THE, CHURCH
OF THE
FIRST THREE CENTURIE'S:
OR,
NOTICES OF THE LIVES AND OPINIONS-OF
THE EARLY FATHERS,
WITH SPECIAL EXEFEIENICE TO
THE DOCTRINE OF THE ThtIN[TVY;
ILLUSTRATING ITS
LATE ORIGIN AND GRADUAL FORMATION.
BY
ALVAN  LAMSON, D. D.
REVISED AND. ENLAR GED EDITION.
BOSTON'
IORACE 1B. FULLER..14 BROMFIELD STREET.
1873.




Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1865, by
A. W. LAMSON,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.
RIVERSIDE, CAMBRIDGE:
STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY
H. O. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY.




PREFACE.
THE title prefixed to the present work sufficiently
indicates its purpose. Of the articles contained in it,
some have a more direct reference to the opinions of
Christian antiquity, respecting the Son and the Spirit,
than others.  In some, this topic is most largely
dwelt upon; in one or two, it is but slightly- noticed; in all, it receives more or less attention. As
to the other matter contained in the volume, historical and biographical, or such as relates to the
opinions, usages, and social habits, which marked the
early ages, and the merits and defects of the Fathers
as critics and expositors, it is sufficient to say, that I
have proceeded on the supposition, that its introduction would enhance the value and interest of the
work.
I have not written as the organ of any party. I
have wished simply to make the volume a repository
of facts, particularly connected with the opinions of
Christians of the first three centuries, on the nature
and rank of the Son and the Spirit; and I have
spared no pains in the endeavor to give the exact
expressions of the great church teachers of the period
included in my survey, with copious and minute
references. I offer the book as a help to inquirers




iv                  PREFACE.
who may wish to know what the early Fathers really
thought and said. A portion of the materials was
given to the public, many years ago, in the pages of
a review. These materials I have elaborated with
some care, dividing the whole into chapters, and
omitting, changing, and adding, to render the work
better suited to the end I have had in view. I have
endeavored to exclude all personalities, and everything which might give just cause of offence to any
individual, or any class of Christians.
With these few prefatory remarks, I leave the
book to the charitable judgment of the Dublic.




NOTE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
THE, first edition of this work was published in 1860, and
has been for some time out of print.  The present edition
contains large additions, the Preliminary Chapter on the
Apostolic Fathers being entirely new, as are also the Note
on the Epistle to Diognetus, and the principal part of the
articles on the "Fathers subsequent to Justin Martyr and
before thle time of Clement of Alexandria," and on the
" Writers subsequent to the time of Origen and before the
rise of the Arian Controversy." These additions give a completeness to the work, so far as it relates to the history of early
opinions on the subject of the Trinity, which greatly enhances
its value. Considerable additions and alterations have been
made in other parts of the volume, the whole having been
carefully revised by the lamented author, before his decease,
with a view to the printing of a new edition. The materials
left by him for this purpose were, in accordance with his
expressed wish, placed in the hands of the present editor for
revision and publication. He has verified nearly all the quotations and references in the volume, and has added a few notes,
which are followed by the abbreviation "ED.," and enclosed
in brackets. In two instances, also, (pp. 10, 67, 68,) it appeared necessary to insert in brackets short additions to the
text, founded on manuscript memoranda of the author, which,
though indicating his purpose to make such additions, were
not left in a condition suitable for publication.
EZRA ABBOT.
CAMBRIDGE, MASS., May 27th, 1865.








CONTENTS.
PRELIMINARY CHAPTER.
WRITINGS ASCRIBED  TO  THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS, SO
CALLED.
PAGE
Reasons for noticing them. Clement of Rome. Claim of One of the
Epistles attributed to him to be received as Genuine. Its Date and
Character. Its Theology. Christ a Distinct Being from the Father,
and Subordinate. Shepherd of Hermas. Its Authorship and Date.
Asserts the Preexistence of the Son, but excludes his Supreme Divinity. The Ignatian Letters. Recently discovered Syriac Version. Polycarp. Epistle ascribed to him. Its Theology. Not
Trinitarian. Barnabas. The Epistle which goes under his Name
of Uncertain Authorship. Teaches Christ's Preixistence, but not
his Equality with the Father.' General Summary. Concluding
Remarks.                                                    3-20
JUSTIN MARTYR, AND HIS OPINIONS.
CHAPTER I.
Claims of Justin to our Notice. Birth, and Early Studies. Dissatisfaction with his Teachers. His Despondency. His Reception of
Platonism. His Conversion. His Dialogue with Trypho. Writes
his First Apology. His Second. His Last Days, and Martyrdom. 21-30
CHAPTER II.
Justin's Writings. Extravagant Praise bestowed on him. Reverence
for the Fathers declines. Examination of Justin's Larger Apology.
His Mode of Argument. Topics and Tone of his Address. Prophecy and Miracles. Topics of his Second Apology. Dialogue with
Trypho.......                                    31-40
CHAPTER III.
General Defects of Justin's Intellectual and Literary Character. His
Love of the Marvellous. His Account of the Origin of Demons.
Feats performed by them. His Chronological Errors. His Carelessness in Quotation. An Allegorist. Specimens of his Fanciful
Interpretation of the Old Testament. Types of the Cross. His
Learning. Eminently Uncritical.                            41-49




'vII                       CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IV.                        PAGE
Theology of Justin. Origin of the Trinity. Justin's Doctrine of the
Logos. His Language cited. The Logos a Hypostatized Attribute
of the Father. Converted into a Real Being in Time, and not from
Eternity. The Son numerically Different from the Father. Voluntarily begotten.... 50-57
CHAPTER V.
The Views of Justin and the Fathers not derived from the Old Testament. Language of the Old Testament examined. Of the New.
Justin ingrafted on Christianity the Sentiments of the later Platonists. Statements of Learned Trinitarians. Philo's Doctrine of the
Logos.  Attempts to soften the Charge of Platonism against the
Fathers...58-69
CHAPTER VI.
The Inferiority of the Son uniformly asserted by the Ante-Nicene
Fathers. Concessions of Trinitarians. The Father and Son not
numerically One, nor Equal. Proofs from Justin. The Son not an
Object of Direct Address in Prayer. Sum of the Argument. Disingenuous Use made of two Passages from Justin. The Spirit an Influence. Justin's Account of the Humanitarians of his Day.. 70-85
CHAPTER VII.
Justin's Account of the Christian Rites as administered in his Day.
Baptism. The Lord's Supper. Sunday Worship. Calumnies of
the Jews. The Memory of Justin..             86-91
NOTE.
EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS.
Question of its Genuineness and Date. Its Theology. Supremacy of
the Father. Mission of the Son. Implanted or Insown Logos.
Authorship and Doctrine of the Concluding Portion of the Epistle. 92-94
FATHERS SUBSEQUENT TO JUSTIN MARTYR, AND
BEFORE THE TIME OF CLEMENT OF
ALEXANDRIA.
CHAPTER I.
ratian the Syrian. His History. The Son a Hypostatized Attribute.
Had a Beginning. Numerically distinguished from the Father. and




CONTENTS.                           ix
PAGE
Subordinate.  Theophilus of Antioch.  The Son originally the
Logos, or Reason of God. Begotten in Time. The Instrument of
the Father in the Creation. The Father alone an Object of Supreme Worship.  The Term Trinity first used.  The Spirit confounded with the Logos. Athenagoras. Preserves the Supremacy
of the Father.  How he speaks of the Logos.  The Spirit an
Influence.......... 95-101
CHAPTER II.
Irenacus. His History and Writings. The Son a Separate Being
from the Father, and Subordinate.  Quotations. Christ suffered
in his Whole Nature. The Logos supplied the Place of the Rational
Soul in Jesus Christ.  Tertullian. Character and Writings. Makes
the Father and Son two Beings. The Son Inferior. Not Eternal.
Tertullian's Creeds. Omission of the Spirit. The Father more
Ancient, Nobler, and more Powerful than the Son. The Unlearned
Christians. Their Horror of the (Economy, or Trinity. How Tertullian saves the Unity. The Catacombs.. 102-114
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, AND HIS TIMES.
CHAPTER I.
Martyrdoms after that of Justin. Time of Clement. Alexandria.
Biography of Clement. Pantmnus. Clement's Conversion. Becomes Head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Was there
in 211. Disappears from  History.  Direction of Studies in the
Alexandrian School. Clement's Writings.                 115-121
CHAPTER II.
Clement's Theology. He does not ascribe to the Son a Distinct Personal Subsistence from Eternity. Clement makes him originally an
Attribute. Asserts his Inferiority in Strong Terms. Antiquity of
Christianity. Infspiration of Plato and the Philosophers. Influence
of the Art of Sculpture among the Greeks.  Man not born Depraved.;..122-129
CHAPTER III.
Clement's Pedagogue. His Precepts of Living. Social Life among
the Egyptians in his Day. Food. Use of Wine. Convivial Entertainments. Music. Garlands. The Ladies of Alexandria. The
" Fine Gentlemen."  Clement as a Reformer.1. 130-140
CHAPTER IV.
Clement's Stromata: its Character. Mysteries and Allegories. Clement's Idea of the True Gnostic, or Perfect Christian. Knowvlh.-, 




CONTENTS.
PAGE
Motives. Grand Conceptions of God. Prayer. The whole Life a
Festival. Spirituality..              141-151
ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
CHAPTER I.
The Alexandrian Theology. Birth and Parentage of Origen. His
Childhood. He pants for the Honors of Martyrdom. Reduced to
Poverty,, and becomes a Teacher. At the Head-of the Catechetical
School. His Self-Denial. Studies. Biblical Criticism... 152-159
CHAPTER II.
Influence of Ambrose. Origen's Immense Labors. His Arabian Journey, and Visit to Palestine. Reception by the Palestinian Bishops.
Anger of Demetrius. Origen's Journey to Greece. Ordained in
Palestine. Deposed and Excommunicated.                160-164
CHAPTER III.
Origen retires to Palestine. New Pupils. His Critical and Theological Studies. Imprisoned, and put to the Rack. Dies at Tyre. His
Memory long persecuted. Question of his Salvation. His Intellectual Character. Merits and Defects as an Expositor... 165-171
CHAPTER IV.
Writings of Origen. Commentaries.  Principles of Interpretation.
His Book "Of Principles."  His "Hexapla."  His Work against
Celsus.                                                172-178
CHAPTER V.
Inferiority of the Son. Hippolytus; a new Witness. Origen asserts
that the Father and Son are two Distinct Beings; that the Father is
Greater than the Son. Specimens of his Language and Reasoning.
Christ is not an Object of Supreme Worship, and not to be addressed in Prayer. The Spirit below the Son. Eternal Generation.
The Material Creation Eternal. The Logos Doctrine and the Roman Church. The Monarchians, Theodotus, Artemlon, Praxeas,
Noetus, Beryllus. The Atonement..                     179-193
CHAPTER VI.
Jrigen's System of Rational and Animated Natures. All Souls Preexistent. Purpose of the Material Universe. The Stars animated,
and will be judged. Tutelar Spirits. Demons. Present Condition
the Result of Former Trial. Extent of Christ's Redemption. Celestial Natures. Origin of Sin. Human Ability. No Unconditional Election... 194-201




CONTENTS.                           X1i
CHAPTER VII.                        PAGE
Origen's Views of the Future. The Resurrection. Form of the Future Body, Round. Bodies of the Damned, Black.  The Final
Consummation will be the Perfection and Happiness of all, including Fallen Spirits of Darkness.  Matter to become spiritualized.
Variation in his Opinions. Perpetual Lapses and Returns. Fate
of the Origenian Doctrines. Appealed to by the Arians. Condemned a Century and a Half after Origen's Death. Origenism
finds Shelter in the Monasteries. Freedom of Theological Speculation..202-213
WRITERS SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME OF ORIGEN,
AND BEFORE THE RISE OF THE ARIAN
CONTROVERSY.
CHAPTER I.
Sabellius and Sabellianism. Paul of Samosata. The Scholars of
Origen. Dionysius ofAlexandria. Accused of Heterodoxy. Extracts.  The Term  "Consubstantial."   Gregory Thaumaturgus.
Depresses the Son to the Rank of a Creature, or Work.  Tlieognostus. Quoted. Pierius. Photius's Report of his Opinions. Methodius. His Language savors of Arianism. Lucian. His Learning and Merits. His Opinions. Most of the Arian Chiefs were of
his School..214-226
CHAPTER II.
Cyprian. Makes the Son Subordinate. Confounds the Spirit with
the Logos. Novatian. Believed in the Derived Nature and Inferiority of the Son. Proofs. How he preserved the Unity of God.
His Views of the Spirit. Arnobius. How he speaks of the Father
and the Son. Lactantius.  His Learning and Eloquence. Unsound on the subject of the Trinity in the Modern Sense. Passages
quoted.. i.                         227-238
ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
CHAPTER I.
Conflict of Doctrine. Belief of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Account
of Arius. Origin of the Controversy. Popularity of Arius. His
Person and Manners. Progress of the Controversy. Arius is expelled from Alexandria, and retires to Palestine. How received by
the Bishops there. Eusebius of Nicomedia. Palestinian Council.




X11                        CONTENTS.
PAGE
Arius's Letter to his Bishop. Alexander writes Letters to all parts.
Tongues instead of Spears.                              239-250
CHAPTER II.
Constantine interferes. Council of Nice. Its Character. Opinions
of Arius. Proceedings of the Council. Difficulty in Framing a
Symbol. Eusebius of Coesarea offers a Creed. Result. Non-subscribing Bishops. Condemnation and Exile of Arius. Constantine
afterwards espouses his Cause. His Return to Alexandria. Athanasius. Council of Jerusalem readmits Arius to Communion. Exile
of Athanasius. Last Days of Arius. Death, Character, and Writings. The " Thalia."...251-272
CHAPTER III.
Success and Decline of Arianism. Long survived in the West. The
Goths receive it. Influence of the Ladies. The Friends and Coadjutors of Arius. Eusebius of Nicodemia, Theognis of Nice, and
Eusebius the Historian. Fortunes of Athanasius: his Wanderings
and Death, Writings and Character..                   273-281
CHAPTER IV.
The Nicene Faith. Meaning of " Consubstantial." Athanasius's Explanation of it. Father and Son relatively Unequal: so the Council of Nice taught. Sentiments of the Orthodox afterwards undergo
a Change. The Holy Spirit not defined by the Council. Not as
yet safe to speak of its Divinity.  Variations.  Doctrine of the
Trinity still unsettled.                       ~        282-289
EUSEBIUS, THE HISTORIAN.
CHAPTER I.
Claims of Eusebius to our Notice. His Early Life. Bishop of Caesarea. His Studies. The Arian Controversy. The Part he took
at the Council of Nice. Subscribes the Creed. His Pastoral Letter
in Explanation. Want of Firmness. Presides at the Council of
Tyre. Dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The
Emperor warmly attached to him.  Death and Character.  His
real Belief. Not a Consubstantialist. Held the old Doctrine of the
Derived Nature and Inferiority of the Son. Proofs from his Writings...290-305




CONTENTS.                          Xiii
CHAPTER II.                        PAGN
Credit to which Eusebius is entitled as an Historian. Charges against
him. Value of his Materials. His Authorities. Tradition. Lost
Writings. Writings still extant. Contemporaneous History. Literary Merit of Eusebius's Work...306-314
THE APOSTLES' CREED.
CHAPTER I.
The Apostles' Creed not the Primitive Creed. Was not framed by
the Apostles. Testimonies of the Learned. Unfounded Tradition
as to its Origin. Older Creeds. Original Form of the Apostles'
Creed. Comparison of it with the Roman and Oriental, and that
of Aquileia. The Clause " Descended into Hell." The Apostolical
Constitutions. No Early Notice of them. Not of Apostolic Origin.
Time of their Composition. Their Arian Complexion. Old Form
of Ascription.                                           315-330
CHAPTER II.
The Fathers as Expositors. Change in the Meaning of Terms and
Phrases. Language of the Fathers. Examples. In what Points
the Trinity of the Fathers differed from the Modern. Testimony
of the Learned. Petavius, Huet, Prof. Stuart. The Fathers testify
against each other. Councils. The Athanasian Creed.      331-342
HYMNOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH.
CHAPTER I.'1[the Hymnology of the Ancient Church not Trinitarian.  Singing
among the Early Christians. First Regular Choir. Flavian of
Antioch. Ambrose. Gregory. Hymns of the Primitive Church
lost.  Earliest Writers of Hymns.  Bardesanes.  Harmonius.
Ephrem. Attempt of Paul of Samosata to restore the Old Music
and Hymns.                                               343-352
CHAPTER II.
Arius and Others, Writers of Hymns. The "Te Deum." Prudentius.
The Poetical Fathers. Nocturnal Street-singing at Constantinople.
Council of Laodicea attempts to regulate Church Music. Simplicity of the Ancient Doxology. No Trace of the Trinity. 353-359
1




X-iV                      CONTENTS.
ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITY.
CHAPTER I.                         PAGE
Remains of Ancient Christian Art bear Testimony to the Late Origin
of the Trinity. The Father: how represented. Earlier and Later
Representations of the Son.                              360-367
CHAPTER II.
The Glory, or Nimbus, in Symbolic Art. Nature of the Glory. Forms
of the Nimbus and the Cross. Significance of the Nimbus. Representations of the Holy Spirit. Later Representations of the Trinity.
No early Relic recognizes a Co-equal or Undivided Three..  368-376
FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS.
CHAPTER I.
Festivals of the Ancient Christians disclose no Element of the Trinity.
Weekly Festival of Sunday. Easter, the Oldest Annual Festival.
Old Ideas of Lent. Pentecost, or Whitsunday. No other Annual
Festival known in the Time of Origen. Epiphany..        377-387
CHAPTER II.
Christmas: first celebrated on the Fifth of January. Uncertainty
about the Time of Christ's Birth. Testimony of Clement of Alexandria. Chrysostom's Testimony to the Late Origin of the Festival
in the East. Order of the Christian Festivals. Dr. Milman's Statement. Late Origin of Christmas explained. No Trinitarianism in
either of the Old Festivals.                             888-396
INDEX.                                                    399-410




PRELIMINARY CHAPTER.
WRITINGS ASCRIBED TO THE APOSTOLICAL FATHIjS,
SO CALLED.
REASONS FOR NOTICING THEM. - CLEMENT OF ROME. - CLAIM OF ONE OF
THE EPISTLES ATTRIBUTED TO HIM TO BE RECEIVED AS GENUINE. - ITS
DATE AND CHARACTER. - ITS THEOLOGY. - CHRIST A DISTINCT BEING
FROM THE FATHER, AND SUBORDINATE. — SEEPHERD OF HERMAS. —ITS
AUTHORSHIP AND DATE. - ASSERTS THE PREEXISTENCE OF THE SON, BUT
EXCLUDES HIS SUPREME DIVINITY. - THE IGNATIAN LETTERS. - RECENTLY DISCOVERED SYRIAC VERSION.- POLYCARP. - EPISTLE ASCRIBED
TO HIM. - ITS THEOLOGY. - NOT TRINITARIAN. - BARNABAS. - THE
EPISTLE WHICH GOES UNDER HIS NAME OF UNCERTAIN AUTHORSHIP.
TEACHES CHRIST'S PREEXISTENCE, BUT NOT HIS EQUALITY WITH THE
FATHER. - GENERAL SUMMARY. - CONCLUDING REMARKS.
IN treating of the lives and opinions of some of the Fathers
of the Church, down to the time of the Council of Nice, the
question may possibly occur, Why begin with Justin Martyr?
Were there none before him? The reply is, most of those who
went before are to us little else than shadows seen through the
dim mist of antiquity, - their outlines too imperfectly defined
to admit of accurate description or analysis. They are bloodless phantoms, well-nigh formless and void.  The record of
their lives has perished, or is so blended with fable, that it is
impossible to separate fact from fiction. If we inquire for their
writings, we encounter darkness and uncertainty at every step.
Some curiosity, however, may be felt to know which, if any,
of the writings ascribed to those fathers are entitled to respect
as probably, or possibly, genuine; and what, genuine or forged,
they teach on topics particularly discussed in the present volume.  Our purpose in this preliminary chapter is to say
something on these subjects. The writings to which we refer
are those generally which pass under the name of the Apos



4                    APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
tolic Fathers, so called from having been, as tradition says,
hearers, or, at least, contemporaries of the Apostles.  We
begin with
CLEMENT OF ROME.
Clement presided over the Church of Rome at an early
period, and is called its bishop. Whether he was the Clement mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians
(iv. 3) as his fellow-laborer, is uncertain. The genuineness,
in the main, of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, attributed
to him, — written in the name of the church at Rome, —
though not established beyond dispute, has no slight external
evidence in its favor.  It may be accepted as, for the most
part, genuine, though it has come down to us only in a single
manuscript, and, as Mr. Norton observes, " this copy is considerably mutilated; in some passages the text is manifestly
corrupt, and other passages have been suspected of being
interpolations." *  This opinion Mr. Norton shares with many
learned and judicious critics, who have been unwilling to
acknowledge the whole piece to have been a pure fabrication.
Neander asserts that it is " not exempt from important interpolations," and that we find in it a "possible contradiction,"
showing that if genuine in part, it is not wholly so.t
The Epistle, which was written in Greek, was, according to
the testimony of Eusebius, publicly read in many churches
before his time, and in his own day.:: In some places it continued to be read in public, it would seem, down to the time
of Jerome, who lived in the latter part of the fourth and early
in the fifth century.~  Neither of these writers expresses any
doubt of its genuineness.
But whether genuine or not, it is undoubtedly an early
document, supposed to have been written near the end of the
* Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i., Additional Notes, p. ccxli., 2d edit.
t Hist. of the Christian Religion and Church, i. 658, Torrey's translation.
tfi st., iii. 16, and iv. 23. [It was received as genuine, apparently by Hegesippus, and certainly by Dionysius of Corinth (A. D. 170), Ireneeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. Eusebius (iii. 38) speaks of it "as universally acknowledged." - ED.]
~ De Viris Ilust., c. 15.




CLEMENT OF ROME.                     5
first century.* If that be the date of the composition, it was
in existence from a third to half a century before Justin Martyr -in whose works, still extant, no mention of it occurs
wrote his first Apology. Independently of the position of its
reputed author, its antiquity, if nothing else, entitles it to notice
in the inquiry in which we are now engaged.  What traces,
then, does it contain of the modern doctrine of the Trinity?
It contains not the faintest trace of the supreme divinity of the
Son or of the Spirit.
The contents of the Epistle are almost entirely practical, and
it has very little to do with speculative theology of any sort,
quotations from the Old Testament constituting a large portion
of it.  Speaking of the Christology of Clement, Bunsen, as
above referred to, says, " It is preposterous to ask him after the
three Persons of the Pseudo-Athanasian creed." Nor, we add,
does Justin's doctrine of the Logos, as a great preixistent
power, a hypostatized attribute, by whom, as his instrument or
minister, God performed the act of creation, appear in the
Epistle.  God made all things by a direct exertion of his
power.  "By his almighty power he established the heavens,
and by his incomprehensible wisdom he adorned them.  He
also divided the earth from  the water.... and the living
creatures that are upon it he called into being by his commaRnd.... With his holy and pure hands he also formed man,
the most excellent of all, and in intellect the most exalted, the
impress of his own image." t  " Let us make man in our own
image, after our ow.n likeness," etc., is quoted, but no intimation is given that the author supposed it addressed to the Son.
God is sole, infinite, and supreme Creator of the material universe, using no instrument or artificer (rational power or Logos)
to execute his commands.  The doctrine of Philo and the
Alexandrians is not found in the Epistle.  Its language is far
more simple than that of Philo and the Platonizing fathers.
If we turn to the new moral or spiritual creation, we shall
find, that, whenever God and Christ are spoken of in connection with it, the author makes a broad distinction between
* Bunsen says, between the years 78 and 86. CGhristianity and Mankind, (or
lippol//tus and his Age,) i. 44.
t Cap. 33.




6                   APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
the supreme, infinite One, the fountain of all peace and love,
and Jesus Christ, through whom the benefits of his mercy were
conveyed to the world.  Of this we have an example at the
very commencement of the Epistle.  Thus, "by the will of
God, through Jesus Christ our Lordc; and again, " Grace and
peace from Almighty God, through Jesus Christ, be multiplied
unto you."  And this distinction is observed throughout the
Epistle.  Prayer is mentioned as addressed to God and not to
Christ.  God " sends"; Jesus is " sent."   "The Apostles
preached to us from our Lord Jesus Christ; Jeshis Christ from
God.  Christ therefore was sent fiomn God, the Apostles from
Christ; both being fitly done according to the will of God." *
Jesus Christ is "' the high priest of our offbrings..... Through
him we look up to the heights of heaven..... Through him
the eyes of our hearts were opened...... Through him would
the Sovereign Ruler (' &o EcrQrvs) have us to taste the knowledge
of immortality." f  So all is of God.  Referring to the resurrection the author says, God has " made our Lord Jesus Christ
the first fruits, raising him from the dead.":  He is mentioned
as the'" chosen" of the Father, but nothing is said of his
nature, nor is his preixistence distinctly asserted in any part
of the Epistle, though some have professed to find an intimation of it in certain expressions employed by the writer, which,
however, prove nothing to the point.~  He is called "' the sceptre of the majesty of God," 11 language which implies instrumentality, not identity or equality of person.  The term God
is not once applied to him.  But he is clearly distinguished
from the one only God in the following passages, in addition to
those already given.  "Have we not one God, and one Christ,
and one spirit of grace (or love) poured out upon us? "
Again, the writer speaks of "'the true and only God"; the
"' great artificer and Sovereign Ruler of all "; A" the all-seeing
God and Ruler of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose our
Lord Jesus Christ." "   In what different language the Son is
spoken of has been already seen.
* Cap. 42.               t Cap. 36.               ~ Cap. 24.
~ See Martini, Versuch einer pragzmat.. Geschichte des Dogma von der Gottheit
Christi, etc., p. 24.
II Cap. 16.                              ~ Cap. 46, 43, 20, 58.




CLEMENT OF ROME.                             7
We have quoted, we believe, the highest expressions applied
to Christ in the Epistle.  Certainly his supreme divinity is
nowhere taught in this relic of Christian antiquity.  That he
is a distinct being from the Father, and altogether subordinate,
is the prevailing idea of the whole composition.  Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century, complains that
the writer of the Epistle, though  " he calls our Lord Jesus
Christ our high priest and leader, yet does not ascribe to him
the divine and higher qualities." *   That is, says Lardner,   in
modern  language, it is a Socinian  Epistle."   Certainly the
language of Photins is very significant, coming from  such  a
source.t
The  ascription  of 6'glory,"  or  " glory, dominion,"  etc.,
occurs six times in the Epistle. In four of these cases God is
expressly, clearly, and unequivocally the object.  Thus, " the
omnipotent God,.... to whom be glory forever and ever." $
Again, " the Most High,....   to whom  be glory forever and
ever."' ~  Again, " God who chose our Lord Jesus Christ,...
* Biblioth., cod. 126; torn. i. p. 95, ed. Bekker.
t An argument for the deity of Christ, founded on the misconception of a
passage in Clement's Epistle, is thus disposed of by a writer in the Christian
Examiner for May, 1860: - "Nor does Clement anywhere use the expression'the passion of God,' or anything like it. The passage referred to is cap. 2
of his genuine Epistle to the Corinthians, where we have the expression
7rad7utaTa avrTo), - Toe  eoe indeed being the nearest antecedent. If we insist
that he wrote with strict grammatical accuracy, and reject the conjectural
emendation of Junius (Young), a Trinitarian, of /atdgzara for wratihaara, (the
Epistle being extant in but a single manuscript,) we simply make Clement a
Patripassian; for the term &1eo6 in every other passage of the Epistle unquestionably denotes the Father. But even Dorner, in his great work (Lehre Iyon
der Person Christi, i. 139), says that he' does not venture to use this passage
as a proof that Clement calls Christ God.' He adopts the easy supposition of
a negligent use of the pronoun advr6r, referring to Christ in the mind of the
writer, though not named in the immediately preceding context. The same
view of the passage is taken by Bunsen, Hippolytits eld his Age, i. 46, note,
2d ed.; by Martini, Versuch, etc., p. 24, note; and by Reuss, Tlieologie Chr&tienne, ii. 326, 2e fd. Of this use of avr6f we have another remarkable example in Clement, c. 36, and it is not uncommon in the New Testament, especially
in the writings of John; see Winer, Granm. ~ 22. 3. 4, 6th ed., and Robinson's
N. T. Lex., article avr6g, 2. b. ad fin. This passage is the sole straw to which
those can cling who maintain that Clement of Rome believed in the deity of
Christ; a notion in direct contradiction to the whole tenor of his language in
every other part of his Epistle." -pp. 466, 467.
t Cap. 32.                                                ~ Cap. 45.




8                  APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
through whom be glory and majesty, power, honor unto him
both now, and forever and ever." *  Once more, in the ascription at the close of the Epistle, we have, " The grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all that are anywhere
called by God through him; through whom be unto him (God)
glory, honor, might, and majesty, and eternal dominion, from
everlasting to everlasting."  In these passages the "glory,
dominion," etc., are expressly ascribed to God, either absolutely and without reference to Christ, as in the first and second instances, or through Jesus Christ, as in the last two. In
one of the remaining instances we have simply, " Chosen by
God, through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be glory forever
and ever "; t and in the other a similar construction.s If the
ascription here is to be referred to the nearer, and not, as is
possible, to the remoter antecedent, by a negligence of syntax
of which there are known examples in the New Testament
and in the writings of Christian antiquity, there is no difficulty
in reconciling it with the supremacy of the Father, so strongly
asserted, or necessarily implied, in the current language of the
Epistle.  The Scriptures ascribe glory and dominion to Christ,
but a derived glory and dominion, God having "mcade him
both Lord and Christ," and ".given him a name above every
name." ~  With this the language of the Epistle is throughout
consistent.
We repeat, in conclusion, one searches in vain, in the Epistle
ascribed to this Apostolic Father, for those views of the Logos,
as a personified attribute of the Father, which are so prominent in the writings of the philosophical converts to Christianity. The language employed is more scriptural, the thoughts
less subtle and metaphysical, the author being content to represent God as the fountain of all power and blessing, and Jesus
Christ as his Son, sent by him to be the Saviour of men. The
Father is above all; his glory and majesty are underived; the
Son derives from him his power and dignity, his offices and
dominion. Such are the teachings of this old relic of the
primitive ages. The personality of the Spirit is not one of its
doctrines.
* Cap. 58.             t Cap. 50.             $ Cap. 20.
~ See Acts, ii. 33, 36; Philippians, ii. 9; Ephesians, i. 20-22; 1 Petbr,
21.




THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS.                   9
What is called Clement's Second Epistle to the Corinthians,
or the fragment of it which is preserved, has no title, as the
best critics agree, to be received as genuine.  Eusebius says
that it was quoted by no ancient writer.* There are other
compositions which have been ascribed to Clement, but they
are all by competent critics now rejected as spurious.
THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS.
There is a Hermas mentioned by St. Paul (Romans xvi. 14),
to whom this work has been attributed.  It is undoubtedly an
ancient writing. Eusebius speaks of it as publicly read in the
churches,t and Jerome tells us that it was read in some
churches of Greece, that is, if we understand him, in his day,
but that it was almost unknown to the Latins.T  Both name
Hermas as the reputed author, but neither affirms that he was
so. Both speak with hesitation and reserve. The work is
also quoted or referred to by Ireneus, Clement of Alexandria,
Tertullian, and Origen. Justin Martyr does not quote it. It
has been ascribed to the end of the first century.  But Mr.
Norton, who discusses the question of its date with his usual
acuteness and learning, concludes from evidence filrnished by
a "fragment" of Christian antiquity published by Muratori
in 1740, that it was "not written till about the year 150." ~
Bunsen, who also uses the Muratorian fragment, attributed
by him  to Hegesippus, arrives at a conclusion not very dissimilar.  He supposes that the "fragment " was written about
the year 170. It says of the Shepherd of Hermas, that it was
"written at Rome very recently, in our own times, by Hermas; while his brother Pius occupied the episcopal chair.
Now, according to the vulgar chronology, Pius became Bishop
of Rome A. D. 142; Bunsen makes the time of his episcopate
to extend from A. D. 132 or 133 to 157.  Either chronology,
Bunsen's or the vulgar, would authorize Mr. Norton's inference in regard to the time of the composition.  Bunsen, however, thinks that he is able to show, "from  the book itself,"
* Hist., iii. 38.  t Hist., iii. 3 and 25.  $ De Vir. Mll. ust., c. 10.
~ Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i., Additional Notes, p. ecxlviii., etc.




10                    APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
that it was written in 139- or 140.*   This, if it be so, does not
conflict very  materially  with  Mr. Norton's  opinion.   But
whether we adopt the year 140 or 150 as the date, is of little
importance so far as concerns our present inquiry. We may
safely refer its origin to about the middle of the second century, or a little earlier.t It was written in Greek, but the
original was long supposed to be lost, with the exception of a
few fragments preserved in quotations; and until lately we have
possessed it only in an ancient Latin translation.  [The Greek
text was first published at Leipsic in 1856, or rather in December, 1855, by Rudolph Anger, with a preface by William
Dindorf, and more accurately by Tischendorf in Dressel's
edition of the Apostolic Fathers, Leipsic, 1857.  These editions were founded on a manuscript of Hermas discovered by
the notorious Constantine  Simonides at Mount Athos, three
leaves of which, with a copy of the rest, he sold to the University of Leipsic. The defects of that manuscript, which is
of the fifieenth century, and presents a very corrupt text, have
been partially supplied by Tischendorf's great discovery of the
"Codex Sinaiticus,"  which he assigns to the middle of the fourth
century.] This manuscript was found in the monastery of St.
Catharine, on Mount Sinai, in 1859, and contains the greater
part of the Old Testament (in Greek), and the whole of the
New, together with the Epistle of Barnabas, and about one
fourth of the Shepherd of Hermas, in the original Greek.:: The
+ Christianity and Mankined, i. 184.  See the Muratorian Fragment itself,
in Bunsen's Analecta Ante-NTiccena, i. 137.
t Neander (Hist., i. 660) mentions the hypothesis which ascribes its origin
to about the year 156, and thinks that there are some objections to the supposition of so late a date; but how much earlier he would place it, he does not
say. He attributes but little weight to the Muratorian document.
t [The Codex Sinaiticus was published in the latter part of the year 1862,
in four folio volumes, magnificently printed in fac-simile type, at the expense
of the Russian government. The edition consisted of three hundred copies,
of which only one hundred were placed on sale, for the benefit of the editor,
the remainder being distributed as presents by the Emperor of Russia. A
cheap edition, however, in ordinary type, of the portion containing the New
Testament, with the Epistle of Barnabas, and fragments of Hermas, was published by Tischendorf at Leipsic in 186S, in one volume, quarto. The same
year the unsold copies of Dressel's edition of the Patres Apostolici were issued,
with a Supplement, also sold separately, containing a complete collation of the
Epistle of Barnabas and the portion of Hermas found in the Sinaitic manu



THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS.                    11
two latter books, when the manuscript was written, appear to
have been classed, in some churches, with the canonical writings of the New Testament; though as to the production of
Hermas, Niebuhr, as Bunsen tells us, used to say that lie
" pitied the Athenian Christians for being obliged to hear it
read in their assemblies."
The work consists of three books,   Visions, Commands,
and Similitudes, the two latter being communicated  to the
writer, as he says, by an angel in the guise of a shepherd;
hence the title of the work.  It is a wild book.  The writer
seems to have been, in some sense, an imitator of St. John in
the Revelation, at least to have read the Apocalypse; and in his
visions and similitudes he gives great license to his imagination.
Mr. Norton's comparison of the work to Bunyan's " Pilgrim's
Progress " is suggestive and forcible.
In a writing of such a character we can hardly expect to
find much which admits of quotation, relating to the doctrines
of a speculative theology.  It has a great deal to say of God,
and 1" living to God," of allegorical personages and angels, and
little, in comparison, of Jesus Christ. God appears in it, and
God only, as the Supreme and Infinite One, the sole independent creator and governor of the universe, who alone is
eternal.  The first Command begins: " First of all believe
that there is one God, who created and formed all things out
of nothing. He comprehends all, and is alone immense; who
can neither be defined by words, nor conceived by the mind."
Similar phraseology ascribing the act of creation directly
to God repeatedly occurs.  Thus, "God, who dwelleth in
heaven, hath made all things out of nothing" "; -" who by
his invisible power and his excellent wisdom made the world"; -
-who "ruleth over all things and hath power over all his
creatures." f  Thus he is supreme, sole maker and governor
script, with the Greek text previously published. Besides the common Latin
text of the Shepherd of Hermas, Dressel's edition of the Apostolic Fathers
contains another ancient Latin version, discovered by him in the Codex Pala.
tinus 150, of the fourteenth century. The readings of this version he describes
as often better than those of the common text, and in doubtful cases almost
always preferable. In 1860 an ancient 1Ethiopic version of Hermas was published at Leipsic, with a Latin translation, by A. d'Abbadie. This also affords
some assistance in settling the text. - ED.]
* Vis. i. c.. 1.         Ib. c. 3.              Sim x. ix. c. 23.




12                    APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
of the universe.   True, in the Similitude just quoted, the
writer, referring  to the name of the Son of God, says the
" whole world is supported by it." * This, if it do not point
to the new spiritual creation under Christ its head, seems to
conflict with what is elsewhere asserted, that God created and
governs all things by a direct act of his power. Possibly the
writer may have believed, according to the doctrine about that
time beginning to develop itself, that the Father made use of
the Son as his instrument in creating and ruling tile world,
though the prevailing form of expression throughout the work
implies the contrary.  Martini ascribes this belief to him.t
Throughout the work, however, the highest titles and epithets are applied to God, never to the Son, who is subject, and
receives all from  the Father.  Thus in the fifth Similitude:
" Having blotted out the sins of his people, he showed to them
the paths of life, giving themn the law which he had received
of the Father..... He is Lord of his people, having received
all power from his Father." j
By the " first created Spirit," in the following passage, eminent critics, Martini and Bunsen among the number, suppose
is meant Christ.  This seems to us incontestable.  The passage, according to the text adopted by Martini, reads thus:
"' That Holy Spirit, which was created first of all, God placed
in a body in which it should dwell, in a chosen body, as it
pleased him." ~  Bunsen varies the punctuation somewhat in
the latter part of the passage, giving what he calls a " reconstituted text," which, however, does not affect what is said of
the Spirit as "created 11 first of all," the reading which  he
* Sire. ix. c. 14.                      t Versuch, etc., pp. 27, 28.
t Sine. v. c. 6.                        ~ Si71. v. c. 6.
I1 "Created" (creatus). There is here a difference of reading. In the text
of some editions we have ihfitslus instead of creatus.  Creatus, we conceive,
has the best manuscript authorities in its favor. Martini says, that tile old
manuscript authorities have creatus, and that infusits is a later interpolation.
Bunsen adopts creatus on the authority of the Dresden and other manuscripts.  The Lambeth, Carmelite, and Vatican have creatts; and thus
from a collection of manuscripts and editions Grabe corrects the text. [This
is also the reading of the independent Latin version contained in the Codex
Palatinus; and Dressel, in his edition of the Apostolic Fathers, adopts it as
genuine. The Greek text of the passage in the manuscript of Simonides is
peculiar, and, when compared with the old Latin versions, leads one to suspect that the original has been altered on dogmatic grounds. It is as follows:




THE IGNATIAN LETTERS.                       13
adopts, and which Archbishop Wake also follows.  The' "Son
of God," says Bunsen, " is the Holy Spirit."   He claims that
his explanation is neither Athanasian nor Arian; certainly it
is not Athanasian.  It savors strongly of Arianism, however,
as it makes Christ a created being, and possibly this work,
ascribed to Hernmas, may have been one of the ancient writings
referred to by the Arians, when they asserted that their doctrine was that of the old Christians.   The  early Fathers,
it is to be observed, frequently confounded the Son with the
Spirit.
The following passage, which  affirms the preexistence of
the Son, but not his eternity, the Arians might have used
without scruple.  "This rock and this gate are the Son of
God.  I replied, Sir, how can that be? seeing the rock is old,
but the gate new..... He answered, The Son of God is
indeed more ancient than  any creature, so that he was in
counsel with his Father at the creation of all things.  But the
gate is therefore new because he appeared in the last days,
even the fulness of time."    The preexistence of the Son,
which is not distinctly asserted in Clement's Epistle, no doubt
an earlier writing, here clearly enough appears.
THE IGNATIAN LETTERS.
We pass over the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius with slight
notice, regarding them  as of too uncertain authorship, and too
hopelessly corrupt, to justify the use of them  in connection with
our present inquiry.j-  As to the bearing of the Epistles in
70  rrvEta r T  yltov TO 7irpoov, ro KTicav ardTav raav r iv oTa, KcarJKtcOev 6 Oeaf rig Capca
iyv joivLero, " the preexisting holy spirit whiclh created the whole creation God
caused to dwell in a body which he chose."  The tEthiopic version, which
gives a very free rendering of the whole chapter, reads, "The holy spirit
which created all things dwelt in a body which he chose."  The fragment
of Hermas contained in the Codex Sinaiticus does not include this passage. -
ED.]  See Notes to the Amsterdam and recent Paris editions; also Bunsen,
Christianity and Mankind, vol. i. pp. 211, 212 (Hippolytus); Martini, Versuclh,
etc., p. 28. Archbishop Wake seems to have followed the Lambeth manuscript.
Sim. ix. c. 12.
t We shall not attempt to argue the question of the genuineness of the
Ignatian Letters, but shall content ourselves with a few observations and
references.  What is called the "testimony of antiquity " in their favor is
too meagre, too loose, and not sufficiently early, and one of the pieces referred




14                      APOSTOLIC  FATHERS.
the recently discovered Syriac version on the question  of the
belief of the old Christians on the subject of the Trinity, we
to of too suspicious a character to prove anything against the internal evidence
of the Letters themselves. The passage quoted in this connection from Polycarp cannot be reconciled with other parts of' his Epistle, and there can be
little doubt is an interpolation. As to the " general consent of the learned,"
it may well surprise one to hear it appealed to at the present day in favor of
either of the old recensions, though the shorter has found more advocates than
the longer. They, however, if such there be among living men, who imagine that Pearson's'7indicice, etc., preceded by the labors of Usher and
Vossius, and intended as an answer to Daille, set the question of the genuineness of this recension "at rest forever," cannot have given attention to the
record of theological literature in Germany fiom the time of Larroque's "Reply" in 1674 to the publication of the recently discovered Syriac version, as
is clearly enough shown by Cureton in his Vindicice, etc., (pp. 15-19, and
Appendix,) London, 1846; and in his Corpus Iynatianzlo, (Preface and
Introduction,) London, 1849. Cureton thinks that "many of the arguments
which he (Pearson) advances, to say the least, very much weaken, if they do
not nullify, one another"; to which remark he appends the following note:
" In the whole course of my inquiry respecting the Ignatian Epistles I have
never met with one person who professes to have read Bishop Pearson's celebrated book; but I was informed, by one of the most learned and eminent of
the present Bench of Bishops, that Porson, after having perused the Vindicice,
had expressed to him the opinion that it was a very unsatisfactory work."
(Corputs Ilnatianum, Preface, p. xiv.)
The publication of Cureton's Syriac manuscripts, in 1845, introduced a new
element of uncertainty into the controversy.  Cureton claims that his Syriac
version, which is much shorter than the shortest of the old Greek recensions
(the English translation of the whole three Letters being comprised within
five pages of his Corpus Ignatianum), represents the authentic text of all the
genuine Epistles we possess of the old Martyr. Some learned men of Germany, among whom  Bunsen was conspicuous, sustained Cureton's view;
others, and among the rest Hilgenfeld, Hefele, and Baur, took decided ground
against it. The opinion of English critics, too, was much divided. The result
of all is, that the arguments of those who would be glad to believe that we
possess some relic of the venerable martyr of Antioch, entitled to be pronounced genuine, and who look for it in either of the old recensions, have
been weakened rather than strengthened within the last few years, and we
are further than ever from being able to appeal to the " general consent of the
learned " in favor of any genuine text or version of these celebrated Letters.
For some account of the opinions and controversy respecting the Epistles
in question, see Cureton's volumes already referred to in this note; also the
copious references given by Hagenbach (Text-Book of the Historq of Doctrines, vol. i. pp. 65, 66, New York, 1861). These references relate more particularly, but not exclusively, to the questions raised by the publication of the
Syriac text of Cureton. We now hear little of the Syriac version; and we
will add only that the discussion which grew out of its discovery and publication has not shaken our confidence in the conclusion, that the time for
quoting the Ignatlan Letters, in one or another form, as genuine, in support
of any point either of history or doctrine, has gone by.




POLYCARP.                       15
may affirm, without fear of contradiction, that what Martini
asserts of the shorter recension of the seven Epistles, - which
critics generally have preferred to the longer, as entitled to be
pronounced genuine if the claim could be established in favor
of either, - that the divinity of the Son cannot; be found in it,
at least, in such form as would satisfy " Nicene-Athanasian
orthodoxy," is equally true of the recently produced Syriac
text.*  The most material difference we notice is, that while
the Syriac text of the Epistle to the Romans closes with " Jesus
Christ our God," the Greek and old Latin recensions both have
simply " Jesus Christ," - " our God" being added in the
Syriac version.  This has a suspicious look.  But even this
will not satisfy Athanasianl orthodoxy.  No one doubts that
Christ was called God before the time of the Council of Nice,
but not God in the highest sense.
EPISTLE OF POLYCARP.
We now come to the Epistle of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna,
to the Philippians. Irenseus tells us that he, in his youth,
knew Polycarp well, that he was acquainted with his manner
of life, his person, and discourses.4 Polycarp, he says, was
a disciple of the Apostles, and conversed with those who had
seen the Lord.  Jerome makes him a disciple particularly of
John; $ and Irenmus says, that he was in the habit of relating
to him conversations he had with that venerable man. According to Jerome he was ordained by John. The time of his
birth and death cannot be ascertained, though it is certain that
he lived to a very great age, and that he ended his days by
martyrdom.  The learned differ as to the date of this event,
some placing'it as early as 147, others, among whom is Bunsen,~ as late as 169.  His death, if the relation given in the
Letter of the church of Smyrna to the other churches on the
subject of his martyrdom is to be relied upon, was in the last
degree noble and affecting, though portions of the narrative
certainly have the air of fable. The genuineness, in the main,
of the Epistle to the Philippians ascribed to him, though called
* Versuczh, etc., p. 28.     t Euseb. List., iv. 14, and v. 20.
t De ir'. I/lust., c. 17.    ~ Ch/ristianift. q d Mlanzkid, i. 224.




16                   APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
in question by some among the older, as well as more recent
critics, and denied by those of the Tiibingen. school, who make
Polycarp a " mythical personage," there is no sufficient reason,
perhaps, for doubting.  Mr. Norton receives it as a genuine
relic of the martyr, with the exception of a passage near the
end relating to the Ignatian Epistles, to which he, in common
with other critics, takes exception, as bearing clear marks of
interpolation or forgery.*  It is supposed to have originally
ended with the doxology in the twelfth chapter.  The early
part of the second century is assigned as the probable date of
its composition.
The Epistle, which is mostly hortative, and retains the old
simplicity of thought and expression, is brief, and will help us
very little in our inquiry as to what Christians of that day
believed concerning the origin and precise rank of the Son.
Its testimony to the supremacy of the Father, and the subordination of the Son, however, is clear and decisive.  Thus we
are saved "by the will of God through Jesus Christ";
"who died, and was raised again by God for us." t  Again,
the writer speaks of believing in "him  who raised up our
Lord Jesus Christ from  the dead, and gave him  glory and
a throne at his right hand; to whom all things in heaven
and on earth are made subject, whom  every living creature
shall worship ";   not, however, as supreme.  The prevailing
language of the Epistle teaches the contrary.  So in the following quotation: "Now  the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and he himself, the everlasting high-priest, the
Son of God, Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth." ~
Here the Son is sufficiently distinguished from  the Father.
The high-priest makes an offering to God, but is not God
himself.
Such passages, scattered over the short Epistle, show clearly
enough that this old martyr had no conception of Jesus Christ
as equal with God, or as one with him except in will and pur* Genuieness of the Gospels, vol. i., Additional Notes, p. ccxliv., etc.? Cap. 1, 9.
i Cap. 2. [( 7rdaa w7vos' 2arpeiaet (so two MSS.; common reading 2arpeive),
"to whom every living creature will pay religious service." Comp. 1 Cor.
xv. 27; Phil. ii. 9-11; 1 Pet. iii. 22; Rev. v. 13. - ED.]
~ Cap. 12.




BARNABAS.                       17
pose.  Here are no metaphysics, no confusion or obscurity, no
hair-splitting distinctions.  The Father is separated from the
Son by a broad and distinct line, one as supreme, the other as
subordinate; one as giving, the other as receiving; the Father
granting to the Son a " throne at his right hand."
EPISTLE OF BARNABAS.
This has been ascribed to Barnabas, the companion of St.
Paul. But the best modern critics generally agree in asserting that he was not the author.  Mr. Norton, who has no hesitation in saying that it was not written by Barnabas, the
companion of St. Paul, thinks that it dates from  about the
middle of the second century, not far from  the time when
Justin Martyr wrote his Dialogue with Trypho.* It was not,
as he argues from internal evidence, written by a Jew, or a
Jewish Christian. Bunsen says that it was written by a Gentile,
and that it is an "Alexandrian production." t  He attributes
to it a " high antiquity "; he thinks that it was written soon
after the fall of Jerusalem, that it is as old as the Epistle of
Clement, and consequently was anterior by about fifteen years
to the Gospel of John.  But it is difficult to answer Mr.
Norton's arguments, referring it to a later period, which, as
he- observes, would preclude it from occupying a place with
" writings of Apostolical Fathers."
Neander says, "we cannot possibly recognize in this production the Barnabas who was deemed worthy to take part as
a companion in the apostolical labors of Paul." But unlike
Mr. Norton and Bunsen, he ascribes it to a " Jew of the Alexandrian school, who had embraced Christianity."  In- support
of this opinion he assigns several reasons.  He allows Barnabas, the companion of St. Paul, no part in the composition.
1" The Epistle," he says, " is all of a piece, and cannot possibly be separated into two parts, of which Barnabas was the
author of one, and somebody else of the other." j
* Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i., Additional Notes, p. ccl., etc.
t Christiani/y and  ankinrd, i. 53-57.
I Hist. of the Christian Religion, etc., i. 657, 658.
2




18                 APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
Until the recent discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript by
Tischendorf, published in 1863, we possessed the Epistle only
in a corrupt and mutilated form. Its value, in any view we
may take of it, is not great.  Portions of it are weak, puerile,
and extravagant; and the author betrays a fondness for allegory, far-fetched conceits, and forced and mystical interpretations, conformable to the Alexandrian taste.
But what does it teach of the Saviour?  It undoubtedly
recognizes his preexistence.  He is called the "Lord of the
whole earth, to whom God said before the constitution of the
world,' Let us make man,' " etc.*  As God's instrument in
the creation it might be said that the sun was the "' work of his
hands." t  Throughout the Epistle, however, the supremacy
of the Father is maintained.  This it is impossible *to deny.
The author refers to Psalm cx. 1 and Isaiah xlv. 1, to prove
that both David and Isaiah call Jesus " Lord, and the Son of
God."  But in both these texts Jesus, if referred to at all, is
clearly distinguished from the supreme God, with whom the
writer of the Epistle has evidently no intention of confounding
him, or making him a co-equal.  Nor in speaking of Jesus as
the Son of God does he mlake any allusion to the metaphysical
doctrine of the Logos, so prominent in the writings of Justin
Martyr and the Platonizing Fathers after his day.
The meaning of the words, " In him and to him  are all
things,"t is sufficiently explained by the connection in which
they stand. All things in the old dispensation, as the writer
believed and argued, had reference to Christ.  "In him and
to him" were all.  The brazen serpent, as he says, and much
else, pointed to him. All types and figures had their fulfilment
in him, who in the fulness of time was to come.  So reasoned
a certain class of writers, to which the author of this Epistle
belonged, adopting in full extent the allegorical and mystical
mode of interpretation, indulging their fancy rather than consulting their reason. ~
The personality of the Spirit does not appear in the Epistle,
but only such expressions as these: " The Spirit of God
prophesieth, saying," etc.; " The Holy Spirit put it into the
* Cap. 5.             t Ibid. d           Cap. 12.
~ See Souverain, Le Platonisme devoile, p. 170.




CONCLUDING REMIARKIS.                         19
heart of Moses,"    phraseology which it needs no argument at
this time of day to prove does lot imply personality.
Thus of the mass of writings ascribed to the Apostolic Fathers we find two only -the first Epistle of Clement and the
very biief one of Polycarp -  whose claims to be considered as
wholly or in part genuine can be admitted.  Even the genuineness of these has been contested by critics of note, and we
possess neither of them in its entireness and purity. Two
of the others may be considered  as dating  from  about the
middle of the second century, and  are not therefore  to  be
numbered among the writings of Apostolic Fathers.  Of the
rest the date and authorship cannot be determined, though
they want evidence of a very early Christian antiquity.*
One word in regard to the Logos-doctrine, as. developed by
Justin  Martyr and the learned writers of a subsequent age.
*  The reader who has accompanied us in the foregoing examination of the
writings ascribed to the Apostolic Fathers, so involved in obscurity and
doubt, will be prepared to appreciate the beauty and force of the following
extract from the Introduction to Dr. Stanley's History of the Eastern Church.
In passing from Christianity as we see it in the New Testament to the Christianity of the Fathers, we witness a great change.
" No other change equally momentous," says Dr. Stanley, "has ever since
affected its fortunes, yet none has ever been so silent and secret. The stream,
in that most critical moment of its passage from the everlasting hills to the
plain below, is lost to our view at the very point where we are most anxious
to watch it; we may hear its struggles under the overarching rocks; we may
catch its spray on the boughs that overlap its course; but the torrent itself
we see..not, or see only by imperfect glimpses. It is not so much a period for
ecclesiastical history as for ecclesiastical controversy and conjecture. A fragment here, anl allegory there; romances of unknown authorship; a handful
of letters of which the genuineness of every portion is contested inch by inch;
the summary examination of a Roman magistrate; the pleadings of two or
three Christian apologists; customs and opinions in the very act of change;
last, but not least, the faded paintings, the broken sculptures, the rude epitaphs in the darkness of the catacombs, - these are the scanty, though attractive, materials out of which the likeness of the early Church must be reproduced, as it was working its way, in the literal sense of the word,'under
ground,' under camp and palace, under senate and forum, -' as unknown,
yet well known; as dying, and behold it lives.' This chasm once cleared,
we find ourselves approaching the point where the story of the Church
once more becomes history." — p. xxxvi., xxxvii.




20                  APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
That it does not appear in the writings ascribed to any of the
so-called Apostolic Fathers of whom we possess any literary
remains, may be regarded as an established fact; and a most
significant one it is. The absence of all traces of the doctrine
in these writings can be explained only on the supposition that
the authors "did not," in the words of Souverain, " find it in
the Christian religion, nor in the Jewish, and not having studied
in the school of Plato, they could not import it from that school
into the church of Christ."    Hagenbach concedes that the
authors of these writings " do not make any use of the peculiar
doctrine of the Logos." t Semisch, after observing that the
most ancient Fathers of the Church, in their speculative
inquiries relating to the person of Christ, took their direction
from Philo, whose doctrine of the Logos was their " startingpoint," adds: 1"We except, however, the so-called Apostolic
Fathers. Every such application of the idea of the Logos was
foreign to their minds." $  A most important exception truly,
as bearing on the argument of the present volume.
L e Platonisme devoile, p. 176.
t Text-book, etc., First Period, ~ 42.
f Justin Mlartyr, ii. 177, 178, Ryland's translation.




JUSTIN MARTYR, AND HIS OPINIONS.
CHAPTER I.
CLA1IMS OF JUSTIN ON OUR NOTICE. - BIRTH, AND EIARLY STUDIES.- DISSATISFACTION WITH HIS TEACHERS. - -HIS DESPONDENCY. - IIIS ECEPTION. OF PLATONISI. - HIS CONVERSION. -H IS DIALOGUE WITII TRYPH110. —WRITES HIS:FIRST APOLOGY. - HIS SECOND. - IIS LAST DAYS,
AND MARTYRDOM.
AMONG the great writers and teachers of the ancient church,
Justin, called the Philosopher and Martyr, claims our first
notice; not as the brightest and most transcendent of the
group, yet as a learned man and a sincere Christian, and the
first of the disciples of the cross of whom, after the days of
the Apostles, we possess any remains the genuineness of which
has not been brought into question. It is true, we have a mass
of writings ascribed to an earlier period.  But, with slight
exceptions, their date and authorship, as we have seen, are
involved in uncertainty. Many of them are palpable forgeries;
and others have come down to us in so corrupt a state, or are
so disfigured by interpolations, that, for any purpose of history
or doctrine, their value as authorities is nearly worthless.
Of the writings just referred to, ascribed to the so-called
"Apostolic F'athers," we have treated at sufficient length in
our Preliminary Chapter. Next follow the Apologists, two of
whom preceded Justin.  These are Quadratus, and Aristides
of Athens, b(tilh of whom presented "Apologies for Christianity," addressed to the Emperor Hadrian, the immediate predecessor of the first Antonine.  Of these two Apologies nothing
is preserved except a few lines from  Quadratus, quoted by
Eusebius the historian.*  In this fragment he speaks of some
H* ist., iv. 3.




22                  JUSTIN iMARTYR.
who were healed and some who were raised from the dead by
Christ as having lived to his own times. We know not the
date of Quadratus's birth. His Apology is said to have been
offered in the tenth year of Hadrian's reign, - the year 126
of our era. His recollection, however, might have extended
back some distance into the first century. He is reported to
have been a hearer of the Apostles, and certainly might have
been of John.
This, as we have seen, is an obscure period of Christian
history. With Justin Martyr, we emerge from a region of
darkness, and find, at least, some straggling rays of light. His
writings possess peculiar interest from the age to which they
belong, and the circumstances which gave them birth. They
carry us back to the former part of' the second century, - a
period not very remote from the death of the last of the little
band who saw and conversed with Jesus, and were commissioned to teach in his name.  As a record of facts, they
furnish useful, though not very ample, materials of history.
They have excited attention, too, if they do not derive importance, from the rank and early studies of their author. He is
the first to make us acquainted with Grecian culture in its
connection with Christian thought. Jerome speaks of him as
imitating the earlier apologist, Aristides; but how much is
meant by the assertion, it is impossible to say. Aristides is
called by Jerome a "most eloquent" man: but what his philosophical opinions were, we are not informed; nor is it known
how far he may have been chargeable with having taken the
mitiatory step in destroying the simplicity of the Christian
doctrine, which disappeared amid the decided Platonism of
Justin and his successors, especially the great teachers of the
Alexandrian School. That the writings emanating from this
school, along with those of Justin, who led the way, introduced
darkness and error into the theology of the period - error
which was transmitted to subsequent times, and from the overshadowing effects of which the Christian world lias not yet
fully recovered — admits, in our opinion, of no denial.
There was that, however, in the character of Justin, which
commands our admiration.  He was. in many respects, a light
and ornament of his age. He labored with zeal, if not with




BIRTH AND EARLY STUDIES.                 23
discretion, in the cause of his Master; and, having obtained
the honors of, martyrdom, left a name which the gratitude of
Christians has delighted to cherish.
Materials are wanting for an extended biographical notice
of Justin.  The little we know of him  is culled chiefly from
his own writings. They have preserved a few incidents of
his life; and tradition has added a little, though but little, to
the stock.  From  himself we learn that he was a native of
Palestine, and was born at Flavia Neapolis, the ancient Shechem,-called Sychar in the New Testament, now Nablus,a city of Samaria, and, as Josephus informs us, the metropolis
of that country at the time Alexander entered Judea. Here,
probably, his ancestors had for some time resided, since he
calls the Samaritans his nation and race; though we are
authorized to infer, from his own expressions, that he was of
Pagan extraction; and his education was certainly Heathen.
Of his father and grandfather he has told us only the names.
That of the former was Priscus; and that of the latter,
Bacchius.
The precise time of Justin's birth cannot be ascertained with
certainty: but it must have very nearly coincided with that
of the death of St. John the evangelist; being late in the first
century, or very early in the second (probably about the year
103); though there have not been wanting those who have
carried it as far back into the first century as the year 89. Of'
this number are Fabricius, Grabe, and others; whom  Otto,
Justin's latest editor, seems inclined to follow.  To this early
date, however, there are serious historical objections.
Justin must, as it would appear, have been born and bred
in easy circumstances. He possessed a liberal curiosity and
an ardent thirst for knowledge, and early devoted himself to
philosophical studies.  He had conceived a high opinion of
the objects and uses of philosophy, as the term was then understood. It was, in his view, the only treasure worth the attainment; comprehending, as lie believed, a knowledge of all that
pertained to God and to human felicity.*  This had been
sought by him, as lie informs us, in the schools of Zeno, Aris* Dial. cunm Tryph., p. 102, ed. Par., 1742; to which all our references are
made, unless Thirlby's or Otto's is specified.




24                   JUSTIN MA.RTYR.
totle, and Pythagoras, but in vain. He first, he tells us in his
Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, put himself under the tuition
of a certain Stoic.  With him  he remained long enough to
discover that he could impart little knowledge of God; for he
possessed little, and did not esteem  such knowledge of any
great worth. Justin then left him, and betook himself to one
of the Peripatetic School, who passed with himself, says he,
for a very astute philosopher.  But, demanding a stipulated
fee for teaching, Justin leaves him  in disgust, thinking that
very unphilosophical. Still burning with a desire of knowledge, he next selects for his teacher a conceited Pythagorean.
This man demanded of those who proposed to become his
pupils a previous knowledge of music, astronomy, and geometry, as tending to refine and elevate the conceptions, and thus
assist the mind to comprehend abstract mental truths, and rise
at last to the contemplation of the sole good and fair.  Of this
preparatory information Justin professed himself destitute; and
was therefore compelled to leave him, much to his regret: for
this man, lie says, really " appeared to know something."
Disappointed, humbled, and chagrined, Justin now seems
for a time to have resigned himself to grief and melancholy,
ignorant whither next to turn.  The lofty pretensions of the
Platonists at length awoke him firom his dream of suspense.
This sect was then in great repute, as teaching transcendent
truths relating to God and the universe; upon which subjects
its founder had discoursed with a copiousness and eloquence
which charmed the imagination, though his obscurity and
mysticism might occasionally baffle the understandings, of his
hearers.  To one of these, who had recently taken up his
abode at Neapolis (where, it seems, Justin continued to reside),
he joins himself; and his fondest hopes appear now about to
be realized. His attention is directed to subjects congenial
with his tastes and feelings. Plato's incorporeal essences delighted him. The contemplation of ideas or intelligible forms,
the patterns and archetypes of things visible, added wings to
his imagination. He thought himself already wise; and, in his
folly, flattered himself that he should soon obtain a vision of
God: for this, he adds, " is the end of Plato's philosophy." *
- Dial. cum Tryph., pp. 102-104; Otto, cc. 1, 2.




HIS CONVERSION.                   25
Justin was ardent, imaginative, and strongly inclined to
mysticism; and hence the most extravagant dreams of the Platonists found a ready reception with him; and his mind soon
acquired a taint from this source, which was never removed.
He retained, after his conversion, his former partiality for the
doctrine of ideas, as taught in the Platonic schools, 7which he
considered too difficult and sublime a doctrine to have originated in the subtilest human genius; and he therefore concluded that Plato must have stolen " so great a mystery " from
Moses, who speaks of an exemplar, type, and figure (preexistent forms) shown him on the mount.
Full of enthusiasm, and impatient of interruption, he now
resolves to fly from the society of' men, and bury himself in
the depths of solitude, - there to deliver himself up to his
favorite contemplations, by which lhe was to rise to a vision
of the Divinity.  For this purpose, he selects a retired spot
near the sea.  As he approached this spot, he observed, he
tells us, an aged man, of a venerable aspect, grave, but with
a look of meekness, following him at a little distance; and,
turning, he entered into conversation with him.  The conference was a long one; and the old man, adopting somewhat
of the Socratic method, appears often to have perplexed his
youthful antagonist.  Ile exposed'the absurd pretensions of'
the philosophers; pointed out the futility of their speculations; and concluded by directing his attention to the Hebrew
prophets, who were older than the philosophers, and who
alone, he affirmed, saw and taught the truth, and, speaking
by divine inspiration, unfolded visions of the future.  But
"pray," says he, "that the gates of light may be opened to
thee; for none can perceive and comprehend these things,
except God and his Christ grant them understanding."  Saying this, the old man departed, and was seen no more.*
Justin is impressed.  lie had previously witnessed the constancy of the martyrs; he had obsei'ved the tranquillity and
fortitude with which they encountered death, and all other
evils which appear terrible to man; and he justly inferred,
that they could not be profligate who could so patiently endure.t
He had long believed them innocent of the crimes imputed
* Dial. curl Tryph7., cc. 3-8, Otto.  t Apol. II. c. 12, p. 96.




26                        JUSTIN  MARTYR.
to them.  He was now prepared to think that they held the
truth. He reflected on the words of the venerable stranger,
and was convinced that they inculcated the " only safe and
useful philosophy." *
Such is his own account t of the manner in which he became
a Christian, or, as he expresses it, a philosopher; for he was
fond of retaining the namne, as he also continued to wear the
dress, of a Grecian  sage.   Eusebius A  informs us  that he
preached Christianity in the philosophers' garb, — a sort of
coarse or cheap mantle, usually of a dark color, similar to that
* Dial., p. 108; Otto, c. 8.
t This account, as we have said, is given in his Dialogue with Trypho;
and may therefore be received, we suppose, as a genuine history of his conversion, even if the dialogue be a fictitious composition, after the manner of
Plato's Dialogues. This species of writing, in which imaginary personages
are introduced as engaged in real discourse or argument, appears to have been
a favorite one with the ancients. Plato had adopted it with success, and the
charms of his dialogues were universally felt and acknowledged; and Cicero
and others employed it after him. It is not improbable that Justin, who, as
we know, was a warm  admirer of Plato, might have been influenced by his
example to attempt a style of composition which possessed so many attractions. That this was actually the case, we think the pervading tone, in fact
the whole air and costume, of the dialogue, if we may be allowed so to express
ourselves, afford abundant evidence. We can never persuade ourselves that
Justin's meek and supple Jew was a real personage. He is too patient of
abuse, and concedes too much to his antagonist. Nor, had lie been a learned
Jew, as is supposed, - whether Rabbi Tarphon, as some will have it, or any
other Rabbi, — would lie have allowed Justin's gross blunders in Hebrew chronology, history, and criticism, to have passed without censure. That he might
have held a dispute or disputes with the Jews, is hlighly probable; for he was
not accustomed to shrink from a trial of his strength in debate: and that the
substance of one or more of these interviews rmay have been retained in the
dialogue, or, at least, have furnished hints of which lie made some use, is quite
as probable. From these and other materials suggested by conversation and
reading, the piece was no doubt made up; but the style and dress, the rhletorical embellishment, the whole form and structure, are Justin's. It is no more
a real dialogue, we are persuaded, than similar compositions of' Cicero or of
Bishop Berkeley. He borrowed, unquestionably, like the authors of fictitious
writings generally, fromn real life, but worked up his rough materials according to his own fancy and judgment; and, as he was not deficient in a very
complacent opinion of his own abilities, his imaginary antagonist is made to
treat him with great respect, and yield him advantages in argument which a
real Jew of ordinary shrewdness would not have given. But whether the
dialogue be fictitious or not is of no importance; since, in either case, we
must suppose it to furnish a true record of Justin's opinions, and of the pro.
cess by which he became a Christian.
t fist., iv. 11.




HIS CONVERSION.                     27
afterwards worn by monks and hermits.  It was this garbt, as
we learn from  himself, which attracted the notice of Trypho
the Jew, and led him to address him as a philosopher.  "Hail,
philosopher!" is his first salutation.  "When I see a person
in this garb, I gladly approach him, with the expectations" he
adds, "of hearing something useful," - or perhaps in the hope
of amusement; for he was surrounded by some jeering companions of his own faith.*
Of the date of his conversion, nothing can with certainty
be affirmed.  The year 132 or 133 of the common era, however, is usually assigned; probably with some near approach
to truth.  Of his history after his conversion, few  notices
occur in his own writings; and little on which we can rely is
to be gathered from other sources. In a treatise which bears
his name, though its genuineness has been strongly contested,
we find incidental mention of him as having been in Campania
and Egypt; t and Ephesus is the scene of his celebrated Dialogue with Trypho. It is not improbable that his zeal in the
cause of Christianity may have led him to visit these and other
places.  His usual residence, however, as Eusebius informs
us,: was at Rome.  He was certainly much there; and if the
piece called the " Acts of his Martyrdom " be entitled to any
credit as an historical memoir, he dwelt at a place called Timothy's Baths, on the Viininal Mount, where he conversed
freely with all who resorted to him, and, by discourse and
writings, engaged, as occasion offered, in defence of Christianity, and fearlessly met and repelled the foul charges brought
against its professors.
He is supposed to have written his first or larger Apology,
addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, to his adopted sons,
Marcus Antoninus the philosopher, and Lucius Verus also
called philosopher, and to the senate and people of Rome, about
the year 138 or 139.~  It was occasioned by the suffering of
the Christians under a severe persecution, instigated in this; Dial., cc. 1, 8, Otto.     t Cohort. ad Grcecos, cc. 13, 37, Otto.
Hist., iv. 11.
~ This date is adopted by Dodwell, Petau. Le Clerc, Basnage, Scaliger,
Pagi, M1hler, Semisch, Neander, Otto, and others; though some prefer A. D.
140 as the period of its composition, and others of no small critical repute -
as Tillemont, Grabe, Fleury, and Maran - name as late a date as i50.




28                      JUSTIN  MAARTYR.
instance, it seems, by the frenzy of the populace, who were
accustomed at the public games, and whenever opportunity
offered, to clamor for their blood, and urge the civil authorities
to put in execution the imperial edicts then existinrg  against
them, but which the humanity of the magistrates appears sometimes to have allowed to sleep.  This Apology is alluded to in
the Dialogue with Trypho: which must, therefore, have been
written at a subsequent period; Pearson thinks, in the year
146;* but this is conjecture.  The second Apology appears
to have been written at a still later period, and not longr before
his martyrdom.n.
Justin was roused to offer this Apology by the sufferings of
three persons who had been recently put to death by Urbicus,
prefect of the city, for no crime, but only for acknowled ging
themselves the followers of Christ.  This act of Urbicus he
regarded only as a prelude to still further severities; and, with
the exalted courage of a martyr, he stepped forward, and endeavored to avert the storm  which seemed ready to burst on
the heads of his fellow-Christians.  The consequences of his
zeal and activity he seems fully to have anticipated.  His
ability, the weight of his character, his powerful appeals and
remonstrances, and his unsparing censure of the follies of Paganism, provoked the hostility of the enemies of the Christian
name; and they now, more than ever, panted for the blood of
so noble- a victim.  Near the beginning of his Apology, he
expresses his belief that the fate of his companions would soon
be his own.  He had a determined, and, as the event proved,
a powerful adversary in one Crescens, a Cynic philosopher,
whom he describes as a person of infamous character, but fond
of popularity, and willing to resort to any arts, however base,
Just., ed. Thirlb., p. 439..
t It was addressed, according to Eusebius (iv. 16), to Marcus Antoninus the
philosopher, and his associate in the empire; though some modern critics - as
Dodwell, Thirlby (Just., ed. Thirlb., p. 110), and Pearson — have inferred, from
internal evidence, that this as well as the former was offered to Antoninus
Pius. So also Neander; the testimony of Eusebius, and, we may add, also
of Jerome, notwithstanding.  Semisch does not attempt to settle the date
with precision, but places it between A. D. 161 and 166. Otto names 164. The
theory that this originally constituted only thie introduction to the larger
Apology, and that the other Apology has been lost, has been proved, we'hink, by Otto and others, to be entitled to no respect.




HIS MARTYRDOM.                         29
for the purpose of obtaining it.  The odium  shared by the
Christians, already virulent enough, appears to have been rendered still more deadly by his exertions.  He went about to
inflame the minds of the people against theni; shamelessly
reiterating the then stale charge of immorality and atheism,
though, as Justin affirms, entirely ignorant of their principles.
He appears, however, to have obtained the ear of the emperor;
for his machinations succeeded, and  Justin was sacrificed.
He was apprehended; brought before Rusticus, prefect of the
city; and, on his refusal to offer sacrifice, was condemned to die.
Of his death  by martyrdom  there can, we think, be no
reasonable doubt. The little treatise, already mentioned, called
the "' Acts of the Martyrdom  of Justin and Others," would
furnish an affecting account of the concluding scene of his life,
could its authenticity be established.  But this is considered
as more than questionable.  The piece is one of acknowledged
antiquity; but the date of its composition cannot be ascertained: nor have we any means of determining whether the
Justin whose sufferings it recounts is the saint of whom  we are
speaking, or another individual of the same name.  In these
Acts, lie is said to have been beheaded; and we can easily
credit them, when they assert that he met death with the
calmness and fortitude becoming a follower of the crucified
Jesus.  Tlie precise year of his death is unknown.?   There is
a tradition in the Greek Church, that, like Socrates, hie drank
the hemlock; but this tradition has been considered as entitled
to little respect.
Some writers of the Romish communion would persuade us
that he was admitted to the order of priest or bishop in that
church; but, in support of this hypothesis, they offer only
* Fabricius (Bibliotlh. Grcac., t. v. p. 52) and Grabe (Spic. Parr., t. ii. pp. 146,
147) place it at A. D. 163, - or perhaps 165, says the latter; Tillemont (Eccles.
Mere., vol. ii. p. 145), at 167 or 168; others, at one of the intervening years
165 or 166. Dodwell has expressed an opinion that he was born A D. 119,
and suffered death A. D. 149, at thirty years of age (Dissert. iii. in Irenceaim,
~ 19); but this opinion is not supported by any good authority. Epiphanius,
indeed, says that Justin perished during the reign of Hadrian, at thirty years
of age. But it is beyond question, as has been generally observed, either that
Epiphanius was (deceived, or that his text has been corrupted; it being quite
certain that Justin survived Hadrian. Otto adopts the date of A. D. 165, ill
the consulship of Orphitus and Pudens.




30                  JUSTIN MARTYR.
vague conjectures. The ancients observe the most profound
silence on the subject; nor do the Romanists of modern times
venture to assign him any particular church or see. Neander
calls him an'" itinerant preacher, in the garb of a philosopher; "
and Semisch, an " itinerant evangelist." The Romish Church
observes his festival on the 13th of April; and the Greek, on
the 1st of June; both having canonized him.




JUSTIN S WRITINGS.                       31
CHAPTER II.
JUSTIN'S WRITINGS. - EXTRAVAGANT PRAISE BESTOWED ON HII~M.  REVERENCE FOR THE FATHERS DECLINES. -- XAMINATION  OF JUSTIN S
LARGER APOLOGY. —HIS AMODE OF ARGUMENT.- TOPICS AND TONE
OF HIS ADDRESS. - PROPHECY AND MIRACLES. - TOPICS OF HIS SECOND
APOLOGY. - DIALOGUE  WITH TRYPIIO.
SEVERAL of the works of Justin  are lost: among which,
unfortunately, is his book " Against all Heresies," mentioned
by himself; and one against Marcion, if both were not parts
of the same work.  His first Apology, placed second in the
earlier editions of his works, has reached  us nearly, if not
quite, entire.   The  second  is somewhat mutilated  at the
beginning, and, in other respects, appears imperfect. The
genuineness of the Dialogue with Trypho has been questioned
by a few; but, we think, for very insufficient reasons. The
"Hortatory Address to the Greeks" has been rejected by
several modern critics;' and Thirlby has not admitted it into
his edition'of the works of the saint.  Of the several other
treatises formerly published under his name, and included in
the later editions of his works, with the exception of Thirlby's,
none are now considered as eintitled to a place among his genuine and acknowledged remains. Most of them are universally
rejected as spurious; f and the two or three short pieces or
t Its genuineness was attacked by Casimir Oudin, a writer of some little
note in his time, who died at Leyden in 1717. Others have doubted or rejected. M6hler (Patrolqie, p. 224) is amnong the latter. Neander hesitates.
Otto (De Justini Malrtyis Scriptis et Doctrila, p. 38, etc.) and Semisch (vol. i.
pp. 118, etc.) argue the question, the latter at great length, and decide for its
genuineness. Augusti, De ~Wette, Credner, Baumgarten-Crusius, and several
others, are referred to as pronouncing the same judgment. So far as the authority of eminent critics goes, the evidence on this side now decidedly predominates; though much doubt remains, and ever will remain.
t These are the Epistle to Zenas and Serenus, the Exposition of the Right
Faith, Questions and Responses to the Orthodox, Christian Questions to the
Greeks, andl Greek Questions to the Christians, and the Confutation of Certain
Dogmas of Aristotle, all thrown into the Appendix in the Paris edition pf 1742
as mnnifestly supposititious.




82                         JUSTIN  MARTYR.
fragments, still sometimes referred to as his, are of too doubtful a character to authorize us to cite them  as part of his genuine -works.*
Justin has been the subject of much extravagant panegyric.
* Such are the Oration to thle Greeks, the short firagment on the Monarchy
of Go(l, and the Epistle to Diognetus, - a work of undoubted antiquity, of
which. we shall speak hereafter.  Semischll claims the fragment of a work on
the IBesurrection as Justin's;  but there is not that historical and critical evidence in its favor which is necessary to procure its general reception. Few,
we think, at the present day, will venture to quote from  it as a work of
Justin.
The first printed edition of' the collected works of Justin, in Greek, is that
of R. Stephens in 1551. This edition includes nearly the whole of what has
been attributed to Justin, Stephens lhaving published the spurious, along with
the genuine, from a manuscript belonging to thle Royal Library. The Address
to the Greeks or Gentiles, and the Epistle to Diognetus, however, were not
embraced in it, but were published by Henry Stephens in 1592 and 1595. An
edition of the works of this Father was published by Sylburgius, at Heidelberg, in 1593.  This edition was reprinted at l'aris in 1615, and again in 1636.
That bearing thle latter date was highly esteemed, and is the edition generally
intended when reference is made to the Paris edition by several writers during the century subsequent to its publication.
Tlhirlby's edition of the two Apologies, and Dialogiue with Trypho, was
publisher in LonoUdn in 1722.  This edition is beautifully printed, and contains some valuable notes, generally brief, and not encumbered with useless
learning.  On points involving doctrinali controversy, however, Thirlby has
studiously avoided entering, into any discussion.
Tile last Patris edition is tlhat of Prud. Maran, or Maranus, a Benedictine
monk of the congregation of St. Maur, 1742. This edition includes all the
treatises, as well spurious as genuine, which have been at different times published under the name of Justin. The volume contains likewise the remains
of several other Greek writers of the second century; as Tatian, Justin's
disciple, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antiocli, and Hermias.  Maran gave a
new Latin version of the two Apologies and tile Dialogue.  Of portions of
the writings of Justin there have been more recent editions; but his entire
works, for a hundred 3years from tile time of Maran, fobund no new editor.
The first volume of Otto's edition appeared at Jena in 1842, - exactly a century after the date of the celebrated Paris edition of Maran.  The remaining
volumes subsequently appeared; and a second edition, in five volumes, was
publislled in 1847-1850. This is an octavo edition, and embraces all the works
which have passed under tile name of Justin, genuine and spurious.  It is
very carefully edited, with a corrected text, critical annotations and comments, original and selected, and presents the writings of Justin in a more
convenient form than any before possessed. No one who has access to this
adition will hereafter use any other.
[This edition of Justin by Otto forms a part of his Corpus Apoloqetarumi
Chroisit?2nor'l7 SCeCtli Seclutdi.  Of this collection, three volumes have since
appeared, containing the remains of Tatian (1851), Athenagoras (1857), and
Theoplilus (1861), all admirably edited. - ED.]




JUSTIN EXTRAVAGANTLY PRAISED.                 33
Profound learning, penetration, wit, judgment, and eloquence
(almost every quality which goes to make a great writer) have
been ascribed to him by his too partial admirers.  Antiquity
is loud in his praise.  Tatian, his disciple, calls him a " most
-wonderful" man; and Methodius, a writer of the third century, tells us that he was " not far removed from the Apostles
either in time or virtue."  Photius, too, though he admits that
his style wants attractions for the vulgar, extols his solidity of
matter, and vast and exuberant knowledge.  Of the biographical notices of himn,furnished by comparatively modern writers,
— as Cave, Tillemont, and others, - most are composed less
in the style of impartial history than of fond eulogiumn.
As a blind reverence for antiquity, however, yielded at
length to a spirit of independent research and just criticism,
the credit of the Fathers, and of Justin among the rest, rapidly
sunk.  Daill6 in his " Treatise on the Use of the Fathers,"
Le Clerc in his various writings,* Barbeyrac,t and we might
add a multitude of others, and, above all, the learned and
accurate Brucker,4 contributed their proportion to bring about
this revolution in public opinion, and settle the question of
their merit and defects.  Far be it from  us to justify every
expression of contempt and sweeping censure, much less the
tone of heartless levity and ridicule, in which modern writers
have occasionally indulged in speaking of them.  The s,bject
is too grave for derision.  The Fathers, with whatever imperfections and weaknesses they are chargeable as authors, are
certainly entitled to our respect and sympathy as men and
Christians.  They performed an important office in society.
They received and transmitted the religion of the humble and
despised Jesus; transmitted it (disfigured and corrupted, to be
sure, but still transmitted it) in the face, too, of torture and
death.  They helped to carry forward the triumphs of the
cross. The fortitude in sufferings exhibited as well by the
learned advocates for the truth of Christianity, whose position
* See his Ars Critica, also flistoria Ecclesicastica, and Bibliothe'que Unlierselle
et Hisforiqte, Clhoisie, and Alcienne et 1Ioderne; a rich storehouse of information,
in eighty volumes, into which Gibbon, as he tells us, dipped with delight;
and in which the curious will be ever sure to find entertainment.
t.'lTaitt de la Mlorale des Peares.
t Historiac C;ritica Philosoplice.




34                   JUSTIN IMARTYR.
rendered them objects of special mark, as by the crowd of more
obscure believers, was matter of admiration and astonishment
to the Pagali world; and the church was nurtured by their
blood.
Of such men we cannot speak with levity, or cold, illiberal
sarcasm.  But, though we venerate them  as men who dared
and suffered nobly, truth compels us to say, that, as writers,
we cannot think them entitled to any profound respect.  We,
think, with Jortin, that "it is better to defer too little than
too much to their decisions." We do not except even Justin.
His writings deserve the attention of the curious, as furnishing
examples of the manner in which Christianity was defended,
and the objections of Pagans and Jews met and refuted, in
the primitive ages. They are valuable, too, in other respects.
But, however they may be calculated to increase our reverence
for the moral qualities, the sincerity, the zeal, the self-devotion
and courage, of their author, they will not give us any very
exalted opinion of his penetration, taste, or judgment. Whoever
reads them with the expectation of finding in them specimens
of just and well-sustained argument and eloquence,- whoever
looks for discriminating remark, or a neat and graceful style,
perspicuity, or method, - will rise from the perusal of them
with a feeling of sad disappointment.
Let us take his first and larger Apology.  It was not necessary that its author, in order to attain his object, should establish the truth of Christianity.  Christianity might be true, or
false; its founder might have been divinely commissioned, or
he might have been an impostor or enthusiast: yet the sufferings inflicted on Christians might be undeserved; the charges
alleged against them  might be false, and their punishment,
therefore, an act of gross injustice and cruelty.  Neither the
public tranquillity nor the safety of the throne, neither justice
nor policy, might require that the rising sect, infected by the
"new superstition," as it was called, should be crushed. These
were topics which the early apologists, one might think, would
particularly urge, and urge with all their strength of reasoning
and eloquence.
The popular charges against the Christians were those of
profligacy and atheism. The latter arose from their neglect




EXAMINATION OF HIS WRITINGS.             35
of the gods, whose images filled every temple and grove, and
the worship of whom was enjoined by the Roman laws. For
this crime, for their alleged impiety and contempt of the gods,
they were punished.  Pliny, in his well-known letter to Trajan, expresses his concern that the contagion of the new opinions had not only infected cities, but spread through the remoter
towns and villages; that, in consequence, the temples were
deserted, the public rites of religion neglected, and the victims
remained unsold. The old fabric of superstition seemed tottering, and ready to fall. But this fabric it was deemed matter of policy to support; and whatever tended to weaken and
overthrow it, was, therefore, regarded with extreme jealousy
and aversion.  HI-ence the virulence manifested against the
growing sect of Christians. They were the enemies of legalized
superstitions; and were therefore viewed as in some sense disturbers of the public peace, and dangerous to the State. The
calamities which afflicted the empire increased the hatred
against them.  Of these calamities they were accused of being
the authors; and by their blood alone, it was urged by a superstitious populace, they could be averted, and the anger of
Heaven appeased. If the Tiber overflowed its banks, or the
Nile did not rise, or there was earthquake or famine or pestilence, the Christians must pay the penalty by their lives.
" Away with the Atheists! " was the cry: " The Christians to
the lions! "  Such were the feelings and opinions, and such
the mode of reasoning, which Justin found it necessary to
combat: and several of the views and considerations he suggests have great weight; though, from his want of skill in
argument, he fails of making the most of them.
He demands only, he says, that Christians be placed on a
footing with other subjects of the empire; that the charges
brought against them should be examined; and, if they were
found guilty, he wishes not, he says, to screen them from punishment.  But let them  not be put to death without an
opportunity of establishing their innocence; let them not be
condemned simply for bearing the name of Christians. Names
are indifferent: the things signified by them are alone of importance. If Christians are what they are represented to be
(workers of all iniquity, not only holding opinions in the last




86                  JUSTIN MARTYR.
degree impious and detestable, but sanctioning every enormity
by their practice), let it be proved against them. Show them
to be malefactors, and we will not complain that they are
punished as such. But, if their lives are blameless, it is manifest injustice to sacrifice them to popular frenzy and hatred.
Thus far, Justin proceeds on unquestionable ground. He
asserts the great principles of justice and equity; hle contends
for liberty of opinion; he is a strenuous asserter of that liberty:
andcl.happy for the repose of Christendom, had Christians never
lost sight of the sentiments in the present instance uttered by
this early Father. They were worthy the noble cause he was
advocating, and might with advantage have been further
pressed; for this was Justin's stronghold. While urging these
considerations, he was pleading the cause of common justice
and humanity; and his sentiments must have found an echo
in every breast which retailed the least portion of sensibility
or correct feeling. But he injudiciously breaks off a truly valuable train of thought, the moment he has entered upon it, to
introduce some observations about demons, to whose active
malice he attributes the odium under which Christians lay.
As regards these evil demons, he says, we confess we may be
denominated Atheists.; for we reject their worship: but not as
regards the true God and his Son sent by him, the host of good
angels and the prophetic spirit; for these we reverence and
adore. He then speaks of the objects of Heathen adoration,
and the folly of honoring them with victims and garlands; and
observes that God wants not material offerings. Christians,
he continues, look not for an earthly kingdom; and, as their
hopes are not fixed on present things, death by the hands of
the executioner has no terrors for them: " You may slay, but
you cannot hurt."  They are good subjects, and promoters of
virtue and peace; for they teach that all men, whatever their
characters, are subject to God's inspection, and will be hereafter rewarded or punished as their actions merit. IHe then
cautions those whom lie was addressing against listening to
calumnies which originated with deceptive demons. These
demons were enemies of the Christians; since the latter, in
embracing Christ, renounced their dominion, and became reformed in temper and life. To prove that he is not playing




MIODE OF ARGUMENT.                   37
the sophist in thus speaking, he says that lie will quote a few
precepts of Christ; and he proceeds to give copious extracts
from  the Sermon on the Mount, and other parts of the
Saviour's teachings of a strictly practical character, not omitting the rendering'" to Ciesar the things that are Cesar's, and
to God the things that are God's."  He thus shows that Christianity inculcates purity of heart, charity, patience, forbids
rash oaths, enjoins obedience to magistrates; that it teaches
the doctrine of immortality, and retribution for the just and
unjust acts of the present life.
As to what is said of Christ's birth, death, and ascension, it
cannot, he thinks, sound strange to a heathen ear accustomed
to the fabulous narratives of the poets; for similar things are
related of the sons of Jove.
Such is the train of Justin's remarks, so far as tley have any
consecutiveness, through one third, and that by far the least
exceptionable part, of his Apology.  What remains consists
of observations and theories on the subject of the incarnation;
expositions of prophecies, generally extravagant and fanciful
enough; accounts of the miraculous feats, the craft and malice,
of demons, who appear perpetually to haunt his imagination,
and whom lie considers the authors of the Heathen mytholotgy,
and inspirers of the poets; the abetters of heresy, and instigators of all the calamities under which Christians were groaning.  After adding a description of the sacred rites of Christians, - Baptism and the Supper, - and their worship, or mode
of passing Sunday, lie concludes with beseeching the clemency
of the emperor, and calls his attention to a rescript of Hadrian
illn favor of the Christians, which he subjoins.
Such are the general topics introduced into the first Apology.
It contains some truth, and some just views and representations; enough surely to show that the Christians were the victims of great injustice and cruelty, but nothing which bears
any resemblance to regular and well-sustained argument.  A
large portion of the thoughts, or rather crude and ihcoherent
conceptions and comments and strange conceits, obtruded upon
the notice of the emperor, are such as could have no weight
with him, and produce no effect but to inspire contempt fbr
the author's understanding. He injures his cause by weak and




38                    JUSTIN MAARTYR.
inconclusive arguments, and by the immense mass of irrelevant
and trifling or absurd matter with which he encumbers the
defence.
With regard to the tone of his address, we may observe,
that it was anything but mild and conciliating.  Justin seems
to have possessed a harsh and overbearing temper, which he
had not the prudence to keep under restraint when motives of
interest and common decorum alike required it.  On this subject, Thirlby, who was sufficiently indulgent in his judgment
of the Fathers, expresses himself with much point and truth.
After observing in substance, that, though not a writer of the
first merit, he is lively and pungent, and though not suited
to the fastidious taste of an effeminate age, Iyet, for the times
in which he lived, lie had no ordinary degree of learning and
eloquence, he adds, " These excellences were shaded by two
faults: he is beyond measure rash and careless, and wrote in
a style angry, contentious, and vituperative; utterly wanting
in respect for the emperor, and urbanity to others." X  He is
destitute of complaisance alike to the fugitive Jews, and to the
Romans, the masters of the world.  His language certainly
cannot be referred to as illustrating the Christian precepts of
gentleness and forbearance, meekness and charity.
We have said that it was not necessary that Justin, in order
to show the injustice of the persecutions under which Christians
suffered, should establish the absolute truth of Christianitv in
opposition to Heathenism.  It was enough that he should prove
that the followers of Jests led innocent, pure, and useful lives;
that they were the friends of peace, obedient to the laws, and
in no way enemies to the State.  Still it could hardly be that
those who undertook the defence of their fellow-Christians
should leave out of sight the reasons which operated in producing that change from  Heathenism  to Christianity which
was the source of all their calamities and sufferings.  They
would be naturally led to speak of the follies of Pagan superstitions, and to urge the higher claims of Christianity.  This
they did successfully; for the superior excellence of Christianity
was such as to appear on the slightest comparison of it with
Heathen systems.
@ Dedication prefixed to his edition of Justin.




HIS TREATMENT OF MIRACLES.                   39
But we must not look to the early Apologists for systematic
and masterly defences of the divine origin of Christianity.
In this particular, Justin is deficient. On the argument from
prophecy he dwells at length, but not in such a manner as to
satisfy a reader of the present day.  Of the evidence from
miracles he scarcely takes any notice.   Perhaps the cause
may be traced to the popular belief of the age. The efficacy
of incantations and magic formed part of this belief, common
alike to Christians and Pagans.  Miracles were regarded as
of no rare occurrence, and they were supposed to be wrought
by miagical arts.  Christianity might, then, have the support of
miracles; but this support would be regarded' as of trifling
importance by those who were believers in the reality of
charms and sorcery.  The miracle might be admitted; but the
evidence derived from it could be invalidated by ascribing it
to the effects of magic.  That the early Fathers and Apologists really felt a difficulty of this kind, there can be no doubt.
The Jews had set the example by attributing the miracles of
our Saviour to a demoniacal agency.  That the Heathens trod
in their steps, by ascribing them  to magical influences, we
gather from  a hint Justin himself has incidentally dropped;
and Origen expressly affirms it as regards Celsus.   Here,
then, was a grand objection to the evidence from miracles, and
one which the Fathers, who were themselves firm believers in
the powers of magic and demoniacal influences, must have
found it exceedingly difficult to remove.  So Tertullian, referring to Matthew xxiv. 24, expresses distrust of the evidence
of miracles when  not accompanied with that of prophecy.
This feeling seems to have very generally prevailed among the
old Fathers.*
The topics of the second Apology -  which, as we possess it,
is brief- are similar to those of the first, and are treated with
* Origen clearly places the evidence from prophecy above that of miracles;
and moral miracles, such, for example, as opening the eyes of the spiritually
blind, he pronounces greater than physical. NTor was the testimony of the
soul itself wholly discarded. Origen seems to prize as the highest of all, that
faith which is founded on a conviction of the truth of the doctrine, that is, on
the intuitions of the soul itself; and Tertullian (Apol., c. 17) once speaks of
the soul as "naturally Christian." See Hagenbach, Text-Book, etc., ZFirst
Per., ~~ 28 and 29.




40                  JUSTIN MARTYR.
no more judgment. It breathes a martyr-spirit, but contains
the same blending of just thought with trifling remark and
weak reasoning, which we have noticed as characteristic of
the first; and its tone is not more conciliatory. The fierce
denunciation of the religion of the empire, and the charge
brought against the emperors, and urged in no measured
language, that they were instruments in the hands of wicked
demons, would serve only to irritate, and put the oppressed
Christians on a worse rather than a better footing with the
State. It was certainly impolitic.
The Dialogue with Trypho exhibits in still greater prominence Justin's defects of conception and style: his loose
reasoning; his rambling, incoherent course of remark; his
tautology; his false rhetoric, and utter contempt of all the
laws of good writing. Our readers will readily pardon us,
we think, for not attempting an analysis of the work.




INTELLECTUAL DEFECTS.                  41
CHAPTER III.
GENERAL DEFECTS OF JUSTIN'S INTELLECTUAL AND LITERARY CIHARACTER.-IIIS LOVE OF THE MARVELLOUS. -HIS ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN
OF DEMONS. - FEATS PERFORMED BY THEM.- HIS CHRONOLOGICAL ERRnoIs. - His CARELESSNESS IN QUOTATION. - AN ALLEGORIST. - SPECIMIENS OF HIS FANCIFUL INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. -
TYPES OF THE CROSS. —HIS LEARNING.-EMINENTLY UNCRITICAL.
TIHE general defects of Justin's intellectual and literary
character appear from what has been already said. Our readers, however, may be pleased with some instances and specifications; and as they will illustrate his opinions, and the opinions and modes of thinking of Christians of his day, we will
proceed to give them; simply remarking, before we enter onf
our task, that, if it appears incredible that a writer of the
second century, well educated, taught in the schools of philosophy, a man of great repute in the Church, and an eminent
apologist for Christianity, could so think and write, the character of the times must be taken into view.  In him, as it has
been said, "c we perceive the influence of the spirit of the age.
The excellences and defects of his times, and of Christian
antiquity, are visibly blended in his person "; the defects in
rather undue proportion, we think, so far as the intellect is
concerned.  Nor is it enough to say in explanation, as it has
been said, that the better-educated converts "designedly divested their writings of all ornament and splendor of diction,
from a mistaken regard to Christian truth." Possibly some
did so; unfortunately, we think, if they did.  Still it is true,
as Irenmus confesses of himself, and Lactantius of others,
that the early Christian writers were generally rude of speechand their want of intellectual culture, and their errors of taste
and reasoning, were obvious, -- were real, and not affected.
They wrote as wvell as they knew how.  Let Justin have the
benefit of all the indulgence to which he is entitled from the
delinquencies of the times. With this observation, we proceed
With our specimens.




42                        JUSTIN  MARTYR.
Of Justin's inattention to dates we have a well-known and
striking example in the account he gives of the origin of the
Septuagint version of the Old  Testament; in which, as it
stands in his first Apology,* he makes Ptolemy Philadelphus,
King of Egypt, contemporary with Herod the Great, King of
Judclea; thus comnmitting a chronological error of about two
hundred and fifty years.  If the "H Iortatory Address to the
Greeks" be his, the story furnishes a remarkable instance of
his credulity and  love of the  marvellous, as well as of his
haste and negligence: for lie there relates, that the seventy
who were sent from Judaea, at the request of Ptolemy, to translate the Hebrew  Scriptures,-  of which  he bad previously
obtained  a  copy, -were, by  his command, slhut up in as
many separate  cells on  the island  called  Pharos, and  prohibited all intercourse one with another till eacll should have
finished  a translation  of the whole; and  that their several
translations were then found, upon comparison, to agree to a
letter; which was regarded by the astonished king as evidence
that they had received  divine assistance.  This, the writer
adds, is no fable; for, on visiting Alexandria, he was shown
the remains of the very cells in which the task was performed.t
He received the story, he says, from  the inhabitants of the
place, who had the tradition from  their fathers; and writers,
wise men, and men of repute, -  Philo, Josephus, and many
others, give the same account.  Of the truth of the narrative
he entertained no shadow  of doubt, any more  than  of the
story, that, during the forty years' sojourn of the Israelites inl
the wilderness, not only did not the thongs on their sandals
4~ P. 62; Otto, c. 31. See also Cohlort., c. 18.
t Pp. 16, 17. The inspiration of thle Septuagint version appears to have
been the colmmon belief of the Fathers before tle time of Jerome; and this
fact Le Clerc adduces as evidence of their ignorance of the Hebrew. "Si
es Peres," lie observes, " Grecs et les Latins, qui ont uvcu avant S. Jer6me,
avoient entendu 1'Hebreu, ils n'auroient jamais cru que les LXX. interpretes
avoient dte inspirez; puis qu'ils auroient trouvd mille fautes dans leur version,
pour avoir suivi des exemplaires fautifs, ou n'avoir pas sft lire le leur, on
n'avoir pas bien entendu la langue Hebraiique, ou n'y avoir pas apport.6 assez
d'attention, ou enfin pour avoir traduit licentieusement. I1 est vrai que Philon
et Joseph ont dit 1a mdeme close de i'inspiration des Septante; mais le premier
ne savoit point d'Hebreu, et le second semble avoir mednagd, en cela, les Juifs
IHellenistes." - Biblioth. Anc. et Mod., tom. vi. p. 329.




HIS ACCOUNT OF DEMONS.                    43
become broken, or their shoes torn, or their garments grow
old upon them, but the clothes of the younger Hebrews actually increased in size as they grew up! *
What he says of demons, in different parts of his writings,
shows how easily he could be led, on occasion, to credit the
wildest and most monstrous fictions.  God, he very gravely
tells us, having formed man, committed him, together with all
sublunary things, to the care of angels, whose too susceptible
natures caused them  to trespass with the frail daughters of
earth; t and hence sprang the race of demons. These demons
did not long remain idle. They mixed in all human affairs,
and soon obtained universal sway in the world. They deceived
men by arts of inagic, frightened them with apparitions, caused
them to see visions and dream dreams, perpetrated crimes, and
performed nuimerous feats and prodigies, which the fabulous
poets of antiquity, in their ignorance, transferred to, the gods.'They presided over the splendid mythology of the.Teadthen,
instituted sacrifices, and regaled themselves with the blood of
victims, of which they began to be in want after they became
subject to passions and lusts.t  They were the authors of all
heresies, fiaud, and mischief.  Their malice was chiefly directed against the Saviour; whose success, they well knew,
would be attended with their overthrow: and therefore, long
before his appearance on earth, they tasked their ingenuity to
defeat the purpose of his mission. They invented tales about
the gods of the nations, corresponding to the descriptions of
him  given by the Hebrew  prophets; hoping so to fill the
minds of men with "lying vanities," that the writings which
predicted his advent might be brought into discredit, and all
that related to him  pass for fable.  For example, when they
heard the prophecy of Moses,~ Gen. xlix. 10, 11, —" The
Dial., c. 131, Otto.
t This notion, founded on a misconception of Gen. vi. 4, of which the Seventy had given a faulty translation, did not originate with Justin. Philo and
Josephus had advanced the same before him; and succeeding Fatllers, one
after anothler, copied it without examination. " Cela fait voir," says Le Clerc,
"qu'il ne fhint pas tant ranter le consentement des Peres en matilres de thlologie." - Bib. Clhoisie, tom. ii. p. 336.
t Apol. I., p. 51; II., p. 92. Otto, c. 14 and c. 5.
~ The prophecy belongs, not to Moses, but to Jacob.




44                    JUSTIN MARTYR.
sceptre shall not depart from  Judah, nor a lawgiver from  between his feet, until Shiloh come; and he shall be the expectation of the nations, bindincg his foal to the vine, and washing
his garment in the blood of the grape," - they got up, as a
counterpart, the story of Bacchus, the son of Jupiter and
inventor of the grape, and introduced wine into the celebration of his mysteries, and represented him as finally ascending
into heaven.  They were exceedingTly sagacious, but, with all
their astuteness, found some difficulty in interpreting parts of
the above-mentioned prediction of Jacob. The propllet had not
expressly said whether he who should come was to be the son of
God, or the son of man; nor whether he was to mnake use of the
foal spoken of while he remained on earth, or only during his
ascent into heaven.  To get over this difficulty, these crafty
demons, in addition to the story of Bacchus, trumped up that
of Bellerophon, who was a man born of men; and whllo, as
they tell us, mounted on his Pegasus, ascended into heaven.
The prediction of Isaiah relating to the virgin (vii. 14), they
said, was fulfilled in Perseus; that in Ps. xix. 5, " strong as a
giant to run a race," (which Justin seems to hlave applied to
the Messiah,) in Hercules, who was a man of strength, and
traversed the whole earth.  Again: when they found it predicted that lie should cure diseases and raise the dead, they
appealed to the case of Esculapius, who also recalled the dead
to life, and was taken up into heaven.*  Nor did they cease
from their mischievous industry after the death of Christ. As,
before this event, they had made use of the poets as agents
in disseminatingr their delusions, so after it they raised up
heretics, — Marcion on the banks of the Euxine, and the Samaritans Menander and Simon,- who seduced many by their
magical miracles; and with the latter of whom  the senate
and the people of Rome, he tells us, became so infatuated during the reign of Claudius C3sar, that they numbered him
with the gods, and honored him with a statue, which he prays
may be thrown down.t  They "hover about the beds of the
dying, 6n the watch to receive the departing soul."  The
spirits of just nmen, and prophets equally with others, he.  Apol. I., pp. 75, 76; Otto, c. 21 and c. 54. Dial., c. 69.
t Apol. I., pp. 77, 78; Otto, c. 56.




HIS WANT OF ACCURACY.                  45
assures us, fall under their power; of which we have an instance in the case of Samuel, whose soul was evoked by the
witch of Endor.  Hence, he continues, we pray, in the hour
of death, that we may be preserved from  the power of
demons.*
All this, if we except the last-mentioned opinion and the
story of the garments that grew, occurs, with much more
of the same stamp, in the two Apologies, and furnishes a
fair specimen of Justin's participation in the errors of the
times.
We pass over his belief of the Jewish " dream of the Millennium," which he took from Papias, a very weak man, and
the " Father of Traditions," as he has been called; and his
strange proof-texts, one of which is, " The day of the Lord is
as a thousand years "; and another, "As the days of a tree
shall be the days of my people."  His mistake about the statue
of Simon Magus we let goo; as also his credulity in placing the
Sibylline books on a level with the writings of the Hebrew
prophets, or nearly so, attributing to them a real inspiration,
and quotingl them as authority, - sad proof of the sort of evidence which could satisfy him.  We have noticed one of his
chronological errors.  It would be easy to multiply specimens.
Thlus he seems to place Moses, whoml lie calls first of the
prophets, five thousand years before Christ; David, fifteen
hundred; and the last of the prophets, eight hunclred: t in the
two latter cases, committing an error in chronology of about
four hundred years; and, in the first, a much greater, even
supposing that the prophecy in question is to be attributed to
Adam, and that all he meant to say, by calling Moses the first
prophet, is, that lie was the first recorder of prophecy.
His want of accuracy in citing from the Old Testament has
often and justly been made'a subject of complaint.  He frequently misquotes, ascribing to one prophet the words of
another, - as to Isaiah the words of Jeremiah,t or to Jeremiah the language of Daniel.~  When a passage does not
exactly suit his purpose, he does not hesitate to add to the
original to render it more appropriate; an instance of which
* Dial., p. 200.            t Apol. I., pp. 62, 63, 68.
A Apol. I., p. 75.          ~ Ibid., p. 73.




