tial," which, after the Council of Nice, became the very Shib- 
 boleth of orthodoxy. 
 
 Little more was now for a time heard of these opinions. 
 The pendulum was swinging in an opposite direction. In an- 
 tagonism to Sabellian and kindred views, the doctrine of the 
 self-subsisting personality of the Logos, or Son, was more 
 strenuously insisted on than ever. Soon Arianism came, 
 strongly contrasting with the Monarchianism of Sabellius and 
 Paul.* Of this we will proceed to treat ; but we must first 
 glance for a moment at the scholars of Origen, now dispersed 
 over various regions, and inquire what they are teaching. • It 
 is remarkable that no one of them has adopted his peculiar 
 views of the " eternal generation " of the Son. There is, we 
 believe, no instance of this found among his followers. In 
 other respects they hold his views of the Logos, or Son, as the 
 Reason of God, which, before the creation of the world, was 
 begotten, or converted into a self-subsistent being subordinate 
 to the Father, and his instrument in creating and governing 
 the world. 
 
 * Epiphan. Hcbt., Ixv. ; Euseb. Hist., vii. 27-30 ; Martini, Versuch, etc., 
 Dp. 209-225; Neander, Hist. Christ. Dogm., pp. 169, 170, and Hist. Christ. Rdig., 
 I. 601-605 ; Hagenbach, Text-Book, etc., Second Period, § 88. 
 
218 WRITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS. 
 
 DioNYSius OF Alexandria. 
 
 One of these was Dionysius of Alexandria. He was of 
 Pagan extraction, became a student of philosophy, and after- 
 wards, probably through the influence of Origen, went over to 
 Christianity. About the year 232, he succeeded Heraclas in 
 the chair of the theological school, and on his death, a. d. ^4T, 
 ascended the Episcopal throne of Alexandria. He took an 
 active part in the theological discussions and disputes ot the 
 day, and by his rank and merits obtained the name of " Great." 
 He embarked with his characteristic ardor in the Sabellian 
 controversy, which nearly proved his ruin, for it left him with 
 his reputation for orthodoxy blighted. Some African bishops 
 loudly complained of him to his namesake at Rome, for saying 
 that the Son was a " work, and was not consubstantial with the 
 Father," and he had great trouble in purging his name from 
 the taint of heresy.* He " sowed the seeds," we are told, 
 " of the AnomoBan impiety"; the Anomoeans being a branch 
 of the Arians. Basil charges him with placing the Son in the 
 rank of a " creature," — in repelling the errors of Sabellius 
 going into the opposite extreme ; making not only a " diver- 
 sity of persons," but a " difference of substance. "f 
 
 The charge seems to have been but too well founded. Dio- 
 nysius wrote many letters and some treatises on theological 
 subjects, most of which have perished. But some of his let- 
 ters, or parts of them, have been preserved by Eusebius, who 
 from them composed the greater part of the Seventh Book of 
 his Histoiy, observing that Dionysius '■' particularly relates all 
 the actions of his own times, in the epistles which he has left 
 to posterity." J Fragments of his letters, too. are found in 
 the writings of Athanasius. These fragments afford unexcep- 
 tionable evidence of his opinions, as they give his own lan- 
 guage. We will present one or two extracts. A letter which 
 he wrote to Ammonius and Euphranor furnished the Arians 
 with the following passage well suited to their purpose. He 
 said that the " Son of God is something made and begotten ; 
 
 * Athan. De Syn. Arim. et Seleuc, cc. 43, 44 ; et De Syn. Nic. Decret., c. 26. 
 t Episf. 9, 210, ed. Par. 1839. 
 $ See also vi. 35, 40-45. 
 
DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDEIA. 219 
 
 neither is lie by nature (a son) proper ; but is in substance 
 foreign to tlie Father, as is the husbandman to the vine, or the 
 shipbuilder to the ship ; and being a creature, he was not be- 
 fore he was begotten." * There is no doubt these were the 
 words of Dionysius. They are given as such by Athanasius, 
 who was friendly to his memory and his apologist, and who 
 wrote a treatise on his sentiments which is still extant. 
 
 Again, fi'om the same work of Athanasius, it appears that 
 Dionysius was charged with holding that " God was not always 
 Father ; the Son was not always ; but God was without the 
 Logos ; and the Son was not before he was begotten ; but there 
 was a time when he was not, for he is not eternal, but was after- 
 wards begotten." f This is what he was accused of saying. 
 He complains afterwards that he was not fairly dealt with, — 
 that his words were taken out of their connection, and that 
 his expressions are marred in the quotation. Whether this 
 was so or not, he had in his former writings against the Sabel- 
 lians, it seems, laid himself open to the charge of so teaching. 
 Subsequently, according to Athanasius, he explained and re- 
 canted, and took a more orthodox view of the subject. This 
 is not doubted. The question is, what he said in his earlier 
 days, when writing against the Sabellians, not what he asserted 
 afterwards, when it became necessary for him to defend him- 
 self against the charge of heresy. Athanasius does not deny 
 that the words above quoted were used by him ; he only gives 
 his explanation or apology. 
 
 Little needs be added. As to the term " consubstantial," 
 Dionysius says that he " did not find it in the Scriptures," and 
 he therefore felt justified in rejecting it. J Dionysius explains 
 
 * De Sent. Dionys., c. 4. The meaning is, the Son of God is not by origin 
 of the nature of the Fatlier, according to the usual law, but is foreign to him 
 in substance, the relation between them being that of the planter to the vine, 
 or the ship-carpenter to the ship he builds, — a doctrine in the highest degree 
 anti-Sabellian, and certainly on the very confines of Arianism. 
 
 t De Sent. Dionys., c. 14. 
 
 J Athan. De Sent. Dionys. ; and the letter of Dionysius himself to his name- 
 sake of Rome, in Athan. De Syn. Arim. et Seleuc, c. 44; De Syn. Nic. Decret., 
 c. 25. Dionysius uses other illustrations. Thus, alluding to a former letter, 
 he says : " I adduced parallels of things kindred with each other ; for in- 
 stance, that a plant growing from seed, or from root, was other than that from 
 which it sprang, yet was altogether one in nature with it ; and that a stream 
 
220 WEITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS. 
 
 in what sense he could use it ; in other words, in what sense 
 he could say that the Son was consubstantial with the Father. 
 " I took the example," he says, " of a human progeny, which 
 it is evident is of the same genus with the parent," that is, 
 consubstantial. In this sense " consubstantial " did not imply 
 numerical identity. So, according to Dionysius, who in this 
 followed the older Fathers, the Father and the Son might be 
 pronounced " consubstantial," as they were beings of the same 
 specific nature, that is, both divine, though as distinct from 
 each other as Peter and John, or the husbandman and the 
 vine, the maker of the ship and the ship. The attempt to 
 prove that men of this stamp were Trinitarians in any such 
 sense as would satisfy a modern expositor of the doctrine is 
 perfectly idle. 
 
 Dionysius was called to attend the Council of Antioch, as- 
 sembled to try Paul of Samosata ; but being prevented by age 
 and infirmity from attending, he wrote a letter to the Synod 
 expressing his views on the subject in dispute, and died soon 
 after, a. d. 265. 
 
 Gregory Thaumaturgus. 
 
 About the same year (a. d. 265) died another of the pupils 
 of Origen, and his great admirer. This was the celebrated 
 Gregory Thaumaturgus, the "wonder-worker," as he was 
 called ; pronounced by Eusebius * to be one of the " most 
 famous bishops of the age." He was a native of Neocsesarea 
 in Pontus, and was born of heathen parents. Pursuing the 
 study of law at different places, and among others at Berytus 
 and Csesarea in Palestine, he at the latter place met with 
 Origen, who, captivated by his brilliant genius, became his 
 teacher and won him over to Christianity. Nothing can ex- 
 ceed the enthusiasm with which Gregory regarded this great 
 Father. Leaving him to return to his native country after he 
 had been his pupil for five years, he composed a panegyrical 
 
 flowing from a fountain, gained a new name, for that neither was the fountain 
 called stream, nor the stream fountain, and both existed, and the stream wa» 
 the water from the fountain." 
 * Hist; vi. 30 ; vii. 14 ; and Jerome, De Vir. Illust, c. 65. 
 
THEOGNOSTUS. 221 
 
 oration upon him which is still extant. He then returned to 
 Pontus, and, much against his will, was made bishop there. 
 Basil, in the place already cited,* charges him, as well as Dio- 
 nysius, with depressing the Son to the rank of a " creature," or 
 "work," — something produced. We discover in his writings 
 no trace of a belief in the eternity of the Son ; in other re- 
 spects he adopted Origen's views of his nature. He held him 
 to be of inferior dignity to the Father, and did not believe in 
 their numerical identity, f 
 
 Theognostus. 
 
 Theognostus, an Alexandrian writer, not mentioned by Eu- 
 sebius or Jerome, came a little later in the century, being 
 placed in the last third part of it. What we know of him, 
 which is very little, we gather chiefly from Athanasius and 
 Photius. Athanasius quotes him to prove that the term " con- 
 substantial " was not first used by the Fathers of Nice. In 
 the second book of his Hypotyposes, Theognostus, he says, 
 writes thus : " The substance of the Son is not anything pro- 
 cured from without, nor accruing from nothing ; but it sprang 
 from the Father's substance, as radiance from light, or vapor 
 from water ; for neither is the vapor, nor the radiance, the 
 water itself, or the sun, nor is it foreign to it. The Son is an 
 effluence from the substance of the Father, without the sub- 
 stance of the Father undergoing any partition ; for as the sun 
 remains the same and is not diminished by the rays which 
 flow out from it, so neither does the substance of the Father 
 undergo any change through the Son who bears its image." :j: 
 Here is no numerical identity of substance in the sense of 
 the later Athanasian orthodoxy. Yet Athanasius speaks in 
 high terms of Theognostus, and calls him a learned man. 
 
 Photius's report of his orthodoxy is unfavorable. Photius 
 had read his writings which we do not possess. Theognostus, 
 he tells us,§ calls the Son a "creature," and says that he 
 
 * Epist. 9 et 210. 0pp., iii. 128, 458, ed. Par. 1839. 
 
 t On the subject of his opinions, and the creed falsely attributed to him, 
 see Martini, Versuch, etc., p. 230, ff. See also Lardner, art. " Gregory of Neo- 
 caesarea." 
 
 t Athau. De Syn. Nic, c. 25. § Biblioth., cod. 106. 
 
222 WKITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS. 
 
 " presides only over beings endowed with reason," and utters 
 " other things derogatory to the Son, after the manner of 
 Origen." Nor do the opinions he entertained of the Spirit 
 appear to have been any more orthodox. 
 
 PlERIUS. 
 
 Pierius, an Alexandrian, flourished about the same time, 
 perhaps a little later; surviving some years after the com- 
 mencement of the fourth century. We glean a little, and but 
 little, of him from Jerome and Eusebius. He was of Origen's 
 school, and much inclined to asceticism. From his learning 
 and eloquence he was called the younger Origen. We have 
 none of his works remaining. Photius says that he spoke wor- 
 thily of the Father and Son, only he " made them two sub- 
 stances and two natures." But of the " Holy Spirit he spoke 
 dangerously and impiously, maintaining that it was inferior in 
 glory to tire Father and Son." * He passed his latter days at 
 Rome. 
 
 Methodius. 
 
 Methodius, Bishop of Olympus, in Lycia, and afterwards of 
 Tyre, in Phcenicia, a Greek writer, died after the commence- 
 ment of the fourth century. Several of his writings remain, 
 and Photius has preserved extracts from others which have, in 
 the main, perished. Jerome, in his book of " Illustrious Men," 
 gives a short account of him ; but Eusebius, in his History, 
 does not name him. Valesiusf attributes the omission to the 
 fact that Methodius wrote against Origen, of whom the histo- 
 rian was a warm admirer. In his book on the Resurrection, 
 and in two or three others, Methodius had found fault with 
 some of Origen's opinions, but it does not appear that he cen- 
 sured his doctrine of the Trinity ; nor could he consistently, 
 for, as we shall presently see, he was himself no more ortho- 
 dox on this subject than Origen. Socrates, after mentioning 
 him, with three others whom he names, as among the revilers 
 of Origen, says that he afterwards recanted, and expressed 
 great admiration of him. But whether he first censured and 
 * Biblioth., cod. 119. t Euseb. Hist., vi. 24, note. 
 
METHODIUS. 223 
 
 then praised, or the reverse, has been made a question, which, 
 however, we shall not take time to discuss. It is of more conse- 
 quence to observe what Socrates adds, that none of the calum- 
 niators of Orio;en charged him with " entertainino; ill senti- 
 ments of the Trinity." * His doctrine was the orthodoxy of 
 the age. 
 
 As to Methodius, his opinions, we have no reason to doubt, 
 were those generally of his times. He says that the Father 
 was the principle out of which the Logos, which was before in 
 him, proceeded. Of the eternity of the Son, as a self-sub- 
 sistent being, he evidently knew nothing. He calls him the 
 " first begotten of God — before the ages." In power and 
 dignity he held the Son to be inferior to the Father. Speak- 
 ing of the Son, he says that " after the Father, his beginning- 
 less grand cause, he is in himself the cause of all other things, 
 which were made through him." f No Athanasian orthodoxy 
 here. The opinions which now ruled in the East were of a 
 very different complexion from that. No wonder that the 
 Arian opinions found a ready reception there. Indeed, so 
 strongly do the writings of Methodius savor of Arianism, that 
 Photius suspected that they had been interpolated or corrupted 
 by the Arians.^ But no marks of interpolation can be discov- 
 ered, and " learned moderns," says Lardner, therefore, " have 
 thought themselves obliged to admit that Methodius Arian- 
 ized." § Lardner gives several quotations and references in 
 support of his assertion, adducing the authority of Tillemont, || 
 Basnage, and the learned Huet, Origen's editor. Beausobre 
 had no better opinion of Methodius's orthodoxy. " His writ- 
 ings," he says, " savor very strongly of Arianism and Nesto- 
 rianism."^ Of the assertion of Methodius that Christ is the 
 " most ancient of the JEons and first of the archangels," he 
 says, it is " furiously Arian." ** Among other strange things 
 
 *■ Hist., vi. 13. See the note of Valesius. 
 
 \ See Martini, Versuch, etc., p. 245, ff. t BibliotL, cod. 237. 
 
 § Works, vol. iii. p. 190. London, 1829. 
 
 II Tillemont says, that it is difficult to give a good sense to some of hia 
 expressions concerning the Word and the procession of the divine persons. 
 Mem. Eccles., v. 200, ed. 1732. 
 
 IT Hist, de Manichee, etc., lib. vi. c. 3. Tom ii. p. 817, note. 
 
 ** Ibid., lib. i. c. 10. Tom. i. p. 118. 
 
224 WRITERS BETWEEN ORTGEN AND ARIUS. 
 
 which Methodius taught was this, — that the Divine Word 
 incarnated itself in Adam, the first man ; but that he being 
 deprived of its presence by sin, it incarnated itself anew in 
 the Virgin Mary.* 
 
 LUCIAN. 
 
 A more distinguished personage who lived in these days 
 was Lucian, Presbyter of Antioch. He had the reputation of 
 being a very learned man, and was especially distinguished for 
 his knowledge of the Scriptures. Eusebius gives him in all 
 respects a very exalted character.f Jerome calls him very 
 eloquent, and bears testimony to his laborious study of the 
 sacred writings, of which " some copies were still called Lu- 
 cian's."^ This refers pi-obablyto his edition of the Septuagint. 
 Of this version there were several editions, according to Je- 
 rome : that of Hesychius, adopted by the churches of Egypt ; 
 that of Lucian, in use from Constantinople to Antioch ; and 
 Origen's copy as prepared by Pamphilus and Eusebius, used in 
 Palestine and the regions adjoining. § There was an edition 
 of the New Testament as well as of the Old by Lucian and 
 Hesychius, mentioned by Jerome. || Lucian suffered martyi'- 
 dom at Nicomedia, in the year 311 or 312, and was buried, 
 according to Jerome, in Heliopolis, in Bithynia. The city was 
 much favored by Constantine for that reason, and the empress 
 Helena regarded it with peculiar affection as the place Avhere 
 the ashes of the martyr reposed.^ 
 
 Lncian had many followers. Born at Samosata, after the 
 ieath of his parents he passed some time at Edessa, and thence 
 lemoved to Antioch, where he is said to have established a 
 theological school. According to Pliilostorgius, most of the 
 Arian chiefs, as Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon, 
 Theognis of Nice, Leontius of Antioch, and others, were his 
 disciples.** 
 
 * Hist, de Manich^e, etc., lib. i. c. 10, and lib. vi. c. 3. 
 
 t Hist., viii. 13, and ix. 6. t ^e ^«>- ■?''««'•. c 77. 
 
 § Prcef. in Paralip. 0pp., i. 1027, ed. Par. 1609. 
 
 II Pr(Bf. in Qiiat. Evang. Tom. iii. p. 666. 
 
 IT Philostorgius, Hist., ii. 12. ** Ibid., ii. 14 
 
LUCIAN. 225 
 
 What were his own theological opinions, it has been thought 
 difficult to decide. There are some significant facts, however, 
 which deserve to be mentioned in this connection. Alexander, 
 Bishop of Alexandria, intimates that he held the views of Paul 
 of Samosata, and in an obscure passage says, that he remained 
 " out of the Synagogue " for a long period during the times of 
 three Bishops.* But that he was ever separated from the 
 Church, or excommunicated on account of his opinions, we do 
 not consider an estabhshed fact. The respect with which he 
 is uniformly spoken of by Athanasius, Jerome, and others, — 
 orthodox men, — and the reverence in which his memory was 
 held, seem, inconsistent with the supposition.! 
 
 The followers of Arius, however, were often, as we know, 
 called Lucianists ; and Arius, in a letter addressed to Eusebius 
 of Nicomedia, speaks of him as a " fellow Lucianist." J The 
 creed attributed to him,§ on disputable grounds, however, is a 
 noteworthy document. Athanasius and others find it ortho- 
 dox ; but the Arians seem to have claimed and used it in 
 the fourth century. There were expressions in it, certainly, 
 which both parties could accept. It says nothing of the 
 eternity of the Logos, or Son ; the expression " before all 
 ages " necessarily meaning no more than that he existed before 
 all created beings ; the obnoxiovis term " consubstantial " is 
 avoided ; and there is clearly nothing in the composition which 
 teaches the numerical identity of the Father and Son. So far 
 the Arians could adopt it. But some expressions occur in it 
 which the true Arians must have found it a little difficult to 
 reconcile with their peculiar belief. The use made of Lucian's 
 name by the Arians, however, and the fact that so many of the 
 Arian chiefs were of his school, and that the sect were called 
 Lucianists, might, even if there were nothing else, create a 
 
 * Ap. Theod. Hist. Ecdes., lib. i. c. 4. 
 
 t " Out of the Synagogue " is a literal translation of the Greek word used 
 by Alexander. The word occurs twice in John's Gospel (ix. 22, and xvi. 2) 
 The sense is there clear, to be cast out of the Synagogue being a well-known 
 Jewish punishment. But what the term means as applied to Lucian by Alex 
 ander, who does not explain, the learned find it difficult to decide. Tillemont 
 after discussing the subject, very frankly says, that he will venture to deter 
 mine nothing respecting it, since history has determined nothing. Mem 
 pedes., V. 202, and n. 347. 
 
 } Ap. Theod. Hid. Ecdes., lib. i. c. 5. § Soc, ii. 10 ; Soz., iii. 6. 
 
 15 
 
226 WRITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS. 
 
 doubt of his orthodoxy. In truth, we suppose that it was of 
 no higher stamp than the orthodoxy of his age, — that of 
 Theognostus, Pierius, and Methodius, or the disciples of Origen 
 generally, perhaps on some points verging a little more de- 
 cidedly towards Arianism. Thus it is clear that the attempt 
 of Noetus, Sabellius, and others, to reconcile the divinity of the 
 Son with the unity of God, had met with little success. The 
 Sabellian principle, that the Logos had no separate personality, 
 or was not a self-subsistent being, was, in the eyes of the 
 Oriental bishops, rank heresy. The tendency, as we have 
 said, was now in the opposite direction. 
 
CYPRIAN. 227 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Htprian. — Makes the Son Subokdinate. — Confounds the Spirii 
 WITH THE Logos. — Novatian. — Proofs from him of the Derived 
 Na^ture and Inferiority of the Son. — How he preserved the 
 Unity of God. — His Views of the Spirit. — Arnobius. — How he 
 
 SPEAKS OF the FaTHER AND SON. LaCTANTIUS. — HiS LEARNING 
 
 AND Eloquence. — Admitted to be Unsound on the Subject of 
 THE Trinity. — Proofs. 
 
 Cyprian. 
 
 Such were the Greek writers who immediately preceded the 
 rise of Arianism. There are some Latin authors of note, how- 
 ever, of whose opinions we must say something before we pro- 
 ceed to the great controversy of the age. The first is Cyprian 
 (Thascius Csecihus Cyprianus), an African by birth, and at 
 the time of his martyrdom, a. d. 258, Bishop of Cai'thage. He 
 was educated in Heathenism, and, according to Jerome, ob- 
 tained celebrity as a teacher of rhetoric. After his conversion, 
 which is attributed to C^cilius, a presbyter of Carthage, whose 
 name he took, he rose rapidly in the church. He was a great 
 admirer of Tertullian, and was accustomed to read a portion 
 of his writings every day, saying, "Give me my master." His 
 style had something of the African taint : it M'as declamatory 
 and rhetorical ; but was much less hard than that of Tertullian. 
 He left a variety of letters and treatises, relating mostly to 
 Christian morality and discipline. From these it is not difficult 
 to gather his sentiments concerning the nature of Christ. He 
 speaks of God as " one," " supreme," and bestows on him 
 other epithets which show that he regarded him as without 
 partner or equal. 
 
 Referring to the Son he says, in his treatise on the " Vanity 
 of Idols,"— the "Word," or the "Son of God," who is 
 " sent," is the " power of God, his Reason, his Wisdom and 
 Glory." In connection with this he speaks of the Holy Spirit 
 
228 WRITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS. 
 
 as becoming " clothed with flesh," thus confounding the Spirit 
 with the Logos. Many of the early Fathers did the same. In 
 regard to the Spirit they wavered and were inconsistent with 
 themselves, sometimes identifying it with the Logos, at other 
 times making a difference. This is not surprising, as nothing 
 had as yet been authoritatively determined respecting it, and 
 there had been little discussion on the subject. In other parts 
 of his writings Cyprian distinguishes the Spirit from the Logos, 
 making it inferior in dignity to Christ himself, as being " sent " 
 by him, he as superior sending it.* He calls Christ God, that 
 is, as the Son of God, but clearly denies his supremacy. " If 
 just men, who obeyed the divine precepts, could be called 
 Gods, how much more," he says, " Christ the Son of God," 
 alluding to John x. 34—37. Here is a palpable distinction, the 
 Son, he whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 
 being clearly made subordinate.! 
 
 Again, after mentioning God the Creator as the Father of 
 Christ, Cyprian adds : " The power by which we are baptized 
 and sanctified, Christ received from the same Father whom he 
 pronounced greater, by whom he prayed that he might be 
 sanctified, whose will he fulfilled, to the point of drinking the 
 cup, and submitting to death. "J Again, " By the preaching 
 and testimony of Christ himself, the Father who sent is to be 
 first acknowledged, then Christ who was sent."§ Again, 
 "All power is given to me."|| All this proves that Cyprian 
 never thought of a numerical identity of the Father and Son, 
 but regarded them as two distinct beings, the Father being the 
 Fountain and Giver of all the power and dignity possessed by 
 the Son. One further passage we will give to this point. 
 Thus our obligation to honor the Son is made by Cyprian to 
 rest on the will and command of the Father. " The Father, 
 God," says he, " commanded that his Son be adored, and the 
 Apostle Paul, mindful of the divine precept, says, God exalted 
 him, and gave him a name which is above every name, that in 
 the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven, 
 things in earth, and things under the earth." ^ Thus all is of 
 
 * Epist. Ixxiv. (Gersdorf), ad Pompeium, c. 5. 
 
 t Test. adv. JudcEos, lib. ii. c. 6. 
 
 t Epist. Ixxiii., ad Jubaian, c. 18. § Ibid., c. 17. 
 
 II Ibid., c. 5. 1 De Bono Patientice, c. 24. 
 
NOVATIAN. 229 
 
 God. The ancient Christians had not learned that refinement 
 of logic, by which he who sends and he who is sent are made 
 one. They went on the assumption that they must necessarily 
 be two. Certainly, to prove that they held the doctrine of the 
 Trinity in a form at all resembling the modern, or Athanasian, 
 we must go elsewhere than to the writings of Cyprian. 
 
 NOVATIAN. 
 
 A more important witness is Novatian, a theological writer 
 of some eminence, a contemporary of Cyprian. His heresy, 
 which consisted in his refusal to readmit to communion those 
 who in a time of persecution had denied the faith, — the 
 Lapsed, as they were called, — does not aflPect the value of his 
 testimony on the subject of the Trinity, on which he wrote a 
 work still extant.* Of all the writings of Christian antiquity 
 which time has spared, relative to the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 this is the most copious and full. It is a direct treatise on the 
 subject, and wholly devoted to it. Cyprian, a good authority 
 in this case, though he writes with great bitterness against 
 Novatian, does not impugn his orthodoxy as regards the Trin- 
 ity, but seems, by implication at least, to admit it ; f and Sozo- 
 men says that he innovated on established doctrines only by his 
 severe treatment of penitents.^ His work, inserted in many 
 editions of the writings of Tertullian, is called by Jerome 
 an epitome of a treatise by that Father ; but its style, which 
 differs widely from that of Tertullian, marks it as original. 
 Many, says Jerome, ignorantly attributed it to Cyprian. It 
 was written by Novatian, presbyter of the Church of Rome, 
 not before the year 250, probably in 256 or 257. 
 
 Novatian's orthodoxy, higli as it is, falls far below the stand- 
 ard of subsequent centuries, when the doctrine of the Trinity 
 was considered as in a manner defined and established. He 
 never dreamed of asserting the equality of the Son with the 
 Father. No Ante-Nicene writer furnishes more decisive tes- 
 timony to the old doctinne of the undivided supremacy of the 
 
 * De Regula Fidei, sive de Trinitate, Liber. We use Jackson's edition, Lond. 
 1728. 
 
 f Epist. Ixix., Gersdorf. J Hist. Eccles., vi 24. 
 
230 WRITEES BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS. 
 
 Father and the derived nature and inferiority of the Son. 
 The Spirit he places still lower. Du Pin notices the charge 
 of Rufinus and Jerome, that the book on the Trinity cited 
 by them, supposed to be the same we now have, denies the 
 divinity of the Holy Spirit.* 
 
 But let us proceed methodically. The first four chapters 
 of Novatian's book relate to God. In his first chapter he 
 says : " The rule of faith requires that first of all we believe 
 in God the Father and omnipotent Lord, the most perfect 
 Creator of all things, who suspended the heavens on high," 
 etc. Then follows a sublime description of things created. 
 In the three subsequent chapters, he proceeds to speak more 
 at large of the attributes of the Divine Being, who is the 
 " Maker of all things, — containing all, — moving, vivifying 
 all"; — "without origin and without end," whom "no words 
 can adequately describe and no mind comprehend," — in 
 strength, virtue, beauty, truth, majest}^, riches, power, good- 
 ness, surpassing all ; " whom alone our Lord with reason pro- 
 nounces good," — who is "immutable, one, without equal, 
 unbegotten, infinite, incorruptible, and immortal." The epi- 
 thets here applied to the Supreme God are never, either by 
 Novatian or any other Ante-Nicene writer, applied to the Son. 
 
 In his ninth chapter he speaks of the Son. He bestows on 
 him high titles, and once calls him " our Lord God " ; but why 
 and in what sense he is to be so regarded, the author clearly 
 explains in subsequent parts of the treatise. Novatian be- 
 lieved Christ to be both God and man, but not in the modern 
 or Athanasian sense. In him, says Novatian, the Divinity of 
 the Word being united by " concretion " or commixture with 
 human nature, constituting an indivisible unity, we hold him 
 to be God according to the Scriptures. f He was God and 
 man, but not, as Novatian teaches, the supreme God ; man as 
 born of man, God as born or begotten of God, according to 
 the doctrine of the old Fathers, that what is born of God is 
 God, that is, divine, con substantial with God, as what is born 
 of man is man, that is, human, con substantial witli man, nu- 
 merical identity being excluded, there being only identity of 
 
 * Eccles. Writers, vol. i. art. "Novatian." Lond. 1693. 
 t Cap. 11. 
 
NOVATIAN. 231 
 
 sind or species. " Nature itself," says Novatian, " teaoKes us 
 to hold him as man who is of man ; so it teaches us to hold 
 him as God who is of God." * So Christ is God and man. 
 He has his origin from God, and sustains the same relation to 
 him as a human being sustains to its father. 
 
 But the inferiority and dependence of the Son, as well as 
 his distinct individual nature, are clearly asserted by Novatian 
 in those very passages in which he ascribes to him the highest 
 honor and dignity. Thus he speaks of him as " Lord and 
 prince of the whole world," but adds that " all things were 
 delivered to him by his Father." f Again, he is " prince of 
 all the angels, before whom there was nothing except the 
 Father," J but the Father was before him. Here supreme, 
 independent divinity is clearly denied him. The Son might 
 be older than all creatures, older than the angels and the high- 
 est intelligences, as Novatian believed, § might exist " before 
 time," that is, as the expression meant, before the constitution 
 of the world ; but to assert this was very different from assert- 
 ing that he was co-eternal with the Father, which the Ante- 
 Nicene writers generally never thought of doing. Many of 
 them believed, with Justin Martyr, that the Son was begotten 
 a little before the creation of the world, or as the first step to 
 creation ; others were less definite ; biit all, Origen perhaps 
 excepted, denied eternity proper to the Son, as such, that is, 
 as a separate personal subsistence, or being. Novatian, as we 
 have seen, asserts that the Father was before the Son ; and he 
 teaches the same in other places. 
 
 Passages without number might be quoted to show that he 
 held the Son to be a distinct being from the Father and subor- 
 dinate to him. In John i. 3, — "All things were made by 
 him," — lie recognizes the Son or Word only as minister of 
 tlie Father, receiving and executing his commands. || He puts 
 
 * Cap. 11. Compare cc. 21, 23. 
 
 t Ibid. [So he is represented by Novatian as " constituted Lord and God of 
 (he whole creation," "universaj creaturae et Dominus et Deus constitutus esse 
 reperitur" (c. 20), and as " having obtained from his Father that he should be 
 both God and Lord of all," — " hoc ipsum a Patre proprio consecutus, ut om- 
 nium et Deus esset et Dominus esset" (c. 22). See Jackson's note, pp. 163, 
 164. — Ed.] 
 
 t Ibid § Cap. 16. II Cap. 17. 
 
232 WRITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS. 
 
 a wholly Unitarian construction on the celebrated passage, 
 " Who being in the form of God," etc. (Phil. ii. 6-12).* In 
 the assertion, " I and my Father are one " (John x. 30), he 
 does not find the supreme divinity of Christ, nor, according to 
 the later orthodoxy, a numerical identity of Father and Son. 
 " Number," that is, of persons, he says, " is not referred to, 
 the neuter gender being used "; one thing, one in " concord, 
 sentiment, and affection." He quotes as a parallel passage 
 the assertion of Paiil : " He that planteth and he that water- 
 eth are one " (1 Cor. iii. 8). Yet here ai'e two ; Paul and 
 Apollos are not to be confounded, the neuter gender being 
 used, as in the other instance. The case is argued by Nova- 
 tian at some length, but the point will be readily perceived 
 without further Avords.f Alluding to the same passage, " I 
 and my Father are one," in another place, Novatian refers to 
 the relation of sonship, and saj^s that Christ would have it 
 understood that he was " God as being the Son of God, not 
 that he was the Father himself," ;[: that is, as being numeri- 
 cally one with him. This is not the inference which any of 
 the old Fathers drew from the passage. 
 
 The " Father is greater than I," or " He who sent me is 
 greater than I," as Novatian has it, is one of the proof texts 
 which he cites to show that Christ is a distinct being from the 
 Father, and occupies a second place. Novatian clearly takes 
 the words in their most natural and obvious sense. The dis- 
 tinction of two natures, used in support of a different mean- 
 ing, was the refinement of a later age. In this connection 
 and to the same effect, (c. 26,) Novatian quotes numerous 
 other passages, which, for the sake of brevity, we omit. We 
 observe simply that they are the very passages which Unita- 
 rians are in the habit of adducing to prove the distinct nature 
 and subordination of the Son to the Father, for which purpose, 
 it is worthy of note, Novatian himself cites them. In his next 
 chapter (the twenty-seventh), Novatian asserts that Christ is 
 less than the Father as receiving sanctification from him. " If," 
 says he, " he had been the Father," (the supreme God,) " he 
 would have given sanctification, not received it." 
 
 * Cap. 22. t Cap. 27. Comp. c. 13. 
 
 $ Cap. 16i. See Jackson's note, p. 116. 
 
NOVATIAN. 233 
 
 Like the other ancient Fathers, Novatian attributes the 
 theophanies of the Old Testament to the Son. For the 
 Father himself, the supreme one, the only true God, is infi- 
 nite, and cannot be contained within any limits of place ; can- 
 not ascend nor descend, but contains and fills all things. Not 
 so the Son, who is capable of ascending and descending, and 
 can be enclosed within space. Here is a very clear distinction. 
 One is Supreme, Infinite, the other not ; one fills all space, 
 the other not, but can move from place to place and be en- 
 closed within doors ; one is visible, the other invisible.* 
 
 But if the Father is God, and Christ is God, in other than 
 a Sabellian sense, how, it might be asked, does it appear that 
 we have not two Gods ? This question Novatian attempts to 
 answer in his last two chapters, the thirtieth and thirty-first. 
 In doing this, as we shall see, he repeats the Logos doctrine 
 of the older Fathers, making the Son a divine being, having, 
 after he was begotten, a distinct personal subsistence, but 
 being subordinate to the Father, not co-equal and co-eternal 
 with him. We pass over his thirtieth chapter, in which he 
 rather plays round the subject than grapples with it, and give 
 a brief summary of his argument in his thirty-first, chiefly in 
 his own Avords. The Father, he says, though " Institutor and 
 Creator of all, alone knows no origin ; is invisible, immense, 
 immortal, eternal ; one God, of incomparable greatness, majesty, 
 and power ; of whom, when he willed, the Word or Son was 
 begotten." He was "always in the Father," as his unbegot- 
 ten virtue or energy, but had no distinct personal subsistence. 
 For the " Father was not always Father." " The Father 
 precedes him" (the Son), in that as Father he must be prior, 
 since " he who has no origin must of necessity precede him 
 Avho has an origin." The Father preceded all ; the Son was 
 "before all things [created], but was after the Father, by 
 whose will all things were made " through him. He is " God 
 as proceeding from God, constituting as Son a second person 
 after the Father, but not preventing Him from being the One 
 God." " If he were not begotten, there would be two unbe- 
 gotten, and so two Gods." More Novatian adds in the same 
 strain. If the Son were invisible, we should have two invis- 
 * Capp. 17, 18. 
 
234 WRITERS BETWEEN ORIGEX AND ARIUS. 
 
 ibles, and so two Gods. And so, if he were incomprehensible. 
 " But now, whatever he is, he is not of himself, but of the 
 Father, as begotten of him." So all " discord," as to number, 
 " as of two Gods," is removed. There is one " Principle and 
 head of all things." The Son " does nothing of his own will, 
 or his own counsel, but in all things obeys the precepts and 
 commands of the Father." So there are not two Gods. 
 There are not two " fountains " of Divinity, but one. " All 
 things being subjected to him [Christ] by the Father, he is 
 with them that are subjected, found in concord with the Father, 
 who gave all and to whom all reverts." Thus is there one 
 only " true and eternal God, the Father." 
 
 So Novatian saves the unity. The very gist of his argu- 
 ment is, that supreme divinity is not to be ascribed to Christ. 
 He is not co-equal or co-eternal with the Father. Here is no 
 part of the Athanasian Trinity. All is to be referred to the 
 Father, the original Fountain, " Principle and Head of all." 
 Christ was God, but not the one infinite God ; not self-existent ; 
 not having a personal, individual being from eternity, but de- 
 riving his origin, divinity, power, and authority from the one 
 only Supreme and Unbegotten God, the self- existent and 
 Eternal One. 
 
 The inferiority of the Spirit is clearly asserted by Novatian. 
 Thus, commenting on the words of Christ, " He shall receive of 
 mine and shall show it unto you," he says, " Greater is Christ 
 than the Paraclete ; since the Paraclete could not receive of 
 Christ, unless he were less than Christ." This passage was 
 audaciously tampered with by Gagnaeus, Novatian's first editor, 
 who could not endure its plain meaning. The true text is 
 restored by Jackson.* 
 
 Novatian, certainly, does not call the Spirit God or Lord, 
 though he does not, as did some of the old Fathers, place it 
 among the creatures made by the Son. We do not think that 
 he clearly teaches its permanent personality even. He speaks 
 of it mostly in Scripture language, as the " promised Spirit," 
 
 * Cap. 16. For the manner in which the ancient Fathers spoke of the 
 Holy Spirit, — many of them calling it a " creature," or " work," and none of 
 'hem, if we except Tertullian, after he became a Montanist, "Lord" or 
 ' God," —see Jackson's notes, pp. 217, 371. 
 
ARNOBIUS. 235 
 
 to ho poured out in the " last days " on God's servants, re- 
 ferring to its effusion at Pentecost. It dwelt in " Clmst alone 
 in all its fiilness," the fountain remaining in him affluent and 
 overflowing. He connects it as a certain divine seed or germ 
 with the second birth. In all this there is nothing which 
 necessarily implies personality, and much which is incon- 
 sistent with it. Certainly Novatian does not exalt the Spirit 
 into one of three co-equal persons, and he distinctly, as we 
 have seen, asserts that it is " less than Christ," never calling 
 it " God " or " Lord." 
 
 Arnobius. 
 
 We return to Africa, where Ave find the young Arnobius 
 teaching rhetoric with great reputation, as Jerome says, at 
 Sicca. Jerome further tells us that his work in defence of 
 Christianity was produced soon after his conversion, to prove 
 his sincerity. It is supposed to have been written early in the 
 fourth century, though some critics assign to it an earlier date. 
 That part of it which is devoted to a refutation of Heathenism 
 is very full, exhibiting minute and extensive reading on sub- 
 jects connected with the religions of antiquity ; but his knowl- 
 edge of Christianity has been generally pronoimced scanty 
 and superficial. We must not look in his works for any very 
 precise statements of doctrine. His orthodoxy appears to have 
 been that of his age ; that is, he maintained the supremacy of 
 the Father, and makes the Son a different being and subordi- 
 nate. Thus he speaks of the " omnipotent and just God," 
 who is " alone unbegotten, immortal, and everlasting," — the 
 " Father, governor, and Lord of all things." These and sim- 
 ilar expressions are applied exclusively to the Father, never 
 to Christ, who was " sent unto us by the Supreme King," and 
 spake by his " command." He is the " giver of immortality," 
 as the " Supreme King has appointed him to that office." * 
 Lardner doubts whether the Holy Spirit is once mentioned by 
 Arnobius ; if so, it is in an obscure expression, of the mean- 
 ing of which we cannot be certain. f 
 
 * Adv. Nationes, ii. 65 ; i. 31 ; ii. 35, and 2. 
 
 t See Martini, Verstich, etc., pp. 255, 256 ; Lardner, iii. 473. London, 1829 
 
236 writers between origen and arius. 
 
 Lactantius. 
 
 Leaving ArnoLius, we pass to his celebrated pupil Lactan- 
 tius. Of the early life of Lactantius little or nothing is known. 
 We are not informed even of the place of his nativity. It has 
 been supposed by some to have been Firmium, in Italy ; others 
 make him of African birth, possibly a native of Numidia. 
 Certain it is that he was early in Africa, and then studied 
 rhetoric under Arnobius, of whom we have just spoken. The 
 Emperor Diocletian, holding his court at Nicomedia, invited 
 him, as Jerome says,* to take up his abode there, which he 
 did. He there taught rhetoric, but Nicomedia being a Greek 
 city, he had few pupils. Latin eloquence was in little demand. 
 He gave himself up, therefore, to the writing of books, and 
 was very poor, often wanting even the necessaries of life. In 
 his old age Constantine engaged him to take charge of the 
 education of his son Crispus, in GauL He has been called 
 the most learned man of his time. At what period or where 
 he ended his days, history has not told us. Treves, in Gaul, 
 has been assigned as the place of his death, and the date given 
 as between a. d. 325 and 330, but on no certain evidence. 
 
 There is no doubt of his extensive learning, but his want 
 of judgment and critical skill has been genenxlly admitted. 
 For his eloquence he has been called the " Christian Cicero." 
 Jerome says that he " flows like a river of Tullian eloquence "; 
 but theologians and critics have found his works full of errors, 
 amounting, according to some, to one hundred and seventy, 
 partly philosophical and partly theological. Nothing could 
 induce him to believe in the Antipodes. He makes himself 
 very merry at the idea of such a thing, and treats it as 
 absurd. f Of the fall of the angels he thought with Justin 
 Martyr ; J and like him he quotes without scruple the books 
 of the Sibyls, and other productions of the kind, as genuine and 
 authentic, and of equal weight with the Hebrew prophecies. 
 He shared Justin's notions, too, of the millennium, for which 
 Jerome ridicules him.§ This happy event Lactantius though! 
 could not be delayed more than two hundred years. 
 
 * De Vir. Illust., c. 80. t Tnst, iii. 25. 
 
 J Inst,, ii. 15. § Comment, ad Ezekiel., c. 36. 
 
LACTANTIUS. 237 
 
 Lactantius is generally admitted to have been unsound on 
 the subject of the Trinity, as the doctrine was explained in 
 times subsequent to the Council of Nice. We will quote a 
 httle of his lano-uacre. The following is his account of the 
 origin of the Son. " Before this glorious world arose," says 
 he, " God, the maker and disposer of all things, begat a holy 
 and incorruptible, and incomprehensible Spirit, called his Son ; 
 and though he afterwards created innumerable others whom 
 we call angels, yet this first-born alone was deemed worthy of 
 the divine name," * The angels, according to Lactantius, 
 were created immediately by God, but, " between this Son of 
 God and the other angels, there i?," says he, " a great differ- 
 ence." f But his subordination to the Father is expressly 
 taught by Lactantius. God, says he, when he formed the 
 world, " placed this his first and greatest Son over the whole 
 work, and used him as his counsellor and artificer in planning, 
 adorning, and perfecting things." J His loyalty, obedience, 
 and testimony to the one only God, are thus stated by Lac- 
 tantius, who says that he is of a " middle nature or substance 
 between God and man."§ " He showed himself true to God, 
 and taught that there is one God, who alone is to be wor- 
 shipped ; neither did he once call himself God, for he could 
 not have been true to his commission, if being sent that he 
 might destroy the belief in Gods [many Gods], and teach one 
 God, he had introduced another beside this one. Because he 
 was thus faithful, assuming nothing to himself, but fulfilling 
 the commands of him that sent him, he received the dignity of 
 a perpetual priesthood, and the honors of the highest king, and 
 the power of judge, and the name of God." || 
 
 No one can read these extracts, we think, without perceiv- 
 ing that here are two beings, entirely distinct, one fii'st and 
 supreme, the other subordinate ; one giving, the other receiv- 
 ing. The union between the two is thus explained by Lac- 
 tantius. He takes the example of a father and son occupying 
 the same house, the son remaining subject to the father. 
 Though the father grants the name and authority of master 
 
 * Inst., iv. 6. t Ihid; iv. 8. t I^»d; n. 9. 
 
 § " Median! inter Deum et hominem substantiam gereus." — Inst., iv 13. 
 U InM., iv. 13, 14, 
 
238 WRITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS. 
 
 to the son, yet, as they are perfectly united in will and con- 
 sent, we may say that there is but one house and one master. 
 " So," he proceeds, " this world is one house, and the Son and 
 Father who inhabit it and are of one mind, are one God ; for 
 one is as both, and both are as one. Nor is there anything 
 surprising in this : since the Son is in the Father, because the 
 Father loves the Son ; and the Father in the Son, because the 
 Son faithfully obeys the will of the Father, nor ever does nor 
 did anything except what the Father has willed or com- 
 manded." * Here is no trace of the later orthodoxy. Ac- 
 cording to Lactantius, the only union between the Father and 
 Son is one of will and affection. He calls the Son God, but 
 speaks of him as " created," and as possessing only derived 
 dignity and power. The Son, he says, merited the title of 
 God, " on account of the virtue he taught and exemplified." 
 " On account of the virtue and fidelity he exhibited on earth 
 there are given him a kingdom and honor and dominion, that 
 all people and tribes and tongues should serve him.f 
 
 We might quote more to the same purpose ; but the above 
 is sufiScient to show the views Lactantius entertained of the 
 inferior and derived nature and dignity of the Son. He knew 
 nothing of the atonement in the modern sense of the term. 
 Christ died and rose again, he tells us, that he might "give 
 man the hope of overcoming death, and conduct him to the 
 I'ewards of immortality." J " In some of his books, and espe- 
 cially in his Epistles to Demetrian [now lost], he. utterly 
 denies," as Jerome testifies, " the personality of the Spirit ; 
 referring it, after the manner of the Jews, either to the Father 
 or the Son." § Many, says the same writer, asserted along 
 with him that the Holy Spii'it is not a substance, but a name. 
 Lactantius sometimes confounds it with the Logos. 
 
 Sucli was the orthodoxy of the age ; and it was but one 
 step removed from Arianism. Tlie points of difference and 
 identity we shall hereafter attempt to indicate. We proceed 
 in our next chapter to our historical details. 
 
 * lust, iv. 29 t Ibid., iv. 16, 25, 12. 
 
 \ Ibid., iv. 10. § Epist. 41, al. 65, ad Paramach. et Ocean. 
 
ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Conflict of Doctrine. — Belief of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.— 
 Account OF Arius. — Origin of the Controversy. — Popularity 
 OF Arius. — His Person and Manners. — Progress of the Contro- 
 versy. — Arius is expelled from Alexandria, and retires to Pal- 
 estine. How RECEIVED BY THE BiSHOPS THERE. — EuSEBIUS OF NlCO- 
 
 MEDiA. — Palestinian Council.' — Arius's Letter to his Bishop. — 
 Alexander writes Letters to all Parts. — Tongues instead of 
 Spears. 
 
 There is a lull : but the calm is soon to end ; the sky is to 
 be darkened, and the winds are to be up. A stern conflict is 
 commencing in the theological world, — the old world of the 
 Fathers. Opinions are to be sifted, examined, defined ; the 
 past is to be questioned ; new ideas are to be thrown out, new 
 controversies to arise. The old ways are to be forsaken, and 
 untrodden paths to be tried. Arius and Athanasius — resolute 
 spirits both — are to come upon the stage. The head of the 
 Roman Empire is to become Christian, and to mediate, and 
 mediate in vain. The wound is never to be healed. Antiquity 
 is to be appealed to, and its opinions are to go down, so far 
 as authority can crush them ; and dogmas, unknown to the 
 Fathers, are to be enthroned in human belief. 
 
 The "Arian impiety," as the enemies of Arius called it, 
 first appeared on the banks of the Nile ; and the Devil, envi- 
 ous of the prosperity of the clmrch under the first Christian 
 emperor, they said, sowed the seeds of it. All the ante-Ni- 
 cene Fathers, however, admitted the inferiority of the Son to 
 the Father. This implied, that, in their opinion, they were 
 two essences, which some of them distinctly assert. It is true, 
 the learned Platonizing Fathers sometimes use expressions 
 which now bear an orthodox sense ; and it is hastily inferred, 
 
240 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 therefore, that they were orthodox in the modern signification 
 of the term. But nothing couhl be further from the truth. A 
 very moderate acquaintance with the remains of Christian 
 antiquity must, we think, convince any unprejudiced mind, 
 that the language in question was used by the Fathers in a 
 sense totally different from that now attributed to it. If we 
 go on the assumption that they employed it in the modern 
 sense, we shall mistake their sentiments at every step. Thus 
 they occasionally make use of a phraseology, which, in the 
 mouth of a modern Trinitarian, would imply a belief that the 
 Son is of one numerical essence with the Father. But this 
 they never thought of asserting. The most they meant to 
 affirm was, that the Son, as begotten of God, partook in some 
 sort of the same specific nature (that is, a divine), just as an 
 individual of our race partakes* of the same nature or essence 
 with the parent from whom he sprung (that is, a human). At 
 the same time, they taught that he was relatively inferior to 
 the Father, from whom he was derived, and entitled to only 
 inferior homage. He was not uncaused, as the Father was. He 
 had a beginning : the Father had none. He was the minister 
 of the Father, and in all things subject to his Avill. This all 
 asserted, if we except Origen, who differed from others by 
 indulging in some subtile and obscure speculations in regard 
 to a " becinnino-less " creation, and " beoinningless generation 
 of the Son." 
 
 The incidents of the life of Arius, before he promulgated 
 his obnoxious sentiments, so far as preserved, are soon related. 
 Epiphanius tells us that he was said to have come from Libya, 
 " a part of Africa," says the pious Maimbourg, " beyond all 
 other, fruitful of monsters ; for before this time it produced the 
 heretic Sabellius." From an expression in one of liis own let- 
 ters, it has been inferred that his father's name was Ammo- 
 nius ; but this is matter of doubt. 1 le was made deacon by 
 Peter, then Bishop of Alexandria ; but afterwards incurred his 
 displeasure by the freedom he took in censuring his conduct in 
 regard to the Meletians, which Arius, who is accused of hav- 
 ing been formerly too partial to the sect, thought ilhberal and 
 harsh. For this offence he was excommunicated. Under 
 Achillas, the successor of Peter, he was, as Sozomen informs 
 
ORIGIN OF THE CONTROVERSY. 241 
 
 US, restored, and promoted to the rank of presbyter. Achillas 
 was soon succeeded by Alexander, and Arius for some time 
 enjoyed his confidence and friendship. He had the care of 
 a parish church in Alexandria, called Baucalis,* where he 
 preached, and had full liberty to declare his sentiments.f 
 
 Theodoret says that he was intrusted with the exposition 
 of the Scriptures, which has led to the supposition that he was 
 once connected with the Catechetical School ; but of this there 
 is no satisfactory evidence. It is said that he taught not only 
 in his church, but in private ; and he was accused by his enemies 
 of going from house to house in the endeavor to " draw men 
 over to his sentiments." These are base charges, which may 
 mean nothing more than that he faithfully performed his pas- 
 toral duties, which was to his credit. 
 
 Of the origin of his controversy with his bishop, accounts 
 in some respects differ. Sozomen 1^ tells us, and Epiphanius, 
 as we shall hereafter see, intimates the same, that Alexander 
 did not interfere for some time after Arius began to divulge his 
 novel opinions ; that he was blamed for his neglect or forbear- 
 ance ; that in consequence of the complaints of the enemies of 
 Arius, or of those who rejected his opinions, he was at length 
 induced to appoint successively two conferences, at which Arius 
 and his opponents discussed the question at issue ; that Alex- 
 ander was for a time in some suspense, inclining " first to one 
 party, and then to the other " ; but that he finally decided 
 against the presbyter. 
 
 This, however, seems to be a somewhat imperfect account 
 of the matter. According to other authorities, some of them 
 entitled to full as much credit, Alexander himself, by his inno- 
 vations and extravagances, furnished occasion of the dispute. 
 Constantine certainly, in a letter addressed to the parties,§ 
 throws the blame on Alexander, whom he accuses of troubling 
 his priests with foolish and unprofitable questions, which should 
 never have been asked ; or, if asked, ought not to have been 
 answered. Socrates || and Theodoret,^ in the main, confirm 
 
 * The oldest in the city, containing, it is said, the tomb of St. Mark ; and 
 in it took place the election of the Patriarch, 
 t Epiphan. Hcer., Ixix. ; Theod. Hist., lib. i. c. 2. 
 
 $ Hist., lib. i. c. 15. § Euseb. Vita Const., ii, 69. 
 
 II Lib. i. c. 5. TF Lib. i. c. 2. 
 
 16 
 
242 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 this statement. According to the former, Alexander having 
 one day discoursed with a Httle too much subtilty on the sub- 
 ject of the Trinity in the presence of his clergy, Arius thought 
 that his language savored of Sabellianism, and, in arguing 
 against him, went to the opposite extreme. Arius, too, in his 
 letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, still extant,* represents Alex- 
 ander as an innovator ; and if the expressions he attributes to 
 him were really his, which we see no reason to doubt, he cer- 
 tainly was so. Thus : " Always God, always the Son ; as the 
 Father, so is the Son ; the Son is unbegotten as the Father ; 
 neither in thought, nor the least point of time, does God pre- 
 cede the Son ; always God, always the Son." 
 
 These are expressions to which the ears even of the ortho- 
 dox were then unaccustomed. Arius says he could not assent 
 to them, and hence was driven from the city as an atheist, 
 which had the usual effect of persecution, for it only added to 
 his success and growing influence. 
 
 Arius had some marked intellectual traits. Neander ascribes 
 to him a " strong predilection for logical clearness and intel- 
 ligibility." The influence of the Antiochian School, which 
 entered into a sharp conflict with the Sabellians, could be 
 distinctly traced in his peculiar exegetical tendencies. He 
 possessed great logical acumen, which gave him the advantage 
 in argument. 
 
 For our knowledge of his person and habits we are indebted 
 mainly to the representations of his enemies. These repre- 
 sentations contain many statements and admissions in the 
 highest degree honorable to him. They are vouchers for his 
 integrity, the innocence of his life, and his many estimable 
 qualities, which endeared him to multitudes of his fellow- 
 citizens at Alexandria, and procured him numerous friends in 
 his exile. 
 
 He is said to have been an old man when the controversy 
 broke out, though of his precise age we know nothing, as we 
 have not the date of his birth. But he had probably long 
 passed the period of middle life at least. In person he is said 
 to have been very tall, of a lithe frame and thin, with pensive 
 
 * Tlie letter is found in Theod., lib. i. c. 5, and Epiphanius, Hcer., Ixix. c. 6, 
 with some variation ; not, however, materially affecting the sense. 
 
PERSON AND MANNERS OF ARIUS. 243 
 
 and somewhat melancholy features, combined with a peculiar 
 sweetness of countenance and tones, and a certain fascination 
 of manner which it was difficult to resist. He was fluent, 
 bland, and persuasive in speech, and was modestly attired in a 
 scanty (Epiphanius says a half) cloak.* The females of Alex- 
 andria were strongly inclined to his side. Among the devout 
 women of the place he had seven hundred followers clearly 
 occupying a reputable position, and a fair proportion of them, 
 it may be presumed, possessing intellectual culture. So firm 
 was their adhesion to him that nothing — no force nor threats, 
 and no fears of church censure — could induce them to re- 
 nounce him or his opinions. 
 
