THE
ANTE-NICENE FATHERS
TRANSLATIONS OF
The Writings of the Fathers down to a.d. 325
The Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D.,
AND
James Donaldson, LL.D.,
EDITORS
AMERICAN REPRINT OF THE EDINBURGH EDITION
revised and chronologically arranged, with brief prefaces and occasional notes
BY
A. CLEVELAND COXE, D.D.
VOLUME II
FATHERS OF THE SECOND CENTURY:
HERMAS, TATIAN, ATHENAGORAS, THEOPHILUS, AND CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (ENTIRE)
Τὰ ἀρχαια ἔθη κρατείτω.
The Nicene Council.
[Translated by the Rev. F. Crombie, M.a.]
[a.d. 160.] The fragment known as the “Muratorian
Canon” is
the historic ground for the date I give to this author. To be found, with copious annotations, in
Routh’s Reliquiæ, vol. i. pp. 389–434, Oxford,
1846. See also Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament,
Cambridge, 1855. Hippolytus
and His Age, vol. i. p. 315. Why “Athenian”? It was read
everywhere. But possibly this is a specification based on
At first sight, Hermas might seem to have little in common
with Irenæus; and, on many accounts, it would be preferable to pair
him with Barnabas. But I feel sure that chronology forbids, and that
the age of Irenæus, and of the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, is the
period which called for this work, and which accounts for its popularity
and its diffusion among the churches. Its pacific spirit in dealing
with a rising heresy, which at first was a puzzle to the Latins, More of this in Athenagoras; but see
Kaye’s Justin Martyr, p. 179, note 3, ed. 1853.
Bunsen pronounces magisterially on the Muratorian
fragment as an ill-translated excerpt from Hegesippus, written about
a.d. 165. This date may be
inaccurate, but the evidence is that of a contemporary on which we
may rely. “Very recently,” he says, “in our own
times, in the city of Rome, Hermas compiled The Shepherd; his
brother, Bishop Pius, Roman fabulists
know all about Pius, of course, and give us this history: “He was
a native of Aquileia, and was elected bishop on the 15th of January,
a.d. 158 … He governed the
Church nine years, five months, and twenty-seven days.” So affirms
that favourite of Popes, Artaud de Montor (Histoire de Pie VIII.,
p. xi. Paris, 1830). The latest learned authority among
Roman Catholics, a Benedictine, gives us the dates a.d. 142–156, respectively, as those of his
election and decease. See Series Episcoporum, etc. P. B. Gams,
Ratisbonæ, 1873.
Let me present, in outline, the views which seem to me
necessary to a good understanding of the work; and as I am so
unfortunate as to differ with the Edinburgh editors, who are entitled,
primâ facie, to be supposed correct, I shall venture to apologize
for my own conceptions, by a few notes and elucidations. Relying upon the invaluable aid of Dr.
Routh, I had not thought of looking into Westcott, till I had worked
out my own conclusions. I am greatly strengthened by his elaborate and
very able argument. See his work on the Canon, pp.
213–235.
As Eusebius informs us, the charismata were not extinct in the churches when the Phrygian imitations began to puzzle the faithful. Bunsen considers its first propagators specimens of the clairvoyant art, and pointedly cites the manipulations they were said to practice (like persons playing on the harp), in proof of this. We must place ourselves in those times to comprehend the difficulties of early Christians in dealing with the counterfeit. “Try the spirits,” said St. John; and St. Paul had said more expressly, “Quench not the Spirit; despise not prophesyings; prove all things,” etc. This very expression suggests that there might often be something despicable in the form and manner of uttering what was excellent. To borrow a phrase of our days, “the human element” was painfully predominant at times, even among those who spoke by the Spirit. The smoke of personal infirmity discoloured genuine scintillations from hearts in which still smouldered the fire of Pentecostal gifts. The reticence of Irenæus is therefore not to be marvelled at. He cautioned Eleutherus no doubt, but probably felt, with him, that the rumours from Phrygia needed further examination. The prophetic gifts were said to be lodged in men and women austere as John the Baptist, and professing a mission to rebuke the carnal and self-indulgent degeneracy of a generation that knew not the apostles.
It would not be a very bold conjecture, that Hermas
and his brother were elderly grandchildren of the original Hermas,
the friend of St. Paul. The Shepherd, then, might be based upon
personal recollections, and upon the traditions of a family which
the spirit of prophecy had reproved, and who were monuments of its
power. The book supplies us with evidences of the awakened conscience
with which Hermas strove to “bless his household.” But,
be this as it may, this second Hermas, with his brother’s
approbation, undertakes to revive the memory of those primal days
portrayed in the Epistle to Diognetus, when Christians, though
sorrowful, were “always rejoicing.” He compiles
accordingly a non-metrical idyl; reproducing, no doubt, traditional
specimens of those “prophesyings,” on which St. Paul remarks.
Hence we infer, that such outpourings as became the subject of apostolic
censure, when they confused the order of the Corinthian Church,
The permissive wisdom of the Spirit granting, while
restraining, such manifestations, is seen in thus counterbalancing
Sibylline and other ethnic utterances. (
This view of the subject, moreover, explains historical
facts which have been so unaccountable to many critics; such as the
general credit it obtained, and that its influence was greater in the
East than among Latins. But once commended to the Asiatic churches by
Pius, as a useful instruction for the people, and a safeguard against
the Phrygian excesses, it would easily become current wherever the Greek
language prevailed. Very soon it would be popularly regarded as the work
of the Pauline Hermas, and as embodying genuine prophesyings of the
apostolic age. A qualified inspiration would thus be attributed to them,
precisely such as the guarded language of Origen Westcott, p. 219. Ed. 1855, London. Hieron.,
tom. 1. p. 988, Benedictine ed.
After reading Irenæus Against Heresies,
then, we may not inappropriately turn to this mild protest against the
most desolating and lasting delusion of primitive times. Most bitterly
this will be felt when we reach the great founder of “Latin
Christianity,” whose very ashes breathed contagion into the life
of such as handled his relics with affection, save only those, who,
like Cyprian, were gifted with a character as strong as his own. The
genius of Tertullian inspired his very insanity with power, and, to the
discipline of the Latin churches, he communicated something of the rigour
of Montanism, with the natural re-actionary relaxation of morals in actual
life. Of this, we shall learn enough when we come to read the fascinating
pages of that splendid but infatuated author. Montanism itself, and the
Encratite heresy which we are soon to consider in the melancholy case
of Tatian, were re-actions from those abominations of the heathen with
which Christians were daily forced to be conversant. These Fathers
erred through a temptation in which Satan was “transformed as an
angel of light.” Let us the more admire the penetrating foresight,
and the holy moderation, of Hermas. To our scornful age, indeed, glutted
with reading of every sort, and alike over-cultivated and superficial,
taking little time for thought, and almost as little for study, The
Shepherd can furnish nothing attractive. He who brings nothing to it,
gets nothing from it. But let the fastidious who desire at the same time
to be competent judges, put themselves into the times of the Antonines,
and make themselves, for the moment, Christians of that period, and they
will awaken to a new world of thought. Let such go into the assemblies of
the primitive faithful, in which it was evident that “not many wise
men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, were called.”
There they were, “as sheep appointed to be slain,”
It has been objected, indeed, that the morals of Hermas
have a legalizing tone. The same is said of St. James, and the Sermon
on the Mount. Most unjustly and cruelly is this objection made to The
Shepherd. Granted its language is not formulated after Augustine, as
it could not be: its text is St. James, but, like St. James, harmonized
always with St. Paul. Bull (and
Grabe), Harmonia Apostolica; Works, vol. iii. Pearson, Vindiciæ Ignat., i. cap. 4. Bull,
Defens. Fid. Nicæn., 1. cap. 2. sec. 3; Works, vol. v. part
i. p. 15.
But the reader will now be eager to examine the following Introductory Notice of the translator:—
The Pastor of Hermas was one of the most popular books, if not the most popular book, in the Christian Church during the second, third, and fourth centuries. It occupied a position analogous in some respects to that of Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress in modern times; and critics have frequently compared the two works.
In ancient times two opinions prevailed in regard
to the authorship. The most widely spread was, that the Pastor of
Hermas was the production of the Hermas mentioned in the Epistle to
the Romans. Origen Comment. in
Hist. Eccl. iii. 3. De Viris Illustribus, c. x.
Those who believed the apostolic Hermas to be the author,
necessarily esteemed the book very highly; and there was much discussion
as to whether it was inspired or not. The early writers are of opinion
that it was really inspired. Irenæus quotes it as Scripture; Contra Hæres., iv. 20,
2.
Strom., i. xxi. p. 426. Ut supra.
The only voice of antiquity decidedly opposed to
the claim is that of Tertullian. He designates it apocryphal, De Pudicitia, c. xx., also
c. x.; De Oratione, c. xvi.
The second opinion as to the authorship is found in no
writer of any name. It occurs only in two places: a poem falsely ascribed
to Tertullian, and a fragment published by Muratori, on the Canon, the
authorship of which is unknown, and the original language of which is
still a matter of dispute. [This
statement should be compared with Westcott’s temperate and very
full account of the Muratorian Fragment, pp. 235–245.]
A third opinion has had advocates in modern times. The Pastor of Hermas is regarded as a fiction, and the person Hermas, who is the principal character, is, according to this opinion, merely the invention of the fiction-writer.
Whatever opinion critics may have in regard to the authorship, there can be but one opinion as to the date. The Pastor of Hermas must have been written at an early period. The fact that it was recognised by Irenæus as Scripture shows that it must have been in circulation long before his time. The most probable date assigned to its composition is the reign of Hadrian, or of Antoninus Pius.
The work is very important in many respects; but especially as reflecting the tone and style of books which interested and instructed the Christians of the second and third centuries.
The Pastor of Hermas was written in Greek. It was well known in the Eastern Churches: it seems to have been but little read in the Western. Yet the work bears traces of having been written in Italy.
For a long time the Pastor of Hermas was known to scholars only in a Latin version, occurring in several mss. with but slight vacations. But within recent times the difficulty of settling the text has been increased by the discovery of various mss. A Latin translation has been edited, widely differing from the common version. Then a Greek ms. was said to have been found in Mount Athos, of which Simonides affirmed that he brought away a portion of the original and a copy of the rest. Then a ms. of the Pastor of Hermas was found at the end of the Sinaitic Codex of Tischendorf. And in addition to all these, there is an Æthiopic translation. The discussion of the value of these discoveries is one of the most difficult that can fall to the lot of critics; for it involves not merely an examination of peculiar forms of words and similar criteria, but an investigation into statements made by Simonides and Tischendorf respecting events in their own lives. But whatever may be the conclusions at which the critic arrives, the general reader does not gain or lose much. In all the Greek and Latin forms the Pastor of Hermas is substantially the same. There are many minute differences; but there are scarcely any of importance,—perhaps we should say none.
In this translation the text of Hilgenfeld, which is based on the Sinaitic Codex, has been followed.
The letters Vat. mean the Vatican manuscript, the one from which the common or Vulgate version was usually printed.
The letters Pal. mean the Palatine manuscript edited by Dressel, which contains the Latin version, differing considerably from the common version.
The letters Lips. refer to the Leipzig manuscript, partly original and partly copied, furnished by Simonides from Athos. The text of Anger and Dindorf (Lips., 1856) has been used, though reference has also been made to the text of Tischendorf in Dressel.
The letters Sin. refer to the Sinaitic Codex, as given in Dressel and in Hilgenfeld’s notes.
The letters Æth. refer to the Æthiopic version, edited, with a Latin translation, by Antonius D’Abbadie. Leipzig, 1860.
No attempt has been made to give even a tithe of the various readings. Only the most important have been noted.
[It is but just to direct the reader’s attention to an elaborate article of Dr. Donaldson, in the (London) Theological Review, vol. xiv. p. 564; in which he very ingeniously supports his opinions with regard to Hermas, and also touching the Muratorian Canon. In one important particular he favours my own impression; viz., that The Shepherd is a compilation, traditional, or reproduced from memory. He supposes its sentiments “must have been expressed in innumerable oral communications delivered in the churches throughout the world.”]
He who had
brought me up, sold me to one Rhode in Rome. The commencement varies. In the Vatican: “He who had
brought me up, sold a certain young woman at Rome. Many years after this
I saw her and recognized her.” So Lips.; Pal. has the name of the
woman, Rada. The name Rhode occurs in
“On my road to the villages.” This seems to mean: as I
was taking a walk into the country, or spending my time in travelling
amid rural scenes. So the Æthiopic version. “Proceeding
with these thoughts in my mind.”—Vat. After I had
come to the city of Ostia.”—Pal. “Proceeding
to some village.”—Lips. [The Christian religion
begetting this enthusiasm for nature, and love for nature’s
God, is to be noted. Where in all heathendom do we find spirit or
expression like this?] Creatures. Creature
or creation.—Lips., Vat., Æth. Pathless
place. Place on the right hand.—Vat. [ Lord.
God.—Sin. alone. Are you to be the subject of my accusation?
Are you to accuse me?—Vat., Lips., Æth.
[ How? In what
place?—Vat., Sin. Wickedness. The
desire of fornication.—Lips. [ Literally, his glory is made
straight in the heavens. As long as his thoughts are righteous and
his way of life correct, he will have the Lord in heaven merciful to
him.—Vat. When he thinks righteously, he corrects himself,
and his grace will be in heaven, and he will have the Lord merciful in
every business.—Pal. His dignity will be straight in the
skies.—Æth. [
[ For many
… life. For the minds of such become empty. Now this is what
the doubters do who have no hope in the Lord, and despise and neglect
their life.—Vat. Their souls not having the hope of life,
do not resist these luxuries: for they despair of themselves and their
life.—Pal. [ [
After she had spoken these words, the heavens were
shut. I was overwhelmed with sorrow and fear, and said to myself,
“If this sin is assigned to me, how can I be saved, or how
shall I propitiate God in regard to my sins, Literally, perfect. How … sins. How shall I
entreat the Lord in regard to my very numerous sins?—Vat. How
can I propitiate the Lord God in these my sins?—Pal. How
then shall I be saved, and beg pardon of the Lord for these my many
sins?—Æth. [ A chair made of
white wool, like snow.—Vat. A chair for reclining, and on
it a covering of wool, white as hail.—Æth. And … sorrow. I
leaping in spirit with joy at her salutation.—Lips. [The
Monatanist austerity glanced at.] For …
spirit. For this hateful thought ought not to be in a servant of God,
nor ought a well-tried spirit to desire an evil deed.—Vat.
[The praise here bestowed on Hermas favours the idea that a second Hermas
was the author.]
“But God is not angry with you on account of
this, but that you may convert your house, But that. But God is not angry with
you on your own account, but on account of your house, which
has.—Vat.
Corrupted. To live riotously.—Vat. [
Lord. God.—Vat. [The Montanist dogma representing
God as the reverse of ( Will strengthen. Has
preserved you in glory.—Vat. Strengthened
and established.—Lips. Has saved your
house.—Pal. Easy-minded. Only wander not,
but be calm.—Vat. Omitted in Pal. Accomplishes … wishes. And exhibits it
to any one to whom he wishes.—Vat. So shall you also, teaching the truth daily, cut off
great sin.—Vat. I know … saints.
For the Lord knows that they will repent with all their heart, and He
will write you in the Book of Life.—Vat. See And give ear
to the glories of God, omitted in Vat. And then …
her. And unfolding a book, she read gloriously, magnificently, and
admirably.—Vat. [ Gentle. For they were few and
useful to us.—Vat. By His own wisdom and
providence. By His mighty power.—Vat., Pal. [Scripture
is here distilled like the dew. Holy omitted by Lips.
Removes. He will remove.—Vat.
See 2 Pet. iii. 5.
[
When she had ended her reading, she rose from the chair,
and four young men came and carried off the chair and went away to the
east. And she called me to herself and touched my breast, and said to me,
“Have you been pleased with my reading?” And I say to her,
“Lady,
Be strong, or be made
strong.—Vat. [
As I was going to the country Country; lit. to the villages. From
Cumæ—Vat. While I was journeying in the district
of the Cumans.—Pal.
[ Going
… Letter. [
Fifteen days after, when I had fasted and prayed much to
the Lord, the knowledge of the writing was revealed to me. Now the writing
was to this effect: “Your seed, O Hermas, has sinned against God,
and they have blasphemed against
God … against. Omitted in Vat. Not, omitted
in Vat.
Make known. Rebuke with these words.—Vat. [Your
sister in Christ, i.e., when converted.] Let her restrain her
tongue.—Vat. [ For … you. For she will
be instructed, after you have rebuked her with those words which the Lord
has commanded to be revealed to you.—Vat.
[Against Montanism. [To show that the Catholic doctrine
does not make Christ the minister of sin. Doubt
not. [ Passage. [ And whosoever shall not deny his
own life.—Vat. [Seeking one’s life was losing it:
hating one’s own life was finding it. ( Those
… coming. The meaning of this sentence is obscure. The Vat. is
evidently corrupt, but seems to mean: “The Lord has sworn by His
Son, that whoever will deny Him and His Son, promising themselves life
thereby, they [God and His Son] will deny them in the days that are to
come.” The days that are to come would mean the day of judgment and
the future state. See Became
gracious. Will be gracious.—Pal.
“But as for you, Hermas, remember not the wrongs
done to you by your children, nor neglect your sister, that they may
be cleansed from their former sins. For they will be instructed with
righteous instruction, if you remember not the wrongs they have done
you. For the remembrance
The Vat. adds: but forgetfulness
of them, eternal life. [ Personal.
Worldly.—Vat.
You … careless. You neglected them as if they did
not belong to you.—Vat. [See cap. iii. supra,
“easy-minded.”] But you
will be saved for not having departed from the living God. And your
simplicity and singular self-control will save you, if you remain
stedfast.—Vat. Now you will say: Lo! Great tribulation cometh
on.—Vat. Lo! Exceedingly great tribulation cometh
on.—Lips. [Maximus seems to have been a lapser, thus
warned in a spirit of orthodoxy in contrast with Montanism, but with
irony.] [The sense
is: This is the temptation of those who pervert the promises made to
the penitent. They may say, “we are threatened with terrible
persecution; let us save our lives by momentarily denying Christ: we
can turn again, and the Lord is nigh to all who thus turn, as
Eldad and Medad told the Israelites.”] Eldad (or Eldat or Heldat
or Heldam) and Modat (Mudat or Modal) are mentioned in
Now a revelation was given to me, my brethren,
while I slept, by a young man of comely appearance, who said to me,
“Who do you think that old woman is from whom you received the
book?” And I said, “The Sibyl.” “You are
in a mistake,” says he; “it is not the Sibyl.”
“Who is it then?” say I. And he said, “It is
the Church.” The
Church. The Church of God.—Vat. [See Grabe’s note,
Bull’s Defens. Fid. Nicæn., 1. cap. 2. sec. 6; Works,
vol. v. part. 1. p. 67.]
Grapte is supposed to have been a deaconess. [Here,
as in places that follow, is to be noted a development of canon law,
that could hardly have existed in the days of the Pauline Hermas. He is
supposed to be a lector, who might read for the edification of the elect,
if permitted by the presbyters. Grapte, the deaconess, is supposed to have
charge of widows and orphans; while Clement, only, has canonical right
to authenticate books to foreign churches, as the Eastern bishops were
accustomed to authenticate canonical Scriptures to him and others. The
second Hermas falls into such anachronisms innocently, but they betray
the fiction of his work. Compare the Apost. Constitutions with
(apocryphal) authentications by Clement.]
The vision which I saw, my brethren, was of the
following nature. Having fasted frequently, and having prayed to
the Lord that He would show me the revelation which He promised
to show me through that old woman, the same night that old woman
appeared to me, and said to me, “Since you are so anxious and
eager to know all things, go into the part of the country where you
tarry; and about the fifth
Fifth. Sixth.—Vat. [Here is a probable reference to
canonical hours, borrowed from apostolic usage ( [Compare Cyprian’s Life
and Martydom, by Pontius the deacon (sec. 16). This is doubtless a
picture of the bishop’s cathedra in the days of Pius, but,
for the times of the Pauline Hermas, a probable anachronism.]
[
[For justification and sanctification.] My elders. Perhaps the
translation should be: the presbyters. [No doubt; for here also is a
reference to canon law. See Apost. Constitutions (so called),
book ii. sec. vii. 57.]
“What have they borne?” said
I. “Listen,” said she: “scourges, prisons,
great tribulations, crosses, wild beasts, [
[ [ [ Others had
been made too short, not in Vat.
On showing me these visions, she wished to retire. I
said to her, “What is the use of my having seen all this,
while I do not know what it means?” She said to me, “You
are a cunning fellow, wishing to know everything that relates to the
tower.” “Even so, O Lady,” said I, “that I may
tell it to my brethren, that, hearing this, they may know the Lord in
much glory.” That
… glory. And that they may be made more joyful, and, hearing
this, may greatly glorify the Lord.—Vat.
[
God. Lord.—Vat. I
said to you before, that you were cunning, diligently inquiring
in regard to the Scriptures.—Vat. You are cunning
in regard to the Scriptures.—Lips. In some of the
mss. of the common
Latin version, “structures” is read instead of
“Scriptures.” The Lord.
God.—Vat. [
In reply I said to her, “This is magnificent
and marvellous. But who are the six young men who are engaged in
building?” And she said, “These are the holy angels of God,
who were first created, and to whom the Lord handed over His whole
creation, that they might increase and build up and rule over the whole
creation. By these will the building of the tower be finished.”
“But who are the other persons who are engaged in carrying the
stones?” “These also are holy angels of the Lord, but the
former six are more excellent than these. The building of the tower
will be finished, The
building. When therefore the building of the tower is finished,
all.—Vat. Not because you are better.
Are you better?—Vat. [See note 90 on
“Hear now with regard to the stones which are in
the building. Those square white stones which fitted exactly into each
other, are apostles, bishops, teachers, and deacons, who have lived in
godly purity, and have acted as bishops and teachers and deacons chastely
and reverently to the elect of God. Some of them have fallen asleep,
and some still remain alive.
[ [ Are
those. They are those who have alreay fallen asleep, and who
suffered.—Vat. Cast away. Placed near the
tower.—Vat.
[
“As to those who were cut down and thrown far away
from the tower, do you wish to know who they are? They are the sons of
iniquity, and they believed in hypocrisy, and wickedness did not depart
from them. For this reason they are not saved, since they cannot be used
in the building on account of their iniquities. Wherefore they have been
cut off and cast far away on account of the anger of the Lord, for they
have roused Him to anger. But I shall explain to you the other stones
which you saw lying in great numbers, and not going into the building.
Those which are rough are those who have known the truth and not remained
in it, nor have they been joined to the saints. [
[ Use … God. Then will they be of use for
the building of the Lord.—Vat. [
For … stones. For you yourself were also one of these
stones.—Vat.
“Now the other stones which you saw cast far
away from the tower, and falling upon the public road and rolling
from it into pathless places, are those who have indeed believed,
but through doubt have abandoned the true road. Thinking, then,
that they could find a better, they wander and become wretched, and
enter upon pathless places. But those which fell into the fire and
were burned [
The words “draw back” are represented in Greek by the word
elsewhere translated “repent;” μετανοεῖν
is thus used for a change of mind, either from evil to good, or good to
evil.
[Perhaps the earliest reference to the penitential discipline which
was developed after the Nicene Council, and to the separation of the
Flentes and others from the faithful, in public worship. But
compare Irenæus (vol. i. p. 335, this series), who refers to
this discipline; also Apost. Constitutions, book ii. cap. 39. I
prefer in this chapter Wake’s rendering; and see Bingham, book
xviii. cap. 1.] [Greek, ῥῆμα not λόγος. To
translate this as if it referred to the Word (St.
When then I ceased asking in regard to all these
matters, she said to me, “Do you wish to see anything else?”
And as I was extremely eager to see something more, my countenance
beamed with joy. She looked towards me with a smile, and said, “Do
you see seven women around the tower?” “I do, Lady,”
said I. “This tower,” said she, “is supported by them
according to the precept of the Lord. Listen now to their functions.
The first of them, who is clasping her hands, is called Faith. Through her
the elect of God are saved.
[Salvation is ascribed to faith; and works of faith follow after, being
faith in action.] [Girded rather, the loins
compressed.] [Their mother is Faith (ut supra), and works
of faith are here represented as deriving their value from faith
only.] Regulated. They have equal powers, but their
powers are connected with each other.—Vat. [Appearently
for fasting, and to wait for the appearance of the interpreter, in
cap. x.]
Give ear unto me, O Sons: I have brought you up in
much simplicity, and guilelessness, and chastity, on account of the mercy
of the Lord, The Lord.
God.—Vat. [See Or, that ye may be justified and
sanctified. I have translated the
Vat. Reading here. The Greek seems to mean, “Do not partake of
God’s creatures alone by way of mere relish.” The Pal. Has,
“Do not partake of God’s creatures alone joylessly, in a
way calculated to defeat enjoyment of them.” [
Those that love the first seats, omitted in Æth. [Greek,
τοῖς
προηγουμένοις
τῆς
ἐκκλησίας
καὶ τοῖς
πρωτοκαθεδρίταις.
Hermas seems, purposely, colourless as to technical distinctions in the
clergy; giving a more primitive cast to his fiction, by this feature.
[ [
On her ceasing to speak to me, those six young men who
were engaged in building came and conveyed her to the tower, and other
four lifted up the seat and carried it also to the tower. The faces of
these last I did not see, for they were turned away from me. And as she
was going, I asked her to reveal to me the meaning of the three forms in
which she appeared to me. In reply she said to me: “With regard
to them, you must ask another to reveal their meaning to you.”
For she had appeared to me, brethren, in the first vision the previous
year under the form of an exceedingly old woman, sitting in a chair. In
the second vision her face was youthful, but her skin and hair betokened
age, and she stood while she spoke to me. She was also more joyful than
on the first occasion. But in the third vision she was entirely youthful
and exquisitely beautiful, except only that she had the hair of an old
woman; but her face beamed with joy, and she sat on a seat. Now I was
exceeding sad in regard to these appearances, for I longed much to know
what the visions meant. Then I see the old woman in a vision of the
night saying unto me: “Every prayer should be accompanied with
humility: fast, Fast.
Believe.—Pal.
That very night there appeared to me a young man,
who said, “Why do you frequently ask revelations in prayer? Take
heed lest by asking many things you injure your flesh: be content
Literally, “stronger,” and therefore more injurious to the
body. How long. Ye are not senseless.—Vat.
[
“Hear then,” said he, “with
regard to the three forms, concerning which you are inquiring. Why
in the first vision did she appear to you as an old woman seated on a
chair? Because your spirit is now old and withered up, and has lost its
power in consequence of your infirmities and doubts. For, like elderly
men who have no hope of renewing their strength, and expect nothing but
their last sleep, so you, weakened by worldly occupations, have given
yourselves up to sloth, and have not cast your cares upon the Lord. [
“Now in the second vision you saw her standing
with a youthful countenance, and more joyful than before; still she had
the skin and hair of an aged woman. Hear,” said he, “this
parable also. When one becomes somewhat old, he despairs of himself on
account of his weakness and poverty, and looks forward to nothing but
the last day of his life. Then suddenly an inheritance is left him:
and hearing of this, he rises up, and becoming exceeding joyful, he
puts on strength. And now he no longer reclines, but stands up; and
his spirit, already destroyed by his previous actions, is renewed, His spirit … renewed.
He is freed from his former sorrows.—Vat. The Lord.
God.—Vat.
“Now, in the third vision, you saw her still
younger, and she was noble and joyful, and her shape was beautiful. Shape … beautiful.
Her countenance was serene.—Vat.
[As Dupin suggest of The Shepherd, generally, one may feel that
these “revelations” would be better without the symbolical
part.]
Twenty days after the former vision I saw another
vision, brethren [This
address to “brethren” sustains the form of the primitive
prophesyings, in the congregation.] [One of the tribulations spoken of in the Apocalypse
is probably intended. This Vision is full of the imagery of the Book of
Revelation.] Rarely. Easily.—Lips.,
Sin.
He might strengthen me, omitted in Vat. For …
marvels. This clause is connected with the subsequent sentence in
Vat. [ Comp.
God.—Lips., Vat. The Vat. adds:
with a stroke.
Now after I had passed by the wild beast, and had moved
forward about thirty feet, lo! a virgin meets me, adorned as if she were
proceeding from the bridal chamber, clothed entirely in white, and with
white sandals, and veiled up to her forehead, and her head was covered by
a hood. [Those who remember the
Vatican collection and other antiques, will recall the exquisite
figure and veiling of the Pudicitia.] The Lord. God.—Vat. Care. Loneliness and
anxiety.—Vat. God. The Lord.—Vat. [ [Perhaps compounded from θὴρ
and ἀγρεύω.]
The name of this angel is variously written,
Hegrin [Query. Quasi ἐγρηγορεῖν,
or corrupted from (Sept.) εἲρ
καὶ ἃγιος;
Hir in Daniel’s Chaldee], Tegri. Some have
supposed the word to be for ἄγριον, the
wild; some have taken it to mean “the watchful,” as
in The Lord.
God.—Vat. Send scourges. Send you help. But woe to the
doubters who.—Vat. [
I asked her about the four colours which the beast
had on his head. And she answered, and said to me, “Again
you are inquisitive in regard to such matters.” “Yea,
Lady,” said I, “make known to me what they are.”
“Listen,” said she: “the black is the world in which
we dwell: but the fiery and bloody points out that the world must perish
through blood and fire: but the golden part are you who have escaped from
this world. For as gold is tested by fire, and thus becomes useful,
so are you tested who dwell in it. Those, therefore, who continue
stedfast, and are put through the fire, will be purified by means of
it. For as gold casts away its dross, so also will ye cast away all
sadness and straitness, and will be made pure so as to fit into the
building of the tower. But the white part is the age that is to come,
in which the elect of God will dwell, since those elected by God to
eternal life will be spotless and pure. Wherefore cease not speaking
these things into the ears of the saints. This then is the type of the
great tribulation that is to come. If ye wish it, it will be nothing.
Remember those things which were written down before.” And saying
this, she departed. But I saw not into what place she retired. There
was a noise, however, and I turned round in alarm, thinking that
that beast was coming.
[Very much resembling Dante, again, in many passages. Inferno,
xxi. “Allor mi volsi,” etc.]
[This vision naturally belongs to book ii., to which it is a preface.]
After I had been praying at home, and had sat down
on my couch, there entered a man of
Keep them. That you may be able to keep them more
easily by reading them from time to time.—Vat. [“The Shepherd,” then, is the “angel
of repentance,” here represented as a guardian angel. This gives the
work its character, as enforcing primarily the anti-Montanist principle of
the value of true repentance in the sight of God.]
First of all,
believe [These first words are
quoted by Irenæus, vol. i. p. 488, this series. Note that this
book begins with the fundamental principle of faith, which is everywhere
identified by Hermas (as in Vision ii. cap. 2) with faith in the Son of
God. The Holy Spirit is also everywhere exhibited in this work. But the
careful student will discover a very deep plan in the treatment of this
subject. Repentance and faith are the great themes, and the long-suffering
of God, against the Montanists. But he begins by indicating the divine
character and the law of God. He treats of sin in its relations to the
law and the gospel: little by little, opening the way, he reaches a point,
in the Eighth Similitude, where he introduces the New Law, identifying it,
indeed, with the old, but magnifying the gospel of the Son of God. Hermas
takes for granted the “Son of man;” but everywhere he avoids
the names of His humanity, and brings out “the Son of God”
with emphasis, in the spirit of St. John’s Gospel (cap. i.) and of
the Epistle to the Hebrews (cap. i.), as if he feared the familiarities
even of believers in speaking of Jesus or of Christ, without recognising
His eternal power and Godhead.] Contained.—Vat. and
Pal. add: and who cannot be defined in words, nor conceived by the
mind. [Here we have the “Incomprehensible,” so familiar in
the liturgic formula improperly called the Athanasian Creed. In
the Latin immensus, in the Greek ἄπειρος; i.e.,
“non mensurabilis, quiâ inlocalis, incircumscriptus,
ubique totus, ubique prœsens, ubique potens.” Not
intelligible is too frequently supposed to be the sense, but
this is feeble and ambiguous. See Waterland, Works, iv. p. 320 London,
1823.]
He said to me, “Be simple and guileless, and
you will be as the children who know not the wickedness that ruins
the life of men. First, then, speak evil of no one, nor listen with
pleasure to any one who speaks evil of another. But if you listen,
you will partake of the sin of him who speaks evil, if you believe
the slander which you hear;
If … brother. [ For slander
is ruinous.—Vat. For it is wicked to slander any
one.—Pal.
For … condemned, omitted in Vat.
This service … God. And he has accomplished this service to
God simply and gloriously.—Vat. [ The Vat. adds:
and a blessing may fall on your house.
Again he said to me, “Love the truth, and let
nothing but truth proceed from your mouth, [ Dwelleth in you. Who put the spirit within
you.—Vat. [The seven gifts
of the Spirit are here referred to, especially the gift of “true
godliness,” with a reference to the parable of the talents
( Cunningly to
all. Have ever lived in dissimulation.—Vat. Lived
cunningly with all.—Pal. [Custom-house oaths and business
lies among moderns.] The Vat. adds: of God. [ For … truth. For even they can become
worthy of credit, if you will speak the truth in future; and if you
keep the truth.—Vat. [See, under the Tenth Mandate, p.
26, in this book.]
“I charge you,” said he, “to
guard your chastity, and let no thought enter your heart of another
man’s wife, or of fornication, or of similar iniquities; for by
doing this you commit a great sin. But if you always remember your own
wife, you will never sin. For if this thought This thought. [ Questions. “I charge you,” said he,
“to guard your chastity, and let no thought enter your heart of
another man’s marriage (i.e., wife), or of fornication, for this
produces a great transgression. But be always mindful of the Lord at all
hours, and you will never sin. For if this very wicked thought enter
your heart, you commit a great sin, and they who practice such deeds
follow the way of death. Take heed, therefore, and refrain from this
thought. For where chastity remains in the heart of a righteous man,
never ought there to arise any evil thought.” I said to him,”
Sir, permit me to say a few words to you.” “Say on,”
said he.—Vat.
[Not frequently … one repentance. True penitence is a habit
of life. An apparent safe-guard against the reproaches of Montanism, and a
caution not to turn forgiveness into a momentary sponge without avoiding
renewed transgression.] Who … actions. But he
who makes an image also commits adultery.—Vat. Any
one. She.—Vat. [
There … cure. God, who has power to heal, will provide
a remedy.—Vat. [This whole passage seems to refer to
the separation of penitents under canonical discipline. Tertullian,
Pudicit., capp. 5, 13, and De Penitent., cap. 9.
I asked him again, and said, “Since
the Lord has vouchsafed to dwell always with me, bear
with me while I utter a few words; Bear … words. Give me a few words of
explanation.—Vat. Repentance … wisdom. For he who repents
obtains great intelligence. For he feels that he has sinned and acted
wickedly.—Vat. [“Wisdom and understanding;”
spiritual gifts here instanced as requisite to true penitence and
spiritual life.] [
And I said to him, “I should like to continue
my questions.” “Speak on,” said he. And I said,
“I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other
repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the
water [Immersion continues
to be the usage, then, even in the West, at this epoch.] For …
them. Since God knows the thoughts of all hearts, and the weakness
of men, and the manifold wickedness of the devil which he practices in
plotting against the servants of God, and in malignant designs against
them.—Vat. In … life.
These words occur only in Pal. [Can the following words be genuine? They
reflect the very Montanism here so strictly opposed. Wake has followed a
very different text. The Scriptures, it is true, use very awful language
of the same kind: With … live. With difficulty will he live to
God.—Vat. And Pal.
And again I asked him, saying, “Sir, since
you have been so patient in listening to me, will you show me this
also?” “Speak,” said he. And I said, “If a
wife or husband die, and the widower or widow marry, does he or she
commit sin?” “There is no sin in marrying again,”
said he; “but if they remain unmarried, they gain greater honour
and glory with the Lord; but if they marry, they do not sin. [
“Be patient,” said he, “and of
good understanding, and you will rule over every wicked work, and you
will work all righteousness. For if you be patient, the Holy Spirit
that dwells in you will be pure. He will not be darkened by any evil
spirit, but, dwelling in a broad region, It will be noticed that space is attributed to the
heart or soul, and that joy and goodness expand the heart, and produce
width, while sadness and wickedness contract and straiten. But … himself. But
rejoicing he will be expanded, and he will feast in the vessel in which
he dwells, and he will serve the Lord joyfully in the midst of great
peace.—Vat. He will serve the Lord in great gladness, having
abundance of all things within himself.—Pal. For
… anger, omitted in Vat.; fuller in Pal.: For the Lord dwells
in calmness and greatness of mind, but anger is the devil’s house
of entertainment. [ [ Patience if polluted.
The mind is distressed.—Vat.; omitted in Pal.
I … heart. I, the angel [or messenger] of righteousness,
am with you, and all who depart from anger, and repent with their whole
heart, will live to God.—Vat. Are
justified. Are received into the number of the just by the most holy
angel (or messenger).—Pal. [i.e., As the instrument
of justification; but the superlative here used seems to indentify this
angel with that of the covenant (
“Hear now,” said he, “how wicked is
the action of anger, and in what way it overthrows the servants of God
by its action, and turns them from righteousness. But it does not turn
away those who are full of faith, nor does it act on them, for the power
of the Lord is with them. It is the thoughtless and doubting that it
turns away. Hear …
away. “Hear now,” said he, “how great is the
wickedness of anger, and how injurious, and in what way it overthrows
the servants of God. For they who are full of faith receive no harm
from it, for the power of God is with them; for it is the doubters and
those destitute [of faith] that it overturns.”—Vat.
[The philosophic difference between anger and indignation is here in
view.]
[ You
… Lord. You will be found by God in the company of purity and
chastity.—Vat.
And put … them. That you may live to God, and they who
keep these commandments will live to God.—Vat. [The
beauty of this chapter must be felt by all, especially in the eulogy
on patience. A pious and learned critic remarks on the emphasis
and frequent recurrence of scriptural exhortations to patience,
which he thinks have been to little enlarged upon in Christian
literature.]
“I gave you,” he said, “directions in the first commandment to attend to faith, and fear, and self-restraint.” “Even so, sir,” said I. And he said, “Now I wish to show you the powers of these, that you may know what power each possesses. For their powers are double, and have relation alike to the righteous and the unrighteous. Trust you, therefore, the righteous, but put no trust in the unrighteous. For the path of righteousness is straight, but that of unrighteousness is crooked. But walk in the straight and even way, and mind not the crooked. For the crooked path has no roads, but has many pathless places and stumbling-blocks in it, and it is rough and thorny. It is injurious to those who walk therein. But they who walk in the straight road walk evenly without stumbling, because it is neither rough nor thorny. You see, then, that it is better to walk in this road.” “I wish to go by this road,” said I. “You will go by it,” said he; “and whoever turns to the Lord with all his heart will walk in it.”
“Hear now,” said he, “in regard to
faith. There are two angels
[See Forthwith …
heart, omitted in Lips. Transactions. I think the
writer means, when a longing is felt to engage with too great devotedness
to business and the pursuit of wealth. [“That ye may attend upon
the Lord without distraction.” Trust
… deed. Trust the angel of righteousness, beacause his
instruction is good.—Vat. Faithful. Most
happy.—Vat. But to bid
farewell. The Vat. ends quite differently from this point: If, then,
you follow him, and trust to his works, you will live to God; and they
who trust to his works will live to God.—Vat.
“This commandment exhibits the deeds of faith, that you may trust the works of the angel of righteousness, and doing them you may live to God. But believe the works of the angel of iniquity are hard. If you refuse to do them, you will live to God.”
“Fear,” said he, “the Lord,
and keep His commandments.
[ Why … they only who fear the Lord,
omitted in Vat. God. Lord.—Vat.
“I told you,” said he, “that the
creatures of God are double,
[Command. vi. cap. i. p. 24, supra. The idea taken from
For … sin, omitted in Lips.
[
“But listen,” says he, “to the
things in regard to which you have not to exercise self-restraint,
but which you ought to do. Restrain not yourself in regard to that
which is good, but do it.” “And tell me, sir,” say I,
“the nature of the good deeds, that I may walk in them and wait on
them, so that doing them I can be saved.” “Listen,”
says he, “to the good deeds which you ought to do, and in regard
to which there is no self-restraint requisite. First of all [First of all, faith, holy
fear, love etc. Then, works of mercy. Could evangelical
morality be more beautifully illustrated?] [ From them …
all who act thus will live to God, omitted in Vat., which ends thus:
If you keep all these commandments, you will live to God, and all who
keep these commandments will live to God.
He says to me, “Put away doubting from you and
do not hesitate to ask of the Lord, saying to yourself, ‘How can
I ask of the Lord and receive from Him, seeing I have sinned so much
against Him? ‘Do not thus reason with yourself, but with all your
heart turn to the Lord and ask of Him without doubting, and you will know
the multitude of His tender mercies; that He will never leave you, but
fulfil the request of your soul. For He is not like men, who remember
evils done against them; but He Himself remembers not evils, and has
compassion on His own creature. Cleanse, therefore, your heart from all
the vanities of this world, and from the words already mentioned, and ask
of the Lord and you will receive all, and in none of your requests will
you be denied which you make to the Lord without doubting. But if you
doubt in your heart, you will receive none of your requests. For those
who doubt regarding God are double-souled, and obtain not one of their
requests. [
With difficulty be saved. Will with difficulty live to
God.—Vat.
Lord. God.—Vat.
“Remove from you,” says he, “grief;
for she is the sister of doubt and anger.” “How, sir,”
say I, “is she the sister of these? for anger, doubt, and grief
seem to be quite different from each other.” “You are
senseless, O man. Do you not perceive that grief is more wicked than
all the spirits, and most terrible to the servants of God, and more
than all other spirits destroys man and crushes out the Holy Spirit,
and yet, on the other hand, she saves him?” “I am senseless,
sir,” say I, “and do not understand these parables. For how
she can crush out, and on the other hand save, I do not perceive.”
“Listen,” says he. “Those who have never searched
for the truth, nor investigated the nature of the Divinity, but have
simply believed, when they devote themselves to and become mixed up with
business, and wealth, and heathen friendships, and many other actions of
this world, The Vat. has here
a considerable number of sentences, found in the Greek, the Palatine,
and the Æthiopic, in Commandment Eleventh. In consequence of this
transference, the Eleventh Commandment in the Vatican differs considerably
from the others in the position of the sentences, but otherwise it
is substantially the same.
And … business. This part is omitted in the Leipzig Codex,
and is supplied from the Latin and Æthiopic translation. [
“Hear, then,” says he, “foolish man,
how grief crushes out the Holy Spirit, and on the
This … repented, omitted in Vat. [ God. The Lord.—Vat.,
Æth. God. The Lord.—Vat. Grief. Injustice.—Vat. [ ἐξομολογοὑμενος
one would expect here to mean “giving thanks,” a meaning
which it has in the New Testament: but as ἐξομολογοῦμαι
means to “confess” throughout the Pastor of Hermas,
it is likely that it means “confessing” here also. [
He pointed out to me some men sitting on a seat,
and one man sitting on a chair. And he says to me, “Do you see
the persons sitting on the seat?” “I do, sir,” said
I. “These,” says he, “are the faithful, and he who sits
on the chair is a false prophet, ruining the minds of the servants of
God. Is … God. He
who sits in the chair is a terrestrial spirit.—Vat. And
then follows the dislocation of sentences noticed above. The spirit of all men is
earthly, etc. This passage, down to “it is not possible that
the prophet of God should do this,” is found in the Vat. and other
mss. of the common translation,
with the exception of the Lambeth, in Command Twelfth. [Consult Wake upon
omissions and transpositions in this and the former Commandment. And note,
especially, his valuable caution against confounding what is here said,
so confusedly, of the Spirit in man, and of the Spirit of God in his
essence (
Angel of the prophetic Spirit. The holy messenger (angel) of
Divinity.—Vat. [ [Here is a caution against divers
Phrygian prophesyings.] [This proverb is
found in many languages. Hermas may have been familiar with Ovid, or
with the Greek of the poetaster Chœrilus, from whom Ovid, with
other Latin poets, condescended to borrow it.]
Earth. After this the Vatican reads: Join yourself, therefore, to
that which has power, and withdraw from that one which is empty. [Hermas
seems to apply to the Spirit, in carrying out his figure, those words
of the Psalmist, lxxii. 6.]
He says to me, “Put away from you all wicked
desire, and clothe yourself with good and chaste desire; for clothed
with this desire you will hate wicked desire, [Concupiscence is here shown to have the nature of
sin.] [See the Greek
of Athanasius, and Grabe’s transposition, in Wake’s version
of the Eleventh and Twelfth Commandments.]
“Foremost of all is the desire after
another’s wife or husband, and after extravagance, and many
useless dainties and drinks, and many other foolish luxuries; for all
luxury is foolish and empty in the servants of God. These, then, are
the evil desires which slay the servants of God. For this evil desire is
the daughter of the devil. You must refrain from evil desires, that by
refraining ye may live to God.
For … God. This desire, therefore, is wicked and destructive,
bringing death on the servants of God. Whoever, therefore, shall abstain
from evil desire, shall live to God.—Vat. God. The
Lord.—Vat. Go … wishes. And you will obtain the
victory, and will be crowned on account of it, and you will arrive
at good desire, and you will deliver up the victory which you have
obtained to God, and you will serve Him by acting even as you yourself
wish to act.—Vat. Chapters third, fourth, and a part of fifth, are omitted
in the Palatine. [This chapter seems based on
“I should like to know,” say I, “in
what way I ought to serve good desire.” “Hear,” says
he: “You will practice righteousness and virtue, truth and the
fear of the Lord, faith and meekness, and whatsoever excellences are
like to these. Practising these, you will be a well-pleasing servant
of God, God. The
Lord.—Vat.
He concluded the twelve commandments, and said to
me, “You have now these commandments. Walk in them, and exhort
your hearers that their repentance may be pure during the remainder of
their life. Fulfil carefully this ministry which I now entrust to you,
and you will accomplish much.
[Here is the commission to be a prophet, and to speak prophesyings
in the congregation. If the Montanists resisted these teachings, they
were self-condemned. Such is the idea here conveyed. If
… kept, omitted in Vat.
These things he said to me in tones of the deepest
anger, so that I was confounded and exceedingly afraid of him, for his
figure was altered so that a man could not endure his anger. But seeing me
altogether agitated and confused, he began to speak to me in more gentle
tones; and he said: “O fool, senseless and doubting, do you not
perceive how great is the glory of God, and how strong and marvellous, in
that He created the world for the sake of man, [Boyle beautifully reconciles “those two current
assertions, that (1) God made all things for His own glory, and that (2)
He made all things for man.” See Usefulness of Nat. Philos.,
part i., essay 3, or Leighton’s Works, vol. iii. p. 235, London,
1870.]
[
I say to him, “Sir, listen to me for a
moment.” “Say what you wish,” says he. “Man,
sir,” say I, “is eager to keep the commandments of God, and
there is no one who does not ask of the Lord that strength may be given
him for these commandments, and that he may be subject to them; but the
devil is hard, and holds sway over them.” “He cannot,”
says he, “hold sway over the servants of God, who with all their
heart place their hopes in Him. The devil can wrestle against these,
overthrow them he cannot. If, then, ye resist him, he will be conquered,
and flee in disgrace from you. As many, therefore,” says he,
“as are empty, fear the devil, as possessing power. When a man
has filled very suitable jars with good wine, and a few among those
jars are left empty,
Empty. Half full.—Vat. [
“But I, the angel of repentance, say to
you, Fear not the devil; for I was sent,” says he, “to
be with you who repent with all your heart, and to make you strong
in faith. Trust God,
Trust God. Believe ye, then, who on account of your sins have
forgotten God.—Vat. Practise … days, omitted in Vat. Rule over
… commandments. But we shall conquer him completely, if we
can keep these commandments.—Vat.
[We have seen in Justin and Irenæus what seem to us an overstrained allegorizing, and more will be encountered in Origen. On this whole subject, however, as it struck the Oriental and primitive instincts, take the following very illustrative remarks, attributed to Hartley of Winwich:—
“Nature, in its proper order, is the book of God, and exhibits spiritual things in material forms. The knowledge of correspondences being so little understood, is one main cause of the obscurity of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, which were chiefly written by the rules of this science: and not Scripture alone, but man, also, as an image of the spiritual and natural worlds, contains in himself the correspondences of both: of the former, in his interior, and of the latter in his exterior or bodily, part, and so is called the microcosm, or little world.”
Such texts as
He says to me,
“You know that you who are the servants of God dwell in a strange
land; for your city is far away from this one. [ This sentence
may be also rendered thus, giving ἕνεκεν the
meaning of “as regards,” “respecting”—a
usual enough signification: “What then do you intend to
do, as you have a law in your own city regarding your lands and
the rest of your possessions?” The Vatican punctuates the
passage so that it runs as follows: “What then will you do,
who have a law in your own city? Will you, on account of your
land, or any other of your preparations, be able to deny your
law?” The Vatican also omits several clauses that are in the
Greek, down to “for if thou shalt deny, and shalt desire to
return,” etc. See
… law, omitted in Lips. [The θρησκεία
of The Vatican has:
“Acquit widows, and do justice to orphans.” The Vatican renders, “Do not covet, therefore,
the riches of the heathen.” [Here follows, in the Lambeth ms., an allusion to The Vatican, rendering παραχαράσσετε,
adulterare, proceeds as if the reference were to adultery.
“Neither touch another man’s wife, nor lust after her,
but desire your own work, and you will be saved.”
As I was
walking in the field, and observing an elm and vine, and determining in
my own mind respecting them and their fruits, the Shepherd appears to
me, and says, “What is it that you are thinking about the elm and
vine?” “I am considering,” I reply, “that they
become each other exceedingly well.” “These two trees,”
he continues, “are intended as an example for the servants of
God.” “I would like to know,” said I, “the
example which these trees you say, are intended to teach.”
“Do you see,” he says, “the elm and the vine?”
“I see them sir,” I replied. “This vine,” he
continued, “produces fruit, and the elm is an unfruitful tree;
but unless the vine be trained upon the elm, it cannot bear much fruit
when extended at length upon the ground; The Vatican reads: “Unless this vine be attached
to the elm, and rest upon it, it cannot bear much fruit. For, lying upon
the ground, it produces bad fruit, because it is not suspended upon the
elm.”
The Vatican here makes Hermas interrupt the Shepherd, and ask, “How
greater than the vine?” [Based on
The translation
of the text is based on the Palatine. Lips. Reads: “When the
rich man fills out upon the poor.” Hilgenfeld amends this:
“When the rich man recovers breath upon the poor.” Neither
gives sense. The Æthiopic has: “But if the rich man lean on
the poor;” and the Greek of Hilgenfeld might mean: “When the
rich man recovers his breath by leaning on the poor.” The Vatican
is quite different: “When, therefore, the rich man helps the poor
in those things which he needs, the poor man prays to the Lord for the
rich man, and God bestows all blessings upon the rich man, because
the poor man is rich in prayer, and his prayer has great merit with
God. Then the rich man accordingly assists the poor man’s things,
because he feels that he is fully heard (exaudiri) by the Lord;
and the more willingly and unhesitatingly does he give him every help,
and takes care that he wants for nothing. The poor man gives thanks
to God for the rich man, because they do their duty in respect to the
Lord (a Domino).”
[I note this use of the word “influential,” because it
was formerly denounced as an Americanism.] [
The sentence in brackets is not in Lips. It is taken from
Pal.
He showed me many trees having no leaves,
The Vatican
renders this thus: “Why do they resemble those that are, as it were,
withered?” [
He showed me again many trees, some budding,
and others withered. And he said to me, “Do you see these
trees?” “I see, sir,” I replied, “some putting
forth buds, and others withered.” “Those,” he said,
“which are budding are the righteous who are to live in the world
to come; for the coming world is the summer Summer. Throne.—Lips.
[
The Vatican has, “And all the merry and joyful shall be restored
in that age.” [
While fasting and sitting on a certain mountain, and
giving thanks to the Lord for all His dealings with me, I see the Shepherd
sitting down beside me, and saying, “Why have you come hither [so]
early in the morning?” “Because, sir,” I answered,
“I have a station.”
[This anachronism betrays the later origin of “The Pastor.”
The Pauline Hermas would not have used this technical term. These fasts
were very early fixed by canon for Wednesdays and Fridays. See Canon
lxix. of canons called “Apostolical;” also Bingham, book
xiii. cap. 9, and this volume, p. 34, note 4.] [See cap. iii. of this similitude.]
“Hear the similitude which I am about to narrate
to you relative to fasting. A certain man had a field and many slaves,
and he planted a certain part of the field with a vineyard, The Vatican adds, “for his
successors.” i.e., attach the
vines to stakes.
The Vatican adds, “Having called together his friends.”
[The gospel parables of the vineyard, and of the sower, and of the
man travelling into a far country, are here reflected passim. I
cannot but refer to a parable which greatly resembles this, and is yet
more beautiful, occurring in Mrs. Sherwood’s Stories on the
Catechism (Fijou), a book for children. It is not unworthy of
Bunyan.]
I said to him, “Sir, I do not see the meaning of
these similitudes, nor am I able to comprehend them, unless you explain
them to me.” “I will explain them all to you,” he said,
“and whatever I shall mention in the course of our conversations
I will show you. [Keep the commandments of the Lord, and you will be
approved, and inscribed amongst the number of those who observe His
commands.] And if you do any good beyond what is commanded by God, [To read into this passage the idea
of “supererogatory merit” is an unpardonable anachronism.
(Compare Command. iv. 4.) The writer everywhere denies human merit,
extols mercy, and imputes good works to grace. He has in view St.
Paul’s advice ( [Thus he does
not object to the “station,” if kept with evangelical acts
of devotion and penitence. Pseudo-Athanasius gives
this paragraph as follows: “First of all be on your guard to fast
from every evil word and evil report, and purify your heart from every
defilement and revenge, and base covetousness. And on the day on which
you fast, be content with bread, and herbs, and water, giving thanks to
God. And having calculated the amount of the cost of the meal which you
intended to have eaten on that day, give it to a widow, or an orphan,
or to some one in want, so that, having clearly filled his own soul,
he shall pray to the Lord on your behalf. If you therefore perform your
fasting as I enjoined you, your sacrifice will be acceptable before the
Lord, and inscribed in the heavens in the day of the requital of the good
things that have been prepared for the righteous.” [Note this detailed
account of primitive fasting (
I prayed him much that he would explain to me
the similitude of the field, and of the master of the vineyard,
and of the slave who staked the vineyard, and of the stakes, and of
the weeds that were plucked out of the vineyard, and of the son, and
of the friends who were fellow-councillors, for I knew that all these
things were a kind of parable. And he answered me, and said, “You
are exceedingly persistent
Literally, “self-willed.” (αὐθάδης).
[ [
“I said to you a little ago,” he
answered, “that you were cunning and obstinate in asking
explanations of the parables; but since you are so persistent, I
shall unfold to you the meaning of the similitudes of the field, and
of all the others that follow, that you may make them known to every
one. [Part of the commission
again.] This clause
occurs only in the Vatican. It does not occur in Lips., Pal., or in the
Æth.
“Hear,” he answered: “the Son
of God is not in the form
[
[ The sentence in brackets is omitted
in Lips. And Æth., occurs in Vat. And Pal. This passage varies in each of the
forms in which it has come down, and is corrupt in most, if not in all.
The Vatican (Lat.) has, “Because the messenger hears the Holy
Spirit, which was the first of all that was poured (infusus)
into a body in which God might dwell. For understanding (intellectus)
placed it in a body as seemed proper to Him.” The Pal. reads:
“For that Holy Spirit which was created pure [first] of all in a
body in which it might dwell, God made and appointed a chosen body which
pleased Him.” The Æth. reads: “The Holy Spirit, who
created all things, dwelt in a body in which He wished to dwell.”
[See Grabe’s collation and emendation here, in Wake’s
translation.] The Vatican renders this sentence: “This body,
therefore, into which the Holy Spirit was led, was subject to that
Spirit, walking rightly, modestly, and chastely, and did not at
all defile that Spirit. Since, then, that body had always obeyed
the Holy Spirit, and had laboured rightly and chastely with it,
and had not at any time given way, that wearied body passed its time
as a slave; but having strongly approved itself along with the Holy
Spirit, it was received unto God.” The Palatine is similar. The
Æth. reads: “That body served well in righteousness and
purity, nor did it ever defile that Spirit, and it became His partner,
since that body pleased God.” πορεία. Vatican,
potens cursus. The passages within brackets are omitted by Lips. and
Æth. The passages within
brackets are omitted by Lips. and Æth. [If the
reader feels that the explanation itself needs to be explained, let him
attribute it to the confused and inaccurate state of the text. Grabe says
emphatically, that “the created Spirit of Christ as a man and not
the Holy Ghost, the third person of the Trinity,” is spoken of in
this chapter chiefly. The apparent confusion of words and phrases must
be the result of ignorant copying. It is a sufficient answer to certain
German critics to cite the providential approval of Athanasius, a fact
of the utmost moment. Nobody doubts that Athanasius was sensitive to any
discoloration of the Nicene Faith. In the text of Hermas, therefore, as
it was in his copy, there could have been nothing heretical, or favouring
heresy. That Hermas was an artist, and purposely gave his fiction
a very primitive air, is evident. He fears to name the Scriptures he
quoted, lest any one should doubt their use, in the days of Clement,
in the Western churches.]
“I rejoice, sir,” I said, “to hear
this explanation.” “Hear,” again he replied: “Keep
this flesh pure and stainless, that the Spirit which inhabits it may
bear witness to it, and your flesh may be justified. See that the thought
never arise in your mind that this flesh of yours is corruptible, and you
misuse it by any act of defilement. If you defile your flesh, you will
also defile the Holy Spirit; and if you defile your flesh [and spirit],
you will not live.” [ [ Omitted in Lips. Æth. has simply,
“But be on your guard now.”
Sitting in my house, and glorifying the Lord for
all that I had seen, and reflecting on the commandments, that they are
excellent, and powerful, and glorious, and able to save a man’s
soul, I said within myself, “I shall be blessed if I walk in these
commandments, and every one who walks in them will be blessed.”
While I was saying these words to myself, I suddenly see him sitting
beside me, and hear him thus speak: “Why are you in doubt about the
commandments which I gave you? They are excellent: have no doubt about
them at all, but put on faith in the Lord, and you will walk in them,
for I will strengthen you in them. These commandments are beneficial
to those who intend to repent: for if they do not walk in them, their
repentance is in vain. You, therefore, who repent cast away the wickedness
of this world which wears you out; and by putting on all the virtues of
a holy life, you will be able to keep these commandments, and will no
longer add to the number of your sins. Walk, The Vatican has a sentence before this: “For if
you sin not afterwards, you will greatly fall away from your former
[transgressions].” Found only in Pseudo-Athanasius. It
occurs in none of the translations.
And he said to me, “Do you see this
shepherd?” “I see him, sir,” I said. “This,”
he answered, “is the angel
[The use of the word “angel,” here, may possibly coincide
with that in the Apocalypse, rebuking an unfaithful and luxurious pastor,
like the angel of Sardis ( καταφθοράν,
translated in Pal. And Vat. by defectio, apostasy,
as departure from goodness and truth. The Æthiopic has
“ruin.”
Of … deceit, omitted in Lips. Our translation is made from
the Vat. Pseudo-Athanasius
has, “of such men the life is death.” Pseudo-Athanasius has,
“Corruption, therefore, has a hope of resurrection up to a certain
point.” [Death here must mean final apostasy (
Seeing them, therefore, so beaten and so badly used,
I was grieved for them, because they were so tormented, and had no
rest at all. And I said to the Shepherd who talked with me, “Sir,
who is this shepherd, who is so pitiless and severe, and so completely
devoid of compassion for these sheep?” “This,” he
replied, “is the angel of punishment; [The idea is, the minister of discipline,
as St. Ambrose is represented with a scourge in his hand. The Greek
(ἐκ
τῶν ἀγγέλων
τῶν δικαίων)
favours the idea that faithful pastors are here symbolized,—just
stewards and righteous men.] βιωτικαί.
The Vatican and Pal. render this, “the various punishments and
tortures which men suffer daily in their lives.” Pseudo-Athanasius
has: “For when they revolt from God, thinking to be in rest and
in wealth, then they are punished, some meeting with losses,”
etc. [ Pseudo-Athanasius has: “And they cannot bear
for the rest of their days to turn and serve the Lord with a pure
heart. But if they repent and become sober again, then they understand
that they were not prosperous on account of their evil deeds; and
so they glorify the Lord, because He is a just Judge, and because
they suffered justly, and were punished (ἐπαιδεύθησαν)
according to their deeds.” The Vatican inserts the
following sentence before this: “And when they begin to repent
of their sins, then the works in which they have wickedly exercised
themselves arise in their hearts; and then they give honour to God,
saying that He is a just Judge, and that they have deservedly suffered
everything according to their deeds.” So does Pal. The Æthiopic
becomes very condensed in this portion. [Note this class of offenders,
having suffered remedial chastisement, are not delivered over the
Satan finally, but “delivered unto me (the angel of repentance)
for good training.”]
I said to him, “Sir, explain this also to
me.” “What is it you ask?” he said. “Whether,
sir,” I continued, “they who indulge in luxury,
and who are deceived, are tortured for the same period of time
that they have indulged in luxury and deceit?” He said
to me, “They are tortured in the same manner.” τρόπον.
The Vat. and Pal. have, “for the same time” (per idem
tempus). Omitted in Lips.
Pseudo-Athanasius has “nothing” (οὐδέν)
instead of ἐλάχιστος.
“Still,” I said, “I do not quite
understand about the time of deceit, and luxury, and torture; explain it
to me more clearly.” He answered, and said to me, “Your folly
is persistent; and you do not wish to purify your heart, and serve God.
Have a care,” he added, “lest the time be fulfilled, and
you be found foolish. Hear now,” he added, “as you desire,
that you may understand these things. He who indulges in luxury, and is
deceived for one day, and who does what he wishes, is clothed with much
foolishness, and does not understand the act which he does until the
morrow; for he forgets what he did the day before. For luxury and deceit
have no memories, on account of the folly with which they are clothed;
but when punishment and torture cleave to a man for one day, he is
punished and tortured for a year; for punishment and torture have powerful
memories. While tortured and punished, therefore, for a whole year, he
remembers at last ποτέ. [The
pleasures of sin are “for a season” ( [
After a few days I saw him in the same plain where
I had also seen the shepherds; and he said to me, “What do
you wish with me?” I said to him, “Sir, that you would
order the shepherd who punishes to depart out of my house, because
he afflicts me exceedingly.” “It is necessary,” he
replied, “that you be afflicted; for thus,” he continued,
“did the glorious angel command concerning you, as he wishes you
to be tried.” “What have I done which is so bad, sir,”
I replied, “that I should be delivered over to this angel?”
“Listen,” he said: “Your sins are many, but not so
great as to require that you be delivered over to this angel;
but your household has committed great iniquities and sins, and the
glorious angel has been incensed at them on account of their deeds; and
for this reason he commanded you to be afflicted for a certain time,
that they also might repent, and purify themselves from every desire
of this world. When, therefore, they repent and are purified, then the
angel of punishment will depart.” I said to him, “Sir, if
they have done such things as to incense the glorious angel against them,
yet what have I done?” He replied, “They cannot be afflicted
at all, unless you, the head of the house, be afflicted: for when you
are afflicted, of necessity they also suffer affliction; but if you are
in comfort, they can feel no affliction.” “Well, sir,”
I said, “they have repented with their whole heart.” “I
know, too,” he answered, “that they have repented with their
whole heart: do you think, however, that the sins of those who repent are
remitted? The Vat. and Pal. have
protinus, “immediately.” [Wake adopts this reading,
which appears to be required by the context.] The Lips. has lost here a
few words, which are supplied from the Latin translations. [ The
Vatican has: “But rather give thanks to the Lord, that He, knowing
what is to come to pass, has deemed you worthy to tell you beforehand
that affiction is coming upon those who are able to bear it.”
[ [Sam. iii. 31,
32, 33.]
He showed me a large willow tree overshadowing plains
and mountains, and under the shade of this willow had assembled all
those who were called by the name of the Lord. And a glorious angel of
the Lord, who was very tall, was standing beside the willow, having a
large pruning-knife, and he was cutting little twigs from the willow and
distributing them among the people that were overshadowed by the willow;
and the twigs which he gave them were small, about a cubit, as it were,
in length. And after they had all received the twigs, the angel laid
down the pruning-knife, and that tree was sound, as I had seen it at
first. And I marvelled within myself, saying, “How is the tree
sound, after so many branches have been cut off?” And the Shepherd
said to me, “Do not be surprised if the tree remains sound after
so many branches were lopped off; [but wait, Omitted by Lips.
Omitted in Lips. and Vat.
Omitted in Lips.
And the angel of the Lord ordered crowns to
be brought; [ [
[ [ [
I said to him, “Sir, explain to me what this tree
means, for I am perplexed about it, because, after so many branches have
been cut off, it continues sound, and nothing appears to have been cut
away from it. By this, now, I am perplexed.” “Listen,”
he said: “This great tree
[ “And by this law the Son of God was preached to all
the ends of the earth.”—Vat. [Hermas again introduces
here the name which he made his base in Vision ii. 2.] [ [That is, the New Law, the
gospel of the Son of God.] [Vision
ii. 2. Denying the Son.]
And after a few days we came to the place, and
the Shepherd sat down in the angel’s place, and I stood beside
him. And he said to me, “Gird yourself with pure, undressed
linen made of sackcloth;” and seeing me girded, and ready to
minister to him, “Summon,” he said, “the men to
whom belong the branches that were planted, according to the order in
which each one gave them in.” So I went away to the plain, and
summoned them all, and they all stood in their ranks. He said to them,
“Let each one pull out his own branch, and bring it to me.”
The first to give in were those who had them withered and cut; and And … cut, omitted in
Pal. [Wake reads
“cleft.”]
Then they gave in their branches who had them green,
but cracked: all these gave them in green, and stood in their own row. And
the Shepherd was pleased with these, because they were all changed,
and had lost their cracks.
[Clefts.]
Omitted in Lips. Translation is made from Vat. The versions vary
in some of the minute particulars.
After the Shepherd had examined the branches of them
all, he said to me, “I told you that this tree was tenacious of
life. You see,” he continued, “how many repented and were
saved.” “I see, sir,” I replied. “That you may
behold,” he added, “the great mercy of the Lord, that it
is great and glorious, and that He has given His Spirit to those who
are worthy of repentance.” “Why then, sir,” I said,
“did not all these repent?” He answered, “To them whose
heart He saw would become pure, and obedient to Him, He gave power to
repent with the whole heart. But to them whose deceit and wickedness He
perceived, and saw that they intended to repent hypocritically, He did
not grant repentance, [The
by-gone quarrels about foreknowledge and predestination are innocently
enough anticipated here.] [ [ [Here is a note
of Hermas’ time. Not only does it imply the history of heresies as
of some progress, but it marks the Montanist refusal to receive penitent
lapsers.]
“And as many as gave in the branches
half-withered and cracked, hear also about them. They whose branches were
half-withered to the same extent are the wavering; for they neither live,
nor are they dead. And they who have them half-withered and cracked are
both waverers and slanderers, [railing against the absent,] and never
at peace with one another, but always at variance. And yet to these
also,” he continued, “repentance is possible. You see,”
he said, “that some of them have repented, and there is still
remaining in them,” he continued, “a hope of repentance. And
as many of them,” he added, “as have repented, shall have
their
[He has in view the passages [Why “naturally”? Latin, “de ipsis
tamen qui boni fuerunt.” Greek, ἀγαθοὶ
ὄντες. Gebhardt and Harnack,
Lips. 1877.]
[
“And they who gave in their branches half-green
and half-withered, are those who are immersed in business, and do not
cleave to the saints. For this reason, the one half of them is living,
and the other half dead.
[
[
“And they who returned their branches two-thirds
withered and one-third green, are those that were faithful indeed; but
after acquiring wealth, and becoming distinguished amongst the heathen,
they clothed themselves with great pride, and became lofty-minded,
and deserted the truth, and did not cleave to the righteous, but
lived with the heathen, and this way of life became more agreeable to
them. [A note of the time
of composing The Shepherd. This chapter speaks of experiences
of life among heathen and of wordly Christians, inconsistent with the
times of Clement.]
Omitted in Lips.; supplied from Vat.
“And they who give in their branches green,
but having the tips withered and cracked, these were always good,
and faithful, and distinguished before God; but they sinned a very
little through indulging small desires, and finding little faults with
one another. But on hearing my words the greater part of them quickly
repented, and their dwelling was upon the tower. Yet some of them
were in doubt; and certain of them who were in doubt wrought greater
dissension. Among these, therefore, is hope of repentance, because they
were always good; and with difficulty will any one of them perish. And
they who gave up their branches withered, “Withered, all but their tops, which alone were
green.”—Vat. and Pal. [ Omitted in Lips.,
which has, instead, “are afraid.”
And after he had finished the explanations of
[A
cheering conclusion of his severe judgments, and aimed at the despair
created by Montanist prophesyings.] Literally,
“the calling that was made by His Son to be saved.” The
Vatican renders this, “He wishes to preserve the invitation made
by His Son.” The Pal. has, “wishes to save His Church, which
belongs to His Son.” In the text, κλῆσις
is taken as = κλητοί.
After I had written down the commandments and
similitudes of the Shepherd, the angel of repentance, he came to me
and said, “I wish to explain to you what the Holy Spirit The Spirit.—Vat. [He
is called “the Spirit of Christ” by St. Peter (i. 11);
and perhaps this is a key to the non-dogmatic language of Hermas,
if indeed he is here speaking of the Holy Spirit personally, and not
of the Son exclusively. See Simil. v. 6,
To a fruitful hill.—Pal. Omitted in Vat. [Hermas delights
in the picturesque, and introduces Arcadia in harmony with his pastoral
fiction.] Omitted
in Lips.
And in the middle of the plain he showed me a
large white rock that had arisen out of the plain. And the rock was
more lofty than the mountains, rectangular in shape, so as to be
capable of containing the whole world: and that rock was old, having
a gate cut out of it; and the cutting out of the gate seemed to me
as if recently done. And the gate glittered to such a degree under
the sunbeams, that I marvelled at the splendour of the gate; [As of Eden.
I saw six men come, tall, and distinguished, and
similar in appearance, and they summoned a multitude of men. And they
who came were also tall men, and handsome, and powerful; and the six men
commanded them to build a tower
[Vision iii. 1, 2.]
And as they stood together around the gate,
those who seemed to be strong carried them, and they stooped down
under the corners of the stone; and the others stooped down under
the sides of the stones. And in this way they carried all the
stones. All carried the
gate.—Pal. Omitted in Lips.
And on that day the building was finished, but the
tower was not completed; for additional building was again about to
be added, and there was a cessation in the building. And the six men
commanded the builders all to withdraw a little distance, and to rest,
but enjoined the virgins not to withdraw from the tower; and it seemed
to me that the virgins had been left to guard the tower. Now after all
had withdrawn, and were resting themselves, I said to the Shepherd,
“What is the reason that the building of the tower was not
finished?” “The tower,” he answered, “cannot be
finished just yet, until the Lord of it come and examine the building, in
Omitted in Lips. And they replied that he would
forthwith come.—Vat.
And, behold, after a little I see an array of many
men coming, and in the midst of them one man Omitted in Lips. The text is from Vat.; slight variations
in Pal. And Æth.
Also omitted from Lips. The text is in all the translations.
The glorious man, the lord of the whole tower, having
accordingly finished these alterations, called to him the Shepherd, and
delivered to him all the stones that were lying beside the tower, that
had been rejected from the building, and said to him, “Carefully
clean all these stones, and put aside such for the building of the
tower as may harmonize with the others; and those that do not, throw far
away from the tower.” [Having given these orders to the Shepherd,
he departed from the tower
Omitted in Lips. The text is in all the translations.
[
And beginning, we first examined the black stones. And such as they had been taken out of the building, were they found to remain; and the Shepherd ordered them to be removed out of the tower, and to be placed apart. Next he examined those that had scabs; and he took and hewed many of these, and commanded the virgins to take them up and cast them into the building. And the virgins lifted them up, and put them in the middle of the building of the tower. And the rest he ordered to be laid down beside the black ones; for these, too, were found to be black. He next examined those that had cracks; and he hewed many of these, and commanded them to be carried by the virgins to the building: and they were placed on the outside, because they were found to be sounder than the others; but the rest, on account of the multitude of the cracks, could not be hewn, and for this reason, therefore, they were rejected from the building of the tower. He next examined the chipped stones, and many amongst these were found to be black, and some to have great cracks. And these also he commanded to be laid down along with those which had been rejected. But the remainder, after being cleaned and hewn, he commanded to be placed in the building. And the virgins took them up, and fitted them into the middle of the building of the tower, for they were somewhat weak. He next examined those that were half white and half black, and many of them were found to be black. And he commanded these also to be taken away along with those which had been rejected. And the rest were all taken away by the virgins; for, being white, they were fitted by the virgins themselves into the building. And they were placed upon the outside, because they were found to be sound, so as to be able to support those which were placed in the middle, for no part of them at all was chipped. He next examined those that were rough and hard; and a few of them were rejected because they could not be hewn, as they were found exceedingly hard. But the rest of them were hewn, and carried by the virgins, and fitted into the middle of the building of the tower; for they were somewhat weak. He next examined those that had stains; and of these a very few were black, and were thrown aside with the others; but the greater part were found to be bright, and these were fitted by the virgins into the building, but on account of their strength were placed on the outside.
He next came to examine the white and rounded stones, and said to me, “What are we to do with these stones?” “How do I know, sir?” I replied. “Have you no intentions regarding them?” “Sir,” I answered, “I am not acquainted with this art, neither am I a stone-cutter, nor can I tell.” “Do you not see,” he said, “that they are exceedingly round? and if I wish to make them rectangular, a large portion of them must be cut away; for some of them must of necessity be put into the building.” “If therefore,” I said, “they must, why do you torment yourself, and not at once choose for the building those which you prefer, and fit them into it?” He selected the larger ones among them, and the shining ones, and hewed them; and the virgins carried and fitted them into the outside parts of the building. And the rest which remained over were carried away, and laid down on the plain from which they were brought. They were not, however, rejected, “because,” he said, “there remains yet a little addition to be built to the tower. And the lord of this tower wishes all the stones to be fitted into the building, because they are exceedingly bright.” And twelve women were called, very beautiful in form, clothed in black, and with dishevelled hair. And these women seemed to me to be fierce. But the Shepherd commanded them to lift the stones that were rejected from the building, and to carry them away to the mountains from which they had been brought. And they were merry, and carried away all the stones, and put them in the place whence they had been taken. Now after all the stones were removed, and there was no longer a single one lying around the tower, he said, “Let us go round the tower and see, lest there be any defect in it.” So I went round the tower along with him. And the Shepherd, seeing that the tower was beautifully built, rejoiced exceedingly; for the tower was built in such a way, that, on seeing it, I coveted the building of it, for it was constructed as if built of one stone, without a single joining. And the stone seemed as if hewn out of the rock; having to me the appearance of a monolith.
And as I walked along with him, I was full of
joy, beholding so many excellent things. And the Shepherd said to me,
“Go and bring unslaked lime and fine-baked clay, that I may fill
up the forms of the stones that were taken and thrown into the building;
for everything about the tower must be smooth.” And I did as he
commanded me, and brought it to him. “Assist me,” he said,
“and the work will soon be finished.” He accordingly filled up
the forms of the stones that were returned to the building, and commanded
the places around the tower to be swept and to be cleaned; and the virgins
The virgins said to me, “The Shepherd does not
come here to-day.” “What, then,” said I, “am
I to do?” They replied, “Wait for him until he comes; and
if he comes he will converse with you, and if he does not come you will
remain here with us until he does come.” I said to them, “I
will wait for him until it is late; and if he does not arrive, I will
go away into the house, and come back early in the morning.”
And they answered and said to me, “You were entrusted to us;
you cannot go away from us.” “Where, then,” I said,
“am I to remain?” “You will sleep with us,”
they replied, “as a brother, and not as a husband: for you are our
brother, and for the time to come we intend to abide with you, for we
love you exceedingly!” But I was ashamed to remain with them. And
she who seemed to be the first among them began to kiss me. [And the
others seeing her kissing me, began also to kiss me], and to lead
me round the tower, and to play with me. [This curious
chapter, be it remembered, is but a dream and a similitude. In the pure
homes of Christians, it is almost unintelligible. Amid the abominations
of heathenism, it taught a lesson which afterwards required enforcement
by the canons and stern discipline of the whole Chuirch. The lesson
is, that what “begins in the spirit” may “end in the
flesh.” Those who shunning the horrible inpurities of the pagans
abused spiritual relationships as “brothers and sisters,”
were on the verge of a precipice. “To the pure, all things are
pure;” but they who presume on this great truth to indulge in
kissings and like familiarities are tempting a dangerous downfall. In
this vision, Hermas resorted to “watching and praying;” and
the virgins rejoiced because he thus saved himself. The behaviour of the
maidens was what heathen women constantly practiced, and what Christian
women, bred in such habits of life, did, perhaps, without evil thought,
relying on their “sun-clad power of chastity.” Nothing in this
picture is the product of Christianity, except the self-mastery
inculcated as the only safeguard even amongst good women. But see
“Elucidation,” at end of this book.]
“First of all, sir,” I said, “explain
this to me: What is the meaning of the rock and the gate?”
“This rock,” he answered, “and this gate are the
Son of God.” “How, sir?” I said; “the rock
is old, and the gate is new.” “Listen,” he said,
“and understand, O ignorant man. The Son of God is older than
all His creatures, so that He was a fellow-councillor with the Father
in His work of creation:
[Hermas confirms the doctrine of St. John (i. 3); also [ His.
God’s.—Lips.
“And the tower,” I asked, “what
does it mean?” “This tower,” he replied, “is
the Church.” “And these virgins, who are they?”
“They are holy spirits, and men cannot otherwise be found in the
kingdom of God unless these have put their clothing upon them: for if
you receive the name only, and do not receive from them the clothing,
they are of no advantage to you. For these virgins are the powers
of the Son of God. If you bear His name but possess not His power,
it will be in vain that you bear His name. Those stones,” he
continued, “which you saw rejected bore His name, but did not
put on the clothing of the virgins.” “Of what nature is
their clothing, sir?” I asked. “Their very names,”
he said, “are their clothing. Every one who bears the name of
the Son of God, ought to bear the names also of these; for the Son
Himself bears the names
[ Omitted
in Lips. The text in Vat. and Pal. The Æth different in form,
but in meaning the same. Lord.
God.—Vat.
“What, then, sir,” I said, “if these
men, being such as they are, repent and put away their desires after
these women, and return again to the virgins, and walk in their strength
and in their works, shall they not enter into the house of God?”
“They shall enter in,” he said, “if they put away
the works of these women, and put on again the strength of the virgins,
and walk in their works. For on this account was there a cessation in
the building, in order that, if these repent, they may depart into the
building of the tower. But if they do not repent, then others will come in
their place, and these at the end will be cast out. For all these things
I gave thanks to the Lord, because He had pity on all that call upon His
name; and sent the angel of repentance to us who sinned against Him, and
renewed our spirit; and when we were already destroyed, and had no hope of
life, He restored us to newness of life.” “Now, sir,”
I continued, “show me why the tower was not built upon the ground,
but upon the rock and upon the gate.” “Are you still,”
he said, “without sense and understanding?” “I must,
sir,” I said, “ask you of all things, because I am wholly
unable to understand them; for all these things are great and glorious,
and difficult for man to understand.” “Listen,” he said:
“the name of the Son of God is great, and cannot be contained,
and supports the whole world.
[ [
This portion of the Leipzig Codex is much eaten away, and therefore the text is derived to a considerable extent from the translations.
“Explain to me, sir,” I said, “the
names of these virgins, and of those women who were clothed in black
raiment.” “Hear,” he said, “the names of the
stronger virgins who stood at the corners. The first is Faith, [The tenacity with which Hermas
everywhere exalts the primary importance of Faith, makes it inexcusable
that he should be charged with mere legalizing morality.]
[
“Explain to me a little further, sir,”
I said. “What is it that you desire?” he asked. “Why,
sir,” I said, “did these stones ascend out of the pit,
and be applied to the building of the tower, after having borne
these spirits?” “They were obliged,” he answered,
“to ascend through water in order that they might be made alive;
for, unless they laid aside the deadness of their life, they could
not in any other way enter into the kingdom of God. Accordingly, those
also who fell asleep received the seal of the Son of God. For,”
he continued, “before a man bears the name of the Son of God The name of the Son of God.
The name of God.—Lips. [ All
the translations and Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom., vi. 6, 46)
have this passage. It is omitted in Lips.
“I understand, sir,” I replied. “Now,
sir,” I continued, “explain to me, with respect to
the mountains, why their forms are various and diverse.”
“Listen,” he said: “these mountains are the twelve
tribes, which inhabit the whole world. [
Name of the Son of God. Name of God.—Lips.
[ [
“How, sir,” I said, “did they
become worse, after having known God?” God in Pal.; Lord in Vat. and Æth.;
Christ in Lips.
[
Omitted in Vat., Æth., Lips.
[
“Moreover, sir,” I said, “explain to me the power and the actions of each one of the mountains, that every soul, trusting in the Lord, and hearing it, may glorify His great, and marvellous, and glorious name.” “Hear,” he said, “the diversity of the mountains and of the twelve nations.”
“From the first mountain, which was black, they that believed are the following: apostates and blasphemers against the Lord, and betrayers of the servants of God. To these repentance is not open; but death lies before them, and on this account also are they black, for their race is a lawless one. And from the second mountain, which was bare, they who believed are the following: hypocrites, and teachers of wickedness. And these, accordingly, are like the former, not having any fruits of righteousness; for as their mountain was destitute of fruit, so also such men have a name indeed, but are empty of faith, and there is no fruit of truth in them. They indeed have repentance in their power, if they repent quickly; but if they are slow in so doing, they shall die along with the former.” “Why, sir,” I said, “have these repentance, but the former not? for their actions are nearly the same.” “On this account,” he said, “have these repentance, because they did not blaspheme their Lord, nor become betrayers of the servants of God; but on account of their desire of possessions they became hypocritical, and each one taught according to the desires of men that were sinners. But they will suffer a certain punishment; and repentance is before them, because they were not blasphemers or traitors.”
“And from the third mountain, which had
thorns and thistles, they who believed are the following. There
are some of them rich, and others immersed in much business. The
thistles are the rich, and the thorns are they who are immersed in
much business. Those, [accordingly, who are entangled in many various
kinds of business, do not
Omitted in Lips. The text from Vat. Substantially the same in the
other two. [
“And from the fourth mountain, which had much
grass, the upper parts of the plants green, and the parts about the roots
withered, and some also scorched by the sun, they who believed are the
following: the doubtful, and they who have the Lord upon their lips,
but have Him not in their heart. On this account their foundations
are withered, and have no strength; and their words alone live,
while their works are dead. Such persons are [neither alive nor Omitted in Lips.
[The imagery of our Lord’s parables everywhere apparent. Also, the
words of Scripture recur constantly.]
“And from the fifth mountain, which had green grass, and was rugged, they who believed are the following: believers, indeed, but slow to learn, and obstinate, and pleasing themselves, wishing to know everything, and knowing nothing at all. On account of this obstinacy of theirs, understanding departed from them, and foolish senselessness entered into them. And they praise themselves as having wisdom, and desire to become teachers, although destitute of sense. On account, therefore, of this loftiness of mind, many became vain, exalting themselves: for self-will and empty confidence is a great demon. Of these, accordingly, many were rejected, but some repented and believed, and subjected themselves to those that had understanding, knowing their own foolishness. And to the rest of this class repentance is open; for they were not wicked, but rather foolish, and without understanding. If these therefore repent, they will live unto God; but if they do not repent, they shall have their dwelling with the women who wrought wickedness among them.”
“And those from the sixth mountain, which had
clefts large and small, and decayed grass in the clefts, who believed,
were the following: they who occupy the small clefts are those who bring
charges against one another, and by reason of their slanders have decayed
in the faith. Many of them, however, repented; and the rest also will
repent when they hear my commandments, for their slanders are small,
and they will quickly repent. But they who occupy the large clefts are
persistent in their slanders, and vindictive in their anger against each
other. These, therefore, were thrown away from the tower, and rejected
from having a part in its building. Such persons, accordingly, shall have
difficulty in living. If our God and Lord, who rules over all things,
and has power over all His creation, does not remember evil against those
who confess their sins, but is merciful, does man, who is corruptible
and full of sins, remember evil against a fellow-man, as if he were able
to destroy or to save him?
“And those who believed from the seventh
mountain, on which the grass was green and flourishing, and the whole
of the mountain fertile, and every kind of cattle and the fowls of
heaven were feeding on the grass on this mountain, and the grass on
which they pastured became more abundant, were the following: they were
always simple, and harmless, and blessed, bringing no charges against one
another, but always rejoicing greatly because of the servants of God, and
being clothed with the holy spirit of these virgins, and always having
pity on every man, and giving aid from their own labour to every man,
without reproach and without hesitation.
“And they who believed from the eighth mountain,
where were the many fountains, and where all the creatures of God drank of
the fountains, were the following: apostles, and teachers, who preached
to the whole world, and who taught solemnly and purely the word of the
Lord, and
Cf.
Donaldson’s Hist. of Christ. Lit., vol. i. p. 291. [This
beautiful chapter, and its parable of the fountains of living water,
may well be read with that passage of Leighton which delighted Coleridge:
Com. on
“And they who believed from the ninth mountain,
which was deserted, and had in it creeping things and wild beasts which
destroy men, were the following: they who had the stains as servants, διάκονοι.
[Deacons, evidently, or stewards.
[
“And from the tenth mountain,
where were trees which overshadowed certain sheep, they who
believed were the following: bishops Bishops. Bishops, that is, presidents of the
churches.—Vat. [This textual peculiarity must have originated
at the period when the Ignatian use of episcopus was becoming
naturalized in Rome. It was originally common to all pastors,
local or regionary.]
“And from the eleventh mountain, where were
trees full of fruits, adorned with fruits of various kinds, they who
believed were the following: they who suffered for the name of the Son
of God, and who also suffered cheerfully with their whole heart, and
laid down their lives.” “Why, then, sir,” I said,
“do all these trees bear fruit, and some of them fairer than
the rest?” “Listen,” he said: “all who once
suffered for the name of the Lord are honourable before God; and of
all these the sins were remitted, because they suffered for the name
of the Son of God. [This
passage (with Vision iii. 2, and especially Similitude v. 3) has been
pressed into the service of those who seek to find “super-erogatory
merit” in the Fathers. See
“And they who believed from the twelfth
mountain, which was white, are the following: they are as infant
children, in whose hearts no evil originates; nor did they know what
wickedness is, but always remained as children. Such accordingly,
without doubt, dwell in the kingdom of God, because they defiled in
nothing the commandments of God; but they remained like children all the
days of their life in the same mind. All of you, then, who shall remain
stedfast, and be as children,
[
After he had finished the similitudes of the mountains, I said to him, “Sir, explain to me now about the stones that were taken out of the plain, and put into the building instead of the stones that were taken out of the tower; and about the round stones that were put into the building; and those that still remain round.”
“Hear,” he answered, “about all these
also. The stones taken out of the plain and put into the building of the
tower instead of those that were rejected, are the roots of this white
mountain. When, therefore, they who believed from the white mountain were
all found guileless, the Lord of the tower commanded those from the roots
of this mountain to be cast into the building of the tower; for he knew
that if these stones were to go to the building of the tower, they would
remain bright, and not one of them become black. Here ends Codex Lipsiensis. The rest of the text is from
common translation corrected by the Palatine and Æthiopic.
[Born good. Not in the text of Gebhardt and Harnack (the Greek
is wanting); nor do they note any such text, though the Æthiopic
favours it. See p. 42, supra,
note 2.] [Here
again the Latin has the reading before noted, on the circumcision
of wealth, p. 15, note 2,
supra.]
“But the other round stones, which had not yet
been adapted to the building of the tower, and had not yet received the
seal, were for this reason put back into their place, because they are
exceedingly round. Now this age must be cut down in these things, and in
the vanities of their riches, and then they will meet in the kingdom of
God; for they must of necessity enter into the kingdom of God, because the
Lord has blessed this innocent race. Of this race, therefore, no one will
perish; for although any of them be tempted by the most wicked devil,
and commit sin, he will quickly return to his Lord. I deem you happy,
I, who am the messenger of repentance, whoever of you are innocent as
children,
[
“Heal yourselves, therefore, while the tower
is still building. The Lord dwells in men that love peace, because He
loved peace; but from the contentious and the utterly wicked He is far
distant. Restore to Him, therefore, a spirit sound as ye received it.
For when you have given to a fuller a new garment, and desire to
receive it back entire at the end, if, then, the fuller return you a
torn garment, will you take it from him, and not rather be angry, and
abuse him, saying, ‘I gave you a garment that was entire: why
have you rent it, and made it useless, so that it can be of no use on
account of the rent which you have made in it?’ Would you not say
all this to the fuller about the rent which you found in your garment?
If, therefore, you grieve about your garment, and complain because you
have not received it entire, what do you think the Lord will do to you,
who gave you a sound spirit, which you have rendered altogether useless,
so that it can be of no service to its possessor? for its use began
to be unprofitable, seeing it was corrupted by you. Will not the Lord,
therefore, because of this conduct of yours regarding His Spirit, act in
the same way, and deliver you over to death? Assuredly, I say, he will
do the same to all those whom He shall find retaining a recollection
of offences. [
“All these things which are written above, I,
the Shepherd, the messenger of repentance, have showed and spoken to the
servants of God. Servants
of God. Servant of the Lord.—Æth.
The Shepherd said to me, “Have you asked me
everything?” And I replied, “Yes, sir.” “Why
did you not ask me about the shape of the stones that were put into the
building, that I might explain to you why we filled up the shapes?”
And I said, “I forgot, sir.” “Hear now, then,”
he said, “about this also. These are they who have now heard my
commandments, and repented with their whole hearts. And when the Lord
saw that their repentance was good and pure, and that they were able
to remain in it, He ordered their former sins to be blotted out. [Heb. viii 12, x. 17.]
After I had fully written down this book, that messenger who had delivered me to the Shepherd came into the house in which I was, and sat down upon a couch, and the Shepherd stood on his right hand. He then called me, and spoke to me as follows: “I have delivered you and your house to the Shepherd, that you may be protected by him.” “Yes, sir,” I said. “If you wish, therefore, to be protected,” he said, “from all annoyance, and from all harsh treatment, and to have success in every good work and word, and to possess all the virtues of righteousness, walk in these commandments which he has given you, and you will be able to subdue all wickedness. For if you keep those commandments, every desire and pleasure of the world will be subject to you, and success will attend you in every good work. Take unto yourself his experience and moderation, and say to all that he is in great honour and dignity with God, and that he is a president with great power, and mighty in his office. To him alone throughout the whole world is the power of repentance assigned. Does he seem to you to be powerful? But you despise his experience, and the moderation which he exercises towards you.”
I said to him, “Ask himself, sir, whether from
the time that he has entered my house I have done anything improper, or
have offended him in any respect.” He answered, “I also know
that you neither have done nor will do anything improper, and therefore
I speak these words to you, that you may persevere. For he had a good
report of you to me, and you will say these words to others, that they
also who have either repented or will still repent may entertain the
same feelings with you, and he may report well of these to me, and I to
the Lord.” And I
Lord. God.—Pal. But he has his own honour …
despise him, omitted in Vat.
“Moreover, I sent you these virgins, that
they may dwell with you.
[Cap. xiii. p. 48, supra.]
[
The angel
Angel, Æth.; Pastor, Pal.; omitted in Vat. God, common version; Lord, Æth.,
Pal.; Lord God, Vat.
[Here might follow that beautiful fragment of Irenæus, on God’s
goodness accepting the feeblest efforts of the soul in drawing near to
Him. Vol. i. Frag. lv. p. 577, this series.] [
After he had spoken with me he rose up from the
couch, and taking the Shepherd and the virgins, he departed. But he
said to me that he would send back the Shepherd and the virgins to my
dwelling. Amen. The Vatican
has: “Here ends the Book of the Shepherd, the disciple of the
blessed apostle Paul. Thanks be to God.” The Æthiopic has:
“May the name of him who wrote this book be written on a pillar of
gold. With thanksgiving to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, this book of
the prophet Hermas has been finished. Amen. Finished are the visions,
and commandments, and similitudes of the prophet Hermas, who is Paul,
in the year 191 of mercy, 23d night and 22d day of the month,”
etc. The writer goes on [fruitlessly] to show that Hermas is Paul,
appealing to
The reader has now had an opportunity of judging for himself whether the internal evidence favours any other view of the authorship of The Shepherd, than that which I have adopted. Its apparent design is to meet the rising pestilence of Montanism, and the perils of a secondary stage of Christianity. This it attempts to do by an imaginary voice from the first period. Avoiding controversy, Hermas presents, in the name of his earlier synonyme, a portraiture of the morals and practical godliness which were recognised as “the way of holiness” in the apostolic days. In so doing, he falls into anachronisms, of course, as poets and romancers must. These are sufficiently numerous to reveal the nature of his production, and to prove that the author was not the Hermas of the story.
The authorship was a puzzle and a problem during the earlier discussions of the learned. An anonymous poem (falsely ascribed to Tertullian, but very ancient) did, indeed, give a clue to the solution:—
To say that there was no
evidence to sustain this, is to grant that it doubles the evidence
when sufficient support for it is discovered. This was supplied
by the fragment found in Milan, by the erudite and indefatigable
Muratori, about a hundred and fifty years ago. Its history, with very
valuable notes on the fragment itself, which is given entire, may be
found in Routh’s Reliquiæ. Tom. i. pp. 393–434. On the Canon,
p. 235. Ed. 1855. Such as Lightfoot, Westcott, Canon Cook,
and others.
1. The Phrygian enthusiasm, like the convulsionism
of Paris Candidly treated by
Guettée, L’Eglise de France, vol. xii. p. 15. See also
Parton’s Voltaire, vol. i. pp. 260–270.
2. “Fire fights fire,” and prophesyings are best met by prophesyings. These were rare among the Orthodox, but Hermas undertook to restore those of the apostolic age; and I think this is what is meant by the tradita verba of the old poem, i.e., words “transmitted or bequeathed traditionally” from the times of Clement. Irenæus, the contemporary of this Hermas, had received the traditions of the same age from Polycarp: hence the greater probability of my conjecture that the brother of Pius compiled many traditional prophesyings of the first age.
3. Supposing the work to be in fact what it is represented to be in fiction, we have seen that it abounds with anachronisms. As now explained, we can account for them: the second Hermas forgets himself, like other poets, and mixes up his own period with that which he endeavours to portray.
4 and 5. Written in Greek, its circulation in the
West was necessarily limited; but, as the plague of Montanism was
raging in the East, its Greek was a godsend, and enabled the Easterns
to introduce it everywhere as a useful book. Origen values it
as such; and, taking it without thought to be the work of the Pauline
Hermas, attributes to it, as a fancy of his own, Comment., book x. sec. 31, as quoted in Westcott,
p. 219.
I subjoin Westcott’s references: Clem. Alex., Stromata,
i. 17, sec. 85; Ibid., i. 29, sec. 29; Ibid., ii. 1,
sec. 3. Also Ibid., ii. 12, sec. 55; iv. 9. sec. 76; vi. 6,
sec. 46. Also Tertull., Pudicitia, capp. 10 and 20. These I have
verified in Ed. Oehler, pp. 468, 488. I add De Oratione,
capp. xvi. p. 311. Let me also add Athanasius, De Incarnatione,
p. 38; Contra Hæresim Arian., p. 369; Ibid., 380. To
the testimony of this great Father and defender of the faith I attach the
greatest importance; because his approval shows that there was nothing
in the book, as he had it in its pure text, to justify the attempts of
moderns to disprove its orthodoxy. Athanasius calls is “a most
useful book,” and quotes it again (“although that book is
not in the Canon”) with great respect. Ed. Paris, 1572. Modern theories of inspiration appear to me untenable,
with reference to canonical Scripture; but they precisely illustrate the
sort of inspiration with which these prophesyings were probably
first credited. The human element is largely intermixed with divine
suggestions; or you may state the proposition conversely.
6. Eusebius and Jerome Eusebius, iii. 3, and Hieronym., catal. x. See Westcott,
p. 220.
If the reader will now turn back to the Introductory Note of the Edinburgh editors, he will find that the three views of which they take any serious notice are harmonized by that we have reached. (1) The work is unquestionably, on its face, the work of the Pauline Hermas. (2) But this is attributable to the fact that it is a fiction, or prose poem. (3) And hence it must be credited to the later Hermas, whose name and authorship are alone supported by external testimony, as well as internal evidence.
(Similitude Ninth, cap. xi. p. 47, note 1.)
Westcott is undoubtedly
correct in connecting this strange passage with one of the least
defensible experiments of early Christian living. Gibbon finds in
this experiment nothing but an opportunity for his scurrility. Milman’s Gibbon,
vol. i. p. 550. The editor’s notes are not over severe, and might
be greatly strengthened as refutations. Van Lennep, Bible-lands, p. 440. See Vision iii. cap. 8, for the
relation of encraty to faith, in the view of Hermas; also (cap.
7 and passim) note his uncompromising reproofs of lust, and his
beautiful delineations of chastity. The third canon of the Nicene Synod
proscribed the syneisactæ, and also the nineteenth of Ancyra,
adopted at Chalcedon into the Catholic discipline.
The Gospel arms its enemies against itself, by elevating them infinitely above what they would have been without its influences. Refined by its social atmosphere, but refusing its sanctifying power, they gloat over the failures and falls of those with whom their own emancipation was begun. Let us rather admire those whom she lifted out of an abyss of moral degradation, but whose struggles to reach the high levels of her precepts were not always successful. Yet these very struggles were heroic; for all their original habits, and all their surroundings, were of the sort “which hardens all within, and petrifies the feeling.”
The American editor has devoted more than his usual amount of annotation to Hermas, and he affectionately asks the student not to overlook the notes, in which he has condensed rather than amplified exposition. It has been a labour of love to contribute something to a just conception of The Shepherd, because the Primitive Age has often been reproached with its good repute in the early churches. So little does one generation comprehend another! When Christians conscientiously rejected the books of the heathen, and had as yet none of their own, save the Sacred Scriptures, or such scanty portions of the New Testament as were the treasures of the churches, is it wonderful that the first effort at Christian allegory was welcomed, especially in a time of need and perilous temptation?
[Translated by J. E. Ryland.]
[a.d. 110–172.] It was my first intention to make this author a mere appendix to his master, Justin Martyr; for he stands in an equivocal position, as half Father and half heretic. His good seems to have been largely due to Justin’s teaching and influence. One may trust that his falling away, in the decline of life, is attributable to infirmity of mind and body; his severe asceticism countenancing this charitable thought. Many instances of human frailty, which the experience of ages has taught Christians to view with compassion rather than censure, are doubtless to be ascribed to mental aberration and decay. Early Christians had not yet been taught this lesson; for, socially, neither Judaism nor Paganism had wholly surrendered their unloving influences upon their minds. Moreover, their high valuation of discipline, as an essential condition of self-preservation amid the fires of surrounding scorn and hatred, led them to practice, perhaps too sternly, upon offenders, what they often heroically performed upon themselves,—the amputation of the scandalous hand, or the plucking out of the evil eye.
In Tatian, another Assyrian follows the Star of Bethlehem, from Euphrates and the Tigris. The scanty facts of his personal history are sufficiently detailed by the translator, in his Introductory Note. We owe to himself the pleasing story of his conversion from heathenism. But I think it important to qualify the impressions the translation may otherwise leave upon the student’s mind, by a little more sympathy with the better side of his character, and a more just statement of his great services to the infant Church.
His works, which were very numerous, have perished, in consequence of his lapse from orthodoxy. Give him due credit for his Diatessaron, of which the very name is a valuable testimony to the Four Gospels as recognised by the primitive churches. It is lost, with the “infinite number” of other books which St. Jerome attributes to him. All honour to this earliest harmonist for such a work; and let us believe, with Mill and other learned authorities, that, if Eusebius had seen the work he censures, he might have expressed himself more charitably concerning it.
We know something of Tatian, already, from the
melancholy pages of Irenæus. Theodoret finds no other fault with
his Diatessaron than its omission of the genealogies, which he,
probably, could not harmonize on any theory of his own. The errors into
which he fell in his old age
“Paul the aged” was only sixty when he gives himself
this title. ( See (vol. ii. p. 331.) Southey’s
Life of Wesley; an invaluable work, and one which presents this
eminent saint in a most interesting light, even to worldly men. Ed. New
York, Harpers, 1853.
I have enlarged upon the equivocal character of Tatian with melancholy interest, because I shall make sparing use of notes, in editing his sole surviving work, pronounced by Eusebius his masterpiece. I read it with sympathy, admiration, and instruction. I enjoy his biting satire of heathenism, his Pauline contempt for all philosophy save that of the Gospel, his touching reference to his own experiences, and his brilliant delineation of Christian innocence and of his own emancipation from the seductions of a deceitful and transient world. In short, I feel that Tatian deserves critical editing, in the original, at the hand and heart of some expert who can thoroughly appreciate his merits, and his relations to primitive Christianity.
The following is the original Introductory Notice:—
We learn from several sources that Tatian was
an Assyrian, but know nothing very definite either as to the time or
place of his birth. Epiphanius (Hær., xlvi.) declares that
he was a native of Mesopotamia; and we infer from other ascertained
facts regarding him, that he flourished about the middle of the second
century. He was at first an eager student of heathen literature, and
seems to have been especially devoted to researches in philosophy. But
he found no satisfaction in the bewildering mazes of Greek speculation,
while he became utterly disgusted with what heathenism presented to him
under the name of religion. In these circumstances, he happily met with
the sacred books of the Christians, and was powerfully attracted by the
purity of morals which these inculcated, and by the means of deliverance
from the bondage of sin which
The only extant work of Tatian is his “Address to the Greeks.” It is a most unsparing and direct exposure of the enormities of heathenism. Several other works are said to have been composed by Tatian; and of these, a Diatessaron, or Harmony of the Four Gospels, is specially mentioned. His Gnostic views led him to exclude from the continuous narrative of our Lord’s life, given in this work, all those passages which bear upon the incarnation and true humanity of Christ. Not withstanding this defect, we cannot but regret the loss of this earliest Gospel harmony; but the very title it bore is important, as showing that the Four Gospels, and these only, were deemed authoritative about the middle of the second century.
Be not, O
Greeks, so very hostilely disposed towards the Barbarians, nor look with
ill will on their opinions. For which of your institutions has not been
derived from the Barbarians? The most eminent of the Telmessians invented
the art of divining by dreams; the Carians, that of prognosticating
by the stars; the Phrygians and the most ancient Isaurians, augury by
the flight of birds; the Cyprians, the art of inspecting victims. To
the Babylonians you owe astronomy; to the Persians, magic; to the
Egyptians, geometry; to the Phœnicians, instruction by alphabetic
writing. Cease, then, to miscall these imitations inventions of your
own. Orpheus, again, taught you poetry and song; from him, too, you
learned the mysteries. The Tuscans taught you the plastic art; from
the annals of the Egyptians you learned to write history; you acquired
the art of playing the flute from Marsyas and Olympus,—these two
rustic Phrygians constructed the harmony of the shepherd’s pipe. The
Tyrrhenians invented the trumpet; the Cyclopes, the smith’s art;
and a woman who was formerly a queen of the Persians, as Hellanicus
tells us, the method of joining together epistolary tablets: ἐπιστολας
συντάττειν
, i.e., for transmission by letter-carriers.—Otto. Aristoph.,
Ranæ, 92, 93.
Yet those who eagerly pursue it shout lustily, and croak like so many ravens. You have, too, contrived the art of rhetoric to serve injustice and slander, selling the free power of your speech for hire, and often representing the same thing at one time as right, at another time as not good. The poetic art, again, you employ to describe battles, and the amours of the gods, and the corruption of the soul.
What noble thing have you produced by your pursuit
of philosophy? Who of your most eminent men has been free from vain
boasting? Diogenes, who made such a parade of his independence with his
tub, was seized with a bowel complaint through eating a raw polypus, and
so lost his life by gluttony. Aristippus, walking about in a purple robe,
led a profligate life, in accordance with his professed opinions. Plato,
a philosopher, was sold by Dionysius for his gormandizing propensities.
And Aristotle, who absurdly placed a limit to Providence and made
happiness to consist in the things which give pleasure, quite contrary to
his duty as a preceptor flattered Alexander, forgetful that he was but a
youth; and he, showing how well he had learned the lessons of his master,
because his friend would not worship him shut him up and and carried him
about like a bear or a leopard. He in fact obeyed strictly the precepts
of his
I cannot approve of Heraclitus, who, being self-taught
and arrogant, said, “I have explored myself.” Nor can I praise
him for hiding his poem περὶ
φύσεως
He was called δ
σκοτεινός for his
obscurity.
For what reason, men of Greece, do you wish to bring
the civil powers, as in a pugilistic encounter, into collision with
us? And, if I am not disposed to comply with the usages of some of them,
why am I to be abhorred as a vile miscreant? [Dear Christians of those times; so Justin and
all the rest appeal against this odium. Their name an offence,
“cast out as evil,” but fragrant with unrequited love.
[ [Kaye’s Justin, pp. 56, 158.]
[Over again Tatian
asserts spirits to be material, though not fleshly;
and I think with reference to [Over again Tatian
asserts spirits to be material, though not fleshly; and
I think with reference to
God was in the beginning; but the beginning, we have
been taught, is the power of the Logos. For the Lord of the universe,
who is Himself the necessary ground (ὑπόστασις)
of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone;
but inasmuch as He was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things
visible and invisible, with Him were all things; with Him, by Logos-power
(διὰ
λογικῆς
δυνάμεως), the Logos
Himself also, who was in Him, subsists. [See Kaye’s Justin Martyr, p. 161, note;
and observe his stricture on Bull and Waterland.]
κατὰ
μερισμόν. Some translate,
“by division,” but the above is preferable. The sense,
according to Otto, is that the Logos, having received a peculiar
nature, shares in the rational power of the Father as a
lighted torch partakes of the light of the torch from which it is
kindled. Comp. Just. Mar., Dial. c. T., chap. lxi.
οἰκονομίας
τὴν αἲρεσιν
προσλαβόν. The
above seems the simplest rendering of this difficult passage, but several
others have been proposed. [See note
4, cap. ix., infra, p. 69.] [Matter not
eternal. He seems to have understood [Supposed to be a personal reference to his conversion
and baptism. As to “confused matter,” it should
be kindred matter, and must be set over “kindred
spirit.” See p. 71, cap. xiii., infra.]
And on this account we believe that there will be
a resurrection of bodies after the consummation of all things; not,
as the Stoics affirm, according to the return of certain cycles, the
same things being produced and destroyed for no useful purpose, but a
resurrection once for all,
[Comp. cap. xvii.,
infra, note 5, p. 72. ἐν ἡμέρα
συντελείας.] [A
supposed discovery of modern science. See Religion and Chemistry,
by Professor Cook of Harvard, pp. 79, 101. Revised Edition,
Scribners, 1880.]
For the heavenly Logos, a spirit emanating from the
Father and a Logos from the Logos-power, in imitation of the Father who
begat Him made man an image of immortality, so that, as incorruption
is with God, in like manner, man, sharing in a part of God, might have
the immortal principle also. The Logos, [Kaye’s rendering of this passage should be
compared. See his Justin, p. 182.]
But men form the material (ὑπόθεσις) of their apostasy. For, having shown them a plan of the position of the stars, like dice-players, they introduced Fate, a flagrant injustice. For the judge and the judged are made so by Fate; the murderers and the murdered, the wealthy and the needy, are the offspring of the same Fate; and every nativity is regarded as a theatrical entertainment by those beings of whom Homer says,—
Il., i. 599; Od., viii. 326.
But must not those who are spectators of single combats and are partisans on one side or the other, and he who marries and is a pæderast and an adulterer, who laughs and is angry, who flees and is wounded, be regarded as mortals? For, by whatever actions they manifest to men their characters, by these they prompt their hearers to copy their example. And are not the demons themselves, with Zeus at their head, subjected to Fate, being overpowered by the same passions as men? And, besides, how are those beings to be worshipped among whom there exists such a great contrariety of opinions? For Rhea, whom the inhabitants of the Phrygian mountains call Cybele, enacted emasculation on account of Attis, of whom she was enamoured; but Aphrodité is delighted with conjugal embraces. Artemis is a poisoner; Apollo heals diseases. And after the decapitation of the Gorgon, the beloved of Poseidon, whence sprang the horse Pegasus and Chrysaor, Athené and Asclepios divided between them the drops of blood; and, while he saved men’s lives by means of them, she, by the same blood, became a homicide and the instigator of wars. From regard to her reputation, as it appears to me, the Athenians attributed to the earth the son born of her connection with Hephæstos, that Athené might not be thought to be deprived of her virility by Hephæstos, as Atalanta by Meleager. This limping manufacturer of buckles and earrings, as is likely, deceived the motherless child and orphan with these girlish ornaments. Poseidon frequents the seas; Ares delights in wars; Apollo is a player on the cithara; Dionysus is absolute sovereign of the Thebans; Kronos is a tyrannicide; Zeus has intercourse with his own daughter, who becomes pregnant by him. I may instance, too, Eleusis, and the mystic Dragon, and Orpheus, who says,—
Aïdoneus carries off Koré,
and his deeds have been made into mysteries; Demeter bewails her daughter,
and some persons are deceived by the Athenians. In the precincts of the
temple of the son of Leto is a spot called Omphalos; but Omphalos is the
burial-place of Dionysus. You now I laud, O Daphne!—by conquering
the incontinence of Apollo, you disproved his power of vaticination;
for, not foreseeing what would occur to you, On fleeing from Apollo, she became a bay-tree.
It is uncertain from whom this line is quoted.
conquered by a slight breeze, Apollo lost his beloved.
Such are the demons; these are they who laid down
the doctrine of Fate. Their fundamental principle was the placing of
animals in the heavens. For the creeping things on the earth, and those
that swim in the waters, and the quadrupeds on the mountains, with
which they lived when expelled from heaven,—these they dignified
with celestial honour, in order that they might themselves be thought
to remain in heaven, and, by placing the constellations there, might
make to appear rational the irrational course of life on earth. Comp. ch. viii. init. The signs of the Zodiac (Gesner).
Literally, “Tell me by God,” or, “in the name
of God.” The
Deltotum was a star of the shape of a triangle.—Otto.
[οἰκόνομος.
So cap. xii., infra: “the constitution of the
body is under one management,” μιᾶς
ἐστὶν
οἰκονομἱας.
Also cap. xxi., p. 74, infra, note 5.]
There are legends of the metamorphosis of men:
with you the gods also are metamorphosed. Rhea becomes a tree; Zeus
a dragon, on account of Persephone; the sisters of Phaëthon
are changed into poplars, and Leto into a bird of little value, on
whose account what is now Delos was called Ortygia. A god, forsooth,
becomes a swan, or takes the form of an eagle, and, making Ganymede
his cupbearer, glories in a vile affection. How can I reverence
gods who are eager for presents, and angry if they do not receive
them? Let them have their Fate! I am not willing to adore wandering
stars. What is that hair of Berenicé? Where were her stars
before her death? And how was the dead Antinous fixed as a beautiful
youth in the moon? Who carried him thither: unless perchance, as men,
perjuring themselves for hire, are credited when they say in ridicule
of the gods that kings have ascended into heaven, so some one, in like
manner, has put this man also among the gods, [He uses the verb θεολογεῖν
as = θεοποιεῖν;
but Kaye directs attention to Justin’s use of the same as =
to discourse on divine things, and again in calling
Christ God.] Hercules—a sign in the sky.
Leaning on his right knee, he tries to crush with his left foot the right
side of the dragon’s head. A
writer of mimes.
How, then, shall I admit this nativity according to
Fate, when I see such managers of Fate? I do not wish to be a king;
I am not anxious to be rich; I decline military command; I detest
fornication; I am not impelled by an insatiable love of gain to go
to sea; I do not contend for chaplets; I am free from a mad thirst
for fame; I despise death; I am superior to every kind of disease;
grief does not consume my soul. Am I a slave, I endure servitude. Am
I free, I do not make a vaunt of my good birth. I see that the same
sun is for all, and one death for all, whether they live in pleasure
or destitution. The rich man sows, and the poor man partakes of the
same sowing. The wealthiest die, and beggars have the same limits
to their life. The rich lack many things, and are glorious only
through the estimation they are held in; Or, reading with Maranus, κἃν … γεν., “even
though,” etc. [Think of a Chaldean heathen, by
the power of grace, thus transformed. Sapiens solus liber, but
the Christian alone is wise. This chapter compares favourably
with the eloquence of Chrysostom in his letter to Cyriac, which,
if spurious, is made up of passages to be found elsewhere in his
works. Tom. iii. p. 683. Ed. Migne, Paris, 1859.] [Comp. cap. xv., infra, and the note 6, p. 71.]
We recognise two varieties of spirit, one of which
is called the soul [See
cap. xv., infra.] Literally,
“brought forth” or “forward.” The word does
not imply that matter was created by God. Tatian’s words
are somewhat obscure. We have given substantially the opinion of Worth,
as expressed in his translation. The sense is: The body is evidently a
unity in its organization and its activity, and the ultimate end which
it serves in creation is that with which it is occupied, yet there are
differences in respect of the parts. Otto renders: “For as the
constitution of the body is of one plan, and in reference to the body
the cause of its origin is occupied.”
[Demons. The Paris editors have a note here, bidding us to read
with caution; as our author seems rashly to imagine the demons to be
material creatures. p. 151, ed. 1615.] [“Which,
though one and the same, is thus variously modified.” Kaye’s
rendering in his Justin, p. 184.]
The soul is not in itself immortal, O Greeks, but
mortal. [Here Bishop Kaye has
a very full note, quoting a beautiful passage textually from Beausobre,
with whom, however, he does not entirely coincide. Justin, p.
184.] [See cap. v., note,
supra, p. 67.]
[τοῦ
πεπονθότος
Θεοῦ. A very noteworthy testimony
to the mystery of the Cross, and an early specimen of the
Communicatio idiomatum: the ἀντὶδοσις
or ἀντιμετάστασις
of the Greek theologians. Pearson, On the Creed, p. 314. London,
1824.]
And such are you also, O Greeks,—profuse in
words, but with minds strangely warped; and you acknowledge the dominion
of many rather than the rule of one, accustoming yourselves to follow
demons as if they were mighty. For, as the inhuman robber is wont to
overpower those like himself by daring; so the demons, going to great
lengths in wickedness, have utterly deceived the souls among you which
are left to themselves by ignorance and false appearances. These beings
do not indeed die easily, for they do not partake of flesh; but while
living they practice the ways of death, and die themselves as often as
they teach their followers to sin. Therefore, what is now their chief
distinction, that they do not die like men, they will retain when about
to suffer punishment: they will not partake of everlasting life, so as
to receive this instead of death in a blessed immortality. And as we,
to whom it now easily happens to die, afterwards receive the immortal
with enjoyment, or the painful with immortality, so the demons, who abuse
the present life to purposes of wrong-doing, dying continually even while
they live, will have hereafter the same immortality, like that which they
had during the time they lived, but in its nature like that of men, who
voluntarily performed what the demons prescribed to them during their
lifetime. And do not fewer kinds of sin break out among men owing to
the brevity of their lives,
[The shortening of human life is a gracious limitation of tarnsgression
and of the peril of probation. “Let not our years be multiplied to
increase our guilt.”]
But further, it becomes us now to seek for what
we once had, but have lost, to unite the soul with the Holy Spirit,
and to strive after union with God. The human soul consists of many
parts, and is not simple; it is composite, so as to manifest itself
through the body; for neither could it ever appear by itself without
the body, nor does the flesh rise again without the soul. Man is not,
as the croaking philosophers say, merely a rational animal, capable of
understanding and knowledge; for, according to them, even irrational
creatures appear possessed of understanding and knowledge. But man alone
is the image and likeness of God; and I mean by man, not one who performs
actions similar to those of animals, but one who has advanced far beyond
mere humanity—to God Himself. This question we have discussed more
minutely in the treatise concerning animals. But the principal point to be
spoken of now is, what is intended by the image and likeness of God. That
which cannot be compared is no other than abstract being; but that which
is compared is no other than that which is like. The perfect God is
without flesh; but man is flesh. The bond of the flesh is the soul; [δεσμὸς
δὲ τοῦ
σαρκὸς
ψυχὴ.] Comp.
[But Kaye would translate, “by dying to the world through
faith.”]
But the demons [For a learned and valuable comparison of early
patristic Demonologies, see Kaye’s Justin Martyr,
pp. 201–210.] Perhaps in his treatise “On
Animals.”
Comp.
Concerning the sympathies and antipathies
of Democritus what can we say but this, that, according to the
common saying, the man of Abdera is Abderiloquent? But, as he who
gave the name to the city, a friend of Hercules as it is said, was
devoured by the horses of Diomedes, so he who boasted of the Magian
Ostanes Democritus. [The
Paris editors add, vide Lærtium. As to Ostanes,
see that invaluable thesaurus, Hofmann’s Lex. Universale,
vol. ii. p. 6. Leyden, 1698.]
[Comp. cap. vi. note 6,
supra. p. 67.]
[Naviget Anticyras. On hellebore, see otherwise useless learning
but illustrative of this place, in Burton, Anat. Melanchol.,
p. 400. Ed. New York, 1847.]
But medicine and everything included in it is an
invention of the same kind. If any one is healed by matter, through
trusting to it, much more will he be healed by having recourse to the
power of God. As noxious preparations are material compounds, so are
curatives of the same nature. If, however, we reject the baser matter,
some persons often endeavour to heal by a union of one of these bad
things with some other, and will make use of the bad to attain the
good. But, just as he who dines with a robber, though he may not be a
robber himself, partakes of the punishment on account of his intimacy
with him, so he who is not bad but associates with the bad, having
dealings with them for some supposed good, will be punished by God the
Judge for partnership in the same object. Why is he who trusts in the
system of matter [ὓλης
οἰκονομία. note
Comp. cap. ix., supra, note 4; p. 69.] [The language of an affectionate
pupil: ὁ
θαυμασιώτατος
Ιουστινος.]
But do you, who have not the perception of these
things, be instructed by us who know them: though you do profess to
despise death, and to be sufficient of yourselves for everything. But
this is a discipline in which your philosophers are so greatly deficient,
that some of them receive from the king of the Romans 600 aurei yearly,
for no useful service they perform, but that they may not even wear a long
beard without being paid for it! Crescens, who made his nest in the great
city, surpassed all men in unnatural love (παιδεραστία),
and was strongly addicted to the love of money. Yet this man, who
professed to despise death, was so afraid of death, that he endeavoured
to inflict on Justin, and indeed on me, the punishment of death,
as being an evil, because by proclaiming the truth he convicted the
philosophers of being gluttons and cheats. But whom of the philosophers,
save you only, was he accustomed to inveigh against? If you say, in
agreement with our tenets, that death is not to be dreaded, do not
court death from an insane love of fame among men, like Anaxagoras,
but become despisers of death by reason of the knowledge of God. The
construction of the world is excellent, but the life men live in it is
bad; and we may see those greeted with applause as in a solemn assembly
who know not God. For what is divination? and why are ye deceived by
it? It is a minister to thee of worldly lusts. You wish to make war,
and you take Apollo as a counsellor of slaughter. You want to carry off
a maiden by force, and you select a divinity to be your accomplice. You
are ill by your own fault; and, as Agamemnon Comp. Hom. Il., ii. 372.
[The baptismal renunciation.]
Even if you be healed by drugs (I grant you that
point by courtesy), yet it behoves you to give testimony of the cure to
God. For the world still draws us down, and through weakness I incline
towards matter. For the wings of the
[The flavour of this passage comes out with more sweetness in
Kaye’s note (p. 198, Justin M.), thus: “Above the
visible heavens exist the better ages, αἰῶνες οἰ
κρείττονες,
having no change of seasons from which various diseases take their orgin;
but, blest with a uniform goodness of temperature, they enjoy perpetual
day, and light inaccessible to men who dwell here below.” Here Tatian seems to me to have had in mind a noble
passage from Pindar, one of the most exquisite specimens of Greek poetry,
which he baptizes and sanctifies. Truly the Gentiles
reflect some light from the window in the ark of their father
Noah. How sweet what follows: ἄδακρυν
νέμονται
αἰῶνα. Comp. [Kaye thus renders this passage: “the spirit
together with the soul will receive immortality, the heavenly covering
of mortality.” Justin, p. 288.]
We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales,
when we announce that God was born in the form of a man. I call on you
who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations.
Athené, as they say, took the form of Deïphobus for the sake
of Hector, Il.,
xxii. 227. Il.,
ii. init. [Χάριν
οἰκονμίας. Compare
divers uses of this word in Kaye’s Justin, p.
174.]
And of what sort are your teachings? Who must not
treat with contempt your solemn festivals, which, being held in honour
of wicked demons, cover men with infamy? I have often
Tatian here describes an actor. [And in America
heathenism has returned upon us in most of the indecencies here
exposed. Are we Christians?]
I have seen men weighed down by bodily exercise,
and carrying about the burden of their flesh, before whom rewards and
chaplets are set, while the adjudicators cheer them on, not to deeds
of virtue, but to rivalry in violence and discord; and he who excels in
giving blows is crowned. These are the lesser evils; as for the greater,
who would not shrink from telling them? Some, giving themselves up to
idleness for the sake of profligacy, sell themselves to be killed; and
the indigent barters himself away, while the rich man buys others to
kill him. And for these the witnesses take their seats, and the boxers
meet in single combat, for no reason whatever, nor does any one come
down into the arena to succour. Do such exhibitions as these redound to
your credit? He who is chief among you collects a legion of blood-stained
murderers, engaging to maintain them; and these ruffians are sent forth
by him, and you assemble at the spectacle to be judges, partly of the
wickedness of the adjudicator, and partly of that of the men who engage
in the combat. And he who misses the murderous exhibition is grieved,
because he was not doomed to be a spectator of wicked and impious and
abominable deeds. You slaughter animals for the purpose of eating their
flesh, and you purchase men to supply a cannibal banquet for the soul,
nourishing it by the most impious bloodshedding. The robber commits murder
for the sake of plunder, but the rich man purchases gladiators for the
sake of their being killed.
[Here Christianity began to avenge itself on the brutal spectacles
of the Coliseum, which stands a gigantic monument of the religious
system of which they were a part. See Athenagoras, Embassy,
cap. xxxv.]
What advantage should I gain from him who is brought
on the stage by Euripides raving mad, and acting the matricide of
Alcmæon; who does not even retain his natural behaviour, but with
his mouth wide open goes about sword in hand, and, screaming aloud,
is burned to death, habited in a robe unfit for man? Away, too, with
the mythical tales of Acusilaus, and Menander, a versifier of the same
class! And why should I admire the mythic piper? Why should I busy myself
about the Theban Antigenides,
Antigenides was a flute-player, and Aristoxenus a writer on music and
musical instruments.
What great and wonderful things have your philosophers
effected? They leave uncovered one of their shoulders; they let their
hair grow long; they cultivate their beards; their nails are like the
claws of wild beasts. Though they say that they want nothing, yet,
like Proteus, The Cynic
Peregrinus is meant. They need
the rich to invite them to banquets. The Cynic.
[The vigor of this passage, and the impact of its truths upon heathen
idols, are noble specimens of our author’s power.] [They ate
and drank bread and wine hallowed to be the κοινωνία
of the flesh and blood of Christ (
Cease to make a parade of sayings which you have derived from others, and to deck yourselves like the daw in borrowed plumes. If each state were to take away its contribution to your speech, your fallacies would lose their power. While inquiring what God is, you are ignorant of what is in yourselves; and, while staring all agape at the sky, you stumble into pitfalls. The reading of your books is like walking through a labyrinth, and their readers resemble the cask of the Danaïds. Why do you divide time, saying that one part is past, and another present, and another future? For how can the future be passing when the present exists? As those who are sailing imagine in their ignorance, as the ship is borne along, that the hills are in motion, so you do not know that it is you who are passing along, but that time (ὁ αἰών) remains present as long as the Creator wills it to exist. Why am I called to account for uttering my opinions, and why are you in such haste to put them all down? Were not you born in the same manner as ourselves, and placed under the same government of the world? Why say that wisdom is with you alone, who have not another sun, nor other risings of the stars, nor a more distinguished origin, nor a death preferable to that of other men? The grammarians have been the beginning of this idle talk; and you who parcel out wisdom are cut off from the wisdom that is according to truth, and assign the names of the several parts to particular men; and you know not God, but in your fierce contentions destroy one another. And on this account you are all nothing worth. While you arrogate to yourselves the sole right of discussion, you discourse like the blind man with the deaf. Why do you handle the builder’s tools without knowing how to build? Why do you busy yourselves with words, while you keep aloof from deeds, puffed up with praise, but cast down by misfortunes? Your modes of acting are contrary to reason, for you make a pompous appearance in public, but hide your teaching in corners. Finding you to be such men as these, we have abandoned you, and no longer concern ourselves with your tenets, but follow the word of God. Why, O man, do you set the letters of the alphabet at war with one another? Why do you, as in a boxing match, make their sounds clash together with your mincing Attic way of speaking, whereas you ought to speak more according to nature? For if you adopt the Attic dialect though not an Athenian, pray why do you not speak like the Dorians? How is it that one appears to you more rugged, the other more pleasant for intercourse?
And if you adhere to their teaching, why do
you fight against me for choosing such views of doctrine as I approve? Is
it not unreasonable that, while the robber is not to be punished for the
name he bears, [Athenagoras,
Embassy, cap. ii., infra.] In
Crete. Comp. Accommodating himself to
the popular opinions, through fear.
On this account I reject your legislation also; for there ought to be one common polity for all; but now there are as many different codes as there are states, so that things held disgraceful in some are honourable in others. The Greeks consider intercourse with a mother as unlawful, but this practice is esteemed most becoming by the Persian Magi; pæderasty is condemned by the Barbarians, but by the Romans, who endeavour to collect herds of boys like grazing horses, it is honoured with certain privileges.
Wherefore, having seen these things, and moreover
also having been admitted to the mysteries, and having everywhere
examined the religious rites performed by the effeminate and the pathic,
and having found among the Romans their Latiarian Jupiter delighting
in human gore and the blood of slaughtered men, and Artemis not far
from the great city
At Aricia, near Rome.
[A memorable tribute to the light-giving power of the Holy Scriptures.
“Barbarian books” (barbaric means something else)
they were; but well says Dr. Watts in a paraphrase of See his Hymns,
p. 238. Ed. Worcester, 1836.]
Therefore, being initiated and instructed in
these things, I wish to put away my former errors as the follies of
childhood. For we know that the nature of wickedness is like that of
the smallest seeds; since it has waxed strong from a small beginning,
but will again be destroyed if we obey the words of God and do not
scatter ourselves. For He has become master of all we have by means of
a certain “hidden treasure,” Comp.
But now it seems proper for me to demonstrate
that our philosophy is older than the systems of the Greeks. Moses
and Homer shall be our limits, each of them being of great antiquity;
the one being the oldest of poets and historians, and the other the
founder of all barbarian wisdom. Let us, then, institute a comparison
between them; and we shall find that our doctrines are older, not
only than those of the Greeks, but than the invention of letters. Comp.
But with us there is no desire of vainglory, nor do
we indulge in a variety of opinions. For having renounced the popular
and earthly, and obeying the commands of God, and following the law
of the Father of immortality, we reject everything which rests upon
human opinion. Not only do the rich among us pursue our philosophy, but
the poor enjoy instruction gratuitously; [Compare cap. xi. p. 69. And note, thus early,
the Christian freeschools, such as Julian closed and then imitated,
confessing their power.] Il., ix.
Therefore I have been desirous to prove from the
things which are esteemed honourable among you, that our institutions
are marked by sober-mindedness, but that yours are in close affinity
with madness. [See note 2, next page.]
[St. Chrysostom speaks of the heathen as ὁι ταῖς
σατανικαῖς
ῷδαῖς
κατασηπόμενοι.
In Psalmum, cxvii. tom. v. p. 533. Ed. Migne.] [Such as the Magnificat of the Virgin,
the Twenty-third Psalm, or the Christian Hymn for Eventide,
which they learned in the Christian schools (cap. xxxii. p. 78). Cold
is the heart of any mother’s son that does not warm over such a
chapter as this on the enfranchisement of womanhood by Christ. Observe our
author’s scorn for the heathen “affinity with unreason”
(this chapter, supra), and then enjoy this glimpse of the contrast
afforded by the Gospel in its influence upon women. Intensely should we
delight in the pictures of early Christian society, of which the Fathers
give us these suggestive outlines. Rejecting the profane and wanton songs
they heard around them,— “Satanic minstrelsies,” as
St. Chryosostom names them,—they beguiled their toils and soothed
their sorrows with “Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” As
St. Jerome relates, “You could not go into the field, but you might
hear the ploughman’s hallelujahs, the mower’s hymns, and the
vine-dresser’s chant of the Psalms of David.” See Cave’s
Primitive Christianity, p. 132.] [Such as the Magnificat of the Virgin, the
Twenty-third Psalm, or the Christian Hymn for Eventide, which they
learned in the Christian schools (cap. xxxii. p. 78). Cold is the heart
of any mother’s son that does not warm over such a chapter as this
on the enfranchisement of womanhood by Christ. Observe our author’s
scorn for the heathen “affinity with unreason” (this chapter,
supra), and then enjoy this glimpse of the contrast afforded
by the Gospel in its influence upon women. Intensely should we delight
in the pictures of early Christian society, of which the Fathers give
us these suggestive outlines. Rejecting the profane and wanton songs
they heard around them,—“Satanic minstrelsies,” as
St. Chryosostom names them,—they beguiled their toils and soothed
their sorrows with “Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.”
As St. Jerome relates, “You could not go into the field, but you
might hear the ploughman’s hallelujahs, the mower’s hymns,
and the vine-dresser’s chant of the Psalms of David.”
See Cave’s Primitive Christianity, p. 132.] [St. Paul’s
spirit was stirred within him, beholding the abominable idolatries of
the Athenians; and who can wonder at the loathing of Christians, whose
wives and children could not escape from these shameful spectacles. The
growing asceticism and fanatical views of sexual relations, which
were now rising in the Church, were a morbid but virtuous revolt of
faith against these impurities.]
Worthy of very great honour, certainly, was the tyrant Bhalaris, who devoured sucklings, and accordingly is exhibited by the workmanship of Polystratus the Ambraciot, even to this day, as a very wonderful man! The Agrigentines dreaded to look on that countenance of his, because of his cannibalism; but people of culture now make it their boast that they behold him in his statue! Is it not shameful that fratricide is honoured by you who look on the statues of Polynices and Eteocles, and that you have not rather buried them with their maker Pythagoras? Destroy these memorials of iniquity! Why should I contemplate with admiration the figure of the woman who bore thirty children, merely for the sake of the artist Periclymenus? One ought to turn away with disgust from one who bore off the fruits of great incontinence, and whom the Romans compared to a sow, which also on a like account, they say, was deemed worthy of a mystic worship. Ares committed adultery with Aphrodité, and Andron made an image of their offspring Harmonia. Sophron, who committed to writing trifles and absurdities, was more celebrated for his skill in casting metals, of which specimens exist even now. And not only have his tales kept the fabulist Æsop in everlasting remembrance, but also the plastic art of Aristodemus has increased his celebrity. How is it then that you, who have so many poetesses whose productions are mere trash, and innumerable courtezans, and worthless men, are not ashamed to slander the reputation of our women? What care I to know that Euanthé gave birth to an infant in the Peripatus, or to gape with wonder at the art of Callistratus, or to fix my gaze on the Neæra of Calliades? For she was a courtezan. Laïs was a prostitute, and Turnus made her a monument of prostitution. Why are you not ashamed of the fornication of Hephæstion, even though Philo has represented him very artistically? And for what reason do you honour the hermaphrodite Ganymede by Leochares, as if you possessed something admirable? Praxiteles even made a statue of a woman with the stain of impurity upon it. It behoved you, repudiating everything of this kind, to seek what is truly worthy of attention, and not to turn with disgust from our mode of life while receiving with approval the shameful productions of Philænis and Elephantis.
The things which I have thus set before you I have
not learned at second hand. I have visited many lands; I have followed
rhetoric, like yourselves; I have fallen in with many arts and inventions;
and finally, when sojourning in the city of the Romans, I inspected the
multiplicity of statues brought thither by you: for I do not attempt,
as is the custom with many, to strengthen
Chap. xxxi. [With what calm superiority he professes himself a
barbarian! I honour the eye-witness who tells not only what he
had seen, but what he felt amid such evidences of man’s
degradation and impiety.]
Solon. Bergh., Poetæ Græc. Lyr., fr. 18. [The interest
and biographical importance of this chapter must be apparent.]
But let Homer be not later than the Trojan war; let it be granted that he was contemporary with it, or even that he was in the army of Agamemnon, and, if any so please, that he lived before the invention of letters. The Moses before mentioned will be shown to have been many years older than the taking of Troy, and far more ancient than the building of Troy, or than Tros and Dardanus. To demonstrate this I will call in as witnesses the Chaldeans, the Phœnicians and the Egyptians. And what more need I say? For it behoves one who professes to persuade his hearers to make his narrative of events very concise. Berosus, a Babylonian, a priest of their god Belus, born in the time of Alexander, composed for Antiochus, the third after him, the history of the Chaldeans in three books; and, narrating the acts of the kings, he mentions one of them, Nabuchodonosor by name, who made war against the Phœnicians and the Jews,—events which we know were announced by our prophets, and which happened much later than the age of Moses, seventy years before the Persian empire. But Berosus is a very trustworthy man, and of this Juba is a witness, who, writing concerning the Assyrians, says that he learned the history from Berosus: there are two books of his concerning the Assyrians.
After the Chaldeans, the testimony of the
Phœnicians is as follows. There were among them three men,
Theodotus, Hypsicrates, and Mochus; Chaitus translated their
books into Greek, and also composed with exactness the lives of the
philosophers. Now, in the histories of the aforesaid writers it is shown
that the abduction of Europa happened under one of the kings, and an
account is given of the coming of Menelaus into Phœnicia, and of the
matters relating to Chiramus,
Called Hiram in our authorized translation.
Of the Egyptians also there are accurate chronicles. Ptolemy, not the king, but a priest of Mendes, is the interpreter of their affairs. This writer, narrating the acts of the kings, says that the departure of the Jews from Egypt to the places whither they went occurred in the time of king Amosis, under the leadership of Moses. He thus speaks: “Amosis lived in the time of king Inachus.” After him, Apion the grammarian, a man most highly esteemed, in the fourth book of his Ægyptiaca (there are five books of his), besides many other things, says that Amosis destroyed Avaris in the time of the Argive Inachus, as the Mendesian Ptolemy wrote in his annals. But the time from Inachus to the taking of Troy occupies twenty generations. The steps of the demonstration are the following:—
The kings of the Argives were these: Inachus,
Phoroneus, Apis, Criasis, Triopas, Argeius, Phorbas, Crotopas, Sthenelaus,
Danaus, Lynceus, Prœtus, Abas, Acrisius, Perseus, Sthenelaus,
Eurystheus, Atreus, Thyestes, and Agamemnon, in the eighteenth year
of whose reign Troy was taken. And every intelligent person will most
carefully observe that, according to the tradition of the Greeks, they
possessed no historical composition; for Cadmus, who taught them letters,
came into Bœotia many generations later. But after Inachus, under
Phoroneus, a check was with difficulty given to their savage and nomadic
life, and they entered upon a new order of things. Wherefore, if Moses is
shown to be contemporary with Inachus, he is four hundred years older than
the Trojan war. But this is demonstrated from the succession of the Attic,
[and of the
The
words within brackets, though they occur in the mss. and in Eusebius, are supposed by some
scholars to be a very old interpolation.
Therefore, from what has been said it is
evident that Moses was older than the ancient heroes, wars, and
demons. And we ought rather to believe him, who stands before
them in point of age, than the Greeks, who, without being aware of
it, This expression
admits of several meanings: “Without properly understanding
them,”—Worth;
“not with a proper sense of gratitude.”—Maranus. [There is increasing evidence of
the obligations of the Greek sages to that “light shining in a dark
place,” i.e., amid an idolatrous world.] [Let it
be noted as the moral of our author’s review, that there is no
self-degradation of which man is not capable when he rejects the true
God.
But the matter of principal importance is to endeavour with all accuracy to make it clear that Moses is not only older than Homer, but than all the writers that were before him—older than Linus, Philammon, Thamyris, Amphion, Musæus, Orpheus, Demodocus, Phemius, Sibylla, Epimenides of Crete, who came to Sparta, Aristæus of Proconnesus, who wrote the Arimaspia, Asbolus the Centaur, Isatis, Drymon, Euclus the Cyprian, Horus the Samian, and Pronapis the Athenian. Now, Linus was the teacher of Hercules, but Hercules preceded the Trojan war by one generation; and this is manifest from his son Tlepolemus, who served in the army against Troy. And Orpheus lived at the same time as Hercules; moreover, it is said that all the works attributed to him were composed by Onomacritus the Athenian, who lived during the reign of the Pisistratids, about the fiftieth Olympiad. Musæus was a disciple of Orpheus. Amphion, since he preceded the siege of Troy by two generations, forbids our collecting further particulars about him for those who are desirous of information. Demodocus and Phemius lived at the very time of the Trojan war; for the one resided with the suitors, and the other with the Phœacians. Thamyris and Philammon were not much earlier than these. Thus, concerning their several performances in each kind, and their times and the record of them, we have written very fully, and, as I think, with all exactness. But, that we may complete what is still wanting, I will give my explanation respecting the men who are esteemed wise. Minos, who has been thought to excel in every kind of wisdom, and mental acuteness, and legislative capacity, lived in the time of Lynceus, who reigned after Danaus in the eleventh generation after Inachus. Lycurgus, who was born long after the taking of Troy, gave laws to the Lacedemonians. Draco is found to have lived about the thirty-ninth Olympiad, Solon about the forty-sixth, and Pythagoras about the sixty-second. We have shown that the Olympiads commenced 407 years after the taking of Troy. These facts being demonstrated, we shall briefly remark concerning the age of the seven wise men. The oldest of these, Thales, lived about the fiftieth Olympiad; and I have already spoken briefly of those who came after him.
These things, O Greeks, I Tatian, a disciple of
the barbarian philosophy,
[Comp. cap. xxix. p. 77, supra.] [Compare the boastful
Rousseau: “Que la trompette
du jugement sonne quand elle voudra, je viendrai ce livra a
la main, me presenter devant le souverain Juge.”
Confessions, livre i. p. 2.] [“Adhere
immoveably.” Alas! “let him that thinketh he
standeth”, etc. But I cannot part with Tatian nor think of
Tertullian without recalling David’s threnode: “There the
shield of the mighty is vilely cast away … . I am distressed for
thee, my brother: … very pleasant hast thou been unto me …
How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!” Our
own sad times have taught us similar lamentations for some who seemed for
a time to be “burning and shining lights.” God be merciful
to poor frail men.]
From the lost works of Tatian. Ed. Otto.
In
his treatise, Concerning Perfection according to the Saviour,
he writes, “Consent indeed fits for prayer, but fellowship in
corruption weakens supplication. At any rate, by the permission he
certainly, though delicately, forbids; for while he permits them to return
to the same on account of Satan and incontinence, he exhibits a man who
will attempt to serve two masters—God by the ‘consent’
(
A certain person inveighs against generation, calling it corruptible and destructive; and some one does violence [to Scripture], applying to pro-creation the Saviour’s words, “Lay not up treasure on earth, where moth and rust corrupt;” and he is not ashamed to add to these the words of the prophet: “You all shall grow old as a garment, and the moth shall devour you.”
And, in like manner, they adduce the saying concerning the resurrection of the dead, “The sons of that world neither marry nor are given in marriage.”—Clem. Alex.: iii. c. 12, § 86.
Tatian, who maintaining the imaginary flesh of Christ, pronounces all sexual connection impure, who was also the very violent heresiarch of the Encratites, employs an argument of this sort: “If any one sows to the flesh, of the flesh he shall reap corruption;” but he sows to the flesh who is joined to a woman; therefore he who takes a wife and sows in the flesh, of the flesh he shall reap corruption.—Hieron.: Com. in Ep. ad Gal.
Seceding from the Church, and being elated and puffed
up by a conceit of his teacher,
i.e., Justin Martyr.
Tatian attempting from time to time to make use of Paul’s language, that in Adam all die, but ignoring that “where sin abounded, grace has much more abounded.”—Irenæus: Adv. Heres., iii. 37.
Against Tatian, who says that the words, “Let there be light,” are to be taken as a prayer. If He who uttered it knew a superior God, how is it that He says, “I am God, and there is none beside me”?
He said that there are punishments for blasphemies, foolish talking, and licentious words, which are punished and chastised by the Logos. And he said that women were punished on account of their hair and ornaments by a power placed over those things, which also gave strength to Samson by his hair, and punishes those who by the ornament of their hair are urged on to fornication.—Clem. Alex.: Frag.
But Tatian, not understanding that the expression “Let there be” is not always precative but sometimes imperative, most impiously imagined concerning God, who said “Let there be light,” that He prayed rather than commanded light to be, as if, as he impiously thought, God was in darkness.—Origen: De Orat.
Tatian separates the old man and the new, but not, as we say, understanding the old man to be the law, and the new man to be the Gospel. We agree with him in saying the same thing, but not in the sense he wishes, abrogating the law as if it belonged to another God.—Clem. Alex.: Strom., iii. 12.
Tatian condemns and rejects not only marriage, but also meats which God has created for use.—Hieron.: Adv. Jovin., i. 3.
“But ye gave the Nazarites wine to drink, and
commanded the prophets, saying, Prophesy not.” On this, perhaps,
Tatian the chief of the Encratites endeavours to build his heresy,
asserting that wine is not to be drunk, since it was
Tatian, the patriarch of the Encratites, who himself rejected some of Paul’s Epistles, believed this especially, that is [addressed] to Titus, ought to be declared to be the apostle’s, thinking little of the assertion of Marcion and others, who agree with him on this point.—Hieron.: Præf. in Com. ad Tit.
[Archelaus (a.d. 280), Bishop of Carrha in Mesopotamia, classes his countryman Tatian with “Marcion, Sabellius, and others who have made up for themselves a peculiar science,” i.e., a theology of their own.—Routh: Reliquiæ, tom. v. p. 137. But see Edinburgh Series of this work, vol. xx. p. 267.]
[Translated by the Rev. Marcus Dods, A.M.]
[a.d.
115–168–181.] Eusebius praises the pastoral fidelity of
the primitive pastors, in their unwearied labours to protect their
flocks from the heresies with which Satan contrived to endanger the
souls of believers. By exhortations and admonitions, and then again by
oral discussions and refutations, contending with the heretics
themselves, they were prompt to ward off the devouring beasts from the
fold of Christ. Such is the praise due to Theophilus, in his opinion;
and he cites especially his lost work against Marcion as “of
no mean character.” Book
iv. cap. 24. Thus he with others met the “grievous wolves”
foretold by St. Paul “night and day with tears,” three
years continually (
Theophilus occupies an interesting position, after
Ignatius, in the succession of faithful men who represented Barnabas
and other prophets and teachers of Antioch,
Renan, St. Paul, cap. 1., Farrar, Life of St. Paul,
cap. xvi.
Theophilus comes down to us only as an apologist
intimately allied in spirit to Justin and Irenæus; and he should
have been placed with Tatian between these two, in our series, had not the
inexorable laws of our compilation brought them into this volume. I need
add no more to what follows from the translator, save only the expression
of a hope that others will enjoy this author as I do, rating him very
highly, even at the side of Athenagoras. He is severe, yet gentle too,
in dealing with his antagonist; and he cannot be charged with a more
sublime contempt for heathenism than St. Paul betrays in all his writings,
abjuring even Plato and Socrates, and accentuating
The following is the original Introductory Notice—:
Little is known of the personal history of Theophilus of Antioch. We gather from the following treatise that he was born a pagan (i. 14), and owed his conversion to Christianity to the careful study of the Holy Scriptures. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iv. 20) declares that he was the sixth bishop of Antioch in Syria from the apostles, the names of his supposed predecessors being Eros, Cornelius, Hero, Ignatius, and Euodius. We also learn from the same writer, that Theophilus succeeded to the bishopric of Antioch in the eighth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, that is, in a.d. 168. He is related to have died either in a.d. 181, or in a.d. 188; some assigning him an episcopate of thirteen, and others of twenty-one, years.
Theophilus is said by Eusebius, Jerome, and others, to have written several works against the heresies which prevailed in his day. He himself refers in the following treatise (ii. 30) to another of his compositions. Commentaries on the Gospels, arranged in the form of a harmony, and on the Book of Proverbs, are also ascribed to him by Jerome; but the sole remaining specimen of his writings consists of the three books that follow, addressed to his friend Autolycus. The occasion which called these forth is somewhat doubtful. It has been thought that they were written in refutation of a work which Autolycus had published against Christianity; but the more probable opinion is, that they were drawn forth by disparaging remarks made in conversation. The language of the writer (ii. 1) leads to this conclusion.
In handling his subject, Theophilus goes over much the same ground as Justin Martyr and the rest of the early apologists. He is somewhat fond of fanciful interpretations of Scripture; but he evidently had a profound acquaintance with the inspired writings, and he powerfully exhibits their immense superiority in every respect over the heathen poetry and philosophy. The whole treatise was well fitted to lead on an intelligent pagan to the cordial acceptance of Christianity.
[I venture to assign to Theophilus a
conjectural date of birth, circiter a.d. 115.
[Our chronological arrangement must yield in minute accuracy to
other considerations; and we may borrow an excuse from our author,
who notes the difficulty of microscopic ἀκριβεία
in his own chronological labours (book iii. cap. 29). It was impossible
to crowd Tatian and Theophilus into vol. i. of this series, without
dividing Irenæus, and putting part of his works in vol. ii. But,
in the case of contemporaries, this dislocation is trifling, and creates
no confusion.]
A fluent
tongue and an elegant style afford pleasure and such praise as vainglory
delights in, to wretched men who have been corrupted in mind; the lover
of truth does not give heed to ornamented speeches, but examines the
real matter of the speech, what it is, and what kind it is. Since,
then, my friend, you have assailed me with empty words, boasting of
your gods of wood and stone, hammered and cast, carved and graven, which
neither see nor hear, for they are idols, and the works of men’s
hands; and since, besides, you call me a Christian, as if this were a
damning name to bear, I, for my part, avow that I am a Christian, [ Εὔχρηστος,
punning on the name Christian. [Comp cap xii., infra. So
Justin, p. 164, vol. i., this series. But he also puns on
his own name, “beloved of God,” in the text φορῶ
τὸ Θεοφιλὲς
ὄνομα τοῦτὀ
κ.τ.λ.]
But if you say, “Show me thy God,” I would
reply, “Show me yourself,
Literally, “your man;” the invisible soul, as the noblest
pat of man, being probably intended. The
techincal word for a disease of the eye, like cataract.
You will say, then, to me, “Do you, who see God,
explain to me the appearance of God.” Hear, O man. The appearance
of God is ineffable and indescribable, and cannot be seen by eyes of
flesh. For in glory He is incomprehensible, in greatness unfathomable,
in height inconceivable, in power incomparable, in wisdom
The translation here follows the Hamburg editor, others
read, “If Father, I say everything.” Maranus observes
that Theophilus means to indicate the difference between God’s
chastisement of the righteous and His punishment of the wicked.
And He is without beginning, because
He is unbegotten; and He is unchangeable, because He is
immortal. And he is called God [Θεός]
on account of His having placed [τεθεικέναι]
all things on security afforded by Himself;
and on account of [θέειν],
for θέειν means
running, and moving, and being active, and nourishing, and foreseeing,
and governing, and making all things alive. But he is Lord, because
He rules over the universe; Father, because he is before all things;
Fashioner and Maker, because He is creator and maker of the universe;
the Highest, because of His being above all; and Almighty, because He
Himself rules and embraces all. For the heights of heaven, and the
depths of the abysses, and the ends of the earth, are in His hand,
and there is no place of His rest. For the heavens are His work, the
earth is His creation, the sea is His handiwork; man is His formation
and His image; sun, moon, and stars are His elements, made for signs,
and seasons, and days, and years, that they may serve and be slaves
to man; and all things God has made out of things that were not [Kaye’s Justin, p.
173.]
