to early Christian history that he has vindicated Marcion from the
excessive disparagement which has resulted from the blind adoption of the
vituperations of Tertullian: see especially his _Dogmengeschichte_. Bd.
i. pp. 226 sqq., 2te aufl.
[371] 1. 22: cf. 4. 20.
[372] Hippol. 10. 32, 33.
[373] ap. Euseb. _H. E._ 6. 19.
[374] _De princip._ 2. 9. 1, 6.
[375] _De princip._ 1. 2. 2.
[376] _Ibid._ 1. 2. 2, 10.
[377] _Ibid._ 1. 3. 5, 6, 8.
[378] _Ibid._ 2. 6. 3.
[379] _Ibid._ 3. 5. 3.
[380] _Ibid._ 2. 9. 4.
[381] Aetius ap. Plut. _de plac. phil._ 2. 1. 1 (Diels, p. 327),
Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ὠνόμασε τὴν τῶν ὅλων περιοχὴν κόσμον ἐκ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ
τάξεως.
[382] Aetius, _ibid._ 1. 25 (Diels, p. 321), Πυθαγόρας ἀνάγκην ἔφη
περικεῖσθαι τῷ κόσμῳ· Παρμενίδης καὶ Δημόκριτος πάντα κατὰ ἀνάγκην.
[383] For the numerous passages which prove these statements,
reference may be made to Nägelsbach, _Homerische Theologie_, 2. 2. 3;
_Nachhomerische Theologie_, 3. 2. 2.
[384] Aetius, _ut supra_, 1. 27 (Diels, p. 322), Ἡράκλειτος πάντα καθ’
εἱμαρμένην, τὴν δὲ αὐτὴν ὑπάρχειν καὶ ἀνάγκην: the identification of
ἀνάγκη and εἱμαρμένη is also made by Parmenides and Democritus in a
continuation of the passage quoted above. But in much later times a
distinction was sometimes drawn between the two words, ἀνάγκη being used
of the subjective necessity of a proposition of which the contradictory
is unthinkable: Alex. Aphrodis _Quæst. Nat._ 2. 5 (p. 96, ed. Spengel),
τέσσαρα γοῦν τὰ δὶς δύο ἐξ ἀνάγκης, οὐ μὴν καθ’ εἱμαρμένην εἴ γε ἐν τοῖς
γενομένοις τὸ καθ’ εἱμαρμένην; but, on the other hand, οἷς καθ’ εἱρμὸν
αἰτιῶν γινομένοις τὸ ἀντικείμενον ἀδύνατος, πάντα εἴη ἂν καθ’ εἱμαρμένην.
[385] Nägelsbach, _Nachhomerische Theologie_, p. 142.
[386] Hesiod, _Theog._ 218, 904.
[387] Chrysippus, ap. Theodoret. _Gr. affect. curat._ 6. 14, εἶναι δὲ τὴν
εἱμαρμένην κίνησιν ἁΐδιον συνεχῆ καὶ τεταγμένην: so, in other words, ap.
Aul. Gell. 6. 2. 3.
[388] Aetius ap. Plut. _de placit. philos._ 1. 28, οἱ Στωικοὶ εἱρμὸν
αἰτιῶν: Philo, _de mut. nom._ 23 (i. 598), ἀκολουθία καὶ ἀναλογία τῶν
συμπάντων, εἱρμὸν ἔχουσα ἀδιάλυτον: Cic. _de divin._ 1. 55, ‘ordinem
seriemque causarum cum causa causæ nexa rem ex se gignat.’
[389] The Stoical definition of a πόλις was σύστημα καὶ πλῆθος ἀνθρώπων
ὑπὸ νόμου διοικούμενον, Clem. Alex. _Strom._ 4. 26; cf. Arius Didymus,
ap. Diels, p. 464.
[390] The idea is found in almost all Stoical writers: Plutarch; _de
Alex. Magn. virt._ 6, speaks of ἡ πολὺ θαυμαζομένη πολιτεία τοῦ τὴν
Στωικῶν αἵρεσιν καταβαλομένου Ζήνωνος: Chrysippus ap. Phædr. Epicur. _de
nat. Deorum_, ed. Petersen, p. 19: Muson. _Frag._ 5, ed. Peerlk. p. 164
(from Stob. _Flor._ 40), τοῦ Διὸς πόλεως ἣ συνέστηκεν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων καὶ
θεῶν: Epict. _Diss._ 1. 9. 4; 2. 13. 6; 3. 22. 4; 3. 24. 10: most fully
in Arius Didymus ap. Euseb. _Præp. Evang._ 15. 15. 4, οὕτω καὶ ὁ κόσμος
οἱονεὶ πόλις ἐστὶν ἐκ θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων συνεστῶσα, τῶν μὲν θεῶν τὴν
ἡγεμονίαν ἐχόντων τῶν δ’ ἀνθρώπων ὑποτεταγμένων.
