asm.

6. The Alexandrians could not but be averse to sensual chiliClement does not allude to it. Origen, however, expressly opposes the chiliast expectations; and would have all the passages which appear to favor it interpreted allegorically.29

7. Since, in the view of the Alexandrians, the body is merely a prison of the true Me, they also assumed that souls, at the time of the resurrection, would not resume the gross material body, but one of fine, incorruptible texture.30

To establish this system from the Holy Scriptures the Alexandrians availed themselves of the allegorical mode of interpretation which had been in use before. But after the interpretation of Scripture had been thus made a mere arbitrary play of fancy till now, Origen gained for himself the merit of reinstating the grammatical interpretation in its rights, by a more accurate distinction between the literal, the moral, and the mystical (mystic-anagogic and mystic-allegorical) sense. In his commentaries he has furnished rich contributions toward the grammatical interpretation, by which means he became the chief source for succeeding commentators.

31

γελίαν δόσεως, δι' αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ ἀγαθὸν, προσεληλυθέναι τῷ σωτηρίῳ λόγῳ. P. 626 : Εἴ γ' οὖν τις καθ' ὑπόθεσιν προθείη τῷ γνωστικῷ, πότερον ἑλέσθαι βούλοιτο τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἢ τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν αἰώνιον-οὐδὲ καθοτιοῦν διστάσας, ἕλοιτ' ἂν τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ Oɛov. De Wette christl. Sittenlehre, Th. 2, Erste Hälfte. S. 221.

ກ

29 A spiritualizing of chiliasm in the excerptis ex scriptis Theodoti (Clem. Opp. vol. ii. p. 1004): Οἱ γὰρ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων εἰς ἀγγέλους μεταστάντες χίλια ἔτη μαθητεύονται ὑπὸ τῶν άyyéλwv, K. T. 2. Orig. de Princip. ii. 11, § 6: Puto enim, quod sancti quique discedentes de hac vita permanebunt in loco aliquo in terra posito, quem paradisum dicit scriptura divina velut in quodam eruditionis loco, et, ut ita dixerim, auditorio vel schola animarum, etc. On the other hand, ibid. § 2: Quidam ergo laborem quodammodo intelligentiae recusantes, et superficiem quandam legis literae consectantes, et magis delectationi suae quodammodo ac libidini indulgentes, solius literae discipuli, arbitrantur repromissiones futuras in voluptate et luxuria corporis exspectandas: et propterea praecipue carnes iterum desiderant post resurrectionem tales, quibus manducandi, et bibendi, et omnia quae carnis et sanguinis sunt agendi numquam desit facultas, apostoli Pauli de resurrectione spiritalis corporis sententiam non sequentes. Cf. Prologus in Cant. Cant.

30 Clemens Paedag. ii. p. 230 : Αὐτῇ καθαρᾷ τῇ σαρκὶ ἐπενδυσάμενοι τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν. Orig. de Princ. ii. 10, 3 and c. 11 (see note 29). Cf. Guerike, 1. c. p. 164, 285.

31 The leading principle of his hermeneutics. Homil. v. in Levit. § 5: Triplicem in scripturis divinis intelligentiae inveniri saepe diximus modum, historicum, moralem, et mysticum. Unde et corpus inesse ei et animam et spiritum intelleximus. (Comp. Valentinus above, § 45.) His hermeneutical principles are laid down most fully in de Princip. lib. iv. Porphyry's judgment on his allegories apud Eusebius H. E. vi. 19, 2. 3, among others: Ἐχρῆτο δὲ καὶ Χαιρήμονος τοῦ Στωϊκοῦ, Κουρνούτου τε ταῖς βίβλοις παρ' ὧν τὸν μεταληπτικὸν τῶν παρ' Ἕλλησι μυστηρίων γνοὺς τρόπον, ταῖς Ἰουδαϊκαῖς πрооñРε урapaiç. Cf. Mosheim Comm. de rebus Christ. ante Const. M. p. 629. J. A. Ernesti de Orig. interp. librorum SS. grammaticae auctore (Opusc. philol. et crit. Lugd. Bat. 1764. p. 288, ss.). Redepenning's Origines, i. 290. [Davidson's Hermeneutics, p. 97, fl

a.

