reckoned all questions about what God had done before the creation among the improper questions of human inquisitiveness.8

1 Comp. Hebr. xi. 3, and the commentaries upon that passage. Accordingly the Shepherd of Hermas teaches, lib. ii. mand. 1: Πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον, ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς, ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας, καὶ ποιήσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι Tà Távта. Conf. Euseb. v. 8.

2 The popular view was always, that the Father is the creator, though the creation through the Son formed a part of the orthodox faith. Accordingly, we find that sometimes the Father, sometimes the Logos, is called the creator of the world (dnμoupyós, TOINTS). Thus Justin M. says, dial. c. Tryph. c. 16: 'O πONTÈS τῶν ὅλῶν θεός, comp. Apol. i. 61: Τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων καὶ SEσTÓTоU BEOû. On the other hand, Coh. ad Græc. c. 15: Tòv τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον, δι' οὗ οὐρανὸς καὶ γῆ καὶ πᾶσα ἐγένετο κτίσις, comp. Apol. i. 64. Likewise Theophilus ad Autol. ii. 10: "OTE ἐν τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ ὁ θεὸς πεποίηκε τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς, ἔφη· ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν. The phrase ἐν ἀρχῆ was understood in the same sense as διὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς, and ἀρχή, explained to denote the Logos, see Semisch, p. 335. Thus Irenæus also taught, iii. 11: Et hæc quidem sunt principia Evangelii, unum Deum fabricatorem hujus universitatis, eum qui et per prophetas sit annunciatus et qui per Moysem legis disquisitionem fecerit, Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi annunciantia et præter hunc alterum Deum nescientia, neque alterum patrem. On the contrary, he says, v. 18, 3: Mundi enim factor vere verbum Dei est; hic autem est Dominus noster, qui in novissimus temporibus homo factus est, in hoc mundo existens et secundum invisibilitatem continet quæ facta sunt omnia, et in universa conditione infixus, quoniam verbum Dei gubernans et disponens omnia et propter hoc in sua venit. That Clement of Alexandria called the Logos, as such, the creator of the world, has already been remarked, § 42, note 7. For the various appellations ποιητής, κτιστής, δημι ovpyós, see Suicer under the last mentioned word. [Burton, Bampton Lect., note 21, p. 320; note 50, p. 410.]

3

Theoph. ad. Autol. ii. 4, says against the followers of Plato Εἰ δὲ θεὸς ἀγέννητος καὶ ὕλη ἀγέννητος, οὐκ ἔτι ὁ θεὸς ποιητὴς Tŵv öλWV ÉσTí. Comp. Iren. fragm. sermonis ad Demetr. p. 348. [Comp. Burton, 1. c. note 18.] Tert. adv. Hermogenem, espec. c. i.

:

and Neander, Antignosticus, 1. c. In reference to the objections of Hermogenes, he admits that the different names of God: Sovereign, Judge, Father, etc., are not eternal, but coeval with the subjects of dominion, etc. Yet God himself is not the less eternal.

4 Hermogenes, a painter, lived towards the conclusion of the second century, probably at Carthage. According to Tertullian (adv. Hermog.) he maintained that God has created the world either out of himself, or out of nothing, or out of something already in existence. But he could not create the world out of himself, for he is indivisible; nor out of nothing, for as he himself is the supreme good, he would have created a perfectly good world; nothing therefore remains but that he has created the world out of matter already in existence. This matter (An) is consequently eternal like God himself; both principles were distinctly separate from each other from the beginning, God as the creating and imparting, matter as the receiving principle. Whatever part of this matter resists the creating principle, constitutes the evil in the world. But it was only in this point that Hermogenes agreed with the Gnostics; in other respects, and especially in reference to the doctrine of emanation, he joined the orthodox in opposing them. Comp. Böhmer (Guil.) de Hermogene Africano, Sundiæ, 1832, and Neander, Kirchengeschichte, i. 3, p. 974, ss. [transl. ii. p. 249-251.] Antignosticus p. 350-355; 424-442. Leopold, Hermogenis de origine mundi sententia, Budissæ, 1844.

5 De principiis iv. 16, Opp. i. p. 174, 175: Tís yàp voûv ἔχων οἰήσεται πρώτην καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην ἡμέραν, ἑσπέραν τε καὶ πρωΐαν χωρὶς ἡλίου γεγονέναι καὶ σελήνης καὶ ἄστρων, K. T. X. Comp. § 33, note 4.