46                    JUSTIN MARTYR.
occurs in his manner of citing Ps. xxiv. 7, "Lift up the gates
of heaven,"  * the last two words being supplied to make the
passage applicable to Christ's ascent into heaven, which, he
says, it is designed to predict.
With regard to his quotations, indeed, the most indulgent
critics have found it impossible to exculpate him from  the
charge of the utmost carelessness.  His want of exactness is
admitted; and the best excuse which has been offered for him
is, that he quotes from  recollection, and that his errors must
therefore be attributed to a treacherous memory.  This supposition acquits him of intentional fraud; but, unfortunately,
his inaccuracies are often of such a character, that a detection
of them is sufficient to overthrow the whole train of reasoning
founded on the citations in which they occur.
As a critic and interpreter, it is not saying too much to
affirm that he is of no authority.  He is exceedingly deficient
in discrimination, and a knowledge of the laws and usages of
languaae.  He gives in to the allegorical mode of interpretation adopted by Philo and his school.  He is perpetually beating about for hidden meanings, and far-fetched and mystical
constructions, and typical representations and fanciful resemblances. Thus he considers the tree of life planted in Paradise
a symbol of Christ's cross, through which lie achieved his
triumphs s; and he goes on to descant at great length on the
symbolic properties of wood.  Moses, hle tells us, was sent
with a rod to deliver his people: with a rod he divided the
sea, and brought water out of the rock.  By a piece of wood
t'he waters of Marah were made sweet.  With a rod, or staff,
Jacob passed over the Jordan.  Aaron obtained his priesthood
by the budding and blossoming of his rod; Isaiah predicted
that there should come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse;
and David compares the just to a tree planted by the waters.
From  a tree, God was seen by Abraham: as it is written,
"at the oak of Mamre."  By a rod and staff, David, says he,
received consolation of God.  The people, having crossed the
Jordan, found seventy willows; and, by casting wood into it,
Elisha made iron to swim.  In a similar strain he proceeds;t
which furnishes no unapt occasion for the sarcastic Middleton
* Apol. I., p. 73.      t Dial., pp. 183, 184; Otto, c. 86.




TYPES OF THE CROSS.                    47
to say, that he "applies all the sticks and pieces of wood in
the Old Testament to the cross of Christ." *
The virtue of the cross, the emblem of Christ's power and
majesty, Justin observes, is discovered in things which fall
under notice of the senses; for consider, says he in his first
"Apology to the Romans," whether anything can be transacted, of all that is done in the world, without this figure.
The sea cannot be traversed without that trophy called a sail;
without this figure, the land could not be ploughed'  nor could
any manual arts be carried on without instruments having the
form of the cross. And the human figure, he remarks, differs
fiom that of other animals, only as it is erect and has extension of hands, and a nose projecting from the face, answering
the purposes of respiration; showinlg no other than the figure
of the cross.  The prophet, he continues, has also said,t " The
breath before our face, Christ the Lord "; an illustration or
application which will be considered, we suppose, sufficiently
fanciful.  Mloreover, lhe continues, addressing the emperor,
your standards, which are borne before you in public as ensigns
of power and royalty, demonstrate the efficacy of this figure.
In this form, too, ye consecrate the images of your dead emperors, and number them with the gods. 
God, he observes to Trypho, teaching us the mystery of
the cross, says, in the blessing with which he blesses Joseph,~
" The horns of a unicorn are his, and, with them shall he push
the nations to the end of the earth."  Now, the horns of the
unicorn, lie continues, exhibit, as it can be demonstrated, no
other figure than that of a cross; and this he attempts to show
by a very minute analysis.  Then as to the assertion, "' With
them  shall he push the nations to the extremities of the
earth ": this is no more than what is now taking place among
all people; for, struck by the horn, that is, penetrated by the
mystery of the cross, they of all nations are turned from idols
and demons to the worship of God.ll
Again: when the people warred with Amalek,~ and Jesus
(Joshua), the son of Nun, led the battle, Moses, he says,
F* rfee?Iquire, p. 29.  t Lam. iv. 20. Apol. I., p. 76; Otto, c. 55.
f Apol. I., c. 55, Otto.  ~ Deut. xxxiii. 17.
II Dial., p. 188; Otto, e. 91.   ~t Exod. xvii.




48                    JUSTIN MARTYR.
prayed with his arms extended in the form of a cross: and if
they were at any time lowered, so as to destroy this figure,
the tide turned against the Israelites; but, as long as this
figure was preserved, they prevailed. They finally conquered,
he gravely remarks, not because Moses prayed, but because,
while the name of Jesus was in the van of the battle, the
former, standing or sitting wvith his arms extended, exhibited
the figure of a cross.  His sitting or bent posture, too, lihe
observes, was expressive; and thus the knee is bent, or the
body prostrated, in all effectual prayer.  Lastly, the rock on
which he sat had, says lie, "as I have shown," a symbolic
reference to Christ.*
Such is the use to which this Father converted his knowledge of the Scriptures, and such the arguments by which he
hoped to convince the philosopllic Emperor of Rome, and win
to the faith of the cross the obstinate and " stiff-necked " Jew.
In interpreting   the several parts of the Old Testament, historical and prophetical, and reasoning upon them, he follows
his own wayward fancy, and capricious and perverted taste.
He appears to have considered any application, and almost
any construction of its language, however visionary or improbable, justifiable, upon the notion lie had taken up, that some
hidden meaning or mystery lay couched under every sentence,
and almost every word.  Tlle business of interpretation he
seems to have regarded as little more than a task of invention: and he gives evidence, we confess, of having possessed
an imagination sufficiently prolific; for his writings teem with
the most odd and grotesque fancies.
We intended to have added some distinct specimens of his
weak and inconclusive reasoning; but we are weary of our
theme, and doubt not that our readers are so too.  Nor, after
whlat we have said, will they deem  further illustration of his
intellectual character and habits necessary. They will readily
credit us, we trust, when we affirm that his logic is entitled
to as little respect as his talent for criticism  and exposition;
though the latter, particularly, he claims to have received as a
special gift of God's grace.  This power, he says, is not in
me; but, by the grace of God alone, it is given me to understand his Scriptures.
* Dial., pp. 187, 188; Otto, c. 90.




HIS LEARNING.                    49
He has been extolled, as we have said, for his multifarious
and profound acquisitions. Yet he began by despising the
exact sciences; and seems, through life, to have treated them
with thorough contempt.  That he could have possessed only
scanty stores of philological learning is rendered evident by
the whole tenor of our foregoing remarks.  HIe was ignorant,
or knew very little, of the original language of the Old Testament, as appears from the criticisms he occasionally introduces
on Hebrew words. He often, however, quotes the poets of
Greece, and refers to the writings of her philosophers; and
with the doctrines of her distinguished schools he appears to
have been tolerably well acquainted. Yet it is evident that
his reading was neither exact nor profound. Photius extols
his affluence of historical knowledge and varied learning, as
well as his sublime attainments in philosophy; but his writings fail of confirming this judgment.  We have seen what his
pretensions in chronology are. He never appears to have
thought of sifting his authorities, and was eminently " uncritical " in everything, - history, philology, exegesis, and whatever else is involved in the subjects of which he treats.
4




I60                  JUSTIN MARTYR.
CHAPTER IV.
THEOLOGY OF JUSTIN. -ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. -JUSTIN'S DOCTRINE
OF TIIE LOGOS. -HIS LANGUAGE CITED. - THE LOGOS A HYPOSTATIZED
ATTRIBUTE OF THE FATHER. - CONVERTED INTO A REAL BEING IN TIME,
AND NOT FROMI ETERNITY. - THE SON NUMERICALLY DIFFERENT FROM
THE FATHER.- VOLUNTARILY BEGOTTEN.
WE proceed now to speak of the theology of Justin; and,
first, of what occupies a prominent, we may say the most
prominent, place in it, - his doctrine of the Logos, or divine
nature of Christ, as it has been since called. The topic is one
of special importance to those who would understand the theology of the Fathers, or would know what support the doctrine of the Trinity really derives from the writings of early
Christian antiquity.  It is a topic which, on proceeding to the
inquiry how far the general belief of the Christian Church in
later times is sanctioned by the authority of these writings,
presents itself at the very threshold, and one on which it is
desirable that we should obtain precise ideas; since, without
them, the writings of the subsequent Fathers will present a
labyrinth which it will not be easy to thread.  But having
once settled the meaning of Justin's terms, and the real purport of his opinions, we shall find some gleam of light to guide
us on our way.  These considerations must constitute our
apology for the length of some of the discussions introduced ir.
this and some subsequent chapters.  We are aware, that, to
the general reader, discussions of this sort must necessarily be
somewhat dry; as is the whole subject, in fact, of the historical development of the Trinity, to which they belong.  But
they who would understand the theology of the Fathers have
no very smooth road to travel.
The points to be settled are, in what sense Justin used the
term  "Logos," as applied to Jesus; what were the nature
and rank assigned him by this early Father; and whence his




ORIGIN  OF THE TRINITY.                        51
peculiar views were derived.  The great similarity between
his doctrine of the Logos and that taught by Philo and the
Alexandrian  Platonists, is not denied.  They, however, who
ascribe a scriptural origin to the doctrine of the Trinity, contend that "'the substance of Justin's idea of the Logos rests
on a purely scriptural and Christian foundation "; though they
are compelled to admit that this idea was modified, and received its scientific form, through the influence of the "Alexandrian and Philonic theosophy."   The  early  Fathers, says
Semisch, from  whom  the  expressions just used  are  taken,
"' only poured the contents of the Scriptures into a Pllilonian
vessel: they viewed the biblical passages through a Philonian  medium.  The  matter of their idea  of the  Logos is
essentially scriptural; but its construction betrays a Philonian
ground-plan.  Thus it is with Justin."            To this statement
we cannot assent.  iVe believe, and trust that we shall be
able to show, that, for the original and distinctive features of
the doctrine of the Logos, as held by the learned Fathers of
4, Vol. ii. p. 180. The work referred to is, Justin M/[artylr, — his Life,
Writings, and O)pinions, by the Rev. Charles Semisch. Translated from the
German, by J. E. Ryland. 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1843. 161mo.
These volumes are the fruit of much labor; and though they lead to no new
results in regard to the life, character, position, and writings of Justin, yet, in
some particulars, they contain a useful summary of his views; while, in others, they present, as we think, a most distorted representation of them. The
best parts are those which relate to his mode of defending Christianity, and his
attacks on Judaism and Heathenism, vol. i. pp. 306-332, and vol. ii. pp. 1-128.
From these the careful reader will learn, not what arguments for tile truth
and divine origin of Christianity are most solid, but what arguments presented
themselves to the mind of a well-educated Christian of the second century,
and what he considered as most valid against the objections urged in his day.
How miracles were regarded appears from vol. ii. pp. 100-128. This part is
well executed. The writer's statement of Justin's doctrine of the Logos,
vol. ii. pp. 165-206, has in it many features of truth; but, when he comes to
trace this doctrine to its source, he is, in our opinion, wholly at fault. The
chapter on the Holy Spirit contains a total misrepresentation of the opinions
of Justin. It is, from beginning to end, a tissue of bad reasoning, and false
and contradictory statement. The chapter on Justin's Doctrine of Salvation,
too, contains several misstatements of his views. Tle writer's general esti-.
mate of Justin's literary and intellectual character, however, is sufficiently
correct; and the work, to one who knows how to use it, may fbrm a profitable study. But the misfortune is, that a person must be already well acquainted with the writings and opinions of Justin, in order to distinguish what
is true from what is false in its statements.




52                   JUSTIN MIARTYR.
the second and third centuries, we must look, not to the Jewish Scriptures, nor to the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles,
but to Philo and the Alexandrian Platonists. In consistency
with this view, we maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity
was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had
its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish
and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted
on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers;
that in the time of Justin, and long after, the distinct nature
and inferiority of the Son were universally taught; and that
only the first shadowy outline of the Trinity had then become
visible.
On the subject of the Logos, Justin has expressed himself
much at length; and, though he is occasionally somewhat
obscure and mystical, a careful examination of the several
terms and illustrations he employs leaves little doubt as to
his real meaning. His system presents one or two great
and prominent features, which we can hardly fail to seize,
and which will serve as the basis of our future reasonings.
Before we proceed to our citations, however, we must request
our readers to bear in mind, that both Jews and Heathens
constantly alleged the humble origin and ignominious death
of Jesus as a reproach on Christianity. Other sects borrowed
lustre from  the names of their founders; but the "new
superstition," as it was called, which now began widely to
diffuse itself, was derived, as it was urged, firom an obscure
individual, who perished as a malefactor, with every mark of
ignominy. This stigma Paul had disregarded: he gloried in
what was " to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks
foolishness."  But the Christians of Justin's time occupied a
different position; and whether or not the learned defenders
of Christianity, in what they taught of the preexistent Logos,
and the great stress they laid on the miraculous birth, were,
as has been maintained, influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by a desire to wipe off the reproach of the cross,
certain it is, their doctrines had a tendency this way. Both
the Jewish and the Heathen objections were, to a certain extent, met by the doctrine of the Logos.
Let us see what Justin says of the Logos. In his second




HIS LANGUAGE RESPECTING THE LOGOS.            53
Apology he speaks of the "' Son " as the " Logos, that, beibre
created things, was with God, and begotten, when, through
him, he [God] in the beginning created and adorned all
things." e  The meaning is, that he was converted into a real
being, having a separate personal subsistence, at the time God,
using him as his instrument, was about to proceed to the work
of creation.  That this is the meaning is obvious from the use,
of the term;' when " (we use Otto's text): he was begotten
of God " when through him  lie created and embellished all
things," -language which makes the two acts almost simultaneous, tile one taking place immediately before the other.
The doctrine of the'" eternal generation " of the Son is excluded: this was no doctrine of Justin.  The attribute, like all
the divine attributes, was eternal; but it became hypostatized,
or converted into a real person, in time; that is, just before
the creation of the world.  Justin elsewhere, as we shall
presently see, speaks of the Son as the " beginning " of
God's " wavs to his works."
Again: Justin says, " In the beginning " (or, as Otto understands it, "As the beginning"), "before all creatures.
God begat of himself a certain rational power, which, by the
Holy Spirit, is also called the Glory of the Lord, - now Son,
now Wisdom, now Angel, now  God, now  Lord, and Logos
(reason, wisdom, or speech); and by himself is called Chief
Captain (Captain of the host, Josh. v. 14), when in the form
of main he appears to Joshua, the son of Nun: for all these
appellations he has, because he ministers to the will of the
Father, and, by the volition of the Father, was begotten." t
To explain this process of generation, Justin takes the examples of human speech and of fire.  " For, in. uttering speech"
(logos), he says, "we beget speech; yet not by abscission,
so that the speech (logos) that is in us," or power of speech, or
reason whence speech proceeds, "is by this act diminished."
So, too, he adds, " One torch is lighted from another, without
diminishing that from which it is lighted; but the latter re* Apol. II., c. 6, Otto. See also Dial. cunt Tryph., c. 62, where similar language is found.
t Dial. cum Trqlph., c. 61, Otto. "In," or "As the beginning," or God so
making a beginning, this being the first act of creation. See Otto's note.




54                    JUSTIN MARTYR.
maining unaltered, that which is lighted from it exists and
appears, without lessening that whence it was lighted." 
These are intended to be illustrations of the mode in which
the Son is produced from the Father. In confirmation of his
views, Justin quotes from  the Septuagint version the passage
in Proverbs,t in which Wisdom, by which he supposes is
meant. the Son, is represented as saying, " The Lord created
Ile the beginning of his ways to his works: before the ages
he founded me; in the beginning, before he made the earth
or the abyss, before the hills, he begat me."  This Wisdom
Justin regarded as God's offspring, produced as above described; and him, this first of his productions, he supposes
God to address, when he says (Gen. i. 26), "Let us make
man in our own image.":
Language similar to the above occurs in the first Apology,
with an additional observation worthy of notice.   Christ is
"the first-born of God, and that reason [logos, ambiguous in
the original, meaning either reason or speech, word] of which
the whole human race partakes; and those who have lived
according to reason are Christians, though esteemed atheists.
Such among the Greeks were Socrates and Heraclitus, and
others like them; and, among the Barbarians, Abraham,
Ananias, Azarias, Misael, Elias, and many others." ~  So, in
the second Apology, we are told that Socrates " knew Christ
in part; for he is that reason (logos) which is in all": II and
whatever was well said or done by philosophers and legislators
is to be attributed to the Logos in part shared by them. He
calls it the "insown" or  implanted " logos, or reason; of
the seed of which all possess some portion. These and other
equivalent expressions occur more than once.  They seem
intended to refer to a principle different from  the ordinary
faculty of reason in man; that is, to a peculiarly existing
* Dial. cum Triph., c. 61, Otto.
t Ibid., Prov. viii. 22-36: " The Lord created me the beginning of his ways,"
etc. So Origen and Tertullian, as well as Justin, understood the passage.
See Otto, in loc., notes 1 and 12. Tertullian (Adu. Hermog., c. 3) says expressly, " There was a time when the Son was not."
t Dial., pp. 158, 159; Thirlby, pp. 266, 268; Otto, c. 62.
~ Apol. I., p. 71; Otto, c. 46.
II Apol. II., p. 95; Otto, c. 10.




THE LOGOS CONVERTED INTO A REAL BEING.           55
Logos, or reason, which has in its nature something divine,
being derived immediately from God. This Logos was Christ,
who afterwards became flesh. It guided Abraham and the
patriarchs; inspired the prophets: and the seed of it being
implanted, as just said, in every mind, all, as well illiterate
as philosophers, who in former ages obeyed its impulse, were
partakers of Christ, the Son of God; and might therefore
be called Christians, and, as such, were entitled to salvation.*  The Gentile philosophers and legislators, knowing the
Logos only in part, fell into error; but Christ is the c" whole
Logos," which Christians possess, and are therefore more enlightened.t
That Justin believed this divine principle of reason to be
converted into a real being, the following passage, among
numerous others, plainly and expressly shows.  We give the
passage, which in the original is exceedingly prolix, in an
epitomized form, but without injury, we believe, to the sense.
There are, he says, some who suppose that the Son is only a
virtue or energy of the Father, emitted as occasion requires,
and then again recalled: as, for example, when it comes to
announce the commands of the Father, and is therefore called
a messenger; or when it bears the Father's discourse to men,
and is then called Logos. They, as he observes, think that
the Son is inseparable from the Father, as the light of the sun
on the earth is inseparable from the sun which is in the heavens, and is withdrawn with it at its setting. But firom these,
he tells us, he differs. Angels have a separate and permanent
existence: so this virtue, which the prophetic spirit calls God
and Angel, is not, as the light of the sun, to be distinguished
from the Father in name only, but is something numerically
different; that is, it is not the Father under another name,
but a real being, wholly distinct from him.4
Justin frequently draws comparisons and illustrations fiom
the Heathen mythology.  The following, in which Mercury
ts introduced, presents a coincidence of language a little reApol. II., p. 95; Otto, c. 10; also Dial., c. 45, Otto.
t Apol. II., c. 8-13, Otto.
t Dial., p. 221; Thirlby, pp. 412, 413; Otto, c. 128.




56                   JUSTIN MARTYR.
markable: " When we say that Jesus Christ, our teacher, was
the Logos, the first progeny of God, born without commixtion;
that he was crucified, and died, and arose, and ascended into
heaven, —we affirm nothing different from  what is said by
you of the sons of Jove, and nothing new. You know how
many sons your esteemed writers attribute to him. There is
Mercury, the interpreting logos, and teacher of all; IEsculapinus," and the rest; between whom and Jesus, Justin proceeds to draw a parallel.*
Again: speaking of the generation of the Son, he says,
"When we call him  the Logos of God, born of him in a
peculiar manner, and out of the course of ordinary births,
we speak a common language with you, who call Mercury
the angelic logos from  God."t  The meaning seems to be:
" We speak of a true and real person, so born, as we- have
said, whom we call Logos (speech): a term you apply to
Mercury."
From  the extracts above given, it is evident, that, although
Justin employs the term'Logos " in different senses, the
primary meaning he usually attributes to it, when used with
reference to God, is reason, considered as an attribute of the
Father; and that, by the generation of the Son, he understood the conversion of this attribute into a real person.
The Logos, which afterwards became flesh, originally existed
in God as his reason, or perhaps his wisdom or energy.  Having so existed from eternity, it was, a little before the creation
of the world, voluntarily begotten, thrown out, or emitted,
by the Father, or proceeded from him; for these terms are
used indiscriminately to express the generation of the Son, or
the process by which what before was a quality acquired a
distinct personal subsistence.  That such was the doctrine of
Justin, and of the ante-Nicene Fathers generally, concerning
the generation of the Son, the whole strain of their writings
affords abundant evidence. They supposed, we repeat, that
the logos, or reason, which once constituted an attribute of the
Father, was at length converted into a real being, and that
* Apol. I., p. 56; Thirlby, p. 31; Otto, c. 21.
t Ibid., p. 57; Thirlby, p. 33; Otto, c. 22.




GENERA.TION  OF THE SON.                         t
this was done by  a voluntary act of the Father.   To  this
process they applied the term "generation," and sometimes
" emission " or " prolation "; nor do they appear originally to
have objected to that of " creation." *
* Trypho is allowed, without contradiction, to speak of Christ as "made
by God" (Dial. cinm Tryphl., c. 64). Tatian calls him the "first-begotten
work of the Father," ipyov Trp&T6roKov  roo rarp6~ (Orat. ad Grcec., c. 5).




j58.                 JUSTIN MARTYR.
CHAPTER V.
THE VIEWS OF JUSTIN AND TEIE FATHERS NOT DERIVED FROM THE OLD
TESTAMENT. - LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT EXAMINED. - OF
THE NEW. -JUSTIN INGRAFTED ON CHRISTIANITY THE SENTIMENTS OF
THE LATER PLATONISTS.- STATEMENTS OF LEARNED TRINITARIANS.PHILO'S DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. -ATTEMPTS TO SOFTEN THE CHARGE
OF PLATONISM AGAINST TIE FATHERS.
THE inquiry now presents itself, Whence were these views,
which evidently constitute the germ of the Trinity, derived?
From the Jewish and Christian Scriptures? or from the doctrines of Plato, as expounded by his later followers, and especially the Jew Philo? We say, without hesitation, the latter.
The term  " Logos," which Justin and the other Fathers use
to express the divine nature of the Son, frequently occurs, as
our learned readers well know, in the Septuagint version of
the Hebrew Scriptures, and is rendered in our Bibles by
"Word."  But neither the original Hebrew term, nor the
corresponding term, "Logos," in the Septuagint, ever bears
the meaning which these Fathers attach to it, but is used in a
totally different sense; nor do we find, in the whole Bible, the
least trace of the generation of the Son by the conversion of'
an attribute of the Father into a real person.  In passages
like the following, "By the word of the Lord were the
heavens made," Justin supposes that it was meant to be
asserted that they were made by the rational power, or Son,
here referred to.  The expressions in Proverbs -" The Lord
created me the beginning of his ways ";. "before the depths
he begat me " -were adduced as referring to his birth, or
production. Numerous other expressions, occurring in the
Old Testament, may be referred to the same class, and were
explained in a similar manner.  But the Jews attributed no
such meaning to the language in question; nor does it appear
naturally fitted to suggest it. The notions it conveyed to




LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.            59
their minds were very simple and obvious.  The sentinents
of the Fathers savored of a metaphysical and speculative
philosophy, evidently the growth of a different soil. The
Jews were not familiar with the abstractions of philosophy,
as their current phraseology bears ample testimony.  They
describe the perfections and agency of the Divine Being in
precisely the language which we should expect would occur
to the minds of an exceedingly primitive, and in some respects
rude, people.  They resort, as was natural, chiefly to comparisons and images, borrowed from sensible objects and human
modes of action. Their views were very little spiritualized;
and many of the expressions they employed in reference to
the Deity were strictly anthropomorphitical.
We will explain our meaning by a few examples, in which
the attributes and agency of God are illustrated by allusions,
which to us, familiar as we are with the sublimer discoveries
of Christianity and the improvements of modern science, appear feeble and inadequate.  Thus, to convey a notion of his
eternity, they speak of him as, existing before the hills.  To
aid the imagination in comprehending his immensity and greatness, they are content to draw illustrations from human sovereignty. They represent him  as a mighty King, having the
heavens for his throne, and the earth for his footstool.  To
give some conception of his power, his universal presence, and
knowledge embracing all objects, they describe him as having
human organs, - as hands, eyes, and ears, - ever active and
vigilant.  His eyes run to and fro over the whole earth; his
arm is outstretched to punish or to save; he whets his sword,
he bends his bow, he discharges the swift arrows of his wrath.
When he wishes to know what is passing on earth, lie is exhibited to our view as descending from a height above us;
thus: "The Lord came down to see tlhe tower which the
children of men builded." *  Again: hearing reports of the
wickedness of Sodom, he resolves to " go down," and ascertain whether they are correct; "and, if not," he is introduced
as saying, "I will know." t He is described as walking
abroad, and conversing familiarly with man; as having human
passions and affections; as repenting and grieved for what he
* Gen. xi. 5.               t Gen. xviii. 21




60                     JUSTIN MARTYR.
had done; as angry and taking revenge; as laughing at
the distresses of his enemies; as mocking and deriding.  In
consistency with this language, which ascribes to him human
organs, affections, and  modes of action, he is represented,
when about to exert his power, or produce an effect he wills,
as speaking, or issuing his word, or command.  Thus, in the
process of creation, he is introduced as proclaiming an order at
every step: "Let there be light.  Let there be a firmament.
Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into
one place, and let the dry land appear.  Let us make man."
Everything is said to be done by a command, because human
sovereigns are accustomed to issue a word, or order, when
they wish their designs to be carried into effect.  In conformity with this usage, the Psalmist says, "By the word of the
Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the
breath of his mouth.  He spake, and it was done; lie commanded, and it stood fast." *  In all this there is no mystery.t
God issues his command, or his word, and it is executed, and
the heavens and the earth appear: that is, he produces an
eff'ect; there is an exertion of his power; he wills, and the
event corresponds to his will.  Here is no allusion to any
intermediate agent,- to a Son, who receives and executes his
commands: a rational power, emanating from  his own substance, and forming a link between him  and his creatures.
All this is a fictionl of later times.
Such is the meaning of the term " word," or "' word of the
Lord," as used by Moses, the patriarchs, and by David.  The
notion the Jews attached to it was the simplest and most
obvious imaginable.  There is no obscurity whatever attending it.  The term  formed part of their anthropomorphitical
language, and is to be classed with other terms constantly used
by them in reference to the Deity, - as hands, mouth, nostrils, all of which they apply to him. A similar explanation
P* s. xxxiii. 6, 9.
All the effiects of his provident designs, every occurrence which takes place
by his remote agency, is spoken of in similar language; thus: " He sendeth
forth his commandment upon earth; his word runnetlh very swiftly. He giveth snow like wool; he scatteretli the hoar-frost like ashes. He sendeth out
his word, and melteth them." (Ps. cxlvii. 15, 16, 18.)




FIGURES OF SPEECH.                       61
is to be given of the term when it occurs in such phrases as
the following: " The word of God camne to Nathan,'  or to
the prophets.  This is a mere idiom of speech, growing out of
the very primitive notions of the  people who  employed it.
It was not the result of policy or reflection, but rather of
untutored and childlike simplicity.  The meaning is, simply,
that the prophets received divine communications. The Apostle very correctly expresses this meaning,  when he says, "Holy
men of God spake as moved by the Holy Ghost"; that is,
by a divine impulse.*
Let us now proceed to the Proverbs, or the ethical writings
of the Old Testament.  Justin and the other Fathers, as before
stated, imagined that by Wisdom, of which we have a magnificent description in the eighth chapter of Proverbs, was meant
the Logos, or Son, - a real being, the agent or minister of the
Father in the work of creation.t  But the author of the chap-ter in question had evidently no such thought.  Nothing, in
fact, was further from his meaning, as the whole structure and
connection of the passage put beyond doubt.  The Oriental
imagination, as every one knows, delighted in metaphor and
bold and striking imagery. The strongest figures were often
employed to express a very obvious and simple fact or sentiment; and, among these, a favorite one was personification,
by which abstract qualities are clothed with the properties of
a real being, and represented as speaking and acting as such.
This figure frequently occurs in the sacred writings of the
Jews, particularly in their poetical books. Thus truth, justice,
mercy, and other abstract properties, are often introduced as
possessing proper personality; in other words, as real beings:
as, "Mercy and Truth are met together; Righteousness and
Peace have kissed each other., Truth shall spring out of the
* 2 Pet. i. 21.
t Dr. Watts once supposed, that by Wisdom, in this place, was meant
Christ's preexistent human soul united with the divine nature ( Glorq of Chirist,
Disc. iii. ~ 5). IIe was led into a belief of this strange doctrine of the preexistence of Christ's human soul from the circumstance that thle Scriptures,
in several passages in which, as he supposes, they speak of his existence before his incarnation, evidently ascribe to him a nature inferior to God. We
are not surprised that Dr. Watts, entertaining these views, afterwards became
% Unitarian.




62                       JUSTIN MARTYR.
earth, and Righteousness shall look down from heaven." *
By the same lively figure, the, author of the Proverbs gives
Wisdom a voice, and represents her as offering counsel and
admonition, and calling on men to listen: and, to show  her
title to respect, she proceeds to describe her antiquity and
excellence; speaks of herself as guiding the great and noble
of the earth; as having her residence of old with God, as one
brought up with him, and rejoicing always in his presence.
The purport of this language, no one, at the present day, mistakes.  All admit it to be only a bold personification of the
attribute of wisdom, as it'is possessed by the Divine Being,
and, in a feebler degree, by his itelligenelligent offspring; in other
words, only a well-known rhetorical figure.f Such language
could never have suggested to the early Fathers their peculiar
views of the Logos, or Son of God.t That they should have
considered it as having reference to him, after those views
had been imbibed from  other sources, need not, however, surprise us.
If we proceed to examine the writings of the Jews which
belong to a period subsequent to the formation of the sacred
canon, and which, though not of authority as a rule of faith,
are yet valuable as a record of opinions, we arrive at conclusions similar to the foregoing.   We find  instances of bold
personification, but discover no traces of the metaphysical doctrine of the Logos, or generation of the Son, as held by the
early Christian Fathers.~
e Ps. lxxxv. 10, 11.
t Similar instances of personification occur in the literature of all nations,
and are resorted to occasionally by the gravest writers. Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Politq, (b. i. ch. 16,) has a specimen of it, remarkable for its beauty.
Speaking of Law, he says, " Her seat is the bosom of God, her voice the harmony of the world. All things in heaven and earth do her homage: the very
least, as feeling her care; and the greatest, as not exempted from her power."
I " The Logos did not grow out of the Old Testament," says Bunsen (i. 76).
On the poetical personifications of the Old Testament, see Hagenbach, First
Per., ~ 40.
~ Thus, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon, the work of some Alexandrian Jew, though lie sometimes uses expressions which savor a little of the
Egyptian school, had evidently no conception of the conversion of an attribute into a real being. After speaking of Wisdom as " the breath of the
power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty,
the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and an image of his goodness," he




LANGUAGE OF THE NEW  TESTAMENT.                   63
If we turn to the authors of the Gospels and the Epistles
of the New Testament, we find that their views agree, in all
essential points, with those inculcated by the writers under
the old dispensation.   Their language and  conceptions are
more spiritualized and refined.  There is less of grossness in
their modes of representing the Deity. Still, much of the
ancient phraseology is retained; and, where a departure is
made from  it, this departure is not such as indicates that the
opinions of the. Jews, or Jewish  Christians, concerning the
divine nature and operations, had undergone that change
which the supposition of their belief in the doctrine of the
generation of the Son, as explained by the Fathers, would
imply, but the reverse.  The New Testament, if we except
the introductory verses to John's Gospel, is remarkably free
from expressions which have the least appearance of favoring
the metaphysical notions of the Fathers concerning the nature
of the Son; and these verses favor them  only in appearance.*
The remaining part of the Gospels and Epistles is, in our view,
totally opposed to those notions, and everything resembling
them.   The language of Jesus and  his Apostles certainly
never could have suggested them; and the general strain of
it cannot, by the greatest exercise of ingenuity, be distorted
into a shape which lends them  the feeblest support.  To those
who doubt the truth of this statement we would say, Take
the language of Justin, as we have represented it, faithfully,
as we believe; render your minds familiar with it; and then
proceeds (chap. viii. 3, 4): "In that she is conversant with God, she magnifieth her nobility; for she is privy to the mysteries of the knowledge of God,
and a lover of his works." In a prayer, recorded in the next chapter, the following expressions occur: " 0 God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who
hast made all things with thy word, and ordained man through tlhy wisdom!.... give me Wisdom, that sitteth by thy thlrone.....  And Wisdom was
with thee, which knoweth thy works, and was present when thou madest the
world.... Oh! send her out of thy holy heavens, and from the throne of
thy glory " (chap. ix. 1, 2, 4, 9, 10). Again: the son of Sirach (Ecclus.
xxiv. 3, 4, 9) introduces Wisdom as saying, " I came out of tile mouth of the
Most High: he created me from the beginning, before the world. I dwell in
high places, and my throne is in a cloudy pillar." But who does not see that
these instances are only specimens of the style in which the Oriental genius,
ever fond of glowing representations, metaphor, and fiction, is accustomed to
give utterance to its thoughts?
4 See Norton's Statement of Reasons, etc., p. 307, etc., third edition.




64                      JUSTIN  MARTYR.
sit down, and read over carefully the writings of the Apostles
and Evangelists: you will rise from the perusal, we are confident, with a firm conviction, that, with the exception above
made, no trace of such language is found in those writings,
and that they could not possibly have been the source whence
it was derived.  This conviction, we think, must force itself
upon the mind of every one, who, without prejudice, cornpares the style of the authors of the New Testament with
that of Justin and subsequent Fathers, who trod in his steps.
He must be struck with the total dissimilarity between the
two classes of writings; not a dissimilarity in modes of expression merely, but a real dissimilarity, or rather opposition,
of sentiment. The plain inference is, that the Fathers alluded
to drew from other sources besides the Bible, and that they
suffered their learning to corrupt the simplicity of their faith.*
This inference is strengthened by the fact, that the Logosdoctrine, as developed by Justin Martyr and the learned writers of a subsequent age, does not disclose itself, as we have
seen in our preliminary chapter, in the compositions ascribed
to any of the so-called Apostolic Fathers of whom we possess
any literary remains the authenticity of which can be established on even probable grounds.  This we regard as a significant fact.  Considering the date of these compositions, so far
as it can be ascertained with any approach to certainty, they
furnish conclusive evidence, we think, against the scriptural
origin of the doctrine referred to; and confirm our argument,
if it needed confirmation, that Justin, in what he teaches of the
Logos, drew from other sources, and not from the sacred writings, or from primitive Christian antiquity.
* It may be said, possibly, that there is a class of'passages in the New Testament which favors the doctrine of the Fathers, that God employed the Son
as his agent in creating the universe. We refer to those (they are very few)
in which the following language, or something like it, occurs: " By whom also
he made the worlds," or ages (Heb. i. 2). " For by him [that is, Jesus as
an instrument] were all things created" (Col. i. 16). These and similar
phrases, however, may refer to the ages, periods, or dispensations; and we
may say, " By, or for, whom he constituted the ages or dispensations." That
is, they may refer not to a physical, but to a moial creation, or constitution of
things. (See Grotius and IRosenmuiller in loc.)  But whether we put this or
any other construction on the passages, they exhibit no traces of the peculiar
Logos-doctrine of the Fathers.




PLATONISM  OF THE EARLY FATHERS.                  65
The inference just stated, we conceive, would be authorized, were the evidence that Justin's sentiments respecting the
Logos corresponded in their essential features with those of the
later or Alexandrian Platonists far less satisfacitory than it is.
But this evidence is absolutely irrefragable.  Look at the concessions of Trinitarians themselves.  Few names stand higher
in the Romish Church than those of Petavius and Huet, or
Huetius: tile latter, Bishop of Avranches, a learned man, and
the original editor of Origen's Commentaries on the New
Testament; the former, a Jesuit, profoundly versed, as his
writings prove, in a knowledge of Christian antiquity.  Among
Protestants, Cuclworth, author of the "' Intellectual System,"
stands preeminent for erudition; and  Mosheim, and many
will add Horsley, the antagonist of Dr. Priestley, have no
mean fame.  Yet all these -  and we might mention several
others, all belonging to the ranks of Trinitarians -  admnit, in
substance, the charge of Platonism  brought against the Fathers.*  Horsley says expressly that the Platonizing Fathers
were "the Orthodox of their age," and contends for "such a
similitude " between the doctrine of the Fathers and Plato —
nists " as speaks a common origin "; t and Cudworth has instituted a very labored comparison to show that " there is no so
great difference," as he expresses it, "between the genuine
Platonic  Trinity, rightly understood, and  the  Christian."t
Brucker, the historian of Philosophy, also a Trinitarian, gives
in his learned work the result of a diligent examination of
the writings of Justin, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Ireneus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen,
and others.  His conclusion, in which he is fully borne out by
his citations, is, that the taint of Platonism strongly adhered to
these Fathers; and that, through their writings, the whole
Church, in fact, became infected.~
x Petav. T/eol. Dogmata, t. ii. lib. i. c. iii. et seqq.; Huet. Ori0qeniana, lib. ii.
c. i., and c. ii. quaest. 2. See also Norton's Statement of Reasons, etc., pp. 94,
95, third edition, where the language of Mosheim is quoted.
t See General Repository and Reviez, vol. iii. pp. 18, 19.
$ The whole subject is treated with great learning, Intell. Sqst., b. i. ch. iv.
p. 557, etc., ed. Lond.,'1678.
~ Hist. Crit. Phil. See especially t. iii. pp. 313-459. To the above mentioned authorities we may add that of James Basnage, also a learned man and
5




66                    JUSTIN MARTYR.
The great points of resemblance between the views of the
Platonists and those of the Christian Fathers, and of Justin
in particular, on the subject of the Logos, Son, or second God,
may be stated in few words.  Plato had spoken of God, and
his reason or logos, embracing the patterns or archetypes of
things afterwards formed. The latter, sometimes called also
the intellect of God, he pronounces "the divinest of all
things," and admits it into the number of his primary principles. Whether he regarded it as having a real and proper
subsistence, or as only an attribute represented as a person by
a sort of poetical fiction, it is of no consequence to determine.
It is acknowledged that he sometimes speaks of it in terms
that, literally understood, (which, however, they probably
were never intended to be,) would lead to the supposition
that he considered it a real being, distinct from the Supreme
God, or united with him only as proceeding from the fountain
of his divinity.  Certain it is that it was so explained by his-~
later followers of the Egyptian school, especially after they
had become acquainted with the Oriental doctrine of emanations.
Of the opinions of this school, Philo, a learned Jew  of
Alexandria, who flourished soon after the Christian era, —
and who has been called the Jewish Plato, from the striking
resemblance of his opinions to those of the Athenian sage,may be regarded as a fair representative; and his writings
were the immediate source whence Justin and the Fathers
derived their doctrine of the Logos. - Fortunately, these writings, the bulk of them  at least, have been preserved; and
from  them we may gather thl  sentiments of the Alexandrian
Platonists of his time.  He admits that there is one Supreme
God; but supposes that there is a second God, inferior to him,
and begotten of him, called his reason, Logos: the term, as
we have seen, employed by Plato to designate his second
principle. To this Logos, or intelligent nature, emanating
from God, as he considers it, he attributes all the properties
a Trinitarian; History of the Jews, b. iv. ch. iv. ~~ 21, 22. Among more recent
writers, see Baumgarten-Crusius, Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmeageschichte, i.
167, if., and Otto, De Justini Martyris Scriptis et Doctrina, p. 78, et seqq.; also
Hagenbach, Text-Book, etc., First Period, ~ 19.




PHILO'S VIEWS OF THE LOGOS.                 67
of a real being, and calls him  God's "first-born Logos, the
most ancient angel, as it were an archangel with many
names."*  To this " archangel, the most ancient Logos, the
Father omnipotent," he says, " granted the preeminent gift,
to stand on the confines of both, and separate the created from
the Creator; he is continually a suppliant to the immortal
God in behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador sent by the ruler
of all to the subject race; being neither unbegotten as God,
nor begotten as man, but occupying a middle place between
the extremes, being a hostage to both."t  He applies the title
" God " to him; not using the term, he is careful to say, in
*its highest sense.  When used without the article, as here, he
says, referring to the passage in Genesis on which lie is commenting, it can be understood only in its secondary sense, the
article being prefixed when the Supreme God is referred to.
What is "here called God," he says, " is his most ancient
Logos."f  At other times, he speaks of him as the image of
God; "the image of God," he says, "is his most ancient
Logos "; ~ and, again, as the Reason of God, embracing, like
Plato's Logos, the ideas or archetypes according to which the
sensible world was framed. He calls God the fountain of the
Logos, and the Logos his instrument, or minister, in forming,
preserving, and governing the world; his messenger, and the
interpreter of his will to man. [In a fragment preserved by
Eusebius,I Philo remarks upon a passage in Genesis (ix. 6),
which reads, according to the Septuagint version, " For in the
image of God did I make man."-'This divine oracle," he
says, "is full of beauty and wisdom.  For it was not possible
that anything mortal should be formed after the image of the
Most High, the Father of the, universe; it could only be
formed in the image of the second God, who is his Logos (or
Reason). It was necessary that the stamp of reason on the
$ De Confits. Ling., c. 28; Opp., i. 426, 427, ed. Mang.
t Quis Rertum Div. iLceres, c. 42; Opp., i. 501, 502.
t De Soundiis, lib. i. c. 39; Opp., i. 655.
~ De Confus. Ling., c. 28; Opp., i. 427.
II [Prcep. Evang., lib. vii. c. 13, or Philo, Opp., ii. 625. The passage is taken
by Eusebius from Philo's Questions and Solutions on Genesis. In the Armenian
version of this work, published by Aucher in 1826 with a Latin translation,
it is found in Seria. ii. c. 62. -ED.]




68                          JUSTIN  MARTYR.
soul of man  should be impressed  by the  divine  Logos; * for
the God above (or before, 7rpo;) the Logos is superior to every
rational nature; and it was not lawful that anything begotten
should be made like Him  who is above (r&Ep) the Logos, and
subsists in a form  the most excellent and peculiar to linself."]
Thus using  the term  Logos in the sense of Reason, having
a proper subsistence, and distinct from  God, though emanating
from  the fountain  of his  divinity, Philo  departed  from   the
usage of the sacred writers, who, as we have seen, never
attribute to it this meaning. The sum of the matter is, the
authors of the Septuagint version and the Platonists employed
the same term  to  express totally different views: the former
intending by it simply a mode of action in the Deity; the latter, a real being, his agent and minister in executing his will.
Philo was the  first, we believe, who  attributed  to  the  Logos
a permanent personal subsistence; thus proceeding one step
beyond Plato: which was the more easy for him, in consequence of his acquaintance with the principles of the Oriental
philosophy; for, in the general influx  and  confusion  of opinions at that time in Alexandria, these entered into a strange
union with Grecian speculations and Judaism.t
& 38et yap TOU 2.y0)Uio'V bV avvp'&P6O)V -L1)Vy7_ TVO voi l yov XapnX@^vaX.
~ cSet ydp TSP 2.oyuccv Ts' isvsVpeov  pv, rno'ov L5rr,)&iOV 2eXoe'  ovpa2(Oivat.
t We do not say that Philo is always consistent with himself. He certainly
wavers. The double sense of the Greek term logos, meaning either "reason"
or " discourse " (i. e., the internal or uttered loqos, or word), favored a certain
indistinctness or fluctuation of thought.  The internal logos Philo describes as
the "ideat of ideas," or " archetypal idea," the " intelligible world," or world
of ideas, containing the perfect form  of all things afterwards made.  The
"uttered " or external logos is the same l#ypostcatized, or converted into a real
person.  That he should sometimes blend or confound the two senses, need
not surprise us.  On the Logos as hypostatized by Philo, see Norton's Statement of Reasons, pp. 314-316, and p. 332, etc., 3d edit.; Semisch, Jzustin M-artyr,
ii. 173-177; Hagenbach, Text-Book, etc., First Per., ~ 40.  [See also Grossmann, Questiones Philone(e, Partic. 1, 2, (1829,) who gives all the passages in
which the term L26yoC occurs in Philo; Gfrdrer, Phlilo und die jiidisch-alexandrinische I'leoso)luhe, (1831,) i. 168, fif., esp. 243, if.; Liicke, Comaz. i*ber das Evang.
des Johanlnes, 3e Aufl. (1840), i. 249, if., translated by Dr. Noyes in the Ch/rist.
Examnzier for March and May, 184.9; I)orner, Le/re yon der Person Christi,
(1845,) i. 22, ff., Eng. trans. i. 19, etc., also transl. by Prof: Stuart in the
Biblioth. Sacca for Oct. 1850; Keferstein, Philo's Lehre ton den yi'ttlic/en Mittel-.wesen (1846); Nieclner, De Subsistentid rp aWeiw 26yg apud Philonen1 JlrudcelenZ el
Joannein Apostolinmi tributd., in his Zeitschrift fil die hist. Tleol., 1849, Heft 3;
Jowett's Essay on St. Paul and Philo, in his Epistles of'St. Paled, etc., vol. i.;
Ritter's History of Ancient Philo;ophIy, iv. 426, etc., Eng. trans.; Zeller's Philosophie der Gritclien, iii 594, ff. - E.]




BORROWED HIS VIEWS FROM  PHILO.                      69
The  subject might be further illustrated  by an appeal to
later writers of the same school, as Plotinus and others; but
it is unnecessary. Justin and the subsequent Fathers, we
know, read Philo; and their thoughts and expressions often
exhibit a remarkable coincidence with his.  Indeed, so deeply
are their writings imbued with his sentiments and spirit, that
without him, as Mosheirn observes, they would often be " altogether unintelligible."   No one who compares their sentiments in reference to the Logos with those entertained and
expressed by him, can doubt, we think, that they must have
been derived from  a common source; and this could be no
other than the doctrines of Plato, as explained by his later
followers of the Alexandrian School. Justin, as related in
a former chapter, expressly informs us that he became acquainted  with these doctrines before his conversion to Christianity, and took incredible delight in them.  The process by
which he ingrafted them  on the original truths of the gospel,
without any premeditated design of corruption, which we do
not impute to llim, it is not difficult to explain.*
@ Some attempts, we know, have been made to soften the charge of Platonism against the Fathers; and Seinisch, already alluded to in this connection,
has a labored argument on the subject. Yet, lowever, he grants to the "Alexandrian Philonic theosophy an essential share in the formation of Justin's
doctrine of the Logos."  Whether the source of the influence thus acknowledged be denominated Platonism or " heathen culture," in which, especially
in Alexandria, we know that Platonism ruled, is of little consequence. It is
difficult to separate the "Alexandrian Philonic theosophy," or " Jewish Alexandrianism," from the new Platonism, as it developed itself in the Alexandrian
schools. All admit that Philo " Platonized."
Semisch states very correctly, that " the doctrine of the Logos, especially
in the form  [in which] it was held by Philo, served as a starting-point and
direction to the speculative inquiries of the most ancient Fathers relative to
the person of Clhrist."  After this, is he quite consistent in affirming that
Justin, who certainly was speculative enough, derived the doctrine directly
from the Scriptures? But to say nothing of his inconsistency, seeming, at
least, how happens it, one is tempted to ask, if Justin drew his knowledge
of the Logos from the Scriptures, that the so-called Apostolic Fathers, who
stood so much nearer the fountain, (or whoever wrote what passes under their
names,) were ignorant of it, as he admits they were, saying that " every such
application of the idea of the Logos was foreign to their minds "? Was Justin's doctrine of the Logos, as Semisch says, the "faith of the church immediately' succeeding the Apostles "? How then could the earliest writers after
the Apostles have been ignorant of it? See Hagenbach's Text-Book, etc., First
Period, ~ 19; Semisch, Justin Martyr, ii. 177, 178, 198, 200.




70                      JUSTIN MARTYR.
CHAPTER VI.
THE INFERIORITY OF THE SON UNIFORMLY ASSERTED BY THE ANTE-NICENE
FATHERS. - CONCESSIONS OF TRINITARIANS. - THE IFATHER AND SON
NOT NUXMERICALLY ONE, NOR EQUAL. - PROOFS FROMI JUSTIN. - THE
SON NOT AN OBJECT OF DIRECT ADDRESS IN PRAYER. - SUM OF THE
ARGUMENT. -DISINGENUOUS USE MADE OF Two PASSAGES FROM JUSTIN. -HIS VIYEWS OF THE SPIRIT. -JUSTIN'S NOTICE OF TIIE HUMANITARIANS OF HIS DAY. - BISHOP WATSON DID NOT DEEM THE PREiEXISTENCE OF CHRIST NECESSARY TO THE ACCOM3PLISHMENT OF HIS MISSION.
THAT the inferiority of the Son was generally, if not uniformly, asserted by the ante-Nicene Fathers, has been admitted by several learned advocates of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Cudworth fully and expressly asserts it* of "the generality
of the Christian doctors for the first three hundred years after
the Apostles' times "; and Brucker, Petavius,,and Huetius,
already referred to, and we may add Le Clerc, entertained
substantially the same  opinion.   That the  opinion is well
founded, has been  incontestably  proved, we conceive, by
Whiston, author of " Primitive Christianity Revived "; t and
by Whitby, in a work which never has been, and, we hazard
nothing in saying, never can be, refuted.t  That they viewed
the Son as distinct from  the Father is evident from the circumstance that they plainly assert his inferiority.   Besides,
they often either directly affirm it, or use language which
necessarily implies it.~   They considered him  distinct and
* Intellectual System, b. i. ch. iv. p. 595.
t See vol.wiv.
t Disquisitiones Modestce in C1. Beulli Defensionem Fidei INicene.
~ In fact, the Fathers of the council of Nice, and their predecessors, never
thought of asserting that the Son and the Father were ntmerically one. This
was a. refinement of later times. The term "consubstantial," as used by
these Fathers and by the Platonists, the learned well know, implied, not a
numerical, but only a specific identity. By saying that two beings were consubstantial, as that the Son was consubstantial with the Father, they only
meant to affirm that they partook of the same common or specific nature, just




THE SON DISTINCT FROM GOD.              71
subordinate.  This appears, as it regards Justin, from  the
passages already adduced, in the account given of his views
of the Logos a few pages back.  We shall now exhibit further
evidence of the fact.
First, we would observe that Justin expressly contends fbr
two Gods and two Lords, against what he considered the
cavils of the Jews.  He speaks of the " Lord in heaven " as
" Lord of that Lord who appeared on earth," and the source
of all his power, titles, and dominion; "the cause of his being
powerful and Lord and God." X The expression, " The Lord
rained fire from the Lord out of heaven upon Sodom," he
contends, shows that they are really two in number.  The
same is implied, he says, in the words, "Adam has become as
one of us ": words, he maintains, which are not to be regarded
as a mere figure of speech, as sophists contend. He then
quotes the passage from Proverbs already repeatedly referred
to; and adds, whence "you may understand, if you will attend, that this progeny of the Father was begotten of him
before all creatures; and that which is begotten, as all know,
is different in number from  that which begets it"; that is,
they constitute two beings numerically distinct.t  Again:
" There is another God and Lord under the Creator of the
universe, who is also called Angel, because he announces to
men what the Creator of the universe - above whom there:is no other God - wishes to declare.....     He who is said to
have appeared to Abraham, to Jacob, and to Moses, and is
called God, is other than the God who made all things. I
say, in number, but not in will; for he never did anything
except what the Creator of the universe - over whom there
is no other God - willed him to do and say.".  On this point,
the language of Justin is too plain to be misunderstood. Trypho had challenged him to show that there is mentioned in
the Old Testament any other Lord and God except the Supreme. In reply, he maintains that there is another often
spoken of, who appeared to the patriarchs, - the Son and
as two individual men partake of a common nature, -that is, a human nature, — though they constitute two distinct beings, having a separate will and
consciousness.
* Dial., p. 222; Thirlby, pp. 413, 414; Otto, c. 129.  t Ibid.; Dial., c. 56. See also cc. 57-62, Otto.




72                     JUSTIN MARTYR.
minister of the Supreme; voluntarily begotten of him, not
from eternity, - this he nowhere asserts, - but before the
creation of the world, that he might be employed as his agent
in its production and afterwards in executing his commands:
for all the Old Testament theophanies, according to Justin,
belong to the Logos, or Christ; not to the Supreme God,
whose visible personal appearance upon earth he regarded as
impossible and absurd.*
Again: Justin frequently applies to the Son such phrases
as these, --  next in rank," or "next after" God; as the
Logos, or Son, is " the first power after God the Father and
sovereign Lord of all."t- Again': "We reverence him next
after God."  And he sometimes states the ground of this reverence; which is, not because he is of one essence with the
Father, but " because for our sakes he became man, and partook of our infirmities, that through him we might be healed."t
Such phrases, implying inferiority, we say, occur, not once,
but repeatedly; and their import cannot be mistaken.
Of the derivation of the Son from the Supreme God, and
his subjection to him as the minister of his will, of his names
and offices, and especially of his title to be called God in an
inferior sense of the term, the following account is given. He
is God, because he is the first-born of every creature; ~ the " Lord
of hosts, by the will of the Father giving him the dominion ";
and, "according  to the will of the Father, God."ll  Again:
he "received of the Father, that he should be King and Christ
and Priest and Angel, and whatever other such things"' (that
is, titles, rank, and offices) "he has and had."~  Again: he
" came according to the power of the Omnipotent Father given
to him." **  God gave glory to Christ alone, whom he constituted a lilght to the nations.'tt  Again: the Lord and Father
* Dial., c. 127, Otto.
t Apul. I., p. 63; Otto, c. 32.
t Apol. II., p. 97; Otto, c. 13. See also Apol. I., cc. 12, 13; and Dial..,
Ic. 126, 127.
~ Dial., p. 218; Otto, c. 125.
11 Ibid., pp. 181, 182, 221; Otto, cc. 85, 127.
I Ibid., p. 184; Thirlby, p. 327; Otto, c. 86.
** Dial., p. 230; Thirlby, p. 432; Otto, c. 139.
tt Dial., pp. 162. 163; Otto, c. 65.




THE SON NOT ADDRESSED IN PRAYER.             73
of the universe is represented as raising him from the earth,
and placing him  at his right hand.*  He expressed reliance
on God, says Justin, for support and safety; nor, he continues,
does he profess to do anything of his own will or power. He
refused to be calleodgood "; replying, " One is good, - my
Father, who is in heaven." t  Again: Justin speaks of him in
the following terms: " Who, since he is the first-begotten Logos
of God, is God "; j that is, he is God by virtue of his birth:
in other words, lie derived a divine nature from God, just as
we derive a human nature from human parents.  This was
what Justin and others meant when they spoke of the divinity
of Christ.
Justin uses another class of expressions, which show that
the supremacy of the Father was still preserved in his time.
He represents Christians as approaching the Father through
the Son.  Through him, he says, they offered thanks and
prayers to God; as we do always beseech God, through Jesus
Christ, to preserve us from  the power of demons. ~  In the
account he gives of the celebration of the Supper, lie observes
that the person presiding "offers up praise and glory to the
Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and the
Holy Spirit."ll  Again: "I'n  all our oblations we bless the
Maker of the universe, through his Son Jesus Christ, and
through the Holy Spirit." ~   From these passages, as well as
from the whole strain of Justin's writings, it is evident that
the Son was not regarded in his time as an object of direct
address in prayer. No. expression occurs, in any part of his
works,- which affords the slighlltest ground for the supposition,
that-supreme religious homage was ever rendered him, or that
his name was ever directly invoked in the devotions of Christians.  Prayer was as yet uniformly offered to God through
the Son, according to the models left in the Scriptures.
We might multiply proofs; but it is unnecessary. We have
adduced evidence sufficient, and more than sufficient, we conceive, to demonstrate beyond the possibility of cavil, that Justin regarded the Son as distinct from God, and inferior to him:
* Dial., p. 129; Otto, c. 32.     t Dial., p. 196; Otto, c. 101.
t Apol. I., p. 81; Otto, c. 63.   ~ Dial., p. 128; Otto, c. 30.
Il Apol. I., p. 82; Otto, c. 65.  ~T Apol. I., p. 83; Otto, c. 67.




74                     JUSTIN MIARTYR.
distinct, not, in the modern sense, as forming one of three
hypostases,'  or persons,-  three  "'distinctions,"  or three' somewhats," —but distinct in essence and nature; having
a real, substantial, individual subsistence, separate from God,
from whom  he derived all his powers and titles; being constituted under him, and subject in all things to his will.  The
Father is supreme; the Son is subordinate: the Fathler is the
source of power; the Son the recipient: the Father originates;
the Son, as his minister or instrument, executes.  They are
two in number, but agree, or are one, in will; the Father's
will always prevailing with the Son.  They have, according
to Justin, no other unity.
Thus, then, the argument stands.  The views which Justin
entertained of the Logos, or Son, as a rational power begotten
of God, and his instrument in forming the world, distinct
fromn him  and subordinate, cannot be traced in the Jewish or
Christian Scriptures.  Neither the language of the Septuagint
version, in which the term  occurs, nor the corresponding
Hebrew, was-regarded by the Jews as teaching them.  They
are not alluded to by the Apostles and writers of the New
Testament and their immediate successors; or, if indirectly
alluded to in one instance, it was only that they might be
condemned. But they occur in the writings of the Alexandrian Platonists, as represented by Philo, precisely or nearly
in the same form  in which they appear in Justin, who is the
first Christian writer in whom  they are met with; and who,
as we learn from  himself, was a Platonic philosopher before
he was a Christian.  To us the conclusion appears irresistible,
that he derived them from  the Platonists, and, on his conversion, undesignedly incorporated them with the Christian faith.
Nor is there anything surprising in all this.  It would have
been more surprising if the Fathers, educated as Heathen
philosophers, should have taken along with them none of their
former sentiments on going over to Christianity.  The human
mind does not so easily part with early and long-cherished
* Hypostasis was used by the Fathers, in the time of Justin, as synonymous
with substance. The technical sense in which it has since been employed by
theologians was at that time wholly unknown. A hI postt2ized attribute is an
%ttribute converted into a distinctly subsisting, personal being.




SUiMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT.                        75.
opinions and prejudices. Then, in the case of the Fathers, it
should be considered, their fondness for allegory and mystical
interpretations, and general want of skill as critics, -a fault
common to them with their Heathen contemporaries, - deprived them of almost the only means of correcting their
misapprehensions by a careful and discriminating study of the
sacred writings.*
The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity, it will be perceived from  the foregoing remarks, derives no support from
the language of Justin: and this observation may be extended
to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers
for three centuries after the birth of Christ.  It is true, they
speak of the Father, Son, and prophetic or holy Spirit, but
not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in
l The Fathers appear to have felt that some apology was necessary for the
very frequent use they made of Platonic sentiments and illustrations); and
hence contended, with great pertinacity, that Plato stole from Moses. To
take from him, therefore, was, in their view, no plunder: it was only to reclaim pilfered treasures.  That he borrowed from the Hebrews is repeatedly
asserted by Justin; but the notion did not originate with him. It was propagated long before by the Jews; who, with the exclusive spirit which always
characterized them, claimed to be the sole depositaries of truth. The opinion
may be traced to Aristobulus, a Jew, who lived in the time of Ptolemy Philometor, about one hundred aind fifty years before Christ; and who, it seems,
dealt plentifully in fables. Aristobulus affirms that both Pythagoras and Plato
drew information from the Jewish Scriptures; of whllicl, lie says, a Greek
translation was made before that of the Seventy. But of this translation no
vestige remains; nor, we believe, is any mention made of it by any other
writer. The authors of the Septuagint version make no allusion to it; and
it therefore, probably, never existed. Josephus asserted, after Aristobulus,
that Plato took Moses for his model; and they were followed by Justin,
Clement of Alexandria, and others, who found the doctine exceedingly convenient, as it served, in a measure, to justify what might otherwise have appeared an extravagant admiration of Plato and his opinions.  We think,
however, that the evidence adduced to slhow that Plato derived assistance
from the compositions of Moses is very unsatisfactory. He probably knew
nothing either of the Jewish lawgiver or of his writings. The testimony of
the above-mentioned authors, in this case, is entitled to no credit, as it is
founded wholly on conjecture.  Then the whole spirit of Plato's theological
speculations is opposed to the Mosaic doctrines, as may be seen from the
slight comparison above instituted with regard to his Logos, or second Principle, to which there is nothing corresponding in the theology of Moses.
This subject is amply discussed by Le Clere (lEpist. Crit., vii. and viii.). See
also some observations of Brucker, t. i. pp. 635-639; and Basnage's Ilistory
of the Jews, b. iv. ch. iv.




76                       JUSTIN  MARTYR.
One, in any sense now  admitted by Trinitarians.  The very
reverse is the fact.  The doctrine of the Trinity, as explained
by these Fathers, was essentially different from  the modern
doctrine.  This we state as a fact as susceptible of proof as
any fact in the history of human opinions.`
There are two passages in Justin Martyr, often quoted in
support of the Trinity, which deserve a more particular notice.
The first is the famous passage so often referred to in the controversy relating to the worship of angels.  A  late learned
prelate of the English  Church, in an  " Exposition  of the
Thirty-nine Articles," quotes it thus: t "  We worship and
adore the Father; and the Son, who came from  him, and
taught us these things; and the prophetic Spirit."   Now, not
to insist on the ambiguity of the words here rendered " worship and adore," -which, if any regard is due to the usage of
the best writers, admit with equal propriety of being rendered
"reverence  and honor," -  the passage above given is in a
mutilated form.  As it stands in Justin, it reads thus: " We
reverence and honor him  (the Father); and the Son, who
came from  him, and taught us these things; and the host of
other good angels, who follow  and resemble him; and the
prophetic Spirit.":  In this form, as it will be readily perceived, it may be adduced to sanction the Romish doctrine of
the adoration of angels, with as much propriety as in support
of the worship of the three persons of the Trinity. It is one
of the passages usually appealed to by Catholics as evidence of
the antiquity of that doctrine.  If it prove anything, therefore, it proves too much for Protestant Trinitarians.  This
* Martini states the three chief and essential points of difference between
Justin's system and that of the Nicene-Athanasian orthodoxy which has since
prevailed, thus: Athanasian orthodoxy maintained the everlasting, beginningless generation of the Son!; Justin believed that it took place a little
before the creation of the world. According to the Athanasian orthodoxy,
this generation had its ground in an inner necessity of the divine nature;
according to Justin, it originated in an act of God's free will. And finally,
in the Athanasian system, the Son was in all respects equal with the Father,
and was numerically one and the same being; Justin viewed him as subordinate and dependent.  Versuch, etc., p. 52.
t Ele/nents of Chrlistian Tleolooy, etc., by George Tomline, D. D., F. R. S.,
Lord-Bishop of Lincoln; vol. ii. p. 92, 4th edit.
t Apol. I., p. 47; Thirlby, p. 11; Otto, c. 6.




TWO  PASSAGES IN  JUSTIN.                           77
objection can be met only by putting on the passage in question a construction manifestly forced and unnatural.*
The  other passage referred to is not more to the purpose;
in fact, it teaches a doctrine  decidedly  opposed  to the  Trinitarian  views of the  worship  due  to  the  Father, Son, and
Spirit: -
" Tllat we are not atheists, worshipping as we do the Maker of'
this universe,... offering up to him  prayers and thanks,... what
person of sound mind will not confess?  And that we with reason
honor (trLtu.cUEv) Jesus Christ, our teacher of these things, and born
* This Ihas been sometimes attempted with a singular contempt of the laws
of interpretation. We will give the passage as it stands in the original': UZ;'
sExcv6v re, Ka TOPV Trap' a6roe  vClbv EiO'6vra iC at0 &6bLavTa g?/r rTaVTa, Kai Qvh rTV
atrov dT o/LePvov   iat SoL}olotov lz'vov   t yoa'tv ayyc2tuv arpar6p, 7rvVet Tre rTO 70por1TOKbC
agef6le  a cat 7roaKvvo0Otev. Now it is maintained by some that Justin only
meant to say, that Christ taught us those things of which lie hals been speaking, and also the things relating to angels; by others, that lie taught us and
the angels those things.  Bishop Bull contends for the first of tlhese constructions; Grabe and Cave, for the second.  Langus also gives the same, and
Thirlby has retained it. Both constructions, however, do the utniost violence
to the original.  Le Clere, more honest, gives the sense very correctly as follows: "Nous le servons et nous l'lionorons, et son Fils, qui est venu de vers
lui, et qui nous a instruits de ces choses, et l'Armee des autres bons Anges,
qui l'ont suivi, et qui lui ressemblent, et l'esprit proplhftique " (Liblio.lh. Anc.
et Melod., t. xxiii. pp. 18, 19).  Whiston (Prim. Clirist., vol. iv. p. 66) gives a
similar version; and Dr. Priestley very accurately expresses the sense of the
passage, thus  " Hinm  (God), and the Son that came fiom himl, and the host
of other good angels who accompany and resemble him, together with the
prophetic Spirit, we adore aid venerate" ([list. Co'rr'uptions, part i. sect. 7).
Catholic writers, for assigning tlhis sense to the words of Justin, - the only
sense, we repeat, of which they admit, - were accused by the earlier Protestants of' " playing the Jesuit," and " knavishly dealing with their author."
This construction is sustained by Otto (De.JestiZi ill. Scriptis tt Doclrina, p. 142,
et seqq.).  See also his note to the passage (Apol. I., c. 6). A good account
of the controversy is given by Semisch (vol. ii. p. 251, et scqq.), with ample
references.  He supposes that Justin meant to' say tlat a certain reverence
and honor were to be given to angels, without defining the precise degree.
This is certainly consistent with thle spirit of Justin's writings, and follows,
from  the only admissible construction of his language in the passage under
notice.
[The natural construction of Justin's language, which Dr. Lamson adopts,
is also foilowed in the recent translation of his writings, published in the Oxford Library of the IFathers. B urton, in his Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Icathlers
to the Doctrine of ithe ~liniitgy (p. 17), candidly remarks respecting thle different
constructions contended for by Bull and Grabe, -"I cannot say that they
are satisfactory; or that I am surprised at Roman Catholic writers describing
them as forced and violent attempts to evade a, difficulty." - ED.]




78                     JUSTIN  MARTYR.
for this end, (who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of
Judaea in the time of' Tiberius Cesar,) receiving him as the Son of
the true God, and holding him in the second place, and the prophetic
Spirit in the third rank, I shall show. Hence we are accused of
madness; because, as they say, we assign the second place after the
immutable and eternal God, the Creator of all things, to a crucified
mllan. 
No language  could  more  clearly  distinguish between the
"worship " rendered to the only true God, the Father, and
the " honor " given to the Son and Spirit.  The readers of
Justin know  in what reverence he held the writings of the
Hebrew  prophets; and to reverence these writings was to
honor the " prophetic Spirit " that spoke through them.
There is nothing here, that we can see, of the modern
Trinity.   Equal worship of. the Father, Son,. and Spirit is
excluded in express terms.
We are fully aware of the difficulty of ascertaining precisely what Justin's notions of the Spirit were.  His expressions, taken  literally, sometimes conflict with  each other.
Neander,t Baumgarten-Crusius,$  Otto,~ and others, suppose
him to have made the Spirit one of the angels, as the chief or
highest angel.  "Without doubt," says Otto, "Justin placed
him in the number of angels."  That a doctrine so extraordinary, and so directly at variance with what is taught clearly,
as we think, in other parts of the writings of this Father,
however, should have been held by him, requires, in our view,
more evidence than is afforded by the passages adduced in
proof.  If such was his belief, he certainly ascribed personality to the Spirit, but took it out of the number of the
Trinity.
We will not say that Justin did not sometimes attribute
personality to the Spirit.  He may have done so in the two
passages just quoted, possibly in some others.  If so, however, he certainly was inconsistent and wavering, as were
several of the Fathers, now saying one thing, and now another.
* Apol. I., p. 51; Otto, c. 13.
t Hist. of the C/hrist. Reliq. and Church, i. 609.
j Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, ii. 1054.
~ De Just. Script. et Doct., p. 138.




THE SPIRIT AN INFLUENCE.                79
This might be. Semisch, though he believed that Justin
" adjudged to the Spirit a personal self-subsistent being and
life," yet speaks of the " constant. vacillation " of the Fathers
concerning it, the Scriptures giving  "no precise explanations
on its nature and origin."  "Something indistinct and vacillating," he says, "naturally and unavoidably pervades the
representation of the Fathers respecting the Spirit. It is often
a difficult task to bring their expressions into connection and
harmony, either with themselves, or still more with their
Christology." *
But we see not how any one can doubt that, in a vast
majority of instances in which Justin alludes-to the Spirit, he
uses language which necessarily implies that he regarded it as
an influence or mode of direct agency in the Deity.  God,
according to his representation, gave to the prophets of the
Old Testament severally one or another gift of the Spirit, as
the "spirit of wisdom to Solomon, the spirit of understanding
and counsel to Daniel, of fortitude and piety to Moses," etc.;
but all these were united and finally rested in Jesus, through
whom  similar gifts were bestowed on the early believers.t
Speaking of the inspiration of the prophets, however, he genlerally uses some such phraseology as this: 1" The prophets
spoke only those things which they saw  and heard, being
filled with the Holy Spirit," or " a holy spirit," for the article
is wanting.  He had just before said,: " speaking by a divine
spirit (OEty 7?rvEzV;arL), they foretold things to come."  Here,
surely, is an influence, not a person. As to the phrases
"honoring the Spirit," "reverencing the Spirit," and others of
the kind, they present no more difficulty, and no more imply
personality than a multitude of expressions which we use
every day; as we "honor" a person's courage or sincerity;
we "do homage " to moral greatness; we "reverence" truth
and right; we "venerate" the martyr spirit.
Justin sometimes confounds the Spirit with the Logos. The)
"power of God came and overshadowed the Virgin," he ob-i
serves, in allusion to Luke i. 35; and adds, that by the Spirit
or power of God we understand no other than the Logos, the
* Julstin _/cartly, etc., ii. 207, 208.
f Dial., ee. 87, 88, Otto; also c. 39.
l Dial., c. 7.




80                     JUSTIN M ARTYR.
first-begotten of God.*  He sometimes speaks of the prophets
as insl)ired by the Logos, and sometimes by the Spirit.  Others amlong the early Fathers confounded the Logos or Son, the
first production of God, with the Spirit; a fact which shows
howv very imperfectly the first rudinments of the doctrine of
the Trinity, as explained in subsequent ages, had then disclosed
themselves.t
Justin nowhere asserts that the Father, Son, and Spirit
constitute one God, as became the custom in later ages, after
the doctrine of the Trinity was fully matured. Strictly speaking, he was a Unitarian, as were the Orthodox Fathers generally of his time: that is, they believed the Son to be a being
really distinct from the Father, and inferior to him; which we
take to be the very essence of Unitarianism.  With regard to
the origin of the Son, their views differed from  those afterwarld taught by Arius.  With reference to his distinct and
subordinate nature, however, they often used expressions which
the Arians found no difficulty in retaining.  The germ  of the
Trinity, however, was now  introduced; and, thougllh the
features it was afterwards to assume were not yet defined, it
from  time to time received mnodifications and additions, till,
about the end of the fourth century, amid the storms and agitations of controversy, it was moulded into a form  somewhat
resembling that which it has since retained.
There was some diversity of opinion, in Justin's day, respecting the nature of the Son.  He was himself, as we have
seen, a believer in Christ's preexistence; but this, he tells us,
was not the universal belief of his age.  There were some
who rejected it, being believers in the simple humanity of
Jesus; but, though he expresses his dissent from  their opinions, he treats them  with respect, and readily grants their
title to the Christian name, character, and hopes.  The whole
passage in which his views on this subject are contained is
worth quoting, as an instance of his liberality which does him
great credit, and should put the spirit of modern intolerance
to the blush.  It proves that this Father, whatever his faults,
was no exclusionist.
* Apol. I., p. 64; Otto, c. 33.
t See Hagenbach, Text-Book, etc., First Per., ~ 44; Neander, Hist. of Chris
tian Dogmas, i. 172, etc.




THE HUMANITARIANS OF HIS DAY.                      81
To his views of Christ's preexistence, Trypho, who may
be regarded as uttering the sentiments of the Jews of his and
of all times, objects that they appear strange, and incapable of
proof: "For as to your assertion, that this Christ preexisted,
being God, before the ages, and then submitted to be born and
made man, and was not a man born of man, to me," he says,
"it appears not. only paradoxical, but foolish."  Justin replies,
"I know that this assertion appears paradoxical, especially to
you Jews.  Nevertheless, Trypho, the proof that he is the
Christ of God stands, if I cannot show that he preexisted, the
Son of the Creator of the universe, (so) being God; and that
he was born of the Virgin as man.  But, since it is fully demonstrated that lie is the Christ of God, whatever be his nature,
even if I do not succeed in proving that lie preexisted, and,
according to the will of the Father, submitted to be born man,
of like passions with us, having flesh, in this latter respect
only would it be just to say that I have erred. You would
still not be authorized to deny that he is the Christ, although
it should appear that he was a man, born of human parents,
and it should be shown that he became Christ by election: for
there are some of our race * who acknowledge that he is the
d "Some of our race," ygvof, that is, as has been generally supposed,
Christians. Otto, Justin's editor, supposes that the Ebionite Christians are
referred to. Martini says, the "Palestinian 3,ewish Christians."  Bishop
Kaye says, " Christians as opposed to Jews."  Semisch (Justin Mart qr, ii.
137) thinks the writer had in view the " Ebionitish Jewish Christians," with
whom, from  the place of his early residence, he must have been well acquainte(l, and whom he treats with peculiar tenderness, saying simply, " I do
not agree with them," while lie is very severe in his condemnation of the
Gnostics. As to the secondary meaning of the word translated " race," that
is, as referring not to relationship by birth, or natural descent, but as designating a class of men, or men holding a certain set of opinions, or agreeing in
certain habits of life, it is not without precedent in classical usage. Thus
Plato has the "race of philosophers."  In,Latin, too, we have the "genus
vatum " of Horace. Philo speaks of the " Therapeutic race."
Dr. Priestley, however, (luist. qf Earlq Opinions, b. iii. ch. 14,) thinks that
"not Christians in general, but Gentile Christians in particular," are meant
in this passage of Justin.  lThe Rev. F. Huidekoper, who has given much
time and thought to subjects (connected with Christian antiquity, is also very
confident that the writer had in view Gentile Christians, - a result to which
lie arrived, it seems, before being aware that Dr. Priestley had adopted the
same conclusion. His reasons we give in his own words, Dr. Priestley not
having argued the point at length.
"1. In determining what Justin meant by the word yEvog, its customary
6




82                        JUSTIN  MARTYR.
Christ, but affirm  that he was a man, born in the ordinary
way;  from   whom   I  dissent."    To  this, Trypho  replies,
classical use is at least worth noting. This favors the idea that he meant to
distinguish two races of men rather than two classes of thinkers. 2. Its signification among Christians in the secon(l century is still more important.
This may be ascertained from Tertullian's use, at the close of that century,
(Ad Nutiones, lib. i. cc. 7, 8,) of the term' third race,' as applied to Christians, an allusion which implies on the part of his readers and others a wellsettled prior recognition of two races, - unquestionably the Jews and the
Gentiles, - without which the allusion would have been unintelligible. 3. The
Dialogue professes to have taken place between Justin, a born Gentile,
and Trypho, a born Jew. Between two such speakers, I should regard that
interpretation as much the most probable which makes the word refer to Jews
and Gentiles. 4. This interpretation is, in my opinion, greatly strengthened
by the following antithesis in the context. In the beginning of the section
Trypho is made to say,' The statement that this Christ preexisted as a divine
being.... and that lie is not a man of human parentage, appears to me
not only paradoxical but foolish.' To which Justin ansmwers,'I know that
this doctrine seems paradoxical, and especially to those of your race....
and indeed there are some... from our race who confess him to be
Christ, but deem him a man of human parentage' (Dial., c. 48). In the first
clause of the above antithesis, I cannot imagine that Justin should intend to
contrast the Jews and the Christians, since his meaning would then have
merely been,'The doctrine of Christ's divine nature and miraculous birth is
especially difficult to you before conversion to Christianity.' The only natural meaning to my mind is, (since neither Jew nor Gentile, before their conversion to Christianity, can have accepted the doctrines in question,) that,
after conversion, persons of Jewish descent accepted these two views with
more difficulty than did those of Gentile origin. If this be the true rendering of the first clause, then the obvious antithesis requires that we should
understand by the term'our race' in the second clause persons of Gentile
descent, that is, Gentile Christians. 5. The foregoing interpretation is still
further corroborated by its accordance with what we learn from Origen,
namely, that no Jewish Christians believed the divine nature of Christ, and
that his miraculous birth was less readily believed among Jewish than among
Gentile Christians.  See quotation in Christ's illission to the ULder-world, note
on p. 151, from Origen on Matt. xvi. 12; 1OP., iii. 733 A, 734 A. 6. There
is yet another consideration with which I was unwilling to complicate the
argument under No. 2. It is this: Tertullian's language fairly implies that
the term'third race' was one of scorn and derision, applied to the Christians
as nondescripts, neither Jews nor Gentiles. He asks,'Have Christians a different kind of teeth, or a different opening for their jaws?.... We are called
a third race, - dog-tailed perhaps, or shadow-footed [alluding to a fabulous
Libyan race who could cover themselves by the shadow of their feet], or it
may be Antipodes fiom  below the earth.... Ridiculous madness....
But we are deemed a third race because of our [alleged] superstition, not because of our national origin as Romans or Jews.' (Ad Natiozes, lib. i. cc. 7,
8, p. 53 A, D.) Elsewhere, Tertullian blames the Gnostics for their willingness to find a place in heaven, not only for thie persecuting Jews, but for the




THE PREEXISTENCE OF CHRIST.                     83' Those who suppose him to have been a man, and affirm  that
he was anointed, and became Christ by election, appear to me
to hold an opinion much more probable than that you have
expressed; for we all believe that Christ will be a man born
of human  parents, and  that, when  he  comes, he will be
anointed by Elias." "
The late Bishop Waatson agreed with Justin in the opinion
that Christ's pregxistence  was not necessary to the accomplishment of his mission. " His authority as a teacher is the same,"
he says, "' whether you suppose him to have been the eternal
God, or a being inferior to him  and commissioned by him."
Then, speaking of our redemption, he says, "I. see no difficulty in admitting that the death of an angel or of a mere
man might have been the price which God fixed upon."   He
rejects the supposition, that, on the Socinian hypothesis (that
is, that Christ was a man, who had no existence before he was
born of Mary), "' an atonement could not have been made for
the sins of mankind by the death of Jesus."   So of the Arian
hypothesis: "' There is no reason," he says, i" for thinking that
the death of such a being" (that is, as the Arians suppose
Christ to have been) "might not have made atonement for
the sins of mnankind.  All depends on the appointment of God;
and if, instead of the death of a superangelic or of an angelic
or a human being, God had fixed on any other instrument as
a medium  of restoring man to immortality, it would have been'Gentile populaces' with their circus, where they may cry out,'How long to
the [exhibition of the] third race.' (Scorpiace, c. 10, p. 628 B.) If Tertullian
revolted at, and defended the Christians from the charge of being a distinct
race, it is at least unlikely that the Christians should favor a use of language
based on that distinction. In the absence of all evidence to that effect, I
would not attribute to Justin a meaning which implied it.
" 7. Besides the foregoing positive, there is one negative reason which weighs
with me for supposing that Justin meant, not Christians generally, but Christians of Gentile descent. It is this. Though I find opinions - some of them
entitled to respect - in favor of the former interpretation, yet I have looked
fruitlessly for evidence of its probable correctness. Had such evidence existed, I think that it would have been adduced. In the apparent absence,
therefore, of evidence favoring, and the certain presence of evidence against
the metaphorical translation of yivoc, I prefer to adopt its usual and well-settled meaning as designating a different descent, not a difference of opinions."
The length to which this note has already extended precludes further comment. We leave the subject to the judgment of the learned., Dial., pp. 143, 145; Thirlby, pp. 233-235; Otto, cc. 48, 49.




84                    JUSTIN MARTYR.
highly improper in us to have quarrelled with the mean which
his goodness had appointed, merely because we could not see
how it was fitted to attain the end." *
Justin's distinction was an intelligible one.  The question
whether Jesus were the Messiah, the Christ of God, or not,
did not involve the que~tion of his nature.  He might be preexistent or not; yet he might be the Christ of God, exalted
by him to be 1" a Prince and a Saviour."  Justin believed him
to have been preixistent; yet he freely accords to the believers in his simple humanity the name of Christians.  For them
there was a Christ. Whether the Bishop of Llandaff had ever
read Justin or not, we cannot say; but he was clear-headed
and reverential enough to perceive that the question of Christ's
nature or of his preexistence had nothing to do with the question of his sufficiency as a Saviour, but all depended on God's
appointment. Whatever instrument God chose and appointed,
must, from the very fact that he had so chosen and appointed
it, be adequate to the purpose for which it was designed; and
it would be arrogant in man to question its sufficiency.  So
the bishop reasoned; and so Justin Martyr could say, that,
admitting his inability to prove Christ's preixistence, it did
not follow that lhe was not the Christ of God.  That fact he
considered as established by irrefragable proofs; and that he
regarded as the all-important and only essential fact.
With regard to the great points, which, since the days of
Augustine, have divided the Christian world, usually called
the Calvinistic points, Justin  held moderate and rational
views. He nowhere states his opinion of the precise effect of
Adam's fall, though he is decidedly opposed to the (loctrines
of hereditary depravity, original sin, and the inability of man
to do the will of God, as explained in later times. He evidently knew nothingc of the imputation of Adam's sin to his
posterity.4  He is a firm advocate for human freedom, and the
capacity of man for virtue or vice.  Man has power, lie maintains, to choose the good and refuse the evil,- power to " do
well." He earnestly combats the doctrine of destiny or fate.
C* harges delivered in 1784 and 1795.
"Original sin and the imputation of Adam's guilt," says Hagenbach,
"are conceptions foreign to him." - - Text-Book, etc., First Per., ~'63.




HIS OPINIONS ANTI-CALVINISTIC.            85
All will be rewarded or punished, he says, according to their
merits.  If character and actions were fixed, he argues, there
could be no such thing as virtue- and vice; for these suppose
freedom, or the ability to choose and follow the one and avoid
the other.  Men, he adds, would not be proper subjects of
reward and punishment, if they were good and evil by birth,
not by choice; for no one is accountable for the character he
brings into the world with him.*  This, certainly, does not
look like the doctrine of predestination; and we are authorized to assert, with Bishop Kaye, that, "if Justin held the
doctrine of predestination at all, it must have been in the
Arminian sense."
Of the effects of Christ's death, and of justification, he
usually speaks in general and figurative terms, much resembling those which occur in the sacred writings, and capable
of a similar construction.  He cannot, with any propriety, be
adduced as an advocate for the modern popular doctrine of
the atonement.
* Apol. I., cc. 28, 43; Apol. II., c. 7; Dial., c. 88, Otto.




86                   JUSTIN MARTYR.
CHAPTER VII.
JUSTIN'S ACCOUNT OF THE CHRISTIAN RITES AS ADMINISTERED IN HIS
DAY.- BAPTISM.- THE LORD'S SUPPER. - SUNDAY WORSHIP.- CALUMNIES OF THE JEWS.- THE MEMIORY OF JUSTIN.
WITH the opinions of Justin we have now done: but there
are some facts he has preserved, relating to Christian worship
and rites, which every one will desire to know; as he is the
earliest witness we possess, after the time of the Apostles,
-from whom we can learn anything authentic on the subject.
He describes Baptism and the Supper as administered in his
day, and the Sunday worship of Christians, with a good degree
of minuteness. This, we must recollect, was just about a
century after Christ had left the earth. One would like to
look in upon the religious assemblies of Christians as they
then existed, could the past, by any possibility, be made to
stand before us.  Justin speaks not from  report of what
Christians did in those days: he tells us what passed beneath
his, own eye. His account shows that the simplicity of Scripture forms was yet in a great measure, though not in all
respects, retained. To prevent misconception and error, he
says that he shall " explain in what manner, being renovated
through Christ, we dedicate ourselves to God.  As many," he
continues, "' as believe and accept for true those things which
are taught by us, and profess their determination to live conformably to them, are required, by fasting and prayer, to seek
of God the remission of their former sins, we fasting and
praying with them.  They are then led to a place where
there is water, and are there regenerated in the same manner
as we were regenerated: for they are laved in water, in the
name of God, the Father and Lord of all; and of our Saviour
Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.  For Christ," he adds,
"has said, that, except ye be regenerated, ye cannot enter the
kingdom of heaven."* This regeneration, as we have seen,
* Apol. I., p. 79; Otto, c. 61.




BAPTISM. -THE LORD S SUPPER.            87
Justin supposes takes place at baptism.  He states the necessity of it: which is, not that men inherit a corrupt nature
firom Adam; " but since," he says, " we are born without our
knowledge and consent, and (as Heathen) educated in corrupt
morals and customs, therefore, in order that we may not
remain children of necessity and ignorance, but may become
children of choice and of knowledge, and obtain by water
the remission of sins before committed, the name of the Father
and Lord of all is pronounced over him who wishes to be
regenerated, and has repented of his transgressions."'    This
washing, or baptism, Justin says, was also called "illumination," on account of the illuminatingi  power of Christ's doctrines; and the'" Holy Spirit " was that " which foretold all
things relating to Jesus."  Justin's formula of baptism was
virtually, and as he understood it, "in the name of the one
God and Father of all; and of the Son, his instrument, and
the revealer of his will to man; and of the prophetic Spirit,
which foretold his coming,, — a Trinity which no old-fashioned Unitarian would feel any hesitation in acknowledging.
Regene'ration is explained by what, as above expressed, we
become by " choice and knowledge," - repentant, purified,
and consecrated in heart and life to God.
Havilng received baptism, the person was considered as
entitled, by virtue of it, to all the privileges of a follower of
Christ; and immediately participated in the rite of the Supper, there being at that time no distinction between the church
and the congregation of believers.  On the subject of the.
Supper, the most exact description Nwhich has been transmitted
to us by Christian antiquity is that of Justin.  "After we:
have thus laved the consenting believer," he tells us, "we
take him to the place where those who are called brethren:
are assembled, there to offer up earnest prayers in common
for ourselves and for him who has been  enlightened (or baptized), and for all others everywhere; that, having learned
the truth, we may be deemed worthy to be found living in
good works and keeping the commandments, that so we may
obtain eternal salvation. Prayer ended, we salute each other
with a kiss. Bread and a cup of water and wine are then
Apol. I., p. 80; Otto, c. 61.




88                   JUSTIN MARTYR.
brought to him  who presides over the brethren; and he,
taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the
universe, through the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit,
and offers up many thanks that we are counted worthlly to
receive these gifts.  Prayers and thanksgivings being ended,
all the people present say amen..... Those we call deacons
then distribute the bread and wine and water, -- over which
thanks have been offered, - to be partaken of by each of
those present; and carry a portion to the absent."*
Justin adds, "We do not receive these as common food and
drink "; and proceeds to speak of them as the flesh and blood
of Jesus, in terms which the Catholics regard as teaching the
doctrine of Transubstantiation, but to which the Lutheran
and  Reformed churches appeal with  equal confidence as
clearly containing the elements of their faith on the subject.
Justin is certainly a little obscure and mystical. He quotes,
fiomn the "Memoirs by the Apostles," called, he says, " Gospels," the expressions, " This is my body,"-" This is my
blood "; but his language is too indefinite to authorize us to
say that he Understood them in any other than a metaphorical
sense, -- a sense which the general strain of his writings
~would lead us to suppose that he attributed to them.  The
language of the Scriptures on this subject is strongly figurative.  We believe that Justin meant to be understood as
speaking in a similar figurative style.  In his Dialogue with
Trypho, lie speaks of the elements of bread and wine as simply commemorative.t  He concludes by saying, that, through
the agency of wicked demons, the same elements were used
(by anticipation) in the ceremony of initiation into the mysteries of Mithras, in imitation of the Eucharist, as the Christian rite, he tells us, was called.
It is worthy of observation, that, in the above account,
the person who administers the Eucharist is called simply the
president of the brethren.  No mention is made of bishops,
priests, or presbyters, in this or in any other part of Justin's
writings.  Further: nothing is said of the consecration of the
elements, in the technical sense in which the term is used by
some Protestant churches.  We are told only that the presi~ Apol. I., pp. 82, 83; Otto, cc. 65,,6.  t Dial., c. 70, Otto.




SUNDAY WORSHIP.                     89
dent of the brethren offered t.hanks over the bread and wine,
and that they were then distributed.  Nothing is said of the
Supper, as, at this time, connected with a common meal, according  to the earlier practice; and prayers would seem  to
have been uttered without the use of forms.  Nor is anything
said of the position of the recipients.  Tile term' altar " does
not occur; and Jurieu asserts that it is not found in the acknowledged remains of any writer of the second century.*
Justin proceeds to give an account of the services of Sunday; lnot the "'Sabbath," which was not then the Christian
designation of the day, though the term was used figuratively
to express a rest, or ceasing firoml iniquity, in which sense
Christians were bound to keep a perpetual sabbath; the only
one, Justin tells Trypho, which is acceptable to God.t  " On
the day called the day of the Sun," lie says, " all, whether
in town. or country, assemble in one place; and -the Memoirs
by the Apostles, or Writings of the Prophets, are read as time
permits.  When the reader has finished, the person presiding
instructs the people in an address, and exhorts them  to imitate the excellent things they have heard.  We then all rise
together, and pray; after which, as before related, bread and
wine and water are brought" for the Eucharist; which, it
appears, was administered every Lord's Day.  Justin here
repeats the account already given of the rite, very nearly in
the same words.  He adds, that a collection was then taken,
to which they who were wealthy, and chose, contributed
according to their ability and disposition; and'" what is collected," he continues, "is deposited with the president, who
assists with it orphans and widows, and those who, in consequence of illness or any other cause, are in want; those who
are in bonds, and strangers sojourning among us; and, in a
word, takes care of all who have needl.
The reasons Justin assigns for assembling  on Sunday are,
simply, that this was the " first day, on which God, having
wrought a change in darkness and matter, made the world;
tlat, on the same day, Jesus Christ, our Saviour, rose from the
deadl; for he was crucified the day before that of Saturn; and
Pastoral Letters, vi.         t Dial., c. 12, Otto.
Alpol. I., c. 67, Otto.




90                    JUSTIN MARTYR.
the day after, which is the day of the Sun, he appeared again
to his disciples.*
These are matters of history, and, coming as they do from
a contemporary writer, are of great value.  From  Justin we
gather also various notices of the character and condition of
Christians of his day, and of their persecutors, - all creditable to the disciples of the cross.  The worst enemies of the
Christians were the Jews, more implacable than the Heathen.
They sent persons, as Justin tells us, into all parts of the earth,
to denounce them  as an atheistic and laxwless sect;f- they
cursed them  in their synagogues;      and the people were
solemnly charged to hold no intercourse with them, particularly to listen to no exposition or defence of their opinions.~
To the calumnies of the Jews, industriously propagated over
all parts of the civilized world, Justin attributes the odium to
which Christians were subjected on account of their supposed
profligacy; and there can be little doubt that they were the
authors of the foul slander.  Certainly it could have originated only in the bitterest hatred; and this hatred, as thorough
as ever rankled in the human breast, they appear, according
to the testimony, not of Justin only, but of Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, and others, to have cherished.
Justin was not the first martyr, but he was the first great
writer and apologist for Christianity, whose name we meet on
the roll of Christian umartyrology.  We have given the few
incidents which can be gathered from the storehouse of antiquity respecting the life and death of this old witness of the
faith.  His intellectual traits, and his opinions on various subjects of theology, we learn from his works.  He was not, as
we have seen, an exact or polished writer; lhe was not critical;
he had not a logical intellect; he wrote in a harsh, rambling,
and somewhat impulsive style.  He was not wholly free from
credulity;, indeed, had a large measure of it; and manyav of
his opinions will now be pronounced extravagant and absurd.
But so, in reality, will many of those entertained at the present day appear to a future age.  Yet, whatever his defects, his
* Apol. I., c. 67, Otto.  t Dial., pp. 117, 202; Otto, cc. 17, 108.
t Dial., cc. 16, 47, 93, 96, Otto. [See Otto on c. 16, note 9.- ED.]
~ Dial., cc. 38, 112, Otto.




THE MEMORY OF JUSTIN.                 91
rrerits were very great.  We honor his courage, his sincerity,
his ardent thirst for truth, his moral elevation, his boldness in
defending the cause of Christ, and pleading for the rights of
common humanity before thrones, - looking death calmly in
the face.  In such men, we can overlook intellectual defects,
and pardon some errors of opinion and some absurd fancies.
These are thrown into the shade by their great qualities.  It
may be cause 6f gratitude to any of us, if, through God's help,
we are enabled to walk as firmly on the way of duty, and be
as faithful to our convictions, as was this philosopher and
martyr of the elder days of the church.




NOTE.
EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS.
QUESTION OF ITS GENUINENESS AND DATE. - ITS THEOIOGY. - SUPREMACY OF THE FATHER. - MISSION OF THE SON. - IMPLANTED OR INSOWN
LOGOS.- AUTHORSHIP AND DOCTRINE OF THE CONCLUDING PORTION OF
THE EPISTLE.
WE will add in a note a few words on the Epistle to Diognetus, which,
though generally found among the collected works of Justin, is, as before
stated, of uncertain authorship.  Semisch * and Ottot give at some length
the arguments and authorities for and against the genuineness of the Epistle, which was first published by Henry Stephens, in 1592. Several among
the older critics, and some in more recent times, place it among the genuine
works of the Martyr. But learned authorities greatly preponderate on the
other side; they deny its genuineness.  So Neander and Semiseh, the latter of whom maintains that the spuriousness of the piece may be "determined to a degree of certainty that is seldom attainable in critical inquiries."
Otto is undecided, but inserts the Epistle along with other pieces of doubtful or unknown authorship, in his edition of the works of Justin. Its general style and cast of thought, we think, clearly show that it is not Justin's,
though probably written, or the main body of it at least, in his age. Tillemont and several others, however, assign to it an earlier date.  Neander
refers it to the " early part of the second century."
It is, in its more practical parts, at least, a much admired production, of
great value and interest as presenting a vivid picture of Christian life at
the period at which it was written.  Neander places it amono the "finest
remains of Christian antiquity."  Bunsen strongly commends it. "It is,"
says he, "indlisputably, after Scripture, the finest monument we know of
sound Christian feeling, noble courage, and manly eloquence." He is very
confident that it was written, the conclusion, as we shall presently see,
excepted, by Marcion, before he separated from the Church of' olome, that
is, in the year 135, and that Diognetus was the early tutor of Marcus
Aurelius.  All this, however, is mere hypothesis.  Bunsen adduces no external testimony in favor of any part of the statement; but says, that
"there is nothing in the Epistle to Diognetus which might not have been
written by MIarcion, but there is much in it which, as far as history goes,
* Justin Martyr, i. 193-207.
t De Just. 1Mart. Scriptis et Doctrina, pp. 53-60.




EPISTLE  TO  DIOGNETUS.                           93
nobody could have Written except young Marcion, or his unknown fosterbrother in soul."*  This is very unsatisfactory.
We will give one or two extracts from the work, which will show that
the writer, whoever he was, taught the current doctrine of the supremacy
of the Father, and was no Athanasian.  We use Otto's text, second edition, 1849.
" But the truly Omnipotent God, the Creator of all things, and invisible,
himself implanted from  heaven and fixed in the hearts of men the truth
and the holy and incomprehensible Logos; not, as one might suppose, sending to men any servant, either angel or chief ruler, or any one of' those
who direct the affalirs of earth, or who minister in heaven, but the artificer
and maker of the universe himself; by whom he [God] created the heavens; by whom lie enclosed tl-e sea within its bounds," etc.  " tfin he sent
to them. \\as it, as one miglht thinlk, for the pu-rpose of t-ranny, or to produce i'ear and consternation?  No, indeed.  But in nmercy, in lenity; as a
king, sending his royal Son, he sent himn; sent him  as God;t sent' him
as unto men; sent him to save, to persuade, not to force, for violence is not
of God; senlt him to call, not to persecute; sent him in love, not for judgment." t
Here is no Trinitarianism  and no Augustinianism.  The supremacy of
the Father, and subordination of' the Son, are asserted as strongly as they
well can be; and neither here, nor in any other part of the Epistle, is there
the remlotest allusion to the IHoly Spirit.  God appears full of love and
compassion, not as a wrathful juldge.  His benevolence, lmercy, and love
are brouoglt out in prominent relief in the next chapter, the eilghth.  " He
always was," salys the writer, "1 and is and shall be benicgnant and good,
wratlless and true, and alone is good."  The phrase, " lie (God) took our
sins," whilch occurs in the nilnth chapter, and savors strongly of Patripassianism, is probably, as Sylburg and Otto suppose, a gloss, which crept into
the texst firom  the margin, where it might have been placedl as a citation
from  Isaiah liii. 4, 11.  If not, tile writer contradicts himself, for in the
same sentence lie says, that " he (Gotd) gave his Son to be a ransom for
us."  It was the Son, not the Father, who bore our sins.
The writer's dtoctrine of the' insown, or implanted Logos," resembles
that of Justin Martyr,.  This is taughlt in the passage first q-uoted.  Again,
"God loved men, on account of whom  he matle the worlTd, to whom he
subjected all things in the earth; to whom  he gave reason (Logos), to
whom  understanding; whom  alone he permitted to look upward to him;
* Christianity and 3lfanaind, i. 170-173. Bunsen (pp. 174-181) gives a translation
of the Epistle, and in another part of his work (vol. v.), Anclecta Ante-Nilcena (i.
103-121), the origillal Greek.
f'That is, one whlio by his nature is good and benignant, and a lover of men."Otto's note. [Otto refers fol illustration to c. 10 of this lEpistle, where we read, " He
who, bly besto\ii(r upon tie needy the things which he has received friom God. becomes a God to those who receive tllem, E'ba yiverat rtcv?.a3lav6v-rwjv, is an inlitato
of God."- -ED.]
~. Cap. 7.




94                      EPISTLE  TO  DIOGNETUS.
whom he fbrmed in his own image; to whom he sent his only-begotten Son;
to whom he promised the kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who
love him."
This language is taken from the tenth chapter.  Two chapters, called by
Semisch and Otto an "Appendix," follow, which there is ground for concludingr, partly from the evidence of manuscripts and partly from  internal
evidence, are supposititious.*  There is in them little which is to our present
purpose. In the eleventh chapter we hear of the Logos " manifsted," and
of the same as "sent..... preached by the Apostles, believed in by the
Gentiles."  Then follows a somewhat obscure passage, in which this Logos
is spoken of as " from  the beginning," - who, it is added, " appeared as
new and is found to be old, and who, ever young, is begotten in the hearts
of the sanctified."' It is the Logos "that was always" (as an attribute),
but " to-day is accounted a Son," in reference, it would seem, to Psalm  ii.
7: "' Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."
There is nothing in this language, which somewhat resembles that of
Clement of Alexandria, which is not readily explained on Justin's theory
of God's indwelling Logos or reason.  Nothing is said of the eternal generation of the Son; that doctrine is excluded by the ternms employed.t
There is nothing in the language which conflicts with the sulpremacy of the
Father, or thle derived nature of the Son.  The supremacy of the Father,
Infinite, Ollnipotent, One, the Original of all things, whose minister the
Logos, or Son was, sent by him, is preserved intact; and the Holy Spirit,
as before observed, is not so much as alluded to, we think, in the whole
letter.
~ See Semisch's note, i. 195, 196. " That part of the Epistle," says he, " is a spurious addition not belonging to the original writer."  It " betrays a much later date
than the second century."  See also Otto's note at the commencement of the eleventh chapter. Bunsen argues at some length that this fragment appended, in the
manuscript, to the EIpistle to Diognetus, constituted no part of the original Epistle,
but formed the missing conclusion of the work of Hippolytus, - a " Refuitation of all
Heresies."  " We want," he says, " an end to our great work in ten books, a winding up worthly of the grand subject..... Now we find such a concluding fragment,
which wants a beginning and an author. Whether we consider its contents, or its
style, if it is not, it might very well be, the close of our work."  This appears to us
to be rather loose reasoning. - Christianity and lczankind, i. 415-417, and v. 119
(Asrolelta, vol. i.).  Others find " differences of style between the Epistle and the Appendix." The latter probably had an Alexandrian origin, as late, at least, as the
middle of the third century. perhaps later.
t It is not difficult to speak of the eternity of the divine Wisdom or Reason -
Logos. This is a verv different thing fiom saying that the Son wvas eternal, whllich was
not a doctrine of this age. The personality of the Son, as a self-subsisting being,
was not till sometime afterwards represented as eternal. The Son was not said to
ae eternal except as an attribute, that is, the Reason, Wisdom, Logos of God.




FATHERS SUBSEQUENT TO JUSTIN MARTYR,
AND BEFORE TIlE TIMIE OF CLEMENT
OF ALEXANDRIA.
CHAPTER I.
TATIAN THE SYRIAN. - HIS HISTORY. - THE SON A HYPOSTATIZED ATTRIBUTE.-H IAD A BEGINNING. -NUMERICALLY DISTINGUISHED FROM
THE FATHER, AND SUBOIRDINATE. - THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH. - THE
SON ORIGINALLY THLE LOGOS, OIR IREASON OF GOD.- BElGOTTEN IN TImIE.
-T-lE INSTRUMIENT OF TIlE FATHERI IN THE CREATION. —THIE FA.THER
ALONE AN OBJIECT OF SUPREME WIORSHIP. -THE TERrM TRINITY FIRST
USED). -TEIR SPIRIT CONFOUNDED WITH THE LOGOS. - ATIIENAGORAS
PRESEIRVES TIIE SUPREMACY OF THE FATHER. —HOW HII SPEAKS OF THE
LOGOS.- THE SPIRIT AN INFLUENCE.
THE Fathers who lived between the time of Justin Martyr
and that of Clement of Alexandria, were no better Trinitarians tlhan Justin himself; that is, they believed in no undivided,
coequal Three, but taught a doctrine wholly irreconcilable
with this belief.  A rapid glance at the writings of the principal of these Fathers will make this plain.
TATIAN THE SYRIAN.
First comes Tatian.  Born in the "land of the Assyrians,"
as he himself informs us, Tatian was educated in the Greek
religion and philosophy, and was by profession a sophist, or
teacher of rhetoric, and perhaps also of philosophy.  He had
no;mean knowledge of Greek literature.  He travelled over
many countries, engaging, it would seem, in different pursuits,
and finally came to Rome. In his opinions he appears to have
been a Platonist, but, like many others at that period, he
lost his reverence for philosophy, which did not satisfy his




96  FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
higher aspirations.  The Pagan religion, too, with its impurities, filled his mind with disgust. At this time the writincrs of
the Old Testament fell into his hands, and his conversion to
Christianity followed soon after.  Whether this event took
place before or after his acquaintance with Justin Martyr commenced, is not certain.  At all events, he was his hearer and
disciple.  At a subsequent period, probably not till after the
death of Justin, he became the founder of an ascetic and
heretical sect.  While at Rome, where he was at the time of
Justin's martyrdom, he appears to have remained in fellowship
with the Church there.  He afterwards returned to the East.
Of his subsequent history little is known.  Of the time and
place of his death we have no information.  His writings were
numerous.  Eusebius says that le "left many monuments of
hiuself in hlis works," -  left a " great number of books,"'*
and Jerome tells us that lie wrote a countless multitude of
volumes.-t We still possess his'" Oration against the Greeks."
He flourished about the year 170.
In terms similar to tlhose emp)loyed by Justin, Tatian describes God alone as without beginning, invisible, ineffable,
the original cause of all things, visible and invisible,- langcuage
confined by the early Christian writers to the Father, and
never applied to the Son.  The following language occurs in
his "' Oration against the Greeks."  Speaking of the beginning
in relation to God, he says:This beginning was the rational power (Logos, reason as
it existed in God).  The Lord of all, being himself the essence
(or principle) of all things, was, in relation to things not yet
created, alone.  Now  inasmuch as he'is the original of all
power, and the principle (or cause) of all things visible and
invisible, all things were with him.  With him  by virtue of
his rational power was also the Logos itself, which was in him.
By his simple volition the Logos leaped out of him, not as an
empty voice, but was the first begotten work of the Father.
This Logos was the beginining of the world, and was begotten
by communication, not by abscission.... For the Logos,
proceeding from the power of the Father, did not leave the
Father without Logos (reason).":
Hiist., iv. 16, 29.   t De Vir. lllust., c. 29.  $ Cap. 5.




THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH.                97
The idea or theory is the same as Justin's.  Like him it is
evident that Tatian regarded the Son as originally and from
eternity in and with God, not as a real being or person, but
only as an attribute, or by virtue of his power of begetting
him; in him and with him, only as all things created were;
that is, not as the actual, but as the possible.  This, indeed,
he asserts almost in so many words.  He speaks of the Son as
having a beginning, that is, considered as a real subsistence
or person; and lie evidently regarded him, after his production, as a being distinct from the Father, and subordinate to
him.  The Son was produced by the Father, le tells us, as
one torch is lighted from another, the lighted torch not lessening that from which it is lighted; or as speech is produced in
us firom the faculty of speech within, that faculty remaining
undiminished, - illustrations which were common with the
Fathers, and imply a numerical distinction of being and
essence.  Tlhis distinction is expressly asserted -by Justin,
Tatian's master, who contends, in words as plain and unequivocal as language affords, that the Father and Son are two
in number; two beings: the one visible, the other invisible;
the one remaining fixed in his place, the other capable of
motion from place to place; and Tatian evidently trod in his
steps.
THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH.
Another writer of some repute at this time was Theophilus,
who became Bishop of Antioch, the chief seat of Christianity
in the East, in the year 169.  He was a convert from heathenism, baving been won over to Christianity, as le himself
informs us, by reading the ancient books of the Jews. He
wrote several works mentioned by Jerome, which are lost.
But we have his three books to Autolycus, his friend, yet a
heathen, whom  he was desirous to bring over to Christianity.
A contemporary with Tatian, he taught the same doctrine.
He speaks of God as Supreme, the "true and only God,"
Without beginning, invisible, unbegotten, and as such immutable; and of the Son as inferior, having as a real being or
7




98  FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
person a beginning, visible, begotten, and therefore, according
to his philosophy, not possessing the attribute of immutability,
which belonged only to the unbegotten One.*
Here is his account of the generation of the Son.  "God,"
he says, 1" having the Logos within himself (the Logos in him
being what Reason is in man), begat him before all things.
This Looos was his helper in all the works brought into existence by him, and through him  [as his minister] he made all
things....  He being the Spirit of God and the beginning,
the Wisdom and Power of the AMIost high, inspired the prophets.  The prophets existed not when the world was made, but
the Wisdom of God, which was in him and of him, and his
holy Logos, were always present with bim.-   He spoke, as the
writer supposed, through Solomon (Proverbs viii. 22, etc.).
Again, " God the Fatller of all things," he says, " cannot be
confined to space, or be found in place."  So he refers the
theophlanies in the Old Testament to the Logos or Son.  It
was he who walked in Paradise; it was his voice which Adam
heard.  "Of lhim, before the creation, God took counsel, he
being his own reason, or wisdom.  And when he willed to
create what lie had designed, he begot this Logos, the emitted
first-born of every creature, not emptying himself of Logos
(Reason), but begetting it, and always holding converse with
his own Logos (Reason)." $
Thus the uttered or begotten Logos or Reason of God became a real person, having a proper subsistence in himself,
without diminishing, or taking from, God's understanding,
Logos or Reason.  This distinction between the internal and
the uttered or begotten Logos, more marked in Theophilus, in
language, at least, than in those who preceded him, pervades
all the writings of subsequent Fathers.
Again, Theoplhilus contends expressly that "1the true God,"
by whom he always understands the Father, is alone to be
worshipped. ~  But it is unnecessary to adduce further evidence of his views of the Son, whom he clearly regarded as
begotten or produced from the reason of the Father, a little
before the creation of the world; thus becoming a distinct
*  Ad Autol., lib. i. cc. 4-6.      t Ibid., lib. ii. c. 10.
$ Ibid., lib. ii. c. 22.            ~ Ibid., lib. i. c. 11.




TIEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH.                         99
being, subject to the will of the Father, and not entitled to
equal adoration.*
Theophilus was the first Christian writer who used the term
"Trias," Trinity, in reference to the Deity; but it is deserving of remark, that, to  adopt the modern  phraseology, the
three " distinctions," or three " somewhats," designated by it,
are, according to him, " God, his Logos, and his Wisdom ";   t
not, however, asserting  their equality, which  is opposed  to
his plainest teachings.  Then there may be a Trinity of attributes as well as of persons. Names signify little. It is the
ideas attached  to them  which we want, —  what they stand
for.  By wisdom, Theophilus may mean the Spirit; though,
in the theology of the Fathers, it was generally considered as
synonymous w-ith  the  Logos, or Word.  It was often, however, confounded with the Spirit.t   Theophilus adds, "and in
the fourth place is man."
When Theophilus speaks of God as consulting his Logos, or Wisdom,
before the generation of the Son, he evidently uses a figurative imode of expression. So a man is said to take counsel of his understanding or of his
affections; he consults his sense of duty or his inclination; but no one supposes this phraseology to imply that the understanding or affections or conscience are real beings, persons. Such expressions are familiar in all languages; and they serve to explain what is meant by the early Fathers, when
they speak of God as consulting his Logos, Reason, or Wisdom, before the
event called by them the generation of the Son, -and perhaps even after, as
in one of the above quotations which appears somewhat obscure (lib. ii. c. 22).
The phraseology is not of a nature to create the least embarrassment. Every
school-boy knows better than to construe it as implying an actual consultation
between real beings.
1 Ad Autlol., lib. ii. c. 15.
j The Fathers often confounded the Spirit with the Logos, adhering to the
old Jewish phraseology, but attributing to it an entirely new sense. Thus, in
Ps. xxxiii. 6, -" By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all
the host of them, by the breath of his mouth," or spirit, - the two terms, word
and spirit, are used to express the same thing; that is, a divine operation.
There is no allusion whatever to persons or separate agents, but only to a
mode of divine agency. Such was the Jewish sense of the terms; and in
this sense they were synonymous. When the Platonizing Fathers had affixed
a new sense to the term "Logos," or " Word," considering it as designating
a real person, they still for a time retained former Jewish modes of expression, though utterly at variance with their system. Thus they speak indiscriminately of the Spirit and Logos as inspiring the prophets; and of the
Spirit, or Power of God, or Logos, as overshadowing Mary. According to
the sense the Jews attributed to those terms, there was no inconsistency in
this use of them; the breath, spirit, power, or word of the Lord, being only




100   FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
ATHENAG ORAS.
Athenagoras, a learned Athenian, also flourished during the
latter part of the second century.  That he was ever, as has
been  asserted, connected  with  the  celebrated  Catechetical
School at Alexaindria, is not probable.  He was an Athenian
by birth, but of his personal history nothing is known.  Neither
Eusebius nor Jerome mentions his name.  He wrote an Apology for Christians in the time of Marcus Aurelius and his
son Conlmodus, and was also the author of a treatise on the
Resurrection, both of which are preserved.  He was equally
careful, with the writers above quoted, to preserve the supremacy of the Father, and seems to have entertained similar views
of the nature and rank of the Son.
" The Son of God," he says, " is the Logos (Reason) of the
Father in idea and operation."   " Through it all things were
made."   " The Son of God is the understanding and reason
of the Father."   " God from  the beginning  being  eternal
reason, had in himself the Logos (Reason), being  always
rational."    The attribute reason, or wisdom, was eternal, but
not the Son as a personal being.  Of him  it could be said,
"'The  Lord  created  me the beginning of his ways to his
works."   Athenagoras, with the other Fathers, made a disdifferent modes of expressing a divine influence, or act of power. But when
the Logos, or Word, came to be considered a person or being, distinct from
the Fatlher and Spirit, whether the last was regarded as a person or an influence, the phraseology became absurd. The Fathers, however, continued to
use it occasionally, from the effect of habit. The history of the phraseology
in question; the signification it bore in the writings of the Jews; its inconsistency with the doctrine of the Fathers, though from custom they continued
to employ it, - afford to our minds conclusive evidence, hlad we no other, that
they were innovators. The doctrine of the Trinity was, as yet, very imperfectly formed. As it became further advanced, the phraseology alluded to
was gradually dropped.
Commenting on the above quoted passage of Theophilus, Hagenbach says,
"Here we have indeed the worid rptPa, but not in the ecclesiastical sense of the
term Trinity; for as davtpwro' is mentioned as the fourth term, it is evident
that the rpta(' cannot be taken here as a perfect whole, consisting of three
joined in one; besides, the term aofia is used instead of TO 7rve8Dta dytov." -
Text-Book, First Period, ~ 45.
k Legat., c. 10. See also c. 16.




ATHENAGORAS.                           101
tinction. The supremacy of the Father, who was invisible,
impassible, and  who, himself  "unbegotten   and  eternal,"
created all things by his Logos, or Reason,* was not infringed.
The Holy Spirit Athenagoras describes as something flowing out fiom  God, as rays flow  from  the sun, and are re-absorbed, that is, not a person, but an influence.t
* It has been made a question, indeed, whether Athenagoras believed that
the Divine Logos, or Reason, became permanently hypostatized in the Son;
or in speaking of the creation used the word in the older Platonic seise, as
meaning the reason, power, or wisdom  of God in action. Ile says in one
place, " God is in himself all things, - light unapproaclhable, the perfect world,
spirit, power, logos."  Justin Martyr, however, could have used the same
langulage, and we think, some obscure expressions which look the other way
notwithstanding, that Athenagoras agreed with him  and with the early
Fathers generally, in assigning separate personality, or selftsubsistence to the
Son as the begotten Logos, Reason of the Father. See Martini, Versuch, etc.,
p. 55.
t Tb EvepyoOv, roZi Eicwovoiat 7rpo0orCKiS,y/toV 7rreiia &r6tSo  Clza, iei e6ayev TOg
Oeoi, biroj)joeP itai iravawEp6icevov Sg LcTriva 2hiovo. - Legat., c. 10; comp. c. 24.




102  FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
CHAPTER II.
IRENAEUS. - HIS HISTORY AND WRITINGS. - THE SON A SEPARATE BE.
ING -FROM THE FATItER, AND SUBORDINATE. - QUOTATIONS. - CHRIST
SUFFERED IN IllS WHOLE NATURE. -THE LOGOS SUPPLIED THE PLACE
OF THE RATIONAL SOUL IN JESUS CHRIST. - TERTULLIAN. - CHARACTER
AND WRITINGS. - MAKES THI:, FATHER AND SON Two BEINGS. - THE
SON INFERIOR. -NOT ETERNAL. - TERTULLIAN'S CREEDS. - OMISSION
OF THE SPIRIT. -THEE  ATHER MORIE ANCIENT, NOBLER, AND MORE.
POWERFUL THAN THE SON.- TIE UNLEARNED CHRISTIANS. —THEIR
HORROR OF THE (ECONOMY, OR TRINITY. - How TERTULLIAN SAVES
THE UNITY.- TIlE CATACOMBS.
IREN1EUS.
WE pass to Irenaeus.  He is supposed to have been a native
of Smyrna, or at least, of some part of Lesser Asia.  He was
thus a Greek by birth.  In his youth, as he informs us in a
letter to Florinus, a portion of which has been preserved by
Eusebius,* lie was well acquainted with the venerable Polycarp. Jerome calls him a man of the apostolic times, and
says that lie was a disciple of Papias, who was a hearer of
John the Evangelist.t  When and under what circumstances
he went to Gaul, history does not inform us.  We only know
that he became Bishop of Lyons, in that province, after the
martyrdom of Potllinus, A. D. 177.  He survived till very late
in the second century, and possibly till after the commencement of the third.  IHe wrote a work, in five books, against
the Gnostic heretics, the original of which, with the exception
of a considerable part of the first and some fragmrlents of other
books, is lost, the remainder being preserved only in an old
and barbarous Latin translation.
Irenens has left on record a summary or summaries of the
faith of' Christians of his day, in language, however, Ilwhich
will not satisfy the demands of a later orthodoxy.:   With the
- Hist., v. 20.                          t Epist. 29, ad Theod.
{ C(ontra 1ifceI., lib. i. c. 10, ~ 1. See also lib. iv. c. 33, ~ 7, ed. Migne. Par
1867.




IRENEUS.                       103
preceding Fathers already named, he agreed in assigning to
the Son a separate existence, making him  inferior to the
Father; but the mode of his generation he would not discuss,
deeming it inexplicable.  In his antagonism  to the Gnostic
doctrine of emanations, he was led to connect with the Son
the terms " always " and " eternal"; it is difficult to define in
what sense.  He wants clearness, and his notions seem not to
have been well defined even to himself.  "Who," he asks,
with the prophet, "can declare his generation?   No one.
No one knows it; not Valentinus, not Marcion, neither Saturninus, nor Basilides, nor angels, nor archangels, nor princes,
nor powers, none but the Father who begat, and the Son who
was begotten."  HIe is very careful, however, on all occasions
to distinguish the Son from the'" One true and only God,"
who is "supreme over all, and besides whom  there is no
other."  Take two or three passages as specimens.  " The
Father is above all, and is himself the head of Christ." *
" John preached one God supreme over all, and one only-begotten Son Jesus Christ."t  "The Church dispersed throughout all the world has received from  the Apostles and their
disciples this belief —in one God the Father, supreme over
all.... and in one Jesus Christ.... and in the Holy Spirit,
that through the prophets preached the dispensations," etc.8
We could fill pages with similar passages. No language could
more clearly and positively assert the supremacy of the Father.
The Father sends, the Son is sent; the Father commands,
the Son executes, ministering to his will.  The Father grants,
the Son receives power and dominion.  The Father gives him
the "heritage of the nations," and 6" subjects all his enemies
to him." ~  These and.similar expressions which form his current phraseology, — which are interwoven, in fact, with the
texture of his whole work against heresies, - could not have
been employed by one who conceived of the Son as numerically
the same being with the Father, or as in any sense his equal.
Again: he quotes the words of the Saviour (Mark xiii. 32)
* Contra I/eer., lib. v. c. 18, ~ 2.
t Ibid., lib. i. c. 9, ~ 2.
$ Ibid., lib. i. c. 10, ~ 1.
~ See, among other passages, Ibid., i. 22, ~ 1; iii. 6, ~ 1; iii. 8, ~ 3; iv. 6,
~ 7; iv. 38, ~ 3.




104  FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
" But of that day and that hour knoweth no man; no, not the
angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father,"
without any attempt to explain them away, or evade the obvious inference.  He admits their truth in the simplest and
broadest sense, and thence adduces an argument for humility.
If the Son," says lie, " was not ashamed to refer the knowledge of that day to the Father, neither should we be ashamed
to reserve the solution of difficult questions to God." * He
goes further.  Far from  denying the inference to be drawn
from the expression referred to, he expressly admits it.  Our
Saviour, lie observes, used this expression that " we might
learn from him that the Father is above all; for' the Father,'
he says,'is greater than I.' "t  The doctrine of two natures,
by the help of which modern Trinitarians attempt to evade
the force of this and similar passages, was not as yet invented.
It was the doctrine of the apostolic age, and of primitive
antiquity generally, that Jesus Christ suffered in his whole
nature.  Such certainly was the opinion of Irenneus, if we can
credit his own language.  He believed that Jesus Christ suffered in'llis superior as well as in his inferior nature.  There
were some sects of tle Gnostics, especially the followers of
Cerinthus, who maintained that a certain exalted intelligence
called Christ descended on Jesus at his baptism, and left him
and ascended at his crucifixion.  This opinion Irenmus strenuously combats, in a formal argument of some length.  Paul,
he says, knew no Christ but himwho suffered.  If there was
a Christ who left Jesus before the crucifixion, then there were
two Chlirists.  The Apostle knew  but one.  Christ, we are
told, "suffered for us."  According to the doctrine referred
to, this is not true.  Again, Christ predicted that he should
sufter.  It' "behoved him  to suffer,' he says.  And lie proposed himself as an example to his disciples.  "If any man
will come after me," he says, "let him  take up his cross and
follow me."  Why, asks Irenmus, this exhortation, if Christ
himself did not suffer?
Besides all this and much more in the same strain,$ we
have the express assertion of Irenoeus, that Jesus Christ suf.' Contra Iler., lib. ii. c. 28, ~ 6.  1 Ibid., lib. ii. c. 28, ~ 8.
Ib-id., lib. iii. cc. 16, 18.




TERTULLIAN.                            105
fered in his superior nature.  " Jesus," he says, "' who suffered
for us and dwelt among us, is the Lorgos of God."     Again,
the " Logos of God became flesh and suffered."t   Again, the
"Word of God when on the cross prayed for his persecutors
and murderers."$     From  the whole we may infer that lie supposed Christ to have suffered in his most exalted nature.~   It
is henice quite obvious that he did not regard  him  as one lio
essence with God.
Like the old Fathers generally, before the time of Origen,
Irenaeus did not attribute to the Saviour a rational human soul,
but supposed that the Logos supplied the place of it.l
TERTULLIAN.
Hitllerto we have been occupied with Greek writers.  We
must now turn to tlhe Latin Church, of which the,great representative man of the period is Tertullian.   Tertullian was an
African by birth, and, accordlin   to Jerome,T a native of Carthage, and son of a Proconsular centurion.  He held the rank
of Presbyter, but whether at Carthage or Rome, has been disputed.  If Jerome's account be correct, that the envy and ill
* Cotra ITC., lib. i. c. 9, ~ 3.   t lbid., i. c. 10, ~ 3.   t Ibid., iii. c. 18, ~ 5.
~ Yet with strange inconsistency he speaks in one passage (lib. iii. c. 19,
~ 3) of the Logos as quiescent during the crucifixion.  [Here, however, the
old Latin version of Irenaeus differs solmewhat from the Greek as preserved
by Theodoret, who, as has been suggested;, may have altered tile expressions to conform tlhem to his own opinions.  See Stieren's note, in this edition
of Irenveus, and Norton's Statemenat qf Reasons, 3d edit., p. 112, note. - Eu.]
1 Ilagenbach (Text-Boolc, etc., First Period, ~ 66) refers to Duncker as " endeavoring to make it probable... that Irenaeus taught the perfect humnanity
of Chlrist as regards the body, soul, and spirit."  On many points the Fathers
are greatly deficient in precision, both of thought and expression. But that
bef)re the titne of Origen, tlhey generally, Irenmeus not excepted, used language
which, according' to any reasonable construction, teaches that thle human
rational soul was wanting in Christ, appears to us as undeniable. Justin, as
we have seen, so tauglht expressly.  Hagenbach also refers to Neander. But
Neander (Iist. Cl/rist. Doqnz., p. 197, Bohn) expresses himself with hesitation
in regard to Irennus, differing somewhat from I)uncker.  See also his Alztiqnostilcus, p. 477. In connection with the error of Beryllus, however, Neander
affirms that the "doctrine of a rational [lhuman] soul in Christ had not, at
that time, been generally received, thougli Origen had done much for its de
velopment." - Hist. Clbrist. Dogz., pp. 152, 15.3.
~ De Vil. Illust., e. 53.




106   FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
usage of the clergy of Rome were the cause of his defection
from the Church, it would favor the supposition that, for a time
at least, lie lived at Romne.  He was, says Jerome, of an
" acrid and vehement temper," which, indeed, his writings
clearly enouugh show.  He was rash, impetuous, fiery; his
thoughts are often obscure, and his style harsh, abrupt, abounding in bold rhetoric and exaggeration, which often increases
the difficulty of ascertaining his precise meaning.  He has had
his admirers, but many have turned from  his pages with disgust, finding there, as they have thought, more nettles and
thorns than flowers and fiuit.  But, the Montanism  of his
later years notwithstanding, his authority has always stood
high in tile Church.
The incidents of his life are very imperfectly known. Jerome's account is brief.  It speaks of the multitude of his
writings, many of which, it asserts, were not even then extant; and tells us that lie lived to a decrepit age.  Where
and when he died we are not ilnformed.  He flourished about
the year 200; and may have survived Clement of Alexandria.
He is the earliest Latin Father whose writings are extant.
His testimony on the subject of the Trinity, as received in
his time, is full and explicit.  He has transmitted to us three
creeds, or summaries of the belief of Christians in his (lay;*
similar in sentiment, though differing somewhat in expression.
All these teach the supremacy of the Father, - a doctrine, in
fact, which stands prominent in all the writings of Tertullian,
especially in his treatises against Hermogenes and Praxeas.
We might fill page after page with expressions in which it is
either directly asserted or necessarily implied.
Tertullian admits that the Son is entitled to be called God,
on the principle, that " whatever is born of God is God," just
as one born of human parents is human.  He speaks of him
as possessing "1unity of substance " Awith God; but by this
and similar phrases, as the learned well know, the ante-Nicene
Fathers never meant to express a numerical unity of essence,
4 De Viqlginiltts Velandis, c. 1; De Prescrip. Ci'eret., c. 13; Adv. Prax., c. 2.
These and all our references to the writings of Tertullian will answer equally
well for the Paris editions of 1646 and 1675, and the recent edition by Leopold'Gersdorf), which is more convenient for consultation than the old editions.




TERTULLIAN ON THE INFERIORITY OF THE SON.   107
but only a specific, that is, a common nature.  Thus all human beings, as such, are of one substance: the son is of one
substance with the father.  In this sense, Tertullian evidently
uses the phrase in question, as he immediately proceeds to
explain; for, after saying that the Son has'"unity of substance " with God, he adds, " For God is spirit "; and " from
spirit is produced spirit; friom God, God; from light, light." *
Thus le supposes the Son to be in some sort divine by virtue
of his birth, and of one substance with God, as he is a spirit,
and God is spirit.  At the same time, he regarded himn as a
different being from the Father; that is, numerically distinct
from him.  This all his illustrations imply; and, moreover, he
expressly affirms it.  " The Son," lie says, " is derived from
God, as the branch from the root, the stream from the fountain, the ray from the sun."  " The root and the branch are
two thtigs, though conjoined; and the fountain and the stream
are two species, though undivided; and the sun and its ray
are two forins, though coherincg."t  And so, according to him,
God and Christ are two things, two species, two forms. Things
"conjoined," or "1 cohering," must necessarily be two.  We
do not use the terms of one individual substance.  Again:
referring to John i. 1, he says, 1" There is one who was, and
another with whom he was."t  Again: he observes,'" The
Father is different from the Son (another), as lie is greater;
as lie who begets is different from him who is begotten; he
who sends, different from him  who is sent; he who does a
thing, different from him througll whom (as an instrument) it
is done."~  Again: alluding to 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28, he says,
From this passage of the apostolical Epistle, it may be shown
that the Father and Son are two, not only from a difference in
name, but from the fact, that he who delivers a kingdom and
he to whom it is delivered, he who subjects and he who receives in subjection, are necessarily two."['
That he regarded the Son as inferior, is evident from the
following declarations.  He was produced by the Father.
" The Lord created me," as he quotes from the Septuagint,
- the beginning of his ways" (Prov. viii. 22).  Thus he was
A* pol. adv. Gentes, c. 21.  t Ado. Prax., c. 8.  t Ibid., c. 13.
~ Ibid., c. 9       11 Ibid., c. 4.




108  FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA,
the first of all beings produced, "the beginning " of the crea-,tion, the first work of God, who, as Tertullian adds, being
about to form the world, "produced the Word, that by hlim,"
as his instrument, "he might make the universe."'  "The
Father," he says, "is a whole substance; the Son a derivation
and portion of the whole, as lie professes, saying,' The Father
is greater than I,' "t which Tertullian understands according
to the literal import of the terms.  He speaks of God as the
"head of Christ," and of the latter as deriving all his power
and titles from  the former.  Thus he is "most high, because
by the right hand'of God exalted, as Peter declares (Acts ii.
33), Lord of hosts, because all things are subjected to himn by
the Fatller."t  He " does nothing except by the will of the
Father, having received all power from him."~  And hence,
Tertullian contends, the supremacy of the Father, or monarchy, as he calls it, which the innovations of the learned
Platonizingc Christians were thought by the more simple and
unlettered to impair, is preserved; the Son having  received
from the Father the kingdom, which lie is hereafter to restore.
Tertullian, though, he admits the prei3xistence of the Son,
expressly denies his eternity.  " There was a time," lie tells
us, "' when the Son was not."lI  Again: " Before all things,
God was alone,'himself a world and place, and all things to
himself."  That is, as he explains it, nothing existed without
or beyond himself.  " Yet he was not alone; for he had his
own reason, which was in himself, with him.  For God is
rational," a being endued with reason.~
This reason, or Logos, as it was called by the Greeks, was
afterwards, as Tertullian believed, converted into the Word,
or Son, that is, a real being, having existed from eternity only
as an attribute of the Father.  Tertullian assigned to him,
however, a rank subordinate to the Father; representing him
as deriving from the Father his being and power, subject in all
things to his will, and one with him as he partook of a similar
spiritual and divine nature, and was united with him  in affection and purpose.**  The Father, lie says, is " more ancient,
1' Adv. Prax., cc. 6, 7.  t Ibid., c. 9.    $ Ibid., c. 17.
~ Ibid., c. 4.          i Acdv. tIermnog., c. 3.   ~ Acdv. Prax., c. 5.
*5 Ibid., c. 22. "With respect to Wisdom and thle Son, Sopllia and




TERTULLIAN.                        109
nobler, and more powerful than the Son."*  This is one of
the passages selected for animnadve'rsion by the learned Jesuit Petavius, who speaks of the writer in terms of strong
censure, making  him  exceed  the Arians in  " impiety and
absurdity." t
We might multiply our quotations without number, but it
is unnecessary.  Judged accordinlr to any received explanation of the Trinity at the present day, the attempt to save
Tertullian from  condemnation would be hopeless.  He could
not stand the test a moment.  His creeds, compared with
those of subsequent times, are particularly defective.  Here
is one of them,  very much resembling the Apostles' Creed
in its more ancient and simple form: "We believe in one
only God, omnipotent, Maker of the world; and his Son Jesus
Christ, borln of the Virgin  Mary, crucified under Pontius
Pilate, raised from  the dead the third day, received into the
heavens, now  sitting at tlle right hand of the Father, and
who slall come to judge the living and the dead through the
resurrection of the flesh."t
Tlhis, Tertullian gives as the one only fixed and unalterable
" rule of faitll."  But this is no Trinitarian creed.  The Father and Son are clearly distingtuished, and the supremacy of
the Father is preserved.  Not one word is said of the Spirit,
though  the writer afterwards mentions it, explaining it as
"'vicarious," that is, in the place of Christ; referringo to the
words of Jesus (John xvi. 13), which he quotes.  Nothling is
said of its personality; which, indeed, is plainly excluded.
One desires notlling  more liberal than the creed of this old
Father.
Besides the omission of the Spirit in that here- given, there
is no mention in it of Chlrist's " descent into hell," of the
" holy Catholic Church," the "communion of saints," or the
Filius," says Bishop Kaye, " Terttllian assigns to both a beginning of existence: Soplliia was created or formed, in order to devise the plan of the universe; and the Son was begotten in order to carry that plan into effect."
Again, by making matter self-existent and eternal, Hermogenes, as Tertullian
argued, " placed it above the Word or Wisdom; who, as begotten of God,
had both an autllor and beginning of hkis being." — Writins of Telrtullian
pp. 523, 535, 3d edit.
A(de,. HIern7log., c. 18.          t Dogni. Theol., lib. ii. c. 1, ~ 5.
$ De Virg. Veland., c. 1.




110  FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA,
"remission of sins," which appear in the Apostles' Creed in
its present form. So brief were the older creeds. Here is
one, composed about the end of the second century, which
is shorter and simpler than the so-called Apostles' Creed.
Tertullian does not admit that the corruption of man's nature
is " total," or that the seeds of good are altogether extinlguished
in it.  " There is a portion of God," lhe says, " in the. soul.
IIn the worst, there is something good; and in the best, something bad:" and he speaks of infhncy as the C" age of innocence.
We cannot pass over withlout notice a very remarkable
passage in the writings of Tertullian, which has been adduced
to prove that the great bulk of Christians in his time were not
believers in the doctrine held by the Platonizing Fathers, relating to the nature and rank of the Son.  It certainly has an
important bearing on the question, as to what plain, unlettered
Christians at that day believed, or rather did not believe, respecting the nature of the Son.  But on this question we do
not touch.  We have another object in quoting the passage,
which is, to show by attention to Tertullian's reasoning how
he disposed of the objection, that he and others who thought
with him made two Gods; how they reconciled their teachings with thle Divine Unity.  The party of Tertullian, it must
be remembered, had adopted the word " (Economy," an obscure term, which they applied to the relations of God with
the Son and Spirit, or to the Trinity as it was then understood.
This perplexed the unlettered Christians, as well it might.
" The simple," says Tertullian, " not to say the unskilful
and unlearned, who always constitute the greater part of believers, since the rule of faith itself transfers their worship of
many Gods to the one only and true God, not understanding
that the unity (of God) is to be believed, but with the teconomy, are friglltened at this oeconomy.  This numbler and disposition of the Trinity they regard as a division of the unity.... Thus they declare that we proclaim two or three Gods';
but they,, they affirm, worship only one..... We, say they,
hold the monarchy.... The Latins shout aloud for the
* De Anima, c. 41; De Baptismo, c. 18. " Original goodness," says Neander,
"he held to be indelible." - Hiist. Clrist. Dogm., p. 184.




TERTULLIAN.                    111
monarclly; and tl:e Greeks will not understand the cecon.
omy." X*                            f
How does Tertullian reply-?  Monarchy, he says, is one
rule or dominion, but may be administered through many officials; or the monarch may associate his son with him, all
power still emanatingr firom  him.  The monarchy then rdmains.. So with the divine monarchy.  Around the throne
of the heavenly king  may stand "ten thousand times ten
thousand, and thousands of thousands, of angels executing his
commands.  But that does not destroy the monarchy.  And
how can we say that it is destroyed, if, instead of these angels
whom  no man can number, who are of a nature foreign to
him, he employs the Son and Spirit, who are second and third
to him, and of a similar nature as begotten of his substance?"
Tertullian then prloceecls to say that the Son does "nothing
without the Father's will," - that all his "power was received
from the Father " who granted it, that as the Son receives all,' the Father subjecting all things to him," he shall in the end
"restore all," delivering up all to the Father, to. whom "he
shall also himself be subjected," that God may be " all in all."t
So the monarchy is not overthrown, says Tertullian.  True.
But what becomes of Christ's supreme divinity and ef his
numerical identity with the Father?  They are excluded.
Thus Tertullian could find no other unity than this,- The
Son was of Divine origin, and his will always harmonized with
the will of the Father, - which is no unity at all in the later
Athanasian sense.  Well might Tertullian explain the celebrated text, " I and my Father are one " (John x. 30), as
meaning " one thing, not one person, the neuter gender being
used."  It " pertains," he says, " only to unity of affection, to
the love which the Father bore to the Son, and the obedience
of the Son who did the Father's will," making himself, " not
God himself, but the Son of God."j  But here is no homoousian Trinity.
VWe may observe, in conclusion, that Tertullian has been
supposed, like the older Christian Fathers generally, to have
believed that Christ did not possess a human rational soul, the
Logos supplying its place.  And from the language he some.
* Adv. Prax., c. 3.   1 Ibid., cc. 3, 4. See also c. 13.   ~ Ibid., c. 22.




11.2  FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
times employs, it is difficult to avoid this inference.  Neander
rejects it, and says that this Father " is the first writer by
whomn a perfect human nature consisting of body and soul is
distinctly asserted." *'
But " of the eternal generation -  eternal personality of the
Son, and numerical unity of being of the Father and Son,"
in the laluguage of Martini, " he knew nothing, and so there
was between his and the Athanasian orthodoxy a wide gulf
fixed." -t
We cannot close this chapter without adding a word respecting the class of Christians td which Tertullian refers -
the common and uneducated.  It has often occurred to us, as
these pages containing notices of the early Fathers have been
passing through the press, to ask ourselves where, all this time.
were these simple and unlearned Christians, and what were
their thoughts and feelings?  How  did the abstruse controversies and  sublimated  speculations with  which  the  more
learned and philosophical church  teachers and writers were
occupying themselves, affect the minlds of the plain and uneducated men and  women  of the day?  Did they concern
themselves at all about them?   We are inclined to think
that persons of this class in the early ages took very little interest in these speculations and controversies, -that, when
they did interest themselves in them, urging  objections and
uttering remonstrances, it was the exception and not the rule.
What cared they for Marcion, and Valentinus, and Basilides,
and Manes, and Praxeas, and Hermogenes, and Sabellius, and
[ list. Christ. Doqmz., p. 199, Bohn; Antignostikus, p. 477. So also Hagenbach, Text-Book, etc., First Period, ~ 66. See Tert. Adl. Prax., cc. 16, 27;
De Carne C/1'isti, cc. 11-13, and 18. Origen strenuously argues the necessity
of a human soul as well as body in Christ, and his,argument finally triumplied.
t Verstuclh, etc., p. 110. Schwegler, as quoted by Hagenbach (First Per.,
~ 42), say3s, " We find in Tertullian, on the one hand, the effort to hQld fast
the entire equality of the Father and the Son; - on the other hand, the
inequality is so manifestly conceded, or presupposed, it is everywhere expressed ill so marked and, as it were,, involuntary a way, and it strikes its
roots so deeI)ly into his whole system and modes of expression, that it must
doubtless be considered as the real and inmost conception of Tertullian's system." - [See Schwegler's Aiontanisz us, p. 41. - ED.]




THE CATACOMBS.                    113
Paul of Samosata, andl the rest, who gave the Fathllers such
infinite trouble, lightil-lng up controversies which for ages were
not extinct?
For the most beautiful and affecting evidences of the practical character and ennobling influences of the religion of the
Son of Mary we must turn, not to the folios of the Fathers,
or acts of councils engaged in defining dark and subtile points
of theology, but to the remains of early Christian art in the
Catacombs in and about Rome. These served as a refuge and
a sanctuary to the ancient church in times of persecution, and
a place of burial for their dead long after the days of Tertullian.  Since the opening of the Catacombs, in modern times,
numerous slabs and tiles containing inscriptions have been
taken out and brought into the light of day.  Maiy of them
have been inserted in the walls of the " Lapidarian Gallery,"
in the Vatican, where the inscriptions and epitaphs may be
read by all eyes.  They are records of faith and affection, not
of theology.  For the most part they contain only the baptismal name, and the words, often misspelt, and the letters irregular, were evidently written by the " unlettered muse."  They
clearly belong to the simple and uneducated Christians, - not
to the learned, but to the unlearned, - not to those who wrote
ponderous tomes of theology, and wrangled in councils, but to
humble believers - the class to whNvlom Tertullian refers.  The
"Fathers of the Church," it has been remarled, "'live in
their voluminous works; the lower orders are only represented
by these simple records, from which, with scarcely an exception, sorrow and complaint are banished; the boast of suffering, or an appeal to the revengeful passions, is nowhere to be
found.  One expresses faith, another hope, a third charity.
The genius of primitive Christianity - to believe, to love, and
to sufferl'  has never been better illustrated.  These'sermons in stones' are addressed to the heart and not to the head
- to the feelings rather than to the taste." *
The epitaphs and inscriptions thus disinterred, of these old
Christians, possess, indeed, a touching beauty and simplicity.
Some of them are traced back to thle end of the first or beginning of the second century, and constitute almost the only
* Maitland's Churlch in the Catacombs, p. 13. London, 1846.
8




114  FATHERS BETWEEN JUSTIN AND CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
authentic monument of the period which remains. The name
of Christ, or its monogram, perpetually appears; often the
good shepherd; and the cross, either alone, or accompanied
with the emblematic crown or palm, is everywhere met.
Such was the religion of the unlettered Christians; and
these rude epitaphs and memorials many will think of more
value than all the controversial divinity of the Fathers; and
the triumphs of patience, gentleness, and love which they
record did more for the establishment of Christianity on the
ruins of Paganism than all the writings of the learned converts.  The subtleties of controversialists have no charm by
the side of these artless records of faith and affection. It is
refreshing to turn from Tertullian and the rest, with their
disputes about the " ceconomy" and the "Logos" produced
in time or before time, to the relics of these simple believers,
spoken of almost with contempt by the Fathers in their pride
and conceit of learning. A fragment of one of these primitive epitaphs is worth more than a whole treatise of the old
Latin Father who has stood before us.




CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, AND HIS TIMES.
CHAPTER I.
MARTYRDOMS AFTER THAT OF JUSTIN. - TIME OF CLEMENT. - ALEXAN
DRIA. - BIOGRAPHY OF CLEMENT.- PANT ENUS. - CLEMIENT'S CONVERSION. - BECOmES HEAD OF THE CATECHETICAL SCHOOL OF ALEXANDRIA.
-WVAS TIIERE IN 211.- DISAPPEARS FRO1I HISTORY. DIRECTION OF
STUDIES IN TIlE ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL. - CLEIMENT'S WRITINGS. - HIS
HORTATORY ADDRESS.
WE hlave been thus far occupied, in great part, with the life
and opinions, and especially the theological opinions, of Justin
Martyr, who lived mostly in Palestine and at Rome where he
suffered.  We must now ask our readers to accompany us to
the land of the Pharaohs,  whither 1" the young child " Jesus
and 6 "his mother" went, - and to Alexandria, its capital.
The time is about the year 200, that is, two centuries after
the infant Jesus was there.  What a revolution had these two
centuries brought about! Fifty years nearly have elapsed
since Justin's death.  During these fifty years the relations
of Christians to the State, and the intense popular hatred
against them, had little changed.  They remained very much
as described at the time of Justin's death.
The martyrdoms under the second Antonine, Marcus Aurelius the philosopher, embraced, besides that of Justin, those
of the aged Polycarp of Smyrna, the martyrs of Vienne and
Lyons in Gaul, and others.  Marcus passed away in A. D. 180,
and with him ended the golden days of the Roman Empire.
His successors, most of them, had a short reign.  "They flitted," says the historian, "like shadows along the tragic scene
of the imperial palace," -"Africans and Syrians, Arabs and
Thracians," -seizing, in turn, "the quickly shifting sceptre




116             CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
of the world."  Septimius Severus obtained the purple in 193;
and the cruel Caracalla, in 211, — his reign ending -with his
death in 217.  Clement, the subject of our present notice,
flourished under the reigns of the two last-named emperors, -
Septimius and Caracalla,- that is, between the years 193 and
217.  Like Justin, lie was a learned man, —tlle mome scholarly of the two; like him, too, he was born and bred in
heathenism, and was an adept in philosophy before he became
a Christian;- his place, Alexandria in Egypt.
Alexandria was at this time the seat of learning and refinement, of wealth and luxury, and the centre of the commerce
of the world. Here we meet the Jewish, the Oriental, and
the Grecian culture, mingled with the old Egyptian supersti-,tions, - all combined in bitter opposition to the religion of
the Son of Mary, now grown to be a thing of might and significance.. Here llad lived and taught the learned Philo.
Here was the celebrated school of the later Platonists.  Here,
too, was the great library of the ancient world, containing, it
is said, four hundred thousand volumes.  Learning was now
passing over to the Christians.  Here was their great school
of theology.  Here now was Clement; and, soon after, the
more famous Origen, a prodigy of learning, and a great genius.
Here, in the city of Alexander, was now congregated all that
was elevated and all that was vile, all that could command
reverence and all that could inspire disgust, - high, dreamy
mysticism  on one side, and the coarsest profligacy on the
other.
The biography of Clement must, from poverty of materials,
be of tile briefest kind.  We will state what is known of hlim;
then look a little at his arguments fbr the truth of Christianity; at his theology, which was not Trinitarian; at the private
and social life of the Alexandrians of his day, so far as it can
be gathered from his writings; and at Clement's idea or conception of the perfect Christian.
Titus Flavius Clemens was -his whole name.  So far as his
personal history is concerned, he is little more than a shadow
seen through the dim mist of ages. A few lines will tell all
that can be gleaned concerning it from himself, Eusebius, Jerome, and other sources. Eusebius the historian, who was inti



HIS BIOGRAPHY.                   117
illately acquainted with the writings of Christian antiquity,
many of which are now lost, wrote in the earlier part of the
fourth century; and Jerome, who was universally learned,
flourished at the end of the same century. The latter, in his
book on "'Illustrious Men,"  devotes but part of a page to
Clement and his writings; and the former is scarcely more
copious; so completely had the materials for anything like a
biography of him perished even in their day.  That he lived
and wrote in the times of Severus and Caracalla (that is, at
the end of the second and beginning of the third century), is
asserted by Jerome; but the time of his birth ani death he
does not tell us, and probably did not know, and history has
preserved no record of it.  The place of his birth is equally
uncertain. Both Athens and Alexandria are mentioned by
different writers, but on no better ground than conjecture.
We have the authority of Eusebius for saying that he was a
convert from Heathenism.  HIis great Christian teacher was
Pantaenus.  To him  he is supposed to refer when, in his
"Stromata," speaking of his instructors, after enumerating
several, - as (if we understand him, for the passage is somewhat obscure) one in Greece, one in Italy, the former from
Ccele-Syria, the latter from Egypt; besides two more, one an
Assyrian, and the other a native of Palestine, by descent a
Hebrew, — he says that the last with whom he met wmas the
first in merit; that he found him concealed in Egypt; and,
having discovered him, he desisted from further search.  Of
him he was a great admirer.  "He was," says Clement, "in
truth, a Sicilian bee, who, cropping the flowers of the prophetic and apostolic meadow, caused a pure knowledge to grow
up in the minds of his hearers." *
Whether he became a convert to Christianity before or
after his acquaintance with Pantenus, he does not distinctly
inform us.  We infer, however, that he owed his conversion,
in part at least, to him.  One thing is certain, -that, after
ranging over all the systems of ancient religion and philosophy,
he became a Christian, abandoning the " sinful service of
Paganism for the faith of the Redeemer," at the age of manhood, and in the full exercise of a free and inquirinquiring mind;
Stromata, lib. i. c. 1; Opp., t. i. p. 322, ed. Potter.




118              CLEMIENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
and thus, like Justin, he furnishes an example of a learned
convert, who became a disciple of the cross from conviction,
in the prime and vigor of his faculties.  No man that ever
lived was better acquainted with the ancient heathen religions,
philosophy, and mythology, than Clement; yet he gave up all
for the simple teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, in which he
found the only religion that satisfied his intellect, and encouraged his soul's best arid highest aspirations.
Of his teachers he preserved an ever-grateful recollection;
and in one of his principal works, the " Stromata," he records,
as he tells us, what he learned from  them  as an antidote
against forgetfulness, and a treasure against old age.  They
received it bv tradition, he says, from the Apostles Peter,
Jarnes, John, and Paul.  He became, first, assistant, and
afterwards successor, of Pantmenus, in the Catechetical or
Theological School at Alexaindria, and was presbyter of the
church there.  He would seem to have left Alexandria during
the persecution under Septimius Severus, about 202.  It is
certain that lie was at Jerusalem, visiting the hallowed spots
there, early in the reign of Caracalla; whence he took a commendatory letter, a fragment of which is preserved by Eusebius, to the Christians of Antioch.  In the letter he is spoken
of as already known to them  of Antioch.  He returned to
Alexandria, and was head of the school there in 211.  He
then vanishes from our sight.  How or where he died, it is in
vain to search.  It was not many years after.
In philosophy, Clement was an eclectic.  "I espoused,"
says he, " not this or that philosophy, not the Stoic, not the
Platonic, not the Epicurean, not that of Aristotle, but whatever any of these sects had said which was fit and just, which
taught righteousness and a divine and religious knowledge,all that, being selected, I call philosophy."
His studies took direction from his position and the demands
of the age.  The school of Alexandria, in his time, required
learned teachers who had received a philosophical education,
and were acquainted with the Grecian religion and culture.
For they had not simply to teach the young the elements of
the Christian faith: they were surrounded by learned Pagans,
some of whom frequented the school; and with these they




CHRISTIANITY AND GRECIAN LEARNING.               119
must discuss great questions in a manner to satisfy the speculative and wisdom-loving Greeks.  If the Jews required a
sign, the Greeks sought after wisdom.  They were speculative; they could not be treated as babes.  Hence the speculative turn which Christian studies took in the Alexandrian
school.  Here, properly, Christian theology first sprang up.
Here was the great battle-field of the old and the new, —
Heathenism  and Christianity.  Here it was, as before said, that
the faith of Jesus - two hundred years after Joseph, taking
"the young child and his mother by night," went down with
them as fugitives into Egypt-  was brought into conflict, hand
to hand, with all the religions, and all the philosophy,,and all
the traditions, of the then ancient world; and, time-hallowed
as they were, and defended by the ablest men, and sustained
by court influence and  the whole weight of the imperial
power, they all fell before the vigorous blows of such champions of the cross as Clement, Origen of the adamantine arm,
and others.  As to the necessity of learning in the Christian
teachers of Alexandria, we may hear what Clement himself
says. There is much truth in what he asserts: "He who.would gather from every quarter what would be for the profit
of the catechumens, especially if they are Greeks, must not,
like irrational brutes, be shy of much learning; but he must
seek to collect around him every possible means of helping his
hearers."
Eusebius, in the sixth book of his History,* and Jerome, in
his short account of "Illustrious Men," have left us a catalogue of Clement's writings; apparently, however, incomplete.
Of these, some are lost; t but we have still the "Hortatory
* ap. 13.
t Of these, the work entitled " Hypotyposes," in eight books, is particularly
to be regretted, on account of the historical information which, according to
Eusebius, it contained; particularly an abridged account of the canonical
writings of the New Testament, together with those then considered as of
doubtful genuineness; as the Book of Jude and the other Catholic Epistles,
as also the Epistle of Barnabas and Revelation of Peter. The tradition relating to the order in which the Gospels were written; to the origin, in particular, of Mark's Gospel; and the purpose of John in writing his, - is given by
Eusebius as a quotation from the "Hypotyposes."  From the same source it
appears that Clement asserted that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by
Paul in Hebrew, and'translated by Luke (Euseb. list., lib. vi. c. 14; also




120                CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
Address to the Greeks," the " Pmedagogue," the " Stromata,"
and a little tract entitled, " Who is the Rich Man that shall
be Saved?" besides a few inconsiderable fragments of other
works. The hymn appended to his works is, to say the least,
of doubtful genuineness.
The " Hortatory Address," in one book, is designed to
recommend Christianity to the reception of the heathen.
Like the other productions of Clement, and most of the productions of the Fathers, it is written with very little attention
to method.  It is not what would now be called a systematic
defence of the divine origin of Christianity; yet it contains
many forcible and striking thoughts, some strains of elevated
sentiment, and some vigorous and animated passages, which
may even now  be read with pleasure and profit.  It was no
difficult task for Clement, familiar as he was with the mythological fables of antiquity, to expose the absurdity of the old
superstitions. The comparison of Christianity with Paganism
in regard to their pervading spirit and tendencies, and especially with reference to the great principles of piety and
morality, could not fail of demonstrating the immense superiority of the former. Of this, Clement and the early apologists
were fully aware; and accordingly they insist very much on
what may be called the moral argument for the truth of Christianity. This they evidently felt to be their strong point; at
least, it was one which, in consequence of the peculiar belief
of the age, they could urge with more effect than any other;
not even excepting that of miracles, the reality of which no
one thought of questioning, but which, as it was supposed,
lib. ii. c. 15). The work, no doubt, embodied several traditions which it
would be desirable to possess. It contained, according to Photius, some
errors of doctrine, or what in his time were esteemed such. In it, he says,
Clement makes the Son a creature; matter he represents as eternal; and he
asserts the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, and says that there was a
succession of worlds before Adam. These and several other doctrines which
he enumerates, Photius says, Clement attempted to defend by quotations from
the Scriptures. That Clement might have held these, and other views mentioned by Photius, however some admirers of the Fathers may be shocked at
the thought, is by no means improbable, as they are found among that assemblage of philosophical opinions which obtained a ready reception in the school
of Alexandria in the tinie of Clement; and many of which, as his writings
show, he incorporated into his theology.




HIS DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY.           121
might be attributed to magic or theurgic art, and therefore
furnished no\decisive criterion of a revelation.
Many of the arguments employed by the Fathers in defence
of Christianity —and by Clement among the rest — appear
to us, at the present day, altogether futile or irrelevant. But
we must recollect the sort of minds they addressed, and the
peculiar prejudices they were compelled to combat. We must
go back to their times, and make ourselves familiar with the
intellectual character and habits of those by whoin they were
surrounded, and fbr whose benefit they wrote. Until we do
this, we are not in a condition to do justice to their merits.
Trains of reasoning, which would have no weight with us,
might be convincing at that day; and faults of taste, a rambling method, specimens of unsound criticism and interpretation, violent and.far-fetched analogies, and instances of
credulity and superstition, which would doom a modern performance to neglect, would give little offence in an age unaccustomed to much order and precision in thinking and writing,
and abounding in all sorts of extravagant opinions.




122              CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
CHAPTER II.
CLEMENT'S THEOLOGY. -nHE DOES NOT ASCRIBE TO THE SON AX DISTINCT
PERSONAL SUBSISTENCE FROM ETERNITY. -MAKES HII ORIGINALLY AN
ATTRIBUTE.- ASSERTS HIS INFERIORITY IN STRONG TERM&S. - ANTIQUITY OF CHRISTIANITY. - INSPIRATION OF PLATO AND THE PHILOSOPHERS. - INFLUENCE OF THE ART OF SCULPTURE AMONG THE GREEKS.
-MAN NOT BORN DEPRAVED.
WE give an extract from  Bishop Kaye's "Account of the
Writings and Opinions of Clement"; which furnishes a good
specimen of Clement's general style of argument, and further
contains his views of the Son, Logos, or Word.  The passage
occurs near the commencement of the "Hortatory Address."
Clement introduces it, fancifully enoughl-l, as was his way, by
an allusion to the fabled power of music among the Greeks,
who taught that Amphion raised the walls of Thebes by the
sound of his lyre, and that Orpheus tamed savage beasts and
charmed trees and mountains by the sweetness of his song.
The Christian musician, or Christ, he says, had performed
greater things than these; for he had " tamed men, the most
savage of beasts"; instead of "leading men to idols, stocks,
and stones," he had "converted stones and beasts into men."
"He who sprang from David, yet was before David, the Word of
God, disdaining inanimate instruments, the harp and lyre, adapts this
world, and the little world man, both his soul and body, to the Holy
Spirit, and thus celebrates God. What, then, does the instrument,
the Word of God the Lord, the New Song, mean?  To open the
eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf; to guide the lame and
the wanderer to righteousness; to show God to foolish man; to put
an end to corruption; to overcome death; to reconcile disobedient
children to their Father. The instrument of God loves man. The
Lord pities, disciplines, exhorts, admonishes, saves, guards, and, of
his abundance, promises the kingdom of heaven as the reward of
learning from him; requiring nothing from us but that we shall be
saved. Think not, however, that the Song of Salvation is new. We




CILEMENTT  S WRITINGS AND OPINIONS.          123
existed before the fbundation of the world, existingl first in God himself; inasmuch as we were destined to exist; we were the rational
creatures of the Reason (or Word) of God; we were in the beginning through the Word, because the Word was in the beginning.
The CWord was from the beginning, and therefore was and is the
divine beginning of all things; but now that he has taken the name
which of old was sanctified, the Christ, he is called by me a New
Song. This Word, the Christ, was fromn the beginning the cause
both of our being (fbr he woas in God) and of our well-being.  Now
he has appeared to men, being alone both God and man, the Author
to us of all good; by whom, being instructed how to live well, we
are speeded onwards to eternal life. This is the New Song, - the
manifestation, now shining forth in us, of the Word, who was in the
beginning and before the beginning. The preexistent Saviour *has
appeared nigh unto us; he who exists in the Self-existent has
appeared; the Word, who was with God, has appeared as our
Teacher; the Word, by whom all things were made, who in the beginning, when he formed us, gave us life as our Maker, appearing as
our Teacher, has taught us to live well, in order that herecafter he
may, as God, give us life eternal.  He has appeared to assist us
against the serpent who enslaves men, binding them to stocks and
statues and idols by the wretched bond of superstition.  He offered
salvation to the Israelites of old by signs and wonders in Egypt and
the desert, at the burning bush, and in the cloud which followed the
Hebrews like a servant-maid. He spoke to them  by Moses and
Isaiah and the whole prophetic choir; but he speaks to us directly
by himself.  Ile is made man, that we may learn from man how man
imay become God. Is it not, then, strange that God slhould invite us
to virtue, and that we should slight the benefit, and put aside the
proffered salvation? " - pp. 11-14.*
Those who will be at the pains carefully to analyze this
passage will perceive, that, though Clement believed the Son
to have existed before the world, and does not hesitate to
bestow  on him  the title God, he is far from ascribing to him
supreme, underived divinity.   The phrases "in the beginning" and "before the world was," and others of similar
import, which Clement, in common with most of the early
Fathers, applies to him, by no means implied their belief that
he had a personal existence from  eternity.  This is evident
* Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria.
Bly John, Bishop of Lincoln. London, 1835. 8vo.




124              CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
from the fact, that, in the passage above quoted, the very same
expressions are applied by him  to the human race.'" We,"
says Clement,'"existed before the foundation of the woild;
existing first in God himself, inasmuch as we were clestihed to
exist."
The Fathers ascribed to the Son a sort of metaphysical or
potential existence in the Father; that is, they supposed that
he existed in him  from  all eternity as an attribute,  hlis
logos, reason, or wisdom; that, before the formation of the
world, this attribute acquired by a voluntary act of the Father
a distinct personal subsistence, and became his instrument in
the creation.  The germ of this doctrine will be found in the
passage above given.
That the Logos was originally regarded by Clement, in
comraon with the other Fathers, as the reason or wisdom of
God, is undoubted.  Like other attributes or qualities, it was
sometimes represented figuratively as speaking and acting.
By a transition not very difficult in an age accustomed to
speculations of the subtilest nature, if intelligible at all, it came
at length to be viewed as a real being or person, having a distinct personal subsistence. Still the former modes of expression were not for a long time wholly laid aside. Traces of the
old doctrine are visible among the Fathers of Clement's time.
Clement himself sometimes speaks of the Logos as an attribute.  He calls the Son expressly " a certain energy or operation of the Father."    And, again, he speaks'of the Logos
of the Father of the universe as "the wisdom  and goodness
of God most manifest," or most fully manifested.t
None of the Platonizing Fathers before Origen have acknowledged the inferiority of the Son in more explicit terms
than Clement.  Photius, writing in the ninth century, besides
charging him, as already said, with making the Son a " creature" (Cod. 109), says that he used other "impious words
full of blasphemy," in a work which has since perished.
Rufinus, too, accuses him  of calling the "Son of God a
creature." *
We might quote numerous passages from Clement in which
* Stromata, lib. vii. c. 2, p. 833, ed. Potter.
t Stromlata, lib. v. c. 1, p. 646.  $ Jerome, Apol. adv. Piifin., lib. ii.




CLEMIENT ON T-IE INFERIORITY OF THE SON.    125
the inferiority of the Son is distinctly asserted.  Thus, after
observing that "the most excellent thing on earth is a most
pious man, and the most excellent thing in heaven an anlgel,"
he adds, " But the most perfect, and most holy, and most
commanding, and most regal, and by far the most beneficent
nature, is that of the Son, which is next to the only omnipotent Father."  He "' obeys the will of the good and omnipotent Father"; "rules all things by the will of the Father";
"he is constituted the cause of all good by the will of the
omnipotent Father." *-" If thou wilt be initiated," that is,
become a Christian, " thou shalt join in the dance around the
uncreated and imperishable and only true God, the VWord
(Logos, Son) of God hlyning with us." t We are astonished
that any one can read Clement with ordinary attention, and
imagine for a single moment that he regarded the Son as numerically identical - one - with the Father.  His dependent
and inferior nature, as it seems to us, is everywhere recognized. Clement believed God and the Son to be numerically
distilct; in other words, two beings, - the one supreme, the
other subordinate, the "first-created of God," first-born of
all created intelligences, and with them, as their elder brother,
hymning hallelujahs around the throne of the one Infinite
Father.
He calls the Son, or Logos, the'image of God," as man
is the "' image of man"; again, his "' hand," or instrument.
He describes God as the "original and sole Author of eternal
life; which the Son," he says, "receiving of God, gives to
us."  He makes the great requisite of eternal life to be, to
"know God, eternal, giver of eternal blessings, and first and
supreme and one and good; and then the greatness of the
Saviour after him"; t according to the declaration of Jesus,'This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only
true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.' "
Clement's views of the Logos had nothing marked or peculiar in them by which he was distinguished from those who
went before; if we except, possibly, the very slight differtnce mentioned in the note below, —too insignificant almost
*Stroomata, lib. vii. c. 2, pp. 831-833.  t Cohort., c. 12, p. 92.
$ Quis Dives salvetur, cc. 6-8, p. 939.




126                 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
for notice.  Those of the present day who talk of the eternal
generation of the Son cannot allege, as authority, the Church
or the Fathers of the first three centuries. They are all on
the other side; * Origen, possibly, excepted.
The antiquity of the Son, or Logos, was a topic to which
Clement and  the  Fathers often adverted; and it should be
observed  that they had a particular motive for this.   One
C,:rat obstacle to the reception of Christianity, and one to the
consideration of which Clement allots no small space, was
custom, prescription.  Christianity, it was urged, was new; a
thing of yesterday; an institution which had suddenly risen
up, and ventured boldly to attack  the time-hallowedl religions
and  philosophy  of the  old world.  To  forsake  these in  its
favor, it was represented, would  be  great impiety.   This
argument the early apologists for Christianity met, partly by
dwelling on the superior antiquity of Moses, from  whom, as
they erroneously contended, Plato and the Grecian sages had
borrowed the most valuable of their philosophical opinions; t
and partly by insisting that these sages derived gleams of
* Neander (History qf Christian Dogqas, p. 144, Bohn) says, that " in Clement we first meet with the attempt to set aside the idea of time in its application to the transition of the Logos into reality."  Justin and others believed
that this transition took place when God was about to proceed to the work of
creation. But the idea of any specific time could be excluded, withlout the
supposition that the transition, called the generation of the Son, took place
from eternity. This neither Clement, nor the Fathers generally, believed.
They could say, that he was begotten without reference to time, or before
time, or the measure of time; but this was very different from referring the
event to eternity, which they never thought of doing. This distinction Neander himself recognizes. Arius, who believed that the Son was created out
of nothing, discarded the idea of time as connected with the event. Some of
the Fathers taught that the Son was begotten when the world lay in chaos.
How they would have expressed themselves had they been acquainted with
the modern science of geology, it is impossible to say.
t This is often distinctly asserted. Thlus Clement, after quoting a sentiment from Plato, proceeds: " Whence, O Platb! did you learn this truth?
Whence that exhaustless affluence of words with which you inculcate the
reverence due to the Divinity? I know your masters, though you would
conceal them. You learned geometry of the Egyptians; astronomy, of the
Babylonians; from the Thracians you received the healing song; Assyrians
taught you many things: but laws (as many as are agreeable to truth), and
the opinions you entertain concerning God, you owe to the Hebrews " ( Cohort.,
c. 6, p. 60). These plagiarisms of the Greek philosophers are a favorite topic
with Clement in the " Stromata."




ANTIQUITY OF CHRISTIANITY.              127
truth immediately from  the same divine Logos, or reason,
which had inspired the Jewish prophets, and which had now
given to the world the clearer light of Christianity.  This
Logos, they asserted, was of old, " in the beginning," before
time was, with the Father; that Christianity, therefore, far
from  being, as was represented, the growth of yesterday,
dated far back in the ages, before the birth of the oldest of
the sages, or the existence even of the world they inhabited.
The wise men of Greece, they said, partook from the same
fountain, but only " shallow draughts."  The Word, Clement
denominates, figuratively, the Sun of the Soul.'" From  this
divine fountain of light," says he, "some rays had flowed
even to the Greeks, who had thereby been able to discover
faint traces of the truth.  But," he adds, "6 the Word himself
has now appeared in the form of man to be our teacher." *
Clement attributes a sort of inspiration to Plato and the
philosophers.  In so doing, he is not singular.  Most of the
early Fathers of the church do the same.  Indeed, the attempt to say or do anything without the inspiration of the
Logos, or Word of truth, they maintained, was as idle as to
think of walking without feet: a figure which Clement uses.
The motive in all these representations, as we have said, was
to prove the superior claims of Christianity, and especially
its claim to antiquity, in refutation of the argument of the
philosophers, overwhelming, as it appeared, to the adherents
of Paganism, that it was the mushroom growth of a day, as
novel as it was arrogant and exclusive.
For this purpose, as we have stated, a twofold argument was
employed: first, that the few scattered rays of truth, which
might be gathered from the writings of the Grecian sages,
were derived from the same fountain as Christianity, in which
the full light beamed; and, secondly, that the Logos, or divine
reason, from which this light emanated, was more ancient
than the worlds, being, in the beginning, with God.  How,
then, could Christianity be described as recent, while the
religions and philosophy it was designed to supplant numbered
centuries?  If there was a little subtilty in this reasoning, it
was at least suited to the genius of the age, and especially to' Cohort. ad Gent., c. 7, p. 64.




128               CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
the speculative Grecian mind.  Such were the weapons Clement wielded; such the defences of Christianity growing out of
the demands of the times.
Clement regarded the art of sculpture among the Greeks
as exerting a debasing influence; for it " dragged down piety
to the ground."  Men adored, he says, according to his apprehension, the material image, and not the Divinity it represented.  The following passage will put our readers in possession of his views on the subject: —
" The makers of gods iworship not, as far as I call understand, gods
and demons, but earth and art, of which the images are composed;
for the image is, in truth, dead matter, formed by the hand of the
artificer.  But our God, the only true God, is not an object of sense,
made out of matter; he is comprehended by the understanding.
Alas for your impiety! You bury, as much as lies in your power,
the pure essence; and hide in tombs that which is uncontaminated
and holy, robbing that which is divine of its true essence.  Why do
you thus give the honor due to God to those who are no gods?
Why, leaving heaven, do you honor earth?  For what are gold and
silver and adamant and iron and brass and ivory and precious stones,
but earth, and from the earth?  Are not all these objects which you
behold the offspring of our mother, the earth?  Why, vain and foolish men, blaspheming the celestial abode, do you drag down piety to
the ground, forming to yourselves earthly gods, and, following these
created things in preference to the uncreated God, immerse yourselves in thickest darkness?  The Parian stone is beautiful, but is
not Neptune; the ivory is beautiful, but is not Olympian Jove.
Matter always stands in need of art; but God needs nothing. Art
comes forth;', and matter puts on a form; the costliness of the substance makes it convertible to the purposes of gain; but the form
alone lenders it an object of veneration. Your statue is gold or
wood or stone or earth.; if you consider its origin, it received its
fobrm from the workman. I have learned to tread upon the earth,
not to adore it; nor is it lawful for me to trust the hopes of my soul
to thincs without a soul."
Again: "But, though the artisan can make an idol, he has never
made a. breathing image or formed soft flesh out of earth.  Who
liquefied the marrow? who hardened the bones? who extended the
nerves? who inflated the veins? who infused blood into them? who
stretched the skin around them? who made the eye to see? who
breathed a soul into the body? who freely gave righteousness? who




CHRISTIAN LIBERTY.                  129
has promised immortality?  The Creator of all things, alone, the
Supreme Artisan, made man a living image; but your Olympian
Jove, the image of an image, far differing from the truth, is the dumb
work of Attic hands." *
Christianity, as Clement taught, left men at liberty to pursue their ordinary occupations; and he expressly mentions
military service along with navigation and agriculture.  His
words are, " Give attention to agriculture, if you are a husbandman; but, while you cultivate the earth, acknowledge
God. Are you engaged in a maritime occupation? navigate
the waters, but invoke the celestial Governor.  Does Christianity find you bearing arms? obey the just commands of
your general." t
We might glean more from the address; but we do not
know that there are any opinions expressed in it, in addition
to those already given, which possess sufficient interest to
authorize a recital.  We will only say, in taking leave of it,
that Clement interprets the Mosaic account of the fall allegorically, supposing that by the serpent is to be understood
pleasure.  He did not believe that man comes into the world
"absolutely depraved"; no one, he thinks, "' commits iniquity
for its own sake "; and the imputation of original sin to children he rejects in the most decided terms.  According to him,
"man now stands in the same relation to the Tempter, in which
Adam stood before the fall."t
Kaye's Clement, pp. 15, 24.         t Cohort., c. 10, p. 80
t See Hagenbach, Text-Book, etc., First Period, ~ 63.




130              CLEMENT OF ALEXCANDRIA.
CHAPTER  III.
CLEMENT'S P DAGOGUE. - HIs PRECEPTS OF LIVING. - SOCIAL LIFE
AMONG THE EGYPTIANS IN HIS DAY. - FOOD. -USE OF WINE. - CONVIVIAL ENTE1RTAINMENTS. - MUSIC. - GARLANDS. - THE LADIES OF
ALEXANDRIA. -THE "' FINE GENTLEMEN."- CLEMENT AS A REFORVIER.
THE " Hortatory Address" is followed by the "'Padagogue," in three books. The object of the " Hortatory Address" was to prove the truth of Christianity, and make
converts from Heathenism. But, being converted, men would
need to be further taught their duty, and the due regulation
of their conduct according to the imoral standard of Christianity; and the design of the " Poedagogue " is to meet this want.
Du Pin calls it a " discourse entirely of morality "; but it is
not a systematic treatise, nor was intended to be such. Barbeyrac finds much fault with it.  He says that " it explains
nothing as it should do; that there is no one duty which it
puts on the right foundation; that the obligations growing out
of the social relations are in no one instance traced to their
true principles, or so explained as to admit of general application." X All this, and much more, no doubt, may be said with
truth; but, in thus stating the defects of the work, it should
occur to us that we are censuring Clement for what he never
attempted, that is, to give to the world a system  of Christian
ethics.  His task was a more humble one, though not, perhaps, less useful.  It was to furnish Christians of his time with
practical rules for the direction of their conduct in ordinary
every-day life. In doing this, he is exceedingly minute, and
often goes into details which are somewhat offensive to delicacy; and many of his precepts and distinctions are ill-founded
or puerile.  But many of them  are just and discriminating,
and must have been found in the highest degree useful to
Christians, situated as believers then were, - living in the
De la M3orale des Peres.




CLEMENT'S PAEDAGOGUE.               131
midst of Pagans, and often uncertain, as they must have been,
how far compliance with existing customs was justifiable, and
where precisely the line of distinction was to be drawn between the manners of the Heathen, and the conduct which
should distinguish themselves as disciples of Jesus.  Nor are
they wholly without interest to us. Taken together, the precepts and' directions whlich Clement has left in the work
referred to show in what he (and we suppose he may be taken
as a fair specimen of enlightened Christians of his age) supposed Christian morality to consist; what was its extent, and
its bearing on common life., -a subject on which minds accustomed to liberal inquiries may be supposed to feel some curiosity.  Further: the work throws no little light on Pagan customs, and modes of living, particularly on domestic and. social
life at Alexandria, at the tilme Clement wrote, that is, at the
commencement of the third century.  In either point of view,
the performance is not devoid of value; and such is the pure
religious tone in which, as a whole, it is written, and the noble
and elevated spirit which breathes through many parts of it,
that no one, even at the present day, can read it without benefit to himself, except by a fault of his own.
By the p66 Pdagogue," Clement understands Christ, or the
Word. The office of Christ designated by this term, it seems,
is not so much to teach doctrines as to give precepts of holy
living; not to unfold those mystical interpretations of Scripture, the knowledlge of which is essential to the perfect Christian, or true Gnostic, as Clement calls him, but by regulating
the heart and life of the convert, to fit him for the reception
of the highest knowledge. This knowledge it is the object of
the' Stromata," the third of the larger works of Clement
which have come down to us, to impart.  Thus the Word, or'
Christ, has three offices: the first is hortatory; he then acts
the part of the pedagogue; and, lastly, that of a teacher.
The pupils of the pedagogue are Christians generally, the
Jews having been his former pupils, whom he addressed
through Moses and the prophets.  These matters are sufficiently explained in the first book of the " Pmedagogue "; and
Clement enters into an argument to show that the justice of
God is not incompatible with his goodness; that the air of




132             CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
severity which the Jewish dispensation appears sometimes to
wear, and the threatenings and chastisements so frequently
occurring under it, do not prove, as some heretics contended,
that the God of the Jews was not also the God of the Christians; for they are parts of a salutary discipline. Punishment,
as Plato taught, is remedial, and souls are benefited by it by
being amended. Far from being incompatible with God's
goodness, then, it is a striking proof of it. For "punishment
is for the good and benefit of him who is punished; it is the
bringing back to rectitude that which has swerved from it."
So Clement argues.  "But," says he, "I do not admit that
God wishes to avenge himself; for vengeance is the retribution of evil for the benefit of the avenger; and he who teaches
us to pray for those who insult us cannot desire to avenge himself."  The discipline God administers through his Son, or
Christ, is various, but all designed for the salvation of men.
Thus the pedagogue adopts at different times different measures, some more mild and others more severe, but all for the
accomplishment of the same benevolent end. "Those who
are sick," says Clement, "need a Saviour; they who have
wandered, a guide; they who are blind, one who shall lead
them to the light; they who thirst, the living fountain, of
which he who partakes shall thirst no more; the dead need
life; the sheep, a shepherd; children, a pedagogue; all mankind need Jesus."
We now turn to the habits of private and social life of the
Alexandrians, a little after the year 200 of our era, as far as
they may be collected from what we may call Clement's precepts of living. In the second and third books of the " Pmdagogue" he goes into some very curious details, from which a
writer who should undertake to portray the social life, and
especially the luxurious habits, of the Alexandrians at the end
of the second century, would derive essential aid. The fidelity of his representations there is no reason for doubting; and
from the prohibitory precepts he delivers, even when he does
not attempt a formal description, much may be inferred as to
the manners of the age; for there is a tacit reference to the
existing state of things, and to the dangers to which Christians
were on all sides exposed in that gay city. Clement is ad



FOOD AND ITS USES.                 133
dressing Christians; but it is not a necessary'inference that
they participated in all the faults and excesses he condemns.
If so, they had been little benefited by their conversion.
That so many cautionary precepts were deemed necessary,
however, if they were not designed especially for the use of
recent converts, may suggest the suspicion, that the prevalent
conceptions of the requisitions of Christianity, regarded as a
rule of life, were somewhat low and imperfect.
Clement first treats of food and its uses.  We should "; eat
to live," he says, and not c" live to eat," - having regard to
health and strength, which are best promoted by simplicity
of diet.  Food is not our business, nor pleasure the end; and
he draws a picture of the gourmand of his day, and gives a
catalogue of the delicacies most prized by him.  The word
agapce,,in some sort sacred, was, it seems, in his tithe applied
to luxurious entertainments, and was made to sanction intemperance: of this he complains as an abuse of which, as it
would appear, Christians were guilty.  His description of an
epicure, with his " eves turnel downward to the earth, always
bending over tables which are furnished from the earth "; and
his account of the conduct of many at feasts, of the 61 eagerness with which they scrutinized the various dishes, and the
ridiculous gestures by which it was expressed "; of the impeded utterance, and other indecencies witnessed, - contain
some graphic touches.  Many of the habits he condemns certainly exhibit great coarseness of manners; and, if we may
credit his representations, an Egyptian entertainment, at the
period alluded to, presented a scene one would not wish often
to witness.  Clement, however, has no narrow and bigoted
notions: for he allows Christians, when invited, to attend the
feasts of the Heathen, and to partake of a variety of food;
observing, in the mean time, the laws of temperance and
propriety.
From  eating, Clement proceeds to drinking.  The " wine
question," as it is called, is not new: it seems, it was agitated
in Clement's day; and, as he is an authority which has been
appealed to in recent discussions, some of our readers may
feel a little curiosity to know his views on the subject more
fully.  We give the following summary and quotations from




134                CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
Bishop Kaye's " Clement "; after which we will add a passage which the bishop has omitted, having an'express bearing
on the controversy as it existed in Clement's time. a We are
not, let it be observed, arguing for or against the use of wine:
we do not enter into any argument on the question; we are
simply, and because it comes in our way, giving Clement's
views as a matter of history.
"' Water is the natural drink of man: this the Lord gave to the
Israelites while they were wandering in the wilderness; thouh,
when they came into their rest, th-e sacred vine brought forbth the
prophetic grape.  Boys and girls ought to be confined strictly to
water: wine heats the blood and inflames the passions.'  Clement
allows only bread, without any liquid, for breakfast or luncheon, to
those who are in the flower of their age.  At supper, he allows wine
in small quantities.'They who are advanced in life may drink
more fieely, in order to warm their chilled blood: they must not,
however, drink so much as will cloud their reason or affect their
memory, or cause them to walk unsteadily.'  These permissions and
restrictions, Clement grounds on medical reasons.  He quotes an
author named Artorius, who wrote on longevity, and said that men
ought only to drink enough to moisten their food.'Wine may be
used on two accounts,- for health and relaxation.'  Wine, drunk in
moderation, softens the temper.  As life consists of that which is
necessary and that which is useful, wine, which is useful, should be
mixed with water, which is necessary.'  t  After describing the effects
of drunkenness, Clement proceeds to refute the opinion of those who
contended that no serious subjects'should be discussed over wine.
He argues, that perfect wisdom, being the knowledge of things human
and divine, comprehending everything in its superintendence of the
human race, becomes, as it were, the art of life; and is always present through the whole of life, producing its proper effect - a good
life.  If, then, wisdom  is driven away firom  our entertainments,
drunkenness follows, with all its train of evils; of which Clement
draws a picture, at once, to use his own expressions, ridiculous, and
exciting pity.  He compares the body of him who drinks to excess
* Clement's expression is, " In the evening, at the time of supper, wine is
to be used, when we have laid aside our more serious studies."  One reason
he assigns is the chilliness of the air, and the failing warmth within, which
requires to be restored. - Pad., lib. ii. c. 2, p. 179.
t "Both," says Clement, " are the works of God; and for that reason, the
mixture of both water and wine is conducive to health." - Pced., lib. ii. c. 2,
p. 180.




THE USE OF WINE.                     135
to a ship absorbed into the abyss of intemperance; while the helmsman, the understanding, is tossed about in the billows, and, dizzy
amidst the darkness of the storm, misses the harbor of truth, steers
towards that of pleasure, and, striking on sunken rocks, makes miserable shipwreck.' Wine may be used in the. winter to keep out the
cold; at other seasons, to comfort the bowels. As we ought to drink
only because we are thirsty, we ought not to be curious about wines.
In drinking, as in eating, we must be careful not to show any indecent eagerness: we must not drink with so much haste as to hiccough,
or spill the wine over our,beard or dress.' Clement observes, that
the most warlike nations were those most given to drinking.  Christians, therefore, a peaceful race, should drink in moderation, as Christ
drank when he was made man for us. In conclusion, Clement
cautions females to be guarded in their manner of driinking, and not
to fall into any indecency.  In this chapter, Clement has borrowed
much from Plato." - pp. 72-74.
Clement enumerates the foreign wines most in repute in his
time, but thinks that native wines oiught to satisfy a temperate
man, and is very decided in his condemnation of all luxurious
tastes and indulgences.   The following passage, already alluded to, stands in connection with those quoted by Bishop
Kaye: "How  do you think the Lord drank, when for our
sakes he became man?  Immoderately as we? not with decorum? not temperately? not considerately? For be assured,"
he adds in opposition to the Encratites, who held wine in
abhorrence, and even substituted water instead of it in the
celebration of the Supper, -" be assured that he also partook
of wine; for he also was man.  And he blessed the wine,
saying,' Take, drink: this is my blood,' -  the blood of the
vine.  And that those who drink should observe sobriety, he
clearly showed; since he taught at feasts, which is the office
of a sober man.  And that it was wine which he blessed, is
again evident from his saying to his disciples,' I will not drink
of the fruit of this vine until I drink it with you in the kingdom  of my Father.'  Moreover, that it was wine which our
Lord drank, again appears from  his observation  respecting
himself, when, upbraiding the Jews for their hardness of
heart, he says,' The Son of man came, and they say, Behold
a gluttonous man and a winebibber, —a friend of publi



136           - CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
rans!' "*  This Clement thinks sufficient to refute the Encratites.
The third chapter of the'  Pmdagogue " is devoted to the
consideration of drinking-cups, furniture, and articles of expensive luxury connected with the table.  "In his food, his
dress, his furniture," says Clement, "a Christian ought to
preserve a decent consistency, according to his person, age,
pursuits, and tile particular occasion."  " Wealth ill-directed,"
he says, is a "citadel of wickedness."   The best wealth is
poverty of desires; and true greatness consists, not on priding
ourselves on wealth, but ill despising it."
Clement treats, in the next chapter, on the proper conduct
at convivial entertainments.  The pipe and the flute he would
have banished from these entertainments, as accompaniments
of unholy revelry; yet lihe does not condemn music altogether,
but allows the singing of praises to God to the lyre and the
harp.
We then have a chapter on "laughter."  Buffoons and
imitators Clement would banish from Christian society, and
whatever would indicate in ourselves a lighllt and frivolous
mind. "We maybe facetious," says Clement, " but must not
lay ourselves out to excite laughter."  What is natural we
must not attempt to eradicate, but only to restrain.  " Man,"
says he, " is a laughing  animal; but he must not always be
laughing.  Like rational animals, we must rightly temper our
cares and anxieties by relaxing ourselves according to rule,
and not by disregarding all rule."' Clement describes the
different species of laughter, distinguishes them  by their
names, and shows how and when it may be proper to indulge
it.  Thus, "we should not laugh in the presence of those
older than ourselves, or whom we ought to reverence, unless
they say something facetious to make us gay. We must not
laugh with every one we meet, or in all places, or with all
men, or at everything."  Yet we must not, he says, wear a
severe and morose countenance. He set a value on cheerfulness.
Clement proceeds in the remaining chapters to treat of
"immodest speech"; of the rules to be observed by those
* Peed., lib. ii. c. 2, p. 186.




GARLANDS, SLEEP, DRESS.                 137
who would conduct themselves generally with propriety; in
doino which, he descends to the minutest particulars: and of
garlands and ointments, the use of which he thinks unnecessary, and to be discouraged, as favoring luxury.  He describes
the several varieties of ointment most in esteem, and says
that the makelrs of them, as well as 1"the dyers of wool,"
were banished from all well-regulated states. " Silly wTomel,"
he says, "anoilt their hair; of which the only effect is to
render them  gray at an earlier period than they would otherwise be."  Flowers placed on the head, in garlands, he considers as perverted from  their natural use.  "' The ancient
Greeks wore no garlands; neither the suitors of Penelope,
nor the luxurious Phleacians, wore them: they were introduced after the Persian'War, and first worn by the victors at
the games."  Again: many of them  were consecrated to
HIeathen divinities; and should not, therefore, says Clement,
be worn by Christians; as the " rose to the Muses; the lily
to Juno; the myrtle to Diana." -  " It was the custom  also,"
he observes,' to crown the statues of the gods; but thile living image of God ought not to be adorned like a dead idol.
A crown of amaranth is reserved for him who leads la holy
life; a flower which the earth is not capable of bearing, and
heaven alone produces."   This conception is preserved by
Milton:
"' With solemn adoration, down they cast
Their crowns inwove with amaranth and gold,
Immortal amaranth! a flower whicll once
In Paradise, fast by the tree of life,
Began to bloom; but soon for man's offence
To heaven removed, where first it grew, there grows."
Paradlise Lost, b. iii.
In another chapter, Clement delivers rules concerning sleep.
The soul, he says, is active during the sleep of the body; and
dreams afford the wisest counsels. Again: in a chapter purporting to be on the married life, he takes occasion to speak
of the proprieties of dress, and particularly female dress; and
enters minutely into a description of a lady's toilet.  He condemns all extravagance, and a disposition to seek "the rare
and expensive in preference to that which is at hand and of
xow price." He will not allow ladies to wear "dyed gar



138              CLEMENT OF ALEXANDI31A.
ments"; but he insists on the use of veils, which must not be
purple to attract the. gaze of men. A chapter follows on covering for the feet, as sandals and slippers, on whichll it was
customary to bestow great expense; and another, on ornaments of gold and precious stones.  On this subject, it seems,
the ladies of Alexandria did not unresistingly submit. They
ventured to argue the case with the holy F'ather.' Wy,"
say they, "should we not use what God has given?  Why
should we not take pleasure in that we have?  For whom
were precious stones intended, if not for us?" This was
bringing the argument home: but Clement found means to
reply, by pointing out the distinction between what is necessary, as water and air, and lies open to all; and what is not
necessary, as gold and pearls, which lie concealed beneath the
earth and water, and are brought up by criminals, who are'set to dig for them."  Other arguments he employs.  But
the advocates for the use of ornaments rejoin, "If all are to
select the common and frugal, who is to possess the more expensive and magnificent?"  To this Clement replies, somewhat obscurely and clumsily, by a reference to what it may be
proper for men to use, if they avoid setting too high a value
on it, and contracting too great a fondness for it.  He concludes the discussion by objecting to particular articles of
fimale ornament, or ornaments of a particular form; that of
the serpent, for example, which was the form under which
Satan tempted Eve, and therefore to be abjured.
The third book of the " Pedagogue " is in a similar strain.
The first question Clement proceeds to discuss is, in what
true beauty consists.  He speaks of the folly of anxiety to
adorn the outward man, while the inward man is neglected;
he dwells on the mischievous consequence of a love of dress,
and inveighs against a multitude of female fashions.  The use
of mirrors especially moves his indignation.  The reason he
assigns against the use of them  is curious enough.  Every
woman who looks in the glass makes her "own likeness by
reflection "; and Moses has forbidden " to make any likeness
in opposition, as it were, to the workmanship of God."' 
- False hair was on no account to be worn by a woman; and one reason
was, that the priest, in blessing her, would lay his hand, not on her head, but
an the hair of another, and, through it, on another head.




MORALS AND MANNERS.                 139
The "' fine gentlemen " of the day are next " served up."
Among other things which Clement could not abide were the
attempts made to conceal the effects of age.  " They think,"
says he, "that, like snakes, they can cast off old age from
their heads, and make themselves young."  For this purpose,
they were accustomed, it seems, to dye the hair; which Clement thought was absolutely intolerable, because it was in direct
contradiction of the Saviour, who said that man could not
make one hair of his head white or black! Clement, too, had
the true Oriental veneration for a beard. He condemns shaving altogether.  "The beard," he says, "is older than Eve,
and the sign of a superior nature."  The number of servants
maintained by the rich, and the sums expended on dogs, monkeys, and birds, is a subject of very grave remonstrance.
The picture le draws of the morals of the day, and particularly of female morals, is really appalling.  Bathing establishments, as conducted at the time, come in for a share of his
censure; justly, no doubt.  The use of wealth is treated of;
and much is said in favor of modesty, frugality, temperance,
and simplicity in habits and dress.  Women are allowed more
liberty in the last particular, as they are compelled to study
dress to please their husbands; but they should endeavor, says
Clement, to bring their husbands to a better mind.  By showing too much attention to ornament, they cast a reflection on
their Creator, as if he had not sufficiently adorned them.
Men are allowed to wear rings only on their little finger. The
emblems on our rings should be a dove, or a fish, or a ship
sailing before the wind, or a lyre, or an anchor; not the figure
of an idol, which a Christian is forbidden to reverence; or a
sword or a bow, ill suited to a follower of peace  or a cup, ill
suited to the temperate; still less a naked figure.  Clement
notices with disapprobation the lounging habits of some in his
time.  "Men," he says, "ought not to waste their time in
shops, in order to look at the females as they pass;" which, it
seems, was the custom of idlers in his day.
We cannot dwell longer on this work of Clement; nor can
we stop to describe the feelings with which one rises from its
perusal. They are certainly feelings of reverence for Christianity, which is here presented, contending as an antagonist




140              CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
principle with deep-seated depravity and *sin. In attempting
to reform the Alexandrians, Clement had undertaken a Herculean labor; and, notwithstanding the puerility and absurdity
of many of his precepts and distinctions, there was a dignity,
a consciousness of strength and moral purity, in his bearing, a
loftiness of aim and earnestness of performance, which must
command the respect and admiration of every honest mind,
and pleads eloquently for the Christian cause.  As writers,
the Fathers have been greatly overrated; the value of their
opinions has been exaggerated: but as champions of Christianity, contending manfully and unhesitatingly with the power
of the whole Pagan  world, the power of the sword, the power
of superstition, wit, and ridicule against them; the champions of a pure and inflexible morality in ages of extreme
degeneracy and corruption; the defenders of a faith which
recognized the principle of human brotherhood as the germ of
all social duty, and inculcated a spirit of self-sacrifice and
benevolence as constituting the only sure test of discipleship;
a faith, under the banner of which they cheerfully met death,
and often a death by violence, and left traces of their toil and
blood on every soil, - no tribute of veneration we can render
them can exceed their merits.  To their spirit of noble courage it is to be attributed, under Providence, that Christianity
was not crushed in its infancy; through them its blessings
have been bequeathed to us; their labors purchased our peace,
their sufferings our consolation, their martyrdom  our hope;
and, to turn on them a look of contempt on account of some
superstitious weaknesses which belonged to the age, or were
the result of their Pagan education, and which, on emerging
from the night of Heathen darkness, they had not the strength
at once to throw off, argues, we think, - if the effect is not
to be ascribed to want of reflection, - a degree either of' illiberality of mind or of heartlessness, which constitutes no enviable distinction.




HIS STROMATA.                    141
CHAPTER IV.
CLE3IENT'S STROMATA' ITS CHARACTER. — MYSTERIES AND ALLEGORIES.
CLEM-TENT'S IDEA OF IHE1 TRUED GNOSTIC, OR PERFECT CHRISTIAN.KNOWLEDGE.  - MOTIVES. - GRAND CONCEPTIONS OF GOD. - PRAYER.
THEn WhOLE LIFE A FESTIVAL. - SPIRITUALITY.
TIrE last considerable work of Clement which lhas escaped
the devouring tooth of Time, and the largest of the three, is
the " Stromnata."  Even this has not" wholly escaped; for a
fragment. is wanting at the beginning, and the last book is
maimed or imperfect. The work is wholly unlike either of
the tNwo preceding.  It is, in fact, a book of miscellanies.
"Peace be with the soul of that charitable and courteous
author, who, for the common benefit of his fellow-authors,
introduced the ingenious way of miscellaneous writing!"
The words are Shlaftesbury's.  We believe, however, that
Clement is not entitled to the honor of inventing the'" miscellany."  Plutarch, it seems, wrote a work, with the title of
" Stromata," before him. Origen, after him, wrote one, which
Jerome quotes by the same title.  The'" Stromata " of Clement is intended to be a sort of repository of choice things.  It
contains a collection of thoughts on a great variety of subjects,
put down with little or no regard to connection or method.
Du Pin compares it to a " Turkey-work carpet "; and Clement himself, to a " garden, meadow, or wood, containing all
sorts of herbs, fruit, flowers, fiom which each one may cull
what he likes.  It resembles," he says in another place, " not
a garden laid out with symmetry to please the eye, but rather
a thick and shady mountain, in which a'multitude of trees (as
the cypress, the linden, the laurel, the apple, olive and fig,
and others) stand in one blended mass.  The confusion which
reigns through it," he says, "' is designed, as he writes partly
for the initiated and partly for the vulgar: for all sorts of
knowledge are not suited to all, and the skilful will be able to
select firom the work what is valuable, and reject the worth



14.2              CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
less; while the unskilful will not be injured by that of the use
of which he is ignorant: just as, in the mountain forest alluded
to, the laborer or adept will know  where to find the trees
loaded with fruit, which will remain concealed from  those who
would rifle them."
The work is divided into eight books.  We are not about
to tax the patience of ourselves or of our readers by attempting to give a minute account of its contents.  The following
subjects among others are introduced in the first book: The
benefits writers confer on their readers; Clement's apology
for making so free a use of the writings of philosophers;
against sophists, and pretenders to useless science; human
arts, not less than a knowledge of divine things, derived
from  God; philosophy, the handmaid of theology; virtue
depends on culture, and is aided by learning; philosophy conducts to Christ and to virtue, -  philosophy not of a particular
sect, but eclecticism; the sophistical and other arts, conversant with words only, useless; human science necessary
to the right understanding of the Scriptures;  we should be
more solicitous to do than to speak well; the wisdom of this
world, and the philosophy which the Apostle commands us
to shun; the mysteries of faith are not to be promulgated to
every one, since all are not fit auditors of the truth; of the
various sects of philosophers, no one possesses the whole truth,
but each a portion of it; succession of philosophers among
the Greeks; Grecian philosophy derived mostly from  the
Barbarians; other arts traced to the same source: in what
sense the Greek philosophers, coming before Christ, may be
called " thieves and robbers-"; how philosophy aids the comprehension of divine truth; the laws and institutions of Moses
more ancient than the Greek philosophy and the sources of
it; the Greeks derived not only philosophy, but the military
art also, from Moses; the Greeks were children in respect to
the Hebrews and their institutions.
The second book treats of various questions relating to faith,
* "It is true," Clement says, "the Apostles were unlearned; but they were
guided by the Spirit. We can only arrive at the right. understanding of the
sacred volume by study and the usual modes of instruction." (See Kaye's
Clement, p. 119.)




MYSTERIES AND ALLEGORIES.               143
its nature and end; of the use made of fear under the Mosaic
dispensation, to which, it seems, Basilides and Valentinus objected; of repentance of two kinds; of hope and fear; of the
manner in which those passages of Scripture are to be understood which ascribe human affections to God; of the laws of
Moses, as tile source whence the Greeks derived their whole
knowledge of' ethics; of other things pilfered by the Greeks
from  the sacred writers; of marriage.  This is defended in
the third book against various heretics, who, for different
reasons, condemned it.
The fourth book contains the praises of martyrdom, with
various observations on Christian perfection, or true Gnosticism; of which, however,' the voluntary offering one's self a
candidate for martyrdom  constituted no part.
The prevailing topic of the fifth book is mysteries and
allegories, in which religious truths have been wrapped up
among almost all nations, being divulged only to the initiated.
" Thus it was," Clement says, "Camong the Hebrews, the
Egyptians, and the Greeks."   Obscurity was sometimes affected to stitmulate curiosity, and excite to diligence.  The
apothegtns of the wise men, of Greece exhibit truth under a
kind of veil, being delivered in a symbolical or enigmatical
dress: as, for example, that communicated by Pythagoras to
his disciples, " not to sail on dry land; " which, according to
Clement, contained a caution not to engage in public life.
Clement, too, instances the Egyptian hieroglyphics, in the
celebrated passage to which the attention of the public has
been directed by recent labors of the learned, and particularly
by the discoveries of Clmampollion.*  The "' Ephesian Letters."
were another example.  This symbolical mode of instruction
Clement regarded as favorable to " sound theology, to piety,
to the manifestation of intelligence and wisdom, and to the
cultivation of brevity."   Truth, he thinks, appears "Lmore
grand and awful" by having'the veil of mystery thrown
around it.  " Symbols also, being susceptible of various inter-,
pretations, exercise the ingenuity, and distinguish the ignorant
man from the Gnostic."  Then, as'before said, lie thinks that
all doctrines ought not to be revealed to all, as all are not
x Stromata, lib. v. c. 4, p. 657.




144              CLEMIENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
capable of receiving them.  There must be milk for babes,
and solid food for grown men. Milk is catechetical instruction,
the first nourishment of the soul: solid food is contemplation,
penetrating all mysteries.  Christ himself imparted secret
doctrines to the few; and "the arcana," or mysteries, says
Clement, "are committed to speech, and not to writing."'
Towards the close of the fifth book, Clement returns with
vigor to his old charge against the Greek philosophers, of
having stolen all that was valuable of what they taught from'
the Hebrew Scriptures; though they had not always the sense
to understand what they stole, and often disfigured it by their
absurd commentaries and speculations.
There is one subject treated of somewhat at large in the
" Stromata," and to which the sixth and seventh books especially are devoted, which, as connected with the history of opinions, is not destitute of interest, and which seems deserving
of a more particular notice.  We are so accustomed to think
and s5peak of the Gnostics as a heretical sect or sects, that it
hardly occurs to us that the term was ever used by the Fathers
in'a good sense.  Yet so it was.  There was the true or
Christian Gnostic, and the philosophical or heretical Gnostic.
Clement attempts to draw a portrait of the former  in doing
which, he gives what, in his view, constituted the beautiful
ideal, or finished conception of the perfect Christian, corresponding to the wise man of' the Stoics, from  which some
features of the portrait are evidently borrowed.
We know not whether we shall succeed in so bringing
togethier Clement's materials as to present to our readers a
distinct irnage on a sufficiently reduced scale.  The task is no
easy one; for, besides that we must study brevity as much as
possible, Clement's description is in many respects loose and
disjointed, and we must collect and unite in juxtaposition the
scattered memnbers as we can.  However, we will do our best.
Who, tlieln, is the true or Christian Gnostic?  To what
does he aim? and how attain the perfection he seeks?  In
what does he differ from  the common believer, in regard to
knowledge, in regard to the motives of action, the desires
and affections, the discharge of the moral and social duties,
* Stromata, lib. i. c. 1, p. 323.




THE TRUE GNOSTIC, OR PERFECT CHRISTIAN.        145
his piety and devotions, and the general complexion of his
life?
The highest point of Gnostic perfection - that at which he
constantly ai]ns, and which is to constitute the consummation
of his felicity in heaven- is the contemplation of God; for
the true Gnostic dwells much in contemplation, and, through
knowledge and love, is to rise at last to the condition of seeing
God face to face. According to an expression of Plato, he
contemplates the unseen God now; and is already, as it were,
an angel, " a god walking in the flesh." He attains not this
perfection at once, but by degrees and through long discipline.
His progress is from faith to knowledge; and knowledge, perfected by love, elevates him to the likeness of God.  His final
state is "perpetual contemplation of God."  In this consists
his blessedness.  The Gnostic soul, in the grandeur of contemplation, " passes beyond the state of the several holy
orders, with reference to which the blessed mansions of the
gods are allotted, and, advancing continually from  better to
better places, embraces, not the divine contemplation in a
mirror or through a glass, but feasts eternally upon the vision
in all its clearness, - that vision with which the soul, smitten
with boundless love, can never be satiated; and enjoys inexhaustible gladness for endless ages, honored by a permanent
continuance in all excellence." *
The Gnostic Christian differs from the common believer in
several respects.  First, in knowledge.  The ordinary Christian has faith; the heretical Christian, opinion: but the true
Gnostic, or perfect Christian, has passed beyond faith and
opinion to knowledge and certainty.  With him, truth, unmixed with error, is a direct object of perception; and he
sees in it all its native lustre. His knowledge, however, is
derived through faith; for faith is the foundation on which the
Gnostic edifice is reared: but knowledge is superior to faith;
and this is his distinguishing possession.  This knowledge
Clement makes almost boundless.  It is "conversant with
things beyond the world, the objects of the intellect, and even
with things more spiritual, which eye hath not seen nor ear
heard, nor had it entered into the heart of man to conceive,
*Stiromarta, lib. vii. c. 3, p. 835; Kaye's Clement, pp. 254, 255.
10




146                CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
until our Teacher revealed the truth concerning them to us.
For we affirm  that the Gnostic knows and comprehends all
things, - even those which pass our knowledge: such were
James, Peter, John, Paul, and  the  other Apostles." *X
"Knowledge is a contemplation by the soul of one or more
existing things, -  perfect knowledge of all."   The Gnostic,
and he. alone, knows God: he comprehends the first Cause,
and the Cause begotten by him, and all revelation of divine
truth from  the foundation of the world.   These revelations
embrace, not only written doctrine, but unwritten tradition,
sometimes called  by  Clement Gnostic tradition, which  was
committed to the above-named Apostles, to be by them communicated  to their successors in the Church.  " It was not
designed for the multitude, but communicated to those only
who were capable of receiving it; orally, not by writing."
This knowledge, Clement says, must be cautiously imparted.
The Gnostic, too, possesses the spiritual and hidden meaning
of the Scriptures, and penetrates the mystical sense of the
Ten Commandments.  HTe is versed in all common learning,
-  arithmetic, geometry, physiology, music, astronomy, and
especially logic; for " though  the  principal end  of man's
creation  is that he  may know  God, yet he  cultivates the
earth and measures it, - and studies philosophy that he may
live, and live well, and meditate on those subjects which admit of demonstration."
K Kaye's Clemnent, p. 192. In another place, Clement says that the true
Gnostic, or perfect Christian, may be numbered with the Apostles. Peter,
James, John, and Paul were the first four, and the greatest Gnostics. The
first three were with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, and were treated
by him with peculiar distinction; and Paul affirms that he received all things
from immediate revelation. The last named was supposed to allude to the
Gnostic tradition or discipline, when he speaks of the wish to communicate
to the Rornans, in person, some spiritual gifts which he could not impart in
writing; and when, addressing the Corinthian converts, he says that he could
not speak unto them as unto spirituals but as unto carnal. In what this esoteric
instruction, in the opinion of the Fathers to be transmitted orally, consisted,
does not clearly appear, except that it pertained to the formation of the Gnostic, or perfect character, and to a more full knowledge of mysteries, and the
spiritual meaning of the Scriptures, than was befitting the common ear.  The
belief of it among the Fathers is to be traced, we conceive, to that strange
mixture of philosophy with religion which took place on the conversion of the
later Platonists to Christianity.




THE TRUE GNOSTIC, OR PERFECT CHRISTIAN.       147
The Gnostic, too, differs from the common believer in regard to the motives of action.  Every action of the Gnostic
is perfect, being performed according to reason and knowledge; those of the common believer, not being so performed,
are of a middle nature; while those of the Heathen are positively sinful, wanting the right motive and object.  The ordinary Christian is influenced by fear, or hope of reward.  Not
so the Gnostic: he does good " through love, and because lie
chooses it for itself." In seeking the knowledge of God, he
has no reference to any consequences which are to flow from
its attainment: " the knowledge alone is the motive of his
contemplation."    " Were the choice proposed to him, either
to know God or to obtain eternal salvation (on the supposition
that the two could be separated), he would choose the former."
Again: i' The Gnostic, if he could obtain permission of God
to do what is forbidden, and be exemplt from punishment; or
if he could receive the happiness of the blessed as a reward
for doing it; or if it even were possible for him to be persuaded that he could escape the eye of God,- would do
nothing contrary to right reason, having once chosen that
which is fair and eligible, and desirable for itself."*  The
distinction is further illustrated in the case of martyrdom,
to which the common Christian submits from fear, or hope
of reward; the Gnostic, or perfect Christian, through love.
There is a difference in actions as "performed through fear
or perfected in love "; and, consequently, the Gnostic will be
more highly rewarded than the simple believer.  Dishonor,
exile, poverty, death, cannot wrest from  him  "liberty and
a prevailing love towards God, which bides all things and
endures all things; for love is persuaded that the Divine
Providence orders all things well."  We pass through fear, by
which we are led to abstain from injustice, and through hope,
by which we aim at what is right, to love, which perfects us,
instructing us through knowledge (gnostically).
Next, as respects the passions and desires. The characteristic of the Gnostic is, not moderation of the passions, but
exemption from them.  He retains those appetites necessary
Kaye's Clement, pp. 169, 170.




148.              CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
to the preservation of the body; as hunger, thirst, and others.*
But passion and desire are wholly eradicated from his breast.
He is not subject to pleasure or pain, to fear or to anger.
" To have passions which require to be controlled, is not to be
in a state of purity."  Even those emotions which have a semblance of good, as "boldness, emulation, joy," are not felt by
the true Gnostic.  Clement will not allow  that the perfect
man desires even good.  He says, in the true spirit of mysticism, that " divine love," by which the Gnostic is distinguished, "is not a desire on the part of him who loves, but
a possession of the object loved. The Gnostic, by love, has
already attained to that in which he is to be: he anticipates
hope through knowledge; he desires nothing, because he already possesses, as far as it is possible, the object of desire." t
The Gnostic discharges faithfully all the moral and social
duties, and is particularly active in doing good.  "His first
object is to render, first himself, then  his neighbors, as good
as possible."  To this end he is ready to instruct them, especially in the way of salvation.  He freely forgives injuries,
and cherishes malice against none.  He freely parts with
money to those who have need.  He adheres inflexibly to
truth and sincerity at every cost.  He refuses to take an
oath, for his whole life is an oath.  From  moderating his passions, and finally from  exemption firom  passion, he advances
to the "well-doing of Gnostic perfection"; and is, "even
here, equal to an angel, -- shining like the sun by his beneficence."
The Gnostic is distinguished for the "surpassing greatness
of his piety;" but his prayers differ in some respects from
those of the common believer.  "The Gnostic alone," says
Clement, "is truly pious, and worships God in a manner
worthy of God."   He has grand and honorable conceptions
of God, to whom he prays in thought, and not with the voice;
for the language of God to him is, 1" Think, and I will give."
* From these appetites the Saviour was exempt, according to Clement.
" He ate, but not for the body, which was held together by a holy power,"
but that he might be regarded by his followers as a real man, and not a man in
appearance only.
t Kaye's Clement, p. 194.




HERETICAL GNOSTICS.                 149
He never fails of obtaining that for which he prays; for he
prays with knowledge and discrimination.  "His confidence
that he shall obtain that for which he asks, constitutes in itself
a species of prayer."  "He prays for the permanent possession of that which is really good, - the good of the soul";
"prays for perfect love"; "prays that he may grow  and
abide in contemplation; prays that he may never fall away
from virtue." "At the same time he prays, he himself labors
after perfection; for he who holds intercourse with God must
have a pure and spotless soul." Prayer, united with righteousness, the Gnostic considers as the "best and holiest sacrifice."
The really holy altar is the righteous soul."   "He does
not," says Clement, "pray only in certain places and at stated
times, but makes his whole life a continued act of prayer. He
knows that he is always in the presence of God; and whatever the occupation in which he is engaged, whether he is tilling the ground or sailing on the sea, lie sings, and gives thanks
to God."  Again  " His whole life is a holy festival; his sacrifices are prayers and praises, and reading of the Scriptures
before meals; psalms and hymns during meals, and before he
retires to rest; prayers again during the night."  He is  the
truly kingly man"; lie is "the holy priest of God."   "He
admits not even in his dreams that which is said or done or
seen for the sake of pleasure.  He neither gratifies his smell
with expensive perfumes, nor his taste with exquisite dishes,
and variety of wines; he renders not his soul effeminate by
wreaths of fragrant flowers." *  Such, according to Clement,
is the perfect Christian, or true Gnostic, as distinguished from
the common believer.
We are indebted to Clement for no inconsiderable part of
the knowledge we possess of the several sects of heretical
Gnostics. But we have, at present, no space to devote to
these sects, were we disposed to enter on the subject.  Of all
the heresies which sprung up in the bosom of the early Church,
Gnosticism, from the conspicuous part it long played, the loftiness of its pretensions, the learning and skill of several of its
chiefs, and the traces it left behind, and which remained long
See Kaye's Clement, pp. 211-213, 247-249.




