BR 1705 .D67 1864 v. 3 Donaldson, James, 1831-191 A critical history of Christian literature and A CRITICAL HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND DOCTRINE FROM THE DEATH OF THE APOSTLES TO THE NICENE COUNCIL. JAMES DONALDSON, M.A. VOL. III. \.>^^ : cs/ TIIi; APOLOGISTS Contimmi MACMILLAN AND CO. 1866 (' X F ORD ■ BY T. COMBE, M.A., E. PICKAIiD HALL, AND K. LATHAM, Sr.A. PKINTERS TO TIIK UNIVERSITV. CONTENTS. BOOK III. THE APOLOGISTS ConiinueJ. Chapter IV. — Tatian. PAGE I. His Life. His country. His profession. His conver- sion. His Christian life. His heretical life. His heretical opinions. Misrepresentations. His opinion of Marriage ; of another God ; of Adam. Explanation of his heresies ........ 3 II. His Writings. His Oration ; its genuineness and date. His other works. His Harmony. His heretical work, On Perfection according to the Saviour . . .20 III. Estimate. His character. His references to persecution. His attitude towards heathenism. His treatment of philosophers. His rejection of all human studies. His defence of Christianity . . . . -27 IV. Abstract of the Oration to the Greeks . . . -34 V. Doctrines of Tatian. On God ; his immateriality ; peculiar notions of creation. The Logos. The S/nrit, use of the term ; peculiar doctrine of Spii-it. Devil and demons ; their nature, their continuance, and ultimate state. Man ; his nature. Freewill. Sal- vation. Christians ; their mode of life. Resurrection. Scriptures. Morality . . . . . .40 VI. Literature. Manuscripts and editions . . . .60 CONTEXTS. Chapter V. — Theophilus. PAGE I. Life. His descent ; date of death . . . -63 II. Writings of Theophilus. Genuineness of the Books ad- dressed to Autolycus ; their completeness. Other works of Theophilus ...... 64 III. Estimate. His style. His treatment of heathenism. Defence of Cliristianity . . . . . . 6g IV. Abstract of Theophilus to Autolyci(,s . . . -72 V. Doctrines of Theophihis in regard to God, tlte Trinity, the Logos, the Spirit, Angels, Devil and Demons, Man, Salvation, Christianity, the Futui'c State, the Scrij)- tures ......... 83 VI. Literature. Manuscripts, editions, and translations . 105 Chapter VI. — Athenagoras. I. His Life. Information derived from the fragment of Philip of Sida — from the inscription on the MSS. as to the date . . . . . . .107 II. The Works of Athenagoras. His genuine works. The Novel attiibuted to him . . . . . -114 III. The character of Athenagoras and his ivritings. Their superior literary style. Explanation of the perse- cutions of the Cln-istians. His treatment of mythology and of philosoj)hy. His Platonism. His defence of Christianity . . . . . . . • ii5 IV. Abstract of the Apology of Athenagoras. Abstract of the Treatise on the Resurrection of the Dead . .125 V. 2'Ite Doctrines ofAtltenagoras in regard to God, the Logos and the Spirit, Angels, the constitution of Jfcm, Sin, and Salvation, the Future State, the Sci-ijytures, Morality . . . . . . . .142 \'l. Literature. Manuscripts, editions, and ti-anslatious . 176 CONTENTS. vii Chapter VII. — Hermias. PAOK I. Life and Writings . . . . . . -179 II. Literature. . . . . . . . . .180 Chapter VIII. — Hegesippus. I. Life. His descent. The pei-iod at which he lived . . 182 II. Writings. His 'Notes' or ' Eecollections.' His agi'ee- ment in doctrine with the Churches in Greece and Italy. An account of his Fragments ; on the death of James ; appointment of a successor to James ; inter- view of the relations of our Lord with Domitian ; the martjTdom of Simeon ; the seven hei'esies of the Jews. The Muratori Fragment ; an account of it ; discussion of its authorship ; its character ; its date. The Latin History of Josephus or Hegesippus . . . .184 Chapter IX. — Dionysius op Corinth. I. His Life . . . . . . .• . .214 II. His Writings . . . , . , . .214 Pinytus, Philippus, Modestus, Soter, and Mufsauus . .218 Chapter X. — Melito. I. His Life . . . . . . . . .321 II. His Writings. Eusebius's list of them. Fragments pre- served. Fragments and Apology attributed to Melito 223 Chapter XI. — Apollinaris, I. Life .......... 240 II. The Writings of Apollinaris. The Works mentioned, and the Fragments given by Eusebius. Other Works attri- buted to Apollinaris ; that on the Passover. Doctrine connected with the name of Apollinaris . . .240 viii CONTENTS. Chapter XII. — The Letter of the Churches in Vienna AND LUGDUNUM. PAGE I. The Atithorship. The Letters of the ]\Iartyrs. The date of the persecution. The authorship of the Letter of the Churches. Objections considered . . . 205 II. Literature . . . . . . . . .262 III. Translation of the Letter . . . . . .263 IV. Doctrines of the Letter in regard to God, Christ, the Spirit, the Devil, Christians, a Future State, the Scriptures, Morality ......... 280 BOOK 11. THE APOLOGISTS. VOL. III. #5^t«eBT03 THE APOLOGISTS. CHAPTER IV. T A T I A N. I. LTFE. X HE ancient writers who have mentioned Tatian are nume- rous a, but nearly all of them simply repeat the information which we find in his own Discourse to the Greeks. The exceptions to this are Irenseus^ Rhodon, and Epiphanius. Tatian tells us that he " was born in the land of the As- syrians/^ " These things, O Greeks/' he says, '' 1, Tatian, who philosophize according- to the barbarians, have put together, having been born in the land of the Assyrians, and having been taught first your beliefs, and secondly those which I now profess to proclaim b." What he means by the land of the Assyrians is somewhat uncertain, for the name Assyria was applied by the Greeks and Romans *-■ not merely to Assyria proper, but also to Syria; and we have instances of the word so used in a writer who was a native of Sanio- sata^. Moreover, Clemens Alexandrinus'', referring to Tatian, calls him a Syrian, and this statement is repeated by several of the later writers, as Epiphanius. Many have therefore ■■> See the lists in Worth's edition of Tatian, and in Daniel's Tatiann.s der Apologet, p. 2. *> c. 42. •= See Dr. Smith's Dictionary of Geography, art. Assyria. "^ Lucian de Dea Syria, c. i. It is questionable, however, if this piece is really Lucian's, '^ Strom, iii. c. 1 2, p. 547 (Pott). B 2, 4 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. been inclined to regard him as a Syrian. The probability, however, is that Tatian would be precise in such a statement ; the more so, as he uses Assyria eleswhere to denote Assyria proper. This matter is comparatively of little importance, thoug-h it is of some moment to know that he actually came from the East. For the circumstance that he was born a barbarian, and that the Greeks would always be inclined to taunt him with his birth, may have had no small influence on his opinions and modes of thought. Such an influence we see prominent enough in the works of another Eastern, Lu- eian, who frequently drags in his Syrian birth to show that he was not ashamed of it^. We know nothing of the time of his birth, or of his parents, or of his early training. He states that he was brought up in heathenism (TratSev^els 8e T:pQ>Tov to. vjxinpa^), and he had grown up and become famous before he adopted the Christian religion. Considerable discussion has taken place as to what was his profession before he embraced Christianity. His own words are, " These things I have expounded, learning them from no one, but wandering over many lands. I on the one hand acted as sophist in your matters, and on the other hand fell in with many arts and devices. At last I came to the city of the Romans, and staying there I became acquainted with the vari- eties of statues which have been brought from you to them ; for I do not, as the custom with many is, try to strengthen my own positions by the opinions of others; but I wish to com- mit to writing all the things which I myself shall clearly understand. Wherefore, bidding ftirewell to the great boast- ing of the Romans and the cold talking of the Athenians, to beliefs that do not cohere, I laid hold of the barbarous philo- sophy according to us ''.'' The words which have been made matter of discussion are aoipiarevaa^ to. v/aeVepa, which we have translated literally above. Some i take the o-o^toreueiy to f Ad\ersu8 Indoctuin, c. 19. See the note of Solanu.s, and especially that of Francklin, in his translation. f c. 42. >> c. ?£. ' See Valesiu.s in Eu.se}). Eccl. Hi.st. iv. 16. He has been followed by a considerable number of scholars. IV.] TITIAN. 5 mean that Tatian was a philosopher. Of course it may admit of this meaning' — but it likewise has the other meaning, and that too more frequently, of ' acting- as a rhetorician/ So Rnfinus understood the word in Eusebius (magistrum egit eloquentiae) ; and so did Jerome J. The most conclusive proof, however, that Tatian meant by o-o-^torei^eiy the work of a rhetorician is, that he has generally used the term in connexion with composition and styles of writing. In the passage now before us, the many ^ arts and inventions^ can scarcely refer to anything else than the '^ rhetorical artifices'^' of the sophists. The great boasting of the Romans {ixeya- Aai/xta), and the cold reasoning of the Greeks (\}/vxpo\oyLa), also refer to the characteristic styles acceptable in Rome and Greece'. In another passage ridiculing the niceties of the dialects of Greece, he says '", " For this reason we bade fare- well to the wisdom which is with you, even although I was one of considerable celebrity in it. For according to the comic poet, ' these things are the superfluous shoots, and the babblings, the museums of swallows, the corrupters of art ".' " And then he goes on to assert that rhetoric was used only for unjust purposes °. If further proof were required, we should have it in the character of the age. The rhetoricians were exceedingly numerous at this period. They travelled from one country to another, attracting the young to their schools, lecturing on all kinds of subjects, and generally succeeding in filling their pockets with money. Lucian at first was one of these P; and from what he tells us of himself we may gather some notion of the life of Tatian. It is not unlikely, how- J " Tatianus qui pi'hnum Oratoriam docens non parvam sibi ex arte rheto- rica gloriam comparaverat." De Viri.s Illustr. c. 29. Jerome'.s notice is bor- rowed entirely from Eusebius, whose notice is a combination of the passage in Tatian now quoted, with another to be immediately quoted. ^ Otto's explanation. ' Some think that Tatian hits at particular rhetoricians with these expres- .sions. " c. I. " Aristoph., Frogs, 92. " See Daniel, p. 1 7 ; Otto on c. 35, note i. p See History of Greek Literature, by Don:ildsi)U. \ol. iii. p. 218 : and Life of Lucian. prefixed to Lehmann's edition. 6 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. ever, that before his conversion he had relinquished the rhe- torical profession, and, like Lucian, had betaken himself to pure literature, or perhaps was undetermined. The reason for this supposition is that in the passage above quoted the only reason assigned for his bidding farewell to the wisdom of the Greeks is his discontent with the whole theory of purity of diction prevalent in his days. He could see no real differ- ence as to purity between a Doric word and an Attic word ; and therefore he abandoned the arts of the rhetoricians. The rhetorician turned himself to every subject of study. He was a combination of our literary man and lecturer. Tatian applied himself diligently to the study of mythology, history, poetry, art, and chronology. His references to Greek writers are more numerous than those of any early Christian writer except Clemens Alexandrinus. He could not help in the course of his studies coming in contact with the various philosophies of his times ; but in his ease, as in that of Lucian, Eastern antipathies prevented him from seeing the good side of Greek speculation. The in- tensity of his character would probably also have inclined him to the Stoics ; but he too frequently discovered amidst their grand doctrines the most detestable i^ractices and hypo- crisies ; and accordingly, while his own ideas border most nearly on those of the Stoics, he lashes them and the Cynics in no measured language. It is not unlikely that for some time he had felt himself unable to accept any philosophy, and if we may guess from the tone of his book it is probable that his life was none of the best. He seems to have known every filthy statue on the face of the earth. He describes the various moveuKiits of a mime with a minuteness which shows that he at one time enjoyed the theatre; and he says nearly as much himself, " I saw one often, and seeing I wondered, and after wondering I despised him*).'^ He asserts, too, that he attended athletic performances, and he seems to have been present at the gladiatorial fights r. Perhaps we sliould not be far wrong in guessing tliat tlie contempt 'I ^- 22. r c. 2.^. IV.] TAT TAN. 7 which followed his wonder of those thing's is indicative of the whole course of his heathen life. He grew tired of every- thing", he sank into a state corresponding to but more Litter than that of Lucian, in which he could not believe anything, and in which all the world seemed to him to be going wrong. While in this state, as we suppose him to be, he fell in with the Hebrew Scriptures, and was converted. The reasons of his conversion deserve consideration. One of them was the simplicity of the style. The language was so different from the inflated, bombastical stuff with which " the crow- speaking mortals^" around him were dunning his ears. His own words must be quoted : " Seeing these things (the dif- ference of legislation in various countries), having also j)ar- taken of the mysteries and having tried the modes of worship among all, modes of worship which are carried on by means of effeminate and androgynous beings, finding also among the Romans Jupiter Latiaris delighting in the gore of men and in blood from the slaughter of men, and Artemis not far from the great city* (Rome) professing the form of the same actions, and one deity in one place and another in another busy in the production of evil-doing, going into myself, I asked how I might discover the truth. And while I was considering the serious beliefs, I happened to fall in with some ])arbaric writings, older in comparison with the Greek beliefs, and more divine in comparison with their error : and I hap- pened to yield belief to these both on account of the modesty {to aTV(}>ov) of the diction and the illiterate character (to ave- TTLT-i]b€VTov) of tlic wrltcrs, and the eas}^ comprehension of the creation of the whole, and the foretelling of future event S) and the excellence of the commandments, and the govern- ment by one being of the whole. My soul thus being God- taug-ht, I understood that the one set of beliefs carry destruc- tion along with them, but that the others destroy the slavery ■* c. 15. •■ There can scarcely be a doubt that by the "great city" Rome was meant, though among early scholars this was a subject either of mistake or dis- putatiou. 8 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. wliich is in tlie world, free us from many rulers and myriads of tyrants, and g-rant us not that which we did not receive, but that which, having before received, we were prevented from holding under the power of error "/^ Tatian^s infor- mation with regard to himself ceases at this point. He does not tell us whei-e he was converted, nor who was the instru- ment, if any one was, Daniel^ has supposed that many to whom the change of his opinions was known, counselled him to conceal his beliefs. But this supposition is based on what seems to me a false interpretation of a single passage. " Even," he says, " though Epicurus, the despiser of the gods, hold the torch [lead the way], yet I no longer conceal from princes the comprehension of God which I now have. Why dost thou counsel me to belie the mode of life I have agreed to ? Why, saying that thou despisest death, dost thou advise me to avoid it through art^?" Here Tatian refers to the conduct of the philosophers who not believing in the existence of the gods, at the same time paid respect to the public gods to escape from punishment or to avoid the out- rages of the mob. In this connexion he had already men- tioned Diagoras the Athenian, whom the Greeks had punished for his disclosure of the mysteries. And his appeal, " Why dost thou counsel me ?" is a mere rhetorical appeal, not to any individual man, but to any one of the numerous sects that thus heartily despised the heathen religion but still openly respected it y. Irenseus tells us that Tatian was a hearer of Justin. He speaks as if he knew very little about him. His words are : ''They oppose the salvation of the first man [-npioTo-nkacTTov), and this was now found out with them. One Tatian was the first to introduce this blasphemy. He was a hearer [aKpoarris:) of Justin. As long as he was with him he brought out no such thing : but after his martyrdom, removing from the " c. 29. Tatian in this last portion of the passage refers to his 'Doctrine of Spirit,' afterwards exphiined. ^ p, 17, note. " c. 27. y Daniel has laid stress on another passage quoted already (c. 42), but the reading Kpvimiv instead of Kripvrretv, I think with Otto, is unquestionably bad. IV.] TA TIA N. 9 Churchy elated and puffed up by the conceit of a teacher, as if he were better than the rest, he established a mode of teaching of a peculiar character, mythologizing- some invisible seons like those from Valentinus, and proclaiming" marriag-e to be corruption and fornication like Marcion and Saturninus ; and from his own brain {-nap eavrov) making opposition to the salvation of Adam^." The statement that Tatian was a hearer of Justin^s is con- firmed by two allusions to Justin in the work of Tatian. In the one passage he speaks of Justin as the " most admirable" (OavfxacTKoTaTos'^) , and in the other he speaks of Crescens as jjlot- ting not only against Justin but against himself^. The state- ment of Irenaeus is repeated again and again °. There is not the slightest reason, however, for the supposition that Justin was the means of his conversion, or that the hearer was very pliant in taking in the opinions of Justin. On the contrary, his Oration contains the clearest proofs that his mind was of a considerably different cast from that of Justin's, and that accordingly his notions were widely different. The only other fact we know with regard to Tatian's ante- heretical life is given us in Eusebius^. The historian in- forms us that Rhodon, addressing Kallistion, said that he had been a scholar of Tatian's at Rome, and that Tatian had then been busy at a work which was to give an interpretation of what was indistinct and concealed in the Scriptures. He calls himself '' a herald of the truth," and we can have no hesitation in inferring from this assertion of Rhodon's, and the energetic character of Tatian, that he continued for some time a diligent teacher and student of the Christian religion at Rome. There is no reason, however, for the supposition that he especially employed himself as an antagonist to the Cynics, and Crescens in particular. The few passages which ^ Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. lib. i. c. 28, p. i ; Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 1. iv. c. 29. * c. 18. b c. 19. " In the spurious part of TertuUian tie Praescr. in Epiphaniu.s, Jerome, Philastrius, &c. ; see Daniel, p. 34. •i Hist. Eccl. 1. V. c. 13. 10 THE APOLOGISTH. [Chap. have been supposed to allude to controversies with Crescens do not admit such a meaning" e. Nor is it anything- but a mere guess that reckons Tatian the teacher of Clemens AlexandrinuSj described by him simply as 6 \}kv Ti]s 'Aacrvpias. If Tatian had been the man, Clemens would have been sure to name him. There is no clue to any dates in connexion with Tatian, except what we get in his Oration and in the remark of Ireiupus that his heretical opinions broke out after Justin^s death. The Oration, as we shall see, contains clear proofs that it was written in the reign of Marcus Antoninus. Irenaeus's statement that "the doctrine was now discovered among" them," has been supposed by most to imply that Tatian had introduced the heresy shortly before Irenaeus wrote his work, the most probable date of which is 174 or 175. The words as they stand apply only to the Encra- teis, who might have adopted the doctrine a considerable time after Tatian promulgated it. But since Justin died after the accession of Marcus Antoninus, and since Eusebius places his heresy at 172, the statement of Irenseus should perhaps be regarded as evidence in favour of some such date. I see no reason, however, in Irena^us^s use of aorist verbs for the supposition that Tatian must have been dead when he wrote. Nothing is known of his death, and the only piece of information which is given us with regard to his heretical life is subject to very grave suspicion. Our authority is Epiphanius. He g*ives us nearly the words of Irenaeus, but inserts statements of his own of a peculiar character. He tells us, as we have seen already, that Justin suffered martyrdom in the reign of Hadrian, that Tatian behaved himself well while Justin was alive, but that after his death he removed from Rome to the East, and that he first set up his school in Mesopotamia about the twelfth year ^' The passages supposed to refer to Crescens have been already quoted. One of tlieui is that which, as we have seen, refers to a mime ; the other is the appeal, "Why dost thou counsel me to belie my mode of life 1" See Daniel, ]).43 : Lt)Mt;'uenio, p. 8 : Nourry, c. 3. IV.] T ATI AN. II of the Ctesar suniamed Pius, that his new views met with favour first in Antioch, and that they spread over Cilicia and Pisidiaf. All of these assertions that relate to dates are on the face of them false. How far are we to believe the other statements ? There is g-reat prohability that Tatian would leave Rome and preach his new opinions among his old friends at home. Irenseus^s ig-norance of him goes also to render it likely that he had g-one far away from Rome. But we could not regard the information as trustworthy luiless we had some idea of the source from which Epi- phanius learned what none of the previous writers assert with regard to him. The heretical opinions which Tatian embraced were three. They are all given by Irenaeus, and in fact most of the sub- sequent writers simply repeat and amplify his statements. This is the case with Jerome, Epiphanius, Philastrius, Theo- doret, John of Damascus, and the Alexandrian Chronicle. Some of these writers do not get their information directly from him, but from Eusebius, who quotes the w^ords of Irenseus. Hippolytus gives the substance of Irenseus thus : " Tatian, having himself been a disciple of Justin the martyr, held opinions not like those of his teacher, but, attempting something new, said that there were some invisible seons, my- thologizing them like those of Yalentinus. Marriage, he says, is corruption, like Marcion. And he maintains that Adam is not saved on account of his having been the leader {apxqyov) of disobedience S." It is necessary, before stating all that is known of his heretical opinions, to exhibit some of the mistakes which the later writers, such as Epiphanius, made with regard to them. The head and source of all these lies in their making him tiie founder of a school. Thus he is called by some the founder the Encratites (or Abstinents), or of the Tatiani, Severiani, &c. Now there cannot be a doubt that Tatian set up a sepa- rate school of his own, but it is very questional)le whetlier • Epiph. Pan. lib. i. toni. iii Hkt. xlvi. ' Hitresiuni Eefut. HIj. viii. 16. 12 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. he united himself with any sect then existing, or whether after his death, or even in his life, his pupils adhered to his opinions and his alone. There can be no doubt of this much, that Irenseus mentions the 'EyKparets as existing- apart from Tatian, and simply introducing one opinion of his which was in harmony with the rest of their sentiments, and that Hip- polytus describes the Encratites as differing" from Christians in no point of doctrine h, but simply in the rigidity of their life and practices, while he does not mention Tatian in con- nexion with them. Eusebius^ in like manner says expressly that the heresy was strengthened by Severus and hence those who adopted it were called Severiani. From this confusion of Tatian with sects various opinions were attributed to him which the earliest writers do not mention. Thus Epiphanius affirms that he used the mysteries in imitation of the holy Church, but employed water only in the service'^. In like manner Jerome speaks of him as " not merely condemning marriage, but also the food which God created for use'.^'' And like statements are made by the pseudo-Augustine, Theodoret, and the Alexandrian Chronicle. There is much in the character of Tatian to make it probable that he held such opinions, but unfortunately the only early writer who makes mention of the matter is Tertullian, who was not careful in laying an opinion at the door of the right owner. In his tract De Jejunio adversus psychicos'", he remarks with regard to i Tim. iv. 3, that the apostle " con- demns beforehand those heretics who were to command per- petual abstinence to the destruction and contempt of the works of God, such as I find with Marcion and Tatian.^'' Perhaps Tertullian does not mean to assert here positively that either Marcion or Tatian inculcated perpetual abstinence, but that some of their followers did. Jerome however, after his own fashion, took the passage from Tertullian without TO fxtv irepi rod diov Kal tov XpiaTov 6/j.oiws Koi tt? 4KKKT}(Tia ofx-oKoyovcTi. Hser. Refut. lib. viu. 20. ' Hist. Eccl. 1. iv. c. 2q. '' Pan. lib. i. torn. iii. Ha^r. xlvi. c. 2. ' Adv. .Toviii. lib. i. c. 3, torn. ii. p. 231;. >n c. 15. IV.] TAT I AN. 13 acknowledgment^ and says expressly " that the apostle marks out Mareion and Tatian"/' There is also one passage of Jerome^s which at first sight appears to base this view of Tatian^s opinion on trustworthy documents. He says in his commentary on Amos ii. 12, "But ye gave the Nazarites wine to drink, and commanded the prophets, saying, ' Pro- phesy not/ From this passage Tatian, chief of the Encratites, strives to build up his heresy, asserting that wine ought not to be drunk, since the law commanded the Nazarites not to drink wine, and they are now accused by the prophet of giving wine to the Nazarites ; " and towards the end of the same passage he speaks " of those heretics who had been rigorous in their abstinence, fastings, dr3^eatings, cliamenniis", of whom are Tatian and Manichaus/'' Jerome in thus speaking seems to have before his eyes a work of Tatian's, and we should therefore be inclined to rely on the statement. But Jerome himself appears to say that only one book of Tatian^'s was known to himP, and that was the oration which has come down to us. He must therefore have derived his information from some later WTiter, and as we do not know who he is, no reliance can be placed on the statement. . There is still another misrepresentation of the later writers from which we must free ourselves. They generally represent Tatian as in company with Valentinus and Mareion. Irenseus simply says that he formed opinions like theirs, but he does not intimate any personal connexion with these heretics or any derivation of his opinions from them. He does indeed call him in one place "the connexion of all heretics 1/' and this is taken to mean that his system was a mixture of various heretical opinions. If this be correct, we have simply the same statement that we had before. Clemens Alexandrinus has been thought by some to state that Tatian came from the school of Valentinus, but a glance at the passage will " Adv. Jov. lib. ii. c. i6, torn. ii. p. .^51. ° What thi.s means I do not know. '' De Vir. Illu.str. c. 29. "^ " Connexio r|uidcni factu.s omnium iKenliconim," lili. iii. c. 2_^, 8. 1-* THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. sliow tliat the statement is made not in reference to Tatian but in reference to Cassian'. This supiDosed connexion of Tatian with the Gnostics is })r<)bably the reason that Jerome had for reckoning- him among- the Docetes. And not merely does he reckon him among- them, but he speaks of him as the introducer of the doctrine (qui putativam carnem Christi introducens") . Perhaps he means that he was the first to apply the doctrine of the Docetes as a reason in favour of the impurity of marriag-e*. All the writers of the Church speak in the strongest terms of reprobation of the opinions of Tatian. Even Orig-en describes his opinions as most impious. Jerome^ however, is the only one that attacks the moral character of Tatian". He had evidently no g-rounds for such vitupera- tion, hni we need not wonder at it when we see how he treated his contemporaries. The best ascertained point of Tatian's heresy is his re- probation of marriage as being an act of corruption. All the writers bear witness to this. Almost all the writers add that he regarded marriage as on a level with fornication. It IS curious that Hippolytus says simply that he regarded marriage as a corruption. We cannot doubt, however, that Tatian maintained that marriage ought to be avoided, but we should have hesitated as to whether he acknowledged in precise words that marriage was actually a sin in all cases had not a passage come down to us saying as much. He discussed this question of marriage in a work " On Perfection according to the Saviour,'' in wdiich he would no doubt refer ' Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. c. 13, p. 553. Tlie point depends on what word tfce article refers to. b 5' eV t^s OvaKivrwov e^e of by Paul as the mere conjunction of body and soul ; that the God of the Old Testament was the God of body and soul ; that He therefore did not think marriage wrong" ; that the law was his work; and that Christ came to give men back the Spirit. It is easy to see how Tatian would fix such ideas on Justin^s doctrine of the Logos^ especially when Tatian saw nothing good in heathenism. Any one, besides, would feel difficulty in settling what parts of the Old Testament spoke of Christ and what of God ; and Tatian's criterion would simply be that those passages which spoke of the Spirit were the inspiration of Christ, while those that referred to mere body and soul would be the sayings of the God of the Old Testament. The position of aeons in Tatian^s mind seems to me an insoluble problem. In the Oration he had already come to the conclusion that time was merely a conception of the human mind. " Why do you divide time,^' he says, " saying that one part of it is past, one present, and the other future ? How can the future ever pass away, if the present exists ? Just as those who, sailing, think in their ignorance, as the vessel rushes along, that the mountains are running, so ye know not that ye are running past, and the age [alGiva) stand- ing as long as He who made it shall wish it to be <'." How he came to believe that Adam was not saved is a matter which can be conjectured with much more ease and much greater pi'obability. The passage which Jerome adduces as containing his argument is, in fact, a satisfactory reason for it, if it be understood in a particular way : " We all die in Adam,^^ not " we all died in Adam ;" but we Christians and heathens, in as far as we die, all die in Adam. If Adam is thus, as it were, the principle of death now, it is impossible that he could be saved. He cannot be noio the principle of death himself, and at the same time in the enjoyment of life ; and no doubt Tatian would join this with all that is said of the psychical man in the same chapter. The first man Adam « c. 26, p. 163 A. c 2 20 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. was born a living soul — no spirit. He had thus the elements of corruption, and nothing more. The last Adam, Christ, was a life-giving Spirit : He was the source of spirit to men, and therefore of incorruptibility. The first man was of the earth earthy — destined to die, the source of death to all — the last man was heavenly. The earthly and those who are merely earthly must perish — the heavenly alone can live. Tatian could not see how Paul could believe that he who was mere soul and body and remained the source of this defective nature to others, could by any possibility be capable of salvation. Whether Tatian regarded Adam as allegorical or not may be a doubtful matter. It seems to me that he did not — that he looked upon him as real and permanent. But at the same time there seems to be in his thoughts a curious blending of allegory and reality, which is difficult for us to realise. Commentators have busied themselves very much in at- tempting to trace the philosophy of Tatian to some source. Some maintain that he drew many of his opinions directly from the Gnostics 'l, while others imagine that the Jewish Cabbala furnished him with many ideas. It will be seen from the exposition which we have given that to us he appears to have derived his philosophy from his own tempera- ment, from the general spirit of the age, and especially from peculiar stress laid on particular parts of the Epistles of Paul. II. TATIAN^S WRITINGS. Eusebius tells us that Tatian " left a gTcat number of writings.^' Of these only one now remains — the Oration to the Greeks. We have the names of several, either mentioned in his own Oration or by subsequent writers. The following is a list of them : — i. A Work (Trept fcuo)!;) ; 2. The Apology or Oration to the Greeks; 3. A work on Perfection according to the Saviour (Trept tov Kara tov a-coTTJpa KaTapTiaixov) ; 4. A Harmony •' Louguerue, Dissert, pp. x., xi. IV.] T ATI AX. 21 of the Four Gospels {to hia Teaaaptav). Some other works have also been attributed to him : viz. i. One on the Nature of Demons ; 2. On the Difficulties in the Scriptures {TrpojBKr]- IxcLTcov j3il3\ioi>) ; 3. An Explanation of some of the Apostle PauFs Epistles; 4. A Chronicon. The most important of all Tatian's works is his Apology or Oration to the Greeks. There can be no doubt that the work which has come down to us is the same as that known to the early writers. It is mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus, who informs us that Tatian, in his address to the Greeks [iv 7(5 ■npos"EXXrivas), had shown accurately that the philo- sophy of the Hebrews was older than that of the Greeks e. Origen thus speaks of the work : " And there is also in cir- culation the Address to the Greeks of Tatian, who was younger (than Josephus)^ giving a most learned account [-noXvixaOta- Tara (KTiOi^iivov) of those who have made inquiries with regard to the antiquity of the Jews and Moses.^^ Eusebius mentions it f : " Of his works the one best remembered by many is his famous Address to the Greeks, in which, rehearsing the periods upwards, he proved that Moses and the Hebrew prophets were earlier than all those who were famous among the Greeks. This seems to me to be the best and most useful of all his writings z." Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Euse- bius all speak of this work as highly valuable for its chrono^ logical services. In fact, Tatian seems to have been the first to have given a full and satisfactory demonstration of this point to the ancient woi'ld; and accordingly Eusebius, in his Prseparatio Evangelica, has made large extracts from this work, and thus there is no room for doubting its genuineness. As we have seen already, the Oration of Tatian seems to have been the only work of his known to Jerome. He calls it, in imitation of Eusebius, '' florentissimus liber/^ It is impossible to fix the exact date of the Apology, but as all ancient writers, except Epiphanius, agree that he " Strom, i. c. ■21, p. 378. ' Contra Cels. lib. i. c. 16, p. 40. (Lonimatzsch.^ 8 Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. c. 29. 22 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. flourished in the reign of* Marcus Aurelius_, the probability is that his Apology was written in his time. The internal evi- dence is in favour of this date. We place no reliance on the supposition that Justin was dead when Tatian wrote. On the contrary, we think it not unlikely that Justin was alive when Tatian wrote his Apology ; for the Apology is the work of the man before he had been long habituated to Christian thought and intercourse, and therefore while he was still listening to Justin^s teaching. The internal evidence in regard to the time in which the Apology was written is found in two passages. In one he mentions that philosophers received yearly large sums of money from the king of the Romans ^, a statement peculiarly applicable to Marcus Aure- lius; and in the other he mentions Peregrinus, under the name of Proteus, a name which we know was not given him at least until Peregrinus had become very well known '. The place in which the Apology was written is not known. From the circumstances mentioned already there is a con- siderable probability that it was written in Rome, and there is nothing in the work itself contradictory of the supposition. Maranus indeed has supposed that in the passage quoted already, where he states he came to Rome at lastly, it is implied that he had by the time he was speaking left Rome. But such an inference is groundless. We need scarcely refer to the notion that the Oration was written after Tatian had become a heretic^. Our ex- position of the theology of Tatian will show that he did not regard the God of the Old Testament as different from the Everlasting God, and there is no reference either to marriage or Adam which shows that he had then fallen upon the opinions pronounced heretical. Tatian mentions in his Apology his work on Animals. His words are, " Man is not, as the crowspeakers dogmatise, a • *■ c- ly- • c 25. See Aulus Gellius, N. A. xii. 11. ^ Praf. pars. iii. p. 106. He also appeals to what is said about Crescens, '• qui in magna urbe nidum posuerat." ' Maranus, Pracf. pars iii. p. iof>, refutes this notion at length. IV.] TAT I AN. 23 reasonable animal, receptive of mind and science ; for it will 1)6 shown that according- to them even irrational existences are receptive of mind and science. But man alone is the image and likeness of God ; I mean man not when he does things like the animals, but when he has advanced far away from humanity, even up to God Himself. But about this matter we have treated more accurately in our work on Ani- mals™." This is all we know about the work. It is plain that it must have been written after he had become a Chris- tian ; indeed, after he had formed his own notion of Christian psychology, or of man as body, soul, and spirit. No remnant of the work has come down to us in any shape. Tatian is supposed by some to make mention of another work in the following sentence : " I shall show, in a work against those wdio have discussed divine things, wdiat the learned among the Greeks have said with reg-ard to our mode of life and the history of our laws, and how many there are and who they are who have mentioned them"^." Difficulty has been experienced with the words -npos tovs airoipr^vaixivovs to. wept Oeov, especially by early editors o. But scholars are now agreed tiiat the words refer to those Greeks who inquired into the nature of God, and made positive affirmations with regard to Him. Tatian merely promises to write a book here; whether he ever wrote it is unknown. We are in the same ignorance with regard to aniather work. We have quoted the passage already. " Rhodon,^' says Eusebius, " affirms that a book of problems had occupied Tatian; through which (problems) Tatian having promised to present what was indistinct and concealed in the hol}^ writings, Rhodon himself in his own writing promises that he will exhibit the solutions of his problems p. " The words used by Eusebius are, (fyrjal be koI Icmovbdadai. tw Tariarw n™ c. 15. Wortli defines Tatian's idea of afOpainoTr^s here as " omiie illud in honiiiie, quod ipsi juxta cum reliquis animalibus commune est." Note on tliis chapter, with him cliapter 24. " c. 40. " Gesner. See Maranus, Pi-ief. pars iii. p. 105, and Otto, in loc. 1- Eccl. Hist. lib. V. c. 13. •24 THE AFOLOGISTS. [Chap. irpo^\r]ixaT(av ^tfikiov. The probability is that the word iaTrov- baodai does mean that the work was actually written, but it by no means compels one to the supposition. And pei'haps Tatian was simply collecting all the instances he could g-et of difficulties in the Old Testament, in the hope of being able to solve them. There is not only no reason to suppose that Tatian was a heretic when he was preparing this book, but the mention of him by Rhodon as having been his teacher, gives us a guarantee that Tatian was still a teacher in the Church. The notice of this work is of considerable importance, for it tells us that Tatian was a diligent and careful expounder of the Old Testament ; and perhaps he was the first to com- ment on the Old Testament by itself, and occupy himself simply with the explanation of its meaning. Tatian also employed his powers on the New Testament. He was the compiler of a harmony of the Gospels, the nature of which has been a matter of the keenest discussion, all the keener that we have no satisfactory description of it. The first writer who mentions it is Eusebius", who says, "The first leader of them, Tatian, compiling some connexion and collection I know not how of the Gospels, named it a Diates- saron {to bta Teaadpu>i'), which is even now in circulation among some." Eusebius, it is plain, neither saw it nor knew the nature of it. Jerome says nothing of it. Epiphanius remarks, " The Gospel by the four {to bia reaadpcav evayy^ktov) is said to have been made by him, which some call the Gospel according to the Hebrews p." Epiphanius also had not seen it. Theodoret is the only one who saw it and described it. He says, " He composed the Gospel which is called the Dia- tessaron, cutting off the genealogies and the other things which show that our Lord was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. This book was used not only by his own party, but by those who followed the apostolic doctrines. They did not perceive the mischief done to the Covenant (Testament), but used the book in their simplicity as being ■^ Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. c. 2y. v Hivr. xlvi. IV.] T ATI AX. 2a concise. I found more than two hundred such books honoured in the churches among us^ and, collecting them all, I put them aside and introduced the Gospels of the four evan- gelists 9." Theodoret^s information cannot be depended on. It is not unlikely indeed that Tatian^s Harmony should be found in the diocese of Theodoret, which was in Syria ; but many such harmonies must have been composed, and it would require a critical eye to distinguish between the genuine Harmony of Tatian and those of others. Theodoret^s hint as to the heretical interpolations seems very questionable. It would be strange indeed if the simple people did not discover it. The omission of the genealogies, if it had taken place in Tatian^s Harmony, could be accounted for on the supposition that the Harmony was intended to be more concise than the four Gospels in full, and was adapted for sjiiritual edification. And then we must remember that the Harmony of Tatian was confounded with the Gospel according to the Hebrews; and it is not beyond the reach of possibility that Theodoret should have made some such mistake. In fact, there is no reason to suppose that Tatian composed his Harmony when a heretic, and there is nothing in the Gospels which woidd have been regarded by him as contra- dictory of his opinions. The Gospels say nothing about Adam ; and his opinions about another God and marriage it would be as easy to reconcile with the Gospels as with PauFs letters. From the turn of Tatian's mind the conjecture may be liazarded that Tatian's Harmony had no doctrinal aim, but was an attempt to bring the facts of the life of Christ into chronological order. There are two Harmonies extant, for which claims have been raised as being Tatian^s Diatessaron. The one begins with the opening words of John, " In the beginning was the Word;^* and the other with the words of Luke, " Since many have attempted.^^ Dionysius Bar-Salibi, Bishop of Amida, living about I 207, asserts that Ephrem Syrus wrote a commentary '1 H. F. i. 20. 26 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. on the Diatessarou of Tatian^ and that the Diatessaron began with the words, " In the beginning* was the Word/^ Victor of Capua, in the sixth century coming upon a Harmony, con- cludes, without the slightest attempt to weigh evidence, that he had before him the identical Harmony of Tatian, and not of Ammonius. His Harmony begins with, " Since many have attempted/^ Scholars have waged war on these two authorities ; which are in fact no authorities at all. For the truth is that we know no more about Tatian^s work than what Eusebius, who never saw it, knew ; and consequently we should not be able to identify it, even if it did come down to us"", unless it told us something reliable about itself. Tatian also applied his mind to the explanation of the Pauline Epistles, as we have seen already, and it is probable that he published a work on the subject. Eusebius remarks, " They say that he dared to alter (//era^pao-at) some exjoressions of the apostle, as correcting the composition of the words^." Eusebius himself evidently did not know what Tatian had done. It was natural for later writers to suppose that Tatian had interpolated and corrupted the Pauline text. But there is no good reason for such a supposition*. We have seen that Tatian's heresies rested on his interpretation of the Pauline letters. It is likely that in explaining the statements of Paul he paraphrased the words, and probably this • is all that he did. An instance of this we have in the words he uses in referring to i Cor. vii. 5, where he changes " that Satan may not tempt you " into " on account of Satan." The work on the Pauline Epistles, if it was written at all, in all pro- bability was heretical. The only work which we know for certain was heretical was, On Perfection according to the Saviour. This work has often been called the forerunner of the De Imitatione Christi, falsely attrilnitcd to Thomas a Kempis. But Tatian^s work ■■ See tlie wliole contioversy in Daniel, p. 89, and the writers referred to by Heinichen, on Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 29. « Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. c. 29. ' See Mill, in his Prolegomena to the New Testament, quoted by Daniel. p. 115. IV.] TITIAN. 27 dealt much more closely with Christ's character than that of Kempis. Its nature has been already intimated. Epiphanius mentions that the Encratites used only a part of the Old Testament. Some modern critics have concluded that the selection must have been made by Tatian. Rufinus" says that Tatian compiled a Chronicon. No one knows anything' of it. Malalas indeed calls both Clemens and Tatian chronographers, but there is no reason to suppose that either the one or the other wrote a chronicle. The facts relating- to the dispute between Peter and Paul, for which their authority is adduced, may have been stated in some of the many volumes now lost. III. ESTIMATE OF TATIAN. I have already g-iven, in some measure, a portraiture of the cast of Tatian's mind in my account of his life. He was a man of very considerable power, earnest, one-sided, gloomy, rash, rather self-conceited, and passionate equally in his likes and in his dislikes. He held his own opinions visibly in the teeth of the whole world, and he held them with all the greater dogmatism that he had not taken long time to make up his mind, and did not deliberate calmly on his reasons. He was keenly alive to praise and blame, and insults seem to have stung him to the quick. He was more moved by impulse than by reason, though he Avas not without very considerable powers of philosophising. Tatian's Oration is not strictly an apology. It is an ad- dress to the Greeks, written with the desire to show them that barbarian philosophy and teachings had something in them that was worth their attention. Unfortunately he is extravagant in his praise of all that is barbarian, and heaps unmerited abuse on even the best exertions of the Greeks. Tatian takes little notice of the persecutions of the Chris- tians-; or of the slanders heaped on them. He affirms that the hatred of Christians arose from a prejudice which " Hist. Eccl. lib. vi. c. ii. 28 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. was adopted without examination, that they were unjustly accused merely for their name ^. He hurls the accusation of the eating of human flesh back on the Greek gods and heroes y, and shows the inconsistency of the Greeks in ex- communicating the Christians as atheists 2. His references to the Greek mythology are generally in the way of strongest denunciation. He recognises, however, in the origin of polytheism a spark of the divine Spirit. " It [the soul] ," he says, " possessing as it were a spark (h'avafxa) of its [the Spirit^ s] power, and not being able to see the perfect things on account of its separation (from the Spirit), in seeking after God, fashioned in its error many gods, follow- ing the devices of the demons^/^ He identifies the gods of the Greeks completely with the demons ; and says of them, "These ye worship, O Greeks, made of matter.^^ Given to matter, therefore, the gods were essentially low and grovelling, and led men into all kinds of wickedness and grossness'\ They themselves indulged in all kinds of vices, as the stories of the Greeks themselves affirm. Tatian enumerates many of them, especially their love adventures <=, and holds them up to ridi- cule. He maintains also that the gods must be mortal, for they no longer produce**. Tatian^s objections generally take a practical turn. He views the influence of a belief in the gods on the life of men, and he thus finds the strongest reasons for condemnation of the whole system in the absurdities and fatalism of divination, and in the profligacies of the theatrical spectacles exhibited in honour of the gods. Astrology is especially the contrivance of the demons, and Tatian tries to show how utterly false the whole system is, and that it is not the stars but free-will that has destroyed men^. He regards charms also as a special activity of the demons, by which men are misled into foolish deeds and fearful crimes f. , " c. 27, p. 164 A. > c. 25, p. 162 D. '• c. 27, p. 164 B. " c. 13, p. 152D. '^ c. 12, p. rsi D. <-c. 8, p. 147C D. '• c. 21, p. 160 A. " cc. 8, 9, 10, 1 1. ' cc. 17, 18. IV.] T ATI AN. 29 He condemns also the teachings of the theatre. He affirms that they present the gods in the basest characters, and con- taminate the minds of the spectators with the most fearful pollutions ?. There is no reason to suppose that the state- ments of Tatian are exaggerations ; on the contrary, the remains of the drama bear ample witness to the truth of his affirmations. But Tatian does not rest here, but finds special fault with the poets for " deceiving the audience by means of assumed characters^," and the actors for pretending to be what they were not*. Tatian states that his attention to the true nature of heathenism was partly aroused by his finding that human sacrifices were offered np to the gods '^. Tatian treats the philosophers with the utmost contempt, accusing the whole of them of vain boasting. He condemns the whole Greek literature, rhetoric, poetry, and philosophy, as borrowed'. And when he comes to deal in particular with philo- sophers, he utters not a syllable in their praise, but hurls abuse on Diogenes and Aristippus, Plato and Aristotle, Heraclitus, Zeno, Empedocles, and Crates, telling some stories, generally false, to their disadvantage ™, and appealing to these as prin- cipal proof of the failure of their speculations to benefit themselves. " Many are the reasons of offence in them,'' he says, '^for the one hates the other; they oppose rival opinions, selecting for themselves exalted positions on account of their arrogance".'' Tatian inveighs in the strongest language against the philosophers of his own day. He blames them for accepting salaries from the Roman emperor". He contemptuously de- scribes their mode of dress and their habits P, and exhibits their inconsistencies and vacillations i. His language is not 8 C. 22, i6oC. '' c. 22, p. i6i B. Otto translates (rxw'*'^" ' figurati sermones ;' Maranus, ' gestus.' ' c. 22, p. i6o D. '' c. 29, p. 165 A. ' c. I. ™ cc. 2, 3. " c. 3, p. 144 B. Comp. c. 32, p. 168 A. • c. 19, p. r57 D. P c. 2f,, p. 162 B. 'i c. 25. 30 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. dissimilar to that of Lucian^ but he has not one word to say in favour of any of them. He is especially severe ag-ainst Creseens and the Cynics, as mig-ht have been expected in the circumstances. There is no real grappling with the opinions of the philo- sophers. He opposes strongly and forcibly the opinion of the Stoics, that the world was to receive a new shape by a natural conflagration "J. He abuses Democritus for his theory of antipathies, and in as many words sends him to eternal fire for his nonsense ^ ; and he again and again affirms that he cannot help laughing at favourite theories of this or that philosopher. He inveighs strongly against the attempt to allegorise the stories of the gods as ending in blank atheism 5. Indeed, he seems to have set his face against all human studies. '^ What good,^^ he says, " can one get from Attic style, and the sorites of philosophers, and the probabilities of syllogisms, and the measures of the earth, and the positions of the stars, and the courses of the sun ? Employment in such inquiries as these is the work of a man who lays down opinions {hoy- fxaTa) as laws to himself *.•"' In another passage he says, ''^With us there is no desire of vainglory and no diversity in our ojjinions. For separated from the common and earthly creed (Koyov), and obeying the commandments of God, and following the law of the Father of incorruption, we reject every- thing that depends on human opinion ".^^ Tatian here does net refer to opinions merely on religious questions, but on all ques- tions. Accordingly he condemns the fictions of the poets and investigations into the history of music as useless "*". He heaps abuse on Sophron, and calls ^sop, as being a writer of fiction, the false talker (xj/evboXoyo^) ; and in one mass seems to charac- terise poetesses as abandoned women^. He doubted altogether the propriety of using drugs in the cure of diseases. He seems to have supposed that the use of matter implied sub- servience to the demons, and was a deification of matter. '0.6. ■• c. 17, p. 155 D. ' c. 21, p. 160 A. ' c. 27, p. 164 C. " c. 32, p. 167 B. > e. 24, p. 162 A. ' c. 34, p. 169 D. IV.] TAT I AN. 31 " Why/^ he says, " do you not approach the more powerful Lord, instead of curing yourself as a dog- cures himself by means of grass ? . . . Why do you make gods of the things which are in the world 7?" His language indeed is not plain. And Marauus has tried to rescue Tatian by affirming that he did not blame the right use of drugs, but the applica- tion of drugs which had potency only through their charming power, and that he wished in all cases that the praise should be given to God. But I think that a careful study of chap- ters seventeenth and eighteenth will leave a strong impression on the mind that Tatian went farther than this, and believed that cures were to be immediately effected by God alone without the employment of matter. " If one is cured by matter, trusting to it, much more will he be cured by having recourse to the power of God^." And after he has finished the discussion, he says, " Even if ye be cured by drugs (I grant you this by way of concession, Kara avyyvu>ixriv iinTpiTTb) crot), you ought to assign the cure to God^.''"' It is plain here that he did not believe that they were cured by drugs ; and by drugs {(f)ap[jidKOis) he means any kind of medical drug, and not mere charms. He goes so far in his desire to tind fault, that he blames grammarians for speaking of time as present, past, and future, time itself being in reality steady, and we ourselves sailing as it were along its immoveable banks ^. Tatian contributes but little to the defence of Christianity. His great service consists in his having earnestly sought for a satisfying and influential religion. He had felt the truth of what he proclaimed, and the power of the truth over him is all the more manifest that his natural temper seems to have been far from the best. Those passages which contain his own experiences would certainly make a deep impression. When he tells how he tried all the forms and rites of the Greek religion, he would be sure to arrest attention. And when he narrates his falling in with the Bible, and gives a ■ c. i8, p. 157 B. Comp. p. 157 A. ' c. 18, p. 157 A. " c. 20, p. 15S D. '' c. 26, p. 163 AB. 32 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. glowing description of the morals of the Christians, the very fact that such a restless nature had found satisfaction some- where would give weight to his words c. His argumentation divides itself into two parts. In the first he expounds his doctrine of God, the Spii'it, and the Logos. He does this evidently in the belief that these doc- trines will naturally commend themselves to his hearers. For he does not give any reasons for his beliefs. He asserts boldly that he derives them from a source higher than human wisdom. In speaking of his doctrine of spirit he says, " In affirming these things we are not making assertions on mere tradition {a-no yXcoTTrjs'^), or on probable reasonings and so- phistic combinations, but we employ words (Aoyots) of some diviner utterance, and those of you who wish to know this, make haste to learn it^/^ There cannot be a doubt that Tatian was wrong in supposing that he found his whole doctrine of matter and spirit, God and Logos, in the Old Testament. It was not even the same as that of many of his fellow-Christians. And there cannot be a doubt, farther, that he was equally wrong in insisting on a belief in these speculations as essential to Christianity, based though these speculations were on passages of Scripture, and especially on Pauline modes of thought. But such mistakes were in- evitable. Believing the Bible to be divine, he supposed it to contain the whole truth. He looked down on all human studies, and used the Old Testament in acquiring his know- ledge of terrestrial, paradisaical, and heavenly geography, as well as of divine truths ^. His other great argument is that the writings of Moses were older than those of the Greeks, and that whatever truths the latter had got were borrowed from the former. He proves the antiquity of Moses with uncommon learning. And Pressens^, sec. ii. vol. ii. p. 399 ff., refuses to acknowledge any good in Tatian's oration. " This harangue was more calculated to irritate than persuade." * Worth translates, " non summis, ut aiunt, labiis." • c. 12, p. 152 A. f c. 10, p. 159 B. IV.] TA TIAN. 33 then he boldly states his inference : '' We must believe him who has the advantage in respect of ag-e rather than the Greeks who drew from the fountain his dog-mas^ certainly not in full knowledg-e of their meaning- ; for many sophists among them, under the influence of a meddling, inquisitive dispo- sition, attempted to adulterate the truths which they learned from Moses and those who philosophise like him ; in the first place, that they might be thought to have some claim to originality, and secondly, that they might give a corrupt representation of the truth as a kind of mythology, hiding what they did not understand by means of a fictitious mode of compositions." As might be expected, Tatian does nothing to conciliate the favour of the Greeks. He places the Christian religion — which he designates ' our philosophy**,^ ' the conduct of life according to us^ (r?/? Ka& rjfxas TroAtrei'as'), or ' the conduct of life according to God" (r^s Kara Oebv TroAtreias'*) — in direct and absolute antagonism to heathenism. He says that '' it is not holy to compare our knowledge of God with that of those who wallow in matter and mudV and that in a case where Justin had condescended to use Greek modes of thought. He bursts out again and again into threats against the Greeks for laughing at the Christian doctrines. To take one instance, he says of Democritus, " He who boasts of the magician Ostanes, will be delivered up to the devouring power of eternal fire in the day of the end [of the world] . And you also, if you do not cease your laughter, will have the benefit of the same punishments as the cheats""."" Daniel has remarked that Tatian nowhere mentions the love of God in his work, but great stress cannot be laid on such a fact as this, as he was really not preaching, but rather defending himself. A critic cannot help lieing somewhat severe with a man like Tatian. But it is not to be forgotten that his life may have been more victorious than many a one that would look much better. It is difficult to realise the temptations and 8 c. 40. p. 1 73 A B. ' c. 3r, p. 166 A. * c. 40, p. 173 B. ■^ c. 42, p. 174 B. ' c. 21, p. 160 {'. '" c. 1 7. p. '5.S D. VOL. III. D 34 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. struggles through which he had to pass, the earnest longings of his soul which were often disappointed, and the many bitternesses that his keenly sensitive and not very well balanced mind would bring upon him. No doubt such men are often of eminent service in the Church, with all their faults, and sometimes partly by means of these very faults. IV. ABSTRACT OF THE ORATION TO THE GREEKS. Do not bear a hostile mind to barbarians, O Greeks ; for what practice has not received its origin from barbarians ? Divination, sacrifice, astronomy, letter-writing, and many such arts are borrowed from barbarians. There is no good reason for boasting of your superiority in diction. You have various dialects, so that I am not able to say whom I should call a Greek. And you mix your language with barbaric words. You have set up your rhetoric for unjust purposes, and your poetry that you might put together the loves of the gods^. Your philosophy is equally a failure ; witness the character of Diogenes, Aristippus, Plato, and Aristotle *, Heraclitus, Zeno, Empedocles, Pherecydes, Crates, These philosophers oppose each other, and arrogantly claim the highest places for themselves". Why then, O Greeks, do you oppose us ? If the king orders me to pay taxes, I am ready to do it. Only when he orders me to deny God do I refuse obedience. God is without beginning, and cannot be bribed. But I shall give a full explanation of our beliefs^. Tatian now explains the doctrine of the Logos. The whole chapter is translated in the account of his doctrine y. There will be a resurrection, and God will be the judge of men. The doctrine of the resurrection is in harmony with reason z. The Logos made men and angels with freewills. He fore- knew the future, and thus warned them against wickedness, and praised righteousness. But when they made a god of the first-born, who was the wisest of them, the power of " C. 1. ' C. 2. " c. 3. "0.4. >' c. ^. ^ c. 6. IV.] TAT I AN. 35 the Log-OS excluded the leader of this folly and his followers from living with him. Man became mortal, and the first- born is made a demon, and those who imitated him became a host of demons a. Men formed the occasion of revolt to the demons. They devised astrology for them also, and thereby induced a belief in fate. But did not the demons themselves fall under fate as well as men ? And besides, how could we honour those whose opinions are often contra- dictory to each other, and whose practices are abominable'^ ? In their astrology they use the names of animals with which they are compelled to live, since they have been driven from heaven. Moreover, the placing of the names of certain gods and goddesses in the stars is absui-d and full of contradiction, while no good reason can be given for omitting certain other godsc. The gods also are transformed. Thus Zeus becomes a di-agon. And some mortals also are turned into gods of stars. Where were their stars before they died ? More- over, you sacrifice a sheep, and worship it in the shape of a star 'I. How shall I welcome life according to fate ? I care not for the honours which the stars are supposed to confer; and we have all the same sun. Rich and poor are alike subject to death. It is not fate but our free-will that has ruined us. We have become slaves on account of sin^. There are two varieties of spirit ; soul, and that which is greater than soul. The whole creation is material, but with some parts more beautiful than others. The demons also are made of matter, and possess a material spirit. And there is spirit in the stars and animals, and other such things f. The soul is not immortal by itself, but mortal. It dies if it know not the truth. But it does not die, even though it be dissolved, if it acquire the knowledge of God. Living alone it tends towards matter. Married to the spirit, it mounts to the regions of the spirit. The spirit lived originally with the soul, but the soul would not follow it, and therefore the spirit left it. The Spirit of God is still with those who are just g. " c. 7. '' c. 8. * c. 9, * c. 10. • e. 1 1. ' c, 12. • c. 13. D 2 36 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. But ye, O Greeks, have followed demons, supposing them to be possessed of power. The demons, however, have got possession of your minds, by imposing on you through igno- rance and appearances. They themselves do not die easily, but their life is a perpetual death, and, when they shall be punished, they will die like men. Their sins are greater than those of men, on account of the immeasurable extent of their lifel^. The soul consists of many parts, and is not simple. Man alone is the image and likeness of God; but only if ^ the soul be joined to the Spirit of God. If God does not dwell in him, then he is superior to animals only in respect of his articulate speech. The demons have no flesh. Tliey are the efflilgences of matter and wickedness, and therefore they cannot repent. But man can repent and conquer death by a death which is through faith'. The demons that give conimands to men are not the souls of men. They revel in mis- leading the souls whose tendency is downwards. Their power lies in their influence over matter. Reject matter, and the . / demons are conquered. Diseases also arise from matter ; but the demons make men believe that they are the causes, whereas they attack only when disease has seized the man'^. The opinion of Democritus, that disease {-naOos) is destroyed by antipathy, is not correct. There are attacks made by demons, and " the man who is diseased, and the man who says he is in love, and the man who hates, and the man who wishes vengeance, get these demons to help them." The chai-ms applied in these eases have no power in themselves, but the demons have defined the use of each. How absurd is the supposition that, though when alive I could accomplish very little, yet when dead, a bone of me should be a powerful charml ! Medicine is of the same contrivance. If any one is cured by trusting to matter, much more will he be cured by giving attention to the power of God. The demons do not cure, but make prisoners of men. They attack the members of some one, then publicly bring him forth, and fly from him, leaving him in his old state "i. Be *' c. 14. ' C. I.v •* c. 16. ' c. 17. ™ c. 18. IV.] TA TIA K. 37 instructed by us, who know about these things. Your philosophers cannot teach you how to despise death rightly. We must despise death through the knowledge of God. What is divination ? The notions in regard to it are full of inconsistencies. Thus Apollo foretells, but Apollo did not know the future in the case of Daphne ". Even if ye be cured by drugs, you ought to ascribe the cure to God. The world still drags us, and on account of weakness I seek out matter. But the perfect spirit is the winging of the soul. When sin came, the spirit left, and the first men were driven out from a land different from ours and an arrangement better than this here. This land we know of through the prophets ". For we are not fools in saying that God appeared in human form. There is no reason why j^ou should laugh at such a statement, seeing that your own stories are full of the appearances of gods in the shape of men. But your stories are nonsense. If you speak of the origin of the gods, then you prove that they are mortal. Why does not Hera bring forth now ? Do not allegorise your stories ; for if you do, then the divinity of the gods vanishes. Either they are gods and have the character which is usually ascribed to them, or they do not exist at all p. Of what sort are your teachings ? Are not your public assem- blies justly the subjects of ridicule ? I myself frequently saw an actor. He put on a false character. He was sometimes this person, sometimes that; and in his one person he brought out all the evil deeds attributed to the gods, and thus taught every species of wickedness. The theatres are full of evil practices q. I saw men bearing about a burden of flesh [athletes] who had prizes and garlands for their insolence and striking. That, however, is the most harmless form of the evil. There are those who sell themselves to be murdered; and the rich man buys the murderers [gladiators] . These men fight for nothing, and no one assists them in their dis- tress. The man who goes to the gladiatorial spectacle and returns home without seeing one killed, returns disappointed"". What profit can we get from plays or investigations " C. 19. " 0. 