6 According to Photius Bibl. Cod. c. 9, p. 89, Clement of Alex. is said to have taught that matter had no beginning (Ayv axpovov); with this statement comp. Strom. vi. 16, p. 812, 813: Οὐ τοίνυν ὥσπερ τινὲς ὑπολαμβάνουσι τὴν ἀνάπαυσιν τοῦ θεοῦ πέπαυται ποιῶν ὁ θεός· ἀγαθὸς γὰρ ὤν, εἰ παύσεταί ποτε ἀγαθοεργῶν, καὶ τοῦ θεὸς εἶναι παύσεται. But in other passages Clement most distinctly acknowledges that the world is a work of God; e. g. Coh. p. 54, 55: Μόνος γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἐποίησεν, ἐπεὶ καὶ μόνος ὄντως ἐστὶ θεός· ψιλῷ τῷ βούλεσθαι δημιουργεῖ, καὶ τῷ μόνον ἐθελῆσαι αὐτὸν ἕπεται τὸ γεγενῆσθαι.

Origen, indeed, opposes the eternity of matter (in the heathen and heretical sense), de princ. ii. 4, and in other places, e. g. Comment. in Joh. xxxii. 9, Opp. T. iv. p. 429; but though from

his idealistic position he denied eternity to matter, which he held to be the root of evil, he nevertheless assumed the eternal creation of innumerable ideal worlds, solely because he, as little as Clement, could conceive of God as unoccupied (otiosam enim et immobilem dicere naturam Dei, impium enim simul et absurdum), de princ. iii. 5, Opp. T. i. p. 149: Nos vero consequentur respondebimus, observantes regulam pietatis et dicentes, quoniam non tunc primum, cum visibilem istam mundum fecit Deus, cœpit operari, sed sicut post corruptionem hujus erit aliens mundus, ita et antequam his esset, fuisse alios credimus. It might be questioned whether Origen, in the use of the pronoun "nos" in the subsequent part of the passage, intended to enforce his own belief upon the church, or whether he employed the plural number merely in his character as author; comp. Rössler, Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, i. p. 177, and Schnitzer, 1. c. Comp. also Thomasius, p. 153, ss., 169, ss.

8 Iren. ii. 28, p. 157, (ii. 47, p. 175, Grabe): Ut puta si quis interroget, antequam mundum faceret Deus, quid agebat? dicimus, quoniam ista responsio subjacet Deo. Quoniam autem mundus hic factus est, apotelestos a Deo, temporale initium accipiens, Scripturæ nos docent; quid autem ante hoc Deus sit operatus, nulla scriptura manifestat. Subjacet ergo hæc responsio Deo. Respecting the important position which the doctrine of Irenæus concerning the creation of the world occupies in his theological system, see Duncker, p. 8.

§ 48.

PROVIDENCE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD.

Though the doctrine of the existence of the world for the sake of the human race only, may be so corrupted as to give rise to selfish principles, it is nevertheless founded upon the consciousness of a specific distinction between man and all other creatures, at least of this earth, and supported by allusions in the Sacred Scriptures.1 Accordingly, the primitive Christians considered the creation to be a voluntary act of Divine love, inasmuch as God does not stand in need of his creatures for the promotion of his own glory.2 But man, being the end of creation,3

is also pre-eminently the subject of Divine providence, and the whole vast economy of creation, with its laws and its miracles, is made subservient to the higher designs of the education of mankind. The Christian doctrine of providence, which was received by the Fathers in opposition to the objections of ancient philosophy, is remote, on the one hand, from Stoicism and the rigid dogma of a sipaguen held by the Gnostics,5 and on the other, from the system of Epicurus, according to which it is unworthy of the Deity to concern himself about the affairs of man." Here again the teachers of the Alexandrian school endeavoured to avoid as much as possible the use of anthropomorphitic language7 in connection with the idea that God takes care even of individuals, and attempted to reconcile the liberty of man with the love and justice of God.9

1 Matth. vi. 26; 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10.

2 E. g. Clement of Alex. Pæd. iii. 1, 250: 'Avevdens dè póvos ó Θεὸς καὶ χαίρει μάλιστα μὲν καθαρεύοντας ἡμᾶς ὁρῶν τῷ τῆς διανοίας κοσμῷ.

