thumb|right|250px|Image of a fiery purgatory in the Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry
thumb|250 px|right|Image of a non-fiery purgatory (Gustave Doré: illustration for Dante's Purgatorio, Canto 24)
The idea of purgatory has roots that date back into antiquity. A sort of proto-purgatory called the "celestial Hades" appears in the writings of Plato and Heraclides Ponticus and in many other pagan writers. This concept is distinguished from the Hades of the underworld described in the works of Homer and Hesiod. In contrast, the celestial Hades was understood as an intermediary place where souls spent an undetermined time after death before either moving on to a higher level of existence or being reincarnated back on earth. Its exact location varied from author to author. Heraclides of Pontus thought it was in the Milky Way; the Academicians, the Stoics, Cicero, Virgil, Plutarch, the Hermetical writings situated it between the Moon and the Earth or around the Moon; while Numenius and the Latin Neoplatonists thought it was located between the sphere of the fixed stars and the Earth.Adrian Mihai,"L'Hadès céleste. Histoire du purgatoire dans l'Antiquité"(Garnier: 2015), pp.185-188

Perhaps under the influence of Hellenistic thought, the intermediate state entered Jewish religious thought in the last centuries B.C.E.. In Maccabees we find the practice of prayer for the dead with a view to their after life purificationcf.  a practice accepted by some Christians. The same practice appears in other traditions, such as the medieval Chinese Buddhist practice of making offerings on behalf of the dead, who are said to suffer numerous trials.Purgatory in Encyclopædia Britannica Among other reasons, Catholic teaching of purgatory is based on the pre-Christian (Judaic) practice of prayers for the dead.Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1032

Descriptions and doctrine regarding purgatory developed over the centuries.Isabel Moreira, Heaven's Purge (Oxford University Press, 2010) pp. 3-13 Roman Catholic Christians who believe in purgatory interpret passages such as , , , , ,  and  as support for prayer for purgatorial souls who are believed to be within an active interim state for the dead undergoing purifying flames (which could be interpreted as an analogy or allegory) after death until purification allows admittance into heaven. The first Christians did not develop consistent and universal beliefs about the interim state. Gradually, Christians, especially in the West, took an interest in circumstances of the interim state between one's death and the future resurrection. Christians both East and West prayed for the dead in this interim state, although theologians in the East refrained from defining it as a physical location with a distinct name. Augustine of Hippo distinguished between the purifying fire that saves and eternal consuming fire for the unrepentant. Gregory the Great established a connection between earthly penance and purification after death. All Soul's Day, established in the 10th century, turned popular attention to the condition of departed souls.

The idea of Purgatory as a physical place (like heaven and hell) became Roman Catholic teaching in the late 11th century.Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory (University of Chicago Press, 1984) Medieval theologians concluded that the purgatorial punishments consisted of material fire. The Western formulation of purgatory proved to be a sticking point in the Great Schism between East and West. The Roman Catholic Church believes that the living can help those whose purification from their sins is not yet completed not only by praying for them but also by gaining indulgences for themCCC, 1479  as an act of intercession.Cross, F. L., ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005), article indulgences The later Middle Ages saw the growth of considerable abuses, such as the unrestricted sale of indulgences by professional "pardoners" sent to collect contributions to projects such as the rebuilding of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. These abuses were one of the factors that led to the Protestant Reformation. Most Protestant religions rejected the idea of purgatory as it conflicted with Protestant theology of "Salvation by grace alone" ().  Luther's canon of the Bible excluded the Deuterocanonical books. Modern Catholic theologians have softened the punitive aspects of purgatory and stress instead the willingness of the dead to undergo purification as preparation for the happiness of heaven

The English Anglican scholar John Henry Newman argued, in a book that he wrote before becoming Catholic, that the essence of the doctrine on purgatory is locatable in ancient tradition, and that the core consistency of such beliefs are evidence that Christianity was "originally given to us from heaven".John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, chapter 2, section 3, paragraph 2.

 Christian Antiquity

Prayer for the dead
thumb|A procession in the Catacombs of St. Callistus, Rome. The catacombs contain inscriptions that are often prayers for the dead.Cabrol and Leclercq, Monumenta Ecclesiæ Liturgica. Volume I: Reliquiæ Liturgicæ Vetustissimæ (Paris, 1900-2) pp. ci-cvi, cxxxix.
Prayers for the dead were known to ancient Jewish practice, and it has been speculated that Christianity may have taken its similar practice from its Jewish heritage.George Cross, "The Differentiation of the Roman and Greek Catholic Views of the Future Life", in The Biblical World (1912) p. 106 In Christianity, prayer for the dead is attested since at least the 2nd century,Gerald O' Collins and Mario Farrugia, Catholicism: the story of Catholic Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) p. 36; George Cross, "The Differentiation of the Roman and Greek Catholic Views of the Future Life", in The Biblical World (1912) p. 106; cf. Pastor I, iii. 7, also Ambrose, De Excessu fratris Satyri 80 evidenced in part by the tomb inscription of Abercius, Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia (d. c. 200).Gerald O' Collins and Edward G. Farrugia, A Concise Dictionary of Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000) p. 217 Celebration of the Eucharist for the dead is attested to since at least the 3rd century.Gerald O' Collins and Mario Farrugia, Catholicism: the story of Catholic Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) p. 36; George Cross, "The Differentiation of the Roman and Greek Catholic Views of the Future Life", in The Biblical World (1912) p. 106

Purification after death
Specific examples of belief in purification after death and of the communion of the living with the dead through prayer are found in many of the Church Fathers.Gerald O'Collins and Edward G. Farrugia, A Concise Dictionary of Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000) p. 27. Irenaeus (c. 130-202) mentioned an abode where the souls of the dead remained until the universal judgment, a process that has been described as one which "contains the concept of... purgatory."Christian Dogmatics vol. 2 (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1984) p. 503; cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.31.2, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 1:560 cf. 5.36.2 / 1:567; cf. George Cross, "The Differentiation of the Roman and Greek Catholic Views of the Future Life", in The Biblical World (1912) p. 107 Both St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) and his pupil, Origen of Alexandria (c. 185-254), developed a view of purification after death;Gerald O'Collins and Edward G. Farrugia, A Concise Dictionary of Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000) p. 27; cf. Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma vol. 2, trans. Neil Buchanan (London, Williams & Norgate, 1995) p. 337; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6:14 this view drew upon the notion that fire is a divine instrument from the Old Testament, and understood this in the context of New Testament teachings such as baptism by fire, from the Gospels, and a purificatory trial after death, from St. Paul.Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory (University of Chicago Press, 1984) p. 53; cf. , ,  Origen, in arguing against soul sleep, stated that the souls of the elect immediately entered paradise unless not yet purified, in which case they passed into a state of punishment, a penal fire, which is to be conceived as a place of purification.Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma vol. 2, trans. Neil Buchanan (London: Williams & Norgate, 1905) p. 377. read online. For both Clement and Origen, the fire was neither a material thing nor a metaphor, but a "spiritual fire".Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory (University of Chicago Press, 1984) pp. 55-57; cf. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:6 and 5:14 An early Latin author, Tertullian (c. 160-225), also articulated a view of purification after death.Gerald O'Collins and Edward G. Farrugia, A Concise Dictionary of Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000) p. 27; cf. Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma vol. 2, trans. Neil Buchanan (London, Williams & Norgate, 1995) p. 296 n. 1; George Cross, "The Differentiation of the Roman and Greek Catholic Views of the Future Life", in The Biblical World (1912); Tertullian De Anima In Tertullian's understanding of the afterlife, the souls of martyrs entered directly into eternal blessedness,A. J. Visser, "A Bird's-Eye View of Ancient Christian Eschatology", in Numen (1967) p. 13 whereas the rest entered a generic realm of the dead. There the wicked suffered a foretaste of their eternal punishments, whilst the good experienced various stages and places of bliss wherein "the idea of a kind of purgatory… is quite plainly found," an idea that is representative of a view widely dispersed in antiquity.Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma vol. 2, trans. Neil Buchanan (London: Williams & Norgate, 1905) p. 296 n. 1. read online; cf. Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory (University of Chicago Press, 1984) pp. 58-59 Later examples, wherein further elaborations are articulated, include St. Cyprian (d. 258),Cyprian, Letters 51:20; Gerald O'Collins and Edward G. Farrugia, A Concise Dictionary of Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000) p. 27 St. John Chrysostom (c. 347-407),John Chrysostom, Homily on First Corinthians 41:5; Homily on Philippians 3:9-10; Gerald O'Collins and Edward G. Farrugia, A Concise Dictionary of Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000) p. 27 and St. Augustine (354-430),Augustine, Sermons 159:1, 172:2; City of God 21:13; Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69, 29:109; Confessions 2.27; Gerald O' Collins and Mario Farrugia, Catholicism: the story of Catholic Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) p. 36; Gerald O'Collins and Edward G. Farrugia, A Concise Dictionary of Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000) p. 27 among others.

Interim state

The Christian notion of an interim state of souls after death developed only gradually. This may be in part because it was of little interest as long as Christians looked for an imminent end of the world, as many scholars believe they did. The Eastern Church came to admit the existence of an intermediate state, but refrained from defining it, while at the same time maintaining the belief in prayer for the dead that was a constant feature of both Eastern and Western liturgies, and which is unintelligible without belief in an interim state in which the dead may be benefited. Christians in the West demonstrated much more curiosity about this interim state than those in the East: The Passion of Saints Perpetua and Felicity and occasional remarks by Saint Augustine give expression to their belief that sins can be purged by suffering in an afterlife and that the process can be accelerated by prayer.Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ), article Purgatory

In the early 5th century, Augustine spoke of the pain that purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life."gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita" (P. L., col. 397), quoted in Catholic Encyclopedia: Purgatory. And Gregory the Great said that those who after this life "will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames," and he adds "that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life."Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1, quoted in Catholic Encyclopedia: Purgatory

 Early Middle Ages
thumb|Gregory the Great with a dove alighting on his shoulder while the pontiff writes his homilies, an ancient tradition about the saintVita Gregorii, ed. B. Colgrave, chapter 26 (see also Colgrave's introduction p. 51); John the Deacon, Life of Saint Gregory, IV, 70.
During the Early Middle Ages, the doctrine of final purification developed distinctive features in the Latin-speaking West – these differed from developments in the Greek-speaking East.

Gregory the Great
Pope Gregory the Great's Dialogues, written in the late 6th century, evidence a development in the understanding of the afterlife distinctive of the direction that Latin Christendom would take:
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.Gregory the Great, Dialogues 4, 39: PL 77, 396; cf.

Visions of purgatory
Visions of purgatory abounded; Bede (died 735) mentioned a vision of a beautiful heaven and a lurid hell with adjacent temporary abodes,George Cross, "The Medieval Catholic Doctrine of the Future Life", in The Biblical World (1912) p. 192; cf. Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica 4.19 as did Saint Boniface (died 754).George Cross, "The Medieval Catholic Doctrine of the Future Life", in The Biblical World (1912) p. 192; cf. Epistula ad Eadburgham 20 In the 7th century, the Irish abbot St. Fursa described his foretaste of the afterlife, where, though protected by angels, he was pursued by demons who said: "It is not fitting that he should enjoy the blessed life unscathed..., for every transgression that is not purged on earth must be avenged in heaven", and on his return he was engulfed in a billowing fire that threatened to burn him, "for it stretches out each one according to their merits... For just as the body burns through unlawful desire, so the soul will burn, as the lawful, due penalty for every sin."Brown, Rise of Western Christendom (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003) p. 259; cf. Vision of Fursa 8.16, 16.5

Other influential writers
Others who expounded upon purgatory include Haymo (died 853), Rabanus Maurus ( 780 – 856), and Walafrid Strabo ( 808 – 849).George Cross, "The Medieval Catholic Doctrine of the Future Life", in The Biblical World (1912) p. 192

High Middle Ages

East-West Schism
In 1054, the Bishop of Rome and the four Greek-speaking patriarchs of the East excommunicated each other, triggering the East-West Schism. The schism split the church basically into the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. In the West, the understanding of purification through fire in the intermediate state continued to develop.

All Soul's Day
The Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates several All Souls' Days in the year,See the Wikipedia article for a list. but in the West only one such annual commemoration is celebrated. The establishment, at the end of the 10th century, of this remembrance helped focus popular imagination on the fate of the departed, and fostered a sense of solidarity between the living and the dead. Then, in the 12th century, the elaboration of the theology of penance helped create a notion of purgatory as a place to complete penances unfinished in this life.

Twelfth century
By the 12th century, the process of purification had acquired the Latin name, "purgatorium", from the verb purgare: to purge.See C. S. Watkins, "Sin, penance and purgatory in the Anglo-Norman realm: the evidence of visions and ghost stories", in Past and Present 175 (May 2002) pp. 3-33.

"Birth of purgatory"
Medievalist Jacques Le Goff defines the "birth of purgatory", i.e. the conception of purgatory as a physical place, rather than merely as a state, as occurring between 1170 and 1200.Jacques Le Goff, La naissance du purgatoire. (Bibliothèque des Histoires) Paris: Gallimard, 1981; an English translation is available under the title The Birth of Purgatory, published by the University of Chicago Press (the English is referenced here). Le Goff acknowledged that the notion of purification after death, without the medieval notion of a physical place, existed in antiquity, arguing specifically that Clement of Alexandria, and his pupil Origen of Alexandria, derived their view from a combination of biblical teachings, though he considered vague concepts of purifying and punishing fire to predate Christianity.Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory (University of Chicago Press, 1984) pp. 55-57. Le Goff also considered Peter the Lombard (d. 1160), in expounding on the teachings of St. Augustine and Gregory the Great, to have contributed significantly to the birth of purgatory in the sense of a physical place.

While the idea of purgatory as a process of cleansing thus dated back to early Christianity, the 12th century was the heyday of medieval otherworld-journey narratives such as the Irish Visio Tnugdali, and of pilgrims' tales about St. Patrick's Purgatory, a cavelike entrance to purgatory on a remote island in Ireland.Online Encyclopædia Britannica The legend of St Patrick's Purgatory (Tractatus de Purgatorio Sancti Patricii) written in that century by Hugh of Saltry, also known as Henry of Sawtry, was "part of a huge, repetitive contemporary genre of literature of which the most familiar today is Dante's";Lough Derg: the spirit of a holy place ; cf. Visions of the Other World in Middle English by Robert Easting, p. 16; The legend of the "Purgatory of Saint Patrick": from Ireland, until Dante and beyond. another is the Visio Tnugdali. Other legends localized the entrance to Purgatory in places such as a cave on the volcanic Mount Etna in Sicily.A History of the Church in the Middle Ages by F. Donald Logan Thus the idea of purgatory as a physical place became widespread on a popular level, and was defended also by some theologians.

Thomas Aquinas
What has been called the classic formulation of the doctrine of purgatory, namely the means by which any unforgiven guilt of venial sins is expiated and punishment for any kind of sins is borne, is attributed to Thomas Aquinas although he ceased work on his Summa Theologica before reaching the part in which he would have dealt with Purgatory, which is treated in the "Supplement" added after his death. According to Aquinas and the other scholastics, the dead in purgatory are at peace because they are sure of salvation, and may be helped by the prayers of the faithful and especially the offering of the Eucharist, because they are still part of the Communion of Saints, from which only those in hell or limbo are excluded.

Second Council of Lyon
At the Second Council of Lyon in 1274, the Catholic Church defined, for the first time, its teaching on purgatory, in two points:
 some souls are purified after death;
 such souls benefit from the prayers and pious duties that the living do for them.

The council declared:

Late Middle Ages

Through theology, literature, and indulgences, purgatory became central to late medieval religion and became associated with indulgences and other penitential practices, such as fasting. This was another step in the development of this doctrine.

 Subsequent history

Latin-Greek relations
thumb|Basil Bessarion (), Latin Patriarch of Constantinople
The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that "there is a state beyond death where believers continue to be perfected and led to full divinization".Ted A. Campbell, Christian Confessions: a Historical Introduction (Westminster John Knox Press 1996 ), p. 54 But in the 15th century, at the Council of Florence, authorities of the Eastern Orthodox Church identified some aspects of the Latin idea of purgatory as a point on which there were principal differences between Greek and Latin doctrine.The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999) p. 201; cf. Orthodoxinfo.com, The Orthodox Response to the Latin Doctrine of Purgatory The Eastern Christians objected especially to the legalistic distinction between guilt and punishment and to the fire of purgatory being material fire. The decrees of the Council, which contained no reference to fire and, without using the word "purgatory" ("purgatorium"), spoke only of "pains of cleansing" ("poenis purgatoriis"),Denzinger, 1304 were rejected at the time by the Eastern churches but formed the basis on which certain Eastern communities were later received into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999) p. 202 At the Council itself, the Greek Metropolitan Bessarion argued against the existence of real purgatorial fire. In effecting full communion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church by the Union of Brest (1595), the two agreed, "We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church."Union of Brest (1595) Article 5 Furthermore, the Council of Trent, in its discussion of purgatory, instructed the bishops not to preach on such "difficult and subtle questions".Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), entry on Purgatory; cf. Council of Trent, Session XXV, "De Purgatorio"

Protestant Reformation
During the Protestant Reformation, certain Protestant theologians developed a view of salvation (soteriology) that excluded purgatory.  This was in part a result from a doctrinal change concerning justification and sanctification on the part of the reformers.   In Catholic theology, one is made righteous by a progressive infusion of divine grace accepted through faith and cooperated with through good works; however, in Martin Luther's doctrine, justification rather meant "the declaring of one to be righteous", where God imputes the merits of Christ upon one who remains without inherent merit.Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History (New York: Penguin Books, 2004) p. 119  In this process, good works done in faith (i.e. through penance) are more of an unessential byproduct that contribute nothing to one's own state of righteousness; hence, in Protestant theology, "becoming perfect" came to be understood as an instantaneous act of God and not a process or journey of purification that continues in the afterlife.
thumb|John Calvin, unknown artist, British School, inscribed 1564

Thus, Protestant soteriology developed the view that each one of the elect (saved) experienced instantaneous glorification upon death.  As such, there was little reason to pray for the dead.  Luther wrote in Question No. 211 in his expanded Small Catechism: "We should pray for ourselves and for all other people, even for our enemies, but not for the souls of the dead."  Luther, after he stopped believing in purgatory around 1530,Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History (New York: Penguin Books, 2004) p. 580; cf. Koslofsky, Reformation of the Dead pp. 34-39 openly affirmed the doctrine of soul sleep.Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History (New York: Penguin Books, 2004) pp. 580-581; cf. Koslofsky, Reformation of the Dead p. 48 Purgatory came to be seen as one of the "unbiblical corruptions" that had entered Church teachings sometime subsequent to the apostolic age.  Hence, the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England produced during the English Reformation stated: "The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory...is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God" (article 22).  Likewise, John Calvin, central theologian of Reformed Protestantism, considered purgatory a superstition, writing in his Institutes (5.10): "The doctrine of purgatory ancient, but refuted by a more ancient Apostle. Not supported by ancient writers, by Scripture, or solid argument. Introduced by custom and a zeal not duly regulated by the word of God… we must hold by the word of God, which rejects this fiction." In general, this position remains indicative of Protestant belief today, with the notable exception of certain Anglo-Catholics, such as the Guild of All Souls, which describe themselves as Reformed and Catholic (and specifically not Protestant) and believe in purgatory.

In response to Protestant Reformation critics, the Council of Trent reaffirmed purgatory as already taught by the Second Council of Lyon, confining itself to the concepts of purification after death and the efficacy of prayers for the dead. It simply affirmed the existence of purgatory and the great value of praying for the deceased, but sternly instructed preachers not to push beyond that and distract, confuse, and mislead the faithful with unnecessary speculations concerning the nature and duration of purgatorial punishments.Decree on Purgatory (1563) It thus forbade presentation as Church teaching of the elaborate medieval speculation that had grown up around the concept of purgatory.

Anglican apologist C. S. Lewis gave as an example of this speculation, which he interpreted as what the Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles, XXII meant by "the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory", the depiction of the state of purgatory as just a temporary hell with horrible devils tormenting souls. The etymology of the word "purgatory", he remarked, indicates cleansing, not simply retributive punishment. Lewis declared his personal belief in purgatory, a process of after-death purification.

Later speculations include the idea advocated by Saints Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Liguori of asking for the prayers of the souls in purgatory, a notion not accepted by all theologians. Saint Francis de Sales argued that, in the mention in  of every knee bowing at the name of Jesus "in heaven, on earth, and under the earth", "under the earth"  was a reference to those in purgatory, since it could not apply to those in hell. Frederick William Faber said that there have been private revelations of souls who "abide their purification in the air, or by their graves, or near altars where the Blessed Sacrament is, or in the rooms of those who pray for them, or amid the scenes of their former vanity and frivolity".

References

External links
"purgatory". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2009.

Category:Catholic theology and doctrine
Category:Afterlife in Christianity

Perhaps under the influence of Hellenistic thought , the intermediate state entered Jewish religious thought in the last centuries B.C.E ..

purgatory
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.Join Britannica's Publishing Partner Program and our community of experts to gain a global audience for your work!
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.Join Britannica's Publishing Partner Program and our community of experts to gain a global audience for your work!
purgatory, the condition, process, or place of purification or temporary punishment in which, according to medieval Christian and Roman Catholic belief, the souls of those who die in a state of grace are made ready for heaven. Purgatory (Latin: purgatorium; from purgare, “to purge”) has come to refer as well to a wide range of historical and modern conceptions of postmortem suffering short of everlasting damnation.
Purgatory in world religions
The idea of purification or temporary punishment after death has ancient roots and is well attested in early Christian literature. The conception of purgatory as a geographically situated place is largely the achievement of medieval Christian piety and imagination. Beliefs and practices relating to purgatory profoundly affected Western society in the Middle Ages and beyond. As the focus of a complex system of suffrages (intercessory prayers, masses, alms, and fasting on behalf of the dead), penitential practices, and indulgences, purgatory strengthened the bond between the living and the dead, provided motivation for works of social philanthropy as well as for pilgrimages and Crusades, and furnished abundant matter for visionary and imaginative literature.
In general, the origins of purgatory may be sought in the worldwide practice of praying for the dead and caring for their needs. Such ministrations presuppose that the dead are in a temporal state between earthly life and their final abode and that they can benefit from the generosity or transferred merit of the living. Purgatory answers the human need to believe in a just and merciful cosmos, one in which ordinary people, neither hardened sinners nor perfect saints, may undergo correction, balance life’s accounts, satisfy old debts, cleanse accumulated defilements, and heal troubled memories. Since these are universal concerns, there are parallels to the Christian conception of purgatory in many religious and cultural traditions.
According to classical Buddhism, for example, rebirth in any of the six realms—whether as a god, human, demigod (asura), animal, hungry ghost, or hell being—is a temporary state conditioned by the character of the intentional actions performed in a person’s past lives (karma). Donations to a monastic community, altruistic practice of spiritual disciplines, and good deeds are ways of generating merit that may be dedicated to relieving the purgatorial suffering of beings imprisoned in sorrowful rebirths or in transit between lives. In medieval Chinese Buddhism, the classical Buddhist understanding of rebirth and transfer of merit merged with traditional practices and beliefs concerning the veneration of ancestors and the placation of potentially troublesome ghosts. The Chinese Buddhist afterworld is perceived as an imperial bureaucracy in which the deceased is subjected to a series of trials whose outcome depends largely upon the offerings made by family members. The monastic community, as a “field of merit” for lay donors, serves an intermediary function. The popularity of the annual Ghost Festival (rite in which offerings are made to ancestral ghosts), as well as the persistence of other seasonal, domestic, and esoteric rites for the care and feeding of the dead, demonstrates that responsibility for beings in “purgatory” is an enduring preoccupation of Chinese society—as it is in other East Asian cultures.
Christian traditions
Among Christians, the biblical warrant for purgatory is contested. Supporters of the Roman Catholic belief cite biblical passages in which there are intimations of the three major components of purgatory: prayer for the dead, an active interim state between death and resurrection, and a purifying fire after death. These texts yield a consistent notion of purgatory, however, only when viewed from the standpoint of the formal Roman Catholic doctrine, which was defined at the councils of Lyon (1274), Ferrara-Florence (1438–45), and Trent (1545–63) after a prolonged period of development by lay Christians and theologians.
Origins of the doctrine
Advocates of purgatory find support in numerous scriptural and non-scriptural traditions. The well-attested early Christian practice of prayer for the dead, for example, was encouraged by the episode (rejected by Protestants as apocryphal) in which Judas Maccabeus (Jewish leader of the revolt against the tyrant Antiochus IV Epiphanes) makes atonement for the idolatry of his fallen soldiers by providing prayers and a monetary sin offering on their behalf (2 Maccabees 12:41–46), by the Apostle Paul’s prayer for Onesiphorus (2 Timothy 1:18), and by the implication in Matthew 12:32 that there may be forgiveness of sins in the world to come. The parable of Dives and Lazarus in Luke 16:19–26 and the words of Jesus from the cross to the repentant thief in Luke 23:43 are also cited in support of an interim period before the Day of Judgment during which the damned may hope for respite, the blessed preview their reward, and the “mixed” undergo correction. The noncanonical tradition that on Holy Saturday Christ invaded the realm of the dead and liberated Adam and Eve and the biblical patriarchs lends support to the view that there is a temporary realm of imprisonment after death.
Some Christian writers speak of an “intelligent” fire that tortures the damned, tests and purifies the mixed (e.g., 1 Corinthians 3:11–15), and is pleasant to the saints. Analogous ideas are found in rabbinic literature, including the Babylonian Talmud. According to Hebrews 12:29, God himself is “a consuming fire.” Against the view that all humankind will ultimately be saved by passing through a cleansing fire—a doctrine considered sympathetically by the theologians Origen (c. 185–c. 254) and St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–c. 394) and prominent in Zoroastrian eschatology—St. Augustine (354–430) distinguished between the purgatorial fire that burns off stains and the everlasting fire that consumes those who die unrepentant and unreconciled to the church. Pope Gregory I (reigned 590–604) elaborated the doctrine still further, treating the purgatorial fire as an extension beyond the grave of the metaphorical fire of redemptive suffering. While commending the practice of offering masses for the sake of suffering souls, he emphasized, as Augustine did, that the question of salvation or damnation is settled at the moment of death. Only those destined for salvation pass through purgatory.

Question: what type of thought did the intermediate state enter jewish religious thought under

Answer: Hellenistic

what type of thought did the intermediate state enter jewish religious thought under

Question: under what influence did the intermediate state enter jewish religious thought

Answer: Hellenistic thought

under what influence did the intermediate state enter jewish religious thought

Question: what religious thought did the intermediate state enter in the last centuries b.c.e

Answer: Jewish

what religious thought did the intermediate state enter in the last centuries b.c.e

Question: when did the intermediate state enter jewish religious thought

Answer: B.C.E.

when did the intermediate state enter jewish religious thought

Question: what did the intermediate state enter in the last centuries b.c.e

Answer: Jewish religious thought

what did the intermediate state enter in the last centuries b.c.e

Question: who entered jewish religious thought in the last centuries b.c.e.

Answer: the intermediate state

who entered jewish religious thought in the last centuries b.c.e.

Question: what did the intermediate state enter in the last centuries bc

Answer: religious thought

what did the intermediate state enter in the last centuries bc

Cross, F. L., ed.,

The Western formulation of purgatory proved to be a sticking point in the Great Schism between East and West .

The Roman Catholic Church believes that the living can help those whose purification from their sins is not yet completed not only by praying for them but also by gaining indulgences for themCCC , 1479 as an act of intercession .

Help
|Catechism of the Catholic Church|
IntraText - Text
X. Indulgences
1471 The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance.
What is an indulgence?
"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment
due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian
who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the
action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and
applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the
saints."81
"An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin."82 Indulgences may be applied to the living or the dead.
The punishments of sin
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.83
1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man."84
In the Communion of Saints
1474 The Christian who seeks to purify himself of his sin and to become holy with the help of God's grace is not alone. "The life of each of God's children is joined in Christ and through Christ in a wonderful way to the life of all the other Christian brethren in the supernatural unity of the Mystical Body of Christ, as in a single mystical person."85
1475 In the communion of saints, "a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things."86 In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.
1476 We also call these spiritual goods of the communion of saints the Church's treasury, which is "not the sum total of the material goods which have accumulated during the course of the centuries. On the contrary the 'treasury of the Church' is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ's merits have before God. They were offered so that the whole of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. In Christ, the Redeemer himself, the satisfactions and merits of his Redemption exist and find their effficacy."87
1477 "This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body."88
Obtaining indulgence from God through the Church
1478 An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.89
1479 Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted.

Question: what was the western version of purgatory

Answer: purgatory

what was the western version of purgatory

Question: when did the roman catholic church begin purgatory

Answer: 1479

when did the roman catholic church begin purgatory

Question: which formulation of purgatory proved to be a sticking point in the great schism

Answer: Western

which formulation of purgatory proved to be a sticking point in the great schism

Question: how does the roman catholic church help those whose purgatory is not completed

Answer: praying for them

how does the roman catholic church help those whose purgatory is not completed

Question: what was a sticking point in the great schism between east and west

Answer: Western formulation of purgatory

what was a sticking point in the great schism between east and west

Question: who believes that the living can help those whose purification from their sins is not yet

Answer: The Roman Catholic Church

Question: the western formulation of purgatory proved to be a sticking point in the great sch

Answer: East and West

the western formulation of purgatory proved to be a sticking point in the great sch

n. 1 ; George Cross , " The Differentiation of the Roman and Greek Catholic Views of the Future Life " , in The Biblical World ( 1912 ) ; Tertullian De Anima In Tertullian 's understanding of the afterlife , the souls of martyrs entered directly into eternal blessedness , A. J. Visser , " A Bird's - Eye View of Ancient Christian Eschatology " , in Numen ( 1967 ) p. 13 whereas the rest entered a generic realm of the dead .