[391] Philo, _de Josepho_, 6 (ii. 46), λόγος δέ ἐστι φύσεως προστακτικὸς
μὲν ὧν πρακτέον ἀπαγορευτικὸς δὲ ὧν οὐ πρακτέον ... προσθῆκαι μὲν γὰρ οἱ
κατὰ πόλεις νόμοι τοῦ τῆς φύσεως ὀρθοῦ λόγου.
[392] Epict. _Diss._ 3. 22. 5.
[393] Epict. _Diss._ 1. 1. 10; cf. Seneca, _de Provid._ 5. 7, ‘non potest
artifex mutare materiam.’ But Epictetus sometimes makes it a question,
not of possibility, but of will, e.g. _Diss._ 4. 3. 10.
[394] The data for the long history of the moral conceptions of Greek
religion which are briefly indicated above are far too numerous to
be given in a note: the student is referred to Nägelsbach, _Die
Nachhomerische Theologie_, i. 17-58. One may note the list of titles
applied to God, e.g. in Dio Chrysostom, and the diminishing use of
ἱλάσκεσθαι.
[395] Epict. _Diss._ 1. 6.
[396] _Diss._ 3. 11. 1.
[397] _Diss._ 3. 24. 42, 43.
[398] Destiny is Reason: Heraclitus ap. Aet. _Placit._ in Plut. _de
placit. philos._ 1. 28. 1; Stob. _Ecl._ 1. 5. 15 (Diels, p. 323), οὐσίαν
εἱμαρμένης λόγον τὸν διὰ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ παντὸς διήκοντα: Chrysippus,
_ibid._ εἱμαρμένη ἐστὶν ὁ τοῦ κόσμου λόγος ἢ λόγος τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ
προνοίᾳ διοικουμένων ἢ λόγος καθ’ ὃν τὰ μὲν γεγονότα γέγονε τὰ δὲ
γινόμενα γίνεται τὰ δὲ γενησόμενα γενήσεται: Zeno ap. Ar. Did. _Epit.
phys._ 20, in Stob. _Ecl._ 1. 11. 5 (Diels, p. 458), τὸν τοῦ παντὸς λόγον
ὃν ἔνιοι ἑιμαρμένην καλοῦσιν.
[399] Destiny, or Reason, is Providence: Chrysippus, in the quotation
given in the preceding note: Zeno ap. Aet. _Placit._ in Stob. _Ecl._ 1.
5. 15 (Diels, p. 322).
[400] Destiny, Reason, Providence, is God, or the Will of God: Chrysippus
in Plut. _de Stoic. repug._ 34. 5, ὅτι δ’ ἡ κοινὴ φύσις καὶ ὁ κοινὸς τῆς
φύσεως λόγος εἱμαρμένη καὶ πρόνοια καὶ Ζεύς ἐστιν οὐδὲ τοὺς ἀντίποδας
λέληθε· πανταχοῦ γὰρ ταῦτα θρυλεῖται ὑπ’ αὐτῶν· καὶ, Διὸς δ’ ἐτελείετο
βουλὴ’ τὸν Ὅμηρον εἰρηκέναι φησὶν [sc. ὁ Χρύσιππος] ὀρθῶς ἐπὶ τὴν
εἱμαρμένην ἀναφέροντα καὶ τὴν τῶν ὅλων φύσιν καθ’ ἣν πάντα διοικεῖται:
id. _de commun. not._ 34. 5, oὐδὲ τοὐλάχιστόν ἐστι τῶν μερῶν ἔχειν ἄλλως
ἀλλ’ ἢ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Διὸς βούλησιν: Arius Didymus, _Epit._ ap. Euseb.
_Præp. Ev._ 15. 15 (Diels, p. 464): Philodemus, _de piet._ frag. ed.
Gompertz, p. 83 (Diels, p. 549). The more exact statement is in the
summary of Aetius ap. Plut. _de placit. philos._ 1. 7. 17, Stob. _Ecl._
1. 2. 29 (Diels, p. 306), where God is said to comprehend within Himself
τοὺς σπερματικοὺς λόγους καθ’ οὓς ἅπαντα καθ’ εἱμαρμένην γίνεται. The
loftiest form of the conception is expressed by Lucan, _Pharsal._ 2.
10, ‘se quoque lege tenens:’ God is not the slave of Fate or Law, but
voluntarily binds Himself by it.