$64.

(CONTINUATION.)-ADHERENTS AND OPPOSERS OF ORIGEN.

1

To his most

5

Origen's peculiar opinions met, even in his lifetime, with as many opponents as friends, and excited suspicion in many bishops.2 He and his disciples, however, succeeded in combating and refuting many sensuous views and expectations which were then current among Christians. Thus some overvalued the importance of the body in the personality of man, so much as to suppose that the soul dies, and is again raised along with it. Origen overthrew this error, when it appeared in Arabia.* distinguished disciple Dionysius (president of the catechetical school from 233, from 248 bishop in Alexandria, † 265) belongs the merit of having victoriously continued in the east the opposition to chiliasm begun by his master. An opportunity for this was furnished to him by an Egyptian bishop, Nepos, who, in the ἔλεγχος Αλληγοριστῶν, insisted particularly on the literal acceptation of the Apocalypse, and the description of the millennium contained in it. Doubtless the Decian persecution, which soon followed, contributed to procure many advocates to a view which furnished so strong motives to Christian steadfastness, especially in the province of Arsinoe. But after the persecution, Dionysius succeeded by oral representations and

1 Origines Hom. xxv. in Lucam: Plerique dum plus nos diligunt quam meremur, haec jactant et loquuntur, sermones nostros doctrinamque laudantes, quae conscientia nostra non recipit. Alii vero tractatus nostros calumniantes, ea sentire nos criminantur, quae numquam sensisse nos novimus. Sed neque hi qui plus diligunt, neque illi qui oderunt, veritatis regulam tenent, et alii per dilectionem, alii per odium mentiuntur.

2 Euseb. Η. Ε. vi. 36: Γράφει δὲ καὶ Φαβιανῷ τῷ κατὰ Ῥώμην ἐπισκόπῳ, ἑτέροις τε πλείστοις ἄρχουσιν ἐκκλησιῶν περὶ τῆς κατ' αὐτὸν ὀρθοδοξίας. Hieron. Ep. 41, ad Pammach. et Oceanum: Ipse Origenes in epistola, quam scribit ad Fabianum Romanae urbis episcopum, poenitentiam agit cur talia scripserit, et causas temeritatis in Ambrosium refert, quod secreto edita in publicum protulerit.

3 So also Tatian (Orat. ad Gr. c. 21). Comp. Daniel's Tatianus, p. 226.

4 Eusebius, vi. 37: Ἔλεγον, τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν ψυχὴν τέως μὲν κατὰ τὸν ἐνεστῶτα καιρὸν ἅμα τῇ τελευτῇ συναποθνήσκειν τοῖς σώμασι καὶ συνδιαφθείρεσθαι· αὖθις δέ ποτε κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀναστάσεως καιρὸν σὺν αὐτοῖς ἀναβιώσεσθαι. On the origin of this opinion see § 29, note 10. The name Arabici first appears in Augustin. de Haeres. c. 85 AvпTopνxíτaι apud Joann. Damasc. Haer. 90.

5 The fragments of his writings are collected by Gallandius Bibl. PP. t. iii. p. 481, Simon de Magistris. Romae. 1796. fol.

6

his work περὶ ἐπαγγελιῶν, not only in convincing that party of their error, but also in banishing chiliasm entirely among the theologians of the eastern church. Similar opposition he presented to Sabellius. It is true, that in trying to develop more precisely the Origenist distinctions as adverse to Sabellius' doctrine of the Trinity, he gave offense by designating the Logos a creature of the Father," and was therefore blamed by the Romish Dionysius; but the many-sided views which he had from Origen permitted him to cloak his view of the Logos as a created being without altering it. This convenient pliableness of expression, in which Origen himself had led the way, is also found in other followers. Theognostus simply repeats the Origenist doctrine of the Logos in its different forms of presentation. On the other hand, as used by the opponent of Paul of Samosata, Gregory (bishop of Neo-caesarea from 244, † about 270), for whom later traditions have procured the surname Thaumaturgus,10 this doctrine of the Logos appears to

9

6 Euseb. H. E. vii. 24, 25. Dionysius thought that the Apocalypse was written by a presbyter called John. Mynster Diss. de Dionysii Alex. circa Apoc. Joann. sententia, hujusque vi in seriorum libri aestimationem. Hafn. 1826. Lucke's Einl. in die Offenb. Joh. S. 321, 397.