CHAPTER I -- PLAN.
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." And the prophet says," Blessed is he that soweth into all waters, whose ox and ass tread," [that is,] the people, from the Law and from the Gentiles, gathered into one faith.
"Now the weak eateth herbs," according to the noble apostle. The Instructor, divided by us into three books, has already exhibited the training and nurture up from the state of childhood, that is, the course of life which from elementary instruction grows by faith; and in the case of those enrolled in the number of men, prepares beforehand the soul, endued with virtue, for the reception of gnostic knowledge. The Greeks, then, clearly learning, from what shall be said by us in these pages, that in profanely persecuting the Godloving man, they themselves act impiously; then, as the notes advance, in accordance with the style of the Miscellanies, we must solve the difficulties raised both by Greeks and Barbarians with respect to the coming of the Lord.
In a meadow the flowers blooming variously, and in a park the plantations of fruittrees, 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 fight 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 i 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, "who pities" (those ruined through error), "and lends" (from the communication of the word of truth) not at haphazard, for "he will dispense his words in judgment:" with profound calculation, "he hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor."
CHAPTER II -- THE SUBJECT OF PLAGIARISMS RESUMED. THE GREEKS PLAGIARIZED FROM ONE ANOTHER.
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: "Since nothing else is more shameless and wretched than woman,"
Homer plainly says: "Since nothing else is more dreadful and shameless than a woman."
And Musaeus having written: "Since art is greatly superior to strength,"
Homer says: "By art rather than strength is the woodcutter greatly superior."
Again, Musaeus having composed the lines: "And as the fruitful field produceth leaves, And on the ash trees some fade, others grow, So whirls the race of man its leaf,"
Homer transcribes: "Some of the leaves the wind strews on the ground.
The budding wood bears some; in time of spring, They come. So springs one race of men, and one departs."
Again, Homer having said: "It is unholy to exult over dead men,"
Archilochus and Cratinus write, the former: "It is not noble at dead men to sneer;" and Cratinus in the Lacones: "For men 'tis dreadful to exult Much o'er the stalwart dead."
Again, Archilochus, transferring that Homeric line: "I erred, nor say I nay: -- instead of many" writes thus: "I erred, and this mischief hath somehow seized another."
As certainly also that line: "Evenhanded war the slayer slays."
He also, altering, has given forth thus: "I will do it. For Mars to men in truth is evenhanded."
Also, translating the following: "The issues of victory among men depend on the gods," he openly encourages youth, in the following iambic: "Victory's issues on the gods depend." Again, Homer having said: "With feet unwashed sleeping on the ground," Euripides writes in Erechteus: "Upon the plain spread with no couch they sleep Nor m the streams of water lave their feet."
Archilochus having likewise said: "But one with this and one with that His heart delights? in correspondence with the Homeric line: "For one in these deeds, one in those delights," Euripides says in OEneus: "But one in these ways, one in those, has more delight."
And I have heard Aeschylus saying: "He who is happy ought to stay at home; There should he also stay, who speeds not well."
And Euripides, too, shouting the like on the stage: Happy the man who, prosperous, stays at home."
Menander, too, on comedy, saying: "He ought at home to stay, and free remain, Or be no longer rightly happy."
Again, Theognis having said: "The exile has no comrade dear and true,"
Euripides has written: "Far from the poor flies every friend."
And Epicharmus, saying: "Daughter, woe worth the day Thee who art old I marry to a youth;" and adding: "For the young husband takes some other girl, And for another husband longs the wife,"
Euripides writes: "'Tis bad to yoke an old wife to a youth; For he desires to share another's bed, And she, by him deserted, mischief plots."
Euripides having, besides, said in the Medea: "For no good do a bad man's gifts,"Sophocles in Ajax Flagellifer utters this iambic: "For foes' gifts are no gifts, nor any boon."
Solon having written: "For surfeit insolence begets, When store of wealth attends."
Theognis writes in the same way: "For surfeit insolence begets, When store of wealth attends the bad."
Whence also Thucydides, in the Histories, says: -- "Many men, to whom in a great degree, and in a short time, unlookedfor prosperity comes, are wont to turn to insolence." And Philistus likewise imitates the same sentiment, expressing himself thus: -- "And the many things which turn out prosperously to men, in accordance with reason, have an incredibly dangerous s tendency to misfortune. For those who meet with unlooked success beyond their expectations, are for the most part wont to turn to insolence." Again, Euripides having written: "For children sprung of parents who have led A hard and toilsome life, superior are;"
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, anti 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 Hephaestusmade shield: "Upon it earth and heaven and sea he made, And Ocean's rivers' mighty strength portrayed,"
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: "Shame, which greatly hurts a man or he!ps,"
Euripides writes in Erechtheus: "Of shame I find it hard to judge; ' Tis needed.' 'Tis at times a great mischief."
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: "Dear charm of sleep, aid in disease."
From the Eriphyle of Sophocies: "Hie thee to sleep, healer of that disease."
And from the Antigone of Sophocles: "Bastardy is opprobrious in name; but the nature is equal;"
And from the Aleuades of Sophocles: "Each good thing has its nature equal."
Again, in the Otimenus of Euripides: "For him who toils, God helps;"
And in the Minos of Sophocles; "To those who act not, fortune is no ally;"
And from the Alexander of Euripides: "But time will show; and learning, by that test, I shall know whether thou art good or bad;"
And from the Hipponos of Sophocles: "Besides, conceal thou nought; since Time, That sees all, hears all, all things will unfold."
But let us similarly run over the following; for Eumelus having composed the line, "Of Memory and Olympian Zeus the daughters nine,"
Solon thus begins the elegy: "Of Memory and Olympian Zeus the children bright."
Again, Euripides, paraphrasing the Homeric line: "What, whence art thou? Thy city and thy parents, where?" employs the following iambics in Aegeus: "What country shall we say that thou hast left To roam in exile, what thy land -- the bound Of thine own native soil? Who thee begat?
And of what father dost thou call thyself the son?"
And what? Theognis having said: "Wine largely drunk is bad; but if one use It with discretion, 'tis not bad, but good,"- does not Panyasis write?
"Above the gods' best gift to men ranks wine, In measure drunk; but in excess the worst."
Hesiod, too, saying: "But for the fire to thee I'll give a plague,
For all men to delight themselves withal,"- Euripides writes: "And for the fire Another fire greater and unconquerable, Sprung up in the shape of women"
And in addition, Homer, saying: "There is no satiating the greedy paunch, Baneful, which many plagues has caused to men."
Euripides says : "Dire need and baneful paunch me overcome; From which all evils come."
Besides, Callias the comic poet having written: "With madmen, all men must be mad, they say,"- Menander, in the Poloumenoi, expresses himself similarly, saying: "The presence of wisdom is not always suitable:
One sometimes must with others play the fool."
And Antimachus of Teos having said: "From gifts, to mortals many ills arise,"- Augias composed the line: "For gifts men's mind and acts deceive."
And Hesiod having said: "Than a good wife, no man a better thing Ere gained; than a bad wife, a worse,"- Simonides said: "A better prize than a good wife no man Ere gained, than a bad one nought worse."
Again, Epicharmas having said : "As destined Ion to live, and yet not long, Think of thyself."- Euripides writes: "Why? seeing the wealth we have uncertain is, Why don't we live as free from care, as pleasant As we may?"
Similarly also, the comic poet Diphilus having said: "The life of men is prone to change,"- Posidippus says: "No man of mortal mould his life has passed From suffering free. Nor to the end again Has continued prosperous."
Similarly speaks to thee Plato, writing of man as a creature subject to change. Again, Euripides having said: "Oh life to mortal men of trouble full, How slippery in everything art thou I
Now grow'st thou, and thou now decay'st away.
And there is set no limit, no, not one, For mortals of their course to make an end, Except when Death's remorseless final end Comes, sent from Zeus,"- Diphilus writes: "There is no life which has not its own ills, Pains, cares, thefts, and anxieties, disease; And Death, as a physician, coming, gives Rest to their victims in his quiet sleep."
Furthermore, Euripides having said: "Many are fortune's shapes, And many things contrary to expectation the gods perform,"- The tragic poet Theodectes similarly writes: "The instability of mortals' fates."
And Bacchylides having said : "To few alone of mortals is it given To reach hoary age, being prosperous all the while, And not meet with calamities,"- Moschion, the comic poet, writes: "But he of all men is most blest, Who leads throughout an equal life."
And you will find that, Theognis having said: "For no advantage to a mall grown old A young wife is, who will not, as a ship The helm, obey,"- Aristophanes, the comic poet, writes: "An old man to a young wife suits but ill."
For Anacreon, having written: "Luxurious love I sing, With flowery garlands graced, He is of gods the king, He mortal men subdues?- Euripides writes : "For love not only men attacks, And women; but disturbs The souls of gods above, and to the sea Descends."
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 Musaeus; 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 Alcmaeon of Crotona having said, "It is easier to guard against a man who is an enemy than a friend," Sophocles wrote in the Antigone: "For what sore more grievous than a bad friend?"
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: "Shall we Greeks be slaves to Barbarians? "- Thrasymachus, in the oration for the Larissaeans, says: "Shall we be slaves to Archelaus -- Greeks to a Barbarian?"
And Orpheus having said: "Water is the change for soul, and death for water; From water is earth, and what comes from earth is again water, And from that, soul, which changes the whole ether;" and Heraclitus, putting together the expressions from these lines, writes thus: "It is death for souls to become water, and death for water to become earth; and from earth comes water, and from water soul."
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 : "The four roots of all things first do thou hear- Fire, water, earth, and ether's boundless height:
For of these all that was, is, shall be, comes."
And Plato having said,"Wherefore also the gods, knowing men, release sooner from life those they value most, "Menander wrote: "Whom the gods love, dies young."
And Euripides having written in the OEnomaus: "We judge of things obscure from what we see;" and in the Phoenix: "By signs the obscure is fairly grasped?- 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 : "The evil of counterfeit silver and gold is not intoler able, O Cyrnus, and to a wise man is not difficult of detection; But if the mind of a friend is hidden in his breast, If he is false, and has a treacherous heart within, This is the basest thing for mortals, caused by God, And of all things the hardest to detect,"- Euripides writes : "Oh Zeus, why hast thou given to men clear tests Of spurious gold, while on the body grows No mark sufficing to discover clear The wicked man?"
Hyperides himself also says, "There is no feature of the mind impressed on the countenance Of men."
Again, Stasinus having composed the line: "Fool, who, having slain the father, leaves the children,"- Xenophon says, "For I seem to myself to have acted in like manner, as if one who killed the father should spare his children." And Sophocles having written in the Antigone: "Mother and father being in Hades now, No brother ever can to me spring forth?- Herodotus says, "Mother and father being no more, I shall not have another brother." In addition to these, Theopompus having written: "Twice children are old men in very truth;"
And before him Sophocles in Peleus: "Peleus, the son of Aeacus, I, sole housekeeper, Guide, old as he is now, and train again, For the aged man is once again a child,"- Antipho the orator says, "For the nursing of the old is like the nursing of children." Also the philosopher Plato says, "The old man then, as seems, will be twice a child." Further, Thucydides having said, "We alone bore the brunt at Marathon," -- Demosthenes said, "By those who bore the brunt at Marathon." Nor will I omit the following. Cratinus having said in the "The preparation perchance you know,"
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 Ly-sias, says, "The preparation and the eagerness of the adversaries, ye see, O gentlemen of the jury." After him Aeschines 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: "O friend, if in this war, by taking flight, We should from age and death exemption win, I would not fight among the first myself, Nor would I send thee to the glorious fray; But now -- for myriad fates of death attend In any case, which man may not escape Or shun -- come on. To some one we shall bring Renown, or some one shall to us,"
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?" Further, Hippocrates the physician having written, "You must look to time, and locality, and age, and disease,"
Euripides says in Hexameters : - "Those who the healing art would practise well, Must study people's modes of life, and note The soil, and the diseases so consider."
Homer again, having written: "I say no mortal man can doom escape,"- 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 : "For to think and to do are equivalent."
And before him, Parmenides of Elea said: "For thinking and being are the same."
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 : "First all see, then admire; Then gaze, then come to hope; And thus arises love?"
Further, Demosthenes having said, "For to all of us death is a debt," and so forth, Phanocles writes in Loves, or The Beautiful: "But from the Fates' unbroken thread escape Is none for those that feed on earth."
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 Empedo cles: "For I already have been boy and girl, And bush, and bird, and mute fish in the sea,"- Euripides transcribes in Chrysippus: "But nothing dies Of things that are; but being dissolved, One from the other, Shows another form."
And Plato having said, in the Republic, that women were common, Euripides writes in the Protesilaus: "For common, then, is woman's bed."
Further, Euripides having written : "For to the temperate enough sufficient is "- Epicurus expressly says, "Sufficiency is the greatest riches of all."
Again, Aristophanes having written : "Life thou securely shalt enjoy, being just And free from turmoil, and from fear live well,"- 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 Musaeus, and Pisander of Camirus the Heraclea of Pisinus of Lindus, and Panyasis of Halicarnassus, the capture of OEchalia 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: "As a man trains a luxuriant shoot of olive."
And in the Theogony, it is said by Orpheus of Kronos: "He lay, his thick neck bent aside; and him All-conquering Sleep had seized."
These Homer transferrred to the Cyclops. And Hesiod writes of Melampous: "Gladly to hear, what the immortals have assigned To men, the brave from cowards clearly marks;" and so forth, taking it word for word from the poet Musaeus.
And Aristophanes the comic poet has, in the first of the Thesmophoriazusoe, transferred the words from the Empiprameni of Cratinus. And Plato the comic poet, and Aristophanes in Doeda-lus, steal from one another. Cocalus, composed by Araros, the son of Aristophanes, was by the comic poet Philemon altered, and made into the comedy called Hypobolimoens.
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 Hecataeus, 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.
CHAPTER III -- PLAGIARISM BY THE GREEKS OF THE MIRACLES RELATED IN THE SACRED BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS.
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 Aeacus. Prevailed on by them, Aeacus, ascending the Hellenic hill, and stretching out pure hands to heaven, and invoking the commons God, besought him to pity wasted Greece. And as he prayed, thunder sounded, out of the usual course of things, and the whole surrounding atmosphere was covered with clouds. And impetuous and continued rains, bursting down, filled the whole region. The result was a copious and rich fertility wrought by the husbandry of the prayers of Aeacus.
"And Samuel called on the Lord," it is said, "and the Lord gave forth His voice, and rain in the day of harvest." Do you see that "He who sendeth His rain on the just and on the unjust" by the subject powers is the one God? And the whole of our Scripture is full of instances of God, in reference to the prayers of the just, hearing and performing each one of their petitions.
Again, the Greeks relate, that in the case of a failure once of the Etesian winds, Aristaeus 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: "O Delphians, pray the winds, and it will be better,"- 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: "Thou shalt the might of the unwearied winds make still, Which rushing to the earth spoil mortals' crops, And at thy will bring back the avenging blasts."
And they say that he was followed by some that used divinations, and some that had been long vexed by sore diseases. They plainly, then, believed in the performance of cures, and signs and wonders, from our Scriptures. For if certain powers move the winds and dispense showers, let them hear the psalmist: "How amiable are; thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts!" This is the Lord of powers, and principalities, and authorities, of whom Moses speaks; so that we may be with Him. "And ye shall circumcise your hard heart, and shall not harden your neck any more. For He is Lord of lords and God of gods, the great God and strong," unit so forth. And Isaiah says, "Lift your eyes to the height, and see who hath produced all these things."
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 Daemons, and teaching them to be wor-shipped 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" (Sofia). 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 stir 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 trampets 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 says, while the whole multitude, amounting to not less than a million, besides those under age, were congregated around the mountain, the circuit of the mount not being less than five days' journey. Over the whole place of the vision the burning fire was seen by them all encamped as it were around; so that the descent was not local. For God is everywhere.
Now the compilers of narratives say that in the island of Britain s there is a cave situated under a mountain, and a chasm on its summit; and that, accordingly, when the wind falls into the cave, and rushes into the bosom of the cleft, a sound is heard like cymbals clashing musically. And often in the woods, when the leaves are moved by a sudden gust of wind, a sound is emitted like the song of birds.
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 paean, 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, even without a medium, to produce a voice and vision through the ear, showing that His greatness has a natural order beyond what is customary, in order to the conversion of the hitherto unbelieving soul, and the reception of the commandment given. But there being a cloud and a lofty mountain, how is it not possible to hear a different sound, the wind moving by the active cause? Wherefore also the prophet says, "Ye heard the voice of words, and saw no similitude." You see how the Lord's voice, the Word, without shape, the power of the Word, the luminous word of the Lord, the truth from heaven, from above, coming to the assembly of the Church, wrought by the luminous immediate ministry.
CHAPTER IV -- THE GREEKS DREW MANY OF THEIR PHILOSOPHICAL TENETS FROM THE EGYPTIAN AND INDIAN GYMNOSOPHISTS.
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, with a horologe in his hand, and a palm, the symbols of astrology. He must have the astrological books of Hermes, which are four in number, always in his mouth. Of these, one is about the order of the fixed stars that are visible, and another about the conjunctions and luminous appearances of the sun and moon; and the rest respecting their risings. Next in order advances the sacred Scribe, with wings on his head, and in his hand a book and rule, in which were writing ink and the reed, with which they write. And he must be acquainted with what are called hieroglyphics, and know about cosmography and geography, the position of the sun and moon, and about the five planets; also the description of Egypt, and the chart of the Nile; and the description of the equipment of the priests and of the places consecrated to them, and about the measures and the things in use in the sacred rites. Then the Stole-keeper follows those previously mentioned, with the cubit of justice and the cup for libations. He is acquainted with all points called Paedeutic (relating to training) and Moschophatic (sacrificial). There are also ten books which relate to the honour paid by them to their gods, and containing the Egyptian worship; as that relating to sacrifices, first-fruits, hymns, prayers, processions, festivals, and the like. And behind all walks the Prophet, with the water-vase carried openly in his arms; who is followed by those who carry the issue of loaves.
He, as being the governor of the temple, learns the ten books called "Hieratic;" and they contain all about the laws, and the gods, and the whole of the training of the priests. For the Prophet is, among the Egyptians, also over the distribution of the revenues. There are then forty-two books of Hermes indispensably necessary; of which the six-and-thirty containing the whole philosophy of the Egyptians are learned by the forementioned personages; and the other six, which are medical, by the Pastophoroi (image-bearers), -- treating of the structure of the body, and of diseases, and instruments, and medicines, and about the eyes, and the last about women. Such are the customs of the Egyptians, to speak briefly.
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 dead were not. The second, on being asked Whether the sea or the land maintained larger beasts, said, The land; for the sea was part of it. And the third being asked which was the most cunning of animals? The one, which has not hitherto been known, man. And the fourth being interrogated, For what reason they had made Sabba, who was their prince, revolt, answered, Because they wished him to live well rather than die ill. And the fifth being asked, Whether he thought that day or night was first, said, One day. For puzzling questions must have puzzling answers. And the sixth being posed with the query, How shall one be loved most? By being most powerful; in order that he may not be timid. And the seventh being asked, How any one of men could become God? said, If he do what it is impossible for man to do. And the eighth being asked, Which is the stronger, life or death? said, Life, which bears such ills. And the ninth being interrogated, Up to what point it is good for a man to live? said, Till he does not think that to die is better than to live. And on Alexander ordering the tenth to say something, for he was judge, he said, "One spake worse than another." And on Alexander saying, Shall you not, then, die first, having given such a judgment? he said, And how, O king, wilt thou prove true, after saying that thou wouldest kill first the first man that answered very badly?
And that the Greeks are called pilferers of all manner of writing, is, as I think, sufficiently demonstrated by abundant proofs.
CHAPTER V -- THE GREEKS HAD SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUE GOD.
And that the men of highest repute among the Greeks knew God, not by positive knowledge, but by indirect expression, Peter says in the Preaching: "Know then that there is one God, who made the beginning of all things, and holds the power of the end; and is the Invisible, who sees all things; incapable of being contained, who contains all things; needing nothing, whom all things need, and by whom they are; incomprehensible, everlasting, unmade, who made all things by the 'Word of His power,' that is, according to the gnostic scripture, 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); "hut giving shape to the things of which He gave them the power for use -- stocks and stones, brass and iron, gold and silver -- matter; -- and setting up the things which are slaves for use and possession, worship them. And what God hath given to them for food -- the fowls of the air, and the fish of the sea, and the creeping things of the earth, and the wild beasts with the four-footed cattle of the field, weasels and mice, cats and dogs and apes, and their own proper food -- they sacrifice as sacrifices to mortals; and offering dead things to the dead, as to gods, are unthankful to God, denying His existence by these things." And that it is said, that we and the Greeks know the same God, though not in the same way, he will infer thus: "Neither worship as the Jews; for they, thinking that they only know God, do not know Him, adoring as they do angels and archangels, the month and the moon. And if the moon be not visible, they do not hold the Sabbath, which is called the first; nor do they hold the new moon, nor the feast of unleavened bread, nor the feast, nor the great day." Then he gives the finishing stroke to the question: "So that do ye also, learning holily and righteously what we deliver to you; keep them, worshipping God in a new way, by Christ." For we find in the Scriptures, as the Lord says: "Behold, I make with you a new covenant, not as I made with your fathers in Mount Horeb." He made a new covenant with us; for what belonged to the Greeks and Jews is old. But we, who worship Him in a new way, in the third form, are Christians. For clearly, as I think, he showed that the one and only God was known by the Greeks in a Gentile way, by the Jews Judaically, and in a new and spiritual way by us.
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 Hellenic training, and also from that of the law are gathered into the one race of the saved people those who accept faith: not that the three peoples are separated by time, so that one might suppose three natures, but trained in different Covenants of the one Lord, by the word of the one Lord. For that, as God wished to save the Jews by giving to them prophets, so also by raising up prophets of their own in their own tongue, as they were able to receive God's beneficence, He distinguished the most excellent of the Greeks from the common herd, in addition to "Peter's Preaching," the Apostle Paul will show, saying:
"Take also the Hellenic books, read the Sibyl, how it is shown that God is one, and how the future is indicated. And taking Hystaspes, read, and you will find much more luminously and distinctly the Son of God described, and how many kings shall draw up their forces against Christ, hating Him and those that bear His name, and His faithful ones, and His patience, and His coming."
Then in one word he asks us, "Whose is the world, and all that is in the world? Are they not God's? " Wherefore Peter says, that the Lord said to the apostles: "If any one of Israel then, wishes to repent, and by my name to believe in God, his sins shall be forgiven him, after twelve years. Go forth into the world, that no one may say, We have not heard."
CHAPTER VI -- THE GOSPEL WAS PREACHED TO JEWS AND GENTILES IN HADES.
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" by human injunction -- it is plain that "those in darkness" are they who have the ruling faculty of the soul buried in idolatry.
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." But to those that were righteous according to philosophy, not only faith in the Lord, but also the abandonment of idolatry, were necessary. Straightway, on the revelation of the truth, they also repented of their previous conduct.
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." It is not plainly the place, which, the words above say, heard the voice, but those who have been put in Hades, and have abandoned themselves to destruction, as persons who have thrown themselves voluntarily from a ship into the sea. They, then, are those that hear the divine power and voice. For who in his senses can suppose the souls of the righteous and those of sinners in the same condemnation, charging Providence with injustice?
But how? Do not [the Scriptures] show that. the Lord preached the Gospel to those that perished in the flood, or rather had been chained, and to those kept "in ward and guard"? And it has been shown also, in the second book of the Stromata, that the apostles, following the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in Hades. For it was requisite, in my opinion, that as here, so also there, the best of the disciples should be imitators of the Master; so that He should bring to repentance those belonging to the Hebrews, and they the Gentiles; that is, those who had lived in righteousness according to the Law and Philosophy, who had ended life not perfectly, but sinfully. For it was suitable to the divine administration, that those possessed of greater worth in righteousness, and whose life had been pre-eminent, on repenting of their transgressions, though found in another place, yet being confessedly of the number of the people of God Almighty, should be saved, each one according to his individual knowledge.
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 pun ishments are saving and disciplinary, leading to conversion, and choosing rather the repentance thorn the death of a sinner; and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly, because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh.
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." Further the Gospel says, "that many bodies of those that slept arose," -- plainly as having been translated to a better state. There took place, then, a universal movement and translation through the economy of the Saviour.
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, and judged to be righteous, -- it is evident that those, too, who were outside of the Law, having lived rightly, in consequence of the peculiar' nature of the voice, though they are in Hades and in ward, on hearing the voice of the Lord, whether that of His own person or that acting through His apostles, with all speed turned and believed. For we remember that the Lord is "the power of God," and power can never be weak.
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." "For, behold," it is said, "I have set before your face death and life, that ye may choose life." "God says that He set, not that He made both, in order to the comparison of choice. And in another Scripture He says, "If ye hear Me, and be willing, ye shall eat the good of the land. But if ye hear Me not, and are not willing, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken these things."
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." As, then, the people was precious to the Lord, so also is the entire holy people; he also who is converted from the Gentiles, who was prophesied under the name of proselyte, along with the Jew. For rightly the Scripture says, that "the ox and the bear shall come together." For the Jew is designated by the ox, from the animal under the yoke being reckoned clean, according to the law; for the ox both parts the hoof and chews the cud. And the Gentile is designated by the bear, which is an unclean and wild beast. And this animal brings forth a shapeless lump of flesh, which it shapes into the likeness of a beast solely by its tongue. For he who is convened from among the Gentiles is formed from a beastlike life to gentleness by the word; and, when once tamed, is made clean, just as the ox. For example, the prophet says, "The sirens, and the daughters of the sparrows, and all the beasts of the field, shall bless me." Of the number of unclean animals, the wild beasts of the field are known to be, that is, of the world; since those who are wild in respect of faith, and polluted in life, and not purified by the righteousness which is according to the law, are called wild beasts. But changed from wild beasts by the faith of the Lord, they become men of God, advancing from the wish to change to the fact. For some the Lord exhorts, and to those who have already made the attempt he stretches forth His hand, and draws them up. "For the Lord dreads not the face of any one, nor will He regard greatness; for He hath made small and great, and cares alike for all." And David says, "For the heathen are fixed in the destruction they have caused; their foot is taken in the snare which they hid." s "But the Lord was a refuge to the poor, a help in season also in affliction." Those, then, that were in affliction had the Gospel seasonably proclaimed. And therefore it said, "Declare among the heathen his pursuits," that they may not be judged unjustly.
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." "But he that loveth wickedness hateth his own soul."
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, saves those who turn to Him. Then, too, the more subtle substance, the soul, could never receive any injury from the grosser element of water, its subtle and simple nature rendering it impalpable, called as it is incorporeal. But whatever is gross, made so in consequence of sin, this is cast away along with the carnal spirit which lusts against the soul.
Now also Valentinus, the Coryphaeus 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 hooks, 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 of the Beloved -- loved and loving Him." For whether it be the Jewish writings or those of the philosophers that he calls "the Common Books," he makes the truth common. And Isidore," at once son and disciple to Basilides, in the first hook of the Expositions of the Prophet Parchor, writes also in these words: "The Attics say that certain things were intimated to Socrates, in consequence of a daemon attending on him. And Aristotle says that all men are provided with daemons, that attend on them during the time they are in the body,-having taken this piece of prophetic instruction and transferred it to his own books, without acknowledging whence he had abstracted this statement." And again, in the second book of his work, he thus writes: "And let no one think that what we say is peculiar to the elect, was said before by any philosophers. For it is not a discovery of theirs. For having appropriated it from our prophets, they attributed it to him who is wise according to them." Again, in the same: "For to me it appears that those who profess to philosophize, do so that they may learn what is the winged oak,'" and the variegated robe on it, all of which Pherecydes has employed as theological allegories, having taken them from the prophecy of Chum."
CHAPTER VII -- WHAT TRUE PHILOSOPHY IS, AND WHENCE SO CALLED.
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 it is eternal, and in another it becomes useful in time. Partly it is one and the same, partly many and indifferent -- partly without any movement of passion, partly with passionate desire -- partly perfect, partly incomplete.
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." Now, self-love and self-conceit are, in his view, earth and error. But if so, science and knowledge are derived from instruction. And if there is instruction, you must seek for the master. Cleanthes claims Zeno, and Metrodorus Epicurus, and Theophrastus Aristotle, and Plato Socrates. But if I Come to Pythagoras, and Pherecydes, and Thales, and the first wise men, I come to a stand in my search for their teacher. Should you say the Egyptians, the Indians, the Babylonians, and the Magi themselves, I will not stop from asking their teacher. And I lead you up to the first generation of men; and from that point I begin to investigate Who is their teacher. No one of men; for they had not yet learned. Nor yet any of the angels: for in the way that angels, in virtue of being angels, speak, men do not hear; nor, as we have ears, have they a tongue to correspond; nor would any one attribute to the angels organs of speech, lips I mean, and the parts contiguous, throat, and windpipe, and chest, breath and air to vibrate, And God is far from calling aloud in the unapproachable sanctity, separated as He is from even the archangels.
And we also have already heard that angels learned the truth, and their rulers over them; for they had a beginning. It remains, then, for us, ascending to seek their teacher. And since the unoriginated Being is one, the Omnipotent God; one, too, is the First-begotten, "by whom all things were made, and without whom not one thing ever was made." "For one, in truth, is God, who formed the beginning of all things;" pointing out "the first-begotten Son," Peter writes, accurately comprehending the statement, "In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth." And He is called Wisdom by all the prophets. This is He who is the Teacher of all created beings, the Fellow-counsellor of God, who foreknew all things; and He from above, from the first foundation of the world, "in many ways and many times," trains and perfects; whence it is rightly said, "Call no man your teacher on earth."
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; so also all the teaching of good things, which justifies, does to the Lord, and leads and contributes to this.
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 reinless soil, they choked them with weeds, as the Pharisees revolted from the Law, by introducing human teachings, -- the cause of these being not the Teacher, but those who choose to disobey. But those of them who believed the Lord's advent and the plain teaching of the Scriptures, attain to the knowledge of the law; as also those addicted to philosophy, by the teaching of the Lord, are introduced into the knowledge of the true philosophy: "For the oracles of the Lord are pure oracles, melted in the fire, tried in the earth, purified seven times." Just as silver often purified, so is the just man brought to the test, becoming the Lord's coin and receiving the royal image. Or, since Solomon also calls the "tongue of the righteous man gold that has been subjected to fire," intimating that the doctrine which has been proved, and is wise, is to be praised and received, whenever it is amply tried by the earth: that is, when the gnostic soul is in manifold ways sanctified, through withdrawal from earthy fires. And the body in which it dwells is purified, being appropriated to the pureness of a holy temple. But the first purification which takes place in the body, the soul being first, is abstinence from evil things, which some consider perfection, and is, in truth, the perfection of the common believer -- Jew and Greek. But in the case of the Gnostic, after that which is reckoned perfection in others, his righteousness advances to activity in well-doing. And in whomsoever the increased force of righteousness advances to the doing of good, in his case perfection abides in the fixed habit of well-doing after the likeness of God. For those who are the seed of Abraham, and besides servants of God, are "the called;" and the sons of Jacob are the elect -- they who have tripped up the energy of wickedness.
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 grinds, 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.
CHAPTER VIII -- PHILOSOPHY IS KNOWLEDGE GIVEN BY GOD.
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," as being most rudimentary, and a preparatory training for the truth. Wherefore also, writing to the Hebrews, who were declining again from faith to the law, he says," Have ye not need again of one to teach you which are the first principles of the oracles of God, and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat?" So also to the Colossians, who were Greek converts, "Beware lest any man spoil you by philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of this world, and not after Christ," -- enticing them again to return to philosophy, the elementary doctrine.
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."s And does not David, while asking the abundant experience of knowledge, write, "Teach me gentleness, and discipline, and knowledge: for I have believed in Thy commandments?" He confessed the covenants to be of the highest authority, and that they were given to the more excellent. Accordingly the psalm again says of God, "He hath not done thus to any nation; and He hath not shown His judgments to them." The expression "He hath not done so" shows that He hath done, but not "thus." The "thus," then, is put comparatively, with reference to pre-eminence, which obtains in our case. The prophet might have said simply, "He hath not done," without the "thus."
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." Explaining the prophet's saying, Barnabas adds, "There being many gates open, that which is in righteousness is the gate which is in Christ, by which all who enter are blessed." Bordering on the same meaning is also the following prophetic utterance: "The Lord is on many waters;" not the different covenants alone, but the modes of teaching, those among the Greek and those among the Barbarians, conducing to righteousness. And already clearly David, bearing testimony to the truth, sings, "Let sinners be turned into Hades, and all the nations that forget God." They forget, plainly, Him whom they formerly remembered, and dismiss Him whom they knew previous to forgetting Him. There was then a dim knowledge of God also among the nations. So much for those points.
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." And who shall understand a parable of the Lord, but the wise, the intelligent, and he that loves his Lord? Let such a man be faithful; let him be capable of uttering his knowledge; let him be wise in the discrimination of words; let him be dexterous in action; let him be pure. "The greater he seems to be, the more humble should he be," says Clement in the Epistle to the Corinthians, -- "such an one as is capable of complying with the precept, 'And some pluck from the fire, and on others have compassion, making a difference,'"
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, practises 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." When about to do what? Plainly, when about to prophesy. But if he prophesies as an angel of light, he will speak what is true. And if he prophesies what is angelical, and of the light, then he prophesies what is beneficial when he is transformed according to the likeness of the operation, though he be different with respect to the matter of apostasy. For how could he deceive any one, without drawing the lover of knowledge into fellowship, and so drawing him afterwards into falsehood? Especially he will be found to know the truth, if not so as to comprehend it, yet so as not to be unacquainted with it.
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; unveiling the holy of holies; and in ascending order, things still holier than these, to those who are truly and not spuriously heirs of the Lord's adoption. For we now dare aver (for here is the faith that is characterized by knowledge ) that such an one knows all things, and comprehends all things in the exercise of sure apprehension, respecting matters difficult for us, and really pertaining to the true gnosis such as were James, Peter, John, Paul, and the rest of the apostles. For prophecy is full of knowledge (gnosis), inasmuch as it was given by the Lord, and again explained by the Lord to the apostles. And is not knowledge (gnosis) an attribute of the rational soul, which trains itself for this, that by knowledge it may become entitled to immortality? For both are powers of the soul both knowledge and impulse. And impulse is found to be a movement after an assent. For he who has an impulse towards an action, first receives the knowledge of the action, and secondly the impulse. Let us further devote our attention to this. For since learning is older than action; (for naturally, he who does what he wishes to do learns it first; and knowledge comes from learning, and impulse follows knowledge; after which comes action;) knowledge turns out the beginning and author of all rational action. So that rightly the peculiar nature of the rational soul is characterized by this alone; for in reality impulse, like knowledge, is excited by existing objects. And knowledge (gnosis) is essentially a contemplation of existences on the part of the soul, either of a certain thing or of certain things, and when perfected, of all together. Although some say that the wise man is persuaded that there are some things incomprehensible, in such wise as to have respecting them a kind of comprehension, inasmuch as he comprehends that things incomprehensible are incomprehensible; which is common, and pertains to those who are capable of perceiving little. For such a man affirms that there are some things incomprehensible.
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."
CHAPTER IX -- THE GNOSTIC FREE OF ALL PERTURBATIONS OF THE SOUL.
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 (dokhsei). But He was entirely impassible (apaqhg); inaccessible to any movement of feeling -- either pleasure or pain. While the apostles, having most gnostically mastered, through the Lord's teaching, angel 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 become like his Teacher in impassibility. For the Word of God is intellectual, according as the image of mind is seen 'in man alone. Thus also the good man is godlike in form and semblance as respects his soul. And, on the other hand, God is like man. For the distinctive form of each one is the mind by which we are characterized. Consequently, also, those who sin against man are unholy and impious. For it were ridiculous to say that the gnostic and perfect man must not eradicate anger and courage, inasmuch as without these he will not struggle against circumstances, or abide what is terrible. But if we take from him desire; he will be quite overwhelmed by troubles, and therefore depart from this life very basely. Unless possessed of it, as some suppose, he will not conceive a desire for what is like the excellent and the good. If, then, all alliance with what is good is accompanied with desire, how, it is said, does he remain impassible who desires what is excellent?
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 revering to the good things of the world? Although not yet true as to time and place, yet by that gnostic love through which the inheritance and perfect restitution follow, the giver of the reward makes good by deeds what the Gnostic, by gnostic choice, had grasped by anticipation through love.
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" to be enrolled in the highest "adoption," should fall into pleasures or fears, and be occupied in the repression of the passions. For I venture to assert, that as he is predestinated through what he shall do, and what he shall obtain, so also has he predestinated himself by reason of what he knew and whom he loved; not having the future indistinct, as the multitude live, conjecturing it, but having grasped by gnostic faith what is hidden from others. And through love, the future is for him already present. For he has believed, through prophecy and the advent, on God who lies not. And what he believes he possesses, and keeps hold of the promise. And He who hath promised is truth. And through the trustworthiness of Him who has promised, he has firmly laid hold of the end of the promise by knowledge. And he, who knows the sure comprehension of the future which there is in the circumstances, in which he is placed, by love goes to meet the future. So he, that is persuaded that he will obtain the things that are really good, will not pray to obtain what is here, but that he may always cling to the faith which hits the mark and succeeds. And besides, he will pray that as many as possible may become like him, to the glory of God, which is perfected through knowledge. For he who is made like the Saviour is also devoted to saving; performing unerringly the commandments as far as the human nature may admit of the image. And this is to worship God by deeds and knowledge of the true righteousness. The Lord will not wait for the voice of this man in prayer. "Ask," He says, "and I will do it; think, and I will give."
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 mad accidents, ever possess habit and disposition, and in a word, grasp of scientific knowledge (episthmh)? Further, also, the philosophers regard the virtues as habits, dispositions, and sciences. And as knowledge (gnosis) is not born with men, but is acquired, and the acquiring of it in its elements demands application, and training, and progress; and then from incessant practice it passes into a habit; so, when perfected in the mystic habit, it abides, being infallible through love. For not only has he apprehended the first Cause, and the Cause produced by it, and is sure about them, possessing firmly firm and irrefragable and immoveable reasons; but also respecting what is good and what is evil, and respecting all production, and to speak comprehensively, respecting all about Which the Lord has spoken, he has learned, from the truth itself, the most exact truth from the foundation of the world to the end. Not preferring to the truth itself what appears plausible, or, according to Hellenic reasoning, necessary; but what has been spoken by the Lord he accepts as clear and evident, though concealed from others; and he has already received the knowledge of all things. And the oracles we possess give their utterances respecting what exists, as it is; and respecting what is future, as it shall be; and respecting what is past, as it was.
In scientific matters, as being alone possessed of scientific knowledge, he will hold the pre-eminence, 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; fore-seeing; and inflexible by pleasures both of waking hours and of dreams. For, accustomed to spare living and frugality, he is moderate, active, mad 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.
CHAPTER X -- THE GNOSTIC AVAILS HIMSELF OF THE HELP OF ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE.
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 the distinction of existences, till he come to what are primary and simple.
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, and let them confess that they will not retain the truth. For truth is immoveable; but false opinion dissolves. We choose, for instance, one purple by comparison with another purple. So that, if one confesses that he has not a heart that has been made right, he has not the table of the money-changers or the test of words. And how can he be any longer a money-changer, who is not able to prove and distinguish spurious coin, even offhand?
Now David cried, "The righteous shall not be shaken for ever;" neither, consequently, by deceptive speech nor by erring pleasure.
Whence he shall never be shaken from his own heritage. "He shall not be afraid of evil tidings; " consequently neither of unfounded calumny, nor of the false opinion around him. No more will he dread cunning words, who is capable of distinguishing them, or of answering rightly to questions asked. Such a bulwark are dialectics, that truth cannot be trampled under foot by the Sophists. "For it behoves those who praise in the holy name of the Lord," according to the prophet, "to rejoice in heart, seeking, the Lord. Seek then Him, and be strong. Seek His face continually in every way." "For, having spoken at sundry times and in divers manners," it is not in one way only that He is known.
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 tightly.
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."
CHAPTER XI -- THE MYSTICAL MEANINGS IN THE PROPORTIONS OF NUMBERS, GEOMETRICAL RATIOS, AND MUSIC.
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 (tih )," he defeats a very great number of the enemy.
They say, then, that the character representing 300 is, as to shape, the type of the Lord's sign, and that the Iota and the Eta indicate the Saviour's name; that it was indicated, accordingly, that Abraham's domestics were in salvation, who having fled to the Sign and the Name became lords of the captives, and of the very many unbelieving nations that followed them.
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 (rk) years." And the sum is made up of the numbers from r to 15 added together. And the moon at 15 days is full.
On another principle, 120 is a triangular number, and consists of the equality of the number 64, [which consists of eight of the odd numbers beginning with unity], the addition of which (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15) in succession generate squares; and of the inequality of the number 56, consisting of seven of the even numbers beginning with 2 (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14), which produce the numbers that are not squares
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 number 35 depends also on the arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic scale of doubles -- 6, 8, 9, 12; the addition of which makes 35. In these days, the Jews say that seven months' children are formed. And the number 45 depends on the scale of triples -- 6, 9, 12, 18 -- the addition of which makes 45; and similarly, in these days they say that nine months' children are formed.
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 fight 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 (epidimoiroi), 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; and fifty, of hope and of the remission given at Pentecost; and thirty, or as in some, twelve, they say points out the preaching [of the Gospel]; because the LOrd preached in His thirtieth year; and the apostles were twelve. And the structure's terminating in a cubit is the symbol of the advancement of the righteous to oneness and to "the unity of the faith."
And the table which was in the temple was six cubits; and its four feet were about a cubit and a half.
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;" either because the universe revolves in the circuits of the times, or perhaps it indicated the earth surrounded with ocean's tide.
Further, as an example of music, let us adduce David, playing at once and prophesying, melodiously praising God. Now the Enarmonic s suits best the Dorian harmony, and the Diatonic the Phrygian, as Aristoxenus says. The harmony, therefore, of the Barbarian psaltery, which exhibited gravity of strain, being the most ancient, most certainly became a model for Terpander, for the Dorian harmony, who sings the praise of Zeus thus: "O Zeus, of all things the Beginning, Rule, of, all; O Zeus, I send thee this beginning of hymns."
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, like the companions of Ulysses, handle the word unskilfully, passing by not the Sirens, but the rhythm and the melody, stopping their ears with ignorance; since they know that, after lending their ears to Hellenic studies, they will never subsequently be able to retrace their steps.
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 ), must not abstain from erudition, like irrational animals; but he must collect as many aids as possible for his hearers. But he must by no means linger over these studies, except solely for the advantage accruing from them; so that, on grasping and obtaining this, he may be able to take his departure home to the true philosophy, which is a strong cable for the soul, providing security from everything.
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; soothing by song the eagerness of our desires, and glorifying God for the copious gift of human enjoyments, for His perpetual supply of the food necessary for the growth of the body and of the soul. But we must reject superfluous music, which enervates men's souls, and leads to variety, -- now mournful, and then licentious and voluptuous, and then frenzied and frantic.
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 l 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; " and with Hellenic and superabundant accomplishments, "clothed variegated with gold-fringed garments." And the Truth says by the Lord, "For who had known Thy counsel, hadst Thou not given wisdom, and sent Thy Holy Spirit from the Highest; and so the ways of those on earth were corrected, and men learned Thy decrees, and were saved by wisdom?" For the Gnostic knows things ancient by the Scripture, and conjectures things future: he understands the involutions of words and the solutions of enigmas. He knows beforehand signs and wonders, and the issues of seasons and periods, as we have said already. Seest thou the fountain of instructions that takes its rise from wisdom? But to those who object, What use is there in knowing the causes of the manner of the sun's motion, for example, and the rest of the heavenly bodies, or in having studied the theorems of geometry or logic, and each of the other branches of study? -- for these are of no service in the discharge of duties, and the Hellenic philosophy is human wisdom, for it is incapable of teachings the truth -- the following remarks are to be made. First, that they stumble in reference to the highest of things -- namely, the mind's free choice. "For they," it is said, "who keep holy holy things, shall be made holy; and those who have been taught will find an answer." For the Gnostic alone will do holily, in accordance with reason all that has to be done, as he hath learned through the Lord's teaching, received through men.
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." And again, they have not read what is said by Solomon; for, treating of the construction of the temple, he says expressly, "And it was Wisdom as artificer that framed it; and Thy providence, O Father, governs throughout." And how irrational, to regard philosophy as inferior to architecture and shipbuilding! And the Lord fed the multitude of those that reclined on the grass opposite to Tiberias with the two fishes and the five barley loaves, indicating the preparatory training of the Greeks and Jews previous to the divine grain, which is the food cultivated by the law. For barley is sooner ripe for the harvest than wheat; and the fishes signified the Hellenic philosophy that was produced and moved in the midst of the Gentile billow, given, as they were, for copious food to those lying on the ground, increasing no more, like the fragments of the loaves, but having partaken of the Lord's blessing, and breathed into them the resurrection of Godhead through the power of the Word. But if you are curious, understand one of the fishes to mean the curriculum of study, and the other the philosophy which supervenes. The gatherings' point out the word of the Lord.
"And the choir of mute fishes rushed to it," says the Tragic Muse somewhere.
"I must decrease," said the prophet John, and the Word of the Lord alone, in which the law terminates, "increase." Understand now for me the mystery of the truth, granting pardon if I shrink from advancing further in the treatment of it, by announcing this alone: "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not even one thing." Certainly He is called "the chief corner stone; in whom the whole building, fitly joined together, groweth into an holy temple of God," according to the divine apostle.
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 in such a way as to show that the sources of them were communicated by the Hebrews to the Greeks. This may be learned from the following: "And if one loves justice, its toils are virtues. For temperance and prudence teach justice and fortitude; and than these there is nothing more useful in life to men."
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.
CHAPTER XII -- HUMAN NATURE POSSESSES AN ADAPTATION FOR PERFECTION; THE GNOSTIC ALONE ATTAINS IT.
By which consideration s is solved the question propounded to us by the heretics, Whether Adam was created perfect or imperfect? Well, if imperfect, how could the work of a perfect God -- above all, that work being man -- be imperfect? And if perfect, how did he transgress the commandments? For they shall hear from us that he was not perfect in his creation, but adapted to the reception of virtue. For it is of great importance in regard to virtue to be made fit for its attainment. And it is intended that we should be saved by ourselves. This, then, is the nature of the soul, to move of itself. Then, as we are rational, and philosophy being rational, we have some affinity with it. Now an aptitude is a movement towards virtue, not virtue itself. All, then, as I said, are naturally constituted for the acquisition of virtue.
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;" according to which nature of Him who knows all, he who is a Gnostic, and righteous, and holy with prudence, hastes to reach the measure of perfect manhood. For not only are actions and thoughts, but words also, pure in the case of the Gnostic: "Thou hast proved mine heart; Thou hast visited me by night," it is said; "Thou hast subjected me to the fire, and unrighteousness was not found in me: so that my mouth shall not speak the works of men."
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 503. good we know that some are desirable for themselves, as knowledge; for we hunt for nothing from it when we have it, but only [seek] that it be with us, and that we be in uninterrupted contemplation, and strive to reach it for its own sake. But other things are desirable for other considerations, such as faith, for escape from punishment, and the advantage arising from reward, which accrue from it. For, in the case of many, fear is the cause of their not sinning; and the promise is the means of pursuing obedience, by which comes salvation. Knowledge, then, desirable as it is for its own sake, is the most perfect good; and consequently the things which follow by means of it are good. And punishment is the cause of correction to him who is punished; and to those who are able to see before them he becomes an example, to prevent them failing into the like.
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 (gnpstikh), 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 desires is poverty. For the use and enjoyment of necessaries are not injurious in quality, but in quantity, when in excess. Wherefore the Gnostic circumscribes his desires in reference both to possession and to enjoyment, not exceeding the limit of necessity. Therefore, regarding life in this world as necessary for the increase of science (episthmh) and the acquisition of knowledge (gnpsid), he will value highest, not living, but living well. He will therefore prefer neither children, nor marriage, nor parents, to love for God, and righteousness in life. To such an one, his wife, after conception, is as a sister, and is judged as if of the same father; then only recollecting her husband, when she looks on the children; as being destined to become a sister in reality after putting off the flesh, which separates and limits the knowledge of those who are spiritual by the peculiar characteristics of the sexes. For souls, themselves by themselves, are equal. Souls are neither male nor female, when they no longer marry nor are given in marriage. And is not woman translated into man, when she is become equally unfeminine, and manly, and perfect? Such, then, was the laughter of Sarah when she received the good news of the birth of a son; not, in my opinion, that she disbelieved the angel, but that she felt ashamed of the intercourse by means of which she was destined to become the mother of a son.
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?
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. "Ask," says the Scripture, "and I will do. Think, and I will give." For we have heard that God knows the heart, not judging the soul from [external] movement, as we men; nor yet from the event, For it is ridiculous to think so. Nor was it as the architect praises the work when accomplished that God, on making the light and then seeing it, called it good. But He, knowing before He made it what it would be, praised that [which was made, He having potentially made good, from the first by His purpose that had no beginning, what was destined to be good actually. Now that which has future He already said beforehand was good, the phrase concealing the truth by hyperbaton. Therefore the Gnostic prays in thought during every hour, being by love allied to God. And first he will ask forgiveness of sins; and after, that he may sin no more; and further, the power of well-doing and of comprehending the whole creation and administration by the Lord, that, becoming pure in heart through the knowledge, which is by the Son of God, he may be initiated into the beatific vision face to face, having heard the Scripture which says, "Fasting with prayer is a good thing."
Now fastings signify abstinence from all evils whatsoever, both in action and in word, and in thought itself. As appears, then, righteousness is quadrangular; on all sides equal and like in word, in deed, in abstinence from evils, in beneficence, in gnostic perfection; nowhere, and in no respect halting, so that he does not appear unjust and unequal. As one, then, is righteous, so certainly is he a believer. But as he is a believer, he is not yet also righteous -- I mean ac cording to the righteousness of progress and perfection, according to which the Gnostic is called righteous.
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," the apostle says, the righteous man is sent on to the inheritance above, -- by some [arms] defended, by others putting forth his might. For the defence of his panoply alone, and abstinence from sins, are not sufficient for perfection, unless he assume in addition the work of righteousness -- activity in doing good.
Then our dexterous man and Gnostic is revealed in righteousness already even here, as Moses, glorified in the face of the soul, as we have formerly said, the body bears the stamp of the righteous soul. For as the mordant of the dyeing process, remaining in the wool, produces in it a certain quality and diversity from other wool; so also in the soul the pain is gone, but the good remains; and the sweet is left, but the base is wiped away. For these are two qualities characteristic of each soul, by which is known that which is glorified, and that which is condemned.
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." Since also God Himself remains blessed and immortal, neither molested nor molesting another; not in consequence of being by nature good, but in proving Himself actually, both Father and good, continues immutably in the self-same goodness. For what is the use of good that does not act and do good?
CHAPTER XIII -- DEGREES OF GLORY IN HEAVEN CORRESPONDING WITH THE DIGNITIES OF THE CHURCH BELOW.
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 of nature, since also Judas was chosen along with them. But they were capable of becoming apostles on being chosen by Him who foresees even ultimate issues. Matthias, accordingly, who was not chosen along with them, on showing himself worthy of becoming an apostle, is substituted for Judas.
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 by men, nor regarded righteous because a presbyter, but enrolled in the presbyterate s because righteous. And although here upon earth he be not honoured with the chief seat, he will sit down on the four-and-twenty thrones, judging the people, as John says in the Apocalypse.
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 which separated the Greek from the Jew is taken away, in order that there might be a peculiar people. And so both meet in the one unity of faith; and the selection out of both is one. And the chosen of the chosen are those who by reason of perfect knowledge are called [as the best] from the Church itself, and honoured with the most august glory -- the judges and rulers -- four-and-twenty (the grace being doubled)equally from Jews and Greeks. Since, according to my opinion, the grades here in the Church, of bishops, presbyters, deacons, are imitations of the angelic glory, and of that economy which, the Scriptures say, awaits those who, following the footsteps of the apostles, have lived in perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel. For these taken up in the clouds, the apostle writes, will first minister [as deacons], then be classed in the presbyterate, by promotion in glory (for glory differs from glory) till they grow into "a perfect man."
CHAPTER XIV -- DEGREES OF GLORY IN HEAVEN.
Such, according to David, "rest in the holy hill of God," in the Church far on high, in which are gathered the philosophers of God, "who are Israelites indeed, who are pure in heart, in whom there is no guile; " who do not remain in the seventh seat, the place of rest, but are promoted, through the active beneficence of the divine likeness, to the heritage of beneficence which is the eighth grade; devoting themselves to the pure vision of insatiable contemplation.
"And other sheep there are also," saith the Lord, "which are not of this fold " -- deemed worthy of another fold and mansion, in proportion to their faith. "But My sheep hear My voice," understanding gnostically the commandments. And this is to be taken in a magnanimous and worthy acceptation, along with also the recompense and accompaniment of works. So that when we hear, "Thy faith hath saved thee, we do not understand Him to say absolutely that those who have believed in any way whatever shall be saved, unless also works follow. But it was to the Jews alone that He spoke this utterance, who kept the law and lived blamelessly, who wanted only faith in the Lord. No one, then, can be a believer and at the same time be licentious; but though he quit the flesh, he must put off the passions, so as to be capable of reaching his own mansion.
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 are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness.
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." And of his glory they will say, "This was he whom we once held up to derision, and made a byword of reproach; fools that we were! We thought his life madness, and his end dishonourable. How is he reckoned among the sons of God, and his inheritance among the saints?"
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, made for the nations, that they might not become altogether atheistical, and so utterly perish. But they, also in the instance of this commandment, having become devoid of sense, and addicting themselves to graven images, are judged unless they repent; some of them because, though able, they would not believe God; and others because, though willing, they did not take the necessary pains to become believers. There were also, however, those who, from the worship of the heavenly bodies, did not return to the Maker of them. For this was the sway given to the nations to rise up to God, by means of the worship of the heavenly bodies. But those who would not abide by those heavenly bodies assigned to them, but fell away from them to stocks and stones, "were counted," it is said, "as chaff-dust and as a drop from a jar," beyond salvation, cast away from the body.
As, then, to be simply saved is the result of medium actions, but to be saved tightly and becomingly is right action, so also all action of the Gnostic may be called tight action; that of the simple believer, intermediate action, not yet perfected according to reason, not yet made right according to knowledge; but that of every heathen again is sinful. For it is not simply doing well, but doing actions with a certain aim, and acting according to reason, that the Scriptures exhibit as requisite.
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 of life.
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?" It is clear, then, that those who do not perform good actions, do not know what is for their own advantage. And if so, neither are they capable of praying aright, so as to receive from God good things; nor, should they receive them, will they be sensible of the boon; nor, should they enjoy them, will they enjoy worthily what they know not; both from their want of knowledge how to use the good things given them, and from their excessive stupidity, being ignorant of the way to avail themselves of the divine gifts.
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: "Therefore let them do what they may;
For it shall be well with me; and Right Shall be my ally, and I shall not be caught doing evil."
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 fight reason. And giving thanks always for all things to God, by righteous heating 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. Rightly then is it said, "And they who trust in Him shall underStand the truth, and those faithful in love shall abide by Him." You see what statements Wisdom makes about the Gnostics.
Conformably, therefore, there are various abodes, according to the worth of those who have believed. To the point Solomon says, "For there shall be given to him the choice grace of faith, and a more pleasant lot in the temple of the Lord." For the comparative shows that there are lower parts in the temple of God, which is the whole Church. And the superlative remains to be conceived, where the Lord is. These chosen abodes, which are three, are indicated by the numbers in the Gospel -- the thirty, the sixty, the hundred. And the perfect inheritance belongs to those who attain to "a perfect man," according to the image of the Lord. And the likeness is not, as some imagine, that of the human form; for this consideration is impious. Nor is the likeness to the first cause that which consists in virtue. For this utterance is also impious, being that of those who have imagined that virtue in man and in the sovereign God is the same. "Thou hast supposed iniquity,' He says, " [in imagining] that I will be like to thee." But "it is enough for the disciple to become as the Master," saith the Master. To the likeness of God, then, he that is introduced into adoption and the friendship of God, to the just inheritance of the lords and gods is brought; if he be perfected, according to the Gospel, as the Lord Himself taught.
CHAPTER XV -- DIFFERENT DEGREES OF KNOWLEDGE.
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" those capable of being built to a lofty height; and begins the doing of what is spoken, in accordance with the example of life. For He enjoined what is possible. And, in truth, the kingly man and Christian ought to be ruler and leader. For we are commanded to be lords over not only the wild beasts without us, but also over the wild passions within ourselves.
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." "Exert thyself, and prosper, and reign" writes David, "because of truth, and meekness, and righteousness; and thy right hand shall guide thee marvellously," that is, the Lord. "Who then is the wise? and he shall understand these things. Prudent? and he shall know them. For the ways of the Lord are right," says the prophet, showing that the Gnostic alone is able to understand and explain the things spoken by the Spirit obscurely. "And he who understands in that time shall hold his peace," says the Scripture, plainly in the way of declaring them to the unworthy. For the Lord says, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear," declaring that hearing and understanding belong not to all. To the point David writes: "Dark water is in the clouds of the skies. At the gleam before Him the clouds passed, hail and coals of fire;" showing that the holy words are hidden. He intimates that transparent and resplendent to the Gnostics, like the innocuous hail, they are sent down from God; but that they are dark to the multitude, like extinguished coals out of the fire, which, unless kindled and set on fire, will not give forth fire or light. "The Lord, therefore," it is said, "gives me the tongue of instruction, so as to know in season when it is requisite to speak a word;" not in the way of testimony alone, but also in the way of question and answer. "And the instruction of the Lord opens my mouth." It is the prerogative of the Gnostic, then, to know how to make use of speech, and when, and how, and to whom. And already the apostle, by saying, "After the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ," makes the asseveration that the Hellenic teaching is elementary, and that of Christ perfect, as we have already intimated before.
"Now the wild olive is inserted into the fatness of the olive," and is indeed of the same species as the cultivated olives. For the graft uses as soil the tree in which it is engrafted. Now all the plants sprouted forth simultaneously in consequence of the divine order. Wherefore also, though the wild olive be wild, it crowns the Olympic victors. And the elm teaches the vine to be fruitful, by leading it up to a height. Now we see that wild trees attract more nutriment, because they cannot ripen. The wild trees, therefore, have less power of secretion than those that are cultivated. And the cause of their wildness is the want of the power of secretion. The engrafted olive accordingly receives more nutriment from its growing in the wild one; and it gets accustomed, as it were, to secrete the nutriment, becoming thus assimilated to the fatness of the cultivated tree.
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.
Different modes of engrafting illustrative of different kinds of conversion.
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 service in the case of cultivated trees. And "the engrafting into the good olive" mentioned by the apostle, may be [engrafting into] Christ Himself; the uncultivated and unbelieving nature being transplanted into Christ -- that is, in the case of those who believe in Christ. But it is better [to understand it] of the engrafting of each one's faith in the soul itself. For also the Holy Spirit is thus somehow transplanted by distribution, according to the circumscribed capacity of each one, but without being circumscribed.
Knowledge and love.
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." Now the paths are the conduct of life, and the variety that exists in the covenants. Presently he adds: "And in every thought she meets them," being variously contemplated, that is, by all discipline. Then he subjoins, adducing love, which perfects by syllogistic reasoning and true propositions, drawing thus a most convincing and true inference, "For the beginning of her is the truest desire of instruction," that is, of knowledge; "prudence is the love of instruction, and love is the keeping of its laws; and attention to its laws is the confirmation of immortality; and immortality causes nearness to God. The desire of wisdom leads, then, to the kingdom."
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."
True knowledge found in the teaching of Christ alone.
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 gasp. 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.
Philosophy and heresies, aids in discovering the truth.
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 cam ally, 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." And Daniel, under the king of the Persians, wore "the chain," though he despised not the afflictions of the people.
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; for the deposit rendered to God, according to the teaching of the Lord by His apostles, is the understanding and the practice of the godly tradition. "And what ye hear in the ear " -- that is, in a hidden manner, and in a mystery (for such things are figuratively said to be spoken in the ear) -- "proclaim," He says, "on the housetops," understanding them sublimely, and delivering them in a lofty strain, and according to the canon of the truth explaining the Scriptures; for neither prophecy nor the Saviour Himself announced the divine mysteries simply so as to be easily apprehended by all and sundry, but express them in parables. The apostles accordingly say of the Lord, that "He spake all things in parables, and without a parable spake He nothing unto them;" and if "all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made," consequently also prophecy and the law were by Him, and were spoken by Him in parables. "But all things are right," says the Scripture, "before those who understand," that is, those who receive and observe, according to the ecclesiastical rule, the exposition of the Scriptures explained by Him; and the ecclesiastical rule is the concord and harmony of the law and the prophets in the covenant delivered at the coming of the Lord. Knowledge is then followed by practical wisdom, and practical wisdom by self-control: for it may be said that practical wisdom is divine knowledge, and exists in those who are deified; but that self-control is mortal, and subsists in those who philosophize, and are not yet wise. But if virtue is divine, so is also the knowledge of it; while self-control is a sort of imperfect wisdom which aspires after wisdom, and exerts itself laboriously, and is not contemplative. As certainly righteousness, being human, is, as being a common thing, subordinate to holiness, which subsists through the divine righteousness; for the righteousness of the perfect man does not rest on civil contracts, or on the prohibition of law, but flows from his own spontaneous action and his love to God.
Reasons for the meaning of Scripture being veiled.
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, as was the case, suffered and rose again, being "to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness," as the apostle says.
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. Whence also Peter, in his Preaching, speaking of the apostles, says: "But we, unrolling the books of the prophets which we possess, who name Jesus Christ, partly in parables, partly in enigmas, partly expressly and in so many words, find His coming and death, and cross, and all the rest of the tortures which the Jews inflicted on Him, and His resurrection and assumption to heaven previous to the capture of Jerusalem. As it is written, These things are all that He behoves to suffer, and what should be after Him. Recognising them, therefore, we have believed in God in consequence of what is written respecting Him."
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 onscurations, 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. "He who bears these prophets, being wise, will be wiser. And the intelligent man will acquire rule, and will understand a parable and a dark saying, the words and enigmas of the wise."
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, exhibit the gnostic mode of life, showing it systematically according to the rule of the truth.
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. And this signified that the Scripture is clear to all, when taken according to the bare reading; and that this is the faith which occupies the place of the rudiments. Wherefore also the figurative expression is employed, "reading according to the letter;" while we understand that the gnostic unfolding of the Scriptures, when faith has already reached an advanced state, is likened to reading according to the syllables.
Further, Esaias the prophet is ordered to take "a new book, and write in it" certain things: the Spirit prophesying that through the exposition of the Scriptures there would come afterwards the sacred knowledge, which at that period was still unwritten, because not yet known. For it was spoken from the beginning to those only who understand. Now that the Saviour has taught the apostles, the unwritten rendering' of the written [Scripture] has been handed down also to us, inscribed by the power of God on hearts new, according to the renovation of the book. Thus those of highest repute among the Greeks, dedicate the fruit of the pomegranate to Hermes, who they say is speech, on account of its interpretation. For speech conceals much. Rightly, therefore, Jesus the son of Nave saw Moses, when taken up [to heaven], double, -- one Moses with the angels, and one on the mountains, honoured with burial in their ravines. And Jesus saw this spectacle below, being elevated by the Spirit, along also with Caleb. But both do not see similarly But the one descended with greater speed, as if the weight he carried was great; while the other, on descending after him, subsequently related the glory which he beheld, being able to perceive more than the other as having grown purer; the narrative, in my opinion, showing that knowledge is not the privilege of all. Since some look at the body of the Scriptures, the expressions and the names as to the body of Moses; while others see through to the thoughts and what it is signified by the names, seeking the Moses that is with the angels.
Many also of those who called to the Lord said, "Son of David, have mercy on me." A few, too, knew Him as the Son of God; as Peter, whom also He pronounced blessed, "for flesh and blood revealed not the truth to him, but His Father in heaven," 3 -- showing that the Gnostic recognises the Son of the Omnipotent, not by His flesh conceived in the womb, but by the Father's own power. That it is therefore not only to those who read simply that the acquisition of the truth is so difficult, but that not even to those whose prerogative the knowledge of the truth is, is the contemplation of it vouch-safed all at once, the history of Moses teaches, until, accustomed to gaze, at the Hebrews on the glory of Moses, and the prophets of Israel on the visions of angels, so we also become able to look the splendours of truth in the face.
CHAPTER XVI -- GNOSTIC EXPOSITION OF THE DECALOGUE.
Let the Decalogue be set forth cursorily by us as a specimen for gnostic exposition.
The number "ten."
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 rise 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 will then be the knowledge of divine and human things and wisdom.
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 to sight, and hearing, and Smell, and touch, and taste, and to the organs subservient to these, which are double -- the hands and the feet. For such is the formation of man. And the soul is introduced, and previous to it the ruling faculty, by which we re.on, not produced in procreation; so that without it there is made up the number ten, of the faculties by which all the activity of man is carried out. For in order, straightway on man's entering existence, his life begins with sensations. We accordingly assert that rational and ruling power is the cause of the constitution of the living creature; also that this, the irrational part, is animated, and is a part of it. Now the vital force, in which is comprehended the power of nutrition and growth, and generally of motion, is assigned to the carnal spirit, which has great susceptibility of motion, and passes in all directions through the senses and the rest of the body, and through the body is the primary subject of sensations. But the power of choice, in which investigation, and study, and knowledge, reside, belongs to the ruling faculty. But all the faculties are placed in relation to one -- the ruling faculty: it is through that man lives, and lives in a certain way.
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," and excites to disorderly conduct against nature; "and the Spirit against the flesh" exercises sway, in order that the conduct of the man may be according to nature.
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 (logwand the man who has become a Gnostic performs good actions by the faculty of reason (tw logikp), 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.
The first commandment of the Decalogue shows that there is one only Sovereign God who led the people from the land of Egypt through the desert to their fatherland; that they might apprehend His power, as they were able, by means of the divine works, and withdraw from the idolatry of created things, putting all their hope in the true God.
The Second Commandment.
The second word intimated that men ought not to take and confer the august power of God (which is the name, for this alone were many even yet capable of learning), and transfer His title to things created and vain, which human artificers have made, among which" He that is" is not ranked. For in His uncreated identity, "He that is" is absolutely alone.
The Fourth Commandment.
And the fourth word is that which intimates that the world was created by God, and that He gave us the seventh day as a rest, on account of the trouble that there is in life. For God is incapable of weariness, and suffering, and want. But we who bear flesh need rest. The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a rest -- abstraction from ills -- preparing for the Primal Day, our true rest; which, in truth, is the first creation of light, in which all things are viewed and possessed. From this day the first wisdom and knowledge illuminate us. For the light of truth -- a light true, casting no shadow, is the Spirit of God indivisibly divided to all, who are sanctified by faith, holding the place of a luminary, in order to the knowledge of real existences. By following Him, therefore, through our whole life, we become impossible; and this is to rest.
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 and Marriage, from its being the middle of the even numbers, that is, of ten and two. For it is manifestly at an equal distance from both.
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." For neither by taking from one number and adding to another of those within ten is seven produced; nor when added to any number within the ten does it make up any of them.
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, becomes the sixth, and is illuminated all round with spiritual light, by laying bare the power proceeding from Him, as far as those selected to see were able to behold it, by the Seventh, the Voice, proclaimed to be the Son of God; in order that they, persuaded respecting Him, might have rest; while He by His birth, which was indicated by the sixth conspicuously marked, becoming the eighth, might appear to be God in a body of flesh, by displaying His power, being numbered indeed as a man, but being concealed as to who He was. For six is reckoned in the order of numbers, but the succession of the letters acknowledges the character which is not written. In this case, in the numbers themselves, each unit is preserved in its order up to seven and eight. But in the number of the characters, Zeta becomes six and Eta seven.
And the character having somehow slipped into writing, should we follow it out thus, the seven became six, and the eight seven.
Wherefore also man is said to have been made on the sixth day, who became faithful to Him who is the sign (tp epishmw ), so as straightway to receive the rest of the Lord's inheritance. Some such thing also is indicated by the sixth hour in the scheme of salvation, in which man was perfected. Further, of the eight, the intermediates are seven; and of the seven, the intervals are shown to be six. For that is another ground, in which seven glorifies eight, and "the heavens declare to the heavens the glory of God."
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," " by whom all things were made, and without whom not even one thing was made." God's resting is not, then, as some conceive, that God ceased from doing. For, being good, if He should ever cease from doing good, then would He cease from being God, which it is sacrilege even to say. The resting is, therefore, the ordering that the order of created things should be preserved inviolate, and that each of the creatures should cease from the ancient disorder. For the creations on the different days followed in a most important succession; so that all things brought into existence might have honour from priority, created together in thought, but not being of equal worth. Nor was the creation of each signified by the voice, inasmuch as the creative work is said to have made them at once. For something must needs have been named first. Wherefore those things were announced first, from which came those that were second, all things being originated together from one essence by one power. For the will of God was one, in one identity. And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist.
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. The mathematicians also say that the planets, which perform their course around the earth, are seven; by which the Chaldeans think that all which concerns mortal life is effected through sympathy, in consequence of which they also undertake to tell things respecting the future.
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 moon, then gibbous and full; and in her wane again gibbous, and in like manner half moon and crescent-shaped.
"On a seven-stringed lyre we shall sing new hymns," 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 Solan teach thus : "The child, while still an infant, in seven years, Produces and puts forth its fence of teeth; And when God seven years more completes, He shows of puberty's approach the signs; And in the third, the beard on growing cheek With down o'erspreads the bloom of changing skin; And in the fourth septenniad, at his best In strength, of manliness he shows the signs; And in the fifth, of marriage, now mature, And of posterity, the man bethinks; Nor does he yet desire vain works to see.
The seventh and eighth septenniads see him now In mind and speech mature, till fifty years; And in the ninth he still has vigour left, But strength and body are for virtue great Less than of yore; when, seven years more, God brings To end, then not too soon may he submit to die."
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. And the blessed David delivers clearly to those who know the mystic account of seven and eight, praising thus: "Our years were exercised like a spider. The days of our years in them are seventy years; but if in strength, eighty years. And that will be to reign." That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: "This is the book of the generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth." For the expression "when they were created" intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression "in the day that God made," that is, in and by which God made "all things," and "without which not even one thing was made," points out the activity exerted by the Son. As David says, "This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice in it; " that is, in consequence of the knowledge imparted by Him, let us celebrate the divine festival; for the Word that throws light on things hidden, and by whom each created thing came into life and being, is called day.
And, in fine, the Decalogue, by the letter Iota, signifies the blessed name, presenting Jesus, who is the Word.
The Fifth Commandment.
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.
The Seventh Commandment.
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 following the prophet, who says: " [My people] hath committed fornication with stock and stone. They have said to the stock, Thou art my father; and to the stone, Thou hast begotten me."
The Sixth Commandment.
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 uncrested, or affirming anything against true doctrine, is most pernicious.
The Eight Commandment.
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 his deserts; so also does he, who arrogates to himself divine works by the art of the statuary or the painter, and pronounces himself to be the maker of animals and plants. Likewise those, too, who mimic the true philosophy are thieves. Whether one be a husbandman or the father of a child, he is an agent in depositing seeds. But it is God who, ministering the growth and perfection of all things, brings the things produced to what is in accordance with their nature. But the most, in common also with the philosophers, attribute growth and changes to the stars as the primary cause, robbing the Father of the universe, as far as in them lies, of His tireless might.
The Father of the universe, as far as in lies, of His tireless might. e 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 Tenth Commandment.
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 in-animate 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.
CHAPTER XVII -- PHILOSOPHY CONVEYS ONLY AN IMPERFECT KNOWLEDGE OF GOD.
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 that we believe in Christ, as it is not alone for the purpose of being seen, while in the sun, that we pass into the sun. But in the one case for the purpose of being warmed; and in the other, we are compelled to be Christians in order to be excellent and good. For the kingdom belongs pre-eminently to the violent, who, from investigation, and study, and discipline, reap this fruit, that they become kings.
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- the names and the things -- some discourse of names, occupying themselves with the beauties of words: such are the philosophers among the Greeks. But we who are Barbarians have the things. Now it was not in vain that the Lord chose to make use of a mean form of body; so that no one praising the grace and admiring the beauty might turn his back on what was said, and attending to what ought to be abandoned, might be cut off from what is intellectual. We must therefore occupy ourselves not with the expression, but the meaning.
To those, then, who are not gifted with the power of apprehension, and are not inclined to knowledge, the word is not entrusted; since also the ravens imitate human voices, having no understanding of the thing which they say. And intellectual apprehension depends on faith. Thus also Homer said : "Father of men and gods," - 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. But if "the very hairs are numbered, and the most insignificant motions," how shall not philosophy be taken into account? For to Samson power was given in his hair, in order that he might perceive that the worthless arts that refer to the things in this life, which lie and remain on the ground after the departure of the soul, were not given without divine power.
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" (that is, of the great High Priest, "by whom all things were made, and without whom not even one thing was made" ); not to the ornament of the body; for Philosophy is outside of the People, like raiment. The philosophers, therefore, who, trained to their own peculiar power of perception by the spirit of perception, when they investigate, not a part of philosophy, but philosophy absolutely, testify to the truth in a truth-loving and humble spirit; if in the case of good things said by those even who are of different sentiments they advance to understanding, through the divine administration, and the ineffable Goodness, which always, as far as possible, leads the nature of existences to that which is better. Then, by cultivating the acquaintance not of Greeks alone, but also of Barbarians, from the exercise common to their proper intelligence, they are conducted to Faith. And when they have embraced the foundation of truth, they receive in addition the power of advancing further to investigation. And thence they love to be learners, and aspiring after knowledge, haste to salvation.
Thus Scripture says, that "the spirit of perception" was given to the artificers from God. And this is nothing else than Understanding, a faculty of the soul, capable of studying existences, -- of distinguishing and comparing what succeeds as like and unlike, -- of enjoining and forbidding, and of conjecturing the future. And it extends not to the arts alone, but even to philosophy itself.
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 (nohsis). 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 in consequence of the maintenance of the operation in it, it is called Faith. In the sphere of things of sense, establishing that which appears as being truest, it is Right Opinion. In operations, again, performed by skill of hand, it is Art But when, on the other hand, without the study of primary causes, by the observation of similarities, and by transposition, it makes any attempt or combination, it is called Experiment. But belonging to it, and supreme and essential, is the Holy Spirit, which above all he who, in consequence of [divine] guidance, has believed, receives after strong faith. Philosophy, then, partaking of a more exquisite perception, as has been shown from the above statements, participates in Wisdom.
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 of God; the soul being disposed in the way it is, and the divine will being conveyed to human souls, particular divine ministers contributing to such services. For regiments of angels are distributed over the nations and cities. And, perchance, some are assigned to individuals.
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."
Rightly, then, to the Jews belonged the Law, and to the Greeks Philosophy, until the Advent; and after that came the universal calling to be a peculiar people of righteousness, through the teaching which flows from faith, brought together by one Lord, the only God of both Greeks and Barbarians, or rather of the whole race of men. We have often called by the name philosophy that portion of truth attained through philosophy, although but partial.
Now, too what is good in the arts as arts, have their beginning from God. For as the doing of anything artistically is embraced in the rules of art, so also acting sagaciously is classed under the head of sagacity (fronhsis). Now sagacity is virtue, and it is its function to know other things, but much more especially what belongs to itself. And Wisdom (Sofia) being power, is nothing but the knowledge of good things, divine and human.
But "the earth is God's, and the fulness thereof," says the Scripture, teaching that good things come from God to men; it being through divine power and might that the distribution of them comes to the help of man.
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. For by angels, whether seen or not, the divine power bestows good things. Such was the mode adopted in the advent of the Lord. And sometimes also the power "breathes" in men's thoughts and reasonings, and "puts in" their hearts "strength" and a keener perception, and furnishes "prowess" and "boldness of alacrity" both for researches and deeds.
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." But in respect of its immediate reason, it is from those next to each, in accordance with the command and injunction of Him who is nearest the First Cause, that is, the Lord.
CHAPTER XVIII -- THE USE OF PHILOSOPHY TO THE GNOSTIC.
Greek philosophy the recreation of the Gnostic.
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. Not that he neglects what is superior; but that he takes this in addition, as long as proper, for the reasons I mentioned above. But those who give their mind to the unnecessary and superfluous points of philosophy, and addict themselves to wrangling sophisms alone, abandon what is necessary and most essential, pursuing plainly the shadows of words.
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 (episthmh, which we affirm the Gnostic alone possesses) is a sure comprehension (katalhyis), leading up through true and sure reasons to the knowledge (gnpsis) 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.
Philosophy necessary.
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.
First of all, idols are to be rejected. 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 no, thing in the world," since nothing among created things can be a likeness of God; and further, to be taught that none of those images which they worship can be similitudes: for the race of souls is not in form such as the Greeks fashion their idols. For souls are invisible; not only those that are rational, but those also of the other animals. And their bodies never become parts of the souls themselves, but organs -- partly as seats, partly as vehicles -- and in other cases possessions in various ways. But it is not possible to copy accurately even the likenesses of the organs; since, were it so, one might model the sun, as it is seen, and take the likeness of the rainbow in colours.
After abandoning idols, then, they will hear the Scripture, "Unless your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees " (who justified themselves in the way of abstinence from what was evil), -- so as, along with such, perfection as they evinced, and "the loving of your neighbour," to be able also to do good,you shall not "be kingly."
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 he magnified in you according to our rule abundantly, to preach the Gospel beyond you." He does not mean the extension of his preaching locally: for he says also that in Achaia faith abounded; and it is related also in the Acts of the Apostles that he preached the word in Athens. But he teaches that knowledge (gnosis), which is the perfection of faith, goes beyond catechetical instruction, in accordance with the magnitude of the Lord's teaching and the rule of the Church. Wherefore also he proceeds to add, "And if I am rude in speech, yet I am not in knowledge."
Whence is the knowledge of truth?
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.
Intimations of the Teacher's advent 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.
Universal diffusion of the Gospel a contrast to philosophy.
The philosophers, however, chose to [teach philosophy] to the Greeks alone, and not even to all of them; but Socrates to Plato, and Plato to Xenocrates, Aristotle to Theophrastus, and Zeno to Cleanthes, who persuaded their own followers alone.
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. But our doctrine on its very first proclamation was prohibited by kings and tyrants together, as well as particular rulers and governors, with all their mercenaries, and in addition by innumerable men, warring against us, and endeavouring as far as they could to exterminate it. But it flourishes the more. For it dies not, as human doctrine dies, nor fades as a fragile gift. For no gift of God is fragile. But it remains unchecked, though prophesied as destined to be persecuted to the end. Thus Plato writes of poetry: "A poet is a light and a sacred thing, and cannot write poetry till he be inspired and lose his senses." And Democritus similarly: "Whatever things a poet writes with divine afflatus, and with a sacred spirit, are very beautiful." And we know what sort of things poets say. And shall no one be amazed at the prophets of God Almighty becoming the organs of the divine voice?
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.
Go to the Chronological List of all Early Christian Writings
Please buy the CD to support the site, view it without ads, and get bonus stuff!