150               CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
visible after the system  itself had crumbled away and disappeared, furnishes most matter of curiosity and wondler, and
presents the strongest claim  to the attention of the philosophical inquirer. Some of its fables have a charm for us.
In their oririn, the Gnostics were the purists, the spiritualists,
the dreamers, of their day: but, in their speculations, were
wild, hardy, reckless; yet, withal, dogmatists of the first
water.  They occasionally delight us with ingenious fictions
and beautiful and significant allegories; but, in our attempts
to follow them, we soon find ourselves involved in intricate
and precipitous passes, over which broods a darkness that may
be felt.
We conclude with a quotation which might, perhaps, have
been more appropriately introduced in connection with the
passage, a part of which we extracted in our second chapter,
in wllich Clement compares Jesus Christ, and the effects he
wrought, to the Grecian Orpheus and his wonder-working
music.*  The language and the sentiment of the quotation, in
themselves sufficiently remarkable, will present, to those who
are fond of tracing  analogies and resemblances, mhatter of
somewhat curious speculation, from their coincidence, singular
enough if accidental, with those of the old Father.  In truth,
the wayward and fantastic genius to which we owe that unique
work, " Sartor Resartus," — for from  that we quote,   has
but given us Clement in a different dress.  "Were it not
wonderful," this is its language, "for instance, had Orpheus
built the walls of Thebes by the mere sound of his lyre?
Yet tell me, who built these walls of WVeissnichtwo, summoning out all the sandstone rocks to dance along from the Steinbruch (now  a huge troglodyte chasm, with frightful, greenmantled pools), and shape themselves into Doric and Ionic
pillars, squared ashlar houses, and noble streets?  Was it not
the still higher Orpheus, or Orpheuses, who in past centuries,
by the divine music of wisdom, succeeded in civilizing mall?
Our highest Orpheus walked in Judea, eighteen hundred
years ago.  His sphere-melody, flowing in wild native tones,
* The comparison (of Christ to Orpheus) appears also in works of Christian art. Thus in the Catacombs, Christ is represented in paintings in the
form of this old master of song, holding the lyre in his hand.




CHRIST AND ORPHEUS.                151
took captive the ravished souls of men; and being, of a truth,
sphere-melody, still flows and sounds, though now with thousand-fold accompaniments and rich symphonies, throughll all
our hearts, and modulates and divinely leads them." e
" Pp. 264, 265.




ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
CHAPTER I.
THE ALEXANDRIAN THEOLOGY. - BIIRTI AND PARENTAGE OF ORIGEN.HIs CHILDHIOOD. - HE PANTS FOR THE HONORS OF MARTYRDOI. -
RtEDUCED TO 1)OVERTY, AND BECOMES A TEACIER.- AT TnIE HEAD OF
THE CATECIIETICAL SCHOOL.- HIS SELl - DENIAL. -- HIs STUDIES.BIBLICAL CRITICISM. - WORTH OF SECULAR LEAARNING.
WE must detain our readers a little longer in the land of
the Pyramids and the Nile, whither we recently went to pass
a little tilne in companionship with Clement, contemplating
the state of things there at that period, and looking at his
defences of Christianity and his theology, at the habits and life
of the Alexandrians of his day, and at his idea or cornception
of the perfect Christian. We alluded to one of his pupils, -
a greater than he. This was Origen, one of the most eminent of the early Fathers, not only for his intellectual gifts and
attainments, but also on' account of the influence of his opinions on subsequent ages, and the violent controversies to which
they gave rise, — controversies which continued down to modern times.  He had a brilliant reputation in his day, and his
substantial merits and the prestige of his name entitle him to
a prominent place in Christian biography.  What was said
in connection with Clement of the speculative character of the
Greek mind, and the condition of theology at Alexandria, late
in the second and early in the third centuries, must be borne
in mind by those who would comprehend fully the position,
labors, and merits of Origen.  The materials for hlis life are
far more copious than for that of Justin Martyr or ( lement.
Origen, cealled Adamnantius, or tile Adamantinr  from his
"'iron diligence" and almost incredible labors, ol as others




HIS YOUTH.                     153
say, fiom the irrefragable strength of his arguments, was a
native, as is generally supposed, of Alexandria, - certainly
of Egypt.  Unlike Justin and Clement, who were born and
educated Heathens, he was of Christian parentage.  He was
born in the year 185 or 186; and, while yet a child, exhibited that patience of labor, inquisitive spirit, and ardor, which
marked the future man.  He was an example of extraordinary
precocity, which led Jerome to call him a "great man from
his infancy." His father was Leonides, an earnest Christian,
and, as we are told, a teacher of rhetoric. He gave his son a
thorough literary education, instructing him in the rudiments
of the sciences, but especially directing his attention to a study
of the Scriptures, a portion of which he every day committed
to memory, often perplexing his father with deep questions
about the sense. For this, the father made show of chiding
him, and told him that he must remain satisfied with the plain
and obvious meaning of what he read, and not engage in
researches beyond his years. But the overflowings of parental
affection could not be repressed; and the happy father, restrained by a sense of duty to his child from manifesting all.
he felt, was accustomed to avail himself of the opportunity,
while he slept, of repairing to his couch; and, bendingl over
him, would kiss his breast, in reverence for the divine spirit
which lay enshrined there.
Eusebius, who has preserved some notices* of his life,
gathered, as he informs us, partly from his letters and partly
from the reports of his pupils (of whom some still survived to
his day), dwells at some length on the evidences of piety and
zeal in the cause of Christianity exhibited by the youthful
Origen.  He was warm and enthusiastic; and, even in. childhood, the zeal of a martyr burned in his breast.  Persecution
now raged at Alexandria, and it was with difficulty that he
could be prevented from imperilling his life. When ]is father
was thrown into prison, he was eager to go and die with him;
and was prevented, at last, only by a stratagem of his mother.
Alarmed for his safety, she used every method of remonstrance
and entreaty to inspire him with reserve and caution. In vain
she urged a mother's love. In despair of other means, she at
* Hist. Eccles., lib. vi.




154            ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
last resorted to the artifice of hiding his clothes; in consequence of which, he was compelled to remain at home. Thus
debarred the privilege of visiting his father in prison, he composed and sent him a letter full of noble and elevated sentiments on the subject of martyrdom, and especially urging him
to constancy. The letter has perished; but a single sentence
of it, preserved by Eusebius, sufficiently indicates the strain in
which it was written.  "Beware that you do not change your
purpose on account of us! "  Leonides remained firm; and
by his death (A. D. 202), and the confiscation of his goods
which followed, Origen, at about seventeen years of age, with
six brothers and his now widowed mother, was reduced at
once to extreme poverty.*  How the mother and younger
children fared; how they struggled through and finished the
great battle of life, - serious to them as it has been to multitudes since, - we are not told.  They are now dropped from
the narrative, vwhich follows the fortunes of the eldest son.
A youth of such promise - ardent, noble, and full of aspiration-could not be long without friends.  A lady of great
wealth and high standing at Alexandria received him to her
house, and generously provided for his wants. But she had
another guest (one Paul of Antioch), whom she had adopted
as her son, and whom  she allowed to give lectures in her
house. He was a mall of some celebrity, accordingc to Eusebius; but, unfortunately, an arch-heretic.  Yet such were the
charms of his eloquence, that his society was generally sought;
and multitudes pressed to hear his discourses, -heretics among
the rest. But Origen, having been from a child i" sound in the
faith " himself, and " abominating all heretical doctrines," says
the historian just referred to, could never be induced to unite
with him in prayer.t  In truth, he could not endure the man,
who was probably a Gnostic. Whether his aversion to Paul
induced him voluntarily to withdraw, or his departure is to be
attributed to some other cause, certain it is, that he soon left
his patroness, and supported himself by teaching grammar and
the studies connected with it, to which he added instruction in
Christianity to such of the Pagans as desired it. For this task
he was well qualified by the pious care of his father and his' Jerome, De Vir. lllust., c. 54.  t Hist., vi. 2.




HIS SELF-DENIAL.                  155
own studious habits, and from  having been, when a boy, a
pupil of Clement, who for several years presided over the
Christian School at Alexandria, with  no  ordinary fame.
Clenment, however, had now retired or been driven from  the
province; and the most eminent Christians having been put
to death, or dispersed by the terrors of the persecution, the
catechetical chair remained vacant.  At this time, Origen,
being now in his eighteenth year, consented to occupy it,*
surrountled as it was with dainger; and was afterwards, as
Jerome informs us, confirmed in the offiee of catechist by Demetrius, his bishop. -  Of his early pupils, several, in a short
time, obtained the lionors of martyrdom, - some while yet
receiving the rudiments of Christianity.  Among the latter
was a female by the name of Herais, who, to use Origen's
expression, "received baptism by fire."
That the youthful and ardent Origren escaped with his life,
appears almost miraculous; for his labors in the cause of
Christianity were open and unremittecl.  He continued to
make converts; and, when they were apprelhended and thrown
into prison, he sought them  out, and afforded them the consolation of his presence and conversation.  Tie sonietimes
followed them  to the place of execution, and was with them
in their last moments.  His boldness, indeed, seems to have
been near costing him his life.  He became an object of popular hatred, on account of the number of converts who resorted
to his standard.  For a timne, he was hotly pursued: lihe fled
from lhouse to house for shelter; and, as Eusebius seems to
intimate, was compelled to leave the city.  If so, however, his
absence was short. His sufferings served only to fan the flame
of his piety; and the multitudes Nwho were eacger to listen
to his eloquent expositions of the Christian faith daily augmented.  About this time, he broke up hIis grammar-school,
finding that his attention to his pupils interfered with his dlevotion to sacred learning, and with his duties as a teacher of
religrion.  He also sold his library of Heatllen authors, which.s said to have been choice and extensive, for an annuity of
about fivepence a day, to be paid by the purchaser.  On this
he subsisted for many years; subjecting himself to fatigue and
* Euseb. Hist., vi. 3.    t De Vir. 1llust., c. 54.




156            ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
labors during the day, and consuming the greater part of the
night in study. He often slept on the earth, disdaining the
effeminacy of a bed.  He interpreted rigorously, to the letter,
some of the precepts of our Saviour, which have beeli generally considered as either local and temporary, or as requiring to be somewhat modified in their application to practice.
Among them were those in which lie exhorts his disciples, as
Eusebius expresses it, not to have two coats, nor to wear
shoes.  Another instance of his absurd compliance with the
letter of the command, for which he afterwards blamed himself, is sufficiently well known. In fact, lie imposed on himself
the most severe restraints; going barefooted for many years,
and abstaining from wine and all generous food.  His friends
were alarmed for the consequences, and b)egged him, with tears
and grief for his apparent misery, to accept of their substance
for the supply of his wants; but he persevered till symptoms
of impaired health at length convinced him of his folly and
danger.*
His ascetic and "philosophical course of life," as it is called,
contributed to heighten the effect produced by his fervid genius
and eloquence; and he obtained an unbounded popularity and
influence.
At what period he listened to the instructions of Ammonius
Saccas, the celebrated Platonic philosopher, we are not informed. It was probably not until some time after lie had
entered on his labors as master of the Catechetical Schlool.
That he was for some time his pupil, is expressly asserted by
Porphyry, as quoted by Eusebius,t and may be inferred from
a letter of Origen himself, part of which is preserved by the
same historian.  Among the disciples of Ammonius, however,
there appears to have been another of the same name, who, as
is generally admitted by the best modern critics, has been improperly confounded with Origen Adamantius.  Tlhe latter
had, no doubt, acquired a partiality for the Platonic philosophy,
as then taught in Egypt, under his early preceptor, Clement.
This partiality was confirmed in the school of Ammonius; from
whom, and from the writings of Plato and other philosophers,
which were now constantly in his hands, having imbibed, says
* Euseb. Hist., vi. 3.             t Hist., vi. 19.




HIS HEBREW STUDIES.                157
Porphyry, the "allegorical mode of explaining the Grecian
mysteries, he applied it to the Jewish Scriptures."   Of his
proficiency in the Platonic and Ammonian philosophy, however, and the unnatural and absurd expositions of the language
of the Bible to which he and his fellow-laborers resorted in
order to reduce its doctrines into harmony with that corrupt
and fanciful system, we have testimony less exceptionable than
that of Porphyry.  But we' shall have occasion to advert to
this topic hereafter, especially in treating of the opinions of
this celebrated Father.
After the death of Severus, Origen allowed himself the relaxation of a journey to Rome; having a desire, as he expresses
it, to "see the most ancient church of the Romans."  This
journey, as Eusebius and Jerome inform us, took place while
Zephyrinus was Bishop of Rome; that is, some time before
the year 219. After a short stay, he returned to Alexandria,
where he resumed his duties as catechist.  Soon after this, the
increasing multitude of inquirers and pupils  by which he
was continually surrounded firom morning till evening - made
it necessary for. him to engage an assistant.  The person appointed to the office was Heraclas, formerly Origen's pupil, his
fellow-student under Ammonius, and afterwards Bishop of
Alexandria. Origen continued to give instruction in the more
recondite doctrines to the higher classes, the task of teaching
the simpler and more elementary principles being committed
to his associate; awhlo still, however, as Jerome tells us, continued to wear the philosopher's garb.
From this time, Origen devoted himself with great ardor to
the study of the sacred writings; and, as a preparatory step,
set about acquiring a knowledge of the Hebrew language.
He is mentioned as the earliest among the Fathers who
attempted to obtain an acquaintance with this language; and
by "'what lie did in it," says Jerome, "'acquired fame all
over Greece."  The taste of his nation and age opposed a
barrier to acquisitions of this sort.  The Hebrew language
and literature bore among the Greeks the epithet barbaric;
but Origen had the courage, in this instance, to despise the
silly prejudices of the times.  Though he never appears to
have become a profound critic in Hebrew, and his knownledge




158             ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
Of it, compared with that of more modern scholars, was superficial and scanty, yet, taking into view the character of the
age, we must allow  that. his efforts entitle him  to no mean
praise.  With him  originated what has since been called the
science of biblical criticism.  The Greek version of the Seventy, as it was called, was to Christians of his time what the
English version of Kin(r J~ames's translators is to comlmon
Christians of the present day.  But errors had crept into the
text; alld Origen, as we sliall hereafter see, applied his knowledge of Hebrew, whatever it was, to the very laudable purpose of removing them.  Tlhis was the origin of the "ltiexapla," for which lie probably began to collect materials about
this time.
The fame of Origen was now wide-spread; and it drew
around him, as we are told, a multitude of heretics, and not
a few Gentile philosophers, some of them men of repute: for,
besides divinity, he at this time taught geometry, mathematics,
and all parts of secular learning, embracing the tenets of the
various philosophical sects; thlroulh which lie conducted his
hearers, commenting' on the most distinguished writers of each
sect, anti explaining the principles of all.  He thus obtained
the reputation of a philosopller among the Pagans.  He was
an advocatedfor the study of philosophy and secular literature,
thinking that they formed a good preptlration for the investigation of divine truth.  He therefore cheerfullly received all
who applied to him  for instruction; hoping, while teaching
them  human science, to be able to convert them to the faith
of Jesus.  In this benevolent design lie often succeeded.
Many who afterwards became celebrated  teachers of the
church proceeded firom his school, having been first won over
to Christianity by his persuasive eloquence.
His devotion to philosophy (lid not escape censure.  In a
letter, le justifies his attention to secular learning, on the
ground of its utility; for as many heretics and others, skilled
in the Grecian philosophy, resorted to him, it seemed desirable,
and almost a matter of necessity, that he should thoroulghly
investigate the principles of the several philosophical sects.
He, moreover, appeals to examples; and, among others, to
that of Pantmnus,. formerly president of the Catechetical




SECULAR. LEARNING.                 159
School.  The taste for philosophy, thus introduced, was destined not to be soon extinct. A controversy for some years
existed between the friends and enemies of philosophical
studies but the advocates of philosophy triumphed; and the
consequence in this instance was, that the simplicity of the
Christian faith was corrupted, and an infinity of errors flowed
into tile Church.




160            ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
CHAPTER II.
INFLUENCE OF AMBROSE. - ORIGEN'S IMMENSE LABORS. - HIS ARABIAN
JOURNEY, AND VISIT TO PALESTINE. —RECEPTION BY THE 1PALESTINIAN
BISIOPS. - ANG:IR OF DEMETRIUS. - ORIGEN'S JOURNIEY TO GREECE,
-ORDAIN,:D IN PALESTINE. — DEIETRIUS CAUSES HIM TO BE DEPOSED
AND EXCOMMUNICATED. - DEATH OF DI)EMIETRIUS.
AMONG Origen's philosophical converts was the Gnostic
Ambrose, whose acquaintance, soon ripening into the warmest
friendship, was destined to exert a marked influence over his
future pursuits.  Ambrose was a man of wealth and iank.
He was, says Jerome, " of a noble family, and of no mean and
inelegant genius, as his letters to Origen testify."  Eusebius
calls him a Valentinian; others, a Marcionite; but, becoming
a hearer of Adamantius, he was soon converted by him to the
true faith, and afterwards greatly assisted in promoting his
biblical studies.  Ile devoted his wealth to his service in the
purchase of manuscripts.  Ile also furnished him with mhore
than seven scribes, who should relieve each other as his amanuenses; and as many others, besides girls, who should transcribe in a fair hand what the first had hastily written from
dictation.  Origen calls him his " work-driver."  His admiration of Origen was unbounded; and lie urged him to consent
to the publication of his writings, for the benefit of the world.
Origen, all this time, was undoubtedly overworked.  The
zeal of his friend he did not wish to outstrip his own.  In a
letter, he says that the collation of manuscripts left him  no
time to eat; and that, after meals, he could neither go out nor
enjoy a season of rest. Even the nighllt, lie says, was not
granted him  for repose.'His mind was tasked every hour.
Along with the collation and correction of manuscripts procured him by the wealth of his friend, his "work-driver," he
was writing commentaries, afterwards published, on the Old
and New  Testament, and producing other works; among
which was that entitled " Of Principles," in which lie mixed




HIS POPULARITY.                 161
up with Christian truth some wild philosophical speculations
or Platonic extravagances, which afterwards, when the tide
partially turned against him, gave him some trouble. He
subsequently, in a letter to Fabian, Bishop of Rome, affirmed
that there were some things contained in the book which he
no longer approved, and that the work was published by his
friend Ambrose against his will.  Origen was a hasty writer,
of a awarm  and prolific imagination; and, throwing off his
productions at a heat, would be very likely to say things
which his calmer judgment might condemn.
At this moment, his fortunes seemed at full tide.  No
voice appears to have been lifted against him, and his fame
was filling all Christendom.  Honors were ready to drop on
his head; but, at the same moment, there was stirred up a
spirit of envy and hatred; and he was about to taste the bitter
cup of persecution, presented by Christian hands.  Of this
cup he drank copiously during his life; and, ages after his
death, the storm of controversy beat on his memory, which
was tossed, as it were, on a raging sea that knew no rest.
The prelatical zealots were prepared to attack him; but private passions hastened the conflict.
There is one incident, however, we must mention, before
we proceed to notice the effect of these passions, - Origen's
Arabian journey. This was undertaken in compliance with
letters from an Arabian prince, to whose ears his fame had
penetrated.  They werebrought by a soldier, and addressed
to Demetrius, his bishop, and to the Governor of Egypt,
requesting that Origen might be sent to him to explain the
Christian doctrines.  This task accomplished, he returns to
Egypt.*
The cruel Caracalla now filled the throne of the Coesars;
and having, as he conceived, some cause of displeasure against
the Alexandrians, he resolved on their destruction, and unknown multitudes were slaughtered.  Origen, finding his
residence there now unsafe, yields to his long-cherished desire
to visit his friends in Palestine, especially his old friend and
fellow-student Alexander, now Bishop of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus, Bishop of Coasarea. Here he took up his abode for a
+ Euseb. Hist., vi. 19.
11




162            ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
time. ie was received with demonstrations of great respect,
and was urged by the bishops to preach and expound the
Scriptures publicly in their presence.  With this request he
complied, though he had not yet received ordination.  This
moved the wrath of Demetrius, the Alexandrian bishop, who
was full of hierarchical pride, and was jealous of the brilliant
fame of Origen; and he writes letters of remonstrance to the
Palestinian bishops. It was irregular, he said, nay, was unheard of, that a layman should preach in the presence of bishops. The bishops of Palestine are not intimidated. They
write back to him  of Alexandria, telling him that he is in
error, and specifying several instances which might be adduced
in justification of themselves and of Origen.  Demnetrius is
obliged to be quiet; but the arrow  rankled in his breast.
Origen is soon after recalled to Alexandria, and is allowed to
resume his catechetical labors and his commentaries.  He was
at this time a little over thirty years of age.
Origen's next journey was into Greece; whitler he was
sent for the purpose of counteracting the designs of certain
heretics then in high repute there.  On his way, lie visited
Palestine; and while there, wholly unsolicited on his part, the
bishops of Jerusalem, Cssarea, and others of the province,
ordained him  presbyter, at the age of about forty-three or
forty-four.  Demetrius was outrageous at this second act of
disrespect and insult, as he regarded it, to himself. Origen
pursues his journey, during which he visits the schools of
philosophy at Athens, and converses with the eminent sages
found there.  It was probably during this journey that he
had the interview, mentioned by Eusebius, with Mammaea,
mother of the emperor, Alexander Severus.  Mamnicm a has
been considered a Pagan; yet, being at Antioch, she felt a
curiosity to see and converse with a man of whom she had
heard so much; and she sent a military guard to insure his
safety, and escort him to her presence.*
But he had now to return to Alexandria, and face his bishop,
the angry Demetrius, who could never forget nor forgive the
Palestinian ordination. No reconciliation can be effected; and
Demetrius soon after assembles a synod, composed of his own
* Euseb. Hist., vi..21; Jerome, De Vir. Illust., c. 54.




HIS EXCOMAIUNICATION.                163
presbyters and of other Egyptian bishops, who proceed. to deprive Origen of the rank of presbyter, and prohibit him from
ever after exercising the office of teacher in the Alexandrian
church.  Origen remains awhile at Alexandria, then bids
adieu to the city forever, and takes refuge with his friends in
Palestine.  But the hatred of Demetrius still pursues him.
Turning over the writings of Origen, especially his book 1" Of
Principles," just referred to, lie now snuffs, or affects to snuff,
the taint of heresy in some of the writer's idealistic speculations; on which he assembles a larger synod of Egyptian bishops, who cut off Origen from. the communion of the Church,
and issue against him a violent invective.
Behold now the most celebrated sch6olar, biblical critic, and
commentator of his times, —  who knew more than all his persecutors combined, and performed more labor in the cause of
Christianity than any dozen of them  put together, — behold
him  now an excommunicated man.  His heresy served well
enough for a pretext; but it was not the cause of his persecution at this time.  Hear what the very learned and orthodox
Jerome says on the subject, about a hundred and fifty years
after Origen's death.  Alluding to the proceedings against
him at Alexandria, he says that lie was condemned, " not on
account of the novelty of his dogmas; not on account of heresy, for which he is now barked at by the rabid dogs; but
because they could not endure the fame of his eloquence and
learning." *
Demetrius wrote letters to the bishops everywhere, loading
Origen with execrations, and endeavoring to render hlis name
a byword and a reproach in all Christian lands.  But this was
more than he could accomplish.  It is true, the West, generally, declared against him, - even Rome itself; such was the
deference shown at that time to tlhe see of Alexandria.  But
the Bishops of Cmesarea and Jerusalem, as also those of Arabia,
Phbenicia, and Greece, the old friends of Origen, still adlhered
to him, despising the anathemas of the synods of Ecgypt.  In
these several provinces, Origen was still allowed to discharge
the functions of priest.
Demetrius did not long survive to enjoy his triumphs or
~ Epist. 29, ad Paulam.




164            ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
mourn over his defeat. He died soon after Origen had bidden
adieu to Alexandria, and was succeeded in the bishopric by
Heraclas, who was promoted to that office, as Eusebius tells
us,* on account of his deep knowledge of Pagan literature and
philosophy; a circumstance which shows the esteem in which
secular learning was then held by the Alexandrian Christians.
Heraclas, we have said, was the pupil and friend of Origen;
and he had succeeded him, before lie was made bishop, in the
Catechetical School. But, notwithstanding his regard for his
old preceptor, - now the most celebrated man of the age,
the sentence of excommunication pronounced against him by
the synod was not revoked during his life; nor by his successor, Dionysius, also one of Origen's scholars; and Origen
was ever, therefore, regarded by the Egyptians as an excommunicated person.
The reasons for his excommunication, and the sole reasons,
are given above. He was charged with no immorality.  The
story, set afloat some time after, that lie had consented in an
evil hour to offer incense to idols, and that the contempt and
ridicule which this act of wickedness brought on him compelled him to leave Egypt, is entitled to no credit. It is
related by Epiphanius, a very credulous writer of the fourth
century; and seems to have been invented by the enemies of
Origen, some years after his death. The story is in itself, and
in the several circumstances which attend it, highly improbable; it is alluded to by none of the more ancient writers,
even those most hostile to the fame of Origen, and is utterly
at variance with the testimony of Eusebius, Jerome, and other
writers entitled to most respect.  There is a better anecdote
related of him by Epiphanius.  At a certain time, the Pagans
seized him, and, dressing him up in the robes of a priest of
Serapis, conducted him to the steps of the temple. They then
put palm-leaves into his hands, commanding him to present
them to those who entered.  He accepted the offerings; but
on presenting them boldly said, "Accept not the idol's palm,
but the palm of Christ."'
E Euseb. Hist., vi. 31.    t Epiphan. Itcer., lxiv. 1.




RETIRES TO PALESTINE. -  NEW  PUPILS.            165
CHAPTER III.
D)RIGEN  RETIRES TO PALESTINE.  NEW  PUPILS. - His CRITICAL AND
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES. -IMPRISONED, AND PUT TO THE RACK. -DIES
AT TYRE.- His GENIUS AND CHARACTER.- QUESTION OF HIS SALVATION. -MERITS AND DEFECTS AS A WRITER, CRITIC, AND EXPOSITOR.
ORIGEN left Egypt soon after the year 230; when a little
more than forty-five years of age. He retired to Coasarea in
Palestine, where he continued to preach with the approbation
of the bishops of the province. Here, as in Egypt, a crowd
of young men gathered around him, who, warmed by his
enthusiasm and instructed by his learning, afterwards became
eminent teachers in the church.  Among them were Gregory,
called  Thaumaturgus, the Wonder-worker, and  his brother,'
Athenodorus. They are described by Eusebius as having
been passionately fond of the Roman and Greek learning.
The former was engaged in the study of the Roman law, at
Cwesarea, where he became acquainted with Origen; by whose
winning eloquence he was induced to abandon it, and transfer
his affections to divinity. He was accompanied by his brother.
They remained five years with Origen; and afterwards became, while yet young, bishops in Pontus, their native country.* Thus was Origen's expulsion from Egypt the means of
exalting his fame and extending the sphere of his usefulness.
* Thaumaturgus has left sufficient testimony of his veneration and love of
Origen, in a " Panegyrical Oration " which he delivered on his departure; a
somewhat extravagant and inflated performance, but interesting from the subject, and the occasion on which it was delivered. It was pronounced, it
seems, in the presence of Origen, and is a lofty encomium on his merits;
written, however, with warmth, and apparently with great sincerity of feeling. The circumstances which led to the first interview of his pupils with
him, his efforts to detain them, his bland and insinuating eloquence, his animated description of the nature and end of true philosophy, his praises of it,
his benignant temper, his urbanity and modesty, by all which their admiration was awakened and their affections won; their resolution to abandon their
former studies, and remain with this fascinating man; the method he pursued




166              ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
Origen now pursued his design of writing commentaries,
being engaged, as Eusebius tells us, on Isaiah and Ezekiel.
The latter were finished some time after at Athens.  He had
previously, as we have seen, while at Alexandria, writtenl his
book " De Principiis "; to which we may add his " Stromata,"
in imitation of Clement; and parts of his expositions on Genesis and on the Gospel of John.*
During the persecution under Maximin, A. D. 235, he appears to have consulted his safety by withdrawing himself from
Palestine. It was at this time, probably, that he accepted the
invitation of Firmilian, Bishop of Cmesarea in Cappadocia, to
visit that place.  He remained there some time, employed on
his " Hexapla."  For two years he was concealed in the house
of a wealthy lady by the name of Juliana; from whom he
received some manuscripts very important to him in his critical labors, undertaken, as before said, for the emendation of
the Alexandrian version of the Old Testament. He had previously discovered in an old cask or wine-bag, at Jericho, an
ancient translation not before known to exist.  From Juliana
he obtained that of the Ebionite Symmachus, to whose writings she had become heiress.
Thus enriched, he returned to Palestine in 238. He makes
a second journey into Greece; during which he continues his
theological labors.  We afterwards find him  in Bostra in
Arabia; whither he was summoned to hold a conference with
Beryllus, Bishop of Bostra, who denied the preexistence of
Christ.t He made a third journey into Arabia some time
after, being called to refute the opinions of some Arabian
Christians, who maintained that the soul dies, and is raised
again with the body.:
with them; his mode of instruction in philosophy, ethics, and theology; his
profound wisdom and piety; and their regret on leaving him,- are among
the topics introduced. The expulsion of Adam from paradise, and the misery
endured by the Jews in Babylon, are among the extravagant similes employed to express their sense of the loss they should sustain on being deprived
of his counsels and presence. The piece is disfigured by all the faults of the
Asiatic style; but as a panegyric on Origen by one of his most ardent admirers, and one who had opportunity of thoroughly knowing him, it becomes
an object of curiosity.
*,Euseb. Hist., vi. 24, 25.
f Jerome, De Vir. Illust., art. "Beryllus."  ] Euseb. Hist., vi. 37.




HIS DEATH.                     167
Thus, if a cloud hung over his fame in Egypt and the West,
he had the consolation of knowing that ihe was still regarded
with unbounded admiration in the East.
Origen returned to Palestine.  HIe was now, according to
Eusebius, more than sixty years of age, yet did not relax the
industry which, through life, formed one of the most prominent features of his character. His powers were yet in their
full vigor; and among the works produced after this period
were some of his best.  His celebrated work against Celsus,
undertaken at the request of Ambrose, was one of the'number. He continued also to write commentaries. The subjects
on which he was now employed were Matthew's Gospel and
the twelve Minor Prophets.
Having from long use acquired the habit of speaking extempore with great accuracy, he now, for the first time, permitted
the discourses delivered by him in public to be taken down,
and published by reporters and copyists. These homilies were
delivered almost every day; and the number thus preserved
and transmitted to posterity as a monument of Iris diligence,
amounted, we are told, to mrore than a thousand.*
Origen was not allowed to finish his days in peace.  The
persecution under Decius had commenced; during which,
Alexander, the aged Bishop of Jerusalem, (Origen's firm and
tried friend,) perished in prison. Origen himself was confined
in chains in the inmost recesses of a prison, and subjected to
exquisite torture by the rack; the most consummate skill
being exerted to push his sufferings to the utmost point of
endurance, without causing his death. t He bore all, however, with immovable constancy, though now sixty-five years
of age; and the death of Decius, as may be conjectured,
finally procured his release. Worn out with years, toil, and
sufferings, he sunk quietly to rest at Tyre, at the age, says
Eusebius, of sixty-nine years: (A. D. 254). His remains
were deposited, as tradition says, in the Cathedral Church of
the Holy Sepulchre at Tyre, near the great altar. A marble
* Euseb. Hist., vi. 36; Pamph. Apol. pro Orig.; Jerome, Epist. 41, al. 65, ad
Pammach.
t Euseb. Hist., vi. 39.
t Hist., vii. 1. See also Jerome, De Vir. illust., c. 54.




1e38            ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
column, bearing his name and epitaph, and adorned with gold
and gems, was visible, it is said, so late as near the end of the
thirteenth century; but all vestiges of the tomb have long
since disappeared.*
Ambrose, his distinguished patron and admirer, died before
him, and was censured, says Jerome, because, though rich, he
bequeathed nothing to his friend, who was then poor and old.
The censure may have been unjust. Origen, as we have seen,
in early life remained in a state of voluntary poverty, and
persevered in resisting the earnest entreaties of his friends to
partake of the gifts of their liberality.  He probably retained
in age the feelings and views by which he was influenced in
youth; and Ambrose, therefore, forbore to offer what he knew
his friend would refuse to accept.
The foregoing narrative embodies all that is known of the
personal history of Origen Adamantius.  Of the chronological order of several of the incidents related, there exists some
uncertainty. Eusebius, from whom the greater part of the
materials for a life of Origen must be drawn, is very sparing
of dates; and his narrative, though on some points copious,
is not a little confused. Jerome, in the very brief account
of this Father inserted in his " Catalogue of Ecclesiastical
Writers," has preserved a few dates; but, in the order of his
narration, he often differs from Eusebius.
Of Origen's genius and character we shall not attempt any
labored analysis.  The prominent features of both are well
known, and several of them have been incidentally noticed
in the above sketch of his life.  That he had qualities fitted
to inspire admiration and love, can be doubted by none.  His
merits won him many distinguished and warm friends; and it
should be mentioned as equally to their credit and to his, that
many of them remained true to him in the hour of his greatest
adversity. He was regarded by multitudes with extravagant
fondness; yet, amid the marks of flattering attention which he
was daily receiving, he appears to have retained, in a remarkable degree, his natural simplicity and modesty. He was pur* Huet. Orig., lib. i. c. 4, ~ 9, note. Maundrell found remains of a church,
supposed to be the cathedral, in 1697; but, according to a more recent traveller, they are no longer to be seen.




QUESTION OF HIS SALVATION.                    169
sued in his lifetime, as was his memory after his death, by
envy and hate; he was abused, anathematized, and driven
from his country; but seems to have contracted no bitterness
or misanthropy of feeling. If it be the lot of few to experience
to an equal extent the extremes of adulation and censure, few
will be found to exhibit brighter examples of moderation and
self-command.  Of the amenity of his disposition, his blandness, and  winning  address, his history  and writings afford
abundant evidence.
His piety cannot be questioned, though he has never been
allowed to bear the title of saiht in the Roman calendar, and
the question has been seriously debated, whether he won
heaven by his merits, or was doomed to the penal fires of,hell for his errors!    Such  is human  folly  and  absurdity.
* "There are many divines in the communion of Rome," says Bayle,
"who believe this Father is in hell." And the skeptical writer proceeds to
amuse himself and his readers with several curious extracts and references.
One is from Dalleus's reply to M. Cottibi, whom he convicted of ignorance
of Christian antiquity in applying the title of saint to Origen, which he never
bore. We will give a short specimen: "It is scarce two hundred years since
Johannes Picus Mirandulanus, having published at Rome, among his nine
hundred propositions, that it was more reasonable to believe Origen's salvation than his damnation, was thereupon taken up by the doctors in divinity,
who affirmed that this conclusion is rash and blameworthy."
" The Jesuit Stephen Binet," says the same writer, " publishing a book at
Paris, in 1629, concerning the salvation of Origen, durst not take the affirmative without trembling. He lays out the matter in the form of an indictment
and trial, and produces the witnesses and pleaders pro and con, with the intervention of the conclusion of the King of heaven's council. At last he brings
in this verdict:'Considering all that has been said on one side and the other,
and the conclusions of the King of heaven's council, it is decreed, that the
affair be left to God's secret counsel, to whom the definitive sentence is reserved.
Nevertheless, by provision, and for the benefit of Origen, it is judged, upon
the balance of the whole, that the proofs of his salvation are stronger and
more conclusive than that of his damnation.' This, we suppose, may be considered as, on the whole, a very judicious verdict. We will next give a short
extract from the arguments of the council for and against Origen. The following passage, taken from the vision of a'good and honest' abbot in the
Pratuim Spirituale, a book cited with apparent approbation by a general council, occurs in the argument of the council against him:'A good man, under
great concern about the salvation of Origen's soul, did, after the ardent prayer
of a holy old man, plainly see a sort of hell laid open to him, where he distinguished and knew the heresiarchs, who were all called over before him by
their names; and in the midst of them he saw Origen, who lay there damned
among the rest, and covered with horror, flames, and confusion!' To this
the council on the part of Origen reply,'Here the vision of a simple abbot is




170             ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
He led a life of uncommon sanctity and abstemiousness,
treading under foot the wealth and pleasures of earth, and
leaving monuments of zeal, diligence, and constancy, which
will endure while the religion he labored to defend and illustrate has an abode in the world.
His intellectual character is strongly marked.. He seemed
formed to exemplify the greatness and imbecility of human
nature.  As a writer, his merits and defects are alike conspicuous.  He had a quick and comprehensive understanding,
subtilty, and penetration; a memory uncommonly tenacious,
a rapid and teeming imagination, and a fervid and enthusiastic
temperament. But he was wanting in sound judgment, in
accuracy and method. He threw off his compositions in haste,
or rather dictated them extempore to his numerous scribes,
whom he fatigued by his celerity and protracted labors day
and night; and what was once committed to writing seems
never to have been subjected to revision. Prolixity and verboseness, diffuseness and redundancy, in matter and style,
*were the inevitable consequence. These defects run through
-all his writings, but characterize particularly his commentaries.
Hence one of his enemies, after his death, took occasion to
say, that he left the world the " heritage of his garrulity as a
pestiferous possession." *
As a critic and expositor, he is not entitled to any profound
respect. His fondness for allegory and mysticism amounted
to a sort of frenzy. His learning was vast, but he had too
little discrimination in the use of it; and his attachment to
the idealistic philosophy (to use Neander's word), then prevalent in Egypt, was the means of vitiating all his views of
theology.  Under the name of Christianity, he retailed most
of the reveries and extravagances of the Alexandrian Platonists of the school of Potamon and Ammonius.
With all his defects, however, we cannot withhold from him
a title to the praise of extraordinary genius. He was among
alleged: and I allege the vision of a great saint called Mechtildis, to whom
God revealel that he would not have the world to know what was become of
Samson, Solomon, and Origen; with the intent to strike the greatest terror
Unto the strongest, the wisest, and the most learned men of this world, by
keeping them in suspense and uncertainty."'" Poor Origen!
* Theophilus of Alexandria, Lib. Pasch. 1.




HIS INTELLECTUAL CHARACTER.           171
the great men of his age, and would have been great in any.
age. The germ of most of his errors, as we have intimated,
existed in the prevalent modes of thinking, and they are such
as a person placed in his circumstances, and possessing a bold,
ardent, and speculative mind, united with precipitancy of
judgment, but with great goodness of heart, - the religious
element, too, strong in his nature, — might very naturally
adopt. Yet, with all his extravagances, (and they were great
enough,) there was that in him which wins our love and
reverence; and his pages may still both delight and instruct.
"' I acquire more knowledge of Christian philosophy," says
Erasmus, "from one page of Origen, than from ten of
Augustine."




172              lORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
CHAPTER IV.
WRITINGS OF ORIGEN. - COMMENTARIES. —PRINCIPLES OF INTERPIRETATION. — HIS BOOK "OF PRINCIPLES." - His " HEXAPLA."- HIS WORK
AGAINST CELSUS.
OF several of Origen's writings only the title remains;
and of many, even that seems to have perished.   Eusebius
informs us* that he had inserted a catalogue of his works in
the "Life of Pamphilus," which is now lost; and Jerome, as
we learn from himself, gave one in a letter to Paula, of which
only a fragment has been preserved.  Ancient writers speak
of the number of volumes produced by him as vast and almost
infinite.  Rufinus and others make it amount to six thousand;
but Jerome asserts,t that he did not find in Eusebius's catalogue one third part of that number.  At the same time, he
bears ample testimony to the immense bulk of his writings.
"All Greek and Roman authors," he tells us, "were surpassed
by the labors of this one." — " Who," he asks, "can read so
much as he wrote?" 8
His exegetical writings were of three kinds.  The first were
called Scholia, and consisted of brief notes intended to illus* Hist., vi. 32.                         t Apol. adv. Ritfin., lib. ii.
$ Epist. 29, ad Paulam. The account which supposes him to have written
six thousand volumes, seems, at first view, extravagant. That he might hlave
produced that number, however, appears by no means impossible, when we
consider that each of the homilies or discourses - which were, in sonie sort,
extempore performances, and of which a thousand were given to the public by
him after he was sixty years of age - seems to have been enumerated as a
volume; and that his commentaries, which are said by Epiphanius to have
extended to all the books of Scripture, —and which, as we know from the
remains of them now extant, were uncommonly diffuse, - were divided into
very small tomes. That these tomes were exceedingly numerous is sufficiently evident from the fact, that the first thirteen embraced only the three
first and part of the fourth chapters of Genesis. By this method of distribution, it is obvious that the works of Origen would amount to a prodigious
number of volumes,- possibly even to six thousand. Had he written less,
his productions would have acquired in value what they lost in bulk.




HIS COMMENTARIES.                    173
trate the more difficult passages.  The second, denominated
Tomes, or Commentaries, were diffuse expositions of the several books of the Bible; in these, Origen indulged in full
extent his fondness for recondite and mystical meanings. The
third class consisted of Homilies, delivered by him, chiefly at
Cesarea, late in life; in which he explained select portions of
the sacred writings in a style adapted to the popular ear.
His Commnentaries exhibit little accuracy. Indeed, the principle on which he proceeded precluded a sound and rational
exposition of the language of his author.  The greater part
of Scripture contains, according to him, three senses: the literal or historical, or, as he frequently calls it, the sensuous;
then the allegorical, that is, moral or mystical; and, highest
of all, the spiritual, sometimes confounded with the mystical;
the three corresponding to body, soul, and spirit in man. Of
the first he had but a very mean opinion. Going on this principle, it is not surprising that he became not a little visionary and
wild. In fact, he mystifies and allegorizes almost everything.
Jerome accuses him of allegorizing paradise in such a manner
as to destroy the faith of history, - by trees, understanding
angels; and by rivers, celestial powers.* Again: by the garments of skins with which God is said (Gen. iii. 21) to have
clothed Adam and Eve, he supposed were meant bodies, with
which they became clothed after the fall; they having previously existed in paradise without flesh and bones.t It should
be observed, however, that Origen, in his commentary on the
passage referred to, (which is preserved,) does not state this
opinion as an undisputed dogma. He mentions a difficulty
attending it; still he seems inclined to receive it.: By the
waters which are said to be above the firmament, we are to
understand, according to him, the holy and supernal powers;
and by those over and under the earth, the opposite and demoniacal. ~ To such an extent did he indulge his fondness
for allegorical and tropological senses.ll
* Epzst. 38, al. 61, ad Pammach.  t Epist. 38, al. 61, ad Pammach.
t Opp., t. ii. p. 29.            ~ Jerome,'Ad Partmach.
I1 Generally speaking, Origen thought the literal sense of Scripture to be
sufficient for the unlearned; at least, all they were capable of receiving. But
the letter often contains what is false, absurd, repugnant to itself, impossible




174                ORIGEN, AND  HIS THEOLOGY.
Several of the Homilies, and large fragments of the Tomes,
or Commentaries, have been transmitted to us, constituting
together nearly three fourths of all the works of Origen which
are extant. Of a part, we possess the original Greek; of other
parts, only  the  Latin  translations of Rufinus, Jerome, and
others. Those by Jerome are entitled to much respect; and
those by Rufinus, for reasons stated below, to very little.
Of the other works bf Origen, one of the most considerable
is the  four books  "Of Principles,"  written  before he left
Egypt. The original of the work, fragments excepted, is lost.
It was translated into Latin, at the close of the fourth century,
by Rufinus; who, under the absurd pretext that it had been
etc.; whence an infinity of errors have sprung. The mystical or allegorical
sense is necessary to defend the truth of Scripture against its adversaries, and
make it appear worthy of God. It is difficult, not to say impossible, to penetrate the mystical senses of Scripture; yet there are certain rules, the observance of which will conduce to a knowledge of them. And, first, whatever is
said relating to the ceremonial law is always to be understood, not literally,
but mystically.  Again: whatever is said of Jerusalem, Egypt, Babylon,
Tyre, and other places on earth, is to be referred wholly to corresponding
spiritual localities, where souls have a habitation; for in heaven is a region
corresponding to Judaea, a city corresponding to Jerusalem, a people corresponding to the Jewish people.  There is a spiritual Egypt, a spiritual
Babylon, a spiritual Tyre and Sidon, and other cities and places of this sort,
corresponding to cities and regions of the same name on earth. ZFinally, the
mystical sense must be resorted to, and the letter deserted, whenever the latter
appears false, unedifying, or unworthy of God.  This summary is mostly
taken from Origen's work on "Principles." Origen appears not to have distinguished between the literal and metaphorical sense; between what was
meant to be understood strictly, according to the natural signification of the
words, and what the views and purpose of the writer, the connection of the
discourse, and other considerations to be taken into view by the laws of approved criticism, require us to understand in a modified or restricted sense.
He therefore often resorts to mystical or spiritual senses, when the supposition
of a popular or figurative use of language would have answered his purpose
quite as well. For example: commenting on Gen. iii. 21, in which it is said,
"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and
clothed them," he says that it would be foolish, and unworthy of God, to suppose that he took the skins of animals slain, or which had otherwise perished,
and, by sewing them together, reduced them to the form of a coat. He therefore resorts to a mystical sense. Now the foundation of his error, it is obvious, lay in the supposition, that it is necessary either to take the words of
Moses in their most literal acceptation, or to assign to them an allegorical or
mystical. sense; that there was no medium between the two. See Delarue's
Preface to Origen's Commentaries. Also Neander, Hist. Chlrist. Religion and
Church, vol. i. pp. 555, 556, Torrey's translation.




HIS " HEXAPLA."                        175
zorrnpted by the Arians, took the liberty of altering what did
not please him.  For this he was severely censured by Jerome,
whom he had offended by some sinister praises bestowed on
him  in the preface, and which were designed to draw  upon
him the suspicion of Origenism. Rufinus admits that he had
changed, expunged, and modified certain passages, which would
not have been tolerated by Latin ears; but asserts that he had
substituted others, taken from the acknowledged writings of
Origen.  This Jerome denies, and Rufinus fails of proving;
and much intemperate language passed between them.  The
result was, that Jerome gave a new, and, as he affirms, a faithful translation of the work in question.   But this, with the
exception of a few small fragments, has been suffered to perish; and, for our knowledge of the work, we are indebted
almost solely to the corrupt version  of Rufinus.   The loss
of the original is the more to be regretted, as this was one of
Origen's most elaborate performances, and contained a full
exposition of his views respecting the nature of the Saviour.*
The work, in its present form, can afford us little help in
settling the question of the opinion of Origen on the subject
of the Trinity. It was on this point that Rufinus undertook
to correct it.  On others, as Jerome informs us, he left Origen
to speak his own sentiments.
Origen's great work was the " Hexapla." t   Of this work
* Rufin. Invect.; Jerome, Apol. adv. Rufin.
t The design of the Hexapla was to correct the text of the Greek version
of the Old Testament, which was then in common use, but was found to contain many false readings, which occasioned some embarrassment in the contro.
versies between the Christians and the Jews, who often appealed to the Hebrew original as differing from the version of the Seventy. For this purpose,
Origen collected all the versions of the Old Testament within his reach, which
he transcribed and arranged in parallel columns. First stood the Hebrew
text; then the same in Greek characters. This was followed by the very literal version of the Jew Aquila, then recently published. The next column
was occupied by the more free, but, as it is said, faithful translation of Symmachus, an Ebionite. Then followed the version of the Seventy, corrected
by a comparison of it with the Hebrew text. After this stood the Greek version of Theodotion, also an Ebionite. To these he added two obscure anonymous versions then recently brought to light; and, on the Psallns, still
another, making the seventh. The work was called Biblia Hexapla, either
because it contained six versions, - the fragment on the Psalms not being
taken into account, - or because it was originally composed of six columns:
the Hebrew text, and the same in Greek characters, forming two; and the




176              ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
only a few fragments have come down to us.  The original,
which never seems to have been copied entire, was deposited
in the library of Caesarea by Pamphilus, its founder.  The
library was destroyed during the eruption of the Saracens;
and this monument of noble industry was thus lost to the
world.  The parts containing the corrected version of the
Septuagint had been transcribed by Eusebius and Pamphilus,
with occasional extracts from  other versions; but only fragments of these are now  extant.
The eight books "Against Celsus " contain much good reasoning, and many acute and striking remarks. But Origen
was trammelled by the superstitions and errors of the age.
A belief of the power of magic, and force of names and incantations, was common, as well among Christians as Pagans;
and appeared sensibly to impair the evidence of Christianity
from  miracles.   To  this belief, Origen  was not superior.
"Magic," he says, "is not, as the disciples of Epicurus and
Aristotle maintain, a futile thing, but certain and constant,"
and belongs to a recondite theology.
Many of Celsus's objections, too, were levelled, as have been
those of unbelievers since his time, not against Christianity
itself, but against its corruptions, which even then abounded;
and to these objections Origen, of course, could furnish no
satisfactory reply.
Again: several of the narrations of the Old and New Testament were treated by Celsus with levity and ridicule; and
Origen thought to blunt the point of his weapons by interposing the shield of allegory and mysticism; and no doubt his
esteem for allegory was increased by the vain belief, that it
would help to defend Scripture against profane cavil.   But
this was to yield the victory to the enemy. Minds formed
translations of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion, making up
the remaining four. The two anonymous versions being afterwards added, it
obtained the name of the Octapla, as it then consisted of eight columns; and
finally of Enneapla, because, with the version of the Psal.ms last added, it
exhibited nine. Eusebius informs us that Origen afterwards prepared the
Tetrapla, consisting of the four principal versions already enumerated.  In
opposition, however, to this testimony, several modern critics have contended
that the whole formed originally but one work, variously denominated according to the number of columns, or number of translations, entire or partial,
which it contained.




HIS WORIK AGAINST CELSUS.                    177
after the mould of Celsus's were not to be convinced by these
methods; which, in their view, only exposed the weakness of
the cause they were meant to serve.* It should be recollected, however, that the design of the performance was less
to convince minds of this sort than to confirm weak, and perhaps faltering, Christians. With all its defects, however, it
was a noble effort; and is generally esteemed the best defence
of Christianity which has descended to us from the early ages.
Celsus was a man of superior intellect: learned, acute, witty;
a complete master of the art of ridicule. He appears to have
been the first who wrote a work intended as a direct attack on
Christianity.  While the State was using the sword with a
design to crush this religion, - then grown to be a formidable
power, - Celsus was employing against it all the weapons
furnished by his lively and penetrating intellect. He was the
Voltaire of his day. His work consisted of two books, called
" The True Doctrine."  It has now perished, except such parts
as are preserved  in  Origen's " Reply."   In  this, Celsus's
objections are minutely  stated and examined.   We dismiss
the work with a single reflection; which is, that, on certain
subjects, the human mind seems to labor and move forever in
a circle. Ideas, which pass for novelties at a later epoch, will
often be found, upon examination, to be old ideas resuscitated,
or called up from the tomb of preceding ages. Thus, if we
+ Beausobre has some just reflections on this subject.  Alluding to a remark of Origen in his seventh Homily on Leviticus, that if we adhere to the
letter, and adopt the Jewish or vulgar exposition, we must blush to think that
God has given such laws, since those of the Romans and Athenians were incomparably more equitable, he says, " It must be acknowledged, that these
confessions of the Fathers are very prejudicial to the Old Testament. The
heretics, who were not prepossessed in favor of the Hebrew revelation, knew
well how to profit by them, and had not docility enough to submit their reason
and their faith to allegorical expositions. In fact, what authority, what evidence, can allegories possess, which necessity alone invents; which are only
the sport of imagination; only meteors, formed, so to speak, of vapors exhaled by a spirit pressed with difficulties? The Christians derided the Gentiles, when, to conceal the shame of their religious fables, they pretended that
they were only veils designed to envelop natural truths. It is not, then, surprising, that not only the Pagans, but heretics, in turn, laughed at the orthodox, when, to defend the history and laws of Moses, they employed the
weapons which they had been the first to break in pieces." - Histoire Critique
de Maniclzee et du Maniche'isie, t. i. p. 287.
12




178            ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
look through the writings of modern cavillers and objectors,
we find that they have originated very little.  They have
done little else than revive and repeat old objections. Celsus
doubtless thought, that, by wit, argument, and ridicule, he had
put an end to Christianity. But Christianity went on its way,
feeling no wound, - went on conquering; and so, we are confident, it will. We may predict the future from the past.
If the power or wit of man could overthrow it, it would long
ago have fallen; but it stands, and will stand when all the
puny weapons lifted against it, with the hands that wielded
them, shall be buried in rubbish and dust.




INFERIORITY OF THE SON.              179
CHAPTER V.
INFERIORITY OF THE SON. - HIPPOLYTUS; A NEW WITNESS. - ORIGEN
ASSERTS THAT THE FATHER AND SON ARE Two DISTINCT BEINGS; THAT
THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN THE SON. - SPECIMENS OF HIS LANGUAGE AND REASONING. - CHRIST IS NOT AN OBJECT OF SUPREME
WORSHIP, AND NOT. TO BE3 ADDRESSED IN PRAYER. - THE SPIRIT
BELOW THE SON. —ETERNAL GENERATION.- THE MATERIAL CREATION
ETERNAL. - THE LOGOS DOCTRINE AND THE ROMAN CHURCH. - THE
MONARCHIANS, THEODOTUS, ARTEMON, PRAXEAS, NOETUS, BERYLLUS. -
EFFICACY OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. - THE ATONEMENT,
WE have traced the doctrine of the distinct nature and inferiority of the Son from Justin down to Clement of Alexandria, who was Origen's master.  Before proceeding to detail
Origen's views on the subject, we will pause for a moment
over a recently discovered work, published at Oxford, in 1851,
as a lost work of Origen; * but which, we think, has been satisfactorily proved, by the erudite Bunsen, to be, not a production of Origen, but of Hippolytus, a Roman presbyter, and
Bishop of Portus, the harbor of Rome, near Ostia. Hippolytus lived and wrote about the year 220.  Bunsen. makes
him Origen's senior by twenty-five years, and pronounces him
" one of the leading men of ancient Christianity," —" one
of those Christian teachers, governors, and thinkers, who made
Christianity what it became as a social system, and as one
of thought and ethics."   He places him  "among the series
of leading men of the first seven generations of Christians." The title of the work is, " A Refutation of all Heresies."  The tenth book contains what Bunsen calls "the
confession of faith of Hippolytus "; which he pronounces
"the real gem  of his writings,"-" his sacred legacy to
posterity."
The history of Hippolytus has been involved in great ob3curity; and all is not yet perfectly clear. Photius makes him
* The "Philosophlmena."




180            ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
a, scholar of Irenvaus. He wrote numerous works, the titles
of which are preserved by the old writers.  He is styled
bishop, and both Eusebius and Jerome more than once mention him; but neither of them knew where he had his abode
or see. Some have assigned him a residence at Portus Romanus in Arabia, that is, Adan or Aden; others at the port of
Rome, where Bunsen places him. It is not improbable that
he might have resided at both places at different periods of his
life. He wrote in Greek. His death by martyrdom is referred
to the early part of the third century. In 1551, a statue in
marble was dug up in the vicinity of Rome, representing a
venerable man seated in a chair, and having the title of several
of Hippolytus's works engraved upon it; and there can be little
doubt that it is his. Few of his writings have been supposed
to remain.
The fragments we before possessed, however, showed the
opinions he entertained on the subject of the Trinity.  He
was no believer in a co-equal Three. His Trinity, says Neander, was "strictly subordinational."  He asserted that " God
caused the Logos to proceed from him when he would and as
he would."  In regard to the words, "I and my Father are
one," he observes, that Christ " used the same expression
respecting his own relation to the disciples." *
But he comes to us now, since the discovery of this work,
as a new witness against the antiquity of the modern doctrine
of the Trinity. The confession just referred to, as given by
Bunsen, clearly exhibits the superiority of the Father, and the
dependent and derived nature of the Son. The Father, according to the confession, is "the one God, the first and the
only One, the Maker and Lord of all," who " had nothing coeval with him, no infinite chaos, no measureless water or solid
earth, no thick air or hot fire or subtile spirit; not the blue
vault of the great heaven. But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before, except that when he willed to call it into being, he had
full knowledge of what was to be." Here is the One Infinite
Father, who is above all, without co-equal, the Originator of
all things. But, like the other ante-Nicene Fathers, Hippo* list. Christ. Dogm., p. 163.




HIPPOLYTUS; A NEW WITNESS.              181
lytus believed, that, in creating the world, God mad'e use of
a subordinate being, or instrument, which was the Logos, or
Son.  " This sole and universal God," Hippolytus says, " first
by his cogitation begets the Word (Logos),.. the indwelllng Reason of the universe."  " When he (the Logos) came
forth from Him who begat him, being his first-begotten speech,
he had in himself the ideas conceived by the Father.  When,
therefore, the Father commanded tlhat the world should be,
the Logos accomplished it in detail, pleasing God."  Again:
this or that effect took place, " so far as the commanding God
willed that the Logos should accomplish it."  Here is subordination as unequivocally expressed as language can declare it.
God is the Original: he commands, and the Son, or Logos,
performs.  "These things he (God) made by the Logos," the
" only-begotten child of the Father, the light-bringinlg voice,
anterior to the morning star."  In common with the other
Fathers, Hippolytus applies to the Son the title " God," because begotten of the substance of God, and not created out
of nothing, as other things were; but he clearly distingdishes
him  from  the Supreme, Infinite One.  We discover in the
confession, as Bunsen gives it, no mention of the Spirit as a
distinct manifestation.  Bunsen quotes G. A. Meier as asserting "the fact, that Hippolytus decidedly ascribes no personality to the Holy Spirit." X
The creed of this old bishop, who, as we are told, " received
the traditions and doctrine of the Apostolic age from an unsuspected source," is certainly not Athanasian.  Well might
Bunsen pronounce the "doctrinal system of the ante-Nicene
Church,"  among the teachers of which he assigns to Hippolytus so elevated a place, "irreconcilable with the letter and
authority of the formularies of the Constantinian, and, in general, of the Byzantine councils, and with the medimeval systems
built upon them." He subjoins, " I say that it is irreconcilable with that letter and that authority, as much as these are
with the Bible and common sense; and I add, it would be
fully as irreconcilable with the Byzantine and Roman churches
if Arianism had prevailed." In what sense this latter asser* [See Meier's Lehre von der;Trinitdt, i. 88; Bunsen's Christianity and Mtan.
kind, i. 464.- ED.]




182               ORIGEN, AND  HIS THEOLOGY.
tion is true, will appear when we come to treat of Arius and
the Arian controversy.*
We now proceed to Origen's views of the Son and Spirit.
Like the preceding Fathers, he regarded the Son as the first
production of the Father; having emanated from him as light
from  the sun, and thus partaking of the same substance; that
is, a divine. He believed, however, that God and the Son
constituted two individual essences, two beings.  This belief
he distinctly avows in more than one instance, and the general
strain  of his writings implies it.  He disclaims being of the
number of those " who deny that the Father and Son are two,
substances"; and proceeds to assert that they " are two things
as to their essence, but one in consent, concord, and identity
of will."t  He quotes the Saviour's words, "I and my Father
are one," which he explains as referring solely to unity of Mwill
and affection; and refers, in illustration, to Acts iv. 32: "And
the multitude of them  that believed were of one heart and one
soul." Again: from the circumstance that Jesus is called
* For the above quotations from  Bunsen we refer our readers to his
"Christianity and Mankind, their Beginnings and Prospects"; a work in
seven volumes, in which will be found a second edition of his " Hippolytus
and his Age" (London, 1854). See especially the preface to the first volume,
and pp. 400-404, where the confession of Hippolytus is given; also p. 464.
" I doubt not," says Bunsen, "that some people will think it their duty to
prove that Hippolytus had the correct doctrine respecting the Athanasian
definition of the three persons. It is true, lhe says the contrary; but that
does not signify with the doctors of the ol( school." - Vol. i. p. 466.
Hippolytus was, says Bunsen, the " first preacher of note whom the
Church of Rome ever produced."  There were "no homilies by a bishop of
the Church of Rome known before those of Leo the Great," A. D. 440. Clemoont, "the only learned Roman bishop of the old time, wrote an Epistle, but
no homily."  From that time to the end of the second century, the Shepherd
of Hermas is the " only specimen of (Christian) literature connected with
Rome." - Vol. i. pp. 265, 472.
t Cont. Cels., lib. viii. ~ 12. " Two in essence." The term in the original is
hypostasis, essence. In this sense it was always used by the early Fathers,
and not in the modern sense. Huet says, " TYro6aTaa   pro ov'ai priscis temporibus solebat usurpari ab Ethnicis et Christianis." He refers to Jerome
(Epist. 57, ad Damas.), from whom he quotes the assertion, " Tota seculariuma
literarumr schola?ihil aliud iuroreratv nisi odaiav novit."  He then adds, "Ita
sumpserunt Nicmni Patres, ita Sardicenses" ( Oriq., lib. ii. c. ii, quest. 2, ~ 3).
That such was the meaning of the telrml, as used by the ancient Fathers, ad
mits of, no dispute. So Brucker, Petavius, Du pin, and the learned Trinita.
rians generally, decide.




INFERIORITY OF THE SON.               188
"light" in the Gospel of John (i. 4, 5, 9), and, in his Epistle
(1 John i. 5), God is said to be "light," some, he observes,
may infer that "the Father does not differ from the Son in
essence." But this inference, he proceeds to say, would be
wrong; for "the light, which shines in darkness, and is not
comprehended by it, is not the same with that in which there
is no darkness at all."  The Father and the Son, he then
says, are 6" two lights." * This, surely, is not the reasoning of
a Trinitarian.  Once more: he expresses his disapprobation
of the hypothesis that " the Spirit has no proper essence
diverse from the Father and Son," and adds, "We believe
that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three essences, or
three substances." t
Let us next hear what he says of the inferiority of the Son.
Jerome, who had access to several of his works which are now
lost, or have come down to us in a corrupt and mutilated form,
accuses him of saying that "the Son was not begotten, but
made "; that, "compared with the Father, lie is a very small
light, which appears great to us on account of our feebleness."
Again: Origen, he says, "takes the example of two images,
a larger and smaller; of which one fills the world, and beconies in some sort invisible by its magnitude; the other falls
within the limits of distinct vision. To the former he compares the Father; to the latter, the Son."  He attributes,
continues Jerome, "perfect goodness " only to the " Omnipotent Father," and does not allow " the Son to be good " (that
is, in an absolute sense), " but only a certain breath and image
of goodness.":
But let us listen to Origen himself. In his commentaries
on John, he pronounces " God the Logos," or Son,, to be
"surpassed by the God of the universe." ~  Commenting on
John i. 3, "All things were made by him," he observes, that
the particle by or through (8ta), is never referred to the primary agent, but only to the secondary and subordinate; and
he takes, as an example, Heb. i. 2, "By whom also he made
the worlds," or ages. By this expression, he says, Paul meant
* Comm. in Joan., t. ii. ~ 18; Opp., iv. 76.
t Ibid., ~ 6; Opp., iv. 61.      t Epist. 94, al. 59, ad Avit.
~ Comm. in.Joan., t. ii. ~ 3; Opp., iv. 63.




184            ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
to teach us that " God made the ages by the Son" as an instrument.  So he adds, in the place under consideration, "' If
all things were made (&ta) through the Logos, they were not
jmade (wrd) by him " (that is, as the primary cause), " but by
a greater and better; and who can that be but the Father?" *
Again: Jesus is called the " true light "; and in " proportion
as God, the Father of truth, is greater than truth, and the
Father of wisdom is more noble and excellent, than wisdom, --
in the same proportion," says Origen, "he excels the true
light." t  Again: the Son and Spirit, he says,," are excelled
by the Father, as much or more than they excel other beings."
-" He is in no respect to be compared with the Father; fobr
he is' the image of his goodness, and the effulgence, not of
God, but of his glory and of his eternal light; and a ray, not
of the Father, but of his power, and a pure emanation of his
most powerful glory, and a spotless mirror of his energy." f
Again: "The Father, who sent him (Jesus), is alone good,
and greater than he who was sent." ~
Again: Origen contends that Christ is not the'object of
supreme worship; and that prayer, properly such, ought never
to be addressed to him, but is to be offered to the God of the
universe, through his only-begotten Son, who, as our intercessor and high priest, bears our petitions to the throne of his
Father and our Father, of his God and our God.  On this
subject he is very full and explicit.  "Prayer is not to be
directed," he says, " to one begotten, - not even to Christ
himself; but to the God and Fatller of the universe alone, to
whom also our Saviour prayed, and to whom he teaches us
to' pray.  When his disciples said,'Teach us to pray,' he
taught them to pray, not to himself, but to the Father, saying,'Our Father, who art in heaven.' For if the Son," he continues, " be different from the Father in essence, as we have
proved in another place, we must either pray to the Son, and
not to the Father, or to both, or to the Father alone.  But no
one is so absurd as to maintain that we are to pray to the Son,
and not to the Father.  If prayer is addressed to both, we
ought to use the plural number, and say,' Forgive, bless, pre* Comm. in Joan., t. ii. ~ 6; Opp., iv. 60. t Ibid., t. ii. ~ 18; Opp., iv. 76.
t Ibid., t. xiii. ~ 25; Opp., iv. 235, 236.  ~ Ibid., t. vi. ~ 23; Opp., iv. 139.




THE SON NOT AN OBJECT OF PRAYER.          185
serve ye us,' or something like it; but as this is not a fit mode
of address, and no example of it occurs in the Scriptures, it
remains that we pray to the Father of the universe alone."
He adds, " But as he, who would pray as he ought, must not
pray to him who himself prays, but to Him whom Jesus our
Lord taught us to invoke in prayer (namely, the Father), so
no prayer is to be offered to the Father without him; which
he clearly shows when he says (John xvi. 23, 24),' Verily,
verily, I say unto youl, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in
my name, he shall give it you.  Hitherto ye have asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may
be full.' For he does not say,'Ask me,' nor'Ask the Father,' simply; but,' If ye shall ask the Father in my name,
he shall give it you.' For, until Jesus had thus taught them;
no one had asked the Father in the name of the Son; and
what he said was true:' Hitherto ye have asked nothing in
my name."'"  And again: " What are we to infer," asks
Origen, " from the question,' Why call ye me good?  There
is none good but one, - God the Father.' What but that he
meant to say,'Why pray to me? It is proper to pray to the
Father alone, to whom I pray, as ye learn from the Scriptures.
For ye ought not to pray to him who is constituted by the
Father high priest for you, and. who has received the office of
advocate from the Father, but through the high priest and
advocate, who can be touched with the feeling of your infirmities; having been tempted in all respects as ye are, but, by
the gift of the Father, tempted without sin. Learn, therefore,
how great a gift ye have received of my Father; having obtained, through generation in me, the spirit of adoption, by
which ye have a title to be called the sons of God and my
brethren, as I said to the Father concerning you, by the
mouth of David, "I will declare thy name to my brethren;
in the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to thee." But
it is not according to reason for a brother to be addressed in
prayer by those who are glorified by the same Father. Ye
are to pray to the Father alone, with and through me.' "*'
This we take to be sound Unitarianism. Indeed, the question of the impropriety of addressing the Son in prayer could
* De Orat., ~ 15; Opp., i. 222, 223.




186            ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
not have been better argued by the most strenuous advocate
for the divine unity at the present day.
We have thus shown, as we think, conclusively, that Origen
believed God and the Son to be two essences, two substances,
two beings; that he placed the Son at an immense distance
from the Infinite One, and was strongly impressed with the
impropriety of addressing him in prayer, strictly so called;
that he viewed him, however, as standing at the head of all
God's offspring, and with them, and for them, as his younger
brethren, whom he had been appointed to teach and to save,
offering prayer at the throne of the Eternal.  Still Origen
does not hesitate to apply the terms "creature" and "made "
to him, and asserts that he was begotten, not from an inner
necessity, but "by the will of the Father, the first-born of
every creature."
To the Spirit, Origen assigned a place below the Son, by
whom, according to him, it was made.  To the Spirit the
office of redeeming the human race properly pertained; but,
it being incompetent to so great a work, the Son, who alone
was adequate to accomplish it, engaged.* The Father, he
says, pervade.s all things; the Son, only beings endowed with
reason; and the Holy Spirit, only the sanctified, or saved.
We have reserved for the last place a very remarkable passage relating to the comparative rank of the Father, Son, and
Spirit. It contains a plain and direct assertion, and is enough
of itself to decide the question respecting Origen's opinions.
He says, " GREATER IS THE POWER OF THE FATHER THAN
THAT OF THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT; AND GREATER
THAT OF THE SON THAN THAT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT; AND
AGAIN, THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT SURPASSES THAT
OF OTHER HOLY THINGS."  Such language needs no comment.t
Neander asserts that Origen was the first who clearly "expressed the idea of eternal generation."  But this was in
connection with some refined and idealistic speculations con* Comm. in Joan., t. ii. ~ 6; Opp., iv. 60-64. See also Jerome, Epist. 94, ad
Avit.
t De Princip., lib. i. c. 3, ~ 5; Opp., i. 62. Justinian quotes the passage in
his Epistle on the errors of Origen, addressed to Menas or Mennas, Patriarch
of Constantinople. Concil., t. vi. p. 145, ed. Coleti.




ETERNAL GENERATION.                     187
zerning the relation of God to time; the same which, according to Neander, led him  to "advance the idea of an eternal
creation, -a derivation of the creation from God by virtue of
an eternal beginning." We are willing to admit, that if the
material creation, according to the opinion of this Father, was
eternal, the generation of the Son might have been so too.
The above-quoted expressions of Neander are taken from
his " Lectures on the History of Christian Dogmas," derived
from notes furnished by his hearers after his death. In his
"History of the Christian- Religion and Church," we find a
somewhat more explicit statement of his views on the subjects
referred to. He there speaks of the difficulty of conceiving
that Almighty Power and Goodness could exist without being
forever active. " The transition from a state of inactivity to
the act of creation," he says, " is inconceivable, without a
change which is incompatible with the being of a God." If
this was Origen's view, he might well find "reasons against
a beginning of creation generally"; and would, of course,
attempt to divest the generation of the Son of all " temporal
conditions."   "He," says Neander, "who fixed no beginning to creation, but supposed it to be eternal, would far less
fix any beginning here.  He strove to banish all notions of
time firom the conception of the generation of the Logos.
It was necessary here, as he thought, to conceive of a timeless
present, an eternal now"; and this he supposed to be intimated by the expression " to-day," in the second Psalm.
Origen was led into this view, Neander says, by his " philosophical education in the Platonic school."*   He held the
"Platonic idea of an endless becoming."   He was careful,
however, to affirm that the generation of the Son was by act
* Others deny that Origen taught the doctrine here ascribed to him relating to the eternity of the Son. The expressions mainly relied upon to prove
that he held this doctrine, it is to be observed, are taken from Athanasius,
who may not have reported them correctly.  (See Martini, Versuch, etc.,
p. 159.)  " Though from his idealistic position," says Ilagenbach (First
Period, ~ 47), " Origen denied eternity to mtatter.. he nevertheless assumed
the eternal creation of innumerable ideal worlds, solely because he, as little as
Clement, could not conceive of God as unoccupied," "for to say the nature
of God is idle and inactive, is alike impious and absurd." It is not surprising
that a species of reasoning so abstract and refined should be found irreconcilable with what Origen elsewhere states relating to the facts of creation.




188               ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
of the "; divine will"; and, by the acknowledgment of Neander, he believed the Son to be subordinate.  "It appeared to
him something like a profanation of the first and supreme
essence," says Neander, "to suppose an equality or a unity
between him and any other being whatever, - not excepting
the Son of God.  As the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are
incomparably exalted above all other existences, even in the
highest ranks of the spiritual world, so high, and yet biglier,
is the Father exalted'above them."
A  similar account is given by Gieseler.  He states, as one
of the two great principles which "ran through the whole of
the Alexandrian theology,"'that " the Godhead can never be
unemployed; so that an endless series of' worlds preceded the
present, and an endless series of worlds will follow it." Gieseler adds, " The Alexandrians speak of the Logos as a higtily
exalted being; evidently, however, they make him  inferior to
the Supreme God.   The  wish  to remove everything  that
would be unworthy of God from  the notion of the generation
of the Son led at last to the doctrine taught by Origen, tlhat
the Logos did not proceed from  the essence of the Father, but
was produced by the will of God, generated from all eternity.
He taught also that the Holy Ghost was created by the Son."
In support of the statement relating to the inferiority of the
Son', Gieseler adduces ample testimony from the writings of
both Clement and Origen; and, for other parts of the statement, he quotes largely from Origen. How these views are
to be reconciled with the modern Trinity, we do not see.*: Neander's Lectures on the History of Christian Doqmas, pp. 120, 146-148;
History of' the Christian Religionn and Church, vol. i. pp. 568, 588, 590, Torrey's
trans.; Gieseler's Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. pp. 138-140, ed. Philadelphia,
1836.
It has been made a question, whether, according to the Alexandrian doctrine, Origen taught, as it has been asserted of him, that matter originally
flowed from the bosom of God. The principle well accords with several parts
of his system, though we are not aware that he has anywhere expressly asserted it as regards the origin of matter. Beausobre thinks that his real
opinion was, not that matter originally emanated from the substance of God;
that all lie meant to affirm was, that God never existed for a moment without
exercising his perfections, and, consequently, without an act of creation; and
that, in this sense, be supposed matter to be eternal. On the emanative principle, it might be said to be eternal, as proceeding from the bosom of the
Eternal One. It is easy to see, that, along with such speculations on the cos



THE MONARCHIANS.                       189
That the whole "Logos doctrine," as it is called, was by
many regarded as an innovation, very clearly appears.  Neander, in his " Lectures on Christian Dogmas," notices what he
calls a " Unitarian monotheistic interest " as manifesting itself
about the time of Origen, or a little earlier.  He quotes Tertullian as saying that " ignorant people " were " alarmed at
the names of the Trinity, and accuse us (that is, the pllilosoplhical Christians) of wishing to teach three Gods, while
they would be worshippers of one God."   These were the
Monarchians, as they were denominated; one class of whom
was represented by Arternon, who appeared about this time.
The history of Artemon is obscure.  Whether or not he had
any connection with Theodotus, a worker in leather and heresiarcil fiom  Byzantium, the learned are unable to decide.  It
is worthy of notice, that he claimed for his opinions the authority of antiquity.  Eusebius, in the twenty-seventh and twentyeighth cllapters of the fifth book of his history, alludes to
several hbooks written by persons whose names were unknown
to him; and, among others, one against the heresy of Artemon, from whichll he gives an extract. There is an uncertainty attending the views of both Theodotus and Artemon,
some attributing to themthe belief that Jesus was the son of
Joseph and Marly; others telling us that one or both of them,
Artemon certainly, believed him to have been born of a virgin
by the Holy Spirit, and so to have had something divine in
him: a " certain divine energy" uniting itself with him from
the first, the divinity of the Father in some way acting in
him.  But what is important is, that Artemon, in thus believmogony, the generation of the Son might be disengaged from the idea of
time. We are willing that the doctrine of the eternal generation should stand
on the ground on which Origen virtually put it; that is, eternity may be
ascribed to the Son in the same sense in which it may be ascribed to the
material creation, and only in that sense. This is not what modern Trinitarians mean.
According, to Jerome (Epist. 94, al. 59, ad Avit.), Origen taught that -all
bodies, that is, all. of the grosser sort, will be finally converted into spiritual
substances; that all corporeal nature will be reduced back to the divine, which
is the " nmost excellent"; and then " God will be all in all."  See Beausobre,
Histoire de Aianichee et du Maniclei'sme, t. ii. pp. 284, 285. Also Brucker, list.
Urit. Phil., t. iii. p. 443; and Huet. Origeniana, lib. ii. c. ii. quest. 2, ~ 24; and
quast. 12, ~ 2.




190             ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
ing, claimed to hold the primitive doctrine. In the extract
just referred to, given by Eusebius, we read, "The-y affilnr
that all the ancients, and the very Apostles, received and
taught the same things which they now assert; and that the
preaching of the truth was preserved till the times of Victor,
who, from Peter, was the thirteenth Bishop of Rome; but,
from the times of his successor Zephyrinus, the truth has been
adulterated." Against the accuracy of these assertions, the
author quoted by Eusebius stoutly argues; but there the assertions stand, made with great confidence and evidently in good
faith.  Artemon's claim to hold the ancient doctrine has somewhat perplexed the advocates of the antiquity of the "Logos
doctrine." It is to them an ugly fact, difficult to be disposed
of.  Dr. Baur, as represented by Neander, supposed the
" Logos doctrine " to have been a compromise, or an " attempt
at mediation," between different parties.  This, it will be perceived, supposes it not to have been the ancient doctrine.
Neander says, that, " since it has been found that the Monarchians of the third century appeal to the agreement of the
older Roman bishops with their views, modern inquirers have
been led to infer from this circumstance that the Monarchian
tenet was in this church originally the prevailing one, while
the doctrine of the Logos was unknown to it.'.' Again:' When they (the Artemonites) asserted, that, from  the time
of Victor's successor Zephyrinus, the true doctrine of this
church became obscured, some fact must be lying at the bottom of this assertion; which, unhappily, in the absence of historical data, it is impossible, at present, accurately to ascertain." The problem is not one in which we feel any special
interest; and we leave the solution of it to those who maintain
that the modern doctrine of the Trinity is the old doctrine.
We will only add, that the book from which Eusebius made
the extract above referred to is supposed by Bunsen to have
been the "Little Labyrinth," which he thinks was, without
doubt, written by Hippolytus.*
The Artemonites were many of them men of scientific cul* See Eusebius, Hist., v. 27, 28; Neander, Hist. Clrist. Dogmn., pp. 149153; Hist. CIhrist. Rd!ig. and Church, i. 576-582; Bunsen, Christianity and Alan.
find, i. 402, 439, etc.




THE MONARCHIANS.                 191
ture.  They "busied themselves a good deal with mathematics, dialectics, and criticism."  They were reflective and
philosophical; their intellectual tendencies led them to eliminate almost entirely the mystical element from their theology.
They were admirers, says Eusebius, of Aristotle and Theophrastus.  Neander has a remark in this connection, which is
worth noticing.  "We perceive here," says he, " the different
kinds of influence exerted by the systems of philosophers; the
Platonic being employed to defend the doctrine of Christ's
divinity, while the opposite direction of mind, tending to combat that doctrine, leaned to the side of the Aristotelian."
The Artemonites brought criticism to bear on the text both
of the Old Testament and the New. They had, according to
Eusebius, copies of the Scriptures corrected by different hands,
to which they appealed.
The other class of Monarchians, which appeared about the
same time, consisted of Praxeas, NoEtus, and Beryllus.  In
their opinions they differed somewhat from Theodotus and
Artemnon, though equally with them they stood in antagonism
to the prevailing Logos doctrine. The precise shades of their
belief it is difficult to determine. Of Praxeas we know little
except what we gather from the pages of Tertullian, who
hated him for the active part he took against Montanus and
Montanism.  He was called by his antagonists a Patripassian.
He came from Asia Minor, the "fatherland of Monarchianism"; thence he went to Rome, where his opinions met no
opposition. He afterwards proceeded to Carthage, where he
encountered the stern-faced Tertullian.  His ideas of the
union of the Father and Son are not very clear; only he was
understood to deny the personality of the Logos in the Son,
referring all to the Father. It is certain that he strenuously
asserted the unity of God; and one of the charges he brought
against the prevailing orthodoxy, which Tertullian attempted
to refute, was that it taught a i'plurality of Gods;" that is,
by means of the Logos doctrine.
Nodtus, who was, too, of Asiatic origin, and who found an
opponent in Hippolytus, as Praxeas did in Tertullian, and
Beryllus afterwards in Origen, was also strongly in the "' Unitarian Monotheistic interest."  His views are not more pre



192              ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
cisely defined, at least in any writing which has come down to
us, than those of Praxeas, to which they bore a certain resemblance.  He believed in one God the Father, who manifested
himself in the Son, the Logos not, however, becoming in him
a separate personality.  He claimed that his doctrine only
tended to "honor Christ," while it preserved the unity of God.
He, as well as Praxeas, was called a Patripassian.
Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia, was another of the
group.*  He held, so far as we can gather on a subject confessedly very  obscure, and about which writers materially
differ, that Christ had no personal existence before his appearance on earth, though while on earth the divinity of the Father
dwelt in him, having united itself with him at his birth.
Neander ascribes to him a " conciliatory position," a "midway
tendency," more successfully developed afterwards in Sabellius.  He finally yielded through the influence of Origen, and
became reconciled to the Church.  He was classed with the
Patripassians.  It was the Council assembled against Beryllus,
as Neander thinks, which established the doctrine, firmly held
by Origen, that Christ possessed a rational human soul, before
denied, the Logos, from  the time of Justin Martyr at least,
being supposed to supply the place of it4t
So unsatisfactory to multitudes of minds was the doctrine
of the Platonizing Fathers concerning the Logos, or Son. It
called forth vigorous opposition, and this opposition was not
confined to the "simple " and unlettered to whom Tertullian
refers. Those just named were generally learned men. Such
was the state of opinion when Origen wrote. His doctrine
was antagonistic to these Monarchian opinions, and developed
itself partly from conflict with them.
On the subject of Christ's human soul, Origen seems to
have held some views peculiar to himself. He supposed that
* Euseb. Hist., vi. 33; Neander, Hist. Christ. Relig. and Church, i. 593, 594.
For a general view of the whole group, see Martini, Versuch, pp. 128-150.
See also Neander, Hist.~. i. 576-585, 591-594; Dogm., pp. 149-163; and Kurtz,
Text-Book, First Period, ~ 40.
t So Justin Martyr makes Christ to consist of three principles, " oveua cKa
2o6yov Kai ~bvxjv." (Apol. II., c. 10.) "The Divine Logos," says Semisch' occupied in Christ the place of reason in man," that is, according to Justin.
(Justin Martyr, ii. 312.) See also Hagenbach, First Period, ~ 66.




THE ATONEMENT.                    193
the Logos, or divine nature in Christ, became united with a
human rational soul before his incarnation.  He believed all
souls to be preexistent, all endowed with freedom. Of these
souls, which, from the moment of their production, were placed
in a state of probation, one, having used well its liberty, was,
on account of its distinguished sanctity, taken into union with
the Logos, or Son, and became one spirit with it, one substance.  This union, as Origen supposed, prepared the way
for a future union with flesh; a divine nature being incapable
of union with body, without some medium.*  The soul thus
honored was selected, as just intimated, for its merits. Retaining its immaculate purity, and love to its Maker, it was rewarded by being raised into union with the divine Logos; and
we, as Origen further taught, if we imitate the singular love
of Christ to God, shall be made partakers of the same Logos,
and, in proportion to our merits, be taken into union with it.t
Origen had elevated conceptions of the moral efficacy of
the death of Christ; but his views of the atonement would be
pronounced exceedingly defective and erroneous by those who
should judge him by the Calvinistic standard.  He was fond
of regarding Christ as the light, the guide and pattern, of the
human soul, as its purifier, its Redeemer and Saviour, as well
by his teachings as by his death. He was the wisdom of the
Father, and the image of his goodness and truth; as such, it
was his appropriate office to shed light on the human spirit,
and, through the love of goodness, win it back to God. " Like
all the Fathers before him, Justin (to a certain degree) excepted, Origen," says Bunsen, " had no idea of the atonement
in the sense of the Anselmo-Calvinistic theory, -  of satisfaction given by the death of Jesus to the Divine Justice." *
* De Princip., lib. ii. c. 6.
t On the obscure subject of Christ's preixistent human soul, see Neander,
Hist. Clhrist. Relig. aind C/hurch, i. 6385-639.
CGhristianity and Mankind, i. 293.
13




194               ORIGEN, AND  HIS THEOLOGY.
CHAPTER VI.
ORIGEN'S SYSTEM OF RATIONAL AND ANIMATED NATURES.- ALL SOULS
PREEXISTENT. - PURPOSE OF THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE. - THE STARS
ANIMATED, AND WILL BE JUDGED. - TUTELAR SPIRITS. - DEMONS. -
PRESENT CONDITION THE RESULT OF FORMER TRIAL. - EXTENT OF
CHRIST'S REDEMIPTION.- CELESTIAL NATURES. -ORIGIN OF SIN. -
HUMAN ABILITY. -NO UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION.
WITH regard to the extent of the benefits intended to be
conveyed by the death of Christ, Origen entertained some
very singular, and, as will be admitted by all, exceedingly wild
and visionary notions.  But, to enable our readers readily to
comprehend his opinion, or perhaps his conjectures, on this
subject, we must first make them  acquainted with his views
of the great system of rational and animated natures, comprehending angels, men, and demons, sun, moon, and  stars.
These views, it will be perceived, were derived from the very
fanciful philosophy of the age; and, though they may constitute bad theology, they are entitled, some of them at least, to
our admiration, as beautiful creations of a poetic imagination.
All beings endowed with reason, according to Origen, are of
one nature, or essence,* and were produced long before the
x All beings endowed with reason, including, according to Jerome, "the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,' angels, powers, dominations, and other virtues," - all these, says Jerome, he asserted to be of one substance; though,
at other times, he would not allow the Son to be of the same substance with
the Father, dreading the appearance of impiety (Epist. 95, ad Avit.). The
expression, " of one substance," or one essence, which is here employed by
Origen in reference to God, angels, and the souls of men, is deserving of
notice, as it is precisely that which is often employed by the Fathers in speaking of God and the Son. The inference is obvious. Origen " does not hesitate," says Jerome, "to ascribe the nature of thle omnipotent God to angels
and men." And why should lie refuse to ascribe it to the Son? Yet he did
sometimes refuse from a principle of piety, so careful was he not to infringe
the Divine Unity. To the Origeniana of the learned Huet, we acknowledge
ourselves indebted for much assistance in the preparation of this and the following chapter.




A LL SOULS PREEXISTENT.               195
foundation of the visible world.  In this opinion he was not
singular.  The preexistence of souls was a dogma of the
reigning philosophy.  At first, as Origen maintained, they
were pure intelligences, all glowing with love to their Maker.
They, however, possessed entire freedom, and the capacity of
virtue and vice. The consequence was, their primeval love
grew cold, and they became in various degrees estranged from
God, the fountain and centre of moral life and heat.  They
were hence reduced to different ranks of beings, and doomed
to occupy different stations, more or less exalted or depressed,
according to their acquired character and habits; and this visible, material world was created for their reception.
Some were placed in the bodies of the sun and stars, and
were appointed to the noble office of enlightening and adorning
the universe; and continue to shine with greater or less splendor, according to their moral merits.  The stars are thus
animated, endowed with reason, and have partaken of sin.
They receive the commands of God, and move in their prescribed courses; they still retain the attribute of freedom;
their virtue is capable of increase or diminution; and they
will hereafter be judged. They are able, by their positions
and aspects, to prefigure future events; and apostate spirits,
deriving their knowledge from them, transmitted the arts of
astrology to man.*
Of others was formed the community of angels, who, according to Origen, are! clothed with light, ethereal vehicles; to
which, in consistency with the philosophical tenets in which
he was reared, he seemed inclined to add bodies of a grosser
sort; thus making them  compound beings, like man, consisting of body and soul.  He assigns them various offices.  He
sometimes speaks of each individual of our race as constantly
attended by a good and bad angel.  Christians, especially,
enjoy the benefit of a tutelar spirit; but, whether appointed
at their birth or baptism, he does not afford us the means of
determining. Some preside over communities and churches;
and hence, in the Revelation, we hear of the "angels of the
* Comm. in Gen., t. iii. ~ 6; Opp., iii. 8, 9. Philo, with whose writings
Origen must have been familiar, speaks of the stars as animals endowed with
intelligence. (De Mitndi Opsf, c. 24; Opp., i. 17.)




196               ORIGEN, AND  HIS THEOLOGY.;hurches "; some over inanimate objects, the operations of
nature, and human inventions and arts; over plants and animals: each having received the charge for which he is, by
disposition, best fitted; regard being had to his merit or demerit in a preexistent state.  Thus Raphael is the patron of
the medical art; to Gabriel are assigned the affairs of war;
and to Michael, for his piety, the offering of the prayers of the
saints.* They assist in transmitting souls into bodies, in disengaging them  at death, and conducting them  to judgment.
Like the souls of stars, they retain their freedom, and will be
rewarded or punished for the use or abuse of their liberty.
Finally, they are entitled to a degree of reverence and worship corresponding to their nature and offices; though we
must be careful not to confound the regard which is their due
with the supreme adoration due to God, who alone is to be
addressed in prayer.t
The more guilty spirits were depressed into the rank of
demons, who possess bodies far grosser than  those of angels,
as, in  their prior state, they  contracted  greater impurity.
These, too, retain  their moral liberty; are still capable of
virtue; and may yet
"Reascend,
Self-raised, and repossess their native seat."
Others were destined to become human souls; and, for the
punishment of their sins, were imprisoned in bodies of flesh,
and are subjected to the discipline best fitted for their recovery.
Such, according to this Father, is the general system of
rational natures.  All existed in a prior state; all were made
capable of virtue or vice; but, abusing their liberty, were
degraded from a superior to inferior orders of beings. Some
De Pri, cip., lib. i. c. 8; Opp., i. 74.
t From the above account of the offices attributed to angels, we perceive
how completely the Heathen notion of tutelar spirits and genii was transferred to Christianity. According to the splendid mythology of the Pagans,
every grove, temple, stream, and fountain, all seasons and arts, business and
pleasure, had their presiding deities. Christianity banished these false divinities from the earth; but in the theology of the Fathers angels succeeded to
their places. All the operations of Providence were supposed to be performed
by their ministrationns; and they became objects of reverence, as the guardian
divinities of the Heatlen had been before theli.




REDEMPTION OF ALL RATIONAL NATURES.              197
became angels, and some demons; some, the souls of sun,
moon, and stars; and some were imprisoned in bodies of flesh.*
The present condition of all is the result of their conduct in a
former state of trial; it is a state of punishment and continued
probation.  They are still capable of recovering themselves;
are still free. By new sin, or new virtue, they may be still
further depressed, or rise; they may regain a higher order,
and again relapse and sink: from  men, become angels; and
from angels, men.
We are now prepared'to resume the subject of the extent
of the benefits ascribed by Origen to the death of the Saviour.
On this subject, subsequent Fathers preferred against him
many and grievous complaints.  Thus he maintained, it is
said, that Christ suffered for the redemption of all rational
natures, including the souls of men, angels, demons, sun,
moon, and stars.  He asserted, says Theophilus of Alexandria,t that Christ was "fixed to the cross for demons, and
wicked spirits above "; and Jerome accuses him of saying that
he had " often suffered, and would suffer in the air, and places
above, for the salvation of demons. "   Theophilus complains
that he would save even " the Devil"; and, in the language
of the prophet,~ calls on the heavens'" to be astonished, and
to be horribly afraid," at such daring impiety.
But let us consult Origen himself.  In his tenth Homily on
Luke, he says expressly that the advent of Christ "profited
celestials "; 11 and, in support of the assertion, refers to Col. i.
20.  In his first Homily on Leviticus, he speaks of a " double
sacrifice" and " double victim "; of the blood of Christ sprinkled on the earthly, and also on the "supernal ". altar; and
he asserts explicitly, that he was " offered a victim, not only
for terrestrial, but also for celestial beings "; ~  and more to
l To Origen's general principle, that the souls of men'ere shut up in
bodies as a punishment for sins committed in a preexistent state, he admits a
few exceptions. These are cases of men of distinguished sanctity, who have
lived in times past, and whose souls were, in fact, angels, sent on an extraor
dinary legation, as in the case of John, to testify to the truth, and conduct
men to virtue and happiness.
t Lib. Pasch., ii.
4, Apol. adv. TRf., lib. i.; and Epist. 95, al. 59, ad Avit.
~ Jer. ii. 12.         Op., iii. 943.        T Opp., ii. 180.




198            ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
the same purpose. Again: in his Commentary on the Epistle
to the Romans, he says, " So great was the efficacy of Christ's
cross and death, that it was sufficient, not only for the human
race, but for celestial powers and orders.  For, according to
the sentiment of the Apostle Paul, Christ pacificated, by the
blood of his cross, not only " things in earth," but also " things
in heaven ";  that is, angels, sun, moon, and stars.  Again:
" He is the great High Priest, who offered himself, not only
for men, but also for every being partaking of reason; he died
not only for men, but likewise for other rational beings; he
tasted death for every creature; for it is absurd to say that he
tasted death for human sins, but not also for whatever other
beings, besides man, have committed sin; for example, for the
stars, the stars not being pure in his sight, as we read in Job
xxv. 5,' Yea, even the stars are not pure in his (God's) sight';
unless, perchance, this is said hyperbolically."f  Such, according to Origen, was the extent of the redemption through
Christ.
It may well be doubted whether there is any solid foundation for the other part of the accusation brought against him
by Theophilus, Jerome, and others, that he believed that
Christ had repeatedly suffered, or would suffer, in the heavens
and in the air.  This doctrine is not expressly taught in any
of his writings now extant; and the contrary seems to be
often implied.  True, he alludes to an offering in the heavens,
but apparently speaks of it as accompanying his sacrifice on
earth, and not as an act to be repeated.
With regard to the points afterwards agitated during the
famous Pelagian controversy, the authority of Origen, as well
as that of all preceding Fathers, could be adduced in opposition to the Augustinian doctrines.  These doctrines seem to
have been regarded as a novelty at the time; and many of
those who condemned the opinions of Pelagius were not prepared to adopt, in full extent, the views of his celebrated
antagonist.  Origen has been called the Father of Pelagianism; and certainly the germ and substance of the Pelagian
doctrines are found in his writings.
His views of the effects of Adam's sin were censured by: Oqpp., iv. 568.     t Comm. in Joan., t. i. ~ 40; Opp., iv. 41, 42.




MORAL FREEDOM AND ABILITY.              199
the orthodox of subsequent ages, but were apparently in
unison with the opinions of the Church at the time he wrote.
He has the phrase, "sin of nativity"; and speaks of the'similitude of Adam's transgression, not only derived from
birth, but contracted "; but in what sense he understood these
and similar expressions, is matter of doubt; certainly not in
the modern.  He had no notion of any such consequences
attending Adam's transgression as have been ascribed to it in
orthodox systems, from the time of Augustine down to the
present day. In a moral view, he seems, in fact, hardly to
attribute anything to the fall, and, in his general reasoning,
does not distinguish between what is called a " state of fallen
nature " and a state of primitive integrity; at least, so far as
the sin of our first parents is concerned. All souls, he supposed, sinned in a preeixisting state, and consequently came
into the world under certain disadvantages; but they are subjected to these disadvantages, not by the disobedience of
Adam, but by the guilt contracted by our abuse of liberty in
a prior state.
Origen allows to the soul in its fallen state the most perfect
freedom and moral ability; the power to choose and pursue
virtue, and reject and fly from sin; and this power is retained
by demons, and even the Devil.  Good as well as evil motives originate in the heart. To live well is "our own work,"
the result of our own volitions and efforts: "God demands
it of us, not as his work, but as our own." And he goes on
to show, from numerous texts of the Old and New Testament,
that it is in our power to live as God requires, and that "; we
are the cause of our perdition or salvation."  He then proceeds to explain certain passages, which, it seems, were adduced by some heretics of the Oriental or Gnostic sects to
establish a different doctrine; and these, it is deserving of
notice, are precisely those which, in modern times, have been
brought to prove that our goodness is the work of God, and
not of ourselves; that it is the result of the special agency of
his Spirit, and not primarily of our own volitions. On all
these he puts a construction which would now be called decidedly Arminian.  The passages referred to are —the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, Exod. iv. 21; the taking away a




200             ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
heart of stone, and giving a heart of flesh, Ezek. xi. 19; "It
is not of him that willeth nor'of him that runneth, but of God
that showeth mercy,'' Rom. ix. 16; "He hath mercy on
whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he h1ardeneth,"
and the following verses, containing the illustration of the potter and the clay, Rom. ix. 18-23; and some others.  All
these he so explains as to leave man entire freedom  and ability, moral as well as physical, to do good or evil, and make sin
or virtue his own act.  He attributes to God, not our volition, but only the power of volition. Thus, in explaining the
phrase, " To will and to do is of God," as he quotes Phil. ii. 13,
he observes, " The Apostle does not say, that to will good or
evil, and to do better or worse, are of God, but only generally
to will and to perform "; that is, the power to will and to perform. He draws an illustration from the power of motion.
That we are capable of motion, he says, is of God; but the
particular direction of our motions depends on ourselves; so
" we receive of God the power to will; but we may use this
-power for good or for evil, as also the power to perform." X
Origen speaks in general terms of the necessity of divine
grace to enable us to attain to the perfection of the Christian
character; but it was his belief, that this grace is granted as
the reward of our goodness, that it is in no sense the exciting
cause, and that the measure of it is determined by the exercise of our own wills; that is, it is bestowed in proportion to
our previous merits, and not by an arbitrary act of God's
sovereignty.  He seems afraid almost of attributing too much
to God's agency.  Holiness originates in our own wills: we
must sow the seeds; but, the plant once introduced, God
fosters and cherishes it.
God thus grants the assistance of his Spirit, as Origen supposed, in proportion to our merits, and in consideration of
them.  But in our merits are included the good actions done
in a pre6xistent state, as well as those performed in the present; so that God may make a distinction between one and
another, bestowing his grace on one and withholding it from
another, loving one and hating another, before they "have
* De P rincip., lib. iii. c. 1, De Arbitrii Libertate; Opp., i. 108, et seqq




NO UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION.                 201
done good or evil," that is, in the present life, as in the case
of Jacob and Esau (Rom. ix. 11-1.3). *
Origen admits of no unconditional election, but makes predestination depend altogether on our works foreseen.t  God
is said to make "one vessel to honor, and another to dishonor; but the cause, says Origen, is in ourselves.  He who
purges himself from impurity is made a vessel of honor; he
who suffers himself to remain polluted with sin is made a
vessel of dishonor.  "Each one is made by God a vessel of
honor or of dishonor, according to his merits " in this or a preexistent state.  " It is just," he adds,." and in every respect
agreeable to piety, that each one should be made a vessel of
honor or of dishonor from preceding causes"; and these, he
insists, are our merits, our actions.  These, foreseen, are the
ground, and the only ground, of'redestination.$
* De Princip., lib. iii. c. 1; also lib. i. c. 7.
t IIuet. Orig., lib. ii. c. ii. quest. 7.
t De Princip., lib. iii. c. 1; Comm. in Rom., lib. i. and vii.; Opp., iv. 464, 604,
616.




202             ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
CHAPTER VII.
ORIGEN'S VIEWS OF THE FUTURE. - TIHE RESURRECTION. - FORM[ OF THE
FUTURE BODY ROUND. - BODIES OF TIIE DAMNED BLACK. - TIIE FINAL
CONSUMMATION WILL BE THIlE PERFECTION AND HAPPINESS OF ALL, INCLUDING FALLEN SPIRITS OF DARKNESS.-MATTER TO BECOME SPIRITUALIZED.-VARIATION IN HIS OPINIONS.- IERPETUAL LAPSES AND
RETURNS.- FATE OF THE ORIGENIAN DIOCTRINES. -APPEALED TO BY
THE ARIANS.- CONDEAMNED A CENTURY AND A HALF AFTER ORIGEN'S
DEATH.- ORIGENISM FINDS SHELTER IN THE MONASTERIES. -FREEDom0 OF THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION.
WE have treated of the opinions of Origen relating to the
past and present character and condition of rational natures,
and especially man. We now turn to his representation of
the future.
His views of the resurrection have been a -subject of controversy.  He was accused by several subsequent Fathers,
and by Jerome among the rest, of denying it in reality, and
retaining only the name.  And if by the resurrection we are
to understand the restoration of the flesh of the present body
in substance and figure, he undoubtedly did deny it; thinking
with St. Paul, that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." He could, in consistency with himself, entertain no other opinion; for, according to his system, the flesh
is the prison-house of the soul, which it is doomed to occupy
for the punishment of its sins.  All spirits become clothed
with bodies more or less gross, according to their degree of
moral pollution. They remain, however, in a state of discipline, and may be restored.  When they shall have purified
themselves from their stains, and regained their pristine beauty
and excellence, they will drop the encumbrance of their material or fleshy chains, and become once more subtile and ethereal.  So Origen undoubtedly thought.  The souls of the
faithful, at death, will part forever with their present earthly
and corruptible integuments.  The body, compacted as it now




THE CONSUMMATION.                     203
is, will not be restored: it will rise, but other and different,
more pure and splendid.  The present is but the germ of the
future, according to the illustration of Paul, who says, "It is
sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body."
With regard to the form  of the future body, it has been
generally inferred, from  the manner in which Origen has expressed himself and from  the analogy of his system, that he.
regarded it as round. Such is the figure esteemed most perfect; such that of the heavenly bodies, -  those more glorious
intelligences; and such, as he seems to have supposed, will be
ours; though he has not, we believe, directly asserted it in
any of his writings we now possess. Certain it is, that his followers professed to have derived the doctrine from him; and
it was prevalent among the Origenian monks of Palestine in
the time of Justinian.*
Origen believed in the final restoration of all beings to virtue and happiness.  All are subjected to influences, which,
sooner or later, will prove successfhl.   Superior orders of
intelligences are appointed to instruct, guide, and perfect the
lower.  Of the glorious spirits -who have imitated the divine
perfections, some, as the reward of their merits, are placed in
the " order of angels; others, of virtues; others, of principalities; others, of powers, because they exercise power over
those who require to be in subjection; others, of thrones,
exercising the office of judging and directing those who have
need."  To the care and rule of these noble orders the race
of man is subjected, and, using their assistance, and reformed
by their salutary instructions and discipline, will, in some future
though perhaps distant age, be restored to their primitive state
of felicity.t
The sufferings of a future life, as Origen taught, are all
piacular and remedial. We shall all, he says, be subjected
to trial by fire.  But those who have few impurities and many
virtues will escape with slight pain; but the fire will take hold
* Among the anathemas subjoined to Justinian's Epistle to Menas already
referred to, on the errors of Origen, is the following: "Wlloever says or
thinks that men's bodies will be raised spherical, and not erect, let him be
anathema." — C(oncil., t. vi. p. 353, ed. Coleti.
t lie Princip., lib. i. c. 6; Opp., i. 69; Jerome, Epist. 94, ad Avitum.




204             ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
of the wicked, and their iniquities will be burned, and their
evil affections purged away.  Some, however, in consequence
of inveterate habits of sin, will be reserved to a great intensity
and long continuance of suffering, of which their blackened
bodies will be witness.*
So he sometimes expresses himself; but in ot~her parts of
his writings he is careful to teach us that this and similar language is altogether metaphorical. By the fire which shall burn
the wicked, he tells us, is meant the worm. of conscience.
The evil of their whole lives will, by an act of Divine power,
be vividly presented to their thoughts; the picture of all the
wrong they have done or intended will be spread out before
their eyes; forgotten things will be remembered; and they
will have a horrible consciousness of guilt.  This is the flame
by which they are to be tormented; not an outward and material, but an inward fire, of which their sins furnish the fuel;
just as the peccant humors of the body, consequent upon excess and repletion, furnish the fuel of fever.t  These humors
may be purged away, and the patient restored, after a season
of suffeling.  Just so with regard to the impurities of sin
which occasion so much anguish.  By the salutary discipline
of suffering, the soul may and will be cleansed from  them.
Such is its design, such its tendency, and such will be its
result.  All will be chastised exactly in proportion to their
demerit; but their sufferings will have an end, and all will
be finally restored to purity and to love.  This Origen repeatedly asserts.
The end and consummation of all things, he observes, is the
perfection and happiness of all.  " To this one end," condition, or state, he says, "we think that the goodness of God,
through his Christ, will recall his universal creation; all things
becoming finally subjected to Christ.' For all things must be
subject to him.'9:Now, what is this subjection," he asks,
" with which all things must be subject to Christ? I think
the same with which we also desire to be subject to him; with
which the Apostles, and all the saints who have followed Christ,
* In Exod., Hornm. vi.; In Ps. xxxvi., Horn. iii.; 01Wp., t. ii.
t De Princip., lib. ii. c. 10; Opp., ii. 100; Jerome, Epist. 94, ad Avitum.
1 Cor. xv. 24-28.