For as the soul in man is not seen, being invisible
to men, but is perceived through the motion of the body, so God cannot
indeed be seen by human eyes, but is beheld and perceived through
His providence and works. For, in like manner, as any person, when he
sees a ship on the sea rigged and in sail, and making for the harbour,
will no doubt infer that there is a pilot in her who is steering her;
so we must perceive that God is the governor [pilot] of the whole
universe, though He be not visible to the eyes of the flesh, since He
is incomprehensible. For if a man cannot look upon the sun, though it be
a very small heavenly body, on account of its exceeding heat and power,
how shall not a mortal man be much more unable to face the glory of God,
which is unutterable? For as the pomegranate, with the rind containing
it, has within it many cells and compartments which are separated by
tissues, and has also many seeds dwelling in it, so the whole creation
is contained by the spirit
The reference here is not to the
Holy Spirit, but to that vital power which is supposed to be diffused
thorughout the universe. Comp. book ii. 4.
Consider, O man, His works,—the timely rotation
of the seasons, and the changes of temperature; the regular march of
the stars; the well-ordered course of days and nights, and months,
and years; the various beauty of seeds, and plants, and fruits; and the
divers species Literally,
“propagation.”
This is my God, the Lord of all, who alone stretched
out the heaven, and established the breadth of the earth under it; who
stirs the deep recesses of the sea, and makes its waves roar; who rules
its power, and stills the tumult of its waves; who founded the earth upon
the waters, and gave a spirit to nourish it; whose breath giveth light to
the whole, who, if He withdraw His breath, the whole will utterly fail. By
Him you speak, O man; His breath you breathe yet Him you know not. And
this is your condition, because of the blindness of your soul, and the
hardness of your heart. But, if you will, you may be healed. Entrust
yourself to the Physician, and He will couch the eyes of your soul and of
your heart. Who is the Physician? God, who heals and makes alive through
His word and wisdom. God by His own word and wisdom made all things; for
“by His word were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the
breath of His mouth.”
But you do not believe that the dead are raised. When
the resurrection shall take place, then you will believe, whether you
will or no; and your faith shall be reckoned for unbelief, unless you
believe now. And why do you not believe? Do you not know that faith
is the leading principle in all matters? For what husbandman can reap,
unless he first trust his seed to the earth? Or who can cross the sea,
unless he first entrust himself to the boat and the pilot? And what
sick person can be healed, unless first he trust himself to the care of
the physician? And what art or knowledge can any one learn, unless he
first apply and entrust himself to the teacher? If, then, the husbandman
trusts the earth, and the sailor the boat, and the sick the physician,
will you not place confidence in God, even when you hold so many pledges
at His hand? For first He created you out of nothing, and brought you
into existence (for if your father was not, nor your mother, much more
were you yourself at one time not in being), and formed you out of a
small and moist substance, even out of the least drop, which at one time
had itself no being; and God introduced you into this life. Moreover,
you believe that the images made by men are gods, and do great things;
and can you not believe that the God who made you is able also to make
you afterwards? i.e.,
in the resurrection.
And, indeed, the names of those whom you say you
worship, are the names of dead men. And these, too, who and what kind
of men were they? Is not Saturn found to be a cannibal, destroying
and devouring his own children? And if you name his son Jupiter, hear
also his deeds and conduct—first, how he was suckled by a goat on
Mount Ida, and having slain it, according to the myths, and flayed it, he
made himself a coat of the hide. And his other deeds,—his incest,
and adultery, and lust,—will be better recounted by Homer and the
rest of the poets. Why should I further speak of his sons? How Hercules
burnt himself; and about the drunk and raging Bacchus; and of Apollo
fearing and fleeing from Achilles, and falling in love with Daphne,
and being unaware of the fate of Hyacinthus; and of Venus wounded, and of
Why should I further recount the multitude of animals
worshipped by the Egyptians, both reptiles, and cattle, and wild beasts,
and birds, and river-fishes; and even wash-pots [Foot-baths. A reference to Amasis, and his story in
Heredotus, ii. 172. See Rawlinson’s Version and Notes,
vol. ii. p. 221, ed. Appletons, 1859. See also Athanagoras,
infra, Embassy, cap. xxvi.] [The fable of Echo and her
shameful gossip may serve for an example.]
Wherefore I will rather honour the king [than your
gods], not, indeed, worshipping him, but praying for him. But God, the
living and true God, I worship, knowing that the king is made by Him. You
will say, then, to me, “Why do you not worship the king?”
Because he is not made to be worshipped, but to be reverenced with
lawful honour, for he is not a god, but a man appointed by God, not to
be worshipped, but to judge justly. For in a kind of way his government
is committed to him by God: as He will not have those called kings whom
He has appointed under Himself; for “king” is his title,
and it is not lawful for another to use it; so neither is it lawful for
any to be worshipped but God only. Wherefore, O man, you are wholly in
error. Accordingly, honour the king, be subject to him, and pray for him
with loyal mind; for if you do this, you do the will of God. For the law
that is of God, says, “My son, fear thou the Lord and the king,
and be not disobedient to them; for suddenly they shall take vengeance
on their enemies.”
And about your laughing at me and calling me
“Christian,” you know not what you are saying. First,
because that which is anointed “The argumentation of this chapter depends
on the literal meaning which Theophilus attaches to Christos,
the Anointed One; and he plays on this meaning, and also on the
similarity of pronunciation between χρηστός,
‘useful,’ and χριστός
, ‘anointed.’”—Donaldson. [Not material oil probably, for it is not mentioned in
such Scriptures as
Then, as to your denying that the dead are
raised—for you say,
[This is the famous challenge which affords Gibbon (cap. xv.) a most
pleasing opportunity for his cavils. But our author was not asserting
that the dead was raised in his day, but only that they should be at the
last day.]
Therefore, do not be sceptical, but believe; for I
myself also used to disbelieve that this would take place, but now, having
taken these things into consideration, I believe. At the same time, I met
with the sacred Scriptures
[
[
When we had formerly some conversation, my very good friend Autolycus, and when you inquired who was my God, and for a little paid attention to my discourse, I made some explanations to you concerning my religion; and then having bid one another adieu, we went with much mutual friendliness each to his own house, although at first you had borne somewhat hard upon me. For you know and remember that you supposed our doctrine was foolishness. As you then afterwards urged me to do, I am desirous, though not educated to the art of speaking, of more accurately demonstrating, by means of this tractate, the vain labour and empty worship in which you are held; and I wish also, from a few of your own histories which you read, and perhaps do not yet quite understand, to make the truth plain to you.
And in truth it does seem to me absurd that statuaries
and carvers, or painters, or moulders, should both design and paint,
and carve, and mould, and prepare gods, who, when they are produced
by the artificers, are reckoned of no value; but as soon as they are
purchased The words “by
some and placed in” are omitted in some editions, but occur in
the best mss.
And of the gods of former times, if indeed they were begotten, the generation was sufficiently prolific. But now, where is their generation exhibited? For if of old they begot and were begotten, it is plain that even to the present time there should be gods begotten and born; or at least if it be not so, such a race will be reckoned impotent. For either they have waxed old, and on that account no longer beget, or they have died out and no longer exist. For if the gods were begotten, they ought to be born even until now, as men, too, are born; yea, much more numerous should the gods be than men, as the Sibyl says:—
For if the children begotten of
men who are mortal and short-lived make an appearance even until now,
and men have not ceased to be born, so that cities and villages are full,
and even the country places also are inhabited, how ought not the gods,
who, according to your poets, do not die, much rather to beget and be
begotten, since you say that the gods were produced by generation? And
why was the mount which is called Olympus formerly inhabited by the gods,
but now lies deserted? Or why did Jupiter, in days of yore, dwell on Ida,
and was known to dwell there, according to Homer and other poets, but
now is beyond ken? And why was he found only in one part of the earth,
and not everywhere? For either he neglected the other parts, or was not
able to be present everywhere and provide for all. For if he were, e.g.,
in an eastern place, he was not in the western; and if, on the other hand,
he were present in the western
Some of the philosophers of the Porch say that there
is no God at all; or, if there is, they say that He cares for none but
Himself; and these views the folly of Epicurus and Chrysippus has set
forth at large. And others say that all things are produced without
external agency, and that the world is uncreated, and that nature is
eternal; This is according
to the Benedictine reading: the reading of Wolf, “nature is
left to itself,” is also worthy of consideration. That is, the existence of God
as sole first principle. Literally, “subject-matter.”
So that the opinion of your philosophers and
authors is discordant; for while the former have propounded the foregoing
opinions, the poet Homer is found explaining the origin not only of the
world, but also of the gods, on quite another hypothesis. For he says
somewhere: Il.,
xiv. 201.
In saying which, however, he does
not present God to us. For who does not know that the ocean is water? But
if water, then not God. God indeed, if He is the creator of all things,
as He certainly is, is the creator both of the water and of the seas. And
Hesiod himself also declared the origin, not only of the gods, but also
of the world itself. And though he said that the world was created,
he showed no inclination to tell us by whom it was created. Besides,
he said that Saturn, and his sons Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto, were
gods, though we find that they are later born than the world. And he
also relates how Saturn was assailed in war by his own son Jupiter;
for he says: Hesiod,
Theog., 74.
Then he introduces in his poem
the daughters of Jupiter, whom he names Muses, and as whose suppliant he
appears, desiring to ascertain from them how all things were made; for
he says: Theog.,
104.
But how could the Muses, who are younger than the world, know these things? Or how could they relate to Hesiod [what was happening], when their father was not yet born?
And in a certain way he indeed admits matter
[as self-existent] and the creation of the world [without a creator],
saying: [Theog.,
116–133. S.]
And saying this, he has not
yet explained by whom all this was made. For if chaos existed in the
beginning, and matter of some sort, being uncreated, was previously
existing, who was it that effected the change on its condition, and
gave it a different order and shape? Did matter itself alter its own
form and arrange itself into a world (for Jupiter was born, not only
long after matter, but long after the world and many men; and so, too,
was his father Saturn), or was there some ruling power which made it;
I mean, of course, God, who also fashioned it into a world? Besides, he
is found in every way to talk nonsense, and to contradict himself. For
when he mentions earth, and sky, and sea, he gives us to understand that
from these the gods were produced; and from these again [the gods] he
declares that certain very dreadful men were sprung,—the race of
the Titans and the Cyclopes, and a crowd of giants, and of the Egyptian
gods,—or, rather, vain men, as Apollonides, surnamed Horapius,
mentions in the book entitled Semenouthi, and in his other
histories concerning the worship of the Egyptians and their kings,
and the vain labours in which they engaged. The Benedictine editor proposes to read these words
after the first clause of c. 7. We follow the reading of Wolf and Fell,
who understand the pyramids to be referred to.
Why need I recount the Greek fables,—of
Pluto, king of darkness, of Neptune descending beneath the sea, and
embracing Melanippe and begetting a cannibal son,—or the many
tales your writers have woven into their tragedies concerning the sons
of Jupiter, and whose pedigree they register because they were born
men, and not gods? And the comic poet Aristophanes, in the play called
“The Birds,” having taken upon him to handle the subject of
the Creation, said that in the beginning the world was produced from an
egg, saying: Aristoph.,
Av., 694. A wind-egg being one produced without impregnation,
and coming to nothing.
But Satyrus, also giving a history
of the Alexandrine families, beginning from Philopator, who was also
named Ptolemy, gives out that Bacchus was his progenitor; wherefore
also Ptolemy was the founder of this The Dionysian family taking its name from Dionysus
or Bacchus.
And why should I recount further the vast array
of such names and genealogies? So that all the authors and poets, and
those called philosophers, are wholly deceived; and so, too, are they
who give heed to them. For they plentifully composed fables and foolish
stories about their gods, and did not exhibit them as gods, but as men,
and men, too, of whom some were drunken, and others fornicators and
murderers. But also concerning the origin of the world, they uttered
contradictory and absurd opinions. First, some of them, as we before
explained, maintained that the world is uncreated. And those that said
it was uncreated and self-producing contradicted those who propounded
that it was created. For by conjecture and human conception they spoke,
and not knowing the truth. And others, again, said that there was a
providence, and destroyed the positions of the former writers. Aratus,
indeed, says: The following
lines are partly from the translation of Hughes.
Who, then, shall we believe: Aratus
as here quoted, or Sophocles, when he says: Œdipus Rex, line 978.
And Homer, again, does not agree
with this, for he says
Il., xx. 242.
And Simonides says:—
So, too, Euripides:—
And Menander:—
And Euripides again:—
And Thestius:—
This verse is by Plutarch hesitatingly attributed to Pindar. The expression, “Though you swim in a wicker basket,” was proverbial.
And saying numberless things of a like kind, they contradicted themselves. At least Sophocles, who in another place denied Providence, says:—
Besides, they both introduced a multitude of gods, and yet spoke of a Unity; and against those who affirmed a Providence they maintained in opposition that there was no Providence. Wherefore Euripides says:—
And without meaning to do so, they
acknowledge that they know not the truth; but being inspired by demons
and puffed up by them, they spoke at their instance whatever they
said. For indeed the poets,—Homer, to wit, and Hesiod, being, as
they say, inspired by the Muses,—spoke from a deceptive fancy, Literally, “in fancy and
error.”
But men of God carrying
in them a holy spirit Wolf perfers πνευματόφοροι,
carried or borne along by the Spirit. [Kaye’s Justin M.,
p. 180, comparing this view of the inspiration of prophets, with
those of Justin and Athenagoras.]
And first, they taught us with one consent that
ἐνδιάθτον.
[Here the Logos is spoken of in the entire spirit of the Nicene
Council. Literally, belching or vomiting. [The reference
is to That is, the first
principle, whom he has just shown to be the Word.
In the Greek version of
Theophilus, therefore, understands that when in the first verse it is
said that God created the earth, it is meant that he created the matter
of which the earth is formed.
Now, the beginning of the creation is light;
since light manifests the things that are created. Wherefore it is
said: “And God said, Let light be, The words, “and light was; and God saw the
light, that it was good,” are omitted in the two best mss. and in some editions; but
they seem to be necessary, and to have fallen out by the mistake of
transcribers.
Of this six days’ work no man can give a worthy explanation and description of all its parts, not though he had ten thousand tongues and ten thousand mouths; nay, though he were to live ten thousand years, sojourning in this life, not even so could he utter anything worthy of these things, on account of the exceeding greatness and riches of the wisdom of God which there is in the six days’ work above narrated. Many writers indeed have imitated [the narration], and essayed to give an explanation of these things; yet, though they thence derived some suggestions, both concerning the creation of the world and the nature of man, they have emitted no slightest spark of truth. And the utterances of the philosophers, and writers, and poets have an appearance of trustworthiness, on account of the beauty of their diction; but their discourse is proved to be foolish and idle, because the multitude of their nonsensical frivolities is very great; and not a stray morsel of truth is found in them. For even if any truth seems to have been uttered by them, it has a mixture of error. And as a deleterious drug, when mixed with honey or wine, or some other thing, makes the whole [mixture] hurtful and profitless; so also eloquence is in their case found to be labour in vain; yea, rather an injurious thing to those who credit it. Moreover, [they spoke] concerning the seventh day, which all men acknowledge; but the most know not that what among the Hebrews is called the “Sabbath,” is translated into Greek the “Seventh” (ἑβδομάς), a name which is adopted by every nation, although they know not the reason of the appellation. And as for what the poet Hesiod says of Erebus being produced from chaos, as well as the earth and love which lords it over his [Hesiod’s] gods and men, his dictum is shown to be idle and frigid, and quite foreign to the truth. For it is not meet that God be conquered by pleasure; since even men of temperance abstain from all base pleasure and wicked lust.
Moreover, his [Hesiod’s] human, and mean,
and very weak conception, so far as regards God, is discovered in
his beginning to relate the creation of all things from the earthly
things here below. For man, being below, begins to build from the
earth, and cannot in order make the roof, unless he has first laid the
foundation. But the power of God is shown in this, that, first of all,
He creates out of nothing, according to His will, the things that are
made. “For the things which are impossible with men are possible
with God.” [See book i. cap. v.,
supra, note 4; also,
the important remark of Kaye, Justin Martyr, p. 179.] This follows the Benedicting
reading. Other editors, as Humphrey, read [φωτὸς] τὼπον,
“resembling light.”
Following Wolf’s rendering. Or, suitably arranged and appointed it.
Consider, further, their variety, and diverse
beauty, and multitude, and how through them resurrection is exhibited,
for a pattern of the resurrection of all men which is to be. For who
that considers it will not marvel that a fig-tree is produced from
a fig-seed, or that very huge trees grow from the other very little
seeds? And we say that the world resembles the sea. For as the sea,
if it had not had the influx and supply of the rivers and fountains to
nourish it, would long since have been parched by reason of its saltness;
so also the world, if it had not had the law of God and the prophets
flowing and welling up sweetness, and compassion, and righteousness,
and the doctrine of the holy commandments of God, would long ere now
have come to ruin, by reason of the wickedness and sin which abound
in it. And as in the sea there are islands, some of them habitable,
and well-watered, and fruitful, with havens and harbours in which the
storm-tossed may find refuge,—so God has given to the world which is
driven and tempest-tossed by sins, assemblies Literally, synagogues. [The ports
and happy havens beautifully contrasted with rocks and shoals and
barren or inhospitable isles.]
[The ports and happy havens beautifully contrasted with rocks and shoals
and barren or inhospitable isles.] That is, as the Benedictine edition suggests, when
they have filled them with unsuspecting passengers.
On the fourth day the luminaries were made;
because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of the vain
philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things which grow
on the earth are produced from the heavenly bodies, so as to exclude
God. In order, therefore, that the truth might be obvious, the plants and
seeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies, for what is posterior
cannot produce that which is prior. And these contain the pattern and
type of a great mystery. For the sun is a type of God, and the moon of
man. And as the sun far surpasses the moon in power and glory, so far
does God surpass man. And as the sun remains ever full, never becoming
less, so does God always abide perfect, being full of all power, and
understanding, and wisdom, and immortality, and all good. But the moon
wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is
born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection.
In like manner also the
Following
Wolf’s reading. Τριάδος.
[The earliest use of this word “Trinity.” It seems to have
been used by this writer in his lost works, also; and, as a learned
friends suggests, the use he makes of it is familiar. He does not lug
it in as something novel: “types of the Trinity,” he says,
illustrating an accepted word, not introducing a new one.] [An eminent authority says, “It is certain,
that, according to the notions of Theophilus, God, His Word, and
His wisdom constitute a Trinity; and it should seem a Trinity of
persons.” He notes that the title σοφία, is here
assigned to the Holy Spirit, although he himself elsewhere gives this
title to the Son (book ii. cap. x., supra), as is more usual
with the Fathers.” Consult Kaye’s Justin Martyr,
p. 157. Ed. 1853.] i.e., wandering
stars.
On the fifth day the living creatures which proceed from the waters were produced, through which also is revealed the manifold wisdom of God in these things; for who could count their multitude and very various kinds? Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,—as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God. But the monsters of the deep and the birds of prey are a similitude of covetous men and transgressors. For as the fish and the fowls are of one nature,—some indeed abide in their natural state, and do no harm to those weaker than themselves, but keep the law of God, and eat of the seeds of the earth; others of them, again, transgress the law of God, and eat flesh, and injure those weaker than themselves: thus, too, the righteous, keeping the law of God, bite and injure none, but live holily and righteously. But robbers, and murderers, and godless persons are like monsters of the deep, and wild beasts, and birds of prey; for they virtually devour those weaker than themselves. The race, then, of fishes and of creeping things, though partaking of God’s blessing, received no very distinguishing property.
And on the sixth day, God having made the quadrupeds,
and wild beasts, and the land reptiles, pronounced no blessing upon them,
reserving His blessing for man, whom He was about to create on the sixth
day. The quadrupeds, too, and wild beasts, were made for a type of some
men, who neither know nor worship God, but mind earthly things, and repent
not. For those who turn from their iniquities and live righteously, in
spirit fly upwards like birds, and mind the things that are above, and are
well-pleasing to the will of God. But those who do not know nor worship
God, are like birds which have wings, but cannot fly nor soar to the high
things of God. Thus, too, though such persons are called men, yet being
pressed down with sins, they mind grovelling and earthly things. And
the animals are named wild beasts [θηρία],
from their being hunted [θηρεύεσθαι],
not as if they had been made evil or venomous from the first—for
nothing was made evil by God, [Note the solid truth that God is not the author
of evil, and the probable suggestion that all nature sympathized with
man’s transgression.
But as to what relates to the creation of man,
his own creation cannot be explained by man, though it is a succinct
account of it which holy Scripture gives. For when God said, “Let
Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness,” He first intimates
the dignity of man. For God having made all things by His Word, and
having reckoned them all mere bye-works, reckons the creation of man
to be the only work worthy of His own hands. Moreover, God is found, as
if needing help, to say, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our
likeness.” But to no one else than to His own Word and wisdom did
He say, “Let Us make.” And when He had made and blessed him,
that he might increase and replenish the earth, He put all things under
his dominion, and at his service; and He appointed from the first that
he should find nutriment from the fruits of the earth, and from seeds,
and herbs, and acorns, having at the same time appointed that
God having thus completed the heavens, and
the earth, and the sea, and all that are in them, on the sixth day,
rested on the seventh day from all His works which He made. Then holy
Scripture gives a summary in these words: “This is the book of
the generation of the heavens and the earth, when they were created,
in the day that the Lord
made the heavens and the earth, and every green thing of the field,
before it was made, and every herb of the field before it grew. For God
had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to
till the ground.”
[But compare Tatian (cap. xiii. p. 70), and the
note of the Parisian editors in margin (p. 152), where they begin by
distinctions to make him orthodox, but at last accuse him of
downright heresy. Ed. Paris, 1615.]
Scripture thus relates the words of the sacred history: “And God planted Paradise, eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground made God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of Paradise, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And a river flows out of Eden, to water the garden; thence it is parted into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good, and there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the third river is Tigris: this is it which goeth toward Syria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. And the Lord God took the man whom He had made, and put him in the garden, to till and to keep it. And God commanded Adam, saying, Of every tree that is in the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, ye shall not eat of it; for in the day ye eat of it ye shall surely die. And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; let Us make him an helpmeet for him. And out of the ground God formed all the beasts of the field, and all the fowls of heaven, and brought them to Adam. And whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowls of the air, and to all the beasts of the field. But for Adam there was not found an helpmeet for him. And God caused an ecstasy to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto Adam. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, Adam and his wife, and were not ashamed.”
“Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast
of the field which the Lord
God had made. And the serpent said to the woman, Why hath God said,
Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto
the serpent, We eat of every tree of the garden, but of the fruit of the
tree which is in the midst of the garden God hath said, Ye shall not eat
of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto
the woman, Ye shall not surely die. For God doth know that in the day
ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,
knowing good and evil. And the woman saw that the tree was good for food,
and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make
one wise; and having taken of the fruit thereof, she did eat, and gave
also unto her husband with her: and they did eat. And the eyes of them
both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig
leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice
of the Lord God walking
Theophilus reads, “It shall watch thy head, and thou shalt watch his
heel.” Or, “by thy works.”
You will say, then, to me: “You said that
God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that
He walked in Paradise?” Hear what I say. The God and Father,
indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place,
for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made
all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person The annotators here warn
us against supposing that “person” is used as it was
afterwards employed in discussing the doctrine of the Trinity, and
show that the word is used in its original meaning, and with reference
to an actor taking up a mask and personating a character. Προφορικός,
the term used of the Logos as manifested; the Word
as uttered by the Father, in distinction from the
Word immanent in Him. [Theophilus is the first author who
distinguishes between the Logos ἐνδιάθετος
(cap. x, supra) and the Logos προφορικός;
the Word internal, and the Word emitted. Kaye’s
Justin, p. 171.]
That is, being produced by
generation, not by creation.
Man, therefore, God made on the sixth day, and made
known this creation after the seventh day, when also He made Paradise,
that he might be in a better and distinctly superior place. And that this
is true, the fact itself proves. For how can one miss seeing that the
pains which women suffer in childbed, and the oblivion of their labours
which they afterwards enjoy, are sent in order that the word of God may
be fulfilled, and that the race of men may increase and multiply? The Benedictine editor remarks:
“Women bring forth with labour and pain as the punishment awarded
to sin: they forget the pain, that the propagation of the race may not
be hindered.”
God, then, caused to spring out of the earth every
tree that is beautiful in appearance, or good for food. For at first there
were only those things which were produced on the third day,—plants,
and seeds, and herbs; but the things which were in Paradise were made of a
In the Greek the word is, “work” or “labour,”
as we also speak of working land.
The tree of knowledge itself was good, and its fruit
was good. For it was not the tree, as some think, but the disobedience,
which had death in it. For there was nothing else in the fruit than
only knowledge; but knowledge is good when one uses it discreetly. [“Pulchra, si quis ea
recte utatur,” is the rendering of the Paris translators. A noble
motto for a college.] [No need of a
long argument here, to show, as some editors have done, that our author
calls Adam an infant, only with reference to time, not physical
development. He was but a few days old.]
And God showed great kindness to man in this,
that He did not suffer him to remain in sin for ever; but, as it were,
by a kind of banishment, cast him out of Paradise, in order that, having
by punishment expiated, within an appointed time, the sin, and having
been disciplined, he should afterwards be restored. Wherefore also,
when man had been formed in this world, it is mystically written in
Genesis, as if he had been twice placed in Paradise; so that the one
was fulfilled when he was placed there, and the second will be fulfilled
after the resurrection and judgment. For just as a vessel, when on being
fashioned it has some flaw, is remoulded or remade, that it may become
new and entire; so also it happens to man by death. For somehow
But some one will say to us, Was man made by
nature mortal? Certainly not. Was he, then, immortal? Neither do we
affirm this. But one will say, Was he, then, nothing? Not even this
hits the mark. He was by nature neither mortal nor immortal. For if
He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him
God. Again, if He had made him mortal, God would seem to be the cause
of his death. Neither, then, immortal nor yet mortal did He make him,
but, as we have said above, capable of both; so that if he should incline
to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should
receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God; but if,
on the other hand, he should turn to the things of death, disobeying
God, he should himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made
man free, and with power over himself. [A noble sentence: ἐλεύθερον
γὰρ καὶ
αὐτεξούσιον
ἐποίησεν
ὁ Θεὸς τὸν
ἄνθρωπον.] Apparently meaning, that God turns death, which man
brought on himself by disobedience, into a blessing.
And Adam having been cast out of Paradise, in this
condition knew Eve his wife, whom God had formed into a wife for him
out of his rib. And this He did, not as if He were unable to make his
wife separately, but God foreknew that man would call upon a number of
gods. And having this prescience, and knowing that through the serpent
error would introduce a number of gods which had no existence,—for
there being but one God, even then error was striving to disseminate a
multitude of gods, saying, “Ye shall be as gods;”—lest,
then, it should be supposed that one God made the man and another the
woman, therefore He made them both; and God made the woman together with
the man, not only that thus the mystery of God’s sole government
might be exhibited, but also that their mutual affection might be
greater. Therefore said Adam to Eve, “This is now bone of my
bones, and flesh of my flesh.” And besides, he prophesied, saying,
“For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife; and they two shall be one flesh;” Referring to the
bacchanalian orgies in which “Eva” was shouted, and which
the Fathers professed to believe was an unintentional invocation of Eve,
the authoress of all sin.
When, then, Adam knew Eve his wife, she conceived
and bare a son, whose name was Cain; and she said, “I have gotten
a man from God.” And yet again she bare a second son, whose name
was Abel, “who began to be a keeper of sheep, but Cain tilled
the ground.”
[He speaks of the æconomy of the narative: τὴν
οἰκονομίαν
τῆς
ἐξηγήσεως.
Kaye’s Justin, p. 175.]
Fell remarks, “Blood shed at once coagulates, and does not easily
enter the earth.” [On the field of Antietam, after the battle,
I observed the blood flaked upon the soil, not absorbed by
it.]
Cain also himself had a son, whose name was
Enoch; and he built a city, which he called by the name of his son,
Enoch. From that time was there made a beginning of the building of
cities, and this before the flood; not as Homer falsely says: Il., xx. 216. But
Homer refers only to Troy.
And to Enoch was born a son, by
name Gaidad; who begat a son called Meel; and Meel begat Mathusala; and
Mathusala, Lamech. And Lamech took unto him two wives, whose names were
Adah and Zillah. At that time there was made a beginning of polygamy,
and also of music. For Lamech had three sons: Jabal, Jubal, Tubal. And
Jabal became a keeper of cattle, and dwelt in tents; but Jubal is he
who made known the psaltery and the harp; and Tubal became a smith,
a forger in brass and iron. So far the seed of Cain is registered; and
for the rest, the seed of his line has sunk into oblivion, on account
of his fratricide of his brother. And, in place of Abel, God granted
to Eve to conceive and bear a son, who was called Seth; from whom the
remainder of the human race proceeds until now. And to those who desire
to be informed regarding all generations, it is easy to give explanations
by means of the holy Scriptures. For, as we have already mentioned, this
subject, the order of the genealogy of man, has been partly handled by
us in another discourse, in the first book of The History. [Of the founder of Christian
chronology this must be noted.]
After the flood was there again a beginning of cities and kings, in the following manner:—The first city was Babylon, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. And their king was called Nebroth [Nimrod]. From these came Asshur, from whom also the Assyrians receive their name. And Nimrod built the cities Nineveh and Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen, between Nineveh and Calah; and Nineveh became a very great city. And another son of Shem, the son of Noah, by name Mizraim, begat Ludim, and those called Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, and Pathrusim, and Casluhim, out of whom came Philistin. Of the three sons of Noah, however, and of their death and genealogy, we have given a compendious register in the above-mentioned book. But now we will mention the remaining facts both concerning cities and kings, and the things that happened when there was one speech and one language. Before the dividing of the languages these fore-mentioned cities existed. But when men were about to be dispersed, they took counsel of their own judgment, and not at the instigation of God, to build a city, a tower whose top might reach into heaven, that they might make a glorious name to themselves. Since, therefore, they had dared, contrary to the will of God, to attempt a grand work, God destroyed their city, and overthrew their tower. From that time He confounded the languages of men, giving to each a different dialect. And similarly did the Sibyl speak, when she declared that wrath would come on the world. She says:—
And so on. These things, then,
happened in the land of the Chaldæans. And in the land of Canaan
there was a city, by name Haran. And in these days, Pharaoh, who by
the Egyptians was also called Nechaoth, was first king of Egypt, and
thus the kings followed in succession. But the Benedictine editor understands the
words to mean, that the succeeding kings were in like manner called
Pharaoh. Theophilus spells some of the
names differently from what they are given in our text. For Tidal he has
Thargal; for Bera, Ballas; for Birsha, Barsas; for Shinab, Senaar; for
Shemeber, Hymoor. Kephalac is taken to be a corruption for Balak, which
in the previous sentence is inserted by many editors, though it is not
in the best mss. [St. Paul seems to teach
us that the whole story of Melchisedek is a “similitude,”
and that the one Great High Priest of our profession appeared to Abraham
in that character, as to Joshua in another, the “Captain of our
salvation” (
[Certainly a striking etymon, “Salem of the priest.”
But we can only accept it as a beautiful play upon words.]
Hence, therefore, may the loves of learning
and of antiquity understand the history, and see that those things
are recent which are told by us apart from the holy prophets. Proving the antiquity of
Scripture, by showing that no recent occurrences are mentioned in
it. Wolf, however, gives another reading, which would be rendered,
“understand whether those things are recent which we utter on
the authority of the holy prophets.”
Who, then, of those called sages, and poets, and historians, could tell us truly of these things, themselves being much later born, and introducing a multitude of gods, who were born so many years after the cities, and are more modern than kings, and nations, and wars? For they should have made mention of all events, even those which happened before the flood; both of the creation of the world and the formation of man, and the whole succession of events. The Egyptian or Chaldæan prophets, and the other writers, should have been able accurately to tell, if at least they spoke by a divine and pure spirit, and spoke truth in all that was uttered by them; and they should have announced not only things past or present, but also those that were to come upon the world. And therefore it is proved that all others have been in error; and that we Christians alone have possessed the truth, inasmuch as we are taught by the Holy Spirit, who spoke in the holy prophets, and foretold all things.
And, for the rest, would that in a kindly spirit
[Comp. book
i. cap. xiv., supra, p. 93.] Benedictine
editor proposes “ they.”
The divine law, then, not only forbids the
worshipping of idols, but also of the heavenly bodies, the sun, the
moon, or the other stars; yea, not heaven, nor earth, nor the sea, nor
fountains, nor rivers, must be worshipped, but we must serve in holiness
of heart and sincerity of purpose only the living and true God, who also
is Maker of the universe. Wherefore saith the holy law: “Thou shalt
not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false
witness; thou shalt not desire thy neighbour’s wife.” So also
the prophets. Solomon indeed teaches us that we must not sin with so much
as a turn of the eye,
Literally, “a nod.”
Cf.
And the Sibyl, who was a prophetess among the Greeks and the other nations, in the beginning of her prophecy, reproaches the race of men, saying:—
And regarding those [gods] that are said to have been born, she said:—
That these things are true, and useful, and just, and profitable to all men, is obvious. Even the poets have spoken of the punishments of the wicked.
And that evil-doers must necessarily be punished in proportion to their deeds, has already been, as it were, oracularly uttered by some of the poets, as a witness both against themselves and against the wicked, declaring that they shall be punished. Æschylus said:—
And Pindar himself said:—
So, too, Euripides:—
And again:—
And, similarly, Archilochus:—
And that God sees all, and that nothing escapes His notice, but that, being long-suffering, He refrains until the time when He is to judge—concerning this, too, Dionysius said:—
And that God’s judgment is to be, and that evils will suddenly overtake the wicked,—this, too, Æschylus declared, saying:—
And may we not cite Simonides also?—
Euripides again:—
Once more Euripides:—
And Sophocles:—
That God will make inquiry both concerning false swearing and concerning every other wickedness, they themselves have well-nigh predicted. And concerning the conflagration of the world, they have, willingly or unwillingly, spoken in conformity with the prophets, though they were much more recent, and stole these things from the law and the prophets. The poets corroborate the testimony of the prophets.
But what matters it whether they were before or
after them? Certainly they did at all events utter things confirmatory
of the prophets. Concerning the burning up of the world, Malachi the
prophet foretold: “The day of the Lord cometh as a burning oven,
and shall consume all the wicked.”
And the writers who spoke of a multiplicity of gods came at length to the doctrine of the unity of God, and those who asserted chance spoke also of providence; and the advocates of impunity confessed there would be a judgment, and those who denied that there is a sensation after death acknowledged that there is. Homer, accordingly, though he had said,—
Od., xi. 222.
says in another place:—
Il., xvi. 856.
And again:—
xxiii. 71.
And as regards the others whom
you have read, I think you know with sufficient accuracy how they
have expressed themselves. But all these things will every one
understand who seeks the wisdom of God, and is well pleasing to Him
through faith and righteousness and the doing of good works. For
one of the prophets whom we already mentioned, Hosea by name, said,
“Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent,
and he shall know them? for the ways of the Lord are right, and
the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall
therein.”
We have
adopted the reading of Wolf in the text. The reading of the mss. is, “He who desires
to learn should desire to learn.” Perhaps the most satisfactory
emendation is that of Heumann, who reads φιλομυθεῖν
instead of φιλομαθεῖν:
“He who desires to learn should also desire to discuss subjects, and
hold conversations on them.” In this case, Theophilus most probably
borrows his remark from Aristotle, Metaphysic. i. c. 2.
Theophilus to Autolycus, greeting: Seeing that writers are fond of composing a multitude of books for vainglory,—some concerning gods, and wars, and chronology, and some, too, concerning useless legends, and other such labour in vain, in which you also have been used to employ yourself until now, and do not grudge to endure that toil; but though you conversed with me, are still of opinion that the word of truth is an idle tale, and suppose that our writings are recent and modern;—on this account I also will not grudge the labour of compendiously setting forth to you, God helping me, the antiquity of our books, reminding you of it in few words, that you may not grudge the labour of reading it, but may recognise the folly of the other authors.
For it was fit that they who wrote should themselves
have been eye-witnesses of those things concerning which they made
assertions, or should accurately have ascertained them from those who had
seen them; for they who write of things unascertained beat the air. For
what did it profit Homer to have composed the Trojan war, and to have
deceived many; or Hesiod, the register of the theogony of those whom he
calls gods; or Orpheus, the three hundred and sixty-five gods, whom in
the end of his life he rejects, maintaining in his precepts that there is
one God? What profit did the sphærography of the world’s circle
confer on Aratus, or those who held the same doctrine as he, except glory
among men? And not even that did they reap as they deserved. And what
truth did they utter? Or what good did their tragedies do to Euripides
and Sophocles, or the other tragedians? Or their comedies to Menander and
Aristophanes, and the other comedians? Or their histories to Herodotus and
Thucydides? Or the shrines
While in Egypt, Pythagoras was admitted to the penetralia of the temples
and the arcana of religion.
For all these, having fallen in love with vain
and empty reputation, neither themselves knew the truth, nor guided
others to the truth: for the things which they said themselves convict
them of speaking inconsistently; and most of them demolished their own
doctrines. For not only did they refute one another, but some, too,
even stultified their own teachings; so that their reputation has issued
in shame and folly, for they are condemned by men of understanding. For
either they made assertions concerning the gods, and afterwards taught
that there was no god; or if they spoke even of the creation of the world,
they finally said that all things were produced spontaneously. Yea, and
even speaking of providence, they taught again that the world was not
ruled by providence. But what? Did they not, when they essayed to write
even of honourable conduct, teach the perpetration of lasciviousness,
and fornication, and adultery; and did they not introduce hateful and
unutterable wickedness? And they proclaim that their gods took the lead
in committing unutterable acts of
Viz.,
in the first book to Autolycus.
Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting
these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the
truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise
you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty
words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips
falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians,
alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous
use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what
is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh. [The body of Christ is human
flesh. If, then, it had been the primitive doctrine, that the bread and
wine cease to exist in the Eucharist, and are changed into natural flesh
and blood, our author could not have resented this charge as “most
barbarous and impious.”]
Since, then, you have read much, what is your opinion
of the precepts of Zeno, and Diogenes, and Cleanthes, which their books
contain, inculcating the eating of human flesh: that fathers be cooked
and eaten by their own children; and that if any one refuse or reject a
part of this infamous food, he himself be devoured who will not eat?
An utterance even more godless than these is found,—that,
namely, of Diogenes, who teaches children to bring their own parents
in sacrifice, and devour them. And does not the historian Herodotus
narrate that Cambyses,
It was not Cambyses, but Astyages, who did this; see Herod. i. 119.
And regarding lawless conduct, those who have
blindly wandered into the choir of philosophy have, almost to a man,
spoken with one voice. Certainly Plato, to mention him first who seems
to have been the most respectable philosopher among them, expressly,
as it were, legislates in his first book, Not in the first, but the fifth book of the
Republic, p. 460. Minos. As this sentence cannot
be intelligibly rendered without its original in Plato, we subjoin
the latter: “As for those youths who excel either in war or other
pursuits, they ought both to have other rewards and prizes given them; and
specially this, of being allowed the freest intercourse with women, that,
at the same time, under this pretext the greatest number of children may
spring from such parents.”
[This statement reflects light upon some passages of Hermas, and shows
with what delicacy he has reproved the gross vices with which Christians
could not escape familiarity.]
For after they had said that these are gods,
they again made them of no account. For
αύτοματισμῶ.
or those whom we have mentioned—Euhemerus, and Epicurus, and Pythagoras, and the others who deny that the gods are to be worshipped, and who abolish providence? Concerning God and providence, Ariston said:—
And one can see how inconsistent with each other are the things which others, and indeed almost the majority, have said about God and providence. For some have absolutely cancelled God and providence; and others, again, have affirmed God, and have avowed that all things are governed by providence. The intelligent hearer and reader must therefore give minute attention to their expressions; as also Simylus said: “It is the custom of the poets to name by a common designation the surpassingly wicked and the excellent; we therefore must discriminate.” As also Philemon says: “A senseless man who sits and merely hears is a troublesome feature; for he does not blame himself, so foolish is he.” We must then give attention, and consider what is said, critically inquiring into what has been uttered by the philosophers and the poets.
For, denying that there are gods, they again acknowledge their existence, and they said they committed grossly wicked deeds. And, first, of Jove the poets euphoniously sing the wicked actions. And Chrysippus, who talked a deal of nonsense, is he not found publishing that Juno had the foulest intercourse with Jupiter? For why should I recount the impurities of the so-called mother of the gods, or of Jupiter Latiaris thirsting for human blood, or the castrated Attis; or of Jupiter, surnamed Tragedian, and how he defiled himself, as they say, and now is worshipped among the Romans as a god? I am silent about the temples of Antinous, and of the others whom you call gods. For when related to sensible persons, they excite laughter. They who elaborated such a philosophy regarding either the non-existence of God, or promiscuous intercourse and beastly concubinage, are themselves condemned by their own teachings. Moreover, we find from the writings they composed that the eating of human flesh was received among them; and they record that those whom they honour as gods were the first to do these things.
Now we also confess that God exists, but that He is
one, the creator, and maker, and fashioner of this universe; and we know
that all things are arranged by His providence, but by Him alone. And we
have learned a holy law; but we have as lawgiver Him who is really God,
who teaches us to act righteously, and to be pious, and to do
Or, right worship.
Since therefore they were strangers in the land of
Egypt, being by birth Hebrews from the land of Chaldæa,—for
at that time, there being a famine, they were obliged to migrate to
Egypt for the sake of buying food there, where also for a time they
sojourned; and these things befell them in accordance with a prediction
of God,—having sojourned, then, in Egypt for 430 years, when Moses
was about to lead them out into the desert, God taught them by the law,
saying, “Ye shall not afflict a stranger; for ye know the heart of a
stranger: for yourselves were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
And when the people transgressed the law which
had been given to them by God, God being good and pitiful, unwilling to
destroy them, in addition to His giving them the law, afterwards sent
forth also prophets to them from among their brethren, to teach and
remind them of the contents of the law, and to turn them to repentance,
that they might sin no more. But if they persisted in their wicked deeds,
He forewarned them that they should be delivered into subjection to all
the kingdoms of the earth; and that this has already happened them is
manifest. Concerning repentance, then, Isaiah the prophet, generally
indeed to all, but expressly to the people, says: “Seek ye the
Lord while He may be found,
call ye upon Him while He is near: let the wicked forsake his ways,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord his God, and he will find
mercy, for He will abundantly pardon.”
Moreover, concerning the righteousness which the
law enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets
and in the Gospels, because they all spoke inspired by one Spirit
of God. Isaiah accordingly spoke thus: “Put away the evil of
your doings from your souls; learn to do well, seek judgment, relieve
the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.”
And concerning chastity, the holy word teaches us
not only not to sin in act, but not even in thought, not even in the heart
to think of any evil, nor look on another man’s wife with our eyes
to lust after her. Solomon, accordingly, who was a king and a prophet,
said: “Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look
straight before thee: make straight paths for your feet.”
And that we should be kindly disposed, not
only towards those of our own stock, as some suppose, Isaiah the
prophet said: “Say to those that hate you, and that cast you
out, Ye are our brethren, that the name of the Lord may be glorified, and be apparent
in their joy.”
Consider, therefore, whether those who teach such
things can possibly live indifferently, and be commingled in unlawful
intercourse, or, most impious of all, eat human flesh, especially when
we are forbidden so much as to witness shows of gladiators, lest we
become partakers and abettors of murders. But neither may we see the
other spectacles, At the
theatres. [N.B.—Let the easy Christians of our age be reminded of
this warning; frequenting, as they do, plays and operas equally defiling,
impure in purport often, even when not gross in language.]
But I wish now to give you a more accurate
demonstration, God helping me, of the historical periods, that you
may see that our doctrine is not modern nor fabulous, but more
ancient and true than all poets and authors who have written in
uncertainty. For some, maintaining that the world was uncreated, went
into infinity; i.e.,
tracing back its history through an infinate duration. The following quotation is
not from the Republic, but from the third book of the Laws,
p. 676. Plato goes on to say, that if he had this pledge of
divine assistance, he would go further in his speculation; and therefore
Theophilus argues that what he said without this assistance he felt to
be unsafe.
It behoved, therefore, that he should the rather
become a scholar of God in this matter of legislation, as he himself
confessed that in no other way could he gain accurate information
than by God’s teaching him through the law. And did not the
poets Homer and Hesiod and Orpheus profess that they themselves had
been instructed by Divine Providence? Moreover, it is said that among
your writers there were prophets and prognosticators, and that those
wrote accurately who were informed by them. How much more, then, shall
we know the truth who are instructed by the holy prophets, who
were possessed by
Literally, “contained.” [See
supra, book i. cap. 14, p. 93, the author’s account of his
own conversion.]
For Plato, as we said above, when he had
demonstrated that a deluge had happened, said that it extended not over
the whole earth, but only over the plains, and that those who fled to
the highest hills saved themselves. But others say that there existed
Deucalion and Pyrrha, and that they were preserved in a chest; and that
Deucalion, after he came out of the chest, flung stones behind him,
and that men were produced from the stones; from which circumstance
they say that men in the mass are named “people.” λαός,
from λᾶας,
stone.
And neither does he make out that there was a second
flood: on the contrary, he said that never again would there be a flood
of water on the world; as neither indeed has there been, nor ever shall
be. And he says that eight human beings were preserved in the ark, in that
which had been prepared by God’s direction, not by Deucalion, but
by Noah; which Hebrew word means in English Literally, in Greek, ἀνάπαυσις. Deucalion, from Δεῦτε,
come, and καλἐω, I
call.
And Moses, becoming the leader of the Jews, as we
have already stated, was expelled from the land of Egypt by the king,
Pharaoh, whose name was Amasis, and who, they say, reigned after the
expulsion of the people 25 years and 4 months, as Manetho assumes. And
after him [reigned] Chebron, 13 years. And after him Amenophis, 20 years
7 months. And after him his sister Amessa, 21 years 1 month. And after
her Mephres, 12 years 9 months. And after him Methramuthosis, 20 years
and 10 months. And after him Tythmoses, 9 years 8 months. And after
him Damphenophis, 30 years 10 months. And after him Orus, 35 years
5 months. And after him his daughter, 10 years 3 months. After her
Mercheres, 12 years 3 months. And after him his son Armais, 30 years 1
month. After him Messes, son of Miammus, 6 years, 2 months. After him
Rameses, 1 year 4 months. After him Amenophis, 19 years 6 months. After
him his sons Thoessus and Rameses, 10 years, who, it is said, had a large
cavalry force and naval equipment. The Hebrews, indeed, after their own
separate history, having at that time migrated into the land of Egypt, and
been enslaved by the king Tethmosis, as already said, built for him strong
cities, Peitho, and Rameses, and On, which is Heliopolis; so that the
Hebrews, who also are our ancestors, and from whom we have those sacred
books which are older than all authors, as already said, are proved to be
more ancient than the cities which were at that time renowned among the
Egyptians. And the country was called Egypt from the king Sethos. For
the word Sethos, they say, is pronounced “Egypt.” Or, reading ὀ γὰρ
Σέθως, “Sethos is also called
Egyptus.”
And Manetho, who among the Egyptians gave out
a great deal of nonsense, and even impiously charged Moses and the
Hebrews who accompanied him with being banished from Egypt on account
of leprosy, could give no accurate chronological statement. For when
he said they were shepherds, and enemies of the Egyptians, he uttered
truth indeed, because he was forced to do so. For our forefathers who
sojourned in Egypt were truly shepherds, but not lepers. For when they
came into the land called Jerusalem, where also they afterwards abode,
it is well known how their priests, in pursuance of the appointment
of God, continued in the temple, and there healed every disease, so
that they cured lepers and every unsoundness. The temple was built by
Solomon the king of Judæa. And from Manetho’s own statement
his chronological error is manifest. (As it is also in respect of
the king who expelled them, Pharaoh by name. For he no longer ruled
them. For having pursued the Hebrews, he and his army were engulphed
in the Red Sea. And he is in error still further, in saying that the
shepherds made war against the Egyptians.) For they went out of Egypt,
and thenceforth dwelt in the country now called Judæa, 313 The Benedictine editor shows
that this should be 393 years. The correct date would be
about 400 years.
Then concerning the building of the temple in
Judæa, which Solomon the king built 566 years after the exodus of
the Jews from Egypt, there is
Others read 134
years. Literally, Hieromus. In this register it seems
that the number of years during which each person lived does not include
the years of his reign.
So then let what has been said suffice for the
testimony of the Phœnicians and Egyptians, and for the account of
our chronology given by the writers Manetho the Egyptian, and Menander
the Ephesian, and also Josephus, who wrote the Jewish war, which they
waged with the Romans. For from these very old records it is proved that
the writings of the rest are more recent than the writings given to
us through Moses, yes, and than the subsequent prophets. For the last
of the prophets, who was called Zechariah, was contemporary with the
reign of Darius. But even the lawgivers themselves are all found to have
legislated subsequently to that period. For if one were to mention Solon
the Athenian, he lived in the days of the kings Cyrus and Darius, in the
time of the prophet Zechariah first mentioned, who was by many years the
last of the prophets.
But the meaning here is obscure in the original. Malachi was much later
than Zechariah. [Usher, in his Annals, honours our author as
the father of Christian chronology, p. 3. Paris, 1673.]
Adam lived till he begat a son, i.e., till he begat
Seth. [A fragment of the Chronicon of Julius Africanus,
a.d. 232, is given in
Routh’s Reliquiæ, tom. ii. p. 238, with very rich
annotations. pp. 357–509.]
And after the judges they had kings, the first named Saul, who reigned 20 years; then David, our forefather, who reigned 40 years. Accordingly, there are to the reign of David [from Isaac] 496 years. And after these kings Solomon reigned, who also, by the will of God, was the first to build the temple in Jerusalem; he reigned 40 years. And after him Rehoboam, 17 years; and after him Abias, 7 years; and after him Asa, 41 years; and after him Jehoshaphat, 25 years; and after him Joram, 8 years; and after him Ahaziah, 1 year; and after him Athaliah, 6 years; and after her Josiah, 40 years; and after him Amaziah, 39 years; and after him Uzziah, 52 years; and after him Jotham, 16 years; and after him Ahaz, 17 years; and after him Hezekiah, 29 years; and after him Manasseh, 55 years; and after him Amon, 2 years; and after him Josiah, 31 years; and after him Jehoahaz, 3 months; and after him Jehoiakim, 11 years. Then another Jehoiakim, 3 months 10 days; and after him Zedekiah, 11 years. And after these kings, the people, continuing in their sins, and not repenting, the king of Babylon, named Nebuchadnezzar, came up into Judæa, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah. He transferred the people of the Jews to Babylon, and destroyed the temple which Solomon had built. And in the Babylonian banishment the people passed 70 years. Until the sojourning in the land of Babylon, there are therefore, in all, 4954 years 6 months and 10 days. And according as God had, by the prophet Jeremiah, foretold that the people should be led captive to Babylon, in like manner He signified beforehand that they should also return into their own land after 70 years. These 70 years then being accomplished, Cyrus becomes king of the Persians, who, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah, issued a decree in the second year of his reign, enjoining by his edict that all Jews who were in his kingdom should return to their own country, and rebuild their temple to God, which the fore-mentioned king of Babylon had demolished. Moreover, Cyrus, in compliance with the instructions of God, gave orders to his own bodyguards, Sabessar and Mithridates, that the vessels which had been taken out of the temple of Judæa by Nebuchadnezzar should be restored, and placed again in the temple. In the second year, therefore, of Darius are fulfilled the 70 years which were foretold by Jeremiah.
Hence one can see how our sacred writings are shown
to be more ancient and true than those of the Greeks and Egyptians, or
any other historians. For Herodotus and Thucydides, as also Xenophon,
and most other historians, began their relations from about the reign
of Cyrus and Darius, not being able to speak with accuracy of prior and
ancient times. For what great matters did they disclose if they spoke of
Darius and Cyrus, barbarian kings, or of the Greeks Zopyrus and Hippias,
or of the wars of the Athenians and Lacedæmonians, or the deeds
of Xerxes or of Pausanias, who ran the risk of starving to death in the
temple of Minerva, or the history of Themistocles and the Peloponnesian
war, or of Alcibiades and Thrasybulus? For my purpose is not to furnish
mere matter of much talk, but to throw light upon the number of years from
the foundation of the world, and to condemn the empty labour and trifling
of these authors, because there have neither been twenty thousand times
ten thousand years from the flood to the present time, as Plato said,
affirming that there had been so many years; nor yet 15 times 10,375
years, as we have already mentioned Apollonius the Egyptian gave out;
nor is the world uncreated, nor is there a spontaneous production of all
things, as Pythagoras and the rest dreamed; but, being indeed created,
it is also governed by the providence of God, who made all things; and
the whole course of time and the years are made plain to those who wish
to obey the truth.
[Usher notes this as affirmed in general terms
only, and qualified afterwards, in cap. xxix, infra, note i,
p. 121.]
When Cyrus, then, had reigned twenty-nine years,
and had been slain by Tomyris in the country of the Massagetæ,
this being in the 62d Olympiad, then the Romans began to increase
And from the foundation of the world the whole time
is thus traced, so far as its main epochs are concerned. From the creation
of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. And from the deluge to the
time when Abraham our forefather begat a son, 1036 years. And from Isaac,
Abraham’s son, to the time when the people dwelt with Moses in the
desert, 660 years. And from the death of Moses and the rule of Joshua the
son of Nun, to the death of the patriarch David, 498 years. And from the
death of David and the reign of Solomon to the sojourning of the people in
the land of Babylon, 518 years 6 months 10 days. And from the government
of Cyrus to the death of the Emperor Aurelius Verus, 744 years. All the
years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and
the odd months and days.
[As Verus died a.d. 169,
the computation of our author makes the creation, b.c. 5529. Hales, who says b.c. 5411, inspires us with
great respect for Theophilus, by the degree of accuracy he attained,
using (the LXX.) the same authority as his base. Slight variations in
the copies used in his day might have led, one would think, to greater
discrepancies.]
These periods, then, and all the above-mentioned
facts, being viewed collectively, one can see the antiquity of the
prophetical writings and the divinity of our doctrine, that the doctrine
is not recent, nor our tenets mythical and false, as some think; but very
ancient and true. For Thallus mentioned Belus, king of the Assyrians, and
Saturn, son of Titan, alleging that Belus with the Titans made war against
Jupiter and the so-called gods in his alliance; and on this occasion he
says that Gyges, being defeated, fled to Tartessus. At that time Gyges
ruled over that country, which then was called Acte, but now is named
Attica. And whence the other countries and cities derived their names,
we think it unnecessary to recount, especially to you who are acquainted
with history. That Moses, and not he only, but also most of the prophets
who followed him, is proved to be older than all writers, and than Saturn
and Belus and the Trojan war, is manifest. For according to the history
of Thallus, Belus is found to be 322 years prior to the Trojan war. But
we have shown above that Moses lived somewhere about 900 or 1000 years
before the sack of Troy. And as Saturn and Belus flourished at the same
time, most people do not know which is Saturn and which is Belus. Some
worship Saturn, and call him Bel or Bal, especially the inhabitants of
the eastern countries, for they do not know who either Saturn or Belus
is. And among the Romans he is called Saturn, for neither do they know
which of the two is more ancient—Saturn or Bel. So far as regards
the commencement of the Olympiads, they say that the observance dates from
Iphitus, but according to others from Linus, who is also called Ilius. The
order which the whole number of years and Olympiads holds, we have shown
above. I think I have now, according to my ability, accurately discoursed
both of the godlessness of your practices, Another reading gives, “both of the antiquity
of our religion.”
[Usher quotes this concession as to the ἀκριβεία
or minute delicacy he could not attain. Ut supra, p. 119, note 1.] Berosus flourished in the reign of Alexander the
Great.
But the Greeks make no mention of the histories which give the truth: first, because they themselves only recently became partakers of the knowledge of letters; and they themselves own it, alleging that letters were invented, some say among the Chaldæans, and others with the Egyptians, and others again say that they are derived from the Phœnicians. And secondly, because they sinned, and still sin, in not making mention of God, but of vain and useless matters. For thus they most heartily celebrate Homer and Hesiod, and the rest of the poets, but the glory of the incorruptible and only God they not only omit to mention, but blaspheme; yes, and they persecuted, and do daily persecute, those who worship Him. And not only so, but they even bestow prizes and honours on those who in harmonious language insult God; but of those who are zealous in the pursuit of virtue and practice a holy life, some they stoned, some they put to death, and up to the present time they subject them to savage tortures. Wherefore such men have necessarily lost the wisdom of God, and have not found the truth.
If you please, then, study these things carefully,
that you may have a compendium Otto prefers σύμβουλον
instead of σύμβολον
, on the authority of one ms.
The sense then is, “that you may have a counsellor and pledge
of the truth,”—the counsellor and pledge of the truth
being the book written by Theophilus for Autolycus. [This has
been supposed to mean, “that you may have a token and pledge
(or earnest) of the truth,” i.e., in Christian baptism. Our
author uses St. Paul’s word (ἀῤῥαβὼν),
“the earnest of the spirit,” as in
[Translated by the Rev. B. P. Pratten.]
[a.d. 177.] In placing Athenagoras here, somewhat out of the order usually accepted, I commit no appreciable violence against chronology, and I gain a great advantage for the reader. To some extent we must recognise, in collocation, the principles of affinity and historic growth. Closing up the bright succession of the earlier Apologists, this favourite author affords also a fitting introduction to the great founder of the Alexandrian School, who comes next into view. His work opens the way for Clement’s elaboration of Justin’s claim, that the whole of philosophy is embraced in Christianity. It is charming to find the primal fountains of Christian thought uniting here, to flow on for ever in the widening and deepening channel of Catholic orthodoxy, as it gathers into itself all human culture, and enriches the world with products of regenerated mind, harvested from its overflow into the fields of philosophy and poetry and art and science. More of this when we come to Clement, that man of genius who introduced Christianity to itself, as reflected in the burnished mirror of his intellect. Shackles are falling from the persecuted and imprisoned faculties of the faithful, and soon the Faith is to speak out, no more in tones of apology, but as mistress of the human mind, and its pilot to new worlds of discovery and broad domains of conquest. All hail the freedom with which, henceforth, Christians are to assume the overthrow of heathenism as a foregone conclusion. The distasteful exposure of heresies was the inevitable task after the first victory. It was the chase and following-up of the adversary in his limping and cowardly retreat, “the scattering of the rear of darkness.” With Athenagoras, we touch upon tokens of things to come; we see philosophy yoked to the chariot of Messiah; we begin to realize that sibylline surrender of outworn Paganism, and its forecast of an era of light:—
In Athenagoras, whose very name is a retrospect, we discover a remote result of St. Paul’s speech on Mars Hill. The apostle had cast his bread upon the waters of Ilissus and Cephisus to find it after many days. “When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked;” but here comes a philosopher, from the Athenian agora, a convert to St. Paul’s argument in his Epistle to the Corinthians, confessing “the unknown God,” demolishing the marble mob of deities that so “stirred the apostle’s spirit within him,” and teaching alike the Platonist and the Stoic to sit at the feet of Jesus. “Dionysius the Areopagite, and the woman named Damaris,” are no longer to be despised as the scanty first-fruits of Attica. They too have found a voice in this splendid trophy of the Gospel; and, “being dead, they yet speak” through him.
To the meagre facts of his biography, which appear
below, there is nothing to be added;
But Lardner tells the whole story much better. Credibility,
vol. ii. p. 193. The dogmatic value of a patristic quotation depends on the
support it finds in other Fathers, under the supremacy of Scripture: hence
the utility of Kaye’s collocations.
It will not be necessary, after my quotations from Kaye in the foregoing sheets, to do more than indicate similar illustrations of Athenagoras to be found in his pages. The dry version often requires lubrications of devoutly fragrant exegesis; and providentially they are at hand in that elaborate but modest work, of which even this generation should not be allowed to lose sight.
The annotations of Conrad Gesner and Henry Stephans would have greatly enriched this edition, had I been permitted to enlarge the work by adding a version of them. They are often curious, and are supplemented by the interesting letter of Stephans to Peter Nannius, “the eminent pillar of Louvain,” on the earliest copies of Athenagoras, from which modern editions have proceeded. The Paris edition of Justin Martyr (1615) contains these notes, as well as the Greek of Tatian, Theophilus, and Athenagoras, with a Latin rendering. As Bishop Kaye constantly refers to this edition, I have considered myself fortunate in possessing it; using it largely in comparing his learned comments with the Edinburgh Version.
A few words as to the noble treatise of our author, on the Resurrection. As a firm and loving voice to this keynote of Christian faith, it rings like an anthem through all the variations of his thought and argument. Comparing his own blessed hope with the delusions of a world lying in wickedness, and looking stedfastly to the life of the world to come, what a sublime contrast we find in this figure of Christ’s witness to the sensual life of the heathen, and even to the groping wisdom of the Attic sages. I think this treatise a sort of growth from the mind of one who had studied in the Academe, pitying yet loving poor Socrates and his disciples. Yet more, it is the outcome of meditation on that sad history in the Acts, which expounds St. Paul’s bitter reminiscences, when he says that his gospel was, “to the Greeks, foolishness.” They never “heard him again on this matter.” He left them under the confused impressions they had expressed in the agora, when they said, “he seemeth to be a setter-forth of new gods.” St. Luke allows himself a smile only half suppressed when he adds, “because he preached unto them Jesus and Anastasis,” which in their ears was only a barbarian echo to their own Phœbus and Artemis; and what did Athenians want of any more wares of that sort, especially under the introduction of a poor Jew from parts unknown? Did the apostle’s prophetic soul foresee Athenagoras, as he “departed from among them”? However that may be, his blessed Master “knew what he would do.” He could let none of Paul’s words fall to the ground, without taking care that some seeds should bring forth fruit a thousand-fold. Here come the sheaves at last. Athenagoras proves, also, what our Saviour meant, when he said to the Galileans, “Ye are the light of the world.”
The following is the original Introductory Notice:—
It
is one of the most singular facts in early ecclesiastical history, that
the name of Athenagoras is scarcely ever mentioned. Only two references
to him and his writings have been discovered. One of these occurs
in the work of Methodius, On the Resurrection of the Body,
as preserved by Epiphanius (Hœr., lxiv.) and Photius
(Biblioth., ccxxxiv.). The other notice of him is found in the
writings The fragment in which
the notice occurs was extracted from the works of Philip by some
unknown writer. It is published as an appendix to Dodwell’s
Dissertationes in Irenæum.
We know with certainty regarding
Athenagoras, that he was an Athenian philosopher who had
embraced Christianity, and that his Apology, or, as he
styles it, “Embassy” (πρεσβεία),
was presented to the Emperors Aurelius and Commodus about a.d. 177. He is supposed to have
written a considerable number of works, but the only other production
of his extant is his treatise on the Resurrection. It is probable that
this work was composed somewhat later than the Apology (see chap.
xxxvi.), though its exact date cannot be determined. Philip of Side also
states that he preceded Pantænus as head of the catechetical school
at Alexandria; but this is probably incorrect, and is contradicted by
Eusebius. A more interesting and perhaps well-rounded statement is made
by the same writer respecting Athenagoras, to the effect that he was won
over to Christianity while reading the Scriptures in order to controvert
them. [Here a picture suggests
itself. We go back to the times of Hadrian. A persecution is raging
against the “Nazarenes.” A boyish, but well-cultured Athenian
saunters into the market-place to hear some new thing. They are talking of
those enemies of the human race, the Christians. Curiosity leads him to
their assemblies. He finds them keeping the feast of the resurrection.
Quadratus is preaching. He mocks, but is persuaded to open one of
St. Paul’s Epistles. “What will this babbler say?”
He reads the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians, and resents it
with all the objections still preserved in his pages. One can see him
inquiring more about this Paul, and reading the seventeenth chapter of
the Acts. What an animated description of his own Athens, and in what a
new light it reflects the familiar scenes! He must refute this Paul. But,
when he undertakes it, he falls in love when the intrepid assailant of
the gods of Greece. Scales fall from his own eyes. How he sees it all at
last, we find in the two works here presented, corresponding as they do,
first and last, with the two parts of the apostle’s speech to the
men of Athens.]
Literally, “embassy.” [By this name best known to scholars.]
To the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Anoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, conquerors of Armenia and Sarmatia, and more than all, philosophers.
In your empire, greatest of sovereigns, different nations
have different customs and laws; and no one is hindered by law or fear of
punishment from following his ancestral usages, however ridiculous these
may be. A citizen of Ilium calls Hector a god, and pays divine honours
to Helen, taking her for Adrasteia. The Lacedæmonian venerates
Agamemnon as Zeus, and Phylonoë the daughter of Tyndarus; and the
man of Tenedos worships Tennes. There
are here many varieties of reading: we have followed the text suggested by
Gesner. We here
follow the text of Otto; others read ἡμῖν.
[Kaye, 153.] [For three centuries the
faithful were made witnesses for Jesus and the resurrection, even unto
death; with “spoiling of their goods,” not only, but dying
daily, and “counted as sheep for the slaughter.” What can
refuse such testimony? They conquered through suffering. The reader will be pleased with this citation from
an author, the neglect of whose heavenly writings is a sad token of
spiritual decline in the spirit of our religion:— “The Lord is sure of His designed advantages out
of the sufferings of His Church and of His saints for His name. He loses
nothing, and they lose nothing; but their enemies, when they rage most
and prevail most, are ever the greatest losers. His own glory grows,
the graces of His people grow; yea, their very number grows,
and that, sometimes, most by their greatest sufferings. This was
evident in the first ages of the Christian Church. Where were the
glory of so much invincible love and patience, if they had not
been so put to it?” Leighton, Comm. on St. Peter, Works,
vol. iv. p. 478. West’s admirable edition, London, Longmans,
1870.]
If, indeed, any one can convict us of a crime, be it
small or great, we do not ask to be excused from punishment, but are
prepared to undergo the sharpest and most merciless inflictions. But if
the accusation relates merely to our name—and it is undeniable, that
up to the present time the stories told about us rest on nothing better
than the common undiscriminating popular talk, nor has any Christian [Kaye, 154.] [Tatian,
cap. xxvii., supra, p. 76.] [Tatian,
cap. xxvii., supra, p. 76.]
Three things are alleged against us: atheism, Thyestean
feasts, [See cap. xxxi. Our
Lord was “perfect man,” yet our author resents the idea
of eating the flesh of one’s own kind as worse than brutal. As
to the Eucharist the inference is plain.]
Thus Otto; others read, “if any one of men.”
As regards, first of all, the allegation that we are
atheists—for I will meet the charges one
[Kaye, p. 7.]
[De Maistre, who talks nothing but sophistry when he rides his hobby, and who shocked the pope himself by his fanatical effort to demonstrate the papal system, is, nevertheless, very suggestive and interesting when he condescends to talk simply as a Christian. See his citations showing the heathen consciousness of one Supreme Being. Soirées de St. Pétersbourg, vol. i. pp. 225, 280; vol. ii. pp. 379, 380.]
Poets and philosophers have not been voted atheists for inquiring concerning God. Euripides, speaking of those who, according to popular preconception, are ignorantly called gods, says doubtingly:—
From an unknown play.
But speaking of Him who is apprehended by the understanding as matter of certain knowledge, he gives his opinion decidedly, and with intelligence, thus:—
From an unknown play; the original is ambiguous; comp. Cic. De Nat Deorum, ii. c. 25, where the words are translated—“Seest thou this boundless ether on high which embraces the earth in its moist arms? Reckon this Zeus.” Athenagoras cannot so have understood Euripides.
For, as to these so-called gods, he neither saw any real existences, to which a name is usually assigned, underlying them (“Zeus,” for instance: “who Zeus is I know not, but by report”), nor that any names were given to realities which actually do exist (for of what use are names to those who have no real existences underlying them?); but Him he did see by means of His works, considering with an eye to things unseen the things which are manifest in air, in ether, on earth. Him therefore, from whom proceed all created things, and by whose Spirit they are governed, he concluded to be God; and Sophocles agrees with him, when he says:—
Not found in his extant works.
[Euripides is speaking] of the nature of God, which fills His works with beauty, and teaching both where God must be, and that He must be One.
Philolaus, too, when he says that all things are
included in God as in a stronghold, teaches that He is one, and that
He is superior to matter. Lysis and Opsimus Common text has ὂψει; we follow the text
of Otto. [Gesner notes this corruption, and conjectures that it should
be the name of some philosopher.] One, two, three,
and four together forming ten. Timæus, p. 28, C.
Timæus, p. 41, A. [We must not wonder at the
scant praise accorded by the Apologists to the truths embedded everywhere
in Plato and other heathen writers. They felt intensely, that “the
world, by wisdom, knew not God; and that it was their own mission to lead
men to the only source of true philosophy.]
Since, therefore, the unity of the Deity is confessed by
almost all, even against their will, when they come to treat of the first
principles of the universe, and we in our turn likewise assert that He who
arranged this universe is God,—why is it that they can say and write
with impunity what they please concerning the Deity, but that against us
a law lies in force, though we are able to demonstrate what we apprehend
and justly believe, namely that there is one God, with proofs and reason
accordant with truth? For poets and philosophers, as to other subjects
so also to this, have applied themselves in the way of conjecture,
moved, by reason of their affinity with the afflatus from God, [See cap. xxx., infra. Important,
as showing the degree of value attributed by the Fathers to the Sibylline
and Orphic sayings. Comp. Kaye, p. 177.]
As regards, then, the doctrine that there was from
the beginning one God, the Maker of this universe, consider it in
this wise, that you may be acquainted with the argumentative grounds
also of our faith. If there were from the beginning two or more gods,
they were either in one and the same place, or each of them separately
in his own. In one and the same place they could not be. For, if they
are gods, they are not alike; but because they are uncreated they are
unlike: for created things are like their patterns; but the uncreated
are unlike, being neither produced from any one, nor formed after the
pattern of any one. Hand and eye and foot are parts of one body, making
up together one man: is God in this sense one? i.e., Do several gods make up one God?—Otto. Others read affirmatively,
“God is one.” i.e., the
world. i.e., the Creator,
or first God.
If we satisfied ourselves with advancing such
considerations as these, our doctrines might by some be looked
upon as human. But, since the voices of the prophets confirm our
arguments—for I think that you also, with your great zeal for
knowledge, and your great attainments in learning, cannot be ignorant
of the writings either of Moses or of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and the
other prophets, who, lifted in ecstasy above the natural operations
of their minds by the impulses of the Divine Spirit, uttered the
things with which they were inspired, the Spirit making use of them
as a flute-player [Kaye,
179. An important comment; comp. cap. vii., supra.]
That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that
we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible,
incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding
only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit,
and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His
Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being—I have sufficiently
demonstrated. [I say “His Logos”], for we acknowledge also
a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have
a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as
no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs,
concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the
Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern
of Him and by Him “Or,
by Him and through Him.” [Kaye, pp. 155, 175.] [Kaye, p. 166.]
[Compare Theophilus, supra, p. 101, and Kaye’s note,
p. 156.]
[
If I go minutely into the particulars of our doctrine,
let it not surprise you. It is that you may not be carried away by the
popular and irrational opinion, but may have the truth clearly before
you. For presenting the opinions themselves to which we adhere, as being
not human but uttered and taught by God, we shall be able to persuade
you not to think of us as atheists. What, then, are those teachings
in which we are brought up? “I say unto you, Love your enemies;
bless them that curse you; pray for them that persecute you; that ye
may be the sons of your Father who is in heaven, who causes His sun
to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the
unjust.” [Kaye,
pp. 212–217.] The meaning is here doubtful;
but the probably reference is to the practices of the Sophists.
Should we, then, unless we believed that a God presides
over the human race, thus purge ourselves from evil? Most certainly
not. But, because we are persuaded that we shall give an account of
everything in the present life to God, who made us and the world,
we adopt a temperate and benevolent and generally despised method
of life, believing that we shall suffer no such great evil here,
even should our lives be taken from us, compared with what we shall
there receive for our meek and benevolent and moderate life from the
great Judge. Plato indeed has said that Minos and Rhadamanthus will
judge and punish the wicked; but we say that, even if a man be Minos
or Rhadamanthus himself, or their father, even he will not escape the
judgment of God. Are, then, those who consider life to be comprised
in this, “Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die,”
and who regard death as a deep sleep and forgetfulness (“sleep
and death, twin brothers”
Hom., Il., xvi. 672.
But, as most of those who charge us with atheism, and
that because they have not even the dreamiest conception of what God is,
and are doltish and utterly unacquainted with natural and divine things,
and such as measure piety by the rule of sacrifices, charges us with
not acknowledging the same gods as the cities, be pleased to attend to
the following considerations, O emperors, on both points. And first,
as to our not sacrificing: the Framer and Father of
[Harmless as
flowers and incense may be, the Fathers disown them in this way
continually.] [This brilliant condensation of the
Benedicite (Song of the Three Children) affords Kaye
occasion to observe that our author is silent as to the sacraments. p.
195.]
Hom., Il., ix. 499 sq., Lord Derby’s translation, which version the translator has for the most part used.
And what have I to do with holocausts,
which God does not stand in need of?—though indeed it does
behove us to offer a bloodless sacrifice and “the service
of our reason.”
Comp.
Then, as to the other complaint, that we do not pray to and believe in the same gods as the cities, it is an exceedingly silly one. Why, the very men who charge us with atheism for not admitting the same gods as they acknowledge, are not agreed among themselves concerning the gods. The Athenians have set up as gods Celeus and Metanira: the Lacedæmonians Menelaus; and they offer sacrifices and hold festivals to him, while the men of Ilium cannot endure the very sound of his name, and pay their adoration to Hector. The Ceans worship Aristæus, considering him to be the same as Zeus and Apollo; the Thasians Theagenes, a man who committed murder at the Olympic games; the Samians Lysander, notwithstanding all the slaughters and all the crimes perpetrated by him; Alcman and Hesiod Medea, and the Cilicians Niobe; the Sicilians Philip the son of Butacides; the Amathusians Onesilus; the Carthaginians Hamilcar. Time would fail me to enumerate the whole. When, therefore, they differ among themselves concerning their gods, why do they bring the charge against us of not agreeing with them? Then look at the practices prevailing among the Egyptians: are they not perfectly ridiculous? For in the temples at their solemn festivals they beat their breasts as for the dead, and sacrifice to the same beings as gods; and no wonder, when they look upon the brutes as gods, and shave themselves when they die, and bury them in temples, and make public lamentation. If, then, we are guilty of impiety because we do not practice a piety corresponding with theirs, then all cities and all nations are guilty of impiety, for they do not all acknowledge the same gods.
But grant that they acknowledge the same. What
then? Because the multitude, who cannot distinguish between matter and
God, or see how great is the interval which lies between them, pray to
idols made of matter, are we therefore, who do distinguish and separate
the uncreated and the created, that which is and that which is not, that
which is apprehended by the understanding and that which is perceived
by the senses, and who give the fitting name to each of them,—are
we to come and worship images? If, indeed, matter and God are the same,
two names for one thing, then certainly, in not regarding stocks and
stones, gold and silver, as gods, we are guilty of impiety. But if they
are at the greatest possible remove from one another—as far asunder
as the artist and the materials of his art—why are we called to
account? For as is the potter and the clay (matter being the clay,
and the artist the potter), so is God, the Framer of the world, and
matter, which is subservient to Him for the purposes of His art. [Kaye, p. 172.]
Beautiful without doubt is the world, excelling, Thus Otto; others render
“comprising.” [The Ptolemaic universe is conceived of as a sort of
hollow ball, or bubble, within which are the spheres moving about the
earth. Milton adopts from Homer the idea of such a globe, or bubble,
hanging by a chain from heaven (Paradise Lost, ii. 10, 51). The
oblique circle is the zodiac. The Septentriones are referred to
also. See Paradise Lost, viii. 65–168.] Some refer this to
the human spirit. Polit., p. 269, D.
An apologist must adduce more precise arguments than I
have yet given, both concering the names of the gods, to show that they
are of recent origin, and concerning their images, to show that they are,
so to say, but of yesterday. You yourselves, however, are thoroughly
acquainted with these matters, since you are versed in all departments
of knowledge, and are beyond all other men familiar with the ancients.
I assert, then, that it was Orpheus, and Homer, and Hesiod who We here follow the text of Otto;
others place the clause in the following sentence.
ii. 53. Or,
Koré. It is doubtful whether or not this should be regarded as a
proper name.
Or, Koré. It is doubtful whether or not this should be regarded
as a proper name.
The reading is here doubtful. [There were no images or pictures,
therefore, in the earliest Christian places of prayer.]
But, since it is affirmed by some that, although these
are only images, yet there exist gods in honour of whom they are made;
and that the supplications and sacrifices presented to the images are
to be referred to the gods, and are in fact made to the gods; [This was a heathen justification of
image-worship, and entirely foreign to the Christian mind. Leighton,
Works, vol. v. p. 323.]
Hom., Il., xx. 131.
and whereas, in proof that such is
the fact, they adduce the energies possessed by certain images, let us
examine into the power attached to their names. And I would beseech you,
greatest of emperors, before I enter on this discussion, to be indulgent
to me while I bring forward true considerations; for it is not my design
to show the fallacy of idols, but, by disproving the calumnies vented
against us, to offer a reason for the course of life we follow. May you,
by considering yourselves, be able to discover the heavenly kingdom
also! For as all things are subservient to you, father and son, [See Kaye’s very important
note, refuting Gibbon’s cavil, and illustrating the purpose
of Bishop Bull, in his quotation. On the περιχώρησις,
see Bull, Fid. Nicænæ, iv. cap. 4.]
Hom., Il., xiv. 201, 302.
and Orpheus (who, moreover, was the first to invent their names, and recounted their births, and narrated the exploits of each, and is believed by them to treat with greater truth than others of divine things, whom Homer himself follows in most matters, especially in reference to the gods)—he, too, has fixed their first origin to be from water:—
For, according to him, water
was the beginning of all things, and from water mud was formed,
and from both was produced an animal, a dragon with the head of a
lion growing to it, and between the two heads there was the face
of a god, named Heracles and Kronos. This Heracles generated
an egg of enormous size, which, on becoming full, was, by the
powerful friction of its generator, burst into two, the part at
the top receiving the form of heaven (οὐρανός),
and the lower part that of earth (γῆ). The goddess Gê moreover,
came forth with a body; and Ouranos, by his union with Gê, begat
females, Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos; and males, the hundred-handed
Cottys, Gyges, Briareus, and the Cyclopes Brontes, and Steropes, and
Argos, whom also he bound and hurled down to Tartarus, having learnt
that he was to be ejected from his government by his children; whereupon
Gê, being enraged, brought forth the Titans. Hom., Il., xiv. 246.
τισάσθην.
Orpheus, Fragments.
Such was the beginning of the existence both of
their gods and of the universe. Now what are we to make of this? For
each of those things to which divinity is ascribed is conceived of
as having existed from the first. For, if they have come into being,
having previously had no existence, as those say who treat of the gods,
they do not exist. For, a thing is either uncreated and eternal, or
created and perishable. Nor do I think one thing and the philosophers
another. “What is that which always is, and has no origin;
or what is that which has been originated, yet never is?” Plat., Tim., p. 27, D. Literally, “by nature.”
If the absurdity of their theology were confined to
saying that the gods were created, and owed their constitution to water,
since I have demonstrated that nothing is made which is not also liable
to dissolution, I might proceed to the remaining charges. But, on the
one hand, they have described their bodily forms: speaking of Hercules,
for instance, as a god in the shape of a dragon coiled up; of others
as hundred-handed; of the daughter of Zeus, whom he begat of his mother
Rhea; or of Demeter, as having two eyes in the natural order, and two in
her forehead, and the face of an animal on the back part of her neck,
and as having also horns, so that Rhea, frightened at her monster of a
child, fled from her, and did not give her the breast (θηλή),
whence mystically she is called Athêlâ, but commonly
Phersephoné and Koré, though she is not the same as
Athênâ, i.e.,
Minerva. Or, “have
accurately described.”
Fragments.
or who will admit that Phanes himself, being a first-born god (for he it was that was produced from the egg), has the body or shape of a dragon, or was swallowed by Zeus, that Zeus might be too large to be contained? For if they differ in no respect from the lowest brutes (since it is evident that the Deity must differ from the things of earth and those that are derived from matter), they are not gods. How, then, I ask, can we approach them as suppliants, when their origin resembles that of cattle, and they themselves have the form of brutes, and are ugly to behold?
But should it be said that they only had fleshly forms, and possess blood and seed, and the affections of anger and sexual desire, even then we must regard such assertions as nonsensical and ridiculous; for there is neither anger, nor desire and appetite, nor procreative seed, in gods. Let them, then, have fleshly forms, but let them be superior to wrath and anger, that Athênâ may not be seen
Hom., Il., iv. 23.
nor Hera appear thus:—
Ibid., iv. 24.
And let them be superior to grief:—
Ibid., xxii. 168 sq.
For I call even men rude and stupid who give way to anger and grief. But when the “father of men and gods” mourns for his son,—
Ibid., xvi. 433 sq.
and is not able while he mourns to rescue him from his peril:—
Ibid., xvi. 522.
who would not blame the folly of those who, with tales like these, are lovers of the gods, or rather, live without any god? Let them have fleshly forms, but let not Aphrodité be wounded by Diomedes in her body:—
Ibid., v. 376.
or by Arês in her soul:—
Hom., Od., viii. 308 sq., Pope’s transl.
Hom., Il., v. 858.
He who was terrible in battle, the ally of Zeus against the Titans, is shown to be weaker than Diomedes:—
Hom., Il., xv. 605.
Hush! Homer, a god never rages. But you describe the god to me as blood-stained, and the bane of mortals:—
Hom., Il., v. 31, 455.
and you tell of his adultery and his bonds:—
Hom., Od., viii. 296–298, Pope’s transl.
Do they not pour forth impious stuff of this sort in abundance concerning the gods? Ouranos is mutilated; Kronos is bound, and thrust down to Tartarus; the Titans revolt; Styx dies in battle: yea, they even represent them as mortal; they are in love with one another; they are in love with human beings:—
Hom., Il., ii. 820.
Are they not in love? Do they not
suffer? Nay, verily, they are gods, and desire cannot touch them! Even
though a god assume flesh in pursuance of a divine purpose, [οἰκονομίαν.
Kaye, p. 174. And see Paris ed., 1615.]
Hom., Il., xiv. 315 sqq.
He is created, he is perishable, with no trace of a god in him. Nay, they are even the hired servants of men:—
Eurip., Alcest., 1 sq.
And they tend cattle:—
Ibid., 8 sq.
Admetus, therefore, was superior to the god. Prophet and wise one, and who canst foresee for others the things that shall be, thou didst not divine the slaughter of thy beloved, but didst even kill him with thine own hand, dear as he was:—
(Æschylus is reproaching Apollo for being a false prophet:)—
From an unknown play of Æschylus.
But perhaps these things are poetic vagary, and there is some natural explanation of them, such as this by Empedocles:—
If, then, Zeus is fire, and Hera the earth, and Aïdoneus the air, and Nêstis water, and these are elements—fire, water, air—none of them is a god, neither Zeus, nor Hera, nor Aïdoneus; for from matter separated into parts by God is their constitution and origin:—
Here are things which without harmony
cannot abide; which would be brought to ruin by strife: how then can
any one say that they are
Perhaps ἡρ
(αηρ) α.
You may say, however, since you excel all men in
understanding, How comes it to pass, then, that some of the idols manifest
power, if those to whom we erect the statues are not gods? For it is
not likely that images destitute of life and motion can of themselves do
anything without a mover. That in various places, cities, and nations,
certain effects are brought about in the name of idols, we are far
from denying. None the more, however, if some have received benefit,
and others, on the contrary, suffered harm, shall we deem those to be
gods who have produced the effects in either
Tim.,
p. 40, D.E. Pseudo-Plat., Epist., ii. p. 312, D.E. The meaning
is very obscure. Plat., Phœdr., p. 246,
E.
What need is there, in speaking to you who have searched
into every department of knowledge, to mention the poets, or to examine
opinions of another kind? Let it suffice to say thus much. If the poets
and philosophers did not acknowledge that there is one God, and concerning
these gods were not of opinion, some that they are demons, others that
they are matter, and others that they once were men,—there might
be some show of reason for our being harassed as we are, since we employ
language which makes a distinction between God and matter, and the natures
of the two. For, as we acknowledge a God, and a Son his Logos, and a
Holy Spirit, united in essence,—the Father, the Son, the Spirit,
because the Son is the Intelligence, Reason, Wisdom of the Father, and
the Spirit an effluence, as light from fire; so also do we apprehend
the existence of other powers, which exercise dominion about matter,
and by means of it, and one in particular, which is hostile to God:
not that anything is really opposed to God, like strife to friendship,
according to Empedocles, and night to day, according to the appearing
and disappearing of the stars (for even if anything had placed
itself in opposition to God, it would have ceased to
[Comp. cap. xxvii.,
infra.] [Kaye,
192. And see cap. x., supra, p. 133. Divine Providence does not
exclude the ministry of angels by divine appointment. Resurrection,
cap. xviii., infra.] [The Paris editors caution us
against yielding to this interpretation of
Hesiod, Theog., 27. [Traces of the Nephilim are found in all mythologies.]
These angels, then, who have fallen from heaven, and haunt the air and the earth, and are no longer able to rise to heavenly things, and the souls of the giants, which are the demons who wander about the world, perform actions similar, the one (that is, the demons) to the natures they have received, the other (that is, the angels) to the appetites they have indulged. But the prince of matter, as may be seen merely from what transpires, exercises a control and management contrary to the good that is in God:—
Eurip.; from an unknown play.
Prosperity and adversity, contrary to hope and justice, made it impossible for Euripides to say to whom belongs the administration of earthly affairs, which is of such a kind that one might say of it:—
Ibid.
The same thing led Aristotle to say that the things below the heaven are not under the care of Providence, although the eternal providence of God concerns itself equally with us below,—
Eurip., Cycl., 332 sq.
and addresses itself to the deserving
individually, according to truth and not according to opinion; and
all other things, according to the general constitution of nature, are
provided for by the law of reason. But because the demoniac movements and
operations proceeding from the adverse spirit produce these disorderly
sallies, and moreover move men, some in one way and some in another,
as individuals and as nations, separately and in common, in accordance
with the tendency of matter on the one hand, and of the affinity for
divine things on the other, from within and from without,—some
who are of no mean reputation have therefore thought that this universe
is constituted without any definite order, and is driven hither and
thither by an irrational chance. But they do not understand, that of
those things which belong to the constitution of the whole world there
is nothing out of order or neglected, but that each one of them has been
produced by reason, and that, therefore, they do not transgress the order
prescribed to them; and that man himself, too, so far as He that made
him is concerned, is well ordered, both by his original nature, which
has one common character for all, and by the constitution of his body,
which does not transgress the law imposed upon
[Kaye, p. 190.] Or,
“powers of reasoning” (λογισμός).
They who draw men to idols, then, are the aforesaid demons, who are eager for the blood of the sacrifices, and lick them; but the gods that please the multitude, and whose names are given to the images, were men, as may be learned from their history. And that it is the demons who act under their names, is proved by the nature of their operations. For some castrate, as Rhea; others wound and slaughter, as Artemis; the Tauric goddess puts all strangers to death. I pass over those who lacerate with knives and scourges of bones, and shall not attempt to describe all the kinds of demons; for it is not the part of a god to incite to things against nature.
From an unknown tragedian. [A passage which I cannot but apply to the lapse of Tatian.]
But God, being perfectly good, is eternally doing good. That, moreover, those who exert the power are not the same as those to whom the statues are erected, very strong evidence is afforded by Troas and Parium. The one has statues of Neryllinus, a man of our own times; and Parium of Alexander and Proteus: both the sepulchre and the statue of Alexander are still in the forum. The other statues of Neryllinus, then, are a public ornament, if indeed a city can be adorned by such objects as these; but one of them is supposed to utter oracles and to heal the sick, and on this account the people of the Troad offer sacrifices to this statue, and overlay it with gold, and hang chaplets upon it. But of the statues of Alexander and Proteus (the latter, you are aware, threw himself into the fire near Olympia), that of Proteus is likewise said to utter oracles; and to that of Alexander—
Hom., Il., iii. 39.
sacrifices are offered and festivals
are held at the public cost, as to a god who can hear. Is it, then,
Neryllinus, and Proteus, and Alexander who exert these energies in
connection with the statues, or is it the nature of the matter itself? But
the matter is brass. And what can brass do of itself, which may be
made again into a different form, as Amasis treated the footpan, [see note to Theophilus, cap. x.,
supra, p. 92.]
What then? In the first place, the
irrational and fantastic movements of the soul about opinions
produce a diversity of images (εἴδωλα)
from time to time: some they derive from matter, and some they fashion and
bring forth for themselves; and this happens to a soul especially when it
partakes of the material spirit
[Kaye, p. 191; and comp. cap. xxiv., supra, p. 142.] [Comp. On the Resurrection,
cap. xiii., infra., p. 439 of ed. Edinburgh. Also Kaye,
p. 199.] [Kaye, p. 190.]
But it is perhaps necessary, in accordance with what
has already been adduced, to say a little about their names. Herodotus,
then, and Alexander the son of Philip, in his letter to his mother (and
each of them is said to have conversed with the priests at Heliopolis, and
Memphis, and Thebes), affirm that they learnt from them that the gods had
been men. Herodotus speaks thus: “Of such a nature were, they said,
the beings represented by these images, they were very far indeed from
being gods. However, in the times anterior to them it was otherwise; then
ii. 144. Mr. Rawlinson’s translation is used in
the extracts from Herodotus. ii. 50. ii. 156. ii. 41. ii. 3. The text is here uncertain, and differs from that
of Herodotus. [Herodotus, initiated in Egyptian mysteries, was doubtless
sworn to maintain certain secrets of the priests of Osiris.]
ii. 61. [The name of Osiris.] ii. 170.
ii. 86.
But among the Greeks, also, those who are eminent in poetry and history say the same thing. Thus of Heracles:—
Hom., Od., xxi. 28. sq.
Such being his nature, deservedly did he go mad, and deservedly did he light the funeral pile and burn himself to death. Of Asklepius, Hesiod says:—
Hesiod, Frag.
And Pindar:—
i.e., Æsculapius.
Pyth., iii. 96 sq.
Either, therefore, they were gods and did not hanker after gold—
Ascribed by Seneca to the Bellerophon of Eurip.
for the Deity is in want of nought, and is superior to carnal desire, nor did they die; or, having been born men, they were wicked by reason of ignorance, and overcome by love of money. What more need I say, or refer to Castor, or Pollux, or Amphiaraus, who, having been born, so to speak, only the other day, men of men, are looked upon as gods, when they imagine even Ino after her madness and its consequent sufferings to have become a goddess?
From the Ino, a lost play of Eurip.
And her son:—
For if detestable and god-hated men had the reputation of being gods, and the daughter of Derceto, Semiramis, a lascivious and blood-stained woman, was esteemed a Syria goddess; and if, on account of Derceto, the Syrians worship doves and Semiramis (for, a thing impossible, a woman was changed into a dove: the story is in Ctesias), what wonder if some should be called gods by their people on the ground of their rule and sovereignty (the Sibyl, of whom Plato also makes mention, says:—
i.e., after Gaïa and Ouranos, Earth and Heaven.
Oracc., Sibyll., iii. 108–113. [Kaye, p. 220, and compare cap. vii., supra. The inspiration of Balaam, and likewise that of the ass, must, in my opinion, illustrate that of the Sibyls.]
and others for their strength, as Heracles and Perseus; and others for their art, as Asclepius? Those, therefore, to whom either the subjects gave honour or the rulers themselves [assumed it], obtained the name, some from fear, others from revenge. Thus Antinous, through the benevolence of your ancestors towards their subjects, came to be regarded as a god. But those who came after adopted the worship without examination.
Callim., Hym. Jov., 8 sq. [
Though you believe, O Callimachus, in the nativity of Zeus, you do not believe in his sepulchre; and whilst you think to obscure the truth, you in fact proclaim him dead, even to those who are ignorant; and if you see the cave, you call to mind the childbirth of Rhea; but when you see the coffin, you throw a shadow over his death, not considering that the unbegotten God alone is eternal. For either the tales told by the multitude and the poets about the gods are unworthy of credit, and the reverence shown them is superfluous (for those do not exist, the tales concerning whom are untrue); or if the births, the amours, the murders, the thefts, the castrations, the thunderbolts, are true, they no longer exist, having ceased to be since they were born, having previously had no being. And on what principle must we believe some things and disbelieve others, when the poets have written their stories in order to gain greater veneration for them? For surely those through whom they have got to be considered gods, and who have striven to represent their deeds as worthy of reverence, cannot have invented their sufferings. That, therefore, we are not atheists, acknowledging as we do God the Maker of this universe and His Logos, has been proved according to my ability, if not according to the importance of the subject.
But they have further also made up stories against us of
impious feasts [“Thyestian
feasts” (p. 130, supra); a charge which the Christian
Fathers perpetually repel. Of course the sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper lent colour to this charge; but it could not have been repelled,
had they believed the material body and blood of the “man Christ
Jesus,” present in this sacrament. See cap. iii., note.] [
It is, however, nothing wonderful that they should get
up tales about us such as they tell of their own gods, of the incidents
of whose lives they make mysteries. But it behoved them, if they meant
to condemn shameless and promiscuous intercourse, to hate either Zeus,
who begat children of his mother Rhea and his daughter Koré, and
took his own sister to wife, or Orpheus, the inventor of these tales,
which made Zeus more unholy and detestable than Thyestes himself; for
the latter defiled his daughter in pursuance of an oracle, and when he
wanted to obtain the kingdom and avenge himself. But we are so far from
practising promiscuous intercourse, that it is not lawful among us to
indulge even a lustful look. “For,” saith He, “he
that looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery
already in his heart.”
Otto translates:
“which has made us and our neighbours attain the highest degree of
rectitude.” The text is obscure, but the above seems the probably
meaning; comp.
[Hermas, p. 47, note, and p. 57, this volume;
Elucidation, ii.] [The Logos never said,
“it excludes us from eternal life:” that is sure;
and the passage, though ambiguous, is not so interpreted in the Latin of
Gesner. Jones remarks that Athenagoras never introduces a saying of our
Lord in this way. Compare Clem. Alexandrin. (Pædagogue, b.
iii. cap. v. p. 297, Edinburgh Series), where he quotes Probably from some
apocryphal writing. [Come from what source it may, it suggests a caution
of the utmost importance to Americans. In the newer parts of the country,
the practice, here corrected, as cropped out among “brothers and
sisters” of divers religious names, and consequent scandals have
arisen. To all Christians comes, the apostolic appeal, “Let it
not be once named among you.”]
Therefore, having the hope of eternal life, we despise
the things of this life, even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us
reckoning her his wife whom he has married according to the laws laid
down by us, and that only for the purpose of having children. For as
the husbandman throwing the seed into the ground awaits the harvest,
not sowing more upon it, so to us the procreation of children is the
measure of our indulgence in appetite. Nay, you would find many among
us, both men and women, growing old unmarried, in hope of living in
closer communion with God.
[This our Lord commends ( [There is perhaps a
touch of the rising Phrygian influence in this passage; yet the language
of St. Paul (
[But Callistus,
heretical Bishop of Rome (a.d.
218.), authorized even third marriages in the clergy. Hippolytus,
vol. vi. p. 343, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edinburgh Series.]
But though such is our character (Oh! why should I
speak of things unfit to be uttered?), the things said of us are an
example of the proverb, “The harlot reproves the chaste.”
For those who have set up a market for fornication and established
infamous resorts for the young for every kind of vile pleasure,—who
do not abstain even from males, males with males committing shocking
abominations, outraging all the noblest and comeliest bodies in all
sorts of ways, so dishonouring the fair workmanship of God (for beauty
on earth is not self-made, but sent hither by the hand and will of
God),—these men, I say, revile us for the very things which they
are conscious of themselves, and ascribe to their own gods, boasting
of them as noble deeds, and worthy of the gods. These adulterers and
pæderasts defame the eunuchs and the once-married (while they
themselves live like fishes;
[An allusion to the fable of the Sargus; and see Burton’s
Anat. Mel., p. 445.]
What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm,
while such is our character, that we are murderers? For we cannot eat
human flesh till we have killed some one. The former charge, therefore,
being false, if any one should ask them in regard to the second, whether
they have seen what they assert, not one of them would be so barefaced
as to say that he had. And yet we have slaves, some more and some fewer,
by whom we could not help being seen; but even of these, not one has been
found to invent even such things against us. For when they know that we
cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly; who of them
can accuse us of murder or cannibalism? Who does not reckon among the
things of greatest interest the contests of gladiators and wild beasts,
especially those which are given by you? But we, deeming that to see
a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such
spectacles. [See Tatian, cap
xxiii., supra, p. 75. But here the language of Gibbon is worthy
to be quoted: though the icy-hearted infidel failed to understand that
just such philosophers as he enjoyed these spectacles, till Christianity
taught even such to profess a refined abhorrence of what the Gospel
abolished, with no help from them. He says, “the first Christian
emperor may claim the honour of the first edict which condemned the art
and amusement of shedding human blood; but this benevolent law
expressed the wishes of the prince, without reforming an inveterate abuse
which degraded a civilized (?) nation below the condition of savage
cannibals. Several hundred, perhaps several thousand, victims
were annually slaughtered in the great cities of the empire.”
He tells the story of the heroic Telemachus, without eulogy; how his
death, while struggling to separate the combatants abolished forever
the inhuman sports and sacrifices of the amphitheatre. This happened
under Honorius. Milman’s Gibbon, iii. 210.] [Let
Americans read this, and ask whether a relapse into heathenism is not
threatening our civilization, in this respect. May I venture to refer
to Moral Reforms (ed. 1869, Lippincotts, Philadelphia), a little
book of my own, rebuking this inquity, and tracing the earliest violation
of this law of Christian morals, and of nature itself, to an unhappy
Bishop of Rome, rebuked by Hippolytus. See vol. vi. p. 345, Edinburgh
Series of Ante-Nicene Fathers.]
Who, then, that believes in a resurrection, would make
himself into a tomb for bodies that will rise again? For it is not the
part of the same persons to believe that our bodies will rise again,
and to eat them as if they would not; and to think that the earth will
give back the bodies held by it, but that those which a man has entombed
in himself will not be demanded back. On the contrary, it is reasonable
to suppose, that those who think they shall have no account to give of
the present life, ill or well spent, and that
[Comp. cap. xxxi., supra, p. 146. The science
of their times lent itself to the notions of the Fathers necessarily;
but neither Holy Scripture nor theology binds us to any theory of
the how, in this great mystery; hence Plato and Pythagoras
are only useful, as showing that even they saw nothing impossible in
the resurrection of the dead. As to “the same elements,”
identity does not consist in the same particles of material, but in the
continuity of material, by which every seed reproduces “its own
body.”
[It is a fair inference that The Discourse was written after
the Embassy. “In it,” says Kaye, “may be found
nearly all the arguments which human reason has been able to advance in
support of the resurrection.” p. 200.]
And now do you, who are entirely in everything,
by nature and by education, upright, and moderate, and benevolent, and
worthy of your rule, now that I have disposed of the several accusations,
and proved that we are pious, and gentle, and temperate in spirit,
bend your royal head in approval. For who are more deserving to obtain
the things they ask, than those who, like us, pray for your government,
that you may, as is most equitable, receive the kingdom, son from father,
and that your empire may receive increase and addition, all men becoming
subject to your sway? And this is also for our advantage, that we may lead
a peaceable and quiet life, and may ourselves readily perform all that
is commanded us. [
[This argument was adapted to the times, and to those to whom it was addressed, with great rhetorical art and concealment of art. Its faults arise from the defective science of the age, and from the habits of thought and of public instruction then in fashion. He does not address himself to believers, but to sceptics, and meets them on their highest levels of speech and of reason.]
By the side
of every opinion and doctrine which agrees with the truth of things,
there springs up some falsehood; and it does so, not because it takes
its rise naturally from some fundamental principle, or from some cause
peculiar to the matter in hand, but because it is invented on purpose
by men who set a value on the spurious seed, for its tendency to corrupt
the truth. This is apparent, in the first place, from those who in former
times addicted themselves to such inquiries, and their want of agreement
with their predecessors and contemporaries, and then, not least, from
the very confusion which marks the discussions that are now going on. For
such men have left no truth free from their calumnious attacks—not
the being of God, not His knowledge, not His operations, not those books
which follow by a regular and strict sequence from these, and delineate
for us the doctrines of piety. On the contrary, some of them utterly,
and once for all, give up in despair the truth concerning these things,
and some distort it to suit their own views, and some of set purpose doubt
even of things which are palpably evident. Hence I think that those who
bestow attention on such subjects should adopt two lines of argument, one
in defence of the truth, another concerning the truth: that in defence
of the truth, for disbelievers and doubters; that concerning the truth,
for such as are candid and receive the truth with readiness. Accordingly
it behoves those who wish to investigate these matters, to keep in
view that which the necessity of the case in each instance requires,
and to regulate their discussion by this; to accommodate the order of
their treatment of these subjects to what is suitable to the occasion,
and not for the sake of appearing always to preserve the same method,
to disregard fitness and the place which properly belongs to each
topic. For, so far as proof and the natural order are concerned,
dissertations concerning the truth always take precedence of those in
defence of it; but, for the purpose of greater utility, the order must
be reversed, and arguments in defence of it precede those concerning
it. For the farmer could not properly cast the seed into the ground,
unless he first extirpated the wild wood, and whatever would be hurtful
to the good seed; nor the physician introduce any wholesome medicines
into the body that needed his care, if he did not previously remove the
disease within, or stay that which was approaching. Neither surely can
he who wishes to teach the truth persuade any one by speaking about it,
so long as there is a false opinion lurking in the mind of his hearers,
and barring the entrance of his arguments. And, therefore, from regard
to greater utility, I myself sometimes place arguments in defence of
the truth before those concerning the truth; and on the present occasion
it appears to me, looking at the requirements of the case, not without
advantage to follow the same method in treating of the resurrection. For
in regard to this subject also we find some utterly disbelieving,
and some others doubting, and even among those who have accepted the
first principles some who are as much at a loss what to believe as those
who doubt; the most unaccountable thing of all being, that they are in
this state of mind without having any ground whatsoever in the matters
themselves for their disbelief, or finding it possible to assign any
Let us, then, consider the subject in the way I have indicated. If all disbelief does not arise from levity and inconsideration, but if it springs up in some minds on strong grounds and accompanied by the certainty which belongs to truth [well and good]; for it then maintains the appearance of being just, when the thing itself to which their disbelief relates appears to them unworthy of belief; but to disbelieve things which are not deserving of disbelief, is the act of men who do not employ a sound judgment about the truth. It behoves, therefore, those who disbelieve or doubt concerning the resurrection, to form their opinion on the subject, not from any view they have hastily adopted, and from what is acceptable to profligate men, but either to assign the origin of men to no cause (a notion which is very easily refuted), or, ascribing the cause of all things to God, to keep steadily in view the principle involved in this article of belief, and from this to demonstrate that the resurrection is utterly unworthy of credit. This they will succeed in, if they are able to show that it is either impossible for God, or contrary to His will, to unite and gather together again bodies that are dead, or even entirely dissolved into their elements, so as to constitute the same persons. If they cannot do this, let them cease from this godless disbelief, and from this blasphemy against sacred things: for, that they do not speak the truth when they say that it is impossible, or not in accordance with the divine will, will clearly appear from what I am about to say. A thing is in strictness of language considered impossible to a person, when it is of such a kind that he either does not know what is to be done, or has not sufficient power for the proper doing of the thing known. For he who is ignorant of anything that requires to be done, is utterly unable either to attempt or to do what he is ignorant of; and he, too, who knows ever so well what has to be done, and by what means, and how, but either has no power at all to do the thing known, or not power sufficient, will not even make the attempt, if he be wise and consider his powers; and if he did attempt it without due consideration, he would not accomplish his purpose. But it is not possible for God to be ignorant, either of the nature of the bodies that are to be raised, as regards both the members entire and the particles of which they consist, or whither each of the dissolved particles passes, and what part of the elements has received that which is dissolved and has passed into that with which it has affinity, although to men it may appear quite impossible that what has again combined according to its nature with the universe should be separable from it again. For He from whom, antecedently to the peculiar formation of each, was not concealed either the nature of the elements of which the bodies of men were to consist, or the parts of these from which He was about to take what seemed to Him suitable for the formation of the human body, will manifestly, after the dissolution of the whole, not be ignorant whither each of the particles has passed which He took for the construction of each. For, viewed relatively to the order of things now obtaining among us, and the judgment we form concerning other matters, it is a greater thing to know beforehand that which has not yet come to pass; but, viewed relatively to the majesty and wisdom of God, both are according to nature, and it is equally easy to know beforehand things that have not yet come into existence, and to know things which have been dissolved.
Moreover also, that His power is sufficient for the
raising of dead bodies, is shown by the creation of these same bodies. For
if, when they did not exist, He made at their first formation the bodies
of men, and their original elements, He will, when they are dissolved,
in whatever manner that may take place, raise them again with equal ease:
for this, too, is equally possible to Him. And it is no damage to the
argument, if some suppose the first beginnings to be from matter, or
the bodies of men at least to be derived from the elements as the first
materials, or from seed. For that power which could give shape to what
is regarded by them as shapeless matter, and adorn it, when destitute
of form and order, with many and diverse forms, and gather into one
the several portions of the elements, and divide the seed which was one
and simple into many, and organize that which was unorganized, and give
life to that which had no life,—that same power can reunite what
is dissolved, and raise up what is prostrate, and restore the dead to
life again, and put the corruptible into a state of incorruption. And
to the same Being it will belong, and to the same power and skill, to
separate that which has been broken up and distributed among a multitude
of animals of all kinds which are wont to have recourse to such bodies,
and glut their appetite upon them,—to separate this, I say, and
unite it again with the proper members and parts of members, whether it
has passed into some one of those animals, or into many, or thence into
others, or, after being dissolved along with these, has been carried
back again to the original elements, resolved into these according to
a natural law—a matter this
These persons, to wit, say that many bodies of those who have come to an unhappy death in shipwrecks and rivers have become food for fishes, and many of those who perish in war, or who from some other sad cause or state of things are deprived of burial, lie exposed to become the food of any animals which may chance to light upon them. Since, then, bodies are thus consumed, and the members and parts composing them are broken up and distributed among a great multitude of animals, and by means of nutrition become incorporated with the bodies of those that are nourished by them,—in the first place, they say, their separation from these is impossible; and besides this, in the second place, they adduce another circumstance more difficult still. When animals of the kind suitable for human food, which have fed on the bodies of men, pass through their stomach, and become incorporated with the bodies of those who have partaken of them, it is an absolute necessity, they say, that the parts of the bodies of men which have served as nourishment to the animals which have partaken of them should pass into other bodies of men, since the animals which meanwhile have been nourished by them convey the nutriment derived from those by whom they were nourished into those men of whom they become the nutriment. Then to this they tragically add the devouring of offspring perpetrated by people in famine and madness, and the children eaten by their own parents through the contrivance of enemies, and the celebrated Median feast, and the tragic banquet of Thyestes; and they add, moreover, other such like unheard-of occurrences which have taken place among Greeks and barbarians: and from these things they establish, as they suppose, the impossibility of the resurrection, on the ground that the same parts cannot rise again with one set of bodies, and with another as well; for that either the bodies of the former possessors cannot be reconstituted, the parts which composed them having passed into others, or that, these having been restored to the former, the bodies of the last possessors will come short.
But it appears to me that such persons, in the first
place, are ignorant of the power and skill of Him that fashioned and
regulates this universe, who has adapted to the nature and kind of each
animal the nourishment suitable and correspondent to it, and has neither
ordained that everything in nature shall enter into union and combination
with every kind of body, nor is at any loss to separate what has been so
united, but grants to the nature of each several created being or thing
to do or to suffer what is naturally suited to it, and sometimes also
hinders and allows or forbids whatever He wishes, and for the purpose He
wishes; and, moreover, that they have not considered the power and nature
of each of the creatures that nourish or are nourished. Otherwise they
would have known that not everything which is taken for food under the
pressure of outward necessity turns out to be suitable nourishment for
the animal, but that some things no sooner come into contact with the
plicatures of the stomach than they are wont to be corrupted, and are
vomited or voided, or disposed of in some other way, so that not even for
a little time do they undergo the first and natural digestion, much less
become incorporated with that which is to be nourished; as also, that not
even everything which has been digested in the stomach and received the
first change actually arrives at the parts to be nourished, since some
of it loses its nutritive power even in the stomach, and some during
the second change, and the digestion that takes place in the liver is
separated and passes into something else which is destitute of the power
to nourish; nay, that the change which takes place in the liver does not
all issue in nourishment to men, but the matter changed is separated as
refuse according to its natural purpose; and that the nourishment which
is left in the members and parts themselves that have to be nourished
sometimes changes to something else, according as that predominates which
is present in greater or less
The common reading is “excessive.”
Since, therefore, great difference of nature obtains
in all animals, and the very nourishment which is accordant with nature
is varied to suit each kind of animal, and the body which is nourished;
and as in the nourishment of every animal there is a threefold cleansing
and separation, it follows that whatever is alien from the nourishment
of the animal must be wholly destroyed and carried off to its natural
place, or change into something else, since it cannot coalesce with it;
that the power of the nourishing body must be suitable to the nature of
the animal to be nourished, and accordant with its powers; and that this,
when it has passed
Nay, suppose we were to grant that the nourishment coming
from these things (let it be so called, as more accordant with the common
way of speaking), although against nature, is yet separated and changed
into some one of the moist or dry, or warm or cold, matters which the
body contains, our opponents would gain nothing by the concession:
for the bodies that rise again are reconstituted from the parts which
properly belong to them, whereas no one of the things mentioned is
such a part, nor has it the form or place of a part; nay, it does not
remain always with the parts of the body which are nourished, or rise
again with the parts that rise, since no longer does blood, or phlegm,
or bile, or breath, contribute anything to the life. Neither, again,
will the bodies nourished then require the things they once required,
seeing that, along with the want and corruption of the bodies nourished,
the need also of those things by which they were nourished is taken away.
To this must be added, that if we were to suppose the change arising
from such nourishment to reach as far as flesh, in that case too there
would be no necessity that the flesh recently changed by food of that
kind, if it became united to the body of some other man, should again
as a part contribute to the formation of that body, since neither the
flesh which takes it up always retains what it takes, nor does the
flesh so incorporated abide and remain with that to which it was added,
but is subject to a great variety of changes,—at one time being
dispersed by toil or care, at another time being wasted by grief or
trouble or disease, and by the distempers arising from being heated
or chilled, the humours which are changed with the flesh and fat not
receiving the nourishment so as to remain what they are. But while such
are the changes to which the flesh is subject, we should find that flesh,
nourished by food unsuited to it, suffers them in a much greater degree;
now swelling out and growing fat by what it has received, and then again
rejecting it in some way or other, and decreasing in bulk, from one or
more of the causes already mentioned; and that that alone remains in
the parts which is adapted to bind together, or cover, or warm the flesh
that has been chosen by nature, and adheres to those parts by which it
sustains the life which is according to nature, and fulfils the labours
of that life. So that whether the investigation in which we have just
been engaged be fairly judged of, or the objections urged against our
position be conceded, in neither case can it be shown that what is said
by our opponents is true, nor can the bodies of men ever combine with
those of the same nature, whether at any time, through ignorance and
being cheated of their perception by some one else, men have partaken
of such a body, or of their own accord, impelled by want or madness,
they have defiled themselves with the
But what need is there to speak of bodies not allotted to be the food of any animal, and destined only for a burial in the earth in honour of nature, since the Maker of the world has not alloted any animal whatsoever as food to those of the same kind, although some others of a different kind serve for food according to nature? If, indeed, they are able to show that the flesh of men was alloted to men for food, there will be nothing to hinder its being according to nature that they should eat one another, just like anything else that is allowed by nature, and nothing to prohibit those who dare to say such things from regaling themselves with the bodies of their dearest friends as delicacies, as being especially suited to them, and to entertain their living friends with the same fare. But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act; and if what is against nature can never pass into nourishment for the limbs and parts requiring it, and what does not pass into nourishment can never become united with that which it is not adapted to nourish,—then can the bodies of men never combine with bodies like themselves, to which this nourishment would be against nature, even though it were to pass many times through their stomach, owing to some most bitter mischance; but, removed from the influence of the nourishing power, and scattered to those parts of the universe again from which they obtained their first origin, they are united with these for as long a period of time as may be the lot of each; and, separated thence again by the skill and power of Him who has fixed the nature of every animal, and furnished it with its peculiar powers, they are united suitably, each to each, whether they have been burnt up by fire, or rotted by water, or consumed by wild beasts, or by any other animals, or separated from the entire body and dissolved before the other parts; and, being again united with one another, they occupy the same place for the exact construction and formation of the same body, and for the resurrection and life of that which was dead, or even entirely dissolved. To expatiate further, however, on these topics, is not suitable; for all men are agreed in their decision respecting them,—those at least who are not half brutes.
As there are many things of more importance to the inquiry before us, I beg to be excused from replying for the present to those who take refuge in the works of men, and even the constructors of them, who are unable to make anew such of their works as are broken in pieces, or worn out by time, or otherwise destroyed, and then from the analogy of potters and carpenters attempt to show that God neither can will, nor if He willed would be able, to raise again a body that is dead, or has been dissolved,—not considering that by such reasoning they offer the grossest insult to God, putting, as they do, on the same level the capabilities of things which are altogether different, or rather the natures of those who use them, and comparing the works of art with those of nature. To bestow any serious attention on such arguments would be not undeserving of censure, for it is really foolish to reply to superficial and trifling objections. It is surely far more probable, yea, most absolutely true, to say that what is impossible with men is possible with God. And if by this statement of itself as probable, and by the whole investigation in which we have just been engaged reason shows it to be possible, it is quite clear that it is not impossible. No, nor is it such a thing as God could not will.
For that which is not accordant with His will is
so either as being unjust or as unworthy of Him. And again, the
injustice regards either him who is to rise again, or some other
than he. But it is evident that no one of the beings exterior to
him, and that are reckoned among the things that have existence,
is injured. Spiritual natures (νοηταὶ
φύσεις) cannot be injured by
the resurrection of men, for the resurrection of men is no hindrance to
their existing, nor is any loss or violence inflicted on them by it; nor,
again, would the nature of irrational or inanimate beings sustain wrong,
for they will have no existence after the resurrection, and no wrong
can be done to that which is not. But even if any one should suppose
them to exist for ever, they would not suffer wrong by the renewal of
human bodies: for if now, in being subservient to the nature of men and
their necessities while they require them, and subjected to the yoke and
every kind of drudgery, they suffer no wrong, much more, when men have
become immortal and free from want, and no longer need their service,
and when they are themselves liberated from bondage, will they suffer no
wrong. For if they had the gift of speech, they would not bring against
the Creator the charge of making them, contrary to justice,
If, then, by means of that which is by nature first and that which follows from it, each of the points investigated has been proved, it is very evident that the resurrection of dissolved bodies is a work which the Creator can perform, and can will, and such as is worthy of Him: for by these considerations the falsehood of the contrary opinion has been shown, and the absurdity of the position taken by disbelievers. For why should I speak of their correspondence each with each, and of their connection with one another? If indeed we ought to use the word connection, as though they were separated by some difference of nature; and not rather say, that what God can do He can also will, and that what God can will it is perfectly possible for Him to do, and that it is accordant with the dignity of Him who wills it. That to discourse concerning the truth is one thing, and to discourse in defence of it is another, has been sufficiently explained in the remarks already made, as also in what respects they differ from each other, and when and in dealing with whom they are severally useful; but perhaps there is no reason why, with a view to the general certainty, and because of the connection of what has been said with what remains, we should not make a fresh beginning from these same points and those which are allied to them. To the one kind of argument it naturally pertains to hold the foremost place, to the other to attend upon the first, and clear the way, and to remove whatever is obstructive or hostile. The discourse concerning the truth, as being necessary to all men for certainty and safety, holds the first place, whether in nature, or order, or usefulness: in nature, as furnishing the knowledge of the subject; in order, as being in those things and along with those things which it informs us of; in usefulness, as being a guarantee of certainty and safety to those who become acquainted with it. The discourse in defence of the truth is inferior in nature and force, for the refutation of falsehood is less important than the establishment of truth; and second in order, for it employs its strength against those who hold false opinions, and false opinions are an aftergrowth from another sowing and from degeneration. But, notwithstanding all this, it is often placed first, and sometimes is found more useful, because it removes and clears away beforehand the disbelief which disquiets some minds, and the doubt or false opinion of such as have but recently come over. And yet each of them is referrible to the same end, for the refutation of falsehood and the establishment of truth both have piety for their object: not, indeed, that they are absolutely one and the same, but the one is necessary, as I have said, to all who believe, and to those who are concerned about the truth and their own salvation; but the other proves to be more useful on some occasions, and to some persons, and in dealing with some. Thus much by way of recapitulation, to recall what has been already said. We must now pass on to what we proposed, and show the truth of the doctrine concerning the resurrection, both from the cause itself, according to which, and on account of which, the first man and his posterity were created, although they were not brought into existence in the same manner, and from the common nature of all men as men; and further, from the judgment of their Maker upon them according to the time each has lived, and according to the rules by which each has regulated his behaviour,—a judgment which no one can doubt will be just.
The argument from the cause will appear, if we consider
whether man was made at random and in vain, or for some purpose; and if
for some purpose, whether simply that he might live and continue in the
natural condition in which he was created, or for the use of another;
and if with a view to use, whether for that of the
[The calm
sublimity of this paragraph excels all that ever came from an Athenian
before. In the Phœdon we have conjectures: here is certain hope and
patient submission as our reasonable service.] [Kaye, p. 199. Compare
Embassy, cap. xxvii., supra, p. 143.]
The proof [This
chapter of itself establishes the fact that Christians have a right to
demand the evidence for what they are required to believe. It refutes the
idea that what any single bishop or saint has said or thought is doctrine,
for that reason only; but it leaves the fact that concurrent testimony
is evidence, on certain conditions, in all its force.] [Not strong enough for the force of the original: ουδ᾽
ἐκ τῶν τισί
δοκοὐντων ῆ
δεδογμένων.] [From the natural common sense of the thing.] [A beautiful and cogent argument
for his proposition, and a precious testimony to the innocence of babes
falling asleep in Christ. See Kaye, 190.]
But while the cause discoverable in the creation of
men is of itself sufficient to prove that the resurrection follows by
natural sequence on
And let no one think it strange that we call by the
name of life a continuance of being which is interrupted by death and
corruption; but let him consider rather that this word has not one meaning
only, nor is there only one measure of continuance, because the nature
also of the things that continue is not one. For if each of the things
that continue has its continuance according to its peculiar nature,
neither in the case of those who are wholly incorruptible and immortal
shall we find the continuance like ours, because the natures of superior
beings do not take the level of such as are inferior; nor in men is it
proper to look for a continuance invariable and unchangeable; inasmuch
as the former are from the first created immortal, and continue to exist
without end by the simple will of their Maker, and men, in respect of
the soul, have from their first origin an unchangeable continuance,
but in respect of the body obtain immortality by means of change. This
is what is meant by the doctrine of the resurrection; and, looking to
this, we both await the dissolution of the body, as the sequel to a life
of want and corruption, and after this we hope for a continuance with
immortality, [ [Homer, Iliad,
b. xiv. 231, and Virgil, Æn., vi. 278.]
For this nature of men, which has inequality allotted to it from the first, and according to the purpose of its Maker, has an unequal life and continuance, interrupted sometimes by sleep, at another time by death, and by the changes incident to each period of life, whilst those which follow the first are not clearly seen beforehand. Would any one have believed, unless taught by experience, that in the soft seed alike in all its parts there was deposited such a variety and number of great powers, or of masses, which in this way arise and become consolidated—I mean of bones, and nerves, and cartilages, of muscles too, and flesh, and intestines, and the other parts of the body? For neither in the yet moist seed is anything of this kind to be seen, nor even in infants do any of those things make their appearance which pertain to adults, or in the adult period what belongs to those who are past their prime, or in these what belongs to such as have grown old. But although some of the things I have said exhibit not at all, and others but faintly, the natural sequence and the changes that come upon the nature of men, yet all who are not blinded in their judgment of these matters by vice or sloth, know that there must be first the depositing of the seed, and that when this is completely organized in respect of every member and part and the progeny comes forth to the light, there comes the growth belonging to the first period of life, and the maturity which attends growth, and after the maturity the slackening of the physical powers till old age, and then, when the body is worn out, its dissolution. As, therefore, in this matter, though neither the seed has inscribed upon it the life or form of men, nor the life the dissolution into the primary elements; the succession of natural occurrences makes things credible which have no credibility from the phenomena themselves, much more does reason, tracing out the truth from the natural sequence, afford ground for believing in the resurrection, since it is safer and stronger than experience for establishing the truth.
The arguments I just now proposed for examination, as
establishing the truth of the resurrection, are all of the same kind,
since they all start from the same point; for their starting-point is
the origin of the first men by creation. But while some of them derive
their strength from the starting-point itself from which they take
their rise, others, consequent upon the nature and the life of men,
acquire their credibility from the superintendence of God over us; for
the cause according to which, and on account of which, men have come into
being, being closely connected with the nature of men, derives its force
from creation; but the argument from rectitude, which represents God as
judging men according as they have lived well or ill, derives its force
from the end of their existence: they come into being on the former
ground, but their state depends more on God’s superintendence.
And now that the matters which come first have been demonstrated by me
to the best of my ability, it will be well to prove our proposition by
those also which come after—I mean by the reward or punishment
due to each man in accordance with righteous judgment, and by the final
cause of human existence; and of these I put foremost that which takes
the lead by nature, and inquire first into the argument relating to the
judgment: premising only one thing, from concern for the principle which
appertains to the matters before us, and for order—namely, that
it is incumbent on those who admit God to be the Maker of this universe,
[Noble testimony to a minute
and particular Providence. Kaye, p. 191.]
In replying, then, to those who acknowledge a
divine superintendence, and admit the same principles as we do, yet
somehow depart from their own admissions, one may use such arguments
as those which have been adduced, and many more than these, should
he be disposed to amplify what has been said only concisely and in a
cursory manner. But in dealing with those who differ from us concerning
primary truths, it will perhaps be well to lay down another principle
antecedent to these, joining with them in doubting of the things to
which their opinions relate, and examining the matter along with them
in this manner—whether the life of men, and their entire course
of existence, is overlooked, and a sort of dense darkness is poured down
upon the earth, hiding in ignorance and silence both the men themselves
and their actions; or whether it is much safer to be of opinion that the
Maker presides over the things which He Himself has made, inspecting
all things whatsoever which exist, or come into existence, Judge of
both deeds and purposes. For if no judgment whatever were to be passed
on the actions of men, men would have no advantage over the irrational
creatures, but rather would fare worse than these do, inasmuch as they
keep in subjection their passions, and concern themselves about piety,
and righteousness, and the other virtues; and a life after the manner of
brutes would be the best, virtue would be absurd, the threat of judgment
a matter for broad laughter, indulgence in every kind of pleasure the
highest good, and the common resolve of all these and their one law would
be that maxim, so dear to the intemperate and lewd, “Let us eat and
drink, for to-morrow we die.” For the termination of such a life is
not even pleasure, as some suppose, but utter insensibility. But if the
Maker of men takes any concern about His own works, and the distinction
is anywhere to be found between those who have lived well and ill, it
must be either in the present life, while men are still living who have
conducted themselves virtuously or viciously,
For either death is the entire extinction of life, the soul being dissolved and corrupted along with the body, or the soul remains by itself, incapable of dissolution, of dispersion, of corruption, whilst the body is corrupted and dissolved, retaining no longer any remembrance of past actions, nor sense of what it experienced in connection with the soul. If the life of men is to be utterly extinguished, it is manifest there will be no care for men who are not living, no judgment respecting those who have lived in virtue or in vice; but there will rush in again upon us whatever belongs to a lawless life, and the swarm of absurdities which follow from it, and that which is the summit of this lawlessness—atheism. But if the body were to be corrupted, and each of the dissolved particles to pass to its kindred element, yet the soul to remain by itself as immortal, neither on this supposition would any judgment on the soul take place, since there would be an absence of equity: for it is unlawful to suspect that any judgment can proceed out of God and from God which is wanting in equity. Yet equity is wanting to the judgment, if the being is not preserved in existence who practiced righteousness or lawlessness: for that which practiced each of the things in life on which the judgment is passed was man, not soul by itself. To sum up all in a word, this view will in no case consist with equity.
For if good deeds are rewarded, the body will clearly be
wronged, inasmuch as it has shared with the soul in the toils connected
with well-doing, but does not share in the reward of the good deeds,
and because, though the soul is often excused for certain faults on
the ground of the body’s neediness and want, the body itself is
deprived of all share in the good deeds done, the toils on behalf of
which it helped to bear during life. Nor, again, if faults are judged,
is the soul dealt fairly with, supposing it alone to pay the penalty for
the faults it committed through being solicited by the body and drawn
away by it to its own appetites and motions, at one time being seized
upon and carried off, at another attracted in some very violent manner,
and sometimes concurring with it by way of kindness and attention to its
preservation. How can it possibly be other than unjust for the soul to
be judged by itself in respect of things towards which in its own nature
it feels no appetite, no motion, no impulse, such as licentiousness,
violence, covetousness, injustice, and the unjust acts arising out of
these? For if the majority of such evils come from men’s not having
the mastery of the passions which solicit them, and they are solicited by
the neediness and want of the body, and the care and attention required
by it (for these are the motives for every acquisition of property,
and especially for the using of it, and moreover for marriage and all
the actions of life, in which things, and in connection with which,
is seen what is faulty and what is not so), how can it be just for the
soul alone to be judged in respect of those things which the body is the
first to be sensible of, and in which it draws the soul away to sympathy
and participation in actions with a view to things which it wants; and
that the appetites and pleasures, and moreover the fears and sorrows,
in which whatever exceeds the proper bounds is amenable to judgment,
should be set in motion by the body, and yet that the sins arising from
these, and the punishments for the sins committed, should fall upon the
soul alone, which neither needs anything of this sort, nor desires nor
fears or suffers of itself any such thing as man is wont to suffer? But
even if we hold that these affections do not pertain to the body alone,
but to man, in saying which we should speak correctly, because the
life of man is one, though composed of the two, yet surely we shall
not assert that these things belong to the soul, if we only look simply
at its peculiar nature. For if it is absolutely without need of food,
it can never desire those things which it does not
In addition to what has been said, is it not absurd that, while we cannot even have the notion of virtue and vice as existing separately in the soul (for we recognise the virtues as man’s virtues, even as in like manner vice, their opposite, as not belonging to the soul in separation from the body, and existing by itself), yet that the reward or punishment for these should be assigned to the soul alone? How can any one have even the notion of courage or fortitude as existing in the soul alone, when it has no fear of death, or wounds, or maiming, or loss, or maltreatment, or of the pain connected with these, or the suffering resulting from them? And what shall we say of self-control and temperance, when there is no desire drawing it to food or sexual intercourse, or other pleasures and enjoyments, nor any other thing soliciting it from within or exciting it from without? And what of practical wisdom, when things are not proposed to it which may or may not be done, nor things to be chosen or avoided, or rather when there is in it no motion at all or natural impulse towards the doing of anything? And how in any sense can equity be an attribute of souls, either in reference to one another or to anything else, whether of the same or of a different kind, when they are not able from any source, or by any means, or in any way, to bestow that which is equal according to merit or according to analogy, with the exception of the honour rendered to God, and, moreover, have no impulse or motion towards the use of their own things, or abstinence from those of others, since the use of those things which are according to nature, or the abstinence from them, is considered in reference to those who are so constituted as to use them, whereas the soul neither wants anything, nor is so constituted as to use any things or any single thing, and therefore what is called the independent action of the parts cannot be found in the soul so constituted?
But the most irrational thing of all is this: to impose properly sanctioned laws on men, and then to assign to their souls alone the recompense of their lawful or unlawful deeds. For if he who receives the laws would also justly receive the recompense of the transgression of the laws, and if it was man that received the laws, and not the soul by itself, man must also bear the recompense for the sins committed, and not the soul by itself, since God has not enjoined on souls to abstain from things which have no relation to them, such as adultery, murder, theft, rapine, dishonour to parents, and every desire in general that tends to the injury and loss of our neighbours. For neither the command, “Honour thy father and thy mother,” is adapted to souls alone, since such names are not applicable to them, for souls do not produce souls, so as to appropriate the appellation of father or mother, but men produce men; nor could the command, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” ever be properly addressed to souls, or even thought of in such a connection, since the difference of male and female does not exist in them, nor any aptitude for sexual intercourse, nor appetite for it; and where there is no appetite, there can be no intercourse; and where there is no intercourse at all, there can be no legitimate intercourse, namely marriage; and where there is no lawful intercourse, neither can there be unlawful desire of, or intercourse with, another man’s wife, namely adultery. Nor, again, is the prohibition of theft, or of the desire of having more, applicable to souls, for they do not need those things, through the need of which, by reason of natural indigence or want, men are accustomed to steal or to rob, such as gold, or silver, or an animal, or something else adapted for food, or shelter, or use; for to an immortal nature everything which is desired by the needy as useful is useless. But let the fuller discussion of these matters be left to those who wish to investigate each point more exactly, or to contend more earnestly with opponents. But, since what has just been said, and that which concurs with this to guarantee the resurrection, suffices for us, it would not be seasonable to dwell any longer upon them; for we have not made it our aim to omit nothing that might be said, but to point out in a summary manner to those who have assembled what ought to be thought concerning the resurrection, and to adapt to the capacity of those present the arguments bearing on this question.
The points proposed for consideration having been to
some extent investigated, it remains to
Nor again is it the happiness of soul separated from body: for we are not inquiring about the life or final cause of either of the parts of which man consists, but of the being who is composed of both; for such is every man who has a share in this present existence, and there must be some appropriate end proposed for this life. But if it is the end of both parts together, and this can be discovered neither while they are still living in the present state of existence through the numerous causes already mentioned, nor yet when the soul is in a state of separation, because the man cannot be said to exist when the body is dissolved, and indeed entirely scattered abroad, even though the soul continue by itself—it is absolutely necessary that the end of a man’s being should appear in some reconstitution of the two together, and of the same living being. And as this follows of necessity, there must by all means be a resurrection of the bodies which are dead, or even entirely dissolved, and the same men must be formed anew, since the law of nature ordains the end not absolutely, nor as the end of any men whatsoever, but of the same men who passed through the previous life; but it is impossible for the same men to be reconstituted unless the same bodies are restored to the same souls. But that the same soul should obtain the same body is impossible in any other way, and possible only by the resurrection; for if this takes place, an end befitting the nature of men follows also. And we shall make no mistake in saying, that the final cause of an intelligent life and rational judgment, is to be occupied uninterruptedly with those objects to which the natural reason is chiefly and primarily adapted, and to delight unceasingly in the contemplation of Him who is, and of His decrees, notwithstanding that the majority of men, because they are affected too passionately and too violently by things below, pass through life without attaining this object. For the large number of those who fail of the end that belongs to them does not make void the common lot, since the examination relates to individuals, and the reward or punishment of lives ill or well spent is proportioned to the merit of each.
[This concluding chapter is of itself a masterpiece, and comforts my own soul unspeakably, as proving that this life is very precious, if only directed to the end from which we are created. Blest be Athenagoras for completing what St. Paul began on the Areopagus, and for giving us “beauty for ashes” out of the gardens of Plato. Now we find what power there was in the apostle’s word, when he preached to the Athenians, “Jesus and the resurrection.”]
[a.d. 153–193–217.] The second century of illumination is drawing to a close, as the great name of this Father comes into view, and introduces us to a new stage of the Church’s progress. From Britain to the Ganges it had already made its mark. In all its Oriental identity, we have found it vigorous in Gaul and penetrating to other regions of the West. From its primitive base on the Orontes, it has extended itself to the deltas of the Nile; and the Alexandria of Apollos and of St. Mark has become the earliest seat of Christian learning. There, already, have the catechetical schools gathered the finest intellectual trophies of the Cross; and under the aliment of its library springs up something like a Christian university. Pantænus, “the Sicilian bee” from the flowery fields of Enna, comes to frame it by his industry, and store it with the sweets of his eloquence and wisdom. Clement, who had followed Tatian to the East, tracks Pantænus to Egypt, and comes with his Attic scholarship to be his pupil in the school of Christ. After Justin and Irenæus, he is to be reckoned the founder of Christian literature; and it is noteworthy how sublimely he begins to treat Paganism as a creed outworn, to be dismissed with contempt, rather than seriously wrestled with any longer.
His merciless exposure of the entire system of “lords many and gods many,” seems to us, indeed, unnecessarily offensive. Why not spare us such details? But let us reflect, that, if such are our Christian instincts of delicacy, we owe it to this great reformer in no small proportion. For not content to show the Pagans that the very atmosphere was polluted by their mythologies, so that Christians, turn which way they would, must encounter pestilence, he becomes the ethical philosopher of Christians; and while he proceeds to dictate, even in minute details, the transformations to which the faithful must subject themselves in order “to escape the pollutions of the world,” he sketches in outline the reformations which the Gospel imposes on society, and which nothing but the Gospel has ever enabled mankind to realize. “For with a celerity unsurpassable, and a benevolence to which we have ready access,” says Clement, “the Divine Power hath filled the universe with the seed of salvation.” Socrates and Plato had talked sublimely four hundred years before; but Lust and Murder were yet the gods of Greece, and men and women were like what they worshipped. Clement had been their disciple; but now, as the disciple of Christ, he was to exert a power over men and manners, of which they never dreamed.
Alexandria becomes the brain of Christendom: its heart
was yet beating at Antioch, but the West was still receptive only,
its hands and arms stretched forth towards the sunrise for further
enlightenment. From the East it had obtained the Scriptures and their
authentication, and from the same source was deriving the canons,
the liturgies, and the creed of Christendom. The universal language of
Christians is Greek. To a pagan emperor who had outgrown the ideas of
Milman, vol. i. pp. 28,
29, condensed. He fails, however, to observe the immense importance
of the facts he chronicles.
Every Christian must recognise the career of Alexander, and the history of his empire, as an immediate precursor of the Gospel. The patronage of letters by the Ptolemies at Alexandria, the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the dialect of the Hellenes, the creation of a new terminology in the language of the Greeks, by which ideas of faith and of truth might find access to the mind of a heathen world,—these were preliminaries to the preaching of the Gospel to mankind, and to the composition of the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour. He Himself had prophetically visited Egypt, and the idols were now to be removed before his presence. There a powerful Christian school was to make itself felt for ever in the definitions of orthodoxy; and in a new sense was that prophecy to be understood, “Out of Egypt have I called my Son.”
The genius of Apollos was revived in his native city. A
succession of doctors was there to arise, like him, “eloquent men,
and mighty in the Scriptures.” Clement tells us of his masters
in Christ, and how, coming to Pantænus, his soul was filled
with a deathless element of divine knowledge. I have felt that Pantænus and his school require
a few words in my elucidations.
He became the successor of Pantænus in the catechetical school, and had Origen for his pupil, with other eminent men. He was also ordained a presbyter. He seems to have compiled his Stromata in the reigns of Commodus and Severus. If, at this time, he was about forty years of age, as seems likely, we must conceive of his birth at Athens, while Antoninus Pius was emperor, while Polycarp was yet living, and while Justin and Irenæus were in their prime.
Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, speaks of Clement, in turn, as his master: “for we acknowledge as fathers those blessed saints who are gone before us, and to whom we shall go after a little time the truly blest Pantænus, I mean, and the holy Clemens, my teacher, who was to me so greatly useful and helpful.” St. Cyril of Alexandria calls him “a man admirably learned and skilful, and one that searched to the depths all the learning of the Greeks, with an exactness rarely attained before.” So Theodoret says, “He surpassed all others, and was a holy man.” St. Jerome pronounces him the most learned of all the ancients; while Eusebius testifies to his theological attainments, and applauds him as an “incomparable master of Christian philosophy.” But the rest shall be narrated by our translator, Mr. Wilson.
The following is the original Introductory Notice:—
Titus
Flavius Clemens, the illustrious head of the Catechetical School
at Alexandria at the close of the second century, was originally a pagan
philosopher. The date of his birth is unknown. It is also uncertain
whether Alexandria or Athens was his birthplace. Epiph., Hær., xxxii. 6.
On embracing Christianity, he eagerly sought the instructions of its most eminent teachers; for this purpose travelling extensively over Greece, Italy, Egypt, Palestine, and other regions of the East.
Only one of these teachers (who, from a reference in
the Stromata, all appear to have been
Strom., lib. i. c. v. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., vi. 6. Hieron., Lib. de
Viris Illustribus, c. 38; Ph., Bibl., 111.
[The reader is already acquainted (Hermas, p. 12, note
9) with permissive canons, by which bishops might commend to their
brethren, books fit to be read, which they sent, authenticated, not
only by hand and seal, but by a clerical messenger whose duty it was (in
the language of Bingham) “to go on the bishop’s embassies,
with his letters or messages to foreign churches; for in those days, by
reason of the persecutions, a bishop did not so much as send a letter
to a foreign church, but by the hands of one of his clergy. Whence
Cyprian calls them literæclericæ.” Antiquities,
book iii. cap. ii. 3.]
Among his pupils were his distinguished successor in the Alexandrian school, Origen, Alexander bishop of Jerusalem, and, according to Baronius, Combefisius, and Bull, also Hippolytus.
The above is positively the sum of what we know of Clement’s history.
His three great works, The Exhortation to the Heathen (λόγος ὁ προτρεπτικὸς πρὸς Ἕλληνας), The Instructor, or Pædagogus (παιδαγωγός), The Miscellanies, or Stromata (Στρωματεῖς), are among the most valuable remains of Christian antiquity, and the largest that belong to that early period.
The Exhortation, the object of which is to win pagans to the Christian faith, contains a complete and withering exposure of the abominable licentiousness, the gross imposture and sordidness of paganism. With clearness and cogency of argument, great earnestness and eloquence, Clement sets forth in contrast the truth as taught in the inspired Scriptures, the true God, and especially the personal Christ, the living Word of God, the Saviour of men. It is an elaborate and masterly work, rich in felicitous classical allusion and quotation, breathing throughout the spirit of philosophy and of the Gospel, and abounding in passages of power and beauty.
The Pædagogus, or Instructor, is addressed to those who have been rescued from the darkness and pollutions of heathenism, and is an exhibition of Christian morals and manners,—a guide for the formation and development of Christian character, and for living a Christian life. It consists of three books. It is the grand aim of the whole work to set before the converts Christ as the only Instructor, and to expound and enforce His precepts. In the first book Clement exhibits the person, the function, the means, methods, and ends of the Instructor, who is the Word and Son of God; and lovingly dwells on His benignity and philanthropy, His wisdom, faithfulness, and righteousness.
The second and third books lay down rules for the
regulation of the Christian, in all the relations, circumstances,
and actions of life, entering most minutely into the details of dress,
eating, drinking, bathing, sleeping, etc. The delineation of a life in
all respects agreeable to the Word, a truly Christian life, attempted
here, may, now that the Gospel has transformed social and private life
to the extent it has, appear unnecessary, or a proof of the influence of
ascetic tendencies. But a code of Christian morals and manners (a sort
of “whole duty of man” and manual of good breeding combined)
was eminently needed by those whose habits and characters had been moulded
under the debasing and polluting influences of heathenism; and who were
bound, and were aiming, to shape their lives according to the principles
of the Gospel, in the midst of the all but incredible licentiousness and
luxury by which society around was incurably tainted. The disclosures
which Clement, with solemn sternness, and often with caustic wit, makes
of the
The full title of the Stromata,
according to Eusebius and Photius, was Τίτου
Φλαυίου
Κλήμεντος
τῶν κατὰ
τὴν ἀληθῆ
φιλοσοφίαν
γνωστικῶν
ὑπομνημάτων
στρωματεῖς Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., vi. 13;
Phot. Bibl., 111.
It was regarded so much as the author’s great work,
that, on the testimony of Theodoret, Cassiodorus, and others, we learn
that Clement received the appellation of Στρωματεύς
(the Stromatist). In all probability, the first part of it was given
to the world about a.d.
194. The latest date to which he brings down his chronology
in the first book is the death of Commodus, which happened in
a.d. 192; from which
Eusebius Hist. Eccl.,
vi. 6.
So multifarious is the erudition, so multitudinous are the quotations and the references to authors in all departments, and of all countries, the most of whose works have perished, that the works in question could only have been composed near an extensive library—hardly anywhere but in the vicinity of the famous library of Alexandria. They are a storehouse of curious ancient lore,—a museum of the fossil remains of the beauties and monstrosities of the world of pagan antiquity, during all the epochs and phases of its history. The three compositions are really parts of one whole. The central connecting idea is that of the Logos—the Word—the Son of God; whom in the first work he exhibits drawing men from the superstitions and corruptions of heathenism to faith; in the second, as training them by precepts and discipline; and in the last, as conducting them to that higher knowledge of the things of God, to which those only who devote themselves assiduously to spiritual, moral, and intellectual culture can attain. Ever before his eye is the grand form of the living personal Christ,—the Word, who “was with God, and who was God, but who became man, and dwelt among us.”
Of course there is throughout plenty of false science, and frivolous and fanciful speculation.
Who is the rich man that shall be saved? (τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος;) is the title of a practical treatise, in which Clement shows, in opposition to those who interpreted our Lord’s words to the young ruler as requiring the renunciation of worldly goods, that the disposition of the soul is the great essential. Of other numerous works of Clement, of which only a few stray fragments have been preserved, the chief are the eight books of The Hypotyposes, which consisted of expositions of all the books of Scripture. Of these we have a few undoubted fragments. The Adumbrations, or Commentaries on some of the Catholic Epistles, and The Selections from the Prophetic Scriptures, are compositions of the same character, as far as we can judge, as The Hypotyposes, and are supposed by some to have formed part of that work.
Other lost works of Clement are:—
The Treatise of Clement, the Stromatist, on the Prophet Amos.
On Providence.
Treatise on Easter.
On Evil-speaking.
Discussion on Fasting.
Exhortation to Patience; or, To the newly baptized.
Ecclesiastical Canon; or, Against the Judaizers.
Different Terms.
The following are the names of treatises which Clement refers to as written or about to be written by him, but of which otherwise we have no trace or mention:—On First Principles; On Prophecy; On the Allegorical Interpretation of Members and Affections when ascribed to God; On Angels; On the Devil; On the Origin of the Universe; On the Unity and Excellence of the Church; On the Offices of Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Widows; On the Soul; On the Resurrection; On Marriage; On Continence; Against Heresies.
Preserved among Clement’s works is a fragment called Epitomes of the Writings of Theodotus, and of the Eastern Doctrine, most likely abridged extracts made by Clement for his own use, and giving considerable insight into Gnosticism.
Clement’s quotations from Scripture are made from
the Septuagint version, often inaccurately from memory, sometimes from a
different text from what we possess, often with verbal adaptations; and
not rarely different texts are blended together. [I am glad that our learned translator makes nothing of
the statement of Photius, that one of the works of Clement (now lost)
contained many things unworthy of his orthodoxy and piety; but it may
be well to say here, that Photius himself suggests that heretics had
corrupted some of his writings, and that his genuine works testify
against these very corruptions. Dupin thinks that if Clement ever
wrote such things they much have crept into his works from fragments
of his earlier writings, while he was a mere Platonist, at most an
inquirer into Christianity. But his great repute in the Catholic Church
after his decease, is sufficient to place his character far above all
suspicions of his having ever swerved from the “faith of the
Church.”]
The works of Clement present considerable difficulties to the translator; and one of the chief is the state of the text, which greatly needs to be expurgated and amended. For this there are abundant materials, in the copious annotations and disquisitions, by various hands, collected together in Migne’s edition; where, however, corruptions the most obvious have been allowed to remain in the text.
The publishers are indebted to Dr. W. L. Alexander for the poetical translations of the Hymns of Clement.
Amphion of Thebes and Arion of Methymna were both minstrels, and both were renowned in story. They are celebrated in song to this day in the chorus of the Greeks; the one for having allured the fishes, and the other for having surrounded Thebes with walls by the power of music. Another, a Thracian, a cunning master of his art (he also is the subject of a Hellenic legend), tamed the wild beasts by the mere might of song; and transplanted trees—oaks—by music. I might tell you also the story of another, a brother to these—the subject of a myth, and a minstrel—Eunomos the Locrian and the Pythic grasshopper. A solemn Hellenic assembly had met at Pytho, to celebrate the death of the Pythic serpent, when Eunomos sang the reptile’s epitaph. Whether his ode was a hymn in praise of the serpent, or a dirge, I am not able to say. But there was a contest, and Eunomos was playing the lyre in the summer time: it was when the grasshoppers, warmed by the sun, were chirping beneath the leaves along the hills; but they were singing not to that dead dragon, but to God All-wise,—a lay unfettered by rule, better than the numbers of Eunomos. The Locrian breaks a string. The grasshopper sprang on the neck of the instrument, and sang on it as on a branch; and the minstrel, adapting his strain to the grasshopper’s song, made up for the want of the missing string. The grasshopper then was attracted by the song of Eunomos, as the fable represents, according to which also a brazen statue of Eunomos with his lyre, and the Locrian’s ally in the contest, was erected at Pytho. But of its own accord it flew to the lyre, and of its own accord sang, and was regarded by the Greeks as a musical performer.
How, let me ask, have you believed vain fables and supposed animals to be charmed by music; while Truth’s shining face alone, as would seem, appears to you disguised, and is looked on with incredulous eyes? And so Cithæron, and Helicon, and the mountains of the Odrysi, and the initiatory rites of the Thracians, mysteries of deceit, are hallowed and celebrated in hymns. For me, I am pained at such calamities as form the subjects of tragedy, though but myths; but by you the records of miseries are turned into dramatic compositions.
But the dramas and the raving poets, now quite intoxicated, let us crown with ivy; and distracted outright as they are, in Bacchic fashion, with the satyrs, and the frenzied rabble, and the rest of the demon crew, let us confine to Cithæron and Helicon, now antiquated.
But let us bring from above out of heaven, Truth,
with Wisdom in all its brightness, and the sacred prophetic choir,
down to the holy mount of God; and let Truth, darting her light to
the most distant points, cast her rays all around on those that are
involved in darkness, and deliver men from delusion, stretching
out her very strong
The Greek is
ὑπερτάτην,
lit. highest. Potter appeals to the use of ὑέρτερος
in Sophocles, Electr. 455, in the sense of stronger, as
giving a clue to the meaning here. The scholiast in Klotz takes the words
to mean that the hand is held over them.
Odyssey, iv. 220.
Sweet and true is the charm of persuasion which blends with this strain.
To me, therefore, that Thracian Orpheus, that Theban,
and that Methymnæan,—men,
Others he figuratively calls wolves, clothed in
sheep-skins, meaning thereby monsters of rapacity in human form. And so
all such most savage beasts, and all such blocks of stone, the celestial
song has transformed into tractable men. “For even we ourselves
were sometime foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and
pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.”
Thus speaks the apostolic Scripture: “But after that the kindness
and love of God our saviour to man appeared, not by works of righteousness
which we have done, but according to His mercy, He saved us.” Probably a
quotation from a hymn.
You have, then, God’s promise; you have
His love: become partaker of His grace. And do not suppose the
song of salvation to be new, as a vessel or a house is new. For
“before the morning star it was;”
Whether, then, the Phrygians are shown to be the most
ancient people by the goats of the fable; or, on the other hand, the
Arcadians by the poets, who describe them as older than the moon; or,
finally, the Egyptians by those who dream that this land first gave birth
to gods and men: yet none of these at least existed before the world. But
before the foundation of the world were we, who, because destined to
be in Him, pre-existed in the eye of God before,—we the rational
creatures of the Word of God, on whose account we date from the beginning;
for “in the beginning was the Word.” Well, inasmuch as the
Word was from the first, He was and is the divine source of all things;
but inasmuch as He has now assumed the name Christ, consecrated of old,
and worthy of power, he has been called by me the New Song. This Word,
then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in
God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He
alone being both, both God and man—the Author of all blessings
to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to
life eternal. For, according to that inspired apostle of the Lord,
“the grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared to all
men, teaching us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should
live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for
the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and our
Saviour Jesus Christ.”
This is the New Song, [
Therefore (for the seducer is one and the same) he that
at the beginning brought Eve down to death, now brings thither the rest
of mankind. Our ally and helper, too, is one and the same—the
Lord, who from the beginning gave revelations by prophecy, but now
plainly calls to salvation. In obedience to the apostolic injunction,
therefore, let us flee from “the prince of the power of the air,
the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience,”
He awed men by the fire when He made flame to burst
from the pillar of cloud—a token at once of grace and fear: if you
obey, there is the light; if you disobey, there is the fire; but since
humanity is nobler than the pillar or the bush, after them the prophets
uttered their voice,—the Lord Himself speaking in Isaiah,
Does not John also invite to salvation, and is he
not entirely a voice of exhortation? Let us then ask him, “Who
of men art thou, and whence?” He will not say Elias. He will deny
that he is Christ, but will profess himself to be “a voice crying
in the wilderness.” Who, then, is John?