20. P C. 21. 'I C. 22. ■■ C. 23, 38 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. about music s ? What good have your philosophers done ? Many of them are mercenary. They contradict one another, while we agree, teaching that God is bodiless, and will be our judge, and that soul and body will be rendered immortal together. What harm do we do you, O Greeks ? The stories told of us are false, but true of some of your gods *. Give up, then, making a boast of language which is derived from others. Your books are like labyrinths. Why do 3^ou divide time into present, past, and future, when time cannot be divided, and the present never can become the past? The book-writers are the source of your babbling, dividing wisdom, and attaching the names of men to each part. Ye thus destroy yourselves, warring against one another u. Why do you fight with me when I am simply choosing my own opinions ? You would not condemn a robber merely on account of his name. You blame us for speaking against the gods, while your own writers — Diagoras, Leo, and Apion — have spoken equally strongly. Why do you advise me to conceal my mode of life ? Why do you urge me to avoid death if you really de- spise death ? And what is the use of your investigations about the course of the sun, the position of the stars, syllo- gisms, &c. '^P Your law-making also is blameworthy; for while it ought to be one and the same everywhere, it is as various as there are cities y. I also shared in the mysteries, and tried all sorts of worship, but seeing gods delight in human sacrifice and urging on to every iniquity, I sought trutli somewhere else. Being in this state I fell in with the Scriptures. I thus became God-taught ^. I wish now to east error away as being* the trifles of childhood. Wickedness is dissolved when we trust the words of God. You, O Greeks, should not mock us because we are called barbarians ^. I shall now prove that ' our philosophy ' is older than the practices of the Greeks. Moses is allowed to be the founder of the barbarian philosophy. Homer is the oldest of the Greeks. Tatian here mentions the various Greek writers who wrote on " c. 24. * c. 25. » c. 26. " c. 27. >' c, 28. '• c. 29. •' c. 30. IV.] TA TIA N. 39 the date of Homer, and he gives their various opinions. These opinions cannot be true b. With us there is no desire of vain- glory. We speak the truth. It is a good thing if your credulity can be limited. Ye laugh at us, though you will one day weep for it. You throw away your admiration on trifling objects and despise us who are really good*:. You mock us, saying that we talk nonsense among women and youths, virgins and old maids. But you have disgraced yourselves by the many statues which you have raised to women, especially to women of questionable character, such as Sappho ^. Indeed, statues generally teach lessons of im- morality, and are made rather in honour of the bad than of the good. Tatian adduces many instances p. These statues I have seen myself. I write down only what I know through my own personal investigations. I have digressed, however, and shall return to what I promised to prove, that the writings of Moses are older than those of Homer ^. Suppose that Homer lived in the time of the Trojan war, I shall show that Moses was much older. I shall appeal to Chaldean, Phenician, and Egyptian witnesses. My Chaldean witness is Berosus the Babylonian, whose character is guaranteed to us by Juba, a writer on the Assyrians g. There are three Phenician wit- nesses — Theodotus, Hypsicrates, and Mochus — also Menander of Pergamusli. The Egyptian records are very accurate. Ptolemy of Mendes has interpreted them. After him comes Apion the grammarian. They both say that the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt took place in the reign of Amosis, who was contemporary with Inachus, king of Argos. Inachus reigned twenty generations before the capture of Troy '. In proof of this Tatian gives the names of the successors of Inachus down to Agamemnon, in whose reign Troy was taken. All the most illustrious deeds of gods and men in Greek history were performed after the time of Inachus. Prometheus, for in- stance, lived in the time of the fifth Argive king. Tatian gives many instances ^. Moses was therefore earlier than the ^ c. 35. " c. 31. ° c. 32. ' c. 33. " c. 34- ? c. 36. " c. 37- ' c. 38. " c. 39- 40 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. ancient heroes, wars and gods. He ought therefore to be believed rather than the Greeks, who borrowed from him and perverted what they borrowed'. Moses is not only more ancient than Homer, but than all the other poets — Linus, Philammon, and suchlike. They preceded the Trojan war at the utmost only by three, or two generations. He was anterior to those reckoned wise, such as Minos, Lycurgus, Draco, and Solon, long anterior to the seven wise menm. These things I, Tatian, who philosophise according to the barbarians, have composed ". V, DOCTRINES OF TATIAN. God. — The teaching of Tatian with regard to God is re- markable for the clear expression of the immateriality of God. This doctrine is stated negatively and positively. ' The Per- fect God ' is said to be ' fleshless ° "" and ' bodiless P.' " God is a spirit, not pervading matter [as the Stoics thought] , but the maker of material spirits and of the shapes in it. He is invisible and intangible, having Himself been the Father of things sensible and invisible ^.^^ "He has also no constitu- tion in time, being without beginning, and being Himself alone the beginning of the whole ''." Tatian maintains that God alone possesses goodness by nature or inherently ^ He asserts that nothing wicked was made by God *. He attributes the creation of the world to God, and recog- nises two stages — that of the putting forth of matter by God in a state of shapelessness and inapplicability, and the pre- paration of the world out of this matter by separation ". He believed that the world was dissoluble and dissolving v. " God we know through His creation, and comprehend his invisible power by his works "■'," ' c. 40. •" C.41. " c. 42. " c. I.:, p. 154 B. f c. 25, p. 162 C. '' c. 4, p. 144 C. ■■ Ibid. ' c. 7, p. 1 46 C. * c. 1 1, p. 150 D ; conf. f. 1 7, p. 156 C, " c. 12 p. 15 ' A. > c, 25, p. 162 C. '^ c. 4, p. 144 J), IV.] T ATI AN. 41 He maintains that God alone ought to be worshipped : " Man ought to be honoured in a human way, but we must fear God alone, who is not to be seen by human eyes, nor is (_/ He comprehensible by art. When ordered to deny Him only, obey will I not, but I will die rather that I may not be proved a liar and ungrateful ^/' " But we must not bribe the un- nameable God, for He, being in need of nothing, must not be accused by us as if He were in need v." Salvation is God's free gift 2, and through knowledge of Him we attain it. God is to raise us from the dead and to be judge ''. Tatian seems to have experienced considerable difficulty with the idea of creation. He could not believe in the eter- nal independent existence of matter, because that would carry along with it the existence of two eternal substances of equal power. But then came the question. How could matter exist if it had not been ? The way in which Tatian answered this question was peculiar. He did not say, as a modern might have said, that the thought of the world was in God, but he maintained that all things were with God, not actually but potentially ; that He was the substance of all things Himself. And thus he came very near, if not exactly, to the theory of !/^ emanation, matter itself not indeed existing separately from the Divine mind, but being inclosed in the Divine power, and at the proper time ' cast forth ' [■npo^i^Kruxivt]) by the Maker of all. His words are, " For matter is not beginningless, as God, nor on account of its being beginningless is it of equal power with God; but it is begotten {y^vvqTr)), and has come into existence not by any other, but has been put forth by the Maker of all alone ^." The representations with regard to the existence of all things with God before their creation are brought under our notice in Tatian's doctrine of the Logos. ' c. 4, p. 144 C. J c. 4, p. 1 45 A. '- c. 32, p. 167 B. " c. 25, p. 162 D ; c. 18, p. 157 B ; c. 6; p. 146 A. *> c. 5, p. T45 C ; comp. c. 12, p. 151 A. Sir William Hamilton's explanation of our conception of creation throws light on Tatian's idea. See his Discus- Fions, p. 620. 42 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. \v The Logos. — There is only one passage in which Tatian speaks of the Logos ; but it is one of considerable difficulty, almost every sentence of it being liable to different inter- pretationsc. It runs as follows : " God was in the beginning, but we have understood that the beginning was a power of reason. For the Lord of all. Himself being the sub- stance of all, was alone in as far as the creation had not yet taken place, but as far as He was all power and the sub- stance of things seen and unseen, all things were with Him : along with Him also by means of rational power the reason which was in Him supported them. But, by the will of his simplicity, the reason leaps forth ; but the reason, not having gone from one who became empty thereby, is the firstborn work {(pyov) of the Father. Him we know to be the begin- ning of the world. But He came into existence by sharing (jueptcTjoio's), not by cutting off; for that which is cut off is separated from the first ; but that which is shared, receiving a selection of the work, did not render Him defective from whom it was taken. For as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened on account of the lighting of many torches, so the Logos (Reason) going forth from the power of the Father did not make Him who begot Reason Reasonless. For I myself sj^eak, and ye hear; and yet through the interchange of speech (logos), I who talk to you do not become empty of speech. But putting forth my own voice I have chosen to arrange the matter in you whiclv is not arranged. And as the Word begotten in the beginning begot in his turn our creation. He Himself fashioning the material for Himself, so I, being begotten again in imitation of the Logos and having comprehended the truth, put into order the confusion of related matter '^.^^ " Daniel gives fully the various attempts of scholars on this passage and the endeavours out of it to defend or impugn the orthodoxy of Tatian, p. 150. In Worth's edition of Tatian we have Longuerue, p. xii., jjositively asserting that Tatian is heterodox, and quoting a scholiast who was of the same opinion, while in another part we have Bull's attempt to prove him quite sound, P- 143- '' c 5. P- 145 ABC. IV.] TAT I AX. 43 We proceed to explain this difficult chapter. A scholiast supposes that the words " God was in the beginning/^ refer to the words of the apostle John, " In the beginning was the Word/^ but it is difficult to suppose that Tatian would identify the Father with the Logos. It is far more likely that Tatian has direct reference to Gen. i. i, that he infers from the words " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" that God was in the ' beginning/ and then taking apxfi, ' beginning/ to mean ' governing principle/ an interpretation which we shall see again in Theo- philus, he explains the beginning itself as a power or ex- ercise of the Logos. The statement, then, is that God was when a beginning was formed, and the beginning arose through an exercise of the divine reason. In the next sentence Tatian asserts that God Himself is the substance, that which stands under and supports all things (i;77doTa(Tts) , and God was so for ever. How Tatian succeeded in freeing himself from the thought that God was the All, might be a question if it were not that the whole style of his thought prevented him from seeing any difficulty in his own assertion. He distinguished between God and his creation, and in the most distinct manner asserts that God alone, and not his creatures, is to be worshipped. He here merely ventures a little beyond his depth without having any fixed idea whither he was going. In the next part of the same sentence he speaks of the Logos, and as we have translated his words, they mean that before all things were created, while they yet merely existed in God^s power, they were supported by the Logos or Reason in God which displayed itself solely in a rational power : in other words, all things were potentially existent in God, and they were, as such, supported by the Logos of God also existing potentially in God. Another translation gives us very nearly the same meaning: "Being with Him, the Logos Himself, who was in Him, subsisted through the rational power." The statement here is that the Logos in God was a potential one, and there is no asser- tion of any activity of the Logos in regard to the potential 44 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. existence of the All e. Perhaps this translation gives on the whole better sense, though the intransitive use of vT^irrr-qae is at least peculiar. The next sentence states that the Logos leaps forth. The expression ' leaps forth ■' is peculiar, and reminds one of those who resolved the Logos into occasional exercises of the rational power of God''. We have no reason, however, to attribute this opinion to Tatian, and he after- wards uses the more common expression Trpoepx^^^"'- '^'^^^ expression ' by the will of his simplicity ' seems to me to mean, by the will of a being who was as yet simple, undivided, and unshared. The reference I take to be to the /xepto-juo's which took place. Some regard the expression as merely ''the simple Avill.''^ " The going out of the Logos from God was for God no necessity, but an act of pure free-will ^." What- , . ever interpretation is given to n]s uirKorrjTos, the fiovX{]ixaTi ' clearly expresses that the leaping forth of the Logos was an act of God^s will. The words ov Kara k^vov x^^PWcts appear to me to intimate what Tatian afterwards explains, that God did not lose any of his reason by sharing it with his Logos. Some take the Kara k^vov to mean ' in vain,' with not much advantage to the sense, but in greater harmony with Greek construction. The illustrations which Tatian gives of the /ueptfTjuo'?, 'sharing,' of the Logos have ali*eady passed under our notice in Justin. There is one part of his sentence, however, on which various meanings have been put. The words to [xepL- aOev OLKOVofxias Trjv atpeaiv TtpocrXa^ov seem to me to mean that that which is shared, though it receives a choice of a new service, yet does not make the original source needy. ' Bull's defence of Tatian 's orthodoxy rests mainly on his ingenuity in trans- lating this passage. He translates, ' per rationalem vim et ipse et verbum quod in ipso erat, substitit,' — ' Through rational force both He Himself, and the Word which was in Him, subsisted.' Then he asks Petavius, if God sub- sisted by rational force, how can any one say that the Logos subsisted merely in force (Suj/a^f i) when the very same terms are applied to God ? But for Bull's translation we should have expected utso-tt/o-oi/, and the whole context is against it. Def. Fid. Nic. sect. 3, c. 6 ; Worth, p. 148. f See the exposition of .Justin Martyr's Doctrines, vol. ii, p. 22Q. " Daniel, p. 155. lY.] T ATI AN. 45 Thus a lamp lighted from a torch may serve quite a different purpose from the torch, but does not diminish the light of the torch. It seems to me that the statement is a general one, not a particular. Many, however, have taken it to refer only to Christ, and the clause then states two facts — that He derived his being by sharing, and received in addition the management of the world. Others suppose the oIkovoixlu to refer to the divine nature ^ ; and the meaning to be that that which is shared belongs to the same nature from which it receives the share. " The confusion of cognate matter " is, as Worth has noted, his fellow-men whom he is addressing. The activity of the Logos in the production and guidance of man is given in a continuation of this passage. " The heavenly Logos,'' he says, " being ' a spirit from the Father and Logos (Reason) from the rational power, in imitation of the Father who begot Him made man the image of immortality, in order that, as incorruption is with God, in the same way man receiving a share of God might have immortality. The Logos, then, before the creation of men, becomes the fashioner of angels.'' The activity of the Logos on man after his creation is thus described : " The power of the Logos having with itself the faculty of foreknowing what was going to happen, not by fate but by the sentiment of those who chose with free-will, foretold the results of things to come, and He became a hinderer of wickedness through prohibitions and a praiser of those who should remain good^/^ When man yielded to the temptations of the devil, then the power of the Logos shut out both the devil himself and those who followed him from intercourse with him. The only point that remains to be noticed is that Tatian speaks of the Logos as the being that directed the prophets *■ See Daniel, p. 158 ff, for a full discussion of the meaning of utKovofiia. Also Otto, in loo. ' ' Being a spiritual being, as proceeding from the Father, who is Spirit.' This seems to be the meaning of irvivfxa yiyovw?. ^ c. 7, p. 146 BCD. V 4f> THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. in prophesying. Tatian does not connect the Logos with Christ, his subject not leading him to speak of Christ at all. He once speaks of the ' suffering God V and asserts "that God appeared in the shape of manm/' It is pro- bable that Tatian would put the same meaning on these expressions as Justin would, and that he believed the Logos, though God, could suffer and could make Himself apparent to man. Spirit. — Tatian almost invariably mentions Spirit in con- nexion with the nature of man. We have already seen that he regarded God as a spirit, and that he spoke of the Logos as a spirit from the Father. Besides these, Tatian recognises two spirits, one called a material spirit, the other called the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the perfect Spirit, and the heavenly Spirit. Tatian speaks of these spirits principally in connexion with man. The material spirit is " that which pervades matter n." " The world possessing according to the power of Him who made it some things more brilliant, and other things unlike these, has partaken of a material spirit by the will of Him who fashioned it"." God is therefore the fashioner of these "material spirits P." Though Tatian thus uses the plural in reference to the spirit pervading matter, he takes care to show that he regards the spirit as only one. "There is a spirit,-*' he says, " in the stars, a spirit in angels, a spirit in plants and waters, a spirit in men, a spirit in animals, but while it is one and the same it possesses varieties in itself ^.-'^ The demons received their constitu- tion from matter and possessed the spirit which is from it ^ In man both spirits made their appearance. " We know,"' he says, " two varieties of spirits, of which the one is called the soul, the other is greater than the soul and is the image and likeness of God, and both of these spirits existed in the first human beings, so that they are ' C-I3, P-I53A. ™ c. 2i,p. 159C. n c. 4, p. 144 D. ° C.12, P.151C. 1' f.4, p. 144C'. 1 c. 12, p. 152 A. ■■ e. 12, p. 151 C. IV.] TA TIA ^\ 47 in one respect material, and in another superior to matter''/' " The spirit at first lived with the soul, but the spirit left it when the soul no longer wished to obey it ^." This spirit was the " share of God " " noticed already, that which had in it incorruption. Accordingly, "when the more powerful spirit has been separated from man, he who was made in the image of God becomes mortal ^.'' " The perfect spirit is the winging of the soul, and the soul when it cast the spirit away on account of sin flew as a nestling, and fell on the earth, for removing from its heavenly fellowship it desired participation in things inferior v." The great work of the soul now is to have its fellowship with the spirit renewed. "Allien the soul lives alone,'' he says, '^ it tends down- wards towards matter, dying along with the flesh, but when it possesses union with the Divine Spirit it is not helpless, but ascends to the places to which the spirit guides it; for its habitation is above, but the origin of the soul is below z." " It is our duty now to seek back what we have lost, and to join the soul to the Holy Spirit, and to bring about a union with God*." The spirit is thus the representative of God in man. "God wishes to dwell in man through the spirit acting as ambassador t>.^^ Tatian also attributes to this spirit prophetic powers. "The Spirit of God," he says, " is not mtli all, but with some who live justly. Being brought down and being intermixed with their soul, it through prophecies proclaimed to the other souls that which was concealed, and those souls which obeyed wisdom attracted to themselves the spirit allied to them, while those who did not obey but rejected the minister [the Spirit] of the suffering God showed themselves fighters with God rather than worshippers of God^." He attributes the in- vention of gods also to a spark of the spirit still remaining in the soul. " Possessing," he says, " as it were a spark of the power of the spirit, but on account of its separation « c. 17., p. 150 D. ' c. 13, p. 1520. "C7, p. 146C. " c. 7, p. 147 A. J" c. 20, p. 159 A. ^ c. 13, p. 152 C D. « CIS, p. 153 D. b c. 15, p. 154C. ' c. 13, p. 153 A. 48 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. not being- able to see clearly those things which were per- fect, while seeking God the soul fashioned many gods, in its mistake following the devices of the demons ^/^ In harmony with all that is stated already, Tatian remarks that the soul was saved by the spirit d. The scholiast's note on the meaning of -nv^vfxa deserves attention. He defines spirit as " a constitution given by creation, or a power which God sowed in matter, and thus produced in this visible world the different natures of land animals, of water animals, of birds, zoophytes and plants ^." Devil and Demons. — Tatian does not mention the devil by name, but there is one passage in which he, without doubt, speaks of him. He says of the first human beings, that '^when they followed one wiser than the others on account of his being firstborn, and declared him god, even though he rose up against the law of God, then the power of the Logos debarred him who began the folly and those who followed him from living with Him (the Logos) ^" "This firstborn becomes a demon on account of his transgression and ignorance, and those who imitated him, that is, his appearances {(j)avTd(T[xaTa) , became an army of demons and were delivered over to their folly on account of free-will ^.'^ This is the only allusion to the devil ; he is here called the firstborn, and his fall is connected with the fall of man. The demons are said to have been cast out of heaven ^, and to have lived with animals after having been expelled from the life of heaven K The demons chose men as the objects in whom to exhibit their revolt from God. They thus devised the system of astrology to induce men to believe in a fate'', and they chose the animals with which they [the demons] lived, to be as it were the alphabet and foundation of their scheme'. They act also upon men by magic and by the healing of diseases. « c. 13, p. 152 D. *> c. 13, p. 152 C. <" Otto, p. 20, note 12. f c. 7, p. 146 D. 8 c. 7, p. 147 A. h c. 20, p. 159 A. ' c. 9, p. 148C. •< C.8, p. 147A. ' c. 9, p. 148BC. IV.] TA riA y. 49 The charms have no natural power. But the demons have determined for what each particular charm is to be used, and then " when they see their assistance received by men, they take hold of the men and make them slaves to them- selves"/^ In this way " they turn men away from the worship of God by making them trust grasses and roots n," The demons are equally deceptive in their cures. " Demons/' he says, " do not cure, but by art carry men captive, and the most admirable Justin rightly said that they were like robbers °." The plan they take is this : " They attack the members of some persons, then through dreams they manage to make their glory known to them, then they order such publicly to come forth, and in the sight of all, after having enjoyed worldly honours, they fly from the sick persons, put an end to the disease which they had caused, and restore the men to their former state ^." Tatian describes more minutely the action of the demons on men in chapter i6. He says, "The demons revelling over men in their wickedness, by diverse and deceitfully- planned contrivances turn away their minds, which have already begun to tend downwards, that they may not be able to elevate themselves to the journey in the heavens. But the things which are in the world have not escaped our notice, and the divinity becomes comprehensible to us since the power which renders souls immortal [the Spirit] has come to us. Now the demons are seen even by those destitute of the Spirit of God, since they sometimes show themselves to men, that they may be thought to be of some importance, or that, since they are friends having evil hearts, they may do them some injury as if they were enemies, or that they may afford opportunities to those like them of paying honour to themselves. For if it were possible for them, they would have dragged down heaven itself along with the rest of creation. But now this they by no means do, for they are unable ; but, by means of the inferior matter, ™ c. 17, p. 165 B. " Ibid. p. 165 C. " c. 18, p. 157 C. P Ibid. 50 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. they war ag-ainst matter which is similar to themselves. It one wishes to conquer these, let him ex})el matter. For armed with the breastplate of the heavenly Spirit, he will be able to preserve everything embraced by it. There are then diseases and dissensions of the matter which is in us : but the demons themselves ascribe the causes to themselves when they occur, attacking whenever disease seizes hold of a man. Sometimes, also, by the storm of their folly they shake the constitution of the body. These being struck by the word of God^s power, in fear depart, and the sick man is healed.^^ One of the motives mentioned in this passage for the activity of demons is that they might have honour paid them. Tatian several times alludes to .the desire they have for worship : "They were eager to become robbers of di- vinity P.^^ He accordingly identifies them with the gods worshipped by the Greeks 'i, and he speaks of the "demons with their leader Zeus'"," as if he regarded Zeus as the devil. Tatian divides demons into two classes, those who attached themselves to the grosser forms of matter, and those who turned themselves to the purer. "The demons, having re- ceived their constitution from matter and possessing the spirit which proceeds from it, became licentious and glut- tonous, some of them turning to that which was purer, while others chose the defective portion of matter and lived a life similar to \i\" They had the spirit of matter in them. They were born of matter. They were even more, "They are the efi'ulgences of matter and wickedness t." Tatian does not explain what he means by this expression, but it is pro- l)able that he thought of Christ as the effulgence of God; and as the b-oing of* Christ had no will, power, or thought that was not the Father's, so the demons had no activity of their own which was not identical with the activity of >• c. 12, p. 151 D. q Ibid. ' C.8, P.I47C. a C.12, p. 151D. ' c. 15, p. 154 C. IV.] ~ T ATI AN. 5i matter and wickedness". If this be the case, then it is easy to understand his statement, which he seems to reg-ard as an inference from the passage now quoted, that the substance of the demons did not admit of room for repentance. The human race had a spark of the spirit remaining, the divine spirit had completely abandoned the demons. Though thus entirely material, yet they have no flesh. The putting together of their bodies, though it '' be of matter,^'' is " spiritual, like the constitution of fire or air "'." On account of their fleshlessness, " they do not die easily ; but living, they carry on practices of death, for they die as often as they teach sins to those who follow them^." Their bodies also are invisible to those who possess merely the soul and not the divine spirit, ^^for the inferior cannot comprehend the superior y.^-* They may, however, make them- selves visible to the psychical for their own purposes ^. They generally impose on men by unreal appearances. They de- ceive "souls, that are left alone '^j by means of ignorance and unreal appearances '' {(pavTaat&v) '\ And they imitate the unreal appearances ((pavTaaixara) of the devil <'. A complete view of their bodies is easily obtained by those who are guarded by the Spirit of God. o See Otto's nnlc on the passage. I' f. 7, J). 146 C. IV.] TAT I AN. 55 able to reject it ag-ain i/^ Tatian takes care to note that the pi-oj)hecies of the Logos took place not according to fate, but because He foreknew the minds of the free agents *". He also exhibits the absurdity of the doctrine of fate, especially in its connexion with the stars s. God made the world '^for our sake*." Tatian says little of the salvation of man. In a passage already adduced he asserts man^s power to gain what he had lost ; and he has again and again asserted that the great object of man's aims is to unite his soul with the Divine Spirit. (^ This union is sometimes rej^resented as life, and generally the subjective state of mane's mind in this life is represented by the words the 'knowledge' or 'comprehension' of God. " I see/' he says, "that it is the same sun that shines on all, and that there is one death against all, whether they live in the midst of pleasure or in the midst of poverty "." Then, after a little, he adds, '' Why dost thou, frequently desiring according to fate, frequently die ? Die to the world, rejecting the madness in it ; live to God, rejecting the old birth through the com- prehension of Him "." Tatian opposes to the power of com- prehending God worldly comprehension, " above which," he says, " the things of our insti'uction are y." And in another passage he remarks that " it is not holy to compare our com- prehension with regard to God with those who wallow in matter and mud =^." Tatian, as we have seen, varies the expression by speaking of a knowledg*e of the truth. Tatian also speaks of faith, especially in connexion with the resurrection. He recognises a relation between faith and L^' knowledge. " He who believes sliall know*." And he attri- butes both to faith and to knowledge the same effect — the conquest of death. " Men," he says, " after the loss of im- mortality have conquered death by a death which is through faith, and through repentance (jaeraroio) a calling has been freely granted to them according to the word that says, 1 c. 1 1, p. 150 D. •• c. 7, 15. 146 D. ' c. 8, p. 147 B. ' c. 4, p. 144 D. " c. II, p. 150 B. " c. II, p. 150BC. V c. 12, p. 152 B. ' c. 21, p. 160 C. " c. 19, p. 158 D. 56 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. ' Since they were made somewhat inferior to the angels/ It is possible^ then, for every one that has been conquered to conquer again, rejecting the constitution of death ^" Again, addressing the Greeks, he says, " If ye say that death ought not to be feared, sharing in our opinions, die not on account of human insane desire of glory like Anaxarchus, but become despisers of death on account of the knowledge of God. For the constitution of the world is good, but the mode of life in it is bad «/' Sometimes the comprehension of God is spoken of as a com- prehension of the truth. Thus, in a passage already quoted, it is said, " I being born again in imitation of the Logos, and having made the comprehension of the true ^." The attribution of spiritual life to comprehension of God, to what seems an intellectual operation, is seen also in the efficacy which he assigns to the reading of the Old Testa- ment. "While I was thinking earnestly,^^ he says, " I chanced to fall in with some barbaric writings, older than the doctrines of the Greeks, and more divine in contrast with their error, and it chanced that I was persuaded by them on account of the humility of the words and artlessness of the speakers, and the easy comprehension of the creation of all, and the fore- knowledge of things future, and the excellence of the precepts, and the unity in tlie government of the whole. My soul being God-taught, I understood that the writings of the Greeks lead to condemnation, but that these writings break down the slavery in the world, and tear us away from many rulers and ten thousand tyrants, and give to us, not what we have not received, but what, having received, we were pre- vented by deceit from retaining^.^^ Tatian says nothing of the Church nor of baptism. He evidently makes an allusion to the Thanksgiving, when he says that Christians were misrepresented by the accusation that they ate human flesh ^. He describes, hoAvever, various '' c. I.S, p. i?4 D. c c. 19, p. 158 A. ^ C. 5, p. 145 C. e c, 29, p. 165 B. ^ c. 25, p. 162 D. IV.] TA TIA K. 57 phases of" the Christian life. He seems to intimate that the progress of the Christian is g-radual. "We know/^ he says, " that the constitution of wickedness is like that of the smallest seeds ; it gets strong by small additions : but it will be again dissolved if we obey the words of God and do not scatter ourselves. For He [God] has got possession of our powers through some secret treasure in digging, which we ourselves were filled with dust, but thereby we afford it the means of remaining firmly together. For he who receives entire possession of it has got under his powers the most valuable riches S." The Christian's life is a separation from the world. Various passages have already been quoted in which Tatian brings forward this idea. " If you are superior to passions, you will despise all things that are in the world '^.'^ Tatian condemns the heathen games, and pours out his most effective sarcasm on some player whom he had seen. '^Who would not,'' he says, " mock at your public assemblies, which being brought about by the device of wicked demons, turn men to shame '." He also, for his own part, rejected the civil service. " I do not wish to be a king ; I do not wish to be rich ; I have rejected the prsetorship : I have hated fornication ; I do not make voyages on account of insatiable greed ; I do not contend to have garlands; I am freed from glory- madness ; I despise death ; I am superior to disease of every sort ; sorrow does not consume my soul. If I am a slave, I endure slavery ; if I am free, I do not boast of my birth k/^ He also asserts that as a Christian he is ready to pay taxes. He recognises the right of the slave-master to service, and he will honour man as a man ought to be honoured '. He lays especial stress on the universal adaptation of Christianity to men, and the purity of the Christian life. He says, " With us there is not the desire of vainglory, and we s c. 30, p. 165 CD. The treasure is that described in Matt. xiii. 44. See Otto's note. *■ C. IQ, p. 158 C. ' C. 22, p. I Co C. ^ c. 1 1, p. 150 B. ' c. 4, p. 141 B. 58 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. do not use diversities of opinions. For being separated from the public and earthly teaching", and obeying- the commands of God, and following the law of the Father of incorruption, we reject everything that depends on human opinion. But not only do the rich philosophise, but the poor enjoy instruction for nothing : for the things from God cannot be repaid by any gift in the world. And thus we admit all who wish to hear, be they old women or mere youths ; in one word, every age receives honour with us : but all laseiviousness is far re- moved from us. And when we speak we do not lie ^." He appeals with especial satisfaction to the chastity of the vir- gins, who " at their distaff speak the divine utterances ^." Tatian mentions a resurrection of all at the end of the world", and a judgment. According to his principles he found a difficulty in conceiving of the separation of the soul, or life-principle, from the body; and, as we have seen, he affirms that '^ the flesh does not rise again apart from soul ^." " I affirm,''^ he says in opposition to the Stoics, " that the flesh is made immortal with the soulQ.^' We have seen already that he thought that the soul of a good man, in con- sequence of his possession of spirit, did exist somehow or other after death ; though from his principle, that soul could not appear without body, the souls of such could not be re- cognisable. On the other hand, the souls of the wicked must for the time have been entirely dissolved. Tatian^s views with regard to the state of the dead immediately after death have been understood in various ways. Dodwell and Daniel maintain that he regarded all souls as dissolved at death "■, as certain Arabian Christians refuted by Origen afterwards be- lieved s; while most other commentators try to reconcile his expressions with the more common beliefs of Christian writers. In opposition to the Stoics, he maintained also that the confla- gration took place once for all*, and not after certain revolutions of ages. "Once," as he says in c. 6, p. 145 D, "when our ages '" c. 32, p. 167 B. n e. 33, p. 168 C. " c. 6, p. 145 D. y See c. 15, p. 154 A. 'i c. 25, p. 162 D. f See Daniel, pp. 226-239. ' Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. .^7. ' c. 25, p. 163 D, IV.] TAT I AN. 59 have been finished -," and he affirms that ''this resurrection after the end of the whole " will take place " for the sake of judg- ment entirely on account of the constitution of men alone." " God Himself the Maker is judge /•" He attributes the re- surrection to God's power, and says that he can see no reason why men should not believe such a thing possible, since they had once been nothing themselves, and now were. " If fire/' he says, " destroy my flesh, the world contains the matter dissolved in vapour ; if I am consumed away in rivers or in the sea, if I am torn by wild beasts, I am laid up in the trea- sury of a rich Lord. The poor man and the godless knows not what things are laid up, but God, who is king, when He wishes, will restore my substance, visible to Himself alone, to its former state ''" Body, soul, and spirit are thus coupled together : " The prophets being persuaded that the heavenly spirit would along with the soul possess the covering of mortality, foretold things which the other souls did not know "■"." Tatian says nothing of the blessedness of those who obey, except what has been adduced already. We have also quoted passages in which he speaks of the punishment of the wicked. He calls the fire ' eternal' in speaking of Democritas : " He shall be delivered up to the devouring of eternal fire {amviov) in the day of the end ; " and he declares to the Greeks that if they do not stop their laughter, they will endure the same punishment as the jugglers ''. Scr'qjtures. — Tatian does not give any exposition of his ideas with regard to the Scriptures. The principal passage in which he speaks of them has been quoted already. He also speaks of " the most Divine interpretations which, committed to writing as time went on, have made those who gave heed to them entirely God-loved y." Worth supposed the word 'interpretation' to refer especially to the Septuagint; but the opinion of Daniel ^ is much more feasible, that Tatian calls the Scriptures themselves interpretations because he regarded the authors as interpreters of God revealing Himself. " c. 6, p. I46 A ; c. 25. p. 162 D. ^ c. 6, p. 146 A B. " c. 20, p. 159 B. » c. 17, p. 155 D. > c. 12. p. 151 C. ' p. 1 38, note. 60 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. We have also adduced tlie passages in which Tatian speaks of the prophets. They had the Spirit of God, they lived piously, and were enabled to reveal to other souls what was hid^. As we have seen already, Tatian knew our Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of Paul. There is no proof that he knew any other of the New Testament writings ». Morality. — Most of the special points of Tatian's morality have been noticed already : his contentment with the exist- ence of slavery, and his praise of virgins as such. He heaps reproaches on a woman who bore thirty children. " What business have I to reckon and regard as wonderful the statue made by Periclymenos of a woman who bore thirty children ? For it were noble to abominate one who carried off the chief spoils of much incontinency^.^'' There is no reason to suppose that Eutychis, the woman alluded to, was in any way un- chaste ; and Gesner wisely remarks that for his part he agrees much rather with the divine poet David in Psalm cxxviii.'' Tatian also expresses his condemnation of theatres and gladiatorial shows. Aa. LITEEATURE. MANUSCRIPTS. There are six manuscrij)ts of Tatian, and a seventh has been collated, but its present locality is not known. It is represented however by the first edition, Editio Tigurina, 1 546, fol. The editor, John Frisius, when in Venice received a manuscript of Tatian from his friend Arnoldus Arlenius Pera- xylus, and took it to Zurich. Of the six manuscripts now known, by far the best is Codex Parisinus 174, (Gallicanus or Regius i,) preserved in the Royal Library at Paris. It is supposed by Montfaucon^ to belong to the tenth century. ' c. 13, p. 153 A; c. 20, p. 159 B, " See Daniel, p. 131, for a full exhibition of Tatian's quotations from the OhI and New Testaments. b c. 34, p. 169 C. ' See the note in Worth on the passage, fl Palscogr. etc. Paris, 1708, fol. p. 277. IV.] TAT I AN. HI It was partially used by Ducseus; completely collated by Lequien for Worthy who also gave some of the scholia which it contains; and lately, Hase collated it for Otto's edition, which is the first that contains all the scholia. There is another manuscript of Tatian in the Royal Library at Parish called Codex Parisinus 2376, (Gallicanus or Regius 2,) which contains, besides Tatian, many other writings. Nourry asserts that it was written in 1534, " ut annotatur/' by a monk Bes- sarion in the monastery of St. Antony in Venice. Hase examined the codex for Otto and found no such name, but a note to the effect that " brother Valerian wrote this book in the monastery of St. Antony at Venice in the year of our Lord 1539." This information renders it likely that Valerian made his copy from a manuscript still preserved at Venice in the Library of St. Mark, called Codex Venetus 343. It is said to belong to the twelfth century. Other two copies of Tatian's work made by Valerian are extant. One, Codex Bononiensis, is preserved in the Library of Bologna, and a transcript from it. Codex ^tonensis, which Worth collated while living with the head master of Eton, Henry Go- dolphin. It is still preserved in the Eton Library. This transcript was made in 1534. The other codex that remains to be mentioned is the Codex Mutineusis, in the Ducal Library of Modena, a beautiful MS. of the tenth century, containing many important works besides the Oration of Tatian. For a full account of these manuscripts see Daniel, p. 78, and especially Otto in his Prolegomena to his edition of Tatian, pp. xiii-xx. EDITIONS. The first edition, as has been mentioned already, was published at Zurich in 1546, under the editorship of Joannes Frisius, with emendations from Conrad Gesner. In the same year and place was published a Latin translation of the work by Conrad Gesner. It appeared subsequently in the Ortho- doxographa of Heroldus (Basil. 1555, fol.), in Latin in several of the large libraries, and in Greek and Latin in the collected H2 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. IV. editions of the Apologists, Paris, 1615, 1636, and Cologne or Wittenberg, 1675-1686, and that of Maranus. The Wit- tenberg edition had a few notes written by Christian Kortholt. In the Auetarium to the Paris Great Library of 1624 ap- l^eared the Greek text, with Latin translation and notes by Fronto Ducseus. It appeared also in the Melissa of Antonius, a monk, Venice, 1680. See NeoeWrjinKrj (J^tAoAoyia, by Bretos, Part i. p. ^6. A separate edition of Tatian appeared at Oxford in 1 700. Its title gives some idea of its contents : " Tatiani Oratio ad Graecos. Hermise irrisio Gentilium Philosophorum. Ex ve- tustis Exemplaribus recensuit, adnotationibusque integris Conradi Gesneri, Frontonis Ducaei, Christiani Kortholti, Tho- mse Galei, selectisque Henrici Stephani, Meursii, Bocharti, Co- telerii, utriusque Vossii, aliorumque suas qualescunque adjecit Wilhelmus Worth, A.M. Oxoniae, e Theatro Sheldoniano, 1700." Besides the things here specified, it contains a full list of testimonies, BulFs dissertation on the co-eternal exist- ence of the Son, Frisius's dedicatory epistle to the first edition, and Gesner^s to the first Latin translation, Nourry^s disserta- tion, the Abbe Louis du Four de Longuerue's dissertation on Tatian, Cavers remarks on Tatian and Hermias, and indices. The edition is altogether very valuable, and Worth contri- buted much to the understanding of Tatian, though his modesty made him j^lace his emendations in notes rather than in the text. The only other separate edition of Tatian is by John Charles Theodore Otto, Jense, 1851, 8vo. It is unquestionably the best edition. The Prolegomena give a full account of the various manuscripts, editions, and translations, a short chapter on the diction of Tatian, and an analysis of his work. It has the largest collection of the fragments of Tatian. It con- tains the first complete edition of the Paris scholia, and it is furnished with admirable notes and good indices. CHAPTER V. THEOPHILUS. I. LIFE. Our information with regard to Theophilus is derived from his own work, and from the short notice which Eusebius gives of him and his writings. We do not know where he was born, for the words, " The other two rivers, called Tigris and Euphrates, are well known to us, for they border on our regions a/^ indicate that his place of abode rather than his birthplace was in the East. We gather that he was brought up a heathen from the statement which he makes in regard to his conversion. " Do not disbelieve,^^ he says in reference to the resurrection, " but believe ; for I also did not believe that this would take place ; but now, after I have fully con- sidered, I believe, having at the same time fallen in with the sacred writings of the holy prophets ^."^ He here states that he had not been convinced of the reality of the resurrection until he had fallen in with the Scriptures. Nor is the in- ference nullified by the mode which he adopted, in common with all Christians, of speaking of the personages of the Old Testament, as '^ Abraham our patriarch,^ 'Abraham our fore- father,' 'David our ancestor".' Hosmann, indeed, attempted to maintain a theory which w^ould literally suit both classes of passages. He supposed that Theophilus was a Sadducee ; that, consequently, he knew little of the Scriptures, and did not believe in a resurrection, but that he was a real Jew. The few passages relating to the matter which occur in the work of Theophilus are not sufficient to bear up such a precise theory. " lib. ii. c. 24, p. loi C. ^ lib. i. c. I4, p. 78 D. ^ lib. iii. c. 24. p. i_^4 B ; iii. c. 25, p. 135 A ; iii. c. 28, p. 138 A. 64 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. It is possible, but by no means probable'*. Eusebius informs us that he was the sixth overseer of the Church in Antioch, and that he was appointed to that office about the eighth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius : " Then [about the eighth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius] was Theophilus known as being over the Church of the Antiochians, the sixth from the Apostles «^.^^ The same date is given in the Chronicle as translated by Jerome. There is no trustworthy notice of his death. As we shall see afterwards, Theophilus appealed to a work of Chryserosf, a freedman of Marcus Aurelius, in which chronological data were given down to the death of that emperor. He must therefore have lived during part at least of the reign of Commodus, the sovereign who is probably meant by the term fiaaiXcvi in the passage, " How many taxes and tributes she (the mother of the gods) and her sons pay to the kings." II. THE WRITINGS OF THEOPHILUS. The principal work of Theophilus, and the only one that has come down to us, is his three books addressed to Au- tolycus. Eusebius thus speaks of it : " Of Theophilus, whom we have pointed out as being overseer of the Church of the Antiochians, there are in circulation the three elementary {(jToix^Kabr}) writings which are addressed to Autolycus^i.'' Jerome mentions them among the other writings of Theophilus', and Lactantius evidently refers to the third book when he says, " Theophilus in the book concerning times written to Autolycusk." Their genuineness has been generally acknowledged by modern scholars. Dodwell, however, supposed that the work bore internal evidence that it was written in the reign of the emperor Severus, and therefore he assigned it to a younger Theophilus. This internal evidence is contained in a j)assage * See Fabricius, Bibl. Graec, vol. vii. p. loi, note q, ed. Harles. • Hist. Eccl. iv. 20. f lib. iii. c. 27, p. 137 B. 8 lib. i. c. 10, p. 76 C ; comp. 76 D. '' Hist. Eccl. iv. 24. ' De Viris III. c. 25. '< In.stit. Div. i. 23. v.] THEOFHILUS. Oa in chapter thirtieth of Book third. " They (the Greeks)/' says Theophilus, " persecuted those who worship God, and persecute them daily. And not only so, but they even go the length of assigning" prizes and honours to those who in harmonious language insult God ; but of those who are zealous in the pursuit of virtue and practise a holy life (rovs o-TrevSoyras irpos apcTTjv koI aa-Kovvras fiiov ocnov) , some they stoned, some they put to death, and up to the present time they subject them to savage tortures.'"* There are two statements in this extract to which Dodwell^ appeals. First, he gathers from it that the book was written while persecution was raging, and second, he maintains that the lib. iii. c. 3, p. 119 A. ' lib. iii. c. 19, p. 129 C. " lib. ii. c. 30, p. 106 B. ^ lib. ii. c. 30, p. 106 D ; c. 31, p. 107 A : iii. o.. 19, p. 129 B. " lib. ii. c. 28, p. 105 A. ** lib. ii. c. 29, p. 105 B. Fa 68 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. no allusion to a work by Theophilus, but to the book of the Old Testament called Genesis. Eusebius thus enumerates his writings. ^'^Of Theophilus... there are in circulation three elementary writings to Auto- lyeus, another having the inscription against the heresy of Her- mogenes (Trpos tt]v aipecnv 'EpjuoyeVous), in which he has used proofs from the Apocalypse of John, and some other instructive works'*^ {koI erepa 8e' rtva KaTrjxrjTtKa avTov ^i^Kia). Eusebius then refers to the general efforts made by " the shepherds of the Churches^^ to render void the endeavours of heretics to draw them away from the right path. Then he adds, '' That Theophilus along with the rest warred against them, is plain from some work made by him not ignobly against Marcion ; which also, along with the other writings that we have men- tioned, is still preserved".^' Jerome rej)eats the statements of Eusebius, and then adds, " I have read under his name com- mentaries on the Gospel and the Proverbs of Solomon. They do not seem to me to agree with the elegance and diction of the former volumes'^^^ Jerome notices another work of Theophilus in an Epistle to Algasias *. " Theophilus," he says, " the seventh overseer of the Antiochian Church after the Apostle Peter, who forming the sayings of the four evangelists into one work, has left to us a monument of his abilities. With regai'd to this parable he has made the following remarks in his commentaries." Of the commentaries on the Gospel and the Proverbs of Solomon Jerome himself doubted the genuineness, and his testimony, occurring as it does in an epistle, is not sufficient to make us sure of the genuineness of the Harmony. There is extant a work bearing the name of Theophilus of Antioch, " Four Books of Commentaries on the Gospels," which has been printed in some of the great libraries and in Otto^s edition of Theophilus. It exists only in Latin. There is the clearest proof that it was written long after the time of Theophilus, and probably the original was in 8 Hist. Eccl. iv. 24. li De Vir. Illustr. c. 25. ' Qusest. vi. v.] THEOPHILUS. 69 Latin. Quotations from Cyprian and Jerome occur in the work''. HI, ESTIMATE OF THEOPHILUS. The work of Theophilus which has come down to us is not an apology for the Christians, like the other apologies of this age. He mentions the accusations which were com- monly made against the Christians, and refutes them well. But his main business is to convince Autolycus of the false- hood of heathenism and the truth of Christianity. His arguments have a direct personal bearing on Autolycus, and are often introduced in reply to objections which that learned heathen had made. The style, of the work is clear and not without force. Theophilus himself, in the commencement of the first book, scorns the idea of using elegant language, for he thinks that the sole object of a highly polished style must be the gaining of applause " for miserable men who have been corrupted in their mind.^"" " The lover of truth,'"' he says, '' does not give heed to ornamented speeches, but examines the real object of the speech, what it is, and of what kind it is." Theophilus deserves the credit of being enthusiastic in his love of truth. He gets a firm hold of his arguments, and exhibits them in clear, concise, not altogether unornamented language. He seems also to have read a great deal, but he must have been a superficial reader, and hasty in his judg- ments. He has committed very many blunders, misquoting Plato several times ' ; ranking Zopyrus among the Greeks •" ; and giving a peculiar, if not an inaccurate, account of the death of Pausanias". In writing to Autolycus, Theophilus thought that it was necessary for his purpose to show the folly of heathenism and the truth of Christianity at the same time. His view of heathenism is a dark one. He has sympathy with no part ^ See Permaneder, Patrologia Specialis, vol. i. p. 193 ; Lumper, vol. iii. P- 143- ' lib. iii. cc. 6, 16. "' Ibid. c. 26. " Ibid. 70 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. of it. He looked upon it as a mere worship of idols, for the most part"; and these idols he believed to have borne the names of dead men P. He almost never alludes to the fact that the heathens supposed that there were real beings above and beyond the mere imag-es of stone, though he mentions the gods as demons when quoting from a Psalmq. In his treatment of the philosophers and poets he is equally undistinguishing. All of them were impious. He makes the universal statement that " writers wish to write a multi- tude of books for vainglory ^/^ He then lays down the principle that " writers should themselves be eye-witnesses of the facts which they affirm, or have accurately learned them from those who saw them^/^ He then proceeds to judge Homer and Hesiod, Orpheus, the tragedians, Herodotus and Thucy- dides, Socrates and Plato, and " the rest of the philosophers,^' and concludes, '' We assert these things to exhibit their use- less and godless state of mind. For these all being in love with vain and empty glory, neither themselves knew the truth nor assuredly did they urge others to the truth t.''' The reason of this sweeping condemnation it is easy to see. The truth of Christianity Theophilus makes to depend on his proving that the Old Testament was older than the writings of the Greeks, and that it was inspired. Man could not ascertain the truth for himself. He must get it direct from God, who knew about these things. Now as Socrates and Plato did not pretend to divine inspiration, they were utterly ignorant. Theophilus saw no medium between absolute ignorance and entire knowledge. But Theophilus could not deny that such men as Plato and Socrates and many of the poets had expressed the' truth in regard to many most important points. True, indeed, he tries to show that they were often inconsistent with themselves. But notwithstanding this, there still remained the problem. How could they have got the truths which they, at least " lib. i. cc. I, 8 ; ii. c. 2. i' lib. i. cc. 9, 10. T lib. i. e. 10. Psalm xcvi, 5. ■• lib. iii. c. i. ' lib. iii. c. 2. t ]ih. iii. cc. 2, t,. v.] THEOPUILUS. 71 occasionally, proclaimed? Theopliilus's explanation is that they stole them from the prophets i^. He was shut up to this conclusion from his distrust of the powers of man to reach truth. His defence of Christianity is perilled entirely on his suc- cess in proving that the Scriptures of the Old Testament are inspired. At the commencement, indeed, of the dis- cussion he has to prove the unity of God and the reality of the resurrection. And he has for this purpose adduced several g"ood arguments. But he soon passes to a conside- ration of the Old Testament, by the reading of which his own mind was led to believe these doctrines. The inspiration of this book is proved by two arguments. First, the prophets always agree with each other in their teachings ''. In this respect they form a marked contrast to the Greek philo- sophers and poets, who differed from each other and were often inconsistent with themselves. And secondly, the ful- filment of the prophecies, which Theophilus looked on as an unquestionable fact, was sure proof that the prophets con- tained God's Holy Spirit y. In exhibiting to the mind of Autolycus the consistency and truth of the doctrines of the Old Testament, Theophilus appeals especially to the account of the creation of the world and man. He unquestionably looked on the Bible as a storehouse of physical facts, as well as of spiritual instruc- tions. And he ridicules in contrast the statements of Plato, who seems to have been wiser than the other Greeks'. He also throws contempt on the Greek writers, and especially Aratus, who in ignorance of Scripture ventured to assert that the earth was spherical*. This one-si dedness of Theophilus is seen in the very great stress which he lays on the argument that the writings of all the prophets were older than any of those of the Greeks^. He commences his arrangement of dates in a solemn manner : " lib. i. c. I4 ; ii. c. 37. '' lib. ii. c. 9 ; iii. c. 17. >■ lib. iii. c. 17. '• lib. iii. c. i6. » lib. ii. c. 32 ; iii. c. 2, *> lib. iii. c. 23. 72 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. " I ask grace from the only God that I may speak the whole truth accurately according to his will, that you and every one who reads this may be guided by his truth and grace^/' It is difficult to estimate how the arguments of Theophilus would be received by a heathen. Most of them, it is easy to see, would be far from satisfactory, and many objections to them would naturally arise in minds accustomed to believe in oracles and to despise barbarian literatures. Theophilus devotes one portion of his work to the exposi- tion of the religious truths and moral precepts given in Chris- tianity, and we may well believe that these, though they have no place in his argument, would more powerfully attract earnest minds than his chronological discussions or his ex- positions of the book of the Genesis. It is to be noticed that Theophilus does not mention in his discussion any of what we now call the distinctive truths of Christianity. The Old Tes- tament, according to him, contained all the truths which man requires to know. IV. ABSTRACT OF THEOPHILUS TO AUTOLYCUS. BOOK FIRST. Theophilus opens his first book with an attack on the pre- valent style of writing for effect, and not for truth. The lover of truth does not give heed to such tricked-out lan- guage. He then addresses Autolycus : " Since you, O friend, have astounded me with empty words, boasting of your gods made of stone and other materials, and call me a Christian as if the name were bad, I confess that I am a Christian ;" and then he shows that the name has really in itself a good mean- ing d, and that the name of God was not disagreeable, and would not be disagreeable to him if he thought justly with regard to God«. But if you say, says Theophilus, " Show me thy God ;" I would reply, " Show me your man, and I will show you my God.'' The man must have a pure soul '' lib. iii. c. 23. '' He does this hy identifying x/"o-ro'i with xpv^-ros. « c. I. v.] TIJEOPHILUS. 