FINAL RESTITUTION OF ALL THINGS.            205
Rare subject to him.  For the very term'subjection,' in this
case, implies that they who are subject have obtained the
salvation which is of Christ.'.'  Then it is that'" Christ himself shall also be subject to the Father, with and in those who
have been made subject."  This, he observes, is asserted by
the Apostle, when he says, "And, when all things shall be
subdued to him, then shall the Son also himself be subject
unto Him that put all things under him; that God may be all
in all."  And this subjection of all Christ's enemies to himself,
as that of himself to the Father, Origen contends, " is a good
and salutary ". subjection. If the latter is such, the former is
so too: and hence, " as, when it is said the Son is subject to
the Father, the perfect restitution of the universal creation
is declared; so, when the enemies of the Son are said to be
subject to him, the salvation, through himl, of those subject,
and the restitution of the lost, are implied." 
Again:' in his seventh Homily on Leviticus, he contends that
subjection to Christ implies sullbjection of the will and affections; and that, as long as anything remains opposed to him,
in other words, as long as there is sin, -  his work is. not
consummated.  " But," lie adds, " when he shall have consummated his work, and brought his universal creation to the
summit of perfection, then he himself shall be subject in those
whom  he has subdued to the Father, and in whom  he has
consummated the work which the Father gave himn to do;
that God may be' all in all." t
Such, according to Origen, will be the end,, or final consummation, of all things. His train of reasoning throughout, as it
will be perceived, implies his belief of the final restoration and
happiness, not merely of the human race, but of all rational
natures, including demons and fallen spirits of darkness; otherwise the universal creation could not be said to be subjected
and made perfect.  When, in connection with the train of
reasoning above exhibited, we take the fact before stated, that
lie supposed Christ died for the heavenly hosts and for demons, for all rational beings who had sinned, we cannot doubt
that such was his belief. Such it was understood to have been
in the time of Theophilus, above referred to, and of Jerome, both' De Princip., lib. i. c. 6; lib. iii. c. 5.  t Opp., ii. 222.




206              ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
of whom made it one of the capital articles in the catalogue
of his heresies, that he taught that "the Devil " would be
finally saved. In fact, there are passages in his writings which
appear expressly to inculcate this doctrine. Thus he observes,
" The last enemy, which is called Death, is spoken of as destroyed." By death, it seems, he understood the Devil, or
"him that had the power of deathl" (Heb. ii. 14); and he
proceeds to explain what is meant by his destruction.  "The
last enemy," he says, " is not to be understood as so destroyed,
that his substance, which was derived from God, shall perish;
but only that his malignant will and purpose, which proceeded
not fiom God, but from himself, shall cease to exist. He shall
be destroyed, therefore, not so that he shall not continue to be,
but so that he shall not continue to be an enemy and death."'
Nothing more can be needed to show that a belief of the final
restoration of all fallen beings formed part of the creed of Origen.t  The more deeply fallen, however, will be subjected,. as
he taught, to protracted and severe sufferings; and God alone
knows their termination. But all will mount, step by step, till
they attain " to the invisible and eternal state, some in the
first, some in the second, and some in the last ages; corrected
and reformed, by rigorous discipline and very great and grievous punishments, by the instructions of angels, and afterwards
by superior orders of intelligences."
The rewards of the blessed Origen makes to consist in an
intimate union, or oneness, with God, according to the prayer
of Christ (John xvii. 21-24).  They do not, however, rise to
the summit of this felicity at once, but through several successive steps: as, first, by knowledge and instruction, which
remove the darkness of their understandings; then by being
broughlt into a moral resemblance to God; then by being taken
into union with him, in which consists the supreme good.
This union is explained as a union of affection, will, and purpose.  The soul, on leaving the body, is first conducted, as
he tells us, to a part of the earth called Paradise,: where it
* De Princip., lib. iii. c. 6. See also lib. i. c. 6.
t See, on this point, the letter of Jerome, already repeatedly referred to.
t It is curious to observe, that Origen, while he places Eden, or the terrestrial Paradise, in the third heavens (imagining that by Adam and Eve
dwelling in it we are to understand souls residing in heaven; and, by their




PERPETUAL LAPSES AND RETURNS.                  207
remains for some time, enjoying the instruction of angels, and
gradually depositing its earthly concretions.  It then nlounts
into the air, and afterwards into various regions of the heavens, continuing in these several places, under different masters of the superior orders of intelligences, for a longer or
shorter term, according to the degree of impurity to be purged
off, till by various progressions it reaches the invisible and
incorporeal heavens, where God resides; where, as we have
said, it becomes united with him  as in its first state of felicity
and love, and he becomes " all in all," dwelling in all, and all
in him.  Matter will then become spiritualized, and be reabsorbed in God, fiom whom it flowed.  Thus all ends where all
began: -
"From thee, great God! we spring; to thee we tend."
Such was Origen's great system; yet he occasionally expresses views which appear in some respects to militate against
it. Thus he seems to say that there will be perpetual lapses
and returns from sin to holiness, and from  superior orders of
beings to inferior, and the reverse, in consequence of that
moral liberty which all will retain, and which they may forever use or abuse.   Thus Peter may, at some future time,
become a Judas; and Judas, a Peter: Paul, a Caiaphas; and
Caiapbas, Paul.  Men may become angels or demons; and
angels or demons, men. Demons and angels may change
characters: the Devil may become an archangel; and archangels, devils; all things mingling and revolving in unceasing
succession.  Upon this hypothesis, there can be no fixed condition either of happiness or suffering.  Neither the punishment
of the damned nor the joys of the blessed are necessarily
eternal. All beings are in a state of perpetual progression and
expulsion, the exile of souls doomed, as the punishment of sin, to be clothed
with bodies), he supposes the future or celestial Paradise to be situated somewhere on the earth. "I think," says he, "that saints, departing this life, will
remain in a certain part of the earth, called, in the Scriptures, Paradise, as in a
school of instruction."  The same, he supposed, was intended by "Abraharn's
bosom." Here all which they have witnessed on earth is to be explained to
them; and they are to receive revelations of the future, not now permitted.
This place the more pure will soon leave, and mount through various mansions, called, by the Greeks, spheres; but in the Scriptures, heavens (De
Praicip., lib. ii. c. 11, ~ 6).




208             ORIGEN; AND HIS THEOLOGY.
retrogression.  The material universe will undergo corresponding changces.  There was a succession of worlds before the
present, and will be a succession after it; the new  springing
from  the old, as the bird of feable from  the ashes of its sire.
Souls will fall into sin, and, for their punishment, must be
again imprisoned in gross bodies; and this will always create
a necessity for the existence of matter, which will be absorbed
and prod(uced, reabsorbed and reproduced, in successive and
never-ending periods.*  It may well be doubted, however,
whether such was Origen's fixed opinion.  On many points, he
is ulcertain and vacillating; but with regard to the final restoration of all beings to a union with the fountain of Divinity,
when Christ shall deliver up the kingdom  to the Fatller, and
God shall be all in all, -le is clear and express.  Ite often
recurs to the topic, and his views on the subject are fiully unfolded.  We mIay be pardoned if we hesitate to admit, upon
the evidence of a few slight expressions, his belief of a doctrine,
which, in opposition to the general tenor of his reasonings,
teaches that sin shall never be abolished, and the time will
never come when " all things shall be subdued to the Son,"
and all shall be " of one heart and of one mind."  It would be
no easy task, however, to defend Origen against the charge of
inconsistency and self-contradiction.  It was his fate to lose
himself in the mazes of a wild and wandering philosophy.
How thoroughly he had imbibed its spirit, the foregoing(r summary of his opinions abundantly shows.  We mean not to be
his apologist.  Our aim has been to be simply the historian of
his opinions, not to coinbat or defend them.
The fate of the Origeniani doctrines, after the brilliant but
erratic spirit which had contributed to give them currency had
been withdrawn from  the earth, is exceedingly interesting.
The storm  raised against him  during his life, as has  been
already shown, had, in reality, no reference whatever to doctrine; nor have we any evidence that his orthodoxy was
formally impugned until long after his death.t   The first
* De Princijp., lib. i. c. 6; also Jerome, EpIist. 94, ad Avitum.
t We are aware that Ensebius ([list., vi. 36) alludes to a letter written by'
Origen to Fabian, Bishop of Rome, " concerning his own ortholdoxy "; which
would seem to imply that it was, by some, drawn into suspicion; but on what




FATE OF THE ORIGENIAN DOCTRINES.                209
writer who ventured to censure the doctrines of Origen after
his decease, as we are informed by Socrates the historian,* was
Methodius, Bishop of Olympus in Lycia, afterwards of Tyre,
who died early in the fourth century, fifty years after Origen
left the world.  Ile wrote a book on the Resurrection, against
Origen; and another, says Jerome,-  on " the Pythoness"
(1 Sam. xxviii.). The attack on Origen, however, seems to
have been deemed a rash one.  Origen's writings were now
held in unbounded admiration, and Methodius found it convenient to recant.
Origen's reputation for orthodoxy continued unsullied till
the celebrated Arian controversy broke out; when he was
claimed by both parties, though his opinions coincided with
neither.  The Arians could of right claim  him, as asserting
that the Son was inferior to the Father, but not as affirming
that he was made out of nothing, which was their distinguishing dogmna.   The Athanasians could claim  him, as asserting,
with the ante-Nicene Fathers generally, that he had an existence fiom eternity, not with, but in, the Father; not as a real
being or person, but an attribute.  On the whole, the orthodox
had, at this time, receded further from the views of Origen, if
not in letter, at least in spirit, than the Arians.  The former,
however, regarded him  as too important an ally to be surrendered.  They continued to defend him  as long as with
decency they could; and even Athanasius quotes him  with
approbation.  From  this time, however, Origen had a strong
party against him; though his friends and admirers were yet
numerous, and many of them among the most learned and accomplished writers of the age.  Ensebius and Pampllilus, with
a tender regard for his memory, composed an Apology for him,
points, we are not told. The matter appears to have produced no excitement:
if so, it was soon allayed. Among the charges brought against him by his
enemies at Alexandria, in consequence of which he was deposed and banished,
not one related to doctrine; which is sufficient evidence that lhe was not regarded as deviating, in any essential particular, from the popular faith.
Eccles. Iist., lib. vi. c. 13.
t De Vir. I/lust. Jerome also mentions a treatise of Methodins on "Fret
Will." This, it seems, was written in the form of a dialogue between a Valentinian and a Catholic, and was designed to prove that evil arises from abuse
of liberty in free agents; whicli was also the doctrine of Origen.
14




210               ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
in six books; and his writings were collected and deposited in
the library at Ctesarea.*
It appears, then, that the soundness of Origen's opinions on
the subject of the Trinity first began to be called in question
after the rise of Arianism.  But the defection from  him was
by no means general even then. The majority, even, of the
orthodox, were still friendly to his memory.  Socrates, it is
curious to observe, after mentioning some authors who had
written against him  down to the close of the fourth century,
says, that though they collected whatever they supposed blame.
worthy in Origen,-  some mentioning one thing, and some
another, - yet they found no fault with him on the subject of
the Trinity.4   This assertion is made without any qualifying
phrase whatever.  From the days of Arius, we know, down to
the time of Theophilus the Alexandrian, and Epiphanius, near
the close of the fourth century, the adherents and friends of
Origen formed a very large proportion of Christians. Another
tempest then arose, more violent than the former. The monks
of Egypt and Palestine were at this time decided Origenists.
Theophilus, having embroiled himself in a dispute with some
of the former, who inhabited the monasteries of Nitria, assembled a Provincial Synod at Alexandria, about the year
400; in which - to gratify, as it would seem, a passion of
revenge or hatred -  he caused the writings of their favorite,
Origen, to be condemned a century and a half after his death.
This is the first time sentence of condemnation was pronounced
against the errors of Origen by a synod.  Theophilus, who had
* In this Apology, nine charges are mentioned as brought against llim by
his enemies. Some of them, however, are evidently unfounded; and a part
inconsistent with the rest. He was accused of saying that " the Son of God
was not begotten"; of retailing the fabulous opinions of Valentinus concerning his birth; of maintaining, with Artemon and Paul of Samosata, that he
was a mere man; of saying that the account of him given by the evangelists
is a mere allegory, and not a history of events that actually occurred; of asserting that there were two Christs; of allegorizing, generally, the lives of the
saints recorded in the Scriptures; of' holding some unsound opinions concerning the resurrection of the dead, and of denying that sinners will be punished;
of entertaining erroneous views of the state of the soul; and, lastly, of maintaining that human souls will hereafter pass into the bodies of beasts, fishes,
and serpents.
t Eccles. [list., lib. vi. c. 13.




HIS ASSAILANTS AND DEFENDERS.                211
a talent for intrigue, immediately wrote to the bishops generally,
and to Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus, in particular, urging him
to the same step. The latter, duped by the arts of the wily
Egyptian, called a council of the Cyprian bishops, who proceeded to pass sentence of condemnation both on Origen and
his writings.  This controversy, which was long and fierce,
involved John, Bishop of Jerusalem, and John Chrysostom of
Constantinople, both favorers of Origen; also Rufinus and
Jerome, who were soon engaged in terrific battle. In fact,
the whole East and West were now shaken with tremendous
commotions.*  Theophilus boasts that he had " truncated the
serpents of Origen with the evangelic sword." Epiphanius
adds, " Amalek is destroyed," and boasts that he will sweep
the heresy of Origen fiom  the face of the earth.  Jerome
swells the note of triumph. " Where now," he asks, "is the
crooked serpent? where the venomous vipers? "
We may give, as a specimen of the hate engendered by this
controversy, the parting words which passed between John
Chrysostom of Constantinople, and Epiphanius, when the latter,
after a violent altercation, was about to leave Constantinople
for Cyprus.  " May you not die a bishop! " says Epiphanius
to John.  "May you never live to reach home! " retorts the
golden-mouthed John.   The wishes of both were granted.
Chrvsostom was soon after deposed, and died in exile, A. D.
407;t and  Epiphanius, having embarked for Cyprus, died
on the passage, A. D. 403. Theophilus, who had rendered
himself odious by the indulgence of his violent and revengeful
passions, died A. D. 412.   On his death-bed, as tradition
says, he expressed great remorse; and the ghost of the injured Chrysostom, whose downfall had been procured chiefly
* See Jerome, Epist. 38, al. 61, ad Pammach.; also Epist. 39, al. 62, ad
Theoph., with other letters of Jerome to Theophilus, and of Theophilus and
Epiphanius to Jerome. Jerome, Opp., t. iv., ed. Par. 1706. Socrates, Eccles.
Hist., lib. vi. c. 10; Huet. Oriq., lib. ii. c. iv.
t He was finally banished to a place called Pityus, " on the northeast coast
of the Black Sea, at the foot of Mount Caucasus, in a desolate region at the
extreme limits of the Roman Empire." He did not live to reach the place of
his exile, but, worn out with toil and suffering, he died on his journey; at the
age of 60.-Life, by Perthes.




212             ORIGEN, AND HIS THEOLOGY.
by his machinations, standing at his pillow, shook his soul with
terror.
Thoulgh Oricgenisim  had now received some heavy blows, it
yet gave symptoms of life. The publication of a translation of
Origen's book "Of Principles," at Rome, by Rufinus, had
been the occasion of awakening the spirit of Pelagius, whose
doctrines were, in fact, only a certain modification of Origenism. Anastasius, however, the first pope of tile name, had
condemned Rufinus for heresy, and passed sentence against
Origen and his writings; and the friends of his name and
doctrines hlad  certainly some reason to indulge desponding
anticipations.
This explosion past, a long period of comparative quiet followed.  Meantime, Origenism found shelter in the monasteries
of Palestine; whllere, a little more than a century after, it continued to prevail to an alarming extent.  Complaints were
made to the Emperor Justinian, who caused sentence of
anathema to be pronounced against Origen by several bishops
(among whom were Menas, Patriarch of Constantinople; Ephrem of Antioch; Peter, Bishop of Jerusalem; and Vigilius of
Rome), about the year 538.  This sentence was confirmed
by the fifth General Council, holden at Constantinople, A. D.
553;; and again, by the sixth, holden also at Constantinople,
A. D. 680.  The acts of this council were confirmed by Pope
Leo II., A. D. 683; and thus Origen was formally placed in
the rank of heretics.   His works are still, however, permitted to be perused by Catholics, with a Caute leye, in the
margin, against the offensive passages, to put the reader on
his guard.
Oricen was the great head of the liberal school of theology
of his day, and he left the authority of his name and example
i valuable heritage to after ages.  Alluding to the disputes
which rent the church at a subsequent period, Gieseler t says
that " to the wide-extended influence of his writings it is to be
attributed, that, in the midst of these furious controversies,
* See Evagrius, Eccles. Hist., lib. iv. c. 38; and Valesius's note. Huet
Orig., lib. ii. c. iv. ~ 3.
t Eccles. tlist., vol. i., p. 207, ed. Phil. 1836.




WIDE INFLUENCE OF HIS WRITINGS.             213
there remained any freedom of theological speculation whatever. 
Bunsen expresses himself quite as strongly.  "Origen's
death," says he, " is the real end of free Christianity, and, in
particular, of free, intellectual theology." *
* Christianity and Mankind, i. 286.




WRITERS SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME OF ORIGEN
AND BEFORE THE RISE OF THE ARIAN
CONTROVERSY.
CHAPTER I.
SABELLIUS AND SABELLIANISM. - PAUL OF SAMOSATA. - THE SCHOLARS OF
ORIGEN. - DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA.: — ACCUSED OF HETERODOXY.
-EXTRACTS. -THE TERM "CONSUBSTANTIAL."'- GREGORY THAUMATURGUS.- DEPRESSES THE SON TO THIE RANK OF A CREATURE OR
WORK. - THEOGNOSTUS.- QUOTED. - PIERIUS. - PiHOTIUS'S REPORT
OF HIS OPINIONS. - METHODIUS.- HIS LANGUAGE SAVORS OF ARIANISM. -LCIAN. - His LEARNING AND MERITS. - HIS OPINIONS. - MOST
OF THE ARIAN CHIEFS WERE OF HIS SCHOOL.
SABELLIUS.
WE have, in the preceding pages, traced the doctrine of'the
separate being and inferiority of the Son, from Justin Martyr
down to Origen.  There was now, on the one side, something
which was thought, at least, to savor of Tritheism, and on
the other, as we have seen, a strict Monarchianism, which, by
its mode of defending the unity of God, subjected itself to the
charge of Patripassianism, and to the denial of the divinity of
Christ, by maintaining that the Logos as a separate subsistence
formed no part of his nature.  "Origen," says Hagenbach,*
"carried to such an extreme his system of hypostases, including the subordination sche'me, that orthodoxy itself threatened
to run over into heterodoxy, and thus gave rise to the Arian
controversy, in the following period."  Thus it was the Orthodox Fathers themselves who opened the way to Arianism.
Sabellianism, and the kindred beliefs of Praxeas, Noetus,
Beryllus, and the rest, pointed in the opposite direction.
* Text-Book, etc., First Period, ~ 46.




SABELLIUS.                    215
Tritheism and Sabellianism were the Scylla and Charybdis of
the Fathers.
We will treat further of the orthodoxy of the age presently;
but we must first say a few words of Sabellius and Paul of
Samosata, two eminent teachers of the Monarchian party, who
flourished about the time of Origen's death, or a little later.
Neander pronounces Sabellius the " most original and acute,
thinker among the Monarchians."  He was of Ptolemais in
Pentapolis, in Egypt; at least it is asserted by Eusebius that:
his opinions were first propagated there.  This was a little
after the middle of the third century, - about A. D. 255-257,
as the date is generally computed by critics. His doctrine was
a protest against the orthodoxy of the age. Sabellianism is
generally described as a trinity of attributes, names, or manifestations. God exists in one hypostasis or person, but in three
relations: first, as manifest in creation, and the giving of the
law; secondly, in the person of Jesus Christ; and thirdly, in
a purifying and elevating influence, called the Holy Spirit.
These are not three "self-subsistent personalities, but only
three different characters -forms of revelation in which the
Divine Being presents himself."
The Saviour was the immediate manifestation of God. The
Logos, or Power of God, was hypostatized in him during his
abode on earth, but the personality was not permanent; it
was transient only. It " neither existed previously to his incarnation, nor does it continue to exist in heaven, since that
divine ray which beamed forth in Christ returns again to
God."  But whether Sabellius made it return at the ascension
of Christ, or only after the Kingdom of God should be completed, is not certain. The denying the permanent self-subsistence of the Logos in Jesus Christ was the great point on
which Sabellius differed essentially from the Orthodox Platonizing Fathers. The Power of God, or Logos, at the appointed
time, according to Sabellius, united itself with the man Jesus,
wrought in him as in no other man, made him sufficient for
his great work, and left him when that work was accomplished.
The Platonizing Fathers believed in the permanently self-subsisting Logos of God in Christ.  In common with most of
those who had spoken of the Holy Spirit, and distinguished




216        WRITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS.
it from the Logos, Sabellius appears to have regarded it simply
as the power of God.
Sabellius's doctrine of the Logos as a power occasionally
manifested, (leaping out from God and then drawn back and
reabsorbed,) but having no separate, abiding personality, was
not new. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, mentions a similar opinion as held by some in his day.* There
seems to have been something congenial with the minds of the
age in the Sabellian views. They rapidly spread, not only in
Egypt, the land of their birth, so that, as Athanasius says, in
Pentapolis in Upper Libya, tile Son of God was " scarcely any
longer preached in the churches," t that is, in the Orthodox
sense.  Sabellianism  pervaded far-off regions, and in the
fourth and fifth centuries the Fathers are still found contending against it.t Yet a " sect of Sabellians, properly so called,"
says Hagenbach, " did not exist."
The Sabellianism of antiquity has been the belief of multitudes within the pale of Orthodox churches, in modern
times.  Milman, the historian, says, "a more modest and unoffending Sabellianism might perhaps be imagined in accordance with modern philosophy." ~
PAUL OF SAMOSATA.
Paul of Samosata appeared a little later.  He enjoyed the
friendship of Zenobia, the celebrated queen of Palmyra, and
became Bishop of Antioch in 260. Of the various complaints
against him our purpose does not require us to speak. We
are concerned only with his opinions as a Monarchian.  In his
main principle it is often said that he differed but little from
Sabellius.  But Neander thinks that he more nearly resembled Artemon, with whom he is frequently compared by the
ancient writers. He held that there was in the divine nature
only one hypostasis, or person; that Christ was man by
nature, yet was higher than other men, as conceived by the
* Cap. 128, Otto.                   t De Sentent. Diony.ysii, c. 5.
t Euseb. iist., vii. 6; Epiphanius, HC1;, lxii.; Neander, Hlist. of Christ.
Dogmas, pp. 164-168; Martini, Versuch, etc., pp. 188-198; Hagenbach, Text'
Book, etc., Second Period, ~ 88.
~ flist. of Christianity, p. 312; ed. New York, 1841.




PAUL OF SAMOSATA.                   217
Holy Spirit.  He first began to exist when born of Mary.
The divine Logos united itself with him and dwelt in him as
in no other ever sent of God, but did not, properly speaking,
incarnate:itself in him; it had in him no personal subsistence.
The divine Reason itself, the Wisdom or Power of God, revealed itself in him as it had never revealed itself in any other
prophet.  So great was the illumination he hence received,
and so was his nature exalted by means of it, that he could
with propriety be called the Son of God.
There existed great bitterness of feeling against Paul, for
he had personal qualities which were very offensive.  The
bishops from furthest Egypt and Pontus combined to crush
him; council after council was held, and he was finally condemned and deposed between 269 and 272. The same Synod
of Antioch which deposed and excommunicated him, it is
worthy of note, rejected the term  homoousios, "consubstantial," which, after the Council of Nice, became the very Slibboleth of orthodoxy.
Little more was now for a tinle heard of these opinions.
The pendulum was swinging in an opposite direction.  In antagonism to Sabellian and kindred views, the doctrine of the
self-subsisting personality of the Logos, or Son, was more
strenuously insisted on than ever.  Soon Arianism  came,
strongly contrasting with the Monarchianism of Sabellius and
Paul.*  Of this we will proceed to treat; but we must first
glance for a moment at the scholars of Origen, now dispersed
over various regions, and inquire what they are teachinlg.  It
is remarkable that no one of them  has adopted his peculiar
views of the "eternal generation " of the Son.  There is, we
believe, no instance of this found among his followers.  In
other respects they hold his views of the Logos, or Son, as the
Reason of God, which, before the creation of the world, was
begotten, or converted into a self-subsistent being subordinate
to the Father, and his instrument in creating and governing
the world.:Epiphan. ficer., 1xv.; Euseb. Hist., vii. 27-30; Martini, Versuch, etc.,
pp. 209-225; Neander, Hist. Christ. Dogmr., pp. 169, 170, and Hist. Christ. Reliq.,
i. 601-605; Hagenbach, Text-Book, etc., Second Period, ~ 88.




218        WRITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS.
DIoNYsIus OF ALEXANDRIA.
One of these was Dionysius of Alexandria.  He was of
Pagan extraction, became a student of philosophy, and afterwards, probably through the influence of Origen, went over to
Christianity.  About the year 232, he succeeded Heraclas in
the chair of the theological school, and on his death, A. D. 247,
ascended the Episcopal'throne of Alexandria. He took an
active part in the theological discussions and disputes of the
day, and by his rank and merits obtained the name of " Great."
He embarked with his characteristic ardor in the Sabellian
controversy, which nearly proved his ruin, for it left him with
his reputation for orthodoxy blighted. Some African bishops
loudly complained of him to his namesake at Rome, for saying
that the Son was a " work, and was not consubstantial with the
Father," and he had great trouble in purging his name from
the taint of heresy.*  He "sowed the seeds," we are told,
" of the Anomncean impiety "; the Anomoeans being a branch
of the Arians.  Basil charges him with placing the Son in the
rank of a "creature," - in repelling the errors.of Sabellius
going into the opposite extreme; making not only a "diversity of persons," but a "' difference of substance."t
The charge seems to have been but too well founded. Dionysius wrote many letters and some treatises on theolorical
subjects, most of which have perished. But some of his lktters, or parts of them, have been preserved by Eusebius, who
from them composed the greater part of the Seventh Book of
his History, observing that Dionysius 1" particulariy relates all
the actions of his own times, in the epistles which he has left
to posterity."    Fragments of his letters, too. are found in
the writings of Athanasius.  These fragments afford unexceptionable evidence of his opinions, as they give his own language.  We will present one or two extracts. A letter which
he wrote to Ammonius and Euphranor furnished the Arians
with the following passage well suited to their purpose.  He
said that the " Son of God is something made and begotten;
* Athan. De Syn. Afim. et Seleuc., cc. 43, 44; et De Syn. Nic. Decret., c. 25.
t Epist. 9, 210, ed. Par. 1839.
t See also vi. 35, 40-4-5.




DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA.                    219
neither is he by nature'(a son) proper; but is in substance
foreign to the Father, as is the husbandman to the vine, or the
shipbuilder to the ship; and being a creature, he was not before he was begotten." *  There is no doubt these were the
words of Dionysius.  They are given as such by Athanasius,
who was friendly to his memory and his apologist, and who
wrote a treatise on his sentiments which is still extant.
Again, from  the same work of Athanasius, it appears that
Dionysius was charged with holding that " God was not always
Father; the Son was not always; but God was without the
Logos; and the Son was not before he was begotten; but there
was a time when he was not, for he is not eternal, but was afterwards begotten." f  This is what he was accused of saying.
He complains afterwards that he was not fairly dealt with, -
that his words were taken out of their connection, and that
his expressions are marred in the quotation. Whether this
was so or not, he had in his former writings against the Sabellians, it seems, laid himself open to the charge of so teaching.
Subsequently, according to Athanasius, he explained and recanted, and took a more orthodox view of the subject. This
is not doubted.  The question is, what he said in his earlier
days, when writing against the Sabellians, not what he asserted
afterwards, when it became necessary for him to defend himself against the charge of heresy.  Athanasius does not deny
that the words above quoted were used by him; he only gives
his explanation or apology.
Little needs be added.  As to the term  " consubstantial,"
Dionysius says that he " did not find it in the Scriptures," and
he therefore felt justified in rejecting it.4   Dionysius explains
* De Sent. Dionys., c. 4. The meaning is, the Son of God is not by origin
of the nature of the Father, according to the usual law, but is foreign to him
in substance, the relation between them being that of the planter to the vine,
or the ship-carpenter to. the ship he builds, - a doctrine in the highest degree
anti-Sabellian, and certainly on the very confines of Arianism.
t De Sent. Dionys., c. 14.
t Athan. De Sent. Diontys.; and the letter of Dionysius himself to his namesake of Rome, in Athan. De Syn. Arini. et Seleuc., c. 44; De S.n. Nic. Decret.,
c. 25. Dionysius uses other illustrations. Tlius, alluding to a former letter,
he says: "I adduced parallels of thi'ngs kindred with each other; for instance, that a plant growing from seed, or from root, was other than that from
which it sprang, yet was altogether one in nature with it; and that a stream




220       WRITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS.
in what sense he could use it; in other words, in what sense
he could say that the Son was consubstantial with the Father.
"I took the example," he says, " of a human progeny, which
it is evident is of the same genus with the parent," that is,
consubstantial.  In this sense " consubstantial " did not imply
numerical identity. So, according to Dionysius, who in this
followed the older Fathers, the Father and the Son might be
pronounced "consubstantial," as they were beings of the same
specific nature, that is, both divine, though as distinct from
each other as Peter and John, or the husbandman and the
vine, the maker of the ship and the ship.  The attempt to
prove that men of this stamp were Trinitarians in any such
sense as would satisfy a modern expositor of the doctrine is
perfectly idle.
Dionysius was called to attend the Council of Antioch, assembled to try Paul of Samosata; but being prevented by age
and infirmity from attending, he wrote a letter to the Synod
expressing his views on the subject in dispute, and died soon
after, A. D. 265.
GREGORY THAUMATURGUS.
About the same year (A. D. 265) died another of the pupils
of Origen, and his great admirer. This was the celebrated
Gregory Thaumaturgus, the "wonder-worker," as he was
called; pronounced by Eusebius* to be one of the "most
famous bishops of the age." He was a native of Neocessarea
in Pontus, and was born of heathen parents. Pursuing the
study of law at different places, and among others at Berytus
and Csesarea in Palestine, he at the latter place met with
Origen, who, captivated by his brilliant genius, became his
teacher and won him  over to Christianity.  Nothing can exceed the enthusiasm with which Gregory regarded this great
Father. Leaving him to return to his native country after he
had been his pupil for five years, he composed a panegyrical
flowing from a fountain, gained a new name, for that neither was the fountain
called stream, nor the stream fountain, and both existed, and the stream wag
the water from the fountain."
* Hist., vi. 30; vii. 14; and Jerome, De Vir. Illust., c. 65.




THEOGNOSTUS.                      221
oration upon him which is still extant. He then returned to
Pontus, and, much against his will, was made bishop there.
Basil, in the place already cited,* charges him, as well as Dionysius, with depressing the Son to the rank of a " creature," or
"work,"   something produced.  We discover in his writings
no trace of a belief in the eternity of the Son; in other respects lie adopted Origen's views of his nature.  He held him
to be of inferior dignity to the Father, and did not believe in
their numerical identity.t
THEOGNOSTUS.
Theognostus, an Alexandrian writer, not mentioned by Eusebius or Jerome, came a little later in the century, being
placed in the last third part of it. What we know of him,
which is very little, we gather chiefly from  Athanasius and
Photius. Athanasius quotes him to prove that the term " consubstantial" was not first used by the Fathers of Nice.  In
the second book of his Hypotyposes, Theognostus, he says,
writes thus: " The substance of the Son is not anything procured from without, nor accruing from nothing; but it sprang
fiom  the Father's substance, as radiance from light, or vapor
from  water; for neither is the vapor, nor the radiance, the
water itself, or the sun, nor is it foreign to it. The Son is an
effluence from  the substance of the Father, without the substance of the Father undergoing any partition; for as the sun
remains the same and is not diminished by the rays which
flow out fiom it, so neither does the substance of the Father
undergo any change through the Son who bears its its inage." &
Here is no numerical identity of substance in the sense of
the later Athanasian orthodoxy.  Yet Athanasius speaks in
high terms of Theognostus, and calls him a learned man.
Photius's'report of his orthodoxy is unfavorable. Photius
had read his writings which we do not possess.  Theognostus,
he tells us,~ calls the Son a "creature," and says that he
* Epist. 9 et 210. Opp., iii. 128, 458, ed. Par. 1839.
t On the subject of his opinions, and the creed falsely attributed to him,
see Martini, Versuch, etc., p. 230, ff. See also Lardner, art. " Gregory of Neo-.wesarea."
t Athan. De Srqn. Nic., c. 25.             ~ Biblioth., cod. 106.




222       WRITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS.
"presides only over beings endowed with reason," and utters
"other things derogatory to the Son, after the manner of
Origen." Nor do the opinions he entertained of the Spirit
appear to have been any more orthodox.
PIERIUS.
Pierius, an Alexandrian, flourished about the same time,
perhaps a little later; surviving some years after the commencement of the fourth century,  We glean a little, and but
little, of him from Jerome and Eusebius.  He was of Origen's
school, and much inclined to asceticism. From his learning
and eloquence lie was called the younger Origen. We have
none of his works remaining. Photius says that he spoke worthily of the Father and Son, only he "made them two substances and two natures."  But of the "Holy Spirit he spoke
dangerously and impiously, maintaining that it was inferior in
glory to the Father and Son."   He passed his latter days at
Rome.
METHODIUS.
Methodius, Bishop of Olympus, in Lycia, and afterwards of
Tyre, in Phoenicia, a Greek writer, died after the commencement of the fourth century.  Several of his writings remain,
and Photius has preserved extracts from others which have, in
the main, perished. Jerome, in his book of " Illustrious Men,"
gives a short account of him; but Eusebius, in his History,
does not name him.  Valesiusf  attributes the omission to the
fact that Methodius wrote against Origen, of whom the historian was a warm  admirer.  In his book on the Resurrection,
and in two or three others, Methodius had found fault with
some of Origen's opinions, but it does not appear that he censured his doctrine of the Trinity; nor could he consistently,
for, as we shall presently see, he was himself no more orthodox on this subject than Origen. Socrates, after mentioning
him, with three others whom he names, as among the revilers
of Origen, says that he afterwards recanted, and expressed
great admiration of him. But whether he first censured and
* Biblioth., cod. 119.         f Euseb. Hist., vi. 24, note.




METHODIUS.                       223
then praised, or the reverse, has been made a question, which,
however, we shall not take time to discuss. It is of more consequence to observe what Socrates adds, that none of the calumniators of Origen charged him  with "entertaining ill sentiments of the Trinity." *  His doctrine was the orthodoxy of
the age.
As to Methodius, his opinions, we have no reason to doubt,
were those generally of his times. He says that the Father
was the principle out of which the Logos, which was before in
him, proceeded.  Of the eternity of the Son, as a self-subsistent being, he evidently knew nothing.  He calls him  the
"first begotten of God -  before the ages."  In power and
dignity he held the Son to be inferior to the Father. Speaking of the Son, he says that "after the Father, his beginningless grand cause, he is in himself the cause of all other things,
which were made through him." t No Athanasian orthodoxy
here. The opinions which now ruled in the East were' of a
very different complexion from  that.  No wonder that the
Arian opinions found a ready reception there.  Indeed, so
strongly do the writings of Methodius savor of Arianism, that
Photius suspected that they had been interpolated or corrupted
by the Arians.t  But no marks of interpolation can be discovered, and "learned moderns," says Lardnier, therefore, " have
thought themselves obliged to admit that Methodius Arianized." ~ Lardner gives several quotations and references in
support of his assertion, adducing the authority of Tillemont, Ij
Basnage, and the learned Huet, Origen's editor. Beausobre
had no better opinion of Methodius's orthodoxy. " His writings," he says, "savor very strongly of Arianism and Nestorianism."~- Of the assertion of Methodius that Christ is the
"most ancient of the iAons and first of the archangels," he
says, it is " furiously Arian." **  Among other strange things
* Hist., vi. 13. See the note of Valesius.
t See Martini, Versuch, etc., p. 245, ff.  $ Biblioth., cod. 237.
~ 1Worcs, vol, iii. p. 190. London, 1829.
II Tillemont says, that it is difficult to give a good sense to some of his
expressions concerning the Word and the procession of the divine persons.
Mem. Eccl&s., v. 200, ed. 1732.
~ Hist. de M4anicheie, etc., lib. vi. c. 3. Tom ii. p. 317, note.
A Ibid., lib. i. c. 10. Toni. i. p. 118.




224        WRITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS.
which Methodius taught was this, — that the Divine Word
incarnated itself in Adam, the first man; but that hle being
deprived of its presence by sin, it incarnated itself anew  in
the Virgin Mary.*
LUCIAN.
A  more distinguished personage who lived in these days
was Lucian, Presbyter of Antioch.  He bad the reputation of
being a very learned man, and was especially distinguished for
his' knowledge of the S.criptures.  Eusebius gives him  in all
respects a very exalted character.f  Jerome calls him  very
eloquent, and bears testimony to his laborious study of the
sacred writings, of which " some copies were still called Lucian's."t  This refers probably to his edition of the Septuagint.
Of this version there were several editions, according to Jerome: that of Hesychius, adopted by the churches of Egypt;
that of Lucian, in use from  Constantinople to Antioch; and
Origen's copy as prepared by Pamphilus and Eusebius, used in
Palestine and the regions adjoining.~  There was an edition
of the New Testament as well as of the Old by Lucian and
Hesychius, mentioned by Jerome. l  Lucian suffered martyrdom at Nicomedia, in the year 311 or 312, and was buried,
according to Jerome, in Heliopolis, in Bithynia. The city was
much favored by Constantine for that reason, and the empress
Helena regarded it with peculiar affection as the place where
the ashes of the martyr reposed.T
Lucian had many followers.  Born at Samosataj after the
death of his parents he passed some time at Edessa, and thence
removed to Antioch, where lie is said to have established a
-theological school.  According to Philostorgius, most of the
Arian chiefs, as Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon,
Theognis of Nice, Leontius of Antioch, and others, were his
disciples.**
* Hist. de Manichee, etc., lib. i. c. 10, and lib. vi. c. 3.
t list., viii: 18, and ix. 6.            t De Vir. Ilust., c. 77.
~ Proaf. in Paralip. Opp., i. 1027, ed. Par. 1609.
II Praef in Qaat. Evang. Tom. iii. p. 566.
~ Philostorgius, Hist., ii. 12.         A* lid., ii. 14.




LUCIAN.                          225
What were his own theological opinions, it has been thought
difficult to decide.  There are some significant facts, however,
which deserve to be mentioned in this connection. Alexander,
Bishop of Alexandria, intimates that he held the views of Paul
of Samosata, and in an obscure passage says, that lie remained
"out of the Synagogue " for a long period during the times of
three Bishops.'  But that he was ever separated from  the
Church, or excommunicated on account of his opinions, we do
not consider an established fact. The respect with which he
is uniformly spoken of by Athanasius, Jerome, and others, —
orthodox men,- and the reverence in which his memory was
held, seem inconsistent with the supposition.t 
The followers of Arius, however, were often, as we know,
called Lucianists; and Arius, in a letter addressed to Eusebius
of Nicomedia, speaks of him as a " fellow Lucianist.": The
creed attributed to him,~ on disputable grounds, however, is a
noteworthy document.  Athanasius and others find it orthodox; but the Arians seem  to have claimed  and  used it in
the fourth century. There were expressions in it, certainly,
which  both parties could  accept.  It says nothing of the
eternity of the Logos, or Son; the expression  " before all
ages " necessarily meaning no more than. that he existed before
all created beings; the obnoxious term  " consubstantial " is
avoided; and there is clearly nothing in the composition.which
teaches the numerical identity of the Father and Son. So far
the Arians could adopt it.  But some expressions occur in it
which the true Arians must have found it a little difficult to
reconcile with their peculiar belief.  The use made of Lucian's
name by the Arians, however, and the fact that so many of the
Arian chiefs were of his school, and that the sect were called
Lucianists, might, even if there were nothing else, create a
Ap. Theod. Hist. Eccles., lib. i. c. 4.
f " Out of the.Synagogue " is a literal translation of the Greek word used
by Alexander. The word occurs twice in Jolin's Gospel (ix. 22, and xvi. 2).
The sense is there clear, to be cast out of tile Synagogue being a well-known
Jewish punishment. But what the term means as applied to Lucian by Alexander, who does not explain, the learned find it dlifficult to decide. Tillenlont,
after discussing the subject, very frankly says, that he will venture to determine nothing respecting it, since history has determined nothing. Mem.
Ecclds., v. 202, and n. 847.
X Ap. Theod. Hist. Eccles., lib. i. c. 5.  ~Soc., ii. 10; Soz., iii. 5.
15




226       WRITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS.
doubt of his orthodoxy. In truth, we suppose that it was of
no higher stamp than the orthodoxy of his age,- that of
Theognostus, Pierius, and Methodius, or the disciples of Origen
generally, perhaps on some points verging a little more decidedly towards Arianism. Thus it is clear that the attempt
of Noftus, Sabellius, and others, to reconcile the divinity of the
Son with the unity of God, had met with little success. The
Sabellian principle, that the Logos had no separate personality,
or was not a self-subsistent being, was, in the eyes of the
Oriental bishops, rank heresy.  The tendency, as we have
said, was now in the opposite direction.




CYPRIAN.                     227
CHAPTER  II.
UYPRIAN. -- MAKES THE SON SUBORDINATE. - CONFOUNDS THE SPIRIT
WITH TIlE LOGOS. - NOVATIAN. -PROOFS FROM HIM OF THE DERIVED
NATURE AND INFERIORITY OF THE SON. - HOW HRE PRESERVED THE
UNITY OF GOD. - HIs VIEWS OF THE SPIRIT. - ARNOBIUS. - How HR,
SPEAKS OF THE FATIIHER AND SON. - LACTANTIUS.- HIS LEARNING
AND ELOQUENCE. — ADMITTED TO BE UNSOUND ON THE SUBJECT OF
THE TRINITY. - PROOFS.
CYPRIAN.
SuCH were the Greek writers who immediately preceded the
rise of Arianism. There are some Latin authors of note, however, of whose opinions we must say something before we proceed to the great controversy of the age. The first is Cyprian
(Thascius Cecilius Cyprianus), an African by birth, and at
the time of his martyrdom, A. D. 258, Bishop of Carthage. He
was educated in Heathenism, and, according to Jerome, obtained celebrity as a teacher of rhetoric. After his conversion,
which is attributed to Coecilius, a presbyter of Carthage, whose
name he took, he rose rapidly in the church.  He was a great
admirer of Tertullian, and was accustomed to read a portion
of his writings every day, saying, " Give me my master."  His
style had something of the African taint: it was declamatory
and rhetorical; but was much less hard than that of Tertullian.
He left a variety of letters and treatises, relating mostly to
Christian morality and discipline. From these it is not difficult
to gather his sentiments concerning the nature of Christ. He
speaks of God as "Lone," "supreme," and bestows on him
other epithets which show that he regarded him as without
partner or equal.
Referring to the Son he says, in his treatise on the "Vanity
of Idols," — the "Word," or the "Son of God," who is
"sent," is the " power of God, his Reason, his Wisdom and
Glory'"  Tn connection with thishe speaks of the Holy Spirit




228       WRITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS.
as becoming " clothed with flesh," thus confounding the Spirit
with the Logos. Many of the early Fathers did the same. In
regard to the Spirit they wavered and were inconsistent with
themselves, sometimes identifying it with the Logos, at other
times making a difference.  This is not surprising, as nothing
had as yet been authoritatively determined respecting it, and
there had been little discussion on the subject. In other parts
of his writings Cyprian distinguishes the Spirit from the Logos,
making it inferior in dignity to Christ himself, as being " sent"
by him, lie as superior sending it.* He calls Christ God, that
is, as the Son of God, but clearly denies his supremacy.  " If
just men, who obeyed the divine precepts, could be called
Gods, how much more," he says, "Christ the Son of God,"
alluding to John x. 34-37.  Here is a palpable distinction, the
Son, he whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world,
being clearly made subordinate.d
Again, after mentioning God the Creator as the Father of
Christ, Cyprian adds: " The power by which we are baptized
and sanctified, Christ received from the same Father whom he
pronounced greater, by whom  he prayed that he might be
sanctified, whose will he fulfilled, to the point of drinking the
cup, and submitting to death."t  Again, "By the preaching
and testimony of Christ himself, the Father who sent is to be
first acknowledged, then Christ who was sent."~   Again,
"'All power is given to me."II All this proves that Cyprian
never thought of a. numerical identity of the Father and Son,
but regarded them as two distinct beings, the Father being the
Fountain and Giver of all the power and dignity possessed by
the Son.  One further passage we will give to this point.
Thus our obligation to honor the Son is made by Cyprian to
rest on the will and command of the Father.  "The Father,
God," says he, " commanded that his Son be adored, and the
Apostle Paul, mindful of the divine precept, says, God exalted
him, and gave him a name which is above every name, that in
the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven,
things in earth, and things under the earth." ~  Thus all is of
* Epist. lxxiv. (Gersdorf), ad Pompeium, c. 5.
t Test. adv..Judmos, lib. ii. c. 6.
t Epist. lxxiii., ad Jubaian, c. 18.  ~ Ibid., c. 17.
11 Ibidl, c. 5.                   ~ De Bono Patientia, c. 24.




NOVATIAN.                      229
God. The ancient Christians had not learned that refinement
of logic, by which he who sends and he who is sent are made
one. They went on the assumption that they must necessarily
be two. Certainly, to prove that they held the doctrine of the
Trinity in a form at all resembling the modern, or Athanasian,
we must go elsewhere than to the writings of Cyprian.
NOVATI AN.
A more important witness is Novatian, a theological writer
of some eminence, a contemporary of Cyprian.  His heresy,
which consisted in his refusal to readmit to communion those
who in a time of persecution had denied the faith,- the
Lapsed, as they were called, - does not affect the value of his
testimony on the subject of the Trinity, on which he wrote a
work still extant.*  Of all the writings of Christian antiquity
which time has spared, relative to the doctrine of the Trinity,
this is the most copious and full.  It is a direct treatise on the
subject, and wholly devoted to it. Cyprian, a good authority
in this case, though he writes with great bitterness against
Novatian, does not impugn his orthodoxy as regards the Trinity, but seems, by implication at least, to admit it; t and Sozomen says that he innovated on established doctrines only by his
severe treatment of penitents.:  His work, inserted in many
editions of the writings of Tertullian, is called by Jerome
an epitome of a treatise by that Father; but its style, which
differs widely from that of Tertullian, marks it as original.
Many, says Jerome, ignorantly attributed it to Cyprian.  It
was written by Novatian, presbyter of the Church of Rome,
not before the year 250, probably in 256 or 257.
Novatian's orthodoxy, high as it is, falls far below the standard of subsequent centuries, when the doctrine of the Trinity
was considered as in a manner defined and established. He
never dreamed of asserting the equality of the Son with the
Father.  No Ante-Nicene writer furnishes more decisive testimony to the old doctrine of the undivided supremacy of the
* De Regila Fidei, sive de Trinitate, Liber. We use Jackson's edition, Lond.
L728.
t Epist. lxix., Gersdorf.           ~ Hist. Eccies., vi. 24.




230       WRITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS.
Father and the derived nature and inferiority of the Son.
The Spirit he places still lower. Du Pin notices the charge
orf Rufinus and Jerome, that the book on the Trinity cited
by them, supposed to be the same we now have, denies the
divinity of the Holy Spirit.*
But let us proceed methodically.  The first four cllaptk.-s
of Novatian's book relate to God.  In his first chapter he
says: "The rule of faith requires that first of all we believe
in God the Father and omnipotent Lord, the most perfect
Creator of all things, who suspended the heavens on high,"
etc.  Then follows a sublime description of things created.
In the three subsequent chapters, he proceeds to speak more
at large of the attributes of the Divine Being, who is the
"Maker of all things, - containing all, —moving, vivifying
all"; —" without origin and without end," whom "no words
can adequately describe and no mind comprehend," — in
strength, virtue, beauty, truth, majesty, riches, power, goodness, surpassing all; " whom alone our Lord with reason pronounces good," -- who is "immutable, one, without equal,
unbegotten, infinite, incorruptible, and immortal."  The epithets here applied to the Supreme God are never, either by
Novatian or any other Ante-Nicene writer, applied to the Son.
In his nlinthl chapter he speaks of the Son. He bestows on
him high d titles, and once calls him " our Lord God "; but why
and in what sense lie is to be so regarded, the author clearly
explains in subsequent parts of the treatise.  Novatian believed Christ to be both God and man, but not in the modern
or Athanasian sense. In him, says Novatian, the Divinity of
the Word being united by " concretion " or commixture with
human nature, constituting an indivisible unity, we hold him
to be God according to the Scriptures.t  He was God and
man, but not, as Novatian teaches, the supreme God; man as
born of man, God as born or begotten of God, according to
the doctrine of. the old Fathers, that what is born of God is
God, that is, divine, consubstantial with God, as what is born
of man is man, that is, human, consubstantial with man, numerical identity being excluded,' there being only identity of
* Eccles. r7'riters, vol. i. art. "Novatian." Lond. 1693.
t Cap. 11.




NOVATIAN.                       231
kind or species.  "Nature itself," says Novatian, " teaches us
to hold him  as man who is of man; so it teaches us to hold
him  as God who is of God." *  So Christ is God and man.
He has his origin from God, and sustains the same relation to
him as a human being sustains to its father.
But the inferiority and dependence of the Son, as well as
his distinct individual nature, are clearly asserted by Novatian
in those very passages in which he ascribes to him the highest
honor and dignity.  Thus he speaks of  timr as "Lord and
prince of the whole world," but adds that " all things were
delivered to him  by his Father." t  Again, he is " prince of
all the angels, before whom  there was nothing except the
Father," t but the Father was before him.  Here supreme,
independent divinity is clearly denied him.  The Son might
be older than all creatures, older than the angels and the highest intelligences, as Novatian believed,~ might exist "hbefore
time," that is, as the expression meant, before the constitution
of the world; but to assert this was very different from asserting that he was co-eternal with the Father, which the AnteNicene writers generally never thought of doing. Many of
them believed, with Justin Martyr, that the Son was begotten
a little before the creation of the world, or as the first step to
creation; others were less definite; but all, Origen perhaps
excepted, denied eternity proper to the Son, as such, that is,
as a separate personal subsistence, or being. Novatian, as we
have seen, asserts that the Father was before the Son; and he
teaches the same in other places.
Passages without number might be quoted to show that he
held the Son to be a distinct being from the Father and subordinate to him.  In John i. 3,   "All things were made by
him," — lhe recognizes the Son or Word only as minister of
the Father, receiving and executing his commands.l  He puts
* Cap. 11. Compare cc. 21, 23.
t Ibid. [So he is represented by Novatian as "constituted Lord and God of
the whole creation," " universe creaturae et Dominus et Deus constitutus esse
reperitur " (c. 20), and as " having obtained from his Father that he should be
both God and Lord of all," — "hoc ipsum a Patre proprio consecutus, ut omnium et Deus esset et Dominus esset" (c. 22). See Jackson's note, pp. 1638,
164. - ED.]
i Isbid             ~ Cap. 16.               11 Cap. 17.




232        WRITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS.
L wholly Unitarian construction on the celebrated passage,
"' Who being in the form of God," etc. (Phil. ii. 6-12).*  In
the assertion, "I and my Father are one " (John x. 30), he
does not find the supreme divinity of Christ, nor, according to
the later orthodoxy, a numerical identity of Father and Son.
"Number," that is, of persons, he says, " is not referred to,
the neuter gender being used "; one thing, one in " concord,
sentiment, and affection."  He quotes as a parallel passage
the assertion of Paul: " He that planteth and he that watereth are one " (1 Cor. iii. 8). Yet here are two; Paul and
Apollos are not to be confounded, the neuter gender being
used, as in the other instance.  The case is argued by Novatian at some length, but the point will be readily perceived
without further words.t  Alluding to the same passage, "I
and my Father are one," in another place, Novatian refers to
the relation of sonship, and says that Christ would have it
understood that he was "' God as being the Son of God, not
that he was the Father himself," t that is, as being numerically one with him.  This is not the inference which any of
the old Fathers drew from the passage.
The " Father is greater than I," or "He who sent me is
greater than I," as Novatian has it, is one of the proof texts
which he cites to show that Christ is a distinct being fiomn the
Father, and occupies a second place. Novatian clearly takes
the words in their most natural,and obvious sense. The distinction of two natures, used in support of a different meaning, was the refinement of a later age.  In this connection
and to the same effect, (c. 26,) Novatian quotes numerous
other passages, which, for the sake of' brevity, we omit.  We
observe simply that they are the very passages which Unitarians are in the habit of adducing to prove the distinct nature
and subordination of the Son to the Father, for which purpose,
it is worthy of note, Novatian himself cites them.  In his next
chapter (the twenty-seventh), Novatian asserts that Christ is
less than the Father as receiving sanctification from him. " If,"
says lie, "he had been the Father," (the supreme God,) " lihe
would have given sanctification, not received it."
* Cap. 22.                   t Cap. 27. Comp. c. 13.: Cap. 15. See Jackson's note, p. 116.




NOVATIAN.                     233
Like the other ancient Fathers, Novatian attributes the
theoplhanies of the Old Testament to the Son.  For the
Father himself, the supreme one, the only true God, is infinite, and cannot be contained within any limits of place; cannot ascend nor descend, but contains and fills all things.  Not
so the Son, who is capable of ascending and descending, and
can be enclosed within space. Here is a very clear distinction.
One is Supreme, Infinite, the other not; one fills all space,
the other not, but can move from place to place and be en-.closed withlin doors; one is visible, the other invisible.*
But if the Father is God, and Christ is God, in other than
a Sabellian sense, how, it might be asked, does it appear that
we hlave not two Gods?  This question Novatian attempts to
answer in his last two chapters, the thirtieth and thirty-first'
In doing this, as we shall see, he repeats the Logos doctrine
of the older Fathers, making the Son a divine being, having,
after he was begotten, a distinct personal subsistence, but
being subordinate to the Father, not co-equal and co-eternal
with him. We pass over his thirtieth chapter, in which he
rather plays round the' subject than grapples with it, and give
a brief summary of his argument in his thirty-first, chiefly in
his own words.  The Father, he says, though " Institutor and
Creator of all, alone knows no origin; is invisible, immense,
immortal, eternal; one God, of incomparable greatness, majesty,
and power; of whom, when he willed, the Word or Son was
begotten."  He was " always in the Father," as his unbegotten virtue or energy, but had no distinct personal subsistence.
For the "Father was not always Father."  "The Father
precedes him" (the Son), in that as Father he must be prior,
since "' he who has no origin must of necessity precede him
who has an origin."  The Father preceded all; the Son was
"before all things [created], bhut was after the Father, by
whose will all things were made " through him.  He is " God
as proceeding from God, constituting as Son a second person
after the Father, but not preventing Him from being the One
God."  " If he were not begotten, there would be two unbegotten, and so two Gods."  More Novatian adds in the same
strain.  If the Son were invisible, we should have two invis* Capp. 17, 18.




234        WRITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS.
ibles, and so two Gods. And so, if he were incomprehensible.
"But now, whatever he is, he is not of himself, but of the
Father, as begotten of him."  So all " discord," as to number,
"as of two Gods," is removed.  There is one " Principle and
head of all things."  The Son " does nothing of his own will,
or his own counsel, but in all things obeys the precepts and
commands of the Father."   So there are not two Gods.
There are not two "fountains " of Divinity, but,one.  "All
things being subjected to him  [Christ] by the Father, he is
with them that are subjected, found in concord with the Father,
who gave all and to whom  all reverts."  Thus is there one
only " true and eternal God, the Father."
So Novatian saves the unity.  The very gist of his argument is, that supreme divinity is not to be ascribed to Christ.
He is not co-equal or co-eternal with the Father.  Here is no
part of the Athanasian Trinity. All is to be referred to the
Father, the original Fountain, "Principle and Head of all."
Christ was God, but not the one infinite God; not self-existent;
not having a personal, individual being from eternity, but de.
riving his origin, divinity, power, and authority from the one
only Supreme and Unbegotten God, the self-existent and
Eternal One.
The inferiority of the Spirit is clearly asserted by Novatian.
Thus, commenting on the words of Christ, " ie shall receive of
mine and shall show it unto you," he says, " Greater is Clirist
than the Paraclete; since the Paraclete could not receive of
Christ, unless he were less than Christ."  This passage was
audaciously tampered with by Gagnmus, Novatian's first editor,
who could not endure its plain meaning.  The true text is
restored by Jackson.*
Novatian, certainly, does not call the Spirit God or Lord,
though he does not, as did some of the old Fathers, place it
among the creatures made by the Son.  We do not think that
he clearly teaches its permanent personality even. lHe speaks
of it mostly in Scripture language, as the "promised Spirit,"
** Cap. 16. For the manner in which the ancient Fathers spoke of the
Holy Spirit,- many of them calling it a " creature," or " work," and none of
them, if we except Tertullian, after he became a Montanist, "Lord" or
"God," - see Jackson's notes, pp. 217, 371.




ARNOBIUS.                      23'5
to be poured out in the "last days" on God's servants, referring to its effusion at Pentecost. It dwelt in " Christ alone
in all its fulness," the fountain remaining in him affluent and
overflowing,.  He connects it as a certain divine seed or germ
with the second birth.  In all this there is nothing which
necessarily implies personality, and much which is inconsistent with it.  Certainly Novatian does not exalt the Spirit
into one of three co-equal persons, and he distinctly, as we
have seen, asserts that it is "less than Christ," never calling
it " God" or " Lord."
ARNOBIUS.
We return to Africa, where we find the young Arnobius
teaching rhetoric with great reputation, as Jerome says, at
Sicca. Jerome further tells us that his work in defence of
Christianity was produced soon after his conversion, to prove
his sincerity. It is supposed to have been written early in the
fourth century, though some critics assign to it an earlier date.
That part of it which is devoted to a refutation of Heathenism
is very full, exhibiting minute and extensive reading on subjects connected with the religions of antiquity; but his knowledge of Christianity has been generally pronounced scanty
and superficial.  We must not look in his works for any very
precise statements of doctrine. His orthodoxy appears to have
been that of his age; that is, he maintained the supremacy of
the Father, and makes the Son a different being and subordinate.  Thus he speaks of the " omnipotent and just God,"
who is "alone unbegotten, immortal, and everlasting," - the
"Father, governor, and Lord of all things."  These and similar expressions are applied exclusively to the Father, never
to Christ, who was ""sent unto us by the Supreme King," and
spake by his " command."  He is the " giver of immortality,"
as the "Supreme King has appointed him to that office."*
Lardner doubts whether the Holy Spirit is once mentioned by
Arnobius; if so, it is in an obscure expression, of the meaning of which we cannot be certain.t
* Adv. Natioes, ii. 65; i. 31; ii. 35, and 2.
t See Martini, Versuch, etc., pp. 255, 256; Lardner, iii. 473. London, 1829.




236       WRITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS.
LACTANTIUS.
Leaving Arnobius, we pass to his celebrated pupil Lactantius. Of the early life of Lactantius little or nothling is known.
We are not informed even of the place of his nativity. It has
been supposed by some to have been Firmium, in Italy; others
make him  of Afrtican birth, possiblyv a native of Numiclia.
Certain it is that he was early in Africa, and then studied
rhetoric under Arnobius, of whom we have just spoken.  The
Emperor Diocletian, holding  his court at Nicomedia, invited
him, as Jerome says,* to take up his abode tllere, which lie
did.  He there taught rhetoric, but Nicomedia being a Greek
city, he had few pupils. Latin eloquence was in little demand.
He gave himself up; therefore, to the writing of books, and
was very poor, often wanting even the necessaries of life.  Inl
his old age Constantine engaged him to take charge of t]le
education of his son Crispus, in Gaul.  He has been called
the most learned man of his time.  At what period or where
he ended his (lays, history has not told us.  Treves, in Gaull,
has been assigned as the place. of his death, and the date giveul
as between A. D. 325 and 330, but on no certain evidence.
There is no doubt of his extensive learning, but his want
of judgment and critical skill has been generally admittedl.
For his eloquence he has been called the " Christian Cicero."
Jerome says that he " flows like a river of Tullian eloquence ";
but theologians and critics have found his works full of errors,
amounting, according to some, to one hundred and seventy,
partly philosophical and partly theological.  Nothing could
induce him to believe in the Antipodes.  He makes himself
very merry at the idea of such a thing, and treats it as
absurd.-   Of the fall of the angels he thought with Justinl
Mart.yr;: and like him he quotes without scruple the books
of the Sibyls, and other productions of the kind, as genuine and
authentic, and of equal weight with the Hebrew prophecies.
He shared Justin's notions, too, of the millennium, for whiclh
Jerome ridicules him. ~  This happy event Lactantius thought
could not be delayed more than two hundred years.
* De Vir. M1lust., c. 80.  t Inst., iii. 25.
$ Inst., ii. 15.          ~ Comment. ad Ezekiel., c. 36.




LACTANTIUS.                     237
Lactantius is generally admitted to have been unsound on
the subject of the Trinity, as the doctrine was explained, in
times subsequent to the Council of Nice.  We will quote a
little of his lancguage. The following is his account of the
origin of the Son.  " Before this glorious world arose," says
he, " God, the maker and disposer of all things, begat a holy
and incorruptible, and incomprehensible Spirit, called his Son;
and tllo'olh 1he afterwards created innumerable others whom
we call angels, yet this first-born alone was deemed wortlly of
the divine name."*   The angels, according to Lactantius,
were created immediately by God, but, "between this Son of
God and the other angels, there is," says he, "a great difference." t  But his subordination to the Father is! expressly
taught by Lactantius.  God, says he, when lhe formed the
world, " placed this his first and greatest Son over the whole
work, and used him as his counsellor and artificer in planning,
adorning, and perfecting tllings."::  His loyalty, obedience,
and testimony to the one only God, are thus stated by Lactantits, wllo says that he is of a " middle nature orI substance
between God and man."~  "He showed himself true to God,
and taunght that there is one Godcl, who alone is to be worshipped; neither did lie once call himself God, for he could
not have been true to hlis commission, if being sent that he
migllt (lestrovy the belief in Gods [many Gods], and teach one
God, lie had introduced another beside this one.  Because lie
was thus faithful, assuming nothing to himself, but tiltfilling
the commands of him that sent lim, lie received the dignity of
a perI)etual priesthood. and the lhonors of the highest king, and
the power of judge, and the naine of God." I
No one can read these extracts, we think, wvithout perceiving tlat here are two beings, entirely distinctt, one first and
Supreme, the otler subordinate; one giving, the other receiving.  The union between the two is thus explained by Lactantius.  He takes the example of a father and son occupying
the same house, the son remaining subject to the father.
ihougll the father grants the name and authority of master
X  Inst., iv. 6.       t Id., iv. 8.           Ibid., ii. 9.
~ " Mediam inter Deum et hominem substantiam gerens." -Inst., iv. 13.
U Inst., iv.. 13, 14.




238        WRITERS BETWEEN ORIGEN AND ARIUS.
to the son, yet, as they are perfectly united in will and consent, we may say that there is but one house and one master.
" So," he proceeds, " this world is one house, and the Son and
Father who inhabit it and are of one mind, are one God; for
one is as both, and both are as one. Nor is there anything
surprising in this: since the Son is in the Father, because the
Father loves the Son; and the Father in the Son, because the
Son faithfully obeys the will of the Father, nor ever does nor
did anything except what the Father has willed or commanded." X  Here is no trace of the later orthodoxy.  According to Lactantius, the only union between the Father and
Son is one of will and affection. He calls the Son God, but
speaks of him as "created," and as possessing only derived
dignity and power. The Son, he says, merited the title of
God, "on account of the virtue he taught and exemplified."
" On account of the virtue and fidelity he exhibited on earth
there are given him a kingdom and honor and dominion, that
all people and tribes and tongues should serve him.t
We might quote more to the same purpose; but the above
is sufficient to show the views Lactantius entertained of the
inferior and derived nature and dignity of the Son.  He knew
nothing of the atonement in the modern sense of the term.
Christ died and rose again, he tells us, that he migllt "give
man the hope of overcoming death, and conduct him to the
rewards of immortality." j  "In some of his books, and especiaily in his Epistles to Demetrian [now  lost], he utterly
denies," as Jerome testifies, " the personality of the Spirit;
referring it, after the manner of the Jews, either to the Father
or the Son." ~  Many, says the same writer, asserted along
with hlim that the Holy Spirit is not a substance, but a name.
Lactantius sometimes confounds it with the Logos.
Such was the orthodoxy of the age; and it was but one
step removed from Arianism.  The points of difference and
identity we shall hereafter attempt to indicate.  We proceed
inl our next chapter to our historical details.
A Inst., iv. 29        f 7bid., iv. 16, 2.5, 12.
X Ibid., iv. 10.       ~ Epist. 41, al. 65, ad Pammach. et Ocean.




ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
CHAPTER I.
CONFLICT OF DOCTRINE. -BELIEF OF TIlE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS.ACCOUNT OF ARIUS.- ORIGIN OF THE CONTROVERSY.-POPULARITY
OF A:IUS. - IIis PERSON AND' MANNERS. - PROGRESS OF TIIE CONTROVERSY. -ARIUS IS EXPELLED FROM ALEXANDRIA, AND RETIRES TO PALESTINE. HOW RECE IVED BYI TIIE BISHOPS THERE. - EUSEB1IUS OF NICOMEDIA. - PALES'INIAN COUNCIL. -ARIUS'S LETTER TO IIIS BISHOP. —
ALEXANDER WRITES LETTERS TO ALL )ARTS. - TONGUES INSTEAD OF
SPEARS.
THERE is a lull: but the calm is soon to end; the sky is to
ble darkened, and the winds are to be up.  A stern conflict is
commencing in the theological world, - the old world of the
Fathers.  Opinions are to be sifted, examined, defined; the
past is to be questioned; new ideas are to be thrown out, new
controversies to arise.  The old ways are to be forsaken, and
untrodden paths to be tried. Arius and Athanasius -resolute
spirits both -are to come upon the stage.  The head of the
Roman Empire is to become Christian, and to mediate, and
mediate in vain. The wound is never to be healed. Antiquity
is to be appealed to, and its opinions are to go down, so far
as authority can crush them; and dogmas, unknown to the
Fathers, are to be enthroned in human belief.
The "Arian impiety," as the enemies of Arius called it,.
first appeared on the banks of the Nile; and the Devil, envious of the prosperity of the church under the first Christian
emperor, they said, sowed the seeds of it. All the ante-Nicene Fathers, however, admitted the inferiority of the Son to
the Father.  This implied, that, in their opinion, they were
two essences, which some of them distinctly assert. It is true,
the learned Platonizing Fathers sometimes use expressions
which now bear an orthodox sense; and it is hastily inferred,




240        ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
therefore, that they were orthodox in the modern signification
of the term. But nothintg could be further from the truth. A
very moderate acquaintance with the remains of Christian
antiquity must, we think, convince any unprejudiced mind,
that the language in question was used by the Fiathers in a
sense totally different from  that now attributed to it.  If we.
go on the assumption that they employed it in the modern
sense, we slall mistake their sentiments at every step.  Thus
they occasionally make use of a phraseology, whlich, in the
mouth of a modern Trinitarian, would imply a belief' that the
Son is of one numerical essence with the Father.  But this
they niever thought of asserting.  The most they meant to
affirm nNwas, that the Son, as begotten of God, partook in some
sort of the same specific nature (that is, a divine), just as an
individual of our race partakes of the same nature or essence
withl the parent from whom he sprung (that is, a human). At
the same time, they taught that lie was relatively inferior to
the Father, firom whom  lie was derived, and entitled to only
inferior homag(e. He was not uncaused, as the Father was. He
had a beginning: the Father had none.  He was the minister
of the Father, and in all tlings subject to his will.  This all
asserted, if we except Origen, who differed from  others by
indulging  in some subtile and obscure speculations in regard
to a " beginningless " creation, and "  begillningless generation
of thlle Son."
Tlle incidents of the life of Arius, before he promulgated
his obnoxious sentiments, so far as preserved, are soon related.
Epiphllanius tells us that lie was said to llave conle fromn Libya,
" a part of Africa," says tlle pious Maimbourg,, " beyond all
other, fiuitful of monsters; for before this time it produced the
heretic Sabellius."  From an expression in one of his own letters, it has been inferred that hlis father's name was Ammonius; but this is matter of doubt. -',He was made deacon by
Peter, then Bishop of Alexandria; but afterwards incurred his
displeasure by the freedom lie took in censuring his conduct in
regard to the Meletians, which Arius, who is accused of having been'formerly too partial to the sect, thought illiberal and
harsh.  For this offence he was excommunicated.  Under
Achillas, the successor of Peter, he was, as Sozomen informs




ORIGIN OF THE CONTROVERSY.                241
us, restored, and promoted to the rank of presbyter. Achillas
was soon succeeded by Alexander, and Arius for some time
enjoyed his confidence and friendship. He had the care of
a parish church in Alexandria, called Baucalis,* where he
preached, and had full liberty to declare his sentiments.t
Theodoret says that he was intrusted with the exposition
of the Scriptures, which has led to the supposition that he was
once connected with the Catechetical School; but of this there
is no satisfactory evidence. It is said that he taught not only
in his church, but in private; and he was accused by his enemies
of going from  house to house in the endeavor to " draw  men
over to his sentiments." These are base charges, which may
mean nothing more than that he faithfully performed his pastoral duties, which was to his credit.
Of the origin of his controversy with his bishop, accounts
in some respects differ.  Sozomen t tells us, and Epiphanius,
as we shall hereafter see, intimates the same, that Alexander
did not interfere for some time after Arius began to divulge his
novel opinions; that he was blamed for his neglect or forbearance; that in consequence of the complaints of the enemies of
Arius, or of those who rejected his opinions, he was at length
induced to appoint successively two conferences, at which Arius
and his opponents discussed the question at issue; that Alexander was for a time in some suspense, inclining " first ts one
party, and then to the other "; but that he finally decided
against the presbyter.
This, however, seems to be a somewhat imperfect account
of the matter. According to other authorities, some of them
entitled to full as much credit, Alexander himself, by his innovations and extravagances, furnished occasion of the dispute.
Constantine certainly, in a letter addressed to the parties,~
throws the blame on Alexander, whom he accuses of troubling
his priests with foolish;   unprofitable questions, which should
never have been asked; or, if asked, ought not to have been
answered.  Socrates 11 and Theodoret,~ in the main, confirm
* The oldest in the city, containing, it is said, the tomb of St. Mark; and
in it took place the election of the Patriarch.
t Epiphan. Hcer., lxix.; Theod. Hist., lib. i. c. 2.
t Hist., lib. i. c. 15.             ~ Euseb. Vita Const., ii. 69.
I1 Lib. i. c. 5.                    ~[ Lib. i. c. 2.
16




242        ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
this statement.  According to the former, Alexander having
one day discoursed with a little too much subtilty on the subject of the Trinity in the presence of his clergy, Arius thought
that his language savored of Sabellianism, and, in arguing
against him, went to the opposite extreme. Arius, too, in his
letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, still extant,* represents Alexander as an innovator; and if the expressions he attributes to
him were really his, which we see no reason to doubt, he certainly was so.  Thus: "Always God, always the Son; as the
Father, so is the Son; the Son is unbegotten as the Father;
neither in thought, nor the least point of time, does God precede the Son; always God, always the Son."
These are expressions to which the ears even of the orthodox were then unaccustomed.  Arius says he could not assent
to them, and hence was driven from the city- as an atheist,
which had the usual effect of persecution, for it only added to
his success and growing influence.
Arius llad some marked intellectual traits. Neander ascribes
to him a "strong predilection for logical clearness and intelligibility."  Tile influence of the Antiochian School, which
entered into a sharp conflict with the Sabellians, could be
distinctly traced in his peculiar exegetical tendencies. He
possessed great logical acumen, which gave him the advantage
in argument.
For our knowledge of his person and habits we are indebted
mainly to the representations of his enemies.  These representations contain many statements and admissions in the
highest degree honorable to him.  They are vouchers for his
integrity, the innocence of his life, and his many estimable
(Lualities, whllich endeared him to multitudes of his fellowcitizens at Alexandria, and procured him numerous friends in
uiis exile.
He is said to have been an old man when the controversy
broke out, though of his precise age we know  nothing, as we
have not the date of his birth.  But hle had probably long
passed the period of middle life at least.  In person he is said
to have been very tall, of a lithe frame and thin, with pensive
* The letter is found in Theod., lib. i. c. 5, and Epiphanius, ther., lxix. c. 6,
with some variation; not, however, materially affecting the sense.



PERSON  AND MANNERS OF ARTUS.                     243
and somewhat melancholy features, combined with a peculiar
sweetness of countenance and tones, and a certain fascination
of manner which it was difficult to resist. He was fluent,
bland, and persuasive in speech, and was modestly attired in a
scanty (Epiphanius says a half) cloak.*   The females of Alexandria were strongly inclined to his side. Among the devout
women of the place he had seven hundred followers clearly
occupying a reputable position, and a fair proportion of them,
it may be presumed, possessing intellectual culture.  So firm
was their adhesion to him that nothing — no force nor threats,
and no fears of church censure - could induce them to renounce him  or his opinions.
The above-mentioned traits of his person and manners have
been transmitted to us by his enemies. As a matter of course,
they put their own construction on his conduct and motives,
ascribing to him jealousy, restlessness, and ambition, and all
the subtlety and wiles of the serpent, by which he deceived the
unwary, drawing them  over to his opinions and making them
his fast friends. His adversaries - such is the virulence of
* In describing the person and character of Arius some caution is necessary
as to the sources whence the materials are drawn. We find no description of
his person in any contemporary author. Epiphanius lived in the fourth
century, was narrow, violent, and bigoted, and his authority, when not supported by other writers, is not above suspicion. Ile is often inaccurate, and
was especially hostile to the Arians; and what he says of tile founder of the
sect, therefore, requires to be carefully sifted, and allowance must be made for
the force of prejudice. Gelasius of Cyzicus, as an authority, is nearly worthless. He wrote in the latter part of the fifth century. Portions of his "Acts
of the First Council" Cave believed to be pure inventions. Tillemont,
though he repeatedly quotes the work, yet held it in slight esteem; and Du
Pin expresses absolute contempt for it. In the third book, as we now have
it, there is a letter ascribed to Constantine; but its genuineness is, to say the
least, very questionable, and it is a document entitled to no respect. The
Oxford translator of some of the treatises of Athanasius (J. H. Newman),
speaks of it as an "invective," and says that it is " like a school exercise or
fancy composition," adding that it is " inconsistent with itself."  (illbrry of
the Fathers, viii. 183.) Dr. Stanley, in his " History of the Eastern Church,"
describes it as "mixed in about equal proportions of puns on his [Arius's]
name, of jests on his personal appearance, of eager attacks upon his doctrine,
and of supposed prophecies against him  in the Sibylline books."  Yet
strangely enough. he has made use of it in the very extraordinary portrait
ne has drawn of the Alexandrian heresiarch. See an article on Dr. Stanley
and Arius in the Christian Examiner (published in Boston) for March, 1862.
[The article referred to was written by Dr. Lamson. - ED. ]




244        ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
theological prejudice - denounce his doctrines as blasphemous,
and there is no epithet of abuse they do not heap upon him,
except only that they accuse him of no immorality. No whisper
of impurity of life has come down to us from the many enemies
of his name and fame, a sure proof that no stain rested on his
character.
To his other qualities he added great earnestness. lIe was
evidently sincere; he abounded in zeal, and was susceptible
neither of being intimidated by threats, nor lured by favor. He
possessed the courage of a martyr; and sooner than profess his
assent to opinions he did not believe, he would" die," as he
says in his letter to Eusebius, " a thousand deaths."  The
consequence of all was, he was now immensely popular, and
his opinions were rapidly spreading.  They soon  diffused
themselves beyond the walls of Alexandria into Libya and the
upper Thebais, as they subsequently did in the " congenial
atmosphere " of Syria, where among the bishops, as Milman
observes, " the most learned, the most pious, the most influential, united themselves with his party."
That such men as Alexander, the old bishop, and the young
and aspiring Athanasius, already panting for distinction, - the
passions which rendered his after-life so agitated and full of
strange vicissitude beginning to stir in his breast, - should
resolve to overthrow this popular idol who stood in their way,
is all very natural. Athanasius has not yet appeared on the
stage; he is biding his time.  But Alexander is now all zeal,
Meletins, at this time the enemy of Arius, conveying, if we
may believe Epiphanius, complaints to his ear, which served to
fan the growing flame.
Nor is this statement inconsistent with the supposition that
Alexander himself, by his imprudence, had excited the controversy.  Arius might have believed it his duty, in discharging
hlis office as pastor and teacher, to inculcate what he conceived
to be sound views of Christian doctrine in opposition to the
rash, and, as it appeared to him, novel assertions of his bishop;
and the latter, if acquainted with the circumstance, miglht not
have thought himself called upon immediately to interpose. A
certain latitude, as it appears, was allowed to the priests of the
several churches of Alexandria in the expression of their senti.




PROGRESS OF THE CONTROVERSY.             245
ments; and it might not at first have been clear that Arius had
exceeded it.  Or, if he had, the tide was as yet setting in his
favor, and it might have required some courage to stem it.
The hesitation ascribed to Alexander, too, may be accounted
for, in part, by the supposition, that the change which his
opinions underwent about this time was gradual, and that he
did not at first reaclh the extreme point. He might, originally,
have thrown out some unadvised expressions concerning the
nature of the Son; though he as yet held, in the main, the
popular belief' These expressions gave rise to controversy;
and, upon listening to a discussion of the subject, the bishop
for a moment, it would seem, felt embarrassed by the weight
of authority and argument wllicl Arius was able to bring in
support of his views.  From  this embarrassment, llowever, he
soon recovered.  Envy of the popular fame of Arius (for this
passion wras attributed to him) might have caused him to feel
an increased aversion to his sentiments; and the progress of the
controversy served still fhrther to separate the combatants, till
Alexander was led to express himself in the rash manner above
related, and insist that all his clergy should echo his opinions.
That Alexander's mind went through some, such process as
this, there can be little doubt.  We have evidence of his
change of sentiments, not only from the testimony of Arius,
but fromn his own writings.  Even after the expulsion of Arius
from Alexandria, he continued occasionally, from the effect of
habit, to use language whicll savored strongly of the old school.
But, whatever might have been his previous views, Alexander now soon showed that he was resolved to exert his
influence and authority to the full.  He first makes use of
counsel and admonition; and finally "' commands Arius to embrace his sentiments," and discard his own. But Arius was
not the man to change his opinions, or profess to change them,
in consequence of the "command" of a spiritual superior.
Alexander, as Socrates tells us,* now becomes enraged, and,
assembling a council of bishops and priests, excommunicates
him and his followers, and he is ordered to leave the city. We
are told by Arius, in the letter already alluded to, that EnseVius of Casarea, and several others whom he names, and'" all
e Hist., lib. i. c. 6.




246          ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN  CONTROVERSY.
the Oriental bishops," since they asserted  that "the  Father
existed before the Son, being without beginning," were
anathematized, except only Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, whom lie pronounces ignorant heretics. So general, at
this time, was the leaning towards the sentiments of Arius,
who is said, on the death of Achillas, to have declined the
episcopal dignity in the metropolis of Egypt.*
Arius was excommunicated  and deposed, as is generally
supposed, about the year 320; Neander says, 321.  After he
and his friends had been expelled from the Church, many of
the people, as Sozomen informs us, still adhered to him, consisting partly of such as approved his opinions, and partly of
those who sympathized with his hard fate, thinking that he had
been harshly treated by his bishop.t Arius soon after retires
into Palestine, visits the several bishops there, and endeavors
to procure favor for himself and his doctrine. He was well
received by some, says Epiphanius, and repulsed by others.
Among the  former was Eusebius the  historian, Bishop  of
Coesarea. It was while residing with him, if Epiphanius is to
be trusted, that he wrote the letter, already mentioned, to the
Bishop of Nicomedia.  He addresses him  as the " orthodox
* The above account, meagre as it is, embraces all the information we can
collect in relation to the origin of the Arian controversy.  Theodoret, indeed,
asserts that the lheresiarch was instigated by envy and disappointment; Alexander having been preferred to the bishopric, to which he thought he had
superior claims. But of this lhe offers no shadow of proof; and his assertion
is contradicted by Pllilostorgius, who tells us (Hist., lib. i. c. 3) that Arius,
seeing the votes inclining to himself, generously caused them to be transferred
to his rival. The truth is, Theodoret was a man of violent prejudices, and a
great bigot, and never speaks of Arius but in terms of extreme acrimony.
Philostorgius was an Arian historian; and it would be satisfactory to be
able to compaire his statements throughout with those of the orthodox. It is
always well, if we can, to hear thle evidence on botih sides. But the original
work of Pllilostorgius is unfortunately lost; and we have only a brief abstract
of its contents by the orthodox Photius, who shows himself exceedingly bitter
against the author. His usual manner of commencing his sections is, "the
impious Phlilostorgius," "this enemy of God," "this artificers of lies," " this
wretch," says so and so. The little we have of him gives a complexion to the
history of the times very different from what it assumes in the narratives of the
orthodox. His history commences with the rise of the Arian controversy,
and embraces the period of a little more than a century, including his own
times.
t Hist., lib. i. c. 15.




EUSEBIUS OF NICOMEDIA.              247
Eusebius," and proceeds with much brevity and neatness to
give an account of the nature and result of his controversy
with Alexander. His own sentiments are stated in simple and
intelligible language. He writes with feeling, but without
bitterness.
Eusebius of Nicomedia was distinguished for rank and
talents; and the circumstance that the imperial residence was
then at Nicomedia gave him additional influence.  Socrates
complains that a multitude of bishops were obsequious to him.
He became the personal friend of Arius, espoused his cause
with warmth, and proved an able advocate for his opinions.
He wrote many letters in his favor to Alexander and others,
and from this time may be regarded, in fact, as the chief of
the sect; and hence the Arians were afterwards often called
Eusebians. One of his letters, addressed to Paulinus, Bishop
of Tyre, is still extant.*  It was written soon after the receipt
of Arius's letter just mentioned; and is particularly valuable,
as it contains a short and clear exposition of his own views,
and of the generally received doctrine concerning the nature of
the Son.  "He never heard," he says, " that there were two
unbegotten. We affirm that there is one unbegotten, and
another who did in truth proceed from him, yet who was not
made out of his substance, and who does not at all participate
in the nature or substance of him who is unbegotten.  We
believe him to be entirely distinct in nature and in power."
The letter concludes with a request that Paulinus would write
to Alexander, and induce him, if possible, to relent. Eusebius,
besides, assembled a provincial council in Bithynia, which
undertook the defence of Arius, and endeavored to procure his
restoration to the communion of the churches, and particularly
of the church of Alexandria.t
But Alexander remained inexorable. As in the davs of
Origen, however, there was a degree of freedom and liberality
in Palestine which did not exist in Egypt; and at Arius's
request, several of the bishops there, Eusebius of Coesarea
among the rest, met in council, and authorized him and his
fellow-presbyters in exile to collect their adherents, and preach
to them, and perform all the functions of presbyters as they
* Theod., lib. i. c. 6.    t Sozomen, lib. i. c. 15.




2-48         ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN  CONTROVERSY.
had been -accustomed to do at Alexandria.*   Arius, it seems,
after he left Palestine, passed some time with his friend at
Nicomedia.  While there, he  wrote a letter to his  bishop,
which has been preserved. In this letter -  which, throughout,
breathes a temperate spirit - he gives at some length his
views of the Father and Son, and says, " Our faith we have
received from tradition, and learned from you." Again: that
the  Father existed  before the  Son, he says,  "is what we
learned of you, who preached it in the midst of the church."
The letter was signed by Arius and  five other priests, six
deacons, and two bishops.t  We have before alluded  to the
change of sentiment attributed to Alexander.  We will simply
add in this place, that the Arians constantly appealed to tradition as in their favor, and asserted that they held the ancient
doctrine.  This assertion must not be taken in the most rigid
sense; though, to a certain extent, it was true.  The Arians
* Sozomen, lib. i. c. 15.
t The letter is given by Epiphanius (Haer. lxix. cc. 7, 8), and, nearly entire,
by Athanasius (De Syn. Arinl. et Seleltc., c. 16.) We subjoin the first half of it
in Newman's translation (Lib. of the Fathers, viii. 96-98). " Our faith from
our forefathers, which also we have learned fiom thee, Blessed Pope, [Papa,l
is this: - We acknowledge one God, alone Ingenerate, alone Everlasting,
alone Unoriginate, alone True, alone having Immortality, alone Wise, alone
Good, alone Sovereign; Judge, Governor, and Providence of all, unalterable
and unchangeable, just and good, God of Law and Prophets and New Testament; who generated an Only-begotten Son before eternal times, through
whom he hlas made both the ages and the universe; and generated him, not
in semblance, but in truth; and that he made him subsist at his own will
unalterable and unchangeable; perfect creature of God, but not as one of the
creatures; offspring, but not as one of things generated; not as Valentinus
pronounced that the offspring of the Father was an issue; nor as AManichreus
taught that the offspring was a portion of the Father, one in substance; or as
Sabellius, dividing the One, speaks of a Son-and-Father; nor as Hieracas, of
one torch from another, or as a lamp divided into two; nor of him who was'
before, being afterwards generated or new-created into a Son, as thou, too,
thyself, Blessed Pope, in the midst of the church and in session hast often condenlled; but as we say, at the will of God, created before times and before
ages,:rnd gaining life and being from the Father. who gave subsistence to his
glories together with him. For the Father did not, in giving to him the
inheritance of all things, deprive himself of what he has ingenerately in hiniself; for he is the fountain of all things."  In the remaining  part of the letter
it is asserted that the Son is "not eternal or co-eternal with the FFather";'God is before all things as being a One and an origin of all. Wherefore he
is before the Son; as we have learned also from thy preaching in the midst
of the church."




CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.               249
could quote passages from the old writers, exceedingly embarrassing to their opponents. On some points, as the supremacy
of the Father and his priority of existence, tradition was clearly
in their favor; and they could say, with truth, that they held
the old faith.  The new doctrine embraced by the orthodox
concerning the generation of the Son, they said, was pure
Manicheism and Valentinianism.
But to return.  While Arius was thus employed, Alexander, too, was busy in writing letters to all parts, cautioninog the
bishops against showing any favor to him  or his doctrines.
Of these, Epiphanius tells us, about seventy existed in his
time.  Two of them are still extant, - one in Socrates,* and
the other in.Theodoret.t  They are written with no little
acrinmony, and, we are constrained to say, form an unfavorable contrast with those of Arius.  In one of them, addressed
to Alexander, Bishop of Byzantium, Eusebius of Nicomedia
comes in for a large share of abuse. In fact, Alexander spares
no effort to render the whole party odious. TIe calls them,' apostates," " impious," " enemies of Christ," the most audacious of all the corrupters of Christianity; causing "all preceding heresies to appear in comparison innocent," such were
the blasphemies they uttered wherever they went.  He was
"' troubled," he says, "' at the destruction of these men "; but,
he adds, " The same thing befell Hymenmeus and Philetus, and,
before them, Judas."  They were the men, he says, whose
coming was predicted by our Saviour, and who should "deceive
many"; the same also to whom St. Paul alluded, " who should
depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; hating the truth.".
Eusebius was still further provoked, and the war of words
continued.  Numerous letters were written by the friends and
enemies of Arius. He collected and preserved those written
in his defence, as did Alexander those written against hlim;
and they were afterwards appealed to by different parties as
authoritative documents.4:
The dispute, by this time, had become a serious matter.
Prelates contended in the churches, the people were rent into
factions, and all places were filled with discord and tumult.
* Lib. i. c. 6.     t Lib. i. c. 4.     t Soc., lib. i. c. 6.




250        ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
Embassies were sent into all the provinces, men's passions became more and more inflamed from day to day, and the whole
empire exhibited a scene of violence and strife. " They fought
against each other," says Theodoret, "' with their tongues instead of spears." *  Even Pagans were scandalized, and their
theatres resounded with ridicule of the Christians.t
* Lib. i. c. 6.          t Euseb. Vita Const., ii. 61.




COUNCIL OF NICE.                    251
CHAPTER II.
DONSTANTINE INTERFERES. - COUNCIL OF NICE. -ITS CHARACTER. -
OPINIONS OF ARIUS. —PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL. -DIFFICULTY
IN FRAMING A SYMBOL. - EUSEBIUS OF C2ESAREA OFFERS A CREED.RESULT.- NONSUBSCRIBING BISHOPS. -CONDEMNATION AND EXILE OF
ARIUS.- CONSTANTINE AFTERWARDS ESPOUSES HIS CAUSE. - HIS RETURN TO ALIEXANDRIA. - ATHANASIUS. -COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM3 READMIITS ARIUS TO COMMUNION.  EXILE OF ATHANASIUS. —LAST DAYS
OF ARIUS.- DEATH, CHARACTER, AND WRITINGS. - THE "THALIA."
CONSTANTINE was now induced to interfere, and sent Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, to Alexandria with the letter before
mentioned, designed to soften the feelings of the parties, and,
if possible, restore harmony. He blames all concerned, but
especially Alexander; and represents the question at issue as
very frivolous, - a mere dispute about words.* They did not
in reality differ in sentiment, he tells them; certainly not in
any important particular. They might think indifferently on
some minute points; but this need not prevent union; they
should, in such a case, keep their thoughts to themselves.
Finally, he beseeches them  to forget and forgive, and thus
"' restore to him  serene days, and nights void of care"; for
their contentions had caused him  "excessive grief."
But the evil was of too great magnitude to be thus repressed.  The letter produced no effect.  Alexander was
inflexible; and the Arians, though asking only for toleration,
refused to retract, and the dispute ran higher than ever.  A
question arose, too, about the time of keeping Easter, which,
though it excited little interest in the West, occasioned no
small contention in the East. The emperor, despairing of any
other remedy, now resolves to summon a. general council.
It was the wish of Constantine that the bishops from all
* Some orthodox writers have been shocked that Constantine should have
made light of so serious a matter; and have supposed, says Dr. Jortin, that,
when he wrote the letter, "he had some evil counsellor at his elbow, either
Satan or Eusebius." He certainly had the orthodox Hosius at his elbow.




252        ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
parts of the empire should attend; and, that there might be
no unnecessary delay, those who had not ready means of conveyance were authorized to make use of post-horses and public
vehicles.  Thither they came from  the various provinces,
accompanied by a multitude of priests, deacons, and others.
The number of bishops present is variously stated by historians.
Eusebius says it exceeded two hundred and fifty; X or as Socrates, who quotes the passage, gives it, three hundred.  Constantine makes it three hundred and upwards; and Athanasius,
three hundred and.eighteen, or, as he expresses himself in another place, about three hundred. Theodoret gives three hundred and eighteen; which is the number generally adopted.t
Their number is of less consequence than their character.
Eusebius extols them  for learning and other eminent qualities; but Sabinus, a Macedonian Bishop of Heraclea, in his
collection of the "Acts of Councils," calls them  stupid and
illiterate.* Neither the praise nor the censure was probably,
in its full extent, deserved.  The members of the council
were, no doubt, what assemblies of divines have usually been,
- some ignorant; some crafty; some hlaving in view the gratification of private feelings or the advancement of personal
interests; some weak; some passionate; some arbitrary and
domineering; some indolent, timid, and yielding; a few wise
and modest; but more, empty, conceited, and noisy. So it
was with the Fathers of Nice.  With regard to the charge
of Sabinus, Socrates gets them off by saying that they were
supernaturally illuminated; so their original deficiencies ought
not to impair our reverence for their decisions.
The council met about the middle of June, A. D. 325; and
there were present, besides Christians, several Pagan philosophers, some of them  attracted, no doubt, by curiosity, and
others, as Sozomen says,~ burning with a desire to encounter
the Christians in argument, being enraged against them  on
account of the recent overthrow of Paganism.
As the subject which chiefly engaged the attention of the
council had reference to Arius and his opinions, this may be
the proper time to state what those opinions were, and in what
V* ita Const., iii. 8; Soc., lib. i. c. 8.  t Lib. i. c. 7.
t Soc., lib. i c. 8.                  Lib. i. c. 18.




OPINIONS OF ARIUS.                      253.
respect they differed from  those of the learned Fathers who
preceded hin..  The strict and proper inferiority of the Son,
as we have shown, was asserted by all the ante-Nicene Fathers.
Further: it was believed by those Fathers (Origen excepted)
that the Son was begotten in time, and not from  eternity.  So
far, Arius trod in their steps.  But then the Fathers hlad some
mystical notions, derived from  the later Platonists, about the
origin of the Son, who, as they supposed, had a sort of metaphysical existence in the Father from eternity; in other words,
existed as his Logos, Wisdom, or Reason; that is, as an attribute, which was afterwards converted into a real person by a
voluntary act of the Father.  This Platonic mysticism, Arius,
who was remarkably clear-headed, discarded; and this was the
grand point of distinction between the doctrine of Arius and
that of the Fathers, -  a distinction whichl would seem  at first
view, as Constantine originally considered it, to be of a somewhat shadowy nature, but yet a. real one.*
The characteristic dogma of Arius was, that the Son was
originally produced out of nothing; and, consequently, there
was a time when he did not exist.  He maintained that he
was a great preexistent spirit, -  the first and chief of all
derived beings; that this spirit became afterwards united with
a human  body, and supplied the place of the rational soul.
Some of the preceding Fathers attributed a human soul as
well as body to Jesus; which, however, was so absorbed in
the divine part of his nature, that they were, in a strict sense,
one spirit, and not two, as modern Trinitarians affirm  or im* The difference, we say, was a real one; yet, independently of the direct
testimony heretofore adduced, the whole aspect of the controversy before the
Council of Nice shows that the old doctrine was on the confines of Arianism.
Hence the perplexity into which a large part of the Christian world was
thrown on the first publication of the opinions of Arius, and their rapid diffusion over Egypt and the several provinces of the East. The Oriental bishops
generally, as ab)ve stated, and two councils (one in Bithynia, and the other
in Palestine), favored them; and the supporters and friends of Arimis were
among the best and most learned men of the age. Add the indecision attributed to Alexander, and the impression of Constantine that the controversy was
a very frivolous one, which, we have a right to infer, was also the impression
of Hosius, who was then in his confidence, and, no doubt, one of his a(ivisers.
These facts afford pretty decisive evidence, had we no other, that the line be-'ween the old and new opinions, though visible, was not a very broad one;
and that Arius, in fact, did little more than reject a metaphysical subtilty.




254        ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
ply.  Such was Origen's opinion. According to the theology
of Arius, however, the human soul was wanting in Jesus
Christ; and he was a compound being only in the sense in
which all human beings are: that is, he consisted of a body,
and one simple, undivided, and finite spirit.  "We believe,"
says lie, "and teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in
any manner part of the Unbegotten; that he was not made
of matter subsisting, but, by will and counsel [that is, of the
Father], existed before the times and the ages, full, onlybegotten God, unalterable: who, before he was begotten, or
created, or purposed, or constituted, was not; for he is not unbegotten." This language occurs in his letter to Eusebius.*
Similar language, but more precise and pointed still, occurs in
the letter to Alexander before quoted.t We add a short extract
from the "Thalia," as quoted by Athanasius.t  Thus, " God
was not always a Father, but there was, when God was alone,
and was not yet Father: the Son was not always.  For all
things being made out of nothing, and all creatures and works
being made, the Word of God himself was made out of nothing,
and once he was not; lie was not before he was begotten."
Such was the belief of Arius.  He was accused by his enenmies- Alexander, Athanasius, and others - of teaching that
the Son, who possesses free will, is by nature mutable like
ourselves, that is, we suppose, theoretically.  Absolute immutability can be predicated of One only, — the Infinite and
Eternal. But the Son, as Arius taught, is by his own will
unchangeable, ever remaining unalterably good.
We will add here some statements of Neander -confirmatory of our own - respecting the opinions of Arius, and their
relation to the belief of preceding ages.  Arius was not " disposed," he says, "to establish a new dogma."  "Arius certainly did not believe that he was preaching a new doctrine,
but only bringing out and establishing the old church subordination system."  He quotes Arius as saying " We must either
suppose two divine original essences without beginning, and
independent of each other; or we must not shrink from asserting that the Logos had a beginning of his existence; that
s Epiphanius, Her. lxix. c. 6.  $ See before, p. 248, note.
t O,,at. i. cont. Arian.,, 5,




STATEMENTS OF NEANDER.                   255
there was a moment when he did not as yet exist."' "Those
passages of the New Testament in which he believed he found
the expression'made' applied to Christ (as Acts ii. 36, and
Heb. iii. 2), or in which he is styled the'First-born,' he
could," says Neander, "cite in favor of his theory."   "He
intended by no means to lower the dignity of Christ, but
would ascribe to him the greatest dignity which a being could
have after God, without entirely annihilating the distinction
between that being and God.  God created him or begat him,.. a being as like to himself in perfections as any creature
can be, for the purpose of producing, by the instrumentality
of this being, the whole creation."  This was the old doctrine.
Still, the distance between a creature and the Creator must be
infinite.  This Arius did not "shrink from expressing."  But,
Neander adds, " This, in fact, Origen had already expressed
in affirmning, that, as God is, in essence, infinitely exalted above
all created beings, so too, in essence, he was infinitely exalted
above the highest of created beings,  the Son; and the latter, in essence, could not at all be compared with him."
Arius attributed to the Son a "moral immutability of will."
He doubtless "believed that he was maintaining the ancient
doctrine of the church."   " He was intending simply to defend the old doctrine."  So little difference was there, according to Neander, between the doctrine of Arius and that of
preceding ages.*
One word here in regard to time. Time is measured by
sun, moon, and stars. The expressions " before time and the
ages," or "when time was not," as used by the old Christian
writers, then, means before the existence of the material universe, when as yet there was no computation of time, and no
measure of it.t These and similar phrases, however, as used
* Jist. Christ. Relig. and Church, vol. ii. pp. 3861-365; Hist. Christ. Dogm.,
pp. 286, 287.
t So Philo: "Before the world, time had no existence, but was created
either simultaneously with it, or after it." Time being connected with the
motion of the heavens, it " follows of necessity that it was created either at
the same moment with the world, or later than it." Again: " It would be a
sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or
indeed at all in time.... One must confess that timne is a thing posterior to the
world. Therefore it would be correctly said that the world was not created
in time, but that time had its existence in consequence of the world." De




256         ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
by the Fathers, did not mean "from  eternity."  God alone,
as it was believed and taught, was eternal, without beginning.
The Son had a beginning before time and the ages, but not
from  eternity.  Justin Martyr, who led the way in these
refined and intricate speculations concerning the generation of
the Son, is a little more definite, and says that the Son was
begotten, or created, when God was about to form and garnish
the heavens and the earth, being the "' beginning of his ways
to his works."
The proceedings of the council are involved in great obscurity.  We have no methodical account of them  by any
ancient writer. The information we possess is gleaned mostly
from  incidental notices, and uncertain and varying tradition,
which often leaves us in doubt what to admit or reject.  Eusebiuls breaks off his history abruptly before the commencement
of the synod.  In his " Life of Constantine," he gives us a
few particulars; but, for the most part, substitutes rhetoric for
history.  His letter to his people, written at Nice during the
session of the council, is indeed, as far as it goes, a precious
document.  Athanasius, then a young man, a deacon in the
Alexandrian church, accompanied  his bishop to the synod,
and there first became known as a zealous champion of orthodoxy.  His works contain frequent allusions to the debates
and decrees of the council, but nothing from  which we can
construct a continuous narrative.*   Besides these, we have
the " Synodical Epistle," and two letters of Constantine, written at the time of the dispersion of the council.  These are all
the contemporary documents of any value which we possess.
Subsequent writers are. to be used, of course, with much
caution; and even some of the original documents require to
be carefully sifted, as they contain the reports of interested
Mundi Oplf., c. 7; Legunm A/leq., lib. i. c. 2; Opp., t. i. pp. 6, 44, ed. Mang.
To say that Christ had an existence before time, then meant only that he existed before this material creation.
1 Besides, Athanasius is not the very best authority in this case,. "It is
important," says Neander, " to remark, that, in the case of Athanasius, there
are many things which would render it difficult for him to take an unbiased
view of the proceedings." He says that Athanasius "distorts the true form
of the facts." Eusebius of Caesarea he thinks a far better.authority in matters relating to the council than either Athanasius, or Eustathius of Antioch.
[fist. Christ. Relig. and Church, vol. ii. pp. 372-375.




CONSTANTINE,                   257
witnesses; and truth may be found in them distorted by passion and party prejudice.
The Fathers of the council certainly gave evidence of
retaining the imperfections of our common nature. Their
attention was not so absorbed with the great questions they
were called to discuss, but they had time to think of their
petty differences and private causes of dissatisfaction and complaint.  Constantine undertook the office of pacificator; and
it required all his authority and art to preserve among them
the appearance of even tolerable decorum.  It would seem
that there had been a good deal of discussion before his arrival.
On the day appointed, he entered the assembly, clad in'his
imperial robes, and glittering with gold and gems; and, all
being seated, the bishop who sat next him on the right (as
Eusebius the historian tells us, referring, according to Sozomen, to himself ) addressed him in a short speech; to which
the emperor replied in a few words, in Latin, recommending
peace and harmony. The debates, for some time, appear to
have been conducted with no little acrimony; and much personal abuse was heard.  The emperor, however, was patient:
he listened, argued, and entreated (now speaking in Greek),
and did all in his power to promote concord and amity. One
circumstance is mentioned very much to his credit. The
Fathers tormented him with written accusations against each
other, which they were constantly placing in his hands.  To
put a stop to the proceeding, he assigned a day on which he
would receive all papers of this sort; and, collecting them
together, he burnt them, with all those he had previously
received, without reading a word of them; telling his bishops
that they must wait the decision of the day of final account
and the sentence of the great Judge of all.  As for himself,
who was a mere mortal, he could not, he said, undertake to
settle their differences.
Eusebius's description of the scene presented at the council
is in his most florid vein.  We will relieve the dryness of our
narrative by a few quotations from it: "When the emperor's
order was brought into all the provinces," he says, "all persons
* Theodoret, with the appearance of great improbability, confers the honor
on Eustathitis of Antioch.
17




258       ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
set out, as it were, from some goal, and ran with all imaginable
alacrity: for the hope of good things drew them, and the participation of peace, and the spectacle of a new miracle; to
wit, the sight of so great an emperor. When, therefore, they
were all come together, that which was done appeared to be
the work of God: for they who were at the greatest distance
one from another, not only in minds, but in bodies, regions,
places, and provinces, were seen assembled together in one
place; and one city received them all, as it were some vast
garland of priests made up of a variety of beautiful flowers."
He then enumerates the places from which they came; being
ministers of the churches " which filled all Europe, Africa, and
Asia."
Some of them, he says, were eminent for "' wisdom and eloquence; some for integrity of life, and patient endurance of
hardships"; some were "adorned with modesty and a courteous behavior "; some were." respected for their great age,'
and others rejoiced in "youthful vigor."  The emperor provided food for them all. When the day for the opening of the
council arrived, they assembled in the "middlemnost edifice of
the palace," where seats were placed "on both sides of the
room."  Each of them " took an agreeable seat."  Then all
is silence, in expectancy of the emperor. His heralds precede
him. At a signal given, they all rise, and the emperor himself comes walking in " like some celestial angel of God,
shining with his bright purple garment, as it were with the
splendor of light, glistening with flaming rays, and adorned
with the clear brightness of gold and precious stones.  Such
was the attire of his body."  But his mind excelled all.  He
was "adorned with a fear and reverence of God."  He cast
down his eyes "with a blushing countenance"; and, by his
gait and motion, manifested his modesty and humility. In
"6 tallness of stature." he surpassed all who were about him, as
also in a " magnificent gracefulness of body, and in an invincible strength and might." He moved majestically on to the
upper end of the hall, and remained standing; till, a "low
chair made of gold" being placed before him, the "bishops
beckoned" him  to be seated.  Eusebius gives his opening
speech, very flattering and complimentary to tile bishops.*
* Vita Const., lib. iii. cc. 6-12.