The angel announced to us the glad tidings of a
husband. John entreated us to recognise the husbandman, to seek the
husband. For this husband of the barren woman, and this husbandman
of the desert—who filled with divine power the barren woman
and the desert—is one and the same. For because many were the
children of the mother of noble rule, yet the Hebrew woman, once
blessed with many children, was made childless because of unbelief:
the barren woman receives the husband, and the desert the husbandman;
then both become mothers through the word, the one of fruits, the
other of believers. But to the unbelieving the barren and the desert
are still reserved. For this reason John, the herald of the Word,
besought men to make themselves ready against the coming of the Christ
of God. This may be translated,
“of God the Christ.”
Explore not then too curiously the shrines of impiety,
or the mouths of caverns full of monstrosity, or the Thesprotian
caldron, or the Cirrhæan tripod, or the Dodonian copper. The
Gerandryon, What this is,
is not known; but it is likely that the word is a corruption of ιερὰν
δρῦν, the sacred oak. ἄχρηστα
χρηστήια. The text has ἀνιέρου,
the imperative of ἀνιερόω,
which in classical Greek means “to hallow;” but the verb
here must be derived from the adjective ἀνίερος, and
be taken in the sense “deprive of their holiness,” “no
longer count holy.” Eusebius reads ἀνιέρους:
“unholy interpreters.”
And what if I go over the mysteries? I will not divulge them in mockery, as they say Alcibiades did, but I will expose right well by the word of truth the sorcery hidden in them; and those so-called gods of yours, whose are the mystic rites, I shall display, as it were, on the stage of life, to the spectators of truth. The bacchanals hold their orgies in honour of the frenzied Dionysus, celebrating their sacred frenzy by the eating of raw flesh, and go through the distribution of the parts of butchered victims, crowned with snakes, shrieking out the name of that Eva by whom error came into the world. The symbol of the Bacchic orgies is a consecrated serpent. Moreover, according to the strict interpretation of the Hebrew term, the name Hevia, aspirated, signifies a female serpent.
Demeter and Proserpine have become the heroines of a mystic drama; and their wanderings, and seizure, and grief, Eleusis celebrates by torchlight processions. I think that the derivation of orgies and mysteries ought to be traced, the former to the wrath (ὀργή) of Demeter against Zeus, the latter to the nefarious wickedness (μύσος) relating to Dionysus; but if from Myus of Attica, who Pollodorus says was killed in hunting—no matter, I don’t grudge your mysteries the glory of funeral honours. You may understand mysteria in another way, as mytheria (hunting fables), the letters of the two words being interchanged; for certainly fables of this sort hunt after the most barbarous of the Thracians, the most senseless of the Phrygians, and the superstitious among the Greeks.
Perish, then, the man who was the author of this imposture among men, be he Dardanus, who taught the mysteries of the mother of the gods, or Eetion, who instituted the orgies and mysteries of the Samothracians, or that Phrygian Midas who, having learned the cunning imposture from Odrysus, communicated it to his subjects. For I will never be persuaded by that Cyprian Islander Cinyras, who dared to bring forth from night to the light of day the lewd orgies of Aphrodité in his eagerness to deify a strumpet of his own country. Others say that Melampus the son of Amythaon imported the festivals of Ceres from Egypt into Greece, celebrating her grief in song.
These I would instance as the prime authors of evil, the parents of impious fables and of deadly superstition, who sowed in human life that seed of evil and ruin—the mysteries.
And now, for it is time, I will prove their orgies to be full of imposture and quackery. And if you have been initiated, you will laugh all the more at these fables of yours which have been held in honour. I publish without reserve what has been involved in secrecy, not ashamed to tell what you are not ashamed to worship.
There is then the foam-born and Cyprus-born, the darling of Cinyras,—I mean Aphrodité, lover of the virilia, because sprung from them, even from those of Uranus, that were cut off,—those lustful members, that, after being cut off, offered violence to the waves. Of members so lewd a worthy fruit—Aphrodité—is born. In the rites which celebrate this enjoyment of the sea, as a symbol of her birth a lump of salt and the phallus are handed to those who are initiated into the art of uncleanness. And those initiated bring a piece of money to her, as a courtesan’s paramours do to her.
Then there are the mysteries of Demeter, and
Zeus’s wanton embraces of his mother, and the wrath of Demeter;
I know not what for the future I shall call her, mother or wife,
on which account it is that she is called Brimo, as is said; also the
entreaties of Zeus, and the drink of gall, the plucking out of the hearts
of sacrifices, and deeds that we dare not name. Such rites the Phrygians
perform in honour of Attis and Cybele and the Corybantes. And the story
goes, that Zeus, having torn away the orchites of a ram, brought them
out and cast them at the breasts of Demeter, paying thus a fraudulent
penalty for his violent embrace, pretending to have cut out his own.
The symbols of initiation into these rites, when set before you in a
vacant hour, I know will excite your laughter, although on account of
the exposure by no means inclined to laugh. “I have eaten out of
the drum, I have drunk out of the cymbal, I have carried the Cernos, The cernos some take to be a vessel
containing poppy, etc., carried in sacrificial processions. The scholiast
says that it is a fan. [I have marked this as a quotation. See below:
Eleusinian rites.]
What if I add the rest? Demeter becomes a
mother, Core Proserpine or
Pherephatta.
alluding, as I believe, under the name of the herdsman’s ox-goad, to the reed wielded by bacchanals. Do you wish me to go into the story of Persephatta’s gathering of flowers, her basket, and her seizure by Pluto (Aidoneus), and the rent in the earth, and the swine of Eubouleus that were swallowed up with the two goddesses; for which reason, in the Thesmophoria, speaking the Megaric tongue, they thrust out swine? This mythological story the women celebrate variously in different cities in the festivals called Thesmophoria and Scirophoria; dramatizing in many forms the rape of Pherephatta or Persephatta (Proserpine).
The mysteries of Dionysus are wholly inhuman; for while still a child, and the Curetes danced around [his cradle] clashing their weapons, and the Titans having come upon them by stealth, and having beguiled him with childish toys, these very Titans tore him limb from limb when but a child, as the bard of this mystery, the Thracian Orpheus, says:—
And the useless symbols of this
mystic rite it will not be useless to exhibit for condemnation. These
are dice, ball, hoop, apples, top, The scholiast takes the ῥίμβος
to mean a piece of wood attached to a cord, and swung round so as to
cause a whistling noise.
Athené (Minerva), to resume our account, having abstracted the heart of Dionysus, was called Pallas, from the vibrating of the heart; and the Titans who had torn him limb from limb, setting a caldron on a tripod, and throwing into it the members of Dionysus, first boiled them down, and then fixing them on spits, “held them over the fire.” But Zeus having appeared, since he was a god, having speedily perceived the savour of the pieces of flesh that were being cooked,—that savour which your gods agree to have assigned to them as their perquisite,—assails the Titans with his thunderbolt, and consigns the members of Dionysus to his son Apollo to be interred. And he—for he did not disobey Zeus—bore the dismembered corpse to Parnassus, and there deposited it.
If you wish to inspect the orgies of the Corybantes, then know that, having killed their third brother, they covered the head of the dead body with a purple cloth, crowned it, and carrying it on the point of a spear, buried it under the roots of Olympus. These mysteries are, in short, murders and funerals. And the priests of these rites, who are called kings of the sacred rites by those whose business it is to name them, give additional strangeness to the tragic occurrence, by forbidding parsley with the roots from being placed on the table, for they think that parsley grew from the Corybantic blood that flowed forth; just as the women, in celebrating the Thesmophoria, abstain from eating the seeds of the pomegranate which have fallen on the ground, from the idea that pomegranates sprang from the drops of the blood of Dionysus. Those Corybantes also they call Cabiric; and the ceremony itself they announce as the Cabiric mystery.
For those two identical fratricides, having abstracted the box in which the phallus of Bacchus was deposited, took it to Etruria—dealers in honourable wares truly. They lived there as exiles, employing themselves in communicating the precious teaching of their superstition, and presenting phallic symbols and the box for the Tyrrhenians to worship. And some will have it, not improbably, that for this reason Dionysus was called Attis, because he was mutilated. And what is surprising at the Tyrrhenians, who were barbarians, being thus initiated into these foul indignities, when among the Athenians, and in the whole of Greece—I blush to say it—the shameful legend about Demeter holds its ground? For Demeter, wandering in quest of her daughter Core, broke down with fatigue near Eleusis, a place in Attica, and sat down on a well overwhelmed with grief. This is even now prohibited to those who are initiated, lest they should appear to mimic the weeping goddess. The indigenous inhabitants then occupied Eleusis: their names were Baubo, and Dusaules, and Triptolemus; and besides, Eumolpus and Eubouleus. Triptolemus was a herdsman, Eumolpus a shepherd, and Eubouleus a swineherd; from whom came the race of the Eumolpidæ and that of the Heralds—a race of Hierophants—who flourished at Athens.
Well, then (for I shall not refrain from the recital),
Baubo having received Demeter hospitably, reaches to her a refreshing
draught; and on her refusing it, not having any inclination to drink
(for she was very sad), and Baubo having become annoyed, thinking
herself slighted, uncovered her shame, and exhibited her nudity to
the goddess. Demeter is delighted at the sight, and takes, though with
difficulty, the draught—pleased,
And the following is the token of the
Eleusinian mysteries: I have fasted, I have drunk the cup; I have
received from the box; having done, I put it into the basket, and out of
the basket into the chest.
[See supra, p. 175, where I have affixed quotation-marks, and
adopted the word “tokens” (instead of “signs”) to
harmonize these two places]
O unblushing shamelessness! Once on a time night
was silent, a veil for the pleasure of temperate men; but now for the
initiated, the holy night is the tell-tale of the rites of licentiousness;
and the glare of torches reveals vicious indulgences. Quench the flame,
O Hierophant; reverence, O Torch-bearer, the torches. That light exposes
Iacchus; let thy mysteries be honoured, and command the orgies to be
hidden in night and darkness.
This sentence is read variously in various editions.
The fire dissembles not; it exposes and punishes what it is bidden.
Such are the mysteries of the Atheists. [A scathing retort upon those
who called Christians atheists, and accused them of shameful
rites.]
All honour to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the Mother of the gods, as practiced by the inhabitants of Cyzicus, beating a drum and sounding a cymbal strung from his neck like a priest of Cybele, condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Cythians.
Wherefore (for I must by no means conceal it) I cannot
help wondering how Euhemerus of Agrigentum, and Nicanor of Cyprus, and
Diagoras, and Hippo of Melos, and besides these, that Cyrenian of the
name of Theodorus, and numbers of others, who lived a sober life, and
had a clearer insight than the rest of the world into the prevailing
error respecting those gods, were called Atheists; for if they did
not arrive at the knowledge of the truth, they certainly suspected the
error of the common opinion; which suspicion is no insignificant seed,
and becomes the germ of true wisdom. One of these charges the Egyptians
thus: “If you believe them to be gods, do not mourn or bewail
them; and if you mourn and bewail them, do not any more regard them
as gods.” And another, taking an image of Hercules made of wood
(for he happened most likely to be cooking something at home), said,
“Come now, Hercules; now is the time to undergo for us this
thirteenth labour, as you did the twelve for Eurystheus, and make
this ready for Diagoras,” and so cast it into the fire as a log
of wood. For the extremes of ignorance are atheism and superstition,
from which we must endeavour to keep. And do you not see Moses, the
hierophant of the truth, enjoining that no eunuch, or emasculated man,
or son of a harlot, should enter the congregation? By the two first
There was an innate original communion between men
and heaven, obscured through ignorance, but which now at length has
leapt forth instantaneously from the darkness, and shines resplendent;
as has been expressed by one
Euripides.
And in these:—
And whatever else the sons of the poets sing.
But sentiments erroneous, and deviating from what is right, and certainly pernicious, have turned man, a creature of heavenly origin, away from the heavenly life, and stretched him on the earth, by inducing him to cleave to earthly objects. For some, beguiled by the contemplation of the heavens, and trusting to their sight alone, while they looked on the motions of the stars, straightway were seized with admiration, and deified them, calling the stars gods from their motion (θεός from θεῖν); and worshipped the sun,—as, for example, the Indians; and the moon, as the Phrygians. Others, plucking the benignant fruits of earth-born plants, called grain Demeter, as the Athenians, and the vine Dionysus, as the Thebans. Others, considering the penalties of wickedness, deified them, worshipping various forms of retribution and calamity. Hence the Erinnyes, and the Eumenides, and the piacular deities, and the judges and avengers of crime, are the creations of the tragic poets.
And some even of the philosophers, after the poets,
make idols of forms of the affections in your breasts,—such as fear,
and love, and joy, and hope; as, to be sure, Epimenides of old, who raised
at Athens the altars of Insult and Impudence. Other objects deified by men
take their rise from events, and are fashioned in bodily shape, such as a
Dike, a Clotho, and Lachesis, and Atropos, and Heimarmene, and Auxo, and
Thallo, which are Attic goddesses. There is a sixth mode of introducing
error and of manufacturing gods, according to which they number the twelve
gods, whose birth is the theme of which Hesiod sings in his Theogony,
and of whom Homer speaks in all that he says of the gods. The last mode
remains (for there are seven in all)—that which takes its rise
from the divine beneficence towards men. For, not understanding that it
is God that does us good, they have invented saviours in the persons
of the Dioscuri, and Hercules the averter of evil, and Asclepius the
healer. These are the slippery and hurtful deviations from the truth which
draw man down from heaven, and cast him into the abyss. I wish to show
thoroughly what like these gods of yours are, that now at length you may
abandon your delusion, and speed your flight back to heaven. “For
we also were once children of wrath, even as others; but God, being
rich in mercy, for the great love wherewith He loved us, when we were
now dead in trespasses, quickened us together with Christ.”
But to you a poet of your own, Empedocles of Agrigentum, comes and says:—
The most of what is told of your gods is fabled and invented; and those things which are supposed to have taken place, are recorded of vile men who lived licentious lives:—
These counsels the Sibyl, who is at once
prophetic and poetic, enjoins on us; and truth enjoins them on us too,
stripping the crowd of deities of those terrifying and threatening masks
of theirs, disproving the rash opinions formed of them by showing the
similarity of names. For there are those who reckon three Jupiters:
him of Æther in Arcadia, and the other two sons of Kronos; and of
these, one in Crete, and the others again in Arcadia. And there are those
that reckon five Athenes: the Athenian, the daughter of Hephæstus;
the second, the Egyptian, the daughter of Nilus; the third the inventor
of war, the daughter of Kronos; the fourth, the daughter of Zeus, whom
the Messenians have named Coryphasia, from her mother; above all, the
daughter of Pallas and Titanis, the daughter of Oceanus, who, having
wickedly killed her father, adorned
At any rate, the native countries of your gods, and their arts and lives, and besides especially their sepulchres, demonstrate them to have been men. Mars, accordingly, who by the poets is held in the highest possible honour:—
Iliad, v. 31.
this deity, always changing sides, and implacable, as Epicharmus says, was a Spartan; Sophocles knew him for a Thracian; others say he was an Arcadian. This god, Homer says, was bound thirteen months:—
Iliad, v. 385.
Good luck attend the Carians, who sacrifice dogs to him! And may the Scythians never leave off sacrificing asses, as Apollodorus and Callimachus relate:—
And the same in another place:—
Hephæstus, whom Jupiter cast from Olympus, from its divine threshold, having fallen on Lemnos, practiced the art of working in brass, maimed in his feet:—
Iliad, xviii. 411.
You have also a doctor, and not only a brass-worker among the gods. And the doctor was greedy of gold; Asclepius was his name. I shall produce as a witness your own poet, the Bœotian Pindar:—
And Euripides:—
He therefore lies struck with lightning in the regions of Cynosuris. Philochorus also says, that Poseidon was worshipped as a physician in Tenos; and that Kronos settled in Sicily, and there was buried. Patroclus the Thurian, and Sophocles the younger, in three tragedies, have told the story of the Dioscuri; and these Dioscuri were only two mortals, if Homer is worthy of of credit:—
Iliad, iii. 243. Lord Derby’s translation is used in extracts from the Iliad.
And, in addition, he who wrote the Cyprian poems says Castor was mortal, and death was decreed to him by fate; but Pollux was immortal, being the progeny of Mars. This he has poetically fabled. But Homer is more worthy of credit, who spoke as above of both the Dioscuri; and, besides, proved Herucles to be a mere phantom:—
Hercules, therefore, was known by
Homer himself as only a mortal man. And Hieronymus the philosopher
describes the make of his body, as tall, The mss. read
“small,” but the true reading is doubtless
“tall.”
As for the Muses, whom Alcander calls the daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne, and the rest of the poets and authors deify and worship,—those Muses, in honour of whom whole states have already erected museums, being handmaids, were hired by Megaclo, the daughter of Macar. This Macar reigned over the Lesbians, and was always quarrelling with his wife; and Megaclo was vexed for her mother’s sake. What would she not do on her account? Accordingly she hires those handmaids, being so many in number, and calls them Mysæ, according to the dialect of the Æolians. These she taught to sing deeds of the olden time, and play melodiously on the lyre. And they, by assiduously playing the lyre, and singing sweetly to it, soothed Macar, and put a stop to his ill-temper. Wherefore Megaclo, as a token of gratitude to them, on her mother’s account erected brazen pillars, and ordered them to be held in honour in all the temples. Such, then, are the Muses. This account is in Myrsilus of Lesbos.
And now, then, hear the loves of your gods, and the incredible tales of their licentiousness, and their wounds, and their bonds, and their laughings, and their fights, their servitudes too, and their banquets; and furthermore, their embraces, and tears, and sufferings, and lewd delights. Call me Poseidon, and the troop of damsels deflowered by him, Amphitrite, Amymone, Alope, Melanippe, Alcyone, Hippothoe, Chione, and myriads of others; with whom, though so many, the passions of your Poseidon were not satiated.
Call me Apollo; this is Phœbus, both a holy prophet and a good adviser. But Sterope will not say that, nor Æthousa, nor Arsinoe, nor Zeuxippe, nor Prothoe, nor Marpissa, nor Hypsipyle. For Daphne alone escaped the prophet and seduction.
And, above all, let the father of gods and men, according to you, himself come, who was so given to sexual pleasure, as to lust after all, and indulge his lust on all, like the goats of the Thmuitæ. And thy poems, O Homer, fill me with admiration!
Iliad, i. 528
Thou makest Zeus venerable, O Homer; and the nod which thou dost ascribe to him is most reverend. But show him only a woman’s girdle, and Zeus is exposed, and his locks are dishonoured. To what a pitch of licentiousness did that Zeus of yours proceed, who spent so many nights in voluptuousness with Alcmene? For not even these nine nights were long to this insatiable monster. But, on the contrary, a whole lifetime were short enough for his lust; that he might beget for us the evil-averting god.
Hercules, the son of Zeus—a true son of Zeus—was the offspring of that long night, who with hard toil accomplished the twelve labours in a long time, but in one night deflowered the fifty daughters of Thestius, and thus was at once the debaucher and the bridegroom of so many virgins. It is not, then, without reason that the poets call him a cruel wretch and a nefarious scoundrel. It were tedious to recount his adulteries of all sorts, and debauching of boys. For your gods did not even abstain from boys, one having loved Hylas, another Hyacinthus, another Pelops, another Chrysippus, and another Ganymede. Let such gods as these be worshipped by your wives, and let them pray that their husbands be such as these—so temperate; that, emulating them in the same practices, they may be like the gods. Such gods let your boys be trained to worship, that they may grow up to be men with the accursed likeness of fornication on them received from the gods.
But it is only the male deities, perhaps, that are impetuous in sexual indulgence.
“The female deities stayed each in the
house, for shame,”
Odyss., viii. 324.
But come, let us briefly go the round of the games, and do away with those solemn assemblages at tombs, the Isthmian, Nemean, and Pythian, and finally the Olympian. At Pytho the Pythian dragon is worshipped, and the festival-assemblage of the serpent is called by the name Pythia. At the Isthmus the sea spit out a piece of miserable refuse; and the Isthmian games bewail Melicerta.
At Nemea another—a little boy,
Archemorus—was buried; and the funeral games of the child are
called Nemea. Pisa is the grave of the Phrygian charioteer, O Hellenes
of all tribes; and the Olympian games, which are nothing else than the
funeral sacrifices of Pelops, the Zeus of Phidias claims for himself.
The mysteries were then, as is probable, games held in honour of the dead;
so also were the oracles, and both became public. But the mysteries at
Sagra Meursius proposed to
read, “at Agra.”
Furthermore, like the Helots among the Lacedemonians, Apollo came under the yoke of slavery to Admetus in Pheræ, Hercules to Omphale in Sardis. Poseidon was a drudge to Laomedon; and so was Apollo, who, like a good-for-nothing servant, was unable to obtain his freedom from his former master; and at that time the walls of Troy were built by them for the Phrygian. And Homer is not ashamed to speak of Athene as appearing to Ulysses with a golden lamp in her hand. And we read of Aphrodite, like a wanton serving-wench, taking and setting a seat for Helen opposite the adulterer, in order to entice him.
Panyasis, too, tells us of gods in plenty besides those who acted as servants, writing thus:—
And so on.
Agreeably to this, it remains for me to bring before you those amatory and sensuous deities of yours, as in every respect having human feelings.
This Homer most distinctly shows,
by introducing Aphrodite uttering loud and shrill cries on account of
her wound; and describing the most warlike Ares himself as wounded in
the stomach by Diomede. Polemo, too, says that Athene was wounded by
Ornytus; nay, Homer says that Pluto even was struck with an arrow by
Hercules; and Panyasis relates that the beams of Sol were struck by the
arrows of Hercules; The
beams of Sol or the Sun is an emendation of Potter’s. The
mss. read “the
Elean Augeas.”
This is Jupiter the good, the prophetic, the patron of hospitality, the protector of suppliants, the benign, the author of omens, the avenger of wrongs; rather the unjust, the violater of right and of law, the impious, the inhuman, the violent, the seducer, the adulterer, the amatory. But perhaps when he was such he was a man; but now these fables seem to have grown old on our hands. Zeus is no longer a serpent, a swan, nor an eagle, nor a licentious man; the god no longer flies, nor loves boys, nor kisses, nor offers violence, although there are still many beautiful women, more comely than Leda, more blooming than Semele, and boys of better looks and manners than the Phrygian herdsman. Where is now that eagle? where now that swan? where now is Zeus himself? He has grown old with his feathers; for as yet he does not repent of his amatory exploits, nor is he taught continence. The fable is exposed before you: Leda is dead, the swan is dead. Seek your Jupiter. Ransack not heaven, but earth. The Cretan, in whose country he was buried, will show him to you,—I mean Callimachus, in his hymns:—
For Zeus is dead, be not distressed, as Leda is dead, and the swan, and the eagle, and the libertine, and the serpent. And now even the superstitious seem, although reluctantly, yet truly, to have come to understand their error respecting the Gods.
Odyss., xix. 163.
But shortly after this, they will
be found to be but oaks and stones. One Agamemnon is said by Staphylus
to be worshipped as a Jupiter in Sparta; and Phanocles, in his book of
the Brave and Fair, relates that Agamemnon king of the Hellenes
erected the temple of Argennian Aphrodite, in honour of Argennus his
friend. An Artemis, named the Strangled, is worshipped by the Arcadians,
as Callimachus says in his Book of Causes; and at Methymna another
Artemis had divine honours paid her, viz., Artemis Condylitis.
Do you imagine from what source these details have been quoted? Only such as are furnished by yourselves are here adduced; and you do not seem to recognise your own writers, whom I call as witnesses against your unbelief. Poor wretches that ye are, who have filled with unholy jesting the whole compass of your life—a life in reality devoid of life!
Is not Zeus the Baldhead worshipped in Argos; and
another Zeus, the avenger, in Cyprus? Do not the Argives sacrifice
to Aphrodite Peribaso (the protectress), So Liddell and Scott. Commentators are generally
agreed that the epithet is an obscene one, though what its precise
meaning is they can only conjecture.
An obscene epithet, derived from χοῖρος,
a sow, and θλίβω,
to press.
For if they are beasts, they are not adulterous or libidinous, and seek pleasure in nothing that is contrary to nature. And of what sort these deities are, what need is there further to say, as they have been already sufficiently exposed? Furthermore, the Egyptians whom I have now mentioned are divided in their objects of worship. The Syenites worship the braize-fish; and the maiotes—this is another fish—is worshipped by those who inhabit Elephantine: the Oxyrinchites likewise worship a fish which takes its name from their country. Again, the Heraclitopolites worship the ichneumon, the inhabitants of Sais and of Thebes a sheep, the Leucopolites a wolf, the Cynopolites a dog, the Memphites Apis, the Mendesians a goat. And you, who are altogether better than the Egyptians (I shrink from saying worse), who never cease laughing every day of your lives at the Egyptians, what are some of you, too, with regard to brute beasts? For of your number the Thessalians pay divine homage to storks, in accordance with ancient custom; and the Thebans to weasels, for their assistance at the birth of Hercules. And again, are not the Thessalians reported to worship ants, since they have learned that Zeus in the likeness of an ant had intercourse with Eurymedusa, the daughter of Cletor, and begot Myrmidon? Polemo, too, relates that the people who inhabit the Troad worship the mice of the country, which they call Sminthoi, because they gnawed the strings of their enemies’ bows; and from those mice Apollo has received his epithet of Sminthian. Heraclides, in his work, Regarding the Building of Temples in Acarnania, says that, at the place where the promontory of Actium is, and the temple of Apollo of Actium, they offer to the flies the sacrifice of an ox.
Nor shall I forget the Samians: the Samians, as Euphorion says, reverence the sheep. Nor shall I forget the Syrians, who inhabit Phœnicia, of whom some revere doves, and others fishes, with as excessive veneration as the Eleans do Zeus. Well, then, since those you worship are not gods, it seems to me requisite to ascertain if those are really demons who are ranked, as you say, in this second order [next to the gods]. For if the lickerish and impure are demons, indigenous demons who have obtained sacred honours may be discovered in crowds throughout your cities: Menedemus among the Cythnians; among the Tenians, Callistagoras; among the Delians, Anius; among the Laconians, Astrabacus; at Phalerus, a hero affixed to the prow of ships is worshipped; and the Pythian priestess enjoined the Platæans to sacrifice to Androcrates and Democrates, and Cyclæus and Leuco while the Median war was at its height. Other demons in plenty may be brought to light by any one who can look about him a little.
Hesiod, Works and Days, I. i. 250.
Who these guardians are, do not grudge, O Bœotian, to tell. Is it not clear that they are those we have mentioned, and those of more renown, the great demons, Apollo, Artemis, Leto, Demeter, Core, Pluto, Hercules, and Zeus himself?
But it is from running away that they guard us,
O Ascræan, or perhaps it is from sinning, as forsooth they have
never tried their hand at sin
If these are our guardians, it is not because they have any ardour of kindly feeling towards us, but intent on your ruin, after the manner of flatterers, they prey on your substance, enticed by the smoke. These demons themselves indeed confess their own gluttony, saying:—
Iliad, iv. 48.
What other speech would they utter, if indeed the gods of the Egyptians, such as cats and weasels, should receive the faculty of speech, than that Homeric and poetic one which proclaims their liking for savoury odours and cookery? Such are your demons and gods, and demigods, if there are any so called, as there are demi-asses (mules); for you have no want of terms to make up compound names of impiety.
Well, now, let us say in addition, what inhuman demons, and hostile to the human race, your gods were, not only delighting in the insanity of men, but gloating over human slaughter,—now in the armed contests for superiority in the stadia, and now in the numberless contests for renown in the wars providing for themselves the means of pleasure, that they might be able abundantly to satiate themselves with the murder of human beings.
And now, like plagues invading cities and nations, they demanded cruel oblations. Thus, Aristomenes the Messenian slew three hundred human beings in honour of Ithometan Zeus, thinking that hecatombs of such a number and quality would give good omens; among whom was Theopompos, king of the Lacedemonians, a noble victim.
The Taurians, the people who inhabit the Tauric Chersonese, sacrifice to the Tauric Artemis forthwith whatever strangers they lay hands on on their coasts who have been cast adrift on the sea. These sacrifices Euripides represents in tragedies on the stage. Monimus relates, in his treatise on marvels, that at Pella, in Thessaly, a man of Achaia was slain in sacrifice to Peleus and Chiron. That the Lyctii, who are a Cretan race, slew men in sacrifice to Zeus, Anticlides shows in his Homeward Journeys; and that the Lesbians offered the like sacrifice to Dionysus, is said by Dosidas. The Phocæans also (for I will not pass over such as they are), Pythocles informs us in his third book, On Concord, offer a man as a burnt-sacrifice to the Taurian Artemis.
Erechtheus of Attica and Marius the Roman Plutarch, xx.
Iliad, iii. 33.
But though you perceive and understand demons to be deadly and wicked, plotters, haters of the human race, and destroyers, why do you not turn out of their way, or turn them out of yours? What truth can the wicked tell, or what good can they do any one?
I can then readily demonstrate that man is better than these gods of yours, who are but demons; and can show, for instance, that Cyrus and Solon were superior to oracular Apollo. Your Phœbus was a lover of gifts, but not a lover of men. He betrayed his friend Crœsus, and forgetting the reward he had got (so careful was he of his fame), led him across the Halys to the stake. The demons love men in such a way as to bring them to the fire [unquenchable].
But O man, who lovest the human race better, and art
truer than Apollo, pity him that is bound on the pyre. Do thou, O Solon,
declare truth; and thou, O Cyrus, command the fire to be extinguished. Be
wise, then, at last, O Crœsus, taught by suffering. He whom you
worship is an ingrate; he accepts your reward, and after taking the
gold plays false. “Look again to the end, O Solon.” It is
not the demon, but the man that tells you this. It is not ambiguous
If we read χαριέστερον,
this is the only sense that can be put on
the words. But if we read χαριστήριον,
we may translate “a memorial of gratified lust.”
Superstition, then, as was to be expected, having taken its rise thus, became the fountain of insensate wickedness; and not being subsequently checked, but having gone on augmenting and rushing along in full flood, it became the originator of many demons, and was displayed in sacrificing hecatombs, appointing solemn assemblies, setting up images, and building temples, which were in reality tombs: for I will not pass these over in silence, but make a thorough exposure of them, though called by the august name of temples; that is, the tombs which got the name of temples. But do ye now at length quite give up your superstition, feeling ashamed to regard sepulchres with religious veneration. In the temple of Athene in Larissa, on the Acropolis, is the grave of Acrisius; and at Athens, on the Acropolis, is that of Cecrops, as Antiochus says in the ninth book of his Histories. What of Erichthonius? was he not buried in the temple of Polias? And Immarus, the son of Eumolpus and Daira, were they not buried in the precincts of the Elusinium, which is under the Acropolis; and the daughters of Celeus, were they not interred in Eleusis? Why should I enumerate to you the wives of the Hyperboreans? They were called Hyperoche and Laodice; they were buried in the Artemisium in Delos, which is in the temple of the Delian Apollo. Leandrius says that Clearchus was buried in Miletus, in the Didymæum. Following the Myndian Zeno, it were unsuitable in this connection to pass over the sepulchre of Leucophryne, who was buried in the temple of Artemis in Magnesia; or the altar of Apollo in Telmessus, which is reported to be the tomb of Telmisseus the seer. Further, Ptolemy the son of Agesarchus, in his first book about Philopator, says that Cinyras and the descendants of Cinyras were interred in the temple of Aphrodite in Paphos. But all time would not be sufficient for me, were I to go over the tombs which are held sacred by you. And if no shame for these audacious impieties steals over you, it comes to this, that you are completely dead, putting, as really you do, your trust in the dead.
Odyss., xx. 351.
If, in addition, I take and set before you for inspection these very images, you will, as you go over them, find how truly silly is the custom in which you have been reared, of worshipping the senseless works of men’s hands.
Anciently, then, the Scythians worshipped their sabres, the Arabs stones, the Persians rivers. And some, belonging to other races still more ancient, set up blocks of wood in conspicuous situations, and erected pillars of stone, which were called Xoana, from the carving of the material of which they were made. The image of Artemis in Icarus was doubtless unwrought wood, and that of the Cithæronian Here was a felled tree-trunk; and that of the Samian Here, as Æthlius says, was at first a plank, and was afterwards during the government of Proclus carved into human shape. And when the Xoana began to be made in the likeness of men, they got the name of Brete,—a term derived from Brotos (man). In Rome, the historian Varro says that in ancient times the Xoaron of Mars—the idol by which he was worshipped—was a spear, artists not having yet applied themselves to this specious pernicious art; but when art flourished, error increased. That of stones and stocks—and, to speak briefly, of dead matter—you have made images of human form, by which you have produced a counterfeit of piety, and slandered the truth, is now as clear as can be; but such proof as the point may demand must not be declined.
That the statue of Zeus at Olympia, and that of
Polias at Athens, were executed of gold and ivory by Phidias, is known
by everybody; and that the image of Here in Samos was formed by the
chisel of Euclides, Olympichus relates in his Samiaca. Do not,
then, entertain any doubt, that of the gods called at Athens venerable,
Scopas made two of the stone called Lychnis, and Calos the one which
they are reported to have had placed between them, as Polemon shows in
the fourth of his books addressed to
Many, perhaps, may be surprised to learn that the Palladium which is called the Diopetes—that is, fallen from heaven—which Diomede and Ulysses are related to have carried off from Troy and deposited at Demophoon, was made of the bones of Pelops, as the Olympian Jove of other bones—those of the Indian wild beast. I adduce as my authority Dionysius, who relates this in the fifth part of his Cycle. And Apellas, in the Delphics, says that there were two Palladia, and that both were fashioned by men. But that one may suppose that I have passed over them through ignorance, I shall add that the image of Dionysus Morychus at Athens was made of the stones called Phellata, and was the work of Simon the son of Eupalamus, as Polemo says in a letter. There were also two other sculptors of Crete, as I think: they were called Scyles and Dipoenus; and these executed the statues of the Dioscuri in Argos, and the image of Hercules in Tiryns, and the effigy of the Munychian Artemis in Sicyon. Why should I linger over these, when I can point out to you the great deity himself, and show you who he was,—whom indeed, conspicuously above all, we hear to have been considered worthy of veneration? Him they have dared to speak of as made without hands—I mean the Egyptian Serapis. For some relate that he was sent as a present by the people of Sinope to Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of the Egyptians, who won their favour by sending them corn from Egypt when they were perishing with famine; and that this idol was an image of Pluto; and Ptolemy, having received the statue, placed it on the promontory which is now called Racotis; where the temple of Serapis was held in honour, and the sacred enclosure borders on the spot; and that Blistichis the courtesan having died in Canopus, Ptolemy had her conveyed there, and buried beneath the forementioned shrine.
Others say that the Serapis was a Pontic idol, and was transported with solemn pomp to Alexandria. Isidore alone says that it was brought from the Seleucians, near Antioch, who also had been visited with a dearth of corn, and had been fed by Ptolemy. But Athenodorns the son of Sandon, while wishing to make out the Serapis to be ancient, has somehow slipped into the mistake of proving it to be an image fashioned by human hands. He says that Sesostris the Egyptian king, having subjugated the most of the Hellenic races, on his return to Egypt brought a number of craftsmen with him. Accordingly he ordered a statue of Osiris, his ancestor, to be executed in sumptuous style; and the work was done by the artist Bryaxis, not the Athenian, but another of the same name, who employed in its execution a mixture of various materials. For he had filings of gold, and silver, and lead, and in addition, tin; and of Egyptian stones not one was wanting, and there were fragments of sapphire, and hematite, and emerald, and topaz. Having ground down and mixed together all these ingredients, he gave to the composition a blue colour, whence the darkish hue of the image; and having mixed the whole with the colouring matter that was left over from the funeral of Osiris and Apis, moulded the Serapis, the name of which points to its connection with sepulture and its construction from funeral materials, compounded as it is of Osiris and Apis, which together make Osirapis.
Another new deity was added to the number with great religious pomp in Egypt, and was near being so in Greece by the king of the Romans, who deified Antinous, whom he loved as Zeus loved Ganymede, and whose beauty was of a very rare order: for lust is not easily restrained, destitute as it is of fear; and men now observe the sacred nights of Antinous, the shameful character of which the lover who spent them with him knew well. Why reckon him among the gods, who is honoured on account of uncleanness? And why do you command him to be lamented as a son? And why should you enlarge on his beauty? Beauty blighted by vice is loathsome. Do not play the tyrant, O man, over beauty, nor offer foul insult to youth in its bloom. Keep beauty pure, that it may be truly fair. Be king over beauty, not its tyrant. Remain free, and then I shall acknowledge thy beauty, because thou hast kept its image pure: then will I worship that true beauty which is the archetype of all who are beautiful. Now the grave of the debauched boy is the temple and town of Antinous. For just as temples are held in reverence, so also are sepulchres, and pyramids, and mausoleums, and labyrinths, which are temples of the dead, as the others are sepulchres of the gods. As teacher on this point, I shall produce to you the Sibyl prophetess:—
Vulg., Sibyllini, p. 253.
She also predicts the ruin of the temple, foretelling that that of the Ephesian Artemis would be engulphed by earthquakes and rents in the ground, as follows:—
She says also that the temple of Isis and Serapis would be demolished and burned:—
Then she proceeds:—
But if you attend not to the
prophetess, hear at least your own philosopher, the Ephesian Heraclitus,
upbraiding images with their senselessness: “And to these images
they pray, with the same result as if one were to talk to the walls of
his house.” For are they not to be wondered at who worship stones,
and place them before the doors, as if capable of activity? They worship
Hermes as a god, and place Aguieus as a doorkeeper. For if people upbraid
them with being devoid of sensation, why worship them as gods? And if
they are thought to be endowed with sensation, why place them before
the door? The Romans, who ascribed their greatest successes to Fortune,
and regarded her as a very great deity, took her statue to the privy, and
erected it there, assigning to the goddess as a fitting temple—the
necessary. But senseless wood and stone, and rich gold, care not a whit
for either savoury odour, or blood, or smoke, by which, being at once
honoured and fumigated, they are blackened; no more do they for honour
or insult. And these images are more worthless than any animal. I am at
a loss to conceive how objects devoid of sense were deified, and feel
compelled to pity as miserable wretches those that wander in the mazes
of this folly: for if some living creatures have not all the senses, as
worms and caterpillars, and such as even from the first appear imperfect,
as moles and the shrew-mouse, which Nicander says is blind and uncouth;
yet are they superior to those utterly senseless idols and images. For
they have some one sense,—say, for example, hearing, or touching,
or something analogous to smell or taste; while images do not possess even
one sense. There are many creatures that have neither sight, nor hearing,
nor speech, such as the genus of oysters, which yet live and grow, and
are affected by the changes of the moon. But images, being motionless,
inert, and senseless, are bound, nailed, glued,—are melted, filed,
sawed, polished, carved. The senseless earth is dishonoured by the makers
of images, who change it by their art from its proper nature, and induce
men to worship it; and the makers of gods worship not gods and demons,
but in my view earth and art, which go to make up images. For, in sooth,
the image is only dead matter shaped by the craftsman’s hand. But
we have no sensible image of sensible matter, but an image that
is perceived by the mind alone,—God, who alone is truly God. [The Trent Creed makes the saints
and their images objects of worship. It is evident that Clement
never imagined the existence of an image among Christians. See p. 188,
infra.]
And again, when involved in calamities, the superstitious worshippers of stones, though they have learned by the event that senseless matter is not to be worshipped, yet, yielding to the pressure of misfortune, become the victims of their superstition; and though despising the images, yet not wishing to appear wholly to neglect them, are found fault with by those gods by whose names the images are called.
For Dionysius the tyrant, the younger, having stripped
off the golden mantle from the statue of Jupiter in Sicily, ordered him
to be clothed in a woollen one, remarking facetiously that the latter
was better than the golden one, being lighter in summer and warmer in
winter. And Antiochus of Cyzicus, being in difficulties for money, ordered
the golden statue of Zeus, fifteen cubits in height, to be melted; and
one like it, of less valuable material, plated with gold, to be erected
in place of it. And the swallows and most birds fly to these statues,
and void their excrement on them, paying no respect either to Olympian
Zeus, or Epidaurian Asclepius, or even to Athene Polias, or the Egyptian
Serapis; but not even from them have you learned the senselessness of
images. [The Trent Creed makes
the saints and their images objects of worship. It is evident that
Clement never imagined the existence of an image among Christians. See
p. 188, infra.]
I know fire to be capable of exposing and curing
superstition. If thou art willing to abandon this folly, the element of
fire shall light thy way. This same fire burned the temple in Argos,
with Chrysis the priestess; and that of Artemis in Ephesus the second
time after the Amazons.
Pantarkes is said to
have been the name of a boy loved by Phidias: but as the word signifies
“all-assisting,” “all-powerful,” it might also
be made to apply to Zeus.
There is no cause for indignation, then, at Hippo, who immortalized his own death. For this Hippo ordered the following elegy to be inscribed on his tomb:—
Well done, Hippo! thou showest to us the delusion of men. If they did not believe thee speaking, now that thou art dead, let them become thy disciples. This is the oracle of Hippo; let us consider it. The objects of your worship were once men, and in process of time died; and fable and time have raised them to honour. For somehow, what is present is wont to be despised through familiarity; but what is past, being separated through the obscurity of time from the temporary censure that attached to it, is invested with honour by fiction, so that the present is viewed with distrust, the past with admiration. Exactly in this way is it, then, that the dead men of antiquity, being reverenced through the long prevalence of delusion respecting them, are regarded as gods by posterity. As grounds of your belief in these, there are your mysteries, your solemn assemblies, bonds and wounds, and weeping deities.
Iliad, xvi. 433.
The will of Zeus was overruled; and Zeus being worsted, laments for Sarpedon. With reason, therefore, have you yourselves called them shades and demons, since Homer, paying Athene and the other divinities sinister honour, has styled them demons:—
Iliad, i. 221; μετὰ δαίμονας αλλους.
How, then, can shades and demons
be still reckoned gods, being in reality unclean and impure spirits,
acknowledged by all to be of an earthly and watery nature, sinking
downwards by their own weight, and flitting about graves and tombs,
about which they appear dimly, being but
The incorruptible being, as far as in you lies, you sink in the earth; and that pure and holy essence you have buried in the grave, robbing the divine of its true nature.
Why, I pray you, have you assigned the prerogatives of God to what are no gods? Why, let me ask, have you forsaken heaven to pay divine honour to earth? What else is gold, or silver, or steel, or iron, or brass, or ivory, or precious stones? Are they not earth, and of the earth?
Are not all these things which you look on the progeny of one mother—the earth?
Why, then, foolish and silly men (for I will repeat it), have you, defaming the supercelestial region, dragged religion to the ground, by fashioning to yourselves gods of earth, and by going after those created objects, instead of the uncreated Deity, have sunk into deepest darkness?
The Parian stone is beautiful, but it is not yet Poseidon. The ivory is beautiful, but it is not yet the Olympian Zeus. Matter always needs art to fashion it, but the deity needs nothing. Art has come forward to do its work, and the matter is clothed with its shape; and while the preciousness of the material makes it capable of being turned to profitable account, it is only on account of its form that it comes to be deemed worthy of veneration. Thy image, if considered as to its origin, is gold, it is wood, it is stone, it is earth, which has received shape from the artist’s hand. But I have been in the habit of walking on the earth, not of worshipping it. For I hold it wrong to entrust my spirit’s hopes to things destitute of the breath of life. We must therefore approach as close as possible to the images. How peculiarly inherent deceit is in them, is manifest from their very look. For the forms of the images are plainly stamped with the characteristic nature of demons. If one go round and inspect the pictures and images, he will at a glance recognise your gods from their shameful forms: Dionysus from his robe; Hephæstus from his art; Demeter from her calamity; Ino from her head-dress; Poseidon from his trident; Zeus from the swan; the pyre indicates Heracles; and if one sees a statue of a naked woman without an inscription, he understands it to be the golden Aphrodite. Thus that Cyprian Pygmalion became enamoured of an image of ivory: the image was Aphrodite, and it was nude. The Cyprian is made a conquest of by the mere shape, and embraces the image. This is related by Philostephanus. A different Aphrodite in Cnidus was of stone, and beautiful. Another person became enamoured of it, and shamefully embraced the stone. Posidippus relates this. The former of these authors, in his book on Cyprus, and the latter in his book on Cnidus. So powerful is art to delude, by seducing amorous men into the pit. Art is powerful, but it cannot deceive reason, nor those who live agreeably to reason. The doves on the picture were represented so to the life by the painter’s art, that the pigeons flew to them; and horses have neighed to well-executed pictures of mares. They say that a girl became enamoured of an image, and a comely youth of the statue at Cnidus. But it was the eyes of the spectators that were deceived by art; for no one in his senses ever would have embraced a goddess, or entombed himself with a lifeless paramour, or become enamoured of a demon and a stone. But it is with a different kind of spell that art deludes you, if it leads you not to the indulgence of amorous affections: it leads you to pay religious honour and worship to images and pictures.
The picture is like. Well and good! Let art receive
its meed of praise, but let it not deceive man by passing itself off
for truth. The horse stands quiet; the dove flutters not, its wing is
motionless. But the cow of Dædalus, made of wood, allured the savage
bull; and art having deceived him, compelled him to meet a woman full
of licentious passion. Such frenzy have mischief-working arts created
in the minds of the insensate. On the other hand, apes are admired by
those who feed and care for them, because nothing in the shape of images
and girls’ ornaments of wax or clay deceives them. You then will
show yourselves inferior to apes by cleaving to stone, and wood, and
gold, and ivory images, and to pictures. Your makers of such mischievous
toys—the sculptors and makers of images, the painters and workers in
metal, and the poets—have introduced a motley crowd of divinities:
in the fields, Satyrs and Pans; in the woods, Nymphs, and Oreads, and
Hamadryads; and besides, in the waters, the rivers, and fountains,
the Naiads; and in the sea the Nereids. And now the Magi boast that
the demons are the ministers of their impiety, reckoning them among the
number of their domestics, and by their charms compelling them to be their
slaves. Besides, the nuptials of the deities, their begetting and bringing
forth of children that are recounted, their adulteries celebrated in song,
their carousals represented in comedy, and bursts of laughter over their
cups, which your authors introduce, urge me to cry out, though I would
fain be silent. Oh the godlessness! You have turned heaven into a stage;
Odyss., viii. 266.
Sing to us, Homer, that beautiful song
Stop, O Homer, the song! It is not
beautiful; it teaches adultery, and we are prohibited from polluting our
ears with hearing about adultery for we are they who bear about with
us, in this living and moving image of our human nature, the likeness
of God,—a likeness which dwells with us, takes counsel with us,
associates with us, is a guest with us, feels with us, feels for us. We
have become a consecrated offering to God for Christ’s sake: we
are the chosen generation, the royal priesthood, the holy nation, the
peculiar people, who once were not a people, but are now the people of
God; who, according to John, are not of those who are beneath, but have
learned all from Him who came from above; who have come to understand the
dispensation of God; who have learned to walk in newness of life. But
these are not the sentiments of the many; but, casting off shame and
fear, they depict in their houses the unnatural passions of the demons.
Accordingly, wedded to impurity, they adorn their bed-chambers with
painted tablets [Is not
this a rebuke to many of the figures and pictures which vulgarize
abodes of wealth in America?]
Sibyl. Justin Martyr, Cohort. ad Græcos, p. 81. See p. 280, vol. i of this series.
For we are expressly prohibited from
exercising a deceptive art: “For thou shalt not make,” says
the prophet, “the likeness of anything which is in heaven above or
in the earth beneath.”
For can we possibly any longer suppose the Demeter,
and the Core, and the mystic Iacchus of Praxiteles, to be gods,
and not rather regard the art of Leucippus, or the hands of Apelles,
which clothed the material with the form of the divine glory, as having
a better title to the honour? But while you bestow the greatest pains
that the image may be fashioned with the most exquisite beauty possible,
you exercise no care to guard against your becoming like images for
stupidity. Accordingly, with the utmost clearness and brevity, the
prophetic word condemns this practice: “For all the gods of
the nations are the images of demons; but God made the heavens, and
what is in heaven.”
Human art, moreover, produces houses, and ships,
and cities, and pictures. But how shall I tell what God makes? Behold
the whole universe; it is His work: and the heaven, and
Let us then run over, if you choose, the opinions of the philosophers, to which they give boastful utterance, respecting the gods; that we may discover philosophy itself, through its conceit making an idol of matter; although we are able to show, as we proceed, that even while deifying certain demons, it has a dream of the truth. The elements were designated as the first principles of all things by some of them: by Thales of Miletus, who celebrated water, and Anaximenes, also of Miletus, who celebrated air as the first principle of all things, and was followed afterwards by Diogenes of Apollonia. Parmenides of Elia introduced fire and earth as gods; one of which, namely fire, Hippasus of Metapontum and Heraclitus of Ephesus supposed a divinity. Empedocles of Agrigentum fell in with a multitude, and, in addition to those four elements, enumerates disagreement and agreement. Atheists surely these are to be reckoned, who through an unwise wisdom worshipped matter, who did not indeed pay religious honour to stocks and stones, but deified earth, the mother of these,—who did not make an image of Poseidon, but revered water itself. For what else, according to the original signification, is Poseidon, but a moist substance? the name being derived from posis (drink); as, beyond doubt, the warlike Ares is so called, from arsis (rising up) and anœresis (destroying). For this reason mainly, I think, many fix a sword into the ground, and sacrifice to it as to Ares. The Scythians have a practice of this nature, as Eudoxus tells us in the second book of his Travels. The Sauromatæ, too, a tribe of the Scythians, worship a sabre, as Ikesius says in his work on Mysteries.
This was also the case with Heraclitus and his followers, who worshipped fire as the first cause; for this fire others named Hephæstus. The Persian Magi, too, and many of the inhabitants of Asia, worshipped fire; and besides them, the Macedonians, as Diogenes relates in the first book of his Persica. Why specify the Sauromatæ, who are said by Nymphodorus, in his Barbaric Customs, to pay sacred honours to fire? or the Persians, or the Medes, or the Magi? These, Dino tells us, sacrifice beneath the open sky, regarding fire and water as the only images of the gods.
Nor have I failed to reveal their ignorance; for, however much they think to keep clear of error in one form, they slide into it in another.
They have not supposed stocks and stones to be images of the gods, like the Greeks; nor ibises and ichneumons, like the Egyptians; but fire and water, as philosophers. Berosus, in the third book of his Chaldaics, shows that it was after many successive periods of years that men worshipped images of human shape, this practice being introduced by Artaxerxes, the son of Darius, and father of Ochus, who first set up the image of Aphrodite Anaitis at Babylon and Susa; and Ecbatana set the example of worshipping it to the Persians; the Bactrians, to Damascus and Sardis.
Let the philosophers, then, own as their teachers
the Persians, or the Sauromatæ, or the Magi, from whom they have
learned the impious doctrine of regarding as divine certain first
principles, being ignorant of the great First Cause, the Maker of all
things, and Creator of those very first principles, the unbeginning God,
but reverencing “these weak and beggarly elements,”
A great crowd of this description rushes on my mind,
introducing, as it were, a terrifying apparition of strange demons,
speaking of fabulous and monstrous shapes, in old wives’ talk. Far
from enjoining men to listen to such tales are we, who avoid the practice
of soothing our crying children, as the saying is, by telling them
fabulous stories, being afraid of fostering in their minds the impiety
professed by those who, though wise in their own conceit, have no more
knowledge of the truth than infants. For why (in the name of truth!) do
you make those who believe you subject to ruin and corruption, dire and
irretrievable? Why, I beseech you, fill up life with idolatrous images,
by feigning the winds, or the air, or fire, or earth, or stones, or
stocks, or steel, or this universe, to be gods; and, prating loftily
of the heavenly bodies in this much vaunted science of astrology, not
astronomy, to those men who have truly wandered, talk of the wandering
stars as gods? It is the Lord of the spirits, the Lord of the fire, the
Maker of the universe, Him who lighted up the sun, that I long for. I
seek after God, not the works of God. Whom shall I take as a helper in
my inquiry? We do not, if you have no objection, wholly disown Plato.
How, then, is God to be searched out, O Plato? “For both to
find the Father and Maker of this universe is a work of difficulty;
and having found Him, to declare Him fully, is impossible.” Timæus.
Why so? by Himself, I beseech you! For He can by no means be expressed. Well done, Plato! Thou hast touched on the truth. But do not flag. Undertake with me the inquiry respecting the Good. For into all men whatever, especially those who are occupied with intellectual pursuits, a certain divine effluence has been instilled; wherefore, though reluctantly, they confess that God is one, indestructible, unbegotten, and that somewhere above in the tracts of heaven, in His own peculiar appropriate eminence, whence He surveys all things, He has an existence true and eternal.
Euripides says. Accordingly, Menander seems to me to have fallen into error when he said:—
For the sun never could show me the true God; but that healthful Word, that is the Sun of the soul, by whom alone, when He arises in the depths of the soul, the eye of the soul itself is irradiated. Whence accordingly, Democritus, not without reason, says, “that a few of the men of intellect, raising their hands upwards to what we Greeks now call the air (ἀήρ), called the whole expanse Zeus, or God: He, too, knows all things, gives and takes away, and He is King of all.”
Of the same sentiments is Plato, who somewhere
alludes to God thus: “Around the King of all are all things,
and He is the cause of all good things.” Who, then, is the King
of all? God, who is the measure of the truth of all existence. As,
then, the things that are to be measured are contained in the measure,
so also the knowledge of God measures and comprehends truth. And the
truly holy Moses says: “There shall not be in thy bag a balance
and a balance, great or small, but a true and just balance shall be to
thee,”
Whence, O Plato, is that hint of the truth which thou
givest? Whence this rich copiousness
[This great truth comes forcibly
from an Attic scholar. Let me refer to a very fine passage in another
Christian scholar, William Cowper (Task, book ii.): “All
truth is from the sempiternal source,” etc.]
And let it not be this one man
alone—Plato; but, O philosophy, hasten to produce many others also,
who declare the only true God to be God, through His inspiration, if in
any measure they have grasped the truth. For Antisthenes did not think out
this doctrine of the Cynics; but it is in virtue of his being a disciple
of Socrates that he says, “that God is not like to any; wherefore
no one can know Him from an image.” And Xenophon the Athenian would
have in his own person committed freely to writing somewhat of the truth,
and given the same testimony as Socrates, had he not been afraid of the
cup of poison, which Socrates had to drink. But he hints nothing less;
he says: “How great and powerful He is who moves all things, and
is Himself at rest, is manifest; but what He is in form is not revealed.
The sun himself, intended to be the source of light to all around, does
not deem it fitting to allow himself to be looked at; but if any one
audaciously gazes on him, he is deprived of sight.” Whence, then,
does the son of Gryllus learn his wisdom? Is it not manifestly from the
prophetess of the Hebrews The
Sibyl.
Cleanthes Pisadeus, Or Asseus, native of
Asso.
Here, as I think, he clearly teaches of what nature God is; and that the common opinion and religious customs enslave those that follow them, but seek not after God.
We must not either keep the Pythagoreans in the background, who say: “God is one; and He is not, as some suppose, outside of this frame of things, but within it; but, in all the entireness of His being, is in the whole circle of existence, surveying all nature, and blending in harmonious union the whole,—the author of all His own forces and works, the giver of light in heaven, and Father of all,—the mind and vital power of the whole world,—the mover of all things.” For the knowledge of God, these utterances, written by those we have mentioned through the inspiration of God, and selected by us, may suffice even for the man that has but small power to examine into truth.
Let poetry also approach to us (for philosophy alone will not suffice): poetry which is wholly occupied with falsehood—which scarcely will make confession of the truth, but will rather own to God its deviations into fable. Let whoever of those poets chooses advance first. Aratus considers that the power of God pervades all things:—
Thus also the Ascræan Hesiod dimly speaks of God:—
Also on the stage they reveal the truth:—
says Euripides. And Sophocles, the son of Sophilus, says:—
In this venturous manner has he on the stage brought truth before the spectators. But the Thracian Orpheus, the son of Œagrus, hierophant and poet at once, after his exposition of the orgies, and his theology of idols, introduces a palinode of truth with true solemnity, though tardily singing the strain:—
Then proceeding, he clearly adds:—
Thus far Orpheus at last understood that he had been in error:—
For if, at the most, the Greeks, having received certain scintillations of the divine word, have given forth some utterances of truth, they bear indeed witness that the force of truth is not hidden, and at the same time expose their own weakness in not having arrived at the end. For I think it has now become evident to all, that those who do or speak aught without the word of truth are like people compelled to walk without feet. Let the strictures on your gods, which the poets, impelled by the force of truth, introduce in their comedies, shame you into salvation. Menander, for instance, the comic poet, in his drama of the Charioteer, says:—
For such are the begging priests of Cybele. Hence Antisthenes replies appropriately to their request for alms:—
Again, the same writer of comedy, expressing his dissatisfaction with the common usages, tries to expose the impious arrogance of the prevailing error in the drama of the Priestess, sagely declaring:—
And not only Menander, but Homer also, and Euripides, and other poets in great numbers, expose your gods, and are wont to rate them, and that soundly too. For instance, they call Aphrodite dog-fly, and Hephæstus a cripple. Helen says to Aphrodite:—
Il., iii. 406.
And of Dionysus, Homer writes without reserve:—
Il., vi. 132.
Worthy truly of the Socratic school is Euripides, who fixes his eye on truth, and despises the spectators of his plays. On one occasion, Apollo,
is thus exposed:—
Orestes, 590.
He introduces Heracles, at one time mad, at another drunk and gluttonous. How should he not so represent the god who, when entertained as a guest, ate green figs to flesh, uttering discordant howls, that even his barbarian host remarked it? In his drama of Ion, too, he barefacedly brings the gods on the stage:—
Ion, 442.
It is now time, as we have despatched in order the
other points, to go to the prophetic Scriptures; for the oracles present
us with the appliances necessary for the attainment of piety,
[Note her remarkable accord with inspiration,
clearly distinguishing between such and the oracles of God. But see,
supra, p. 132 and p. 145.]
where, in remarkable accordance with
inspiration [Having shown what
truth there is to be found in heathen poets, he ascends to the Sibyl,
and thus comes to the prophets; showing them how to climb upward in
this way, and cleverly inducing them to make the best use of their own
prophets and poets, by following them to the sources of their noblest
ideas.]
Jeremiah the prophet, gifted with consummate
wisdom, [How sublimely he now
introduces the oracles of truth.]
And again by Isaiah, “Who shall measure
heaven with a span, and the whole earth with his hand?”
This is made up
of several passages, as
I could adduce ten thousand Scriptures of which not
“one tittle shall pass away,”
And, indeed, the old Hebrew wanderers in the desert
received typically the end of the threatening; for they are said not to
have entered into the rest, because of unbelief, till, having followed
the successor of Moses, they learned by experience, though late, that they
could not be saved otherwise than by believing on Jesus. But the Lord, in
His love to man, invites all men to the knowledge of the truth, and for
this end sends the Paraclete. What, then, is this knowledge? Godliness;
and “godliness,” according to Paul, “is profitable
for all things, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that
which is to come.”
Do not, however, faint. You may, if you choose,
purchase salvation, though of inestimable value, with your own
resources, love and living faith, which will be reckoned a suitable
price. This recompense God cheerfully accepts; “for we trust in
the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those
who believe.”
But the rest, round whom the world’s growths have
fastened, as the rocks on the sea-shore are covered over with sea-weed,
make light of immortality, like the old man of Ithaca, eagerly longing
to see, not the truth, not the fatherland in heaven, not the true light,
but smoke. But godliness, that makes man as far as can be like God,
designates God as our suitable teacher, who alone can worthily assimilate
man to God. This teaching the apostle knows as truly divine. “Thou,
O Timothy,” he says, “from a child hast known the holy
letters, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith
that is in Christ Jesus.”
The union of many in one, issuing in the production
of divine harmony out of a medley of sounds and division, becomes one
symphony following one choir-leader and teacher, [Here seems to be a running allusion to the privileges
of the Christian Church in its unity, and to the “Psalms and hymns
and spiritual songs,” which were so charming a feature of Christian
worship. Bunsen, Hippolytus, etc., vol. ii. p. 157.]
But you say it is not creditable to subvert the customs handed down to us from our fathers. And why, then, do we not still use our first nourishment, milk, to which our nurses accustomed us from the time of our birth? Why do we increase or diminish our patrimony, and not keep it exactly the same as we got it? Why do we not still vomit on our parents’ breasts, or still do the things for which, when infants, and nursed by our mothers, we were laughed at, but have corrected ourselves, even if we did not fall in with good instructors? Then, if excesses in the indulgence of the passions, though pernicious and dangerous, yet are accompanied with pleasure, why do we not in the conduct of life abandon that usage which is evil, and provocative of passion, and godless, even should our fathers feel hurt, and betake ourselves to the truth, and seek Him who is truly our Father, rejecting custom as a deleterious drug? For of all that I have undertaken to do, the task I now attempt is the noblest, viz., to demonstrate to you how inimical this insane and most wretched custom is to godliness. For a boon so great, the greatest ever given by God to the human race, would never have been hated and rejected, had not you been carried away by custom, and then shut your ears against us; and just as unmanageable horses throw off the reins, and take the bit between their teeth, you rush away from the arguments addressed to you, in your eager desire to shake yourselves clear of us, who seek to guide the chariot of your life, and, impelled by your folly, dash towards the precipices of destruction, and regard the holy word of God as an accursed thing. The reward of your choice, therefore, as described by Sophocles, follows:—
And you know not that, of all truths, this is
the truest, that the good and godly shall obtain the good reward,
inasmuch as they held goodness in high esteem; while, on the other
hand, the wicked shall receive meet punishment. For the author of evil,
torment has been prepared; and so the prophet Zecharias threatens him:
“He that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee; lo, is not this a brand
plucked from the fire?”
Iliad,
ii. 315.
Thus dogs that have strayed, track out their master
by the scent; and horses that have thrown their riders, come to their
master’s call if he but whistle. “The ox,” it is said,
“knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib; but Israel
hath not known Me.”
And I would ask you, if it does not appear to you monstrous, that you men who are God’s handiwork, who have received your souls from Him, and belong wholly to God, should be subject to another master, and, what is more, serve the tyrant instead of the rightful King—the evil one instead of the good? For, in the name of truth, what man in his senses turns his back on good, and attaches himself to evil? What, then, is he who flees from God to consort with demons? Who, that may become a son of God, prefers to be in bondage? Or who is he that pursues his way to Erebus, when it is in his power to be a citizen of heaven, and to cultivate Paradise, and walk about in heaven and partake of the tree of life and immortality, and, cleaving his way through the sky in the track of the luminous cloud, behold, like Elias, the rain of salvation? Some there are, who, like worms wallowing in marshes and mud in the streams of pleasure, feed on foolish and useless delights—swinish men. For swine, it is said, like mud better than pure water; and, according to Democritus, “doat upon dirt.”
Let us not then be enslaved or become swinish; but,
as true children of the light, let us raise our eyes and look on the
light, lest the Lord discover us to be spurious, as the sun does the
eagles. Let us therefore repent, and pass from ignorance to knowledge,
from foolishness to wisdom, from licentiousness to self-restraint,
from unrighteousness to righteousness, from godlessness to God. It is an
enterprise of noble daring to take our way to God; and the enjoyment of
many other good things is within the reach of the lovers of righteousness,
who pursue eternal life, specially those things to which God Himself
alludes, speaking by Isaiah: “There is an inheritance for those who
serve the Lord.”
And let not any shame of this name preoccupy you, which does great harm to men, and seduces them from salvation. Let us then openly strip for the contest, and nobly strive in the arena of truth, the holy Word being the judge, and the Lord of the universe prescribing the contest. For ’tis no insignificant prize, the guerdon of immortality which is set before us. Pay no more regard, then, if you are rated by some of the low rabble who lead the dance of impiety, and are driven on to the same pit by their folly and insanity, makers of idols and worshippers of stones. For these have dared to deify men,—Alexander of Macedon, for example, whom they canonized as the thirteenth god, whose pretensions Babylon confuted, which showed him dead. I admire, therefore, the divine sophist. Theocritus was his name. After Alexander’s death, Theocritus, holding up the vain opinions entertained by men respecting the gods, to ridicule before his fellow-citizens, said: “Men, keep up your hearts as long as you see the gods dying sooner than men.” And, truly, he who worships gods that are visible, and the promiscuous rabble of creatures begotten and born, and attaches himself to them, is a far more wretched object than the very demons. For God is by no manner of means unrighteous, as the demons are, but in the very highest degree righteous; and nothing more resembles God than one of us when he becomes righteous in the highest possible degree:—
Minerva.
fashioners of stones, and worshippers
of them. Let your Phidias, and Polycletus, and your Praxiteles and
Apelles too, come, and all that are engaged in mechanical arts, who, being
themselves of the earth, are workers of the earth. “For then,”
says a certain prophecy, “the affairs here turn out unfortunately,
when men put their trust in images.” Let the meaner artists,
too—for I will not stop calling—come. None of these ever made
a breathing image, or out of earth moulded soft flesh. Who liquefied
the marrow? or who solidified the bones? Who stretched the nerves? who
distended the veins? Who poured the blood into them? Or who spread the
skin? Who ever could have made eyes capable of seeing? Who breathed
spirit into the lifeless form? Who bestowed righteousness? Who promised
immortality? The Maker of the universe alone; the Great Artist and Father
has formed us, such a living image as man is. But your Olympian Jove, the
image of an image, greatly out of harmony with truth, is the senseless
work of Attic hands. For the image of God is His Word, the genuine Son
of Mind, the Divine Word, the archetypal light of light; and the image of
the Word is the true man, the mind which is in man, who is therefore said
to have been made “in the image and likeness of God,” [Immersion was surely
the form of primitive baptism, but these words, if not a reference to that
sacrament, must recall
Then, he that is uninstructed in the word, has
ignorance as the excuse of his error; but as for him into whose
ears instruction has been poured, and who deliberately maintains his
incredulity in his soul, the wiser he appears to be, the more harm will
his understanding do him; for he has his own sense as his accuser for
not having chosen the best part. For man has been otherwise constituted
by nature, so as to have fellowship with God. As, then, we do not compel
the horse to plough, or the bull to hunt, but set each animal to that
for which it is by nature fitted; so, placing our finger on what is
man’s peculiar and distinguishing characteristic above other
creatures, we invite him—born, as he is, for the contemplation of
heaven, and being, as he is, a truly heavenly plant—to the knowledge
of God, counselling him to furnish himself with what is his sufficient
provision for eternity, namely piety. Practise husbandry, we say, if you
are a husbandman; but while you till your fields, know God. Sail the sea,
you who are devoted to navigation, yet call the whilst on the heavenly
Pilot. [This fine passage
will be recalled by what Clement afterward, in the Stromata,
says of prayer. Book vii. vol. ii. p. 432. Edin.]
Odyss., xiii. 203.
If you wish, then, to cast aside these vain phantasies, and bid adieu to evil custom, say to vain opinion:—
For what, think you, O men, is the
Hermes of Typho, and that of Andocides, and that of Amyetus? Is it
not evident to all that they are stones, as is the veritable Hermes
himself? As the Halo is not a god, and as the Iris is not a god,
but are states of the atmosphere and of the clouds; and as, likewise,
a day is not a god, nor a year, nor time, which is made up of these,
so neither is sun nor moon, by which each of those mentioned above is
determined. Who, then, in his right senses, can imagine Correction,
and Punishment, and Justice, and Retribution to be gods? For neither the
Furies, nor the Fates, nor Destiny are gods, since neither Government,
nor Glory, nor Wealth are gods, which last [as Plutus] painters represent
as blind. But if you deify Modesty, and Love, and Venus, let these be
followed by Infamy, and Passion, and Beauty, and Intercourse. Therefore
Sleep and Death cannot reasonably any more be regarded as twin deities,
being merely changes which take place naturally in living creatures;
no more will you with propriety call Fortune, or Destiny, or the Fates
goddesses. And if Strife and Battle be not gods, no more are Ares and
Enyo. Still further, if the lightnings, and thunderbolts, and rains
are not gods, how can fire and water be gods? how can shooting stars
and comets, which are produced by atmospheric changes? He who calls
Fortune a god, let him also so call Action. If, then, none of these,
nor of the images formed by human hands, and destitute of feeling, is
held to be a God, while a providence exercised about us is evidently the
result of a divine power,
A translation in accordance with the Latin version would run thus:
“While a certain previous conception of divine power is nevertheless
discovered within us.” But adopting that in the text the argument
is: there is unquestionably a providence implying the exertion of divine
power. That power is not exercised by idols or heathen gods. The only
other alternative is, that it is exercised by the one self-existent
God.
[ The expression “conquered by brass or iron”
is borrowed from Homer (Il., viii. 534). Brass, or copper, and
iron were the metals of which arms were made. “They”
seems to refer to sanctity and the word.
[The impact of the Gospel on the slavery and helotism of the
Pagans.] [See above, p. 201, and below,
the command “thou shalt love thy neighbor.”]
[Good
will to men made emphatic. Slavery already modified, free-schools
established, and homes created. As soon as persecution ceased, we find the
Christian hospital. Forster ascribes the first foundation of this kind to
Ephraim Syrus. A friend refers me to his Mohammedanism Unveiled,
vol. i. p. 283.]
Contemplate a little, if agreeable to you, the
divine beneficence. The first man, when in Paradise, sported free,
because he was the child of God; but when he succumbed to pleasure (for
the serpent allegorically signifies pleasure crawling on its belly,
earthly wickedness nourished
[The Catholic instinct is here; and an all-embracing
benevolence is its characteristic, not worldly empire.] [He seems to
be thinking of
Iliad, v. 128.
“Sweet is the Word that gives us
light, precious above gold and gems; it is to be desired above honey
and the honey-comb.”
[
[A quotation from another hymn, in all probability.]
Aratus.
having bestowed on us the truly
great, divine, and inalienable inheritance of the Father, deifying man
by heavenly teaching, putting His laws
Il., vi. 236. [The exchange of Glaucus.]
that is, for your little faith
He gives you the earth of so great extent to till, water to drink and
also to sail on, air to breathe, fire to do your work, a world to dwell
in; and He has permitted you to conduct a colony from here to heaven:
with these important works of His hand, and benefits in such numbers,
He has rewarded your little faith. Then, those who have put faith in
necromancers, receive from them amulets and charms, to ward off evil
forsooth; and will you not allow the heavenly Word, the Saviour, to
be bound on to you as an amulet, and, by trusting in God’s own
charm, be delivered from passions which are the diseases of the mind,
and rescued from sin?—for sin is eternal death. Surely utterly
dull and blind, and, like moles, doing nothing but eat, you spend your
lives in darkness, surrounded with corruption. But it is truth which
cries, “The light shall shine forth from the darkness.”
Let the light then shine in the hidden part of man, that is, the heart;
and let the beams of knowledge arise to reveal and irradiate the hidden
inner man, the disciple of the Light, the familiar friend and fellow-heir
of Christ; especially now that we have come to know the most precious
and venerable name of the good Father, who to a pious and good child
gives gentle counsels, and commands what is salutary for His child. He
who obeys Him has the advantage in all things, follows God, obeys the
Father, knows Him through wandering, loves God, loves his neighbour,
fulfils the commandment, seeks the prize, claims the promise. But it
has been God’s fixed and constant purpose to save the flock of
men: for this end the good God sent the good Shepherd. And the Word,
having unfolded the truth, showed to men the height of salvation, that
either repenting they might be saved, or refusing to obey, they might be
judged. This is the proclamation of righteousness: to those that obey,
glad tidings; to those that disobey, judgment. The loud trumpet, when
sounded, collects the soldiers, and proclaims war. And shall not Christ,
breathing a strain of peace to the ends of the earth, gather together His
own soldiers, the soldiers of peace? Well, by His blood, and by the word,
He has gathered the bloodless host of peace, and assigned to them the
kingdom of heaven. The trumpet of Christ is His Gospel. He hath blown it,
and we have heard. “Let us array ourselves in the armour of peace,
putting on the breastplate of righteousness, and taking the shield of
faith, and binding our brows with the helmet of salvation; and the sword
of the Spirit, which is the word of God,”
Let us then avoid custom as we would a dangerous headland, or the threatening Charybdis, or the mythic sirens. It chokes man, turns him away from truth, leads him away from life: custom is a snare, a gulf, a pit, a mischievous winnowing fan.
Odyss., xii. 219.
Let us shun, fellow-mariners, let us shun this billow; it vomits forth fire: it is a wicked island, heaped with bones and corpses, and in it sings a fair courtesan, Pleasure, delighting with music for the common ear.
Odyss., xii. 184.
She praises thee, O mariner, and calls the illustrious; and the courtesan tries to win to herself the glory of the Greeks. Leave her to prey on the dead; a heavenly spirit comes to thy help: pass by Pleasure, she beguiles.
Sail past the song; it works
death. Exert your will only, and you have overcome ruin; bound to the
wood of the cross, thou shalt be freed from destruction: the word of
God will be thy pilot, and the Holy Spirit will bring thee to anchor in
the haven of heaven. Then shalt thou see my God, and be initiated into
the sacred mysteries, and come to the fruition of those things which are
laid up in heaven reserved for me, which “ear hath not heard, nor
have they entered into the heart of any.”
Eurip., Bacch., 918.
said one frenzy-stricken in the worship of idols, intoxicated with mere ignorance. I would pity him in his frantic intoxication, and thus frantic I would invite him to the sobriety of salvation; for the Lord welcomes a sinner’s repentance, and not his death.
Come, O madman, not leaning on the thyrsus, not crowned with ivy; throw away the mitre, throw away the fawn-skin; come to thy senses. I will show thee the Word, and the mysteries of the Word, expounding them after thine own fashion. This is the mountain beloved of God, not the subject of tragedies like Cithæron, but consecrated to dramas of the truth,—a mount of sobriety, shaded with forests of purity; and there revel on it not the Mænades, the sisters of Semele, who was struck by the thunderbolt, practising in their initiatory rites unholy division of flesh, but the daughters of God, the fair lambs, who celebrate the holy rites of the Word, raising a sober choral dance. The righteous are the chorus; the music is a hymn of the King of the universe. The maidens strike the lyre, the angels praise, the prophets speak; the sound of music issues forth, they run and pursue the jubilant band; those that are called make haste, eagerly desiring to receive the Father.
Come thou also, O aged man, leaving Thebes, and
casting away from thee both divination and Bacchic frenzy, allow thyself
to be led to the truth. I give thee the staff [of the cross] on which
to lean. Haste, Tiresias; believe, and thou wilt see. Christ, by whom
the eyes of the blind recover sight, will shed on thee a light brighter
than the sun; night will flee from thee, fire will fear, death will be
gone; thou, old man, who saw not Thebes, shalt see the heavens. O truly
sacred mysteries! O stainless light! My way is lighted with torches,
and I survey the heavens and God; I become holy whilst I am initiated.
The Lord is the hierophant, and seals while illuminating him who is
initiated, and presents to the Father him who believes, to be kept
safe for ever. Such are the reveries of my mysteries. If it is thy
wish, be thou also initiated; and thou shall join the choir along with
angels around the unbegotten and indestructible and the only true God,
the Word of God, raising the hymn with us. [Here are references to baptism and the Eucharist, and to
the Trisagion, “Therefore with angels and archangels,”
which was universally diffused in the Christian Church. Bunsen,
Hippol., iii. 63.]
“Hear, ye myriad tribes, rather whoever among
men are endowed with reason, both barbarians and Greeks. I call on the
whole race of men, whose Creator I am, by the will of the Father. Come
to Me, that you may be put in your due rank under the one God and the
one Word of God; and do not only have the advantage of the irrational
creatures in the possession of reason; for to you of all mortals I grant
the enjoyment of immortality. For I want, I want to impart to you this
grace, bestowing on you the perfect boon of immortality; and I confer on
you both the Word and the knowledge of God, My complete self. This am I,
this God wills, this is symphony, this the harmony of the Father, this
is the Son, this is Christ, this the Word of God, the arm of the Lord,
the power of the universe, the will of the Father; of which things
there were images of old, but not all adequate. I desire to restore
you according to the original model, that ye may become also like Me. I
anoint you with the ungent of faith, by which you throw off corruption,
Let us haste, let us run, my fellow-men—us,
who are God-loving and God-like images of the Word. Let us haste, let us
run, let us take His yoke, let us receive, to conduct us to immortality,
the good charioteer of men. Let us love Christ. He led the colt with its
parent; and having yoked the team of humanity to God, directs His chariot
to immortality, hastening clearly to fulfil, by driving now into heaven,
what He shadowed forth before by riding into Jerusalem. A spectacle most
beautiful to the Father is the eternal Son crowned with victory. [“Who is this that cometh
from Edom,” seems to be in mind.
It is time, then, for us to say that the pious
Christian alone is rich and wise, and of noble birth, and thus call
and believe him to be God’s image, and also His likeness, Clement here draws a distinction,
frequently made by early Christian writers, between the image and the
likeness of God. Man never loses the image of God; but as the likeness
consists in moral resemblance, he may lose it, and he recovers it only
when he becomes righteous, holy, and wise.
Good is the whole life of those who have known Christ.
Enough, methinks, of words, though, impelled by love
to man, I might have gone on to pour out what I had from God, that I
might exhort to what is the greatest of blessings—salvation. [Let me quote from an excellent
author: “We ought to give the Fathers credit for knowing what
arguments were best calculated to affect the minds of those whom they were
addressing. It was unnecessary for them to establish, by a long train
of reasoning, the probability that a revelation may be made from
heaven to man, or to prove the credibility of miracles . . . The majority,
both of the learned and unlearned, were fixed in the belief that the Deity
exercised an immediate control over the human race, and consequently felt
no predisposition to reject that which purported to be a communication of
His will. . . . Accustomed as they were, however, to regard the various
systems proposed by philosophers as matters of curious speculation,
designed to exercise the understanding, not to influence the
conduct, the chief difficulty of the advocate of Christianity was to
prevent them from treating it with the same levity, and to induce
them to view it in its true light as a revelation declaring truths of
the highest practical importance.” This remark of Bishop Kaye is a hint of vast importance
in our study of the early Apologists. It is taken from that author’s
Account of the Writings of Clement of Alexandria (London, 1835),
to which I would refer the student, as the best introduction to these
works that I know of. It is full of valuable comment and exposition. I
make only sparing reference to it, however, in these pages, as otherwise I
should hardly know what to omit, or to include.]
As there are
these three things in the case of man, habits, actions, and passions;
habits are the department appropriated by hortatory discourse the
guide to piety, which, like the ship’s keel, is laid beneath for
the building up of faith; in which, rejoicing exceedingly, and abjuring
our old opinions, through salvation we renew our youth, singing with
the hymning prophecy, “How good is God to Israel, to such as
are upright in heart!”
When, then, the heavenly guide, the Word, was
inviting [See Exhortation
to the Heathen, cap. xi. p. 203, supra.]
The Instructor being practical, not theoretical,
His aim is thus to improve the soul, not to teach, and to train it up
to a virtuous, not to an intellectual life. Although this same word
is didactic, but not in the present instance. For the word which, in
matters of doctrine, explains and reveals, is that whose province it is
to teach. But our Educator
The pædagogus. [This word seems to be used by Clement, with
frequent alusion, at least, to its original idea, of one who leads
the child to his instructor; which is the true idea, I suppose,
in
Hence accordingly ensues the healing of our passions, in consequence of the assuagements of those examples; the Pædagogue strengthening our souls, and by His benign commands, as by gentle medicines, guiding the sick to the perfect knowledge of the truth.
There is a wide difference between health and knowledge; for the latter is produced by learning, the former by healing. One, who is ill, will not therefore learn any branch of instruction till he is quite well. For neither to learners nor to the sick is each injunction invariably expressed similarly; but to the former in such a way as to lead to knowledge, and to the latter to health. As, then, for those of us who are diseased in body a physician is required, so also those who are diseased in soul require a pædagogue to cure our maladies; and then a teacher, to train and guide the soul to all requisite knowledge when it is made able to admit the revelation of the Word. Eagerly desiring, then, to perfect us by a gradation conducive to salvation, suited for efficacious discipline, a beautiful arrangement is observed by the all-benignant Word, who first exhorts, then trains, and finally teaches.
Now, O you, my children, our Instructor is like His
Father God, whose son He is, sinless,
And the Instructor, as I think, very beautifully says,
through Moses: “If any one die suddenly by him, straightway the head
of his consecration shall be polluted, and shall be shaved,”
Hence consider the expression of Scripture, “Therefore these things saith the Lord;” the sin that had been committed before is held up to reprobation by the succeeding expression “therefore,” according to which the righteous judgment follows. This is shown conspicuously by the prophets, when they said, “Hadst thou not sinned, He would not have uttered these threatenings.” “Therefore thus saith the Lord;” “Because thou hast not heard these words, therefore these things the Lord;” and, “Therefore, behold, the Lord saith.” For prophecy is given by reason both of obedience and disobedience: for obedience, that we may be saved; for disobedience, that we may be corrected.
Our Instructor, the Word, therefore cures the
unnatural passions of the soul by means of exhortations. For with the
highest propriety the help of bodily diseases is called the healing
art—an art acquired by human skill. But the paternal Word is the
only Pæonian physician of human infirmities, and the holy charmer
of the sick soul. “Save,” it is said, “Thy servant, O
my God, who trusteth in Thee. Pity me, O Lord; for I will cry to Thee all
the day.”
We, however, as soon as He conceived the thought, became His children, having had assigned us the best and most secure rank by His orderly arrangement, which first circles about the world, the heavens, and the sun’s circuits, and occupies itself with the motions of the rest of the stars for man’s behoof, and then busies itself with man himself, on whom all its care is concentrated; and regarding him as its greatest work, regulated his soul by wisdom and temperance, and tempered the body with beauty and proportion. And whatever in human actions is right and regular, is the result of the inspiration of its rectitude and order.
The Lord ministers all good and all help, both as man
and as God: as God, forgiving our sins; and as man, training us not to
sin. Man is therefore justly dear to God, since he is His workmanship. The
other works of creation He made by the word of command alone, but man
He framed by Himself, by His own hand, and breathed into him what was
peculiar to Himself. What, then, was fashioned by Him, and after He
likeness, either was created by God Himself as
Bishop Kaye (Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of
Alexandria, p. 48) translates, “receiving from man that which
made man (that on account of which man was made).” But it seems more
likely that Clement refers to the ideal man in the divine mind, whom he
indentifies elsewhere with the Logos, the ἄνθρωπος
ἀπαθής, of whom man was the
image. The reader will notice that Clement speaks of man as existing
in the divine mind before his creation, and creation is represented by
God’s seeing what He had previously within Him merely as
a hidden power.
But what is loveable, and is not also loved by Him? And
man has been proved to be loveable; consequently man is loved by God.
For how shall he not be loved for whose sake the only-begotten Son
is sent from the Father’s bosom, the Word of faith, the faith
which is superabundant; the Lord Himself distinctly confessing and
saying, “For the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have
loved Me;”
Plainly, then, the other kind of discourse, the
didactic, is powerful and spiritual, observing precision, occupied in
the contemplation of mysteries. But let it stand over for the present.
Now, it is incumbent on us to return His love, who lovingly guides us to
that life which is best; and to live in accordance with the injunctions
of His will, not only fulfilling what is commanded, or guarding against
what is forbidden, but turning away from some examples, and imitating
others as much as we can, and thus to perform the works of the Master
according to His similitude, and so fulfil what Scripture says as to
our being made in His image and likeness. For, wandering in life as in
deep darkness, we need a guide that cannot stumble or stray; and our
guide is the best, not blind, as the Scripture says, “leading
the blind into pits.”
Let us, then, embracing more and more this good
obedience, give ourselves to the Lord; clinging to what is surest, the
cable of faith in Him, and understanding that the virtue of man and
woman is the same. For if the God of both is one, the master of both
is also one; one church, one temperance, one modesty; their food is
common, marriage an equal yoke; respiration, sight, hearing, knowledge,
hope, obedience, love all alike. And those whose life is common,
have common graces and a common salvation; common to them are love and
training. “For in this world,” he says, “they marry, and
are given in marriage,”
Ἄρνες, too, the word for lambs, is a common name of simplicity for the male and female animal.
Now the Lord Himself will feed us as His flock forever.
Amen. But without a sheperd, neither
That, then, Pædagogy is the
training of children (παίδων
ἀγωγή), is clear from the word
itself. It remains for us to consider the children whom Scripture
points to; then to give the pædagogue charge of them. We are the
children. In many ways Scripture celebrates us, and describes us in
manifold figures of speech, giving variety to the simplicity of the
faith by diverse names. Accordingly, in the Gospel, “the Lord,
standing on the shore, says to the disciples”—they happened
to be fishing—“and called aloud, Children, have ye any
meat?”
[The dignity ascribed to Christian
childhood in this chapter is something noteworthy. The Gospel glorifying
children, sanctifies marriage, and creates the home.]
The prophetic spirit also distinguishes us as
children. “Plucking,” it is said, “branches of
olives or palms, the children went forth to meet the Lord, and cried,
saying, Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He that cometh in the
name of the Lord;”
And when He says, “Let my lambs stand
on my right,”
And that He calls us chickens the Scripture testifies:
“As a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings.”
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; tell
aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh, just, meek, and
bringing salvation; meek truly is He, and riding on a beast of burden,
and a young colt.”
And that He also calls us lambs, the Spirit by the
mouth of Isaiah is an unimpeachable witness: “He will feed His
flock like a shepherd, He will gather the lambs with His arm,” Theodoret
explains this to mean that, as the animal referred to has only one horn,
so those brought up in the practice of piety worship only one God. [It
might mean lovers of those promises which are introduced by these words
in the marvellous twenty-second Psalm.]
To those, therefore, that have made progress in the
word, He has proclaimed this utterance, bidding them dismiss anxious
care of the things of this world, and exhorting them to adhere to the
Father alone, in imitation of children. Wherefore also in what follows
He says: “Take no anxious thought for the morrow; sufficient
unto the day is the evil thereof.”
In contradistinction, therefore, to the older people,
the new people are called young, having learned the new blessings;
and we have the exuberance of life’s morning prime in this youth
which knows no old age, in which we are always growing to maturity
in intelligence, are always young, always mild, always new: for those
must necessarily be new, who have become partakers of the new Word. And
that which participates in eternity is wont to be assimilated to the
incorruptible: so that to us appertains the designation of the age of
childhood, a lifelong spring-time, because the truth that is in us,
and our habits saturated with the truth, cannot be touched by old age;
but Wisdom is ever blooming, ever remains consistent and the same, and
never changes. “Their children,” it is said, “shall
be borne upon their shoulders, and fondled on their knees; as one
whom his mother comforteth, so also shall I comfort you.”
The King, then, who is Christ, beholds from above our
laughter, and looking through the window, as the Scripture says, views
the thanksgiving, and the blessing, and the rejoicing, and the gladness,
and furthermore the endurance which works together with them and their
embrace: views His Church, showing only His face, which was wanting to
the Church, which is made perfect by her royal Head. And where, then,
was the door by which the Lord showed Himself? The flesh by which
He was manifested. He is Isaac (for the narrative may be interpreted
otherwise), who is a type of the Lord, a child as a son; for he was the
son of Abraham, as Christ the Son of God, and a sacrifice as the Lord,
but he was not immolated as the Lord. Isaac only bore the wood of the
sacrifice, as the Lord the wood of the cross. And he laughed mystically,
prophesying that the Lord should fill us with joy, who have been redeemed
from corruption by the blood of the Lord. Isaac did everything but
suffer, as was right, yielding the precedence in suffering to the
Word. Furthermore, there is an intimation of the divinity of the Lord
in His not being slain. For Jesus rose again after His burial, having
suffered no harm, like Isaac released from sacrifice. And in defence
of the point to be established, I shall adduce another consideration
of the greatest weight. The Spirit calls the Lord Himself a child,
thus prophesying by Esaias: “Lo, to us a child has been born,
to us a son has been given, on whose own shoulder the government shall
be; and His name has been called the Angel of great Counsel.”
Who, then, is this infant child? He according to whose image we are
made little children. By the same prophet is declared His greatness:
“Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince
of Peace; that He might fulfil His discipline: and of His peace there
shall be no end.”
We have ample means of encountering those who are given
to carping. For we are not termed children and infants with reference
to the childish and contemptible character of our education, as those
who are inflated on account of knowledge have calumniously alleged.
Straightway, on our regeneration, we attained that perfection after
which we aspired. For we were illuminated, which is to know God. He
is not then imperfect who knows what is perfect. And do not reprehend
me when I profess to know God; for so it was deemed right to speak to
the Word, and He is free.
In allusion apparently to
χάρισμα
Further release from evils is the beginning of
salvation. We then alone, who first have touched the confines of
life, are already perfect; and we already live who are separated
from death. Salvation, accordingly, is the following of Christ:
“For that which is in Him is life.
viz., the result
of His will.
As, then, those who have shaken off sleep forthwith
become all awake within; or rather, as those who try to remove a film
that is over the eyes, do not supply to them from without the light which
they do not possess, but removing the obstacle from the eyes, leave the
pupil free; thus also we who are baptized, having wiped off the sins which
obscure the light of the Divine Spirit, have the eye of the spirit free,
unimpeded, and full of light, by which alone we contemplate the Divine,
the Holy Spirit flowing down to us from above. This is the eternal
adjustment of the vision, which is able to see the eternal light, since
like loves like; and that which is holy, loves that from which holiness
proceeds, which has appropriately been termed light. “Once
ye were darkness, now are ye light in the Lord.” φως, light; φώς, a
man.
Migne’s text has ἀποκάλυψις.
The emendation ἀπόληψις
is preferable.
[Iliad, v. 401.]
[Clement here considers all believers as babes, in the sense he
explains; but the tenderness towards children of the allusions
running through this chapter are not the less striking.]
viz.,
simple or innocent as a child, and foolish as a child.
Thus, then, the milk which is perfect is perfect
nourishment, and brings to that consummation which cannot cease. Wherefore
also the same milk and honey were promised in the rest. Rightly,
therefore, the Lord again promises milk to the righteous, that the
Word may be clearly shown to be both, “the Alpha and Omega,
beginning and end;”
[Iliad,
xiii. 6. S.]
But if human wisdom, as it remains to understand,
is the glorying in knowledge, hear the law
In this way also the rivers, borne on with
rushing motion, and fretted by contact with the surrounding air,
murmur forth foam. The moisture in our mouth, too, is whitened
by the breath. What an absurdity The emendation ἀπολήρησις
is adopted instead of the reading in the text.
The blood of the Word has been also exhibited as milk.
Milk being thus provided in parturition, is supplied to the infant;
and the breasts, which till then looked straight towards the husband,
now bend down towards the child, being taught to furnish the substance
elaborated by nature in a way easily received for salutary nourishment.
For the breasts are not like fountains full of milk, flowing in ready
prepared; but, by effecting a change in the nutriment, form the milk in
themselves, and discharge it. And the nutriment suitable and wholesome
for the new-formed and new-born babe is elaborated by God, the nourisher
and the Father of all that are generated and regenerated,—as manna,
the celestial food of
But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but
perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh
figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created
by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word
has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of
the babes—the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food—that is,
the Lord Jesus—that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh,
the heavenly flesh sanctified. The nutriment is the milk of the Father,
by which alone we infants are nourished. The Word Himself, then,
the beloved One, and our nourisher, hath shed His own blood for us,
to save humanity; and by Him, we, believing on God, flee to the Word,
“the care-soothing breast” of the Father. And He alone,
as is befitting, supplies us children with the milk of love, and those
only are truly blessed who suck this breast. Wherefore also Peter says:
“Laying therefore aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisy,
and envy, and evil speaking, as new-born babes, desire the milk of the
word, that ye may grow by it to salvation; if ye have tasted that the
Lord is Christ.”
[Clement here
argues from what was scientific in his day, introducing a curious, but
to us not very pertinent, episode.]
Further, the Word declares Himself to be the bread
of heaven. “For Moses,” He says, “gave you not that
bread from heaven, but My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
For the bread of God is He that cometh down from heaven, and giveth
life to the world. And the bread which I will give is My flesh, which I
will give for the life of the world.”
Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described,
as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord
is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no
one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is
figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented
as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine,
His robe in the blood of the grape.”
And that the blood is the Word, is testified
by the blood of Abel,
[
Further, this flesh, and the blood in it, are by
a mutual sympathy moistened and increased by the milk. And the process
of formation of the seed in conception ensues when it has mingled with
the pure residue of the menses, which remains. For the force that is in
the seed coagulating the substances of the blood, as the rennet curdles
milk, effects the essential part of the formative process. For a suitable
blending conduces to fruitfulness; but extremes are adverse, and tend
to sterility. For when the earth itself is flooded by excessive rain,
the seed is swept away, while in consequence of scarcity it is dried
up; but when the sap is viscous, it retains the seed, and makes it
germinate. Some also hold the hypothesis, that the seed of an animal is
in substance the foam of the blood, which being by the natural heat of
the male agitated and shaken out is turned into foam, and deposited in
the seminal veins. For Diogenes Apollionates will have it, that hence
is derived the word aphrodisia. [i.e., Not from the ἀφρὸς, of the
sea, but of the blood.]
From all this it is therefore evident, that
the essential principle of the human body is blood. The contents
of the stomach, too, at first are milky, a coagulation of fluid;
then the same coagulated substance is changed into blood; but when
it is formed into a compact consistency in the womb, by the natural
and warm spirit by which the embryo is fashioned, it becomes a living
creature. Further also, the child after birth is nourished by the same
blood. For the flow of milk is the product of the blood; and the source
of nourishment is the milk; by which a woman is shown to have brought
forth a child, and to be truly a mother, by which also she receives a
potent charm of affection. Wherefore the Holy Spirit in the apostle,
using the voice of the Lord, says mystically, “I have given you
milk to drink.”
The same blood and milk of the Lord is therefore the symbol of the Lord’s passion and teaching. Wherefore each of us babes is permitted to make our boast in the Lord, while we proclaim:—
Il., xiv. 113.
And that milk is produced from blood by a change, is already clear; yet we may learn it from the flocks and herds. For these animals, in the time of the year which we call spring, when the air has more humidity, and the grass and meadows are juicy and moist, are first filled with blood, as is shown by the distension of the veins of the swollen vessels; and from the blood the milk flows more copiously. But in summer again, the blood being burnt and dried up by the heat, prevents the change, and so they have less milk.
Further, milk has a most natural affinity for water, as assuredly the spiritual washing has for the spiritual nutriment. Those, therefore, that swallow a little cold water, in addition to the above-mentioned milk, straightway feel benefit; for the milk is prevented from souring by its combination with water, not in consequence of any antipathy between them, but in consequence of the water taking kindly to the milk while it is undergoing digestion.
And such as is the union of the Word with baptism, is the agreement of milk with water; for it receives it alone of all liquids, and admits of mixture with water, for the purpose of cleansing, as baptism for the remission of sins. And it is mixed naturally with honey also, and this for cleansing along with sweet nutriment. For the Word blended with love at once cures our passions and cleanses our sins; and the saying,
Il., i. 248.
seems to me to have been spoken of the Word,
who is honey. And prophecy oft extols Him “above honey and
the honeycomb.”
Furthermore, milk is mixed with sweet wine; and the mixture is beneficial, as when suffering is mixed in the cup in order to immortality. For the milk is curdled by the wine, and separated, and whatever adulteration is in it is drained off. And in the same way, the spiritual communion of faith with suffering man, drawing off as serous matter the lusts of the flesh, commits man to eternity, along with those who are divine, immortalizing him.
Further, many also use the fat of milk, called butter,
for the lamp, plainly indicating by this enigma the abundant unction
of the Word, since He alone it is who nourishes the infants, makes them
grow, and enlightens them. Wherefore also the Scripture says respecting
the Lord, “He fed them with the produce of the fields; they sucked
honey from the rock, and oil from the solid rock, butter of kine, and
milk of sheep, with fat of lambs;”
Since, then, we have shown that all of us are by Scripture called children; and not only so, but that we who have followed Christ are figuratively called babes; and that the Father of all alone is perfect, for the Son is in Him, and the Father is in the Son; it is time for us in due course to say who our Instructor is.
He is called Jesus. Sometimes He calls Himself
a shepherd, and says, “I am the good Shepherd.”
παιδαγωγός.
With the greatest clearness,
accordingly, the Word has spoken respecting Himself
by Hosea: “I am your Instructor.” παιδευτής;
παιδαγωγία.
Now the instruction which is of God is the right direction of truth to the contemplation of God, and the exhibition of holy deeds in everlasting perseverance.
As therefore the general directs the phalanx, consulting the safety of his soldiers, and the pilot steers the vessel, desiring to save the passengers; so also the Instructor guides the children to a saving course of conduct, through solicitude for us; and, in general, whatever we ask in accordance with reason from God to be done for us, will happen to those who believe in the Instructor. And just as the helmsman does not always yield to the winds, but sometimes, turning the prow towards them, opposes the whole force of the hurricanes; so the Instructor never yields to the blasts that blow in this world, nor commits the child to them like a vessel to make shipwreck on a wild and licentious course of life; but, wafted on by the favouring breeze of the Spirit of truth, stoutly holds on to the child’s helm,—his ears, I mean,—until He bring him safe to anchor in the haven of heaven.
What is called by men an ancestral custom passes away in a moment, but the divine guidance is a possession which abides for ever.
They say that Phœnix was the instructor of Achilles, and Adrastus of the children of Crœsus; and Leonides of Alexander, and Nausithous of Philip. But Phœnix was women-mad, Adrastus was a fugitive. Leonides did not curtail the pride of Alexander, nor Nausithous reform the drunken Pellæan. No more was the Thracian Zopyrus able to check the fornication of Alcibiades; but Zopyrus was a bought slave, and Sicinnus, the tutor of the children of Themistocles, was a lazy domestic. They say also that he invented the Sicinnian dance. Those have not escaped our attention who are called royal instructors among the Persians; whom, in number four, the kings of the Persians select with the greatest care from all the Persians and set over their sons. But the children only learn the use of the bow, and on reaching maturity have sexual intercourse with sisters, and mothers, and women, wives and courtesans innumerable, practiced in intercourse like the wild boars.
But our Instructor is the holy God Jesus, the
Word, who is the guide of all humanity. The loving God Himself is our
Instructor. Somewhere in song the Holy Spirit says with regard to Him,
“He provided sufficiently for the people in the wilderness. He led
him about in the thirst of summer heat in a dry land, and instructed him,
and kept him as the apple of His eye, as an eagle protects her nest,
and shows her fond solicitude for her young, spreads abroad her wings,
takes them, and bears them on her back. The Lord alone led them, and
there was no strange god with them.”
Again, when He speaks in His own person, He confesses
Himself to be the Instructor: “I am the Lord thy God, who brought
thee out of the land of Egypt.”
Or, “against the evil one.”
It is He also who teaches Moses to act as instructor.
For the Lord says, “If any one sin before Me, him will I blot out
of My book; but now, go and lead this people into the place which I told
thee.”
Now the law is ancient grace given through Moses by
the Word. Wherefore also the Scripture says, “The law was given
through Moses,”
See the care, and wisdom, and power of the Instructor:
“He shall not judge according to opinion, nor according to report;
but He shall dispense judgment to the humble, and reprove the sinners
of the earth.” And by David: “The Lord instructing,
hath instructed me, and not given me over to death.”
At this stage some rise up, saying that the
Lord, by reason of the rod, and threatening, and fear, is not good;
misapprehending, as appears, the Scripture which says, “And
he that feareth the Lord will turn to his heart;”
But he who loves anything wishes to do it good. And that which does good must be every way better than that which does not good. But nothing is better than the Good. The Good, then, does good. And God is admitted to be good. God therefore does good. And the Good, in virtue of its being good, does nothing else than do good. Consequently God does all good. And He does no good to man without caring for him, and He does not care for him without taking care of him. For that which does good purposely, is better than what does not good purposely. But nothing is better than God. And to do good purposely, is nothing else than to take care of man. God therefore cares for man, and takes care of him. And He shows this practically, in instructing him by the Word, who is the true coadjutor of God’s love to man. But the good is not said to be good, on account of its being possessed of virtue; as also righteousness is not said to be good on account of its possessing virtue—for it is itself virtue—but on account of its being in itself and by itself good.
In another way the useful is called good, not on account of its pleasing, but of its doing good. All which, therefore, is righteousness, being a good thing, both as virtue and as desirable for its own sake, and not as giving pleasure; for it does not judge in order to win favour, but dispenses to each according to his merits. And the beneficial follows the useful. Righteousness, therefore, has characteristics corresponding to all the aspects in which goodness is examined, both possessing equal properties equally. And things which are characterized by equal properties are equal and similar to each other. Righteousness is therefore a good thing.
“How then,” say they, “if
the Lord loves man, and is good, is He angry and punishes?”
We must therefore treat of this point with all possible brevity;
for this mode of treatment is advantageous to the right training of
the children, occupying the place of a necessary help. For many of
the passions are cured by punishment, and by the inculcation of the
sterner precepts, as also by instruction in certain principles. For
reproof is, as it were, the surgery of the passions of the soul;
and the passions are, as it were, an abscess of the truth, For ἀληθείας,
there are the readings ἀπαθείας
and ἀτιμίας.
Reproach is like the application of medicines, dissolving the callosities of the passions, and purging the impurities of the lewdness of the life; and in addition, reducing the excrescences of pride, restoring the patient to the healthy and true state of humanity.
Admonition is, as it were, the regimen of the diseased soul, prescribing what it must take, and forbidding what it must not. And all these tend to salvation and eternal health.
Furthermore, the general of an army, by inflicting
fines and corporeal punishments with chains and the extremest disgrace
on offenders,
Thus also He who is our great General, the Word, the Commander-in-chief of the universe, by admonishing those who throw off the restraints of His law, that He may effect their release from the slavery, error, and captivity of the adversary, brings them peacefully to the sacred concord of citizenship.
As, therefore in addition to persuasive discourse,
there is the hortatory and the consolatory form; so also, in addition to
the laudatory, there is the inculpatory and reproachful. And this latter
constitutes the art of censure. Now censure is a mark of good-will, not
of ill-will. For both he who is a friend and he who is not, reproach;
but the enemy does so in scorn, the friend in kindness. It is not, then,
from hatred that the Lord chides men; for He Himself suffered for us,
whom He might have destroyed for our faults. For the Instructor also,
in virtue of His being good, with consummate art glides into censure by
rebuke; rousing the sluggishness of the mind by His sharp words as by
a scourge. Again in turn He endeavours to exhort the same persons. For
those who are not induced by praise are spurred on by censure; and
those whom censure calls not forth to salvation being as dead, are by
denunciation roused to the truth. “For the stripes and correction
of wisdom are in all time.” “For teaching a fool is gluing
a potsherd; and sharpening to sense a hopeless blockhead is bringing
earth to sensation.”
Further, the Lord shows very clearly of Himself,
when, describing figuratively His manifold and in many ways serviceable
culture,—He says, “I am the true vine, and my Father is the
husbandman.” Then He adds, “Every branch in me that beareth
not fruit He taketh away; and every branch that beareth fruit He pruneth,
that it may bring forth more fruit.”
God, then, is good. And the Lord speaks many a time
and oft before He proceeds to act. “For my arrows,” He says,
“will make an end of them; they shall be consumed with hunger, and
be eaten by birds; and there shall be incurable tetanic incurvature. I
will send the teeth of wild beasts upon them, with the rage of serpents
creeping on the earth. Without, the sword shall make them childless; and
out of their chambers shall be fear.”
Plato, Rep., x. 617 E.
See how God, through His love of goodness,
seeks repentance; and by means of the plan He pursues of threatening
silently, shows His own love for man. “I will avert,” He says,
“My face from them, and show what shall happen to them.”
Now hatred of evil attends the good man, in virtue
of His being in nature good. Wherefore I will grant that He punishes
the disobedient (for punishment is for the good and advantage of him
who is punished, for it is the correction of a refractory subject);
but I will not grant that He wishes to take vengeance. Revenge is
retribution for evil, imposed for the advantage of him who takes
the revenge. He will not desire us to take revenge, who teaches
us “to pray for those that despitefully use us.”
Now, that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
is good, the Word Himself will again avouch: “For He is
kind to the unthankful and the evil;” and further, when He
says, “Be merciful, as your Father is merciful.”
Very clearly, then, we conclude Him to be one and
the same God, thus. For the Holy Spirit has sung, “I will look to
the heavens, the works
Rom, iii. 26.
Great is the wisdom displayed in His instruction, and manifold the modes of His dealing in order to salvation. For the Instructor testifies to the good, and summons forth to better things those that are called; dissuades those that are hastening to do wrong from the attempt, and exhorts them to turn to a better life. For the one is not without testimony, when the other has been testified to; and the grace which proceeds from the testimony is very great. Besides, the feeling of anger (if it is proper to call His admonition anger) is full of love to man, God condescending to emotion on man’s account; for whose sake also the Word of God became man.
With all His power, therefore, the Instructor of
humanity, the Divine Word, using all the resources of wisdom, devotes
Himself to the saving of the children, admonishing, upbraiding, blaming,
chiding, reproving, threatening, healing, promising, favouring; and as
it were, by many reins, curbing the irrational impulses of humanity. To
speak briefly, therefore, the Lord acts towards us as we do towards
our children. “Hast thou children? correct them,” is the
exhortation of the book of Wisdom, “and bend them from their
youth. Hast thou daughters? attend to their body, and let not thy face
brighten towards them,”
Let us now proceed to consider the mode of His loving discipline, with the aid of the prophetic testimony.
Admonition, then, is the censure of loving care,
and produces understanding. Such is the Instructor in His admonitions,
as when He says in the Gospel, “How often would I have gathered
thy children, as a bird gathers her young ones under her wings,
and ye would not!”
Upbraiding is censure on account of what is base,
conciliating to what is noble. This is shown by Jeremiah: “They
were female-mad horses; each one neighed after his neighbour’s
wife. Shall I not visit for these things? saith the Lord: shall not my soul be avenged on such a
nation as this?”
Complaint is censure of those who are regarded as
despising or neglecting. He employs this form when He says by Esaias:
“Hear, O heaven; and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken, I have begotten and
brought up children, but they have disregarded Me. The ox knoweth his
owner, and the ass his master’s crib: but Israel hath not known
Me.”
Invective
Or, rebuke.
Lowth conjectures ἐπιστομῶν
or ἐπιστομίζων,
instead of ἀναστομῶν.
Reproof is the bringing forward of sin, laying
it before one. This form of instruction He employs as in the highest
degree necessary, by reason of the feebleness of the faith of many. For
He says by Esaias, “Ye have forsaken the Lord, and have provoked the Holy One of
Israel to anger.”
H. reads δηκτικόν,
for which the text has ἐπιδεικτικόν.
Bringing one to
his senses (φρένωσις)
is censure, which makes a man think. Neither from this form of
instruction does he abstain, but says by Jeremiah, “How long shall
I cry, and you not hear? So your ears are uncircumcised.”
Visitation is severe rebuke. He uses this species in
the Gospel: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the prophets,
and stonest them that are sent unto thee!” The reduplication
of the name gives strength to the rebuke. For he that knows God,
how does he persecute God’s servants? Wherefore He says,
“Your house is left desolate; for I say unto you, Henceforth ye
shall not see Me, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the
name of the Lord.”
Denunciation is vehement speech. And He employs
denunciation as medicine, by Isaiah, saying, “Ah, sinful
nation, lawless sons, people full of sins, wicked seed!” Nothing similar to this is found
in the fourth Gospel; the reference may be to the words of the Baptist,
Accusation is censure of wrong-doers. This mode of
instruction He employs by David, when He says: “The people whom
I knew not served me, and at the hearing of the ear obeyed me. Sons
of strangers lied to me, and halted from their ways.”
Bewailing one’s fate is latent censure,
and by artful aid ministers salvation as under a veil. He made use
of this by Jeremiah: “How did the city sit solitary that was
full of people! She that ruled over territories became as a widow;
she came under tribute; weeping, she wept in the night.”
Objurgation is objurgatory censure. Of this help
the Divine Instructor made use by Jeremiah, saying, “Thou
hadst a whore’s forehead; thou wast shameless towards all;
and didst not call me to the house, who am thy father, and lord of
thy virginity.”
Indignation is a rightful upbraiding; or
upbraiding on account of ways exalted above what is right. In this
way He instructed by Moses, when He said, “Faulty children, a
generation crooked and perverse, do ye thus requite the Lord? This people is foolish, and not wise. Is
not this thy father who acquired thee?”
In fine, the system He pursues to inspire fear
is the source of salvation. And it is the prerogative of goodness to
save: “The mercy of the Lord is on all flesh, while He reproves,
corrects, and teaches as a shepherd His flock. He pities those who receive
His instruction, and those who eagerly seek union with Him.”
For reproof and rebuke, as also the original term implies, are the stripes of the soul, chastizing sins, preventing death, and leading to self-control those carried away to licentiousness. Thus also Plato, knowing reproof to be the greatest power for reformation, and the most sovereign purification, in accordance with what has been said, observes, “that he who is in the highest degree impure is uninstructed and base, by reason of his being unreproved in those respects in which he who is destined to be truly happy ought to be purest and best.”
For if rulers are not a terror to a good
work, how shall God, who is by nature good, be a terror to him
who sins not? “If thou doest evil, be afraid,”
Feed us, the children, as sheep. Yea, Master,
fill us with righteousness, Thine own pasture; yea, O Instructor, feed
us on Thy holy mountain the Church, which towers aloft, which is above
the clouds, which touches heaven. “And I will be,” He says,
“their Shepherd,”
Further, His righteousness cried, “If ye
come straight to me, I also will come straight to you but if ye walk
crooked, I also will walk crooked, saith the Lord of hosts;” Here Clement gives the sense
of various passages, e.g.,
Such are the causes of provocation for which the
Judge comes to inflict punishment on those that would not choose a life
of goodness. Wherefore also afterwards He assailed them more roughly;
in order, if possible, to drag them back from their impetuous rush
towards death. He therefore tells by David the most manifest cause of
the threatening: “They believed not in His wonderful works. When
He slew them, they sought after Him, and turned and inquired early after
God; and remembered that God was their Helper, and God the Most High
their Redeemer.”
There is a twofold species of fear, the one of
which is accompanied with reverence, such as citizens show towards
good rulers, and we towards God, as also right-minded children towards
their fathers. “For an unbroken horse turns out unmanageable,
and a son who is let take his own way turns out reckless.”
For as the mirror is not evil to an ugly man because
it shows him what like he is; and as the physician is not evil to the sick
man because he tells him of his fever,—for the physician is not
the cause of the fever, but only points out the fever;—so neither
is He, that reproves, ill-disposed towards him who is diseased in soul.
For He does not put the transgressions on him, but only shows the sins
which are there; in order to turn him away from similar practices. So
If, then, we have shown that the plan of dealing stringently with humanity is good and salutary, and necessarily adopted by the Word, and conducive to repentance and the prevention of sins; we shall have now to look in order at the mildness of the Word. For He has been demonstrated to be just. He sets before us His own inclinations which invite to salvation; by which, in accordance with the Father’s will, He wishes to make known to us the good and the useful. Consider these. The good (τὸ καλόν) belongs to the panegyrical form of speech, the useful to the persuasive. For the hortatory and the dehortatory are a form of the persuasive, and the laudatory and inculpatory of the panegyrical.
For the persuasive style of sentence in one form
becomes hortatory, and in another dehortatory. So also the panegyrical
in one form becomes inculpatory, and in another laudatory. And in these
exercises the Instructor, the Just One, who has proposed our advantage
as His aim, is chiefly occupied. But the inculpatory and dehortatory
forms of speech have been already shown us; and we must now handle
the persuasive and the laudatory, and, as on a beam, balance the equal
scales of justice. The exhortation to what is useful, the Instructor
employs by Solomon, to the following effect: “I exhort you, O men;
and I utter my voice to the sons of men. Hear me; for I will speak of
excellent things;”
By encouragement He assuages sins, reducing lust,
and at the same time inspiring hope for salvation. For He says by
Ezekiel, “If ye return with your whole heart, and say, Father,
I will hear you, as a holy people.”
In
And comprehending this, as it seems to me, the Samian Pythagoras gives the injunction:—
Chiding is also called admonishing; and the etymology of admonishing (νουθέτησις) is (νοῦ ἐνθεματισμός) putting of understanding into one; so that rebuking is bringing one to one’s senses.
But there are myriads of injunctions to be found,
whose aim is the attainment of what is good, and the avoidance of
what is evil. “For there is no peace to the wicked, saith
the Lord.”
The mode of His love and His instruction we have shown
as we could. Wherefore He Himself, declaring Himself very beautifully,
likened Himself to a grain of mustard-seed;
Accordingly, of old He instructed by Moses,
and then by the prophets. Moses, too, was a prophet. For the law
is the training of refractory children. “Having feasted to
the full,” accordingly, it is said, “they rose up
to play;”
Having now accomplished those things, it were a fitting sequel that our instructor Jesus should draw for us the model of the true life, and train humanity in Christ.
Nor is the cast and character of the life He enjoins very formidable; nor is it made altogether easy by reason of His benignity. He enjoins His commands, and at the same time gives them such a character that they may be accomplished.
The view I take is, that He Himself formed man of the
dust, and regenerated him by water; and made him grow by his Spirit;
and trained him by His word to adoption and salvation, directing
him by sacred precepts; in order that, transforming earth-born man
into a holy and heavenly being by His advent, He might fulfil to the
utmost that divine utterance, “Let Us make man in Our own image
and likeness.”
But let us, O children of the good
Father—nurslings of the good Instructor—fulfil the
Father’s will, listen to the Word, and take on the impress of the
truly saving life of our Saviour; and meditating on the heavenly mode of
life according to which we have been deified, let us anoint ourselves
with the perennial immortal bloom of gladness—that ointment of
sweet fragrance—having a clear example of immortality in the walk
and conversation of the Lord; and following the footsteps of God, to whom
alone it belongs to consider, and whose care it is to see to, the way
and manner in which the life of men may be made more healthy. Besides,
He makes preparation for a self-sufficing mode of life, for simplicity,
and for girding up our loins, and for free and unimpeded readiness of
our journey; in order to the attainment of an eternity of beatitude,
teaching each one of us to be his own storehouse. For He says, “Take
no anxious thought for to-morrow,”
Our superintendence in instruction and discipline is
the office of the Word, from whom we learn frugality and humility, and
all that pertains to love of truth, love of man, and love of excellence.
And so, in a word, being assimilated to God by a participation in moral
excellence, we must not retrograde into carelessness and sloth. But
labour, and faint not. Thou shalt be what thou dost not hope, and canst
not conjecture. And as there is one mode of training for philosophers,
another for orators, and another for athletes; so is there a generous
disposition, suitable to the choice that is set upon moral loveliness,
resulting from the training of Christ. And in the case of those who
have been trained according to this influence, their gait in walking,
their sitting at table, their food, their sleep, their going to bed,
their regimen, and the rest of their mode of life, acquire a superior
dignity. [The secondary,
civilizing, and socializing power of the Gospel, must have already
produced all this change from heathen manners, under Clement’s own
observation.]
Everything that is contrary to right reason is
sin. Accordingly, therefore, the philosophers think fit to define the
most generic passions thus: lust, as desire disobedient to reason;
fear, as weakness disobedient to reason; pleasure, as an elation of
the spirit disobedient to reason. If, then, disobedience in reference
to reason is the generating cause of sin, how shall we escape the
conclusion, that obedience to reason—the Word—which we
call faith, will of necessity be the efficacious cause of duty? For
virtue itself is a state of the soul rendered harmonious by reason
in respect to the whole life. Nay, to crown all, philosophy
itself is pronounced to be the cultivation of right reason; so
that, necessarily, whatever is done through error of reason is
transgression, and is rightly called, (ἁμάρτημα)
sin. Since, then, the first man sinned and disobeyed God, it
is said, “And man became like to the beasts:”
But that which is done right, in obedience to
reason, the followers of the Stoics call προσῆκον
and καθῆκον,
that is, incumbent and fitting. What is fitting is
incumbent. And obedience is founded on commands. And these
being, as they are, the same as counsel—having truth for
their aim, train up to the ultimate goal of aspiration, which
is conceived of as the end (τέλος). And the
end of piety is eternal rest in God. And the beginning of eternity is
our end. The right operation of piety perfects duty by works; whence,
according to just reasoning, duties consist in actions, not in sayings.
And Christian conduct is the operation of the rational soul in accordance
with a correct judgment and aspiration after the truth, which attains its
destined end through the body, the soul’s consort and ally. [Note this definition in Christian
ethics.]
Keeping, then, to our aim, and selecting the Scriptures which bear on the usefulness of training for life, we must now compendiously describe what the man who is called a Christian ought to be during the whole of his life. We must accordingly begin with ourselves, and how we ought to regulate ourselves. We have therefore, preserving a due regard to the symmetry of this work, to say how each of us ought to conduct himself in respect to his body, or rather how to regulate the body itself. For whenever any one, who has been brought away by the Word from external things, and from attention to the body itself to the mind, acquires a clear view of what happens according to nature in man, he will know that he is not to be earnestly occupied about external things, but about what is proper and peculiar to man—to purge the eye of the soul, and to sanctify also his flesh. For he that is clean rid of those things which constitute him still dust, what else has he more serviceable than himself for walking in the way which leads to the comprehension of God.
Some men, in truth, live that they may eat, as the irrational creatures, “whose life is their belly, and nothing else.” But the Instructor enjoins us to eat that we may live. For neither is food our business, nor is pleasure our aim; but both are on account of our life here, which the Word is training up to immortality. Wherefore also there is discrimination to be employed in reference to food. And it is to be simple, truly plain, suiting precisely simple and artless children—as ministering to life, not to luxury. And the life to which it conduces consists of two things—health and strength; to which plainness of fare is most suitable, being conducive both to digestion and lightness of body, from which come growth, and health, and right strength, not strength that is wrong or dangerous and wretched, as is that of athletes produced by compulsory feeding.
We must therefore reject different varieties, which engender various mischiefs, such as a depraved habit of body and disorders of the stomach, the taste being vitiated by an unhappy art—that of cookery, and the useless art of making pastry. For people dare to call by the name of food their dabbling in luxuries, which glides into mischievous pleasures. Antiphanes, the Delian physician, said that this variety of viands was the one cause of disease; there being people who dislike the truth, and through various absurd notions abjure moderation of diet, and put themselves to a world of trouble to procure dainties from beyond seas.
For my part, I am sorry for this disease, while they
are not ashamed to sing the praises of their delicacies, giving themselves
great trouble to get lampreys in the Straits of Sicily, the eels of the
Mæander, and the kids found in Melos, and the mullets in Sciathus,
and the mussels of Pelorus, the oysters of Abydos, not omitting the
sprats found in Lipara, and the Mantinican turnip; and furthermore,
the beetroot that grows among the Ascræans: they seek out the
cockles of Methymna, the turbots of Attica, and the thrushes of Daphnis,
and the reddish-brown dried figs, on account of which the ill-starred
Persian marched into Greece with five hundred thousand men. Besides
these, they purchase birds from Phasis, the Egyptian snipes, and the
Median peafowl. Altering these by means of condiments, the gluttons
gape for the sauces. “Whatever earth and the depths of the sea,
and the unmeasured space of the air produce,” they cater for their
gluttony. In their greed and solicitude, the gluttons seem absolutely
to sweep the world with a drag-net to gratify their luxurious tastes.
These gluttons, surrounded with the sound of hissing frying-pans, and
wearing their whole life away at the pestle and mortar, cling to matter
like fire. More than that, they emasculate plain food, namely bread,
by straining off the nourishing part of the grain, so that
ὄθεν,
an emendation for ὄν. Love, or love-feast, a name
applied by the ancients to public entertainments. [But surely he is here
rebuking, with St. Jude (v. 12), abuses of the Christian agapæ
by heretics and others.]
Odyss., xi. 37.
“For I would not that ye
should have fellowship with demons,”
For it were not seemly that we, after the fashion
of the rich man’s son in the Gospel,
We are not, then, to abstain wholly from various
kinds of food, but only are not to be taken up about them. We are to
partake of what is set before us, as becomes a Christian, out of respect
to him who has invited us, by a harmless and moderate participation in the
social meeting; regarding the sumptuousness of what is put on the table
as a matter of indifference, despising the dainties, as after a little
destined to perish. “Let him who eateth, not despise him who eateth
not; and let him who eateth not, not judge him who eateth.”
[Clement
seems to think this abuse was connected with the agapæ
not—one might trust—with the Lord’s supper.]
From all slavish habits Literally, “slave-manners,” the conduct to
be expected from slaves.
A bulbous root, much prized in Greece, which grew
wild. A play here on the words εὐδαίμων
and δαίμων. ἀκρόδρυα,
hard-shelled fruits.
In allusion to the
agapæ, or love-feasts.
This was the sufficient sustenance of the
Israelites. But that of the Gentiles was over-abundant. No one
who uses it will ever study to become temperate, burying as he
does his mind in his belly, very like the fish called ass, ὄνος, perhaps the hake
or cod.
Such are the men who believe in their belly,
“whose God is their belly, whose glory is in their shame, who mind
earthly things.” To them the apostle predicted no good when he
said, “whose end is destruction.”
“Use a little wine,” says the apostle to
Timothy, who drank water, “for thy stomach’s sake;”
The natural, temperate, and necessary beverage,
therefore, for the thirsty is water. [This remarkable chapter seems to begin with the
author’s recollections of Pindar (ἄριστον
μὲν ϋδωρ),
but to lay down very justly the Scriptural ideas of temperance and
abstinence.] [Clement
reckons only two classes as living faithfully with respect to drink,
the abstinent and the totally abstinent.]
Afterwards the sacred vine produced the prophetic cluster. This was a sign to them, when trained from wandering to their rest; representing the great cluster the Word, bruised for us. For the blood of the grape—that is, the Word—desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation.
And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is
the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and
the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of
Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit
being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. [This seems Clement’s
exposition of St. John (vi. 63), and a clear statement as to the
Eucharist, which he pronounces spiritual food.]
Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, [A plain reference to the use of
the mixed cup in the Lord’s supper.]
And the mixture of both—of the water and
of the Word—is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace;
and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and
soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will
I therefore admire those who have adopted an
austere life, and who are fond of water, the medicine of temperance,
and flee as far as possible from wine, shunning it as they would the
danger of fire. [If the
temperate do well, he thinks, the abstinent do better; but
nobody is temperate who does not often and habitually abstain.]
[A very important principle; for, if wine be “the milk of
age,” the use of it in youth deprives age of any benefit from
its sober use].
And, besides, it suits divine studies not to be
heavy with wine. “For unmixed wine is far from compelling a man
to be wise, much less temperate,” according to the comic poet.
But towards evening, about supper-time, wine may be used, when we are
no longer engaged in more serious readings. Then also the air becomes
colder than it is during the day; so that the failing natural warmth
requires to be nourished by the introduction of heat. But even then it
must only be a little wine that is to be used; for we must not go on
to intemperate potations. Those who are already advanced in life may
partake more cheerfully of the draught, to warm by the harmless medicine
of the vine the chill of age, which the decay of time has produced. For
old men’s passions are not, for the most part, stirred to such
agitation as to drive them to the shipwreck of drunkenness. For being
moored by reason and time, as by anchors, they stand with greater ease
the storm of passions which rushes down from intemperance. They also may
be permitted to indulge in pleasantry at feasts. But to them also let the
limit of their potations be the point up to which they keep their reason
unwavering, their memory active, and their body unmoved and unshaken by
wine. People in such a state are called by those who are skilful in these
matters, acrothorakes.
The exact derivation of acrothorakes is matter of doubt. But we
have the authority of Aristotle and Erotian for believing that is was
applied to those who were slightly drunk. Some regard the clause here as
an interpolation.
One Artorius, in his book On Long Life (for so I remember), thinks that drink should be taken only till the food be moistened, that we may attain to a longer life. It is fitting, then, that some apply wine by way of physic, for the sake of health alone, and others for purposes of relaxation and enjoyment. For first wine makes the man who has drunk it more benignant than before, more agreeable to his boon companions, kinder to his domestics, and more pleasant to his friends. But when intoxicated, he becomes violent instead. For wine being warm, and having sweet juices when duly mixed, dissolves the foul excrementitious matters by its warmth, and mixes the acrid and base humours with the agreeable scents.
It has therefore been well said, “A joy of
the soul and heart was wine created from the beginning, when drunk in
moderate sufficiency.”
By an immoderate quantity of wine the tongue
Pentheus
in Euripides, Bacch., 918.
Attributed to Sophocles.
And before tragedy, Wisdom
cried, “Much wine drunk abounds in irritation and all manner
of mistakes.”
[A beautiful maxim, and proving
the habit of early Christians to use completory prayers. This the drunkard
is in no state to do.]
But the miserable wretches who expel temperance from conviviality, think excess in drinking to be the happiest life; and their life is nothing but revel, debauchery, baths, excess, urinals, idleness, drink. You may see some of them, half-drunk, staggering, with crowns round their necks like wine jars, vomiting drink on one another in the name of good fellowship; and others, full of the effects of their debauch, dirty, pale in the face, livid, and still above yesterday’s bout pouring another bout to last till next morning. It is well, my friends, it is well to make our acquaintance with this picture at the greatest possible distance from it, and to frame ourselves to what is better, dreading lest we also become a like spectacle and laughing-stock to others.
It has been appropriately said, “As the
furnace proveth the steel blade in the process of dipping, so wine
proveth the heart of the haughty.”
Such a life as this (if life it must be called,
which is spent in idleness, in agitation about voluptuous indulgences,
and in the hallucinations of debauchery) the divine Wisdom looks on
with contempt, and commands her children, “Be not a wine-bibber,
nor spend your money in the purchase of flesh; for every drunkard
and fornicator shall come to beggary, and every sluggard shall
be clothed in tatters and rags.”
So he adds these most monitory words. “Who
has woes, who has clamour, who has contentions, who has disgusting
babblings, who has unavailing remorse?”
And further:—
And so on.
You see the danger of shipwreck. The heart is drowned in much drink. The excess of drunkenness is compared to the danger of the sea, in which when the body has once been sunken like a ship, it descends to the depths of turpitude, overwhelmed in the mighty billows of wine; and the helmsman, the human mind, is tossed about on the surge of drunkenness, which swells aloft; and buried in the trough of the sea, is blinded by the darkness of the tempest, having drifted away from the haven of truth, till, dashing on the rocks beneath the sea, it perishes, driven by itself into voluptuous indulgences.
With reason, therefore, the apostle
enjoins, “Be not drunk with wine, in which there is much
excess;” by the term excess (ἀσωτία)
intimating the inconsistence of drunkenness with salvation (τὸ
ἄσωστον). For if He made
water wine at the marriage, He did not give permission to get drunk. He
gave life to the watery element of the meaning of the law, filling with
His blood the doer of it who is of Adam, that is, the whole world;
supplying piety with drink from the vine of truth, the mixture of
the old law and of the new word, in order to the fulfilment of the
predestined time. The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol
of the sacred blood; [A
passage not to be overlooked. Greek, μυστικὸν
σύμβολον.] ἀνθοσμίας.
Some suppose the word to be derived from the name of a town: “The
Anthosmian.”
Especial regard is to be paid to decency [Here Clement satirizes heathen
manners, and quote Athene, to shame Christians who imitate
them.]
“Be not mighty,” he says, “at
wine; for wine has overcome many.”
In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He
became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum
and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself
also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine,
saying, “Take, drink: this is my blood”—the blood of
the vine. [The blood of
the vine is Christ’s blood. According to Clement, then, it remains
in the Eucharist unchanged.]
But women, making a profession, forsooth, of aiming at the graceful, that their lips may not be rent apart by stretching them on broad drinking cups, and so widening the mouth, drinking in an unseemly way out of alabastra quite too narrow: in the mouth, throw back their heads and bare their necks indecently, as I think; and distending the throat in swallowing, gulp down the liquor as if to make bare all they can to their boon companions; and drawing hiccups like men, or rather like slaves, revel in luxurious riot. For nothing disgraceful is proper for man, who is endowed with reason; much less for woman to whom it brings modesty even to reflect of what nature she is.
“An intoxicated woman is great wrath,” it
is said, as if a drunken woman were the wrath of God. Why? “Because
she will not conceal her shame.”
But by no manner of means are women to be allotted to uncover and exhibit any part of their person, lest both fall,—the men by being excited to look, they by drawing on themselves the eyes of the men.
But always must we conduct ourselves as in the
Lord’s presence, lest He say to us, as the apostle in indignation
said to the Corinthians, “When ye come together, this is not
to eat the Lord’s supper.”
To me, the star called by the mathematicians
Acephalus (headless), which is numbered before the wandering star, his
head resting on his breast, seems to be a type of the gluttonous, the
voluptuous, and those that are prone to drunkenness. For in such τουτοις,
an emendation for τούτῳ. Odyss., xi. 65. Iliad, i. 591.
Wherefore also Noah’s intoxication was
recorded in writing, that, with the clear and written description
of his transgression before us, we might guard with all our might
against drunkenness. For which cause they who covered the shame Shem and Japheth.
see
And so the use of cups made of silver and gold,
and of others inlaid with precious stones, is out of place, being only
a deception of the vision. For if you pour any warm liquid into them,
the vessels becoming hot, to touch them is painful. On the other hand,
if you pour in what is cold, the material changes its quality, injuring
the mixture, and the rich potion is hurtful. Away, then, with Thericleian
cups and
Limpet-shaped cups. [On this chapter consult Kaye, p. 74.]
Follow God, stripped of arrogance, stripped of
fading display, possessed of that which is thine, which is good, what
alone cannot be taken away—faith towards God, confession towards
Him who suffered, beneficence towards men, which is the most precious
of possessions. For my part, I approve of Plato, who plainly lays it
down as a law, that a man is not to labour for wealth of gold or silver,
nor to possess a useless vessel which is not for some necessary purpose,
and moderate; so that the same thing may serve for many purposes, and the
possession of a variety of things may be done away with. Excellently,
therefore, the Divine Scripture, addressing boasters and lovers of
their own selves, says, “Where are the rulers of the nations,
and the lords of the wild beasts of the earth, who sport among the
birds of heaven, who treasured up silver and gold, in whom men trusted,
and there was no end of their substance, who fashioned silver and gold,
and were full of care? There is no finding of their works. They have
vanished, and gone down to Hades.” Or, proud.
For in fine, in food, and clothes, and vessels, and
everything else belonging to the house, I say comprehensively, that one
must follow the institutions of the Christian [See Elucidation I. ἐνστάσεσιν
τοῦ
Χριστιανοῦ.] καλοῦ.
What we acquire without difficulty, and use with
ease, we praise, keep easily, and communicate freely. The things which
are useful are preferable, and consequently cheap things are better than
dear. In fine, wealth, when not properly governed, is a stronghold of
evil, about which many casting their eyes, they will never reach the
kingdom of heaven, sick for the things of the world, and living proudly
through luxury. But those who are in earnest about salvation must settle
this beforehand in their mind, “that all that we possess is given
to us for use, and use for sufficiency, which one may attain to by a few
things.” For silly are they who, from greed, take delight in what
they have hoarded up. “He that gathereth wages,” it is said,
“gathereth into a bag with holes.”
It is a farce, and a thing to make one laugh outright, for men to bring in silver urinals and crystal vases de nuit, as they usher in their counsellors, and for silly rich women to get gold receptacles for excrements made; so that being rich, they cannot even ease themselves except in superb way. I would that in their whole life they deemed gold fit for dung.
But now love of money is found to be the stronghold
of evil, which the apostle says “is the root of all evils,
which, while some coveted, they have erred from the faith, and pierced
themselves through with many sorrows.”
But the best riches is poverty of desires; and the true magnanimity is not to be proud of wealth, but to despise it. Boasting about one’s plate is utterly base. For it is plainly wrong to care much about what any one who likes may buy from the market. But wisdom is not bought with coin of earth, nor is it sold in the market-place, but in heaven. And it is sold for true coin, the immortal Word, the regal gold.
Let revelry keep away from our rational
entertainments, and foolish vigils, too, that revel in intemperance. For
revelry is an inebriating pipe, the chain The reading ἅλυσις is here
adopted. The passage is obscure.
[He distinguishes between the lewd
music of Satanic odes (Tatian, cap. xxxiii. p. 79, supra),
and another art of music of which he will soon speak.]
The Spirit, distinguishing from such revelry the
divine service, sings, “Praise Him with the sound of trumpet;”
for with sound of trumpet He shall raise the dead. “Praise
Him on the psaltery;” for the tongue is the psaltery of the
Lord. “And praise Him on the lyre.”
In their wars, therefore, the Etruscans use the
trumpet, the Arcadians the pipe, the Sicilians the
In the present instance He is a guest with us. For
the apostle adds again, “Teaching and admonishing one another
in all wisdom, in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing
with grace in your heart to God.” And again, “Whatsoever
ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving
thanks to God and His Father.” This is our thankful revelry. And
even if you wish to sing and play to the harp or lyre, there is no
blame. [Here instrumental
music is allowed, though he turns everything into a type.]
[Even
the heathen had such forms. The Christian grace before and after meat
is here recognised as a matter of course.
Finally, before partaking of sleep, it is a sacred
duty to give thanks to God, having enjoyed His grace and love, and
so go straight to sleep.
[Besides the hymn on lighting the lamps, he notes completory
prayer at bedtime.] Wisd. Sirach (Ecclus.) xxxix. 15,
16.
Further, among the ancient Greeks, in their banquets
over the brimming cups, a song was sung called a skolion, after the
manner of the Hebrew psalms, all together raising the pæan with
the voice, and sometimes also taking turns in the song while they
drank healths round; while those that were more musical than the rest
sang to the lyre. But let amatory songs be banished far away, and let
our songs be hymns to God. “Let them praise,” it is said,
“His name in the dance, and let them play to Him on the timbrel
and psaltery.”
[Observe the contrast between
the modest harmonies he praises, and the operatic strains he
censures. Yet modern Christians delight in these florid and meretricious
compositions, and they have intruded into the solemnities of worship. In
Europe, dramatic composers of a sensual school have taken possession of
the Latin ceremonial.]
[On gluttony and drinking, our author borrows much from Plato. Kaye,
p. 74.]
People who are imitators of ludicrous sensations, or
rather of such as deserve derision, are to be driven from our polity. Or, society.
For since all forms of speech flow from mind and
manners, ludicrous expressions could not be uttered, did they not proceed
from ludicrous practices. For the saying, “It is not a good tree
which produces corrupt fruit, nor a corrupt tree which produces good
fruit,” [Our author is
a terrible satirist; but it is instructive to see Christianity thus
prescribing the minor morals, and banishing pagan brutality with holy
scorn.]
Pleasantry is allowable, not waggery. Besides, even laughter must be kept in check; for when given vent to in the right manner it indicates orderliness, but when it issues differently it shows a want of restraint.
For, in a word, whatever things are natural to men we must not eradicate from them, but rather impose on them limits and suitable times. For man is not to laugh on all occasions because he is a laughing animal, any more than the horse neighs on all occasions because he is a neighing animal. But as rational beings, we are to regulate ourselves suitably, harmoniously relaxing the austerity and over-tension of our serious pursuits, not inharmoniously breaking them up altogether.
For the seemly relaxation of the countenance in a
harmonious manner—as of a musical instrument—is called a
smile. So also is laughter on the face of well-regulated men termed.
But the discordant relaxation of countenance in the case of women is
called a giggle, and is meretricious laughter; in the case of men, a
guffaw, and is savage and insulting laughter. “A fool raises his
voice in laughter,”
Smiling even requires to be made the subject of discipline. If it is at what is disgraceful, we ought to blush rather than smile, lest we seem to take pleasure in it by sympathy; if at what is painful, it is fitting to look sad rather than to seem pleased. For to do the former is a sign of rational human thought; the other infers suspicion of cruelty.
We are not to laugh perpetually, for that is going beyond bounds; nor in the presence of elderly persons, or others worthy of respect, unless they indulge in pleasantry for our amusement. Nor are we to laugh before all and sundry, nor in every place, nor to every one, nor about everything. For to children and women especially laughter is the cause of slipping into scandal. And even to appear stern serves to keep those about us at their distance. For gravity can ward off the approaches of licentiousness by a mere look. All senseless people, to speak in a word, wine
changing effeminate manners to softness. We must consider, too, how consequently freedom of speech leads impropriety on to filthy speaking.
Odyss., xiv. 463–466.
Especially, therefore, in liquor crafty men’s characters are wont to be seen through, stripped as they are of their mask through the caitiff licence of intoxication, through which reason, weighed down in the soul itself by drunkenness, is lulled to sleep, and unruly passions are roused, which overmaster the feebleness of the mind.
From filthy speaking we ourselves must entirely
abstain, and stop the mouths of those who practice it by stern
looks and averting the face, and by what we call making a mock
of one: often also by a harsher mode of speech. “For what
proceedeth out of the mouth,” He says, “defileth
a man,”
[May the
young Christian who reads this passage learn to abhor all freedom of
speech of this kind. This is a very precious chapter.]
And as a similar rule holds with regard to hearing
and seeing in the case of what is obscene, the divine Instructor,
following the same course with both, arrays those children who are
engaged in the struggle in words of modesty, as ear-guards, so that the
pulsation of fornication may not penetrate to the bruising of the soul;
and He directs the eyes to the sight of what is honourable, saying that
it is better to make a slip with the feet than with the eyes. This
filthy speaking the apostle beats off, saying, “Let no corrupt
communication proceed out of your mouth, but what is good.”
says Poetry. More nobly the apostle
says, “Be haters of the evil; cleave to the good.” [How then can
Christians frequent theatrical shows, and listen to lewd and profane
plays?]
It is on this account, as appears to me, that the
Instructor does not permit us to give utterance to aught unseemly,
fortifying us at an early stage against licentiousness. For He
is admirable always at cutting out the roots of sins, such as,
“Thou shalt not commit adultery,” by “Thou shalt not
lust.”
For neither are knee and leg, and such other members,
nor are the names applied to them, and the activity put forth by them,
obscene. And even the pudenda are to be regarded as objects
suggestive of modesty, not shame. It is their unlawful activity that is
shameful, and deserving ignominy, and reproach, and punishment. For the
only thing that is in reality shameful is wickedness, and what is done
through it. In accordance with these remarks, conversation about deeds of
wickedness is appropriately termed filthy [shameful] speaking, as talk
about adultery and pæderasty and the like. Frivolous prating, too,
is to be put to silence. [An
example may not be out of place, as teaching how we may put such things
to silence. “Since the ladies have withdrawn,” said one,
“I will tell a little anecdote.” “But,” interposed
a dignified person, “let me ask you to count me as representing
the ladies; for I am the husband of one of them, and should be sorry
to hear what would degrade me in her estimation.”]
Let us keep away from us jibing, the originator
of insult, from which strifes and contentions and enmities burst
forth. Insult, we have said, is the servant of drunkenness. A man
is judged, not from his deeds alone, but from his words. “In
a banquet,” it is said, “reprove not thy neighbour,
nor say to him a word of reproach.”
But if any necessity arises, commanding the presence
of married women, let them be well clothed—without by raiment,
within by modesty. But as for such as are unmarried, it is the extremest
scandal for them to be present at a banquet of men, especially men under
the influence of wine. And let the men, fixing their eyes on the couch,
and leaning without moving on their elbows, be present with their ears
alone; and if they sit, let them not have their feet crossed, nor place
one thigh on another, nor apply the hand to the chin. For it is vulgar
not to bear one’s self without support, and consequently a fault
in a young man. And perpetually moving and changing one’s position
is a sign of frivolousness. It is the part of a temperate man also,
in eating and drinking, to take a small portion, and deliberately, not
eagerly, both at the beginning and during the courses, and to leave off
betimes, and so show his indifference. “Eat,” it is said,
“like a man what is set before you. Be the first to stop for the
sake of regimen; and, if seated in the midst of several people, do not
stretch out your hand before them.”
[A primitive form of Christian
salutation, borrowed from the great Example.
Iliad, ii. 213.
“For dreadful in his destruction is a
loquacious man.”
If any one is attacked with sneezing, just as in the
case of hiccup, he must not startle those near him with the explosion,
and so give proof of his bad breeding; but the hiccup is to be quietly
transmitted with the expiration of the breath, the mouth being composed
becomingly, and not gaping and yawning like the tragic masks. So
the disturbance of hiccup may be avoided by making the respirations
gently; for thus the threatening symptoms of the ball of wind will be
dissipated in the most seemly way, by managing its egress so as also to
conceal anything which the air forcibly expelled may bring up with it.
To wish to add to the noises, instead of diminishing them, is the sign
of arrogance and disorderliness. Those, too, who scrape their teeth,
bleeding the wounds, are disagreeable to themselves and detestable to
their neighbours. Scratching the ears and the irritation of sneezing
are swinish itchings, and attend unbridled fornication. Both shameful
sights and shameful conversation about them are to be shunned. Let
the look be steady, and the turning and movement of the neck, and
the motions of the hands in conversation, be decorous. In a word, the
Christian is characterized by composure, tranquillity, calmness, and
peace. [“Against such
there is no law.” Emollit
Mores, etc.]
The use of crowns and ointments is not necessary
for us; for it impels to pleasures and indulgences, especially on the
approach of night. I know that the woman brought to the sacred supper
“an alabaster box of ointment,”
This may be a symbol of the Lord’s teaching,
and of His suffering. For the feet anointed with fragrant ointment
mean divine instruction travelling with renown to the ends of the
earth. “For their sound hath gone forth to the ends of the
earth.”
[We need not refuse this efflorescence as poetry,
nor accept it as exposition.]
Besides, it shows the Lord’s passion, if you
understand it mystically thus: the oil (ἔλαιον)
is the Lord Himself, from whom comes
the mercy (ἔλεος)
which reaches us. But the ointment,
This was, then, what the anointed feet
prophesied—the treason of Judas, when the Lord went to His
passion. And the Saviour Himself washing the feet of the disciples,
I know, too, the words of Aristippus the Cyrenian. Aristippus was a luxurious man. He asked an answer to a sophistical proposition in the following terms: “A horse anointed with ointment is not injured in his excellence as a horse, nor is a dog which has been anointed, in his excellence as a dog; no more is a man,” he added, and so finished. But the dog and horse take no account of the ointment, whilst in the case of those whose perceptions are more rational, applying girlish scents to their persons, its use is more censurable. Of these ointments there are endless varieties, such as the Brenthian, the Metallian, and the royal; the Plangonian and the Psagdian of Egypt. Simonides is not ashamed in Iambic lines to say,—
For a merchant was present. They use, too, the unguent made from lilies, and that from the cypress. Nard is in high estimation with them, and the ointment prepared from roses and the others which women use besides, both moist and dry, scents for rubbing and for fumigating; for day by day their thoughts are directed to the gratification of insatiable desire, to the exhaustless variety of fragrance. Wherefore also they are redolent of an excessive luxuriousness. And they fumigate and sprinkle their clothes, their bed-clothes, and their houses. Luxury all but compels vessels for the meanest uses to smell of perfume.
There are some who, annoyed at the attention bestowed on this, appear to me to be rightly so averse to perfumes on account of their rendering manhood effeminate, as to banish their compounders and vendors from well-regulated states, and banish, too, the dyers of flower-coloured wools. For it is not right that ensnaring garments and unguents should be admitted into the city of truth; but it is highly requisite for the men who belong to us to give forth the odour not of ointments, but of nobleness and goodness. And let woman breathe the odour of the true royal ointment, that of Christ, not of unguents and scented powders; and let her always be anointed with the ambrosial chrism of modesty, and find delight in the holy unguent, the Spirit. This ointment of pleasant fragrance Christ prepares for His disciples, compounding the ointment of celestial aromatic ingredients.
Wherefore also the Lord Himself is anointed with
an ointment, as is mentioned by David: “Wherefore God, thy God,
hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows; myrrh, and
stacte, and cassia from thy garments.”
Ointment being smooth oil, do you not think that it is
calculated to render noble manners effeminate? Certainly. And as we have
abandoned luxury in taste, so certainly do we renounce voluptuousness in
sights and odours; lest through the senses, as through unwatched doors,
we unconsciously give access into the soul to that excess which we have
driven away. If, then, we say that the Lord the great High Priest offers
to God the incense of sweet fragrance, let us not imagine that this is
a sacrifice and sweet fragrance of incense; [Considering the use of incense in Hebrew worship, and
the imagery of the Apocalypse, the emphasis with which the Fathers reject
material incense, is to be noted.]
To resume: oil itself suffices to lubricate the skin, and relax the nerves, and remove any heavy smell from the body, if we require oil for this purpose. But attention to sweet scents is a bait which draws us in to sensual lust. For the licentious man is led on every hand, both by his food, his bed, his conversation, by his eyes, his ears, his jaws, and by his nostrils too. As oxen are pulled by rings and ropes, so is the voluptuary by fumigations and unguents, and the sweet scents of crowns. But since we assign no place to pleasure which is linked to no use serviceable to life, come let us also distinguish here too, selecting what is useful. For there are sweet scents which neither make the head heavy nor provoke love, and are not redolent of embraces and licentious companionship, but, along with moderation, are salutary, nourishing the brain when labouring under indisposition, and strengthening the stomach. One must not therefore refrigerate himself with flowers when he wishes to supple his nerves. For their use is not wholly to be laid aside, but ointment is to be employed as a medicine and help in order to bring up the strength when enfeebled, and against catarrhs, and colds, and ennui, as the comic poet says:—
The rubbing of the feet also
with the fatness of warming or cooling unguents is practiced on
account of its beneficial effects; so consequently, in the case of
those who are thus saturated, an attraction and flow take place from
the head to the inferior members. But pleasure to which no utility
attaches, induces the suspicion of meretricious habits, and is a drug
provocative of the passions. Rubbing one’s self with ointment is
entirely different from anointing one’s self with ointment. The
former is effeminate, while anointing with ointment is in some cases
beneficial. Aristippus the philosopher, accordingly, when anointed
with ointment, said “that the wretched Cinœdi deserved
to perish miserably for bringing the utility of ointment into bad
repute.” “Honour the physician for his usefulness,”
says the Scripture, “for the Most High made him; and the art of
healing is of the Lord.” Then he adds, “And the compounder
of unguents will make the mixture,”
And silly women, who dye their grey hair and anoint their locks, grow speedily greyer by the perfumes they use, which are of a drying nature. Wherefore also those that anoint themselves become drier, and the dryness makes them greyer. For if greyness is an exsiccation of the hair, or defect of heat, the dryness drinking up the moisture which is the natural nutriment of the hair, and making it grey, how can we any longer retain a liking for unguents, through which ladies, in trying to escape grey hair, become grey? And as dogs with fine sense of smell track the wild beasts by the scent, so also the temperate scent the licentious by the superfluous perfume of unguents.
Such a use of crowns, also, has degenerated to scenes
of revelry and intoxication. Do not encircle my head with a crown, for
in the springtime it is delightful to while away the time on the dewy
meads, while soft and many-coloured flowers are in bloom, and, like the
bees, enjoy a natural and pure fragrance. [An idyllic passage illustrative of our author’s
delight in rural scenes and pleasures.] [Christianity
delights in natural beauty, and always associates its enjoyment with
praise to its Author.
[This was a marked
characteristic of Christian manners at war with heathenism.]
But the use of crowns did not exist at all among the ancient Greeks; for neither the suitors nor the luxurious Phæacians used them. But at the games there was at first the gift to the athletes; second, the rising up to applaud; third, the strewing with leaves; lastly, the crown, Greece after the Median war having given herself up to luxury.
Those, then, who are trained by the Word are restrained from the use of crowns; and do not think that this Word, which has its seat in the brain, ought to be bound about, not because the crown is the symbol of the recklessness of revelry, but because it has been dedicated to idols. Sophocles accordingly called the narcissus “the ancient coronet of the great gods,” speaking of the earth-born divinities; and Sappho crowns the Muses with the rose:—
They say, too, that Here delights in the
lily, and Artemis in the myrtle. For if the flowers were made especially
for man, and senseless people have taken them not for their own proper
and grateful use, but have abused them to the thankless service of
demons, we must keep from them for conscience sake. The crown is the
symbol of untroubled tranquillity. For this reason they crown the dead,
and idols, too, on the same account, by this fact giving testimony to
their being dead. For revellers do not without crowns celebrate their
orgies; and when once they are encircled with flowers, at last they are
inflamed excessively. We must have no communion with demons. Nor must
we crown the living image of God after the manner of dead idols. For
the fair crown of amaranth is laid up for those who have lived well.
This flower the earth is not able to bear; heaven alone is competent to
produce it. [ Paradise
Lost, iii. 352.]