73 ])efbre he can see God. Impieties cover him with darkness, so that he cannot see God^ Yovi svill say to me, " Do you who see God explain to me the appearance of God" [idhos). I answer, " God^s appearance is indescribable." All names by which He may be called are appellations derived from his own works ; and He made all things that his g-reatness might be perceived through his works=. Just as the life-principle of man is invisible, but its existence is perceived through the motion of the body, so God is perceived through his pro- vidence and works. So is the presence of a pilot on a ship inferred. So the existence of the sun, though it is too bright to look on. And so is an earthly king known through his orders ii. Consider His works, the changes of the seasons, the regular march of the stars, the beauty of seed, and plant, and fruit, the generation of animals of every kind, and the supply of food to all creation, and many such operations of God'. But you are ignorant of this God on account of the blindness of your soul. God Himself can cure you, however; and if you live righteously you can see God. When God raises up the body immortal with the soul, then will you see God worthily^. But you do not believe that the dead are raised up. You are unwilling to take it on trust. But in most occupations in life confidence is the leading principle. There is good reason, therefore, for trusting ourselves to God : first, because He made us ; and second, because if you believe that images made by man are gods, how much more ought you to trust the God who made you' ? The names of your gods are the names of dead men, and those of a disreputable character : Kronos devoured his children, Zeus was guilty of incest and adultery, and his offspring Heracles, Dionysus, Apollo, Aphrodite, and Ares betrayed human weaknesses. But what is said of them is nothing to what is said of Osiris. And why should I speak of Attis, Adonis, Asklepius, Sarapis, and Scythian Artemis ? It is your poets and historians who relate these stories, not Christian writers"'. The Egyptians ' c. 2. f cc. ^, 4. ^ c. 5. ' c. 6. '' c. 7. ' c. 8. ^ c. 9. 74 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. worship beasts. The Greeks know the makers of their gods, such as Phidias. How many Jupiters are there ? I should not like to describe the deeds of the mother of the gods nor of her worshippers, nor how many taxes she and her sons pay to the king". I should rather honour the king who gets the taxes than the gods who pay them, but I cannot worship him. I worship God, who really is God and is the true God. A king is not made for being worshipped, but for being law- fully honoured. And we ought, therefore, to honour and pray for Him °. As to your laughing at me, calling me a Christian, you do not know what you say. A ship, a tower, a house are not beautiful or useful until they are anointed. Man also is anointed : so is the air and everything under the sky with light and spirit, and we are called Christians be- cause we are anointed with the oil of God. The argumenta- tion of Theophilus depends here on the literal meaning which he attaches to Christos, the Anointed One, and he plays on this meaning, and also on the similarity of pronunciation be- tween x/»70"To's, ' useful,^ and x^piaros, ' anointed P.^ As to your denying that the dead are raised, you say. Show me even one dead man raised, that seeing I may believe. But seeing is not believing. Then you believe that Heracles and Asklepius are alive, though they died. God gives many tokens of a resurrection in nature, such as in the changes of the seasons ^, Therefore believe, submitting to God, lest, if you have disbe- lieved, you will be at last convinced, tortured in eternal pains. These punishments are mentioned by the Greek poets and philosophers, who stole them from the prophets to give their opinions some authority. Read the prophetic writings, and they will guide you more clearly how to flee eternal punish- ments, and how to obtain the eternal blessings of God'". BOOK SECOND. Book second commences with a reference to the first. Theo- philus speaks to Autolycus. I expounded to you the nature "CIO. o c. I I. I' c. I 2. 'I r. I,?. ' c. 14. v.] THEOPHIL US. 75 of piety : then we bade each other a hearty farewell. You afterwards urged me to give a fuller account of our doctrines, and I now wish in this writing* to demonstrate the foolishness of the worship in which you engage*^. It seems laughable to me that artists should make gods out of stone and suchlike materials, and that the people who buy them should worship them, and that even the artists should assist in the worship, though they at one time looked on them as mere stone. Those who read mythological stories are in the same plight. They read of the birth of the gods, and of similar events, and straightway forget all this when they worship them*. Moreover, if the gods were then in the habit of begetting, why do they not beget now ? And how is it that Olympus was inhabited by them in olden times but is now desolate ? And why did Zeus dwell in Ida ? Why was he not everywhere ? Why did he leave Ida ? Did he die, or go somewhere else ? He died, and his tomb is in Crete". The philosophers are equally at fault in regard to God, some saying that He does not exist, or takes care only of Himself, some that there is no Providence, while the Platonics maintain that not only is God uncreated, but that matter likewise existed from all eternity, thus making matter equal to God ^. The poets differ widely from the philosophers. For Homer makes Ocean the origin both of the world and of the gods 7, though Ocean is nothing but water, and not a god at all. Hesiod ^ likewise assigns an origin to the gods and to the world itself, and makes most of the gods posterior to the world ^. Hesiod mentions a creation b, but he does not say who the creator was '^. The Greek stories and genealogies also make it manifest that the gods were born and were really men. Theophilus aj^peals especially to a writer, Satyrus, on the Alexandrian families, who traces the genealogy of Ptolemy Philopater up to Dio- nysus, and who asserts that the Alexandrian tribes were named from the descendants of Dionysus'". Moreover, the Greek C. 1. « C. 2. " e. 3. " c. 4. y 11. xiv. 201. Theog. 73, 74, 104-iis. » c. 5. ^ Theog. 1 16-133. C.6. "i C.7. 76 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. writers, historians, philosophers, and poets disagree in their statements. Some say that matter is uncreated, others that it is created. Some say that there is a providence, some that there is not. Aratus^, for instance, asserts that all things are full of God, while Sophocles asserts that there is no pro- vidence in anything. Homer, Simonides, Euripides, Me- nander speak of a providence, and even Sophocles elsewhere recognises it. Against their will these poets confess their ignorance. Inspired by demons, they spoke in a deceptive spirit, but sometimes they wakened up in their souls and spoke things in harmony with the prophets, with regard to the monarchy of God, and the judgment, and suchlike f. The prophets were holy men inspired by God, and spoke always in harmony with each other ?. They agreed in their account of the creation. They were able to do this, because it was the Logos who was present at the creation with God, that came down to the prophets and spoke through them^. Theophilus quotes the account by Moses of the creation as given in the first chapter of Genesis". No man could ade- quately explain the greatness of the six days^ creation. Some of the heathen writers tried to give a narrative of it, but they seldom hit the truth, and the effect of the little truth which they had was completely marred by its intermixture with error '^. Theophilus now proceeds to explain the first chapter of Genesis, often verse by verse. He confines himself to a purely material explanation in chapter 13. He then finds in the varieties of plant-life the signs of a resurrection. He likens the world to the sea, the Churches to islands with good harbours, the sects to rocky and dangerous islands ^ Then on the fourth day the lights were created — the types of a great mystery. For tlie sun is a type of God, and the moon of man. In like manner the three days before the lights are types of the triad — God, his Logos, and his Wisdom. The brilliant fixed stars are the types of the prophets : the less brilliant are the righteous : the planets are those who rebel " rhwiioin. i-i). "■ c. 8. « c. 9. '' 0. 10. ' o. II. I' c. 12. ' c. 14. v.] THEOFHILUS. 77 against God'". On the fifths animals made from water were produced. They were blessed by God in order to show the blessings of baptism. The carnivorous birds and monsters of the deep are types of transgressors^ the herbivorous of the righteous who do not injure the weaker °. On the sixth day quadrupeds and wild beasts were made. They were types of men who were ignorant of God. They were called O-^pia, 'wild beasts/ from drjptovaOat, 'to become wild/ not because they were originally wild^ but because when man transgressed they transgressed with him". The work of creating man is so great that man himself cannot describe it. The language used in Scripture in speaking of his creation is intended to convey a notion of his dignit3^ All things were subjected to him^ and his food was to be only from the fruits of the earth ; and animals were also to live on the productions of the soil P. Theophilus now proceeds to give an account of the creation of man^ and his location in Eden and his fall, quoting Gen. ii. 4 — iii. 191. Theophilus supposes Autolycus to object, " You say that God should not be contained in a place, and how do you say now that He walks in paradise ?'^ Theophilus replies by expounding the doctrine of the Logos'^. The pains of women in childbirth and the despised condition of serpents are proofs of the truth of the sacred narrativ^e^. God had made plants and trees before ; but those in paradise were of especial beauty, and elsewhere there were no such trees as those of life and knowledge. Man was to work here : that is, to keep the commandment of God*. The tree of knowledge was good, but man was as yet a babe and could not receive the knowledge worthily. Besides, God wished to test his obedience, just as children ought to submit to their parents. It was his own disobedience, therefore, that made him be turned out of the garden of Eden^i. His expulsion was really a blessing, that he might not remain in sin for ever. In his exile he had to pay the penalty of his sins, and then through death he is refashioned". Man was made neither mortal nor '" c. 1-;. " c. 16. " c. 17. I" c. 18. 1 cc. 19, 20, 2 I. ■■ c. ^z. • c. 23. ' c. 24. " c. 25. '^ c. 26. 78 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. immortal. His mortality or immortality was made dependent on his conduct. He brought death on himself, but now he who obeys the will of God can acquire eternal lifex. When Adam was cast forth from the g-arden^ he knew Eve his wife. She had been made from his side to show that there was but one God, and that their goodwill to each other might be greater. There is a trace of Eve^s being deceived by the serpent in the cry * Evan^.' Theophilus remarks in this place that the history opens up here and would demand greater space and exposition. He therefore refers his readers to Genesis. He then relates the death of Abel through Cain, who was influenced by the devil**. He then gives the descen- dants of Cain, and relates their inventions, which were long- anterior to the time of Apollo and Orpheus. He refers his readers to another work for the history of Noah b. After the deluge there was a beginning of cities and kings. Theophilus gives a list of the names contained in Genesis x., and then proceeds to narrate the dispersion, and after that he gives the names of various kings^. Theophilus next states how the tribes of men were spread over the whole earths*. The philo- sophers, poets, and historians among the heathens were born long after these events, and therefore could not relate them truly, unless they were inspired. But that they were not inspired is proved by their not foretelling events. The Chris- tians alone have the truths. It is your business, therefore, to examine the sayings of God, spoken through the prophets. They were sent to teach men that there is one God, and to urge them to refrain from every vice f. The divine law for- bids the worship not only of idols, but of the sun, moon, and stars, and commands us to worship only the one true God in holiness of heart. Moses speaks of the oneness of God, and so do Isaiah and Jeremiah, describing also the creation of the world and the formation of man. All" the prophets agree in all things with each other. They also rebuked those who seemed to be wise, on account of the hardness of their heart g. •' C.2;. ' c. 28. ■> c. 29. *• c. 30. '^ c. 31. *' t^-.?^- • C.33. f C.34. K c. 35. v.] THEOPIIILUS. 70 The Sibyl, who was a prophetess among the Greeks, also reproaches the human race in the same way. Theophilus here makes a large extract from the Sibylline verses l^. Some also of the poets have spoken of the punishments of the wicked, as yEschylus, Euripides, and Archilochus ; and some have taught that God sees all things and waits till He will judge, as Dionysius, ^schylus, Simonides, Euripides, and Sophocles. They stole these teachings from the law and the prophets i. The poets also, such as Timocles, teach God's providence, his care even for the dead as well as the living, and while apparently teaching one thing they have taught another. Thus speaking of a multitude of gods they came to the unity of God : and den3dng that there was sensibility after death they have confessed it. Thus Homer, Iliad xvi. 856; xxii. 362; xxiii. 71. All these things the man who seeks the wisdom of God will learn. Try, therefore, to have frequent conferences with me, that you may accm-ately learn the truth, hearing the living voice ^. BOOK THIRD. Theophilus to Autolycus. Since you yet, after all our conferences, look upon our religion as nonsense, thinking that our writings are recent, I shall prove their antiquity to you^ Writers ought either to have been eye-witnesses of what they describe, or to have learned them accurately from those who saw them. In this point of view the principal Greek writers, Homer, the tragic and comic poets, and the philosophers, are failures "". They neither knew the truth nor urged others on to it. Their statements are contradictory. Some have denied the existence of God and providence ; and some have attributed horrible crimes and vices to the gods". I should not adduce these stories, did I not see you hesitate in regard to the truth, and too much inclined to believe the false tales told of us, that we hold our wives in common and mingle '' c. 36. ' u. .57. ^ e. .^8. ' C.I. "' c. 2. " c. 3. 80 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. indiscriminately^ that we have sexual intercourse with our own sisters, and that we eat human flesh. They say also that our doctrines are new, and cannot be proved". They blame us for eating" human flesh, while it is themselves that are guilty. The Stoics say that fathers should be cooked and eaten by their sons. Diogenes says that children should sacrifice and devour their parents, and Herodotus relates instances of human beings being eaten p. The philosophers are equally at fault in regard to illicit intercourse. Plato taught a com- munity of wives, and Epicurus recommends sexual intercourse with mothers and sisters, even contrary to law. They even predicate such things of the gods^. They assert that there are gods, but notwithstanding ihej reduce them to nothing, some saying that they are composed of atoms, some that they go into atoms and suchlike. Plato makes the gods material ; Pythagoras denies a providence ; Clitomachus, Critias, Pro- tagoras, and Euhemerus are atheistic. Philemon and Aristo in their verses give a different account of Grod and providence. Thus some assert that there is a God, and that He takes care of men, and others that He neither is nor takes care of men''. They attribute unlawful deeds to the gods, to Jupiter, Juno, Cybele ; Jupiter Latiaris who thirsts for human blood ; Attis, or Jupiter Trago?dus. So that they attribute to the gods the indiscriminate intercourse and eating of human flesh which they falsely attribute to us^. We acknowledge but one God ; we know that there is a Providence, and that God teaches us to act righteously. He has given us his law in Exod. XX. 3-8, II— 17. This law was given thi'ough Moses to the Jews whom God rescued and led out of Egypt*. They were strangers in the land of Egypt. When God led them forth. He commanded, '' Ye shall not crush the stranger," &c. Exod. xxiii. 9". Besides giving the law, God sent pro- phets to teach them. They urge to change of mind. Thus Isaiah Iv. 6, 7, xxxi. 6; Ezek. xviii. 21-23; Jer. vi. 9=^. The prophets also speak of righteousness in the same way as the ° c. 4. !> c. 5. « c. 6. ■• c. 7. ■ c. 8. ' c. 9. "CIO. >^ c. II. v.] THEOPHILUS. - 81 law and the gospels. Thus Isaiah i. i6; Iviii. 6-8 j Jer, vi. i6; Hoseaxii. 6; Joelii. i6; Zeeh. vii. 97. The holy Word teaches with regard to chastity, that we must not sin even in thoug-ht. Thus Solomon in Prov. iv. 25; vi. 27. But more distinctly does the evangelic voice speak, Matt. v. 28, 32 z. We are taught also to he kind not only to those of the same trihe, hut to those who hate us. Thus Isaiah Ixvi. 5, and the gospel. Matt. v. 44, 46. Those who do good are not to boast. Matt. vi. 3. And the divine word gives instructions with regard to obeying authorities, &c., i Tim. ii. 2 a. How could those who learn such things be guilty of the indis- criminate intercourse, the incest, and the eating of human flesh, of which they are accused ? We do not even visit the shows or the theatres, lest our eyes or ears might be polluted"^. I will now show you that the Christian religion is not new nor fabulous, but that it is older and truer than all the poets and writers who wrote in uncertainty. Those ancient writers who said that the world was created, varied in their estimate of its age. ApoUonius the Egyptian said that 153,075 years had passed. Plato also uttered a great deal of nonsense on this point. Plato spoke from conjecture <", and longed for a divine instructor. Some of the poets also confessed that they had learned from divine providence. How much more shall we know^ the truth, who have received it from the prophets ! They always spoke in harmony with each other^i. Plato speaks of a flood, but makes it partial ; and there is another story about a flood connected with the names of Deucalion and Pyrrlia. Clymenus also is mentioned as being in a second flood. Moses gives the true account of the flood. His writings show that it was not partial^, and that there was no second flood. There were only eight saved in the ark. All the rest of the human race were destroyed. The remains of the ark are said to exist yet on the Arabic (Ar- menian) mountains f. Moses led the Jews who were expelled from the land of Egypt by king Pharaoh. Here Theophilus >• c. 12. ^ c. 13. * c. 14. *• c. 15. >' c. 16. 'I c. 17. ' c. 18. f c. 19. VOL. III. <-^ 82 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. gives a list of the successors of Pharaoh, and the periods during which they reignedg. Manetho spoke against Moses and the Hebrews, saying that they were expelled from Egypt on account of leprosy. He is very inaccurate in his account of the chronology ; but he is forced against his will to confess two things — that the Hebrews that went into Egypt were shepherds, and that they went forth from Egypt; so that, even from the Egyptian records to which he appealed, it can be showni that Moses and those with him were nine hundred or a thousand years before the Trojan war^. With regard to the building of Solomon's temple, there are documents in the Tyrian archives which show that it took place one hundred and thirty-four years eight months before the Tyrians founded Carthage. These documents were written by Hie- romus king of Tyre, who corresponded with Solomon. The date is proved by Menander the Ephesian, who gives the successors of Hieromus and the periods of their reign down to the time of the founding of Carthage. The sum of the periods is 155 years 8 months. But the temple was built in the twelfth year of Hieromus reign, therefore 133 years 8 months before the founding of Carthage'. From the writings of Manetho the Egyptian and Menander the Ephe- sian, also from those of Josephus, it is proved that the writings of Moses, and even of the prophets who came after him, were earlier than the writings of the Greek poets, philosophers, and historians. I shall now give a more com- plete account of the dates, trusting to the books of Moses, who described both the events before the flood and the events after it. " And I pray for favour from the only God, that I may accurately speak the whole truth according to his will, that you and every one who reads this work may be guided by his truth and favour''." Theophilus hereupon gives a list of dates, beginning with Adam. Letters are used for figures ; and, as is usual in such cases, the readings vary much. Otto's arrangement of the numbers gives the following re- sult. From Adam to the flood 2243 years. From Adam K c. 20. •■ c. 21. i c. 22. k c. 23, v.] THEOPHIL US. 83 to the end of the captivity 4954. Theophilus has followed Scripture up to this point. He now calculates from the reign of Cyrus^ who was contemporaneous with Tarquinius Su- perbus. He gives the years of the Republic and the emperors, and finds that from Adam to the death of Marcus Aurelius the years are 5695 ', This calculation proves the absurdity of Plato^s assertion, that two hundred millions of years had elapsed since the flood, and of that of Apollonius mentioned above "^. Our writings are therefore more ancient and more true than those of the Greeks. Thallus says that Belus and Kronos were contemporaneous, but Belus lived after the Trojan war. Moses flourished before it. Therefore Kronos or Saturn was long subsequent to the time of Moses, according to the tes- timony of Thallus. Berosus also bears testimony to the truth of the holy wi-i tings in several particulars ". The Greeks make no mention of the histories that give the truth ; first, because they only recently became acquainted with letters, and second, because they sinned, and still sin in not making- mention of God, but discussing vain and useless matters. Thus they have not found the truth °. V. DOCTRINES OF THEOPHILUS. God. — In the remaining work of Theophilus there are very precise and definite notions of God. He supposes a man to say to him, " Relate to me the form of God.-*' To this Theophilus answers, " Hear, O man ; the form of God is inexpressible and indescribable, and cannot be seen with fleshly eyes. For // in his glory He is unfathomable ; in his greatness He is incomprehensible; in his height He is inconceivable : He is incomparable in strength, unsearchable in his wisdom, [He is beyond all advice] ; He is inimitable in goodness, and his beneficence bafiles description. For if I call Him light, I speak of his own creature ; if I call Him Logos (Reason), I speak of his governing principle (apxf]); if I call Him mind, I speak of his thinking ; if I call Him spirit, ' See Otto, Prolegg,, p. liv. ™ cc. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. " c. 29. " c. 30. G3 / 84 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. I speak of his breath ; if I call Him wisdom;, I speak of his offspring ; if I call Him streng^^h^ I speak of his sway ; if I call Him power^ I am mentioning his activity ; if pro- vidence, I but mention his goodness ; if I call Him kingdom, I mention his glory; if I call Him lord, I mention his being judge; if I call Him judge, I speak o^,Him as being just ; if I call Him Father, I speak of Him ^s being all thingsP; if I call Him fire, I but mention his angef. *You will say to me, Is God angiy ? Yes ; sHe is angry with thjgse who act wickedly, but good and kind^aml merciful to those who love and fear Him; for -He is an instrucTOr^ of thp pious and father of the righ4;eous, b*t He is a^udge and .punisher of the imj)ious. '' "He is without beginning, for He is unbegot.ten'- [mi- created], and He is free from all change, ina:femuoh as Pe is immortal. And He*is called tjrod (^eos)* because H^pim*?^ (re^etKeVat) all things on security afforded by Himself, and on account of OUiv; ftjr ^e'etw is running, and moving, and being active, and nourishing, and foreseeing, and governing, and making all things alive, ^ut He is Lord, because He rules over the whole ; Father, because He is before the whole ; fashioner and maker, because He is creator and jnaker t)f \ the whole ; the Highest^ hecause He is above all ; Almighty, because He Himself rules and embraces all : for the height^ < of the heaven, and the de'pths of the abysses*, ^awd the eiiAs of the earth are in his hand, and there is no place of his rest. For the heavens are his work, the earth is^ his crea^on, the sea is his workmanshij), man is his formation and his image ; sun, moon, and stars are his elements, made for signs, and seasons, and days, and years, that they may serve and be slaves to man ; and all things God has made out of things that were not into things that are, in order that his greatness may be known and understood through his works^^' p The text is supposed to be corrupt here. Otto proposes, " I speak of Hun as loving." 1 Maranus remarks that TraiSeuT^s here probably means ' chastiser ;' Theo- philus referring to the difference of God's punishment of the righteous and the wicked. "" lib. i. cc. 3, 4, pp. 71. 72. v.] THEOPUIL US. 85 This extract contains almost all that we learn of God from Theophilus. There are three points in it however that de- ft mand further notice. The first is the approach towards the consideration of God as purely immaterial. Theophilus does not, as somfe have asserted, maintain the immateriality of God. -J.t will be noticed that in the passage quoted he does not- deny that God has an etSos, or form, hut he simply says ». that tjais form cannot be expressed. In another passage he speak;B of.God'as if He were space: "It is the peculiarity ♦ of God the Highest and Almigltty, and of the being who is truly God, not only that He is everywhere, but that He sees all things tnid hears all, but is by no means contained in f place;, for if He were, then the pla,»e containing Him would be greater than He; for that which contains is greater than th^ which is contained. For God is not contained, but is , Himself the place of alP^ (tottos rSiv oKcov^). In another passage he describes God as " being the place of Himself '.•'^ The second point is the distinct enunciation of the doctrine that God may be known from his -.works. Every man has originally the p£>wer of thus seeing God. But no one does see God unless his life be pure. " Show me thy man," says Theopliilus, " and I will show thee my God"." " When sin is in a man, such a man cannot see God'." " God is seen only by those who are ame to see Him when they have the ^es of their-soul opened^," " If ihou perceivest these things, [that G(KI piade^the world, heavens and earth, and clouds,] living' chastely, and holily, and righteously, thou canst see 4Kiod. But before all, let faith and the fear of God have rule in thy heart, and then shalt thou understand these things. When thou shalt put off the mortal and put on incorruption, then shalt thou see God worthily^." The third point is the enunciation of tlie doctrine of cre- ation. This enunciation is made several times. In opposing the Platonic notion that matter was uncreated, he remarks : " What is there great if God made the world out of existent ^ lib. ii. c. 3, p. 8i E. t Ibid. c. lo, p. 88 B. " Ibid. i. c. 2, p. 70 A; '■' lib. i. c. 2, p. 70 C. '^' Ibid. p. 70 B. •" Ibid, c. 7, p. 74 B. 86 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. materials ? For an artist, when he gets material from any one, makes what he likes out of it. But the power of God is manifested in this, that He makes out of things that are not whatsoever He wishes J"/^ Theophilus draws out the points of contrast between this creative power of God and the merely constructive power of man ^ He also expressly mentions his belief that matter was created by God. He thinks that this original creation of matter is pointed out in the words, " In the beginning (or, as he takes it, in the governing principle) God created the heavens and the earth ;" and that from this matter " God made and fashioned the world ^." He asserts that if matter were uncreated it would be unchangeable, and if unchangeable, then it would be equal to God (tVo'^eos) ; " for that which is created is mutable and alterable, but that which is uncreated is immutable {aTp^-mov) and unalterable " [avakXo'mTov ^) . Theophilus insists strongly on the belief in and worship of God alone. He says : " We also confess that God exists, but that He is one, the founder, and maker, and fashioner, of this entire universe, and we know that all things are arranged by his providence, but by Him alone ; and we have learned a holy law, but we have as lawgiver Him who is really God, who teaches us to act righteously, to be pious, and to do good^.^^ Then Theophilus quotes the ten commandments, with the exception of the third and fourth. In fact, one of the great reasons which Theophilus assigns for God^s "patiently en- during until He shall judge man '^," is that He wishes to teach them that there is one God. " The God, and Father, and Founder of the whole did not abandon humanity, but gave a law and sent holy prophets to bear a message to the race of men, and teach them so that each one of us should re-awaken and know fully that there is one God^.'^ Theophilus describes the mode of worshipping God. " We must serve Him who y lib. ii. c. 4, p. 82 D. See also lib. ii. c. 13, p. 92 B. ^ lib. ii. c. 13. a Ibid. c. TO, p. 89 A. " lib. ii. c. 4, p. 82 C. c Ibid. iii. c. 9, p. 122 D. 1 lib. ii. c. 37, p. 1 1 5 B. e Ibid. c. 34, p. 1 10 B C. r v.] THEOPHIL US. 87 alone is truly God^ and Maker of all, in holiness of heart, and in all sincerity of purpose'^ [dkiKpivd yvcaixr]^). Trinity. — Before proceeding- to the doctrine of the Logos, it is necessary to examine what Theophilus says of a Trinity. He uses the word Hriad^ in reference to this subject. He says that the first three days of creation were '^ types of the triad — God, and his Reason (Logos), and his Wisdom ?." In ex- plaining the words '^ Let us make man" he remarks that God spoke ^^ to no other than to his own Reason and his own Wisdom ^.^ The peculiarity of this doctrine is that one requires considerable care to distinguish between acts of God's reason and God's wisdom ; and yet we have here both Reason and Wisdom hypostatized. Even Theophilus himself could not regularly distinguish them : for we shall find him calling the Logos also the wisdom of God. In the only other passage, however, in which the three are placed together Theophilus plainly identifies the wisdom with the Spirit. " God, through his Logos and Wisdom, made all things ; for ^ with his word ^6y(^) the heavens were made firm, and all the host of them by his Spirit^.' '' But, as if to make the confusion complete, we shall find him calling the Logos also the Spirit. Theophilus does not seem to have been startled by any of the diflSculties connected with the doctrine of the Trinity. The expression ''his Logos and his Spirit'' gives his idea of the relation of the Logos and Spirit to God : and yet their belonging to God did not in his eyes destroy their per- sonality. The Logos. — Theophilus does not mention the Logos by the name of Jesus or Christ. There is nothing surprising in this, as the subject of his work leads him to speak principally of the ci-eation. The doctrine of Theophilus with regard to the Logos is given mainly in two passages. He distinguishes between the \dy09 eySid^eros and the Ao'yos irpocfiopLKos. He regards the Logos as the organ through whom God created the world, as the inspirer of the prophets, and as the being f lib. ii. c, 3S, p. no D. e Ibid. c. 15, p. 94 D. •> lib. ii. c. 18, p. 96 D. ' Psalm xxxiii. 6 : lib. i, c. 7, p. 74 B. gS THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. who appeared to the Old Testament patriarchs. He also identifies the Logos and the Wisdom, and ascribes to them the same fimctions. The first extract gives most exactly the ideas which Theophilus had of the relation of the Logos to the Father. Theophilus wishes to explain how it is said in Genesis that God walked in the garden. " The God and Father of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of his rest. But his Logos, through whom He made all things, being his power and his wisdom, taking vip the person (irpoaoiTtov, ' mask^ J) of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the character {■npoa-dnw) of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said he had heard the voice. But what else is the voice but the Logos of God, who is also his Son? Not as the poets and mythographers speak of sons of gods begotten from intercourse, but as truth expounds, the Logos (Reason) that always exists {ivbidOeTos) in the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being his own mind {vovv) and thought. But when God wished to make those things which he determined on, He begot this uttered Logos {rrpocpopiKos), the first-born of all creation, not being thereby Himself emptied of reason, but having begotten reason and always conversing with his reason. Hence the holy writings teach us, and all the Spirit-bearing [inspired] men (Tryevjuaroc^opot) , one of whom, John, says, ' In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God/ showing that at first God was alone, and the Logos (Reason) was in Him. Then he says, ' The Logos was God : all thing's came into existence through Him, and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.-' The Logos then being God and born (ttc- 0yKft)s, 'natm-aily arising from^) of God, whenever the Fa- ther of the whole wishes, He sends Him to any place; and J The word npdcrwirov is here used quite differently from the way in which it was afterwards employed in the doctrine of the Trinity : avaXafxPdveiv rb irp6ffwvov is simply to act the part, the metaphor being taken from the theatre, as Humphry remarks in his note on this passage. v.] ^ THEOFHILUS. 89 He, coming", is both heard and seen, being- sent by Him, and is found in a place ^/^ The other passage runs thiis : '' God, having his own Logos {kvhiadiTov) placed in his own bowels, begot Him, belching^ Him forth along- with his own wisdom before the whole. He had this Logos as a helper iy-novpyoii) in those things which were created by Him, and He made all things by means of Him. He is called 'governing principle^ i^PXl) because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned through Himself. He, then, being Spirit of God, and governing principle, and wisdom and power of the Highest, came down to the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of the world and of all the other things. For the prophets were not when the world came into existence, but the wisdom of God which was in Him, and his holy Avord (Logos), which was always present with Him"!.^'' Theophilus here and elsewhere calls the Logos the governing principle {apxi]) of God". He attached this meaning to the ap\fi translated in our version, ' In the be- ginning.' He calls Him also the commandment of God, and attributes to Him the lighting of the earth, and other separate parts of the creation ». Though Theophilus does not speak of Christ, yet there is one passage in which he at first sight ap- pears to refer to the historical Christ. He begins a reference to a saying of Christ thus : " The holy word (Logos) not only teaches us not to sin in act, but not even in thought P." He then quotes Solomon, and then he quotes Matt. v. 28. But the words 6 aytos Xoyos are better taken in the sense of the expression of the divine mind as given in the Scriptures, than as meaning the Logos. The SpiriL — Theophilus allowed the doctrine of the Spirit to remain in his mind in a confused and unripe state. For if he had thought of the matter, how could he clearly dis- tinguish between the mind of God, the reason of God, and k lib. ii. c. 22, p. 100 A-D. ' The expression ' belching ' or ' vomiting ' refers to the first verse of Psabn xlv., xliv. in the Sept. "" lib.ii.c.io,p.88B;c.i3,p. 125D. " Ibid. i. c. 3, p. 71 A ; ii. c. 13, p.92 B. o lib. ii. c. 13, p. 92 D. I' Ibid. iii. c. 13, p. 125 D. 90 THE ArOLOGISTS. [Chap. God^s wisdom ? What the mind does, the wisdom does. Accordiiig-ly we have seen that Theophilus called the Logos the Spirit of God, and wisdom, and that he described the Logos as uttering through the prophets the very words which he elsewhere ascribes to the spirit. Yet, as we have also seen, he gave personality to the spirit even in the very same passaged. He distinguishes the wisdom numerically from the Logos. His explanation of the spirit is also indefinite. He tells, in a passage already quoted, that the spirit is God^s breath, God^s respiration {avaTivori r) . God is said to give his "spirit which nourishes the earth.''' It is *' God's breath (77^077) that gives life to all things.'' " If He were to keep his spirit (or breath) to Himself, all things would collapse." And man is said to breathe his spirit or breath [Tiveviia ^) . And he keeps up this idea in speaking of the spirit moving on the waters. " By the spirit," he says, " which is borne above the waters, he means that which God gave for animating creation as He gave life to man, mixing what is fine with what is fine ; for the spirit is fine and the water is fine, that the spirit may nourish the water, and the water, penetrating everywhere along with the spirit, may nourish creation. For the spirit being one, and holding the place of light, was between the water and the heaven, in order that the darkness might not in any way communicate with the heaven, which was nearer God, before God said * Let there be light *.' " Theophilus means here to say that the spirit is to all creation what life (soul) is to man ; that the external principle of this life of all things is water ; but that this water was as it were dead until the spirit or breath of God moved on it, then the water became a living prin- ciple, and the two tine substances, or whatever else they might be called, being combined, are now the causes of all life in external nature ". The spirit is thus viewed as a pervasive '1 lib. ii. c. 10, p. 88 C, quoted in p. 89. ^ Ibid. i. c. 3, p. 71 A. » lib. i. c. 7, p. 74 A. t Ibid. ii. c. t3, p. 92 C. " See Chrysost. Homil. in Gen. iii., quoted by Maranus, and given by Hiun- phry and Otto. v.] THEOnilL US. 91 influence. Theophilus speaks of the spirit as inclosing all. He says, " As the pomegranate, with the rind containing it, has within it many abodes and compartments which are separated by tissues, and has also many seeds dwelling in it, so the whole creation is contained by the spirit of God, and the spirit which contains is along with the whole crea- tion contained by the hand of God^." Some have thought that Theophilus here refers to the Logos, but there is not the slightest proof of this in the works of Theophilus, and no good reason for it. Most commentators affirm that Theophilus does not speak of the Holy Spirit, but of the spirit of God, as if it were the spirit of the world. But then the question remains. Did Theophilus look on this sj)irit as personal or impersonal ? And if personal, as he certainly seems to take it, then were there two spirits ? It is most probable that Theophilus had not thought accurately enough on these points, that he would have identified the one spirit ^vith the other, but that he would not have perceived the con- sequences which seem to us to follow from the identification. Theophilus, as we have seen already, calls the wisdom the offspring of God ^. And he speaks of God " belching forth the Logos along with the wisdom.^^ This might mean " by means of the wisdom ;" but the words more naturally imply that the Logos and the wisdom came forth from God at the same time, before the creation of the world. Theophilus several times speaks of the Holy Spirit as speaking through the prophets. Thus, " We are taught all these facts by the Holy Spirit which spoke through Moses and the other prophets y '/' " We are taught by the Holy Spirit who spoke in the holy prophets, and announced all things before-hand^.'''' He has the peculiar expression '^ the holy prophets who contained the Holy Spirit of God ^." In almost all the passages where the spirit is spoken of as using the prophets, Theophilus calls him the Holy Spirit. In one passage Theophilus de- ' lib. i. c. 5, p. 72 C. " Ibid, c.3, p. 71 B. y Ibid. ii. c. 30, p. 106 C. * lib. ii. c. 33, p. no A. » Ibid. iii. c. 17, p. 128 B. 92 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. scribes Moses as wa-itiiig" " Ly means of the Holy Spirit ^J" Theophilus speaks of the prophets as containing " the wisdom which is from God, through whicli wisdom they spoke ^" The passages in which Theophihis seems to speak imper- sonally of the Spirit are few, and most of these Theophilus himself would probably have regarded as personal. Thus, Theophilus not unfrequently describes the prophets as speak- ing with one and the same spirit ^^ and in an hypothetical clause he uses the words, " they spoke by a divine and pure spirit ^." The only other sentence in which one may doubt whether Theophilus spoke impersonally is in lib. ii. c. 38, p. 116 D, where he describes a man "seeking the wisdom of God,^^ but in this case he is probably using wisdom in its common sense. The passages adduced show sufficiently what relation Theo- philus supposed to subsist between the Father of all, and the Logos, and Spirit. The Logos and Spirit are in the same relation to the Father as a man^s reason and wisdom are to the man himself. They are completely under his control, do his behests, and their acts are entirely his acts. Of the relation of the Son to the Spirit nothing is said. Angels, Devil, Demons. — Theoj)hilus says nothing of angels, and little of the devil and demons. He had discussed the questions connected with the devil in another work. He mentions him in connexion with man^s fall. He attributes to the serpent the attempt to introduce among men the worship of a multitude of gods*". He supposes the calling of Evoe or Evan in the worship of Bacchus to be an excla- mation instituted by the serpent, because Eve was in the ])eginning deceived by the serpent and became the originator of sin. He speaks of him as " the evil-doing demon, who is also called Satan, who then spoke to her through the serpent, and who still works {evepy&v) in those men who are inspired by him." " He is called demon and dragon '- HI), iii. c. 23, p. 13,^ B. c Ibid. ii. c. 9, p. 88 A. '' lib. iii. c. 12, p. 125 A ; Ibid. ii. c. 35, p. in C. ' lib. ii. c. 33, p. 109 D. f Ibid. C.28, P.104B. v.] THEOPHILUS. 93 because he ran away from God_, for at first lie was an angeK." Tlieopliilus also attributes to his energy the murder of Abel by Cain^. With regard to demons, Theophilus remarks that the heathen poets were inspired by them ; that even in his time these demons were exorcised in the name of the really true God, and the deceptive spirits themselves confessed that they were demons ^i. Man. — Theophilus thus describes the purpose for which man was created : " God, not needing anything Himself, and existing before the ages, wished to make man, that He [God] might become known to him. For him, therefore, God pre- pared the world'/^ He finds in the Mosaic account of man^s creation proof of his dignity ; '' for when God says, ' Let us make man according to our image and likeness,^ first of all He points out the dignity of man. For God having made all things by his Reason, and reckoning them all as bye- works. He reckons the making of man the only eternal work worthy of his hands k. Moreover, as if needing assistance, God is found saying, ' Let us make man after our image and ^^ likenessi.'' He also put all things under him"i." Theophilus thus sets forth the prospects of man, if he had remained sin- less. " God removed him from the earth of which he had been made into paradise, giving" him the means of progress, so that increasing and having become perfect, and having, moreover, been declared god, he might ascend even into heaven possessed of eternity ".^^ And all that he had to do was to work ; that is, to keep the commandment of God". The place of his abode was paradise. Theophilus regarded paradise as a place on earth. " That the paradise is earth, and was planted on earth, the Scripture says. Gen. ii. 8 p." He differs here from many writers of his own time, who regarded f lib. ii. c. 28, p. 104 D. 8 Ibid. c. 29, p. 150 B. •■ Ub. ii. c. 8, p. 87 C D. ' Ibid. c. 10, p. 88 B. •< The reading a'iSioc has been changed into ih'twv, ' the only work \\oithy of his own hands.' ' lib. ii. c. i8, p. 96 C D. ™ lib. ii. c. 18, p. 96 D. " Ibid. c. 24, p. lOi D. " lib. ii. 0. 24, p. 102 A. p Ibid. p. 101 B. 04 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. l-)aradise as between heaven and earth. He seems to notice this opinion, for he says, "Thus the district paradise was between earth and heaven, as far as beauty was concerned q/' There is no reason to suppose that he regarded paradise as intermediate between heaven and earth in a local sense. It was merely as respects beauty. Theophilus explains the ultimate destiny intended for man, which he here sets forth, by a parenthetical clause on the nature of man and his abode. He says, " Man was made in the middle, being neither entirely mortal nor entirely immortal, but capable of both. In like manner also the garden (paradise) in respect of beauty was made a mean between the world and heaven r/^ Adam was created a child, and therefore could not properly receive knowledge. " But in age this Adam was still a babe {vrf-nios), wherefore he was not yet able to contain the knowledge worthily^." Maranns supposes that Theophilus in calling Adam a babe alludes only to his innocence or his recent creation*. It is not likely that he would suppose Adam and Eve to be babes like other children, and therefore he must have supposed that their babyhood must have taken place in bodies larger than those of our babes. God therefore forbade him to eat of the tree of knowledge. There was nothing of a deadly nature in the tree, for knowledge is a blessing when rightly used. But children ai*e nourished with milk, not with strong food. God wished simply to try Adam, and at the same time He was desirous that Adam should remain simple and innocent in his childhood for some time. But Adam disobeyed, and his disobedience caused him to be cast out of paradise. The tree of knowledge was not evil, but through disobedience man endured labour, pain, sorroAv, and at last fell under death". Theophilus expounds more fully the nature of man in lib. ii. c. 37. "Man,-'-' he says, "was by nature neither mortal nor immortal. For if He had made him immortal from the '1 lib. ii. c. 24, p. loi D. r jbid. • Ibid. c. 25, p. 102 A. ' Prsef. part ii. c. v. p. xxii. « lib. ii. c. 25. v.] THEOPHIL US. 95 beginning-, He would have made him god. Again, if He had made him mortal, God would then appear to be the author of his death. He made him, then, neither immortal nor mortal, but, as mentioned above, capable of both, so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward fi-om Him immortality, and should become god ; but if he should turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he should him- self be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free and with power over himself.^^ We have already noticed the part which Theophilus assigns to Satan and Eve in the origination of sin. Theophilus nowhere connects the sin of Adam with any of his race. There is nothing directly contrary to the doctrine of original sin, and nothing in favour of it. He would probably have rejected it on account of the stress which he lays on the doctrine of free-will ; but this is, of course, merely a matter of conjecture. All that he says about death, for instance, is that when Cain killed Abel ^^ there was an entrance of death into this world to journey over the entire race of man up till this time'^.^' He maintains, however, that all creation suffers by the fall of man. He speaks of the flesh-eating animals as transgressing the law of God, while other animals keep the law. He says that " all [animals] were created good, exceedingly good by God, but the sin connected with man has made them bad. For when man went astray they also went astray with him^/' He compares their sin to the sin of servants who, when their master sins, sin along with him. And he adds : " But when man again shall return to a natural life, no longer doing what is evil, these also shall be restored to their original tameness".^^ From the very first God designed that man should not remain in sin. " God did this as an act of great benevolence to man, that he should not always remain in sin, but in some way like banishing him. He cast him forth from paradise, that paying back the punishment for his sin within an appointed *' lib. ii. c. 29, p. 105 B. "^ Ibid. c. 17, p. 96 B. " Ibid. •/ 96 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. time, and being chastised, he might afterwards be recalledy/^ Theophilus finds a secret intimation of this in the circum- stance that the placing of man in paradise is twice mentioned in Genesis^, and he thinks that the second placing will be fulfilled after the resurrection and judgment. Even death itself will be an instrument in this restoration. " For as a vessel, when on being fashioned it has some flaw, is re- moulded and remade, that it may become new and entire, in like manner is man affected by death. For somehow or other he is broken that he may rise in the resurrection whole ; I mean spotless, and righteous, and immortal '^.^•' The conditions of his gaining immortality are exactly the same as the original conditions on which he was made neither mortal nor immortal. " As man disobeying brought death upon himself, so obeying the will of God he who wishes can acquire for himself eternal life. For God has given us a law and holy commandments : every one who keeps these can be saved, and obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorrup- tion^.^' This arrangement is the result of God^s free gift, '' through his own philanthropy and mercy c." The meaning of the text here is doubtful. The words are, ^'That which man acquired for himself through carelessness and dis- obedience, this God now gives to him as a gift through his own philanthrophy and pity, when man obeys Him/' This most probably means that God forgives man the sins which he committed, and does away with the effects of them. It might mean that God ttirns death, which man procured through his disobedience, into a blessing, so that he may attain ineorruption. Salvation, then, depends entirely on a man's conduct and the state of his heart towards God. Sometimes this state of heart is alone mentioned, and is called faith : " Then shalt thou see the immortal [God] , being thyself immortal, if thou now put thy trust in Him^.'' And this faith and the fear y lib. ii. c. 26, p. 103 A. ^ Gen. ii. 8 and ii. 15. " lib. ii. c. 26, p. 103 B. b Ibid. c. 27, p. 103 D, p. lO-i A. ' I'lJ- "■ c. 27, p. 103 D. d Ibid, i, c, 7, p. 74 B. v.] THEOPHILUS. 97 of God ought to take the lead in all things'^. But more generally good deeds are spoken of either alone or combined with faith. Thus it is said that men become '^ pleasing to God through faith and righteousness, and well-doing ^." And in a more exact description of the conditions of salva- tion it is said that God gave his law and sent his prophets to teach men that there is one God, that they are " to refrain from unlawful idolatry, adultery, and murder, fornication, theft, avarice, false swearing, wrath, and every incontinence and impurity, and not to do to others what they would not wish to be done to themselves ; and thus," he adds, " he who acts righteously shall escape the eternal punishments, and be thought worthy of the eternal life from God^." Theophilus says nothing of Christ^s work in the salvation of men. But it is easy to perceive from what he has said of the conditions of salvation how he would be compelled to view it. It could be mainly, if not entirely, in exciting men to goodness, to a change of mind. Theophilus once asserts that God effects this change through the Reason {Logos) and the Wisdom. " This [ignorance of God] has happened to you on account of the blindness of your soul and the hardness of your heart. But if you wish, you can be cm-ed. Give yourself up to the physician, and He will prick the eyes of your soul and heart. Who is the physician ? It is God, who heals and makes alive through his Reason (Logos) and Wisdom h/^ And in this connexion it is im- portant to note that Theophilus believed that man himself paid the penalty of his own sins'. Theophilus mentions several times the necessity of a change of mind (//erdyota), and alludes expressly to the change of mind characteristic of Christianity. Speaking of the Jewish people, he says, that after they had broken the law, " God being good and merciful, did not wish to destroy them, but He, in addition to giving them the law, afterwards sent prophets from among their brethren to teach and remind them of the « lib. i. c. 7, p. 74 B. f Ibid. ii. c. 2,% p. 1 16 D. ? Ibid. c. 34, p. 1 10 C. >> lib. i. c. 7, p. 74 A. ' Ibid. ii. c. 26, p. 103 A. VOL. III. il 98 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. requirements of the law^ and to turn them to a change of mindj so that they should no longer sini/^ Then he quotes several passages from the Old Testament in regard to change of mindj and at the conclusion states that " God wishes to turn the race of men from all their sins'^/^ In giving the allegorical interpretation of the creation, he alludes to the Christian ixerdvoLa. He says, " Those things that were pro- duced from the water were blessed by God, that this might be a proof that all men would receive change of mind and forgiveness of sins through water and the bath of a second birth, if they advanced to the truth, and were re-born, and received a blessing from God'/' He finds symbols of those who do not change their minds but remain ignorant of God and impious, and given to earthly thoughts, in quadrupeds and wild beasts. " But those,'"* he says, " who turn, from their iniquities and live righteously, like birds fly up in soul, thinking of those things that are above and being well- pleasing to the will of God"^.'''' Theophilus does not mention the Church or say anything of its constitution. He once, however, speaks of Churches. He compares them to islands with good harbours : " So," he says, " God has given to the world, tossed about on the waves and battered in the storms caused by sins, assemblies {(Tvvayoiyds:) , I mean holy Churches, in which, as in the good harbours on the islands, are the teachings of the truth, to which those who wish to be saved flee, becoming lovers of the truth, and wishing to escape the wrath and judgment of God".'' The teachings of error, that is, of the sects {aipi- aecav) , on the other hand, are like rocky islands on which ships are dashed to pieces. Theophilus alludes once to baptism in the extract made already o. It is stated there that all who come to the truth, and are re-born, and receive blessing from God, receive change of mind and forgiveness of sins through water and the bath of regeneration. There is not the ' lib. iii. c. II, p. 124 A B. k Ibid. c. 11, p. 124 D. ' lib. ii. c. 16, p. 95 B. m Ibid. c. 17, p. 95 D, 96 A. " lib. ii. c. 14, pp. 93, 94. o Ibid. c. 16, p. 95 B. v.] THEOPUILUS. 99 slightest reason to suppose that Theophikis attributed any power to the water. In fact, his language proves the con- trary; but he made acceptance of pardon simultaneous Avith the public confession of Christ. Some have supposed another allusion to baptism in lib. i. c. 12, p. 77 C, "We are anointed with the oil of God.^^ Though we learn from Tertullian that oil was used in baptism, yet the context of this passage makes it likely that Theophilus did not use the words literally but metaphorically. He makes no allusion to the Thanks- giving, and the only remarks in regard to the Sabbath are, that what the Jews call Sabbath the Greeks call the Seventh, and this is its name among all nations, though the nations do not know why it is so called P. He makes no reference to its observance by either Jew or Christian. Theophilus thus describes the general life of Christians : " Sound-mindedness is present with them, self-restraint is practised, marriage with one is preserved, chastity is kept, injustice is expelled, sin is rooted out, righteousness is ha- bitually carried out, the law regulates their conduct, piety is a reality with them, God is acknowledged, truth rules, grace preserves, peace covers them, the holy word guides, wisdom teaches, life rules, God is kingq/' Theopliilus men- tions that Christians were forbidden to visit the gladiatorial combats, and that they believed it to be their duty to avoid all other pubhc exhibitions (^ecoptas), "that our eyes and our ears may not be defiled, becoming partakers of the words sung there '"."■' He also observes that they were commanded to obey powers and authorities, and to pray for them^. He recognises in the king a person " appointed by God to judge justly ,^^ and therefore he will honour with due honour, but will not worship him, for he is not God*. Future State. — The passages already adduced have given the main points of the doctrine of Theophilus mth regard to a future state. He mentions " the resurrection and judg- P lib. ii. c. 12, p. 91 D. 1 Ibid. iii. c. 15, p. 127 A. "■ lib. iii. c. 15, p. 126 D. ' Ibid. c. 14, p. 126 C. ' lib. i. c. II, p. 76 D. H 2 100 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. ment''^ together'*. He alludes also to the "burning" up of the world/-' Malachi the prophet foretold it^, and the Greek poets agreed with the prophets in regard to it J. He demands belief in the resurrection^ and confidence in God that He can raise the dead. " When it shall he," he says, " then wilt thou believe, \villing or not wilHng ; and thy belief will be reckoned as unbelief unless thou believe now/-* He points out the action of faith in earthly things — how the husbandman trusts the seed to the earth, the traveller trusts himself to the vessel and pilot, the pupil to his teacher, the sick man to the 2J'hysician, and then he asks, " Dost thou not wish to trust thyself to God, who hast so many pledges from Him? first, because He made thee out of nothing.^^ And after a little he asks, " Dost thou distrust the God who made thee that He can afterwards make thee^ ?" He regards various occurrences in nature as intimations by God of the resurrection, — the rising and ending of seasons, days and nights, the raising up of seeds and fruits, the production of large trees from small grains, often carried to great distances by birds, and springing up on rocks or tombs. '' All these things," he says, " are wrought by the wisdom of God, so as to show through these things that God is able to make the universal resurrection of all men." And he finds a kind of resurrection taking place in man himself. For sometimes he sickens, wastes away, and then, through God's mercy, recovers his body and figure. It is true he does this by nourishment and juices tui-ned into blood. " But this very thing is the work of God, who so fashioned man, and of no other a." He also finds in the moon " a proof of the resurrection which is to be," for " it pines away, and somehow dies, and then is re-born and increases^." He says in another passage c, that in the variety, beauty, and multitude of seeds and plants, it is intended that there should be a sign of the future resurrection of all men. " lib. ii. c. 26, p. 103 B. ^ Ibid. c. 38, p. 116 A. y lib. ii. C.37, li. 115 D. z Ibid. i. c. 8, pp. 74, 75. a lib. i. c. 13, pp. 77 D, 78. b Ibid. ii. c. 15, p. 94 C * lib. ii. c. 14, p. 93 C v.] THEOPHILUS. 101 The principle of the judgment is thus stated : ^' He who gave the mouth to speak^ and formed the ear for hearing, and made the eyes for seeing, will examine all things and judge justly, giving to each one his wages [ixicrdov), according to desert. To those that in patience seek incorruption through good works he will give eternal life, joy, peace, refreshment, and multitudes of blessings which neither eye hath seen nor ear heard, and which have not ascended into the heart of man. But to unbelievers and despisers, and those who dis- obey the truth and are obedient to injustice, when they have been filled with adulteries, fornications, man-pollutions, over- reachings, and the unlawful idolatries, there will be wrath and anger, tribulation and straits, and at last eternal fire will hold possession of such. Since then you have added, * O friend, show me thy God ; ' this is my Grod, and I counsel you to fear and trust Him'^'^ Theophilus here enumerates the rewards of the blessed. They are included in the word ^immortality,'' freedom from corruption. And this freedom from death is to be conferred not only on the soul but also on the body. " For God raises up the flesh immortal along vnih. the soul*^.^^ Some have taken the passage to mean that the body and the soul die together, and that both will be raised together. This possibly may have been the belief of The- ophilus, but it is not likely ; and the words we have adduced are better understood by laying the emphasis on the im- mortal. Make man holy and his soul becomes imperishable, incapable of death. But not only so, but God raises up his body immortal. The locality of man's future blessed abode is not discussed by Theophilus. One passage, how^ever, leaves us to the inference that he regarded paradise as the region of the blessed. He says that in Genesis it is written as if man had been twice placed in paradise, that the first might be ful- filled when he was placed there, and that the second is to be fulfilled after the resurrection and judgmenff. Theophilus thought that the doctrine of future punishments was stolen by d lib. i. c. 14, p. 79 B C. e ibi(]_ c. 7, !>. 74 C. f lib. ii. c. 26, p. 103 A. 102 ■ THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. the Greek poets from the Hebrew prophets^ so that no one could have any excuse,, or say^ " We did not hear of it or know it^/' Scripture. — Theophilus gives no theory of inspiration. We have seen already that he speaks both of the Logos and the Spirit as inspiring. There is one passage which gives almost all the salient points of Theophilus's belief with regard to the action of the Spirit on men. It runs thus : " Men of God, carrying in them a holy spirits and becoming prophets, being inspired and made wise by God Himself, became God-taught, and holy, and righteous. Wherefore they were also deemed worthy of being rewarded by becoming instruments of God [opyava 6eov), and con- taining wisdom which is from Him, through which wisdom they spoke both with regard to the creation of the world and all other things. For they predicted also pestilences, famines, and wars. And therq was not one or two, but many at various times and seasons among the Hebrews ; and also among the Greeks there was the Sibyl; and all of them have spoken things friendly and harmonious with each other, both what took place before them and what took place in their own time, and what things are now fulfilling in our own day; wherefore we are persuaded also with regard to those things that are to happen, even as the first have been accomplished ^/^ The prominent points of this explanation deserve con- sideration. It is to be observed that Theophilus states that God chose men on account of their holiness to be his instruments. Hence the Spirit is called the holy spirit which inspires them, and their writings are called '' the holy writings," and are quoted with the words '' the divine writing says," " the holy writing says," or simply " the writing says." ^ lib. i. c. 14, p. 79 A ; ii. cc. 36-38. ^ The Greek is iTy€vixaToes their influence on the world : " For as the sea, if it had not an influx and addition of rivers and fovintains for its nourish- ment, would have been dried up long ago on account of its saltness, so the world, if it had not had the law of God and the prophets acting as streams and fountains of the sweet- ness, and tender mercy, and righteousness, and teaching of the holy commandments of God, would have failed long ago, on account of the wickedness and sin that abound in \i^." Theoj)hilus names a considerable number of the prophets of the Old Testament. He shows himself anxious to prove that the books of Moses were older than any of the Greek books, and even than Zeus himself. He believed that the Greek poets stole many of their doctrines from these prophets. The books of the New Testament mentioned are " the Gos- pels,^^ or, as it is called in one place, " the Gospel,^^ the Gospel of John, and the first Epistle to Timothy. There are un- questionable references to several others of the letters of Paul. But these two instances are the only instances in which Theophilus intimates that he is quoting. Of Theophilus's mode of interpretation almost nothing need be said. It was arbitrarily allegorical. Thus he sought in all the facts of the creation some symbol of great moral truths. Many instances have been given of this. Some- times his explanations lead him into great absurdities, as when explaining the murder of Abel and the words of God, " The voice of thy brother^s blood calls to me from the earth,'' &c.. Gen, iv. 10-12, he remarks that the earth, struck with terror, afterwards did not take in the blood of man, nor indeed of any animal. This coagulation of the blood on the surface of the earth he thinks was caused by nothing else than man transgressing y. lib. 11. c. 35, p. 112 A. 