DIFFICULTY OF FORMING A CREED.           259
No little difficulty was experienced in framing a symbol
which would prove generally acceptable, and, at the same time,
have the effect of excluding the Arians. Their distinguishing
dogma, as we have seen, was that the Son was produced out
of nothing, and. that there was a time when he did not exist.
This was to be condemned, and the opposite doctrine affirmed.
But the difficulty consisted in the selection of terms which
the Orthodox could, and which the Arians, without a change
of sentiments, could not, employ. It was at first proposed, as
it would seem, to make use only of scriptural expressions, such
as, "Christ is the Wisdom  and the Power of God," the
"brightness of his glory "; or others of a similar character.
The Arians professed their readiness to adopt the same; but
it was soon discovered that they could evade their force by
putting on them  a construction consistent with their own
views, and thus their heresy might still lurk in the Church;
the serpent would not be crushed.  Eusebius of Casarea
offered a creed, which, he says in his letter to his people, at
first obtained the approbation of all, emperor and clergy; but
it was found, upon examination, to contain no term which the
Arians must of necessity reject, and would therefore be no
sufficient test of orthodoxy.  But, luckily for them, it was discovered from a letter of Eusebius of Nicomnedia (which was
heard with shuddering, and torn in pieces as soon as read),
that he and the Arians had great dread of the term " consubstantial."  Here, then, was precisely the term  which was
wanted. The word was immediately introduced into the
creed just mentioned; and some other modifications or additions were made, and the symbol in its altered form  was
adopted. The Arians loudly remonstrated. They urged. that
the language in question was new; that it had not the sanction
of the sacred writings or of antiquity: but their complaints
were disregarded..
Such, in brief, is the history of the famous Nicene Creed.*
It was first subscribed by Hosius; then by the two envoys of
the Rornan bishop; the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and
* For a history of the council, along with the original documents already
named, see Soc., lib. i. c. 8; Theodoret, lib. i. c. 12; Sozomen, lib. i. cc. 17,
19-21; Euseb. Vita Const., lib. iii. cc. 6-12.




2( 0        ARIUIS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
Jerusalem; and finally by most of the others.  Eusebius of
Coesarea at first hesitated on account of the new and unscriptural term "' consubstantial" and some other expressions which
had been introduced, and which he disliked.  His scruples,
however, were at length overcome; and he signed, not however, it seems, without great reluctance.  He appears to have
been aware that he exposed himself to the charge of fickleness
or duplicity, and that some explanation or apology was necessary.. He accordingly wrote to his parishioners in Cmsarea to
put them  in possession of the truth, and show, that, though' he resisted to the last hour for good reasons," he made no
compromise of principle in finally yielding.  He required, he
says, an' explanation of the obnoxious expressions.. It was
asserted, he tells them, that by the phrase, "of the substance
of the Father," was meant, that " the Son is of the Father,
but not as being part of the Father "; that is, " not part of his
substance "; which opinion, he says, he thought sound.  "It
was concluded," he says, "that the expression,'of the substance of the Father,' implies only that the Son of God does
not resemble, in any one respect, the creatures which he has
made; but that to the Father, who begat him, he is in all
points perfectly similar."  The phrase, " begotten, not made,"
he says, was used because the term " made " is common and
applied to all creatures; whereas the Son, as begotten of the
Father, is " of a more excellent substance than they."*  With
these explanations he was so far satisfied, lie tells his people,
that he gave his assent to the creed, as he says, "for the sake
of peace."
With regard to the anathemas annexed to the creed, Eusebius says he found no difficulty in subscribing them, as they
only prohibited the use of expressions not found in the Scriptures.  Yet the creed contained such expressions; which were
admitted, as we have seen, in opposition to the strongest remonstrances of the friends of rational freedom.  From the use
* See the letter, as preserved by Theodoret, lib. i. c. 12, and Soc., lib. i.
c. 8. Athanasius gives the same account of the matter. The council, lihe
says, declare that the Son was "of the substance of the Father (consubstantial), to negative the Arian notion, that lhe was of things created, or was cre%ted out of nothing," was "a work, and alterable." -De Syn. nAic. Decret.,
cc. 19, 20.




SENTENCE OF THE COUNCIL.                261
of such terms, Eusebius remarks in the same letter, "'had
come almost all the confusion and disturbance which had been
raised in the church."
Five bishops still resisted, and refused to subscribe. These
were Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice, Maris of
Clalcedon, Theonas, and Secundus.*  Eusebius and Theognis
afterwards consented to subscribe the creed, but resolutely
refused to subscribe the anatllemas against Arius, because, as
they said, they attributed to him  opinions which he did not
hold.t Maris, it seems, did the same. They were reproached,
however, for their insincerity and bad faith; and were said,
at the suggestion of Constantia, the emperor's sister, to have
used a very disingenuous artifice.:
Theonas and Secundus, perseveringt in their opposition,
were banished.~  Secundus, as Philostorgius tells us, when
about to go, said to Eusebius, " You have subscribed, Eusebius, to save yourself from  exile; but I aln confident - -for
God has revealed it to me- that you will be banished within
a year."   The prediction was verified; for, within three
months, Eusebius, having returned, as it is expressed, to his
"former impiety," was exiled, as was also Theognis of Nice.
They had continued, it appears, to teach the Arian doctrine,
and had afforded an asylum to certain Arians, who, on account
of their opinions, had been driven from Alexandria, and were
therefore removed, and successors, by the command of the
emperor, elected to fill their sees.ll
Arius and his adhl-lerents, his opinions, and his books, particularly hisg " Thalia," were anathematized and condemned,~
and he was forbidden to enter Alexandria.  The emperor
confirmed the sentence of the council; and decreed, moreover, that the heresiarch and his followers should be branded
with the name of Porphyrians.  The more effectually to
repress his " wicked doctrine," and cause every memorial of
him to perish, he ordered that all his books should be burnt;
and that any person who should be convicted of concealing
~  Soc., lib. i. c 8.  t Ibid., c. 14.    $ Philostorg., lib. i. c. 9.
~ Epist. Synod., and Philostorg., lib. i. c. 9.
Theod., lib. i. c. 19; Const. Epist. ad Nicom., ibid., c. 20.
~ Epist. Synod. ap. Soc., lib. i. c. 9.




262         ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
any one of them, and of refusing immediately to produce and
burn it, should be punished with death.*
The council, having finished its business, was dissolved late
in August, after a session of a little more than two months.t
Neander takes notice of the fact, that many of the bishops
composing the council signed the creed under compulsion, or
in consequence of threats.  The eviperor, according to Eusebius, undertook himself to explain the term  " consubstantial,"
and dogmatized on the subject.  The creed was imposed by
authority.  "Many others," says Neander, "adopted the Nicene Creed in the same sense with Eusebius, interpreting it
in accordance with their own doctrinal system..... But as
the creed was to be made known under the imperial authority,
and threatened all who would not adopt it with the loss of
their places, and condemnation as refractory subjects, the
greater part of them yielded through fear."  There was only
a "forced and artificial union."' We shall say more of this
creed in a subsequent chapter.
It has been pretended by the enemies of Arius, that, when
he found himself anathematized, his courage forsook him, and
he made his peace with the council by a sacrifice of principle.
Such, however, is not the fact.  The historians, Socrates and
Sozomen, both say that he was excommunicated, and that he
was prohibited from entering Alexandria. That he went into
exile is certain; for Eusebius and Theognis, in a petition for
liberty to return, urge the fact that Arius had been already
recalled.~ The time of his recall is uncertain. It has been
said that he remained in exile ten years: but this must be a
mistake; for Eusebius and Theognis were permitted to return
* Emperor's Letter to the Bishops and People, Soc., lib. i. c. 9.
t Eusebius (Vita Coust.) describes with an amusing na'icete the magnificent
feast prepared for the Fathers of the council, on their departure, by Constantine, that "miracle of an emperor."  The avenue to the palace, he tells us,
was guarded with long files of soldiers, "with the naked points of their
swords; through the midst of whom the men of God, without fear, passed
into the inmost rooms of.the palace."  There some of them were permitted
to recline with the emperor, and others were placed on side-couches. " One
would have thought," says Eusebius, "that Christ's kingdom was adumbrated, and that the thing itself was a dream, and nothing more."
t list. Christ. Relig. and Church, vol. ii. pp. 377, 378.
~ Soc., lib. i. c. 14. Illyricum is mentioned as the place of Arius's exile.




ATHANASIUS.                   268
within three years after their banishment; * and Arius, as we
have just said, had been previously recalled.
Meantime, Alexander had died, having survived the dissolution of the council only about five months; and the youthful
Athanasius, as the reward of his zeal, was elevated to the
primacy. So the Orthodox tell us. The enemies of Athanasius, however, say that lie obtained the see by deception and
trick; having in the last resort, the votes of the bishops being
divided, shut himself up in a church in the evening with several of his adherents, and two bishops whom he forced by
threats to perform the ceremony of consecration; they, the
whole time, remonstrating against the violence. The story,
which is told at large by Philostorgius,t may be false or exaggerated; though it will nlot do, in reading the history of those
times, to believe the Orthodox in everything, and the heretics
in nothing. The latter, it is to be presumed, had sometimes
truth on their side. However it might have been in the present case, Athanasius was soon, to appearance, securely seated
on- the episcopal throne of Alexandria. But he was not suf,
fQred long to remain unmolested.  The Eusebians had assembled a council, and deposed Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch,
who had charged Eusebius of Cmesarea with Arianism, and
had been himself, in turn, accused of Sabellianism and immorality. Their attention was now turned to Arius. They were
determined that Athanasius should readmit him into Alexandria, and restore him to the communion of the church. Eusebius was resolute and persevering. He wrote to Athanasius;
and, as Socrates says, he employed entreaties and threats, but
to no purpose. He then turned, to the emperor, and endeavored to prevail on him to interest himself in the cause of the
unfortunate presbyter. In this he was successful.  Arius was
admitted to the presence of Constantine, and found means of
satisfying him that he was sound in the faith.
This was brought about in the following manner. Con
stantia, the emperor's sister, had in her train an Arian presby
ter, whom she treated as a friend and confidant.  The presbyter, in some familiar conversations he held with her, took
occasion to speak of Arius, and told her that he was an injured
*  Philostorg., lib. ii. c. 7.      t Lib. ii. c. 11.




264    X ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
man, and that his sentiments had been misrepresented. Constantia gave credit to his assertions, but had not the courage
to mention the subject to her brother. Falling sick, however,
she, on her death.bed (A. D. 327), recommended the priest to
him as a man of piety and diligence, and well affected towards
his government.  The emperor admitted him to his confidence; and after some time, when the priest had become
emboldened by familiarity, received of him accounts similar to
those which had been given to his sister.  The priest assured
him, that, if he would admit Arius to his presence, the latter
would convince him that he was Orthodox according to the
sense of the synod of Nice. The emperor heard this with
surprise; but said, that, if Arius really held the Nicene faith,
he would not only admit him to his presence, but would send
him back with ]honor to Alexandria.
Arius was immediately summoned to court, but at first
declined going. The emperor then writes, telling him to take
a public vellicle, and hasten to him with all speed. He comes,
accompanied with Euzoius, a fellow-sufferer on account of his
opinions. At the command of the emperor, they present a
summary of their faith. This is expressed in very general
terms. They profess their belief in "one God, the Father
Almighty; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten
before all worlds "; and, after enumerating some other articles,
they add that they hold "the faith of the Church and the
Scriptures" concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
We discover in the confession no evidence that Arius's sentiments had undergone any change, or that lie was guilty of
any disingenuous concealment.  The creed was sufficiently
Arian; though it does not contain the obnoxious expressions,
"made out of nothing," and "there was a time when he did
not exist." These, as not being scriptural expressions, the
Arians seemed now willing, for the sake of peace, to avoid.
They consented, besides, to call Christ the Logos, Wisdom,
Power, of God; maintaining, however, that the terms were
applied to him only in a figurative sense. So, no doubt, they
were intended to be used in their "confession"; and, " if
Constantine was satisfied with it," we may say with Le Clerc,
"either he must have changed his views, or he gave little




ATHANASIUS DEPOSED.                 265
attention to it, or he but imperfectly comprehended the sense
of the Nicene Council."  He appeared, certainly, from  this
time, very much softened towards the Arians; and may be
said, in fact, to have become their patron.
Under sanction of the emperor, Arius now returns to Alexandria, seeks admission into the church, and is refused; Eusebius writes to Atlhanasius on the subject; the emperor, too,
writes: but the primate is still refractory, and replies, that to
reinstate one who had been anathematized as a heretic was
impossible.  The emperor, in a rage, writes back, telling him,
that, if he did not do as he was desired, he should be instantly
deposed and banished.  The haughty Alexandrian now saw
the storm fast gathering over his head.  The Eusebians had
the ear of the emperor, and various charges were brought
against him.  He was accused of several violent and oppressive acts, - of sedition, sacrilege, and atrocious murder.
Of some of these charges the emperor acquitted him, and
ordered that a council, to be assembled at Tyre, should take
cognizance of the rest, that previously held at Csesarea having
proved unavailing.  The council, consisting of sixty bishops
from various parts, met A. D. 335.  Athanasius refused to
appear, until the emperor threatened, that, if he did not come
voluntarily, he should be brought by force.*  He then makes
his appearance with a train of Egyptian bishops, forty-seven
in number, who had not been called, but who might be capable in various ways of rendering him  service.  Before the
council has come to a decision on the questions submitted to
it, however, he secretly withdraws from Tyre; and his flight
is construed into an acknowledgment of his guilt.  He was
condemned and deposed upon several charges, among which
Philostorgius mentions illegitimate ordination, and a most foul
slander which he was proved to llave forged against Eusebius
of Nicomedia.t  What the truth really was, and how much
falsehood was blended with it, it is difficult to ascertain from
the obscure and confused account of the proceedings of the
council given by the historians.
* Soc., i. 28.
t Philostorg., ii. 11; Soc., i. 32; Soz., ii. 25; and Euseb. Vita Const., iv.
41, 42




266       ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
Athanasius very probably received hard measure from the
hands of his judges, who were unfriendly to him: but Arius
had received the same from the hands of the orthodox, who
were his enemies; and they could not now in justice complain.
The council, having completed  their business at Tyre,
repaired to Jerusalem to consecrate the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre, for which they had been originally summoned.
After the performance of this act, they proceed to readmit
Arius and his friends to communion, the emperor testifying to
their orthodoxy.*  They write a letter still extant, addressed
to the church of Alexandria and to "all throughout Egypt,
Thebais, Libya, and Pentapolis, and to the bishops, priests, and
deacons throughout the world," requiring them  to receive
Arius and his followers back into the bosom of the Church,
and expressing the desire that this might be done with all
readiness, and fiull peace and harmony be restored.t
Athanasius had suddenly disappeared from Tyre.  We next
hear of him at Constantinople.  As the emperor was entering
the city on horseback, Athanasius, accompanied by his band
of ecclesiastics, suddenly threw  himself in his. way.  The
emperor, not recognizing him, felt a momentary alarm.  On
being told that it was Athanasius, he ordered him to be removed. But the bishop kept his ground, " nothing daunted,"
till he made himself heard. All he asked, he said, was that
the council which had deposed him should be summoned to
Constantinople, that, in the presence of the emperor, lie might
prefer his complaints, and have a fair hearing.  The request
was granted, and a letter despatched to Jerusalem requiring
as many of the council, which was not yet dissolved, as hlad
composed the Synod of Tyre, to appear at Constantinople.*
The summons came like a thunderbolt, and the bishops were
in no little perplexity.  Most of them, so the orthodox historians tell us, concluded that it would be their safest course to
get home as quick as possible, and immediately set off. But
some - among whom were Eusebius, Theornis, and others -
went and reported themselves at Constantinople.  Anotller
* Soc., i. 33.
t See letter in Athanasius, De Syn. Arim. et Sel., c. 21.
$ Emperor's Letter to the Synod, Soc., i. 34.




ARIUS AT CONSTANTINOPLE.              2l7
charce was now brought against Athanasius.  He lead threatened, it was said, to stop the supply of corn which was annually
sent from Egypt to the imperial city. Constantine was satisfied
of his guilt, and the friends of Athanasius trembled for his life;
but the emperor listened to the suggestions of mercy, and was
content to banish him to Treves in Gaul.  There was a tradition current in the time of Socrates the historian, that, in sending him  into exile in a remote province, Constantine was
influenced not merely by the crimes imputed to him, but by
an earnest desire to restore peace to Christendom, which lie
despaired of doing while the proud and inflexible prelate was
allowed to mingle in its councils.
The friends of Athanasius at Alexandria witnessed the return
of Arius with grief, and many disorders followed. He soon
after appeared at Constantinople; having either gone there
voluntarily, or been summoned to answer for the disturbances
in Egypt. We have now arrived at the closing scene of his
life.  Alexander, a strenuous advocate of the Nicene faith, was
at this time Bishop of Constantinople; and Eusebius threatened,
that, if he did not admit Arius to communion, he should be
deposed.  The bishop was not intimidated.  He turned to God
for refuge. Retiring into his church, he prostrated himself
upon the ground beneath the table of the altar, and poured
forth his prayers and tears.  This he continued to do, it is
asserted, for days and nights together.
Meanwhile Arius, we are told, had appeared before the
emperor, and satisfied him of his orthodoxy.  He is said to
have subscribed to the Nicene symbol.  The emperor, surprised at this, required him to confirm his signature by oath;
which he did, using deception all the while: for lie had a
paper, containing his real sentiments, concealed under his arm,
and declared, under oath, that he believed as he had written.
This charge, however, is wholly destitute of proof. Neander
gives no credit to it, and goes into an argument to show its
improbability.*  Socrates, from whom  the story is taken,t
does not vouch for its truth, but is careful to say, that he had
so "heard "; and repeats, that it was matter of "hearsav
* Hist. Christ. Relig. and Church, vol. ii. p. 885, note.
t Lib. i. c. 38.




268        ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
only." Another account - far more probable — is that Arius
was required to give an account of his faith in writing, and
that he took care to express hirnself, on the disputed points, in
Scripture language, on which he could put his own construction.  With this the emperor, who clearly was not a very profound critic in tlese matters, was satisfied, as he had been by
a former confession of Arius.  Constantine was now not difficult
to please on this point.  He " stood in the closest relatiols,"
as Neander observes, " with those bishops who were decidedly
opposed to the Nicene Creed"; and had no great zeal for its
articles, being content if it was not publicly attacked. WVe are
not bound to believe every rumor to the disadvantage of Arius
put in circulation by his enemies. If Athanasins was guilty of
one half the crimes imputed to him, he deserved to be sent to
end his days in solitude or among Barbarians; for he was fit
only to live with savages.  We do not believe that lie was
guilty of one fourth part of them; and yet the charges against
him are, with few exceptions, as well or better supported than
most of those against the Arians. We only claim for Arius
the benefit of that comnlon justice and charity to which all are
entitled.  We ask only that some little allowance be made for
the exaggerations of party feeling and the virulence of theological prejudice.
The emperor, convinced of his good faith, directed Alexander
to admit him to communion.  A council was also talked of.
Alexander was agitated and in great distress.  Entering the
church, and prostrating himself at the foot of the altar, he
prayed to God, that, if the opinion of Arius were true, he
might not live to see the day " appointed for its discussion ";
but, if not, that Arius himself might be cut off.  The next
day was the time fixed for bringing Arius to communion. But
as he was proceeding from the palace through the city, accompanied by his friends, in a sort of triumph, he was attacked
with sudden illness; and, retiring to the nearest office, miserably
perished, A. D. 336, as his friends say, by magical arts or by
poison, but, according to the representations of his enemies, by
a judgment of Heaven, in answer to the very charitable prayer
of Alexander, who would rather die than be convinced that he
was in error. Such are the principal circumstances of the




CHARACTER OF ARIUS.                    269
case, as given by the historians and Athanasius, though their
narratives vary in some minute particulars.*
Tile Eusebians, as the Orthodox tell us, were filled with
consternation, and went and buried the companion of their
heresy in silence.  The spot where he died was pronounced
execrable; and those who passed by long continued to point
the finger at it in pious horror, till a rich Arian, to wipe off
the stigma, purchased the ground, and erected upon it a beautiful dwelling.  That the friends of the unfortunate Arius were
sensibly affected by his sudden and tragical death, there can
be no doubt.  His enemies indecently exulted, and publicly
returned( thanks to God, who, as they thought, had graciously
interposed to rid the world of a. monster of impiety, and, by a
visible token, confirm the consubstantial faith.t
Of the intellectual and moral character of Arius, we are
compelled to think favorably.  That lie possessed a vigorous
understanding, acute discernment, and great clearness of coinprehension, admits not of doubt.  He wrote, if we may judge
froni his letters, with precision and accuracy; and, by the confession of his enemies, united consummate skill in the dialectic
art with an easy address and popular and insinuating eloquence.
From  the little which is known of his life, it may be inferred
that lie was tolerant and charitable, the friend of inquiry and
rational freedom.  He had the independence to think for himself, an(i the courage to express his opinions; but it does not
appear that he had any disposition to restrain others in the
exercise of their liberty.  There seems to have been no bitterness in his nature.  We do not hear that he ever indulged in
reproaches against his oppressors.  He attempted, in  some
respects, to reform and simplify the theology of the age; and
was, in consequence, denounced as a blasphemer, a heretic, a
* Soc., lib. i. cc. 37, 38; Sozomen, lib. ii. cc. 29, 30; Theodoret, lib. i. c. 14.
Valesius contends that the Arius who died at Constantinople, A. D. 336, was
not the arch-heretic, but one of his followers of the same name. This it is
impossible to believe. All the historians and Athanasius speak of the Arius
who tlhus died, witliout giving any intimation that it was another Aritis. It is
impossible to read their accounts, as it seems to us, without a conviction that
the writers all along hlave in view the author of the heresy. No historical
fact appears morecertain.
t Soc., lib. i. c. 38; Athan. Epist. ad Serap. de Morte Arii, et ad Episc..Eg.
~t Lib., c. 19.




270        ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
Porphyrian, — a name which stood for all that was vile and
hateful.  He was anathematized and cut off from  the communion of the Christian world, and it was made felony to possess ally of his books; but we are not info:med that he was
provoked to reply with acrimony, or gave evidence of being
deficient in the meek and patient virtues of the Christian.  It
is certain that his life was unspotted; for calumny never uttered a whisper against its purity.
Of his writings, with the exception of two letters and the
Confession already mentioned, we have little positive information. Philostorgius, as represented by his Orthodox epitomizer, tells us that he wrote songs for mariners and those who
wvere engaged at the mill and in travelling, that, by calling to
his aid the charms of melody, he mi'ght the better disseminate
his opinions among the illiterate portion of the community.
If such were his motive, there was nothing culpable in it.
But he might have had other objects in view.  Persons employed in grinding at the mill, in ancient times, it is well
known, were accustomed to cheer their labors with song; and
those devoted to other occupations, no doubt, did the same.
The motion of the oar, we know, in modern times, is often
accompanied by chanting or music.  If Arius could furnish
popular songs preferable to those in general use in his time;
if lie could substitute those which had a meaning, and were
unexceptionable in point of expression and thought, for such
as were loose, profane, or contained erroneous sentiments,he had a right to do it.  More than this, it was an act of great
benevolence to do it.
There is another work of Arius, which is often mentioned
by Athanasius,* the " Thalia," which he calls a poem,- a
light and effeminate poem, " after the manner of the Egyptian
Sotades."   He seems to speak of it as a sort of pleasant,
jesting performance, —a piece of profane buffbonery. It is
difficult to say what Athanasius means by all this.  He gives
several extracts from  the work, in which there is certainly
nothing comic or humorous, or soft and effeminate.  The introduction, if Athanasius has quoted it correctly, exhibits a
* See particularly his Orat. i. cont. Arianos, cc. 4, 5; and De Syn. Arimn et
Sel., c. 15; also De Syn. Nic. Decret., c. 16.




WRITINGS OF ARIUS.                        271
killd of sonorousness and jingle, a pomp and affectation; and
some expressions which occur in it savor of a childish vanity.
But, with this exception, the performance appears, for aught
we can discover, to have been plain and sober enough. The
quotations given by Athanasius, which are very short fragments, contain some statements of Arius's views and arguments in their favor, but perfectly grave and decorous.
If Athanasius means only that Arius in his songs, -  which,
however, he plainly distinguishes from his " Thalia," - made
use of the Sotadean measure, which was peculiar, there was
nothing  criminal in  that.   A   similar charge  was brought
against the early Protestant reformers, who were accused of
taking their " airs " from  the " best songs of the times."
But then the songs of Arius, it is objected, were doctrinal;
and  so are those  of Dr. Watts, and fifty  others we could
name.  And, if we mistake not, the Athanasian Creed (which
will be admitted, we suppose, to be somewhat doctrinal) is to
this day somewhere appointed to be "said  or sung" in the
churches.*' The author of one of the Oxford " Tracts for the Times" (No. 75), says:
"It is a far truer view of this venerable composition to consider it a Psalm or
Hymn of praise, or of concurrence in God's appointments, as Psalm 118 or
139, or the Te Deum, than as a formal Creed"; and he recommends the use
of it, at the "dawn of the first day of the week," for so "its living character
and spirit are incorporated into the Christian's devotions, and its influence on
the heart, as fkr as may be, secured." -Vol. iii. p. 190, New York edit.
As to the songs or ballads of Arius, and his "Thalia," modern writers
have felt some perplexity. Some speak of them as one work, though, as we
said, clearly distinguished by Athanasius. Their grossness is no doubt exag.
gerated. J. H. Newman, the translator of Athanasius's "Treatises against
Arianism," in the Oxford Library (of the Fathers, finds fault with the Saint for
speaking of the Eqylptilan Sotades. He says that the Sotades referred to was
a Cretan by birth, and that the characteristic of his metre was the "recurrence of the same cadence, which virtually destroyed the division into verses,
and thus gave the composition that lax and slovenly air to which Athanasius
alludes."  The Church, he says, "adopted the Doric music, and forbade the
Ionic and Lydian.  The name'l'halia' commonly belonged to convivial
songs."  Newman thinks that the offence of Arius consisted in the use of the
music and light metres referred to. This, no doubt, was what was meant when
his songs and his " Thalia " were called " dissolute."  He fell into the error,
as Newman explains it, "of those modern religionists, who, with a better
A-3reed, sing spiritual songs at table, and use in their chapels glees and opera
airs."
Athanasius says that Arius wrote the " Thalia" after his expulsion from




272            ARIUS, AND  THE  ARIAN  CONTROVERSY.
the Church and while he was with Eusebius. We subjoin four lines, in Newman's translation, as a specimen.  According to Athanasius, they formed part
of the introduction to the " Thalia."
" According to faith of God's elect, God's prudent ones,
IIoly children, rightly dividing, God's IIoly Spirit receiving,
HIave I learned this from the partakers of wisdom,
Accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all things."
Lib. of the Fathers, viii. 185.
Milman (luiist. of Clil'~stianitq, p. 314, ed. N. Y.) softens the charges brought
against Arius on account of the character of his " Tllalia " and Ihis songs. He
refers to the example of a " celebrated modern humorist and preacher, who
adapted hymns to some of the most popular airs, and declared that the Devil
ought not to have all the best tunes."




SUCCESS AND DECLINE OF ARIANISM.             273
CHAPTER III.
SUCCESS AND DECLINE OF ARIANISM. - LONG SURVIVED IN THE WEST.
THE GOTHS RECEIVE IT. -INFLUENCE OF THE LADIES. - THE FRIENDS
AND COADJUTORS OF ARIUS. — EUSEBIUS OF NICOMEDIA, TIHEOGNIS OP
NICE, AND ]EUSEBIUS TIIE HISTORIAN. —FORTUNES OF ATIIANASIUS'
HIS WANDERINGS AND) DEATH, WRITINGS AND CHARACTER.
IF the sudden removal of Arius had the effect of damping
for a moment the ardor of the Eusebians, their courage soon
revived.  The cause of Arianism  acquired new  vigor after
the death of Constantine, A. D. 337; and continued to be
prosperous during the whole reign of his son Constantius, who
was himself an Arian.  In this reign, several Arian councils
were assembled; Arianism was everywhere predominant; and
the consubstantial or Homoousian faith seemed to be threatened with destruction. The great Hosius, as he is called, now
a hundred years old, subscribes to the Arian faith; Liberius,
Bishop of Rome, follows his example; and, not to mention
Felix, called by'the Orthodox the intruder, the world, for once
at least, beheld an Arian pope.* The Arians had possession
of all the great sees of the Church. "The whole world," says
Jerome, " groaned and was surprised to find itself Arian." t
A  schism  took place among the Arians: one party, called
Semi-Arians, or HIomoiousians, maintaining that the Son was,
in all respects, of like substance with the Father; and the
other, denominated Aetians, Eunomians, and Anomceans, who
were the strict Arians, asserting that he was of a different substance, and wholly unlike the Father.$
At their councils, the Arians adopted various confessions of
faith.  Socrates enumerates nine,~ and speaks of them  as a
labyrinth; and Athanasius mentions their "ten  synods or
* Athan., Ad Mon., c. 45; Soc., ii. 31; 1Dn Pin, Fist. of Eccles. Writers, ii.
60, 62; Neander, Hist. Christ. Re/ig. and Church, ii. 404, 405.
t Dial. ado. Luc:f.
1 Epiphan., Hcer. lxxiii.-lxxvi.          ~ Lib. ii. c. 41.
18




274          ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
more," and gives several of their creeds., Tillemont makes
the latter amount to eighteen during the reign of Constantius.
Their enemies reproached  them  for their frequent changes,
which were attributed to their fickleness; * but their friends,
perhaps, might adduce the circumstance as evidence only that
they exercised the right of inquiry and the free expression of
sentiment.  We could wish, however, that the Arians at this
period had not disgraced their cause by persecutions.
Constantius died A. D. 361.  The infidel Julian succeeded,
and neither party was fostered or oppressed. Jovian favored
the consubstantialists.  Under Valens, Arianisrn  again recovered strength, but sunk beneath the severe edicts of Theodosius, and was afterwards little more heard of in the Eastern
Empire.
It long survived, however, in the West.  The Goths received the Arian faith from  the celebrated Ulfila, or Ulphilas,
their first bishop, and the inventor of their alphabet.t  It was
embraced by the Ostrogoths, the Suevi, the Burgundians, the
Vandals, and generally by the Barbaric nations which overwhelmed the Western Empire. Orthodox writers assign the
year 660 as the date of its extinction.  That it continued to
subsist as the belief of many private Christians, there can be
no doubt; but its energies were crushed by the hard pressure
of power, and it rose again into notice only after the slumber of centuries.  With its revival in modern times we have
nothing to do.*
* Athan., De Sqn. Arine. et Sel.; also Epist. ad Episc. in Afr.
t Soc., lib. iv. c. 33; Philostorg., lib. ii. c. 5.
t Historians have noticed the influence of the ladies on the fortunes of Arianism. " The Devil," says Maimbourg, " made use of three women to introduce the Arian heresy in the East," referring to the Empresses Constantia,
Eusebia, and Dominica; " but God, to combat him with his own weapons,
employed three illustrious queens, Clotilda, Ingonda, and Theodelinda, to purify the West" by its extermination! (l1istoire de l'Arianisme, lib. xii.) Maimbourg is an eloquent and agreeable writer, but exceedingly deficient in candor,
and occasionally draws pretty freely upon imagination. Dr. Jortin classes
him with those who " malce history." Tillemont has also written a history of
the Arians; and no two works could present a more striking contrast, in point
of manner and style, than Maimbourg's and his. Tillemont's consists of a
dry collection of quotations, interspersed now and then with an original remark. But Tillemont's work, too, takes a strong coloring from his prejudices,
the exhibition of which is often not a little amusing. He is at no loss to ac



THE FiJIENDS OF ARIUS.                     275
The friends and associates of Arius now claim a parting
notice. Of these, Eusebius of Nicomedia, called by some the
great Eusebius, was the most prominent.  From  the time he
embarked in the controversy till his death, the party continued
to be animated by his counsels.  His influence may be attributed in part, no doubt, to his facility of access to the emperor,
but much more to his distinguished ability, his shrewdness and
activity. He always acted with vigor. His enemies accused
him of faction and intrigue; but we must not form our judgment upon party statements.  He had been banished for his
resistance to the imposition  of an unscriptural creed.  His
friends had been oppressed, calumniated, and some of them
driven into exile, for presuming to exercise freedom of thought,
-the common birthright of man.  If the warmth of his feelings and his keen sense of injustice sometimes betrayed him
into imprudence and excesses (which  we neither deny nor
assert), he may be entitled to some indulgence on the score
count for the rise of Arianism just at the moment it appeared; for the Devil,
despairing of propping up the sinking cause of Paganism after the conversion
of Constantine, and having, therefore, nothing to do out of the Church, went
to work to see what he could effect in it. " For this purpose, lie made use of
the very name of Jesus Christ "; and Arius was the unhappy being he employed to maintain the " impious tenet," that " he was either a different God
from his Father, or, which is much the same blasphemy, that he was not truly
God at all."  All "which is horrid to think on!"
The Arians, if we credit several of the old ecclesiastical writers, and Maimbourg, Tillemont, and others, anlong the moderns, were only instruments in
the hands of the great adversary of God and man. Yet they will not suffer,
as regards character, genius, or attainments, by comparison with the consubstantialists. True, they are represented as monsters; but then we must recollect that their enemies are their painters. We have feeling complaints of the
persecutions kindled by the Arians; but had the Arians no tale of cruelties to
tell? We know that their sufferings were great, and would, no doubt, have
appeared much greater, had their own accounts been spared us. But the injuries of time, and zeal of the Orthodox, have suffered few of their writings
to survive; and their history is, therefore, to be derived chiefly from the suspicious testimony of their foes. Severe edicts, it is certain, were issued for
the destruction of their books; and the story of their sorrows, as related by
themselves, has perished. That in their prosperity they retorted upon the
consubstantialists the wrongs they had received, only proves that they were
not superior to the frailties of our nature. We are pointed to the wanderings
of Athanasius as proof of their malice, and his history has been often and
pathetically enough told; but a tear for the unfortunate Arius has been more
than the world could give.




276: ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
of human infirmity.  He was originally Bishop of Berytus,
afterwards of Nicomedia, the chief city of Bithynia; whence
he was transferred, about the year 338, to the see of Constantinople. He died soon after the council of Antioch, - probably before the end of the year 341.  He was reputed to be a
learned man; yet we are not informed that he left any writings except letters, of which one only is preserved.
Theognis of Nice, as we have said, recovered his see after
his exile; but of his subsequent history little is known, except
that Ile persevered with Eusebius in opposition to the consubstantial faith. Of Theonas and Secundus we find nothing
worth adding.  Maris of Chalcedon survived to the time of
the Emperor Julian; whom he had the courage publicly to
reproach for his idolatry, as he was sacrificing on the altar of
Fortune.  He was then old and blind. THe had formerly seen
the philosophic emperor practise the exercises of the Christian
religion, and now thanked God, he said, in reply to a sarcasm
of Julian, that he could not behold his impieties.  The anecdote, if true, shows at least his honesty and zeal.
Of Eusebius the historian, another of the friends of Arius,
as he will form the subject of a separate notice, we shall here
add nothing to what has been already said.
We have now done with Arius and his friends, and hasten
to offer a brief tribhite to the great champion of Orthodoxy.
We left Athanasius at Treves, where lie had been banished
for a real or supposed crime of state, A. D. 336.  The emperor
was importuned by his friends to restore him: but he was inflexible, and replied, that he was c" seditious, and had been
condemned by a council."  He was compelled, lie said, to
respect the decision of the bishops assembled at Tyre, who
could not be supposed to have been under the influence of
passion.  Athanasius, he added, was " insolent, proud, and
kept everytlling in a constant broil."  Constantine died soon
after (A. D. 337), having in his last illness received Arian baptism from the hland of Eusebius of Nicomedia.*
* Constantine's orthodoxy, in his best days, sat rather loosely upon him,',rnd varied with time. If the oration to the " Saints," that is, to the Fathers
of the council, ascribed to him by Eusebius and appended by him to his Life
of the emperor, be really his, he certainly was no Athanasian in the later




FORTUNES OF ATHIANASIUS.                 277
Athanasius, fortified with a letter from  the young Constantine, now returned to Egypt, after an absence of nearly two
years.  His entrance into Alexandria was marked with blood
and slauglhter.  His attempt to reascend the episcopal throne,
from which lie had been regularly deposed by the sentence of
a synod, was vigorously resisted by the Arians; but the party
of Ath]anasius prevailed.  Complaints were made against him
to the Emperor' Constantius; and a council, at whicll the emperor was present, having been assembled at Antiocli, Athanasius was declared to bave been guilty of an irregularity in
resuming  is episcopal functions without the intervention of a
synod; and Gregory of Cappadocia was appointed to fill the
see of Alexandria.  On his arrival, accompanied with a band
of soldiers to enforce the decree of the synod, Athanasius
effected his escape, and took refuge in Italy.  According to
some authorities, lie soon returned to Alexandria with letters
from  Julius, Bishop of Rome, in which the latter severely
censures the bishops who had deposed ]im; and, in consequence, receives from  them  a sharp reply, rebuking him  for
his impertinent interference.  The usual disturbances followed
on his arrival at Alexandria; and he was charged, besides,
witl selling thle corn which the late emperor had provided for
the relief of the poor widows of the city, and with appropriating the proceeds to his own selfish purposes.  The emperor
now threatens him with death, and lie tllinks it prudent again
to flee.  He passes some time in concealment; but the Bishop
of Rome, discovering the place of his retirement, interests
himself in lhis favor, and writes, inviting hlim to repair to his
presence; and Athanasius finds his way a second time to
Rome.
Other authorities, with more probability perhaps, assign to
him  only one journey to Rome; where he remained some
years, (luring which a synod was holden at Rome in his favor.
The council of Sardica, A. D. 347, after the secession of the
sense of the term. Thus he pronounces Plato right when he speaks of a
"first God, above every substance," to which first God li he adds a " second,
distinguishing them as in number two substances," or two essences, thle secirnd " proceeding ftiom the first," and " ministering to  his commands," referring the constitution of all things to him. So far, he says, Plato taught
wisely and well. - Orat. ad Sanct. Cat., c. 9.




278        ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
Eastern bishops, too proves friendly to him, absolves him from
the sentence of the synod of Antioch, and decrees his restoration and that of some other bishops to their sees. The Emperor of the West writes to his brother of the East, acquainting him  with the fact, and entreats him  to replace them.
Constantius demurs; upon which the Western emperor writes
a very laconic and menacing epistle, telling him, that, if he
refused, he swould himself come, and restore them by force.
The threat is effectual, and the Eastern emperor consents to
their restoration.
On his way to Egypt, Athanasius passes through Jerusalem,
and is received to communion by a synod of his friends hastily
assembled on the occasion; and was reestablished in his see,
A. D. 349. He had scarcely taken possession, when the Emperor Constans, his protector, meets a violent death; and he is
doomed to experience afresh the effects of Constantius's anger.
New charges are brought against him.  The Western bishops,
after a long delay, are induced to pronounce sentence of condemnation against him; and the emperor determines on
accomplishing his ruin.  He escapes, and conceals himself
in the desert.  He wrote an apology for his flight, which is
still extant.  He remained in seclusion several years; but
after the death of George, the Arian Bishop of Alexandria,
who fell by the hands of an infuriated mob,* he emerged from
his solitude, and resumed his office, A. D. 362. His stay was
short; for Julian, who was then emperor, hearing of his
return, and fearing another commotion, sent orders to his
prefect to apprehend him.
The saint again fled, saying to his friends, " Let us retire a
little while: it is a small cloud, and will soon pass."  His puirsuers pressed hard upon him; but, eludings them by artifice,
he returned privately to the city, and remained concealed till
the storm was over. Upon the accession of Jovian, A. D. 363,
he reappeared, and, during his reign, retained possession of his
* Philostorgius (lib. vii. c. 2) says that the vi'olence was committed at the
instigation of Athanasius. The character of the Arian bishop is said to have
been stained with many vices. It is a curious circumstance that he should
have been afterwards transformed into the " renowned St. George of England,
the patron of arms, of chivalry, and of the garter." The transformation, says
Gibbon, though "not absolutely certain," is "extremely probable."




WRITINGS OF ATHANASIUS.                  279
seat.  Under Valens, the Arian emperor, he was again compelled to leave Alexandria.  He retired, and concealed himself four months ill the~ tomb of his father.  His friends at
Alexandria were overwhelmed with sadness, and the emperor
was induced to recall him.  IHe became afterwards embroiled
with the Governor of Libya, whom he had excommunicated;
but kept possession of his see till his death. He ended a life
of toil and wanderings, A. D. 373; having been bishop fortysix years, of which twenty were passed in exile or concealment.*
His Writings, which are numerous, relate mostly to the controversies of the times, and contain several elaborate vindications of his character.t  He treats the charges of his enemies
against imin as calumnies, and strongly asserts, and sometimes
at least, proves, his innocence. But he was forced to contend,
not only against their calumnies, as he pronounces them, but
their arguments in defence of their theological opinions; and
these he seems to have sometimes found it difficult to refute.
He says they were continually asking captious, absurd, and
impious questions; to which, it appears, he could sometimes
reply only by raising the cry of " blasphemy."  He compares
the Arians to madmen, dogs, and swine.:  They contended
that the expression, "I and my Father are one," could not
prove the Son to be of the substance of the Father; for Jesus
prays that his disciples " may be one, even as lie and the Father
were one."  But, in this reasoning, Atlhanasius could see only
"' indescribable temerity" and "diabolical madness."  They
urged the texts, "All power is given unto me "; "The Father
hath committed all judgment to the Son "; and from his agony
and prayer, he says, they concluded that he could not be God
by nature.  Again.: had he been the proper wisdom  of the
Father, "How could it be said that lie grew in wisdom?" and
* Socrates devotes several chapters, or parts of chapters, in the first foul
books of his history to Athanasius; Sozomen, in his first six books; and Theodoret, in his first four.
t See particularly his Apol. cont. Arianos.
t Dr. Stanley, in his "History of the Eastern Church," gives an amusing
list of his favorite epithets for the Arians. They are " devils, Antichrists,
maniacs, dogs, wolves, lions, hares, chameleons, hydras, eels, cuttle-fish, gnats,
beetles, leeclies." Such names passed with Athanasius for arguments.




280        ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
":how could he be ignorant of the day of judgment?"  In:
reply to these and similar arguments, they get a great deal of
abuse: they are denounced as impious; and their audacity is
compared to that of the Jews, who stoned Jesus for speaking
of his divinity.  They were perfect hydras.  They were always ready with some new turn or new argument. Though
refuted by him, they were not silenced; and, though he had
shown them " destitute of all sense," they did not "blush."
He quotes from the " Thalia" of Arius, and exclaims, at such
" impious words, how shall not universal nature stand aghllast,
and all men stop their ears and shut their eyes, that they may
not hear those things, nor see him who has written them! "
Athanasius, however, possessed several of the requisites of
a skilful champion.  He was bold, resolute, and subtle, and
wrote in a style of strong, though sometimes rude, eloquence.
His spirit was indomitable. He was persevering and inflexible; but his temper was arbitrary and domineering, and his
constancy was not without a tincture of obstinacy. He was
excelled in learning by several of his contemporaries, particularly by Eusebius of Coasarea; and by many, we trust, in the
meek and gentle graces of the Christian.  His piety, and love
of truth, we have no disposition to call in question; yet the
history of his life would seem to authorize the suspicion, that
he was influenced rather by motives of pride and ambition
than by a desire to promote the peace of the Church. He
would set all Christendom in a flame sooner than relinquish
the patriarchal throne of Alexandria.;He was capable of inspiring warm friendships.  He was a
strong advocate for monkery.  He wrote the life of a certain
hermit, whose name was Antony; and was amply repaid by
the affection and gratitude of the order. In the season of his
deepest adversity, the monks remained faithful.  They opened
the doors of their monasteries to him; concealed him in the
desert, where they visited him; ministered to his wants; gave
him intelligence of the approach of danger; and, in various
ways, evinced their attachment to his person.
-His orthodoxy, particularly in the earlier part of his life,
will not stand the test of subsequent times, as he did not admit
the Son to be of one individual essence with the Father,,




CHARACTER  OF ATHANASIUS.                        28&
though  he believed him  to possess the same specific nature.'
It is hardly necessary to add, that the Creed which  bears his
name is the production of a later age.t
-* Not yovooiatof, or ravroofeytog, but oyoov6to'. The former terms, expressive of individual or numerical identity of substance, were then rejected.
t Gibbon's account of Atllanasius formns one of the most splendid chapters
in his History. His portrait of the saint, however, is an exceedingly flattering
one. Thlle temptation was great, to be sure.  Athanasius had several lheroic
qualities; lhe led a life of adventure; and a writer possessing Gibbon's powers of description could not wish for a finer subject.  He could be just to
Atlianasius, as one has said, " even when Julian was his persecutor."  Gibbon had the art, if we may so express it, of falsifying history, without absolutely misstating facts. Athanasius and Julian were very different characters.
But a person will get just about as correct an idea of the one as of the other
from the "luminous pages " of Gibbon.
The very slight sketch we h)ave given of the character of Athanasius we
believe to be sufficiently favorable. Others have spoken of his infirmities of
temper in terms much stronger than any we have employed. "Athanasius's
Epistle to the Monks," says tile learned Limborchl, " is proof enough of his
ungovernable and angry temper, in which we find nothing but foul and reproacllful language against the Arians; a plain proof of a violently disordered
mind." -History of the Inquisition, ch. 4.




282        ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
CHAPTER IV.
THE NICENE FAITH.- MEANING OF " CONSUBSTANTIAL." - ATHANASIUS'S
EXPLANATION OF IT. —FATHER AND SON RELATIVELY UNEQUAL: SO
THE COUNCIL OF NICE TAUGHT. - SENTIMENTS OF THE ORTHODOX
AFTERWARDS UNDERGO A CHANGE. - THE HOLY SPIRIT NOT DEFINED
BY THE COUNCIL.-NOT AS YET SAFE TO SPEAK OF ITS DIVINITY.VARIATIONS.- DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY STILL UNSETTLED.
IT may be asked, in conclusion, What did the council of
Nice accomplish?  What, in reality, was the Nicene faith?
How far did it differ from that of the learned Christians of
preceding centuries? how far from that of subsequent times,
after the doctrine of the Trinity was in a manner defined and
settled?
First, what did the Fathers of the council mean when they
said that the Son was consubstantial with the Father?  We
have seen the construction which Eusebius puts on the term,
and which he says received the sanction of the council. They
intended to assert that the Son was "in all respects like the
Father," and "unlike all creatures made by him," in opposition to Arius, who maintained that he was a creature, and
therefore not strictly divine. This was the meaning which
the term then bore, as learned Trinitarian critics (Petavius,
Cudworth, Le Clerc, and others) admit and prove.  It expressed, not numerical identity of substance, but sameness of
kind.  One man is of the same substance or nature with
another, as they belong to the same order of beings. So the
Son of God is of the same substance with the Father: he
partakes, in common withi him, of a divine, though not of the
same individual nature. Divine begets divine, as human
begets human.  The distinction between person and being was
unknown to the Fathers: it is a refinement of latter times.
The Father and Son had the same specific nature, yet constituted distinct subsistences, persons, beings.* Such was the
* The very term "consubstantial" implies two. We never say that a
thing is consubstantial with itself.




THE NICENE FAITH.                    283
doctrine of all the ante-Nicene Fathers, unless by the expression. 6, Of a different substance," which some of them  applied
to the Son, they mean to teach something more thaji that he
had an individual existence distinct from the Father.
The Fathers of Nice taught no other doctrine.  The term
"consubstantial" was not first introduced by them.  Athanasius tells us that it had been used before.  The seventy Fathers of the second council of Antioch, which condemned the
errors of Paul of Samosata, he admits, rejected it, and decreed
that the Son was not consubstantial with the Father; and he
attempts to apologize for them by referring to the nature of the
controversy in which they were engaged.*  But some Fathers,
he says, had used it. In what sense Dionysius of Alexandria
understood it, we have already seen. His explanation of it
does not differ materially from that of Eusebius.  Athanasius's
explanation of the sense in which it was used by the council
of Nice is similar.  The Son has "no similitude to creatures,
nor is cognate with them "; he is the " true offspring of the
substance of the Father."  "The substance of the Father was
the be(inning, the root, and fountain of the Son, who has a
true likeness to Him that begat him; and is not separated from
the Father, as we are, by being of a substance foreign to his."
Again: he has the same relation to the Father as a ray to the
sun, or a branch to the vine; for the " branches are consubstantial with the vine, of the same sort, and inseparable."
Agcain: when we speakl of identity or sameness, he says, we
refer, not to any accidental distinction, but to substances or
essences.  One man "is of the same nature with another as
regards substance."  But" "a man and a dog are of different
natures: therefore what is of the same nature is consubstantial;
what is of a different nature is of another substance," or not
consubstantial.t
* De S~qn. Arim. et Seleitc.
t De Sqn. Airen. et Seleuc., cc. 33-45, and 52-54; De Syn. Nic. Decret., cc. 19,
20-25, 27; De Se4nt. Diol.ysii; Epist. ii. et iii. ad Serap. Dionysius is one of
Athanasius's principal authorities to show that the Fathers of Nice did not." invent for themselves " the term consubstantial. He gives the letter of
Dionysius of Alexandria to him of Rome twice. (De Sy,. Nic. Decret., and
De Sy,. A,im. et Seleuc.) In this letter Dionysius says: "I instanced a human production which is clearly congeneric, and I observed that undeniably




284a        ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
Such is the explanation which this celebrated champion of
the Trinity gives of the meaning of the term, as used lby the
Fathers of the synod of Nice and by himself.  Christ was by
birth God, as man is by birth man.  There is one species of
divinity, as one species of humanity; and, as all men are of
the same substance (that is, all human), so the Father and Son
are of the same substance (that is, both divine).  Tllis, if we
may truly believe Eusebius and Athanasius, is all which they
meant by the term. We know that it originally bore this sense,
and these two witnesses- one of whom. was partial to its use,
and the other opposed to it - tell us that it was used by the
Fathers of the council in no other.  It is needless to introduce further evidence.*
Specific sameness implies a sort of natural equality; yet the
Father anti Son might be relatively unequal, and were so considered.  The one gave, and the other received.  The one was
without cause, unbegotten, Godl originally and of himself: the
other was a God by derivation or birth, and not originally in
and of himself.  They were united, however, in will, purpose,
and affection.  There was but one original Fountain of divinity, one supreme first Cause; and therefore the unity of God,
in a certain loose sense, was, as it was thought; preserved.' So
the preceding Fathers believed; and we have no proof that
the Fathers of Nice entertained any other views.  Their creed
certainly teaches no other.   It recognizes one unbegotten,
uncaused Being; and one begotten, dependent, and derived.
Read the Nicene Creed, and for the term'" consubstantial "
substitute the phrase, "having, as the Son of God, a divine
nature," which is equivalent to it as used by the Fathers of
the council, and you have two beings such. as we have defathers differed from their children only in not being the same individuals."
That is, there is a generic, not an individual identity. This is what was
meant by consubstantial.
* We mean not to affirm that there was entire unanimity of opinion among
the Fathers of the council on this subject. This, we know, was not the case.
the term in question was obscure, and,' in some sort, ambiguous; but it was
all the better for that, provided it had the effect of stigmatizing the Arians,
since it allowed a certain latitude of opinion among the orthodox Fathers.
That the prominent idea conveyed by it, however, was such as we have
stated, admits of no reasonable doubt.




THE FATHERS BEFORE AND AFTER THE SYNOD.   285
scribed.  WTe do not perceive that in sentiment they differed
in any essential particular from the Fathers who went before
them.  If they used the term  "consubstantial " in the sense
which afterwards obtained, however, they certainly did differ
from them, and were innovators.  But we are convinced, as
we have said, that they did not so use it. If we may believe
their own statements, they certainly did not.
Some time after the council, however, and even during the
lifetime of Athanasius, the opinions of the orthodox began to
undergo a real and important change; and the council undoubtedly contributed to this change, inadvertently, by the introduction of a term capable of a sense very different from th'at
originally attributed to it by the Platonists and Platonizing
Fathers.  Thus the term, which, at the time it was adopted,
was understood to express only specific sameness of nature,
was afterwards employed to signify individual identity; and
subsequent times, while they have retained the language, have
departed widely from the sentiments, of the Nicene Fathers.
Tile principal points of difference between the views of the
Fathers who lived before the synod, and the asserters of the
genuine Trinity afterwards, may be stated in few words. The
former taught the supremacy of the Father, and the real and
proper inferiority of the Son, without qualification; making
them, in fact, two beings.  The latter asserted, not simply an
equality of nature between the Father and Son, but their individual and numerical identity; though this was not originally
the doctrine of Athanasius, nor of the Church till some time
after the middle of the fourth century.  The former maintained, generally, that the Son was voluntarily begotten of the
Father before the creation of the world, but not from eternity;
the latter, that he was necessarily begotten, from  eternity.
Whether they attached any ideas to these terms, we will not
undertake to say.
There was a very remarkable difference, too, in the manner
in which the advocates of the orthodox doctrine, before and
some time after the Council of Nice, endeavored to repel the
charge urged against them by their adversaries, of introducing
two Gods. The former, in reply to the objections of Praxeas,
Noitus, Sabellius, and their followers, asserted that they wor



286        ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
shipped the one only and true God, who is over all, supreme;
that the Son was inferior, another, different, - different in
essence, the minister of the Father, and in all respects subject
to his will, and entitled, therefore, to only inferior homage.
Of these and similar expressions, however, the Arians took
advantage; and they we]re, therefore, gradually dropped.
The ground of defence was changed.  Instead of saying that
the Son was a different being from the Father, and inferior to
him, the orthodox began to allege that they were of one individual essence; and, therefore, there was only one object of
supreme worship.  There were many passages of Scripture,
however, which pressed hard upon this doctrine, and which
seemed at least to speak of the Son as inferior to the Father.
It was at this time that the fiction of the two natures in Jesus
Christ was introduced, and then all difficulties vanished. The
Son, as God, was co-equal with the Father; as man, lie was
inferior: as God, he could send; as man, he could be sent:
in his human nature, hie could pray to himself in his divine;
as man, he could assert that lhe was ignorant of the day of
judgment, which, as God, lie knew.
The doctrine of the Trinity, however, was of very gradual
formation. Tile learned Huet, a Trinitarian, confesses that' so late as the time of Basil," who flourished after the middle
of the fourth century, 6" and still later, the Catholics dared not
openly acknowledge the divinity of the Spirit." X
Petavius bears similar testimony. In the heading of one of
his articles he says that " most Catholics dared not profess the
Holy Spirit to be God, and the (Ecumenical Council of Constantinople does not expressly call it God."  He says that the
first council which decreed expressly that the Holy Spirit is
to be regarded as God, was that of Alexandria, over which
Athanasius presided, A. D. 362.t   The Constantinopolitan
Council was held about twenty years later.
Neander has well observed, that the Spirit is " only adverted
to in very general terms in the Nicene Creed."  The clause
in which it is referred to is, simply, " and in the Holy Spirit ";
that is, supplying the ellipsis, " We believe in the Holy Spirit."
Ori.qeniana, lib. ii. e. ii. quwst. 2, ~ 10.
t Dogymat. Theol., t. ii. lib. i.c. 14.




THE NICENE CREED NOT TRINITARIAN.          287
And so (lo we; so do all Christians. All believe in the Holy
Spirit. But this language - the language of the creed - explains nothing, defines nothing. It does not tell us whether
the Spirit is a person, or an influence; a breathing of the Spirit
of God into the soul of the believer, or something else.  Had
the Fathers of the council believed it to be a person co-equal
or consubstantial with the Father, why not say so?  That
they did not so declare, affords, we think, conclusive evidence
that they did not so believe.  Certainly the creed, compared
with modern expositions of the doctrine of the Trinity, as consisting of a co-equal Three, is sadly defective.  There is nothing in it, so far as the Spirit is concerned, which would exclude
Arius. He believed in the Holy Spirit. "It has been alleged,"
says Neander, " that, at that time, there was no controversy
respecting it [the Spirit.]  But this ground is not correct; for
it is evident. from the express statement of Athanasius, that
Arius applied the doctrine of subordination to the Holy Spirit.
He placed the same distance between the Son and the Spirit
as between the Father and the Son "; which, we add, was
Origen's doctrine.  " Even as late as A. D. 380," Neander observes "great indistinctness prevailed among different parties
respecting this dogma, so that even Gregory Nazianzen could
say,' Some of our theologians regard the Spirit simply as a
mode of divine operation; others, as a creature of God; others,
as God himself; others, again, say that they know not which of
these opinions to accept, from their reverence for Holy Writ,
which says nothing upon it.' Hilary of Poictiers, a Nicene
theologian," expresses himself in a similar way, and " does not
venture to attribute to the Spirit the name of God, because
the Scripture does not expressly so call him."  Again:
"Though Basil of Caesarea wished to teach the divinity of the
Holy Spirit in his church, he only ventured to introduce it
gradually." *  These are significant facts, which are wholly
inexplicable on the supposition that the doctrine of the Trinity
was the old doctrine, - the doctrine of the Nicene Council
even.
VWre have said that the Fathers of Nice did not greatly innovate in doctrine. The Council of Constantinople (the second
* Neander, Flist. Christ. Dogmas, pp. 303-305.




288        ARIUS, AND THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.
general council), called A. D. 381, adopted the creed of Nice
with an additional clause, declaring that the Holy Spirit is to
be worshipped and glorified together with the Father and Son.
"This creed," says Du Pin, " was not at first received by all
churches, and there were some that would add nothing to the
Nicene Creed.  For this cause it was, perhaps, that no other
creed but that of Nice was read in the Council of Ephesus [the
third general council]; and there it was also forbidden to make
use of any other." *  This carries us to near the middle of the
fifth century.  Philostorgius tells us that Flavian of Antioch,
in an assembly of his monks, was the first who " shouted
forth " the doxology, " Glory be to the Father, and to the Son,
and to the Holy Spirit": for before that time, he says, the
usual form was, " Glory be to the Father, through the Son, in
the Holy Spirit "; though some said, " Glory be to the Father,
in the Son, and inl the Holy Spirit." t  After all, hcwevelr, the
question, " What is the true doctrine of the Trinity? " remains
unsettled.  The orthodox or consubstantial faith was designed
to occupy the middle ground between Sabellianism and Arianism.  These were the Scylla and Charlybdis the Fathers were
so anxious to shun.  In their solicitude to avoid Sabellianism,
they came near being ingulfed in the vortex of Arianism.
From the brink of this dreadful abyss, they started back with
terror; and, fiom that period to the present, the " good ship "
Orthodoxy has been tossed about by uncertain, winds; and,
when she has seemed to have found a safe anchorage, time has
soon shown that she was moored upon shifting sands.
The Nicene Fathers led the way, by "converting," as it
has been said, " what was before a scholastic subtilty into an
article of the Catholic faith."  In doing this, they made use
of a very flexible term, which was capable of a signification
entirely different from the received one. Other mischief they
did, from the consequences of which the world has not yet
recovered.  They encouraged, by their example, the pernicious
practice of creed-making; and bequeathed, as a legacy to after
ages, the monstrous doctrine, that error, or supposed error, of
opinion, may be lawfully punished as crime. The Arians,
Eccles. Hist., vol. ii. p. 272, and vol. iv. p. 200, Lond. 1693.
t Hist., lib. iii. c. 138.




CREED-MAKING.                    289
when they had the power, showed themselves too willing to
tread in their steps.  There was this difference, however, as
Dr. Jortin observes, between the creeds of the Arians and
those of the Orthodox:  " The Consubstantialists drew up their
creed with a view to exclude and distress the Arians.  The
Arians had no design to distress the Consubstantialists, but
usually proposed creeds to which Athanasius himself might have
assented; so that, if the compilers were Arians, their creeds
were not Arian.""   So far, {he Arians showed a. better spirit
than their oppressors.
The Nicene Creed had been, to use the expression of Neander, originally "forced upon the Oriental Church"; and
what evils hence flowed, what disputes arose, and what balefhul
passions were lighted up, history clearly teaches.  At the
conmmrencement of the controversy, the Arians were the advocates of freedom, intellectual and religious; and their party
embraced several of the best minds of the age.  If afterwards
they became changed in temper and feelings, the fact shows
only that they were not exempt from the imperfections of our
common nature.
* Remarks on Ecclesiastical History.
19




EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN.
CHAPTER I.
CLAIMS OF EUSEBIUS TO OUR NOTICE. - HIS EARLY LIFE. - BISHOP OF
CSAREA. - His STUDIES.- THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. - THE PART
HE TOOK AT THE COUNCIL OF NICE. - SUBSCRIBES THE CREED. - HIS
PASTORAL LETTER IN EXPLANATION. -WANT OF FIRMNESS. -PRESIDES
AT THE COUNCIL OF TYRE. —DEDICATION OF THE CHURCH OF TIE
HOLY SEPULCHRE. - THE EMPEROR WARMLY ATTACHED TO HIM. -
DEATH AND CHARACTER. - IIS REAL BELIEF. - NOT A CONSUBSTANTIALIST. I-IHELD THE OLD DOCTRINE OF THE DERIVED NATURE AND
INFERIORITY OF THE SON. -PROOFS FROM HIS WRITINGS.
IN our former chapters, we have often referred to the authority of Eusebius of Caesarea; and, in connection with Arius
and the Arian controversy, he appears a prominent figure on
the stage of' action.  HIe lived at a period when theological
opinions were in a transition state, but leaned rather to the old
than the new. His name will be ever honored; though less,
perhaps, for his intrinsic merit, - which, however, is by no
means small, -than on account of the position he occupies as
the father of ecclesiastical history.  He is not the oldest
Christian historian; for he was preceded by Hegesippus, — a
writer in all respects, it would seem, his inferior.  But of
Hegesippus only a few  small fragments remain, preserved
mainly in the pages of Eusebius himself.  To the latter we are
indebted for a multitude of facts relating to Christian antiquity,
which, but for him, would have been buried in oblivion.
Of the early life of Eusebius little is known. The work
of his biographer, Acacius,* who was his pupil, and successor
in the see of Caesarea, has unfortunately perished; and, from
the few incidental notices of himself in his own writings, we
* Socrates, gist., ii. 4.




INCIDENTS OF HIS LIFE.                291
can glean but little.  It has been conjectured that he was
born about the year 270; though, if lie had Dionysius of Alexandria, the famous Paul of Samosata, and the Emperor Gallienus, for his contemporaries, - as some expressions employed
by him would seem to imply,* - we must assign to his birth
a somewhat earlier date.  Of his parents no certain tradition
is preserved.  Nicephorus, indeed, a writer entitled to little
respect, makes him (upon what authority he does not inform
us) a nephew of Pamphilus; and others have called him his
son. But neither account is in the least probable. For Pamphilus, we know, he cherished a lively and constant affection,
and, after his death by martyrdom, took his name; but, from
the language of Eusebius hlimself, he appears to have stood to
him in no relation'of natural affinity.
It has been generally supposed, and probably with truth,
that Eusebius was a native of Palestine, and perhaps of Coesarea; where, as he informs us in his letter to his people from
Nice,t he was instructed in the Christian faith, and baptized.
In his youth he must have been a diligent student; for he had
great store of such secular learning as a knowledge of Greek
(probably his native tongue, and the only one with which he
seems to have been familiar) placed within his reach.  He
was admitted to the priesthood by Agapius, whom he afterwards succeeded in the office of bishop; unless, with some, we
assign an intervening episcopate of two or three years to
Agricolaus.*  Among his fellow-presbyters was Pamphilus,
already alluded to; with whom  he lived in the intimacy of
the strictest friendship, and whose memory le never ceased to
honor.  Pamphilus was born, probably, at Berytus; though
Photius makes him a native of Phoenicia. He was a pupil of
the celebrated Pierius of Alexandria, called, for his learning,
a second Origen.  Pamphilus himself was a warm admirer of
Origen: he collected and transcribed his works; and, while
in prison, employed himself, in conjunction with Eusebius, in
writing his " Apology," of which five books were finished before
* Hiist., iii. 28; v. 28; vii. 26.
t Socrates, Hist., i. 8; Theod., Hist., i. 12.
$ This name is sometimes placed on the catalogue of the Bishops of Cvesasea,
between Agapius and Eusebius; probably, however, without reason.




292                  EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN.
his death, and  the sixth added  afterwards by his surviving
companion.  He was fond  of literature, and  assiduous, especially in tlle study of the Scriptures.  He led a strict and
philosophic life.  He was resolute and persevering in wllatever
he undlertook, and was remarkable for his benevolence.  He
cherished the cause of education and knowledge.  He was a
friend of the studious, and founded a theological school and an
extensive library at Csesarea; of the latter of whllicll, some
memorials are said still to exist in the collections of Europe.  He
suffered martyrdom  in the7 year 309, after an imprisonment of
two years, during which he constantly enjoyed the solace of
his friend's society.  In token of his grateful respect and affection, the latter wrote his life, in tliree books, now, however,
lost; and, in his " History," he seems never weary of naming him, and always in terms of tender regard or glowing
panegyric.
After the death of Pamphilus, as it appears, and before the
end of the persecution called Diocletian's, Eusebius visited his
friend Paulinus at Tyre; where, as lie tells us, lie was witness
of the sufferings and constancy'of the martyrs.t   He afterwards beheld the sad spectacle of the cruelties to which they
were  subjected  in  Egypt and  Thebais,:  and  was himself
thrown into prison.  It was insinuated by his enemies  that
he escaped  martyrdom  at the   expense of his integrity  and
honor as a Christian; but the reproach seems to have been
undeserved.~
* iist., vi. 32; vii. 32; viii. 13; De Mart. Palcest., cc. 7, 11. See also Socrates, Hist., iii. 7; Jerome, De Vir. Illust., c. 75; also Adv. R1uf., and 1'Epist. 41,
al. 65, ad I'ammach et Ocean.
t Hist., viii. 7.                                 t Ibid., viii. 9.
~ The insinuation, in fact, is destitute of all support, and the charge very
improbable. It was not made at the time, nor until some years afterwards,
when the part which Eusebius took in thle Arian controversy had raised up to
him bitter and scornful enemies. It was first brouglht forward, we believe, by
Potamon, an Egyptian bishop, and an adherent of Atlianasius. Potalmon, a
man accustomed to use thle utmost license of speech (as Epiphanius, on whom
the authlority of the anecdote rests, admits), indignant at seeing Atlianasius,
at the Council of Tyre, stand in the character of a culprit, while Eusebius and
others were seated as his judges, suddenly bursts out in a strain of loud invective: " is this," says lie, addressing Eusebius, " to be endured? Tell me,
were you not with me in custody during thle persecution? I, indeed, lost an
eye in the cause of truth; but you appear unmutilated in person: you live,




CHARGE AGAINST HIM.                         293
But persecution had now  ceased; and it is not surprising
that Christians were  exultant.   Eusebius depicts those days
in warm and glowing colors. A wonderful revolution, indeed,
had taken place in the fortunes of the disciples of the cross.
They had triumphed; they were free; and the remembrance
of past misery heightened the sense of present happiness.
No more racks and dungeons now; no more blood of martyrs
slain for the faith  of Jesus.   The  civil arm, which  befbre
oppressed, was now  extending  its friendly protection.   The
empire had become Christian, and the emperor was bestowing on his Christian  subjects his most gracious smiles.  He
was feasting and complimenting them, and calling them his
" dearest friends."  rThe contrast was great.  They now saw
everything clothed in hues of light; and the feelings must
and are sound. By what means did you escape from prison, unless you promised our persecutors that you would do the nefarious thing, or did it?"
(Epiph. HFer., Ixviii. c. 7.) NTow, it is to be observed, not one word of proof
is here offered. All is vague conjecture. Eusebius had found means of leaving prison; how, Potamon does not know. The circumstance, he says, looks
suspicious.
No more does Athanasius, the determined foe of Eusebius, venture to affirm
that there existed any evidence that the reproach was deserved. He simply
quotes a letter of some Egyptian bishops, in which it is intimated that he was
accused of having sacrificed. (Apol. cont. Arianos.) But could not Athanasius -
who, during the time he was seated on the episcopal throne of Alexandria,
might be regarded as the most powerful man in Egypt -easily have obtained
proof of the impious act, had it been committed? The disposition, surely,
was not wanting. " Was not Eusebius," it is asked in the letter, "accused by
our confessors of offering sacrifice to idols? "  And what then? Were not
you, Athanasius, accused of foul crimes, and, among others, treason, sacrilege, and murder i And were you not banished by your sovereign as a " pestilent fellow," the foe of all peace and order?
Origen, before Eusebius, was accused of having thrown incense to idols.'The charge was easily made or insinuated, and appears to have beenresorted
to by the malignity of enemies to depress an adversary or rival.
Multitudes of Christians, and some who had been thrown into prison during
the severe persecutions, escaped without any improper compliance. Why
might not Eusebius have been of the number? It is certain that his fitme
stood high immediately after the persecution under Diocletian ceased; for lihe
was very soon advanced to the bishopric of Coesarea. He was afterwards invited to the see of Antioch; and, finally, enjoyed the confidence of Christians
generally to the end of life; which could hardly have been the case had there
been any good ground for the charge alluded to. We feel. little hesitation,
therefore, in pronouncing the insinuation of Athanasius and his friend Potamnon a calumny. Gibbon (chapter xvi.) makes a disingenuous use of this
Charge against Eusebius.




294              EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN.
find expression, and the imagination would revel amid images
of glory and felicity. All this was natural, and could hardly
have been otherwise.
The churches which had been thrown down by the rage
of persecuting tyrants were rebuilt with more than former
splendor. Festivals and dedications frequently occurred, and
all was full of joy and promise.  Among other churches
erected at this period was the magnificent one at Tyre, which
rose on the site of the old.  Eusebiuis, who pronounced the
oration or address at its dedication, —still preserved in the
tenth book of his History, - describes it as a fabric of surpassing beauty and grandeur.  This might well be.  Christians
now possessed wealth; and in their present circumstances, all
their troubles at an end, they would be disposed to be liberal
in their appropriations to church architecture, as. in other
things.
Eusebius was at this time Bishop of Cmsarea in Palestine;
to which see he had been appointed in 313 or 314, and where
he seems to have found much leisure for study. He had literary tastes, and was fond of books; which he possessed here
in abundallce in the collection made by Pamphilus, to which
he made large additions.  He occasionally, too, visited Jerusalem, where there is said to have been a voluminous library.
He was thus gathering materials for the learned works which
he subsequently gave to the world.
The Arian controversy, of which we have given an account
in the preceding chapters, must for a time have sadly broken
in upon his literary labors.  We have already spoken of his
connection with this controversy, and of his presence at the
Council of Nice.  We must here explain his course and his
views a little more fully.  From first to last, he showed himself friendly to Arius.  When, on his expulsion from Alexandria, Arius retired into Palestine, Eusebius afforded him a
hospitable reception, and exerted himself, along with other
Palestinian bishops, in his favor.
He took a prominent part in the proceedings of the council,
having a seat at the right hand of the emperor, whom he
addressed In a short introductory speech.  We still have his
pastoral letter, written home at the time, to explain sonle




SUBSCRIBES THE NICENE CREED.            295
things which might seem  to need elucidation or defence.*
It is somewhat apologetic in its tone, being intended to prevent that ill opinion his people might very naturally conceive
of him on hearing of his subscription.  In this letter he inserts at length the form of a creed which he proposed to the
council, and which contained, as he affirms, the sentiments
he had always believed and preached, and which, he adds,
at first met the approbation of all present. Both the members of the council and the emperor, he tells us, appeared
satisfied. But it was soon discovered, it seems, that the
Arians could subscribe it, putting their ownl construction on
its language.  This, no doubt, Eusebius, who belonged to the
moderate party, and was anxious to restore peace, foresaw;
and it was precisely what he wished. But such a creed was
not what the majority, who were determined to cut off Arius
from the communion of the Church, wanted.  They were for
a time, it appears, at a loss for some epithet to apply to the
Son, which the Orthodox could, and the Arians could not,
adopt; till it was at length discovered, from a letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the latter objected to saying that he
was consubstantial with the Father; upon which, they eagerly
pounced upon the term as exactly suited to their purpose.  It
is true, the term had been condemned about fifty years before,
by the Fathers of the Council of Antioch, in the case of Paul
of Samosata.  But that circumstance might not have been
recollected; or, if recollected, it mattered little, they might
think.  The word was convenient now, though it might not
have been so then.
Constantine - who, from the first, had conceived the whole
controversy to be of a very frivolous nature, and who was not
disposed to stand on niceties of expression, which he probably
very imperfectly understood; and who was, moreover, sincerely
desirous to accommodate matters - readily adopted the word,
%nd advised the rest to do the same.  Eusebius, after a good
deal of hesitation, subscribed the symbol in its new dress, containing the obnoxious word and two or three others, which,
from his tenderness for the Arians, whom he was reluctant to
condemn, he had avoided introducing into his proposed creed.
* Socrates, i. 8; Theodoret, i. 12.




296             EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN.
He was, in consequence, afterwards accused, by his enemies,
of insincerity and bad faith; for, though he seems to have
avoided the use of expressions peculiarly Arian, he continued
to befriend the Arians, and his heart appears to have been
always with them.
With regard to his consent to the act of subscription, he, in
the letter just referred to, put the best face he could on the
matter.  He tells his people that he long resisted, but that his
scruples as to the use of the terms deemed exceptionable
(" consubstantial," and "begotten, not made ") were at length
removed by the exposition given by the council of the sense in
which they were to be taken; that is, as implying that the
Son had no resemblance or community with the things made
by him (as the agent of the Father in the creation of the
material universe); that he is of li/e substance with the Father,
though not a part of his substance; resembling him, but not
identical with him. This explanation, though it would hardly
pass for orthodox now, was consistent enough with the spirit
of the Platonizing theology, from Athenagoras down to the
time of Eusebius; and with it he professed to be satisfied,
and finally assented to the whole, as he says, for the sake of
peace!
As to the anathemas at the end of the creed, they only condemned, he said, the use of certain Arian expressions not found
in the Scriptures.  But Eusebins should have recollected,
while holding this language, that the term which the Fathers
of the council had adopted as a test of orthodoxy, and to the
use of which he had assented, was also an unscriptural term;
and on this very ground the Arians objected to it, and begged
that it might not be imposed.  They were ready, they said, in
speaking of the Son, to employ all those terms and ascriptions
of dignity which were found in the Bible.  The subject of their
complaint was, that with this their opponents were not satisfied,
but insisted that they should adopt expressions of which there
was no example in Scripture or antiquity.
Eusebius has been charged with insincerity in subscribing a
creed which lhe did not believe. We are not disposed to admit
the charge. We are willing to take his own account of the
matter. He objected to some terms, one in particular, intro



HIS SINCERITY.                  297
L:uced into the creed.  The Fathers of the council explain
the sense which the terms in question bore, as they understood
them.  In this sense - which, however, is not the sense they
bear now - he could accept them; and so subscribes. In this
we see no proof of insincerity. The only question is, whether
he ought to have consented to the imposition of any creed
whatever.
We could.wisll, to be sure, that he had manifested a little
more firmness.  It is difficult, we think, wholly to acquit him
of the charge of having betrayed the cause of Christian liberty,
~either from personal timidity, and love of ease, or, as we are
willing to admit, from the desire -  sincere, no doubt, but
unavailing- to put all end to the unhappy controversy which
rent the church.  The cause of Arius was the cause of religious
freedom  and the right of private judgment; and he should
have been sustained, therefore, - at least, so far as not to have
been subjected to suffer on account of any supposed criminality
attached to his opinions as such. Eusebius must not only have
felt the wish, from his benevolent nature and motives of personal friendship, to protect him; but, from the rank he held
among the learned and wise of his age, from his elevated views
and undoubted liberality of sentiment, he, if any one, might
have been expected to have perceived the impropriety of imposing any restraint on freedom of thought, and, by his conduct,
to have proved himself- the enemy of uncharitableness and exclusion.  By yielding, he lent the sanction of his name. and
influence to the measures of the exclusionists, generally his
inferiors in all those qualities which give a title to respect; and
the first general council, in conjunction with the " most pious
Emperor" Constantine (the first of the Csesars who acknowledged the faith of the cross), left to the world a pernicious
example of intolerance and bigotry, which subsequent times
have but too faithfully imitated.
The rich and splendid see of Antioch becoming vacant on
the deposition of Eustathius for Sabellianism, in 330, the
bishops, then assembled there, were desirous that Eusebius —
the general consent and suffrage of the people being in his
favor, though a faction insisted on the reinstatement of Eustathius - should transfer his residence from Coesarea to Antioch,




298              EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN.
and become its bishop; * and, to effect their object, they
petitioned Constantine to use his influence to induce him to
comply.  But he promptly refused, alleging as a reason an existing canon of the church prohibiting a change of sees; and
the emperor commended his decision, with many praises of his
modesty and worth, in letters still preserved.  He was worthy,
in the complimentary language of Constantine, to be bishop of
the whole world.
In 335, we find Eusebius among the bishops assembled at
the Council of Tyre to hear charges which had been preferred
against Athanasius.  Eusebius was president of the council.
From Tyre, the bishops, by command of the emperor, proceeded
to Jerusalem, to dedicate the magnificent church recently
erected there by his order.  Eusebius has given a glowing
description of the edifice intended by Constantine to " exceed
all the churches in the world " in the beauty of its structure
and the costliness of its materials.t The church, originally
called the HIartyrieum, was designed as a memorial of our Lord's
death, burial, and resurrection, the true cross having been
recently discovered, as it was said, in the sepulchre which had
been laid open. It was afterwards known as the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre. The council assembled on the occasion,
which was in part a continuation of that of Tyre, Eusebins
pronounces the "greatest he had ever known," not excepting
that of Nice, of which he also gives a particular description.:
It was composed of bishops from all the provinces.  Macedonia
sent its bishop, and Pannonia and Mmesia the " choicest flower
of God's youth in  their country."  The Bithynians and
Thracians were there, and the ornament of the  Persian
bishops.  Cappadocia was represented by men of "learning
and  eloquence."   All Syria, likewise, and  Mesopotamia,
Phoenice, and Arabia; Palestine, also Egypt and Libya, and
those who "inhabit the country of Thebais," all were there.
An innumerable company of people out of all the provinces
followed the bishops. The dedication took place on the Em* Soc., i. 24. The Consubstantialists were at this time accused of Sabellianism and Montanism, and were called blasphemers, as subverting the existence
Df the Son of God; while they, in turn, charged their opponents with polytheism, calling them Greeks (Pagans). - Soc., i. 23; Soz., ii. 18.
t Vita Constant., iii. 28-40.              I lbid., iii. 7.




HIS ORATION BEFORE CONSTANTINE.             299
peror's Tricennalia, and  was accompanied  with  festivity,
speeches, and orations, of which Eusebius gives a brief account,
not forgetting himself, to whom, he says, were "vouchsafed
blessings much above our deserts." *
The tricennial oration — which, it seems, was delivered by
him in the imperial palace at Constantinople, he having repaired
thither immediately after the dedication - is still extant, being
appended to his " Life of Constantine."  The emperor, during
the delivery of the oration, "' seemed like one transported with
joy."  So says Eusebius, who takes care to inform us that this
was the second time he had made a speech in presence of the
emperor in his own palace.  The emperor was very courteous,
and insisted on listening in a standing posture  " for, though
we entreated him," says Eusebius, " to rest himself upon his
imperial throne, which was hard by, he would by no means be
persuaded to sit"; nor would he allow the speech to be discontinued when it had run out to a great length, though' "we
were desirous to break off," but " entreated us to go on till we
had ended our discourse." t
Eusebius, it seems, was often at court; and whether there
voluntarily, or in consequence of a summons from the emperor,
appears always to have succeeded in retaining his good graces,
and returned to his humble diocese loaded with imperial
caresses. The emperor often wrote to him, encouraged and
facilitated his researches, and confided in his fidelity and
prudence. When he wanted fifty copies of the Scriptures
transcribed with the utmost accuracy for the use of his new
churches at Constantinople, he applied to Eusebius as the
fittest man in the empire to superintend the execution. He
uniformly treated him with marked respect; and his letters
to him, and others in which he is named, and which Eusebius-  from  a vanity quite pardonable, if from  no better
motive —has preserved, contain expressions of attachment
evidently warm and sincere.
* Vita Const., iv. 43-47. The Council of Nice (Nicsea, from a word signifying
victory), took place on the Emperor's Vicennalia, which, according to Eusebius,
had reference to his triumph over his enemies; but now was erected a monument to peace and to the Saviour's triumlph over death.
t Ibid., iv. 33, 45, 46.




300             EUSEBIUS' THE HISTORIAN.
The death of Eusebius is mentioned by Socrates; but he
does not give the date.  Constantine died A. D. 337; and
Eusebius survived him long enough to pay a warm and grateful tribute to his memory, in what is termed a "Life," but
which is more properly a panegyric; and died as early as the
year 340,.probably before, at the age of about seventy, perhaps a little more.
Along with some imperfections which lie on the surface,
Eusebius possessed many great and good qualities. He was
free from all asperity of temper; hle had warmth of feeling,
and was constant in his friendships. His amiable disposition,
his love of peace and quiet, his general moderation and candor
to those whose views placed them in opposition to him, have
been universally admitted.  He never, as Du Pin has remarked, labored to destroy Athanasius, or ruin his partisans,
though he could not number him with his friends. He never
abused his credit with the emperor to elevate himself or pull
others down; but employed himself for the good and advantage of the Church, endeavoring to promote a spirit of accommodation, and reunite parties. He was never, we believe,
accused of a grasping, avaricious disposition; but appears to
have been content with a moderate fortune, and the enjoyment
of the calm pleasures of a studious life.
It has been made a question, what Eusebius really believed;
and the most diverse judgments have been pronounced on the
subject in both ancient and modern times. Athanasius, among
the ancients, pronounces him an Arian; Jerome, "the prince
of Arians "; and Nicephorus, " an Arian, and worse than an
Arian." Others expressed themselves in similar, though not
all in equally strong, terms.  Among the moderns, Cave
makes an attempt to defend his orthodoxy against Le Clere,
who expresses his surprise that there should be people who
venture to deny that Eusebius was an Arian, if they have
read his writings.  Montfaucon says, that he "makes the
Son far less than the Father, and of a different substance." *
Petavius has a formal argument to prove that he was not
sound on the doctrine of the Trinity; that he was a "SemiArian," at least, not only before but after the council of Nice.
~ Prcelim. in Euseb. Comment. in Psal. (Eusebii Opera, t. v. ed. Migne.)




HIS [THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS.                      301
"Nothing canbe clearer," says he; and in proof of the assertion he devotes the eleventh and twelfth chapters of his first
book on the Trinity.  Du Pin, though he pronounces it great
injusticeto stigmatize him  as an Arian, yet thinks it impossible to defend his orthodoxy; and confesses that it has been
vainly attempted by Socrates, Sozomen, and "some modern
writers." *
That he was not, strictly speaking, an Arian, we think perfectly clear. He nowhere avows his Arianism; nowhere declares that he embraced Arius's peculiar views of the nature
of the Son.  Arius's distinguishing dogma was, that the Son
was created out of nothing; that there was a time when he
did not exist; in opposition to the doctrine which asserted that
from all eternity he had a sort of metaphysical existence in
the Father (that is, existed as his Logos, Reason, or Wisdom),
but was either a little before the creation  of the world, or,
without reference to time, thrown out, or prolated, as it was
expressed, and so became, by a voluntary act of the Father,
a real being.   This metaphysical nicety, Arius  discarded;
maintaining, that though the Son was, next to God, the greatest and boest of beings, ranking both in time and dignity as the: Those who wish to see authorities on the subject may consult Le Clere's
Biblioth. Anc. et lMod., t. i. p. 170, xvi. 80, et seqq., xxviii. 240, et scqq.; also
Biblioth. Univ. et tHist., t. x. p. 479, et seqq.; and Le Clerc's Second Epistle,
Ars Crit., vol. iii.; Jortin's Relmarks, vol. ii. pp. 229-242; Cave's Lives; Du
Pin, Nourlelle Biblioth., art. " Eusebius "; Petavius's Theol. Dogym., vol. ii. lib. i.
cc. 11, 12; and Tillemont, Mlm. Eccles., vii. 31-33. See also " Veterum Test.
pro Euseb., et contra Euseb.," which follow Valesius's Account of his Life and
Writings, ed. Reading; Dr. Samuel Clarke's Scriptiure Doctrine of the Trinitqy,
and the Notes to Jackson's Novatian, where will be found a numerous collection of passages from Eusebius relating to his views of the Son and the Spirit.
Neander mentions him as one of the "men of note " who " appeared as mediators" in the Arian controversy. He was "an adherent of Origen," and endeavored to convince both parties "that they held the views of their opponents to be worse than they really were." "Almost the only decided opponents
of Origen during this period," says Neander, "were those who were the enemies of free scientific development or of spiritual views." Eusebius's system,
he says, " coincides entirely with that of Origen."  "He was of the opinion
that the Son of God could not be called absolutely eternal, like the Father;
that it was necessary to ascribe to him an origin of existence from the Father.... The existence of the Father precedes the existence and origin of the
Son."  Like Origen, however, he "would remove all relations of time."Uist. Dogiz., pp. 262, 288; THist. Relig., vol. ii. pp. 367, 368.




302              EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN.
first and chief of his creation, and was immutable, yet he did
not always exist, but had a beginning.  Eusebius nowhere
expresses a belief that the Son was created out of nothing.
JIe held, as we gather from his writings, the old doctrine of
the Platonizing Fathers.  He certainly held the old doctrine
of the inferiority of the Son, and maintained that he derived
his origin from the Father; but he did not think it important
to define his nature. There were some points which he seems
to have thought it unnecessary to discuss, as he did not deem
the knowledge of them essential to salvation. That of the
nature of the Son was one of them; for the promise of eternal
life, he observes, is made to the believer in him, not to him
who knows his nature.
It is certain that Eusebius was not a Consubstantialist in the
sense in which Athanasius understood the term in his later
years.  The word, as we have seen, was not of his choice, nor
to his taste; for it might imply what he did not believe concerning the nature of the Son. As the Platonists had used
it, however, and as it might be understood to mean, not a
numerical, but only a specific sameness, that is, resemblance (in
which sense, the Fathers of the council, who seem to have
been not a little perplexed in their attempts to define it,
allowed him to take it), he consented, as before said, to adopt
it. But, in this sense, it by no means excluded inequality and
subordination between the Father and the Son. In these he
firmly believed; and if such belief constituted Arianism, all
antiquity, as it has been truly said, was Arian. But it does
not: for it leaves undetermined the origin of the Son, who, as
Arius contended, was called into being from nothing; while
his opponents, the Consubstantialists, insisted on saying that
he was ineffably begotten. Thus a person might believe that
the Son was, from the time when he was begotten before the
ages, a distinct being from the Father, and inferior to him,
without adopting the distinguishing dogma of the Arians.
This, no doubt, was the case with Eusebius. At all events,
he was willing, for the sake of peace, to conform to the popular phraseology, and say, with the Iomoousians, that he was
ineffably begotten. This, we suppose, was the amount of his
orthodoxy.  He certainly never dreamed, any more than Ori



INFERIORITY OF THE SON.               303
gern (of whom he is known to have been a great admirer), of
admitting the equality of the Father and Son in any legitimate
sense of the term; and he seems to have placed the Spirit
among tlle things made by the Son. Du Pin quotes a passage
to this effect from his writings.
It may be proper to fortify our statements by a few extracts
from Eusebius himself. Without hesitation he pronounces the
Father and the Son two distinct subsistences; but says,'" we
do not suppose them  to be two entitled to equal honor, nor
both to be without a beginning and unbegotten; but one unbegotten and without beginning, the other begotten, having
his origin from the Father."   " The head of Christ,"' according to the Apostle, he says, "is God."t  The following is
decisive enough, one would think.  "' The Father is of himself perfect and first, as Father, and the cause of the Son's
subsistence; not receiving anything from the Son to the completing of his Divinity. But the Son as being derived from a
cause is second to him whose Son he is, having received from
this Father both his being, and his being such as he is."t
Again, the ante-Nicene doctrine, as we understand it, is,
that there is one God supreme over all, infinite, unbegotten,
who alone possesses underived power and authority, and that
Jesus Christ is not that one God.  Hear what Eusebius says
on this point.  Although we confess Christ to be God, yet
there is, says he, "One only God [that is, in an absolute
sense], he who is alone without beginning, and unbegotten;
who has his Divinity of himself [is self-existent], and is the
cause to the Son of his being, and of his being what he is; by
whom the Son himself confesses that he lives, saying without
reserve,'as the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the
Father'; and,' for as the Father hath life in himself, so hath
he given to the Son to have life in himself.'" It is a gift,
not something which he originally possessed in and of himself.
He is not, like God, self-existent. A little after, " Is not he
alone the one God," asks Eusebius, "who acknowledges no
superior and no cause of his being, but possesses the divinity
of his monarchical power as something peculiarly his own,
original and unbegotten, and imparts to the Son of his own
* Eccles. Thiol., ii. 7.  i Ibid     4 Denmonst. Evang., iv. 3.




304               EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN.
divinity and life.. whom alone he [the Son] teaches us to
regard as the only true God, and confesses to be greater than
himself... whom  also he would have us all know to be his
God." 
Eusebius speaks of the Son, or Logos, as being always with
the Father, and he once applies the term "eternal" to his
generation, which he elsewhere contradicts, when he says that
the Father existed before the Son.  He also, as we have seen,
calls him God; uniformly, however, denying to him self-existence. He is begotten and derived. God, we are expressly
told, was the " cause of his existence and of his being such as
he was "; his divinity and power were derived from the Father.  Thus he was subordinate.  Further, Eusebius says,
that the Son was not generated by the necessity of the divine
nature, but was begotten by a voluntary act of the Father.
Light, he says, shines forth from  a luminous body, not from
choice, but by a property of its nature.  But the Son " by the
intention and will of the Father was made to subsist in his
likeness; for by will God became Father of the Son." t
Again, "before all ages, he [the Son] received a real subsistence by the unutterable and inconceivable will of the
Father." *  And finally, "every one must confess that the
Father is, and subsists before the Son." ~
Nothing can more clearly show that Eusebius, in speaking
of the Father as unbegotten and the Son as begotten, as he
uniformly does, really meant what he said; the Son was not
beginningless; the Father was an underived, the Son a derived being.  The Father preceded the Son; and the Son
was minister to the Father.ll
The dignity of the Son, according to Eusebius, was derived.
"The Father," he says, "gives, the Son receives."   He
speaks of the Son as a "second substance."  John calls the
Word God, but "we must of necessity confess," says Euse* Eccles. Theol., i. 11.  t Demnonst. Evang., iv. 3.:     Ibid.
~ Deimonst. Evang., v. 1.
II Eusebius observes that when the Evangelist affirms that "all things were
made by him," that is, by the Son, he uses the preposition (daE) which denotes
the instrument, and not that (v'ir6) which denotes the efficient cause. Eccles.
Theol.,.i. 20. [See also Eccles. Theol., ii. 14, where he remarks that "the
preposition de6 signifies ministerial agency," rb OrVpertEtc6v.-ED.]




INFERIORITY OF THE SON.               305
bius, "6 that he is not God over all, neither the Father himself,
but his only-begotten Son; not equal with the Father.
not one and the same with God." *
Eusebius says expressly that the "Father preceded the
Son"; that he "existed before the generation of the Son."
"That he existed before the generation of the Son," he says
in another place, " all must confess."t
We can conceive of no way in which these passages can be
reconciled with the writer's orthodoxy.  Is any one disposed
to say that it is of no consequence what Eusebius believed?
In one view, his faith has some significance to us, certainly so
far as our present argument is concerned. Eusebius professed
to hold the old faith of Christians; and no one knew better
than he what that faith was. He was a diligent inquirer, an
antiquary, a collector of Christian documents of the then olden
time.  He had before him a multitude of writings, which have
since perished, which had come down from primitive times.
Who better than he knew what the old faith of Christians
was?  Yet he was no Trinitarian.  It is a vain task to attempt to vindicate his orthodoxy, in the modern sense of the
term.  His creed would not stand the test before any Trinitarian council at the present day; nor, were he living now,
holding the opinions he did, would he find it easy to be admnitted into one of our Orthodox churches.  He would be compelled to stand aside. His explanations of parts of the Nicene
Creed, and especially of the word "consubstantial," would be
fatal to him now.  All the circumstances of the case taken
into view, especially his opportunity (greater than is enjoyed
by any of us) of knowing what the faith of the Christians of
the first three centuries - time-honored men - was, his creed
has, we think, great significance. That he was no Trinitarian
is a fact which tells, and must tell.  "An Arian, and worse
than an Arian," is not literally true of him; yet he was not
a Trinitarian.  No one, we suppose, at this time of day, will
undertake to vindicate his claim to be so called, according to
the present usage of speech.
* Demonst. Evang., v. 4; Prap. Evang., vii. 15; Eccles. Theol., ii. 14.
t Demonst. Evang., iv. 3; v. 1.
20




306               EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN.
CHAPTER II.
CREDIT TO WHICH ]EUSEBIUS IS ENTITLED AS AN HISTORIAN. - CHARGES
AGAINST HIM. - VALUE OF HIS MATERIALS. - HIS AUTHORITIES. -
TRADITION. - LOST WRITINGS. - WRITINGS STILL EXTANT. - CONTEMIPORANEOUS HISTORY. -LITERARY MERIT O:F LEUSEBIUS'S WORK.'WE shall not attempt here to give a catalogue of Eusebius's
numerous writings.  Some of them  are lost; but enough remain to bear testimony to his industry and multifarious reading.  The most important of them  is his "History," in ten
books, in which he has transmitted a multitude of facts and
traditions relating to the early days of Christianity, and the
character and writings of Christians; of which, but for him,
no memorial would have been now left.
The degree of credit to which he is entitled as an historian
is a question embarrassed by some difficulties, but one on
which we must say a few words before we close.*  First, he
is charged with a deliberate suppression of the truth; thus
knowingly, it is said, violating " one of the fundamental laws
of history."  This charge is founded on what he himself states
respecting his purpose in writing, and the method he chose to
pursue.t  He has nearly reached the close of his history, and
is relating what had fallen under his own eye; and he observes, that he shall put on record, in this his " universal history," only such things as might be " profitable " to Christians
of his day and to those who should come after. He shall not
describe, he says, the dissensions and unworthy conduct of
Christians, tending to the disgrace of religion; he shall not
mention all the faults and infirmities of the disciples of the
cross, which he beheld with so much pain: he shall relate
only matters of importance.  " Whatsoever things are grave
and of good report," says he, "according to the holy word, if
[ For a more full diqcussion of the subject, we must refer our readers to an
article in the Christian Examitner for July, 1835, pp. 291-312.
t fiust., viii. 2; Martyrs of Palestine, c. 12.




CHARGES AGAINST EUSEBIUS.                O07
there be ally virtue and praise, these things I deem it most
suitable to the renowned martyrs to recount and write, and
commit to faithful ears;" omitting the rest, as foreign from
his purpose, abhorrent to his feelings, and subserving no end
of piety or virtue. This is the sum of what he says. Whether
it justifies the very broad insinuation of the historian of the
"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire " * against the trustworthiness of Eusebius, the reader may be allowed to judge
for himself.  Eusebius might think very naturally that the
hand of friendship might be permitted to throw a veil over the
imperfections of his fellow-believers; he might not conceive
that the interests of virtue or humanity required or authorized
him, in all cases, to "draw  their frailties from  their dread
abode."  In this course we can see ingenuous feeling and elevated principle. If, in pursuing it, Eusebius has offended, we
think the offence one which can be readily forgiven.
The second charge against Eusebius is of a more grave
character: it is, that lie approved the use of what are called
" pious frauds "; or, as it has been expressed, that he was a
"liar from principle."  This charge rests on the title to the
thirty-first chapter of the twelfth book of his 1" Evangelical
Preparation."  And, to be sure, the title, at first view, looks
a little onlinous; for it seems to tell us, that falsehood is to be
sometimes employed, by way of medicine, for those who need
it.  But, if we read the chapter referred to,- a short one,
we find that it so explains or limits the principle laid down in
the title, as to render it wholly, or in great part, innocuous;
for it only recognizes the Platonic precept, that men are sometimes to be lured into the way of truth and virtue by the embellishments of imagination and fancy.  Hence we employ
fable and poetry and parable and song, and numerous rhetorical ornaments; and some of these, as it is rightly observed,
occur in the Sacred Writings. They contain appeals to the
imagination, and do not disdain the use of poetical imagery,
and figures of speech. Speaking in accordance with human
apprehensions, they introduce God as angry, jealous, grieved,
and repenting, and subject to various perturbations, which can,
in reality, have place only in frail and finite beings.  These
C Gibbon, ch. xvi. vol. ii. p. 479, ed. Lond. 1821.




308               EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN.
are some of the illustrations which Eusebius employs; and
they show in what sense he understood the principle, and the
extent to which he would push it. He is not speaking of historical composition, but of the modes of influencing the minds
of men by rhetoric, ornament, allegory, and poetic fiction.
But is he who approves these and similar methods of insinuating useful instruction to be branded as " a liar from principle,"
and a "defender of frauds "?  On so slight a foundation do
the disingenuous insinuations and sarcasms of Gibbon rest.*
In an examination of Eusebius's real merits and defects, or
the credit to which he is entitled as an historian, our inquiries
must naturally be directed to two points: first, the value of
his materials; in other words, the sources whence he drew;
and, secondly, his discretion, skill, and fidelity in the use of
them.  On both of these points we shall slightly touch.
It is obvious that Eusebius made no little use of unwritten
tradition. In numerous instances, he prefaces his relation with
some such expressions as these: "As it is said " or I" reported ";'" as we have received from tradition "; "according to ancient
tradition "; "as we have undcerstood."  We are not to infer,
however, that by these and similar expressions, which abound
in his history, he always means oral tradition. The contrary
is evident. He somnetimes speaks of tradition, as delivered in
written documents or commentaries, which he proceeds in
some instances to quote.
It is quite clear, however, that he often appeals to common
and unwritten report, or to tradition for some time handed
down orally, though afterwards recorded.  Now, two questions here present themselves, neither of which it is, at the
present day, very easy to settle. First, to what respect is such
tradition, in reality, entitled? and, secondly, what reliance did
Eusebius himself place upon it?  In regard to the first, it
would be rash to affirm that common or traditionary report is,
I If 1usebius is to be condemned, what shall we say of the following charge
brought by Le Clerc against the pious Cave? After observing that Cave
would make the Bishop of Cssarea orthodox by force, Le Clerc'adds, " Mais
Mr. Cave 6toit un homme accofitume non seulemnent h dissimuler, mais h dire
le contraire de ce qu'il pensoit, par une mauvaise politique; ce que a fait passer ses Histoires Ecclesiastiques pour des legendes mitigees;" - Biblioth, Anc
et Mod., t. iv. p. 19.




HIS AUTHORITIES.                 309
in all cases, to be rejected, as wholly unworthy of attention.
It probably has, in most instances, some foundation, however
slight, in fact. At the same time, it is to be received with
great caution. We are required to sift it diligently; and we
are allowed no inconsiderable freedom in lopping away such
parts as bear apparent marks of exaggeration or addition, or
which want the support of probability.
That Eusebius himself did not consider what he relates as
matter of common report, to be entitled to implicit credit,
seems to us very plain.  He gives the tradition, and, as it
would appear, leaves his readers to take it for what it is, in
their opinion, worth. In sitting down to his work, he seems
to have proceeded upon the principle recognized by Herodotus, the father of history.  " I must relate things," says he,
"as they are reported; but I am not obliged to believe all." *
This circumstance we must keep in view, in order rightly to
estimate Eusebius's merits as an historian. It has not been
sufficiently attended to, and his reputation has suffered in consequence. Thus, because his relations have sometimes the air
of fable, it is hastily concluded that he is a writer entitled to
no respect. The inference is unsound, and does him great
injustice. He has recorded traditions bearing various marks
of probability or improbability; but he avowedly gives them
as traditions, and we must receive them for what they are
worth.  Some of them he evidently regarded as suspicious.
He has been perfectly honest.  When he had authorities
which he thought could be relied on, he has given them:
when they were wanting, he has given us fair notice, that
his statements are founded only on common or ancient
rumor.
The lost writings appealed to by him, or writings in their
present form manifestly corrupt or of doubtful genuineness, or
of which only fragments have come down to us, are numerous.
As fountains.of history, they must have possessed various
merit. Some of them appear to have been entitled to very
little respect, and others to none at all. To the latter class we
must refer his authorities for the reported correspondence
between Abgarus and Jesus Christ, recorded in the first book
*Herodotus, lib. vii. c. 152.




310              EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN.
of his "History." *  The letters are undoubtedly a forgery,
though we readily acquit Eusebius of all participation in the
fraud. The originals existed, as he tells us, in the Syriac
language, in the archives of the city of Edessa, whence they
were taken by or for him (for his language is ambiguous), and
translated into Greek.  This is all he says of their history;
and we see no reason whatever to call in question his good
faith.  But he suffered himself to be egregiously duped.  A
document undoubtedly came to his hands, purporting to have
been drawn from the archives referred to, which he hastily
received as ancient and authentic.
The forgery would give us little concern, were it not that
so gross a blunder of Eusebius, at the very threshold, affects
his character as an historian.  If he had so little critical
sagacity as to be imposed upon by so palpable and clumsy a
fraud, it may be asked, What reliance can be placed on his
judgment in any case? Does not the fact go to show a degree
of carelessness, and want of discrimination, in the selection of
his materials, which must essentially impair our confidence in
the credibility of his narrative in other instances? Undoubtedly
it tends to inspire distrust of his judgment, and places us under
the necessity of subjecting his authorities to the test of rigid
examination, when in our power. But this we are compelled
to do in case of most ancient, and but too many modern, historians. In this respect, Eusebius does not stand alone.
Whether the account of the sufferings of our Saviour, reported to have been sent by Pilate to the Emperor Tiberius,
and referred to by- Justin Martyr and by Tertullian, is to be
classed with the above mentioned in the rank of forgeries or
not, or had only an imaginary existence, it is not material to
our purpose to inquire; as Eusebius, whdo seems never to have
seen it, does little more than allude to it, and can hardly be
said to have used it as an authority at all.
Among the authorities entitled to some, though to very little
respect, we may place Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis.  Papias
was a great collector of traditions, and, whenever he met with
a person who had seen and conversed with the Apostles and
elders, was particular in his inquiries as to what they said.
* Cap. 13.