 The above-mentioned traits of his person and manners have 
 been transmitted to us by his enemies. As a matter of course, 
 they put their own construction on his conduct and motives, 
 ascribing to him jealousy, restlessness, and ambition, and all 
 the subtlety and wiles of the serpent, by which he deceived the 
 miwary, drawing them over to his opinions and making them 
 his fast friends. His adversaries — such is the virulence of 
 
 * In describing the person and character of Arius some caution is necessary 
 as to the sources whence the materials are drawn. We find no description of 
 his person in any contemporary author. Epiphanius lived in the fourth 
 century, was narrow, violent, and bigoted, and his authority, when not sup- 
 ported by other writers, is not above suspicion. He is often inaccurate, and 
 was especially hostile to the Arians ; and what he says of the founder of the 
 sect, therefore, requires to be carefully sifted, and allowance must be made for 
 the force of prejudice. Gelasius of Cyzicus, as an authority, is nearly worth- 
 less. He wrote in the latter part of the fifth century. Portions of his "Acts 
 of the First Council " Cave believed to be pure inventions. Tillemont, 
 though he repeatedly quotes the work, yet held it in slight esteem ; and Du 
 Pin expresses absolute contempt for it. In the third book, as we now have 
 it, there is a letter ascribed to Constantine ; but its genuineness is, to say the 
 least, very questionable, and it is a document entitled to no respect. The 
 Oxford translator of some of the treatises of Athanasius (J. H. Newman), 
 speaks of it as an " invective," and says that it is " like a school exercise or 
 fancy composition," adding that it is " inconsistent with itself" (Lihrary of 
 the Fathers, viii. 183.) Dr. Stanley, in his " History of the Eastern Church," 
 describes it as "mixed in about equal proportions of puns on his [Arius's] 
 name, of jests on his personal appearance, of eager attacks upon his doctrine, 
 and of supposed prophecies against him in the Sibylline books." Yet 
 strangely enough he has made use of it in the very extraordinary portrait 
 ne has drawn of the Alexandrian heresiarch. See an article on Dr. Stanley 
 and Arius in the Christian Examiner (published in Boston) for March, 1862. 
 [The article referred to was written by Dr. Lamson. — Ed. ] 
 
244 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTBOVERSY. 
 
 theological prejudice — denounce his doctrines as blasphemous , 
 and there is no epithet of abuse they do not heap upon him, 
 except only that they accuse him of no immorality. No whisper 
 of impurity of life has come down to us from the many enemies 
 of his name and fame, a sure proof that no stain rested on his 
 character. 
 
 To his other qualities he added great earnestness. He was 
 evidently sincere ; he abounded in zeal, and was susceptible 
 neither of being intimidated by threats, nor lured by favor. He 
 possessed the courage of a martyr ; and sooner than profess his 
 assent to opinions he did not believe, he would " die," as he 
 says in his letter to Eusebius, " a thousand deaths," The 
 consequence of all was, he was now immensely popular, and 
 his opinions were rapidly spreading. They soon diffused 
 themselves beyond the walls of Alexandria into Libya and the 
 upper Thebais, as they subsequently did in the " congenial 
 atmosphere " of Syria, where among the bishops, as Milman 
 observes, " the most learned, the most pious, the most influen- 
 tial, united themselves with his party." 
 
 That such men as Alexander, the old bishop, and the young 
 and aspiring Athanasius, already panting for distinction, — the 
 passions which rendered his after-life so agitated and full of 
 strange vicissitude beginning to stir in his breast, — should 
 resolve to overthrow this popular idol who stood in their way, 
 is all very natural. Athanasius has not yet appeared on the 
 stage ; he is biding his time. But Alexander is now all zeal, 
 Meletius, at this time the enemy of Arius, conveying, if we 
 may believe Epiphanius, complaints to his ear, which served to 
 fan the growing flame. 
 
 Nor is this statement inconsistent with the supposition that 
 Alexander himself, by his imprudence, had excited the contro- 
 versy. Arius might have believed it his duty, in discharging 
 his office as pastor and teacher, to inculcate what he conceived 
 to be sound views of Christian doctrine in opposition to the 
 rash, and, as it appeared to him, novel assertions of his bishop ; 
 and the latter, if acquainted with the circumstance, might not 
 have thought himself called upon immediately to interpose. A 
 certain latitude, as it appears, was allowed to the priests of the 
 several churches of Alexandria in the expression of their senti- 
 
PROGRESS OF THE CONTROVERSY. 245 
 
 meiits , and it might not at first have been clear that Arius had 
 exceeded it. Or, if he had, the tide was as yet setting in his 
 favor, and it might have required some courage to stem it. 
 
 The hesitation ascribed to Alexander, too, may be accounted 
 for, in part, by the supposition, that the change which his 
 opinions underwent about this time was gradual, and that he 
 did not at first reach the exti'eme point. He might, originally, 
 have thrown out some unadvised expressions concerning the 
 nature of the Son ; though he as yet held, in the main, the 
 popular belief. These expressions gave rise to controversy ; 
 and, upon listening to a discussion of the subject, the bishop 
 for a moment, it would seem, felt embarrassed by the weight 
 of authority and argument which Arius was able to bring in 
 support of his views. From this embarrassment, however, he 
 soon recovered. Envy of the popular fame of Arius (for this 
 passion was attributed to him) might have caused him to feel 
 an increased aversion to his sentiments ; and the progress of the 
 controversy served still further to separate the combatants, till 
 Alexander was led to express himself in the rash manner above 
 related, and insist that all his clergy should echo his opinions. 
 That Alexander's mind went through some such process as 
 this, there can be little doubt. We have evidence of his 
 change of sentiments, not only from the testimony of Arius, 
 but from his own writings. Even after the expulsion of Arius 
 from Alexandria, he continued occasionally, from the effect of 
 habit, to use language which savored strongly of the old school. 
 
 But, whatever might have been his previous views, Alex- 
 ander now soon showed that he was resolved to exert his 
 influence and authority to the full. He first makes use of 
 counsel and admonition ; and finally " commands Arius to em- 
 brace his sentiments," and discard his own. But Arius was 
 not the man to change his opinions, or profess to change them, 
 in consequence of the " command " of a spiritual superior. 
 Alexander, as Socrates tells its,* now becomes enraged, and, 
 assembling a council of bishops and priests, excommunicates 
 him and his followers, and he is ordered to leave the city. We 
 are told by Arius, in the letter already alluded to, that Euse- 
 bius of Csesarea, and several others whom he names, and " all 
 * Hist., lib. i. c. 6. 
 
246 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 the Oriental bishops," since tliey asserted that " the Father 
 existed before the Son, being without beginning," were 
 anathematized, except only Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Ma- 
 carius, whom he pronounces ignorant heretics. So general, at 
 this time, was the leaning towards the sentiments of Arius, 
 who is said, on the death of Achillas, to have declined the 
 episcopal dignity in the metropolis of Egypt.* 
 
 Arius was excommunicated and deposed, as is generally 
 supposed, about the year 320 ; Neander says, 321. After he 
 and his friends had been expelled from the Chm'ch, many of 
 the people, as Sozomen informs us, still adhered to him, con- 
 sisting partly of such as approved his opinions, and partly of 
 those who sympathized with his hard fate, thinking that he had 
 been harshly treated by his bishop. f Arius soon after retires 
 into Palestine, visits the seA^eral bishops there, and endeavors 
 to procure favor for himself and his doctrine. He was well 
 received by some, says Epiphanius, and repulsed by others. 
 Among the former was Eusebius the historian, Bishop of 
 Csesarea. It was while residing with him, if Epiphanius is to 
 be trusted, that he wrote the letter, already mentioned, to the 
 Bishop of Nicomedia. He addresses him as the " orthodox 
 
 * The above account, meagre as it is, embraces all the information we can 
 collect in relation to the origin of the Arian controversy. Theodoret, indeed, 
 asserts that the heresiarch was instigated by envy and disappointment ; Alex- 
 ander having been preferred to the bishopric, to which he thought he had 
 superior claims. But of this he offers no shadow of proof; and his assertion 
 is contradicted by Philostorgius, who tells us (Hist., lib. i. c. 3) that Arius, 
 seeing the votes inclining to himself, generously caused them to be transferred 
 to his rival. The truth is, Theodoret was a man of violent prejudices, and a 
 great bigot, and never speaks of Arius but in terms of extreme acrimony. 
 
 Philostorgius was an Arian historian ; and it would be satisfactory to be 
 able to compare his statements throughout with those of the orthodox. It is 
 always well, if we can, to hear tiie evidence on both sides. But the original 
 work of Philostorgius is unfortunately lost; and we have only a brief abstract 
 of its contents by the orthodox Pliotius, who shows himself exceedingly bitter 
 against the author. His ustial manner of commencing his sections is, "the 
 impious Philostorgius," "this enemy of God," "this artificer of lies," " this 
 nretch," says so and so. The little we have of him gives a complexion to the 
 liistory of the times very different from what it assumes in the narratives of the 
 orthodox. His history commences with the rise of the Arian controversy, 
 and embraces the period of a little more than a century, including his own 
 times. 
 
 t Hist, lib. i. c. 15. 
 
EUSEBIUS OF NICOMEDIA. 247 
 
 Eusebius," and proceeds with much brevity and neatness to 
 give an account of the nature and result of his controversy 
 with Alexander. His own sentiments are stated in simple and 
 intelligible language. He writes with feeling, but without 
 bitterness. 
 
 Eusebius of Nicomedia was distinguished for rank and 
 talents ; and the circumstance that the imperial residence was 
 then at Nicomedia gave him additional influence. Socrates 
 complains that a multitude of bishops were obsequious to him. 
 He became the personal friend of Arius, espoused his cause 
 with warmth, and proved an able advocate for his opinions. 
 He wrote many letters in his favor to Alexander and others, 
 and from this time may be regarded, in fact, as the chief of 
 the sect ; and hence the Arians were afterwards often called 
 Eusebians. One of his letters, addressed to Paulinus, Bishop 
 of Tyre, is still extant.* It was written soon after the receipt 
 of Arius's letter just mentioned ; and is particularly valuable, 
 as it contains a short and clear exposition of his own views, 
 and of the generally received doctrine concerning the nature of 
 the Son. " He never heard," he says, " that there were two 
 unbegotten. We affirm that there is one unbegotten, and 
 another who did in truth proceed from him, yet who was not 
 made out of his substance, and who does not at all participate 
 in the nature or substance of him who is unbegotten. We 
 believe him to be entirely distinct in nature and in power." 
 The letter concludes with a request that Paulinus would write 
 to Alexander, and induce him, if possible, to relent. Eusebius, 
 besides, assembled a provincial council in Bithynia, which 
 undertook the defence of Arius, and endeavored to procure his 
 restoration to the communion of the churches, and particularly 
 of the church of Alexandria. f 
 
 But Alexander remained inexorable. As in the days of 
 Origen, however, there was a degree of freedom and liberality 
 in Palestine which did not exist in Egypt ; and at Arius's 
 request, several of the bishops there, Eusebius of Caesarea 
 among the rest, met in council, and authorized him and his 
 fellow-presbyters in exile to collect their adherents, and preach 
 to them, and perform all the functions of presbyters as they 
 * Theod., lib. i. c. 6. f Sozomen, lib. i. c. 16. 
 
248 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 had been accustomed to do at Alexandria.* Arius, it seems, 
 after he left Palestine, passed some time with his friend at 
 Nicomedia. While there, he wrote a letter to his bishop, 
 which has been preserved. In this letter — which, throughout, 
 breathes a temperate spirit — he gives at some length his 
 views of the Father and Son, and says, " Our faith we have 
 received from ti-adition, and learned from you." Again : that 
 the Father existed before the Son, he says, " is M^hat we 
 learned of you, who preached it in the midst of the church." 
 The letter was signed by Arius and five other priests, six 
 deacons, and two bishops.f We have before alluded to the 
 change of sentiment attributed to Alexander. We will simply 
 add in this place, that the Arians constantly appealed to tra- 
 dition as in their favor, and asserted that they held the ancient 
 doctrine. This assertion must not be taken in the most rigid 
 sense ; though, to a certain extent, it Avas true. The Arians 
 
 * Sozomen, lib. i. c. 15. 
 
 t The letter is given by Epiphanius (Hcer. Ixix. cc. 7,8), and, nearly entire, 
 by Athanasius (De Syn. Arim. el Seleiic, c. 16.) We subjoin the first half of it 
 in Newman's translation {Lib. of the Fa^^ers, viii. 96-98). "Our faith from 
 our forefathers, which also we have learned from thee, Blessed Pope, [Papa,] 
 is this: — We acknowledge one God, alone Ingenerate, alone Everlasting, 
 alone Unoriginate, alone True, alone having Immortality, alone Wise, alone 
 Good, alone Sovereign ; Judge, Governor, and Providence of all, unalterable 
 and unchangeable, just and good, God of Law and Prophets and New Testa- 
 ment ; who generated an Only-begotten Son before eternal times, through 
 whom he has made both the ages and the universe ; and generated him, not 
 in semblance, but in truth ; and that he made him subsist at his own will 
 unalterable and unchangeable ; perfect creature of God, but not as one of the 
 creatures ; offspring, but not as one of things generated ; not as Valentinus 
 pronounced that the offspring of the Father was an issue ; nor as Manichaeus 
 taught that the offspring was a portion of the Father, one in substance ; or as 
 Sabellius, dividing the One, speaks of a Son-and-Father ; nor as Hieracas, of 
 one torch from another, or as a lamp divided into two ; nor of him who was 
 before, being afterwards generated or new-created into a Son, as thou, too, 
 thyself. Blessed Pope, in the midst of the church and in session hast often con- 
 demned ; but as we say, at tiie will of God, created before times and before 
 ages, and gaining life and being from the Father, who gave subsistence to his 
 glories together with him. For the Fatlier did not, in giving to him the 
 inheritance of all things, deprive himself of what he has ingenerately in him- 
 self; for he is the fountain of all things." In the remaining part of the letter 
 it is asserted that the Son is ''not eternal or co-eternal with the Father"; 
 " God is before all things as being a One and an origin of all. Wherefore he 
 is before the Son ; as we have learned also from thy preaching in the midst 
 of the church." 
 
CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES. 249 
 
 could quote passages from the old writers, exceedingly embar- 
 rassing to their opponents. On some points, as the supremacy 
 of the Father and his priority of existence, tradition was clearly 
 in their favor ; and they could say, with truth, that they held 
 the old faith. The new doctrine embraced by the orthodox 
 concerning the generation of the Son, they said, was pure 
 Manicheism and Valentinianism. 
 
 But to return. While Arius was thus employed, Alexan- 
 der, too, was busy in writing letters to all parts, cautioning the 
 bishops against showing any favor to him or his doctrines. 
 Of these, Epiphanius tells us, about seventy existed in his 
 time. Two of them are still extant, — one in Socrates,* and 
 the other in Theodoret.f They are written with no little 
 acrimony, and, we are constrained to say, form an unfavor- 
 able contrast with those of Arius. In one of them, addressed 
 to Alexander, Bishop of Byzantium, Eusebius of Nicomedia 
 comes in for a large share of abuse. In fact, Alexander spares 
 no effort to render the whole party odious. He calls them 
 "apostates," "impious," "enemies of Christ," the most auda- 
 cious of all the corrupters of Christianity ; causing " all pre- 
 ceding heresies to appear in comparison innocent," such were 
 the blasphemies they uttered wherever they went. He was 
 " troubled," he says, " at the destruction of these men " ; but, 
 he adds, " The same thing befell Hymenaeus and Philetus, and, 
 before them, Jiidas." They were the men, he says, whose 
 coming was predicted by our Saviour, and who should " deceive 
 many"; the same also to whom St. Paul alluded, " who should 
 depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doc- 
 trines of devils ; hating the truth." 
 
 Eusebius was still further provoked, and the war of words 
 continued. Numerous letters were written by the friends and 
 enemies of Arius. He collected and preserved those written 
 in his defence, as did Alexander those written against him ; 
 and they were afterwards appealed to by different parties as 
 authoritative documents. $ 
 
 The dispute, by this time, had become a serious matter. 
 Prelates contended in the churches, the people were rent into 
 factions, and all places were filled with discord and tumult. 
 
 * Lib. i. c. 6. t Lib. i. c. 4. t Soc, lib. i. c. 6. 
 
250 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 Embassies were sent into all the provinces, men's passions be- 
 came more and more inflamed from day to day, and the whole 
 empire exhibited a scene of violence and strife. " They fought 
 against each other," says Theodoret, " with their tongues in- 
 stead of spears." * Even Pagans were scandalized, and their 
 theatres resounded with ridicule of the Christians.! 
 
 * Lib. i. c. 6. t Euseb. Vita Const., ii. 61. 
 
COUNCIL OP NICE. 251 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 CONSTANTINE INTERFERES. — COONCIL OF NiCE. ItS ChAHACTER. — 
 
 Opinions of Arius. — Procekdings of the Council. — Difficulty 
 
 IN FRAMING A SyMBOL. EuSEBIUS OF CiESAREA OFFERS A CrEED. — 
 
 Result. — Nonsubscriding Bishops. — Condemnation and Exile of 
 Arius. — Constantine afterwards espouses his Cause. — His re- 
 turn to Alexandria. — Athanasius. — Council of Jerusalem re- 
 admits Arius to Communion. — Exile of Athanasius. — Last Days 
 of Arius. — Death, Character, and Writings. — The "Thalia." 
 
 Constantine was now induced to interfere, and sent Ho- 
 sius, Bishop of Cordova, to Alexandria with the letter before 
 mentioned, designed to soften the feelings of the parties, and, 
 if possible, restore harmony. He blames all concerned, but 
 especially Alexander ; and represents the question at issue as 
 very frivolous, — a mere dispute about words.* They did not 
 in reality differ in sentiment, he tells them ; certainly not in 
 any important particular. They might think indifferently on 
 some minute points ; but this need not prevent union ; they 
 should, in such a case, keep their thoughts to themselves. 
 Finally, he beseeches them to forget and forgive, and thus 
 " restore to him serene days, and nights void of care " ; for 
 their contentions had caused him "excessive grief." 
 
 But the evil was of too great magnitude to be thus re- 
 pressed. The letter produced no effect. Alexander was 
 inflexible ; and the Arians, though asking only for toleration, 
 refused to retract, and the dispute ran higher than ever. A 
 question arose, too, about the time of keeping Easter, which, 
 though it excited little interest in the West, occasioned no 
 small contention in the East. The emperor, despairing of any 
 other remedy, now resolves to summon a general council. 
 
 It was the wish of Constantine that the bishops from all 
 
 * Some orthodox writers have been shocked that Constantine should have 
 made light of so serious a matter ; and have supposed, says Dr. Jortin, that, 
 when he wrote the letter, " he had some evil counsellor at his elbow, either 
 Satan or Eusebius." He certainly had the orthodox Hosius at his elbow. 
 
252 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 parts of the empire should attend ; and, that there might be 
 no unnecessary delay, those who had not ready means of con- 
 veyance were authorized to make use of post-horses and public 
 vehicles. Thither they came from the various provinces, 
 accompanied by a multitude of priests, deacons, and others. 
 The number of bishops present is variously stated by historians. 
 Eusebius says it exceeded two hundred and fifty ; * or as Soc- 
 rates, who quotes the passage, gives it, three hundred. Con- 
 stantine makes it three hundred and upwards ; and Athanasius, 
 three hundred and eighteen, or, as he expresses himself in an- 
 other place, about three hundred. Theodoret gives three hun- 
 dred and eighteen ; which is the number generally adopted. f 
 Their number is of less consequence than their character. 
 Eusebius extols them for learning and other eminent qual- 
 ities ; but Sabinus, a Macedonian Bishop of Heraclea, in his 
 collection of the "Acts of Councils," calls them stupid and 
 illiterate.^ Neither the praise nor the censure was probably, 
 in its full extent, deserved. The members of the council 
 were, no doubt, what assemblies of divines have usually been, 
 — some ignorant ; some crafty ; some having in view the grati- 
 fication of private feelings or the advancement of personal 
 interests ; some weak ; some passionate ; some arbitrary and 
 domineering ; some indolent, timid, and yielding ; a few wise 
 and modest ; but more, empty, conceited, and noisy. So it 
 was with the Fathers of Nice. With regard to the charge 
 of Sabinus, Socrates gets them off' by saying that they were 
 supernaturally illuminated ; so their original deficiencies ought 
 not to impair our reverence for their decisions. 
 
 The council met about the middle of June, a. d. 325 ; and 
 there were present, besides Christians, several Pagan philoso- 
 phers, some of them attracted, no doubt, by curiosity, and 
 others, as Sozomen says,§ burning with a desire to encounter 
 the Christians in argument, being enraged against them on 
 account of the recent overthrow of Paganism. 
 
 As the subject which chiefly engaged the attention of the 
 council had reference to Arius and his opinions, this may be 
 the proper time to state what those opinions were, and in what 
 
 * Vita Const., iii. 8 ; Soc, lib. i. c. 8. t Lib. i. c. 7. 
 
 t Soc, lib. i. c. 8. § Lib. i. c. 18. 
 
OPINIONS OF ARIUS. 253 
 
 respect they differed from those of the learned Fathers who 
 preceded him. The strict and proper inferiority of the Son, 
 as we have shown, was asserted by all the ante-Nicene Fathers. 
 Further: it was believed by those Fathers (Origen excepted) 
 that the Son was begotten in time, and not from eternity. So 
 far, Arius trod in their steps. But then the Fathers had some 
 mystical notions, derived from the later Platonists, about the 
 origin of the Son, who, as they supposed, had a sort of meta- 
 physical existence in the Father from eternity ; in other words, 
 existed as his Logos, Wisdom, or Reason ; that is, as an attri- 
 bute, which was afterwards converted into a real person by a 
 voluntary act of the Father. This Platonic mysticism, Arius, 
 who was remarkably clear-headed, discarded ; and this was the 
 grand point of distinction between the doctrine of Arius and 
 that of the Fathers, — a distinction which would seem at first 
 view, as Constantine originally considered it, to be of a some- 
 what shadowy nature, but yet a real one.* 
 
 The characteristic dogma of Arius was, that the Son was 
 originally produced out of nothing ; and, consequently, there 
 was a time when he did not exist. He maintained that he 
 was a great preexistent spirit, — the first and chief of all 
 derived beings ; that this spirit became afterwards united with 
 a human body, and supplied the place of the rational soul. 
 Some of the preceding Fathers attributed a human soul as 
 well as body to Jesus ; which, however, was so absorbed in 
 the divine part of his nature, that they were, in a strict sense, 
 one spirit, and not two, as modern Trinitarians affirm or im- 
 
 * The difTerence, we say, was a real one ; yet, independently of the direct 
 testimony heretofore adduced, the whole aspect of the controversy before the 
 Council of Nice shows that the old doctrine was on the confines of Arianism. 
 Hence the perplexity into which a large part of the Christian world was 
 thrown on the first publication of the opinions of Arius, and their rapid diffu- 
 sion over Egypt and the several provinces of the East. The Oriental bishops 
 generally, as above stated, and two councils (one in Bithynia, and the other 
 in Palestine), favored them; and the supporters and friends of Arius were 
 among the best and most learned men of tiie age. Add the indecision attrib- 
 uted to Alexander, and the impression of Constantine that the controversy was 
 a very frivolous one, which, we have a right to infer, was also the impression 
 of Hosius, who was then in his confidence, and, no doubt, one of his advisers. 
 These facts afford pretty decisive evidence, had we no other, that the line be- 
 tween the old and new opinions, though visible, was not a very broad one ; 
 and that Arius, in fact, did little more than reject a metaphysical subtilty. 
 
254 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 ply. Such was Origen's opinion. According to the theology 
 of Arius, however, the human soul was wanting in Jesus 
 Christ ; and he was a compound being only in the sense in 
 which all human beings are : that is, he consisted of a body, 
 and one simple, undivided, and finite spirit. " We believe," 
 says he, " and teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in 
 any manner part of the Unbegotten ; that he was not made 
 of matter subsisting, but, by wull and counsel [tliat is, of the 
 Father], existed before the times and the ages, full, only- 
 begotten God, unalterable : who, before he was begotten, or 
 created, or purposed, or constituted, was not ; for he is not un- 
 begotten." This language occurs in his letter to Eusebius.* 
 Similar language, but more precise and pointed still, occurs in 
 the letter to Alexander before quoted. f We add a short extract 
 from the " Thalia," as quoted by Athanasius.^ Thus, " God 
 was not always a Father, but there was, when God was alone, 
 and was not yet Father : the Son was not always. For all 
 things being made out of nothing, and all creatures and works 
 being made, the Word of God himself was made out of nothing, 
 and once he was not ; he was not before he was begotten." 
 Such was the belief of Arius. He was accused by his ene- 
 mies — Alexander, Athanasius, and others — of teaching that 
 the Son, who possesses free will, is by nature mutable like 
 ourselves, that is, we suppose, theoretically. Absolute immu- 
 tability can be predicated of One only, — the Infinite and 
 Eternal. But the Son, as Arius taught, is by his own will 
 unchangeable, ever remaining unalterably good. 
 
 We will add here some statements of Neander — confirma- 
 tory of our own — respecting the opinions of Arius, and their 
 relation to the belief of preceding ages. Arius was not " dis- 
 posed," he says, "to establish a new dogma." "Arius cer- 
 tainly did not believe that he was preaching a new doctrine, 
 but only bringing out and establishing the old church subordi- 
 nation system." He quotes Arius as saying " We must either 
 suppose two divine original essences without beginning, and 
 independent of each other; or we must not shrink from assert- 
 ing that the Logos had a beginning of his existence ; that 
 
 * Epiphanius, Hair. Ixix. c. 6. } See before, p. 248, note, 
 
 t Oral. i. cont. Arian., § 5. ( 
 
STATEMENTS OF NEANDER. 255 
 
 there was a moment when he did not as yet exist." " Those 
 passages of the New Testament in which he beheved he found 
 the expression ' made ' appKed to Christ (as Acts ii. 36, and 
 Heb. Hi. 2), or in which he is styled the 'First-born,' he 
 could," says Neander, " cite in favor of his theory." " He 
 intended by no means to lower the dignity of Christ, but 
 would ascribe to him the greatest dignity which a being could 
 have after God, without entirely annihilating the distinction 
 between that being and God. God created him or begat him, 
 ... a being as like to himself in perfections as any creature 
 can be, for the purpose of producing, by the instrumentality 
 of this being, the whole creation." This was the old doctrine. 
 Still, the distance between a creature and the Creator must be 
 infinite. This Arius did not " shrink from expressing." But, 
 Neander adds, " This, in fact, Origen had already expressed 
 in affirming, that, as God is, in essence, infinitely exalted above 
 all created beings, so too, in essence, he was infinitely exalted 
 above the highest of created beings, — the Son ; and the lat- 
 ter, in essence, could not at all be compared with him." 
 Arius attributed to the Son a " moral immutability of will." 
 He doubtless " believed that he was maintaining the ancient 
 doctrine of the church." " He Avas intending simply to de- 
 fend the old doctrine." So little difference was there, accord- 
 in o- to Neander, between the doctrine of Arius and that of 
 preceding ages.* 
 
 One word here in regard to time. Time Is measured by 
 sun, moon, and stars. The expressions " before time and the 
 ages," or " when time was not," as used by the old Christian 
 writers, then, means before the existence of the material uni- 
 verse, when as yet there was no computation of time, and no 
 measure of It.f These and similar phrases, however, as used 
 
 * Hist. Christ. Relig. and Church, vol. ii. pp. 361-365 ; Hist. Christ. Dogm., 
 pp. 286, 287. 
 
 t So Philo : " Before the world, time had no existence, but was created 
 either simultaneously with it, or after it." Time being connected with the 
 motion of the heavens, it " follows of necessity that it was created either at 
 the same moment with the world, or later than it." Again : " It would be a 
 sign of great shnplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or 
 indeed at all in time. . . . One must confess that time is a thing posterior to the 
 world. Therefore it would be correctly said that the world was not created 
 in time, but that time had its existence in consequence of the world." De 
 
256 AEIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTEOVERSY. 
 
 by the Fathei's, did not mean " from eternity." God alone, 
 fts it was believed and taught, was eternal, without beginning. 
 The Son had a beginning before time and the ages, but not 
 from eternity. Justin Martyr, who- led the way in these 
 refined and intricate speculations concerning the generation of 
 the Son, is a httle more definite, and says that the Son was 
 begotten, or created, when God was about to form and garnish 
 the heavens and the earth, being the " beginning of his ways 
 to his works." 
 
 The proceedings of the council are involved in great ob- 
 scurity. We have no methodical account of them by any 
 ancient writer. The information we possess is gleaned mostly 
 from incidental notices, and uncertain and varying tradition, 
 which often leaves us in doubt what to admit or reject. Euse- 
 bius breaks off his history abruptly before the commencement 
 of the synod. In his " Life of Constantine," he gives us a 
 few particulars ; but, for the most part, substitutes rhetoric for 
 history. His letter to his people, written at Nice during the 
 session of the council, is indeed, as far as it goes, a precious 
 document. Athanasius, then a young man, a deacon in the 
 Alexandrian church, accompanied his bishop to the synod, 
 and there first became known as a zealous champion of ortho- 
 doxy. His works contain frequent allusions to the debates 
 and decrees of the council, but nothing from which we can 
 construct a continuous narrative.* Besides these, we have 
 the " Synodical Epistle," and two letters of Constantine, writ- 
 ten at the time of the dispersion of the council. These are all 
 the contemporary documents of any value which we possess. 
 Subsequent writers are to be used, of course, with much 
 caution ; and even some of the original documents require to 
 be carefully sifted, as they contain the reports of interested 
 
 Mundi Opif., c. 7 ; Legnm Allecj., lib. i. c. 2 ; 0pp., t. i. pp. 6, 44, ed. Mang. 
 To say that Christ had an existence before time, then meant only that he ex- 
 isted before this material creation. 
 
 * Besides, Athanasius is not the very best authority in this case. " It is 
 important," says Neander, " to remark, that, in the case of Athanasius, tliere 
 are many things which would render it difficult for iiim to take an unbiased 
 view of the proceedings." He says that Athanasius "distorts the true form 
 of the facts." Eusebius of Caesarea he thinks a far better authority in mat- 
 ters relating to the council than either Atlianasius, or Eustathius of Antioch. 
 Hist. Christ. Relig. and Church, vol. ii. pp. 372-376. 
 
CONSTANTINE. 257 
 
 witnesses ; and truth may be found in them distorted by pas- 
 sion and party prejudice. 
 
 The Fathers of the council certainly gave evidence of 
 retaining the imperfections of our common nature. Their 
 attention was not so absorbed with the great questions they 
 were called to discuss, but they had time to think of their 
 petty differences and private causes of dissatisfaction and com- 
 plaint. Constantino undertook the office of pacificator ; and 
 it required all his authority and art to preserve among them 
 the appearance of even tolerable decorum. It would seem 
 that there had been a good deal of discussion before his arrival. 
 On the day appointed, he entered the assembly, clad in his 
 imperial robes, and glittering with gold and gems ; and, all 
 being seated, the bishop who sat next him on the right (as 
 Eusebius the historian tells us, referring, according to Sozo- 
 men, to himself*) addressed him in a short speech ; to wliich 
 the emperor replied in a few words, in Latin, recommending 
 peace and harmony. The debates, for some time, appear to 
 have been conducted with no little acrimony ; and much per- 
 sonal abuse was heard. The emperor, however, was patient : 
 he listened, argued, and entreated (now speaking in Greek), 
 and did all in his power to promote concord and amity. One 
 circumstance is mentioned very much to his credit. The 
 Fathers tormented him with written accusations against each 
 other, which they were constantly placing in his hands. To 
 put a stop to the proceeding, he assigned a day on which he 
 would receive all papers of this sort ; and, collecting them 
 together, he burnt them, with all those he had previously 
 received, without reading a word of them ; telling his bishops 
 that they must wait the decision of the day of final account 
 and the sentence of the great Judge of all. As for himself, 
 who was a mere mortal, he could not, he said, undertake to 
 settle their differences. 
 
 Eusebius's description of the scene presented at the council 
 is in his most florid vein. We will relieve the dryness of our 
 narrative by a few quotations from it : " When the emperor's 
 order was brought into all the provinces," he says, "all persons 
 
 * Theodoret, with the appearance of great improbability, confers the honor 
 on Eustathius of Antioch. 
 
 17 
 
258 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 Bet out, as it were, from some goal, and ran with all imaginable 
 alacrity : for the hope of good things drew them, and the par- 
 ticipation of peace, and the spectacle of a new miracle ; to 
 wit, the sight of so great an emperor. When, therefore, they 
 were all come together, that which was done appeared to be 
 the work of God : for they who were at the greatest distance 
 one from another, not only in minds, but in bodies, regions, 
 places, and provinces, were seen assembled together in one 
 place ; and one city received them all, as it were some vast 
 garland of priests made up of a variety of beautiful flowers." 
 He then enumerates the places from which they came ; being 
 ministers of the churches " which filled all Europe, Africa, and 
 Asia." 
 
 Some of them, he says, were eminent for " wisdom and elo- 
 quence ; some for integrity of life, and patient endurance of 
 hardships "; some were " adorned with modesty and a cour- 
 teous behavior "; some were " respected for their great age," 
 and others rejoiced in " youthful vigor." The emperor pro- 
 vided food for them all. When the day for the opening of the 
 council arrived, they assembled in the " middlemost edifice of 
 the palace," where seats were placed "on both sides of the 
 room." Each of them " took an agreeable seat." Then all 
 is silence, in expectancy of the emperor. His heralds precede 
 him. At a signal given, they all rise, and the emperor him- 
 self comes walkincr in " like some celestial angel of God, 
 shining with his bright purple garment, as it were with the 
 splendor of light, glistening with flaming rays, and adorned 
 with the clear brightness of gold and precious stones. Such 
 was the attire of his body." But his mind excelled all. He 
 Avas " adorned Avith a fear and reverence of God." He cast 
 down his eyes " with a blushing countenance "; and, by his 
 gait and motion, manifested his modesty and humility. In 
 " tallness of stature " he surpassed all who were about him, as 
 also in a " magnificent gracefulness of body, and in an invin- 
 cible strength and might." He moved majestically on to the 
 upper end of the hall, and remained standing ; till, a " low 
 chair made of gold " being placed before him, the " bishops 
 beckoned " him to be seated. Eusebius gives his opening 
 speech, very flattering and comjilimentary to the bishops.* 
 
 * Vita Const., lib. iii. cc. 6-12. 
 
DIFFICULTY OF FORMING A CREED. 259 
 
 No little difficulty was experienced in framing a symbol 
 which would prove generally acceptable, and, at the same time, 
 have the effect of excluding the Arians. Their distinguishing 
 dogma, as we have seen, was that the Son was produced out 
 of nothing, and that there was a time when he did not exist. 
 This was to be condemned, and the opposite doctrine affirmed. 
 But the difficulty consisted in the selection of terms which 
 the Orthodox could, and which the Arians, without a change 
 of sentiments, could not, employ. It was at first proposed, as 
 it would seem, to make use only of scriptui'al expressions, such 
 as, " Christ is the Wisdom and the Power of God," the 
 " brightness of his glory "; or others of a similar character. 
 The Arians professed their readiness to adopt the same ; but 
 it was soon discovered that they could evade their force by 
 putting on them a construction consistent with their own 
 views, and thus their heresy might still lurk in the Church ; 
 the serpent would not be crushed. Eusebius of Ctesarea 
 offered a creed, which, he says in his letter to his people, at 
 first obtained the approbation of all, emperor and clergy ; but 
 it was found, upon examination, to contain no term which the 
 Arians must of necessity reject, and would therefore be no 
 sufficient test of orthodoxy. But, luckily for them, it was dis- 
 covered from a letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia (which was 
 heard with shuddering, and torn in pieces as soon as read), 
 that he and the Arians had great dread of the term " consub- 
 stantial." Here, then, was pi-ecisely the term which was 
 wanted. The word was immediately introduced into the 
 creed just mentioned ; and some other modifications or addi- 
 tions were made, and the symbol in its altered form was 
 adopted. The Arians loudly remonstrated. They urged that 
 the language in question was new ; that it had not the sanction 
 of the sacred writings or of antiquity : but their complaints 
 were disregarded. 
 
 Such, in brief, is the history of the famous Nicene Creed.* 
 It was first subscribed by Hosius ; then by the two envoys of 
 the Roman bishop ; the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and 
 
 * For a history of the council, along with the original documents already 
 named, see Soc, lib. i. c. 8 ; Theodoret, lib. i. c. 12 ; Sozomen, lib. i. cc. 17, 
 19-21 ; Euseb. Vita Const., lib. iii. cc. 6-12. 
 
260 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 Jerusalem ; and finally by most of the others. Eusebius of 
 Csesarea at first hesitated on account of the new and unscript- 
 ural term " consubstantial " and some other expressions which 
 had been introduced, and which he disliked. His sci'uples, 
 however, were at length overcome ; and he signed, not how- 
 ever, it seems, without great reluctance. He appears to have 
 been aware that he exposed himself to the charge of fickleness 
 or duplicity, and that some explanation or apology was neces- 
 sary. He accordingly wrote to his parishioners in Csesarea to 
 put them in possession of the truth, and show, that, though 
 "he resisted to the last hour for good reasons," he made no 
 compromise of principle in finally yielding. He required, he 
 says, an explanation of the obnoxious expressions. It was 
 asserted, he tells them, that by the phrase, " of the substance 
 of the Father," was meant, that " the Son is of the Father, 
 but not as being part of the Father"; that is, " not part of his 
 substance "; which opinion, he says, he thought sound. " It 
 was concluded," he says, " that the expression, ' of the sub- 
 stance of the Father,' implies only that the Son of God does 
 not resemble, in any one respect, the creatures which he has 
 made ; but that to the Father, who begat him, he is in all 
 points perfectly similar." The phrase, " begotten, not made," 
 he says, was used because the term " made " is common and 
 applied to all creatures ; whereas the Son, as begotten of the 
 Father, is " of a more excellent substance than they." * With 
 these explanations he was so far satisfied, he tells his people, 
 that he gave his assent to the creed, as he says, " for the sake 
 of peace." 
 
 With regard to the anathemas annexed to the creed, Euse- 
 bins says he found no difficulty in subscribing them, as they 
 only prohibited the use of expressions not found in the Scrip- 
 tures. Yet the creed contained such expressions ; which were 
 admitted, as we have seen, in opposition to the strongest re- 
 monstrances of the friends of rational freedom. From the uso 
 
 * See the letter, as preserved by Theodoret, lib. i. c. 12, and Soc, lib. i. 
 c. 8. Athanasius gives the same account of the matter. The council, he 
 says, declare that the Son was "of the substance of the Father (consubstan- 
 tial), to negative the Arian notion, that he was of things created, or was cre- 
 ated out of nothing," was "a work, and alterable." — De Syn. Nic. Decret., 
 cc. 19, 20. 
 
SENTENCE OF THE COUNCIL. 261 
 
 of sucli terms, Eusebius remarks in the same letter, " had 
 come ahnost all the confusion and disturbance which had been 
 raised in the church." 
 
 Five bishops still resisted, and refused to subscribe. These 
 were Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice, Maris of 
 Chalcedon, Theonas, and Secundus.* Eusebius and Theognis 
 afterwards consented to subscribe the creed, but resolutely 
 refused to subscribe the anathemas against Arius, because, as 
 they said, they attributed to him opinions which he did not 
 hold.f Maris, it seems, did the same. They were reproached, 
 however, for their insincerity and bad faith ; and were said, 
 at the suggestion of Constantia, the emperor's sister, to have 
 used a very disingenuous artifice. J 
 
 Theonas and Secundus, pei'severing in their opposition, 
 were banished. § Secundus, as Philostorgius tells us, when 
 about to go, said to Eusebius, " You have subscribed, Euse- 
 bius, to save yourself from exile ; but I am confident — for 
 God has revealed it to me — that you will be banished within 
 a year." The prediction was verified ; for, within three 
 months, Eusebius, having returned, as it is expressed, to his 
 " former impiety," was exiled, as was also Theognis of Nice. 
 They had continued, it appears, to teach the Arian doctrine, 
 and had afforded an asylum to certain Arians, who, on account 
 of their opinions, had been driven from Alexandria, and were 
 therefore removed, and successors, by the command of the 
 emperor, elected to fill their sees.|| 
 
 Arius and his adherents, his opinions, and his books, par- 
 ticularly his " Thalia," were anathematized and condemned,^ 
 and he was forbidden to enter Alexandria. The emperor 
 confirmed the sentence of the council ; and decreed, more- 
 over, that the heresiarch and his followers should be branded 
 with the name of Porphyrians. The more effectually to 
 repress his " wicked doctrine," and cause every memorial of 
 him to perish, he ordered that all his books should be burnt ; 
 and that any person who should be convicted of concealing 
 
 * Soc, lib. i. c. 8. t Ibid., c. 14. t Philostorg., lib. i. c. 9. 
 
 § Epist. Synod., and Philostorg., lib. i. c. 9. 
 
 'J Theod., lib. i. c. 19 ; Const. Epist. ad Nicom., ibid., c. 20. 
 
 TT Epist. Synod, ap. Soc, lib. i. c. 9. 
 
262 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 any one of them, and of refusing immediately to produce and 
 burn it, should be punished with death.* 
 
 The council, having finished its business, was dissolved late 
 in August, after a session of a little more than two months.f 
 
 Neander takes notice of the fact, that many of the bishops 
 composing the council signed the creed under compulsion, or 
 in consequence of threats. The emperor, according to Euse- 
 bius, undertook himself to explain the term " consubstantial," 
 and dogmatized on the subject. The creed was imposed by 
 authority. " Many others," says Neander, " adopted the Ni- 
 cene Creed in the same sense with Eusebius, interpreting it 
 
 in accordance with their own doctrinal system But as 
 
 the creed was to be made known under the imperial authority, 
 and threatened all who would not adopt it with the loss of 
 their places, and condemnation as refractory subjects, the 
 greater part of them yielded through fear." There was only 
 a "forced and artificial union." J We shall say more of this 
 creed in a subsequent chapter. 
 
 It has been pretended by the enemies of Arius, that, when 
 he found himself anathematized, his courage forsook him, and 
 he made his peace with the council by a sacrifice of principle. 
 Such, however, is not the fact. The historians, Socrates and 
 Sozomen, both say that he was excommunicated, and that he 
 was prohibited from entering Alexandria. That he went into 
 exile is certain ; for Eusebius and Theognis, in a petition for 
 liberty to return, urge the fact that Arius had been already 
 recalled. § The time of his recall is uncertain. It has been 
 said that he remained in exile ten years : but this must be a 
 mistake ; for Eusebius and Theognis were permitted to return 
 
 * Emperor's Letter to the Bishops and People, Soc, lib. i. c. 9. 
 
 t Eusebius {Vita Const.) describes witb'an amusing naivete tlie magnificent 
 feast prepared for tbe Fatbers of tbe council, on tbeir departure, by Constan- 
 tine, that " miracle of an emperor." Tbe avenue to tbe palace, lie tells us, 
 was guarded witb long files of soldiers, " witb tbe naked points of tbeir 
 swords ; tbrougb tbe midst of wbom tbe men of God, witbout fear, passed 
 into tbe inmost rooms of tbe palace." Tbere some of tbem were permitted 
 to recline witb tbe emperor, and otliers were placed on side-couches. " One 
 would bave tbougbt," says Euscbivis, "that Christ's kingdom was adum 
 brated, and that the tiling itself was a dream, and nothing more." 
 
 X Hist. Christ. Rdig. and Church, vol. ii. pp. 377, 378. 
 
 § Soc, lib. i. c. 14. Illyricum is mentioned as the place of Arius's exile. 
 
ATHANASIUS. 263 
 
 within three years after their banishment ; * and Arius, as we 
 have just said, had been previously recalled. 
 
 Meantime, Alexander had died, having survived the disso- 
 lution of the council only about five months ; and the youthful 
 Athanasius, as the reward of his zeal, was elevated to the 
 primacy. So the Orthodox tell us. The enemies of Athana- 
 sius, however, say that he obtained the see by deception and 
 trick ; having in the last resort, the votes of the bishops being 
 divided, shut himself up in a church in the evening with sev- 
 eral of his adherents, and two bishops whom he forced by 
 threats to perform the ceremony of consecration ; they, the 
 whole time, remonstrating against the violence. The story, 
 which is told at large by Philostorgius,f may be false or exag- 
 gerated ; though it will not do, in reading the history of those 
 times, to believe the Orthodox in everything, and the heretics 
 in nothing. The latter, it is to be presumed, had sometimes 
 truth on tlieir side. However it might have been in the pres- 
 ent case, Athanasius was soon, to appearance, securely seated 
 on the episcopal throne of Alexandria. But he was not suf- 
 fered long- to remain unmolested. The Eusebians had assem- 
 bled a council, and deposed Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, 
 who had charged Eusebius of C^esarea with Arianism, and 
 had been himself, in turn, accused of Sabellianism and immo- 
 rality. Their attention was now turned to Arius. They were 
 determined that Athanasius should readmit him into Alexan- 
 dria, and restore him to the communion of the church. Euse- 
 bius was resolute and persevering. He wrote to Athanasitis ; 
 and, as Socrates says, he employed entreaties and threats, but 
 to no purpose. He then turned to the emperor, and endeav- 
 ored to prevail on him to interest himself in the cause of the 
 unfortunate presbyter. In this he was successful. Arius was 
 admitted to the presence of Constantine, and found means of 
 satisfying him that he was sound in the faith. 
 
 This was brought about in the following manner. Con- 
 stantia, the emperor's sister, had in her train an Arian presby- 
 ter, whom she treated as a friend and confidant. The pres- 
 byter, in some familiar conversations he held with her, took 
 occasion to speak of Arius, and told her that he was an injured 
 * Philostorg., lib. ii. c. 7. t Lit. ii. c. 11. 
 
264 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 man, and that his sentiments had been misrepresented. Con- 
 Btantia gave credit to his assertions, but had not the courage 
 to mention the subject to her brother. Falling sick, however, 
 she, on her death-bed (a. d. 327), recommended the priest to 
 him as a man of piety and diligence, and well affected towards 
 his government. The emperor admitted him to his confi- 
 dence ; and after some time, when the priest had become 
 emboldened by familiarity, received of him accounts similar to 
 those which had been given to his sister. The priest assured 
 him, that, if he would admit Arius to his presence, the latter 
 would convince him that he was Orthodox according to the 
 sense of the synod of Nice. The emperor heard this with 
 surprise ; but said, that, if Arius really held the Nicene faith, 
 he would not only admit him to his presence, but would send 
 him back with honor to Alexandria. 
 
 Arius was immediately summoned to court, but at first 
 declined going. The emperor then writes, telling him to take 
 a public vehicle, and hasten to him with all speed. He comes, 
 accompanied with Euzoius, a fellow-sufferer on account of his 
 opinions. At the command of the emperor, they present a 
 summary of their faith. This is expressed in very general 
 terms. They profess their belief in " one God, the Father 
 Almighty; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten 
 before all worlds "; and, after enumei'ating some other articles, 
 they add that they hold " the faith of the Church and the 
 Scriptures " concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 
 We discover in the confession no evidence that Arius's senti- 
 ments had undergone any change, or that he was guilty of 
 any disingenuous concealment. The creed was sufficiently 
 Arian ; though it does not contain the obnoxious expi-essions, 
 " made out of nothing," and " there was a time when he did 
 not exist." These, as not being scriptural expressions, the 
 Arians seemed now willing, for the sake of peace, to avoid. 
 They consented, besides, to call Christ the Logos, Wisdom, 
 Power, of God ; maintaining, however, that the terms were 
 applied to him only in a figurative sense. So, no doubt, they 
 were intended to be used in their " confession "; and, " if 
 Constantine was satisfied with it," we may say with Le Clerc, 
 " either he must have changed his views, or he gave little 
 
ATHANASIUS DEPOSED. 265 
 
 attention to it, or he but imperfectly comprehended the sense 
 of the Nicene Council." He appeared, certainly, from this 
 time, very much softened towards the Arians ; and may be 
 said, in fact, to have become their patron. 
 
 Under sanction of the emperor, Arius now returns to Alex- 
 andria, seeks admission into the church, and is refused ; Euse- 
 bius writes to Athanasius on the subject ; the emperor, too, 
 writes : but the primate is still refractory, and replies, that to 
 reinstate one who had been anathematized as a heretic was 
 impossible. The emperor, in a rage, writes back, telling him, 
 that, if he did not do as he was desired, he should be instantly 
 deposed and banished. The haughty Alexandrian now saw 
 the storm fast gathering over his head. The Eusebians had 
 the ear of the emperor, and various charges were brought 
 against him. He was accused of several violent and oppres- 
 sive acts, — of sedition, sacrilege, and atrocious murder. 
 
 Of some of these charges the emperor acquitted him, and 
 ordered that a council, to be assembled at Tyre, should take 
 cognizance of the rest, that previously held at Csesarea having 
 proved unavailing. The council, consisting of sixty bishops 
 from various parts, met a. d. 335. Athanasius refused to 
 appear, until the emperor threatened, that, if he did not come 
 voluntarily, he should be brought by force.* He then makes 
 his appearance with a train of Egyptian bishops, forty-seven 
 in number, who had not been called, but who might be capa- 
 ble in various ways of rendering him service. Before the 
 council has come to a decision on the questions submitted to 
 it, however, he secretly withdraws from Tyre ; and his flight 
 is construed into an acknowledgment of his guilt. He was 
 condemned and deposed upon several charges, among which 
 Philostorgius mentions illegitimate ordination, and a most foul 
 slander which he was proved to have forged against Eusebius 
 of Nicomedia.f What the truth really was, and how much 
 falsehood was blended with it, it is difficult to ascertain from 
 the obscure and confused account of the proceedings of the 
 council given by the historians. 
 
 * Soc, i. 28. 
 
 t Philostorg., ii. 11 ; Soc, i. 32 ; Soz., ii. 25 ; and Euseb. Vita Const., iv. 
 il,42 
 
266 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 Athanasius very probably received hard measure from the 
 hands of his judges, who were unfriendly to him : but Arius 
 had received the same from the hands of the orthodox, who 
 were his enemies ; and they could not now in justice complain. 
 
 The council, having completed their business at Tyre, 
 repaired to Jerusalem to consecrate the Church of the Holy 
 Sepulchre, for which they had been originally summoned. 
 After the performance of this act, they proceed to readmit 
 Arius and his friends to communion, the emperor testifying to 
 their orthodoxy.* They write a letter still extant, addressed 
 to the church of Alexandria and to " all throughout Egypt, 
 Thebais, Libya, and Pentapolis, and to the bishops, priests, and 
 deacons throughout the world," requiring them to receive 
 Arius and his followers back into the bosom of the Church, 
 and expressing the desire that this might be done with all 
 readiness,, and full peace and harmony be restored. f 
 
 Athanasius had suddenly disappeared from Tyre. We next 
 hear of him at Constantmople. As the emperor was entering 
 the city on horseback, Athanasius, accompanied by his band 
 of ecclesiastics, suddenly threw himself in his way. The 
 emperor, not recognizing him, felt a momentary alarm. On 
 being told that it was Athanasius, he ordered him to be re- 
 moved. But the bishop kept his ground, " nothing daunted," 
 till he made himself heard. All he asked, he said, was that 
 the council which had deposed him should be summoned to 
 Constantinople, that, in the presence of the emperor, he might 
 prefer his complaints, and have a fair hearing.. The request 
 was granted, and a letter despatched to Jerusalem requiring 
 as maaiy of the council, which was not yet dissolved, as had 
 composed the Synod of Tyre, to appear at Constantinople.:): 
 The summons came like a thunderbolt, and the bishops were 
 in no little perplexity. Most of them, so the orthodox histo- 
 rians tell us, concluded that it would be their safest course to 
 get home as quick as possible, and immediately set off. But 
 some — among whom were Eusebius, Theognis, and others — 
 went and reported themselves at Constantinople. Another 
 
 * Soc, i. 33. 
 
 t See letter in Athanasius, De Syn. Arim. et Sel., c. 21. 
 
 \ Emperor's Letter to the Synod, Soc, i. 34. 
 
ARIQS AT CONSTANTINOPLE. 2B7 
 
 charo-e was now broun;ht ao-ainst Athanasius. He had threat- 
 ened, it was said, to stop the supply of corn which was annually 
 sent from Egypt to the imperial city. Constantine was satisfied 
 of his guilt, and the friends of Athanasius trembled for his life ; 
 but the emperor listened to the suggestions of mercy, and was 
 content to bauish him to Treves in Gaul. There was a tradi- 
 tion current in the time of Socrates the historian, that, in send- 
 ing him into exile in a remote province, Constanthie was 
 influenced not merely by the crimes imputed to him, but by 
 an earnest desire to restore peace to Christendom, which he 
 despaired of doing while the proud and inflexible prelate was 
 allowed to mingle in its councils. 
 
 The friends of Athanasius at Alexandria witnessed the return 
 of Arius with grief, and many disorders followed. He soon 
 after appeared at Constantinople ; having either gone there 
 voluntarily, or been summoned to answer for the disturbances 
 in Egypt. We have now arrived at the closing scene of his 
 life. Alexander, a strenuous advocate of the Nicene faith, was 
 at this time Bishop of Constantinople ; and Eusebius threatened, 
 that, if he did not admit Arius to communion, he should be 
 deposed. The bishop was not intimidated. He turned to God 
 for refuge. Retiring into his church, he prostrated himself 
 upon the ground beneath the table of the altar, and poured 
 forth his prayers and tears. This he continued to do, it is 
 asserted, for days and nights together. 
 
 Meanwhile Arius, we are told, had appeared before the 
 emperor, and satisfied him of his orthodoxy. He is said to 
 have subscribed to the Nicene symbol. The emperor, sur- 
 prised at this, required him to confirm his signature by oath ; 
 which he did, using deception all the while : for he had a 
 paper, containing his real sentiments, concealed under his arm, 
 and declared, under oath, that he beheved as he had written. 
 This charge, however, is wholly destitute of proof. Neander 
 gives no credit to it, and goes into an argument to show its 
 improbability.* Socrates, from whom the story is taken,! 
 does not vouch for its truth, but is careful to say, that he had 
 K) "heard"; and repeats, that it was matter of "hearsay 
 
 * Hist. Christ. Relig. and Church, vol. ii. p. 385, note, 
 t Lib. i. c. 38. 
 
268 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROYERSY. 
 
 only." Another account — far more probable — is that Arius 
 was required to give an account of his faith in writing, and 
 that he took care to express himself, on the disputed points, in 
 Scripture language, on which he could put his own construc- 
 tion. With this the emperor, who clearly was not a very pro- 
 found critic in these matters, was satisfied, as he had been by 
 a former confession of Arius. Constantine was now not difficult 
 to please on this point. He " stood in the closest relations," 
 as Neander observes, " with those bishops who were decidedly 
 opposed to the Nicene Creed " ; and had no great zeal for its 
 articles, being content if it was not publicly attacked. We are 
 not bound to believe every rumor to the disadvantage of Arius 
 put in circulation by his enemies. If Athanasius was guilty of 
 one half the crimes imputed to him, he deserved to be sent to 
 end his days in solitude or among Barbarians ; for he was fit 
 only to live with savages. We do not believe that he was 
 guilty of one fourth part of them ; and yet the charges against 
 him are, with few exceptions, as well or better su]']:orted than 
 most of those against the Arians. We only claim for Arius 
 the benefit of that common justice and charity to which all are 
 entitled. We ask only that some little allowance be made for 
 the exaggerations of party feeling and the virulence of theo- 
 logical prejudice. 
 