'iSicoTai : persons in a private station, and there- fore not well acquainted with the world. " lib. ii. c. 14, p. 93 C D. y Ibid. ii. c. 29, p. 105 D, v.] THEOPHILUS. 105 Theophilus gives no hint to us of his interpretation of Judaism. He mentions that God was their lawgiver. He says, " Of this Divine law Moses, the servant of God, was the minister to the whole world, but most completely to the Hebrews who were also called Jews.''^ He also notices that of " this law which is great and wonderful for all righteousness there are ten heads, which we have mentioned above. ^^ In the enumeration of the commandments, however, he does not divide them into separate commandments, he omits mention of the Sabbath and of taking God's name in vain, and he introduces several verses from Exodus xxiii.^ In chapters II and 12 of Book iii. he shows that the gospels agreed with the law in all their requirements. VI. LITERATURE. Mamiscnpts. — There are three manuscripts of Theophilus to Autolycus. I. Codex Venetus Grsecus CCCCXCVI., pre- served at Venice, the best of all, written in the eleventh century, according to Otto ; 2. Codex Bodleianus Grsec. Miscell. XXV., in the Bodleian Library, written about the middle of the fifteenth century ; 3. Codex Parisinus DCCCLXXXVII., in the Royal Library in Paris, m-itten in 1540, contains only the third book. Editions. — The books of Theophilus to Autolycus were first printed in a collection of various pieces at Zurich, 1546, edited by Joannes Frisius, then in the Orthodoxographa of Joannes Heroldus, in MorelFs edition of Justin, and in various of the great libraries. It was edited by Fell, Oxford, 1684, i2mo. A very good edition was brought out by lo. Christoph. Wolfius, at Hamburg, 1724, 8vo,, which moreover contained many dissertations by various writers. Then came the edition of Maranus in 1742. In 1852 appeared an edition by Wil- liam Gilson Humphry, S.T.B., Cambridge, 8vo. By far the best edition is that of Otto, Jense, 1861, 8vo., which gives ^ lib. iii. c. 9 ; comp. iii. c. il. 106 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. V. full information in regard to manuscrij^tsj editions,, and trans- lations. Tliere are two English translations^ one by Joseph Betty, Oxford, 1722, 8vo., and another by the Rev. W. B. Flower, London, i860, 8vo. Mr. Flower^s translation is well executed^ but it is marred by omissions and misprints. CHAPTEE VI. ATHENAGORAS. I. LIFE. Our information with regard to Athenag-oras is derived from two sources ; Philip Sidetes, and the inscription prefixed to the writing's of Athenagoras in the manuscripts. The , statements of Philip Sidetes areas follows : " Athenagoras was / the first leader of the school at Alexandria^ flourishing in the time of Adrian and Antoninus, to whom he also addressed his Apology for the Christians. He was a man who christianized in the cloak and was president of the academic school. He, before Celsus, having been eager to write against the Chris- tians, studied the Divine Scriptures in order to contend more carefully, and was thus caught by the all-holy Spirit; so that, like the great Paul, he became a teacher instead of a per- secutor of the faith which he persecuted. Philip says that Clemens the writer of the Stromata was his disciple, and Pantsenus was the disciple of Clemens.'''' This fragment was first published by Dodwell in an appendix to his Dissertations on Irenaeus. Dodwell is inclined to place absolute confidence in the statements of Philij), though he thinks the words of Philip may have been slightly altered; for they are re- lated by another, supposed by him to be Nicephorus Callistus. This person, whoever he was, tells us that Philip of Sida was /" a pupil of Rhodon, who was head of the Alexandrian school 108 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. in the reign of Theodosius the Great. Philip of Sida Dod- well believes had thus access to the best sources of infor- mation. But it by no means follows that, because Philip knew the leader of the Alexandrian school^ he was well acquainted with the history of the school, or could tell accurately who had been its leader three hundred years before his time. The only part of Philip^s knowledg-e which we can test is what he states about Pantsenus, and we know both from Clemens and Eusebius that he is entirely wrong". Wliat others have said of Philip^s character as a historian does not give us reason for confiding in his accuracy. He is mentioned both by Socrates and Photius. He wrote a vast number of books, but especially a history, which he did not call an ecclesiastical but a Christian history. Socrates accuses him of aiming at a grand style, introducing all kinds of things, philosophical, astronomical, arithmetical, musical, and thus rendering it useless to both learned and unlearned. He especially blames him because " he confounds the times of the history," mentioning the times of the emperor Theodosius, and going back to those of Athanasius the bishop f^. The testimony of Photius is to the effect that the book was " dis- agreeable, more a show-off than of real use^." The narra- tive of such a writer, living as he did so long after Athena- goras, cannot be trusted. It is impossible to conceive that his words are pure fiction, but how many misapprehensions, mistakes, and exaggerations they contain no one can now decide c. The only other testimony is the inscription on the manu- scripts. It runs thus : " The embassy {TTpeajSeCa) of Athe- nagoras the Athenian, a philosopher and a Christian, con- cerning Christians, to the emperors Marcus Aurelius Anto- ninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, Armeniaei, Sarmatici, " Socr. Hist. Eccl. vii. 27. b Cod. 35 (p. 7, a Bekker). f See Cave, Lit. Hist. vol. ii. p. 34, and especially Clarisse, Commentatio Historico-Theologica de Athenagora, p. 10 ; who try to attach some authority to the statements by explaining how Photius committed the mistakes which we know he has committed. VI, ] ATHENAGORAS. 109 and^ what is greatest^ philosophers/^ At what time this inscription was written and on what authority are matters entirely unknown. Internal evidence^ as far as it goes^ is entirely in harmony with these statements, and the counter- statements of Philip SideteSj as we have seen already, are worthless. The statements themselves, however, are open to criticism. Lucius Aurelius Commodus may either be Lucius Verus, the colleague of Marcus Antoninus, or Com- modus his son, who after the death of Verus was made partner in the government. The evidence in regard to this matter is not very strong and is sometimes conflicting, but unquestionably greater probability attaches to the opinion more commonly held by scholars, that it is Commodus the son that is mentioned^. " We shall present the evidence. Part of this evidence lies in the inscription itself, part in some passages of the Apology. In the inscription there are three points that call for observation ; the name, the appellations Armeniaci, Sarmatici, and the designation ' philosophers.' The name Lucius Aurelius Commodus is appropriate only to the son of Marcus Aurelius, who succeeded him. Lucius Verus also bore the name of Commodus, but he laid it aside after he was admitted to a share of the government^. Lucius Verus is not styled Commodus in any of the inscriptions given in Orelli. The son of Marcus Aurelius was always styled Commodus. The titles Armeniaci, Sarmatici, are full of difficulty. Marcus Aurelius did not conquer Sarmatia until after the death of Verus. On the other hand, the title of Armeniacus, victor of Armenia, is utterly inappropriate to Commodus, because Armenia had been conquered a considerable time before he had been admitted to a share in the government. The easiest way of getting rid of the difficulty is by supposing •1 See Clarisse, p. 28 ; Otto, Atliea. Opera Prolegg. p. 62 ; Mosheim, Dissert, de Vera Aetate Apologetic! quein Atbenagoras pro Christianis scripsit in his Dissertt. ad Hist. Eccl. pertinentes, vol. i. p. 272. ^ Capitolinus, Ver. Vit. c. iv. no TEE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. that Commodus the son is meant. If Verus were meant, then Sarmaticus must be a wrong- reading", and every attempt that has been made at emendation has been wikl. On the other handj there are two methods of solving the difficulty if Commodus be the person addressed, either of which is not very objectionable. The first method, and that usually adopted, is to suppose that Athenagoras applied the term Ai-meniaci to both emperors, though it was appropriate only to one, because the father would have no objection to share his honours with the son. The other method, proposed by Tentzel and adopted by Mommsen, is to change 'Ap/xerta/cot? into TepixaviKois, and this seems to me much to be preferred, though all the manuscripts are against it. There is some- thing absurd in joining one of Marcus Aurelius^s earliest titles with his latest; while it would be appropriate to join the two of the latest, victor of Germany and victor of Sar- matia; and the inscription would thus harmonize exactly with those that relate to Marcus Antoninus after the year 176^. Moreover, Commodus actually went with his father to the war in Germany, and had shared in the triumph over the Germans ; and if the likelihood is that he is the person ad- dressed, Athenagoras would not omit a title which Commodus would feel to be peculiarly honourable to him. Then the change of letters in the emendation is slight, and the mistake of the copyists is easily accounted for. The last point in the inscription is the title of ' philosopher^ given to Lucius Aurelius Commodus. Neither Lucius Verus nor Commodus have the slightest claim to such an appella- tion. Athenagoras, however, it is likely, would not have scrupled to give it either to the one or the other, from his desire to say the best of the emperors. If we were to make a choice as to whom the title would be more appropriate, we should prefer Commodus, for he had not as yet exhibited his contemptible weaknesses and his barbarous cruelty, while the voluptuousness of Lucius had become universally notorious. f See Orelli, vol. ii. pp. 202-205 ■ Inscriptions 861, 885, 887 ; and Clinton, Fa.sti Romani, vol. i. pp. 171-174. VI.] ATHENAGORAS. Ill The evidence in the Apology itself is derived principally from two passages. In speaking of God the Father and his Son the Logos^ Athenagoras employs an analogy : " For as all things have been subjected to yon^ father and son, who have received the government from above ^." The son here might mean Verus the son-in-law, but it far more naturally and probably means Commodus the real son. In fact, the analogy limps very considerably if the real son is not meant. Then in the concluding chapter^ occur the following words : " For who have a better right to obtain their requests than we who pray for your government, that ye may succeed to your throne, son following father, according to exact justice, and that your government may receive increase and addition, while all become subject to you?" There might here again be a possible reference to Verus, but there is an extreme improbability in the supposition. On the contrary, every expression favours the notion that these words contain an allusion to the rebellion of Avidius Cassius. The mention of the mode of succession is striking in itself. The emphasis laid on the justice of such a mode is also peculiar. And the strong assertion of the fidelity of the Christians would render it likely that there had been some attempt to imdermiue Aurelius, and snatch the throne from his heir. The exact time thus indicated is the end of the year 176, or in the year 177. Some other passages in the Apology give probability to this date : " Wherefore," he says, '' admiring your mildness and gentleness, and your desire to be at peace with every one, and your kindness, all persons enjoy equal laws individually, the states share equal honour according to their worth, and the whole world through your intelligence enjoys deep peace'." In the reign of Aurelius the only period at which the world could be fairly said to be in the enjoyment of deep peace was from the end of 176 to the beginning of 178. The in- surrection of Avidius Cassius had been crushed, the emperor had returned to Eome, and he and his son triumphed in E Suppl. c. 18, p. 17 D. '• c. 37, p. 39 I^- > c, I, p. 2 B. 112 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. the end of 176. In 178 he was called away to the Marco- mannic wars. Athenagoras elsewhere ^ si:)eaks of the zeal of Christians in behalf of ' you and your house/ where the ad- dition, ' your house/ is best explained by the supposition that the succession had lately been threatened by Avidius Cassius. There are some other expressions and remarks in the Apo- logy which have been supposed to help towards the fixing of the date; but in all cases but one the inference is unwar- ranted. Thus in an analogy Athenagoras speaks of those who flee for refuge to the palace'; and from this it is inferred that the emperor must have been at Rome. Then, again, conjectures are hazarded with regard to an Alexander men- tioned by Athenagoras, and an inference is drawn from the conjecture with regard to the date of the Apology ™. The only exceptional instance is a statement with regard to the slaves of Christians. He affirms that none of them was ever so brazen-faced as to accuse his master of the crimes which public rumour attributed to the Christians". This statement we know to be not exactly true : for Justin Martyr ^ allows that tortures did sometimes wi'est from the slaves of Christians accusations of abominable crimes against their masters. But it is easy to suppose that Athenagoras knew nothing of this. Towards the end of the year 177 the fearful persecution of the Churches in Vienne and Lyons broke out, and on that occasion slaves under the influence of tortures asserted that their Christian masters had com- mitted the scandalous crimes commonly imputed to them. Now it is difficult to suppose that Athenagoras could have remained ignorant of this notorious fact, and consequently we are led to believe that the Apology was written some- time between the end of 176 and the end of 177. More- over, if the Gallic persecution had taken place and time enough had elapsed for its becoming known, it is likely that Athenagoras would have made a distinct allusion to it. Still " c. 3, p. 4 D. 1 c. 16, p. 15 B. ■" c. 26, p. 29 B. See Tillemont, Mt^moires pour servir h, I'Histoire de I'Eglises, torn. ii. part ii. p. 557, and Mosh. Dissert, p. 289. " c. 35. p. 38 B. u Apol. ii. c. 12. VI.] A THEN A GOB AS. 113 there is nothing like certainty in this argument. Minueius Felix, who probably wrote after Athenagoras, states that no one had been prevailed on to assert that they had seen the Christians commit the crimes of which they were accused P. There is still another point in the inscription which de- mands notice. The exact translation of -npea^da is ' embassy.' Now it has been matter of dispute whether Athenagoras really went on an embassy, or whether the word should not be translated simply ' apology/ or, as Otto renders it, sttppU' catio ^. It seems to me very unlikely that the word Trpecr^eia can be used here simply for an apology. There is no cer- tainty in the matter; but the word seems to indicate that Athenagoras actually went as a deputation to the emperor and delivered in some shape or other the arguments which we now have in the Apology. We may well conceive that when the world was at peace, and all men but Christians were congratulating themselves on the blessings and pri- vileges which they enjoyed in the reign of the beloved Marcus, Christians would deem it a favourable moment to present their case to the emperor. And he would be all the more ready to listen that he had now returned to Rome, that he had enjoyed along with his son unusual honours, and that all seemed to be thankful for his merciful deliver- ance from the treachery of Cassius. The laboured compli- ments in which the Apology abounds are also in harmony with the idea that Athenagoras had written at a season when the praises of the emperor were to be heard on every hand. There is strong internal evidence that the inscription is the work of Athenagoras himself. Its simplicity is much in favour of its genuineness. It moreover contains one touch which is very characteristic. The work is styled -npecr^eia Tiepl Xpi(TTiavG)v, ' an embassy in regard to the Christians."* He does not style it an embassy in behalf of the Christians, but, like a philosopher, an embassy with regard to them "" ; p See Routh's note, Reliq. Sacr. vol. i. p. 338. > I^- ' c. 2, p. 3 A. ■" c. 34, p. 38 A. VI.] ATHENAGORAS. 119 rightly believed^ namely, that there is one God" ?" The ex- pression (ec/)' i]\ixv KclaOat voixoi') is indefinite, and we might g'uess either that Christians were condemned for atheism, or condemned for the exi:)ression of their atheism. Whatever may have been the law, it is plain from the remarks of Athenagoras that he did not regard the emperors as parties to the persecution. In fact, he demands of them that they put an end by law to the persecution of Christians. " If the accusation," he says, " extends only to the name, it is your business, as the greatest man-loving and most wis- dom-loving empei'ors, to put an end, by law, to the insults offered us, that as the whole world has shared in your benefits individually, and as states, so we may be grateful to you, glorying that we have ceased from being falsely accused o." He thinks that the emperors had not taken sufficient care of them. After mentioning that the whole world enjoyed deep peace, he says, " But we who are called Christians, since ye have not provided for us, but permit us, though doing no injury » * » to be tossed and driven about like booty, and persecuted, have dared to explain our position, * * * and beseech you to institute some investigations with regard to us, that we may at length be no longer slaughtered by vile informers p." So far were the empe- rors themselves from being active persecutors, that Athena- goras appeals to their procedure as proof of the innocence of Christians. " You yourselves," he says, '' are witnesses that we commit none of these iniquities, since you or- der that no one give information against us " (KeXevorres IJ.1] ixrivveiv^). Indeed, Athenagoras seems to have appre- ciated the character of Marcus Aurelius, and he certainly lays himself open to the charge of flattery. He speaks of the emperors as surpassing all, as much in the ex- tent and accuracy of their learning as in prudence and " c. 7, p. 7 C. " c. 2, p. 3 B, p c. I, p. 2 B C. 1 c. 3, p. 4 D. Mrjvvfiv is an emendation for dnovo(7v of the MSS., but it is so good that it has been received by Otto into the text. The fact is asserted also bv Tcrtullian. 8ee Otto's note. 120 THE AFOLOGIISTS. [Chap. power '' ; and as excelling all in piety to the real godhead *. He supposes, that being veiy fond of learning, they were not ignorant of the writings of Moses and Isaiah, Jeremiah and the other prophets ^ He speaks of them as being intimately acquainted with the ancients in all things ", and above all, as knowing their writings well ''. He mentions oftener than once their attachment to philosophy >'. In his treatment of mythology Athenagoras is uncom- monly fair, and takes a view which might have well enough been taken by a philosophic heathen of deep moral feeling. He seizes upon the really weak points and exhibits them very much as a modern might do. It is in this department that his scholarship especially appears, and it is remarkable that his quotations are all made from writers well known to us, and that there are none from the middle or new comedy. He quotes largely from Homer, and Herodotus, and Plato. He has some of the Orphic frag^ ments, and he quotes from Hesiod, Pindar, ^scliylus, Sopho- cles, Euripides, Empedocles, Callimachus, and the Sibylline verses. He traces mythology to low earthly views. " Turning up and down," he says, " round the forms of matter, they fall away from the God who is perceived by reason, and deify the elements ^- and their parts, sometimes call- ing them one name and sometimes another *." " Falling away," he says again, " from the greatness of God, and unable to penetrate above through reason (for they have no relationship that would draw them into the heavenly place), they have pined away round the forms of matter, and falling .down [to earth] they deify the changes of the elements [stars] b." He attributes the names of the gods to the creative genius of Orpheus <=, and proves from the statements of Herodotus, and •■ c. 6, p. 6 C. » c. 7, p. 8 B. ' c. 9, p. 9 D. " c. 17, p. 16 B. " c. 22, p. 24 A, > c. 2, p. 3 D; c. ii,p. II C. ' (TToixfrn generally means ' the stars,' which meaning is the one probably intended here. « c. 22, p. 24 B. h c. 22, p. 24D. <• c, 18, p. 18 A; 0,32, p. 36 A. VI.] ATHENAGORAS. 121 the verses of the poets, that the names of the g'ods were orig-inally the names of men d. He looks on the poets as the accredited historians of the deeds of the gods «. At the same time he maintains that some of them were thorough believers in the oneness of the deity, and he appeals to two verses of Sophocles, and to two passages of Euripides, one of which, in common with many other early Christian writers, he misin- terprets. Athenagoras^s discussion of the mythology is remarkable for its completeness. He demolishes almost every defence of polytheism that could be made. He not merely shows the absurdity of worshipping idols, but he deals in a masterly way with those who said that it was not the idols but the gods that they worshipped ^. He proves the radical weak- ness of polytheism from the variety of gods worshipped in diflPerent countries s, and he endeavours to destroy the con- fidence of heathens in their mode of worship by showing that the idea of sacrifice is inconsistent with just notions of the divine character ^. Athenagoras was well read in philosophy, and had a good philosophic mind. He gives, for instance, an admirable exposition of the Stoic doctrines '. He deserves especial praise for the fairness with which he treats philosophers. He asserts that most of them believed in the unity of God ; mentioning by name Philolaus, Lysis, Opsimus, Plato, Ari- stotle, and the Stoics. He explains the success of their spe- culation on this point thus : "■ Poets and philosophers succeeded in this as in other things, by conjecture, being moved ac- cording to a close connexion with the breath which is from God (Kara avixTiddeLav rrjs irapa tov Ocov ttvotjs), each by his own soul to seek if he can find and know the truth : but they have not been found capable of attaining to an accurate com- prehension, since it was not from God that they deemed it right to learn with regard to God, but each one from him- self J.^" He maintains that every true opinion is accompanied fl c. 29 S; 30. ^ c. 30, p. 34 D. f c. 18, p. 17 C. " c. 14. •> c. 13. ' c. 19, p. 19 A. J c. 7, p. 8 A. 122 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. by false ones. " Beside every opinion and argument which have a true foundation in existent things, there springs up something false : and it springs uj) not in consequence of any natural underlying principle or cause of a thing really exist- ent, but it is worked out by those who have set a value on spurious seed for the conception of truth j.^'' In one passage he attributes the deflection of Euripides and Aristotle from a steady belief in providence to the activity of the demons, who apparently disturb the order of the world, and act malignantly on men^s minds. Mosheim has asserted that Athenagoras was the first of the Christian writers who was an eclectic. This statement is incorrect : for it is now universally acknowledged that all philosophy at this period and for a considerable time before was eclectic. Athenagoras shows less of eclecticism than most. He is the only one of the Apologists whose philo- sophy is decidedly Platonic. His phraseology is Platonic. He continually contrasts yiyvojxai with etvaL, ' becoming"" with ' being,^ vorjros with ala6r]T6's, and he reasons Platonically'^. His doctrine of the immortality and thinking powers of the soul is Platonic, and strikingly contrasts with that of Tatian. He hints the doctrine of reminiscence, and places the chief end of man in the contemplation of God or of real being. His notion of the Logos is also modified by his sympathy with the Platonic ideas. And his doctrine of general and particular providence finds a parallel in the Timaeus. He also quotes most frequently from Plato, especially from the Timaeus. All the quotations have reference to Plato^'s belief that God was one, uncreated, eternal mind, capable of being comprehended only by reason. He appeals to the famous passage of the Timseus, in which Plato says that it is impos- sible to make God known to all^. He adduces another famous passage from the same dialogue, — " God-sprung gods of whose works I am the fashioner and father m,'' — as proof that though Plato believed the sun, moon, and stars also to be gods, he J De Rcsur. c. i , p. 40 B ; c. 1 1, p. 5 1 B. •< Apol. c. 8, p. 8 C. See note 5 in Otto. ' Tim. p. 28 C ; Apol. c. 6, p. 6 D. •" Tim. j.. 41 A. VI .] ATHE NA GO MA S. 1 23 yet looked on them as created". He asserts that Phito, feel- ing that the common people could not unlearn their stories about the gods, used language as if he believed these stories. In this way he explains Plato^s statement with regard to his belief in the mythological traditions which occurs in Tim. p. 40 D E. He thinks it impossible that Plato could really have thought that an investigation into the nature of these lesser deities was beyond his power ; but he supposes that Plato did not wish to confess that gods could not beget and be begotten «. Athenagoras finds in the use of the name of Zeus in the myth in the Phsedrus P;, an accommodation to the popular mind, since Plato really meant the true God, as he speaks of Him as the Maker of the universe. He appeals to Plato as laying down a just mode of reasoning in regard to the nature of " that which becomes " and " that which is^ ;" and he quotes Plato as maintaining that the world is capable of change and therefore capable of dissolution "". He adduces the famous passage from the second epistle to show how accurate Plato^s notions in regard to God were; but does not make any remark on its bearing on the Trinity s. He asserts that the teachings of Plato and Pythagoras were not adverse to the doctrine of a resurrection '. The writings of Athenagoras show that he was not uninfluenced by other philosophies. He borrows a peculiar expression from Philo", and he agrees with the Peripatetics in regard to pleasm-es, that the right lies in the mean^. Athenagoras gives us little insight into his own philosophy. The principal beliefs of his own which he details relate to the constitution of mane's nature. Being mixed up with theological questions, they are discussed in the chapters on his theology. He speaks of persons who are ignorant of natural and theo- logic truth, as if he distinguished the (jivcnKos Adyos from the " Apol. c. 6, p. 7 A. ° c. 23, p. 26 A B. p Phaedr. p. 246 E ; Apol. c. 23, p. 26 C. '1 Tim. p. 27 D ; Apol. c. 19, p. 18 D. ■• Polit. p. 269 D ; Apol. c. 16, p. 16 A. " c. 23, p. 26 A. * c. 36, p. 39 C. " a.ya\ti.aro(popi'iv. De Resiir. c. 12, p. 53 B. " De Eesur. c. 21, p. 64 B. See note 15 in Otto. 124 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. 6€o\oyiKo THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. tried to prove that there was no God at all. But we distin- guish God from matter, saying- that God is uncreated and that He made everything, and therefore we are falsely accused of atheism'. The poets and philosophers were not reckoned atheists, though they doubted the common notions of God, and said that He was one, and perceptible by mind alone. Euripides and Sophocles, for instance, declared his unity J. The philosophers also believed that there was but one God, and yet they were not treated as atheists. I cannot adduce the opinions of all, but I now appeal to those of Philolaus, Lysis and OjDsimus, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics'^. Poets and philosophers were allowed to state what they thought of the divine Being. Why should not the same privilege be granted to us, who can prove that God is one by the most certain arguments • ? We reason the matter thus. If there were from the beginning two or more gods, they would occupy the same place or each one would be apart. But they could not occupy the same place. For uncreated beings are dissimilar, not being made after any type, and they are un- compounded. They cannot dwell apart : for there would be no place nor occupation for a second God™. If we had been content with such reasonings, our religion would have been human. But we base our faith on the prophets who were inspired by God. They frequently state the unity of God ". I have now sufficiently proved that we are not atheists, since we believe in one eternal God who made the world through his Logos. For we believe also in his Son, and in a Holy Spirit, and in a multitude of angels". I am anxious that you should not be carried away by the prevalent prejudice against us, and therefore I wish to give an accurate account of our- selves. If you consider the precepts which we follow, you will see that we are not atheists. " Love your enemies," and suchlike, are our commands. We are not talkers, like the Sophists, but continually show good deeds P. If we did not '' c- 4- • ' c. 5. k c. 6. ' c. 7. '" c. 8. " Exod. XX. 2, 3 ; Isaiah xliv. 6, xliii. 10, 11. — c. 9. ° c. 10. 1> c. II. VI.] ATHENAGORAS. 127 believe that God presided over the world, how could we be thus pure in soul ? We believe that we must render an account to God of the whole of this life, and we act accord- ingly. How then can we be regarded as imj)ious ^ ? Since many, however, accuse us because we do not sacrifice to the gods nor worship the same gods as the various states, I shall reply to them. God does not need sacrifice. He -wishes rational service"^. Those who accuse us of atheism because we do not worship the same gods as the states, do not agree themselves in regard to the gods. One state worships one god, another another ; and thus all states would be impious, for they do not w^orship the same gods''. But suppose they did worship the same gods, why should we be branded as atheists because we can distinguish between God and matter while the}' cannot? When we praise any excellence in a vessel, it is the maker of the vessel whom we really praise. So God is the maker of the w^orld j and it is absm-d to wor- ship forms of matter instead of Him*. The world indeed is beautiful ; but we do not worship it, but its maker. So a subject does not neglect his emperor and bestow all his attention on the palace ; but he admires the palace and honours the emperor. Plato bears witness to this ; for he speaks of the heavens and the world as capable of change, and therefore they cannot be worshipped as gods'*. The names of the gods also and their images are of recent origin. Herodotus says that Hesiod and Homer made the Greek theology and gave names to the gods. And the idols or statues of the gods are of so recent an origin that we can tell the names of every one of the makers -^. Some reply to iis that the images are not the gods, but are made only in honour of the gods. We shall therefore examine what is said of the gods themselves. Now it is agreed on by all in regard to each of them that he came into existence, Homer and Orpheus distinctly asserting their origin^'. If they had an origin, then they are perishable. Both the Platonic school 1 c. I?. 'CIS. ' c. 14. « c. 15. " C. 16. '^ C. 17. > C. 18. 128 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. and the Stoics acknowledge this. Besides, nothing* can take place without a cause, and the cause exists before the effect. Therefore there was an artist anterior to the water out of which the gods are said to have arisen z. Moreover, the shapes attributed to the gods and the stories that are related of them are highly dishonouring to the divine character, and indeed prove that they are not gods^. Even if poets were to affirm merely that the gods had flesh and fleshly desires, we should be bound to look on the opinion as nonsense. Suppose they were of flesh, yet they ought to be superior to anger and passion. Yet Homer represents Athena scowl- ing at her father, Hera as not restraining her anger, Zeus as bewailing Sarpedon and unable to save him. Then Homer makes Aphrodite be wounded, and Ares mad and an adulterer ; Aphrodite falls in love with Anchises, and Zeus is the victim of many loves'". But perhaps all this is mere poetic vagary and there is a natural explanation of the statements. But if Zeus be fire, and some other gods the other elements, then they are not gods. Or whatever other explanation be given, it reduces the gods to material things, and thus destroys their divinity. To the Stoics we submit this argument. If ye believe God to be uncreated, and eternal, and that the spirit of God which passes through matter receives names according to the differences in the matter, then we affirm that the forms of matter which constitute the bodies of the gods will be destroyed in the general conflagration. But who would be- lieve that those whose bodies are destructible are gods" ? But how, you may say, do some idols exhibit energies, if those in whose honour they are placed are not gods ? We do not deny that wonderful works are sometimes done in the name of idols. But who are those who produce these re- sults we know very well. In my attempt to show who they are, and that they are not gods, I shall appeal first to philosophers. Thales divides into God, demons, and heroes ; Plato into the uncreated God, and into those produced by the uncreated one for the ornament of heaven, namely, the ' C. 19. » C. 20. '• O. 2 1. "^ C. 22. VI.] ATHENAGORAS. 120 planets and fixed stars, and into demons. Plato says that it is a task too great for him to describe the origin of the demons. He cannot mean that he really could not describe their origin. But since he believed that gods could not beget and be begotten, and since he had at the same time to deal with those who accepted the common traditions without question, he thus spoke, though he believed in one uncreated God^. I need not adduce any more testimonies. The poets and philosoj)hers acknowledge one god ; some of them thought of the common deities as if they were demons, some as if they were matter, and some as if they had been men. So we s]3eak of God, yet at the same time believe that there are other powers concerned about matter, one of them directly opposing itself to the goodness of God, though he was created by God, The angels were to have special departments of the providence of God. Some of them neglected their duty, and from their intercourse with women were begotten the giants or demons ^. The apparent disturliances which these evil angels and demons produce in the government of the world have led some men, such as Euripides and Aristotle, to doubt if there be a Providence at all. There is, however, nothing disorderly or neglected in the constitution of the world^. It is the demons that drag men to the idols; but the gods that please the multitude were originally men. The nature of the activity is proof that it is the demons who act, for they urge men to deeds which are contrary to nature, such as mutilation of the pex'son. And that it is their activity is further proved by the circumstance that it displays itself even in the case of statues made in honour of persons alive or recently dead, as of Neryllinus, Alexander, and Proteus S. When a soul is tender and unacquainted with the truth, it is apt to form false notions ; then the demons, who are concerned about matter, take advantage of these false notions, and make appearances flow into the souls as if from the idols. But when the soul has a rational motion either pointing out the future or healing * c. 1^. " c. 24. ^ c. 35. ^ c. 26. VOL. III. m 130 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. the present, the demons take the g-loiy of this^. I shall say a few words with reg-ard to the names. Herodotus and Alexander the son of Philip assert that the Egyptian priests told them that the g-ods were originally men. Herodotus, moreover, mentions their sufferings and their tombs'. The Greek poets assei't of Heracles and Asklepios that they were subject to human passions and were men, but were after- wards made gods. There is no need to mention the like of Castor and Pollux, luo and Melicertes^. The Sibyl asserts that most gods were originally rulers in earth, while some were made gods on account of their strength or their art. Antinous also was reckoned a god on account of the kindness which your ancestors showed to their subjects. The poets, the historians of the gods, mention their origin and their tombs. They were men therefore. I have thus shown then, as well as I could, though not so well as the matter might have been treated, that we are not atheists, for we regard as God the maker of the universe, and the Logos which pro- ceeds from Him'. I shall now refute the other accusations which have been made against us. By a divine law wickedness is ever fighting against virtue. Thus Socrates was condemned to death, and thus are stories got up against us. But these stories will appear to any one incredible if he remembers that we regulate our lives according to God, and that we believe in a future life, in which the good will be eternally blessed™. It is not, however, wonderful that they should get up similar stories of us as those which they tell of their gods. We, however, are so far from committing the excesses of which we are accused that we are not permitted to lust after a woman in thought. Our law indeed compels us to keep the measure of righteous- ness. We therefore speak of the young as sons and daugh- ters, we call others brothers and sisters, and we give to the aged the honour of fathers and mothers. Since we love them so much, we make it a matter of great care that their bodies " <■•■ 27. i c. 28. y c. 29. VI.] ATHENAGOEAS. 131 be kept uncorrupted". We are so particular on this point that we either do not many at all, or we marry for the sake of children, and only once in the course of our lifeo. And who are they who accuse us ? Have they not wrought all iniquity themselves, and attributed like excesses to their gods ? They really eat human flesh when they do violence to men who wish not only to be just but to be good and patient of evil p. No sensible man would accuse us of eating human flesh if he knew our character. Those who eat human flesh would first have to kill. No one has ever ventured to say that he has seen us kill anyone. On the contrary we refuse to visit the gladiatorial fights. We pronounce it wrong to procure abortion or to expose a child q. Who, moreover, who believes in a resurrection would convert himself into the tomb of those who are to rise again ? As also we believe that we shall render to God an account of every deed, it is not reasonable that we should fall into the slightest sin. If any one deems the doctrine of a resurrection nonsense, we say to him that we injure no one by our belief in it; at the utmost we but deceive ourselves. It is beyond my purpose to show that even many of the philosophers believed in a resur- rection"*. We are very loyal to you, and therefore we expect that we shall obtain from you our request, as we have proved that the accusations are false, and that we are pious and gentle s. ABSTRACT OF THE TREATISE ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. Beside every truth there gi'ows up a falsehood, which is the work of those who desire to corrupt the truth. This fact is proved by the great diversity of opinion which has prevailed among ancient and modern speculators. Hence in dealing with a subject there are two natural divisions, one in regard to (TTfpi) the truth, and the other in defence of {virip) the truth. That in defence of the truth is addressed to those " c. 32. " c. 3.S. V c. 34. •1 C. 35. r C. 36. * C. 37. K 2 132 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. who disbelieve or doubt, and naturally follows that in reg-ard to the truth, which suits those who are willing" to receive the truth. But in many cases it is best first to refute objections before stating" the positive reasons for our belief; a mode of procedure which we shall adopt in the present treatise ^. Disbelief oug-ht not to be unreasonable. Therefore those who doubt or deny a resurrection must either maintain that the creation of man took place without a cause (a position easily refuted), or, if they assign the creation to God, they must show that there is ground to deny a resurrection, in harmony with this fact. Now a resurrection can be denied, with this fact in view, only on two suppositions — either that God is un- able to accomplish it, or that he cannot wisli it. Incapability of accomplishment either arises from not knowing what is to be done, or from not having power at all or sufficient power to execute what is wished. But it is impossible for God to be ignorant of the nature of the body or the place to which the dissolved parts of it may go, because He was able to know them before tliey came into existence; and it is greater to know things uncreated than things created «. Then the act of creation is sufficient to prove God^s power. For no greater power is required to bring the scattered parts of a body into one than originally to make it ; whether we suppose that it was formed out of matter, or from the elements, or from seed'^. Some indeed, admired for their wisdom, have given their assent to the doubts entertained among the many, which are based on the following circumstance. Many bodies, they say, are devoured by fishes or by wild beasts, and thus become united with their ])odies. Some of these fishes and beasts are used to nourish men, and thus parts of the bodies of men pass through the animals into the bodies of other men. Moreover they appeal to cases where in the time of famine children have been eaten. Those parts which have successively been in different bodies, can in the resurrection only Ijc in one, and therefore the other body cannot riseY. ' «• I- " c. 2. » c. 3. > C. 4. VI.] ATHENAGORAS. 133 Now, in reply, I say, first, that these persons do not seem to me to know the power and wisdom of Him who fashioned and ordered this universe, and who has adapted a special kind of nourishment for each kind of animal. For it is only true cong-enial nourislini6r b which enters into the composition of the parts. Foreign elements are vomited or passed throiig-h ; some of them without the slightest change. Some undergo a change {irexj/Lv, cooking, digestion) in the stomach, and thereby lose their nutritive power. Some undergo a second change in the liver, and by this second change are converted into innutritive substance ; and even after the nourishment has entered into the parts of the body, it may be rejected on account of some redundance which is wont to corrupt or turn to itself that which comes near it^. Only that which passes through the triple purification deserves the name of nourishment ; for it, there is no doubt, really coalesces with the noilrished body. But other substances are either de- stroyed, or, if their power is greatei', are themselves destruc- tive, and turn into corrupt humours. The proof of this is that pain and even death arise from such food. Hence it is plain that none of those things which are contrary to nature would ever be united to the body ». But suppose one were to grant that the nourishment coming from these things (we shall use the common mode of speech, and call it nourishment), even though it is unnatural, yet is separated and changes into one of the moist, or dry, or warm, or cold substances'', yet no advantage will be gained from the con- cession ; for none of these forms a real part of the body, for they do not remain always, and neither blood, phlegm, bile, nor breath {Tivsvfxa) contribute anything to life. Then the nourished bodies will not require in the resurrection those things which they once needed. And, again, even if we sup- pose that the change advances even as far as flesh, there is no reason to suppose that this newly-made flesh will ^ c. 5. * c. 6. '' eV Tt Twv vypaifdrrocv fj ^ripaiv 6 i'Touy : ' some one of those tilings whicli are moist or Jry,' &c. 134 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. constitute a real and permanent part of the boclj^, since the flesh which receives it does not always retain what it receives, and the flesh which is received is subject to many changes, sometimes scattered by toils and cares, sometimes made to pine away by disease. Especially subject to such changes would be flesh nourished from uncongenial elements, being sometimes swollen out, and sometimes rejecting everything in every way and becoming less and less. I have thus shown that bodies of men are not proper nourishment for men, and then I have supposed that human flesh might become nourishment, and on this supposition I have proved it to be untrue that human bodies would ever form real parts of bodies of the same nature c. But what need is there of bodies which were never designed for nourishment? If any one maintained that the human flesh was intended for food, he would be compelled also to allow that murder was natural. If human flesh then is unnatural nourishment, it could never ultimately form a real part or portion of another human body ; and thus all the parts of the one body, whatever may have become of them in this world, will be reunited in harmony in the resurrection''. Since there are many other topics in connexion with this subject, I have merely a remark for those who take refuge in an analogy between the works of men and those of God. A potter, they say, cannot renew a vessel that has been broken or destroyed, so God cannot raise, and cannot wish to raise, a body that has suffered death. But such a comparison is insulting to God in the highest degree ; and it would have been much truer to have maintained that what was impossible with man was possible with God©. The other objection to the resurrection is based on God's incapability of wishing it (d/SovArjroi-). Now his incapability of wishing it would arise from two causes ; either because a resurrection is unjust, or because it is unworthy of Him. The injustice of the resurrection would relate either to the person destined to rise, or to some other. But no spiritual *-■ c- 7- ■' c. 8. « c. 9. VI.] AT HEN AGORA S. 135 nature (at vo-qToL (pvafts) would be injured, for the resurrec- tion of man could form no impediment to their existence. Nor would irrational beings be injured, for they will not exist after the resurrection ; and no injury can be done to what is not. But suppose they were to exist, they would be in a better, not in a worse state, after nian^s resun'ection, being- freed from every bondage. Besides, having no sense of justice they can have no sense of injustice. Nor is injustice done to the person aboiit to rise, for he consists of soul and body. Now no injustice is done to the soul, for if no in- justice is done to it while it dwells in a corruptible body, much less will there be injustice when it lives along with an incorruptible. Nor is injustice done to the body; for if no injustice is done while it is united corruptible with an incorruptible, much less will injustice be done when it shall be united incorruptible with incorruptible. Nor is it unworthy of God to raise the body ; for if it was not un- worthy of God to make a corruptible body, much less is it unworthy of Him to raise one which is incorruptible and free from suffering f. There is, moreover, a mutual connexion between God^s capability of accomplishment with his capability of willing ; for God can will anything that He can do, and can do what He can will. We have already spoken of the arguments in defence of the truth, and those in regard to it. We now proceed to those in regard to the truth, and shall show that the doctrine of a resurrection is true from the cause according to which and on account of which the first man came into being, and those after him, though they came in a different way, and also from the common nature of all men as men, and from the judgment of men by their maker s. First, as to the reason of man's creation. Man might be made for no reason at all, or for the use of some one, or simply for life itself. But God, as being wise, makes nothing in vain. He did not make him for his own use, as He 136 THE ArOLOGISrS. [Chap. is in need of nothing-. He did not make him for the use of superior beings^ as they are immortal^ and do not require any contribution from men to their existence. He did not make him to serve the irrational beings, for irrational must ever be subject to the rational. Man therefore, according to the only reason that remains, must have been made for life, and this life accordingly is not one that is kindled for a while and then completely extinguished. But to those who bear his own image God has given an eternal permanence, that following his law they might live free from pain in the exercise of those virtues by which, while in corruptible bodies, they strengthened their life. Being made to live they can never cease to be, since they perform the only end of their existence by living, according to their nature; the soul re- maining equably in the natm"e in which it was created, and the body being moved to its natural operations, and receiving the natural changes, the last of which is the re- surrection'". Confident in these things we are content with the present life, notwithstanding its neediness and corruption, and we have an assured hope of a continuance of life in incorruption. For if the maker of this universe created man to partake of a wise life, and to continue in a contemplation of God^s greatness, then the cause of his creation guarantees his continuance, and his continuance a resurrection'. We shall now prove a resurrection from the nature of man. But we may remark in passing that truth is demonstrated either by primary facts or by what follows from them. We ought to observe the natural order which there is in argu- ments. In the present case we naturally consider first the cause of the creation of man, that is, the intention which the Creator had in making man, and then to connect closely with this the nature of the men created, not as being second in order, but simply because it is impossible to discuss two sub- jects at once. After we have proved the resurrection from these two which are primary facts, we should then adduce the ' c. i.^. VI.] ATHENAGORAS. 137 arguments from providence, or, in other words, from a final judg-ment. Many lay the entire stress of the argument on this last point, thinking that the cause of a resurrection is the judgment. But they are unquestionably wrong : for in this case those who havs done neither right nor wrong, namely young childr-a, £ :ci who therefore do not require to he judged, M^ould not rise again. But they do rise again, and are thus proofs that the resurrection takes place on account of the intention of the Creator and the nature of the created k. Man is composed of an immortal soul and a body suited to it at creation. God has assigned life not to the soul by itself, nor to the body by itself, but to men composed of these. The being is one who suffers alike the sufferings of the soul and the body, and does that which requii*es the services both of the senses and the reason, and the endA to all these must be one. But it can be one only if the being is the same in constitution. • And it is the same only if all its real parts are the same. But the parts will be properly united only if the parts that have been dissolved be again united in the compo- sition of the being. Therefore the constitution of the same men proves a resurrection of the bodies that have become dead and been dissolved. Moreover, if reason has been given to men, not merely to distinguish existences, but also to ob- serve the goodness and wisdom of God, then the rational judgment must exist as long as the things which it was to judge exist. But it cannot continue to exist unless the nature in which it is continues. Now it is man, not soul by itself, that received reason. Therefore man must continue for ever composed of both soul and body. But he cannot continue as man unless there be a resurrection. And if the nature of man does not continue, in vain has the soul been matched to the poverty of the body, and the body reined in by the soul. In vain is the practice of virtue, and the creation and nature of man is vanity. But vanity is not ^ c. 14. ' The TfAos here seems to mean ' the ultimate and final state in which the beiufr is to exist.' \3S THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. known in God^s works ; and therefore the body will remain with the unending soul"'. Let no one be surprised that we g-ive the name of continuance to a life which is broken off by death and corruption. For the force of the words depends on the natures to which it is applied. In the case of those who are purely incorruptible the continuance is un- interrupted. But men were made with incorruptible souls but corruptible bodies^ which however are to receive incor- ruption from a change ; and therefore we expect the bodies as being corruptible to be dissolved, and at the same time we hope for a resurrection when they shall be changed into incorruptible. The same break of life we see in our daily life. For in sleep there is then a relaxation of the senses and natural powers, and yet we do not refuse to call it life. Why then should we despair of that life which fol- lows the dissolution, even though it be interrupted for some time by a separation of the soul from the body" ? The nature of man, then, has by the intention of the Creator to undergo a variety of changes. Who could foresee in the seed the powers which are ultimately developed ? In childhood there is no appearance of those things which arise in the full- grown man, and so in the full-grown man there is nothing to intimate the decay of powers, nor in the decay of powers is there an indication of the dissolution of the body. Yet these things all follow by a natural sequence, and this se- quence leads us to believe in a resurrection*'. The arguments hitherto adduced are all of the same sort, for they are all based on the primary fact, the creation of man. We shall now discuss the arguments derived from the honour or the punishment due to each man according to a just judgment, and from the end of human life. First, then, of the argument from the judgment. As preliminary we remark that those who regard God as the maker of the universe must according to their principles believe that his care extends over all and each of his works. Now man, as '" c- ii>- " c. i6. , " c. 17. VI.] ATHENAGORAS. 139 needy, requires nourishment to sustain his life ; as mortal, he requires succession to continue the race ; and as rational, he requires justice on account of the law of nourishment and succession P. Now nourishment and succession have reference to man as composed of body and soul, and there- fore man as composed of body and soul is responsible for the deeds. Moreover, it would be unfair to judge the soul alone or the body alone for the deeds in which both have taken an active part together. Now this judgment does not take place in this world. The bad sometimes continue to the end untried by evils, while the good are often afflicted and tormented. This judgment cannot take place immediately after death : for the parts of the body are then dissolved and scattered. There must, therefore, be a resurrection when this mortal, in the words of the apostle, shall put on immortality, and each shall receive the things which he has done in the body, whether they be good or badl. To those who doubt a providence, we should have to dis- cuss the previous question, whether God entirely overlooks the life of man or whether He superintends his own creatures. If there is no judgment, then men have no advantage over the brutes, virtue is nonsense, the threat of judgment utterly ridiculous, and the common law for all is, '' Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." The end of such a life is absolute insensibility. But if God does care for his creatures, then there must be a distinction between the good and the bad. We have shown that it does not take place in the present life. We can only draw attention to the additional circumstance that a mortal body could not bear the punish- ment due to some of those wretches who have slain many people, and plundered, and robbed, and tyrannized over nations. Nor after death can full justice be given''. For death is p 5ja TO evi/ofx-ov. Athenagoras seems to mean, as the scholiast remarks, that a certain kind of nourishment is right, and another kind wrong, as, for instance, eating of human flesh is forbidden. So the succession may be pro- duced lawfully by marriage, unlawfully by unholy marriages or otherwise. 1 c. iS. >• c. 19. 140 THE APOLOGISTS. [Ciiap. either an entire extinction of life^ or the soul remains by itself indissoluble when the body is dissoluble. But if death be the extinction of life, then there is no judgment, a swarm of absurdities — and their head and fount, atheism — beset us on every hand. Again, if the soul remains alone incorruptible, then the judgment will not be just, for it was not the soul by itself that did the deeds to be judged, but man^ If, on the one hand, right deeds are honoured, the body will plainly receive injustice if it share with the soul the toil and get none of the reward. If, on the other, sins are punished, injustice is done to the soul if it alone pay the penalty of deeds done by both soul and l)ody. The injustice is espe- cially evident in the case of those sins which are occasioned entirely by the existence of the body, such as lasciviousness, violence, and avarice*. Even virtue and vice cannot be con- ceived in the case of the soul by itself. Virtues or vices are the virtues or vices of the man, not of the soul apart from the body. For how could there be manliness or endurance in the soul by itself, seeing that it can have no fear of dissolution ? How could there be self-restraint, when there can be no desire for food, or sexual connexion, or the other pleasures and de- lights of this life ? So with other virtues. Is it not absurd, then, that the punishment of vices which cannot take place if the soul be alone and by itself should be laid on the soul alone" ? And it is most unreasonable of all to suppose that laws should be made for man, but that the consequences of obedience or disobedience should fall on the souls alone. Man, not his soul alone, receives the law ; therefore man, not his soul alone, ought to receive the praise or the punishment. God did not tell the soul alone to refrain from adultery, murder, theft, robbery, and disgraceful conduct to parents. The command, " Honour thy father and mother," is not suitable to souls alone : for it is not soul-begetting souls that appropriate the names of father and mother, but men-beget- ting men. So also the vices of adulterv, theft, and suchlike, VL] ATHENAGORAS. 141 are not possible if the soul be by itself alone. What I have now said will suffice. I have given the principal arguments. To those who wish to go more minutely into the matter I leave its more complete discussion". The only part of our discussion that remains is the argu- ment from the end or final cause (re'Aos) of man. Each created thing must have a final cause peculiar to itself. Ac- cordingly the final cause of man must be different from that of the irrational animals. For it cannot be mere painlessness — for then man would share this with inanimate things — nor even the pleasures of the body, which is the final cause peculiar to brutes y. Nor can it be blessedness of the soul apart from the body : for we are considering now the final cause not of one or other of the constituents of man, but of man himself composed both of soul and body. But if there is a final cause of man thus composed, and if that final cause cannot be found while men live in this world for many reasons previously mentioned, and if it cannot be found in the separation of the soul from the body, then the final cause of man must appear in some other constitution of the same being in the same way composed. Hence there must be a resurrection. For the same men cannot exist after this life, unless the same bodies be given to the same souls. In the resurrection, then, appears the final cause suitable to the nature of man. For one would not be wrong in stating as the final cause of a being- endowed with thought and reason, an undistracted and uninterrupted spending of life in those things to which the natural reason is specially and primarily adapted, namely in the contemplation of Him who exists (jov ovTos) and unceasing delight in his decrees. The multitude of those who fail in reaching this final cause does not nullify the general design, since there is in each case a particular examination required as to the good or evil done. ^ c. 23. > c. 24. 142 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. V. THE THEOLOGY OF ATHENAGORAS. Qq(1^ — Atlienagoras devotes a considerable portion of his defence of Christians to setting forth the truth that they believed in one God. " Our doctrine {koyos) regards one God as the maker of this universe y/' He attempts to prove the unity of God by a peculiar and unsatisfactory process of reasoning. We present it here as eminently characteristic of the speculations of the age ; remarking only, that some parts of it are not very intelligible, and that the text has occasionally doubtful readings. " That, then, God the creator of this universe is one from the begin- ning, consider thus, that ye may have also the reasoning of our belief. If there were from the beginning two or more gods, then they would either be in one and the same place or each of them would be separately by himself. Now, then, they could not be in one and the same place ; for if they are gods, they are not like, but they are unlike, because they are uncreated : for created things are like their models ; but un- created are unlike, since they have not come into existence from any thing [or any one], or after the manner of any thing [or any one]. But what if God be one % just as hand, and eye, and foot are parts in relation to one body, making up together one person out of them ? Although Socrates, inasmuch as he is created and destructible, is compounded and divided into parts ; yet God is uncreated and incapable of suffering and division {a-nadrjs koL aStatperos), and is not therefore composed of parts. But if each of these gods is separately in his own place, since He who made the world is above the things which have come into being {twv yeyovoTcov, including men), and around the things which be made and put into order, where is the other god, or the rest of them ? For if the world, having been > c. 4, p. 5 C D. " The supposed objection seems to be : Perhaps there are more gods than one, all together making one god. VI.] ATHENAGORAS. 