Question: when was george cross's book published

Answer: 1912

Question: who wrote the differentiation of the roman and greek catholic views of the

Answer: George Cross

who wrote the differentiation of the roman and greek catholic views of the

Question: who wrote a bird's eye view of ancient christian eschatology

Answer: A. J. Visser

who wrote a bird's eye view of ancient christian eschatology

Question: who believed that the souls of martyrs entered into eternal blessedness

Answer: Tertullian De Anima

who believed that the souls of martyrs entered into eternal blessedness

Question: where was george cross published

Answer: The Biblical World

Question: when was a.j. visser's book published

Answer: 1967

Question: where was a.j. visser published

Answer: Numen

Question: what did tertullian believe the souls of martyrs entered into

Answer: eternal blessedness

what did tertullian believe the souls of martyrs entered into

p. 53; cf. , ,

Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma vol.

Origen , in arguing against soul sleep , stated that the souls of the elect immediately entered paradise unless not yet purified , in which case they passed into a state of punishment , a penal fire , which is to be conceived as a place of purification .

Contents
|« Prev||III. Doctrine of Redemption and Restoration.||Next »|
The Doctrine of Redemption and Restoration.
In the view of Clement and Origen the proposition: “God wishes us to be saved by means of ourselves” (ὁ Θεὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν βούλεται σώζεσθαι) is quite as rue as the other statement 366that no spirit can be saved without entering into fellowship with the Logos and submitting to his instruction.787787Origen again and again strongly urged the necessity of divine grace. They moreover hold that the Logos, after passing through his various stages of revealing activity (law of nature, Mosaic law), disclosed himself in the Gospel in a manner complete and accessible to all, so that this revelation imparts redemption and eternal happiness to all men, however different their capacities may be. Finally, it is assumed that not only men but all spiritual creatures, from the radiant spirits of heaven down to the dusky demons, have the capacity and need of redemption; while for the highest stage, the “spiritual Church”, there is an eternal Gospel which is related to the written one as the latter is to the law. This eternal Gospel is the first complete revelation of God’s highest intentions, and lies hidden in the Holy Scriptures.788788See on this point Bigg, pp. 207 ff., 223 f. Origen is the father of Joachim and all spiritualists. These elements compose Origen’s doctrine of revelation in general and of Christ in particular.789789See Knittel, Orig. Lehre von der Menschwerdung (Tübinger Theologische Quartalschrift, 1872). Ramers, Orig. Lehre von der Auferstehung des Fleisches, 1851. Schultz, Gottheit Christi, pp. 51-62. They presuppose the sighing of the creature and the great struggle which is more especially carried on upon earth, within the human breast, by the angels and demons, virtues and vices, knowledge and passion, that dispute the possession of man. Man must conquer and yet he cannot do so without help. But help has never been wanting. The Logos has been revealing himself from the beginning. Origen’s teaching concerning the preparatory history of redemption is founded on the doctrines of the Apologists; but with him everything takes a more vivid form, and influences on the part of the heretical Gnosis are also not lacking. Pure spirits, whom no fault of their own had caused to be invested with bodies, namely, the prophets, were sent to men by the Logos in order to support the struggling and to increase knowledge. To prepare the way of salvation the Logos chose for himself a whole people, and he revealed himself among all men. But all these undertakings did not yet lead to the goal. The Logos himself was obliged to appear and 367lead men back. But by reason of the diverse nature of the spirits, and especially of men, the redeeming work of the Logos that appeared could not fail to be a complicated one. In the case of some he had really to show them the victory over the demons and sin, a view which beyond dispute is derived from that of Valentinus. He had, as the “Godman,” to make a sacrifice which represented the expiation of sin, he had to pay a ransom which put an end to the devil’s sovereignty over men’s souls, and in short he had to bring a redemption visible and intelligible to all.790790With regard to this point we find the same explanation in Origen as in Irenæus and Tertullian, and also among the Valentinians, in so far as the latter describe the redemption necessary for the Psychici. Only, in this instance also, everything is more copious in his case, because he availed himself of the Holy Scriptures still more than these did, and because he left out no popular conception that seemed to have any moral value. Accordingly he propounded views as to the value of salvation and as to the significance of Christ’s death on the cross, with a variety and detail rivalled by no theologian before him. He was, as Bigg (p. 209 ff.) has rightly noticed, the first Church theologian after Paul’s time that gave a detailed theology of sacrifices. We may mention here the most important of his views. (1) The death on the cross along with the resurrection is to be considered as a real, recognisable victory over the demons, inasmuch as Christ (Col. II. 14) exposed the weakness of his enemies (a very frequent aspect of the matter). (2) The death on the cross is to be considered as an expiation offered to God. Here Origen argued that all sins require expiation, and, conversely, that all innocent blood has a greater or less importance according to the value of him who gives up his life. (3) In accordance with this the death of Christ has also a vicarious signification (see with regard to both these conceptions the treatise Exhort. ad martyr., as well as c. Cels. VIII. 17: I. 31; in Rom. t. III. 7, 8, Lomm. VI.; pp. 196-216 etc.). (4) The death of Christ is to be considered as a ransom paid to the devil. This view must have been widely diffused in Origen’s time; it readily suggested itself to the popular idea and was further supported by Marcionite theses. It was also accepted by Origen who united it with the notion of a deception practised on the devil, a conception first found among the Basilidians. By his successful temptation the devil acquired a right over men. This right cannot be destroyed, but only bought off. God offers the devil Christ’s soul in exchange for the souls of men. This proposal of exchange was, however, insincere, as God knew that the devil could not keep hold of Christ’s soul, because a sinless soul could not but cause him torture. The devil agreed to the bargain and was duped. Christ did not fall into the power of death and the devil, but overcame both. This theory, which Origen propounded in somewhat different fashion in different places (see Exhort. ad martyr. 12; in Matth. t. XVI. 8, Lomm. IV., p. 27; t. XII. 28, Lomm. III., p. 175; t. XIII. 8, 9, Lomm. III., pp. 224-229; in Rom. II. 13, Lomm. VI., p. 139 sq. etc.), shows in a specially clear way the conservative method of this theologian, who would not positively abandon any idea. No doubt it shows at the same time how uncertain Origen was as to the applicability of popular conceptions when he was dealing with the sphere of the Psychici. We must here remember the ancient idea that we are not bound to sincerity towards our enemies. (5) Christ, the God who became flesh, is to be considered as high priest and mediator between God and man (see de Orat. 10, 15). All the above-mentioned conceptions of Christ’s work were, moreover, worked out by Origen in such a way that his humanity and divinity are necessary inferences from them. In this case also he is characterised by the same mode of thought as Irenæus. Finally, let us remember that Origen adhered as strongly as ever to the proof from prophecy, and that he also, in not a few instances, regarded the phrase, “it is written”, as a sufficient court of appeal (see, for example, c. Cels. II. 37). Yet, on the other hand, behind all this he has a method of viewing things which considerably weakens the significance of miracles and prophecies. In general it must be said that Origen helped to drag into the Church a great many ancient (heathen) ideas about expiation and redemption, inasmuch as he everywhere found some Bible passage or other with which he associated them. While he rejected polytheism and gave little countenance to people who declared: εὐσεβέστεροί ἐσμεν καὶ Θεὸν καὶ τὰ ἄγάλματα σέβοντες (Clemens Rom., Hom. XI. 12), he had for all that a principal share in introducing the apparatus of polytheism into the Church (see also the way in which he strengthened angel and hero worship) To the rest, however, as divine teacher and hierophant 368he had to reveal the depths of knowledge, and to impart in this very process a new principle of life, so that they might now partake of his life and themselves become divine through being interwoven with the divine essence. Here, as in the former case, restoration to fellowship with God is the goal; but, as in the lower stage, this restoration is effected through faith and sure conviction of the reality of a historical fact — namely, the redeeming death of Christ, — so, in the higher stage, it is accomplished through knowledge and love, which, soaring upward beyond the Crucified One, grasp the eternal essence of the Logos, revealed to us through his teaching in the eternal Gospel.791791See above, p. 342, note 1, on the idea that Christ, the Crucified One, is of no importance to the perfect. Only the teacher is of account in this case. To Clement and Origen, however, teacher and mystagogue are as closely connected as they are to most Gnostics. Christianity is μάθησις and μυσταγωγία, and it is the one because it is the other. But in all stages Christianity has ultimately the same object, namely, to effect a reconciliation with God, and deify man. See c. Cels. III. 28: Ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τὴν καταβᾶσαν εἰς ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν καὶ εἰς ἀνθρωπίνας περιστάσεις δύναμιν, καὶ ἔναλαβοῦσαν ψυχὴν καὶ σ

Question: where did the souls of the elect immediately enter

Answer: paradise

where did the souls of the elect immediately enter

Question: what is the purpose of a penal fire

Answer: purification

Question: who wrote the history of dogma

Answer: Adolph Harnack

Question: according to origen, what state of punishment did souls pass into

Answer: a penal fire

according to origen, what state of punishment did souls pass into

Question: what is the state of punishment called in dogma

Answer: penal fire

what is the state of punishment called in dogma

Question: what did origen argue against

Answer: soul sleep

Question: who argued against soul sleep

Answer: Origen

p. 13 whereas the rest entered a generic realm of the dead.

Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma vol.

p. 13 whereas the rest entered a generic realm of the dead .

There the wicked suffered a foretaste of their eternal punishments , whilst the good experienced various stages and places of bliss wherein " the idea of a kind of purgatory … is quite plainly found , " an idea that is representative of a view widely dispersed in antiquity .