[401] Plat. _Rep._ 2, pp. 379, 380; _Tim._ p. 41. Philo, _de mund.
opif._ 24 (i. 17), _de confus. ling._ 35 (i. 432), θεῷ γὰρ τῷ πανηγεμόνι
ἐμπρεπὲς οὐκ ἔδοξεν εἶναι τὴν ἐπὶ κακίαν ὁδὸν ἐν ψυχῇ λογικῇ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ
δημιουργῆσαι· οὗ χάριν τοῖς μετ’ αὐτὸν ἐπέτρεψε τὴν τούτου τοῦ μέρους
κατασκευήν: _de profug._ 13 (i. 556), ἀναγκαῖον οὖν ἡγήσατο τὴν κακῶν
γένεσιν ἑτέροις ἀπονεῖμαι δημιουργοῖς τὴν δὲ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἑαυτῷ μόνῳ: so
also in the (probably) post-Philonean _de Abraham._ 28 (ii. 22). The
other phase of the conception is stated by Celsus, not as a philosophical
solution of the difficulty, but as one which might be taught to the
vulgar, ἐξαρκεῖ δὲ εἰς πλῆθος εἰρῆσθαι ὡς ἐκ θεοῦ μὲν οὐκ ἔστι κακὰ ὕλῃ
δὲ πρόσκειται.
[402] This is one of the solutions offered by Chrysippus: the concrete
form of the difficulty, with which he dealt, was εἰ αἱ τῶν ἀνθρώπων
νόσοι κατὰ φύσιν γίνονται, and his answer was that diseases come κατὰ
παρακολούθησιν, ‘non per naturam sed per sequellas quasdam necessarias,’
Aul. Gell. 7 (6). 1. 9. So also in the long fragment of Philo in Euseb.
_Præp. Ev._ 8. 13 (Philo, ii. 648, 644), θεὸς γὰρ οὐδενὸς αἴτιος κακοῦ τὸ
παράπαν ἀλλ’ αἱ τῶν στοιχείων μεταβολαὶ ταῦτα γεννῶσιν, οὐ προηγούμενα
ἔργα φύσεως ἀλλ’ ἑπόμενα τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις καὶ τοῖς προηγουμένοις
ἐπακολουθοῦντα.
[403] _Diss._ 1. 12. 24.
[404] Chrysippus, _de Diis_, 2, ap. Plut. _de Stoic. repug._ 35, ποτὲ μὲν
τὰ δύσχρηστα συμβαίνει τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς οὐχ ὥσπερ τοῖς φαύλοις κολάσεως χάριν
ἀλλὰ κατ’ ἄλλην οἰκονομίαν ὥσπερ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν.
[405] _Diss._ 2. 5. 24.
[406] _Diss._ 2. 10. 5.
[407] Aul. Gell. 7 (6). 2. 12-15.
[408] _Ench._ 1.
[409] E.g. Sext. Empir. _Pyrr._ 3. 9.
[410] Seneca, _Ep._ 107. 11: a free Latin rendering of one of the verses
of Cleanthes quoted from Epictetus in Lecture VI. p. 157.
[411] Seneca, _Dial._ 1. 5. 8: quid est boni viri? præbere se fato.
grande solatium est cum universo rapi. quicquid est quod nos sic vivere,
sic mori jussit, eadem necessitate et deos adligat. inrevocabilis humana
pariter ac divina cursus vehit. ille ipse omnium conditor et rector
scripsit quidem fata, sed sequitur. semper paret, semel jussit.
[412] Epict. _Diss._ 1. 6. 37-40.
[413] _Ibid._ 1. 16. 15-21.
[414] S. Matthew, 5. 12; S. Luke, 6. 23.
[415] _Ibid._ 6. 1.
[416] _Ibid._ 10. 42; S. Mark, 9. 41.
[417] Revelation, 22. 12: so Barnab. 21. 3: ἐγγὺς ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ μισθὸς
αὐτοῦ.
[418] Hebrews, 11. 6.
[419] _Didaché_, 4. 7, γνώσῃ γὰρ τίς ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ μισθοῦ καλὸς ἀνταποδότης.
[420] Barnab. 4. 12.
[421] These conceptions of the earliest Christian philosophers are
stated, in order to be modified, by Origen, _de princ._ 2. 5. 1:
existimant igitur bonitatem affectum talem quemdam esse quod bene fieri
omnibus debeat etiam si indignus sit is cui beneficium datur nec bene
consequi mereatur.... Justitiam vero putarunt affectum esse talem qui
unicuique prout meretur retribuat ... ut secundum sensum ipsorum justus
malis non videatur bene velle sed velut odio quodam ferri adversus eos.