143 made spherical, has been shut in by circles of heaven, and the maker of the world is above the things that have come into being, directing it [the world] by forethought for them, what can be the place of the other god, or the rest of the gods ? For he is not in the world, since this belongs to the Creator, nor roimd about the world, for above it is the God the Creator of the world. But if he is neither in the world, nor round about the world, (for the entire space [to T:av\ round about the world is occupied by the Creator), where is he ? Above the world and God ? In another world, or round another world ? But if he is in another world, or round another, then he is no longer round about us, for he does not rule the world; nor is he himself great in power, for he is in a circumscribed place. But if he is neither in another world, for all things have been filled by the Creator ; nor round another world, for all things are occuj)ied by the Creator; then he does not exist, since there is no place in which he is. Or what does he do, if while there is another to whom the world belongs, he is himself above the maker of the world, and not either in the world or around the world? But is there anything else where he may stand? Above him is God, and the things of God. And what place will there be if the maker has filled all that is above the world ? Does he provide at all ? But assuredly he has done nothing if he does not provide. If, then, he neither does anything, nor provides, and there exists no other place in which he is, this God who is maker of the world is the one and only God from the beginning ^." It will be noticed that the argument here turns mainly on the belief that the notion of space is applicable to God — a belief which, as we have seen already, brought Justin Martyr into consideral^le diffi- culties. One of the propositions, that only created things can be like, is essentially Platonic. Athenagoras wisely re- marks at the conclusion of this proof of the divine unity, that if Christians had been content with such arguments, one » c. 8, pp. 8C-9C. 144 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. would suppose that their religion {rov Ka& Tjixas Xoyov) was human. It was the testimony of the prophets that rendered the doctrine of the divine unity a certainty ;, and Athenagoras proves it largely from the Old Testament b. Athenagoras asserts that God is unique in the most absolute sense. He denies even the possibility of a real antagonism to God Himself : for speaking of the devil, he says, " that if anything had opposed God it would cease to exist ^'," and he finds even in persecutions a divine law and reason ^. He asserts " that the uncreated God alone is eternal"^ {aihios ^) . In summing up his proofs that Chris- tians were not atheists, he says, " It has been satisfactorily shown that we are not atheists, since we recognise God as one, the uncreated, and eternal, and invisible ; free from all suffering, incomprehensible, and uncontainable (dxwp^jTos) ; comprehended only by mind and reason, surrounded with in- explicable light and beauty, and spirit and power, by whom the universe has been made through his Logos, and brought into order, and is now held together f." He furthermore describes the Divine Being " as incapable of death, of motion, or of alteration ^," and as always harmonious with Himself 1^. The Divine Being is also in every respect perfect and needs nothing. " For God Himself is everything to Himself; light inaccessible, a perfect world, spirit, power, reason"*^ [Koyos *) . " There is no wrath, nor lust, nor appetite, nor child-making seed in God,^"* he says, in discussing the mythology i : and therefore He does not need sacrifice, " being Himself the perfect fragrance, needing nothing either within or without Himself [avevhtr]^ koX airpoaberis) : but the greatest sacrifice to Him is if we know who stretched and rounded the heavens, and fixed the earth like a centre; who collected the water into seas, and separated the light from darkness ; who adorned the sky with stars, and made the earth send forth every seed ; who made the animals and fashioned man ^." ** c- 9- '' c. 24, p. 27 A. •' c. 3, p. 4 D ; c. 31, p. 35 A. ' c. 30, p. 34 C. f c. 10. p. 10 B. « c. 22, p. 23 D. ' c. 22. p. 23 A. ' c. 16, p. 15 C. j c. 21, p. 20 C. k c. 13, p. 13 B. VI. ] ATHEKAGORAS. 145 Atheiiagoras maintains the immateriality of God in the most positive lang-uage. " Is it not unreasonable/' he says, " to accuse of impiety us who distinguish G od from matter, and prove that matter is one thing and God another; and that the distance between them is great^ for the Divine Being is uncreated and eternal, seen by mind and reason alone; but matter is created and destructible i ?'' He says that Christians distinguish between the uncreated and the created, that which exists and that which does not exist "' ; that which is perceived by the mind and that which is perceived by the senses {to vorjTov koi to alaOrjrov ") . We learn, both from the context and from other passages, that he regarded God as a vorjToi', for he again and again states that God is comprehended or seen only by mind and reason. He states, as we have seen already, that God is indivisible ° and invisible p. And when he affirms that God is incomprehensible n, he probably means that God cannot be laid hold of by the physical touch r. As we have seen, however^ he believed that God filled the whole of sj^ace : but whether he felt any difficulty in reconciling this idea with God''s immateriality, we cannot now know. He expresses none. Athenag'oras does not mention the omnipotence of God in express terms, but in a passage already quoted he speaks of Him as surrounded with indescribable power *, and in his Treatise on the Resurrection, he asserts that God can do whatever He wishes *. Petavius imagined that Athenagoras also maintained that God wished whatever He could do : but, as we have noticed already, Athenagoras merely asserts that God co/(hl wish whatever He could do, and that the only reasons for his not being able to wish are that the thing* was either unjust or unworthy of Him. Athenagoras says little of the moral character of God. Several of the moral features of God have been noticed ' Apol. c. 4, p. 5 B. ""A Platonic distinction, rb ov koI rh ovk ov. " Apol. c. 15, p. I4 C. ° Ibid. c. 8. i" Ibid. c. lo. 'i Ilnd. '' Clarisse, p. 87. ' Apol. c. 10. ' De Iles.c. 11, p. 50 C. VOL. in. L 146 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. already; such as his freedom from ang-er and desire. Athe- nagoras lays special stress on the goodness of Godj just as Plato affirms the idea of goodness to be the highest. " The spirit concerned about matter/^ he says, " is opposed to the goodness of God (rw tov deov ayaOM), which is an attribute of his and exists along with Him, as colour in a body, without which He does not exist, not as if it were a part of Him, but as being* a necessary accompaniment, united and ingrained as yellow is in the fire, and blue in the ether*!.^' In another passage he says that " God, being perfectly good, is eternally g'ood-doing^^ {ayaOoTioios ^). As a necessary con- sequence of his moral and rational nature, He requires that in worshipping Him we should " lift up holy hands,^' and bring to Him the " bloodless sacrifice and rational service y." Many of the attributes of God make themselves apparent in creation and providence. Speaking of the antagonists of the resurrection he says, " Such seem to me to be ignorant of the power and wisdom of Him who fashioned and manages this univei'se ^." And in his arguments he assumes that '' vanity (to nuTaiov) has been driven away absolutely from all the works of God, and the gifts given by Him ^." We have already translated several of the passages in which God is spoken of as the creator and fashioner of the world t>. In none of these passages, however, is there a clear enunciation of the philosophical notion of a creation out of nothing. And the question has been considered a moot point whether Athe- nagoras believed in the eternity of matter or not. There are three passages which are appealed to as proof that he did regard matter as eternal. These three are as follows : — The Logos is described as " having come forth to be the idea and energy of all material things, which lay like a nature with- out quality, and like sluggish earth (aTTotou (f)V(Te(t>s koI ■yr}s axpetas f) , the thicker parts being mingled with the lighter ^." " Apol. c. 24, p. 7.7 A. " Ibid. c. 26, p. 29 D. > Ibid. c. 13, p. 13 C D. "^ Res. c. 5, p. 24 C : comp. ibid. c. 8, p. 48 C. « Res. c. I5,p. S7C; c. 12, p. 52 B. i- Apol. c. 4, p. 5 C; c. 13, p 13 EC. '■ axpfias is an emendation of Maranus for oxeias. * Apol.c. 10, p. 10 D. VI.] ATBENAGORAS. 14/ The second passage is : " But as clay Ijy itselt cannot become vessels without art, so the all-receiving (TraySeX^^) Dtiatter did not receive separation, and sha])e, and order, without God the fashioner ^." The third passage is as follows : " Matter re- quires an artist, and the artist requires matter ; or how would the impressions arise apart from matter or the artist ? Nor is it reasonable to believe that matter is older than God ; for the creative cause [to TToirjTtKov amov) must exist before the things that arise^'' {t&v yivoix&cov^.) In opposition to these passages it is urged that Athenagoras distinctly declares matter to be '^ created {y€vr]Ti]v) and destructible,'^ that he speaks of God as the Creator, as in the third passage quoted ; and that he is in the habit of accommodating his expressions to the current modes of philosophical thought. A closer examination of his mode of thought will show that he could scarcely have formed a definite opinion on the subject. His views of the creation are mainly based on the Timaeus. He holds throughout the Platonic distinction between real being and mere becoming. That which really exists is ayiv-qrov, incapable of becoming, remaining eternally the same. That which becomes or passes through a transitory stage of mere seeming does not exist. It is yevrjTov, 'capable only of be- coming.' But then tlie question occurs. What is this yevrjTov before it comes into appearance? Plato replies that there is matter underneath it. Athenagoras calls it, in language very like that of the Timaeus, vavbexh^ ^^^) ' inatter capable of all shapes and appearances.' Now this matter is a-noios. It has no qualities. It corresponds to the description of things in Genesis : " The earth was without form, and void." In philosophical language, matter is the incogitable. It is the negation of thought. And the work of the creator is to bring this incogitable into the cogitable. Matter thus be- comes, or comes into appearance. The only thing, therefore, which the Creator could do, is to make it become ; He could not create out of nothing : for it, even after its creation, is non- e Apol. c. 15, p. I4 D. f Ibid. c. 19, p. 19 B. L 2 148 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. existent. This is its essential character. Nor can it be said that the matter out of which it arises is eternal, because no assertion can be made with regard to that which cannot be thoug-ht. Athenagoras goes as far as he can when he asserts that the creator must exist before the thing which becomes. He could not reasonably make any assertion with regard to that thing before it became ; for then it could not be thought. The same fundamental doctrine as this appears in Plato, but with considerable modifications. The peculiarities of it arise from the circumstance that Plato identifies that which can be really known [vorjTov) with that which really exists. In harmony with the spirit of the Timseus, Athenagoras dwells largely on the beauty and regularity of the world ; and appeals to these in proof of the divine existence. " If/^ he says, " we were of the same mind as Diagoras, possessing as we do in the regularity, the universal harmony, the size, the colovir, the shape, the disposition of the world, so many pledges that bind us to piety, reasonably should the prevalent opinion of our impiety and the cause of our persecution attach themselves to us ^." In speaking of those who believe "that the world is tossed about by an irrational chance, he says that they are of this opinion, " not knowing that none of those things which relate to the constitution of the world is irregular or neglected, but each of them has taken place through reason (Ao'yw), wherefore they never transgress the order appointed for them^/^ Athenagoras again and again speaks of the providence of God. It is mentioned in the argument for the unity of God already quoted. He says that Christians regard " God the fashioner " as " holding together and superintending all things by knowledge {eTTia-Trnjnj) and arfi.''-' He affirms that " those who regard God as the creator of this universe, must assign the guardianship and providence of all the things that have arisen to his wisdom and righteousness, if they wish to abide by their own principles ; and holding 8 Apol. c. 4, p. 5 B C : see c. i6, p. 15 B C. ^ Ibid. c. 25, p.jzg A. ' Ibid. c. 13, p. 13 C. VI.] A THEN A GORA S. US) these sentiments they must believe that not one of those things that are on the earthy or in heaven, is undirected or unprovided for; but they must know that the care of the creator extends to everything-, invisible and visible alike, both small and great ^." God^s providence is directed in a special manner to man. " We know," he says, " that God superintends our thoughts and our sayings by day and hy night, and that He being entirely light, sees even the things which are in our heart ^.'' This superintendence of God is a reason why Christians should feel certainty in their hope of a future and better life™; and why they should purify their souls since they know that they will have to render an account of their deeds to God". While God has a general and universal super- intendence of the whole, parts of it are assigned to angels °. The Logos and the Spirit have also their share in the main- tenance of the world. The Logos and the SjnrU. — ^The doctrine of the Logos as presented by Athenagoras is the same substantially as that /" given by the other Apologists, but receives modifications from his Platonic philosophy. The Logos corresponds to the Platonic ideas, but is personal. Now the Logos must either be that which really exists, or that which comes into appear- ance. Athenagoras could not hold the latter alternative, and therefore he was compelled to bring before his mind the eternal existence of the Logos, and of the unity of Father and Son. In these two points Athenagoras is peculiar : he speaks of the Logos as a yevvqiJia when he goes forth to be the idea and energy of all material things ; but the Logos was eternally in God, just as the Platonic ideas were eternally L^ in the Divine mind before they mingled with matter and gave it intelligibility. So, again, as the Logos is in God, yet is God's reason, and therefore God Himself, in so far as one's reason is himself, God and the Logos are one. And in ^ Res. c. i8, p. 60 B C. ' Apol. c. 31, p. 35 C. "> Ibid. c. 31, p. 35 C. " Apol. c. 13, J). 12 A B. " Ibid. c. 24, p. 27 C. i:)0 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. one passage quoted already, God is said "to be spirit and reason to Himself/'' We couple the doctrine of tlie Logos and the Spirit together^ l:)ecause the principal statements in regard to them both occur in the same passages. The reader will observe that in the passages adduced here, as in those from the other Apologists, the writer passes from the common use of the words \6yos, ' reason/ and irv^vixa, ' spirit,^ to the hypostatizing, without himself being apparently con- scious of the transition. There are three principal passages relating to the Logos and the Spirit, and their relation to the Father. The first is : " For we recognise also a Son of God. Let no one deem laughable the opinion that there is a Son to God. For we do not entertain sentiments with regard to God, even the Father, or with regard to the Son, like those feigned by the poets, who display the gods as no whit better than men. But the Son of God is the Logos (reason) of the Father in idea and energy ; for according to Him and through Him all things were made [eyeVero], the Father and Son being one. But the Son being in the Father, and the Father in the Son, by the unity and power of spirit, the Son of God is the mind and reason {vov^ kol Ao'yos) of the Father.. Now if it should occur to you, on account of your exceedingly great intelligence, to inquire what is the meaning of the Son, I should say in few words that He is the first offspring to the Father, not as being created {ovx_ w? y^vojxivov) , (for from the beginning God, being eternal mind [vovs], had Himself in Himself the reason (Aoyos), being eternally reasonable (Ao- ytKo's) ,) but as having come forth to be the idea and energy of all material things which existed like a nature that has no quality, and useless earth, the thicker parts being mingled with the lighter. The prophetic spirit also agrees with what we now say, for he says, ' The Lord formed me the beginning of his ways to his works P.^ And assuredly we affirm that that p Prov. viii. 22. In oui' translation, " The Lord posses.-iied mc in thu begin- ning of his way before his works of old." VI.] ATHENAGORAS. 151 very Holy Spirit which acts on [to ivfpyovv) those who speak prophetically, is an effluence of God {a-noppoiav tov deov), Howing from and being again carried back, as a ray of the sun. Who, then, would not feel doubt if he heard those called atheists who speak of God the Father, and God the Son, and a Holy Spirit, and exhibit their power in unity, and their difference in rank m ?" The second passage is as follows : " But men who have come to reckon life in this world as of very little value, who are sent on towards the future simply by their knowing God and the Logos which is from Him ; by their knowing what is the unity of the Son in relation to the Father, what the communication {KoivavCa, ' sharing') of the Father in relation to the Son ; what the Spirit ; what the unity of all these, and the difference of them united, the Spirit, the Son, the Father '." The third passage is to the following effect : " For as we affirm that there is a God and a Sou, his Logos, and a Holy Spirit ; the Father, Son, and Spirit being united in respect of power ((cara hvvaixw), because the Son is the mind, reason, wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit an effluence as light from fire^." There is another passage referring only to the Logos : " As all things have been placed under you, father and son, who have received your kingdom from above ♦♦ * so all things have been subjected to one, namely, God, and the Logos which comes from Him, who is conceived by us as his Son inseparable'' {kv\ t(5 ^ew /cat rw irap' avrov Aoyw viw voov^iivto ajj-epCaTco '). A statement of a similar nature, though less distinct, is made in the assertion that Christians '^ reckon as God the creator of this universe, and the Logos which is from Him "." The explanations of Athenagoras in regard to the Trinity are not very full or satisfactory. Some points are clear; many points he has left entirely untouched. He states again •1 Apol. c. 10, pp. lo BCD, II A. ■■ Ibid. c. 12, p. 12 C D. « Apol. c. 24, p. 27 A. . ' Ibid. c. iS, p. 17 D. ' Ibid. u. 30, p. 34 D. 152 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. and again tlie unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He calls the Son God, as well as the Father, But he does not o'ive a clear explanation of how he maintained the nnity of God with the divinity of the Son. The nearest approximation is when he states that the three were united or made one in respect of power. The power which all exercised was the same, because the Log-os was the reason of God, and there- fore his power was God^s power ; and the Spirit was an efflu- ence from God, and therefore the power of the Spirit was also God^s power. Athenagoras" also intimates that the unity of Father and Son lay also in the unity and power of the Sjiirit. Some have attempted to translate the words irv^viia and bvvafxis difierently. They suppose that both words are expressions used to denote the divine existence. They translate the words Tr}v ev rfi evuxreL hvvaixiv, Hheir existence in unity ;^ and they translate kvorriTi koI bvvd[xei, irvevixaTos, ' in the unity and force of their divine existence." But there are strong objections to this translation of bvvaiiis and irvevixa. There is no proof that hvvajxi^ anywhere means simply exist- ence apart from the force or activity usually implied in the word. When force is taken as an index of the being or nature, then bvvaixis may be translated ' being ;■' but in neither of the passages in which hvvaixis is used by Athe- nagoras can it have any such meaning*. Besides, the idea of force is a less distinct idea than that of being, and would occur to the human mind before the more exact idea of essence or being : and therefore we should commit a great mistake if we were to take the more exact idea as equivalent o the more indefinite. Moreover, in the passage before us, we should have expected " unity in the power or being,"'' and not " power in the unity."" And in the other passage, where Father, Son, and Spirit are said to be united in respect of power, the reason assigned for this assertion, namely, that the Logos and the Spirit are God"s reason and spirit, is not a satisfactory reason. We think, therefore, that in the pas-, sage before us, " power in unity "" means, that owing to the connexion between God and his Son as his reason, and his VI.] ATHENAGORAS. 153 Spirit as his effluence, the power of God is at the command of the Son and the Spirit. The same objections lie against the translation of Trvevfxa, that it is more definite than the term itself. Athenagoras seems to mean in the expi*ession quoted, that the Father and Son are one in that they possess one and the same spirit, and have the control over that spirit. We shall, it seems to me, best understand the whole doctrine if we throw ourselves into the position of Athenag-oras. He looks on the Son of God as God^s reason. He hyi^ostatizes what we in our day should unquestionably make a faculty. Now the reason of God is eternally in Him, and therefore is eternal. What the reason of God advises to be done, God will do. Therefore the whole power of God is at the com- mand of his Reason or Logos. God communicates his power to his Reason, and everything* that is subject to the Father is subject to the Son. Father and Son in this point of view are inseparable. But the reason of God being God^s pos- session, all the power which the Reason has is God^s, and thus there is unity. But at the same time there must be a difference in rank, the Son and the Spirit being both under the conti'ol of the Father, and deriving their power from Him. The Reason went forth to be the idea and energy of all material things ; that is, in our language, the order and harmony of creation are the results of God^'s thought. Athenagoras, however, has an especial reference to the ideas of Plato, and also to the doctrine of the intelligible or noetic world in the Timceus. The model of this world is in the Timaeus the unseen, eternally-existent, ideal world, perceived only by the mind. According to Athenagoras the model or idea is the Logos. But not only is He the exemplar, but it is through his constant acti^dty (eyepyeta) that the world is maintained in its state of intelligibility, that is, in our lan- guage, of order and harmony; just as Plato says that the creator produces in a created object the idea and force of the eternal exemplar''. The other passages in which Athena- '^ Tim. p. 28 A. 154 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. goras refers to the Logos relate to his activity in creation. It is said oftener than onee^ that God made all things through the Logos which proceeds from HimX, "By whom^^ [Grod], he says in a passage already quoted^ " the universe has been made through his Logos, and has been put in order^ and is held together z." There has been much useless discussion as to whether yJ Athenagoras favoured Arianism, or Sabellianism^ or some such later theory a. His position^ as we have explained, belongs peculiarly to his age, but is modified by his Platonic reading. He diifers from his contemporaries more in his silence than in his express statements. He does not say that the Father and Son were one, in that the Son^s divinity was derived from the Father^s. He seems to have avoided this mode of representation. But he unquestionably adopts this very mode when he speaks of the Spirit. The analogy by which he realizes the unity of Father and Spirit is a purely material one. Athenagoras also adopts the common expression yivvrjixa applied to the Son ; but he makes no reference to the Son being begotten, and in using the word TTpoepx^o'OaL seems to avoid the more common expression. His philosophy brought before him the necessity of the eternity of the Son^'. Athenagoras does not once introduce the name of Jesus Christ into his works. We have, therefore, no means of knowing what connexion he thought subsisted between the Logos and the human Jesus. There may possibly be an allusion to his incarnation in the following j^assage, where he is discussing' the earthly appearances of the Homeric gods : " Even if a god should take upon him flesh according to a divine economy, is he then a slave of lust<^?^' Athenagoras quotes the words of Christ several times. We shall notice the passages afterwards. y Apol. c. 4, p. 5 C ; c. 6, p. 7 A. ^ Ibid. c. lo, p. lo B. " See Clarisse, pp. 94-100. '' See Dorner, Die Lehre von der Person t'liristi, vol. i. p. 440. His reason for tills 'advance,' however, is utterly unsatisfactory. ^ Apol. c. 21, p. 21 P. VI.] ATHENAGORAS. Uo The Spirit. — In Athenagoras the Spirit is nowhere called y^ God. The words used to convey his notion of the Spirit are also purely material. He is " an effluence^ flowing^ from and returning as a ray of the sun •/' " as light from fire/^ There is no reason to doubt that Athenagoras looked on the Spirit as a being, not as a mere power, though the expressions which he uses are the very expressions which Justin con- demns in his opposition to the emanation theory. Athena- goras, like the other Christians, had not had his attention called to the doctrine of the Spirit, In harmony at once with tradition and the idea involved in the Spirit as the Spirit of God, he does not call him God, and in harmony with the practice of the age he compares Him to material things without being conscious of the fatal mistake that lurks in the comparison. He assigns to the Spirit the maintenance of the world. " All things are held together by the Spirit which is from Him [God]^.^'' In another passage he speaks of the world being guided by the Spirit of God as a chariot is guided by a charioteer e. Perhaps the phraseology here is modified by the train of thought in the context, where the corre- spondence of the idea of Zeus to that of the true God in the ancient poets is brought out. These passages show how inde- finite Athenagoras''s notions of the Spirit were : for the very same function of preserving the world is assigned to the Logos. Athenagoras also attributes the inspiration of the prophets to the Spirit. The Spirit is consequently called the prophetic Spirit, as well as the divine Spirit and the Holy Spirit. The passages will be quoted afterwards. Angels. — After appealing to the belief of Christians in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as proof that they were not atheists, Athenagoras adds : "And not in these alone does the theological portion of our beliefs consist : but we also affirm that there is a multitude of angels and servants, whom God •' Apol. c. 6, p. 7 A. . <= Ibid. c. 5, p. 6 A. i:.6 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. the creator and fashioner of the world has distributed and arranged by means of the Logos which is from Him, to be occupied about the elements, and heavens, and the world, and the things that are in it, and their regularity ^^^ The words 'and servants' are generally considered as explana- tory of angels. The angels are the servants of God. The clause at the commencement has been considered to imply the worship of angels : but it really means no more than that angels Avere supernatural beings. The to QeoXoyLKov fjiepos, the theologic side of Christianity, includes belief in all those beings who are superior to man ; and who are therefore likely to inspire him with awe. In the Treatise on the Re- surrection Athenagoras seems to designate the angels " na- tures perceptible by mind only*' {vorjTol c^weisg). He is showing that no injury could be done to any one by a resurrection, and affirms that none could be done to the vorjToX cfivaets, and none to the irrational creation. He styles the vorjTol ffyva-eis in another place'^ as those who are " purely indestructible and immortal,"' and as " having been from the beginning immortal, and abiding without end solely by the will of Him that made them." It is need- less to point out how entirely Platonic the classification and language are. The influence of the Timaeus is seen also in the work which is assig'ued to them, the particular care of certain parts of the universe. Athenagoras states their work more precisely in a long passage in which he mentions the fall of some of them, and the antagonism especially of one to the goodness of Grod. We shall quote the passage fully, and now merely draw attention to the circumstance that Athenagoras claims prophetic authority for his statements. '' We have come to believe,'' he says, "that there are also other powers engaged about matter and acting by means of it ; especially that there is one opposed to God. We do not, indeed, affirm that there really does exist anything in opposition to God, as discord f Apol. c. 10, J). 1 1 A. K De Res. c. lo, p. 49 C. ^ De Res. c. 16, p. 57 D. VI.] ATHENAGORAS. 157 opposes friendship, according to Empedoeles, and nii>-ht day according" to the appearances in the sky, for if anything were really to stand, up against God it would cease to exist, since its constitution would be dissolved hy the power and strength of God ; but we say that the spirit which is engaged about matter is contrary to the goodness of God » * » » though he was made l)y God, as the other angels were made by Him, and entrusted with the man- agement of matter and its forms. For this is the consti- tution of angels, that they should exercise providence for God over the things which He has brought into order, that God may have the universal and general providence of the whole, while angels are appointed, over particular parts of it. Just, then, as in the case of men who have both virtue and vice in their own choice (since you would not honour the good nor punish the wicked, unless both vice and virtue were in their power, and some are found trust- worthy in that which you entrust to them, and some un- faithful), so it is with angels. For some, with the freewill with which they were made by God, remained in charge of those things over which God had made and appointed them, while others acted insolently both in respect to the substance of their existence ' and in respect to their rule ; namely, he who was ruler of mt.tter, and the forms that are in it, and the others who are engaged about this first firmament. Know that we say nothing for wdiich we have not testimony, but that we are indicating that which has been proclaimed by the prophets. Those engaged about the first firmament fell into lust of virgins and were found incapable of resisting the charms of flesh, while the ruler of matter neglected his charge and became wicked in regard ' Tjj T17S ouffi'as vTToaTaffii koI rfj apxfj- The interpretations of this clause are various. Otto translates rrj ttjs oxxjias viroardafi, 'ob naturae suae conditionem,' and supposes that Atheuagoras refers to their fi-ee-will. I suppose that by the substance of their e.xistence is meant that which lay at the bottom of their genuine life. The love of women was totally in violation of this fundamental constitution ; thus they acted insolently in respect to it. 158 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. to the management of what had been entrusted to him. From those, then, who were enamom'ed of the virgins, those who are called giants were born'^.^' Of the wicked angels Athenagoras in the passage dis- tinguishes three classes — first, the ruler of matter or the devil, a name which he does not employ; second, the evil angels who fell in love with women ; and thirdly, the giants, their offspring. In speaking of the devil Athenagoras calls him a spirit. He takes the utmost care to prevent his readers from sup- posing that the devil stood on an equality with God. There is no opposition of being to being. The devil was made by God, and could be destroyed by God. He is opposed only to the goodness of God. " The ruler of matter,^'' he says in the following chapter', " manages and arranges things op- posed to the goodness of God, as you may see from those very things which happen.^'' Of the angels and demons he says, that " having fallen from the heavens and being engaged about air and earth they are no longer able to penetrate into heavenly things, and the souls of the giants are the demons who wander about the world. The demons stir up movements like the constitutions which they received, while the angels cause movements like the lusts which they ie\t^." Through these movements which take place in men and menu's affairs the devil, the wicked angels, and the demons cause people to renounce their belief in Providence. They, for instance, bring it about that men are sometimes prosperous contrary to jus- tice. " But since,''^ he says, in continuation of the subject, " the demonic movements and energies which proceed from the opposing spirit produce these disorderly impulses, moving men from within and from without, sometimes one way, sometimes another, individually and by nations, partially and generally, according to the proportion of their sympathy with matter and with divine things ; on account of this some, '' Apol. c. 24, p. 27. ' Ibid. c. -25, p. 28 B. "' Apol. c. 25, p. 28 A B. VI.] ATIIENAGORAS. 159 whose reputations are not mean, have thought that it is not l)y order that this universe exists together, but that it is driven about by an unreasoning chance"/^ These demons stand beside the blood of victims and lick them, and while the gods were originally men, the demons usurp their names, as may be inferred from the actions of the gods". They attack tender souls who are easily deceived, and make them believe that appearances come from the idols, and that the intimations of futurity which lie hid in their own immortal souls are the results of idol worship P. It is noteworthy that Athenagoras connects his notions of the demons with the speculations of the Greek philosophers, and their division of the supernatural beings into " God, baiixoves, and heroes/^ He attributes this division to Thales, but lays especial stress on Plato^s teaching with regard to these baCjjLOves'i. Man. — The doctrine of Athenagoras with regard to man differs essentially from that of his contemporaries in respect to the soul. He regards the soul as purely spiritual, though its spirituality may be disturbed by its material tendencies. The -nv^vyia, or spirit of man, is not mentioned by Athenagoras. His whole teaching on this subject is Platonic. He states again and again that man was made by God, especially in treating of the purpose for which he was made and of his constitution. He asserts that "all men are of the same race {ojxoyevfTis) , as being sprung from the same commencement ; for their commencement was the origination of the first human beings by fashioning^' (e/c hrnxiovpyias^). He attributes the beauty of man to the creative power of God. Speaking of those who are guilty of licentiousness he says, with special reference to the body of man, " Dishonouring the beautiful creation of God. For beauty on earth is not self-made, but is sent forth by the hand and counsel of God^.''' Man is composed of soul and body. He is neither soul " Apol. c. 25, pp. 28 D, 29 A. " Ibid. c. 26, p. 29 BC. I' Apol. c. 27, pp. 30 C D, 31 A. "I Ibid. c. 23, p. 25 BC. ■• Res. c. 1 8, p. 59 D. » Apol. c. 34, p. 37 C. 160 TEE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. nor body^ but both combined. This doctrine is a prominent feature in the Treatise on the Resurrection, as may be seen from the Abstract. The soul, indeed, is the principal and immortal part; yet the body is not to be despised. It was made to be corruptible in this life. But death is a natural termination to this its corruptible state, and it then passes into a state of incorruption. These various statements will be proved by extracts. Athenagoras ag-ain and again states the constitution of man to be made up of soul and body. " He [i. e. man] is composed of soul and bodyt,"*^ he says, in showing that the resurrection can be no injustice to man ; and then he pro- ceeds to prove that no injury can be done to the immortal soul by being joined to an incorruptible body, if no injury was done it by being joined to a corruj^tible. " If,^^ he says in another argument, " the entire nature of man generally has its constitution from an immortal soul and a body which was by creation united to it"." And in another passage where he contrasts the nature of those who were purely incorruptible with the inferior nature o man, he goes on, " the one class having been from the beginning immortal, and continuing' so without end by the sole will of the Maker, while men have an unchangeable continuance in resj)ect to their soul from their creation, but receive incorruption in respect to the body only by a process of change"." The immortality of the soul is repeatedly aflirmed. There is nothing definite in Athenag^oras with regard to the origin of the sovil. He in one place says that it is not souls that beget souls, but men that beget menY; and from this state- ment it has been inferred that he did not believe that the soul of man was fashioned from another soul. But the in- ference is unfair. In one passage he seems to mention the Platonic doctrine of Reminiscence. " The dispute," he says, "either turns on first principles, and then there is need only of recollection which stirs up the natural concept, or t Res. c. to, p. 50 A. u Il)id. c. 15, p. 56 B. =' Res. c. 16, pp. 67 D, 58 A. > Ibid. c. 23. VI.] ATHENAGORAS. 161 in those thing's that naturally follow the first principles^." The vTrofivrjacs here, however, cannot be identified with the Platonic avd[xvr]cns ; for it might be reconciled with any philosophy of knowledge. The first or primary doctrines which he speaks of are those that directly concern nature, such as creation, while the ipva-LKT) evvoia, or ' natural notion,' is the concept of such a natural primary dogma. Death is the natural end to the body {to rfj (pvaei TrpoaijKov re'Aos^) . The soul is then separated from the body, and the particles of the body scattered^. But this dissolution of the body no more impairs the continuity of man's existence than sleep destroys the continuity of his earthly lifc^. The soul of man belongs to those things which he calls I'orjTa, ' perceptible only by mind."" He has some remarks on the relation of the I'o-qrd, ' intelligibles,' to the aladrjrd, ' sensibles,'' in the Apology •! ; but they are not easy to under- stand, and the text is doubtful. He tells the emperors that he does not think it prudent to dwell on certain topics, " speaking with regard to the intelligibles and sensibles, and their constitution, or proving- that bodiless things are older than bodies (o-cojuarcoy) , and intelligibles take the precedence of sensibles, though we meet with the sensibles first in experience; for bodies are formed from bodiless things by an addition in their composition of intelligibles, and sensibles are formed from intelligibles.'' He here seems to state the Platonic doctrine that matter becomes cognizable only by a participation of an idea ; that that which gives form and intelligibility to shapeless matter and makes it a body is a vorjTov or voiitcl. Athenagoras does not speak of any other part of man besides the soul and body. He says of his prospect of a future state, '^We shall remain, not as flesh, even though we have it, but as a heavenly spirit^'." And in another passage, which we shall afterwards quote more fully, he says ^ Ees. c. 14, p. 55 A. => Ibid. c. 15, p. 56 C. *" Ees. c. 18, p. 61 B. ' Ibid. c. 17, p. 58 D- d Apol. c. 36, p. 39 B C. ^ Ibid. c. 31, p. 35 D VOL. III. M 162 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. that the soul by partaking of the material spirit is " no longer pure spirit •'.''^ He could not therefore have supposed the spirit to be different from the soul, but to be descriptive of the state of the soul. One would have expected that Athenagoras would assign the reason and mental powers of man to the soul. This might be inferred from his dividing man into soul and body : for as they cannot belong to the body, they must belong to the soul. But strangely enough, he supposes that mind and rea- son belong to man, the compound of body and soul, and not to soul by itself. The notion of man as distinct from beasts is that of a being who is possessed of an immortal soul and the power of rational judgment?. Men are said "to act according to an implanted law and reason,^^ and to " use an intelligent life and justice "^.^^ But this law and reason are implanted not in the sovil by itself, but in man. " 1^," he says, " mind and reason {vov^ koL Ao'yos) have been given to man to distinguish intelligibles, not substances only, but also the good- ness, and wisdom, and justice of the giver, then the judgment which was given for this purpose must remain as long as those things I'emain on account of which the rational judg- ment has been given * * * Now, he who received mind and reason is man, not soul by itself*.^'' We may easily suppose, however, that Athenagoras was pressed into this representa- tion by his argument : for in the Apology he describes the soul as capable sometimes of seeing the truth, and even of giving hints of the future'*. And in the Treatise on the Resurrection he assigns to the soul a power of judging. Athenagoras in his discussion of the arguments for the Kesurrection, separates widely the activity of the soul from that of the body. The body is said to desire earthly things ; the soul to rule it. There are five important passages on this subject, two of which will be quoted when we treat of sin. The other three are — " If the nature of man does not continue, in vain has the soul been fitted to the need and f Apol. c. 27, p. 30 C. K Res. c. 24, p. 67 C. ^ Ibid, c. 24. p. 67 B. ' Res. c. 15, p. 57 A. ■< Apol. c. 27. p. 31 A. VI. ] ATHENAGORAS. 1 63 affections (TiaO^cnv) of the body, and in vain has the body been fettered in its efforts to obtain those things which it desires, yielding to the reins of the soul, and bridled by it ■ and vain is mind (6 vovs), and vain is prudence, and vain the observance of justice V^ & Ibid. c. 25. p. 29 A B. inf) THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. God^s activity is concerned (Kara tov ■nmoirjKOTo), man is himself a full illustration of the orderliness of the world. This order is seen in the nature which was given him when God created him {KaTa yeveaiv) : for this nature possesses the faculty of reasoning-, which is one and the same in all. It appears also in the arrangement of man^s body, so far as God^s fashioning it is concerned [rf] Kara ttjv ■nkaaiv hiadiaei), for it never violates the law which He has given to it. But then man chooses reasons for himself {^Kara tov 'ihiov eaurw Xoyov). He abandons the universal reason and acts wilfully : and this wilfulness is fostered by the powers of evil. Har- mony is destroyed, and man is so far an exception to the universal orderliness of the world. The context of the pas- sage renders it indubitable that the drift of the passage '' is as I have now given it. The disturbing occasion in man himself is matter, or, in other words, the body. Athenagoras nowhere seems to imagine that evil was inherent in matter. On the contrary, he affirms repeatedly that the body is and will continue for ever to be an essential part of man. But the body is the occasion of most of the virtues and vices of man. He brings this out ver}^ fully in attempting to show that it is unfair to reward or punish souls alone for what was done by man, who is composed both of soul and body. " How is it not unjust," he says, " that the soul should be judged by itself for things for which according to its nature it cannot have a longing, nor motion, nor impulse — such as luxury, or violence, or avarice, or injustice, and the acts of injustice which are consequent on these ? For if the most of such evils arise from men not controlling disturbing passions, and if they are disturbed by the need and wants of the body, and zeal about it, and care of it, (for on account of these things it is that there is possession (Trao-a ?) KTrjcns) at all^, and that •> See the rest quoted above. " The statement which Athenagoras makes here is that in consequence of the body arises the idea of property. But the first form of this idea is simple use, which ultimately becomes possession or property. VI.] ATHENAGOEAS. 167 there is a use which is l)efore this, that there is marriage also, and all the businesses of life in which, and in relation to which, is seen short-coming- and the contrary,) where is jus- tice?'' &c.'^ Athenagoras goes on throughout the whole of this chapter and the next, exhibiting the virtues and vices which are rendered possible by the existence of the body. It is also especially through matter that the devil and demons act on men. The devil himself is, as we have seen, the ruler of matter, and the demons move men according to the proportion of matter and the sympathy w4th divine things. The sympathy with divine things, the fellow-feeling- {(TV[XTTddeia) or kinship of the mind with heavenly and divine things, is that which preserves the true life in man. It is to this fellow-feeling, with the breath which is from God (Kara (TvixTTddeiav t?/? Trapa tov deov Trvorjs), that Athenagoras attri- butes the impulse among the ancient poets and philosophers to seek the truth ^. On the other hand, " the body draws the soul [in the case of sin] to fellow-feeling with and share in those deeds which it requires f." The demons were unable to mount up because they had not a fellow-feeling which would bring them into heaven [avixTiaO^iav ei? tov ovpdviov tottoi'), and therefore they pined after forms of matter ^. The activity of the demons on the souls of men is thus described. He is accounting for idols, and their supposed activity. " First then the irrational and imaginative move- ments of the soul around opinions ^ produce different idols at different times. Some of these they take from matter, and some they fashion and beget for themselves. And this is the case with the soul most especially when it has par- taken and become mixed up with the material spirit, not looking to heavenly things and their Creator, but downwards to earthly things, — in fact, entirely to the earth, — as being flesh and blood only, and no longer pure spirit. These irrational •• Res. c. 21, pp. 63 D, 64 B. e Apol. c. 7, p. 8 A. ' Res. c. 21, p. 64 A. 8 Apol. c. 22, p. 24 C. '' The whole expression here is Platonic ; the movement of the soul and the 5pr]Tos tov aXr]9ovs), and to consider the Father and Maker of the Uni- verse, — when such a soul gets stamped iipon it false opinions with regard to itself, then the demons employed on matter, who are lickerish about the steams of the fat and the blood of victims and are in the habit of deceiving men, taking to their aid these false-opinioned movements of the soul of the many, make visions flow in upon them as if from the idols and images, by invading their minds, and the demons reap the glory of whatever rational movements the soul makes in harmony with its own nature as being immortal, either by way of predicting the future or healing- the presenti.^^ Athenagoras says nothing about the scheme of salvation. He mentions salvation several times in treating of the dis- course concerning the truth and the discourse in behalf of the truth. " The discourse concerning the truth, being necessary to all men for security and salvation, takes the first place in nature, in order, and in usefulness ^^.^^ And then he states that it is first in usefulness, "because it is the cause of security and salvation to those who know'.^^ He repeats the same idea in other words a few sentences farther on : " The one is necessary for all who believe and care about the truth and their own salvation m." It would not be safe to build mvich on these statements, because they are so in- definite ; but we may believe that Athenagoras regarded the truth as the saving or preserving element of man's real life, and that it had this power only to those who really knew it, or, in other words, really believed it. He says that Christians have a "hope of eternal life"." He dwells largely on their moral character, and the precepts which guided them. God is the rule of their life. "The ' Apol. c. 27, p. 30 C D. k Ees. c. 11, p. 51 A. ' Ibid. " Res. o. II, p. 51 B. ■< Apol. c. 33, p. 36 D. VI .] A THEN A GORAS. 1 69 unjudg-ing slander of some does not darken our path on- wards to rectitude of life ; for we have a good character with God°/' " Ye know," he says to the emperors, " that those whose life is reg-ulated by God as the law (ois 6 ^I'os ws Trpo? (xrAOixriv tov debv KavoviCeTat) that each of us may be found guiltless and blameless before Him will not enter into the thought even of the smallest sin p." Athenagoras makes no mention of any of the peculiar institutions of Christians. He mentions the habit which prevailed among them of calling the young people sons and daughters. Those who were older they called brothers and sisters, and to those who were far advanced in years they gave the honour of fathers and mothers i. Some have sup- posed that he refuses to disclose the mysteries of the Chris- tian religion. The supposition is utterly absurd. In speaking of the abominable practices of heathens, he exclaims, " O, why should I speak of things which ought not to be mentioned (to. cLTToppriTa.^)?" There cannot be a doubt that Athenagoras is speaking of the abominable practices of heathens : the whole context proves this. The use of the word a-rropprjTa. in another passage of the same writer is in favour of it. And nothing could have led Rothe to imagine anything else but a pet theory. Future State. — The principal statements with regard to a future state occur in the Treatise on the Resurrection, to .the Abstract of which the reader is referred. Athenagoras did not believe that there is an intermediate state of sleep. The body is dissolved, but the immortal soul remains as active as ever^. He maintains also that it is the same bodies that will rise again. He affirms that it is absolutely necessary that the same men rise again, and he says that this cannot take place if the same bodies are not given to the same souls'. But then the bodies at the resurrection are to differ from the bodies on earth in this respect, that the former » Apol. c. 31, p. 35 B. !• Ibid. p. 35 C. 1 Apol. c. 32, p. 36 C. >■ Ibid. c. 3^, p. 37 C. » Res. c. 16, p. 57 D. ' Ibid. c. •zs, p. 67 D. 170 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. are to be indestructible, while the latter were destructible. Moreover, it is only the real essential components of the body that are again to come together i. Athenagoras seems to have supposed that there were some parts that really and properly belonged to the body, while others were accidental appendages. In the union of these real parts lay the identity of the body. He seems not to have been aware of the fact that all the particles of the body change within a certain period. Athenagoras believed that animals would not rise again 'f. After the resurrection comes the judg*ment. As we have seen already, Athenagoras argues from the necessity of a judg- ment the necessity of a resurrection. He describes the judg- ment thus, — " The honour or justice [rewards or punishment] due to each man according to just judgment). ^^ Again, he speaks of the proportion or reckoning [koyos) of justice accord- ing to which God judges those men who have lived well or ill^. The fact of an expected judgment is appealed to as likely to have a strong moral influence on Christians. " Since we are persuaded,^' he says, " that we shall give an account of the whole of our present life to God, who has made us and the world, we choose this temperate, man-loving, and despised life, since we are of opinion that we shall suffer no such great evil here, even if some dej)rive us of life {\}/vxv^)} as the blessings which we shall receive there on account of a meek, man -loving, and temperate life, from the great Judge'^.'' He describes more fully in another passage the life of the good hereafter, the blessedness of which he makes consist in freedom from change and passion, in the company of God. He mentions also that the wicked will be in fire. It runs thus : " We are persuaded that when we are removed from our life here we shall live another life, better than the life here, and heavenly, not earthly ; inasmuch as we shall abide in the company of God, and in union with Him (juera Oeov Koi avv ^ew), free from " Res. c. 7. « Ibid. c. 10, p. 49 C ; Apol. c. 31, p. 35 D. y Res. c. 14, p. 55 C. ' Ibid. c. iS, p. 60 A. " Apol. c. 1 2, p. 1 2 B. VL] ATHENAGORAS. I7I change and passion ** as respects oui- soul, not as flesh even though we have it, but as heavenly spirit; or that falling- down along with the rest we shall live a worse life, and one passed in fire : for God did not fashion us as He did sheep or cattle, as a bye- work, and to perish and disappear. On this account it is not likely that we should wish to do evil, or deliver ourselves up to the great Judge to be punished °." Athenagoras nowhere speaks of the Logos or Christ as judge. The Scriptures. — Athenagoras, as we have seen, maintained that the truths believed by Christians were God-taught^. He appeals to the prophets as guarantees for his beliefs : and enunciates his theory of inspiration while making the appeal. " But,^^ he says, " we have as witnesses of those opinions which we hold and have believed the prophets, who have spoken out by the Divine Spirit in them both with regard to God and things relating to God. You also, who surpass others in intelligence and in piety towards the really Divine Being, would yourselves affirm that it would be unreasonable for us to abandon our trust in the Spirit which proceeds from God, who has moved the mouths of the pro- phets as instruments, and give heed to human opinions e/' In another passage he expresses the same ideas. "If, then, we were content with such notions, some one would think our teaching to be merely human. But since the voices of the prophets make our reasonings trustworthy, I think that you also, being very learned and very intelligent, have not been ignorant of the writings of Moses, or of those of Isaiah and Jeremiah and the other prophets, who being rapt away from the reasonings that were in themselves (xar' tKaraaiv tS>v €v avToh koyi(TixC)v) when the Divine Spirit had moved them, uttered the things that were wrought in them, while the Spirit used them as a flute-player would blow into his flute f." Athenagoras announces in these passages most ^ avadfls T?)!/ 'i/vxv" may mean ' with our souls incapable of suflfering.' <= Apol. c. 31, p. 35 D. '' Ibid. c. 32, p. 36 C. « Apol. c. 7, p. SAB. ' Ibid, c.9, p. 9D. 172 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. distinctly the theory of inspiration now designated the me- chanical. He also expresses clearly the Montanistic idea of prophecy — that it took place while the prophet was trans- ported beyond himself. But it would he unfair to Athena- goras to suppose that he imagined he was giving precise expression to any theory. He used the words evidently very much in the dark^ and probably without the conception that inspiration admitted of theoretical explanations. His lan- guage would lead one to suppose that he believed every word in the Old Testament to be inspired. But if he did^ it seems strange that he should have been so careless in quoting. In the very next sentence following the second passage which has been now translated, he professedly quotes from Exodus, yet the very form of the sentence is changed. And he never hesitates to change words whenever such a change suits his purpose g. Athenagoras makes no allusion to the inspiration of any of the New Testament writers. He does not mention one of them by name, and we cannot be sure that he quotes from any except Paul. All the passages taken from the Gospels are parts of our Lord's discourses, and may have come down to Athenagoras by tradition. He unquestionably quotes from the Epistle to the Romans j he quotes also from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, and on one occasion he introduces the quotation with the words "according to the apostle^'." He quotes also from the First Epistle to Timothy, and pro- bably from the Epistle to the Galatians. Some have found traces of passages from other Epistles. In quoting the words of Christ, Athenagoras never men- tions Christ by name: but simply uses the word ^r/o-i, *^he says.' He once departs from this usage in quoting a curious saying which is not found in any of our Gospels. The passage runs thus : " The Logos again saying to us, ' If any one kiss again for the reason that it has been pleasant » On the passages quoted, see Lardner and Clarisse, p. 70. h Res. c. 18, p. 61 C. VI.] ATHENAGORAS. 173 to liim — > ]' and the Log-os then adds, ' Thus the kiss, or rather the salutation, is to be used with care, because it places us outside of eternal life if it be polluted but a little in thought ^/ " The passage refers to the customary kiss in the congregation of Christians. It prohibits the repetition of the kiss from mere delight in it, as such a feeling is sinful. It may be very much questioned whether the tov Koyov Xiyov- ros really refers to Christ. It is singular that the only de- parture from the common (^tjcti should be in the case of a very questionable command. The suppositions in regard to the source from which the j^assage is taken are numerous, and all of them are purely conjectural '. Morality. — Attention has been already called to the high eulogium which Athenagoras has pronounced on the monil power of Christianity. Thei'C still remains the consideration of his opinions on some special points. First and most pro- minent of these are his decisions with regard to marriage. He quotes the assertion of Christ, that the looking on a woman to desire her is adultery; and states that to Christians "looking with pleasure is adultery '' [to ibelv r/Secos fxoixeLa^). He appeals, farther, to the unwritten statement generally attri- buted to Christ, quoted above. He then develops more fully his opinions on marriage. He maintains that a man ought to marry only once : that the only object of marriage is the production of children : and that any indulgence in sexual intercourse which has not this object distinctly as its aim is sin. His words are : " Having then a hope of eternal life, we despise the things that are in this life, even to the pleasures of soul : for each one reckons as his wife her whom he married according to the laws laid down by us, and he reckons her his wife only for the purpose of producing children. For as the husbandman laying down seed into the earth awaits the harvest, not throwing down additional seed, so the procreation of children is the measure of our ' The reader is to supply ' he sins.' "* Apol. c. 32, p. 36 D. ' See Otto's note on the passage for them. '" Apol. c. 32, p. 36 B. 174 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. desire"/^ It will be noticed here that Christians were not married according- to Roman law, but according to laws laid down by themselves. They probably regarded marriage as a religious institution much more than a civil one ; and as they could not be married according to the rites of pagan Rome, they instituted laws of their own. Though Athenagoras does not say anything against mar- riage itself, he awards high praise to those who remained virgins. The passage above quoted runs on : " You would find many of those who are with us, both men and women, who have grown old in the unmarried state in the hope of being more in communion wuth God. If remaining in virginity and in the state of an eunuch recommends us more to God, and the advancing to thoug-ht and desire withdraws from God, much more do we refuse to do the deeds, the thoughts of which we shun °." Contrasting Christians with heathens, he calls them eunuchs and monogamists P. Monogamy means, in the language of Athenagoras, mar- riage with one wife and no more during the coui-se of a man's life. In the continuation of the passage already quoted he states this more fully and gives his reason : '' For we do not indulge in the careful planning of speeches, but in the exhibition and teaching of deeds, either by remaining such as we have been born or by being content with one marriage: for a second marriage is a decent adultery q. 'For whosoever sends away his wife,' says He [Christ], ' and marries another, commits adultery ;' not permitting to send away her whose virginity he has put an end to, nor to marry another. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even tliough she be dead, is a concealed adul- " Apol. c. 33, p. 36 D, 37 A. ° Apol. c. 33, p. 37 A. Athenagoras is rebutting the charge of licentious- j ness. p Apol. c. 34, p. 37 D. 'I Suicer supposes that Athenagoias means here that a man who marries a second wife after he has divorced his first is an adulterer, and continues an adulterer even if she should die. Sub. voc. Siyafiia. But the whole context is against this explanation. VL] ATHENAGORAS. 175 terer, transgressing the hand of God, (because in the begin- ning God made one man and one woman,) and dissolving the mingling of flesh with flesh which took place in their union for the communication of racC/^ The main argu- ment here used is that husband and wife become one flesh. This is the arrangement of God. He who marries a second wife dissolves this union, and transgresses the ordinance of God. He deprives himself of his first and only real wife. Many passages have been quoted already in which Athe- nagoras states that God will judge the thoughts of men. He states, moreover, that Christians literally followed the pre- cepts given in the Sermon on the Mount. " For the loss which comes from our jiersecutors,^^ he says, " has not refer- ence to our money, nor the shame to our loss of character, nor the injury to anything of great importance : for we despise these things, even though they seem objects of interest to the many, for not only have we learned not to strike the man who strikes us, or to go to law with those who rob and plunder us, bvit to afford to the one set, even should they kick us on the head, the other side of the head to strike, and to the other set, should they take away a tunic, to give them also the cloak with it^.^^ He expresses also the principle on which such conduct is based, though in different words from those of Christ. " For it is not sufficient to be just (for justice is a returning equal for equal), but our aim is to be good and patient in the endurance of evils t.^"* Christians were obedient to the emperors. They were " most piously and righteously disposed to the Divine Being, and your government ^." At the same time they " gave iip their lives unhesitatingly for the truth "." They refused to visit the gladiatorial shows, and they pronounced the pro- curing of abortions and the exposing of children to be sinful. ■• Apol. c.3.^, p. 37B. ^ Apol. c. I, p. 2 C D ; coiup, ibid. c. ii, p. 12 A. • Apol. c. ,?4, p. 38 A. " Ibid. c. i, p. 2 C. "^ Apol, c. 3. p. 5 A. 1/6 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. Those who procured abortions or exposed their children were reckoned murderers Y. Athenagoras made no opposition to the existence of slavery in the Church. He states distinctly that Christians had slaves : " There certainly are slaves belonging to us^ to some more and to some fewer, whose notice it is impossible to elude ; yet no one of these has even framed such lies against us ^." VI. LITEKATUEE. The Legatio of Athenagoras is found in seventeen manu- scripts. There are only three manuscriiDts, however, of an early date. The earliest and best is the Codex Parisinus CDLI, mentioned already. It contains scholia, which have for the first time appeared in Otto^s edition. This MS. was written in 914. The second Codex is Codex Parisinus CLXXIV, also mentioned already, belonging to the tenth or eleventh century. And the third Codex is the Codex Argentoratensis, also mentioned before, belonging to the thir- teenth century. Belonging to the fifteenth century there are the Codices Ottobonianus Grsecus XCIV, and Ottobo- nianus Grsecus CCLXXIV ; in the Vatican at Rome, Codex Vaticanus Grsecus MCCLXI ; Codex Sirletianus, which should be in the Vatican, but has not been found there ; Codex Lu- banensis, in the Library of Lausanne (Lubani Lusatorum), and two Codices in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, Codex Bodleianus Grsecus, Barocc. XCVIII j Codex Bodleianus Grse- cus, Barocc. CXLV. Belonging to the sixteenth century are the Codices, Codex Monacensis LXXXI, in the Boyal Li- brary of Munich ; Codex Parisinus Supplem. Gra'C. CXLIII, in the Royal Library at Paris ; Codex Bononiensis, mentioned before ; Codex Claromontanus, mentioned before ; Codex ^tonensis, in the Eton Library ; and the Codex Angelicus, B. I. 10, in tlie Library of S. Agostino, at Rome, which is a transcript of the Eton MS. by tlie same hand. The thi'ee best manuscripts of the Legatio contain also the y Apol. c. 35, r- 38 C D. •' Ibid, p. 38 B. VI.] ATHENAGORAS. 