[See
note 10, p. 253. The beauty of this mysticism need
not be pointed out, but it need not be pressed as exposition.]
But I have made a digression from the pædagogic
style of speech, and introduced the didactic. [This illustrates, in part, the difference between
the esoteric, or mystic, and the more popular teaching of our
author.]
To resume, then: we have showed that in the
department of medicine, for healing, and sometimes also for moderate
recreation, the delight derived from flowers, and the benefit derived from
unguents and perfumes, are not to be overlooked. And if some say, What
pleasure, then, is there in flowers to those that do not use them? let
them know, then, that unguents are prepared from them, and are most
useful. The Susinian ointment is made from various kinds of lilies;
and it is warming, aperient, drawing, moistening, abstergent, subtle,
antibilious, emollient. The Narcissinian is made from the narcissus,
and is equally beneficial with the Susinian. The Myrsinian, made of
myrtle and myrtle berries, is a styptic, stopping effusions from the
body; and that from roses is refrigerating. For, in a word, these also
were created for our use. “Hear me,” it is said, “and
grow as a rose planted by the streams of waters, and give forth a sweet
fragrance like frankincense, and bless the Lord for His works.”
How, in due course, we are to go to sleep,
in remembrance of the precepts of temperance, we must now
say. For after the repast, having given thanks to God for our
participation in our enjoyments, and for the [happy] passing of the
day, [Family prayers,
apparently.]
For, besides the reproach of voluptuousness, sleeping on downy feathers is injurious, when our bodies fall down as into a yawning hollow, on account of the softness of the bedding.
For they are not convenient for sleepers turning
in them, on account of the bed rising into a hill on either side of the
body. Nor are they suitable for the digestion of the food, but rather for
burning it up, and so destroying the nutriment. But stretching one’s
self on even couches, affording a kind of natural gymnasium for sleep,
contributes to the digestion of the food. And those that can roll on other
beds, having this, as it were, for a natural gymnasium for sleep, digest
food more easily, and render themselves fitter for emergencies. Moreover,
silver-footed couches argue great ostentation; and the ivory on beds, the
body having left the soul, See p. 258, infra. Sleep, he supposes, frees
the soul as really, not so absolutely, as death:— Penseroso, line 91.]
We must not occupy our thoughts about these things, for the use of them is not forbidden to those who possess them; but solicitude about them is prohibited, for happiness is not to be found in them. On the other hand, it savours of cynic vanity for a man to act as Diomede,—
Iliad, x. 155. [Note the Scriptural moderation with which he censures, recognising what is allowable, and rejecting the “pride that apes humility.”]
unless circumstances compel.
Ulysses rectified the unevenness of the nuptial couch with a stone. Such frugality and self-help was practiced not by private individuals alone, but by the chiefs of the ancient Greeks. But why speak of these? Jacob slept on the ground, and a stone served him for a pillow; and then was he counted worthy to behold the vision—that was above man. And in conformity with reason, the bed which we use must be simple and frugal, and so constructed that, by avoiding the extremes [of too much indulgence and too much endurance], it may be comfortable: if it is warm, to protect us; if cold, to warm us. But let not the couch be elaborate, and let it have smooth feet; for elaborate turnings form occasionally paths for creeping things which twine themselves about the incisions of the work, and do not slip off.
Especially is a moderate softness in the bed suitable
for manhood; for sleep ought not to be for the total enervation of the
body, but for its relaxation. Wherefore I say that it ought not to be
allowed to come on us for the sake of indulgence, but in order to rest
from action. We must therefore sleep so as to be easily awaked. For
it is said, “Let your loins be girt about, and your lamps
burning; and ye yourselves like to men that watch for their lord,
that when he returns from the marriage, and comes and knocks, they
may straightway open to him. Blessed are those servants whom the Lord,
when He cometh, shall find watching.”
[Holy men, on waking in the night, have always used ejaculations, even
when unable to rise.
But he who has the light watches, “and
darkness seizes not on him,”
But devotion to activity begets an everlasting vigil after toils. Let not food weigh us down, but lighten us; that we may be injured as little as possible by sleep, as those that swim with weights hanging to them are weighed down. But, on the other hand, let temperance raise us as from the abyss beneath to the enterprises of wakefulness. For the oppression of sleep is like death, which forces us into insensibility, cutting off the light by the closing of the eyelids. Let not us, then, who are sons of the true light, close the door against this light; but turning in on ourselves, illumining the eyes of the hidden man, and gazing on the truth itself, and receiving its streams, let us clearly and intelligibly reveal such dreams as are true.
But the hiccuping of those who are loaded with wine, and the snortings of those who are stuffed with food, and the snoring rolled in the bed-clothes, and the rumblings of pained stomachs, cover over the clear-seeing eye of the soul, by filling the mind with ten thousand phantasies. And the cause is too much food, which drags the rational part of man down to a condition of stupidity. For much sleep brings advantage neither to our bodies nor our souls; nor is it suitable at all to those processes which have truth for their object, although agreeable to nature.
Now, just Lot (for I pass over at present the
account of the economy of regeneration [Does our author here use the term
“regeneration” with reference to the restitution of all
things? (
We, then, who assign the best part of the night
to wakefulness, must by no manner of means sleep by day; and fits of
uselessness, and napping and stretching one’s self, and yawning,
are manifestations of frivolous uneasiness of soul. And in addition to
all, we must know this, that the need of sleep is not in the soul. For
it is ceaselessly active. But the body is relieved by being resigned
to rest, the soul whilst not acting through the body, but exercising
intelligence within itself.
[See note 7 supra, p. 257. Here the
immaterial soul is recognised as wholly independent of bodily organs, and
sleep is expounded as the image of death freeing the mind.]
[The psychology of Clement is noteworthy, but his ethical reflections
are pure gold.]
For obvious reasons, we have given the greater part of this chapter in the Latin version. [Much of this chapter requires this sacrifice to a proper verecundia; but the learned translators have possibly been too cautious, erring, however, on the right side of the question.]
[For the substance of this chapter, see Kaye, p. 84.]
Tempus autem opportunum conjunctionis solis
iis relinquitur considerandum, qui juncti sunt matrimonio; qui autem
matrimonio juncti sunt, iis scopus est et institutum, liberorum susceptio:
finis autem, ut boni sint liberi: quemadmodum agricolæ seminis
quidem dejectionis causa est, quod nutrimenti habendi curam gerat;
agriculturæ autem finis est, fructuum perceptio. Multo autem
melior est agricola, qui terram colit animatam: ille enim ed tempus
alimentum expetens, hic vero ut universum permanent, curam gerens,
agricolæofficio fungitur: et ille quidem propter se, hic vero propter
Deum plantat ac seminat. Dixit enim: “Multiplicemini;”
[He lays down the law, that
marriage was instituted for the one result of replenishing the earth;
and he thinks certain unclean animals of the Mosaic system to be types
of the sensuality which is not less forbidden to the married than to
others.]
Well, I also agree that the consummately
wise Moses confessedly indicates by the prohibition before us,
that we must not resemble these animals; but I do not assent to the
explanation of what has been symbolically spoken. For nature never can
be forced to change. What once has been impressed on it, may not be
transformed into the opposite by passion. For passion is not nature,
and passion is wont to deface the form, not to cast it into a new
shape. Though many birds are said to change with the seasons, both
in colour and voice, as the blackbird (κόσσυφος),
which becomes yellow from black, and a chatterer from a singing-bird.
Similarly also the nightingale changes by turns both its colour
and note. But they do not alter their nature itself, so as in the
transformation to become female from male. But the new crop of feathers,
like new clothes, produces a kind of colouring of the feathers, and a
little after it evaporates in the rigour of winter, as a flower when its
colour fades. And in like manner the voice itself, injured by the cold,
is enfeebled. For, in consequence of the outer skin being thickened by
the surrounding air, the arteries about the neck being compressed and
filled, press hard on the breath; which being very much confined, emits a
stifled sound. When, again, the breath is assimilated to the surrounding
air and relaxed in spring, it is freed from its confined condition, and
is carried through the dilated, though till then obstructed arteries,
it warbles no longer a dying melody, but now gives forth a shrill note;
and the yoice
Nequaquam ergo credendum est, hyænam unquam
mutare naturam: idem enim animal non habet simul ambo pudenda maris et
feminæ, sicut nonnulli existimarunt, qui prodigiose hermaphroditos
finxerunt, et inter marem et feminam, hanc masculo-feminam naturam
innovarunt. Valde autem falluntur, ut qui non animadverterint, quam sit
filiorum amans omnium mater et genetrix Natura: quoniam enim hoc animal,
hyæna inquam, est salacissimum, sub cauda ante excrementi meatum,
adnatum est ei quoddam carneum tuberculum, feminino pudendo figura
persimile. Nullum autem meatum habet hæc figura carnis, qui in
utilem aliquam desinat partem, vel in matricem inquam, vel in rectum
intestinum: tantum habet magnam concavitatem, quæ inanem excipiat
libidinem, quando aversi fuerint meatus, qui in concipiendo fetu occupati
sunt. Hoc ipsum autem et masculo et feminæ hyænæ adnatum
est, quod sit insigniter pathica: masculus enim vicissim et agit, et
patitur: unde etiam rarissime inveniri potest hyæna femina: non enim
frequenter concipit hoc animal, cum in eis largiter redundet ea, quæ
præter naturam est, satio. Hac etiam ratione mihi videtur Plato in
Phœdro, amorem puerorum repellens, eum appellate bestiam, quod
frenum mordentes, qui se voluptatibus dedunt, libidinosi, quadrupedum
cœunt more, et filios seminare conantur. Impios “autem
tradidit Deus,” ut air Apostolus,
Longe ergo sunt arcenda multifaria insidiatorum
maleficia; non ad solam enim Cratetis Peram, sed etiam ad nostram
civitatem non navigat stultus parasitus, nec scortator libidinosus,
qui posteriori delectatur parte: non dolosa meretrix, nec ulla ejusmodi
alia voluptatis bellua. Multa ergo nobis per totam vitam seminetur,
quæ bona sit et honesta, occupatio. In summa ergo, vel jungi
matrimonio, vel omnino a matrimonio purum esse oportet; in quæ
stione enim id versatur, et hoc nobis declaratum est in libro De
continentia. Quod si hoc ipsum, an ducenda sit uxor. veniat in
considerationem: quomodo libere permittetur, quemadmodum nutrimento,
ita etiam coitu semper uti, tanquam re necessaria? Ex eo ergo videri
possunt nervi tanquam stamina distrahi, et in vehementi congressus
intensione disrumpi. Jam vero offundit etiam caliginem sensibus,
et vires enervat. Patet hoc et in animantibus rationis expertibus,
et in iis, quæ in exercitatione versantur, corporibus; quorum hi
quidem, qui abstinent, in certaminibus superant adversarios; illa vero
a coitu abducta circumaguntur, et tantum non trahuntur, omnibus viribus
et omni impetu tandem quasi enervata. “Parvam epilepsiam”
dicebat “coitum” sophista Abderites morbum immedicabilem
existimans. Annon enim consequuntur resolutiones, quæ exinanitionis
ejusque, quod abscedit, magnitudini ascribuntur? “homo enim ex
homine nascitur et evellitur.” Vide damni magnitudinem: totus homo
per exinanitionem coitus abstrahitur. Dicit enim: Hoc nunc os ex
[Tamen possunt senes et
steriles matrimonium sanctum contrahere, et de re conjugali aliter
docet Lanctantius de naturâ singulari mulierum argute disserens:
q. v. in libro ejus de vero cultu, vi. cap. 23, p. 280, ed.
Basiliæ 1521.] [Naturâ duce, sub lege Logi,
omnia fidelibus licent non omnia tamen expediunt. Conf Paulum, I., Ad
Corinth, vi. 12.]
Econtra autem pudicos admiratur:—
[He has argued powerfully on the delicacy and refinement
which should be observed in Christian marriage, to which Lactantius in
the next age will be found attributing the glory of chastity,
as really as to a pure celibacy. He now continues the argument in a
form which our translators do not scruple to English.]
Thus in the Philebus, Plato, who had been the
disciple of the barbarian
That is, the Jewish. [
Non est ergo justum vinci a rebus venereis, nec
libidinibus stolide inhiare, nec a ratione alienis appetitionibus moveri,
nec desiderare pollui. Ei autem soli, qui uxorem duxit, ut qui tunc sit
agricola, serere permissum est; quando tempus sementem admittit. Adversus
aliam autem intemperantiam, optimum quidem est medicamentum, ratio. [Right reason is the best remedy
against all excesses, argues our author, but always subject to the express
law of the Gospel.]
Chap. xi. is not a separate chapter in the Greek, but appears as part of chap. x.
Wherefore neither are we to provide for
ourselves costly clothing any more than variety of food. The
Lord Himself, therefore, dividing His precepts into what
relates to the body, the soul, and thirdly, external things,
counsels us to provide external things on account of the body;
and manages the body by the soul (ψυκή), and disciplines
the soul, saying, “Take no thought for your life (ψυκῆ)
what ye shall eat; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on; for the
life is more than meat, and the body more than raiment.”
What, I ask, more graceful, more gay-coloured, than
flowers? What, I say, more delightful than lilies or roses? “And
if God so clothe the grass, which is to-day in the field, and to-morrow
is cast into the oven, how much more will He clothe you, O ye of little
faith!”
μετέωρος
If, then, He takes away anxious care for clothes and
food, and superfluities in general, as unnecessary; what are we to imagine
ought to be said of love of ornament, and dyeing of wool, and variety of
colours, and fastidiousness about gems, and exquisite working of gold,
and still more, of artificial hair and wreathed curls; and furthermore,
of staining the eyes, and plucking out hairs, and painting with rouge and
white lead, and dyeing of the hair, and the wicked arts that are employed
in such deceptions? May we not very well suspect, that what was quoted
a little above respecting the grass, has been said of those unornamental
lovers of ornaments? For the field is the world, and we who are bedewed by
the grace of God are the grass; and though cut down, we spring up again,
as will be shown at greater length in the book On the Resurrection.
But hay figuratively designates the vulgar rabble, attached to ephemeral
pleasure, flourishing for a little, loving ornament, loving praise, and
being everything but truth-loving, good for nothing but to be burned with
fire. “There was a certain man,” said the Lord, narrating,
“very rich, who was clothed in purple and scarlet, enjoying himself
splendidly every day.” This was the hay. “And a certain poor
man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores,
desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s
table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades,
being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the
Father’s bosom. I admire that ancient city of the Lacedæmonians
which permitted harlots alone to wear flowered clothes, and ornaments
of gold, interdicting respectable women from love of ornament, and
allowing courtesans alone to deck themselves. On the other hand,
the archons of the Athenians, who affected a polished mode of life,
forgetting their manhood, wore tunics reaching to the feet, and had on the
crobulus—a kind of knot of the hair—adorned with a fastening
of gold grasshoppers, to show their origin from the soil, forsooth, in
the ostentation of licentiousness. Now rivalry of these archons extended
also to the other Ionians, whom Homer, to show their effeminancy, calls
“Long-robed.” Those, therefore, who are devoted to the image
of the beautiful, that is, love of finery, not the beautiful itself,
and who under a fair name again practice idolatry, are to be banished
far from the truth, as those who by opinion, Clement uses here Platonic language, δόξα
meaning opinion established on no scientific basis, which
may be true or may be false, and ἐπιστήμη
knowledge sure and certain, because based on the reasons of
things. [Martial, Epigrams,
passim.]
Dyeing of clothes is also to be rejected. For
it is remote both from necessity and truth, in addition to the fact
that reproach in manners spring from it. [The reproach and opprobrium of foppery.]
[This refers to the natural tint of unbleached linen, or to wool not
whitened by the art of the fuller. Hermas speaks of “pure
undressed linen.” Book iii. 4, p. 40, supra.]
And our life ought to be anything rather than a pageant.
Therefore the dye of Sardis, and another of olive, and another green,
a rose-coloured, and scarlet, and ten thousand other dyes, have been
invented with much trouble for mischievous voluptuousness. Such clothing
is for looking at, not for covering. Garments, too, variegated with gold,
and those that are purple, and that piece of luxury which has its name
from beasts (figured on it), and that saffron-coloured ointment-dipped
robe, and those costly and many-coloured garments of flaring membranes,
we are to bid farewell to, with the art itself. “For what prudent
thing can these women have done,” says the comedy, “who
sit covered with flowers, wearing a saffron-coloured dress, [The colour (probably, for
mss. differ) reprehended as
the dress of the false shepherd in Hermas. See note
10, book iii. Simil. 6. cap. ii. p. 36, this volume.]
The Instructor expressly admonishes, “Boast
not of the clothing of your garment, and be not elated on account
of any glory, as it is unlawful.”
Accordingly, deriding those who are clothed in
luxurious garments, He says in the Gospel: “Lo, they who live
in gorgeous apparel and luxury are in earthly palaces.”
As therefore she who is unmarried devotes herself to God alone, and her care is not divided, but the chaste married woman divides her life between God and her husband, while she who is otherwise disposed is devoted entirely to marriage, that is, to passion: in the same way I think the chaste wife, when she devotes herself to her husband, sincerely serves God; but when she becomes fond of finery, she falls away from God and from chaste wedlock, exchanging her husband for the world, after the fashion of that Argive courtesan, I mean Eriphyle,—
Wherefore I admire the Ceian
sophist, Prodicus, of the
island Ceus.
But he who follows the Word will not addict
Or by a conjectural emendation of the text, “If
in this we must relax somewhat in the case of women.” Various
kinds of robes. [The peplus, or shawl of fine wool, seems to
be specified in condemning the boast below, which asserts real wool
and no imitation.]
Alluding to the practice of covering the fleeces of sheep with skins, when
the wool was very fine, to prevent it being soiled by exposure.
The blessed John, despising the locks of sheep
as savouring of luxury, chose “camel’s hair,” and
was clad in it, making himself an example of frugality and simplicity
of life. For he also “ate locusts and wild honey,”
For as well-nurtured bodies, when stripped, show
their vigour more manifestly, so also beauty of character shows its
magnanimity, when not involved in ostentatious fooleries. But to drag
one’s clothes, letting them down to the soles of his feet, is a
piece of consummate foppery, impeding activity in walking, the garment
sweeping the surface dirt of the ground like a broom; since even those
emasculated creatures the dancers, who transfer their dumb shameless
profligacy to the stage, do not despise the dress which flows away to
such indignity; whose curious vestments, and appendages of fringes, and
elaborate motions of figures, show the trailing of sordid effeminacy. [The bearing of this chapter on
ecclesiastical vestments must be evident. It is wholly inconsistent
with aught but very simple attire in public worship; and rebukes
even the fashionable costumes of women and much of our mediæval
æstheticism, with primitive severity. On the whole subject, see the
Vestiarium Christianum of the Rev. Wharton B. Marriott. London,
Rivingtons, 1868.]
If one should adduce the garment of the Lord reaching
down to the foot, that many-flowered coat [Based upon the idea that Joseph’s coat of many
colours, which was afterwards dipped in blood, was a symbol of our
Lord’s raiment, on which lots were cast.]
As, then, in the fashioning of our clothes, we must
keep clear of all strangeness, so in the use of them we must beware of
extravagance. For neither is it seemly for the clothes to be above the
knee, as they say was the case with the Lacedæmonian virgins; [Women’s tunics tucked up to
give freedom to the knee, are familiar objects in ancient art.] Iliad, v. 83.
Flax grown in the island of Amorgos.
The covering ought, in my judgment, to show that
which is covered to be better than itself, as the image is superior
to the temple, the soul to the body, and the body to the clothes. [
Women fond of display act in the same manner with
regard to shoes, showing also in this matter great luxuriousness. Base,
in truth, are those sandals on which golden ornaments are fastened;
but they are thought worth having nails driven into the soles in
winding rows. Many, too, carve on them [It was such designs which early Christian art
endeavoured to supplant, by the devices on lamps, ΧΡ, ΑΩ.,
etc.]
For the use of shoes is partly for covering, partly for defence in case of stumbling against objects, and for saving the sole of the foot from the roughness of hilly paths.
Women are to be allowed a white shoe, except when
on a journey, and then a greased shoe must be used. When on a journey,
they require nailed shoes. Further, they ought for the most part to wear
shoes; for it is not suitable for the foot to be shown naked: besides,
woman is a tender thing, easily hurt. But for a man bare feet are
quite in keeping, except when he is on military service. “For
being shod is near neighbour to being bound.” υποδεδεσθαι
τῷ δεδέσθαι.
“Wearing boots is near neighbour to wearing
bonds.”
To go with bare feet is most suitable for
exercise, and best adapted for health and ease, unless where
necessity prevents. But if we are not on a journey, and cannot endure
bare feet, we may use slippers or white shoes; dusty-foots κονιποδες.
It is childish to admire excessively dark or green
stones, and things cast out by the sea on foreign shores, particles of the
earth. [Amber is referred to,
and the extravagant values attributed to it. The mysterious enclosure of
bees and other insects in amber, gave it superstitious importance. Clement
may have fancied these to be remnants of a pre-adamite earth.]
And the highly prized pearl has
invaded the woman’s apartments to an extravagant extent. This is
produced in a kind of oyster like mussels, and is about the bigness of
a fish’s eye of large size. And the wretched creatures are not
ashamed at having bestowed the greatest pains about this little oyster,
when they might adorn themselves with the sacred jewel, the Word of God,
whom the Scripture has somewhere called a pearl, the pure and pellucid
Jesus, the eye that watches in the flesh,—the transparent Word,
by whom the flesh, regenerated by water, becomes precious. For that
oyster that is in
We have heard, too, that the Jerusalem above is walled with sacred stones; and we allow that the twelve gates of the celestial city, by being made like precious stones, indicate the transcendent grace of the apostolic voice. For the colours are laid on in precious stones, and these colours are precious; while the other parts remain of earthy material. With these symbolically, as is meet, the city of the saints, which is spiritually built, is walled. By that brilliancy of stones, therefore, is meant the inimitable brilliancy of the spirit, the immortality and sanctity of being. But these women, who comprehend not the symbolism of Scripture, gape all they can for jewels, adducing the astounding apology, “Why may I not use what God hath exhibited?” and, “I have it by me, why may I not enjoy it?” and, “For whom were these things made, then, if not for us?” Such are the utterances of those who are totally ignorant of the will of God. For first necessaries, such as water and air, He supplies free to all; and what is not necessary He has hid in the earth and water. Wherefore ants dig, and griffins guard gold, and the sea hides the pearl-stone. But ye busy yourselves about what you need not. Behold, the whole heaven is lighted up, and ye seek not God; but gold which is hidden, and jewels, are dug up by those among us who are condemned to death.
But you also oppose Scripture, seeing it expressly
cries “Seek first the kingdom of heaven, and all these things shall
be added unto you.”
[Chrysostom enlarges
on this Christian thought most eloquently, in several of his homilies:
e.g., on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Hom. xxi. tom. x. p. 178.
Opp., ed. Migne.]
In fine, they must accordingly utterly cast off ornaments as girls’ gewgaws, rejecting adornment itself entirely. For they ought to be adorned within, and show the inner woman beautiful. For in the soul alone are beauty and deformity shown. Wherefore also only the virtuous man is really beautiful and good. And it is laid down as a dogma, that only the beautiful is good. And excellence alone appears through the beautiful body, and blossoms out in the flesh, exhibiting the amiable comeliness of self-control, whenever the character like a beam of light gleams in the form. For the beauty of each plant and animal consists in its individual excellence. And the excellence of man is righteousness, and temperance, and manliness, and godliness. The beautiful man is, then, he who is just, temperate, and in a word, good, not he who is rich. But now even the soldiers wish to be decked with gold, not having read that poetical saying:—
Iliad, ii. 872.
But the love of ornament, which is far
from caring for virtue, but claims the body for itself, when the love of
the beautiful has changed to empty show, is to be utterly expelled. For
applying things unsuitable to the body, as if they were suitable, begets
a practice of lying and a habit of falsehood; and shows not what is
decorous, simple, and truly childlike, but what is pompous, luxurious,
and effeminate. But these women obscure true beauty, shading it with
gold. And they know not how great is their transgression, in fastening
around themselves ten thousand rich chains; as they say that among
the barbarians malefactors are bound with gold. The women seem to me to
emulate these rich prisoners. For is not the golden necklace a collar, and
do not the necklets which they call catheters [The necklace called κάθεμα
or κάθημα seems to
be referred to.
What else, then, is this coveted adorning of yourselves, O ladies, but the exhibiting of yourselves fettered? For if the material does away with the reproach, the endurance [of your fetters] is a thing indifferent. To me, then, those who voluntarily put themselves into bonds seem to glory in rich calamities.
Perchance also it is such chains that the poetic fable
says were thrown around Aphrodite when committing adultery, referring
to ornaments as nothing but the badge of adultery. For Homer called
those, too, golden chains. But new women are not ashamed to wear the most
manifest badges of the evil one. For as the serpent deceived Eve, so also
has ornament of gold maddened other women to vicious practices, using as a
bait the form of the serpent, and by fashioning lampreys and serpents for
decoration. Accordingly the comic poet Nicostratus says, “Chains,
collars, rings, bracelets, serpents, anklets, earrings.” Ἐλλόβιον
by conjecture, as more suitable to the
connection than Ἐλλέβορον
or Ἐλέβορον.
Hellebore of the ms., though
Hellebore may be intended as a comic ending.
In terms of strongest censure, therefore, Aristophanes in the Thesmophoriazousæ exhibits the whole array of female ornament in a catalogue:—
But I have not yet mentioned the principal of them. Then what?
I am weary and vexed at enumerating the
multitude of ornaments;
[The Greek satirist seems to have borrowed Isaiah’s
catalogue. cap. iii. 18–23.]
Apelles, the painter, seeing one of his pupils painting a figure loaded with gold colour to represent Helen, said to him, “Boy, being incapable of painting her beautiful, you have made her rich.”
Such Helens are the ladies of the present
day, not truly beautiful, but richly got up. To these the Spirit
prophesies by Zephaniah: “And their silver and their
gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the Lord’s anger.”
But for those women who have been trained
under Christ, it is suitable to adorn themselves not with gold,
but with the Word, through whom alone the gold comes to light. Logos is identified with reason;
and it is by reason, or the ingenuity of man, that gold is discovered
and brought to light. [But here he seems to have in view the comparisons
between gold and wisdom, in
Happy, then, would have been the ancient Hebrews,
had they cast away their women’s ornaments, or only melted
them; but having cast their gold into the form of an ox, and paid
it idolatrous worship, they consequently reap no advantage either
from their art or their attempt. But they taught our women most
expressively to keep clear of ornaments. The lust which commits
fornication with gold becomes an idol, and is tested by fire; for
which alone luxury is reserved, as being an idol, not a reality. εἴ´δωλον,
an appearance, an image.
Resigning, therefore, these baubles to the wicked
master of cunning himself, let us not take part in this meretricious
adornment, nor commit idolatry through a specious pretext. Most admirably,
therefore, the blessed Peter
By mistake for Paul. Clement quotes here, as often, from memory (
Let there, then, be in the fruits of thy hands, sacred
order, liberal communication, and acts of economy. “For he that
giveth to the poor, lendeth to God.” [
And let not their ears be pierced, contrary to nature,
in order to attach to them ear-rings and ear-drops. For it is not right
to force nature against her wishes. Nor could there be any better ornament
for the ears than true instruction, which finds its way naturally into the
passages of hearing. And eyes anointed by the Word, and ears pierced for
perception, make a man a hearer and contemplator of divine and sacred
things, the Word truly exhibiting the true beauty “which eye
hath not seen nor ear heard before.”
It is then,
as appears, the greatest of all lessons to know one’s self. For
if one knows himself, he will know God; and knowing God, he will be
made like God, not by wearing gold or long robes, but by well-doing,
and by requiring as few things as possible. [On this book, Kaye’s comments extend from p. 91
to p. 111 of his analysis.]
Now, God alone is in need of nothing, and rejoices
most when He sees us bright with the ornament of intelligence;
and then, too, rejoices in him who is arrayed in chastity, the
sacred stole of the body. Since then the soul consists of three
divisions; [Note this
psychological dissection. Compare Aristotle, Nicomachean
Ethics, book vi. cap. 2, ἄισθησις,
νοῦς,
ὂρεξις,
sense, intellect, appetition. Also, book i. cap. 11, or 13 in some
editions.]
Odyss., iv. 456–458.
While he yet retained the ornament, the hair of the chin showed him to be a man.
Love of ornament has degenerated to wantonness. A man no longer appears like a strong wild beast,
Passions break out, pleasures
overflow; beauty fades, and falls quicker than the leaf on the ground,
when the amorous storms of lust blow on it before the coming of autumn,
and is withered by destruction. For lust becomes and fabricates
all things, and wishes to cheat, so as to conceal the man. But that
man with whom the Word dwells does not alter himself, does not get
himself up: he has the form which is of the Word; he is made like to
God; he is beautiful; he does not ornament himself: his is beauty,
the true beauty, for it is God; and that man becomes God, since God so
wills. Heraclitus, then, rightly said, “Men are gods, and gods are
men.” For the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man,
and man God. And the Mediator executes the Father’s will; for the
Mediator is the Word, who is common to both—the Son of God, the
Saviour of men; His Servant, our Teacher. And the flesh being a slave,
as Paul testifies, how can one with any reason adorn the handmaid like a
pimp? For that which is of flesh has the form of a servant. Paul says,
speaking of the Lord, “Because He emptied Himself, taking the
form of a servant,”
There is, too, another beauty of men—love.
“And love,” according to the apostle, “suffers long, and
is kind; envieth not; vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up.”
And that the Lord Himself was uncomely in aspect,
the Spirit testifies by Esaias: “And we saw Him, and He had no
form nor comeliness but His form was mean, inferior to men.”
It is not, then, the aspect of the outward man, but the soul that is to be decorated with the ornament of goodness; we may say also the flesh with the adornment of temperance. But those women who beautify the outside, are unawares all waste in the inner depths, as is the case with the ornaments of the Egyptians; among whom temples with their porticos and vestibules are carefully constructed, and groves and sacred fields adjoining; the halls are surrounded with many pillars; and the walls gleam with foreign stones, and there is no want of artistic painting; and the temples gleam with gold, and silver, and amber, and glitter with parti-coloured gems from India and Ethiopia; and the shrines are veiled with gold-embroidered hangings.
But if you enter the penetralia of the enclosure, and, in haste to behold something better, seek the image that is the inhabitant of the temple, and if any priest of those that offer sacrifice there, looking grave, and singing a pæan in the Egyptian tongue, remove a little of the veil to show the god, he will give you a hearty laugh at the object of worship. For the deity that is sought, to whom you have rushed, will not be found within, but a cat, or a crocodile, or a serpent of the country, or some such beast unworthy of the temple, but quite worthy of a den, a hole, or the dirt. The god of the Egyptians appears a beast rolling on a purple couch.
So those women who wear gold, occupying themselves in curling at their locks, and engaged in anointing their cheeks, painting their eyes, and dyeing their hair, and practising the other pernicious arts of luxury, decking the covering of flesh,—in truth, imitate the Egyptians, in order to attract their infatuated lovers.
But if one withdraw the veil of the temple, I mean the head-dress, the dye, the clothes, the gold, the paint, the cosmetics,—that is, the web consisting of them, the veil, with the view of finding within the true beauty, he will be disgusted, I know well. For he will not find the image of God dwelling within, as is meet; but instead of it a fornicator and adulteress has occupied the shrine of the soul. And the true beast will thus be detected—an ape smeared with white paint. And that deceitful serpent, devouring the understanding part of man through vanity, has the soul as its hole, filling all with deadly poisons; and injecting his own venom of deception, this pander of a dragon has changed women into harlots. For love of display is not for a lady, but a courtesan. Such women care little for keeping at home with their husbands; but loosing their husbands’ purse-strings, they spend its supplies on their lusts, that they may have many witnesses of their seemingly fair appearance; and, devoting the whole day to their toilet, they spend their time with their bought slaves. Accordingly they season the flesh like a pernicious sauce; and the day they bestow on the toilet shut up in their rooms, so as not to be caught decking themselves. But in the evening this spurious beauty creeps out to candle-light as out of a hole; for drunkenness and the dimness of the light aid what they have put on. The woman who dyes her hair yellow, Menander the comic poet expels from the house:—
nor, I would add, stain her cheeks,
nor paint her eyes. Unawares the poor wretches destroy their own beauty,
by the introduction of what is spurious. At the dawn of day, mangling,
racking, and plastering themselves over with certain compositions,
they chill the skin, furrow the flesh with poisons, and with curiously
prepared washes, thus blighting their own beauty. Wherefore they are
seen to be yellow from the use of cosmetics, and susceptible to disease,
their flesh, which has been shaded with poisons, being now in a melting
state. So they dishonour the Creator of men, as if the beauty given
by Him were nothing worth. As you might expect, they become lazy in
housekeeping, sitting like painted things to be looked at, not as if
made for domestic economy. Wherefore in the comic poet the sensible
woman says, “What can we women do wise or brilliant, who sit
with hair dyed yellow, outraging the character of gentlewomen; causing
the overthrow of houses, the ruin of nuptials, and accusations on the
part of children?”
Aristophanes, Lysistrata.
Thrice, I say, not once, do they deserve to perish, who use crocodiles’ excrement, and anoint themselves with the froth of putrid humours, and stain their eyebrows with soot, and rub their cheeks with white lead.
These, then, who are disgusting even to the
heathen poets for their fashions, how shall they not be rejected
by the truth? [
Then she ruins her husband.
I set these quotations from the
comic poets [He rebukes
heathen women out of their own poets; while he warns Christian women
also to resist the contagion of their example, fortified by the
Scriptures.]
The divine Instructor enjoins us not to approach
to another’s river, meaning by the figurative expression
“another’s river,” “another’s wife;”
the wanton that flows to all, and out of licentiousness gives herself
up to meretricious enjoyment with all. “Abstain from water
that is another’s,” He says, “and drink not of
another’s well,” admonishing us to shun the stream of
“voluptuousness,” that we may live long, and that years of
life may be added to us;
Love of dainties and love of wine, though
great vices, are not of such magnitude as fondness for finery. [This is worth
noting. Worse than love of wine, because he regards a love for finery as
tending to loss of chastity.]
And if Plutus Wealth.
Head-dresses and varieties of head-dresses, and
elaborate braidings, and infinite modes of dressing the hair, and costly
specimens of mirrors,
But what passes beyond the bounds of absurdity,
is that they have invented mirrors for this artificial shape of theirs,
as if it were some excellent work or masterpiece. The deception rather
requires a veil thrown over it. For as the Greek fable has it, it was not
a fortunate thing for the beautiful Narcissus to have been the beholder
of his own image. And if Moses commanded men to make not an image to
represent God by art, how can these women be right, who by their own
reflection produce an imitation of their own likeness, in order to the
falsifying of their faces? Likewise also, when Samuel the prophet was sent
to anoint one of the sons of Jesse for king, and on seeing the eldest of
his sons to be fair and tall, produced the anointing oil, being delighted
with him, the Lord said to him, “Look not to his appearance, nor
the height of his stature: for I have rejected him. For man looketh on
the eyes, but the Lord into the
heart.”
And he anointed not him that was comely in person,
but him that was comely in soul. If, then, the Lord counts the natural
beauty of the body inferior to that of the soul, what thinks He of
spurious beauty, rejecting utterly as He does all falsehood? “For
we walk by faith, not by sight.”
Esther alone we find justly adorned. The spouse adorned herself mystically for her royal husband; but her beauty turns out the redemption price of a people that were about to be massacred. And that decoration makes women courtesans, and men effeminate and adulterers, the tragic poet is a witness; thus discoursing:—
Iphigenia in Aulis, 71–77.
O adulterous beauty! Barbarian finery and effeminate luxury overthrew Greece; Lacedæmonian chastity was corrupted by clothes, and luxury, and graceful beauty; barbaric display proved Jove’s daughter a courtesan.
They had no instructor [The law was the pædagogue of the Jews
(
What an end was it that ensued to them, and what woes they endured, who would not restrain their self-will! Two continents were convulsed by unrestrained pleasures, and all was thrown into confusion by a barbarian boy. The whole of Hellas puts to sea; the ocean is burdened with the weight of continents; a protracted war breaks out, and fierce battles are waged, and the plains are crowded with dead: the barbarian assails the fleet with outrage; wickedness prevails, and the eye of that poetic Jove looks on the Thracians:—
Breasts are beaten in lamentations, and grief desolates the land; and all the feet, and the summits of many-fountained Ida, and the cities of the Trojans, and the ships of the Achæans, shake.
Where, O Homer, shall we flee and stand? Show us a spot of ground that is not shaken!—
Phaethon of Euripides.
Heaven delights in two charioteers,
by whom alone the chariot of fire is guided. For the mind is carried away
by pleasure; and the unsullied principle of reason, when not instructed
by the Word, slides down into licentiousness, and gets a fall as the
due reward of its transgression. An example of this are the angels, who
renounced the beauty of God for a beauty which fades, and so fell from
heaven to earth.
The Shechemites, too, were punished by an overthrow for dishonouring the holy virgin. The grave was their punishment, and the monument of their ignominy leads to salvation.
To such an extent, then, has luxury advanced,
that not only are the female sex deranged about this frivolous pursuit,
but men also are infected with the disease. [Heathen manners are here depicted as a warning to
Christians. We cannot suppose Christians, as yet, to any extent, corrupted
in their manners by fashion and frivolity; for to be a Christian excluded
one from temptations of this kind.] [Query, De re
Nicotiana?] [Smelling of Nicotine?]
The more, then, a man hastes to the end, the more
truly venerable is he, having God alone as his senior, since He is
the eternal aged One, He who is older than all things. Prophecy has
called him the “Ancient of days; and the hair of His head was
as pure wool,” says the prophet.
But for one who is a man to comb himself and shave
himself with a razor, for the sake of fine effect, to arrange his hair
at the looking-glass, to shave his cheeks, pluck hairs out of them, and
smooth them, how womanly! And, in truth, unless you saw them naked, you
would suppose them to be women. For although not allowed to wear gold,
yet out of effeminate desire they enwreath their latches and fringes
with leaves of gold; or, getting certain spherical figures of the
same metal made, they fasten them to their ankles, and hang them from
their necks. This is a device of enervated men, who are dragged to the
women’s apartments, amphibious and lecherous beasts. For this is a
meretricious and impious form of snare. For God wished women to be smooth,
and rejoice in their locks alone growing spontaneously, as a horse in his
mane; but has adorned man, like the lions, with a beard, and endowed him,
as an attribute of manhood, with shaggy breasts,—a sign this of
strength and rule. So also cocks, which fight in defence of the hens,
he has decked with combs, as it were helmets; and so high a value does
God set on these locks, that He orders them to make their appearance
on men simultaneously with discretion, and delighted with a venerable
look, has honoured gravity of countenance with grey hairs. But wisdom,
and discriminating judgments that are hoary with
[On the other hand, this was
Esau’s symbol; and the sensual “satyrs” ( έγκαταριθμένην
seems to be here used in a middle,
not a passive sense, as καταριθμημένος
is sometimes.
[Such were the manners with which the Gospel was forced everywhere to
contend. That they were against nature is sufficiently clear from the
remains of decency in some heathen. Herodotus (book i. cap. 8) tells
us that the Lydians counted it disgraceful even for a man to be seen
naked.]
But the pitch does good, it is said. Nay, it defames,
say I. No one who entertains right sentiments would wish to appear a
fornicator, were he not the victim of that vice, and study to defame
the beauty of his form. No one would, I say, voluntarily choose to do
this. “For if God foreknew those who are called, according to His
purpose, to be conformed to the image of His Son,” for whose sake,
according to the blessed apostle, He has appointed “Him to be
the first-born among many brethren,”
The man, who would be beautiful, must adorn that which is the most beautiful thing in man, his mind, which every day he ought to exhibit in greater comeliness; and should pluck out not hairs, but lusts. I pity the boys possessed by the slave-dealers, that are decked for dishonour. But they are not treated with ignominy by themselves, but by command the wretches are adorned for base gain. But how disgusting are those who willingly practice the things to which, if compelled, they would, if they were men, die rather than do?
But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women.
Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced
man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces
everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that
of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: no
passage is closed against libidinousness; and their promiscuous lechery
is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated. O miserable
spectacle! horrible conduct! Such are the trophies of your social
licentiousness which are exhibited: the evidence of these deeds are the
prostitutes. Alas for such wickedness! Besides, the wretches know not
how many tragedies the uncertainty of intercourse produces. For fathers,
unmindful of children of theirs that have been exposed, often without
their knowledge, have intercourse with a son that has debauched himself,
and daughters that are prostitutes; and licence in lust shows them to
be the men that have begotten them.
Such was predicted of old, and the result is notorious: the whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans: these detested effeminacy of conduct; and the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the extremest penalty, according to the righteousness of the law.
For it is not lawful to pluck out the beard, [When the loss of the beard
was a token of foppery and often of something worse, shaving would be
frivolity; but here he treats of extirpation.]
By and by he is anointed, delighting
in the beard “on which descended” the prophetic
“ointment”
And it becomes him who is rightly trained, on whom peace has pitched its tent, to preserve peace also with his hair.
What, then, will not women with
strong propensities to lust practice, when they look on men
perpetrating such enormities? Rather we ought not to call such
as these men, but lewd wretches (βατάλοι),
and effeminate (γύνιδες),
whose voices are feeble, and whose clothes are womanish both in feel
and dye. And such creatures are manifestly shown to be what they are
from their external appearance, their clothes, shoes, form, walk, cut of
their hair, look. “For from his look shall a man be known,”
says the Scripture, “from meeting a man the man is known: the dress
of a man, the step of his foot, the laugh of his teeth, tell tales of
him.”
For these, for the most part, plucking out the rest of their hair, only dress that on the head, all but binding their locks with fillets like women. Lions glory in their shaggy hair, but are armed by their hair in the fight; and boars even are made imposing by their mane; the hunters are afraid of them when they see them bristling their hair.
Hesiod, Works and Days, i. 232.
And their wool the loving Father
has made abundant for thy use, O man, having taught thee to sheer
their fleeces. Of the nations, the Celts and Scythians wear their hair
long, but do not deck themselves. The bushy hair of the barbarian has
something fearful in it; and its auburn (ξανθόν) colour
threatens war, the hue being somewhat akin to blood. Both these barbarian
races hate luxury. As clear witnesses will be produced by the German,
the Rhine; Of which they
drink.
Perish, then, the savage beasts whose food is
blood! For it is unlawful for men, whose body is nothing but flesh
elaborated of blood, to touch blood. For human blood has become a partaker
of the Word: [He took
upon him our nature, flesh and blood.
But really I have unwittingly deviated in spirit
from the order, to which I must now revert, and must find fault with
having large numbers of domestics. For, avoiding working with their own
But those who impose on the women, spend the
day with them, telling them silly amatory stories, and wearing out
body and soul with their false acts and words. “Thou shalt not
be with many,” it is said, “for evil, nor give thyself
to a multitude;”
So, opening the curtain, and looking keenly round on
all that direct their eyes towards them, they show their manners; and
often bending forth from within, disgrace this superficial propriety
by their dangerous restlessness. “Look not round,” it
is said, “in the streets of the city, and wander not in its
lonely places.”
And these women are carried about over the temples,
sacrificing and practising divination day by day, spending their time with
fortune-tellers, and begging priests, and disreputable old women; and they
keep up old wives’ whisperings over their cups, learning charms and
incantations from soothsayers, to the ruin of the nuptial bonds. And some
men they keep; by others they are kept; and others are promised them by
the diviners. They know not that they are cheating themselves, and giving
up themselves as a vessel of pleasure to those that wish to indulge in
wantonness; and exchanging their purity for the foulest outrage, they
think what is the most shameful ruin a great stroke of business. And there
are many ministers to this meretricious licentiousness, insinuating
themselves, one from one quarter, another from another. For the
licentious rush readily into uncleanness, like swine rushing to that
part of the hold of the ship which is depressed. Whence the Scripture
most strenuously exhorts, “Introduce not every one into thy house,
for the snares of the crafty are many.”
But these women delight in
intercourse with the effeminate. And crowds of
abominable creatures (κιναίδες)
flow in, of unbridled tongue, filthy in body, filthy in language; men
enough for lewd offices, ministers of adultery, giggling and whispering,
and shamelessly making through their noses sounds of lewdness and
fornication to provoke lust, endeavouring to please by lewd words and
attitudes, inciting to laughter, the precursor of fornication. And
sometimes, when inflamed by any provocation, either these fornicators,
or those that follow the rabble of abominable creatures to destruction,
make a sound in their nose like a frog, as if they had got anger
dwelling in their nostrils. But those who are more refined than these
keep Indian birds and Median pea-fowls, and recline with peak-headed φοξός, in allusion
to Thersites, to which Homer applies this epithet. [The wasting
on pet dogs, pups, and other animals, expense and pains which might
help an orphan child, is a sin not yet uprooted. Here Clement’s
plea for widows, orphans, and aged men, prepares the way for Christian
institutions in behalf of these classes. The same arguments should prevail
with Christians in America.]
And of what sort are their baths? Houses skilfully constructed, compact, portable, transparent, covered with fine linen. And gold-plated chairs, and silver ones, too, and ten thousand vessels of gold and silver, some for drinking, some for eating, some for bathing, are carried about with them. Besides these, there are even braziers of coals; for they have arrived at such a pitch of self-indulgence, that they sup and get drunk while bathing. And articles of silver with which they make a show, they ostentatiously set out in the baths, and thus display perchance their wealth out of excessive pride, but chiefly the capricious ignorance, through which they brand effeminate men, who have been vanquished by women; proving at least that they themselves cannot meet and cannot sweat without a multitude of vessels, although poor women who have no display equally enjoy their baths. The dirt of wealth, then, has an abundant covering of censure. With this, as with a bait, they hook the miserable creatures that gape at the glitter of gold. For dazzling thus those fond of display, they artfully try to win the admiration of their lovers, who after a little insult them naked. They will scarce strip before their own husbands affecting a plausible pretence of modesty; but any others who wish, may see them at home shut up naked in their baths. For there they are not ashamed to strip before spectators, as if exposing their persons for sale. But Hesiod advises
Hesiod, Works and Days, ii. 371.
The baths are opened promiscuously to men and women;
and there they strip for licentious indulgence (for from looking, men get
to loving), as if their modesty had been washed away in the bath. [Such were women before the
Gospel came. See note to Hermas, cap. xi. note 1,
p. 47, this volume, and Elucidation (p. 57) of the
same.] [The barbarians were more decent than the Greeks,
being nearer to the state of nature, which is a better guide than pagan
civilization. But see the interesting note of Rawlinson (Herod.,
vol. i. p. 125, ed. New York), who quotes Thucydides (i. 6) to prove the
recent invasion of immodest exposure even among athletes. Our author has
this same quotation in mind, for he almost translates it here.] [Attic girls raced in the games quite naked. Spartan
girls wore only the linen chiton, even in the company of men;
and this was esteemed nudity, not unjustly. David’s
“uncovering himself” (
Riches are then to be partaken of rationally, bestowed lovingly, not sordidly, or pompously; nor is the love of the beautiful to be turned into self-love and ostentation; lest perchance some one say to us, “His horse, or land, or domestic, or gold, is worth fifteen talents; but the man himself is dear at three coppers.”
Take away, then, directly the ornaments from women, and domestics from masters, and you will find masters in no respect different from bought slaves in step, or look, or voice, so like are they to their slaves. But they differ in that they are feebler than their slaves, and have a more sickly upbringing.
This best of maxims, then, ought to be perpetually repeated, “That the good man, being temperate and just,” treasures up his wealth in heaven. He who has sold his worldly goods, and given them to the poor, finds the imperishable treasure, “where is neither moth nor robber.” Blessed truly is he, “though he be insignificant, and feeble, and obscure;” and he is truly rich with the greatest of all riches. “Though a man, then, be richer than Cinyras and Midas, and is wicked,” and haughty as he who was luxuriously clothed in purple and fine linen, and despised Lazarus, “he is miserable, and lives in trouble,” and shall not live. Wealth seems to me to be like a serpent, which will twist round the hand and bite; unless one knows how to lay hold of it without danger by the point of the tail. And riches, wriggling either in an experienced or inexperienced grasp, are dexterous at adhering and biting; unless one, despising them, use them skilfully, so as to crush the creature by the charm of the Word, and himself escape unscathed.
But, as is reasonable, he alone, who possesses
what is worth most, turns out truly rich, though not recognised as
such. And it is not jewels, or gold, or clothing, or beauty of person,
that are of high value, but virtue; which is the Word given by the
Instructor to be put in practice. This is the Word, who abjures luxury,
but calls self-help as a servant, and praises frugality, the progeny
of temperance. “Receive,” he says, “instruction,
and not silver, and knowledge rather than tested gold; for Wisdom is
better than precious stones, nor is anything that is valuable equal
in worth to her.”
But if we must distinguish, let it be granted that
he is rich who has many possessions, loaded with gold like a dirty purse;
but the righteous alone is graceful, because grace is order, observing a
due and decorous measure in managing and distributing. “For there
are those who sow and reap more,”
Delicacies spent on pleasures become a dangerous
shipwreck to men; for this voluptuous and ignoble life of the many is
alien to true love for the beautiful and to refined pleasures. For man
is by nature an erect and majestic being, aspiring after the good as
becomes the creature of the One. But the life which crawls on its belly
is destitute of dignity, is scandalous, hateful, ridiculous. And to the
divine nature voluptuousness is a thing most alien; for this is for a
man to be like sparrows in feeding, and swine and goats in lechery. For
to regard pleasure as a good thing, is the sign of utter ignorance of
what is excellent. Love of wealth displaces a man from the right mode of
life, and induces him to cease from feeling shame at what is shameful;
if only, like a beast, he has power to eat all sorts of things, and to
drink in like manner, and to satiate in every way his lewd desires. And
so very rarely does he inherit the kingdom of God. For what end, then,
are such dainty dishes prepared, but to fill one belly? The filthiness
of gluttony is proved by the sewers into which our bellies discharge
the refuse of our food. For what end do they collect so many cupbearers,
when they might satisfy themselves with one cup? For what the chests of
clothes? and the gold ornaments for what? Those things are prepared
for clothes-stealers, and scoundrels, and for greedy eyes. “But
let alms and faith not fail thee,”
Look, for instance, to Elias the Thesbite, in whom
we have a beautiful example of frugality, when he sat down beneath the
thorn, and the angel brought him food. “It was a cake of barley
and a jar of water.”
We must, then, cast away the multitude of vessels,
silver and gold drinking cups, and the crowd of domestics, receiving
as we have done from the Instructor the fair and grave attendants,
Self-help and Simplicity. And we must walk suitably to the Word; and if
there be a wife and children, the house is not a burden, having learned
to change its place along with the sound-minded traveller. The wife
who loves her husband must be furnished for travel similarly to her
husband. A fair provision for the journey to heaven is theirs who bear
frugality with chaste gravity. And as the foot is the measure of the
shoe, so also is the body of what each individual possesses. But that
which is superfluous, what they call ornaments and the furniture of the
rich, is a burden, not an ornament to the body. He who climbs to the
heavens by force, must carry with him the fair staff of beneficence,
and attain to the true rest by communicating to those who are in
distress. For the Scripture avouches, “that the true riches of
the soul are a man’s ransom,” [Kaye, p. 97.] [A beautiful apophthegm, and admirably interpretative
of
This Word, who trains us, confers on us the true riches. Nor is the growing rich an object of envy to those who possess through Him the privilege of wanting nothing. He that has this wealth shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And if any one of you shall entirely avoid luxury, he will, by a frugal upbringing, train himself to the endurance of involuntary labours, by employing constantly voluntary afflictions as training exercises for persecutions; so that when he comes to compulsory labours, and fears, and griefs, he will not be unpracticed in endurance.
Wherefore we have no country on earth,
that we may despise earthly possessions. And frugality The word used by
Clement here for frugality is εύτέλεια,
and he supposes the word to mean originally “spending well.”
A proper way of spending money is as good as unfailing riches,
since it always has enough for all that is necessary.
How a husband is to live with his wife, and respecting
self-help, and housekeeping, and the employment of domestics; and further,
with respect to the time of marriage, and what is suitable for wives,
we have treated in the discourse concerning marriage. What pertains to
discipline alone is reserved now for description, as we delineate the
life of Christians. The most indeed has been already said, and laid down
in the form of disciplinary rules. What still remains we shall subjoin;
for examples are of no small moment in determining to salvation. [This plea for similitudes
illustrates the principle of Hermas, and the ground of the currency of
his Pastor.]
See, says the tragedy,
Euripides, Orestes, 588–590.
Reproaching foul adultery, he showed the fair image of chastity in affection to her husband.
The Lacedæmonians compelling the Helots, their servants (Helots is the name of their servants), to get drunk, exhibited their drunken pranks before themselves, who were temperate, for cure and correction.
Observing, accordingly, their unseemly behaviour, in
order that they themselves might not fall into like censurable conduct,
they trained themselves,
For some men being instructed are saved; and others, self-taught, either aspire after or seek virtue.
Hesiod, Works and Days, i. 291.
Such is Abraham, who sought God.
Ibid.
Such are those disciples who obeyed the Word. Wherefore the former was called “friend,” the latter “apostles;” the one diligently seeking, and the other preaching one and the same God. And both are peoples, and both these have hearers, the one who is profited through seeking, the other who is saved through finding.
Ibid.
The other people is the Gentile—useless; this is the people that followeth not Christ. Nevertheless the Instructor, lover of man, helping in many ways, partly exhorts, partly upbraids. Others having sinned, He shows us their baseness, and exhibits the punishment consequent upon it, alluring while admonishing, planning to dissuade us in love from evil, by the exhibition of those who have suffered from it before. By which examples He very manifestly checked those who had been evil-disposed, and hindered those who were daring like deeds; and others He brought to a foundation of patience; others He stopped from wickedness; and others He cured by the contemplation of what is like, bringing them over to what is better.
For who, when following one in the way, and then on the former falling into a pit, would not guard against incurring equal danger, by taking care not to follow him in his slip? What athlete, again, who has learned the way to glory, and has seen the combatant who had preceded him receiving the prize, does not exert himself for the crown, imitating the elder one?
Such images of divine wisdom are many; but I shall
mention one instance, and expound it in a few words. The fate of the
Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to
those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into
uncleanness, practising adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love
for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties
cannot escape, cast His eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of
humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us
from the imitation of them, and training us up to His own temperance,
and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose
from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned, pouring forth
a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want
of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into
voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became
to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For
those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will
never receive a like punishment. By guarding against sinning, we guard
against suffering. “For I would have you know,” says Jude,
“that God, having once saved His people from the land of Egypt,
afterwards destroyed them that believed not; and the angels which kept
not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved
to the judgment of the great day, in everlasting chains under darkness of
the savage angels.”
Following Lowth’s conjecture of κακοφρόνων
insteasd of that of the text, κακόφρονας.
There are, then, four reasons for the bath (for
from that point I digressed in my oration), for which we frequent it:
for cleanliness, or heat, or health, or lastly, for pleasure. Bathing for
pleasure is to be omitted. For unblushing pleasure must be cut out by the
roots; and the bath is to be taken by women for cleanliness and health,
by men for health alone.
[The morals of Clement as to decency in bathing need to be enforced
among modern Christians, at seaside places of resort.] ἀνθρωπογναφεῖα.
But most of all is it necessary to wash the
soul in the cleansing Word (sometimes the body too, on account
of the dirt which gathers and grows to it, sometimes also to
relieve fatigue). “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites!” saith the Lord, “for ye are like to whited
sepulchres. Without, the sepulchre appears beautiful, but within it
is full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.”
The gymnasium is sufficient for boys, even if a bath
is within reach. And even for men to prefer gymnastic exercises by far to
the baths, is perchance not bad, since they are in some respects conducive
to the health of young men, and produce exertion—emulation to aim at
not only a healthy habit of body, but courageousness of soul. When this is
done without dragging a man away from better employments, it is pleasant,
and not unprofitable. Nor are women to be deprived of bodily exercise. But
they are not to be encouraged to engage in wrestling or running, but
are to exercise themselves in spinning, and weaving, and superintending
the cooking if necessary. And they are, with their own hand, to fetch
from the store what we require. And it is no disgrace for them to apply
themselves to the mill. Nor is it a reproach to a wife—housekeeper
and helpmeet—to occupy herself in cooking, so that it may be
palatable to her husband. And if she shake up the couch, reach drink to
her husband when thirsty, set food on the table as neatly as possible,
and so give herself exercise tending to sound health, the Instructor
will approve of a woman like this, who “stretches forth her arms to
useful tasks, rests her hands on the distaff, opens her hand to the poor,
and extends her wrist to the beggar.”
She who emulates Sarah is not ashamed of that highest
of ministries, helping wayfarers. For Abraham said to her, “Haste,
and knead three measures of meal, and make cakes.”
Ibid. φενίνδα
or φεννίς.
I had almost forgot to say that the
well-known Pittacus, king of Miletus, practiced the laborious
exercise of turning the mill. The text has ἦλθεν. The
true reading, doubtless, is ᾖληθεν.
That Pittacus exercised himself thus, is stated by Isidore of Pelusium,
Diogenes, Laertius, Plutarch.
[The old canons allowed to clergymen the recreation of fishing, but
not the chase, or fowling. Of this, the godly Izaak Walton fails not
to remind us. Complete Angler, p. 38, learned note, and preface
by the late Dr. Bethune. New York, 1847.]
Wherefore the wearing of gold and the use of softer clothing is not to be entirely prohibited. But irrational impulses must be curbed, lest, carrying us away through excessive relaxation, they impel us to voluptuousness. For luxury, that has dashed on to surfeit, is prone to kick up its heels and toss its mane, and shake off the charioteer, the Instructor; who, pulling back the reins from far, leads and drives to salvation the human horse—that is, the irrational part of the soul—which is wildly bent on pleasures, and vicious appetites, and precious stones, and gold, and variety of dress, and other luxuries.
Above all, we are to keep in mind what was spoken
sacredly: “Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles;
that, whereas they speak against you as evil-doers, they may, by the good
works which they behold, glorify God.”
The Instructor permits us, then, to use simple
clothing, and of a white colour, as we said before. So that, accommodating
ourselves not to variegated art, but to nature as it is produced, and
pushing away whatever is deceptive and belies the truth, we may embrace
the uniformity and simplicity of the truth. [Surely the costly and gorgeous ecclesiastical
raiment of the Middle Ages is condemned by Clement’s primitive
maxims.]
Sophocles, reproaching a youth, says:—
For, as in the case of the soldier, the sailor,
and the ruler, so also the proper dress of the temperate man is what is
plain, becoming, and clean. Whence also in the law, the law enacted by
Moses about leprousy rejects what has many colours and spots, like the
various scales of the snake. He therefore wishes man, no longer decking
himself gaudily in a variety of colours, but white all over from the
crown of the head to the sole of the foot, to be clean; so that, by
a transition from the body, we may lay aside the varied and versatile
passions of the man, and love the unvaried, and unambiguous, and simple
colour of truth. And he who also in this emulates Moses—Plato best
of all—approves of that texture on which not more than a chaste
woman’s work has been employed. And white colours well become
gravity. And elsewhere he says, “Nor apply dyes or weaving,
except for warlike decorations.” Plato’s words are: “The web is not to be
more than a woman’s work for a month. White colour is peculiarly
becoming for the gods in other things, but especially in cloth. Dyes are
not to be applied, except for warlike decorations.”—Plato: De Legibus,
xii. 992.
To men of peace and of light, therefore,
white is appropriate.
[Another law against colours in clerical attire.]
Substantial clothing also, and chiefly what is unfulled, protects the heat which is in the body; not that the clothing has heat in itself, but that it turns back the heat issuing from the body, and refuses it a passage. And whatever heat falls upon it, it absorbs and retains, and being warmed by it, warms in turn the body. And for this reason it is chiefly to be worn in winter.
It also (temperance) is contented. And contentment
is a habit which dispenses with superfluities, and, that there may be no
failure, is receptive of what suffices for the healthful and blessed life
according to the Word. Καρὰ
Λόγον. The reading
in the text is κατάλογον.
Let the women wear a plain and becoming dress,
but softer than what is suitable for a man, yet not quite immodest
or entirely gone in luxury. And let the garments be suited to age,
person, figure, nature, pursuits. For the divine apostle most beautifully
counsels us “to put on Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the
lusts of the flesh.”
The Word prohibits us from doing violence to
nature [Natural instinct
is St. Paul’s argument (
The Word, then, permits them a
finger-ring of gold.
[Possibly used thus early as a distinction of matrons.]
For if all were well trained, there would be no need of seals, if servants and masters were equally honest. But since want of training produces an inclination to dishonesty, we require seals.
But there are circumstances in which
this strictness may relaxed. For allowance must sometimes be
made in favour of those women who have not been fortunate Εὑτυχούσαις,
for which the text has ἐντοχούσαις.
And if it is necessary for us, while engaged in
public business, or discharging other avocations in the country, and
often away from our wives, to seal anything for the sake of safety, He
(the Word) allows us a signet for this purpose only. Other finger-rings
are to be cast off, since, according to the Scripture, “instruction
is a golden ornament for a wise man.”
But women who wear gold seem to me to be afraid, lest, if one strip them of their jewellery, they should be taken for servants, without their ornaments. But the nobility of truth, discovered in the native beauty which has its seat in the soul, judges the slave not by buying and selling, but by a servile disposition. And it is incumbent on us not to seem, but to be free, trained by God, adopted by God.
Wherefore we must adopt a mode of standing and motion, and a step, and dress, and in a word, a mode of life, in all respects as worthy as possible of freemen. But men are not to wear the ring on the joint; for this is feminine; but to place it on the little finger at its root. For so the hand will be freest for work, in whatever we need it; and the signet will not very easily fall off, being guarded by the large knot of the joint.
And let our seals be either a dove, or a fish, or a
ship scudding before the wind, or a musical lyre, which Polycrates used,
or a ship’s anchor, which Seleucus got engraved as a device; and
if there be one fishing, he will remember the
[How this was followed, is
proved by the early Christian devices of the catacombs, contrasted
with the engraved gems from Pompeii, in the Museo Borbonico
at Naples.]
Many of the licentious
have their lovers Masculine. γεγλυμμἐνους,
written on the margin of Codex clxv. for γεγυμνωμένους
(naked) of the text. [Royal Library, Naples.]
About the hair, the following seems right. Let the
head of men be shaven, unless it has curly hair. But let the chin have the
hair. But let not twisted locks hang far down from the head, gliding into
womanish ringlets. For an ample beard suffices for men. And if one, too,
shave a part of his beard, it must not be made entirely bare, for this is
a disgraceful sight. The shaving of the chin to the skin is reprehensible,
approaching to plucking out the hair and smoothing. For instance, thus
the Psalmist, delighted with the hair of the beard, says, “As the
ointment that descends on the beard, the beard of Aaron.”
Having celebrated the beauty of the beard by a repetition, he made the face to shine with the ointment of the Lord.
Since cropping is to be adopted not for the sake of
elegance, but on account of the necessity of the case; the hair of the
head, that it may not grow so long as to come down and interfere with the
eyes, and that of the moustache similarly, which is dirtied in eating,
is to be cut round, not by the razor, for that were not well-bred,
but by a pair of cropping scissors. But the hair on the chin is not to
be disturbed, as it gives no trouble, and lends to the face dignity
and paternal terror.
[Here Clement’s rules are arbitrary, and based on their existing
ideas of propriety. If it be not improper to shave the head, much less
to shave the face, which he allows in part.]
Moreover, the shape instructs many not to sin, because
it renders detection easy. To those who do [not] “Not” does not
occur in the mss. For δεδοικότες,
the conjectural emendation δεδυκότες,
has been adopted.
It is enough for women to protect φυλάσσειν,
Sylburg and Bod. Reg., agree better than μαλάσσειν
with the context.
But additions of other people’s hair
are entirely to be rejected, and it is a most sacrilegious thing for
spurious hair to shade the head, covering the skull with dead locks. For
on whom does the presbyter lay his hand? [The chrism (confirmation) was thus administered
then, not with material oil, and was called anointing,
with reference to
Consequently neither is the hair to be dyed, nor grey hair to have its colour changed. For neither are we allowed to diversify our dress. And above all, old age, which conciliates trust, is not to be concealed. But God’s mark of honour is to be shown in the light of day, to win the reverence of the young. For sometimes, when they have been behaving shamefully, the appearance of hoary hairs, arriving like an instructor, has changed them to sobriety, and paralyzed juvenile lust with the splendour of the sight.
Nor are the women to smear their faces with the
ensnaring devices of wily cunning. But let us show to them the decoration
of sobriety. For, in the first place, the best beauty is that which is
spiritual, as we have often pointed out. For when the soul is adorned
by the Holy Spirit, and inspired with the radiant charms which proceed
from Him,—righteousness, wisdom, fortitude, temperance, love of
the good, modesty,
The Instructor orders them to go forth “in
becoming apparel, and adorn themselves with shamefacedness and
sobriety,”
For the labour of their own hands, above all, adds
genuine beauty to women, exercising their bodies and adorning themselves
by their own exertions; not bringing unornamental ornament wrought by
others, which is vulgar and meretricious, but that of every good woman,
supplied and woven by her own hands whenever she most requires. For
it is never suitable for women whose lives are framed according to
God, to appear arrayed in things bought from the market, but in their
own home-made work. For a most beautiful thing is a thrifty wife,
who clothes both herself and her husband with fair array of her own
working; In reference
to
In brief, “A store of excellence is a woman
of worth, who eateth not the bread of idleness; and the laws of mercy
are on her tongue; who openeth her mouth wisely and rightly; whose
children rise up and call her blessed,” as the sacred Word says
by Solomon: “Her husband also, and he praiseth her. For a pious
woman is blessed; and let her praise the fear of the Lord.”
And again, “A virtuous woman is a crown
to her husband.”
The noble Samson was overcome by the
harlot, and by another woman was shorn of his manhood. But
Joseph was not thus beguiled by another woman. The Egyptian
harlot was conquered. And chastity, We have read from the New College ms. σωφροσύνη
for σωφροσύνης.
From some comic poet.
But feminine motions, dissoluteness, and luxury, are to be entirely prohibited. For voluptuousness of motion in walking, “and a mincing gait,” as Anacreon says, are altogether meretricious.
“As seems to me,” says
the comedy, “it is time Some read ᾤραν
ἀπολείπει
. [New College ms.]
In the translation the conjecture ᾤρα
ἀπολείπειν
is adopted.
An adaptation of An
imitation of Zeno’s saying, “It is better to slip with
the feet than the tongue.”
Quoting from memory, he has substituted ἔκκοψον
for ἔξελε (
“Mortify therefore your members which
are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection,
and concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: for which
things’ sake cometh the wrath of God upon the children of
disobedience,”
But we enkindle the passions, and are not ashamed.
Some of these women eating mastich, [A similar practice, very
gross and unbecoming, prevails among the lower class of girls brought
together in our common schools.] τὸ
ἄσχημον
σχῆμα ( ἀ κύων,
catella. The literal English rendering is coarser and more opprobrious
than the original, which Helen applies to herself (Iliad,
vi. 344, 356).
Also we must abandon a furious mode of walking, and choose a grave and leisurely, but not a lingering step.
Nor is one to swagger in the ways, nor throw back
his head to look at those he meets, if they look at him, as if he were
strutting on the stage, and pointed at with the finger. Nor, when pushing
up hill, are they to be shoved up by
A true gentleman must have no mark of effeminacy
visible on his face, or any other part of his body. Let no blot on his
manliness, then, be ever found either in his movements or habits. Nor is
a man in health to use his servants as horses to bear him. For as it is
enjoined on them, “to be subject to their masters with all fear,
not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward,”
Zeno the Cittiæan thought fit to represent
the image of a young maid, and executed the statue thus: “Let her
face be clean, her eyebrows not let down, nor her eyelids open nor
turned back. Let her neck not be stretched back, nor the members
of her body be loose. But let the parts that hang from the body
look as if they were well strung; let there be the keenness of a
well-regulated mind
This passage has been variously amended and translated. The reading
of the text has been adhered to, but ὸρθόνου
has been coupled with what follows.
And let not men, therefore, spend their time in
barbers’ shops and taverns, babbling nonsense; and let them give
up hunting for the women who sit near, Sylburg suggests παριούας
(passing by) instead of παριζούσας.
The game of dice κὔβος,
a die marked on all the six sides. [This prohibition
would include cards in modern ethics.] διὰ ͠ῶν
ἀστραγάλων. The
ἀστραγάλοι
were dice marked on four sides only. Clemens seems to use the terms
here indifferently. Lowth’s
conjecture of
ἔρως instead of ἐρᾷ has been adopted.
But, as appears, only intercourse with good men benefits; on the other hand, the all-wise Instructor, by the mouth of Moses, recognising companionship with bad men as swinish, forbade the ancient people to partake of swine; to point out that those who call on God ought not to mingle with unclean men, who, like swine, delight in corporeal pleasures, in impure food, and in itching with filthy pruriency after the mischievous delights of lewdness.
Further, He says: “Thou art not to eat
a kite or swift-winged ravenous bird, or an eagle,”
With whom, then, are we to associate? With the righteous, He says again, speaking figuratively; for everything “which parts the hoof and chews the cud is clean.” For the parting of the hoof indicates the equilibrium of righteousness, and ruminating points to the proper food of righteousness, the word, which enters from without, like food, by instruction, but is recalled from the mind, as from the stomach, to rational recollection. And the spiritual man, having the word in his mouth, ruminates the spiritual food; and righteousness parts the hoof rightly, because it sanctifies us in this life, and sends us on our way to the world to come.
The Instructor will not then bring
us to public spectacles; nor inappropriately might one
call the racecourse and the theatre “the seat of
plagues;”
ἀναμιξιας
adopted instead of the reading ἀμιξίας,
which is plainly wrong. λιχνευούσης
on the authority of the Pal. ms. Nov. Reg. Bod. [Jeremy Collier’s Short
View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage (London,
1698) and the discussions that followed belong to literature, and ought
to be republished with historic notes.]
For if people shall say that they betake themselves to the spectacles as a pastime for recreation, I should say that the cities which make a serious business of pastime are not wise; for cruel contests for glory which have been so fatal are not sport. No more is senseless expenditure of money, nor are the riots that are occasioned by them sport. And ease of mind is not to be purchased by zealous pursuit of frivolities, for no one who has his senses will ever prefer what is pleasant to what is good.
But it is said we do not all philosophize. Do we not all, then, follow after life? What sayest thou? How hast thou believed? How, pray, dost thou love God and thy neighbour, if thou dost not philosophize? And how dost thou love thyself, if thou dost not love life? It is said, I have not learned letters; but if thou hast not learned to read, thou canst not excuse thyself in the case of hearing, for it is not taught. And faith is the possession not of the wise according to the world, but of those according to God; and it is taught without letters; and its handbook, at once rude and divine, is called love—a spiritual book. It is in your power to listen to divine wisdom, ay, and to frame your life in accordance with it. Nay, you are not prohibited from conducting affairs in the world decorously according to God. Let not him who sells or buys aught name two prices for what he buys or sells; but stating the net price, and studying to speak the truth, if he get not his price, he gets the truth, and is rich in the possession of rectitude. But, above all, let an oath on account of what is sold be far from you; and let swearing, too, on account of other things be banished.
And in this way those who frequent the market-place
and the shop philosophize. “For thou shalt not take the name of
the Lord thy God in vain:
for the Lord will not hold him
guiltless that taketh His name in vain.”
But those who act contrary to these things—the
avaricious, the liars, the hypocrites, those who make merchandise of
the truth—the Lord cast out of His Father’s court, In allusion to the cleansing
of the temple (
Woman and man are to go to church [This early use of the word
“church” for the place or house of worship, is to be noted.
See Elucidation ii.]
They say that the wife of Æneas, through excess of propriety, did not, even in her terror at the capture of Troy, uncover herself; but, though fleeing from the conflagration, remained veiled.
Such ought those who are consecrated to Christ
appear, and frame themselves in their whole life, as they fashion
themselves in the church [
And if we are called to the kingdom of God,
let us walk worthy of the kingdom, loving God and our neighbour. But
love is not proved by a kiss, but by kindly feeling. But there are
those, that do nothing but make the churches resound with a kiss, [The sexes sat apart in the
primitive churches, and the kiss of peace was given by women only to
women (Bunsen, Hippol., iii. p. 15). Does the author, here,
imply that unholy kissing had crept in? Among the Germans, even
in our days, nothing is more common than to see men, not at all related,
salute one another in this way. It was therefore all one with shaking
hands, in the apostolic ordinance. For some very fine reflections on
the baiser de paix, see
De Masitre, Soirèes, ii. p. 199, ed. Paris, 1850.]
When the kingdom is worthily tested, we dispense the affection of the soul by a chaste and closed mouth, by which chiefly gentle manners are expressed.
But there is another unholy kiss, full of poison,
counterfeiting sanctity. Do you not know that spiders, merely by
touching the mouth, afflict men with pain? And often kisses inject
the poison of licentiousness. It is then very manifest to us, that a
kiss is not love. For the love meant is the love of God. “And
this is the love of God,” says John, “that we keep His
commandments;”
But, above all, it seems right that we turn away
from the sight of women. For it is sin not only to touch, but to look;
and he who is rightly trained must especially avoid them. “Let
thine eyes look straight, and thine eyelids wink right.”
I would counsel the married never to kiss their wives in the presence of their domestics. For Aristotle does not allow people to laugh to their slaves. And by no means must a wife be seen saluted in their presence. It is moreover better that, beginning at home with marriage, we should exhibit propriety in it. For it is the greatest bond of chastity, breathing forth pure pleasure. Very admirably the tragedy says:—
Such injunctions of righteousness
uttered by those who are conversant with worldly wisdom are not to
be refused. Knowing, then, the duty of each, “pass the time of
your sojourning here in fear: forasmuch as ye know that ye were
not redeemed with corruptible things, such as silver or gold, from
your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but
with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and
without spot.”
What has to be observed at home, and how our
life is to be regulated, the Instructor has abundantly declared. And
the things which He is wont to say to children by the way, [Here the pædagogue
is the child-guide, leading to the Teacher.] [Important foot-note, Kaye, p. 105.]
“For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous, and
the way of the ungodly shall perish.”
[See Irenæus, vol. i. p. 482, this series. Stromata,
vi. 360.] Where, no one
knows.
In regard to fasting it is said, “Wherefore do
What means a fast, then? “Lo, this is
the fast which I have chosen, saith the Lord. Loose every band
of wickedness. Dissolve the knots of oppressive contracts. Let the
oppressed go free, and tear every unjust bond. Break thy bread to the
hungry; and lead the houseless poor into thy house. If thou see the
naked cover him.”
Not in Scripture. [Irenæus,
iv. 17, vol. i. 444, this series.]
Further, in respect to forbearance. “If thy
brother,” it is said, “sin against thee, rebuke him; and if
he repent, forgive him. If he sin against thee seven times in a day, and
turn to thee the seventh time, and say, I repent, forgive him.”
And to householders: “A possession which is
acquired with iniquity becomes less.”
Also of “love.” “Love,”
He says, “covers a multitude of sins.”
And of civil government: “Render to Cæsar
the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things which
are God’s.”
Of swearing and the remembrance of injuries:
“Did I command your fathers, when they went out of Egypt,
to offer burnt-offerings and sacrifices? But I commanded them, Let
none of you bear malice in his heart against his neighbour, or love
a false oath.”
In
The liars and the proud, too, He threatens;
the former thus: “Woe to them that call bitter sweet, and
sweet bitter;” and the latter: “Woe unto them that are
wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight.”
And “the merciful” He blesses, “for they shall obtain mercy.”
Wisdom pronounces anger a wretched thing, because
“it will destroy the wise.”
Of faith He says: “Whatsoever ye shall ask in
prayer, believing, ye shall receive.”
Domestics, too, are to be treated like ourselves; for they are human beings, as we are. For God is the same to free and bond, if you consider.
Such of our brethren as transgress, we must
not punish, but rebuke. “For he that spareth the rod hateth
his son.”
Further, He banishes utterly love of glory,
saying, “Woe to you, Pharisees! for ye love the chief
seat in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets.”
Respecting liberality He said: “Come to me, ye blessed, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an hungry, and ye gave Me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took Me in; naked, and ye clothed Me; sick, and ye visited Me; in prison, and ye came unto Me.” And when have we done any of these things to the Lord?
The Instructor Himself will say again, loving to
refer to Himself the kindness of the brethren, “Inasmuch as ye
have done it to these least, ye have done it to Me. And these shall
go away into everlasting life.”
Such are the laws of the Word, the consolatory words not on tables of stone which were written by the finger of the Lord, but inscribed on men’s hearts, on which alone they can remain imperishable. Wherefore the tablets of those who had hearts of stone are broken, that the faith of the children may be impressed on softened hearts.
However, both the laws served the Word for the
instruction of humanity, both that given by Moses and that by the
apostles. What, therefore, is the nature of the training by the apostles,
appears to me to require to be treated of. Under this head, I, or rather
the Instructor by me,
δἰ
ἐμαυτοῦ.
The reading here adopted is found in Bod. and Reg.
“Putting away lying, speak every man truth
with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. Let not the
sun go down upon your wrath; neither give place to the devil. Let him
that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with
his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him
that needeth. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour,
and evil-speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: and be ye
kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, as God in
Christ hath forgiven you. Be therefore wise,
iφρόνιμοι, not found in
“If we live in the Spirit, let us walk in the
Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vainglory, provoking one another,
envying one another. Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so
fulfil the law of Christ. Be not deceived; God is not mocked. Let us
not be weary in well-doing: for in due time we shall reap, if we faint
not.”
“Be at peace among yourselves. Now we admonish
you, brethren, warn them who are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded,
support the weak, be patient toward all men. See that none render evil
for evil to any man. Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings.
Prove all things: hold fast that which is good. Abstain from every
form of evil.”
“Continue in prayer, watching thereunto
with thanksgiving. Walk in wisdom towards them that are without,
redeeming the time. Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with
salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.”
“Nourish yourselves up in the words
of faith. Exercise yourselves unto godliness: for bodily exercise
profiteth little; but godliness is profitable for all things,
having the promise of the life which now is, and that which is to
come.”
“Let those who have faithful masters not
despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service,
because they are faithful.”
“He that giveth, let him do it with simplicity;
he that ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness.
Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to
that which is good. Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly
love, in honour preferring one another. Not slothful in business; fervent
in spirit, serving the Lord. Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation;
continuing instant in prayer. Given to hospitality; communicating
to the necessities of the saints.”
Such are a few injunctions out of many, for the sake of example, which the Instructor, running over the divine Scriptures, sets before His children; by which, so to speak, vice is cut up by the roots, and iniquity is circumscribed.
Innumerable commands such as these are written in the
holy Bible appertaining to chosen persons, some to presbyters, some to
bishops, some to deacons, others to widows, [Consult Bunsen’s Handbook, book
iv. pp. 75–82. Thus did primitive Christianity labour to uproot the
social estate of heathenism.]
And now, in truth, it is time for me to cease
from my instruction, and for you to listen to the Teacher. That is, he who undertakes
the instruction of those that are full-grown, as Clemens does in the
Stromata. [Where see his esoteric doctrine.]
A horse is guided by a bit, and a bull is guided by a yoke, and a wild beast is caught in a noose. But man is transformed by the Word, by whom wild beasts are tamed, and fishes caught, and birds drawn down. He it is, in truth, who fashions the bit for the horse, the yoke for the bull, the noose for the wild beast, the rod for the fish, the snare for the bird. He both manages the state and tills the ground; commands, and helps, and creates the universe.
Iliad, xviii. 483–485; spoken of Vulcan making the shield of Archilles.
O divine works! O divine commands! “Let this water undulate within itself; let this fire restrain its wrath; let this air wander into ether; and this earth be consolidated, and acquire motion! When I want to form man, I want matter, and have matter in the elements. I dwell with what I have formed. If you know me, the fire will be your slave.”
Such is the Word, such is the Instructor, the
Creator of the world and of man: and of Himself, now the world’s
Instructor, by whose command we and the universe subsist, and await
judgment. “For it is not he who brings a stealthy vocal word
to men,” as Bacchylidis says, “who shall be the Word of
Wisdom;” but “the blameless, the pure, and faultless sons
of God,” according to Paul, “in the midst of a crooked
and perverse generation, to shine as lights in the world.” Phil. ii 15.
All that remains therefore now, in such a celebration of the Word as this, is that we address to the Word our prayer.
Be gracious, O Instructor, to us Thy children,
Father, Charioteer of Israel, Son and Father, both in One, O Lord. Grant
to us who obey Thy precepts, that we may perfect the likeness of the
image, and with all our power know Him who is the good God and not
a harsh judge. And do Thou Thyself cause that all of us who have our
conversation in Thy peace, who have been translated into Thy commonwealth,
having sailed tranquilly over the billows of sin, may be wafted in calm
by Thy Holy Spirit, by the ineffable wisdom, by night and day to the
perfect day; and giving thanks may praise, and praising thank the Alone
Father and Son, Son and Father, the Son, Instructor and Teacher, with the
Holy Spirit, all in One, in whom is all, for whom all is One, for whom
is eternity, whose members we all are, whose glory the æons Αίῶνες,
“celestial spirits and angels.”—Grabe, in a note on Bull’s Defence
of the Nicene Creed. [I wish a more definite reference had been
furnished by the learned translator. Even Kaye’s reference
is not precise. Consulting Grabe’s annotations in vain,
I was then obliged to go through the foot-notes, where, at last
(vol. v. part i. p. 246.), I found in comparative obscurity Grabe’s
language. It may be rendered: “These words I think should be thus
construed—cujus gloria sunt sœcula—whose glory are the
heavenly spirits or angels. Concerning which signification of
τῶν
αἰώνων, note what I
have said among divers annotations on Irenæus, p. 32. ed.
Benedict.”]
And since the Instructor, by translating us into His Church, has united us to Himself, the teaching and all-surveying Word, it were right that, having got to this point, we should offer to the Lord the reward of due thanksgiving—praise suitable to His fair instruction.
Composed
by St. Clement.
[Elucidation III.] The translator has done what he could to render this
hymn literally. He has been obliged, however, to add somewhat to it
in the way of expansion, for otherwise it would have been impossible
to secure anything approaching the flow of English versification. The
original is in many parts a mere string of epithets, which no ingenuity
could render in rhymed verse without some additions.
I.
II.
III.
We subjoin the following literal translation of the foregoing hymn:—
Bridle of untamed colts, Wing of
unwandering birds, sure Helm of babes, Or, “ships:” νηῶν,
instead of νηπίων, has been
suggested as better sense and better metre. Or, “rejoicing in eternity.”
By altering the punctuation, we can translate thus: “Guide, O holy
King, Thy children safely along the footsteps of Christ.” The word used here is ψάλωμεν,
originally signifying, “Let us celebrate on a stringed
instrument.” Whether it is so used here or not, may be matter
of dispute. [The holy virgin of Nazareth is the author of the
first Christian hymn, The Magnificat. It is a sequel to the
psalms of her father David, and interprets them. To Clement of Alexandria
belongs the praise of leading the choir of uninspired Christian poets,
whom he thus might seem to invoke to carry on the strain through all
time.]
[The hymn suffixed to Thomson’s Seasons might seem to have been suggested by this ancient example of praise to the Maker. But, to feel this hymn, we must reflect upon its superiority, in a moral point of view, to all the Attic Muse had ever produced before.]
[The Scriptures are the rule of faith.]
[Kaye’s careful criticism of M. Barbeyrac’s captious complains against Clement, are specially instructive. p. 109.]
(Pædagogue, book II. chap. 3, p. 247.)
This fine paragraph is in many ways interesting. The tourist who has visited the catacombs, is familiar, among tokens of the first rude art of Christians, with relics of various articles, realizing this idea of Clement’s, that even our furniture should be distinctively Christian. In Pompeii, one finds lamps and other vessels marked by heathenish devices, some of them gross and revolting. On the contrary, these Christian utensils bear the sacred monograms ΧΡ, ΑΩ, or the figure of the fish, conveying to the user, by the letters of the Greek word for a fish (ΙΧΘΥΣ), the initials of the words “Jesus Christ, Son of God, The Saviour.” Often we have the anchor, the palm-branch, or the cross itself. But I never looked at one of those Christian lamps without imagining its owner, singing, as it was lighted, the eventide hymn (of which see Elucidation III.), and reciting probably, therewith, the text, “Let your loins be girded, and your lamps burning,” etc. For a valuable elucidation of subjects illustrated by Christian art, see Testimony of the Catacombs, by the late Wharton B. Marriott (London, Hatchards, 1870).
(Book iii. Going to Church. p. 290, supra.)
Frequent references become necessary,
at this point, to the ecclesiastical usages of the early Christians. These
have been largely treated of by the great Anglican divines, whose works
are recognised as part of the standard literature of Christendom; but
the nature of this publication seems to impose on me the duty of choosing
from external sources, rather than from authors who have been more or less
associated with the controversies of our great “Anglo-Saxon”
family. Happily the writings of the late Dr. Bunsen supply us with all
that is requisite of this sort. In that very curious and characteristic
medley, Hippolytus and His Age, he has gathered into a convenient
form nearly every point which requires antiquarian elucidation, under
the title of The Church and Home Book of the Ancient Christians.
Its contents he professes to have rescued “from the rubbish in
which they were enveloped for centuries, and disencumbered of the fraud
and misunderstanding by which they are defaced.” Now, while by
no means satisfied with this work myself, it affords an interesting
specimen of the conclusions to which an earnest and scholarly mind has
been brought, in the course of original and industrious research. It is
the more interesting, as illustrating a conviction, which he expresses
elsewhere, that, in shaping “the Church of the future,” all
Christians must revert to these records of primitive antiquity, as of
practical interest for our own times. The proverbial faults of its author
are indeed conspicuous in this work, which, though the product of a mere
inquirer, is presented to us with entire self-reliance, as if he were
competent to pronounce upon all questions with something like pontifical
infallibility. It is also greatly mixed up with his personal theories,
which are always interesting, but rarely satisfactory to his readers. In
spite of all this, he has brought together, in a condensed form, what is
undoubtedly the result of patient investigation. It is the rather useful,
because it is the work of a genuine disciple of Niebuhr, who doubts and
questions at every step, and who always suspects a fraud. He is committed,
by his religious persuasions, to no system whatever, with respect to
such matters, and he professes to have produced a manual of Christian
antiquity, entirely scientific; that is to say, wholly impartial,
indifferent as to consequences, and following only the lead of truth
The one ancient hymn, not strictly liturgical, which probably was not new even to Clement, and to which we have already made reference once or twice, is the following, which we give from Bunsen. He calls it “The Evening Hymn of the Greek Christians,” but it was not confined to the Greeks any more than was the Greek of the Gospels and the Creeds. Its proper name is “The Eventide Hymn,” or “The Hymn for the Lighting of the Lamps,” and was doubtless uttered in the family at “candlelight,” as we say a grace before meat. It is thus rendered:—
The modern Italians, at sunset, recite the Ave Maria, which has been imposed upon them by mediæval Rome. Nothing but the coincidence of the hour reminds us of the ancient hymn which it has superseded; and a healthy mind, one would think, would note the contrast. This pure “hymn to Christ as God,” and to the Godhead in unity, gives place to an act of worship addressed to the creature, more than to the Creator. One might indeed call this Ave Maria the eventide hymn of modern Italy; but the scatter-brain processes of Dr. Bunsen come out in the strange reversal of thought, by which he would throw back the utterly incongruous title of its Italian substitute upon a primitive hymn to the Trinity,—“the Ave-Maria hymn, as we might call it from the present Italian custom,” etc. The strange confusion of ideas which constantly characterizes this author, whenever some association, however remote, strikes his fancy, is well illustrated by this instance. Let it serve as a caution in following his lead. See Hippolytus (vol. iii. pp. 68, 138, etc.) and also Routh (Reliquiæ, vol. iii. pp. 515–520). Concerning the morning hymn, Gloria in Excelsis, which Dr. Bunsen gives from the Alexandrian ms., and to which reference is made in his Analecta Ante-Nicæna (iii. 86), see Warren’s Celtic Liturgy (p. 197, and index references. Ed. Oxford, 1881).
[It is impossible to illustrate the Stromata by needed notes, on the plan of this publication. It would double the size of the work, and require time and such scholorship as belongs to experts. Important matters are briefly discussed at the end of each book. Elucidation I.]
[Wants the beginning] . . .
. . . . . . .
that you may read them under your hand, and may be able to preserve
them. Whether written compositions are not to be left behind at all; or
if they are, by whom? And if the former, what need there is for written
compositions? and if the latter, is the composition of them to be
assigned to earnest men, or the opposite? It were certainly ridiculous
for one to disapprove of the writing of earnest men, and approve of
those, who are not such, engaging in the work of composition.
Theopompus and Timæus, who composed fables and slanders, and Epicurus
the leader of atheism, and Hipponax and Archilochus, are to be allowed
to write in their own shameful manner. But he who proclaims the truth
is to be prevented from leaving behind him what is to benefit
posterity. It is a good thing, I reckon, to leave to posterity good
children. This is the case with children of our bodies. But words are
the progeny of the soul. Hence we call those who have instructed us,
fathers. Wisdom is a communicative and philanthropic thing.
Accordingly, Solomon says, “My son, if thou receive the saying of
my commandment, and hide it with thee, thine ear shall hear
wisdom.”
And if knowledge belong not to all (set an ass
to the lyre, as the proverb goes), yet written compositions are for
the many. “Swine, for instance, delight in dirt more than in
clean water.” “Wherefore,” says the Lord, “I
speak to them in parables: because seeing, they see not; and hearing,
they hear not, and do not understand;”
If, then, both proclaim the Word—the one
Both must therefore test themselves: the one, if he is
qualified to speak and leave behind him written records; the other, if he
is in a right state to hear and read: as also some in the dispensation of
the Eucharist, according to
[To be noted as apparently allowed, yet exceptionally so.]
In the same way, therefore, those who take part in
the divine words, ought to guard against betaking themselves to this, as
they would to the building of cities, to examine them out of curiosity;
that they do not come to the task for the sake of receiving worldly
things, having ascertained that they who are consecrated to Christ are
given to communicate the necessaries of life. But let such be dismissed
as hypocrites. But if any one wishes not to seem, but to be righteous,
to him it belongs to know the things which are best. If, then, “the
harvest is plenteous, but the labourers few,” it is incumbent on us
“to pray” that there may be as great abundance of labourers
as possible.
But the husbandry is twofold,—the one
unwritten, and the other written. And in whatever way the Lord’s
labourer sow the good wheat, and grow and reap the ears, he shall
appear a truly divine husbandman. “Labour,” says the Lord,
“not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth to
everlasting life.”
He who addresses those who are present before him,
both tests them by time, and judges by his judgment, and from the others
distinguishes him who can hear; watching the words, the manners, the
habits, the life, the motions, the attitudes, the look, the voice; the
road, the rock, the beaten path, the fruitful land, the wooded region,
the fertile and fair and cultivated spot, that is able to multiply the
seed. But he that speaks through books, consecrates himself before God,
crying in writing thus: Not for gain, not for vainglory, not to be
vanquished by partiality, nor enslaved by fear nor elated by pleasure;
but only to reap the salvation of those who read, which he does, not
at present participate in, but awaiting in expectation the recompense
which will certainly be rendered by Him, who has promised to bestow
on the labourers the reward that is meet. But he who is enrolled in
the number of men i.e.,
perfect men.
Now the Scripture kindles the living spark of
the soul, and directs the eye suitably for contemplation; perchance
inserting something, as the husbandman when he ingrafts, but,
according to the opinion of the divine apostle, exciting what is
in the soul. “For there are certainly among us many weak and
sickly, and many sleep. But if we judge ourselves, we shall not be
judged.”
Of these the one, in Greece, an Ionic; The first probably Tatian, the
second Theodotus.
When I came upon the last Most likely Pantænus, master of the
catechetical school in Alexandria, and the teacher of Clement.
[Elucidation II.]
Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed
doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John,
and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the
fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral
and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean
delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation
of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this,
will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from escape
the blessed tradition.
[See Elucidation III.,
infra.]
[This reference to the Jewish Sabbath to be noted in connection with
what Clement says elsewhere.]
[See Elucidation IV.,
infra.]
And if one say that it is written, “There is
nothing secret which shall not be revealed, nor hidden which shall not
be disclosed,”
The writing of these memoranda of mine, I well
know, is weak when compared with that spirit, full of grace, which I
was privileged to hear. [An
affectionate reference to Pantænus and his other masters.] [An affectionate reference to Pantænus and his
other masters.]
[See Elucidation V.,
infra.]
Our book will not shrink from making use of what is
best in philosophy and other preparatory
By music we harmoniously relax the excessive tension of gravity. And as those who wish to address the people, do so often by the herald, that what is said may be better heard; so also in this case. For we have the word, that was spoken to many, before the common tradition. Wherefore we must set forth the opinions and utterances which cried individually to them, by which those who hear shall more readily turn.
And, in truth, to speak briefly: Among many small
pearls there is the one; and in a great take of fish there is the
beauty-fish; and by time and toil truth will gleam forth, if a good helper
is at hand. For most benefits are supplied, from God, through men. All
of us who make use of our eyes see what is presented before them. But
some look at objects for one reason, others for another. For instance,
the cook and the shepherd do not survey the sheep similarly: for the
one examines it if it be fat; the other watches to see if it be of good
breed. Let a man milk the sheep’s milk if he need sustenance:
let him shear the wool if he need clothing. And in this way let me
produce the fruit of the Greek erudition. [Every reference of our author to
his use of Greek learning and (eclectic) philosophy, is important in
questions about his orthodoxy.]
For I do not imagine that any composition can be
so fortunate as that no one will speak against it. But that is to be
regarded as in accordance with reason, which nobody speaks against,
with reason. And that course of action and choice is to be approved,
not which is faultless, but which no one rationally finds fault with.
For it does not follow, that if a man accomplishes anything not purposely,
he does it through force of circumstances. But he will do it, managing it
by wisdom divinely given, and in accommodation to circumstances. For it
is not he who has virtue that needs the way to virtue, any more than he,
that is strong, needs recovery. For, like farmers who irrigate the land
beforehand, so we also water with the liquid stream of Greek learning
what in it is earthy; so that it may receive the spiritual seed cast into
it, and may be capable of easily nourishing it. The Stromata will
contain the truth mixed up in the dogmas of philosophy, or rather covered
over and hidden, as the edible part of the nut in the shell. For, in my
opinion, it is fitting that the seeds of truth be kept for the husbandmen
of faith, and no others. I am not oblivious of what is babbled by some,
who in their ignorance are frightened at every noise, and say that we
ought to occupy ourselves with what is most necessary, and which contains
the faith; and that we should pass over what is beyond and superfluous,
which wears out and detains us to no purpose, in things which conduce
nothing to the great end. Others think that philosophy was introduced into
life by an evil influence, for the ruin of men, by an evil inventor. But I
shall show, throughout the whole of these Stromata, that evil has
an evil nature, and can never turn out the producer of aught that is good;
indicating that philosophy is in a sense a work of Divine Providence. [Every reference of our author
to his use of Greek learning and (eclectic) philosophy, is important in
questions about his orthodoxy.]
In reference to these commentaries, which contain
as the exigencies of the case demand, the Hellenic opinions, I say thus
much to those who are fond of finding fault. First, even if philosophy
were useless, if the demonstration of its uselessness does good, it
is yet useful. Then those cannot condemn the Greeks, who have only a
mere hearsay knowledge of their opinions, and have not entered into a
minute investigation in each department, in order to acquaintance with
them. For the refutation, which is based on experience, is entirely
trustworthy. For the knowledge of what is condemned is found the most
complete demonstration. Many things, then, though not contributing to
the final result, equip the artist. And otherwise erudition commends him,
who sets forth the most essential doctrines so as to produce persuasion
in his hearers, engendering admiration in those who are taught, and
leads them to the truth. And such persuasion is convincing, by which
those that love learning admit the truth; so that philosophy does not
ruin life by being the originator of false practices and base deeds,
although some have calumniated it, though it be the clear image of truth,
a divine gift to the Greeks;
[Noteworthy with his caveat about comparison. He deals with
Greek philosophers as surgeons do with comparative anatomy.]
Philosophy came into existence, not on its own
account, but for the advantages reaped by us from knowledge, we receiving
a firm persuasion of true perception, through the knowledge of things
comprehended by the mind. For I do not mention that the Stromata,
forming a body of varied erudition, wish artfully to conceal the seeds of
knowledge. As, then, he who is fond of hunting captures the game after
seeking, tracking, scenting, hunting it down with dogs; so truth, when
sought and got with toil, appears a delicious Adopting the emendation γλυκύ
τι instead of γλυκύτητι.
There is a great crowd of this description: some of them, enslaved to pleasures and willing to disbelieve, laugh at the truth which is worthy of all reverence, making sport of its barbarousness. Some others, exalting themselves, endeavour to discover calumnious objections to our words, furnishing captious questions, hunters out of paltry sayings, practicers of miserable artifices, wranglers, dealers in knotty points, as that Abderite says:—
And—
Inflated with this art of theirs, the wretched Sophists, babbling away in their own jargon; toiling their whole life about the division of names and the nature of the composition and conjunction of sentences, show themselves greater chatterers than turtle-doves; scratching and tickling, not in a manly way, in my opinion, the ears of those who wish to be tickled.
just as in old shoes, when all the rest is worn and is falling to pieces, and the tongue alone remains. The Athenian Solon most excellently enlarges, and writes:—
This, I think, is signified by the
utterance of the Saviour, “The foxes have holes, but the Son of
man hath not where to lay His head.”
And similarly Iophon, the comic poet, in Flute-playing Satyrs, says:—
Of these and the like, who devote
their attention to empty words, the divine Scripture most excellently
says, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing
the understanding of the prudent.”
Homer calls an artificer wise; and of Margites, if that is his work, he thus writes:—
Hesiod further said the musician Linus was “skilled in all manner of wisdom;” and does not hesitate to call a mariner wise, seeing he writes:—
And Daniel the prophet says,
“The mystery which the king asks, it is not in the power of the
wise, the Magi, the diviners, the Gazarenes, to tell the king; but it
is God in heaven who revealeth it.”
Here he terms the Babylonians wise. And that Scripture
calls every secular science or art by the one name wisdom (there are
other arts and sciences invented over and above by human reason), and
that artistic and skilful invention is from God, will be clear if we
adduce the following
Those who are wise in mind have a certain attribute
of nature peculiar to themselves; and they who have shown themselves
capable, receive from the Supreme Wisdom a spirit of perception in
double measure. For those who practice the common arts, are in what
pertains to the senses highly gifted: in hearing, he who is commonly
called a musician; in touch, he who moulds clay; in voice the singer,
in smell the perfumer, in sight the engraver of devices on seals. Those
also that are occupied in instruction, train the sensibility according
to which the poets are susceptible to the influence of measure;
the sophists apprehend expression; the dialecticians, syllogisms;
and the philosophers are capable of the contemplation of which
themselves are the objects. For sensibility finds and invents; since
it persuasively exhorts to application. And practice will increase the
application which has knowledge for its end. With reason, therefore,
the apostle has called the wisdom of God “manifold,”
and which has manifested its power “in many departments and
in many modes”
"For if thou call on wisdom and knowledge with a loud
voice, and seek it as treasures of silver, and eagerly track it out,
thou shalt understand godliness and find divine knowledge.” [A passage much
reflected upon, in questions of Clement’s Catholic orthodoxy. See
Elucidation VI., infra.]
Accordingly, before the advent of the Lord,
philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness. [In connection
with note 3, p. 303, supra, see Elucidation VII.] [In connection
with note 3, p. 303, supra, see Elucidation VII.]
“Now,” says Solomon, “defend
wisdom, and it will exalt thee, and it will shield thee with a crown
of pleasure.”
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would
I have gathered thy children, as a hen her chickens!”
[A favourite expression of the Fathers, expressing
hope for the heathen. See Elucidations VIII.,
infra.] Philo Judæus, On seeking Instruction,
435. See Bohn’s translation, ii. 173. Quoted from Philo with some alterations. See
Bohn’s translation, vol. ii. p. 173.
See Philo, Meeting to seek Instruction, Bohn’s translation,
vol. ii. 160.
And Philo interprets Hagar to mean
“sojourning.”
Bohn’s trans., vol. ii. 161. Philo,
in the book above cited, interprets “Israel,” “seeing
God.” From this book all the instances and etymologies occuring
here are taken.
Something else may also have been shown by the three patriarchs, namely, that the sure seal of knowledge is composed of nature, of education, and exercise.
You may have also another image of what has been
said, in Thamar sitting by the way, and presenting the appearance
of a harlot, on whom the studious Judas (whose name is interpreted
“powerful”), who left nothing unexamined and uninvestigated,
looked; and turned aside to her, preserving his profession towards
God. Wherefore also, when Sarah was jealous at Hagar being preferred to
her, Abraham, as choosing only what was profitable in secular philosophy,
said, “Behold, thy maid is in thine hands: deal with her as it
pleases thee;”
The readiness acquired by previous training
conduces much to the perception of such things as are requisite; but
those things which can be perceived only by mind are the special exercise
for the mind. And their nature is triple according as we consider their
quantity, their magnitude, and what can be predicated of them. For the
discourse which consists of demonstrations, implants in the spirit of
him who follows it, clear faith; so that he cannot conceive of that
which is demonstrated being different; and so it does not allow us to
succumb to those who assail us by fraud. In such studies, therefore,
the soul is purged from sensible things, and is excited, so as to be
able to see truth distinctly. For nutriment, and the training which is
maintained gentle, make noble natures; and noble natures, when they
have received such training, become still better than before both in
other respects, but especially in productiveness, as is the case with
the other creatures. Wherefore it is said, “Go to the ant, thou
sluggard, and become wiser than it, which provideth much and, varied
food in the harvest against the inclemency of winter.”
Again, God has created us naturally social and just; whence justice must not be said to take its rise from implantation alone. But the good imparted by creation is to be conceived of as excited by the commandment; the soul being trained to be willing to select what is noblest.
But as we say that a man can be a believer without
learning, [Illustrative of the esoteric principle of Clement. See
Elucidation IX., infra.]
The Greek preparatory culture, therefore, with philosophy itself, is shown to have come down from God to men, not with a definite direction but in the way in which showers fall down on the good land, and on the dunghill, and on the houses. And similarly both the grass and the wheat sprout; and the figs and any other reckless trees grow on sepulchres. And things that grow, appear as a type of truths. For they enjoy the same influence of the rain. But they have not the same grace as those which spring up in rich soil, inasmuch as they are withered or plucked up. And here we are aided by the parable of the sower, which the Lord interpreted. For the husbandman of the soil which is among men is one; He who from the beginning, from the foundation of the world, sowed nutritious seeds; He who in each age rained down the Lord, the Word. But the times and places which received [such gifts], created the differences which exist. Further, the husbandman sows not only wheat (of which there are many varieties), but also other seeds—barley, and beans, and peas, and vetches, and vegetable and flower seeds. And to the same husbandry belongs both planting and the operations necessary in the nurseries, and gardens, and orchards, and the planning and rearing of all sorts of trees.
In like manner, not only the care of sheep, but
the care of herds, and breeding of horses, and dogs, and bee-craft,
all arts, and to speak comprehensively, the care of flocks and the
rearing of animals, differ from each other more or less, but are
all useful for life. And philosophy—I do not mean the Stoic,
or the Platonic, or the Epicurean, or the Aristotelian, but whatever
has been well said by each of those sects, which teach righteousness
along with a science pervaded by piety,—this eclectic whole
I call philosophy.
[Most important as defining Clement’s system, and his use of
this word, “philosophy.”]
And now we must look also at this, that if ever those
who know not how to do well, live well; Something seems wanting to complete the
sense. [Stillingfleet, Origines Sacræ, vol. i. p.55. Important
reference.]
[See
vol. i. p. 18, First Epistle of Clement, chap. xlviii. S.]
But the art of sophistry, which the Greeks
cultivated, is a fantastic power, which makes false opinions
like true by means of words. For it produces rhetoric in order to
persuasion, and disputation for wrangling. These arts, therefore,
if not conjoined with philosophy, will be injurious to every
one. For Plato openly called sophistry “an evil art.”
And Aristotle, following him, demonstrates it to be a dishonest art,
which abstracts in a specious manner the whole business of wisdom,
and professes a wisdom which it has not studied. To speak briefly, as
the beginning of rhetoric is the probable, and an attempted proof ἐπιχειρημα.
You see how he is moved against them, calling their art of logic—on which, those to whom this garrulous mischievous art is dear, whether Greeks or barbarians, plume themselves—a disease (νοσος). Very beautifully, therefore, the tragic poet Euripides says in the Phœnissæ,—
Phœnissæ, 471, 472.
For the saving Word [He has no idea of salvation by
any other name, though he regards Gentile illumination as coming through
philosophy.]
says the tragedy. Such are these wranglers, whether
they follow the sects, or practice miserable dialectic arts. These
are they that “stretch the warp and weave nothing,”
says the Scripture;
Where, nobody knows.
We must not, then, aspire to please
the multitude. For we do not practice what will please them, but what
we know is remote from their disposition. “Let us not be desirous
of vainglory,” says the apostle, “provoking one another,
envying one another.”
Thus the truth-loving Plato says, as if
divinely inspired, “Since I am such as to obey nothing but the
word, which, after reflection, appears to me the best.” Plato, Crito, vi. p.
46.
Accordingly he charges those who credit opinions without intelligence and knowledge, with abandoning right and sound reason unwarrantably, and believing him who is a partner in falsehood. For to cheat one’s self of the truth is bad; but to speak the truth, and to hold as our opinions positive realities, is good.
Men are deprived of what is good unwillingly. Nevertheless they are deprived either by being deceived or beguiled, or by being compelled and not believing. He who believes not, has already made himself a willing captive; and he who changes his persuasion is cozened, while he forgets that time imperceptibly takes away some things, and reason others. And after an opinion has been entertained, pain and anguish, and on the other hand contentiousness and anger, compel. Above all, men are beguiled who are either bewitched by pleasure or terrified by fear. And all these are voluntary changes, but by none of these will knowledge ever be attained.
Some, who think themselves naturally gifted, do not wish to touch either philosophy or logic; nay more, they do not wish to learn natural science. They demand bare faith alone, as if they wished, without bestowing any care on the vine, straightway to gather clusters from the first. Now the Lord is figuratively described as the vine, from which, with pains and the art of husbandry, according to the word, the fruit is to be gathered.
We must lop, dig, bind, and perform the other
operations. The pruning-knife, I should think, and the pick-axe, and
the other agricultural implements, are necessary for the culture of
the vine, so that it may produce eatable fruit. And as in husbandry,
so also in medicine: he has learned to purpose, who has practiced the
various lessons, so as to be able to cultivate and to heal. So also here,
I call him truly learned who brings everything to bear on the truth;
so that, from
The empirics were a class of
physicians who held practice to be the one thing essential.
And did not the Lord make all things by the Word? Even the beasts work, driven by compelling fear. And do not those who are called orthodox apply themselves to good works, knowing not what they do?
Wherefore the Saviour, taking the bread, first
spake and blessed. Then breaking the bread, [“Eat it according to reason.”
Spiritual food does not stultify reason, nor conflict with the
evidence of the senses.] [This constant appeal to the
Scriptures, noteworthy.] [ [ A victory disastrous to the
victor and the vanquished.
But it is my purpose, as I reckon, and not
without reason, to live according to the Word, and to understand what
is revealed; [Revelation
is complete, and nothing new to be expected. Plato’s Politicus,
p. 261 E. Plato’s
Theætetus, p. 184 C. [ The story
of Œdipus being a myth. The possessor
of true divine knowledge Dante has the same
thought. Pindar’s φωνᾶντα
συνετοῖσν,
Olymp., ii. 35.] [Here I
am sorry I cannot supply the proper reference. Clement shows his Attic
prejudice in adding the epithet, here and elsewhere (Bœotian),
which Pindar felt so keenly, and resents more than once. Olymp.,
vi. vol. i. p. 75. Ed. Heyne, London, 1823.]
This, then, “the wisdom of the world
is foolishness with God,” and of those who are “the
wise the Lord knoweth their thoughts that they are vain.”
[Revived by some “scientists” of our days.]
The Stoics also, whom he mentions too, say not well
that the Deity, being a body, pervades the vilest matter. He calls the
jugglery of logic “the tradition of men.” Wherefore also he
adds, “Avoid juvenile
The apostle says “foolish,”
[A special Providence notably
recognised as a Christian truth.]
i.e., of the Gospel.
The elements are worshipped,—the air by
Diogenes, the water by Thales, the fire by Hippasus; and by those
who suppose atoms to be the first principles of things, arrogating the
name of philosophers, being wretched creatures devoted to pleasure. [The Epicureans whom he censures
just before.] The substance of these remarks is found in
But since this tradition is not published alone for him who perceives the magnificence of the word; it is requisite, therefore, to hide in a mystery the wisdom spoken, which the Son of God taught. Now, therefore, Isaiah the prophet has his tongue purified by fire, so that he may be able to tell the vision. And we must purify not the tongue alone, but also the ears, if we attempt to be partakers of the truth.
Such were the impediments in the way of my
writing. And even now I fear, as it is said, “to cast the
pearls before swine, lest they tread them under foot, and turn
and rend us.”
[See Elucidation
X., infra.] [A word (sparse) hitherto
branded as an “Americanism.”]
Since, therefore, truth is one (for falsehood
has ten thousand by-paths); just as the Bacchantes tore asunder
the limbs of Pentheus, so the sects both of barbarian and Hellenic
philosophy have done with truth, and each vaunts as the whole truth
the portion which has fallen to its lot. But all, in my opinion, [Here he expresses merely as
an opinion, his “gnostic” ideas as to philosophy, and the
salvability of the heathen.] Namely Jesus:
Eternity, for instance, presents in an instant
the future and the present, also the past of time. But truth, much more
powerful than limitless duration, can collect its proper germs, though
they have fallen on foreign soil. For we shall find that very many of the
dogmas that are held by such sects as have not become utterly senseless,
and are not cut out from the order of nature (by cutting off Christ, as
the women of the fable dismembered the man), We have adopted the translation of Potter, who supposes
a reference to the fate of Pentheus. Perhaps the translation should be:
“excluding Christ, as the apartments destined for women exclude
the man;” i.e., all males.
[His grudging of the term “gnostic” to unworthy pretenders,
illustrates the spirit in which we must refuse to recognise the modern
(Trent) theology of the Latins, as in any sense Catholic.]
The Greeks say, that after Orpheus and Linus,
and the most ancient of the poets that appeared among them, the seven,
called wise, were the first that were admired for their wisdom. Of
whom four were of Asia—Thales of Miletus, and Bias of Priene,
Pittacus of Mitylene, and Cleobulus of Lindos; and two of Europe,
Solon the Athenian, and Chilon the Lacedæmonian; and the seventh,
some say, was Periander of Corinth; others, Anacharsis the Scythian;
others, Epimenides the Cretan, whom Paul knew as a Greek prophet, whom
he mentions in the Epistle to Titus, where he speaks thus: “One of
themselves, a prophet of their own, said, The Cretans are always liars,
evil beasts, slow bellies. And this witness is true.”
[Though Canon Farrar minimizes the Greek scholarship of St. Paul, as
is now the fashion, I think Clement credits him with Greek learning.
The apostle’s example seems to have inspired the philosophical
arguments of Clement, as well as his exuberance of poetical and
mythological quotation.]
The expression, “Know thyself,” some
supposed to be Chilon’s. But Chamæleon, in his book About
the Gods, ascribes it to Thales; Aristotle to the Pythian. It may
be an injunction to the pursuit of knowledge. For it is not possible
to know the parts without the essence of the whole; and one must study
the genesis of the universe, that thereby we may be able to learn the
nature of man. Again, to Chilon the Lacedæmonian they attribute,
“Let nothing be too much.” “Nequid Nimis.” Μηδὲν
ἄγαν.
Odyss., viii. 351.
The Aristotelians judge it to be
Chilon’s; but Didymus says the advice was that of Thales. Then,
next in order, the saying, “All men are bad,” or, “The
most of men are bad” (for the same apophthegm is expressed in
two ways), Sotades the Byzantian says that it was Bias’s. And
the aphorism, “Practice conquers everything,” Μελέτη
πάντα
καθαιρεῖ. Or Eubulus.
says Timon in his Satirical
Poems, on account of his quitting physics for ethics. Antisthenes,
after being a pupil of Socrates, introduced the Cynic philosophy; and
Plato withdrew to the Academy. Aristotle, after studying philosophy under
Plato, withdrew to the Lyceum, and founded the Peripatetic sect. He was
succeeded by Theophrastus, who was succeeded by Strato, and he by Lycon,
then Critolaus, and then Diodorus. Speusippus was the successor of Plato;
his successor was Xenocrates; and the successor of the latter, Polemo.
And the disciples of Polemo were Crates and Crantor, in whom the
old Academy founded by Plato ceased. Arcesilaus was the associate of
Crantor; from whom, down to Hegesilaus, the Middle Academy flourished.
Then Carneades succeeded Hegesilaus, and others came in succession. The
disciple of Crates was Zeno of Citium, the founder of the Stoic sect.
He was succeeded by Cleanthes; and the latter by Chrysippus, and others
after him. Xenophanes of Colophon was the founder of the Eleatic school,
who, Timæus says, lived in the time of Hiero, lord of Sicily,
and Epicharmus the poet; and Apollodorus says that he was born in
the fortieth Olympiad, and reached to the times of Darius and Cyrus.
Parmenides, accordingly, was the disciple of Xenophanes, and Zeno of him;
then came Leucippus,
Such, in an epitome, is the succession of the
philosophers among the Greeks. The periods of the originators of
their philosophy are now to be specified successively, in order that,
by comparison, we may show that the Hebrew philosophy was older
by many generations.
[Clement’s Attic scholarship never seduces him from this fidelity
to the Scriptures. The argument from superior antiquity was one which
the Greeks were sure to feel when demonstrated.]
It has been said of Xenophanes that he was the founder of the Eleatic philosophy. And Eudemus, in the Astrological Histories, says that Thales foretold the eclipse of the sun, which took place at the time that the Medians and the Lydians fought, in the reign of Cyaxares the father of Astyages over the Medes, and of Alyattus the son of Crœsus over the Lydians. Herodotus in his first book agrees with him. The date is about the fiftieth Olympiad. Pythagoras is ascertained to have lived in the days of Polycrates the tyrant, about the sixty-second Olympiad. Mnesiphilus is described as a follower of Solon, and was a contemporary of Themistocles. Solon therefore flourished about the forty-sixth Olympiad. For Heraclitus, the son of Bauso, persuaded Melancomas the tyrant to abdicate his sovereignty. He despised the invitation of king Darius to visit the Persians.
These are the times of the oldest wise men
and philosophers among the Greeks. And that the most of them were
barbarians by extraction, and were trained among barbarians, what
need is there to say? Pythagoras is shown to have been either a
Tuscan or a Tyrian. And Antisthenes was a Phrygian. And Orpheus was
an Odrysian or a Thracian. The most, too, show Homer to have been an
Egyptian. Thales was a Phœnician by birth, and was said to have
consorted with the prophets of the Egyptians; as also Pythagoras did
with the same persons, by whom he was circumcised, that he might enter
the adytum and learn from the Egyptians the mystic philosophy. He
held converse with the chief of the Chaldeans and the Magi; and he
gave a hint of the church, now so called, in the common hall όμακοεῖον.
And Plato does not deny that he procured all
that is most excellent in philosophy from the barbarians; and he
admits that he came into Egypt. Whence, writing in the Phœdo
that the philosopher can receive aid from all sides, he said:
“Great indeed is Greece, O Cebes, in which everywhere there
are good men, and many are the races of the barbarians.” Greece is ample, O Cebes,
in which everywhere there are good men; and many are the races of
the barbarians, over all of whom you must search, seeking such a
physician, sparing neither money nor pains.—Phædo,
p. 78 A. This
sense is obtained by the omission of μόνους from the
text, which may have crept in in consequence of occuring in the previous
text, to make it agree with what Plato says, which is, “And both
among Greeks and barbarians, there are many who have shown many and
illustrious deeds, generating virtue of every kind, to whom many temples
on account of such sons are raised.”—Symp., p. 209
E.
Plato, Timæus, p. 47 A.
And as appears to me, it was in consequence of
perceiving the great benefit which is conferred through wise men, that
the men themselves were honoured and philosophy cultivated publicly
by all the Brahmins, and the Odrysi, and the Getæ. And such were
strictly deified by the race of the Egyptians, by the Chaldeans and
the Arabians, called the Happy, and those that inhabited Palestine,
by not the least portion of the Persian race, and by innumerable
other races besides these. And it is well known that Plato is found
perpetually celebrating the barbarians, remembering that both himself
and Pythagoras learned the most and the noblest of their dogmas among
the barbarians. Wherefore he also called the races of the barbarians,
“races of barbarian philosophers,” recognising, in the
Phœdrus, the Egyptian king, and shows him to us wiser than Theut,
whom he knew to be Hermes. But in the Charmides, it is manifest that
he knew certain Thracians who were said to make the soul immortal. And
Pythagoras is reported to have been a disciple of Sonches the Egyptian
arch-prophet; and Plato, of Sechnuphis of Heliopolis; and Eudoxus,
of Cnidius of Konuphis, who was also an Egyptian. And in his book,
On the Soul,
A mistake of Clement for The Republic. Timæus, p. 22
B.
Democritus appropriated the Babylonian ethic
discourses, for he is said to have combined with his own compositions
a translation of the column of Acicarus. About which the learned have tortured themselves
greatly. The reference is doubtless here to some pillar inscribed with
what was deemed a writing of importance. But as to Acicarus nothing
is known.
Zoroaster the Magus, Pythagoras showed to be a
Persian. Of the secret books of this man, those who follow the heresy
of Prodicus boast to be in possession. Alexander, in his book On the
Pythagorean Symbols, relates that Pythagoras was a pupil of Nazaratus
the Assyrian Otherwise
Zaratus, or Zabratus, or Zaras, who, Huet says, was Zoroaster. [Direct testimony, establishing one important
fact in the history of philosophy.]
Adopting Lowth’s emendation, Σιβύλλην
φἀναι. Or,
according to the reading in Pausanias, and the statement of Plutarch,
“who was the daughter of Poseidon.”
Numa the king of the Romans was a Pythagorean,
and aided by the precepts of Moses, prohibited from making an image of
God in human form, and of the shape of a living creature. Accordingly,
during the first hundred and seventy years, though building temples,
they made no cast or graven image. For Numa secretly showed them
that the Best of Beings could not be apprehended except by the mind
alone. Thus philosophy, a thing of the highest utility, flourished in
antiquity among the barbarians, shedding its light over the nations. And
afterwards it came to Greece. First in its ranks were the prophets of
the Egyptians; and the Chaldeans among the Assyrians; and the Druids
among the Gauls; and the Samanæans among the Bactrians; and the
philosophers of the Celts; and the Magi of the Persians, who foretold
the Saviour’s birth, and came into the land of Judæa guided
by a star. The Indian gymnosophists are also in the number, and the other
barbarian philosophers. And of these there are two classes, some of them
called Sarmanæ,
Or Samanæi. Altered for Ἀλλόβιοι
in accordance with the note of Montacutius, who
cites Strabo as an authority for the existence of a
sect of Indian sages called Hylobii, ὑλόβιοι—Silvicolæ.
Some, too, of the Indians obey
the precepts of Buddha; Βούττα
Anacharsis was a Scythian, and is recorded to have
excelled many philosophers among the Greeks. And the Hyperboreans,
Hellanicus relates, dwelt beyond the Riphæan mountains,
and inculcated justice, not eating flesh, but using nuts. Those
who are sixty years old they take without the gates, and do away
with. There are also among the Germans those called sacred women,
who, by inspecting the whirlpools of rivers and the eddies, and
observing the noises of streams, presage and predict future events. Cæsar, Gallic War,
book i. chap. 50.
Of all these, by far the oldest is the
Jewish race; and that their philosophy committed to writing has the
precedence of philosophy among the Greeks, the Pythagorean Philo Sozomen also calls Philo a
Pythagorean.
By this Æolus, Ulysses was received as a guest after the taking of Troy. Mark the epochs by comparison with the age of Moses, and with the high antiquity of the philosophy promulgated by him.
And barbarians were inventors not only of philosophy,
but almost of every art. The Egyptians were the first to introduce
astrology among men. Similarly also the Chaldeans. The Egyptians first
showed how to burn lamps, and divided the year into twelve months,
prohibited intercourse with women in the temples, and enacted that no one
should enter the temples
[Elucidation XI. infra;
also p. 428, infra.] νάβλα
and ναυλα,
Lat. nablium; doubtless the Hebrew
נִבֶל (psaltery, A. V.), described by Josephus
as a lyre or harp of twelve strings (in ἀυτὀχθων,
Eusebius. The text has αὐτοσχέδιον,
off-hand. Literally, fist-straps, the cæstus of the
boxers. σαμβύκη,
a triangular lyre with four strings.
“King of the Egyptians” in the mss. of Clement. The correction is made
from Eusebius, who extracts the passage.
Nay more, it was late before the teaching
and writing of discourses reached Greece. Alcmæon, the son of
Perithus, of Crotona, first composed a treatise on nature. And it is
related that Anaxagoras of Clazomenæ, the son of Hegesibulus,
first published a book in writing. The first to adapt music to
poetical compositions was Terpander of Antissa; and he set the laws
of the Lacedæmonians to music. Lasus of Hermione invented the
dithyramb; Stesichorus of Himera, the hymn; Alcman the Spartan,
the choral song; Anacreon of Teos, love songs; Pindar the Theban,
the dance accompanied with song. Timotheus of Miletus was the first to
execute those musical compositions called νόμοι on the lyre,
with dancing. Moreover, the iambus was invented by Archilochus of Paros,
and the choliambus by Hipponax of Ephesus. Tragedy owed its origin to
Thespis the Athenian, and comedy to Susarion of Icaria. Their dates
are handed down by the grammarians. But it were tedious to specify
them accurately: presently, however, Dionysus, on whose account the
Dionysian spectacles are celebrated, will be shown to be later than
Moses. They say that Antiphon of Rhamnusium, the son of Sophilus,
first invented scholastic discourses and rhetorical figures, and was
the first who pled causes for a fee, and wrote a forensic speech for
delivery, By one or other
of the parties in the case, it being a practice of advocates in ancient
times to compose speeches which the litigants delivered.
[Elucidation XII.,
infra.]
But, say they, it is written, “All who were
before the Lord’s advent are thieves and robbers.” All,
then, who are in the Word (for it is these that were previous to the
incarnation of the Word) are understood generally. But the
But philosophy, it is said, was not sent by the Lord, but came stolen, or given by a thief. It was then some power or angel that had learned something of the truth, but abode not in it, that inspired and taught these things, not without the Lord’s knowledge, who knew before the constitution of each essence the issues of futurity, but without His prohibition.
For the theft which reached men then, had some advantage; not that he who perpetrated the theft had utility in his eye, but Providence directed the issue of the audacious deed to utility. I know that many are perpetually assailing us with the allegation, that not to prevent a thing happening, is to be the cause of it happening. For they say, that the man who does not take precaution against a theft, or does not prevent it, is the cause of it: as he is the cause of the conflagration who has not quenched it at the beginning; and the master of the vessel who does not reef the sail, is the cause of the shipwreck. Certainly those who are the causes of such events are punished by the law. For to him who had power to prevent, attaches the blame of what happens. We say to them, that causation is seen in doing, working, acting; but the not preventing is in this respect inoperative. Further, causation attaches to activity; as in the case of the shipbuilder in relation to the origin of the vessel, and the builder in relation to the construction of the house. But that which does not prevent is separated from what takes place. Wherefore the effect will be accomplished; because that which could have prevented neither acts nor prevents. For what activity does that which prevents not exert? Now their assertion is reduced to absurdity, if they shall say that the cause of the wound is not the dart, but the shield, which did not prevent the dart from passing through; and if they blame not the thief, but the man who did not prevent the theft. Let them then say, that it was not Hector that burned the ships of the Greeks, but Achilles; because, having the power to prevent Hector, he did not prevent him; but out of anger (and it depended on himself to be angry or not) did not keep back the fire, and was a concurring cause. Now the devil, being possessed of free-will, was able both to repent and to steal; and it was he who was the author of the theft, not the Lord, who did not prevent him. But neither was the gift hurtful, so as to require that prevention should intervene.
But if strict accuracy must be employed in dealing
with them, let them know, that that which does not prevent what we
assert to have taken place in the theft, is not a cause at all; but
that what prevents is involved in the accusation of being a cause. For
he that protects with a shield is the cause of him whom he protects not
being wounded; preventing him, as he does, from being wounded. For the
demon of Socrates was a cause, not by not preventing, but by exhorting,
even if (strictly speaking) he did not exhort. And neither praises
nor censures, neither rewards nor punishments, are right, when the
soul has not the power of inclination and disinclination, but evil is
involuntary. Whence he who prevents is a cause; while he who prevents
not judges justly the soul’s choice. So in no respect is God the
author of evil. But since free choice and inclination originate sins,
and a mistaken judgment sometimes prevails, from which, since it is
ignorance and stupidity, we do not take pains to recede, punishments
are rightly inflicted. For to take fever is involuntary; but when one
takes fever through his own fault, from excess, we blame him. Inasmuch,
then, as evil is involuntary,—for no one prefers evil as evil; but
induced by the pleasure that is in it, and imagining it good, considers it
desirable;—such being the case, to free ourselves from ignorance,
and from evil and voluptuous choice, and above all, to withhold our
assent from those delusive phantasies, depends on ourselves. The devil
is called “thief and robber;” having mixed false prophets
with the prophets, as tares with the wheat. “All, then, that
came before the Lord, were thieves and robbers;” not absolutely
all men, but all the false prophets, and all who were not properly sent
by Him. For the false prophets possessed the prophetic name dishonestly,
being prophets, but prophets of the liar. For the Lord says, “Ye
are of your father the devil; and the lusts of your father ye will do. He
was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because
there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own;
for he is a liar, and the father of it.”
But among the lies, the false prophets also told some
true things. And in reality they prophesied “in an ecstasy,”
as [The devil can quote Scripture. Hermas, p. 27, this volume. See,
on this important chapter, Elucidation XIII.,
infra.] Clement reads πρόγνωσιν
for πρόθεσιν.
There is then in philosophy, though stolen as
the fire by Prometheus, a slender spark, capable of being fanned
into flame, a trace of wisdom and an impulse from God. Well, be it
so that “the thieves and robbers” are the philosophers
among the Greeks, who from the Hebrew prophets before the coming of
the Lord received fragments of the truth, not with full knowledge, and
claimed these as their own teachings, disguising some points, treating
others sophistically by their ingenuity, and discovering other things,
for perchance they had “the spirit of perception.”
And of such it is said, “I will destroy
the wisdom of the wise: I will bring to nothing the understanding
of the prudent.” The apostle accordingly adds, “Where
is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of
this world?” setting in contradistinction to the scribes,
the disputers Or,
“inquirers.”
[He thus expounds the
Ecclesia.]
Since, then, the Greeks are testified to have
laid down some true opinions, we may from this point take a glance at
the testimonies. Paul, in the Acts of the Apostles, is recorded to
have said to the Areopagites, “I perceive that ye are more than
ordinarily religious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I
found an altar with the inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye
ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you. God, that made the world and
all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth
not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men’s
hands, as though He needed anything, seeing He giveth to all life, and
breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men
to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times
before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should
seek God, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him; though He be
not far from every one of us: for in Him we live, and move, and have our
being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we also are His
offspring.” Viz., “The Unknown
God.” [Hereafter to be noted.]
[Not in the original with Socrates, but a common adage:— The original Greek hexameter is given by Erasmus, in
his Adagia (p. 650), with numerous equivalents, among which take
this: Non omnes episcopi qui mitram gerunt bicornem. He reminds
us that Plato borrows it in the Phœdo, and he quotes the
parallel sayin of Herodes Atticus, “I see a beard and a cloak,
but as yet do not discover the philosopher.”] There is no such utterance in the Demodocus. But
in the Amatores, Basle Edition, p. 237, Plato says: “But
it is not so, my friend: nor is it philosophizing to occupy oneself in
the arts, nor lead a life of bustling, meddling activity, nor to learn
many things; but it is something else. Since I, at least, would reckon
this a reproach; and that those who devote themselves to the arts ought
to be called mechanics.” According
to the emendations of Menagius: “ὡς ἄρα ὴ
πολυμά θεια
γοον οὐχὶ
διδάσκει.”
[Sect. xix. xx. p. 475.] Adopting the emendations,
δεῖ
ἐπιστήμης instead
of δἰ
ἐπιστήμης,
and τἀγαθῶν
for τάγαθοῦ,
omitting ὡσπερ. προαναφώνησις. συνεκφώνησις.
The divine apostle writes accordingly
respecting us: “For now we see as through a glass;”
[His ideas of the conditions of the Gnostics,
Montanists, and other heretical sects who divided the primitive
unity, is important as illustrating Irenæus. Note his words,
the primitive, etc.] [His ideas of the conditions
of the Gnostics, Montanists, and other heretical sects who divided the
primitive unity, is important as illustrating Irenæus. Note his
words, the primitive, etc.]
As many men drawing down the ship, cannot be
called many causes, but one cause consisting of many;—for each
individual by himself is not the cause of the ship being drawn, but along
with the rest;—so also philosophy, being the search for truth,
contributes to the comprehension of truth; not as being the cause of
comprehension, but a cause along with other things, and co-operator;
perhaps also a joint cause. And as the several virtues are causes of
the happiness of one individual; and as both the sun, and the fire,
and the bath, and clothing are of one getting warm: so while truth is
one, many things contribute to its investigation. But its discovery is
by the Son. If then we consider, virtue is, in power, one. But it is
the case, that when exhibited in some things, it is called prudence, in
others temperance, and in others manliness or righteousness. By the same
analogy, while truth is one, in geometry there is the truth of geometry;
in music, that of music; and in the right philosophy, there will be
Hellenic truth. But that is the only authentic truth, unassailable,
in which we are instructed by the Son of God. In the same way we say,
that the drachma being one and the same, when given to the shipmaster,
is called the fare; to the tax-gatherer, tax; to the landlord, rent;
to the teacher, fees; to the seller, an earnest. And each, whether it be
virtue or truth, called by the same name, is the cause of its own peculiar
effect alone; and from the blending of them arises a happy life. For
we are not made happy by names alone, when we say that a good life is
happiness, and that the man who is adorned in his soul with virtue is
happy. But if philosophy contributes remotely to the discovery of truth,
by reaching, by diverse essays, after the knowledge which touches close on
the truth, the knowledge possessed by us, it aids him who aims at grasping
it, in accordance with the Word, to apprehend knowledge. But the Hellenic
truth is distinct from that held by us (although it has got the same
name), both in respect of extent of knowledge, certainly of demonstration,
divine power, and the like. For we are taught of God, being instructed
in the truly “sacred letters” ίερἀ
γράυυατα (
Although at one time philosophy justified the
Greeks, [Kaye, p. 426. A most valuable exposition of these
passages on justification. See Elucidation XIV.,
infra.]
[This
ingenious statement explains the author’s constant assertion
that truth, and to some extent saving truth, was to be found in Greek
philosophy.]
On the plagiarizing of the dogmas of the philosophers
from the Hebrews, we shall treat a little afterwards. But first, as
due order demands, we must now speak of the epoch of Moses, by which the
philosophy of the Hebrews will be demonstrated beyond all contradiction to
be the most ancient of all wisdom. This has been discussed with accuracy
by Tatian in his book To the Greeks, and by Cassian in the first
book of his Exegetics. Nevertheless our commentary demands that
we too should run over what has been said on the point. Apion, then, the
grammarian, surnamed Pleistonices, in the fourth book of The Egyptian
Histories, although of so hostile a disposition towards the Hebrews,
being by race an Egyptian, as to compose a work against the Jews, when
referring to Amosis king of the Egyptians, and his exploits, adduces, as a
witness, Ptolemy of Mendes. And his remarks are to the following effect:
Amosis, who lived in the time of the Argive Inachus, overthrew Athyria, as
Ptolemy of Mendes relates in his Chronology. Now this Ptolemy was a
priest; and setting forth the deeds of the Egyptian kings in three entire
books, he says, that the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, under the conduct
of Moses, took place while Amosis was king of Egypt. Whence it is seen
that Moses flourished in the time of Inachus. And of the Hellenic states,
the most ancient is the Argolic, I mean that which took its rise from
Inachus, as Dionysius of Halicarnassus teaches in his Times. And
younger by forty generations than it was Attica, founded by Cecrops,
who was an aboriginal of double race, as Tatian expressly says; and
Arcadia, founded by Pelasgus, younger too by nine generations; and he,
too, is said to have been an aboriginal. And more recent than this last
by fifty-two generations, was Pthiotis, founded by Deucalion. And from
the time of Inachus to the Trojan war twenty generations or more are
reckoned; let us say, four hundred years and more. And if Ctesias
says that the Assyrian power is many years older than the Greek,
the exodus of Moses from Egypt will appear to have taken place in the
forty-second year of the Assyrian empire, The deficiencies of the text in this place have
been supplied from Eusebius’s Chronicles. i.e.,
Solon, in his conversation with the Egyptian priests. πόλει,
“city,” is not in Plato. ἐπομβρία.
and the transmigration from Crete
into Phœnicia. And in the time of Lynceus took place the abduction
of Proserpine, and the dedication of the sacred enclosure in Eleusis,
and the husbandry of Triptolemus, and the arrival of Cadmus in Thebes,
and the reign of Minos. And in the time of Prœtus the war of Eumolpus
with the Athenians took place; and in the time of Acrisius, the removal
of Pelops from Phrygia, the arrival of Ion at Athens; and the second
Cecrops appeared, and the exploits of Perseus and Dionysus took place,
and Orpheus and Musæus lived. And in the eighteenth year of the
reign of Agamemnon, Troy was taken, in the first year of the reign of
Demophon the son of Theseus at Athens, on the twelfth day
says the author of the Little Iliad,
Others say, it took place on the same day of Scirophorion. But Theseus, the rival of Hercules, is older by a generation than the Trojan war. Accordingly Tlepolemus, a son of Hercules, is mentioned by Homer, as having served at Troy.
Moses, then, is shown to have preceded the deification of Dionysus six hundred and four years, if he was deified in the thirty-second year of the reign of Perseus, as Apollodorus says in his Chronology. From Bacchus to Hercules and the chiefs that sailed with Jason in the ship Argo, are comprised sixty-three years. Æsculapius and the Dioscuri sailed with them, as Apollonius Rhodius testifies in his Argonautics. And from the reign of Hercules, in Argos, to the deification of Hercules and of Æsculapius, are comprised thirty-eight years, according to Apollodorus the chronologist; from this to the deification of Castor and Pollux, fifty-three years. And at this time Troy was taken. And if we may believe the poet Hesiod, let us hear him:—
[Theog., 938.]
Cadmus, the father of Semele, came to Thebes in the time of Lynceus, and was the inventor of the Greek letters. Triopas was a contemporary of Isis, in the seventh generation from Inachus. And Isis, who is the same as Io, is so called, it is said, from her going (ἰέναι) roaming over the whole earth. Her, Istrus, in his work on the migration of the Egyptians, calls the daughter of Prometheus. Prometheus lived in the time of Triopas, in the seventh generation after Moses. So that Moses appears to have flourished even before the birth of men, according to the chronology of the Greeks. Leon, who treated of the Egyptian divinities, says that Isis by the Greeks was called Ceres, who lived in the time of Lynceus, in the eleventh generation after Moses. And Apis the king of Argos built Memphis, as Aristippus says in the first book of the Arcadica. And Aristeas the Argive says that he was named Serapis, and that it is he that the Egyptians worship. And Nymphodorus of Amphipolis, in the third book of the Institutions of Asia, says that the bull Apis, dead and laid in a coffin (σορός), was deposited in the temple of the god (δαίμονος) there worshipped, and thence was called Soroapis, and afterwards Serapis by the custom of the natives. And Apis is third after Inachus. Further, Latona lived in the time of Tityus. “For he dragged Latona, the radiant consort of Zeus.” Now Tityus was contemporary with Tantalus. Rightly, therefore, the Bœotian Pindar writes, “And in time was Apollo born;” and no wonder when he is found along with Hercules, serving Admetus “for a long year.” Zethus and Amphion, the inventors of music, lived about the age of Cadmus. And should one assert that Phemonoe was the first who sang oracles in verse to Acrisius, let him know that twenty-seven years after Phemonoe, lived Orpheus, and Musæus, and Linus the teacher of Hercules. And Homer and Hesiod are much more recent than the Trojan war; and after them the legislators among the Greeks are far more recent, Lycurgus and Solon, and the seven wise men, and Pherecydes of Syros, and Pythagoras the great, who lived later, about the Olympiads, as we have shown. We have also demonstrated Moses to be more ancient, not only than those called poets and wise men among the Greeks, but than the most of their deities. Nor he alone, but the Sibyl also is more ancient than Orpheus. For it is said, that respecting her appellation and her oracular utterances there are several accounts; that being a Phrygian, she was called Artemis; and that on her arrival at Delphi, she sang—
There is another also, an Erythræan, called Herophile. These are mentioned by Heraclides of Pontus in his work On Oracles. I pass over the Egyptian Sibyl, and the Italian, who inhabited the Carmentale in Rome, whose son was Evander, who built the temple of Pan in Rome, called the Lupercal.
It is worth our while, having reached this point, to
examine the dates of the other prophets among the Hebrews who succeeded
Moses. After the close of Moses’s life, Joshua succeeded to the
leadership of the people, and he, after warring for sixty-five years,
rested in the good land other five-and-twenty. As the book of Joshua
relates, the above mentioned man was the successor of Moses twenty-seven
years. Then the Hebrews having sinned, were delivered to Chusachar Chushan-rishathaim;
Othniel. Eglon. Ehud. Jabin. Abinoam;
Sic. Θωλεᾶς
may be the right reading instead of Βωλεᾶς.
But
Ibzan, A. V.,
Not mentioned in Scripture. Sic.
Then in the first book of Kings there are twenty years of Saul, during which he reigned after he was renovated. And after the death of Saul, David the son of Jesse, of the tribe of Judah, reigned next in Hebron, forty years, as is contained in the second book of Kings. And Abiathar the son of Abimelech, of the kindred of Eli, was high priest. In his time Gad and Nathan prophesied. From Joshua the son of Nun, then, till David received the kingdom, there intervene, according to some, four hundred and fifty years. But, as the chronology set forth shows, five hundred and twenty-three years and seven months are comprehended till the death of David.
And after this Solomon the son of David reigned forty years. Under him Nathan continued to prophesy, who also exhorted him respecting the building of the temple. Achias of Shilo also prophesied. And both the kings, David and Solomon, were prophets. And Sadoc the high priest was the first who ministered in the temple which Solomon built, being the eighth from Aaron, the first high priest. From Moses, then, to the age of Solomon, as some say, are five hundred and ninety-five years, and as others, five hundred and seventy-six.
And if you count, along with the four hundred and fifty years from Joshua to David, the forty years of the rule of Moses, and the other eighty years of Moses’s life previous to the exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt, you will make up the sum in all of six hundred and ten years. But our chronology will run more correctly, if to the five hundred and twenty-three years and seven months till the death of David, you add the hundred and twenty years of Moses and the forty years of Solomon. For you will make up in all, down to the death of Solomon, six hundred and eighty-three years and seven months.
Hiram gave his daughter to Solomon about the time of
the arrival of Menelaus in Phœnicia, after the capture of Troy, as is
said by Menander of Pergamus, and Lætus in The Phœnicia.
And after Solomon, Roboam his son reigned for seventeen years; and
Abimelech the son of Sadoc was high priest. In his reign, the kingdom
being divided, Jeroboam, of the tribe of Ephraim, the servant of Solomon,
reigned in Samaria; and Achias the Shilonite continued to prophesy;
also Samæas the son of Amame, and he who came from Judah to
Jeroboam, See
Asa.
After him Jehosaphat his son reigned twenty-five
years. So Lowth corrects
the text, which has five.
Then Ochozias reigned a year. In his
time Elisæus continued to prophesy, and along with him
Adadonæus.
Supposed to be “son of Oded” or “Adad,”
i.e., Azarias. i.e., of Ochozias.
Athalia. She was slain in the seventh year of her
reign. Not of her brother, but of
her son Ahaziah, all of whom she slew except Joash.
There are comprised, then, from Solomon to the death of Elisæus the prophet, as some say, one hundred and five years; according to others, one hundred and two; and, as the chronology before us shows, from the reign of Solomon an hundred and eighty-one.
Now from the Trojan war to the birth of Homer, according to Philochorus, a hundred and eighty years elapsed; and he was posterior to the Ionic migration. But Aristarchus, in the Archilochian Memoirs, says that he lived during the Ionic migration, which took place a hundred and twenty years after the siege of Troy. But Apollodorus alleges it was an hundred and twenty years after the Ionic migration, while Agesilaus son of Doryssæus was king of the Lacedæmonians: so that he brings Lycurgus the legislator, while still a young man, near him. Euthymenes, in the Chronicles, says that he flourished contemporaneously with Hesiod, in the time of Acastus, and was born in Chios about the four hundredth year after the capture of Troy. And Archimachus, in the third book of his Eubœan History, is of this opinion. So that both he and Hesiod were later than Elisæus, the prophet. And if you choose to follow the grammarian Crates, and say that Homer was born about the time of the expedition of the Heraclidæ, eighty years after the taking of Troy, he will be found to be later again than Solomon, in whose days occurred the arrival of Menelaus in Phœnicia, as was said above. Eratosthenes says that Homer’s age was two hundred years after the capture of Troy. Further, Theopompus, in the forty-third book of the Philippics, relates that Homer was born five hundred years after the war at Troy. And Euphorion, in his book about the Aleuades, maintains that he was born in the time of Gyges, who began to reign in the eighteenth Olympiad, who, also he says, was the first that was called tyrant (τύραννος). Sosibius Lacon, again, in his Record of Dates, brings Homer down to the eighth year of the reign of Charillus the son of Polydectus. Charillus reigned for sixty-four years, after whom the son of Nicander reigned thirty-nine years. In his thirty-fourth year it is said that the first Olympiad was instituted; so that Homer was ninety years before the introduction of the Olympic games.
After Joas, Amasias his son reigned as his successor
thirty-nine years. He in like manner was succeeded by his son Ozias, who
reigned for fifty-two years, and died a leper. And in his time prophesied
Amos, and Isaiah his son,
Clement is wrong in asserting that Amos the prophet was the father of
Isaiah. The names are written differently in Hebrew, though the same in
Greek.
Then Jonathan the son of Ozias reigned for sixteen years. In his time Esaias still prophesied, and Hosea, and Michæas the Morasthite, and Joel the son of Bethuel.
Next in succession was his son Ahaz, who reigned for sixteen years. In his time, in the fifteenth year, Israel was carried away to Babylon. And Salmanasar the king of the Assyrians carried away the people of Samaria into the country of the Medes and to Babylon.
Again Ahaz was succeeded by Osee, By a strange mistake Hosea king
of Israel is reckoned among the kings of Judah.
And these are said to have lived after the age
After Hezekiah, his son Manasses reigned for
fifty-five years. Then his son Amos for two years. After him reigned
his son Josias, distinguished for his observance of the law, for
thirty-one years. He “laid the carcases of men upon the carcases
of the idols,” as is written in the book of Leviticus. Huldah.
Zephaniah.
ὀ
Ἰωσίου, the reading of the
text, is probably corrupt. Josias.
Josiah was succeeded by Jechoniah, called
also Joachas,
ὀ
καὶ Ἰωάχας,
instead of which the text has καὶ
Ἰωάχας. The names,
however, were not the same. The name of the latter was Jehoiachin. The
former in Hebrew was written יהויקים,
the latter יהויכין.
By copyists they were often confounded, as here by Clement. Lowth suplies Ἰεζεκιήλ,
which is wanting in the text. He was a
contemporary of Jeremiah, but was killed before the time of Zedekiah
by Joachin.
Habakkuk.
There are then from the birth of Moses till this captivity nine hundred and seventy-two years; but according to strict chronological accuracy, one thousand and eighty-five, six months, ten days. From the reign of David to the captivity by the Chaldeans, four hundred and fifty-two years and six months; but as the accuracy we have observed in reference to dates makes out, four hundred and eighty-two and six months ten days.
And in the twelfth year of the reign of Zedekiah,
forty years before the supremacy of the Persians, Nebuchodonosor made
war against the Phœnicians and the Jews, as Berosus asserts in his
Chaldæan Histories. And Joabas, Juba.
Jeremiah and Ambacum were still prophesying in the
time of Zedekiah. In the fifth year of his reign Ezekiel prophesied at
Babylon; after him Nahum, then Daniel. After him, again, Haggai and
Zechariah prophesied in the time of Darius the First for two years;
and then the angel among the twelve. Malachi, my angel or messenger. [Again, p. 331,
infra.] On account of
killing the serpent, as is related in the apocryphal book, “Bel and
the Dragon, or Serpent.”
Cyrus had, by proclamation, previously enjoined the restoration of the Hebrews. And his promise being accomplished in the time of Darius, the feast of the dedication was held, as also the feast of tabernacles.
There were in all, taking in the duration of the
captivity down to the restoration of the people, from the birth of
Moses, one thousand one hundred and fifty-five years, six months, and
ten days; and from the reign of David, according to some, four hundred
and fifty-two;
From the captivity at Babylon, which took place
in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken
by Daniel the prophet as follows: “Seventy weeks are determined
upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression,
and to seal sins, and to wipe out and make reconciliation for iniquity,
and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and
the prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Know therefore, and
understand, that from the going forth of the word commanding an answer
to be given, and Jerusalem to be built, to Christ the Prince, are seven
weeks and sixty-two weeks; and the street shall be again built, and the
wall; and the times shall be expended. And after the sixty-two weeks
the anointing shall be overthrown, and judgment shall not be in him;
and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the coming
Prince. And they shall be destroyed in a flood, and to the end of the
war shall be cut off by desolations. And he shall confirm the covenant
with many for one week; and in the middle of the week the sacrifice
and oblation shall be taken away; and in the holy place shall be the
abomination of desolations, and until the consummation of time shall
the consummation be assigned for desolation. And in the midst of the
week shall he make the incense of sacrifice cease, and of the wing
of destruction, even till the consummation, like the destruction of
the oblation.”
On the completion, then, of the eleventh year, in the beginning of the following, in the reign of Joachim, occurred the carrying away captive to Babylon by Nabuchodonosor the king, in the seventh year of his reign over the Assyrians, in the second year of the reign of Vaphres over the Egyptians, in the archonship of Philip at Athens, in the first year of the forty-eighth Olympiad. The captivity lasted for seventy years, and ended in the second year of Darius Hystaspes, who had become king of the Persians, Assyrians, and Egyptians; in whose reign, as I said above, Haggai and Zechariah and the angel of the twelve prophesied. And the high priest was Joshua the son of Josedec. And in the second year of the reign of Darius, who, Herodotus says, destroyed the power of the Magi, Zorobabel the son of Salathiel was despatched to raise and adorn the temple at Jerusalem.
The times of the Persians are accordingly summed up thus: Cyrus reigned thirty years; Cambyses, nineteen; Darius, forty-six; Xerxes, twenty-six; Artaxerxes, forty-one; Darius, eight; Artaxerxes, forty-two; Ochus or Arses, three. The sum total of the years of the Persian monarchy is two hundred and thirty-five years.
Alexander of Macedon, having despatched this Darius, during this period, began to reign. Similarly, therefore, the times of the Macedonian kings are thus computed: Alexander, eighteen years; Ptolemy the son of Lagus, forty years; Ptolemy Philadelphus, twenty-seven years; then Euergetes, five-and-twenty years; then Philopator, seventeen years; then Epiphanes, four-and-twenty years; he was succeeded by Philometer, who reigned five-and-thirty years; after him Physcon, twenty-nine years; then Lathurus, thirty-six years; then he that was surnamed Dionysus, twenty-nine years; and last Cleopatra reigned twenty-two years. And after her was the reign of the Cappadocians for eighteen days.
Accordingly the period embraced by the Macedonian kings is, in all, three hundred and twelve years and eighteen days.