[422] The title of Marcion’s chief work was Ἀντιθέσεις, ‘Contrasts’: the
extent to which his opinions prevailed is shown both by contemporary
testimony, e.g. Justin M. _Apol._ 1. 26, ὃς κατὰ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων διὰ
τῆς τῶν δαιμόνων συλλήψεως πολλοὺς πεποίηκε βλασφημίας λέγειν, Iren. 3.
3. 4, and also by the fact that the Churches into which his adherents
were organized flourished side by side with the Catholic Churches for
many centuries (there is an inscription of one of them, dated A.D. 318,
in Le Bas et Waddington, vol. iii. No. 2558, and they had not died out
at the time of the Trullan Council in A.D. 692, _Conc. Quinisext._ c.
95): the importance which was attached to him is shown by the large place
which he occupies in early controversies, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, the
Clementines, Origen, Tertullian, being at pains to refute him.
[423] Iren. 3. 25. 2.
[424] Tert. c. _Marc._ 2. 11, 12.
[425] _Homil._ 4. 13; 9. 19; 18. 2, 3.
[426] _Recogn._ 3. 37.
[427] Especially _Pædag._ 1. 8, 9.
[428] See below, p. 233.
[429] ap. Tert. _c. Marc._ 2. 5.
[430] _Apol._ 2. 7.
[431] Tatian, _Orat. ad Græc._ 7.
[432] Iren. 4. 37.
[433] _Ad Autol._ 2. 27.
[434] _Legat._ 31.
[435] _c. Marc._ 2. 5.
[436] E.g. Clem. Alex. _Pædag._ 1. 1, Origen, _de princ._ 2. 10. 6; _c.
Cels._ 6. 56: so also Tert. _Scorp._ 5.
[437] Origen, _de princ._ 2. 9. 5.
[438] The passage which follows is, with the exception of one extract
from the _contra Celsum_, a catena of extracts from the _de principiis_.
[439] _De princ._ 1. 6. 2.
[440] 1. 8. 2; 2. 9. 7.
[441] 2. 9. 6.
[442] 1. 8. 4.
[443] 1. 5. 5; 1. 6. 2.
[444] 3. 1. 4.
[445] 3. 1. 5.
[446] 1. 5. 2, 5.
[447] 1. 6. 2.
[448] 1. 6. 3.
[449] 3. 3. 5; 3. 5. 3.
[450] 3. 1. 20, 21: but sometimes beings of higher merit are assigned to
a lower grade, that they may benefit those who properly belong to that
grade, and that they themselves may be partakers of the patience of the
Creator, 2. 9. 7.
[451] 1. 2. 1.
[452] _c. Cels._ 6. 56; _de princ._ 2. 10.
[453] _De princ._ 3. 1. 14, 17.
[454] 3. 6. 3.
[455] Cf. Justin, _Dial. c. Tryph._ 2.
[456] The more common conception of the earliest Greek philosophy was
that of τὰς ἐνδιηκούσας τοῖς στοιχείοις ἢ τοῖς σώμασι δυνάμεις, Aetius
ap. Stob. _Ecl. Phys._ 2. 29.
[457] The form in which it is given by Sextus Empiricus, in whose time
the distinction was clearly understood, implies this: ἓν εἶναι τὸ πάν καὶ
τὸν θεόν συμφιῆ πᾶσι, _Pyrrh. Hypotyp._ 225.
[458] This is a post-Platonic summary of Plato’s conception; into the
inner development, and consequently varying expressions, of it in Plato’s
own writings it is not necessary to enter here. It is more important
in relation to the history of later Greek thought to know what he was
supposed to mean than what he meant. The above is taken from the summary
of Aetius in Plut. _de plac. philos._ 1. 7, Euseb. _Præp. evang._ 14. 16
(Diels, _Doxographi Græci_, p. 304). The briefest and most expressive
statement of the transcendence of God (τὸ ἀγαθόν) in Plato’s own writings
is probably _Republic_, p. 509, οὐκ οὐσίας ὄντος τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἔτι
ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας πρεσβείᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ὑπερέχοντος.
[459] It was a struggle between this and Stoicism.
[460] Plutarch, _de Ei ap. Delph._ 18; cf. Ocellus Lucanus in the
Augustan Age, ap. Diels, 187, Mullach, i. p. 383 sq. The universe has no
beginning and no end: it always was and always will be (1. 1. p. 388).
It comprises, however, τὸ ποιοῦν and τὸ πάσχον, the former above the
moon, the latter below, so that the course of the moon marks the limit
between the changing and changeless, the ἀεὶ θέοντος θείου and the ἀεὶ
μεταβάλλοντος γενητοῦ (2. 1, p. 394, 2. 23, p. 400).