7 Omitted by Euseb. vii. 26. On the contrary, Athanasii πɛρì ▲ιovvσíov тoû 'Eπ. 'Aλ. liber. In the letter of Dionysius to Ammon bishop of Berenice and to Euphranor, it is said, Athanas. 1. e. cap. 4 : Ποίημα καὶ γενητὸν εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ· μήτε δε φύσει ἴδιον, ἀλλὰ ξένον κατ' ουσίαν εἶναι τοῦ πατρός· ὥσπερ ἐστὶν ὁ γεωργὸς πρὸς τὴν ἄμπελον (cf. Joh. xv. 1), καὶ ὁ ναυπηγὸς πρὸς τὸ σκάφος· καὶ γὰρ ὡς ποίημα ὢν, οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γενηTal. According to chap. 14, the Arians also attributed to him the following assertions: Οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ, οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ υἱός ἀλλ ̓ ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν. Comp. Martini Gesch. d. Dogma v. d. Gottheit Christi, S. 198. Schleiermacher in his Zeitschrift, iii. 402. Baur's Dreieinigkeit, i. 309.

8 Fragments of his êλeуxoç kaì ȧroλoyía, libb. iv., addressed to the Roman Dionysius, preserved in Athanasius and Basil, are collected by Gallandius, iii. 495, Routh Reliq. Sacr. iii. 194 (in the second fragment of the first book, the variation in the text from Euthyni. Zygab. Panoplia apud Gallandius, t. xiv. App. p. 118, is to be compared). Dionysius declares here, lib. i. : Οὐ γὰρ ἦν ὅτε ὁ θεὸς οὐκ ἦν πατήρ. Then he asserts it is a fabrica tion of his opponents that he ever denied, τὸν Χριστὸν ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τῷ θεῷ· εἰ γὰρ καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦτό φημι μὴ εὑρηκέναι, μηδ' ἀνεγνωκέναι που τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν, ἄλλα γε τὰ ἐπιχειρήματά μου τὰ ἑξῆς, ἃ σεσιωπήκασι, τῆς διανοίας ταύτης οὐκ ἀπᾴδει. Comp. 63, note 19. Martini, S. 203, ff.

9 Photii Bibl. cod. 106 : in his Hypotyposes υἱὸν δὲ λέγων, κτίσμα αὐτὸν ἀποφαίνει, και τῶν λογικῶν μόνον ἐπιστατεῖν. Respecting the origin of the Logos a fragment apud Athanasius de Decretis Syn. Nicaenae, c. 25 : Οὐκ ἔξωθέν τίς ἐστιν ἐφευρεθεῖσα ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ οὐσία, οὐδὲ ἐκ μὴ ὄντων ἐπεισήχθη· ἀλλὰ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας ἔφυ, ὡς τοῦ φωτὸς τὸ ἀπαύγασμα, ὡς ὕδατος ἀτμίς· (οὔτε γὰρ τὸ ἀπαύγασμα, οὔτε ἡ ἀτμὶς αὐτὸ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐστὶν, ἢ αὐτὸς, ὁ ἥλιος οὔτε ἀλλότριον) ἀλλὰ ἀπόῤῥοια τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας οὐ μερισμὸν ὑπομεινάσης τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας.