 The emperor, convinced of his good faith, directed Alexander 
 to admit him to communion. A council was also talked of. 
 Alexander was agitated and in great distress. Entering the 
 church, and prostrating himself at the foot of the altar, he 
 prayed to God, that, if the opinion of Arius were true, he 
 might not live to see the day " appointed for its discussion " ; 
 but, if not, that Arius himself might be cut off". The next 
 day was the time fixed for bringing Arius to communion. But 
 as he was proceeding from the palace through the city, accom- 
 panied by his friends, in a sort of triumph, he was attacked 
 with sudden illness ; and, retiring to the nearest office, miserably 
 perished, A. D. 336, as his friends say, by magical arts or by 
 poison, but, according to the representations of his enemies, by 
 a judgment of Heaven, in answer to the very charitable prayer 
 of Alexander, who would rather die than be convinced that he 
 was in error. Such are the principal circumstances of the 
 
CHARACTER OP ARIUS. 269 
 
 case, as given hy the historians and Athanasius, though their 
 narratives vary in some minute particulars.* 
 
 The Eusebians, as the Orthodox tell us, were filled with 
 consternation, and went and buried the companion of their 
 heresy in silence. The spot where he died was pronounced 
 execrable ; and those who passed by long continued to point 
 the finger at it in pious horror, till a rich Arian, to wipe off 
 the stigma, purchased the ground, and erected upon it a beau- 
 tiful dwelling. That the friends of the unfortunate Arius were 
 sensibly affected by his sudden and tragical death, there can 
 be no doubt. His enemies indecently exulted, and publicly 
 returned thanks to God, who, as they thought, had graciously 
 interposed to rid the world of a monster of impiety, and, by a 
 visible token, confirm the consubstantial faith. f 
 
 Of the intellectual and moral character of Arius, we are 
 compelled to think favorably. That he possessed a vigorous 
 understanding, acute discernment, and great clearness of com- 
 prehension, admits not of doubt. He wrote, if we may judge 
 from his letters, with precision and accuracy ; and, by the con- 
 fession of his enemies, united consummate skill in the dialectic 
 art with an easy address and popular and insinuating eloquence. 
 From the little which is known of his life, it may be inferred 
 that he was tolerant and charitable, the friend of inquiry and 
 rational freedom. He had the independence to think for him- 
 self, and the courage to express his opinions ; but it does not 
 appear that he had any disposition to restrain others in the 
 exercise of their liberty. There seems to have been no bitter- 
 ness in his nature. We do not hear that he ever indulged in 
 reproaches against his oppressors. He attempted, in some 
 respects, to reform and simplify the theology of the age ; and 
 was, in consequence, denounced as a blasphemer, a heretic, a 
 
 * Soc, lib. i. cc. 37, 38 ; Sozomen, lib. ii. cc. 29, 30 ; Theodoret, lib. i. c. 14. 
 Valesius contends that the Arius who died at Constantinople, a. d. 336, was 
 not the arch-heretic, but one of his followers of the same name. This it is 
 impossible to believe. All the historians and Athanasius speak of the Arius 
 who thus died, without giving any intimation that it was another Arius. It is 
 impossible to read their accounts, as it seems to us, without a conviction that 
 the writers all along have in view the author of the heresy. No historical 
 fact appears more certain. 
 
 t Soc, lib. i. c. 38 ; Athan. Epist. ad Scrap, de Morte Arii, et ad Episc. ^g, 
 et Lib., c. 19. 
 
270 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 Porphyrian, — a name which stood for all that was vile and 
 hateful. He was anathematized and cut off from tlie com- 
 munion of the Christian world, and it was made felony to pos- 
 sess any of his books ; but we are not informed that he was 
 provoked to reply with acrimony, or gave evidence of being 
 deficient in the meek and patient virtues of the Christian. It 
 is certain that his life was unspotted ; for calumny never ut- 
 tered a Avhisper against its purity. 
 
 Of his writings, with the exception of two letters and the 
 Confession already mentioned, Ave have little positive infor- 
 mation. Philostorgius, as represented by his Orthodox epito- 
 mizer, tells us that he wrote songs for mariners and those who 
 were engaged at the mill and in travelling, that, by calling to 
 his aid the charms of melody, he might the better disseminate 
 his opinions among the illiterate portion of the community. 
 If such were his motive, there was nothing culpable in it. 
 But he might have had other objects in view. Persons em- 
 ployed in grinding at the mill, in ancient times, it is well 
 known, were accustomed to cheer their labors with song ; and 
 those devoted to other occupations, no doubt, did the same. 
 The motion of the oar, we know, in modern times, is often 
 accompanied by chanting or music. If Arius could furnish 
 popular songs preferable to those in general use in his time ; 
 if he could substitute those which had a meaning, and were 
 unexceptionable in point of expression and thought, for such 
 as were loose, profane, or contained eri'oneous sentiments, — 
 he had a right to do it. More than this, it was an act of great 
 benevolence to do it. 
 
 There is another work of Arius, which is often mentioned 
 by Athanasius,* the " Thalia," which he calls a poem, — a 
 light and effeminate poem, " after the manner of the Egyptian 
 Sotades." He seems to speak of it as a sort of pleasant, 
 jesting performance, — a piece of profane buffoonery. It is 
 difficult to say what Athanasius means by all this. He gives 
 several extracts from the work, in which there is certainly 
 nothing comic or humorous, or soft and effeminate. The in- 
 troduction, if Athanasius has quoted it correctly, exhibits a 
 
 * See particularly his Orat. i. cont. Arianos, cc. 4, 6; and De Syn. Arim. et 
 SeL, c. 15 ; also De Syn. Nic. Decret., c. 16. 
 
WRITINGS OF ARIDS. 271 
 
 kind of sonorousness and jingle, a pomp and affectation ; and 
 some expressions which occur in it savor of a childish vanity. 
 But, with this exception, the performance appears, for aught 
 we can discover, to have been plain and sober enough. The 
 quotations given by Athanasius, which are very short frag- 
 ments, contain some statements of Arius's views and arccu* 
 ments in their favor, but perfectly grave and decorous. 
 
 If Athanasius means only that Arius in his songs, — which, 
 however, he plainly distinguishes from his " Thalia," — made 
 use of the Sotadean measure, which was peculiar, there was 
 nothing criminal in that. A similar charge was brought 
 against the eai'ly Protestant reformers, who were accused of 
 taking their " airs " from the " best songs of the times." 
 
 But then the songs of Arius, it is objected, were doctrinal ; 
 and so are those of Dr. Watts, and fifty others we could 
 name. And, if we mistake not, the Athanasian Creed (which 
 wall be admitted, we suppose, to be somewhat doctrinal) is to 
 this day somewhere appointed to be " said or su7ig " in the 
 churches.* 
 
 * The author of one of the Oxford " Tracts for the Times" (No. 75), says: 
 " It is a far truer view of this venerable composition to consider it a Psalm or 
 Hymn of praise, or of concurrence in God's appointments, as Fsahii 118 or 
 139, or tlie Te Deum, tlian as a formal Creed " ; and he recommends the use 
 of it, at the "dawn of the first day of the week," for so "its living character 
 and spirit are incorporated into the Christian's devotions, and its influence on 
 the heart, as far as may be, secured." — Vol. iii. p. 190, New York edit. 
 
 As to the songs or ballads of Arius, and his " Thalia," modern writers 
 have felt some perplexity. Some speak of them as one work, though, a§ we 
 said, clearly distinguished by Athanasius. Their grossness is no doubt exag- 
 gerated. J. H. Newman, the translator of Athanasius's " Treatises against 
 Arianism," in the Oxford Library of the Fathers, finds fault with the Saint for 
 speaking of the Egt/ptian Sotades. He says that the Sotades referred to was 
 a Cretan by birth, and that the characteristic of his metre was the " recur- 
 rence of the same cadence, which virtually destroyed the division into verses, 
 and thus gave the composition that lax and slovenly air to which Athanasius 
 alludes." The Church, he says, "adopted the Doric music, and forbade the 
 Ionic and Lydian. The name ' Thalia ' commonly belonged to convivial 
 songs." Newman thinks that the offence of Arius consisted in the use of the 
 music and light metres referred to. This, no doubt, was what was meant when 
 his songs and his " Thalia " were called " dissolute." He fell into the error, 
 as Newman explains it, "of those modern religionists, who, with a better 
 creed, sing spiritual songs at table, and use in their chapels glees and opera 
 airs." 
 
 Athanasius says that Arius wrote the " Thalia " after his expulsion from 
 
272 AEIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 the Church and while he was with Eusebius. We subjoin four lines, in New- 
 man's translation, as a specimen. According to Athanasius, they formed part 
 of the introduction to the " Thalia." 
 
 " According to faith of God's elect, God's prudent ones, 
 Holy children, rightly dividing, God's Holy Spirit receiving, 
 Have I learned this from the partakers of wisdom, 
 Accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all things." 
 
 Lib. of the Fathers, viii. 185. 
 
 Milman {Hist, of Christianity, p. 314, ed. N. Y.) softens the charges brought 
 against Arius on account of the character of his " Thalia " and his songs. He 
 refers to the example of a " celebrated modern humorist and preacher, who 
 adapted hymns to some of the most popular airs, and declared that the Devil 
 ought not to have all the best tunes." 
 
SUCCESS AND DECLINE OF ARIANISM. 273 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Success and Decline of Arianism. — Long survived in the West. — 
 The Goths receive it. — Influence of the Ladies. — The Friends 
 AND Coadjutors of Arius. — Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of 
 Nice, and Eusebius the Historian. — Fortunes of Athanasius : 
 his Wanderings and Death, Writings and Character. 
 
 If the sudden removal of Arius had the effect of damping 
 for a moment the ardor of the Eusebians, their courage soon 
 revived. The cause of Arianism acquired new vigor after 
 the death of Constantine, a. d. 337 ; and continued to be 
 prosperous during the whole reign of his son Constantius, who 
 was himself an Arian. In this reign, several Arian councils 
 were assembled ; Arianism was everywhere predominant ; and 
 the consubstantial or Homoousian faith seemed to be threat- 
 ened with destruction. The great Hosius, as he is called, now 
 a hundred years old, subscribes to the Arian faith ; Liberius, 
 Bishop of Rome, follows his example ; and, not to mention 
 Felix, called by the Orthodox the inti'uder, the world, for once 
 at least, beheld an Arian pope.* The Arians had possession 
 of all the great sees of the Church. " The whole world," says 
 Jerome, " groaned and was surprised to find itself Arian." f 
 
 A schism took place among the Arians : one party, called 
 Semi- Arians, or Homoiousians, maintaining that the Son was, 
 in all respects, of like substance with the Father ; and the 
 other, denominated Aetians, Eunomians, and Anomoeans, who 
 were the strict Arians, asserting that he was of a different sub- 
 stance, and wholly unlike the Father. J 
 
 At their councils, the Arians adopted various confessions of 
 faith. Socrates enumerates nine,§ and speaks of them as a 
 labyrinth ; and Athanasius mentions their " ten synods or 
 
 * Athan., Ad Mon., c. 45; Soc, ii. 31 ; Du Pin, Hist, of Eccles. Writers, ii. 
 50, 62 ; Neander, Hist. Christ. Relig. and Church, ii. 404, 405. 
 t Dial. adv. Luctf. 
 X Epiphan., Hoer. Ixxiii.-lxxvi. § Lib. ii. c. 41. 
 
 18 
 
274 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 more," and gives several of their creeds. Tillemont makes 
 the latter amount to eighteen during the reign of Constantius. 
 Their enemies reproached them for their frequent changes, 
 which were attributed to their fickleness ; * but their friends, 
 perhaps, might adduce the circumstance as evidence only that 
 they exercised the right of inquiry and the free expression of 
 sentiment. We could wish, however, that the Arians at this 
 period had not disgraced their cause by persecutions. 
 
 Constantius died A. D. 361. The infidel Julian succeeded, 
 and neither party was fostered or oppressed. Jovian favored 
 the consubstantialists. Under Valens, Arianism again recov- 
 ered strength, but sunk beneath the severe edicts of Theodo- 
 sius, and was afterwards little more heard of in the Eastern 
 Empire. 
 
 It long survived, however, in the West. The Goths re- 
 ceived the Arian faith from the celebrated Ulfila, or Ulphilas, 
 their first bishop, and the inventor of their alphabet. f It was 
 embraced by the Ostrogoths, the Siievi, the Burgundians, the 
 Vandals, and generally by the Barbaric nations which over- 
 whelmed the Western Empire. Orthodox writers assign the 
 year 660 as the date of its extinction. That it continued to 
 subsist as the belief of many private Christians, there can be 
 no doubt ; but its energies were crushed by the hard pressure 
 of power, and it rose again into notice only after the slum- 
 ber of centuries. With its revival in modern times we have 
 nothing to do. J 
 
 * Athan., De Si/n. Arim. et Sel. ; also Epist. ad Episc. in Afr. 
 
 t Soc, lib. iv. c. 33 ; Philostorg., lib. ii. c. 5. 
 
 % Historians have noticed the influence oiihe Wf'es on the fortunes of Arian- 
 ism. " The Devil," says Maimbourg, " made use of three women to intro- 
 duce the Arian heresy in the East," referring to the Empresses Constantia, 
 Eusebia, and Dominica; "but God, to combat him with his own weapons, 
 employed three illustrious queens, Clotilda, Ingonda, and Thcodclinda, to pu- 
 rify the West" by its extermination ! {Histoire de I'Arlain'sme, lib. xii.) Maim- 
 bourg is an eloquent and agreeable writer, but exceedingly deficient in candor, 
 and occasionally draws pretty freely upon imagination. Dr. Jortin classes 
 him with those who " make history." Tillemont has also written a history of 
 the Arians ; and no two works could present a more striking contrast, in point 
 )f manner and style, than Maimbourg's and his. Tillemont's consists of a 
 dry collection of quotations, interspersed now and then with an original re- 
 mark. But Tillemont's ivork, too, takes a strong coloring from his prejudices, 
 the exliibition of which is often not a little amusing. He is at no loss to ac- 
 
THE FRIENDS OF ARIUS. 275 
 
 The friends and associates of Arius now claim a parting 
 notice. Of these, Eusebius of Nicomedia, called by some the 
 great Eusebius, was the most prominent. From the time he 
 embarked in the controversy till his death, the party continued 
 to be animated oy his counsels. His influence may be attrib- 
 uted in part, no doubt, to his focility of access to the emperor, 
 but much more to his distinguished ability, his shrewdness and 
 activity. He always acted with vigor. His enemies accused 
 him of faction and intrigue ; but we must not form our judg- 
 ment upon party statements. He had been banished for his 
 resistance to the imposition of an unscriptural creed. His 
 friends had been oppressed, calumniated, and some of them 
 driven into exile, for presuming to exercise freedom of thought, 
 — the common birthright of man. If the warmth of his feel- 
 ings and his keen sense of injustice sometimes betrayed him 
 into imprudence and excesses (which we neither deny nor 
 assert), he may be entitled to some indulgence on the score 
 
 count for the rise of Arianism just at the inoment it appeared ; for tlie Devil, 
 despairing of propping up the sinking cause of Paganism after the conversion 
 of Constantino, and having, therefore, notliing to do out of the Church, went 
 to work to see what he could effect in it. " For this purpose, he made use of 
 the very name of Jesus Christ " ; and Arius was the unhappy being he em- 
 ployed to maintain the " impious tenet," that " he was either a different God 
 from his Father, or, which is much the same blasphemy, that he was not truly 
 God at all." All " which is horrid to think on ! " 
 
 The Arians, if we credit several of tlie old ecclesiastical writers, and Maim- 
 bourg, Tillemont, and others, among the moderns, were only instruments in 
 the hands of the great adversary of God and man. Yet they will not suffer, 
 as regards character, genius, or attainments, by comparison with the consub- 
 stantialists. True, they are represented as monsters ; but then we must recol- 
 lect that their enemies are their painters. We have feeling complaints of the 
 persecutions kindled by the Arians; but had tlie Arians no tale of cruelties to 
 tell f We know that their sufferings were great, and would, no doubt, have 
 appeared much greater, had their own accounts been spared us. But tlie in- 
 juries of time, and zeal of the Orthodox, have suffered few of their writings 
 to survive ; and tlieir history is, therefore, to be derived chiefly from the sus- 
 picious testimony of their foes. Severe edicts, it is certain, were issued for 
 the destruction of their books ; and the story of their sorrows, as related by 
 themselves, has perislied. Tliat in their prosperity they retorted upon the 
 consubstantialists the wrongs they had received, only proves that they were 
 not superior to the frailties of our nature. We are pointed to tlie wanderings 
 of Athanasius as proof of tlieir malice, and his history has been often and 
 pathetically enough told ; but a tear for the unfortunate Arius has been more 
 than the world could give. 
 
276 AEIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 of human infirmity. He was originally Bishop of Berytus, 
 afterwards of Nicomedia, the chief city of Bithynia ; whence 
 he was transferred, about the year 338, to the see of Constan- 
 tinople. He died soon after the council of Antioch, — prob- 
 ably before the end of the year 341. He was reputed to be a 
 learned man ; yet we are not informed that he left any writ- 
 ings except letters, of which one only is preserved. 
 
 Theognis of Nice, as we have said, recovered his see after 
 his exile ; but of his subsequent history little is known, except 
 that he persevered with Eusebius in opposition to the consub- 
 stantial faith. Of Theonas and Secundus we find nothing 
 worth adding. Maris of Chalcedon survived to the time of 
 the Emperor Julian ; whom he had the coui'age publicly to 
 reproach for his idolatry, as he was sacrificing on the altar of 
 Fortune. He was then old and blind. He had formerly seen 
 the philosophic empei'or practise the exercises of the Christian 
 religion, and now thanked God, he said, in reply to a sarcasm 
 of Julian, that he could not behold his impieties. The anec- 
 dote, if true, shows at least his honesty and zeal. 
 
 Of Eusebius the historian, another of the friends of Arius, 
 as he will form the subject of a separate notice, we shall here 
 add nothing to what has been already said. 
 
 We have now done with Arius and his friends, and hasten 
 to offer a brief tribute to the great champion of Orthodoxy. 
 We left Athanasius at Treves, where he had been banished 
 for a real or supposed crime of state, a. d. 336. The emperor 
 was importuned by his friends to restore him : but he was in- 
 flexible, and replied, that he was " seditious, and had been 
 condemned by a council." He was compelled, he said, to 
 respect the decision of the bishops assembled at Tyre, who 
 could not be supposed to have been under the influence of 
 passion. Athanasius, he added, was " insolent, proud, and 
 kept everything in a constant broil." Constantino died soon 
 after (a. d. 337), having in his last illness received Arian bap- 
 tism from the hand of Eusebius of Nicomedia.* 
 
 * Constantine's orthodoxy, in his best days, sat rather loosely upon him, 
 and varied with time. If the oration to the " Saints," that is, to the Fathers 
 of the council, ascribed to him by Eusebius and appended by him to his Life 
 of the emperor, be really his, he certainly was no Athanasian in the later 
 
FORTUNES OP ATHANASIUS, 277 
 
 Athanasius, fortified with a letter from the young Constan- 
 tine, now returned to Egypt, after an absence of nearly two 
 years. His entrance into Alexandria was marked with blood 
 and slaughter. His attempt to reascend the episcopal throne, 
 from which he had been regularly deposed by the sentence of 
 a synod, was vigorously resisted by the Arians ; but the party 
 of Athanasius prevailed. Complaints were made against him 
 to the Emperor Constantius ; and a council, at which the em- 
 peror was present, having been assembled at Antioch, Atha- 
 nasius was declared to have been guilty of an irregularity in 
 resuming his episcopal functions without the intervention of a 
 synod ; and Gregory of Cappadocia was appointed to fill the 
 see of Alexandria. On his arrival, accompanied with a band 
 of soldiers to enforce the decree of the synod, Athanasius 
 effected his escape, and took refuge in Italy. According to 
 some authorities, he soon returned to Alexandria with letters 
 from Julius, Bishop of Rome, in which the latter severely 
 censures the bishops who had deposed him ; and, in conse- 
 quence, receives from them a sharp reply, rebuking him for 
 his impertinent interference. The usual disturbances followed 
 on his arrival at Alexandria ; and he was charged, besides, 
 with selling the corn which the late emperor had provided for 
 the relief of the poor widows of the city, and with appropri- 
 ating the proceeds to his own selfish purposes. The emperor 
 now threatens him with death, and he thinks it prudent again 
 to flee. He passes some time in concealment; but the Bishop 
 of Rome, discovering the place of his retirement, interests 
 himself in his favor, and writes, inviting him to repair to his 
 presence ; and Athanasius finds his way a second time to 
 Rome. 
 
 Other authorities, with more probability perhaps, assign to 
 him only one journey to Rome ; where he remained some 
 years, during which a synod was holden at Rome in his favor. 
 The council of Sardica, a. d. 347, after the secession of the 
 
 sense of the term. Thus he pronounces Plato right when he speaks of a 
 " first God, above every substance," to which first God he adds a " second, 
 distinguishing them as in number two substances," or two essences, the sec- 
 ond "proceeding from the first," and "ministering to his commands," refer- 
 ring the constitution of all things to him. So far, he says, Plato taught 
 wisely and well. — Orat. ad Sanct. Caet., o. 9. 
 
278 AEIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 Eastern bishops, too proves friendly to him, absolves him from 
 the sentence of the synod of Antioch, and decrees his restora- 
 tion and that of some other bishops to their sees. The Em- 
 peror of tlie West writes to his brother of the East, acquaint- 
 ing him with the fact, and entreats him to replace them. 
 Constantius demurs ; upon which the Western emperor writes 
 a very laconic and menacing epistle, telling him, that, if he 
 refused, he would himself come, and restore them by force. 
 The threat is eflFectual, and the Eastern emperor consents to 
 their restoration. 
 
 On his way to Egypt, Athanasius passes through Jerusalem, 
 and is received to communion by a synod of his friends hastily 
 assembled on the occasion ; and was reestablished in his see, 
 A. D. 349. He had scarcely taken possession, when the Em- 
 peror Constans, his protector, meets a violent death ; and he is 
 doomed to experience afresh the effects of Constantius's anger. 
 New charges are brought against him. The Western bishops, 
 after a long delay, are induced to pronounce sentence of con- 
 demnation against him ; and the emperor determines on 
 accomplishing his ruin. He escapes, and conceals himself 
 in the desert. He wrote an apology for his flight, which is 
 still extant. He remained in seclusion several years ; but 
 after the death of George, the Arian Bishop of Alexandria, 
 who fell by the hands of an infuriated mob,* he emerged from 
 his solitude, and resumed his office, a. d. 362. His stay was 
 short ; for Julian, who was then emperor, hearing of his 
 return, and fearing another commotion, sent orders to his 
 prefect to apprehend him. 
 
 The saint again fled, saying to his friends, " Let us retire a 
 little while : it is a small cloud, and will soon pass." His pur- 
 suers pressed hard upon him ; but, eluding them by artifice, 
 he returned privately to the city, and remained concealed till 
 the storm was over. Upon the accession of Jovian, a. d. 363, 
 he reappeared, and, during his reign, retained possession of his 
 
 * Philostorgius (lib. vii. c. 2) says that the violence was committed at the 
 instigation of Athanasius. The character of the Arian bishop is said to have 
 been stained with many vices. It is a curious circumstance that he should 
 have been afterwards transformed into the " renowned St. George of England, 
 the patron of arms, of chivalry, and of the garter." The transformation, says 
 Gibbon, though " not absolutely certain," is " extremely probable." 
 
WRITINGS OF ATHANASIUS. 279 
 
 Beat. Under Valens, the Arian emperor, he was again com- 
 pelled to leave Alexandria. He retired, and concealed him- 
 self four months in the tomb of his father. His friends at 
 Alexandria were overwhelmed with sadness, and the emperor 
 was induced to recall him. He became afterwards embroiled 
 with the Governor of Libya, whom he had excommunicated ; 
 but kept possession of his see till his death. He ended a life 
 of toil and wanderings, a. d. 373 ; having been bishop forty- 
 six years, of which twenty were passed in exile or conceal- 
 ment.* 
 
 His writings, which are numerous, relate mostly to the con- 
 troversies of the times, and contain several elaborate vindica- 
 tions of his character.! He treats the charges of his enemies 
 against him as calumnies, and strongly asserts, and sometimes 
 at least, proves, his innocence. But he was forced to contend, 
 not only against their calumnies, as he pronounces them, but 
 their arguments in defence of their theological opinions ; and 
 these he seems to have sometimes found it difficult to refute. 
 He says they were continually asking captious, absurd, and 
 impious questions ; to which, it appears, he could sometimes 
 reply only by raising the cry of " blasphemy." He compares 
 the Arians to madmen, dogs, and swine. J They contended 
 that the expression, " I and my Father are one," could not 
 prove the Son to be of the substance of the Father ; for Jesus 
 prays that his disciples " may be one, even as he and the Father 
 were one." But, in this reasoning, Athanasius could see only 
 " indescribable temerity " and " diabolical madness." They 
 urged the texts, "All power is given unto me "; " The Father 
 hath committed all judgment to the Son "; and from his agony 
 and prayer, he says, they concluded that he could not be God 
 by nature. Again : had he been the proper wisdom of the 
 Father, " How could it be said that he grew in wisdom ? " and 
 
 * Socrates devotes several chapters, or parts of chapters, in the first foui 
 books of his history to Athanasius ; Sozoraen, in his first six books ; and The- 
 odoret, in liis first four. 
 
 t See particularly his Apol. cont. Arianos. 
 
 I Dr. Stanley, in his " History of the Eastern Church," gives an amusing 
 list of his favorite epithets for the Arians. They are " devils, Antichrists, 
 maniacs, dogs, wolves, lions, hares, chameleons, hydras, eels, cuttle-fish, gnats 
 beetles, leeches." Such names passed with Athanasius for arguments. 
 
280 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 " hoAV could he be ignorant of the day of judgment ? " In 
 reply to these and similar arguments, they get a great deal of 
 abuse : they are denounced as impious ; and their audacity is 
 compared to that of the Jews, who stoned Jesus for speaking 
 of his divinity. They were perfect hydras. They were al- 
 ways ready with some new turn or new argument. Though 
 refuted by him, they were not silenced ; and, though he had 
 shown them "destitute of all sense," they did not "blush." 
 He quotes from the " Thalia" of Arius, and exclaims, at such 
 " impious words, how shall not universal nature stand aghast, 
 and all men stop their ears and shut their eyes, that they may 
 not hear those things, nor see him who has written them ! " 
 
 Athanasius, however, possessed several of the requisites of 
 a skilful champion. He was bold, resolute, and subtle, and 
 MTote in a style of strong, though sometimes rude, eloquence. 
 His spirit was indomitable. He was persevering and inflex- 
 ible ; but his temper was arbitrary and domineei'ing, and his 
 constancy was not without a tincture of obstinacy. He was 
 excelled in learning by several of his contemporaries, particu- 
 larly by Eusebius of Csesarea ; and by many, we trust, in the 
 meek and gentle graces of the Christian. His piety, and love 
 of truth, we have no disposition to call in question ; yet the 
 history of his life would seem to authorize the suspicion, that 
 he was influenced rather by motives of pride and ambition 
 than by a desire to promote the peace of the Church. He 
 would set all Christendom in a flame sooner than relinquish 
 the patriarchal throne of Alexandria. 
 
 He was capable of inspiring warm friendships. He was a 
 strong advocate for monkery. He wrote the life of a certain 
 hermit, whose name was Antony ; and was amply repaid by 
 the affection and gratitude of the order. In the season of his 
 deepest adversity, the monks remained faithful. They opened 
 the doors of their monasteries to him ; concealed him in the 
 desert, where they visited him ; ministered to his wants ; gave 
 him intelligence of the approach of danger ; and, in various 
 ways, evinced their attachment to his person. 
 
 His orthodoxy, particularly in the earlier part of his life, 
 will not stand the test of subsequent times, as he did not admit 
 the Son to be of one individual essence with the Father, 
 
CHARACTER OP ATHANASIUS. 281 
 
 though he believed him to possess the same specific nature.* 
 It is hardly necessary to add, that the Creed which bears his 
 name is the production of a later age.f 
 
 * Not fiovoovaioi, or ravToovaiog, but hfioovaioi. The former terms, expres- 
 sive of individual or numerical identity of substance, were then rejected. 
 
 t Gibbon's account of Athanasius forms one of the most splendid chapters 
 in his History. His portrait of the saint, however, is an exceedingly flattering 
 one. The temptation was great, to be sure. Athanasius had several heroic 
 qualities ; he led a life of adventure ; and a writer possessing Gibbon's pow- 
 ers of description could not wish for a finer subject. He could be just to 
 Athanasius, as one has said, " even when Julian was his persecutor." Gib- 
 bon had the art, if we may so express it, of falsifying iiistory, without absQ- 
 lutely misstating facts. Athanasius and Julian were very different characters. 
 But a person will get just about as correct an idea of the one as of the other 
 from the " luminous pages " of Gibbon. 
 
 The very slight sketch we have given of the character of Athanasius we 
 believe to be sufficiently favorable. Others have spoken of his infirmities of 
 temper in terms much stronger tlian any we have employed. "Athanasius'a 
 Epistle to the Monks," says tlie learned Limborch, " is proof enough of hia 
 ungovernable and angry temper, in which we find nothing but foul and re- 
 proachful language against the Arians ; a plain proof of a violently disordered 
 mind." — History of the Inquisition, ch. 4. 
 
282 AKIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The Nicene Faith. — Meaning of " Consubstantial." — Athanasius's 
 Explanation of it. — Father and Son relatively Unequal: so 
 THE Council of Nice taught. — Sentiments of the Orthodox 
 afterwards undergo a Change. — The Holt Spirit not defined 
 BY THE Council. — Not as yet Safe to speak of its Divinity. — 
 Variations. — Doctrine of the Trinity still unsettled. 
 
 It may be asked, in conclusion, What did the council of 
 Nice accomplish ? What, in reality, was the Nicene faith ? 
 How far did it differ from that of the learned Christians of 
 preceding centuries? how far from that of subsequent times, 
 after the doctrine of the Trinity was in a manner defined and 
 settled ? 
 
 First, what did the Fathers of the council mean when they 
 said that the Son was consul stantial with the Father ? We 
 have seen the construction which Eusebius puts on the term, 
 and which he says received the sanction of the council. They 
 intended to assert that the Son was "in all respects like the 
 Father," and " unlike all creatures made by him," in opposi- 
 tion to Arius, who maintained that he was a creature, and 
 therefore not strictly divine. This was the meaning which 
 the term then bore, as learned Trinitarian critics (Petavius, 
 Cudworth, Le Clerc, and others) admit and prove. It ex- 
 pressed, not numerical identity of substance, but sameness of 
 kind. One man is of the same substance or nature with 
 another, as they belong to the same order of beings. So the 
 Son of God is of the same substance with the Father: he 
 partakes, in common with him, of a divine, though not of the 
 same individual nature. Divine begets divine, as human 
 begets human. The distinction between person and being was 
 unknown to the Fathers: it is a refinement of latter times. 
 The Father and Son had the same specific nature, yet con- 
 stituted distinct subsistences, persons, beings,* Such was the 
 
 * The very term " consubstantial " implies two. We never say that a 
 thing is consubstantial with itself. 
 
THE NICENE FAITH. 283 
 
 doctrine of all the ante-Nicene Fathers, unless by the expres- 
 sion, " of a different substance," which some of tliem applied 
 to the Son, they mean to teach something more than that he 
 had an individual existence distinct from the Father. 
 
 The Fathers of Nice taught no other doctrine. The term 
 " consubstantial " was not first introduced by them. Athana- 
 sius tells us that it had been used befoi*e. The seventy Fa- 
 thers of the second council of Antioch, which condemned the 
 errors of Paul of Samosata, he admits, rejected it, and decreed 
 that the Son was not consubstantial with the Father ; and he 
 attempts to apologize for them by referring to the nature of the 
 controversy in which they were engaged.* But some Fathers, 
 he says, had used it. In what sense Dionysius of Alexandria 
 understood it, Ave have already seen. His explanation of it 
 does not differ materially from that of Eusebius. Athanasius's 
 explanation of the sense in which it was used by the council 
 of Nice is similar. The Son has " no similitude to creatures, 
 nor is cognate with them "; he is the " true offspring of the 
 substance of the Father." " The substance of the Father was 
 the beginning, the root, and fountain of the Son, who has a 
 true likeness to Him that begat him ; and is not separated from 
 the Father, as we are, by being of a substance foreign to his." 
 Again : he has the same relation to the Father as a ray to the 
 sun, or a branch to the vine ; for the " branches ai'e consub- 
 stantial with the vine, of the same sort, and inseparable." 
 Again : when we speak of identity or sameness, he says, we 
 refer, riot to any accidental distinction, but to substances or 
 essences. One man " is of the same nature with another as 
 regards substance." But " a man and a dog are of different 
 natures : therefore what is of the same nature is consubstantial; 
 what is of a different nature is of another substance," or not 
 consubstantial. f 
 
 * De Si/n. Arim. et Selene. 
 
 t De St/n. Arim. et Seleuc, cc. 33-45, and 52-54 ; De Syn. Nic. Decret., cc. 19, 
 20-25, 27 ; De Sent. Dionijsii; Epist. ii. et iii. ad Serap. Dionysius is one of 
 Athanasius's principal authorities to show that the Fathers of Nice did not 
 '• invent for themselves " the term consubstantial. He gives the letter of 
 Dionysius of Alexandria to him of Rome twice. {De Syn. Nic. Decret., and 
 De Syn. Arim. et Seleuc.) In this letter Dionysius says : " I instanced a hu- 
 man production which is clearly congeneric, and I observed that undeniably 
 
284 ARIUS, AND THE ASIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 Such is the explanation which this celebrated champion of 
 the Trinity gives of the meaning of the term, as used by the 
 Fathers of the synod of Nice and by himself Christ was by 
 birth God, as man is by birth man. There is one species of 
 divinity, as one species of humanity ; and, as all men are of 
 the same substance (that is, all human), so the Father and Son 
 are of the same substance (that is, both divine). This, if we 
 may truly believe Eusebius and Athanasius, is all which they 
 meant by the term. We know that it originally bore this sense, 
 and these two witnesses — one of whom was partial to its use, 
 and the other opposed to it — tell us that it was used by the 
 Fathers of the council in no other. It is needless to intro- 
 duce further evidence.* 
 
 Specific sameness implies a sort of natural equality ; yet the 
 Father and Son might be relatively unequal, and were so con- 
 sidered. The one gave^ and the other received. The one was 
 without cause, unbegotten, God originally and of himself: the 
 other was a God by derivation or birth, and not originally in 
 and of himself. They were united, however, in will, purpose, 
 and affection. There was but one original Fountain of divin- 
 ity, one supreme first Cause ; and therefore the unity of God, 
 in a certain loose sense, was, as it was thought, preserved. So 
 the preceding Fathers believed ; and we have no proof that 
 the Fathers of Nice entertained any other views. Their creed 
 certainly teaches no other. It recognizes one unbegotten, 
 uncaused Being ; and one begotten, dependent, and derived. 
 Read the Nicene Creed, and for the term " consubstantial " 
 substitute the phrase, " having, as the Son of God, a divine 
 nature," which is equivalent to it as used by the Fathers of 
 the council, and you have two beings such as we have de- 
 fathers diflfered from their children only in not being the same individuals." 
 That is, there is a generic, not an individual identity. Tiiis is what was 
 meant by consubstantial. 
 
 * We mean not to affirm that there was entire unanimity of opinion among 
 the Fathers of the council on this subject. This, we know, was not the case. 
 The term in question was obscure, and, in some sort, ambiguous ; but it was 
 all the better for that, provided it had the effect of stigmatizing the Arians, 
 since it allowed a certain latitude of opinion among the orthodox Fathers. 
 Tliat the prominent idea conveyed by it, however, was such as we have 
 stated, admits of no reasonable doubt. 
 
THE FATHERS BEFORE AND AFTER THE SYNOD. 285 
 
 scribed. We do not perceive that in sentimetit they differed 
 in any essential particular from the Fathers who went before 
 them. If they used the terra " consubstantial " in the sense 
 which afterwards obtained, however, they certainly did differ 
 from them, and were innovators. But we are convinced, as 
 we have said, that they did not so use it. If we may believe 
 their own statements, they certainly did not. 
 
 Some time after the council, however, and even during the 
 lifetime of Athanasius, the opinions of the orthodox began to 
 undergo a real and important change; and the council undoubt- 
 edly contributed to this change, inadvertently, by the intro- 
 duction of a term capable of a sense very different from that 
 originally attributed to it by the Platonists and Platonizing 
 Fathers. Thus the term, which, at the time it was adopted, 
 was understood to express only specific sameness of natui'e, 
 was afterwards employed to signify individual identity ; and 
 subsequent times, while they have retained the language, have 
 departed widely from the sentiments, of the Nicene Fathers. 
 
 The principal points of difference between the views of the 
 Fathers who lived before the synod, and the asserters of the 
 genuine Trinity afterwards, may be stated in few words. The 
 former taught the supremacy of the Father, and the real and 
 proper inferiority of the Son, without qualification ; making 
 them, in fact, two beings. The latter asserted, not simply an 
 equality of nature between the Father and Son, but their indi- 
 vidual and numerical identity ; though this was not originally 
 the doctrine of Athanasius, nor of the Church till some time 
 after the middle of the fourth century. The former main- 
 tained, generally, that the Son was voluntarily begotten of the 
 Father before the creation of the world, but not from eternity ; 
 the latter, that he was necessarily begotten, from eternity. 
 Whether they attached any ideas to these terms, we will not 
 undertake to say. 
 
 There was a very remarkable difference, too, in the manner 
 in which the advocates of the orthodox doctrine, before and 
 some time after the Council of Nice, endeavored to repel the 
 charge urged against them by their adversaries, of introducing 
 two Gods. The former, in reply to the objections of Praxeas, 
 Noetus, Sabellius, and their followers, asserted that they wor- 
 
286 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 shipped the one only and true God, who is over all, supreme ; 
 that the Son was inferior, another, different, — diflerent in 
 essence, the minister of the Father, and in all respects subject 
 to his will, and entitled, therefore, to only inferior homage. 
 Of these and similar expressions, however, the Ai'ians took 
 advantage ; and they were, therefore, gradually dropped. 
 The ground of defence was changed. Instead of saying that 
 the Son was a different being from the Father, and inferior to 
 him, the orthodox began to allege that they Avere of one indi- 
 vidual essence ; and, therefore, there was only one object of 
 supreme worship. There were many passages of Scripture, 
 however, which pressed hard upon this doctrine, and which 
 seemed at least to speak of the Son as inferior to the Father. 
 It was at this time that the fiction of the two natures in Jesus 
 Christ was introduced, and then all difficulties vanished. The 
 Son, as God, was co-equal with the Father; as man, he was 
 inferior : as God, he could send ; as man, he could be sent : 
 in his human nature, he could pray to himself in his divine ; 
 as man, he could assert that he was ignorant of the day of 
 judgment, which, as God, he knew. 
 
 The doctrine of the Trinity, however, was of very gradual 
 formation. The learned Huet, a Trinitarian, confesses that 
 " so late as the time of Basil," who flourished after the middle 
 of the fourth century, " and still later, the Catholics dared not 
 openly acknowledge the divinity of the Spirit." * 
 
 Fetavius bears similar testimony. In the heading of one of 
 his articles he says that " most Catholics dared not profess the 
 Holy Spirit to be God, and the Oecumenical Council of Con- 
 stantinople does not expressly call it God." He says that the 
 first council which decreed expressly that the Holy Spirit is 
 to be regarded as God, was that of Alexandria, over which 
 Athanasius presided, a. d. 362. f The Constantinopolitan 
 Council was held about twenty years later. 
 
 Neander has well observed, that the Spirit is " only adverted 
 to in very general ternis in the Nicene Creed." The clause 
 in Avhich it is referred to is, simply, " and in the Holy Spirit " ; 
 that is, supplying the ellipsis, " We believe in the Holy Spirit." 
 
 * Origeniana, lib. ii. c. ii. quaast. 2, § 10. 
 t Dogmat. TheoL, t. ii. lib. i. c. 14. 
 
THE NICENE CREED NOT TRINITARIAN. 287 
 
 And SO do we ; so do all Christians. All believe in the Holy 
 Spirit. But this language — the language of the creed — ex- 
 plains nothing, defines nothing. It does not tell us whether 
 the Spirit is a person, or an influence ; a breathing of the Spirit 
 of God into the soul of the believer, or something else. Had 
 the Fathers of the council believed it to be a person co-equal 
 or consubstantial with the Father, why not say so ? That 
 they did not so declare, affords, we think, conclusive evidence 
 that they did not so believe. Certainly the ci'eed, compared 
 with modern expositions of the doctrine of the Trinity, as con- 
 sisting of a co-equal Three, is sadly defective. There is noth- 
 ing in it, so far as the Spirit is concerned, which would exclude 
 Arius. He believed in the Holy Spirit. "It has been alleged," 
 says Neander, " that, at that time, there was no controversy 
 respecting it [the Spirit.] But this ground is not correct ; for 
 it is evident, from the express statement of Athanasius, that 
 Arius applied the doctrine of subordination to the Holy Spirit. 
 He placed the same distance between the Son and the Spirit 
 as between the Father and the Son "; which, we add, was 
 Origen's doctrine. " Even as late as A. D. 380," Neander ob- 
 serves "great indistinctness prevailed among different parties 
 respecting this dogma, so that even Gregory Nazianzen could 
 say, ' Some of our theologians regard the Spirit simply as a 
 mode of divine operation ; others, as a creature of God ; others, 
 as God himself; others, again, say that they know not which of 
 these opinions to accept, from their reverence for Holy Writ, 
 which says nothing upon it.' Hilary of Poictiers, a Nicene 
 theologian," expresses himself in a similar way, and " does not 
 venture to attribute to the Spirit the name of God, because 
 the Scripture does not expressly so call him." Again : 
 " Though Basil of Csesarea wished to teach the divinity of the 
 Holy Spirit in his church, he only ventured to introduce it 
 gradually." * These are significant facts, which are wholly 
 inexplicable on the supposition that the doctrine of the Trinity 
 was the old doctrine, — the doctrine of the Nicene Council 
 even. 
 
 We have said that the Fathers of Nice did not greatly inno- 
 vate in doctrine. The Council of Constantinople (the second 
 * Neander, Hist. Christ. Dogmas, pp. 303-305. 
 
288 ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
 
 general council), called a. d. 381, adopted the creed of Nice 
 with an additional clause, declaring that the Holy Spirit is tc 
 be worshipped and glorified together with the Father and Son. 
 " This creed," says Du Pin, " was not at first received by all 
 churches, and there were some that would add nothing to the 
 Nicene Creed. For this cause it was, perhaps, that no other 
 creed but that of Nice was read in the Council of Ephesus [the 
 third general council] ; and there it was also forbidden to make 
 use of any other." * This carries us to near the middle of the 
 fifth century. Philostorgius tells us that Flavian of Antioch, 
 in an assembly of his monks, was the first who " shouted 
 forth " the doxology, " Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, 
 and to the Holy Spirit ": for before that time, he says, the 
 usual form was, " Glory be to the Father, through the Son, in 
 the Holy Spirit "; though some said, " Glory be to the Father, 
 in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit." f After all, however, the 
 question, " What is the true doctrine of the Trinity ? " remains 
 unsettled. The orthodox or consubstantial faith was designed 
 to occupy the middle ground between Sabellianism and Arian- 
 ism. These were the Scylla and Charybdis the Fathers were 
 so anxious to shun. In their solicitude to avoid Sabellianism, 
 they came near being ingulfed in the vortex of Arianism. 
 From the brink of this dreadful abyss, they started back with 
 terror ; and, from that period to the present, the " good ship " 
 Orthodoxy has been tossed about by uncertain winds ; and, 
 when she has seemed to have found a safe anchorage, time has 
 soon shown that she was moored upon shifting sands. 
 
 The Nicene Fathers led the way, by " converting," as it 
 has been said, " what was before a scholastic subtilty into an 
 article of the Catholic faith." In doing this, they made use 
 of a very flexible term, which was capable of a signification 
 entirely different from the received one. Other mischief they 
 did, from the consequences of which the world has not yet 
 recovered. They encouraged, by their example, the pernicious 
 practice of creed-making ; and bequeathed, as a legacy to after 
 ages, the monstrous doctrine, that error, or supposed error, of 
 opinion, may be lawfully punished as crime. The Arians, 
 
 * Eccles. Hist., vol. ii. p. 272, and vol. iv. p. 200, Lond. 169.3. 
 t Uist., Ub. iu. c. 13. 
 
CREED-MAKING. 289 
 
 when they had the power, showed themselves too wilHng to 
 tread in their steps. There was this difference, however, as 
 Dr. Jortin observes, between the creeds of the Arians and 
 those of the Orthodox : " The Consubstantiahsts drew up their 
 creed with a view to exclude and distress the Arians. The 
 Arians had no design to distress the Consubstantiahsts, but 
 usually proposed creeds to which Athanasius himself might have 
 assented ; so that, if the compilers were Arians, their creeds 
 were not Arian."* So far, the Arians showed a better spirit 
 than their oppressors. 
 
 The Nicene Creed had been, to use the expression of Ne- 
 ander, originally '■'•forced upon the Oriental Church "; and 
 what evils hence flowed, what disputes arose, and what baleful 
 passions were lighted up, history clearly teaches. At the 
 commencement of the controversy, the Arians were the advo- 
 cates of freedom, intellectual and religious ; and their party 
 embraced several of the best minds of the age. If afterwards 
 they became changed in temper and feelings, the fact shows 
 only that they were not exempt from the imperfections of our 
 common nature. 
 
 * Remarks on Ecclesiastical History 
 19 
 
EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Claims of Eusebius to our Notice. — His Early Life. — Bishop op 
 Cesarea. — His Studies. — The Arian Controversy. — The Part 
 he took at the Council of Nice. — Subscribes the Creed. — His 
 Pastoral Letter in Explanation. — Want of Firmness. — Presides 
 AT the Council of Tyre. — Dedication of the Church of 5"HB 
 Holy Sepulchre. — The Emperor warmly attached to him. — 
 Death and Character. — His Real Belief. — Not a Consubstan- 
 tialist. — Held the Old Doctrine of the Derived Nature and 
 Inferiority of the Son. — Proofs from his Writings. 
 
 In our former chapters, we have often referred to the au- 
 thority of Eusebius of Caesarea ; and, in connection with Arius 
 and the Arian controversy, he appears a prominent figure on 
 the stage of action. He hved at a period when theological 
 opinions were in a transition state, but leaned rather to the old 
 than the new. His name will be ever honored ; though less, 
 perhaps, for his intrinsic merit, — which, however, is by no 
 means small, — than on account of the position he occupies as 
 the father of ecclesiastical history. He is not the oldest 
 Christian historian ; for he was preceded by Hegesippus, — a 
 writer in all respects, it would seem, his inferior. But of 
 Hegesippus only a few small fragments remain, preserved 
 mainly in the pages of Eusebius himself. To the latter we are 
 indebted for a multitude of facts relating to Christian antiquity, 
 which, but for him, would have been buried in oblivion. 
 
 Of the early life of Eusebius little is known. The work 
 
 of his biographer, Acacius,* who was his pupil, and successor 
 
 in the see of Csesarea, has unfortunately perished ; and, from 
 
 the few incidental notices of himself in his own writings, we 
 
 * Socrates, Hist., ii. 4. 
 
INCIDENTS OF HIS LIFE. 291 
 
 can glean but little. It has been conjectured that he was 
 born about the year 270 ; though, if he had Dionysius of Alex- 
 andria, the famous Paul of Saniosata, and the Emperor Gal- 
 lienus, for his contemporaries, — as some expressions employed 
 by him Avould seem to imply,* — we must assign to his birth 
 a somewhat earlier date. Of his parents no certain tradition 
 is preserved. Nicephorus, indeed, a writer entitled to little 
 respect, makes him (upon what authority he does not inform 
 us) a nephew of Pamphilus ; and others have called him his 
 son. But neither account is in the least probable. For Pam- 
 philus, we know, he cherished a lively and constant affection, 
 and, after his death by martyrdom, took his name ; but, from 
 the language of Eusebins himself, he appears to have stood to 
 him in no relation of natural affinity. 
 
 It has been generally supposed, and probably Avith truth, 
 that Eusebins Avas a native of Palestine, and perhaps of Caesa- 
 rea ; where, as he informs us in his letter to his people from 
 Nice, I he was instructed in the Christian faith, and baptized. 
 In his youth he must have been a diligent student ; for he had 
 great store of such secular learning as a knowledge of Greek 
 (probably his native tongue, and the only one with which he 
 seems to have been familiar) placed within his reach. He 
 was admitted to the priesthood by Agapius, whom he after- 
 wards succeeded in the office of bishop ; unless, with some, Ave 
 assign an intervening episcopate of tAvo or three years to 
 Agricolaus.^ Among his fellow-presbyters Avas Pamphilus, 
 already alluded to ; with Avhom he lived in the intimacy of 
 the strictest friendship, and Avhose memory he never ceased to 
 honor. Pamphilus Avas born, probably, at Berytus ; though 
 Photius makes him a native of Phoenicia. He Avas a pupil of 
 the celebrated Pierius of Alexandria, called, for his learning, 
 a second Origen. Pamphilus himself Avas a Avarm admirer of 
 Origen : he collected and transcribed his Avorks ; and, Avhile 
 in prison, employed himself, in conjunction with Eusebius, in 
 Avriting his " Apology," of which five books were finished before 
 
 * Hist., iii. 28 ; v. 28 ; vii. 26. 
 t Socrates, Hist., i. 8; Theod., Hist., i. 12. 
 
 X This name is sometimes placed on the catalogue of the Bishops of Caesarea, 
 between Agapius and Eusebius ; probably, however, without reason. 
 
292 EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN. 
 
 his death, and the sixth added afterwards by his surviving 
 companion. He Avas fond of hterature, and assiduous, es- 
 pecially in the study of the Scriptures. He led a strict and 
 philosophic life. He was resolute and persevering in whatever 
 he undertook, and was remarkable for his benevolence. He 
 cherished the cause of education and knowledge. He was a 
 fi'iend of the studious, and founded a theological school and an 
 extensive library at Csesarea ; of the latter of which, some 
 memorials are said still to exist in the collections of Europe. He 
 suffered martyrdom in the year 309, after an imprisonment of 
 two years, during which he constantly enjoyed the solace of 
 his friend's society. In token of his grateful respect and affec- 
 tion, the latter wrote his life, in three books, now, however, 
 lost ; and, in his " History," he seems never weary of nam- 
 ing him, and always in terms of tender regard or glowing 
 panegyric* 
 
 After the death of Pamphilus, as it appears, and before the 
 end of the persecution called Diocletian's, Eusebius visited his 
 friend Paulinus at Tyre ; where, as he tells us, he was witness 
 of the sufferings and constancy of the martyrs. f He after- 
 wards beheld the sad spectacle of the cruelties to which they 
 were subjected in Egypt and Thebais,^ and was himself 
 thrown into prison. It was insinuated by his enemies that 
 he escaped martyrdom at the expense of his integrity and 
 honor as a Christian ; but the reproach seems to have been 
 undeserved. § 
 
 * Hist, vi. 32 ; vii. 32; viii. 18 ; De Mart. PalcBst., cc. 7, 11. See also Soc- 
 rates, Hist., iii. 7 ; Jerome, De Vir. Illust., c. 75; also Adu. Ruf., and Epist. 41, 
 al. 65, ad Pammach et Ocean. 
 
 t Hist., viii. 7. t Ibid., viii. 9. 
 
 § Tlie insinuation, in fact, is destitute of all support, and the charge very 
 improbable. It was not made at the time, nor until some years afterwards, 
 when the part which Eusebius took in the Arian controversy had raised up to 
 him bitter and scornful enemies. It was first brought forward, we believe, by 
 Potamon, an Egyptian bishop, and an adherent of Athanasius. Potamon, a 
 man accustomed to use the utmost license of speech (as Epiphanius, on whom 
 the authority of the anecdote rests, admits), indignant at seeing Athanasius, 
 at the Council of Tyre, stand in the character of a culprit, while Eusebius and 
 others were seated as his judges, suddenly bursts out in a strain of loud in- 
 vective : " Is this," says he, addressing Eusebius, " to be endured 1 Tell me, 
 were you not with me in custody during the persecution 1 I, indeed, lost an 
 eye in the cause of truth ; but you appear unmutilated in person : you live, 
 
CHARGE AGAINST HIM. 293 
 
 But pei'secution had now ceased ; and it is not surprising 
 that Christians were exultant. Eusebius depicts those days 
 in warm and glowing colors. A wonderful revolution, indeed, 
 had taken place in the fortunes of the disciples of the cross. 
 They had triumphed ; they were free ; and the remembrance 
 of past misery heightened the sense of present happiness. 
 No more racks and dungeons now ; no more blood of martvrs 
 slain for the faith of Jesus. The civil arm, which before 
 oppressed, was now extending its friendly protection. The 
 empire had become Christian, and the emperor was bestow- 
 ing on his Christian subjects his most gracious smiles. He 
 was feasting and complimenting them, and calling them his 
 " dearest friends." The contrast was great. They now saw 
 everything clothed in hues of light ; and the feelings must 
 
 and are sound. By what means did you escape from prison, unless you prom- 
 ised our persecutors that you would do tlie nefarious thing, or did it?" 
 (Epiph. Hcer., Ixviii. c. 7.) Now, it is to be observed, not one word of proof 
 is here ofFered. All is vague conjecture. Eusebius had found means of leav- 
 ing prison ; how, Potaraon does not know. The circumstance, he says, looks 
 suspicious. 
 
 No more does Athanasius, the determined foe of Eusebius, venture to affirm 
 that there existed any evidence that the reproach was deserved. He simply 
 quotes a letter of some Egyptian bishops, in which it is intimated that he was 
 accused of having sacrificed. {Apol. cont. Ai-imios.) But could not Athanasius — 
 who, during the time he was seated on the episcopal throne of Alexandria, 
 might be regarded as the most powerful man in Egypt — easily have obtained 
 proof of the impious act, had it been committed 1 The disposition, surely, 
 was not wanting. " Was not Eusebius," it is asked in the letter, "accused by 
 our confessors of offering sacrifice to idols ? " And what then "? Were not 
 you, Athanasius, accused of foul crimes, and, among others, treason, sacri- 
 lege, and murder ? And were you not banished by your sovereign as a " pes- 
 tilent fellow," the foe of all peace and order 1 
 
 Origen, before Eusebius, was accused of having thrown incense to idols. 
 The charge was easily made or insinuated, and appears to have been resorted 
 to by the malignity of enemies to depress an adversary or rival. 
 