Contents
|« Prev||2. The Old Catholic Fathers’ doctrine of the…||Next »|
2. The Doctrines of the Church.
In the following section we do not intend to give a presentation of the theology of Irenæus and the other Antignostic Church teachers, but merely to set forth those points of doctrine to which the teachings of these men gave currency in succeeding times.
Against the Gnostic theses498498See Böhringer’s careful reviews of the theology of Irenæus and Tertullian (Kirchengeschichte in Biographien, Vol. I. 1st section, 1st half (2nd ed.), pp. 378-612, 2nd half, pp. 484-739). Irenæus and his successors, apart from the proof from prescription, adduced the following intrinsic considerations: (1) In the case of the Gnostics and Marcion the Deity lacks absoluteness, because he does not embrace everything, that is, he is bounded by the kenoma or by the sphere of a second God; and also because his omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence have a corresponding limitation.499499To the proof from prescription belong the arguments derived from the novelty and contradictory multiplicity of the Gnostic doctrines as well as the proofs that Greek philosophy is the original source of heresy. See Iren. II. 14. 1-6; Tertull. de præscr. 7; Apolog. 47 and other places; the Philosophoumena of Hippolytus. On Irenæus’ criticism of Gnostic theology see Kunze, Gotteslehre des Irenäus, Leipzig, 1891, p. 8 ff. (2) The assumption of divine emanations and of a differentiated 248divine pleroma represents the Deity as a composite, i.e.,500500See Irenæus II. I. 2-4: II. 31. 1. Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 2-7. Tertullian proves that there can be neither two morally similar, nor two morally dissimilar Deities; see also I. 15. finite being; and, moreover, the personification of the divine qualities is a mythological freak, the folly of which is evident as soon as one also makes the attempt to personify the affections and qualities of man in a similar way.501501See Irenæus II. 13. Tertullian (ad Valent. 4) very appropriately defined the æons of Ptolemy as “personales substantias extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat.” (3) The attempt to make out conditions existing within the Godhead is in itself absurd and audacious.502502See Irenæus, l.c., and elsewhere in the 2nd Book, Tertull. adv. Valent. in several passages. Moreover, Irenæus still treated the first 8 Ptolemaic æons with more respect than the 22 following, because here at least there was some appearance of a Biblical foundation. In confuting the doctrine of æons he incidentally raised several questions (II. 17. 2), which Church theologians discussed in later times, with reference to the Son and Spirit. “Quæritur quemadmodum emissi sunt reliqui æones? Utrum uniti ei qui emiserit, quemadmodum a sole radii, an efficabiliter et partiliter, uti sit unusquisque eorum separatim et suam figurationem habens, quemadmodum ab homine homo . . . Aut secundum germinationem, quemadmodum ab arbore rami? Et utrum eiusdem substantiæ exsistebant his qui se emiserunt, an ex altera quadam substantia substantiam habentes? Et utrum in eodem emissi sunt, ut eiusdem temporis essent sibi? . . . Et utrum simplices quidam et uniformes et undique sibi æquales et similes, quemadmodum spiritus et lumina emissa sunt, an compositi et differentes”? See also II. 17. 4: “Si autem velut a lumine lumina accensa sunt . . . velut verbi gratia a facula faculæ, generatione quidem et magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem; eiusdem autem substantiæ cum sint cum principe emissionis ipsorum, aut omnes impassibiles perseverant aut et pater ipsorum participabit passiones. Neque enim quæ postea accensa est facula, alterum lumen habebit quam illud quod ante eam fuit.” Here we have already a statement of the logical reasons, which in later times were urged against the Arian doctrine. (4) The theory of the passion and ignorance of Sophia introduces sin into the pleroma itself, i.e., into the Godhead.503503See Iren. II. 17. 5 and II. 18. With this the weightiest argument against the Gnostic cosmogony is already mentioned. A further argument against the system is that the world and mankind would have been incapable of improvement, if they had owed their origin to ignorance and sin.504504See Iren. II. 4. 2. Irenæus and Tertullian employ lengthy arguments to show that a God who has created nothing is inconceivable, 249and that a Demiurge occupying a position alongside of or below the Supreme Being is self-contradictory, inasmuch as he sometimes appears higher than this Supreme Being, and sometimes so weak and limited that one can no longer look on him as a God.505505Tertullian in particular argued in great detail (adv. Marc. I. 9-19) that every God must, above all, have revealed himself as a creator. In opposition to Marcion’s rejection of all natural theology, he represents this science as the foundation of all religious belief. In this connection he eulogised the created world (I. 13) and at the same time (see also the 2nd Book) argued in favour of the Demiurge, i.e., of the one true God. Irenæus urged a series of acute and weighty objections to the cosmogony of the Valentinians (see II. 1-5), and showed how untenable was the idea of the Demiurge as an intermediate being. The doctrines that the Supreme Being is unknown (II. 6), that the Demiurge is the blind instrument of higher æons, that the world was created against the will of the Supreme God, and, lastly, that our world is the imperfect copy of a higher one were also opposed by him with rational arguments. His refutation of the last conception is specially remarkable (II. 7). On the idea that God did not create the world from eternal matter see Tertull., adv. Hermog. The Fathers everywhere argue on behalf of the Gnostic Demiurge and against the Gnostic supreme God. It never occurs to them to proceed in the opposite way and prove that the supreme God may be the Creator. All their efforts are rather directed to show that the Creator of the world is the only and supreme God, and that there can be no other above this one. This attitude of the Fathers is characteristic; for it proves that the apologetico-philosophical theology was their fundamental assumption. The Gnostic (Marcionite) supreme God is the God of religion, the God of redemption; the Demiurge is the being required to explain the world. The intervention of the Fathers on his behalf, that is, their assuming him as the basis of their arguments, reveals what was fundamental and what was accidental in their religious teaching. At the same time, however, it shows plainly that they did not understand or did not feel the fundamental problem that troubled and perplexed the Gnostics and Marcion, viz., the qualitative distinction between the spheres of creation and redemption. They think they have sufficiently explained this distinction by the doctrine of human freedom and its consequences. Accordingly their whole mode of argument against the Gnostics and Marcion is, in point of content, of an abstract, philosophico‑rational 250kind.506506But this very method of argument was without doubt specially impressive in the case of the educated, and it is these alone of whom we are here speaking. On the decay of Gnosticism after the end of the 2nd century, see Renan, Origines, Vol. VII, p. 113 ff. As a rule they do not here carry on their controversy with the aid of reasons taken from the deeper views of religion. As soon as the rational argument fails, however, there is really an entire end to the refutation from inner grounds, at least in the case of Tertullian; and the contest is shifted into the sphere of the rule of faith and the Holy Scriptures. Hence, for example, they have not succeeded in making much impression on the heretical Christology from dogmatic considerations, though in this respect Irenæus was still very much more successful than Tertullian.507507See his arguments that the Gnostics merely assert that they have only one Christ, whereas they actually possess several, III. 16. 1, 8 and elsewhere. Besides, in adv. Marc. II. 27, the latter betrayed what interest he took in the preëxistent Christ as distinguished from God the Father. It is not expedient to separate the arguments advanced by the Fathers against the Gnostics from their own positive teachings, for these are throughout dependent on their peculiar attitude within the sphere of Scripture and tradition.
Irenæus and Hippolytus have been rightly named Scripture theologians; but it is a strange infatuation to think that this designation characterises them as evangelical. If indeed we here understand “evangelical” in the vulgar sense, the term may be correct, only in this case it means exactly the same as “Catholic”. But if “evangelical” signifies “early-Christian”, then it must be said that Scripture theology was not the primary means of preserving the ideas of primitive Christianity; for, as the New Testament Scriptures were also regarded as inspired documents and were to be interpreted according to the regula, their content was just for that reason apt to be obscured. Both Marcion and the chiefs of the Valentinian school had also been Scripture theologians. Irenæus and Hippolytus merely followed them. Now it is true that they very decidedly argued against the arbitrary method of interpreting the Scriptures adopted by Valentinus, and compared it to the process of forming the mosaic picture 251of a king into the mosaic picture of a fox, and the poems of Homer into any others one might choose;508508See Iren., I. 9 and elsewhere; Tertull., de præscr. 39, adv. Valent. passim. but they just as decidedly protested against the rejection by Apelles and Marcion of the allegorical method of interpretation,509509See Tertull., adv. Marc. II. 19, 21, 22: III. 5, 6, 14, 19: V. I.; Orig. Comm. in Matth., T. XV. 3, Opp. III., p. 655; Comm. in ep. ad Rom., T. II. 12. Opp. IV., p. 494 sq.; Pseudo-Orig. Adamantius, De recta in deum fide; Orig. I. pp. 808, 817. and therefore were not able to set up a canon really capable of distinguishing their own interpretation from that of the Gnostics.510510For this reason Tertullian altogether forbade exegetic disputes with the Gnostics, see de præscr. 16-19: “Ego non ad scripturas provocandum est nec in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est aut parum certa.” The Scripture theology of the old Catholic Fathers has a twofold aspect. The religion of the Scripture is no longer the original form; it is the mediated, scientific one to be constructed by a learned process; it is, on its part, the strongest symptom of the secularisation that has begun. In a word, it is the religion of the school, first the Gnostic then the ecclesiastical. But it may, on the other hand, be a whole-some reaction against enthusiastic excess and moralistic frigidity; and the correct sense of the letter will from the first obtain imperceptible recognition in opposition to the “spirit” arbitrarily read into it, and at length banish this “spirit” completely. Irenæus certainly tried to mark off the Church use of the Scriptures as distinguished from the Gnostic practice. He rejects the accommodation theory of which some Gnostics availed themselves;511511See Iren., III. 5. I: III. 12. 6. he emphasises more strongly than these the absolute sufficiency of the Scriptures by repudiating all esoteric doctrines;512512See Iren., III. 14. 2: III. 15. 1; Tertull., de præscr. 25: “Scripturæ quidem perfecta sunt, quippe a verbo dei et spiritu eius dictæ, nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a verbo dei et spiritu eius, secundum hoc et scientia mysteriorum eius indigemus.” he rejects all distinction between different kinds of inspiration in the sacred books;513513See Iren. II. 35. 2: IV. 34, 35 and elsewhere. Irenæus also asserted that the translation of the Septuagint (III. 21. 4) was inspired. The repudiation of different kinds of inspiration in the Scriptures likewise involved the rejection of all the critical views of the Gnostics that were concealed behind that assumption. The Alexandrians were the first who again to some extent adopted these critical principles. he lays down the maxim that the obscure passages 252are to be interpreted from the clear ones, not vice versâ;514514See Iren. II. 10. 1: II. 27. 1, 2. but this principle being in itself ambiguous, it is rendered quite unequivocal by the injunction to interpret everything according to the rule of faith515515See Iren. II. 25. 1. and, in the case of all objectionable passages, to seek the type.516516Irenæus appropriates the words of an Asia Minor presbyter when he says (IV. 32. I): De his quidem delictis, de quibus ipsæ scripturæ increpant patriarchas et prophetas, nos non oportere exprobare eis . . . de quibus autem scripturæ non increpant (scil. delictis), sed simpliciter sunt posits, nos non debere fieri accusatores, sed typum quærere.” Not only did Irenæus explain the Old Testament allegorically, in accordance with traditional usage;517517See, e.g., IV. 20. 12 where he declares the three spies whom Rahab entertained to be Father, Son, and Spirit. but according to the principle: “with God there is nothing without purpose or due signification” (“nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum”) (IV. 2I. 3), he was also the first to apply the scientific and mystical explanation to the New Testament, and was consequently obliged to adopt the Gnostic exegesis, which was imperative as soon as the apostolic writings were viewed as a New Testament. He regards the fact of Jesus handing round food to those lying at table as signifying that Christ also bestows life on the long dead generations;518518See Iren. IV. 22. 1. and, in the parable of the Samaritan, he interprets the host as the Spirit and the two denarii as the Father and Son.519519See Iren. III. 17. 3. To Irenæus and also to Tertullian and Hippolytus all numbers, incidental circumstances, etc., in the Holy Scriptures are virtually as significant as they are to the Gnostics, and hence the only question is what hidden meaning we are to give to them. “Gnosticism” is therefore here adopted by the ecclesiastical teachers in its full extent, proving that this “Gnosicism” is nothing else than the learned construction of religion with the scientific means of those days. As soon as Church-men were forced to bring forward their proofs and proceed to put the same questions as the “Gnostics”, they were obliged to work by their method. Allegory, however, was required in 253order to establish the continuity of the tradition from Adam down to the present time — not merely down to Christ — against the attacks of the Gnostics and Marcion. By establishing this continuity a historical truth was really also preserved. For the rest, the disquisitions of Irenæus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus were to such an extent borrowed from their opponents that there is scarcely a problem that they propounded and discussed as the result of their own thirst for knowledge. This fact not only preserved to their works an early-Christian character as compared with those of the Alexandrians, but also explains why they frequently stop in their positive teachings, when they believe they have confuted their adversaries. Thus we find neither in Irenæus nor Tertullian a discussion of the relation of the Scriptures to the rule of faith. From the way in which they appeal to both we can deduce a series of important problems, which, however, the Fathers themselves did not formulate and consequently did not answer.520520Justin had already noted certain peculiarities of the Holy Scriptures as distinguished from profane writings. Tertullian speaks of two proprietates iudaicæ literaturæ in adv. Marc. III. 5. 6. But the Alexandrians were the first to propound any kind of complete theories of inspiration.
The doctrine of God was fixed by the old Catholic Fathers for the Christendom of succeeding centuries, and in fact both the methodic directions for forming the idea of God and their results remained unchanged. With respect to the former they occupy a middle position between the renunciation of all knowledge — for God is not abyss and silence — and the attempt to fathom the depths of the Godhead.521521See above p. 233, note 2, Kunze, l.c. Tertullian, influenced by the Stoics, strongly emphasised the possibility of attaining a knowledge of God. Irenæus, following out an idea which seems to anticipate the mysticism of later theologians, made love a preliminary condition of knowledge and plainly acknowledged it as the principle of knowledge.522522See Iren., II. 26. I, 13. 4: “Sic et in reliquis omnibus nulli similis erit omnium pater hominum pusillitati: et dicitur quidem secundum hæc propter delectionem, sentitur autem super hæc secundum magnitudinem.” Irenæus expressly says that God cannot be known as regards his greatness, i.e., absolutely, but that he can be known as regards his love, IV. 20. I: “Igitur secundum magnitudem non est cognoscere deum, impossibile est enim mensurari patrem; secundum autem dilectionem eius — hæc est enim quæ nos per verbum eius perducit ad deum — obedientes ei semper discimus quoniam est tantus deus etc.”; in IV. 20. 4 the knowledge of God “secundum dilectionem” is more closely defined by the words “per verbum eius Iesum Christum.” The statements in §§ 5 and 6 are, however, specially important: they who are pure in heart will see God. God’s omnipotence and goodness remove the impossibility of man knowing him. Man comes to know him gradually, in proportion as he is revealed and through love, until he beholds him in a state of perfection. He must be in God in order to know God: ὥσπερ οἱ βλέποντες τὸ φῶς ἐντός εἰσι τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ τῆς λαμπρότητος αὐτοῦ μετέχουσιν, οὕτως οἱ βλέποντες πὸν Θεὸν ἐντός εἰσι τοῦ Θεοῦ, μετέχοντες αὐτοῦ τῆς λαμπρότητος. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὁ ἀχώρητος καὶ ἀκατάληπτος καὶ ἀόρατος ὁρώμενον ἑαυτὸν . . . τοῖς πιστοῖς παρέσχεν, ἵνα ζωοποιήσῃ τοὺς χωροῦντας καὶ βλέποντας αὐτὸν διὰ πίστεως. See also what follows down to the words: μετοχὴ Θεοῦ ἐστὶ τὸ γινώσκειν Θεὸν καὶ ἀπολαύειν τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ, et homines igitur videbunt deum, ut vivant, per visionem immortales facti et pertingentes usque in deum. Sentences of this kind where rationalism is neutralised by mysticism we seek for in Tertullian in vain. God can be known from revelation,523523 See Iren., IV. 6. 4: Ἐδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς ὁ κύριος, ὅτι Θεὸν εἰδέναι οὐδεὶς δύναται, μὴ οὐχὶ Θεοῦ διδάξαντος, τουτέστιν, ἄνευ Θεοῦ μὴ γινώσκεσθαι τὸν Θεόν· αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ γινώσκεσθαι τὸν Θεὸν θέλημα εἶναι τοῦ πατρός, Γνώσονται γὰρ αὐτὸν οἷς ἀν ἀποκαλύψῃ ὁ υἱός. 254because he has really revealed himself, that is, both by the creation and the word of revelation. Irenæus also taught that a sufficient knowledge of God, as the creator and guide, can be obtained from the creation, and indeed this knowledge always continues, so that all men are without excuse.524524Iren. II. 6. 1, 9. 1, 27. 2: III. 25. 1: “Providentiam habet deus omnium propter hoc et consilium dat: consilium autem dans adest his, qui morum providentiam hibent. Necesse est igitur ea quæ providentur et gubernantur cognoscere suum directorem; quæ quidem non sunt irrationalia neque vana, sed habent sensibilitatem perceptam de providentia dei. Et propter hoc ethnicorum quidam, qui minus illecebris ac voluptatibus servierunt, et non in tantum superstitione idolorum coabducti sunt, providentia eius moti licet tenuiter, tamen conversi sunt, ut dicerent fabricatorem huius universitatis patrem omnium providentem et disponentem secundum nos mundum.” Tertull., de testim. animæ; Apolog. 17. In this case the prophets, the Lord himself, the Apostles, and the Church teach no more and nothing else than what must be already plain to the natural consciousness. Irenæus certainly did not succeed in reconciling this proposition with his former assertion that the knowledge of God springs from love resting on revelation. Irenæus also starts, as Apologist and Antignostic, with the God who is the First Cause. Every God who is not that is a phantom;525525See Iren., IV. 6. 2; Tertull., adv. Marc. I, II. and every sublime religious state of mind which 255does not include the feeling of dependence upon God as the Creator is a deception. It is the extremest blasphemy to degrade God the Creator, and it is the most frightful machination of the devil that has produced the blasphemia creatoris.526526See Iren., V. 26. 2. Like the Apologists, the early Catholic Fathers confess that the doctrine of God the Creator is the first and most important of the main articles of Christian faith;527527See Iren., II. 1. 1 and the Hymn II. 30. 9. the belief in his oneness as well as his absoluteness is the main point.528528See Iren., III. 8. 3. Very pregnant are Irenæus’ utterances in II. 34. 4 and II. 30. 9: “Principari enim debet in omnibus et dominari voluntas dei, reliqua autem omnia huic cedere et subdita esse et in servitium dedita” . . . “substantia omnium voluntas dei;” see also the fragment V. in Harvey, Iren., Opp. II. p. 477 sq. Because everything originates with God and the existence of eternal metaphysical contrasts is therefore impossible the following proposition (IV. 2, 4), which is proved from the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, holds good: “ex una substantia esse omnia, id est Abraham et Moysem et prophetas, etiam ipsum dominum.” God is all light, all understanding, all Logos, all active spirit;529529See Iren. II. 28. 4, 5: IV. 11. 2. everything anthropopathic and anthropomorphic is to be conceived as incompatible with his nature.530530 Tertullian also makes the same demand (e.g., adv. Marc. II. 27); for his assertion “deum corpus esse” (adv. Prax. 7: “Quis enim negabit, deum corpus esse, etsi deus spiritus est? spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie”) must be compared with his realistic doctrine of the soul (de anima 6) as well as with the proposition formulated in de carne 11: “omne quod est, corpus est sui generis; nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est.” Tertullian here followed a principle of Stoic philosophy, and in this case by no means wished to teach that the Deity has a human form, since he recognised that man’s likeness to God consists merely in his spiritual qualities. On the contrary Melito ascribed to God a corporeal existence of a higher type (Eusebius mentions a work of this bishop under the title “ὁ περὶ ἐνσωμάτου Θεοῦ λόγος”, and Origen reckoned him among the ichers who recognised that man had also a likeness to God in form (in body); see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1. 2, pp. 243, 248. In the second century the realistic eschatological ideas no doubt continued to foster in wide circles the popular idea that God had a form and a kind of corporeal existence. A middle position between these ideas and that of Tertullian and the Stoics seems to have been taken up by Lactantius (Instit. div. VII. 9, 21; de ira dei 2. 18.). The early-Catholic doctrine of God shows an advance beyond that of the Apologists, in so far as God’s attributes of goodness and righteousness are expressly discussed, and it is proved in opposition to Marcion that 256they are not mutually exclusive, but necessarily involve each other.531531See Iren., III. 25. 2; Tertulla adv. Marc. I. 23-28: II. 11 sq. Hippolytus briefly defined his doctrine of God in Phil. X. 32. The advance beyond the Apologists’ idea of God consists not only in the thorough discussion of God’s attributes of goodness and righteousness, but also in the view, which is now much more vigorously worked out, that the Almighty Creator has no other purpose in his world than the salvation of mankind. See the 10th Greek fragment of Irenæus (Harvey, II. p. 480); Tertull., de orat. 4: “Summa est voluntatis dei salus eorum, quos adoptavit”; de pænit. 2: “Bonorum dei unus est titulus, salus hominum”; adv. Marc. II. 27: “Nihil tam dignum deo quam salus hominis.” They had here undeniably learned from Marcion; see adv. Marc. I. 17. In the first chapters of the work de orat., however, in which Tertullian expounds the Lord’s Prayer, he succeeded in unfolding the meaning of the Gospel in a way such as was never possible for him elsewhere. The like remark may be made of Origen’s work de orat., and, in general, in the case of most authors who interpreted the Lord’s Prayer in the succeeding period. This prayer kept alive the knowledge of the deepest meaning of the Gospel.
In the case of the Logos doctrine also, Tertullian and Hippolytus simply adopted and developed that of the Apologists, whilst Irenaus struck out a path of his own. In the Apologeticum (c. 21) Tertullian set forth the Logos doctrine as laid down by Tatian, the only noteworthy difference between him and his predecessor consisting in the fact that the appearance of the Logos in Jesus Christ was the uniform aim of his presentation.532532Apol. 21: “Necesse et igitur pauca de Christo ut deo . . . Jam ediximus deum universitatem hanc mundi verbo et ratione et virtute molitum. Apud vestros quoque sapientes λόγον, id est sermonem et rationem, constat artificem videri universitatis.” (An appeal to Zeno and Cleanthes follows). “Et nos autem sermoni atque rationi itemque virtuti, per quæ omnia molitum deum ediximus, propriam substantiam spiritum inscribimus, cui et sermo insit pronuntianti et ratio adsit disponenti et virtus præsit perficienti. Hunc ex deo prolatum didicimus et prolatione generatum et idcirco filium dei et deum dictum ex unitate substantiæ, nam et deus spiritus (that is, the antemundane Logos is the Son of God). Et cum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa; sed sol erit in radio, quia solis est radius nec separator substantia sed extenditur (cf. adv. Prax. 8). Ita de spiritu spiritus et deo deus ut lumen de lumine accensum. Manet integra et indefecta materiæ matrix, etsi plures inde traduces qualitatis mutueris: ita et quod de deo profectum est, deus est et dei filius et unus ambo. Ita et de spiritu spiritus et de deo deus modulo alternum numerum, gradu non statu fecit, et a matrice non recessit sed excessit. Iste igitur dei radius, ut retro semper prædicabatur, delapsus in virginem quandam et in utero eius caro figuratus nascitur homo deo mixtus. Caro spiritu instructa nutritur, adolescit, adfatur, docet, operatur et Christus est.” Tertullian adds: “Recipite interim hanc fabulam, similis est vestris.” As a matter of fact the heathen most have viewed this statement as a philosophical speculation with a mythological conclusion. It is very instructive to ascertain that in Hippolytus’ book against Noëtus “the setting forth of the truth” (c. 10 ff.) he begins with the proposition: Θεός ἐβουλήθη κόσμον κτίσαι. The Logos whose essence and working are described merely went forth to realise this intention. 257He fully explained his Logos doctrine in his work against the Monarchian Praxeas.533533See Hagemann, Die römische Kirche (1864), p. 172 ff. Here he created the formulæ of succeeding orthodoxy by introducing the ideas “substance” and “person” and by framing, despite of the most pronounced subordinationism and a purely economical conception of the Trinity, definitions of the relations between the persons which could be fully adopted in the Nicene creed.534534See my detailed exposition of the orthodox side of Tertullian’s doctrine of the Trinity (“orthodox” in the later sense of the word), in Vol. IV. There it is also shown that these formulæ were due to Tertullian’s juristic bias. The formulæ, “una substantia, tres personæ”, never alternates in his case with the others, “una natura, tres personæ”; and so it remained for a long time in the West; they did not speak of “natures” but of “substances” (“nature” in this connection is very rare down to the 5th century). What makes this remarkable is the fact that Tertullian always uses “substance” in the concrete sense “individual substance” and has even expressed himself precisely on the point. He says in de anima 32: “aliud est substantia, aliud natura substantiæ; siquidem substantia propria est rei cuiusque, natura vero potest esse communis. Suscipe exemplum: substantia est lapis, ferrum; duritia lapidis et ferri natura substantia est. Duritia (natura) communicat, substantia discordat. Mollitia lanæ, mollitia plumæ pariant naturalia eorum, substantiva non pariant . . . Et tunc naturæ similitudo notatur, cum substantiæ dissimilitudo conspicitur. Men and animals are similar natura, but not substantia.” We see that Tertullian in so far as he designated Father, Son, and Spirit as one substance expressed their unity as strongly as possible. The only idea intelligible to the majority was a juristic and political notion, viz., that the Father, who is the tota substantia, sends forth officials whom he entrusts with the administration of the monarchy. The legal fiction attached to the concept “person” aided in the matter here. Here also the philosophical and cosmological interest prevails; the history of salvation appears only to be the continuation of that of the cosmos. This system is distinguished from Gnosticism by the history of redemption appearing as the natural continuation of the history of creation and not simply as its correction. The thought that the unity of the Godhead is shown in the una substantia and the una dominatio was worked out by Tertullian with admirable clearness. According to him the unfolding of this one substance into several heavenly embodiments, or the administration of the divine sovereignty by emanated persons cannot endanger the 258unity; the “arrangement of the unity when the unity evolves the trinity from itself” (“dispositio unitatis, quando unitas ex semetipsa [trinitatem] derivat”) does not abolish the unity, and, moreover, the Son will some day subject himself to the Father, so that God will be all in all.535535See adv. Prax. 3: “Igitur si et monarchia divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur, sicut scriptum est: Milies centies centena milia adsistebant ei, et milies centena milia apparebant ei, nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, quia per tanta milia virtutum procuratur: quale est ut deus divisionem et dispersionem pati videatur in filio et spiritu sancto, secundum et tertium sortitis locum, tam consortibus substantiæ patris, quam non patitur in tot angelorum numero?” (! !) c. 4: “Videmus igitur non obesse monarchiæ filium, etsi hodie apud filium est, quia et in suo statu est apud filium, et cum suo statu restituetur patri a filio.” L.c.: Monarchia in tot nominibus constituta est, in quot deus voluit.” Here then the Gnostic doctrine of moons is adopted in its complete form, and in fact Hippolytus, who in this respect agrees with Tertullian, has certified that the Valentinians “acknowledge that the one is the originator of all” (“τὸν ἕνα ὁμολογοῦσιν αἴτιον τῶν πάντων”), because with them also, “the whole goes back to one” (“τὸ πᾶν εἰς ἕνα ανατρέχει”).536536See Hippol., c. Noëtum 11. According to these doctrines the unity is sufficiently preserved (1) if the separate persons have one and the same substance, (2) if there is one possessor of the whole substance, i.e., if everything proceeds from him. That this is a remnant of polytheism ought not to be disputed. The only difference is that Tertullian and Hippolytus limit the “economy of God” (οἰκονομία τοῦ Θεοῦ) to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, while the Gnostics exceed this number.537537Adv. Prax. 8: “Hoc si qui putaverit, me προβολὴν aliquam introducere id est prolationem rei alterius ex altera, quod facit Valentinus, primo quidem dicam tibi, non ideo non utatur et veritas vocabulo isto et re ac censu eius, quia et hæresis utitur; immo hæresis potius ex veritate accepit quod ad mendacium suum strueret”; cf. also what follows. Thus far then theologians had got already: “The economy is founded on as many names as God willed” (c. 4). According to Tertullian “a rational conception of the Trinity constitutes truth, an irrational idea of the unity makes heresy” (“trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituit, unitas irrationaliter collecta hæresim facit”) is already the watchword of the Christian dogmatic. Now what he considers a rational conception is keeping in view the different stages of God’s economy, and distinguishing between dispositio, distinctio, numerus on the one hand and divisio on the other. At the beginning God was alone, but ratio and sermo existed within him. In a certain sense then, 259he was never alone, for he thought and spoke inwardly. If even men can carry on conversations with themselves and make themselves objects of reflection, how much more is this possible with God.538538See adv. Prax. 5. But as yet he was the only person.539539Tertull., adv. Hermog. 3: “fuit tempus, cum ei filius non fuit.” The moment, however, that he chose to reveal himself and sent forth from himself the word of creation, the Logos came into existence as a real being, before the world and for the sake of the world. For “that which proceeds from such a great substance and has created such substances cannot itself be devoid of substance.” He is therefore to be conceived as permanently separate from God “secundus a deo consititutus, perseverans in sua forma”; but as unity of substance is to be preserved (“alias pater, alias filius, alias non aliud” — “ego et pater unum sumus ad substantiæ unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem dictum est” — “tres unum sunt, non unus” — “the Father is one person and the Son is another, different persons not different things”, “I and the Father are one refers to unity of substance, not to singleness in number” — “the three are one thing not one person”), the Logos must be related to the Father as the ray to the sun, as the stream to the source, as the stem to the root (see also Hippolytus, c. Noëtum 10).540540Novatian (de trin. 23) distinguishes very decidedly between “factum esse” and “procedere”. For that very reason “Son” is the most suitable expression for the Logos that has emanated in this way (κατὰ μερισμόν). Moreover, since he (as well as the Spirit) has the same substance as the Father (“unius substantiæ” = ὁμοούσιος) he has also the same power541541Adv. Prax. 2: “Custodiatur οἰκονομίας sacramentum, qua unitatem in trinitatem disponit, tres dirigens, tres autem non statu, sed gradu, nec substantia, sed forma, nec potestate, sed specie, unius autem substantiæ et unius status et potestatis.” as regards the world. He has all might in heaven and earth, and he has had it ab initio, from the very beginning of time.542542See the discussions adv. Prax. 16 ff. On the other hand this same Son is only a part and offshoot; the Father is the whole; and in this the mystery of the economy consists. What the Son possesses has been given him by the Father; the Father is therefore greater than the Son; the Son 260is subordinate to the Father.543543Tertull., adv. Marc. III. 6: “filius portio plenitudinis.” In another passage Textullian has ironically remarked in opposition to Marcion (IV. 39): “Nisi Marcion Christum non sabiectum patri infert.” “Pater tota substantia est, filius vero derivatio totius et portio”.544544 Adv. Prax. 9. This paradox is ultimately based on a philosophical axiom of Tertullian: the whole fulness of the Godhead, i.e., the Father, is incapable of entering into the finite, whence also he must always remain invisible, unapproachable, and incomprehensible. The Divine Being that appears and works on earth can never be anything but a part of the transcendent Deity. This Being must be a derived existence, which has already in some fashion a finite element in itself, because it is the hypostatised Word of creation, which has an origin.545545See the whole 14th chap. adv. Prax. especially the words: “Jam ergo alius erit qui videbatur, quia non potest idem invisibilis definiri qui videbatur, et consequens erit, ut invisibilem patrem intellegamus pro plenitudine maiestatis, visibilem vero filium agnoscamus pro modulo derivationis.” One cannot look at the sun itself, but, “toleramus radium eius pro temperatura portionis, quæ in terram inde porrigitur.” The chapter also shows how the Old Testament theophanies must have given an impetus to the distinction between the Deity as transcendent and the Deity as making himself visible. Adv. Marc. II. 27: Quæcunque exigitis deo digna, habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et, ut ita dixerim, philosophorum deo. Quæcunque autem ut indigna reprehenditis, deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro, miscente in semetipso hominem et deum in virtutibus deum, in pusillitatibus hominem, ut tantum homini conferat quantum deo detrahit.” In adv. Prax. 29 Tertullian showed in very precise terms that the Father is by nature impassible, but the Son is capable of suffering. Hippolytus does not share this opinion; to him the Logos in himself is likewise ἀπαθής (see c. Noëtum 15). We would assert too much, were we to say that Tertullian meant that the Son was simply the world-thought itself; his insistance on the “unius substantiæ” disproves this. But no doubt he regards the Son as the Deity depotentiated for the sake of self-communication; the Deity adapted to the world, whose sphere coincides witht he world-thought, and whose power is identical with that necessary for the world. From the standpoint of humanity this Deity is God himself, i.e., a God whom men can apprehend and who can apprehend them; but from God’s standpoint, which speculation can fix but not fathom, this Deity is a subordinate, nay, even a temporary one. Tertullian and Hippolytus know as little of an immanent Trinity 261as the Apologists; the Trinity only appears such, because the unity of the substance is very vigorously emphasised; but in truth the Trinitarian process as in the case of the Gnostics, is simply the background of the process that produces the history of the world and of salvation. This is first of all shown by the fact that in course of the process of the world and of salvation the Son grows in his sonship, that is, goes through a finite process;546546According to Tertullian it is certainly an essential part of the Son’s nature to appear, teach, and thus come into connection with men; but he neither asserted the necessity of the incarnation apart from the faulty development of mankind, nor can this view be inferred from his premises. and secondly by the fact that the Son himself will one day restore the monarchy to the Father.547547See adv. Prax. 4. the only passage, however, containing this idea, which is derived from 1 Cor. XV. These words no doubt are again spoken not from the standpoint of man, but from that of God; for so long as history lasts “the Son continues in his form.” In its point of departure, its plan, and its details this whole exposition is not distinguished from the teachings of contemporaneous and subsequent Greek philosophers,548548Cf. specially the attempts of Plotinus to reconcile the abstract unity which is conceived as the principle of the universe with the manifoldness and fulness of the real and the particular (Ennead. lib. III.–V.). Plotinus employs the subsidiary notion μερισμός in the same way as Tertullian; see Hagemann l.c. p. 186 f. Plotinus would have agreed with Tertullian’s proposition in adv. Marc. III. 15: “Dei nomen quasi naturale divinitatis potest in omnes communicari quibus divinitas vindicatur.” Plotinus’ idea of hypostasis is also important, and this notion requires exact examination. but merely differs in its aim. In itself absolutely unfitted to preserve the primitive Christian belief in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, its importance consists in its identification of the historical Jesus with this Logos. By its aid Tertullian united the scientific, idealistic cosmology with the utterances of early Christian tradition about Jesus in such a way as to make the two, as it were, appear the totally dissimilar wings of one and the same building,549549 Following the baptismal confession, Tertullian merely treated the Holy Ghost according to the scheme of the Logos doctrine without any trace of independent interest. In accordance with this, however, the Spirit possesses his own “numerus” — “tertium numen divinitatis et tertium nomen maiestatis”, — and he is a person in the same sense as the Son, to whom, however, he is subordinate, for the subordination is a necessary result of his later origin. See cc. 2, 8: “tertius est spiritus a deo et filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus a frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus a flumine et tertius a sole apex ex radio. Nihil tamen a matrice alienatur a qua proprietates suas ducit. Ita trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus a patre decurrens et monarchiæ nihil obstrepit et οἰκονομίας statum protegit”; de pudic. 21. In de præscr. 13 the Spirit in relation to the Son is called “vicaria vis”. The element of personality in the Spirit is with Tertullian merely a result arising from logical deduction; see his successor Novatian de trin. 29. Hippolytus did not attribute personality to the Spirit, for he says (adv. Noët. 14): Ἕνα Θεὸν ἐρῶ, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, οἰκονομίᾳ δὲ τρίτην τὴν χάριν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος· πατὴρ μὲν γὰρ εἷς, πρόσωπα δὲ δύο, ὅτι καὶ ὁ υἱός, τὸ δὲ τρίτον τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα.” In his Logos doctrine apart from the express emphasis he lays on the creatureliness of the Logos (see Philos. X. 33: Εἰ γὰρ Θεόν σε ἡθέλησε ποῖσαι ὁ Θεός, ἐδύνατο· ἔχεις τοῦ λόγου τὸ παράδειγμα) he quite agrees with Tertullian. See ibid.; here the Logos is called before his coming forth “ἐνδιάθετος τοῦ παντὸς λογισμός”; he is produced ἐκ τῶν ὄντων, i.e., from the Father who then alone existed; his essence is “that he bears in himself the will of him who has begotten him” or “that he comprehends in himself the ideas previously conceived by and resting in the Father.” Cyprian in no part of his writings took occasion to set forth the Logos doctrine in a didactic way; he simply kept to the formula: “Christus deus et homo”, and to the Biblical expressions which were understood in the sense of divinity and preëxistence; see Testim. II. 1-10. Lactantius was still quite confused in his Trinitarian doctrine and, in particular, conceived the Holy Ghost not as a person but as “sanctificatio” proceeding from the Father or from the Son. On the contrary, Novatian, in his work de trinitate, reproduced Tertullian’s views. For details see Dorner Entwickelungsgeschichte I. pp. 563-634, Kahnis, Lehre vom heiligen Geiste; Hagemann, l.c., p. 371 ff. It is noteworthy that Tertullian still very frequently called the preëxistent Christ dei spiritus; see de orat. I: “Dei spiritus et dei sermo et dei ratio, sermo rationis et ratio sermonis et spiritus, utrumque Iesus Christus.”Apol. 21; adv. Prax. 26; adv. Marc. I. 10: III. 6, 16: IV. 21. With peculiar versatility he contrived to make himself at home in both wings.262
It is essentially otherwise with the Logos doctrine of Irenæus.550550See Zahn, Marcellus of Ancyra, pp. 235-244. Duncker, Des heiligen Irenäus Christologie, 1843. Whereas Tertullian and Hippolytus developed their Logos doctrine without reference to the historical Jesus, the truth rather being that they simply add the incarnation to the already existing theory of the subject, there is no doubt that Irenæus, as a rule, made Jesus Christ, whom he views as God and man, the starting-point of his speculation. Here he followed the Fourth Gospel and Ignatius. It is of Jesus that Irenæus almost always thinks when he speaks of the Logos or of the Son of God; and therefore he does not identify the divine element in Christ or Christ himself with the world idea or the creating Word or the Reason of God.551551Zahn, l.c., p. 238. That 263he nevertheless makes Logos (μονογενής, πρωτότοκος, “only begotten”, “first born”) the regular designation of Christ as the preexistent One can only be explained from the apologetic tradition which in his time was already recognised as authoritative by Christian scholars, and moreover appeared justified and required by John I. 1. Since both Irenæus and Valentinus consider redemption to be the special work of Christ, the cosmological interest in the doctrine of the second God becomes sub-ordinate to the soteriological. As, however, in Irenæus’ system (in opposition to Valentinus) this real redemption is to be imagined as recapitulatio of the creation, redemption and creation are not opposed to each other as antitheses; and therefore the Redeemer has also his place in the history of creation. In a certain sense then the Christology of Irenæus occupies a middle position between the Christology of the Valentinians and Marcion on the one hand and the Logos doctrine of the Apologists on the other. The Apologists have a cosmological interest, Marcion only a soteriological, whereas Irenæus has both; the Apologists base their speculations on the Old Testament, Marcion on a New Testament, Irenæus on both Old and New.
Irenæus expressly refused to investigate what the divine element in Christ is, and why another deity stands alongside of the Godhead of the Father. He confesses that he here simply keeps to the rule of faith and the Holy Scriptures, and declines speculative disquisitions on principle. He does not admit the distinction of a Word existing in God and one coming forth from him, and opposes not only ideas of emanation in general, but also the opinion that the Logos issued forth at a definite point of time. Nor will Irenæus allow the designation “Logos” to be interpreted in the sense of the Logos being the inward Reason or the spoken Word of God. God is a simple essence and always remains in the same state; besides we ought not to hypostatise qualities.552552See Iren., II. 13. 8: II. 28. 4-9: II. 12. 2: II. 13. 2, and also the important passage II. 29. 3 fin. Nevertheless Irenæus, too, calls the preexistent Christ the Son of God, and strictly maintains the personal distinction between Father and Son. What makes 264the opposite appear to be the case is the fact that he does not utilise the distinction in the interest of cosmology.553553A great many passages clearly show that Irenæus decidedly distinguished the Son from the Father, so that it is absolutely incorrect to attribute modalistic ideas to him. See III. 6. 1 and all the other passages where Irenæus refers to the Old Testament theophanies. Such are III. 6. 2: IV. 5. 2 fin.: IV. 7. 4, where the distinction is particularly plain: IV. 17. 6: II. 28. 6. In Irenæus’ sense we shall have to say: The Logos is the revelation hypostasis of the Father, “the self-revelation of the self-conscious God”, and indeed the eternal self-revelation. For according to him the Son always existed with God, always revealed the Father, and it was always the full Godhead that he revealed in himself. In other words, he is God in his specific nature, truly God, and there is no distinction of essence between him and God.554554The Logos (Son) is the administrator and bestower of the divine grace as regards humanity, because he is the revealer of this grace, see IV. 6 (§ 7: “agnitio patris filius, agnitio autem filii in patre et per filium revelata”); IV. 5: IV. 16. 7: IV. 20. 7. He has been the revealer of God from the beginning and always remains so, III. 16. 6: IV. 13. 4 etc.: he is the antemundane revealer to the angel world, see II. 30. 9: “semper autem coëxsistens filius patri, olim et ab initio semper revelat patrem et angelis et archangelis et potestatibus et virtutibus et omnibus, quibus vult revelari deus; he has always existed with the Father, see II. 30. 9: III. 18. 1: “non tunc cœpit filius dei, exsistens semper apud patrem”; IV. 20. 3, 7, 14. 1: II. 25. 3: “non enim infectus es, o homo, neque semper coëxsistebas deo, sicut proprium eius verbum.” The Logos is God as God, nay, for us he is God himself, in so far as his work is the work of God. Thus, and not in a modalistic sense, we must understand passages like II. 30. 9: “fabricator qui fecit mundum per semitipsum, hoc est per verbum et per sapientiam suam,” or hymnlike statements such as III. 16. 6: “et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo” (see something similar in Ignatius and Melito, Otto, Corp. Apolog. IX, p. 419 sq.). Irenæus also says in III. 6. 2: “filius est in patre et habet in se patrem,” III. 6. 1.: utrosque dei appellatione signavit spiritus, et eum qui ungitur filium et eum, qui ungit, id est patrem.” He not only says that the Son has revealed the Father, but that the Father has revealed the Son (IV. 6. 3: IV. 7. 7). He applies Old Testament passages sometimes to Christ, sometimes to God, and hence in some cases calls the Father the creator, and in others the Son (“pater generis humani verbum dei”, IV. 31. 2). Irenæus (IV. 4. 2) appropriated the expression of an ancient “immensum patrem in filio mensuratum; mensura enim patris filius, quoniam et capit eum.” This expression is by no means intended to denote a diminution, but rather to signify the identity of Father and Son. In all this Irenæus adhered to an ancient tradition; but these propositions do not admit of being incorporated with a rational system. Now we might conclude from the strong 265emphasis laid on “always” that Irenæus conceived a relationship of Father and Son in the Godhead, conditioned by the essence of God himself and existing independently of revelation. But the second hypostasis is viewed by him as existing from all eternity, just as much in the quality of Logos as in that of Son, and his very statement that the Logos has revealed the Father from the beginning shows that this relationship is always within the sphere of revelation. The Son then exists because he gives a revelation. Little interested as Irenæus is in saying anything about the Son, apart from his historical mission, naïvely as he extols the Father as the direct Creator of the universe, and anxious as he is to repress all speculations that lead beyond the Holy Scriptures, he could not altogether avoid reflecting on the problems: why there is a second deity alongside of God, and how the two are related to one another. His incidental answers are not essentially different from those of the Apologists and Tertullian; the only distinction is this incidental character. Irenæus too looked on the Son as “the hand of God”, the mediator of creation; he also seems in one passage to distinguish Father and Son as the naturally invisible and visible elements of God; he too views the Father as the one who dominates all, the head of Christ, i.e., he who bears the creation and his Logos.555555Logos and Sophia are the hands of God (III. 21. IQ: IV. 20): also IV. 6.6: “Invisibile filii pater, visibile autem patris filius.” Judging from this passage, it is always doubtful whether Irenæus, like Tertullian, assumed that transcendency belonged to the Father in a still higher sense than to the Son, and that the nature of the Son was more adapted for entering the finite than that of the Father (on the contrary see IV. 20. 7 and especially IV. 24. 2: “verbum naturaliter quidem invisibile”). But it ought not to have been denied that there are passages, in which Irenæus hints at a subordination of the Son, and deduces this from his origin. See II. 28. 8 (the knowledge of the Father reaches further than that of the Son and the Father is greater than the Son); III. 6. 1 (the Son receives from the Father the sovereignty); IV. 17. 6 (a very important passage: the Father owns the name of Jesus Christ as his, first, because it is the name of his Son, and, secondly, because he gave it himself; V. 18. 21, 3 (“pater conditionem simul et verbum suum portans” — “verbum portatum a patre” — “et sic unus deus pater ostenditur, qui est super omnia et per omnia et in omnibus; super omnia pater quidem et ipse est caput Christi” — “verbum universorum potestatem habet a patre”). “This is not a subordination founded on the nature of the second person, but an inequality that has arisen historically,” says Zahn (l.c., p. 241); but it is doubtful whether such a distinction can be imputed to Irenæus. We have rather simply to recognise the contradiction, which was not felt by Irenæus because, in his religious belief, he places Christ on a level with God, but, as a theologian, merely touched on the problem. So also he shows remarkable unconcern as to the proof of the unity of God in view of the distinction between Father and Son. Irenæus had no opportunity of writing against 266the Monarchians, and unfortunately we possess no apologetic writings of his. It cannot therefore be determined how he would have written, if he had had less occasion to avoid the danger of being himself led into Gnostic speculations about æons. It has been correctly remarked that with Irenæus the Godhead and the divine personality of Christ merely exist beside each other. He did not want to weigh the different problems, because, influenced as he was by the lingering effects of an early. Christian, anti-theological interest, he regarded the results of this reflection as dangerous; but, as a matter of fact, he did not really correct the premises of the problems by rejecting the conclusions. We may evidently assume (with Zahn) that, according to Irenæus, “God placed himself in the relationship of Father to Son, in order to create after his image and in his likeness the man who was to become his Son;”556556Irenæus very frequently emphasises the idea that the whole economy of God refers to mankind, see, e.g., I. 10. 3: ἐκδιηγεῖσθαι τὴν πραγματείαν καὶ οἰκονομίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι γενομένην, IV. 20. 7: Verbum dispensator paternæ gratiæ factus est ad utilitatem hominum, propter quos fecit tantas dispositiones.” God became a creator out of goodness and love; see the beautiful expression in IV. 20. 7: “Gloria dei vivens homo, vita autem hominis visio dei,” or III. 20. 2: “Gloria hominis deus, operationes vero dei et omnis sapientiæ eius et virtutis receptaculum homo.” V. 29. 1: “Non homo propter conditionem, sed conditio facta est propter hominem.” but we ought not to ask if Irenæus understood the incarnation as a definite purpose necessarily involved in the Sonship, as this question falls outside the sphere of Patristic thinking. No doubt the incarnation constantly formed the preëminent interest of Irenæus, and owing to this interest he was able to put aside or throw a veil over the mythological speculations of the Apologists regarding the Logos, and to proceed at once to the soteriological question.557557Irenæus speaks about the Holy Spirit in numerous passages. No doubt he firmly believes in the distinction of the Spirit (Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Father, Spirit of the Son, prophetic Spirit, Wisdom) from the Father and Son, and in a particular significance belonging to the Spirit, as these doctrines are found in the regula. In general the same attributes as are assigned to the Son are everywhere applicable to him; he was always with the Father before there was any creation (IV. 20. 3; Irenæus applies Prov. III. 19: VIII. 22 to the Spirit and not to the Son); like the Son he was the instrument and hand of the Father (IV. pref. 4, 20. 1: V. 6. 1.). That Logos and Wisdom are to be distinguished is clear from IV. 20. 1-12 and particularly from § 12: IV. 7. 4: III. 17. 3 (the host in the parable of the Good Samaritan is the Spirit). Irenæus also tried by reference to Scripture to distinguish the work of the Spirit from that of the Logos. Thus in the creation, the guidance of the world, the Old Testament history, the incarnation, the baptism of Jesus, the Logos is the energy, the Spirit is wisdom. He also alluded to a specific ministry of the Spirit in the sphere of the new covenant. The Spirit is the principle of the new knowledge in IV. 33. 1, 7, Spirit of fellowship with God in V. 1. 1, pledge of immortality in V. 8. 1, Spirit of life in V. 18. 2. But not only does the function of the Spirit remain very obscure for all that, particularly in the incarnation, where Irenæus was forced by the canon of the New Testament to unite what could not be united (Logos doctrine and descent of the Spirit upon Mary — where, moreover, the whole of the Fathers after Irenæus launched forth into the most wonderful speculations), but even the personality of the Spirit vanishes with him, e.g., in III. 18. 3: “unguentem patrem et unctum filium et unctionem, qui est spiritus” (on Isaiah LXI. 1); there is also no mention of the Spirit in IV. pref. 4 fin., and IV. 1. 1, though he ought to have been named there. Father, Son, and Spirit, or God, Logos, and Sophia are frequently conjoined by Irenæus, but he never uses the formula τριάς, to say nothing of the abstract formulæ of Tertullian. In two passages (IV. 20. 5: V. 36. 2) Irenæus unfolded a sublime speculation, which is inconsistent with his usual utterances. In the first passage he says that God has shown himself prophetically through the Spirit (in the Old Testament), then adoptively through the Son, and will finally show himself paternally in the kingdom of heaven; the Spirit prepares man for the Son of God, the Son leads him to the Father, but the Father confers on him immortality. In the other passage he adopts the saying of an old presbyter (Papias?) that we ascend gradually through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in the end the Son will deliver up everything to the Father, and God will be all in all. It is remarkable that, as in the case of Tertullian (see above), it is 1 Cor. XV. 23-28 that has produced this speculation. This is another clear proof, that in Irenæus the equality of Father, Son, and Spirit is not unconditional and that the eternity of Son and Spirit is not absolute. Here also we plainly perceive that the several disquisitions in Irenæus were by no means part of a complete system. Thus, in IV. 38. 2, he inverts the relationship and says that we ascend from the Son to the Spirit: Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Παῦλος Κορινθίοις φησί· γάλα ὑμᾶς ἐπότισα, οὐ βρῶμα, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡδονασθε βαστάζειν· τουτέστι, τὴν μὲν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου ἐμαθητεύθητε, οὐδήπου δὲ τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς πνεῦμα ἐπαναπαύεται ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς διὰ τὴν ὑμῶν ἀσθέγειαν. Here one of Origen’s thoughts appears.267