10 Writings : Εἰς Ωριγένην προσφωνητικὸς καὶ πανηγυρικὸς λόγος. Ἐπιστολὴ κανο VIK. Fragments in Ang. Maji Spicilegium Rom. vol. iii. νική. Two confessions of faith

oscillate between entirely opposite modes of description. 14 It is highly probable, also, that Hierax of Leontopolis, at the end of this century, was formed in the school of Origen. His allegor ical interpretation, his rejection of the resurrection of the body, and of sensual notions of a future life, as also his disapprobation of marriage and the use of flesh and wine, point rather to a maintenance of Origenist principles carried out to extremes, than to a Manichaean origin, which latter Epiphanes has inferred only from a few external points of resemblance.12 At the end of this period appeared Methodius, bishop of Olympus (or Patara), afterward of Tyre (martyred 311) as a violent opponent of Origen, defending in a work, nepì åvaoráσews, the doctrine of the resurrection of the present body, and in another, περὶ τῶν γενητῶν, attacking the notion of an endless succession of worlds. 13 But on the other hand, Origen found warm defenders in Pamphilus (martyred 309) and Eusebius Pamphili, both presbyters in Caesarea.14 Among the multitude, report had often distorted already the peculiar principles of Origen, and by that means awakened blind hatred against him;15 but among

have been also attributed to him, although without doubt they are supposititious, a short Symbolum which he is said to have received from the apostle John who appeared to him (Walchii Bibl. symbol. vetus, p. 14. Martini, S. 231), and ʼn karà μépos ñíotic (i. e., plenior ac particulatim concepta, which was formerly known only in the Latin translation of Turrianus, and published in Greek by Sirmond in not. ad Facundam, x. 6, and in Maji Scriptt. vett. nova coll. vii. i. 170), whose genuineness Salig de Eutychianismo ante Eutychen, p. 136, sought in vain to defend. See Martini, S. 233. His life by Gregory Nyssene. Opp. omnia una cum vita, ed. G. Vossius. Mogunt. 1604. 4.

11 Basilii M. Epist. 210 (al. 64) § 5: (Sabelliani) kalýкaν dé TIVα πεîρаν di' Èπlotokñs, καὶ πρὸς τον ὁμόψυχον ἡμῶν "Ανθιμον τὸν Τυάνων ἐπίσκοπον, ὡς ἄρα Γρηγορίου εἰπόντος ἐν ἐκθέσει πίστεως, πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν ἐπινοίᾳ μὲν εἶναι δύο, ὑποστάσει δὲ ἔν. τοῦτο δὲ, ὅτι οὐ δογματικῶς εἴρηται, ἀλλ' ἀγωνιστικῶς ἐν τῇ προς Αἰλιανὸν διαλέξει, οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν συνιδεῖν.-διὰ δὴ καὶ πολλὰς ἂν εὕροις ἐκεῖ φωνὰς, τὰς νῦν τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς μεγίστην ἰσχὺν παρεχομένας, ὡς τὸ κτίσμα, καὶ τὸ ποίημα, καὶ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον. Martini, S. 233, fr. 12 Only authority Epiphan. Haer. 67. Mosheim de Rebus Christ. ante Const. p. 903, ss. 13 Fragments in Epiphan. Haer. 64. Photii Bibl. cod. 234-236, in Maji Scriptt. vett. nova coll. vii. i. 49, 92, 102. Walch's Ketzerhist. vii. 404. In a later dialogue, Eévov, he is said to have changed and become the admirer of Origen (Socrat. H. E. vi. 13). Other works: Tepì avTežovcíov. Symp. dec. virg. etc. Opp. ed. Fr. Combefisius. Paris. 1644. fol 14 Pamphilus wrote in captivity. See Apologia pro Origene, in five books, to which Eusebius added a sixth book. Only the first book is extant in Rufinus's Latin translation, and Greek fragments in Photius Cod. 118 (see Origenis Opp. ed de la Rue, t. iv. App. p. 17.). Pamphilus and Eusebius published conjointly the hexaplar Septuagint-Pamphilus's library in Caesarea.