Therefore those who prophesied in the time of
Darius Hystaspes, about the second year of his reign,—Haggai,
and Zechariah, and the angel of the twelve, who prophesied about the
first year of the forty-eighth Olympiad,—are demonstrated to be
older than Pythagoras, who is said to have lived in the sixty-second
Olympiad, and than Thales, the oldest of the wise men of the Greeks, who
lived about the fiftieth Olympiad. Those wise men that are classed with
Thales were then contemporaneous, as Andron says in the Tripos. For
Heraclitus being posterior to Pythagoras, mentions him in his book. Whence
indisputably the first Olympiad, which was demonstrated to be four hundred
and seven years later than the Trojan war, is found to be prior to the
age of the above-mentioned prophets, together with those called the seven
wise men. Accordingly it is easy to perceive that Solomon, who lived in
the time of Menelaus (who was during the Trojan war), was earlier by
The text has David. Hiram or Huram was his
name (
Such, according to Harpocration, was the title of this
work. In the text it is called Τριγράμμοι.
Suidas calls it Τριασμοί. The
passage seems incomplete. The bearing of the date of the building
of Thasos on the determination of the age of Archilochus, may be,
that it was built by Telesiclus his son.
We were induced to mention these things, because
the poets of the epic cycle are placed amongst those of most remote
antiquity. Already, too, among the Greeks, many diviners are said to have
made their appearance, as the Bacides, one a Bœotian, the other
an Arcadian, who uttered many predictions to many. By the counsel of
Amphiletus the Athenian,
Called so because he sojourned at Athens. His birthplace was
Acarnania. Another reading is Τιμόθεος;
Sylburgius conjectures Τιμόξενος. The text has Φυτώ, which
Sylburgius conjectures has been changed from Πυθώ. Plato’s Theages, xi. p. 128.
Of those, too, who at one time lived as men among the
Egyptians, but were constituted gods by human opinion, were Hermes the
Theban, and Asclepius of Memphis; Tireseus and Manto, again, at Thebes,
as Euripides says. Helenus, too, and Laocoön, and Œnone,
and Crenus in
There are others, too, besides these: Idmon, who was with the Argonauts, Phemonoe of Delphi, Mopsus the son of Apollo and Manto in Pamphylia, and Amphilochus the son of Amphiaraus in Cilicia, Alcmæon among the Acarnanians, Anias in Delos, Aristander of Telmessus, who was along with Alexander. Philochorus also relates in the first book of the work, On Divination, that Orpheus was a seer. And Theopompus, and Ephorus, and Timæus, write of a seer called Orthagoras; as the Samian Pythocles in the fourth book of The Italics writes of Caius Julius Nepos.
But some of these “thieves and robbers,” as
the Scripture says, predicted for the most part from observation and
probabilities, as physicians and soothsayers judge from natural signs;
and others were excited by demons, or were disturbed by waters, and
fumigations, and air of a peculiar kind. But among the Hebrews the
prophets were moved by the power and inspiration of God. Before the
law, Adam spoke prophetically in respect to the woman, and the naming
of the creatures; Noah preached repentance; [Not to be lightly passed
over. This whole paragraph is of value. Noah is the eighth
preacher (2 Pet. ii. 5) of righteousness.]
Then within the same period John prophesied
till the baptism of salvation; [The baptism of Jesus as distinguished from the
baptism of repetance. John is clearly recognised, here, as of the old
dispensation. [It
is extraordinary that he fails to mention the blessed virgin and her
Magnificat, the earliest Christian hymn; i.e., the first after
the incarnation.]
From the birth of Moses to the exodus of the Jews from
Egypt, eighty years; and the period down to his death, other forty
years. The exodus took place in the time of Inachus, before the
wandering of Sothis, i.e., of Io, the daughter of
Inachus.
Again, from the first Olympiad, some say, to the
For Βαβυλῶνος,
Βασιλἐων
has been substituted. In an old chronologist, as quoted by Clement
elsewhere, the latter occurs; and the date of the expulsion of the
kings harmonizes with the number of years here given, which that of the
destruction of Babylon does not.
There are some that from Cecrops to Alexander of Macedon reckon a thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight years; and from Demophon, a thousand two hundred and fifty; and from the taking of Troy to the expedition of the Heraclidæ, a hundred and twenty or a hundred and eighty years. From this to the archonship of Evænetus at Athens, in whose time Alexander is said to have marched into Asia, according to Phanias, are seven hundred and fifty years; according to Ephorus, seven hundred and thirty-five; according to Timæus and Clitarchus, eight hundred and twenty; according to Eratosthenes, seven hundred and seventy-four. As also Duris, from the taking of Troy to the march of Alexander into Asia, a thousand years; and from that to the archonship of Hegesias, in whose time Alexander died eleven years. From this date to the reign of Germanicus Claudius Cæsar, three hundred and sixty-five years. From which time the years summed up to the death of Commodus are manifest.
After the Grecian period, and in accordance with the dates, as computed by the barbarians, very large intervals are to be assigned.
From Adam to the deluge are comprised two thousand one hundred and forty-eight years, four days. From Shem to Abraham, a thousand two hundred and fifty years. From Isaac to the division of the land, six hundred and sixteen years. Then from the judges to Samuel, four hundred and sixty-three years, seven months. And after the judges there were five hundred and seventy-two years, six months, ten days of kings.
After which periods, there were two hundred and thirty-five years of the Persian monarchy. Then of the Macedonian, till the death of Antony, three hundred and twelve years and eighteen days. After which time, the empire of the Romans, till the death of Commodus, lasted for two hundred and twenty-two years.
Then, from the seventy years’ captivity, and the restoration of the people into their own land to the captivity in the time of Vespasian, are comprised four hundred and ten years. Finally, from Vespasian to the death of Commodus, there are ascertained to be one hundred and twenty-one years, six months, and twenty-four days.
Demetrius, in his book, On the Kings in Judæa, says that the tribes of Juda, Benjamin, and Levi were not taken captive by Sennacherim; but that there were from this captivity to the last, which Nabuchodonosor made out of Jerusalem, a hundred and twenty-eight years and six months; and from the time that the ten tribes were carried captive from Samaria till Ptolemy the Fourth, were five hundred and seventy-three years, nine months; and from the time that the captivity from Jerusalem took place, three hundred and thirty-eight years and three months.
Philo himself set down the kings differently from Demetrius.
Besides, Eupolemus, in a similar work, says that all the years from Adam to the fifth year of Ptolemy Demetrius, who reigned twelve years in Egypt, when added, amount to five thousand a hundred and forty-nine; and from the time that Moses brought out the Jews from Egypt to the above-mentioned date, there are, in all, two thousand five hundred and eighty years. And from this time till the consulship in Rome of Caius Domitian and Casian, a hundred and twenty years are computed.
Euphorus and many other historians say that there are seventy-five
nations and tongues, in consequence of hearing the statement made by
Moses: “All the souls that sprang from Jacob, which went down into
Egypt, were seventy-five.”
Plato attributes a dialect also to the gods, forming
this conjecture mainly from dreams and oracles, and especially from
demoniacs, who do not speak their own language or dialect, but that of
the demons who have taken possession of them. He thinks also that the
irrational creatures have dialects, which those that belong to
[This assent to Plato’s whim, on the part of our author, is
suggestive.]
The irrational creatures do not make use
of an obscure intimation, or hint their meaning by assuming
a particular attitude, but, as I think, by a dialect of their
own. [This assent to
Plato’s whim, on the part of our author, is suggestive.]
And nothing, in my opinion, after these details, need stand in the way of stating the periods of the Roman emperors, in order to the demonstration of the Saviour’s birth. Augustus, forty-three years; Tiberius, twenty-two years; Caius, four years; Claudius, fourteen years; Nero, fourteen years; Galba, one year; Vespasian, ten years; Titus, three years; Domitian, fifteen years; Nerva, one year; Trajan, nineteen years; Adrian, twenty-one years; Antoninus, twenty-one years; likewise again, Antoninus and Commodus, thirty-two. In all, from Augustus to Commodus, are two hundred and twenty-two years; and from Adam to the death of Commodus, five thousand seven hundred and eighty-four years, two months, twelve days.
Some set down the dates of the Roman emperors thus:—
Caius Julius Cæsar, three years, four months, five days; after him Augustus reigned forty-six years, four months, one day. Then Tiberius, twenty-six years, six months, nineteen days. He was succeeded by Caius Cæsar, who reigned three years, ten months, eight days; and he by Claudius for thirteen years, eight months, twenty-eight days. Nero reigned thirteen years, eight months, twenty-eight days; Galba, seven months and six days; Otho, five months, one day; Vitellius, seven months, one day; Vespasian, eleven years, eleven months, twenty-two days; Titus, two years, two months; Domitian, fifteen years, eight months, five days; Nerva, one year, four months, ten days; Trajan, nineteen years, seven months, ten days; Adrian, twenty years, ten months, twenty-eight days. Antoninus, twenty-two years, three months, and seven days; Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, nineteen years, eleven days; Commodus, twelve years, nine months, fourteen days.
From Julius Cæsar, therefore, to the death
of Commodus, are two hundred and thirty-six years, six months. And
the whole from Romulus, who founded Rome, till the death of Commodus,
amounts to nine hundred and fifty-three years, six months. And our Lord
was born in the twenty-eighth year, when first the census was ordered
to be taken in the reign of Augustus. And to prove that this is true,
it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows: “And in the
fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, the word of the
Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias.” And again in the same
book: “And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty
years old,” [A fair parallel to the amazing traditional statement
of Irenæus, and his objection to this very idea, vol. i. p. 391, this
series.
And they say that it was the fifteenth year of Tiberius
Cæsar, the fifteenth day of the month Tubi; and some that it was the
eleventh of the same month. And treating of His passion, with very
great accuracy, some say that it took place in the sixteenth year of
Tiberius, on the twenty-fifth of Phamenoth; and others the twenty-fifth
of Pharmuthi and others say that on the nineteenth of Pharmuthi the
Saviour suffered. Further, others say that He was born on the
twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi. [Mosheim, Christ. of First Three Cent., i. 432;
and Josephus, Antiquities, ii. 14.]
We have still to add to our chronology the
These two thousand three hundred days, then, make six
years four months, during the half of which Nero held sway, and it was
half a week; and for a half, Vespasian with Otho, Galba, and Vitellius
reigned. And on this account Daniel says, “Blessed is he that
cometh to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five
days.”
Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years.
Of others, counting from Inachus and Moses to the death of Commodus, some say there were three thousand one hundred and forty-two years; and others, two thousand eight hundred and thirty-one years.
And in the Gospel according to Matthew, the
genealogy which begins with Abraham is continued down to Mary the mother
of the Lord. “For,” it is said, [As to our author’s
chronology, see Elucidation XV.,
infra.]
So much for the details respecting dates, as stated variously by many, and as set down by us.
It is said that the Scriptures both of the law and
of the prophets were translated from the dialect of the Hebrews into the
Greek language in the reign of Ptolemy the son of Lagos, or, according
to others, of Ptolemy surnamed Philadelphus; Demetrius Phalereus bringing
to this task the greatest earnestness, and employing painstaking accuracy
on the materials for the translation. For the Macedonians being still in
possession of Asia, and the king being ambitious of adorning the library
he had at Alexandria with all writings, desired the people of Jerusalem
to translate the prophecies they possessed into the Greek dialect. And
they being the subjects of the Macedonians, selected from those of
highest character among them seventy elders, versed in the Scriptures,
and skilled in the Greek dialect, and sent them to him with the divine
books. And each having severally translated each prophetic book, and all
the translations being compared together, they agreed both in meaning and
expression. For it was the counsel of God carried out for the benefit
of Grecian ears. It was not alien to the inspiration of God, who gave
the prophecy, also to produce the translation, and make it as it were
Greek prophecy. Since the Scriptures having perished in the captivity
of Nabuchodonosor, Esdras
[The work of Ezra, as Clement testifies concerning it, adds immensely to
the common ideas of his place in the history of the canon.] [Concerning the LXX., see cap. vii. p. 308, note 4, supra.]
Moses, originally of a Chaldean This is the account
given by Philo, of whose book on the life of Moses this chapter is
an epitome, for the most part in Philo’s words. “He
was the seventh in descent from the first, who, being a foreigner,
was the founder of the whole Jewish race.”—Philo. [See [Concerning this, see Adopting the reading φιλοσοφίαν
ἀΐ´ξας instead of φύσιν
ἄξας.
[Eusebius, Præp Evang., ix. 4.]
Then, after relating the combat between the Hebrew and the Egyptian, and the burying of the Egyptian in the sand, he says of the other contest:—
Then he fled from Egypt and fed sheep, being thus trained beforehand for pastoral rule. For the shepherd’s life is a preparation for sovereignty in the case of him who is destined to rule over the peaceful flock of men, as the chase for those who are by nature warlike. Thence God brought him to lead the Hebrews. Then the Egyptians, oft admonished, continued unwise; and the Hebrews were spectators of the calamities that others suffered, learning in safety the power of God. And when the Egyptians gave no heed to the effects of that power, through their foolish infatuation disbelieving, then, as is said, “the children knew” what was done; and the Hebrews afterwards going forth, departed carrying much spoil from the Egyptians, not for avarice, as the cavillers say, for God did not persuade them to covet what belonged to others. But, in the first place, they took wages for the services they had rendered the Egyptians all the time; and then in a way recompensed the Egyptians, by afflicting them in requital as avaricious, by the abstraction of the booty, as they had done the Hebrews by enslaving them. Whether, then, as may be alleged is done in war, they thought it proper, in the exercise of the rights of conquerors, to take away the property of their enemies, as those who have gained the day do from those who are worsted (and there was just cause of hostilities. The Hebrews came as suppliants to the Egyptians on account of famine; and they, reducing their guests to slavery, compelled them to serve them after the manner of captives, giving them no recompense); or as in peace, took the spoil as wages against the will of those who for a long period had given them no recompense, but rather had robbed them, [it is all one.]
Our Moses then is a prophet, a legislator, skilled in military tactics and strategy, a politician, a philosopher. And in what sense he was a prophet, shall be by and by told, when we come to treat of prophecy. Tactics belong to military command, and the ability to command an army is among the attributes of kingly rule. Legislation, again, is also one of the functions of the kingly office, as also judicial authority.
Of the kingly office one kind is divine,—that
which is according to God and His holy Son, by whom both the good
things which are of the earth, and external and perfect felicity too,
are supplied. “For,” it is said, “seek what is great,
and the little things shall be added.” Not in Scripture. The reference may be to
Now, generalship involves three ideas: caution, enterprise, and the union of the two. And each of these consists of three things, acting as they do either by word, or by deeds, or by both together. And all this can be accomplished either by persuasion, or by compulsion, or by inflicting harm in the way of taking vengeance on those who ought to be punished; and this either by doing what is right, or by telling what is untrue, or by telling what is true, or by adopting any of these means conjointly at the same time.
Now, the Greeks had the advantage of receiving from Moses all these, and the knowledge of how to make use of each of them. And, for the sake of example, I shall cite one or two instances of leadership. Moses, on leading the people forth, suspecting that the Egyptians would pursue, left the short and direct route, and turned to the desert, and marched mostly by night. For it was another kind of arrangement by which the Hebrews were trained in the great wilderness, and for a protracted time, to belief in the existence of one God alone, being inured by the wise discipline of endurance to which they were subjected. The strategy of Moses, therefore, shows the necessity of discerning what will be of service before the approach of dangers, and so to encounter them. It turned out precisely as he suspected, for the Egyptians pursued with horses and chariots, but were quickly destroyed by the sea breaking on them and overwhelming them with their horses and chariots, so that not a remnant of them was left. Afterwards the pillar of fire, which accompanied them (for it went before them as a guide), conducted the Hebrews by night through an untrodden region, training and bracing them, by toils and hardships, to manliness and endurance, that after their experience of what appeared formidable difficulties, the benefits of the land, to which from the trackless desert he was conducting them, might become apparent. Furthermore, he put to flight and slew the hostile occupants of the land, falling upon them from a desert and rugged line of march (such was the excellence of his generalship). For the taking of the land of those hostile tribes was a work of skill and strategy.
Perceiving this, Miltiades, the Athenian general, who conquered the Persians in battle at Marathon, imitated it in the following fashion. Marching over a trackless desert, he led on the Athenians by night, and eluded the barbarians that were set to watch him. For Hippias, who had deserted from the Athenians, conducted the barbarians into Attica, and seized and held the points of vantage, in consequence of having a knowledge of the ground. The task was then to elude Hippias. Whence rightly Miltiades, traversing the desert and attacking by night the Persians commanded by Dates, led his soldiers to victory.
But further, when Thrasybulus was bringing back the exiles from Phyla, and wished to elude observation, a pillar became his guide as he marched over a trackless region. To Thrasybulus by night, the sky being moonless and stormy, a fire appeared leading the way, which, having conducted them safely, left them near Munychia, where is now the altar of the light-bringer (Phosphorus).
From such an instance, therefore, let our accounts become credible to the Greeks, namely, that it was possible for the omnipotent God to make the pillar of fire, which was their guide on their march, go before the Hebrews by night. It is said also in a certain oracle,—
from the history of the Hebrews. Also Euripides says, in Antiope,—
The pillar indicates that God cannot be portrayed. The pillar of light, too, in addition to its pointing out that God cannot be represented, shows also the stability and the permanent duration of the Deity, and His unchangeable and inexpressible light. Before, then, the invention of the forms of images, the ancients erected pillars, and reverenced them as statues of the Deity. Accordingly, he who composed the Phoronis writes,—
Further, the author of Europia relates that the statue of Apollo at Delphi was a pillar in these words:—
Apollo, interpreted mystically by “privation of
ἀ privative, and πολλοί,
many.
Plato the philosopher, aided in legislation by the books of Moses, censured the polity of Minos, and that of Lycurgus, as having bravery alone as their aim; while he praised as more seemly the polity which expresses some one thing, and directs according to one precept. For he says that it becomes us to philosophize with strength, and dignity, and wisdom,—holding unalterably the same opinions about the same things, with reference to the dignity of heaven. Accordingly, therefore, he interprets what is in the law, enjoining us to look to one God and to do justly. Of politics, he says there are two kinds,—the department of law, and that of politics, strictly so called.
And he refers to the Creator, as the Statesman
(ὁ πολιτικός)
by way of eminence, in his book of this name (ὁ πολιτικός);
and those who lead an active and just life, combined with
contemplation, he calls statesmen (πολιτικοί). That department of politics which is called “Law,” he
divides into administrative magnanimity and private good order, which
he calls orderliness; and harmony, and sobriety, which are seen when
rulers suit their subjects, and subjects are obedient to their rulers;
a result which the system of Moses sedulously aims at effecting.
Further, that the department of law is founded on generation, that of
politics on friendship and consent, Plato, with the aid he received,
affirms; and so, coupled with the laws the philosopher in the
Epinomis, who knew the course of all generation, which takes
place by the instrumentality of the planets; and the other philosopher,
Timæus, who was an astronomer and student of the motions of the
stars, and of their sympathy and association with one another, he
consequently joined to the “polity” (or
“republic”). Then, in my opinion, the end both of the
statesman, and of him who lives according to the law, is contemplation.
It is necessary, therefore, that public affairs should be rightly
managed. But to philosophize is best. For he who is wise will live
concentrating all his energies on knowledge, directing his life by good
deeds, despising the opposite, and following the pursuits which
contribute to truth. And the law is not what is decided by law (for
what is seen is not vision), nor every opinion (not certainly what is
evil). But law is the opinion which is good, and what is good is that
which is true, and what is true is that which finds “true
being,” and attains to it. “He who
is,” “I AM,” A.V.:
Whence the law was rightly said to have been given by
Moses, being a rule of right and wrong; and we may call it with
accuracy the divine ordinance (θεσμός From the ancient
derivation of this word from θεος.
It is the wise man, therefore, alone whom the
philosophers proclaim king, legislator, general, just, holy,
God-beloved. And if we discover these qualities in Moses, as shown from
the Scriptures themselves, we may, with the most assured persuasion,
pronounce Moses to be truly wise. As then we say that it belongs to the
And if the flock figuratively spoken of as belonging to
the Lord is nothing but a flock of men, then He Himself is the good
Shepherd and Lawgiver of the one flock, “of the sheep who hear
Him,” the one who cares for them, “seeking,” and
finding by the law and the word, “that which was lost;” since, in truth, the law is spiritual and leads to felicity. For
that which has arisen through the Holy Spirit is spiritual. And he is
truly a legislator, who not only announces what is good and noble, but
understands it. The law of this man who possesses knowledge is the
saving precept; or rather, the law is the precept of knowledge. For the
Word is “the power and the wisdom of God.”
Then those who obey the law, since they have some knowledge of Him, cannot disbelieve or be ignorant of the truth. But those who disbelieve, and have shown a repugnance to engage in the works of the law, whoever else may, certainly confess their ignorance of the truth.
What, then, is the unbelief of the Greeks? Is it not their unwillingness to believe the truth which declares that the law was divinely given by Moses, whilst they honour Moses in their own writers? They relate that Minos received the laws from Zeus in nine years, by frequenting the cave of Zeus; and Plato, and Aristotle, and Ephorus write that Lycurgus was trained in legislation by going constantly to Apollo at Delphi. Chamæleo of Heraclea, in his book On Drunkenness, and Aristotle in The Polity of Locrians, mention that Zaleucus the Locrian received the laws from Athene.
But those who exalt the credit of Greek legislation as far as in them lies, by referring it to a divine source, after the model of Mosaic prophecy, are senseless in not owning the truth, and the archetype of what is related among them.
Let no, one then, run down law, as if, on account
of the penalty, it were not beautiful and good. For shall he who drives
away bodily disease appear a benefactor; and shall not he who attempts
to deliver the soul from iniquity, as much more appear a friend, as
the soul is a more precious thing than the body? Besides, for the
sake of bodily health we submit to incisions, and cauterizations,
and medicinal draughts; and he who administers them is called saviour
and healer, [So, the Good
Physician.
For the law, in its solicitude for those who obey, trains up to piety, and prescribes what is to be done, and restrains each one from sins, imposing penalties even on lesser sins.
But when it sees any one in such a condition as to
appear incurable, posting to the last stage of wickedness, then in its
solicitude for the rest, that they may not be destroyed by it (just as
if amputating a part from the whole body), it condemns such an one
to death, as the course most conducive to health. “Being
judged by the Lord,” says the apostle, “we are
chastened, that we may not be condemned with the world.”
And to prove that example corrects, he says directly to
the purpose: “A clever man, when he seeth the wicked punished,
will himself be severely chastised, for the fear of the Lord is the
source of wisdom.”
But it is the highest and most perfect good, when
one is able to lead back any one from the practice of evil to virtue
and well-doing, which is the very function of the law. So that, when
one fails into any incurable evil,—when taken possession of, for
example, by wrong or covetousness,—it will be for his good if he
is put to death. For the law is beneficent, being able to make some
righteous from unrighteous, if they will only give ear to it, and by
releasing others from present evils; for those who have chosen
It is essential, certainly, that the providence which manages all, be both supreme and good. For it is the power of both that dispenses salvation—the one correcting by punishment, as supreme, the other showing kindness in the exercise of beneficence, as a benefactor. It is in your power not to be a son of disobedience, but to pass from darkness to life, and lending your ear to wisdom, to be the legal slave of God, in the first instance, and then to become a faithful servant, fearing the Lord God. And if one ascend higher, he is enrolled among the sons.
But when “charity covers the multitude
of sins,”
The beneficent action of the law, the apostle showed in
the passage relating to the Jews, writing thus: “Behold, thou art
called a Jew and restest in the law, and makest thy boast in God, and
knowest the will of God, and approvest the things that are more
excellent, being instructed out of the law, and art confident that thou
thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them who are in darkness,
an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, who hast the form of
knowledge and of truth in the law.”
The Mosaic philosophy is accordingly divided into four
parts,—into the historic, and that which is specially called the
legislative, which two properly belong to an ethical treatise; and the
third, that which relates to sacrifice, which belongs
to physical science; and the fourth, above all,
the department of theology, “vision,” ἐποπτεία,
the third and highest grade of initation into the mysteries. A saying not in Scripture; but
by several of the ancient Fathers attributed to Christ or an apostle.
[Jones, Canon, i. 438.]
Wherefore it alone conducts to the true wisdom, which is
the divine power which deals with the knowledge of entities as
entities, which grasps what is perfect, and is freed from all passion;
not without the Saviour, who withdraws, by the divine word, the gloom
of ignorance
“That thou may’st well know whether he be a god or a man.”—Homer.
It is He who truly shows how we are to know ourselves. It is He who
reveals the Father of the universe to whom He wills, and as far as
human nature can comprehend. “For no man knoweth the Son but the
Father, nor the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son shall reveal
Him.” The text has τετραχῶς,
which is either a mistake for τριχῶς,
or belongs to a clause which is wanting. The author asserts the triple
sense of Scripture,—the mystic, the moral, and the prophetic.
[And thus lays the egg which his pupil Origen was to hatch, and to
nurse into a brood of mysticism.]
Whence most beautifully the Egyptian priest in Plato said, “O
Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children, not having in your souls
a single ancient opinion received through tradition from antiquity. And
not one of the Greeks is an old man;” [Timæus, p. 22,
B.—S.]
Divinely, therefore, the power which spoke to Hermas by
revelation said, “The visions and revelations are for those who
are of double mind, who doubt in their hearts if these things are or
are not.” [See Shepherd of
Hermas, i. p. 14, ante. S.]
Similarly, also, demonstrations from the resources of
erudition, strengthen, confirm, and establish demonstrative reasonings,
in so far as men’s minds are in a wavering state like young
people’s. “The good commandment,” then, according to
the Scripture, “is a lamp, and the law is a light to the path;
for instruction corrects the ways of life.”
Whether, then, it be the law
which is connate and natural, or that given afterwards, which is
meant, it is certainly of God; and both the law of nature and that
of instruction are one. Thus also Plato, in The Statesman,
says that the lawgiver is one; and in The Laws, that he who
shall understand music is one; teaching by these words that the
Word is one, and God is one. And Moses manifestly calls the Lord
a covenant: “Behold I am my Covenant with thee,” The allusion here is
obscure. The suggestion has been made that it is to ver. 2 of the same
chapter, which is thus taken to intimate that the covenant would be
verbal, not written. Referring to an apocryphal
book so called. [This book is not cited as Scripture, but (valeat
quantum) as containing a saying attributed to St. Peter. Clement
quotes it not infrequently. A very full and valuable account of
it may be found in Lardner, vol. ii. p. 252, et seqq. Not
less valuable is the account given by Jones, On the Canon,
vol. i. p. 355. See all Clement’s citations, same volume,
p. 345, et seqq.] Στρωματεύς
(Purpose of the
Stromata
The Alexandrian Gnostics were the pestilent outgrowth of pseudo-Platonism; and nobody could comprehend their root-errors, and their branching thorns and thistles, better than Clement. His superiority in philosophy and classical culture was exhibited, therefore, in his writings, as a necessary preliminary. Like a good nautical combatant, his effort was to “get to windward,” and so bear down upon the enemy (to use an anachronism) with heavy-shotted broadsides. And we must not blame Clement for his plan of “taking the wind out of their sails,” by showing that an eclectic philosophy might be made to harmonize with the Gospel. His plan was that of melting the gold out of divers ores, and throwing the dross away. Pure gold, he argues, is gold wherever it may be found, and even in the purse of “thieves and robbers.” So, then, he “takes from them the armour in which they trusted, and divides the spoils.” He will not concede to them the name of “Gnostics,” but wrests it from them, just as we reclaim the name of “Catholics” from the Tridentine innovators, who have imposed a modern creed (and are constantly adding to it) upon the Latin churches. Here, then, let me quote the Account of Bishop Kaye. He says, “The object of Clement, in composing the Stromata, was to describe the true ‘Gnostic,’ or perfect Christian, in order to furnish the believer with a model for his imitation, and to prevent him from being led astray by the representations of the Valentinians and other gnostic sects.” … “Before we proceed to consider his description of the Gnostic, however, it will be necessary briefly to review his opinions respecting the nature and condition of man.”
Here follows a luminous analysis (occupying pp. 229–238 of Kaye’s work), after which he says,—
“The foregoing brief notice of Clement’s opinions respecting man, his soul, and his fallen state, appeared necessary as an introduction to the description of the true Gnostic. By γνῶσις, Clement understood the perfect knowledge of all that relates to God, His nature, and dispensations. He speaks of a twofold knowledge,—one, common to all men, and born of sense; the other, the genuine γνῶσις, bred from the intellect, the mind, and its reason. This latter is not born with men, but must be gained and by practice formed into a habit. The initiated find its perfection in a loving mysticism, which this never-failing love makes lasting.”
So, further, this learned analyst, not blindly,
but always with scientific conscience and judicial impartiality,
expounds his author; and, without some such guide, I despair of
securing the real interest of the youthful student. Butler’s
Analogy and Aristotle’s Ethics are always analyzed
for learners, by editors of their works; and hence I have ventured to
direct attention to this “guide, philosopher, and friend”
of my own inquiries. Ed. Rivingtons, London,
1835.
(Pantænus and His School. Book i. cap. i. p. 301,
note 9.
The catechetical school at
Alexandria was already ancient; for Eusebius describes it as ἐξ
ἀρχαίου
ἔθουςand St. Jerome dates its
origin from the first planting of Christianity. Many things conspired
to make this city the very head of Catholic Christendom, at this time;
for the whole
See Jones, On the Canon,
vol. iii. p. 44
But it deserves note, that, because of the learning
concentrated in this place, the bishops of Alexandria were, from the
beginning, the great authorities as to the Easter cycle and the annual
computation of Easter, which new created the science of astronomy as
one result. The Council of Nice, in settling the laws for the
observance of the Feast of the Resurrection, extended the function of
the Alexandrian See in this respect; for it was charged with the duty
of giving notice of the day when Easter should fall every year, to all
the churches. And easily might an ambitious primate of Egypt have
imagined himself superior to all other bishops at that time; for, as
Bingham observes, Antiquities, vol. i. p. 66,
ed. Bohn.
(Tradition. Book i. cap. i. p. 301, note 10.
The apostles
distinguish between vain traditions of the Jews,
and their own Christian παραδόσειςthe
tradita apostolica (
In some degree these were the secret of the Church, with which “strangers intermeddled not” lawfully. The Lord’s Supper was celebrated after the catechumens and mere hearers had withdrawn, and nobody was suffered to be present without receiving the sacrament. But, after the conversion of the empire, the canons and constitutions universally dispersed made public all these tradita; and the liturgies also were everywhere made known. It is idle, therefore, to shelter under theories of the Disciplina Arcani, those Middle-Age inventions, of which antiquity shows no trace but in many ways contradicts emphatically; e.g., the Eucharist, celebrated after the withdrawal of the non-communicants, and received, in both kinds, by all present, cannot be pleaded as the “secret” which justifies a ceremony in an unknown tongue and otherwise utterly different; in which the priest alone partakes, in which the cup is denied to the laity and which is exhibited with great pomp before all comers with no general participation.
(Esoteric Doctrine. Book i. cap. i. p. 302, note 5.
Early Christians, according to Clement,
taught to all alike, (1) all things necessary to salvation, (2) all the
whole Scriptures, and (3) all the apostolic traditions. This is evident
from passages
What we teach children in the Sunday school, and what we teach young men in the theological seminary, must illustrate the two ideas; the same truths to babes in element, but to men in all their bearings and relations.
The defenders of the modern creed of Pius the Fourth (a.d. 1564), finding no authority in Holy Scripture for most of its peculiarities, which are all imposed as requisite to salvation as if it were the Apostles’ Creed itself, endeavour to support them, by asserting that they belonged to the secret teaching of the early Church, of which they claim Clement as a witness. But the fallacy is obvious. Either they were thus secreted, or they were not. If not, as is most evident (because they contradict what was openly professed), then no ground for the pretence. But suppose they were, what follows? Such secrets were no part of the faith, and could not become so at a later period. If they were kept secret by the new theologians, and taught to “Gnostics” only, they would still be without primitive example, but might be less objectionable. But, no! they are imposed upon all, as if part of the ancient creeds; imposed, as if articles of the Catholic faith, on the most illiterate peasant, whose mere doubt as to any of them excludes him from the Church here, and from salvation hereafter. Such, then, is a fatal departure from Catholic orthodoxy and the traditions of the ancients. The whole system is a novelty, and the product of the most barren and corrupt period of Occidental history.
The Church, as Clement shows, never made any secret of any article of the Christian faith; and, as soon as she was free from persecution, the whole testimony of the Ante-Nicene Fathers was summed up in the Nicæno-Constantinopolitan Confession. This only is the Catholic faith, and the council forbade any additions thereto, in the way of a symbol. See Professor Shedd’s Christian Doctrine, vol. ii. p. 438. Ed. 1864, New York.
(p. 302, note 9, Elucidation III., continued.)
This is a valuable passage for the illustration of our author’s views of the nature of tradition, (κατὰ τὸν σεμνὸν τῆς παραδόσεως κανόνα as a canon “from the creation of the world;” a tradition preluding the tradition of true knowledge; a divine mystery preparing for the knowledge of mysteries,—clearing the ground from thorns and weeds, beforehand, so that the seed of the Word may not be choked. Now, in this tradition, he includes a true idea of Gentilism as well as of the Hebrew Church and its covenant relations; in short, whatever a Christian scholar is obliged to learn from “Antiquities” and “Introductions” and “Bible Dictionaries,” authenticated by universal and orthodox approbation. These are the providential provisions of the Divine Œconomy, for the communication of truth. Dr. Watts has a sermon on the Inward Witness to Christianity, which I find quoted by Vicesimus Knox (Works, vol. vii. p. 73, et seqq.) in a choice passage that forcibly expands and expounds some of Clement’s suggestions, though without referring to our author.
(Justification, p. 305 note 7.)
Without reference to my own views on this great subject, and desiring merely to illustrate our author, it shall suffice to remark, here, that to suppose that Clement uses the word technically, as we now use the language of the schools and of post-Reformation theologians, would hopelessly confuse the argument of our author. It is clear that he has no idea of any justification apart from the merits of Christ: but he uses the term loosely to express his idea, that as the Law led the Hebrews to the great Healer, who rose from the dead for our justification, in that sense, and in no other, the truth that was to be found in Greek Philosophy, although a minimum, did the same for heathen who loved truth, and followed it so far as they knew. Whether his views even in this were correct, it would not become me, here, to express any opinion. (See below, Elucidation XIV.)
(Philosophy, p. 305, note 8.)
It is so important to grasp just what our author understands by this “philosophy,” that I had designed to introduce, here, a long passage from Bishop Kaye’s lucid exposition. Finding, however, that these elucidations are already, perhaps, over multiplied, I content myself with a reference to his Account, etc. (pp. 118–121).
(Overflow of the Spirit, p. 306, note 1.)
Here, again, I wished to introduce textual citations from several eminent authors: I content myself with a very short one from Kaye, to illustrate the intricacy, not to say the contradictory character, of some of Clement’s positions as to the extent of grace bestowed on the heathen. “Clement says that an act, to be right, must be done through the love of God. He says that every action of the heathen is sinful, since it is not sufficient that an action is right: its object or aim must also be right” (Account, etc., p. 426). For a most interesting, but I venture to think overdrawn, statement of St. Paul’s position as to heathen “wisdom,” etc., see Farrar’s Life of St. Paul (p. 20, et seqq., ed. New York). Without relying on this popular author, I cannot but refer the reader to his Hulsean Lecture (1870, p. 135, et seqq.).
(Faith without Learning, p. 307, note 5.)
The compassion of Christ for poverty, misery, for
childhood, and for ignorance, is everywhere illustrated in Holy
Scripture; and faith, even “as a grain of mustard
seed,” is magnified, accordingly, in the infinite love of his
teaching. Again I am willing to refer to Farrar (though I read him
always with something between the lines, before I can adopt his
sweeping generalizations) for a fine passage, I should quote entire,
did space permit (The Witness of History to Christ, p. 172, ed.
London, 1872). See also the noble sermon of Jeremy Taylor on
(The Open Secret, p. 313, note 3.)
The esoteric system of Clement is here expounded in few words: there is nothing in it which may not be proclaimed from the house-tops, for all who have ears to hear. It is the mere swine (with seed-pickers and jack-daws, the σπερμόλογοι of the Athenians) who must be denied the pearls of gnostic truth. And this, on the same merciful principle on which the Master was silent before Pilate, and turned away from cities where they were not prepared to receive his message.
(Bodily Purity, p. 317, note 1.)
From a familiar quotation, I have often argued that the
fine instinct of a woman, even among heathen, enforces a true idea:
“If from her husband’s bed, as soon as she has bathed: if
from adulterous commerce, not at all.” This is afterwards noted
by our author; p. 428,
infra.
(Clement’s View of Philosophy, p. 318, note 4.)
I note the concluding words of this chapter (xvi.), as epitomizing the whole of what Clement means to say on this great subject; and, for more, see the Elucidation infra, on Justification.
(The Ecstacy of Sibyl, etc., p. 319, note 3.)
No need to quote Virgil’s description
(Æneid, vi. 46, with Heyne’s references in Excursus V.);
but I would compare with his picture of Sibylline inspiration, that of
Balaam (
(Justification, p. 323, note 2.)
Casaubon, in the work just quoted above (Exercitat., i.) examines this passage of our author, and others, comparing them with passages from St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine, and with Justin Martyr (see vol. i. p. 178, this series, cap. 46). Bishop Kaye (p. 428) justly remarks: “The apparent incorrectness of Clement’s language arises from not making that clear distinction which the controversies at the time of the Reformation introduced.” The word “incorrectness,” though for myself I do not object to it, might be said “to beg the question;” and hence I should prefer to leave it open to the divers views of readers, by speaking, rather, of his lack of precision in the use of a term not then defined with theological delicacy of statement.
(Chronology, p. 334, note 5.)
Here an invaluable work for comparison and reference
must be consulted by the student; viz., the Chronicon of
Julius Africanus, in Routh’s Reliquiæ (tom ii. p. 220,
et seqq.), with learned annotations, in which (e.g., p. 491)
Clement’s work is cited. Africanus took up chronological science
in the imperfect state where it was left by Clement, with whom he was
partially contemporary; for he was Bishop of Emmaus in Palestine
(called also Nicopolis), and composed his fine books of chronological
history, under Marcus Aurelius. See also Fragments, p.
164, vol. ix. this series, Edin. Edition. For matters further pertaining to
Clement, consult Routh, i. 140, i. 148, i. 127, i. 169, ii. 59
(Eusebius, vi. 13), ii. 165, 167, 168, 171–172, 179, 307, 416,
491.
[“The Epistles of the New Testament have all a particular reference to the condition and usages of the Christian world at the time they were written. Therefore as they cannot be thoroughly understood, unless that condition and those usages are known and attended to, so futher, though they be known, yet if they be discontinued or changed … references to such circumstances, now ceased or altered, cannot, at this time, be urged in that manner and with that force which they were to the primitive Christians.” This quotation from one of Bishop Butler’s Ethical Sermons has many bearings on the study of our author; but the sermon itself, with its sequel, On Human Nature, may well be read in connection with the Stromata. See Butler, Ethical Discourses, p. 77. Philadelphia, 1855.]
As Scripture has called the Greeks pilferers
of the Barbarian Referring in particular to the Jews.
Whatever the explication necessary on the point in
hand shall demand, shall be embraced, and especially what is occult in
the barbarian philosophy, the department of symbol and enigma; which those
who have subjected the teaching of the ancients to systematic philosophic
study have affected, as being in the highest degree serviceable, nay,
absolutely necessary to the knowledge of truth. In addition, it will in my
opinion form an appropriate sequel to defend those tenets, on account of
which the Greeks assail us, making use of a few Scriptures, if perchance
the Jew also may listen The text reads ἄχρηστος:
Sylburg prefers the reading εὔχρηστος. [διαδιδράσκει
τὰ πράγματα.
A truly Platonic thrust at sophistical rhetoricians.] δειληλυθέναι,
suggested by Sylb. As more suitable than the διαλεληθέναι
of the text. Hermas—close of third vision, [cap. 13. p. 17,
supra.]
“Be not elated on account of thy wisdom,” say the
Proverbs. “In all thy ways acknowledge her, that she may direct
thy ways, and that thy foot may not stumble.” By these remarks he
means to show that our deeds ought to be conformable to reason, and to
manifest further that we ought to select and possess what is useful out
of all culture. Now the ways of wisdom are various that lead right to
the way of truth. Faith is the way. “Thy foot shall not
stumble” is said with reference to some who seem to oppose the
one divine administration of Providence. Whence it is added, “Be
not wise in thine own eyes,” according to the impious ideas
which revolt against the administration of God. “But fear
God,” who alone is powerful. Whence it follows as a consequence
that we are not to oppose God. The sequel especially teaches clearly,
that “the fear of God is departure from evil;” for it is
said, “and depart from all evil.” Such is the discipline
of wisdom (“for whom the Lord loveth He chastens”
It is clear, then, that the truth has been hidden from
us; and if that has been already shown by one example, we shall
establish it a little after by several more. How entirely worthy of
approbation are they who are both willing to learn, and able, according
to Solomon, “to know wisdom and instruction, and to perceive the
words of wisdom, to receive knotty words, and to perceive true
righteousness,” there being another [righteousness as well], not
according to the truth, taught by the Greek laws, and by the rest of
the philosophers. “And to direct judgments,” it is
said—not those of the bench, but he means that we must preserve
sound and free of error the judicial faculty which is within
us—“That I may give subtlety to the simple, to the young
man sense and understanding.” ἔννοιαν,
not εὔνοιαν,
as in the text.
Or anticipation, πρόληψις.
Adopting Lowth’s conjecture of supplying πλήν
before θεοσεβείας.
Now the followers of Basilides regard faith as
natural, as they also refer it to choice, [representing it] as finding
ideas by intellectual comprehension without demonstration; while the
followers of Valentinus assign faith to us, the simple, but will have
it that knowledge springs up in their own selves (who are saved by
nature) through the advantage of a germ of superior excellence, saying
that it is as far removed from faith as The text reads ἤ: but Sylb. suggests
ᾑ, which we have adopted.
Nor will he who has not believed, not being the author
[of his unbelief], meet with a due recompense; and he that has believed
is not the cause [of his belief]. And the entire peculiarity and
difference of belief and unbelief will not fall under either praise or
censure, if we reflect rightly, since there attaches to it the
antecedent natural necessity proceeding from the Almighty. And if we
are pulled like inanimate things by the puppet-strings of natural
powers, willingness καὶ τὸ ἑκούσιον
is supplied as required by the sense. The text has ἀκούσιον
only, for which Lowth proposes to read ἑκούσιον. Either baptism or the
imposition of hands after baptism. [For an almost pontifical decision
as to this whole matter, with a very just eulogy of the German
(Lutheran) confirmation-office, see Bunsen, Hippol., iii. pp.
214, 369.]
But we, who have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining
choice and refusal have been given by the Lord to men, rest in the
infallible criterion of faith, manifesting a willing spirit, since we
have chosen life and believe God through His voice. And he who has
believed the Word knows the matter to be true; for the Word is
“By faith we understand that the worlds were
framed by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made of things
which appear,” says the apostle. “By faith Abel offered to
God a fuller sacrifice than Cain, by which he received testimony that
he was righteous, God giving testimony to him respecting his gifts; and
by it he, being dead, yet speaketh,” and so forth, down to
“than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.”
Should one say that Knowledge is founded on
demonstration by a process of reasoning, let him hear that first
principles are incapable of demonstration; for they are known neither
by art nor sagacity. For the latter is conversant about objects that
are susceptible of change, while the former is practical solely, and
not theoretical. Instead of μονονουχί,
Petavius and Lowth read μόνον οὐχί,
as above.
Now Aristotle says that the judgment which follows knowledge is in truth faith. Accordingly, faith is something superior to knowledge, and is its criterion. Conjecture, which is only a feeble supposition, counterfeits faith; as the flatterer counterfeits a friend, and the wolf the dog. And as the workman sees that by learning certain things he becomes an artificer, and the helmsman by being instructed in the art will be able to steer; he does not regard the mere wishing to become excellent and good enough, but he must learn it by the exercise of obedience. But to obey the Word, whom we call Instructor, is to believe Him, going against Him in nothing. For how can we take up a position of hostility to God? Knowledge, accordingly, is characterized by faith; and faith, by a kind of divine mutual and reciprocal correspondence, becomes characterized by knowledge.
Epicurus, too, who very greatly preferred pleasure to
truth, supposes faith to be a preconception of the mind; and defines
preconception to be a grasping at something evident, and at the clear
understanding of the thing; and asserts that, without preconception, no
one can either inquire, or doubt, or judge, or even argue. How
κατάληψιν
ποιεῖ τῆν
πρόληψιν. οὐ ζῶον is
here interpolated into the text, not being found in Plato. Χριστός
and χρηστός
are very frequently compared in the patristic authors.
Plato’s sister’s son and successor. σπουδαῖος.
Accordingly all those above-mentioned dogmas appear
to have been transmitted from Moses the great to the Greeks. That all
things belong to the wise man, is taught in these words: “And
because God hath showed me mercy, I have all things.” The words of Jacob to
Esau slightly changed from the Septuagint: “For God hath
shown mercy to me, and I have all things”—οτι
ἠλέησέ με ὁ
Θεὸς καὶ ἔστι
μοι πάντα (
So the name Israel is explained,
Stromata, i. p. 334, Potter; [see p. 300, supra.]
Now among the Greeks, Minos the king of nine
years’ reign, and familiar friend of Zeus, is celebrated in song;
they having heard how once God conversed with Moses, “as one
speaking with his friend.” [This passage, down to the reference
to Plato, is unspeakably sublime. One loves Clement for this exclusive
loyalty to the Saviour.]
The Stoics defined piety as “ the knowledge of the worship
of God.”
Socrates in the Phœdrus,
near the end, [p. 279.] Introduced by Plato in The Laws, conversing with
Socrates. Taken likely from some apocryphal writing.
And again, that the wise man is beautiful, the Athenian
stranger asserts, in the same way as if one were to affirm that certain
persons were just, even should they happen to be ugly in their persons.
And in speaking thus with respect to eminent rectitude of character, no
one who should assert them to be on this account beautiful would be
thought to speak extravagantly. And “His appearance was inferior
to all the Sons of men,”
Plato, moreover, has called the wise man a king, in The Statesman. The remark is quoted above.
These points being demonstrated, let us recur again to
our discourse on faith. Well, with the fullest demonstration, Plato
proves, that there is need of faith everywhere, celebrating peace at
the same time: “For no man will ever be trusty and sound in
seditions without entire virtue. There are numbers of mercenaries
full of fight, and willing to die in war; but, with a very few
exceptions, the most of them are desperadoes and villains, insolent
and senseless.” If these observations are right, “every
legislator who is even of slight use, will, in making his laws,
have an eye to the greatest virtue. Such is fidelity,” πιστότης. Laertius, in
opposition to the general account, ascribes the celebrated αὐτὸς
εφα to Pythagoras Zacynthus. Suidas, who with the
most ascribes it to the Samian Pythagoras, says that it meant “God
has said,” as he professed to have received his doctrines
from God.
This famous line of Epicharmus the comic poet is quoted by Tertullian (de Anima), by Plutarch, by Jamblichus, and Porphyry.
Rating some as unbelievers,
Heraclitus says,
“Lord, who hath believed our
report?”
As, then, playing at ball not only depends on one
throwing the ball skilfully, but it requires besides one to catch it
dexterously, that the game may be gone through according to the rules
for ball; so also is it the case that teaching is reliable when faith
on the part of those who hear, being, so to speak, a sort of natural
art, contributes to the process of learning. So also the earth
co-operates, through its productive power, being fit for the sowing of
the seed. For there is no good of the very best instruction without the
exercise of the receptive faculty on the part of the learner, not even
of prophecy, when there is the absence of docility on the part of those
who hear. For dry twigs, being ready to receive the power of fire, are
kindled with great ease; and the far-famed stone Loadstone. [Philosophy of the second
centure. See note in Migne.]
There being then a twofold species of vice—that characterized by craft and stealth, and that which leads and drives with violence—the divine Word cries, calling all together; knowing perfectly well those that will not obey; notwithstanding then since to obey or not is in our own power, provided we have not the excuse of ignorance to adduce. He makes a just call, and demands of each according to his strength. For some are able as well as willing, having reached this point through practice and being purified; while others, if they are not yet able, already have the will. Now to will is the act of the soul, but to do is not without the body. Nor are actions estimated by their issue alone; but they are judged also according to the element of free choice in each,—if he chose easily, if he repented of his sins, if he reflected on his failures and repented (μετέγνω), which is (μετὰ ταῦτα ἔγνω) “afterwards knew.” For repentance is a tardy knowledge, and primitive innocence is knowledge. Repentance, then, is an effect of faith. For unless a man believe that to which he was addicted to be sin, he will not abandon it; and if he do not believe punishment to be impending over the transgressor, and salvation to be the portion of him who lives according to the commandments, he will not reform.
Hope, too, is based on faith. Accordingly the
followers of Basilides define faith to be, the assent of the soul
to any of those things, that do not affect the senses through not
being present. And hope is the expectation of the possession of
good. Necessarily, then, is expectation founded on faith. Now he is
faithful who keeps inviolably what is entrusted to him; and we are
entrusted with the utterances respecting God and the divine words, the
commands along with the execution of the injunctions. This is the faithful
servant, who is praised by the Lord. And when it is said, “God is
faithful,” it is intimated that He is worthy to be believed when
declaring aught. Now His Word declares; and “God” Himself is
“faithful.”
Benevolence is the wishing of good things to another for
his sake. For He needs nothing; and the beneficence and benignity which
flow from the Lord terminate in us, being divine benevolence, and
benevolence resulting in beneficence. And if to Abraham on his
believing it
Not in Script. Where?
[Clement accepts the Epistle of Barnabus as an apostolic writing. For
this quotation, see vol. i. p. 137, this series.] The man of perfect knowledge.
Those, who denounce fear, assail the law; and if the law, plainly also God, who gave the law. For these three elements are of necessity presented in the subject on hand: the ruler, his administration, and the ruled. If, then, according to hypothesis, they abolish the law; then, by necessary consequence, each one who is led by lust, courting pleasure, must neglect what is right and despise the Deity, and fearlessly indulge in impiety and injustice together, having dashed away from the truth.
Yea, say they, fear is an
irrational aberration, Instead of ἔκκλισις,
it has been proposed to read ἔκλυσις,
a term applied by the Stoics to fear;
but we have ἔκκλισις
immediately after. According to the correction
and translation of Lowth, who reads τῶν οὔτῶ
ἐπιδεχομένων
instead of τὸν
οὔτως, etc., of the text.
Fear is not then irrational. It is therefore
rational. How could it be otherwise, exhorting as it does, Thou
shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal,
Than shalt not bear false witness? But if they will quibble about
the names, let the philosophers term the fear of the law, cautious
fear, (εὐλάβεια)
Let us see what terrors the law announces. If it is the
things which hold an intermediate place between virtue and vice, such
as poverty, disease, obscurity, and humble birth, and the like, these
things civil laws hold forth, and are praised for so doing. And those
of the Peripatetic school, who introduce three kinds of good things,
and think that their opposites are evil, this opinion suits. But the
law given to us enjoins us to shun what are in reality bad
things—adultery, uncleanness, pæderasty, ignorance, wickedness,
soul-disease, death (not that which severs the soul from the body, but
that which severs the soul from truth). For these are vices in reality,
and the workings that proceed from them are dreadful and terrible.
“For not unjustly,” say the divine oracles, “are the
nets spread for birds; for they who are accomplices in blood treasure
up evils to themselves.” Adopting the conjecture which, by a
change from the accusative to the nominative, refers
“deters,” and “enjoins,” to the commandment
instead of to repentance, according to the teaching of the text. [See vol. i. p. 139. S.]
Here the followers of Basilides, interpreting this expression, say,
“that the Prince, Viz., of the angels, who according to
them was Jehovah, the God of the Jews.
And Valentinus appears also in an epistle to have
adopted such views. For he writes in these very words: “And
as Instead of ὡς περίφοβος
of the text, we read with Grabe ὡσπερεὶ φόβος.
But there being but one First Cause, as will be shown afterwards, these men will be shown to be inventors of chatterings and chirpings. But since God deemed it advantageous, that from the law and the prophets, men should receive a preparatory discipline by the Lord, the fear of the Lord was called the beginning of wisdom, being given by the Lord, through Moses, to the disobedient and hard of heart. For those whom reason convinces not, fear tames; which also the Instructing Word, foreseeing from the first, and purifying by each of these methods, adapted the instrument suitably for piety. Consternation is, then, fear at a strange apparition, or at an unlooked-for representation—such as, for example, a message; while fear is an excessive wonderment on account of something which arises or is. They do not then perceive that they represent by means of amazement the God who is highest and is extolled by them, as subject to perturbation and antecedent to amazement as having been in ignorance. If indeed ignorance preceded amazement; and if this amazement and fear, which is the beginning of wisdom, is the fear of God, then in all likelihood ignorance as cause preceded both the wisdom of God and all creative work, and not only these, but restoration and even election itself. Whether, then, was it ignorance of what was good or what was evil?
Well, if of good, why does it cease through amazement? And minister and preaching and baptism are [in that case] superfluous to them. And if of evil, how can what is bad be the cause of what is best? For had not ignorance preceded, the minister would not have come down, nor would have amazement seized on “the Prince,” as they say; nor would he have attained to a beginning of wisdom from fear, in order to discrimination between the elect and those that are mundane. And if the fear of the pre-existent man made the angels conspire against their own handiwork, under the idea that an invisible germ of the supernal essence was lodged within that creation, or through unfounded suspicion excited envy, which is incredible, the angels became murderers of the creature which had been entrusted to them, as a child might be, they being thus convicted of the grossest ignorance. Or suppose they were influenced by being involved in foreknowledge. But they would not have conspired against what they foreknew in the assault they made; nor would they have been terror-struck at their own work, in consequence of foreknowledge, on their perceiving the supernal germ. Or, finally, suppose, trusting to their knowledge, they dared (but this also were impossible for them), on learning the excellence that is in the Pleroma, to conspire against man. Furthermore also they laid hands on that which was according to the image, in which also is the archetype, and which, along with the knowledge that remains, is indestructible.
To these, then, and certain others, especially the
Marcionites, the Scripture cries, though they listen not, “He
that heareth Me shall rest with confidence in peace, and shall be
tranquil, fearless of all evil.”
What, then, will they have the law to be? They will
not call it evil, but just; distinguishing what is good from what is just.
But the Lord, when He enjoins us to dread evil, does not exchange one
evil for another, but abolishes what is opposite by its opposite. Now
evil is the opposite of good, as what is just is of what is unjust. If,
then, that absence of fear, which the fear of the Lord produces, is
called the beginning of what is good, The text reads κακῶν. Lowth
conjectures the change, which we
have adopted, καλῶν.
Such a fear, accordingly, leads to repentance
and hope. Now hope is the expectation of good things, or an expectation
sanguine of absent
ἑτερος
ἐγώ, alter
ego, deriving ἑταῖρος
from ἕτερος.
Hospitality, therefore, is occupied in what is useful
for strangers; and guests (ἐπίξενοι)
are strangers (ξένοι); and
friends are guests; and brethren are friends. “Dear
brother,” φέλε κασἰγνητε, Iliad, v. 359.
Philanthropy, in order to which also, is
natural affection, being a loving treatment of men, and natural
affection, which is a congenial habit exercised in the love of
friends or domestics, follow in the train of love. And if the
real man within us is the spiritual, philanthropy is brotherly
love to those who participate, in the same spirit. Natural
affection, on the other hand, is the preservation of good-will,
or of affection; and affection is its perfect demonstration; ἀπόδεξις
has been conjectured in place of ἀπόδειξις.
Hermas, [Similitudes, p. 49,
supra.]
As, then, the virtues follow one another, why need
I say what has been demonstrated already, that faith hopes through
repentance, and fear through faith; and patience and practice in these
along with learning terminate in love,
This clause is hopelessly corrupt; the text
is utterly unintelligible, and the emendation of Sylburgius is adopted
in the translation.
These three things, therefore, our philosopher
attaches himself to: first, speculation; second, the performance of the
precepts; third, the forming of good men;—which, concurring, form
the Gnostic. Whichever of these is wanting, the elements of knowledge
limp. Whence the Scripture divinely says, “And the Lord spake to
Moses, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say to
them, I am the Lord your
God. According to the customs of the land of Egypt, in which ye have
dwelt, ye shall not do; and according to the customs of Canaan, into which
I bring you, ye shall not do; and in their usages ye shall not walk. Ye
shall perform My judgments, and keep My precepts, and walk in them: I
am the Lord your God. And
ye shall keep all My commandments, and do them. He that doeth them shall
live in them. I am the Lord
your God.”
“Them that are far off, and them that are
nigh” (
But the knowledge of those who think themselves wise, whether the
barbarian sects or the philosophers among the Greeks, according to the
apostle, “puffeth up.”
The text here reads θεῶν, arising in all
probability from the transcriber mistaking the numeral θ for the above.
The Gnostic is therefore fixed by faith; but the
man who thinks himself wise touches not what pertains to the truth,
moved as he is by unstable and wavering impulses. It is therefore
reasonably written, “Cain went forth from the face of God, and
dwelt in the land of Naid, over against Eden.” Now Naid is
interpreted commotion, and Eden delight; and Faith, and
Knowledge, and Peace are delight, from which he that has disobeyed is
cast out. But he that is wise in his own eyes will not so much as
listen to the beginning of the divine commandments; but, as if his own
teacher, throwing off the reins, plunges voluntarily into a billowy
commotion, sinking down to mortal and created things from the uncreated
knowledge, holding various opinions at various times. “Those who
have no guidance fall like leaves.”
Reason, the governing principle, remaining unmoved and
guiding the soul, is called its pilot. For access to the Immutable is
obtained by a truly immutable means. Thus Abraham was stationed before
the Lord, and approaching spoke.
Convicted by this utterance, the heretics reject
the Epistles to Timothy.
[See Elucidation III. at the end of this second
book.]
Faith as also Time being double, we shall find
virtues in pairs both dwelling together. For memory is related to past
time, hope to future. We believe that what is past did, and that what
is future will take place. And, on the other hand, we love, persuaded by
faith that the past was as it was, and by hope expecting the future. For
in everything love attends the Gnostic, who knows one God. “And,
behold, all things which He created were very good.”
The knowledge, then, of those things which
have been predicted shows a threefold result—either one that has
happened long ago, or exists now, or about to be. Then the extremes i.e., Past and Future, between
which lies the Present.
And not only the Platonists, but the Stoics,
say that assent is in our own power. All opinion then, and judgment,
and supposition, and knowledge, by which we live and have perpetual
intercourse with the human race, is an assent; which is nothing else
than faith. And unbelief being defection from faith, shows both assent
and faith to be possessed of power; for non-existence cannot be called
privation. And if you consider the truth, you will find man naturally
misled so as to give assent to what is false, though possessing
the resources necessary for belief in the truth. “The virtue,
then, that encloses the Church in its grasp,” as the Shepherd
says, Pastor of
Hermas, book i. vision iii. chap. viii. vol. i. p. 15. See Pastor of Hermas,
book ii. commandt. iv. ch. ii. [vol. i. p. 22], for the sense of
this passage.
He, then, who has received the forgiveness of sins ought to sin no
more. For, in addition to the first and only repentance from sins (this
is from the previous sins in the first and heathen life—I mean
that in ignorance), there is forthwith proposed to those who have been
called, the repentance which cleanses the seat of the soul from
transgressions, that faith may be established. And the Lord, knowing
the heart, and foreknowing the future, foresaw both the fickleness of
man and the craft and subtlety of the devil from the first, from the
beginning; how that, envying man for the forgiveness of sins, he would
present to the servants of God certain causes of sins; skilfully
working mischief, that they might fall together with himself.
Accordingly, being very merciful, He has vouch-safed, in the case of
those who, though in faith, fall into any transgression, a second
repentance; so that should any one be tempted after his calling,
overcome by force and fraud, he may receive still a repentance not to
be repented of. “For if we sin wilfully after that we have
received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice
for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery
indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.”
He, then, who from among the Gentiles and from that old
life has betaken himself to faith, has obtained forgiveness of sins
once. But he who has sinned after this, on his repentance, though he
obtain pardon, ought to fear, as one no longer washed to the
forgiveness of sins. For not only must the idols which he formerly held
as gods, but the works also of his former life, be abandoned by him
who has been “born again, not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh,” [The
penitential system of the early Church was no mere sponge like that
of the later Latins, which turns Christ into “the minister of
sin.”]
Adopting the emendation, ὁρμὴ μὲν
οὕν φορά.
What is involuntary is not matter for judgment. But this is
twofold,—what is done in ignorance, and what is done through
necessity. For how will you judge concerning those who are said to sin
in involuntary modes? For either one knew not himself, as Cleomenes and
Athamas, who were mad; or the thing which he does, as Æschylus, who
divulged the mysteries on the stage, who, being tried in the Areopagus,
was absolved on his showing that he had not been initiated. Or one
knows not what is done, as he who has let off his antagonist, and slain
his domestic instead of his enemy; or that by which it is done, as he
who, in exercising with spears having buttons on them, has killed some
one in consequence of the spear throwing off the button; or knows not
the manner how, as he who has killed his antagonist in the stadium, for
it was not for his death but for victory that he contended; or knows
not the reason why it is done, as the physician gave a salutary
antidote and killed, for it was not for this purpose that he gave it,
but to save. The law at that time punished him who had killed
involuntarily, as e.g., him who was subject involuntarily to
gonorrhœa, but not equally with him who did so voluntarily. Although
he also shall be punished as for a voluntary action, if one transfer
the affection to the truth. For, in reality, he that cannot contain the
generative word is to be punished; for this is an irrational passion of
the soul approaching garrulity. “The faithful man chooses to
conceal things in his spirit.”
What is voluntary is either what is by desire, or what
is by choice, or what is of intention. Closely allied to each other are
these things—sin, mistake, crime. It is sin, for example, to live
luxuriously and licentiously; a misfortune, to wound one’s friend
in ignorance, taking him for an enemy; and crime, to violate graves or
i.e., his abandoning himself to passion. Medea, too, herself cries on the stage:—
Eurip., Medea, 1078.
Further, not even Ajax is silent; but, when about to kill himself, cries:—
These lines, which are not found in the Ajax of Sophocles, have been amended by various hands. Instead of συμφοροὺσα, we have ventured to read συμφορᾶς—κηλὶς συμφορᾶς being a Sophoclean phrase, and συμφοροῦσα being unsuitable.
Anger made these the subjects of tragedy, and lust made ten thousand others—Phædra, Anthia, Eriphyle,—
For another play represents Thrasonides of the comic drama as saying:—
Mistake is a sin contrary to
calculation; and voluntary sin is crime (ἀδικία);
and crime is voluntary wickedness. Sin, then, is on my part voluntary.
Wherefore says the apostle, “Sin shall not have dominion over
you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace.”
David, too, and Moses before David, show the
knowledge of the three precepts in the following words: “Blessed
is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly;” as the
fishes go down to the depths in darkness; for those which have not scales,
which Moses prohibits touching, feed at the bottom of the sea. “Nor
standeth in the way of sinners,” as those who, while appearing
to fear the Lord, commit sin, like the sow, for when hungry it cries,
and when full knows not its owner. “Nor sitteth in the chair of
pestilences,” as birds ready for prey. And Moses enjoined not to eat
the sow, nor the eagle, nor the hawk, nor the raven, nor any fish without
scales. So far Barnabas.
Justly, therefore, the prophet says,
“The ungodly are not so: but as the chaff which the wind
driveth away from the face of the earth. Wherefore the ungodly
shall not stand in the judgment”
Again, the Lord clearly shows sins and transgressions to
be in our own power, by prescribing modes of cure corresponding to the
maladies; showing His wish that we should be corrected by the
shepherds, in Ezekiel; blaming, I am of opinion, some of them for not
keeping the commandments. “That which was enfeebled ye have not
strengthened,” and so forth, down to, “and there was none
to search out or turn away.”
For “great is the joy before the
Father when one sinner is saved,” These words are not in Scripture, but the substance
of them is contained in One of the precepts of
the seven wise men.
Philo explains Enoch’s translation allegorically, as denoting
reformation or repentance.
Quoted as if in Scripture, but not found there. The
allusion may be, as is conjectured, to what God said to Moses respecting
him and Aaron, to whom he was to be as God; or to Jacob saying to Esau,
“I have seen thy face as it were the face of God.” χρηστός
instread of χριστός
which is in the text.
Prob.
Here again arise the cavillers, who say that joy
and pain are passions of the soul: for they define joy as a rational
elevation and exultation, as rejoicing on account of what is good; and
pity as pain for one who suffers undeservedly; and that such affections
are moods and passions of the soul. But we, as would appear, do not cease
in such matters to understand the Scriptures carnally; and starting
from our own affections, interpret the will of the impassible Deity
similarly to our perturbations; and as we are capable of hearing; so,
supposing the same to be the case with the Omnipotent, err impiously. For
the Divine Being cannot be declared as it exists: but as we who are
fettered in the flesh were able to listen, so the prophets spake to us;
the Lord savingly accommodating Himself to the weakness of men. [This anthropopathy is
a figure by which God is interpreted to us after the intelligible forms
of humanity. Language framed by human usage makes this figure necessary
to revelation.]
As, then, Knowledge (ἐπιστήμη) is an intellectual state, from which results the act of knowing, and
becomes apprehension irrefragable by reason; so also ignorance is a
receding impression, which can be dislodged by reason. And that which
is overthrown as well as that which is elaborated by reason, is in our
power. Akin to Knowledge is experience, cognition
(εἴδησις),
Comprehension (σύνεσις),
perception, and Science. Cognition (εἴδησις)
is the knowledge of universals by species; and Experience is
comprehensive knowledge, which investigates the nature of each thing.
Perception (νόησις)
is the knowledge of intellectual objects; and Comprehension
(σύνεσις)
is the knowledge of what is compared, or a comparison that cannot be
annulled, or the faculty of comparing the objects with which Judgment
and Knowledge are occupied, both of one and each and all that goes to
make up one reason. And Science (γνῶσις)
is the knowledge of the thing in itself, or the knowledge which
harmonizes with what takes place. Truth is the knowledge of the true;
and the mental habit of truth is the knowledge of the things which are
true. Now knowledge is constituted by the reason, and cannot be
overthrown by another reason. ἐνταῦθα τὴν γνῶσιν πολυπραγμονεῖ
appears in the text, which, with great probability, is supposed to be a
marginal note which got into the text, the indicative being substituted
for the imperative. Adopting Sylburgius’
conjecture of τῷ δέ
for τὸ δέ.
Therefore volition takes the precedence of all; for the
intellectual powers are ministers of the Will. “Will,” it
is said, “and thou shalt be able.” Perhaps in allusion to the
leper’s words to Christ, “If Thou wilt, Thou canst make me
clean” (
[See p. 192, supra, and the note.]
It is then clear also that all the other virtues, delineated in Moses, supplied the Greeks with the rudiments of the whole department of morals. I mean valour, and temperance, and wisdom, and justice, and endurance, and patience, and decorum, and self-restraint; and in addition to these, piety.
But it is clear to every one that piety, which
teaches to worship and honour, is the highest and oldest cause; and
the law itself exhibits justice, and teaches wisdom, by abstinence
from sensible images, and by inviting to the Maker and Father of
the universe. And from this sentiment, as from a fountain, all
intelligence increases. “For the sacrifices of the wicked are
abomination to the Lord;
but the prayers of the upright are acceptable before Him,”
For
the use of knowledge in this connection, Philo, Sextus Empiricus, and
Zeno are quoted.
What reason is there in the law’s prohibiting
a man from “wearing woman’s clothing “? “These words are more like Philo Judæus,
i. 740, than those of Moses,
[See Epistle of Barnabas, vol. p. i. 149, S.]
Respecting imparting and communicating, though much
might be said, let it suffice to remark that the law prohibits a
brother from taking usury: designating as a brother not only him who is
born of the same parents, but also one of the same race and sentiments,
and a participator in the same word; deeming it right not to take usury
for money, but with open hands and heart to bestow on those who need.
For God, the author and the dispenser of such grace, takes as suitable
usury the most precious things to be found among men—mildness,
gentleness, magnanimity, reputation, renown. Do you not regard this
command as marked by philanthropy? As also the following, “To pay
the wages of the poor daily,” teaches to discharge without delay
the wages due for service; for, as I think, the alacrity of the poor
with reference to the future is paralyzed when he has suffered want.
Further, it is said, “Let not the creditor enter the
debtor’s house to take the pledge with violence.” But let
the former ask it to be brought out, and let not the latter, if he have
it, hesitate.
Now love is conceived in many ways, in the form of
meekness, of mildness, of patience, of liberality, of freedom from
envy, of absence of hatred, of forgetfulness of injuries. In all it is
incapable of being divided or distinguished: its nature is to
communicate. Again, it is said, “If you see the beast of your
relatives, or friends, or, in general, of anybody you know, wandering
in the wilderness, take it back and restore it; Quoted from Philo, with slight
alterations, giving the sense of μνησιπονηρεῖ
(equivalent to μνησικακεῖ
in the passage of Philo from which Clement is quoting) has been
substituted by Sylb. for μισοπονηρεῖ.
Further, it forbids intercourse with a female captive so
as to dishonour her. “But allow her,” it says,
“thirty days to mourn according to her wish, and changing her
clothes, associate with her as your lawful wife.”
What more? The Lord enjoins to ease and raise up the
beasts of enemies when labouring beneath their burdens; remotely
teaching us not to indulge in joy at our neighbour’s ills, or
exult over our enemies; in order to teach those who are trained in
these things to pray for their enemies. For He does not allow us either
to grieve at our neighbour’s good, or to reap joy at our
neighbour’s ill. And if you find any enemy’s beast
straying, you are to pass over the incentives of difference, and take
it back and restore it. For oblivion of injuries is followed by
goodness, and the latter by dissolution of enmity. From this we are
fitted for agreement, and this conducts to felicity. And should you
suppose one habitually hostile, and discover him to be unreasonably
mistaken either through lust or anger, turn him to goodness. Does the
law then which conducts to Christ appear humane and mild? And does not
the same God, good, while characterized by righteousness from the
beginning to the end, employ each kind suitably in order to salvation?
“Be merciful,” says the Lord, “that you may receive
mercy; forgive, that you may be forgiven. As ye do, so shall it be done
to you; as ye give, so shall it be given to you; as ye judge, so shall
ye be judged; as ye show kindness, so shall kindness be shown to you:
with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you
again.”
And it prohibits an ox and ass to be yoked in the plough
together;
Further, husbandmen derived advantage from the law in such things. For it orders newly planted trees to be nourished three years in succession, and the superfluous growths to be cut off, to prevent them being loaded and pressed down; and to prevent their strength being exhausted from want, by the nutriment being frittered away, enjoins tilling and digging round them, so that [the tree] may not, by sending out suckers, hinder its growth. And it does not allow imperfect fruit to be plucked from immature trees, but after three years, in the fourth year; dedicating the first-fruits to God after the tree has attained maturity.
This type of husbandry may serve as a mode
of instruction, teaching that we must cut the growths of sins,
and the useless weeds of the mind that spring up round the vital
fruit, till the shoot of faith is perfected and becomes strong. [See Hermas, Visions,
note 2, p. 15, this volume.] So Clement seems to designate the human nature of
Christ,—as being a quartum quid in addition to the three
persons of the Godhead. [A strange note: borrowed from ed. Migne. The
incarnation of the second person is a quartum quid, of course;
but not, in our author’s view, “an addition to the three
persons of the Godhead.”]
He is the Gnostic, who is after the image and
likeness of God, who imitates God as far as possible, deficient in none
of the things which contribute to the likeness as far as compatible,
practising self-restraint and endurance, living righteously, reigning
over the passions, bestowing of what he has as far as possible, and
doing good both by word and deed. “He is the greatest,”
it is said, “in the kingdom who shall do and teach;” ἱκέτην
has been adopted from Philo, instead of οἰκέτην
of the text.
But nobility is itself exhibited in choosing and
practising what is best. For what benefit to Adam was such a nobility
as he had? No mortal was his father; for he himself was father of men
that are born. What is base he readily chose, following his wife, and
neglected what is true and good; on which account he exchanged his
immortal life for a mortal life, but not for ever. And Noah, whose
origin was not the same as Adam’s, was saved by divine care. For
he took and consecrated himself to God. And Abraham, who had children
by three wives, not for the indulgence of pleasure, but in the hope, as
I think, of multiplying the race at the first, was succeeded by one
alone, who was heir of his father’s blessings, while the rest
were separated from the family; and of the twins who sprang from him,
the younger having won his father’s favour and received his
prayers, became heir, and the elder served him. For it is the greatest
boon to a bad man not to be master of himself. [A noteworthy aphorism.]
And this arrangement was prophetical and typical. And
that all things belong to the wise, Scripture clearly indicates when it
is said, “Because God hath had mercy on me, I have all
things.”
Now Plato the philosopher, defining the end of
happiness, says that it is likeness to God as far as possible; whether
concurring with the precept of the law (for great natures that are free
of passions somehow hit the mark respecting the truth, as the
Pythagorean Philo says in relating the history of Moses), or whether
instructed by certain oracles of the time, thirsting as he always was
for instruction. For the law says, “Walk after the Lord your God,
and keep my commandments.”
We are taught that there are three kinds of friendship:
and that of these the first and the best is that which results from
virtue, for the love that is founded on reason is firm; that the second
and intermediate is by way of recompense, and is social, liberal, and
useful for life; for the friendship which is the result of favour is
mutual.
Endurance also itself forces its way to the
divine likeness, reaping as its fruit impassibility through patience,
if what is related of Ananias be kept in mind; who belonged to a number,
of whom Daniel the prophet, filled with divine faith, was one. Daniel
dwelt at Babylon, as Lot at Sodom, and Abraham, who a little after
became the friend of God, in the land of Chaldea. The king of the
Babylonians let Daniel down into a pit full of wild beasts; the King
of all, the faithful Lord, took him up unharmed. Such patience will
the Gnostic, as a Gnostic, possess. He will bless when under trial,
like the noble Job; like Jonas, when swallowed up by the whale, he will
pray, and faith will restore him to prophesy to the Ninevites; and
though shut up with lions, he will tame the wild beasts; though cast
into the fire, he will be besprinkled with dew, but not consumed. He
will give his testimony by night; he will testify by day; by word,
by life, by conduct, he will testify. Dwelling with the Lord Substituting ὤν for
ἐν
τῷ Κυρίῳ
after σύνοικος.
[
The divine law, then, while keeping in mind all virtue, trains man especially to self-restraint, laying this as the foundation of the virtues; and disciplines us beforehand to the attainment of self-restraint by forbidding us to partake of such things as are by nature fat, as the breed of swine, which is full-fleshed. For such a use is assigned to epicures. It is accordingly said that one of the philosophers, giving the etymology of ὗς (sow), said that it was θύς, as being fit only for slaughter (θύσιν) and killing; for life was given to this animal for no other purpose than that it might swell in flesh. Similarly, repressing our desires, it forbade partaking of fishes which have neither fins nor scales; for these surpass other fishes in fleshiness and fatness. From this it was, in my opinion, that the mysteries not only prohibited touching certain animals, but also withdrew certain parts of those slain in sacrifice, for reasons which are known to the initiated. If, then, we are to exercise control over the belly, and what is below the belly, it is clear that we have of old heard from the Lord that we are to check lust by the law.
And this will be completely effected, if we unfeignedly condemn what is the fuel of lust: I mean pleasure. Now they say that the idea of it is a gentle and bland excitement, accompanied with some sensation. Enthralled by this, Menelaus, they say, after the capture of Troy, having rushed to put Helen to death, as having been the cause of such calamities, was nevertheless not able to effect it, being subdued by her beauty, which made him think of pleasure. Whence the tragedians, jeering, exclaimed insultingly against him:—
κύνα, Eurip., Andromache, 629.
And again:—
And I agree with
Antisthenes when he says, “Could I catch Aphrodite, I
would shoot her; for she has destroyed many of our beautiful
and good women.” And he says that “Love Ἐρως, Cupid.
Or, “carpets.” Xenoph., Memorabilia, II. i. 30;
The Words of Virtue to Vice.
“For the minds of those even who are deemed grave, pleasure
makes waxen,” according to Plato; since “each pleasure and
pain nails to the body the soul” of the man, that does not sever
and crucify himself from the passions. “He that loses his
life,” says the Lord, “shall save it;” either giving
it up by exposing it to danger for the Lord’s sake, as He did for
us, or loosing it from fellowship with its habitual life. For if you
would loose, and withdraw, and separate (for this is what the cross
means) your soul from the delight and pleasure that is in this life,
you will possess it, found and resting in the looked-for hope. And this
would be the exercise of death, if we would be content with those
desires which are measured according to nature alone, which do not pass
the limit of those which are in accordance with nature—by going
to excess, or going against nature—in which the possibility of
sinning arises. “We must therefore put on the panoply of God,
that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil; since the
weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the
pulling down of strongholds, casting down reasonings, and every lofty
thing which exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing
every thought into captivity unto the obedience of Christ,”
For of objects that are moved, some are moved
by impulse and appearance, as animals; and some by transposition, as
inanimate objects. And of things without life, plants, they say, are
moved by transposition in order to growth, if we will concede to them
that plants are without life. To stones, then, belongs a permanent state.
Plants have a nature; and the irrational animals possess impulse and
perception, and likewise the two characteristics already specified. i.e., Permanent state and
nature.
[See Epiphan., Opp., ii. 391, ed. Oehler.]
The adherents of Basilides are in the habit of
Or, vie
with.
Valentinus too, in a letter to certain people, writes in
these very words respecting the appendages: “There is one good,
by whose presence παρουσιᾳ
substituted by Grabe for παῤῥησίᾳ.
What, then, let them tell us, is the cause of such a
soul not being cared for from the beginning? Either that it is not worthy
(and somehow a care for it comes to it as from repentance), or it is
a saved nature, as he would have it; and this, of necessity, from the
beginning, being cared for by reason of its affinity, afforded no entrance
to the impure spirits, unless by being forced and found feeble. For were
he to grant that on repentance it preferred what was better, he will say
this unwillingly, being what the truth we hold teaches; namely, that
salvation is from a change due to obedience, but not from nature. For
as the exhalations which arise from the earth, and from marshes, gather
into mists and cloudy masses; so the vapours of fleshly lusts bring on the
soul an evil condition, scattering about the idols of pleasure before the
soul. Accordingly they spread darkness over the light of intelligence, the
spirit attracting the exhalations that arise from lust, and thickening the
masses of the passions by persistency in pleasures. Gold is not taken from
the earth in the lump, but is purified by smelting; then, when made pure,
it is called gold, the earth being purified. For “Ask, and it shall
be given you,”
[See note, book ii. cap. 7, p. 352, supra.] Barnabas, Epist., cap.
xvi. vol. i. p. 147.
He says, then, that sinners exercise activities
appropriate to demons; but he does not say that the spirits themselves
dwell in the soul of the unbeliever. Wherefore he also adds, “See
that the temple of the Lord be gloriously built. Learn, having received
remission of sins; and having set our hope on the Name, let us become
new, created again from the beginning.” For what he says is not
that demons are driven out of us, but that the sins which like them we
commit before believing are remitted. Rightly thus he puts in
opposition what follows: “Wherefore God truly dwells in our home.
He dwells in us. How? The word of His faith, the calling of His
promise, the wisdom of His statutes, the
“I know that I have come upon a heresy; and its chief was wont to say that he fought with pleasure by pleasure, this worthy Gnostic advancing on pleasure in feigned combat, for he said he was a Gnostic; since he said it was no great thing for a man that had not tried pleasure to abstain from it, but for one who had mixed in it not to be overcome [was something]; and that therefore by means of it he trained himself in it. The wretched man knew not that he was deceiving himself by the artfulness of voluptuousness. To this opinion, then, manifestly Aristippus the Cyrenian adhered—that of the sophist who boasted of the truth. Accordingly, when reproached for continually cohabiting with the Corinthian courtezan, he said, “I possess Lais, and am not possessed by her.”
Such also are those (who say that they follow Nicolaus,
quoting an adage of the man, which they pervert, [Clement does not credit the
apostasy of the deacon Nicolas (
For the feeling of pleasure is not at all a necessity, but the accompaniment of certain natural needs—hunger, thirst, cold, marriage. If, then, it were possible to drink without it, or take food, or beget children, no other need of it could be shown. For pleasure is neither a function, nor a state, nor any part of us; but has been introduced into life as an auxiliary, as they say salt was to season food. But when it casts off restraint and rules the house, it generates first concupiscence, which is an irrational propension and impulse towards that which gratifies it; and it induced Epicurus to lay down pleasure as the aim of the philosopher. Accordingly he deifies a sound condition of body, and the certain hope respecting it. For what else is luxury than the voluptuous gluttony and the superfluous abundance of those who are abandoned to self-indulgence? Diogenes writes significantly in a tragedy:—
And what follows, expressed indeed in foul language, but in a manner worthy of the voluptuaries.
Wherefore the divine law appears to me necessarily to menace with fear, that, by caution and attention, the philosopher may acquire and retain absence of anxiety, continuing without fall and without sin in all things. For peace and freedom are not otherwise won, than by ceaseless and unyielding struggles with our lusts. For these stout and Olympic antagonists are keener than wasps, so to speak; and Pleasure especially, not by day only, but by night, is in dreams with witchcraft ensnaringly plotting and biting. How, then, can the Greeks any more be right in running down the law, when they themselves teach that Pleasure is the slave of fear? Socrates accordingly bids “people guard against enticements to eat when they are not hungry, and to drink when not thirsty, and the glances and kisses of the fair, as fitted to inject a deadlier poison than that of scorpions and spiders.” And Antisthenes chose rather “to be demented than delighted.” And the Theban Crates says:—
And at length infers:—
He writes expressly, in other words, “that the stop κατάπαυσμα
(in Theodoret), for which the text reads κατάπλασμα.
And the comic poets attest, while they depreciate the teaching of Zeno the Stoic, to be to the following effect:—
All these, then, are not ashamed clearly to confess the advantage which accrues from caution. And the wisdom which is true and not contrary to reason, trusting not in mere words and oracular utterances, but in invulnerable armour of defence and energetic mysteries, and devoting itself to divine commands, and exercise, and practice, receives a divine power according to its inspiration from the Word.
Already, then, the ægis of the poetic Jove is described as
Iliad, v. 739.
But to those, who are able rightly to understand salvation, I know not what will appear dearer than the gravity of the Law, and Reverence, which is its daughter. For when one is said to pitch too high, as also the Lord says, with reference to certain; so that some of those whose desires are towards Him may not sing out of pitch and tune, I do not understand it as pitching too high in reality, but only as spoken with reference to such as will not take up the divine yoke. For to those, who are unstrung and feeble, what is medium seems too high; and to those, who are unrighteous, what befalls them seems severe justice. For those, who, on account of the favour they entertain for sins, are prone to pardon, suppose truth to be harshness, and severity to be savageness, and him who does not sin with them, and is not dragged with them, to be pitiless. Tragedy writes therefore well of Pluto:—
After this comes ὼς ἔρωτα, which yields no meaning, and has been variously amended, but not satisfactorily. Most likely some words have dropped out of the text. [The note in ed. Migne, nevertheless, is worth consultation.]
For although you are not yet able
to do the things enjoined by the Law, yet, considering that the noblest
examples are set before us in it, we are able to nourish and increase the
love of liberty; and so we shall profit more eagerly as far as we can,
inviting some things, imitating some things, and fearing others. For
thus the righteous of the olden time, who lived according to the law,
“were not from a storied oak, or from a rock;” because they
wish to philosophize truly, took and devoted themselves entirely to
God, and were classified under faith. Zeno said well of the Indians,
that he would rather have seen one Indian roasted, than have learned
the whole of the arguments about bearing pain. But we have exhibited
before our eyes every day abundant sources of martyrs that are burnt,
impaled, beheaded. All these the fear inspired by the law,—leading
as a pædagogue to Christ, trained so as to manifest their piety by their
blood. “God stood in the congregation of the gods; He judgeth in the
midst of the gods.”
We must then exercise ourselves in taking
care about those things which fall under the power of the passions,
fleeing like those who are truly philosophers such articles of food as
excite lust, and dissolute licentiousness in chambering and luxury;
and the sensations that tend to luxury, which are a solid reward to
others, must no longer be so to us. For God’s greatest gift is
self-restraint. For He Himself has said, “I will neyer leave thee,
nor forsake thee,”
Epicurus, in placing happiness in not being hungry,
or thirsty, or cold, uttered that godlike word, saying impiously that
he would fight in these points even with Father Jove; teaching, as if
it were the case of pigs that live in filth and not that of rational
philosophers, that happiness was victory. For of those that are ruled by
pleasure are the Cyrenaics and Epicurus; for these expressly said that
to live pleasantly was the chief end, and that pleasure was the only
perfect good. Epicurus also says that the removal of pain is pleasure;
and says that that is to be preferred, which first attracts from itself
to itself, being, that is, wholly in motion. Dinomachus and Callipho said
that the chief end was for one to do what he could for the attainment
and enjoyment of pleasure; and Hieronymus the Peripatetic said the great
end was to live unmolested, and that the only final good was happiness;
and Diodorus likewise, who belonged to the same sect, pronounces the end
to be to live undisturbed and well. Epicurus indeed, and the Cyrenaics,
say that pleasure is the first duty; for it is for the sake of pleasure,
they say,
But the Aristotelians lay it down, that to live in accordance with virtue is the end, but that neither happiness nor the end is reached by every one who has virtue. For the wise man, vexed and involved in involuntary mischances, and wishing gladly on these accounts to flee from life, is neither fortunate nor happy. For virtue needs time; for that is not acquired in one day which exists [only] in the perfect man since, as they say, a child is never happy. But human life is a perfect time, and therefore happiness is completed by the three kinds of good things. Neither, then, the poor, nor the mean nor even the diseased, nor the slave, can be one of them.
Again, on the other hand, Zeno the Stoic thinks the end to be living according to virtue; and, Cleanthes, living agreeably to nature in the right exercise of reason, which he held to consist of the selection of things according to nature. And Antipatrus, his friend, supposes the end to consist in choosing continually and unswervingly the things which are according to nature, and rejecting those contrary to nature. Archedamus, on the other hand, explained the end to be such, that in selecting the greatest and chief things according to nature, it was impossible to overstep it. In addition to these, Panætius pronounced the end to be, to live according to the means given to us by nature. And finally, Posidonius said that it was to live engaged in contemplating the truth and order of the universe, and forming himself as he best can, in nothing influenced by the irrational part of his soul. And some of the later Stoics defined the great end to consist in living agreeably to the constitution of man. Why should I mention Aristo? He said that the end was indifference; but what is indifferent simply abandons the indifferent. Shall I bring forward the opinions of Herillus? Herillus states the end to be to live according to science. For some think that the more recent disciples of the Academy define the end to be, the steady abstraction of the mind to its own impressions. Further, Lycus the Peripatetic used to say that the final end was the true joy of the soul; as Leucimus, that it was the joy it had in what was good. Critolaus, also a Peripatetic, said that it was the perfection of a life flowing rightly according to nature, referring to the perfection accomplished by the three kinds according to tradition.
We must, however, not rest satisfied with
these, but endeavour as we best can to adduce the doctrines laid
down on the point by the naturalist; for they say that Anaxagoras of
Clazomenæ affirmed contemplation and the freedom flowing from
it to be the end of life; Heraclitus the Ephesian, complacency. The
Pontic Heraclides relates, that Pythagoras taught that the knowledge
of the perfection of the numbers The text has ἀρετῶν,
virtues, for which, in accordance with Pythagoras’
well-known opinion, ἀριθμῶν
has been substituted from Theodoret. For κατάπληξιν
of the text, Heinsius reads ἀκατάπληξιν,
which corresponds to the other term ascribed
to Democritus—ἁθαμβίην.
Further, Plato the philosopher says that the end is twofold:
that which is communicable, and exists first in the ideal forms
themselves, which he also calls “the good;” and that which
partakes of it, and receives its likeness from it, as is the case in
the men who appropriate virtue and true philosophy. Wherefore also
Cleanthes, in the second book, On Pleasure, says that Socrates
everywhere teaches that the just man and the happy are one and the
same, and execrated the first man who separated the just from the
useful, as having done an impious thing. For those are in truth impious
who separate the useful from that which is right according to the law.
Plato himself says that happiness
Probably
Since pleasure and lust seem to fall under
marriage, it must also be treated of. Marriage is the first conjunction
of man and woman for the procreation of legitimate children. [He places the essence of
marriage in the chaste consummation itself, the first after lawful
nuptials. Such is the force of this definition, which the note in
ed. Migne misrepresents, as if it were a denial that second
nuptials are marriage.]
We ask if we ought to marry; which
is one of the points, which are said to be relative. For some must marry,
and a man must be in some condition, and he must marry some one in some
condition. For every one is not to marry, nor always. But there is a time
in which it is suitable, and a person for whom it is suitable, and an
age up to which it is suitable. Neither ought every one to take a wife,
nor is it every woman one is to take, nor always, nor in every way, nor
inconsiderately. But only he who is in certain circumstances, and such
an one and at such time as is requisite, and for the sake of children,
and one who is in every respect similar, and who does not by force or
compulsion love the husband who loves her. Hence Abraham, regarding his
wife as a sister, says, “She is my sister by my father, but not by
my mother; and she became my wife,”
But they who approve of marriage say, Nature has adapted
us for marriage, as is evident from the structure of our bodies, which
are male and female. And they constantly proclaim that command,
“Increase and replenish.” [The offering of the purification
has a beautiful regard to the example of the turtle-dove; and the
marriage-ring may have been suggested by the ringdove, a symbol of
constancy in nature.]
Then he adds:—
And so forth.
Now marriage is a help in the case of those advanced in years, by furnishing a spouse to take care of one, and by rearing children of her to nourish one’s old age.
The corrections of Stanley on these lines have been adopted. They occur in the Choephoræ of Æschylus, 503, but may have been found in Sophocles, as the tragic poets borrowed from one another.
according to the tragic poet Sophocles.
Legislators, moreover, do not allow those who
are unmarried to discharge the highest magisterial offices. For
instance, the legislator of the Spartans imposed a fine not on
bachelorhood only, but on monogamy, i.e., not entering into a second marriage
after a wife’s death. But instead of μονογαμίου
some read κακογαμίου—bad
marriage.
[To be a mother, indeed, one must be first a wife; the woman who has a child out of wedlock is not entitled to this holy name.]
Accordingly Homer makes a thing to be earnestly prayed for:—
yet not simply, but along with good agreement. For the marriage of other people is an agreement for indulgence; but that of philosophers leads to that agreement which is in accordance with reason, bidding wives adorn themselves not in outward appearance, but in character; and enjoining husbands not to treat their wedded wives as mistresses, making corporeal wantonness their aim; but to take advantage of marriage for help in the whole of life, and for the best self-restraint.
Far more excellent, in my opinion, than the seeds of wheat and barley that are sown at appropriate seasons, is man that is sown, for whom all things grow; and those seeds temperate husbandmen ever sow. Every foul and polluting practice must therefore be purged away from marriage; that the intercourse of the irrational animals may not be cast in our teeth, as more accordant with nature than human conjunction in procreation. Some of these, it must be granted, desist at the time in which they are directed, leaving creation to the working of Providence.
By the tragedians, Polyxena, though being murdered, is described nevertheless as having, when dying, taken great care to fall decently,—
Marriage to her was a calamity. To be
subjected, then, to the passions, and to yield to them, is the extremest
slavery; as to keep them in subjection is the only liberty. The divine
Scripture accordingly says, that those who have transgressed the
commandments are sold to strangers, that is, to sins alien to nature,
till they return and repent. Marriage, then, as a sacred image, must be
kept pure from those things which defile it. [A holy marriage, as here so beautifully defined,
was something wholly unknown to Roman and Greek civilization. Here we
find the Christian family established.]
confessing the Lord in our whole life; possessing piety in the soul, and extending self-control to the body. For it is pleasing to God to lead decorum from the tongue to our actions. Filthy speech is the way to effrontery; and the end of both is filthy conduct.
Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows
no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, “Thou
shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;”
and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the
other is alive. Not to deck and adorn herself beyond what is becoming,
renders a wife free of calumnious suspicion, while she devotes herself
assiduously to prayers and supplications; avoiding frequent departures
from the house, and shutting herself up as far as possible from the
view of all not related to her, and deeming housekeeping of more
consequence than impertinent trifling. “He that taketh a woman
that has been put away,” it is said, “committeth adultery;
and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress,”
Let us conclude this second book of the Stromata at this point, on account of the length and number of the chapters.
(On the Greeks, cap. i. note 3, p. 347.)
The admirable comments of Stier on the
Greeks, who said to Philip, “We would see Jesus,” Reden Jesu. St.
(See p. 352, note 9.)
Μόνος
ὁ σοφὸς
ἐλέυφερος.
Stier, in his comments
“Words of Jesus.” Translation (vol. v. p. 354, ed. Edinburgh,
1856).
(See p. 359.)
Clement notes that
the false Gnostics rejected the Epistles to Timothy, Stromata, book
ii. cap. xi. p. 358, supra.
Quotation from Milman, p. 166, this volume.
Now, if in dealing with counterfeits Clement was obliged to meet them on their own grounds, and defeat them on a plan, at once intelligible to the heathen, and enabling all believers to “fight the good fight of faith” successfully, we must concede that he knew better than we can, what was suited to the Alexandrian schools, their intellect, and their false mysticism. His works were a great safeguard to those who came after him; though they led to the false system of exposition by which Origen so greatly impaired his services to the Church, and perhaps to other evils, which, in the issue, shook the great patriarchate of Alexandria to its foundations. It is curious to trace the influence of Clement, through Tertullian and St. Augustine, upon the systems of the schoolmen, and again, through them, on the Teutonic reformers. The mysticism of Fénelon as well, may be traced, more than is generally credited, to the old Alexandrian school, which was itself the product of some of the most subtle elements of our nature, sanctified, but not wholly controlled, by the wisdom that is from above. Compare the interminable controversies of the period, in the writings of Fénelon and Bossuet; and, for a succinct history, see L’Histoire de l’église de France, par l’Abbe Guettée, tom. xi. p. 156 et seqq.
After much consideration, the Editors have deemed it best to give the whole of this book in Latin. [In the former Book, Clement has shown, not without a decided leaning to chaste celibacy, that marriage is a holy estate, and consistent with the perfect man in Christ. He now enters upon the refutation of the false-Gnostics and their licentious tenets. Professing a stricter rule to begin with, and despising the ordinances of the Creator, their result was the grossest immorality in practice. The melancholy consequences of an enforced celibacy are, here, all foreseen and foreshown; and this Book, though necessarily offensive to our Christian tastes, is most useful as a commentary upon the history of monasticism, and the celibacy of priests, in the Western churches. The resolution of the Edinburgh editors to give this Book to scholars only, in the Latin, is probably wise. I subjoin a succint analysis, in the elucidations.]
Ac
Valentiniani quidem, qui desuper ex divinis emissionibus deduxere
conjugationes, acceptum habent matrimonium: Basilidis autem
sectatores, “Cum interrogassent, inquiunt, apostoli, nun sit
melius uxorem non ducere, dicunt respondisse Dominum: ‘Non omnes
capiunt verbum hoc. Sunt enim eunuchi alii a nativitate, alii vero a
necessitate.’”
Qui autem a Carpocrate descendunt et Epiphane,
censent oportere uxores esse communes; a quibus contra nomen Christi
maximum emanavit probruin. Hic autem Epiphanes, cujus etiam scripta
feruntur, filius erat Carpocratis, et matris Alexandriæ nomine,
ex patre quidera Alexandrinus, ex matre vero Cephalleneus. Vixit autem
solum septemdecim annos, et Same, quæ est urbs Cephalleniæ, ut
deus est honore affectus. Quo in loco templum ex ingentibus lapidibus,
altaria, delubra, museum, ædificatum est et consecratum; et
cure est nova luna, convenientes Cephallenei, diem natalem, quo in
deos relatus est Epiphanes, sacrificant, libantque, et convivantur,
et hymnos canunt. A patre autem didicit et orbem disciplinarum
et Platonis philosophiam. Fuit autem princeps monadicæ Vid. Irenæum,
lib. i. c. 2, p. 51.
Jam vero si et ipse Plato et Pythagorei, sicut
etiam postea Marcionitæ, malam existimarunt esse generationem,
longe abfuit, ut communes ipse poneret uxores. Sed Marcionitæ
Et amplius:—
Et rursus:—
Dicit autem Sibylla quoque:—
Similiter atque pœta, qui scribit:—
Quin etiam Theognis malam ostendit esse generationera, dicens hoc modo:—
His autem consequenria scribit quoque Euripides, pœta tragicus:—
Et rursus similia sic dicit:—
Idem quod hi, videtur Herodotus quoque inducere dicentem Solonera: “O Crœse, quivis homo nihil est aliud quam calamitas.” Jam vero ejus de Cleobide et Bitone fabula plane nihil aliud vult, quam vituperare generationera, laudare autern morterm.
Et qualis folii, est heminum generatia talis, ait
Homerus. Plato autem in Cratylo, Orpheo tribuit eum sermonem,
quo anima puniri in corpore dicitur: “Nempe corpus hoc
animæ σῆμα,”
monumentum, “quidam esse tradunt: quasi ipsa præsenti in
tempore sit sepulta; atque etiam quia anima per corpus σημαίνει,“ significat, “quæcunclue significare potest: iedo
σῆμα jure vocari.
Videatur mihi præterea Orpheus nomen hoc ob id potissimum imposuisse,
quod anima in corpore hoc delictorum luat pœnas.” Operæ pretium
est autem meminisse etiam eorum, quæ dicit Philolaus. Sic enim dicit
hic Pythagoreus: “Testantur autem veteres quoque theologi et
vates, ad luenda supplicia animam conjunctam esse corpori, et in eo
tanquam in monumento esse sepultam.” Quin etiam Pindarus
de iis, quæ sunt in Eleusine, mysteriis loquens, infert: “Beatus,
qui cum ilia sub terra videtit communia, novit quidem vitæ finem,
novit autem datum Jovis imperium.” Et Plato similiter in
Pædonene non veretur hoc modo scribere: “Porto autem hi, qui
nobishæc constituerunt mysteria, non aliquid aliud,” usque ad:
“Et cure diis habitatlone.” Quid vero, cum dieit:
“Quandiu corpus habuefimus, et anima nostra cum ejusmodi malo
admista fuerit, illud, quod desideramus, nunquam satis assequemur?” annon significat generationem esse causam maximorum malorum? Jam
vero in Phædone quoque testatur: “Evenit enim, ut qui
recte philosophantur, non animadvertantur ab aliis in nullam rem aliam
suum studium conferre, quam ut emoriantur, et sint mortui.” Et
runus: “Ergo hic quoque philosophi anima corpus maxime
vilipendit, et ab eo fugit, ipsa autem secum seorsim esse
quærit.” Nunquid autem consentit cum divino Apostolo, qui dicit:
“Infelix ego homo, quis me liberabit a corpore mortis hujus?”
Et adhuc similiter:—
In his autem, quæ deinceps sequuntur, malorum quoque causam evidenter reducit ad principia, sic dicens:—
Rursus autem his similia tradit:—
Et deinde rursus:—
Et adhuc similiter:—
Hac itaque ratione dicunt etiam Pythagoreos abstinere a rebus venereis. Mihi autem contra videntur uxores quidem ducere, ut liberos suscipiant, velle autem a venerea voluptate se continere post susceptos liberos. Proinde mystice uti fabis prohibent, non quod sit legumen flatum excitens, et concoctu difficile, et somnia efficiat turbulenta; neque quod hominis capiti sit sireills ut vult ille versiculus:—
sed potius quod fabæ, si comedantur, steriles efficiant mulieres. Theophrastus quidem certe in quinto libro De causis plantarum, fabarum siliquas, si ponantur ad radices arborum quæ nuper sunt plantatæ, refert plantas exsiccare. Quinetiam gallinæ domesticæ, quæ eas assidue comedunt, efficiuntur steriles.
Ex iis autem, qui ab hæresi ducuntur, Marciohis quidem Pontici
fecimus mentionem, qui propter certamen, quod adversus Creatorem
suscepit, mundanarum rerum usum recusat. Ei autem continentiæ causa
est, si modo est ea dicenda continentia, ipse Creator, cui se adversari
existimans gigas iste cum Deo pugnans, est invitus continens, dum in
creationem et Dei opus invehitur. Quod si usurpent vocem Domini, qui
dicit Philippo: “Sine mortuos sepelire mortuos suos, tu autem
sequere me:”
Ne ergo hunc locum ungue amplius fodicantes plurium
absurdalum hæresium meminerimus; nec rursus dum in singulis adversus
unamquamque dicere necesse habemus, propterea pudore afficiamur, et
nimis prolixos hos faciamus commenratios, age in duo dividentes omnes
hæreses, eis respondeamus.
ut qui malum a se accersitum, nunc et in posterum eligant. Si ergo
“omnia licerent,” nec timendum esset ne a spe excideremus
propter malas actiones, esset fortasse eis aliquis præ textus, cur
male viverent et miserabiliter. Quoniam autem vita beata nobis ostensa
est per præcepta, quam oportet omnes sequentes, nec aliquid eorum,
quæ dicta sunt, perperam intelligentes, nec eorum, quæ convenit,
aliquid, etsi sit vel minimum, contemnentes, sequi quo Iogos ducit;
quiâ, si ab eo aberraverimus, in malum immortale incidamus necesse est;
si divinam autem Scripturam secuti fuerimus, per quam ingrediuntur, qui
crediderunt, ut Domino, quoad fieri potest, assimilentur, non est
vivendum indifferenter, sed pro viribus mundos esse oportet a
voluptatibus et cupiditatibus, curaque est gerenda animæ, qua apud
solum Deum perseverandum est. Mens enim, quæ est munda et ab omni
vitio libera, est quodammodo apta ad potestatem Dei suscipiendam, cum
divina in ea assurgat imago: “Et quicunque habet hanc spem in
Domino, seipsum,” inquit, “mundum castumque facit, quatenus
ille est castus.”
Adversus autem alterurn genus hæreticorum,
Si resurrectionem itaque receperint, ut ipsi dienut, et
ideo matrimonium infirmant et abrogant; nec comedant, nec bibant:
“destrui”
[De disconissa primitiva,
confer Bunsenium, apud Hippol., vol. iii. p. 41.]
Quomodo autem fuerit is qui petit et accipit, et is qui
mutuatur, si nullus sit qui habeat etdet mutuo? Quid vero? quando dicit
Dominus: “Esurivi, et me pavistis; sitii, et potum mihi dedistis;
hospes cram, et me collegistis; nudus, et me vestiistis;”
Humana ergo continentia,
Quoniam autem qui introducunt indifferentiam,
paucas quasdam Scripturas detorquentes, titillanti suæ
voluptati eas suffragari existimant; rum præcipue illam quoque:
“Peccatum enim vestri non dominabitur; non estis enim sub lege,
sed sub gratia;”
Qui autem Dei creaturæ resistunt per
speciosam illam continentiam, illa quoque dicunt, quæ ad Salomen
dicta sunt, quorum prius meminimus: habentur autem, ut existimo,
in Evangelio secundum Ægyptios.
Quinam sunt autem illi “duo et tres, qui
congregantur in nomine Domini, in” quorum “medio”
est Dominus?
His sic ostensis, age Scripturas, quæ
adversantur sophistis hæreticis, jam adducamus, et regulam
continentiæ secundum logon seu rationem observandam declaremus. Qui
vero intelligit, quæ Scriptura cuique hæresi contraria sit,
cam tempestive adhibendo refutabit eos, qui dogmata mandatis contraria
fingunt. Atque ut ab alto rem repetamus, lex quidem, sicut prius
diximus, illud, “Non concupisces uxorem proximi tui,”
Quod autem “ex consensu ad tempus orationi vacat”
conjugium, doctrina est continentiæ. Adjecit enim illud quidem,
“ex consensu,” ne quis dissolveret matrimonium; “ad
tempus autem,”
Sophon. iii. 19.
Talibus argumentis utitur quoque Julius
Cassianus,
Jam vero vel invitum cogit Paulam generationem ex deceptione
deducere, cure dicit: “Vereor autem, ne sicut serpens Evam
decepit, corrupti sint sensus vestri a simplicitate, quæ est in
Christo.”
Et rursus cure dicit: “Bonum est homini
uxorem non tangere, sed propter fornicationes unusquisque suam uxorem
habeat;”
“Exsecranda” autem “dies in qua
natus sum, et ut non sit optanda,”
4 Esdr. v. 35.
Sin autem malum est generatio, in malo blasphemi
dicant fuisse Dominum qui fuit particeps generationis, in malo Virginera
quæ genuit. Hei mihi! quot et quanta mala! Dei voluntatera maledictis
incessunt, et mysterium creationis, dum invehuntur in generationera. Et
hinc “Docesin” fingit Cassianus; hinc etiam Marcioni,
et Valentino quoque est corpus animale; quoniam homo, inquiunt,
operam dans veneri, “assimilatus est jumentis.”
Justitiam ergo et salutis harmoniam, quæ
est veneranda firmaque, alii quidem, ut ostendimus, nimium intenderunt,
blaspheme ac maledice cure quavis impietate suscipientes continentiam;
cure pie liceret castitatem, qu secundum sanam regulam instituitur,
eligere; gratias quidem agendo propter datam ipsis gratiam, non habendo
antem odio creatumm, neque eos aspernando, qui juncti sunt matrimonio;
est enim creatus mundus, cream est etiam castitas; ambo autem agant
gratias in iis, in quibus sunt collocati, si modo ea quoque norunt, in
quibus sunt collocati. Alii autem effrenati se petulanter et insolenter
gesserunt, revem “effecti equi in feminas insanientes, et ad
proximorum suorum uxores hinnientes;”
(See p. 381, cap. i.)
In his third book, Clement exposes
the Basilidians and others who perverted the rule of our Lord, which
permissively, but not as of obligation, called some to the self-regimen
of a single life, on condition of their possessing the singular gift
requisite to the same. True continence, he argues, implies the command
of the tongue, and all manner of concupiscence, such as greed of wealth,
or luxury in using it. If, by a divine faculty and gift of grace, it
enables us to practice temperance, very well; but more is necessary. As to
marriage, he states what seems to him to be the truth. We honour celibate
chastity, and esteem them blest to whom this is God’s gift. We
Our author then proceeds to a castigation of
Carpocrates, and his son Epiphanes, an Alexandrian on his father’s
side, who, though he lived but seventeen years, his mother being a
Cephallenian, received divine honours at Sama, where a magnificent
temple, with altars and shrines, was erected to him; the Cephallenians
celebrating his apotheosis, by a new-moon festival, with sacrifices,
libations and hymns, and convivialities. This youth acquired, from
his father, a knowledge of Plato’s philosophy and of the circle
of the sciences. He was the author of the jargon about monads, See vol. i. p. 332, note 4,
this series.
(See p. 383, cap. ii. note 1.)
The early disappearance of the
Christian agapæ may probably be attributed to the terrible
abuse of the word here referred to, by the licentious Carpocratians. The
genuine agapæ were of apostolic origin (2 Pet. ii. 13;
(See p. 383, note 3.)
Next, he treats of the Marcionites, who rejected marriage on the ground that the material creation is in itself evil. Promising elsewhere to deal with this general false principle, he refutes Marcion, and with him the Greeks who have condemned the generative law of nature, specifying Heraclitus, Empedocles, the Sibyl, Homer, and others; but he defends Plato against Marcion, who represents him as teaching the depravity of matter. He proceeds to what the dramatists have exhibited of human misery. He shows the error of those who represent the Pythagoreans as on that account denying themselves the intimacies of conjugal society; for he says they practiced this restraint, only after having given themselves a family. He explains the prohibition of the bean, by Pythagoras, on the very ground, that it occasioned sterility in women according to Theophrastus. Clement expounds the true meaning of Christ’s words, perverted by those who abstained from marriage not in honour of encraty, but as an insane impeachment of the divine wisdom in the material creation.
(See p. 385, note 3.)
He refutes the Carpocratians, also, in their slanders against the deacon Nicolas, showing that the Nicolaitans had abused his name and words. Likewise, concerning Matthias, he exposes a similar abuse. He castigates one who seduced a maiden into impurity by an absurd perversion of Scripture, and thoroughly exposes this blasphemous abuse of the apostolic text. He subjoins another refutation of one of those heretics, and allows that some might adopt the opinion of his dupes, if, as the Valentinians would profess, only spiritual communion were concerned.
Seeing, however, that these heretics, and the followers of Prodicus, who wrongfully call themselves gnostics, claimed a practical indulgence in all manner of disgusting profligacies, he convicts them by arguments derived from right reason and from the Scriptures, and by human laws as well. Further, he exposes the folly of those who pretended that the less honourable parts of man are not the work of the Creator, and overwhelms their presumption by abundant argument, exploding, at the same time, their corruptions of the sacred text of the Scriptures.
(See p. 388, note 3.)
To relieve himself of a more particular struggle with each individual heresy, he proceeds to reduce them under two heads: (1) Those who teach a reckless mode of life (ἀδιαφόρως ζῆν), and (2) those who impiously affect continence. To the first, he opposes the plain propriety and duty of a decorous way of living continently; showing, that as it cannot be denied that there are certain abominable and filthy lusts, which, as such, must be shunned, therefore there is no such thing as living “indifferently” with respect to them. He who lives to the flesh, moreover, is condemned; nor can the likeness and image of God be regained, or eternal life be ensured, save by a strict observance of divine precepts. Further, our author shows that true Christian liberty consists, not, as they vociferate, in self-indulgence, but, on the contrary, is founded in an entire freedom from perturbations of mind and passion, and from all filthy lusts.
(See p. 389, note 4.)
As to the second class of heretics, he reproves the contemners of God’s ordinance, who boast of a false continence, and scorn holy matrimony and the creation of a family. He contends with them by the authority of St. John, and first answers objections of theirs, based on certain apocryphal sayings of Christ to Salome; next, somewhat obscurely, he answers their notions of laws about marriage imposed in the Old Law, and, as they pretend, abrogated in the New; thirdly, he rebukes their perpetual clatter about the uncleanness of conjugal relations; and, fourth, he pulverizes their arguments derived from the fact, that the children of the resurrection “neither marry, nor are given in marriage.”
Then he gives his attention to another class of
heretics boasting that they followed the example of Christ, and presuming
to teach that marriage is of the devil. He expounds the exceptional
celibacy of the Messiah, by the two natures of the Godman, which need
nothing but a reverent statement to expose the fallacy of arguing from
His example in this particular, seeing He, alone, of all the sons of men,
is thus supreme over all considerations of human nature, pure and simple,
as it exists in the sons of Adam. Moreover, He espoused the Church,
which is His
And here let it be noted, how continually the heresies of these times seem to turn on this matter of the sexes. It is impossible to cleanse a dirty house, without raising a dust and a bad smell; and heathenism, which had made lust into a religion, and the worship of its gods a school of gross vice, penetrating all classes of society, could not be exorcised, and give place to faith, hope and charity, without this process of conflict, in which Clement distinguishes himself. At the same time, the wisdom of our Lord’s precepts and counsels are manifest, in this history. Alike He taught the sanctity and blessedness of marriage and maternity, and the exceptional blessedness of the celibate when received as a gift of God, for a peculiar ministry. Thus heathen morals were rebuked and castigated, womanhood was lifted to a sphere of unwonted honour, and the home was created and sanctified in the purity and chastity of the Christian wife; while yet a celibate chastity was recognised as having a high place in the Christian system. The Lord prescribes to all, whether married or unmarried, a law of discipline and evangelical encraty. The Christian homes of England and America may be pointed out, thank God, as illustrating the divine wisdom; while the degraded monasteries of Italy and Spain and South America, with the horrible history of enforced celibacy in the Latin priesthood, are proofs of the unwisdom of those who imported into the Western churches the very heresies and abortive argumentations which Clement disdains, while he pulverizes them and blows them away, thoroughly purging his floor, and burning up this chaff.
(See p. 390, note 16.)
Here it is specially important to
observe what Clement demonstrates, not only from the teachings of the
apostles, of Elijah and Samuel and the Master Himself, but, finally
and irrefragably, from the apostolic example. He names St. Peter here
as elsewhere, and notes his memorable history as a married man. See the touching story
of St. Peter’s words to his wife as she was led to martyrdom
(Stromata, book vii. p. 451, Edinburgh Edition).
(See p. 391, note 18.)
He passes to a demonstration of the superiority of Christian continence over the sort of self-constraint lauded by Stoics and other philosophers. God only can enable man to practice a genuine continence, not merely contending with depraved lusts, but eradicating them. Here follow some interesting examples drawn from the brahmins and fakirs of India; interesting tokens, by the way, of the assaults the Gospel had already made upon their strongholds about the Ganges.
(See, p. 392, note 4.)
Briefly he explains another text, “Sin shall not have dominion over you,” which the heretics wrested from the purpose and intent of St. Paul. He also returns to a passage from the apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews, and to the pretended conversation of Christ with Salome, treating it, perhaps, with more consideration than it merits.
(See p. 392, note 11.)
But this Gospel of the Hebrews,
and another apocryphal Gospel, that of the Egyptians, may be worthy
of a few words just here. Jones (On the Canon, vol. i. p. 206)
very learnedly maintains that Clement “never saw it,” nor
used it for any quotation of his own. And, as for a Gospel written in the
Hebrew tongue, Clement could not read Hebrew; the single citation he makes
out of it, being, probably, at second hand. Greatly to the point is the
argument of Lardner,
Works, ii. 252. See, also, the apocryphal collection in this series,
hereafter.
(See p. 393, note 5; also Elucidation xvii. p. 408, infra.)
Ingenious is Clement’s exposition of that saying of our Lord, “Where two or three are met together in my name,” etc. He explodes a monstrous exposition of the text, and ingeniously applies it to the Christian family. The husband and the wife living in chaste matrimony, and the child which God bestows, are three in sweet society, who may claim and enjoy the promise. This reflects great light upon the Christian home, as it rose, like a flower, out of the “Church in the house.” Family prayers, the graces before and after meat, the hymn “On lighting the lamps at eventide,” and the complines, or prayers at bedtime, are all the products of the divine contract to be with the “two or three” who are met in His name to claim that inconceivably precious promise. Other texts from St. Matthew are explained, in their Catholic verity, by our venerable author.
(See p. 394, note 1.)
He further expounds the Catholic
idea of marriage, and rescues, from heretical adulteration, the
precept of Moses (
(See p. 396, note 5.)
The melancholy example of Tatian is
next instanced, in his departures from orthodox encraty. Against poor
Tatian’s garrulity, he proves the sanctity of marriage, alike in
the New and the Old Testaments. A curious argument he adduces against
the ceremonial washing prescribed by the
A curious objection is met and dismissed. The man who excused himself “because he had married a wife,” was a great card for heretical manipulations; but no need of saying that Clement knows how to turn this, also, upon their own hands.
(See p. 398, note 8.)
Julius Cassianus (assigned by Lardner to a.d. 190) was an Alexandrian Encratite, of whom, whatever his faults, Clement speaks not without respect. He is quoted with credit in the Stromata (book i. cap. xxi. p. 324), but comes into notice here, as having led off the school of Docetism. But Clement does not treat him as he does the vulgar and licentious errorist. He reproves him for his use of the Gospel according to the Egyptians, incidentally testifying to the Catholic recognition of only four Gospels. He refutes a Platonic idea of Cassian, as to the pre-existence of the soul. Also, he promises a full explanation, elsewhere, of “the coats of skins” (which Cassian seems to have thought the flesh itself), wherewith Adam and Eve were clothed. Lardner refers us to Beausobre for a curious discussion of this matter. Clement refutes a false argument from Christ’s hyperbole of hatred to wife and children and family ties, and also gives lucid explanations of passages from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezra, which had been wrested to heretical abuse. In a similar manner, he overthrows what errorists had built upon Job’s saying, “who can bring a clean thing out of the unclean;” as also their false teachings on the texts, “In sin hath my mother conceived me,” “the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul,” and the apostolic instance of the athlete who is “temperate in all things.”
(See p. 400, cap. xvii. and 401, note 2.)
He proclaims the purity of
physical generation, because of the parturition of the Blessed Virgin;
castigating the docetism of Cassian, who had presumed to speak
of the body of Jesus as a phantasm, and the grosser blasphemies
of Marcion and Valentinus, equally destructive to the Christ of
the Gospel.
In using the phrase ecclesia nostra (ἡ κατὰ τὴν
Ἐκκλησιαν
καθ᾽ ἡμας), which
I take to refer to the church militant, we encounter a formula which
we use differently in our day.
(See p, 402, note 8.)
From all which Clement concludes
that his two classes of heretics are alike wanderers from Catholic
orthodoxy; whether, on the one hand, under divers pretexts glorifying
an unreal continence
(On
To the interpretation I have thought preferable, and which I ventured to enlarge, it should be added that our author subjoins others, founded on flesh, soul, and spirit; on vocation, election, and the Gnostic accepting both; and on the Jew and the Gentile, and the Church gathered from each race.
Over and over again Clement asserts that a life of chaste wedlock is not to be accounted imperfect.
On the celibate in practice, see Le Célibat des Prêtres, par l’abbé Chavard, Genèva, 1874.
The Commentaria of Le Nourry have been my guide to the brief analysis of these Elucidations, though I have not always allowed the learned Benedictine to dictate an opinion, or to control my sense of our author’s argument.
It will follow, I think, that I should treat of martyrdom, and of who the perfect man is. With these points shall be included what follows in accordance with the demands of the points to be spoken about, and how both bond and free must equally philosophize, whether male or female in sex. And in the sequel, after finishing what is to be said on faith and inquiry, we shall set forth the department of symbols; so that, on cursorily concluding the discourse on ethics, we shall exhibit the advantage which has accrued to the Greeks from the barbarian philosophy. After which sketch, the brief explanation of the Scriptures both against the Greeks and against the Jews will be presented, and whatever points we were unable to embrace in the previous Miscellanies (through having respect necessarily to the multitude of matters), in accordance with the commencement of the poem, purposing to finish them in one commentary. In addition to these points, afterwards on completing the sketch, as far as we can in accordance with what we propose, we must give an account of the physical doctrines of the Greeks and of the barbarians, respecting elementary principles, as far as their opinions have reached us, and argue against the principal views excogitated by the philosophers.
It will naturally fall after these, after a cursory view of theology, to discuss the opinions handed down respecting prophecy; so that, having demonstrated that the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority, we shall be able to go over them consecutively, and to show thence to all the heresies one God and Omnipotent Lord to be truly preached by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel. Many contradictions against the heterodox await us while we attempt, in writing, to do away with the force of the allegations made by them, and to persuade them against their will, proving by the Scriptures themselves.
On completing, then, the whole of what we propose in the commentaries, on which, if the Spirit will, we ministering to the urgent need, (for it is exceedingly necessary, before coming to the truth, to embrace what ought to be said by way of preface), shall address ourselves to the true gnostic science of nature, receiving initiation into the minor mysteries before the greater; so that nothing may be in the way of the truly divine declaration of sacred things, the subjects requiring preliminary detail and statement being cleared away, and sketched beforehand. The science of nature, then, or rather observation, as contained in the gnostic tradition according to the rule of the truth, depends on the discussion concerning cosmogony, ascending thence to the department of theology. Whence, then, we shall begin our account of what is handed down, with the creation as related by the prophets, introducing also the tenets of the heterodox, and endeavouring as far as we can to confute them. But it shall be written if God will, and as He inspires; and now we must proceed to what we proposed, and complete the discourse on ethics.
Let these notes of ours, as we have often said
for the sake of those that consult them carelessly and unskilfully,
be of varied character—and as the name itself indicates, patched
together—passing constantly from one thing to another, and in the
series of discussions hinting at one thing and demonstrating another.
“For those who seek for gold,” says Heraclitus, “dig
much earth and find little gold.” But those who are of the truly
golden race, in mining for what is allied to them, will find the much in
little. For the word will find one to understand it. The Miscellanies
of notes contribute, then, to the recollection and expression of truth
in the case of him who is able to investigate with reason.
“For narrow,” in
truth, “and strait is the way” of the Lord. And it is
to the “violent that the kingdom of God belongs.”
Whence, “Seek, and ye shall find,”
holding on by the truly royal road, and not deviating. As we might expect,
then, the generative power of the seeds of the doctrines comprehended in
this treatise is great in small space, as the “universal herbage
of the field,”
Just so our Stromata, according to the husbandman of the comic poet Timocles, produce “figs, olives, dried figs, honey, as from an all-fruitful field;” on account of which exuberance he adds:—
For the Athenians were wont to cry:—
We must then often, as in winnowing sieves, shake and toss up this the great mixture of seeds, in order to separate the wheat.
The most of men have a disposition unstable and
heedless, like the nature of storms. “Want of faith has done
many good things, and faith evil things.” And Epicharmus says,
“Don’t forget to exercise incredulity; for it is the
sinews of the soul.” Now, to disbelieve truth brings death, as
to believe, life; and again, to believe the lie and to disbelieve the
truth hurries to destruction. The same is the case with self-restraint
and licentiousness. To restrain one’s self from doing good is the
work of vice; but to keep from wrong is the beginning of salvation. So the
Sabbath, by abstinence from evils, seems to indicate self-restraint. And
what, I ask, is it in which man differs from beasts, and the angels
of God, on the other hand, are wiser than he? “Thou madest him
a little lower than the angels.”
As slaves the Scripture views
those “under sin” and “sold to sin,” the lovers
of pleasure and of the body; and beasts rather than men, “those who
have become like to cattle, horses, neighing after their neighbours’
wives.”
Whence, as is reasonable, the gnostic, when galled, obeys easily, and gives up his body to him who asks; and, previously divesting himself of the affections of this carcase, not insulting the tempter, but rather, in my opinion, training him and convincing him,—
as says Empedocles, here for the
future he walks with mortals. He, in truth, bears witness to himself
that he is faithful and loyal towards God; and to the tempter, that
he in vain envied him who is faithful through love; and to the Lord,
of the inspired persuasion in reference to His doctrine, from which he
will not depart through fear of death; further, he confirms also the
truth of preaching by his deed, showing that God to whom he hastes is
powerful. You will wonder at his love, which he conspicuously shows with
thankfulness, in being united to what is allied to him, and besides by
his precious blood, shaming the unbelievers. He then avoids denying Christ
through fear by reason of the command; nor does he sell his faith in the
hope of the gifts prepared, but in love to the Lord he will most gladly
depart from this life; perhaps giving thanks both to him who afforded
the cause of his departure hence, and to him who laid the plot against
him, for receiving an honourable reason which he himself furnished not,
for showing what he is, to him by his patience, and to the Lord in love,
by which even before his birth he was manifested to the Lord, who knew
the martyr’s choice. With good courage, then, he goes to the
Lord, his friend, for whom he voluntarily gave his body, and, as his
judges hoped, his soul, hearing from our Saviour the words of poetry,
“Dear brother,” by reason of the similarity of his life. We
call martyrdom perfection, not because the man comes to the end of his
life as others, but because he has exhibited the perfect work of love.
And the ancients laud the death of those among the Greeks who died in
war, not that they advised people to die a violent death, but because he
who ends his life in war is released without the dread of dying, severed
from the body without experiencing previous suffering or being enfeebled
in his soul, as the people that suffer in diseases. For they depart
If the confession to God is martyrdom, each soul
which has lived purely in the knowledge of God, which has obeyed the
commandments, is a witness both by life and word, in whatever way it may
be released from the body,—shedding faith as blood along its whole
life till its departure. For instance, the Lord says in the Gospel,
“Whosoever shall leave father, or mother, or brethren,”
and so forth, “for the sake of the Gospel and my name,”
Then Heraclitus says, “Gods and men honour
those slain in battle;” and Plato in the fifth book of the
Republic writes, “Of those who die in military service,
whoever dies after winning renown, shall we not say that he is chief
of the golden race? Most assuredly.” But the golden race is
with the gods, who are in heaven, in the fixed sphere, who chiefly
hold command in the providence exercised towards men. Now some of the
heretics who have misunderstood the Lord, have at once an impious
and cowardly love of life; saying that the true martyrdom is the
knowledge of the only true God (which we also admit), and that the
man is a self-murderer and a suicide who makes confession by death;
and adducing other similar sophisms of cowardice. To these we shall
reply at the proper time; for they differ with us in regard to first
principles. Now we, too, say that those who have rushed on death (for
there are some, not belonging to us, but sharing the name merely, who
are in haste to give themselves up, the poor wretches dying through
hatred to the Creator
Demiurgus.
But since these falsely named [οἱ
ψευδώνυμοι,
i.e., the gnostic heretics. Clement does not approve of the surrender
of a good name to false pretenders.]
Fit objects for admiration are the Stoics, who say
that the soul is not affected by the body, either to vice by disease, or
to virtue by health; but both these things, they say, are indifferent. And
indeed Job, through exceeding continence, and excellence of faith,
when from rich he became poor, from being held in honour dishonoured,
from being comely unsightly, and sick from being healthy, is depicted
as a good example, putting the Tempter to shame, blessing his Creator;
bearing what came second, as the first, and most clearly teaching that it
is possible for the gnostic to make an excellent use of all circumstances.
And that ancient achievements are proposed as images for our correction,
the apostle shows, when he says, “So that my bonds in Christ are
become manifest in all the palace, and to all the rest; and several of
the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold
to speak the word of God without fear,”
The same holds good also in the case of
poverty. For it compels the soul to desist from necessary things,
I mean contemplation and from pure sinlessness, forcing him, who has
not wholly dedicated himself to God in love, to occupy himself about
provisions; as, again, health and abundance of necessaries keep the
soul free and unimpeded, and capable of making a good use of what is
at hand. “For,” says the apostle, “such shall have
trouble in the flesh. But I spare you. For I would have you without
anxiety, in order to decorum and assiduity for the Lord, without
distraction.”
These things, then, are to be abstained from, not for their own sakes, but for the sake of the body; and care for the body is exercised for the sake of the soul, to which it has reference. For on this account it is necessary for the man who lives as a gnostic to know what is suitable. Since the fact that pleasure is not a good thing is admitted from the fact that certain pleasures are evil, by this reason good appears evil, and evil good. And then, if we choose some pleasures and shun others, it is not every pleasure that is a good thing.
Similarly, also, the same rule holds with pains, some of which we endure, and others we shun. But choice and avoidance are exercised according to knowledge; so that it is not pleasure that is the good thing, but knowledge by which we shall choose a pleasure at a certain time, and of a certain kind. Now the martyr chooses the pleasure that exists in prospect through the present pain. If pain is conceived as existing in thirst, and pleasure in drinking, the pain that has preceded becomes the efficient cause of pleasure. But evil cannot be the efficient cause of good. Neither, then, is the one thing nor the other evil. Simonides accordingly (as also Aristotle) writes, “that to be in good health is the best thing, and the second best thing is to be handsome, and the third best thing is to be rich without cheating.”
And Theognis of Megara says:—
On the other hand, Antiphanes, the comic poet, says, “Plutus (Wealth), when it has taken hold of those who see better than others, makes them blind.” Now by the poets he is proclaimed as blind from his birth:—
Says the Chalcidian Euphorion:—
Wrote Euripides in Alexander:—
“It is not then the only coin that mortals have, that which is white silver or golden, but virtue too,” as Sophocles says.
Our holy Saviour applied poverty and riches, and the
like, both to spiritual things and objects of sense. For when He said,
“Blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness’
sake,”
[Canons Apostolical (so called), li. liii. But see Elucidation I.]
[
The conversion, however, which leads to divine
things, the Stoics say, is affected by a change, the soul being changed
to wisdom. And Plato: “On the soul taking a turn to what is better,
and a change from a kind of nocturnal day.” Now the philosophers
also allow the good man an exit from life in accordance with reason,
in the case of one depriving him of active exertion, so that the hope
of action is no longer left him. And the judge who compels us to deny
Him whom we love, I regard as showing who is and who is not the friend
of God. In that case there is not left ground for even examining what
one prefers—the menaces of man or the love of God. And abstinence
from vicious acts is found, somehow, [to result in] the diminution
and extinction of vicious propensities, their energy being destroyed
by inaction. And this is the import of “Sell what thou hast, and
give to the poor, and come, follow Me” κυριακῆ
εὐποιῖᾳ [If love, exerting itself in doing good, overruled
the letter of the Sabbatic law, rise to this supremacy of love, which
is, of itself, “the fulfilling of the law.”]
[He regards the estate of
marriage and the estate of poverty, as gifts redounding to the benefit
of those who accept them as such, and adapt themselves to the same,
as stewards.]
Translated as
completed, and amended by Heinsius. In the text it is plainly mutilated
and corrupt. [Clement describes the attrition of the
schoolmen (which they say suffices) with the contrition
exacted by the Gospel. He knows nothing but the latter, as having
promise of the Comforter.]
[ [A cheering comment on the widow’s mites,
and the apostolic principle of
[
“Blessed, then, are the
peacemakers,”
[
[Note that thus in the second century there were those (scholiasts)
who interlined and transposed the Gospels, in mss.]
Then he who has lied and shown himself unfaithful, and revolted to the devil’s army, in what evil do we think him to be? He belies, therefore, the Lord, or rather he is cheated of his own hope who believes not God; and he believes not who does not what He has commanded.
And what? Does not he, who denies the Lord, deny
himself? For does he not rob his Master of His authority, who deprives
himself of his relation to Him? He, then, who denies the Saviour, denies
life; for “the light was life.”
“Why call ye me Lord, Lord,”
He says, “and do not the things which I say?”
But to those miserable men, witness to the Lord by
blood seems a most violent death, not knowing that such a gate of death
is the beginning of the true life; and they will understand neither the
honours after death, which belong to those who have lived holily, nor
the punishments of those who have lived unrighteously and impurely. [This is important testimony as
to the primitive understanding of the awards of a future life.] [See book iii., cap iii.,
supra.]
You see that martyrdom for love’s sake
is taught. And should you wish to be a martyr for the recompense of
advantages, you shall hear again. “For we are saved by hope: but
hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope
for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for
it.” In allusion to
says a woman acting manfully in the tragedy. And Antigone, contemning the proclamation of Creon, says boldly:—
But it is God that makes
proclamation to us, and He must be believed. “For with the heart
man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made
unto salvation. Wherefore the Scripture saith, “Whosoever believeth
on Him shall not be put to shame.”
Æschylus, too, having grasped this thought, says:—
“For great Fates attain great destinies,” according to Heraclitus:—
“For God hath not given us
the spirit of bondage again to fear; but of power, and love, and of a
sound mind. Be not therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, or of
me his prisoner,” he writes to Timothy.
Instead of μέγιστοι,
read from
The Indian sages say to Alexander of Macedon: “You transport men’s bodies from place to place. But you shall not force our souls to do what we do not wish. Fire is to men the greatest torture, this we despise.” Hence Heraclitus preferred one thing, glory, to all else; and professes “that he allows the crowd to stuff themselves to satiety like cattle.”
To the multitude, then, this
vain labour is desirable. But to us the apostle says, “Now we
know this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin
might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” [ii. 5. Compare Cicero’s Rep.,
iii. 17.] For σώματος read
ωτηρίας.
Then he adds:—
And for those who are aiming
at perfection there is proposed the rational gnosis, the foundation
of which is “the sacred Triad.” “Faith, hope, love;
but the greatest of these is love.”
“Put on therefore, as
the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness,
humbleness, meekness, long-suffering. And above all these, love,
which is the bond of perfection. And let the peace of God reign
in your hearts, to which also ye are called in one body; and be
thankful,”
Since, then, not only the Æsopians, and Macedonians, and the Lacedæmonians endured when subjected to torture, as Eratosthenes says in his work, On Things Good and Evil; but also Zeno of Elea, when subjected to compulsion to divulge a secret, held out against the tortures, and confessed nothing; who, when expiring, bit out his tongue and spat it at the tyrant, whom some term Nearchus, and some Demulus. Theodotus the Pythagorean acted also similarly, and Paulus the friend of Lacydes, as Timotheus of Pergamus says in his work on The Fortitude of Philosophers, and Achaicus in The Ethics. Posthumus also, the Roman, when captured by Peucetion, did not divulge a single secret; but putting his hand on the fire, held it to it as if to a piece of brass, without moving a muscle of his face. I omit the case of Anaxarchus, who exclaimed, “Pound away at the sack which holds Anaxarchus, for it is not Anaxarchus you are pounding,” when by the tyrant’s orders he was being pounded with iron pestles. Neither, then, the hope of happiness nor the love of God takes what befalls ill, but remains free, although thrown among the wildest beasts or into the all-devouring fire; though racked with a tyrant’s tortures. Depending as it does on the divine favour, it ascends aloft unenslaved, surrendering the body to those who can touch it alone. A barbarous nation, not cumbered with philosophy, select, it is said, annually an ambassador to the hero Zamolxis. Zamolxis was one of the disciples of Pythagoras. The one, then, who is judged of the most sterling worth is put to death, to the distress of those who have practiced philosophy, but have not been selected, at being reckoned unworthy of a happy service.
So the Church is full of those, as well
chaste women as men, who all their life have contemplated the
death which rouses up to Christ. [The Edin. Translator says “courted
the death;” but surely (μελετησάντων)
the original merely states the condition of Christians in the
second century, “dying daily,” and accepting in daily
contemplation the very probable death “by which they should
glorify God.”]
[Note the Catholic democracy of Christianity, which levels up and not
downward.] [This vindication of the
equality of the sexes is a comment on what the Gospel found woman’s
estate, and on what it created for her among Christians.]
[
Women are therefore to philosophize
equally with men, though the males are preferable at everything,
unless they have become effeminate. [The Edin. Trans. has “best at
everything,” but I have corrected it in closer accord with the
comparative degree in the Greek.]
The ruling power is therefore
the head. And if “the Lord is head of the man, and the man is
head of the woman,” the man, “being the image and glory
of God, is lord of the woman.”
[It is a sad token
of our times that some women resent this law of the Christian family. In
every society there must be presidency even among equals; and even Christ,
though “equal to the Father,” in the Catholic theology,
is yet subordinate. See Bull, Defens. Fid., Nicæn. Works,
vol. v. p. 685.]
[Book
iii. cap. iii., supra.] [He who studies the Sapiential books of the Bible and
Apocrypha and the Sermon on the Mount, is a philosopher of the sort here
commended.]
On martyrdom the Lord hath spoken explicitly,
and what is written in different places we bring together. “But
I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess in Me before men, the Son of
man also shall confess before the angels of God; but whosoever shall
deny Me before men, him will I deny before the angels.”
[ [ [Absolutely
necessary (i.e., open profession of Chirst) to the conversion of others,
and the perpetuation of the Christian Church.]
[See p. 18,
this volume.]
[As a reflection of the condition and fidelity of Christians, still
“sheep for the slaughter.” At such a period the tone and
argument of this touching chapter are suggestive.]
When, again, He says, “When they persecute you
in this city, flee ye to the other,”
[An excellent rendering, which the Latin translator misses (see ed. Migne,
ad loc.), the reference being to
But, say they, if God cares for you, why are you
persecuted and put to death? Has He delivered you to this? No, we do
not suppose that the Lord wishes us to be involved in calamities, but
that He foretold prophetically what would happen—that we should
be persecuted for His name’s sake, slaughtered, and impaled. So
that it was not that He wished us to be persecuted, but He intimated
beforehand what we shall suffer by the prediction of what would take
place, training us to endurance, to which He promised the inheritance,
although we are punished not alone, but along with many. But those,
it is said, being malefactors, are righteously punished. Accordingly,
they unwillingly bear testimony to our righteousness, we being unjustly
punished for righteousness’ sake. But the injustice of the judge
does not affect the providence of God. For the judge must be master of his
own opinion—not pulled by strings, like inanimate machines, set in
motion only by external causes. Accordingly he is judged in respect to his
judgment, as we also, in accordance with our choice of things desirable,
and our endurance. Although we do not wrong, yet the judge looks on us
as doing wrong, for he neither knows nor wishes to know about us, but is
influenced by unwarranted prejudice; wherefore also he is judged. [Self-condemned. A pathetic
description of the indifference of the Roman law to the rights of the
people. Pilates all were these judges of Christ’s followers or
Gallios at best.]
But why are you not helped when persecuted? say
they. What wrong is done us, as far as we are concerned, in being
released by death to go to the Lord, and so undergoing a change of life,
as if a change from one time of life to another? Did we think rightly,
we should feel obliged to those who have afforded the means for speedy
departure, if it is for love that we bear witness; and if not, we should
appear to the multitude to be base men. Had they also known the truth, all
would have bounded on to the way, and there would have been no choice. But
our faith, being the light of the world, reproves unbelief. “Should
Anytus and Melitus kill me, they will not hurt me in the least; for I do
not think it right for the better to be hurt by the worse,” [says
Socrates]. So that each one of us may with confidence say, “The
Lord is my helper; I will not fear: what shall man do to me?”
Basilides, in the twenty-third book of the
Exegetics, respecting those that are punished by martyrdom,
expresses himself in the following language: “For I say this,
Whosoever fall under the afflictions mentioned, in consequence of
unconsciously transgressing in other matters, are brought to this
good end by the kindness of Him who brings them, but accused on other
grounds; so that they may not suffer as condemned for what are owned
to be iniquities, nor reproached as the adulterer or the murderer,
but because they are Christians; which will console them, so that they
do not appear to suffer. And if one who has not sinned at all incur
suffering—a rare case—yet even he will not suffer aught
through the machinations of power, but will suffer as the child which
seems not to have sinned would suffer.” Then further on he adds:
“As, then, the child which has not sinned before, or committed
actual sin in itself, but has that which committed sin, when subjected to
[This exposition of Basilides is noteworthy. It is very doubtful,
whether, even in poetry, the Platonic idea of pre-existence should be
encouraged by Christians, as, e.g., in that sublimest of moderns lyrics,
Wordsworth’s ode on Immortality and Childhood.] The text has παιδευτικῆς
τέχνης τῆς
τοιάδε, for
which Sylburgius suggests τοιᾶσδε,
as translated above.
Valentinian, in a homily, writes in these words:
“Ye are originally immortal, and children of eternal life, and ye
would have death distributed to you, that ye may spend and lavish it,
and that death may die in you and by you; for when we dissolve the world,
and are not yourselves dissolved, ye have dominion over creation and
all corruption.” For he also, similarly with Basilides, supposes a
class saved by nature, and that this different race has come hither to
us from above for the abolition of death, and that the origin of death
is the work of the Creator of the world. Wherefore also he so expounds
that Scripture, “No man shall see the face of God, and live,”
as if He were the cause of death. Respecting this God, he makes those
allusions when writing in these expressions: “As much as the
image is inferior to the living face, so much is the world inferior
to the living Æon. What is, then, the cause of the image? The
majesty of the face, which exhibits the figure to the painter, to be
honoured by his name; for the form is not found exactly to the life,
but the name supplies what is wanting in the effigy. The invisibility
of God co-operates also in order to the faith of that which has been
fashioned.” For the Creator, called God and Father, he designated as
“Painter,” and “Wisdom,” whose image that which
is formed is, to the glory of the invisible One; since the things which
proceed from a pair are complements, and those which proceed from one are
images. But since what is seen is no part of Him, the soul comes from
what is intermediate, which is different; and this is the inspiration
of the different spirit, and generally what is breathed into the soul,
which is the image of the spirit. And in general, what is said of the
Creator, who was made according to the image, they say was foretold by
a sensible image in the book of Genesis respecting the origin of man;
and the likeness they transfer to themselves, teaching that the addition
of the different spirit was made; unknown to the Creator. When, then,
we treat of the unity of the God who is proclaimed in the law, the
prophets, and the Gospel, we shall also discuss this; for the topic
is supreme. [Kaye,
p. 322.]
[See the Valentinian jargon about the Demiurge (rival of the true
Creator), in Irenæus, vol. i. p. 322, this series.]
But the apostle, writing to us with reference to
the endurance of afflictions, says, “And this is of God, that
it is given to you on behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him,
but also to suffer for His sake; having the same conflict which ye saw
in me, and now hear to be in me. If there is therefore any consolation
in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any communion of spirit, if any
bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy, that ye may be of the same mind,
having the same love, unanimous, thinking one thing. And if he is offered
on the sacrifice and service of faith, joying and rejoicing”
Let not the above-mentioned
people, then, call us, by way of reproach,
“natural men” (ψυκικοί),
nor the Phrygians [Kaye, p. 405.] [The valuable note of Routh,
on a fragment of Melito, should be consulted. Reliquiæ,
vol i. p. 140.]
How great also is benignity! “Love your
enemies,” it is said, “bless them who curse you, and pray
for them who despitefully use you,”
“We know that we all have
knowledge”—common knowledge in common things, and the
knowledge that there is one God. For he was writing to believers; whence
he adds, “But knowledge (gnosis) is not in all,” being
communicated to few. And there are those who say that the knowledge about
things sacrificed to idols is not promulgated among all, “lest
our liberty prove a stumbling-block to the weak. For by
“With the heart man believeth
unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto
salvation. Wherefore the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on Him
shall not be ashamed; that is, the word of faith which we preach:
for if thou confess the word with thy mouth that Jesus is Lord, and
believe in thy heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be
saved.”
Who lived
before Christ. [Moses was a Christian.]
Moreover, in the Epistle to the Corinthians,
the Apostle
[The use of this title is noticeable here, on many accounts,
as historic.] [See
vol. i. p. 5–11, et seqq. S.]
Then more clearly: “Let us fix our eyes on those who have yielded perfect service to His magnificent glory. Let us take Enoch, who, being by his obedience found righteous, was translated; and Noah, who, having believed, was saved; and Abraham, who for his faith and hospitality was called the friend of God, and was the father of Isaac.” “For hospitality and piety, Lot was saved from Sodom.” “For faith and hospitality, Rahab the harlot was saved.” “From patience and faith they walked about in goat-skins, and sheep-skins, and folds of camels’ hair, proclaiming the kingdom of Christ. We name His prophets Elias, and Eliseus, and Ezekiel, and John.”
“For Abraham, who for his free faith
was called ‘the friend of God,’ was not elated by
glory, but modestly said, ‘I am dust and ashes.’
“David too, of whom the Lord,
testifying, says, ‘I found a man after my own heart, David
the son of Jesse. With my holy oil I anointed him.’
ἡγιάσθη.
Clemens Romanus has ἐδόθη.
[Vol. i. p. 11, this series.]
“Now all those things are confirmed
by the faith that is in Christ.‘Come, ye children,’
says the Lord, ‘hearken to me, and I will teach you the fear
of the Lord. Who is the man that desireth life, that loveth to see
good days? ’
For it is written in the Epistle to the Corinthians, “Through Jesus Christ our foolish and darkened mind springs up to the light. By Him the Sovereign Lord wished us to taste the knowledge that is immortal.” And, showing more expressly the peculiar nature of knowledge, he added: “These things, then, being clear to us, looking into the depths of divine knowledge, we ought to do all things in order which the Sovereign Lord commanded us to perform at the appointed seasons. Let the wise man, then, show his wisdom not in words only, but in good deeds. Let the humble not testify to himself, but allow testimony to be borne to him by another. Let not him who is pure in the flesh boast, knowing that it is another who furnishes him with continence. Ye see, brethren, that the more we are subjected to peril, the more knowledge are we counted worthy of.”
“The decorous tendency of our philanthropy,
therefore,” according to Clement, “seeks the common
good;” whether by suffering martyrdom, or by teaching by deed and
word,—the latter being twofold, unwritten and written. This is
love, to love God and our neighbour. “This conducts to the height
which is unutterable.
[See vol. i. p. 18. S.]
“Now all the generations from Adam to this
day are gone. But they who have been perfected in love, through the
grace of God, hold the place of the godly, who shall be manifested at
the visitation of the kingdom of Christ.” Love permits not to sin;
but if it fall into any such case, by reason of the interference of the
adversary, in imitation of David, it will sing: “I will confess
unto the Lord, and it will please Him above a young bullock that has
horns and hoofs. Let the poor see it, and be glad.” For he says,
“Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise, and pay to the Lord
thy vows; and call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will deliver
thee, and thou shalt glorify me.”
“God,” then, being
good, “is love,” it is said.
The same work, then, presents a difference, according as it is done by fear, or accomplished by love, and is wrought by faith or by knowledge. Rightly, therefore, their rewards are different. To the Gnostic “are prepared what eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath entered into the heart of man;” but to him who has exercised simple faith He testifies a hundredfold in return for what he has left,—a promise which has turned out to fall within human comprehension.
Come to this point, I recollect one who called
himself a Gnostic. For, expounding the words, “But I say
unto you, he that looketh on a woman to lust after, hath committed
adultery,”
[Or, “the Wise.” See Rawlinson,
Herodotus, ii. p. 317.]
Accordingly one dreams, the soul assenting to
the vision. But he dreams waking, who looks so as to lust; not only,
as that Gnostic said, if along with the sight of the woman he imagine
in his mind intercourse, for this is already the act of lust, as lust;
but if one looks on beauty of person (the Word says), and the flesh seem
to him in the way of lust to be fair, looking on carnally and sinfully,
he is judged because he admired. For, on the other hand, he who in chaste
love looks on beauty, thinks not that the flesh is beautiful, but the
spirit, admiring, as I judge, the body as an image, by whose beauty he
transports himself to the Artist, and to the true beauty; exhibiting the
sacred symbol, the bright impress of righteousness to the angels that
wait on the ascension;
i.e., of blessed souls. The text here has θυσίαν,
for which φύσιν has been
suggested as probably the true reading. ὄρεξις
the Stoics define to be a desire
agreeable to reason; ἐπιθυμία,
a desire contrary to reason.
In this perfection it is possible for man and
woman equally to share. It is not only Moses, then, that heard from
God, “I have spoken to thee once, and twice, saying, I have seen
this people, and lo, it is stiff-necked. Suffer me to exterminate them,
and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make thee into a
great and wonderful nation much greater than this;” who answers
not regarding himself, but the common salvation: “By no means,
O Lord; forgive this people their sin, or blot me out of the book of
the living.”
But Judith too, who became perfect among
women, in the siege of the city, at the entreaty of the elders went
forth into the strangers’ camp, despising all danger for
her country’s sake, giving herself into the enemy’s
hand in faith in God; and straightway she obtained the reward of
her faith,—though a woman, prevailing over the enemy of her
faith, and gaining possession of the head of Holofernes. And again,
Esther perfect by faith, who rescued Israel from the power of the
king and the satrap’s cruelty: a woman alone, afflicted with
fastings, So rendered by
the Latin translator, as if the reading were τεθλιμμένη.
Sylburguis’ conjecture of ὡπλισμένας
instead of ὁπλισαμένας
is here adopted.
Dion, too, the philosopher, tells that a certain woman Lysidica, through excess of modesty, bathed in her clothes; and that Philotera, when she was to enter the bath, gradually drew back her tunic as the water covered the naked parts; and then rising by degrees, put it on. And did not Leæna of Attica manfully bear the torture? She being privy to the conspiracy of Harmodius and Aristogeiton against Hipparchus, uttered not a word, though severely tortured. And they say that the Argolic women, under the guidance of Telesilla the poetess, turned to flight the doughty Spartans by merely showing themselves; and that she produced in them fearlessness of death. Similarly speaks he who composed the Danais respecting the daughters of Danaus:—
Sylburguis’ conjecture of ὡπλισμένας instead of ὁπλισαμένας is here adopted.
and so forth.
And the rest of the poets sing of Atalanta’s
swiftness in the chase, of Anticlea’s love for children, of
Alcestis’s love for her husband, of the courage of Makæria
and of the Hyacinthides. What shall I say? Did not Theano the
Pythagorean make such progress in philosophy, that to him who looked
intently at her, and said, “Your arm is beautiful,” she
answered “Yes, but it is not public.” Characterized by
the same propriety, there is also reported the following reply. [Theano. See, also, p. 417.
Elucidation II.]
And the daughters of Diodorus, who was called
Kronus, all became dialecticians, as Philo the dialectician says in the
Menexenus, whose names are mentioned as follows—Menexene,
Argia, Theognis, Artemesia, Pantaclea. I also recollect a female
Cynic,—she was called Hipparchia, a Maronite, the wife of
Crates,—in whose case the so-called dog-wedding was celebrated
in the Pœcile. Arete of Cyrene, too, the daughter of Aristippus,
educated her son Aristippus, who was surnamed Mother-taught. Lastheneia of
Arcis, and Axiothea of Phlius, studied philosophy with Plato. Besides,
Aspasia of Miletus, of whom the writers of comedy write much, was
trained by Socrates in philosophy, by Pericles in rhetoric. I omit, on
account of the length of the discourse, the rest; enumerating neither
the poetesses Corinna, Telesilla, Myia, and Sappho; nor the painters,
as Irene the daughter of Cratinus, and Anaxandra the daughter of Nealces,
according to the account of
The wise woman, then, will first choose to persuade her husband to be her associate in what is conducive to happiness. And should that be found impracticable, let her by herself earnestly aim at virtue, gaining her husband’s consent in everything, so as never to do anything against his will, with exception of what is reckoned as contributing to virtue and salvation. But if one keeps from such a mode of life either wife or maid-servant, whose heart is set on it; what such a person in that case plainly does is nothing else than determine to drive her away from righteousness and sobriety, and to choose to make his own house wicked and licentious.