[461] Max. Tyr. _Diss._ 8. 9.
[462] Max. Tyr. 17. 9.
[463] Plotinus, _Enneades_, 5. 1. 6; cf. 1. 1. 8, where νοῦς is
ἀμέριστος, distinguished from ἡ περὶ τὰ σώματα μεριστὴ (οὐσία). We
are between the two, having a share of both. The κάθαρσις of the soul
consists in ὁμοίωσις πρὸς θεόν, 1. 2. 3; the love of beauty should
ascend from that of the body to that of character and laws, of arts and
sciences, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἀρετῶν ἤδη ἀναβαίνειν ἐπὶ νοῦν, ἐπὶ τὸ ὂν, κάκεῖ
βαδιστέον τὴν ἄνω πορείαν, 1. 2. 2.
[464] _De mut. nom._ 4; i. 582, ed. Mangey.
[465] _De mund. op._ 2; i. 2.
[466] _De post. Cain_, 5; i. 228, 229.
[467] _Quod deus immut._ 12; i. 281.
[468] _De Abrah._ 16; ii. 12.
[469] i. 224, 281, 566; ii. 12, 654; _Frag. ap Joan. Dam._ ii. 654.
[470] _De prœm. et pœn._ 7; ii. 415.
[471] _De post. Cain_, 48; i. 258.
[472] _De mut. nom._ 2; i. 580; cf. 630, 648, 655; ii. 8-9, 19, 92-93,
597. Cf. in general Heinze, _Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen
Philosophie_, Oldenburg, 1872, pp. 206, 207, n. 6.
[473] The necessity for such intermediate links is not affected by the
question how far, outside the Platonic schools, there was a belief in a
real transcendence of God, or only in His existence outside the solar
system. In this connection, note the allegory in the _Phædrus_. The
Epicureans coarsely expressed the transcendence of God by the expression,
διῄρηται ἡ οὐσία, Sext. Emp. _Pyrrh._ p. 114, § 5; cf. Ocellus Lucanus,
cited above, p. 242. Hippolytus describes Aristotle’s _Metaphysics_ as
dealing with things beyond the moon, 7. 19, p. 354; cf. Origen’s idea
of the heavens in _de princ._ ii. 3, 7, and Celsus’ objection that
Christians misunderstand Plato by confusing his heaven with the Jewish
heavens. Origen, _c. Cels._ vi. 19; cf. Keim, p. 84.
[474] Benn, _Greek Philosophers_, 2. 252.
[475] Cf. Hesiod in Sext. Emp. ix. 86. Similarly, Thales, τὸ πᾶν
ἔμψυχον ἅμα καὶ δαιμόνων πλῆρες (Diels, 301); Pythagoras, Empedocles
in Hippolytus, διοικοῦντες τὰ κατὰ τὴν γῆν (Diels, 558); Plato and the
Stoics (Diels, 307), e.g. Plutarch, Epictetus, 1. 14. 12; 3. 13. 15
(Diels, 1307); Athenagoras, 23; Philo, ii. 635; Frag. ap. Eus. _Præp.
Evan._ 8. 13; see references in Keim’s _Celsus_, p. 120; cf. Wachsmuth,
_Die Ansichten der Stoiker über Mantik u. Dämonen_, Berlin, 1860.
[476] Philo, _de confus. ling._ 20 (i. 419).
[477] _De post. Cain._ 6 (i. 229).
[478] _De somn._ 1. 11 (i. 630).
[479] _Ibid._ 1. 41 (i. 656).
[480] _De profug._ 1 (i. 547); so _de Cherub._ 1 (i. 139).
[481] _Leg. Alleg._ 3. 62 (i. 122).
[482] _De somn._ 1. 15 (i. 633).
[483] _Ibid._ 1. 33 (i. 649).
[484] _Quis rer. div. her._ 42 (i. 501).
[485] _De sacrif. Abel. et Cain._ 18 (i. 175), ὁ γὰρ θεὸς λέγων ἅμα
ἐποίει μηδὲν μεταξὺ ἀμφοῖν τιθείς· εἰ δὲ χρὴ δόγμα κινεῖν ἀληθέστερον,
ὁ λόγος ἔργον αὐτοῦ: _de decem orac._ 11 (ii. 188), commenting on the
expression of the LXX. in Exodus xx. 18, ὁ λαὸς ἑώρα τὴν φωνήν, he
justifies it on the ground ὅτι ὅσα ἂν λέγῃ ὁ θεὸς οὐ ῥήματά ἐστιν ἀλλ’
ἔργα, ἅπερ ὀφθαλμοὶ πρὸ ὤτων διορίζουσι: _de mund. opif._ 6 (i. 5), οὐδὲν
ἂν ἕτερον εἴποι τὸν νοητὸν εἶναι κόσμον ἢ θεοῦ λόγον ἤδη κοσμοποιοῦντος.