3 Justin M. Apol. i. 10: Καὶ πάντα τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀγαθὸν ὄντα δημιουργῆσαι αὐτὸν ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης δι ̓ ἀνθρώπους δεδιδάγ μela. Comp. Athen. de resurr. c. 12. Iren. v. 29, 1; iv. 5, 1; iv. 7, 4. Tert. advers. Marc. i. 13: Ergo nec mundus Deo indignus, nihil etenim Deus indignum se fecit, etsi mundum homini, non sibi fecit. Orig. contra Cels. iv. 74, p. 558, 559, and ibid., 99, p. 576: Κέλσος μὲν οὐκ λεγέτω, ὅτι οὐκ ἀνθρώπῳ, ὡς οὐδὲ λέοντι οὐδ ̓ οἷς ὀνομάζει. Ημεῖς δ ̓ ἐροῦμεν, οὐ λέοντι ὁ δημιουργὸς, οὐδὲ ἀετῷ οὐδὲ δελφίνι ταῦτα πεποίηκεν, ἀλλὰ πάντα διὰ τὸ λογικὸν ζώον.

* See the objections of Cæcilius ap. Minucius Felix, c. 5, ss., and, on the other hand, the oration of Octavius, c. 17 and 18, c. 20, 32, and especially the beautiful passage, c. 33: Nec nobis de nostra frequentia blandiamur; multi nobis videmur, sed Deo admodum pauci sumus. Nos gentes nationesque distinguimus: Deo una domus est mundus hic totus. Reges tantum regni sui per officia ministrorum universa novere: Deo indiciis non opus est; non solum in occulis ejus, sed et in sinu vivimus. Comp. Athen. leg. c. 22, in calce.

5 On the opinion of the Gnostic Bardesanes respecting the eiμapμévn (fate), and the influence of stars, comp. Photius Bibl. Cod. 223. Euseb. Præp. vi. 10. Neander's Gnostiche Systeme, p. 198. [Neander, History of the Christ. Relig. and Church during the first three centuries, transl. by H. J. Rose, ii. p. 97: “He (Bardesanes) therefore, although, like many of those who inclined to Gnosticism, he busied himself with astrology, contended against the doctrine of such an influence of the stars (eiμapuévn) as should be supposed to settle the life and affairs of man by necessity. Eusebius, in his great literary treasure house, the præparatio evangelica, has preserved a large fragment of this remarkable work; he here introduces, among other things, the Christians dispersed over so many countries, as an example of the absurdity of supposing that the stars irresistibly influenced the character of a people."] Baur, Gnosis, p. 234. C. Kühner, astronomiæ et astrologiæ in doctrina Gnostic. vestigia, P. I. Bardesanis Gnostici numina astralia. Hildeburgh, 1833. [Comp. also Gieseler, 1. c. i. § 46, n. 2, and Burton, Lect. on Ecclesiast. hist. Lect. xx. p. 182, 183.] Comp. especially the objections of Celsus in the work of Origen: God interferes as little with the affairs of man, as with those of monkeys and flies, etc., especially in lib. iv. Though Celsus was not a disciple of Epicurus, as Origen and Lucien would have him to be, but rather a follower of Plato (according to Neander [Hist. of the Ch. transl. i. 166]), yet these expressions savour very much of Epicureanism. [Comp. Lardner, Works, vii. 211, 212.]

6

7 According to Clement there is no contrast between the whole and its parts in the sight of God, (comp. also Minuc. Fel. note 4): ̓Αθρόως τε γὰρ πάντα καὶ ἕκαστον ἐν μέρει μιᾷ προσβολῇ προσBéTE. Strom. vi. p. 821, comp. the work of Origen contra Cels. 8 The doctrine of the concursus, as it was afterwards termed, is found in Clem. Strom. vi. 17, p. 821, SS. Many things owe their existence to human calculation, though they are, as it were, kindled by God as combustibles are kindled by the lightning, (TYU ἔναυσιν ειληφότα). Thus health is preserved by medical skill, the carriage by fencing, riches by industrious art (xpημATIOTIKη τέχνη); but the Divine πρόνοια and human συνέργεια always work together.

9 Comp. § 39, note 8. In opposition to the Gnostics, who derived evil not from the supreme God, but from the demiurgus, Irenæus observes, adv. Hær. iv. 39, p. 285 (iv. 76, p. 380, Gr.), that through the contrast of good and evil in the world, the for