It is not then possible that man or woman can be conversant with anything whatever, without the advantage of education, and application, and training; and virtue, we have said, depends not on others, but on ourselves above all. Other things one can repress, by waging war against them; but with what depends on one’s self, this is entirely out of the question, even with the most strenuous persistence. For the gift is one conferred by God, and not in the power of any other. Whence licentiousness should be regarded as the evil of no other one than of him who is guilty of licentiousness; and temperance, on the other hand, as the good of him who is able to practice it.
The woman who, with propriety, loves her husband, Euripides describes, while admonishing,—
And again he subjoins the like:—
Then, describing her as gentle and kind even in misfortunes, he adds:—
And:—
The marriage, then, that is consummated according to the word, is sanctified, if the union be under subjection to God, and be conducted “with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and the body washed with pure water, and holding the confession of hope; for He is faithful that promised.” And the happiness of marriage ought never to be estimated either by wealth or beauty, but by virtue.
“Beauty,” says the tragedy,—
Then, as giving admonitions, he says:—
And so forth.
For with perfect propriety Scripture has said that
woman is given by God as “an help” to man. It is evident,
then, in my opinion, that she will charge herself with remedying, by
good sense and persuasion, each of the annoyances that originate with
her husband in domestic economy. And if he do not yield, then she will
endeavour, as far as possible for human nature, to lead a sinless life;
whether it be necessary to die, in accordance with reason, or to live;
considering that God is her helper and associate in such a course of
conduct, her true defender and Saviour both for the present and for the
future; making Him the leader and guide of all her actions, reckoning
sobriety and righteousness her work, and making the favour of God her
end. Gracefully, therefore, the apostle says in the Epistle to Titus,
“that the elder women should be of godly behaviour, should not
be slanderers, not enslaved to much wine; that they should counsel the
young women to be lovers of their husbands, lovers of their children,
discreet, chaste, housekeepers, good, subject to their own husbands; that
the word of God be not blasphemed.”
Here I find perfection apprehended variously
in relation to Him who excels in every virtue. Accordingly one is
perfected as pious, and as patient, and as continent, and as a worker,
and as a martyr, and as a Gnostic. But I know no one of men perfect in
all things at once, while still human, though according to the mere
letter of the law, except Him alone who for us clothed Himself with
humanity. Who then is perfect? He who professes abstinence from what
is bad. Well, this is the way to the Gospel and to well-doing. But
gnostic perfection in the case of the legal man is the acceptance of
the Gospel, that he that is after the law may be perfect. For so he,
who was after the law, Moses, foretold that it was necessary to hear
in order that we might, according to the apostle, receive Christ, the
fulness of the law.
And now we perceive where, and how, and when the
divine apostle mentions the perfect man, and how he shows the differences
of the perfect. And again, on the other hand: “The
Iliad, xiii. 730.
says Homer. “But each
has his own proper gift of God”
The man of understanding and perspicacity is,
then, a Gnostic. And his business is not abstinence from what is
evil (for this is a step to the highest perfection), or the doing of
good out of fear. For it is written, “Whither shall I flee,
and where shall I hide myself from Thy presence? If I ascend into
heaven, Thou art there; if I go away to the uttermost parts of the
sea, there is Thy right hand; if I go down into the depths, there is
Thy Spirit.”
And if, in doing good, he be met with anything adverse, he will let the recompense pass without resentment as if it were good, he being just and good “to the just and the unjust.” To such the Lord says, “Be ye, as your Father is perfect.”
To him the flesh is dead; but he himself lives alone, having consecrated the sepulchre into a holy temple to the Lord, having turned towards God the old sinful soul.
Such an one is no longer continent, but has
As is right, then, knowledge itself loves and teaches the ignorant, and instructs the whole creation to honour God Almighty. And if such an one teaches to love God, he will not hold virtue as a thing to be lost in any case, either awake or in a dream, or in any vision; since the habit never goes out of itself by falling from being a habit. Whether, then, knowledge be said to be habit or disposition; on account of diverse sentiments never obtaining access, the guiding faculty, remaining unaltered, admits no alteration of appearances by framing in dreams visionary conceptions out of its movements by day. Wherefore also the Lord enjoins “to watch,” so that our soul may never be perturbed with passion, even in dreams; but also to keep the life of the night pure and stainless, as if spent in the day. For assimilation to God, as far as we can, is preserving the mind in its relation to the same things. And this is the relation of mind as mind.
But the variety of disposition arises from
inordinate affection to material things. And for this reason, as
they appear to me, to have called night Euphrone; since then the
soul, released from the perceptions of sense, turns in on itself,
and has a truer hold of intelligence (φρόνησις). Euphrone is plainly
“kindly, cheerful.”
As it
stands in the text the passage is unintelligable, and has been variously
amended successfully.
Clement seems to have read Κύριον
for καιρόν
in Rom. xiii. 11, 12.
So it is said that we ought to go washed to sacrifices and prayers, clean and bright; and that this external adornment and purification are practiced for a sign. Now purity is to think holy thoughts. Further, there is the image of baptism, which also was handed down to the poets from Moses as follows:—
Homer, Odyss., iv. 750, 760; xvii. 48, 58.
It is Penelope that is going to prayer:—
Odyss., ii. 261.
It was a custom of the Jews to wash frequently after being in bed. It was then well said,—
For sanctity, as I conceive it, is perfect pureness of mind, and deeds, and thoughts, and words too, and in its last degree sinlessness in dreams.
And sufficient purification to a man,
I reckon, is thorough and sure repentance. If, condemning
ourselves for our former actions, we go forward, after
these things taking thought, Explaining μετανοέω
etymologically.
If, then, we are to give the etymology of ἐπιστήμη, knowledge, its signification is to be derived from στάσις, placing; for our soul, which was formerly borne, now in one way, now in another, it settles in objects. Similarly faith is to be explained etymologically, as the settling (στάσις) of our soul respecting that which is.
But we desire to learn about the man who is always
and in all things righteous; who, neither dreading the penalty proceeding
from the law,
But he who obeys the mere call,
as he is called, neither for fear, nor for enjoyments,
is on his way to knowledge (γνῶσις).
For he does not consider whether any extrinsic lucrative gain or
enjoyment follows to him; but drawn by the love of Him who is the true
object of love, and led to what is requisite, practices piety. So that
not even were we to suppose him to receive from God leave to do things
forbidden with impunity; not even if he were to get the promise that he
would receive as a reward the good things of the blessed; but besides,
not even if he could persuade himself that God would be hoodwinked
with reference to what he does (which is impossible), would he ever
wish to do aught contrary to right reason, having once made choice
of what is truly good and worthy of choice on its own account, and
therefore to be loved. For it is not in the food of the belly, that we
have heard good to be situated. But he has heard that “meat will
not commend us,”
For it is not suitable to the nature of the thing itself, that they should apprehend in the truly gnostic manner the truth, that all things which were created for our use are good; as, for example, marriage and procreation, when used in moderation; and that it is better than good to become free of passion, and virtuous by assimilation to the divine. But in the case of external things, agreeable or disagreeable, from some they abstain, from others not. But in those things from which they abstain from disgust, they plainly find fault with the creature and the Creator; and though in appearance they walk faithfully, the opinion they maintain is impious. That command, “Thou shall not lust,” needs neither the necessity arising from fear, which compels to keep from things that are pleasant; nor the reward, which by promise persuades to restrain the impulses of passion.
And those who obey God through the promise, caught by the bait of pleasure, choose obedience not for the sake of the commandment, but for the sake of the promise. Nor will turning away from objects of sense, as a matter of necessary consequence, produce attachment to intellectual objects. On the contrary, the attachment to intellectual objects naturally becomes to the Gnostic an influence which draws away from the objects of sense; inasmuch as he, in virtue of the selection of what is good, has chosen what is good according to knowledge (γνωστικῶς), admiring generation, and by sanctifying the Creator sanctifying assimilation to the divine. But I shall free myself from lust, let him say, O Lord, for the sake of alliance with Thee. For the economy of creation is good, and all things are well administered: nothing happens without a cause. I must be in what is Thine, O Omnipotent One. And if I am there, I am near Thee. And I would be free of fear that I may be able to draw near to Thee, and to be satisfied with little, practising Thy just choice between things good and things like.
Right mystically and sacredly the apostle, teaching
us the choice which is truly gracious,
Now we know that things which are difficult are
not essential; but that things which are essential have been graciously
made easy of attainment by God. Wherefore Democritus well says,
that “nature and instruction” are like each other. And
we have briefly assigned the cause. For instruction harmonizes man,
and by harmonizing makes him natural; and it is no matter whether
one was made such as he is by nature, or transformed by time and
education. The Lord has furnished both; that which is by creation, and
that which is by creating again and renewal through the covenant. And
that is preferable which is advantageous to what is superior; but
what is superior to everything is mind. So, then, what is really good
is seen to be most pleasant, and of itself produces the fruit which is
desired—tranquillity of soul. “And he who hears Me,” it
is said, “shall rest in peace, confident, and shall be calm without
fear of any evil.”
On this wise it is possible for the Gnostic
already to have become God. “I said, Ye are gods, and
Man, then, genetically considered, is formed in accordance with the idea of the connate spirit. For he is not created formless and shapeless in the workshop of nature, where mystically the production of man is accomplished, both art and essence being common. But the individual man is stamped according to the impression produced in the soul by the objects of his choice. Thus we say that Adam was perfect, as far as respects his formation; for none of the distinctive characteristics of the idea and form of man were wanting to him; but in the act of coming into being he received perfection. And he was justified by obedience; this was reaching manhood, as far as depended on him. And the cause lay in his choosing, and especially in his choosing what was forbidden. God was not the cause.
For production is twofold—of things
procreated, and of things that grow. And manliness in man, who is
subject to perturbation, as they say, makes him who partakes of it
essentially fearless and invincible; and anger is the mind’s
satellite in patience, and endurance, and the like; and self-constraint
and salutary sense are set over desire. But God is impassible,
free of anger, destitute of desire. And He is not free of fear,
in the sense of avoiding what is terrible; or temperate, in the
sense of having command of desires. For neither can the nature of
God fall in with anything terrible, nor does God flee fear; just as
He will not feel desire, so as to rule over desires. Accordingly
that Pythagorean saying was mystically uttered respecting us,
“that man ought to become one;” for the high priest
himself is one, God being one in the immutable state of the perpetual
flow θεῖν
… Οεός.
Now that is in our power, of which equally with
its opposite we are masters,—as, say to philosophize or not, to
believe or disbelieve. In consequence, then, of our being equally masters
of each of the opposites, what depends on us is found possible. Now
the commandments may be done or not done by us, who, as is reasonable,
are liable to praise and blame. And those, again, who are punished on
account of sins committed by them, are punished for them alone; for what
is done is past, and what is done can never be undone. The sins committed
before faith are accordingly forgiven by the Lord, not that they may be
undone, but as if they had not been done. “But not all,”
says Basilides,
λουτρόν.
[See Elucidation VI.]
“Happy he who possesses the culture of knowledge, and is not moved to the injury of the citizens or to wrong actions, but contemplates the undecaying order of immortal nature, how and in what way and manner it subsists. To such the practice of base deeds attaches not,” Rightly, then, Plato says, “that the man who devotes himself to the contemplation of ideas will live as a god among men; now the mind is the place of ideas, and God is mind.” He says that he who contemplates the unseen God lives as a god among men. And in the Sophist, Socrates calls the stranger of Elea, who was a dialectician, “god:” “Such are the gods who, like stranger guests, frequent cities. For when the soul, rising above the sphere of generation, is by itself apart, and dwells amidst ideas,” like the Coryphæus in Theætetus, now become as an angel, it will be with Christ, being rapt in contemplation, ever keeping in view the will of God; in reality
Hom., Odyss., x. 495.
“For the dead bury
their dead.” Whence Jeremiah says: “I will fill it
with the earth-born dead whom mine anger has smitten.”
God, then, being not a subject for demonstration, cannot be the object of science. But the Son is wisdom, and knowledge, and truth, and all else that has affinity thereto. He is also susceptible of demonstration and of description. And all the powers of the Spirit, becoming collectively one thing, terminate in the same point—that is, in the Son. But He is incapable of being declared, in respect of the idea of each one of His powers. And the Son is neither simply one thing as one thing, nor many things as parts, but one thing as all things; whence also He is all things. For He is the circle of all powers rolled and united into one unity. Wherefore the Word is called the Alpha and the Omega, of whom alone the end becomes beginning, and ends again at the original beginning without any break. Wherefore also to believe in Him, and by Him, is to become a unit, being indissolubly united in Him; and to disbelieve is to be separated, disjoined, divided.
“Wherefore thus saith the Lord, Every
alien son is uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh”
(that is, unclean in body and soul): “there shall not enter
one of the strangers into the midst of the house of Israel, but
the Levites.”
The jubilee. [Elucidation VII.]
i.e., Baptism.
Job [xviii. 5.;
[On Clement’s
Hebrew, see Elucidation VIII.]
But we must pass from physics to ethics, which
are clearer; for the discourse concerning these will follow after
the treatise in hand. The Saviour Himself, then, plainly initiates
us into the mysteries, according to the words of the tragedy: Eurip., Bacchæ,
465, etc.
And if you ask,
You will hear again:—
And if any one will inquire curiously what they are, let him hear:—
Now God, who is without beginning, is the perfect beginning of the universe, and the producer of the beginning. As, then, He is being, He is the first principle of the department of action, as He is good, of morals; as He is mind, on the other hand, He is the first principle of reasoning and of judgment. Whence also He alone is Teacher, who is the only Son of the Most High Father, the Instructor of men.
Those, then, who run down created existence and
vilify the body are wrong; not considering that the frame of man was
formed erect for the contemplation of heaven, and that the organization
of the senses tends to knowledge; and that the members and parts
are arranged for good, not for pleasure. Whence this abode becomes
receptive of the soul which is most precious to God; and is dignified
with the Holy Spirit through the sanctification of soul and body,
perfected with the perfection of the Saviour. And the succession of
the three virtues is found in the Gnostic, who morally, physically,
and logically occupies himself with God. For wisdom is the knowledge of
things divine and human; and righteousness is the concord of the parts
of the soul; and holiness is the service of God. But if one were to
say that he disparaged the flesh, and generation on account of it, by
quoting Isaiah, who says, “All flesh is grass, and all the glory
of man as the flower of grass: the grass is withered, and the flower
has fallen; but the word of the Lord endureth for ever;”
Always therefore the good actions, as better, attach to the better and ruling spirit; and voluptuous and sinful actions are attributed to the worse, the sinful one.
Now the soul of the wise man and Gnostic,
as sojourning in the body, conducts itself towards it gravely
and respectfully, not with inordinate affections, as about to
leave the tabernacle if the time of departure summon. “I
am a stranger in the earth, and a sojourner with you,” it is
said.
and the minstrel Pindar, according to
Theodoret.
The soul is not then sent down
from heaven to what is worse. For God works all things up to what is
better. But the soul which has chosen the best life—the life that is
from God and righteousness—exchanges earth for heaven. With reason
therefore, Job, who had attained to knowledge, said, “Now I know
that thou canst do all things; and nothing is impossible to Thee. For
who tells me of what I know not, great and wonderful things with which I
was unacquainted? And I felt myself vile, considering myself to be earth
and ashes.” Where?
Euripides accordingly says, “Golden wings are round my back, and I am shod with the winged sandals of the Sirens; and I shall go aloft into the wide ether, to hold convene with Zeus.”
But I shall pray the Spirit of Christ to wing
me to my Jerusalem. For the Stoics say that heaven is properly a city,
but places here on earth are not cities; for they are called so, but are
not. For a city is an important thing, and the people a decorous body,
and a multitude of men regulated by law as the church by the word—a
city on earth impregnable—free from tyranny; a product of the
divine will on earth as in heaven. Images of this city the poets create
with their pen. For the Hyperboreans, and the Arimaspian cities, and the
Elysian plains, are commonwealths of just men. And we know Plato’s
city placed as a pattern in heaven. [Elucidation IX.]
(The Lord’s Discipline, book iv. cap. vi. p. 413.)
ἡ κυριακὴ
ἄσκησις. Casaubon
explains this as Dominica exercitatio (the religion
which the Lord taught), and quotes the apostolic canons (li. and
lii.), which, using this word (ἄσκησις),
ordain certain fasts on account of pious exercise. Baronius,
more suo, grasps at this word ἄσκησις,
as a peg to hang the system of monkery upon. Casaubon answers: “If
so, then all the early Christians were monks and nuns; as this word is
always used by the Fathers for the Christian discipline, or Christianity
itself.” Such are the original ascetics, nothing more. The
Christian Fathers transferred the word from heathen use to that of the
Church, to signify the training to which all the faithful should
subject themselves, in obedience to St. Paul (
(Theano, cap. xix. p. 431.)
The translator has not been happy
in this rendering, but I retain it as in the Edinburgh Edition, which
leaves one in doubt whether this second saying was Theano’s; for,
possibly, the translator meant to leave it so. But the Migne note is very
good: “Jamblichus mentions two Theanos, one the wife of Brontinus,
or Brotinus, and the other of Pythagoras. Both alike were devoted to
the Pythagorean philosophy; and it is not certain, therefore, to which
of them these dicta belong.”
(St. Paul, note 4, p. 434.)
Better rendered, “Paul is more
recent (or later) in respect of time.” This seems a strangely
apologetic way to speak of this glorious apostle; though the reference
may be to his own words (
(Socrates, cap. xxii. p. 436.)
Who can read the Phædo, and
think of Plato and Socrates, without hope that the mystery of redemption
applies to them in some effectual way, under St. Paul’s maxims
(
(Basilides answered, cap. xxiv. p. 437.)
Note the pith and point of this
chapter, and the beauty of Clement’s dictum, “So it
would be, were it a man and not God that justifies! As it is written, Thou
thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself.” (Compare
(Sin after Baptism, cap. xxiv. p. 438.)
Not to broach any opinion of my own,
it is enough to remark, that this reference to primitive discipline
shows that a defined penitential system in the early Church was aimed
at by the Montanists,
(Jubilee, cap. xxv. p. 438.)
Here the reader may feel that
an Elucidation is requisite to any intelligent idea of what Clement
means to say. “We wish he would explain his explanation”
of Ezekiel. Let me give a brief rendering of the annotations in Migne,
as all that can here be furnished. (1) The tabernacle is the body,
as St. Paul uses the word (
The Miltonic student will recall the perplexity with which, perhaps, in early years, he first read:—
Paradise Lost, book iii. 481.
The Copernican system was, even in Milton’s time, not generally accepted; but, for one who had personally conversed with Galileo, this seems incorrigibly bad. The true system would have given greater dignity, and in fact a better topography, to his great poem.
(Rebecca, p. 439.)
Le Nourry, as well as Barbeyrac
(see Kaye, pp. 109 and 473), regards Clement as ignorant of the
Hebrew language. Kaye, though he shows that some of the attempts
to demonstrate this are fanciful, inclines to the same opinion;
remarking that he borrows his interpretations from Philo. On
the passage here under consideration, he observes, that,
“having said repeatedly e.g., this vol., p. 309.
(Plato’s City, cap. xxvi. p. 441.)
This is worth quoting from the
Republic (book ix. p. 423, Jowett): “In heaven there is laid
up a pattern of such a city; and he who desires may behold this, and,
beholding, govern himself accordingly; He will act according to the laws
of that city, and of no other.” Sublime old Gentile! Did not the
apostle of the Gentiles think of Socrates, when he wrote
Of the Gnostic so much has been cursorily, as it were, written. We proceed now to the sequel, and must again contemplate faith; for there are some that draw the distinction, that faith has reference to the Son, and knowledge to the Spirit. But it has escaped their notice that, in order to believe truly in the Son, we must believe that He is the Son, and that He came, and how, and for what, and respecting His passion; and we must know who is the Son of God. Now neither is knowledge without faith, nor faith without knowledge. Nor is the Father without the Son; for the Son is with the Father. And the Son is the true teacher respecting the Father; and that we may believe in the Son, we must know the Father, with whom also is the Son. Again, in order that we may know the Father, we must believe in the Son, that it is the Son of God who teaches; for from faith to knowledge by the Son is the Father. And the knowledge of the Son and Father, which is according to the gnostic rule—that which in reality is gnostic—is the attainment and comprehension of the truth by the truth.
We, then, are those who are believers in what is
not believed, and who are Gnostics as to what is unknown; that is,
Gnostics as to what is unknown and disbelieved by all, but believed
and known by a few; and Gnostics, not describing actions by speech,
but Gnostics in the exercise of contemplation. Happy is he who speaks
in the ears of the hearing. Now faith is the ear of the soul. And such
the Lord intimates faith to be, when He says, “He that hath ears
to hear, let him hear;”
Odyss., vi. 185.
For, in fine, the agreement
and harmony of the faith of both Teacher and scholar.
[“The
common faith” (ἡ κοινὴ
πίστις) is no “secret,”
then, and cannot be in its nature.]
For that investigation, which
accords with faith, which builds, on the foundation of faith, [All such expressions noteworthy
for manifold uses among divines.] [Fatal to not
a little of the scholastic theology, and the Trent dogmas.]
Philo Judæus, De Abrahame, p. 413, vol.
ii. Bohn. [But see
Elucidation I.]
Empedocles.
Wherefore also the apostle
exhorts, “that your faith should not be in the wisdom of
men,” who profess to persuade, “but in the power
of God,” Heraclitus. [See
p. 318, supra.]
[See vol. i. p. 190, this series.]
according to Sophocles.
The like also says Menander the comic poet:—
But we ought to direct the visual faculty of the soul aright to discovery, and to clear away obstacles; and to cast clean away contention, and envy, and strife, destined to perish miserably from among men.
For very beautifully does Timon of Phlius write:—
Then a little below he adds:—
of the speech which denies what is
false, and of the dilemma, of that which is concealed, of the Sorites,
and of the Crocodilean, of that which is open, and of ambiguities and
sophisms. To inquire, then, respecting God, if it tend not to strife,
but to discovery, is salutary. For it is written in David, “The
poor eat, and shall be filled; and they shall praise the Lord that seek
Him. Your heart shall live for ever.”
We ought not to surrender our ears to all who speak
and write rashly. For cups also, which are taken hold of by many by
the ears, are dirtied, and lose the ears; and besides, when they fall
they are broken. In the same way also, those, who have polluted the
pure hearing of faith by many trifles, at last becoming deaf to the
truth, become useless and fall to the earth. It is not, then, without
reason that we commanded boys to kiss their relations, holding them
by the ears; indicating this, that the feeling of love is engendered
by hearing. And “God,” who is known to those who love,
“is love,”
And purity is “to think
holy thoughts.” “Except ye become as these little
children, ye shall not enter,” it is said, “into the
kingdom of heaven.”
Respecting faith we have adduced sufficient testimonies of writings among the Greeks. But in order not to exceed bounds, through eagerness to collect a very great many also respecting hope and love, suffice it merely to say that in the Crito Socrates, who prefers a good life and death to life itself, thinks that we have hope of another life after death.
Also in the Phœdrus he says, “That
only when in a separate state can the soul become partaker of the
wisdom which is true, and surpasses human power; and when, having
reached the end of hope by philosophic love, desire shall waft it to
heaven, then,” says he, “does it receive the commencement of
another, an immortal life.” And in the Symposium he says,
“That there is instilled into all the natural love of generating
what is like, and in men of generating men alone, and in the good man
of the generation of the counterpart of himself. But it is impossible
for the good man to do this without possessing the perfect virtues,
in which he will train the youth who have recourse to him.” And
as he says in the Theœtetus,“He will beget and finish
men. For some procreate by the body, others by the soul;” since
also with the barbarian philosophers to teach and enlighten is called to
regenerate; and “I have begotten you in Jesus Christ,”
Empedocles, too, enumerates friendship among the elements, conceiving it as a combining love:—
Parmenides, too, in his poem, alluding to hope, speaks thus:—
For he who hopes, as he who believes, sees
intellectual objects and future things with the mind. If, then, we
affirm that aught is just, and affirm it to be good, and we also
say that truth is something, yet we have never seen any of such
objects with our eyes, but with our mind alone. Now the Word of
God says, “I am the truth.” By Plato. In Plato we have νῷ instead of Θεῷ.
Hesiod, first line, Works and Days, 285. The other three are variously ascribed to different authors.
The knowledge of ignorance is, then, the first lesson in walking according to the Word. An ignorant man has sought, and having sought, he finds the teacher; and finding has believed, and believing has hoped; and henceforward having loved, is assimilated to what was loved—endeavouring to be what he first loved. Such is the method Socrates shows Alcibiades, who thus questions: “Do you not think that I shall know about what is right otherwise?” “Yes, if you have found out.” “But you don’t think I have found out?” “Certainly, if you have sought.”
“Then you don’t think that I have
sought?” “Yes, if you think you do not know.” Plato, Alcibiades, book
i.
Plato, Republic, vi. p. 678.
“Many rod-bearers there are,
but few Bacchi,” according to Plato. “For many are called,
but few chosen.”
Quoted by Socrates in the Phædo, p. 52.
And more sententiously the comic poet briefly says:—
For they heard, I think, that
excellent wisdom, which says to us, “Watch your opportunity
in the midst of the foolish, and in the midst of the intelligent
continue.”
“For this is habitual to
the wicked,” says Empedocles, “to wish to overbear what
is true by disbelieving it.” And that our tenets are probable
and worthy of belief, the Greeks shall know, the point being more
thoroughly investigated in what follows. For we are taught what is
like by what is like. For says Solomon, “Answer a fool according
to his folly.”
But since they will believe neither in what is
good justly nor in knowledge unto salvation, we ourselves reckoning
what they claim as belonging to us, because all things are God’s;
and especially since what is good proceeded from us to the Greeks, let
us handle those things as they are capable of hearing. For intelligence
or rectitude this great crowd estimates not by truth, but by what they
are delighted with. And they will be pleased not more with other things
than with what is like themselves. For he who is still blind and dumb,
not having understanding, or the undazzled and keen vision of the
contemplative soul, which the Saviour confers, like the uninitiated at
the mysteries, or the unmusical at dances, not being yet pure and worthy
of the pure truth, but still discordant and disordered and material,
must stand outside of the divine choir. “For we compare spiritual
things with spiritual.”
Thence the prophecies and oracles are spoken in enigmas, and the mysteries are not exhibited incontinently to all and sundry, but only after certain purifications and previous instructions.
Now those instructed among the Egyptians learned first of all that style of the Egyptian letters which is called Epistolographic; and second, the Hieratic, which the sacred scribes practice; and finally, and last of all, the Hieroglyphic, of which one kind which is by the first elements is literal (Kyriologic), and the other Symbolic. Of the Symbolic, one kind speaks literally by imitation, and another writes as it were figuratively; and another is quite allegorical, using certain enigmas.
Wishing to express Sun in writing, they makea
circle; and Moon, a figure like the Moon, like its proper shape. But
in using the figurative style, by transposing and transferring, by
changing and by transforming in many ways as suits them, they draw
characters. In relating the praises of the kings in theological myths,
they write in anaglyphs.
Bas relief.
[
putting bad instead of
simple. Expressly then respecting all our Scripture, as if spoken in
a parable, it is written in the Psalms, “Hear, O My people, My
law: incline your ear to the words of My mouth. I will open My mouth
in parables, I will utter My problems from the beginning.”
The philosophers did not exert themselves in
contemning the appearance of the Lord. It therefore follows that it is the
opinion of the wise among the Jews which the apostle inveighs against.
Wherefore he adds, “But we preach, as it is written, what eye hath
not seen, and ear hath not heard, and hath not entered into the heart of
man, what God hath prepared for them that love Him. For God hath revealed
it to us by the Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, even the
deep things of God.”
[See cap. i. p. 444,
note 6, supra.]
Now the Pythagorean symbols were connected with
the Barbarian philosophy in the most recondite way. For instance,
the Samian counsels “not to have a swallow in the house;”
that is, not to receive a loquacious, whispering, garrulous man,
who cannot contain what has been communicated to him. “For the
swallow, and the turtle, and the sparrows of the field, know the times
of their entrance,”
Iliad, ix. 311.
The swallow too, which suggests the fable of Pandion, seeing it is right to detest the incidents reported of it, some of which we hear Tereus suffered, and some of which he inflicted. It pursues also the musical grasshoppers, whence he who is a persecutor of the word ought to be driven away.
says Poetry. Æschylus also says:—
Again Pythagoras commanded,
“When the pot is lifted off the fire, not to leave its mark in
the ashes, but to scatter them;” and “people on getting up
from bed, to shake the bed-clothes.” For he intimated that it was
necessary not only to efface the mark, but not to leave even a trace of
anger; and that on its ceasing to boil, it was to be composed, and all
memory of injury to be wiped out. “And let not the sun,”
says the Scripture, “go down upon your wrath.” [
Again, “Don’t sail on land” is
a Pythagorean saw, and shows that taxes and similar contracts, being
troublesome and fluctuating, ought to be declined. Wherefore also the
Word says that the tax-gatherers shall be saved with difficulty. It is so said of the rich;
And again, “Don’t wear a ring,
nor engrave on it the images of the gods,” enjoins Pythagoras;
as Moses ages before enacted expressly, that neither a graven, nor
molten, nor moulded, nor painted likeness should be made; so that we
may not cleave to things of sense, but pass to intellectual objects:
for familiarity with the sight disparages the reverence of what is
divine; and to worship that which is immaterial by matter, is to
dishonour it by sense.
[Against images. But see Catechism of the Council of Trent,
part iii. cap. 2, quæst. xxiv.]
Now Pythagoras made an epitome of the statements on righteousness in Moses, when he said, “Do not step over the balance;” that is, do not transgress equality in distribution, honouring justice so.
as is said with poetic grace.
Wherefore the Lord says, “Take My yoke,
for it is gentle and light.”
Thus also those skilled in the mysteries forbid
“to eat the heart;” teaching that we ought not to gnaw and
consume the soul by idleness and by vexation, on account of things which
happen against one’s wishes. Wretched, accordingly, was the man
whom Homer also says, wandering alone, “ate his own heart.”
But again, seeing the Gospel supposes two ways—the apostles, too,
similarly with all the prophets—and seeing they call that one
“narrow and confined” which is circumscribed according to
the commandments and prohibitions, and the opposite one, which leads to
perdition, “broad and roomy,” open to pleasures and wrath,
and say, “Blessed is the man who walketh not in the counsel
of the ungodly, and standeth not in the way of sinners.” [See Pædogogue,
ii. 11, p. 265, supra.]
[Rawlinson,
Herod., ii. 223.]
It were tedious to go over all the Prophets and the Law, specifying what is spoken in enigmas; for almost the whole Scripture gives its utterances in this way. It may suffice, I think, for any one possessed of intelligence, for the proof of the point in hand, to select a few examples.
Now concealment is evinced in the reference of the seven circuits around the temple, which are made mention of among the Hebrews; and the equipment on the robe, indicating by the various symbols, which had reference to visible objects, the agreement which from heaven reaches down to earth. And the covering and the veil were variegated with blue, and purple, and scarlet, and linen. And so it was suggested that the nature of the elements contained the revelation of God. For purple is from water, linen from the earth; blue, being dark, is like the air, as scarlet is like fire.
In the midst of the covering and veil, where the priests were allowed to enter, was situated the altar of incense, the symbol of the earth placed in the middle of this universe; and from it came the fumes of incense. And that place intermediate between the inner veil, where the high priest alone, on prescribed days, was permitted to enter, and the external court which surrounded it—free to all the Hebrews—was, they say, the middlemost point of heaven and earth. But others say it was the symbol of the intellectual world, and that of sense. The covering, then, the barrier of popular unbelief, was stretched in front of the five pillars, keeping back those in the surrounding space.
So very mystically the five loaves are broken
by the Saviour, and fill the crowd of the listeners. For great is
the crowd that keep to the things of sense, as if they were the only
things in existence. “Cast your eyes round, and see,” says
Plato, “that none of the uninitiated listen.” Such are
they who think that nothing else exists, but what they can hold tight
with their hands; but do not admit as in the department of existence,
actions and processes of generation, and the whole of the unseen. For
such are those who keep by the five senses. But the knowledge of God
is a thing inaccessible to the ears and like organs of this kind of
people. Hence the Son is said to be the Father’s face, being
the revealer of the Father’s character to the five senses by
clothing Himself with flesh. “But if we live in the Spirit,
let us also walk in the Spirit.”
Again, there is the veil of the entrance into the
holy of holies. Four pillars there are, the sign of the sacred tetrad of
the ancient covenants.
Now the Lord, having come alone into the intellectual world, enters by His sufferings, introduced into the knowledge of the Ineffable, ascending above every name which is known by sound. The lamp, too, was placed to the south of the altar of incense; and by it were shown the motions of the seven planets, that perform their revolutions towards the south. For three branches rose on either side of the lamp, and lights on them; since also the sun, like the lamp, set in the midst of all the planets, dispenses with a kind of divine music the light to those above and to those below.
The golden lamp conveys another enigma
as a symbol of Christ, not in respect of form alone, but in his
casting light, “at sundry times and divers manners,”
North of the altar of incense was placed a table,
on which there was “the exhibition of the loaves;” for
the most nourishing of the winds are those of the north. And thus are
signified certain seats of churches conspiring so as to form one body
and one assemblage.
[“The communion of saints.”]
And the things recorded of the sacred ark signify the properties of the world of thought, which is hidden and closed to the many.
And those golden figures, each of them with six
wings, signify either the two bears, as some will have it, or rather the
two hemispheres. And the name cherubim meant “much knowledge.”
But both together have twelve wings, and by the zodiac and time, which
moves on it, point out
And Atlas, Ἅ—τλας,
unsuffering. The Chaldaic תּיבוּחָא.
The Hebrew is תּ̤בָה,
Sept. κιβωτός,
Vulg. arca.
For He who prohibited the making of a graven
image, would never Himself have made an image in the likeness of
holy things.
Now the high priest’s robe is the symbol of the world of sense. The seven planets are represented by the five stones and the two carbuncles, for Saturn and the Moon. The former is southern, and moist, and earthy, and heavy; the latter aerial, whence she is called by some Artemis, as if Ærotomos (cutting the air); and the air is cloudy. And cooperating as they did in the production of things here below, those that by Divine Providence are set over the planets are rightly represented as placed on the breast and shoulders; and by them was the work of creation, the first week. And the breast is the seat of the heart and soul.
Differently, the stones might be the various
phases of salvation; some occupying the upper, some the lower parts
of the entire body saved. The three hundred and sixty bells, suspended
from the robe, is the space of a year, “the acceptable year of the
Lord,” proclaiming and resounding the stupendous manifestation of
the Saviour. Further, the broad gold mitre indicates the regal power of
the Lord, “since the Head of the Church” is the Saviour. And the whole place is
very correctly called the Logeum (λογεῖον),
since everything in heaven has been created and arranged in
accordance with right reason (λόγοις) and
proportion (Philo, vol. iii. p. 195, Bohn’s translation).
The twelve stones, set in four rows on the breast,
describe for us the circle of the zodiac, in the four changes of the
year. It was otherwise requisite that the law and the prophets should be
placed beneath the Lord’s head, because in both Testaments mention
is made of the righteous. For were we to say that the apostles were at
once prophets and righteous, we should say well, “since one and the
self-same Holy Spirit works in all.” i.e.,
the oracular breastplate.
And they say that the robe prophesied the ministry
in the flesh, by which He was seen in closer relation to the world. So
the high priest, putting off his consecrated robe (the universe, and the
creation in the universe, were consecrated by Him assenting that, what
was made, was good), washes himself, and puts on the other tunic—a
holy-of-holies one, so to speak—which is to accompany him into the
adytum; exhibiting, as seems to me, the Levite and Gnostic, as the chief
of other priests (those bathed in water, and clothed in faith alone, and
expecting their own individual abode), himself distinguishing the objects
of the intellect from the things of sense, rising above other priests,
Whence also the Egyptians did not entrust the mysteries they possessed to all and sundry, and did not divulge the knowledge of divine things to the profane; but only to those destined to ascend the throne, and those of the priests that were judged the worthiest, from their nurture, culture, and birth. Similar, then, to the Hebrew enigmas in respect to concealment, are those of the Egyptians also. Of the Egyptians, some show the sun on a ship, others on a crocodile. And they signify hereby, that the sun, making a passage through the delicious and moist air, generates time; which is symbolized by the crocodile in some other sacerdotal account. Further, at Diospolis in Egypt, on the temple called Pylon, there was figured a boy as the symbol of production, and an old man as that of decay. A hawk, on the other hand, was the symbol of God, as a fish of hate; and, according to a different symbolism, the crocodile of impudence. The whole symbol, then, when put together, appears to teach this: “Oh ye who are born and die, God hates impudence.”
And there are those who fashion ears and eyes of costly material, and consecrate them, dedicating them in the temples to the gods—by this plainly indicating that God sees and hears all things. Besides, the lion is with them the symbol of strength and prowess, as the ox clearly is of the earth itself, and husbandry and food, and the horse of fortitude and confidence; while, on the other hand, the sphinx, of strength combined with intelligence—as it had a body entirely that of a lion, and the face of a man. Similarly to these, to indicate intelligence, and memory, and power, and art, a man is sculptured in the temples. And in what is called among them the Komasiæ of the gods, they carry about golden images—two dogs, one hawk, and one ibis; and the four figures of the images they call four letters. For the dogs are symbols of the two hemispheres, which, as it were, go round and keep watch; the hawk, of the sun, for it is fiery and destructive (so they attribute pestilential diseases to the sun); the ibis, of the moon, likening the shady parts to that which is dark in plumage, and the luminous to the light. And some will have it that by the dogs are meant the tropics, which guard and watch the sun’s passage to the south and north. The hawk signifies the equinoctial line, which is high and parched with heat, as the ibis the ecliptic. For the ibis seems, above other animals, to have furnished to the Egyptians the first rudiments of the invention of number and measure, as the oblique line did of circles.
But it was not only the most highly intellectual of the Egyptians, but also such of other barbarians as prosecuted philosophy, that affected the symbolical style. They say, then, that Idanthuris king of the Scythians, as Pherecydes of Syros relates, sent to Darius, on his passing the Ister in threat of war, a symbol, instead of a letter, consisting of a mouse, a frog, a bird, a javelin, a plough. And there being a doubt in reference to them, as was to be expected, Orontopagas the Chiliarch said that they were to resign the kingdom; taking dwellings to be meant by the mouse, waters by the frog, air by the bird, land by the plough, arms by the javelin. But Xiphodres interpreted the contrary; for he said, “If we do not take our flight like birds, or like mice get below the earth, or like frogs beneath the water, we shall not escape their arrows; for we are not lords of the territory.”
It is said that Anacharsis the Scythian, while asleep, covered the pudenda with his left hand, and his mouth with his right, to intimate that both ought to be mastered, but that it was a greater thing to master the tongue than voluptuousness.
And why should I linger over the barbarians, when I can adduce the Greeks as exceedingly addicted to the use of the method of concealment? Androcydes the Pythagorean says the far-famed so-called Ephesian letters were of the class of symbols. For he said that ἄσκιον (shadowless) meant darkness, for it has no shadow; and κατάσκιον (shadowy) light, since it casts with its rays the shadow; and λίξ if is the earth, according to an ancient appellation; and τετράς is the year, in reference to the seasons; and δαμναμενεύς is the sun, which overpowers (δαμάζων); and τὰ αἴσια is the true voice. And then the symbol intimates that divine things have been arranged in harmonious order—darkness to light, the sun to the year, and the earth to nature’s processes of production of every sort. Also Dionysius Thrax, the grammarian, in his book, Respecting the Exposition of the Symbolical Signification in Circles, says expressly, “Some signified actions not by words only, but also by symbols: by words, as is the case of what are called the Delphic maxims, ‘Nothing in excess,’ ‘Know thyself,’ and the like; and by symbols, as the wheel that is turned in the temples of the gods, derived from the Egyptians, and the branches that are given to the worshippers. For the Thracian Orpheus says:—
The branches either stand as the symbol of the first food, or they are that the multitude may know that fruits spring and grow universally, remaining a very long time; but that the duration of life allotted to themselves is brief. And it is on this account that they will have it that the branches are given; and perhaps also that they may know, that as these, on the other hand, are burned, so also they themselves speedily leave this life, and will become fuel for fire.
Very useful, then, is the mode of symbolic
interpretation for many purposes; and it is helpful to the right theology,
and to piety, and to the display of intelligence, and the practice of
brevity, and the exhibition of wisdom. “For the use of symbolical
speech is characteristic of the wise man,” appositely remarks the
grammarian Didymus, “and the explanation of what is signified by
it.” And indeed the most elementary instruction of children embraces
the interpretation of the four elements; for it is said that the Phrygians
call water Bedu, as also Orpheus says: [Kaye, p. 181.]
Dion Thytes also seems to write similarly:—
On the other hand, the comic poet, Philydeus, understands by Bedu the air, as being (Biodoros) life-giver, in the following lines:—
In the same opinion also concurs Neanthes of Cyzicum, who writes that the Macedonian priests invoke Bedu, which they interpret to mean the air, to be propitious to them and to their children. And Zaps some have ignorantly taken for fire (from ζέσιν, boiling); for so the sea is called, as Euphorion, in his reply to Theoridas:—
And Dionysius Iambus similarly:—
Similarly Cratinus the younger, the comic poet:—
And Simmias of Rhodes:—
This line has given commentators considerable trouble. Diodorus says that the Telchimes—fabled sons of Ocean—were the first inhabitants of Rhodes.
And χθών is the earth (κεχυμένη) spread forth to bigness. And Plectron, according to some, is the sky (πόλος), according to others, it is the air, which strikes (πλήσσοντα) and moves to nature and increase, and which fills all things. But these have not read Cleanthes the philosopher, who expressly calls Plectron the sun; for darting his beams in the east, as if striking the world, he leads the light to its harmonious course. And from the sun it signifies also the rest of the stars.
And the Sphinx is not the comprehension σύνεσις.
Sylburgius, with much probability,
conjectures σύνδεσις,
binding together.
And Apollodorus of Corcyra says
that these lines were recited by Branchus the seer, when purifying the
Milesians from plague; for he, sprinkling
And the people accompanied him,
saying, “Bedu, Βέδυ,
Ζάψ, Χθών,
Πλῆκτρον,
Σφίγξ,
Κναξζβί,
Χθύπτης,
Φλεγμός,
Δρώψ. On the interpretation of
which, much learning and ingenuity have been expended.
The third is said to be a writing
copy for children—μάρπτες,
σφίγξ, κλώψ,
ζυνχθηδόν.
And it signifies, in my opinion, that by the arrangement
of the elements and of the world, we must advance to the
knowledge of what is more perfect, since eternal salvation is
attained by force and toil; for μάρψαι
is to grasp. And the harmony of the world is
meant by the Sphinx; and ζυνχθηδόν
means difficulty; and κλώψς means at once
the secret knowledge of the Lord and day. Well! does not Epigenes, in his
book on the Poetry of Orpheus, in exhibiting the peculiarities
found in Orpheus,
[See valuable references and note on the Sibylline and Orphic
sayings. Leighton, Works, vol. vi. pp. 131, 178.]
Orpheus.
It is, then, proper that the Barbarian philosophy,
on which it is our business to speak, should prophesy also obscurely
and by symbols, as was evinced. Such are the injunctions of Moses:
“These common things, the sow, the hawk, the eagle, and the raven,
are not to be eaten.”
Lev. xi;
Again, he commands to eat that which parts the hoof
and ruminates; “intimating,” says Barnabas, “that we
ought to cleave to those who fear the Lord, and meditate in their heart
on that portion of the word which they have received, to those who speak
and keep the Lord’s statutes, to those to whom meditation is a
work of gladness, and who ruminate on the word of the Lord. And what is
the parted hoof? That the righteous walks in this world, and expects the
holy eternity to come.” Then he adds, “See how well Moses
enacted. But whence could they understand or comprehend these things? We
who have rightly understood speak the commandments as the Lord wished;
wherefore He circumcised our ears and hearts, that we may comprehend
these things. And when he says, ‘Thou shalt not eat the eagle,
the hawk, the kite, and the crow;’ he says, ‘Thou shalt
not adhere to or become like those men who know not how to procure
for themselves subsistence by toil and sweat, but live by plunder, and
lawlessly.’ For the eagle indicates robbery, the hawk injustice,
and the raven greed. It is also written, ‘With the innocent man
thou wilt be innocent, and with the chosen choice, and with the perverse
thou shall pervert.’
[Epistle of Barnabas,
vol. i, p. 143, 144. S.]
Thence Theognis writes:—
And when, again, it is said in the ode,
“For He hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath He
cast into the sea;”
This, then, is the type of “the law and
the prophets which were until John;”
And the observances practiced by the Romans in the case of wills have a place here; those balances and small coins to denote justice, and freeing of slaves, and rubbing of the ears. For these observances are, that things may be transacted with justice; and those for the dispensing of honour; and the last, that he who happens to be near, as if a burden were imposed on him, should stand and hear and take the post of mediator.
But, as appears, I have, in my eagerness to establish my point, insensibly gone beyond what is requisite. For life would fail me to adduce the multitude of those who philosophize in a symbolical manner. For the sake, then, of memory and brevity, and of attracting to the truth, such are the Scriptures of the Barbarian philosophy.
For only to those who often approach them, and have
given them a trial by faith and in their whole life, will they supply the
real philosophy and the true theology. They also wish us to require an
interpreter and guide. For so they considered, that, receiving truth at
the hands of those who knew it well, we would be more earnest and less
liable to deception, and those worthy of them would profit. Besides,
all things that shine through a veil show the truth grander and more
imposing; as fruits shining through water, and figures through veils,
which give added reflections to them. For, in addition to the fact that
things unconcealed are perceived in one way, the rays of light shining
round reveal defects. Since, then, we may draw several meanings, as we
do from what is expressed in
They say, then, that Hipparchus the Pythagorean,
being guilty of writing the tenets of Pythagoras in plain language,
was expelled from the school, and a pillar raised for him as if he
had been dead. Wherefore also in the Barbarian philosophy they call
those dead who have fallen away from the dogmas, and have placed the
mind in subjection to carnal passions. “For what fellowship hath
righteousness and iniquity?” according to the divine apostle.
“Or what communion hath light with darkness? or what concord
hath Christ with Belial? or what portion hath the believer with the
unbeliever?”
It was not only the Pythagoreans and Plato then, that concealed many things; but the Epicureans too say that they have things that may not be uttered, and do not allow all to peruse those writings. The Stoics also say that by the first Zeno things were written which they do not readily allow disciples to read, without their first giving proof whether or not they are genuine philosophers. And the disciples of Aristotle say that some of their treatises are esoteric, and others common and exoteric. Further, those who instituted the mysteries, being philosophers, buried their doctrines in myths, so as not to be obvious to all. Did they then, by veiling human opinions, prevent the ignorant from handling them; and was it not more beneficial for the holy and blessed contemplation of realities to be concealed? But it was not only the tenets of the Barbarian philosophy, or the Pythagorean myths. But even those myths in Plato (in the Republic, that of Hero the Armenian; and in the Gorgias, that of Æacus and Rhadamanthus; and in the Phædo, that of Tartarus; and in the Protagoras, that of Prometheus and Epimetheus; and besides these, that of the war between the Atlantini and the Athenians in the Atlanticum) are to be expounded allegorically, not absolutely in all their expressions, but in those which express the general sense. And these we shall find indicated by symbols under the veil of allegory. Also the association of Pythagoras, and the twofold intercourse with the associates which designates the majority, hearers (ἀκουσματικοί), and the others that have a genuine attachment to philosophy, disciples (μαθηματικοί), yet signified that something was spoken to the multitude, and something concealed from them. Perchance, too, the twofold species of the Peripatetic teaching—that called probable, and that called knowable—came very near the distinction between opinion on the one hand, and glory and truth on the other.
The Ionic muses accordingly expressly say, “That the majority of people, wise in their own estimation, follow minstrels and make use of laws, knowing that many are bad, few good; but that the best pursue glory: for the best make choice of the everlasting glory of men above all. But the multitude cram themselves like brutes, measuring happiness by the belly and the pudenda, and the basest things in us.” And the great Parmenides of Elea is introduced describing thus the teaching of the two ways:—
Rightly, therefore, the divine apostle says,
“By revelation the mystery was made known to me (as I wrote before
in brief, in accordance with which, when ye read, ye may understand my
knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made
known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to His holy apostles
and prophets.”
Barnabas, too, who in person preached the word
along with the apostle in the ministry of the Gentiles, says, “I
write to you most simply, that ye may understand.” Then below,
exhibiting already a clearer trace of gnostic tradition, he says,
“What says the other prophet Moses to them? Lo, thus saith the
Lord God, Enter ye into the good land which the Lord God sware, the God
of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; and ye received for an inheritance
that land, flowing with milk and honey.” [
Wherefore instruction, which reveals hidden things,
is called illumination, as it is the teacher only who uncovers the lid of
the ark, contrary to what the poets say, that “Zeus stops up the jar
of good things, but opens that of evil.” “For I know,”
says the apostle, “that when I come to you, I shall come in the
fulness of the blessing of Christ;”
Rightly then, Plato, in the Epistles, treating of God, says: “We must speak in enigmas; that should the tablet come by any mischance on its leaves either by sea or land, he who reads may remain ignorant.” For the God of the universe, who is above all speech, all conception, all thought, can never be committed to writing, being inexpressible even by His own power. And this too Plato showed, by saying: “Considering, then, these things, take care lest some time or other you repent on account of the present things, departing in a manner unworthy. The greatest safeguard is not to write, but learn; for it is utterly impossible that what is written will not vanish.”
Akin to this is what the holy Apostle Paul says,
preserving the prophetic and truly ancient secret from which the teachings
that were good were derived by the Greeks: “Howbeit we speak
wisdom among them who are perfect; but not the wisdom of this world,
or of the princes of this world, that come to nought; but we speak the
wisdom of God hidden in a mystery.”
If, then, “the milk” is said
by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “meat”
to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be
catechetical instruction—the first food, as it were, of
the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the
flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of
the divine power and essence. “Taste and see that the Lord
is Christ,”
Now the sacrifice which is acceptable to God is
unswerving abstraction from the body and its passions. This is the really
true piety. And is not, on this account, philosophy rightly called by
Socrates the practice of Death? For he who neither employs his eyes in the
exercise of thought, nor draws aught from his other senses, but with pure
mind itself applies to objects, practices the true philosophy. This is,
then, the import of the silence of five years prescribed by Pythagoras,
which he enjoined on his disciples; that, abstracting themselves from the
objects of sense, they might with the mind alone contemplate the Deity. It
was from Moses that the chief of the Greeks drew these philosophical
tenets. [See p. 316,
note 4, supra.]
“Wisdom of all medicines is the
Panacea,” [Analogies
in Bunsen, Hippol., iii. 75, and notes, p. 123.]
Do you see how the Greeks deify the gnostic life (though not knowing how to become acquainted with it)? And what knowledge it is, they know not even in a dream. If, then, it is agreed among us that knowledge is the food of reason, “blessed truly are they,” according to the Scripture, “who hunger and thirst after truth: for they shall be filled” with everlasting food. In the most wonderful harmony with these words, Euripides, the philosopher of the drama, is found in the following words,—making allusion, I know not how, at once to the Father and the Son:—
For a whole burnt-offering and rare sacrifice for us is Christ. And that unwittingly he mentions the Saviour, he will make plain, as he adds:—
Then he says expressly:—
It is not then without reason
that in the mysteries that obtain among the Greeks, lustrations
hold the first place; as also the laver among the Barbarians. After
these are the minor
[Analogies in Bunsen, Hippol., iii. 75, and notes, p. 123.]
We shall understand the mode of purification by confession, and that of contemplation by analysis, advancing by analysis to the first notion, beginning with the properties underlying it; abstracting from the body its physical properties, taking away the dimension of depth, then that of breadth, and then that of length. For the point which remains is a unit, so to speak, having position; from which if we abstract position, there is the conception of unity.
If, then, abstracting all that belongs to bodies and things called incorporeal, we cast ourselves into the greatness of Christ, and thence advance into immensity by holiness, we may reach somehow to the conception of the Almighty, knowing not what He is, but what He is not. And form and motion, or standing, or a throne, or place, or right hand or left, are not at all to be conceived as belonging to the Father of the universe, although it is so written. But what each of these means will be shown in its proper place. The First Cause is not then in space, but above both space, and time, and name, and conception.
Wherefore also Moses says, “Show
Thyself to me,”
Again: “Abraham, when he came to the place
which God told him of on the third day, looking up, saw the place afar
off.” Or, “the desire of a
very good soul,” according to the text which reads Ἡ ψυχῆς
ἀρίστης.
The other reading is ἀρίστη. Baptism. [Into the
Triad.]
Again, Moses, not allowing altars and temples to
be constructed in many places, but raising one temple of God, announced
that the world was only-begotten, as Basilides says, and that God is one,
as does not as yet appear to Basilides. And since the gnostic Moses does
not circumscribe within space Him that cannot be circumscribed, he set up
no image in the temple to be worshipped; showing that God was invisible,
and incapable of being circumscribed; and somehow leading the Hebrews to
the conception of God by the honour for His name in the temple. Further,
the Word, prohibiting the constructing of temples and all sacrifices,
intimates that the Almighty is not contained in anything, by what He
says: “What house will ye build to Me? saith the Lord. Heaven is my throne,”
Most excellently, therefore, Euripides accords with these, when he writes:—
And of sacrifices he thus speaks:—
“For it was not from need that
God made the world; that He might reap honours from men and the other
gods and demons, winning a kind of revenue from creation, and from us,
fumes, and from the gods and demons, their proper ministries,”
says Plato. Most instructively, therefore, says Paul in the Acts of the
Apostles: “The God that made the world, and all things in it, being
the Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
neither is worshipped by men’s hands, as if He needed anything;
seeing that it is He Himself that giveth to all breath, and life,
and all things.”
From some apocryphal writing.
“For both is it a difficult task to discover
the Father and Maker of this universe; and having found Him, it is
impossible to declare Him to all. For this is by no means capable of
expression, like the other subjects of instruction,” says the
truth-loving Plato. For he that had heard right well that the all-wise
Moses, ascending the mount for holy contemplation, to the summit of
or, “are born;” for so also is it written. He adds:—
And he adds more clearly:—
To these statements
the apostle will testify: “I know a man in Christ,
caught up into the third heaven, and thence into Paradise,
who heard unutterable words which it is not lawful for a man to
speak,”—intimating thus the impossibility of expressing
God, and indicating that what is divine is unutterable by human ἁγίᾳ is the reading of
the text. This is with great probability supposed to be changed from ἀνῃ,
a usual contraction for ανθρωπίνη. [i.e., as written by St. Clement of Rome. See vol. i,
p. 10. S.]
And was it not this which the prophet meant, when he
ordered unleavened cakes
Alluding to
According to the conjecture of Sylburgius, σύντονος
is adopted for σύντομος.
Accordingly Solon has written most wisely respecting God thus:—
For “the divine,” says
the poet of Agrigenturn,
Empedocles.
And John the apostle says: “No
man hath seen God at any time. The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom
of the Father, He hath declared Him,”
This discourse respecting God is most difficult to
handle. For since the first principle of everything is difficult to find
out, the absolutely first and oldest principle, which is the cause of all
other things being and having been, is difficult to exhibit. For how can
that be expressed which is neither genus, nor difference, nor species,
nor individual, nor number; nay more, is
It remains that we understand, then, the
Unknown, by divine grace, and by the word alone that proceeds
from Him; as Luke in the Acts of the Apostles relates that Paul
said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are
too superstitious.
Everything, then, which falls under a name, is originated, whether they will or not. Whether, then, the Father Himself draws to Himself everyone who has led a pure life, and has reached the conception of the blessed and incorruptible nature; or whether the free-will which is in us, by reaching the knowledge of the good, leaps and bounds over the barriers, as the gymnasts say; yet it is not without eminent grace that the soul is winged, and soars, and is raised above the higher spheres, laying aside all that is heavy, and surrendering itself to its kindred element.
Plato, too, in Meno, says that virtue is God-given, as the following expressions show: “From this argument then, O Meno, virtue is shown to come to those, in whom it is found, by divine providence.” Does it not then appear that “the gnostic disposition” which has come to all is enigmatically called “divine providence?” And he adds more explicitly: “If, then, in this whole treatise we have investigated well, it results that virtue is neither by nature, nor is it taught, but is produced by divine providence, not without intelligence, in those in whom it is found.” Wisdom which is God-given, as being the power of the Father, rouses indeed our free-will, and admits faith, and repays the application of the elect with its crowning fellowship.
And now I will adduce Plato himself, who clearly deems it fit to believe the children of God. For, discoursing on gods that are visible and born, in Timæus, he says: “But to speak of the other demons, and to know their birth, is too much for us. But we must credit those who have formerly spoken, they being the offspring of the gods, as they said, and knowing well their progenitors, although they speak without probable and necessary proofs.” I do not think it possible that clearer testimony could be borne by the Greeks, that our Saviour, and those anointed to prophesy (the latter being called the sons of God, and the Lord being His own Son), are the true witnesses respecting divine things. Wherefore also they ought to be believed, being inspired, he added. And were one to say in a more tragic vein, that we ought not to believe,
yet let him know that it was
God Himself that promulgated the Scriptures by His Son. And he, who
announces what is his own, is to be believed. “No one,”
says the Lord, “hath known the Father but the Son, and he to
whom the Son shall reveal Him.”
The text ἐπίστηται,
but the sense seems to require ἐπίστευσε. πέποιθεν,
has confidence.
We say, then, that it is characteristic of
the same persons to vilify philosophy, and run down faith, and to
praise iniquity and felicitate a libidinous life. But now faith,
if it is the voluntary assent of the soul, is still the doer of
good things, the foundation of right conduct; and if Aristotle
defines strictly when he teaches that ποιεῖν is
applied to the irrational creatures and to inanimate
I cannot help admiring in every particular that
divine utterance: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth
not in by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the
same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the
shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth.” Then the Lord
says in explanation, “I am the door of the sheep.”
Let us add in completion what follows, and exhibit now with greater clearness the plagiarism of the Greeks from the Barbarian philosophy.
Now the Stoics say that God, like the soul,
is essentially body and spirit. You will find all this explicitly
in their writings. Do not consider at present their allegories as
the gnostic truth presents them; whether they show one thing and
mean another, like the dexterous athletes. Well, they say that God
pervades all being; while we call Him solely Maker, and Maker by the
Word. They were misled by what is said in the book of Wisdom: “He
pervades and passes through all by reason of His purity;”
So be it, they say. But the philosophers, the Stoics, and Plato, and Pythagoras, nay more, Aristotle the Peripatetic, suppose the existence of matter among the first principles; and not one first principle. Let them then know that what is called matter by them, is said by them to be without quality, and without form, and more daringly said by Plato to be non-existence. And does he not say very mystically, knowing that the true and real first cause is one, in these very words: “Now, then, let our opinion be so. As to the first principle or principles of the universe, or what opinion we ought to entertain about all these points, we are not now to speak, for no other cause than on account of its being difficult to explain our sentiments in accordance with the present form of discourse.” But undoubtedly that prophetic expression, “Now the earth was invisible and formless,” supplied them with the ground of material essence.
And the introduction of “chance”
was hence suggested to Epicurus, who misapprehended the statement,
“Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity.” And it occurred
to Aristotle to extend Providence as far as the moon from this psalm:
“Lord, Thy mercy is in the heavens; and Thy truth reacheth
to the clouds.”
Punishments after death, on the other hand, and
penal retribution by fire, were pilfered from the Barbarian philosophy
both by all the poetic Muses and by the Hellenic philosophy. Plato,
Eusebius reads ποιητικῶς.
But indicating “the angels” as the
Scripture says, “of the little ones, and of the least, which
see God,” and also the oversight reaching to us exercised by
the tutelary angels,
[Guardian angels.
Nay, the philosophers. having so
heard from Moses, taught that the world was created. γενητόν.
And that the devil so spoken of by the Barbarian
philosophy, the prince of the demons, is a wicked spirit, Plato asserts
in the tenth book of the Laws, in these words: “Must we
not say that spirit which pervades the things that are moved on all
sides, pervades also heaven? Well, what? One or more? Several, say I,
in reply for you. Let us not suppose fewer than two—that which is
beneficent, and that which is able to accomplish the opposite.”
Similarly in the Phœdrus he writes as follows: “Now
there are other evils. But some demon has mingled pleasure with the most
things at present.” Further, in the tenth book of the Laws,
he expressly emits that apostolic sentiment, [Compare Tayler Lewis, Plato against the
Atheists, p. 342.]
Again the Barbarian philosophy knows the world of
thought and the world of sense—the former archetypal, and the latter
the image of that which is called the model; and assigns the former to
the Monad, as being perceived by the mind, and the world of sense to the
number six. For six is called by the Pythagoreans marriage, as being the
genital number; and he places in the Monad the invisible heaven and the
holy earth, and intellectual light. For “in the beginning,”
it is said, “God made the heaven and the earth; and the earth
was invisible.” And it is added, “And God said, Let there
be light; and there was light.”
Wherefore also man is said “to have been
made in [God’s] image and likeness.” For the image of
God is the divine and royal Word, the impassible man; and the image
of the image is the human mind. And if you wish to apprehend the
likeness by another name, you will find it named in Moses, a divine
correspondence. For he says, “Walk after the Lord your God, and keep
His commandments.”
The text has πάλιν:
Eusebius reads Πλάτων. The text has ἀνθρώτῳ:
Plato and Eusebius, ἀνθρώποις.
Further, the Barbarian philosophy recognises good
as alone excellent, and virtue as sufficient for happiness, when it
says, “Behold, I have set before your eyes good and evil, life
and death, that ye may choose life.”
Plato plainly calls us brethren, as being of one
God and one teacher, in the following words: “For ye who are in
the state are entirely brethren (as we shall say to them, continuing
our story). But the God who formed you, mixed gold in the composition of
those of you who are fit to rule, at your birth, wherefore you are most
highly honoured; and silver in the case of those who are helpers; and
steel and brass in the case of farmers and other workers.” Whence,
of necessity, some embrace and love those things to which knowledge
pertains; and others matters of opinion. Perchance he prophesies of that
elect nature which is bent on knowledge; if by the supposition he makes
of three natures he does not describe three politics, as some supposed:
that of the Jews, the silver; that of the Greeks, the third; and that
of the Christians, with whom has been mingled the regal gold, the Holy
Spirit, the golden.
τὴν
χρυσῆν is supplied, according to
a very probably conjecture.
And exhibiting the Christian life, he writes in
the Theætetus in these words: “Let us now speak of
the highest principles. For why should we speak of those who make an
abuse of philosophy? These know neither the way to the forum, nor know
they the court or the senate-house, or any other public assembly of the
state. As for laws and decrees spoken or “Spoken or” supplied from Plato and
Eusebius. μόνον ἐν
τῇ πόλει is here supplied
from Plato. [Note in Migne.]
Again, with the Lord’s saying, “Let your yea be yea, and your nay nay,” may be compared the following: “But to admit a falsehood, and destroy a truth, is in nowise lawful.” With the prohibition, also, against swearing agrees the saying in the tenth book of the Laws: “Let praise and an oath in everything be absent.”
And in general, Pythagoras, and Socrates, and Plato say that they hear God’s voice while closely contemplating the fabric of the universe, made and preserved unceasingly by God. For they heard Moses say, “He said, and it was done,” describing the word of God as an act.
And founding on the formation of man from the dust, the philosophers constantly term the body earthy. Homer, too, does not hesitate to put the following as an imprecation:—
As Esaias says, “And trample them down as clay.” And Callimachus clearly writes:—
And the same again:—
Hesiod says of Pandora:—
The Stoics, accordingly, define nature to be artificial fire, advancing systematically to generation. And God and His Word are by Scripture figuratively termed fire and light. But how? Does not Homer himself, is not Homer himself, paraphrasing the retreat of the water from the land, and the clear uncovering of the dry land, when he says of Tethys and Oceanus:—
Iliad, xiv. 206.
Again, power in all things is by the most intellectual among the Greeks ascribed to God; Epicharmus—he was a Pythagorean—saying:—
And the lyric poet:—
He alone who is able to make night during the period of day is God.
In the Phœnomena Aratus writes thus:—
He adds:—
that is, by creation.
And before him, Homer, framing the world in accordance with Moses on the Vulcan-wrought shield, says:—
Iliad, xviii, 483.
For the Zeus celebrated in poems and prose compositions leads the mind up to God. And already, so to speak, Democritus writes, “that a few men are in the light, who stretch out their hands to that place which we Greeks now call the air. Zeus speaks all, and he hears all, and distributes and takes away, and he is king of all.” And more mystically the Bœotian Pindar, being a Pythagorean, says:—
that is, of matter: and names the one creator of these things, whom he calls Father, chief artificer, who furnishes the means of advancement on to divinity, according to merit.
For I pass over Plato; he plainly, in the Epistle
to Erastus and Coriscus, is seen to exhibit the Father and Son somehow
or other from the Hebrew Scriptures, exhorting in these words: “In
invoking by oath, with not illiterate gravity, and with culture, the
sister of gravity, God the author of all, and invoking Him by oath as
the Lord, the Father of the Leader, and author; whom if ye study with
a truly philosophical spirit, ye shall know.” And the address in
the Timœus calls the creator, Father, speaking thus: “Ye
gods of gods, of whom I am Father; and the Creator of your works.”
So that when he says, “Around the king of all, all things are,
and because of Him are all things; and he [or that] is the cause of
all good things; and around the second are the things second in order;
and around the third, the third,” I understand nothing else
than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit,
and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to
the will of the Father.
[On the Faith, see p. 444, note 6, supra.]
And the same, in the tenth book of the Republic, mentions Eros the son of Armenius, who is Zoroaster. Zoroaster, then, writes: “These were composed by Zoroaster, the son of Armenius, a Pamphylian by birth: having died in battle, and been in Hades, I learned them of the gods.” This Zoroaster, Plato says, having been placed on the funeral pyre, rose again to life in twelve days. He alludes perchance to the resurrection, or perchance to the fact that the path for souls to ascension lies through the twelve signs of the zodiac; and he himself says, that the descending pathway to birth is the same. In the same way we are to understand the twelve labours of Hercules, after which the soul obtains release from this entire world.
I do not pass over Empedocles, who speaks thus
physically of the renewal of all things, as consisting in a transmutation
into the essence of fire, which is to take place. And most plainly of
the same opinion is Heraclitus of Ephesus, who considered that there
was a world everlasting, and recognised one perishable—that is,
in its arrangement, not being different from the former, viewed in a
certain aspect. But that he knew the imperishable world which consists
of the universal essence to be everlastingly of a certain nature,
he makes clear by speaking thus: “The same world of all things,
neither any of the gods, nor any one of men, made. But there was, and
is, and will be ever-living fire, kindled according to measure, Μέτρα is the reading
of the text, but is plainly an error for μέτρῳ, which is the
reading of Eusebius.
Plato, again, in the seventh book of the
Republic, has called “the day here nocturnal,”
as I suppose, on account of “the world-rulers of this
darkness;”
And the Lord’s day Plato prophetically
speaks of in the tenth book of the Republic, in these words:
“And when seven days have passed to each of them in the meadow,
on the eighth they are to set out and arrive in four days.” [The bearing of this passage
on questions of Sabbatical and Dominical observances, needs only to be
indicated.]
And again:—
And Homer:—
And:—
And again:—
And again:—
Callimachus the poet also writes:—
And again:—
And:—
And:—
The Elegies of Solon, too, intensely deify the seventh day.
And how? Is it not similar to Scripture when it
says, “Let us remove the righteous man from us, because he is
troublesome to us?”
[See Leighton,
Works, vol. v. p. 62, the very rich and copious note of the
editor, William West, of Nairn, Scotland. Elucidation
IX.]
And the Socratic Antisthenes, paraphrasing that
prophetic utterance, “To whom have ye likened me? saith the
Lord,”
Xenophon too, the Athenian, utters these similar sentiments in the following words: “He who shakes all things, and is Himself immoveable, is manifestly one great and powerful. But what He is in form, appears not. No more does the sun, who wishes to shine in all directions, deem it right to permit any one to look on himself. But if one gaze on him audaciously, he loses his eyesight.”
the Sibyl had said before. Rightly, then, Xenophanes of Colophon, teaching that God is one and incorporeal, adds:—
And again:—
And again:—
Let us hear, then, the lyric poet Bacchylides speaking of the divine:—
H. Stephanus, in his Fragments of Bacchylides, reads αἰκελείων (foul) instead of ἀει καὶ λίαν of the text.
And also Cleanthes, the Stoic,
who writes thus in a poem on the Deity: Quoted in Exhortation to the Heathen,
p. 192, ante, and is here corrected from the text
there.
And the same, tacitly vilifying the idolatry of the multitude, adds:—
We are not, then, to think of God according to the opinion of the multitude.
says Amphion to Antiope. And Sophocles plainly writes:—
He further proceeds, and adds:—
Then he details still more plainly the licentiousness of the fabled Zeus:—
But let these be resigned to the follies of the theatre.
Heraclius plainly says: “But of the word which is eternal men are not able to understand, both before they have heard it, and on first hearing it.” And the lyrist Melanippides says in song:—
And Parmenides the great, as Plato says in the Sophist, writes of God thus:—
Hesiod also says:—
This is quoted in Exhortation to the Heathen, p. 192, ch. vii. The reading varies, and it has been variously amended. Θεῷ is substituted above for σἐο. Perhaps the simplest of the emendations proposed on this passage is the change of σέο into σοί, with Thee.
Nay more, Tragedy, drawing away from idols, teaches to look up to heaven. Sophocles, as Hecatæus, who composed the histories in the work about Abraham and the Egyptians, says, exclaims plainly on the stage:—
And Euripides on the stage, in tragedy, says:—
And in the drama of Pirithous, the same writes those lines in tragic vein:—
For there he says that the creative mind is self-sprung. What follows applies to the universe, in which are the opposites of light and darkness.
Æschylus also, the son of Euphorion, says with very great solemnity of God:—
I am aware that Plato assents to
Heraclitus, who writes: “The one thing that is wise alone will not
be expressed, and means the name of Zeus.” And again, “Law is
to obey the will of one.” And if you wish to adduce that saying,
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear,” you will find it
expressed by the Ephesian
Heraclitus
But do you want to hear from the Greeks expressly
of one first principle? Timæus the Locrian, in the work on Nature,
shall testify in the following words: “There is one first principle
of all things unoriginated. For were it originated, it would be no longer
the first principle; but the first principle would be that from which it
originated.” For this true opinion was derived from what follows:
“Hear,” it is said, “O Israel; the Lord thy God is one, and Him only shalt
thou serve.”
See Exhortation, p. 194, where for “So” read “Lo.”
says the Sibyl.
Homer also manifestly mentions the Father and the Son by a happy hit of divination in the following words:—
“Οὕτις, Noman, Nobody: a fallacious name assumed by Ulysses (with a primary allusion to μς, τις, μῆτις, Odyss., xx. 20), to deceive Polyphemus.”—Liddell and Scott. The third line is 274 of same book.
Odyss., ix. 410.
And before him Orpheus said, speaking of the point in hand:—
And Xenocrates the Chalcedonian, who mentions the supreme Zeus and the inferior Zeus, leaves an indication of the Father and the Son. Homer, while representing the gods as subject to human passions, appears to know the Divine Being, whom Epicurus does not so revere. He says accordingly:—
Iliad. xxii. 8.
For he shows that the Divinity
cannot be captured by a mortal, or apprehended either with feet, or
hands, or eyes, or by the body at all. “To whom have ye likened
the Lord? or to what likeness have ye likened Him?” says the
Scripture.
The comic poet Epicharmus speaks in the Republic clearly of the Word in the following terms:—
All these lines from Epicharmus: they have been rendered as amended by Grotius.
He then adds expressly:—
Then:—
λόγος [or Word].
The Spirit also cries by Isaiah:
“Wherefore the multitude of sacrifices? saith the Lord. I am full of holocausts of rams, and
the fat of lambs and the blood of bulls I wish not;” and a little
after adds: “Wash you, and be clean. Put away wickedness from your
souls,”
Menander, the comic poet, writes in these very words:—
This passage, with four more lines, is quoted by Justin Martyr [De Monarchia, vol. i. p. 291, this series], and ascribed by him to Philemon.
“I am a God at hand,”
it is said by Jeremiah,
And again Menander, paraphrasing that
Scripture, “Sacrifice a sacrifice of righteousness, and trust
in the Lord,”
In Justin Martyr, in the place above quoted, these lines are joined to the preceding. They are also quoted by Eusebius, but differently arranged. The translation adopts the arrangement of Grotius.
“Whilst thou art
yet speaking,” says the Scripture, “I will say, Lo,
here I am.”
Again Diphilus, the comic poet, discourses as, follows on the judgment:—
These lines are quoted by Justin (De Monarchia [vol. i. p. 291, this series]), but ascribed by him part to Philemon, part to Euripides.
And with this agrees the
tragedy Ascribed by Justin
to Sophocles.
Adopting the reading κεῖνος instead of καινός in the text.
And after a little he adds:—
We shall find expressions similar to these also in the Orphic hymns, written as follows:—
And if we live throughout holily and righteously, we are happy here, and shall be happier after our departure hence; not possessing happiness for a time, but enabled to rest in eternity.
says the philosophic poetry of Empedocles. And so, according to the Greeks, none is so great as to be above judgment, none so insignificant as to escape its notice.
And the same Orpheus speaks thus:—
Quoted in Exhortation, p. 193.
And again, respecting God, saying that He was invisible, and that He was known to but one, a Chaldean by race—meaning either by this Abraham or his son—he speaks as follows:—
Then, as if paraphrasing
the expression, “Heaven is my throne, and earth is my
footstool,”
And so forth. For in these he
indicates these prophetic utterances: “If Thou openest the heaven,
trembling shall seize the mountains from Thy presence; and they shall
melt, as wax melteth before the fire;”
[On the Orphica, see Lewis’ Plato cont. Ath.,
p. 99.]
Then he adds, naming expressly the Almighty God:—
By the expression
“Sire of our Mother” (μητροπάτωρ)
he not only intimates creation out of nothing, but gives occasion to
those who introduce emissions of imagining a consort of the Deity. And he
paraphrases those prophetic Scripture—that in Isaiah, “I am
He that fixes the thunder, and creates the wind; whose hands have founded
the host of heaven;”
according to Orpheus.
Such also are the words of the Parian Archilochus.
For οὐρανοὺς ὸρᾶς we read ἀνθρώπους (which is the reading of Eusebius); and δρῇς (Sylburgius’s conjecture), also from Eusebius, instead of ἃ θέμις ἀθέμιστα.
Again let the Thracian Orpheus sing to us:—
These are plainly derived from the
following: “The Lord will save the inhabited cities, and grasp the
whole land in His hand like a nest;”
Rightly, then, also Philemon, the comic poet demolishes idolatry in these words:—
And Sophocles the tragedian says:—
And Orpheus:—
And so forth.
Pindar, the lyric poet, as if in Bacchic frenzy, plainly says:—
And again:—
And when he says,—
he drew the thought from the
following: “Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who was His counsellor?”
Similarly, then, Solon the Athenian, in the Elegies, following Hesiod, writes:—
Again Moses, having prophesied that the woman would bring forth in trouble and pain, on account of transgression, a poet not undistinguished writes:—
Further, when Homer says,—
Iliad, viii. 69.
he intimates that God is just.
And Menander, the comic poet, in exhibiting God, says:—
Then he adds:—
meaning either “that every one good is God,” or, what is preferable, “that God in all things is good.”
Again, Æschylus the tragedian, setting forth the power of God, does not shrink from calling Him the Highest, in these words:—
These lines of Æschylus are also quoted by Justyn Martyr (De Monarchia, vol. i. p. 290). Dread force, ἄπλατος ὁρμή: Eusebius reads ὁρμῇ, dative. J. Langus has suggested (ἄπλαστος) uncreated; ἄπληστος (insatiate) has also been suggested. The epithet of the text, which means primarily unapproachable, then dread or terrible, is applied by Pindar to fire.
Does he not seem to
you to paraphrase that text, “At the presence of the
Lord the earth trembles?”
This Pythian oracle is given by Herodotus, and is quoted also by Eusebius and Theodoret.
and so forth.
Thearidas, in his book On Nature, writes: “There was then one really true beginning [first principle] of all that exist”—one. For that Being in the beginning is one and alone.”
says Orpheus. In accordance
with whom, the comic poet Diphilus says very sententiously, γνωμικώτατα.
Eusebius reads γενιικώτατον,
agreeing with πατἐρα.
Rightly therefore Plato “accustoms
the best natures to attain to that study which formerly we said was the
highest, both to see the good and to accomplish that ascent. And this, as
appears, is not the throwing of the potsherds; A game in which a potsherd with a black and white
side was cast on a line; and as the black or white turned up, one of
the players fled and the other pursued. Eusebius has κρίνει,
which we have adopted, for κρίνειν
of the text. Plato, Rep., book
vii.
The Father, then, and Maker of all things is
apprehended by all things, agreeably to all, by innate power and
without teaching,—things inanimate, sympathizing with the animate
creation; and of living beings some are already immoral, working in
the light of day. But of those that are still mortal, some are in fear,
and carried still in their mother’s womb; and others regulate
themselves by their own independent reason. And of men all are Greeks and
Barbarians. But no race anywhere of tillers of the soil, or nomads, and
not even of dwellers in cities, can live, without being imbued with the
faith of a superior being.
[Pearson, On the Creed, p. 47.]
According to the reading in Eusebius, πᾶν ἔθνος
ἑῷον πᾶν δὲ
ἑσπερίων
ᾐόνων,
βόρειόν
τε καὶ τό,
κ.τ.λ. Instead of πρόνοιαν,
Eusebius has προνομίαν
(privilege).
Clement seems to mean that they knew God only in a roundabout
and inaccurate way. The text has περίφασιν;
but περίφρασιν,
which is in Eusebius, is preferable. [See p. 379, Elucidation I.,
supra.]
Plato in what follows gives an exhibition of free-will: “Virtue owns not a master; and in proportion as each one honours or dishonours it, in that proportion he will be a partaker of it. The blame lies in the exercise of free choice.” But God is blameless. For He is never the author of evil.
“O warlike Trojans,” says the
lyric poet, Perhaps
Bacchylides.
And Pindar expressly introduces also Zeus Soter, the consort of Themis, proclaiming him King, Saviour, Just, in the following lines:—
ἀρχαίαν.
The reading of H. Stephanus, ἀγαθὰς Ὥρας, is adopted in the translation. The text has ἀγαθὰ σωτῆρας. Some supply Ὦρας, and at the same time retain σωτῆρας.
He, then, who is not obedient to the truth, and is puffed up with human teaching, is wretched and miserable, according to Euripides:—
Let him who wishes, then, approaching to the true instruction, learn from Parmenides the Eleatic, who promises:—
And Metrodorus, though an Epicurean, spoke thus, divinely inspired: “Remember, O Menestratus, that, being a mortal endowed with a circumscribed life, thou hast in thy soul ascended, till thou hast seen endless time, and the infinity of things; and what is to be, and what has been;” when with the blessed choir, according to Plato, we shall gaze on the blessed sight and vision; we following with Zeus, and others with other deities, if we may be permitted so to say, to receive initiation into the most blessed mystery: which we shall celebrate, ourselves being perfect and untroubled by the ills which awaited us at the end of our time; and introduced to the knowledge of perfect and tranquil visions, and contemplating them in pure sunlight; we ourselves pure, and now no longer distinguished by that, which, when carrying it about, we call the body, being bound to it like an oyster to its shell.
The Pythagoreans call heaven the Antichthon [the
opposite Earth]. And in this land, it is said by Jeremiah, “I
will place thee among the children, and give thee the chosen land as
inheritance of God Omnipotent;” [This strong testimony of
Clement is worthy of special note.]
It having been, then, as I think, clearly shown in what way it is to be understood that the Greeks were called thieves by the Lord, I willingly leave the dogmas of the philosophers. For were we to go over their sayings, we should gather together directly such a quantity of notes, in showing that the whole of the Hellenic wisdom was derived from the Barbarian philosophy. But this speculation, we shall, nevertheless, again touch on, as necessity requires, when we collect the opinions current among the Greeks respecting first principles.
But from what has been said, it tacitly devolves
on us to consider in what way the Hellenic books
as appears according to Empedocles,
He divinely showed knowledge and ignorance to be the boundaries of happiness and misery. “For it behoves philosophers to be acquainted with very many things,” according to Heraclitus; and truly must
It is then now clear to us, from what has been said, that the beneficence of God is eternal, and that, from an unbeginning principle, equal natural righteousness reached all, according to the worth of each several race,—never having had a beginning. For God did not make a beginning of being Lord and Good, being always what He is. Nor will He ever cease to do good, although He bring all things to an end. And each one of us is a partaker of His beneficence, as far as He wills. For the difference of the elect is made by the intervention of a choice worthy of the soul, and by exercise.
Thus, then, let our fifth Miscellany of gnostic notes in accordance with the true philosophy be brought to a close.
(Clement’s Hebrew, p. 446, note 8.)
On this matter having spoken in a former
Elucidation (see Elucidation VIII. p. 443), I
must here translate a
few words from Philo Judæus. He says, “Before Abram was
called, such was his name; but afterward he was named Abraam,
by the simple duplication of one letter, which nevertheless enfolds a
great significance. For Abram is expounded to mean sublime father,
but Abraam means elect father of sound.” Philo goes
on to give his personal fancies in explication of this whim. But, with
Clement, Philo was an expert, to whom all knowledge was to be
credited in his specialty. This passage, however, confirms the opinion of
those who pronounce Clement destitute of Hebrew, even in its elements. No
need to say that Abram means something like what Philo gives us,
but Abraham is expounded in the Bible itself (
(The Beetle, cap. iv. p. 449, note 6.)
Cicero notes the scarabæus
on the tongue, as identifying Apis, De Nat. Deor., ed. Delphin.,
vol. xiv. p. 852.
(The Tetrad, cap. vi. p. 452, note 4.)
It is important to observe that
“the patriarchal dispensation,” as we too carelessly speak,
is pluralized by Clement. He clearly distinguishes the three
patriarchal dispensations, as given in Adam, Noah, and Abraham; and then
comes the Mosaic. The editor begs to be pardoned for referring
Dr. Jarvis died, leaving his work unfinished;
but the Church of the Redeemed is a book complete in itself,
embodying the results of a vast erudition, and of a devout familiarity
with Scripture. It begins with Adam, and ends with the downfall of
Jerusalem (the typical judgment), which closed the Mosaic dispensation.
It is written in a pellucid style, and with a fastidious use of the
English language; and it is the noblest introduction to the understanding
of the New Testament, with which I am acquainted. That such a work
should be almost unknown in American literature, of which it should
be a conspicuous ornament, is a sad commentary upon the taste of the
period when it was given to the public. Boston, 1850.
(The Golden Candlestick, cap. vi. p. 452, note 6.)
The seven gifts of the Spirit seem
to be prefigured in this symbol, corresponding to the seven (spirits)
lamps before the throne in the vision of St. John (see
(Symbols, cap. vi. p. 453, note 3.)
Clement regards the symbols of the
divine law as symbols merely, and not images in the
sense of the Decalogue. Whatever we may think of this distinction,
his argument destroys the fallacy of the Trent Catechism, which
pleads the Levitical symbols in favour of images in “the
likeness of holy things,” and which virtually abrogates the second
commandment. Images of God the Father (crowned with the Papal tiara) are
everywhere to be seen in the Latin churches, and countless images of all
heavenly things are everywhere worshipped under the fallacy which
Clement rejects. Pascal exposes the distinctions without a difference,
by which God’s laws are evacuated of all force in Jesuit theology;
but the hairsplitting distinctions, about “bowing down to images and
worshipping them,” which infect the Trent theology, are equal
to the worst of Pascal’s instances. In the Provincial Letters, passim.
(Perfection, cap. x. p. 459, note 2.)
The τέλειοι of the ancient canons were rather the complete than the perfect, as understood by the ancients. Clement’s Gnostic is “complete,” and goes on to moral perfection. Now, does not St. Paul make a similar distinction between babes in Christ, and those “complete in Him?”(Col. ii. 10.) The πεπληρωμένοι of this passage, referring to the “thoroughly furnished” Christian (fully equipped for his work and warfare), has thrown light on many passages of the fathers and of the old canons, in my experience; and I merely make the suggestion for what it may be worth. See Bunsen’s Church and Home Book (Hippol., iii. 82, 83, et seqq.) for the rules (1) governing all Christians, and (2) those called “the faithful,” by way of eminence. So, in our days, not all believers are communicants.
(The Unknown God, cap. xii. p. 464, note 1.)
Must we retain “too
superstitious,” even in the Revised Version? (Which see
ad loc.) Bunsen’s rendering of δεισιδαιμονία,
by demon-fear,
Hippol., vol. iii. p. 200.
(Xenocrates and Democritus, cap. xiii. p. 465, note 3.)
My grave and studious reader will
forgive me, here, for a reference to Stromata of a widely different
sort. Dulce est desipere, etc. One sometimes finds instruction
and relief amid the intense nonsense of “agnostic” and
other “philosophies” of our days, in turning to a healthful
intellect which “answers fools according to their folly.”
I confess myself an occasional reader of the vastly entertaining and
suggestive Noctes of Christopher North, which may be excused
by the famous example of a Father of the Church, who delighted
in Aristophanes.
Chrysostom.
Vol. iv. pp. 104-107.
(Plato’s Prophecy, cap. xiv. p. 470, note 2.)
My references at this point are worthy
of being enlarged upon. I subjoin the following as additional. On this
sublime passage, Jones of Nayland remarks, Works, vol. iv. p. 205.
[On Clement’s plan, see Elucidation I. p. 342, supra.]
The
sixth and also the seventh Miscellany of gnostic notes, in accordance
with the true philosophy, having delineated as well as possible
the ethical argument conveyed in them, and having exhibited what the
Gnostic is in his life, proceed to show the philosophers that he is by
no means impious, as they suppose, but that he alone is truly pious,
by a compendious exhibition of the Gnostic’s form of religion, as
far as it is possible, without danger, to commit it to writing in a book
of reference. For the Lord enjoined “to labour for the meat which
endureth to eternity.”
“Now the weak eateth herbs,” according
to the noble apostle.
In a meadow the flowers blooming variously, and in a park the plantations of fruit trees, are not separated according to their species from those of other kinds. If some, culling varieties, have composed learned collections, Meadows, and Helicons, and Honeycombs, and Robes; then, with the things which come to recollection by haphazard, and are expurgated neither in order nor expression, but purposely scattered, the form of the Miscellanies is promiscuously variegated like a meadow. And such being the case, my notes shall serve as kindling sparks; and in the case of him, who is fit for knowledge, if he chance to fall in with them, research made with exertion will turn out to his benefit and advantage. For it is right that labour should precede not only food but also, much more knowledge, in the case of those that are advancing to the eternal and blessed salvation by the “strait and narrow way,” which is truly the Lord’s.
Our knowledge, and our spiritual garden, is the Saviour Himself; into whom we are planted, being transferred and transplanted, from our old life, into the good land. And transplanting contributes to fruitfulness. The Lord, then, into whom we have been transplanted, is the Light and the true Knowledge.
Now knowledge is otherwise spoken of in a twofold
sense: that, commonly so called, which appears in all men (similarly
also comprehension and apprehension), universally, in the knowledge of
individual objects; in which not only the rational powers, but equally
the irrational, share, which I would never term knowledge, inasmuch as
the apprehension of things through the senses comes naturally. But that
which par excellence is termed knowledge, bears the impress of
judgment and reason, in the exercise of which there will be rational
cognitions alone, applying purely to objects of thought, and resulting
from the bare energy of the soul. “He is a good man,”
says David,
Before handling the point proposed, we must, by way of preface, add to the close of the fifth book what is wanting. For since we have shown that the symbolical style was ancient, and was employed not only by our prophets, but also by the majority of the ancient Greeks, and by not a few of the rest of the Gentile Barbarians, it was requisite to proceed to the mysteries of the initiated. I postpone the elucidation of these till we advance to the confutation of what is said by the Greeks on first principles; for we shall show that the mysteries belong to the same branch of speculation. And having proved that the declaration of Hellenic thought is illuminated all round by the truth, bestowed on us in the Scriptures, taking it according to the sense, we have proved, not to say what is invidious, that the theft of the truth passed to them.
Come, and let us adduce the Greeks as witnesses against themselves to the theft. For, inasmuch as they pilfer from one another, they establish the fact that they are thieves; and although against their will, they are detected, clandestinely appropriating to those of their own race the truth which belongs to us. For if they do not keep their hands from each other, they will hardly do it from our authors. I shall say nothing of philosophic dogmas, since the very persons who are the authors of the divisions into sects, confess in writing, so as not to be convicted of ingratitude, that they have received from Socrates the most important of their dogmas. But after availing myself of a few testimonies of men most talked of, and of repute among the Greeks, and exposing their plagiarizing style, and selecting them from various periods, I shall turn to what follows.
Orpheus, then, having composed the line:—
Homer plainly says:—
Odyss., xi. 427.
And Musæus having written:—
Homer says:—
Homer, Iliad, xxiii. 315: μέγ᾽ ἀμείνων is found in the Iliad as in Musæus. In the text occurs instead περιγίνεται, which is taken from line 318.
Iliad, xxiii. 315–318.
Again, Musæus having composed the lines:—
φύλλον, for which Sylburg, suggests φῦλον.
Homer transcribes:—
Iliad, vi. 147–149.
Again, Homer having said:—
Odyss., xxii. 412.
Archilochus and Cratinus write, the former:—
and Cratinus in the Lacones:—
Again, Archilochus, transferring that Homeric line:—
Iliad, ix. 116.
writes thus:—
As certainly also that line:—
Ξυνός. So Livy, “communis Mars;” and Cicero, “cum omnis belli Mars comunis.”
Iliad, xviii. 309.
He also, altering, has given forth thus:—
Ξυνός. So Livy, “communis Mars;” and Cicero, “cum omnis belli Mars comunis.”
Also, translating the following:—
The text has: Νίκης ἀνθρώποισι θεῶν ἐκ πείρατα κεῖται. In Iliad, vii. 101, 102, we read:
he openly encourages youth, in the following iambic:—
Again, Homer having said:—
Iliad, xvi. 235.
Euripides writes in Erechtheus:—
Archilochus having likewise said:—
in correspondence with the Homeric line:—
Odyss., xiv. 228.
Euripides says in Œneus:—
And I have heard Æschylus saying:—
And Euripides, too, shouting the like on the stage:—
Menander, too, on comedy, saying:—
Again, Theognis having said:—
Euripides has written:—
And Epicharmus, saying:—
The text is corrupt and unintelligible. It has been restored as above.
and adding:—
Euripides In some lost tragedy.
Euripides having, besides, said in the Medea:—
Sophocles in Ajax Flagellifer utters this iambic:—
Said by Ajax of the sword received from Hector, with which he killed himself.
Solon having written:—
Theognis writes in the same way:—
Whence also Thucydides, in the
Histories,
says: “Many men, to whom in a great degree, and in a short
time, unlooked-for prosperity comes, are wont to turn to insolence.”
And Philistus The
imitator of Thucydides, said to be weaker but clearer than his
model. He is not specially clear here. The text has, ἀσφαλέστερα
παρὰ
δόξαν καὶ
κακοπραγίαν:
for which Lowth reads, ἐπισφαλέστερα
πρὸς
κακοπραγίαν,
as translated above.
Critias writes: “For I begin with a man’s origin: how far the best and strongest in body will he be, if his father exercises himself, and eats in a hardy way, and subjects his body to toilsome labour; and if the mother of the future child be strong in body, and give herself exercise.”
Again, Homer having said of the Hephæstus-made shield:—
Pherecydes of Syros says:—“Zas makes a cloak large and beautiful, and works on it earth and Ogenus, and the palace of Ogenus.”
And Homer having said:—
Iliad, xxiv. 44, 45. Clement’s quotation differs somewhat from the passage as it stands in Homer.
Euripides writes in Erechtheus:—
Take, by way of parallel, such plagiarisms as the following, from those who flourished together, and were rivals of each other. From the Orestes of Euripides:—
From the Eriphyle of Sophocles:—
And from the Antigone of Sophocles:—
The text has δοίη, which Stobæus has changed into δ᾽ ἰ´ση, as above. Stobæus gives this quotation as follows:—
And from the Aleuades of Sophocles:—
Again, in the Ctimenus As no play bearing this name is
mentioned by any one else, various conjectures have been made as to the
true reading; among which are Clymene Temenos or Temenides.
And in the Minos of Sophocles;
And from the Alexander of Euripides:—
And from the Hipponos of Sophocles:—
But let us similarly run over the following; for Eumelus having composed the line,
Solon thus begins the elegy:—
Again, Euripides, paraphrasing the Homeric line:—
Odyss., xiv. 187.
employs the following iambics in Ægeus:—
And what? Theognis [See, supra, book
ii. cap. ii. p. 242.] In Theognis the quotation stands thus:—
does not Panyasis write?
Hesiod, too, saying:—
From Jupiter’s address (referring to Pandora) to Prometheus, after stealing fire from heaven. The passage in Hesiod runs thus:—
Euripides writes:—
Translated as arranged by Grotius.
And in addition, Homer, saying:—
Odyss., xvii. 286.
Euripides says:—
Besides, Callias the comic poet having written:—
Menander, in the Poloumenoi, expresses himself similarly, saying:—
συμμανῆναι is doubtless here the true reading, for which the text has συμβῆναι.
And Antimachus of Teos having said:—
Augias composed the line:—
And Hesiod having said:—
Simonides said:—
Again, Epicharmas having said:—
Euripides writes:—
Similarly also, the comic poet Diphilus having said:—
Posidippus says:—
Similarly The text has κατ᾽
ἄλλα. And although Sylburgius very
properly remarks, that the conjecture κατάλληλα
instead is uncertain, it is so suitable to the sense here, that we have no
hesitation in adopting it.
Diphilus writes:—
The above is translated as amended by Grotius.
Furthermore, Euripides having said:—
The tragic poet Theodectes similarly writes:—
And Bacchylides having said:—
παύροισι, “few,” instead of παῤοἷσι and πράσσοντας instead of πράσσοντα, and δύαις, “calamities,” instead of δύᾳ, are adopted from Lyric Fragments.
Moschion, the comic poet, writes:—
And you will find that, Theognis having said:—
Aristophanes, the comic poet, writes:—
For Anacreon, having written:—
Euripides writes:—
But not to protract the discourse further, in our anxiety to show the propensity of the Greeks to plagiarism in expressions and dogmas, allow us to adduce the express testimony of Hippias, the sophist of Elea, who discourses on the point in hand, and speaks thus: “Of these things some perchance are said by Orpheus, some briefly by Musæus; some in one place, others in other places; some by Hesiod, some by Homer, some by the rest of the poets; and some in prose compositions, some by Greeks, some by Barbarians. And I from all these, placing together the things of most importance and of kindred character, will make the present discourse new and varied.”
And in order that we may see that philosophy and history, and even rhetoric, are not free of a like reproach, it is right to adduce a few instances from them. For Alcmæon of Crotona having said, “It is easier to guard against a man who is an enemy than a friend,” Sophocles wrote in the Antigone:—
And Xenophon said: “No man can injure enemies in any way other than by appearing to be a friend.”
And Euripides having said in Telephus:—
Thrasymachus, in the oration for the Larissæans, says: “Shall we be slaves to Archelaus—Greeks to a Barbarian?”
And Orpheus having said:—
and Heraclitus, putting together the expressions from these lines, writes thus:—
And Athamas the Pythagorean having said, “Thus was produced the beginning of the universe; and there are four roots—fire, water, air, earth: for from these is the origination of what is produced,”—Empedocles of Agrigentum wrote:—
And Plato having said, “Wherefore also the gods, knowing men, release sooner from life those they value most,” Menander wrote:—
And Euripides having written in the Œnomaus:—
and in the Phœnix:—
Hyperides says, “But we must investigate things unseen by learning from signs and probabilities.” And Isocrates having said, “We must conjecture the future by the past,” Andocides does not shrink from saying, “For we must make use of what has happened previously as signs in reference to what is to be.” Besides, Theognis having said:—
ψυδνός = ψυδρός—which, however, occurs nowhere but here—is adopted as preferable to ψεδνός (bald), which yields no sense, or ψυχρός. Sylburgius ms. Paris; Ruhnk reads ψυδρός.
Euripides writes:—
Hyperides himself also says, “There is no feature of the mind impressed on the countenance of men.”
Again, Stasinus having composed the line:—
Xenophon A mistake for
Herodotus.
Herodotus says, “Mother and father being no more, I shall not have another brother.” In addition to these, Theopompus having written:—
And before him Sophocles in Peleus:—
Antipho the orator says, “For
the nursing of the old is like the nursing of children.” Also the
Instead of Μαραθωνίται,
as in the text, we read from Thucydides Μαραθῶνί
τε. Πυτίνη
(not, as in the text, Ποιτίνη),
a flask covered with plaited osiers. The name of a comedy by
Cratinus (Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon). [Elucidation
I.]
Andocides the orator says, “The preparation, gentlemen of the jury, and the eagerness of our enemies, almost all of you know.” Similarly also Nicias, in the speech on the deposit, against Lysias, says, “The preparation and the eagerness of the adversaries, ye see, O gentlemen of the jury.” After him Æschines says, “You see the preparation, O men of Athens, and the line of battle.” Again, Demosthenes having said, “What zeal and what canvassing, O men of Athens, have been employed in this contest, I think almost all of you are aware;” and Philinus similarly, “What zeal, what forming of the line of battle, gentlemen of the jury, have taken place in this contest, I think not one of you is ignorant.” Isocrates, again, having said, “As if she were related to his wealth, not him,” Lysias says in the Orphics, “And he was plainly related not to the persons, but to the money.” Since Homer also having written:—
Iliad, xii. 322, Sarpedon to Glaucus.
Theopompus writes, “For
if, by avoiding the present danger, we were to pass the rest of our
time in security, to show love of life would not be wonderful. But
now, so many fatalities are incident to life, that death in battle
seems preferable.” And what? Child the sophist having uttered
the apophthegm, “Become surety, and mischief is at hand,”
did not Epicharmus utter the same sentiment in other terms, when he
said, “Suretyship is the daughter of mischief, and loss that
of suretyship?”
Grotius’s correction has been adopted, ἐγγύας δὲ
ζαμία, instead of ὲγγύα
δὲ ζαμίας. In
the text before In Hexameters we have τηρήσει,
which has occasioned much trouble to the critics. Although
not entirely satisfactory, yet the most probable
is the correction θέλουσι,
as above.
Homer again, having written:—
Archinus says, “All men are bound to die either sooner or later;” and Demosthenes, “To all men death is the end of life, though one should keep himself shut up in a coop.”
And Herodotus, again, having said, in his discourse about Glaucus the Spartan, that the Pythian said, “In the case of the Deity, to say and to do are equivalent,” Aristophanes said:—
And before him, Parmenides of Elea said:—
And Plato having said, “And we shall show, not absurdly perhaps, that the beginning of love is sight; and hope diminishes the passion, memory nourishes it, and intercourse preserves it;” does not Philemon the comic poet write:—
Further, Demosthenes having said, “For to all of us death is a debt,” and so forth, Phanocles writes in Loves, or The Beautiful:—
You will also find that Plato having said, “For the first sprout of each plant, having got a fair start, according to the virtue of its own nature, is most powerful in inducing the appropriate end;” the historian writes, “Further, it is not natural for one of the wild plants to become cultivated, after they have passed the earlier period of growth;” and the following of Empedocles:—
Euripides transcribes in Chrysippus:—
And Plato having said, in the Republic, that women were common, Euripides writes in the Protesilaus:—
Further, Euripides having written:—
Epicurus expressly says, “Sufficiency is the greatest riches of all.”
Again, Aristophanes having written:—
Epicurus says, “The greatest fruit of righteousness is tranquillity.”
Let these species, then, of Greek plagiarism of sentiments, being such, stand as sufficient for a clear specimen to him who is capable of perceiving.
And not only have they been detected pirating and paraphrasing thoughts and expressions, as will be shown; but they will also be convicted of the possession of what is entirely stolen. For stealing entirely what is the production of others, they have published it as their own; as Eugamon of Cyrene did the entire book on the Thesprotians from Musæus, and Pisander of Camirus the Heraclea of Pisinus of Lindus, and Panyasis of Halicarnassus, the capture of Œchalia from Cleophilus of Samos.
You will also find that Homer, the great poet, took from Orpheus, from the Disappearance of Dionysus, those words and what follows verbatim:—
Iliad, xvii. 53.
And in the Theogony, it is said by Orpheus of Kronos:—
These Homer transferrred to
the Cyclops. i.e.,
Polyphemus, Odyss., ix. 372.
and so forth, taking it word for word from the poet Musæus.
And Aristophanes the comic poet has, in the first
of the Thesmophoriazusæ, transferred the words from the
Empiprameni of Cratinus. And Plato the comic poet, and Aristophanes
in Dædalus, steal from one another. Cocalus, composed
by Araros, According to
the correction of Casaubon, who, instead of ἀραρότως
of the text, reads Ἀραρώς.
Others ascribed the comedy to Aristophanes himself.
Eumelus and Acusilaus the historiographers changed the contents of Hesiod into prose, and published them as their own. Gorgias of Leontium and Eudemus of Naxus, the historians, stole from Melesagoras. And, besides, there is Bion of Proconnesus, who epitomized and transcribed the writings of the ancient Cadmus, and Archilochus, and Aristotle, and Leandrus, and Hellanicus, and Hecatæus, and Androtion, and Philochorus. Dieuchidas of Megara transferred the beginning of his treatise from the Deucalion of Hellanicus. I pass over in silence Heraclitus of Ephesus, who took a very great deal from Orpheus.
From Pythagoras Plato derived the immortality of the soul; and he from the Egyptians. And many of the Platonists composed books, in which they show that the Stoics, as we said in the beginning, and Aristotle, took the most and principal of their dogmas from Plato. Epicurus also pilfered his leading dogmas from Democritus. Let these things then be so. For life would fail me, were I to undertake to go over the subject in detail, to expose the selfish plagiarism of the Greeks, and how they claim the discovery of the best of their doctrines, which they have received from us.
And now they are convicted not only of borrowing doctrines from the Barbarians, but also of relating as prodigies of Hellenic mythology the marvels found in our records, wrought through divine power from above, by those who led holy lives, while devoting attention to us. And we shall ask at them whether those things which they relate are true or false. But they will not say that they are false; for they will not with their will condemn themselves of the very great silliness of composing falsehoods, but of necessity admit them to be true. And how will the prodigies enacted by Moses and the other prophets any longer appear to them incredible? For the Almighty God, in His care for all men, turns some to salvation by commands, some by threats, some by miraculous signs, some by gentle promises.
Well, the Greeks, when once a drought had
wasted Greece for a protracted period, and a dearth of the fruits of
the earth ensued, it is said, those that survived of them, having,
because of the famine, come as suppliants to Delphi, asked the
Pythian priestess how they should be released from the calamity. She
announced that the only help in their distress was, that they should
avail themselves of the prayers of Æacus. Prevailed on by them,
Æacus, ascending the Hellenic hill, and stretching out pure i.e., washed. Eusebius reads, “invoking the
common Father, God,” viz., Πανελλήνιος
Ζεύς, as Pausanias relates.
“And Samuel called on the Lord,” it is said, “and the
Lord gave forth His voice,
and rain in the day of harvest.”
Again, the Greeks relate, that in the case of a failure once of the Etesian winds, Aristæus once sacrificed in Ceus to Isthmian Zeus. For there was great devastation, everything being burnt up with the heat in consequence of the winds which had been wont to refresh the productions of the earth, not blowing, and he easily called them back.
And at Delphi, on the expedition of Xerxes against Greece, the Pythian priestess having made answer:—
they having erected an altar and performed sacrifice to the winds, had them as their helpers. For, blowing violently around Cape Sepias, they shivered the whole preparations of the Persian expedition. Empedocles of Agrigentum was called “Checker of Winds.” Accordingly it is said, that when, on a time, a wind blew from the mountain of Agrigentum, heavy and pestiferous for the inhabitants, and the cause also of barrenness to their wives, he made the wind to cease. Wherefore he himself writes in the lines:—
And they say that he
was followed by some that used divinations, and some that had
been long vexed by sore diseases. Instead of νοῦσον
σιδηρόν, the sense requires
that we should, with Sylburgius, read νούσοισι
δηρόν.
And some say that plagues, and hail-storms, and tempests, and the like, are wont to take place, not alone in consequence of material disturbance, but also through anger of demons and bad angels. For instance, they say that the Magi at Cleone, watching the phenomena of the skies, when the clouds are about to discharge hail, avert the threatening of wrath by incantations and sacrifices. And if at any time there is the want of an animal, they are satisfied with bleeding their own finger for a sacrifice. The prophetess Diotima, by the Athenians offering sacrifice previous to the pestilence, effected a delay of the plague for ten years. The sacrifices, too, of Epimenides of Crete, put off the Persian war for an equal period. And it is considered to be all the same whether we call these spirits gods or angels. And those skilled in the matter of consecrating statues, in many of the temples have erected tombs of the dead, calling the souls of these Dæmons, and teaching them to be worshipped by men; as having, in consequence of the purity of their life, by the divine foreknowledge, received the power of wandering about the space around the earth in order to minister to men. For they knew that some souls were by nature kept in the body. But of these, as the work proceeds, in the treatise on the angels, we shall discourse.
Democritus, who predicted many things from observation of celestial phenomena, was called “Wisdom” (Σοφία). On his meeting a cordial reception from his brother Damasus, he predicted that there would be much rain, judging from certain stars. Some, accordingly, convinced by him, gathered their crops; for being in summer-time, they were still on the threshing-floor. But others lost all, unexpected and heavy showers having burst down.
How then shall the Greeks any longer disbelieve the
divine appearance on Mount Sinai, when the fire burned, consuming none
of the things that grew on the mount; and the sound of trumpets issued
forth, breathed without instruments? For that which is called the descent
on the mount of God is the advent of divine power, pervading the whole
world, and proclaiming “the light that is inaccessible.”
For such is the allegory, according
to the Scripture. But the fire was seen, as Aristobulus [Of
this Aristobulus, see
Now the compilers of narratives say that in the
island of Britain
[See the unsatisfactory note in ed. Migne, ad locum.]
Those also who composed the Persics relate
that in the uplands, in the country of the Magi, three mountains are
situated on an extended plain, and that those who travel through the
locality, on coming to the first mountain, hear a confused sound as
of several myriads shouting, as if in battle array; and on reaching
the middle one, they hear a clamour louder and more distinct; and
at the end hear people singing a pæan, as if victorious. And
the cause, in my opinion, of the whole sound, is the smoothness and
cavernous character of the localities; and the air, entering in,
being sent back and going to the same point, sounds with considerable
force. Let these things be so. But it is possible for God Almighty, [See interesting remarks of
Professor Cook, Religion and Chemistry (first edition), p. 44.
This whole passage of our author, on the sounds of Sinai and
the angelic trumpets, touches a curious matter, which must be referred,
as here, to the unlimited power of God.]
We shall find another testimony in confirmation,
in the fact that the best of the philosophers, having appropriated their
most excellent dogmas from us, boast, as it were, of certain of the
tenets which pertain to each sect being culled from other Barbarians,
chiefly from the Egyptians—both other tenets, and that especially
of the transmigration of the soul. For the Egyptians pursue a philosophy
of their own. This is principally shown by their sacred ceremonial. For
first advances the Singer, bearing some one of the symbols of music.
For they say that he must learn two of the books of Hermes, the one of
which contains the hymns of the gods, the second the regulations for the
king’s life. And after the Singer advances the Astrologer, Ὠροσκόοπος.
[Elucidation III.]
The philosophy of the Indians, too, has been celebrated. Alexander of Macedon, having taken ten of the Indian Gymnosophists, that seemed the best and most sententious, proposed to them problems, threatening to put to death him that did not answer to the purpose; ordering one, who was the eldest of them, to decide.
The first, then, being asked whether he thought
that the living were more in number than the dead, said, The living;
for that the
And that the Greeks are called pilferers of all
manner of writing, is, as I think, sufficiently demonstrated by abundant
proofs. [Instructive
remarks on the confusions, etc., in Greek authors, may be seen in
Schliemann, Mycenœ, p. 36, ed. New York, 1878.]
And that the men of highest repute among
the Greeks knew God, not by positive knowledge, but by indirect
expression,
We have the same statement made, Stromata, i. 19, p. 322,
ante, Potter p. 372; also v. 14, p. 465, ante, Potter
p. 730,—in all of which Lowth adopts περίφρασιν
as the true reading, instead of περίφασιν.
In the first of these passages, Clement instances as one of the
circumlocutions or roundabout expressions by which God was known to the
Greek poets and philosophers, “The Unknown God.”
Joannes Clericus proposes to read παράφασιν
(palpitatio), touching, feeling after. [See Strom., p.
321, and p. 464, note 1.] i.e.,
“The Word of God’s power is His Son.”
Then he adds: “Worship this God not as the
Greeks,”—signifying plainly, that the excellent among the
Greeks worshipped the same God as we, but that they had not learned by
perfect knowledge that which was delivered by the Son. “Do not
then worship,” he did not say, the God whom the Greeks worship, but
“as the Greeks,”—changing the manner of the worship of
God, not announcing another God. What, then, the expression “not
as the Greeks” means, Peter himself shall explain, as he adds:
“Since they are carried away by ignorance, and know not God”
(as we do, according to the perfect knowledge); “but giving shape
to the things Instead of
ἡν
… ἐξουσίας
, as in the text, we read ὦν
εξουσίαν . None of the attempts to
amend this passage are entirely successful. The translation adopts
the best suggestions made. [A strange passage; but
its “darkness visible” seems to lend some help to the
understanding of the puzzle about the second-first Sabbath of
i.e., of atonement.
And further, that the same God that furnished
both the Covenants was the giver of Greek philosophy to the Greeks,
by which the Almighty is glorified among the Greeks, he shows. And it
is clear from this. Accordingly, then, from the
Most likely taken from some apocryphal book bearing
the name of Paul.
[The ideas on which our author bases his views of Christ’s descent into the invisible world, are well expounded by Kaye, p. 189.]
But as the proclamation [of the Gospel] has
come now at the fit time, so also at the fit time were the Law and the
Prophets given to the Barbarians, and Philosophy to the Greeks, to fit
their ears for the Gospel. “Therefore,” says the Lord who
delivered Israel, “in an acceptable time have I heard thee, and
in a day of salvation have I helped thee. And I have given thee for a
Covenant to the nations; that thou mightest inhabit the earth, and receive
the inheritance of the wilderness; saying to those that are in bonds,
Come forth; and to those that are in darkness, Show yourselves.”
For if the “prisoners” are the Jews, of whom the Lord said,
“Come forth, ye that will, from your bonds,”—meaning the
voluntary bound, and who have taken on them “the burdens grievous
to be borne”
For to those who were righteous according to the
law, faith was wanting. Wherefore also the Lord, in healing them, said,
“Thy faith hath saved thee.”
Wherefore the Lord preached the Gospel to those in
Hades. Accordingly the Scripture says, “Hades says to Destruction,
We have not seen His form, but we have heard His voice.” The passage which seems to
be alluded to here is
But how? Do not
[the Scriptures] show that the Lord preached εὐηγγελίσθαι
used actively for εὐαγγελίσαι,
as also immediately after εὐηγγελισμένοι
for εὐαγγελισάμενοι.
Potter, p. 452. [See ii. p.
357, supra.]
And, as I think, the Saviour also exerts His might
because it is His work to save; which accordingly He also did by drawing
to salvation those who became willing, by the preaching [of the Gospel],
to believe on Him, wherever they were. If, then, the Lord descended
to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel, as He did descend;
it was either to preach the Gospel to all or to the Hebrews only. If,
accordingly, to all, then all who believe shall be saved, although
they may be of the Gentiles, on making their profession there; since
God’s punishments
If, then, He preached only to the Jews, who wanted
the knowledge and faith of the Saviour, it is plain that, since God is
no respecter of persons, the apostles also, as here, so there preached
the Gospel to those of the heathen who were ready for conversion. And it
is well said by the Shepherd, “They went down with them therefore
into the water, and again ascended. But these descended alive, and again
ascended alive. But those who had fallen asleep, descended dead, but
ascended alive.”
Hermas, book iii. chap. xvi. p. 49. Quoted also in Stromata,
ii. p. 357, ante, from which the text here is corrected; Potter,
452. τάξιν.
[In connection with
One righteous man, then, differs not, as righteous,
from another righteous man, whether he be of the Law or a Greek. For
God is not only Lord of the Jews, but of all men, and more nearly the
Father of those who know Him. For if to live well and according to
the law is to live, also to live rationally according to the law is
to live; and those who lived rightly before the Law were classed under
faith, Apparently God’s voice
to them. Sylburgius proposes to read φύσεως
instead of φωνῆς
here.
So I think it is demonstrated that the God being good, and the Lord powerful, they save with a righteousness and equality which extend to all that turn to Him, whether here or elsewhere. For it is not here alone that the active power of God is beforehand, but it is everywhere and is always at work. Accordingly, in the Preaching of Peter, the Lord says to the disciples after the resurrection, “I have chosen you twelve disciples, judging you worthy of me,” whom the Lord wished to be apostles, having judged them faithful, sending them into the world to the men on the earth, that they may know that there is one God, showing clearly what would take place by the faith of Christ; that they who heard and believed should be saved; and that those who believed not, after having heard, should bear witness, not having the excuse to allege, We have not heard.
What then? Did not the same dispensation obtain in
Hades, so that even there, all the souls, on hearing the proclamation,
might either exhibit repentance, or confess that their punishment was
just, because they believed not? And it were the exercise of no ordinary
arbitrariness, for those who had departed before the advent of the
Lord (not having the Gospel preached to them, and having afforded no
ground from themselves, in consequence of believing or not) to obtain
either salvation or punishment. For it is not right that these should
be condemned without trial, and that those alone who lived after the
advent should have the advantage of the divine righteousness. But to
all rational souls it was said from above, “Whatever one of you
has done in ignorance, without clearly knowing God, if, on becoming
conscious, he repent, all his sins will be forgiven him.” Alluding apparently to such
passages as
Again, David expressly (or rather the Lord in the
person of the saint, and the same from the foundation of the world is
each one who at different periods is saved, and shall be saved by faith)
says, “My heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced, and my flesh shall
still rest in hope. For Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell, nor wilt
Thou give Thine holy one to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the
paths of life, Thou wilt make me full of joy in Thy presence.”
If, then, He preached the Gospel to those in the
flesh that they might not be condemned unjustly, how is it conceivable
that He did not for the same cause preach the Gospel to those who had
departed this life before His advent? “For the righteous Lord loveth righteousness: His
countenance beholdeth uprightness.”
If, then, in the deluge all sinful flesh
perished, punishment having been inflicted on them for correction,
we must first believe that the will of God, which is disciplinary
and beneficent,
Sylburgius’ conjecture, εὐεργετικόν,
seems greatly preferable to the
reading of the text, ἐνεργητικόν. [Kaye, p. 189.]
Now also Valentinus, the Coryphæus of those
who herald community, in his book on The Intercourse of Friends,
writes in these words: “Many of the things that are written,
though in common books, are found written in the church of God. For
those sayings which proceed from the heart are vain. For the law
written in the heart is the People Grabe reads λόγος
for λαός, “Word of
the Beloved,” etc. [See Epiphan, Opp., ii. 391, ed. Oehler,
Berlin, 1859: also Mosheim, First Three Centuries,
vol. i. p. 434.] Grabe suggests, instead of δρῦς
here, δρύοψ, a kind of
woodpecker, mentioned by Aristophanes.
As we have long ago pointed out, what we propose
as our subject is not the discipline which obtains in each sect, but
that which is really philosophy, strictly systematic Wisdom, which
furnishes acquaintance with the things which pertain to life. And we
define Wisdom to be certain knowledge, being a sure and irrefragable
apprehension of things divine and human, comprehending the present,
past, and future, which the Lord hath taught us, both by His advent and
by the prophets. And it is irrefragable by reason, inasmuch as it has
been communicated. And so it is wholly true according to [God’s]
intention, as being known through means of the Son. And in one aspect
This wisdom, then—rectitude of soul and of reason, and purity of life—is the object of the desire of philosophy, which is kindly and lovingly disposed towards wisdom, and does everything to attain it.
Now those are called philosophers, among us, who
love Wisdom, the Creator and Teacher of all things, that is, the knowledge
of the Son of God; and among the Greeks, those who undertake arguments
on virtue. Philosophy, then, consists of such dogmas found in each sect
(I mean those of philosophy) as cannot be impugned, with a corresponding
life, collected into one selection; and these, stolen from the Barbarian
God-given grace, have been adorned by Greek speech. For some they have
borrowed, and others they have misunderstood. And in the case of others,
what they have spoken, in consequence of being moved, they have not
yet perfectly worked out; and others by human conjecture and reasoning,
in which also they stumble. And they think that they have hit the truth
perfectly; but as we understand them, only partially. They know, then,
nothing more than this world. And it is just like geometry, which treats
of measures and magnitudes and forms, by delineation on plane-surfaces;
and just as painting appears to take in the whole field of view in
the scenes represented. But it gives a false description of the view,
according to the rules of the art, employing the signs that result from
the incidents of the lines of vision. By this means, the higher and lower
points in the view, and those between, are preserved; and some objects
seem to appear in the foreground, and others in the background, and
others to appear in some other way, on the smooth and level surface. So
also the philosophers copy the truth, after the manner of painting. And
always in the case of each one of them, their self-love is the cause
of all their mistakes. Wherefore one ought not, in the desire for the
glory that terminates in men, to be animated by self-love; but loving
God, to become really holy with wisdom. If, then, one treats what is
particular as universal, and regards that, which serves, as the Lord,
he misses the truth, not understanding what was spoken by David by way
of confession: “I have eaten earth [ashes] like bread.”
And we also have already heard that angels learned
the truth, and their rulers over them; [See the interesting passage in Justin Martyr
(and note), vol. i. p. 164, this series.]
You see whence the true philosophy has its handles;
though the Law be the image and shadow of the truth: for the Law is the
shadow of the truth. But the self-love of the Greeks proclaims certain
men as their teachers. As, then, the whole family runs back to God the
Creator;
But if from any creature they received in any
way whatever the seeds of the Truth, they did not nourish them; but
committing them to a barren and rainless soil, they choked them with
“Tried in a furnace of earth;” Jerome,
“tried in the fire, separated from earth.”
The Latin translator appears
to have read what seems the true reading, ἐπίτασις,
and not, as in the text, ἐπίστασις.
If; then, we assert that Christ Himself is Wisdom, and that it was His working which showed itself in the prophets, by which the gnostic tradition may be learned, as He Himself taught the apostles during His presence; then it follows that the gnosis, which is the knowledge and apprehension of things present, future, and past, which is sure and reliable, as being imparted and revealed by the Son of God, is wisdom.
And if, too, the end of the wise man is contemplation, that of those who are still philosophers aims at it, but never attains it, unless by the process of learning it receives the prophetic utterance which has been made known, by which it grasps both the present, the future, and the past—how they are, were, and shall be.
And the gnosis itself is that which has descended by transmission to a few, having been imparted unwritten by the apostles. Hence, then, knowledge or wisdom ought to be exercised up to the eternal and unchangeable habit of contemplation.
For Paul too, in the Epistles, plainly does not
disparage philosophy; but deems it unworthy of the man who has attained
to the elevation of the Gnostic, any more to go back to the Hellenic
“philosophy,” figuratively calling it “the rudiments
of this world,”
And should one say that it was through
human understanding that philosophy was discovered by the Greeks,
still I find the Scriptures saying that understanding is sent
by God. The psalmist, accordingly, considers understanding as
the greatest free gift, and beseeches, saying, “I am Thy
servant; give me understanding.”
Further, Peter in the Acts says, “Of a
truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every
nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted by
Him.”
The absence of respect of persons in God is not
then in time, but from eternity. Nor had His beneficence a beginning;
nor any more is it limited to places or persons. For His beneficence is
not confined to parts. “Open ye the gates of righteousness,”
it is said; “entering into them, I will confess to the Lord. This is the gate of the
Lord. The righteous shall
enter by it.”
Now the Gnostic must be erudite. And since the
Greeks say that Protagoras having led the way, the opposing of one
argument by another was invented, it is fitting that something be
said with reference to arguments of this sort. For Scripture says,
“He that says much, shall also hear in his turn.”
The pruning-hook is made, certainly, principally
for pruning; but with it we separate twigs that have got intertwined,
cut the thorns which grow along with the vines, which it is not very
easy to reach. And all these things have a reference to pruning. Again,
man is made principally for the knowledge of God; but he also measures
land, practices agriculture, and philosophizes; of which pursuits,
one conduces to life, another to living well, a third to the study
of the things which are capable of demonstration. Further, let those
who say that philosophy took its rise from the devil know this, that
the Scripture says that “the devil is transformed into an angel
of light.”
Philosophy is not then false, though the thief and the liar speak truth, through a transformation of operation. Nor is sentence of condemnation to be pronounced ignorantly against what is said, on account of him who says it (which also is to be kept in view, in the case of those who are now alleged to prophesy); but what is said must be looked at, to see if it keep by the truth.
And in general terms, we shall not err in alleging that all things necessary and profitable for life came to us from God, and that philosophy more especially was given to the Greeks, as a covenant peculiar to them—being, as it is, a stepping-stone to the philosophy which is according to Christ—although those who applied themselves to the philosophy of the Greeks shut their ears voluntarily to the truth, despising the voice of Barbarians, or also dreading the danger suspended over the believer, by the laws of the state.
And as in the Barbarian philosophy, so also in the
Hellenic, “tares were sown” by the proper husbandman of the
tares; whence also heresies grew up among us along with the productive
wheat; and those who in the Hellenic philosophy preach the impiety and
voluptuousness of Epicurus, and whatever other tenets are disseminated
contrary to right reason, exist among the Greeks as spurious fruits of
the divinely bestowed husbandry. This voluptuous and selfish philosophy
the apostle calls “the wisdom of this world;” in consequence
of its teaching the things of this world and about it alone, and its
consequent subjection, as far as respects ascendancy, to those who rule
here. Wherefore also this fragmentary philosophy is very elementary, while
truly perfect science deals with intellectual objects, which are beyond
the sphere of the world, and with the objects still more spiritual than
those which “eye saw not, and ear heard not, nor did it enter into
the heart of men,” till the Teacher told the account of them to us;
γνωστική. γνωστικῶν,
for which Hervetus, reading γνωστικόν,
has translated, “qui vere est cognitione præditus.”
This is suitable and easier, but doubtful.
But that Gnostic of whom I speak, himself
comprehends what seems to be incomprehensible to others; believing that
nothing is incomprehensible to the Son of God, whence nothing incapable
of being taught. For He who suffered out of His love for us, would
have suppressed no element of knowledge requisite for our instruction.
Accordingly this faith becomes sure demonstration; since truth follows
what has been delivered by God. But if one desires extensive knowledge,
“he knows things ancient, and conjectures things future; he
understands knotty sayings, and the solutions of enigmas. The disciple
of wisdom foreknows signs and omens, and the issues of seasons and
of times.”
The Gnostic is such, that he is subject only to the affections that exist for the maintenance of the body, such as hunger, thirst, and the like. But in the case of the Saviour, it were ludicrous [to suppose] that the body, as a body, demanded the necessary aids in order to its duration. For He ate, not for the sake of the body, which was kept together by a holy energy, but in order that it might not enter into the minds of those who were with Him to entertain a different opinion of Him; in like manner as certainly some afterwards supposed that He appeared in a phantasmal shape (δοκήσει). But He was entirely impassible (ἀπαθής); inaccessible to any movement of feeling—either pleasure or pain. While the apostles, having most gnostically mastered, through the Lord’s teaching, anger and fear, and lust, were not liable even to such of the movements of feeling, as seem good, courage, zeal, joy, desire, through a steady condition of mind, not changing a whit; but ever continuing unvarying in a state of training after the resurrection of the Lord.
And should it be granted that the affections specified above, when produced rationally, are good, yet they are nevertheless inadmissible in the case of the perfect man, who is incapable of exercising courage: for neither does he meet what inspires fear, as he regards none of the things that occur in life as to be dreaded; nor can aught dislodge him from this—the love he has towards God. Nor does he need cheerfulness of mind; for he does not fall into pain, being persuaded that all things happen well. Nor is he angry; for there is nothing to move him to anger, seeing he ever loves God, and is entirely turned towards Him alone, and therefore hates none of God’s creatures. No more does he envy; for nothing is wanting to him, that is requisite to assimilation, in order that he may be excellent and good. Nor does he consequently love any one with this common affection, but loves the Creator in the creatures. Nor, consequently, does he fall into any desire and eagerness; nor does he want, as far as respects his soul, aught appertaining to others, now that he associates through love with the Beloved One, to whom he is allied by free choice, and by the habit which results from training, approaches closer to Him, and is blessed through the abundance of good things.
So that on these accounts he is compelled to
Adopting the various reading καθ᾽
ὄ, and the conjecture ὁρᾶται,
instead of καθ᾽
ὄν and ὁράσει in
the text, as suggested by Sylburgius.
But these people know not, as appears, the divinity of love. For love is not desire on the part of him who loves; but is a relation of affection, restoring the Gnostic to the unity of the faith,—independent of time and place. But he who by love is already in the midst of that in which he is destined to be, and has anticipated hope by knowledge, does not desire anything, having, as far as possible, the very thing desired. Accordingly, as to be expected, he continues in the exercise of gnostic love, in the one unvarying state.
Nor will he, therefore, eagerly desire to be assimilated to what is beautiful, possessing, as he does, beauty by love. What more need of courage and of desire to him, who has obtained the affinity to the impassible God which arises from love, and by love has enrolled himself among the friends of God?
We must therefore rescue the gnostic and perfect
man from all passion of the soul. For knowledge (gnosis) produces
practice, and practice habit or disposition; and such a state as this
produces impassibility, not moderation of passion. And the complete
eradication of desire reaps as its fruit impassibility. But the Gnostic
does not share either in those affections that are commonly celebrated
as good, that is, the good things of the affections which are allied to
the passions: such, I mean, as gladness, which is allied to pleasure;
and dejection, for this is conjoined with pain; and caution, for it is
subject to fear. Nor yet does he share in high spirit, for it takes its
place alongside of wrath; although some say that these are no longer
evil, but already good. For it is impossible that he who has been
once made perfect by love, and feasts eternally and insatiably on the
boundless joy of contemplation, should delight in small and grovelling
things. For what rational cause remains any more to the man who has
gained “the light inaccessible,”
For by going away to the Lord, for the love he bears Him, though his tabernacle be visible on earth, he does not withdraw himself from life. For that is not permitted to him. But he has withdrawn his soul from the passions. For that is granted to him. And on the other hand he lives, having put to death his lusts, and no longer makes use of the body, but allows it the use of necessaries, that he may not give cause for dissolution.
How, then, has he any more need of fortitude,
who is not in the midst of dangers, being not present, but already
wholly with the object of love? And what necessity for self-restraint
to him who has not need of it? For to have such desires, as require
self-restraint in order to their control, is characteristic of one who
is not yet pure, but subject to passion. Now, fortitude is assumed by
reason of fear and cowardice. For it were no longer seemly that the friend
of God, whom “God hath fore-ordained before the foundation of the
world”
Quoted afterwards, chap. xii., and book vii. chap. ii.
For, in fine, it is impossible that
the immutable should assume firmness and consistency in the
mutable. But the ruling faculty being in perpetual change, and
therefore unstable, the force of habit is not maintained. For
how can he who is perpetually changed by external occurrences
and accidents, ever possess habit and disposition, and in a
word, grasp of scientific knowledge (ἐπιστήμη)?
Further, also, the philosophers regard the virtues as habits,
dispositions, and sciences. And as knowledge (gnosis) is
not born with men, but is acquired, The text has ἐπίμικτος,
which on account of its harshness has been rejected
by the authorities for ἐπίκτητος.
In scientific matters, as being alone possessed of scientific knowledge, he will hold the preeminence, and will discourse on the discussion respecting the good, ever intent on intellectual objects, tracing out his procedure in human affairs from the archetypes above; as navigators direct the ship according to the star; prepared to hold himself in readiness for every suitable action; accustomed to despise all difficulties and dangers when it is necessary to undergo them; never doing anything precipitate or incongruous either to himself or the common weal; foreseeing; and inflexible by pleasures both of waking hours and of dreams. For, accustomed to spare living and frugality, he is moderate, active, and grave; requiring few necessaries for life; occupying himself with nothing superfluous. But desiring not even these things as chief, but by reason of fellowship in life, as necessary for his sojourn in life, as far as necessary.
For to him knowledge (gnosis) is the
principal thing. Consequently, therefore, he applies to the subjects
that are a training for knowledge, taking from each branch of study its
contribution to the truth. Prosecuting, then, the proportion of harmonies
in music; and in arithmetic noting the increasing and decreasing of
numbers, and their relations to one another, and how the most of things
fall under some proportion of numbers; studying geometry, which is
abstract essence, he perceives a continuous distance, and an immutable
essence which is different from these bodies. And by astronomy, again,
raised from the earth in his mind, he is elevated along with heaven,
and will revolve with its revolution; studying ever divine things, and
their harmony with each other; from which Abraham starting, ascended to
the knowledge of Him who created them. Further, the Gnostic will avail
himself of dialectics, fixing on the distinction of genera into species,
and will master Our
choice lies between the reading of the text, προσίσεται;
that of Hervetus, προσοίσεται;
the conjecture of Sylburgius, προσείσεται,
or προσήσεται,
used a little after in the phrase προσήσεται
τὴν
ἀλήθειαν.
But the multitude are frightened at the
Hellenic philosophy, as children are at masks, being afraid lest it
lead them astray. But if the faith (for I cannot call it knowledge)
which they possess be such as to be dissolved by plausible speech,
let it be by all means dissolved, There is some difficulty in the sentence as it
stands. Hervetus omits in his translation the words rendered here,
“let it be by all means dissolved.” We have omitted διὰ
τούτους, which follows
immediately after, but which is generally retained and translated
“by these,” i.e., philosophers.
τῶν
λόγων, Sylburgius; τὸν
λόγον is the reading of the
text.
Now David cried, “The righteous shall not be
shaken for ever;”
It is, then, not by availing himself of these as virtues that our Gnostic will be deeply learned. But by using them as helps in distinguishing what is common and what is peculiar, he will admit the truth. For the cause of all error and false opinion, is inability to distinguish in what respect things are common, and in what respects they differ. For unless, in things that are distinct, one closely watch speech, he will inadvertently confound what is common and what is peculiar. And where this takes place, he must of necessity fall into pathless tracts and error.
The distinction of names and things also in the Scriptures themselves produces great light in men’s souls. For it is necessary to understand expressions which signify several things, and several expressions when they signify one thing. The result of which is accurate answering. But it is necessary to avoid the great futility which occupies itself in irrelevant matters; since the Gnostic avails himself of branches of learning as auxiliary preparatory exercises, in order to the accurate communication of the truth, as far as attainable and with as little distraction as possible, and for defence against reasonings that plot for the extinction of the truth. He will not then be deficient in what contributes to proficiency in the curriculum of studies and the Hellenic philosophy; but not principally, but necessarily, secondarily, and on account of circumstances. For what those labouring in heresies use wickedly, the Gnostic will use rightly.
Therefore the truth that appears in the Hellenic
philosophy, being partial, the real truth, like the sun glancing on the
colours both white and black, shows what like each of them is. So also it
exposes all sophistical plausibility. Rightly, then, was it proclaimed
also by the Greeks:—“Truth the queen is the beginning of
great virtue.”
Pindar.
As then in astronomy we have Abraham
as an instance, so also in arithmetic we have the same
Abraham. “For, hearing that Lot was taken captive, and having
numbered his own servants, born in his house, 318 (τιὴ
They say, then, that the character representing
300 is, as to shape, the type of the Lord’s sign, The Lord’s sign is
the cross, whose form is represented by T; Ιη (the other two letters of τιή,
318) are the first two letters of the name Ἰησοῦς
(Jesus).
Now the number 300 is, 3 by 100. Ten is allowed
to be the perfect number. And 8 is the first cube, which is equality in
all the dimensions—length, breadth, depth. “The days of men
shall be,” it is said, “120 (ρκ´) years.” The sum of the numbers from
1 to 15 inclusive is 120.
On another principle, 120 is a triangular “Triangular
numbers are those which can be disposed in a triangle, as 3 ∴,
6, etc, being represented by the formula (x2 + x)/2” (Liddell and
Scott’s Lexicon). Each side of the triangle of courses
contains an equal number of units, the sum of which amounts to
the number. [Elucidation VI.] This
number is called equality, because it is composed of eight numbers,
an even number; as fifty-six is called inequality, because it is
composed of seven numbers, an odd number. The clause within brackets
has been suggested by Hervetus to complete the sense. That is,
1+3+5+7+11+13+15=120; and 1+3=4+5=9+7=16+9=25+11=36+13=49+15=64,
giving us the numbers 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, the squares of 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8. ἐτερομήκεις,
the product of two unequal factors, i.e., 2+4+6+8+10+12+14=56; and
2+4=6=3 x 2, 6+4=10=5 x 2, and so on.
Again, according to another way of indicating, the
number 120 consists of four numbers—of one triangle, 15; of
another, a square, 25; of a third, a pentagon, 35; and of a fourth,
a hexagon, 45. The 5 is taken according to the same ratio in each mode.
For in triangular numbers, from the unity 5 comes 15; and in squares, 25;
and of those in succession, proportionally. Now 25, which is the number
5 from unity, is said to be the symbol of the Levitical tribe. And the
Such, then, is the style of the example in arithmetic. And let the testimony of geometry be the tabernacle that was constructed, and the ark that was fashioned,—constructed in most regular proportions, and through divine ideas, by the gift of understanding, which leads us from things of sense to intellectual objects, or rather from these to holy things, and to the holy of holies. For the squares of wood indicate that the square form, producing right angles, pervades all, and points out security. And the length of the structure was three hundred cubits, and the breadth fifty, and the height thirty; and above, the ark ends in a cubit, narrowing to a cubit from the broad base like a pyramid, the symbol of those who are purified and tested by fire. And this geometrical proportion has a place, for the transport of those holy abodes, whose differences are indicated by the differences of the numbers set down below.
And the numbers introduced are sixfold, as three hundred is six times fifty; and tenfold, as three hundred is ten times thirty; and containing one and two-thirds (επιδίμοιροι), for fifty is one and two-thirds of thirty.
Now there are some who say that three hundred cubits
are the symbol of the Lord’s sign; The cross.
And the table which was in the temple was six
cubits;
They add, then, the twelve cubits, agreeably
to the revolution of the twelve months, in the annual circle, during
which the earth produces and matures all things; adapting itself to
the four seasons. And the table, in my opinion, exhibits the image of
the earth, supported as it is on four feet, summer, autumn, spring,
winter, by which the year travels. Wherefore also it is said that
the table has “wavy chains;”
Further, as an example of music, let us
adduce David, playing at once and prophesying, melodiously praising
God. Now the Enarmonic
The three styles of Greek music were the ἐναρμονικόν,
διάτονον,
and χρωματικόν.
The lyre, according to its primary signification, may by the psalmist be used figuratively for the Lord; according to its secondary, for those who continually strike the chords of their souls under the direction of the Choir-master, the Lord. And if the people saved be called the lyre, it will be understood to be in consequence of their giving glory musically, through the inspiration of the Word and the knowledge of God, being struck by the Word so as to produce faith. You may take music in another way, as the ecclesiastical symphony at once of the law and the prophets, and the apostles along with the Gospel, and the harmony which obtained in each prophet, in the transitions of the persons.
But, as seems, the most of those who are inscribed
with the Name, i.e.,
of Christ.
But he who culls what is useful for the advantage
of the catechumens, and especially when they are Greeks (and the earth
is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof
Music is then to be handled for the sake
of the embellishment and composure of manners. For instance,
at a banquet we pledge each other while the music is playing; ψάλλοντες
is substituted by Lowth for ψάλλειν of
the text; ἐν
τῷ ψάλλειν has also
been proposed.
The same holds also of astronomy. For treating of the description of the celestial objects, about the form of the universe, and the revolution of the heavens, and the motion of the stars, leading the soul nearer to the creative power, it teaches to quickness in perceiving the seasons of the year, the changes of the air, and the appearance of the stars; since also navigation and husbandry derive from this much benefit, as architecture and building from geometry. This branch of learning, too, makes the soul in the highest degree observant, capable of perceiving the true and detecting the false, of discovering correspondences and proportions, so as to hunt out for similarity in things dissimilar; and conducts us to the discovery of length without breadth, and superficial extent without thickness, and an indivisible point, and transports to intellectual objects from those of sense.
The studies of philosophy, therefore, and philosophy itself, are aids in treating of the truth. For instance, the cloak was once a fleece; then it was shorn, and became warp and woof; and then it was woven. Accordingly the soul must be prepared and variously exercised, if it would become in the highest degree good. For there is the scientific and the practical element in truth; and the latter flows from the speculative; and there is need of great practice, and exercise, and experience.
But in speculation, one element relates to one’s neighbours and another to one’s self. Wherefore also training ought to be so moulded as to be adapted to both. He, then, who has acquired a competent acquaintance with the subjects which embrace the principles which conduce to scientific knowledge (gnosis), may stop and remain for the future in quiet, directing his actions in conformity with his theory.
But for the benefit of one’s neighbours, in the case of those who have proclivities for writing, and those who set themselves to deliver the word, both is other culture beneficial, and the reading of the Scriptures of the Lord is necessary, in order to the demonstration of what is said, and especially if those who hear are accessions from Hellenic culture.
Such David describes the Church: “The
queen stood on thy right hand, enveloped in a golden robe,
variegated;”
διδακτικήν,
proposed by Sylburgius, seems greatly preferable to
the reading of the text, διδακτήν,
and has been adopted above.
Again, on the other hand, we may hear: “For
in His hand, that is, in His power and wisdom, are both we and our
words, and all wisdom and skill in works; for God loves nothing but
the man that dwells with wisdom.” That is,
resurrection effected by divine power. Such
seems the only sense possible of this clause,—obtained,
however, by substituting for συνάλογοι
λόγοὐ κ.τ.λ.,
σύλλογοι
λόγον κ.τ.λ.
says the Tragic Muse somewhere.
“I must decrease,” said the prophet John,
I pass over in silence at present the parable
which says in the Gospel: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who
cast a net into the sea and out of the multitude of the fishes caught,
makes a selection of the better ones.”
And now the wisdom which we possess announces
the four virtues
Prudence, fortitude, justice, temperance. [Known as the philosophical
virtues.]
Above all, this ought to be known, that by nature we are adapted for virtue; not so as to be possessed of it from our birth, but so as to be adapted for acquiring it.
By which consideration i.e., that mentioned in the last sentence of chap xi.,
which would more appropriately be transferred to chap. xii.
But one man applies less, one more, to learning
and training. Wherefore also some have been competent to attain to
perfect virtue, and others have attained to a kind of it. And some,
on the other hand, through negligence, although in other respects of
good dispositions, have turned to the opposite. Now much more is that
knowledge which excels all branches of culture in greatness and in truth,
most difficult to acquire, and is attained with much toil. “But,
as seems, they know not the mysteries of God. For God created man
for immortality, and made him an image of His own nature;”
And why do I say the works of men? He recognises sin itself, which is not brought forward in order to repentance (for this is common to all believers); but what sin is. Nor does he condemn this or that sin, but simply all sin; nor is it what one has done ill that he brings up, but what ought not to be done. Whence also repentance is twofold: that which is common, on account of having transgressed; and that which, from learning the nature of sin, persuades, in the first instance, to keep from sinning, the result of which is not sinning.
Let them not then say, that he who does wrong
and sins transgresses through the agency of demons; for then he would
be guiltless. But by choosing the same things as demons, by sinning;
being unstable, and light, and fickle in his desires, like a demon,
he becomes a demoniac man. Now he who is bad, having become, through
evil, sinful by nature, becomes depraved, having what he has chosen;
and being sinful, sins also in his actions. And again, the good man does
right. Wherefore we call not only the virtues, but also right actions,
good. And of things that are
Let us then receive knowledge, not desiring
its results, but embracing itself for the sake of knowing. For the
first advantage is the habit of knowledge (γνωστική),
which furnishes harmless pleasures and exultation both for the
present and the future. And exultation is said to be gladness,
being a reflection of the virtue which is according to truth,
through a kind of exhilaration and relaxation of soul. And the
acts which partake of knowledge are good and fair actions. For
abundance in the actions that are according to virtue, is the true
riches, and destitution in decorous Sylburgius proposes κοσμικάς,
worldly, instead of κοσμίας,
decorous; in which case the sentence would read: “and
[true] poverty, destitution in worldly desires.”
And did not Abraham, when he was in danger on
account of Sarah’s beauty, with the king of Egypt, properly call
her sister, being of the same father, but not of the same mother? The reading of the text has,
“not of the same mother, much less of the same father,”
which contradicts
To those, then, who have repented and not firmly
believed, God grants their requests through their supplications. But
to those who live sinlessly and gnostically, He gives, when they
have but merely entertained the thought. For example, to Anna,
on her merely conceiving the thought, conception was vouchsafed of
the child Samuel.
Or, “judging from the motion of the soul;” the text reading
here οὐ
κινήματος
ψυχῆς, for which, as above, is proposed,
οὐκ
ἐκ κινήματος
ψυχῆν.
Now fastings signify abstinence from all
evils whatsoever, both in action and in word, and in thought
itself. As appears, then, righteousness is quadrangular; Metaphorical expression
for perfect. The phrase “a quadrangular man” is found
in Plato and Aristotle. [The proverbial τετρἀγονος
ἄνευ ψόγου, of the
Nicomach. Ethics, i. 10, and of Plato in the Protagoras,
p. 154. Ed. Bipont, 1782.]
For instance, on Abraham becoming a believer, it was
reckoned to him for righteousness, he having advanced to the greater and
more perfect degree of faith. For he who merely abstains from evil conduct
is not just, unless he also attain besides beneficence and knowledge;
and for this reason some things are to be abstained from, others are
to be done. “By the armour of righteousness on the right hand and
on the left,”
Then our dexterous man and Gnostic is revealed
in righteousness already even here, as Moses, glorified in the
face of the soul,
And as in the case of Moses, from his righteous
conduct, and from his uninterrupted intercourse with God, who spoke
to him, a kind of glorified hue settled on his face; so also a divine
power of goodness clinging to the righteous soul in contemplation and in
prophecy, and in the exercise of the function of governing, impresses
on it something, as it were, of intellectual radiance, like the solar
ray, as a visible sign of righteousness, uniting the soul with light,
through unbroken love, which is God-bearing and God-borne. Thence
assimilation to God the Saviour arises to the Gnostic, as far as
permitted to human nature, he being made perfect “as the Father
who is in heaven.”
It is He Himself who says, “Little children,
a little while I am still with you.” This is cited by Diogenes
Laertius as the first dictum of Epicurus. It is also referred to as such
by Cicero, De Natura Deorum, and by others.
He, then, who has first moderated his passions
and trained himself for impassibility, and developed to the beneficence
of gnostic perfection, is here equal to the angels. Luminous already,
and like the sun shining in the exercise of beneficence, he speeds
by righteous knowledge through the love of God to the sacred abode,
like as the apostles. Not that they became apostles through being
chosen for some distinguished peculiarity In opposition to the heretical opinion, that those
who are saved have an innate original excellence, on account of which
they are saved. [Elucidation VIII.]
Those, then, also now, who have exercised
themselves in the Lord’s commandments, and lived perfectly
and gnostically according to the Gospel, may be enrolled in
the chosen body of the apostles. Such an one is in reality a
presbyter of the Church, and a true minister (deacon) of the
will of God, if he do and teach what is the Lord’s; not as
being ordained
Or, “elected”—χειροτονούμενος.
Presbytery
or eldership. πσωτοκαθεδρία,
For, in truth, the covenant of salvation, reaching
down to us from the foundation of the world, through different generations
and times, is one, though conceived as different in respect of gift.
For it follows that there is one unchangeable gift of salvation given by
one God, through one Lord, benefiting in many ways. For which cause the
middle wall προκοπαί.
[Book vii. cap. i, infra.]
Such, according to David, “rest in the holy
hill of God,”
έποπτεία,
the third and highest grade of initiation of the Eleusinian mysteries
(Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon).
“And other sheep there are
also,” saith the Lord, “which are not of this
fold”
Now to know is more than to believe, as to be
dignified with the highest honour after being saved is a greater thing
than being saved. Accordingly the believer, through great discipline,
divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is
better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with
him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed
after baptism. He is tortured then still more—not yet or not
quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is
also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed,
are assigned to the believer. For God’s righteousness is good,
and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in
the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of
each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who The text here has ὄτι,
for which has been substituted (Potter and Sylb.) οί,
as above; τήν after αὐλῆς
(fold) requires to be omitted also in rendering the sentence as we have
done.
For instance, Solomon, calling the Gnostic,
wise, speaks thus of those who admire the dignity of his mansion:
“For they shall see the end of the wise, and to what a degree
the Lord has established him.”
Not only then the believer, but even the heathen,
is judged most righteously. For since God knew in virtue of His prescience
that he would not believe, He nevertheless, in order that he might receive
his own perfection gave him philosophy, but gave it him previous to
faith. And He gave the sun, and the moon, and the stars to be worshipped;
“which God,” the Law says,
As, then, to be simply saved is the result of
The author reckons three
kinds of actions, the first of which is κατόρθωμα,
right or perfect action, which is characteristic of the
perfect man and Gnostic alone, and raises him (εἰς
τὴν ἀνωτάτω
δόξαν) to the height
of glory. The second is the class of τῶν
μέσων, medium, or
intermediate actions, which are done by less perfect
believers, and procure a lower grade of glory. In the third
place he reckons sinful actions (ἀμαρτητικάς),
which are done by those who fall away from salvation
(Potter). [2
Pet. i. 11.] To produce this sense, καθῆκεν
of the text is by Potter changed into καθῆκειν.
As, then, lyres ought not to be touched by
those who are destitute of skill in playing the lyre, nor flutes
by those who are unskilled in flute-playing, neither are those
to put their hand to affairs who have not knowledge, and know
not how to use them in the whole On the authority of one of the ms., Sylburgius reads ὄλον
instead of λόγον in the
text.
The struggle for freedom, then, is waged not alone by the athletes of battles in wars, but also in banquets, and in bed, and in the tribunals, by those who are anointed by the word, who are ashamed to become the captives of pleasures.
“I would never part with virtue for
unrighteous gain.” But plainly, unrighteous gain is pleasure and
pain, toil and fear; and, to speak comprehensively, the passions of the
soul, the present of which is delightful, the future vexatious. “For
what is the profit,” it is said, “if you gain the world and
lose the soul?”
Now stupidity is the cause of ignorance. And it appears to me that it is the vaunt of a boastful soul, though of one with a good conscience, to exclaim against what happens through circumstances:—
From the Acharneis of Aristophanes, quoted also by Cicero; with various readings in each. Heinsius substitutes παλαμάσθων for παλαμᾶσθαι of the text.
But such a good conscience preserves
sanctity towards God and justice towards men; keeping the soul pure with
grave thoughts, and pure words, and just deeds. By thus receiving the
Lord’s power, the soul studies to be God; regarding nothing bad
but ignorance, and action contrary to right reason. And giving thanks
always for all things to God, by righteous hearing and divine reading,
by true investigation, by holy oblation, by blessed prayer; lauding,
hymning, blessing, praising, such a soul is never at any time separated
from God. [Bunsen,
Hippol., iii. p. 141.]
Conformably, therefore, there are various
abodes, according to the worth of those who have believed. [
The Gnostic, then, is impressed with the
closest likeness, that is, with the mind of the Master; which He
being possessed of, commanded and recommended to His disciples
and to the prudent. Comprehending this, as He who taught wished,
and receiving it in its grand sense, he teaches worthily “on
the housetops”
Through the knowledge, then, as appears,
of a bad and good life is the Gnostic saved, understanding and
executing “more than the scribes and Pharisees.”
“Now the wild olive is inserted into
the fatness of the olive,” i.e., the graft is assimilated; so the
Latin translator. But in the text we have συνεξομοιουμένη,
dative, agreeing with fatness, which seems to be a mistake.