177 Treatise on the Resurrection. It is found also in Codex Parisinus CDL^ in Codex Claromontanus LXXXIII, in Codex Claromontanus LXXXII, and in the Codex ^tonen- sis, all mentioned already. Besides these, Maranus used a manuscript called Codex Big-otianus, now lost. And Valla, who published a Latin translation of the Treatise on the Resurrection before the editio princeps of the Greek, must have used some manuscrij)t, but which he used is now un- known. It is most likely however, as Otto conjectures, that he used one of two manuscripts very like each other which are now in the Florentine Library, called Codex Florentiuus III. plut. IV. ; and Codex Florentinus XXXII. plut. X. They both belong to the fifteenth century. EDITIONS. The Treatise of Athenagoras on the Resurrection appeared separately at first. The editio princeps was edited by Petrus Nannius, Lovanii and Parisiis, 1541, 4to. It subsequently appeared in the Mikropresbytikon, 1550; and in the Or- thodoxographa of Heroldus, 1555. Both treatises issued from the press of Henricus Stephanus, under the care of Conrad Gesner, 1557, 8vo. Gesner^s edition of both works was reprinted separately. And both works appeared in the collections of Lang, Morell, Fronto Ducseus, Maranus, Gal- landi, and Oberthiir, Separate editions of the works of Athenagoras were pre- pared by Fell, Oxford, 1682, i2mo. ; Rechenberg, Leipzig, 1685, 8vo. ; and by Dechair, Oxford, 1706, 8vo. Dechair col- lated several manuscripts, and gave copious notes, his own and those of others, along with several dissertations. The Legatio was edited by M. Jo. Gottlieb Lindner, Longosalissae, 1774, 8vo.; and by Dr. Ludwig Paul, Halis, 1856, 8vo. The best edition of Athenagoras is that of Otto, Jenae, 1857. The text is based on the three best manuscripts already mentioned. The others have been either collated for the first time, or recollated for this edition. Prolegomena giving VOL. III. N 178 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. VI. a full description of the manuscripts, editions, translations, and discussing the style and date, are prefixed; and useful notes and indices are given. There is a translation of the Treatise on the Resurrection by Richard Porter, London, 1573, 8vo. ; of his whole works by David Humphreys, London, 17 14, 8vo. The translation of Humphreys is very unsatisfactory. CHAPTER VI I. HERMIAS. I. LIFE AND WRITINGS. JN OTHING is known of Hermias. Maranus thinks that his work shows traces of an acquaintance with the writings of Justin Martp' and Tatian ; and that therefore he is to be placed later than these writers. Worth imagines that the style of his wit marks him as belonging to a late age*. Lambecius and Tentzel, for reasons which Cave has shown to be unsatisfactory b^ have identified the Hermias whose work we discuss with Hermias Sozomenus the historian. In fact_, all the guesses made with regard to this Hermias are baseless, and the fragment of his work gives no clear indication of any date or circumstance in his life. The title of the fragment which bears the name of Hermias is '^Epfj.eiov ]s) . And there is nothing improbable in this, for Polycarp also was a disciple of apostles and lived to the reign of Marcus Antoninus. Rufinus, however, either mis- taking the Greek or reading bcaboxfj, says that he lived immediately after the first succession of the apostles. Euse- bius, moreover, adduces a passage from the writings of Hege- sippus to show that his date was early. Speaking of those who set up idols Hegesippus said, " to whom they made cenotaphs and shrines as even up to the present time, to whom belongs also Antinous, the slave of Adrian Csesar, in whose honour the Antinoan games are now celebrated, having been instituted in our day {i(j) rjfxwv yei-ojuews) . For he '' The meaning of this passage, as Pearson showed, is that Hegesippus made a list of the overseers of the Roman Chiu-ch. The word 5io5oxV? has been changed or a different meaning given to it, but Pearson's explanation is un- questionably the best. See Routh's notes in loc, vol. i. p. 268. « Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 22. '' Ibid. ir. e De Vir. Illust. c. 22. 184 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. called a city which he built by the name of Antinous, and instituted prophets for his worship f/^ The words e<^' j/fxcSy yero'/xei'os might indeed be applied to Antinous himself, ' Antinous who lived in our time/ but this is a matter of no consequence. For the passag-e, taken any way, esta- blished the fact that Hegesippus was alive in the time of Hadrian. Some, indeed, read yivoyL^vos, '^ which take place in our day ; ' but the reading does not occur in the best manuscripts, and Eusebius could scarcely have quoted the passage for his pui-pose if such had been the reading in his copy of Hegesippus. The Alexandrian Chronicle s says that he suffered martyrdom in the reign of Commodus, about A.D. 1 80, but its statement cannot be depended on. II. THE WRITINGS OF HEGESIPPUS. There was only one work ascribed to Hegesippus in ancient times : and as it is of some importance to know the whole of the evidence in regard to this work and its character, we extract the various references to it in Eusebius. In mentioning the Christian opponents of heresy who flourished in the reign of Hadrian, Eusebius says, "Among these was known Hegesippus, many of whose statements we have already used, setting down some of those things that relate to the apostles as from his tra- dition. He certainly in five writings {kv -nivre avyypdjjiixacrLv), recording the unerring tradition of the apostolic preaching in the simplest style, points out the time at which he was known, writing thus with regard to those who originally set up idols h/' And then Eusebius quotes the passage already adduced in proof of his having lived in the time of Hadrian. In a subsequent chapter Eusebius discusses more fully the work of Hegesippus. "Among these,^' he says, in mentioning the writers that flourished in the time f Enseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 8. g p. 262 ; p. 490 ed. Dindorf. 1' Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 8. VIIL] HEGESIPPUS. 185 of Marcus Aurelius, '^ there flourished in the Church Hege- sippus, whora we have known ah'eady, and Dionysius and Pinytus, Philip^ ApoUinaris, Melito, Musanus, Modestus, and Irenseus i. Their orthodoxy of sound faith derived from apostolic tradition has come down in writing- even to us" {S)V KoX ets 7;juas tj/? o.'noaToKiKrjs TTapabocreoiS rj rrjs vytovs Titrrreoos eyypa(pos KaTrjKdev opdobo^ta^). '^ Hegesippus then in five books of Notes {vTroiJ.vi]ixaat) which have come down to us has left the fullest memorial of his own sentiments. In them he shows that he mingled with very many over- seers, extending his journey even to Rome, and that he received the same teaching from alU,''^ From these state- ments we gather that Hegesippus wrote five books, which he seems to have called v-noiivrnxara, " Notes or Memoranda/' Eusebius gives this name to the work, as we have seen already ; and once in quoting from it he mentions the fifth vTTOixvriiia {kv rw t:€jxtit(o avrov vTToixvrnJLaTL) . Stephanus Gobarus, likewise, in quoting from Hegesippus says : '' Hegesippus, an ancient and apostolic man, says in the fifth book of his Notes'*' [h T(S TrejuTTTw rcav intoixvrjij.dToiv'^). The name sug- gests that the work was not a regular history, and the passage from the fifth book in Eusebius tends to show that he did not pursue the chronolog-ical order. It is not im- possible, indeed, that he published some of the books before the others ; and perhaps this was the reason why Eusebius placed him both among the writers of the time of Hadrian and among those of the reign of Marcus Aurelius. At least Eusebius believed that he was well known in the time of Hadrian : for there is no good reason for the opinion of Valesius that Eusebius as it were retracts his previous statements when he places him in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, for, as we have seen already, he expressly alludes to his previous notice of him. Jerome misrepresents the assertions of Eusebius in regard to the nature of the work. He says, '^ Hegesippus, who lived near the apostolic times, ' The passage is given elsewhere in full. "^ Euseb. Hist. Eecl. iv. 2 1 . ' Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 22. •" Phot. Bibl. Cod. 232. 186 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. weaving together all the histories of Ecclesiastical Acts from the death of the Lord even to his own age, and collecting from one quarter and another many things which tend to the profit of the reader, composed five books in simple language, so that he expressed the mode of speech of those whose lives he detailed"." There is no reason to suppose that Hegesippus had the slightest notion of what a history should be, or that he even had the wish to write a continuous narrative. He embodied in his work the narratives and facts which he had learned from tradi- tion or in the course of his travels, without much order or polish. The loss of this work creates a great gap in our know- ledge of the early Church. Of all the early Christian writers Hegesippus is the only one in regard to whom there is good evidence that he was a Jew. The evidence, indeed, is not entirely satisfactory, for he might have known He- brew and Syriac without having been born a Jew. More- over, he might have been a Jew by nation and not one in religion. It is not impossible that he might have been born of Jewish parents who had become Christians before his birth, and that he might have learned the Jewish lan- guage and traditions at the very time that he was being trained in the Christian religion. Still the probability is that he was originally a Jew both by birth and religion, and that he passed from Judaism to Christianity. And at all events, he seems to have moved much in the circle of the Jerusalem Church, to have been well acquainted with apostolic traditions, and to have known a great deal in regard to the Jewish religionists at the time of the apostles. He of all others would have been peculiarly fitted to give us some idea of the relation of the Jewish-Christian Churches to the heathen-Christian. Now in this respect it is important to observe that Hege- sippus was perfectly satisfied with what he saw and heard " De Vir. lUust. c. 22. VIII.] HEGESIPFUS. 187 in the Western Churches. In a passage already quoted he states that the Corinthian Church held the truth, and that in every city the Church felt and thoug-ht as the law, the prophets, and the Lord proclaimed. Then it is also to be observed that Eusebius was perfectly satisfied with the orthodoxy of Heg-esippus. The passages which we have already quoted, and which we gave in fall expressly for this purpose, are decisive on this point. Eusebius could see no difference between the teaching of Hegesippus and that of Apollinaris, Melito, and Irenseus. Now if we can ascertain what was the teaching of Hegesippus, we know the doctrine prevalent over the whole Church ; and if we trust Eusebius, we shall find the doctrine of Hegesippus in Melito, Apol- linaris, and Irenseus. As he couples Hegesippus also with Justin, we shall find the essential ideas of his teaching in that writer. One would have thought that this would have been no difficult task, for the opinions of these writers are pretty well known, especially in the case of Irenseus, who several times gives us what he deems the essentials of his creed. Several writers however in former times, and some in the present day, argue in a different way, and come to a peculiar conclusion. Hegesippus they say was a Hebrew. Therefore he must have been a Hebrew Christian. But a Hebrew Christian is one who observes the law and looks upon Christ as a mere man. Therefore the whole Church was Unitarian in the days of Hegesippus. Now not to men- tion that this is a precarious way of ascertaining the truth, it is sufficient to notice that there is not the slightest proof that Hegesippus either kept the law or believed Christ to be a mere man. What Eusebius believed was that he had been born a Jew and had become a Christian j but whether he had become a Jewish Christian in the modern sense of the term, or whether he preferred Gentile liberty, is not stated. But whatever he was, this much is certain, that he had no objec- tion to Gentile liberty. We know that he was at Rome at the very time that Anicetus, whose difference with Polycarj:) on the subject of the Passover has l^een noticed already, was 188 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. overseer in the Roman Churchy and he felt so much interest in this Roman Church that he drew up a succession of its overseers. Nay more^ he seems, as far as we can guess, to have actually remained in Palestine after the Jews had been expelled, and to have been contented with Gentile Chris- tianity in ^lia Capitolina. Of course this is only a sup- position, but it has more likelihood than the other supposition that he retired from the Gentile Christians, which must be assumed as true on the hypothesis that he kept the Jewish law. On the whole, then, the evidence tends to prove that he was not even a Hebrew Christian in the sense of observing* the law, and there is the most complete proof that he did not regard the observance of the law as essential to salvation. With the destruction of this premise the keystone of the two theories of the early Unitarians and of Baur is utterly de- stroyed. The Unitarians maintained that Hegesippus was an Ebionite or Nazarene, and that consequently the whole Church was in his day Ebionitic, though unfortunately the few Platonizing writers who formed a miserable exception to the mass have been the only writers that a subsequent corrupt age has preserved to us. Baur finds in Hegesippus a most determined antagonist of Paul, and his testimony is appealed to as proof that the Petrine faction had gained the predominance, not only in the Churches of the East but even in those of the West. Both theories run directly contrary to the repeated testimony of Eusebius and to all the information which we have in regard to the Western Churches. And they both fall to pieces, unless it be proved that HegesijDpus in- sisted on the observance of the law as essential to salvation. The Unitarians and Baur have appealed to several passages in the fragments as supporting their conclusion. I shall notice their attempts at the proper place, but there is no need of arguing against them, for they are such glaring instances of arl)itrary interpretation that an historical mind will at once reject them as utterly unwarranted. One of these passages has occurred already. It is said that Hegesippus used a gospel according to the Hebrews, and a Syriac (Ik re tov KaO' VIII.] HEGESIPPUS. 189 'EI3paiovs evayyiXiov koL tov ^vpiaKov). Larduer supposes that the text of Eusebius is here incorrect^ and without proposing any emendation^ believes the meaning- of Eusebius to be that Hegesippus quoted from a gospel which was written in Sj-ro- Chaldaic. He appeals especially to the description of the Gospel according to the Hebrews by Jerome. " In the Gospel according to the Hebrews/^ says Jerome, " which is written indeed in the Syriac and Chaldaic tongue [or Syro-Chaldaic tongue] but in Hebrew characters, is this history"/^ Perhaps this is exactly what Eusebius meant to say, though he has said it awkwardly. For Rufinus translates, " He discussed the gospel which is according to the Hebrews and Syrians.^' It is impossible to settle what this gospel was. It may have been the Hebrew of the Gospel of Matthew. It may have been an apocryphal gospel. But whatever it was, Eusebius says no more than that Hegesippus quoted from it; and he is no more to be set down as an Ebiouite or observer of the. law on that account than are Papias, Clemens, Origen, and Jerome, all of whom also quoted from the Gospel according to the Hebrews P. We have even somewhat of positive evidence that he did not appeal to an apocryphal gospel as authori- tative. Eusebius states that he treated of apocryphal works. "And treating of works called apocryphal he relates that some of these had been forged in his own times by some heretics q.^' If Hegesippus had himself regarded an apo- cryphal gospel as genuine, Eusebius would not fail to tell us. Moreover, in the passage already quoted to the effect that in every city things were as the law, prophets, and the Lord proclaims, there is probably an allusion to our gospels. For the Lord in the passage can scarcely mean anything else than the Lord's sayings as recorded in the Gospels. Lardner supposes the whole of the New Testament to be meant ; but Adv. Pelag. lib. iii. init. Lardner, Credib. part ii. c. 14. p See Bull's Primitiva et Apostolica Traditio, c. 3. The chapter is a most complete refutation of the arguments of Zwicker and others based on Hegesippus. 1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 22. 190 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. there is no proof that the books of the New Testament had yet been collected into one, and the sayings of the Lord are in this age always quoted separately from other sayings or writings. I now proceed to give an account of those fragments which have not yet been noticed. They almost all relate to the Church in Jerusalem, and give thus a glimpse into its history. The first and most considerable of these relates to the death of the apostle James, the brother of our Lord. It is as fol- lows : " The care of the Church was undertaken by James, the brother of the Lord, along with the apostles. He was named Just by all from the times of the Lord even to ours, since many bore the name of James. Now he was sacred from his mother^s womb. He drank not wine nor strong drink, nor ate any living thing. A razor went not upon his head, he did not anoint himself with oil, and the bath he did not use. He alone was permitted to go into the holies. For he did not wear woollen garments, but linen. And he alone entered into the shrine {vaos), and was found lying on his knees and asking forgiveness for the people; so that his knees grew hard as a cameFs, on account of his always bending on his knee in worshipping God and asking forgive- ness for the people. On account then of his exceeding righteousness he was called Righteous and Oblias, that is, bulwark of the people and righteousness, as the prophets make manifest with regard to him. Some then of the seven sects that were in the people, which have been already described by me in my Recollections, asked him, ' What is the gate of Jesus'?' And he said that He was the Saviour. In consequence of this some of them believed that Jesus was the Christ. But the sects previously mentioned did not believe in a resurrection, or in one coming to give to every one ' The meaning of this question is matter of doubt. See Routh, Eel. Sacr., for the various opinions, vol. i. p. 215. The most probable is, "To what is it that Jesus is to lead us ?" And James's answer is, therefore, " To salvation." VIIL] HEGESIPPUS. 191 according to hiss works. But as many as believed, believed on account of James. When many then even of the rulers believed, there was disturbance among- the Jews, Scribes, and Pharisees ; for they said, ' All the people are like to expect Jesus as the Christ.'' They said therefore, coming together to James, ' We exhort thee, restrain the people, since they are wandering over to Jesus, as if He were indeed the Christ. We exhort thee to persuade all, who come to keep the day of the passover, with regard to Jesus. For we all obey thee. For we and all the people bear witness to thee that thou art just, and respectest not the face of man. Persuade therefore the mob not to err with regard to Jesus. For all the people and we all obey thee. Stand therefore on the wing of the temple, that thou mayest be seen from above, and all the people may hear thy words well. For on account of the passover all the tribes have come together, with even the Gentiles.^ Then the fore-mentioned Scribes and Pharisees placed James on the wing of the shrine, and called to him and said, ' Thou Just one, whom we all ought to obey, since the people is going astray after Jesus the crucified one, an- nounce to us what is the door of Jesus. '' And he answered with a loud voice, ' Why do you ask me with regard to Jesus the son of man ? Yea, that person sits in heaven on the right hand of the great power, and is to come upon the clouds of heaven.^ And many being fully assured and glorifying [God] at the testimony of James, and saying ' Hosanna to the son of David,-* then again the same Scribes and Pha- risees said to each other, ' We have done wrong affording such testimony to Jesus; but let us go up and cast him down, that being frightened they may not believe him.' And they cried, saying, ^ O ! O ! even the Just has gone astray .■' And they fulfilled the writing which was written in Isaiah, ' Let us take the righteous man, for he is useless to us ; therefore shall they eat the fruits of their own works.-* Going up, therefore, they cast the Just down, and said to each other, "■ Let us stone James, the Just."* And they began to stone him, since he did not die when he was cast down. 192 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. But he, turning, bent his knees and said, ' I beseech thee, O Lord God the Father, forgive them ; for they know not what they do/ And while they were thus stoning him, one of the priests, the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, who were borne witness to by Jeremiah the prophet, cried, saying, ' Cease ye : what do ye ? The Just prays for you/ And one of them, a fuller, taking the stick with which he pressed the robes, brought it down on the head of the Just. And thus he bore witness, and they buried him in the place beside the shrine, and his pillar yet remains beside the shrine. He has been a true witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ. And straightway Vespasian besieges them*.^^ In this narrative there are several points which will at once strike the reader as strange. It is certainly astonishing to find it asserted of an apostle that he never used the bath. The statement that his knees became as hard as a cameFs has also been questioned. And the entire asceticism ascribed to James runs counter to all that we know of the lives of the other apostles. Yet there is nothing im- possible in any one assertion. And there can scai'cely be a doubt, that among the early Jewish Christians, who were far from being an intelligent class of men, there may have been many who, deeply and completely moved by faith in Christ, were yet so animated by the old Jewish spirit as to j)ersist in practices which at the present day are supposed to be far from favourable to godliness. Scaliger" has attempted, moreover, to show that Heg'csippus's statements are incon- sistent with fact. He interprets Jameses entrance into the holies as an entrance into the holy of holies : and, accordingly, he maintains that James would not have been permitted to enter alone. He objects to the statement in regard to the nature of his dress. He denies the possibility of his standing on the wing of the temple. He asserts that the statements in regard to the observance of the Passover are incorrect. And he finds an unquestionable mistake in the statement that he ' Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 23. >' In his Animadversiones on tlie Chronicon of Eusebius, p. 193. VIII.] HEGESIPPUS. 193 never drank wine nor ate flesh ; for that he must have done l)oth in eating' the passover with Christ. He has produced a few minor objections besides these. Subsequent writers, Petavius and Halloix especially, have defended Heg-esippus, and clearly shown that some of the objections are obviated by a different interpretation, such as that against James's entrance into the holies ; and that most of the objections were really unfounded, and the result of ignorance ^. In recent times Stanley has maintained that the presen^ -..'^- rative has not come down to us in its original state ^j but he has not defined the extent or nature of the corruption of the text. He appeals to the j)robable omission of Hebrew w^ords, an omission which would certainly prove that the text of Hegesippus is not in the most perfect state. Probalily, in the time of Eusebius, the text was somewhat corrupt, as one might expect in the case of a writer who was seldom read, and whose Greek was confused at the best. But the omission of a few Hebrew words is no proof of intentional corruption of the facts. He, more- over, appeals to the differences in Epiphanius, Hser. Ixxviii. 13 ; but Epij^hanius does not quote the passage. He merely gives the characteristics of James's asceticism ; and if we consider the nature of Epiphanius's mind, we should be rather sur- prised that he adheres so closely to the version in Eusebius. The whole narrative of Hegesippus is exactly the narrative which w^e should expect from a man who w^as fond of gather- ing up the stories of the past. It is, as Eusebius calls it, most minute {aKpL^iaTaTo} , it seizes special points, and yet at the same time it utterly fails to give a clear idea of the principal facts and a full view of the principal characters. Almost every statement is imperfect. There is something omitted which the writer has inartistically left to the reader to guess, and which we cannot now guess. There may be, moreover, » See the notes in Routh. y Sermons and Essays on the Apostolical Age, by Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, M.A., (second edition) ; "Essay on the Traditions of St. James the Just as Narrated by Hegesippus," pp. 325-341. It is well worth reading. VOL. III. O 194 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. as tliere generally is in these g-ossipping narratives^ slight inaccuracies. Nay, if we remember that a long- interval intervened between the event related and the relation of it, and that this was probably the first time that it was so minutely related, we should not be surprised though there were serious mistakes. Any one M'ho in the present day would write a narrative of the battle of Waterloo, trusting solely to his own traditionary knowledge of it, would pro- bably commit many a serious blunder. Moreover, Hege- sippus seems to have been but imperfectly acquainted with the Greek language ; and probably had not had a first-rate education. So that even if he had been an eye-witness, he would have in some measure failed to seize the essential points, and to clothe in proper language the details which he deemed important. The narrative, therefore, cannot be relied on in all its minutiae, but it is as true as most stories handed down in the same way. Josephus^ in a sentence mentions the condemnation of James, and his words have l)een supposed to contradict Hegesi2:)pus. While Hegesippus makes the death of James the result of a secret conspiracy, Josephus says that he was publicly condemned; and while Hegesippus represents him as struck down by a piece of wood near the temple, Josephus says that he was delivered up to be stoned. The discrepancies, however, are not irre- concileable. Josephus expressly says that Ananus seized the interval between the death of Festus and the arrival of his successor Albinus to summon a court and condemn James and others. The affair, though formally regular, was hurried and urgent. And Josephus does not say that James was stoned, but that the sentence pronounced on him was that of stoning. Its execution ma}^ have been prevented by the violence of the mob or of an individual. There are two questions that arise out of this narrative and the discussion of it. How far was the work of Hege- sippus to be trusted? and what information do we gather from it in regard to his form of Christianity ? ' Antiq. XX. 9. I. " VIII.] HEGESIFPUS. 195 Both questions are easily answered. A book of Notes or Recolleetionsj especially a g-ossipping- book, is never to be trusted absolutely. There is, moreover, no reason to suppose that Heg-esippus had a just appreciation of the nature of historical evidence. He wished to commit to writing the various scraps of information which he had gathered here and there ; and doubtless he would not inquire very mi- nutely into the truthfulness or accuracy of his authorities, and often his own memory mig-ht be at fault. In regard to the second question not much can be said. It is plain that he believed that James regarded Christ as the Saviour of mankind. This is the only essential doctrine of Christianity in the fragment, and it is as positively stated as doctrine can be. We may confidently believe that Hegesippus held the same truth. But there is not the shadow of a proof that either James or Hegesippus regarded the law as binding. It is not even said that James observed the law. He went into the temple like other Christians of his own place and time. It is likely that he observed the law, as the early Jewish Christians did. But there is not a word to show that Hegesippus observed the law or regarded James as a model in his austerity. Hegesippus tells his tale without comment. The next event in the history of the Jerusalem Church noticed in the fragments of Hegesippus is the appointment of a successor to James. " And after James the Just had borne witness, as our Lord did, for the same truth, again a son of his uncle, namely, Simeon the son of Clopas, is ap- pointed overseer, whom all proposed as the second overseer, since he was the cousin of the Lord. On this account they called the Church virgin : for it had not yet been corrupted by vain teachings. But Thebuthis begins to corrupt it secretly because he was not made an overseer. After the seven sects he also was among the people. After them also were Simon, whence the Simouians ; and Cleobius, whence the Cleobians ; and Dositheus, whence the Dositheans ; and Gorthaeus, wlience the Gortheans ; and Masbotheus, whence the Masbotheans. o 2 IHO THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. After these came the Menandrians, and Marcionists, and Car- poeratianSj and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians. They introduced each one his own opinion sepai'ately, and differently. After these came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the Chm'ch with corrupt doctrines (Ao'yots) against God and his Christa/^ The text of this extract, like that of the preceding, is not preserved in the best state. No douljt this is owing in some measiire to the original carelessness and awkwardness of the writer. I have given a translation somewhat different from that usually given. The statement in regard to Thebuthis is ano tS>v eTTTo, alpea-eooi; koI avTos iju kv rw Aaw" a(p' S)v. This is the common text, though there are some variations. It has been taken to mean that Thebuthis belonged to the seven sects or derived his heresy from theirs. But this certainly is an extra- ordinary assertion. The seven sects were in many points opposed to each other, and therefore a man could belong only to one of these, or derive his doctrines from onlj^ some of them at the utmost. If we suj^pose that Hegesippus meant that Thebuthis belonged to one of the seven sects, the diffi- culty is not removed. The statement that " he was among the people" seems superfluous. Then the sentence quoted is succeeded by one commencing with another a-no, acf)' S>v St/xwi', and Hegesippus is thus made to state that the five heresies subsequently mentioned flowed from the seven Jewish heresies. Then from these [a-nb tovtwv) are made to flow the principal Gnostic heresies : and from these [a-no toot cot-) arose false prophets, false Christs, and false apostles. Such a gene- alogy of heresies is utterly inconceivable, and is, moreover, untrue. Indeed, Hegesippus himself states exactly the re- verse. He asserts that they introduced each one his own opinion individuall}^ and differently (eKaoros tSiw? koX krepais Ibiav oo^ai'). By rendering the ano ' after,^ a sense in which it is used commonly enough, the statements become intelli- gible, true, and important. The mention of the oversight of ■- » Euseli. Hist. Eccl. iv. 22. YIIL] HEGESIPPUS. 197 Simeon reminds Hegesippus that then Thebuthis began secretly to corrupt the Jerusalem Church. The mention of the secret corruption then leads him to notice that Thebuthis ultimately formed a sect, probably after the death of Simon, and gained favour with the masses. And then Hegesippus naturally describes the progress of heresy. He thus mentions, first, the heresies of Simon, Cleobius, Dositheus, Masbotheus, and Gorthseus, which seem to have been confined to Jerusalem, or, at the utmost, to Palestine. Hegesippus then advances to the more widely spread Gnostic sects ; and alludes at last to the final phenomena of his days — the appearance of false pro- phets, and false Christs, and false apostles among the sects, and perhaps also among the Montanists. The early Unitarian school and the Tiibingen school appeal to this account of the heresies as proof that Hegesippus was an Ebionite. The reason, they say, why he does not mention the Ebionites is that he was one of them. It is far more likely, however, that Hegesippus made no mention of them for the very same reason that Irenseus and Hippolytus de- voted only two or three sentences to them, namely, because they were a contemptible and insignificant sect. Contemp- tible in every sense of the term they were. If the Christian Churcli did at this time welcome all who trusted Christ, whatever other belief they had, if, as we know from Justin, they made no objection to those who observed the law or M'ho looked on Christ as a man sprung from man, and could not agree to the opinion that He was God by nature, what reason was there why those who held these opinions should retire from the Church, except intolei*able egotism, arrogance, and want of brotherly love ? Baur seems to find also in the mention of the false apostles an allusion to the Apostle Paul — but it is questionable whether any but a member of the Tubingen school could appreciate such a remarkable discovery. Hegesippus asserts that Thebuthis began to corrupt secretly the Church (^l7^o(^0e^pet^•). As the words stand, the reader is led to believe that this corruption began immediately on the 198 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. appointment of Simeon to the oversight. From what Euse- bius says elsewhere of Hegesippus's statements, we gather that the corruptions did not lift up their heads till about the death of Simeon. Eusebius extracts the account of the martyrdom of Simeon from Hegesippus, and then adds, " After these things the same author (Hegesippus) relating what happened in the time of the previously mentioned persons, adds that up to those times the Church remained a virgin pure and uncorrupted, for those who attempted at that time, if any such there were, to corrupt the sound rule of the saving proclamation were as yet skulking somewhere in ob- scure darkness." Hegesippus does not assert that there was no false teaching, but that this false teaching had not openly shown itself. It is probable, moreover, that the remarks of Hegesippus were confined to the Churches in Palestine, per- haps only to that in Jerusalem. The text of Eusebius pro- ceeds as follows : " But when the holy chorus of apostles had in various ways ended their life, and that generation which had been privileged to hear with their own ears the divine {IvQiov) wisdom had passed away, then did the uprising of godless error commence through the deceit of unsound teachers; who, since now no one of the apostles remained, henceforth with uncovered head attempted to preach up their falsely-named knowledge against the proclamation of the truth. These things said this person, somehow in this way, discussing these matters »." The last sentence is not in the best manuscripts, and Rufinus does not recognise it. Hence it is generally agreed upon that the previous sentence is the assertion of Eusebius alone, and had nothing in the work of Hegesippus corresponding to it. The style, moreover, is unquestionably that of Eusebius. During the oversight of Simeon, in the Church of Jerusalem took place the interview betweeii tlie relatives of Christ and the emperor Domitian. Hegesippus thus describes it : "There were yet surviving of the family of the Lord the grandsons of that Judas who was called the brother of the • Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 32. VIII. ] HEGESIPPUS. 199 Lord according to the flesh. Information was given against them as being of the race of David. Now an evocatus brought them before the emperor Domitian^ who was as much afraid of the coming of Christ as was Herod. And he asked them if they had sprung from David. And they confessed. Then he asked them what possessions they had, and of how much money they were masters. And both of them said that they had only nine thousand denarii between them, and they said that they had this money not in silver but laid out on a piece of land of only thirty-nine acres, from which they had to pay their taxes and support themselves with their own hands. That then they showed him their hands, appealing in proof of their manual toil to the hardness of their body and the callous lumps which had been formed on their hands from their continual labour. That when asked with regard to Christ and his kingdom, wdiat was its nature and when and where it would appear, they replied that it was not a worldly nor earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic {ov KocriiiKr] ixkv ovb'' iiTiydLos irrovpavios 8e Kal ayycXiKi]), destined to appear at the end of the age {alQvos, ' world'), when coming in glory He would judge living and dead and give to every one according to his works. That Domitian did not pronounce any sentence of condemnation on them on account of these things, but despising them as men of low estate he let them go free, and put an end to the persecution against the Church by a decree ; and that when set free they guided the Churches, for the double reason that they were at once witnesses {jxdpTvpa'i) and that they were relatives of the Lord; and that after the establishment of peace they remained in life to the times of Trajan •'.'' It will be noticed that we have the exact words of Hegesippus only to the commencement of the clause, ''That then they showed him their hands." The sentences after this are unquestionably Eusebius's account of what Hege- sippus said, and bear the plainest marks of his style. In a passage quoted by Routh from Ecloga? Ecclesiastica; HistoriiP, edited by Cramer, a writer affirms that Hegesippus adduced b Euiseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 20. 200 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. the names of the gTandsons, and that the one was called Zoker and the other James c. The last event in the history of the Jerusalem Church on which the fragments of Hegesippus throw light is the martyrdom of Simeon. The chapter of the Ecclesiastical History which Eusehius devotes to this subject deserves to be quoted entire. '"^ After Nero and Domitian history says (Ao'yos KaT€\u) that in the reign of him whose times we are now examining a persecution was raised up against us partially, and in cities, in consequence of the outbursts of the populace. In this persecution we have learned that Simeon the son of Cleopas, whom we have jDointed out as having been appointed the second overseer of the Church in Jerusalem, ended his life by martyrdom. Of this that same Hegesippus is witness, several of whose statements we have already on former occa- sions adduced. Giving an account of some heretical persons, he adds that, as might have been expected, it was by these that Simeon was about this time accused, that he was tor- tured for very many days in many ways as being a Christian, that he astonished the judge himself and his attendants in the highest degree, and that his end was like the suffering of the Lord. But there is nothing like quoting the writer who relates these same transactions word for word somehow as follows : ' Some of these, to wit the heretics, accuse Simeon the son of Cleopas as being descended of David and a Christian, and thus he bears witness being 120 years old, when Trajan was emperor and Atticus consular deputy/ The same person says that it fell out that his accusers also were captured as being of the royal tribe of the Jews, for all those who were descended of that tribe were at that time sought out. By reckoning we can affirm that Simeon was one of the eye-witnesses and hearers of the Lord, basing our argument on the length of the time of his life, and on the circumstance that the writing of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Cleopas, whose son our history has already shown Simeon to have been. The same writer asserts that others '^ Ivouth, Rel. Sacr. vol. i. ]j. 284. VIII.] // E GESIPP US. 2iJ 1 of the family of one of those commonly spoken of as the brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, survived to the same reign after the testimony already narrated which they bore in regard to confidence in Christ before Domitian. He writes thus : ' They come then and guide every Church, as being witnesses, and as being relatives of the Lord. And after there had arisen deep peace in every Church, they remain until the times of the Emperor Trajan, until the time at which the forementioned Simeon, the son of Cleopas the uncle of the Lord, was falsely informed ag-ainst by the sects, and was in like manner accused on account of the same belief {kiu, Tw avT^ Xoyo)^) before Atticus the consular deputy. And being tortured for many days, he bore witness so that all were exceedingly astonished, even the deputy, at the way in which a man 120 years old bore the tortures: and he was ordered to be crucified ^.' " Eusebius informs us that Hegesippus related that Cleopas, or Clopas as the name is often spelled, was the brother of Joseph ^, Eusebius also quotes from Hegesippus a list of the seven heresies of the Jews which have been referred to oftener than once already. " The following were the different opinions in the circumcision among the sons of Israel, of those that were against the tribe of Judah and the Christ, namely, Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobaptistae, Masbotheans, Samaritans, Sad- ducees, and Pharisees =." The meaning of the words " of those that were against the tribe of Judah and Christ^' is somewhat doubtful. The most j^i'obable is that Hegesipi)us narrates all the sects of the Jews which had no connexion with Christianity, all those who had arrayed themselves against Christ, the special representative of the tribe of Judah. The mention of the Essenes is interesting. It is a complete historical refutation of De Quincey^s theory that the Essenes were the early Christians, for one who no doubt '• It might be ' for the same reason," but tliis translation does not liarmonize so well with the context. " Euscb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 32. f Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 11. ^' Ibid. iv. 22. 202 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. knew the sect sets it down as opposed to Christianity. And it stands opposed to the theory of Baur that Hegesippus did not mention the Ebionites because he belonged to them ; for Baur regards Ebionitism simply as a development of Essenisml^. This is all the information which we get in regard to the Jerusalem Church from the fragments of Hegesippus. Euse- bius seems to have prized the work very highly : and however defective its style,, and however credulous the writer might have been, yet his work must have been one of great im- portance on account of the details which it gave of the Church of the apostles and first converts of Christianity. The information which Hegesippus gave in regard to the Churches in Rome and Corinth has been quoted already, and indeed all the fragments which Eusebius has extracted have now been laid before the reader. There is only one other fragment attributed to Hegesippus, that mentioned already as quoted by Stephanus Gobarus. The fragment 's as follows : " ' That the good things pre- pared for the righteous neither eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor have they entered into the heart of man.^ Hegesippus, however, an ancient and apostolic man, in the fifth book of his Notes, I know not under what influence {ovk ot8' o,Tt KoX ■na6(ai'), says that these words have been said in vain, and that those who say these things give the lie to the divine writings and to the Lord saying ' Blessed are your eyes that see and your ears that liearV'''' &c. Baur supposes that Hegesippus directed these words against i Cor. ii. 9, and he therefore discovers from this passage that he must be reckoned as one '' of the most avowed opponents of the apostle Paul.i." No theory could be based on a slighter foundation. For at the outset, it would be difficult to affirm that we have a genuine fragment of Hegesippus befor.e us. •• See Dorner"s Die Lehre von der Person Christi, vol. i. p. 222, note 65, which contains a very able and satisfactory refutation of Baur. i Phot. Bibl. Cod. 232. j "Wir ihn zu den erkliirtesten Gegnern des Apostels rechneii miissen." — C'hrhteiithuiii unci die Ch. K. p. 84. VIIL] HEGESIPPUS. 2C3 And then it' Stephanus Gobarus had read Hegesippus, he could scarcely have said " I know not under what influ- ence/^ for he would have known that it had either been in opposition to the apostle Paul or in opposition to some heresy. Then^ again, Hegesippus must certainly have been very senseless indeed if he opposed the statement of Paul that the blessings of the future state are inconceivably great by the words of our Lord, " Blessed are your eyes that see/^ &c. Then the words which are found in i Cor. ii. 9 are not Paul's own, but a quotation according to Origen from the Apocalypse of Elias, and Paul may have taken the ideas and most of the words from Isaiah Ixiv. 3 ^. So that there would be far more reason to imagine that Hegesippus opposed the Revelation of Elijah or the Prophecies of Isaiah than the Epistle of Paul. And, lastl\', a satisfactory explana- tion can be given why Hegesippus placed the words of our Lord in opposition to the passage which occurs in the Apoca- lypse of Elijah and the Epistle to the Corinthians. Many of the Gnostics maintained that it was only the spiritual that comprehended Christianity, that only they could attain to the apprehension of the good. Some of them, as we learn from the recently discovered work of Hippolytus', used this passage continually as descriptive of the secret and mys- terious doctrines of Christianity which only the qualitied Gnostics could understand. There can scarcely be a doubt that Hegesippus directed his remarks against this application of the words : and the saying of our Lord which he quotes is a complete and satisfactory refutation of any esoteric Chris- tianity unknown to the gospel writers, or unexpressed by them f". In J 740 Muratori published a very remarkable Latin frag- ment on the New Testament canon in the third volume of his Italian Antiquities. He conjectured that the fragment was k I think it more likely that Paul quoted from some apocryphal work than from Isaiah, because in the Septuagint version of Isaiah there is not one word exactly the same as in Paul's quotation. 1 Kefut. Omnium Hser. v. 24, 26, 27 : vi. 24, pp. 216, 222, 230. 262, Duncker and Schneidewin. "' See Lechler, p. 463, »ote. 204 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. a translation from Greek, and that its anthor was Cains the Roman presbyter, who flourished in the beginning of the third century. That he was right in conjecturing the frag- ment to be a translation from the Greek has been generally acknowledged^ but the evidence is not satisfactory. And there was no good reason for assigning it to Caius, the mere mention of the name of Miltiades being quite insufficient to establish the authorship. jNIoreover^ if we are to trust the fragment itself, the writer according to the most probable interpretation of the passage must have lived before the time of Caius. The date indicated in the fragment^ along with some other circumstances, led Bunsen to conjecture, that we have in the Muratorian fragment a portion of the "Notes'"^ of Hegesippus. Before inquiring into the soundness of this conjecture we shall give an account of the contents of the fragment. The manuscript is an old one, the letters being uncial, probabl}'' a thousand years old, as Muratori conjec- tured in his day. It was discovered in a monastery at Bobbio, which was founded by Columban, an Irishman, in the begin- ning of the seventh century. The text is in a very corrupt state, and consequently it is sometimes impossible to get at the meaning. The fragment is mutilated at the beginning, and opens with a sentence which probably referred to the second Gospel, but of which we can only guess the purport. "At which,^^ it says, " he was present, and so he placed it." Then the fragment proceeds to describe the Gospel of Luke, but the sense has to be in many words guessed at. AVith various emendations it will read thus : " The third book of the Gospel according to Luke. Luke^ that physician after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken him along with him as a companion of his travels, [or, when Paul had taken him as a follower since he was desii'ous of righteousness,] wrote it in his own name, as seemed good to him. He himself, however, had not seen the Lord in the flesh, and so he began to speak from the nativity of John, as far as he could ascertain the truth." The frag-ment next describes VI IL] HEGESIFPUS. 2J5 tlie Gospel of John. The greater portion of the text relating to this Gospel is at least intelligible and the information is interesting. " The fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. ^Mien his fellow-disciples and overseers ui'ged him, he said, ' Fast ye together for me to-day for three days, and let us relate to each other what has been revealed to each.^ The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that, while all looked over, John should write out all things in his own name. And therefore, although various beginnings are presented by each book of the Gospels, this makes no difference as respects the faith of believers, since all things in all are declared by the one guiding Spirit concerning the nativit}', concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, concerning his intercourse vdth. his disciples, and concerning his two advents.^^ Here the text becomes confused : and all that we know is that the writer described the one advent as an advent of humiliation, and the second advent as yet future and destined to happen in regal power and splendour. The text then proceeds plainly enough : "What wonder is it, then, that John should adduce each thing so uniformly in his Epistles, saying in regard to himself, ' The things which we have seen with our exes, and heard with our ears, aud our hands have handled, these are the things which we have written.^ For he professes himself not only a seer and hearer of the Lord, but a writer of all his wonderful works in order," The next portion of the fragment describes the Acts of the Apostles. The text is corrupt, and there is no satisfactory explanation of the last clause. " Now the Acts of all the Apostles were written in one book. Luke embraced in his work to the best Theophilus only the things which were done in his own presence ; and this is plainly proved by his omission of all mention of the death of Peter and of the setting out of Paul from the city to Spain;" or this last clause may be read, " and thus he avoids declaring plainly the passion of Peter though it was known to him, as also the setting out of Paul from the city to Spain." 206 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. The rest of the fragment is for the most part iiitellig-ible, though probably several sentences have been lost. It runs thus : " Then come the letters of Paul. The letters them- selves declare to those who wish to know from what place or from what cause they were sent. First of all there was the letter to the Corinthians forbidding the schism of heresy^ then that to the Galatians forbidding circumcision^ and then he wrote more largely to the Romans, penetrating into the order of the Scriptures and showing* that Christ is the foundation of tliem^. Concerning each of these we need not speak particularly, since the blessed apostle Paul him- self, following the order of his predecessor John, does not write unless to seven Churches by name in the following order : first to the Corinthians, second to the Ephesians, third to the Philippians, fourth to the Colossians, fifth to the Galatians, sixth to the Thessalonians, seventh to the Romans. But to the Corinthians and Thessalonians, though for rebuke, he wrote twice. Yet it is known that there is only one Church scattered over the whole earth. And John also, although in the Apocalypse he writes to seven Churches, yet speaks to all. Moreover, one was dedicated to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in consideration of his love and affection for them, yet also in honour of the Catholic Church and the order of the Church discipline. There is one also in circulation addressed to the Laodiceans, and one to the Alexandrians", forged in the name of Paul according to the heresy of Marcion, and many others which cannot be received by the Catholic Church. For it does not suit to mix vinegar with honey. The letter of Judas also, and the two letters of John above " Or, as Volkmar more probably reads, supplying a word, " to the Romans, penetrating into the order of the Scriptures and showing that Christ is the foundation of them, to others he wrote more diffusely, concerning each of which." o Credner tries to make three series of letters : one to the Laodiceans, one to the Alexandrians, and some forged in the name of Paul. He does violence to the text. He wishes to make the Epistle to the Alexandrians mean the Epistle to the Hebrews. VIII.] HEGESIPP US. 207 mentioned^ are reckoned genuine in the Catholic Church. Also the Wisdom written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. We receive onl}^ the revelations of John and Peter, the latter of which some of our people do not wish to be read in the Church. Moreover, Hermas very lately in our times wrote the Pastor in the city of Rome, while his brother Pius sat as overseer in the chair of the Church of the city of Rome. And therefore it oug-ht to be read (privately), but it ought not to be publicly read in the Church to the people, nor can he be placed among tlie prophets, as the number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time. Nor do we receive anything at all of Arsinous, or Valentinus, or Miltiades, who also wrote a new book of Psalms for Marcion, along with Basilides the Asiatic founder of the Cataphrygiansi'." The arguments which Bunsen ^ adduces to prove that this fragment is part of the work of Hegesippus are the fol- lowing. The writer affirms that Hermas wrote the Pastor in his own times. Hegesippus, as we have seen, must have been alive in the time of the emperor Hadrian, and therefore he could well call the times of Pius (133-150) his own times. Hegesippus therefore mi(/Jit he the author. Eusebius informs us that not only Hegesippus but Irenaeus and the whole chorus of the ancients called the Proverl:»s of Solomon the '' all- virtuous Wisdom,^' and that he also asserted that in his own times some of the apocryphal works had been forged by heretics. Bunsen thinks that this fragment con- tains the statements alluded to by Eusebius. Then, Jerome says that ecclesiastical history relates that John, when he was compelled by his brethren to write, answered that he would do so if, fasting in common, all P Volkmar reads, wdth better sense, " Nor do we receive anything at all of Arsinous or Valentinus. Moreover, the followers of Marcus wrote a new book of Psalms. AVe reject the Asiatic founder [Montanus] of the Cataphry- gians, along with Basilides." •J Analecta Ante-Nic^na. vol. i. p. 126. 208 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap; should pray to God ; and that on the conclusion of the fast, being- filled with revelation^ he sent forth (Vomited forth/ eructavisse) that introduction which came from heaven, " In the beginning was the Word k" Jerome asserts also that John was the last of all that wrote a gospel, and that he wrote, at the request of the overseers, against Cerinthuss. Bunsen thinks that Jerome refers expressly to Hegesippus in the first j)assage. ' Ecclesiastica Historia^ can mean only either the history of Hegesippus or the History of Eusebius. It is not the latter, and therefore it must be the former. And he thinks that in both passages Jerome derived the facts from Hegesippus. The fragment is an interesting fragment ; and it certainly would be a great gain to our knowledge of the history of the canon if satisfactory proof could be adduced that Hegesip- pus was the author. But Bunsen^s arguments break down completely on close examination. We shall discuss each argument separately. Bunsen states that he looks upon the mention of the date not as a proof of the authorship of Heg-esippus, but simply as consistent with it. The passage itself, however, is open to serious question. Even if we were sure that Hegesippus was the author, we should have no satisfaction that the text is in anything like a sound state. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that it is mutilated. It does not begin with the beginning ; sentences also seem to have fallen out. There could have been no good reason for omitting to mention the first Epistle of Peter, as it was well known and universally received. And whatever the writer might have thought of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, and the third Epistle of John, we should have expected some notice of them. If it is thus mutilated, why might it not also be interpolated ? If, moreover, the translator was so ignorant of Latin, can we trust his translation ? And what guarantee have we that he has not paraphrased and expanded the original ? The force of these remarks is peculiarly felt in dealing with >' Prodfim. Comm. in Matth. ' De A^ir. Tllust. c. o. VIIL] HEGESIPP US. 2(9 the paragraph which g-ives the date. The Pastor of Hermas was not well known to the Western Church, and it was not highly esteemed. It was regarded as inspired by the Eastern, and read in the Eastern Churches. We have seen, moreover, that it is extremely unlikely that Hermas was a real per- sonage. It would be, therefore, far more probable that we have here an interpolation, or addition, by a member of the Roman or African Church, probably by the translator, made expressly for the purpose of serving as proof that the Pastor of Hermas was not inspired. The paragraph itself bears unquestionable marks of tampering. The expression " Bishop Pius sitting in the chair of the Church of the city of Rome''^ is without parallel in the genuine writings contemporaneous with those of Hegesippus. Bunsen^s first argument has really no force in it. In the very passage of Eusebius to which he refers it is plainly asserted that " not only Hegesippus, but Irenseus, and the whole chorus of the ancients, called the Proverbs of Solomon the 'All-virtuous Wisdom.^ ^^ So that nothing definite would be gained if the fragment did call the Proverbs of Solomon the 'All-virtuous Wisdom.' But the fragment does not call the Proverbs of Solomon the ' All-virtuous Wisdom.-* It speaks merely of the ' Wisdom written by the friends of Solomon.'' And since the writer reckons it among the books of the New Testament, the likelihood is that he did not mean by it the Proverbs of Solomon, but the work now classed with the apocryphal books of the Old Testament ^ The second part of the assertion, that Hegesippus mentioned that apocry- phal works were forged by heretics in his day, is also no proof. Many other writers must have made, and did make, the same statement. And this fragment does not make the precise statement, for it does not assert that in the time of the writer apocryphal works were composed. In both passages of Jerome more is asserted than is to be found in the fragment. The fragment does not mention the ' See a very interesting and able article on this point by S. P. Tregelles, .Tournal of Classical and Sacred Philology, No. iv. March 1855. VOL. Ill, 1' 210 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. first verse of John^s Gospel, and says nothing' of that Gospel having' been written ag-ainst Cerinthus and Ebionites. The mere phrase ' Eeelesiastica Historia'' proves nothing. The work of Hegesippus was not an Ecclesiastical History. There is no proof, moreover, that Jerome knew anything' more of Hegesippus than what he found in Eusebius. And the words ' Eeelesiastica Historia^ may well mean ' Church History^ in the indefinite way in which we may use the term. There is good reason to believe that the fragment is of a date later than the time of Hegesippus, and that it is not earlier than the third century. If it had been a part of the work of Heg-esippus, Eusebius would in all probability have quoted it. The information is so interesting, and the autho- rity of Hegesippus was so great with Eusebius, that he would have hailed such early and sure light on a subject in which he was deeply interested. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that in the time of Hegesippus the books of the New Testament were collected in one volume, or were known to one man. Towards the time of his death, indeed, we have proof that there began a vigorous study of the New Testa- ment writings, and therefore this argument does not go for very much. But if the fragment were the work of Hegesippus, it would be the first notice of the books of the New Testament; and certainly it would be very strange indeed that the first full notice of them had been neglected by all the ancients, and accidentally preserved to us in a Latin translation, which, if it ascribes it to any one, ascribes it to Chrysostom. As we have said alread}', the reasons for regarding the fragment as a translation are not very satisfactory. In fact there is only one exj^ression that positively points to Greek. It is " alia plura quse in catholicam ecclesiam recepi non potest"^ — a neuter j^lural with a singular verb. If the in- genious conjecture of Tregelles could be substantiated in any way, the proof would be positive. " Some ancient writers,^^ says Jerome, " affirm that it (the style of the Wisdom of Solomon) is that of Philo the Jew." Treg-elles VIIL] HEGESIPPUS. 211 conjectures that either this statement was in the fragment, or was gathered from the fragment in a mistake by Jerome. He translates the Latin words " et Sapientia ab amieis Solo- monis in honorem ipsius scripta" — koL rj ^o(^ia ^aXofxSivos VTTo fpiKuivos ets r^y tiij.i]v avTov yeypaij.fj.ivr]. Or the text might have been v-nb (fiiXuiv, and Jerome made a mistake. It is far more likely that the fragment is not a trans- lation, but an original composition by one belonging to the African Church. The Latin certainly seems to point to an African origin. The use of the words ^ correptio/ 'intimo/ ^ordo scripturarum/ can best be paralleled from Tertullian". The text has undergone corruption at the hands of the transcriber, and the use of ' secundo ' for ' secundum ' is a proof that the copyist lived at a time when the Latin language was breaking down into the Italian. There are, however, comparatively few of these peculiarities, and indeed the whole Latinity is not at all bad, except in the passages where editors have entirely failed to make out a complete text^ We think, therefore, that Volkmar is wrong in sup- posing that we have in the fragment a specimen of the lingua volgata". Volkmar maintains that the manuscript is so far from being corrupt that it is to be regarded as one of the most correct. On this supposition he traces the old Latin spelling through the mistakes of the Irish tran- scriber. He retains unknown words — such as ^duas,^ used as a noun, and ' quia,^ the nominative plural neuter of ' qui/ His attempt cannot be regarded as satisfactory. There are plain and evident corruptions in the manuscript. The carelessness of the transcriber is apparent in every line. And the exact use of the subjunctive is proof that it was ori- ginally composed by one w^ho knew well the style of the best Latin writers. " See Credner, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon. von Carl August Credner, Herausgegeben von Dr. G. Volkmar, Berlin, i860, p. 168. ^ Hilgenfeld, in a recent work— Der Kanon und Die Ki'itik dea N.T. &c. Halle, 1863 — agrees \vith me in this opinion, but supposes the fragment to be a translation from Greek, and attempts to restore the Greek, p. 40. P 3 212 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. It is impossible to assig-n an author to a fragment of which absolutely no mention is made in any ancient writer. We must content ourselves with an approximation to a date. Most have agreed to place it somewhere towards the end of the second or the beg-inning' of the third century. The arguments for this are the use of such phrases as 'the Catholic Church/ 'ecclesiastical instruction or discipline^ (ec- clesiastica disciplina), which are unknown to any writer described in this volume ; the emphasis laid on the number (seven) of the Churches which Paul and John addressed y; the strong" assertion of the unity of the Church^ ; the omis- sion of any notice of the letters of Peter and James, of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the third Epistle of John^, if we could depend on the integrity of the fragment; the naming of the revelation of Peter ^^ and at the same time the simplicity of the doctrine^ for the teaching of the gospel is summed up in the birth, death, resurrection, and second coming of Christ c. The remark about Hermas is the reason for making the date of the fragment as early as the end of the second century. But if the words " nuperrime nostris temporibus,''' ''very lately in our days," be taken to mean ' not in the days of the apostles, but within times which may properly be called our times when inspiration has ceased,' then there is no necessity for fixing an early date. And the words " sitting in the chair of the Church of the city of Rome" are not to be paralleled in Tertullian ; but there are many such expressions in Cyprian. I should therefore be inclined to regard the frag-ment as having been written in Latin towards the end of the first half of the third century, probably in Africa. Volkmar supposes it to have proceeded from the Roman Chui'ch between a. d. 190 and 200, basing his assertions principally on the state- > Cyprian, Test. adv. Jud. i. 20 ; Routh, Reliq. Sacr. vol. i. p. 416. ' passim in Cypr. => See Routh 's note, Reliq. Sacr. vol. i. p. 420. *■ Routh, Reliq. Sacr. vol. i. p. 426. <=■ Most of these arguments have been well set forth by Stosch, whose opinions 1 know only from Routh, Reliq. Sacr. vol. i. p. 397. VIIL] HEGE8IPPUS. 