 Multitudes of Christians, and some who had been thrown into prison during 
 tlie severe persecutions, escaped without any improper compliance. Why 
 might not Eusebius have been of the number 1 It is certain that his fame 
 stood higli immediately after the persecution under Diocletian ceased ; for he 
 was very soon advanced to the bishopric of Ctesarea. He was afterwards in- 
 vited to the see of Antioch; and, finally, enjoyed the confidence of Christians 
 generally to the end of life ; which could hardly have been the case had there 
 been any good ground for the charge alluded to. We feel- little hesitation, 
 therefore, in pronouncing the insinuation of Athanasius and his friend Pota- 
 mon a calumny. Gibbon (chapter xvi ) makes a disingenuous use of this 
 charge against Eusebius. 
 
294 EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN. 
 
 find expression, and the imagination would revel amid images 
 of glory and felicity. All this was natural, and could hardly 
 have been otherwise. 
 
 The churches which had been thrown down by the rage 
 of persecuting tyrants were rebuilt with more than former 
 splendor. Festivals and dedications frequently occurred, and 
 all was full of joy and promise. Among other churches 
 erected at this period was tlie magnificent one at Tyre, wliich 
 rose on the site of the old. Eusebius, who pronounced the 
 oration or address at its dedication, — still preserved in the 
 tenth book of his History, — describes it as a fabric of surpass- 
 ing beauty and grandeur. This might well be. Christians 
 now possessed wealth ; and in their present circumstances, all 
 their troubles at an end, they would be disposed to be liberal 
 in their appropriations to church architecture, as in other 
 things. 
 
 Eusebius was at this time Bishop of Cassarea in Palestine ; 
 to which see he had been appointed in 313 or 314, and where 
 he seems to have found much leisure for study. He had lit- 
 erary tastes, and was fond of books ; which he possessed here 
 in abundance in the collection made by Pamphilus, to wdiich 
 he made large additions. He occasionally, too, visited Jeru- 
 salem, where there is said to have been a voluminous library. 
 He was thus gathering; materials for the learned works which 
 he subsequently gave to the world. 
 
 The Arian controversy, of which we have given an account 
 in the preceding chapters, must for a time have sadly broken 
 in upon his literary labors. We have already spoken of his 
 connection with this controversy, and of his presence at the 
 Council of Nice. We must here explain his course and his 
 views a little more fully. From first to last, he showed him- 
 self friendly to Arius. When, on his expulsion from Alex- 
 andria, Arius retired into Palestine, Eusebius affoi'ded him a 
 hospitable reception, and exerted himself, along with other 
 Palestinian bishops, in his favor. 
 
 He took a prominent part in the proceedings of the council, 
 having a seat at the right hand of the emperor, whom he 
 addressed m a short introductory speech. We still have his 
 pastoral letter, written home at the time, to explain some 
 
SUBSCRIBES THE NICENE CREED. 295 
 
 things whicli might seem to need elucidation or defence.* 
 It is somewhat apologetic in its tone, being intended to pre- 
 vent tliat ill opinion his people might very naturally conceive 
 of him on hearing of his subscription. In this letter he in- 
 serts at length the form of a creed which he proposed to the 
 council, and which contained, as he affirms, the sentiments 
 he had always believed and preached, and which, he adds, 
 at first met the approbation of all present. Both the mem- 
 bers of the council and the emperor, he tells us, appeared 
 satisfied. But it was soon discovered, it seems, that the 
 Arians could subscribe it, putting their own construction on 
 its language. This, no doubt, Eusebius, who belonged to the 
 moderate party, and was anxious to restore peace, foresaw ; 
 and it was precisely what he wished. But such a creed was 
 not what the majority, who were determined to cut off Arius 
 from the communion of the Church, wanted. They were for 
 a time, it appears, at a loss for some epithet to apply to the 
 Son, which the Orthodox could, and the Arians could not, 
 adopt ; till it was at length discovered, from a letter of Euse- 
 bius of Nicomedia, that the latter objected to saying that he 
 was consubstantial with the Father ; upon which, they eagerly 
 pounced upon the term as exactly suited to their purpose. It 
 is true, the term had been condemned about fifty years before, 
 by the Fathers of the Council of Antioch, in the case of Paul 
 of Samosata. But that circumstance might not have been 
 recollected ; or, if recollected, it mattered little, they might 
 think. The word was convenient now, though it might not 
 have been so then. 
 
 Constantine — who, from the first, had conceived the whole 
 controversy to be of a very frivolous nature, and who was not 
 disposed to stand on niceties of expression, which he probably 
 very imperfectly understood ; and who was, moreover, sincerely 
 desirous to accommodate matters — readily adopted the word, | 
 and advised the rest to do the same. Eusebius, after a good 
 deal of hesitation, subscribed the symbol in its new dress, con 
 taining the obnoxious word and two or three others, which, 
 from his tenderness for the Arians, whom he was reluctant to 
 condemn, he had avoided introducing into his proposed creed. 
 * Socrates, i. 8 ; Theodoret, i. 12. 
 
296 EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN. 
 
 He was, in consequence, afterwards accused, by his enemies, 
 of insincerity and bad faith ; for, thougli he seems to have 
 avoided tlie use of expressions pecuharly Arian, he continued 
 to befriend the Arians, and his heart appears to have been 
 always with them. 
 
 With regard to his consent to the act of subscription, he, in 
 the letter just referred to, put the best face he could on the 
 matter. He tells his people that he long resisted, but that his 
 scruples as to the use of the terms deemed exceptionable 
 (" consubstantial,^^ and " begotten, not made ") were at length 
 removed by the exposition given by the council of the sense in 
 which they were to be taken ; that is, as implying that the 
 Son had no resemblance or community WMth the things made 
 by him (as the agent of the Father in the creation of the 
 material universe) ; that he is of like substance with the Father, 
 though not a part of his substance ; resembling him, but not 
 identical with him. This explanation, though it would hardly 
 pass for orthodox now, was consistent enough with the spirit 
 of the Flatonizing theologVi from Athenagoras down to the 
 time of Eusebius ; and with it he professed to be satisfied, 
 and finally assented to the whole, as he says, for the sake of 
 peace ! 
 
 As to the anathemas at the end of the creed, they only con- 
 demned, he said, the use of certain Arian expressions not found 
 in the Scriptures. But Eusebius should have recollected, 
 while holdinn; this languaore, that the term which the Fathers 
 of the council had adopted as a test of orthodoxy, and to the 
 use of which he had assented, was also an unscriptural term ; 
 and on this very ground the Arians objected to it, and begged 
 that it might not be imposed. They were ready, they said, in 
 speaking of the Son, to employ all those terms and ascriptions 
 of dignity which were found in the Bible. The subject of their 
 •pomplaint was, that with this their opponents were not satisfied, 
 but insisted that they should adopt expressions of which there 
 was no example in Scripture or antiquity. 
 
 Eusebius has been charged with insincerity in subscribing a 
 creed which he did not believe. We are not disposed to admit 
 the charge. We are willing to take his own account of the 
 matter. He objected to some terms, one in particular, intro- 
 
HIS SINCERITY. 297 
 
 duced into the creed. The Fathers of the council explain 
 the sense which the terms in question bore, as they understood 
 them. In this sense — which, however, is not the sense they 
 bear now — he could accept them ; and so subscribes. In this 
 we see no proof of insincerity. The only question is, whether 
 he ought to have consented to the imposition of any creed 
 whatever. 
 
 We could wish, to be sure, that he had manifested a little 
 more firmness. It is difficult, we think, wholly to acquit him 
 of the charge of having betrayed the cause of Christian liberty, 
 either from personal timidity, and love of ease, or, as we are 
 willing to admit, from the desire — sincere, no doubt, but 
 luiavailing — to put an end to the unhappy controversy which 
 i-ent the church. The cause of Arius was the cause of religious 
 freedom and the right of private judgment ; and he should 
 have been sustained, therefore, — at least, so far as not to have 
 been subjected to suffer on account of any supposed criminality 
 attached to his opinions as such. Eusebius must not only have 
 felt the wish, from his benevolent nature and motives of per- 
 sonal friendship, to protect him ; but, from the rank he held 
 among the learned and wise of his age, from his elevated views 
 and undoubted liberality of sentiment, he, if any one, might 
 have been expected to have perceived the impropriety of im- 
 posing any restraint on freedom of thought, and, by his conduct, 
 to have proved himself the enemy of uncharitableness and ex- 
 clusion. By yielding, he lent the sanction of his name and 
 influence to the measures of the exclusionists, generally • his 
 inferiors in all those qualities which give a title to resj^ect ; and 
 the first general council, in conjunction with the " most pious 
 Emperor " Constantine (the first of the C^sars who acknowl- 
 edged the faith of the cross), left to the world a pernicious 
 example of intolerance and bigotry, which subsequent times 
 have but too faithfully imitated. 
 
 The rich and splendid see of Antioch becoming vacant on 
 the deposition of Eustathius for Sabellianism, in 330, the 
 bishops, then assembled there, were desirous that Eusebius — 
 the general consent and suffrage of the people being in his 
 favor, though a faction insisted on the reinstatement of Eusta- 
 thius — should transfer his residence from Csesarea to Antioch, 
 
298 EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN. 
 
 and become its bishop ; * and, to effect their object, they 
 petitioned Constantine to use his influence to induce him to 
 comply. But he promptly refused, alleging as a reason an ex- 
 isting canon of the church prohibiting a change of sees ; and 
 the emperor commended his decision, with many praises of his 
 modesty and worth, in letters still preserved. He was worthy, 
 in the complimentary language of Constantine, to be bishop of 
 the whole world. 
 
 In 335, we find Eusebius among the bishops assembled at 
 the Council of Tyre to hear charges which had been preferred 
 against Athanasius. Eusebius was president of the council. 
 From Tyre, the bishops, by command of the emperor, proceeded 
 to .Jerusalem, to dedicate the magnificent church recently 
 erected there by his order. Eusebius has given a glowing 
 description of the edifice intended by Constantine to " exceed 
 all the churches in the world " in the beauty of its structure 
 and the costliness of its materials.f The church, originally 
 called the Martyrium^ was designed as a memorial of our Lord's 
 death, burial, and resurrection, the true cross having been 
 recently discovered, as it was said, in the sepulchre which had 
 been laid open. It was afterwards known as the Church of 
 the Holy Sepulchre. The council assembled on the occasion, 
 which was in part a continuation of that of Tyre, Eusebius 
 pronounces the " greatest he had ever known," not excepting 
 that of Nice, of which he also gives a particular description. J 
 It was composed of bishops from all the provinces. Macedonia 
 sent its bishop, and Pannonia and Maesia the " choicest flower 
 of God's youth in their country." The Bithynians and 
 Thracians were there, and the ornament of the Persian 
 bishops. Cappadocia was represented by men of " learning 
 and eloquence." All Syria, likewise, and Mesopotamia, 
 Phoenice, and Arabia; Palestine, also Egypt and Libya, and 
 those who " inhabit the country of Thebais," all were there. 
 An innumerable company of people out of all the provinces 
 followed the bishops. The dedication took place on the Em- 
 
 * Soc, i. 24. The Consubstantialists were at this time accused of Sabellian- 
 ism and Montanism, and were called blasphemers, as subverting the existence 
 of the Son of God ; while they, in turn, charged their opponents with poly- 
 theism, calling them Greeks (Pagans). — Soc, i. 23 ; Soz., ii. 18. 
 
 t Vita Constant., iii. 28-40. J Ibid., iii. 7. 
 
HIS ORATION BEFORE CONSTANTINE. 299 
 
 peror's Tricennalia, and was accompanied with festivity, 
 speeches, and orations, of Avhich Eusebius gives a brief account, 
 not forgetting himself, to whom, he says, were " vouchsafed 
 blessings much above our deserts." * 
 
 Tlie tricennial oration — which, it seems, was delivered by 
 him in the imperial palace at Constantinople, he having repaired 
 thither immediately after the dedication — is still extant, being 
 appended to his " Life of Constantine." The emperor, during 
 the delivery of the oration, "■ seemed like one transported with 
 joy." So says Eusebius, who takes care to inform us that this 
 was the second time he had made a speech in presence of the 
 emperor in his own palace. The emperor was very courteous, 
 and insisted on listening in a standing posture : " for, though 
 we entreated him," says Eusebius, " to rest himself upon his 
 imperial throne, which was hard by, he would by no means be 
 persuaded to sit " ; nor would he allow the speech to be dis- 
 continued when it had run out to a great length, though " we 
 were desirous to break off," but " entreated us to go on till we 
 had ended our discourse." f 
 
 Eusebius, it seems, was often at court ; and whether there 
 voluntarily, or in consequence of a summons from the emperor, 
 appears always to have succeeded in retaining his good graces, 
 and returned to his humble diocese loaded with imperial 
 caresses. The emperor often wrote to him, encouraged and 
 facilitated his researches, and confided in his fidelity and 
 prudence. When he wanted fifty copies of the Scriptures 
 transcribed with the utmost accuracy for the use of his- new 
 churches at Constantinople, he applied to Eusebius as the 
 fittest man in the empire to superintend the execution. He 
 uniformly treated him with marked respect ; and his letters 
 to him, and others in which he is named, and which Eu- 
 sebius — from a vanity quite pardonable, if from no better 
 motive — has preserved, contain expressions of attachment 
 evidently warm and sincere. 
 
 * Vita Const, iv. 43-47. The Council of Nice (Nicsea, from a word signifying 
 victory), took place on the Emperor's Vicennalia, which, according to Eusebius, 
 had reference to his triumph over his enemies ; but now was erected a monu< 
 ment to peace and to the Saviour's triumph over death. 
 
 t Ibid., iv. 33, 45. 46. 
 
300 EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN. 
 
 The death of Eusebius is mentioned by Socrates ; but he 
 does not give the date. Constantine died A. D. 337 ; and 
 Eusebius survived him long enough to pay a warm and grate- 
 ful tribute to his memory, in what is termed a " Life," but 
 which is more properly a panegyric ; and died as early as the 
 year 340, probably before, at the age of about seventy, per- 
 haps a little more. 
 
 Along with some imperfections which lie on the surface, 
 Eusebius possessed many great and good qualities. He was 
 free from all asperity of temper ; he had warmth of feeling, 
 and was constant in his friendships. His amiable disposition, 
 his love of peace and quiet, his general moderation and candor 
 to those whose views placed them in opposition to him, have 
 been universally admitted. He never, as Du Pin has re- 
 marked, labored to destroy Athanasius, or ruin his partisans, 
 thouoh he could not number him with his friends. He never 
 abused his credit with the emperor to elevate himself or pull 
 others down ; but employed himself for the good and advan- 
 tage of the Church, endeavoring to promote a spirit of accom- 
 modation, and reunite parties. He was never, we believe, 
 accused of a grasping, avaricious disposition ; but appears to 
 have been content with a inoderate fortune, and the enjoyment 
 of the calm pleasures of a studious life. 
 
 It has been made a question, what Eusebius really believed; 
 and the most diverse judgments have been pronounced on the 
 subject in both ancient and modern times. Athanasius, among 
 the ancients, pronounces him an Arian ; Jerome, " the prince 
 of Arians "; and Nicephorus, " an Arian, and woi'se than an 
 Arian." Others expressed themselves in similar, though not 
 all in equally strong, terms. Among the moderns. Cave 
 makes an attempt to defend his orthodoxy against Le Clerc, 
 who expresses his surprise that there should be people whc 
 \ enture to deny that Eusebius was an Arian, if they have 
 read his M'ritings. Montfaucon says, that he " makes the 
 Son far less than the Father, and of a different substance." * 
 Petavius has a formal argument to prove that he was not 
 sound on the doctrine of the Trinity ; that he was a " Semi- 
 Arian," at least, not only before but after the •council of Nice. 
 * Prcelim. in Euseb. Comment, in Psal. (Eusebii Opera,t. v. ed. Migne.) 
 
HIS THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS. 301 
 
 " Nothing can be clearer," says he ; and in proof of tlie asser- 
 tion he devotes the eleventh and twelfth chapters of his first 
 book on the Trinity. Du Pin, though he pronounces it great 
 injustice to stigmatize him as an Arian, yet thinks it impossi- 
 ble to defend his orthodoxy ; and confesses that it has been 
 vainly attempted by Socrates, Sozomen, and " some modern 
 writers." * 
 
 That he was not, strictly speaking, an Arian, we think per- 
 fectly clear. He nowhere avows his Arianism ; nowhere de- 
 clares that he embraced Arius's peculiar views of the nature 
 of the Son. Arius's distinguishing dogma was, that the Son 
 was created out of nothing ; that there was a time when he 
 did not exist ; in opposition to the doctrine which asserted that 
 from all eternity he had a sort of metaphysical existence in 
 the Father (^that is, existed as his Logos, Reason, or Wisdom), 
 but was either a little before the creation of the world, or, 
 without reference to time, thrown out, or prolated, as it was 
 expressed, and so became, by a voluntary act of the Father, 
 a real being. This metaphysical nicety, Arius discarded ; 
 maintaining, that though the Son was, next to God, the great- 
 est and best of beings, ranking both in time and dignity as the 
 
 * Those who wish to see authorities on the subject may consult Le Clerc's 
 BiUioih. Anc. et Mod., t. i. p. 170, xvi. 80, et seqq., xxviii. 240, et seqq. ; also 
 Bihlioth. Univ. et Hist., t. x. p. 479, et seqq. ; and Le Clerc's Second Epistle, 
 Ars Crit., vol. iii. ; Jortin's Remarks, vol. ii. pp. 229-242; Cave's Lives; Du 
 Pin, Noiivelle Biblioth., art. "Eusebius"; Petavius's Theol. Dogm., vol. ii. lib. i. 
 cc. 11, 12 ; and Tillemont, Mem. Eccle's., vii. 31-33. See also " Veterum Test, 
 pro Euseb., et contra Euseb.," which follow Valesius's Account of his Life and 
 Writings, ed. Reading ; Dr. Samuel Clarke's Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, 
 and the Notes to Jackson's Novatian, where will be found a numerous collec- 
 tion of passages from Eusebius relating to his views of the Son and the Spirit. 
 Neander mentions him as one of the "men of note " who " appeared as media- 
 tors" in tlie Arian controversy. He was "an adherent of Origen," and en- 
 deavored to convince both parties " that they held the views of their oppo- 
 nents to be worse than they really were." "Almost the only decided opponents 
 of Origen during this period," says Neander, " were those who were the ene- 
 mies of free scientific development or of spiritual views." Eusebius's system, 
 he says, " coincides entirely with that of Origen." "He was of the opinion 
 riiat the Son of God could not be called absolutely eternal, like the Father ; 
 ihat it was necessary to ascribe to him an origin of existence from the Father. 
 . . The existence of the Father precedes the existence and origin of the 
 Son." Like Origen, however, he " would remove all relations of time." — 
 Hist. Dogm., pp. 262, 288 ; Hist. Relig., vol. ii. pp. 367, 368. 
 
302 EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN. 
 
 first and chief of his creation, and was immutable, yet he did 
 not always exist, but had a beginning. Eusebius nowhere 
 expresses a belief that the Son was created out of nothing. 
 He held, as we gather from his writings, the old doctrine of 
 the Platonizing Fathers. He certainly held the old doctrine 
 of tlie inferiority of the Son, and maintained that he derived 
 his origin from the Father ; but he did not think it important 
 to define his nature. There were some points which he seems 
 to have thought it unnecessary to discuss, as he did not deem 
 the knowledge of them essential to salvation. That of the 
 nature of the Son was one of them ; for the promise of eternal 
 life, he observes, is made to the believer in him, not to him 
 who knoivs his nature. 
 
 It is certain that Eusebius was not a Consubstantialist in the 
 sense in which Athanasius understood the term in his later 
 years. The word, as we have seen, was not of his choice, nor 
 to his taste ; for it might imply what he did not believe con- 
 cerning the nature of the Son. As the Platonists had used 
 it, however, and as it might be understood to mean, not a 
 numerical, but only a specific sameness, that is, resemblance (in 
 which sense, the Fathers of the council, who seem to have 
 been not a little perplexed in their attempts to define it, 
 allowed him to take it), he consented, as before said, to adopt 
 it. But, in this sense, it by no means excluded inequality and 
 subordination between the Father and the Son. In these he 
 firmly believed ; and if such belief constituted Arianism, all 
 antiquity, as it has been truly said, was Arian. But it does 
 not : for it leaves undetermined the origin of the Son, who, as 
 Arius contended, was called into being from nothing; while 
 his opponents, the Consubstantialists, insisted on saying that 
 he was ineffably begotten. Thus a person might believe that 
 the Son was, from the time when he was begotten before the 
 ages, a distinct being from the Father, and inferior to him, 
 without adopting the distinguishing dogma of the Arians. 
 This, no doubt, was the case with Eusebius. At all events, 
 he was willing, for the sake of peace, to conform to the popu- 
 .ar phraseology, and say, with the Homoousians, that he was 
 ineffably begotten. This, we suppose, was the amount of his 
 orthodoxy. He certainly never dreamed, any more than Ori- 
 
INFERIORITY OF THE SON. 303 
 
 gen (of whom he is known to liave been a great admirer), of 
 admitting the equality of the Father and Son in any legitimate 
 sense of the term ; and he seems to have placed the Spirit 
 among tlie things made by the Son. Du Pin quotes a passage 
 to this eifect from his writings. 
 
 It may be proper to fortify our statements by a few extracts 
 from Eusebius himself. Without hesitation he pronounces the 
 Father and the Son two distinct subsistences ; but says, " we 
 do not suppose them to be two entitled to equal honor, nor 
 both to be without a beginnino- and unbeo-otten : but one un- 
 begotten and without beginning, the other begotten, having 
 his origin from the Father."* "The head of Christ," accord- 
 ing to the Apostle, he says, " is God."f The following is 
 decisive enough, one would think. " The Father is of him- 
 self perfect and first, as F'ather, and the cause of the Son's 
 subsistence ; not receiving anything from the Son to the com- 
 pleting of his Divinity. But the Son as being derived from a 
 cause is second to him whose Son he is, having received from 
 this Father both his being, and his being such as he is."J 
 
 Again, the ante-Nicene doctrine, as we understand it, is, 
 that there is one God supreme over all, infinite, unbegotten, 
 who alone possesses underived power and authority, and that 
 Jesus Christ is not that one God. Hear what Eusebius says 
 on this point. Although we confess Christ to be God, yet 
 there is, says he, " One only God [that is, in an absolute 
 sense] , he who is alone without beginning, and unbegotten ; 
 who has his Divinity of himself [is self-existent], and is the 
 cause to the Son of his being, and of his being what he is ; by 
 whom the Son himself confesses that he lives, saying without 
 reserve, ' as the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the 
 Father '; and, ' for as the Father hath life in himself, so hath 
 he given to the Son to have life in himself.' " It is a gift, 
 not something which he originally possessed in and of himself. 
 He is not, like God, self-existent. A little after, " Is not he 
 alone the one God," asks Eusebius, "who acknowledges no 
 superior and no cause of his being, but possesses the divinity 
 of his monarchical power as something peculiarly his own, 
 original and unbegotten, and imparts to the Son of his own 
 
 * Eccles. TheoL, ii. 7 t Ibid t Demonst. Evang., iy. 8. 
 
304 EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN. 
 
 divinity and life . . . whom alone he [the Son] teaches us to 
 regard as the only trne God, and confesses to be greater than 
 himself . . . whom also he would have us all know to be his 
 God."* 
 
 Eusebius speaks of the Son, or Logos, as being always with 
 the Father, and he once applies the term " eternal " to his 
 generation, which he elsewhere contradicts, when he says that 
 the Father existed before the Son. He also, as we have seen, 
 calls him God ; uniformly, however, denying to him self-exist- 
 ence. He is begotten and derived. God, we are expressly 
 told, was the " cause of his existence and of his being such as 
 he was "; his divinity and power were derived from the Fa- 
 ther. Thus he was subordinate. Further, Eusebius says, 
 that the Son was not generated by the necessity of the divine 
 nature, but was begotten by a voluntary act of the Father. 
 Light, he says, shines forth from a luminous body, not from 
 choice, but by a property of its nature. But the Son " by the 
 intention and will of the Father was made to subsist in his 
 likeness; for by will God became Father of the Son." f 
 Again, " before all ages, he [the Son] received a real sub- 
 sistence by the uuTitterable and inconceivable will of the 
 Father." $ And finally, " every one must confess that the 
 Father is, and subsists before the Son." § 
 
 Nothing can more clearly show that Eusebius, in speaking 
 of the Father as unbegotten and the Son as begotten, as he 
 uniformly does, really meant what he said ; the Son was not 
 bemnnino-less : the Father was an underived, the Son a de- 
 rived being. The Father preceded the Son ; and the Son 
 was minister to the Father. || 
 
 The dignity of the Son, according to Eusebius, was derived. 
 " The Father," he says, " gives, the Son receives." He 
 speaks of the Son as a " second substance." John calls the 
 Word God, but " we must of necessity confess," says Euse- 
 
 * Ecdes. T/ieoL, i. 11. t Demonst. Evang., iv. 3. % Ibid. 
 
 § Demonst. Evang., v. 1. 
 
 II Eusebius observes that when the Evangelist affirms that "all things were 
 Tiade by him," that is, by the Son, he uses the preposition {(hu) which denotes 
 the instrument, and not that (vtzS) which denotes the efficient cause. Ecdes. 
 TheoL, i. 20. [See also Eccles. TlieoL, ii. 14, where he remarks that " the 
 preposition 6lu signifies ministerial agency," Tb vtztjpetlkov. — Ed.] 
 
INFERIORITY OF THE SON. 306 
 
 bius, " that he is not God over all, neither the Father himself, 
 but his only-begotten Son ; not equal with the Father . . . 
 not one and the same with God." * 
 
 Eusebius says expressly that the "Father preceded the 
 Son "; that he " existed before the generation of the Son." 
 " That he existed before the generation of the Son," he says 
 in another place, " all must confess."! 
 
 We can conceive of no way in w^hich these passages can be 
 reconciled with the writer's orthodoxy. Is any one disposed 
 to say that it is of no consequence what Eusebius believed ? 
 In one view, his faith has some significance to us, certainly so 
 far as our present argument is concerned. Eusebius professed 
 to hold the old faith of Christians ; and no one knew better 
 than he what that faith was. He was a diligent inquirer, an 
 antiquary, a collector of Christian documents of the then olden 
 time. He had before him a multitude of writings, which have 
 since perished, which had come down from primitive times. 
 Who better than he knew what the old faith of Christians 
 was ? Yet he was no Trinitarian. It is a vain task to at- 
 tempt to vindicate his orthodoxy, in the modern sense of the 
 term. His creed would not stand the test before any Trinita- 
 rian council at the present day ; nor, were he living now, 
 holding the opinions he did, would he find it easy to be admit- 
 ted into one of our Orthodox churches. He would be com- 
 pelled to stand aside. His explanations of parts of the Nicene 
 Creed, and especially of the word " consubstantial," would be 
 fatal to him now. All the circumstances of the case taken 
 into view, especially his opportunity (greater than is enjoyed 
 by any of us) of knowing what the faith of the Christians of 
 the first three centuries — time-honored men — was, his creed 
 has, we think, great significance. That he was no Trinitarian 
 is a fact which tells, and must tell. "An Arian, and worse 
 than an Arian," is not literally true of him ; yet he was not 
 a Trinitarian. No one, we suppose, at this time of day, will 
 undertake to vindicate his claim to be so called, according to 
 the present usage of speech. 
 
 * Demonst. Evang., v. 4 ; Prcep. Evang., vii. 15 ; Eccles. Theol., ii. 14. 
 t Demonst. Evang., iv. 3 ; v. 1. 
 
 20 
 
306 EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Credit to which Edsebius is entitled as an Historian. — Charges 
 
 AGAINST him. VaLUE OF HIS MATERIALS. HiS AUTHORITIES. — 
 
 Tradition. — Lost Writings. — Writings still Extant. — Con- 
 temporaneous History. — Literary Merit of Eusebius's Work. 
 
 We shall not attempt here to give a catalogue of Eusebius's 
 numerous writings. Some of them are lost ; but enough re- 
 main to bear testimony to his, industry and multifarious read- 
 ing. The most important of them is his " History," in ten 
 books, in which he has transmitted a multitude of facts and 
 traditions relating to the early days of Christianity, and the 
 character and writings of Christians ; of which, but for him, 
 no memorial would have been now left. 
 
 The degree of credit to which he is entitled as an historian 
 is a question embarrassed by some difficulties, but one on 
 which we must say a few words before we close.* First, he 
 is charged with a deliberate suppression of the truth ; thus 
 knowingly, it is said, violating " one of the fundamental laws 
 of history." This charge is founded on what he himself states 
 respecting his purpose in Avriting, and the method he chose to 
 pursue.f He has nearly reached the close of his history, and 
 is relating what had fallen under his own eye ; and he ob- 
 serves, that he shall put on record, in this his " universal his- 
 tory," only such things as might be " profitable " to Christians 
 of his day and to those who should come after. He shall not 
 describe, he says, the dissensions and unworthy conduct of 
 Christians, tending to the disgrace of religion ; he shall not 
 mention all the faults and infirmities of the disciples of the 
 cross, which he beheld with so much pain : he shall relate 
 only matters of importance. " Whatsoever things are grave 
 and of good report," says he, " according to the holy word, if 
 
 * For a more full discussion of the subject, we must refer our readers to an 
 article in the Christian Examiner for July, 1835, pp. 291-312. 
 t Ilist., viii. 2; Martyrs of Palestine., c. 12. 
 
CHARGES AGAINST EUSEBIUS. 307 
 
 ther^ be any virtue and praise, these things I deem it most 
 suitable to the renowned martyrs to recount and write, and 
 commit to faithful ears ; " omitting the rest, as foreign from 
 his purpose, abhorrent to his feelings, and subserving no end 
 of piety or virtue. This is the sum of what he says. Whether 
 it justifies the very broad insinuation of the historian of the 
 " Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire " * against the trust- 
 worthiness of Eusebius, the reader may be allowed to judge 
 for himself. Eusebius might think very naturally that the 
 hand of friendship might be permitted to throw a veil over the 
 imperfections of his fellow-believers ; he might not conceive 
 that the interests of virtue or humanity required or authorized 
 him, in all cases, to " draw their fi'ailties from their dread 
 abode." In this course we can see ingenuous feeling and ele- 
 vated principle. If, in pursuing it, Eusebius has offended, we 
 think the offence one Avhich can be readily forgiven. 
 
 The second charo;e against Eusebius is of a more grave 
 
 Oct O 
 
 character : it is, that he approved the use of what are called 
 " pious frauds " ; or, as it has been expressed, that he was a 
 " liar from principle." This charge rests on the title to the 
 thirty-first chapter of the twelfth book of his " Evangelical 
 Preparation." And, to be sure, the title, at first view, looks 
 a little ominous ; for it seems to tell us, that falsehood is to be 
 sometimes employed, by way of medicine, for those who need 
 it. But, if we read the chapter referred to, — a short one, — 
 we find that it so explains or limits the principle laid down in 
 the title, as to render it wholly, or in great part, innocuous ; 
 for it only recognizes the Platonic precept, that men are some- 
 times to be lured into the way of truth and virtue by the em- 
 bellishments of imagination and fancy. Hence we employ 
 fable and poetry and parable and song, and numerous rhetor- 
 ical ornaments ; and some of these, as it is rightly observed, 
 occur in the Sacred Writings. They contain appeals to the 
 imagination, and do not disdain the use of poetical imagery, 
 and figures of speech. Speaking in accordance with human 
 apprehensions, they introduce God as angry, jealous, grieved, 
 and repenting, and subject to various perturbations, which can, 
 in reality, have place only in frail and finite beings. These 
 * Gibbon, ch. xvi. vol. ii. p. 479, ed. Lond. 1821. 
 
308 EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN. 
 
 are some of the illustrations which Eusebius employs ; and 
 they show in what sense he understood the principle, and the 
 extent to which he would push it. He is not speaking of his- 
 torical composition, but of the modes of influencing the minds 
 of men by rhetoric, ornament, allegory, and poetic fiction. 
 But is he who approves these and similar methods of insinuat- 
 ing useful instruction to be branded as " a liar from principle," 
 and a " defender of frauds " ? On so slight a foundation do 
 the disingenuous insinuations and sarcasms of Gibbon rest.* 
 
 In an examination of Eusebius's real merits and defects, or 
 the credit to which he is entitled as an historian, our inquiries 
 must naturally be directed to two points : first, the value of 
 his materials ; in other words, the sources whence he drew ; 
 and, secondly, his discretion, skill, and fidelity in the use of 
 them. On both of these points we shall slightly touch. 
 
 It is obvious that Eusebius made no little use of unwritten 
 tradition. In numerous instances, he prefaces his relation with 
 some such expressions as these : "As it is said " or "reported " ; 
 " as we have received from tradition "; " according to ancient 
 tradition "; " as we have understood." We are not to infer, 
 however, that by these and similar expressions, which abound 
 in his history, he always means oral tradition. The contrary 
 is evident. He sometimes speaks of tradition, as delivered in 
 written documents or commentaries, which he proceeds in 
 some instances to quote. 
 
 It is quite clear, however, that he often appeals to common 
 and unwritten report, or to tradition for some time handed 
 down orally, though afterwards recorded. Now, two ques- 
 tions here present themselves, neither of which it is, at the 
 present day, very easy to settle. First, to what respect is such 
 tradition, in reality, entitled ? and, secondly, what reliance did 
 Eusebius himself place upon it? In regard to the first, it 
 would be rash to affirm that common or traditionary report is, 
 
 * If Eusebius is to be condemned, wliat sliall we say of the following charge 
 brought by Le Clerc against tlie pious Cave ? After observing that Cave 
 •would make the Bishop of Ca;sarea orthodox by force, Le Clerc adds, " Mais 
 Mr. <^ave etoit un homme accoutume non seulement a dissimuler, mais a dirs 
 If contraire de ce qu'il pensoit, par une mauvaise politique ; ce que a fait pas- 
 ser ses Histoires Ecclesiastiques pour des legendes mitigees." — Biblioth. Anc 
 et Mod., t. iv. p. 19. 
 
HIS AUTHORITIES. 309 
 
 in all cases, to be rejected, as wholly unworthy of attention. 
 It probably has, in most instances, some foundation, however 
 slight, in fact. At the same time, it is to be received with 
 great caution. We are required to sift it diligently ; and we 
 are allowed no inconsiderable freedom in lopping away such 
 parts as bear apparent marks of exaggeration or addition, or 
 which want the support of probability. 
 
 That Eusebius himself did not consider what he relates as 
 matter of common report, to be entitled to implicit credit, 
 seems to us very plain. He gives the tradition, and, as it 
 would appear, leaves his readers to take it for what it is, in 
 their opinion, worth. In sitting down to his work, he seems 
 to have proceeded upon the principle recognized by Herodo- 
 tus, the father of history. " I must relate things," says he, 
 " as they are reported ; but I am not obliged to believe all." * 
 This circumstance we must keep in view, in order rightly to 
 estimate Eusebius's merits as an historian. It has not been 
 sufficiently attended to, and his reputation has suffered in con- 
 sequence. Thus, because his relations have sometimes the air 
 of fable, it is hastily concluded that he is a writer entitled to 
 no respect. The inference is unsound, and does him great 
 injustice. He has recorded traditions bearing various marks 
 of probability or improbability ; but he avowedly gives them 
 as traditions, and we must receive them for what they are 
 worth. Some of them he evidently regarded as suspicious. 
 He has been perfectly honest. When he had authorities 
 which he thought could be relied on, he has given theni : 
 when they were wanting, he has given us fair notice, that 
 his statements are founded only on common or ancient 
 rumor. 
 
 The lost writings appealed to by him, or writings in their 
 present form manifestly corrupt or of doubtful genuineness, or 
 of which only fragments have come down to us, are numerous. 
 As fountains of history, they must have possessed various 
 merit. Some of them appear to have been entitled to very 
 little respect, and others to none at all. To the latter class we 
 must refer his authorities for the reported correspondence 
 between Abgarus and Jesus Christ, recorded in the first book 
 * Herodotus, lib. vii. c. 152. 
 
310 EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN. 
 
 of his " History." * The letters are undoubtedly a forgery, 
 though we readily acquit Eusebius of all participation in the 
 fraud. The originals existed, as he tells us, in the Syriac 
 language, in the archives of the city of Edessa, whence they 
 were taken by or for him (for his language is ambiguous), and 
 translated into Greek. This is all he says of their history ; 
 and we see no reason whatever to call in question his good 
 faith. But he suffered himself to be egregiously duped. A 
 document undoubtedly came to his hands, purporting to have 
 been drawn from the archives referred to, which he hastily 
 received as ancient and authentic. 
 
 The forgery would give us little concern, were it not that 
 so gross a blunder of Eusebius, at the very threshold, affects 
 his character as an historian. If he had so little critical 
 sagacity as to be imposed upon by so palpable and clumsy a 
 fraud, it may be asked, What reliance can be placed on his 
 judgment in any case ? Does not the fact go to show a degree 
 of carelessness, and want of discrimination, in the selection of 
 his materials, which must essentially impair our confidence in 
 the credibility of his narrative in other instances ? Undoubtedly 
 it tends to inspire distrust of his judgment, and places us under 
 the necessity of subjecting his authorities to the test of rigid 
 examination, when in our power. But this we are compelled 
 to do in case of most ancient, and but too many modei'n, his- 
 torians. In this respect, Eusebius does not stand alone. 
 
 Whether the account of the sufferings of our Saviour, re- 
 ported to have been sent by Pilate to the Emperor Tiberius, 
 and referred to by Justin Martyr and by Tertullian, is to be 
 classed with the above mentioned in the rank of forgeries or 
 not, or had only an imaginary existence, it is not material to 
 our purpose to inquire ; as Eusebius, who seems never to have 
 seen it, does little more than allude to it, and can hardly be 
 said to have used it as an authority at all. 
 
 Among the authorities entitled to some, though to very little 
 respect, we may place Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis. Papias 
 was a great collector of traditions, and, whenever he met with 
 a person who had seen and conversed with the Apostles and 
 elders, was particular in his inquiries as to what they said . 
 
 * Cap. 13. 
 
LOST DOCUMENTS. 311 
 
 " what Andrew and what Peter said " ; what " Phihp or 
 Thomas or James or John or Matthew and the other Apostles 
 were wont to say "; what " John the elder " said. He left a 
 work, in five books, apparently a sort of commentary on our 
 Lord's discourses or life, extant in Eusebius's time ; but Eu- 
 sebius himself pronounces him to have been a man of very 
 small capacity, and says that he propagated several fabulous 
 legends. Indeed, he seems to have been a person of un- 
 bounded credulity, — utterly destitute of discrimination and 
 judgment. He first gave currency among Christians to the 
 doctrine of Chiliasm, or the one thousand years' reign of Christ 
 on earth, with his saints, in the enjoyment of corporeal delights ; 
 which Irenfeus and others, having regard to the " antiquity of 
 the man," adopted and defended, but to which the mighty arm 
 of Origen Adamantius finally gave a death-blow. Papias, in 
 peering about for traditions and old stories, of which he seems 
 to have collected a goodly number, no doubt gleaned some 
 truths ; but he is evidently no authority for anything, except 
 as a witness to what he saw and heard, if so much as that. 
 
 In regard to lost works, or works of which only a few frag- 
 ments have reached our times (preserved, perhaps, by Euse- 
 bius himself), we may observe, that, from the time of Justin 
 Martyr, or from about the middle of the second century, these 
 works, used by Eusebius as authorities, begin to multiply. 
 Among them we may mention Hegesippus, a converted Jew, 
 who flourished about the year 170, and wrote five books of 
 " Ecclesiastical Memoii's," of which we have now only soine 
 fragments found in Eusebius, and a very short one quoted by 
 Photius at second-hand. Eusebius speaks of him with great 
 respect, though he seems to have been a rude and incoherent 
 writer ; and the judgment of the Christian world concerning 
 him has been generally unfavorable.* 
 
 * Kestner, in a dissertation inserted in his treatise " De Eusebii Auctoritate 
 et Fide Diplomatic^," Gott. 1816, has attempted a defence of the historical 
 fidelity of Hegesippus — we do not think, with entire success — against what 
 he calls the unjust and perverse judgments pronounced concerning him. He 
 had been called a dealer in fables, and a most futile trifler, rather than an 
 historian ; and Stroth had said that he is so incoherent, that " you would 
 think you were reading the meditations of a shoemaker in the language of a 
 Scythian." The specimens of his performance, given by Eusebius, certainly 
 
312 EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN. 
 
 In his sixth and seventh books, Eusebius draws largely on 
 the epistolary writings of Dionysius, called the Great, Bishop 
 of Alexandria. In his preface to his seventh book, he ac- 
 knowledges his numerous obligations to him. He says that 
 Dionysius shall compose the book in his own words, relating 
 the occurrences of his times in the letters he has left. Dio- 
 nysius was an honest man, and reputed to be learned and elo- 
 quent. He mingled much in the affairs of Christians of his 
 time, A. D. 247 ; and wrote of what he had seen and heard, 
 and in which he was a chief actor. His authority, allowing 
 for the ordinary weaknesses and imperfections of human nature, 
 is entitled to great respect. 
 
 These ai'e among the documents existing before his day, 
 which are expressly named by him as authorities which have 
 now wholly, or in part, perished, and of many of w^hich we 
 have only portions preserved by him. To these we must add 
 the productions appealed to by him, which have entirely, or in 
 a great measure, survived the injuries of time, and of the 
 value of which, therefore, we can judge for ourselves ; as the 
 works, still extant, of Josephus, Philo, Justin Martyr, Clement 
 the Alexandi'ian, Tatian, Irenwus, Tertullian, and Origen, and 
 two or three imperial rescripts or letters. He derived assist- 
 ance, no doubt, from other soiirces. He speaks of the rich col- 
 lection of letters preserved in the library at Jerusalem, which 
 furnished important materials for his use.* He often, however, 
 omits to name his authorities, either from ignorance or care- 
 lessness, or perhaps because the general consent of writers 
 seemed to render specification unnecessary. 
 
 In the preface to his eighth book, Eusebius informs us that 
 he is about to relate events which happened in his own times. 
 Of his ten books, then, he devotes three to contemporaneous 
 history. He professes to speak of what he saw and knew, not 
 always naming documents or authorities ; yet often, especially 
 near the close, appealing to letters and edicts of the emperors, 
 several of which he has preserved entire. It must be admitted, 
 that no man of his times had better means than he of becoming 
 
 do not tend to inspire any very deep regret for its loss (Euseb. Hist., ii. 23 
 lu. 16, 20, 32; iv. 8,22). 
 * Hist., vi. 20. 
 
USE OP HIS MATERIALS. 313 
 
 acquainted with the general affairs of Christians ; though, in 
 estimating the merit of this part of his narrative, we must not 
 forget the difficulty of arriving at truth from the reports — 
 often inaccurate, partial, and colored — of contemporaries, sub- 
 ject, as their minds must be, to the disturbing influence of 
 human passions, partiality, or prejudices. 
 
 From this slight survey of the fountains to which Eusebius 
 had access, it is quite obvious that his materials were of vari- 
 ous merit: some being of the very best kind; others, to say 
 the least, very suspicious ; and some utterly without value. 
 He had, at times, clear lights to direct him on the road ; at 
 others, he was compelled to thread his way amid surrounding 
 darkness. 
 
 We do not pretend to assert that he was always thorough in 
 his researches, or had recourse, in all instances, to the best 
 sources of information. Yet he sometimes discriminates, and 
 manifests some solicitude, certainly, about the worth of the 
 documents used by him. He frequently notes the time when, 
 and the authors by whom, they were written. Examples 
 might be given in abundance ; but the enumeration would be 
 tedious.* In his fifth book, however, f there occurs a statement 
 which, in justice to him, we cannot pass over ; for it shows 
 that he was not utterly careless and indifferent about his 
 authorities. Thus, after mentioning some writings of which 
 the authors and their times were known, he proceeds to say 
 that many more pieces had come to his hands, the authorship 
 and date of which he had no means of ascertaining ; and there- 
 fore, he observes, he could not make use of them nor quote 
 them. He sometimes, too, assigns reasons, historical and 
 critical, for rejecting certain writings which fall under his 
 notice ; of which we may mention, as an example, the Gospels 
 of Peter, Thomas, and others ; also the Acts of Andrew and 
 John and others of the Apostles ; and some writings attributed 
 to Clement of Rome.^ 
 
 Of the use Eusebius made of his materials, we need say 
 
 * He is sometimes, however, loose and inaccurate, and occasionally gives 
 contradictory statements, of which we have an example in his account of tlie 
 time of Hegesippus. Comp. Hist., iv. 8; and Ibid., cc. 21, 22. 
 
 t Cap. 27. X Hist., ili. 25, 38. 
 
314 EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN. 
 
 little. That his dihgence in collecting was greater than his 
 care and skill in using the stores he had accumulated, will be 
 readily admitted. He is not a skilful narrator. He has not 
 fused down his materials into a mass of pure ore. He has 
 left much rubbish, which a more scrupuloiis judgment would 
 have swept away. His work belongs to an age not imbued 
 with the spirit of philosophical criticism, and it bears numer- 
 ous marks of haste and inadvertency. As a production of 
 art, it is full of blemishes. Yet we should be grateful for the 
 many pi-ecious remains of antiquity it has saved from destruc- 
 tion, and the numerous traditions it was the means of arresting 
 in their passage to the gulf of oblivion. Eusebius should be 
 read with judgment, that Ave may separate the wheat from the 
 chaff. We believe that he meant to be faithful ; though we 
 cannot say of him, that he " left nothing to be forgiven." But 
 his errors are those of human infirmity, and afford, in our 
 opinion, no ground for those sweeping conclusions which would 
 annihilate, at a blow, his historical credit. 
 
THE APOSTLES' CREED. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Apostles' Creed not the Primitive Creed. — Was Kot framed 
 BY THE Apostles. — Testimonies of the Learned. — Unfounded 
 Tradition as to its Origin. — Older Creeds. — Original Form of 
 the Apostles' Creed. — Comparison of it with the Roman and 
 Oriental, and that of Aquileia. — The Clause " Descended into 
 Hell." — The Apostolical Constitutions. — No Early Notice op 
 Them. — Not of Apostolic Origin. — Time of their Composition 
 — Their Arian Complexion. — Old Form of Ascription. 
 
 Writers sometimes speak of the " primitive creed '" ; by 
 which they do not always mean the creed of Peter, the oldest 
 Christian creed of which we have any account, — " Thou art 
 the Christ, the Son of the living God." This was the only 
 article of faith originally deemed necessary to constitute a 
 person externally a Christian. It presupposed, of course, a 
 belief in one God, the Father. But the Jews had already 
 been initiated into this belief. " Ye believe in God," said 
 Jesus : he adds, " Believe also in me " as the " Christ," the 
 " Anointed," the commissioned of him ; the only additional 
 truth the belief of which he required as distinctive of the Chris- 
 tian profession. We find the two articles again conjoined in 
 his last solemn prayer : " This is life eternal, that they might 
 know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou 
 liast sent." * And thus we find that Jews and others, already 
 acknowledging the existence of the only true God, were, by 
 the Apostles, admitted to baptism, on simply professing, in ad- 
 dition, their belief of the latter article. 
 
 We here see the origin of creeds. They were baptismal 
 confessions ; baptism being regarded as an initiatory rite, by 
 
 * St. Paul's creed corresponded : " There is one God ; and one Mediator 
 between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 
 
3l6 THE apostles' creed. 
 
 which a person was introduced into the community of believ- 
 ers, — numbered among Christians. These confessions were 
 the symbol, sign, token, or mark, of Christian faith, as the 
 ceremony of baptism was of Christian consecration. They 
 embraced originally, as we have said, in addition to the belief 
 in the existence of one God over all, the Father (always tacitly 
 implied, if not expressed), one simple truth, that Jesus was the 
 Christ, the Son of God ; which was the primitive Christian 
 creed, as a belief in the one only true God constituted the 
 primitive Jewish creed. Other articles were added from time 
 to time, according to the discretion of individuals, or communi- 
 ties of believers. 
 
 The most fruitful source of additions was the numerous 
 heresies which, in process of time, sprang up in the Church, 
 in opposition to which new clauses were successively introduced 
 into the creeds, or symbols. They w'ere thus perpetually 
 growing in bulk, and, in the same proportion, becoming more 
 dark and metaphysical, abounding more and more in absurd or 
 unintelligible distinctions and refinements, till every feature of 
 their original simplicity was obliterated. 
 
 The Apostles' Creed is sometimes referred to as the " primi- 
 tive creed " of Christians ; and it is still sometimes insinuated 
 that it was of apostolic origin. That it was not the production 
 of the Apostles, however, is a point which has been long uni- 
 versally conceded by the learned, both Protestant and Catholic ; 
 and to go into a discussion of it would be a mere waste of time 
 and labor. Hear what Mosheim, an author whose statements 
 are entitled to some little respect, says in reference to the 
 opinion which assigns the composition of it to the Apostles : 
 " All who have any knowledge of antiquity confess unanimously 
 that this opinion is a mistake, and has no foundation." * Dr. 
 Isaac Barrow, an old English divine of great eminence, speaks 
 of the " original composition and use " of the creed as " not 
 known "; and argues, that, " in ancient times, there was no 
 one form generally fixed and agreed upon "; that "the most 
 ancient " and learned of the Fathers " were either wholly 
 Ignorant that such a form, pretending the Apostles for its 
 authors, was extant, or did not accord to its pretence, or did 
 * Institutes of Eccles. Hist., vol. i. p. 79, Murdock's translation. 
 
NOT OF APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 317 
 
 :iot at all rely on the authenticalness thereof." * Dr. Barrow 
 wrote more than a century and a half ago. The well-known 
 Du Pin, too, a little later, resolutely combated the notion, that 
 the creed was written by the Apostles ; pronounces it " very 
 improbable "; says that it is evident that the Apostles "did not 
 draw up any one form of faith comprehended in a set number 
 of words "; that there is " no rashness here in departing from 
 the vulgar opinion "; that the advocates for its apostolic origin 
 are obliged to yield, wdien urged, and acknowledge that " our 
 creed is not the Apostles' as to the words." f " That it is 
 rash to attribute it to the Apostles," saj^s Buddeus, " is not 
 only proved by the clearest reasons, but the more pi'udent and 
 candid among the Romanists themselves confess it." J "All 
 learned persons," says Sir Peter King, " are now agreed, that 
 it never was composed by the Apostles." § " It is not known 
 by whom, or at what precise time," observes Bishop Tomline, 
 " this creed was written." " The Apostles did not prescribe 
 any creed." || " It was by no means the opinion in the 
 beginning," says Neander, " that the Apostles had drawn up 
 any such confession in words "; and he calls the story of the 
 apostolic origin of the creed in question a " fable." ^ Hagen- 
 bach does the same. He thinks the creed " most probably 
 composed of various confessions of faith, used by the primitive 
 Church in the baptismal service." It did not, he says, proceed 
 from the Apostles themselves.** 
 
 We might adduce numerous other testimonies ; but the 
 above are sufficient, and more than sufficient, to show what all 
 the world, with the exception of those who have not cared to 
 learn, know already, — that the question of the apostolic origin 
 of the creed has been long satisfactorily settled. The tradition 
 which ascribes to it such an origin cannot be traced in any 
 writings now extant, or of which we have any account, of a 
 
 * Exposition on the Creed ; Works, vol. i. p. 357, fol. Lond. 1716. 
 t Hist. Eccles. Writers, vol. i. p. 10, Lond. 1692. 
 t Ecclesia Apostolica, p. 191, Jen. 1729. 
 § Primitive Church, part ii. p. 57, Lond. 1719. 
 
 y Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, art. viii. See Elements of Christian 
 Theology, vol. ii." pp. 221-226, ed. Lond. 1804. 
 T Neander, Hist, of the Christ. Relig. and Church, voL i. pp. 306, 307. 
 ** Text-Book, etc., First Period, § 20, p. 52. 
 
318 THE apostles' creed. 
 
 date earlier than the end of the fourth century. We first 
 meet with it in Rufinus, Bishop of Aquileia, who wrote late in 
 the fourth and early in the fifth century.* " The Apostles," 
 says he, " according to the tradition of the Fathers, being 
 about to disperse to carry the gospel into different parts, 
 assembled to determine the rule of their future preacliing ; 
 and, being full of the Holy Spirit, each one of them contributed 
 what was agreeable to his own views ; thus forming a creed 
 which w^as to guide them in their teachings, and to be delivered 
 as a rule to believers." f The writer of a piece falsely attrib- 
 uted to Aiigustine proceeds so far as to point out the particular 
 article contributed by each Apostle. 
 
 Had this tradition been founded in truth, it is difficult to 
 account for the fact, that the creed was not, like the other 
 known productions of the Apostles, admitted into the number 
 of canonical writings ; that Luke, in relating the acts of the 
 Apostles, has observed a total silence on the subject ; and, still 
 further, that no allusion to any such document, as a production 
 of the Apostles, occurs in any of the learned Fathers of greater 
 antiquity than Rufinus, — as Justin Martyr, Clement of Alex- 
 andria, Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius, the historian Eusebius, 
 Athanasius, and many others ; though, in their disputes with 
 heretics, occasions innumerable occurred on which they could 
 have alleged nothing more appropriate and decisive than 
 several clauses of the creed, had it existed as a known or 
 reputed relic of the Apostles. During the same period, coun- 
 cils were assembled, some of which framed creeds which were 
 regarded as authoritative, and were used in the rite of baptism 
 (an act then deemed of the greatest solemnity) ; yet in none 
 of the canons of those councils, and in none of their creeds, is 
 there the slightest allusion to any existing creed claiming an 
 apostolic sanction. It is further observable, that whenever the 
 ante-Nicene Fathers attempt, as they frequently do, to give a 
 sort of abstract of Christian doctrine, they allow themselves no 
 
 * We make no account of a piece attributed to Ambrose of Milan, contain- 
 ing an allusion to tbe tradition ; since the document is admitted, by universal 
 consent, to be spurious. Were it genuine, its testimony would add little 
 weight to the tradition ; being contemporary, or nearly so, with that of Rufinus 
 A.uibrose died a. d. 398. Rufinus survived him but twelve years. 
 
 i Exposilio Sijmboli, 
 
ORIGIN OF THE CREED. 319 
 
 small latitude both of sentiment and expression, always differ* 
 ing from each other, and from themselves at different times ; a 
 circumstance which can be explained only on the supposition, 
 that there was no authoritative symbol to which they could 
 appeal, but that each individual or body and division of believers 
 were left to express their own views of Christian truth in their 
 own way. The Roman creed, in the form in which we first 
 meet with it, differed from the old Oriental, in existence, it 
 would seem, before the Nicene or Constantinopolitan ; and 
 both, as we shall presently see, from that of Aquileia. It 
 differed, too, from the Jerusalem creed, expounded by Cyril 
 about A. D. 340 ; and yet, had the Apostles, before their separa- 
 tion (as the tradition given by Rufinus states), composed a 
 creed to be the rule of their future preaching, and a standard 
 of faith to all believers, the fact must have been known to the 
 Christians of Jerusalem ; and we can hardly suppose that the 
 church in that place, the mother of all the rest, would have 
 suffered so valuable a legacy to be lost, and the very memory 
 of it to have perished. 
 
 Rufinus, in his account of the origin of the creed, was fol- 
 lowed by Jerome and the Latin Fathers generally ; and the 
 tradition was currently believed till the time of the Reforma- 
 tion. Erasmus was one of the first in modern times to call 
 in question its title to respect as an apostolic document ; and 
 subsequent inquiries, as we have said, have led to the utter 
 rejection of its claims to be so considered. 
 