So also the philosopher, resembling the wild olive, in having much that is undigested, on account of his devotion to the search, his propensity to follow, and his eagerness to seize the fatness of the truth; if he get besides the divine power, through faith, by being transplanted into the good and mild knowledge, like the wild olive, engrafted in the truly fair and merciful Word, he both assimilates the nutriment that is supplied, and becomes a fair and good olive tree. For engrafting makes worthless shoots noble, and compels the barren to be fruitful by the art of culture and by gnostic skill.
They say that engrafting is effected in four modes:
one, that in which the graft must be fitted in between the wood and the
bark; resembling the way in which we instruct plain people belonging to
the Gentiles, who receive the word superficially. Another is, when the
wood is cleft, and there is inserted in it the cultivated branch. And
this applies to the case of those who have studied philosophy; for
on cutting through their dogmas, the acknowledgment of the truth is
produced in them. So also in the case of the Jews, by opening up the Old
Testament, the new and noble plant of the olive is inserted. The third
mode of engrafting applies to rustics and heretics, who are brought by
force to the truth. For after smoothing off both suckers with a sharp
pruning-hook, till the pith is laid bare, but not wounded, they are bound
together. And the fourth is that form of engrafting called budding. For
a bud (eye) is cut out of a trunk of a good sort, a circle being drawn
round in the bark along with it, of the size of the palm. Then the trunk
is stripped, to suit the eye, over an equal circumference. And so the
graft is inserted, tied round, and daubed with clay, the bud being kept
uninjured and unstained. This is the style of gnostic teaching, which is
capable of looking into things themselves. This mode is, in truth, of most
Or inoculation (ἐνοφθαλμισμός).
Now, discoursing on knowledge, Solomon speaks
thus: “For wisdom is resplendent and fadeless, and is easily
beheld by those who love her. She is beforehand in making herself known
to those who desire her. He that rises early for her shall not toil
wearily. For to think about her is the perfection of good sense. And
he that keeps vigils for her shall quickly be relieved of anxiety. For
she goes about, herself seeking those worthy of her (for knowledge
belongs not to all); and in all ways she benignly shows herself
to them.”
For he teaches, as I think, that true instruction is desire for knowledge; and the practical exercise of instruction produces love of knowledge. And love is the keeping of the commandments which lead to knowledge. And the keeping of them is the establishment of the commandments, from which immortality results. “And immortality brings us near to God.”
If, then, the love of knowledge produces immortality, and leads the kingly man near to God the King, knowledge ought to be sought till it is found. Now seeking is an effort at grasping, and finds the subject by means of certain signs. And discovery is the end and cessation of inquiry, which has now its object in its grasp. And this is knowledge. And this discovery, properly so called, is knowledge, which is the apprehension of the object of search. And they say that a proof is either the antecedent, or the coincident, or the consequent. The discovery, then, of what is sought respecting God, is the teaching through the Son; and the proof of our Saviour being the very Son of God is the prophecies which preceded His coming, announcing Him; and the testimonies regarding Him which attended His birth in the world; in addition, His powers proclaimed and openly shown after His ascension.
The proof of the truth being with us, is the fact of the Son of God Himself having taught us. For if in every inquiry these universals are found, a person and a subject, that which is truly the truth is shown to be in our hands alone. For the Son of God is the person of the truth which is exhibited; and the subject is the power of faith, which prevails over the opposition of every one whatever, and the assault of the whole world.
But since this is confessedly established by eternal facts and reasons, and each one who thinks that there is no Providence has already been seen to deserve punishment and not contradiction, and is truly an atheist, it is our aim to discover what doing, and in what manner living, we shall reach the knowledge of the sovereign God, and how, honouring the Divinity, we may become authors of our own salvation. Knowing and learning, not from the Sophists, but from God Himself, what is well-pleasing to Him, we endeavour to do what is just and holy. Now it is well-pleasing to Him that we should be saved; and salvation is effected through both well-doing and knowledge, of both of which the Lord is the teacher.
If, then, according to Plato, it is only possible to learn the truth either from God or from the progeny of God, with reason we, selecting testimonies from the divine oracles, boast of learning the truth by the Son of God, prophesied at first, and then explained.
But the things which co-operate in the discovery of truth are not to be rejected. Philosophy, accordingly, which proclaims a Providence, and the recompense of a life of felicity, and the punishment, on the other hand, of a life of misery, teaches theology comprehensively; but it does not preserve accuracy and particular points; for neither respecting the Son of God, nor respecting the economy of Providence, does it treat similarly with us; for it did not know the worship of God.
Wherefore also the heresies of the Barbarian
philosophy, although they speak of one God, though they sing the
praises of Christ, speak without accuracy, not in accordance with
truth; for they discover another God, and receive Christ not as
the prophecies deliver. But their false dogmas, while they oppose
the conduct that is according to the truth, are against us. For
instance, Paul circumcised Timothy because of the Jews who believed,
in order that those who had received their training from the law
might not revolt from the faith through his breaking such points of
the law as were understood more carnally, knowing right well that
circumcision does not justify; for he professed that “all things
were for all” by conformity, preserving those of the dogmas
that were essential, “that he might gain all.”
The liars, then, in reality are not those who
for the sake of the scheme of salvation conform, nor those who err in
minute points, but those who are wrong in essentials, and reject the
Lord, and as far as in them lies deprive the Lord of the true teaching;
who do not quote or deliver the Scriptures in a manner worthy of God
and of the Lord;
[The Scriptures the authority; the canon of interpretation is the
harmony of law and Gospel as first opened by Christ Himself in the
walk to Emmaus.
Heinsius,
in a note, remarks that Plato regarded ὁσιότης
and δικαιοσύνη
as identical, while others ascribe the former to
the immortals (as also θέμις);
ὁσιότης,
as the greater, comprehends δικαιοσύνη.
He also amends the text. Instead of κοινόν he reads
ὠς
κοινόν
τι, supplies κατά
before θείαν
δικαιοσύνην,
and changes ὺπάρχουσαν
into ὺπαρχούσῃ.
For many reasons, then, the Scriptures hide the sense. First, that we may become inquisitive, and be ever on the watch for the discovery of the words of salvation. Then it was not suitable for all to understand, so that they might not receive harm in consequence of taking in another sense the things declared for salvation by the Holy Spirit. Wherefore the holy mysteries of the prophecies are veiled in the parables—preserved for chosen men, selected to knowledge in consequence of their faith; for the style of the Scriptures is parabolic. Wherefore also the Lord, who was not of the world, came as one who was of the world to men. For He was clothed with all virtue; and it was His aim to lead man, the foster-child of the world, up to the objects of intellect, and to the most essential truths by knowledge, from one world to another.
Wherefore also He employed metaphorical description; for such is the parable,—a narration based on some subject which is not the principal subject, but similar to the principal subject, and leading him who understands to what is the true and principal thing; or, as some say, a mode of speech presenting with vigour, by means of other circumstances, what is the principal subject.
And now also the whole economy which prophesied
of the Lord appears indeed a parable to those who know not the truth,
when one speaks and the rest hear that the Son of God—of Him
who made the universe—assumed flesh, and was conceived in the
virgin’s womb (as His material body was produced), and subsequently,
But on the Scriptures being opened up, and declaring
the truth to those who have ears, they proclaim the very suffering endured
by the flesh, which the Lord assumed, to be “the power and wisdom
of God.” And finally, the parabolic style of Scripture being of
the greatest antiquity, as we have shown, abounded most, as was to be
expected, in the prophets, in order that the Holy Spirit might show
that the philosophers among the Greeks, and the wise men among the
Barbarians besides, were ignorant of the future coming of the Lord,
and of the mystic teaching that was to be delivered by Him. Rightly
then, prophecy, in proclaiming the Lord, in order not to seem to some
to blaspheme while speaking what was beyond the ideas of the multitude,
embodied its declarations in expressions capable of leading to other
conceptions. Now all the prophets who foretold the Lord’s coming,
and the holy mysteries accompanying it, were persecuted and killed. As
also the Lord Himself, in explaining the Scriptures to them, and His
disciples who preached the word like Him, and subsequently to His life,
used parables. μετ᾽
αὐτὸν τὸ ζῇν
παρεβάλοντο.
The translation of Hervetus, which we have followed,
supposes the reading αὐτου
instead of αὐτόν.
Others, retaining the latter, translated τὸ ζῇν
παρεβάλοντο
(sacrificed life). But the former is most to the author’s
purpose. If we retain the reading
of the text, we must translate “founding,” and understand
the reference to be to the descent of the new Jerusalem. But it seems
better to change the reading as above.
And after a little again he draws the inference that the Scriptures owed their origin to the divine providence, asserting as follows: “For we know that God enjoined these things, and we say nothing apart from the Scriptures.”
Now the Hebrew dialect, like all the rest, has certain properties, consisting in a mode of speech which exhibits the national character. Dialect is accordingly defined as a style of speech produced by the national character. But prophecy is not marked by those dialects. For in the Hellenic writings, what are called changes of figures purposely produce obscurations, deduced after the style of our prophecies. But this is effected through the voluntary departure from direct speech which takes place in metrical or offhand diction. A figure, then, is a form of speech transferred from what is literal to what is not literal, for the sake of the composition, and on account of a diction useful in speech.
But prophecy does not employ figurative forms
in the expressions for the sake of beauty of diction. But from the
fact that truth appertains not to all, it is veiled in manifold ways,
causing the light to arise only on those who are initiated into
knowledge, who seek the truth through love. The proverb, according
to the Barbarian philosophy, is called a mode of prophecy, and the
parable is so called, and the enigma in addition. Further also, they are
called “wisdom;” and again, as something different from it,
“instruction and words of prudence,” and “turnings
of words,” and “true righteousness;” and again,
“teaching to direct judgment,” and “subtlety to the
simple,” which is the result of training, “and perception
and thought,” with which the young catechumen is imbued.
And if it was the case that the Hellenic dialects received their appellation from Hellen, the son of Zeus, surnamed Deucalion, from the chronology which we have already exhibited, it is comparatively easy to perceive by how many generations the dialects that obtained among the Greeks are posterior to the language of the Hebrews.
But as the work advances, we shall in each section,
noting the figures of speech mentioned above by the prophet, i.e., Solomon.
Did not the Power also, that appeared to Hermas
in the Vision, in the form of the Church, give for transcription
the book which she wished to be made known to the elect? And this,
he says, he transcribed to the letter, without finding how to complete
the syllables. [This
volume, p. 11, supra.]
Further, Esaias the prophet is ordered to take
“a new book, and write in it” [In the walk
to Emmaus, and by the Spirit bringing all things to remembrance.
Many also of those who called to the Lord said,
“Son of David, have mercy on me.”
Let the Decalogue be set forth cursorily by us as a specimen for gnostic exposition.
That ten is a sacred number, it is superfluous to say now. And if the tables that were written were the work of God, they will be found to exhibit physical creation. For by the “finger of God” is understood the power of God, by which the creation of heaven and earth is accomplished; of both of which the tables will be understood to be symbols. For the writing and handiwork of God put on the table is the creation of the world.
And the Decalogue, viewed as an image of heaven, embraces sun and moon, stars, clouds, light, wind, water, air, darkness, fire. This is the physical Decalogue of the heaven.
And the representation of the earth contains men, cattle, reptiles, wild beasts; and of the inhabitants of the water, fishes and whales; and again, of the winged tribes, those that are carnivorous, and those that use mild food; and of plants likewise, both fruit-bearing and barren. This is the physical Decalogue of the earth.
And the ark which held them i.e., the
Commandments.
For perfect wisdom, which is knowledge of things divine and human,
which comprehends all that relates to the oversight of the flock
of men, becomes, in reference to life, art (Instructor, book
ii. chap. ii. p. 244, supra).
And perhaps the two tables themselves may be the
prophecy of the two covenants. They were accordingly mystically renewed,
as ignorance along with sin abounded. The commandments are written,
then, doubly, as appears, for twofold spirits, the ruling and the
subject. “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit
against the flesh.”
And there is a ten in man himself: the five senses, and the power of speech, and that of reproduction; and the eighth is the spiritual principle communicated at his creation; and the ninth the ruling faculty of the soul; and tenth, there is the distinctive characteristic of the Holy Spirit, which comes to him through faith.
Besides, in addition to these ten human parts,
the law appear to give its injunctions The text reads ἐντολαῖς,
which, however, Hervetus, Heinsius, and Sylburgius, all concur in
changing to the accusative, as above.
Through the corporeal spirit, then, man perceives, desires, rejoices, is angry, is nourished, grows. It is by it, too, that thoughts and conceptions advance to actions. And when it masters the desires, the ruling faculty reigns.
The commandment, then, “Thou shalt not
lust,” says, thou shalt not serve the carnal spirit, but shall rule
over it; “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit,”
Is not man, then, rightly said “to have been made in the image of God?”—not in the form of his [corporeal] structure; but inasmuch as God creates all things by the Word (λόγῳ), and the man who has become a Gnostic performs good actions by the faculty of reason (τῷ λογικῷ), properly therefore the two tables are also said to mean the commandments that were given to the twofold spirits,—those communicated before the law to that which was created, and to the ruling faculty; and the movements of the senses are both copied in the mind, and manifested in the activity which proceeds from the body. For apprehension results from both combined. Again, as sensation is related to the world of sense, so is thought to that of intellect. And actions are twofold—those of thought, those of act.
The first commandment of the Decalogue shows
that there is one only Sovereign God;
The second word i.e., commandment. The Decalogue is in Hebrew called
“the ten words.”
And the fourth The text has τρίτος,
but Sylburgius reads τέταρτος,
the third being either omitted, or embraced in what is said of the
second. The next mentioned is the fifth. i.e., Christ. [And
the first day, or the Christian Sabbath.] [Barnabas, vol. i. chap. xv. p. 146, this
series.]
Wherefore Solomon also says, that before heaven,
and earth, and all existences, Wisdom had arisen in the Almighty; the
participation of which—that which is by power, I mean, not that
by essence—teaches a man to know by apprehension things divine
and human. Having reached this point, we must mention these things by
the way; since the discourse has turned on the seventh and the eighth.
For the eighth may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh, and the
seventh manifestly the sixth, and the latter properly the Sabbath, and
the seventh a day of work. For the creation of the world was concluded
in six days. For the motion of the sun from solstice to solstice is
completed in six months—in the course of which, at one time the
leaves fall, and at another plants bud and seeds come to maturity. And
they say that the embryo is perfected exactly in the sixth month, that
is, in one hundred and eighty days in addition to the two and a half,
as Polybus the physician relates in his book On the Eighth Month,
and Aristotle the philosopher in his book On Nature. Hence the
Pythagoreans, as I think, reckon six the perfect number, from the creation
of the world, according to the prophet, and call it Meseuthys μεσευθύς,
μέσος
and εὐθύς, between the
even ones, applied by the Pythagoreans to 6, a half-way between 2 and 10,
the first and the last even numbers of the dinary scale.
And as marriage generates from male and female, so six is generated from the odd number three, which is called the masculine number, and the even number two, which is considered the feminine. For twice three are six.
Such, again, is the number of the most general
motions, according to which all origination takes place—up,
down, to the right, to the left, forward, backward. Rightly, then,
they reckon the number seven motherless and childless, interpreting the
Sabbath, and figuratively expressing the nature of the rest, in which
“they neither marry nor are given in marriage any more.”
And they called eight a cube, counting the fixed sphere along with the seven revolving ones, by which is produced “the great year,” as a kind of period of recompense of what has been promised.
Thus the Lord, who ascended the mountain, the
fourth, i.e., with the
three disciples.
And the character The numeral ϛ´ = 6. This is said to be the
Digamma in its original place in the alphabet, and afterwards
used in mss. and
old editions as a short form of στ (Liddell and Scott’s
Lexicon).
Wherefore also man is said to have been
made on the sixth day, who became faithful to Him who is the sign
(τῷ
ἐπισήμῳ That is, Christ, who
answers to the numeral six.
The sensible types of these, then, are the
sounds we pronounce. Thus the Lord Himself is called “Alpha and
Omega, the beginning and the end,”
And now the whole world of creatures born
alive, and things that grow, revolves in sevens. The first-born
princes of the angels, who have the greatest power, are seven. [By Rabbinical tradition. But
see Calmet, Dict. Bib., p. 78.]
And of the fixed stars, the Pleiades are seven. And
the Bears, by the help of which agriculture and navigation are carried
through, consist of seven stars. And in periods of seven days the moon
undergoes its changes. In the first week she becomes half moon; in
the second, full moon; and in the third, in her wane, again half moon;
and in the fourth she disappears. Further, as Seleucus the mathematician
lays down, she has seven phases. First, from being invisible she becomes
crescent-shaped, then half
writes a poet of note, teaching us that the ancient lyre was seven-toned. The organs of the senses situated on our face are also seven—two eyes, two passages of hearing, two nostrils, and the seventh the mouth.
And that the changes in the periods of life take place by sevens, the Elegies of Solon teach thus:—
Again, in diseases the seventh
day is that of the crisis; and the fourteenth, in which nature struggles
against the causes of the diseases. And a myriad such instances are
adduced by Hermippus of Berytus, in his book On the Number Seven,
regarding it as holy.
[The honour put upon this number in the Holy Scriptures is obvious
to all, and it seems to be wrought into nature by the author of
Scripture. But see
[
And, in fine, the Decalogue, by the letter
Iota, The first
letter of the name of Jesus, and used as the sign of ten.
Now the fifth in order is the command on the honour of father and mother. And it clearly announces God as Father and Lord. Wherefore also it calls those who know Him sons and gods. The Creator of the universe is their Lord and Father; and the mother is not, as some say, the essence from which we sprang, nor, as others teach, the Church, but the divine knowledge and wisdom, as Solomon says, when he terms wisdom “the mother of the just,” and says that it is desirable for its own sake. And the knowledge of all, again, that is lovely and venerable, proceeds from God through the Son.
Then follows the command about murder. Now murder is a sure destruction. He, then, that wishes to extirpate the true doctrine of God and of immortality, in order to introduce falsehood, alleging either that the universe is not under Providence, or that the world is uncreated, or affirming anything against true doctrine, is most pernicious.
This is followed by the command respecting
adultery. Now it is adultery, if one, abandoning the ecclesiastical and
true knowledge, and the persuasion respecting God, accedes to false and
incongruous opinion, either by deifying any created object, or by making
an idol of anything that exists not, so as to overstep, or rather step
from, knowledge. And to the Gnostic false opinion is foreign, as the true
belongs to him, and is allied with him. Wherefore the noble apostle calls
one of the kinds of fornication, idolatry, In close conjunction with idolatry, fornication is
mentioned,
And after this is the command respecting theft. As,
then, he that steals what is another’s, doing great wrong, rightly
incurs ills suitable to
The elements, however, and the stars—that is, the administrative powers—are ordained for the accomplishment of what is essential to the administration, and are influenced and moved by what is commanded to them, in the way in which the Word of the Lord leads, since it is the nature of the divine power to work all things secretly. He, accordingly, who alleges that he has conceived or made anything which pertains to creation, will suffer the punishment of his impious audacity.
[The ninth is not altogether omitted, but is supposed to be included in the eighth. False testimony is theft of another’s credit, or of another’s truth. Migne, Strom., vi. 361. Elucidation X.]
And the tenth is the command respecting all lusts. As, then, he who entertains unbecoming desires is called to account; in the same way he is not allowed to desire things false, or to suppose that, of created objects, those that are animate have power of themselves, and that inanimate things can at all save or hurt. And should one say that an antidote cannot heal or hemlock kill, he is unwittingly deceived. For none of these operates except one makes use of the plant and the drug; just as the axe does not without one to cut with it, or a saw without one sawing with it. And as they do not work by themselves, but have certain physical qualities which accomplish their proper work by the exertion of the artisan; so also, by the universal providence of God, through the medium of secondary causes, the operative power is propagated in succession to individual objects.
But, as appears, the philosophers of the
Greeks, while naming God, do not know Him. But their philosophical
speculations, according to Empedocles, “as passing over the
tongue of the multitude, are poured out of mouths that know little of
the whole.” For as art changes the light of the sun into fire by
passing it through a glass vessel full of water, so also philosophy,
catching a spark from the divine Scripture, is visible in a few. Also,
as all animals breathe the same air, some in one way, others in
another, and to a different purpose; so also a considerable number
of people occupy themselves with the truth, or rather with discourse
concerning the truth. For they do not say aught respecting God, but
expound Him by attributing their own affections to God. For they spend
life in seeking the probable, not the true. But truth is not taught by
imitation, but by instruction. For it is not that we may seem good ἀγαθοὶ
εἱς are
supplied here to complete. [
He, then, who imitates opinion shows also preconception. When then one, having got an inkling of the subject, kindles it within in his soul by desire and study, he sets everything in motion afterwards in order to know it. For that which one does not apprehend, neither does he desire it, nor does he embrace the advantage flowing from it. Subsequently, therefore, the Gnostic at last imitates the Lord, as far as allowed to men, having received a sort of quality akin to the Lord Himself, in order to assimilation to God. But those who are not proficient in knowledge cannot judge the truth by rule. It is not therefore possible to share in the gnostic contemplations, unless we empty ourselves of our previous notions. For the truth in regard to every object of intellect and of sense is thus simply universally declared. For instance, we may distinguish the truth of painting from that which is vulgar, and decorous music from licentious. There is, then, also a truth of philosophy as distinct from the other philosophies, and a true beauty as distinct from the spurious. It is not then the partial truths, of which truth is predicated, but the truth itself, that we are to investigate, not seeking to learn names. For what is to be investigated respecting God is not one thing, but ten thousand. There is a difference between declaring God, and declaring things about God. And to speak generally, in everything the accidents are to be distinguished from the essence.
Suffice it for me to say, that the Lord of all is God; and I say the Lord of all absolutely, nothing being left by way of exception.
Since, then, the forms of truth are two—
To those, then, who are not
gifted οὐκ
ἁντιληπτικοῖς
is substituted here for οὖν
ἀντιληπτοῖς
of the text.
Iliad, i. 544.
knowing not who the Father is, or how He is Father.
And as to him who has hands it is natural to grasp,
and to him who has sound eyes to see the light; so it is the natural
prerogative of him who has received faith to apprehend knowledge, if
he desires, on “the foundation” laid, to work, and build up
“gold, silver, precious stones.”
Accordingly he does not profess to wish to participate, but begins to do so. Nor does it belong to him to intend, but to be regal, and illuminated, and gnostic. Nor does it appertain to him to wish to grasp things in name, but in fact.
For God, being good, on account of the principal part of the whole creation, seeing He wishes to save it, was induced to make the rest also; conferring on them at the beginning this first boon, that of existence. For that to be is far better than not to be, will be admitted by every one. Then, according to the capabilities of their nature, each one was and is made, advancing to that which is better.
So there is no absurdity in philosophy having been
given by Divine Providence as a preparatory discipline for the perfection
which is by Christ; unless philosophy is ashamed at learning from
Barbarian knowledge how to advance to truth. [See p. 303, supra, this volume.]
But it is said Providence, from above, from what
is of prime importance, as from the head, reaches to all, “as
the ointment,” it is said, “which descends to Aaron’s
beard, and to the skirt of his garment”
i.e., the body is the Jewish people, and philosophy is
something external to it, like the garment.
Thus Scripture says, that “the spirit
of perception” was given to the artificers from God.
Why, then, is the serpent called wise? Because even in its wiles there may be found a connection, and distinction, and combination, and conjecturing of the future. And so very many crimes are concealed; because the wicked arrange for themselves so as by all means to escape punishment.
And Wisdom being manifold, pervading the
whole world, and all human affairs, varies its appellation
in each case. When it applies itself to first causes,
it is called Understanding (νόησις).
When, however, it confirms this by demonstrative reasoning, it is
termed Knowledge, and Wisdom, and Science. When it is occupied in
what pertains to piety, and receives without speculation the primal
Word Christ.
Logical discussion, then, of intellectual subjects, with selection and assent, is called Dialectics; which establishes, by demonstration, allegations respecting truth, and demolishes the doubts brought forward.
Those, then, who assert that philosophy did not come hither from God, all but say that God does not know each particular thing, and that He is not the cause of all good things; if, indeed, each of these belongs to the class of individual things. But nothing that exists could have subsisted at all, had God not willed. And if He willed, then philosophy is from God, He having willed it to be such as it is, for the sake of those who not otherwise than by its means would abstain from what is evil. For God knows all things—not those only which exist, but those also which shall be—and how each thing shall be. And foreseeing the particular movements, “He surveys all things, and hears all things,” seeing the soul naked within; and possesses from eternity the idea of each thing individually. And what applies to theatres, and to the parts of each object, in looking at, looking round, and taking in the whole in one view, applies also to God. For in one glance He views all things together, and each thing by itself; but not all things, by way of primary intent.
Now, then, many things in life take their rise in some exercise of human reason, having received the kindling spark from God. For instance, health by medicine, and soundness of body through gymnastics, and wealth by trade, have their origin and existence in consequence of Divine Providence indeed, but in consequence, too, of human co-operation. Understanding also is from God.
But God’s will is especially obeyed
by the free-will of good men. Since many advantages are common to
good and bad men: yet they are nevertheless advantageous only to
men of goodness and probity, for whose sake God created them. For
it was for the use of good men that the influence which is in
God’s gifts was originated. Besides, the thoughts of virtuous
men are produced through the inspiration Christ. Christ. Lowth proposes to read κατἀ τοὺς
ἐπὶ μέρους
instead of καὶ τῶν,
etc.; and Montfaucon, instead of ἐνίοις
ἄνοις for ἀνθρώποις.
But the sense is, in any case, as given above.
The Shepherd, then, cares for each of his sheep; and his closest inspection is given to those who are excellent in their natures, and are capable of being most useful. Such are those fit to lead and teach, in whom the action of Providence is conspicuously seen; whenever either by instruction, or government, or administration, God wishes to benefit. But He wishes at all times. Wherefore He moves those who are adapted to useful exertion in the things which pertain to virtue, and peace, and beneficence. But all that is characterized by virtue proceeds from virtue, and leads back to virtue. And it is given either in order that men may become good, or that those who are so may make use of their natural advantages. For it co-operates both in what is general and what is particular. How absurd, then, is it, to those who attribute disorder and wickedness to the devil, to make him the bestower of philosophy, a virtuous thing! For he is thus all but made more benignant to the Greeks, in respect of making men good, than the divine providence and mind.
Again, I reckon it is the part of law and of right reason to assign to each one what is appropriate to him, and belongs to him, and falls to him. For as the lyre is only for the harper, and the flute for the flute-player; so good things are the possessions of good men. As the nature of the beneficent is to do good, as it is of the fire to warm, and the light to give light, and a good man will not do evil, or light produce darkness, or fire cold; so, again, vice cannot do aught virtuous. For its activity is to do evil, as that of darkness to dim the eyes.
Philosophy is not, then, the product of vice, since it makes men virtuous; it follows, then, that it is the work of God, whose work it is solely to do good. And all things given by God are given and received well.
Further, if the practice of philosophy does not
belong to the wicked, but was accorded to the best of the Greeks, it
is clear also from what source it was bestowed—manifestly from
Providence, which assigns to each what is befitting in accordance with
his deserts.”
[Here I venture to commend, as worthy of note, the speculations
of Edward King, on
Rightly, then, to the Jews belonged the Law,
[Cap. xviii., infra.]
Now, too what is good in the arts as
arts, For
ὡς
ἐν τέχναις
it is proposed to read ώς ἄν αὶ
τέχναι.
But “the earth is God’s, and the
fulness thereof,”
Now the modes of all help and communication from one to another are three. One is, by attending to another, as the master of gymnastics, in training the boy. The second is, by assimilation, as in the case of one who exhorts another to benevolence by practising it before. The one co-operates with the learner, and the other benefits him who receives. The third mode is that by command, when the gymnastic master, no longer training the learner, nor showing in his own person the exercise for the boy to imitate, prescribes the exercise by name to him, as already proficient in it.
The Gnostic, accordingly, having received
from God the power to be of service, benefits some by disciplining
them, by bestowing attention on them; others, by exhorting them, by
assimilation; and others, by training and teaching them, by command.
And certainly he himself is equally benefited by the Lord. Thus, then,
the benefit that comes from God to men becomes known—angels
at the same time lending encouragement. [See supra, this chapter; and, infra,
book vii. cap. i.] “Blue-eyed Athene
inspired him with prowess.”—Iliad, x. 482. “And
put excessive boldness in his breast.”—Iliad,
xvii. 570. “To Diomeded son of Tydeus Pallas Athene gave strength
and boldness.”—Iliad, v. 1, 2.
But exposed for imitation and assimilation are truly admirable and holy examples of virtue in the actions put on record. Further, the department of action is most conspicuous both in the testaments of the Lord, and in the laws in force among the Greeks, and also in the precepts of philosophy.
And to speak comprehensively, all benefit
appertaining to life, in its highest reason, proceeding from the
Sovereign God, the Father who is over all, is consummated by the Son,
who also on this account “is the Saviour of all men,” says
the apostle, “but especially of those who believe.”
Now our Gnostic always occupies himself with the
things of highest importance. But if at any time he has leisure and time
for relaxation from what is of prime consequence, he applies himself
to Hellenic philosophy in preference to other recreation, feasting
on it as a kind of dessert at supper. [The proportion to be observed between the
study of what is secular and that of the Scriptures, according to
Clement.]
It is well indeed to know all. But the man whose soul is destitute of the ability to reach to acquaintance with many subjects of study, will select the principal and better subjects alone. For real science (ἐπιστήμη, which we affirm the Gnostic alone possesses) is a sure comprehension (κατάληψις), leading up through true and sure reasons to the knowledge (γνῶσις) of the cause. And he, who is acquainted with what is true respecting any one subject, becomes of course acquainted with what is false respecting it.
For truly it appears to me to be a proper point for discussion, Whether we ought to philosophize: for its terms are consistent.
But if we are not to philosophize, what
then? (For no one can condemn a thing without first knowing it): the
consequence, even in that case, is that we must philosophize. The author’s meaning
is, that it is only by a process of philosophical reasoning that you
can decide whether philosophy is possible, valid, or useful. You must
philosophize in order to decide whether you ought or ought not to
philosophize.
Such, then, being the case, the Greeks ought by the
Law and the Prophets to learn to worship one God only, the only Sovereign;
then to be taught by the apostle, “but to us an idol is nothing
in the world,”
After abandoning idols, then, they will hear the
Scripture, “Unless your righteousness exceed the righteousness
of the scribes and Pharisees” βασιλικοί,
For intensification of the righteousness which is according to the law shows the Gnostic. So one who is placed in the head, which is that which rules its own body—and who advances to the summit of faith, which is the knowledge (gnosis) itself, for which all the organs of perception exist—will likewise obtain the highest inheritance.
The primacy of knowledge the apostle shows to those
capable of reflection, in writing to those Greeks of Corinth, in the
following terms: “But having hope, when your faith is increased,
that we shall be magnified in you according to our rule abundantly,
to preach the Gospel beyond you.” [Canon-law referred to
as already recognised. And see
But let those who vaunt on account of having apprehended the truth tell us from whom they boast of having heard it. They will not say from God, but will admit that it was from men. And if so, it is either from themselves that they have learned it lately, as some of them arrogantly boast, or from others like them. But human teachers, speaking of God, are not reliable, as men. For he that is man cannot speak worthily the truth concerning God: the feeble and mortal [cannot speak worthily] of the Unoriginated and Incorruptible—the work, of the Workman. Then he who is incapable of speaking what is true respecting himself, is he not much less reliable in what concerns God? For just as far as man is inferior to God in power, so much feebler is man’s speech than Him; although he do not declare God, but only speak about God and the divine word. For human speech is by nature feeble, and incapable of uttering God. I do not say His name. For to name it is common, not to philosophers only, but also to poets. Nor [do I say] His essence; for this is impossible, but the power and the works of God.
Those even who claim God as their teacher,
with difficulty attain to a conception of God, grace aiding them to
the attainment of their modicum of knowledge; accustomed as they
are to contemplate the will [of God] by the will, and the Holy
Spirit by the Holy Spirit. “For the Spirit searches the deep
things of God. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the
Spirit.”
The only wisdom, therefore, is the God-taught wisdom we possess; on which depend all the sources of wisdom, which make conjectures at the truth.
Assuredly of the coming of the Lord, who has taught us, to men, there were a myriad indicators, heralds, preparers, precursors, from the beginning, from the foundation of the world, intimating beforehand by deeds and words, prophesying that He would come, and where, and how, what should be the signs. From afar certainly Law and Prophecy kept Him in view beforehand. And then the precursor pointed Him out as present. After whom the heralds point out by their teaching the virtue of His manifestation.
The philosophers, however, chose to [teach
philosophy] to the Greeks alone, Following Hervetus, the Latin translator,
who interpolates into the text here, as seems necessary, οἱ
φιλόσοφοι
τοῖς
Ἓλλησι.
But the word of our Teacher remained not in Judea alone, as philosophy did in Greece; but was diffused over the whole world, over every nation, and village, and town, bringing already over to the truth whole houses, and each individual of those who heard it by him himself, and not a few of the philosophers themselves.
And if any one ruler whatever prohibit the
Greek philosophy, it vanishes forthwith. [The imperishable nature of the Gospel, forcibly
contrasted with the evanescence of philosophy.]
Having then moulded, as it were, a statue of the Gnostic, we have now shown who he is; indicating in outline, as it were, both the greatness and beauty of his character. What he is as to the study of physical phenomena shall be shown afterwards, when we begin to treat of the creation of the world.
(Gentlemen of the Jury, cap. ii. p. 485.)
This strange rendering of ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταὶ (which we were taught to translate O judices, in our school-days) occurs three times on this page, and I felt bound to retain it. But why import such an anachronism into the author’s work, and the forensic eloquence of the Athenians? Better do violence to idiom, like our English Bible (“men and brethren”), and say, O men and judges. Why not judges? See Sharon Turner (Anglo-Saxons, i. p. 476) and Freeman (Norman Conquest, v. p. 451).
(Aristobulus, cap. iii. p. 487, note 7.)
In addition to the note in loc., it may be well to mention the Stromata (book i. cap. xv. p. 316), as another place where this name occurs. The learned Calmet (Works, tom. ix. p. 121), in his Dict. Critic., has a valuable statement as to the difficulties connected with this name and the probability that there were two so called, who have been confused in the citations and references of authors.
(Egyptians, cap. iv. p. 488.)
The paradoxical genius of Warburton ought not to dissuade us from enjoying the amusement and instruction to be found in his Divine Legation. In many respects he reminds me of this great Alexandrian Father, and they are worthy of being studied together. Let me instance, in connection with this subject, the second book, e. g. p. 151, on Metempsychosis (Hurd’s Edition, vol. ii. 1811).
(Egyptian Women, book vi. cap. iv. p. 488.)
“Last, about women,” says our author; and one would infer least. But Rawlinson (Herod., vol. ii. p. 47, ed. New York) has a long and learned note on this subject. “Queens made offerings with the kings, and the monuments show that an order of women were employed in the service of the gods.” … Then he says, “A sort of monastic institution seems to have originated in Egypt at an early time, and to have been imitated afterwards, when the real conventual system was set on foot by the Christians, in the same country.” This may be worthy of being borne in mind, when we come to the cœnobitic life of the Thebaid, which lies, indeed, beyond the limits of our ante-Nicene researches. But persecution had already driven Christians to the desert; and the ascetic type of piety, with which the age and its necessities imprinted the souls of many devout women, may have led them at a very early period to the “imitation” of which Rawlinson speaks. The “widows” recognised by the ante-Nicene canons, would naturally become the founders of “widows’ houses,” such as are to be seen among the pious Moravians in our times. (See Bunsen, Hippol., iii. p. 81.)
(Philosophy, cap. vii. p. 493.)
In justice to Clement’s eulogies
of philosophy, we must constantly bear in mind his reiterated definitions.
We have here a very important outline of his Christian Eclecticism,
which, so far from clashing with St. Paul’s scornful references to
Gentile wisdom, seems to me in absolute correspondence with his reference
to “science falsely so called” (
(Numbers, cap. xi. p. 499.)
The marvellous system of numbers which
runs through all revelation, and which gives us the name Palmoni
(English margin) in a remarkable passage of
(The Gnostic, cap. xi. p. 501.)
The Gnostic “conjectures things future,” i.e., by the Scriptures. “He shall show you things to come,” said the Divine Master, speaking of the Blessed Comforter. To what extent did these ancients, in their esoteric conjectures, anticipate the conversion of the empire, and the evils that were to follow? This they could not publish; but the inquiry deserves thought, and there are dues for inquirers.
(Ultimate Issues, cap. xiii. p. 504.)
With reference to the choice of Judas to be an apostle, and like mysteries, this seems to me a bit of calm philosophy, worthy of the childlike faith of the early Christians. I confess great obligations to a neglected American author, with reference to such discussions (see Bledsoe, Theodicy, New York, 1854).
(Enigmas, cap. xv. p. 510.)
We are often troubled by this Oriental tendency to teach by myth and mysteries; but the text here quoted from the Proverbs, goes far to show that it is rooted in human nature, and that God himself has condescended to adopt it. Like every gift of God, it is subject to almost inevitable corruption and abuse.
(Omissions, cap. xvi. p. 515.)
The omissions in Clement’s Decalogue are worthy of remark, and I can only account for them by supposing a defective text. Kaye might have said more on the subject; but he suggests this as the solution of the difficulty, when he says (p. 201), “As the text now stands, Clement interprets only eight out of the ten.”
P.S.—I have foreborne to say anything on “the descent into hell,” in my annotations (on cap. vi.), for obvious reasons of propriety; but, for an entire system of references to the whole subject, I name Ezra Abbot’s Catalogue, appended to Alger’s History, etc. (Philadelphia, 1864.)
It is now time to show the Greeks that the Gnostic alone is truly pious; so that the philosophers, learning of what description the true Christian is, may condemn their own stupidity in rashly and inconsiderately persecuting the [Christian] name, and without reason calling those impious who know the true God. And clearer arguments must be employed, I reckon, with the philosophers, so that they may be able, from the exercise they have already had through their own training, to understand, although they have not yet shown themselves worthy to partake of the power of believing.
The prophetic sayings we shall not at present advert to, as we are to avail ourselves of the Scriptures subsequently at the proper places. But we shall point out summarily the points indicated by them, in our delineation of Christianity, so that by taking the Scriptures at once (especially as they do not yet comprehend their utterances), we may not interrupt the continuity of the discourse. But after pointing out the things indicated, proofs shall be shown in abundance to those who have believed.
But if the assertions made by us appear to certain
of the multitude to be different from the Scriptures of the Lord,
let it be known that it is from that source that they have breath and
life; and taking their rise from them, they profess to adduce the sense
only, not the words. For further treatment, not being seasonable, will
rightly appear superfluous. Thus, not to look at what is urgent would be
excessively indolent and defective; and “blessed, in truth, are they
who, investigating the testimonies of the Lord,
shall seek Him with their whole heart.”
It is, then, our purpose to prove that the Gnostic
alone is holy and pious, and worships the true God in a manner worthy
of Him; and that worship meet for God is followed by loving and being
loved by God. He accordingly judges all excellence to be honourable
according to its worth; and judges that among the objects perceived
by our senses, we are to esteem rulers, and parents, and every one
advanced in years; and among subjects of instruction, the most ancient
philosophy and primeval prophecy; and among intellectual ideas, what
is oldest in origin, the timeless and unoriginated First Principle,
and Beginning of existences—the Son—from whom we are to
learn the remoter Cause, the Father, of the universe, the most ancient
and the most beneficent of all; not capable of expression by the voice,
but to be reverenced with reverence, and silence, and holy wonder, and
supremely venerated; declared by the Lord, as far as those who learned
were capable of comprehending, and understood by those chosen by the Lord
to acknowledge; “whose senses,” says the apostle, “were
exercised.”
The service of God, then, in the case of the Gnostic,
is his soul’s continual study Or, as rendered by the Latin translator,
“continual care for his soul and occupation, bestowed on the
Deity,” etc.
Similarly, also, in the Church, the elders
attend to the department which has improvement for its object;
and the deacons to the ministerial. In both these ministries the
angels [Book vi. cap. 13,
supra.]
Thus also it appears to me that there are three effects of gnostic power: the knowledge of things; second, the performance of whatever the Word suggests; and the third, the capability of delivering, in a way suitable to God, the secrets veiled in the truth.
He, then, who is persuaded that God is omnipotent,
and has learned the divine mysteries from His only-begotten
Son, how can he be an atheist (ἄθπεος)? For he is an atheist who thinks that God does not exist. And he
is superstitious who dreads the demons; who deifies all things,
both wood and stone; and reduces to bondage spirit, and man
who possesses the life of reason. Potter’s text has καταδεδουλωμένον—which
Lowth changes into καταδεδουλωμένος,
nominative; and this has been adopted in the translation. The thought
is the same as in Exhortation to the Heathen [cap. ii. p. 177,
supra.]
To know The sentence has been thus
rendered by Sylburgius and by Bp. Kaye. Lowth, however,
suggests the supplying of ἐνεργεῖ,
or something similar, to govern πεποιθησιν,
confidence.
So the best thing on earth is the most pious
man; and the best thing in heaven, the nearer in place and purer, is
an angel, the partaker of the eternal and blessed life. But the nature
of the Son, which is nearest to Him who is alone the Almighty One, is
the most perfect, and most holy, and most potent, and most princely,
and most kingly, and most beneficent. This is the highest excellence,
which orders all things in accordance with the Father’s will,
and holds the helm of the universe in the best way, with unwearied
and tireless power, working all things in which it operates, keeping
in view its hidden designs. For from His own point of view the Son of
God is never displaced; not being divided, not severed, not passing
from place to place; being always everywhere, and being contained
nowhere; complete mind, the complete paternal light; all eyes,
seeing all things, hearing all things, knowing all things, by His
power scrutinizing the powers. To Him is placed in subjection all
the host of angels and gods; He, the paternal Word, exhibiting Αναδεδειγμένῳ.
Instead of this, ἀναδεδεγμένῳ,
“ having received,” has been suggested by
Sylburgius.
Wherefore also all men are His; some through knowledge, and others not yet so; and some as friends, some as faithful servants, some as servants merely. This is the Teacher, who trains the Gnostic by mysteries, and the believer by good hopes, and the hard of heart by corrective discipline through sensible operation. Thence His providence is in private, in public, and everywhere.
And that He whom we call Saviour and Lord is the Son
of God, the prophetic Scriptures explicitly prove. So the Lord of all,
of Greeks and of Barbarians, persuades those who are willing. For He
does not compel him
By omitting “him” (τόν), as Sylburgius does,
the translation would run this: “for He compels no one to receive
salvation from Him, because he is able to choose and fulfil from himself
what pertains to the laying hold of the hope.”
It is He who also gave philosophy to the Greeks
by means of the inferior angels. For by an ancient and divine order the
angels are distributed among the nations.
And how is He Saviour and Lord, if not the Saviour and Lord of all? But He is the Saviour of those who have believed, because of their wishing to know; and the Lord of those who have not believed, till, being enabled to confess him, they obtain the peculiar and appropriate boon which comes by Him.
Now the energy of the Lord has a reference to the Almighty; and the Son is, so to speak, an energy of the Father. Therefore, a hater of man, the Saviour can never be; who, for His exceeding love to human flesh, despising not its susceptibility to suffering, but investing Himself with it, came for the common salvation of men; for the faith of those who have chosen it, is common. Nay more, He will never neglect His own work, because man alone of all the other living creatures was in his creation endowed with a conception of God. Nor can there be any other better and more suitable government for men than that which is appointed by God.
It is then always proper for the one who is superior by nature to be over the inferior, and for him who is capable of managing aught well to have the management of it assigned to him. Now that which truly rules and presides is the Divine Word and His providence, which inspects all things, and despises the care of nothing belonging to it.
Those, then, who choose to belong to Him, are those who are perfected through faith. He, the Son, is, by the will of the Almighty Father, the cause of all good things, being the first efficient cause of motion—a power incapable of being apprehended by sensation. For what He was, was not seen by those who, through the weakness of the flesh, were incapable of taking in [the reality]. But, having assumed sensitive flesh, He came to show man what was possible through obedience to the commandments. Being, then, the Father’s power, He easily prevails in what He wishes, leaving not even the minutest point of His administration unattended to. For otherwise the whole would not have been well executed by Him.
But, as I think, characteristic of the highest power
is the accurate scrutiny of all the parts, reaching even to the minutest,
terminating in the first Administrator of the universe, who by the will
of the Father directs the salvation of all; some overlooking, who are
set under others, who are set over them, till you come to the great High
Priest. For on one original first Principle, which acts according to the
[Father’s] will, the first and the second and the third depend. Then
at the highest extremity of the visible world is the blessed band of
angels; [So called
from Heraclea in Lydia.]
As, then, the minutest particle of steel is moved
by the spirit of the Heraclean stone, The magnet. [So called from the Lydian
Magnesia.] Lowth here reads ἐκτεινομένῳ,
agreeing with πνεύματι,
instead of ἐκτεινομένη,
as in the Oxford text.
For this was the law from the first, that virtue
should be the object of voluntary choice. Wherefore also the commandments,
according to the Law, and before the Law, not given to the upright (for
the law is not appointed for a righteous man
But, on the other hand, they allowed him
who had been delighted with vice to consort with the objects
of his choice; and, on the other hand, that the soul, which is
ever improving in the acquisition Instead of ἐπίγησιν,
the corrupt reading of the text, ἐπίκτησιν
(as above), ἐπίδοσιν,
and ἐπ᾽
ἐξήγησιν have been
proposed.
These salutary revolutions, in accordance with
the order of change, are distinguished both by times, and places, and
honours, and cognitions, and heritages, and ministries, according to the
Now that which is lovable leads, to the
contemplation of itself, each one who, from love of knowledge, applies
himself entirely to contemplation. Wherefore also the Lord, drawing the
commandments, both the first which He gave, and the second, from one
fountain, neither allowed those who were before the law to be without
law, nor permitted those who were unacquainted with the principles of
the Barbarian philosophy to be without restraint. For, having furnished
the one with the commandments, and the other with philosophy, He
shut up unbelief to the Advent. Whence The text has ὅτε but the sense seems
to require, as Sylburgius suggests, ὅθεν
or ὥστε. [The
salvability of the heathen through Christ, is everywhere conspicuous
in our author’s system; but there is a solemn dignity in the
concluding paragraphs of this chapter, which deserves reflection. It
would not be becoming for me to express my own views upon the subject
here, but it is one assuming fresh importance in our day.]
And if any one of the Greeks, passing over
the preliminary training of the Hellenic philosophy, proceeds
directly to the true teaching, he distances others, though
an unlettered man, by choosing Instead of ἑλόμενος,
Sylburgius proposes ἁλάμενος,
making a leap by faith to perfection.
Everything, then, which did not hinder a man’s choice from being free, He made and rendered auxiliary to virtue, in order that there might be revealed somehow or other, even to those capable of seeing but dimly, the one only almighty, good God—from eternity to eternity saving by His Son.
And, on the other hand, He is in no respect
whatever the cause of evil. For all things are arranged with a view
to the salvation of the universe by the Lord of the universe, both
generally and particularly. It is then the function of the righteousness
of salvation to improve everything as far as practicable. For
even minor matters are arranged with a view to the salvation of
that which is better, and for an abode suitable for people’s
character. Now everything that is virtuous changes for the better;
having as the proper
The reading varies here. For οἰκήσεις
of the text, Heinsius and the Latin
translator adopt οἰκείαν,
which, on the whole, seems preferable to οἴ´κησιν
or ἡκούσης.
Now I pass over other things in silence, glorifying
the Lord. But I affirm that gnostic souls, that surpass in the grandeur
of contemplation the mode of life of each of the holy ranks, among whom
the blessed abodes of the gods are allotted by distribution, reckoned
holy among the holy, transferred entire from among the entire, reaching
places better than the better places, embracing the divine vision not
in mirrors or by means of mirrors, but in the transcendently clear and
absolutely pure insatiable vision which is the privilege of intensely
loving souls, holding festival through endless ages, remain honoured
with the indentity of all excellence. Such is the vision
attainable
by “the pure in heart.”
For “to bring themselves into
captivity,” and to slay themselves, putting to death “the
old man, who is through lusts corrupt,” and raising the new man
from death, “from the old conversation,” by abandoning the
passions, and becoming free of sin, both the Gospel and the apostle
enjoin.
It was this, consequently, which the Law intimated,
by ordering the sinner to be cut off, and translated from death to life,
to the impassibility that is the result of faith; which the teachers
of the Law, not comprehending, inasmuch as they regarded the law as
contentious, they have given a handle to those who attempt idly to
calumniate the Law. And for this reason we rightly do not sacrifice to
God, who, needing
But those who have not seen the self-determination of the human soul, and its incapability of being treated as a slave in what respects the choice of life, being disgusted at what is done through rude injustice, do not think that there is a God. On a par with these in opinion, are they who, falling into licentiousness in pleasures, and grievous pains, and unlooked-for accidents, and bidding defiance to events, say that there is no God, or that, though existing, He does not oversee all things. And others there are, who are persuaded that those they reckon gods are capable of being prevailed upon by sacrifices and gifts, favouring, so to speak, their profligacies; and will not believe that He is the only true God, who exists in the invariableness of righteous goodness.
The Gnostic, then, is pious, who cares first for himself, then for his neighbours, that they may become very good. For the son gratifies a good father, by showing himself good and like his father; and in like manner the subject, the governor. For believing and obeying are in our own power.
But should any one suppose the cause of evils to be the weakness of matter, and the involuntary impulses of ignorance, and (in his stupidity) irrational necessities; he who has become a Gnostic has through instruction superiority over these, as if they were wild beasts; and in imitation of the divine plan, he does good to such as are willing, as far as he can. And if ever placed in authority, like Moses, he will rule for the salvation of the governed; and will tame wildness and faithlessness, by recording honour for the most excellent, and punishment for the wicked, in accordance with reason for the sake of discipline.
For pre-eminently a divine image, resembling God, is the soul of a righteous man; in which, through obedience to the commands, as in a consecrated spot, is enclosed and enshrined the Leader of mortals and of immortals, King and Parent of what is good, who is truly law, and right, and eternal Word, being the one Saviour individually to each, and in common to all.
He is the true Only-begotten, the express image of the glory of the universal King and Almighty Father, who impresses on the Gnostic the seal of the perfect contemplation, according to His own image; so that there is now a third divine image, made as far as possible like the Second Cause, the Essential Life, through which we live the true life; the Gnostic, as we regard him, being described as moving amid things sure and wholly immutable.
Ruling, then, over himself and what belongs to
him, and possessing a sure grasp, of divine science, he makes a genuine
approach to the truth. For the knowledge and apprehension of intellectual
objects must necessarily be called certain scientific knowledge,
whose function in reference to divine things is to consider what is
the First Cause, and what that “by whom all things were made,
and without whom nothing was made;”
Further, he employs prudence and
righteousness in the acquisition of wisdom, and fortitude, not
only in the endurance of circumstances, but also in restraining κρατεῖν
is hear supplied to complete the sense. ἀντιτάσσεσθαι
is suggested instead of ἀντιτάσσεται
of the text.
Accordingly, pain is found beneficial in the healing
art, and in discipline, and in punishment; and by it men’s manners
are corrected to their advantage. Forms of fortitude are endurance,
magnanimity, high spirit, liberality, and grandeur. And for this reason
he neither meets with the blame or the bad opinion of the multitude;
nor is he subjected to opinions or flatteries. But in
ἄμα
is here, on the authority of a ms., and with the approval of
Sylburguis, to be substituted for ἅλμα. κόσμιος,
καὶ
ὑπερκόσμιος.
The author plays on the double meaning of κόσμος, world
or order.
Now the Greek philosophy, as it were, purges the soul, and prepares it beforehand for the reception of faith, on which the Truth builds up the edifice of knowledge.
This is the true athlete—he who in the great
stadium, the fair world, is crowned for the true victory over all the
passions. For He who prescribes the contest is the Almighty God, and He
who awards the prize is the only-begotten Son of God. Angels and gods
are spectators; and the contest, embracing all the varied exercises, is
“not against flesh and blood,”
τὸ
θέατρον used for the place,
the spectacle, and the spectators.
So also we have received mind, that we may know
what we do. And the maxim “Know thyself” means here to
know for what we are born. And we are born to obey the commandments,
if we choose to be willing to be saved. Such is the Nemesis, Ἀδράστεια,
a name given to Nemesis, said to be from an altar erected to her
by Adrastus; but as used here, and when employed as an adjective
qualifying Nemesis, it has reference to διδράσκω.
And as those who maltreat property insult the owners, and those who maltreat soldiers insult the commander, so also the ill-usage of His consecrated ones is contempt for the Lord.
For, just as the sun not only illumines heaven and the whole world, shining over land and sea, but also through windows and small chinks sends his beams into the innermost recesses of houses, so the Word diffused everywhere casts His eye-glance on the minutest circumstances of the actions of life.
Now, as the Greeks represent the gods as possessing
human forms, so also do they as possessing human passions. And as each
of them
Wherefore it stands to reason, that the ideas entertained of God by wicked men must be bad, and those by good men most excellent. And therefore he who is in soul truly kingly and gnostic, being likewise pious and free from superstition, is persuaded that He who alone is God is honourable, venerable, august, beneficent, the doer of good, the author of all good things, but not the cause of evil. And respecting the Hellenic superstition we have, as I think, shown enough in the book entitled by us The Exhortation, availing ourselves abundantly of the history bearing on the point. There is no need, then, again to make a long story of what has already been clearly stated. But in as far as necessity requires to be pointed out on coming to the topic, suffice it to adduce a few out of many considerations in proof of the impiety of those who make the Divinity resemble the worst men. For either those Gods of theirs are injured by men, and are shown to be inferior to men on being injured by us; or, if not so, how is it that they are incensed at those by whom they are not injured, like a testy old wife roused to wrath?
As they say that Artemis was enraged at the
Ætolians on account of Œneus. Iliad, ix. 533, etc.
And Latona, The text has Ἡ αὐτή, which is
plainly unsuitable; hence the suggestion ἡ Αητώ.
It is natural, then, that having a superstitious dread of those irascible [gods], they imagine that all events are signs and causes of evils. If a mouse bore through an altar built of clay, and for want of something else gnaw through an oil flask; if a cock that is being fattened crow in the evening, they determine this to be a sign of something.
Of such a one Menander gives a comic description in The Superstitious Man:—
These lines are quoted by Theodoret, and have been amended and arranged by Sylburgius and Grotius. The text has Ἀγαθόν τι; Theodoret and Grotius omit τί as above.
It was a clever remark of Antiphon, who (when one regarded it as an ill omen that the sow had eaten her pigs), on seeing her emaciated through the niggardliness of the person that kept her, said, Congratulate yourself on the omen that, being so hungry, she did not eat your own children.
“And what wonder is it,” says Bion, “if the mouse, finding nothing to eat, gnaws the bag?” For it were wonderful if (as Arcesilaus argued in fun) “the bag had eaten the mouse.”
Diogenes accordingly remarked well to one who wondered at finding a serpent coiled round a pestle: “Don’t wonder; for it would have been more surprising if you had seen the pestle coiled round the serpent, and the serpent straight.”
For the irrational creatures must run, and scamper, and fight, and breed, and die; and these things being natural to them, can never be unnatural to us.
And the comic poet Philemon treats such points in comedy:—
Then by the practice of temperance men seek health: and by cramming themselves, and wallowing in potations at feasts, they attract diseases.
There are many, too, that dread inscriptions set up. Very cleverly Diogenes, on finding in the house of a bad man the inscription, “Hercules, for victory famed, dwells here; let nothing bad enter,” remarked, “And how shall the master of the house go in?”
The same people, who worship every stick and greasy stone, as the saying is, dreads tufts of tawny wool, and lumps of salt, and torches, and squills, and sulphur, bewitched by sorcerers, in certain impure rites of expiation. But God, the true God, recognises as holy only the character of the righteous man,—as unholy, wrong and wickedness.
You may see the eggs, Which were used in lustrations, ὧτα.
The text has ᾥά.
For well Menander remarks: Translated as arranged and
amended by Grotius.
For instance, the tragedy says:—
Euripides, Orestes, 395, 396.
For in reality there is no other purity but abstinence from sins. Excellently then Epicharmus says:—
Now also we say that it is requisite to purify the soul from corrupt and bad doctrines by right reason; and so thereafter to the recollection of the principal heads of doctrine. Since also before the communication of the mysteries they think it right to apply certain purifications to those who are to be initiated; so it is requisite for men to abandon impious opinion, and thus turn to the true tradition.
For is it not the case that rightly and truly we do not circumscribe in any place that which cannot be circumscribed; nor do we shut up in temples made with hands that which contains all things? What work of builders, and stonecutters, and mechanical art can be holy? Superior to these are not they who think that the air, and the enclosing space, or rather the whole world and the universe, are meet for the excellency of God?
It were indeed ridiculous, as the philosophers
themselves say, for man, the plaything A Platonic phrase: παίγνιον
Θεοῦ.
So Sylburgius, who, instead of παιδιᾶς
τέχνης
of the text, reads παιδιὰν
τέχνης.
And what can be localized, there being nothing that is not localized? Since all things are in a place. And that which is localized having been formerly not localized, is localized by something. If, then, God is localized by men, He was once not localized, and did not exist at all. For the non-existent is what is not localized; since whatever does not exist is not localized. And what exists cannot be localized by what does not exist; nor by another entity. For it is also an entity. It follows that it must be by itself. And how shall anything generate itself? Or how shall that which exists place itself as to being? Whether, being formerly not localized, has it localized itself? But it was not in existence; since what exists not is not localized. And its localization being supposed, how can it afterwards make itself what it previously was?
But how can He, to whom the things that are
belong, need anything? But were God possessed of a human form,
He would need, equally with man, food, and shelter, and house,
and the attendant incidents. Those who are like in form and
affections will require similar sustenance. And if sacred (το
ἱερόν) has a twofold
application, designating both God Himself and the
structure raised to His honour, God Himself is ὶερός,
and everything dedicated to Him. Montacutius suggests ἐκκλήτων,
from its connection with Εκκλησία,
instead of ἐκλεκτῶν.
[Notes 3 and 5, p. 290, supra.]
As, then, God is not circumscribed by place, neither is ever represented by the form of a living creature; so neither has He similar passions, nor has He wants like the creatures, so as to desire sacrifice, from hunger, by way of food. Those creatures which are affected by passion are all mortal. And it is useless to bring food to one who is not nourished.
And that comic poet Pherecrates, in The Fugitives, facetiously represents the gods themselves as finding fault with men on the score of their sacred rites:—
Translated as arranged by Grotius.
And Eubulus, also a comic poet, thus writes respecting sacrifices:—
And introducing Dionysus in Semele, he represents him disputing:—
These lines are translated as arranged by Grotius, who differs in some parts from the text.
And Menander writes:—
For is not the savour of the holocausts avoided by the beasts? And if in reality the savour is the guerdon of the gods of the Greeks, should they not first deify the cooks, who are dignified with equal happiness, and worship the chimney itself, which is closer still to the much-prized savour?
And Hesiod says that Zeus, cheated in a division of flesh by Prometheus, received the white bones of an ox, concealed with cunning art, in shining fat:—
But they will by no means say
that the Deity, enfeebled through the desire that springs from want,
is nourished. Accordingly, they will represent Him as nourished
without desire like a plant, and like beasts that burrow. They say
that these grow innoxiously, nourished either by the density in the
air, or from the exhalations proceeding from their own body. Though
if the Deity, though needing nothing, is according to them nourished,
what necessity has He for food, wanting nothing? But if, by nature
needing nothing, He delights to be honoured, it is not without reason
that we honour God in prayer; and thus the best and holiest sacrifice
with righteousness we bring, presenting it as an offering to the most
righteous Word, by whom we receive knowledge, giving glory by Him
for what ἐφ᾽
οἷς, is substituted by Lowth for ἅ in the
text.
The altar, then, that is with us here, the terrestrial one, is the congregation of those who devote themselves to prayers, having as it were one common voice and one mind.
Now, if nourishing substances taken in by
the nostrils are diviner than those taken in by the mouth, yet they
infer respiration. What, then, do they say of God? Whether does
He exhale like the tribe of oaks? δρυῶν,
a probable conjecture of Gataker for the
reading of the text, δαιμόνων.
And the creatures that breathe by the expansion of the lung towards the thorax draw in the air. Then if they assign to God viscera, and arteries, and veins, and nerves, and parts, they will make Him in nothing different from man.
Now breathing
together (σύμπνοια) ἀνθρώπου
supplied by Lowth. [Again the spiritualizing
of incense.] [This is extraordinary
language in Clement, whose views of Gentilism are so charitable. Possibly
it is mere pleasantry, though he speaks of idolatry only. He recognises
the divine institution of sacrifice, elsewhere.]
For the sacrifices of the Law express figuratively
Now Xenocrates, treating by himself of “the food derived from animals,” and Polemon in his work On Life according to Nature, seem clearly to say that animal food is unwholesome, inasmuch as it has already been elaborated and assimilated to the souls of the irrational creatures.
So also, in particular, the Jews abstain from swine’s flesh on the ground of this animal being unclean; since more than the other animals it roots up, and destroys the productions of the ground. But if they say that the animals were assigned to men—and we agree with them—yet it was not entirely for food. Nor was it all animals, but such as do not work. Wherefore the comic poet Plato says not badly in the drama of The Feasts: —
Whence Æsop said not badly, that “swine squeaked out very loudly, because, when they were dragged, they knew that they were good for nothing but for sacrifice.”
Wherefore also Cleanthes says,
“that they have soul ψυχή, animal
life.
So, then, the law sacrifices not the
goat, except in the sole case of the banishment of sins; i.e., in the institution of
the scape-goat.
Wherefore also the Egyptians, in the purifications
practiced among them, do not allow the priests to feed on flesh; but
they use chickens, as lightest; and they do not touch fish, on account of
certain fables, but especially on account of such food making the flesh
flabby. But now terrestrial animals and birds breathe the same air as
our vital spirits, being possessed of a vital principle cognate with
the air. But it is said that fishes do not breathe this air, but that
which was mixed with the water at the instant of its first creation,
as well as with the rest of the elements, which is also a sign of the
permanence of matter.
Or, of water. For instead of ὑλικῆς
in the text, it is proposed to read ὑδατικῆς.
Wherefore we ought to offer to God sacrifices
not costly, but such as He loves. And that compounded incense which
is mentioned in the Law, is that which consists of many tongues and
voices in prayer,
[Again, for the Gospel-day, he spiritualizes the incense of the
Law.]
though they happen to be tyrants and robbers?
But we say that the fire
sanctifies
Consult [See useful note of Kaye, p. 309.]
Now we are commanded to reverence and to honour
the same one, being persuaded that He is Word, Saviour, and Leader,
and by Him, the Father, not on special days, as some others, but
doing this continually in our whole life, and in every way. Certainly
the elect race justified by the precept says, “Seven times
a day have I praised Thee.” [It is hardly
needful to say that our author means “not merely in a
specified place,” etc. See p. 290, supra, as to time and
place.]
And if the presence of a good man, through the respect and reverence which he inspires, always improves him with whom he associates, with much more reason does not he who always holds uninterrupted converse with God by knowledge, life, and thanksgiving, grow at every step superior to himself in all respects—in conduct, in words, in disposition? Such an one is persuaded that God is ever beside him, and does not suppose that He is confined in certain limited places; so that under the idea that at times he is without Him, he may indulge in excesses night and day.
Holding festival, then, in our whole life,
persuaded that God is altogether on every side present, we cultivate
our fields, praising; we sail the sea, hymning; in all the rest
of our conversation we conduct ourselves according to rule. [See
p. 200, this volume; also, infra, this chapter, p. 537.]
Now the excellence of knowledge is evidently
presented by the prophet when he says, “Benignity, and
instruction, and knowledge teach me,”
He is, then, the truly kingly man; he is the
sacred high priest of God. And this is even now observed among the
most sagacious of the Barbarians, in advancing the sacerdotal caste to
the royal power. He, therefore, never surrenders himself to the rabble
that rules supreme over the theatres, and gives no admittance even in
a dream to the things which are spoken, done, and seen for the sake
of alluring pleasures; neither, therefore, to the pleasures of sight,
nor the various pleasures which are found in other enjoyments, as
costly incense and odours, which bewitch the nostrils, or preparations
of meats, and indulgences in different wines, which ensnare the palate,
or fragrant bouquets of many flowers, which through the senses effeminate
the soul. But always tracing up to God the grave enjoyment of all things,
he offers the first-fruits of food, and drink, and unguents to the Giver
of all, acknowledging his thanks in the gift and in the use of them by the
Word given to him. He rarely goes to convivial banquets of all and sundry,
unless the announcement to him of the friendly and harmonious character of
the entertainment induce him to go. For he is convinced that God knows and
perceives all things—not the words only, but also the thought; since
even our sense of hearing, which acts through the passages of the body,
has the apprehension [belonging to it] not through corporeal power, but
through a psychical perception, and the intelligence which distinguishes
significant sounds. God is not, then, possessed of human form, so as to
hear; nor needs He senses, as the Stoics have decided, “especially
hearing and sight; for He could never otherwise apprehend.” But
the susceptibility of the air, and the intensely keen perception of the
angels, [Pious men have
been strict in their conduct when quite alone, from a devout conviction
of the presence of angelic guardians.]
In general, then, an unworthy opinion of God preserves no piety, either in hymns, or discourses, or writings, or dogmas, but diverts to grovelling and unseemly ideas and notions. Whence the commendation of the multitude differs nothing from censure, in consequence of their ignorance of the truth. The objects, then, of desires and aspirations, and, in a word, of the mind’s impulses, are the subjects of prayers. Wherefore, no man desires a draught, but to drink what is drinkable; and no man desires an inheritance, but to inherit. And in like manner no man desires knowledge, but to know; or a right government, but to take part in the government. The subjects of our prayers, then, are the subjects of our requests, and the subjects of requests are the objects of desires. Prayer, then, and desire, follow in order, with the view of possessing the blessings and advantages offered.
The Gnostic, then, who is such by possession, makes his prayer and request for the truly good things which appertain to the soul, and prays, he himself also contributing his efforts to attain to the habit of goodness, so as no longer to have the things that are good as certain lessons belonging to him, but to be good.
Wherefore also it is most incumbent on such
Whence, as is right, there being only one good God, that some good things be given from Him alone, and that some remain, we and the angels pray. But not similarly. For it is not the same thing to pray that the gift remain, and to endeavour to obtain it for the first time.
The averting of evils is a species of prayer; but such prayer is never to be used for the injury of men, except that the Gnostic, in devoting attention to righteousness, may make use of this petition in the case of those who are past feeling.
Prayer is, then, to speak more boldly, converse
with God. Though whispering, consequently, and not opening the lips,
we speak in silence, yet we cry inwardly. [This is variously explained. It seems to refer to
some change of position in Christian assemblies, at the close of worship
or in ascriptions of praise.]
Now, if some assign definite hours for
prayer—as, for example, the third, and sixth, and ninth—yet
the Gnostic prays throughout his whole life, endeavouring by
prayer to have fellowship with God. [See, supra, cap. vii. note
8, p. 532.] [The
third, sixth, and ninth hours were deemed sacred to
the three persons of the Trinity, respectively. Also they were honoured
as the hours of the beginning, middle, and close of our Lord’s
passion.]
Having got to this point, I recollect the
doctrines about there being no necessity to pray, introduced by
certain of the heterodox, that is, the followers of the heresy of
Prodicus. That they may not then be inflated with conceit about this
godless wisdom of theirs, as if it were strange, let them learn that
it was embraced before by the philosophers called Cyrenaics. [Of these, see ed. Migne,
ad locum.] According
to Heinsius’ reading, who substitutes ἀπονενεμημέῃ
for ἀπονενεμημένῳ.
Nor is petition superfluous, though good things are given without claim.
Now thanksgiving and request for the conversion of our neighbours is the function of the Gnostic; as also the Lord prayed, giving thanks for the accomplishment of His ministry, praying that as many as possible might attain to knowledge; that in the saved, by salvation, through knowledge, God might be glorified, and He who is alone good and alone Saviour might be acknowledged through the Son from age to age. But also faith, that one will receive, is a species of prayer gnostically laid up in store.
But if any occasion of converse with God becomes
prayer, no opportunity of access to God ought to be omitted. Without
doubt, the holiness of the Gnostic, in union with [God’s] blessed
Providence, exhibits in voluntary confession the perfect beneficence of
God. For the holiness of the Gnostic, and the reciprocal benevolence of
the friend of God, are a kind of corresponding movement of providence.
For neither is God involuntarily good, as the fire is warming; but in
Him the imparting of good things is voluntary, even if He receive the
request previously. Nor shall he who is saved be saved against his will,
for he is not inanimate; but he will above all voluntarily and of free
choice speed to salvation. Wherefore also man received the commandments in
order that he might be self-impelled, to whatever he wished of things to
be chosen and to be avoided. Wherefore God does not do good by necessity,
but from His free choice benefits those
Consequently those who render the most free and kingly service, which is the result of a pious mind and of knowledge, are servants and attendants of the Divinity. Each place, then, and time, in which we entertain the idea of God, is in reality sacred.
When, then, the man who chooses what is right, and is at the same time of thankful heart, makes his request in prayer, he contributes to the obtaining of it, gladly taking hold in prayer of the thing desired. For when the Giver of good things perceives the susceptibility on our part, all good things follow at once the conception of them. Certainly in prayer the character is sifted, how it stands with respect to duty.
But if voice and expression are given us, for the sake of understanding, how can God not hear the soul itself, and the mind, since assuredly soul hears soul, and mind, mind? Whence God does not wait for loquacious tongues, as interpreters among men, but knows absolutely the thoughts of all; and what the voice intimates to us, that our thought, which even before the creation He knew would come into our mind, speaks to God. Prayer, then, may be uttered without the voice, by concentrating the whole spiritual nature within on expression by the mind, in un-distracted turning towards God.
And since the dawn is an image of the day of
birth, and from that point the light which has shone forth at first
from the darkness increases, there has also dawned on those involved
in darkness a day of the knowledge of truth. In correspondence with
the manner of the sun’s rising, prayers are made looking towards
the sunrise in the east. Whence also the most ancient temples looked
towards the west, that people might be taught to turn to the east when
facing the images.
[Christians adopted this habit at an early period, on various grounds, as
will hereafter appear in this series.]
In the case of wicked men, therefore, prayer is
most injurious, not to others alone, but to themselves also. If, then,
they should ask and receive what they call pieces of good fortune, these
injure them after they receive them, being ignorant how to use them.
For they pray to possess what they have not, and they ask things
which seem, but are not, good things. [
Thus he, being magnanimous, possessing, through knowledge, what is the most precious of all, the best of all, being quick in applying himself to contemplation, retains in his soul the permanent energy of the objects of his contemplation, that is the perspicacious keenness of knowledge. And this power he strives to his utmost to acquire, by obtaining command of all the influences which war against the mind; and by applying himself without intermission to speculation, by exercising himself in the training of abstinence from pleasures, and of right conduct in what he does; and besides, furnished with great experience both in study and in life, he has freedom of speech, not the power of a babbling tongue, but a power which employs plain language, and which neither for favour nor fear conceals aught of the things which may be worthily said at the fitting time, in which it is highly necessary to say them. He, then, having received the things respecting God from the mystic choir of the truth itself, employs language which urges the magnitude of virtue in accordance with its worth; and shows its results with an inspired elevation of prayer, being associated gnostically, as far as possible, with intellectual and spiritual objects.
Whence he is always mild and meek, accessible,
affable, long-suffering, grateful, endued with a good conscience. Such
a man is rigid, not alone so as not to be corrupted, but so as not to
be tempted. For he never exposes his soul to submission, or capture at
the hands of Pleasure and Pain. If the Word, who is Judge, call; he,
having grown inflexible, and not indulging a whit the passions, walks
unswervingly where justice advises him to go; being very well persuaded
that all things are managed consummately well,
For my view is, that as all things are supplied to the man of art according to the rules of art, and to the Gentile in a Gentile way, so also to the Gnostic all things are supplied gnostically. And the man who turns from among the Gentiles will ask for faith, while he that ascends to knowledge will ask for the perfection of love. And the Gnostic, who has reached the summit, will pray that contemplation may grow and abide, as the common man will for continual good health.
Nay, he will pray that he may never fall from virtue; giving his most strenuous co-operation in order that he may become infallible. For he knows that some of the angels, through carelessness, were hurled to the earth, not having yet quite reached that state of oneness, by extricating themselves from the propensity to that of duality.
But him, who from this has trained himself to the summit of knowledge and the elevated height of the perfect man, all things relating to time and place help on, now that he has made it his choice to live infallibly, and subjects himself to training in order to the attainment of the stability of knowledge on each side. But in the case of those in whom there is still a heavy corner, leaning downwards, even that part which has been elevated by faith is dragged down. In him, then, who by gnostic training has acquired virtue which cannot be lost, habit becomes nature. And just as weight in a stone, so the knowledge of such an one is incapable of being lost. Not without, but through the exercise of will, and by the force of reason, and knowledge, and Providence, is it brought to become incapable of being lost. Through care it becomes incapable of being lost. He will employ caution so as to avoid sinning, and consideration to prevent the loss of virtue.
Now knowledge appears to produce consideration, by teaching to perceive the things that are capable of contributing to the permanence of virtue. The highest thing is, then, the knowledge of God; wherefore also by it virtue is so preserved as to be incapable of being lost. And he who knows God is holy and pious. The Gnostic has consequently been demonstrated by us to be the only pious man.
He rejoices in good things present, and is glad on account of those promised, as if they were already present. For they do not elude his notice, as if they were still absent, because he knows by anticipation what sort they are. Being then persuaded by knowledge how each future thing shall be, he possesses it. For want and defect are measured with reference to what appertains to one. If, then, he possesses wisdom, and wisdom is a divine thing, he who partakes of what has no want will himself have no want. For the imparting of wisdom does not take place by activity and receptivity moving and stopping each other, or by aught being abstracted or becoming defective. Activity is therefore shown to be undiminished in the act of communication. So, then, our Gnostic possesses all good things, as far as possible; but not likewise in number; since otherwise he would be incapable of changing his place through the due inspired stages of advancement and acts of administration.
Him God helps, by honouring him with closer oversight. For were not all things made for the sake of good men, for their possession and advantage, or rather salvation? He will not then deprive, of the things which exist for the sake of virtue, those for whose sake they were created. For, evidently in honour of their excellent nature and their holy choice, he inspires those who have made choice of a good life with strength for the rest of their salvation; exhorting some, and helping others, who of themselves have become worthy. For all good is capable of being produced in the Gnostic; if indeed it is his aim to know and do everything intelligently. And as the physician ministers health to those who co-operate with him in order to health, so also God ministers eternal salvation to those who co-operate for the attainment of knowledge and good conduct; and since what the commandments enjoin are in our own power, along with the performance of them, the promise is accomplished.
And what follows seems to me to be excellently
said by the Greeks. An athlete of no mean reputation among those of old,
having for a long time subjected his body to thorough training in order to
the attainment of manly strength, on going up to the Olympic games, cast
his eye on the statue of the Pisæan Zeus, and said: “O Zeus,
if all the requisite preparations for the contest have been made by me,
come, give me the victory, as is right.” For so, in the case of
the Gnostic, who has unblameably and with a good conscience fulfilled
all that depends on him, in the direction of learning, and training, and
well-doing, and pleasing God, the whole contributes to carry salvation
on to perfection. From us, then, are demanded the things which
Wherefore also he who holds converse with God must have his soul immaculate and stainlessly pure, it being essential to have made himself perfectly good.
But also it becomes him to make all his prayers
gently with the good. For it is a dangerous thing to take part in
others’ sins. Accordingly the Gnostic will pray along with those who
have more recently believed, for those things in respect of which it is
their duty to act together. And his whole life is a holy festival. [See, supra, this
chapter, p. 533, note 1.]
And what? Does he not also know the other kind
of sacrifice, which consists in the giving both of doctrines and of
money to those who need? Assuredly. But he does not use wordy prayer
by his mouth; having learned to ask of the Lord what is requisite. In
every place, therefore, but not ostensibly and visibly to the multitude,
he will pray. But while engaged in walking, in conversation, while in
silence, while engaged in reading and in works according to reason, he
in every mood prays.
[Supra, p. 535, also note 1
p. 534.]
τὸ δὲ
ἐπιτελεῖν
διὰ τὸν
δύσοιστον
κοινὸν βίον
is the reading of the text; which Potter amends, so as to bring
out what is plainly the idea of the author, the reference to
pleasure as the third end of actions, and the end pursued
by ordinary men, by changing διά into ἡδέα,
which is simple, and leaves δύσοιστον
(intolerable) to stand. Sylburgius notes that the Latin
translator renders as if he read διὰ τὴν
ἡδονήν, which is adopted
above.
The man of proved character in such piety
is far from being apt to lie and to swear. For an oath is a decisive
affirmation, with the taking of the divine name. For how can he, that is
once faithful, show himself unfaithful, so as to require an oath; and so
that his life may not be a sure and decisive oath? He lives, and walks,
and shows the trustworthiness of his affirmation in an unwavering and
sure life and speech. And if the wrong lies in the judgment of one
who does and says [something], and not in the suffering of one who
has been wronged,
Or, “persecuted;” for ἀδικουμένου
(Lowth) and διωκομένου
(Potter and Latin translator) have been both suggested
instead of the reading of the text, διακονουμένου.
But he does not even swear, preferring
to make averment, in affirmation by “yea,”
and in denial by “nay.” For it is an oath
to swear, or to produce προσφέρεσθαι
and προφέρεσθαι
are both found here. συνιέντας,
and (Sylburgius) συνιόντας.
The Gnostic swears truly, but is not apt to
swear, having rarely recourse to an oath, just as we have said. And
his speaking truth on oath arises from his accord with the truth. This
speaking truth on oath, then, is found to be the result of correctness
in duties. Where, then, is the necessity for an oath to him who lives
in accordance with the extreme of truth? [Our Lord answered when adjured by the magistrate;
but Christians objected to all extra-judicial oaths, their whole life
being sworn to truth.]
Therefore, persuaded always that God is everywhere,
and fearing not to speak the truth, and knowing that it is unworthy of
him to lie, he is satisfied with the divine consciousness and his own
alone [This must be
noted, because our author seems to tolerate a departure from strict
truth in the next chapter.]
The gnostic dignity is augmented and increased by him who has undertaken the first place in the teaching of others, and received the dispensation by word and deed of the greatest good on earth, by which he mediates contact and fellowship with the Divinity. And as those who worship terrestrial things pray to them as if they heard, confirming compacts before them; so, in men who are living images, the true majesty of the Word is received by the trustworthy teacher; and the beneficence exerted towards them is carried up to the Lord, after whose image he who is a true man by instruction creates and harmonizes, renewing to salvation the man who receives instruction. For as the Greeks called steel Ares, and wine Dionysus, on account of a certain relation; so the Gnostic considering the benefit of his neighbours as his own salvation, may be called a living image of the Lord, not as respects the peculiarity of form, but the symbol of power and similarity of preaching.
Whatever, therefore, he has in his mind, he
bears on his tongue, to those who are worthy to hear, speaking as well
as living from assent and inclination. For he both thinks and speaks
the truth; unless at any time, medicinally, as a physician for the
safety of the sick, he may deceive or tell an untruth, according to the
Sophists. [Philo is
here quoted by editors, and a passage from Plato. “Sophists,”
indeed! With insane persons, and in like cases, looser moralists have
argued thus, but Clement justly credits it to Sophistry. Elucidation I.]
To illustrate: the noble apostle circumcised
Timothy, though loudly declaring and writing that circumcision made with
hands profits nothing.
This sentence is obscure, and has been construed
and amended variously.
On every hand, then, the Gnostic alone testifies to the truth in deed and word. For he always does rightly in all things, both in word and action, and in thought itself.
Such, then, to speak cursorily, is the piety of the Christian. If, then, he does these things according to duty and right reason, he does them piously and justly. And if such be the case, the Gnostic alone is really both pious, and just, and God-fearing.
The Christian is not impious. For this was the point incumbent on us to demonstrate to the philosophers; so that he will never in any way do aught bad or base (which is unjust). Consequently, therefore, he is not impious; but he alone fears God, holily and dutifully worshipping the true God, the universal Ruler, and King, and Sovereign, with the true piety.
For knowledge (gnosis), to speak generally, a perfecting of man as man, is consummated by acquaintance with divine things, in character, life, and word, accordant and conformable to itself and to the divine Word. For by it faith is perfected, inasmuch as it is solely by it that the believer becomes perfect. Faith is an internal good, and without searching for God, confesses His existence, and glorifies Him as existent. Whence by starting from this faith, and being developed by it, through the grace of God, the knowledge respecting Him is to be acquired as far as possible.
Now we assert that knowledge (gnosis) differs from the wisdom (σοφία), which is the result of teaching. For as far as anything is knowledge, so far is it certainly wisdom; but in as far as aught is wisdom, it is not certainly knowledge. For the term wisdom appears only in the knowledge of the uttered word.
But it is not doubting in reference to God, but
believing, that is the foundation of knowledge. But Christ is both the
foundation and the superstructure, by whom are both the beginning and
the ends. And the extreme points, the beginning and the end—I mean
faith and love—are not taught. But knowledge, conveyed from
And this takes place, whenever one hangs on the Lord by faith, by knowledge, by love, and ascends along with Him to where the God and guard of our faith and love is. Whence at last (on account of the necessity for very great preparation and previous training in order both to hear what is said, and for the composure of life, and for advancing intelligently to a point beyond the righteousness of the law) it is that knowledge is committed to those fit and selected for it. It leads us to the endless and perfect end, teaching us beforehand the future life that we shall lead, according to God, and with gods; after we are freed from all punishment and penalty which we undergo, in consequence of our sins, for salutary discipline. After which redemption the reward and the honours are assigned to those who have become perfect; when they have got done with purification, and ceased from all service, though it be holy service, and among saints. Then become pure in heart, and near to the Lord, there awaits them restoration to everlasting contemplation; and they are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Saviour.
Knowledge is therefore quick in purifying, and fit for that acceptable transformation to the better. Whence also with ease it removes [the soul] to what is akin to the soul, divine and holy, and by its own light conveys man through the mystic stages of advancement; till it restores the pure in heart to the crowning place of rest; teaching to gaze on God, face to face, with knowledge and comprehension. For in this consists the perfection of the gnostic soul, in its being with the Lord, where it is in immediate subjection to Him, after rising above all purification and service.
Faith is then, so to speak,
a comprehensive knowledge of the essentials; [Τῶν
κατεπειγόντων
γνῶσις. This definition must
be borne in mind. It destroys all pretences that anything belonging to
the faith, i.e., dogma, might belong to an esoteric system.]
The first mode of the Lord’s operation
mentioned by us is an exhibition of the recompense resulting from
piety. Of the very great number of testimonies that there are, I shall
adduce one, thus summarily expressed by the prophet David: “Who
shall ascend to the hill of the Lord, or who
shall stand in His holy place? He who is guiltless in his hands,
and pure in his heart; who hath not lifted up his soul to vanity,
or sworn deceitfully to his neighbour. He shall receive blessing
from the Lord, and mercy from God his
Saviour. This is the generation of them that seek the Lord, that seek
the face of the God of Jacob.”
Although even by those who are not Gnostics
some things are done rightly, yet not according to reason; as in the
case of fortitude. For some who are naturally high-spirited, and have
afterwards without reason fostered this disposition, rush to many things,
and act like brave men, so as sometimes to succeed in achieving the
same things; just as endurance is easy for mechanics. But it is not
from the same cause, or with the same object; not were they to give
their whole body. “For they have not love,” according
to the apostle.
All the action, then, of a man possessed of knowledge is right action; and that done by a man not possessed of knowledge is wrong action, though he observe a plan; since it is not from reflection that he acts bravely, nor does he direct his action in those things which proceed from virtue to virtue, to any useful purpose.
The same holds also with the other virtues. So too
the analogy is preserved in religion. Our Gnostic, then, not only is such
in reference to holiness; but corresponding to the piety of knowledge
are the commands respecting the rest of the conduct of life. For it
is our purpose at present to describe the life of the Gnostic, [Here, also, the morality
of the true Gnostic is distinguished from the system of dogmas,
την
τῶν δογμάτων
θεωρίαν. Elucidation II.]
Respecting the universe, he conceives truly and
grandly in virtue of his reception of divine teaching. Beginning, then,
with admiration of the Creation, and affording of himself a proof of
his capability for receiving knowledge, he becomes a ready pupil of
the Lord. Directly on hearing of God and Providence, he believed in
consequence of the admiration he entertained. Through the power of
impulse thence derived he devotes his energies in every way to learning,
doing all those things by means of which he shall be able to acquire the
knowledge of what he desires. And desire blended with inquiry arises as
faith advances. And this is to become worthy of speculation, of such a
character, and such importance. So shall the Gnostic taste of the will of
God. For it is not his ears, but his soul, that he yields up to the things
signified by what is spoken. Accordingly, apprehending essences and things
through the words, he brings his soul, as is fit, to what is essential;
apprehending (e.g.) in the peculiar way in which they are spoken to the
Gnostic, the commands, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do
not kill;” and not as they are understood by other people. [Others see the letter only,
but the true Gnostic penetrates to the spirit, of the law.]
As is right, then, he never prefers the pleasant to the useful; not even if a beautiful woman were to entice him, when overtaken by circumstances, by wantonly urging him: since Joseph’s master’s wife was not able to seduce him from his stedfastness; but as she violently held his coat, divested himself of it,—becoming bare of sin, but clothed with seemliness of character. For if the eyes of the master—the Egyptian, I mean—saw not Joseph, yet those of the Almighty looked on. For we hear the voice, and see the bodily forms; but God scrutinizes the thing itself, from which the speaking and the looking proceed.
Consequently, therefore, though disease, and accident, and what is most terrible of all, death, come upon the Gnostic, he remains inflexible in soul,—knowing that all such things are a necessity of creation, and that, also by the power of God, they become the medicine of salvation, benefiting by discipline those who are difficult to reform; allotted according to desert, by Providence, which is truly good.
Using the creatures, then, when the Word prescribes, and to the extent it prescribes, in the exercise of thankfulness to the Creator, he becomes master of the enjoyment of them.
He never cherishes resentment or harbours a grudge against any one, though deserving of hatred for his conduct. For he worships the Maker, and loves him, who shares life, pitying and praying for him on account of his ignorance. He indeed partakes of the affections of the body, to which, susceptible as it is of suffering by nature, he is bound. But in sensation he is not the primary subject of it.
Accordingly, then, in involuntary circumstances,
by withdrawing himself from troubles to the things which really belong
to him, he is not carried away with what is foreign to him. And it is
only to things that are necessary for him that he accommodates himself,
in so far as the soul is preserved unharmed. For it is not in supposition
or seeming that he wishes to be faithful; but in knowledge and truth,
that is, in sure deed and effectual word. [Here is no toleration of untruth. See p. 538,
supra.]
Striving, then, to attain to the summit of
knowledge (gnosis); decorous in character; composed in mien;
possessing all those advantages which belong to the true Gnostic; fixing
his eye on fair models, on the many patriarchs who have lived rightly,
and on very many prophets and angels reckoned without number, and above
all, on the Lord, who taught and showed it to be possible for him to
attain that highest life of all,—he therefore loves not all the
good things of the world, which are within
So then he undergoes toils, and trials, and afflictions, not as those among the philosophers who are endowed with manliness, in the hope of present troubles ceasing, and of sharing again in what is pleasant; but knowledge has inspired him with the firmest persuasion of receiving the hopes of the future. Wherefore he contemns not alone the pains of this world, but all its pleasures.
They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter,
on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call
and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly,
addressing her by name, “Remember thou the Lord.” Such was
the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those
dearest to them. [The bearing of this beautiful anecdote upon
clerical wedlock and the sanctity of the married life must be
obvious.]
Thus also the apostle says,
“that he who marries should be as though he married
not,” [
Was not then faith in the hope after death conspicuous in the case of those who gave thanks to God even in the very extremities of their punishments? For firm, in my opinion, was the faith they possessed, which was followed by works of faith.
In all circumstances, then, is the soul of the Gnostic strong, in a condition of extreme health and strength, like the body of an athlete.
For he is prudent in human affairs, in judging what ought to be done by the just man; having obtained the principles from God from above, and having acquired, in order to the divine resemblance, moderation in bodily pains and pleasures. And he struggles against fears boldly, trusting in God. Certainly, then, the gnostic soul, adorned with perfect virtue, is the earthly image of the divine power; its development being the joint result of nature, of training, of reason, all together. This beauty of the soul becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit, when it acquires a disposition in the whole of life corresponding to the Gospel. Such an one consequently withstands all fear of everything terrible, not only of death, but also poverty and disease, and ignominy, and things akin to these; being unconquered by pleasure, and lord over irrational desires. For he well knows what is and what is not to be done; being perfectly aware what things are really to be dreaded, and what not. Whence he bears intelligently what the Word intimates to him to be requisite and necessary; intelligently discriminating what is really safe (that is, good), from what appears so; and things to be dreaded from what seems so, such as death, disease, and poverty; which are rather so in opinion than in truth.
This is the really good man, who is without passions; having, through the habit or disposition of the soul endued with virtue, transcended the whole life of passion. He has everything dependent on himself for the attainment of the end. For those accidents which are called terrible are not formidable to the good man, because they are not evil. And those which are really to be dreaded are foreign to the gnostic Christian, being diametrically opposed to what is good, because evil; and it is impossible for contraries to meet in the same person at the same time. He, then, who faultlessly acts the drama of life which God has given him to play, knows both what is to be done and what is to be endured.
Is it not then from ignorance of what is and what is not to be dreaded that cowardice arises? Consequently the only man of courage is the Gnostic, who knows both present and future good things; along with these, knowing, as I have said, also the things which are in reality not to be dreaded. Because, knowing vice alone to be hateful, and destructive of what contributes to knowledge, protected by the armour of the Lord, he makes war against it.
For if anything is caused through folly, and the operation or rather co-operation of the devil, this thing is not straightway the devil or folly. For no action is wisdom. For wisdom is a habit. And no action is a habit. The action, then, that arises from ignorance, is not already ignorance, but an evil through ignorance, but not ignorance. For neither perturbations of mind nor sins are vices, though proceeding from vice.
No one, then, who is irrationally brave is
a Gnostic; [Brute
bravery is here finely contrasted with real courage: a distinction rarely
recognised by the multitude. Thus the man who trembles, yet goes into
peril in view of duty, is the real hero. Yet the insensible brute,
who does not appreciate the danger, often passes for his superior,
with the majority of men.]
For some suffer from love of glory, and others from fear of some other sharper punishment, and others for the sake of pleasures and delights after death, being children in faith; blessed indeed, but not yet become men in love to God, as the Gnostic is. For there are, as in the gymnastic contests, so also in the Church, crowns for men and for children. But love is to be chosen for itself, and for nothing else. Therefore in the Gnostic, along with knowledge, the perfection of fortitude is developed from the discipline of life, he having always studied to acquire mastery over the passions.
Accordingly, love makes its own athlete
fearless and dauntless, and confident in the Lord, anointing and
training him; as righteousness secures for him truthfulness in his
whole life. [Again
note our author’s fidelity to the law of intrepid truthfulness,
and compare pp. 538, 540.]
[
And the same holds with self-control. For it is neither for love of honour, as the athletes for the sake of crowns and fame; nor on the other hand, for love of money, as some pretend to exercise self-control, pursuing what is good with terrible suffering. Nor is it from love of the body for the sake of health. Nor any more is any man who is temperate from rusticity, who has not tasted pleasures, truly a man of self-control. Certainly those who have led a laborious life, on tasting pleasures, forthwith break down the inflexibility of temperance into pleasures. Such are they who are restrained by law and fear. For on finding a favourable opportunity they defraud the law, by giving what is good the slip. But self-control, desirable for its own sake, perfected through knowledge, abiding ever, makes the man lord and master of himself; so that the Gnostic is temperate and passionless, incapable of being dissolved by pleasures and pains, as they say adamant is by fire.
The cause of these, then, is love, of all science the most sacred and most sovereign.
For by the service of what is best and most
exalted, which is characterized by unity, it renders the Gnostic at
once friend and son, having in truth grown “a perfect man, up
to the measure of full stature.”
Further, agreement in the same thing is consent. But what is the same is one. And friendship is consummated in likeness; the community lying in oneness. The Gnostic, consequently, in virtue of being a lover of the one true God, is the really perfect man and friend of God, and is placed in the rank of son. For these are names of nobility and knowledge, and perfection in the contemplation of God; which crowning step of advancement the gnostic soul receives, when it has become quite pure, reckoned worthy to behold everlastingly God Almighty, “face,” it is said, “to face.” For having become wholly spiritual, and having in the spiritual Church gone to what is of kindred nature, it abides in the rest of God.
Let these things, then, be so. And such being the attitude of the Gnostic towards the body and the soul—towards his neighbours, whether it be a domestic, or a lawful enemy, or whosoever—he is found equal and like. For he does not “despise his brother,” who, according to the divine law, is of the same father and mother. Certainly he relieves the afflicted, helping him with consolations, encouragements, and the necessaries of life; giving to all that need, though not similarly, but justly, according to desert; furthermore, to him who persecutes and hates, even if he need it; caring little for those who say to him that he has given out of fear, if it is not out of fear that he does so, but to give help. For how much more are those, who towards their enemies are devoid of love of money, and are haters of evil, animated with love to those who belong to them?
Such an one from this proceeds to the accurate knowledge of whom he ought chiefly to give to, and how much, and when, and how.
And who could with any reason become the enemy
of a man who gives no cause for enmity in any way? And is it not just as
in the case of God? We say that God is the adversary of no one, and the
enemy of no one (for He is the Creator of all, and nothing that exists
is what He wills it not to be; but we assert that the disobedient, and
those who walk not according to His commandments, are enemies to Him,
as being those who are hostile to His covenant).
In particular, the habit of liberality [The habit of
beneficence is a form of virtue, which the Gospel alone has
bred among mankind.]
There are things practiced in a vulgar
style by some people, such as control over pleasures. For as,
among the heathen, there are those who, from the impossibility
of obtaining what one sees, ὁρᾷ: or, desires, ἑρᾷ,
as Sylburgius suggests.
According to another view, it is not he who merely
controls his passions that is called a continent man, but he who has
also achieved the mastery over good things, and has acquired surely the
great accomplishments of science, from which he produces as fruits the
activities of virtue. Thus the Gnostic is never, on the occurrence of an
emergency, dislodged from the habit peculiar to him. For the scientific
possession of what is good is firm and unchangeable, being the knowledge
of things divine and human. Knowledge, then, never becomes ignorance
nor does good change into evil. Wherefore also he eats, and drinks, and
marries, not as principal ends of existence, but as necessary. I name
marriage even, if the Word prescribe, and as is suitable. For having
become perfect, he
[This striking tribute to chaste marriage as consistent with Christian
perfection exemplified by apostles, and in many things superior to the
selfishness of celibacy, is of the highest importance in the support
of a true Catholicity, against the false. p. 541, note 1.]
But we must as much as possible subject the
soul to varied preparatory exercise, that it may become susceptible
to the reception of knowledge. Do you not see how wax is softened and
copper purified, in order to receive the stamp applied to it? Just
as death is the separation of the soul from the body, so is knowledge
as it were the rational death urging the spirit away, and separating
it from the passions, and leading it on to the life of well-doing,
that it may then say with confidence to God, “I live as Thou
wishest.” For he who makes it his purpose to please men cannot
please God, since the multitude choose not what is profitable, but what
is pleasant. But in pleasing God, one as a consequence gets the favour
of the good among men. How, then, can what relates to meat, and drink,
and amorous pleasure, be agreeable to such an one? since he views with
suspicion even a word that produces pleasure, and a pleasant movement
and act of the mind. “For no one can serve two masters, God and
Mammon,”
There is one alone, then, who from the beginning was free of concupiscence—the philanthropic Lord, who for us became man. And whosoever endeavour to be assimilated to the impress given by Him, strive, from exercise, to become free of concupiscence. For he who has exercised concupiscence and then restrained himself, is like a widow who becomes again a virgin by continence. Such is the reward of knowledge, rendered to the Saviour and Teacher, which He Himself asked for,—abstinence from what is evil, activity in doing good, by which salvation is acquired.
As, then, those who have learned the arts procure their living by what they have been taught, so also is the Gnostic saved, procuring life by what he knows. For he who has not formed the wish to extirpate the passion of the soul, kills himself. But, as seems, ignorance is the starvation of the soul, and knowledge its sustenance.
Such are the gnostic souls, which the Gospel
The Gnostic, then, from his exceeding holiness, is better prepared to fail when he asks, than to get when he does not ask.
His whole life is prayer and converse with God. Wordsworth: Excursion, book i.
208.]
But if one say to us, that some sinners even obtain according to their requests, [we should say] that this rarely takes place, by reason of the righteous goodness of God. And it is granted to those who are capable of doing others good. Whence the gift is not made for the sake of him that asked it; but the divine dispensation, foreseeing that one would be saved by his means, renders the boon again righteous. And to those who are worthy, things which are really good are given, even without their asking.
Whenever, then, one is righteous, not from necessity or out of fear or hope, but from free choice, this is called the royal road, which the royal race travel. But the byways are slippery and precipitous. If, then, one take away fear and honour, I do not know if the illustrious among the philosophers, who use such freedom of speech, will any longer endure afflictions.
Now lusts and other sins are called “briars and thorns.” Accordingly the Gnostic labours in the Lord’s vineyard, planting, pruning, watering; being the divine husbandman of what is planted in faith. Those, then, who have not done evil, think it right to receive the wages of ease. But he who has done good out of free choice, demands the recompense as a good workman. He certainly shall receive double wages—both for what he has not done, and for what good he has done.
Such a Gnostic is tempted by no one except with God’s permission, and that for the benefit of those who are with him; and he strengthens them for faith, encouraging them by manly endurance. And assuredly it was for this end, for the establishment and confirmation of the Churches, that the blessed apostles were brought into trial and to martyrdom.
The Gnostic, then, hearing a voice ringing in his ear,
which says, “Whom I shall strike, do thou pity,” beseeches
that those who hate him may repent. For the punishment of malefactors,
to be consummated in the highways, is for children to behold; According to the text, instead of
“to behold,” as above, it would be “not to
behold.” Lowth suggests the omission of “not,”
(μή).
Retaining it, and translating “is not even for children to
behold,” the clause yields a suitable sense. ὑπὸ τοιούτων
is here substituted by Heinsius for ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν.
“Not every one,” therefore, “that says
Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of God; but he that doeth the
will of God.”
He knows also the enigmas of the fasting of those
days [The stationary days,
Wednesday and Friday. See constitutions called Apostolical, v.
19, and vii. 24; also Hermas, Shepherd, p. 33, this volume, and
my note.]
The same holds of pleasure. For it is the highest
achievement for one who has had trial of it, afterwards to abstain. For
what great thing is it, if a man restrains himself in what he knows
not? He, in fulfilment of the precept, according to the Gospel, keeps
the Lord’s day, [
In the act of contemplating the souls of the brethren, he beholds the beauty of the flesh also, with the soul itself, which has become habituated to look solely upon that which is good, without carnal pleasure. And they are really brethren; inasmuch as, by reason of their elect creation, and their oneness of character, and the nature of their deeds, they do, and think, and speak the same holy and good works, in accordance with the sentiments with which the Lord wished them as elect to be inspired.
For faith shows itself in their making choice of the
same things; and knowledge, in learning and thinking the same things;
and hope, in desiring ποθεῖν
suggested by Lowth instead of ποιεῖν.
And if, through the necessity of life, he spend a small
portion of time about his sustenance, he thinks himself defrauded,
being diverted by business. [The peril of wealth and
“business,” thus enforced in the martyr-age, is too little
insisted upon in our day; if, indeed, it is not wholly overlooked.] ἀτεχνῶς
adopted instead of ἀτέχνως
of the text, and transferred to the beginning of this sentence from the
close of the preceding, where it appears in the text.
This Gnostic, to speak compendiously, makes up for the
absence of the apostles, by the rectitude of his life, the accuracy of
his knowledge, by benefiting his relations, by “removing the
mountains” of his neighbours, and putting away the irregularities
of their soul. Although each of us is his See
He, too, while doing the most excellent things, wishes
to elude the notice of men, persuading the Lord along with himself that
he is living in accordance with the Or His, i.e., the Lord’s. Referring to
He impoverishes himself, in order that he may never
overlook a brother who has been brought into affliction, through the
perfection that is in love, especially if he know that he will bear
want himself easier than his brother. He considers, accordingly, the
other’s pain his own grief; and if, by contributing from his own
indigence in order to do good, he suffer any hardship, he does not fret
at this, but augments his beneficence still more. For he possesses in
its sincerity the faith which is exercised in reference to the affairs
of life, and praises the Gospel in practice and contemplation. And, in
truth, he wins his praise “not from men, but from
God,”
He, attracted by his own hope, tastes not the good
things that are in the world, entertaining a noble contempt for all
things here; pitying those that are chastised after death, who through
punishment unwillingly make confession; having a clear conscience with
reference to his departure, and being always ready, as “a
stranger and pilgrim,” with regard to the inheritances here;
mindful only of those that are his own, and regarding all things here
as not his own; not only admiring the Lord’s commandments, but,
so to speak, being by knowledge itself partaker of the divine will; a
truly chosen intimate of the Lord and His commands in virtue of being
righteous; and princely and kingly as being a Gnostic; despising all
the gold on earth and under the earth, and dominion from shore to shore
of ocean, so that he may cling to the sole service of the Lord.
Wherefore also, in eating, and drinking, and marrying (if the Word
enjoin), and even in seeing dreams, [Again the sanctity of chaste marriage. The
Fathers attach responsibility to the conscience for impure dreams. See
supra, this page.]
So is he always pure for prayer. He also
prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank,
and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone,
he has the choir of the saints ὰγίων,
as in the best authorities: or ὰγγέλων,
as in recent editions. [“Where two or three are gathered,”
etc. This principle is insisted upon by the Fathers, as the great
idea of public worship. And see the Trisgion, Bunsen’s
Hippolytus, vol. ii. p. 63.]
He recognises a twofold [element in faith], both the
activity of him who believes, and the
And the form of his prayer is thanksgiving for the past,
for the present, and for the future as already through faith present.
This is preceded by the reception of knowledge. And he asks to live the
allotted life in the flesh as a Gnostic, as free from the flesh, and to
attain to the best things, and flee from the worse. He asks, too,
relief in those things in which we have sinned, and conversion to the
acknowledgment of them.
He follows, on his departure, Him who calls, as quickly, so to speak, as He who goes before calls, hasting by reason of a good conscience to give thanks; and having got there with Christ shows himself worthy, through his purity, to possess, by a process of blending, the power of God communicated by Christ. For he does not wish to be warm by participation in heat, or luminous by participation in flame, but to be wholly light.
He knows accurately the declaration, “Unless ye
hate father and mother, and besides your own life, and unless ye bear
the sign [of the cross].” i.e., The sentient soul, which he
calls the irrational spirit, in contrast with the rational soul. In allusion to
He having acquired the habit of doing good, exercises beneficence well, quicker than speaking; praying that he may get a share in the sins of his brethren, in order to confession and conversion on the part of his kindred; and eager to give a share to those dearest to him of his own good things. And so these are to him, friends. Promoting, then, the growth of the seeds deposited in him, according to the husbandry enjoined by the Lord, he continues free of sin, and becomes continent, and lives in spirit with those who are like him, among the choirs of the saints, though still detained on earth.
He, all day and night, speaking and doing
the Lord’s commands, rejoices exceedingly, not only on rising
in the morning and at noon, but also when walking about, when
asleep, when dressing and undressing; [See, supra, cap. vii. p. 533.]
He never remembers those who have sinned
against him, but forgives them. Wherefore also he righteously
prays, saying, “Forgive us; for we also forgive.”
Such an one demands from the Lord, and does not merely
ask. And in the case of his brethren in want, the Gnostic will not ask
himself for abundance of wealth to bestow, but will pray that the
supply of what they need may be furnished to them. For so the Gnostic
gives his prayer to those who are in need, and by his
Penury and disease, and such trials, are often sent for admonition, for the correction of the past, and for care for the future. Such an one prays for relief from them, in virtue of possessing the prerogative of knowledge, not out of vainglory; but from the very fact of his being a Gnostic, he works beneficence, having become the instrument of the goodness of God.
They say in the traditions [See book ii. p. 358, also
book vii. cap. 17, infra.]
What, then, shall we say of the Gnostic himself?
“Know ye not,” says the apostle, “that ye are the
temple of God?” These words are not found in
Scripture. Solomon often warns against strange women, and there are the
Lord’s words in
Mixing, then, “the serpent with the
dove,”
Rightly, then, he is not disturbed by anything which happens; nor does he suspect those things, which, through divine arrangement, take place for good. Nor is he ashamed to die, having a good conscience, and being fit to be seen by the Powers. Cleansed, so to speak, from all the stains of the soul, he knows right well that it will be better with him after his departure.
Whence he never prefers pleasure and profit to the divine arrangement, since he trains himself by the commands, that in all things he may be well pleasing to the Lord, and praiseworthy in the sight of the world, since all things depend on the one Sovereign God. The Son of God, it is said, came to His own, and His own received Him not. Wherefore also in the use of the things of the world he not only gives thanks and praises the creation, but also, while using them as is right, is praised; since the end he has in view terminates in contemplation by gnostic activity in accordance with the commandments.
Thence now, by knowledge collecting materials to be the
food of contemplation, having embraced nobly the magnitude of
knowledge, he advances to the holy recompense of translation hence. For
he has heard the Psalm which says: “Encircle Zion, and encompass
it, tell upon its towers.”
Let these statements concerning the Gnostic, containing the germs of the matter in as brief terms as possible, be made to the Greeks. But let it be known that if the [mere] believer do rightly one or a second of these things, yet he will not do so in all nor with the highest knowledge, like the Gnostic.
Now, of what I may call the passionlessness which we attribute to
the Gnostic (in which the perfection of the believer, “advancing
by love, comes to a perfect man, to the measure of full
stature,”
One passage, accordingly, I shall in the briefest terms advert to, so as not to leave the topic unexplained.
For in the first Epistle to the Corinthians the divine
apostle says: “Dare any of you, having a matter against the
other, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?
Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world?”
The section being very long, we shall exhibit the
meaning of the apostle’s utterance by employing
To say, then, that the man who has been injured goes to law before the unrighteous, is nothing else than to say that he shows a wish to retaliate, and a desire to injure the second in return, which is also to do wrong likewise himself.
And his saying, that he wishes “some to go to law
before the saints,” points out those who ask by prayer that those
who have done wrong should suffer retaliation for their injustice, and
intimates that the second are better than the former; but they are not
yet obedient, εὐπειθεῖς
here substituted by Sylburgius for ἀπειθσῖς.
May not the true reading be ἀπαθείς,
as the topic is ἀπαθεια?
It is well, then, for them to receive right dispositions
from repentance, which results in faith. For if the truth seems to get
enemies who entertain bad feeling, yet it is not hostile to any one.
“For God makes His sun to shine on the just and on the
unjust,”
And how shall one “judge” the apostate
“angels,” who has become himself an apostate from that
forgetfulness of injuries, which is according to the Gospel? “Why
do ye not rather suffer wrong?” he says; “why are ye not
rather defrauded? Yea, ye do wrong and defraud,”
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not
inherit the kingdom of God?”
“And such were some of you”—such
manifestly as those still are whom you do not forgive; “but ye
are washed,”
The Gnostic will achieve this either by greatness of mind, or by imitation of what is better. And that is a third cause. “Forgive, and it shall be forgiven you;” the commandment, as it were, compelling to salvation through superabundance of goodness.
“But ye are sanctified.” For he
who has come to this state is in a condition to be holy, falling into
none of the passions in any way, but as it were already disembodied
and already grown holy without ἄνευ:
or above, ἄνω.
“Wherefore,” he says, “ye
are justified in the name of the Lord.” Ye are made,
so to speak, by Him to be righteous as He is, and are blended
as far as possible with the Holy Spirit. For “are not all
things lawful to me? yet I will not be brought under the power of
any,”
[
Such an one is wholly a son, an holy man, passionless, gnostic, perfect, formed by the teaching of the Lord; in order that in deed, in word, and in spirit itself, being brought close to the Lord, he may receive the mansion that is due to him who has reached manhood thus.
Let the specimen suffice to those who have ears. For it
is not required to unfold the mystery, but only to indicate what is
sufficient for those who are partakers in knowledge to bring it to
mind; who also will comprehend how it was said by the Lord, “Be
ye perfect as your father, perfectly,”
If, then, the statement being elliptical, we understand what is wanting, in order to complete the section for those who are incapable of understanding what is left out, we shall both know the will of God, and shall walk at once piously and magnanimously, as befits the dignity of the commandment.
Since it comes next to reply to the objections alleged against us by Greeks and Jews; and since, in some of the questions previously discussed, the sects also who adhere to other teaching give their help, it will be well first to clear away the obstacles before us, and then, prepared thus for the solution of the difficulties, to advance to the succeeding Miscellany.
First, then, they make this objection to us, saying, that they ought not to believe on account of the discord of the sects. For the truth is warped when some teach one set of dogmas, others another.
To whom we say, that among you who are Jews, and among
the most famous of the philosophers among the Greeks, very many sects
have sprung up. And yet you do not say that one ought to hesitate to
philosophize or Judaize, because of the want of agreement of the sects
among you between themselves. And then, that heresies should be sown
among the truth, as “tares among the wheat,” was foretold
by the Lord; and what was predicted to take place could not but
happen. [ The “eccleisastical
canon” here recognised, marks the existence, at this period, of
canon-law. See Bunsen, Hippol., book iii. p. 105.]
Those, then, are to be believed, who hold firmly to the truth. And we may broadly make use of this reply, and say to them, that physicians holding opposite opinions according to their own schools, yet equally in point of fact treat patients. Does one, then, who is ill in body and needing treatment, not have recourse to a physician, on account of the different schools in medicine? No more, then, may he who in soul is sick and full of idols, make a pretext of the heresies, in reference to the recovery of health and conversion to God.
Further, it is said that it is on account of
“those that are approved that heresies exist.” δοκίμους,
same word as above translated “approved.”
For this reason, then, we require greater attention and consideration in order to investigate how precisely we ought to live, and what is the true piety. For it is plain that, from the very reason that truth is difficult and arduous of attainment, questions arise from which spring the heresies, savouring of self-love and vanity, of those who have not learned or apprehended truly, but only caught up a mere conceit of knowledge. With the greater care, therefore, are we to examine the real truth, which alone has for its object the true God. And the toil is followed by sweet discovery and reminiscence.
On account of the heresies, therefore, the toil of discovery must be undertaken; but we must not at all abandon [the truth]. For, on fruit being set before us, some real and ripe, and some made of wax, as like the real as possible, we are not to abstain from both on account of the resemblance. But by the exercise of the apprehension of contemplation, and by reasoning of the most decisive character, we must distinguish the true from the seeming.
And as, while there is one royal highway, there are many others, some leading to a precipice, some to a rushing river or to a deep sea, no one will shrink from travelling by reason of the diversity, but will make use of the safe, and royal, and frequented way; so, though some say this, some that, concerning the truth, we must not abandon it; but must seek out the most accurate knowledge respecting it. Since also among garden-grown vegetables weeds also spring up, are the husbandmen, then, to desist from gardening?
Having then from nature abundant means for examining the statements made, we ought to discover the sequence of the truth. Wherefore also we are rightly condemned, if we do not assent to what we ought to obey, and do not distinguish what is hostile, and unseemly, and unnatural, and false, from what is true, consistent, and seemly, and according to nature. And these means must be employed in order to attain to the knowledge of the real truth.
This pretext is then, in the case of the Greeks, futile;
for those who are willing may find the truth. But in the case of those
who adduce unreasonable excuses, their condemnation is unanswerable.
For whether do they deny or admit that there is such a thing as
demonstration? I am of opinion that all will make the admission, except
those who take away the senses. There being demonstration, then, it is
necessary to condescend to questions, and to ascertain by way of
demonstration by the Scriptures themselves how the heresies failed, and
how in the truth alone and in the ancient Church is both the exactest
knowledge, and the truly best set of principles (αἴρεσις). [A most important testimony to the
primitive rule of faith. Negatively it demonstrates the impossibility
of any primitive conception of the modern Trent doctrine, that the
holder of a particular see is the arbiter of truth and the end of
controversy.]
Now, of those who diverge from the truth, some attempt to deceive themselves alone, and some also their neighbours. Those, then, who are called (δοξόσοφοι) wise in their own opinions, who think that they have found the truth, but have no true demonstration, deceive themselves in thinking that they have reached a resting place. And of whom there is no inconsiderable multitude, who avoid investigations for fear of refutations, and shun instructions for fear of condemnation. But those who deceive those who seek access to them are very astute; who, aware that they know nothing, yet darken the truth with plausible arguments.
But, in my opinion, the nature of plausible
arguments is of one character, and that of true arguments of another. And
we know that it is necessary that the appellation of the heresies should
be expressed in contradistinction to the truth; from which the Sophists,
drawing certain things for the destruction of men, and burying them in
human arts invented by themselves, glory rather in being at the head of
a School than presiding over the Church. [A just comment on the late Vatican Council,
and its shipwreck of the faith. See Janus, Pope and Council,
p. 182.]
[One of the most important testimonies of primitive antiquity. Elucidation III.]
But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.
There are certain criteria common to men, as the senses; and others that belong to those who have employed their wills and energies in what is true,—the methods which are pursued by the mind and reason, to distinguish between true and false propositions.
Now, it is a very great thing to abandon opinion, by
taking one’s stand between accurate knowledge and the rash wisdom
of opinion, and to know that he who hopes for everlasting rest knows
also that the entrance to it is toilsome “and strait.” And
let him who has once received the Gospel, even in the very hour in
which he has come to the knowledge of salvation, “not turn back,
like Lot’s wife,” as is said; and let him not go back
either to his former life, which adheres to the things of sense, or to
heresies. For they form the character, not knowing the true God.
“For he that loveth father or mother more than Me,” the
Father and Teacher of the truth, who regenerates and creates anew, and
But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard
Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the
puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she
brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin. [A reference to the sickening and
profane history of an apocryphal book, hereafter to be noted. But this
language is most noteworthy as an absolute refutation of modern
Mariolatry.]
Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord,
which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of
the mysteries of the truth. “And she brought forth, and yet brought
not forth,”
Tertullian, who treats of the above-mentioned topic, attributes
these words to Ezekiel: but they are sought for in vain in Ezekiel,
or in any other part of Scripture. [The words are not found in
Ezekiel, but such was his understanding of
Now all men, having the same judgment, some,
following the Word speaking, frame for themselves proofs; while others,
giving themselves up to pleasures, wrest Scripture, in accordance
with their lusts. [2
Pet. iii. 16.] [Nothing is Catholic dogma, according to our author,
that is not proved by the Scriptures.]
As, then, if a man should, similarly to those drugged by Circe, become a beast; so he, who has spurned the ecclesiastical tradition, and darted off to the opinions of heretical men, has ceased to be a man of God and to remain faithful to the Lord. But he who has returned from this deception, on hearing the Scriptures, and turned his life to the truth, is, as it were, from being a man made a god.
For we have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, both
by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles, “in divers
manners and at sundry times,” [Absolutely exclusive of any other
source of dogma, than “the faith once delivered to the
saints.”
He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and
voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is
rightly [regarded] faithful. Certainly we use it as a criterion in the
discovery of things. [τῆ κυριακῇ γραφῆ
… αὐτῇ χρώμεθα κριτηρίῳ.
Can anything be more decisive, save what follows?]
For we may not give our adhesion to men on a bare
statement by them, who might equally state the opposite. But if it is
not enough merely to state the opinion, but if what is stated must be
confirmed, we do not wait for the testimony of men, but we establish
the matter that is in question by the voice of the Lord, which is the
surest of all demonstrations, or rather is the only demonstration; in
which knowledge those who have merely tasted the Scriptures are
believers; while those who, having advanced further, and become correct
expounders of the truth, are Gnostics. Since also, in what pertains to
life, craftsmen are superior to ordinary people, and model what is
beyond common notions; so, consequently, we also, giving a complete
exhibition of the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, from faith
persuade by demonstration. [An absolute demonstration of the
rule of Catholic faith against the Trent dogmas.]
And if those also who follow heresies venture to avail themselves of the prophetic Scriptures; in the first place they will not make use of all the Scriptures, and then they will not quote them entire, nor as the body and texture of prophecy prescribe. But, selecting ambiguous expressions, they wrest them to their own opinions, gathering a few expressions here and there; not looking to the sense, but making use of the mere words. For in almost all the quotations they make, you will find that they attend to the names alone, while they alter the meanings; neither knowing, as they affirm, nor using the quotations they adduce, according to their true nature.
But the truth is not found by changing the meanings (for
so people subvert all true teaching), but in the consideration of what
perfectly belongs to and becomes the Sovereign God, and in establishing
each one of the points demonstrated in the Scriptures again from
similar Scriptures. Neither, then, do they want to turn to the
[Opposition
to the Scriptures is the self-refutation of false dogma.]
Seeing, therefore, the danger that they are in (not in
respect of one dogma, but in reference to the maintenance of the
heresies) of not discovering the truth; for while reading the books we
have ready at hand, they despise them as useless, but in their
eagerness to surpass common faith, they have diverged from the truth.
For, in consequence of not learning the mysteries of ecclesiastical
knowledge, and not having capacity for the grandeur of the truth, too
indolent to descend to the bottom of things, reading superficially,
they have dismissed the Scriptures. [See, e.g., Epochs of the
Papacy, p. 469. New York, 1883.] [See, e.g., Epochs of the
Papacy, p. 469. New York, 1883.]
The knowledge of the truth among us from what is already believed, produces faith in what is not yet believed; which [faith] is, so to speak, the essence of demonstration. But, as appears, no heresy has at all ears to hear what is useful, but opened only to what leads to pleasure. Since also, if one of them would only obey the truth, he would be healed.
Now the cure of self-conceit (as of every ailment) is threefold: the ascertaining of the cause, and the mode of its removal; and thirdly, the training of the soul, and the accustoming it to assume a right attitude to the judgments come to. For, just like a disordered eye, so also the soul that has been darkened by unnatural dogmas cannot perceive distinctly the light of truth, but even overlooks what is before it.
They say, then, that in muddy water eels are caught by being blinded. And just as knavish boys bar out the teacher, so do these shut out the prophecies from their Church, regarding them with suspicion by reason of rebuke and admonition. In fact, they stitch together a multitude of lies and figments, that they may appear acting in accordance with reason in not admitting the Scriptures. So, then, they are not pious, inasmuch as they are not pleased with the divine commands, that is, with the Holy Spirit. And as those almonds are called empty in which the contents are worthless, not those in which there is nothing; so also we call those heretics empty, who are destitute of the counsels of God and the traditions of Christ; bitter, in truth, like the wild almond, their dogmas originating with themselves, with the exception of such truths as they could not, by reason of their evidence, discard and conceal.
As, then, in war the soldier must not leave the post which the commander has assigned him, so neither must we desert the post assigned by the Word, whom we have received as the guide of knowledge and of life. But the most have not even inquired, if there is one that we ought to follow, and who this is, and how he is to be followed. For as is the Word, such also must the believer’s life be, so as to be able to follow God, who brings all things to end from the beginning by the right course.
But when one has transgressed against the Word, and
thereby against God; if it is through becoming powerless in consequence
of some impression being suddenly made, he ought to see to have the
impressions of reasons at hand. And if it is that he has become
“common,” as the Scripture An apocryphal Scripture
probably. [At every point in this chapter, the student may
recognise the primitive rule of faith clearly established.]
But, as appears, we incline to ideas founded on opinion, though they be contrary, rather than to the truth. For it is austere and grave. Now, since there are three states of the soul—ignorance, opinion, knowledge—those who are in ignorance are the Gentiles, those in knowledge, the true Church, and those in opinion, the Heretics. Nothing, then, can be more clearly seen than those, who know, making affirmations about what they know, and the others respecting what they hold on the strength of opinion, as far as respects affirmation without proof.
They accordingly despise and laugh at one another. And
it happens that the same thought is held in the highest estimation by
some, and by others condemned for insanity. And, indeed, we have
learned that voluptuousness, which is to be attributed to the Gentiles,
is one thing; and wrangling, which is preferred among the heretical
sects, is another; and joy, which is to be appropriated to the Church,
another; and delight, which is to be assigned to the true Gnostic,
another. And as, if one devote himself to Ischomachus, he will make him
a farmer; and to Lampis, a mariner; and to Charidemus, a military
commander; and to Simon, an equestrian; and to Perdices, a trader; and
to Crobylus, a cook; and to Archelaus, a dancer; and to Homer, a poet;
and to Pyrrho, a wrangler; and to Demosthenes, an orator; and to
Chrysippus, a dialectician; and to Aristotle, a naturalist; and to
Plato, a philosopher: so he who listens to the Lord, and follows the
prophecy given by Him, will be formed perfectly in the likeness of the
teacher—made a god going about in flesh. [Strong as this language is, it is
based on 2 Pet. i. 4.]
Accordingly, those fall from this eminence who follow not God whither He leads. And He leads us in the inspired Scriptures.
Though men’s actions are ten thousand in number, the sources of all sin are but two, ignorance and inability. And both depend on ourselves; inasmuch as we will not learn, nor, on the other hand, restrain lust. And of these, the one is that, in consequence of which people do not judge well, and the other that, in consequence of which they cannot comply with right judgments. For neither will one who is deluded in his mind be able to act rightly, though perfectly able to do what he knows; nor, though capable of judging what is requisite, will he keep himself free of blame, if destitute of power in action. Consequently, then, there are assigned two kinds of correction applicable to both kinds of sin: for the one, knowledge and clear demonstration from the testimony of the Scriptures; and for the other, the training according to the Word, which is regulated by the discipline of faith and fear. And both develop into perfect love. For the end of the Gnostic here is, in my judgment, twofold,—partly scientific contemplation, partly action.
Would, then, that these heretics would learn and be set right by these notes, and turn to the sovereign God! But if, like the deaf serpents, they listen not to the song called new, though very old, may they be chastised by God, and undergo paternal admonitions previous to the Judgment, till they become ashamed and repent, but not rush through headlong unbelief, and precipitate themselves into judgment.
For there are partial corrections, which are called chastisements, which many of us who have been in transgression incur, by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish, for punishment is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised, collectively and individually.
I have adduced these things from a wish to avert those, who are eager to learn, from the liability to fall into heresies, and out of a desire to stop them from superficial ignorance, or stupidity, or bad disposition, or whatever it should be called. And in the attempt to persuade and lead to the truth those who are not entirely incurable, I have made use of these words. For there are some who cannot bear at all to listen to those who exhort them to turn to the truth; and they attempt to trifle, pouring out blasphemies against the truth, claiming for themselves the knowledge of the greatest things in the universe, without having learned, or inquired, or laboured, or discovered the consecutive train of ideas,—whom one should pity rather than hate for such perversity.
But if one is curable, able to bear (like fire or steel)
the outspokenness of the truth, which cuts away and burns their false
opinions, let him lend the ears of the soul. And this will be the case,
unless, through the propensity to sloth, they push truth away, or
through the desire of fame, endeavour to invent novelties. For those
are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with
proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves,
select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a
craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse
sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which
are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human
teachings,
[The divine tradition is here identified with “things delivered by
the blessed apostles.”]
Our Gnostic then alone, having grown old in the
Scriptures, and maintaining apostolic and ecclesiastic orthodoxy in
doctrines, lives most correctly in accordance with the Gospel, and
discovers the proofs, for which he may have made search (sent forth as
he is by the Lord), from the law and the prophets. For the life of the
Gnostic, in my view, is nothing but deeds and words corresponding to
the tradition of the Lord. But “all have not knowledge. For I
would not have you to be ignorant, brethren,” says the apostle,
“that all were under the cloud, and partook of spiritual meat
and drink;”
εἔ
τις instead of ἥτις.
For we must never, as do those who follow the heresies,
adulterate the truth, or steal the canon of the Church, by gratifying
our own lusts and vanity, by defrauding our neighbours; whom above all
it is our duty, in the exercise of love to them, to teach to adhere to
the truth. It is accordingly expressly said, “Declare among the
heathen His statutes,” that they may not be judged, but that
those who have previously given ear may be converted. But those who
speak treacherously with their tongues have the penalties that are on
record. [When we reach The
Commonitory of Vincent of Lerins (a.d.
450), we shall find a strict adherence to what is taught by
Clement.]
Those, then, that adhere to impious words, and dictate them to
others, inasmuch as they do not make a right but a perverse use of
the divine words, neither themselves enter into the kingdom of heaven,
nor permit those whom they have deluded to attain the truth. But not
having the key of entrance, but a false (and as the common phrase
expresses it), a counterfeit key (ἀντικλεῖς),
by which they do not enter in as we enter in, through the tradition of
the Lord, by drawing aside the curtain; but bursting through the
side-door, and digging clandestinely through the wall of the Church,
and stepping over the truth, they constitute themselves the
Mystagogues Those who initiate into the
mysteries.
For that the human assemblies which they held were
posterior to the Catholic Church [See the quotation from
Milman, p. 166, supra.]
For the teaching of our Lord at His advent,
beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the
middle of the times of Tiberius. Ἡ
μὲν
γὰρ
τοῦ
Κυρίου
κατὰ
τὴν
παρουσίαν
διδασκαλία,
ἀπὸ
Αὐγούστου
καὶ
Τιβερίου
Καίσαρος,
ἀρξαμένη,
μεσούντων
τῶν
Αὐγούστου
χρόνων
τελειοῦται.
In the translation, the change recommended,
on high authority, of Αὐγούστου
into Τιβερίου
in the last clause, is adopted, as on the
whole the best way of solving the unquestionable
difficulty here. If we retain Αὐγούστου,
the clause must then be made parenthetical, and the sense would be:
“For the teaching of the Lord on His advent, beginning with
Augustus and Tiberius (in the middle of the times of Augustus), was
completed.” The objection to this (not by any means conclusive)
is, that it does not specify the end of the period. The first 15 years of the life of our Lord were the last 15 of the
reign of Augustus; and in the 15th year of the reign of his successor
Tiberius our Lord was baptized. Clement elsewhere broaches the singular
opinion, that our Lord’s ministry lasted only a year, and,
consequently that He died in the year in which He was baptized. As
Augustus reigned, according to one of the chronologies of Clement, 43,
and according to the other 46 years 4 months 1 day, and Tiberius 22 or
26 years 6 months 19 days, the period of the teacing of the Gospel
specified above began during the reign of Augustus, and ended during
the reign of Tiberius.
And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.
Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of
Theudas. Θεοδάδι ἀκηκοέναι
is the reading, which eminent authorities (Bentley, Grabe, etc.) have
changed into Θεοδᾶ (or
Θευδᾶ)
διακηκοέναι. Much learning and ingenuity have
been expended on this sentence, which, read as it stands in the text,
appears to state that Marcion was an old man while Baslides and
Valentinus were young men; and that Simon (Magus) was posterior to them
in time. Marcion was certainly not an old man when Valentinus and
Basilides were young men, as they flourished in the first half of the
second century, and he was born about the beginning of it. The
difficulty in regard to Simon is really best got over by supposing the
Clement, speaking of these heresiarchs in ascending order, describes
Marcion as further back in time; which sense μεθ᾽ ὄν
of course will bear, although it does seem somewhat harsh, as
“after” thus means “before.”
Such being the case, it is evident, from the high antiquity and perfect truth of the Church, that these later heresies, and those yet subsequent to them in time, were new inventions falsified [from the truth].
From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the
true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those
who according to God’s purpose are just, are enrolled. [This chapter illustrates what the
Nicene Fathers understood by their language about the “One Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church.”]
Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in
pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic [I restore this important word of
the Greek text, enfeebled by the translator, who renders it by the word
“universal”, which, though not wrong, disguises the force
of the argument.]
But the pre-eminence of the Church, as the principle of union, is, in its oneness, in this surpassing all things else, and having nothing like or equal to itself. But of this afterwards.
Of the heresies, some receive their appellation from a [person’s] name, as that which is called after Valentinus, and that after Marcion, and that after Basilides, although they boast of adducing the opinion of Matthew [without truth]; for as the teaching, so also the tradition of the apostles was one. Some take their designation from a place, as the Peratici; some from a nation, as the [heresy] of the Phrygians; some from an action, as that of the Encratites; and some from peculiar dogmas, as that of the Docetæ, and that of the Hærmatites; and some from suppositions, and from individuals they have honoured, as those called Cainists, and the Ophians; and some from nefarious practices and enormities, as those of the Simonians called Entychites.
After showing a little peep-hole to those who love to contemplate the Church from the law of sacrifices respecting clean and unclean animals (inasmuch as thus the common Jews and the heretics are distinguished mystically from the divine Church), let us bring the discourse to a close.
For such of the sacrifices as part the hoof, and ruminate, the Scripture represents as clean and acceptable to God; since the just obtain access to the Father and to the Son by faith. For this is the stability of those who part the hoof, those who study the oracles of God night and day, and ruminate them in the soul’s receptacle for instructions; which gnostic exercise the Law expresses under the figure of the rumination of the clean animal. But such as have neither the one nor the other of those qualities it separates as unclean.
Now those that ruminate, but do not part the hoof,
indicate the majority of the Jews, who have indeed the oracles of God,
but have not faith, and the step which, resting on the truth, conveys
to the Father by the Son. Whence also this kind of cattle are apt to
slip, not having a division in the foot, and not resting on the twofold
support of faith. For “no man,” it is said, “knoweth
the Father, but he to whom the Son shall reveal Him.”
And again, those also are likewise unclean that part the
hoof, but do not ruminate. [The swine, e.g., has the parted
hoof, but does not ruminate; hence he is the hypocrite,—an
outward sign with no inward quality to correspond, the foulest of the
unclean.]
And those that neither part the hoof nor chew the cud are entirely unclean.
“but as chaff which the wind drives away
from the face of the earth,”
These points, then, having been formerly thoroughly
treated, and the department of ethics having been sketched summarily in
a fragmentary way, as we promised; and having here and there
interspersed the dogmas which are the germs [Clement regards dogma as framing
practical morals. The comment is found in the history of nations,
nominally Christian.]
Now the Miscellanies are not like parts laid out, planted in regular order for the delight of the eye, but rather like an umbrageous and shaggy hill, planted with laurel, and ivy, and apples, and olives, and figs; the planting being purposely a mixture of fruit-bearing and fruitless trees, since the composition aims at concealment, on account of those that have the daring to pilfer and steal the ripe fruits; from which, however, the husbandmen, transplanting shoots and plants, will adorn a beautiful park and a delightful grove.
The Miscellanies, then, study neither arrangement nor diction; since there are even cases in which the Greeks on purpose wish that ornate diction should be absent, and imperceptibly cast in the seed of dogmas, not according to the truth, rendering such as may read laborious and quick at discovery. For many and various are the baits for the various kinds of fishes.
And now, after this seventh Miscellany of
ours, we shall give the account of what follows in order from another
commencement. [The
residue is lost, for the eighth book has little conection with the
Gnostic as hitherto developed.]
(Deception, cap. ix. p. 538.)
More and more, the casuistry exposed
by Pascal in the Provincial Letters A good translation of the letters was published
in New York, in 1864, by Hurd & Houghton.
For a good article on St. Alphonsus de’Liguori, see the Encyc.
Britannica.
I have briefly indicated, in the footnotes, the
points which are to be noted in forming an opinion of our
author’s conceptions of this vital principle. They seem to me
conformed to the Gospel; to the teachings of Him who allows no
hair-splittings, but says, “Let your yea be yea,
In this respect, the holy Jeremy Taylor and Dr. Johnson go further than Clement, and seem to allow that benevolent deceptions may be innocent. Sanderson sustains a sterner morality, and is more generally accepted. Liguori’s system is verbally as strong as the Gospel itself: lying is a mortal sin, and never justifiable. But, when he comes to the definition of a lie, it is made so feeble, that the worst liar that ever lived need never resort to it. He may practice all manner of subterfuge, and even perjury, without telling a lie. As, e.g., if he points up his sleeve, while he swears that he did not see the criminal there, he tells no lie: it is the business of the judge and jury to watch his fingers, etc.
(True Gnostic, cap. x. p. 540, note 1.)
This unfortunate word Gnostic hides the force of Clement’s teaching, throughout this work. Here he virtually expounds it, and we see that it refers even more to the heart than to the head. It carries with it the conduct of life by knowledge; i.e., by “the true Light which lighteneth every man that cometh into the world.” (See p. 607, footnote.)
(The Scriptures, cap. xvi. p. 550, note 3.)
The Primitive Fathers never dream of anything as dogma which cannot be proved by the Scriptures, save only that the apostolic traditions, clearly proved to be such, must be referred to in proving what is Holy Scripture. It is not possible to graft on this principle the slightest argument for any tradition not indisputably apostolic, so far as the de fide is concerned. Quod semper is the touchstone, in their conceptions, of all orthodoxy. No matter who may teach this or that, now or in any post-apostolic age, their test is Holy Scripture, and the inquiry, Was it always so taught and understood?
[This book is a mere fragment, an imperfect exposition of logic, and not properly part of the Stromata. Kaye, 22.]
But
the most ancient of the philosophers were not carried away to
disputing and doubting, much less are we, who are attached to the
really true philosophy, on whom the Scripture enjoins examination and
investigation. For it is the more recent of the Hellenic philosophers
who, by empty and futile love of fame, are led into useless babbling in
refuting and wrangling. But, on the contrary, the Barbarian philosophy,
expelling all contention, said, “Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and
it shall be opened unto you; ask, and it shall be given you.”
Accordingly, by investigation, the point proposed for inquiry and answer knocks at the door of truth, according to what appears. And on an opening being made through the obstacle in the process of investigation, there results scientific contemplation. To those who thus knock, according to my view, the subject under investigation is opened.
And to those who thus ask questions, in the Scriptures, there is given from God (that at which they aim) the gift of the God-given knowledge, by way of comprehension, through the true illumination of logical investigation. For it is impossible to find, without having sought; or to have sought, without having examined; or to have examined, without having unfolded and opened up the question by interrogation, to produce distinctness; or again, to have gone through the whole investigation, without thereafter receiving as the prize the knowledge of the point in question.
But it belongs to him who has sought, to find; and to him to seek, who thinks previously that he does not know. Hence drawn by desire to the discovery of what is good, he seeks thoughtfully, without love of strife or glory, asking, answering, and besides considering the statements made. For it is incumbent, in applying ourselves not only to the divine Scriptures, but also to common notions, to institute investigations, the discovery ceasing at some useful end.
For another place and crowd await turbulent people, and forensic sophistries. But it is suitable for him, who is at once a lover and disciple of the truth, to be pacific even in investigations, advancing by scientific demonstration, without love of self, but with love of truth, to comprehensive knowledge.
What better or clearer method, for the commencement of instruction of this nature, can there be than discussion of the term advanced, so distinctly, that all who use the same language may follow it? Is the term for demonstration of such a kind as the word Blityri, which is a mere sound, signifying nothing? But how is it that neither does the philosopher, nor the orator,—no more does the judge,—adduce demonstration as a term that means nothing; nor is any of the contending parties ignorant of the fact, that the meaning does not exist?
Philosophers, in fact, present demonstration as having a substantial existence, one in one way, another in another. Therefore, if one would treat aright of each question, he cannot carry back the discourse to another more generally admitted fundamental principle than what is admitted to be signified by the term by all of the same nation and language.
Then, starting from this point, it is necessary to
inquire if the proposition has this signification or not. And next, if
it is demonstrated to have, it is necessary to investigate its nature
accurately, of what kind it is, and whether it ever passes over the
class assigned. And if it suffices not to say, absolutely, only that
which one thinks (for
Similarly, also, all men will admit
that demonstration is discourse, It is necessary to read λόγον
here, though not in the text, on account of ἐκπορίζοντα
which follows; and as εὔλογον
εἷναι λόγον
occurs afterwards, it seems better to retain δὔλογον
than to substitute λόγον for
it.
Now, not only demonstration and belief and knowledge, but foreknowledge also, are used in a twofold manner. There is that which is scientific and certain, and that which is merely based on hope.
In strict propriety, then, that is called demonstration which produces in the souls of learners scientific belief. The other kind is that which merely leads to opinion. As also, both he that is really a man, possessing common judgment, and he that is savage and brutal,—each is a man. Thus also the Comic poet said that “man is graceful, so long as he is man.” The same holds with ox, horse, and dog, according to the goodness or badness of the animal. For by looking to the perfection of the genus, we come to those meanings that are strictly proper. For instance, we conceive of a physician who is deficient in no element of the power of healing, and a Gnostic who is defective in no element of scientific knowledge.
Now demonstration differs from syllogism; inasmuch as the point demonstrated is indicative of one thing, being one and identical; as we say that to be with child is the proof of being no longer a virgin. But what is apprehended by syllogism, though one thing, follows from several; as, for example, not one but several proofs are adduced of Pytho having betrayed the Byzantines, if such was the fact. And to draw a conclusion from what is admitted is to syllogize; while to draw a conclusion from what is true is to demonstrate.
So that there is a compound advantage of demonstration: from its assuming, for the proof of points in question, true premisses, and from its drawing the conclusion that follows from them. If the first have no existence, but the second follow from the first, one has not demonstrated, but syllogized. For, to draw the proper conclusion from the premisses, is merely to syllogize. But to have also each of the premisses true, is not merely to have syllogized, but also to have demonstrated.
And to conclude, as is evident from the word, is to bring to the conclusion. And in every train of reasoning, the point sought to be determined is the end, which is also called the conclusion. But no simple and primary statement is termed a syllogism, although true; but it is compounded of three such, at the least,—of two as premisses, and one as conclusion.
Now, either all things require demonstration, or some of them are self-evident. But if the first, by demanding the demonstration of each demonstration we shall go on ad infinitum; and so demonstration is subverted. But if the second, those things which are self-evident will become the starting points [and fundamental grounds] of demonstration.
In point of fact, the philosophers admit that the first principles of all things are indemonstrable. So that if there is demonstration at all, there is an absolute necessity that there be something that is self-evident, which is called primary and indemonstrable.
Consequently all demonstration is traced up to
indemonstrable faith. [We begin, that is, with axioms: and he
ingeniously identifies faith with axiomatic truth. Hence the faith not
esoteric.]
It will also turn out that there are other starting
points for demonstrations, after the source which takes its rise in
faith,—the things which appear clearly to sensation and
understanding. For the phenomena of sensation are simple, and incapable
of being decompounded; but those of understanding are simple, rational,
and primary. But those produced from them are compound, but no less
clear and reliable, and having more to do with the reasoning faculty
than the first. For therefore the peculiar native power of reason,
which we all have by nature, deals with agreement and disagreement. If,
then, any argument be found to be of such a kind, as from points
already believed to be capable of producing
Now it is affirmed that the nature of demonstration, as that of belief, is twofold: that which produces in the souls of the hearers persuasion merely, and that which produces knowledge.
If, then, one begins with the things which are evident to sensation and understanding, and then draw the proper conclusion, he truly demonstrates. But if [he begin] with things which are only probable and not primary, that is evident neither to sense nor understanding, and if he draw the right conclusion, he will syllogize indeed, but not produce a scientific demonstration; but if [he draw] not the right conclusion, he will not syllogize at all.
Now demonstration differs from analysis. For each one of the points demonstrated, is demonstrated by means of points that are demonstrated; those having been previously demonstrated by others; till we get back to those which are self-evident, or to those evident to sense and to understanding; which is called Analysis. But demonstration is, when the point in question reaches us through all the intermediate steps. The man, then, who practices demonstration, ought to give great attention to the truth, while he disregards the terms of the premisses, whether you call them axioms, or premisses, or assumptions. Similarly, also, special attention must be paid to what suppositions a conclusion is based on; while he may be quite careless as to whether one choose to term it a conclusive or syllogistic proposition.
For I assert that these two things must be attended to by the man who would demonstrate—to assume true premisses, and to draw from them the legitimate conclusion, which some also call “the inference,” as being what is inferred from the premisses.
Now in each proposition respecting a question there must be different premisses, related, however, to the proposition laid down; and what is advanced must be reduced to definition. And this definition must be admitted by all. But when premisses irrelevant to the proposition to be established are assumed, it is impossible to arrive at any right result; the entire proposition—which is also called the question of its nature—being ignored.
In all questions, then, there is something which is previously known,—that which being self-evident is believed without demonstration; which must be made the starting point in their investigation, and the criterion of apparent results.
For every question is solved from pre-existing knowledge. And the knowledge pre-existing of each object of investigation is sometimes merely of the essence, while its functions are unknown (as of stones, and plants, and animals, of whose operations we are ignorant), or [the knowledge] of the properties, or powers, or (so to speak) of the qualities inherent in the objects. And sometimes we may know some one or more of those powers or properties,—as, for example, the desires and affections of the soul,—and be ignorant of the essence, and make it the object of investigation. But in many instances, our understanding having assumed all these, the question is, in which of the essences do they thus inhere; for it is after forming conceptions of both—that is, both of essence and operation—in our mind, that we proceed to the question. And there are also some objects, whose operations, along with their essences, we know, but are ignorant of their modifications.
Such, then, is the method of the discovery [of truth]. For we must begin with the knowledge of the questions to be discussed. For often the form of the expression deceives and confuses and disturbs the mind, so that it is not easy to discover to what class the thing is to be referred; as, for example, whether the fœtus be an animal. For, having a conception of an animal and a fœtus, we inquire if it be the case that the fœtus is an animal; that is, if the substance which is in the fœtal state possesses the power of motion, and of sensation besides. So that the inquiry is regarding functions and sensations in a substance previously known. Consequently the man who proposes the question is to be first asked, what he calls an animal. Especially is this to be done whenever we find the same term applied to various purposes; and we must examine whether what is signified by the term is disputed, or admitted by all. For were one to say that he calls whatever grows and is fed an animal, we shall have again to ask further, whether he considered plants to be animals; and then, after declaring himself to this effect, he must show what it is which is in the fœtal state, and is nourished.
For Plato calls plants animals, as partaking of the
third species of life alone, that of appetency. Ἐπιθυμητικοῦ, which accords with what Plato says in the Timæus, p. 1078.
Lowth, however, reads φυτικοῦ.
Now, on the man who proposes the question denying that
plants are animals, we shall show that he affirms what contradicts
himself. For, having defined the animal by the fact of its
Let him, then, say what he wants to learn. Is it whether what is in the womb grows and is nourished, or is it whether it possesses any sensation or movement by impulse? For, according to Plato, the plant is animate, and an animal; but, according to Aristotle, not an animal, for it wants sensation, but is animate. Therefore, according to him, an animal is an animate sentient being. But according to the Stoics, a plant is neither animate nor an animal; for an animal is an animate being. If, then, an animal is animate, and life is sentient nature, it is plain that what is animate is sentient. If, then, he who has put the question, being again interrogated if he still calls the animal in the fœtal state an animal on account of its being nourished and growing, he has got his answer.
But were he to say that the question he asks is, whether the fœtus is already sentient, or capable of moving itself in consequence of any impulse, the investigation of the matter becomes clear, the fallacy in the name no longer remaining. But if he do not reply to the interrogation, and will not say what he means, or in respect of what consideration it is that he applies the term “animal” in propounding the question, but bids us define it ourselves, let him be noted as disputatious.
But as there are two methods, one by question and answer, and the other the method of exposition, if he decline the former, let him listen to us, while we expound all that bears on the problem. Then when we have done, he may treat of each point in turn. But if he attempt to interrupt the investigation by putting questions, he plainly does not want to hear.
But if he choose to reply, let him first be asked, To what thing he applies the name, animal. And when he has answered this, let him be again asked, what, in his view, the fœtus means, whether that which is in the womb, or things already formed and living; and again, if the fœtus means the seed deposited, or if it is only when members and a shape are formed that the name of embryos is to be applied. And on his replying to this, it is proper that the point in hand be reasoned out to a conclusion, in due order, and taught.
But if he wishes us to speak without him answering, let him hear. Since you will not say in what sense you allege what you have propounded (for I would not have thus engaged in a discussion about meanings, but I would now have looked at the things themselves), know that you have done just as if you had propounded the question, Whether a dog were an animal? For I might have rightly said, Of what dog do you speak? For I shall speak of the land dog and the sea dog, and the constellation in heaven, and of Diogenes too, and all the other dogs in order. For I could not divine whether you inquire about all or about some one. What you shall do subsequently is to learn now, and say distinctly what it is that your question is about. Now if you are shuffling about names, it is plain to everybody that the name fœtus is neither an animal nor a plant, but a name, and a sound, and a body, and a being, and anything and everything rather than an animal. And if it is this that you have propounded, you are answered.
But neither is that which is denoted by the name fœtus an animal. But that is incorporeal, and may be called a thing and a notion, and everything rather than an animal. The nature of an animal is different. For it was clearly shown respecting the very point in question, I mean the nature of the embryo, of what sort it is. The question respecting the meanings expressed by the name animal is different.
I say, then, if you affirm that an animal is what has the power of sensation and of moving itself from appetency, that an animal is not simply what moves through appetency and is possessed of sensation. For it is also capable of sleeping, or, when the objects of sensation are not present, of not exercising the power of sensation. But the natural power of appetency or of sensation is the mark of an animal. For something of this nature is indicated by these things. First, if the fœtus is not capable of sensation or motion from appetency; which is the point proposed for consideration. Another point is; if the fœtus is capable of ever exercising the power of sensation or moving through appetency. In which sense no one makes it a question, since it is evident.
But the question was, whether the embryo is already an animal, or still a plant. And then the name animal was reduced to definition, for the sake of perspicuity. But having discovered that it is distinguished from what is not an animal by sensation and motion from appetency; we again separated this from its adjuncts; asserting that it was one thing for that to be such potentially, which is not yet possessed of the power of sensation and motion, but will some time be so, and another thing to be already so actually; and in the case of such, it is one thing to exert its powers, another to be able to exert them, but to be at rest or asleep. And this is the question.
For the embryo is not to be called an animal from the
fact that it is nourished; which is the allegation of those who turn
aside from the essence of the question, and apply their minds
Accordingly the primary demonstration is composed of all these. But the demonstration which, from points already demonstrated thereby, concludes some other point, is no less reliable than the former. It cannot be termed primary, because the conclusion is not drawn from primary principles as premisses.
The first species, then, of the different kinds of questions, which are three, has been exhibited—I mean that, in which the essence being known, some one of its powers or properties is unknown. The second variety of propositions was that in which we all know the powers and properties, but do not know the essence; as, for example, in what part of the body is the principal faculty of the soul.
Now the same treatment which applies to demonstration applies also to the following question.
Some, for instance, say that there cannot be several originating causes for one animal. It is impossible that there can be several homogeneous originating causes of an animal; but that there should be several heterogeneous, is not absurd.
Suppose the Pyrrhonian suspense of judgment, as they say, [the idea] that nothing is certain: it is plain that, beginning with itself, it first invalidates itself. It either grants that something is true, that you are not to suspend your judgment on all things; or it persists in saying that there is nothing true. And it is evident, that first it will not be true. For it either affirms what is true or it does not affirm what is true. But if it affirms what is true, it concedes, though unwillingly, that something is true. And if it does not affirm what is true, it leaves true what it wished to do away with. For, in so far as the scepticism which demolishes is proved false, in so far the positions which are being demolished, are proved true; like the dream which says that all dreams are false. For in confuting itself, it is confirmatory of the others.
And, in fine, if it is true, it will make a beginning
with itself, and not be scepticism of anything else but of itself
first. Then if [such a man] apprehends that he is a man, or that he is
sceptical, it is evident that he is not sceptical. [The young student must be on his guard as
to the philosophical scepticism here treated, which is not the
habit of unbelief commonly so called.]
And if we must be persuaded to suspend our judgment in regard to everything, we shall first suspend our judgment in regard to our suspense of judgment itself, whether we are to credit it or not.
And if this position is true, that we do not know what is true, then absolutely nothing is allowed to be true by it. But if he will say that even this is questionable, whether we know what is true; by this very statement he grants that truth is knowable, in the very act of appearing to establish the doubt respecting it.
But if a philosophical sect is a leaning toward dogmas, or, according to some, a leaning to a number of dogmas which have consistency with one another and with phenomena, tending to a right life; and dogma is a logical conception, and conception is a state and assent of the mind: not merely sceptics, but every one who dogmatizes is accustomed in certain things to suspend his judgment, either through want of strength of mind, or want of clearness in the things, or equal force in the reasons.
The introductions and sources of questions are about these points and in them.
But before definitions, and demonstrations, and divisions, it must be propounded in what ways the question is stated; and equivocal terms are to be treated; and synomyms stated accurately according to their significations.
Then it is to be inquired whether the proposition belongs to those points, which are considered in relation to others, or is taken by itself. Further, If it is, what it is, what happens to it; or thus, also, if it is, what it is, why it is. And to the consideration of these points, the knowledge of Particulars and Universals, and the Antecedents and the Differences, and their divisions, contribute.