213 ment in regard to Montanus. But that part of the text in which the assertion is made is corrupt^ and becomes intellig'ible only through conjecture. And if it were certain that the text was as Credner and Volkmar suppose^ the statement is quite insufficient to give a ckie to the exact date. The adherence of Tertullian to Montanism, and the consequent spread of Montanism in Africa^ which Credner assigns as reasons for the fragment being written before the time of Tertullian, may have been the very reasons why the Asiatic Montanus was mentioned at all. It would be useless to discuss the various inferences which have been drawn in regard to the canon from this fragment. They will be found in Credner, Bunsen, and Westcott. If it be considered that the document is as yet an unauthen- ticated document, that its completeness is matter of question, that its date can be assigned only by internal evidence, and that not of the most satisfactory nature, perhaps the warm contentions which have arisen about this fragment as the first account of books received in the Catholic Church will cool down into a more scientific treatment of it. Bunsen and Volkmar have both attempted to supply the portions of the fragment that have been lost — a useless piece of work. It remains to mention a Latin history of the Jewish war which has been published under the name of Hegesippus. No one doubts that this is a compilation based on the Greek work of Josephus, and some of the manuscripts — the Am- brosian in Milan, and one in the Advocates' Library in Edin- burgh—read Josephi or Joseppi instead of Egesippi. There are only two separate editions of this work — one by Cornelius Gualtherus Gaudavensis, Coloniae, twice published, first in 1559 and then in 1575 ; and the other begun by Weber, and finished by Julius Caesar, with the title, Hegesippus qui dicitur sive Egesippus De Bello Judaico ope codicis Cas- sellani Recognitus, Marburgi, 1864. It has been printed in several of the great libraries, as Weber mentions in his introductory note. CHAPTEE IX. DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH. I. — LIFE. JL HE only information which we have with regard to this Dionysius is derived from Eusebius, and relates almost ex- clusively to his letters. In his History^ Eusehiiis places Dionysius among the writers that flourished in the time of Marcus Aurelius. Jerome^s version of the Chronicon sets Dionysius down in a. d. 171. Jerome himself, in his article on Dionysius in his De Viris Illustribus ^, says that he flourished under the Emperors Marcus Antoninus Verus and L. Aurelius Commodus. From the short notice which Eusebius gives us of his letters we gather that he was a man of kindly and peaceful disposition, of moderation in his dealings with his brethren, and of great earnestness in his zeal against heretics, yet always anxious to bring them back to the truth and the love of the brotherhood. He seems to have had no small degree of influence in the Church. His writings would have thrown great light on the inner life of the Christians in his time if they had been preserved. II. — THE WRITINGS OP DIONYSIUS. Eusebius thus introduces his notice of the wi'itings of Dio- nysius : " And first we must speak of Dionysius, that he was entrusted with the seat of the oversight of the Church in Corinth, and how he gave a liberal share of his inspired * Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. ■zi. b c. 17. Chap. IX.] DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH. 215 industry [hOiov ^iXo-novias) not only to those under liim but to those in other districts, making himself most useful to all in the catholic Epistles which he wrote [vuiTvirovTo) to the Churches^/' Eusebius probably calls the letters catholic be- cause they were intended to be read to more Churches than one c. Eusebius then gives a list of the eight letters which he knew. There are no remains of these letters, except one or two quotations which Eusebius himself has made. I. A letter to the Lacedaemonians. In this letter Dionysius instructed the Lacedaemonians in the truths of Christianity, and urged them to peace and unity. II. A letter to the Athenians. In this Dion^'sius stirred up the Athenians to faith and a life according to the Gospel. He rebuked them for having almost departed from the truth since the time that their president Publius had died a martyr. But at the same time he mentioned his successor Quadratus as causing a revival of their faith through his zeal. He also affirmed that '' Dionysius the Areopagite, who had been urged on to the faith by the Apostle Paul, as is recorded in the Acts, was first entrusted with the oversight of the Church in Athens ^l'" III. A letter to the Nicomedians. In this Dionysius de- fended the truths of Christianity against the attacks of Marcion. IV. A letter to the Church in Gortyna and the other Churches in Crete, in which he praised Philip the overseer for the good deeds done by the Church under him, and warned him to be on his guard against the perversions of heretics. V. A letter to the Church at Amastris and the Churches throughout Pontus. Dionysius mentioned in this that he wrote at the request of Bacchylides and Elpistus, he ex- pounded some parts of Scripture, and gave many exhortations with regard to marriage and chastity. He urged them to give a hearty welcome to those who should return, whether from a '' Hist. Eccl. iv. 23. ' See Routh, Eeliq. Sacr. vol. i. p. 196. <* Eusebius appeals to Dionysius for this fact elsewhere in his History, vol. iii. p. 4. 216 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. course of evil conduct or heretical delusion. He made men- tion in the letter of Palmas the overseer of the Church in Amastris. VI. A letter to the Gnossians. In this Dionysius exhorts Pinytus the overseer not to lay too hea\y a burden on the brethren with regard to chastity, but rather to take into consideration the weakness of the many. VII. A letter to the Romans ; addressed, says Eusebius, to Soter the overseer; but the fragments show that it was really to the Roman Church. Eusebius has preserved four fragments of this letter. The first describes a custom of the Roman Church. " For this/^ says Dionysius, " has been your custom from the beginning, to do good to all the brethren in various ways, and to send resources to many Churches which are in every city, thus refreshing the poverty of the needy and granting subsidies to the brethren who are in the mines ; through the resources which ye have sent from the beginning, ye Romans keep up the custom of the Romans handed down by the fathers, which your blessed overseer Soter has not only preserved but added to ; sending a splendid gift to the saints, and exhorting with blessed words those brethren who go up to Rome, as an affectionate father his children '^.^^ The second fragment relates to the letter of Clemens Romanus, and has been quoted elsewhere^. The third fragment bears testimony to the interpolation of letters even in the lifetime of the author. " For,'''' he says, " I wrote letters when the brethren requested me to write. And these letters the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, taking awaj^ some things and adding others. A woe lies on these. It is not wonderful then if some have dared to deal foully with the Lord^s writings (rwy nvpiaKSiv ypacpQv) , when they have meddled with those which are not of such importance (rais ov Totawrat?) as these ^.'^ The fourth frag- ment asserts that " Peter and Paul, planting us in our city of Corinth, taught us in like manner, and teaching you in ^ Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. c. 23. "^ vol. i. p. 100. ' Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 2.^. IX.] DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH. 217 like manner in Italy, boldly bore witness at the same time"/' (about the same period, Kara tov airov Kaipou). How far reliance may be placed, on this statement is doubtful, as we have no means of ascertaining the critical character of Dionv- sius. If he means to say that Paul and Peter planted the Corinthian Church, we know he is wrong. But most pro- bably he means that both of them laboured together there, and this surely is not improbable. VIII, A letter to Chrysophora, a most faithful sister. Dionysius in this gave her rational nourishment (AoytK^s Tpo(t)r\s) suited to her. The account of Eusebius throws no light on the doc- trinal position of Dionysius. Eusebius describes one of his letters as opOoho^ias KaTriyrjTiKri ; and in another he says that he defends the rule of truth (rw r^s aXrjdeCas napi- araraL Kavovi). But he gives no indication of what this orthodoxy was. Dionysius evidently entered largely into the question of marriage, which then agitated the Christian world ; and he also discussed the readmission of backsliders and heretics into the Church. He also devoted himself to the study of the Scriptures, giving expositions of them {ypa- (f)(av deLoiv i^r]yi]a€Ls) . Whether the ' divine writings ' included the New Testament there is no means of determining. In one of the fragments preserved he mentions the ' Lord's wi-itings' {tcoi^ KvpiaKuti; ypa(\)G>v) . It is not easy to settle what this term means, but most probably it refers to the Gospels as containing the sayings and doings of the Lord, It is not likely, as Lardner supposes h, that such a term would be ap- plied to the whole of the New Testament. It is in regard to the Gospels especially that heretics are elsewhere accused of falsification and corruption. There is no reference to the Bible in the words of Eusebius, " he defends the rule of the truth/' K Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 25. The text here seems corrupt, and is at least difficult to understand. I have translated 6ix6(Ti with Pearson — audacter. Per- haps it is a corruption of v/xas. For a discussion of the passage, see Heinichen's note, and Westcott on the History of the Canon, p. 209. h Credibility, part ii. c. 1 2. 218 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. The rule of truth is the fixed beliefs of the Churchy which were uniformly handed down from one Church to another. We shall meet with it elsewhere. Dionysius also mentions the Lord^s day as a holy day ; and it is implied in his statement that Christians met and heard instructive works read to them. Eusebius gives a list of the most prominent writers in the reign of Marcus Aurelius ; and among- them he mentions some in regard to whom little is known. These are Pinytus, Philippus^ Musanus_, and Modestus. PINYTUS. Pinytus is mentioned in the letter of Dionysius of Corinth to the Gnossians as overseer. He wrote a reply to Diony- sius, asking him " to bestow on them stronger food, nourishing the people under him again with more advanced (reAecorepots) instruction, so that they might not by continually poring over milk-like woi'ds, insensibly grow old in a childish mode of life.^^ These words would lead us to imagine that Pinytus was inclined to adhere to his strict notions with regard to chastity. Eusebius tells us, however, that he admired and welcomed the letter of Dionysius, and he says also that the letter of Pinytus was clear proof of the soundness of his faith, his interest in the people of his charge, his learning, and understanding in divine things '. Eusebius speaks of him also as overseer of those in Crete ^; but the passage is pro- bably corrupt. The words are, YIivvto^ re aXkos tSiv ctti Kp?/r7js €TTL(TKOTTos. No Satisfactory explanation of the aAAos has yet been proposed. Eusebius is the only author that mentions Pinytus. Jerome has, as usual, repeated Eusebius l. He adds, that he flourished under Marcus Antoninus Verus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus. PHILIPPUS. Philippus is also noticed by Dionysius of Corinth in his letter to the Church of Gortyna, as being overseer of the * Euseb. Eccl. Hist. iv. 23. ^ Ibid. iv. 21. ' De Vir. Illust. c. 28. IX.] PINYTUS, PHILIP PUS, d-c. 219 Church. He wrote a very excellent work against Marcion m. Jerome mentions him as living- in the time of Marcus Anto- ninus Verus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus «. The state- ment of Joannes Trithemius », that he also wrote letters and various tractates which had not reached his time, makes it probable that works were forged in his name. MODESTUS. Modestus is placed beside Philippus both by Eusebius P and Jerome q. All that we are informed with regard to him is that he wrote the best exposition of the errors of Marcion. The work was extant in the time of Jerome. Jerome men- tions also that other treatises were current under his name, but that they were rejected by the learned as spurious. SOTER. Dionysius mentions a letter written by the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth, — " To-day we spent the Lord^s holy day, in which we read your letter; which we shall always keep, reading it for our admonition, as the former, written to us through Clemens,''^ As this letter was wi-itten in the time of Soter, Soter is set down as the author of it. It is most likely he was ; but yet there is nothing known in regard to the matter, and the letter was a letter of the Roman Church to the Corinthian, not of an individual to individuals. Other writing's have been attributed to Soter, but they are so uni- versally recognised now as spurious that no notice need be taken of them here. MUSANUS. Nothing is known of Musanus except that he lived in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and wrote a most convincing work ■° Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 25. " De Air. lUust. c. 30. ® De Script. Eccles. c. 19. p Hist. Eccl. iv. 25. < De Vir. Illust. c. 32. 220 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. IX. addressed to some brethren who were inclined to follow the heresy of the Encratites, then just beg-inning- to make its appearance J". Theodoret also mentions him among the op- ponents of the Severians ^ ' Euseb. Eccles. Hist. iv. 28. K6yos 4vi(rTpeirTiKWTaTos, most calculated to make them turn back to the Church again. » Fab. Hseret. lib. i. c. 20. CHAPTEE X. ME LIT O. I. LIFE. JMELITO was overseer of the Church in Sardis. We know nothing- of his life, except that he went, as he tells us himself, to the East ; even to the place where the scenes recorded in the Old Testament were transacted *. Polycrates of Ephesus speaks of Melito as a man " who had conducted all his affairs in a holy spirit "/' As a mark of distinction he calls him Melito the eunuch. Why he should be singled out by this appellation has been matter of dispute. It may have been that he really had. been a eunuch before his conversion to Christianity. Most modern writers, however, have been in- clined to find some special praise in the expression ; and as Origen was condemned for making himself a eunuch, and as there was actually an heretical sect who insisted on castration as necessary to admission into the kingdom of Christ ^, it has been supposed that Melito was not in reality a eunuch, but that the name implied merely an unusual degree of zeal in behalf of chastity, Rufinus in his translation of Eusebius seems also to have been of this opinion, for he paraphrases, " Melito, who was a eunuch on account of the kingdom of God, and who was filled with the Holy Spirit;" but his words are by no means precise. The opinion is nowhere set out in better language than in Cave — '' Vitam duxit coehbem et plane » Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 26. " Ibid. v. 24. ' See Woog. Di.ssert. i. c. 10. 222 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. cselestem ; unde Eunuchum eum vocat Polycrates Ephesius 7." Yet it is scarcely possible to suppose that Melito should alone of all bachelors be singled out for the special epithet of eunuch : and as Polycrates does unquestionably appear to use it as an epithet of praise^ it becomes likely that Polycrates looked on the literal act of castration as a deed of high merit; and such must also have been the prevailing senti- ment both of the times of Melito and of Polycrates. Jerome, at the close of his article on Melito ^, notices that Melito was praised by Tertullian. His words are, " Tertullian, praising his elegant and declamatory turn of mind in the seven books which he wrote against the Church in behalf of Montanus, says that he was reckoned a prophet by most of our people.''^ Some of the best manuscripts read ' blaming' instead of ' praising ;■" but the context is against the reading. We do not know how far we can rely on the information here given ; because the works of Tertullian referred to have perished. Some have based on the statement the inference that Melito was a Montanist ; and the inference is supposed to be confirmed by the title of one of Melito's books, and by so'Vne of his opinions. The probability is that Melito had died before the hei-esy of Montauus came to occupy an inde- pendent position, but that he had, like Athenagoras, used language in regard to the prophets which was afterwards more in harmony with Montanist than with Catholic opinions. He lived in the reign of Marcus Antoninus, to whom he addressed his Apology for the Christians. As this Apology was written in a.d. 170, and as it was probably his last work, he is supposed to have died soon after. Nothing positive can be asserted in regard to this matter. It has been conjectured that he died a natural death; for Polycrates, who had an object in mentioning the merits of those whom he names, while asserting that he was buried at Sardis, says nothing of his having suffered martyrdom. " Why should I mention,-''' he says, " Sagaris, overseer and martyr, who sleeps in Lao- i- vol. i. p. 43. I De Vir. Illust. c. 24. X.] ME LI TO. 2-23 dicea, and Papirius the blessed, and Melito the eunuch, wlio conducted all thing's in a holy spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the oversight which is from heaven, in which he shall rise from the dead 3- ?^'' II. THE WRITINGS OF MELITO. Melito wrote a great many treatises. Of most of these we know only the names, and of the others we have only a very few frag-ments. Even the list of his works, however, is interesting-. The names of the books show us what sub- jects had begun to attract attention among- Christians ; and there is many a problem of early ecclesiastical history which would have been easily settled had we had all the works of Melito. Our principal authority in regard to the works of INIelito is Eusebius. Jerome has, as usual, simply translated his state- ments; and we have nothing more in the lists of Rufinus, Nicephorus, and Honorius Augustodunensis. We follow the list of Eusebius. " In the time of these," he says, " Melito and Apollinaris presented Apologies to the Roman emperor^." And then he adds, " Of these the subjoined writings have come to our knowledge. Of Melito, I. The two books on the Passover." Eusebius, after giving the list, quotes the commencement of the work on the pass- over : " In the time of Servilius Paulus, pro-consul of Asia, at which time Sagaris bore his testimony, there was much discussion in Laodicea about the passover, which fell at the exact time in those days, and these books were written." Eusebius quotes this passage as an indication of the time^ at which the work was written. Unfortunately, no such name as Servilius Paulus is found in the historical records of this period J but a Servilius Paulus held the consulship in A.D. 1 65, and a Sergius Paulus was consul in a.d. i68. The likelihood is that it is one or other of these men that a Kuseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 24. b Ibid. iv. 26. The passage is quoted in the account of Apollinaris. 224 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. is meant, and most probal)ly the latter, as Rufinus actually reads Serg-ius instead of Servilius. The piece of information given in the extract is also of consequence, though un- fortunately it is not enough to throw full light on a very important part of Church history. Melito asserts that there was much discussion {(riT-qais). This can mean only friendly investigation among- the Christians — not controversy between Christians and heretics. The subject-matter of this inquiry was about the passover that " fell in those days at the exact time " (iTepl rod Tracrxa iix-neaovTos KaTo. Kaipov kv e/ceiVats rais ?//x.epats). The meaning of Kara Kaipov it is not easy to de- termine. It is generally translated ' tempestive/ ' oppor- tunely.^ Hilgenfeld supposes the passage to mean that the passover took place according to the proper time in Melito''s eyes, that is, on the fourteenth of the month Nisanc. But such a meaning is impossible ; for what particular reason would there be for adding " in those days ;" and there could have been no special reason for selecting" the year of Sagaris^s martyrdom for the inquiry. It seems to me that the writer means to say that in that particular year the passover happened to be on the very day on which Christ's crucifixion had taken place, and that consequently his resurrection was celebrated by the Asiatics on a Sunday, exactly as it was over the whole world. Hence arose the discussion as to the desirable- ness of continuing their old practice of following the Jewish fourteenth, or of regulating the paschal fast by the resurrec- tion Sunday. There can be no doubt that Melito in this discussion stood up for the continuance of the old practice, and that he strictly observed the fourteenth day as the day of the passover tl. Clemens Alexandrinus made mention of Melito in the treatise which he wrote on the passover; and Eusebius states that Clemens himself aflirmed that he com- posed his work in consequence of that of Melito''s. There is no reason, however, to suppose that Clemens wrote in opposition to Melito, even if we believe that Clemens wrote ^ Paschastreit. \<. 252. <1 Euseb. Hist. Ecd. v. 24. X.] ME LI TO. -225 on behalf of the Roman practice. For Irenaeus^ who also approved of the Roman practice, set forth the g-rounds which Polycarp had for the observance of the fourteenth ; and the traditions of such men as Polycarp and Melito might well be quoted to show how much need there was of friendly feeling, moderation, and Christian liberality on the part of the opponents of the fourteenth. II. " Books on the proper Mode of Life and the Prophets " [kol to, Tiept TToAiretas koI TTpo(f)r]T(av). Jerome says " one book on the life of the prophets."'' Rufinus makes two books of them. The Syriac has "On Polity and the Prophets*'."" Nothing" is known of the work. III. ^"^ A book on the Church "" (6 Trept eKKATjaias). IV. " A book on the Lord"s Day "■' [koI 6 Trepi KuptaK??? Ao'yos). These two books — on the Church, and on the Lord's Day — were the first to treat of the subjects on which they were written. Unfortunately, not a single hint is given with regard to the nature of the works. We may guess that that on the Lord's Day had some connexion with the Paschal inquiry ; but this is nothing but a guess in the dark. V. " A book on the Nature of Man "" (m be 6 irepl (jyvaeco^ av6pu)Tiov). Jerome takes no notice of this work. VI. " A book on Formation "" {kol 6 irepl -nXdaem) . This book evidently discussed the formation of man — this being the usual meaning of TrXdais — and may have been a con- tinuation of that on the nature of man. Jerome calls it " librum de plasmate." VII. " On the Obedience of the Senses to Faith "" {kw. 6 Trepl v-naKorjs TitWecos al(Tdi)Ti]pi(tiv). Jerome makes two works out oi this one; one on the senses, and one on faith. Nicephorus and Rufinus do the same. The reading in Eusebius, however, gives good sense, and is more likely to have been changed than the easier reading of Nicephorus. The title means, as Valesius remarks, " the obedience of faith which is produced by the senses ;"" the obedience which we yield to those beliefs which depend upon the senses. The work was probably ' Spicilegium Syriacum, p. 57. VOL. III. '^ 226 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. written^ as Valesius supposes^ against heretics who affirmed that psychical souls could believe only their senses, while the spiritual attained a rational faith. Melito would strive to show, as Origen did after him, that no one can believe but through his senses. The whole subject would have a close connexion mth the interpretation of Scripture, and with the nature of Christian faith ^. VIII. '^ And in addition to these a book on Soul and Body, or of Mind ^'' [kcll 7Tpb Anastasius, in citing- a passage from the treatise on the Tu- carnation of Christ, states tliat it was written against Mar- cion — a circumstance whick Eusebius would probably have mentioned — and he cites expressly the third book. Now Eusebius in the case of all the other works is careful in stating how many books there are in each work, and he says expressly, " the work on Corporeal God." XVIII. '' Last of all, the book addressed to Antoninus" (€771 Tjacri Koi TO irpbs ^ kvTbiv'ivov (iifikihiov) . The use of the term (3i(3\i8toi', as Valesius remarks, indicates that the work was a petition — a fact which we know also from one of the fragments of it. The phrase iirl Traai has been taken by some to mean that the Apology was the last work which Melito wrote. The words admit of a difierent signification, but the probability is that Eusebius did mean to indicate the position of this work, in point of time, in regard to the others. In Jerome^s version of the Eusebian Chronicle the Apology of Melito is placed under the tenth year of the reign of ]\Iarcus Aurelius — that is, a.d. 170. The Alexandrian Chronicle agrees with Jerome^s version. The Armenian translation does not mention the work. One of the frag- ments contains proof to some extent that the Apology was written after a.d. 169, for Melito mentions the son of Marcus as likely to reign with him, while no notice is taken of Lucius Verus, who is, therefore, believed to have died before this time. Some have supposed that the fragment intimates that Commodus actually shared the government with his father at the time at which it was written, and hence they have assigned the arbitrary date of a.d. 175 or 176, or 177. But the words are, "The Roman power has increased, to which you have become the much prayed-for successor, and you will be with your son." They intimate distinctly only the anticipation that Commodus will share the government with his father, and they seem also to indicate that Marcus had then but just succeeded to the sole sovereignty. The word (vktolos appears to me to in- dicate that many were anxious even before the death of 230 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. Lucius VeruSj that Marcus should take the government into his own hands °. Eusebius has preserved three fragments of this Apology. They throw important light on the persecutions of the Chris- tians in those times. They prove that they were usually local in their nature^ and they show that the decrees of the em- perors had comparatively' little to do with them. The third fragment is interesting for another reason. It is an attempt to show that Christianity had been a blessing to the RDman empire. It maintains, like a modern writer », but with a different theory, that the Roman state had made great ad- vances since the days of Augustus. And we also gather from it that Melito agreed with the other apologists in representing Christianity as something very old. The fragments are as fol- lows : "For now the race of the pious is persecuted, an event that never took place before, being driven about over Asia by new decrees [probably of separate cities] . For shameless informers and men greedy of other people^s goods, taking occasion by the injunctions {hiaTayixaTcav), publicly plunder, day and night, spoiling those who do no harm.''^ And after other things, he says, " If this is done according to your order, be it so, it is well done : for a just sovereign will never decree unjustly ; and we willingly take the reward of such a death. This only request we lay before you, that you yourself first learn to know thoroughly the perpetrators of this obstinacy ^, and then judge justly whether they are worthy of death and punishment, or of safety and quiet. But if it is not from you that this new counsel and decree comes — a decree which " Piper (p. 103) adduces a special argument for a.D. 170. Two sons of Marcus Aurelius were alive on his accession to the sole sovereignty. But the expression tov irai56s seems to intimate only one son. Annius Verus died in 170, and therefore the Apology could not have been written before that year. He notices, however, the circumstance that in all probability only one sou would succeed the emperor, however many he may have had. " Congreve, in his Lectures, noticed already. I' Tovs Tr\s cpiKoveiKias ipydras. Valesius thinks Christians are meant by this expression, and he seems to be right. Nothing bad is therefore meant by it. X.] MELITO. 231 is becoming' not even against a barbarous enemy, — much more do we entreat you not to overlook us in such a public plun- der/^ To these again he adds, saying, "Our philosophy (?) KaQ^ yjixca (f)LKo■ See Cureton, Spic. p. 7. Both Bunsen and Cureton are of opinion tliat it is not !i fraf(nient. X.] MELITO. 23.-) good excuse that a man be in error with the many, for if one only act foolishly, his folly is g-reat ; how much greater, then, must the folly be when the many are foolish together ?" The same kind of remark is made in the next page^. Then, again, in page 43, line 15, he remarks, that those who despise the gods " diminish the revenue of C«sar,'^ not surely a very apologetic remark. Then, again, he remarks : " Perhaps one who is a sovereign may say, ' I am not able to conduct myself well because I am a sovereig*n. It behoveth me to do the will of the many/ He who should plead thus truly deserves to be laughed at*/^ Perhaps, also, we have in the following sentence an indication that the writer thought more of destroying idols than converting men to Christ : " For what advantage is greater than this, that a sovereign should deliver the people which is under his hand from error, and by this good deed obtain the favour of God ^ ?" Supposing the work to be Melito^s, and supposing that he did originally speak it, it is quite possible that he may have afterwards sat down to write it, and it is this written sj^eech which we have. Granting this supposition to be tenable, yet we can scarcely account for the following appeal to his hearer or his readers without supposing that the writer entirely forgot his intention : " But touching Nebo, which is in Mabug', why should I write to you ? for lo ! all the priests which are in Mabug know that it is the image of Orpheus, a Thracian Magus ^." Besides, this Apology, if we are so to call it, does not contain one word in defence of Christianity. AVe may ven- ture to affirm, with considerable certainty, that all the Apo- logies presented to Marcus Antoninus had for their object to avert the calamities and distresses that were crowding upon the persecuted followers of Christ. Not one word liere, how- ever, of Christians. The writer attempts to turn his readers = p. 42, line 27. t p. 48, line 26. " p. 49. ^'°® '3- " The Abb^ Freppel lias adduced some of these arguments to show that the authenticity of the Apology of Cureton is open to serious doubts. Les Apo- logistes, 2 Ser. p. 374. 230 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. or the emperor from worshipping idols to serving God. Patting together all these circumstances there seems to me a strong case for rejecting the work as Melito''s. I lay no stress on Bunsen^s argument^ that it contains an allusion to the Second Epistle of Peter, or that it is confused. Most of the Apologies of the time are confused enough, and there are always two ways of accounting for an allusion, even were it proved that the Second Epistle of Peter was written later than the time of Melito. There is also nothing in the theo- logy that is contrary to the theology of the time, and there is a good deal in harmony with it — such as its speculations on heathen mythology, and its reference to free-will. The five Syriac fragments which Cureton has published can- not he regarded as genuine. One of them hears the inscrip- tion, '' Of Meliton, bishop of the city of Attica,^^ and another, "Of the holy Meliton, bishop of Ittica.'"' Cureton thinks that the Syriac translator has inserted 'city^ by mistake, and he hints y that these fragments were most probably the produc- tion of a Meletius or Melitius, bishop of Sebastopolis, in Pontus. But Socrates, who gives us the most ample notices of this Meletius, nowhere connects him with Attica. He was bishop of Sebastopolis, of Beroea, of Syria, and of Antioch ^. Though the clue fails us here, yet there is considerable likelihood that the names were confounded ; and at all events the reasons for rejecting these two fragments are strong. In the first place, the Syriac translator's note is of no authority, and at the best is puzzling. Then the fragments seem to be part of the spurious oration which Anastasius calls Ety to nd^0 9. For the extract which Anastasius makes occurs in both the Syriac fragments, with a slight difference. Anastasius's quotation runs thus, " God suffered under the Israelitish right hand.'" The Syriac fragments have it, " God put to death ; the king of Israel slain by an Israelitish right hand-*.'' The shorter fragment consists of only two other clauses. y Cureton is exceedingly cautious, and scarcely as much as hints this. He leaves you to suppose that he wishes to liint it. '• See Socr. Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 4/,, 44. " p. 55, line 18. X.] ME LI TO. 237 The larger fragment abounds in rhetorical periods. Thus : "This is He that was put to death. And where was He put to death ? In the midst of Jerusalem. By whom ? By Israel ; because He healed their maimed, and cleansed their lepers, and gave light to their blind, and raised their dead. For this cause He died." Then we have shortly after an address to Israel : " For thou knewest not, O Israel, that this was the first-born of God who was begotten before the sun ; who made the light to rise, who lighted up the day, who sepa- rated the darkness Bitter were thy nails, and keen ; bitter was thy tong*ue ; bitter was Judas, to whom thou gavest hire ; bitter," &c. Again : " The lights were hurried away, and the day became dark because they were slaying God, who was naked upon the tree." The whole style of this fragment is certainly not like anything we have of writings contemporary with Melito. There is nothing objectionable in the theology. The most marked phrases — the slaying of God — have been adduced, and it would be hazardous to affirm that Melito did not use such language. One of the three remaining fragments is taken from a dis- course " On the Cross." The work was unknown to Euse- bius, and was probably written after his time. It speaks of Christ being invested with the Father, of not binding the singleness of his Godhead, of not chang-ing the likeness of the Father. It must have been written considerably after the time when the idea of the two natures of Christ had l)ecome jn-evalent : for we have a studied contrast between Christ'*s activity as man and God at the same time. The other two extracts are taken from works which purport to be— one on the " Soul and Body," the other on " Faith." Both works are mentioned by Eusebius, but both extracts seem spurious. The extract from the work on " Faith" con- cludes with calling Christ " the bridegroom of the Church, the charioteer of the cherubim, the captain of the angels, God who is of God, the Son who is of the Father, Jesus Christ, the king for ever and ever." The extract from " On the Soul and Body" contains nothing objectionable in it, and 238 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. is not without beauty. Yet it is in bad company, it cannot be regarded as well authenticated, and its style is not unlike that of the other fragments. It describes the purpose of Christ^s death thus : '' For our Lord when He was born man, was condemned in order that He might show mercy; was bound in order that He might loose ; was seized upon in order that He might let go ; suffered in order that He might have compassion ; died that He might save ; was buried that He might raise up." There is a resemblance between this and one of the fragments from the Cateuffi^ and one of the fragments attributed to Apollinaris. It is noteworthy that mention is made of the mother of Christ, either as Mary or as the Virgin, in each of the four larger fragments— a fre- quency of notice not usual in early writers. There are two works bearing the name of Melito which are universally recognised as spurious. The one describes the death of the A^irgin Mary, and the miraculous presence of the Apostles at that event, " De Transitu Virginis Maria? ;" and the other gives an account of some marvellous miracles of the Apostle John, " De Actibus Joannis Apostoli ^." We learn no more of the doctrines of Melito than what has been given in the fragments quoted, except in regard to one point. A writer, whose name was unknown to Eusebius, in opposing the heresy of Artemon, wrote : " Who is ignorant of the books of Irena^us, Melito, and the others proclaiming Christ God and manc?" In what way he spoke of Christ as God we do not know, but we may be tolerably confident that he never used the terms assigned to him in the work " On the Incarnation''' already mentioned. There it is said, "The same, being both perfect God and man, gave assurance to us of his two existences {ovaias), his divinity through the miracles in the three years after his baptism, and his hu- manity in the thirty years (xpovoLs) which were before his baptism." The word xpo'^os, used here as in modern Greek a III. in Routh. •» See a full discussion of these works in Piper, p. 1 12 ff. <• Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 28. X.] ME LI TO. 2:50 for ' year/ is an indication of the lateness of the fragment. It is so used only in very late Greek d. And the application of the word ovcria is still more decisive. It is here used as equivalent to what is now called " the two natures of Christ," — a use of the word which was prevalent after the council of Nicaeae. •1 See Suicei" in voc. ; and especially Sophocles, Glossary in voc. e Ibid. CHAPTER XL APOLLINARIS. I. LIFE. J. HE only facts which we know with reg-ard to Claudius Apollinaris are that he was an overseer of the Church in Hierapolis, a cit}^ of Phrygia, and that he lived in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. These facts are attested by Serapiona and Eusehius'\ Eusehius sets him down as illustrious in the year 172, and the Chronicon Paschale in 170. He must have lived some years after, since he alluded to the miracle of the Thundering- Legion which happened in a.d. 174. Nothing is known of his death. II. THE WEITINGS OF APOLLINAUIS. Eusebius thus enumerates the writing's of Apollinaris : "Of the many books of Apollinaris which are preserved among" many, the ibllowing are those that have come to our hands : a Discourse to the forementioned emperor [Marcus Aurelius], and five writings addressed to the Greeks, and a first and second concerning truth, and a first and second addressed to the Jews, and those which lie wrote after these against the heresy of the Phrygians which not long after was struck out into something new, but which at that time was as it were beginning' to sjn-ing' up, for Montanus was as yet but making a Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. ly. '■ Ibid. iv. 21, 26. Chap. XI.] APOLLINARIS. 241 a commencement of his aberration along with his false pro- phetesses c. There are some points in this account which call for more minute examination. The first work mentioned is the Ad- dress to the Emperor. Eusebius mentions the same work elsewhere. " In the time of these/^ he says, " Melito over- seer of the Church sojourning at Sardes, and Apollinaris over- seer of that in Hierapolis, flourished exceedingly; who also addressed Apologies, each separately, for the faith to him who has been mentioned as Emperor of the Romans in those da^s^^ [Marcus Aurelius].^^ The Apology is mentioned also by Jerome^. Nothing remains of this Apology. Some have supposed that Eusebius makes reference to a passage in it, but there is nothing in Eusebius to indicate from what work of Apollinaris he gathered his information. The passage, however, is interesting in itself and deserves notice. It relates to the story current among the Christians, that the Roman army was saved from destruction by the prayers of the Christian soldiers, when Marcus Aurelius was hard pressed in a war with the Germans and Sarmatians. Euse- bius asserts that the extraordinary event was recorded by heathen writers, though by them it was not attributed to the prayers of the Christians. He saj's also that Christian writers had handed down the event in a simple, guileless manner. ^^ Among these latter would be," he continues, " Apollinaris, who said that from that time the legion that liad produced the miracle through prayer had received from *-' Alpeaews ;u.€t' ov ttuAvv Kaivorofj.7]6flajis xP"''Oi'- The exact meaning of these words has been matter of dispute. Kaiioroixui- means 'to set up a nuw doc- trine or doctrines,' and Heiuichen translates here 'wliich rashly set forth new doctrines.' This unquestionably is the right translation, but as the setting up of new doctrines, as such, must have been contemporaneous with IMontanus's departure from the Church, I think here both ideas are included in the word, so that Lange's translation also is right — 'Quae non multo post res novas in ecclesiam induxit.' The meaning is that at the time at which Apollinaris wrote Montanus was still in the Church, but that not long after he chose an independent and new sphere of action for himself. See Hein- ichen's note on the passage. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ivr. 27. '1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 26. * De Vir. lllust. c. 26. VOL. III. 1^ 242 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. the Emperor a name akin to the deed, being called the Thun- dering Legion in the language of the Romans^." From this notice we can form no idea as to the exact words used by Apollinaris, nor the exact amount of information which he gave. The statement, however, even of the giving of a new name to the Meletine legion has been questioned. Dio Cassius g mentions a legion which he calls Kepavvocpopos (thun- derbolt-bearing) , as existing in the time of Augustus, and stationed in his own day in Cappadocia ; and Scaligerh quotes an inscription of the reign of Trajan, in which occur the words " Leg. Ful.,^'' that is, Legio Fulminea, or Fulminatrix. The statement of Dion Cassius and the inscription have been set down as proving incontestably that Apollinaris must have been wrong : and the probability is that he was wrong, and that the name which he supposed to have been given by Marcus Aurelius, had been the name of the legion long before. The matter, however, is by no means absolutely certain. For Apollinaris asserts that the legion was called K€pavvo(36\os, 'thunderbolt-casting,' while Dion's legion bore the name of Kepavpo^opos, and the unabridged inscription would be 'legio fulminea' more probably than 'legio fulmina- trix.' If this be so, then it is possible that there was a legion which Avas called Ktpavvo HiKret. Fab. ii. 21. ■> Ibid. iii. 2. « Epist. ad Mag. 83. XL] APOLLINARIS. 245 should be pardoned ; for ig-norance ought not to be followed by accusation, but it stands in need of instruction. And they say that the Lord ate the sheep with his disciples on the four- teenthj and that He Himself suffered on the great day of unleavened bread; and they affirm (hiriyovvrai, 'relate/ per- haps 'explain') that Matthew says exactly as they have un- derstood the matter to be; whence their understanding of it does not harmonize with the law, and the gospels, according to them, seem to differ." And again, the same person has written that in the same treatise " The fourteenth is the true passover of the Lord, the great Sacrifice, the Son of God, who was bound instead of the lamb ; thoug-h He bound the strong, and who being Judge of living and dead was judged, and who was delivered into the hands of sinners that He might be crucified ; who was exalted upon the horns of the unicorn ; whose sacred side was pierced ; who also poured out of his side two things that cleanse again, water and blood, discourse {koyov) and spirit, and who was buried on the day of the passover, the stone being laid on his tomb P." Considerable stress has been laid on these two passages in recent discus- sions of the early Passover controversy, and a vast number of inferences have been made which are totally unwarranted. The passages, as they stand, throw no light on the nature of the controversy in which the writer of them took part. It may be doubted whether it was a practical controversy at all. It seems more of the nature of a discussion — it was a wrangling, at the bottom of which was ignorance, not difference of practice. And the writer simply undertakes to teach his readers the real state of the case. He may have observed the fourteenth of the month Nisan, or he may not. His language might furnish an argument either way. Christ was Himself the real passover — chose the day of the passover as the day of his sacrifice; and therefore Christians should always observe the Jewish pass- over-day as the day of Christ's suffering. The Jewish day I' Chron. Pasch. P. 6. Dind. 246 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. would henceforth be a Christian day. Or he mig^ht have reasoned — ' Jesus Hunself did not observe the real passover ; the feast He held was on the preceding- day. Therefore we are not bound to keep to the exact day of the Jewish festival, or, indeed, to observe it at all ; but we may follow the incli- nation of the Church/ We do not know which way of reasoning" the writer followed. Some have supposed that he followed the first, and according-ly they reckon Apollinaris among the observers of the fourteenth of Nisan. They suppose also that his antagonists were Ebionites. Others have sup- posed that he adopted the latter; and they place him among the upholders of the practice of the Roman Church. This latter supposition has the least to say for itself; for it not only works out the reasoning of the writer from statements which do not compel the particular mode of reasoning, but in consequence of this supposed reasoning it asserts an histo- rical fact of which we know nothing elsewhere in contem- porary writers. We do not know that in the time of Apol- linaris the Roman method of celebrating Easter had at all come into vogue ; and even if there were some slight grounds for supposing that it might have, yet there is no reason to suppose that the practice had found favour in Asia Minor. There was much discussion there about the exact time of Easter ; but the nature of the discussion is unknown. Having thus disposed in a general way of the meaning of these two fragments, we may deal more concisely with the fictions which Hilgenfeld has based on them. He maintains that Apollinaris was the first representative known to us of the deutero-Johannean direction, the foundations of which are laid in the fourth Gospel, and which found a special obstacle in the Quartodeciman attachment to the time of the Jewish festival i. He supposes Apollinaris to be the great opponent of Melito. He supposes that in the words " Some who through ignorance wrangle about these things ''•' Apolli- naris had in view Melito and his party r, and that he uses 1 Paschastreit, p. 774. ' Ibid. p. 2^6. XL] APOLLINARIS. 24? these mild terms because he had great respect for them ; and he therefore believes that we have here a controversy between Jewish Christians and Catholic Christians. Now almost all these assertions are miserably defective in proof. The writer may have taken his notion of the day of Christ^s suffering from Johns's Gospel : but that he placed a second Johannean tradition or gospel in opposition to a first, is utterly untrue. The writer states expressly that, as he believed, it was igno- rance that led some to imagine there was difference between Matthew and John. The words koL aracnaCeLV hoKii nar av- Tovs TCL evayyiXia cannot mean anything else ; and Hilgen- fekFs attempt to make araaidCeLv to mean ' an inner want of unity' is not very successful. Then, again, it is scarcely possible to suppose that the writer would venture to call the Quartodeciman party ' some/ They must have formed an utterly overwhelming majority in Asia Minor. Nor is it likely that he would have the impudence to attribute the opinions of Melito and suchlike men to ignorance. Objec- tions of a like nature might be taken to many other parts of Hilgenfeld's scheme. But there is one preliminary inquiry of an essential nature, which the critical school of Baur^ and Hilgenfeld has not deemed necessary in this case. This inquiry is. Are the fragments genuine ? The only testimony which we have to their genviineuess is that of the wi'iter of the Preface of the Chronicon Paschale : and his testimony is worth almost nothing. " The single testimony ,'' Lardner modestly puts it, '^^of a writer of the seventh century can hardly afford full satisfaction on this point *." If the main suppositions of Hilgenfeld were true, there would be the strongest reasons for rejecting the testimony of the Chronicon Paschale. If Apollinaris were the first to defend the Catholic practice in regard to the passover, if he employed the learning which Theodoret says he had in convincing the vast majority around him who adhered to the practice of their forefiithers, » Baur is of the same opinion as Hilgenfeld : Das Christenthum, &c. P- 157- ' Credibility, part ii. c. 28, 11. 248 THE APOLOGISTS. [Chap. how is it that nobody knows anything- of him in this rela- tion ? How is it that he is ig-nored by writers on the passover ? How is it that Eusebius and Jerome know nothing- of his Treatise on the Passover? How is it that the Catholic Church so universally forgot their first g-reat champion ? Nay^ Eusebiusj as we have seen^ places Melito and Apolli- naris side by side in defence of the truth. How is this? "■ The peace-loving spirit of Eusebius/^ says Hilgenfeld, " dis- liked the controversy -," and so he places Melito and Apollinaris^ the principal opponents^ in a friendly way together. If this was the motive of Eusebius^ it seems extraordinary that he should not have seen the work of ApoUinaris on the passover — a work said to be on the Catholic side, — and that he should mention the work of Melito, on the Jewish-Christian side. The juxtaposition of the two writers is in fact, to a certain extent, proof that Eusebius knew of no quarrel between them, and consequently that he had never heard of Apollinaris^s fame as the first champion of the deutero-Johannean ten- dency. The internal evidence, though necessarily slight, is also against the fragments. The persons attacked are per- sons who are ignorant, and who are not numerous. Such a state of matters is more likely to have been the case after the controversy had reached a certain amount of discussion, and light had been thrown on tlie subject in various direc- tions. Certainly this was not the state of the case in Asia Minor in the time of ApoUinaris. Then the writer seems to have had some plan of reconciling the statements of Matthew and John. But such a method would probably be devised only after the controversy had raged long, and the influence of tradition had died away considerably. Then the style of the second extract, and especially its antithetic turns, are more like the laboured discourses of the third centurj^ than the practical treatises of the second. The Adyos and the ■nvivjxa are also questionable features. Altogether, the want of external evidence when it might have been expected, and the nature of the fragments themselves, decide i-ather against the genuineness of the fragments. Some have attributed XL] APOLLINARIS. 240 them to Pierius of Alexandria, but there is no certainty in such conjectures ". Jerome attributes, chiliastic opinions to an Apollinaris, along- with Papias and Irenseus ; but, as Routh proves from Jerome himself, Apollinaris of Laodicea, a writer of the fourth century, is meant ^. The only doctrinal point with which the name of Apolli- naris is connected is Christ^s possession of a soul, or ^v)(i]. Socrates, in his Ecclesiastical History)', says, " Ircna?us, and Clemens, and Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and Serapion, who was president of the Church in Antioch, declare in the works which they wrote, as a point settled among- them, that He who became man was endowed with a souF^ {€\x-\\rv)(ov tov ivavOpca-nrjaaPTo) . Of course this is Socrates' interpretation, and throws no light on the form of Apollinaris's opinion. " See Tillemont, M^m. Eccl. torn. ii. jjart. iii. p. 91 ; Lardner, Credibility, part ii. vol. ii. c. 28, § ii ; Routh, Reliq. Sacr. i. p. 167 ; Westcott, Hist, of Can. p. 248. * Routh, Reliq. Sacr. i. p. 174; Hieron. de Vir. Illust. c. 18; Comm. in Ezech. lib. xi. cap. 36 ; Prooem. lib. xviii. Coram. Esaiae. y lib. iii. c. 7. CHAPTER XII. THE LETTER OF THE CHURCHES IN VIENNA AND LUGDUNUM. I. THE AUTHORSHIP. In the reign of Mai^eus Aurelius a violent persecution burst out in Gaul. Many Christians were thrown into prisoUj and at last some were beheaded, thrown to the wild beasts, or they perished through suffocation. While in prison the martyrs Ma'ote letters on various subjects to different men and Churches. Eusebius has preserved a fragment of one of these letters, and he has told us the subject of others. We extract all that Eusebius says in regard to this matter a. " As now for the first time Montanus and Alcibiades and Theodotus were acquiring the reputation of being prophets among many in Phrygia (for the performance of very many miracles of the Di\ane grace even at that time throughout different Churches induced many to believe that these men also had the gift of j^i'ophccy), and as a difference existed in regard to these men now men- tioned, again'' the brethren in Gaul subjoin their own judg- ment with regard to them at once pious and most orthodox, publishing also divers letters of the martyrs who had been perfected amongst them, which they wrote while yet in chains [in prison] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia, a Hist. Eccl. V. 3, 4. ^ The " again " refers to the circumstance that Eusebius has already quoted several portions of the " Letter of the Brethren in Gaul." Chap. XII.] THE LETTER, &c. 2Jl and uot only so but also to Eleutherus, who was at, that time bishop of the Romans, sending^ as it were an embassy for the sake of the peace of the Church. The same martyrs also recommended Irenseus^ at that time an elder of the Church (TTapoLKias) in Lug-dunum, to the person already men- tioned as bishop at Rome, bearing- the most ample testimony to the man^s character, as the subjoined words show : — ' We pray that you may have joy in God in all things and always. Father Eleutherus. We have urg-ed our brother and partner Irenseus to carry this letter to you, and we exhort you to consider him as commended to you, for he is zealous for the covenant of Christ. For if we knew that rig-hteousness procures position for any one, we should recommend him especially as an elder of the Church, which he indeed is.^ " The date of these letters depends on the date which we assig-n to the persecution in Gaul. Eusebius in his Chronicle sets the persecution down in the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius, i.e. a.d. 167. But in his History h6 says expressly that it took place in '^ the seventeenth year of the Emperor Antoninus Verus,''^ i.e. of Marcus Aurelius. It is natural to suppose either that the statement in the Chronicon does not really disag-ree with the statement in the History, or that the statement in the History is the matui-e and deliberate conviction of Eusebius after he had examined the whole matter, and therefore a correction of the statement in the Chronicon. The letter recommending- Irenseus, however, was at one time matter of keen discussion between Episcopalians and Presbyterians ; and one of the ablest defenders of Pres- bytery found it suitable to his object to adopt the earlier date. The letter recommending Irena^us, argued Blondellusc, was really written in a.d. 177. It certainly calls him an elder or presbyter. But the persecution took place in 167. There- fore in that year Pothinus, bishop of the Church in Lyons, must have perished; and therefore in that year Irenseus must have succeeded to his place, as Eusebius tells us he did. = Apologia pro Sententia Hioronyini de Episcopis et Preshyteris (,1646), sect. ii. 8. 252 THE LETTER OF THE CHURCHES [Chap. Irenseus was bishop, therefore, when he went to Rome, but he is called elder in the letter. Therefore elder and bishop are applied to the same man and mean the same office. The only arguments having the semblance of weight which Blondellus adduces for adhering to the Chronicon are a state- ment of Orosius, confirmed, as he thinks, by Sulpicius Severus and some of the chroniclers, and the circumstance that Eusebius relates the miracle of the " Thundering Legion " after the persecution. The passage of Orosius ^ states that severe persecutions of the Christians in Asia and Gaul arose by command of Marcus Antoninus in the days of the Parthian war; and then that these were followed by the plague. But we have here either a very indefinite date, or an inaccurate one : for the Parthian war was over before a.d. 167. But even if the opinion of Orosius was opposed to that of Eusebius it would not count for much. In regard to the other matter, Eusebius does indeed place his account of the " Thundering Legion " after the narrative of the persecution ; but, as Pearson noticed, he nowhere states that the miracle took place after it, but, on the contrary, his words imply that he had broken the order of his narrative in introducing it. Pearson replied to Blondellus in a satisfactory manner e. He suggested that probably Eusebius in his Chronicon did not intend to assert that the persecution in Gaul took place in the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius. In that year he mentions the martyrdom of Polycarp. This reminds him of persecutions in general. He then adds : " Fourth Persecu- tion. Very many were slain gloriously in Gaul on account of the name of Christ ;^^ and after this he takes no further notice of persecutions in this reign. Pearson's explanation finds corroboration in the manner in which the Armenian version is printed, if the printed text corresjionds to the manuscript. For general events are separated from those '' lib. vii. c 15. "^ Tn his Viudiciffi Tgiiatianre, Pars Posterioi-, c. xiii. p. 159. XII] IN VIENNA AND LUGDUNUM. 253 which belong to special years, and this fourth persecution is one of the general paragraphs. About ten years after the appearance of the Vindiciae Ignatianse, Henry Dodwell published his Dissertationes Cy- prianicse ^ . In his dissertation De Paucitate Martyrum S he revived the opinion of Blondellus^ and tried to establish it b}^ new arguments. He allows that the appeal to Orosius is unsatisftictory, and he entirely destroys the argument of Blondellus for Presbytery by maintaining that Eleutherus was bishop of the Romans at tlie time of the persecution^ and that Irenseus went to him in the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius, recommended by the martyrs. His new arguments are de- rived from the letter addressed by the Christians in Gaul to the Christians in Asia and Phrygia, describing the ])er- secution. The arguments are principally two. The first relates to the fair or festival {iiavriyvpi.^) which is mentioned in the letter. This festival Dodwell supposed must be the games appointed by Augustus in his own honour. Suetonius'' gives as the date of their institution the consulship of Julius Antonius and Fabius Africanus, that is, in the year of Rome 744; according to the Varronian computation. But it is probable, Dodwell says, that the games were celebrated every fifth year. Therefore the games cannot have been celebrated in a. d. 177, for this is not a year on which the games would fall, but they were celebrated in the year 820 of the city of Rome, that is, a.d. 167, and therefore this is the date of the persecution in Gaul. The second argument is based on the circumstance that the letter mentions only one Caesar. Comn.odus shared the empire with Marcus Aurelius in a.d. 177, and therefore the perseciition must have taken place in a.d. 167. Dodwell added a few other considerations to support his opinion. His arguments were opposed by Pagi, who entered into a correspondence with a friend of DodwelFs, Lloyd, by f The octavo edition is dated 1684, hut the preface is dated 1682. g Dissert, xi. sect, xxxvi. *> Claudius, c. ii. 254 THE LETTER OF THE CHURCHES [Chap. Tillemont in his Notes^ Sur les Martyrs de Lion'; by Ruinart in his Acta Martj'rum, both in his Preface and in his introductory remarks on the Letter of the Churches in Vienna and Lugdunum ; and by Mosheim in his Observationes SacraeJ. Pagi'^, in his critical remarks on Baronias, replies to the first argument of Dodwell that it is a mere assumption that the games were celebrated every fifth year. It is more likely that they were celebrated every year. And he also adduces instances in which games were celebrated earlier and later than at the usual intervals. He appeals especially to one case in which the games took place in Lugdunum^ in a year that would not be the proper year according to DodwelFs calculation. Mosheim went further than Pagi. He draws attention to the circumstance that the letter itself furnishes no warrant for the identification of the festival with the fes- tival of Augustus. The festival alluded to may have been the festival at the altar of Augustus^ but that it really was is pure conjecture. It may have had something to do with the celebration of the triumphs of Marcus Aurelius. Or they may have been games instituted by Sextus Ligurius Galeria Marinus. We have to add to this remark of Mosheim, that such is the want of precision displayed by the writers of the letter that it is nowhere expressly stated that the persecutions took place in Lugdunum. The letter does not say so, though it may be inferred. Eusebius does not say so. Nor is men- tion made of the exact locality in Sulpicius Severus, or in OrosiuSj or in the Chronicon Paschale, or in Syncellus. The local chroniclers seem to have settled the matter, though it is not unlikely that the letter itself may have mentioned Lug- dunum as the scene of the tortures of the Christians. The reply to the second argument of Dodwell is easily ' Tome Troisifeme, Premiere Pavtie, p. 398. J p. 174 (Amsterdam, 1721). ^ Annus 179. A reprint of the work of Baronius, with Pagi's critical remarks, edited by Augustinus Theiner, is now appearing at Bar-le-Duc. • Suet. Calisf. c xx. XII.] IN VIENNA AND LUGDUNUM. 