 It is more difficult to trace the origin and gradual comple- 
 tion of the Apostles' Creed than to refute tlie hypothesis 
 which ascribes it to an act of the Apostles. In its primitive 
 and simpler form, it may possibly have been the baptismal 
 creed of the Roman Christians. As the Roman Church rose 
 to celebrity, its creed, of course, would grow in dignity and 
 importance along w^ith it; and when finally it came to be 
 denominated, byway of eminence, the "Apostolical" Church, 
 founded, according to tradition, by the very chief of the Apos- 
 tles and by Paul, it is not surprising that its symbol also should 
 have claimed for itself the distinction of an apostolic origin. 
 
 There are several other creeds, or summaries of faith, how- 
 ever, of which an earlier record remains than of this. Irenaeus, 
 
320 THE apostles' creed. 
 
 Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, gives us two, one shorter and one 
 longer, but wholly unlike the Apostles' Creed,* Tertullian, 
 about the year 200, knew nothing of the Apostles' Creed. 
 " In its present form, it was not known to him as a summary 
 of faith," says Bishop Kaye.f Tertullian's creeds, of which 
 we have three, want some articles found in the Apostles'. 
 One of these, which he calls the one only fixed and unchange- 
 able rule of faith, we have already quoted. J It is much 
 shorter and simpler than that known as the Apostles' ; and 
 what is remarkable is, it contains no allusion whatever to the 
 Holy Spirit ; and has no article on Christ's "descent into hell," 
 on the " holy Catholic Church," the " communion of saints," 
 or the " remission of sins." 
 
 Two passages occur in the writings of Origen, containing a 
 creed or general summary of Christian truth, as he under- 
 stood it, and as it was to be gathered, as he says, from the 
 Scriptures. § Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, about the middle 
 of the third century, comes next, who tells us that persons, 
 on being baptized, were required to express their belief " in 
 God, the Father ; his Son, 'Christ ; the Holy Spirit ; the remis- 
 sion of sins; and eteimal life through the holy Church." || We 
 have another, by Gregory Thaumaturgus, of Neocsesarea, a 
 disciple of Origen, somewhat longer, and more dark and meta- 
 physical, and as unlike as possible to the Apostles' Creed. 
 
 Nothing else in the shape of a creed occurs in any genuine 
 writing of the first three centuries.^ The Nicene soon fol- 
 lowed, wliich was somewhat augmented by the Council of 
 Constantinople, A. D. 381 ; and the Councils of Ephesus and 
 Chalcedon (the former a. d. 431, and the latter a. d. 451) 
 forbade the making or the use of any other, taking no notice 
 
 * Adv. Jlcer., lib. i. c. 10, and lib. iii. c. 4. 
 
 t Eccles. Hist., illustrated from the Writings of TertuUian, p. 306, od edit. 
 
 { The crcL'd is prefaced with tliese words : " Regula quidein fidei una om- 
 nino est, sola imniobilis, et irrcformabllis." This creed is given in the first 
 chapter of his tract De Virginibus Velandis. The other two are found. Ado. 
 Prax., c. 2; and De Prcesmpt. Hceret., c. 13. 
 
 § Comiii. in Joan., t. xxxii. ; Proem to Book of Principles. 
 
 II Epist. Ixxvi. 
 
 Tf A confession of faith, contained in a letter ascribed to the first Council of 
 Antioch, and addressed to Paul of Samosata, is sometimes quoted by those 
 who are not aware that the document is spurious. 
 
EARLY CREEDS DIFFER. 321 
 
 of the Apostles' Creed, and thus virtually excluding it.* It 
 was not customary to recite the creed at every administra 
 tion of divine service, in the Eastern Church, before the be- 
 ginning of the sixth century, and, in the Western, till near 
 the end of the same ; and the creed thus recited was the 
 Nicene, or Constantinopolitan, just referred to, and not the 
 Apostles'. 
 
 Rufinus (to whom, as we have said, we are indebted for the 
 tradition of the apostolic origin of the creed) has preserved 
 a copy of it as it existed in his time, the end of the fourth 
 and the beginning of the fifth century, under three different 
 forms as used in different churches ; or rather he has given 
 us three creeds, — the Roman, the Oriental, and that of Aqui- 
 leia. That the Roman, in its more brief form, existed before 
 his time, is not to be doubted, for its simplicity bears decided 
 marks of antiquity ; but of its history previous to this period 
 nothing certain is known. Sir Peter King, in his excellent 
 work,! I^^s attempted to analyze it, and distinguish the articles 
 of which it was originally composed from the clauses after- 
 wards introduced in opposition to the several heresies which 
 successively sprang up in the Church ; but, from the paucity 
 of facts history has preserved, he is often compelled to resort 
 to argiiments which are purely conjectural. 
 
 It appears from Rufinus, that the first article of the Roman 
 Creed, as it stood in his time, and of that of Aquileia, wanted 
 the clause, " Maker of heaven and earth " ; and that the creed 
 of Aquileia had, instead of it, " invisible and impassible," 
 added, according to Rufinus, in opposition to the Sabellian 
 heresy. The Roman, too, omitted the epithet " one " before 
 " God," and stood simply, " I believe in God, the Father 
 Almighty." The second article differs little in the three 
 creeds, except in the collocation of the words, which varies 
 considerably ; and, instead of " Jesus Christ," the Oriental 
 Creed reads, owe Jesus Christ, in common with the Nicene 
 
 * The fact is adverted to by Charles Butler in the following words : " When 
 tlie Council of Ephesus, and afterwards the Council of Chalcedon, proscribed 
 all creeds except the Nicene, neither of them excepted the symbol of the 
 Apostles from the general proscription." — Historical and Literary Account of 
 Confessions. 
 
 t History of the Apostles' Creed, with Critical Observations on its several Articles. 
 
 21 
 
322 THE apostles' creed. 
 
 and the older Greek creeds generally. The present creed 
 retains the article as it stood in the Roman. The third article 
 is the same in the three ; the present creed differing verbally 
 from all. In the fourth article, the words " suffered " and 
 " dead," found in the present creed, are wanting in the three 
 ancient ; and the phrase " descended into hell " is found only 
 in that of Aquileia, being wanting in both the Roman and 
 Oriental. The fifth is the same in all four, as also the sixth, 
 excepting that the epithet "Almighty" is wanting in that of 
 Aquileia and the Roman. The seventh is the same precisely 
 in all. In the eighth, the present creed repeats " I believe," 
 which is not found in this place in either of the three men- 
 tioned by Rufinus. In the ninth article, the present creed 
 differs in three particulars from that of Aquileia, the Roman, 
 and Oriental. In the three latter, the word " catholic " is 
 wanting, as also the phrase " communion of saints," at the 
 end ; and the words " I believe," which are wanting in the 
 preceding article, are inserted at the commencement of this. 
 In the three old creeds, the article was, simply, (I believe) 
 " in the holy Church." The tenth article is the same in all ; 
 the eleventh also, with a single exception ; that of Aquileia 
 having '•Hhis body," instead of "/Ae body," as in the rest. 
 With this clause the three old creeds end ; the twelfth article, 
 or " and the life everlasting," found in the present creed, being 
 wanting in all.* 
 
 Some of these variations are, in themselves, unimportant. 
 It will be perceived, however, from our comparison, that, since 
 the end of the fourth century, the Roman or Apostles' Creed 
 has received four considerable additions, — the clause " de- 
 scended into hell," in the fourth article ; the epithet " catho- 
 lic"; and the clause "communion of saints," in the ninth; 
 and the whole of the last. 
 
 The clause " descended into hell " first appears, it would 
 seem, in the Arian creed of Ariminum, A. D. 359. It is also 
 found in a creed recorded by Epiphanius, who flourished in 
 
 * Ilufin. Expositio SymboU. See also Du Pin, vol. i. p. 3 ; and G. J. Vossius, 
 De Tribns iSi/mbolis, Dissert, i. §§ 31-43. Bunsen, in his Analecta Ante-Nicatna, 
 forming the Inst three volumes of his Christiatiiti/ and Mankind, gives the three 
 jreeds— the Roman, the Oriental, and that of Aquileia — along with the 
 Nicene. — Vol. iii. pp. 92-94. 
 
ADDITIONS TO THE OLD CREEDS. 323 
 
 the latter part of the fourth century ; and also in that of Cjril 
 of Jerusalem. At what time it was admitted into the Roman 
 and Oriental creeds, we have no means of ascertaining. It 
 was adopted, as Sir Peter King thinks, as an antidote to the 
 heresy of Apollinarius, who denied the reality of Christ's 
 human soul.* 
 
 * The clause " descended into hell," has greatly perplexed modern theolo- 
 gians. That such, however, was the belief generally of Christians of the first 
 three, or certainly of the second and third centuries, its absence from the 
 creed notwithstanding, has been abundantly proved, we conceive, by the Eev. 
 Frederic Huidekoper, in his very learned work on the " Belief of the First 
 Three Centuries concerning Christ's JVIission to the Underworld." The pur- 
 pose of this " Underworld Mission " of Christ, as stated by Mr. Huidekoper, 
 who sustains his position by numerous quotations from the early Fathers, was 
 to " preach to the Spirits in prison," that is, to prophets, patriarchs, and right- 
 eous men who were there detained, and liberate them. Some, however, be- 
 lieved that he preached to all, though he did not change their place of abode, 
 but left them to remain there till the general resurrection. But several of 
 the most eminent of the Fathers were of the opinion first stated. Christ 
 descended to Hades to preach to the people of God, — to prophets and right- 
 eous men, who there waited his coming. 
 
 There he had a fearful conflict with the Devil and overcame him, and took 
 with him out of Hades the souls for whose deliverance he came, transferring 
 them to Paradise. This was transacted in the interval between his death and 
 resurrection. But though victorious in the end, the soul of Jesus endured 
 terrible suflering. It was given as a " ransom," not, says Origcn, " to God," 
 but to " the Evil One, for he held us in his power until the soul of Jesus 
 should be given him as our ransom, — he being deceived by the supposition 
 that he could hold it in subjection, and not perceiving that it must be retained 
 at the cost of torture which he could not endure." (Huidekoper, p. 87) 
 The Devil bore his defeat as best he could. According to the Fathers he had 
 been outgeneralled : the incarnation of Jesus had been concealed from him ; he 
 plotted his death through the hands of wicked men. So completely had he 
 been mystified, as Clement of Alexandria has it ; but when he found him in 
 his own dominions and learned who he was, he was filled with consternation, 
 for a stronger than he had come, who entering his house, — the "house of 
 death," — first bound him, after a terrible battle, then, as Origen expresses it, 
 " plundered his goods," that is, " carried off' the souls he held," and " thence 
 ascending on higli, led captive the captives." 
 
 Such was the tlieology of the Fathers connected with the descent of Christ 
 into hell. Mr. Huidekoper gives in an Appendix the "modern views" of 
 this clause of the creed. The Lutherans accepted it without explanation ; the 
 Calvinists, finding it inconsistent with their belief of two fixed states after 
 death, glossed it over by saying that the soul of Jesus during his sufferings, 
 and especially while on the cross, was plunged into " inexpressible anguish, 
 pains, terrors, and hellish agonies." The Anglican Church adopted it at first 
 — in the fourth year of Edward — with an explanation which was afterwards, 
 in the time of Elizabeth, omitted. Pearson, in his " Exposition of the Creed," 
 
324 THE apostles' creed. 
 
 The term " Catholic " first appears in the creed of Alex- 
 ander of Alexandria, ^bout the period of the rise of the Arian 
 controversy. It is found also in Epiphanius, from whom it 
 passed to the Latins. At what time it found its way into 
 the Roman Creed, is uncertain. The clause " communion of 
 saints " was added, as is supposed, in reference to the schism 
 of the Donatists, — probably during the fifth century. It is 
 not known on what occasion, or when, the last clause, relating 
 to the " life everlasting," was added. The creed first appears, 
 in its present form, in the time of Gregory the Great, who 
 died A. D. 604. 
 
 The Apostles' Creed is not a Trinitarian document, in the 
 modern sense of the term ; for it speaks of no co-equal Three 
 — no Three in One. The same is true of the other creeds 
 we have compared with it, and of the writings attributed to 
 the Apostolic Fathers. These writings, as we have seen, are 
 not witnesses for the Trinity. The supremacy of the Father 
 was a doctrine of the Church when they were written, when- 
 ever it was. 
 
 In connection with the Apostles' Creed, we must say some- 
 thing of the "Apostolical Constitutions," including what are 
 called the " Canons of the Apostles." * We have no inten- 
 tion, however, of entering into any elaborate discussion on the 
 subject of their origin, history, and worth. We shall content 
 ourselves with the briefest possible notice. These, no more 
 than the creed, are to be ascribed to the Apostles as their 
 authors. 
 
 There is no notice of any production, under the title of 
 "Apostolical Constitutions," by any writer during the first three 
 centuries of the Christian era, nor until late in the fourth. 
 Epiphanius, who wrote during the latter part of the fourth 
 century, and died early in the fifth, is the first who names a 
 
 devotes a long article to the subject, which he concludes as follows : "And 
 thus, and for these purposes, may every Christian say, I believe that Christ 
 descended into hell " (pp. 340-380, ed. Lond., 1842). This he acknowledges 
 was the universal belief of the Christian Fathers ; on this point, — " Clirist's 
 local descent into the infernal parts, — " he says (p. 357), " they all agree." 
 
 * An edition of the " Constitutions " and " Canons " was published in New 
 Y'ork in 1848, with a " prize essay " on their " origin and contents," translated 
 from the German, by Irah Chase, D. D. 
 
APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS SPURIOUS. 325 
 
 work with this title. He quotes from what he calls the "Con- 
 stitution of the Apostles," — a composition, he says, which, 
 though held of doubtful authority by many, is not to be con- 
 demned, since it contains a true account of the ecclesiastical 
 discipline and laws. Eusebius and Athanasius, it is true, refer 
 to what they call the " Teachings " or " Doctrine " of the 
 Apostles ; and it has been thought by some, that under this 
 title they designated the work afterwards quoted by Epipha- 
 nius. But of this there is no decisive evidence, and their 
 identity is matter of conjecture merely. With the exception 
 of Epiphanius, if he be an exception, none of the distinguished 
 writers of the fourth century allude to the work ; and the 
 next mention we find of it is in what is known as the " Incom- 
 plete Work on Matthew," written after the death of Theodo- 
 sius the Great, and it may have been late in the fifth century. 
 This is all the external evidence relating to the existence of 
 such a work, found within the first five centuries ; and it is 
 not certain that our present " Constitutions " is the same work 
 quoted by Epiphanius. If substantially the same, it is very 
 clear that it has been interpolated, or has received additions, 
 or both, since his time. 
 
 The work claims to have the Apostles for its authors, and 
 is sent out in their name throug-h their "fellow -minister, 
 Clement." It begins thus : " The Apostles and elders to all 
 who from among the Gentiles have believed in the Lord Jesus 
 Christ : Grace and peace from Almighty God through our Lord 
 Jesus Christ," etc. In the fourth chapter of the eighth book, 
 we have these words : " Wherefore, we, the twelve Apostles of 
 the Lord, who are now together, give you in charge these our 
 ' Divine Constitutions ' concerning every ecclesiastical form ; 
 there being present with us Paul the chosen vessel, our fellow- 
 apostle, and James the bishop," etc. Again, " Now, this we 
 all in common proclaim," etc. But sometimes one of the 
 number speaks individually, thus: "I Peter," or "I Andrew," 
 " say "; " I who was beloved by the Lord," " I Philip," or 
 " I Bartholomew," " make this Constitution." And so of the 
 rest, each in turn speaking in his proper person. No one now, 
 however, thinks of attributing the work either to the Apostles 
 or to the Roman Clement. It is universally admitted to be 
 
326 THE apostles' creed. 
 
 spurious ; and so far as the form is concerned, is, in truth, a 
 very bunghng forgery. It was written after the hierarchical 
 principle began to develop itself, and had made some progress 
 in the Church ; and treats largely of ecclesiastical discipline, 
 forms, and observances ; not omitting, however, duties of prac- 
 tical morality. The first book, which is exceedingly brief, is 
 " Concerning the Laity "; the second, " Concerning Bishops, 
 Presbyters, and Deacons"; the third, "Concerning Widows"; 
 the subject of the fourth is " Orphans "; of the fifth, " Mar- 
 tyrs "; of the sixth, " Schisms "; the seventh is " Concerning 
 Deportment and the Eucharist, and Initiation into Christ "; 
 the eighth is " Concerning Gifts and Ordinations and Ecclesi- 
 astical Canons," and contains, as well as the seventh, various 
 prayers and liturgical services. 
 
 Rejecting the claim of the " Constitutions " to an apostolic 
 origin, we may observe, that, in the absence of all direct his- 
 torical testimony, their age is matter of conjecture, founded on 
 the character of their contents, which, though it precludes a 
 very early date, leaves room for no inconsiderable latitude of 
 opinion as to the precise period of their composition, if they were 
 not, as is probable, the growth of different periods. It is im- 
 possible to say positively even in what century they assumed 
 their present form. Several of the most eminent among the 
 earlier Catholic writers of modern times — as Bellarmine, 
 who takes notice of their rejection by the Trullan Council, 
 A. D. 092 ; Baronius, Cardinal du Perron, Petavius (Petau), 
 and others — have pronounced them spurious, though few of 
 them have undertaken to decide when or by whom they were 
 written. Petavius observes, that they are different from the 
 " Constitutions " of Epiphanius. Tillemont says, that they 
 were a fabrication of the sixth century. Others ascribe them 
 to the third or fourth. Du Pin thinks them not the same 
 work mentioned by Eusebius and Athanasius, and conjectures 
 tliat they " belong to the third, or rather the fourth century"; 
 but that they were " from time to time corrected, altered, and 
 Huo;mented, according to the various customs of different ages 
 and countries." Cotelerius expresses doubts whether they 
 were known to Epiphanius ; and, at all events, thinks them 
 interpolated and corrupted. 
 
APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS OF LATE OEIGIN. 327 
 
 The opinions of Protestants have been not less divei'se as 
 to the time of their composition. Blondel, without assigning 
 his reasons, places them late in the second century. William 
 Beveridge ascribes them to Clement of Alexandina, and not to 
 Clement of Rome, first mentioned as the author by the Trul- 
 lan Council above referred to. But Clement of Alexandria, 
 if he wrote them, must have stood self-condemned ; for the 
 " Constitutions " do not allow the reading of Heathen authors, 
 who constituted his favorite study, and with whom he prob- 
 ably was more familiar than any other man of his time. For 
 other reasons, we may pronounce the opinion, that he was the 
 author of the work, a very strange one, and wholly untenable. 
 Pearson regards it as a compilation, with alterations and addi- 
 tions, made up, after the age of Epiphanius, from writings 
 already in existence, some of them ancient. Grabe, in the 
 main, agrees with Pearson. On the other hand, Whiston de- 
 clares them to be the " most sacred of the canonical books of 
 the New Testament "; and says that their contents were 
 derived immediately from the Saviour, during the forty days 
 he passed with the Apostles, after his resurrection and first 
 ascension ; * and that the place of their delivery was Mount 
 Zion, whence the " Christian law was to proceed." Le Clerc 
 speaks of them as probably collected and enlarged at different 
 times from the practice of the churches ; though he seems to 
 favor the opinion of Thomas Bruno, or Brown, a canon of 
 Windsor, who makes the principal collector to be Leontius, an 
 Arian bishop of the fourth century. Spanheim places the 
 completion of the work at the end of the fifth century. Sam- 
 uel Basnage considers them as different from the " Constitu- 
 tions " of Epiphanius, and as originating at a subsequent 
 period. Ittig and Usher refer their origin to the fourth cen- 
 tury ; and Daille, who brought all his immense erudition to 
 bear on the question of their genuineness, and denies that they 
 were the same woi'k quoted by Epiphanius, or the work or 
 works referred to by Eusebius and Athanasius, contents him- 
 self with expressing the opinion, that they were written after 
 the Council of Nice, and before the end of the fifth century, 
 without attempting to be more definite. 
 
 * Whiston supposed that our Lord asccMided iiii mediately after his resurrec- 
 tion, and returned to instruct his Apostles during the forty days. 
 
828 THE apostles' creed. 
 
 Recent German critics are no more satisfactory. Thus 
 Schrockh ascribes the collection to the thii'd or fourth century ; 
 Starck, who supposes it to be made up of various materials 
 scattered here and there, makes it date from the fifth century ; 
 Neander thinks it grew up in the Oriental Church " out of 
 different pieces, whose ages extend from the latter part of 
 the second to the fifth century," being not identical with the 
 " Constitutions " of Epiphanius ; Schmidt assigns to it a later 
 origin ; Rosenmiiller will not undertake to settle the time ; 
 Augusti, as usual with him, does not trouble himself about the 
 precise date ; while Kestner discovers a " Christian confeder- 
 acy," at the head of which stood Clement of Rome, of which 
 the old "Apostolical Constitutions " were a sort of " statute- 
 book," in the place of which, the confederacy being dissolved 
 in the time of Epiphanius, the new " Constitutions " were 
 substituted. 
 
 Our readers will see by this time the little foundation there 
 is for any positive opinion on the subject of the authorship and 
 date of the "Constitutions." The "Canons" — of which 
 eighty-five appear in our present collection, a smaller number 
 in the older collections — are also of uncertain antiquity ; 
 though some of them, no doubt, describe the discipline and 
 usages of the church at an early period, and are older than the 
 " Constitutions." 
 
 The Arian complexion of the Constitutions generally has 
 been frequently commented upon. On this point, however, 
 we must discriminate. We will not undertake to say, that 
 they distinctly affirm the creation of the Son out of nothing, 
 or use other language exclusively Arian. But this, at least, 
 we may say with truth, that they uniformly assert the supremacy 
 of the Fathei', and the subordinate and derived nature of the 
 Son. Their testimony on these points is not casual and 
 isolated, thus pointing to interpolations by an Arian hand : it 
 interpenetrates their whole language, and cannot be torn away 
 without destroying their wliole texture and fabric. 
 
 In parts of them the creation of the world seems to be 
 ascribed directly to God ; in other parts and more frequently, 
 however, they represent the Son as his instrument in the crea- 
 tion. Thus : " Who by him didst make before all things the 
 
APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS NOT TEINITARIAN. 329 
 
 Cherubim and the Seraphim, the seons and hosts, the powers 
 and authorities, the principahties and thrones, the archangels 
 and angels ; and after all these didst by him make this visible 
 world and all things that are therein." This is from the eighth 
 book, generally supposed to be of later origin than the rest.* 
 Eternity proper is not ascribed to the Son, as the following 
 language clearly testifies. Thus : " It is meet and right be- 
 fore all things to sing a hymn to thee, who art the true God, 
 who art before all beings ; . . . . who didst bring all things 
 out of nothing into being through thine only-begotten Son, but 
 didst before all ages, by thy will, thy power, and thy goodness, 
 without any intermediate agent beget him, thy only-begotten 
 Son, God the Word, the living Wisdom," etc. Thus he had 
 an origin, God alone being unoriginate, the unbegotten God. 
 To " suppose that Jesus Christ himself is the God over all," 
 making him identical with the Father, the writer regards as 
 impious. f Christ, we are told, " doeth nothing of himself, but 
 doeth always those things which please the Father." J 
 
 Here are two distinct beings : one supreme, Infinite, " with- 
 out beginning, independent, and without a master," the other, 
 before the angels and <»ons, and God's instrument in making 
 them, being subject to his will, but having a beginning though 
 dating far back, before the ages, co-equality with God being 
 expressly excluded. This is the doctrine of the Constitutions. 
 
 In the seventh book the old form of ascription at the conclu- 
 sion of the prayers is retained, giving glory " to the Father, 
 through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit," when the Spirit- is 
 mentioned at all ; which furnishes an argument for the com- 
 parative antiquity of this portion of the Constitutions. In the 
 eighth book, to which, as we have said, is ascribed a later 
 origin, we still find the old doxology, but more generally glory 
 is ascribed to the Father along with the Son and the Spirit. 
 Thus the slow growth of the Trinity is visible. 
 
 Undoubtedly we meet in the volume many opinions and 
 usages which prevailed during and before the days of Origen. 
 But this is not inconsistent with the supposition, that it was 
 composed, or the pieces contained in it were collected much 
 later. With all the chano;es which were from timo to time 
 * Lib. viii. c. 12. t Lib. vi. c. 26. t Lib. ii. c. 26. 
 
330 THE apostles' ceeed. 
 
 creeping into the Church, many of her principles and customs, 
 especially those relating to worship and life, possessed a degree 
 of permanency ; remaining without alteration for considerable 
 periods. Parts of the woi*k undoubtedly belong to one period, 
 and parts to another. There is no necessity of referring it to 
 a single age or a single hand. It appears from its language to 
 be an accumulation from different ages, or was made up of 
 fragments belonging to different periods of the Church ; but we 
 find no trace of the Athanasian Trinity in any part of it. 
 
THE FATHERS AS EXPOSITORS. 331 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 The Fathers ks Expositors. — Change in the Meaning of Terms 
 AND Phrases. — Language of the Fathers. — Examples. — In what 
 Points the Trinity of the Fathers differed from the Modern. 
 — Testimony of the Learned. — Petavius, HnET, Prof. Stuart. — 
 The Fathers testify against each other. — Councils. — The 
 Athanasian Creed. 
 
 With the history of the Creed and " Constitutions " we 
 have now done. But, in this connection, we cannot forbear 
 alludino; to the rank claimed for the Fathers of the first four 
 centuries, from Irenaeus down to John Chrysostom, as con- 
 stituting the " best school for sacred scriptural interpretation." 
 For, sincerely as we venerate the piety of these old writers, 
 and the many noble traits of character they exhibited, worthy 
 of all admiration ; sensible as we are of the value of their 
 writings as repositories of facts we could derive from no other 
 source ; and highly as we esteem their labors and sacrifices, 
 by means of which Christianity triumphed over the polluted 
 and debasing superstitions of Paganism, — we had supposed 
 that the time had gone by when their expositions of Christian 
 truth and the Christian records would be appealed to as entitled 
 to any extraordinary respect. 
 
 Many of them were learned ; but few of them knew how to 
 apply their learning to any good purpose. With the exception 
 of Origen and Jerome, they were not versed in the original 
 language of the Old Testament, but relied on the faulty version 
 of the Seventy, to which they attributed a sort of inspiration. 
 Of the Arabic, the Syi'iac, and other languages (having an 
 affinity, greater or less, with the Hebrew, or useful in unlock- 
 ing sources of information tending; to throw light on Jewish 
 records and opinions), they were ignorant. The theology of 
 most of them exhibited a strange and unnatural union of 
 Christian doctrines with the philosophy taught in the Platonic 
 schools of Alexandria, the most worthless that ever tasked the 
 
iio2 THE apostles' CREED. 
 
 speculative intellect ; * and they were, almost without excep- 
 tion, addicted to the fanciful modes of interpretation, and 
 particularly the allegorizing spirit, which characterized the 
 same schools. There is no species of absurdity, in interpreta- 
 tion, reasoning, faith, or opinion, of which their writings do not 
 furnish abundant examples. But we are not about to discuss 
 the merits of the Fathers. We consider the question touching 
 their claims to respect, so far as the point under consideration 
 is concerned, as already fully settled in the several learned 
 treatises which have at different times appeared on the subject. 
 
 A topic of some importance, connected with reverence for 
 the Fathers as interpreters and guides, is the meaning of 
 terms. Much misapprehension and error, relating to the tenor 
 and spirit of the writings of Christian antiquity, have come 
 from inattention to the fact, tliat the force and signification of 
 terms and phrases perpetually change with time. The mean- 
 ing of language is in a state of continual mutation, while the 
 written letter remains unaltered. Words, it is well known, 
 are often retained long after the ideas originally conveyed by 
 them have disappeared or have become essentially modified. 
 This is especially the case, when the subject, about which 
 they are employed, is attended with any intrinsic obscurity. 
 
 The consequences of not attending to this fact are obvious. 
 Terms and expressions occur in an ancient writing, which, 
 according to their modern and obvious use with which habit 
 has rendered us familiar, suggest to our minds certain ideas, 
 or awaken a particular train of associations. Now, if we take 
 it for granted that these terms and expressions were connected 
 in the mind of the author of the writing with the same ideas 
 and associations (that is, that they were used by him in their 
 present and acquired sense), we shall be liable, it is evident, 
 perpetually to mistake his meaning. To take a comparatively 
 modern instance : the English word " worship," at the time 
 our present version of the Bible was made, was used to express 
 not only divine homage, but civil respect. This latter mean- 
 ing is nearly or quite obsolete. But the word bears this 
 
 * Worthless as a whole, though portions of it are elevated and surpassingly 
 beautiful ; as any one may discover who will look into Plotinus and writers 
 of that stamp. 
 
OLD TEEMS TAKEN IN A MODERN SENSE. 333 
 
 sense several times in our English Bibles, and frequently in 
 writings of the period to which the translation belongs, and 
 those of earlier date. It is easy to see into what blunders 
 a careless reader, or one acquainted only with the signification 
 of the term as now generally used, and not suspecting it of 
 ever bearing any other, who should sit down to read those 
 writings, would fall, in consequence of this ambiguity of the 
 term. 
 
 This is not the only circumstance which has been the occa- 
 sion of important misapprehensions of the language of the 
 Fathers. Their writings are attended with peculiar obscurity 
 in consequence of the intellectual habits and prevailing philo- 
 sophical systems of the period at which they were produced. 
 To ascertain an author's meaning with any tolerable exact- 
 ness, it is often necessary to know something of the modes of 
 thinking and feeling peculiar to his age. If he wrote on theo- 
 logical subjects, it is important to become acquainted with the 
 theological and philosophical opinions of his times, or those 
 which were current in the schools in which he was educated, 
 and among the class of writers whose works constituted his 
 favorite reading. 
 
 Now, as the early Fathers, generally, were educated in the 
 schools of the later Platonists, or were strongly tinctured with 
 the opinions of those schools, and borrowed from them several 
 terms, some of which they employed to express the most sub- 
 tile and obscure ideas which entered into their theology, some 
 acquaintance with the philosophy of the Alexandrian Platonists, 
 as well as with Jewish literature and opinions, becomes abso- 
 lutely necessary to a correct interpretation of their language. 
 We do not say that this is the only sort of learning necessary 
 to a right understanding of the Fathers : but this is indispen- 
 sable ; and, without it, all other is unavailing. 
 
 Several expressions in use among Trinitarians of the present 
 day occur in the writings of tlie Fathers of the second, third, 
 and fourth centuries. Modern writers, as it frequently hap- 
 pens, assume that these expressions were used by them in 
 their modern sense. If they will look a little deeper intc 
 Christian antiquity, they will find ample evidence that they 
 were employed by the Fathers in a sense widely different 
 from their present. 
 
334 THE apostles' creed. 
 
 Take the terms " one," or the " same." Nothing is sus- 
 ceptible of clearer proof, than that the Fathers, when they 
 speak of the Son as of one or the same nature with God, refer, 
 not to a numerical, but only to a specific sameness. All they 
 meant was, that the Son partook of one and the same specific 
 nature with the Father, — that is, a divine ; just as two indi- 
 viduals of our race partake of one and the same specific na- 
 ture, — that is, a human ; divine begetting divine, as human 
 begets human. They never regarded them as constituting 
 numerically one being. Modern Trinitarians use the term as 
 referring to a numerical identity. Of this the Fathers never 
 dreamed. They found no difficulty in calling the Son " God" ; 
 for, according to the prevailing views of the age, the term did 
 not necessarily imply self-existence. The Son was God, as 
 they explained it, in virtue of his birth, his derivation from 
 the Father ; the divine nature being transmitted. So Justin 
 Martyr, speaking of the Son, says, " Who, since he is the first- 
 begotten Logos of God, is God." 
 
 Another term employed in connection with the Trinity, and 
 the use of which tends to mislead, is hypostasis^ understood by 
 the moderns in the theological sense of person as distinguished 
 from substance, but uniformly, by the old Fathers, in the sense 
 of essence. Thus, when they call the Father and the Son 
 two hypostases, they mean two in essence ; that is, constituting 
 two real beings. 
 
 Again : the creed of Nice tells us that the Son is consub- 
 stantial, of the same substance with the Father. But this 
 term was used by the Fathers, not in its modern sense, but 
 in the old Platonic signification, to express, as we have said, 
 specific sameness of nature, sameness of kind, similarity, like- 
 ness. The Son was of like nature with the Father, not numer- 
 ically the same being. So the Fathers of Nice, as Eusebius 
 in Ids letter to his people tells us, understood the term. So it 
 was used by the Council of Chalcedon, if their language has 
 any consistency ; and so Athanasius himself, in his earlier 
 writings, distinctly explains it, taking the examples of a man 
 and a dog. One man, he tells us, is consubstantial with 
 another, and so is one dog ; but a dog and a man are not 
 consubstantial. 
 
LANGUAGE OF THE FATHSPvS MISINTERPRETED. 335 
 
 The epithet "eternal," sometimes apphed to the Son, was 
 ambiguous ; meaning, as the Fathers sometimes used it, simply 
 before the ivorld was, or having no reference to any specific 
 time. Whenever, in speaking of the San, they used it in its 
 strict sense, it was in reference to a notion generally enter- 
 tained by them, that the Son had, from all eternity, a sort of 
 potential existence in the Father ; that is, as an attribute ; * 
 his Logos, Reason, or Wisdom, Avhich, by a voluntary act of 
 the Father, was converted into a real being, and became his 
 instrument in forming the world. 
 
 Writers do not discriminate. They go on the supposition, 
 as we have said, that the langiaage, which occurs in the writ- 
 ings of the Fathers, respecting the Father, Son, and Spirit, 
 was uniformly employed by them in its modern and acquired 
 signification. 
 
 The current language (not occasionally an " unguarded 
 expression") of all the ante-Nicene Fathers, understood 
 according to correct principles of interpretation, shows that 
 they held the Son to be inferior to the Father, and a distinct 
 being from him ; and the Nicene Creed teaches no other 
 doctrine. 
 
 The confident assertion now sometimes made by Trinitari- 
 ans, that the early Fathers were sound on the subject of the 
 Trinity, will not do. The Trinity of the Fathers differed 
 from the modern doctrine in the following particulars. First, 
 as regards the Father and Son, they asserted, in the first 
 place, the real subordination and inferiority of the latter to- the 
 former in his whole nature. As a real person or individual 
 being, they did not, in the second place, hold the proper eter- 
 nity of the Son ; though they believed, that as an attribute or 
 property of the Father, which in their view he originally was, 
 he had always subsisted, since there never was a time when 
 the Father was without reason, wisdom, logos. In the third 
 place, they did not admit that the Son was numerically the 
 same being with the Father, but only of the same specific or 
 common nature, — that is, divine ; being not God himself, 
 
 * An attribute might be said to have a sort of potential self-subsistence or 
 personality, which became real by a voluntary act of the Father converting 
 it into a distinct self-conscious being. 
 
336 THE apostles' creed. 
 
 but, by birth and derivation, like him, as a human being is like 
 the parent, or of like nature with him ; in this sense, consub- 
 stantial. In regard to the Spirit, the difference was still 
 greater. 
 
 Of this disparity, admitted by learned Trinitarians, writers 
 frequently take no notice. Yet, until it can be disproved, it 
 is an abuse of language, a fallacy, a gross imposition, to affirm 
 that the Fathers bear uniform testimony to the Trinity. To 
 prove this, it is necessary to show, not merely that the expres- 
 sions still current on tlie subject are found in the writings of 
 the early Fathers, but that these expressions were used by 
 them in the sense they now bear among approved Trinita- 
 rians ; a task which has never yet been accomplished, and 
 never will be. 
 
 They who affirm that the early Fathers were not believers 
 in the Trinity, according to modern explanations of the doc- 
 trine, are sometimes charged with ignorance of Christian an- 
 tiquity. But let us see how this matter stands. Will any 
 one charge Petavius, author of the " Dogmata Theologica," 
 with ignorance of Christian antiquity ? Was Huet, Bishop 
 of Avranches, and author of the " Origeniana," ignorant ? 
 Was Cudworth ignorant ? Yet with these, and many others 
 we could name, — good Trinitarians too, — the asserter of the 
 orthodoxy of the Fathers, in the modern sense, will find him- 
 self directly at issue. 
 
 Petavius adduces a great mass of evidence to show that the 
 most distinguished of the Fathers, before the Council of Nice, 
 taught the inferiority of the Son to the Father, and of the 
 Spirit to the Son.* 
 
 " Certainly," says Huet, " Tatian, and an older than Tatlan, 
 — Justin, — taught erroneous views of the Trinity." The- 
 ophilus of Antioch, he says, " falls under the same censure." 
 With others it was still worse. " For," he continues, " things 
 shameful and not to be endured were tittered by Tertullian 
 and Lactantius, as also by Clement, Dionysius, and Pierius of 
 
 * See, particularly, De Trinitate, lib. i. cc. 3, 4, 5. Will any say, that Peta- 
 vius, as a Catholic, was interested in depressing the ancient Fathers, as the 
 Protestants made use of them in the Popish controversy 1 They must be 
 aware that this is not to refute him. 
 
STATEMENTS OF PROFESSOR STUART. 337 
 
 A-lexandria, and many others." When Bellarmine, he says 
 still further, " defends Origen on the ground, that (his pre- 
 ceptor Clement, and his disciples Dionysius of Alexandria and 
 Gregory Thaumaturgus, being sound and orthodox) we are 
 authorized to infer that the same doctrine which he received 
 from Clement he himself held and transmitted to his followers, 
 he could have said nothing more injurious to the cause of 
 Origen ; for no one of the three held the Trinity in its purity 
 and integrity. For Clement so distinguished between the 
 substance of the Father and that of the Son as to make the 
 latter inferior ; and Dionysius said the Son was a creation 
 (work) of the Father, and dissimilar to him ; and spake un- 
 becomingly of the Spirit, as we are told by Basil, who also 
 censures Gregory Thaumaturgus for teaching plainly that the 
 Son was created." " Finally," he says, " it is evident, that 
 not indeed in the days of Basil, and even in times more 
 recent, did the Catholics dare openly profess the divinity of 
 the Spirit."* 
 
 We might multiply quotations of a similar import from mod- 
 ern Trinitarian writers, whom it will not do to charge with 
 ignorance of Christian antiquity. The late Professor Stuart 
 made some statements on the subject, which, coming from 
 such a source, are worthy of notice. They occur in the arti- 
 cles on Schleiermacher, in the numbers of the " Biblical Re- 
 pository and Quarterly Observer " for April and July, 1835. 
 They are at variance with the professor's former statements 
 relating to the opinions of the early Fathers. He thinks them 
 more accurate, as they are the result of a more intimate ac- 
 quaintance with the writings of the Fathers. The views of 
 the Nicene Fathers, he tells us, " if he understands them," do 
 "really and effectually interfere with the true equality, in 
 substance, power, and glory, of the three persons, or distinc- 
 tions, in the Godhead." The Son and Spirit, he says, accord- 
 ing to them, are derived beings ; and derivation implies inferi- 
 ority. "A derived God," he says, " cannot be a self-existent 
 God." The numerical identity of the Father and Son, he 
 affirms, was not a doctrine of the ancient Fathers. " Justin," 
 he observes, " says in so many words that the Logos (Son) is 
 
 * Huet. Orig., lib. ii. c. ii. ; qusest. 2, § 10. 
 99 
 
338 THE apostles' creed. 
 
 different from the Father, and another in number.'''' In regard 
 to the unity and distinction of the Father and Son, lie says, 
 the "zeal of Origen led him to a theory in no important re- 
 spect better than that of Arius." " Such was the case, too, 
 with Eusebius the historian "; and " Dionysius names the Son 
 a creation and ivork of the Father." The Council of Nice, he 
 says, according to Athanasius, " did not mean to assert the 
 numerical unity of the Godhead "; and much more to the 
 same purpose. The result is, that the Fathers generally, 
 before and at the Council of Nice, asserted the Son to be 
 inferior to the Father, and numerically a being different from 
 him. 
 
 In regard to Origen, the great Alexandrian teacher, Pro- 
 fessor Stuart says, "Son and Spirit, according to him, have 
 their origin as hypostases in the free will of the Father : they 
 are subordinate to him, though they are the exact reflection 
 of his glory. The unity of the Godhead is a unity of will, a 
 harmony of design and operation ; not a numerical or substan- 
 tial unity, against which he strongly protests. ' The Father,' 
 says he, ' is the ground-cause or original source of all. Infe- 
 rior to the Father is the Son, who operates merely on rational 
 beings ; for he is second to the Father. Still more inferior is 
 the Holy Spirit, whose influence is limited to the Church. 
 The power of the Father, then, is greater than the power of 
 the Son and of the Spirit ; the power of the Son is greater 
 than that of the Holy Ghost ; and, lastly, the power of the 
 Holy Ghost is greater than that of all other beings.' " 
 
 So says Professor Stuart. He goes at large into an exami- 
 nation of the opinions of the ante-Nicene Fathers, and the 
 views at which he arrives, expressed in his clear and strong 
 style, fully sustain us in the statements made in the preceding 
 pages. Men far inferior to Professor Stuart in vigor of intel- 
 lect and patristic learning may hazard the assertion, that the 
 ante-Nicene Fathers and the early Church generally were 
 Trinitarian in the present sense of the term. It is a hardy 
 assertion, opposed to evidence written, as with a sunbeam, on 
 every page of Christian antiquity. 
 
 Several of the Fathers themselves roundly tax the more 
 ancient Fathers with unsoundness on the subject of the Trin- 
 
COUNCILS EEJECTING THE NICENE FAITH. 339 
 
 Ity. Origen is sometimes referred to as a witness for the 
 Trinity. We have seen what Huet and Professor Stuart 
 thought of him. Jerome thought no better ; for he accuses 
 him of asserting that the Son was "not begotten, but made."* 
 Basil the Great is quoted and extolled. But what was Basil's 
 opinion of the ante-Nicene Fathers ? What he says of Dio- 
 nysiiis and Gregory Thaumaturgus — authorities sometimes 
 used by Trinitarians — has been just quoted. Of Dionysius 
 he says further, that he " sowed the seeds of the Anomoean 
 [Arian] impiety ; for he not only made a diversity of persons 
 between the Father and the Son, but a difference of essence, 
 taking away their con substantiality." The same Basil admits 
 that the old Fathers were " silent " on the question of the 
 Spirit ; and says, that they who acknowledged its divinity, in 
 his day, were " condemned as introducing novel dogmas on 
 the subject." Rufinus accuses Clement of Alexandria of call- 
 ing the Son a " creature "; and Dionysius, he says, " in his 
 zeal against Sabellianism, fell into Arianism." 
 
 Such (and we might add to the number) are some of the 
 authorities among the Fatliers. Were these Fathers " igno- 
 rant of Christian antiquity " ? They were themselves ancient, 
 " primitive," according to the standard of antiquity sometimes 
 adopted. Have they, then, borne false witness of each othei 
 and of themselves ? This supposition is hardly consistent with 
 the title to exalted veneration so freely accorded to them.f 
 
 Let the appeal be made to councils. The Council held 
 at Antioch, a. d. 341, expressly declared against the Nicene 
 faith; rejected the term "consubstantial "; and in favor of 
 their own views, appealed to the testimony of antiquity. J The 
 term was rejected also from the creed of the third Council of 
 Sirmium, which, says Du Pin, is Arian, but which Hosius. 
 
 * Epist. 59, al. 94, ad Avitum. 
 
 t It is amusing to find one quoting Eusebius the historian as an undoubted 
 Trinitarian, and quoting, too, from his letter to his people from Nice; which, 
 if it is to be trusted (and it is confirmed in the main by the testimony of Ath- 
 masius), shows that neither Eusebius nor the council were Orthodox in the 
 modern sense of tlie term. Eusebius was in no good repute for orthodoxy 
 among the Fathers. "An Arian," says Athanasius ; the " prince of Arians,' 
 exclaims Jerome ; " an Arian, and worse than an Arian," adds Nicephorus. 
 
 % Soc, lib. ii. c. 10 ; Soz., lib. iii. c. 5. 
 
340 THE APOSTLES' CREED. 
 
 long one of the pillars of the Nicene faith, in an evil hour, as 
 the Orthodox will have it, signed. Still further, it was anath- 
 ematized by the Council of Philippopolis ; condemned by that of 
 Antioch, holden soon after ; by the fifth of Sirniium ; by those 
 of Seleucia and Ariminura (Rimini), and others. In regard 
 to the Council of Ariminum, we are told, that, notwithstanding 
 the efforts of the Arians, the " influence of the emperor, and 
 the apprehension of banishment and persecution," the four 
 hundred bishops assembled there " determined to adhere to 
 the Nicene Confession, and solemnly republished it as the 
 symbol of the Catholic faith." And yet, all this notwithstand- 
 ing, it is quite certain that these bishops generally, before the 
 council broke up, did recede from the determination, violate 
 their constancy, and sign a creed qf a very different import ; 
 being one recently drawn up at Sirmium, in opposition to the 
 Nicene symbol. Du Pin says that " all the bishops signed "; 
 and thus, says he, " ended this council, whose beginning was 
 glorious ; and end, deplorable." * 
 
 And yet the opponents of the Trinity are asked to " point 
 out only one council which adopted their sentiments." That 
 the Council of Rimini before its close, and others just named, 
 and more we might mention, rejected the Athanasian Trinity, 
 we want no better evidence than the fact, that they openly 
 declared against the Nicene Creed, and uniformly condemned 
 and rejected from their symbols the term " consubstantial," 
 which had been from the first exceedingly obnoxious to the 
 Arians, but which the Orthodox made the very watchword of 
 their party. True, the Arians believed in a sort of Trinity ; 
 and so do we : but not a Trinity in Unity ; nor did they. We 
 believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ; and so 
 did they : but we do not believe that these three are numeri- 
 cally one or equal ; nor did they or any of the ante-Nicene 
 Fathers. Though these Fathers held language respecting the 
 Father and the Son of which the Arians disapproved, they 
 stopped short, as we have before said, of the doctrine of the 
 numerical identity of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. 
 
 * Hist, of Eccles. Writers, vol. ii. p. 264. To the time of tlie above-men- 
 tioned council, Jerome refers, when he says, " The whole workl groaned to 
 find itself Arian." 
 
THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 341 
 
 We challenge any one to produce a single writer of any note, 
 during the first three ages, who held this doctrine in the mod- 
 ern sense. 
 
 We beg leave, however, to say, that we do not consider 
 the Athanasian Creed as evidence of the faith of primitive 
 antiquity, exactly. It is sometimes quoted as a genuine relic 
 of antiquity, and as really a production of Athanasius himself. 
 It is roundly asserted tliat it was "published at Rome, a. d. 
 340"! Of this there is not the least shadow of proof; the 
 statements of Baronius, and some other Romish writers of the 
 same stamp, being wholly unsupported. Neither Athanasius, 
 nor any writer of his own or of the next century, ever alludes 
 to it in any of their writings now extant. No mention of it 
 occurs of a date prior to the sixth centuiy, and some of the 
 writings in which we find the earliest allusions to it are of 
 doubtful genuineness. In regard to Athanasius, says Du Pin, 
 " all the world agrees 't was none of his, but some authors that 
 liv'd a longtime after him. ... 'T is certain that 't was compos'd 
 after the Council of Chalcedon," a. d. 451.* "That which 
 is called the Creed of Athanasius," says Bishop Tomline, 
 " was certainly not written by that Father. ... It was never 
 heard of till the sixth century, above a hundred years after the 
 death of Athanasius. ... It cannot now be ascertained who 
 was its real author: ... it had never the sanction of any 
 council."! It was " the composition," says Dr. Samuel 
 Clarke, " of an uncertain obscure author, written (not cer- 
 tainly known whether) in Greek or Latin, in one of the dark- 
 est and most ignorant ages of the Church." \ Bishop Pear- 
 son does not find it referred to before about the year 600. § 
 Hagenbach assigns the seventh century as the time of its gen- 
 eral adoption. II It has beeii ascribed to various authors; to 
 Vigilius of Tapsus, in Africa, towards the close of the fifth 
 century ; to Vincentius a monk of Lerins, also in the fifth 
 century ; to a Gallican bishop of the sixth century ; by Dr. 
 Waterland to Hilary of Aries, in the fifth century ; while 
 
 * Hist. Eccles. Writers, vol. ii. pp. 35, 36, ed. Lond., 1693. 
 
 t Elements of Christian Theology, vol. ii. p. 219. 
 
 X Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 447, ed. Lond., 1712. 
 
 § Exposition of the Creed, art. v. 
 
 y "Text-Book, etc., Second Period, § 97. 
 
342 THE apostles' creed. 
 
 Gieseler supposes that it originated in Spain, whence it was 
 carried into France. Dr. Stanley, in his history of the East- 
 em Church, speaks of the creed as a "hymn" — the "ancient 
 hymn, ' Quicumque vult.' " He says, " the learned world is 
 now aware that it is of French or Spanish origin." " I wish," 
 says Archbishop Tillotson, " we were well rid of it." 
 
HYMNOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Htmnology of the Ancient Church not Trinitarian. — Sing- 
 ing AMONG the Early Christians. — First Regular Choir. — Fla- 
 vian OF Antioch. — Ambrosk. — Gregory. — Hymns of the Primi- 
 tive Church Lost. — Earliest Writers of Hymns. — Bardesanes. 
 — Harmonius. — Ephrem. — Attempt of Paul of Samosata to re- 
 store THE Old Music and Hymns. 
 
 The hymnology of the early Church was clearly not Trini- 
 tarian. But, before we proceed to the subject of hymns, we 
 must say a few words on singing. Frequent notices of singing, 
 as forming part of the worship of the ancient Christians, occur 
 in the writings of the Fathers ; but the manner of conducting 
 it is wholly matter of conjecture and inference. It is certain 
 there could have been little art or refinement in the old sing- 
 ing. That musical taste should have been much cultivated 
 among the early believers, who had no temples or churches ; 
 who assembled for worship in private dwellings, and, in times 
 of persecution, in caverns, on shipboard, and in whatever 
 secure and sequestered place could be found, and often in the 
 night, — would be an unnatural supposition.* No doubt, their 
 
 * The time of the erection of tlie first Christian churches is unknown. 
 From Minutius Felix, who wrote early in the third century, it appears that 
 Christians in his time were reproaclied with having " neither temples nor 
 altars nor images " ; and they confessed the fact. At this time, therefore, 
 Christian churches could not have been very common. Yet there is reason 
 to believe that tliey began to be reared as early, at least, as the end of the 
 second century. If we could credit the Chronicle of Edessa, a Christian 
 church was destroyed in that place by an inundation, a. d. 202. This is the 
 first of which we have any express mention. Tertullian, who wrote about 
 the same period, seems to allude to places set apart for Christian worship {De 
 Idol., c.l \ De Corona Mil, c. 3). Tillemont (Hist. Eccles., t. iii. p. 120, ed. 
 Brux. 1732) finds the first mention of them, as known to the Heathen, in th« 
 
344 ANCIENT HYMNOLOGY. 
 
 music, like the rest of their worship, was simple and inartifi- 
 cial enough ; but it did not the less stir the soul for this reason. 
 The popular airs which become incorporated with the music 
 of a people are always simple, and are the more affecting for 
 being so. They are addressed to the feelings rather than to 
 the intellect ; and the feelings are always simple. In devo- 
 tion, the heart leads ; and it requires no intricate machinery 
 to put it in motion. Reasoning may be cold and artificial ; 
 but the charactei'istics of devotion are warmth and simplicity : 
 and, of these qualities, the ancient singing, we may suppose, 
 like much of that which stirred the heart of Germany in the 
 early days of the Reformation under Luther, and was again 
 revived by Wesley and his coadjutors, largely partook. It 
 touched the chord of devotion. There was in it the religious 
 element ; and to such music, we may add, — simple, earnest, 
 devout ; having some definite expression, some power of con- 
 centrating the thoughts and feelings, — the heart of man, as 
 man, will be ever faithful. 
 
 The first regular choir of singers of which we have any 
 distinct account is that of Antioch, some fifty years after the 
 Council of Nice. Flavian and Diodorus were priests of An- 
 tioch, both monks. The latter was at the head of the monas- 
 tic school in that place, and had Chrysostom for his pupil. 
 The former became Bishop of Antioch in the year 380. 
 Flavian generally has the credit of introducing the antiphonal 
 or responsive singing into the church there, though Theodoret 
 associates Diodorus with him. They were the first, Theodo- 
 ret says, who " divided the choir, and taught them to sing the 
 
 time of Maximin, a. d. 235. During the persecution under him, Origen says, 
 they were burned. It would seem that they began to be built in considerable 
 numbers about the middle of the third century. Near its close, during the 
 period which immediately ^'receded the persecution under Diocletian, a. d. 
 303, Christians long enjoyed a state of palmy prosperity ; and then edifices for 
 worship began to rise, marked by a splendor before unknown. " Christians," 
 says Eusebius (lib. viii. c. 1), "were no longer content with the old edifices, 
 but erected spacious churches, from the very foundation, throughout all the 
 cities." The " old edifices " here spoken of, no doubt, were the first churches 
 of the Christians; which, having stood fifty years or a little more, — about 
 as long as the first humble edifices of worship erected in this country by our 
 Puritan Fathers, — and being found dilapidated, or insufficient to accommo- 
 ;late the number of worshippers, or too mean to satisfy a growing taste for 
 .uxury and elegance, now yielded to more magnificent structures. 
 
SINGING AMONG THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS. 345 
 
 Psalms of David responsively. This custom," he adds, " which 
 they thus originated in Antioch, spread everywhere, even to 
 the very ends of the habitable world." * 
 
 The primitive mode of singing among Christians is supposed 
 to have been congregational ; the whole assembly (men, wo- 
 men, and children) uniting as with one voice. This mode was 
 undoubtedly practised ; and, being less artificial than the other, 
 was probably the mode most in use among the early Christians. 
 That the other mode did not originate with Flavian and 
 Diodorus, however, is evident from the fact, that it was in use 
 among the Jews. From them it passed into the Christian 
 Church through the Jewish converts, and was probably never 
 wholly laid aside. In fact, the expression employed by Pliny, 
 in his letter to Trajan, at the beginning of the second century, 
 shows that the hymns to which he refers were sung by alternate 
 voices. It was the changes and improvements introduced by 
 Flavian and Diodorus, who possessed a regular choir, which 
 they had trained to the use of this mode, however, which 
 brought it into notice, and contributed to give it currency in 
 the Church. 
 
 The story of Socrates (that old Ignatius borrowed the idea 
 of the alternate or responsive singing from a vision of angels 
 which was accorded him, and thence introduced it into his 
 church, from which " it was transmitted by tradition to all the 
 other churches ") would not be worth noticing, were it not 
 that it gives intimation of what we have just said, — that this 
 mode of singing did not originate with Flavian. f To this -we 
 may add, that Theodore of Mopsuestia, who was a disci})le of 
 Diodorus, says that he and Flavian only translated into Greek 
 a service wdiich had heretofore been performed in Syriac. 
 