Now, Induction aims at generalization and definition; and the divisions are the species, and what a thing is, and the individual. The contemplation of the How adduces the assumption of what is peculiar; and doubts bring the particular differences and the demonstrations, and otherwise augment the speculation and its consequences; and the result of the whole is scientific knowledge and truth.
Again, the summation resulting from Division becomes Definition. For Definition is adopted before division and after: before, when it is admitted or stated; after, when it is demonstrated. And by Sensation the Universal is summed up from the Particular. For the starting point of Induction is Sensation; and the end is the Universal.
Induction, accordingly, shows not what a thing is, but that it is, or is not. Division shows what it is; and Definition similarly with Division teaches the essence and what a thing is, but not if it is; while Demonstration explains the three points, if it is, what it is, and why it is.
There are also Definitions which contain the Cause. And since it may be known when we see, when we see the Cause; and Causes are four—the matter, the moving power, the species, the end; Definition will be fourfold.
Accordingly we must first take the genus, in which are the points that are nearest those above; and after this the next difference. And the succession of differences, when cut and divided, completes the “What it is.” There is no necessity for expressing all the differences of each thing, but those which form the species.
Geometrical analysis and synthesis are similar to logical division and definition; and by division we get back to what is simple and more elementary. We divide, therefore, the genus of what is proposed for consideration into the species contained in it; as, in the case of man, we divide animal, which is the genus, into the species that appear in it, the mortal, and the immortal. And thus, by continually dividing those genera that seem to be compound into the simpler species, we arrive at the point which is the subject of investigation, and which is incapable of further division.
For, after dividing “the animal” into mortal and immortal, then into terrestrial and aquatic; and the terrestrial again into those who fly and those who walk; and so dividing the species which is nearest to what is sought, which also contains what is sought, we arrive by division at the simplest species, which contains nothing else, but what is sought alone.
For again we divide that which walks into rational and irrational; and then selecting from the species, apprehended by division, those next to man, and combining them into one formula, we state the definition of a man, who is an animal, mortal, terrestrial, walking, rational.
Whence Division furnishes the class of matter, seeking for the definition the simplicity of the name; and the definition of the artisan and maker, by composition and construction, presents the knowledge of the thing as it is; not of those things of which we have general notions. To these notions we say that explanatory expressions belong. For to these notions, also, divisions are applicable.
Now one Division divides that which is divided into species, as a genus; and another into parts, as a whole; and another into accidents.
The division, then, of a whole into the parts, is, for the most part, conceived with reference to magnitude; that into the accidents can never be entirely explicated, if, necessarily, essence is inherent in each of the existences.
Whence both these divisions are to be rejected, and only the division of the genus into species is approved, by which both the identity that is in the genus is characterized, and the diversity which subsists in the specific differences.
The species is always contemplated in a part. On the other hand, however, if a thing is part of another, it will not be also a species. For the hand is a part of a man, but it is not a species. And the genus exists in the species. For [the genus] is both in man and the ox. But the whole is not in the parts. For the man is not in his feet. Wherefore also the species is more important than the part; and whatever things are predicated of the genus will be all predicated of the species.
It is best, then, to divide the genus into two, if not into three species. The species then being divided more generically, are characterized by sameness and difference. And then being divided, they are characterized by the points generically indicated.
For each of the species is either an essence; as when we say, Some substances are corporeal and some incorporeal; or how much, or what relation, or where, or when, or doing, or suffering.
One, therefore, will give the definition of whatever he possesses the knowledge of; as one can by no means be acquainted with that which he cannot embrace and define in speech. And in consequence of ignorance of the definition, the result is, that many disputes and deceptions arise. For if he that knows the thing has the knowledge of it in his mind, and can explain by words what he conceives; and if the explanation of the thought is definition; then he that knows the thing must of necessity be able also to give the definition.
Now in definitions, difference is assumed, which, in the definition, occupies the place of sign. The faculty of laughing, accordingly, being added to the definition of man, makes the whole—a rational, mortal, terrestrial, walking, laughing animal. For the things added by way of difference to the definition are the signs of the properties of things; but do not show the nature of the things themselves. Now they say that the difference is the assigning of what is peculiar; and as that which has the difference differs from all the rest, that which belongs to it alone, and is predicated conversely of the thing, must in definitions be assumed by the first genus as principal and fundamental.
Accordingly, in the larger definitions the number of the
species that are discovered are in the ten Categories; and in the
least, the principal points of the nearest species being taken, mark
the essence and nature of the thing. But the least consists of three,
the genus and two
We say, then, Man is the laughing animal. And we must assume that which pre-eminently happens to what is defined, or its peculiar virtue, or its peculiar function, and the like.
Accordingly, while the definition is explanatory of the essence of the thing, it is incapable of accurately comprehending its nature. By means of the principal species, the definition makes an exposition of the essence, and almost has the essence in the quality.
The causes productive of scepticism are two things principally. One is the changefulness and instability of the human mind, whose nature it is to generate dissent, either that of one with another, or that of people with themselves. And the second is the discrepancy which is in things; which, as to be expected, is calculated to be productive of scepticism.
For, being unable either to believe in all views, on account of their conflicting nature; or to disbelieve all, because that which says that all are untrustworthy is included in the number of those that are so; or to believe some and disbelieve others on account of the equipoise, we are led to scepticism.
But among the principal causes of scepticism is the
instability of the mind, which is productive of dissent. And dissent is
the proximate cause of doubt. Whence life is full of tribunals and
councils; and, in fine, of selection in what is said to be good and
bad; which are the signs of a mind in doubt, and halting through
feebleness on account of conflicting matters. And there are libraries
full of books, [The Alexandrians must have recognised this as an
ad hominem remark. But see
In language there are three things:—Names, which are primarily the symbols of conceptions, and by consequence also of subjects. Second, there are Conceptions, which are the likenesses and impressions of the subjects. Whence in all, the conceptions are the same; in consequence of the same impression being produced by the subjects in all. But the names are not so, on account of the difference of languages. And thirdly, the Subject-matters by which the Conceptions are impressed in us.
The names are reduced by grammar into the twenty-four general elements; for the elements must be determined. For of Particulars there is no scientific knowledge, seeing they are infinite. But it is the property of science to rest on general and defined principles. Whence also Particulars are resolved into Universals. And philosophic research is occupied with Conceptions and Real subjects. But since of these the Particulars are infinite, some elements have been found, under which every subject of investigation is brought; and if it be shown to enter into any one or more of the elements, we prove it to exist; but if it escape them all, that it does not exist.
Of things stated, some are stated without connection; as, for example, “man” and “runs,” and whatever does not complete a sentence, which is either true or false. And of things stated in connection, some point out “essence,” some “quality,” some “quantity,” some “relation,” some “where,” some “when,” some “position,” some “possession,” some “action,” some “suffering,” which we call the elements of material things after the first principles. For these are capable of being contemplated by reason.
But immaterial things are capable of being apprehended by the mind alone, by primary application.
And of those things that are classed under the ten Categories, some are predicated by themselves (as the nine Categories), and others in relation to something.
And, again, of the things contained under these ten Categories, some are Univocal, as ox and man, as far as each is an animal. For those are Univocal terms, to both of which belongs the common name, animal; and the same principle, that is definition, that is animate essence. And Heteronyms are those which relate to the same subject under different names, as ascent or descent; for the way is the same whether upwards or downwards. And the other species of Heteronyms, as horse and black, are those which have a different name and definition from each other, and do not possess the same subject. But they are to be called different, not Heteronyms. And Polyonyms are those which have the same definition, but a different name, as, hanger, sword, scimitar. And Paronyms are those which are named from something different, as “manly” from “manliness.”
Equivocal terms have the same name, but not the same
definition, as man—both the animal and the picture. Of Equivocal
terms, some receive their Equivocal name fortuitously, as Ajax, the
Locrian, and the Salaminian; and some from intention; and of these,
some from resemblance, as man both the living and the painted; and some
from analogy, as the foot of Mount Ida, and our foot, because they are
beneath; some from action, as the foot of a vessel, by which the vessel
Of Causes, some are Procatarctic and some Synectic, some Co-operating, some Causes sine quâ non.
Those that afford the occasion of the origin of anything first, are Procatarctic; as beauty is the cause of love to the licentious; for when seen by them, it alone produces the amorous inclination, but not necessarily.
Causes are Synectic (which are also univocally perfect of themselves) whenever a cause is capable of producing the effect of itself, independently.
Now all the causes may be shown in order in the case of the learner. The father is the Procatarctic cause of learning, the teacher the Synectic, and the nature of the learner the cooperating cause, and time holds the relation of the Cause sine quâ non.
Now that is properly called a cause which is capable of effecting anything actively; since we say that steel is capable of cutting, not merely while cutting, but also while not cutting. Thus, then, the capability of causing (τὸ παρεκτικόν) signifies both; both that which is now acting, and that which is not yet acting, but which possesses the power of acting.
Some, then, say that causes are properties of bodies; and others of incorporeal substances; others say that the body is properly speaking cause, and that what is incorporeal is so only catachrestically, and a quasi-cause. Others, again, reverse matters, saying that corporeal substances are properly causes, and bodies are so improperly; as, for example, that cutting, which is an action, is incorporeal, and is the cause of cutting which is an action and incorporeal, and, in the case of bodies, of being cut,—as in the case of the sword and what is cut [by it].
The cause of things is predicated in a threefold manner. One, What the cause is, as the statuary; a second, Of what it is the cause of becoming, a statue; and a third, To what it is the cause, as, for example, the material: for he is the cause to the brass of becoming a statue. The being produced, and the being cut, which are causes to what they belong, being actions, are incorporeal.
According to which principle, causes belong to the class of predicates (κατηγορημάτων), or, as others say, of dicta (λεκτῶν) (for Cleanthes and Archedemus call predicates dicta); or rather, some causes will be assigned to the class of predicates, as that which is cut, whose case is to be cut; and some to that of axioms,—as, for example, that of a ship being made, whose case again is, that a ship is constructing. Now Aristotle denominates the name of such things as a house, a ship, burning, cutting, an appellative. But the case is allowed to be incorporeal. Therefore that sophism is solved thus: What you say passes through your mouth. Which is true. You name a house. Therefore a house passes through your mouth. Which is false. For we do not speak the house, which is a body, but the case, in which the house is, which is incorporeal.
And we say that the house-builder builds the house, in reference to that which is to be produced. So we say that the cloak is woven; for that which makes is the indication of the operation. That which makes is not the attribute of one, and the cause that of another, but of the same, both in the case of the cloak and of the house. For, in as far as one is the cause of anything being produced, in so far is he also the maker of it. Consequently, the cause, and that which makes, and that through which (δἰ ὅ), are the same. Now, if anything is “a cause” and “that which effects,” it is certainly also “that through which.” But if a thing is “that through which,” it does not by any means follow that it is also “the cause.” Many things, for instance, concur in one result, through which the end is reached; but all are not causes. For Medea would not have killed her children, had she not been enraged. Nor would she have been enraged, had she not been jealous. Nor would she have been this, if she had not loved. Nor would she have loved, had not Jason sailed to Colchi. Nor would this have taken place, had the Argo not been built. Nor would this have taken place, had not the timbers been cut from Pelion. For though in all these things there is the case of “that through which,” they are not all “causes” of the murder of the children, but only Medea was the cause. Wherefore, that which does not hinder does not act. Wherefore, that which does not hinder is not a cause, but that which hinders is. For it is in acting and doing something that the cause is conceived.
Besides, what does not hinder is separated from what takes place; but the cause is related to the event. That, therefore, which does not hinder cannot be a cause. Wherefore, then, it is accomplished, because that which can hinder is not present. Causation is then predicated in four ways: The efficient cause, as the statuary; and the material, as the brass; and the form, as the character; and the end, as the honour of the Gymnasiarch.
The relation of the cause sine quâ
non is held by the brass in reference to the production of the statue;
and likewise it is a [true] cause. For
The Synectic cause does not require time. For the cautery produces pain at the instant of its application to the flesh. Of Procatarctic causes, some require time till the effect be produced, and others do not require it, as the case of fracture.
Are not these called independent of time, not by way of privation, but of diminution, as that which is sudden, not that which has taken place without time?
Every cause, apprehended by the mind as a cause, is occupied with something, and is conceived in relation to something; that is, some effect, as the sword for cutting; and to some object, as possessing an aptitude, as the fire to the wood. For it will not burn steel. The cause belongs to the things which have relation to something. For it is conceived in its relation to another thing. So that we apply our minds to the two, that we may conceive the cause as a cause.
The same relation holds with the creator, and maker, and father. A thing is not the cause of itself. Nor is one his own father. For so the first would become the second. Now the cause acts and affects. That which is produced by the cause is acted on and is affected. But the same thing taken by itself cannot both act and be affected, nor can one be son and father. And otherwise the cause precedes in being what is done by it, as the sword, the cutting. And the same thing cannot precede at the same instant as to matter, as it is a cause, and at the same time, also, be after and posterior as the effect of a cause.
Now being differs from becoming, as the cause from the effect, the father from the son. For the same thing cannot both be and become at the same instant; and consequently it is not the cause of itself. Things are not causes of one another, but causes to each other. For the splenetic affection preceding is not the cause of fever, but of the occurrence of fever; and the fever which precedes is not the cause of spleen, but of the affection increasing.
Thus also the virtues are causes to each other, because on account of their mutual correspondence they cannot be separated. And the stones in the arch are causes of its continuing in this category, but are not the causes of one another. And the teacher and the learner are to one another causes of progressing as respects the predicate.
And mutual and reciprocal causes are predicated, some of the same things, as the merchant and the retailer are causes of gain; and sometimes one of one thing and others of another, as the sword and the flesh; for the one is the cause to the flesh of being cut, and the flesh to the sword of cutting. [It is well said,] “An eye for an eye, life for life.” For he who has wounded another mortally, is the cause to him of death, or of the occurrence of death. But on being mortally wounded by him in turn, he has had him as a cause in turn, not in respect of being a cause to him, but in another respect. For he becomes the cause of death to him, not that it was death returned the mortal stroke, but the wounded man himself. So that he was the cause of one thing, and had another cause. And he who has done wrong becomes the cause to another, to him who has been wronged. But the law which enjoins punishment to be inflicted is the cause not of injury, but to the one of retribution, to the other of discipline. So that the things which are causes, are not causes to each other as causes.
It is still asked, if many things in conjunction become many causes of one thing. For the men who pull together are the causes of the ship being drawn down; but along with others, unless what is a joint cause be a cause.
Others say, if there are many causes, each by itself becomes the cause of one thing. For instance, the virtues, which are many, are causes of happiness, which is one; and of warmth and pain, similarly, the causes are many. Are not, then, the many virtues one in power, and the sources of warmth and of pain so, also? and does not the multitude of the virtues, being one in kind, become the cause of the one result, happiness?
But, in truth, Procatarctic causes are more than one both generically and specifically; as, for example, cold, weakness, fatigue, dyspepsia, drunkenness, generically, of any disease; and specifically, of fever. But Synectic causes are so, generically alone, and not also specifically.
For of pleasant odour, which is one thing genetically,
there are many specific causes, as
And the same thing becomes the cause of contrary effects; sometimes through the magnitude of the cause and its power, and sometimes in consequence of the susceptibility of that on which it acts. According to the nature of the force, the same string, according to its tension or relaxation, gives a shrill or deep sound. And honey is sweet to those who are well, and bitter to those who are in fever, according to the state of susceptibility of those who are affected. And one and the same wine inclines some to rage, and others to merriment. And the same sun melts wax and hardens clay.
Further, of causes, some are apparent; others are grasped by a process of reasoning; others are occult; others are inferred analogically.
And of causes that are occult, some are occult temporarily, being hidden at one time, and at another again seen clearly; and some are occult by nature, and capable of becoming at no time visible. And of those who are so by nature, some are capable of being apprehended; and these some would not call occult, being apprehended by analogy, through the medium of signs, as, for example, the symmetry of the passages of the senses, which are contemplated by reason. And some are not capable of being apprehended; which cannot in any mode fall under apprehension; which are by their very definition occult.
Now some are Procatarctic, some Synectic, some Joint-causes, some Co-operating causes. And there are some according to nature, some beyond nature. And there are some of disease and by accident, some of sensations, some of the greatness of these, some of times and of seasons.
Procatarctic causes being removed, the effect remains. But a Synectic cause is that, which being present, the effect remains, and being removed, the effect is removed.
The Synectic is also called by the synonymous expression “perfect in itself.” Since it is of itself sufficient to produce the effect.
And if the cause manifests an operation sufficient in itself, the co-operating cause indicates assistance and service along with the other. If, accordingly, it effects nothing, it will not be called even a co-operating cause; and if it does effect something, it is wholly the cause of this, that is, of what is produced by it. That is, then, a co-operating cause, which being present, the effect was produced—the visible visibly, and the occult invisibly.
The Joint-cause belongs also to the genus of causes, as a fellow-soldier is a soldier, and as a fellow-youth is a youth.
The Co-operating cause further aids the Synectic, in the
way of intensifying what is produced by it. But the Joint-cause does
not fall under the same notion. For a thing may be a Joint-cause,
though it be not a Synectic cause. For the Joint-cause is conceived in
conjunction with another, which is not capable of producing the effect
by itself, being a cause along with a cause. And the Co-operating cause
differs from the Joint-cause in this particular, that the Joint-cause
produces the effect in that which by itself does not act. But the
Co-operating cause, while effecting nothing by itself, yet by its
accession to that which acts by itself, co-operates with it, in order
to the production of the effect in the intensest degree. But especially
is that which becomes co-operating from being Procatarctic, effective
in intensifying the force of the cause. [The book reaches no conclusion,
and is evidently a fragment, merely. See Elucidation
II.; also Kaye, p. 224.]
(Scripture, cap. i. p. 558.)
On the 18th of July, 1870, Pius the Ninth,
by the bull Pastor Æternus proclaiming himself infallible,
and defining that every Roman bishop from the times of the apostles were
equally so, placed himself in conflict, not merely with Holy Scripture
(which repeatedly proves the fallibility of St. Peter himself, when
speaking apart from his fellow-apostles), but with the torrent of all
antiquity. Yes, and with the great divines of his own communion, such as
Bossuet; including divers pontiffs, and the Gallicans generally. But note,
here, what St. Clement says of the Holy Scripture, and of the search
after truth. Is it conceivable, that he knew of any living infallible
oracle, when he wrote this book, never once hinting the existence of
any such source
Clearly, Clement had never seen in Irenæus
the meaning read into his words by the modern flatterers of the Roman
See. Vol. i. p. 415,
and Elucidation I. p. 460, this series.
(Of Book the Eighth, note 1, p. 567.)
In the place of this book, according to some mss., Photius found the tract τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος; in other mss., a book beginning as this does. He accused the Stromata of unsound opinions; but, this censure not being supported by anything we possess, some imagine that the eighth book is lost, and that it is no great loss after all. A rash judgment as to its value; but possibly this, which is called the eighth book, is from the lost Hypotyposes. Kaye’s suggestion is, that, as the seventh book closed with a promise of something quite fresh, we may discover it in this contribution towards forming his Gnostic, to further knowledge.
It should be regarded as of great importance, that Christianity appears as the friend of all knowledge, and of human culture, from the very start. To our author’s versatile genius, much credit is due for the elements out of which Christian universities took their rise.
[Translated by Rev. William Wilson, M.A.]
[M. Aurelius Cassiodorus (whose name is also Senator) was an author and public man of the sixth century, and a very voluminous writer. He would shine with a greater lustre were he not so nearly lost in the brighter light of Boëthius, his illustrious contemporary. After the death of his patron, Theodoric, he continued for a time in the public service, and in high positions, but, at seventy years of age, began another career, and for twenty years devoted himself to letters and the practice of piety in a monastery which he established in the Neopolitan kingdom, near his native Squillace. Died about a.d. 560.]
Comments, i.e., Adumbrationes. Cassiodorus says that he had in his translation corrected what he considered erroneous in the original. So Fell states: and he is also inclined to believe that these fragments are from Clement’s lost work, the Ὑποτυπώσεις, of which he believes The Adumbrationes of Cassiodorus to be a translation.
Chap. i. 3. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who by His great mercy hath regenerated us.” For if God generated us of matter, He afterwards, by progress in life, regenerated us.
“The Father of our Lord, by the resurrection
of Jesus Christ:” who, according to your faith, rises again
in us; as, on the other hand, He dies in us, through the operation
of our unbelief. For He said again, that the soul never returns
a second time to the body in this life; and that which has become
angelic does not become unrighteous or evil, so as not to have the
opportunity of again sinning by the assumption of flesh; but that in
the resurrection the soul
“Utramque” is the reading, which is plainly corrupt. We
have conjectured “animam.” The rest of the sentence is so
ungrammatical and impracticable as it stands, that it is only by taking
considerable liberties with it that it is translateable at all.
The text here has like a drag-net or (sicut sagena vel),
which we have omitted, being utterly incapable of divining any conceivable
resemblance or analogy which a drag-net can afford for the re-union of the
soul and body. “Sagena” is either a blunder for something
else which we cannot conjecture, or the sentence is here, as elsewhere,
mutilated. But it is possible that it may have been the union of the
blessed to each other, and their conjunction with one another according to
their affinities, which was the point handled in the original sentences,
of which we have only these obscure and confusing remains. [A very good
conjecture, on the strength of which the text might have been let as it
stood.]
Besides, Peter says,
“Cœli,” plainly a mistake for “cœlo”
or “cœlis.” There is apparently a hiatus
here. “The angelic abode, guarded in heaven,” most probably
is the explanation of “an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled,
reserved in heaven.”
Hence it appears that the soul is not naturally
immortal; but is made immortal by the grace of God, through faith and
righteousness, and by knowledge. “Of which salvation,” he
says,
“Which are now,” he says, Ibid. Ibid.
“By precious blood,” he says,
“Verily foreknown before the foundation of the
world.”
“But the word of the Lord,” he
says,
“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal
priesthood.”
“Who, when He was reviled,”
he says,
Sic.
Hyperbation.
“For he that will love life, and see good
days;”
“For the eyes of the Lord,”
he says, “are upon the righteous, and His ears on their
prayers:” he means the manifold inspection of the Holy
Spirit. “The face of the Lord is on them that do evil;”
“But sanctify the Lord
Christ,” he says, “in your hearts.”
“For Christ,” he says, Offerret.
“Coming,” he says,
“When the long-suffering of God” Ibid.
“By the resurrection,” it is
said,
“Angels being subjected to Him,”
“Who shall give account,” he
says,
These are trained through previous
judgments. Ibid.
“Rejoice,” it is said,
“Since,” it is said,
“But the God of all grace,” he says.
“Marcus, my son, saluteth you.”
The reading is “agnosceret.” To yield any sense it must have
been “agnoscatur” or “agnosceretur.”
Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, the brother
of the sons of Joseph, and very religious, whilst knowing the near
relationship of the Lord, yet did not say that he himself was His
brother. But what said he?
“Son” supplied. Terris. “Quibus significat Dominus remissius
esse,” the reading here, defies translation and emendation. We
suppose a hiatus here, and change “remissius” into
“remissum” to get the above sense. The statement cannot
apply to Sodom and Gomorrha. Similiter iisdem. Dominus—Dominium,
referring to the clause “despise dominion.” [
“When Michael, the archangel,
“But these,” he says,
“Woe unto them!” he says,
Spiritibus. The reading
is “agnosceret.” To yield any sense it myst have been
“agnoscatur” or “agnosceretur.”
“Those,” he says, “Discernentes a carnibus,”—a
sentence which has got either displaced or corrupted, or both.
Animales.
“But ye, beloved,” he says, By a
slight change of punctuation, and by substituting “maculata”
for “macula,” we get the sense as above. Animæ videlicet
tunica macula est” is the reading of the text.
“Now to Him,” he says, We have here
with some hesitation altered the punctuation. In the text, “To be
presented” begins a new sentence.
Now, in the Gospel according to Mark, the Lord being
interrogated by the chief of the priests if He was the Christ, the Son of
the blessed God, answering, said, “I am; Virtutis. Virtutes.
i.e., It is as you say.
Following the Gospel according to John, and in accordance with it, this Epistle also contains the spiritual principle.
What therefore he says, “from the beginning,” the Presbyter explained to this effect, that the beginning of generation is not separated from the beginning of the Creator. For when he says, “That which was from the beginning,” he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-existent with the Father. There was; then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate. That He was always the Word, is signified by saying, “In the beginning was the Word.” But by the expression, “we have seen with our eyes,” he signifies the Lord’s presence in the flesh, “and our hands have handled,” he says, “of the Word of life.” He means not only His flesh, but the virtues of the Son, like the sunbeam which penetrates to the lowest places,—this sunbeam coming in the flesh became palpable to the disciples. It is accordingly related in traditions, that John, touching the outward body itself, sent his hand deep down into it, and that the solidity of the flesh offered no obstacle, but gave way to the hand of the disciple.
“And our hands have handled of the Word of life;” that is, He who came in the flesh became capable of being touched. As also,
“And we show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto you.”
He signifies by the appellation of Father, that the Son also existed always, without beginning.
He does not express the divine essence, but wishing
to declare the majesty of God, he has applied to the Divinity what is
best and most excellent in the view of men. Thus also Paul, when he
speaks of “light inaccessible.”
“And in Him is no darkness at all,”—that is, no passion, no keeping up of evil respecting any one, [He] destroys no one, but gives salvation to all. Light moreover signifies, either the precepts of the Law, or faith, or doctrine. Darkness is the opposite of these things. Not as if there were another way; since there is only one way according to the divine precepts. For the work of God is unity. Duality and all else that exists, except unity, arises from perversity of life.
Consolatorem.
On this account also, they alone heard,
and they alone saw; as also is seen in the case of Samuel.
“Intellector” in Latin translation. [See
p. 607, footnote.]
Again, however, he says:—
“I write,” says he, “to you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one.” Young man strong in despising pleasures. “The wicked one” points out the eminence of the devil. “The children,” moreover, know the Father; having fled from idols and gathered together to the one God.
The text reads
“Christi,” which yields no suitable sense, and or which
we have substituted “Christus.”
The second Epistle of John, which is written to
Virgins, is very simple. It was written to a Babylonian lady, by name
Electa, and indicates
[His Catena on Job was edited by Patrick Young, London, 1637.]
But Job’s words may be more elegantly
understood of evil and sin thus: “Naked” was formed from the
earth at the beginning, as if from a “mother’s womb: naked to
the earth shall I also depart;” naked, This down to “lives” is quoted in
Strom., book iv. ch. xxv. p. 439, supra.
εύκρασία
Φωτός
here has probably taken the place of φωτεινοῦ.
[This passage is in the Stromata; and also a similar figure,
p. 347, this series.]
“Because of the angels.” By the angels he means righteous and virtuous men. Let her be veiled then, that she may not lead them to stumble into fornication. For the real angels in heaven see her though veiled.
“And if we have known Christ after the flesh.” As “after the flesh” in our case is being in the midst of sins, and being out of them is “not after the flesh;” so also “after the flesh” in the case of Christ was His subjection to natural affections, and His not being subject to them is to be “not after the flesh.” But, he says, as He was released, so also are we.
“Our heart is enlarged,” to teach you all things. But ye are straitened in your own bowels, that is, in love to God, in which ye ought to love me.
“And they that are Christ’s [have crucified] the flesh.” And why mention one aspect of virtue after another? For there are some who have crucified themselves as far as the passions are concerned, and the passions as far as respects themselves. According to this interpretation the “and” is not superfluous. “And they that are Christ’s”—that is, striving after Him—“have crucified their own flesh.”
Yes, truly, the apostles were baptised, as Clement
the Stromatist relates in the fifth book of the Hypotyposes. For, in
explaining the apostolic statement, “I thank God that I baptised
none of you,” he says, Christ is said to have baptised Peter alone,
and Peter Andrew, and Andrew John, and they James and the rest. [See Kaye, p. 442, and the
eleventh chapter entire.]
Now Clement, writing in the sixth book of the Hypotyposes, makes this statement. For he says that Peter and James and John, after the Saviour’s ascension, though pre-eminently honoured by the Lord, did not contend for glory, but made James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem.
So, then, through the visit of the divine word to them, the power of Simon was extinguished, and immediately was destroyed along with the man himself. And such a ray of godliness shone forth on the minds of Peter’s hearers, that they were not satisfied with the once hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with all manner of entreaties importuned Mark, to whom the Gospel is ascribed, he being the companion of Peter, that he would leave in writing a record of the teaching which had been delivered to them verbally; and did not let the man alone till they prevailed upon him; and so to them we owe the Scripture called the “Gospel by Mark.” On learning what had been done, through the revelation of the Spirit, it is said that the apostle was delighted with the enthusiasm of the men, and sanctioned the composition for reading in the Churches. Clemens gives the narrative in the sixth book of the Hypotyposes.
Then, also, as the divine Scripture says, Herod, on the execution of James, seeing that what was done pleased the Jews, laid hands also on Peter; and having put him in chains, would have presently put him to death, had not an angel in a divine vision appeared to him by night, and wondrously releasing him from his bonds, sent him away to the ministry of preaching.
And in the Hypotyposes, in a word, he has made abbreviated narratives of the whole testamentary Scripture; and has not passed over the disputed books,—I mean Jude and the rest of the Catholic Epistles and Barnabas, and what is called the Revelation of Peter. And he says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is Paul’s, and was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke, having carefully translated it, gave it to the Greeks, and hence the same colouring in the expression is discoverable in this Epistle and the Acts; and that the name “Paul an Apostle” was very properly not prefixed, for, he says, that writing to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced against him and suspected, he with great wisdom did not repel them in the beginning by putting down his name.
προκρίματος,
“without preferring one before another.”—A.V.
διά. A.V.
“before.”
To James the Just, and John and Peter, the Lord after His resurrection imparted knowledge (τὴν γνῶσιν.) These imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the Seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.
And of this James, Clement also relates an anecdote worthy of remembrance in the seventh book of the Hypotyposes, from a tradition of his predecessors. He says that the man who brought him to trial, on seeing him bear his testimony, was moved, and confessed that he was a Christian himself. Accordingly, he says, they were both led away together, and on the way the other asked James to forgive him. And he, considering a little, said, “Peace be to thee” and kissed him. And so both were beheaded together.
And now, as the blessed Presbyter used to say, since the Lord, as the Apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, as having been sent to the Gentiles, did not subscribe himself apostle of the Hebrews, out of modesty and reverence for the Lord, and because, being the herald and apostle of the Gentiles, his writing to the Hebrews was something over and above [his assigned function.]
Again, in the same books Clement has set down a tradition which he had received from the elders before him, in regard to the order of the Gospels, to the following effect. He says that the Gospels containing the genealogies were written first, and that the Gospel according to Mark was composed in the following circumstances:—
Peter having preached the word publicly at Rome, and by the Spirit proclaimed the Gospel, those who were present, who were numerous, entreated Mark, inasmuch as he had attended him from an early period, and remembered what had been said, to write down what had been spoken. On his composing the Gospel, he handed it to those who had made the request to him; which coming to Peter’s knowledge, he neither hindered nor encouraged. But John, the last of all, seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the Gospels, on the entreaty of his intimate friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.
Being is in God. God is divine being, eternal and without beginning, incorporeal and illimitable, and the cause of what exists. Being is that which wholly subsists. Nature is the truth of things, or the inner reality of them. According to others, it is the production of what has come to existence; and according to others, again, it is the providence of God, causing the being, and the manner of being, in the things which are produced.
Willing is a natural power, which desires what is in accordance with nature. Willing is a natural appetency, corresponding with the nature of the rational creature. Willing is a natural spontaneous movement of the self-determining mind, or the mind voluntarily moved about anything. Spontaneity is the mind moved naturally, or an intellectual self-determining movement of the soul.
Sermon 53. On The Soul, p. 156. [Anton. Melissa, a Greek monk of the twelfth century, has left works not infrequently referred to by modern authors. Flourished a.d. 1140.]
Souls that breathe free of all things, possess life, and though separated from the body, and found possessed of a longing for it, are borne immortal to the bosom of God: as in the winter season the vapours of the earth attracted by the sun’s rays rise to him.
143, fol. 181, p. 1, chapter On Care For The Soul.
All souls are immortal, even those of the wicked, for whom it were better that they were not deathless. For, punished with the endless vengeance of quenchless fire, and not dying, it is impossible for them to have a period put to their misery.
On Slanderers and Insult. The evidence on which this is ascribed to Clement is very slender.
Never be afraid of the slanderer who addresses you. But rather say, Stop, brother; I daily commit more grievous errors, and how can I judge him? For you will gain two things, healing with one plaster both yourself and your neighbour. He shows what is really evil. Whence, by these arguments, God has contrived to make each one’s disposition manifest.
It is not abstaining from deeds that justifies the believer, but purity and sincerity of thoughts.
Repentance then becomes capable of wiping out every sin, when on the occurrence of the soul’s fault it admits no delay, and does not let the impulse pass on to a long space of time. For it is in this way that evil will be unable to leave a trace in us, being plucked away at the moment of its assault like a newly planted plant.
As the creatures called crabs are easy to catch, from their going sometimes forward and sometimes backward; so also the soul, which at one time is laughing, at another weeping, and at another giving way to luxury, can do no good.
He who is sometimes grieving, and is sometimes enjoying himself and laughing, is like a man pelting the dog of voluptuousness with bread, who chases it in appearance, but in fact invites it to remain near him.
Some flatterers were congratulating a wise man. He said to them, If you stop praising me, I think myself something great after your departure; but if you do not stop praising me, I guess my own impurity.
Feigned praise is worth less than true censure.
To the weak and infirm, what is moderate appears excessive.
The reproof that is given with knowledge is very faithful. Sometimes also the knowledge of those who are condemned is found to be the most perfect demonstration.
To the man who exalts and magnifies himself is attached the quick transition and the fall to low estate, as the divine word teaches.
Pure speech and a spotless life are the throne and true temple of God.
It is not only fornication, but also the giving in marriage prematurely, that is called fornication; when, so to speak, one not of ripe age is given to a husband, either of her own accord or by her parents.
Flattery is the bane of friendship. Most men are accustomed to pay court to the good fortune of princes, rather than to the princes themselves.
The lovers of frugality shun luxury as the bane of soul and body. The possession and use of necessaries has nothing injurious in quality, but it has in quantity above measure. Scarcity of food is a necessary benefit.
The vivid remembrance of death is a check upon diet; and when the diet is lessened, the passions are diminished along with it.
Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins. For it is not those that abstain from wickedness from compulsion, but those that abstain from choice, that God crowns. It is impossible for a man to be steadily good except by his own choice. For he that is made good by compulsion of another is not good; for he is not what he is by his own choice. For it is the freedom of each one that makes true goodness and reveals real wickedness. Whence through these dispositions God contrived to make His own disposition manifest.
Accordingly, in the years gone by, Jesus went to
eat the passover sacrificed by the Jews, keeping the feast. But when he
had preached He who was the Passover, the Lamb of God, led as a sheep
to the slaughter, presently taught His disciples the mystery of the
type on the thirteenth day, on which also they inquired, “Where
wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the passover?”
Suitably, therefore, to the fourteenth day, on which He also suffered, in the morning, the chief priests and the scribes, who brought Him to Pilate, did not enter the Prætorium, that they might not be defiled, but might freely eat the passover in the evening. With this precise determination of the days both the whole Scriptures agree, and the Gospels harmonize. The resurrection also attests it. He certainly rose on the third day, which fell on the first day of the weeks of harvest, on which the law prescribed that the priest should offer up the sheaf.
1. What choral dance and high festival is held
in heaven, if there is one that has become an exile and a fugitive from
the life led under the Father, knowing not that those who put themselves
But the kind Father waits not till the son comes to Him. For perchance he would never be able or venture to approach, did he not find Him gracious. Wherefore, when he merely wishing, when he straightway made a beginning, when he took the first step, while he was yet a great way off, He [the Father] was moved with compassion, and ran, and fell upon his neck and kissed him. And then the son, taking courage, confessed what he had done.
Wherefore the Father bestows on him the glory and
honour that was due and meet, putting on him the best robe, the robe of
immortality; and a ring, a royal signet and divine seal,—impress
of consecration, signature of glory, pledge of testimony (for it is
said, “He hath set to his seal that God is true,”)
Many, truly, are the shoes of the sinful soul,
by which it is bound and cramped. For each man is cramped by the
cords of his own sins. Accordingly, Abraham swears to the king of
Sodom, “I will not take of all that is thine, from a thread to a
shoe-latchet.”
2. Now the shoes which the Father bids the servant
give to the repentant son who has betaken himself to Him, do not impede
or drag to the earth (for the earthly tabernacle weighs down the anxious
mind); but they are buoyant, and ascending, and waft to heaven, and
serve as such a ladder and chariot as he requires who has turned his mind
towards the Father. For, beautiful after being first beautifully adorned
with all these things without, he enters into the gladness within. For
“Bring out” was said by Him who had first said, “While
he was yet a great way off, he ran and fell upon his neck.”
For it is here
We have ventured to substitute ἐνταῦθα
instead of ἐντεὺθεν.
He is showing that the preparation must be made before we go
in.
To the sons, then, who come to Him, the
Father gives the calf, and it is slain and eaten. But those who do
not come to Him He pursues and disinherits, and is found to be a
most powerful bull. Here, by reason of His size and prowess, it is
said of Him, “His glory is as that of an unicorn.”
3. Gladness there is, and music, and dances; although the elder son, who had ever been with and ever obedient to the Father, takes it ill, when he who never had himself been dissipated or profligate sees the guilty one made happy.
Accordingly the Father calls him, saying,
“Son, thou art ever with me.” And what greater joy and
feast and festivity can be than being continually with God, standing by
His side and serving Him? “And all that is mine is thine.”
And blessed is the heir of God, for whom the
“It was meet that we should be glad, and
rejoice; for thy brother was dead, and is alive again.” Kind Father,
who givest all things life, and raisest the dead. “And was lost,
and is found.” And “blessed is the man whom Thou hast chosen
and accepted,”
And it is ours to flee to God. And let us
endeavour after this ceaselessly and energetically. For He says,
“Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will
give you rest.”
4. Such is the strict meaning of the parable. Here Grabe notes that what
follows is a new exposition of the parable, and is by another and a later
hand, as is shown by the refutation of Novatus towards the end.
And these things were perhaps incredible to him and to others, and unexpected before they took place; but gladly received and praised were the gifts with which he was presented.
5. The parable exhibits this thought, that the exercise of the faculty of reason has been accorded to each man. Wherefore the prodigal is introduced, demanding from his father his portion, that is, of the state of mind, endowed by reason. For the possession of reason is granted to all, in order to the pursuit of what is good, and the avoidance of what is bad. But many who are furnished by God with this make a bad use of the knowledge that has been given them, and land in the profligacy of evil practices, and wickedly waste the substance of reason,—the eye on disgraceful sights, the tongue on blasphemous words, the smell on fœtid licentious excesses of pleasures, the mouth on swinish gluttony, the hands on thefts, the feet on running into plots, the thoughts on impious counsels, the inclinations on indulgence on the love of ease, the mind on brutish pastime. They preserve nothing of the substance of reason unsquandered. Such an one, therefore, Christ represents in the parable,—as a rational creature, with his reason darkened, and asking from the Divine Being what is suitable to reason; then as obtaining from God, and making a wicked use of what had been given, and especially of the benefits of baptism, which had been vouchsafed to him; whence also He calls him a prodigal; and then, after the dissipation of what had been given him, and again his restoration by repentance, [He represents] the love of God shown to him.
6. For He says, “Bring hither the fatted calf, kill it, and let us eat and be merry; for this my son”—a name of nearest relationship, and significative of what is given to the faithful—“was dead and lost,”—an expression of extremest alienation; for what is more alien to the living than the lost and dead? For neither can be possessed any more. But having from the nearest relationship fallen to extremest alienation, again by repentance he returned to near relationship. For it is said, “Put on him the best robe,” which was his the moment he obtained baptism. I mean the glory of baptism, the remission of sins, and the communication of the other blessings, which he obtained immediately he had touched the font.
“And put a ring on his hand.” Here is the mystery of the Trinity; which is the seal impressed on those who believe.
“And put shoes on his feet,”
for “the preparation of the Gospel of peace,”
7. But whom Christ finds lost, after sin committed
since baptism, those Novatus, enemy of God, resigns to destruction. Do not
let us then reckon any fault if we repent; guarding against falling, let
us, if we have fallen, retrace our steps. And while dreading to offend,
let us, after offending,
Therefore God does not here take the semblance
of man, but of a dove, because He wished to show the simplicity and
gentleness of the new manifestation of the Spirit by the likeness of the
dove. For the law was stern, and punished with the sword; but grace is
joyous, and trains by the word of meekness. Hence the Lord also says
to the apostles, who said that He should punish with fire those who
would not receive Him, after the manner of Elias: “Ye know not
what manner of spirit ye are of.”
Possibly by the “iota and the tittle”
His righteousness exclaims, “If ye come right to me, I also will
come right to you; if ye walk crooked, I also will walk crooked, saith the
Lord of hosts,”
His own luminous image God impressed as with a seal, even the greatest,—on man made in His likeness, that he might be ruler and lord over all things, and that all things might serve him. Wherefore God judges man to be wholly His, and His own image. He is invisible; but His image, man, is visible. Whatever one, then, does to man, whether good or bad, is referred to Himself. Wherefore from Him judgment shall proceed, appointing to all according to desert; for He will avenge His own image.
As it is possible even now for man to form men,
according to the original formation of Adam, He no longer now creates, on
account of His having granted once for all to man the power of generating
men, saying to our nature, “Increase, and multiply, and replenish
the earth.”
Further, Clement the Stromatist, in the various definitions which he framed, that they might guide the man desirous of studying theology in every dogma of religion, defining what spirit is, and how it is called spirit, says: “Spirit is a substance, subtle, immaterial, and which issues forth without form.”
Solomon the son of David, in the books styled
“The Reigns of the Kings,” comprehending not only that the
structure of the true temple was celestial and spiritual, but had also a
reference to the flesh, which He who was both the son and Lord of David
was to build up, both for His own presence, where, as a living image,
He resolved to make His shrine, and for the church that was to rise
up through the union of faith, says expressly, “Will God in very
deed dwell with men on the earth?”
He dwells on the earth clothed in flesh, and
His abode with men is effected by the conjunction and harmony which
obtains among the righteous, and which build and rear a new temple. For
the righteous are the earth, being still encompassed with the earth;
and earth, too, in comparison with the greatness of the Lord. Thus
also the blessed Peter hesitates not to say, “Ye also, as living
stones, are built up, a spiritual house, a holy temple, to offer up
spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”
And with reference to the body, which by
circumscription He consecrated as a hallowed place for Himself upon earth,
He said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up
again. The Jews therefore said, In forty-six years was this temple built,
and wilt thou raise it up in three days? But He spake of the temple
of His body.”
What is God? “God,” as the Lord saith,
“is a Spirit.” Now spirit is properly substance, incorporeal,
and uncircumscribed. And that is incorporeal which does not consist
of a body, or whose existence is not according to breadth, length,
and depth. And that is uncircumscribed With an exclamation of surprise at the Latin
translator giving a translation which is utterly unintelligible,
Capperonn amends the text, substituting
οὗ
τόπος
οὐδεὶς τῷ, etc., for
οᾪ
τόπος
οᾪδεὶς
τόπος
τό, etc., and translates accordingly. The
emendation is adopted, with the exception of the τῷ, instead of which
τό
is retained.
Φύσις (nature) is so called from τὸ πεφυκέναι (to be born). The first substance is everything which subsists by itself, as a stone is called a substance. The second is a substance capable of increase, as a plant grows and decays. The third is animated and sentient substance, as animal, horse. The fourth is animate, sentient, rational substance, as man. Wherefore each one of us is made as consisting of all, having an immaterial soul and a mind, which is the image of God.
The fear of God, who is impassible, is free of perturbation. For it is not God that one dreads, but the falling away from God. He who dreads this, dreads falling into what is evil, and dreads what is evil. And he that fears a fall wishes himself to be immortal and passionless.
Let there be a law against those who dare to look at things sacred and divine irreverently, and in a way unworthy of God, to inflict on them the punishment of blindness.
Universally, the Christian is friendly to solitude, and quiet, and tranquillity, and peace.
That mystic name which is called the
Tetragrammaton, by which alone they who had access to the Holy of
Holies were protected, is pronounced Jehovah, which means, “Who
is, and who shall be.” The candlestick which stood at the south
of the altar signified the seven planets, which seem to us to revolve
around the meridian,
See Stromata, book v. chap. vi. p. 452,
which is plainly the source from which this extract is taken.
On
On
And having neither known nor done the requirement of the law, what they conceived, that they also thought that the law required. And they did not believe the law, as prophesying, but the bare word; and followed it from fear, but not with their disposition and in faith.
On
And so far, he says, no one any longer lives after
the flesh. For that is not life, but death. For Christ also, that He might
show this, We omit ὅτι,
which the text has after δείξῃ, which seems
to indicate the omission of a clause, but as it stands is superfluous. The
Latin translator retains it; and according to the rendering, the
translation would be, “showed that He ceased.”
As “after the flesh” in our case is
being in the midst of sins, and being out of them is to be “not
after the flesh;” so also after the flesh, in the case of Christ,
was His subjection to natural affections, and not to be subject to
them was not to be “after the flesh.” “But,”
he says, “as He was released, so also are we.” This extract, down to
“are we,” has already been given among the extracts from the
Hypotyposes, p. 578.
On
For as heat is wont to expand, so also love. For love is a thing of warmth. As if he would say, I love you not only with mouth, but with heart, and have you all within. Wherefore he says: “ye are not straitened in us, since desire itself expands the soul.” “Our heart is enlarged” to teach you all things; “but ye are straitened in your own bowels,” that is, in love to God, in which you ought to love me.
Thus Clement, in the fourth book of the Hypotyposes.
Since the Lord, being the Apostle of the Almighty,
was sent to the Hebrews, it was out of modesty that Paul did not subscribe
himself apostle of the Hebrews, from reverence for the Lord, and because
he was the herald and apostle of the Gentiles, and wrote the Epistle to
the Hebrews in addition [to his proper work]. This extract, almost verbatim, has been already
given from Eusebius, among the extracts from the Hypotyposes,
p. 579.
The same work contains a passage from The
Instructor, book i. chap. vi. See p. 219, and the argument following,
supra.
We have noted the following readings:—
γινεται, where, the verb being omitted, we have inserted is: There is an obstruction, etc.
σύριγγας, tubes, instead of σήραγγας (hollows), hollows of the breasts.
γειτνιαζουσῶν, for γειτνιουσῶν, neighbouring (arteries).
ἐπιλήψει, for ἐμπεριλήψει, interruption (such as this).
ἀποκλήρωσις occurs as in the text, for which the emendation ἀπολήρησις, as specified in the note, has been adopted.
ἥτις ἐστί, omitted here, which is “sweet through grace,” is supplied.
γάλα, milk, instead of μάννα, manna, (that food) manna.
χρὴ δὲ κατανοῆσαι τὴν φύσιν (but it is necessary to consider nature), for οὐ κατανενοηκότες, τ. φ., through want of consideration of nature.
κατακλειομένῳ, agreeing with food, for κατακλειομένω, agreeing with heat (enclosed within).
γίνεται for γὰρ (which is untranslated), (the blood) is (a preparation) for milk.
τοίνυν τὸν λόγον is supplied, and εἰκότως omitted in the clause, Paul using appropriate figurative language.
πλὴ ν is supplied before ἀλλὰ τὸ έν αὐτῇ, and the blood in it, etc., is omitted.
“For Diogenes Apolloniates will have it” is omitted.
πάντη, rendered “in all respects,” is connected with the preceding sentence.
ὅτι τοίνυν, for Ὡς δ᾽. And that (milk is produced).
τηνικαῦτα
for τηνικάδε
in the clause, “and the
προειρημένῳ, above mentioned (milk), omitted.
τρυφῆς for τροφῆς, (sweet) nutriment.
τῷ omitted before γλυκεῖ, sweet (wine), and καθάπερ, “as, when suffering.”
τὸ λιπαρόν for τῷ λιπαρῷ, and ἀριδήλως for ἀριδήλου, in the sentence: “Further, many use the fat of milk, called butter, for the lamp, plainly,” etc.
N. B.
[Le Nourry decides that the Adumbrations were not translated from the Hypotyposes, but Kaye (p. 473) thinks on insufficient grounds. See, also (p. 5), Kaye’s learned note.]
I. Those who bestow laudatory addresses on the
rich [The solemn
words of our Lord about the perils of wealth and “the deceitfulness
of riches” are much insisted on by Hermas, especially in the
beautiful opening of the Similitudes (book iii.); and it seems
remarkable, that, even in the age of martyrs and confessors, such warnings
should have seemed needful. Clement is deeply impressed with the duty of
enforcing such doctrine; and perhaps the germ of this very interesting
essay is to be found in that eloquent passage in his Stromata (book
ii. cap. 5, pp. 351, 352),
to which the reader may do well to recur, using it as a preface to the
following pages. Elucidation I.] This clause is defective in the ms. and is translated as supplemented
by Fell from conjecture.
II. Perhaps the reason of salvation appearing
more difficult to the rich than to poor men, is not single but
manifold. For some, merely hearing, and that in an off-hand way,
the utterance of the Saviour, “that it is easier for a camel
to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into
the kingdom of heaven,”
III. Those then who are actuated by a love of the truth
and love of their brethren, and neither are rudely insolent towards such
rich as are called, nor, on the other hand, cringe to them for their own
avaricious ends, must first by the word relieve them of their groundless
despair, and show with the requisite explanation of the oracles of the
Lord that the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven is not quite cut off
from them if they obey the commandments; then admonish them that they
entertain a causeless fear, and that the Lord gladly receives them,
provided they are willing; and then, in addition, exhibit and teach how
and by what deeds and dispositions
IV. May the Saviour then grant to us that, having begun
the subject from this point, we may contribute to the brethren what is
true, and suitable, and saving, first touching the hope itself, and,
second, touching the access to the hope. He indeed grants to those who
beg, and teaches those who ask, and dissipates ignorance and dispels
despair, by introducing again the same words about the rich, which become
their own interpreters and infallible expounders. For there is nothing
like listening again to the very same statements, which till now in the
Gospels were distressing you, hearing them as you did without examination,
and erroneously through puerility: “And going forth into the way,
one approached and kneeled, saying, Good Master, what good thing shall
I do that I may inherit everlasting life? And Jesus saith, Why callest
thou Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. Thou
knowest the commandments. Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not
steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and thy
mother. And he answering saith to Him, All these have I observed. And
Jesus, looking upon him, loved him, and said, One thing thou lackest. If
thou wouldest be perfect, sell what thou hast and give to the poor,
and thou shall have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me. And he was
sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he was rich, having great
possessions. And Jesus looked round about, and saith to His disciples,
How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And
the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus answereth again,
and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in
riches to enter into the kingdom of God! More easily shall a camel
enter through the eye of a needle than a rich man into the kingdom of
God. And they were astonished out of measure, and said, Who then can
be saved? And He, looking upon them, said, What is impossible with
men is possible with God. For with God all things are possible. Peter
began to say to Him, Lo, we have left all and followed Thee. And Jesus
answered and said, Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall leave what
is his own, parents, and brethren, and possessions, for My sake and the
Gospel’s, shall receive an hundred-fold now in this world, lands,
and possessions, and house, and brethren, with persecutions; and in the
world to come is life everlasting. But many that are first shall be last,
and the last first.”
V. These things are written in the Gospel according to Mark; and in all the rest correspondingly; although perchance the expressions vary slightly in each, yet all show identical agreement in meaning.
But well knowing that the Saviour teaches nothing
in a merely human way, but teaches all things to His own with divine
and mystic wisdom, we must not listen to His utterances carnally; but
with due investigation and intelligence must search out and learn the
meaning hidden in them. For even those things which seem to have been
simplified to the disciples by the Lord Himself are found to require not
less, even more, attention than what is expressed enigmatically, from the
surpassing superabundance of wisdom in them. And whereas the things which
are thought to have been explained by Him to those within—those
called by Him the children of the kingdom—require still more
consideration than the things which seemed to have been expressed simply,
and respecting which therefore no questions were asked by those who
heard them, but which, pertaining to the entire design of salvation,
and to be contemplated with admirable and supercelestial depth of mind,
we must not receive superficially with
VI. For our Lord and Saviour was asked pleasantly a question most appropriate for Him,—the Life respecting life, the Saviour respecting salvation, the Teacher respecting the chief doctrines taught, the Truth respecting the true immortality, the Word respecting the word of the Father, the Perfect respecting the perfect rest, the Immortal respecting the sure immortality. He was asked respecting those things on account of which He descended, which He inculcates, which He teaches, which He offers, in order to show the essence of the Gospel, that it is the gift of eternal life. For He foresaw as God, both what He would be asked, and what each one would answer Him. For who should do this more than the Prophet of prophets, and the Lord of every prophetic spirit? And having been called “good,” and taking the starting note from this first expression, He commences His teaching with this, turning the pupil to God, the good, and first and only dispenser of eternal life, which the Son, who received it of Him, gives to us.
VII. Wherefore the greatest and chiefest point of the instructions
which relate to life must be implanted in the soul from the
beginning,—to know the eternal God, the giver of what is
eternal, and by knowledge and comprehension to possess God, who is
first, and highest, and one, and good. For this is the immutable
and immoveable source and support of life, the knowledge of God,
who really is, and who bestows the things which really are, that is,
those which are eternal, from whom both being and the continuance Instead of μεῖναι Fell here
suggests μὴ
εἵναι, non-being.
VIII. He then who would live the true life is enjoined first to know
Him “whom no one knows, except the Son reveal (Him).”
But, nevertheless, this man being such, is perfectly persuaded that nothing is wanting to him as far as respects righteousness, but that he is entirely destitute of life. Wherefore he asks it from Him who alone is able to give it. And with reference to the law, he carries confidence; but the Son of God he addresses in supplication. He is transferred from faith to faith. As perilously tossing and occupying a dangerous anchorage in the law, he makes for the Saviour to find a haven.
IX. Jesus, accordingly, does not charge him with not
having fulfilled all things out of the law, but loves him, and fondly
welcomes his obedience in what he had learned; but says that he is not
perfect as respects eternal life, inasmuch as he had not fulfilled what is
perfect, and that he is a doer indeed of the law, but idle at the true
life. Those things, indeed, are good. Who denies it? For “the
commandment is holy,”
X. “If thou wilt be perfect.” The reading of the ms. is πραθῆναι,
which is corrupt. We have changed it into περιθεῖναι.
Various other emendations have been
proposed. Perhaps it should be προσθεῖναι,
“to add.”
XI. What then was it which persuaded him to flight, and made him depart from the Master, from the entreaty, the hope, the life, previously pursued with ardour?—“Sell thy possessions.” And what is this? He does not, as some conceive off-hand, bid him throw away the substance he possessed, and abandon his property; but bids him banish from his soul his notions about wealth, his excitement and morbid feeling about it, the anxieties, which are the thorns of existence, which choke the seed of life. For it is no great thing or desirable to be destitute of wealth, if without a special object,—not except on account of life. For thus those who have nothing at all, but are destitute, and beggars for their daily bread, the poor dispersed on the streets, who know not God and God’s righteousness, simply on account of their extreme want and destitution of subsistence, and lack even of the smallest things, were most blessed and most dear to God, and sole possessors of everlasting life.
Nor was the renunciation of wealth and the bestowment of it on the poor or needy a new thing; for many did so before the Saviour’s advent,—some because of the leisure (thereby obtained) for learning, and on account of a dead wisdom; and others for empty fame and vainglory, as the Anaxagorases, the Democriti, and the Crateses.
XII. Why then command as new, as divine, as alone
life-giving, what did not save those of former days? And what peculiar
thing is it that the new creature The application of the words ἡ καινὴ
κτισις to Christ has been
much discussed. Segaar has a long note on it, the purport
of which he thus sums up: ἡ καινὴ
κτίσις is a creature to whom
nothing has ever existed on earth equal or like, man but also God,
through whom is true light and everlasting life. [The translator
has largely availed himself of the valuable edition and notes of
Charles Segaar (ed. Utrecht, 1816), concerning whom see Elucidation II.]
XIII. And how much more beneficial the opposite
case, for a man, through possessing a competency, both not himself
to be in straits about money, and also to give assistance to those to
whom it is requisite so to do! For if no one had anything, what room
would be left among men for giving? And how can this dogma fail to
be found plainly opposed to and conflicting with many other excellent
teachings of the Lord? “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon
of unrighteousness, that when ye fail, they may receive you into the
everlasting habitations.”
XIV. Riches, then, which benefit also our neighbours, are not to be thrown away. For they are possessions, inasmuch as they are possessed, and goods, inasmuch as they are useful and provided by God for the use of men; and they lie to our hand, and are put under our power, as material and instruments which are for good use to those who know the instrument. If you use it skilfully, it is skilful; if you are deficient in skill, it is affected by your want of skill, being itself destitute of blame. Such an instrument is wealth. Are you able to make a right use of it? It is subservient to righteousness. Does one make a wrong use of it? It is, on the other hand, a minister of wrong. For its nature is to be subservient, not to rule. That then which of itself has neither good nor evil, being blameless, ought not to be blamed; but that which has the power of using it well and ill, by reason of its possessing voluntary choice. And this is the mind and judgment of man, which has freedom in itself and self-determination in the treatment of what is assigned to it. So let no man destroy wealth, rather than the passions of the soul, which are incompatible with the better use of wealth. So that, becoming virtuous and good, he may be able to make a good use of these riches. The renunciation, then, and selling of all possessions, is to be understood as spoken of the passions of the soul.
XV. I would then say this. Since some things are within and some without the soul, and if the soul make a good use of them, they also are reputed good, but if a bad, bad;—whether does He who commands us to alienate our possessions repudiate those things, after the removal of which the passions still remain, or those rather, on the removal of which wealth even becomes beneficial? If therefore he who casts away worldly wealth can still be rich in the passions, even though the material [for their gratification] is absent,—for the disposition produces its own effects, and strangles the reason, and presses it down and inflames it with its inbred lusts,—it is then of no advantage to him to be poor in purse while he is rich in passions. For it is not what ought to be cast away that he has cast away, but what is indifferent; and he has deprived himself of what is serviceable, but set on fire the innate fuel of evil through want of the external means [of gratification]. We must therefore renounce those possessions that are injurious, not those that are capable of being serviceable, if one knows the right use of them. And what is managed with wisdom, and sobriety, and piety, is profitable; and what is hurtful must be cast away. But things external hurt not. So then the Lord introduces the use of external things, bidding us put away not the means of subsistence, but what uses them badly. And these are the infirmities and passions of the soul.
XVI. The presence of wealth in these is deadly to all, the loss of it salutary. Of which, making the soul pure,—that is, poor and bare,—we must hear the Saviour speaking thus, “Come, follow Me.” For to the pure in heart He now becomes the way. But into the impure soul the grace of God finds no entrance. And that (soul) is unclean which is rich in lusts, and is in the throes of many worldly affections. For he who holds possessions, and gold, and silver, and houses, as the gifts of God; and ministers from them to the God who gives them for the salvation of men; and knows that he possesses them more for the sake of the brethren than his own; and is superior to the possession of them, not the slave of the things he possesses; and does not carry them about in his soul, nor bind and circumscribe his life within them, but is ever labouring at some good and divine work, even should he be necessarily some time or other deprived of them, is able with cheerful mind to bear their removal equally with their abundance. This is he who is blessed by the Lord, and called poor in spirit, a meet heir of the kingdom of heaven, not one who could not live rich.
XVII. But he who carries his riches in his soul,
and instead of God’s Spirit bears in his heart gold or land,
and is always acquiring possessions without end, and is perpetually on
the outlook for more, bending downwards and fettered in the toils of the
world, being earth and destined to depart to earth,—whence can he be
able to desire and to mind the kingdom of heaven,—a man who carries
not a heart, but land or metal, who must perforce be found in the midst
of the objects he has chosen? For where the mind of man is, there is
also his treasure. The Lord acknowledges a twofold treasure,—the
good: “For the good man, out of the good treasure of his heart,
bringeth forth good;”
In the same way spiritual poverty is blessed. Wherefore
also Matthew added, “Blessed are the poor.”
XVIII. So that (the expression)
rich men that shall with difficulty enter into
the kingdom, is to be apprehended in a scholarly μαθηματικῶς.
Fell sugests instead of this reading
of the text, πνευματικῶς
or μεμελημένως.
If then it is the soul which, first and especially, is that which is to live, and if virtue springing up around it saves, and vice kills; then it is clearly manifest that by being poor in those things, by riches of which one destroys it, it is saved, and by being rich in those things, riches of which ruin it, it is killed. And let us no longer seek the cause of the issue elsewhere than in the state and disposition of the soul in respect of obedience to God and purity, and in respect of transgression of the commandments and accumulation of wickedness.
XIX. He then is truly and rightly rich who is rich
in virtue, and is capable of making a holy and faithful use of any
fortune; while he is spuriously rich who is rich, according to the
flesh, and turns life into outward possession, which is transitory and
perishing, and now belongs to one, now to another, and in the end to
nobody at all. Again, in the same way there is a genuine poor man, and
another counterfeit and falsely so called. He that is poor in spirit,
and that is the right thing, and he that is poor in a worldly sense,
which is a different thing. To him who is poor in worldly goods,
but rich in vices, who is not poor in spirit ὁ
κατὰ πνεῦμα
οὑ πτωχὸς
… φησί. Segaar omits
οὐ,
and so makes ὁ
κατὰ πνεῦμἀ
κ.τ.λ. the nominative to φησί. It
seems better, with the Latin translator, to render as above,
which supposes the change of ὁ into ός.
XX. The wealthy and legally correct man, not
understanding these things figuratively, nor how the same man can be
both poor and rich, and have wealth and not have it, and use the world
and not use it, went away sad and downcast, leaving the state of life,
which he was able merely to desire but not to attain, making for himself
the difficult impossible. For it was difficult for the soul not to be
seduced and ruined by the luxuries and flowery enchantments that beset
remarkable wealth; but it was not impossible, even surrounded with it,
for one to lay hold of salvation, provided he withdrew himself from
material wealth,—to
XXI. But the Lord replies, “Because what is
impossible with men is possible with God.” This again is full
of great wisdom. For a man by himself working and toiling at freedom
from passion achieves nothing. But if he plainly shows himself very
desirous and earnest about this, he attains it by the addition of
the power of God. For God conspires with willing souls. But if they
abandon their eagerness, the spirit which is bestowed by God is also
restrained. For to save the unwilling is the part of one exercising
compulsion; but to save the willing, that of one showing grace. Nor does
the kingdom of heaven belong to sleepers and sluggards, “but the
violent take it by force.”
Therefore on hearing those words, the blessed Peter,
the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom
alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, The text is the reading on the margin of the first
edition. The reading of the ms.,
τοῦ
λόγου, is ammended by Segaar
into τὸ
τοῦ λὀγου, “as
the saying is.”
XXII. “And Jesus answering said, Verily I say
unto you, Whosoever shall leave what is his own, parents, and children,
and wealth, for My sake and the Gospel’s, shall receive an
hundredfold.”
XXIII. Suppose the matter to be a law-suit. Let your father be imagined to present himself to you and say, “I begot and reared thee. Follow me, and join with me in wickedness, and obey not the law of Christ;” and whatever a man who is a blasphemer and dead by nature would say.
But on the other side hear the Saviour: “I
regenerated thee, who wert ill born by the world to death. I emancipated,
healed, ransomed thee. I will show thee the face of the good Father
God. Call no man thy father on earth. Let the dead bury the dead; but
follow thou Me. For I will bring thee to a rest Segaar emends ἀνάπαυσιν
to ἀπόλαυσιν
“enjoyment.”
Having heard these considerations on both sides, decide for thyself and give thy vote for thine own salvation. Should a brother say the like, should a child, should a wife, should any one whosoever, in preference to all let Christ in thee be conqueror. For He contends in thy behalf.
XXIV. You may even go against wealth. Say,
“Certainly Christ does not debar me from property. The Lord does
not envy.” But do you see yourself overcome and overthrown by it?
Leave it, throw it away, hate, renounce, flee. “Even if thy right
eye offend thee,” quickly “cut it out.”
XXV. And to this effect similarly is what follows. “Now at this present time not to have lands, and money, and houses, and brethren, with persecutions.” For it is neither penniless, nor homeless, nor brotherless people that the Lord calls to life, since He has also called rich people; but, as we have said above, also brothers, as Peter with Andrew, and James with John the sons of Zebedee, but of one mind with each other and Christ. And the expression “with persecutions” rejects the possessing of each of those things. There is a persecution which arises from without, from men assailing the faithful, either out of hatred, or envy, or avarice, or through diabolic agency. But the most painful is internal persecution, which proceeds from each man’s own soul being vexed by impious lusts, and diverse pleasures, and base hopes, and destructive dreams; when, always grasping at more, and maddened by brutish loves, and inflamed by the passions which beset it like goads and stings, it is covered with blood, (to drive it on) to insane pursuits, and to despair of life, and to contempt of God.
More grievous and painful is this persecution, which arises from within, which is ever with a man, and which the persecuted cannot escape; for he carries the enemy about everywhere in himself. Thus also burning which attacks from without works trial, but that from within produces death. War also made on one is easily put an end to, but that which is in the soul continues till death.
With such persecution, if you have worldly wealth, if
you have brothers allied by blood and other pledges, abandon the whole
wealth of these which leads to evil; procure peace for yourself, free
yourself from protracted persecutions; turn from them to the Gospel;
choose before all the Saviour and Advocate and Paraclete of your soul,
the Prince of life. “For the things which are seen are temporary;
but the things which are not seen are eternal.”
XXVI. “The first shall be last, and the last
first.” σαφηνισμόν,
here adopted insted of the reading σοφισμόν,
which yields no suitable sense.
But if one is able in the midst of wealth to turn from
its power, and to entertain moderate sentiments, and to exercise
self-command, and to seek God alone, and to breathe God and walk with
God, such a poor man submits to the commandments, being free,
unsubdued, free of disease, unwounded by wealth. But if not,
“sooner
Let then the camel, going through a narrow and strait
way before the rich man, signify something loftier; which mystery of
the Saviour is to be learned in the “Exposition of first
Principles and of Theology.” A work mentioned elsewhere.
XXVII. Well, first let the point of the parable, which is evident, and the reason why it is spoken, be presented. Let it teach the prosperous that they are not to neglect their own salvation, as if they had been already fore-doomed, nor, on the other hand, to cast wealth into the sea, or condemn it as a traitor and an enemy to life, but learn in what way and how to use wealth and obtain life. For since neither does one perish by any means by fearing because he is rich, nor is by any means saved by trusting and believing that he shall be saved, come let them look what hope the Saviour assigns them, and how what is unexpected may become ratified, and what is hoped for may come into possession.
The Master accordingly, when asked, “Which is the
greatest of the commandments?” says, “Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy soul, and with all thy strength;”
XXVIII. The second in order, and not any less than this,
He says, is, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,”
XXIX. In both the commandments, then, He introduces
love; but in order distinguishes it. And in the one He assigns to God
the first part of love, and allots the second to our neighbour. Who
else can it be but the Saviour Himself? or who more than He has pitied
us, who by the rulers of darkness were all but put to death with many
wounds, fears, lusts, passions, pains, deceits, pleasures? Of these
wounds the only physician is Jesus, who cuts out the passions
thoroughly by the root,—not as the law does the bare effects, the
fruits of evil plants, but applies His axe to the roots of wickedness.
He it is that poured wine on our wounded souls (the blood of
David’s vine), that brought the oil which flows from the
compassions of the Father, Combefisius reads
“Spirit.”
XXX. He then is first who loves Christ; and second, he
who loves and cares for those who have believed on Him. For whatever is
done to a disciple, the Lord accepts as done to Himself, and reckons
the whole as His. “Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an
hungered, and ye gave Me to eat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me to
drink: and I was a stranger, and ye took Me in: I was naked and ye
clothed Me: I was sick, and
Again, on the opposite side, to those who have not
performed these things, “Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye
have not done it unto one of the least of these, ye have not done it
to Me.”
XXXI. Such He names children, and sons, and little
children, and friends, and little ones here, in reference to their
future greatness above. “Despise not,” He says, “one
of these little ones; for their angels always behold the face of
My Father in heaven.”
See then, first, that He has not commanded you to be
solicited or to wait to be importuned, but yourself to seek those who are
to be benefited and are worthy disciples of the Saviour. Excellent,
accordingly, also is the apostle’s saying, “For
the Lord loveth a cheerful giver;” καθαρά,
Segaar, for καθά of the ms.
This, the reading of the ms.,
has been altered by several editors, but is justly defended by
Segaar.
XXXII. Then to appoint such a reward
for liberality,—an everlasting habitation! O excellent
trading! O divine merchandise! One purchases immortality for money;
and, by giving the perishing things of the world, receives in
exchange for these an eternal mansion in the heavens! Sail to
this mart, if you are wise, O rich man! If need be, sail round
the whole world. γῆν
ὸλην, for which Fell reads τὴν
ὅλην.
XXXIII. How then does man give these things? For I will
give not only to friends, but to the friends of friends. And who is it
that is the friend of God? Do not you judge who is worthy or who is
unworthy. For it is possible you may be mistaken in your opinion. As in
the uncertainty of ignorance it is better to do good to the undeserving
for the sake of the deserving, than by guarding against those that are
less good to fail to meet in with the good. For though sparing, and
aiming at testing, who will receive meritoriously or not, it is
possible for you to neglect some τινῶν, for
which the text has τιμῶν. παῖς.
XXXIV. This visible appearance cheats death and
the devil; for the wealth within, the beauty, is unseen by them. And
they rave about the carcase, which they despise as weak, being
blind to the wealth within; knowing not what a “treasure in
an earthen vessel”
παιδός.
XXXV. All these warriors and guards are trusty. No
one is idle, no one is useless. One can obtain your pardon from God,
another comfort you when sick, another weep and groan in sympathy
for you to the Lord of all, another teach some of the things useful
for salvation, another admonish with confidence, another counsel with
kindness. And all can love truly, without guile, without fear, without
hypocrisy, without flattery, without pretence. O sweet service of loving
[souls]! O blessed thoughts of confident [hearts]! O sincere faith
of those who fear God alone! O truth of words with those who cannot
lie! O beauty of deeds with those who have been commissioned to serve
God, to persuade God, to please God, not to touch thy flesh! to speak,
but Perhaps ἀλλά has got
transposed, and we should read, “but to speak to the king,”
etc.
XXXVI. All the faithful, then, are good and godlike, and
worthy of the name by which they are encircled as with a diadem. There
are, besides, some, the elect of the elect, and so much more or less
distinguished by drawing themselves, like ships to the strand, out of
the surge of the world and bringing themselves to safety; not wishing
to seem holy, and ashamed if one call them so; hiding in the depth of
their mind the ineffable mysteries, and disdaining to let their
nobleness be seen in the world; whom the Word calls “the light of
the world, and the salt of the earth.”
XXXVII. For what further need has God of
the mysteries of love?
Segaar reads: For what more should I say? Behold the mysteries of
love. Ἐθηλύνθη,
which occurs immediately after this, has been suggested as
the right reading here. The text has ἐθηράθη.
For this also He came down. For this He clothed Himself
with man. For this He voluntarily subjected Himself to the experiences
of men, that by bringing Himself to the measure of our weakness whom
He loved, He might correspondingly bring us to the measure of His
own strength. And about to be offered up and giving Himself a ransom,
He left for us a new Covenant-testament: My love I give unto you. And
what and how great is it? For each of us He gave His life,—the
equivalent for all. This He demands from us in return for one another.
And if we owe our lives to the brethren, and have made such a mutual
compact with the Saviour, why should we any more hoard and shut up
worldly goods, which are beggarly, foreign to us and transitory? Shall
we shut up from each other what after a little shall be the property of
the fire? Divinely and weightily John says, “He that loveth not his
brother is a murderer,”
XXXVIII. But learn thou the more excellent way, which
Paul shows for salvation. “Love seeketh not her own,”
XXXIX. If one should escape the superfluity of riches,
and the difficulty they interpose in the way of life, and be able to
enjoy the eternal good things; but should happen, either from ignorance
or involuntary circumstances, after the seal i.e., of baptism.
XL. Forgiveness of past sins, then, God gives; but of
future, each one gives to himself. And this is to repent, to condemn
the past deeds, and beg oblivion of them from the Father, who only of
all is able to undo what is done, by mercy proceeding from Him, and to
blot out former sins by the dew of the Spirit. “For by the state
in which I find you will I judge,” Quoted with a slight variation
by Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. xlvii., vol. i. p.
219, and supposed by Grabe to be a quotation from the Apocryphal Gospel
to the Hebrews. Ἀνόνητοι,
for which the text has ἀνόητοι.
XLI. Wherefore it is by all means necessary for thee,
who art pompous, and powerful, and rich, to set over thyself some man
of God as a trainer and governor. Reverence, though it be but one man;
fear, though it be but one man. Give yourself to hearing, though it be
but one speaking freely, using harshness, and at the same time healing.
For it is good for the eyes not to continue always wanton, but to weep
and smart sometimes, for greater health. So also nothing is more
pernicious to the soul than
XLII. And that you may be still more confident, that
repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation,
listen to a tale, μῦθος. λόγος.
Having come to one of the cities not far off (the name
of which some give Said to be Smyrna.
Time passed, and some necessity having emerged, they send again for John. He, when he had settled the other matters on account of which he came, said, “Come now, O bishop, restore to us the deposit which I and the Saviour committed to thee in the face of the Church over which you preside, as witness.” The other was at first confounded, thinking that it was a false charge about money which he did not get; and he could neither believe the allegation regarding what he had not, nor disbelieve John. But when he said “I demand the young man, and the soul of the brother,” the old man, groaning deeply, and bursting into tears, said, “He is dead.” “How and what kind of death?” “He is dead,” he said, “to God. For he turned wicked and abandoned, and at last a robber; and now he has taken possession of the mountain in front of the church, along with a band like him.” Rending, therefore, his clothes, and striking his head with great lamentation, the apostle said, “It was a fine guard of a brother’s soul I left! But let a horse be brought me, and let some one be my guide on the way.” He rode away, just as he was, straight from the church. On coming to the place, he is arrested by the robbers’ outpost; neither fleeing nor entreating, but crying, “It was for this I came. Lead me to your captain;” who meanwhile was waiting, all armed as he was. But when he recognized John as he advanced, he turned, ashamed, to flight. The other followed with all his might, forgetting his age, crying, “Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thy father, unarmed, old? Son, pity me. Fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will willingly endure thy death, as the Lord did death for us. For thee I will surrender my life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me.”
And he, when he heard, first stood, looking down; then
threw down his arms, then trembled and wept bitterly. And on the old
man approaching, he embraced him, speaking for himself with
lamentations as he could, and baptized a second time with tears,
concealing only his right hand. The other pledging, and assuring him on
oath that he would find forgiveness for himself from the Saviour,
beseeching and falling on his knees, and kissing his right hand itself,
as now
ῥήσεσι
λὁγων, for which
Cod. Reg. Gall. reads σειρῆσι
λόγων.
Let one believe these things, and the disciples of God, and God, who is surety, the Prophecies, the Gospels, the Apostolic words; living in accordance with them, and lending his ears, and practising the deeds, he shall at his decease see the end and demonstration of the truths taught. For he who in this world welcomes the angel of penitence will not repent at the time that he leaves the body, nor be ashamed when he sees the Saviour approaching in His glory and with His army. He fears not the fire.
But if one chooses to continue and to sin perpetually in pleasures, and values indulgence here above eternal life, and turns away from the Saviour, who gives forgiveness; let him no more blame either God, or riches, or his having fallen, but his own soul, which voluntarily perishes. But to him who directs his eye to salvation and desires it, and asks with boldness and vehemence for its bestowal, the good Father who is in heaven will give the true purification and the changeless life. To whom, by His Son Jesus Christ, the Lord of the living and dead, and by the Holy Spirit, be glory, honour, power, eternal majesty, both now and ever, from generation to generation, and from eternity to eternity. Amen.
(Note 1, p. 591.)
The kingdom of Christ was set up in great
weakness, that nothing might be wanting to the glory of His working by
the Spirit, in its triumph over the darkness of the world. “Not
many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble,”
were called.
And it is worthy of grateful remark, how admirably
sustained was this primitive spirit among all the early witnesses for
truth. They were not of this world, and they dreaded its influence. How
richly the Word dwelt in them, is manifest from their amazing
familiarity with the Scriptures.
To the genius of this great Alexandrian Father, we
are all debtors to this day. Had he not, unfortunately, allied much of
his wisdom with the hateful name of the Gnostic, For
Gnostic, Intellector is used, p. 577. Why not use the
Latin word Perfector? The idea is not simply
perfectus: Clement’s Gnostic is a
gnomon, actively indexing the mind of Christ.
(Segaar, note 3, p. 594.)
Charles Segaar, S.T.D., born in 1724, was Greek professor at Utrecht, from 1766 to 1803, after filling several important and laborious positions as a pastor and preacher. He died Dec. 22, 1803. He has left a great reputation as “the most theological of philologists, and the most philological of theologians.” Had he gone over the entire text of Clement, and edited all his works, with the care and ability displayed in his critical edition of the Τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος, the world would have been greatly enriched by his influence on the cultivation of patristic literature. In his eloquent preface to this tract, he bewails the neglect into which that fundamental department of Christian learning had fallen; praising the labours of Anglican scholars, who, in the former century, had devoted themselves to the production of valuable editions of the Fathers. He speaks of himself as from early years inflamed with a singular love of such studies and especially of the Greek Fathers, and adds an expression of the extreme gratification with which he had read and pondered the Quis dives Salvandus, among the admirable works of Clement of Alexandria. He corrects Ghisler’s error in crediting it to Origen (edition of 1623), and reminds us that there is but a single ms. from which it is derived, viz., that of the Vatican.
Apart from the value of Segaar’s annotations, his work is very useful to Greek scholars, for its varied erudition, much wealth of his learning being expended upon single words and their idiomatic uses. The sort of work devoted to this tract is precisely what I covet for my countrymen; and I look forward with hope to the day as not remote, when from regions now unnamed, in this vast domain of our republican America, critical editions of all of the Ante-Nicene Fathers shall be given to the republic of letters, with a beauty of typography hitherto unknown. The valuable Patrologia of Migne might well be made the base of a Phœnix-like edition of the same series. It was only fit for such a base; for its print and paper are disgraceful, and the inaccuracy and carelessness of its references and editorial work are only pardonable when one reflects on the small cost at which it was afforded. The plates have perished in flames; but the restoration of the whole work is worthy of the ambition of American scholars, and of the patronage of wealth now sordid but capable of being ennobled by being made useful to mankind.
(Willing Souls, cap. xxi. p. 597.)
On the subject of free-will, so profusely illustrated by Clement, I have foreborne to add any comments. But Segaar’s Excursus (iv. p. 410) is worthy of being consulted. On Clement’s ideas of Hades and the intermediate state, I have made no comment; but Segaar’s endeavour to state judicially the view of our author (Excursus, x. p. 421), though in some particulars it seems to me unsatisfactory, is also worthy of examination.
If a number of other important points have been apparently overlooked in my Elucidations, it is because I fear I have already gone beyond the conditions and limitations of my work.
Abiding city, 31.
Alms, 16, 20, 54.
Anchorites, 14.
Ancyra, 58.
Angels, the two, 24.
Anger, 49.
Antonines, the, 5.
Apostates, 50.
Apostles, 14, 49, 51.
Arcadia, 43.
Athanasius, 25, 28, 36, 57.
Backbiting, 49.
Beast, the, 18.
Bishops, 14, 52.
Bishop’s Cathedra, 12.
Blasphemers, 50.
Boyle, 29.
Branches, 39, 40, 41.
explanations of, 41.
Brotherhood, the human, 32.
Bunsen, 3, 4.
Business, too much, 24, 50.
Canonical house, 12.
Canon law, 12, 13.
Canons, 33.
Chalcedon, 58.
Chastity, 15, 16, 58.
Cheerfulness, 49.
Chief seats, 16.
Choerilius, 28.
Church, the 12, 17, 18, 43, 50.
militant, 43.
triumphant, 43.
Circumcision, of wealth, 15, 53.
Clement, 4, 56.
Clement Alexandrinus, 6.
Clergy, 16.
Colony, Roman, 31.
Colours, 44, 48, 50.
Companion roads, 17.
Conclusion, 55.
Concupiscence, 28.
Continence, 49.
Convulsionism, 56.
Crowns, 39.
Dante, 18.
Deaconess, 12.
Deacons, 14.
Deceit, 37, 38, 49.
Devil, the, 30.
Discipline, the Catholic, 58.
Disobedience, 49.
Distractions, 24.
Divorce, 21.
Doddridge, Dr., 38.
Domestic discipline, 11.
Edad and Medad, 12.
Elect, the, 18, 30.
sins of, 39.
Eleutherus, 3, 4.
Elm, the, 32.
Elucidation, I., 56; II., 57.
Encraty, 57, 58.
Entanglements, 37.
Eusebius, 6, 57.
Evil speaking, 20.
Faith, 15, 16, 17, 20, 24, 26, 49.
Falsehood, 21, 49.
Family, the, developed by Christianity, 58.
Fasting, 16, 33, 34.
Father, the, 35.
Flocks, 54.
Folly, 49.
Fountains, 51.
Gibbon, 57.
Grief, 26.
Guilelessness, 15, 16.
Hail, 28.
Happiness, 33.
Harmony, 49.
Hartley, 31.
Hatred, 49.
Heathenism, manners of, 47, 57.
Hegrin, 18.
Hermas, brother of Pius, 4, 56.
Hermas, Pastor of, 7.
date of, 7.
known to the East, 7.
little known in the West, 7.
question of authorship, 7.
Shepherd of, 6.
versions and manuscripts, 7.
written in Italy, 7.
the morals of, 6.
Hermas of St. Paul, 4, 56.
Holy Spirit, 20, 23, 26, 27, 35, 36, 43.
Hyginus, 56.
Hypocrites, 50.
Idols, 51.
Immersion, 22.
Incomprehensible, 20.
Incontinence, 49.
Infants, 53.
Innocence, 49.
Intelligence, 15, 16.
Irenæus, 4, 5, 6, 31, 55, 56.
Jerome, 57.
Justification and sanctification, 12, 16.
Justification, 23.
Justin Martyr, 31.
Kisses, 47.
Lapsers, 41.
Law, the new, 20.
Love, 15, 16, 49.
Luxuries, 24, 37, 38.
Luxury, angel of, 36.
Man.
adulterer, 38.
backbiter, 38.
covetous, 38.
drunkard, 38.
luxurious, 38.
sharp-tempered, 38.
thief, 38.
Marriage, 22.
Martial, 57.
Mastery, self, 47.
Ministers, 49.
Montanism, 4, 5, 29, 56, 57.
Mountains, 49, 50, 51, 52.
Muratorian Canon, 3, 8, 56.
Mysteries, 43.
Nature, love of, 9, 43.
Needy, 16.
Niebuhr, his saying, 3.
Offshoots, 40, 41.
Old age, 17.
Ordinances, 30.
Origen, 6, 31.
Orphans, 52.
Ovid, 28.
Palms, 39.
Patience, 23, 49.
Penitential discipline, 15, 22.
Pius, 3, 5, 56.
Poor, the, 32.
Prayer, 26.
Prophets, 28, 29, 49.
Punishment, angel of, 38.
Punishments, divers, 37.
duration of, 36.
Purity, 33, 49, 55.
Raiment, yellow, 16.
white, 36, 40.
Repentance, 20, 38, 39, 41, 50, 51, 54.
angel of, 19, 37, 38, 51.
a habit, 21.
of Hermas, 21.
Reprobate men, 12.
Rich, the, 32.
Riches, glory in, 9.
Rock, the, 13, 48.
Routh, Dr., his Reliquiœ, 56.
Sackcloth, 40.
Sadness, 23.
Scandals, 57.
Schism, 53.
Scriptures, 14.
Seal, 41, 53.
Self-restraint, 15, 16.
Sheep, 37, 53.
Shepherd, 53, 54.
Sibyl, the, 12, 13.
Similitudes, 31.
Simplicity, 15, 16, 49, 53.
Sloth, 17.
Son of God, 20, 35, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53.
Sorrow, 49.
Spirit, prophetic, 28.
Spirits, 49.
evil spirit, 50.
two kinds, 27.
Spiritual gifts, 22.
Stations, 33.
Stones, 14, 44, 45, 46, 50.
Supererogation, 34, 52.
Syneisactœ, 58.
Talkative wife, 11.
Tatian, 5.
Teachers, 14, 49, 51.
Tertullian, 5, 56.
Thegri, 18.
Thoughts, filthy and proud, 9.
Tower, 14, 39, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50.
Trees, in summer, 33.
in winter, 32.
Unbelief, 49.
Understanding, 49.
Unruly sons, 11.
Van Lennep, 57.
Vatican collection, Pudicitia, the, 18.
Vine, the, 32.
Vineyard, 34.
Virgins, 46, 48, 50, 51, 55.
Vision, of the angel lady, 10.
her reading, 10.
Voluptuaries, two classes of, 36.
their death, 36.
Wake, Archbishop, 5.
Wantonness, 49.
Westcott, 57.
Wickedness, 49.
Widows, 52.
Willman, 57.
Willows, 39.
Wine jars, 29.
Word, the, 15.
Works, evil, 24, 25, 48.
good, 15, 24, 25, 39, 55.
of God, 55.
Wormwood, 23.
Albigenses, 62.
Alexander, flattered by his preceptor, Aristotle, 65.
Alphabet, 65.
Anitus and Miletus, 66.
Anaxagoras, 73.
Apion, the grammarian, 80.
Apollo and Daphne, 73.
Argives, their kings, 80.
Aristippus, 65.
Aristotle, 65.
Astronomy, 65, 68.
Baptism, the renunciation of, 73.
Beausobre, 72.
Berosus, 80.
Busiris, 66.
Catholics, early, 62.
Chaldeans, 80.
witness to Moses, 80.
Christianity, Western, effect of Montanism on, 62.
Christians, two classes of, 62.
worship God only, 66.
their doctrine of Creation, 67.
belief in the resurrection, 67.
unjustly hated, 76.
philosophy of, 77.
older than that of Greece, 77.
doctrines of, 78.
opposed to dissensions, 78.
fitted for all men, 78.
free schools of, 78.
hymns of, 79.
Chronology, 78, 81.
Chrysostom, 69, 79.
Coliseum, 75.
Constellations, origin of, 69.
Corates, 66.
Creation, 67.
Crescens, loathsome character of, 73.
persecutes Justin, 73.
Cretans, always liars, 76.
Cross, mystery of, 71.
Democritus, 72.
Demons, 68.
turned into gods, 68.
teach the doctrine of fate, 68.
economize astronomy, 68.
to be punished, 78.
vain display of, 72.
false promises of, 72.
deceptions of, 73.
Demon worship, depravity of, 73.
Diogenes, 65.
Doctrines of the Greeks and Christians compared, 74.
Egyptians, 80.
Elijah, 62.
Empedocles, 66.
Encratites, the, 63.
Euripides, 66.
Eusebius, reference to, 61, 62.
Eventide, hymn of, 79.
Free-will, 69.
Geometry, 65.
Gladiators, 75.
God only to be feared, 66.
a spirit, 66.
Greek notions of, 74.
compared with Christian ideas, 74.
Gods of the heathen, 68.
absurdities concerning, 69.
Gospels, the four, testimony of the Diatessaron to, 61.
Greeks, not the inventors of the arts, 65.
foolish solemnities of, 74.
their play-actors, 75.
other amusements, 75.
idols of, 76.
studies of, 76.
legislation, 77.
Greek studies, ridiculed, 76.
Hellebore, 72.
Hercules, 66, 69.
Heraclitus, 66.
Herodotus, 79.
Holy Ghost, 62.
Homer, 77.
his period, 78.
Hus, reference to, 62.
Idioms, communication of, 71.
Irenæus, reference to Tatian, 61.
John the Baptist, 62.
Judaism, 61.
Justin Martyr, Tatian’s relation to, 61.
Kaye, Bishop, reference to, 70.
Latin Church, sophistries of, 62.
Life, human shortening of, 71.
Logos, 67, 68.
Magic, 65.
Man, fall of, 67.
Marriage, 62.
Marsyas, 65.
Matter, not eternal, 67.
Mill, reference to, 61.
Modern science anticipated, 67.
Montanism, 62.
Moses, his antiquity, 80.
his time, 80.
compared with heathen heroes, 81.
superior antiquity of, 81.
Mythology, 68.
Orpheus, 65.
Paganism, 61.
Pherecydes, 66.
Philosophers, their vices, 65.
and absurdities, 66.
ridicule of, 66.
boastings and quarrels, 75.
Philosophy, Grecian and Christian, compared, 77.
Phœnicians, 80.
Phrygians, reference to, 62.
Pindar, quoted, 74.
Plato, 65, 66.
Psychic natures, 71.
Pugilists, 75.
Pythagoras, 66.
Resurrection, 67.
Rousseau quoted, 82.
Socrates, 66.
Solon, 80.
Soul, immortal, 70.
Southey, Robert, his remarks concerning John Wesley, 62.
Spirit, the Holy, 71.
Spirits, two kinds, 70.
St. Jerome, 61, 62.
St. Paul, 62.
Tatian, Introductory Note, 61.
equivocal position of, 61.
influenced by Justin, 61.
his falling away, 61.
possible mental decline, 61.
Tatian an Assyrian, 61, 62.
some of his works very valuable, 61.
some have perished, 61.
his Diatessaron, 61.
his encraty, 62.
his Address to the Greeks, sole surviving work, 62.
Epiphanius describes him as from Mesopotamia, 62.
embraced Christianity at Rome, 63.
Address to the Greeks, 65.
his conversion, 77.
visit to Rome, 79.
disgusted with
concluding words of, 82.
Fragments of, 82, 83.
Terence, 66. (See Theophilus.)
Tertullian, reference to, 62.
Theodoret, reference to, 61.
Virgin, hymn of, 79.
Wiclif, reference to, 62.
Women, Christian, 78.
heathen, 78, 79.
Zeno, 66.
Zodiac, 69.
Abel, 105.
Abraham, 107.
Adam, 105.
Antioch, seat of the early Christians, 87.
described, Renan and Ferrar, 87.
see of Theophilus, 88.
bishops of, 88.
Atheists, philosophers proved to be such, 113.
others attribute crimes to the gods, 113.
Authors, profane, 111.
their ignorance, 111.
their contradictions, 111.
Autolycus, 89, and passim; second book addressed to, 94.
third book addressed to, 111.
misled by false accusations, 111.
concluding advice to, 121.
Babel, tower of, 106.
Cain, 105.
family of, 106.
Chaldeans, 106.
Chastity, 115.
Chedorlaomer, 107.
Christianity, antiquity of, 120.
Christians, scorned by Autolycus, 89.
Theophilus glories in the name of, 89.
their name, 92.
its meaning, 92.
honour God and his law, 114.
teach humanity, 114.
also repentance and righteousness, 114.
also chastity and love of enemies, 115.
their innocent manner of life, 115.
Chronology, biblical, Theophilus founder of, 87, 106, 118.
his system, 118.
from Adam to Saul, 119.
Saul to Jeremiah, 119.
Roman, to death of Aurelius, 119.
leading epochs, 120.
Creation, 97, 98.
its glory, 99.
its sympathy with man, 101.
its restoration, 101.
the fourth day, 100.
the fifth day, 101.
the sixth day, 101.
Delitzsch, 102.
his Psychology, 102.
Deluge, errors of Greeks about, 116.
contrasted with Scripture accuracy, 117.
Epochs, the leading chronological, 120.
Eusebius, his praise of the Fathers, 87.
Eve, why formed from Adam’s rib, 105.
Eucharist, the, 112.
Evil, not created by God, 101.
Faith, 91.
the leading principle, 91.
Foot-baths, 92.
Genesis, the truth of its testimony, 103.
Gibbon, cited, 92.
God, his nature, 89.
his attributes, 90.
perceived through his works, 90.
and known by them, 90, 91.
to be seen hereafter in immortality, 91.
to be worshipped, 92.
absurd opinions of philosophers and poets concerning, 95.
his voice, 103.
his walking, 103.
his law and Christian doctrine, 113.
Gods, of the heathen, 91.
their immoralities, 91.
absurdities of their worship, 92.
their images, 94.
despicable when made, 94.
valuable when purchased, 94.
what has become of them, 94.
their genealogy, 96.
divers doctrines concerning, 112.
Hebrew historians contrasted with Greek, 119.
Hesiod, 95, 97, 99.
his origin of the world, 95.
Holiness, enjoined by the prophets, 107.
Holy Ghost, 97, 107.
anointing of, 92.
Homer, his opinion concerning the gods, 95.
Human race, how dispersed, 107.
Innocence, 115.
Inspiration, 93.
refinements about, 93.
of prophets, 97.
Kings, earthly, 92.
to be honoured, not adored, 92.
Knowledge, tree of, 104.
Light, created, 100.
Logos, 98.
the internal, 103.
and external, 103.
Luther, referred to, 102.
Man, his creation, 101, 102.
his life, 102.
or lives, 102.
tripartite nature, 102.
his fall, 102.
his expulsion from Paradise, 104.
his mortality, 105.
and immortality, 105.
and free-will, 105.
history of, after the flood, 106.
races of, dispersed, 107.
Manetho, 117.
his inaccuracy in history, 117.
Melchisedek, 107.
Moses, antiquity of, 117.
Paradise, 102.
its beauty, 103.
man’s expulsion from, 104.
Philosophers, absurd opinions concerning God, 95.
teach cannibalism, incest, and other crimes, 112.
vague conjectures of, 116.
historical errors of, 116.
their mistakes about the deluge, 116.
Poets, 109.
confirm the Hebrew prophets, 109.
Profane history, 107.
its inconsistencies, 111.
Prophecies, 108.
Prophets, inspired by the Holy Ghost, 97, 107.
enjoin holiness, 108.
their precepts, 108.
more ancient than Greek writers, 118.
Providence, 97.
Repentance, 114.
Resurrection, 92.
illustrated, 93.
Righteousness, 114.
Sabbath, 99.
Scriptures, the prophetic, 93.
converting power of, 93.
Sea, the, 100, emblem of the world, 100.
its harbors, emblems of the churches, 100.
its perils, of heresies, 100.
Seth, his race, 106.
Serpent, the, 103.
Sibyl, 94, 97, 106, 108.
Temple, antiquity of, 117.
Terence, 87. (See Tatian.)
Theophilus, 87.
follows Ignatius, 87.
Barnabas, 87.
prophets and teachers of Antioch, 87.
oral discussions, 87.
founder of Biblical chronology, 87, 106.
his only remaining work, 87.
sixth bishop of Antioch, 88.
conjectural date of birth, 88.
Theophilus to Autolycus, book i., 89.
conversion of, 93.
his account of, 93.
writes second book to Autolycus, 94.
occasion of this writing. 94.
Tree of knowledge, 104.
Trinity, the, 101.
or Triad, 101.
first use of the word, 101.
Writings, Hebrew contrasted with Greek, 119.
Angels, 141.
the fallen, 142.
Atheists, Christians not such, 130.
charge retorted on heathen, 131.
absurdity of this charge, 134.
Athenagoras, his place among primitive apologists, 125.
a trophy of St. Paul’s preaching, 125.
Paris edition of, 126.
his writings harmonized with Justin Martyr and others, by Bishop Kaye, 126.
notes of Gesner and Stephans, 126.
no historical information concerning him, 127.
rare mention of his name in history, 127.
beauty and merit of his writings, 127.
Introductory Notes, 125-127.
Plea for the Christians, 129.
On the Resurrection, 149.
Body, functions of, 152.
the resurrection of, 152.
differs from the mortal, 152.
Calvin, quoted, 157.
Christian morality, 146.
Christianity, at the period of Athenagoras, 125.
its shackles falling, 125.
bolder tone of, 125.
its conflict with heresies, 125.
Sibylline predictions of, 125, 132.
entreats a fair hearing, 148.
his treatise of the resurrection, 149.
Christians, plea in their behalf addressed to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, 129.
injustice towards, 129.
claim to legal protection, 130.
false charges against, 130.
superiority of their theology, 132.
worship the Trinity, 133.
their moral teaching, 134.
why they do not offer sacrifices, 134.
inconsistency of their accusers, 135.
distinguish God from matter, 135.
do not worship the universe, 136.
calumnies against, confuted, 145.
elevated morality of, 146.
their conjugal chastity, 146.
contrasted with their accusers, 147.
condemn cruelty, 147.
abolish gladiatorial shows, 147.
abhor fœticide, 147.
refuse worship to the emperors, 148.
Creator, 150.
who makes, can restore, 150.
Death, 157.
and sleep, 157.
analogy of, 157.
De Maistre, cited, 131.
Demons, 143.
tempt to idolatry, 143.
artifices of, 143.
Digestion and nutrition consistent with resurrection, 151.
Divine Providence denied by the poets and philosophers, 142.
Doctrine, Christian, 132.
Germans, 126.
their criticisms, 126.
valuable editorial labours, 125.
lack of sympathy with the primitive writers, 126.
and of devout exegesis, 126.
Giants, their progeny, 142.
God, testimony of the poets to unity, 131.
opinions of philosophers concerning, 131.
distinguished from matter, 135.
Heathen, their gods, 136.
and idols, 136.
recent invention of, 136.
a poetic fiction, 137.
absurd representations of gods, 138.
impure ideas concerning the gods, 138.
their shameful poetry, 139.
pretended explanations of mythology, 140.
their gods but men, 143.
Human flesh, not the proper food of man, 153.
Judgment, 156.
necessary to soul and body, 158.
Logos, 133, 146.
Man, argument from his nature, 156.
and from changes in his life, 158.
and from his liability to judgment, 160.
from his actions, 160.
and from such good and evil, 161.
and from laws of his nature, 161.
and from the objects of his existence, 162.
Marriage, chastity of Christians with respect to, 146.
Philosophers, opinions of, 131.
respecting the gods, 137.
Thales and Plato, 149.
deny a Providence, 142.
Aristotle, 142.
Plato and Pythagoras sustain the possibility of resurrection, 148.
Plato, opinion of, 140.
Poets, testimony of, 131.
describe the gods as originally men, 144.
reasons for this, 145.
Polytheism, absurdities of, 132.
Prophets, testimony of, 133.
Pusey, quoted, 157.
Resurrection, 149.
not impossible 150.
objections to, 151.
canibalism no impediment, 153.
nor man’s impotency, 153.
will of the Creator concerning, 154.
argument continued, 155.
not merely for judgment, 156.
children to rise again, 156.
argument from man’s nature, 156.
probability of, 158.
from changes in man’s life, 158.
if none, man less favoured than brutes, 159.
concluding argument, 162.
its beauty and force, 162.
Rewards and punishments, 158.
St. Paul, his preaching on Mars Hill, 125.
its apparent sterility, 125.
Athenagoras its trophy, 125.
Sibyl, prediction of Christianity, 125, 132.
quotation from, 145.
Sleep, 157.
Soul and body, judgment of, 158.
Telemachus, heroic history of, 147.
Thales, opinion of, 140.
Universe, not worshipped by Christians, 136.
the Ptolemaic system of, 136.
Abraham, elect, 445.
meaning of his name, 446.
Abstraction from material things, necessary to the knowledge of divine truth, 460.
Advent of Christ, precursors of, 519.
Agape, Christian, 238.
abuse of the term by heretics, 403.
Alexandria, centre of Christian culture, 165.
catechetical school of, 342.
Alms, how given and received, 578.
Amusements, good and bad, 289.
public (spectacles), forbidden, 290.
Anacharsis, forbids heathen mysteries, 177.
Angels, spiritual beings, 493.
ministry of, 517-518, 575.
inferior, given to Gentiles, 524.
guardian, 533.
Animals, clean and unclean, signification of, 556.
Apostles, how chosen, 514, 532.
marriage of, 541, 543.
Aristobulus, quoted, 487.
two of the name, 520.
Art, wisdom given by God, 304.
Arts, invented by Hebrews, 317.
Astronomy, mystery of, 501.
Baptism, of Christ, effect of, 215.
Christian, names and effects, 215-216.
illumination, 216.
with faith and repentance, 217.
for the remission of sins, 222, 361.
seal, 349, 462.
not to be repeated, 361.
sin after, 438, 443.
new birth in Christ, 439.
first of Christian mysteries, 461.
of the apostles, tradition of, 578.
Barnabas, St., an apostle, 354-355.
of the Seventy, 372, 567.
quoted, 355, 362, 366, 372, 459.
Basilides, heretic, errors of, 355, 358, 381, 423, 437, 440, 445.
Bath, behaviour in, 279.
right use of, 282.
Bean, prohibited by Pythagoras, 385, 402.
Beatitudes, true teaching of, 413, 441.
Beauty, true and false, 271.
“Because of the angels,” interpreted, 578.
Beetle, fable concerning, 449, 484.
Birth and death, law of, 584.
Blood, symbol of the Word, 221.
Body, Christian, temple of God, 584.
Bread, symbol of the Word, 221.
Britain, legend of musical cave, 487.
Bunsen, Baron, Hippolytus, 297, 443.
Callimachus, quoted, 578.
Candlestick, the golden, symbol of the Holy Spirit, 452, 477.
Carpocratians, their heresies and practice, 383, 403.
Cassiodorus, note on, 571.
Causes, defined and classified, 565-567.
Children, Christ’s name for his disciples, 212-213.
character and blessings, 214.
applied to those under the Law, 217.
nourished by the milk of the Word, 218.
Christian life, a system of reasonable actions, 235.
precepts of, in Scripture, 291-295.
Christians, sons of God, 195.
their unity, 197.
Chronology of Holy Scripture, 325-334, 346.
Church, Catholic, unity of, 555.
Jewish and Christian, one, 369.
earthly, image of heavenly, 421.
Clement of Alexandria, a reformer, 165.
pupil and successor of Pantænus, 166.
life and works, 167.
teacher of philosophic Christianity, 380.
his knowledge of Hebrew questioned, 439, 443, 446, 484.
Clement of Rome, St., an apostle, 428.
quoted, 308, 418, 428, 495.
Clothing, Christian use of, 263.
not to be dyed, 265.
of women, 266.
of the feet, 267.
becoming for Christians, 284.
Commandments, the two great, 599.
Concupiscence, forbidden by the law and by Christ, 394. (See Covetousness.)
Confession of Christ, public, 421.
promises to, 422.
true martyrdom, 422.
Continence, heretical opinions of, refuted, 381.
of Christians more excellent than of philosophers, 391.
in all things, not one only, 392.
Contrition, the only true penitence, 416.
Courage is not daring, 541.
Covetousness. (See Concupiscence.)
Creation, why not repeated, 584.
Crowns, floral, not used by Christians, 255.
Culture, Greek, useful to Christians, 307.
a divine gift, 308.
necessary for understanding Scripture, 310.
Customs, heathen, to be forsaken, 197-199.
debasing effects of, 200-201, 205-206.
overcome by divine truth, 201-202.
Death, Christian philosophy of, 411.
errors of Valentinus, concerning, 425.
Decalogue, interpreted, 511.
why ten commandments, 511.
omissions in interpretation of, 515, 522.
Deception, permitted by the sophists, 538.
modern casuistry on, 556.
Definitions of terms, necessary, 556, 561.
philosophical, nature, and classification, 562-563.
Degrees, in heaven, corresponding to order in the church, 505.
how attained, 505.
of knowledge, true Gnostic only perfect in, 507.
Democritus, on the idea of God, 465, 486.
Demonstration, defined, 559.
produces scientific belief, 559.
first principles indemonstrable, 559.
dilemma of suspense of judgment, 562.
Dialectics, a means to true wisdom, 340.
Disciplina arcani, true nature of, 343-344.
Dispensations, the seven, 476-477.
Doubt and assent, causes of, 564.
Dove, emblem of the Holy Spirit, 578.
Dress, heathen luxury in, forbidden to Christian women, 273.
to men, 275.
leads to licentiousness, 276.
Drinking, Christian principles of, 242.
abuses of, 244-245.
Eating, luxury in, heathen, 237.
Christian temperance in, 239-242.
Egyptian rites, 488.
Bishop Warburton on, 520.
women in, 521.
Elect, illustrated by Abraham, 445.
known by Christ, 533.
elect of elect, 601.
Electa, lady to whom St. John’s Second Epistle was written, 577.
Elijah, example of frugality, 281.
Emblems, Christian, in the Catacombs, 297.
Empedocles, quoted, 384-385, 403, 446, 464, 466.
Epiphanes, 382.
opinion on community of women, 403.
Esoteric doctrine, use of, 302, 313, 343. 345.
Eucharist, 242.
peculiar customs of, 300.
received according to reason, 310.
heretics celebrate with water, 322.
typified by Melchizedek, 439.
Euripides, quoted, 384-385, 403, 469.
Evil, not sought for itself, 319.
works for good, 330.
Exhortation, The, of Clement, object of, 167.
Eye, government of the, 291.
Faith, possible without learning, 307, 345.
not a natural quality, 349.
only means to the knowledge of God, 349.
taught by Scripture to Greek philosophy, 352.
leads to repentance, hope, benevolence, 353, 357.
faith, not opinion, foundation of knowledge, 359.
twofold, relating to memory and hope, 360.
voluntary, 360.
necessary to justification, 444.
foundation of knowledge, 445.
heretical views of, 445.
saving, manifested by works, 505.
Fathers, apostolical, quoted, 348, 355, 357, 360, 362, 366, 422, 428, 460, 495-496, 510.
Fear of God, necessary, 354.
Figurative teaching of Scripture and philosophy, 450.
Filthy speaking and acts, reproved, 250.
Free-will, the original of sin, 319, 362-363.
necessary to faith and repentance, 349.
condition of judgment, 353.
proofs of, 424, 426, 437, 502, 524.
power of choosing salvation, 441.
error of Basilides, 444.
illustrated by Plato, 483.
source of obedience, 519, 527-528.
and of faith, 525, 527-528.
choice of virtue, 525.
Friendship, how threefold, 369.
Frugality, a mark of Christian living, 280.
examples of, 281.
Geometry, mystery of, 499-501.
Gnosis, true wisdom, revealed by God, 494.
Gnostic, true (Christian), as defined by Clement, 342.
his contempt for pain and poverty, 412.
divine contemplation, 414.
object of life, 418.
trained by Christian knowledge, 433, 438.
perfected by martyrdom, 433.
seeks good for itself, 434-437.
and knowledge, 495.
philosophic testimony to, 436.
how regards earthly things, 439.
an imitator of God, 440.
freed from passion and perturbation, 496.
uses all knowledge, 498.
conjectures things future, 501, 521.
alone attains perfection, 502.
represses sensual desire, 503.
worshipper of God, 523.
attains likeness to Christ, 526.
knowledge, 527.
content, self-control, 528.
his faith and trust, 536.
help to others, 536.
prayer and alms, 537. 545.
takes no oath, 537.
teaches by example, 538.
made perfect in knowledge, 539.
final reward, 539.
full character of, 540, 558.
lover of God and man, 542.
his self-restraint in lawful things, 543.
fasting, 544.
charity, 545.
continual devotion, 546.
long-suffering and forgiveness, 548.
Gnostics, false, tendency of, 380.
despisers of the body, 412.
God, known by science only as manifested in Christ, 438.
incomprehensible by human mind, 463.
knowledge of, a divine gift, 464.
this shown by philosophers, 464-465.
how far revealed to the heathen, 474-475.
eternal, 476.
knowledge of, in Greek philosophy, 489.
Gods of the heathen, their wickedness, 179-182.
cruelty of their worship, 183.
their temples, tombs, 184.
Goodness, divine, not inconsistent with justice, 225-227.
Grafting, illustrative of conversion, 507.
Greek, language of Christianity, 166.
type of early Christianity, 379.
poetry quoted, 469-474.
Gymnosophists of India, answers of, 488.
Hades, Christ preached to Jews in, and apostles to Gentiles, 490.
repentance in, 491.
Hair, may be trimmed, but not dyed, 286.
Hebrew names, meaning of, 439, 443, 446, 476.
Hebrews, Epistle to, translated by St. Luke, 579.
why not subscribed by St. Paul, 442, 579.
Heraclitus, quoted, 384-385, 403, 446.
Heresies, no argument against Christian belief, 550.
tested by Scripture, 551.
founded on opinion, 554.
new inventions, 556.
authors of, 556.
Heretics, their pretexts for licentiousness, 385.
claim all carnal things as lawful, 388.
condemn marriage, 389, 394.
character of, 555.
first heretics post-apostolic, 555-556.
St. John’s course regarding, 577.
Hermas, Shepherd of, quoted, 348, 357, 360, 422, 510.
Herodotus, quoted, 384-385, 403.
Homer, quoted, 384-385, 403, 469.
Hope, Christian, witnessed to by philosophers, 447.
Household life, habits of, 251.
Hymns, to Christ, 295.
to the Pœdagogus, 296.
evening, of Greek Christians, 298.
Idols, to be rejected, 519.
Images, heathen, shameful, 184-188.
Incarnation of Christ, benefits of, 202-204, 601.
Instruction, Christian, meaning of, 223.
heathen, folly of, 223.
given through the Law by the Word, 224, 234.
power of Christ’s, 225.
effects in Christians, 235.
Iota and tittle, meaning of, 578.
Irreverence, reproof of, 585.
Isaac, type of Christian joy, 214.
James, St. the Great, 579.
tradition of his martyrdom, 579.
the Just, Bishop of Jerusalem, 579.
Jarvis, Dr. S. F., Church of the Redeemed, 477.
John, St., tradition of, 574.
his Second Epistle interpreted, 577.
origin of his Gospel, 580.
St. John and the robber, story of, 603-604.
John Baptist, St., voice of the Word, 174.
Jubilee, year of, 438, 443.
Jude, St., his relationship to our Lord, 573.
Kaye, Bishop, analysis of St. Clement’s Miscellanies, 342.
Kiss of charity, abuse of, 291.
Knowledge, true, defined, 349-350, 364.
foundation in faith, 445.
by the senses, 445.
twofold, by apprehension and reason, 480.
of God, in Greek philosophy, 489.
degrees of, 507.
love of, 508.
true, in Christ only, 508.
philosophy and heresies, aids to, 509.
Laughter, abuse of, 249.
Law, penalty of, beneficent, 339.
natural and revealed, one, and divine, 341.
divine, teacher of philosophy, 367.
Lord’s day, illustrated by Greek authors, 469.
day of Christ’s resurrection, 545.
Love, Christian, how fulfils the law, 414.
extent of, 426, 430.
represses sensual passion, 430.
of man, rewards of, 601-602.
Luxury, household, forbidden to
in dress and person, 272-277.
in servants, 278.
hindrance to charity, 279.
Maiden, the model, described by Zeno, 289.
Man, pre-existent in the Divine Mind, 210.
object of God’s love, 210.
spiritual excellence of, 410.
Manliness, true Christian, 365.
Marcion, heretic, 384-385, 403, 445.
Mark, St., disciple of St. Peter, 561.
origin of his Gospel, 579.
Marriage, lawful use of, 259-263.
nature, conditions, and duty of, 377.
single commended, second permitted, 382, 403.
heretical perversions of Scripture regarding, 395, 398.
errors of Cassian refuted, 399.
its purity taught in Holy Scripture, 400, 403.
depravation of it a reproach to the Creator, 400, 403.
two heretical views of marriage to be shunned, 401.
true philosophy of, 402, 403-407.
of apostles, 533.
honourable in all, 533.
Martha of Bethany, Christ’s rebuke of, 594.
Martyrdom, why to be desired, 411, 423.
spiritual, 412.
heathen, falsely so named, 412.
not needless death, 412, 423.
blessedness of, 416.
philosophy testifies to, 418-419.
sex and condition of martyrs, 420.
errors of Basilides on, 423-424.
testimony of Scripture, 427.
of St. Clement of Rome, 428.
Menander, witness to Scripture, 446.
Milk, symbol of spiritual nourishment, 218-222.
Ministry, how chosen, 504.
orders of, 505.
commissioned by Christ,.
Miracles of Christ, mystery of, 501.
Mixed cup in the Eucharist, 242.
Mosaic Law, a preparation for Christ, 339.
fourfold character of, 340.
Moses, history of, 335.
lawgiver and general, 336-338.
tradition of his burial, 511.
assumption of, 573.
slaying the Egyptian, 585.
Music, sanctified to God, 248.
instrumental, not Christian, 249.
mystery of, 499.
Mustard seed, parable of, interpreted, 578.
Mysteries, Christian, why celebrated by night, 435.
Eleusinian, vileness of, 175-177.
Mythology, heathen, absurd and impious, 175-177, 520.
its origin, 179-180, 530.
Names, conceptions and subjects (philosophical) classified, 564.
Neighbour, who is our, 599.
New creation in Christ, meaning of, 594.
Nicetas, commentary on Job, quoted, 577.
Nicolas, deacon, name and teaching abused by Nicolaitans, 385.
Numbers, mystery of, 499, 521.
symbols of, in the Decalogue, 512-514.
Occupations of Christians, 282.
Offences to be avoided, 426.
Ointments, abuse of, 253.
Ornaments, unsuited to Christians, 267-270.
Pœdagogus, The, of Clement, object and contents of, 167.
Pantænus, teacher at Alexandria, 165-167, 343.
Parables of our Lord, mystery of, 501-502.
interpreted,—of the Labourers, 415.
Mustard Seed, 578.
Pearl, 578.
Good Samaritan, 599.
Prodigal Son, sermon on, 581-589.
Passover (last) of our Lord, date of, 565.
Paul, St., late witness of Old-Testament truth, 434, 442.
Pearl, parable of, interpreted, 578.
Perfection, distinct from completeness, 459, 478.
possible to human nature, 502.
attained by the true Gnostic alone, 502.
Peripatetic philosophy, 191.
Persecution, how understood, 598.
Peter, St., tradition of his wife’s martyrdom, 541.
Philo Judæus, his interpretation of Scripture history, 306.
Philolaus, quoted, 382, 403.
Philosophers, heathen, opinions of, respecting God, 190.
taught truth by the Scriptures, 191-192.
opinions on the chief good, 374.
Christian, self-restraint of, 370.
Philosophy, use of, in Christian teaching, 303.
Greek, a preparation for Christ, 305, 321-323, 347-348.
what is true philosophy, 308, 311.
sects of, contain half-truths, 313.
successive schools of, 313.
Greek, foreign sources of, 314-317.
posterior to the Mosaic Law, 324-333, 341.
true philosophy seeks God, 358-359, 369.
taught by divine law in piety, charity, justice, purity, 367.
taught highest good by Scripture, 375
and other things by the same, 465, 478.
object of true philosophy, 493.
character and origin, 493.
gift of God to Jew and Greek, 495, 517, 521.
cannot give perfect knowledge of God, 515.
but a preparation for such knowledge, 516.
Greek, a recreation to the Gnostic, 517.
necessary to knowledge, 518.
its objective truth, 556.
Pictures, heathen, their licentiousness, 189.
Pindar, quoted, 382, 403.
Plagiarism, of Greek poets from each other, 481-483.
of philosophers and historians, 484-486.
of Greeks from Hebrew Scriptures, 486-488.
of philosophers, from Egypt and India, 488.
Plato, on language of animals, 333.
an imitator of Moses, 338.
falsely quoted by heretics, on community of women, and depravation of the natural creation, 382, 403.
on hope, 404.
on future rewards, 416, 436, 442.
city of, in heaven, 441, 443.
witness to Scripture, 446, 470, 479.
on spiritual knowledge, 448.
a divine gift, 464.
idea of God, 465.
philosophic teaching from Scripture, 466, 469.
illustrating the Trinity, 468.
the Lord’s day, 469.
the Messiah, 470, 479.
free-will, 475.
Poets, heathen, testimony to the truth, 193.
Prayer, subject of, 533.
gestures, 534.
canonical hours, 534.
false Gnostic, ideas of, 534.
silent, 535.
why towards the East, 535.
of the wicked, 535.
of the true.
Gnostic, 535.
Prayer of St. Clement to the Pœdagogus, 295.
Predestination, ground of, 497, 524.
Priesthood of Christians, 572.
Prophets, the, teachers of the truth, 194-195.
teach by parables and enigmas, 510, 522.
Providence, special, to be believed, 312.
Punishment, a mark of God’s love, 226.
a means of salvation, 228-230.
leads to repentance, 232-233.
divine, object of, 437, 442.
Purity, law of, 259, 317, 348, 433.
Pythagoreans, falsely quoted against marriage, 385, 403.
sayings of Theano, 417, 431, 441-442.
on the idea of God, 465.
Regeneration of Christians by the Word, 357.
Religion in common life, 290.
Repentance, first and second, 361.
voluntary, 361.
what is true, 602.
Riches, true Christian, 279, 596, 600.
not to be thrown away, 594.
when profitless, 595.
want of, not salvation, 597.
how forsaken for Christ, 598.
Righteousness, true, 504.
impresses a likeness to God, 504.
in what sense attained through philosophy, 305, 323, 345-346.
Rings, for the ears, forbidden, 285.
for the hands, how allowed, 285.
signet, designs, 285.
Ruler, the young, character of, 594.
Sabbath, Jewish, right keeping of, 302.
Sacrifices, heathen, cruelty of, 183.
needless, 532.
sacrifices of prayer and praise, 532.
of the Law, 532.
Salome, apocryphal sayings of Christ to, 392.
Salvation before Christ, 428.
one to Jew and Gentile, 490.
Samaritan, good, signifies Christ, 599.
Scripture, holy, chronology of, 325-334.
threefold interpretation of, 341.
why veiled in parables, 509.
test of doctrinal truth, 550.
Segaar, Charles, annotator of St. Clement, 605.
Self-restraint of Christian philosophers, 370.
Septuagint, date and origin of, 334.
Servants, how kept by heathen, 278.
Servants, how treated by Christians, 288.
Sex, no distinction of, in instruction, 211.
Christian relations of, 419.
Sibyl, the, testimony to the truth, 192, 194, 346.
quoted, 384-385, 403.
Similitudes in instruction, use of, 281.
Sin, voluntary and involuntary, 361.
power to repent of, 361.
not to be predicated of the divine nature, 363.
Sleep, Christian use of, 257.
Socrates, on future rewards, 436, 442.
Sodomites, sin and punishment of, 282.
Son of God, Saviour and Lord of all, 524.
order of His government, 525.
not author of evil, 526.
Sophists, foolishness of, 304, 309.
Sophocles, witness to Scripture, 446.
Speech, subordinate to action, 310.
Spirits in prison, preached to, 490.
Stationary days, fasts of, 544.
Stromata, The, of Clement, object and character of, 168.
meaning of term, 408.
Symbols, Pythagorean, in philosophic proverbs, 450.
Egyptian, 454.
of philosophical language, 455.
of the Mosaic Law, 456.
reasons for, 457.
apostolic opinion of, 459.
Jewish, do not sanction image worship, 453, 477.
Tabernacle and its furniture, symbolic meaning of, 452.
Tatian on marriage, errors of, 396, 403-407.
Teachers of St. Clement, 301-302.
Teaching, right motives in, 300.
Temperance, in living, 251.
in conversation, 252.
Temple furniture, symbolism of, 585.
Temples, in what sense holy, 530.
heathen, tombs, 184.
Theano the Pythagorean, sayings of, 417, 431, 441-442.
Theognis, quoted, 382, 403.
Timothy, Epistle to, rejected by certain heretics, 359.
Tithes and firstfruits, maintenance of priests under the Law, 363.
Tradition of doctrine from the apostles, 301, 343.
unwritten, 494.
Trinity, doctrine of, illustrated by Plato, 468.
Truth, divine, contrasted with heathen fable, 171.
its power over men, 172.
spiritual nature of, 464.
attained through faith, as the gift of God, 519.
given to all, 522.
object of true philosophy, 556.
Unbelief, sin and danger of, 195-197.
Unity of Jew and Greek in Christ, 504.
“Unknown God,” Athenian inscription to, 464, 478.
Valentinus, heretic, errors of, 355, 359, 425, 445.
Vestments of the high priest, symbolism of, 453.
Wife, character of a good, 432.
Wine, how used by Christians, 243.
how abused to drunkenness, 244.
Christ’s example in, 246.
Wisdom, object of true philosophy, 492.
manifold, 518.
Witnesses, three earthly, interpreted, 576.
Women, right adorning of, 287.
chaste habits in, 288.
behaviour at church, 290.
examples of perfection in, 431.
Word, the, pre-existent, incarnate, teacher, 173.
restorer and guide of man, 209.
healer of the soul, 210.
symbolized by milk, 219, by bread and by blood, 221.
eternal and uncreate, 573.
Worship, true nature of, 532.
Xanthus, quoted, 383, 403.
Xenocrates, on the idea of God, 465, 486.
Zeno, description of a model maiden, 289.
Zephaniah (apocryphal), vision of heaven, 462.
Genesis
1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1-3 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:27-28 1:28 1:28 1:28 1:28 1:29 1:31 2:4 2:4-5 2:7 2:8 2:8 2:18 2:23 2:24 3:1 3:5 3:20 3:21 3:24 4:1 4:1-2 4:25 6:1-2 6:1-4 6:3 9:2-3 9:23 14:14 14:23 15:6 16:6 17:1-2 17:3 17:4 18:6 18:6 18:8 18:12 18:22-23 18:25 18:27 20:12 20:12 21:10 22:3-4 23:4 23:6 24:16 26:8 28:15 29:9 30:37 32:24 32:30 33:11 33:11 46:3 46:27 49:6 49:11 49:11
Exodus
2:10 3:8 3:14 3:14 3:16 3:18-19 10:28 15:1 16:36 17 19:15 19:20 20 20:2 20:2-3 20:2-3 20:3 20:4 20:5-6 20:7 20:12 20:13 20:13-16 20:14 20:14 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:20 21:24 21:33 21:36 22:1 22:21 23:1 23:2 23:4 23:6 25:23 25:24 28:3 28:3 28:3 28:12 28:29 29:45 31:2-5 31:6 32:6 32:9-10 32:32 32:33-34 32:33-34 33:1 33:10-11 33:11 33:11 33:18 33:18 33:20 34:2 34:29
Leviticus
2:1 11:13-14 15:18 15:29 16:23-24 17:7 18:1-5 18:20 18:22 19:9 19:10 19:18 19:23 19:29 19:33-34 20:10 20:24 21:9 25:2-7 26 26:12 26:24 26:30 26:30
Numbers
6:9 6:12 11:26-27 15:30 17:7 17:8 20 23:22 24:3-4 24:6-7 24:15 24:16 25:1-9 25:8
Deuteronomy
4:9 4:12 4:19 4:19 5 6:2 6:4 6:4 6:5 6:5 6:13 8:2-3 8:3 8:3 8:5 8:18 10:12 10:16-17 10:19 13:4 13:4 14 14:7 14:12 14:21 18:15 18:15 18:19 20:5-7 20:10 21:10-13 21:11-13 22:3 22:5 22:10 22:12 22:22 22:22 23:1 23:7 23:17 24:10-11 24:19 24:20-21 25:4 25:13 25:15 26:17-18 27:15 29:17 30:6 30:15 30:15 30:15 30:15-16 30:19 30:19 30:20 31:20 32:5-6 32:8-9 32:10-12 32:13-14 32:20 32:21 32:23-25 32:39 32:39 32:41-42 33:5
Joshua
Judges
1 Samuel
1:13 1:13 3:3-4 3:11 3:14 8:13 11:18 16:7 16:12
2 Samuel
1 Kings
6:7 7:13 7:40 8:27 13:1-2 15:12 19 19:4 19:6
2 Kings
2 Chronicles
Nehemiah
Job
1:1 1:1 1:21 1:21 5:7 5:13 5:25 9:9 11:2 14:3 14:4 14:4-5 16:4-5 19:25 28 28:22 42:2-3 42:6 42:8
Psalms
1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1-2 1:1-3 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:4 1:4 1:4-5 1:5-6 1:6 2:4 2:8 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:10 2:12 2:12 3:5 3:13 3:14 4:2 4:2 4:4 4:5 4:6-7 5:3-4 5:6 5:7-8 6:8 7:9 8:2 8:3 8:4 8:5 8:5 8:8 9:9 9:11 9:15 9:17 10:2 10:3 10:3 11:6 11:7 11:9 11:10 12:3-5 12:5 12:6 12:6 12:7 12:9 12:9 12:9 13:1 14:1 14:3 15 16:9-11 16:11 17:3-4 18:6 18:9 18:11-12 18:18 18:18 18:19 18:19-20 18:20 18:24 18:25-26 18:26 18:43-45 19:1 19:2 19:2-3 19:4 19:9 19:10 19:10 19:62 19:66 19:66 19:96 19:125 19:130 19:164 22:22 22:26 23:4 24:1 24:1 24:2 24:3-6 25:4-5 25:5 26:2 26:5 28:1 29:3 32 32:1 32:1-2 32:10 33 33:1-3 33:2 33:2 33:2 33:6 33:6 34:8 34:8 34:9 34:11 34:11 34:12 34:13-14 34:15-16 34:15-17 35:7 36:1 36:5 37:25 37:35-37 39:7-10 39:12 41:2 41:5 44:5 45 45:1 45:2 45:4 45:7-8 45:9 45:14 47:20 48:8 48:10-11 48:12 48:13 48:21 48:21 49:1-2 49:3 49:6 49:12 49:16-17 49:20 50:3 50:5 50:5 50:7 50:13 50:14-15 50:21 50:21 51:1-4 51:6 51:6 51:7-12 51:8 51:17 51:17 51:17 51:19 58:4-5 58:4-5 62:4 62:8 62:12 65:4 68:8 69:4 70:4 72:9 73:1 73:1 78:1-2 78:2 78:8 78:10 78:32-35 78:38 82:1 82:6 82:6 82:6 82:6 84:1 86:2-3 89:14 89:21 90:9-10 94:11 95:7 95:8-9 95:9-11 96:1 96:5
Proverbs
1:1-4 1:2-6 1:5-6 1:6 1:7 1:7 1:7 1:7 1:10-12 1:14 1:15-17 1:17-18 1:18-19 1:24-25 1:33 1:33 1:33 2 2:1-2 2:3-5 2:4-5 2:6 2:21-22 3:1 3:3 3:3 3:5 3:5 3:5-7 3:7 3:8 3:11 3:11-12 3:11-12 3:12 3:13 3:13 3:13-15 3:16 3:18 3:19 3:23 3:23 3:27 4:8-9 4:10-11 4:18 4:21 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:2-3 5:3-5 5:5 5:5-6 5:8 5:9 5:11 5:15 5:16 5:20 5:20 5:22 6:1-2 6:6 6:6 6:8 6:8 6:9 6:11 6:23 6:23 6:27-29 7:2 8:4 8:6 8:9 8:9-11 8:10-11 8:17 8:19 8:22 8:22 8:27 8:30 8:34 9:3 9:10 9:11 9:12 9:13-18 9:17 10:4 10:4 10:4 10:4-5 10:7 10:8 10:10 10:10 10:10 10:12 10:14 10:14 10:17 10:19 10:19 10:20 10:21 10:24 10:31 10:31 11:1 11:5 11:13 11:14 11:21 11:22 11:23 11:24 11:24 12:4 13:5 13:6 13:8 13:8 13:9 13:11 13:11 13:12 13:24 14:3 14:6 14:8 14:16 14:26 14:27 15:8 15:14 15:17 16 16:21 17:6 19:11 19:17 19:17 19:17 19:23 19:29 20:1 20:27 20:28 21:1 21:10 21:11 21:26 22:3-4 22:20-21 23:3 23:13 23:14 23:20 23:21 23:29-30 24:21-22 24:28 26:5 27:10 27:14 27:23 27:25-26 28:4-5 28:5 28:14 28:14 29:3 30:2 30:3 31:19-20 31:22 31:26-28 31:30
Ecclesiastes
Isaiah
1:2 1:2-3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:4 1:4 1:11 1:11 1:11-14 1:16 1:16-17 1:16-18 1:18 1:19 1:19 1:19-20 1:20 1:22 1:23 2:3 3:16-17 3:19 4:4 4:4 5:1 5:5 5:20-21 5:21 7:9 7:9 7:9 7:15 8:1 8:18 9:6 10:10-11 10:14 10:14 11:1 11:1-2 11:3 11:4 11:7 11:10 13:2 13:10 20:2 22:13-14 28:16 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:14 29:15 29:15 30:1 30:9 30:30 31:6 32:8 32:20 36:7-8 36:10 40:3 40:6-8 40:6-8 40:10 40:11 40:12 40:13 40:15 40:15 40:15 40:18 40:18 40:18-19 40:22 40:25 40:25 40:26 40:28 41:4 42:5 42:10 43:2 43:10-11 43:20 43:26 44:4 44:6 45:2 45:3 45:3 45:3 45:12 45:19-20 45:21 45:21-23 50:1 50:4 50:5 50:9 52:15 53:1 53:2-3 53:3 53:6 54:1 54:1 54:17 54:17 55:1 55:1 55:6 55:6-7 55:9 56:2-3 56:3 56:3-5 56:7 57:6-7 57:21 58:5 58:5-8 58:6 58:6 58:7-9 58:9 58:9 59:7-8 59:8 61:1-2 62:11 63:1 64:1-2 64:1-2 64:4 65:15-16 65:22 65:23 65:24 66:1 66:1 66:1 66:1 66:1 66:2 66:5 66:12-13
Jeremiah
1:5 1:7 1:16 1:20 2:12-13 2:24 2:27 3:3-4 3:8 3:9 3:19 4:30 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:8-9 5:11-12 6 6:9 6:9 6:10 6:16 6:16 6:16 7:22-23 8:2 8:6 8:22 9:23 9:23-24 9:26 10:2 10:12 10:12 10:12-13 12:1 12:9 13:1 13:20 13:24-27 20:14 20:18 22:29-30 23:23 23:23-24 23:23-24 26:20 31:31-32 31:33-34 33:5 49:19 51:17-18
Lamentations
Ezekiel
1:1 1:28 2:6-7 2:9 16:11 17:5-6 18:4-9 18:4-9 18:21 18:23 18:23 18:23 18:23 18:32 18:32 32:7 33:11 33:11 33:11 34:3 34:4-6 34:14-16 34:14-16 39:29 44:2 44:9-10 44:27
Daniel
1:1 2:27-28 4:10 4:23 5:7 5:29 6:22 7:9 7:9 8:13 8:13 8:13-14 9:24-27 10:9 10:21 12:11-12 12:12
Hosea
2:8 2:13 4:14 5:2 6:6 6:6 10:12 12:6 14:9 14:9
Joel
Amos
2:6 4:11 4:13 4:13 5:13 6:4 6:6
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
1 1:10-11 1:14 2:17 3:1 3:3 3:15 4:1
Matthew
1:17 3:7 3:7 3:9 3:11 3:12 4:4 4:4 4:17 5 5 5:3 5:3 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:7 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:9 5:9 5:9 5:10 5:10 5:13 5:13 5:13-14 5:15 5:16 5:16 5:17 5:18 5:19 5:20 5:20 5:20 5:22 5:23-24 5:24 5:25 5:25 5:27-28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:29 5:32 5:32 5:32 5:36 5:39 5:40 5:42 5:42 5:44 5:44 5:44 5:44-45 5:44-45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:46 5:46 5:48 5:48 6:2 6:3 6:6 6:9 6:9 6:10 6:12 6:14 6:16-17 6:19 6:19 6:19 6:19 6:20-21 6:21 6:24 6:24 6:24 6:25 6:30 6:31 6:32 6:32-33 6:33 6:33 6:34 6:34 7:1-2 7:6 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:7-8 7:13 7:14 7:18 7:21 7:21 7:21 8 8:20 8:22 8:22 8:26 9:2 9:13 9:13 9:22 9:22 9:29 9:29 9:37-38 10:5 10:16 10:16 10:22 10:22-39 10:23 10:24-25 10:27 10:27 10:28 10:30 10:32 10:33 10:39 10:39 10:40 10:40-42 10:41 10:41-42 11:3-6 11:4 11:11 11:12 11:12 11:13 11:15 11:15 11:16-17 11:18-19 11:19 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:28 11:28 11:28 11:28-30 11:28-30 11:29-30 12:31 12:34-35 12:37 12:37 12:45 13:5 13:8 13:11 13:11 13:13 13:16-17 13:21 13:28 13:29 13:31 13:31 13:32 13:33 13:34 13:44 13:44 13:46 13:47-48 15:8 15:8 15:11 15:11 15:11 15:14 15:18 15:19 16:13 16:17 16:26 17:5 17:17 17:20 17:20 17:27 18:3 18:3 18:3 18:3 18:3 18:3 18:4 18:6 18:10 18:10 18:11-12 18:20 18:20 18:20 18:32 18:33 19:3 19:6 19:6 19:6 19:9 19:10-11 19:11-12 19:11-12 19:11-12 19:12 19:12 19:12 19:12 19:12 19:14 19:16 19:17 19:17 19:17 19:20 19:21 19:21 19:21 19:23 19:23-24 19:24 19:24 19:29 20:14 20:16 20:21 20:21 20:21-23 20:22 20:23 20:28 20:28 21:9 21:12-13 21:16 21:22 21:31 22:12 22:13 22:21 22:21 22:30 22:30 22:36-38 22:37 22:37 22:39 22:39 22:39 22:40 23:4 23:6 23:8-10 23:9 23:9 23:9 23:25-26 23:27 23:35 23:37 23:37 23:37 23:37-39 24:19 24:37 24:42 24:46-51 25:10 25:15 25:30 25:32 25:33 25:34 25:34-36 25:35 25:35-36 25:40 25:40 25:40 25:41 25:46 26:7 26:17 26:23 26:24 26:24 26:29 26:41 26:64 27:29 27:52
Mark
1:6 1:7 1:7 1:40 2:11 4:11 4:21 5:34 5:34 7:6 8:36 9:36 10:2 10:9 10:9 10:17 10:17-31 10:23 10:23 10:25 10:29-30 10:31 10:45 10:48 11:23 12:17 12:23 12:39 12:39 13:17 13:36 14:62 16:25
Luke
2:24 3:1-2 3:7 3:7 3:8 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:17 3:22 3:23 5:29 6 6:1 6:22 6:27-28 6:27-29 6:29 6:30 6:30 6:31 6:32 6:34 6:35-36 6:36 6:37-38 6:40 6:43 6:46 6:46 6:46 6:46 7:19 7:22 7:23 7:25 7:28 7:47 8:10 8:14 8:17 9:25 9:55 9:58 9:60 9:62 10:2 10:4 10:16 10:19 10:21 10:21 10:22 10:22 10:22 10:22 10:22 10:27 10:27 10:29 10:36-37 10:41-42 11:4 11:9 11:13 11:26 11:40 11:41 11:43 11:43 11:46 12:3 12:5 12:8 12:11-12 12:16-20 12:19-20 12:20 12:22-23 12:22-23 12:24 12:24 12:27 12:28 12:30-31 12:32 12:33 12:33 12:35-37 12:42 12:47-48 12:48 12:58 13 13:19 13:32 13:34 14:8 14:10 14:11 14:11 14:12-13 14:15 14:16 14:26 14:26 14:26 14:26-27 15 15 15:7 15:10 15:10 15:11 16:9 16:9 16:13 16:13 16:16 16:17 16:22 17:3-4 17:5 17:6 17:28 18:8 18:18 18:18 18:24 18:27 19:8-10 19:15 19:20 19:22 19:26 19:45-46 20:25 20:34 20:34 20:35 20:35 20:35 20:36 20:46 21:23 22:24 22:31-32 22:43 24:25 24:31 24:41-44
John
1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3-4 1:3-4 1:4 1:4 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:9 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:14 1:16 1:17 1:17 1:18 1:23 1:27 1:29 1:29 1:36 1:47 2:13-17 2:19-21 3:3 3:6 3:15-16 3:18 3:18 3:19 3:29 3:30 3:33 3:36 3:36 4:1 4:6 4:13-14 4:23 4:24 4:32-34 5:17 5:19 5:24 5:25 6:27 6:27 6:27 6:32-33 6:34 6:40 6:51 6:53-54 6:55 6:63 7:16 7:17 7:17 7:18 7:18 8:12 8:24 8:32-36 8:35-36 8:44 8:57 10:1-3 10:8 10:9 10:11 10:11 10:11 10:16 10:16 10:27 11:43 12:23-26 12:25 12:40 13:5 13:33 13:33 13:33 14:6 14:6 14:26 15:1-2 15:11-12 16:7 16:27 16:33 17:17 17:21-23 17:23 17:24-26 17:25 20:19 20:29 21:4-5
Acts
1:7 2:26-28 2:41 3:1 3:14 3:17 3:19 3:21 4:12 5:1 6:1 6:2 6:5 7:22 7:24 8:17 8:30 10:10-15 10:34-35 11:26 12:13 13:1 14:12 14:23 15:23 15:24 15:28 15:29 16:16-19 16:25 17 17:18 17:18 17:21 17:22-23 17:22-28 17:24-25 17:30 20:29-31 26:17-18
Romans
1:11 1:11-12 1:17 1:17 1:20 1:21 1:22 1:23 1:25 1:26-27 1:28 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:8-9 2:14 2:14-15 2:14-15 2:17-20 2:21 2:24 2:25 2:26 2:29 3:5-6 3:8 3:16-17 3:18 3:20 3:20 3:21-22 3:29 3:29-30 4 4:3 4:3 4:5 4:7-8 4:7-8 4:9 4:22 5:3-5 5:4-5 5:12-14 5:13 6:2 6:5 6:6 6:6 6:6-7 6:13 6:14 6:14 6:15 6:16 6:20-23 6:22 7:3 7:4 7:4 7:4 7:6 7:7 7:12 7:12 7:12 7:12 7:14 7:17 7:18 7:20 7:23 7:24 7:24 7:24-25 8:2 8:2-4 8:5-7 8:7-8 8:8 8:9 8:9 8:9 8:10 8:10 8:10-11 8:12 8:13 8:13 8:14 8:15 8:15 8:17 8:17 8:18 8:22 8:22-24 8:26 8:28 8:28-29 8:29 8:30 8:35 8:36-37 8:38 8:38-39 9:14 9:15 10:2-3 10:4 10:4 10:8 10:9 10:10 10:10 10:10-11 10:10-11 10:14 10:15 10:17 10:17 10:18 10:19 10:20-21 11:11 11:16 11:22 11:33 11:33 11:36 12:1 12:2 12:8 12:8 12:8-13 12:9 12:9 12:9-10 12:11 12:14 12:17 12:18 12:21 13:3-4 13:7-8 13:8 13:8-10 13:9 13:10 13:10 13:11 13:12-13 13:12-14 13:13 13:14 14:2 14:3 14:3 14:6 14:16-17 14:17 14:17 14:19 14:20 14:21 14:21 15:4 15:13-14 15:29 16:14 16:16 16:19 16:26-27 600
1 Corinthians
1:9 1:9 1:19 1:19 1:19-20 1:20 1:21-24 1:22 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:26-27 1:31 2:5 2:5 2:6-7 2:6-7 2:6-8 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9-10 2:10 2:10 2:11-12 2:13 2:13 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:14-15 2:15 3:1 3:1-3 3:1-3 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:3 3:8-9 3:9-15 3:10-13 3:11 3:12 3:13-15 3:16 3:16-17 3:19-20 3:19-20 4:9 4:11 4:12 4:13 4:15 4:15 4:19 4:19-20 4:21 5:5 5:5 5:7 5:7 5:7 5:7-8 5:8 5:11 5:11 6:1 6:1-2 6:7-8 6:9 6:9-10 6:9-11 6:11 6:12 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:15 6:16 6:18 7:1-2 7:2 7:3 7:3 7:3-5 7:5 7:5 7:5 7:5 7:5 7:5 7:5 7:5 7:5 7:7 7:7 7:8 7:9 7:9 7:10-11 7:10-12 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:24 7:25-28 7:27 7:28 7:29 7:29-30 7:30-35 7:32 7:32-34 7:33 7:35 7:35 7:35 7:38 7:38 7:39 7:39 7:39-40 7:40 8:1 8:1 8:1-3 8:4 8:6 8:7 8:7 8:7 8:7-8 8:8 8:8 8:9 8:11 8:11 8:12 8:13 9:5 9:14 9:19 9:19 9:19-25 9:20-21 9:22 9:24-27 9:25 9:27 9:27 10:1 10:3 10:4 10:7 10:8 10:13 10:16 10:20 10:23 10:23 10:23 10:23 10:24 10:25 10:25 10:26 10:26 10:26 10:26 10:26 10:27 10:28 10:28 10:28-31 10:29 10:30 10:31 10:31 11:1 11:2 11:3 11:3 11:3 11:3 11:5 11:7 11:8 11:10 11:10 11:11 11:14-15 11:19 11:20 11:21 11:21-22 11:22 11:27-28 11:31-32 11:32 11:33-34 12:7-11 12:11 12:12 12:13 13:1 13:2 13:2 13:3 13:3 13:3 13:4 13:4-8 13:5 13:7 13:7 13:7 13:7-8 13:11 13:11 13:12 13:12 13:13 14 14 14:6 14:9-11 14:13 14:20 14:32 14:37 15:6 15:8 15:18 15:32-33 15:34 15:38 15:41 15:41 15:41 15:44 15:44 15:44 15:50 15:50 15:54 15:55 16:2 16:13
2 Corinthians
1:9-10 1:12 1:22 2:14-16 3:14 3:14 4:7 4:8-9 4:18 4:18 5:1-3 5:1-4 5:7 5:7 5:7 5:9 5:10 5:16 5:16 5:16-17 6:3-7 6:4 6:5 6:7 6:10 6:10 6:11 6:11 6:11 6:14-15 6:14-16 6:16-18 6:17 6:17-18 7:1 7:1 7:1 7:1-11 7:10 8:12 8:12-14 8:20-21 9:7 9:13 9:15 10:3 10:3-5 10:5 10:5 10:12 10:13-15 10:15-16 10:17 11:2 11:2 11:3 11:3 11:3 11:6 11:14 11:23 11:31 12:1-11 12:1-11 13:5
Galatians
1:6-9 1:8-9 2:9 2:17 2:19-20 3:3 3:12 3:19 3:23 3:23-25 3:24 3:24 3:24 3:24 3:24 3:24 3:24 3:26-28 3:28 4:1-3 4:1-5 4:7 4:9 4:16 4:19 4:30 5:1 5:5-6 5:10 5:13 5:16-17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:19 5:20 5:21 5:24 5:24-25 5:25 5:25-26 5:26 6:2 6:7 6:8 6:8 6:8-9 6:10 6:14 6:14
Ephesians
1 1:4-5 1:13 2:2 2:3 2:3-5 2:5 2:5 2:11 2:12 2:12 2:13 2:14-16 2:20 2:20-21 3:3-4 3:3-5 3:5 3:9-10 3:10 3:10-11 3:14-15 4 4:11-12 4:11-13 4:13 4:13 4:13 4:13 4:13-15 4:14 4:17-19 4:20-24 4:20-24 4:22-24 4:24 4:24 4:24-25 4:25 4:25-29 4:26 4:26-27 4:27 4:27 4:29 4:29 4:30 4:30 5:1 5:1-4 5:3 5:3-4 5:4 5:5 5:5-11 5:8 5:14 5:14 5:19 5:21-29 5:23 5:26 5:27 6:11 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:13-14 6:14-17 6:15 6:15 6:17
Philippians
1:7 1:9-10 1:13-14 1:20-24 1:29-30 2:2 2:6-7 2:7 2:7 2:10 2:10-11 2:20-21 3:12-14 3:15 3:19 3:20 3:20 3:20 4:3 4:5 4:8-9 4:11-13 4:18
Colossians
1:9-11 1:15-16 1:25-27 1:27 1:28 2:2-3 2:2-3 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:6-7 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:11 2:18 2:18 2:23 3:2 3:4 3:5 3:5-6 3:8-9 3:10 3:12 3:12-15 3:14 3:15 3:16 3:16 3:18-25 4:2 4:2 4:3-4 4:5 4:6 4:9
1 Thessalonians
2:4 2:5-7 2:6-7 2:17 4:3-8 4:9 4:17 5:5-8 5:6-8 5:13 5:13 5:13-15 5:20 5:21
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
1:5 1:7 1:8 1:9 1:9 1:18-19 1:20 2:1-2 2:2 2:6 2:9 2:9-10 3:2 3:2 3:4 3:15 3:16 4:1 4:1-3 4:3 4:3-4 4:4 4:5 4:6-8 4:8 4:8 4:10 4:10 4:12 5:6 5:8 5:9 5:10 5:14-15 5:18 5:21 5:21 5:23 6:2 6:3-5 6:6 6:10 6:13 6:16 6:16 6:16 6:20 6:20 6:20-21
2 Timothy
1:7-8 1:13-14 2:1-2 2:2 2:2 2:14 2:14 2:16 2:17 2:23 2:23 3:2 3:15 3:15 3:16-17
Titus
1:5 1:6 1:10 1:12 1:12 1:12-13 1:15 1:16 2:3-5 2:11-13 2:14 3:3-5
Philemon
Hebrews
1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:14 2:11 2:14-16 3:12 4:8-9 4:12 5:12 5:12-14 5:13 5:14 5:14 5:14 5:14 6:2 6:4-6 6:6-8 6:11-20 7:1-3 7:2 8:8-10 8:10-12 9:1 9:14 9:24 10:25 10:26-27 10:26-27 10:32-39 10:39 11:1-2 11:3 11:3-4 11:6 11:25 11:25 11:26-27 11:32 11:36-37 11:36-40 12:5-6 12:21 12:28 13:4 13:5 13:14 13:14-16 13:17
James
1:2 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:6-8 1:9-11 1:27 2:7 2:7 2:8 2:8 2:19 2:23 2:26 3:5-10 3:11 3:16 4:3 4:6 4:6 4:7 4:11 4:12 5:1-4 5:9 5:12 5:19-20 5:20
1 Peter
1:6-9 1:10 1:10-12 1:12 1:12 1:14-16 1:17-19 1:19 1:20 1:20 1:21-22 1:22 1:23 1:25 2:1-3 2:4-8 2:5 2:5 2:9 2:11-12 2:12 2:15 2:16 2:17 2:17 2:18 2:23 2:24 3:1-4 3:8 3:12 3:13 3:15 3:18 3:19 3:19-20 3:20 3:20 3:21 3:22 4:3 4:3 4:5 4:6 4:8 4:8 4:8 4:8 4:8 4:9 4:12-14 4:13 4:17 5:5 5:5 5:7 5:10
2 Peter
1 John
1:1 1:2 1:5 1:6-7 1:7 1:10 2:1 2:2 2:2-6 2:3 2:4 2:5 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:10 2:12-14 2:15 2:16 2:17 2:18-19 2:19 2:20 2:20-27 2:22 2:23 2:27 2:29 3:1 3:2 3:8 3:9 3:9 3:10 3:14-15 3:14-15 3:15 3:16 3:18-19 3:19-21 3:20 3:21 3:24 4:8 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:18 4:18 4:18 4:18 5:3 5:3 5:6 5:8 5:11-12 5:14 5:16-17 5:19 5:20
2 John
Jude
1:1 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:5 1:6 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:8 1:8-17 1:9 1:10 1:11 1:12 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:19 1:20 1:22 1:22 1:23 1:23 1:23 1:23 1:24
Revelation
1:4 1:8 3:1 3:1-5 3:4-5 4:4 5:6 6:9 6:11 7:4 7:7 7:14 8:3 9:3 9:10 10:4 11:1 11:7 12:7 13:18 14:4 17:3 19:8 19:10 20:15 21:6 21:11 21:14 21:16 22:12
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
2:12 2:16 2:22 2:25 3:1 3:2-4 3:5-7 3:8 3:9 3:14 4:17 5:3-5 6:7 6:10 6:12-15 6:17-18 6:17-20 7:10 7:16 7:17 7:17-18 7:20 7:21 7:22 7:24 11:24 14:2-3 16:26
Baruch
2 Maccabees
2 Esdras
Sirach
1:1 1:18 1:21-22 1:27 3:29 6:33 7:23-24 9:7 9:8 9:8 9:9 9:9 9:15 9:16 9:18 11:4 11:29 14:1 15:10 16:12 16:12 16:12 18:13-14 18:30 18:32 19:2-3 19:5 19:22 19:29-30 20:5 20:8 20:15 21:6 21:20 21:21 22:6-8 23:4-6 23:18-19 25:6 26:8 26:9 27:12 30:8 31:16-18 31:19 31:20 31:25 31:26 31:27 31:29 31:31 32:3-4 32:8 32:11 32:21 33:6 33:15 34:14-15 38:1-2 38:8 39:13-14 39:26-27 43:11
i iii 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 436 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 607 608 609 610 613 614 615 616 617 619 620 621 622