15 Pamphili Apologiae praefatio ad Confessores ad metalla Palaestinae damnatos: Nihil mirum, fratres, videmini mihi esse perpessi, quod ita vos Origenis subterfugit intellectus, ut vos quoque ea aestimetis de illo, quae et alii nonnulli : qui sive per imperitiam sui, qua non valent sensus ejus altitudinem contueri, sive pravitate mentis, qua studium gerunt non

the learned, respect for this great man was pretty general. Particularly in Egypt, he appears to have enjoyed undivided esteem.16

$ 65.

OTHER DISTINGUISHED TEACHERS OF THE EASTERN CHURCH.

While at Alexandria Scripture interpretation was made to subserve the purpose of speculation, we find in Syria and the neighboring provinces, favored by the linguistic relations of these lands, the first traces of that more independent historicogrammatical and critical treatment of the Scriptures, by which the east was so much distinguished in the fourth and fifth centuries.1 Of such writers we are acquainted, though very imperfectly, with Julius Africanus in Nicopolis (Emmaus), probably a presbyter (about 230), a friend of Origen, the first Christian chronographer; and two presbyters of Antioch, Dorotheus

2

solum dicta ejus incusare, verum etiam adversus eos, qui haec legunt, hostiles inimicitias sumere, tam pertinaciter id agentes, ut nulla prorsus venia eos dignos haberi putent, ne ea quidem quam impertire solent, verbi gratia, his qui vel Graecorum saecularium libros, vel nonnunquam etiam haereticorum, percunctandi atque agnoscendi studio decurrunt. Miramur in tantum temeritatis aliquos esse provectos, ut qui se ita humilitate judicat, adstruant, quod ab illis dicta ejus vel libri pro sermonibus apostolicis vel dictis propheticis habeantur, aut quod ille ipse vel Prophetis vel Apostolis ab aliquo comparetur. Multos invenias, quos si interroges, in quibus libris aut in quibus locis dicta sint haec, quae arguunt, confitentur, se quidem nescire ea, de quibus affirmant, nec legisse unquam, audisse autem alios dicentes. The calumnies which Pamphilus refuted are these (cap. 5): Prima, ille est, quod aiunt, eum innatum dicere filium Dei. Secunda, quod dicunt per prolationem, secundum Valentini fabulas, in subsistentiam venisse filium Dei dicere. Tertia, quae his omnibus valde contraria est, quod dicunt eum, secundum Arteman vel Paulum Samosatenum, purum hominem, id est, non etiam Deum dicere Christum filium Dei. Post (iv.), ista est, quae istis omnibus adversatur (caeca enim est malitia), quod dicunt eum dicere, dokýoɛɩ, i. putative tantum et per allegoriam, non etiam secundum ea, quae per historiam referuntur, gesta esse omnia, quae a Salvatore gesta sunt. Alia (v.), quoque criminatio est, qua asserunt, eum duos Christos praedicare. Addunt (vi.), illud quoque, quod historias corporales, quae per omnem S. Scripturam referuntur de gestis Sanctorum, penitus deneget. Sed et (vii.), de resurrectione mortuorum, et de impiorum poenis non levi impugnant eum calumnia, velut negantem peccatoribus inferenda esse supplicia. Quidam vero (viii.), disputatione ejus vel opiniones, quas de animae statu vel dispensatione disseruit, culpant. Ultima vero, omnium (ix.), est criminatio illa, quae cum omni infamatione dispergitur, μetevowμatwOEws, i. e., quod humanas animas in muta animalia, vel serpentes vel pecudes asserat transmutari post mortem, et quod etiam ipsae mutorum animalium animae rationabiles sint. 16 In Justiniani Epist. ad Mennam (apud Mansi, ix. p. 504) very unfavorable statements are made respecting Origen by Bishop Peter of Alexandria (martyred 311); but they have been borrowed from the uncertain Actis Petri Alex. See Tillemont Mémoires, t. iii. p. 589. 1 Münter on the Antiochenian school in Stäudlin's and Tzschirner's Archiv. f. Kirchengesch. Bd. 1. St. 1. S. 1, ff.

2 Χρονογραφιών πέντε σπουδάσματα-Ἐπιστολὴ περὶ τῆς κατὰ Σωσάνναν ἱστορίας