Nothing is more instructive than an examination of Irenæus’ views with regard to the destination of man, the original state, the fall, and sin; because the heterogeneous elements of his “theology”, the apologetic and moralistic, the realistic, and the 268Biblical (Pauline), are specially apparent here, and the inconsistencies into which he was led are very plain. But these very contradictions were never eliminated from the Church doctrinal system of succeeding centuries and did not admit of being removed; hence his attitude on these points is typical.558558The opinions advanced here are, of course, adumbrations of the ideas about redemption. Nöldechen (Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1885, p. 462 ff): “Die Lehre vom ersten Menschen bei den christlichen Lehrern des 2 Jahrhunderts.” The apologetic and moralistic train of thought is alone developed with systematic clearness. Everything created is imperfect, just from the very fact of its having had a beginning; therefore man also. The Deity is indeed capable of bestowing perfection on man from the beginning, but the latter was incapable of grasping or retaining it from the first. Hence perfection, i.e., incorruptibility, which consists in the contemplation of God and is conditional on voluntary obedience, could only be the destination of man, and he must accordingly have been made capable of it.559559Here the whole 38th chapter of the 4th Book is to be examined. The following sentences are perhaps the most important: Εἰ δὲ λέγει τις· οὐκ ἡδύνατο ὁ Θεὸς ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τέλειον ἀναδεῖξαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον; Γνύτω, ὅτι τῷ μὲν Θεῶ, ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ὄντι καὶ ἀγεννήτῳ ὑπάρχοντι, ὃς πρὸς ἑαυτόν, πάντα δυνατά· τὰ δὲ γεγονότα, καθὸ μετέπειτα γενέσεως ἀρχὴν ἰδίαν ἔσχε, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὑστερεῖσθαι δεῖ αὐτὰ τοῦ πεποιηκότος· ὀυ γὰρ ἡδύναντο ἀγέννητα εἶναι τὸ νεωστὶ γεγεννημένα. Καθὸ δὲ μή ἐστιν ἀγέννητα, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τοῦ τελείου. Καθὸ δὲ νεώτερα, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ νήπια, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀσυνήθη καί αγύμναστα πρὸς τὴν τελείαν ἀγωγήν. The mother can no doubt give strong food to the child at the very beginning, but the child cannot stand it: ἄνθρωπος ἀδύνατος λαβεῖν ἀυτό· νήπιος γὰρ ἦν, see also § 2-4: “Non ab initio dii facti sumus, sed primo quidem homines, tunc demum dii, quamvis deus secundum simplicitatem bonitatis suæ hoc fecerit, nequis eum putet invidiosum aut impræstantem. “Ego,” inquit, “dixi, estis et filii excelsi omnes, nobis autem potestatem divintatis divinitatis baiulare non sustinentibus” . . . Oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere, post deinde vinci et absorbi mortale ab immortalitate et corruptibile ab incorruptibilitate, et fieri hominem secundum imaginem at similitudinem dei, agnitione accepta bone et mali.” Ibid.: ὑποταγὴ Θεοῦ αφθαρσία, καὶ παραμονὴ ἀφθαρσίας δόξα ἀγέννητος . . . ὅρασις Θεοῦ περιποιητικὴ ἀφθαρσίας· ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ Θεοῦ. In this chapter Irenæus contemplates the manner of appearance of the Logos (as man) from the point of view of a συννηπιάζειν. His conception of the capacity and destination of man enabled him to develop his ideas about the progressive training of the human race and about the different covenants (see below). On this point cf. also IV. 20. 5-7. The fact that, according to this way of looking at things, the Good and Divine appeared only as the destination of man — which was finally to be reached through divine guidance — but not as his nature, suggested both to Irenæus and Tertullian the distinction between “natura” and “gratia” or between “substantia” and “fides et iustitia”. In other words, they were led to propound a problem which had occurred to the Gnostics long before, and had been solved by them in a dualistic sense. See Irenæus II. 29. 1: “Si propter substantiam omnes succedunt animæ in refrigerium, et superfluum est credere, superflua autem et discessio salvatoris; si autem propter iustitiam, iam non propter id, quod sint animæ sed quoniam sunt iustæ . . . Si enim natura et substantia salvat, omnes salvabuntur animæ; si autem iustitia et fides etc. II. 34. 3: “Non enim ex nobis neque ex nostra natura vita est, sed secundum gratiam dei datur,” II. 34. 4. Tertullian adv. Marc. III. 15: “Christi nomen non ex natura veniens, sed ex dispositione.” In Tertullian these ideas are not unfrequently opposed to each other in this way; but the relationship between them has by no means been made clear. That destination is realised through the guidance of God 269and the free decision of man, for goodness not arising from free choice has no value. The capacity in question is on the one hand involved in man’s possession of the divine image, which, however, is only realised in the body and is therefore at bottom a matter of indifference; and, on the other, in his likeness to God, which consists in the union of the soul with God’s Spirit, but only comes about when man is obedient to him. Along with this Irenæus has also the idea that man’s likeness consists in freedom. Now, as man became disobedient immediately after the creation, this likeness to God did not become perfect.560560On the psychology of Irenæus see Böhringer, p. 466 f., Wendt p. 22. The fact that in some passages he reckoned the πνεῦμα in man as the latter’s inalienable nature (e.g. II. 33. 5), though as a rule (like Tatian) he conceives it as the divine Spirit, is an evident inconsistency on his part. The εἰκών is realised in the body, the ὁμοίωσις is not given by nature, but is brought about by the union with the Spirit of God realised through obedience (V. 6. 1). The ὁμοίωσις is therefore subject to growth, and was not perfect at the beginning (see above, IV. 38. 4, where he opposes Tatian’s opinion). It is clear, especially from V. 12. 2, that it is only the πνοή, not the πνεῦμα, that is to be conceived as an original possession. On this point Irenæus appealed to 1 Cor. XV. 45. It is plain from the 37th chapter of the 4th Book, that Irenæus also views everything as ultimately dependent on man’s inalienable freedom. Alongside of this God’s goodness has scope for displaying itself in addition to its exercise at the creation, because it guides man’s knowledge through counsel; see § 1. On Matth. XXIII. 37 Irenæus remarks: “veterem legem libertatis hominis manifestavit, quia liberum eum deus fecit ab initio, habentem suam potestatem sicut et suam animam ad utendum sententia dei voluntarie et non coactum a deo . . . posuit in homine potestatem electionis quemadmodum in angelis (et enim angeli rationabiles), ut hi quidem qui obedissent iuste bonum sint possidentes, datum quidem a deo, servatum vero ab ipsis.” An appeal to Rome II. 4-7 (!) follows. In § 2 Irenæus inveighs violently against the Gnostic doctrines of natural goodness and wickedness: πάντες τῆς αὐτῆς εἰσὶ φύσεως. In § 4 he interprets the Pauline: “omnia licent, sed non omnia expediunt,” as referring to man’s inalienable freedom and to the way in which it is abused in order to work evil (!): “liberæ sententiæ ab initio est homo et liberæ sententiæ est deus, cuius ad similitudinem factus est.” § 5: “Et non tantum in operibus, sed etiam in fide, liberum et suæ potestatis arbitrium hominis servavit (that is, respected) dominus, dicens: Secundum fidem tuam fiat tibi.” § 4: “deus consilium dat continere bonum, quod perficitur ex obedientia.” § 3: “τὸ αὐτεξούσιον τοῦ ἀνθώπου καὶ τὸ συμβουλευτικὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ μὴ βιαζομένου. IV. 4. 3: “homo rationabilis et secundum hoc similis deo liber in arbitrio factus et suæ potestatis, ipse sibi causa est, ut aliquando quidem frumentum aliquando autem palea fiat.” Through the fall he lost the fellowship with God to 270which he was destined, i.e., he is forfeit to death. This death was transmitted to Adam’s whole posterity.561561As a matter of fact this view already belongs to the second train of thought; see particularly III. 21-23. Here in reality this merely applies to the particular individuals who chose disobedience, but Irenæus almost everywhere referred back to the fall of Adam. See, however, V. 27. 2: “Quicunque erga eum custodiunt dilectionem, suam his præstat communionem. Communio autem dei vita et lumen et fruitio eorum quæ sunt apud deum bonorum. Quicumque autem absistunt secundum sententiam suam ab eo, his eam quæ electa est ab ipsis separationem inducit. Separatio autem dei mors, et separatio lucis tenebræ, et separatio dei amissio omnium quæ sunt apud eum bonorum.” V. 19. 1, 1. 3, 1. 1. The subjective moralism is very clearly defined in IV. 15. 2: “Id quod erat semper liberum et suæ potestatis in homine semper servavit deus et sua exhortatio, ut iuste iudicentur qui non obediunt ei quoniam non obedierant, et qui obedierunt et crediderunt ei, honorentur incorruptibilitate.” Here Irenæus followed sayings of Paul, but adopted the words rather than the sense; for, in the first place, like the Apologists, he very strongly emphasises the elements that palliate man’s fall562562Man’s sin is thoughtlessness; he is merely led astray (IV. 40. 3). The fact that he let himself be seduced under the pretext of immortality is an excuse for him; man was infans, (See above; hence it is said, in opposition to the Gnostics in IV. 38. 4: “supergredientes legem humani generis et antequam fiant homines, iam volunt similes esse factori deo et nullam esse differentiam infecti dei et nunc facti hominis.” The same idea is once more very clearly expressed in IV. 39. 3; “quemadmodum igitur erit homo deus, qui nondum factus est homo?” i.e., how could newly created man be already perfect as he was not even man, inasmuch as he did not yet know how to distinguish good and evil?). Cf. III. 23. 3, 5: “The fear of Adam was the beginning of wisdom; the sense of transgression led to repentance; but God bestows his grace on the penitent” . . . “eum odivit deus, qui seduxit hominem, ei vero qui seductus est, sensim paullatimque misertus est.” The “pondus peccati” in the sense of Augustine was by no means acknowledged by Irenæus, and although he makes use of Pauline sayings, and by preference such as have a quite different sense, he is very far from sharing Paul’s view. and, secondly, he contemplates the fall as having a teleological significance. It is the fall itself and not, as in Paul’s case, the 271consequences of the fall, that he thus views; for he says that disobedience was conducive to man’s development. Man had to learn by experience that disobedience entails death, in order that he might acquire wisdom and choose freely to fulfil the commandments of God. Further, man was obliged to learn through the fall that goodness and life do not belong to him by nature as they do to God.563563See IV. 37. 7: “Alias autem esset nostrum insensatum bonum, quod esset inexercitatum. Sed et videre non tantum nobis esset desiderabile, nisi cognovissemus quantum esset malum non videre; et bene valere autem male valentis experientia honorabilius efficit, et lucem tenebrarum comparatio et vitam mortis. Sic et cœleste regnum honorabilius est his qui cognoverunt terrenum.” The main passage is III. 20. 1, 2, which cannot be here quoted. The fall was necessary in order that man might not believe that he was “naturaliter similis deo”. Hence God permitted the great whale to swallow man for a time. In several passages Irenæus has designated the permitting of evil as kind generosity on the part of God, see, e.g., IV. 39. 1, 37. 7. Here life and death are always the ultimate question to Irenæus. It is only when he quotes sayings of Paul that he remembers sin in connection with redemption; and ethical consequences of the fall are not mentioned in this connection. “The original destination of man was not abrogated by the fall, the truth rather being that the fall was intended as a means of leading men to attain this perfection to which they were destined.”564564 See Wendt, l.c., p. 24. Moreover, the goodness of God immediately showed itself both in the removal of the tree of life and in the sentence of temporal death.565565See III. 23. 6. What significance belongs to Jesus Christ within this conception is clear: he is the man who first realised in his person the destination of humanity; the Spirit of God became united with his soul and accustomed itself to dwell in men. But he is also the teacher who reforms mankind by his preaching, calls upon them too direct their still existing freedom to obedience to the divine commandments, thereby restoring, i.e., strengthening, freedom, so that humanity is thus rendered capable of receiving incorruptibility.566566See V. 1. 1: “Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quæ sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verbum exsistens, homo factus fuisset. . . . Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes,” etc.; III. 23. 2, 5. 3: “libertatem restauravit”; IV. 24. 1: “reformavit humanum genus”; III. 17. 1: “spiritus sanctus in filium dei, filium hominis factum, descendit cum ipso assuescens habitare in genere humano.” III. 19. 1: IV. 38. 3: 39. 1, 2. Wendt’s summary, l.c., p. 24: “By the Logos becoming man, the type of the perfect man made its appearance,” formulates Irenæus’ meaning correctly and excludes the erroneous idea that he viewed the Logos himself as the prototype of humanity. A real divine manhood is not necessary within this train of thought; only a homo inspiratus is required. One can plainly see that this is the idea of Tatian 272and Theophilus, with which Irenæus has incorporated utterances of Paul. Tertullian and Hippolytus taught essentially the same doctrine;567567See Hippol. Philos. X. 33 (p. 538 sq.): Ἐπὶ τούτοις τὸν πάντων ἄρχοντα δημιουργῶν ἐκ πασῶν συνθέτων οὐσιῶν ἐσκεύασαν, οὐ Θεὸν θέλων ποιεῖν ἔσσηλεν, οὐδὲ ἄγγελον, ἀλλ᾽ ἄνθρωπον. Εἰ γὰρ Θεόν σε ἡθέλησε ποιῆσαι, ἐδύνατο· ἔχεις τοῦ λόγου τὸ παράδειγμα· ἄνθρωπον θέλων, ἄνθρωπόν σε ἐποίησεν· εἰ δὲ θέλεις καὶ Θεὸς γενέσθαι, ὑπάκουε τῷ πεποιηκότι. The famous concluding chapter of the Philosophoumena with its prospect of deification is to be explained from this (X. 34). only Tertullian beheld the image and likeness of God expressly and exclusively in the fact that man’s will and capacity are free, and based on this freedom an argument in justification of God’s ways.568568See Tertull. adv. Marc. II. 4-11; his undiluted moralism appears with particular clearness in chaps. 6 and 8. No weight is to be attached to the phrase in chapter 4 that God by placing man in Paradise really even then put him from Paradise into the Church. This is contrary to Wendt opinion, l.c., p. 67. ff., where the exposition of Tertullian is speciosior quam verior. In adv. Marc. II. 4 ff. Wendt professes to see the first traces of the scholastic and Romish theory, and in de anima 16, 41 the germ of the subsequent Protestant view.
But, in addition to this, Irenæus developed a second train of thought. This was the outcome of his Gnostic and realistic doctrine of recapitulation, and evinces clear traces of the influence of Pauline theology. It is, however, inconsistent with the moralistic teachings unfolded above, and could only be united with them at a few points. To the Apologists the proposition: “it is impossible to learn to know God without the help of God” (“impossibile est sine deo discere deum”) was a conviction which, with the exception of Justin, they subordinated to their moralism and to which they did not give a specifically Christological signification. Irenæus understood this proposition in a Christological sense,569569 See IV. 5. 1, 6. 4. and at the same time conceived the blessing of salvation imparted by Christ not only as the incorruptibility consisting in the beholding of God bestowed on obedience IV. 20. 5-7: IV. 38, but also as the divine sonship which 273has been won for us by Christ and which is realised in constant fellowship with God and dependence on him.570570See IV. 14. 1: “In quantum enim deus nullius indiget, in tantum homo indiget dei communione. Hæc enim gloria hominis, perseverare et permanere in dei servitute.” This statement, which, like the numerous others where Irenæus speaks of the adoptio, is opposed to moralism, reminds us of Augustine. In Irenæus’ great work, however, we can point out not a few propositions which, so to speak, bear the stamp of Augustine; see IV. 38. 3: ὑποταγὴ Θεοῦ ἀφθαρσία. No doubt he also viewed this divine sonship as consisting in the transformation of human nature; but the point of immediate importance here is that it is no longer human freedom but Christ that he contemplated in this connection. Corresponding to this he has now also a different idea of the original destination of man, of Adam, and of the results of the fall. Here comes in the mystical Adam-Christ speculation, in accordance with the Epistles to the Ephesians and Corinthians. Everything, that is, the “longa hominum expositio”, was recapitulated by Christ in himself; in other words he restored humanity to what it originally was and again included under one head what was divided.571571See the passages quoted above, p. 241 f. If humanity is restored, then it must have lost something before and been originally in good condition. In complete contradiction to the other teachings quoted above, Irenæus now says: “What we had lost in Adam, namely, our possession of the image and likeness of God, we recover in Christ.572572 See III. 18. 1. V. 16.1 is very remarkable: Ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν χρόνοις ἐλεγετο μὲν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὐκ ἐδείκνυτο δὲ, ἔτι γὰρ ἀόρατος ἦν ὁ λόγος, οὖ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐγεγόνει. διὰ τοῦτο δὴ καὶ τὴν ὁμοίωσιν ῥᾳδιως ἀπέβαλεν; see also what follows. In V. 1. 1 Irenæus even says: “Quoniam iniuste dominabatur nobis apostasia, et cum natura essemus dei omnipotentis, alienavit nos contra naturam diabolus.” Compare with this the contradictory passage IV. 38: “oportuerat autem primo naturam apparere” etc. (see above, p. 268), where natura hominis is conceived as the opposite of the divine nature. Adam, however, is humanity; in other words, as all humanity is united and renewed through Christ so also it was already summarised in Adam. Accordingly “the sin of disobedience and the loss of salvation which Adam consequently suffered may now be viewed as belonging to all mankind summed up in him, in like manner as Christ’s obedience and possession of salvation are the property 274of all mankind united under him as their head.”573573See Wendt, i.e., p. 29, who first pointed out the two dissimilar trains of thought in Irenæus with regard to man’s original state, Duncker having already done so in regard to his Christology. Wendt has rightly shown that we have here a real and not a seeming contradiction; but, as far as the explanation of the fact is concerned, the truth does not seem to me to have been arrived at. The circumstance that Irenæus did not develop the mystic view in such a systematic way as the moralistic by no means justifies us in supposing that he merely adopted it superficially (from the Scriptures): for its nature admits of no systematic treatment, but only of a rhetorical and contemplative one. No further explanation can be given of the contradiction, because, strictly speaking, Irenæus has only given us fragments. In the first Adam we offended God by not fulfilling his commandments; in Adam humanity became disobedient, wounded, sinful, bereft of life; through Eve mankind became forfeit to death; through its victory over the first man death descended upon us all, and the devil carried us all away captive etc.574574See V. 16. 3: ἐν τῷ πρῶτῳ Ἁδὰμ προσεκόψαμεν, μὴ ποιήσαντες αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐντολήν. IV. 34. 2: “homo initio in Adam inobediens per mortem percussus est;” III. 18. 7-23: V. 19. 1: V. 21. 1: V. 17. 1 sq. Here Irenæus always means that in Adam, who represents all mankind as their head, the latter became doomed to death. In this instance he did not think of a hereditary transmission, but of a mystic unity575575Here also Irenæus keeps sin in the background; death and life are the essential ideas. Böhringer l.c., p. 484 has very rightly remarked: “We cannot say that Irenæus, in making Adam’s conduct and suffering apply to the whole human race had started from an inward, immediate experience of human sinfulness and a feeling of the need of salvation founded on this.” It is the thoughts of Paul to which Irenæus tried to accommodate himself without having had the same feeling about the flesh and sin as this Apostle. In Tertullian the mystic doctrine of salvation is rudimentary (but see, e.g., de anima 40: “ita omnis anima eo usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur,” and other passages; but he has speculations about Adam (for the most part developments of hints given in Irenæus; see the index in Oehler’s edition), and he has a new realistic idea as to a physical taint of sin propagated through procreation. Here we have the first beginning of the doctrine of original sin (de testim. 3: “per diabolum homo a primordio circumventus, ut præceptum dei excederet, et propterea in mortem datus exinde totum genus de suo semine infectum suæ etiam damnationis traducem fecit.” Compare his teachings in de anima 40, 41, 16 about the disease of sin that is propagated “ex originis vitio” and has become a real second nature). But how little he regards this original sin as guilt is shown by de bapt. 18: “Quare innocens ætas festinat ad baptismum?” For the rest, Tertullian discussed the relationship of flesh and spirit, sensuousness and intellect, much more thoroughly than Irenæus; he showed that flesh is not the seat of sin (de anima 40). In the same book (but see Bk. V. c. 1) he expressly declared that in this question also sure results are only to be obtained from revelation. This was an important step in the direction of secularising Christianity through “philosophy” and of emasculating the understanding through “revelation.” In regard to the conception of sin Cyprian followed his teacher. De op. et eleem. 1 reads indeed like an utterance of Irenæus (“dominus sanavit illa quæ Adam portaverat vulnera”); but the statement in ep. 64. 5: “Recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiquæ, prima nativitate contraxit” is quite in the manner of Tertullian, and perhaps the latter could also have agreed with the continuation: “infanti remittintur non propria sed aliena peccata.” Tertullian’s proposition that absolutely no one but the Son of God could have remained without sin was repeated by Cyprian (see, e.g., de op. et eleem. 3). as in the case of Christ, viewed as the 275second Adam. The teachings in III. 21. 10-23576576III. 22. 4 has quite a Gnostic sound . . . “eam quæ est a Maria in Evam recirculationem significans; quia non aliter quod colligatum est solveretur, nisi ipsæ compagines alligationis reflectantur retrorsus, ut primæ coniunctiones solvantur per secundas, secundæ rursus liberent primas. Et evenit primam quidem compaginem a secunda colligatione solvere, secundam vero colligationem primæ solutionis habere locum. Et propter hoc dominus dicebat primos quidem novissimos futuros et novissimos primos.” Irenæus expresses a Gnostic idea when he on one occasion plainly says (V. 12. 3): Ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνήσκομεν, ὅτι ψυχικοί . But Paul, too, made an approach to this thought. show what an almost naturalistic shape the religious quasi-historical idea assumed in Irenæus’ mind. This is, however, more especially evident from the assertion, in opposition to Tatian, that unless Adam himself had been saved by Christ, God would have been overcome by the devil.577577See III. 23. 1, 2, a highly characteristic statement. It was merely his moralistic train of thought that saved him from the conclusion that there is a restoration of all individual men.
This conception of Adam as the representative of humanity corresponds to Irenæus’ doctrine of the God-man. The historical importance of this author lies in the development of the Christology. At the present day, ecclesiastical Christianity, so far as it seriously believes in the unity of the divine and human in Jesus Christ and deduces the divine manhood from the work of Christ as his deification, still occupies the same standpoint as Irenæus did. Tertullian by no means matched him here; he too has the formula in a few passages, but he cannot, like Irenæus, account for its content. On the other hand we owe to him the idea of the “two natures”, which remain in their integrity — that formula which owes its adoption to the influence 276of Leo I. and at bottom contradicts Irenæus’ thought “the Son of God became the Son of man”, (“filius dei factus filius hominis”). Finally, the manner in which Irenæus tried to interpret the historical utterances about Jesus Christ from the standpoint of the Divine manhood idea, and to give them a significance in regard to salvation is also an epoch-making fact.
“Filius dei filius hominis factus”, “it is one and the same Jesus Christ, not a Jesus and a Christ, nor a mere temporary union of an on and a man, but one and the same person, who created the world, was born, suffered, and ascended” — this along with the dogma of God the Creator is the cardinal doctrine of Irenæus:578578See, e.g., III. g. 3, 12. 2, 16. 6-9, 17. 4 and repeatedly 8. 2: “verbum dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, qui est dominus noster Jesus Christus.” “Jesus Christ truly man and truly God” (“Jesus Christus, vere homo, vere deus”).579579See IV. 6. 7. It is only the Church that adheres to this doctrine, for “none of the heretics hold the opinion that the Word of God became flesh” (“secundum nullam sententiam hæreticorum verbum dei caro factum est”).580580 See III. 11. 3. What therefore has to be shown is (1) that Jesus Christ is really the Word of God, i.e., is God, (2) that this Word really became man and (3) that the incarnate Word is an inseparable unity. Irenæus maintains the first statement as well against the “Ebionites” as against the Valentinians who thought that Christ’s advent was the descent of one of the many moons. In opposition to the Ebionites he emphasises the distinction between natural and adopted Sonship, appeals to the Old Testament testimony in favour of the divinity of Christ,581581See III. 6. and moreover argues that we would still be in the bondage of the old disobedience, if Jesus Christ had only been a man.582582See III. 19. 1, 2: IV. 33. 4: V. 1. 3 see also Tertullian against “Ebion” de carne 14, 18, 24; de præscr. 10. 33. In this connection he also discussed the birth from the virgin.583583Editor: This note is missing in the footnotes. He not only proved it from prophecy, but his recapitulation theory also suggested to him a parallel between Adam and Eve on the one hand and Christ 277and Mary on the other, which included the birth from the virgin.584584See the arguments, l c., V. 19. 1: “Quemadmodum adstrictum est morti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem, æqua lance disposita virginalis inobedientia per virginalem obedientiam,” and other similar ones. We find the same in Tertull., de carne 17, 20. In this connection we find in both very extravagant expressions with regard to Mary (see, e.g., Tertull., l.c. 20 fin.: “uti virgo esset regeneratio nostra spiritaliter ab omnibus inquinamentis sanctificata per Christum.” Iren. III. 21. 7: “Maria cooperans dispositioni (dei);” III. 22. 4 “Maria obediens et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est salutis” . . . “quod alligavit virgo Eva per incredulitatem, hoc virgo Maria solvit per fidem”). These, however, have no doctrinal significance; in fact the same Tertullian expressed himself in a depreciatory way about Mary in de carne 7. On the other hand it is undeniable that the later Mariolatry has one of its roots in the parallel between Eve and Mary. The Gnostic invention of the virginitas Mariæ in partu can hardly be traced in Irenæus III. 21. 4. Tertullian (de carne 23) does not seem to know anything about it as yet, and very decidedly assumed the natural character of the process. The popular conception as to the reason of Christ’s birth from a virgin, in the form still current to-day, but beneath all criticism, is already found in Tertullian de carne 18: “Non competebat ex semine humano dei filium nasci, ne, si totus esset filius hominis, non esset et dei filius, nihilque haberet amplius Salomone, ut de Hebionis opinione credendus erat. Ergo iam dei filius ex patris dei semine, id est spiritu, ut esset et hominis filius, caro ei sola competebat ex hominis came sumenda sine viri semine. Vacabat enim semen viri apud habentem dei semen.” The other theory existing side by side with this, viz., that Christ would have been a sinner if he had been begotten from the semen, whereas he could assume sinless flesh from woman is so far as I know scarcely hinted at by Irenæus and Tertullian. The fact of Christ’s birth was frequently referred to by Tertullian in order to prove Christ’s kinship to God the Creator, e.g., adv. Marc. III. 11. Hence this article of the regula fidei received a significance from this point of view also. An Encratite explanation of the birth from the Virgin is found in the old treatise de resurr. bearing Justin’s name (Otto, Corp. Apol. III., p. 220. He argues in opposition to the Valentinians that it was really the eternal Word of God himself, who was always with God and always present to the human race, that descended.585585See, e.g., III. 18. 1 and many other places. See the passages named in note, p. 276. He who became man was not a being foreign to the world — this is said in opposition to Marcion — but the Lord of the world and humanity, the Son of God, and none other. The reality of the body of Christ, i.e., the essential identity of the humanity of Christ with our own, was continually emphasised by Irenæus, and he views the whole work of salvation as dependent on this identity.586586So also Tertullian. See adv. Marc. III. 8: The whole work of salvation is destroyed by Docetism; cf. the work de carne Christi. Tertullian exclaims to the Docetist Marcion in c. 5: “Parce unicæ spei totius orbis.” Irenæus and Tertullian mean that Christ’s assumption of humanity was complete, but not unfrequently express themselves in such a manner as to convey the impression that the Logos only assumed flesh. This is particularly the case with Tertullian, who, moreover, in his earlier time had probably quite naïve Docetic ideas and really looked upon the humanity of Christ as only flesh. See Apolog. 21: “spiritum Christus cum verbo sponte dimisit, prævento carnificis officio.” Yet Irenæus in several passages spoke of Christ’s human soul (III. 22. 1: V. 1.1) as also did Melito (τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ ἀσάνταστον τῆς ψυχῆς Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ σώματος, τῆς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἀνθρωπίνης σύσεως Otto, l.c., IX, p. 415) and Tertullian (de carne 10 ff. 13; de resurr. 53). What we possess in virtue of the creation was assumed by Christ (Iren., l.c., III. 22. 2.) Moreover, Tertullian already examined how the case stands with sin in relation to the flesh of Christ. In opposition to the opinion of the heretic Alexander, that the Catholics believe Jesus assumed earthly flesh in order to destroy the flesh of sin in himself, he shows that the Saviour’s flesh was without sin and that it is not admissible to teach the annihilation of Christ’s flesh (de carne 16; see also Irenæus V. 14. 2, 3): “Christ by taking to himself our flesh has made it his own, that is, he has made it sinless.” It was again passages from Paul (Rom. VIII. 3 and Ephes. II. 15) that gave occasion to this discussion. With respect to the opinion that it may be with the flesh of Christ as it is with the flesh of angels who appear, Tertullian remarks (de carne 6) that no angel came to die; that which dies must be born; the Son of God came to die. In the latter he also includes the fact that Jesus must 278have passed through and been subjected to all the conditions of a complete human life from birth to old age and death.587587 This conception was peculiar to Irenæus, and for good reasons was not repeated in succeeding times; see II. 22: III. 17. 4. From it also Irenæus already inferred the necessity of the death of Christ and his abode in the lower world, V. 31. 1, 2. Here we trace the influence of the recapitulation idea. It has indeed been asserted (very energetically by Schultz, Gottheit Christi, p. 73 f.) that the Christ of Irenæus was not a personal man, but only possessed humanity. But that is decidedly incorrect, the truth merely being that Irenæus did not draw all the inferences from the personal humanity of Christ. Jesus Christ is therefore the Son of God who has really become the Son of man; and these are not two Christs but one, in whom the Logos is permanently united with humanity.588588See Iren. V. 31. 2: “Surgens in came sic ascendit ad patrem.” Tertullian, de carne 24: “Bene quod idem veniet de cælis qui est passus . . . et agnoscent qui eum confixerunt, utique ipsam carnem in quam sævierunt, sine qua nec ipse esse poterit et agnosci;” see also what follows. Irenæus called this union “union of the Word of God with the creature” (“adunitio verbi dei ad plasma”)589589 See Iren. IV. 33. 11. and “blending and communion of God and man” (“commixtio et communio dei et hominis”)590590 See Iren. IV. 20. 4; see also III. 19. 1. 279without thereby describing it any more clearly.591591He always posits the unity in the form of a confession without describing it. See III. 16. 6, which passage may here stand for many. “Verbum unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster, qui et passus est pro nobis et ressurrexit propter nos . . . Unus igitur deus pater, quemadmodum ostendimus, et unus Christus Iesus dominus noster, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis et verbum homo.” V. 18.1: “Ipsum verbum dei incarnatum suspensum est super lignum.” He views it as perfect, for, as a rule, he will not listen to any separation of what was done by the man Jesus and by God the Word.592592Here Irenæus was able to adopt the old formula “God has suffered” and the like; so also Melito, see Otto l.c., IX. p. 416: ὁ Θεὸς πέπονθεν ὑπὸ δεξιᾶς Ἰσραηλιτιδος (p. 422): “Quidnam est hoc novum mysterium? iudex iudicatur et quietus est; invisibilis videtur neque erubescit: incomprehensibilis prehenditur neque indignatur, incommensurabilis mensuratur neque repugnat; impassibilis patitur neque ulciscitur; immortalis moritur, neque respondit verbum, cœlestis sepelitur et id fert.” But let us note that these are not “doctrines”, but testimonies to the faith, as they were always worded from the beginning and such as could, if need were, be adapted to any Christology. Though Melito in a fragment whose genuineness is not universally admitted (Otto, l.c., p. 415 sq.) declared in opposition to Marcion, that Christ proved his humanity to the world in the 30 years before his baptism; but showed the divine nature concealed in his human nature during the 3 years of his ministry, he did not for all that mean to imply that Jesus’ divinity and humanity are in any way separated. But, though Irenæus inveighed so violently against the “Gnostic” separation of Jesus and Christ (see particularly III. 16. 2, where most weight is laid on the fact that we do not find in Matth.: “Iesu generatio sic erat” but “Christi generatio sic erat”), there is no doubt that in some passages he himself could not help unfolding a speculation according to which the predicates applying to the human nature of Jesus do not also hold good of his divinity, in fact he actually betrayed a view of Christ inconsistent with the conception of the Saviour’s person as a perfect unity. We can indeed only trace this view in his writings in the form of an undercurrent, and what led to it will be discussed further on. Both he and Melito, as a rule adhered to the simple “filius dei filius hominis factus” and did not perceive any problem here, because to them the disunion prevailing in the world and in humanity was the difficult question that appeared to be solved through this very divine manhood. How closely Melito agreed with Irenæus is shown not only by the proposition (p. 419): “Propterea misit pater filium suum e cœlo sine corpore (this is said in opposition to the Valentinian view), ut, postquam incarnatus esset in, utero virginis et natus esset homo, vivificaret hominem et colligeret membra eius quæ mors disperserat, quum hominem divideret,” but also by the “propter hominem iudicatus est iudex, impassibilis passus est?” (l.c.). The explicit formula of two substances or natures in Christ is not found in Irenæus; but Tertullian already used it. It never 280occurred to the former, just because he was not here speaking as a theologian, but expressing his belief.593593The concepts employed by Irenæus are deus, verbum, filius dei, homo, filius hominis, plasma dei. What perhaps hindered the development of that formula in his case was the circumstance of his viewing Christ, though he had assumed the plasma dei, humanity, as a personal man who (for the sake of the recapitulation theory) not only had a human nature but was obliged to live through a complete human life. The fragment attributed to Irenæus (Harvey II., p. 493) in which occur the words, τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου ἑνώοει τῇ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν φυσικῇ ἑνωθέντος τῇ σακρί, is by no means genuine. How we are to understand the words: ἵνα ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τὸ περιφανὲς τῶν φύσεων παραδειχθῇ in fragment VIII. (Harvey II., p. 479), and whether this piece belongs to Irenæus, is uncertain. That Melito (assuming the genuineness of the fragment) has the formula of the two natures need excite no surprise; for (1) Melito was also a philosopher, which Irenæus was not, and (2) it is found in Tertullian, whose doctrines can be shown to be closely connected with those of Melito (see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2, p. 249 f.). If that fragment is genuine Melito is the first Church teacher who has spoken of two natures. In his utterances about the God-man Tertullian closely imitates Irenæus. Like the latter he uses the expression “man united with God” (“homo deo mixtus”)594594See Apol. 21: “verbum caro figuratus . . . homo deo mixtus; adv. Marc. II. 27: “filius dei miscens in semetipso hominem et deum;” de carne 15: “homo deo mixtus;” 18: “sic homo cum deo, dum caro hominis cum spiritu dei.” On the Christology of Tertullian cf. Schulz, Gottheit Christi, p. 74 ff. and like him he applies the predicates of the man to the Son of God.595595De carne 5: “Crucifixus est dei filius, non pudet quia pudendum est; et mortuus est dei filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile est;” but compare the whole book; c. 5 init.: “deus crucifixus” “nasci se voluit deus”. De pat. 3: “nasci se deus in utero patitur.” The formula: “ὁ γεννηθείς, ὁμεγας Θεός is also found in Sibyll. VII. 24. But he goes further, or rather, in the interest of formal clearness, he expresses the mystery in a manner which shows that he did not fully realise the religious significance of the proposition, “the Son of God made Son of man” (“filius dei filius hominis factus”). He speaks of a “corporal and spiritual, i.e., divine, substance of the Lord”, (“corporalis et spiritalis [i.e., divina] substantia domini”)596596De carne 1, cf. ad nat. II. 4: “ut iure consistat collegium nominis communione substantiæ.” of “either substance of the flesh and spirit of Christ” (“utraque substantia et carnis et spiritus Christi”), of the “creation of two substances which Christ himself also possesses”, (“conditio duarum substantiarum, quas Christus et ipse gestat”)597597De carne 18 fin. and of 281the “twofold condition not blended but united in one person-God and man” (“duplex status non confusus sed conjunctus in una persona — deus et homo”.598598Adv. Prax. 27: “Sed enim invenimus illum directo et deum et hominem expositum, ipso hoc psalmo suggerente (Ps. LXXXVII. 5) . . . hic erit homo et filius hominis, qui definitus est filius dei secundum spiritum . . . Videmus duplicem statum, non confusum sed coniunctum in una persona deum et hominem Iesum. De Christo autem differo. Et adeo salva est utriusque proprietas substantiæ, ut et spiritus res suas egerit in illo, id est virtutes et opera et signa, et caro passiones suas functa sit, esuriens sub diabolo . . . denique et mortua est. Quodsi tertium quid esset, ex utroque confusum, ut electrum, non tam distincta documenta parerent utriusque substantiæ.” In what follows the actus utriusque substantiæ are sharply demarcated: “ambæ substantiæ in statu suo quæque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operæ et exitus sui occurrerunt . . . neque caro spiritus fit neque spiritus caro: in uno plane esse possunt.” See also c. 29: “Quamquam cum duæ substantiæ censeantur in Christo Iesu, divina et humana, constet autem immortalem esse divinam” etc. Here we already have in a complete form the later Chalcedonian formula of the two substances in one person.599599Of this in a future volume. Here also two substances in Christ are always spoken of (there are virtually three, since, according to de anima 35, men have already two substances in themselves). I know only one passage where Tertullian speaks of natures in reference to Christ, and this passage in reality proves nothing; de carne 5: “Itaque utriusque substantiæ census hominem et deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum (!), hinc carneum, inde spiritalem” etc. Then: “Quæ proprietas conditionum, divinæ et humanæ, æqua utique naturæ cuiusque veritate disjuncta est.” At the same time, however, we can clearly see that Tertullian went beyond Irenæus in his exposition.600600In the West up to the time of Leo I. the formula “deus et homo”, or, after Tertullian’s time “duæ substantiæ”, was always a simple expression of the facts acknowledged in the Symbol, and not a speculation derived from the doctrine of redemption. This is shown just from the fact of stress being laid on the unmixedness. With this was associated a theoretic and apologetic interest on the part of theologians, so that they began to dwell at greater length on the unmixedness after the appearance of that Patripassianism, which professed to recognise the filius dei in the caro, that is in the deus so far as he is incarnatus or has changed himself into flesh. As to Tertullian’s opposition to this view see what follows. In contradistinction to this Western formula the monophysite one was calculated to satisfy both the salvation interest and the understanding. The Chalcedonian creed, as is admitted by Schulz, l.c., pp. 64 ff., 71 ff., is consequently to be explained from Tertullian’s view, not from that of the Alexandrians. Our readers will excuse us for thus anticipating. He was, moreover, impelled to combat an antagonistic principle. Irenæus had as yet no occasion to explain in detail that the proposition “the Word became flesh” (“verbum caro 282factum”) denoted no transformation. That he excludes the idea of change, and that he puts stress on the Logos’ assumption of flesh from the Virgin is shown by many passages.601601“Quare,” says Irenæus III. 21. 10 — “igitur non iterum sumpsit limum deus sed ex Maria operatus est plasmationem fieri? Ut non alia plasmatio fieret neque alia, esset plasmatio quæ salvaretur, sed eadem ipsa recapitularetur, servata similitudine?” Tertullian, on the other hand, was in the first place confronted by (Gnostic) opponents who understood John’s statement in the sense of the Word’s transforming himself into flesh, and therefore argued against the “assumption of flesh from the Virgin” (“assumptio carnis ex virgine”);602602See de carne 18. Oehler has misunderstood the passage and therefore mispointed it. It is as follows: “Vox ista (Joh. I. 14) quid caro factum sit contestatur, nec tamen periclitatur, quasi statim aliud sit (verbum), factum caro, et non verbum . . . Cum scriptura non dicat nisi quod factum sit, non et unde sit factum, ergo ex alio, non ex semetipso suggerit factum” etc. and, in the second place, he had to do with Catholic Christians who indeed admitted the birth from the Virgin, but likewise assumed a change of God into flesh, and declared the God thus invested with flesh to be the Son.603603Adv. Prax. 27 sq. In de carne 3 sq. and elsewhere Tertullian indeed argues against Marcion that God in contradistinction to all creatures can transform himself into anything and yet remain God. Hence we are not to think of a transformation in the strict sense, but of an adunitio. In this connection the same Tertullian, who in the Church laid great weight on formulæ like “the crucified God”, “God consented to be born” (“deus crucifixus”, “nasci se voluit deus”) and who, impelled by opposition to Marcion and by his apologetic interest, distinguished the Son as capable of suffering from God the Father who is impassible, and imputed to him human weaknesses — which was already a further step, — sharply emphasised the “distinct function” (“distincte agere”) of the two substances in Christ and thus separated the persons. With Tertullian the interest in the Logos doctrine, on the one hand, and in the real humanity, on the other, laid the basis of that conception of Christology in accordance with which the unity of the person is nothing more than an assertion. The “deus factus homo” (“verbum caro factus”) presents quite insuperable difficulties, as soon as “theology” can no longer be banished. Tertullian smoothed over these difficulties by juristic distinctions, 283for all his elucidations of “substance” and “person” are of this nature.
A somewhat paradoxical result of the defence of the Logos doctrine in the struggle against the “Patripassians” was the increased emphasis that now began to be laid on the integrity and independence of the human nature in Christ. If the only essential result of the struggle with Gnosticism was to assert the substantial reality of Christ’s body, it was Tertullian who distinguished what Christ did as man from what he did as God in order to prove that he was not a tertium quid. The discriminating intellect which was forced to receive a doctrine as a problem could not proceed otherwise. But, even before the struggle with Modalism, elements were present which repressed the naïve confidence of the utterances about the God-man. If I judge rightly, there were two features in Irenæus both of which resulted in a splitting up of the conception of the perfect unity of Christ’s person. The first was the intellectual contemplation of the perfect humanity of Jesus, the second was found in certain Old and New Testament texts and the tradition connected with these.604604So I think I ought to express myself. It does not seem to me proper to read a twofold conception into Irenæus’ Christological utterances under the pretext that Christ according to him was also the perfect man, with all the modern ideas that are usually associated with this thought (Böhringer, l.c., p. 542 ff., see Thomasius in opposition to him). With regard to the first we may point out that Irenæus indeed regarded the union of the human and divine as possible only because man, fashioned from the beginning by and after the pattern of the Logos, was an image of the latter and destined for union with God. Jesus Christ is the realisation of our possession of God’s image;605605See, e.g., V. 1. 3. Nitzch, Dogmengeschichte I. p. 309. Tertullian, in his own peculiar fashion, developed still more clearly the thought transmitted to him by Irenæus. See adv. Prax. 12: “Quibus faciebat deus hominem similem? Filio quidem, qui erat induturas hominem . . . Erat autem ad cuius imaginem faciebat, ad filii scilicet, qui homo futurus certior et verior imaginem suam fecerat dici hominem, qui tunc de limo formari habebat, imago veri et similitudo.” Adv. Marc. V. 8: “Creator Christum, sermonem suum, intuens hominem futurum, Faciamus, inquit, hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram”; the same in de resurr. 6. But with Tertullian, too, this thought was a sudden idea and did not become the basis of further speculation. but this 284thought, if no further developed, may be still united with the Logos doctrine in such a way that it does not interfere with it, but serves to confirm it. The case becomes different when it is not only shown that the Logos was always at work in the human race, but that humanity was gradually more and more accustomed by him (in the patriarchs and prophets) to communion with God,606606Iren. IV. 14. 2 for further particulars on the point see below, where Irenæus’ views on the preparation of salvation are discussed. The views of Dorner, i.e., 492 f., that the union of the Son of God with humanity was a gradual process, are marred by some exaggerations, but are correct in their main idea. till at last the perfect man appeared in Christ. For in this view it might appear as if the really essential element in Jesus Christ were not the Logos, who has become the new Adam, but the new Adam, who possesses the Logos. That Irenæus, in explaining the life of Jesus as that of Adam according to the recapitulation theory, here and there expresses himself as if he were speaking of the perfect man, is undeniable: If the acts of Christ are really to be what they seem, the man concerned in them must be placed in the foreground. But how little Irenæus thought of simply identifying the Logos with the perfect man is shown by the passage in III. 19. 3 where he writes: “ὥσπερ γὰρ ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἵνα πειρασθῇ, οὕτω καὶ λόγος ἵνα δοξασθῇ. ἡσυχάζοντος μὲν τοῦ λόγου ἐν τῷ πειράζεσθαι καὶ σταυροῦσθαι καὶ ἀποθνήσκειν, συγγινομένου δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐν τῷ νικᾷν καὶ ὑπομένειν καὶ χρηστεύεσθαι καὶ ἀνίστασθαι καὶ ἀναλαμβάνεσθαι” (“For as he was man that he might be tempted, so also he was the Logos that he might be glorified. The Logos remained quiescent during the process of temptation, crucifixion and death, but aided the human nature when it conquered, and endured, and performed deeds of kindness, and rose again from the dead, and was received up into heaven”). From these words it is plain that Irenæus preferred to assume that the divine and human natures existed side by side, and consequently to split up the perfect unity, rather than teach a mere ideal manhood which would be at the same time a divine manhood. The “discrete agere” of the two natures proves that to Irenæus the perfect manhood of the incarnate Logos was merely an incidental quality he possessed. In reality the Logos is the perfect man 285in so far as his incarnation creates the perfect man and renders him possible, or the Logos always exists behind Christ the perfect man. But nevertheless this very way of viewing the humanity in Christ already compelled Irenæus to limit the “deus crucifixus” and to lay the foundation for Tertullian’s formulæ. With regard to the second point we may remark that there were not a few passages in both Testaments where Christ appeared as the man chosen by God and anointed with the Spirit. These as well as the corresponding language of the Church were the greatest difficulties in the way of the Logos Christology. Of what importance is an anointing with the Spirit to him who is God? What is the meaning of Christ being born by the power of the Holy Ghost? Is this formula compatible with the other, that he as the Logos himself assumed flesh from the Virgin etc.? Irenæus no doubt felt these difficulties. He avoided them (III. 9. 3) by referring the bestowal of the Spirit at baptism merely to the man Jesus, and thus gave his own approval to that separation which appeared to him so reprehensible in the Gnostics.607607“Secundum id quod verbum dei homo erat ex radice Iesse et filius Abrahæ, secundum hoc requiescebat spiritus dei super eum . . . secundum autem quod deus erat, non secundum gloriam iudicabat.” All that Irenæus said of the Spirit in reference to the person of Christ is to be understood merely as an exegetical necessity and must not be regarded as a theoretical principle (this is also the case with Tertullian). Dorner (l.c., p. 492 f.) has failed to see this, and on the basis of Irenæus’ incidental and involuntary utterances has attempted to found a speculation which represents the latter as meaning that the Holy Ghost was the medium which gradually united the Logos, who was exalted above growing and suffering, into one person with the free and growing man in Jesus Christ. In III. 12. 5-7 Irenæus, in conformity with Acts IV. 27: X. 38, used the following other formulæ about Christ: ὁ Θεός, ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν κ.τ.λ., καὶ ὁ τούτου παῖς, ὅν ἔχρισεν ὁ Θεός — “Petrus Iesum ipsum esse filium dei testificatus est, qui et unctus Spiritu Sancto Iesus dicitur.” But Irenæus only expressed himself thus because of these passages, whereas Hippolytus not unfrequently calls Christ παῖς Θεοῦ. This separation indeed rescued to future ages the minimum of humanity that was to be retained in the person of Christ, but at the same time it laid the foundation of those differentiating speculations, which in succeeding times became the chief art and subject of dispute among theologians. The fact is that one cannot think in realistic fashion of the “deus homo factus” without thinking oneself out of it. It is exceedingly instructive 286to find that, in some passages, even a man like Irenæus was obliged to advance from the creed of the one God-man to the assumption of two independent existences in Christ, an assumption which in the earlier period has only “Gnostic” testimony in its favour. Before Irenæus’ day, in fact, none but these earliest theologians taught that Jesus Christ had two natures, and ascribed to them particular actions and experiences. The Gnostic distinction of the Jesus patibilis (“capable of suffering”) and the Christ ἀπαθής (“impassible”) is essentially identical with the view set forth by Tertullian adv. Prax., and this proves that the doctrine of the two natures is simply nothing else than the Gnostic, i.e., scientific, adaptation of the formula: “filius dei filius hominis factus”. No doubt the old early-Christian interest still makes itself felt in the assertion of the one person. Accordingly we can have no historical understanding of Tertullian’s Christology or even of that of Irenæus without taking into account, as has not yet been done, the Gnostic distinction of Jesus and Christ, as well as those old traditional formulæ: “deus passus, deus crucifixus est” (“God suffered, God was crucified”).608608On Hippolytus’ views of the incarnation see Dorner, l.c., I. p. 609 ff. — an account to be used with caution — and Overbeck, Quæst. Hippol. Specimen (1864), p. 47 sq. Unfortunately the latter has not carried out his intention to set forth the Christology of Hippolytus in detail. In the work quoted he has, however, shown how closely the latter in many respects has imitated Irenæus in this case also. It is instructive to see what Hippolytus has not adopted from Irenæus or what has become rudimentary with him. As a professional and learned teacher he is at bottom nearer to the Apologists as regards his Christology than Irenæus. As an exegete and theological author he has much in common with the Alexandrians, just as he is in more than one respect a connecting link between Catholic controversialists like Irenæus and Catholic scholars like Origen. With the latter he moreover came into personal contact. See Hieron., de vir. inl. 61: Hieron., ep. ad Damas. edit. Venet. I., ep. 36 is also instructive. These brief remarks are, however, by no means intended to give countenance to Kimmel’s untenable hypothesis (de Hippol. vita et scriptis, 1839) that Hippolytus was an Alexandrian. In Hippolytus’ treatise c. Noët. we find positive teachings that remind us of Tertullian. An important passage is de Christo et Antichristo 3 f.: εἷ γὰρ καὶ ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ ταῖς (Iren.), δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἡμεῖς τυχόντες τὴν διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἀναγέννησιν εἰς ἕνα τέλειον καὶ ἐπουράνιον ἄνθρωπον οἱ πάντες καταντῆσαι ἐπιθυμοῦμεν (see Iren.) Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄσαρκος ὢν (see Melito, Iren., Tertull.) ἐνεδύσατο τὴν ἁγίαν σάρκα ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου· ὡς νύμφιος ἱμάτιον ἐξυφάνας ἑαυτῷ ἦν τῷ σταυρικῷ πάθει (Irenæus and Tertullian also make the death on the cross the object of the assumption of the flesh), ὅπως συγκεράσας τὸ θνητὸν ἡμῶν σῶμα τῇ ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμει καὶ μίξας (Iren., Tertull.) τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τὸ φθαρτὸν καὶ τὸ ἀσθενὲς τῷ ἰσχυρῷ σώσῃ τὸν ἀπολλύμενον ἄνθρωπον (Iren.). The succeeding disquisition deserves particular note, because it shows that Hippolytus has also borrowed from Irenæus the idea that the union of the Logos with humanity had already begun in a certain way in the prophets. Overbeck has rightly compared the ἀναπλάσσειν δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν Ἀδάμ, l.c., c. 26, with the ἀνακεφαλαιοῦν of Irenæus and l.c., c. 44, with Iren. II. 22, 4. For Hippolytus’ Christology Philosoph. X. 33, p. 542 and c. Noët. 10 ff. are the chief passages of additional importance. In the latter passage it is specially noteworthy that Hippolytus, in addition to many other deviations from Irenæus and Tertullian, insists on applying the full name of Son only to the incarnate Logos. In this we have a remnant of the more ancient idea and at the same time a concession to his opponents who admitted an eternal Logos in God, but not a pre-temporal hypostasis of the Son. See c. 15: ποῖον οὖν υἱὸν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς διὰ τῆς σαρκὸς κατέπεμψεν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τὸν λόγον; ὃν υἱὸν προσηγόρευε διὰ τὸ μέλλειν αὐτὸν γενέσθαι. Καὶ τὸ κοινὸν ὅνομα τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους φιλοστοργίας ἀναλαμβάνει ὁ υἱὸς (καίτοι τέλειος λόγος ὢν μονγενής). οὔδ᾽ ἡ σαρξ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν δίχα τοῦ λόγου ὑποστῆναι ἠδύνατο διὰ τὸ ἐν λόγῳ τὴν σύστασιν ἔχειν. οὕτως οὖν εἱς υἱὸς τέλειος Θεοῦ ἐφανερώθη. Hippolytus partook to a much greater extent than his teacher Irenæus of the tree of Greek knowledge and he accordingly speaks much more frequently than the latter of the “divine mysteries” of the faith. From the fragments and writings of this author that are preserved to us the existence of very various Christologies can be shown; and this proves that the Christology of his teacher Irenæus had not by any means yet become predominant in the Church, as we might suppose from the latter’s confident tone. Hippolytus is an exegete and accordingly still yielded with comparative impartiality to the impressions conveyed by the several passages. For example he recognised the woman of Rev. XII. as the Church and the Logos as her child, and gave the following exegesis of the passage (de Christo et Antichristo 61): οὐ παύσεται ἡ ἐκκλησία γεννῶσα ἐκ καρδίας τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐν κόσμω ὑπὸ ἀπίστων διωκόμενον. “καὶ ἔτεκε”, φησίν, “υἱὸν ἄρρενα, ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη”, τὸν ἄρρενα καὶ τέλειον Χριστόν, παῖδα Θεοῦ, Θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον καταγγελλόμενον ἀεί τίκτουσα ἡ ἐκκλησία διδάσκει πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. If we consider how Irenæus’ pupil is led by the text of the Holy Scriptures to the most diverse “doctrines”, we see how the “Scripture” theologians were the very ones who threatened the faith with the greatest corruptions. As the exegesis of the Valentinian schools became the mother of numerous self-contradictory Christologies, so the same result was threatened here — “doctrinæ inolescentes in silvas iam exoleverunt Gnosticorum.” From this standpoint Origen’s undertaking to subject the whole material of Biblical exegesis to a fixed theory appears in its historical greatness and importance.
But beyond doubt the prevailing conception of Christ in 287Irenæus is the idea that there was the most complete unity between his divine and human natures; for it is the necessary consequence of his doctrine of redemption, that “Jesus Christus factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse”609609See other passages on p. 241, note 2. This is also reëchoed in Cyprian. See, for example, ep. 58. 6: “filius dei passus est ut nos filios dei faceret, et filius hominis (scil. the Christians) pati non vult esse dei filius possit.” 288(“Jesus Christ became what we are in order that we might become what he himself is”). But, in accordance with the recapitulation theory, Irenæus developed the “factus est quod sumus nos” in such a way that the individual portions of the life of Christ, as corresponding to what we ought to have done but did not do, receive the value of saving acts culminating in the death on the cross. Thus he not only regards Jesus Christ as “salvation and saviour and saving” (“salus et salvator et salutare”),610610See III. 10. 3. but he also views his whole life as a work of salvation. All that has taken place between the conception and the ascension is an inner necessity in this work of salvation. This is a highly significant advance beyond the conception of the Apologists. Whilst in their case the history of Jesus seems to derive its importance almost solely from the fulfilment of prophecy, it acquires in Irenæus an independent and fundamental significance. Here also we recognise the influence of “Gnosis”, nay, in many places he uses the same expressions as the Gnostics, when he sees salvation accomplished, on the one hand, in the mere appearance of Jesus Christ as the second Adam, and on the other, in the simple acknowledgment of this appearance.611611See the remarkable passage in IV. 36. 7: ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἥτις ἦν ἀσθαρσία. Another result of the Gnostic struggle is Irenæus’ raising the question as to what new thing the Lord has brought (IV. 34. 1): “Si autem subit vos huiusmodi sensus, ut dicatis: Quid igitur novi dominus attulit veniens? cognoscite, quoniam omnem novitatem attulit semetipsum afferens, qui fuerat annuntiatus.” The new thing is then defined thus: “Cum perceperunt eam quæ ab eo est libertatem et participant visionem eius et audierunt sermones eius et fruiti sunt muneribus ab eo, non iam requiretur, quid novius attulit rex super eos, qui annuntiaverunt advenum eius . . . Semetipsum enim attulit et ea quæ prædicta sunt bona.” But he is distinguished from them by the fact that he decidedly emphasises the personal acts of Jesus, and that he applies the benefits of Christ’s work not to the “pneumatic” ipso facto, but in principle to all men, though practically only to those who listen to the Saviour’s words and adorn themselves with works of righteousness.612612See IV. 36. 6: “Adhuc manifestavit oportere nos cum vocatione (i.e., μετὰ τὴν κλῆσιν) et iustitiæ operibus adornari, uti requiescat super nos spiritus dei” — we must provide ourselves with the wedding garment. Irenæus presented this work of Christ from various points of view. He regards it as 289the realisation of man’s original destiny, that is, being in communion with God, contemplating God, being imperishable like God; he moreover views it as the abolition of the consequences of Adam’s disobedience, and therefore as the redemption of men from death and the dominion of the devil; and finally he looks upon it as reconciliation with God. In all these conceptions Irenæus fell back upon the person of Christ. Here, at the same time, he is everywhere determined by the content of Biblical passages; in fact it is just the New Testament that leads him to these considerations, as was first the case with the Valentinians before him. How uncertain he still is as to their ecclesiastical importance is shown by the fact that he has no hesitation in reckoning the question, as to why the Word of God became flesh and suffered, among the articles that are a matter of consideration for science, but not for the simple faith (I. 10. 3). Here, therefore, he still maintains the archaic standpoint according to which it is sufficient to adhere to the baptismal confession and wait for the second coming of Christ along with the resurrection of the body. On the other hand, Irenæus did not merely confine himself to describing the fact of redemption, its content and its consequences; but he also attempted to explain the peculiar nature of this redemption from the essence of God and the incapacity of man, thus solving the question “cur deus Homo” in the highest sense.613613The incapacity of man is referred to in III. 18. 1: III. 21. 10; III. 21-23 shows that the same man that had fallen had to be led to communion with God; V. 21. 3: V. 24. 4 teach that man had to overcome the devil; the intrinsic necessity of God’s appearing as Redeemer is treated of in III. 23. 1: “Si Adam iam non reverteretur ad vitam, sed in totum proiectus esset morti, victus esset dens et superasset serpentis nequitia voluntatem dei. Sed quoniam deus invictus et magnanimis est, magnanimem quidem se exhibuit etc.” That the accomplishment of salvation must be effected in a righteous manner, and therefore be as much a proof of the righteousness as of the immeasurable love and mercy of God, is shown in V. 1. 1: V. 21. Finally, he adopted from Paul the thought that Christ’s real work of salvation consists in his death on the cross; and so he tried to amalgamate the two propositions, “filius dei filius hominis factus est propter nos” (“the Son of God became Son of man for us”) and “filius dei passus est propter nos” (“the Son of God suffered for us”) as the most vital ones. He did not, however, clearly show which 290of these doctrines is the more important. Here the speculation of Irenæus is already involved in the same ambiguity as was destined to be the permanent characteristic of Church speculation as to Christ’s work in succeeding times. For on the one hand, Paul led one to lay all the emphasis on the death on the cross, and on the other, the logical result of dogmatic thinking only pointed to the appearance of God in the flesh, but not to a particular work of Christ that had not been already involved in the appearance of the Divine Teacher himself. Still, Irenæus contrived to reconcile the discrepancy better than his successors, because, being in earnest with his idea of Christ as the second Adam, he was able to contemplate the whole life of Jesus as redemption in so far as he conceived it as a recapitulation. We see this at once not only from his conception of the virgin birth as a fact of salvation, but also from his way of describing redemption as deliverance from the devil. For, as the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary is the recapitulating counterpart of Adam’s birth from the virgin earth, and as the obedience of the mother of Jesus is the counterpart of Eve’s disobedience, so the story of Jesus’ temptation is to him the recapitulating counterpart of the story of Adam’s temptation. In the way that Jesus overcame the temptation by the devil (Matt. IV.) Irenæus already sees the redemption of mankind from Satan; even then Jesus bound the strong one. But, whereas the devil seized upon man unlawfully and deceitfully, no in-justice, untruthfulness, or violence is displayed in the means by which Jesus resisted Satan’s temptation.614614Irenæus demonstrated the view in V. 21 in great detail. According to his ideas in this chapter we must include the history of the temptation in the regula fidei. As yet Irenæus is quite as free from the thought that the devil has real rights upon man, as he is from the immoral idea that God accomplished his work of redemption by an act of deceit. But, on the strength of Pauline passages, many of his teachings rather view redemption from the devil as accomplished by the death of Christ, and accordingly represent this death as a ransom paid to the “apostasy” for men who had fallen into captivity. He did not, however, develop this thought any further.615615See particularly V. I. 1: “Verbum potens et homo verus sanguine suo ratio nabiliter redimens nos, redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his, qui in captivitatem ducti sunt . . . dei verbum non deficiens in sua iustitia, iuste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est apostasiam, ea quæ sunt sua redimens ab ea, non cum vi, quemadmodum illa initio dominabatur nostri, ea quæ non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens, sed secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat deum suadentem et non vim inferentem, accipere quæ vellet, ut neque quod est iustum confringeretur neque antiqua plasmatio dei deperiret.” We see that the idea of the blood of Christ as ransom does not possess with Irenæus the value of a fully developed theory, but is suggestive of one. But even in this form it appeared suspicious and, in fact, a Marcionite idea to a Catholic teacher of the 3rd century. Pseudo-Origen (Adamantius) opposed it by the following argument (De recta in deum fide, edid Wetstein 1673, Sectio I. p. 38 sq. See Rufinus’ translation in Caspari’s Kirchenhistorische Anecdota Vol. I. 1883, p. 34 sq., which in many places has preserved the right sense): Τὸν πριωμενον ἔσης, εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν; ὁ πεπρακὼς τὶς ἐστιν; ἦλθεν εἰς σὲ ὁ ἀπλοῦς μῠθος· ὅτι ὁ πωλῶν καὶ ὁ ἀγοράζων ἀδελσοί εἰσιν; εἰ κακός ὤν ὁ διάβολος τῷ ἀγαθῷ πέπρακεν, οὐκ ἔστι κακὸς ἀλλὰ ἀγαθός· ὁ γὰρ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς σθονήσας τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, νῦν ὀυκ ἔτι ὑπὸ σθόνου ἄγεται, τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὴν νομὴν παραδούς. ἔσται οὖν δίκαιος ὁ τοῦ σθόνου καὶ παντὸς κακοῦ παυσάμενος. αὐτὸς γοῦν ὁ Θεὸς εὑρίσκεται πωλήσας· μᾶλλον δὲ οἱ ἡμαρτηκότες ἑαυτοὺς ἀπηλλοτρίωσαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀυτῶν· πάλιν δὲ ἐλυτρώθησαν διὰ τὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν ἀυτοῦ. τοῦτο γὰρ σήσιν ὁ προσήτης· Ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν ἐπράθητε καὶ ταῖς ἀνομίαις ἐξαπέστειλα τὴν μητέρα ὑμῶν. Καὶ ἄλλος πὰλιν· Δωρεὰν ἐπράθητε, καὶ οὐ μετὰ ἀργυρίου λυτρωθήσεσθε. Τὸ, οὐδὲ μετὰ ἀργυρίου· δηλονότι, τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. τοῦτο γὰρ σάσκει ὁ προσήτης (Isaiah, LIII. 5 follows). Ἐικὸς δὲ ὅτι κατὰ σὲ επρίατο δοὺς ἑαυτοῦ τὸ αἷμα· πῶς οὖν καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἡγείρετο; εἰ γὰρ ὁ λαβὼν τὴν τιμὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὸ αἷμα, ἀπέδωκεν, οὐκέτι ἐπώλησεν. Εὶ δὲ μὴ ἀπέδωκε, τῶς ἀνέστη Χριστός; οὐκέτι οὗν τό, Ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω λαβεῖν, ἵσταται; ὁ γοῦν διὰβολος κατέχει τὸ αἶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀντὶ τῆς τιμῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων; πολλὴ βλασσήμιος ἄνοια! σεῦ τῶν κακῶν! σεῦ τῶν κακῶν! Ἀπέθανεν, ἀνέστη ὡς δυνατὸς· ἔθηκεν ὅ ἔλαβεν· αὕτη ποία πρᾶσις; τοῦ προσήτου λέγοντος· Ἀναστήτω ὁ Θεὸς καὶ διασκορπισθήτωσαν οἱ ἐχθροὶ ἀυτοῦ; Ὅπου ἀνδστασις, ἐκεῖ θάνατος! That is an argument as acute as it is true and victorious.291