[486] The word σκία seems to be used, in relation to the _Logos_, not
of the shadow cast by a solid object in the sunlight, but rather, as
in Homer, _Odyss._ 10. 495, and frequently in classical writers, of a
ghost or phantom: hence God is the παράδειγμα, the substance of which
the _Logos_ is the unsubstantial form, _Leg. Alleg._ 3. 31 (i. 106):
hence also σκία is used as convertible with εἰκών (_ibid._), in its sense
of either a portrait-statue or a reflexion in a mirror: in _de confus.
ling._ 28 (i. 427), the _Logos_ is the _eternal_ εἰκών of God.
[487] _De somn._ 1. 41 (i. 656).
[488] _Quod det. pot. ins._ 23 (i. 207).
[489] _De agric._ 12 (i. 308): _de confus. ling._ 28 (i. 427): spoken of
as γεννηθείς, _ibid._ 14 (i. 414).
[490] _De profug._ 20 (i. 562): so God is spoken of as the husband of
σοφία in _de Cherub._ 14 (i. 148). But in _de ebriet._ 8 (i. 361), God is
the Father, Knowledge the Mother, not of the _Logos_ but of the universe.
[491] _Quod a Deo mit. somn._ i. 683.
[492] i.e. Sethiani ap. Iren. 1. 30. 1.
[493] Ptolemæus, _ad Flor._ 7.
[494] _Teaching of the Twelve Apostles_, 10. 2-4.
[495] Cf. the Ebionites, Alogi, and the _Clementines_.
[496] Origen, _c. Cels._ 7. 36; cf. _de princ._ 1. 1. 7.
[497] _Con. Cels._ 7. 37, καὶ δογματίζειν παραπλησίως τοῖς ἀναιροῦσι
νοητὰς οὐσίας Στωϊκοῖς; cf. Keim, p. 100. See also Orig. _in Gen._ vol.
ii, p. 25 (Delarue), and Eus. _H. E._ iv. 26, for a view ascribed to
Melito.
[498] Harnack, _Dogmengesch._ p. 160.
[499] _Dial. c. Tryph._ c. 127.
[500] _Legatio_, 10.
[501] _Ad Autolycum._ 1. 3; cf. Minuc. Felix, _Octavius_, 18, and
Novatian, _de Trin._ 1. 2.
[502] _Adv. Marc._ 1. 3.
[503] _Adv. Prax._ 7.
[504] ap. Hippol. 7. 21, p. 358.
[505] ἀνεννόητος καὶ ἀνούσιος, _ibid._ 6. 42, p. 302; cf. 12 ff., pp. 424
ff., for Monoïmus, and also Ptolemæus, _ad Floram_, 7.
[506] _Pædag._ 1. 8.
[507] Möller, _Kosmologie_, p. 26, cf. 124, 129, 130.
[508] _Strom._ 5. 12.
[509] _c. Cels._ 6. 19 sqq.
[510] _De princ._ 1. 1. 2, 5, 7.
[511] _Ibid._ 1. 1, _passim_; cf. 4. 1. 36.
[512] e.g. Min. Felix, c. 10; cf. Keim, _Celsus_, 158.
[513] The older sort, who clung to tradition pure and simple, were
dubious of the introduction of dialectic methods into Christianity: see
Eus. v. 28; cf. v. 13. “Expavescunt ad οἰκονομίαν,” Tert. _adv. Prax._ 3.
Cf. Weingarten, p. 25.
[514] Pantænus, when asked by outside philosophers, “How can God know
the world, if like knows like?” replied (Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 379):
μήτε αἰσθητῶς τὰ αἰσθητὰ μήτε νοερῶς τὰ νοητὰ· οὐ γὰρ εἶναι δυνατὸν τὸν
ὑπὲρ τὰ ὄντα κατὰ τὰ ὄντα τῶν ὄντων λαμβάνεσθαι, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἴδια θελήματα
γινώσκειν αὐτὸν τὰ ὄντα φαμέν ... for if he _made_ all things by His
will, no one can deny that He knows His own will, and hence knows what
His will has made. Cf. Julius Africanus (Routh, ii. 239), λέγεται γὰρ
ὁμωνύμως ὁ θεὸς πᾶσι τοῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἐπειδὴ ἐν πᾶσιν ἐστίν.
[515] γίνομαι ὃ Θέλω καὶ εἰμὶ ὃ εἰμί, as used by the Naassenes, ap. Hipp.
5. 7.
[516] Cf. Harnack, art. in _Encycl. Brit._ “Sabellius.”