255 g-iven. If the expression " Csesar'^ prevents us from assigning the persecution to the year a.d. 177, it as certainly pre- vents us from assigning it to the year a.d. 167; for in that year Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus were joint emperors. But the truth is, that the word proves nothing at all hut the carelessness of the writers. They very likely did not know from whom the order issued, hut it came in the emperor's name, and they speak of him simply as Caesar. Few after these discussions adopted the opinion of Dod- well™; and so conclusive did the arguments on the other side seem to Lardner"^ that he refused to discuss the mailer. " Nor do I expect,'^ he says, '' that any learned man who has a concern for his reputation as a critic, should attempt a direct confutation of this opinion.'^ The persecution, then, took place in a.d. 177. Eusehius mentions two things confirmatory of this date. He states that Eleutherus in this year succeeded Soter in the hishoprie of the Roman Church. All who have discussed the dates of the Roman bishops, except Dodwell and Pearson, agree that Eleutherus was appointed after a.d. 167. Eusehius mentions also that the martyrs discussed in their letter the case of the Montanists. In his Chronicon Euse- hius places the rise of Montanism in the eleventh year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, according to Jerome's version, or the twelfth year, according to the Ai'menian version. The persecution must have taken place after this event. Blondellus imagined that the letters were not written by the martyrs, but by the brethren in Gaul; and Salmasius supposes that as bishops were generally selected for martyr- dom, it was bishops who composed the letters". But there is no evidence to contradict the direct assertion of Eusehius that they were written by the martyrs. And we know from the letter of the Churches descriptive of the persecution that '" Clericus [1743] adopted it in his History. Ad annum 167. i>. 710. " Cred. part ii. c. xvi. ° Walonis Messalini, De Episcopis et Presbyteris (1641), p. 271. 256 THE LETTER OF THE CHURCHES [Chap. bishops were not the only victims of heathen fury^, but dea- cons also^ and nnofRcial Christians^ and women and boys. The discussion of the frag-ment of a letter relating- to Ire- nseus we must defer till we arrive at the history of Irenaeus. We notice here merely that our translation differs somewhat from the common translation. In reg-ard to the letters on Montanism, all that we really know is that the object which the martyrs had before them was the peace of the Church. The sufferings which the Christians endured in Gaul are described in a letter addressed by the Churches in Vienna and Lug-dunum to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia. The whole of this letter Eusebius gave in his collection of Martyria now lost. In his History he extracted only those portions which seemed to him appropriate to the work : and it is these extracts alone that we possess. The whole letter may have been extant in the time of Gregory of Tours, and even of later chroniclers, for they give a complete list of the sufferers!'. But they make no additions to our real in- formation, and some of their statements flatly contradict the accounts given in the letter. We have now to discuss the authorship, date, and genuine- ness of this letter. Strangely enough, while much attention has been given to the date of the persecution, little notice has been taken of the literary questions connected with this inte- resting document. Indeed, the extracts which Eusebius g-ives have almost universally been considered to be genuine, and scholars have generally imagined that, if they settle the date of the persecution, they settle the date of the letter. One solitary voice has been lifted up to assert that the whole letter is a forgery, and that the entire story of the persecution of the Christians of Gaul in the reign of Marcus Aurelius is a fabrication of a date later than the Decian persecution. The I' Ado and Usuardus. They include Zacharias in the list, not perceiving that it is Zacharias father of John the Baptist to whom allusion is made in the lettei\ XIL] /iV VIENNA AND LUGDUNVM. 2r>7 anonymous work which tried to prove these assertions was styled Raisons qui invalident FAuthenticite de la Lett re des Eg-lises de Vienne et de Lyon. 17611. The author seems to have gone most minutely into the discussion of the letter, and though his arguments have convinced nobody, yet some of them are based on portions which at first awaken suspicion, but which when fully considered only confirm the truthfulness of the narrative. The parts which awaken suspicion are those that speak of apparent miracles, and those which relate apparent improba- bilities. There are two passages that seem to assert that miracles took place. The first states that the body of Sanctus re- covered in the second torture its erect position and its former shape. But before this can be proved to be a miracle, it must be shown that such an occurrence is naturally impossible. This has not been done. The st3'le of the letter, moreover, is somewhat inflated. The writer is apt to exaggerate. And we may have here merely a rather rhetorical account of what really took place. The body of Sanctus had recovered its energy during the relaxation from torture, and in the midst of the second agonies it seemed to be stronger than it was before. Instances of similar occurrences are adduced by Florins'". Objection is also taken to the passage in which a revelation is said to have been made to Attains. But the answer is at hand. The writer does not say in what way the revelation was given. It is possible that he may have meant nothing siijiernatural. But even if he did, all we gather from this is that the Churches in Vienna and Lugdunum believed in the reality of supernatural revelations in their own day. The fact which is attested is that Alcibiades was persuaded by Attalus to give up an ascetic mode of life. The Christians of Vienna wov naturally go with virofj.4vwv, and therefore intimate that Sanctus's endurance was greater than human ; but I doubt if this is intended by the writer. 268 THE LETTER OF THE CHURCHES [Chap. did not tell tliera even liis own name, nor that of his nation or city, nor if he were slave or free ; but, in answer to all these questions, he said in Latin, ' I am a Christian/ This was the confession he made repeatedly, instead of giving- his name, his city, his race, and indeed in reply to every question that was put to him ; and other language the heathens heard not from him. Hence arose in the minds of the governor and the torturers a determined resolution to subdue him ; so that, when every other means failed, they at last fixed red-hot plates of brass to the most delicate parts of his body. And these indeed were burned, but he himself remained inflexible and unyielding, firm in his confession, being bedewed and strengthened b} the heavenly fountain of the water of life which issues from the belly of Christ *". But his body bore witness to what had happened, for it was all wounds and weals, shrunk and torn up, and had lost externally the human shape. In him Christ suffering wn-ought great wonders, de- stroying the adversary, and showing for an example to the rest that there is nothing fearful where there is the Father^s love, and nothing painful where there is Christ^s glory. For the wicked after some days again tortured the Witness, think- ing that, since his body was swollen and inflamed, if they were to apply the same tortures they would gain the vietorj^ over him, especially since the parts of his body could not bear to be touched by the hand, or that he would die in con- sequence of the tortures, and thus inspire the rest with fear. Yet not only did no such occurrence take place in regard to him, but even, contrary to every expectation of man, his body unbent itself and became erect in the midst of the subsequent tortures, and resumed its former appearance and the use of its limbs, so that the second torture turned out through the grace of Christ a cure, not an affliction. '^ Among those who had denied was a woman of the name of Biblias. The devil, thinking that he had already swallowed her, and wishing to damn her still more by making her accuse ■■ John vii. 38 : "He that belie veth 011 Me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his Lielly shall flow rivers of living water." XIL] IN VIENNA AND LUGDUNUM. 269 falsely, brought her forth to punishment, and employed force to constrain her, already feeble and spiritless, to utter accusa- tions of atheism against us. But she, in the midst of the tortures, came again to a sound state of mind, and awoke as it were out of a deep sleep, for the temporary suffering reminded her of the eternal punishment in Gehenna, and she contra- dicted the accusers of Christians, saying, ' How can children be eaten by those who do not think it lawful to partake of the blood of even brute beasts ?^ And after this she confessed herself a Christian, and was added to the number of Wit- nesses. "But when the tyrannical tortures were rendered by Christ of no avail through the patience of the blessed, the devil devised other contrivances — confinement in the darkest and most noisome cells of the prison, the stretching of the feet on the stocks % even up to the fifth hole, and the other indignities which attendants stirred up by wrath and full of the devil are wont to inflict on the imprisoned. The consequence was that very many were suffocated in prison, as many at least as the Lord, showing his glory, wished to depart in this way. For there were others who were tortui-ed so bitterly that it seemed impossible for them to survive ev^en though they were to obtain every kind of attention, and yet they remained alive in prison, destitute indeed of care from man, but strengthened by the Lord and invigorated both in body and soul, and they animated and consoled the rest. But the new converts who had been recently apprehended, and whose bodies had not pre- viously been tortured, could not endure the confinement, but died in the prison. " Now the blessed Pothinus, who had been entrusted with the service of the oversight in Lugdunum, was also dragged be- fore the judgment-seat. He was now upwards of ninety }'ears of age and exceedingly w^eak in body. Though he breathed with difiiculty on account of the feebleness of the body, yet he was » The holes were placed in a line, so that the further the hole in which one leg was put from the hole in which the other leg was put, the more nearly would the two legs form a straight line, and the greater would be the pain. 270 THE LETTER OF THE CHURCHES [Chap. strengthened by the eagerness of his spirit on account of his earnest desire to bear his testimony. His body indeed was ah'eady dissolved through okl age and disease^ yet the life was preserved in him, that Christ might triumph through him. When he was brought by the soldiers to the judgment- seat, under a convoy of the magistrates of the city and amid exclamations of every kind from the whole population, as if he himself were the Christ, he gave the good testimony. Being asked by the governor who was the God of the Chris- tians, he said, ' If thou art worthy, thou shalt know.^ There- upon he was unmercifully dragged about and endured many blows, for those who were near maltreated him in every way with their hands and feet, showing no respect for his age, while those at a distance hurled against him each one whatever came to hand, all of them believing that they would sin greatly and act impiously if they in any respect fell short in their insulting treatment of him. For they thought that in this way they would avenge their gods. And Pothinus, breathing with difficulty, was cast into prison, and two days after he expired. " Upon this a grand dispensation* of Grod^s providence took place and the immeasurable mercy of Christ was made mani- fest, such an occurrence as but rarely happens among the brotherhood, yet one that does not fall short of the art of Christ, For those who in the first apprehension had denied, were imprisoned along with the others and shared their hard- ships. Their denial, in fact, turned out at this time to be of no advantage to them. For while those who confessed what they really were were imprisoned simply as Christians, no other accusation being brought against them, those who denied were detained as murderers and profligates. They, moreover, were doubly punished. For the confessors were lightened by the joy of their testimony and their hope in the * The dispensation is that those who denied were not set free but confined with the others : and that this harsh treatment and sad state of mind con- firmed the resolution of those not yet apprehended to confess Christ. Various other explanations have been given, but this seems the most reasonable. XIL] IN VIENNA AND LUGDUNUM. 2/1 promises^ and by their love to Christ, and by the Father's Spirit. But the deniers were tormented greatly by their own consciences, so that when they were led forth their coun- tenances could be distinguished among all the rest. For the confessors went forth joyous, with a mingling of glory and abundant grace in their looks, so that their chains lay like becoming ornaments around them, as around a bride adorned with golden fringes wrought with divers colours". And they breathed at the same time the fragrance of Christ^, so that some even thought that they were anointed with this •world^'s perfume. But the deniers were downcast, humbled, sad- looking, and weighed down with every kind of disgrace. They were, moreover, reproached even by the heathens with being base and cowardly, and charged with the crime of murder; they had lost the altogether honourable, glorious, and life-giving appellation^. When the rest saw this, they were strengthened, and those who were apprehended, con- fessed unhesitatingly, not allowing the reasoning of the devil to have even a place in their thoughts." Eusebius omits something, saying that after a little the letter proceeded as follows : — " After these things, then, their testimonies took every shape through the different ways in which they departed''. For plaiting a crown from different colom-s and flowers of every kind they presented it to the Father. It was right therefore that the noble athletes, after having endured divers contests and gained grand victories, should receive the great crown of ineorruption. '' Maturus, therefore, and Sanctus, and Blandina, and At- tains were publicly "• exposed to the wild beasts — that common spectacle of heathen barbarity ; for a day was expressly " Psalm xlv. 13. '^ 2 Cor. ii. 15. > Of Christian. ■'■ I have adopted here an emendation of Routh's. The literal version of the common text is, "The testimonies of their departure were divided into every form." a The Greek is eis rh BrjixScnov, was led ' to the public [building]' to the wild beasts. The public [building] is taken to be the amphitheatre. 272 THE LETTER OF THE CHURCHES [Chap. assigned to fights with wild beasts on account of our people And Maturus and Sanctus again endured every form of tor- ture in the amphitheatre^ as if they had had no suffering at all before. Or rather like athletes'" who had overthrown their adversary several times and were now contending for the crown itself, again they endured the lashes'^ which were usual there, and they were dragged about by the wild beasts, and suffered every indignity which the maddened populace demanded in cries and exhortations proceeding from various parts of the amphitheatre. And last of all they were placed in the iron chair, on which their bodies were roasted, and they themselves were filled with the fumes of their own flesh. But the heathens did not stop even here, but became still more frantic in their desire to overcome the endurance of the Christians. But not even thus did they hear anything else from Sanctus than the utterance of the confession which he had been accustomed to make from the beginning. These then, after life had lasted a long time throughout the great contest, were at last sacrificed'', after they alone had formed a spectacle to the world, throughout that day, instead of all the diversity which usually takes place in gladiatorial shows. " Blandina^ was hung up fastened to a stake and exposed as food to the wild beasts that were let loose against her ; and through her presenting the spectacle of one suspended on something like a cross, and through her earnest prayers, she inspired the combatants with great eagerness ; for in the ^ The words ' several times ' are represented in Greek by 5ia TT\(i6voiv KAvpoov, lit. ' through several lots.' When there were several athletes to contend, the pairs were determined by lot. After the first contest the victors were again formed into pairs by lot, until finally there should be but one pair left. See the process at the Olympic games described in Lucian Hermotimus, c. xl. p. 782. " The bestiai'ii, before fighting with wild beasts, had to run the gauntlet. '^ Eufinus translates, jugtdati sunt. Probably, ' killed with the sword.' The term may have been a technical one, being applied to the gladiators or bes- tiarii, whose death may have been looked on as a sacrifice to a god or a dead hero. ® Blandina was a slave : hence the mode of punishment. On this matter see Lipsius, De Grace. XII.] IN VIENNA AND LUGDUNUM. 27;J combat they saw, by means of their sister, with their bodily eyes, Him who was crucified for them that Ho might per- suade those who trust in Him that every one that has suffered for the glory of Christ has eternal communion with the living God. When none of the wild beasts at that time touched her, she was taken down from the stake and conveyed back to prison. She was thus reserved for another contest in order that, gaining the victory in many preparative conflicts, she might make the condemnation of the Crooked Serpent^ un- questionable, and that she might encourage the brethren. For though she was an insignificant, weak, and despised woman, yet she was clothed with the great and invincible athlete Christ. On many occasions she had overpowered the adversary, and in the course of the contest had woven for herself the crown of incorruption. " Attains also was vehemently demanded by the mob, for he was a man of mark. He entered the lists a ready com- batant on account of his good conscience, since he had been truly practised in the Christian discipline, and had always been a Witness of the truth among us. He was led round the amphitheatre, a tablet going before him, on which was written in Latin, 'This is Attains the Christian;' and the people swelled with indignation against him. But the governor, learning that he was a Roman, ordered him to be taken back to prison and kept with the rest who were there, with regard to whom he had written to the Cffisar, and was now awaiting his determination. " The intervening time did not prove barren or unfruitful to the Witnesses, but through their patient endurance the immeasurable love of Christ was made manifest. For through the living the dead were made alive ; and the Witnesses con- ferred favours on those who were not Witnesses, and the Virgin Mother had much joy in receiving back alive those whom she had given up as dead abortions. For through the Witnesses the greater number of those who had denied re- turned, as it were, into their mother's womb, and were con- f Lord Hailes remarks that this allinles to Isaiah xxvii. i . VOL. 111. '^ 274 THE LETTER OF TEE CHURCHES [Chap. ceived again and re-quickened ; and they learned to confess. And being" now restored to life^ and having their spirits braced, they went up to the judgment-seat to be again ques- tioned by the governor, while that God who wishes not the death of the sinner^ but mercifully calls to repentance, put sweetness into their souls. This new examination took place because the Caesar had given orders that the Witnesses should be punished, but that if any denied they should be set free. And as now was commencing here the fair, which is attended by vast numbers of men assembling- from all nations, he brought the blessed up to the judgment-seat, exhibiting them as a theatrical show and spectacle to the mobs. Where- fore also he again questioned them, and whoever appeared to have had the rights of Roman citizenship he beheaded, and the rest he sent to the wild beasts. "Now Christ was greatly glorified in those who formerly denied, for, contrary to every expectation of the heathen, they confessed. For these were examined separately, under the belief that they were to be set free ; but confessing, they were added to the number of the Witnesses. But there were also some who remained without ; namely those who had no trace of faith, and no perception of the marriage garment^, nor notion of the fear of God, but through their conduct caused evil reports of our way of life, that is, sons of per- dition. But all the rest were added to the Church. " Present at the examination of these was one Alexander, a native of Phrygia, a physician by profession. He had lived for many years in Gaul, and had become well known to all for his love to God and his boldness in proclaiming the truth, for he was not without a share of apostolic grace. He stood near the judgment-seat, and, urging by signs those who had denied to s Ezek. xxxiii. ii. *• Heinichen renders ' the bride's garment,' and explains in the following manner. The bride is the Church, the garment Christ ; and the sons of per- dition had no idea what garment the Church of Christ should wear, had no idea that they should be clothed with Christ, and be filled with his Spirit. It is generally taken to be the marriage garment of Matt. xxii. 12. XII.] IN VIENNA AND LUGDUNUM. 2/5 confess, he looked to those who stood round the judgment- seat like one in travail. But the mobs, enraged that those who had formerly denied should now confess, cried out against Alexander as if he were the cause of this change. Then the governor summoned him before him, and inquired of him who he was ; and when Alexander said that he was a Chris- tian, the governor burst into a passion, and condemned him to the wild beasts. And on the next day he entered the amphitheatre along with Attalus ; for the governor, wishing to gratify the mob, again exposed Attalus to the wild beasts. These two, after being tortured in the amphitheatre with all the instruments devised for that purpose, and having under- gone an exceedingly severe contest, at last were themselves sacrificed. Alexander uttered no groan nor murmur of any kind, but conversed in his heart with God; but Attalus, when he was placed on the iron chair, and all the parts of his body were burning, and when the fumes from his body were borne aloft, said to the multitude in Latin, ' Lo ! this which ye do is eating men. But as for us, we neither eat men nor practise any other wickedness.' And being asked what name God has, he answered, ' God has not a name as men have.' '^ After all these, on the last day of the gladiatorial shows, Blandina was again brought in along with Ponticus, a boy of about fifteen years of age. These two had been taken daily to the amphitheatre to see the tortures which the rest en- dured, and force was used to compel them to swear by the idols of the heathen; but on account of their remaining steadfast, and setting all their devices at nought, the multi- tude were furious against them, so as neither to pity the tender years of the boy nor to respect the sex of the woman. Accordingly they exposed them to every terror, and infiicted on them every torture, repeatedly trying to compel them to swear. But they failed in effecting this, for Ponticus, en- couraged by his sister', so plainly indeed that even the ' She may have been his sister by birth, as some have supposed, but the term 'sister' would have been applied had she been connected by no other tie than that of a common faith. T 2 276 THE LETTER OF THE CHURCHES [Chap. heathens saw that it was she that encourag'ed and confirmed hini_, after enduring* nobly every kind of torture, gave up the ghost; while the blessed Blandina, last of all, after having like a noble mother encouraged her children and sent them on before her victorious to the King, trod the same path of conflict which her children had trod, hastening on to them with joy and exultation at her departure, not as one thrown to the wild beasts, but as one invited to a marriage supper. And after she had been scourged and exposed to the wild beasts, and roasted in the iron chair, she was at last inclosed in a net and cast before a bull. And after having been well tossed by the bull, though without having any feeling of what was happening to her through her hope and firm hold of what had been entrusted to her and her converse with Christ, she also was sacrificed, the heathens themselves acknowledging that never among them did woman endure so many and such fearful tortures. " Yet not even thus was their madness and their savage hatred to the saints satiated. For wild and barbarous tribes, when excited by the Wild Beast, with difficulty ceased from their rage, and their insulting conduct found another and peculiar subject in the bodies of the Witnesses. For they felt no shame that they had been overcome, for they were not possessed of human reason, but their defeat only the more inflamed their rage, and governor and people, like a wild beast, showed a like unjust hatred of us, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, ' He that is unjust, let him be unjust still ; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still J.' For they threw to the dogs those who had been suffocated in prison, carefully watching them day and night, lest any one should receive burial from us. They then laid out the mangled remains left by the wild beasts, and the scorched remains left by the fire, and the heads of the rest along with their trunks, and in like manner for many days watched them lying unburied with a military guard. There were some who i Kev. xxii. II. Lardner thinks the passage is quoted from Dan. xii. lo. Credib. part ii. c. i6. XII.] IK VIENNA AND LUGDUNUM. 277 raged and gnashed their teeth at them, seeking to get from them further vengeance. Others derided and insulted them, at the same time magnif^nng their own idols, and ascribing to them the punishment inflicted on the Christians. There were persons also of a milder disposition, who to some extent seemed to sympathize, yet they also frequently upbraided, saying, ^ Where now is their God, and what good have they got from that religion which they chose in preference to their life?' Such was the diversity which characterized the con- duct of the heathens. But our state was one of deep sorrow, that we could not bury the bodies. For night aided us not in this matter; money failed to persuade, and entreaty did not shame them into compliance ; but they kept up the watch in every way, as if they were to gain some great advantage from the bodies of the Christians not obtaining burial. '* Something is omitted. The letter then goes on : — " The bodies of the Witnesses, after having been maltreated in every way, and exposed in the open air for six days, were burned, reduced to ashes, and swept by the wicked into the river Rhone, which flows past, in order that not even a vestige of them might be visible on earth. And these things they did, as if the}^ had been able to overcome God, and deprive them of their second birth ^, in order, as they said, that ' they may not have hope in a resurrection, trusting to which they intro- duce some strange and new mode of worship, and despise dangers, and go readily and with joy to death. Now let us see if they will rise again, and if their God can help them and rescue them out of our hands.' " Eusebius here breaks off his series of continuous extracts) but he makes a few more for special purposes. The first is the account which the Churches gave of the character of the Wit nesses : — " Who also were to such an extent zealous followers and imitators of Christ, who being in the shape of God thought it not an object of desire to be treated like God' ; that though k -KaXfyyfViala : the term refers here to the new state of affairs at tlie eu.d of the world. ' I'^il- "■ <'>- 278 THE LETTER OF THE CHURCHES [Chap. tliey were in sucli glory, and had borne their testimony not once nor twice but often, and had been again taken back to prison after exposure to the wild beasts, and bore about with them the marks of the burnings and bruises and wounds all over their bodies, yet did they neither proelaim themselves witnesses, nor indeed did they permit us to address them by this name; but if any one of us on any occasion, either by letter or in conversation, called them Witnesses, they rebuked him sharjjly. For they willingly gave the title of Witness to Christ, ^the faithful and true Witness'",^ and firstborn from the dead, and the leader to the Divine life. And they re- minded us of those Witnesses who had already departed, and said : ' These indeed are now Witnesses, whom Christ has vouchsafed to take up to Himself in the very act of confession, thus putting his seal upon their testimony through their departure. But we are mean and humble confessors.' And with tears they besought the brethren that earnest prayers might be made for their being perfected. They in reality did all that is implied in the term ' testimony,'' acting with great boldness towards all the heathen, and their nobleness they made manifest through their patience and fearlessness and intrepidity. But the title of Witness, as implying some superiority to their brethren", they refused, being filled with the fear of God." After a little they say : — "They humbled themselves" under the powerful hand by which they are now highly exalted. Then they pleaded for all P, but accused none ; they absolved all, they bound none ; and they prayed for those who inflicted the tortures, even as ™ Rev. i. 5 and iii. 14. " The Greek is r^u irpbs rovs d5f A/cZ. The letter ascribed to Clemens by Dionysius, i. 100. Subsequent writers unani- mous, ibid. Is the letter spoken of by Ii'enaeus the one we now possess ? ibid. Have we the whole of it? i. 102. Doubts on the 40th and 41st chapters, i. 103. Letter well known in early tunes, i. 104. Date of letter, i. 105. Arguments for A.D. 68, ibid. Arguments from Epistle to the Hebrews, i. 108. Circumstances of Corinthian Church, i. 109. Resemblance to New Tes- tament, i. 111. Clemens on order and harmony of the world, i. 112. His theology, i. 113. Various opi- nions, i. 114. Abstr.act of letter, ibid. Writings ascribed to Cle- mens, i. 118. Supposed authorship of Epistle to the Hebrews, i. 119. Editions and translations of letters of Clemens, i. 121. Theology of Clemens, i. 122. On God, ibid. On Christ, i. 124 ; His hfe, i. 127 ; His work, ibid. ; His death, i. 128 ; His second coming, i. 130. On the Holy Spirit, i. 131. On the Trinity, ibid. On angels, ibid. On the devil, i. 132. On man : his original state, ibid. On salvation, ibid. On the Church, i. 135. Identity of ovei-seers and elders, i. 139. On Jewish Church, i. 140. On the three orders in the Cliurch, ibid. On rites of Church, i. 142. On future state, ibid. On martyrs, i. 143. On prayers to saints, ibid. On tlie Scriptures, i. 144. On liberties with text of Old Testament, i. 145. Passages u a 2i»2 LITERARY INDEX. quoted by Clemens not now found in Old Testament, i. 146. On in- spiration, i. 147. On New Testa- ment, ibid. On interpretation of Scripture, i. 151. On morality, i. 152. Clemens mentioned in Her- mas, i. 264 ; ii. 138. Clementines, i. 94, 99 ; ii. 44. Cleobius, iii. 195. Cleopas, iii. 201. Clericus, i. 87 ; iii. 255. Clinton, iii. 110. Clymenus, iii. 81. Codex Alexandrinus, i. 99. Colomesiua, i. 121. Columban, iii. 204. Commodua, iii. 109. Congreve, ii. 8. Constitutions, Apostolical, i. 99, 119. Contogones, History of the Fathers, i. 30. On Cleniens, i. 90. Cooper, Basil, ii. 147. Corinthian Church, i. 109 ; iii. 182, 214. Cornwallis, Miss, her Small Books on Great Subjects, i. 76. Corruptions of ancient writings, i. 23. Cossartius, i. 121. Cotelerius, on Pastor of Hermas, i. 268, 302, 305. Edition of Apo- stolical Fathers, edited by Joannes Clericus, i. 87. Coustantius, i. 122. Cox, Lives of the Father.?, i. 33. Cramer, iii. 199. Cra'es iii. 29. Credner, iii. 206, 211. Crescens, ii. 68; iii. 9, 30. Crete, Churches in, iii. 215. Critical study of writings, advantages and disadvantages of, i. 4. Crit'cism, Principles of, i. 10. Cross, i. 208. Cudworth, ii. 24. Cunningham, Dr., his Historical Theo- logy, i. 64 Cureton, ii. 93 ; iii. 234. Cynics, ii. 163 ; iii. 6, 9, 30. Cyprian, suspects tampering with his letters, i. 22; iii. 212. Cyrenius, Christ born in time of, ii. 85. Cvril of Alexandria, ii. 107, 109. D. D'Abbadie, i. 311. Dachery, i. 252. Dahne.'ii. 108. DailH i. 15, 16, 24, 58, 59, 184. Danaids and Dirc8e, i. 97- Daniel, iii. 3, 5, 8, 14, 26, 42, 45, 53, 58, 61. David, date of, ii. 152. Davidson, Dr., i. 316. Davis, ii. 341. Dechair, iii. 177. De la Guilletiere, ii 55. Democritus, iii. 30, 33, 118. De Quincey on Malalas, i. 19. Usef3 the word ' Epi-Christian,' i. 81. Essenism. i. Ill ; iii. 201. Deucalion, ii. 104. Development of doctrines, what it means, i. 5 ; various opinions on, i. 55. Diagoras, iii. 8. Aiyaixla, ii. 340. Ai«aii, meaning of, i. 77. Dindorf Louis, his edition of Chronicon Paschale and of Malalas, i. 19. Dindorf, Wilhelm, his edition of Syn- cellus and Nicephorus. i. 19 ; of Pastor of Hermas, i. 307. Dio Cassius, iii. 242. Diogenes, iii. 29. Diognetus, the Epistle to, ii. 126. No external testimony : its doctrines on God, Christ, ii. 127 ; on man converted, ii. 133. The style of the letter, ii. 134 ; its date, ii. 135. The character of the writer, ii. 136. Tlieories regitrding him, ii. 138. The manuscript, ii. 140. The latter portion of the letter, ii. 142. Dionysius Bar-Salibi, iii. 25. Dionysius of Corinth : his letters mu- tilated, i. 22. On Clemens, i. 91. On the letter of Clemens, i. 100. His life, iii. 214. His writings, {bid. Dionysius the Areopagite, i. 14 ; iii. 215. Dionysus, ii. 285. Disease, iii. 30. Docetes, i. 83. Dodwell, i. 17, 108 ; ii. 81 ; iii. 25, 58, 64, 106. 253. Dollinger on the development of doc- trine, i. 57. Domitian, interview between him and the relatives of Christ, iii. 198. Dommerich, iii. 181. Donaldson, Dr., History of Greek Literature, iii. 5. Dorner, i. 127, 267, 270 ; ii. 182 ; iii. 154, 202. LIT ERA R Y INDEX. 293 Dressel, i. 88, 90, 301. Ducseus, iii. 61. Duncker, ii. 181. Dunlop's History of Fiction, iii. 115. Du Pin, i. 28 ; ii. 82. E. Ebionites, i. 219, 267. Ebionitism, i. 39 ; ii. 190 ; iii. 189, 197. Ekker, Ecco, on the Epistle to the Corinthians by Clemens Romanus, i. 101. Eleutherus, iii. 183, 251. Elias, Revelation of, i. 146 ; iii. 203. Eipistus, iii. 215. Empedocles, iii. 29. Encrateis, or Encratites, iii. 10, 11,12, 27, 220, 244. English Church, treatment of the Fathers, i. 67. Ennius, ii. 21. Ep- Apostolic, i. 81. Ephrem Syrus, iii. 26. Epi- christian, i. 81. Epicurus, ii. 286 ; iii. 8. Epiphanius, i. 17, 95 ; ii. 73, 331 ; iii. 3, 10, 12, 24, 27, 114, 193. Essenes, iii. 201. Euhemerus, ii. 19, 21, 23, 95 ; iii. 70, 73. 75. Euripides, ii. 20, 96 ; iii. 121. Eusebius, i. 8, 13, 18, et passim. Eutychis, iii. 60. Evangelical theology, i. 60. Evan- gelical treatment of the Fathers, i, 59. Evans, Rev. R., Biography of the Early Church, i. 15, 33. Evidence, Historical, i. 10 ; Intei-nal, 21. F. Faber, his edition of Polycarp's letter, i. 200 ; of the Pastor of Hennas, i. 311. Fabricius, his Bibliotheca Ecclesias- tica, i. 16. His Delectus Argu- mentorum, ii. 49. His Bibliotheca GrcEC, ii. 147 ; iii. 64, 181. Fate, Stoic belief in, ii. 162. Fathers, Library of the, ii. 146. Fell, Bishop, edition of Clemens Ro- manus, i. 121 ; of Bai-nabas, i. 253 : of Pastor of Hernias, i. 311 ; of Cyprian, ii. 59, 60. On Justin's Apology, ii. 81. Edition of Theo- philus, iii. 105 ; of Athenagoras, iii. 177. Florinus, letter to, i. 154. Florius, iii. 257. Flower, Rev. \V. B., his translation of Theophilus, iii. 106. Forbes of Corse, i. 66, 67. Forgeries in early Christian litera- ture, i. 22. Francklin, iii. 4. Freppel's Les Pferes Apostoliques, i. 83, 89. His Les Apologistes, ii. 49 ; iii. 235. Frey, i. 87. Friday, ii. 164. Fiiedlander, i. 85. Frisius, iii. 60, 105. Fronto Ducaeus, iii. 181. Fumee, M., de S. Genillac, iii. 115. Fundanus, iii. 231. G. Gains, i. 174. Gale, Thomas, iii. 180. Galileans, iii. 201. Gallandi, his Bibliotheca Patruni, i. 34. Galliccioli, ii. 146. Gasparin, Count de, i. 51, 268. GelUus, Aulus, iii. 22. Tfvta, meaning of, i. 108. Genoude, i. 35. Gesner, iii. 23, 60, 61, 177- Gfrorer's Philo, i. 83 ; ii. 108, 323. Giles, Rev. Dr., i. 35. Gilly, Dr., on Jerome, 16. Gilse on the Morality of the Apostolic Fathers, i. 89. Gladiatorial shows, iii. 99. Gnosis, i. 103. Gnossians, iii. 216. Gnostics, ii. 14, 35, 36 ; iii. 20. Goarus, i. 19. Gobarus, Stephanus, ii. 98 ; iii. 185, 202. Godwin, Professor, his Essay on the Earliest Form of Christianity, i. 48, 49. Goode, Rev. William, his Divine Rule of Faith, i. 60. GorthiEUs, iii. 195. Gortyna, iii. 215. Goz, ii. 146, 147. Grabe, i. 120 ; ii. 82, ^6, 89, 97, 146, 223 ; iii. 67- Granianus, Serenus, ii. 53. 294 LITERARY INDEX. Grant, Sii' Alexander, ii. 29. Tpagy from Dialogue with Trypho, ihid. The Logos and Spirit, ii. 266. Tlie Spirit worshipped, ii. 268 ; His subordiaation, ii. 269 ; His nature, ii. 270 ; His work, ii. 272 ; the Spirit as a gift, ii. 273. Angels : their reality, ii. 275 : their habita- tion and food, ii, 276 ; their posi- tion, ii. 278. Worship of angels, ibid. Devil, ii. 280. Evil angels, 29(5 LITERARY INDEX. ii. 281. Demons, ii. 282 ; their actions, ii, 283 ; efforts to defeat Christianity, ii. 285 ; caused per- secutions, ii. 287 ; assisted here- tics, ii. 288 ; watched the souls of Christians at death, ibid. Man — a voluntary agent, ii. 289 ; terms of free-will, ii. 291. Fall of Man, ii. 293. Universal sinfulness, ii. 295. Conversion, ii. 296. Sal- vation, ii. 299. The Church, ii. 303 ; its officers, ii. 304. Pro- cedure on Sunday, ii. 305. Bap- tism, ii. 307. Nature of it, ibid. Administration of it, ii. 308. Thanksgiving, or Eucharist, ii. 311. Its main objects, ibid. Pecu- liar statement of Justin, ii. 814. State after death, ii. 316. Resur- rection, ii. 319. Judgment, ii. 322. Scriptures, ibid. Portions quoted, ibid. Inspiration, ii. 324. Mode of quoting, ii. 326. Mode of in- terpretation, ii. 327. New Testa- ment, ii. 329. Portions quoted, ibid. The Memoirs of the Apostles, ibid. Inspiration, ii. 332. Morality, ii. 333. Eternal pi-inciples, ii. 334. Eagerness for martyrdom, ii. 335. Suicide, ii. 336. Swearing, ii. 338. Marriage, ibid. Polygamy, ii. 342. Self- mutilation, ii. 343. Exposure of children, ii. 344. Payment of taxes, ibid. Slavery, ibid. Justus, surnamed Barsabas, i. 317. Juvenal, i. 84. K. Kallistion, iii. 9. Kaye, Bishop, ii. 88, 113, 187, 223, 233, 331, 338. Keil, iii. 227. Kestner, i. Ill ; iii. 262. Killin's Ancient Church, i. 64. Kiss to be used with discretion, iii. 173. Knox's theology, i. 61. Koepke, ii. 14. Kore, ii. 286. Kortholt, iii. 62. Kostlin, i. 114. Krenkel, ii. 147. Labb^, Dissertations, i. 28, 121 ; iii. 227. Lacedaemonian Christians, iii. 215. Lactantius, iii. 64. Lsemmer, iii. 282, 283. haiKAs, use of word, i. 104. Lambecius, iii. 179. Lange, i. 89. Lardner, Dr., i. 73, 90 ; ii. 329 ; iii. 189, 217, 247, 263, 276. Laurence, Dr., ii. 323. Lechler, i. 89. Lee, Dr. Robert, ii. 331. Lehmann, iii. 5. Le Moyne, i. 156, 211, 253 ; iii. 115. Lequien, iii. 61. Lewis, Sir George Cornewall, On His- torical Evidence, i. 11. Libraries of the Fathers, i. 34. Lindner, iii. 177. Linus, i. 91. Lipsius, i. 90, 96, 109, 113. Lobeck, ii. 20, 107. Locke, opinion of Christ's divinity, i. 71. Loffler, ii. 50. A6'yos, meaning of, ii. 40. Longuerue, iii. 42. Lucian, ii. 21, 167 ; iii. 4, 5, 272. Lucius, i. 167. Lucke, i. 47. Lugdunum, Letter of Churches in Vienna and : — The Letters of the Martyrs, iii. 250. The date of the persecution, iii. 251. Authorship of the Letter, iii. 256. Objections considered, iii. 257. Literature, iii. 262. Translation of the Letter, iii. 263. Doctrines of the Letter in regard to God, iii. 280 ; Christ, iii. 281 ; the Spirit, iii. 282 ; devil, ibid. ; Christians, iii. 283 ; fu- ture state, iii. 285 ; Scriptures, ibid. Morality, iii. 286. Luke, work ascribed to, ii. 57. Lumper's Historia Theologico-Critica, i. 29 ; iii. 257. Luther's theology, i. 61. Lyeis, iii. 121. M. M'-Crie, i. 61. Mader, i. 121. Maine, Henry Sumner, ii. 18. Maitland, Dr., on Jerome, i. 16. Malalas, i. 19 ; iii. 27. Manetho, iii. 82. Manichaeus, iii. 13. Maranus, ii. 90, 128, 145, 224, 233, LITERA 11 Y INDEX. 297 260, 262, 274, 277 ; iii. 22, 31, 105, 179, 181. Marciani, ii. 179 ; iii. 196. Marcion, i. 84, 156, 183 ; ii. 84, 138, 139, 179, 288 ; iii. 9, 11, 12, 13, 68, 207, 215, 219. Marcus Aurelius ; see Aurelius. Markland, ii 146. Marsh, ii. 329. Martial, i. 84. Martyr, meaning of the word, iii. 285. Martyrdom — the birtliday of the mar- tyrs, i. 168. Its privileges, ii. 59 ; iii. 284. Martyria, formation of, i. 175, 176. Martyrium of Polycarp, i. 160, 177. See Polycarp. Mary — Maries of the New Testament, i. 317. Masbotheans, iii. 201. Masbotheus, iii. 195. Massuetus, iii. 283. Maturus, iii. 266. Maumont, ii. 146. Maurice's Ecclesiastical History, i. 76. Maximus, i. 14, 185 ; ii. 57. Meletine legion, iii. 242. Meletius, iii. 236. Melito, ii. 4. His life, iii. 221. His writings, iii. 223. Meuander the Comic Poet, ii. 96, 164. Menander the Ephesian, iii. 82. Menander the Heretic, ii. 179, 288. Menandrians, iii. 196. Menardus, H.. i. 252. Merivale, i. 12. M«TaMfAeia, i- 294. MiTavoia, i. 293 Methodius, ii. 119, 331 ; iii. 114. Metrodorus of Lampsacus, i. S3. Migne, J. P., his Patrologise Cursus Completus, i. 34. Mikro]>resbytikon, iii. 177. Mill, iii. 26. Miltiades, iii. 207. Milton, on the Fathers, i. 58. Opi- nion of Christ's divinity, i. 71. Minucius Felix, iii. 113, 284. Minucius Fundanus, ii. 53. Miracles, Justin's views on. ii. 167. Mithras, ii. 286. Modestus, iii. 219. Moehler, ii. 135 ; iii. 66. On Jerome, i. 16. His Patrologic, i. 30. On early Christian theology, i. 51. On Clemens, i. 81. Mommsen, iii. 110. Montanism, iii. 114, 222, 227, 240, 244, 250. Montfaucon, iii. 60. Morality of the Apohtolical Fathers, i. 84. W(,rks on, i. 89. Of Justin, ii. 333 ; of Athenagoras, iii. 173. Morell, ii. 145. Morgan, Caesar, ii 50. Moses, books of, supposed to be the source of much of the wi.sdom of the Greeks, ii. 97, 110, 156. Older than any Greek writings, ii. 103, 117 ; iii. 21,32, 81, 82. Moses Chorenensis, his account of Aristo of Pella, ii. 57. Moses, Rev. Thomas, ii. 147. Mosheim, i. 74, 102 ; iii. 109, 122. Muralto, i. 87- Muratori, i. 259. Muratorian fragment, iii. 203 ; an account of it, ibid. ; its authorship, iii. 207 ; its character, iii. 210 ; its date, iii. 212. Musanus, iii. 219. Music, study of, iii. 30. Musonius, ii. 163, 286. Mythology, Greek and Roman, ii. 16 ; ancient explanation of, ii. 23. N. Nanniu.s, iii. 177. Neander, i. 103, 214 ; ii. 82, 234, 249, 271. His history of Chris- tian dogmas, i. 55. His treatment of the Fathers, i. 75. Works on Philosophy and Christianity, ii. 50. Nelson on Petavius, i. 70. Life of Bishop Bull, i. 71. Neo-Platonism, ii. 30. Newman, his Essay on Development, i. 56 ; on Bull, i. 69. Newton, Sir Isaac, his opinion of Christ's divinity, i. 71. Nicephorus, i. 16, 306 ; iii. 107, 223. Nicetas, i. 166. Nicomedian Christians, iii. 215. Noah, ii. 164. Nourry, i. 29 ; iii. 61. O. Qicnmenius, i. 317 ; iii- 2. Oehler's Corpus Hsereseologicum, i. 18. Olshau.'^en, ii. 147 ; iii. 15, 285. Opsimus, iii. 121. Orelli's Inscriptions, iii. 110. 2i)8 LITERARY INDEX. Origen, i. 13, 51, 92, 93, 100, 119 ; ii. 59; iii. 14. 16, 65, 221. Orosius, iii. 252. Oi-pheus, ii. 96, 117 ; iii. 70, 120. Orphic Hymns, ii. 106. Otto, ii. 87, 100, 120, 126, 135, 145, 147, 222, 224, 233, 236, 237, 274, 293, 303, 326, 327, 329 ; iii. 5, 15, 61, 62, 67, 105, 177, Oudin, i. 28. Ovaia, iii. 239. Pagi, ii. 82 ; iii. 253. Palmas, iii. 216. Pantpeniis, iii. 107. Papebroch, ii. 69, 82. Papias, i. 85. Life of, i. 312 ; death, 313. Opinions on millennium, i. 315. Miracles related by, i. 317. Passover, i. 156-159 ; iii. 223, 224. Paul the Apostle, i. 9, 106, 150, 199 ; ii. 185 ; iii. 179, 202, 216, Paul, Ludwig, iii. 177. Paulus Servilius, iii. 223. Pausanias, ii. 20 ; iii. 69. Pearson, Bi.shop, i. 15, 99, 318 ; ii. 81 ; iii. 252, 285. neTroi'erjffir, i. 133. Peripatetics, ii. 63 ; iii. 123. Permaneder, Bibliotheca Patristica, i. 27. Persecutions, ii. 6, 10, 154, 287 ; iii. 27, 118, 230. Persephone, ii. 285, 286. Perseus, ii. 285. Persius, i. 84. Petavius, i. 55, 69 : iii. 145, 193. Peter the Apostle, i. 91, 106, 150, 316; iii. 216. Pharisees, iii. 201. Philastrius, i. 18 ; iii. 11. Philemon, ii. 96. Philip the Apostle, i 317; iii. 215,218. Philip Sidetes, iii. 107- Philippians, letter of Polycarp to, i. 181. Philo, i. 82 ; ii. 42, 164, 182 ; iii. 123. Philocalia, i. 94. Philolaus, iii. 121. Philomelium, Church in, i. 164, 170. Philosophy, ancient, ii. 25, 64, 113; iii. 29, 70. Philosophy of the Fathers, i. 8. Phffinix, i. 97, 98. Photius, i. 20, 124 ; ii. 54, 90. 98 ; iii, 108, 114, 243. Photographic facsimiles of the epistles of Clemens, i. 122. Pierius of Alexandria, iii. 249. Pilate, acts of, ii. 149, 171. Pindar, ii. 19. Pinytus, iii. 216, 218. Pionios, i. 174, 183. Piper, iii. 230. nio-Tiy, i. 133. Pius, Bi.shop, i. 260. Plato, i. 83 ; ii. 18 22, 23, 26, 27, 46. . 66, 98, 100, 110, 112, 117, 118, 157, 158-161, ISO, 208, 214, 268, 319 ; iii. 29, 69, 70, 71, 81, 121-123, 128, 147,_ Platonic philosophers, ii. 64. Platonism, ii. 121. Plautus, ii. 21. Pliny the Elder, i. 98 ; ii. 20 ; iii. 116. Pliny the Younger, ii. 5. Plutarch, ii. 20, 23, 30. Pseudo^ Plutarch de Placitis Philosopho- rum, ii. 101. Poets, Greek, ii. 163; iii. 70, 121. Polycarp, i. 83, 84, 85, 105, 211 ; iii, 225. Life, i. 154. Sources of in- formation, i. 156. The Martyrium, i. 160. Discussion as to its genuine- ness, i. 161. Discussion on sup- posed voice from heaven, i. 162. On his death, i. 164. On the history of liis body, i. 166. Discussion as to truth of nari'ative, i. 167. Pro- bable date of letter, i. 170. Inter- polated passages, ibid. Prayer, i. 172. On chapter xx., i. 173 ; on con- cluding sentences of Martyrium, i. 174. On worth of letter, i. 176, Abstract of Martyrium, i. 178. On age of Polycarp, i. 180. On his writings, i. 181. Letter of Poly- carp to Philippians, ihid. Sup- posed date. i. 185. Other letters, ihid. Value of letter, i. 187. Ab- stract of letter to Philippians, i. 188. Doctrines of letter, i. 189; on God, ihid. ; on Christ, i. 190 ; on Spirit, i. 193 ; on angels, ihid. ; on sin, ihid. ; on salvation, ihid. ; on the Church, i. 194 ; on a future state, i. 196 ; on Scriptures, ibid. Quotations from New Testament, i. 197 ; on morality, i. 199. Literature of the letter, i. i99. Polycrates, iii. 221. Polytheism, origin and character of, ii. 95, 110, 155, 284, 286 ; iii. 28, 48, 70, 120. LITERARY IXDEX. 2 Ritschl, i. 39, 44, 128, 269. Ritter, History of Philosophy, i. 8 ; ii. 341. Roman Catholics, accused of corrupt- ing the texts of the Fathers, i. 23. Works on the Fathers, i. 27, 30 ; their ideas of the development of theology, i. 55. Rome, the Church in, i. 92 ; iii. 216. Rossler, i. 34 ; ii. 146. Rothe, i. 88, 301. Routh, i. 190, 200; ii. 57; iii. 113, 199, 249, 282, 284, 285. Rufinus, i. 16, 23, 94 ; iii. 5, 27, 189, 221, 223, 278, 284. Ruinart, ii. 69 ; iii. 254. Russel, Richard, i. 87. Rusticus, ii. 70. S. Sadducees, iii. 201. Sagaris, iii. 223. Salmasius, iii. 255. Samaritans, iii. 201. Sanctus, iii. 257, 267. Sandius, i. 70. Sappho, iii. 39. Sardanapalus, ii. 286. Saturniliani, ii. 179 ; iii. 196. Saturninus, iii. 9. Scaliger, his Thesaurus Temporum, i. 19 ; ii. 82 ; iii. 192, 242. Schenkel, i. 211, 214. Schleiermacher, ii. 329 ; influence of, i. 75. Schliemann, i. 83 ; ii. 184. Schmidt, i. 85. Schwartz, ii. 16. Schwegler, i. 12, 23, 39-45, 88, 101, 114, 182 ; ii. 331. Scultetus, his Medulla Theologize Pa- trum, i. 66. Seller, Raphael, iii. 181. Semisch, ii. 86, 101, 119, 122, 149, 171, 189, 211, 222, 231, 239, 251, 264, 271, 272, 278, 293, 323, 325, 327, 329. Semler, iii. 115; treatment of Fathers, i. 74. Seneca, ii. 20. Septuagint, ii. 88, 113. Serapion, iii. 244. Severiani, iii. 11, 12,220. Severus the Emj)eror, iii. 65, 258. Sibyl, i. 97, 98 : ii. 97, 117, 119, 288, 320 ; iii. 102. Simeon, son of Clopas, iii. 195. Simeon Metaphrastes, i. 20 ; ii. 69. Simou Magus, ii. 62, 150, 179, 288. Simonians, iii. 195. Simonides, i. 308. Sinaitic Codex, i. 309. Sirach, Book of, ii. 43. Simiond, i. 251. Slavery, i. 251 ; ii. 344. Smith, Thomas, his edition of Ignatius and Polycarp, i. 200. Smyrna, letter from Church in, i. 154, Socrates, i.' 174 ; ii. 18, 26, 110, 113, 117,119,157,180,286; iii. 70,118. Socrates the historian, iii. 108,236,249. Solanus, iii. 4. 300 LITERARY INDEX. Sophocles, ii. 96, 117; iii. 121, 239. Glossary of Later and Byzantine Greek, i. 35. Sophron, iii. 30. Soter, iii. 183, 216, 219. Souverain, ii. 50. Sprenger's Thesaurus, i. 34. Stanley, Dean, i. 5 ; iii. 193. Stalidlin, ii. 120. Stepbanus, H., ii. 128, 140, 146. Stephanus, R., ii. 145. Stockl, i. 8. Stoics, i. 83; ii 23, 28, 38, 63, 121, 161-163, 181, 289, 320 ; iii. 6, 30, 58, 121. S tough ton, his Ages of Christendom, i. 64, 82, 269. Style, objected to by Theophilus, iii. 69. Sub-apostolic, i. 81. Subintroductse, i. 265. Suetonius, iii. 253, 254. Suicer, ii. 340; iii. 228, 239, 259. His Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, i. 35. Suidas, i. 160, 185. Sulpicius "^everus criticized, i. 16, 17. Sylburg, ii. 145. Syncellus, i. 19, 99. Syria, iii. 3. Tacitus, i. 84, 98. Talmud, i. 207, 208. Tariis, ii. 281. Tatian, i. 9 ; ii. 4, 22, 68. His coun- try, iii. 3. His profession, iii. 4. His conversion, iii. 7. His Chi'is- tian life, iii. 8. His heretical life, iii. 11. His heretical opinions, ibid. Misrepresentations, ibid. His opinion of marriage, iii. 14 ; of an- other God, iii. 16 ; of Adam, ibid. Explanation of his heresies, iii. 17. His Oration, iii. 20 ; its genuineness and date, iii. 21. His other works, iii. 22. His Harmony, iii. 24. His heretical work, On Perfection ac- cording to the Saviour, iii. 26. His character, iii. 27. His references to persecution, ibid. His attitude towards heathenism, iii. 28. His treatment of philosophers, iii. 29. His rejection of all human studies, iii. 30. His defence of Christianity, iii. 31. Abstract of the Oration to the Greeks, iii. 34. Doctrines of Tatian — On God, iii. 10 : His im- materiality, ibid.; peculiar notions of creation, iii. 41 ; the Logos, iii. 42 ; the Spirit — use of the term, iii. 46; peculiar doctrine of Spirit, ibid.; devil and demons — their nature, their continuance, and ultimate state, iii. 48 ; man — his nature, iii. 52 ; freewill, iii. 54 ; salvation, iii. 55 ; Christians — their mode of life, iii. 56 ; resurrection, iii. 58 ; Scrip- tures, iii. 59 ; morality, iii. 60. Literature— manuscripts and edi- tions, iii. 60. Taxes, payment of, ii. 344. Taylor, Isaac, on Jerome, i. 16. His Ancient Christianity, i. 60. Teaching in the Church, i. 264. Tentzel, ii. 82 ; iii. 110, 179. Tertullian, i. 9, 81, 93, 158, 219, 258; ii. 123 ; iii. 12, 222, 284. Testimony, historical, i. 10. Thalemannus, ii. 146. Thales, iii. 128. Thallus, ii. 105 ; iii. 83. Theatre, iii. 29, 99. Thebuthi.s, iii. 195. Theiner, iii. 254. Theodoret, i. 17 ; ii. 56 ; iii. 11, 24, 244. Theology, early Christian : mode of treatment, i. 46. Theophilus, ii. 4. His descent, iii. 63. Date of death, iii. 64. Writ- ings of Theophilus, ibid. Genuine- ness of the books addressed to Au- tolycus, ibid. ; their completeness, iii. 67. Other works of Theophilus, ibid. His style, iii. 69. Estimate of heathenism, ilnd. Defence of Christianity, iii. 71. Abstract of Theophilus to Autolycus, iii. 72. Doctrines of Theophilus in regard to God, iii. 83 ; the Trinity, iii. 87 ; the Logos, ibid. ; the Spirit, iii. 89 ; angels, devil and demons, iii. 92 ; man, iii. 93 ; salvation, iii. 96 ; Christianity, iii. 98 ; the future state, iii. 99 ; the Scriptures, iii. 102. Literature — manuscripts, edi- tions, and translations, iii. 105. Theophylact, i. 317. @€6s, meaning of, ii. 41. Thiersch, i. 88 ; ii. 9. Thirlbv, ii. 82, 146, 164, 233, 236, 275,' 326. Tliomas ;i Kempis, iii. 26. Thonnissen, on Clemens Romanus, i. 101 ; on his statements in regard to overseers, i. 141. LITERARY INDEX. 301 Thucydides, iii. 70. Thundering Legion, Miracle of the, iii. 241, 252. Tilleniont, i. 28, 94, 96-177; ii. 135 ; iii. 112, 114, 254, 259. Timothy, ii. 138. Tischendorf, i. 254, 308 ; ii. 149. Trajan, ii. 5. Tregelles, iii. 209, 210. Trithemius, Joannes, iii. 219. TroUope, ii. 146. Trophonius, ii. 22. Trypho, ii. 89. Tubingen school, i. 36, 77, 182. Tulloch, Principal, on Luther, i. 61. Turner, iii. 266. Tzschirner, ii. 20, 49. U. Uhlhorn, i. 109. Urbicus, i. 167 ; ii- 81. Usher's edition of Polycarp, i. 200 ; of Barnabas, i. 252. Usuardus, iii. 256. Valens, i. 156. Yalentiniani, ii. 179 ; iii. 196. Valentinus, iii. 9, 11, 13. Valerian, iii. 61. Valesius, i. 169 ; ii. 80, 81 ; iii. 4, 258, 278, 283, 284, 285. Valla, iii. 177. Van Mildert's Life of Waterland, i. 71. Vaughan, Dr., his Causes of Corrup- tion of Christianity, i. 64. Venus, ii. 104. Verus, Lucius, ii. 83. Vespasian, iii 192. Vettius Epagathus, i. 167 ; iii- 264. Victor of Capua, i. 185 ; iii. 26. Vienna, iii. 258. Vigilius, ii. 60. Villemain, ii. 20. Virgil, ii 21. Virginity, letters on, i. 119. Visions of the Pastor of Hennas, i. 273,274. Volkmar, ii. 86, 331 ; iii. 206. Vossius, i. 253 ; ii. 101. W. Wake, i. 122,254. 311. Walch, i. 11. His Bibliotheca Ra- tristica, i. 27 ; his History of Here- tics, i. 74. Waterland, on the use of the Fathers, i. 67, 70 ; life of, i. 71. Weber, iii. 213. Westcott, i. 81, 267, 269, 305, 312, 318 ; ii. 37, 136, 331 ; iii 213. 217, 249. Wetstein, ii. 87. Whiston, iii. 232. His Primitive Christianity Revived, i. 73. Sons of, ii. 57. Wilson's Popular Preachers, i. 33. Wisdom, personification of, ii. 43. Wolf's Prolegomena ad Homerum, i. 12, 83. Wolfius, Hieron, iii. 181. Wolfius, Jo., iii. 65, 67, 105. Woog, iii. 221. Wordsworth, i. 98. Worth, iii. 3, 23, 45, 53, 62, 179. Wotton's edition of Clemens Pio- manus, i. 121. Xanthicus, i. 173. Young, Patrick ; see Junius. Z. Zeller, i. 12 ; ii. 28. Zeno, iii. 29. Zeus, ii. 18, 234, 285, 286 ; iii. 50. Zoker, grandson of Judas, iii. 200. ZoIh, iii. 257. Zopyrus, iii. 09. II. THEOLOGICAL INDEX. Abortions, procuring, sinful, i. 251 ; iii. 175. Acts of Pilate, the, or the Gospel of Nicodemus, ii. 149,171. Atlani, ii. 152, 293 ; iii. 9, 11, 16, 19, 94, 95. Adultery, i. 300. Angels, i. 131, 236, 290; ii. 275-280 ; iii. 155-180. Worship of angels, ii. 278 ; iii. 156. Evil angels, ii. 280. Antichrist, i. 191, 236. Apocryphal books, i. 146, 197, 202, 241, 245, 306 ; ii. 323, 330. Apostles, i. 136, 150 ; memoirs of, ii. 329, 332. Asceticism forbidden, iii. 286. B. Baptism, i 228, 240, 250, 303 ; ii. 34, 298, 300, 307-311 ; iii. 98, 284. Bishops, or overseers, i. 137, 139, 141, 157, 194, 302; ii. 305 ; iii. 283. Blood unlawful to eat, iii. 284. C. Castration, probably regarded as meri- torious, iii. 222. Christ : the name, ii. 242. His Di- vhiity, i. 69, 124, 190, 233 : ii. 34, 40, 44, 128, 177, 180, 226 ; iii. 152, 226, 238, 281. Son of God, i. 124. 191, 233, 283; ii. 127, 159, 165, 218 ; iii. 150. Lord, i. 124, 233, 283. Creator, i. 234, 283 ; ii. 130, 225; iii. 154. 'Hie Logos, i. 126; ii. 40, 45, 111, 125, 127. 129, 157, 180, 209, 219-226 ; iii. 42-46, 87- 89, 149-155. Ascriptions to Christ, i 125, 238; ii. 264. Subjection to God, i. 69, 127, 192, 234 ; ii. 219, 229, 240. Tlie Messiah, ii. 177. Lord of angels, ii. 275. Relation to the Holy Spirit, i. 284 ; ii. 270 ; iii. 153. His real humanity, i. 191, 234 ; ii. 232. His incarnation, ii. 231-234. His object in becoming- man, ii. 130, 131, 241, 242, 245, 246. His miraculous birth, ii. 235— 237. Why He was born of a virgin, ii. 120, 245. Effect of His teach- ing, ii. 166, 245. His earthly life, ii. 237- Possessed of a soul, iii. 249. His .sinlessness, i. 191 ; ii. 165,241. Tlie effects of His death, i. 128, 191, 225, 235, 283 ; ii. 39, 247 ; iii. 281. His descent into Hades, ii. 239. His unity, ii. 232. His resuiTection, L 127, 191, 192, 235; ii. 240. His miracles, ii. 167, His prophecies, ii. 171. Hispresent activity and reign, i. 129 ; ii. 252- 255 ; iii. 281. His second coming and judgment, i. 130, 235 ; ii. 72, 131, 256-260, 264. The centre of Christianity, ii. 165. The centre of the Old Testament, i. 151, 243 ; ii. 172, 177. His power over demons; see Demons. (Christians : their conduct, i. 135 ; iii. 99, 169. Relation to God and Christ, i. 135. Admonition of each other, i. 136, 239. All of them priests, ii. 304. Their progress, iii. 57. Various names, ii. 281 . Church, i. 135, 301 ; iii. 98, 225. Offi- THEOLOGICAL INDEX. \im ces in the Church, i. 136.194, 302 ; ii. 47, 304. Unity of the Church, i. 301 ; ii. 303 ; iii. 283. Sons of the Church, ii. 121. Consubstantiation, ii. 311. Conversion, i. 237, 294 ; ii. 296, 299 ; iii. 97. Corinthians, First Epistle to the, i. 147. D. Deacons, i. 137, 195, 302 ; ii. 304, 305. 309 ; iii. 283. Death, i. 132, 292 ; ii. 246, 247, 294. Demon, i. 287 ; ii. 154, 155, 169, 246, 247, 252, 281, 283-289 ; iii. 28, 46, 48-52, 93, 158, 167. Devil, i. 132, 193, 236, 291 ; ii. Ill, 123, 125, 154, 270, 281, 282, 325 ; iii. 48, 92, 156, 167, 227, 282. E. Elders : identity of overseers and elders, i. 139, 194, 302. Election, i. 134, 293. Eucharist, i. 142, 156 ; ii. 311. F. Faith, i. 77- Faith in God, i. 133, 237, 295 ; ii. 297, 300 ; iii. 97 ; in Christ, i. 133, 238; ii. 125, 300; in God and Christ, i. 192. Fall, the, IL 293 ; iii. 52, 95. Fasting, i. 305. Flood, the, general, iii. 81. Free-will, i. 292; ii. 162, 281, 289 ; iii. 54, 95, 165. Future state, i. 143, 196, 240, 305; ii. 134, 257, 316 322; iii. 53, 58, 59, 97, 99-102, 164, 169-171, 285. Opinions of heathens, ii. 164. G. Gehenna, ii. 320 ; iii. 285. God : His character, i. 122, 189, 232, 282 ; ii. 125, 126, 213, 216. 217 : iii. 40, 83, 86, 142, 280. Being of God, ii. 208. God immaterial, ii. 211 ; iii. 40, 85, 145. God cor- poreal, iii. 228. God cajiable of suffering — a corrupt i;eading, ii.233 ; in Tatian, iii. 46. G'od propitiated, i. 124, 282. 296 ; ii. 217. God creator, ii. 214 ; iii. 40, 41, 85, 146. God regarded as creator by Plato. ii. 158. God regarded as judge Ijv ancients, ii. 96. Unity of God ac- knowledged bv ancients, ii. 9G, 117: iii 121. Proof of, iii. 142. Gospels, ii. 329 ; iii. 103, 189, 204, 24:^. Harmony of, iii. 24. The Lord's writings, iii. 216, 217. Gospel according to tlie Hebrew.9, ii. 330, 331 ; iii 25, 182, 189. Gospel of Nicodenius, ii. 149, 171. Gospel of Thomas, ii. 331. H. Hades, ii. 239, 317. Heaven, ii. 72. 122, 134, 318 ; iii. 52 in the New Testament, i. 85. Hebrews, Epistle to the, i. 119. Hegi-in i. 290. I. Idols, on food offered to, ii. 185, 200. Inspiration, presented in a new shape in this age for solution, i. 7. In- spiration of the Old Testament ac- cording to Clemens Romanus, i. 144, 147. No statement in regard to the inspiration of the New l)y Clemens Romanus, i. 150. Inspira- tion of the Prophets, i. 196. Opi- nions of Clemens Alexandrinus, i. 203 ; Barnabas, i. 243. Inspira- tion of the Pastor of Hernias, i. 255. The Sibyl ins])ired. ii. 97, 111, 119; iii. 102. 103. Sibyl and Hystaspes inspii-ed, ii. 14y ; coupled with the Prophets, ii. 288, 324. Inspiration in the Hortatory Address, ii. 114 ; in Athenagora.s, iii. 171. Theory of inspiration of Sciiptures, ii. 324 - 27. Prophets inspired, ii. 324. In- spiration of the New Testament. ii. 332. Inspiration of the Old Testament, iii. 71, 102. Authority of tlie Wisdom of Solomon, iii. 207, 209. John, Revelation of, the Apostle, i. 318 : ii. 75, 262, 329 ; iii. 68. 206. 227, 286. Gospel of. iii. 103, 104. 205, 208, 246, 285. Epistles of. iii. 206. .luilaism, in P>arnabas. i. S2, 205, 247 ; 3(.'4 THE OLO GIGA L IiYD EX. in the Epistle to Diognetus, ii. 132. Obligation of the Law, ii. 175, 199. Jude, Epistle of, iii. 206. Judgment ; see Future State. Justification, ii. 130, 298 ; by faith, i. 77. Justification according to Clemens, i. 133. Lord's Supper ; see Eucharist. Luke's Gospel and Acts, iii. 204. M. Man : his likeness to God, ii. 122, 131 ; his sinfulness, ii. 295. Has natural notions of right, ii. 334. Men naturally brothers, ii. 335 ; iii. 159. His constitution, iii. 46, 52, 94, 159, 161. Purpose of his cre- ation, iii. 93, 163. Mark, Gospel of, i. 316 ; iii. 204. Marriage, i. 300 ; ii. 48, 120, 338; iii. 9, 11, 14, 60, 173, 217. Martyrdom, i. 300 ; ii. 335. Mary, ii. 293 ; iii. 238. Mass, ii. 301. Matter, eternity of, ii. 214 ; iii. 41, 146. Not eternal, iii 86. Matthew, Gospel of, i. 316 ; iii. 245. Memoirs of the Apostles; see Gospels. Michael, i. 290. Millennium, Papias's idea of, i. 85, 215 ; Barnabas', i. 236 ; Justin's, ii. 260. Miracles, argument from, ii. 32, 167 ; attested by Quadratus, ii. 51 ; per- formed by demons, ii. 288. N. New Testament ; see Testament. O. Overseers ; see Bishop. Paradise, iii. 93. Paul, Epistles of, i. 99, 119; iii. 18, 26, 104, 172, 206. Penitence, i. 293. Perseverance of the saints, i. 239, 293. Prayer, i. 300. Presbyters ; see Elders. Prophecy, argument from, ii. 31, 17U. Prophets, ii. 168, 324 ; iii. 47, 59, 71, 91, 103, 104, 171. Propitiation, God .said by Clemens Romanus to be propitiated, i. 124 ; 296. E. Redemption, i. 129, 170, 222, 237 ; ii. 130, 247. Regeneration, ii. 308. See Conver- sion. Repentance, i. 294, 296. See Conver- sion. Resurrection, i. 142, 192, 196; ii. 123, 319 ; iii. 58, 100, 131, 142, 169. Riches, acquisition of, i. 299. Righteousness, ii. 335. S. Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, i. 230. 239 ; ii. 133, 175, 176, 184. 199, 305-307 ; iii. 99. Omission of Fourth Commandment in Theo- philus, iii. 86, 105. Sacrifice, Christ's, i. 224, 235 ; ii. 248. The idea of sacrifice, ii. 132 ; iii. 121, 144. Offered by the Jews, ii. ] 35. Sacrifices and offering.s of Chri.stians, ii. 256, 304, 312, 313. Sadness, a sin, i. 272. Saints, prayer to the, not in Clemens Romanus, i. 143 Salvation, i. 132 ; iii. 41, 55. Through knowledge of God, iii. 56, 168. Through fear of God, i. 133. Through faith in God, ibid. Through love to God, i. 134. By favour, i. 193. Through Christ, ii. 125, 131, 242, 297-303. Through good works, ii. 302 ; iii. 96. Satan ; see Devil. Satisfaction, ii. 249, 251. Scriptures, i. 196, 241, 306 ; ii. 323 ; iii. 59, 217. Term supposed to be applied to the New Testament, i. 197. Self-mutilation, ii. 343. Septuagint, quoted by Clemens Ro- manus, i. 145 ; by Barnabas, i. 241 ; ii. 148, 326. Servants ; see Deacon. Sin, original, i. 292 ; ii. 39, 293 ; iii. 95, 164. Solomon, Wisdom of, iii. 207. Spirit, the Holy, opinions of Clemens Romanus on, i. 131. Prophets THEOLOGICAL INDEX. :i(ir» inspired by Him. i. 144, 236. The Holy Spirit in Hermas, i. 267, 286, 287 ; in the Apologists, ii. 39, 264-275; iii. 46-48, 87, 89-92, 150, 155, 171, 282 ; in Plato, ii. 112, 159 ; in the Hortatory Ad- dress, ii. 113. Identified in func- tion with the Logos, ii. 226. Substitution, moral, ii. 130. Suicide, ii. 337. Sunday, or first day of the week, i. i. 230, 239, 251 ; ii. 34, 238, 305, 306 ; iii. 218, 219, 225. Supererogation, works of, i. 296 Swearing, ii. 338. T. Thanksgiving ; see Eucharist. Testament, New, authorship of, known to us through early Christian writ- ings, i. 7. Interpretation of, ihid References to, in Clemens Romanus, i. 147. References to, in Polycarp, i. 197. Authority of, i. 198. Quoted by Barnabas, i. 242, 246. Refer- ences in Papias, i. 316 ; in Justin Martyr, ii. 329 ; in Tatian, iii. 24 ; in Theophilus, iii. 104. List of the Books of New Testament, iii. 204, 210. See Scripture. Testament, Old, in Barnabas, i. 82, Passages quoted by Clemens Ro. manus, i. 144. Interpretation of- by Clemens Romanus, i. 151. In- terpretation of Old Testament in Barnabas, i. 243, 247 ; in the Apologists, ii. 31, 34, 171. Old Testament inspiration and com- pleteness of, ii. 174. Interpreta- tion of, ii. 289, 327 ; iii. 24, 32, 71. 72, 104. Saints, Old Testament, i. 304. List of tlie Books of Old Testament, iii. 232. Grace required to interpret Old Testament, ii. 175. See Scripture. Transubstantiation, ii. 311. Trinity, the opinions of early writers as stated by Blunt, i. 71. Statement of Clemens Romanus, i. 131. The opinions of Apologists, ii. 45. Tri- nity, or Triad, in Theophilus, iii. 87 ; in Athenagoras, iii. 150. V. Vicarious suffering of Christ, i. 129. W. Women, duty of, i. 152, 199. CORRECTIONS. Vol. II. p. 34, 1. 31, read to for as. p. 43, 1. 14, ' Son of Jesus' should be cancelled. The writer has not examined the authorship of the book, and has therefore no opinion on it. Vol. III. p. 1 1, 1. 34, after founder insert of. P- 57' 1- 1> insert comma after treasure, and delete it after digging. ,, p. 65, 1. 2^, for are read is. „ p. 108, in note, read Philip /or Photius. „ p. 115, 1. 23, delete Domini. Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 1 1012 01250 6335 Date Due ^ ir 1 ■, ? ; , ' ' -- ■ '. b " " :2 t: £16'^ ■-'. IjlCc :?^ 1 f)