LOST DOCUMENTS.                     311' what Andrew  and what Peter said"; what "Philip  or
Thomas or James or John or Matthew and the other Apostles
were wont to say "; what "John the elder " said.  He left a
work, in five books, apparently a sort of commentary on our
Lord's discourses or life, extant in Eusebius's time; but Eusebius himself pronounces him to have been a man of very
small capacity, and says that he propagated several fabulous
legends.  Indeed, he seems to have been a person of unbounded credulity,-  utterly destitute of discrimination and
judgment. He first gave currency among Christians to the
doctrine of Chiliasm, or the one thousand years' reign of Christ
on earth, with his saints, in the enjoyment of corporeal delights;
which Irenens and others, having regard to the "antiquity of
the man," adopted and defended, but to which the mighty arm
of Origen Adamantius finally gave a death-blow. Papias, in
peering about for traditions and old stories, of which he seems
to have collected a goodly number, no doubt gleaned some
truths; but he is evidently no authority for anything, except
as a witness to what he saw and heard, if so much as that.
In regard to lost works, or works of which only a few fragments have reached our times (preserved, perhaps, by Eusebius himself), we may observe, that, from the time of Justin
Martyr, or from about the middle of the second century, these
works, used by Eusebius as authorities, begin to multiply.
Among them  we may mention Hegesippus, a converted Jew,
who flourished about the year 170, and wrote five books of
"Ecclesiastical Memoirs," of which we have now  only some
fragments found in Eusebius, and a very short one quoted by
Photius at second-hand. Eusebius speaks of him with great
respect, though he seems to have been a rude and incoherent
writer; and the judgment of the Christian world concerning
him has been generally unfavorable.*
* Kestner, in a dissertation inserted in his treatise " De Eusebii Auctoritate
et Fide Diplomatich," Gott. 1816, has attempted a defence of the historical
fidelity of Hegtsippus - we do not think, with entire success - against what
he calls the unjust and perverse judgments pronounced concerning him. He
had been called a. dealer in fables, and a most futile trifler, rattler than an
historian; and Stroth had said that he is so incoherent, that "iyou would
think you were reading the meditations of a shoemaker in the language of a
Scythian." The specimens of his performance, given by Eusebius, certainly




312              EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN.
In his sixth and seventh books, Eusebius draws largely on
the epistolary writings of Dionysius, called the Great, Bishop
of Alexandria. In his preface to his seventh book, he acknowledges his numerous obligations to him.  He says that
Dionysius shall compose the book in his own words, relating
the occurrences of his times in the letters he has left.  Dionysius was an honest man, and reputed to be learned and eloquent.  He mingled much in the affairs of Christians of his
time, A. D. 247; and wrote of what he had seen and heard,
and in which he was a chief actor.  His authority, allowing
for the ordinary weaknesses and imiperfections of human nature,
is entitled to great respect.
These are among the documents existing before his day,
which are expressly named by him as authorities which have
now wholly, or in part, perished, and of many of which we
have only portions preserved by him. To these we must add
the productions appealed to by him, which have entirely, or-in
a great measure, survived the injuries of time, and of the
value of which, therefore, we can judge for ourselves; as the
works, still extant, of Josephus, Philo, Justin Martyr, Clement
the Alexandrian, Tatian, Irenaus, Tertullian, and Origen, and
two or three imperial rescripts or letters.  He derived assistance, no doubt, from other sources. He speaks of the rich collection of letters preserved in the library at Jerusalem, which
furnished important materials for his use.* He often, however,
omits to name his authorities, either from ignorance or carelessness, or perhaps because the general consent of writers
seemed to render specification unnecessary.
In the preface to his eighth book, Eusebius informs us that
he is about to relate events which happened in his own times.
Of his ten books, then, he devotes three to contemporaneous
history. He professes to speak of what he saw and knew, not
always naming documents or authorities; yet often, especially
near the close, appealing to letters and edicts of the emperors,
several of which he has preserved entire. It must be admitted,
that no man of his times had better means than he of becoming
do not tend'to inspire any very deep regret for its loss (Euseb. Hist., ii. 238
iii. 16, 20, 32; iv. 8, 22).
* Hist., vi. 20.




USE OF HIS MATERIALS.                 313
acquainted with the general affairs of Christians; though, in
estimating the merit of this part of his narrative, we must not
forget the difficulty of arriving at truth from  the reports -
often inaccurate, partial, and colored -of contemporaries, subject, as their minds must be, to the disturbing influence of
human passions, partiality, or prejudices.
From  this slight survey of the fountains to which Eusebius
had access, it is quite obvious that his materials were of various merit: some being of the very best kind; others, to say
the least, very suspicious; and some utterly without value.
He had, at times, clear lights to direct him  on the road; at
others, he was compelled to thread his way amid surrounding
darkness.
We do not pretend to assert that he was always thorough in
his researches, or had recourse, in all instances, to the best
sources of information.  Yet he sometimes discriminates, and
manifests some solicitude, certainly, about the worth of the
documents used by him.  He frequently notes the time when,
and the authors by whom, they were written.  Examples
might be given in abundance; but the enumeration would be
tedious.* In his fifth book, however;t there occurs a statement
which, in justice to him, we cannot pass over; for it shows
that he was not utterly careless and indifferent about his
authorities.  Thus, after mentioning some writings of which
the authors and their times were known, he proceeds to say
that many more pieces had come to his hands, the authorship
and date of which he had no means of ascertaining; and therefore, he observes, he could not make use of them nor quote
them.  He sometimes, too, assigns reasons, historical and
critical, for rejecting certain writings which fall under his
notice; of which we may mention, as an example, the Gospels
of Peter, Thomas, and others; also the Acts of Andrew and
John and others of the Apostles; and some writings attributed
to Clement of Rome.Of the use Eusebius made of his materials, we need say
i X He is sometimes, however, loose and inaccurate, and occasionally gives
contradictory statements, of which we have an example in hlis account of tlhe
time of Hegesippus. Comp. Hiist., iv. 8; and Ibid., cc. 21, 22.
t Cap. 27.                      1 Hist., iii. 25, 88.




314             EUSEBIUS THE HISTORIAN.
little. That his diligence in collecting was greater than his
care and skill in using the stores he had accumulated, will be
readily admitted.  He is not a skilful narrator.  He has not
fused down his materials into a mass of pure ore. He has
left much rubbish, which a more scrupulous judgment would
have swept away.  His work belongs to an age not imbued
with the spirit of philosophical criticism, and it bears numerous marks of haste and inadvertency. As a production of
art, it is full of blemishes.  Yet we should be grateful for the
many precious remains of antiquity it has saved from destruction, and the numerous traditions it was the means of arresting
in their passage to the gulf of oblivion. Eusebius should be
read with judgment, that we may separate the wheat from the
chaff.  We believe that he meant to be faithful; though we
cannot say of him, that he " left nothing to be forgiven." But
his errors are those of human infirmity, and afford, in our
opinion, no ground for those sweeping conclusions which would
annihilate, at a blow, his historical credit.




THE APOSTLES' CREED.
CHAPTER I.
TnE APOSTLES' CREED NOT THE PRIMITIVE CREED. - WAS NOT FRAMED
BY THEI APOSTLES. - TESTIMONIES OF THE LEARNED. - UNFOUNDED
TRADITION AS TO ITS ORIGIN. - OLDER CREEDS. - ORIGINAL FORM OF
TIIE APOSTLES' CREED.- COMPARISON OF IT WITH THE ROMAN AND
ORIENTAL, AND THAT OF AQUILEIA. - THE CLAUSE " DESCENDED INTO
HELL." - THE APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS. - NO EARLY NOTICE OF
THEM. - NOT OF APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. - TIME OF THEIR COMPOSITION
-THEIR ARIAN COMPLEXION.- OLD FORM OF ASCRIPTION.
WRITERS sometimes speak of the "primitive creed"; by
which they do not always mean the creed of Peter, the oldest
Christian creed of which we have any account, -" Thou art
the Christ, the Son of the living God." This was the only
article of faith originally deemed necessary to constitute a
person externally a Christian. It presupposed, of course, a
belief in one God, the Father.  But the Jews had already
been initiated into this belief.  "Ye believe in God," said
Jesus: he adds, " Believe also in me" as the " Christ," the
"Anointed," the commissioned of him; the only additional
truth the belief of which he required as distinctive of the Christian profession. We find the two articles again conjoined in
his last solemn prayer: "This is life eternal, that they might
know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou
hast sent." * And thus we find that Jews and others, already
acknowledging the existence of the only true God, were, by
the Apostles, admitted to baptism, on simply professing, in addition, their belief of the latter article.
We here see the origin of creeds. They were baptismal
confessions; baptism being regarded as an initiatory rite, by
* St. Paul's creed corresponded: "There is one God; and one Mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."




316               THE APOSTLES' CREED.
which a person was introduced into the community of believers, - numbered among Christians. These confessions were
the symbol, sign, token, or mark, of Christian faith, as the
ceremony of baptism  was of Christian consecration.  They
embraced originally, as we have said, in addition to the belief
in the existence of one God over all, the Father (always tacitly
implied, if not expressed), one simple truth, that Jesus was the
Christ, the Son of God; which was the primitive Chbistian
creed, as a belief in the one only true God constituted the
primitive Jewish creed.  Other articles were added from time
to time, according to the discretion of individuals, or communities of believers.
The iuost fruitful source of additions was the numerous
heresies which, in process of time, sprang up in the Church,
in opposition to which new clauses were successively introduced
into the creeds, or symbols.  They were thus perpetually
growing in bulk, and, in the same proportion, becoming more
dark and metaphysical, abounding more and more in absurd or
unintelligible distinctions and refinements, till every feature of
their original simplicity was obliterated.
The Apostles' Creed is sometimes referred to as the " primitive creed " of Christians; and it is still sometimes insinuated
that it was of apostolic origin.  That it was not the production
of the Apostles, however, is a point which has been long universally conceded by the learned, both Protestant and Catholic;
and to go into a discussion of it would be a mere waste of time
and labor.  Hear what Mosheim, an author whose statements
are entitled to some little respect, says in reference to the
opinion which assigns the composition of it to the Apostles:
" All who have any knowledge of antiquity confess unanimously
that this opinion is a mistake, and has no foundation." *  Dr.
Isaac Barrow, an old Englis.h divine of great eminence, speaks
of the " original composition and use " of the creed as " not
known "; and argues, that, " in ancient times, there was no
one form generally fixed and agreed upon "; that "the most
ancient" and learned of the Fathers "were either wholly
ignorant that such a form, pretending the Apostles for its
authors, was extant, or did not accord to its pretence, or did
* Institutes of Eccles. HEist., vol. i. p. 79, Murdock's translation.




NOT OF APOSTOLIC ORIGIN.                 317
not at all rely on the authenticalness thereof." e  Dr. Barrow
wrote more than a century and a half ago.  The well-known
Du Pin, too, a little later, resolutely combated the notion, that
the creed was written by the Apostles; pronounces it " very
improbable "; says that it is evident that the Apostles "did not
draw up any one form of faith comprehended in a set numnber
of words "; that there is " no rashness here in departing from
the vulgar opinion "; that the advocates for its apostolic origin
are obliged to yield, when urged, and acknowledge that'our
creed is not the Apostles' as to the words." t  " That it is
rash to attribute it to the Apostles," says Buddeus, "is not
only proved by the clearest reasons, but the more prudent and
candid among the Romanists themselves confess it." t "All
learned persons," says Sir Peter King, " are now agreed, that
it never was composed by the Apostles." ~  "It is not known
by whom, or at what precise time," observes Bishop Tomline,
"' this creed was written."  " The Apostles did not prescribe
any creed." f1  "It was by no means the opinion in the
beginning," says Neander, "that the Apostles had drawn up
any such confession in words "; and he calls the story of the
apostolic origin of the creed in question a " fable." ~t   Hagenbach does the same.  He thinks the creed "' most probably
composed of various confessions of faith, used by the primitive
Church in the baptismal service." It did not, he says, proceed
from the Apostles themselves.**
We might adduce numerous other testimonies; but the
above are sufficient, and more than sufficient, to show what all
the world, with the exception of those who have not cared to
learn, know already, -  that the question of the apostolic origin
of the creed has been long satisfactorily settled.  The tradition
which ascribes to it such an origin cannot be traced in any
writings now  extant, or of which we have any account, of a
Exposition ofn the Creed; Works, vol. i. p. 357, fol. Lond. 1716.
t Hist. Eccles. Writers, vol. i. p. 10, Lonld. 1692.
t Ecclesia Apostolica, p. 191, Jen. 1729.
~ Primitive Church, part ii. p. 57, Lond. 1719.
iI Exposition of the Thirtl-nine Articles, art. viii. See Elements of Christian
Theoloqly, vol. ii. pp. 224-226, ed. Lond. 1804.
N &eander, Hist. of the Christ. Relig. and Church, vol. i. pp. 306, 307.
*~ Text-Book, etc., First Period, ~ 20, p. 52.




i18                 THE APOSTLES'  CREED.
date earlier than the end of the fourth century.  We first
meet with it in Rufinus, Bishop of Aquileia, who wrote late in
the fourth and early in the fifth century.*  " The Apostles,"
says he, "according to the tradition of the Fathers, being
about to disperse to carry the gospel into different parts,
assembled to determine the rule of their future preaching;
and, being filll of the Holy Spirit, each one of them contributed
what was agreeable to his own views; thus forming  a creed
which was to guide them in their teachings, and to be delivered
as a rule to believers." t The writer of a piece falsely attributed to Augustine proceeds so far as to point out the particular
article contributed by each Apostle.
Had this tradition been founded in truth, it is difficult to
account for the fact, that the creed was not, like the other
known productions of the Apostles, admitted into the number
of canonical writings; that Luke, in relating the acts of the
Apostles, has observed a total silence on the sijbject; and, still
further, that no allusion to any such document, as a production
of the Apostles, occurs in any of the learned Fathers of greater
antiquity than Rufinus, -  as Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius, the historian Eusebius,
Athanasius, and many others; though, in their disputes with
heretics, occasions innumerable occurred on which they could
have alleged nothing more appropriate and decisive than
several clauses of the creed, had it existed as a known or
reputed relic of the Apostles.  During the same period, councils were assembled, some of which framed creeds which were
regarded as authoritative, and were used in the rite of baptism
(an act then deemed of the greatest solemnity); yet in none
of the canons of those councils, and in none of their creeds, is
there the slightest allusion to any existing creed claiming an
apostolic sanction. It is further observable, that whenever the
ante-Nicene Fathers attempt, as they frequently do, to give a
sort of abstract of Christian doctrine, they allow themselves no
* We make no account of a piece attributed to Ambrose of Milan, containing an allusion to the tradition; since the document is admitted, by universal
consent, to be spurious. Were it genuine, its testimony would add little
weight to the tradition; being contemporary, or nearly so, with that of Rufinus
Ambrose died A. D. 398. Rufinus survived him but twelve years.
t Expositio Symboli.




ORIGIN OF THE CREED.                319
small latitude both of sentiment and expression, always differing from each other, and from themselves at different times; a
circumstance which can be explained only on the supposition,
that there was no authoritative symbol to which they could
appeal, but that each individual or body and division of believers
were left to express their own views of Christian truth in their
own way.  The Roman creed, in the form in which we first.meet with it, differed from  the old Oriental, in existence, it
would seem, before the Nicene or Constantinopolitan; and
both, as we shall presently see, from that of Aquileia. It
differed, too, from the Jerusalem  creed, expounded by Cyril
about A. D. 340; and yet, had the Apostles, before their separation (as the tradition given by Rufinus states), composed a
creed to be the rule of their future preaching, and a standard
of faith to all believers, the fact must have been known to the
Christians of Jerusalem; and we can hardly suppose that the
church in that place, the mother of all the rest, would have
suffered so valuable a legacy to be lost, and the very memory
of it to have perished.
Rufinus, in his account of the origin of the creed, was followed by Jerome and the Latin Fathers generally; and the
tradition was currently believed till the time of the Reformation. Erasmus was one of the first in modern times to call
in question its title to respect as an apostolic document; and
subsequent inquiries, as we have said, have led to the utter
rejection of its claims to be so considered.
It is more difficult to trace the origin and gradual completion of the Apostles' Creed than to refute the hypothesis
which ascribes it to an act of the Apostles. In its primitive
and simpler form, it may possibly have been the baptismal
creed of the Roman Christians.  As the Roman Church rose
to celebrity, its creed, of course, would grow in dignity and
importance along with it; and when finally it came to be
denominated, by way of eminence, the " Apostolical " Church,
founded, according to tradition, by the very chief of the Apostles and by Paul, it is not surprising that its symbol also should
have claimed for itself the distinction of an apostolic origin.
There are several other creeds, or summaries of faith, however, of which an earlier record remains than of this. Irenmus,




320                 THE APOSTLES' CREED.
Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, gives us two, one shorter and one
longer, but wholly unlike the Apostles' Creed.* Tertullian,
about the year 200, knew nothing of the Apostles' Creed.
"In its present form, it was not known to him  as a summary
of faith," says Bishop Kaye.t  Tertullian's creeds, of which
we have three, want some articles found in the Apostles'.
One of these, which he calls the one only fixed and unchangeable rule of faith, we have  already quoted.t   It is much
shorter and simpler than that known as the Apostles'; and
what is remarkable is, it contains no allusion whatever to the
Holy Spirit; and has no article on Christ's "descent into hell,"
on the " holy Catholic Church," the " communion of saints,"
or the "remission of sins."
Two passages occur in the writings of Origen, containing a
creed or general summary of Christian truth, as he understood it, and as it was to be gathered, as he says, from the
Scriptures.~  Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, about the middle
of the third century, comes next, who tells us that persons;
on being baptized, were required to express their belief "in
God, the Father; his Son, Christ; the Holy Spirit; the' remission of sins; and eternal life through the holy Church." II We
have another, by Gregory Thaumaturgus, of Neocesarea, a
disciple of Origen, somewhat longer, and more dark and metaphysical, and as unlike as possible to the Apostles' Creed.
Nothingr else in the shape of a creed occurs in any genuine
writing of the first three centuries.~   The Nicene soon followed, which was somewhat augmented by the Council of
Constantinople, A. D. 381; and the Councils of Ephesus and
Chalcedon (the former A. D. 431, and the latter A. D. 451)
forbade the making or the use of any other,. taking no notice
* Adv. Hcer., lib. i. c. 10, and lib. iii. c. 4.
t Eccles. Hist., illustratedfronm the Writiigs qf Tertullian, p. 306, 3d edit.
$ The creed is prefaced with these words: " Regula quidern fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis, et irreformabilis." This creed is given in the first
chapter of his tract De Virqinibus Velandis. The other two are found, Adv.
Prax., c. 2; and De Prcescript. leret., c. 13.
~ Comnm. in Joan., t. xxxii.; Proem to Book of Principles.
II Epist. lxxvi.
~ A confbssion of faith, contained in a letter ascribed to the first Council of
Antioch, and addressed to Paul of Samosata, is sometimes quoted by those
who are not aware that the document is spurious.




EARLY CREEDS DIFFER.                   321
of the Apostles' Creed, and thus virtually excluding it.*  It
was not customary to recite the creed at every administration of divine service, in the Eastern Church, before the beginning of the sixth century, and, in the Western, till near
the end of the same; and the creed thus recited was the
Nicene, or Constantinopolitan, just referred to, and not the
Apostles'.
Rufinus (to whom, as we have said, we are indebted for the
tradition of the apostolic origin of the creed) has preserved
a copy of it as it existed in his time, the end of.the fourth
and the beginning of the fifth century, under three different
forms as used in different churches; or rather he has given
us three creeds, -  the Roman, the Oriental, and that of Aquileia.  That the Roman, in its more brief form, existed before
his time, is not to be doubted, for its simplicity bears decided
marks of antiquity; but of its history previous to this period
nothing certain is known.  Sir Peter King, in his excellent
work4, has attempted to analyze it, and distinguish the articles
of which it was originally composed from the clauses afterwards introduced in opposition to the several heresies which
successively sprang up in the Church; but, from the paucity
of facts history has preserved, he is often compelled to resort
to arguments which are purely conjectural.
It appears from Rufinus, that the first article of the Roman
Creed, as it stood in his time, and of that of Aquileia, wanted
the clause, "M aker of heaven and earth "; and that the creed
of Aquileia had, instead of it, " invisible and impassible,"
added, according to Rufinus, in opposition to the Sabellian
heresy.  The Roman, too, omitted the epithet "one" before
"God," and stood simply, "I believe in God, the Father
Almighty."   The second article differs little in the three
creeds, except in the collocation of the words, which varies
considerably; and, instead of "Jesus Christ," the Oriental
Creed reads, one Jesus Christ, in common with the Nicene
* The fact is adverted to by Charles Butler in the following words: " When
the Council of Ephesus, and afterwards the Council of Chalcedon, proscribed
-all creeds except the Nicene, neither of them excepted the synibol of the
Apostles from the general proscription." -Historical and Literary Account of
Confessions.
t History of the Apostles' Creed, with Critical Observations on its several Articles.
21




322                 THE APOSTLES' CREED.
and the older Greek creeds generally. The present creed
retains the article as it stood in the Roman.  The third article
is the same in the three; the present creed differing verbally
from  all.  In the fourth article, the words "suffered" and
" dead," found in the present creed, are wanting in the three
ancient; and the phrase " descended into hell " is found only
in that of Aquileia, being wanting in both the Roman and
Oriental. The fifth is the same in all four, as also the sixth,
excepting that the epithet "Almighty" is wanting in that of
Aquileia and the Roman.  The seventh is the same precisely
in all. In the eighth, the present creed repeats " I believe,"
which is not found in this place in either of the three mentioned by Rufinus.  In the ninth article, the present creed
differs in three particulars from that of Aquileia, the Roman,
and Oriental.  In the three latter, the word "catholic" is
wanting, as also the phrase "communion of saints," at the
end; and the words "I believe," which are wanting in the
preceding article, are inserted at the commencement of this.
In the three old creeds, the article was, simply, (I believe)
" iii the holy Church."  The tenth article is the same in all;
the eleventh also, with a single exception; that of Aquileia
having "this body," instead of "the body," as in the rest.
With this clause the three old creeds end; the twelfth article,
or " and the life everlasting," found in the present creed, being
wanting in all.*
Some of these variations are, in themselves, unimportant.
It will be perceived, however, from our comparison, that, since
the end of the fourth century, the Roman or Apostles' Creed
has received four considerable additions, - the clause "descended into hell," in the fourth article; the epithet " catholic'"; and the clause "communion of saints," in the ninth;
and the whole of the last.
The clause "descended into hell" first appears, it would
seem, in the Arian creed of Ariminum, A. D. 359.  It is also
found in a creed recorded by Epiphanius, who flourished in
* Rufin. Expositio Symboli. See also Du Pin, vol. i. p. 3; and G. J. Vossius,,De Tribeus Syalbolis, Dissert. i. ~~ 31-43. Bunsen, in his Analecta Ante-Niccena,
forming the last three volumes of his Christianitq and Mlfanckind, gives the three
creeds —the Roman, the Oriental, and that of Aquileia — along with the
Nicene. - Vol. iii. pp. 92-94.




ADDITIONS TO THE OLD CREEDS.                    3 28
the latter part of the fourth century; and also in that of Cyril
of Jerusalem.  At what time it was admitted into the Roman
and Oriental creeds, we have no means of ascertaining. It
was adopted, as Sir Peter King thinks, as an antidote to the
heresy  of Apollinarius, who  denied  the  reality  of Christ's
human soul.*
* The clause " descended into hell," has greatly perplexed modern theologians. That such, however, was the belief generally of Christians of the first
three, or certainly of the second and third centuries, its absence from the
creed notwithstanding, has been abundantly proved, we conceive, by the Rev.
Frederic Huidekoper, in his very learned work on the " Belief of the First
Three Centuries concerning Christ's Mission to the Underworld."  The purpose of this "Underworld Mission" of Christ, as stated by Mr. Huidekoper,
who sustains his position by numerous quotations from the early Fathers, was
to "preach to the Spirits in prison," that is, to prophets, patriarchs, and righteous men who were there detained, and liberate them. Some, however, believed that he preached to all, though he did not change their place of abode,
but left them to remain there till the general resurrection. But several of
the most eminent of the Fathers were of the opinion first stated. Christ
descended to IIades to preach to the people of God, - to prophets and righteous men, who there waited his coming.
There he had a fearful conflict with the Devil and overcame him, and took
with him out of Hades the souls for whose deliverance he came, transferring
them to Paradise. This was transacted in the interval between his death and
resurrection. But though victorious in the end, the soul of Jesus endured.terrible suffering. It was given as a "ransom," not, says Origen, " to God,"
but to " the Evil One, for he held us in his power until the soul of Jesus
should be given him as our ransom, - he being deceived by the supposition
that he could hold it in subjection, and not perceiving that it must be retained
at the cost of torture which he could not endure."  (Huidekoper, p. 87.)
The Devil bore his defeat as best he could. According to the Fathers he had
been outgeneralled: the incarnation of Jesus had been concealed from him; he
plotted his death through the hands of wicked men. So completely had he
been mystified, as Clement of Alexandria has it; but when he found him in
his own dominions and learned who he was, he was filled with consternation,
for a stronger than he had come, who entering his house, - the " house of
death," - first bound him, after a terrible battle, then, as Origen expresses it,' plundered his goods," that is, " carried off the souls he held," and " thence
ascending on high, led captive the caiptives."
Such was the theology of the Fathers connected with the descent of Christ
into hell. Mr. IIuidekoper gives in an Appendix the "modern views" of
this clause of the creed. The Lutherans accepted it without explanation; the
Calvinists, finding it inconsistent with their belief of two fixed states after
death, glossed it over by saying that the soul of Jesus during his sufferings,
and especially while on the cross, was plunged into " inexpressible anguish.
pains, terrors, and hellish agonies."  The Anglican Church adopted it at first
- in the fourth year of Edward - with an explanation which was afterwards,
In the time of Elizabeth, omitted. Pearson, in his " Exposition of the Creed,"




824                 THE APOSTLES' CREED.
The term " Catholic " first appears in the creed of Alexander of Alexandria, about the period of the rise of the Arian
controversy. It is found also in Epiphanius, from whom it
passed to the Latins. At what time it found its way into
the Romlan Creed, is uncertain.  The clause "communion of
saints " was added, as is supposed, in reference to the schism
of the Donatists, -probably during the fifth century.  It is
not known on what occasion, or when, the last clause, relating
to the "life everlasting," was added. The creed first appears,
in its present form, in the time of Gregory the Great, who
died A. D. 604.
The Apostles' Creed is not a Trihitarian document, in the
modern sense of the term; for it speaks of no co-equal Three
no Three in One.  The same is true of the other creeds
we have compared with it, and of the writings attributed to'the Apostolic Fathers.  These writings, as we have seen, are
not witnesses for the Trinity.  The supremacy of the Father
was a doctrine of the Church when they were written, whenever it was.
In connection with the Apostles' Creed, we must say some-tling of the "Apostolical Constitutions," including what are
called the " Canons of the Apostles." * We have no intention, however, of entering into any elaborate discussion on the
subject of their origin, history, and worth.  We shall content
ourselves with the briefest possible notice. These, no more
than the creed, are to be ascribed to the Apostles as their
authors.
There is no notice of any production, under the title of
"Apostolical Constitutions," by any writer during the first three
centuries of the Christian era, nor until late in the fourth.
Epiphanius, who wrote during the latter part of the fourth
century, and died early in the fifth, is the first who names a
devotes a long article to the subject, which he concludes as follows: "And
thlus, and for these purposes, may every Christian say, I believe that Christ
descended into hell " (pp. 340-380, ed. Lond., 1842). This he acknowledges
was the universal belief of the Christian Fathers; on this point, -" Christ's
local descent into the infernal parts,-" lie says (p. 357), " they all agree."
An edition of the " Constitutions" and "Canons " was published in New
York in 1848, with a " prize essay" on their "origin and contents," translated
from the German, by Irah Chase, D. D.




APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS SPURIOUS.        325
work with this title.  He quotes from what he calls the " Constitution of the Apostles," - a composition, he says, which,
though held of doubtful authority by many, is not to be condemned, since it contains a true account of the ecclesiastical
discipline and laws. Eusebius and Athanasius, it is true, refer
to what they call the " Teachings" or " Doctrine" of the
Apostles; and it has been thought by some, that under this
title they designated the work afterwards quoted by Epiphanius. But of this there is no decisive evidence, and their
identity is matter of conjecture merely. With the exception
of Epiphanius, if he be an exception, none of the distinguished
writers of the fourth century allude to the work; and the
next mention we find of it is in what is known as the "Incomplete Work on Matthew," written after the death of Theodosius the Great, and it may have been late in the fifth century.
This is all the external evidence relating to the existence of
such a work, found within the first five centuries; and it is
not certain that our present " Constitutions" is the same work
quoted by Epiphanius. If substantially the same, it is very
clear that it has been interpolated, or has received additions,
or both, since his time.
The work claims to have the Apostles for its authors, and
is sent out in their name through their "fellow-minister,
Clement."  It begins thus: "The Apostles and elders to all
who from among the Gentiles have believed in the Lord Jesus
Christ: Grace and peace from Almighty God through our Lord
Jesus Christ," etc. In the fourth chapter of the eighth book,
we have these words: "Wherefore, we, the twelve Apostles of
the Lord, who are now together, give you in charge these our'Divine Constitutions' concerning every ecclesiastical form;
there being present with us Paul the chosen vessel, our fellowapostle, and James the bishop," etc.  Again, "Now, this we
all in common proclaim," etc. But sometimes one of the
number speaks individually, thus: "I Peter," or "I Andrew,"
"say"; "I who was beloved by the Lord," "I Philip," or
"I Bartlholomew,"  "make this Constitution."  And so of the
rest, each in turn speaking in his proper person. No one now,
however, thinks of attributing the work either to the Apostles
or to the Roman Clement. It is universally admitted to be




326               THE APOSTLES' CREED.
spurious; and so far as the form is concerned, is, in truth, a
very bungling forgery. It was written after the hierarchical
principle began to develop itself, and had made some progress
in the Church; and treats largely of ecclesiastical discipline,
forms, and observances; not omitting, however, duties of practical morality. The first book, which is exceedingly brief, is
"Concerning the Laity "; the second, " Concerning Bishops,
Presbyters, and Deacons"; the third, "Concerning Widows";
the subject of the fourth is " Orphans "; of the fifth, " Martyrs "; of the sixth, " Schisms "; the seventh is " Concerning
Deportment and the Eucharist, and Initiation into Christ";
the eighth is " Concerning Gifts and Ordinations and Ecclesiastical Canons," and contains, as well as the seventh, various
prayers and liturgical services.
Rejecting the claim of the " Constitutions " to an apostolic
origin, we may observe, that, in the absence of all direct historical testimony, their age is matter of conjecture, founded on
the character of their contents, which, though it precludes a
very early date, leaves room for no inconsiderable latitude of
opinion as to the precise period of their composition, if they were
not, as is probable, the growth of different periods. It is impossible to say positively even in what century they assumed
their present form.  Several of the most eminent among the
earlier Catholic writers of modern times — as Bellarmine,
who takes notice of their rejection by the Trullan Council,
A. D. 692; Baronius, Cardinal du Perron, Petavius (Petau),
and others - have pronounced them spurious, though few of
them have undertaken to decide when or by whom they were
written. Petavius observes, that they are different from the
" Constitutions" of Epiphanius.  Tillemont says, that they
were a fabrication of the sixth century.  Others ascribe them
to the third or fourth. Du Pin thinks them not the same
work mentioned by Eusebius and Athanasius, and conjectures
that they " belong to the third, or rather the fourth century ";
but that they were " from time to time corrected, altered, and
augmented, according to the various customs of different ages
and countries."  Cotelerius expresses doubts whether they
were known to Epiphanius; and, at all events, thinks them
interpolated and corrupted.




APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS OF LATE ORIGIN.    327
The opinions of Protestants have been not less diverse as
to the time of their composition. Blondel, without assigning
his reasons, places them late in the second century. William
Beveridge ascribes them to Clement of Alexandria, and not to
Clement of Rome, first mentioned as the author by the Trullan Council above referred to. But Clement of Alexandria,
if he wrote them, must have stood self-condemned; for the
" Constitutions " do not allow the reading of Heathen authors,
who constituted his favorite study, and with whom he probably was more familiar than any other man of his time. For
other reasons, we may pronounce the opinion, that he was the
author of the work, a very strange one, and wholly untenable.
Pearson regards it as a compilation, with alterations and additions, made up, after the age of Epiphanius, from writings
already in existence, some of them ancient. Grabe, in the
main, agrees with Pearson.  On the other hand, Whiston declares them to be the "most sacred of the canonical books of
the New  Testament"; and says that their contents were
derived immediately from the Saviour, during the forty days
he passed with the Apostles, after his resurrection and first
ascension;* and that the place of their delivery was Mount
Zion, whence the " Christian law was to proceed."  Le Clere
speaks of them as probably collected and enlarged at different
times from the practice of the churches; though he seems to
favor the opinion of Thomas Bruno, or Brown, a canon of
Windsor, who makes the principal collector to be Leontius, an
Arian bishop of the fourth century.  Spanheim  places the
completion of the work at the end of the fifth century.  Samuel Basnage considers them as different from the " Constitutions" of Epiphanius, and as originating at a subsequent
period. Ittig and Usher refer their origin to the fourth century; and Daille, who brought all his immense erudition to
bear on the question of their genuineness, and denies that they
were the same work quoted by Epiphanius, or the work or
works referred to by Eusebius and Athanasius, contents himself with expressing the opinion, that they were written after
the Council of Nice, and before the end of the fifth century,
wvithout attempting to be more definite.
Whiston supposed that our Lord ascended immediately after his resurrection, and returned to instruct his Apostles during the forty days.




328             THE APOSTLES' CREED.
Recent German critics are no more satisfactory.  Thus
Schrockh ascribes the collection to the third or fourth century;
Starck, who supposes it to be made up of various materials
scattered here and there, makes it date from the fifth century;
Neander thinks it grew up in the Oriental Church "out of
different pieces, whose ages extend from the latter part of
the second to the fifth century," being not identical with the
"Constitutions " of Epiphanius; Schmidt assigns to it a later
origin; Rosenmiiller will not undertake to settle the time;
Augusti, as usual with him, does not trouble himself about the
precise date; while Kestner discovers a " Christian confederacy," at the head of which stood Clement of Rome, of which
the old "Apostolical Constitutions" were a sort of "statutebook," in the place of which, the confederacy being dissolved
in the time of Epiphanius, the new " Constitutions " were
substituted.
Our readers will see by this time the little foundation there
is for any positive opinion on the subject of the authorship and
date of the " Constitutions."  The " Canons "-of which
eighty-five appear in our present collection, a smaller number
in the older collections — are also of uncertain antiquity;
though some of them, no doubt, describe the discipline and
usages of the church at an early period, and are older than the
" Constitutions."
The Arian complexion of the Constitutions generally has
been frequently commented upon. On this point, however,
we must discriminate. We will not undertake to say, that
they distinctly affirm the creation of the Son out of nothing,
or use other language exclusively Arian.  But this, at least,
we may say with truth, that they uniformly assert the supremacy
of the Father, and the subordinate and derived nature of the
Son.  Their testimony on these points is not casual and
isolated, thus pointing to interpolations by an Arian hand: it
interpenetrates their whole language, and cannot be torn awa'y
without destroying their whole texture and fabric.
In parts of them  the creation of the world seems to be
ascribed directly to God; in other parts and more frequently,
however, they represent the Son as his instrument in the creation. Thus: "' Who by him didst make before all things the




APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS NOT TRINITARIAN.   329
Cherubim and the Seraphim, the neons and hosts, the powers
and authorities, the principalities and thrones, the archangels
and angels; and after all these didst by him make this visible
world and all things that are therein." This is from the eighth
book, generally supposed to be of later origin than the rest.*
Eternity proper is not ascribed to the Son, as the following
language clearly testifies.  Thus: " It is meet and right before all things to sing a hymn to thee, who art the true God,
who art before all beings;.... who didst bring all things
out of nothing into being through thine only-begotten Son, but
didst before all ages, by thy will, thy power, and thy goodness,
without any intermediate agent beget him, thy only-begotten
Son, God the Word, the living Wisdom," etc. Thus he had
an origin, God alone being unoriginate, the unbegotten God.
To " suppose that Jesus Christ himself is the God over all,"
making him identical with the Father, the writer regards as
impious.t  Christ, we are told, " cloeth nothing of himself, but
doeth always those things which please the Father." *
Here are two distinct beings: one supreme, Infinite, G" without beginning, independent, and without a master," the other,
before the angels and oons, and God's instrument in making
them, being subject to his will, but having a beginning though
dating far back, before the ages, co-equality with God being
expressly excluded.  This is the doctrine of the Constitutions.
In the seventh book the old form of ascription at the conclusion of the prayers is retained, giving glory " to the Father,
through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit," when the Spirit is
mentioned at all; which furnishes an argument for the comparative antiquity of this portion of the Constitutions. In the
eighth book, to which, as we have said, is ascribed a later
origin, we still find the old doxology, but more generally glory
is ascribed to the Father along with the Son and the Spirit.
Thus the slow growth of the Trinity is visible.
Undoubtedly we meet in the volume many opinions and
usages which prevailed during and before the days of Origen.
But this is not inconsistent with the supposition, that it was
composed, or the pieces contained in it were collected much
later.  With all the changes which were from time to time
+ Lib. viii. c. 12.  t Lib. vi. c. 26.  S Lib. ii. c. 26.




330              THE APOSTLES' CREED.
creeping into the Church, many of her principles and customs,
especially those relating to worship and life, possessed a degree
of permanency; remaining without alteration for considerable
periods.  Parts of the work undoubtedly belong to one period,
and parts to another.  There is no necessity of referring it to
a single age or a single hand. It appears from its language to
be an accumulation from different ages, or was made up of
fragments belonging to different periods of the Church; but we
find no trace of the Athanasian Trinity in any part of it.




THE FATHERS AS EXPOSITORS.            331
CHAPTER II.
rHiE FATHERS AS EXPOSITORS. - CHANGE IN THE MEANING OF TERMS
AND PHRASES. - LANGUAGE OF THE FATHERS. - EXAMPLES. - IN WHAT
POINTS THE TRINITY OF THE FATHERS DIFFERED FROM THE MODERN.
- TESTIMONY OF THE LEARNED. — PETAVIUS, HUET, PROF. STUART. -
THE FATHERS TESTIFY AGAINST EACH OTHER. - COUNCILS. - THE
ATHANASIAN CREED.
WITH the history of the Creed and "Constitutions" we
have now done. But, in this connection, we cannot forbear
alluding to the rank claimed for the Fathers of the first four
centuries, from. Irenseus down to John Chrysostom, as constituting the " best school for sacred scriptural interpretation."
For, sincerely as we venerate the piety of these old writers,
and the many noble traits of character they exhibited, worthy
of all admiration; sensible as we are of the value of their
writings as repositories of facts we could derive from no other
source; and highly as we esteem their labors and sacrifices,
by means of which Christianity triumphed over the polluted
and debasing superstitions of Paganism, — we had supposed
that the time had gone by when their expositions of Christian
truth and the Christian records would be appealed to as entitled
to any extraordinary respect.
Many of them were learned; but few of them knew how to
apply their learning to any good purpose. With the exception
of Origen and Jerome, they were not versed in the original
language of the Old Testament, but relied on the faulty version
of the Seventy, to which they attributed a sort of inspiration.
Of the Arabic, the Syriac, and other languages (having an
affinity, greater or less, with the Hebrew, or useful in unlocking sources of information tending to throw light on Jewish
records and opinions), they were ignorant.  The theology of
most of them exhibited a strange and unnatural union of
Christian doctrines with the philosophy taught in the Platonic
schools of Alexandria, the most worthless that ever tasked the




33D2               THE APOSTLES' CREED.
speculative intellect; * and they were, almost without exception, addicted to the fanciful modes of interpretation, and
particularly the allegorizing spirit, which characterized the
same schools. There is no species of absurdity, in interpretation, reasoning, faith, or opinion, of which their writings do not
furnish abundant examples. But we are not about to discuss
the merits of the Fathers. We consider the question touching
their claims to respect, so far as the point under consideration
is concerned, as already fully settled in the several learned
treatises which have at different times appeared on the subject.
A topic of some importance, connected with reverence for
the Fathers as interpreters and guides, is the meaning of
terms. Much misapprehension and error, relating to the tenor
and spirit of the writings of Christian antiquity, have come
from inattention to the fact, that the. force and signification of
terms and phrases perpetually change with time.  The meaning of language is in a state of continual mutation, while the
written letter remains unaltered.  Words, it is well known,
are often retained long after the ideas originally conveyed by
them have disappeared or have become essentially modified.
This is especially the case, when the subject, about which
they are employed, is attended with any intrinsic obscurity.
The consequences,of not attending to this fact are obvious.
Terms and expressions occur in an ancient writing, which,
according to their modern and obvious use with which habit
has rendered us familiar, suggest to our minds certain ideas,
or awaken a particular train of associations. Now, if we take
it for granted that these terms and expressions were connected
in the mind of the author of the writing with the same ideas
and associations (that is, that they were used by him in their
present and acquired sense), we shall be liable, it is evident,
perpetually to mistake his meaning. To take a comparatively
modern instance: the English word "worship," at the time
our present version of the Bible was made, was used to express
not only divine homage, but civil respect.  This latter meaning is nearly or quite obsolete.  But the word bears this
* Worthless as a whole, though portions of it are elevated and surpassingly
oeautiful; as any one may discover who will look into Plotinus and writers
of that stamp.




OLD TERMS TAKEN IN A MODERN SENSE.          333
sense several times in our English Bibles, and frequently in
writings of the period to which the translation belongs, and
those of earlier date. It is easy to see into what blunders
a careless reader, or one acquainted only with the signification
of the term as now generally used, and not suspecting it of
ever bearing any other, who should sit down to read those
writings, would fall, in consequence of this ambiguity of the
term.
This is not the only circumstance which has been the occasion of important misapprehensions of the language of the
Fathers. Their writings are attended with peculiar obscurity
in consequence of the intellectual habits and prevailing philosophical systems of the period at which they were produced.
To ascertain an author's meaning with any tolerable exactness, it is often necessary to. know something of the modes of
thinking and feeling peculiar to his age. If he wrote on theological subjects, it is important to become acquainted with the
theological and philosophical opinions of his times, or those
which were current in the schools in which he was educated,
and among the class of writers whose works constituted his
favorite reading.
Now, as the early Fathers, generally, were educated in the
schools of the later Platonists, or were strongly tinctured with
the opinions of those schools, and borrowed from them several
terms, some of which they employed to express the most subtile and obscure ideas which entered into their theology, some
acquaintance with the philosophy of the Alexandrian Platonists,
as well as with Jewish literature and opinions, becomes absolutely necessary to a correct interpretation of their language.
We do not say that this is the only sort of learning necessary
to a right understanding of the Fathers: but this is indispensable; and, without it, all other is unavailing.
Several expressions in use among Trinitarians of the present
day occur in the writings of the Fathers of the second, third,
and fourth centuries.  Modern writers, as it frequently happens, assume that these expressions were used by them in
their modern sense.  If they will look a little deeper into
Christian antiquity, they will find ample evidence that they
were employed by the Fathers in a sense widely different
from their present.




334               THE APOSTLES' CREED.
Take the terms "one," or the "same."  Nothing is susceptible of clearer proof, than that the Fathers, when they
speak of the Son as of one or the same nature with God, refer,
not to a numerical, but only to a specific sameness. All they
meant was, that the Son partook of one and the same specific
nature with the Father, - that is, a divine; just as two individuals of our race partake of one and the same specific nature, - that is, a human; divine begetting divine, as human
begets human.  They never regarded them as constituting
numerically one being. Modern Trinitarians use the term as
referring to a numerical identity.  Of this the Fathers never
dreamed. They found no difficulty in calling the Son "God";
for, according to the prevailing views of the age, the term did
not necessarily imply self-existence.  The Son was God, as
they explained it, in virtue of his birth, his derivation from
the Father; the divine nature being transmitted. So Justin
Martyr, speaking of the Son, says, " Who, since he is the firstbegotten Logos of God, is God."
Another term employed in connection with the Trinity, and
the use of which tends to mislead, is hypostasis, understood by
the moderns in the theological sense of person as distinguished
from substance, but uniformly, by the old Fathers, in the sense
of essence.  Thus, when they call the Father and the Son
two hypostases, they mean two in essence; that is, constituting
two real beings.
Again: the creed of Nice tells us that the Son is consubstantial, of the same substance with the Father.  But this
term was used by the Fathers, not in its modern sense, but
in the old Platonic signification, to express, as we have said,
specific sameness of nature, sameness of kind, similarity, likeness. The Son was of like nature with the Father, not nlumerically the same being. So the Fathers of Nice, as Eusebius
in his letter to his people tells us, understood the term.  So it
was used by the Council of Chalcedon, if their language has
any consistency; and so Athanasius himself, in his earlier
writings, distinctly explains it, taking the examples of a man
and a dog.  One man, he tells us, is consubstantial with
another, and so is one dog; but a dog and a man are not
consubstantial.




LANGUAGE OF THE FATHERS MISINTERPRETED.    335
The epithet "eternal," sometimes applied to the Son, was
ambiguous; meaning, as the Fathers sometimes used it, simply
before the world was, or having no reference to any specific
time.  Whenever, in speaking of the Son, they used it in its
strict sense, it was in reference to a notion generally entertained by them, that the Son had, from all eternity, a sort of
potential existence in the Father; that is, as an attribute; 
his Logos, Reason, or Wisdom, which, by a voluntary act of
the Father, was converted into a real being, and became his
instrument in forming the world.
Writers do not discriminate. They go on the supposition,
as we have said, that the language, which occurs in the writings of the Fathers, respecting the Father, Son, and Spirit,
was uniformly employed by them in its modern and acquired
signification.
The current language (not occasionally an "unguarded
expression ") of all the ante -Nicene Fathers, understood
according to correct principles of interpretation, shows that
they held the Son to be inferior to the Father, and a distinct
being from  him; and the Nicene Creed teaches no other
doctrine.
The confident assertion now sometimes made by Trinitarians, that the early Fathers were sound on the subject of the
Trinity, will not do. The Trinity of the Fathers differed
from the modern doctrine in the following particulars. First,
as regards the Father and Son, they asserted, in the first
place, the real subordination and inferiority of the latter to the
former in his whole nature. As a real person or individual
being, they did not, in the second place, hold the proper eternity of the Son; though they believed, that as an attribute or
property of the Father, which in their view he originally was,
he had always subsisted, since there never was a time when
the Father was without reason, wisdom, logos. In the third
place, they did not admit that the Son was numerically the
same being with the Father, but only of the same specific or
common nature, — that is, divine; being not God himself,
* An attribute might be said to have a sort of potential self-subsistence or
personality, which became real by a voluntary act of the Father converting
it into a distinct self-conscious being.




336                 THE APOSTLES' CREED.
but, by birth and derivation, like him, as a human being is like
the parent, or of like nature with him; in this sense, consubstantial.  In regard to the Spirit, the difference was still
greater.
Of this disparity, admitted by learned Trinitarians, writers
frequently take no notice. Yet, until it can be disproved, it
is an abuse of language, a fallacy, a gross imposition, to affirm
that the Fathers bear uniform testimony to the Trinity.  To
prove this, it is necessary to show, not merely that the expressions still current on the subject are found in the writings of
the early Fathers, but that these expressions were used by
them in the sense they now bear among approved Trinitarians; a task which has never yet been accomplished, and
never will be.
They who affirm that the early Fathers were not believers
in the Trinity, according to modern explanations of the doctrine, are sometimes charged with ignorance of Christian antiquity. But let us see how this matter stands. WVill any
one charge Petavius, author of the "Dogmata Theologica,"
with ignorance of Christian antiquity?  Was Huet, Bishop
of Avranches, and author of the " Origeniana," ignorant?
Was Cudworth ignorant?  Yet with these, and many others
we could name,- good Trinitarians too, — the asserter of the
orthodoxy of the Fathers, in the modern sense, will find himself directly at issue.
Petavius adduces a great mass of evidence to show that the
most distinguished of the Fathers, before the Council of Nice,
taught the inferiority of the Son to the Father, and of the
Spirit to the Son.*
"' Certainly," says Huet, " Tatian, and an older than Tatian,
- Justin, -taught erroneous views of the Trinity."  Theophilus of Antioch, he says, " falls under the same censure."
With others it was still worse.  " For," he continues, " things
shameful and not to be endured were uttered by Tertullian
and Lactantius, as also by Clement, Dionysins, and Pierius of
* See, particularly, De Trinitate, lib. i. cc. 3, 4, 5. Will any say, that Petavius, as a Catholic, was interested in depressing the ancient Fathers, as the
Protestants made use of them in the Popish controversy? They must be
aware that this is not to refute him.




STATEMENTS OF PROFESSOR STUART.           337
Alexandria, and many others."  When Bellarmine, he says
still further, " defends Origen on the ground, that (his preceptor Clement, and his disciples Dionysius of Alexandria and
Gregory Thaumaturgus, being sound and orthodox) we are
authorized to infer that the same doctrine which he received
friom Clement he himself held and transmitted to his followers,
he could have said nothing more injurious to the cause of
Origen; for no one of the three held the Trinity in its purity
and integrity.  For Clement so distinguished between the
substance of the Father and that of the Son as to make the
latter inferior; and Dionysius said the Son was a creation
(work) of the Father, and dissimilar to him; and spake unbecomingly of the Spirit, as we are told by Basil, who also
censures Gregory Thaumaturgus for teaching plainly that the
Son was created." "Finally," he says,'' it is evident, that
not indeed in the days of Basil, and even in times more
recent, did the Catholics dare openly profess the divinity of
the Spirit." *
We might multiply quotations of a similar import from modern Trinitarian writers, whom it will not do to charge with
ignorance of Christian antiquity. The late Professor Stuart
made some statements on the subject, which, coming from
such a source, are worthy of notice. They occur in the articles on Schleiermacher, in the numbers of the "Biblical Repository and Quarterly Observer" for April and July, 1835.
They are at variance with the professor's fbrmer statements
relating to the opinions of the early Fathers. He thinks them
more accurate, as they are the result of a more intimate acquaintance with the writings of the Fathers.  The views of
the Nicene Fathers, he tells us, "if he understands thern," do
"really and effectually interfere with the true equality, in
substance, power, and glory, of the three persons, or distinctions, in the Godhead." The Son and Spirit, he says, according to them, are derived beings; and derivation implies inferiority.  "A  derived God," he says, "cannot be a self-existent
God."  The numerical identity of the Father and Son, he
affirms, was not a doctrine of the ancient Fathers.  "Justin,"
he observes, 1"says in so many words that the Logos (Son) is
* }Iuet. Orig., lib. ii. c. ii.; quest. 2, ~ 10.
22




338               THE APOSTLES' CREED.
different from the Father, and another in number."  In regard
to the unity and distinction of the Father and Son, he says,
the "zeal of Origen led him  to a theory in no important respect better than that of Arius."'Such was the case, too,
with Eusebius the historian "; and " Dionysius names the Son
a creation and work of the. Father."  The Council of Nice, he
says, according to Athanasius, "did not mean to assert the
numerical unity of the Godhead "; and much more to the
same purpose.  The result is, that the Fathers generally,
before and at the Council of Nice, asserted the Son to be
inferior to the Father, and numerically a being different from
him.
In regard to Origen, the great Alexandrian teacher, Professor Stuart says, "Son and Spirit, according to him, have
their origin as hypostases in the free will of the Father: they
are subordinate to him, though they are the exact reflection
of his glory. The unity of the Godhead is a unity of will, a
harmony of design and operation; not a numerical or substantial unity, against which he strongly protests.'The Father,'
says he,' is the ground-cause or original source of all.  Inferior to the Father is the Son, who operates merely on rational
beings; for he is second to the Father.  Still more inferior is
the Holy Spirit, whose influence is limited to the Church.
The power of the Father, then, is greater than the power'of
the Son and of the Spirit; the power of the Son is greater
than that of the Holy Ghost; and, lastly, the power of the
Holy Ghost is greater than that of all other beings.' "
So says Professor Stuart. He goes at large into an examination of the opinions of the ante-Nicene Fathers, and the
views at which he arrives, expressed in his clear and strong
style, fully sustain us in tie statements made in the preceding
pages.  Men far inferior to Professor Stuart in vigor of intellect and patristic learning may hazard the assertion, that the
ante-Nicene Fathers and the early Church generally were
Trinitarian in the present sense of the term. It is a hardy
assertion, opposed to evidence written, as with a sunbeam, on
every page of Christian antiquity.
Several of the Fathers themselves roundly tax the more
ancient Fathers with unsoundness on the subject of the Trin



COUNCILS REJECTING THE NICENE FAITH.            339
ity. Origen is sometimes referred to as a witness for the
Trinity.  We have seen what Huet and Professor Stuart
thought of him. Jerome thought no better; for he accuses
him of asserting that the Son was " not begotten, but made." X
Basil the Great is quoted and extolled. But what was Basil's
opinion of the ante-Nicene Fathers?  What he says of Dionysius and Gregory Thaurnmaturgus — authorities sometimes.
used by Trinitarians -  has been just quoted.  Of Dionysius
he says further, that he " sowed the seeds of the Anomnean
[Arian] impiety; for he not only made a diversity of persons
between the Father and the Son, but a difference of essence,
taking away their consubstantiality."  The same Basil admits
that the old Fathers were "silent" on the question of the
Spirit; and says, that they who acknowledged its divinity, in
his day, were "-condemned as introducing novel dogmas on
the subject."  Rufinus accuses Clement of Alexandria of calling the Son a "creature "; and Dionysius, he says, "in his
zeal against Sabellianism, fell into Arianism."
Such (and we might add to the number) are some of the
authorities among the Fathers.  Were these Fathers " ignorant of Christian antiquity "? They were themselves ancient,
"primitive," according to the standard of antiquity sometimes
adopted.  Have they, then, borne false witness of each other
and of themselves?  This supposition is hardly consistent with
the title to exalted veneration so freely accorded to them.Let the appeal be made to councils.   The Council held
at Antioch, A. D. 341, expressly declared against the Nicene
faith; rejected the term  "consubstantial "; and in favor of
their own views, appealed to the testimony of antiquity.: The
term was rejected also from  the creed of the third Council of
Sirmium, which, says Du Pin, is Arian, but which Hosius,
* Epist. 59, al. 94, ad Avitum.
t It is amusing to find one quoting Eusebius the historian as an undoubted
Trinitarian, and quoting, too, from his letter to his people from Nice; which,
if it is to be trusted (and it is confirmed in the main by the testimony of Athanasius), shows that neither Eusebius nor the council were Orthodox in the
modern sense of the term. Eusebius was in no good repute for orthodoxy
among the Fathers. "An Arian," says Athanasius; the " prince of Arians,'
exclaims Jerome; "an Arian, and worse than an Arian," adds Nicephorus.
t Soc., lib. ii. c. 10; Soz., lib. iii. c. 5.




340               THE APOSTLES' CREED.
long one of the pillars of the Nicene faith, in an evil hour, as
the Orthodox will have it, signed. Still further, it was anathematized by the Council of Philippopolis; condemned by that of
Antioch, holden soon after; by the fifth of Sirmium; by those
of Seleucia and Ariminum  (Rimini), and others.  In regard
to the Council of Ariminum, we are told, that, notwithstanding
the efforts of the Arians, the "influence of the em.peror, and
the apprehension of banishment and persecution," the f6ur
hundred bishops assembled there "determined to adhere to
the Nicene Confession, and solemnly republished it as the
symbol of the Catholic faith."  And yet, all this notwithstanding, it is quite certain that these bishops generally, before the
council broke up, did recede from the determination, violate
their constancy, and sign a creed of a very different import;
being one recently drawn up at Sirmium, in opposition to the
Nicene symbol. Du Pin says that " all the bishops signed ";
and thus, says he, " ended this council, whose beginning was
glorious; and end, deplorable." *
And yet the opponents of the Trinity are asked to " point
out only one council which adopted their sentiments." That
the Council of Rimini before its close, and others just named,
and more we might mention, rejected the Athanasian Trinity,
we want no better evidence than the fact, that they openly
declared against the Nicene Creed, and uniformly condemned
and rejected from their symbols the term  "consubstantial,"
which had been from the first exceedingly obnoxious to the
Arians, but which the Orthodox made the very watchword of
their party.  True, the Arians believed in a sort of Trinity;
and so do we: but not a Trinity in Unity; nor did they.  We
believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and so
did they: but we do not believe that these three are numerically one or equal; nor did they or any of the ante-Nicene
Fathers. Though these Fathers held language respecting the
Father and the Son of which the Arians disapproved, they
stopped short, as we have before said, of the doctrine of the
numerical identity of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
H* ist. of Eccles. Writers, vol. ii. p. 264. To the time of the above-mentioned council, Jerome refers, when he says, " The whole world groaned to
find itself Arian."




THE ATHANASIAN CREED.                  341
We challenge any one to produce a single writer of any note,
during the first three ages, who held this doctrine in the modern sense.
We beg leave, however, to say, that we do not consider
the Athanasian Creed as evidence of the faith of primitive
antiquity, exactly. It is sometimes quoted as a genuine relic
of antiquity, and as really a production of Athanasius himself.
It is, roundly asserted that it was "published at Rome, A. D.
340"!  Of this there is not the least shadow of proof; the
statements of Baronius, and some other Romish writers of the
same stamp, being wholly unsupported. Neither Athanasius,
nor any writer of his own or of the next century, ever alludes
to it in any of their writings now extant.  No mention of it
occurs of a date prior to the sixth century, and some of the
writings in which we find the earliest allusions to it are of
doubtful genuineness. In regard to Athanasius, says Du Pin,
"all the world agrees't was none of his, but some authors that
liv'd a long time after him....'T is certain that't was compos'd
after the Council of Chalcedon," A. D. 451.*  "That which
is called the Creed of Athanasius," says Bishop Tomline,
" was certainly not written by that Father.... It was never
heard of till the sixth century, above a hundred years after the
death of Athanasius..... It cannot now be ascertained who
was its real author:... it had never the sanction of any
council."t   It was "the  composition," says Dr. Samuel
Clarke, "of an uncertain obscure author, written (not certainly known whether) in Greek or Latin, in one of the darkest and most ignorant ages of the Church." $  Bishop Pearson does not find it referred to before about the year 600.~
Hagenbach assigns the seventh century as the time of its general adoption.ll  It has been ascribed to various authors; to
Vigilius of Tapsus, in Africa, towards the close of the fifth
century; to Vincentius a monk of Lerins, also in the fifth
century; to a Gallican bishop of the sixth century.; by Dr.
Waterland to Hilary of Arles, in the fifth century; while
l Hist. Eccles. Writers, vol. ii. pp. 35, 36, ed. Lond., 1693.
t Elements of Christian Tlheoloqy, vol. ii. p. 219.
t Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 447, ed. Lond., 1712.
~ Exposition of the Creed, art. v.
il ext-Book, etc., Second Period, ~ 97.




842               THE APOSTLES' CREED.
Gieseler supposes that it originated in Spain, whence it was
carried into France.  Dr. Stanley, in his history of the Eastern Church, speaks of the creed as a "hymn"-the "ancient
hymn, i Quicumque vult.'"  He says, "the learned world is
now aware that it is of French or Spanish origin." " I wish,"
says Archbishop Tillotson, " we were well rid of it."




HYMNOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH.
CHAPTER I.
rHE HYMNOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH NOT TRINITARIAN. - SINGING AMONG THE EARLY CHRISTIANS. -FIRST REGULAR CHOIR. -FLAVIAN OF ANTIOCH. — AMBROSEI.- GREGORY. -HYMNS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH LOST.- EARLIEST WRITERS OF HYMNS.- BARDESANES.
— A RMONI US. - EPHREM. - ATTEMPT OF PAUL OF SAMOSATA TO RESTORE THE OLD MUSIC AND HYMNS.
THrE hymnology of the early Church was clearly not Trinitarian.  But, before we proceed to the subject of hymns, we
must say a few words on singing. Frequent notices of singing,
as forming part of the worship of the ancient Christians, occur
in the writings of the Fathers; but the manner of conducting
it is wholly matter of conjecture and inference.  It is certain
there could have been little art or refinement in the old singing. That musical taste should have been much cultivated
among the early believers, who had no temples or churches;
who assembled for worship in private dwellings, and, in times
of persecution, in caverns, on  shipboard, and  in whatever
secure and sequestered place could be found, and often in the
night,- would be an unnatural supposition.*  No doubt, their
* The time of the erection of the first Christian churches is unknown.
From Minutius Felix, who wrote early in the third century, it appears that
Christians in his time were reproached with having "neither temples nor
altars nor images"; and they confessed the fact. At this time, therefore,
Christian churches could not have been very common. Yet there is reason
to believe that they began to be reared as early, at least, as the end of the
second century.  If we could credit the Chronicle of Edessa, a Christian
church was destroyed in that place by an inundation, A. D. 202. This is the
first of which we have any express mention. Tertullian, who wrote about
the same period, seems to allude to places set apart for Christian worship (De
Idol., c. 7; De Corona MAil., c. 3). Tillemont (Hist. Eccles., t. iii. p. 120, ed.
Brux. 1732) finds the first mention of them, as known to the Heathen, in the




344                   ANCIENT HYMNOLOGY.
music, like the rest of their worship, was simple and inartificial enough; but it did not the less stir the soul for this reason.
The popular airs which become incorporated with the music
of a people are always simple, and are the more affecting for
being so. They are addressed to the feelings rather than to
the intellect; and the, feelings are always simple. In devotion, the heart leads; and it requires no intricate machinery
to put it in motion.  Reasoning may be cold and artificial;
but the characteristics of devotion are warmth and simplicity:
and, of these qualities, the ancient singing, we may suppose,
like much of that which stirred the heart of Germany in the
early days of the Reformation under Luther, and was again
revived by Wesley and his coadjutors, largely partook.   It
touched the chord of devotion. There was in it the religious
element; and to such music, we may add, - simple, earnest,
devout; having some definite expression, some power of concentrating the thoughts and feelings, -the heart of man, as
man, will be ever faithful.
The first regular choir of singers of which we have any
distinct account is that of Antioch, some fifty years after the
Council of Nice.  Flavian and Diodorus were priests of Antioch, both monks. The latter was at the head of the monastic school in that place, and had Chrysostom  for his pupil.
The former became Bishop of Antioch in the year 380.
Flavian generally has the credit of introducing the antiphonal
or responsive singing into the church there, though Theodoret
associates Diodorus with him. They were the first, Theodoret says, who " divided the choir, and taught them to sing the
time of Maximin, A. D. 235. During the persecution under him, Origen says,
they were burned. It would seem that they began to be built in considerable
numbers about the middle of the third century. Near its close, during the
period which immediately preceded the persecution under Diocletian, A. D.
303, Christians long enjoyed a state of palmy prosperity; and then edifices for
worship began to rise, marked by a splendor before unknown. " Christians,"
says Eusebius (lib. viii. c. 1), " were no longer content with the old edifices,
but erected spacious churches, from the very foundation, throughout all the
cities." The " old edifices " here spoken of, no doubt, were the first churches
of the Christians; which, having stood fifty years or a little more, - about
as long as the first humble edifices of worship erected in this country by our
Puritan Fathers, - and being found dilapidated, or insufficient to accommo-:late the number of worshippers, or too mean to satisfy a growing taste for
luxury and elegance, now yielded to more magnificent structures.




SINGING AMONG THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS.       345
Psalms of David responsively. This custom," he adds, " which
they thus originated in Antioch, spread everywhere, even to
the very ends of the habitable world." *
The primitive mode of singing among Christians is supposed
to have been congregational; the whole assembly (men, women, and children) uniting as with one voice. This mode was
undoubtedly practised; and, being less artificial than the other,
was probably the mode most in use among the early Christians.
That the other mode did not originate with  Flavian and
Diodorus, however, is evident from the fact, that it was in use
among the Jews.  From them it passed into the Christian
Church through the Jewish converts, and was probably never
wholly laid aside. In fact, the expression employed by Pliny,
in his letter to Trajan, at the beginning of the second century,
shows that the hymns to which he refers were sung by alternate
voices. It was the changes and improvements introduced by
Flavian and Diodorus, who possessed a regular choir, which
they had trained to the use of this mode, however, which
brought it into notice, and contributed to give it currency in
the Church.
The story of Socrates (that old Ignatius borrowed the idea
of the alternate or responsive singing from a vision of angels
which was accorded him, and thence introduced it into his
church, from which " it was transmitted by tradition to all the
other churches ") would not be worth noticing, were it not
that it gives intimation of\ what we have just said, - that this
mode of singing did not originate with Flavian.f  To this we
may add, that Theodore of Mopsuestia, who was a disciple of
Diodorus, says that he and Flavian only translated'into Greek
a service which had heretofore been performed in Syriac.
Ambrose, who became Bishop of Milan, A. D. 374, introduced the antiphonic or responsive singing into the West. He
had it, as Augustine, his friend and admirer, says,: from the
East; that is, from Antioch. He adopted it, says the same
writer, for the relief and refreshment it would afford the peoole, who might thus be prevented from languishing and consuming away in a tedious sorrow.  The Ambrosian chant
owed its origin to him.
* Hist., ii. 24.                       t Hist., vi. 8.
t Conf., lib. ix. cc. 6, 7. See also Paulinus's Life of Ambrose.




346                  ANCIENT HYMINOLOGY.
What improvements, if any, were introduced after the time
of Ambrose, and before the period of Gregory the Great, or
how the singing in the churches was conducted in the interval,
history does not inform us; at least, we have been able to
glean nothing worth relating on the subject.* Gregory the
Great, the first pope of the name, was consecrated to the office
of Supreme Pontiff, A. D. 590, after having in vain attempted
to shun the honor; to effect which, he had caused himnself to
be conveyed out of the city in a basket, and had concealed
himself in a cave. After his elevation, however, though, as it
appears, of an infirm constitution, he devoted himself to the
duties of his office with great assiduity. Among other enterprises, he undertook to reform the music of his church.  "Ecclesiastical writers," observes Dr. Burney, " seem unanimous
in allowing," that "c he collected the musical fragments of such
ancient hymns and psalms as the first Fathers of the Church
had approved and recommended to the primitive Christians;
and that he selected, methodized, and arranged them  in the
order which was long continued at Rome, and soon adopted by
the chief part of the Western Church." t We suppose he took
whatever had been in use among Christians of former ages,
which appeared suited to his purpose, without probably troubling himself to inquire by whose authority it had been introduced.  He also reformed the chant, which, since the time of
Ambrose, had undergone very little alteration; and introduced
what has since been known as the Gregorian, or plain chant.
He was opposed to the lively airs of the Pagan music, which
had come into the Church along with the lyric hymns; and
attempted to substitute something more grave in its place.
Undoubtedly he laid the foundation for an improved style; and
* The manner of conducting the singing appears to have varied in different
churches, and was sometimes made occasion of controversy. Basil, Bishop
of Coesarea in Cappadocia the latter part of the fourth century, was accused
of innovating by causing the prayers of the Church to be sung. He said, in
reply, that he only adhered to the ancient custom of the Church, which prevailed in Egypt, Libya, Phoenicia, Palestine, and Syria. In regard to the
prayers, it would not seem, from his own account, that he had the whole
sung; but he mixed up the responsive singing with the prayers in a manner
not accordant with the simplicity of the primitive worship.
t History of Music, vol. ii. p. 15. See also Maimbourg's account, quoted by
Sir John Hawkins, History of Music, b. iii. c. 8; and Bayle, art. " Gregory."




GREGORY. -THE OLDEST HYMNS.            347
deserves to be considered as a benefactor to sacred music,
however barbarous some of his changes may have been pronounced at the time or since. If he simplified the music of the
Church in some respects, however, in others he was accused of
encumbering it. Some of his friends were disgusted with the
new forms he adopted, particularly his imitation of the customs
of the church of Constantinople. They disliked exceedingly
his frequent introduction of o "hallelujahs," with various ascriptions, invocations, and phrases, to which their ears had been
heretofore unaccustomed; the repetition of the Lord's Prayer,
and other innovations, as they termed them. In favor of most
of his changes, he contrived to allege some pretence of antiquity,
particularly the repetition of "hallelujahs," which, he says,
Jerome took from the church of Jerusalem, and brought to
Rome in the time of Pope Damasus, in the fourth century.
It is asserted on th~e authority of John, a deacon of Rome,
who wrote his Life, that the original Antiphonariurn, or Choral
Book, of Gregoryv, was in existence in his time, near three
hundred years after Gregory's death; as also the bed on which
the old invalid pope lay, and the whip "wherewith he threatened the young clerks and the singing-boys, when they were
but, or failed in the notes ": for he instituted a school for the
education of his choir, and, it seems, did not consider it as
derogating from the dignity of his office to superintend it in
person.
But what account is to be given of the old hymns and their
writers? The hymns of the ancient Church, properly so called,
have not been preserved. We sometimes hear of the hymns
of the " primitive Church "; but no such hymns are now known
to be extant.  The term " primitive," as applied to hymns, is
as inappropriate as when applied to the Apostles' Creed. The
psalmody of the Old Testament, or compositions founded upon
it, were used; for which the songs of Zacharias, Mary, and
Simeon, as preserved in Luke's Gospel, furnished a precedent.
Some sublime and lyric expressions from the New Testament
might very naturally enter into these compositions. In addition
~.o these, the old believers had what were called " Hymns of
the Brethren," because composed by them; but these latter
have long since perished. We find no mention of any writer




348                ANCIENT HYMNOLOGY.
of hymns, by name, till near the expiration of the second
century from the birth of Christ; and have no remains of the
hymns, strictly so called, used during that period; nor do we
know anything of their nature, except what Pliny, referring
to his own time, tells us, in his well-known letter to Trajan,that they were sung in honor of Christ.  Origen, too, says
that Christians were accustomed to sing hymns to God and to
his only Son, as the Pagans to the sun, moon, and stars; and
others have expressed themselves in similar general terms.
The author of a work against the heresy of Artemon, quoted
by Eusebius, though his namB was unknown to the historian,
appeals to the " Psalms and Hymns of the Brethren, written,
at the beginning, by the faithful," and " setting forth the
praises of Christ, the Word of God, ascribing divinity to him
(OeoXoyo6vre;)," * but not the highest divinity.  This the word
or phrase does not imply; nor does tile belief of Christians of
the time and their usages of speech justify such an interpretation of it.t  The work Just referred to is now attributed
to Hippolytus.  The writers of the hymns, however, are not
named by him; and no fragment of the hymns is left us.
The statements above given, relating to the loss of the
hymns, properly so called, of the primitive Church, are confirmed by the researches of the learned Bunsen, the results of
which have -been recently published. HIe gives three specimens
of what he calls " genuine relics of ancient congregational or
domestic hymnology."
"Glory be to God on high;
And on earth, peace," &c., -
is one of them; called by Bunsen " the Hymn of Thanksgiving, or the Morning Hymn of the Early Church "; the same,
he thinks, alluded to by Pliny. It is lyric in its structure,
though without any trace of metre. Bunsen gives it in what
he considers its ancient form, which is much briefer and simpler
than its present. The time of its composition is unknown,
though Bunsen places it in its simpler form among the ante* Euseb. Hist., v. 28.
t Pliny's phrase (quasi Deo) is sometimes rendered, "as to God." This
is unauthorized. The Latin does not imply so much; nor would a Roman
have so understood it. The Earl of Orrery translates it correctly, "as to a
God." - Letters of Pliny the Younger, x. 97, Lond. 1751.




EARLIEST WRITERS OF HYMNS.               349
Nicene documents.  The other two are made up almost exclusively of verses from the Psalms; or, as Bunsen expresses
it, are "a cento of verses and hemistichs of psalms."  They
are what are called morning and evening " Psalmodic Hymns,"
though the Apostolical Constitutions give the song of Simeon
as an evening hymn.  These, Bunsen says, " are all the authentic and genuine remains we possess of the ante-Nicene
psalmody and hymnology of Christendom, as'far as it adopted
the Hebrew form."  "But we have," he says, " at least, one
composition of Hellenic source," sometimes called the " Hymn
of the Kindling of the Lamp."  This is old, no doubt; but
the date of its composition cannot be assigned. Bunsen gives
it as the " Evening Hymn of the Greek Christians." It begins,
" Serene Light of holy glory."  Such is the result of Bunsen's
antiquarian researches on this subject.*
The earliest writers of hymns, whose names are preserved,
belonged to the Syrian Church.  The first of any note is
Bardesanes, the heresiarch; a subtle, learned, and eloquent
writer, near the end of the second century. He is said, on
the authority of Ephrem  the Syrian, to have written one
hundred and fifty psalns or hymns, in elegant verse, in imitation of the Psalms of David; which contributed greatly to the
diffusion of his errors.  He corrupted the faith of the young in
particular, says Ephrem, by the " sweetness and beauty of his
verses." Harmonius, his son, inherited his father's genius for
poetry; and, after his example, composed a great number of
hymns and odes adapted to the lyre, by which he charmed the
ears of the people. From these sources, the Syrians eagerly
drank in the poison of heresy.  Unfortunately, however, the
hymns are lost; and we have no means, therefore, of ascertaining how far the praises bestowed on them were deserved.t
The infusion of heresy they contained, it appears, caused them
to be proscribed; and, no doubt, hastened their destruction.
They must have been in use, however, among the Syrians, for
a century, or a century and a half; for they retained their
* Analecta Ante-Niccena, vol. iii. pp. 86-89; Christianity and Mankind, vol. vii.
See also Hippolytus and his Age, vol. ii. pp. 50-52, and 98-102.
t See Sozomen, lib. iii. c. 16; Beausobre, Hist. de Manichee et du Manicheisme,
t. ii. p. 140; also Bardesanes Gnosticus Syrorumn Prinmus Hymnologus, by Itahn,
Lips. 1819.




350                 ANCIENT HYMNOLOGY.
popularity in the time of Ephrem the Syrian, above alluded to,
who flourished about A. D. 370, and whose writings were in
such esteem, says Jerome, that they were sometimes read in
the churches after the Scriptures.
Ephrem wrote hymns and odes by thousands.  He diligently
studied the poetical productions of Bardesanes and Harmonius,
who were his models, and whose sweetness he attempted to
emulate, in the hope of inducing his countrymen to lay aside
those pernicious compositions, and sing his own more orthodox
lays.*  Many of his hymns were, of necessity, of a controversial character.  His design was to set the Eastern world right,
on certain points of doctrine, in regard to which the abovenamed writers had led it astray. He succeeded in excluding
their hymns, and causing his own to be substituted in-their
place.  Their beauty was much vaunted by the Syrians; and
they are said to be used in their churches to the present day.
Multitudes of his hymns, or hymns attributed to him, on various incidents in our Saviour's history and life, his passion,
resurrection, and ascension, on the dead, and in celebration of
the martyrs, and on other subjects, are still preserved among
his works. But whatever sweetness they possessed, or may
possess, to the Syrian ear, modern lovers of poetry among us,
we fear, will find in them few charms.  Their sweetness, like
some subtile perfume, seems to have evaporated with time.t
The connection of Ephrem  with Bardesanes has led us to
anticipate a little. Returning to the beginning of the third
century, it is only necessary to mention a hymn printed with
the writings of Clement of Alexandria, and by some attributed to him. It is of uncertain authorship, however; and is
a hymn of a very ordinary character.:   Beryllus, bishop of
X Soz., iii. 16; Theod., iv. 29. See also Asseman. Biblioth. Orient., t. i.
art. " Ephrem," who was called the Prophet of the Syrians, and Harp of the
Holy Spirit.
t A selection of them has recently been published in Germany, with a
glossary for the use of students, in Syriac, under the following title: "Chrestomathia Syriaca, sive S. Ephraemi Carmina Selecta. Ediderunt Notis criticis
philologicis historicis et Glossario locupletissimo illustraverunt Augustus Hahn
at Fr. Ludovicus Sieffert." Lipsiae, 1825.
$ See Fabricius, Biblioth. Grcec., lib. v. c. 1. Fabricius gives two hymns,
reported to be ancient, the authors of which are not known. We pass over
two or three Syriac writers about the time of Bardesanes, or a little later, as
not of sufficient importance to require notice.




HYMNOLOGISTS OF THE THIRD CENTURY.        351
Bostra in Arabia, was a writer of hymns. Passing by Hippolytus, who wrote odes on the Scriptures, which are lost, and
Athenogenes the martyr, who is reported by Basil to have
been the author of a hymn, which he delivered to the bystanders at the moment of his death, and which is also lost, we
next come to Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, who flourished a
little before the middle of the third century. Nepos wrote a
treatise on the millennium; in reply to which, Dionysius of
Alexandria, in a p'assage preserved by Eusebius,* and written
after the death of Nepos, speaks of him with affection, and
mentions, among his other merits, that he composed "much
psalmody," with which many of the brethren continued to be
delighted.  The character of his productions, however, is
matter of conjecture; no fragment of them hlaving been
preserved.
We come next to the famous Paul of Samosata.  Of Paul
we know little, except from the representations of his enemies,
which are to be listened to with great distrust. That he enjoyed the friendship of Zenobia, the celebrated Queen of Palmyra, and found an unrelenting foe in Aurelian, the murderer
of Longinus, is certainly no discredit to him. That he was
too fond of pomp and display, and in other respects exhibited
an inordinate vanity, is not to be doubted. To his many
popular qualities and eminent gifts of intellect, he added the
zeal of a reformer; which, after all, we suspect, was his great
crime in the eye of the bishops, - an offence they could never
forgive. He contended for what he regarded as the ancient
simplicity of the doctrine of Christ. He undertook also to
reform the psalmody of his church; abolishing the psalms and
hymns then in use, as " recent, and the compositions of modern
men." It is added, that, on a certain occasion, - the festival
of Easter, -he " appointed women to sing psalms in his own
commendation in the body of the church." But this, it must
be recollected, is the charge of his enemies; and is to be taken,
it may be presumed, with some grains of allowance. As none
of the hymns alluded to remain, we cannot judge of their
import for ourselves. It can hardly be supposed, however,
that one, zealous, as was Paul, to restore the old doctrine and
H* ist., vii. 24.




352               ANCIENT HYMNOLOGY.
old music; who rejected the hymns in use in his church, on
the ground that they were novel, and, as we may suppose, in
his opinion, inculcated sentiments at variance with the ancient
faith, - would be guilty of all the innovations and extravagance
attributed to him.*
* See Letter of the Bishops, Euseb. Hist., vii. 80.




ARIUS AND OTHERS, WRITERS OF HYMNS. —THE "TE DEUM." 353
CHAPTER II.
ARIUS AND OTHERS, WRITERS OF HYMNS. - THE " TE DEUM." -PRUDENTIUS. - THE POETICAL FATHERS. - NOCTURNAL STREET-SINGING
AT CONSTANTINOPLE. -COUNCIL OF LAODICEA ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE
CHURCH  MUSIC. - SIMPLICITY  OF THE ANCIENT DOXOLOGY. - NO
TRACE OF THE TRINITY.
AMONG other hymnologists whose names have come down
to us, though not belonging to a very early period of the
Church, it is sufficient to mention Arius and his contemporary Juvencus, the hymns of both of whom have perished;
and Hilary of Poictiers, who is said by Jerome to have written a " book " of hymns, which, however, has fared no better
than the productions of his predecessors. Envious time has
devoured all.
We must pause a moment over the name of Ambrose, who
also wrote several hymns; among which Augustine mentions
the "Deus Creator Omnium." *  The others, which sometimes go under his name, and some of which are found in the
Breviaries, are of uncertain authorship.t
* Confi, lib. x. c. 12.
t The tradition which makes the " Te Deum Laudamus ". the joint production of Ambrose and Augustine, first sung by them at the baptism of the latter by Ambrose, or which asserts (for such is one version of the story) that it
was received by Augustine, while at the font, as the effect of sudden inspiration, has been long exploded. By common consent of critics, it is referred to
a later age. Archbishop Usher states some reasons for ascribing it to Nicetius, Bishop of Treves, a hundred years after Augustine's death, or to another
of the same name; though some fragments of old hymns may have entered
into its composition. (De Sygmbolis, p. 3. See also Bingham, Antiquities of the
Christian Church, b. xiv. oh. ii. ~ 9; and Tentzel, referred to by Le Clerc;
Biblioth. Univ. et Hist., t. xxv. p. 57.)  " Illic apostolorum gloriosus chorus, illic
prophetarum exsultantium numerus, illic martyrum innumerabilis populus ob
certaminis et passionis victoriam  coronatus," etc., occurs in Cyprian, who
wrote in the former part of the third century (De Mortalitate, ad fin.).
Augustine, though no poet, yet occasionally, it seems, tried his hand at
writing hymns. He has one on the Donatist controversy. Gray, the poet,
quotes some jingling lines of Augustine, in which rhyme occurs in the middle
of the verse, to show that rhyming verses were known in the Church as early
23




354                 ANCIENT HYMNOLOGY.
We must add a few words on Prudentius, the best known
and most esteemed of the earlier Christian poets. The extravagant praise bestowed on him by some of the old ecclesiastical writers, however, is only proof of the dearth of good
poetry in the Church.
Prudentius was a Spaniard, born in 348.  In h]is youth he
applied himself to the study of eloquence.  He afterwards
became an advocate; and having passed through several offices
of honor and trust, both civil and military, lie finally renounced
secular employments, and devoted his last days to the writing
of verses, in which he sung the praises of Christ and the martyrs, and vigorously combated heretics and pagans.  But
either he was not born for a poet, or age had effectually extinguished his imagination and fire before he sought the society
of the Muses.  His productions, in truth, exhibit a very moderate share of poetic genius, and retain strong traces of the
degenerate taste of the day. His versification is negligent,
prosaic, and often harsh; he is not sufficiently attentive to
quantity; and, in his general style, he gives evidence that he
had not made the models of classical antiquity his study.
But, however inferior may be his merit as a poet, his productions contain frequent allusions to the opinions and usages
of Christians of his time, which render them not without value
as sources of history.
There have been several editions of his works.  A beautiful edition, printed at Rome in 1788, in two quarto volumes,
contains, besides his larger poems, twenty-six hymns, part of
them designed for daily use, and part on the " Crowns of the
Martyrs," especially those of his own nation.  These hymns
vary in length, from one hundred to eleven hundred verses.
Though apparently not designed for church service, portions
of them were from time to time introduced into the Breviaries, particularly the Spanish. They are written in different metres, partly lyric and partly heroic.
The humanity of the poet appears in some sentiments he
has incidentally thrown out; as, that the number of the imas about A. D. 420. The most ancient instance of rhyming, however, he ob.
serves, after Sir William Temple, is that of the Emperor Adrian, A. D. 137.
(Gray's W'orks, by Mathias, vol. ii. p. 31.) For some remarks on tile early
use of rhyme, see also Buckle's History of Ciuilzation in Englund, vol. i. p. 213,
ed. New York, 1858.




PRUDENTIUS.                     355
pious who will be suffered finally to perish are few, and the
damned find occasional respite from their pains, being allowed
one holyday each year, or night rather, -that on which
Christ left the region of Hades.* The sentiments of the Fathers touching the state of the dead, indeed, were, as it is well
known, various. Even Augustine believed that souls in hell
had, at times, some relaxation of their sufferings.  Origen
contrived, finally, to save even the Devil; and there is not an
opinion so extravagant, that an advocate for it may not be
found among the old Fathers of the Church.
At the close of the poem called " Hamartigenia," or " Birth
of Sin," we find a somewhat singular prayer of Prudentius,
which has given offence to some, as savoring of impiety. It
certainly savors of modesty; but we see nothing impious in it.
He prays, that, when he shall die, he may see no fierce and
truculent Devil, terrible by his menacing looks and voice, who
shall immure his soul in dark caverns till he shall exact to the
uttermost farthing the debt due for the sins of his whole life.
He aspires not to a seat among the happy. It is sufficient for
him, he says, if he behold the face of no infernal demon, and
the fires of insatiate Gehenna devour not his soul, plunged
into its lowest furnaces. He consents, he says, since a corrupt nature requires it, that the dismal fires of Avernus shall
receive him: only, says he, let their heat be moderated; let
them not glow with too intense an ardor. Let others have
their temples adorned with glorious crowns, and dwell in
regions of purest light: only let it be my punishment to be
gently burned.t
It does not appear whether Prudentius expected these fires
to be temporary, or such as were afterwards known under the
name of fires of purgatory; or whether what he meant to say
was, that he should be satisfied to be moderately scorched
through eternity. In either case, the prayer is a very humble
one; though, as we said, we see no impiety in it. But, in
truth, Prudentius, by his own confession, had, in his youth,
led a very wicked life.t
* It has puzzled commentators sadly to determine, whether the spirits here
referred to are spirits of the damned, or those only in purgatory.
t Hamart., ver. 931 et seqq.
t See Prooem. Operum, in which he has givea a short account of his life.




356                    ANCIENT HYMNOLOGY.
Prudentius had numerous imitators, whose names have long
ago sunk into obscurity; if, indeed, they can be said ever to
have emerged from it; and, in the destruction of their works,
the world has probably sustained but trifling loss.*
An instance of the use of doctrinal hymns occurs about the
time of Prudentius. The story is related by the two historians Socrates and Sozomen.t'The Arians of Constantinople,
then a powerful party, being deprived of their churches within
the city, were in the habit, on solemn festivals and on the first
and last days of the week, of meeting together about the public piazzas, and there singing their responsive hymns. They
then took their' way to their places of worship, which were
without the walls of the city, so perambulating the streets, and
passing the greater part of the night there, all the while
chanting their Arian hymns, much to the annoyance of Orthodox ears, which could not endure to hear such expressions as
the following: "Wliere are they who affirm  that three are
one power?" which frequently resounded through the nocturnal air.  The annoyance was not all.  The faithful, it was
feared, might be drawn away by the seductions of heretical
* In the notice above taken of the writers of ancient hymns, we have mentioned most of the poetical Fathers, as they may be called. There are a few
others, however, who may be entitled to notice. Lactantius, who died about
the year 325, or between 825 and 330, is mentioned by Jerome as the author
of some poems; and three or four attributed to him are still inserted in the
volumes of his works. But they are, to say the least, of doubtful genuineness, and probably belong to some other writer or writers. They are short,
and of little value. Fritzsche inserts them in his edition of the works of Lactantius, Leips. 1844, in his preface giving the authorities for and against their
genuineness. (Gersdorf's Biblioth. Patr. Lat., vol. xi.) In the same century, a
little later, we have Apollinaris and his son, who, when the Emperor Julian
(A. D. 362) prohibited Christians from reading the classical books of the ancients, undertook to furnish what were called Christian classics: the one
translating the Pentateuch into heroic verse, in imitation of Homer, and forming the rest of the Old Testament into comedies, tragedies, and odes, in imitation of Pindar, Euripides, and Menander; and the other taking the New
Testament, which he transformed, Gospels, Epistles, and all, into dialogues,
after the manner of Plato. Damasus, too, Bishop of Rome, about the same
time, was the author of some worthless verses.  Gregory Nazianzen, who
died A. D. 398, left a large number of poems, mostly the fruits of his old age.
In one of them, he gives an account of his own life. Anotlher is entitled "A
Farewell to the Devil."  Mrs. Jameson pronounces his poems "beautiful";
but how she is to be understood when she calls him the " earliest Christian
poet on record," it is difficult to say.
t Soc., lib. vi. c. 8; Soz., lib. viii. c. 8,




COUNCIL OF LAODICEA ATTEMPTS REFORM.        357
music.  Chrysostom, then Bishop of Constantinople, was
alarmed; and not thinking it prudent, in so dangerous a crisis.
to rely exclusively on the charms of his eloquence, he resolved
to combat the heretics with their own weapons. He consequently instituted musical processions, attended with great
pomp and show; his choir traversing the streets, shouting
their homoousian hymns in the ear of night, preceded by persons bearing aloft silver crosses, surmounted by lighted waxen
tapers, which the Golden-mouthed had invented, the Empress
Eudoxia defraying the expense.  The result was such as
might have been anticipated.  Discord ensued.  The hostile
parties came into collision, and an affray took place in the
streets, during which several lives were lost, and the empress's
eunuch, Briso, who had acted in the capacity of singing-master
to the Orthodox choir, received a wound in his forehead. The
emperor, incensed in consequence, prohibited the Arians from
singing their hymns any more in public.
The subject of hymns and singing engaged occasionally the
attention of councils.  One instance of the kind we recollect,
not far from the time at which the events just related occurred.
We refer to the Council of Laodicea. This council, in its fifty.
ninth canon, prohibits the use of private psalms in churches,
as well as the reading of all uncanonical books of the Old and
New Testament.  Some irregularities and extravagances must
have given rise to a regulation of this sort. It would be construing the canon too rigorously, we think, to suppose, with
some, that it was intended to exclude the use of all psalms,
except those taken from the Bible, and which were distinguished
from private, as being derived from inspiration; for psalms or
hymns, "' written by the brethren," were in use, as we have
seen, from the first. It was probably meant to exclude those
only which had not received some public sanction; as that of
the congregation, or perhaps of the bishops, whose power and
prerogatives were now rapidly increasing. Of this we have
evidence in the thirteenth canon of the same council, which
ordains that the " choice of bishops shall not be left wholly to
the people," - a regulation which clearly shows that the people had hitherto been accustomed to elect their bishops, as they
had been, no doubt, to use their discretion in regard to the
hymns. But this point we do not now discuss.




358                  ANCIENT HYMNOLOGY.
This liberty enjoyed by congregations or churches or choirs,
or others who had control of the psalmody, it was thought,
had been abused; and complaints were uttered that " ecclesiastical music had taken too artificial and theatrical a direction."
"We find," says Neander, "the Egyptian abbot Pambo, in
the fourth century, inveighing against the introduction of
Heathen melodies into church psalmody; and the abbot Isidore
of Pelusium complaining of the theatrical style of singing,
particularly among the women, which, instead of exciting
emotions of penitence, served rather to awaken sinful passions."
Pambo, speaking of the too artificial church music of Alexandria, says, " The monks have not retired into the desert to
sing beautiful melodies, and move hands and feet."  Jerome,
too, condemns the use of " theatrical songs and melodies " in
the church.*
After this slight sketch, it will appear on how frail a foundation any collection purporting to give the hymns of the
primitive Church must rest.   There are not half a dozen
hymns, we will venture to say, in' existence, - certainly not
in the Western Church, -  which can be traced back to the
time of the Council of Nice (A. D. 325), or to within about
half a century of that' time.t  Some of the doxologies, or
scraps of doxologies, and ascriptions, belong, as we have seen,
to an earlier period; though their original form has not, in all
instances, been retained.
The testimony afforded by the old doxologies to the simplicity of the ancient faith, especially to the supremacy of the
Father and the distinct and subordinate nature of the Son, and
to the Spirit as a ministration, we regard as of great weight.
They are probably the primitive doxologies. Short, simple,
incorporated with the general sentiment, and entering into
* Hist. of the Christ. Relig. and Chtlrch, vol. ii. p. 318.
t If we except the hymns of Ephrem, - the use of which has, we suppose,
been confined wholly or chiefly to the Eastern Church, - we might add another
century; at the expiration of which, or soon after, we find Prudentius. His
hymns, as we have said, were not designed for church service, though parts
of some of them found their way into the Breviaries. Most of the Roman
hymns are of far more recent origin than the time of Prudentius, or even of
Gregory; and few of them, it is presumed, can now be traced to their authors.
There are said to be many inedited hymns deposited in the Vatican Library
and in other places; but none of them, probably, are very ancient (see Hahn's
Chrestom. Sqyriaca, before referred to, Pref., p. viii.).




ANCIENT HYMNOLOGY NOT TRINITARIAN.       359
almost every act of worship, the doxologies of Christians were
little liable to change, and would naturally retain their original
form, even after that form should begin to conflict with the
doctrines and expositions embraced by speculative minds. In
these doxologies, it is clear, is contained the old faith, —the
primitive theology of the Church; and their language is as
decidedly opposed to the Trinity as any language can be.
The hymnology of the ancient Church, so far as it is known
to us, certainly furnishes no support to the Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity.  The testimony of Pliny, that the Christians of his day sang their morning hymn to Christ as to God,
or a God, coming from one educated(in a belief of Heathen
mythology, is nothing to the point. The fragments of Hebrew
psalmody or hymnology, given by Bunsen as ante-Nicene, the'Trisagion, or " Thrice Holy," and other scriptural phraseology
used in chants or ascriptions, are not Trinitarian. Flavian of
Antioch, who has been already mentioned as introducing the
responsive singing there at the end of the fourth century,
further innovated by using as a doxology the words, " Glory
be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit";
language, before that time, wholly unknown.  The oldest
hymns extant contain no Trinitarian doxology. When such
a doxology is found at the end of any of them, we know that
this part of the hymn is comparatively modern; of which, examples enough might be given, were it worth while.




ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE
TRINITY.
CHAPTER I.
REMAINS OF ANCIENT CHRISTIAN ART BEAR TESTIMONY TO THE LATE
ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY. - THE FATHER: HOW REPRESENTED. —
EARLIER AND LATER REPRESENTATIONS OF THE SON.
FROM hymnology we turn to early Christian art; and we do
not find the Trinity there. A very curious and interesting
work —important, too, as contributing to a knowledge of
Christian history and the ideas underlying it -was published
a few years ago in Paris; from which may be gleaned valuable
materials which illustrate the late origin of the doctrine of the
Trinity.*  The author, M. Didron, did not write for any doctrinal or theological purpose: he is exclusively artistic. But
he is all the better for that as an authority in the present case,
since he cannot be accused of being swayed by partiality, favor,
prejudice, or antipathy. He thought not of the applications
which might be made of his descriptions and statements. His
work is that of a Trinitarian and a Catholic; yet those portions of it which relate to the earlier Christian art bear testimony which is clear enough —testimony which no crossquestioning can weaken or invalidate - against the Trinity as
a doctrine of the ancient Church. In truth, the doctrine of
the Trinity is no more found in the relics which are preserved
of Christian art belonging to the Church's elder days, than in
the literary remains of her great teachers. In art, the Trinity
was eight or nine centuries in shaping itself into forms resembling those afterwards more fully developed.  "There exists
* "Iconographie Chrdtienne. Histoire de Dieu; par M. Didron, de la Bib.
liotheque Royale, Secrdtaire du Comitd Historique des Arts et Monuments."
Paris, 1843; 4to, pp. 624.




SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATIONS.               361
no group of the Trinity really complete," says Didron~ "in
the catacombs, nor on the old sarcophagi.  We frequently see
Jesus, but either isolated, or, at most, accompanied by the
dove, which designates the Holy Spirit. We perceive a hand
(which must be that of God the Father) holding a crown over
the head of the Son, but in the absence of the Holy Spirit.
The cross and the lamb, which symbolize the Son, the hand,
which reveals the Father, the dove, which sometimes represents the Spirit, are frequently painted in fresco or sculptured
on marble. But these symbols are almost always isolated, very
rarely united in the same place or on the same monument:
they are rarely seen grouped or combined."    In a group -
executed in mosaic, about the commencement, as it is said, of
the fifth century, a voice (how indicated, we are not told)
represents the Father; a lamb designates the Son; and a
dove, the Holy Spirit.  This, or a similar group, also appears
in the sixth, eighth, and ninth centuries; but is rare.  These
are the first traces of the Trinity in art. But it is to be observed,
that these symbols, including the hand extending the crown
and the cross which sometimes appears along w.ith the lamb,
certainly prove not a co-equal Trinity.  The hand reaching
out the crown intimates the supremacy of the Father, and
subordination in the Son. For the rest, - to say nothing of
the lateness of the date, -all that we learn is, that the Father,
the Son, and the Spirit were held in honor, as they are by all
Christians. There is nothing at this period of art which shows
that they were regarded as one or as equal, but the reverse.
There are no early artistic representations of the Father, -
none before the twelfth century.  The early artists put the
Son in his place in scenes connected with Old Testament
history, being restrained by reverence from an attempt to give
an image bf the Father.  This harmonizes with what Justin
Martyr and others say of the theophanies under the Jewish
dispensation. As before intimated, when the Father is first
introduced, only a hand, extended from heaven or from the
clouds and indicating his presence, is visible. This is some* Iconographie, p. 558. The dove "sometimes represents the Spirit." "More
frequently," it is added in a note, " the dove painted or sculptured in the catacombs is that which brings the olive-leaf to Noah, and not the dove of the
Holy Spirit."




362     ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITY.
times rayed, and the fingers are open to express the divine
favor dispensed upon earth; and sometimes it has the form of
benediction, or holds out to the Son the triumphal crown.
Sometimes the hand is neither rayed nor nimbed; a term we
shall presently explain. In a Greek fresco of comparatively
recent date, it is represented as elevating the souls of the just
to heaven.
Thus far, the honor due to the Father, as the Supreme,
Invisible, Eternal One, is preserved.  His person does not
appear. Art is reverential: it has not yet attempted to depict
his features nor represent his form. In the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries, the Father ceased to be represented
exclusively by the hand.  First appeared the face reposing
on a cloud, then the bust, and lastly the whole figure. The
face does not at first appear in the proper lineaments of the
Father, but under the features of the Son. Before the expiration of the period just referred to, artists began to introduce
some change into their representations. At the close of the
fourteenth century, the Father gains in age on the Son, and
has specific features: his figure, too, becomes more round and
portly. At one period, the two appear as elder and younger
brother: but finally the Father assumes the form of an old
man; the Son, of a man in mature life; and the Holy Spirit
of a youth.  This was in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries; though still there was not an entire uniformity;
the Son occasionally, as also the Spirit, taking the age of the
Father.
Sometimes the Father appears with the imperial or kingly
crown; frequently in the habit of the Pope, with the triple
tiara, especially in Italy. The French disliked this, and added
two crowns more, making five, one above the other, to indicate that the Father was superior to the Pope. Under the
figure of the Pope, the Father became a decrepit old man.
At the revival of letters and arts, degrading images were
gradually banished; the Father assumed a more dignified
and sublime form, - that of a serene old man, the " Ancient
of Days." Finally he came, in the farther progress of ideas,
to be represented by his name only (Jehovah), in Hebrew,
inscribed in a triangle surrounded with a glory.




THE FATHER AND THE SON.              363
In proceeding to speak of the representations of the Son
in works of Christian art, we will begin with an observation
of Didron, that Christendom has not erected a single church
specially to God the Father, but a large number to the Son,
under the names of the Holy Saviour, the Holy Cross, the
Holy Sepulchre, and the Resurrection. The Cathedral of Aix
is dedicated to the Holy Saviour; that of Orleans, to the Holy
Cross. The celebrated Church of Florence, where repose the
ashes of Dante, Michael Angelo, Machiavel, and Galileo, bears
the name of the Holy Cross. Churches of the Holy Sepulchre
are common in France, and are found elsewhere.  At Paris,
there is one dedicated to the Infant Jesus. Didron further
remarks, in this connection, that, when preachers name the.
Father or the Spirit, there is not the least movement on the
part of the auditors; but, when the Son is named, you will
see men bow the head, and the women cross themselves. It
is a singular fact, he adds, that, while Newton never heard the
name of God pronounced without taking off his hat, no one
now thinks of uncovering his head on hearing this name; but,
however little religion one has, he never hears the name of
Christ uttered without showing marks of profound respect.
In the Apostles' Creed, it is remarked that four words only
relate to the Spirit, nine to the Father; while five entire
propositions concern Jesus Christ, - much the larger part of
the creed. Proofs might be multiplied, says Didron, to show
that the Son has been more honored than the Father. We
do not think that his reasoning is altogether sound, though a
portion of his remarks are perfectly true. The fact that portraits of the Son existed earlier than portraits of the Father,
does not, we should say, prove that the latter was less honored,
but more; for it was their reverence for the Father, and dread
of idolatry, which prevented Christians from exhibiting him
under a human image. In the middle ages, however, there is
certainly some ground for the charge, that the Son is exalted
at the expense of the Father. When they appear together,
the Son often occupies the post of honor; and, when their
statues are used as ornaments of churches, the Father is thrust
away in corners, or placed in situations exposed to the wind
and rain, while a thousand tendernesses are lavished on the




G864    ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITY.
Son: he has all the honors and all the triumph. Even the
angels are often better provided for than the Father.
The earliest portraits of the Son represent him at full length,
under a beautiful form, —that of a noble youth, without
beard, of a winning figure, from fifteen to eighteen years of
age, with long and abundant hair flowing in ringlets over his
shoulders; sometimes adorned witkh a diadem or fillet on the
forehead, as a young priest of the Pagan gods.  This was long
the cherished figure, affectionately caressed by art.
At what precise period portraits of the Saviour first appeared, it is impossible to say. The Gnostics, who were
enemies of the Father, and proscribed his image, painted and
sculptured the Son in all dimensions and forms; and it is
maintained, that to them we owe the first portraits and statues
of Jesus. Various traditions (entitled, however, to little respect) refer to Christ as having been represented by sculpture
and painting from the very dawn of Christianity. The Letter
ascribed to Lentulus - addressed to the senate and people of
Rome, and professing to give a minute description of his person - is, without question, a forgery; and there is no reason
for supposing that any authentic likeness of him was preserved.
Augustine asserts, that, in his time, there was none.  The
earliest Fathers of the Church, conformably with a passage in
Isaiah (liii. 2), believed him to have been of mean appearance.
In the fourth century, however, he is represented as described
above, - a youth of extraordinary beauty and majesty. It is
remarked as a curious fact, that, in the series of monuments, in
proportion as the person of Jesus advances in age, that of the
Virgin - represented as old in the catacombs - grows young.
Instead of forty or fifty, as at first represented, she becomes, at
the end of the Gothic period (the fifteenth century), not more
than fifteen or twenty. In the thirteenth century, they appear
of the same age, - about thirty or thirty-five.
The earlier artists, as appears from the figures sculptured
on sarcophagi or exhibited in fresco or on mosaics, sought to
embody in the Son their ideal of perfect humanity in the form
of a beautiful youth, as the Pagans represented Apollo, and
Christians painted angels.  A Roman sculpture of the fourth
century represents him as seated in a curule chair, as a young




REPRESENTATIONS OF THE SON.           365
senator, in his robe and toga, without beard; the right hand
extended and open, the left holding an open volume or roll.
But this is something unusual. Down to the tenth century,
Christ continues to be most frequently represented as a young
man, without beard. There are, however, during the same
period, many portraits of him, in tombs and catacombs and
elsewhere, which present him as at the age of thirty, and
bearded. The latter part of the tenth century, with the
eleventh, formed the transition period. This was a period of
terror and barbarism; a hard, iron age; an age of war and
violence, which would hardly content itself with the old representations of Christ as a youthful God, who healed all infirmities, solaced all miseries, and smiled benignantly on all.
The portraits of him now begin to assume a severe and
inexorable aspect.  The beautiful and affecting emblems and
imagery suited to him in the character of the good Shepherd,
so faithfully preserved in the earlier ages, disappear. In addition to the barbarism of the times, there was now a general
expectation of the approaching end of the world and the final
judgment; and Christ becomes the austere Judge. Some of
the portraits of him are terrible.  Milder features are still
sometimes retained in places where gentler manners prevail;
but these become more and more rare. The good Shepherd
is now changed to the "King of tremendous majesty."  He is
now insensible to the prayers of his mother, who is placed on
his right hand; and of the beloved disciple, and John the
Baptist, his precursor, who occupy a position on his left; and
sinners have nothing to hope. Artists selected the scene of
the last judgment as their usual subject. In some Byzantine
frescos, Christ appears seated on a throne surrounded by angels,
who tremble at the maledictions he pours forth upon sinners.
He is not only Judge, but he executes the sentence he pronounces. The words of condemnation have no sooner passed
his lips, than a river of fire is seen issuing from the throne, and
swallowing up the guilty.
In the earlier ages, Christ was frequently symbolized under
the figure of a lamb. But the favorite representation of him
in primitive Christian art was in the form of the good Shepherd,
frequently exhibited as bearing a lamb on his shoulders; some



366     ARTISTIC' REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITY.
times standing with his crook, with his flock around him. The
flute of Pan is also sometimes put into his hand.  These
representations are illustrated by engravings by Didron, and by
Dr. Maitland in his " Church in the Catacombs." It is worthy
of remark that no marks of suffering appear in any of the
earlier representations of the Saviour. The views presented
by Didron on this subject are confirmed by Dr. Maitland, who
says, " In all the [early] pictures and sculptures of our Lord's
history, no reference is ever found to his sufferings or death."
Again, " No gloomy subjects occur in the cycle of early Christian art." *  The exceptions are only apparent.  On this subiect Mr. Charles E. Norton, in an admirable series of papers
on the "Catacombs of Rome" inserted in the "Atlantic
Monthly" for 1858, thus expresses himself, giving the results
of his own observations in the catacombs, mluseums, etc.,
during a somewhat protracted residence at Rome: " It is a
noteworthy and affecting circumstance, that, among the immense number of the pictures in the catacombs, which may
be ascribed to the first three centuries, scarcely one has been
found of a painful or sad character. The sufferings of the
Saviour, his passion and his death, and the martyrdom of the
Saints, had not become, as in after-days, the main subjects of
religious art in Italy. On the contrary, all the early paintings
are distinguished by the cheerful and truthful nature of the
impressions they were intended to convey."
The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries exhibit Christs of
remarkable sadness.  The Ecce homo, -" Behold the man,"
- crucifixes, descents from the cross, Christs in the tomb, are
now the reigning mode.,The progression is singular. In
more primitive monuments, we see the cross, but not the
Crucified. Some crucifixes appear in the tenth century; one
earlier: but the' Crucified retains his winning and benevolent
features, and is clothed in a comely robe, which leaves only
the extremities visible. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries,
the robe is shortened and contracted, and the sleeves disappear,
leaving only a sort of tunic. This becomes as short as possible
in the thirteenth century; and, in the fourteenth, all that remains is a piece round the loins, as it now continues in the
* Pp. 259, 263.