[517] Hipp. 9. 10; Schmid, _Dogmeng._ 47, _n._
[518] Tert. _c. Valent._ 4; cf., διαθέσεις of Ptol. ap. Iren. 1. 12. 1.
[519] ap. Iren. 1. 12. 3.
[520] Hipp. 6. 12.
[521] Ptolemy ap. Iren. 1. 12. 1; cf. Hipp. _c. Noet._ 10, πολὺς ἦν.
[522] ap. Iren. 1. 2. 1, 5 (Valentinians).
[523] ap. Iren. 1. 24. 3 (Basilides): cf. Clem. Al. _Protrep._ 10, the
Logos is the Son of νοῦς.
[524] Iren. 1. 14. 1, προήκατο λόγον ὅμοιον αὑτῷ.
[525] As compared with Philo, who emphasizes the Logos in relation to the
work of creation, Justin lays stress on the Logos as Revealer, making
known to us the will of God: cf. ἀπόστολος, _Tryph._ 61.
[526] Justin, _Apol._ i. 63.
[527] _Apol._ ii. 8.
[528] It would be beyond our present purpose to go into Christology. It
will be sufficient to indicate three theories: (1) Modal Monarchianism;
(2) Dynamical Monarchianism; (3) Logos theory. Cf. Harnack, _Dogmeng._ i.
161, 220, for Gnostic Christology.
[529] Iren. 4. 6. 3, 5, 6; cf. Clem. Alex. _Strom._ 7. 2.
[530] Cf. Hipp. 7. 21, 22; Schmid, _Dogm._ 52.
[531] Tert. _Apol._ 51; Hipp. _c. Noet._ p. 62.
[532] _Leg._ 16; cf. Clem. Al. _Strom._ 5. 1; cf. Theophilus, 2, 22, for
distinction of λόγος προφορικός as well as ἐνδιάθετος, denied by Clement
(loc. cit.), but repeated in Tert. _adv. Prax._ 5; cf. Hipp. _c. Noet._
10. See Zahn’s note in Ign. _ad Magn._ 8. 2, on προελθὼν in relation to
eternal generation.
[533] Philo applied the phrase “Son of God” to the world: cf. Keim,
_Celsus_, 95.
[534] Justin, _Dial. c. Tryph._ 61 A, cf. 62 E, προβληθὲν γέννημα; and
Hipp. _c. Noet._ 8, 10, 16; Tatian, c. 5; Irenæus ap. Schmid, p. 31.
[535] Justin, _Dial. c Tryph._ 56 C, p. 180.
[536] Hipp. 9. 12; Callistus, while excommunicating the Sabellians (cf.
Schmid, 48; Weing. 31), also called Hippolytus and his party ditheists.
For Callistus’ own view, cf. _ibid._ 9. 11. See Schmid, p, 50; also p. 45
for Praxeas ap. Tert.
[537] The Gnostic controversies in regard to the relation to God of the
Powers who were intermediate between Him and the world, had helped to
forge such intellectual instruments.
[538] Justin, _c. Tryph._ 128: δυνάμει καὶ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ ἀλλ’ οὐ κατ’
ἀποτομὴν ὡς ἀπομεριζομένης τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας; cf. Plotinus ap. Harn.
_Dogm._ 493: κατὰ μερισμὸν οὐ κατ’ ἀποτομὴν in Tatian, 5, is different;
cf. Hipp. _c. Noet._ 10.
[539] Justin, _Dial. c. Tryph._ 61 C, where the metaphor of “speech” is
also employed.
[540] ap. Tert. _c. Hermog._ 3.
[541] For metaphor of light, cf. Monoïmus ap. Hipp. 8. 12; also Tatian,
c. 5.
[542] There is uncertainty as to eternal generation in Justin; see
Engelhardt, p. 118. It is not in Hippolytus, _c. Noet._ 10. Though
implied in Irenæus (Harn. p. 495), it is in Origen that this solution
attains clear expression, e.g. _de princ._ 1. 2 ff., though his view
is not throughout steady and uniform. Emanation seemed to him to imply
division into parts. But he hovers between the Logos as thought and as
substance. For Clement and Origen in this connection, see Harnack, pp.
579, 581.
[543] God unchangeable in Himself comes into contact with human affairs:
τῇ προνοίᾳ καὶ τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ, _c. Cels._ 4. 14. His Word changes according
to the nature of the individuals into whom he comes, _c. Cels._ 4. 18.
[544] Justin, _Apol._ i. 22. 23. 32, _c. Try._ 5.
[545] _ad Autolyc._ ii. 22.