 Ambrose, who became Bishop of Milan, a. d. 374, intro- 
 duced the antiphonic or responsive singing into the West. He 
 had it, as Augustine, his friend and admirer, says, J from the 
 East ; that is, from Antioch. He adopted it, says the same 
 writer, for the relief and refreshment it would afford the peo- 
 ple, who might thus be prevented from languishing and con- 
 suming away in a tedious sorrow. The Ambrosian chant 
 owed its origin to him. 
 
 * Hist., ii. 24. t Hist, vi. 8. 
 
 X Conf., lib. ix. cc. 6, 7. See also Paulinus's Life of Ambrose. 
 
346 ANCIENT HYMNOLOGY. 
 
 What improvements, if any, were introduced after the time 
 of Ambrose, and before the period of Gregory the Great, or 
 how the singing in the churches was conducted in the interval, 
 history does not inform us ; at least, we have been able to 
 glean nothing worth relating on the subject.* Gregory the 
 Great, the first pope of the name, was consecrated to the office 
 of Supreme Pontiff, A. D. 590, after having in vain attempted 
 to shun the honor ; to effect which, he had caused himself to 
 be conveyed out of the city in a basket, and had concealed 
 himself in a cave. After his elevation, however, though, as it 
 appears, of an infirm constitution, he devoted himself to the 
 duties of his office with great assiduity. Among other enter- 
 prises, he undertook to reform the music of his church. "Ec- 
 clesiastical writers," observes Dr. Burney, " seem unanimous 
 in allowing," that " he collected the musical .fragments of such 
 ancient hymns and psalms as the first Fathers of the Church 
 had approved and recommended to the primitive Christians ; 
 and that he selected, methodized, and arranged them in the 
 order which was long continued at Rome, and soon adopted by 
 the chief jDart of the Western Church." f We suppose he took 
 whatever had been in use among Christians of former ages, 
 which appeared suited to his purpose, without probably troub- 
 ling himself to inquire by whose authority it had been intro- 
 duced. He also reformed the chant, which, since the time of 
 Ambrose, had undergone very little alteration ; and introduced 
 what has since been known as the Gregorian, or plain chant. 
 He was opposed to the lively airs of the Pagan music, which 
 had come into the Church along with the lyric hymns ; and 
 attempted to substitute something more grave in its place. 
 Undoubtedly he laid the foundation for an improved style ; and 
 
 * The manner of conducting the singing appears to have varied in different 
 churches, and was sometimes made occasion of controversy. Basil, Bishop 
 of Cajsarea in Cappadocia tlie latter part of the fourth century, was accused 
 of innovating by causing the prayers of tlie Church to be sung. He said, in 
 reply, that he only adhered to the ancient custom of the Church, which pre- 
 vailed in Egypt, Libya, Phoenicia, Palestine, and Syria. In regard to the 
 prayers, it would not seem, from his own account, that he liad the whole 
 Bung ; but he mixed up the responsive singing with the prayers in a manner 
 not accordant with the simplicity of tlie primitive worship. 
 
 t History of Music, vol. ii. p. 15. See also Maimbourg's account, quoted by 
 Sir John Hawkins, History of Music, b. iii. c. 8 ; and Bayle, art. " Gregory." 
 
GREGORY. — THE OLDEST HYMNS. 347 
 
 deserves to be considered as a benefactor to sacred music, 
 however barbarous some of his changes may have been pro- 
 nounced at the time or since. If he simplified the music of the 
 Church in some respects, however, in others he was accused of 
 encumbering it. Some of his friends were disgusted with the 
 new forms he adopted, particularly his imitation of the customs 
 of the church of Constantinople. They disliked exceedingly 
 his frequent introduction of " hallelujahs," with various ascrip- 
 tions, invocations, and phrases, to which their ears had been 
 heretofore unaccustomed ; the repetition of the Lord's Prayer, 
 and other innovations, as they termed them. In favor of most 
 of his changes, he contrived to allege some pretence of antiquity, 
 particularly the repetition of " hallelujahs," which, he says, 
 Jerome took from the church of Jerusalem, and brought to 
 Rome in the time of Pope Damasus, in the fourth century. 
 
 It is asserted on the authority of John, a deacon of Rome, 
 who wrote his Life, that the original Antiphonarium, or Choral 
 Book, of Gregory, was in existence in his time, near three 
 hundred years after Gregory's death ; as also the bed on which 
 the old invalid pope lay, and the whip " wherewith he threat- 
 ened the young clerks and the singing-boys, when they were 
 out, or failed in the notes " : for he instituted a school for the 
 education of his choir, and, it seems, did not consider it as 
 derogating from the dignity of his office to superintend it in 
 person. 
 
 But what account is to be given of the old hymns and their 
 writers ? The hymns of the ancient Church, properly so called, 
 have not been preserved. We sometimes hear of the hymns 
 of the " primitive Church "; but no such hymns are now known 
 to be extant. The term " primitive," as applied to hymns, is 
 as inappropriate as when applied to the Apostles' Creed. The 
 psalmody of the Old Testament, or compositions founded upon 
 it, were used ; for which the songs of Zacharias, Mary, and 
 Simeon, as preserved in Luke's Gospel, furnished a precedent. 
 Some sublime and lyric expressions from the New Testament 
 might very naturally enter into these compositions. In addition 
 to these, the old believers had what were called " Hymns of 
 the Brethren," because composed by them ; but these latter 
 have long since perished. We find no mention of any writer 
 
348 ANCIENT HYMNOLOGY. 
 
 of hymns, by name, till near the expiration of the second 
 century from the birth of Christ ; and have no remains of the 
 hymns, strictly so called, used during that period ; nor do we 
 know anything of their nature, except what Pliny, referring 
 to his own time, tells us, in his well-known letter to Trajan, — 
 that they were sung in honor of Christ. Origen, too, says 
 that Christians were accustomed to sing hymns to God and to 
 his only Son, as the Pagans to the sun, moon, and stars ; and 
 others have expressed themselves in similar general terms. 
 The author of a work against the heresy of Artemon, quoted 
 by Eusebius, though his name was unknown to the historian, 
 appeals to the " Psalms and Hymns of the Brethren, written, 
 at the beginning, by the faithful," and " setting forth the 
 praises of Christ, the Word of God, ascribing divinity to him 
 (^eoAoyowres)," * but not the highest divinity. This the word 
 or phrase does not imply ; nor does the belief of Christians of 
 the time and their usages of speech justify such an interpre- 
 tation of it.f The work just referred to is now attributed 
 to Hippolytus. The writers of the hymns, however, are not 
 named by him ; and no fragment of the hymns is left us. 
 
 The statements above given, relating to the loss of the 
 hymns, properly so called, of the primitive Church, are con- 
 firmed by the researches of the learned Bunsen, the results of 
 which have been recently published. He gives three specimens 
 of what he calls " genuine relics of ancient congregational or 
 domestic hymnology." 
 
 " Glory be to God on high ; 
 And on earth, peace," &c., — 
 
 is one of them ; called by Bunsen " the Hymn of Thanksgiv- 
 ing, or the Morning Hymn of the Early Church "; the same, 
 he thinks, alluded to by Pliny. It is lyric in its structure, 
 though without any trace of metre. Bunsen gives it in what 
 he considers its ancient form, which is much briefer and simpler 
 than its present. The time of its composition is unknown, 
 though Bunsen places it in its simpler form among the ante- 
 
 * Euseb. Hist, v. 28. 
 
 t Pliny's phrase (quasi Deo) is sometimes rendered, " as to God." This 
 is unauthorized. The Latin does not imply so much ; nor would a Roman 
 have so understood it. The Earl of Orrery translates it correctly, " as to a 
 God." — Letters of Pliny the Younger, x. 97, Lond. 1761. 
 
EARLIEST WEITERS OF HYMNS. 349 
 
 Nicene documents. The other two are made up almost ex- 
 clusivelj of verses from the Psalms ; or, as Bunsen expresses 
 it, are " a cento of verses and hemistichs of psalms." They 
 are what are called morning and evening " Psalmodic Hymns," 
 though the Apostolical Constitutions give the song of Simeon 
 as an evening hymn. These, Bunsen says, " are all the au- 
 thentic and genuine remains we possess of the ante-Nicene 
 psalmody and hymnology of Christendom, as far as it adopted 
 the Hebrew form." "But we have," he says, "at least, one 
 composition of Hellenic source," sometimes called the " Hymn 
 of the Kindling of the Lamp." This is old, no doubt ; but 
 the date of its composition cannot be assigned. Bunsen gives 
 it as the " Evening Hymn of the Greek Christians." It begins, 
 " Serene Light of holy glory." Such is the result of Bunsen'.s 
 antiquarian researches on this subject.* 
 
 The earliest writers of hymns, whose names ai-e preserved, 
 belonged to the Syrian Church. The first of any note is 
 Bardesanes, the heresiarch ; a subtle, learned, and eloquent 
 writer, near the end of the second century. He is said, on 
 the authority of Ephrem the Syrian, to have written one 
 hundred and fifty psalms or hymns, in elegant verse, in imita- 
 tion of the Psalms of David ; which contributed greatly to the 
 diffusion of his errors. He corrupted the faith of the young in 
 particular, says Ephrem, by the " sweetness and beauty of his 
 verses." Harmonius, his son, inherited his father's genius for 
 poetry ; and, after his example, composed a great number of 
 hymns and odes adapted to the lyre, by which he charmed .the 
 ears of the people. From these sources, the Syrians eagerly 
 drank in the poison of heresy. Unfortunately, however, the 
 hymns are lost ; and we have no means, therefore, of ascer- 
 taining how far the praises bestowed on them were deserved.f 
 The infusion of heresy they contained, it appears, caused them 
 to be proscribed ; and, no doubt, hastened their destruction. 
 They must have been in use, however, among the Syrians, for 
 a century, or a century and a half ; for they retained their 
 
 * Analecta Ante-Niccena, vol. iii. pp. 86-89 ; Christianity and Mankind,vol.YV. 
 See also Hippolytus and his Age, vol. ii. pp. 50-52, and 98-102. 
 
 t See Sozomen, lib. iii. c. 16 ; Beausobre, Hist. deManichee et du Manicheisme, 
 t. ii. p. 140 ; also Bardesanes Gnosticus Sjjrorum Primus Hymnologus, by Hahn, 
 Lips. 1819. 
 
350 ANCIENT HYMNOLOGY. 
 
 popularity in the time of Ephrem the Syrian, above alluded to, 
 who flourished about A. d. 370, and whose writings were in 
 such esteem, says Jerome, tliat they were sometimes read in 
 the churches after the Scriptures. 
 
 Ephrem wrote hymns and odes by thousands. He diligently 
 studied the poetical productions of Bardesanes and Harmonius, 
 who were his models, and whose sweetness he attempted to 
 emulate, in the hope of inducing his countrymen to lay aside 
 those pernicious compositions, and sing his own more orthodox 
 lays.* Many of his hymns were, of necessity, of a controver- 
 sial character. His design was to set the Eastern world right, 
 on certain points of doctrine, in regard to which the above- 
 named writers had led it astray. He succeeded in excluding 
 their hymns, and causing his own to be substituted in their 
 place. Their beauty was much vaunted by the Syrians ; and 
 they are said to be used in their churches to the present day. 
 Multitudes of his hymns, or hymns attributed to him, on vari- 
 ous incidents in our Saviour's histoiy and life, his passion, 
 resurrection, and ascension, on the dead, and in celebration of 
 the martyrs, and on other subjects, are still preserved among 
 his works. But whatever sweetness they possessed, or may 
 possess, to the Syrian ear, modern lovers of poetry among us, 
 we fear, will find in them few charms. Their sweetness, like 
 some subtile perfume, seems to have evaporated with time.f 
 
 The connection of Ephrem with Bardesanes has led us to 
 anticipate a little. Returning to the beginning of the third 
 century, it is only necessary to mention a hymn ])rinted with 
 the writings of Clement of Alexandria, and by some attrib- 
 uted to him. It is of uncertain authorship, however ; and is 
 a hymn of a very ordinary character. $ Beryllus, bishop of 
 
 * Soz., iii. 16 ; Tlieod., iv, 29. See also Asseman. Biblloth. Orient., t. i. 
 art. " Eplirem," who was called the Prophet of the Sj-rians, and Harp of the 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
 t A selection of them has recently been published in Germany, with a 
 glossary for the use of students, in Syriac, under the following title : " Chres- 
 tomathia S^Tiaca, sive S. Ephr^mi Carmina Selecta. Edidcruiit Notis criticis 
 philologicis historicis et Glossario locupletissimo illustraverunt Augustus Hahn 
 <3t Fr. Ludovicus SietTert." Lipsise, 1825. 
 
 X See Fabricius, Biblloth. Grcec, lib. v. c. 1. Fabricius gives two liymns, 
 reported to be ancient, the autliors of which are not known. We pass over 
 two or three Syriac writers about the time of Bardesanes, or a little later, aa 
 not of sufficient importance to require notice. 
 
HYMNOLOGISTS OF THE THIRD CENTURY. 351 
 
 Bostra in Arabia, was a writer of hymns. Passing by Hippo- 
 lytus, who wrote odes on the Scriptures, which are lost, and 
 Athenogenes the martyr, who is reported by Basil to have 
 been the author of a hymn, which he delivered to the by- 
 standers at the moment of his deatli, and which is also lost, we 
 next come to Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, who flourished a 
 little before the middle of the third century. Nepos wrote a 
 treatise on the millennium ; in reply to which, Dionysius of 
 Alexandria, in a passage preserved by Eusebius,* and written 
 after the death of Nepos, speaks of him with affection, and 
 mentions, among his other merits, that he composed " much 
 psalmody," with which many of the brethren continued to be 
 delighted. The character of his productions, however, is 
 matter of conjecture ; no fragment of them having been 
 preserved. 
 
 We come next to the famous Paul of Samosata. Of Paul 
 we know little, except from tlie representations of his enemies, 
 which are to be listened to with great distrust. That he en- 
 joyed the friendship of Zenobia, the celebrated Queen of Pal- 
 myra, and found an unrelenting foe in Aurelian, the murderer 
 of Longinus, is certainly no discredit to him. That he was 
 too fond of pomp and display, and in otlier respects exhibited 
 an inordinate vanity, is not to be doubted. To his many 
 popular qualities and eminent gifts of intellect, he added the 
 zeal of a reformer ; Avhich, after all, we suspect, was his great 
 crime in the eye of the bishops, — an offence they could never 
 forgive. He contended for what he regarded as the ancient 
 simplicity of the doctrine of Christ. He undertook also to 
 reform the psalmody of his church ; abolishing the psalms and 
 hymns then in use, as " recent, and the compositions of modern 
 men." It is added, that, on a certain occasion, — the festival 
 of Easter, — he "appointed women to sing psalms in his own 
 commendation in the body of the church." But this, it must 
 be recollected, is the charge of his enemies ; and is to be taken, 
 it may be presumed, with some grains of allowance. As none 
 of the hymns alluded to remain, we cannot judge of their 
 import for ourselves. It can hardly be supposed, however, 
 that one, zealous, as was Paul, to restore the old doctrine and 
 * Hist., vii. 24. 
 
352 ANCIENT HTMNOLOGY. 
 
 old music ; who rejected the hymns in use in his church, on 
 the ground that they were novel, and, as we may suppose, in 
 his opinion, inculcated sentiments at variance with the ancient 
 faith, — would be guilty of all the innovations and extravagance 
 attributed to him.* 
 
 * See Letter of the Bishops, Euseb. Hist., vii. 30. 
 
A.RIUS AND OTHERS, "WRITERS OF HYMNS. — THE " TE DEUM." 353 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Arius and Others, Writers op Htmns. — The "Te Decm." — Pru- 
 DENTiDS. — The Poetical Fathers. — Nocturnal Street-Singing 
 AT Constantinople. — Council of Laodicea attempts to regulate 
 Church Music. — Simplicity of the Ancient Doxologt. — No 
 Trace of the Trinity. 
 
 Among other hymnologlsts wliose names have come down 
 to us, though not belonging to a very early period of the 
 Church, it is sufficient to mention Arius and his contempo- 
 rary Juvencus, the hymns of both of whom have perished ; 
 and Hilary of Poictiers, who is said by Jerome to have writ- 
 ten a " book " of hymns, which, however, has fared no better 
 than the productions of his predecessors. Envious time has 
 devoured all. 
 
 We must pause a moment over the name of Ambrose, Avho 
 also wrote several hymns ; among which Augustine mentions 
 the " Deus Creator Omnium." * The others, which some- 
 times go under his name, and some of which are found in the 
 Breviaries, are of uncertain authorship. f 
 
 * Conf., lib. X. c. 12. 
 
 t Tlie tradition whicli makes the " Te Deum Laudamus " the joint produc- 
 tion of Ambrose and Augustine, first sung by tliem at the baptism of the lat- 
 ter by Ambrose, or which asserts (for sucli is one version of the story) that it 
 was received by Augustine, while at the font, as the effect of sudden inspira- 
 tion, has been long exploded. By common consent of critics, it is referred to' 
 a later age. Archbishop Usher states some reasons for ascribing it to Nice- 
 tius, Bishop of Treves, a hundred years after Augustine's death, or to another 
 of the same name ; though some fragments of old hymns may have entered 
 into its composition. (De Symbolis, p. 3. See also Bingham, Antiquities of the 
 Ckristian Church, b. xiv. ch. ii. § 9 ; and Tentzel, referred to by Le Clerc ; 
 Biblioth. Univ. etHist., t. xxv. p. 67.) " lUic apostolorum gloriosus chorus, illic 
 prophetarum exsultantium numerus, illic martyrum innumerabilis populus ob 
 certaminis et passionis victoriam coronatus," etc., occurs in Cyprian, who 
 wrote in the former part of the third century (De Mortalitate, ad fin.). 
 
 Augustine, though no poet, yet occasionally, it seems, tried his hand at 
 writing Iiymns. He has one on the Donatist controversy. Gray, the poet, 
 quotes some jingling lines of Augustine, in which rhyme occurs in the middle 
 of the verse, to show that ihyming verses were known in the Church as early 
 
354 ANCIENT HYMNOLOGY. 
 
 We must add a few words on Prudentius, the best known 
 and most esteemed of the earlier Chi*istian poets. The ex- 
 travagant praise bestowed on him by some of the old ecclesi- 
 astical writers, however, is only, proof of the dearth of good 
 poetry in the Church. 
 
 Prudentius was a Spaniard, born in 348. In his youth he 
 applied himself to the study of eloquence. He afterwards 
 became an advocate ; and having passed through several offices 
 of honor and trust, both civil and military, he finally renounced 
 secular employments, and devoted his last days to the writing 
 of verses, in which he sung the praises of Christ and the mar- 
 tyrs, and vigorously combated heretics and pagans. But 
 either he was not born for a poet, or age had eftectually ex- 
 tinguished his imagination and fire before he sought the society 
 of the Muses. His productions, in truth, exhibit a very mod- 
 erate share of poetic genius, and retain strong traces of the 
 degenerate taste of the day. His versification is negligent, 
 prosaic, and often harsh ; he is not sufficiently attentive to 
 quantity ; and, in his general style, he gives evidence that he 
 had not made the models of classical antiquity his study. 
 
 But, however inferior may be his merit as a poet, his pro- 
 ductions contain frequent allusions to the opinions and usages 
 of Christians of his time, which render them not without value 
 as sources of history. 
 
 There have been several editions of his works. A beauti- 
 ful edition, printed at Rome in 1788, in two quarto volumes, 
 contains, besides his larger poems, twenty-six hymns, part of 
 them designed for daily use, and part on the " Crowns of the 
 Martyrs," especially those of his own nation. These hymns 
 vary in length, from one hundred to eleven hundred verses. 
 Though apparently not designed for chux-ch service, portions 
 of them were from time to time introduced into the Brev- 
 iaries, particularly the Spanish. They are written in differ- 
 ent metres, partly lyric and partly heroic. 
 
 The humanity of the poet appears in some sentiments he 
 has incidentally thrown out ; as, that the number of the im- 
 
 %B about A. D. 420. The most ancient instance of rhyming, however, he ob- 
 serves, after Sir William Temple, is that of the Emperor Adrian, a. d. 137. 
 (Gray's Works, by Mathias, vol. ii. p. 31.) For some remarks on the early 
 jse of rhyme, see also Buckle's History of Civilization in England, vol. i. p. 213, 
 9d. New York, 1868. 
 
PRUDENTIUS. 355 
 
 pious who will be suffered finally to perish are few, and the 
 damned find occasional respite from their pains, being allowed 
 one holyday each year, or night rather, — that on which 
 Christ left the region of Hades.* The sentiments of the Fa- 
 thers touching the state of the dead, indeed, were, as it is well 
 known, various. Even Augustine believed that souls in hell 
 had, at times, some relaxation of their sufferings. Origen 
 contrived, finally, to save even the Devil ; and there is not an 
 opinion so extravagant, that an advocate for it may not be 
 found among the old Fathers of the Church. 
 
 At the close of the poem called " Hamartigenia," or " Birth 
 of Sin," we find a somewhat singular prayer of Prudentius, 
 which has given offence to some, as savoring of impiety. It 
 certainly savors of modesty ; but we see nothing impious in it. 
 He prays, that, when he shall die, he may see no fierce and 
 truculent Devil, terrible by his menacing looks and voice, who 
 shall immure his soul in dark caverns till he shall exact to the 
 uttermost farthino; the debt due for the sins of his whole life. 
 He aspires not to a seat among the happy. It is sufiicient for 
 him, he says, if he behold the face of no infernal demon, and 
 the fires of insatiate Gehenna devour not his soul, plunged 
 into its lowest furnaces. He consents, he says, since a cor- 
 rupt nature requires it, that the dismal fires of Avernus shall 
 receive him : only, says he, let their heat be moderated ; let 
 them not glow with too intense an ardor. Let others have 
 their temples adorned with glorious crowns, and dwell in 
 regions of purest light : only let it be ray punishment to be 
 gently burned. f 
 
 It does not appear whether Prudentius expected these fires 
 to be temporary, or such as Avere afterwards known under the 
 name of fires of purgatory ; or whether what he meant to say 
 was, that he should be satisfied to be moderately scorched 
 through eternity. In either case, the prayer is a very humble 
 one ; though, as we said, we see no impiety in it. But, in 
 truth, Prudentius, by his own confession, had, in his youth, 
 led a very wicked life.ij: 
 
 * It has puzzled commentators sadly to determine, whether the spirits here 
 referred to are spirits of the damned, or those only in purgatory, 
 t Hamart., ver. 931 et seqq. 
 X See Prooem. Operum, in which he has given a short account of his life. 
 
356 ANCIENT HYMNOLOGY. 
 
 Prudentius had numerous imitators, whose names have long 
 ago sunk into obscurity ; if, indeed, they can be said ever to 
 have emerged from it ; and, in the destruction of their works, 
 the world has probably sustained but trifling loss.* 
 
 An instance of the use of doctrinal hymns occurs about the 
 time of Prudentivis. The story is related by the two histori- 
 ans Socrates and Sozomen.f The Arians of Constantinople, 
 then a powerful party, being deprived of their churches within 
 the city, were in the habit, on solemn festivals and on the first 
 and last days of the week, of meeting together about the pub- 
 lic piazzas, and there singing their responsive hymns.. They 
 then took their way to their places of worship, which were 
 without the walls of the city, so perambulating the streets, and 
 passing the greater part of the night there, all the while 
 chanting their Arian hymns, much to the annoyance of Ortho- 
 dox ears, which could not endure to hear such expressions as 
 the following : " Where are they who affirm that three are 
 one power ? " which frequently resounded through the noc- 
 turnal air. The annoyance was not all. The faitliful, it was 
 feared, might be drawn away by the seductions of heretical 
 
 * In the notice above taken of the writers of ancient hymns, we have men- 
 tioned most of the poetical Fathers, as they may be called. There are a few 
 others, however, who maj' be entitled to notice. Lactantius, who died about 
 the year 325, or between 325 and 330, is mentioned by Jerome as the author 
 of some poems ; and three or four attributed to him are still inserted in the 
 volumes of his works. But they are, to say the least, of doubtful genuine- 
 ness, and probably belong to some other writer or writers. They are short, 
 and of little value. Fritzsche inserts them in his edition of the works of Lac- 
 tantius, Leips. 1844, in his preface giving the authorities for and against their 
 genuineness. (Gersdorfs Biblioth. Pair. Lat., vol. xi.) In the same century, a 
 little later, we have Apollinaris and his son, who, when the Emperor Julian 
 (a. d. 362) prohibited Christians from reading the classical books of the an- 
 cients, undertook to furnish what were called Christian classics : the one 
 translating the Pentateuch into heroic verse, in imitation of Homer, and form- 
 ing the rest of the Old Testament into comedies, tragedies, and odes, in imi- 
 tation of Pindar, Euripides, and Menander; and the other taking the New 
 Testament, which he transformed. Gospels, Epistles, and all, into dialogues, 
 after the manner of Plato. Damasus, too, Bisliop of Rome, about the same 
 time, was the author of some worthless verses. Gregory Nazianzen, who 
 died A. D. 398, left a large number of poems, mostly the fruits of his old age. 
 In one of them, he gives an account of his own life. Another is entitled "A 
 Farewell to the Devil." Mrs. Jameson pronounces his poems " beautiful "; 
 but how she is to be understood when she calls him the " earliest Christian 
 poet on record," it is difficult to say. 
 
 t See, lib. vi. c. 8 ; Soz., lib. viii. c. 8. 
 
COUNCIL OF LAODICEA ATTEMPTS REFORM. 357 
 
 music. Chrysostom, tlien Bishop of Constantinople, was 
 alarmed ; and not tliinking it prudent, in so dangerous a crisis, 
 to rely exclusively on the charms of his eloquence, he resolved 
 to combat the heretics with their own weapons. He conse- 
 quently instituted musical processions, attended with great 
 pomp and show ; his choir traversing the streets, shouting 
 their homoousian hymns in the ear of night, preceded by per- 
 sons bearing aloft silver crosses, surmounted by lighted waxen 
 tapers, which the Golden-mouthed had invented, the Empress 
 Eudoxia defraying the expense. The result was such as 
 might have been anticipated. Discord ensued. The hostile 
 parties came into collision, and an affray took place in the 
 streets, during which several lives were lost, and the empress's 
 eunuch, Briso, who had acted in the capacity of singing-master 
 to the Orthodox choir, received a wound in his forehead. The 
 emperor, incensed in consequence, prohibited the Arians from 
 singing their hymns any more in public. 
 
 The subject of hymns and singing engaged occasionally the 
 attention of councils. One instance of the kind we recollect, 
 not far fi'om the time at which the events just related occurred. 
 We refer to the Council of Laodicea. This council, in its fifty- 
 ninth canon, prohibits the use of priv^ate psalms in churches, 
 as well as the reading of all luicanonical books of the Old and 
 New Testament. Some irreoularities and extravagances must 
 have given rise to a recrulation of this sort. It would be con- 
 struing the canon too rigorously, we think, to suppose, with 
 some, that it was intended to exclude the use of all psalms, 
 except those taken from the Bible, and which were distinguished 
 from private, as being derived from inspiration ; for psalms oi 
 hymns. " M'ritten by the brethren," were in use, as we have 
 seen, from the first. It was probably meant to exclude those 
 only which had not received some public sanction ; as that of 
 the congregation, or perhaps of the bishops, whose power and 
 prerogatives were now rapidly increasing. Of this we have 
 evidence in the thirteenth canon of the same council, which 
 ordains that the " choice of bishops shall not be left wholly to 
 the people," — a regulation which clearly shows that the peo- 
 ple had hitherto been accustomed to elect their bishops, as they 
 had been, no doubt, to use their discretion in regard to the 
 hjnnns. But this point we do not now discuss. 
 
358 ANCIENT HYMNOLOGY. 
 
 This liberty enjoyed by congregations or churches or choirs, 
 or others who had control of the psalmody, it was thought, 
 had been abused ; and complaints were uttered that " ecclesi- 
 astical music had taken too artificial and theatrical a direction." 
 " We find," says Neander, " the Egyptian abbot Pambo, in 
 the fourth century, inveighing against the introduction of 
 Heathen melodies into church psalmody ; and the abbot Isidore 
 of Pelusium complaining of the theatrical style of singing, 
 particularly among the women, which, instead of exciting 
 emotions of penitence, served rather to awaken sinful passions." 
 Pambo, speaking of the too artificial church music of Alex- 
 andria, says, " The monks have not retired into the desert to 
 sing beautiful melodies, and move hands and feet." Jerome, 
 too, condemns the use of " theatrical songs and melodies " in 
 the church.* 
 
 After this slight sketch, it will appear on how frail a foun- 
 dation any collection purporting to give the hymns of the 
 primitive Church must rest. There are not half a dozen 
 hymns, we will venture to say, in existence, — certainly not 
 in the Western Church, — which can be traced back to the 
 time of the Council of Nice (a. d. 325), or to within about 
 half a century of that time.f Some of the doxologies, or 
 scraps of doxologies, and ascriptions, belong, as we have seen, 
 to an earlier period ; though their original form has not, in all 
 instances, been retained. 
 
 The testimony afforded by the old doxologies to the sim- 
 plicity of the ancient faith, especially to the supremacy of the 
 Father and the distinct and subordinate nature of the Son, and 
 to the Spirit as a ministration, we regard as of great weight. 
 They are probably the primitive doxologies. Short, simple, 
 incorporated with the general sentiment, and entering into 
 
 * Hist, of the Christ. Relig. and Church, vol. ii. p. 318. 
 
 t If we except the hymns of Ephrem, — the use of which has, we suppose, 
 been confined wholly or cliiefly to the Eastern Church, — we might add another 
 century ; at the expiration of which, or soon after, we find Prudentius. His 
 hymns, as we have said, were not designed for church service, though parts 
 of some of them found their way into the Breviaries. Most of the Roman 
 hymns are of far more recent origin than the time of Prudentius, or even of 
 Gregory ; and few of them, it is presumed, can now be traced to their authors. 
 There are said to be many ineditcd hymns deposited in the Vatican Library 
 find in other places ; but none of them, probably, are very ancient (see Halm's 
 Chrestom. Syriaca, before referred to, Pref., p. viii.}. 
 
ANCIENT HYMNOLOGY NOT TRINITARIAN. 359 
 
 almost every act of worship, the doxologies of Christians were 
 little liable to change, and would naturally retain their original 
 form, even after that form should begin to conflict with the 
 doctrines and expositions embraced by speculative minds. In 
 these doxologies, it is clear, is contained the old faith, — the 
 primitive theology of the Church ; and their language is as 
 decidedly opposed to the Trinity as any language can be. 
 
 The hymnology of the ancient Church, so far as it is known 
 to us, certainly furnishes no support to the Athanasian doc- 
 trine of the Trinity. The testimony of Pliny, that the Chris- 
 tians of his day sang their morning hymn to Christ as to God, 
 or a God, coming from one educated in a belief of Heathen 
 mythology, is nothing to the point. The fragments of Hebrew 
 psalmody or hymnology, given by Bunsen as ante-Nicene, the 
 Trisagion, or " Thrice Holy," and other scriptural phraseology 
 used in chants or ascriptions, are not Trinitarian. Flavian of 
 Antioch, who has been already mentioned as introducing the 
 responsive singing there at the end of the fourth century, 
 further innovated by using as a doxology the words, " Glory 
 be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit " , 
 language, before that time, wholly unknown. The oldest 
 hymns extant contain no Trinitarian doxology. When such 
 a doxology is found at the end of any of them, we know that 
 this part of the hymn is comparatively modern ; of which, ex- 
 amples enough might be given, were it worth while. 
 
ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE 
 TRINITY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Remains of Ancient Christian Art bear Testimony to the Latb 
 Origin of the Trinity. — The Father : how Represented. — 
 Earlier and Later Representations of the Son. 
 
 From hymnology we turn to early Christian art; and we do 
 not find the Trinity there. A very curious and interesting 
 work — important, too, as contributing to a knowledge of 
 Christian history and the ideas underlying it — was published 
 a few years ago in Paris ; from which may be gleaned valuable 
 materials which illustrate the late orimn of the doctrine of the 
 Trinity.* The author, M. Didron, did not write for any doc- 
 trinal or theological purpose : he is exclusively artistic. But 
 he is all the better for that as an authority in the present case, 
 since he cannot be accused of being swayed by partiality, favor, 
 prejudice, or antipathy. He thought not of the applications 
 which might be made of his descriptions and statements. His 
 work is that of a Trinitarian and a Catholic ; yet those por- 
 tions of it which relate to the earlier Christian art bear testi- 
 mony which is clear enough — testimony which no cross- 
 questioning can weaken or invalidate — against the Trinity as 
 a doctrine of the ancient Church. In truth, the doctrine of 
 the Trinity is no more found in the relics which are preserved 
 of Christian art belonging to the Church's elder days, than in 
 the literary remains of her great teachers. In art, the Trinity 
 was eight or nine centuries in shaping itself into forms resem- 
 bling those afterwards more fully developed. " There exists 
 
 * " Iconographie Clire'tienne. Histoire de Dieu ; par M. Didron, de la Bib- 
 liotheque Royale, Secretaire du Comite' Historique des Arts et Monuments." 
 Paris, 1843 ; 4to, pp. 624. 
 
SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATIONS. 361 
 
 110 group of the Trinity really complete," says Didron, " in 
 the catacomhs, nor on the old sarcophagi. We frequently see 
 Jesus, but either isolated, or, at most, accompanied by the 
 dove, which designates the Holy Spirit. We perceive a hand 
 (which must be that of God the Father) holding a crown over 
 the head of the Son, but in the absence of the Holy Spirit. 
 The cross and the lamb, which symbolize the Son, the hand, 
 which reveals the Father, the dove, which sometimes repre- 
 sents the Spirit, are frequently painted in fresco or sculptured 
 on marble. But these symbols are almost ahvays isolated, very 
 rarely united in the same place or on the same monument : 
 they are i^arely seen grouped or combined." * In a group — 
 executed in mosaic, about the commencement, as it is said, of 
 the fifth century, a voice (how indicated, we are not told) 
 represents the Father ; a lamb designates the Son ; and a 
 doveythe Holy Spirit. This, or a similar group, also appears 
 in the sixth, eighth, and ninth centuries ; but is rare. These 
 are the first traces of the Trinity in art. But it is to be observed, 
 that these symbols, including the hand extending the crown 
 and the cross which sometimes appeal's along with the lamb, 
 certainly prove not a co-equal Trinity. The hand reaching 
 out the crown intimates the supremacy of the Father, and 
 subordination in the Son. For the rest, — to say nothing of 
 the lateness of the date, — all that we learn is, that the Father, 
 the Son, and the Spirit were held in honor, as they are by all 
 Christians. There is nothing at this period of art which shows 
 that they were regarded as one or as equal, but the reverse. 
 
 There are no early artistic representations of the Father, — 
 none before the twelfth century. The early artists put the 
 Son in his place in scenes connected with Old Testament 
 history, being restrained by reverence from an attempt to give 
 an imase of the Father. This harmonizes with what Justin 
 Martyr and others say of the theophanies under the Jewish 
 dispensation. As before intimated, when the Father is first 
 introduced, only a hand, extended fi-om heaven or from the 
 clouds and indicating his presence, is visible. This is some- 
 
 * Iconographie, p. 558. The dove " sometimes represents the Spirit." " More 
 frequently," it is added in a note, " the dove painted or sculptured in the cata 
 combs is tliat which brings the olive-leaf to Noah, and not the dove of the 
 Holy Spirit." 
 
362 ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 times rayed, and the fingers are open to express the divine 
 favor dispensed upon earth ; and sometimes it has the form of 
 benediction, or holds out to the Son the triumphal crown. 
 Sometimes the hand is neither rayed nor nimhed ; a term we 
 shall presently explain. In a Greek fresco of comparatively 
 recent date, it is represented as elevating the souls of the just 
 to heaven. 
 
 Thus far, the honor due to the Father, as the Supreme, 
 Invisible, Eternal One, is preserved. His person does not 
 appear. Art is reverential : it has not yet attempted to depict 
 his features nor represent his form. In the thii'teenth and 
 fourteenth centuries, the Father ceased to be represented 
 exclusively by the hand. First appeared the face reposing 
 on a cloud, then the bust, and lastly the whole figure. The 
 face does not at first appear in the proper lineaments of the 
 Father, but under the features of the Son. Before the expi- 
 ration of the period just referred to, artists began to introduce 
 some change into their representations. At the close of the 
 fourteenth century, the Father gains in age on the Son, and 
 has specific features : his figure, too, becomes more round and 
 portly. At one period, the two appear as elder and younger 
 brother : but finally the Father assumes the form of an old 
 man ; the Son, of a man in mature life ; and the Holy Spirit 
 of a youth. This was in the fifteenth and sixteenth cen- 
 turies ; though still there was not an entire uniformity ; 
 the Son occasionally, as also the Spirit, taking the age of the 
 Father. 
 
 Sometimes the Father appears with the imperial or kingly 
 crown ; frequently in the habit of the Pope, with the triple 
 tiara, especially in Italy. The French disliked this, and added 
 two crowns more, making five, one above the other, to indi- 
 cate that the Father was superior to the Pope. Under the 
 figure of the Pope, the Father became a decrepit old man. 
 At the revival of letters and arts, degrading images were 
 gradually banished ; the Father assumed a more dignified 
 and sublime form, — that of a serene old man, the " Ancient 
 of Days." Finally he came, in the farther progress of ideas, 
 to be represented by his name only (Jehovah), in Hebrew, 
 inscribed in a triangle surrounded with a glory. 
 
TPIE FATHER AND THE SON. 363 
 
 In proceeding to speak of the representations of the Son 
 in works of Christian art, we will begin with an observation 
 of Didron, that Christendom has not erected a single church 
 specially to God the Father, but a large number to the Son, 
 under the names of the Holy Saviour, the Holy Cross, the 
 Holy Sepulchre, and the Resurrection. The Cathedral of Aix 
 is dedicated to the Holy Saviour ; that of Orleans, to the Holy 
 Cross. The celebrated Church of Florence, where repose the 
 ashes of Dante, Michael Angelo, Machiavel, and Galileo, bears 
 the name of the Holy Cross. Churches of the Holy Sepulchre 
 are common in France, and are found elsewhere. At Paris, 
 there is one dedicated to the Infant Jesus. Didron further 
 remarks, in this connection, that, when preachers name the 
 Father or the Spirit, there is not the least movement on the 
 part of the auditors ; but, when the Son is named, you will 
 see men bow the head, and the women cross themselves. It 
 is a singular fact, he adds, that, while Newton never heard the 
 name of God pronounced without taking off his hat, no one 
 now thinks of uncovering his head on hearing this name ; but, 
 however little rehgion one has, he never hears the name of 
 Christ uttered without showing marks of profound respect. 
 In the Apostles' Creed, it is remarked that four words only 
 relate to the Spirit, nine to the Father ; while five entire 
 propositions concern Jesus Christ, — much the larger part of 
 the creed. Proofs might be multiplied, says Didron, to show 
 that the Son has been more honored than the Father. We 
 do not think that his reasoning is altogether sound, though a 
 portion of his remarks are perfectly true. The fact that por- 
 traits of the Son existed earlier than portraits of the Father, 
 does not, we should say, prove that the latter was less honored, 
 but more ; for it was their reverence for the Father, and dread 
 of idolatry, which prevented Christians from exhibiting him 
 under a human image. In the middle ages, however, there is 
 certainly some ground for the charge, that the Son is exalted 
 ftt the expense of the Father. When they appear together, 
 the Son often occupies the post of honor; and, when their 
 statues are used as ornaments of churches, the Father is thrust 
 away in corners, or placed in situations exposed to the wind 
 and rain, while a thousand tendernesses are lavished on the 
 
8()4 ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 Son : he has all the honors and all the triumph. Even the 
 angels are often better provided for than the Father. 
 
 The earliest portraits of the Son represent him at full length, 
 under a beautiful form, — that of a noble youth, without 
 beard, of a winning figure, from fifteen to eighteen years of 
 age, with long and abundant hair flowing in ringlets over his 
 shoulders ; sometimes adorned with a diadem or fillet on the 
 forehead, as a young priest of the Pagan gods. This was long 
 the cherished figure, affectionately caressed by art. 
 
 At what precise period portraits of the Saviour first ap- 
 peared, it is impossible to say. The Gnostics, who were 
 enemies of the Father, and proscribed his image, painted and 
 sculptured the Son in all dimensions and forms ; and it is 
 maintained, that to them we owe the first portraits and statues 
 of Jesus. Various traditions (entitled, however, to little re- 
 spect) refer to Christ as having been represented by sculpture 
 and painting from the very dawn of Christianity. The Letter 
 ascribed to Lentulus — addressed to the senate and people of 
 Rome, and professing to give a minute description of his per- 
 son — is, without question, a forgery ; and there is no reason 
 for supposing that any authentic likeness of him was preserved. 
 Augustine asserts, that, in his time, there was none. The 
 earliest Fathers of the Church, conformably with a passage in 
 Isaiah (liii. 2), believed him to have been of mean appearance. 
 In the fourth century, however, he is represented as described 
 above, — a youth of extraordinaiy beauty and majesty. It is 
 remarked as a curious fact, that, in the series of monuments, in 
 proportion as the person of Jesus advances in age, that of the 
 Virgin — represented as old in the catacombs — grows young. 
 Instead of forty or fifty, as at first represented, she becomes, at 
 the end of the Gothic period (the fifteenth century), not more 
 than fifteen or twenty. In the thirteenth century, they appear 
 of the same age, — about thirty or thirty-five. 
 
 The earlier artists, as appears from the figures sculptured 
 on sarcophagi or exhibited in fresco or on mosaics, sought to 
 embody in the Son their ideal of perfect humanity in the form 
 of a beautiful youth, as the Pagans represented Apollo, and 
 Christians painted angels. A Roman sculpture of the fourth 
 century represents him as seated in a curule chair, as a young 
 
REPRESENTATIONS OF THE SON. 365 
 
 senator, in his robe and toga, without beard ; the right hand 
 extended and open, the left holding an open volume or roll. 
 But this is sometliing unusual. Down to the tenth century, 
 Christ continues to be most frequently represented as a young 
 man, without beard. There are, however, dux'ing the same 
 period, many portraits of him, in tombs and catacombs and 
 elsewhere, which present him as at the age of thirty, and 
 bearded. The latter part of the tenth century, with the 
 eleventli, formed the transition period. This was a period of 
 terror and barbarism ; a hard, iron age ; an age of war and 
 violence, which would hardly content itself with the old rep- 
 resentations of Christ as a youthful God, who healed all in- 
 firmities, solaced all miseries, and smiled benignantly on all. 
 The portraits of him now begin to assume a severe and 
 inexorable aspect. The beautiful and affecting emblems and 
 imagery suited to him in the character of the good Shepherd, 
 so faithfully preserved in the earlier ages, disappear. In ad- 
 dition to the barbarism of the times, there was now a general 
 expectation of the approaching end of the world and the final 
 judgment ; and Christ becomes the austere Judge. Some of 
 the portraits of him are terrible. Milder features are still 
 sometimes retained in places where gentler manners prevail ; 
 but these become more and more rare. The good Shepherd 
 is now changed to the " King of tremendous majesty." He is 
 now insensible to the prayers of his mother, who is placed on 
 his right hand ; and of the beloved disciple, and John the 
 Baptist, his precursor, who occupy a position on his left ; and 
 sinners have nothing to hope. Artists selected the scene of 
 the last judgment as their usual subject. In some Byzantine 
 frescos, Christ appears seated on a throne surrounded by angels, 
 who tremble at the maledictions he pours forth upon sinners. 
 He is not only Judge, but he executes the sentence he pro- 
 nounces. The words of condemnation have no sooner passed 
 his lips, than a river of fire is seen issuing from the throne, and 
 swallowing up the guilty. 
 
 In the earlier ages, Christ was frequently symbolized under 
 Jhe figure of a lamb. But the favorite representation of him 
 in primitive Christian art was in the form of the good Shepherd, 
 frequently exhibited as bearing a lamb on his shoulders ; some- 
 
366 AETISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 times standing with his crook, with his flock around him. Tho 
 flute of Pan is also sometimes put into his hand. These 
 representations are illustrated by engravings by Didron, and by 
 Dr. Maitland in his " Church in the Catacombs." It is worthy 
 of remark that no marks of suffering appear in any of the 
 earlier representations of the Saviour. The views presented 
 by Didron on this subject are confirmed by Dr. Maitland, who 
 says, " In all the [early] pictures and sculptures of our Lord's 
 history, no reference is ever found to his sufferings or death." 
 Again, " No gloomy subjects occur in the cycle of early Chris- 
 tian art." * The exceptions are only apparent. On this sub- 
 ject Mr. Charles E. Norton, in an admirable series of papers 
 on the "Catacombs of Rome" inserted in the "Atlantic 
 Monthly " for 1858, thus expresses himself, giving the results 
 of his own observations in the catacombs, museums, etc., 
 during a somewhat protracted residence at Rome : " It is a 
 noteworthy and affecting circumstance, that, among the im- 
 mense number of the pictures in the catacombs, which may 
 be ascribed to the first three centuries, scarcely one has been 
 found of a painful or sad character. The sufferings of the 
 Saviour, his passion and his death, and the martyrdom of the 
 Saints, had not become, as in after-days, the main subjects of 
 religious art in Italy. On the contrary, all the early paintings 
 are distinguished by the cheerful and truthful nature of the 
 impressions they were intended to convey." 
 
 The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries exhibit Christs of 
 remarkable sadness. The Ecce ho7no, — " Behold the man," 
 — crucifixes, descents from the cross, Christs in the tomb, are 
 now the reigning mode. The progression is singular. In 
 more primitive monuments, we see the cross, but not the 
 Crucified. Some crucifixes appear in the tenth century ; one 
 earlier : but the Crucified retains his winning and benevolent 
 features, and is clothed in a comely robe, which leaves only 
 the extremities visible. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, 
 the robe is shortened and contracted, and the sleeves disappear, 
 leaving only a sort of tunic. This becomes as short as possible 
 In the thirteenth century ; and, in the fourteenth, all that re- 
 mains is a piece round the loins, as it now continues in the 
 * Pp. 259, 263. 
 
REPRESENTATIONS OF THE SON. 3G7 
 
 representations of Christ on the cross. At the same time, the 
 countenance bears more and more the marks of physical suffer- 
 ing. The contrast between these later portraits and the earlier 
 Christs — represented as triumphant and clothed with beauty, 
 and having an expression of ineffable sweetness — is sufiiciently 
 striking, and marks the change which had come over theology ; 
 for art exhibited the reigning theological ideas. At the revival 
 of art, Michael Angelo rescued Christ from the pitiable condi- 
 tion in which he had been placed by preceding artists, though 
 his celebrated fresco (the Last Judgment, in the Sistine Chapel) 
 is open to severe criticism. In this fresco, the Son is repre- 
 sented as an angry Judge, hurling the wicked down to hell. 
 How different from the good Shepherd of the earlier days of 
 Christian art T 
 
 In the attitude and accompaniments of the figures repre- 
 senting Christ in works of Christian art, there is every possible 
 variety. He is now seen treading under foot the lion and the 
 di'agon, and now Death, which he holds chained ; he now 
 appears in the vestments of an archbishop, with the archiepis- 
 eopal crown on his head, and now riding triumphant among 
 the angels on a white horse ; now showing his wounds to the 
 Father, and receiving his blessing ; now in the form of a lamb 
 with the nimbus and cross, and now of a lion ; now as the good 
 Shepherd, on the older monuments, and in a multitude of other 
 characters and positions. 
 
A.ETISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITF. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 The Glory, or Nimbus, in Symbolic Art. — Nature of the Glory. 
 — Forms of the Nimbus and the Cross. — Significance of the 
 Nimbus. — Representations of the Holy Spirit. — Later Repre- 
 sentations OF THE Trinity. — No Early Relic recognizes a Co- 
 Equal or Undivided Three. 
 
 The glory ^ or nimhus, in itself, does not distinguish tlie Son 
 from a multitude of other personages ; and even the nimbus, 
 with the cross traversinsi; it, does not distinguish him from the 
 Father and the Spirit. We must here explain a little ; and, 
 though the remarks we are about to introduce may appear to 
 some to be a digression, they relate to a subject, some knowl- 
 edge of which is necessary to a full comprehension of works 
 of Christian art in past ages, and of copies or engravings of 
 them frequently met with in books and elsewhere. 
 
 In the symbolic art, as it stands connected with Christian 
 monuments, the gloi^y occupies a conspicuous place. When 
 it surrounds the head merely, it is called a nimbus;* when it 
 surrounds the whole body, an aureole. Both together consti- 
 tute the glory in its completeness. 
 
 In familiar language, we speak of individuals as covered or 
 environed with glory, Avhen they have distinguished themselves 
 by great actions, or sublime effoi'ts of intellect. Alexander, 
 the conqueror of Asia ; CjBsar, the master of Europe ; Aris- 
 totle and Plato, who ruled in the realms of mind ; Homer and 
 Vir<iil, Avhose works have fired all imaginations : Vincent de 
 Paul, whose zeal inflamed all hearts ; Phidias and Raphael, 
 who produced chief works in sculpture and painting, — these, 
 and a multitude of others, are described as surrounded with 
 glory. This mode of speech has been always common. By 
 a similar figure, we speak of the great suns of the Church, or 
 suns in the world of intellect. To render this glory visible 
 
 * The figure is then said to be nimhed. The term, as we have seen, ia 
 sometimes applied to the hand. 
 
THE GLORY, OR NIMBUS. 369 
 
 to the eye, the artist, the sculptor, or painter, makes use of 
 material light. So God, in the Old Testament, is described as 
 surrounded by a visible glory, or shekinah ; and he appeared 
 to Moses in a flame of fire, in the burning bush. 
 
 Such, according to Didron, is the nature of the glory. Its 
 material element or representative is fire or flame, radiating 
 light or brightness. Thus the Hindoo divinities are I'epre- 
 sented as environed with luminous rays, as of fire ; and so the 
 devotees of Buddha appear in some books found in the Royal 
 Library at Paris. By the Greeks, Romans, and Etruscans, 
 the constellations represented under a human form are encir- 
 cled with rays or luminous figures exactly similar to the nim- 
 bus and aureole of Christians. Among the modern Persians, 
 the Arabs and Turks, the heads of sacred personages, repre- 
 senting the good or evil principle, are surmounted by a pyra- 
 mid of flame. Appeals are made to numerous facts — histori- 
 cal, legendary, and poetic — to show that such was originally 
 the nature of the glory : it was represented by the subtile, 
 penetrating, powerful element of fire or flame. So the sun, 
 among the ancients, was regarded as the visible symbol of 
 God : and the Pharaohs of Egypt and other royal personages 
 are called indiscriminately children of the sun, and children 
 of God ; and, by way of distinction, the rays of the sun were 
 transferred to tlieir heads in the form of the nimbus radiating 
 light. This was the glory. Its use was coeval with the most 
 ancient religions, as the primitive Hindoo monuments show. 
 Its native country was the East ; and it may be traced down 
 through Egyptian, Grecian, and Roman times, till it finally 
 passed into the Christian Church. This was not, however, 
 till some centuries after Christ had ascended. During these 
 early centuries, the Church was engaged in struggles and per- 
 secutions. It was laying and strengthening its foundations, 
 not applying itself to the embellishments of art. When the 
 time came, it laid Pagan antiquity under contribution to sup- 
 ply its needs. It borrowed its artistic and aesthetic forms from 
 that. By the aid of lustral water, it transformed the Pagan 
 basilica into a Christian church. This was, in some sort, 
 matter of necessity. But the nimbus, or glory, which had 
 adorned the heads of persecuting emperors and false gods, it 
 24 
 
370 ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 would not be in haste to adopt. This ornament is seldom 
 found in the catacombs in fresco, or on sarcophagi. Not only 
 the Apostles and Saints, but the Virgin, and Jesus Christ 
 himself, are represented without any insignia of this kind. 
 Before the sixth century, it is asserted that the nimbus does 
 not appear in any authentic Christian monument. The sev- 
 enth, eiohth, and ninth centuries constitute the transition 
 period between its entire absence and its constant presence ; 
 and it disappeared at the end of the sixteenth. Tlie aureole, 
 or figure surrounding the body, went through similar vicissi- 
 tudes with the nimbus, but appeared later and disappeared 
 earlier, and was of much more infrequent use. 
 
 We must add a few words on the form, application, and sig- 
 nificance of the glory, comprehending both the nimbus and 
 aureole, as used by Christians. The nimbus is generally 
 circular, and in the form of a disk ; the field of the disk some- 
 times disappearing, and only the circumference remaining in 
 the form of a ring. Sometimes it is divided by concentric 
 circles into two or three zones which admit of a great variety 
 of ornament. To the end of the eleventh century, the disk 
 was transparent ; thence, to the fifteenth, it acquired thick- 
 ness. It went through some other changes, a knowledge of 
 which assists archaeologists in ascertaining the age of manu- 
 scripts, and relics of works of art. We meet the nimbus also 
 in the form of a square or a parallelogram, and occasionally, 
 in later monuments, of a triangle ; sometimes a double tri- 
 angle, or two triangles intersecting each other, five points only 
 being visible, the other being concealed behind the head. 
 Didron gives a specimen of the single triangle, rayed, and sur- 
 rounding the head of the Father, taken from a Greek fresco 
 at Mount Athos, and belonging to the seventeenth century. 
 This form, which is rare in the religious monuments of France, 
 is frequent in Italy and Greece, commencing with the fifteenth 
 century. The nimbus, or glory, is distinguished from the 
 crown, to which it bears some analogy, in being placed verti- 
 cally on the head, the crown horizontally. When applied to 
 either of the persons of the Trinity, the circular nimbus is 
 always, except occasionally from accident or from the igno- 
 rance of the artist, divided by four bars, crossing each other 
 
FORM OF THE NIMBUS. 371 
 
 at right angles in the centime, thus forming a Greek cross ; the 
 lower bar, however, disappeai'ing behind the head.* It is 
 sometimes rayed, and at other times not. In some cases, the 
 rays appear without the circular line as their base : they are 
 sometimes unequal, and sometimes equal, exhibiting the form 
 of a star. The colors employed are various : they are blue, 
 or azure ; violet, red, yellow, and white ; the yellow, or color 
 of gold, being the most noble and expressive ; gold, its type, 
 beino; described as " lio-ht solidified." The color, as well as 
 the form, of the glory, or nimbus, is often symbolical. 
 
 The application of the nimbus, or glory, among Christians, 
 appears to have been governed by no very rigid laws. It 
 
 * Of the cross, there are four species, — the cross without a summit, repre- 
 sented by the letter T, which was the form of some of the ancient churches; 
 the cross witli tlie summit and one transverse bar ; with two; and with three. 
 The cross with four branches, or arms, which is the most common, is of two 
 kinds, whicli again exliibit several varieties. The Greek cross is composed 
 of four equal bars, placed at right angles, and capable of being inscribed in a 
 circle. It is this, which is placed in the nimbus, or circle, which marks the 
 divine personages. The Latin cross has the foot, or lower part of the shaft, 
 longer th^n the upper part, and longer than the arms. It is represented by a 
 man standing with his arms extended. This, of course, cannot be inscribed 
 in a circle, but requires a parallelogram. On the difference, Didron remarks 
 thus : " The Latin cross resembles the real cross of Jesus ; and the Greek, an 
 ideal one. So the Latins, greater materialists, have preferred tlie natural 
 form : the Greeks, more spiritual, have idealized the reality, — have poetized 
 and transfigured the cross of Calvary. Of a gibbet, the Greeks have made an 
 ornament." Originally, the two types, or forms, were common to the Greek 
 and Latin Churches ; but afterwards one predominated in the I*)ast ; and the 
 other in the West : hence the names. Many of the Oriental churches have 
 the form of the Greek cross. The form of the Latin has had the preference 
 in the West, though neither form has been closely adhered to in sacred archi- 
 tecture. The cross of St. Andrew differs from the Greek cross in having its 
 bars intersect each other obliquely, forming a figure resembling the letter X. 
 