REPRESENTATIONS OF THE SON.            367
representations of Christ on the cross. At the same time, the
countenance bears more and more the marks of physical suffering. The contrast between these later portraits and the earlier
Christs - represented as triumphant and clothed with beauty,
and having an expression of ineffable sweetness - is sufficiently
striking, and marks the change which had come over theology;
for art exhibited the reigning theological ideas. At the revival
of art, Michael Angelo rescued Christ from the pitiable condition in which he had been placed by preceding artists, though
his celebrated fresco (the Last Judgment, in the Sistine Chapel)
is open to severe criticism. In this fresco, the Son is represented as an angry Judge, hurling the wicked down to hell.
How different from the good Shepherd of the earlier days of
Christian art!
In the attitude and accompaniments of the figures representing Christ in works of Christian art, there is every possible
variety. He is now seen treading under foot the lion and the
dragon, and now Death, which he holds chained; he now
appears in the vestments of an archbishop, with the archiepiscopal crown on his head, and now riding triumphant among
the angels on a white horse; now showing his wounds to the
Father, and receiving his blessing; now in the form of a lamb
with the nimbus and cross, and now of a lion; now as the good
Shepherd, on the older monuments, and in a multitude of other
characters and positions.




368     ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITY.
CHAPTER II.
THE GLORY, OR NIMBUS, IN SYMBOLIC ART. - NATURE OF THE GLORY.
- FORMS OF THE NIMBUS AND THE CROSS. - SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
NIMBUS.- REPRESENTATIONS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. -LATER REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITY. -NO EARLY RELIC RECOGNIZES A COEQUAL OR UNDIVIDED THREE.
THE glory, or ninmbus, in itself, does not distinguish the Son
from a multitude of other personages; and even the nimbus,
with the cross traversing it, does not distinguish him from the
Father and the Spirit. We must here explain a little; and,
though the remarks we are about to introduce may appear to
some to be a digression, they relate to a subject, some knowledge of which is necessary to a full comprelhension of works
of Christian art in past ages, and of copies or engravings of
them frequently met with in books and elsewhere.
In the symbolic art, as it stands connected with Christian
monuments, the glory occupies a conspicuous place.  When
it surrounds the head merely, it is called a nimbus; * when it
surrounds the whole body, an aureole. Both together constitute the glory in its completeness.
In familiar language, we speak of individuals as covered or
environed with glory, when they have distinguished themselves
by great actions, or sublime efforts of intellect. Alexander,
the conqueror of Asia; Cmsar, the master of Europe; Aristotle and Plato, who ruled in the realms of mind; Homer and
Virgil, whose works have fired all imaginations; Vincent de
Paul, whose zeal inflamed all hearts; Phidias and Raphael,
who produced chief works in sculpture and painting, - these,
and a multitude of others, are described as surrounded with
glory. This mode of speech has been always common. By
a similar figure, we speak of the great suns of the Church, or
suns in the world of intellect. To render this glory visible
* The figure is then said to be nimbed. The term, as we have seen, is
sometimes applied to the hand.




THE GLORY, OR NIMBUS.                369
to the eye, the artist, the sculptor, or painter, makes use of
material light. So God, in the Old Testament, is described as
surrounded by a visible glory, or shekinah; and he appeared
to Moses in a flame of fire, in the burning bush.
Such, according to Didron, is the nature of the glory. Its
material element or representative is fire or flame, radiating
light or brightness.  Thus the Hindoo divinities are represented as environed with luminous rays, as of fire; and so the
devotees of Buddha appear in some books found in the Royal
Library at Paris. By the Greeks, Romans, and Etruscans,
the constellations represented under a human form are encircled with rays or luminous figures exactly similar to the nimbus and aureole of Christians. Among the modern Persians,
the Arabs and Turks, the heads of sacred personages, representing the good or evil principle, are surmounted by a pyramid of flame. Appeals are made to numerous facts - historical, legendary, and poetic —to show that such was originally
the nature of the glory: it was represented by the subtile,
penetrating, powerful element of fire or flame.  So the sun,
among the ancients, was regarded as the visible symbol of
God: and the Pharaohs of Egypt and other royal personages
are called indiscriminately children of the sun, and children
of God; and, by way of distinction, the rays of the sun were
transferred to their heads in the form of the nimbus radiating
light. This was the glory. Its use was coeval with the most
ancient religions, as the primitive Hindoo monuments show.
Its native country was the East; and it may be traced down
through Egyptian, Grecian, and Roman times, till it finally
passed into the Christian Church. This was not, however,
till some centuries after Christ had ascended. During these
early centuries, the Church was engaged in struggles and persecutions. It was laying and strengthening its foundations,
not applying itself to the embellishments of art.  When the
time came, it laid Pagan antiquity under contribution to supply its needs. It borrowed its artistic and -esthetic forms from
that.  By the aid of lustral water, it transformed the Pagan
basilica into a Christian church.  This was, in some sort,
matter of necessity. But the nimbus, or glory, which had
adorned the heads of persecuting emperors and false gods, it
24




370     ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITY.
would not be in haste to adopt. This ornament is seldom
found in the catacombs in fresco, or on sarcophagi. Not only
the Apostles and Saints, but the Virgin, and Jesus Christ
himself, are represented without any insignia of this kind.
Before the sixth century, it is asserted that the nimbus does
not appear in any authentic Christian monument.  The seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries constitute the transition
period between its entire absence and its constant presence;
and. it disappeared at the end of the sixteenth. The aureole,
or figure surrounding the body, went through similar vicissitudes with the nimbus, but appeared later and disappeared
earlier, and was of much more infrequent use.
We must add a few words on the form, application, and significance of the glory, comprehending both the nimbus and
aureole, as used by Christians. The nimbus is generally
circular, and in the form of a disk; the field of the disk sometimes disappearing, and only the circumference remaining in
the form of a ring.  Sometimes it is divided by concentric
circles into two or three zones which admit of a great variety
of ornament. To the end of the eleventh century, the disk
was transparent; thence, to the fifteenth, it acquired thickness. It went through some other changes, a knowledge of
which assists archmlologists in ascertaining the age of manuscripts, and relics of works of art. We meet the nimbus also
in the form of a square or a parallelogram, and occasionally,
in later monuments, of a triangle; sometimes a double triangle, or two triangles intersecting each other, five points only
being visible, the other being concealed behind the head.
Didron gives a specimen of the single triangle, rayed, and surrounding the head of the Father, taken from a Greek fresco
at Mount Athos, and belonging to the seventeenth century.
This form, which is rare in the religious monuments of France,
is frequent in Italy and Greece, commencing with the fifteenth
century.  The nimbus, or glory, is distinguished from  the
crown, to which it bears some analogy, in being placed vertically on the head, the crown horizontally. When applied to
either of the persons of the Trinity, the circular nimbus is
always, except occasionally from accident or from the ignorance of the artist, divided by four bars, crossing each other




FORM  OF THE NIMBUS.                        371
at right angles in the centre, thus forming a Greek cross; the
lower bar, however, disappearing  behind  the head.?   It is
sometimes raved, and at other times not.  In  some cases, the
rays appear without the circular line as their base:' they are
sometimes unequal, and sometimes equal, exhibiting the form
of a star.  The colors employed are various: they are blue,
or azure; violet, red, yellow, and white; the yellow, or color
of gold, being the most noble and expressive; gold, its type,
being described as' "light solidified."   The color, as well as
the form, of the glory, or nimbus, is often symbolical.
The application of the nimnbus, or glory, among Christians,
appears to have been governed by no very rigid laws. It
* Of the cross, there are four species, - the cross without a summit, represented by the letter T, which was the form of some of the ancient churches;
the cross with the summit and one transverse bar; with two; and with three.
The cross with four branches, or arms, which is the most common, is of two
kinds, which again exhibit several varieties. The Greek cross is composed
of four equal bars, placed at right angles, and capable of being inscribed in a
circle. It is this, which is placed in the nimbus, or circle, which marks the
divine personages. The Latin cross has the foot, or lower part of the shaft,
longer than the upper part, and longer than the arms. It is represented by a
man standing with his arms extended. This, of course, cannot be inscribed
in a circle, but requires a parallelogram. On the difference, Didron remarks
thus: " The Latin cross resembles the real cross of Jesus; and the Greek, an
ideal one. So the Latins, greater materialists, have preferred the natural
form: the Greeks, more spiritual, have idealized the reality, - have poetized
and transfigured the cross of Calvary. Of a gibbet, the Greeks have made an
ornament."  Originally, the trwo types, or forms, were common to the Greek
and Latin Churches; but afterwards one predominated in the East; and the
other in the West: hence the names. Many of the Oriental churches have
the form of the Greek cross. The form of the Latin has had the preference
in the West, though neither form has been closely adhered to in sacred architecture. The cross of St. Andrew differs from the Greek cross in having its
bars intersect each other obliquely, forming a figure resembling the letter X.
The cross is sometimes ornamented, and sometimes interlaced, so to speak;
the monogram of the names of the Saviour - the Greek chi (X) and rho (P),
the first two letters of the Greek word for Christ, and the iota (I), the initial
of the Greek word for Jesus - being united with the Greek or Roman cross,
or cross of St. Andrew. These are sometimes enclosed in a circle or square,
and sometimes not. The first and last letter of the Greek alphabet, the alpha
and omega, are sometimes added; and sometimes branches of palm, indicative
of victory. Some of these forms are very beautiful. They frequently appear on works of Christian art in the early ages, on sarcophagi, and in catacombs; on monuments of the dead, where they are far more appropriate than
many of the emblems of Heathen origin which greet the eye in our modern
cemeteries. We might add other particulars relating to the form, ornaments,
and use of the cross; but we have already too far extended this note.




372      ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITY.
decorated the persons of the Trinity, represented singly or
united; angels, prophets, the Virgin Mary, saints, and martyrs.  It is occasionally assigned to the virtues personified, to
allegorical beings, and to the powers and affections of the
human soul; sometimes, but rarely, to the representatives of
political power; to the forces of nature, the sun and moon,
the winds, the four elements, the cardinal points, day and
night (personified), and even the genius of evil, Satan.
Its significance varies with time and place.  According to
the ideas prevalent in the West, it is an attribute of holiness,
cdivinity or saintship, —as the crown is of royalty.  It is
somewhat different in the East.  Among the Orientals, the
nimbus was used to designate physical energy, as well as moral
force; civil or political power, as well as religious authority.
Thus, in a Turkish manuscript, in the Royal Library of Paris,
Aureng-zebe wears the nimbus, or glory. In the West, with
few exceptions, a king, emperor, or magistrate, never appears
nimnbed, unless canonized, or exalted to the rank of a saint.*
The Pagan idea continued to prevail in the East; according
to which, the glory was an attribute of power, not of holiness.
The Oriental Christians, indeed, were exceedingly prodigal in
the use of the glory.  While those of the West reserved it
chiefly for God and the saints, restraining it to qualities of the
soul, rarely extending it to physical properties or mere intellectual energy, or force used for evil, it is not uncommon in
the East to see it applied to any individual in any way distinguished; to a virtuous man and a criminal, to archangel and
devil; to whatever, in fact, was famous or put forth mighty
energy, whether for good or for evil.J' It is necessary to bear in mind, however, that the absence or presence of
the nimbus does not deny or express saintship after the commencement of the
fourteenth century. After this period, it loses its importance, and is given or
withholden somewhat arbitrarily.
t In illustration of the profuse use of the glory among the Greek Christians, a Greek Psalter is mentioned, deposited in the Royal Library at Paris,
adorned with numerous curious and very beautiful miniatures, in which the
nimbus appears on a great multitude of heads belonging to personages real
and allegorical, good and bad. Among the allegorical personages which serve
to explain the history are Wisdom and Prophecy, standing at the side of
David as two great genii, habited in female attire: in his penitence, he is
assisted by the genius of Repentance; in slaying the lion, by the genius of
Force. So lNight looks down upon the calamity of Pharaoh as his host is




THE HOLY SPIRIT.                        373
But we must return to what constitutes more properly our
present subject, and proceed to say a few words of the artistic
representations of the Holy Spirit. The Father, says Didron,
is the God of power; the Son, the God of love; and the
Spirit, the God of love, in theology, but God of intelligence,
in history, - distinctions of some importance in their relation
to Christian works of art. By Scripture, legend, and history;
by works of art in France, Germany, Italy, and Greece, -
Didron affirnis that it may be proved that the Spirit is the
God of reason.; that is, addresses, directs, and enlightens the
reason; and thus it is represented as holding a book.
Monuments, as churches and convents, dedicated  to the
Spirit, are fewer than those dedicated to the Son, but more
than those appropriated to the Father. A similar remark
may be made of artistic representations of it. These are
various in form, but are not characterized chronologically, like
the representations of the Father and  Son.  The artist, in
portraying the Spirit, seems to have consulted chiefly the taste
of his country or his own fancy.  As a general remark, we
may observe, that, down to the eleventh century, the Spirit
was usually represented by the dove; then the honor was
divided between the dove and the human form.  But to this
form no given age, or period of life, is assigned. Thus, in
the eleventh and twelfth centuries, it appears of the age of
thirty or forty years; while in subsequent centuries it appears
drowned in the Red Sea. All these allegorical personages are adorned with
the nimbus, or glory, of various colors; as are prophets and kings also: and,
of the latter, the worst as well as the best, - the suicidal Saul; and Pharaoh,
the impious King of Egypt, at the moment when he is engulfed in the abyss;
to the latter, a nimbus of gold being assigned. So, too, the monster Herod is
represented with the nimbus on a mosaic, executed by a Greek artist; the
scene portrayed being that of the massacre of the Innocents. In a small
church at Athens, in which the Supper is painted in fresco, Judas wears the
glory as well as the other Apostles; though the color is black, to designate
his treachery. In an old Bible adorned with miniatures, belonging to the
ninth or tenth century, Satan is twice represented in the presence of Job, -
whom he is torturing, and over whose calamities he laughs, - encircled with
the glory, or nimbus, such as a guardian or consoling angel would wear; and
in an apocalyptic manuscript with miniatures, referred to the twelfth century,
the dragon with seven heads combating Michael, the serpent with seven heads
pursuing the woman into the wilderness, and the beast of the sea, wear a
nimbus of green or yellow, like the saints of paradise.  The manuscript
appears to be of Byzantine origin.




374      ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITY.
of all ages from that of an infant of a few months to that of
an old man of sixty.  Whether in the form  of a dove or a
man, the Spirit usually has the nimbus, with the cross inscribed: but this emblem  or ornament is sometimes omitted;
and sometimes the Spirit itself has been forgotten by the artist
in scenes in which its presence would seem  to be particularly
appropriate, as in representations of the Feast of Pentecost.
The three personages - the Father, Son, and Spirit - are
often grouped in later works of Christian art, never in the
earlier specimens; as the Trinity, in its complete form, was
of late growth. There exists, as before said, no really complete group of the Trinity in the catacombs or on the ancient
sarcophagi.* Between the ninth and twelfth centuries, a new
element was introduced into the representations of the Trinity,
or at least became more conspicuous than before.  This was
the anlthropomorphitic.  The ancient Christians, as we have
seen, had carefully avoided presenting the Father under the
human form, which would have seemed to them too much like
bringing back Paganism.  But that fear had now  passed.
The Father had taken a proper human figure, tlhough that
figure was borrowed from the Son; and the dove of the Spirit
had, as before said, yielded its place, at times at least, to the
form of a man. Artists now, therefore, began to depict the
three persons as similar and equal, and all in the human form.
In a manuscript of the twelfth century, the three appear of the
same age, in the same posture, and having the same costume
and expression; so that it is impossible to say which is the
Father, and which the Son or the Spirit. In opposition to this
complete anthropomorphism, which so essentially materialized
and divided the Trinity, an attempt was made to present it
under the most abstract form, and one which would save the
Unity; and, for this purpose, geometry supplied the triangle.
During the next, or Gothic period, as it is called, - that is,
* Mr. Norton, before quoted, says, "No attempt to represent the Trinity
(an irreverence which did not become familiar till centuries later) exists in
the catacombs; and no sign of the existence of the doctrine of the Trinity is
to be met with in them, unless in works of a very late period." See also
what he says of the " undoubted earlier inscriptions " in connection with " the
peculiar doctrines of the Roman Church." - Atlantic Monthly for June and
July, 1858.




ANTHROPOMORPHITIC TRINITY.            375
fiom the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries, - a further advance was made.  The persons heretofore represented as distinct, though sitting on the same throne, as in the manuscript
just referred to, are united; the three bodies, forming one,
having three heads.  On the other side, the geometric illustrations were continued, and improved upon.  Three circles
were adopted, interwoven with each other, each circle containing one syllable of the word Trinitas (Trinity), and the
central space formed by the intersecting circles, containing the
word Unitas (Unity), — Trinity in Unity. The subtle genius
of Dante occasionally adopted similar geometric illustrations.
The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries retained all the types,
figures, and imagery used in former periods to represent the
Trinity and exhibit its mystic glories. It was an age of syncretism.  The anthropomorphitic Trinity is still continued,
and exhibits some remarkable characteristics.  Thus the three
heads are not simply placed in juxtaposition, do not simply
adhere, but are mingled and confounded, presenting three
faces under one cranium. Beyond this, one would think, art
could not go; and, in attempting some further improvements,
it fell into the monstrous. Of this, some examples are adduced; which, from their grossness, we must be excused from
describing. The Church was at length compelled to interfere:
and, in 1628, Pope Urban VIII. prohibited the representation
of the Trinity under the form of a man with three heads, or
one head with three faces, and similar representations; and
Benedict XIV. renewed the decree in 1745.
Works of Christian art are full of interest, not simply in
their aesthetic relations, but in their relations to the general
current of thought, and phases of opinion, on subjects connected with religion and theology in past ages. To the historian of religion and the Church, they afford material aid, and
not less to the student of human nature and the human mind.
The most valuable knowledge is often gleaned from sources
where the superficial observer would least expect to find it..
An important part of the history of a nation may be written
from its popular songs: and a painting or sculpture on a sarcophagus, or in catacombs where repose the ashes of the buried
past; an image cherished with religious homage, the object of




376     ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRINITY.
tenderness and devotion; ornaments of churches and manuscript illuminations, embodying the ideas of the age, - are all
things fall of significance to him who can read them aright.
We add simply, that on urns of the.dead, on monuments, in
the catacombs, among the relics of art belonging to the early
ages, which time has spared, you nowhere find a recognition
of the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity; that is, three in
one, co-equal, self-existent, and eternal.. Stones preach, but
preach not the Trinity. The Lapidarian Gallery in the Vatican at Rome contains many simple and affectionate inscriptions,
which speak of the rest of the soul, and its peace in Jesus;
but neither there nor anywhere, on any ancient stone, rudely
lettered, or on sculptured marble, do you meet the Trinity.
Primitive antiquity bears no trace of it. It has not left behind
a single fragment on which we read it.




FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS.
CHAPTER I.
FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS DISCLOSE NO ELEMENT OF THE
TRINITY. - WEEILY FESTIVAL QF SUNDAY.- EASTER, THE OLDEST
ANNUAL FESTIVAL. -OLD IDEAS OF LENT. —PENTECOST, OR WHITSUNDAY. - NO OTHER ANNUAL FESTIVAL KNOWN IN THE TIME OF
ORIGEN. - EPIPHANY.
FROM  hymnology and the remains of Christian art, the
transition is not difficult to the festivals of the ancient Christians. In vain we look for the Trinity in these. Some of them
claim, and rightly, to trace their origin back to a primitive
antiquity. Their history has its use. The more ancient of
them, certainly, may be regarded as so many monuments of the
reality of the facts relating to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, recorded in the Gospels. Of these festivals, some account
will now be given in the order in which they arose. If Christmas was not among the earliest, that, as we shall see, was the
natural result of circumstances, and of the Christian ideas which
ruled of old; and its comparatively late origin need occasion
us no serious regret. The resurrection, with subsequent events,
particularly the effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost, it was,
which gave to the birth of the child of Bethlehem its great
significance; and we need not feel surprise that the former
(the resurrection) was in ancient times more honored by
observance than the nativity. It would have been strange had
it been otherwise.  How much is said of the resurrection and
exaltation of Christ by the Apostles, in their speeches recorded
in the Acts! His resurrection and exaltation very naturally
~gave origin to the earlier festivals.
But, before proceeding to speak of the annual festivals, we




378       FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS.
must say a few words of the weekly festival of the primitive
Christians, more especially as it was intimately connected with
the oldest of the yearly festivals.  This was the festival of
Sunday, - the earliest of the Christian days of rejoicing.
It would seem that the disciples, from  the first or during
the apostolic times, were accustomed to meet for thanks and
praise on the first day of the week.  Certainly the oldest
records in existence, after those of the New Testament, refer
to this as a well-known and established custom. The first day
of the week was universally distinguished from other days;
and it was observed as a day of joy, a festival day, on account
of the Lord's resurrection on that day, of which it was a standing monument: hence called the Lord's Day. That it was
uniformly observed as a day of rejoicing, there is no dispute:
on this point, all the old writers bear consenting testimony.
We do not mean that it was a day devoted to sensuous
pleasures.  It was not; and King James's " Book of Sports"
would have been as offensive to the early Christians as it was
to the Puritans. It was not a day to be given to levity and
amusement.  But it was, to the original followers of Jesus,
truly a day of gladness, - a day which brought with it not
only holy and exalting, but, in the strictest sense, joyous recollections; since it restored him to their sight after his death had
prostrated their hopes and filled their hearts with sorrow, and
they believed that they should see him  no more.  And this
feature the day retained.  It was always, by the ancient
Christians, associated with the resurrection,-  the pledge of
man's immortality.
On this day, everything which had the appearance of sorrow
or gloom was banished as unfit.  "On Sunday," says Tertullian, "we indulge joy." *  So far did the ancient Christians
carry their views or their scruples on this point, that they
regarded it as a sin to fast, or even to kneel in prayer, on the
Lord's Day, or during any part of the interval of fifty days
between the resurrection and the coining of the Spirit at
Pentecost. For this we have the express assertion of Tertullian.t  The Jewish sabbath was originally a festival: yet it
came, in after-times, to be associated with many superstitious
A* pol., c. 16.                     t De Corona Mil., c. 3.




FESTIVAL OF SUNDAY.                     379
observances, which gave to it a somewhat grim aspect: and
these the early Christians carefully avoided transferring to the
first day of the week.*  They would not call it the " sabbath "
even. They never so call it, but either the Lord's Day, or
else, in conformity with Roman usage, the day of the sun
(Sunday), generally the latter, when addressing the Gentiles;
and by one or the other of these designations was the day
known, and not as the sabbath, till so recently as the end of
the sixteenth century.  The application of the term to Sunday
originated with the Puritans, who introduced into its observance rigors before unknown.  The old Christian  writers,
whenever  they  use  the term  "sabbath," uniformly mean
Saturday. This, as well as Sunday, was, in Tertullian's timet
(that is, down to A. D. 200, and still later), kept by Christians
as a day of rejoicing; that only being excepted on which the
Saviour lay in the tomb.  Even the Montanists, rigorous as
they were, did not, at this time, fast on these days.  The
custom of fasting on Saturdays first prevailed in the Western
Church: though, as late as the time of Augustine (the end of
the fourth century), this custom was not uniform; some observing the day as a fast, and others as a festival. But, in
regard to, Sunday, there was no difference of opinion or of
usage among the early Christians.  The day was uniformly
observed with cheerfulness, yet always in a religious way, as
Clement of Alexandria expresses it, by "banishing all evil
thoughts and entertaining all good ones," and by meetings for
thanks and worship. It was called the " chief "- as it were,
the queen - of days; a day to be ever distinguished and
honored, and the return of which was hailed with a liveliness
of gratitude which the faith of those ages rendered easy.
Christians have not now the same associations connected
* Originally, labor did not cease on the first day of the week; but it seems
to have been gradually discontinued as circumstances permitted. At what
time cessation from it became general, if it became so before the time of Constantine, when it was enjoined by law, except in agricultural districts, where
sowing and reaping, and tending the vine, were allowed, it is impossible to
ascertain. The exception was agreeable to the old Roman notions of what it
was right and lawful to do on festal days, and what, says Virgil, "no religion
forbade."
t De Jejuniis, c. 15.




380      FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS.
with the day; at least, not uniformly in the same degree.  It
is not regarded so exclusively as a day of joy on account of
the Saviour's resurrection as in primitive times. It has lost,
in part, its characteristic distinction; the feelings in regard to
it have changed with time; and, to the ears of the descendants
of the Puritans, it sounds somewhat strange, no doubt, to hear
it spoken of as a festival, - the weekly festival of the Resurrection; or to be told that it was a day on which those who
lived nearest the times of the Apostles regarded it as unbecoming or unlawfil] to indulge gloom, or to fast; or even to fall on
the knees in devotion. Let us, however, guard against mistake. VWre should form a very erroneous conception of the
ancient Sunday, if we associated with it the ideas which the
term " festival " now probably suggests to many minds. The
joy of the day was a pure, elevated, religious joy, utterly
removed from all grossness and sensuality; it was a day of'
worship, though of cheerful worship; a day devoted, as it ever
should be, to the alleviation of the burdens of humanity, and
to the highest moral and spiritual uses. No day has done so
much for man; and this day, and all its influences, the Christian world owes to Jesus. This day, which, suspends so many
tasks, -the "poor man's day," as it has been called; a day
of which it may be said, that there is no condition of humanity
so low that its benefits do not penetrate it; the influence of
which reaches the humblest mind; which gives a truce to so
many worldly thoughts, and compels man, as it were, to
respect himself, and meditate on what concerns the grleat peace
of his soul, — well did the ancient Christians call it the
" Lord's Day "; and well did they, and well may we, rejoice
in it, and ever thank God for it. But for the birth of the Son
of Mary, it had not been. But for his resurrection, after he
had worn the crown of thorns and borne the cross, it had not
been.
The following is Bishop Kaye's statement: " From incidental notices scattered over Tertullian's works, we collect
that Sunday, or the Lord's Day, was regarded by the primitive Christians as a day of rejoicing; and that to fast upon it
was deemed unlawful. The word' Sabbatum.' is always used
to designate, not the first, but the seventh, day of the week;




ANNUAL FESTIVAL OF THE RESURRECTION.            381
which appears in Tertullian's time to have been also kept as a
day of rejoicing....  The Saturday before Easter Day was,
however, an exception: that was observed as a fast." X
We come now to the yearly festivals of the old Christians.
The' oldest of these was, like the weekly festival, that of the
Resurrection, now called Easter; originally the festival of the
Passover, during which the Saviour suffered. This was celebrated from the first among the Jewish Christians; Christian
ideas being ingrafted on the old Jewish ideas respecting it.
No older festival appears among the Gentile Christians. The
time when they began to observe it cannot be defined; but
it was very early.  The obligation of its observance, as that
of the other annual festivals, was not, however, regarded by
Christians of the early ages as resting on any precept or law
of Christ or of his Apostles, but simply on propriety and usage.
The "feast of Easter and the other festivals," says the historian Socrates,t were left to be "honored by the gratitude
and benevolence " of Christians. As men naturally love festivals, which bring a release from toil, they would each, he
observes, according to his own pleasure and in his own way,
celebrate the memory of the Saviour's passion, no precept
having been left on the subject.  And so, he says, he found
it.  Christians differed as to the time of celebrating Easter,
and still more as to the ceremonies connected with it; all
which shows, lie adds, that the observance of it was matter
of usage simply, not of positive precept.
The festival of the Resurrection, or Passover; was introduced by preparatory fasting.  Occasional fasts in times of
distress or danger, it seems, were not uncommon.$   Besides
these, there were, as early as the time of Tertullian, the halffasts (stationes; from  a military word, originally signifying a
place of watch), observed by many on Wednesdays and Fridays: the former day being that on which the Jews took
counsel to destroy Jesus; and the latter, that of his crucifixion.  These half or stationary fasts were entirely voluntary;
being observed, or not, as each one chose: and they termni* Ecclesiastical History, illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian, pp. 388, 389,
id edit.
1 Hist., v. 22.       t Tertullian, Apol., c. 40; De Jejuniis, c. 138.




382        FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS.
nated at three o'clock in the afternoon; * though the Montanists protracted themn till evening, and sometimes longer. For
this, however, they were censured by the common or catholic
Christians. The only fixed fast which appears to have been
considered as at all obligatory by antiquity and general usage
was on Friday of Passion Week, as it has since been called, or
the anniversary of the crucifixion (Good Friday). This was
undoubtedly observed by the generality of Christians at a very
early period,t and came at length to extend beyond the limits
of a day; its duration varying among different Christians.
Ireneus, one of the most ancient authorities on the subject,
says that " some thought they ought to fast one day, some two,
some more, and some computed forty hours ";   that is, the
forty hours during which the Saviour was supposed to have
been a tenant of the tomb. These forty hours were gradually,
in the process of time, extended to forty days, in imitation of
the Saviour's fast of forty days in the wilderness.  Hence
came Lent; which, in its present form (embracing a period
of forty days), cannot be traced back beyond the end of the
sixth century.   So late as the middle of the fifth century,
Christians were no more agreed about the manner of keeping
the fast than about the time; for nothing had, as yet, been
settled. Some confined themselves wholly to vegetable food;
some partook of fish; others added fowls, since they, according
* Tertullian, De Jejyniis, cc. 2, 10, 13, 14; De Oratione, c. 19. The reason
assigned for terminating them at three o'clock was, that, at that hour, Peter
and John (Acts iii. 1) went up into the temple (Tert. De Jejun., c. 10).
t It was founded (Tert. De Jejun., c. 2) on a misinterpretation of Matt. ix.
15: " The days will come, when the Bridegroom shall be taken from them;
and then shall they fast in those days."  This, the ancient Christians supposed, referred to the time during which Jesus lay in the tomb, and not to the
time when lie should be personally with them no more; that is, after his ascension: the true construction. They would then be exposed to danger and
suffering, which would often enough cause them sadness of heart.
t Euseb. Hist., lib. v. 24. In Socrates' day (middle of the fifth century-)
there was no greater agreement in regard to the fasts before Easter. The
Romans, he says (lib. v. c. 22), fasted three weeks, excepting on Saturdays
and Sundays; though, in another passage, he says they fasted every Saturday. In Illyricum, throughout all Achaia, and at Alexandria, a fast of six
weeks before Easter was observed. Others fasted for a different period, all
still calling the fast a "quadragesirnal fast"; for which, he says, some assigned one reason, and some another, "according to their particular fancies
and humors."




FAST PRECEDING EASTER.                383
to Moses, came also from  the waters (Gen. i. 20); some abstained from " all manner of fruit of trees; others fed on dry
bread only, and some would not allow themselves even that."
Other usages prevailed among others, for which, says Socrates,
"innumerable reasons were assigned"; for there was no authority to which any one could appeal, the Apostles having left
every one to his " own will and free choice in the case."
There was the same variety, he adds, in regard to the performances in the religious assemblies of Christians.  "In sum,"
says he, "in all places, and among all sects, you will scarcely
find two churches exactly agreeing about their prayers." *
In speaking of the fast which preceded the festival of the
Resurrection, and was so intimately connected with it that it
is difficult to separate them, we have said all that is required
of the fasts of the early Christians; and we shall not return
to the subject. Nor need the festival itself much longer detain us. We should only weary our readers, were we to go
minutely into the controversy, which for a time raged furiously
between the Eastern and Western churches, about the proper
time of keeping it.
The feast was a " movable" one, as it is called: and it was
necessary, from year to year, to announce from astronomical
calculations on what day of the month the first Sunday after
the full moon, next succeeding the vernal equinox, would fall;
and, as Alexandria was at that time the seat of the sciences,
this office was generally discharged by the bishop of that place.
There remained still, in different countries, a difference in the
time of keeping the festival, this difference sometimes amounting to a whole month; and it was not before A. D. 800 that
entire uniformity took place.  The ancient Christian year
began with Easter, and not with Advent.  With the old
Christians, indeed, the Resurrection was, we may almost say,
all in all: on it the truth of Christianity, preaching, everything, rested: Christ rose, the Vanquisher of death and hell,
the First-born from the dead, the Beginning of the new spiritual creation. As it was at the material creation, so now: light
came out of darkness; from night all things came.  The festival was called the " salutary" festival, the " kingly day," the
* Hist., v. 22.




384       FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS.
"day of victory," the " crown and head of all festivals."  This
was not, however, in the earliest times.
The ceremonies attending the observance of the festival in
the second century were simple, compared with those which
were afterwards introduced, partly from the natural love of
pomp, and partly from  imitation of the Heathen festivals,
which Christians could with difficulty be prevented from frequenting, and from  which many observances were from  time
to time transferred to the Christian festivals. Vigils, or night
watches, on Easter Eve, soon began to be kept; and the people continued in the churches until midnight.  Constantine,
naturally vain, and fond of parade, signalized his love of display, and perhaps thought he did honor to religion, by celebrating them with extraordinary pomp. The custom had been
introduced before his time, of lighting up a vast quantity of
tapers in the churches on the eve of the festival. Not satisfied
with this, the emperor ordered them to be lighted all over the
city: and, further,-  that the brilliancy of the night might
rival, or even exceed, the splendor of day,- he had pillars of
wax, of an immense height, erected; the effect of which, when
lighted in the evening, is described as brilliant in the extreme.*
The next festival in the order of antiquity, observed, was
Pentecost; that is, Whitsuntide, or Whitsunday as it is now
called, - the day of the descent of the Spirit, fifty days after
that of the resurrection; with which, as a festival, it was intimately connected; so intimately, indeed, that they may be
said to have been united: or, rather, the whole interval
between Easter and Pentecost was kept as a festival, in remembrance of Christ risen and glorified, - no fasting, as before
said, being allowed during the period, and no kneeling in
prayer; for this was a token, or attitude of humiliation inconsistent with the joy and gratitude becoming the season; joy
naturally looking up to heaven with outspread hands.
These were the only two annual festivals known in the
* Euseb. Vita Const., lib. iv. c. 22. According to Jerome (Comml. in Matt.
xxv. 6) the Easter vigils were kept till midnight, in consequence of a tradition
that Christ would come at that hour; as, on the night when the Passover was
instituted, the Lord had visited Egypt at that hour. But, that once past, the
people could with safety be dismissed. Lactantius (hast., lib. vii. c. 19) refers
to the same tradition.




TERTULLIAN'S ACCOUNT.                    385
Church in primitive times and before the days of Origen: the
one, commemorating the Resurrection; the other, the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, called the Holy Spirit's Day.
The silence of Justin Martyr, an earlier Father, on the whole
subject of annual festivals, is a remarkable fact, which should
not be passed over without notice.* Tertullian speaks only of
Easter -the Passover, he calls it -  and Pentecost; though
it is certain he would have mentioned others, had any been
known to him.  On one occasion, at least, he could not have
avoided it. He is censuring Christians of his age for attending
Pagan festivals, and attempting to dissuade them from it: and
the very drift of his argument is, that Christians possess more
festivals than the Heathens; that, if any indulgence or relaxation were required, they need not seek it at the Pagan festivals,
for they had enough of their own.  But his enumeration does
not extend beyond those already specified.4   Could he have
adduced others, his position would have been so far strengthened; and Tertullian was not the man unnecessarily to yield
any advantage in an argument. But, independently of this
consideration, it is impossible, we should say, for any one to
read Tertullian, and note his frequent allusions to Christian
fasts and festivals by name, and believe that he would have
omitted to notice other holidays, had they existed in his time.
Bishop Kaye, who had very carefully read the works of
Tertullian, confirms the statement above made.  He  says,
that, in the writings of tbis Father, " we find no notice of the
celebration of our Lord's nativity, although the festivals of
Easter and Whitsuntide are frequently mentioned: with reference to which it should- be observed, that the word' Pascha'
was not used to signify merely the day of our Lord's resur* He wrote in the former part of the second century. Though he describes
baptism at large, he does not mention any festivals with which it was connected. Nor does it appear, from the writings of Christian antiquity, when
Easter and Pentecost first camne to be considered as the most suitable seasons
for the performance of the. rite. The Oriental Christians baptized also at
Epiphany.
t De Idololatria, c. 14. All the Heathen festivals, Tertullian says, would
notannount to one Pentecost, or feast of fifty days. We may observe here,
that this feast included whatever notice was taken of the Ascension, no distinct festival of which is mentioned by any early writer; nor does any such
appear to have existed before some time in the fourth century.
25




886       FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS.
rection, but also the day of his passion; or, rather, the whole
interval of time from his crucifixion to his resurrection. Iln
like manner, the word' Pentecoste' signifies, not merely
Whitsunday, but also the fifty days which intervened between
Easter and Whitsunday." X
We have already alluded to Origen, who, in piety, genius,
and learning, had no superior among the early Fathers. Origen wrote in the former part of the third century.  He was
well acquainted with the opinions and usages of Christians of
his day; and, had any such festival as that of the Nativity
existed in his time, he could not have been ignorant of the
fact. Yet he does not mention it; though he expressly names
the others of which we have spoken, and under circumstances
which would render the absence of all allusion to this wholly
inexplicable, had any such festival been then observed. In
reply to an objection of Celsus, he speaks of the nature of festivals; and of such, in particular, as Christians might lawfully
attend. He does not extravagantly exalt festivals. In common with Christians of his day, he makes purity of the affections, and a uniformly upright and holy life, the great distinguishing characteristic of the Christian.  These were a
perpetual offering.  The perfect Christian, he says, does not
need festivals; all his days are Lord's days; and, "passing
over from the things of this life to God," he "celebrates a
continual Passover, which means transition "; and being able
to say with the Apostle, we are " risen with Christ, in the
Spirit,'? he keeps an unbroken Pentecost. But the multitude
require sensible objects, he says, to renew the memory of what
would else pass away and be forgotten.  Ile enumerates the
Christian festivals in the following order: "Lord's days, the
Passover and Pentecost." t  No other festivals are alluded to
here, or elsewhere in the four folio volumes of this eminent
Father of the Church.
In the time of Origen, then, the only Christian festivals in
existence —those of the martyrs excepted, of which we do
not now speak -were Sunday, the Passover, and lPentecost;
the preparatory fasts being included.  The third, or next
* Writings of Tertullian, p. 389, 3d edit.
t Contra Cels., lib. viii. ~ 22.




EPIPHANY.                          387
oldest festival, was that of the Baptism of the Saviour, called
the festival of the Manifestation * (Epiphany), which was
celebrated on the 6th of January, though some placed it on
the 10th.
* Jesus's manifestation in the character of the Messiah at his baptism, the
original meaning; and not "manifestation to the Gentiles " at the coming of
the "wise men," a turn subsequently given it. The festival was probably of
Jewish-Christian origin; though it is first traced among the followers of
Basilides in Egypt, in the time of Clement. The Jewish Christians attached
particular importance to the baptism of Jesus, by which he became the Son
of God. "And, lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased." This view also explains the fact, that the birth
and baptism of Jesus were originally celebrated in one festival.




388       FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS.
CHAPTER II.
CHRISTMAS: FIRST CELEBRATED ON THE FIFTH OF JANUARY.-UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE TIME OF CHRIST'S BIRTH.- TESTIMONY OF CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.- CHRYSOSTOM'S TESTIMONY TO THE LATE ORIGIN
OF THE FESTIVAL IN THE EAST. - DR. MILMAN'S STATEMENT. - ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN FESTIVALS.- LATE ORIGIN OF CHRISTMAS
EXPLAINED. -NO TRINITARIANISM IN EITHER OF THE OLD FESTIVALS.
WITH Epiphany celebrated on the 6th of January, as ob/served at the conclusion of the last chapter, was united the
festival of the birth of Christ (Christmas), at the time we first
hear of it; that is, in Egypt. The first traces of it are obscure
in the extreme.  Clement of Alexandria, a learned Father of
the Church, whom nothing seemingly escaped, and who flourished at the beginning of the third century, does not expressly
mention it. His testimony, however, is important, as showing
the ignorance of Christians of that period, even the best informed of them, of the time of Christ's birth. Both the day
and the year were involved in uncertainty; and Clement
seems to speak with no little contempt of those who undertook to fix the former.  " There are those," he says, " who,
with an over-busy curiosity, attempt to fix, not only the year,
but the day, of our. Saviour's birth; who, they say, was born
in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, on the twenty-fifth of
the month Pachon "; that is, the twentieth of May.  He adds
soon after, " Some say that he was born on the twenty-fourth
or twenty-fifth of the month Pharmuthi "; that is, the nineteenth or twentieth day of April; * both parties selecting the
spring as the season of the nativity. And here Clement leaves
the matter. The inference is plain. The day of the nativity
was unknown. Whatever notice was taken of the event, was
taken at the festival of the Baptism. A few, prying into the
* Strom., lib. i. c. 21, pp. 407, 408, ed. Oxon. 1715. It has been inferred, however, from a statement made by Clement relating to the interval between the
birth of Christ and the death of Corfimodus, that he himself supposed the day
of the nativity to have been the 18th of November.




CHRISTMAS.-  SELECTION OF THE DAY.            389
subject with vain solicitude, pretended to assign the day: but
they differed; only agreeing that it was in April or May.  In
regard to the precise year of the Saviour's birth, our common
or vulgar era, by the general consent of the learned, places it
from three to five years (four is generally assigned) too late.
At the period when we discover the first trace of Christmas,
it was, thus celebrated on the 6th of January, having been
superadded to the feast of the Baptism. About the middle of
the fourth century, we hear of its celebration at Rome on the
25th of December; the day being determined, it is asserted,
- though not on evidence which is perfectly conclusive, -
by Julius, Bishop of Rome.  This, we believe, is the earliest
notice of it as a distinct festival; certainly the earliest which
is clear and undisputed. It was soon after introduced into the
East; where, according to the testimony of Chrysostom, who
was Priest of Antioch, and afterwards Bishop of Constantinople, it was before unknown.  "It is not yet ten years," says
he, in his Homily on the Nativity,* about the year 386, "since
this day was first made known to us. It had been before observed," he adds, " in the West; whence the knowledge of it
was derived."  It is clear, from this testimony, that the present time of celebrating the birth of the Saviour was a novelty
in the East very late in the fourth century; and, from the
manner in which Chrysostom expresses himself, the conclusion
seems irresistible, that, before that time, there was no festival
of the kind observed in the Syrian Church.  He does not
allude to any.  He does not say that the question was about
the day merely; as he naturally would have said, if it had
been so.  "Some affirmed," he says, " and others denied, that
the festival was an old one, known from Thrace to Spain."
"There was much disputing," he adds, " on the subject, and
much opposition was encountered in the introduction of the
festival."t  This, it must be recollected, was in one of the
chief cities in the East, near the end of the fourth century.
* Opp., t. ii. pp. 417-432, ed. Par. 1838.
t On the subject of the use which has been made of Chrysostom's reasoning, and the fallacies involved in the argument employed to show that the real
late of the Saviour's birth was known in his day, see a notice of Dr. Jarvis's
r" Chronological Introduction to the History of the Church," in the Christian
Examiner, fourth series, vol. iii. pp. 412-414.




390        FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS.
The Christians of Egypt, at a much later period, are found
celebrating the nativity on the old 6th of January.*
Various reasons have been assigned for the selection of the
25th day of December by the Romans. It was clearly an
innovation. The day had never been observed as a festival
of the nativity by Christians of the East, where Christ had
his birth. It is certain, however, that some of the most memorable of the Heathen festivals were celebrated at Rome at
this season of the year; and these the Christians were fond of
attending, and could be the more readily withdrawn from
them if they had similar feasts of their own occurring at the
same season. It is certain, too, that many of the ceremonies
and observances of the Pagan festivals were transferred to
those of Christians.t  Whether this, and much else connected
with the establishment of Christian festivals, happened by
design or accident, is a point we shall not stop formally to
discuss. It has been argued, that the winter solstice (the
25th of December in the Roman calendar) was chosen from a
beautiful analogy, - the sun, which then begins to return to
diffuse warmth and light over the material creation,$ presenting a fit emblem of the rising of the Sun of Righteousness to
cheer and bless the world by his beams. The festival of the
birth of the Sun (natalis Solis invicti),-  a figurative expression, denoting his turning at the tropic, — one of the most
celebrated festivals among the Romans, observed at this
period, had probably as much to do in determining the time
of the Christian festival as the bare analogy alluded to;
* It is a circumstance worthy of note, that, while the festival of the Baptism extended itself from East to West, that of Christmas travelled from West
to East. We have not overlooked the testimony of Augustine, at the end of
the fourth century: but he is too late a writer to be an authority for any early
tradition; and, though he mentions the festival of the Nativity, he does not
ascribe to it the same importance as to the two older festivals of Easter and
Whitsunday.
t Thus, during the Roman Saturnalia, or feast of Saturn, holden in memory
of the golden age of equality and innocence under his reign, and kept in the
time of the Cesars from the 17th to the 23d of December (seven days), "all
orders were devoted to mirth and feasting"; friends sent presents to each
other; slaves enjoyed their liberty, and wore " caps as badges of freedom ";
wax tapers were lighted in the temples; and jests and freedom, and all sorts
of jollity, prevailed.
$ In the Northern Hemisphere, where the date was adopted.




THEIR ORDER AND ORIGIN.                391
whicb, however, served well for rhetorical and poetic illustration. We find the Christian poet, Prudentius, soon after
making use of it for this purpose.  The fixing of the birth of
the Saviour at the winter solstice, when the days begin to
increase, which would place that of John at the summer solstice, when they begin to decrease, also gratified the love of a
mystical interpretation of the language of Scripture. It gave,
as it was discovered, to the affirmation, "He must increase,
but I must decrease," a deep-hidden meaning. In the absence
of evidence, however, we will not undertake to affiln for
what reasons the Romans adopted the 25th of December as
the day of the festival of the Nativity.*
The sum of the whole is, that, besides the weekly festival
of Sunday, there are two annual festivals (those of the Resurrection of Christ and the Descent of the Spirit, or Easter and
Whitsunday), or rather one festival of fifty days, including
both, which dates back to an indefinitely remote period of
Christian antiquity; that the festival of the Baptism of Jesus
came next, and, last, that of his Nativity; that this last was
wholly unknown for some centuries after the apostolic age;
that it is not alluded to by any very ancient Christian writer,
by Justin Martyr or Tertullian; that it was unknown to the
learned Origen, near the middle of the third century; that
Clement of Alexandria does not mention the festival, and
speaks of the vain labor of some antiquaries who attempted
to fix the date of the Saviour's birth, who agreed in nothing
except in placing it in the spring months of April or May;
that the festival was first celebrated in January, in connection
with the festival of the Manifestation; that Chrysostom, who
represents the opinions of the Oriental Church, was ignorant,
if not of the festival itself, yet certainly of the present period
of its celebration, near the end of the fourth century; and,
finally, that the festival came from the West, and not, like all
the more ancient festivals, from the East.
The true explanation of the origin of both the more ancient
festivals (Easter and Whitsunday) is, that they were Jewish
feasts,  continued among the Jewish Christians, and afterwards, it is impossible to say when, adopted by the Gentile
* See Beausobre, Histoire de Manichee et du Mlfanicheismne, ii. 619, etc.




392         FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS.
believers; Christ having consecrated them anew, the one, by
his death and resurrection, and the other by the outpouring of
the Spirit upon the Apostles. Neither of them was instituted
by Christians; neither of them originated in purely Christian
ideas, as is shown by the testimony of Origen, already referred
to, and in confirmation of which we might adduce a multitude
of passages from the early Christian writers to the same
point.* But there was in existence among the Jews no festival on which Christmas could be ingrafted; and this, and the
fact that it was not customary in the early ages to celebrate
the birthdays, but only the deaths, of distinguished individuals,
* We give the following extract from the Manichean Faustus partly as well
illustrating the Christian idea of worship at the time the Manicheans were
separated from the Church, in the third century; and partly because we wish
to say a word or two of the Manicheans in connection with the festival of
Christmas. The passage is preserved by Augustine, in his reply to Faustus
the Manichean. " The Pagans," says Faustus, "think to worship the Divinity by altars, temples, images, victims, and incense. I differ much from them
in this, who regard myself, if I am worthy, as the reasonable temple of God,
the living image of his living Majesty. I accept Jesus Christ as his image;
the mind, imbued with good knowledge and disciplined in virtue, I regard as
the true altar; and the honor to be rendered to the Divinity, and the sacrifices
to be offered, I place in prayers alone, and those pure and simple." - Contra
Faust., lib. xx. c. 3.
We do not remember to have seen it noticed as an argument for the late
origin of the festival of the Nativity, that the Manicheans, who were separated
from the Church, as we have said, in the third century, did not observe it,
though they observed both the old feasts of Easter and Pentecost. Yet the
argument has some weight, if any subsidiary evidence were needed in a
matter so plain. In their forms as well as their general idea of worship, the
Manicheans retained much of the old simplicity; and, from the time of their
being excluded from the Church, they became an independent witness for its
more ancient customs. They allowed of no "sensible aids" to worship,
which among them consisted, like the old Christian worship, in prayers and
singing, to which were added reading from their sacred books, and an address, or exhortation; and they preserved the old congregational discipline.
They had, as we have just seen, neither temples nor altars nor statues; they
baptized both adults and infants; they did not offer prayers to the dead, and
rendered to the martyrs only those honors which were commonly rendered
them at the end of the second century; they celebrated the Eucharist, though
substituting water for wine, the use of which was forbidden by their ascetic
principles; the festivals they celebrated with the simplicity of olden time.
With the exception of the wine at the Eucharist, the omission of which is
readily explained, we have here as faithful a picture of Christian worship, and
the ideas connected with it, in the early part of the third century, as could
well be drawn. The entire absence of every trace of the festival of the Nativity only renders it the more exact.




CHRISTMAS.                      393
accounts for its late origin.  The "Natalia" of the martyrs
were kept on the anniversary of their death, -  their birth
into an immortal existence.
We have no complaint to make of the selection of the 25th
of December, as the day for commemorating the birth of the
Saviour.  It is as good as any other day; it being understood,
as we suppose it is, by every one even moderately acquainted
with the writings of Christian antiquity, that the true date of
the nativity is irrecoverably lost.* For ourselves, we like this
festival of Christmas, and would let it stand where it is, and
where it has stood ever since the days of Chrysostom at least,
- a period of more than fourteen centuries. It matters not
in the least that we are ignorant of the real date of the Saviour's birth.. We can be just as grateful for his appearance
in the world as we could be, did we know the precise day or
moment of his entrance into it.  Of what consequence is it for
us to know the particular day, or even the year, when this
light first shone upon the earth, since we know that it has
arisen, and we enjoy its lustre and warmth? Of just as little
consequence, for all practical purposes, as for the voyager on
one of our majestic rivers to be informed of the exact spot in
the remote wilds on which the stream takes its rise, since his
little bark is borne gayly on by its friendly waters; or for any
of us, if our affairs have been long prosperous, to be able to
tell how or when, to the fraction of a minute, our prosperity
commenced.  If we have been in adversity, and light has
broken in upon our gloom, and continues to shine upon us, it
imports little whether or not we can fix on the exact point of
time at which the clouds began to break and scatter.  Just so
with this Star of Bethlehem, which "c shines o'er sin and sorrow's night ": the exact moment at which its beams began to
be visible over the hills and valleys of Judea is not a subject
about which we need perplex ourselves. No royal historiographer was present to chronicle the Saviour's birth; yet, if his
spirit be in our hearts, we can, if we approve the observance,
commemorate his advent, with all the kindlings of devout
* "I do not believe," says Beausobre (t. ii. p. 692), "that the evangelists
themselves knew it. It is evident that St. Luke, who tells us that he began
to be about thirty years of age, when he was baptized, did not know his precise
age."




894       FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS.
affection and gratitude, - at our homes, or in our houses of
worship, where we have so often met to seek comfort and
strength from his words, - on any day which the piety of past
ages has set apart for so holy a purpose.
One further remark we would make.  We see, in the order
in which the festivals arose, important testimony to the truth
of Christian history. It could hardly have been different, the
facts being supposed true. Christmas could not have preceded
in its origin the other festivals founded on the events of the
resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, without which there could
have been no spiritual Christianity. It must almost of necessity follow them, and grow up from obscure beginnings, as it
did, out of the gratitude and love of Christians, making it difficult to trace its origin. All this, we say, was natural, and
confirms the truth of Christian history.  Reading the Acts of
the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul, one would have been
surprised to find a festival of the birth of Christ existing from
the first. But we are not surprised at finding, that the resurrection (without which, according to the Apostle, his preaching
and the faith of Christians would be vain) and the descent of
the Spirit (which was, in truth, the beginning of spiritual
Christianity) were both early celebrated, as we know they
were.  It was Christ risen and glorified of which these old
believers chiefly thought, -the Redeemer from sin, the Leader
in the way of immortality, sitting at the right hand of God, -
not the infant Christ.
WVith respect to the uncertainty of the date of Jesus's birth,
Dry. Milman, Dean of St. Paul's, London, thus expresses himself: "The year in which Christ was born is still contested.
There is still more uncertainty concerning the time of the
year, which learned men are still laboring to determine.
Where there is and can be no certainty, it is the wisest
course to acknowledge our ignorance, and not to claim the
authority of historic truth for that which is purely conjectural.
The two ablest modern writers who have investigated the
chronology of the life of Christ -  Dr. Burton and Mr. Greswell - have come to opposite conclusions: one contending for
the spring, the other for the autumn. Even if the argument
of'either had any solid ground to rest on, it would be difficult




ANCIENT FESTIVALS NOT TRINITARIAN.         395
(would it be worth while?) to extirpate the traditionary belief
so beautifully embodied in Milton's hymn:-'It was the winter wild
When the Heaven-born child,' &c.
Were the point of the least importance, we should, no doubt,
have known more about it." *
The reflection of the learned Dean is judicious.  The day
and the year, as before said, matter not. We are not so much
Christians of the " letter " as to think them of any importance.
Let them  not be contended about.  Let Christmas stand,
where it has so long stood, to be observed in honor of the'" Heaven-born child."  As intelligent Christians, however, it
is well to know the 1" historic truth," and not put certainty for
uncertainty in a matter of this sort.
There is no Trinitarianism connected with any of the an
cient festivals. Nothing could be further removed from Trinitarianism than the simple ideas on which the Easter festival
was founded, - "dead, buried, and, the third day, rose again."
" The Logos doctrine" (introduced by the learned converts
who came fresh from their Heathen studies), associated in
thought with the death and resurrection of Jesus, evidently
occasioned some embarrassment in the minds of the Fathers
who received it; believing, as they generally did for a long
time, that the whole Christ suffered. The simple faith of the
early believers was not attended with any difficulties of this
sort.
The effusion of the Spirit, or the " pouring it out," as the
very terms exclude personality, is not a Trinitarian idea; and
the observance of the festival of Pentecost, therefore, in early
times, affords no evidence of the Trinitarianism of those times,
but was quite compatible with the opinion which Gregory
Nazianzen, late in the fourth century, says was entertained by
some in his day, -that the Spirit was simply " a mode of
divine operation"; some others calling it "God himself";
some, " a creature of God "; and some not knowing what to
believe on the subject. It made no difference, so far as the
celebration of this festival was concerned, which of these
views prevailed.
* History of Christianity, p. 57, ed. New York, 1851.




396       FESTIVALS OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS.
As to Christmas, - the birth-festival, - that, no more than
the festival of the Resurrection or the festival of the Spirit,
recognizes a Trinity.  It would be difficult to extract the
Trinity from the angelic song,," Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace, good-will to men." We may, therefore,
add these three festivals - two of them earlier, and one later
to the monuments of Christian antiquity already referred
to, as bearing no testimony to the ecclesiastical doctrine of the
Trinity.
After what has been said in the foregoing pages, we are
prepared to re-assert, in conclusion, that the modern doctrine
of the Trinity is not found in any document or relic belonging
to the Church of the first three centuries.  Letters, art, usage,
theology, worship, creed, hymn, chant, doxology, ascription,
commemorative rite, and festive observance, so far as any remains or any record of them are preserved, coming down from
early times, are, as regards this doctrine, an absolute blank.
They testify, so far as they testify at all, to the supremacy of
the Father, the only true God; and to the inferior and derived
nature of the Son. There is nowhere among these remains a
co-equal Trinity. The cross is there; Christ is there as the
Good Shepherd, the Father's hand placing a crown, or victor's
wreath, on his head; but no undivided Three, — co-equal,
infinite, self-existent, and eternal. This was a conception to
which the age had not arrived. It was of later origin.




INDEX








INDEX.
A.                   Apollinaris, father and son, turn the
Old and New Testaments into verse,
Aetians, the, 273.                     356, note.
Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria; his  Apostles' Creed, the, 315-341. The
conduct toward Arius, 241. Blamed    Apostles' Creed not the primitive
by Constantine, 251.  His death,    one, and not made by the Apostles,
263.                                 316.  Testimonies of the learned,
Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople,    316. Fabulous account of its origin
opposes Arius, 267.  His prayer,    by Rufinus, 317, 318. No mention
268.                                 of it by the early Fathers, or by
Alexandria at the end of the second    councils, 318. Not known to Tercentury, 116.                        tullian about A. D. 200, 320. Older
Alexandrian  Catechetical  School,   creeds, 319, 320. Councils of Ephequalification for teachers in, 118,   sus and Chalcedon forbade the use
119. Christian theology originated    of any creed but the Nicene, as
in, 119. Contest in, between the    augmented by the Council of ConPagan faith and the Christian, 119.   stantinople, 320, 321.  Roman and
Ambrose of Milan introduces the an-    Oriental creeds and that of Aquileia
tiphonic singing into the West, 345.    compared, 321, 322.  Additions to
A writer of hymns, but not the au-   the Apostles' Creed, 322. When it
thor of the " Te Deum," 353.         first appeared in its present form,
Ambrose, Origen's philosophical con-    324. Not Trinitarian, 324.
vert, 160. Devotes his wealth to  Apostolic Fathers, 3-20. General rethe purchase of manuscripts for    marks as to date and authorship of
Origen's use, 160. Origen calls him  writings attributed to them, 19. Of
his 1' work-driver,"  160.  Death,   little value as authorities, 21. Jus168.                                tin's doctrine of the Logos not found
Ammonius Saccas, a Platonic philoso-   in them, 19, 20, 64, 69, note. See
pher, 156, 157.                      Barnabas, Clement of Rome, HerAngels, honor due to, according to    mas, Ignatius, Polycarp.
Justin, 76.                        Apostolical Constitutions, not of AposAnomeeans, the, 273.                   tolical origin, 324-326. When first
Ante-Nicene Fathers, the, did not be-   referred to, 324, 325. Their age
lieve in the equality of the Father,    matter of conjecture, 326. Catholic
Son, and Spirit, 70, 75. How their   authorities for their rejection, 326.
doctrine of the Trinity differed from  Protestant, 327. Views of recent
the modern, 239, 240, 335 et seqq.   German critics, 328. Their Arian
Anthropomorphitic representations of    complexion, 328. Their doctrine:
the Trinity, 374, 375.               the Son inferior, 328, 329.  The
Anthropomorphitic language of the    Spirit, 329. Not Trinitarian, 330.
Jewish Scriptures, 59.               Their probable origin, 330. Canons
Antioch, second council of, held in op-    of the Apostles, 324, 328.
position to Paul of Samosata about  Aquileia, creed of, compared with the
A. D. 265, rejects the term " consub-    Roman and Oriental, 321, 322. Not
stantial," 283.                      Trinitarian, 324.
Antioch, council of, A. D. 341, declares  Arianism, origin of, and controversy
against the Nicene faith, and rejects   relating to, 239 et seqq. Decision of
the term "consubstantial," 339.     the Council of Nice, 259-261. SucAntiquity of the Christian-faith, 126.  cess and decline of Arianism after




400                              INDEX.
the death of Arius, 273, 274.  The  Artistic representations of the Trini.
whole world Arian, 273.  Arian    ty, 360-376. Bear testimony to its
councils, 273, 274. Arianism  long    late origin, 360. No early group
survives in the West, 274.  Influ-    of the Trinity, 360, 361, 374.  The
ence of the ladies on its fortunes,    Father, how  represented, 361, 362,
274, note.                            Father and Son, 363..Early porAriminum  (Rimini), council of, de-   traits of the  Son, 364, 365, 366.
dares against the Nicene faith, 340.    Later portraits, 365, 366, 367. The
Aristides, a Christian apologist, 21, 22.    glory, or nimbus, in symbolic art,
Arius and the Arian controversy, 239-    368-372. Forms of, 370, 371. Forms
289. Approach of the storm, 239.    of the cross, 371, note.  Use and
Ante-Nicene Fathers admitted the    significance of the nimbus, 371, 372.
inferiority of the Son to the Father,    Representations of the Spirit, 373,
239, 240. Their language not Trin-    374. Anthropomorphitic Trinity;
itarian in the- modern sense, 240.    geometric  illustrations, 374, 375.
Incidents in the life of Arius, 240.    The  Pope's prohibition,. 375. No
Origin of the controversy, 241. Soz-    Trinitarianism  in any artistic reomen's account, 241. Account of    mains of the earlier ages, 376.
Socrates and Theodoret, 241, 242. Ascension, the, Festival of, 385, note.
Alexander the aggressor, 241. Per-  Athanasian Creed, the, not written by
sonal appearance and character of    Athanasius, 281, 341.  Of uncerArius, 242-244.  His popularity,   tain date and origin, 341, 342. Was
243, 244.  Course pursued by Al-   composed after the middle of the
exander, 245. Arius expelled the    fifth  century, 341.  Ascribed to
city, 245. Retires to Palestine; re-    various authors, 341.
ception there, 246.  Eusebius of  Athanasius at the Council of Nice,
Caesarea espouses his cause, 246.    256.  Becomes Bishop of AlexanAlso Eusebius of Nicomedia, 247.    dria, 263. Charges against him,
Letter of Arius to Alexander, 248.   263, 265. Condemned and deposed
Activity of Alexander, 249. War    by the Council of Tyre, 265. Exof words, 249.   Constantine  at-   iled, 267. Returns to Alexandria,
tempts to mediate, 251. Council of    and again flees, 277. Re6stablished
Nice, 251, 252. Opinions of Arius,   in his see, and again compelled to
and their relation to the doctrines of    leave, 278.  His death, writings,
preceding ages, 252-255, 301. Pro-    and character, 279-281. His explaceedings of the council, 256. En-    nation of the sense in which the
trance of the emperor, and his ap-   term " consubstantial" was used by
pearance, 257,258. The creed, 259.   the Council of Nice, 283. Not the
Anathemas, 260.  Arius and  his    author of the creed which  passes
friends anathematized, 261.  His    under his name, 281, 341.
exile, 262. Constantine is softened  Athenagoras, 100, 101. His works,
towards him, 263,264. His return    100.  He holds the  Father suto Alexandria, 265.  Appears at   preme, 100.  His doctrines as to
Constantinople, and  satisfies the    the Son, 100. The Logos, 100, 101,
emperor of lis orthodoxy, 267. To    note. The Holy Spirit, 101.
be admitted to communion, 268. Athenodorus, a pupil of Origen's, 165.
His sudden death, 268. His intel- Atonement, the: Justin no advocate
lectual and moral character, 242,   for the modern popular doctrine of,
244, 269. His writings, 270. A        85. Views of Lactantius as to, 238;
hymnologist, 353. Success and de-    of Origen, 193.  Bunsen's  statecline of Arianism, 273, 274. The    ment as to the doctrine of Origen
friends and associates of Arius, 275,    and the Fathers before him in re276. Athanasius, 276-281.             gard to the atonement, 193.
Arnobius, 235. Holds the Son to be  Aureole, the, 368.
distinct and inferior, 235. Uncertain whether he mentions the Spirit,                 B.
235.
Artemon, 189. Asserts that the Logos  Baptism, Justin's account of, 86.
doctrine  was  recent,  189, 190. Barnabas, Epistle of, 17-19. Its date
Claims to hold the primitive doc-   and origin, 17. Not of great value.,
trine, 189, 190.                      18. Recognizes the preexistence of
Artemonites, the, 190, 191.             the Saviour, 18. But maintains the




INDEX.                             401
supremacy of the Father, 18. Con- Church, ancient, hymnology of the,
tains no trace of the doctrine of the    343-359.
Logos, 18. Nor of that of the per- Churches, when first erected, 343,
sonality of the Spirit, 18.          note.
Bardesanes, an early writer of hymns, Clement of Alexandria, and his times,
349.                                 115-150.  Time of Clement, 116.
Baronius pronounces the Apostolical   Notices of his life, 116. His teachConstitutions spurious, 326.         ers, 117, 118. Becomes head of the
Barrow, Dr., says it is not known who    Catechetical School at Alexandria,
composed the Apostles' Creed, 316.   118. Disappears from history, 118.
Basil could only gradually teach the    An eclectic, 118. Necessity of learndeity of the Holy Spirit in his   ing in the teachers of the Alexanchurch, 287. Admits that the old   drian School, 118. Clement's writFathers were silent respecting it,  ings, 119. His "Hypotyposes," 119,
339. They who acknowledged its   note.  "Hortatory Address," 120.
divinity condemned for introducing    Mode of defending Christianity, 120.
novel dogmas, 339.                   Clement's theology, 122 et seqq.
Bellarmine pronounces the Apostoli-   Does not ascribe to the Son a percal Constitutions spurious, 326.     sonal existence from eternity, 123.
Beryllus, the Monarchian, and his   The Logos and the Son, 124, 125.
opinions, 192. He was a writer of'   Clement asserts the inferiority of
hymns, 350, 351.                    the Son in strong terms, 124, 125.
Brucker says that the early Fathers.  Attempts to separate the idea of
were tainted with Platonism, 65.   time from  the generation of the
That they taught the inferiority of    Son, 126, note.  Antiquity of the
the Son, 70.                         Christian faith, 126.  Ascribes inBuddeus says the Apostles' Creed is   spiration to Plato and the philosonot to be attributed to the Apostles,   phers, 127. Influence of sculpture
317.                                 among the Greeks, 128. Man not
Bunsen on the recently discovered    absolutely depraved by nature, 129.
Syriac version  of the  Ignatian    Clement's "Pedagogue," 130. His
Epistles, 14, note.  On the Appen-   precepts of living, 130.  Life in
dix to the Epistle to Diognetus, 94,   Alexandria at the beginning of the
note. The Confession of Hippoly-   third century, 132.  Food, wine,
tus, 182, note. Ancient psalmody,   133.  Furniture, dress, 136. Con348, 349.                            vivial entertainments, 136.!  GarButler, Charles, adverts to the fact   lands and ointments, 137. The lathat the Apostles' Creed was pro-   dies of Alexandria, 138. The "fine
scribed by two general councils,   gentlemen," 139. Clement's" Stro321, note.                           mata," 131, 141. Subjects treated,
142. Clement's idea of the true GnosC.                    tic, or perfect Christian, 144-149.
The heretical Gnostics, 149. Hymn
Canons of the Apostles, the, 324, 328.   attributed to Clement, 120, 350.
Catacombs, the, and the inscriptions  Clement of Rome, 4-9.  The first
there, 113.                          Epistle to the Corinthians attrib" Catholic," when the term  first ap-   utecl to him, 4-8. May be accepted
peared in creeds, 324.               as mostly genuine, 4. Opinions of
Celsus, Origen's work against, 176.   writers of authority on this point, 4.
Intellectual character of Celsus, 177.   Its date, 4, 5. Its character, conChrist. How first represented in art,   tents, and doctrine, 5-8.  Has no
861. Early portraits of, 364, 365,   traces of the doctrine of the Trinity
366. Later portraits, 365, 366, 367.   or of the doctrine of the Logos,
Time of his biirth unknown, 388,   5.  Distinction between God and
394. See also Logos, Son.            Christ preserved, 5-8. Opinion of
Christians, the common and unedu-   Photius, 7. Predxistence of the Son
cated of the early Church, 112-114.   not distinctly asserted in the Epistle,
Christmas. See Festivals.              13. Its general character, 8. SecChrysostom involved in the Origenist   ond Epistle to the Corinthians and
controversy, 211.  Death of; 211.   other writings ascribed to Clement
His nocturnal musical processions,   of Rome, not genuine, 9.
857.                               Codex Sinaiticus, the, 10.
26




402                             INDEX.
Constantia, the sister of Constantine,   and drives him  from  Alexandria,
befiiends Arius, 263, 264.           163. His death, 163, 164.
Constantine attempts to mediate be- Demons, Justin Martyr's account of,
tween the parties in Arius's case,   43.
251. Calls the Council of Nice, 251, Didron, Iconographie Chretienne by,
252. Enters the council, 257. Eu-   860.
sebius's description of the spectacle  Diognetus, Epistle to. See Epistle to
presented, 258. Banishes Athana-   Diognetus.
sius, 267. Is satisfied with Arius's Dionysius of Alexandria and his opinorthodoxy, 267. Orders Alexander   ions,218-220. Calls the Son a creatto admit him  to communion, 268.   ure, differing in substance from the
Receives Arian baptism in his last   Father, 218. What Huet and Basil
illness, 276. His belief, 276, note.   say of his doctrines, 336, 337, 339.
Constantine and Eusebius of Cmsa- Du Pin holds that the Apostles drew up
rea, 299.                            no form of faith, 317. Thinks that
Constantinople, council of, A. D. 381,   the Apostolical Constitutions should
adopted the Nicene Creed with an    be referred to the third or fourth
additional clause  respecting  the    century, and that they have been
Holy Spirit, 287, 288.               much altered, 326. Says the AthConstantius, an Arian, 273.            anasian Creed was not written by
"Consubstantial," the term, how used    Athanasius, 341.
by the Fathers of Nice, 260, 282-285,
334. Rlejected by the second Coun-                 E.
cil of Antioch, held in opposition to
Paul of Samosata, 283. Later coun- Easter, 381-384.
cils which rejected it, and declared  Ephrem, the Syrian, his hymns, 350.
against the Nicene faith, 339, 340.   Epiphanius engages in the Origenist
Creeds, origin of, 315. Creed of Cyp-   controversy, 211. Speaks of a work
rian, 320. Of Gregory Thaumatur-   called the "Apostolical Constitugus, 320.  Of Irenoeus, 319, 320.   tions," 324, 325.  Not certain that
Of Origen, 320. Of Tertullian, 109,   our present " Constitutions" is the
320. The old Roman, the Oriental,   same, 325.
and that of Aquileia, compared, 321, Epiphany, the, Festival of, 386, 387.
322. See also Apostles' Creed, Atha4 Epistle to Diognetus, 92-94. Probably
nasian Creed, Lucian.                not the work of Justin, 92. OpinCreed-making, evils of, 288.           ions of the learned, 92. Its probCrescens, the Cynic, hostile to Justin   ble date, 92.  Of great value and
and the Christians, 28, 29.         interest, 92. Teaches the supremCross, forms of, in art, 371, note.    acy of the Father and the suborCudworth asserts the Platonism of the   dination of the Son, 93, 94.  No
early Fathers, 65. Says that they    allusion to the Spirit, 93, 94. The
generally taught the inferiority of   writer's doctrine of the Logos, 93.
the Son, 70.                         The "Appendix" probably a spuriCureton, Rev. W., his edition of the    ous addition, 94.  Bunsen on the
Syriac version of the Epistles of   authorship of the " Appendix," 94,
Ignatius, 14, note.                  note.
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, 227. Eusebius of Cesarea, 290-314. InciHeld the Son to be distinct from the   dents of his life, 290, 291.  His
Father and inferior, 227-229. Con-   friendship for Pamphilus, 291. His
founds the Spirit with the Logos,   picture of the happiness of Chris227, 228. Distinguishes the Spirit  tians after persecution had ceased,
from the Logos, and makes it infe-   293. Rebuilding of churches, 294.
rior to Christ, 228. Baptismal creed    Church of Tyre, 294.  Eusebius
of, 320.                             made Bishop of Casarea, 294. His
studies, 294.  Takes a prominent
D.                    part in the Arian controversy, 294.
Offirs a creed, 295. Subscribes the
Dailld thinks the Apostolical Consti-   creed of the council, 295. Meantutions written after the Council of   ing of the term "consubstantial,"
Nice, 327.                           260, 296. Eusebius defended from
Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, hos-   the charge of insincerity, 296. His
tile to Origen, 162. Persecutes him    want of firmness, 297. Refuses to




INDEX.                             403
accept the see of Antioch, 298. The    Christmas first celebrated on the
emperor's esteem for him, 299. His   sixth of January, 388, 389. Clemdeath and character, 300. His theo-   ent's account, 388. Afterwards on
logical opinions, 300. Held the old   the twenty-fifth of December, 889.
doctrine of the inferiority of the    When adopted at Rome, 389. In
Son, 302-305. No consubstantialist,  the East, 389. Chrysostom's testi302. Held that the Spirit was made   mony, 389. Reasons for adopting
by the Son, 303.  Significance of   the twenty-fifth of December, 390.
his belief, 305. His writings, 306.   The late origin of Christmas exCredit to which he is entitled as an    plained, 392. Not observed by the
historian, 306 et seqq.  Charge of   Manicheans, 392, note. Not imporsuppression of truth, 306.  Of de-   tant to know the day, 393.  Refending " pious frauds," 307. Value    marks of Milman, 394. No Triniof his authorities; 308-312. Con-   tarianism connected with either of
temporary events, 312.  Different   the ancient festivals, 395. Not found
value of his materials, 313.  His   in any document or relic belonging
use of them, 313.  Artistic merit  to the church of the first three cenof his work, 313, 314.              turies, 396.
Eusebius of Nicomedia, a pupil of Lu- Flavian and Diodorus introduce the
cian's, 224. Espouses the cause of   antiphonic singing at Antioch, 344.
Arius, 247.  Subscribes the Nicene   Flavian changes the old doxology,
Creed, 261. But continues to teach    288, 359.
Arian doctrine and is exiled, 261.
Further notice of, 275.                            G.
F.                  Gieseler on Origen's doctrine of the
generation of the Son, 188. Says
Faith, the one unchangeable rule of,   Origen taught that the Spirit was
according to Tertullian, 109, 320.  created by the Son, 188.
Fasts among the early Christians, Glory, the, in symbolic art, 368-372.
381-383.                          Gnostic, the true, or the perfect ChrisFather, the, how represented in art,  tian, 144-149. The heretical Gnos361, 362.                           tics, 149.
Fathers, the, decline of reverence for, Grabe assigns to the Apostolical Con33. Arguments and manner of writ-   stitutions a late origin, 327.
ing, 120,121. Their claims to our Gregory Nazianzen  represents  the
respect, 33, 140. The Fathers be-   ideas of theologians on the subfore and after the council of Nice,  ject of the Spirit as undefined late
how they differed, 285. Difference   in the fourth century, 287. Poems
in the mode of defending their doc-   of, 356, note.
trines, 285.. Merits as expositors, Gregory, Pope, reforms church music,
331.  Terms used by, 239, 240,   346.
332-335.  Not used in the modern  Gregory Thaumaturgus, 220, 221. A
sense, 240, 333. The early Fathers   pupil of Origen's, 165.  His panenot Trinitarian in the modern sense,   gyrical oration, 165, note.  Held
70, 75, 335-341.                    the Son to be inferior to the Father,
Festivals of the ancient Christians,   and of a different substance, 221,
377-396. Christmas not the earliest,   337. His creed, 320.
377. Weekly festival of Sunday,
378. A day of joy, 378-381. To                    H.
fast or kneel in prayer unlawful,
378.  Sunday not called the Sab- Harmonius, an early writer of hymns,
bath, 379.  Oldest annual festival   349.
that ~f the Resurrection, or Easter, Hegesippus, a Christian historian, 290,
381. Preparatory fasting, 381. Time    311.
of it, how determined, 383. Pente- Heraclas, employed as assistant in
cost, or Whitsunday, the next fes-  teaching by Origen, 157.  Bishop
tival in order of time, 384.  No    of Alexandria, 164.
other festivals known to Tertullian, Hermas, The "Shepherd" of, 9-13.
385.  No others known  to the    Its date and reputed origin, 9. The
Church in the time of Origen, 386.   Greek text, 10. The Codex SinaBaptism, or Epiphany, 386, 387.   iticus, 10. Contents and character




404                             INDEX.
of the "Shepherd," 11-13. God,   Nicene Fathers, according to Petaand God only, appears in it as su-   vius, make the Spirit inferior to the
preme, 11, 12. The Son subject,   Son, 336. What Huet says of early
12. The "Shepherd" and Arian-   views as to the Spirit, 337. Views
ism, 13. The preexistence of the    of the Nicene Fathers, according to
Son appears in the "Shepherd," 13.   Professor Stuart, 337.  Admission
Hippolytus, 179. His writings, 180.   of Basil, as to the opinions of the
Supposed author of a work against   old Fathers, and of his own day,
the heresy of Artemron, 348. Sup-   339. Arius's doctrine, 287. How
posed by Bunsen to have written    symbolized and represented in art,
the "Little Labyrinth," 190. Re-   361, 373-375.
cently discovered work of, 179, 180. Homoiousians, the, 273.
His " Confession " not Trinitarian, Horsley acknowledges the Platonism
180. Does not mention the Spirit,   of the early Fathers, 65.
181. Bunsen's remarks on, 181.    Hosius subscribes the Nicene creed,
Holy Spirit, Personality of, not taught   259. Subscribes to the Arian faith,
by Clement of Rome, 8. Supposed    273, 339, 340.
to mean Christ in " Shepherd" of Huet admits the charge of Platonism
Hermas, 12. Personality of, does   against the early Fathers, 65. What
not appear in the Epistle of Barna-   he says against the orthodoxy of
bas, 18. Justin Martyr supposed by   the Ante-Nicene Fathers, 336, 337.
some to make it the chief angel, 78. Huidekoper, Rev. F. His discussion
Held it to be an influence, 79. Con-   of the meaning of yevog in a passage
founded it with the Logos, 79. The    of Justin Martyr's Dialogue with
Fathers often confounded the Spirit   Trypho, 81, note. On the clause
with the Logos, 99, note.  The    "descended into hell," in the creed,
Spirit placed by Origen below the   323, note.
Son, 186, 338. He held it to be Hymnology of the ancient Church,
created by the Son, 188. Omitted    343- 359.  Not Trinitarian, 343.
in a creed of Tertullian's, 109, 320.   Singing: see Singing.  Primitive
Not alluded to in the Epistle to   hymns lost, 347, 348, 358. Hymns
Diognetus, 93, 94. Theophilus of   of the Brethren, 347.  Psalmodic
Antioch may have referred to it in   hymns referred to by Bunsen as
some sense, 99. Athenagoras de-   Ante-Nicene, 348, 349.  Earliest
scribes it as an influence, 101. Sa-   writers  of hymns' Syrian, 349.
bellius regards it as an influence,   Bardesanes and Harmonius, 349.
the power of God, 215, 216. The-   Ephrem, 350. Hymn attributed to
ognostus not orthodox on the sub-   Clement of Alexandria, 350. Beject, 221, 222. Pierius maintained   ryllus, 350, 351. Nepos, 351. Paul
its inferiority, 222. Cyprian some-   of Samosata attempts to restore the
times confounds it with, sometimes   old music and hymens, 351. Arius
distinguishes it from the Logos, 227,   and Juvencus write hymns, 353.
228.  Novatian makes the Spirit   Hilary of Poictiers, 353. Ambrose,
inferior to the Son, 230, 234. Lac-   353. The " Te Deum," 353, note.
tantius denies its personality, and    Prudentius, 354, 355.  Nocturnal
sometimes confounds it with the   street-singing  at Constantinople,
Logos, 238. The Council of Nice   356.  The poetical Fathers, 356,
only slightly touches upon it, 286,   note. Council of Laodicea attempts
287. The Council of Constantinople   to reform church music, 357. The
declares that it is to be worshipped    original doxologies testify against
and glorified, 287, 288. The Spirit  the' Trinity, 358. Flavian changes
made by the Son, according to Eu-   the old doxology, 288, 359.
sebius, 303.  The Spirit in the  "Hypostasis," the term, how used by
Apostolical Constitutions, 329. Its   the Fathers, 74, note, 182, note, 334.
divinity not openly maintained till
the middle of the fourth century,
286. Was preached cautiously, 287.
As late as A. D. 380, great difference Ignatian Letters. See Ignatius.
of opinion concerning it, 287. Fla- Ignatius.  The Epistles ascribed to
vian innovates in the doxology by    him of too uncertain authorship and
ascribing glory to the Spirit, 288,   too corrupt to be used, 13. The
359. The most distinguished Ante-   question of their genuineness, 13,




INDEX.                              405
note. The recently discovered Syr-   derived from the Apostolic Fathers,
iac version, 14, note. The doctrine    20, 64. Justin blended with Chrisof the supreme divinity of the Son   tianity the views of the later Planot found in it, 15.                  tonists, 64. Testimony of learned
Inferiority of the Son uniformly as-   Trinitarians, 65. Justin derived his
serted by the Ante-Nicene Fathers.   views from Philo, 66. Philo's opinSee Son.                              ions, 66. The Son not numerically
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, 102-105.   one with the Father, 71, 97. His
His works, 102. He holds the Son   inferiority, 72-74.  Not to be adinferior, 103. The Father supreme,   dressed in prayer, 73. The modern
103. That Christ suffered in his   doctrine of the Trinity derives no
whole nature, 104. Irennus did not   support from Justin, 75. Two pasattribute to the Saviour a rational   sages from his writings misquoted
human soul, 105. His two creeds,   and misrepresented, 76-78.  His
319, 320.                            views as to the Spirit, 78. Held it to
be an influence, 79. Justin a Unitarian, 80. His account of the humanJ.                    itarians of his day, 80. Christ's preexistence not necessary to his MesJerome, time of, 117. Translates part   siahship, 81, 84. This view sustained
of Origen's works, 174.  Involved    by Bishop Watson, 83. Doctrines,in the Origenist controversy, 211.   of Calvinism  not in harmony with
Says that Lactantius denied the    Justin's teachings, 84. Justin's acpersonality of the Spirit, 238. What   count of the Christian rites in his
he thought of Origen's orthodoxy,   day, 86-89. Baptism, 86.  The
339.                                  Lord's Supper, 87.  Sunday worJesus Christ. See Christ, Son.          ship, 89. Hostility of the Jews to
Jews, the, hostility of, to the Chris-   Christians, 90. Memory of Justin,
tians, 90.                            90.
Justin Martyr and his opinions, 21-91. Juvencus, a writer of hymns, 353.
Author of the early philosophical
corruptions of Christianity, 22. His
character, 22, 91. Birth, parentage,
and studies, 23. His delight. in the
doctrines of Plato, 24, 25. His con- Kaye, Bishop: extracts from his acversion, 25, 26.   Dialogue  with   count of Clement of Alexandria, 122,
Trypho, 26, note, 40.  Writes his   128, 134. Says that the Apostles'
first Apology, 27. His second, 28.   Creed was unknown to Tertullian,
His last days and martyrdom, 29.   320. How  the terms "Sabbath"
Writings, 22, 31, 90. Epistle to Di-   and " Sunday " were used, 380. No
ognetus probably not written by    notice of Christ's nativity found in
Justin, 32, note, 92. Former esti-   Tertullian's writings, 385.
mnation of his writings, 32, 33. An- King, Sir Peter, on the Apostles'
alypis of his first Apology, 34-39.   Creed, 317, 321, 323.
Topics of his second, 39. His intellectual and literary character, 41               L.
et seqq. Inattention to dates, 42, 45.
Love of the marvellous, 42. Ac- Lactantius, 236. His learning and incount of demons, 43.  Misquota-   tellectual character, 236. Makes the
tions, 45. Mode of interpreting the    Father and Son two beings; speaks
Old Testament, 46, 48. Types of    of the Son as created and subordithe cross, 47. His theology, 50.   nate and possessing  only derived
Origin of the Trinity, 51, 52. Jus-   dignity and power, 237, 238. Denies
tin's doctrine of the Logos, 52. An    the personality of the Spirit, 238.
attribute converted into a real be-   His views of the Atonement, 238.
ing, a little before the creation of    Poems attributed to, 356, note.
the world, 52-56. Generation of Ladies, influence of, on the fortunes
the Son, 56. His views of the Logos   of Arianism, 274, note.
not derived from  the Hebrew  or Laodicea, council of, attempts to reChristian Scriptures, 58. Language    form church music, 357.
of the Old Testament examined, Le Clere testifies to the belief of the
68-62. Of the New, 63, 64. Not   early Fathers in the inferiority of




406                            INDEX.
the Son, 70. His opinion of the origin  Martyrdoms under Marcus Aurelius,
of the Apostolical Constitutions, 327.   115.
Lent; its origin and the manner of  Methodius, 222-224. His writings, 209,
keeping it in the early Church, 382.   and note. They savor of Arianism,
Leontius of Antioch, a leading Arian,   223. Held the Son to be inferior to
and one of Lucian's pupils, 224.    the Father, 223. His strange theory
Logos, the: the Son held to exist in   of the incarnation of the Divine
the Father from  eternity as the    Word, 223, 224. His censure of
Logos, 124. Justin Martyr's doc-   Origen's doctrines and recantation,
trine of, 52-57. An hypostatized    209.
attribute, 56. This doctrine not Monarchians, the, 110, 189-192, 214found in the Old Testament, 58-62.   217.
Nor in the New, 63, 64. Nor in the Monarchy, the, Tertullian's explanawritings of the Apostolic Fathers,   tion of, 111.
5, 8, 18, 20, 64, 69, note. Derived  Moses, the Greeks accused of borrowfrom the Platonists, 58, 65. Testi-   ing from. See Plato.
mony of learned  Trinitarians, 65. Mosheim  says the Apostles' Creed
Philo's doctrine of the Logos, 66.   was not the composition of the
Coincides with that of Justin and    Apostles, 316.
subsequent Fathers, 69. Citations  "Muratorian Fragment," the, 9.
from  the Fathers between Justin
and Clement of Alexandria: Tatian,
96. Theophilus of Antioch, 98. N.
Athenagoras, 100, 101, note. Ireneeus, 103.'Tertullian, 108. Views Neander *thinks the Apostolic origin
of Clement of Alexandria, 124-126.   of the Apostles' Creed a fable, 317.
Doctrine of Hippolytus, 181. Of    His opinion of the origin of the
Origen, 183, 184. The Logos doctrine   Apostolical  Constitutions,  328.
said by Artemon and his followers    Statement of the views of Arius
to be recent, 189, 190. Rejected    compared with the belief of precedby the other Monarchians, 191, 192.   ing ages, 254. On the eternal gen.
Writers between Origen and Arius:    ration of the Son, as connected by
Doctrine of Sabellius, 215, 216. Of    Origen with the eternity  of the
Paul of Samosata, 217. Of the    material creation, 186, 187.  On
scholars of Origen, 217. Of Me-   Artemon's claim to hold the primithodius, 223. Of Lucian, 225. Of    tive doctrine, 189, 190. Says the
Cyprian, 227, 228. Of Novatian,   Nicene Creed was imposed by au231, 233.  Lactantius  sometimes   thority, 262.  Forced  upon the
confounds the Spirit with the Logos,   Oriental Church, 289. Says Clem238. Arius rejected the doctrine of   ent of Alexandria first tried  to
the existence of the Logos from    set aside the idea of time in its apeternity, as an attribute, 253, 254,   plication to the transition of the
301. Eusebius of Csesarea accepted    Logos into reality, 126, note.
it, 302, 304.  Professor Stuart's Nepos, a writer of hymns, 351.
view of Justin's doctrine of, 337, Nice, Council of, number and charac338. See Son.                       ter of the Bishops present, 252.
Lord's Supper, Justin's account of its    Opinions of Arius compared with
administration, 87.                 the belief of preceding ages, 252-255.
Lucian, Presbyter of Antioch, 224-226.   Proceedings of the council, 256.
His writings, 224.  His disciples,   Entrance of the Emperor, 257. Dif224. His opinions, 225. The creed   ficulty of framing a symbol, 259.
attributed to him, 225. Approved    Eusebius offers a creed, 259. Inby Athanasius and claimed by the   troduction of the term  " consubArians, 225. Lucian seems to have    stantial," 259. Its explanation, 260,
tended towards Arianism, 225, 226.   283, 296. Condemnation of Arius
and his friends, 261. Parting feast
iL.                   given by Constantine, 262, note.
Nicene faith explained, 282-285.
Maris of Chalcedon, one of Lucian's   Changes after the time of the counpupils, 224. Finally subscribes the    cil, 285. The council does not define
Nicene Creed, 261. His rebuke of   the Spirit, 286, 287.
Julian, 276.                       Nicene Creed, origin of, 259. Imposed




:INDEX,                              407
by authority, 262.  i orced  apon    Leaves Egypt, 163, 165. Retires to
the Oriental Church, 289.             Palestine, 165. New  pupils, 165.
Nicene faith explained, 260, 282 et   Pursues his critical studies, 166.
seqq., 296.  Councils which rejected    Discovery of old manuscripts, 166.
it, 339, 340.                          Visits Greece  and Arabia, 166.
Nimbus in symbolic art, 368. Its sig-   Greatly admired, 167.  Continues
nificance, 372.                       to write, 167. His extempore dis.
Nodtus the Monarchian, and his opin-    courses, 167. Is thrown into pris.
ions, 191, 192.                       on, and placed on the rack, 167.
Novatian, 229-235. His work on the    His death, 167.  Character, 168.
Trinity, 229.  His "rule of faith,"    His memory persecuted, 169. Ques230  Teaches the supremacy of the    tion of his salvation, 169. His inFather, and the inferiority of the    tellectual character, 170. Merits as
Son  and  Spirit, 229, 230.  The    an expositor, 170.  His writings,
Father supreme, 230. The Son dis-    172. Scholia, 172. Commentaries,
tinct and inferior, 231-233, 234.    166, 173   Homilies, 174.  Book
Only one God, 233, 234. The Spirit   " Of Principles,"  160, 166, 174.
inferior, 234, 235.                    Iexapla, 158, 166, 175.  Interpretation of the Scriptures, 173, note.
0,                      W'ork  against Celsus, 176.  His
views ot tLhe Son and Spirit, 182 et
"CEconomy'" the, -0),                  rewq.q, 338.  Believed God and the
Old Testament, the, does not; t-each    Socr to  lc Lwo beings, 182. The
the Logos doctriune a neia oy -yle'ather greater than the Son, 183.
early Fathers, 58-62. Nor the New,   Examples of his  language  and
63, 64.                               reasoning, 183, 184. Christ not an
"One," the " same," how used by the  - object of supreme worship, and not
Fathers, 334.                         to be addressed in prayer, 184. The
Oriental Creed, the, compared with    Spirit below  the Son, 186, 338.
the Roman and with that of Aqui-   Comparative rank of the Father,
leia, 321, 322. Not Trinitarian, 324.   Son, and Spirit, 186. Eternal genOrigen  and his theology, 152-213.   eration of the Son connected by
Parentage and education, 152, 153.   Origen  with  the  eternity of the
Characteristics of his,. youth, 153,   material creation, 186-188. Christ's
154. His poverty, 154.  Presides    preixistent human soul, 192, 193.
over the Alexandrian Catechetical   Efficacy  of Christ's  death, 193.
School, 155. His zeal and  self-   System  of rational and animated
denial, 155, 156. Unbounded pop-   natures, 194 et segq. All souls preoularity, 156. Becomes a pupil of    existent, 195. All placed in a for.
Ammonius, 156. His Platonism,   mer state of trial, 195. The fall of,
156. Visits Rome, 157. His He-   and creation of the material universe
brew  studies, 157. Biblical criti-   for their reception, 195. The stars
cism, 158. His correction of the    animated, and will be judged, 195.
Version of the Seventy, 158, 166,   Angels, demons, tutelar spirits, 195,
note. Secular learning; philosoph-    196. Present condition the result
ical studies, 158.  His philosophi-   of former trial, 197. Extent of the
cal convert Ambrose, 160. Ambrose   redemption, 197.  Benefits all raencourages his critical studies, and    tional natures, including celestial,
devotes his wealth to the purchase    197 et seqq.  Moral freedom  and
of manuscripts, 180.  Origen's im-   ability, 199. No unconditional elecmense labors, 160. Collation and    tion, 200, 201. Views of the future,
correction of MSS., 160.  Writes    202 et seqq. Form  of the future
his Commentaries, 160. Also his   body, 203. Restoration ofall beings
work on "Principles," 160.  His   to virtue and happiness, 203. Nafirst Arabian journey, 161. Preaches   ture of future punishment, 204.
in Palestine, 162. Demetrius, his    Final restoration of all things, 205,
bishop, offended, 162.   Origen's   206, 208. Rewards of the blessed
journey to  Greece, 162.  Is or-   206. Perpetual lapses and returns,
dained in Palestine, 162. Returns    207. New material creations, 208
to Alexandria, and is deposed and    Fate of the Origentir. doctrines
excommunicated, 162, 163.  Rea-   208.  Origenists an5d a-ti-Origen'
sons for his excommunication, 164.   ists, 209 et seqq. Orqg;ni'u finds




408                             INDEX.
shelter in the monasteries, 212.   to them by Clement of Alexandria
Final anathema against Origen, 212.   and others, 127.
Freedom  of speculation, 212, 213. Platonism of the early Fathers, 65, 66,
Festival of Christmas unknown to   74. Concessions of learned TriniOrigen, 386. Summaries of faith   tarians, 65.
by, 320. What Huet and Professor Polycarp: what Irennus and Jerome
Stuart thought of his orthodoxy,   say of him, 15. His martyrdom, 15,
337, 338. What Jerome thought,   115. His Epistle to the Philippians,
339.                                15-17.  Probably genuine in the
Orpheus, Christ compared to, 122,   main, but supposed to be not wholly
150, note.                          genuine, 15, 16. Its probable date
Otto, his edition of Justin, 32, note.  and its character, 16. Represents
the Father as supreme and the Son
as subordinate, 16, 17.
P.                  Praxeas, the Monarchian, and his opin.
ions, 191.
" Pedagogue" of Clement, 130-139.   Preexistence of souls, 195.
Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius:  Preaxistent human soul of Christ, Orisome account of him, 291, 292.   gen's view of, 192, 193.
With Eusebius, writes an "Apolo- Prudentius: notice of his poems, 354.
gy " for Origen, 209, 210, 291, 292.
Pantaonus, 117, 118.                                 Q.
Papias, 310.                                         Q.
2Paul of Samosata, and his opinions, Quadratus, a Christian Apologist, 21.
216, 217, 351. He held that Christ
was man by nature and that the
divine Logos united itself with him,              R.
216, 217. lie attempts to restore
the old music and hymns, 351.     Rimini, council of. See Ariminum.
Pearson assigns to the Apostolical Roman creed, the early, compared
Constitutions a late  origin, 327.   with the Oriental and with that of
Does not fihd the Athanasian Creed    Aquileia, 821, 322.
mentioned before the year 600, 341. Rufinus: his translation of some of
Pelagius, doctrines of, 212.          Origen's works, 174, 175. His fable
Petavius testifies to the Platonism of    about the origin of the Apostles'
the early Fathers, 65.  Charges    Creed, 317, 318. Three old creeds
Tertullian with impiety and absurd-   given  by  him compared, 321, 322.
ity for representing the Father as    Says that Clement of Alexandria
far above the Son, 108, 109. Ad-   called the Son a creature, 124, 339.
duces evidence against the ortho-   That Dionysius fell into Arianism,
doxy of the Ante-Nicene Fathers,   339.
336. Says that most Catholics dared
not profess the HIoly Spirit to be                 S.
God, 286.
Philo, opinions of, 66-68.          Sabbath  always  meant  Saturday
Photius complains that Clement of.   among the ancient Christians, 379,
Rome does not ascribe to Christ di-   380, 381. Not a fast, 379, 380, 381.
vine qualities, 7. Says Clement of  Sabellius and his doctrines, 215, 216.
Alexandria made the Son a "creat-   Held that the Logos was temporaure," 120, note, 124.  That Theog-   rily hypostatized in the Saviour,
nostus did the same, 221, 222. That   215.
Pierius made the Father and Son to  "Same," how used by the Fathers,
be two substances, 222.             334.
Pierius, 222. He makes the Son in- Sculpture, art of, its influence among
ferior to the Father;  the Father   the Greeks, according to Clement,
and Son two natures, 222. What   128.
Huet says of him, 336, 337. Holds Secular learning, controversy about,
the Spirit to be inferior to the Fa-   158, 159.
ther and Son, 222.                Secundus refuses to subscribe the NiPlato and the Platonists falsely said to   cene Creed, and is banished, 261.
have borrowed -from  Moses, 75, Seleucia, council of, rejects the term
note, 126, 144. Inspiration ascribed    "consubstantial," 340.




INDEX.                               409
Semi-Arians, or Homoiousians, the, (  of the inferiority of the Son, 336,
273.                                   837. Statements of Professor StuSemischl: icharacter of his work on    art, 337, 338. Of Jerome, Basil, and
Justin Martyr, 51, note.               Rufinus, 338, 339.  See also ArtisSeptuagint version of the Old Testa-   tic Representations of the Trinity,
ment, 158.                             Christ, Logos.
Shepherd of Hermas.  See Hermas.   Souls, all, preexistent, 193, 195. See
Singing among the early Christians,    Origen.
343-347. First regular choir, 344. Spirit.  See Holy Spirit.
Flavian and Diodorus introduce the  Stars animated and will be judged,
antiphonic singing at Antioch, 344.   according to Origen, 195.
Origin of this mode of singing, 345.  Stromata of Clement of Alexandria,
Ambrose  introduces  it into  the    141-149. Of Origen, 166.
West, 345.  Improvements under  Stuart, Professor, says that the AnteGregory, 346, 347.                    Nicene Fathers make the Son and
Sirmium, third council of, rejects the    Spirit derived beings, and deny the
term  "consubstantial," 339; also    numerical identitv of the Father
the fifth council of, 340.            and Son, 337, 338.  That Origen
Son, the, held to have been originally    makes the Father greater than the
an attribute of the Father.  See    Son and the Spirit, and the Son
Logos.  His generation, 56.  His    greater thlan the Spirit, 338.
derived nature and  inferiority to  Sufferinlgs of a future life remedial,
the Father, uniformly taught by    according to Origen, 203.
the Fathers of the first three cen-  Sunlday, how and why observed, acturies, 70, 75, 239, 335.  Cita-tions    cording to Justin Martyr, 89.  See
from the Apostolic Fathers: Clem-    Festivals.
ent of Rome, 5-8.  Hernmas, 12. Syriac version of the Ignatian EptsPolycarp, 16. Barnabas, 18. From    ties, 14, note, 15.
Justin, 71-74, 76-78. Tatian, 96, 97.
Theophilus of Antioch, 97-99. Athe-                  T.
nagoras, 100.  Irenseus, 102, 103.
Tertullian, 106-110. Clement of Al- Tatian, the Syrian, 95-97. A I'latonist,
exandria, 124-126. Hippolytus, 180.   95. His conversion, subsequent hisOrigen, 182 et seqq.  Eternal gen-   tory, and works, 96.  His views as
eration of, connected by Origen with   to the Father, 96. The Logos, 96.
the eternity of the material creation,    The Son a distinct and subordinate
186-188. Doctrine of the Monarchi-   being, 97.  Huet's opinion of Taans, Arteimon, Praxeas, Noetus, and    tian's doctrines, 336.
Beryllus, 189-192.  Of Sabellius, "Te Deum," oriein of, 353, note.
214.  Of Paul of Samosata, 216. Terms, meaning  of )239, 240, 332-335.
Origen's views of the "eternal gen-    Change in, 332.  Old used in a
eration " not adopted by his schol-    modern sense, 240, 333.
ars, 217.  Doctrine  of Gregory  Tertullian, 105-112. His history, charThaumaturgus, 220. Dionysius of    acter, and writings, 105, 106. He
Alexandria, 218.  Citations from    teaches the supremacy of' the. FaCyprian, 227-229. Theognostus, 221.   ther, 106.  The Son numerically
Doctrine of Pierius, 222. Citations    distinct, 107.  Infierior, 107, 108,
from  Methodius, 22'. Doctrine of    111. Not eternal, 108. The Logos
Lucian,  225. Citations from Nova-   and the Son, 108. His creeds not
tian, 230-234. Arnobius, 235. Lac-    Trinitarian, 109.  One quoted, in
tantius, 237, 238.  Arius's views as    which the Spirit is not mentioned,
to, 252-255.  The Son a great pre-    109, 320. The Apostles' Creed not
existent Spirit, 253.  Opinions of    known to Tertullian, 320.  Hol'ts
Eusebius of Cesarea, 302-305. Tr,    moan's nature to be not totally cocSon appears as inferior in the Apos-   rupt, 110. The " (Economy "- tle
tolical Constitutions, 328, 329. Truth    Trinity  and the Monarchy, 110.
respecting the Son said to have been    His answer to tile objection that lie
corrupted in the time of Zephyri-    makes two (Gods, 110, 111. His exnus, 190. The Father and the Son    planation of the divine monarchlly,
relatively unequal, according to the    11L  Sllows no homoousian TrilNicene faith, 284, 285. Huet's testi-   ity, 111.  Christ's human rational
mony to what the Fathers taught    soul, 111. Tertullian and the Atlla



410                             INDEX.
naslan orthodoxy, 112. Christmas   differed from the modern, 385, 336:
not known to Tertullian; 885.       Ancient Hymnology  not TrinitaTheodosius issues severe-edicts against   rian, 358, 359. No Trinitarianisin
the Arians, 274.                    in any artistic remains of the earlier
Theognis of Nice, one of Lucian's pu-   ages, 360, 361, 376. The Ancient
pils, 224. Subscribes the Nicene   Festivals not Trinitarian, 395, 39ti.
Creed, but continues to teach Arian    The modern doctrine of the Trinity
doctrine and is exiled, 261. Perse-   not found in any docunment or relic
veres in opposition to the consub-   belonging to the Church of the first
stantial faith, 276.                three centuries, 396. See also ArtisTheognostus, 221. Photius says he   *tic Representations of the Trinity,
calls the Son a creature, 221, 222.   Holy Spirit, Logos, Son.
His opinion as to the Spirit, 222.
Theonas refuses to  subscribe  the                  U
Nicene Creed, and is banished, 261.
Theophilus of Alexandria engages in
Theophilus ofAlexndria en  Ulphilas, or Ulfila, introduces thle
the Origenist controversy, 210, 211.
the Origenist controversy,211.      alphabet and Arianism among the
His death, 211.
Theophilus of Antioch, 97-99. His   G
Theophilus 9o7 ASpiocks of God as Unlettered  Christians of the early
hre Son as inferior, 97    Church, the, 112.  Perplexed by
~~~~suprem~~~~e, tTertullian's " CEconomy," 110.
His views of the generation of the
Son, 98. Of the Logos, 98. The
Father only to be worshipped, 98.                  V.
First used. the term " Trinity," applying it to God, his Logos, and his Valens friendly to the Arians, 274.
wisdom, 99. Huet's opinion of his
doctrine, 336.                                     W.
Tillemont calls the Apostolical Constitutions a fabrication of the sixth Watson, Bishop, maintains, with Juscentury, 326.                      Watson, Bishop, maintains, with JusTime, how measured, 255. Meaning   tin, tliat the preexistence of Jesus
of the expmredssions, "  ~Before tim  was not necessary to his sufficiency
of the expressions, " Before  time
and the ages," " When time was          a Saviour 83.
not," when used by the old Chris- Whiston affirms that the early Fathers
believed the Son to be distinct from
tian riters, 255, 256.     the Father, and inferior, 70. AsTomline, Bishop, says it is not known    signs to the Apostolical Constitwho wrote the Apostles' Creed, 317.   signs to the Apostolical  onsiuThe Apostles prescribed no creed, Whitsunday Festivl of, 384.
317.  The Athanasian creed was
not written by Athanasius, 341.    Wine: Clement of Alexandria on its
Trinity, the. The germ of the doctrine of the Trinity introduced in
Justin's time, 80. The term  " Trin-               Z.
ity" first used by Theophilus of
Antioch, 99. The doctrine of the  Zephyrinus: the truth relating to the
Trinity of gradual formation, 286.    Son said to have been corrupted in
How  the Trinity of the Fathers    his time, 190.
THE E>.,