His idea of the reconciliation of God is just as rudimentary, and merely suggested by Biblical passages. He sometimes saw the means of reconciliation solely in obedience and in the righteous flesh” as such, at other times in the “wood.” Here also the recapitulation theory again appears: through disobedience at the tree Adam became a debtor to God, and through obedience at the tree God is reconciled.616616 See Iren. V. 2, 3, 16. 3, 17-4. In III. 16. 9 he says: Christus per passionem reconciliavit nos deo.” It is moreover very instructive to compare the way in which Irenæus worked out the recapitulation theory with the old proof from prophecy (“this happened that the Scripture might be fulfilled”). Here we certainly have an advance; but at bottom the recapitulation theory may also be conceived as a modification of that proof. But teachings as to vicarious suffering on the part of Christ are not found in Irenæus, 292and his death is seldom presented from the point of view of a sacrifice offered to God.617617See, e.g., IV. 5. 4: προθύμως Ἀβραὰμ τὸν ἴδιον μονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν παραχωρήσας θυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ, ἵνα καὶ ὁ Θεὸς εὐδοκήσῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ σπέρματος ἀυτοῦ παντὸς τὸν ἴδιον μονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν υἱὸν θύσίαν παρασχεῖν εἰς λύτρωσιν ἡμετέραν. According to this author the reconciliation virtually consists in Christ’s restoring man to communion and friendship with God and procuring forgiveness of sins; he very seldom speaks of God being offended through Adam’s sin (V. 16. 3). But the incidental mention of the forgiveness of sins resulting from the redemption by Christ has not the meaning of an abolition of sin. He connects the redemption with this only in the form of Biblical and rhetorical phrases; for the vital point with him is the abolition of the consequences of sin, and particularly of the sentence of death.618618There are not a few passages where Irenæus said that Christ has annihilated sin, abolished Adam’s disobedience, and introduced righteousness through his obedience (III. 18. 6, 7: III. 20. 2: V. 16-21); but he only once tried to explain how that is to be conceived (III. 18. 7), and then merely reproduced Paul’s thoughts. Here we have the transition to the conception of Christ’s work which makes this appear more as a completion than as a restoration. In this connection Irenæus employed the following categories: restoring of the likeness of God in humanity; abolition of death; connection and union of man with God; adoption of men as sons of God and as gods; imparting of the Spirit who now becomes accustomed to abide with men;619619 Irenæus has no hesitation in calling the Christian who has received the Spirit of God the perfect, the spiritual one, and in representing him, in contrast to the false Gnostic, as he who in truth judges all men, Jews, heathen, Marcionites, and Valentinians, but is himself judged by no one; see the great disquisition in IV. 33 and V. 9. 10. This true Gnostic, however, is only to be found where we meet with right faith in God the Creator, sure conviction with regard to the God-man Jesus Christ, true knowledge as regards the Holy Spirit and the economy of salvation, the apostolic doctrine, the right Church system in accordance with the episcopal succession, the intact Holy Scripture, and its uncorrupted text and interpretation (IV. 33. 7, 8). To him the true believer is the real Gnostic. imparting of a knowledge of God culminating in beholding him; bestowal of everlasting life. All these are only the different aspects of one and the same blessing, which, being of a divine order, could only be brought to us and implanted in our nature by God himself. But inasmuch as this view represents Christ not as performing a reconciling but a perfecting work, his acts are 293thrust more into the background; his work is contained in his constitution as the God-man. Hence this work has a universal significance for all men, not only as regards the present, but as regards the past from Adam downwards, in so far as they “according to their virtue in their generation have not only feared but also loved God, and have behaved justly and piously towards their neighbours, and have longed to see Christ and to hear his voice.”620620 See IV. 22. In accordance with the recapitulation theory Christ must also have descended to the lower world. There he announced forgiveness of sins to the righteous, the patriarchs and prophets (IV. 27. 2). For this, however, Irenæus was not able to appeal to Scripture texts, but only to statements of a presbyter. It is nevertheless expressly asserted, on the authority of Rom. III. 23, that these pre-Christian just men also could only receive justification and the light of salvation through the arrival of Christ among them. Those redeemed by Jesus are immediately joined by him into a unity, into the true humanity, the Church, whose head he himself is.621621See III. 16. 6: “In omnibus autem est et homo plasmatio dei; et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis et impassibilis passibilis, et verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans, uti sicut in supercælestibus et spiritalibus et invisibilibus princeps est verbum dei, sic et in visibilibus et corporalibus principatum habeat, in semetipsum primatum assumens et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesiæ, universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore.” This Church is the communion of the Sons of God, who have attained to a contemplation of him and have been gifted with everlasting life. In this the work of Christ the God-man is fulfilled. In Tertullian and Hippolytus, as the result of New Testament exegesis, we again find the same aspects of Christ’s work as in Irenæus, only with them the mystical form of redemption recedes into the background.622622There are innumerable passages where Tertullian has urged that the whole work of Christ is comprised in the death on the cross, and indeed that this death was the aim of Christ’s mission. See, e.g., de pat. 3: “Taceo quod figitur; in hoc enim venerat”; de bapt. 11: “Mors nostra dissolvi non potuit, nisi domini passione, nec vita restitui sine resurrectione ipsius”; adv. Marc. III. 8: “Si mendacium deprehenditur Christi caro . . . nec passiones Christi fidem merebuntur. Eversum est igitur totum dei opus. Totum Christiani nominis et pondus et fructus, mors Christi, negatur, quam tam impresse apostolus demendat, utique veram, summum eam fundamentum evangelii constituens et salutis nostræ et prædictionis sum, 1 Cor. XV. 3, 4; he follows Paul here. But on the other hand he has also adopted from Irenæus the mystical conception of redemption — the constitution of Christ is the redemption — though with a rationalistic explanation. See adv. Marc. II. 27: “filius miscens in semetipso hominem et deum, ut tantum homini conferat, quantum deo detrahit. Conversabatur deus, ut homo divina agere doceretur. Ex æquo agebat deus cum homine, ut homo ex æquo agere cum deo posset.” Here therefore the meaning of the divine manhood of the Redeemer virtually amounts to divine teaching. In de resurr. 63 Christ is called “fidelissimus sequester dei et hominum, qui et homini deum et hominem deo reddet.” Note the future tense. It is the same with Hippolytus who in Philos. X. 34 represents the deification of men as the aim of redemption, but at the same time merely requires Christ as the lawgiver and teacher: “Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἐκσεύξῃ Θεὸν τὸν ὄντα διδαχθείς, ἕξεις δὲ ἀθάνατον τὸ σῶμα καὶ ἄσθαρτον ἅμα ψυχῇ, βασιλείαν ὀυρανῶν ἀπολήψῃ, ὁ ἐν γῇ βιοὺς καὶ ἐπουράνιον βασιλέα ἐπιγνούς, ἔσῃ δὲ ὁμιλητὴς Θεοῦ καὶ συγκληρονόμος Χριστοῦ, οὐκ ἐπιθυμίαις ἤ πάθεσι καὶ νόσοις δουλούμενος. Γέγονας γὰρ Θεός· ὅσα γὰρ ὑπέμεινας πάθη ἄνθρωπος ὤν, ταῦτα ἐδίδου, ὅτι ἄνθρωπος εἶ, ὅσα δὲ παρακολουθεῖ Θεῷ, ταῦτα παρέχειν ἐπήγγελται Θεὸς, ὅτι ἐθεοποιήθης, ἀθάνατος γεννηθείς. Τουτέστι τὸ Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, επιγνοὺς τὸν πεποιηκότα Θεόν. Τὸ γὰρ ἐπιγνῶναι ἑαυτὸν ἐπιγνωσθῆναι συμβέβηκε τῷ καλουμένῳ ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ. Μὴ σιλεχθρήσητε τοίνυν ἑαυτοῖς, ἄνθρωποι, μηδὲ τὸ παλινδρομεῖν διστάσητε. Χριστὸς γὰρ ἐστιν ὁ κατὰ πάντων Θεός, ὃς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀποπλύνειν προέταξε, νέον τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀποτελῶν, εἰκόνα τοῦτον καλέσας ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, διὰ τύπου τὴν εἰς σὲ ἐπιδεικνύμενος στοργήν, οὗ προστάγμασιν ὑπακούσας σεμνοῖς, καὶ ἀγαθοῦ ἀγαθὸς γενόμενος μιμητής, ἔσῃ ὅμοιος ὑπ᾽ ἀυτοῦ τιμηθείς. Οὐ γὰρ πτωχέυει Θεὸς καὶ σὲ Θεὸν ποιήσας εἰς δόξαν αὐτοῦ.” It is clear that with a conception like this, which became prevalent in the 3rd century, Christ’s death on the cross could have no proper significance; nothing but the Holy Scriptures preserved its importance. We may further remark that Tertullian used the expression “satisfacere deo” about men (see, e.g., de bapt. 20; de pud. 9), but, so far as I know, not about the work of Christ. This expression is very frequerit in Cyprian (for penances), and he also uses it about Christ. In both writers, moreover, we find “meritum” (eg. , Scorp. 6) and “promereri deum”. With them and with Novatian the idea of “culpa” is also more strongly emphasised than it is by the Eastern theologians. Cf. Novatian de trin. 10: “quoniam cum caro et sanguis non obtinere regnum dei scribitur, non carnis substantia damnata est, quæ divinis manibus ne periret, exstructa est, sed sola carnis culpa merito reprehensa est.” Tertullian de bapt. 5 says: “Exempto reatu eximitur et pœna.” On the other hand he speaks of fasting as “officia humiliationis”, through which we can “inlicere” God. Among these Western writers the thought that God’s anger must be appeased both by sacrifices and corresponding acts appears in a much more pronounced form than in Irenæus. This is explained by their ideas as practical churchmen and by their actual experiences in communities that were already of a very secular character. We may, moreover, point out in a general way that the views of Hippolytus are everywhere more strictly dependent on Scripture texts than those of Irenæus. That many of the latter’s speculations are not found in Hippolytus is simply explained by the fact that they have no clear scriptural basis; see Overbeck, Quæst. Hippol., Specimen p. 75, note 29. On a superficial reading Tertullian seems to have a greater variety of points of view than Irenæus; he has in truth fewer, he contrived to work the grains of gold transmitted to him in such a way as to make the form more valuable than the substance. But one idea of Tertullian, which is not found in Irenæus, and which in after times was to attain great importance in the East (after Origen’s day) and in the West (after the time of Ambrosius), may be further referred to. We mean the notion that Christ is the bridegroom and the human soul (and also the human body) the bride. This theologoumenon owes its origin to a combination of two older ones, and subsequently received its Biblical basis from the Song of Solomon. The first of these older theologoumena is the Greek philosophical notion that the divine Spirit is the bridegroom and husband of the human soul. See the Gnostics (e.g., the sublime description in the Excerpta ex Theodoto 27); Clem. ep. ad Jacob. 4. 6; as well as Tatian, Orat. 13; Tertull., de anima 41 fin.: “Sequitur animam nubentem spiritui caro; o beatum connubium”; and the still earlier Sap. Sal. VIII. 2 sq. An offensively realistic form of this image is found in Clem. Hom. III. 27: νύμφη γὰρ εστὶν ὁ πᾶς ἅνθρωπος, ὁπόταν τοῦ ἀληθοῦς προφήτου λευκῷ λόγῳ ἀληθείας σπειρόμενος φωτίζηται τὸν νοῦν. The second is the apostolic notion that the Church is the bride and the body of Christ. In the 2nd Epistle of Clement the latter theologoumenon is already applied in a modified form. Here it is said that humanity as the Church, that is human nature (the flesh), belongs to Christ as his Eve (c. 14; see also Ignat. ad Polyc. V. 2; Tertull. de monog. 11, and my notes on Διδαχή XI. 11). The conclusion that could be drawn from this, and that seemed to have a basis in certain utterances of Jesus, viz., that the individual human soul together with the flesh is to be designated as the bride of Christ, was, so far as I know, first arrived at by Tertullian de resurr. 63: “Carnem et spiritum iam in semetipso Christus fœderavit, sponsam sponso et sponsum sponsæ comparavit. Nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel dotis nomine sequetur animam caro . . . Caro est sponsa, quæ in Christo spiritum sponsum per sanguinem pacta est”; see also de virg. vel. 16. Notice, however, that Tertullian continually thinks of all souls together (all flesh together) rather than of the individual soul.294
Nevertheless the eschatology as set forth by Irenæus in the fifth Book by no means corresponds to this conception of the work of Christ as a restoring and completing one; it rather appears as a remnant of antiquity directly opposed to the 295speculative interpretation of redemption, but protected by the regula fidei, the New Testament, especially Revelation, and the material hopes of the great majority of Christians. But it would be a great mistake to assume that Irenæus merely repeated the hopes of an earthly kingdom just because he still found them in tradition, and because they were completely rejected by the Gnostics and guaranteed by the regula and the New Testament.623623By the regula inasmuch as the words “from thence he will come to judge the quick and the dead” had a fixed place in the confessions, and the belief in the duplex adventus Christi formed one of the most important articles of Church belief in contradistinction to Judaism and Gnosticism (see the collection of passages in Hesse, “das Muratorische Fragment”, p. 112 f.). But the belief in the return of Christ to this world necessarily involved the hope of a kingdom of glory under Christ upon earth, and without this hope is merely a rhetorical flourish. 296The truth rather is that he as well as Melito, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Commodian, and Victorinus lived in these hopes no less than did Papias, the Asia Minor Presbyters and Justin.624624 Cf. here the account already given in Book I., chap. 3, Vol. I., p. 167 ff., Book I., chap. 4, Vol. I., p. 261, Book II., chap. 3, Vol. I., p. 105 f. On Melito compare the testimony of Polycrates in Eusebius, H. E. V. 24. 5, and the title of his lost work πέρὶ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰωάννου.” Chiliastic ideas are also found in the epistle from Lyons in Eusebius, H. E. V. 1 sq. On Hippolytus see his work “de Christo et Antichristo” and Overbeck careful account (l.c., p. 70 sq.) of the agreement here existing between Irenæus and Hippolytus as well as of the latter’s chiliasm on which unfounded doubts have been cast. Overbeck has also, in my opinion, shown the probability of chiliastic portions having been removed at a later period both from Hippolytus’ book and the great work of Irenæus. The extensive fragments of Hippolytus’ commentary on Daniel are also to be compared (and especially the portions full of glowing hatred to Rome lately discovered by Georgiades). With reference to Tertullian compare particularly the writings adv. Marc. III., adv. Jud., de resurrectione carnis, de anima, and the titles of the subsequently suppressed writings de paradiso and de spe fidelium. Further see Commodian, Carmen apolog., Lactantius, Instit. div., 1. VII., Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse. It is very remarkable that Cyprian already set chiliasm aside; cf. the conclusion of the second Book of the Testimonia and the few passages in which he quoted the last chapters of Revelation. The Apologists were silent about chiliastic hopes, Justin even denied them in Apol. I. 11, but, as we have remarked, he gives expression to them in the Dialogue and reckons them necessary to complete orthodoxy. The Pauline eschatology, especially several passages in 1 Cor. XV. (see particularly verse 50), caused great difficulties to the Fathers from Justin downwards. See Fragm. Justini IV. a Methodio supped. in Otto, Corp. Apol. III., p. 254, Iren. V. 9, Tertull. de resurr. 48 sq. According to Irenæus the heretics, who completely abandoned the early-Christian eschatology, appealed to 1 Cor. XV. 50. The idea of a kind of purgatory — a notion which does not originate with the realistic but with the philosophical eschatology — is quite plainly found in Tertullian, e.g., in de anima 57 and 58 (“modicum delictum illuc luendum”). He speaks in several passages of stages and different places of bliss; and this was a universally diffused idea (e.g., Scorp. 6). But this is the clearest proof that all these theologians were but half-hearted in their theology, which was forced upon them, in defence of the traditional faith, by the historical situation in which they found themselves. The Christ, who will shortly come to overcome Antichrist, overthrow the Roman empire, establish in Jerusalem a kingdom of glory, and feed believers with the fat of a miraculously fruitful earth, is in fact a quite different being from the Christ who, as the incarnate 297God, has already virtually accomplished his work of imparting perfect knowledge and filling mankind with divine life and incorruptibility. The fact that the old Catholic Fathers have both Christs shows more clearly than any other the middle position that they occupy between the acutely hellenised Christianity of the theologians, i.e., the Gnostics, and the old tradition of the Church. We have indeed seen that the twofold conception of Christ and his work dates back to the time of the Apostles, for there is a vast difference between the Christ of Paul and the Christ of the supposedly inspired Jewish Apocalypses; and also that the agency in producing this conjunction may be traced back to the oldest time; but the union of a precise Christological Gnosis, such as we find in Irenæus and Tertullian, with the retention in their integrity of the imaginative series of thoughts about Antichrist, Christ as the warrior hero, the double resurrection, and the kingdom of glory in Jerusalem, is really a historical novelty. There is, however, no doubt that the strength of the old Catholic theology in opposition to the Gnostics lies in the accomplishment of this union, which, on the basis of the New Testament, appeared to the Fathers possible and necessary. For it is not systematic consistency that secures the future of a religious conception within a church, but its elasticity, and its richness in dissimilar trains of thought. But no doubt this must be accompanied by a firm foundation, and this too the old Catholic Fathers possessed — the church system itself.
As regards the details of the eschatological hopes, they were fully set forth by Irenæus himself in Book V. Apart from the belief that the returning Nero would be the Antichrist, an idea spread in the West during the third century by the Sibylline verses and proved from Revelation, the later teachers who preached chiliastic hopes did not seriously differ from the gallic bishop; hence the interpretation of Revelation is in its main features the same. It is enough therefore to refer to the fifth Book of Irenæus.625625Irenæus begins with the resurrection of the body and the proofs of it (in opposition to Gnosticism). These proofs are taken from the omnipotence and goodness of God, the long life of the patriarchs, the translation of Enoch and Elijah, the preservation of Jonah and of the three men in the fiery furnace, the essential nature of man as a temple of God to which the body also belongs, and the resurrection of Christ (V. 3-7). But Irenæus sees the chief proof in the incarnation of Christ, in the dwelling of the Spirit with its gifts in us (V. 8-16), and in the feeding of our body with the holy eucharist (V. 2. 3).Then he discusses the defeat of Satan by Christ (V. 21-23), shows that the powers that be are set up by God, that the devil therefore manifestly lies in arrogating to himself the lordship of the world (V. 24), but that he acts as a rebel and robber in attempting to make himself master of it. This brings about the transition to Antichrist. The latter is possessed of the whole power of the devil, sums up in himself therefore all sin and wickedness, and pretends to be Lord and God. He is described in accordance with the Apocalypses of Daniel and John as well as according to Matth. XXIV. and 2nd Thessalonians. He is the product of the 4th Kingdom that is, the Roman empire; but at the same time springs from the tribe of Dan (V. 30. 2), and will take up his abode in Jerusalem etc. The returning Christ will destroy him, and the Christ will come back when 6000 years of the world’s history have elapsed; for “in as many days as the world was made, in so many thousands of years will it be ended” (V. 28. 3). The seventh day is then the great world Sabbath, during which Christ will reign with the saints of the first resurrection after the destruction of Antichrist. Irenæus expressly argued against such as pass for orthodox, but disregard the order of the progress of the righteous and know no stages of preparation for incorruptibility” (V. 31). By this he means such as assume that after death souls immediately pass to God. On the contrary he argues that these rather wait in a hidden place for the resurrection which takes place on the return of Christ after which the souls receive back their bodies and men now restored participate in the Saviour’s Kingdom (V. 31. 2). This Kingdom on earth precedes the universal judgment; “for it is just that they should also receive the fruits of their patience in the same creation in which they suffered tribulation”; moreover, the promise made to Abraham that Palestine would be given to him and to his seed, i.e., the Christians, must be fulfilled (V. 32). There they will eat and drink with the Lord in the restored body (V. 33. 1), sitting at a table covered with food (V. 33. 2) and consuming the produce of the land, which the earth affords in miraculous fruitfulness. Here Irenæus appeals to alleged utterances of the Lord of which he had been informed by Papias (V. 33. 3, 4). The wheat will be so fat that lions lying peacefully beside the cattle will be able to feed themselves even on the chaff (V. 33. 3, 4). Such and similar promises are everywhere to be understood in a literal sense. Irenæus here expressly argues against any figurative interpretation (ibid. and V. 35). He therefore adopted the whole Jewish eschatology, the only difference being that he regards the Church as the seed of Abraham. The earthly Kingdom is then followed by the second resurrection, the general judgment, and the final end. There is no need to show in detail that 298chiliasm leads to a peculiar view of history, which is as much opposed to that resulting from the Gnostic theory of redemption, as this doctrine itself forbids the hope of a bliss to be realised in an earthly kingdom of glory. This is not the proper place to demonstrate to what extent the two have been blended, 299and how the chiliastic scheme of history has been emptied of its content and utilised in the service of theological apologetics.
But the Gnostics were not the only opponents of chiliasm. Justin, even in his time, knew orthodox Christians who refused to believe in an earthly kingdom of Christ in Jerusalem, and Irenæus (V. 33 ff.), Tertullian, and Hippolytus626626Hippolytus in the lost book ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως. Perhaps we may also reckon Melito among the literary defenders of Chiliasm. expressly argued against these. Soon after the middle of the second century, we hear of an ecclesiastical party in Asia Minor, which not only repudiated chiliasm, but also rejected the Revelation of John as an untrustworthy book, and subjected it to sharp criticism. These were the so-called Alogi.627627See Epiph., H. 51, who here falls back on Hippolytus. But in the second century such Christians were still in the minority in the Church. It was only in the course of the third century that chiliasm was almost completely ousted in the East. This was the result of the Montanistic controversy and the Alexandrian theology. In the West, however, it was only threatened. In this Church the first literary opponent of chiliasm and of the Apocalypse appears to have been the Roman Presbyter Caius. But his polemic did not prevail. On the other hand the learned bishops of the East in the third century used their utmost efforts to combat and extirpate chiliasm. The information given to us by Eusebius (H. E. VII. 24), from the letters of Dionysius of Alexandria, about that father’s struggles with whole communities in Egypt, who would not give up chiliasm, is of the highest interest. This account shews that wherever philosophical theology had not yet made its way the chiliastic hopes were not only cherished and defended against being explained away, but were emphatically regarded as Christianity itself.628628In the Christian village communities of the district of Arsinoë the people would not part with chiliasm, and matters even went the length of an “apostasy” from the Alexandrian Church. A book by an Egyptian bishop, Nepos, entitled “Refutation of the allegorists” attained the highest repute. “They esteem the law and the prophets as nothing, neglect to follow the Gospels, think little of the Epistles of the Apostles, and on the contrary declare the doctrine set forth in this book to be a really great secret. They do not permit the simpler brethren among us to obtain a sublime and grand idea of the glorious and truly divine appearance of our Lord, of our resurrection from the dead as well as of the union and assimilation with him; but they persuade us to hope for things petty, perishable, and similar to the present in the kingdom of God.” So Dionysius expressed himself, and these words are highly characteristic of his own position and that of his opponents; for in fact the whole New Testament could not but be thrust into the background in cases where the chiliastic hopes were really adhered to. Dionysius asserts that he convinced these Churches by his lectures; but chiliasm and material religious ideas were still long preserved in the deserts of Egypt. They were cherished by the monks; hence Jewish Apocalypses accepted by Christians are preserved in the Coptic and Ethiopian languages. Cultured 300theologians were able to achieve the union of chiliasm and religious philosophy; but the “simplices et idiotæ” could only understand the former. As the chiliastic hopes were gradually obliged to recede in exactly the same proportion as philosophic theology became naturalised, so also their subsidence denotes the progressive tutelage of the laity. The religion they under. stood was taken from them, and they received in return a faith they could not understand; in other words, the old faith and the old hopes decayed of themselves and the authority of a mysterious faith took their place. In this sense the extirpation or decay of chiliasm is perhaps the most momentous fact in the history of Christianity in the East. With chiliasm men also lost the living faith in the nearly impending return of Christ, and the consciousness that the prophetic spirit with its gifts is a real possession of Christendom. Such of the old hopes as remained were at most particoloured harmless fancies which, when allowed by theology, were permitted to be added to dogmatics. In the West, on the contrary, the millennial hopes retained their vigour during the whole third century; we know of no bishop there who would have opposed chiliasm. With this, however, was preserved a portion of the earliest Christianity which was to exercise its effects far beyond the time of Augustine.
Finally, we have still to treat of the altered conceptions regarding the Old Testament which the creation of the New produced among the early-Catholic Fathers. In the case of Barnabas and the Apologists we became acquainted with a theory of the Old Testament which represented it as the Christian 301book of revelation and accordingly subjected it throughout to an allegorical process. Here nothing specifically new could be pointed out as having been brought by Christ. Sharply opposed to this conception was that of Marcion, according to which the whole Old Testament was regarded as the proclamation of a Jewish God hostile to the God of redemption. The views of the majority of the Gnostics occupied a middle position between the two notions. These distinguished different components of the Old Testament, some of which they traced to the supreme God himself and others to intermediate and malevolent beings. In this way they both established a connection between the Old Testament, and the Christian revelation and contrived to show that the latter contained a specific novelty. This historico-critical conception, such as we specially see it in the epistle of Ptolemy to Flora, could not be accepted by the Church because it abolished strict monotheism and endangered the proof from prophecy. No doubt, however, we already find in Justin and others the beginning of a compromise, in so far as a distinction was made between the moral law of nature contained in the Old Testament — the Decalogue — and the ceremonial law; and in so far as the literal interpretation of the latter, for which a pedagogic significance was claimed, was allowed in addition to its typical or Christian sense. With this theory it was possible, on the one hand, to do some sort of justice to the historical position of the Jewish people, and on the other, though indeed in a meagre fashion, to give expression to the novelty of Christianity. The latter now appears as the new law or the law of freedom, in so far as the moral law of nature had been restored in its full purity without the burden of ceremonies, and a particular historical relation to God was allowed to the Jewish nation, though indeed more a wrathful than a covenant one. For the ceremonial regulations were conceived partly as tokens of the judgment on Israel, partly as concessions to the stiffneckedness of the people in order to protect them from the worst evil, polytheism.
Now the struggle with the Gnostics and Marcion, and the creation of a New Testament had necessarily a double consequence. On the one hand, the proposition that the “Father of 302Jesus Christ is the creator of the world and the God of the Old Testament” required the strictest adherence to the unity of the two Testaments, so that the traditional apologetic view of the older book had to undergo the most rigid development; on the other hand, as soon as the New Testament was created, it was impossible to avoid seeing that this book was superior to the earlier one, and thus the theory of the novelty of the Christian doctrine worked out by the Gnostics and Marcion had in some way or other to be set forth and demonstrated. We now see the old Catholic Fathers engaged in the solution of this twofold problem; and their method of accomplishing it has continued to be the prevailing one in all Churches up to the present time, in so far as the ecclesiastical and dogmatic practice still continues to exhibit the inconsistencies of treating the Old Testament as a Christian book in the strict sense of the word and yet elevating the New above it, of giving a typical interpretation to the ceremonial law and yet acknowledging that the Jewish people had a covenant with God.
With regard to the first point, viz., the maintenance of the unity of the two Testaments, Irenæus and Tertullian gave a most detailed demonstration of it in opposition to Marcion,629629See Irenæus lib. IV. and Tertull. adv. Marc. lib. II. and III. and primarily indeed with the same means as the older teachers had already used. It is Christ that prophesied and appeared in the Old Testament; he is the householder who produced both Old and New Testaments.630630It would be superfluous to quote passages here; two may stand for all. Iren. IV. 9. 1: “Utraque testamenta unus et idem paterfamilias produxit, verbum dei, dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui et Abrahæ et Moysi collocutus est.” Both Testaments are “unius et eiusdem substantiæ.” IV. 2. 3: “Moysis literæ sunt verba Christi.” Moreover, as the two have the same origin, their meaning is also the same. Like Barnabas the early-Catholic Fathers contrived to give all passages in the Old Testament a typical Christian sense: it is the same truth which we can learn from the prophets and again from Christ and the Apostles. With regard to the Old Testament the watchword is: “Seek the type” (“Typum quæras”).631631See Iren. IV. 31. 1. But they went 303a step further still. In opposition to Marcion’s antitheses and his demonstration that the God of the Old Testament is a petty being and has enjoined petty, external observances, they seek to show in syntheses that the same may be said of the New. (See Irenæus IV. 21-36). The effort of the older teachers to exclude everything outward and ceremonial is no longer met with to the same extent in Irenæus and Tertullian, at least when they are arguing and defending their position against the Gnostics. This has to be explained by two causes. In the first place Judaism (and Jewish Christianity) was at bottom no longer an enemy to be feared; they therefore ceased to make such efforts to avoid the “Jewish” conception of the Old Testament. Irenæus, for example, emphasised in the most naïve manner the observance of the Old Testament law by the early Apostles and also by Paul. This is to him a complete proof that they did not separate the Old Testament God from the Christian Deity.632632Iren. III. 12. 15 (on Gal. II. 11 f.): Sic apostoli, quos universi actus et universæ doctrinæ dominus testes fecit, religiose agebant circa dispositionem legis, quæ est secundum Moysem, ab uno et eodem significantes esse deo”; see Overbeck “Ueber die Auffassung des Streits des Paulus mit Petrus bei den Kirchenvätern,” 1877, p. 8 f. Similar remarks are frequent in Irenæus. In connection with this we observe that the radical antijudaism of the earliest period more and more ceases. Irenæus and Tertullian admitted that the Jewish nation had a covenant with God and that the literal interpretation of the Old Testament was justifiable. Both repeatedly testified that the Jews had the right doctrine and that they only lacked the knowledge of the Son. These thoughts indeed do not attain clear expression with them because their works contain no systematic discussions involving these principles. In the second place the Church itself had become an institution where sacred ceremonial injunctions were necessary; and, in order to find a basis for these, they had to fall back on Old Testament commandments (see Vol. I., chap. 6, p. 291 ff.). In Tertullian we find this only in its most rudimentary form;633633Cf., e.g., de monog. 7: “Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monogamiæ debitores, ex pristina dei lege, quæ nos tunc in suis sacerdotibus prophetavit.” Here also Tertullian’s Montanism had an effect. Though conceiving the directions of the Paraclete as new legislation, the Montanists would not renounce the view that these laws were in some way already indicated in the written documents of revelation. but in 304the course of the third century these needs grew mightily634634Very much may be made out with regard to this from Origen’s works and the later literature, particularly from Commodian and the Apostolic Constitutions, lib. I.-VI. and were satisfied. In this way the Old Testament threatened to become an authentic book of revelation to the Church, and that in a quite different and much more dangerous sense than was formerly the case with the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists.
With reference to the second point, we may remark that just when the decay of antijudaism, the polemic against Marcion, and the new needs of the ecclesiastical system threatened the Church with an estimate of the Old Testament hitherto unheard of, the latter was nevertheless thrust back by the creation and authority of the New Testament, and this consequently revived the uncertain position in which the sacred book was henceforth to remain. Here also, as in every other case, the development in the Church ends with the complexus oppositorum, which nowhere allows all the conclusions to be drawn, but offers the great advantage of removing every perplexity up to a certain point. The early-Catholic Fathers adopted from Justin the distinction between the Decalogue, as the moral law of nature, and the ceremonial law; whilst the oldest theologians (the Gnostics) and the New Testament suggested to them the thought of the (relative) novelty of Christianity and therefore also of the New Testament. Like Marcion they acknowledged the literal sense of the ceremonial law and God’s covenant with the Jews; and they sought to sum up and harmonise all these features in the thought of an economy of salvation and of a history of salvation. This economy and history of salvation which contained the conception of a divine accommodation and pedagogy, and which accordingly distinguished between constituent parts of different degrees of value (in the Old Testament also), is the great result presented in the main work of Irenæus and accepted by Tertullian. It is to exist beside the proof from prophecy without modifying it;635635Where Christians needed the proof from prophecy or indulged in a devotional application of the Old Testament, everything indeed remained as before, and every Old Testament passage was taken for a Christian one, as has remained the case even to the present day. and thus appears as something intermediate 305between the Valentinian conception that destroyed the unity of origin of the Old Testament and the old idea which neither acknowledged various constituents in the book nor recognised the peculiarities of Christianity. We are therefore justified in regarding this history of salvation approved by the Church, as well as the theological propositions of Irenæus and Tertullian generally, as a Gnosis “toned down” and reconciled with Monotheism. This is shown too in the faint gleam of a historical view that still shines forth from this “history of salvation” as a remnant of that bright light which may be recognised in the Gnostic conception of the Old Testament.636636With the chiliastic view of history this newly acquired theory has nothing in common. Still, it is a striking advance that Irenæus has made beyond Justin and especially beyond Barnabas. No doubt it is mythological history that appears in this history of salvation and the recapitulating story of Jesus with its saving facts that is associated with it; and it is a view that is not even logically worked out, but ever and anon crossed by the proof from prophecy; yet for all that it is development and history.
The fundamental features of Irenæus’ conception are as follow: The Mosaic law and the New Testament dispensation of grace both emanated from one and the same God, and were granted for the salvation of the human race in a form appropriate to the times.637637Iren. III. 12. 11. The two are in part different; but the difference must be conceived as due to causes638638See III. 12. 12. that do not affect the unity of the author and of the main points.639639No commutatio agnitionis takes place, says Irenæus, but only an increased gift (IV. 11. 3); for the knowledge of God the Creator is “principium evangelii.” (III. 11. 7). We must make the nature of God and the nature of man our point of departure. God is always the same, man is ever advancing towards God; God is always the giver, man always the receiver;640640See IV. 11. 2 and other passages, e.g., IV. 20. 7: IV. 26. 1: IV. 37. 7: IV. 38. 1-4. 306God leads us ever to the highest goal; man, however, is not God from the beginning, but is destined to incorruptibility, which he is to attain step by step, advancing from the childhood stage to perfection (see above, p. 267 f.). This progress, conditioned by the nature and destination of man, is, however, dependent on the revelation of God by his Son, culminating in the incarnation of the latter and closing with the subsequent bestowal of the Spirit on the human race. In Irenæus therefore the place of the many different revelation-hypostases of the Valentinians is occupied by the one God, who stoops to the level of developing humanity, accommodates himself to it, guides it, and bestows on it increasing revelations of grace.641641Several covenants I. 10. 3; four covenants (Adam, Noah, Moses, Christ) III. 11. 8; the two Testaments (Law and New Covenant) are very frequently mentioned. The fundamental knowledge of God and the moral law of nature, i.e., natural morality, were already revealed to man and placed in his heart642642This is very frequently mentioned; see e.g., IV. 13. 1: “Et quia dominus naturalia legis, per quæ homo iustificatur, quæ etiam ante legisdationem custodiebant qui fide iustificabantur et placebant deo non dissolvit etc.” IV. 15. 1. by the creator. He who preserves these, as for example the patriarchs did, is justified. (In this case Irenæus leaves Adam’s sin entirely out of sight). But it was God’s will to bring men into a higher union with himself; wherefore his Son descended to men from the beginning and accustomed himself to dwell among them. The patriarchs loved God and refrained from injustice towards their neighbours; hence it was not necessary that they should be exhorted with the strict letter of the law, since they had the righteousness of the law in themselves.643643Irenæus, as a rule, views the patriarchs as perfect saints; see III. 11. 8: “Verbum dei illis quidem qui ante Moysem fuerunt patriarchis secundum divinitatem et gloriam colloquebatur”, and especially IV. 16. 3. As to the Son’s having descended from the beginning and having thus appeared to the patriarchs also, see IV. 6. 7. Not merely Abraham but all the other exponents of revelation knew both the Father and the Son. Nevertheless Christ was also obliged to descend to the lower world to the righteous, the prophets, and the patriarchs, in order to bring them forgiveness of sins (IV. 27. 2). But, as far as the great majority of men are concerned, they wandered away from God and fell into the sorriest condition. From this moment Irenæus, keeping strictly to the Old Testament, only concerns himself with the Jewish people. These 307are to him the representatives of humanity. It is only at this period that the training of the human race is given to them; but it is really the Jewish nation that he keeps in view, and through this he differs very decidedly from such as Barnabas.644644On the contrary he agrees with the teachings of a presbyter, whom he frequently quotes in the 4th Book. To Irenæus the heathen are simply idolaters who have even forgotten the law written in the heart; wherefore the Jews stand much higher, for they only lacked the agnitio filii. See III. 5. 3: III. 10. 3: III. 12. 7 IV. 23, 24. Yet there is still a great want of clearness here. Irenæus cannot get rid of the following contradictions. The pre-Christian righteous know the Son and do not know him; they require the appearance of the Son and do not require it; and the agnitio filii seems sometimes a new, and in fact the decisive, veritas, and sometimes that involved in the knowledge of God the Creator. When righteousness and love to God died out in Egypt, God led his people forth so that man might again become a disciple and imitator of God. He gave him the written law (the Decalogue), which contains nothing else than the moral law of nature that had fallen into oblivion.645645 Irenæus IV. 16. 3. See IV. 15. 1: “Decalogum si quis non fecerit, non habet salutem”. But when they made to themselves a golden calf and chose to be slaves rather than free men, then the Word, through the instrumentality of Moses, gave to them, as a particular addition, the commandments of slavery (the ceremonial law) in a form suitable for their training. These were bodily commandments of bondage which did not separate them from God, but held them in the yoke. The ceremonial law was thus a pedagogic means of preserving the people from idolatry; but it was at the same time a type of the future. Each constituent of the ceremonial law has this double signification, and both of these meanings originate with God, i.e., with Christ; for “how is Christ the end of the law, if he be not the beginning of it?” (“quomodo finis legis Christus, si non et initium eius esset”) IV. 12. 4. Everything in the law is therefore holy, and moreover we are only entitled to blame such portions of the history of the Jewish nation as Holy Scripture itself condemns. This nation was obliged to circumcise itself, keep Sabbaths, offer up sacrifices, and do whatever is related of it, so far as its action is not censured. All this belonged to the state of bondage in which men had a covenant with God and in which they also possessed 308the right faith in the one God and were taught before hand to follow his Son (IV. 12, 5; “lex prædocuit hominem sequi oportere Christum”). In addition to this, Christ continually manifested himself to the people in the prophets, through whom also he indicated the future and prepared men for his appearance. In the prophets the Son of God accustomed men to be instruments of the Spirit of God and to have fellowship with the Father in them; and in them he habituated himself to enter bodily into humanity.646646As the Son has manifested the Father from of old, so also the law, and indeed even the ceremonial law, is to be traced back to him. See IV. 6. 7: IV. 12. 4: IV. 14. 2: “his qui inquieti erant in eremo dans aptissimam legem . . . per omnes transiens verbum omni conditioni congruentem et aptam legem conscribens”. IV. 4. 2. The law is a law of bondage; it was just in that capacity that it was necessary; see IV. 4. 1: IV. 9. 1: IV. 13. 2, 4: IV. 14. 3: IV. 15: IV. 16: IV. 32: IV. 36. A part of the commandments are concessions on account of hardness of heart (IV. 15. 2). But Irenæus still distinguishes very decidedly between the “people” and the prophets. This is a survival of the old view. The prophets he said knew very well of the coming of the Son of God and the granting of a new covenant (IV. 9. 3: IV. 20. 4, 5: IV. 33. 10); they understood what was typified by the ceremonial law, and to them accordingly the law had only a typical signification. Moreover, Christ himself came to them ever and anon through the prophetic spirit. The preparation for the new covenant is therefore found in the prophets and in the typical character of the old. Abraham has this peculiarity, that both Testaments were prefigured in him: the Testament of faith, because he was justified before his circumcision, and the Testament of the law. The latter occupied “the middle times”, and therefore come in between (IV. 25. 1). This is a Pauline thought, though otherwise indeed there is not much in Irenæus to remind us of Paul, because he used the moral categories, growth and training, instead of the religious ones, sin and grace. Hereupon began the last stage, in which men, being now sufficiently trained, were to receive the “testamentum libertatis” and be adopted as Sons of God. By the union of the Son of God with the flesh the agnitio filii first became possible to all; that is the fundamental novelty. The next problem was to restore the law of freedom. Here a threefold process was necessary. In the first place the Law of Moses, the Decalogue, had been disfigured and blunted by the “traditio seniorum”. First of all then the pure moral law had to be restored; secondly, it was now necessary to extend and fulfil it by expressly searching out the inclinations of the heart in all cases, thus unveiling the law in its whole severity; and lastly the particularia legis, i.e., the law of bondage, had to be abolished. But in the latter 309connection Christ and the Apostles themselves avoided every transgression of the ceremonial law, in order to prove that this also had a divine origin. The non-observance of this law was first permitted to the Gentile Christians, Thus, no doubt, Christ himself is the end of the law, but only in so far as he has abolished the law of bondage and restored the moral law in its whole purity and severity, and given us himself.
The question as to the difference between the New Testament and the Old is therefore answered by Irenæus in the following manner. It consists (1) in the agnitio filii and consequent transformation of the slaves into children of God; and (2) in the restoration of the law, which is a law of freedom just because it excludes bodily commandments, and with stricter interpretation lays the whole stress on the inclinations of the heart.647647The law, i.e., the ceremonial law, reaches down to John, IV. 4. 2. The New Testament is a law of freedom, because through it we are adopted as sons of God, III. 5. 3: III. 10. 5: III. 12. 5: III. 12. 14: III. 15. 3: IV. 9. 1, 2: IV. 1. 1: IV. 13. 2, 4: IV. 15. 1, 2: IV. 16. 5: IV. 18: IV. 32: IV. 34. 1: IV. 36. 2 Christ did not abolish the naturalia legis, the Decalogue, but extended and fulfilled them; here the old Gentile-Christian moral conception based on the Sermon on the Mount, prevails. Accordingly Irenæus now shows that in the case of the children of freedom the situation has become much more serious, and that the judgments are now much more threatening. Finally, he proves that the fulfilling, extending, and sharpening of the law form a contrast to the blunting of the natural moral law by the Pharisees and elders; see IV. 12. 1 ff.: “Austero dei præcepto miscent seniores aquatam traditionem”. IV. 13. 1. f.: “Christus naturalia legis (which are summed up in the commandment of love) extendit et implevit . . . plenitudo et extensio . . . necesse fuit, auferri quidem vincula servitutis, superextendi vero decreta libertatis”. That is proved in the next passage from the Sermon on the Mount: we must not only refrain from evil works, but also from evil desire. IV. 16. 5: “Hæc ergo, quæ in servitutem et in signum data sunt illis, circumscripsit novo libertatis testamento. Quæ autem naturalia et liberalia et communia omnium, auxit et dilatavit, sine invidia largiter donans hominibus per adoptionem, patrem scire deum . . . auxit autem etiam timorem: filios enim plus timere oportet quam servos”. IV. 27. 2. The new situation is a more serious one; the Old Testament believers have the death of Christ as an antidote for their sins, “propter eos vero, qui nunc peccant, Christus non iam morietur”. IV. 28. 1 f.: under the old covenant God punished “typice et temporaliter et mediocrius”, under the new, on the contrary, “vere et semper et austerius” . . . as under the new covenant “fides aucta est”, so also it is true that “diligentia conversationis adaucta est”. The imperfections of the law, the “particularia legis”, the law of bondage have been abolished by Christ, see specially IV. 16, 17, for the types are now fulfilled; but Christ and the Apostles did not transgress the law; freedom was first granted to the Gentile Christians (III. 12) and circumcision and foreskin united (III. 5. 3). But Irenæus also proved how little the old and new covenants contradict each other by showing that the latter also contains concessions that have been granted to the frailty of man; see IV. 15. 2 (1 Cor. VII.). But in 310these two respects he finds a real addition, and hence, in his opinion, the Apostles stand higher than the prophets. He proves this higher position of the Apostles by a surprising interpretation of 1 Cor. XII. 28, conceiving the prophets named in that passage to be those of the Old Testament.648648See III. 11. 4. There too we find it argued that John the Baptist was not merely a prophet, but also an Apostle. He therefore views the two Testaments as of the same nature, but “greater is the legislation which confers liberty than that which brings bondage” (“maior est legisdatio quæ in libertatem, quam quæ data est in servitutem”). Through the two covenants the accomplishment of salvation was to be hastened “for there is one salvation and one God; but the precepts that form man are numerous, and the steps that lead man to God are not a few; (“una est enim salus et unus deus; quæ autem formant hominem, præcepta multa et non pauci gradus, qui adducunt hominem ad deum”). A worldly king can increase his benefits to his subjects; and should it not also be lawful for God, though he is always the same, to honour continually with greater gifts those who are well pleasing to him? (IV. 9. 3). Irenæus makes no direct statement as to the further importance which the Jewish people have, and in any case regards them as of no consequence after the appearance of the covenant of freedom. Nor does this nation appear any further even in the chiliastic train of thought. It furnishes the Antichrist and its holy city becomes the capital of Christ’s earthly kingdom; but the nation itself, which, according to this theory, had represented all mankind from Moses to Christ, just as if all men had been Jews, now entirely disappears.649649From Irenæus’ statement in IV. 4 about the significance of the city of Jerusalem we can infer what he thought of the Jewish nation. Jerusalem is to him the vine-branch on which the fruit has grown; the latter having reached maturity, the branch is cut off and has no further importance.
This conception, in spite of its want of stringency, made an immense impression, and has continued to prevail down to the present time. It has, however, been modified by a combination 311with the Augustinian doctrine of sin and grace. It was soon reckoned as Paul’s conception, to which in fact it has a distant relationship. Tertullian had already adopted it in its essential features, amplified it in some points, and, in accordance with his Montanist ideas, enriched it by adding a fourth stage (ab initio — Moses-Christ — Paraclete). But this addition was not accepted by the Church.650650 No special treatment of Tertullian is required here, as he only differs from Irenæus in the additions he invented as a Montanist. Yet this is also prefigured in Irenæus’ view that the concessions of the Apostles had rendered the execution of the stern new law more easy. A few passages may be quoted here. De orat. 1: Quidquid retro fuerat, aut demutatum est (per Christum), ut circumcisio, aut suppletum ut reliqua lex, aut impletum ut prophetia, aut perfectum ut fides ipsa. Omnia de carnalibus in spiritalia renovavit nova dei gratia superducto evangelio, expunctore totius retro vetustatis.” (This differentiation strikingly reminds us of the letter of Ptolemy to Flora. Ptolemy distinguishes those parts of the law that originate with God, Moses, and the elders. As far as the divine law is concerned, he again distinguishes what Christ had to complete, what he had to supersede and what he had to spiritualise, that is, perficere, solvere, demutare). In the regula fidei (de præscr. 13): “Christus prædicavit novam legem et novam promissionem regni cœlorum”; see the discussions in adv. Marc. II., III., and adv. Iud.; de pat. 6: “amplianda adimplendaque lex.” Scorp. 3, 8, 9; ad uxor. 2; de monog. 7: “Et quoniam quidam interdum nihil sibi dicunt esse cum lege, quam Christus non dissolvit, sed adimplevit, interdum quæ volunt legis arripiunt (he himself did that continually), plane et nos sic dicimus legem, ut onera quidem eius, secundum sententiam apostolorum, quæ nec patres sustinere valuerunt, concesserint, quæ vero ad iustitiam spectant, non tantum reservata permaneant, verum et ampliata.” That the new law of the new covenant is the moral law of nature in a stricter form, and that the concessions of the Apostle Paul cease in the age of the Paraclete, is a view we find still more strongly emphasised in the Montanist writings than in Irenæus. In ad uxor. 3 Tertullian had already said: “Quod permittitur, bonum non est,” and this proposition is the theme of many arguments in the Montanist writings. But the intention of finding a basis for the laws of the Paraclete, by showing that they existed in some fashion even in earlier times, involved Tertullian in many contradictions. It is evident from his writings that Montanists and Catholics in Carthage alternately reproached each other with judaising tendencies and an apostasy to heathen discipline and worship. Tertullian, in his enthusiasm for Christianity, came into conflict with all the authorities which he himself had set up. In the questions as to the relationship of the Old Testament to the New, of Christ to the Apostles, of the Apostles to each other, of the Paraclete to Christ and the Apostles, he was also of necessity involved in the greatest contradictions. This was the case not only because he went more into details than Irenæus; but, above all, because the chains into which he had thrown his Christianity were felt to be such by himself. This theologian had no greater opponent than himself, and nowhere perhaps is this so plain as in his attitude to the two Testaments. Here, in every question of detail, Tertullian really repudiated the proposition from which he starts. In reference to one point, namely, that the Law and the prophets extend down to John, see Nöldechen’s article in the Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1885, p. 333 f. On the one hand, in order to support certain trains of thought, Tertullian required the proposition that prophecy extended down to John (see also the Muratorian Fragment: completus numerus prophetarum”, Sibyll. I. 386: καὶ τότε δὴ παῦσις ἔσται μετέπειτα προφητῶν, scil. after Christ), and on the other, as a Montanist, he was obliged to assert the continued existence of prophecy. In like manner he sometimes ascribed to the Apostles a unique possession of the Holy Spirit, and at other times, adhering to a primitive Christian idea, he denied this thesis. Cf. also Barth “Tertullian’s Auffassung des Apostels Paulus und seines Verhältnisses zu den Uraposteln” (Jahrbuch für protestantische Theologie, Vol. III. p. 706 ff.). Tertullian strove to reconcile the principles of early Christianity with the authority of ecclesiastical tradition and philosophical apologetics. Separated from the general body of the Church, and making ever increasing sacrifices for the early-Christian enthusiasm, as he understood it, he wasted himself in the solution of this insoluble problem.