 The cross is sometimes ornamented, and sometimes interlaced, so to sjieak; 
 the monogram of the names of the Saviour — the Greek chi (X) and rho (V), 
 the first two letters of the Greek word for Christ, and the iota (I), the initial 
 of the Greek word for Jesus — being united with the Greek or Roman cross, 
 or cross of St. Andrew. These are sometimes enclosed in a circle or square, 
 and sometimes not. The first and last letter of the Greek alphabet, the alpha 
 and omega, are sometimes added ; and sometimes branches of palm, indicative 
 of victory. Some of these forms are very beautiful. They frequently ap- 
 pear on works of Christian art in the early ages, on sarcophagi, and in cata- 
 combs ; on monuments of the dead, where they are far more appropriate than 
 many of the emblems of Heathen origin which greet the eye in our modern 
 cemeteries. We might add other particulars relating to the form, ornaments, 
 and use of the cross ; but we have already too far extended this note. 
 
372 ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 decorated the persons of the Trinity, represented singly or 
 united ; angels, prophets, the Virgin Mary, saints, and mar- 
 tyrs. It is occasionally assigned to the virtues personified, to 
 allegorical beings, and to the powers and affections of the 
 human soul ; sometimes, but rarely, to the representatives of 
 political power; to the forces of natui"e, the sun and moon, 
 the winds, the four elements, the cardinal points, day and 
 night (personified), and even the genius of evil, Satan. 
 
 Its significance varies with time and place. According to 
 the ideas prevalent in the West, it is an attribute of holiness, 
 — divinity or saintship, — as the crown is of royalty. It is 
 somewhat different in the East. Among the Orientals, the 
 nimbus was used to designate physical energy, as well as moral 
 force ; civil or political power, as well as religious authority. 
 Thus, in a Turkish manuscript, in the Royal Library of Paris, 
 Aureng-zebe wears the nimbus, or glory. In the West, with 
 few exceptions, a king, emperor, or magistrate, never appears 
 nimhed, unless canonized, or exalted to the rank of a saint.* 
 The Pagan idea continued to pi'evail in the East ; according 
 to which, the glory was an attribute of power, not of holiness. 
 The Oriental Christians, indeed, were exceedingly prodigal in 
 the use of the glory. While those of the West reserved it 
 chiefly for God and the saints, restraining it to qualities of the 
 soul, rarely extending it to physical properties or mere intel- 
 lectual energy, or force used for evil, it is not uncommon In 
 the East to see it applied to any Individual in any way distin- 
 guished ; to a virtuous man and a criminal, to archangel and 
 devil ; to whatever, in fact, was famous or put forth mighty 
 energy, whether for good or for evil.f 
 
 * It is necessary to bear in mind, liowever, that the absence or presence of 
 the nimbus does not deny or express saintsliip after the commencement of the 
 fourteentli century. After tliis period, it loses its importance, and is given or 
 witliliolden somewliat arbitrarily. 
 
 t In illustration of the profuse use of the glory among the Greek Chris- 
 tians, a Greek Psalter is mentioned, deposited in the Royal Library at Paris, 
 adorned with numerous curious and very beautiful miniatures, in which the 
 nimbus appears on a great multitude of heads belonging to personages real 
 and allegorical, good and bad. Among tlie allegorical personages wliich serve 
 to explain the history are Wisdom and Prophecy, standing at the side of 
 David as two great genii, habited in female attire: in his penitence, he ia 
 assisted by the genius of Repentance; in slaying the lion, by the genius of 
 Force. So Night looks down upon the calamity of Pharaoh as his host is 
 
THE HOLY SPIRIT. 373 
 
 But we must return to what constitutes more properly our 
 present subject, and proceed to say a few words of the artistic 
 representations of the Holy Spirit. The Father, says Didron, 
 is the God of power ; the Son, the God of love ; and the 
 Spirit, the God of love, in theology, but God of intelligence, 
 in history, — distinctions of some importance in their relation 
 to Christian works of art. By Scripture, legend, and history ; 
 by works of art in France, Germany, Italy, and Greece, — 
 Didron affirms that it may be proved that the Spirit is the 
 God of reason ; that is, addresses, directs, and enlightens the 
 reason ; and thus it is represented as holding a book. 
 
 Monuments, as churches and convents, dedicated to the 
 Spirit, are fewer than those dedicated to the. Son, but more 
 than those appropriated to the Father. A similar remark 
 may be made of artistic representations of it. These are 
 various in form, but are not characterized chronologically, like 
 the representations of the Father and Son. The artist, in 
 portraying the Si)irit, seems to have consulted chiefly the taste 
 of his country or his own fancy. As a general remark, we 
 may observe, that, down to the eleventh century, the Spirit 
 was usually represented by the dove ; then the honor was 
 divided between the dove and the human form. But to this 
 form no given age, or period of life, is assigned. Thus, in 
 the eleventh and twelfth centuries, it apjtears of the age of 
 thirty or forty years ; while in subsequent centuries it appears 
 
 drowned in the Red Sea. All these allegorical personages are adorned with 
 the nimbus, or glory, of various colors; as are prophets and kings also: and, 
 of the latter, the worst as well as the best, — the suicidal Saul ; and Pharaoh, 
 the impious King of Egypt, at the moment when he is engulfed in the abyss; 
 to the latter, a nimbus of gold being assigned. So, too, the monster Herod is 
 represented with the nimbus on a mosaic, executed by a Greek artist; the 
 scene portrayed being that of the massacre of tlie Innocents. In a small 
 church at Athens, in which the Supper is painted in fresco, Judas wears the 
 glory as well as the other Apostles ; though the color is black, to designate 
 his treachery. In an old Bible adorned with miniatures, belonging to the 
 ninth or tenth century, Satan is twice represented in the presence of Job, — 
 whom he is torturing, and over whose calamities he laughs, — encircled witli 
 the glory, or nimbus, such as a guardian or consoling angel would wear ; and 
 in an apocal3'ptic manuscript with miniatures, referred to the twelfth century, 
 the dragon with seven heads combating Michael, the serpent with seven heads 
 pursuing the woman into the wilderness, and the beast of the sea, wear a 
 nimbus of green or yellow, like the saints of paradise. The manuscript 
 appears to be of Byzantine origin. 
 
374 ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITT. 
 
 of all ages from that of an infant of a few months to that of 
 an old man of sixty. Whether in the form of a dove or a 
 man, the Spirit usually has the nimbus, with the cross in- 
 scribed : but this emblem or ornament is sometimes omitted ; 
 and sometimes the Spirit itself has been forgotten by the artist 
 in scenes in which its presence would seem to be particularly 
 appropriate, as in representations of the Feast of Pentecost. 
 
 The three personages — the Father, Son, and Spirit — are 
 often grouped in later works of Christian art, never in the 
 eai'lier specimens j as the Trinity, in its complete form, was 
 of late growth. There exists, as before said, no really com- 
 plete group of the Trinity in the catacombs or on the ancient 
 sarcophagi.* Between the ninth and twelfth centuries, a new 
 element was introduced into the representations of the Trinity, 
 or at least became more conspicuous than before. This was 
 the anthropomorphitic. The ancient Christians, as we have 
 seen, had carefully avoided presenting the Father under the 
 human form, which would have seemed to them too much like 
 bringing back Paganism. But that fear had now passed. 
 The Father had taken a proper human figure, though that 
 figure was bon'owed from the Son ; and the dove of the Spirit 
 had, as before said, yielded its place, at times at least, to the 
 form of a man. Artists now, therefore, began to depict the 
 three persons as similar and equal, and all in the human form. 
 In a manuscript of the twelfth century, the three appear of the 
 same age, in the same posture, and having the same costume 
 and expression ; so that it is impossible to say which is the 
 Father, and which the Son or the Spirit. In opposition to this 
 complete anthropomorphism, which so essentially materialized 
 and divided the Trinity, an attempt was made to present it 
 under the most abstract form, and one which would save the 
 Unity ; and, for this purpose, geometry supplied the triangle. 
 During the next, or Gothic period, as it is called, — that is, 
 
 * Mr. Norton, before quoted, says, " No attempt to represent the Trinity 
 (an irreverence which did not become familiar till centuries later) exists in 
 the catacombs ; and no sign of the existence of the doctrine of the Trinity is 
 to be met with in them, unless in works of a very late period." See also 
 what he says of the " undoubted earlier inscriptions " in connection with " the 
 peculiar doctrines of the Roman Church." — Atlantic Monlhlif for June and 
 July, 1858. 
 
ANTHROPOMORPHITIC TRINITY. 375 
 
 from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries, — a furtlier ad- 
 vance was made. The persons heretofore represented as dis- 
 tinct, though sitting on the same throne, as in the manuscript 
 just referred to, are united; the three bodies, fonnino- one, 
 having three heads. On the other side, the geometric ilhis- 
 trations were continued, and improved upon. Three circles 
 were adopted, interwoven with each other, each circle con- 
 taining one syllable of tlie word Trinitas (Trinity), and the 
 central space formed by the intersecting circles, containing the 
 word Unitas (Unity), — Trinity in Unity. The subtle genius 
 of Dante occasionally adopted similar geometric illustrations. 
 The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries retained all the types, 
 figures, and imagery used in former periods to represent the 
 Trinity and exhibit its mystic glories. It was an age of syn- 
 cretism. The anthropomorphitic Trinity is still continued, 
 and exhibits some remarkable characteristics. Thus the three 
 heads are not simply placed in juxtaposition, do not simply 
 adhere, but are mingled and confounded, presenting three 
 faces under one cranium. Beyond this, one would think, art 
 could not go ; and, in attempting some further improvements, 
 it fell into the monstrous. Of this, some examples are ad- 
 duced ; which, from their grossness, we must be excused from 
 describing. The Church was at length compelled to intei'fere : 
 and, in 1628, Pope Urban VIII. prohibited the representation 
 of the Trinity under the form of a man with three heads, or 
 one head with three faces, and similar representations ; and 
 Benedict XIV. renewed the decree in 1745. 
 
 Works of Christian art are full of interest, not simply in 
 their aesthetic relations, but in their relations to the general 
 current of thought, and phases of opinion, on subjects con- 
 nected with religion and theology in past ages. To the his- 
 torian of religion and the Church, they afford material aid, and 
 not less to the student of human nature and the human mind. 
 The most valuable knowledge is often gleaned from sources 
 where the superficial observer would least expect to find it. 
 An important part of the history of a nation may be written 
 from its popular songs : and a painting or sculpture on a sarcoph- 
 agus, or in catacombs where repose the ashes of the buried 
 past ; an image cherished with religious homage, the object of 
 
376 ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITY. 
 
 tenderness and devotion ; ornaments of churches and manu- 
 script illuminations, embodying the ideas of the age, — are all 
 things full of significance to him who can read them aright. 
 
 We add simply, that on urns of the dead, on monuments, in 
 the catacombs, among the relics of art belonging to the early 
 ages, which time has spared, you nowhere find a recognition 
 of the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity ; that is, three in 
 one, co-equal, self-existent, and eternal. Stones preach, but 
 preach not the Trinity. The Lapidarian Gallery in the Vati- 
 can at Rome contains many simple and affectionate inscriptions, 
 which speak of the rest of the soul, and its peace in Jesus ; 
 but neither there nor anywhere, on any ancient stone, rudely 
 lettered, or on sculptured marble, do you meet the Trinity. 
 Primitive antiquity bears no trace of it. It has not left behind 
 a single fragment on which we read it. 
 
FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Festivals of the Ancient Christians disclose no Element of the 
 Trinity. — Weekly Festival of Sunday. — Easter, the Oldest 
 Annual Festival. — Old Ideas of Lent. — Pentecost, or Whit- 
 
 sunday. no other annual festival known in the time of 
 
 Origen. — Epiphany. 
 
 From hymnology and the remains of Christian art, the 
 transition is not difficult to the festivals of the ancient Chris- 
 tians. In vain we look for the Trinity in these. Some of them 
 claim, and rightly, to trace their origin back to a primitive 
 antiquity. Their history has its use. The more ancient of 
 them, certainly, may be regarded as so many monuments of the 
 reality of the facts relating to Jesus' life, death, and resurrec- 
 tion, recorded in the Gospels. Of these festivals, some account 
 will now be given in the order in which they arose. If Christ- 
 mas was not among the earliest, that, as we shall see, was the 
 natural result of circumstances, and of the Christian ideas which 
 ruled of old ; and its comparatively late origin need occasion 
 us no serious regret. The resurrection, with subsequent events, 
 particularly the effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost, it was, 
 which gave to the birth of the child of Bethlehem its great 
 significance ; and we need not feel surprise that the former 
 (the resurrection) was in ancient times more honored by 
 observance than the nativity. It would have been strange had 
 it been otherwise. How much is said of the resurrection and 
 exaltation of Christ by the Apostles, in their speeches recorded 
 in the Acts ! His resurrection and exaltation very naturally 
 gave origin to the earlier festivals. 
 
 But, before proceeding to speak of the annual festivals, we 
 
378 FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS. 
 
 must say a few words of the weekly festival of the primitive 
 Christians, more especially as it was intimately connected with 
 the oldest of the yearly festivals. This was the festival of 
 Sunday, — the earliest of the Christian days of rejoicing. 
 
 It would seem that the disciples, from the first or during 
 the apostolic times, were accustomed to meet for thanks and 
 praise on the first day of the week. Certainly the oldest 
 records in existence, after those of the New Testament, refer 
 to this as a well-known and established custom. The first day 
 of the week was universally distinguished from other days ; 
 and it was observed as a day of joy, a festival day, on account 
 of the Lord's resurrection on that day, of which it was a stand- 
 ing monument : hence called the Lord's Day. That it was 
 uniformly observed as a day of rejoicing, there is no dispute : 
 on this point, all the old writers bear consenting testimony. 
 We do not mean that it was a day devoted to sensuous 
 pleasures. It was not ; and King James's " Book of Sports " 
 would have been as offensive to the early Christians as it was 
 to the Puritans. It was not a day to be given to levity and 
 amusement. But it was, to the original followers of Jesus, 
 truly a day of gladness, — a day which brought with it not 
 only holy and exalting, but, in the strictest sense, joyous recol- 
 lections ; since it restored him to their sight after his death had 
 prostrated their hopes and filled their hearts with sorrow, and 
 they believed that they should see him no more. And this 
 feature the day retained. It was always, by the ancient 
 Christians, associated with the resurrection, — the pledge of 
 man's immortality. 
 
 On this day, everything which had the appearance of sorrow 
 or gloom was banished as unfit. " On Sunday," says Tertul- 
 lian, " we indulge joy." * So far did the ancient Christians 
 carry their views or their scruples on this point, that they 
 regarded it as a sin to fast, or even to kneel in prayer, on the 
 Lord's Day, or during any part of the interval of fifty days 
 between the resurrection and the coming of the Spirit at 
 Pentecost. For this we have the express assertion of Tertul- 
 lian.f The Jewish sabbath was originally a festival : yet it 
 tame, in after-times, to be associated with many superstitious 
 * ApoL, c. 16. t De Corona Mil., c. 3. 
 
FESTIVAL OP SUNDAY. 879 
 
 observances, which gave to it a somewhat grim aspect: and 
 these the early Christians carefully avoided transferring to the 
 first day of the week.* They would not call it the " sabbath " 
 even. They never so call it, but either the Lord's Day, or 
 else, in conformity with Roman usage, the day of the sun 
 (Sunday), generally the latter, when addressing the Gentiles ; 
 and by one or the other of these designations was the day 
 known, and not as the sabbath, till so recently as the end of 
 the sixteenth century. The application of the term to Sunday 
 originated with the Puritans, who introduced into its observ- 
 ance rio-ors before unknown. The old Christian writers, 
 whenever they use the term " sabbath," uniformly mean 
 Saturday. This, as well as Sunday, was, in Tertullian's timef 
 (that is, down to a. d. 200, and still later), kept by Cliristians 
 as a day of rejoicing ; that only being excepted on which the 
 Saviour lay in the tomb. Even the Montanists, rigorous as 
 they were, did not, at this time, fast on these days. The 
 custom of fasting on Saturdays first prevailed in the Western 
 Church : though, as late as the time of Augustine (the end of 
 the fourth century), this custom was not uniform ; some ob- 
 serving the day as a fast, and others as a festival. But, in 
 regard to Sunday, there Avas no difference of opinion or of 
 usage among the early Christians. The day was uniformly 
 observed with cheerfulness, yet always in a religious way, as 
 Clement of Alexandria expresses it, by " banishing all evil 
 thoughts and entertaining all good ones," and by meetings for 
 thanks and worship. It was called the " chief" — as it were, 
 the queen — of days ; a day to be ever distinguished and 
 honored, and the return of which was hailed with a liveliness 
 of gratitude which the faith of those ages rendered easy. 
 
 Christians have not now the same associations connected 
 
 * Originally, labor did not cease on the first day of tlie week ; but it seenas 
 to have been gradually discontinued as circumstances permitted. At what 
 time cessation from it became general, if it became so before tiie time of Con- 
 stantine, when it was enjoined by law, except in agricultural districts, where 
 sowing and reaping, and tending the vine, were allowed, it is impossible to 
 ascertain. The exception was agreeable to the old Roman notions of what it 
 was right and lawful to do on festal days, and what, says Virgil, " no religion 
 forbade." 
 
 t De Jkjuniis, c. 15. 
 
380 FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS. 
 
 with the day ; at least, not uniformly in the same degree. It 
 is not regarded so exclusively as a day of joy on account of 
 the Saviour's resurrection as in primitive times. It has lost, 
 in part, its characteristic distinction ; the feelings in regard to 
 it have changed with time ; and, to the ears of the descendants 
 of the Piaritans, it sounds somewhat strange, no doubt, to hear 
 it spoken of as a festival, — the weekly festival of the Resur- 
 rection ; or to be told that it was a day on which those who 
 lived nearest the times of the Apostles regarded it as unbecom- 
 ing or unlawful to indulge gloom, or to fast, or even to fall on 
 the knees in devotion. Let us, however, guard against mis- 
 take. We should form a very erroneous conception of the 
 ancient Sunday, if we associated with it the ideas which the 
 term " festival " now probably suggests to many minds. The 
 joy of the day was a pure, elevated, religious joy, utterly 
 removed from all grossness and sensuality ; it was a day of 
 worship, though of cheerful worship ; a day devoted, as it ever 
 should be, to the alleviation of the burdens of humanity, and 
 to the highest moral and spiritual uses. No day has done so 
 much for man ; and this day, and all its influences, the Chris- 
 tian world owes to Jesus. This day, which suspends so many 
 tasks, — the " poor man's day," as it has been called ; a day 
 of which it may be said, that there is no condition of humanity 
 so low that its benefits do not penetrate it ; the influence of 
 which reaches the humblest mind ; which gives a truce to so 
 many worldly thoughts, and compels man, as it were, to 
 respect himself, and meditate on what concerns the great peace 
 of his soul, — well did the ancient Christians call it the 
 " Lord's Day "; and well did they, and well may we, rejoice 
 in it, and ever thank God for it. But for the birth of the Son 
 of Mary, it had not been. But for his resurrection, after he 
 had worn the crown of thorns and borne the cross, it had not 
 been. 
 
 The following is Bishop Kaye's statement : " From inci- 
 dental notices scattered over Tertullian's works, we collect 
 that Sunday, or the Lord's Day, was regarded by the primi- 
 tive Christians as a day of rejoicing ; and that to fast upon it 
 was deemed unlawful. The word ' Sabbatum ' is always used 
 to designate, not the first, but the seventh, day of the week ; 
 
ANNUAL FESTIVAL OF THE RESURRECTION. 381 
 
 which appears in TertulHan's time to have been also kept as a 
 day of rejoicing. . . . The Saturday before Easter Day was, 
 however, an exception : that was observed as a fast." * 
 
 We come now to the yearly festivals of the old Christians. 
 The oldest of these was, like the weekly festival, that of the 
 Resurrection, now called Easter ; originally the festival of the 
 Passover, during which the Saviour suffered. This was cele- 
 brated from the first among the Jewish Christians ; Christian 
 ideas being ingrafted on the old Jewish ideas respecting it. 
 No older festival appears among the Gentile Christians. The 
 time when they began to observe it cannot be defined ; but 
 it was very early. The obligation of its observance, as that 
 of the other annual festivals, was not, however, regarded by 
 Christians of the early ages as resting on any precept or law 
 of Christ or of his Apostles, but simply on propriety and usage. 
 The " feast of Easter and the other festivals," says the his- 
 torian Socrates,! were left to be " honored by the gratitude 
 and benevolence " of Christians. As men naturally love fes- 
 tivals, which bring a release from toil, they would each, he 
 observes, according to his own pleasure and in his own way, 
 celebrate the memory of the Saviour's passion, no precept 
 having been left on the subject. And so, he says, he found 
 it. Christians differed as to the time of celebrating Easter, 
 and still more as to the ceremonies connected with it ; all 
 which shows, he adds, that the observance of it was matter 
 of usage simply, not of positive precept. 
 
 The festival of the Resurrection, or Passover, was intro- 
 duced by preparatory fasting. Occasional fasts in times of 
 distress or danger, it seems, Avere not uncommon. J Besides 
 these, there were, as early as the time of TertulHan, the half- 
 fasts (stationes ; from a military word, originally signifying a 
 place of watch), observed by many on Wednesdays and Fri- 
 days : the former day being that on which the Jews took 
 counsel to destroy Jesus ; and the latter, that of his crucifix- 
 ion. These half or stationary fasts were entirely voluntary ; 
 being observed, or not, as each one chose : and they termi- 
 
 * Ecclesiastical History, illustrated from the Writings of TertulHan, pp. 388, 389, 
 3d edit. 
 t Hist., V. 22. X Tertullian, Apol, c. 40 ; De Jejuniis, c. 13. 
 
382 FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS. 
 
 nated at three o'clock in the afternoon ; * though the Monta- 
 nists protracted them till evening, and sometimes longer. For 
 this, however, they were censured by the common or catholic 
 Christians. The only fixed fast which appears to have been 
 considered as at all obligatory by antiquity and general usage 
 was on Friday of Passion Week, as it has since been called, or 
 the anniversary of the crucifixion (Good Friday). This was 
 undoubtedly observed by the generality of Christians at a very 
 early period,! and came at length to extend beyond the limits 
 of a day ; its duration varying among different Christians. 
 Irengeus, one of the most ancient authorities on the subject, 
 says that " some thought they ought to fast one day, some two, 
 some more, and some computed forty hours " ; J that is, the 
 forty hours during which the Saviour was supposed to have 
 been a tenant of the tomb. These forty hours were gradually, 
 in the process of time, extended to forty days, in imitation of 
 the Saviour's fast of forty days in the wilderness. Hence 
 came Lent ; which, in its present form (embracing a period 
 of forty days), cannot be traced back beyond the end of the 
 sixth century. So late as the middle of the fifth century, 
 Christians were no more agreed about the manner of keeping 
 the fast than about the time ; for nothing had, as yet, been 
 settled. Some confined themselves wholly to vegetable food ; 
 some partook of fish ; others added fowls, since they, according 
 
 * Tertullian, De Jejuniis, cc. 2, 10, 13, 14 ; De Oratione, c. 19. The reason 
 assigned for terminating tliem at three o'clock was, that, at that hour, Peter 
 and John (Acts iii. 1) went up into the temple (Tert. DeJejun., c. 10). 
 
 t It was founded (Tert. De Jejun., c. 2) on a misinterpretation of Matt. ix. 
 15 : " The days will come, when the Bridegroom shall be taken from them ; 
 and then shall they fast in those days." This, the ancient Christians sup- 
 posed, referred to the time during wliich Jesus lay in the tomb, and not to the 
 time when lie should be personally with tliem no more ; that is, after his as- 
 cension : the true construction. They would then be exposed to danger and 
 sufiering, which would often enough cause them sadness of heart. 
 
 X Euscb. Hist., lib. v. 24. In Socrates' day (middle of the fiftli century) 
 there was no greater agreement in regard to the fasts before Easter. The 
 Romans, he says (lib. v. c. 22), fasted three weeks, excepting on Saturdays 
 and Sundays ; though, in another passage, he says they fasted every Satur- 
 day. In Illyricum, throughout all Achaia, and at Alexandria, a last of six 
 weeks before Easter was observed. Others fasted for a different period, all 
 Btill calling the fast a " quadragesimal fast " ; for which, he says, some as- 
 signed one reason, and some another, "according to their particular fancies 
 and humors." 
 
FAST PRECEDING EASTER. 383 
 
 to Moses, came also from the waters (Gen. i, 20) ; some ab- 
 stained from " all manner of fruit of ti'ees ; others fed on dry 
 bread only, and some would not allow themselves even that." 
 Other usages prevailed among others, for which, says Socrates, 
 " innumerable I'easons were assigned " ; for there was no au- 
 thority to which any one could appeal, the xA.postles having left 
 every one to his " own will and free choice in the case." 
 There was the same variety, he adds, in regard to the perform- 
 ances in the religious assemblies of Christians. " In sum," 
 says he, "in all places, and among all sects, you will scarcely 
 find two churches exactly agreeing about their prayers." * 
 
 In speaking of the fast which preceded the festival of the 
 Resurrection, and was so intimately connected with it that it 
 is difficult to separate them, we have said all that is required 
 of the fasts of the early Christians ; and we shall not return 
 to the subject. Nor need the festival itself much longer de- 
 tain us. We should only weary our readers, were we to go 
 minutely into the controversy, which for a time raged furiously 
 between the Eastern and Western churches, about the proper 
 time of keeping it. 
 
 The feast was a " movable " one, as it is called : and it was 
 necessary, from year to year, to announce from astronomical 
 calculations on what day of the month the first Sunday after 
 the full moon, next succeeding the vernal equinox, would fall ; 
 and, as Alexandria was at that time the seat of the sciences, 
 this office was generally discharged by the bishop of that place. 
 There remained still, in different countries, a difference in the 
 time of keeping the festival, this difference sometimes amount- 
 ing to a whole month ; and it was not before a. d. 800 that 
 entire uniformity took place. The ancient Christian year 
 began with Easter, and not with Advent. With the old 
 Christians, indeed, the Resurrection was, we may almost say, 
 all in all : on it the truth of Christianity, preaching, every- 
 thing, ]-ested. Christ rose, the Vanquisher of death and hell, 
 the First-born from the dead, the Beginning of the new spirit- 
 ual creation. As it was at the material creation, so now: light 
 came out of darkness ; from night all things came. The fes- 
 tival was called the " salutary" festival, the "kingly day," the 
 * EisU, V. 22. 
 
384 FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS. 
 
 "day of victory," the " crown and head of all festivals." This 
 was not, however, in the earliest times. 
 
 The ceremonies attending the observance of the festival in 
 the second century were simple, compared with those which 
 were afterwards introduced, partly from the natural love of 
 pomp, and partly from imitation of the Heathen festivals, 
 which Christians could with difficulty be prevented from fre- 
 quenting, and from which many observances were from time 
 to time transferred to the Christian festivals. Vigils, or night 
 watches, on Easter Eve, soon began to be kept ; and the peo- 
 ple continued in the churches until midnight. Constantine, 
 naturally vain, and fond of parade, signalized his love of dis- 
 play, and perhaps thought he did honor to religion, by cele- 
 brating them with extraordinary pomp. The custom had been 
 introduced before his time, of lighting up a vast quantity of 
 tapers in the churches on the eve of the festival. Not satisfied' 
 with this, the emperor ordered them to be lighted all over the 
 city : and, further, — that the brilliancy of the night might 
 rival, or even exceed, the splendor of day, — he had pillars of 
 wax, of an immense height, erected ; the effect of which, when 
 lighted in the evening, is described as brilliant in the extreme.* 
 
 The next festival in the order of antiquity, observed, was 
 Pentecost ; that is, Whitsuntide, or Whitsunday as it is now 
 called, — the day of the descent of the Spirit, fifty days after 
 that of the resurrection ; with which, as a festival, it was in- 
 timately connected ; so intimately, indeed, that they may be 
 said to have been united : or, rather, the whole interval 
 between Easter and Pentecost was kept as a festival, in re- 
 membrance of Christ risen and glorified, — no fasting, as before 
 said, being allowed during the period, and no kneeling in 
 prayer ; for this was a token, or attitude of humiliation incon- 
 sistent with the joy and gratitude becoming the season ; joy 
 naturally looking up to heaven with outspread hands. 
 
 These were the only two annual festivals known in the 
 
 * Euseb. Vila Const., lib. iv. c. 22. According to Jerome ( Comm. in Matt, 
 ^xv. 6) tlie Easter vigils were kept till midnight, in consequence of a tradition 
 that Christ would come at that hour ; as, on the night wlien the Passover was 
 'nstituted, the Lord had visited Egypt at that hour. But, that once past, the 
 people could with safety be dismissed. Lactantius (Inst., lib. vii. c. 19) refers 
 to the same tradition. 
 
tertullian's account. 385 
 
 Church in primitive times and before the days of Origen : the 
 one, commemorating the Resurrection ; the other, the outpour- 
 ing of the Spirit at Pentecost, called the Holy Spirit's Day. 
 The silence of Justin Martyr, an earlier Father, on the whole 
 subject of annual festivals, is a remarkable fact, which should 
 not be passed over without notice.* Tertullian speaks only of 
 Easter — the Passover, he calls it — and Pentecost ; though 
 it is certain he would have mentioned others, had any been 
 known to him. On one occasion, at least, he could not have 
 avoided it. He is censurino- Christians of his age for attending 
 Pagan festivals, and attempting to dissuade them from it : and 
 the very drift of his argument is, that Christians possess more 
 festivals than the Heathens ; that, if any indulgence or relaxa- 
 tion were required, they need not seek it at the Pagan festivals, 
 for they had enough of their own. But his enumeration does 
 not extend beyond those already specified.! Could he have 
 adduced others, his position would have been so far strength- 
 ened ; and Tertullian was not the man unnecessarily to yield 
 any advantage in an argument. But, independently of this 
 consideration, it is impossible, we should say, for any one to 
 read Tertullian, and note his frequent allusions to Christian 
 fasts and festivals by name, and believe that he would have 
 omitted to notice other holidays, had they existed in his time. 
 
 Bishop Kaye, who had very carefully read the works of 
 Tertullian, confirms the statement above made. He says, 
 that, in the writings of this Father, " we find no notice of the 
 celebration of our Lord's nativity, although the festivals of 
 Easter and Whitsuntide are frequently mentioned : with refer- 
 ence to which it should be observed, that the word ' Pascha ' 
 was not used to signify merely the day of our Lord's resur- 
 
 * He wrote in the former part of the second century. Though he describes 
 baptism at large, he does not mention any festivals with which it was con- 
 nected. Nor does it appear, from the writings of Christian antiquitj', when 
 Easter and Pentecost first came to be considered as the most suitable seasons 
 for the performance of the rite. The Oriental Christians baptized also at 
 Epiphany. 
 
 t De Idololatria, c. 14. All the Heathen festivals, Tertullian says, would 
 not amount to one Pentecost, or feast of fifty days. We may observe here, 
 'hat this feast included whatever notice was taken of the Ascension, no dis- 
 tinct festival of which is mentioned by any early writer ; nor does any such 
 appear to have existed before some time in the fourth century. 
 
 25 
 
386 FESTIVALS OP THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS. 
 
 rection, but also the day of his passion ; or, rather, the whole 
 interval of time from his crucifixion to his resurrection. In 
 like manner, the word ' Pentecoste ' signifies, not merely 
 Whitsunday, but also the fifty days which intervened between 
 Easter and Whitsunday." * 
 
 We have already alluded to Origen, who, in piety, genius, 
 and learning, had no superior among the early Fathers. Ori- 
 gen wrote in the former part of the third century. He was 
 well acquainted with the opinions and usages of Christians of 
 his day ; and, had any such festival as that of the Nativity 
 existed in his time, he could not have been ignorant of the 
 fact. Yet he does not mention it ; though he expressly names 
 the others of which we have spoken, and under circumstances 
 which would render the absence of all allusion to this wholly 
 inexplicable, had any such festival been then observed. In 
 reply to an objection of Celsus, he speaks of the nature of fes- 
 tivals ; and of such, in particular, as Christians might lawfully 
 attend. He does not extravagantly exalt festivals. In com- 
 mon with Christians of his day, he makes purity of the affec- 
 tions, and a uniformly upright and holy life, the great dis- 
 tinguishing characteristic of the Christian. These were a 
 perpetual offering. The perfect Christian, he says, does not 
 need festivals ; all his days are Lord's days ; and, " passing 
 over from the things of this life to God," he " celebrates a 
 continual Passover, which means transition "; and being able 
 to say with the Apostle, we are " risen with Christ, in the 
 Spirit," he keeps an unbroken Pentecost. But the multitude 
 require sensible objects, he says, to renew the memory of what 
 would else pass away and be forgotten. He enumerates the 
 Christian festivals in the following order : " Lord's days, the 
 Passover and Pentecost." f No other festivals are alluded to 
 here, or elsewhere in the four folio volumes of this eminent 
 Father of the Church. 
 
 In the time of Origen, then, the only Christian festivals in 
 existence — those of the martyrs excepted, of which we do 
 not now speak — were Sunday, the Passover, and Pentecost ; 
 the preparatory fasts being included. The third, or next 
 
 * Writings of TertulUan, p. 389, 3d edit. 
 t Contra Cels., lib. viii. § 22. 
 
EPIPHANY. 387 
 
 oldest festival, was that of the Baptism of the Saviour, called 
 the festival of the Manifestation * (Epiphany), which was 
 celebrated on the 6th of January, though some placed it on 
 the 10th. 
 
 * Jesus's manifestation in the character of the Messiah at his baptism, the 
 original meaning ; and not " manifestation to the Gentiles " at the coming of 
 the "wise men," a turn subsequently given it. The festival vras probably of 
 Jewish- Christian origin; though it is first traced among the followers of 
 Basilides in Egypt, in the time of Clement. The Jewish Christians attached 
 particular importance to the baptism of Jesus, by which he became the Son 
 of God. "And, lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in 
 whom I am well pleased." This view also explains the fact, that the birth 
 and baptism of Jesua were originally celebrated in one festival. 
 
388 FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Christmas: first celebrated on the Fifth of January. — Uncee- 
 
 TAINTT ABOUT THE TiME OF ChRISt's BiRTH. TESTIMONY OF CLEM- 
 ENT OF Alexandria. — Chrysostom's Testimony to the late Origin 
 OF the Festival in the East. — Dr. Milman's Statement. — Or- 
 der OF the Christian Festivals. — Late Origin of Christmas 
 explained. — No Trinitarianism in either of the Old Festivals. 
 
 With Epiphany celebrated on the 6th of January, as ob- 
 served at the conclusion of the last chapter, was united the 
 festival of the birth of Christ (Christmas), at the time we first 
 hear of it ; that is, in Egypt. The first traces of it are obscure 
 in the extreme. Clement of Alexandria, a learned Father of 
 the Church, whom nothing seemingly escaped, and who flour- 
 ished at the beginning of the third century, does not expressly 
 mention it. His testimony, however, is important, as showing 
 the ignorance of Christians of that period, even the best in- 
 formed of them, of the time of Christ's birth. Both the day 
 and the year were involved in uncertainty ; and Clement 
 seems to speak with no little contempt of those who under- 
 took to fix the former. " There are those," he says, " who, 
 with an over-busy curiosity, attempt to fix, not only the year, 
 but the day, of our Saviour's birth ; who, they say, was born 
 in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, on the twenty-fifth of 
 the month Pachon "; that is, the twentieth of May. He adds 
 soon after, " Some say that he was born on the twenty-fourth 
 or twenty-fifth of the month Pharmuthi "; that is, the nine- 
 teenth or twentieth day of April ; * both parties selecting the 
 spring as the season of the nativity. And here Clement leaves 
 the matter. The inference is plain. The day of the nativity 
 was unknown. Whatever notice was taken of the event, was 
 taken at the festival of the Baptism. A few, prying into the 
 
 * Strom., lib. i. c. 21, pp. 407, 408, ed. Oxon. 1715. It has been inferred, how- 
 ever, from a statement made by Clement relating to the interval between the 
 birth of Christ and the death of Commodus, that he himself supposed the day 
 of the nativity to have been the 18th of November. 
 
CHRISTMAS. SELECTION OP THE DAT. 389 
 
 subject with vain solicitude, pretended to assign the day : but 
 they differed ; only agreeing that it was in April or May. In 
 regard to the precise year of the Saviour's birth, our common 
 or vulgar era, by the general consent of the learned, places it 
 from three to five years (four is generally assigned) too late. 
 
 At the period when we discover the first trace of Christmas, 
 it was thus celebrated on the 6th of January, having been 
 superadded to the feast of the Baptism. About the middle of 
 the fourth century, we hear of its celebration at Rome on the 
 25th of December ; the day being determined, it is asserted, 
 — though not on evidence which is perfectly conclusive, — 
 by Julius, Bishop of Rome. This, we believe, is the earliest 
 notice of it as a distinct festival ; certainly the earliest which 
 is clear and undisputed. It was soon after introduced into the 
 East ; where, according to the testimony of Chrysostom, who 
 was Priest of Antioch, and afterwards Bishop of Constantino- 
 ple, it was before unknown. " It is not yet ten years," says 
 he, in his Homily on the Nativity,* about the year 386, " since 
 this day was first made known to us. It had been before ob- 
 served," he adds, "in the West; whence the knowledge of it 
 was derived." It is clear, from this testimony, that the pres- 
 ent time of celebrating the birth of the Saviour was a novelty 
 in the East very late in the fourth century ; and, from the 
 manner in which Chrysostom expresses himself, the conclusion 
 seems irresistible, that, before that time, there was no festival 
 of the kind observed in the Syrian Church. He does not 
 allude to any. He does not say that the question was about 
 the day merely ; as he naturally would have said, if it had 
 been so. " Some affirmed," he says, " and others denied, that 
 the festival was an old one, known from Thrace to Spain." 
 " There was much disputing," he adds, " on the subject, and 
 much opposition was encountered in the introduction of the 
 festival." f This, it must be recollected, was in one of the 
 chief cities in the East, near the end of the fourth century. 
 
 * 0pp., t. ii. pp. 417-432, ed. Par. 1838. 
 
 t On the subject of the use which has been made of Chrysostom's reason- 
 ing, and the fallacies involved in the argument employed to show that the real 
 date of the Saviour's birth was known in his day, see a notice of Dr. Jarvis's 
 " Chronological Introduction to the History of the Ciiurch," in the Christian 
 Examiner, fourth series, vol. iii. pp. 412-414. 
 
390 FESTIVALS OP THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS. 
 
 The Christians of Egypt, at a much later period, are found 
 celebrating the nativity on the old 6th of January.* 
 
 Various reasons have been assioned for the selection of the 
 25th day of December by the Romans. It was clearly an 
 innovation. The day had never been observed as a festival 
 of the nativity by Christians of the East, where Christ had 
 his birth. It is certain, however, that some of the most mem- 
 orable of the Heathen festivals were celebrated at Rome at 
 this season of the year ; and these the Christians were fond of 
 attending, and could be the more readily withdrawn from 
 them if they had similar feasts of their own occurring at the 
 same season. It is certain, too, that many of the ceremonies 
 and observances of the Pagan festivals were transferred to 
 those of Christians.! Whether this, and much else connected 
 with the establishment of Christian festivals, happened by 
 design or accident, is a point we shall not stop formally to 
 discuss. It has been argued, that the winter solstice (^the 
 25th of December in the Roman calendar) was chosen from a 
 beautiful analogy, — the sun, which then begins to return to 
 diffuse warmth and light over the material creation, J present- 
 ing a fit emblem of the rising of the Sun of Righteousness to 
 cheer and bless the world by his beams. The festival of the 
 birth of the Sun (natalis iSoUs invicW), — a figurative expres- 
 sion, denoting his turning at the tropic, — one of the most 
 celebrated festivals amono; the Romans, observed at this 
 period, had probably as much to do in determining the time 
 of the Christian festival as the bare analogy alluded to ; 
 
 * It is a circumstance wortliy of note, that, while the festival of the Bap- 
 tism extended itself from East to West, that of Christmas travelled from West 
 to East. We have not overlooked the testimony of Augustine, at the end of 
 the fourth century : but he is too late a writer to be an authority for any early 
 tradition ; and, though he mentions the festival of the Nativity, he does not 
 ascribe to it the same importance as to the two older festivals of Easter and 
 Whitsunday. 
 
 t Tlius, daring the Roman Saturnalia, or feast of Saturn, holden in memory 
 of the golden age of equality and innocence under his reign, and kept in the 
 time of the Caesars from the 17th to the 23d of December (seven days), "all 
 orders were devoted to mirth and feasting"; friends sent presents to each 
 other; slaves enjoyed their liberty, and wore " caps as badges of freedom "; 
 irax tapers were lighted in the temples ; and jests and freedom, and all sort* 
 of jollity, prevailed. 
 
 t In the Northern Hemisphere, where the date was adopted. 
 
THEIR ORDER AND ORIGIN. 391 
 
 which, however, served well for rhetorical and poetic illustra- 
 tion. We find the Christian poet, Prudentius, soon after 
 makino- use of it for this pui'pose. The fixing of the birth of 
 the Saviour at the winter solstice, when the days begin to 
 increase, which would place that of John at the summer sol- 
 stice, when they begin to decrease, also gratified the love of a 
 mystical interpretation of the language of Scripture. It gave, 
 as it was discovered, to the affirmation, " He must increase, 
 but I must decrease," a deep-hidden meaning. In the absence 
 of evidence, however, we will not undertake to affirm for 
 what reasons the Romans adopted the 25th of December as 
 the day of the festival of the Nativity.* 
 
 The sum of the whole is, that, besides the weekly festival 
 of Sunday, there are two annual festivals (those of the Resur- 
 rection of Christ and the Descent of the Spirit, or Easter and 
 Whitsunday), or rather one festival of fifty days, including 
 both, which dates back to an indefinitely remote period of 
 Christian antiquity ; that the festival of the Baptism of Jesus 
 came next, and, last, that of his Nativity ; that this last was 
 wholly unknown for some centuries after the apostolic age ; 
 that it is not alluded to by any very ancient Christian writer, 
 by Justin Martyr or Tertullian ; that it was unknown to the 
 learned Origen, near the middle of the third century ; that 
 Clement of Alexandria does not mention the festival, and 
 speaks of the vain labor of some antiquaries who attempted 
 to fix the date of the Saviour's birth, who agreed in nothing 
 except in placing it in the spring months of April or May ; 
 that the festival was first celebrated in January, in connection 
 with the festival of the Manifestation ; that Chrysostom, who 
 represents the opinions of the Oriental Church, was ignorant, 
 if not of the festival itself, yet certainly of the present period 
 of its celebration, near the end of the fourth century ; and, 
 finally, that the festival came from the West, and not, like all 
 the more ancient festivals, from the East. 
 
 The true explanation of the origin of both the more ancient 
 festivals (Easter and Whitsunday) is, that they were Jewish 
 feasts, — continued among the Jewish Christians, and after- 
 wards, it is impossible to say when, adopted by the Gentile 
 * See Beausobre, Histoire de Manich€e et du Manich€isme, ii. 619, etc. 
 
392 FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS. 
 
 believers ; Christ having consecrated them anew, the one by 
 his death and resurrection, and the other by the outpouring of 
 the Spirit upon tlie Apostles. Neither of them was instituted 
 by Christians ; neither of them originated in purely Christian 
 ideas, as is shown by the testimony of Origen, already referred 
 to, and in confirmation of which we might adduce a multitude 
 of passages from the early Christian writers to the same 
 point.* But there was in existence among the Jews no festi- 
 val on which Christmas could be ingrafted ; and this, and the 
 fact that it was not customary in the early ages to celebrate 
 the birthdays, but only the deaths, of distinguished individuals, 
 
 * We give the following extract from the Manicliean Faiistus partly as well 
 illustrating the Christian idea of worsliip at the time the Manieheans were 
 separated from the Church, in the third century ; and partly because we wish 
 to say a word or two of the Manieheans in connection with the festival of 
 Christmas. The passage is preserved by Augustine, in his reply to Faustus 
 the Manicliean. " The Pagans," says Faustus, " think to worship the Divin- 
 ity by altars, temples, images, victims, and incense. I differ much from them 
 in this, who regard myself, if I am worthy, as the reasonable temple of God, 
 the living image of his living Majesty. I accept Jesus Christ as his image ; 
 the mind, imbued with good knowledge and disciplined in virtue, I regard as 
 the true altar ; and the honor to be rendered to the Divinity, and the sacrifices 
 to be offered, I place in prayers alone, and those pure and simple." — Contra 
 Faust., lib. XX. c. 3. 
 
 We do not remember to have seen it noticed as an argument for the late 
 origin of the festival of the Nativity, that the Manieheans, who were separated 
 from the Church, as we have said, in the third centurj', did not observe it, 
 though they observed both the old feasts of Easter and Pentecost. Yet the 
 argument has some weight, if any subsidiary evidence were needed in a 
 matter so plain. In their forms as well as their general idea of worship, the 
 Manieheans retained much of the old simplicity ; and, from the time of their 
 being excluded from the Church, they became an independent witness for its 
 more ancient customs. They allowed of no " sensible aids " to worship, 
 which among them consisted, like the old Christian wc<-ship, in prayers and 
 singing, to which were added reading from their sacred books, and an ad- 
 dress, or exhortation ; and they preserved the old congregational discij)lire. 
 They had, as we have just seen, neither temples nor altars nor statues ; they 
 baptized both adults and infants ; they did not offer prayers to the dead, and 
 rendered to the martyrs only those honors which were commonly rendered 
 them at the end of the second century ; they celebrated the Eucharist, though 
 substituting water for wine, the use of which was forbidden b}' their ascetic 
 principles ; the festivals they celebrated with the simplicity of olden time. 
 With the exception of the Avine at the Eucharist, the omission of which is 
 'eadily explained, we have here as faithful a picbure of Christian worship, and 
 the ideas connected with it, in the early part of the third century, as could 
 well be drawn. The entire absence of every trace of the festival of the Na- 
 tivity only renders it the more exact. 
 
CHRISTMAS. 393 
 
 accounts for its late origin. The " Natalia " of the martyrs 
 were kept on the anniversary of their death, — their birth 
 into an immortal existence. 
 
 We have no complaint to make of the selection of the 25th 
 of December, as the day for commemorating the birth of the 
 Saviour. It is as good as any other day ; it being understood, 
 as we suppose it is, by every one even moderately acquainted 
 with the writings of Christian antiquity, that the true date of 
 the nativity is irrecoverably lost.* For ourselves, we like this 
 festival of Christmas, and would let it stand where it is, and 
 where it has stood ever since the days of Chrysostom at least, 
 — a period of more than fourteen centuries. It matters not 
 in the least that we are ignorant of the real date of the Sav- 
 iour's birth. We can be just as grateful for his appearance 
 in the world as we could be, did we know the precise day or 
 moment of his entrance into it. Of what consequence is it for 
 us to know the particular day, or even the year, when this 
 hght first shone upon the earth, since we know that it has 
 arisen, and we enjoy its lustre and warmth ? Of just as little 
 consequence, for all practical purposes, as for the voyager on 
 one of our majestic rivers to be informed of the exact spot in 
 the remote wilds on which the stream takes its rise, since his 
 little bark is borne gayly on by its friendly waters ; or for any 
 of us, if our affairs have been long prosperous, to be able to 
 tell how or when, to the fraction of a minute, our prosperity 
 commenced. If we have been in adversity, and light has 
 broken in upon our gloom, and continues to shine upon us, it 
 imports little whether or not we can fix on the exact point of 
 time at which the clouds began to break and scatter. Just so 
 with this Star of Bethlehem, which " shines o'er sin and sor- 
 row's night " : the exact moment at which its beams began to 
 be visible over the hills and valleys of Judea is not a subject 
 about which we need perplex ourselves. No royal historiogra- 
 pher Avas present to chronicle the Saviour's birth ; yet, if his 
 spirit be in our hearts, we can, if we approve the observance, 
 commemorate his advent, with all the kindlings of devout 
 
 * " I do not believe," says Beausobre (t. ii. p. 692), " tliat the evangelists 
 themselves knevir it. It is evident that St. Luke, who tells us that he becfan 
 to be about thirty years of aye, when he was baptized, did not know his precise 
 
B94 FESTIVALS OP THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS. 
 
 affection and gratitude, — at our homes, or in our liouses of 
 worship, where we have so often met to seek comfort and 
 strength from his words, — on any day which the piety of past 
 ages has set apart for so holy a purpose. 
 
 One further remark we would make. We see, in the order 
 in which the festivals arose, important testimony to the truth 
 of Christian history. It could hardly have been different, the 
 facts being supposed true. Christmas could not have preceded 
 in its origin the other festivals founded on the events of the 
 resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, without which there could 
 have been no spiritual Christianity. It must almost of neces- 
 sity follow them, and grow up from obscure beginnings, as it 
 did, out of the gratitude and love of Christians, making it diffi- 
 cult to trace its origin. All this, we say, was natural, and 
 confirms the truth of Christian history. Reading the Acts of 
 the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul, one would have been 
 surprised to find a festival of the birth of Christ existing from 
 the first. But we are not surprised at finding that the resur- 
 rection (without which, according to the Apostle, his preaching 
 and the faith of Christians would be vain) and the descent of 
 the Spirit (which was, in truth, the beginning of spiritual 
 Christianity) were both early celebrated, as we know they 
 were. It Avas Christ risen and glorified of wdiich these old 
 believers chiefly thought, — the Redeemer from sin, the Leader 
 in the way of immortality, sitting at the right hand of God, — 
 not the infant Christ. 
 
 With respect to the uncertainty of the date of Jesus's birth, 
 Di;. Milman, Dean of St. Paul's, London, thus expresses him- 
 self: "The year in which Christ was born is still contested. 
 There is still more uncertainty concerning the time of the 
 year, which learned men are still laboring to determine. 
 Where there is and can be no certainty, it is the wisest 
 course to acknowledge our ignorance, and not to claim the 
 authority of historic truth for that which is pux*ely conjectural. 
 The two ablest modern writers who have investigated the 
 chronology of the life of Christ — Dr. Burton and Mr. Gres- 
 well — have come to opposite conclusions : one contending for 
 the spring, the other for the autumn. Even if the argument 
 of either had any solid ground to rest on, it would be difficult 
 
ANCIENT FESTIVALS NOT TRINITARIAN. 395 
 
 (would it be worth while ?) to extirpate the traditionary belief 
 
 so beautifully embodied in Milton's hymn : — 
 
 ' It was the winter wild 
 When tlie Heaven-born child,' &c. 
 
 Were the point of the least importance, we should, no doubt, 
 have known more about it." * 
 
 The reflection of the learned Dean is judicious. The day 
 and the year, as before said, matter not. We are not so much 
 Christians of the " letter" as to think them of any importance. 
 Let them not be contended about. Let Christmas stand, 
 where it has so long stood, to be observed in honor of the 
 " Heaven-born child." As intelligent Christians, however, it 
 is well to know the " historic truth," and not put certainty for 
 uncertainty in a matter of this sort. 
 
 There is no Trinitarianism connected with any of the an 
 cient festivals. Nothing could be further removed from Trini- 
 tarianism than the simple ideas on which the Easter festival 
 was founded, — "dead, buried, and, the third day, rose again." 
 " The Logos doctrine " (introduced by the learned converts 
 who came fresh from their Heathen studies), associated in 
 thought with the death and resurrection of Jesus, evidently 
 occasioned some embarrassment in the minds of the Fathers 
 who received it ; believing, as they generally did for a long 
 time, that the whole Christ suffered. The simple faith of the 
 early believers was not attended with any difficulties of this 
 sort. 
 
 The effiision of the Spirit, or the " pouring it out," as the 
 very terms exclude personality, is not a Trinitarian idea ; and 
 the observance of the festival of Pentecost, therefore, in early 
 times, affords no evidence of the Trinitarianism of those times, 
 but was quite compatible with the opinion which Gregory 
 Nazianzen, late in the fourth century, says was entertained by 
 some in his day, — that the Spirit was simply " a mode of 
 divine operation"; some others calling it "God himself"; 
 some, " a creature of God " ; and some not knowing what to 
 believe on the subject. It made no difference, so far as the 
 celebration of this festival was concerned, which of these 
 views prevailed. 
 
 * History of Christianity, p. 57, ed. New York, 1851. 
 
396 FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CUEISTIANS. 
 
 As to Christmas, — the birth-festival, — that, no more than 
 the festival of the Resurrection or the festival of the Spirit, 
 recognizes a Trinity. It would be difficult to extract the 
 Trinity from the angelic song, " Glory to God in the highest, 
 and on earth peace, good-vv^ill to men." We may, therefore, 
 add these three festivals — two of them earlier, and one later 
 — to the monuments of Christian antiquity already referred 
 to, as bearing no testimony to the ecclesiastical doctrine of the 
 Trinity. 
 
 After what has been said in the foregoing pages, we are 
 prepared to re-assert, in conclusion, that the modern doctrine 
 of the Trinity is not found in any document or relic belonging 
 to the Church of the first three centuries. Letters, art, usage, 
 theology, worship, creed, hymn, chant, doxology, ascription, 
 commemorative rite, and festive observance, so far as any re- 
 mains or any record of them are preserved, coming down from 
 early times, are, as regards this doctrine, an absolute blank. 
 They testify, so far as they testify at all, to the supremacy of 
 the Father, the only true God ; and to the inferior and derived 
 nature of the Son. There is nowhere among these remains a 
 co-equal Trinity. The cross is there ; Christ is there as the 
 Good Shepherd, the Father's hand placing a crown, or victor's 
 wreath, on his head ; but no undivided Three, — co-equal, 
 infinite, self-existent, and eternal. This was a conception to 
 which the age had not arrived. It was of later origin. 
 
INDEX. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 A. 
 
 Aetians, the, 273. 
 
 Alexsmclor, Bishop of Alexandria ; his 
 conduct toward Arius, 241. Blamed 
 by Constantine, 251. His death, 
 263. 
 
 Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, 
 opposes Arius, 267. His prayer, 
 268. 
 
 Alexandria at the end of the second 
 century, 116. 
 
 Alexandrian Catechetical School, 
 qualification for teachers in, 118, 
 liy. Christian theology originated 
 in, 119. Contest in, between the 
 Pagan faitli and the Christian, 119. 
 
 Ambrose of Milan introduces the an- 
 tii)honic singing into the West, 345. 
 A writer of iiymns, but not the au- 
 thor of tlie " Te Ueum," 853. 
 
 Ambrose, Origen's philosophical con- 
 vert, 160. Devotes his wealth to 
 the purchase of manuscripts for 
 Origen's use, 160. Origen calls him 
 his " work-driver," 160. Death, 
 168. 
 