[546] He held that side by side with God existed, not ἐξουσία, but οὐσία,
φύσις, ὑπόστασις: see Clem. Alex. _Strom._ 5. 1.
[547] Cf. Harnack, _Dogmeng._ p. 580.
[548] οὐσία ἥ τε ὕλη καὶ τὸ εἶδος καὶ τὸ ἐκ τούτων, _Metaph._ 6. 10, p.
1035 _a_, “_ousia_ is matter, form, and the compound of matter and form.”
[549] οὐσίαν δὲ θεοῦ Ζήνων μέν φησι τὸν ὅλον κόσμον καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν,
ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Χρύσιππος ... καὶ Ποσειδώνιος, Diog. L. 7. 148: so in M.
Anton. e.g. 4, 40, ἕν ζῶον τὸν κόσμον μίαν οὐσίαν καὶ ψυχὴν μίαν ἐπέχον,
paraphrased in the well-known lines of Pope:
“All are but parts of one stupendous Whole,
Whose body Nature is, and God the soul.”
[550] τῆς ζωτικῆς δυνάμεως, _Quod det. pot. insid._ 25, i. 209.
[551] οὐσία δέ ἐστιν ἡ κυριώτατά τε καὶ πρώτως καὶ μάλιστα λεγομένη
ἣ μήτε καθ’ ὑποκειμένου τινὸς λέγεται μήτε ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ τινί ἐστιν·
οἷον ὁ τὶς ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὁ τὶς ἵππος, _Categ._ 5, p. 2 _a_: but in the
_Metaphysics_ a different point of view is taken, and the term πρώτη
οὐσία is used in the following sense, i.e. of the form, e.g. 6, 11, p.
1037.
[552] Frequently in the _Metaphysics_, e.g. 6. 7, p. 1032 _b_, 7. 1, p.
1042 _a_.
[553] Arist. _Metaph._ 6. 11, p. 1037 _a_.
[554] _Ibid._ 12. 5, p. 1079 _b_.
[555] e.g. _Parmen._ p. 132 _e_. οὗ δ’ ἂν τὰ ὅμοια μετέχοντα ὅμοια ᾖ, οὐκ
ἐκεῖνο ἔσται αὐτὸ τὸ εἶδος.
[556] οὐσία ἐστὶν ὄνομα κοινὸν καὶ ἀόριστον κατὰ πασῶν τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτὴν
ὑποστάσεων ὁμοτίμως φερόμενον, καὶ συνωνύμως κατηγορούμενον, Suidas, _s.
v._
[557] νοητὰ ἄττα καὶ ἀσώματα εἴδη ... τὴν ἀληθινὴν οὐσίαν εἷναι· τὰ δὲ
ἐκείνων σώματα ... γένεσιν ἀντ’ οὐσίας φερομένην τινὰ προσαγορεύουσι,
Plat. _Sophist._ p. 246.
[558] e.g. it is stated by Celsus and adopted by Origen: Origen, _c.
Cels._ 7. 45 sq.
[559] ἡ οὐσία ἀνωτάτω οὖσα, τῷ μηδὲν εἶναι πρὸ αὐτῆς, γένος ἦν τὸ
γενικώτατον, Porphyr. _Eisag._ 2. 24.
[560] ἕκαστος μὲν ἡμῶν κατὰ μὲν τὸ σῶμα πόρρω ἂν εἴη οὐσίας, κατὰ δὲ τὴν
ψυχὴν, καὶ ὃ μάλιστα ἐσμὲν, μετέχομεν οὐσίας, καὶ ἐσμέν τις οὐσία. τοῦτο
δέ ἐστιν οἷον σύνθετόν τι ἐκ διαφορᾶς καὶ οὐσίας, οὔκουν κυρίως οὐσία
οὐδ’ αὐτοουσία· διὸ οὐδὲ κύριοι τῆς αὐτῶν οὐσίας, Plotin. _Enn._ 6. 8. 12.
[561] Arist. _Anal. post._ 2. 3, p. 90 _b_; _Top._ 5. 2, p. 130 b;
_Metaph._ 6. 4, p. 1030 _b_.
[562] Sext. Empir. _Pyrrh. Hypotyp._ 3. 1. 2.
[563] εἴ γε ὁμοούσιοι αἱ τῶν ζῴων ψυχαὶ ταῖς ἡμετέραις, Porphyr. _de
Abstin._ 1. 19.
[564] τοὺς πόδας ὡς ὁμοουσίων ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωποι ἔνιψαν, _Clement. Hom._
20. 7, p. 192.
[565] _c. Cels._ 6. 64.
[566] e.g. in S. Athanas. _ad Afr. episc._ 4, vol. i. 714.
[567] Dionys. Areop. _de div. nom._ 5.