 Ammonius Saccas, a Platonic philoso- 
 piier, 156, 157. 
 
 Angels, honor due to, according to 
 Justin, 76. 
 
 Anomoeans, the, 273. 
 
 Ante-Nicene Fathers, the, did not be- 
 lieve in the equality of the Father, 
 Son, and Spirit, 70, 75. How their 
 doctrine of the Trinity differed from 
 the modern, 2o9, 240, 335 et seqq. 
 
 Anthropomorphitic representations of 
 the Trinity, 374, 375. 
 
 Anthropomorphitic language of the 
 Jewish Scriptures, 59. 
 
 Antioch, second council of, held in op- 
 positi(m to Paul of Samosata about 
 A. D. 265, ri'jects the term " consub- 
 stantial," 283. 
 
 Antioch, council of, a. d. 341, declares 
 against the Nicene faith, and rejects 
 the term " consubstantial," 339. 
 
 Antiquity of the Christian faith, 126. 
 
 Apollinaris, father and son, turn the 
 Old and New Testaments into verse, 
 356, note. 
 Apostles' Creed, the, 315-341. The 
 Apostles' Creed not the primitive 
 one, and not made by the Apostles, 
 316. Testimonies of the learned, 
 316. Fabulous account of its origin 
 by Rufinus, 317, 318. No mention 
 of it by the early Fathers, or by 
 councils, 318. Not known to Ter- 
 tullian about A. D. 200, 320. Older 
 creeds, 319, 320. Councils of Epiie- 
 sus and Chalcedon forbade the use 
 of any creed but the Nicene, as 
 augmented hy the Council of Con- 
 stantinople, 320, 321. lioman and 
 Oriental creeds and thatof Aquileia 
 compared, 321, 322. Additions to 
 the Apostles' Creed, 322. When it 
 first appeared in its present form, 
 324. Not Trinitarian, 324. 
 Apostolic Fathers, 3-20. General re- 
 marks as to date and authorship of 
 writings attributed to them, 19. Of 
 little value as authorities, 21. Jus- 
 tin's doctrine of the Logos not found 
 in tliem, 19, 20, 64, 69, note. See 
 Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Her- 
 nias, Ignatius, Polycarp. 
 Apostolical Constitutions, not of Apos- 
 tolical origin, 324-326. When first 
 reterred to, 324, 325. Tiieir age 
 matter of conjecture, 326. C'atholic 
 authorities lor their rejection, 326. 
 Protestant, 327. Views of recent 
 German critics, 328. Their Arian 
 complexion, 328. Their doctrine : 
 the Son inferior, 328, 329. The 
 Spirit, 329. Not Trinitarian, 330. 
 Their probable origin, 330. Canons 
 of the Apostles, 324, 328. 
 Aquileia, creed of, compared with the 
 lioman and Oriental, 321, 322. Not 
 Trinitarian, 324. 
 Arianism, origin of, and controversy 
 relating to, 239 et seqq. Decision of 
 the Council of Nice, 259-261. Suc- 
 cess and decline of Arianism aftei 
 
400 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 the death of Arius, 273, 274. The 
 wlnle world Ariaii, 273. Arian 
 councils, 273, 274. Arianisrn long 
 survives in the West, 274. Influ- 
 ence of tlie ladies on its fortunes, 
 274, note. 
 
 A.riniinuin (Kimini), council of, de- 
 clares against the Nicene taitli, 340. 
 
 Aristide's, a Cliristian apologist, 21, 22. 
 
 Arius and the Arian controversy, 239- 
 289. Approach of the storm, 239. 
 Ante-Nicene Fathers admitted the 
 inferiority of the Son to the Father, 
 239, 240. Their language not Trin- 
 itarian in the modern sense, 240. 
 Incidents in the life of Arius, 240. 
 Origin of the controversy, 241. Soz- 
 onien's account, 241. Account of 
 Socrates and Tlieodoret, 241, 242. 
 Alexander the aggressor, 241. Per- 
 sonal appearance and character of 
 Arius, 242-244. His popularity, 
 
 243, 244. Course pursued by Al- 
 exander, 245. Arius expelled the 
 city, 245. Retires to Palestine ; re- 
 ception there, 246. Eusebius of 
 Caesarea espouses his cause, 246. 
 Also Eusebius of Niconiedia, 247. 
 Letter of Arius to Alexander, 248. 
 Activity of Alexander, 249. War 
 of words, 249. Constantine at- 
 tempts to mediate, 251. Council of 
 Nice, 251, 252. Opinions of Arius, 
 and their relation to the doctrines of 
 preceding ages, 252-255, 301. Pro- 
 ceedings of the council, 256. En- 
 trance of the emperor, and his ap- 
 pearance, 257, 258. The creed, 259. 
 Anathemas, 260. Arius and his 
 friends anathematized, 261. His 
 exile, 262. Constantine is softened 
 towards him, 263, 264. His return 
 to Alexandria, 265. Appears at 
 Constantinople, and satisfies the 
 emperor of his orthodoxy, 267. To 
 be admitted to communion, 268. 
 His sudden death, 268. His intel- 
 lectual and moral character, 242, 
 
 244, 269. His writings, 270. A 
 hymnologist, 353. Success and de- 
 cline of Arianisrn, 273, 274. The 
 friends and associates of Arius, 275, 
 276. Athanasius, 276-281. 
 
 Arnobius, 235. Holds the Son to be 
 distinct and inferior, 235. Uncer- 
 tain whether he mentions the Spirit, 
 235. 
 
 Artemon, 189. Asserts that the Logos 
 doctrine was recent, 189, 190. 
 Claims to hold the primitive doc- 
 trine, 189, 190. 
 
 Artemonites, the, 190, 191. 
 
 Artistic representations of the Trini- 
 ty, 360-376. Bear testimony to its 
 late origin, 360. No earlv group 
 of the trinity, 360, 361, 374. The 
 Father, how represented, 361, 362. 
 Father and Son, 363. Earlv por- 
 traits of the Son, 364, 365, 366. 
 Later portraits, 365, 366, 367. The 
 glorv, or nimbus, in symbolic art, 
 368-372. Forms of, 370, 371. Forms 
 of the cross, 371, note. Use and 
 significance of the nimbus, 371, 372. 
 Representations of the Spirit, 373, 
 374. Anthropomorphitic Trinity ; 
 geometric illustrations, 374, 375. 
 The Pope's prohibition, 375. No 
 Trinitarianism in any artistic re- 
 mains of the earlier ages, 376. 
 
 Ascension, the. Festival of, 385, note. 
 
 Athanasian Creed, the, not written by 
 Athanasius, 2Bl, 341. Of uncer- 
 tain date and origin, 341, 342. Was 
 composed after the mi(ldle of the 
 fifth century, 341. Ascribed to 
 various authors, 341. 
 
 Athanasius at the Council of Nice, 
 256. Becomes Bishop of Alexan- 
 dria, 263. Charges against him, 
 263, 265. Condemned and deposed 
 by the Council of Tyre, 265. Ex- 
 iled, 267. Returns to Alexandria, 
 and again flees, 277. Reestablished 
 in his see, and again compelled to 
 leave, 278. His death, writings, 
 and character, 279-281. His expla- 
 nation of the sense in which the 
 term " consubstantial" was used by 
 the Council of Nice, 283. Not the 
 autlKJr of the creed which passes 
 under his name, 281, 341. 
 
 Athenagoras, 100, 101. His works, 
 100. He holds the Father su- 
 preme, 100. His doctrines as to 
 the Son, 100. The Logos, 100, 101, 
 note. The Holy Spirit, 101. 
 
 Athenodorus, a pupil of Origen's, 165. 
 
 Atonement, the : Justin no advocate 
 for the modern popular doctrine of, 
 85. Views of Lactantius as to, 238 ; 
 of Origen, 193. Bunsen's state- 
 ment as to the doctrine of Origen 
 and the Fathers before him in re- 
 gard to the atonement, 193. 
 
 Aureole, the, 368. 
 
 B. 
 
 Baptism, Justin's account of, 86. 
 
 Barnabas, Epistle of, 17-19. Its date 
 and origin, 17. Not of great value, 
 18. Recognizes the preexistence of 
 the Saviour, 18. But maintains the 
 
INDEX. 
 
 401 
 
 supremacy of the Father, 18. Con- 
 tains no trace of the doctrine of the 
 Logos, 18. Nor of that of the per- 
 sonality of the Spirit, 18. 
 
 Bardesanes, an early writer of hymns, 
 349. 
 
 Baronius pronounces the Apostolical 
 Constitutions spurious, 326. 
 
 Barrow, Dr., says it is not known who 
 composed the Apostles' Creed, 316. 
 
 Basil could only gradually teach tiie 
 deity of tlie Holy S])irit in his 
 church, 287. Admits that the old 
 Fathers were silent respecting it, 
 339. They who acknowledged its 
 divinity condemned for introducing 
 novel dogmas, 339. 
 
 Bellarmine pronounces the Apostoli- 
 cal Constitutions spurious, 326. 
 
 Beryllus, the Monarcliian, and his 
 opinions, 192. He was a writer of 
 hymns, 350, 351. 
 
 Brucker says that the early Fathers 
 were tainted with Platonism, 65. 
 That thoy taught the inferiority of 
 the Son, 70. 
 
 Buddeus says the Apostles' Creed is 
 not to be attributed to the Apostles, 
 317. 
 
 Bunsen on the recently discovered 
 Syriac version of the Ignatian 
 Epistles, 14, note. On the Appen- 
 dix to the Epistle to Diognetus, 94, 
 note. The Confession of Hippoly- 
 tus, 182, note. Ancient psalmody, 
 348, 349. 
 
 Butler, Charles, adverts to the fact 
 that the Apostles' Creed was ])ro- 
 scribed by two general councils, 
 821, note. 
 
 Canons of the Apostles, the, 324, 328. 
 
 Catacombs, the, and the inscriptions 
 there, 113. 
 
 " Catholic," when the term first ap- 
 peared in creeds, 324. 
 
 Celsus, Origcn's work against, 176. 
 Intellectual character of Celsus, 177. 
 
 Christ. How first represented in art, 
 361. Early portraits of, 364, 365, 
 366. Later portraits, 365, 366, 367. 
 Time of his birth unknown, 388, 
 894. See. also Logos, Son. 
 
 Christians, the common and unedu- 
 cated of the early Church, 112-114. 
 
 Christmas. See Festivals. 
 
 Chrysostom involved in the Origenist 
 controversy, 211. Death of, 211. 
 His nocturnal musical processions, 
 857 
 
 26 
 
 Church, ancient, hymnology of the. 
 343-359. 
 
 Churches, when first erected, 343, 
 note. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, and his times, 
 115-150. Time of Clement, 116. 
 Notices of his life, 116. His teach- 
 ers, 117, 118. Becomes head of the 
 Catechetical School at Alexandria, 
 118. Disappears from history, 118. 
 An eclectic, 118. Necessity of learn- 
 ing in the teachers of the Alexan- 
 drian School, 118. Clement's writ- 
 ings, 119. His " Hypotyposes," 119, 
 note. "Hortatory Address," 120. 
 Mode of defending Christianity, 120. 
 Clement's theology, 122 el seqq. 
 Does not ascribe to the Son a per- 
 sonal existence from eternity, 123. 
 The Logos and the Son, 124, 125. 
 Clement asserts the inferiority of 
 the Son in strong terms, 124, 125. 
 Attempts to separate the idea of 
 time from the generation of the 
 Son, 126, note. Antiquity of the 
 Christian faith, 126. Ascribes in- 
 spiration to Plato and the philoso- 
 phers, 127. Influence of sculpture 
 among the Greeks, 128. Man not 
 absolutely depraved by nature, 129. 
 Clement's " I'sedagogue," 130. His 
 precepts of living, 130. Lite in 
 Alexandria at the beginning of the 
 third century, 132. Food, wine, 
 133. Furniture, dress, 136. Con- 
 vivial entertainments, 136. Gar- 
 lands and ointments, 137. The la- 
 dies of Alexandria, 138. The " fine 
 gentlemen," 139. Clement's " Stro- 
 mata," 131, 141. Subjects treated, 
 142. Clement's idea of the true Gnos- 
 tic, or perfect Christian. 144-149. 
 The heretical Gnostics, 149. Hymn 
 attributed to Clement, 120, 3-50. 
 
 Clement of Rome, 4-9. The first 
 Epistle to the Corinthians attrib- 
 uted to him, 4-8. May be accepted 
 as mostly genuine, 4. Opinions of 
 writers of authority on this point, 4. 
 Its date, 4, 5. Its character, con- 
 tents, and doctrine, 5-8. Has no 
 traces of tiie doctrine of the Trinity 
 or of the doctrine of the Logos, 
 5. Distinction between God and 
 Christ preserved, 5-8. Opinion of 
 Photius, 7. Preexistence of the Son 
 not distinctly asserted in the Epistle, 
 13. Its general character, 8. Sec- 
 ond Epistle to the Corinthians and 
 other writings ascribed to Clement 
 of Rome, not genuine, 9. 
 Codex Sinaiticus, the, 10. 
 
402 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Constantia, the sister of Constantine, 
 befrieiKls Arias, 263, 204. 
 
 Constantine attempts to mediate be- 
 tween tlie parties in Arius's case, 
 
 251. Calls tiie Couneil of Nice, 251, 
 
 252. Enters the council, 257. Eu- 
 sebius's description of the spectacle 
 presented, 258. Batiishes Athana- 
 sius, 267. Is satisfied with Arius's 
 orthodoxy, 267. Orders Ale.xander 
 to aduiit liim to communion, 268. 
 Receives Arian baptism in his last 
 ilhiess, 276. His belief, 276, note. 
 Constantine and Eusebius of Cuesa- 
 rea, 299. 
 
 Constantinople, council of, a. n. 381, 
 adopted tlie Nicene Creed with an 
 additional clause respecting the 
 Holy Spirit, 287, 288. 
 
 Constantius, an Arian, 273. 
 
 " Consubstantial," the term, how used 
 by the Fathers of Nice, 260, 282-285, 
 334. Rejected by the second Coun- 
 cil of Antiocii, held in opposition to 
 Paul of Samosata, 283. Later coun- 
 cils which rejected it, and declared 
 against the Nicene faith, 339, 340. 
 
 Creeds, origin of, 315. Creed of Cyp- 
 rian, 320. Of Gregory Thaumatur- 
 gus, 320. Of Irenreus, 319, 320. 
 Of Origen, 320. Of Tertullian, 109, 
 320. The old Roman, the Oriental, 
 and that of Aquileia, compared, 321, 
 822. See also Apostles' Creed, Atha- 
 nasian Creed, Lucian. 
 
 Creed-making, evils of, 288. 
 
 Crescens, the Cynic, hostile to Justin 
 and the Christians, 28, 29. 
 
 Cross, forms of, in art, 371, note. 
 
 Cudworth asserts the Platonism of the 
 early Fathers, 65. Says that they 
 generally taught tlae inferiority of 
 the Son,' 70. 
 
 Cureton, Rev. W., his edition of the 
 Syriac version of the Epistles of 
 Ignatius, 14, note. 
 
 Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, 227. 
 Held the Son to be distinct from the 
 Fatlier and inferior, 227-229. Con- 
 founds the Spirit witii the Logos, 
 227, 228. Distinguishes the Spirit 
 from the Logos, and makes it infe- 
 rior to Christ, 228. Baptismal creed 
 of, 320. 
 
 D. 
 
 DaiM thinks the Apostolical Consti- 
 tutions written after the Council of 
 Nice, 327. 
 
 Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, hos- 
 tile to Origen, 162. Persecutes him 
 
 and drives him from Alexandria 
 163. His death, 103, 164. 
 
 Demons, Justin Martyr's account of, 
 43. 
 
 Didron, Iconographie Chretienne by, 
 360. 
 
 Diognetus, Epistle to. See Epistle to 
 Diognetus. 
 
 Dionysius of Alexandria and his opin- 
 ions, 218-220. Calls the Son a creat- 
 ure, diflering in substance from tl:e 
 Father, 218- What Huet and Basil 
 say of his doctrines, ooO, 337, 339. 
 
 Du Pin holds that the Apostles drew up 
 no form of faith. 317. Thinks that 
 the Apostolical Constitutions sliould 
 be referred to the third or fourth 
 century, and that they have been 
 much altered, 326. Says the Ath- 
 anasian Creed was not written by 
 Athanasius, 341. 
 
 E. 
 
 Easter, 381-384. 
 
 Ephrem, the Syrian, his hymns, 350. 
 
 Epiphanius engages in the Origenist 
 controversy, 21 1. Speaks of a work 
 called the '' Apostolical Constitu- 
 tions," 324, 325. Not certain that 
 our present " Constitutions " is the 
 same, 325. 
 
 Epiphany, the. Festival of, 386, 387. 
 
 Epistle to Diognetus, 92-94. Probably 
 not the work of Justin, 92. Opin- 
 ions of the learned, 92. Its prob- 
 ble date, 92. Of great value and 
 interest, 92. Teaches the suprem- 
 acy of the Father and the subor- 
 dination of the Son, 93, 94. No 
 allusion to the Spirit, 93, 94. The 
 writer's doctrine of the Logos, 93. 
 The "Apiiendix" probably a spuri- 
 ous addition, 94. Bunsen on the 
 authorship of the " Appendix," 94, 
 note. 
 
 Eusebius of Cajsarea, 290-314. Inci- 
 dents of his life, 290, 291. His 
 friendship for Pamphilus, 291. His 
 picture of the happiness of Chris- 
 tians after persecution had ceased, 
 293. Rebuilding of churches, 294. 
 Church of Tyre, 294. Eusebius 
 made Bishop of Ctesarea, 294. His 
 studies, 2',t4. Takes a prominent 
 part in the Arian controversy, 294. 
 Offers a creed, 295. Subscribes the 
 creed of the council, 295. Mean- 
 ing of the term " consubstantial,'' 
 260, 296. Eusebius defended from 
 the charge of insincerity, 296. His 
 want of firmness, 297. Refuses to 
 
INDEX. 
 
 403 
 
 accept the see of Antiocb, 298. The 
 emperor's esteem for him, 299. His 
 deatli and cliaracter, 300 His theo- 
 logieal opinions, 300. Held tlie old 
 doctrine of the inferiority of the 
 Son, 302-305. No consubstantialist, 
 302. Held tliat the Spirit was made 
 by the Son, 303. Significance of 
 his belief 305. His writings, 306. 
 Credit to which he is entitled as an 
 historian, 306 et spqq. Charge of 
 suppression of truth, 306. Of de- 
 fending " pious frauds," 307. Value 
 of his authorities, 308-312. Con- 
 temporary events, 312. Different 
 value of his materials, 313. His 
 use of them, 313. Artistic merit 
 of his work, 313, 314. 
 Eusebius of Niconiedia, a pupil of Lu- 
 cian's, 224. Espouses the cause of 
 Arius, 247. Subscribes the Nicene 
 Creed, 261. But continues to teach 
 Arian doctrine and is exiled, 261. 
 Further notice of, 275. 
 
 F. 
 
 Faith, the one unchangeable rule of, 
 according to TertuUia^n, 109, 320. 
 
 Fasts among the early Christians, 
 381-383. 
 
 Father, the, how represented in art, 
 361, 362. 
 
 Fathers, the, decline of reverence for, 
 33. Arguments and manner of writ- 
 ing, 120, 121. Their chiims to our 
 respect, 33, 140. The Fathers be- 
 fore and after the council of Nice, 
 how they differed, 285. Difference 
 in the mode of defending their doc- 
 trines, 285. Merits as expositors, 
 331. Terms used by, 239, 240, 
 332-335. Not used in the modern 
 sense, 240, 333. The early Fathers 
 not Trinitarian in the modern sense, 
 70, 75, 335-341. 
 
 Festivals of the ancient Christians, 
 377-391). Christmas n(jt the earliest, 
 
 377. Weekly festival of Sunday, 
 
 378. A day of joy, 378-381. to 
 fast or kneel in prayer unlawful, 
 378. Sunday not called the Sab- 
 bath, 379. Oldest annual festival 
 that of the Resurrection, or Easter, 
 381. Preparatory fasting, 381. Time 
 of it, how determined, 383. Pente- 
 cost, or Wliitsunday, the next fes- 
 tival in order of time, 384. No 
 other festivals known to Tertullian, 
 385. No others known to the 
 Church in tlie time of Origen, 386. 
 Baptism, or F^piphany, 386, 387. 
 
 Christmas first celebrated on the 
 sixth of January, 388, 389. Clem- 
 ent's account, 388. Afterwards on 
 the twenty-fifth of December, 389. 
 When adopted at Rome, 389. In 
 the East, 389. Chrysostom's testi- 
 mony, 389. Reasons for adopting 
 the twenty-fifth of December, 390. 
 The late origin of Christmas ex- 
 plained, 392. Not observed by the 
 Manicheans, 392, note. Not impor- 
 tant to know the day, 393. Re- 
 marks of Milman, 394. No Trini- 
 tarianism connected with either of 
 the ancient festivals, 395. Not found 
 in any document or relic belonging 
 to the church of the first three cen- 
 turies, 396. 
 Flavian and Diodorus introduce the 
 antiphonic singing at Antioch, 344. 
 Flavian changes the old doxology, 
 288, 359. 
 
 G. 
 
 Gieseler on Origen's doctrine of the 
 generation of the Son, 188. Says 
 Origen taught that the Spirit was 
 created by the Son, 188. 
 
 Glory, the, in symbolic art, 368-372. 
 
 Gnostic, the true, or the perfect Chris- 
 tian, 144-149. The heretical Gnos- 
 tics, 149. 
 
 Grabe assigns to the Apostolical Con- 
 stitutions a late origin, 327. 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen represents the 
 ideas of theologians on the sub- 
 ject of the Spirit as undefined late 
 in the fourth century, 287. Poems 
 of, 356, note. 
 
 Gregory, Pope, reforms church music, 
 346. 
 
 Gregory Thaumaturgus, 220, 221. A 
 pupil of Origen's, 165. His'pane- 
 gj'rical oration, 165, note. Held 
 the Son to be inferior to the Father, 
 and of a different substance, 221, 
 337. His creed, 320. 
 
 H. 
 
 Harmonius, an early writer of hymns, 
 
 349. 
 Hegesippus, a Christian historian, 290, 
 
 311. 
 Heraclas, employed as assistant in 
 
 teaching by Origen, 157. Bishop 
 
 of Alexandria, 164. 
 Hennas, The " Shepherd " of 9-13. 
 
 Its date and reputed origin, 9. The 
 
 Greek text, 10. The Codex Sina- 
 
 iticus, 10. Contents and character 
 
i04 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 of the "Shepherd," 11-13. God, 
 and God only, appears in it as su- 
 preme, 11, 12. The Son subject, 
 12. The " Shepherd " and Arian- 
 ism, 13. The preexistence of the 
 Son appears in the " Shepherd," 13. 
 Hippolytus, 179. His writings, 180. 
 Supposed autlior of a work against 
 the heresy of Artemon, 348. Sup- 
 posed by Bunsen to have written 
 the "Little Labyrinth," 190. Re- 
 cently discovered work of, 179, 180. 
 His " Confession " not Trinitarian, 
 
 180. Does not mention the Spirit, 
 
 181. Bunsen's remarks on, 181. 
 Holy Spirit, Personality of, not taught 
 
 by Clement of Rome, 8. Supposed 
 to mean Christ in " Shepherd " of 
 Hernias, 12. Personality of, does 
 not appear in the Epistle of Barna- 
 bas, 18. Justin Martyr supposed by 
 some to make it the chief angel, 78. 
 Held it to be an influence, 79. Con- 
 founded it with the Logos, 79. The 
 Fathers often confounded the Spirit 
 with the Logos, 99, note. The 
 Spirit placed by Origen below the 
 Son, 186, 338. He held it to be 
 created by the Son, 188. Omitted 
 in a creed of Tertullian's, 109, 320. 
 Not alluded to in the Epistle to 
 Diognetus, 93, 94. Theophilus of 
 Antioch may have referred to it in 
 some sense, 99. Athenagoras de- 
 scribes it as an influence, 101. Sa- 
 bellius regards it as an influence, 
 the power of God, 215, 216. The- 
 ognostus not orthodox on the sub- 
 ject, 221, 222. Pierius maintained 
 its inferiority, 222. Cyprian some- 
 times confounds it with, sometimes 
 distinguishes it from the Logos, 227, 
 228. Novatian makes the Spirit 
 inferior to the Son, 230, 234. Lac- 
 tantius denies its personality, and 
 sometimes confounds it with the 
 Logos, 238. The Council of Nice 
 only slightly touches upon it, 286, 
 287. The Council of Constantinople 
 declares that it is to be worshipped 
 and glorified, 287, 288. The Spirit 
 made by the Son, according to Eu- 
 sebius, 303. The Spirit in the 
 Apostolical Constitutions, 329. Its 
 divinity not openly maintained till 
 the middle of the fourth century, 
 286. Was preached cautiously, 287. 
 As late as a. d. 380, great diflcrence 
 of opinion concerning it, 287. Fla- 
 vian innovates in the doxology by 
 ascribing glory to the Spirit, 288, 
 369. The most distinguished Ante- 
 
 Nicene Fathers, according to Peta- 
 vius, make the Spirit inferior to the 
 Son, 336. What Huet says of early 
 views as to the Sjiirit, 337. Views 
 of the Nicene Fathers, according to 
 Professor Stuart, 337. Admission 
 of Basil, as to the opinions of the 
 old Fatliers, and of his own day, 
 339. Arius's doctrine, 287. How 
 S3'mbolized and represented in art, 
 361, 373-375. 
 
 Homoiousians, the, 273. 
 
 Horsley acknowledges the Platonism 
 of the early Fathers, 65. 
 
 Hosius subscribes the Nicene creed, 
 259. Subscribes to the Arian faith, 
 273, 339, 340. 
 
 Huet admits the charge of Platonism 
 against the early Fathers, 65. What 
 he says against the orthodoxy of 
 the Ante-Nicene Fathers, 336, 337. 
 
 Huidekoper, Rev. F. His discussion 
 of the meaning of yevoc in a passage 
 of Justin Martyr's Dialogue with 
 Trypho, 81, note. On the clause 
 " descended into hell," in the creed, 
 323, note. 
 
 Hymnology of the ancient Church, 
 343-359. Not Trinitarian, 343. 
 Singing : see Singing. Primitive 
 liymns^lost, 347, 348, 358. Hymns 
 of the Brethren, 347. Psalmodic 
 hymns referred to by Bunsen as 
 Ante-Nicene, 348, 349. Earliest 
 writers of hymns Syrian, 349. 
 Bardesanes and Harmonius, 349. 
 Ephrem, 350. Hymn attributed to 
 Clement of Alexandria, 350. Be- 
 ryllus, 350, 351. Nepos, 351. Paul 
 of Samosata attempts to restore the 
 old music and hymns, 351. Arius 
 and Juvencus write hymns, 353. 
 Hilary of Poictiers, 353. Ambrose, 
 353. The " Te Deum," 353, note. 
 Prudentius, 354, 355. Nocturnal 
 street-singing at Constantinople, 
 356. The poetical Fathers, 356, 
 note. Council of Laodicea attempts 
 to reform church music, 357. The 
 original doxologies testify against 
 the Trinity, 358. Flavian changes 
 the old doxology, 288, 359. 
 " Hypostasis," the term, how used by 
 the Fathers, 74, note, 182, note, 334. 
 
 I. 
 
 Ignatian Letters. See Ignatius. 
 
 Ignatius. The Epistles ascribed to 
 him of too uncertain authorship and 
 too corrupt to be used, 18. The 
 question of their genuineness, 13, 
 
INDEX. 
 
 405 
 
 note. The recently discovered Syr- 
 iac version, 14, note. The doctrine 
 of the supreme divinity of the Son 
 not found in it, 15. 
 
 Inferiority of the Son uniformly as- 
 serted by the Ante-Nicene Fathers. 
 ^'ee Son. 
 
 Irenasus, Bishop of Lyons, 102-105. 
 His works, 102. He holds the Son 
 inferior, 103. The Father supreme, 
 103. That Christ suffered in his 
 whole nature, 104. Irenseus did not 
 attribute to the Saviour a rational 
 human soul, 105. His two creeds, 
 319, 320, 
 
 Jerome, time of, 117. Translates part 
 of Origen's works, 174, Involved 
 in the Urigenist controversy, 211. 
 Says that .Lactantius denied the 
 personality of the Spirit, 238. Wliat 
 he thought of Origen's orthodoxy, 
 339. 
 
 Jesus Christ. See Christ, Son. 
 
 Jews, the, hostility of, to the Chris- 
 tians, 90. 
 
 Justin Martyr and his opinions, 21-91. 
 Author of the early philosophical 
 corruptions of Christianity, 22. His 
 character, 22, 91. Birth, parentage, 
 and studies, 23. His delight in the 
 doctrines of Plato, 24, 25. His con- 
 version, 25, 26. Dialogue with 
 Trypho, 26, note, 40. Writes his 
 first Apology, 27. His second, 28. 
 His last days and martyrdom, 29. 
 Writings, 22, 31, 90. Epistle to Di- 
 ognetus probably not written by 
 Justin, 32, note, 92. Former esti- 
 mation of his writings, 32, 33. An- 
 alysis of his first Apology, 34-39. 
 Topics of his second, 39. His in- 
 tellectual and literary character, 41 
 et seqq. Inattention to dates, 42, 45. 
 Love of the marvellous, 42. Ac- 
 count of demons, 43. Misquota- 
 tions, 45. Mode of interpreting the 
 Old Testament, 46, 48. Types of 
 the cross, 47. His theology, 50. 
 Origin of the Trinity, 51, 52. Jus- 
 tin's doctrine of the Logos, 52. An 
 attribute converted into a real be- 
 ing, a little before the creation of 
 the world, 52-56. Generation of 
 the Son, 56. His views of the Logos 
 not derived from the Hebrew or 
 Christian Scriptures, 58. Language 
 
 Sof the Old Testament examined, 
 58-62. Of the New, 63, 64. Not 
 
 derived from the Apostolic Fathers, 
 20, 64. Justm blended with Chris- 
 tianity the views of the later Pla- 
 tonists, 64. Testimony of learned 
 'i'rinitarians, 65. Justin derived his 
 views from Philo, 66. Philo's opin- 
 ions, 66. The Son not numerically 
 one with the Father, 71, 97. His 
 inferiority, 72-74. Not to be ad- 
 dressed in prayer, 73. The modern 
 doctrine of the Trinity derives no 
 support from Justin, 75. Two pas- 
 sages from his writings misquoted 
 and misrepresented, 76-78. His 
 views as to the Spirit, 78. Held it to 
 be an influence, 79. Justin a Unita- 
 rian, 80. His account of the human- 
 itarians of his day, 80. Christ's pre- 
 existcnce not necessary to liis Mes- 
 sialiship, 81, 84. This view sustained 
 by Bishop Watson, 83. Doctrines 
 of Calvinism not in harmony with 
 Justin's teachings, 84. Justin's ac- 
 count of the Cliristian rites in his 
 day, 86-89. Baptism, 86. The 
 Lord's Supper, 87. Sunday wor- 
 ship, 89. Hostility of the Jews to 
 Christians, 90. Memory of Justin, 
 90. 
 Juvencus, a writer of hymns, 353. 
 
 K. 
 
 Kaye, Bishop : extracts from his ac- 
 count of Clement of Alexandria, 122, 
 128, 134. Says that the Apostles' 
 Creed was unknown to Tertullian, 
 320. How the terms " Sabbath " 
 and " Sunday " were used, 380. No 
 notice of Christ's nativity found in 
 Tertullian's writings, 385. 
 
 King, Sir Peter, on the Apostles' 
 Creed, 317, 321, 823. 
 
 Lactantius, 236. His learning and in- 
 tellectual character, 236. Makes the 
 Father and Son two beings ; speaks 
 of the Son as created and subordi- 
 nate and possessing only derived 
 dignity and power, 237, 238. Denies 
 the personality of the Spirit, 238. 
 His views of the Atonement, 238. 
 Poems attributed to, 356, note. 
 
 Ladies, influence of, on the fortunes 
 of Arianism, 274, note. 
 
 Laodicea, council of, attempts to re- 
 form church music, 357. 
 
 Le Clerc testifies to the belief of the 
 early Fathers in the inferiority of 
 
406 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 the Son, 70. His opinion of the origin 
 of the Apostolical Constitutions, 327. 
 
 Lent ; its origin and the manner of 
 keeping it in the early Church, 382. 
 
 Leontius of Antioch, a leading Arian, 
 and one of Lucian's pupils, 224. 
 
 Logos, the : the Son held to exist in 
 the Father from eternity as the 
 Logos, 124. Justin Martyr's doc- 
 trine of, 52-57. An hypostatized 
 attribute, 56. This doctrine not 
 found in the Old Testament, 58-62. 
 Nor in the New, 63, 64. Nor in the 
 writings of tlie Apostolic Fathers, 
 5, 8, 18, 20, 64, 69, note. Derived 
 from the Flatonists, 58, 65. Testi- 
 mony of learned Trinitarians, 65. 
 Philo's doctrine of the Logos, 66. 
 Coincides witli that of Justin and 
 subsequent Fathers, 69. Citations 
 from the Fathers between Justin 
 and Clement of Alexandria : Tatian, 
 96. Theophilus of Antioch, 98. 
 Athenagoras, 100, 101, note. Ire- 
 nseus, 103. Tertulllan, 108. Views 
 of Clement of Alexandria, 124-126. 
 Doctrine of Hippolytus, 181. Of 
 Origeu, 183, 184. The Logos doctrine 
 said by Artemon and his followers 
 to be recent, 189, 190. Rejected 
 by the other Monarchians, 191, 192. 
 Writers between Origen and Arius : 
 Doctrine of Sabellius, 215, 216. Of 
 Paul of Samosata, 217. Of the 
 scholars of Origen, 217. Of Me- 
 thodius, 223. Of Lucian, 225. Of 
 Cyprian, 227, 228. Of Novatian, 
 231, 233. Lactantius sometimes 
 confounds the Spirit with the Logos, 
 238. Arius rejected the doctrine of 
 the existence of the Logos from 
 eternity, as an attribute, 253, 254, 
 301. Eusebiusof Cjesarea accepted 
 it, 302, 304. Frotiessor Stuart's 
 view of Justin's doctrine of, 337, 
 338. See Son. 
 Lord's Supper, Justin's account of its 
 
 administration, 87. 
 Lucian, Presbyter of Antioch, 224-226. 
 His writings, 224. His disciples, 
 224. His opinions, 225. The creed 
 attributed to him, 225. Approved 
 by Athanasius and claimed by the 
 Arians, 225. Lucian seems to have 
 tended towards Arianism, 225, 226. 
 
 M. 
 
 Maris of Chalcedon, one of Lucian's 
 pupils, 224. Finally subscribes the 
 Nicene Creed, 261. His rebuke of 
 Julian, 276. 
 
 Martyrdoms under Marcu.s Aurelius, 
 115. 
 
 Methodius, 222-224. His writings, 209, 
 and note. They savor of Arianism, 
 223. Held the Son to be inferior to 
 the Father, 223. His strange theory 
 of the incarnation of the Divine 
 Word, 223, 224. His censure of 
 Origen's doctrines and recantation, 
 209. 
 
 Monarchians, the, 110, 189-192, 214r- 
 217. 
 
 Monarchy, the, TertuUian's explana- 
 tion of. 111. 
 
 Moses, the Greeks accused of borrow- 
 ing from. See Plato. 
 
 Mosheim says the Apostles' Creed 
 was not the composition of the 
 Apostles, 316. 
 
 " Muratorian Fragment," the, 9. 
 
 N. 
 
 Neander thinks the Apostolic origin 
 of the Apostles' Creed a fable, 317. 
 His opinion of the origin of the 
 Apostolical Constitutions, 328. 
 Statement of the views of Arius 
 compared with the belief of preced- 
 ing ages, 254. On the eternal gen- 
 eration of the Son, as connected by 
 Origen with the eternity of the 
 material creation, 186, 187. On 
 Artemon's claim to hold tlie primi- 
 tive doctrine, 189, 190. Says the 
 Nicene Creed was imposed by au- 
 thority, 262. Forced upon the 
 Oriental Church, 289. Says Clem- 
 ent of Alexandria first tried to 
 set aside the idea of time in its ap- 
 plication to the transition of the 
 Logos into reality, 126, note. 
 
 Nepos, a writer of liymns, 351. 
 
 Nice, Council of, number and charac- 
 ter of the Bishops present, 252. 
 Opinions of Arius compared with 
 the belief of preceding ages, 252-255 
 Proceedings of the council, 256 
 Entrance of the Emperor, 257. Dif 
 ficulty of framing a symbol, 259 
 Eusebius offers a creed, 259. In 
 troduction of tlie term " consub- 
 stantial," 259. Its explanation, 260, 
 283, 296. Condemnation of Arius 
 and his friends, 261. Parting feast 
 given by Constantine, 262, note. 
 Nicene faith explained, 282-285. 
 Changes after the time of the coun- 
 cil, 285. The council does not define 
 the Spirit, 286, 287. 
 
 Nicene Creed, origin of, 259. Imposed 
 
INDEX. 
 
 407 
 
 by authority, 262. Forced upon 
 the Orieutal Church, 289. 
 
 Nicene faith explained, 260, 282 et 
 seqq., 296. Councils which rejected 
 it, 339, 340. 
 
 Nimbus in symbolic art, 368. Its sig- 
 nificance, 372. 
 
 Noetus the Monarchian, and his opin- 
 ions, 191, 192. 
 
 Novatian. 229-235. His worlc on the 
 Trinity, 229. His "rule of faith," 
 230. Teaches the supremacy of the 
 Father, aud the inferiority of the 
 Son and Spirit, 229, 230. The 
 Father supreme, 230. The Son dis- 
 tinct and inferior, 231-233, 234. 
 Only one God, 233,234. The Spirit 
 inferior, 234, 235. 
 
 o. 
 
 "CKcouomy," the, 110. 
 
 Old Testainent, the, does not teach 
 the Logos doctrine as held by the 
 early Fathers, 58-62. Nor the New, 
 63, 64. 
 
 " One," the " same," how used by the 
 Fathers, 334. 
 
 Oriental Creed, the, compared with 
 the Roman and with that of Aqui- 
 leia, 321, 322. Not Triaitarian, 324. 
 
 Origen and his theology, 152-213. 
 Parentage and education, 152, 153. 
 Characteristics of his youtii, 153, 
 154. His poverty, 154. Presides 
 over the Alexandrian Catechetical 
 School, 155. His zeal and self- 
 denial, 155, 156. Unbounded pop- 
 ularity, 156. Becomes a pupil of 
 Amraonius, 156. His Platonism, 
 156. Visits Rome, 157. His He- 
 brew studies, 157. Biblical criti- 
 cism, 158. His correction of the 
 Version of the Seventy, 158, 166, 
 note. Secular learning ; philosoph- 
 ical studies, 158. His philosophi- 
 cal convert Ambrose, 160. Ambrose 
 encourages his critical studies, and 
 devotes his wealth to the jiurchase 
 of manuscripts, 130. Origen's im- 
 mense labors, 160. Collation and 
 correction of MSS., 160. Writes 
 his Commentaries, 160. Also his 
 work on " Principles," 160. His 
 first Arabian journey, 161. Preaches 
 in Palestine, 162. Demetrius, his 
 bishop, offended, 162. Origen's 
 journey to Greece, 162. Is or- 
 dained in Palestine, 162. Returns 
 to Alexandria, and is deposed and 
 excommunicated, 162, 163. Rea- 
 sons for his excommunication, 164. 
 
 Leaves Egypt, 163, 165. Retires to 
 Palestine, 165. New pupils, 165. 
 Pursues his critical studies, 166. 
 Discovery of old manuscripts, 166. 
 Visits Greece and Arabia, 1C6. 
 Greatly admired, 167. Continues 
 to write, 167. His extempore dis- 
 courses, 167. Is thrown into pris- 
 on, and placed ou the rack, 167. 
 His death, 167. Character, 1C8. 
 His memory persecuted, 169. Ques- 
 tion of his salvation, 169. His in- 
 tellectual character, 170. Merits as 
 au expositor, 170. His writings, 
 172. Scholia, 172. Commentaries, 
 166, 173. Homilies, 174. Book 
 " Of Principles," 160, 166, 174. 
 Hexapla, 158, 166, 175. Interpre- 
 tation of the Scriptures, 1 73, note. 
 Work against Celsus, 176. His 
 views of the Son and Spirit, 182 et 
 seqq., 338. Believed God and the 
 Son to be two beings, 182. The 
 Father greater than the Son, 183. 
 Examples of his language and 
 reiisoning, 183, 184. Ciirist not an 
 object of supreme worship, and not 
 to be addressed in prayer, 184. The 
 Spirit below the Son, 186, 338 
 Comparative rank of the Father 
 Son, and Spirit, 186. Eternal gen- 
 eration of the Son connected by 
 Origen with the eternity of the 
 material creation, 186-188. Christ's 
 preiixistent human soul, 192, 193. 
 Efficacy of Christ's death, 193. 
 System of rational and animated 
 natures, 194 et seqq. All souls pre- 
 existent, 195. All placed in a for- 
 mer state of trial, 195. The fall of, 
 and creation of the material universe 
 for their reception, 195. The stars 
 animated, and will be judged^ 195. 
 Angels, demons, tutelar spirits, 195, 
 196. Present condition the result 
 of former trial, 197. Extent of the 
 redemption, 197. Benefits all ra- 
 tional natures, including celestial, 
 197 et seqq. Moral freedom and 
 ability, 199. No miconditional elec- 
 tion, 200, 201. Views of the future, 
 202 et seqq. Form of the future 
 body, 203. Restoration of all beings 
 to virtue and happiness, 203. Na- 
 ture of future punishment, 204 
 Final restoration of all things, 205 
 206, 208. Rewards of the blessed 
 
 206. Perpetual lapses and returns, 
 
 207. New material creations, 208. 
 Fate of the Origeuian doctrines, 
 
 208. Origeuists and anii-Origen- 
 i.sts, 209 et seqq. Origen ism finds 
 
408 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 shelter in the monasteries, 212. 
 Final anathema against Origen, 212. 
 Freedom of speculation, 212, 213. 
 Festival of Christmas unknown to 
 Origen, 386. Summaries of faith 
 by, 320. What Huet and Professor 
 Stuart thought of his orthodoxy, 
 337, 338. What Jerome thought, 
 339. 
 
 Orpheus, Christ compared to, 122, 
 150, note. 
 
 Otto, his edition of Justin, 32, note. 
 
 P. 
 
 " Pedagogue " of Clement, 130-139. 
 
 Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius : 
 some account of him, 291, 292. 
 With Eusebius, writes an "Apolo- 
 gy " for Origen, 209, 210, 291, 292. 
 
 Pantsenus, 117, 118. 
 
 Papias, 310. 
 
 Paul of Samosata, and his opinions, 
 216, 217, 351. He held that Christ 
 was man by nature and tliat the 
 divine Logos united itself with him, 
 216, 217. He attempts to restore 
 the old music and hymns, 351. 
 
 Pearson assigns to the Apostolical 
 Constitutions a late origin, 327. 
 Does not find.tlie Atlianasian Creed 
 mentioned before the year 600, 341. 
 
 Pelagius, doctrines of, 212. 
 
 Petavius testifies to the Platonism of 
 the early Fathers, 65. Charges 
 Tertullian witli impiety and absurd- 
 ity for representing the Father as 
 far above the Son, 108, 109. Ad- 
 duces evidence against the ortho- 
 doxy of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, 
 336. Says that most Catholics dared 
 not profess the Holy Spirit to be 
 God, 286. 
 
 Philo, opinions of, 66-68. 
 
 Photius complains that Clement of 
 Rome does not ascribe to Christ di- 
 vine qualities, 7. Says Clement of 
 Alexandria made the Son a " creat- 
 ure," 120, note, 124. That Tiieog- 
 nostus did the same, 221, 222. That 
 Pierius made the Father and Son to 
 be two substances, 222. 
 
 Pierius, 222. He makes the Son in- 
 ferior to the Father ; the Fatlier 
 and Son two natures, 222. Wiiat 
 Huet says of him, 336, 337. Holds 
 the Spirit to be inferior to the Fa- 
 tlier and Son, 222. 
 
 Plato and the Platonists falsely said to 
 have borrowed from Moses, 75, 
 note, 126, 144. Inspiration ascribed 
 
 to tliem by Clement of Alexandria 
 and others, 127. 
 
 Platonism of the early Fathers, 65, 66, 
 74. Concessions of learned Trini- 
 tarians, 65. 
 
 Polycarp : what Irenaeus and Jerome 
 say of him, 15. His martyrdom, 15, 
 115. His Epistle to the Philippians, 
 15-17. Probably genuine in the 
 main, but supposed to be not wholly 
 genuine, 15, 16. Its probable date 
 and its character, 16. Represents 
 the Father as supreme and the Son 
 as subordinate, 16, 17. 
 
 Praxeas, the Monarchian, and his opin- 
 ions, 191. 
 
 Preexistence of souls, 195. 
 
 Preexistent human soul of Christ, Ori- 
 gen's view of, 192, 193. 
 
 Prudentius : notice of his poems, 354. 
 
 Q. 
 
 Quadratus, a Christian Apologist, 21. 
 R. 
 
 Rimini, council of. See Ariminum. 
 
 Roman creed, the early, compared 
 with the Oriental and with that of 
 Aquileia, 321, 322. 
 
 Rufinus : his translation of some of 
 Origen's works, 174, 175. His fable 
 about the origin of the Apostles' 
 Creed, 317, 318. Three old creeds 
 given by him compared, 321, 322. 
 Says that Clement of Alexandria 
 called the Son a creature, 124, 339. 
 That Dion^'sius fell into Arianism, 
 339. 
 
 Sabbath always meant Saturday 
 among the ancient Christians, 379, 
 380, 381. Not a fast, 379, 380, 381. 
 
 Sabellins and his doctrines, 215, 216. 
 Held that the Logos was tempora- 
 rily hypostatized in the Saviour, 
 215. 
 
 " Same," how used by the Fathers, 
 334. 
 
 Sculpture, art of, its influence among 
 the Greeks, according to Clement, 
 128. 
 
 Secular learning, controversy about, 
 168, 159. 
 
 Secundus refuses to subscribe the Ni- 
 cene Creed, and is banisiied, 261. 
 
 Seleucia, council of, rejects the term 
 " consubstantial," 340. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 409 
 
 Semi-Arians, or Homoiousians, the, 
 273. 
 
 Seiniscli : cliaracter of his work on 
 Justin ^lartyr, 51, note. 
 
 Septuagiiit version of the Old Testa- 
 ment, 158. 
 
 Shepherd of Hernias. See Hermas. 
 
 Singing among the early Christians, 
 o4o-i}47. First regular choir, 344. 
 Flavian and Diodorus introduce the 
 antiphonic singing at Antioch, 344. 
 Origin of this mode of singing, 345. 
 Ambrose introduces it into the 
 West, 345. Improvements under 
 Gregory, 346, 347. 
 
 Sirmium, third council of, rejects the 
 term " consubstantial," 339; also 
 the fifth council of, 340. 
 
 Son, the, held to have beeii originally 
 an attribute of the Fatlier. See 
 Logos. His generation, 56. His 
 derived nature and inferiority to 
 tlie Father, uniformly taught by 
 the Fatiiers of the hrst three cen- 
 turies, 70, 75, 239, 335. Citations 
 from the Apostolic Fathers : Clem- 
 ent of Rome, 5-8. Hernias, 12. 
 Polycarp, 16. Barnabas, 18. From 
 Justin, 71-74, 76-78. Tatian, 96, 97. 
 Theophilus of Antioch, 97-99. Athe- 
 nagoras, 100. Irenteus, 102, 103. 
 TertuUian, 106-110. Clement of Al- 
 exandria, 124-126. Hippolytus, 180. 
 Origen, 182 et sa/q. Eternal gen- 
 eration of, connected by Origen with 
 the eternity of the material creation, 
 186-188. JDoctrine of the Monarchi- 
 ans, Artenion, Praxeas, Noetus, and 
 Beryllus, 189-192. Of Sabellius, 
 214. Of Paul of Samosata, 216. 
 Origen's views of the " eternal gen- 
 eration " not adopted by his schol- 
 ars, 217. Doctrine of Gregory 
 Thaumaturgus, 220. Dionysius of 
 Alexandria, 218. Citations from 
 Cyprian, 227-229. Tlieognostus, 221. 
 Doctrine of Pierius, 222. Citations 
 from Methodius, 223. Doctrine of 
 Lucian, 225. Citations from Nova- 
 tian, 230-234. Arnobius, 235. Lac- 
 tantius, 237, 238. Arius's views as 
 to, 252-255. The Son a great pre- 
 existent Spirit, 253. Opinions of 
 Eusebius of Csesarea, 302-305. The 
 Son appears as inferior in the Apos- 
 tolical Constitutions, 328, 329. Truth 
 respecting the Son said to have been 
 corrupted in the time of Zephyri- 
 nus, 190. The Father and the Son 
 relatively unequal, according to the 
 Nicene faith, 284, 285. Huet's testi- 
 mony to what the Fathers taught 
 
 I of the inferiority of the Son, 336, 
 337. Statements of Professor Stu- 
 art, 337, 338. Of Jerome, Basil, and 
 Rufinus, 338, 339. See also Artis- 
 tic Representations of the Trinity, 
 Christ, Logos. 
 
 Souls, all, preiixistent, 198, 195. .See 
 Origen. 
 
 Spirit. See Holy Spirit. 
 
 Stars animated and will be judged, 
 according to Origen, 195. 
 
 Stromata of Clement of Alexandria, 
 141-149. Of Origen, 166. 
 
 Stuart, Professor, says that the Ante- 
 Nicene Fathers make the Son and 
 Spirit derived beings, and deny the 
 numerical identity of the Father 
 and Son, 337, 338. That Origen 
 makes the Father greater than the 
 Son and the Spirit, and the Son 
 greater than the Spirit, 338. 
 
 Sufferings of a future lite remedial, 
 according to Origen, 203. 
 
 Sunday, how and why observed, ac- 
 cording to Justin Martyr, 89. See 
 Festivals. 
 
 Syriac version of the Ignatian Epis- 
 tles, 14, note, 15. 
 
 T. 
 
 Tatian, the Syrian, 95-97. A Platonist, 
 95. His conversion, subsequent his- 
 tory, and works, 96. His views as 
 to the Father, 96. The Logos, 96. 
 The Son a distinct and subordinate 
 being, 97. Huet's opinion of Ta- 
 tian's doctrines, 336. 
 
 " Te Deum," origin of, 353, note. 
 
 Terms, meaning of, 239, 240, 332-335. 
 Change in, 332. Old used in a 
 modern sense, 240, 333. 
 
 TertuUian, 105-112. His history, char- 
 acter, and writings, 105, 106. He 
 teaches the supremacy of the Fa- 
 ther, 106. The Son numerically 
 distinct, 107. Liferior, 107, 108, 
 111. Not eternal, 108. The Logos 
 and the Son, 108. His creeds not 
 Trinitarian, 109. One quoted, in 
 which the Spirit is not mentioned, 
 109, 320. The Apostles' Creed not 
 known to TertuUian, 320. Holds 
 man's nature to be not totally cor- 
 rupt, 1 10. The " CEconomy " — the 
 Trinity and the Monarchy, 110. 
 His answer to the objection that he 
 makes two Gods, 110, 111. His ex- 
 planation of the divine monarchy, 
 111. Shows no homoousian Trin- 
 ity, 111. Christ's human rational 
 soul. 111. TertuUian and the Atha- 
 
410 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 nasian orthodoxy, 112. Christmas 
 not known to TertulHan, 385. 
 
 Theodosius issues severe edicts against 
 the Arians, '274. 
 
 Theognis of Nice, one of Lucian's pu- 
 pils, 224. Subscribes the Nicene 
 Creed, but continues to teach Arian 
 doctrine and is exiled, 261. Perse- 
 veres in opposition to the consub- 
 stantial faith, 276. 
 
 Theognostus, 221. Photius says he 
 calls the Son a creature, 221, 222. 
 His opinion as to the Spirit, 222. 
 
 Theonas refuses to subscribe the 
 Nicene Creed, and is banished, 261. 
 
 Theophilus of Alexandria engages in 
 the Origenist controversy, 210, 211. 
 His death, 211. 
 
 Theophilus of Antioch, 97-99. His 
 writings, 97. Speaks of God as 
 supreme, the Son as inferior, 97. 
 His views of the generation of the 
 Son, 98. Of the Logos, 98. The 
 Father only to be worshipped, 98. 
 Pirst used the term " Trinity," ap- 
 plying it to God, his Logos, and his 
 wisdom, 99. Huet's opinion of his 
 doctrine, 336. 
 
 Tilleniont calls the Apostolical Con- 
 stitutions a fabricittiou of the sixth 
 century, 326. 
 
 Time, how measured, 255. Meaning 
 of the expressions, " Before time 
 and the ages," " When time was 
 not," when used by the old Chris- 
 tian writers, 255, 256. 
 
 Tomline, Bishop, says it is not known 
 who wrote the Apostles' Creed, 317. 
 The Apostles prescribed no creed, 
 317. The Athanasian creed was 
 not written by Athanasius, 341. 
 
 Trinity, the. The germ of the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity introduced in 
 Justin's time, 80. The term " Trin- 
 ity " first used by Theophilus of 
 Antioch, 99. The doctrine of tlie 
 Trinity of gradual formation, 286. 
 How the Trinity of the Fathers 
 
 differed from the modern, 335, 83G. 
 Ancient Hymnology not Trinita- 
 rian, 358, 359. No Trinitarianism 
 in any artistic remains of the earlier 
 ages, 360, 361, 376. The Ancient 
 Festivals not Trinitarian, 395, 396. 
 The modern doctrine of the Trinity 
 not found in any document or relic 
 belonging to the Church of the first 
 three centuries, 396. See also Artis- 
 tic Eepresentations of the Trinity, 
 Holy Spirit, Logos, Son. 
 
 u. 
 
 Ulphilas, or Ulfila, introduces the 
 alphabet and Arianism among the 
 Goths, 274. 
 
 Unlettered Christians of the early 
 Church, tlie, 112. Perplexed by 
 Tertullian's " fficonoray," 110. 
 
 V. 
 
 Valens friendly to the Arians, 274. 
 
 w. 
 
 I Watson, Bishop, maintains, with Jus- 
 tin, that the preexistence of Jesus 
 was not necessary to his sufficiency 
 as a Saviour, 83. 
 
 Winston atfirms that the early Fathers 
 believed the Son to be distinct from 
 the Father, and inferior, 70. As- 
 signs to the Apostolical Constitu- 
 tions a sacred origin, 327. 
 
 Whitsunday, Festival of, 384. 
 
 Wine : Clement of Alexandria on its 
 use, 133-135. 
 
 Zcphyrinus : the truth relating to the 
 Son said to have been corrupted in 
 his time, 190. 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 01042 3087 
 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 *^^««*. 
 
 •g**^' 
 
 
 
 
 mmim 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '^^ 
 
 wmm^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Demco, Inc. 38-293