Question: the wicked entered a generic realm of what

Answer: the dead

the wicked entered a generic realm of what

Question: who experienced eternal punishment in dogma

Answer: wicked

who experienced eternal punishment in dogma

Question: who experienced various stages and places of bliss

Answer: the good

who experienced various stages and places of bliss

Question: who suffered a taste of their eternal punishments

Answer: the wicked

who suffered a taste of their eternal punishments

Question: which group experienced various stages and places of bliss

Answer: good

which group experienced various stages and places of bliss

Question: according to adolph harnack, purgatory is also known as what

Answer: bliss

according to adolph harnack, purgatory is also known as what

2, trans.

Neil Buchanan (London: Williams & Norgate, 1905) p. 377.

Neil Buchanan ( London : Williams & Norgate , 1905 ) p. 377 .

|A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z|
Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more all for only $19.99...
Philippians 1:18-20
And therein I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your supplication, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, according to my earnest expectation and hope, that in nothing shall I be put to shame, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether by life, or by death.
None of the grievous things which are in this present life can fix their fangs upon that lofty soul, which is truly philosophic, neither enmity, nor accusations, nor slanders, nor dangers, nor plots. It flies for refuge as it were to a mighty fortress, securely defended there against all that attack it from this lower earth. Such was the soul of Paul; it had taken possession of a place higher than any fortress, the seat of spiritual wisdom, that is, true philosophy. For that of those without, i.e. the heathen, is mere words, and childish toys. But it is not of these we now speak, but at present concerning the things of Paul. That blessed one had both the Emperor for his enemy, and in addition, many other foes many ways afflicting him, even with bitter slander. And what says he? Not only do I not grieve nor sink beneath these things, but
I even rejoice, yea, and will rejoice, not for a season, but always will I rejoice for these things.
For I know that this shall turn out to my salvation, that which is to come, when even their enmity and jealousy towards me further the Gospel.
Through your supplication, he adds,
and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ according to my earnest expectation and hope. Behold the humble-mindedness of this blessed one; he was striving in the contest, he was now close to his crown, he had done ten thousand exploits, for he was Paul, and what can one add to this? Still he writes to the Philippians, I may be saved
through your supplication, I who have gained salvation through countless achievements.
And the supply, says he,
of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. It is as though he said, if I am thought worthy of your prayers, I shall also be thought worthy of more grace. For the meaning of
supply is this, if the Spirit be supplied to me, be given to me more abundantly. Or he is speaking of deliverance,
unto salvation; that is, I shall also escape the present as I did the former danger. Of this same matter he says,
At my first defense no one took my part, but all forsook me; may it not be laid to their account. But the Lord stood by me, and strengthened me. 2 Timothy 4:16 This then he now predicts:
Through your supplication and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, according to my earnest expectation and hope, for thus do I hope. For that he may persuade us not to leave the whole matter to the prayers made for us, and contribute nothing ourselves, behold how he lays down his own part, which is Hope, the source of all good, as the Prophet says.
Let your mercy, O Lord, be upon us, according as we have hoped in You. Psalm 33:22 And as it is written in another place,
Look to the generations of old and see, did any one hope in the Lord, and was made ashamed? Sirach 2:10 And again, this same blessed one says,
Hope puts not to shame. Romans 5:5 This is Paul's hope, the hoping that I shall nowhere be put to shame.
According to my earnest expectation and hope, says he,
that in nothing shall I be put to shame. Do you see how great a thing it is to hope in God? Whatever happens, he says, I shall not be put to shame, i.e. they will not obtain the mastery, over me,
but with all boldness, as always, so now also, Christ shall be magnified in my body. They forsooth expected to catch Paul in this snare, and to quench the preaching of the Gospel, as though their craftiness were of any power. This then, he says, shall not be so, I shall not now die, but
as always, so now also, Christ shall be magnified in my body. How so? Ofttimes have I fallen into dangers, when all men gave us up, and what is more, when I myself did. For
we had the answer of death within ourselves 2 Corinthians 1:9, but from all the Lord delivered me, so now too he shall be magnified in my body. What then? Lest any one should suppose and say, If you die, will He not then be magnified? Yes, he answers, I know He will; for this cause I did not say that my life alone shall magnify him, but my death too. At present he means
by life; they will not destroy me; even did they so, Christ will even thus be magnified. How so? Through life, because He delivered me, but through my death, because even death itself could not persuade me to deny Him, since He gave me such readiness, and made me stronger than death. On the one hand because He freed me from peril; on the other, because He suffered me not to fear the tyranny of death: thus shall he be magnified through life and death. And this he says, not as though he were about to die, but lest on his death they should be affected as men are apt to be.
But that you may know these his words did not point to immediate death, the thought that pained them most, see how he relieves it by almost saying, These things I say, not as one about to die; wherefore he soon after adds,
And having this confidence I know that I shall abide, yea and abide with you all.
In nothing, says he,
shall I be put to shame; that is, death brings no shame to me, but rather great gain. Why so? Because I am not immortal, but I shall shine more brightly than if I were so, for it is not the same thing for one immortal, and for one who is mortal, to despise death; so that not even instant death is shame to me, yet shall I not die;
in nothing shall I be put to shame, neither in life nor death. For I will bear either nobly, whether life or death. Well says he! This is the part of a Christian soul! But he adds,
with all boldness. Do you see how entirely I am freed from shame? For if the fear of death had cut short my boldness, death would have been worthy of shame, but if death at its approach cast no terror on me, no shame is here; but whether it be through life I shall not be put to shame, for I still preach the Preaching, or whether it be through death I shall not be put to shame; fear does not hold me back, since I still exhibit the same boldness. Do not, when I mention my bonds, think shame of the matter; so manifold good has it caused to me, that it has even given confidence to others. For that we should be bound for Christ, is no shame, but for fear of bonds to betray anything that is Christ's, this is shame. When there is no such thing, bonds are even a cause of boldness. But since I have ofttimes escaped dangers, and have this to boast of to the unbelievers, do not straightway think I am put to shame, if now it should turn out otherwise. The one event no less than the other gives you boldness. Note how he brings this forward in his own person, which he does in many places, as in the Epistle to the Romans;
For I am not ashamed of the Gospel. Romans 1:16 And again in that to the Corinthians;
And these things I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos. 1 Corinthians 4:6—
Whether by life or by death: this he says not as in ignorance, (for he knew that he was not then to die, but some time after); yet even now does he prepare their soul.
Ver. 21.
For to me, he says,
to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
For even in dying, he means, I shall not have died, for I have my life in myself: then would they truly have slain me, had they had power through this fear to cast faith out of my soul. But as long as Christ is with me, even though death overtake me, still I live, and in this present life, not this, but Christ is my life. Since, then, not even in the present life is it so,
but that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith; so I say in that state also,
I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me. Galatians 2:20 Such ought a Christian to be! I live not, he says, the common life. How do you live then, O blessed Paul? Do you not see the sun, do you not breathe the common air? Are you not nourished with the same food as others? Do you not tread the earth as we? Do you not need sleep, nor clothing, nor shoes? What do you mean by,
I live not? How do you not live? Why boastest you yourself? No boasting is here. For if indeed the fact did not witness to him, a man might with some show have called it boasting; but if facts do witness, how is boasting here? Let us then learn how he lives not, for he himself says in another place,
I have been crucified to the world, and the world to me. Galatians 6:14 Hear then how he says,
I no longer live. And how he says,
to me to live is Christ. The word
life is much significant, beloved, as also the word
death. There is this life of the body, there is the life of sin, as he himself elsewhere says,
But if we died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein? Romans 6:2 It is then possible to live the life of sin. Attend diligently, I entreat you, lest my labor be vain. There is the life everlasting and immortal; with eternal life the heavenly;
for our citizenship, says he,
is in heaven Philippians 3:20 There is the life of the body whereof he speaks,
through him we live and move and have our being. Acts 17:28 He does not then deny that he lives the natural life, but that of sin, which all men live. He who desires not the present life, how does he live it? He who is hastening to another, how does he live this life? He who despises death, how does he live this life? He who desires nothing, how does he live it? For as one made of adamant, though he were struck a thousand blows, would never attend to it, no more would Paul. And
I live, says he,
but no longer I, that is, no longer the old man; as again elsewhere,
Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me out of the body of this death! Romans 7:24 How too does he live who does nought for the sake of food, nought for the sake of clothing, nought for any of these present things? Such an one does not even live the natural life: he who takes thought for none of the things which sustain life, lives not. We live this life, whose every action regards it. But he lived not; he busied himself about nought of the things here. How then lived he? Just as we are accustomed to say, in common matters, such an one is not with me, when he does nothing that pertains to me. Again, in like sort, such a man lives not for me. Elsewhere he shows that he rejects not the natural life:
The life which I now live in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me Galatians 2:20; i.e. a certain new life I live, an altered one. And truly all these things he said to comfort the Philippians. Think not, says he, that I shall be deprived of this life, for neither while alive did I live this life, but that which Christ willed. For tell me? He who despises money, luxury, hunger, thirst, dangers, health, safety, does he live this life? He who has nothing here, and is ofttimes willing to cast life away, if need be, and clings not to it, does he live this life? By no means. This I must make clear to you by a kind of example. Let us imagine some one in great wealth, with many servants, and much gold, and who makes no use of all these things; is such an one rich for all his wealth? By no means. Let him see his children dissipating his property, strolling idly about; let him feel no concern for them; when beaten let him not even be pained; shall we call him a man of wealth? By no means; although his wealth is his own.
To me, he says,
to live is Christ; if you will enquire of my life, it is He.
And to die is gain. Wherefore? Because I shall more clearly be present with Him; so that my death is rather a coming to life; they who kill me will work on me no dreadful thing, they will only send me onward to my proper life, and free me from that which is not mine. What then, while thou were here, were thou not Christ's? Yes, and in a high degree.
Ver. 22.
But if to live in the flesh — if this is the fruit of my work, then what I shall choose I know not.
Lest any should say, If what you say is life, wherefore has Christ left you here?
It is, he says,
the fruit of my work; so that it is possible to use to good purpose the present life, while not living it. Lest you should think that reproach is cast upon life. For if we gain no advantage here, wherefore do we not make away with ourselves, nor slay ourselves? By no means, he answers. It is open to us to profit even here, if we live not this, but another life. But perchance one will say, does this bear you fruit? Yes! He answers. Where are now the heretics? Behold now;
to live in the flesh, this is
the fruit of his work.
That which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith; therefore it is
the fruit of my work.
And what I shall choose I know not. Marvelous! How great was his philosophy! How has he both cast out the desire of the present life, and yet thrown no reproach upon it! For in that he says,
to die is gain, by this he has cast out the desire, but in that he says,
to live in the flesh is the fruit of my work, here he shows that the present life also is needful, if we use it as need is, if we bear fruit; since if it be unfruitful, it is no longer life. For we despise those trees which bear no fruit, as though they were dry, and give them up to the fire. Life itself belongs to that middle class of indifferent things, while to live well or ill is in ourselves. We do not then hate life, for we may live well too. So even if we use it ill, we do not even then cast the blame on it. And wherefore? Because not itself, but the free choice of those who use it ill is to blame. For God has made you live, that you may live to Him. But you, by living through corruption unto sin, makest yourself accountable for all blame. What do you say, tell me. You know not what to choose? Here has he revealed a great mystery, in that his departure was in his own power; for where choice is, there have we power.
What I shall choose, says he,
I know not. Is it in your own power? Yes, he answers, if I would ask this grace of God.
Ver. 23.
I am in a strait between the two, having the desire.
See the affection of this blessed one; in this way too he comforts them, when they see that he is master of his own choice, and that this is done not by man's sin, but by the dispensation of God. Why mourn ye, says he, at my death? It had been far better to have passed away long since.
For to depart, he says,
and to be with Christ, is very far better.
Ver. 24.
Yet to abide in the flesh is more needful for your sake.
These words were to prepare them for his death when it came, that they might bear it nobly: this was to teach true wisdom.
It is good for me to depart and be with Christ, for even death is a thing indifferent; since death itself is no ill, but to be punished after death is an ill. Nor is death a good, but it is good after our departure
to be with Christ. What follows death is either good or ill.
Let us then not simply grieve for the dead, nor joy for the living simply. But how? Let us grieve for sinners, not only when dying, but also while living. Let us joy for the just, not only while living, but also when dead. For those though living are dead, while these although dead, yet live: those even while here are to be pitied of all, because they are at enmity with God; the other even when they have departed Thither, are blessed, because they are gone to Christ. Sinners, wherever they are, are far from the King. Therefore they are subjects for tears; while the just, be they here, or be they there, are with the King; and there, in a higher and nearer degree, not through an entrance, or by faith, but
face to face. 1 Corinthians 13:12
Let us then not make wailings for the dead simply, but for those who have died in sins. They deserve wailing; they deserve beating of the breast and tears. For tell me what hope is there, when our sins accompany us Thither, where there is no putting off sins? As long as they were here, perchance there was great expectation that they would change, that they would become better; but when they are gone to Hades, where nought can be gained from repentance (for it is written,
In Sheol who shall give you thanks?) Psalm 6:5, are they not worthy of our lamentation? Let us wail for those who depart hence in such sort; let us wail, I hinder you not; yet in no unseemly way, not in tearing our hair, or baring our arms, or lacerating our face, or wearing black apparel, but only in soul, shedding in quiet the bitter tear. For we may weep bitterly without all that display. And not as in sport only. For the laments which many make differ not from sport. Those public mournings do not proceed from sympathy, but from display, from emulation and vainglory. Many women do this as of their craft. Weep bitterly; moan at home, when no one sees you; this is the part of true sympathy; by this you profit yourself too. For he who laments another in such sort, will be much the more earnest never to fall into the same sins. Sin henceforth will be an object of dread to you. Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal! They indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for,
Verily I say unto you, Unless a man be born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven. Mourn for those who have died in wealth, and did not from their wealth think of any solace for their soul, who had power to wash away their sins and would not. Let us all weep for these in private and in public, but with propriety, with gravity, not so as to make exhibitions of ourselves; let us weep for these, not one day, or two, but all our life. Such tears spring not from senseless passion, but from true affection. The other sort are of senseless passion. For this cause they are quickly quenched, whereas if they spring from the fear of God, they always abide with us. Let us weep for these; let us assist them according to our power; let us think of some assistance for them, small though it be, yet still let us assist them. How and in what way? By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf. This deed has some consolation; for hear the words of God Himself, when He says,
I will defend this city for My own sake, and for My servant David's sake. 2 Kings 20:6 If the remembrance only of a just man had so great power when deeds are done for one, how great power will it not have? Not in vain did the Apostles order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the dreadful Mysteries. They know that great gain results to them, great benefit; for when the whole people stands with uplifted hands, a priestly assembly, and that awful Sacrifice lies displayed, how shall we not prevail with God by our entreaties for them? And this we do for those who have departed in faith, while the catechumens are not thought worthy even of this consolation, but are deprived of all means of help save one. And what is this? We may give to the poor on their behalf. This deed in a certain way refreshes them. For God wills that we should be mutually assisted; else why has He ordered us to pray for peace and the good estate of the world? Why on behalf of all men? Since in this number are included robbers, violaters of tombs, thieves, men laden with untold crimes; and yet we pray on behalf of all; perchance they may turn. As then we pray for those living, who differ not from the dead, so too we may pray for them. Job offered sacrifice for his children, and freed them from their sins.
It may be, said he,
that they have renounced God in their hearts. Job 1:5 Thus does one provide for one's children! He said not, as many do nowadays, I will leave them property; he said not, I will procure them honor; he said not, I will purchase an office; he said not, I will buy them land; but,
it may be that they have renounced God in their hearts. For what profit is there in those things? None at all, in those that remain here. I will make the King of all things favorable to them, and then they will no more want anything.
The Lord, says one,
is my Shepherd, I shall not want. Psalm 23:4 This is great wealth, this is treasure. If we have the fear of God, we want nothing; if we have not this, though we have royalty itself, we are the poorest of all men. Nothing is like the man that fears the Lord. For
the fear of the Lord, it is said,
surpasses all things. Sirach 25:11 This let us procure; let us do all things for its sake. If need be that we lay down our lives, if our body must be mangled, let us not spare them; let us do all, to obtain this fear. For thus shall we abound above all men; and shall obtain those good things to come in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom, etc.
Source. Translated by John A. Broadus. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 13. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230203.htm>.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732 at newadvent.org. (To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.
CONTACT US | ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT

Question: who is the author of the book 2, trans

Answer: Neil Buchanan

Question: when was neil buchanan published

Answer: 1905

Question: where did neil buchanan work

Answer: Williams & Norgate

Question: how many trans fats did neil buchanan produce

Answer: 377

how many trans fats did neil buchanan produce

Question: where was neil buchanan published

Answer: London: Williams & Norgate

Question: what is the title of neil buchanan's book

Answer: p. 377

what is the title of neil buchanan's book

p. 27.

"Christian Dogmatics vol.

Irenaeus ( c. 130 - 202 ) mentioned an abode where the souls of the dead remained until the universal judgment , a process that has been described as one which " contains the concept of ... purgatory .

|A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z|
Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more all for only $19.99...
Of the end reserved for the city of the devil, namely, the eternal punishment of the damned; and of the arguments which unbelief brings against it.
I Propose, with such ability as God may grant me, to discuss in this book more thoroughly the nature of the punishment which shall be assigned to the devil and all his retainers, when the two cities, the one of God, the other of the devil, shall have reached their proper ends through Jesus Christ our Lord, the Judge of quick and dead. And I have adopted this order, and preferred to speak, first of the punishment of the devils, and afterwards of the blessedness of the saints, because the body partakes of either destiny; and it seems to be more incredible that bodies endure in everlasting torments than that they continue to exist without any pain in everlasting felicity. Consequently, when I shall have demonstrated that that punishment ought not to be incredible, this will materially aid me in proving that which is much more credible, viz., the immortality of the bodies of the saints which are delivered from all pain. Neither is this order out of harmony with the divine writings, in which sometimes, indeed, the blessedness of the good is placed first, as in the words,
They that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment; John 5:29 but sometimes also last, as,
The Son of man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things which offend, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth, Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of His Father; Matthew 13:41-43 and that,
These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. Matthew 25:46 And though we have not room to cite instances, any one who examines the prophets will find that they adopt now the one arrangement and now the other. My own reason for following the latter order I have given.
What, then, can I adduce to convince those who refuse to believe that human bodies, animated and living, can not only survive death, but also last in the torments of everlasting fires? They will not allow us to refer this simply to the power of the Almighty, but demand that we persuade them by some example. If, then, we reply to them, that there are animals which certainly are corruptible, because they are mortal, and which yet live in the midst of flames; and likewise, that in springs of water so hot that no one can put his hand in it with impunity a species of worm is found, which not only lives there, but cannot live elsewhere; they either refuse to believe these facts unless we can show them, or, if we are in circumstances to prove them by ocular demonstration or by adequate testimony, they contend, with the same scepticism, that these facts are not examples of what we seek to prove, inasmuch as these animals do not live for ever, and besides, they live in that blaze of heat without pain, the element of fire being congenial to their nature, and causing it to thrive and not to suffer — just as if it were not more incredible that it should thrive than that it should suffer in such circumstances. It is strange that anything should suffer in fire and yet live, but stranger that it should live in fire and not suffer. If, then, the latter be believed, why not also the former?
But, say they, there is no body which can suffer and cannot also die. How do we know this? For who can say with certainty that the devils do not suffer in their bodies, when they own that they are grievously tormented? And if it is replied that there is no earthly body — that is to say, no solid and perceptible body, or, in one word, no flesh — which can suffer and cannot die, is not this to tell us only what men have gathered from experience and their bodily senses? For they indeed have no acquaintance with any flesh but that which is mortal; and this is their whole argument, that what they have had no experience of they judge quite impossible. For we cannot call it reasoning to make pain a presumption of death, while, in fact, it is rather a sign of life. For though it be a question whether that which suffers can continue to live for ever, yet it is certain that everything which suffers pain does live, and that pain can exist only in a living subject. It is necessary, therefore, that he who is pained be living, not necessary that pain kill him; for every pain does not kill even those mortal bodies of ours which are destined to die. And that any pain kills them is caused by the circumstance that the soul is so connected with the body that it succumbs to great pain and withdraws; for the structure of our members and vital parts is so infirm that it cannot bear up against that violence which causes great or extreme agony. But in the life to come this connection of soul and body is of such a kind, that as it is dissolved by no lapse of time, so neither is it burst asunder by any pain. And so, although it be true that in this world there is no flesh which can suffer pain and yet cannot die, yet in the world to come there shall be flesh such as now there is not, as there will also be death such as now there is not. For death will not be abolished, but will be eternal, since the soul will neither be able to enjoy God and live, nor to die and escape the pains of the body. The first death drives the soul from the body against her will: the second death holds the soul in the body against her will. The two have this in common, that the soul suffers against her will what her own body inflicts.
Our opponents, too, make much of this, that in this world there is no flesh which can suffer pain and cannot die; while they make nothing of the fact that there is something which is greater than the body. For the spirit, whose presence animates and rules the body, can both suffer pain and cannot die. Here then is something which, though it can feel pain, is immortal. And this capacity, which we now see in the spirit of all, shall be hereafter in the bodies of the damned. Moreover, if we attend to the matter a little more closely, we see that what is called bodily pain is rather to be referred to the soul. For it is the soul not the body, which is pained, even when the pain originates with the body — the soul feeling pain at the point where the body is hurt. As then we speak of bodies feeling and living, though the feeling and life of the body are from the soul, so also we speak of bodies being pained, though no pain can be suffered by the body apart from the soul. The soul, then, is pained with the body in that part where something occurs to hurt it; and it is pained alone, though it be in the body, when some invisible cause distresses it, while the body is safe and sound. Even when not associated with the body it is pained; for certainly that rich man was suffering in hell when he cried,
I am tormented in this flame. Luke 16:24 But as for the body, it suffers no pain when it is soulless; and even when animate it can suffer only by the soul's suffering. If, therefore, we might draw a just presumption from the existence of pain to that of death, and conclude that where pain can be felt death can occur, death would rather be the property of the soul, for to it pain more peculiarly belongs. But, seeing that that which suffers most cannot die, what ground is there for supposing that those bodies, because destined to suffer, are therefore, destined to die? The Platonists indeed maintained that these earthly bodies and dying members gave rise to the fears, desires, griefs, and joys of the soul.
Hence, says Virgil (i.e., from these earthly bodies and dying members),
Hence wild desires and grovelling fears,
And human laughter, human tears.
But in the fourteenth book of this work we have proved that, according to the Platonists' own theory, souls, even when purged from all pollution of the body, are yet possessed by a monstrous desire to return again into their bodies. But where desire can exist, certainly pain also can exist; for desire frustrated, either by missing what it aims at or losing what it had attained, is turned into pain. And therefore, if the soul, which is either the only or the chief sufferer, has yet a kind of immortality of its own, it is inconsequent to say that because the bodies of the damned shall suffer pain, therefore they shall die. In fine, if the body causes the soul to suffer, why can the body not cause death as well as suffering, unless because it does not follow that what causes pain causes death as well? And why then is it incredible that these fires can cause pain but not death to those bodies we speak of, just as the bodies themselves cause pain, but not therefore death, to the souls? Pain is therefore no necessary presumption of death.
If, therefore, the salamander lives in fire, as naturalists have recorded, and if certain famous mountains of Sicily have been continually on fire from the remotest antiquity until now, and yet remain entire, these are sufficiently convincing examples that everything which burns is not consumed. As the soul too, is a proof that not everything which can suffer pain can also die, why then do they yet demand that we produce real examples to prove that it is not incredible that the bodies of men condemned to everlasting punishment may retain their soul in the fire, may burn without being consumed, and may suffer without perishing? For suitable properties will be communicated to the substance of the flesh by Him who has endowed the things we see with so marvellous and diverse properties, that their very multitude prevents our wonder. For who but God the Creator of all things has given to the flesh of the peacock its antiseptic property? This property, when I first heard of it, seemed to me incredible; but it happened at Carthage that a bird of this kind was cooked and served up to me, and, taking a suitable slice of flesh from its breast, I ordered it to be kept, and when it had been kept as many days as make any other flesh stinking, it was produced and set before me, and emitted no offensive smell. And after it had been laid by for thirty days and more, it was still in the same state; and a year after, the same still, except that it was a little more shrivelled, and drier. Who gave to chaff such power to freeze that it preserves snow buried under it, and such power to warm that it ripens green fruit?
But who can explain the strange properties of fire itself, which blackens everything it burns, though itself bright; and which, though of the most beautiful colors, discolors almost all it touches and feeds upon, and turns blazing fuel into grimy cinders? Still this is not laid down as an absolutely uniform law; for, on the contrary, stones baked in glowing fire themselves also glow, and though the fire be rather of a red hue, and they white, yet white is congruous with light, and black with darkness. Thus, though the fire burns the wood in calcining the stones, these contrary effects do not result from the contrariety of the materials. For though wood and stone differ, they are not contraries, like black and white, the one of which colors is produced in the stones, while the other is produced in the wood by the same action of fire, which imparts its own brightness to the former, while it begrimes the latter, and which could have no effect on the one were it not fed by the other. Then what wonderful properties do we find in charcoal, which is so brittle that a light tap breaks it and a slight pressure pulverizes it, and yet is so strong that no moisture rots it, nor any time causes it to decay. So enduring is it, that it is customary in laying down landmarks to put charcoal underneath them, so that if, after the longest interval, any one raises an action, and pleads that there is no boundary stone, he may be convicted by the charcoal below. What then has enabled it to last so long without rotting, though buried in the damp earth in which [its original] wood rots, except this same fire which consumes all things?
Again, let us consider the wonders of lime; for besides growing white in fire, which makes other things black, and of which I have already said enough, it has also a mysterious property of conceiving fire within it. Itself cold to the touch, it yet has a hidden store of fire, which is not at once apparent to our senses, but which experience teaches us, lies as it were slumbering within it even while unseen. And it is for this reason called
quick lime, as if the fire were the invisible soul quickening the visible substance or body. But the marvellous thing is, that this fire is kindled when it is extinguished. For to disengage the hidden fire the lime is moistened or drenched with water, and then, though it be cold before, it becomes hot by that very application which cools what is hot. As if the fire were departing from the lime and breathing its last, it no longer lies hid, but appears; and then the lime lying in the coldness of death cannot be requickened, and what we before called
quick, we now call
slaked. What can be stranger than this? Yet there is a greater marvel still. For if you treat the lime, not with water, but with oil, which is as fuel to fire, no amount of oil will heat it. Now if this marvel had been told us of some Indian mineral which we had no opportunity of experimenting upon, we should either have immediately pronounced it a falsehood, or certainly should have been greatly astonished. But things that daily present themselves to our own observation we despise, not because they are really less marvellous, but because they are common; so that even some products of India itself, remote as it is from ourselves, cease to excite our admiration as soon as we can admire them at our leisure.
The diamond is a stone possessed by many among ourselves, especially by jewellers and lapidaries, and the stone is so hard that it can be wrought neither by iron nor fire, nor, they say, by anything at all except goat's blood. But do you suppose it is as much admired by those who own it and are familiar with its properties as by those to whom it is shown for the first time? Persons who have not seen it perhaps do not believe what is said of it, or if they do, they wonder as at a thing beyond their experience; and if they happen to see it, still they marvel because they are unused to it, but gradually familiar experience [of it] dulls their admiration. We know that the loadstone has a wonderful power of attracting iron. When I first saw it I was thunderstruck, for I saw an iron ring attracted and suspended by the stone; and then, as if it had communicated its own property to the iron it attracted, and had made it a substance like itself, this ring was put near another, and lifted it up; and as the first ring clung to the magnet, so did the second ring to the first. A third and a fourth were similarly added, so that there hung from the stone a kind of chain of rings, with their hoops connected, not interlinking, but attached together by their outer surface. Who would not be amazed at this virtue of the stone, subsisting as it does not only in itself, but transmitted through so many suspended rings, and binding them together by invisible links? Yet far more astonishing is what I heard about this stone from my brother in the episcopate, Severus bishop of Milevis. He told me that Bathanarius, once count of Africa, when the bishop was dining with him, produced a magnet, and held it under a silver plate on which he placed a bit of iron; then as he moved his hand with the magnet underneath the plate, the iron upon the plate moved about accordingly. The intervening silver was not affected at all, but precisely as the magnet was moved backwards and forwards below it, no matter how quickly, so was the iron attracted above. I have related what I myself have witnessed; I have related what I was told by one whom I trust as I trust my own eyes. Let me further say what I have read about this magnet. When a diamond is laid near it, it does not lift iron; or if it has already lifted it, as soon as the diamond approaches, it drops it. These stones come from India. But if we cease to admire them because they are now familiar, how much less must they admire them who procure them very easily and send them to us? Perhaps they are held as cheap as we hold lime, which, because it is common, we think nothing of, though it has the strange property of burning when water, which is wont to quench fire, is poured on it, and of remaining cool when mixed with oil, which ordinarily feeds fire.
Nevertheless, when we declare the miracles which God has wrought, or will yet work, and which we cannot bring under the very eyes of men, sceptics keep demanding that we shall explain these marvels to reason. And because we cannot do so, inasmuch as they are above human comprehension, they suppose we are speaking falsely. These persons themselves, therefore, ought to account for all these marvels which we either can or do see. And if they perceive that this is impossible for man to do, they should acknowledge that it cannot be concluded that a thing has not been or shall not be because it cannot be reconciled to reason, since there are things now in existence of which the same is true. I will not, then, detail the multitude of marvels which are related in books, and which refer not to things that happened once and passed away, but that are permanent in certain places, where, if any one has the desire and opportunity, he may ascertain their truth; but a few only I recount. The following are some of the marvels men tell us:— The salt of Agrigento in Sicily, when thrown into the fire, becomes fluid as if it were in water, but in the water it crackles as if it were in the fire. The Garamantæ have a fountain so cold by day that no one can drink it, so hot by night no one can touch it. In Epirus, too, there is a fountain which, like all others, quenches lighted torches, but, unlike all others, lights quenched torches. There is a stone found in Arcadia, and called asbestos, because once lit it cannot be put out. The wood of a certain kind of Egyptian fig-tree sinks in water, and does not float like other wood; and, stranger still, when it has been sunk to the bottom for some time, it rises again to the surface, though nature requires that when soaked in water it should be heavier than ever. Then there are the apples of Sodom which grow indeed to an appearance of ripeness, but, when you touch them with hand or tooth, the peal cracks, and they crumble into dust and ashes. The Persian stone pyrites burns the hand when it is tightly held in it and so gets its name from fire. In Persia too, there is found another stone called selenite, because its interior brilliancy waxes and wanes with the moon. Then in Cappadocia the mares are impregnated by the wind, and their foals live only three years. Tilon, an Indian island, has this advantage over all other lands, that no tree which grows in it ever loses its foliage.
These and numberless other marvels recorded in the history, not of past events, but of permanent localities, I have no time to enlarge upon and diverge from my main object; but let those sceptics who refuse to credit the divine writings give me, if they can, a rational account of them. For their only ground of unbelief in the Scriptures is, that they contain incredible things, just such as I have been recounting. For, say they, reason cannot admit that flesh burn and remain unconsumed, suffer without dying. Mighty reasoners, indeed, who are competent to give the reason of all the marvels that exist! Let them then give us the reason of the few things we have cited, and which, if they did not know they existed, and were only assured by us they would at some future time occur, they would believe still less than that which they now refuse to credit on our word. For which of them would believe us if, instead of saying that the living bodies of men hereafter will be such as to endure everlasting pain and fire without ever dying, we were to say that in the world to come there will be salt which becomes liquid in fire as if it were in water, and crackles in water as if it were in fire; or that there will be a fountain whose water in the chill air of night is so hot that it cannot be touched, while in the heat of day it is so cold that it cannot be drunk; or that there will be a stone which by its own heat burns the hand when tightly held, or a stone which cannot be extinguished if it has been lit in any part; or any of those wonders I have cited, while omitting numberless others? If we were to say that these things would be found in the world to come, and our sceptics were to reply,
If you wish us to believe these things, satisfy our reason about each of them, we should confess that we could not, because the frail comprehension of man cannot master these and such-like wonders of God's working; and that yet our reason was thoroughly convinced that the Almighty does nothing without reason, though the frail mind of man cannot explain the reason; and that while we are in many instances uncertain what He intends, yet that it is always most certain that nothing which He intends is impossible to Him; and that when He declares His mind, we believe Him whom we cannot believe to be either powerless or false. Nevertheless these cavillers at faith and exactors of reason, how do they dispose of those things of which a reason cannot be given, and which yet exist, though in apparent contrariety to the nature of things? If we had announced that these things were to be, these sceptics would have demanded from us the reason of them, as they do in the case of those things which we are announcing as destined to be. And consequently, as these present marvels are not non-existent, though human reason and discourse are lost in such works of God, so those things we speak of are not impossible because inexplicable; for in this particular they are in the same predicament as the marvels of earth.
At this point they will perhaps reply,
These things have no existence; we don't believe one of them; they are travellers' tales and fictitious romances; and they may add what has the appearance of argument, and say,
If you believe such things as these, believe what is recorded in the same books, that there was or is a temple of Venus in which a candelabrum set in the open air holds a lamp, which burns so strongly that no storm or rain extinguishes it, and which is therefore called, like the stone mentioned above, the asbestos or inextinguishable lamp. They may say this with the intention of putting us into a dilemma: for if we say this is incredible, then we shall impugn the truth of the other recorded marvels; if, on the other hand, we admit that this is credible, we shall avouch the pagan deities. But, as I have already said in the eighteenth book of this work, we do not hold it necessary to believe all that profane history contains, since, as Varro says, even historians themselves disagree on so many points, that one would think they intended and were at pains to do so; but we believe, if we are disposed, those things which are not contradicted by these books, which we do not hesitate to say we are bound to believe. But as to those permanent miracles of nature, whereby we wish to persuade the sceptical of the miracles of the world to come, those are quite sufficient for our purpose which we ourselves can observe or of which it is not difficult to find trustworthy witnesses. Moreover, that temple of Venus, with its inextinguishable lamp, so far from hemming us into a corner, opens an advantageous field to our argument. For to this inextinguishable lamp we add a host of marvels wrought by men, or by magic — that is, by men under the influence of devils, or by the devils directly — for such marvels we cannot deny without impugning the truth of the sacred Scriptures we believe. That lamp, therefore, was either by some mechanical and human device fitted with asbestos, or it was arranged by magical art in order that the worshippers might be astonished, or some devil under the name of Venus so signally manifested himself that this prodigy both began and became permanent. Now devils are attracted to dwell in certain temples by means of the creatures (God's creatures, not theirs), who present to them what suits their various tastes. They are attracted not by food like animals, but, like spirits, by such symbols as suit their taste, various kinds of stones, woods, plants, animals, songs, rites. And that men may provide these attractions, the devils first of all cunningly seduce them, either by imbuing their hearts with a secret poison, or by revealing themselves under a friendly guise, and thus make a few of them their disciples, who become the instructors of the multitude. For unless they first instructed men, it were impossible to know what each of them desires, what they shrink from, by what name they should be invoked or constrained to be present. Hence the origin of magic and magicians. But, above all, they possess the hearts of men, and are chiefly proud of this possession when they transform themselves into angels of light. Very many things that occur, therefore, are their doing; and these deeds of theirs we ought all the more carefully to shun as we acknowledge them to be very surprising. And yet these very deeds forward my present arguments. For if such marvels are wrought by unclean devils, how much mightier are the holy angels! And what can not that God do who made the angels themselves capable of working miracles!
If, then, very many effects can be contrived by human art, of so surprising a kind that the uninitiated think them divine, as when, e.g., in a certain temple two magnets have been adjusted, one in the roof, another in the floor, so that an iron image is suspended in mid-air between them, one would suppose by the power of the divinity, were he ignorant of the magnets above and beneath; or, as in the case of that lamp of Venus which we already mentioned as being a skillful adaptation of asbestos; if, again, by the help of magicians, whom Scripture calls sorcerers and enchanters, the devils could gain such power that the noble poet Virgil should consider himself justified in describing a very powerful magician in these lines:
Her charms can cure what souls she please,
Rob other hearts of healthful ease,
Turn rivers backward to their source,
And make the stars forget their course,
And call up ghosts from night:
The ground shall bellow 'neath your feet:
The mountain-ash shall quit its seat,
And travel down the height; —
if this be so, how much more able is God to do those things which to sceptics are incredible, but to His power easy, since it is He who has given to stones and all other things their virtue, and to men their skill to use them in wonderful ways; He who has given to the angels a nature more mighty than that of all that lives on earth; He whose power surpasses all marvels, and whose wisdom in working, ordaining, and permitting is no less marvellous in its governance of all things than in its creation of all!
Why, then, cannot God effect both that the bodies of the dead shall rise, and that the bodies of the damned shall be tormented in everlasting fire —God, who made the world full of countless miracles in sky, earth, air, and waters, while itself is a miracle unquestionably greater and more admirable than all the marvels it is filled with? But those with whom or against whom we are arguing, who believe both that there is a God who made the world, and that there are gods created by Him who administer the world's laws as His viceregents — our adversaries, I say, who, so far from denying emphatically, assert that there are powers in the world which effect marvellous results (whether of their own accord, or because they are invoked by some rite or prayer, or in some magical way), when we lay before them the wonderful properties of other things which are neither rational animals nor rational spirits, but such material objects as those we have just cited, are in the habit of replying, This is their natural property, their nature; these are the powers naturally belonging to them. Thus the whole reason why Agrigentine salt dissolves in fire and crackles in water is that this is its nature. Yet this seems rather contrary to nature, which has given not to fire but to water the power of melting salt, and the power of scorching it not to water but to fire. But this they say, is the natural property of this salt, to show effects contrary to these. The same reason, therefore, is assigned to account for that Garamantian fountain, of which one and the same runlet is chill by day and boiling by night, so that in either extreme it cannot be touched. So also of that other fountain which, though it is cold to the touch, and though it, like other fountains, extinguishes a lighted torch, yet, unlike other fountains, and in a surprising manner, kindles an extinguished torch. So of the asbestos stone, which, though it has no heat of its own, yet when kindled by fire applied to it, cannot be extinguished. And so of the rest, which I am weary of reciting, and in which, though there seems to be an extraordinary property contrary to nature, yet no other reason is given for them than this, that this is their nature, — a brief reason truly, and, I own, a satisfactory reply. But since God is the author of all natures, how is it that our adversaries, when they refuse to believe what we affirm, on the ground that it is impossible, are unwilling to accept from us a better explanation than their own, viz., that this is the will of Almighty God — for certainly He is called Almighty only because He is mighty to do all He will — He who was able to create so many marvels, not only unknown, but very well ascertained, as I have been showing, and which, were they not under our own observation, or reported by recent and credible witnesses, would certainly be pronounced impossible? For as for those marvels which have no other testimony than the writers in whose books we read them, and who wrote without being divinely instructed, and are therefore liable to human error, we cannot justly blame any one who declines to believe them.
For my own part, I do not wish all the marvels I have cited to be rashly accepted, for I do not myself believe them implicitly, save those which have either come under my own observation, or which any one can readily verify, such as the lime which is heated by water and cooled by oil; the magnet which by its mysterious and insensible suction attracts the iron, but has no affect on a straw; the peacock's flesh which triumphs over the corruption from which not the flesh of Plato is exempt; the chaff so chilling that it prevents snow from melting, so heating that it forces apples to ripen; the glowing fire, which, in accordance with its glowing appearance, whitens the stones it bakes, while, contrary to its glowing appearance, it begrimes most things it burns (just as dirty stains are made by oil, however pure it be, and as the lines drawn by white silver are black); the charcoal, too, which by the action of fire is so completely changed from its original, that a finely marked piece of wood becomes hideous, the tough becomes brittle, the decaying incorruptible. Some of these things I know in common with many other persons, some of them in common with all men; and there are many others which I have not room to insert in this book. But of those which I have cited, though I have not myself seen, but only read about them, I have been unable to find trustworthy witnesses from whom I could ascertain whether they are facts, except in the case of that fountain in which burning torches are extinguished and extinguished torches lit, and of the apples of Sodom, which are ripe to appearance, but are filled with dust. And indeed I have not met with any who said they had seen that fountain in Epirus, but with some who knew there was a similar fountain in Gaul not far from Grenoble. The fruit of the trees of Sodom, however, is not only spoken of in books worthy of credit, but so many persons say that they have seen it that I cannot doubt the fact. But the rest of the prodigies I receive without definitely affirming or denying them; and I have cited them because I read them in the authors of our adversaries, and that I might prove how many things many among themselves believe, because they are written in the works of their own literary men, though no rational explanation of them is given, and yet they scorn to believe us when we assert that Almighty God will do what is beyond their experience and observation; and this they do even though we assign a reason for His work. For what better and stronger reason for such things can be given than to say that the Almighty is able to bring them to pass, and will bring them to pass, having predicted them in those books in which many other marvels which have already come to pass were predicted? Those things which are regarded as impossible will be accomplished according to the word, and by the power of that God who predicted and effected that the incredulous nations should believe incredible wonders.
But if they reply that their reason for not believing us when we say that human bodies will always burn and yet never die, is that the nature of human bodies is known to be quite otherwise constituted; if they say that for this miracle we cannot give the reason which was valid in the case of those natural miracles, viz., that this is the natural property, the nature of the thing — for we know that this is not the nature of human flesh — we find our answer in the sacred writings, that even this human flesh was constituted in one fashion before there was sin — was constituted, in fact, so that it could not die — and in another fashion after sin, being made such as we see it in this miserable state of mortality, unable to retain enduring life. And so in the resurrection of the dead shall it be constituted differently from its present well-known condition. But as they do not believe these writings of ours, in which we read what nature man had in paradise, and how remote he was from the necessity of death — and indeed, if they did believe them, we should of course have little trouble in debating with them the future punishment of the damned, — we must produce from the writings of their own most learned authorities some instances to show that it is possible for a thing to become different from what it was formerly known characteristically to be.
From the book of Marcus Varro, entitled, Of the Race of the Roman People, I cite word for word the following instance:
There occurred a remarkable celestial portent; for Castor records that, in the brilliant star Venus, called Vesperugo by Plautus, and the lovely Hesperus by Homer, there occurred so strange a prodigy, that it changed its color, size, form, course, which never happened before nor since. Adrastus of Cyzicus, and Dion of Naples, famous mathematicians, said that this occurred in the reign of Ogyges. So great an author as Varro would certainly not have called this a portent had it not seemed to be contrary to nature. For we say that all portents are contrary to nature; but they are not so. For how is that contrary to nature which happens by the will of God, since the will of so mighty a Creator is certainly the nature of each created thing? A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature, but contrary to what we know as nature. But who can number the multitude of portents recorded in profane histories? Let us then at present fix our attention on this one only which concerns the matter in hand. What is there so arranged by the Author of the nature of heaven and earth as the exactly ordered course of the stars? What is there established by laws so sure and inflexible? And yet, when it pleased Him who with sovereignty and supreme power regulates all He has created, a star conspicuous among the rest by its size and splendor changed its color, size, form, and, most wonderful of all, the order and law of its course! Certainly that phenomenon disturbed the canons of the astronomers, if there were any then, by which they tabulate, as by unerring computation, the past and future movements of the stars, so as to take upon them to affirm that this which happened to the morning star (Venus) never happened before nor since. But we read in the divine books that even the sun itself stood still when a holy man, Joshua the Son of Nun, had begged this from God until victory should finish the battle he had begun; and that it even went back, that the promise of fifteen years added to the life of king Hezekiah might be sealed by this additional prodigy. But these miracles, which were vouchsafed to the merits of holy men, even when our adversaries believe them, they attribute to magical arts; so Virgil, in the lines I quoted above, ascribes to magic the power to
Turn rivers backward to their source,
And make the stars forget their course.
For in our sacred books we read that this also happened, that a river
turned backward, was stayed above while the lower part flowed on, when the people passed over under the above-mentioned leader, Joshua the Son of Nun; and also when Elias the prophet crossed; and afterwards, when his disciple Elisha passed through it: and we have just mentioned how, in the case of king Hezekiah the greatest of the
stars forgot its course. But what happened to Venus, according to Varro, was not said by him to have happened in answer to any man's prayer.
Let not the sceptics then benight themselves in this knowledge of the nature of things, as if divine power cannot bring to pass in an object anything else than what their own experience has shown them to be in its nature. Even the very things which are most commonly known as natural would not be less wonderful nor less effectual to excite surprise in all who beheld them, if men were not accustomed to admire nothing but what is rare. For who that thoughtfully observes the countless multitude of men, and their similarity of nature, can fail to remark with surprise and admiration the individuality of each man's appearance, suggesting to us, as it does, that unless men were like one another, they would not be distinguished from the rest of the animals; while unless, on the other hand, they were unlike, they could not be distinguished from one another, so that those whom we declare to be like, we also find to be unlike? And the unlikeness is the more wonderful consideration of the two; for a common nature seems rather to require similarity. And yet, because the very rarity of things is that which makes them wonderful, we are filled with much greater wonder when we are introduced to two men so like, that we either always or frequently mistake in endeavoring to distinguish between them.
But possibly, though Varro is a heathen historian, and a very learned one, they may disbelieve that what I have cited from him truly occurred; or they may say the example is invalid, because the star did not for any length of time continue to follow its new course, but returned to its ordinary orbit. There is, then, another phenomenon at present open to their observation, and which, in my opinion, ought to be sufficient to convince them that, though they have observed and ascertained some natural law, they ought not on that account to prescribe to God, as if He could not change and turn it into something very different from what they have observed. The land of Sodom was not always as it now is; but once it had the appearance of other lands, and enjoyed equal if not richer fertility; for, in the divine narrative, it was compared to the paradise of God. But after it was touched [by fire] from heaven, as even pagan history testifies, and as is now witnessed by those who visit the spot, it became unnaturally and horribly sooty in appearance; and its apples, under a deceitful appearance of ripeness, contain ashes within. Here is a thing which was of one kind, and is of another. You see how its nature was converted by the wonderful transmutation wrought by the Creator of all natures into so very disgusting a diversity — an alteration which after so long a time took place, and after so long a time still continues. As therefore it was not impossible to God to create such natures as He pleased, so it is not impossible to Him to change these natures of His own creation into whatever He pleases, and thus spread abroad a multitude of those marvels which are called monsters, portents, prodigies, phenomena, and which if I were minded to cite and record, what end would there be to this work? They say that they are called
monsters, because they demonstrate or signify something;
portents, because they portend something; and so forth. But let their diviners see how they are either deceived, or even when they do predict true things, it is because they are inspired by spirits, who are intent upon entangling the minds of men (worthy, indeed, of such a fate) in the meshes of a hurtful curiosity, or how they light now and then upon some truth, because they make so many predictions. Yet, for our part, these things which happen contrary to nature, and are said to be contrary to nature (as the apostle, speaking after the manner of men, says, that to graft the wild olive into the good olive, and to partake of its fatness, is contrary to nature), and are called monsters, phenomena, portents, prodigies, ought to demonstrate, portend, predict that God will bring to pass what He has foretold regarding the bodies of men, no difficulty preventing Him, no law of nature prescribing to Him His limit. How He has foretold what He is to do, I think I have sufficiently shown in the preceding book, culling from the sacred Scriptures, both of the New and Old Testaments, not, indeed, all the passages that relate to this, but as many as I judged to suffice for this work.
So then what God by His prophet has said of the everlasting punishment of the damned shall come to pass — shall without fail come to pass —
their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched. Isaiah 66:24 In order to impress this upon us most forcibly, the Lord Jesus Himself, when ordering us to cut off our members, meaning thereby those persons whom a man loves as the most useful members of his body, says,
It is better for you to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dies not, and their fire is not quenched. Similarly of the foot:
It is better for you to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched. So, too, of the eye:
It is better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched. Mark 9:43-48 He did not shrink from using the same words three times over in one passage. And who is not terrified by this repetition, and by the threat of that punishment uttered so vehemently by the lips of the Lord Himself?
Now they who would refer both the fire and the worm to the spirit, and not to the body, affirm that the wicked, who are separated from the kindgdom of God, shall be burned, as it were, by the anguish of a spirit repenting too late and fruitlessly; and they contend that fire is therefore not inappropriately used to express this burning torment, as when the apostle exclaims
Who is offended, and I burn not? 2 Corinthians 11:29 The worm, too, they think, is to be similarly understood. For it is written they say,
As the moth consumes the garment, and the worm the wood, so does grief consume the heart of a man. Isaiah 51:8 But they who make no doubt that in that future punishment both body and soul shall suffer, affirm that the body shall be burned with fire, while the soul shall be, as it were, gnawed by a worm of anguish. Though this view is more reasonable — for it is absurd to suppose that either body or soul will escape pain in the future punishment — yet, for my own part, I find it easier to understand both as referring to the body than to suppose that neither does; and I think that Scripture is silent regarding the spiritual pain of the damned, because, though not expressed, it is necessarily understood that in a body thus tormented the soul also is tortured with a fruitless repentance. For we read in the ancient Scriptures,
The vengeance of the flesh of the ungodly is fire and worms. Sirach 7:17 It might have been more briefly said,
The vengeance of the ungodly. Why, then, was it said,
The flesh of the ungodly, unless because both the fire and the worm are to be the punishment of the flesh? Or if the object of the writer in saying,
The vengeance of the flesh, was to indicate that this shall be the punishment of those who live after the flesh (for this leads to the second death, as the apostle intimated when he said,
For if you live after the flesh, you shall die Romans 8:13, let each one make his own choice, either assigning the fire to the body and the worm to the soul — the one figuratively, the other really — or assigning both really to the body. For I have already sufficiently made out that animals can live in the fire, in burning without being consumed, in pain without dying, by a miracle of the most omnipotent Creator, to whom no one can deny that this is possible, if he be not ignorant by whom has been made all that is wonderful in all nature. For it is God Himself who has wrought all these miracles, great and small, in this world which I have mentioned, and incomparably more which I have omitted, and who has enclosed these marvels in this world, itself the greatest miracle of all. Let each man, then, choose which he will, whether he thinks that the worm is real and pertains to the body, or that spiritual things are meant by bodily representations, and that it belongs to the soul. But which of these is true will be more readily discovered by the facts themselves, when there shall be in the saints such knowledge as shall not require that their own experience teach them the nature of these punishments, but as shall, by its own fullness and perfection, suffice to instruct them in this matter. For
now we know in part, until that which is perfect has come; 1 Corinthians 13:9-10 only, this we believe about those future bodies, that they shall be such as shall certainly be pained by the fire.
Here arises the question: If the fire is not to be immaterial, analogous to the pain of the soul, but material, burning by contact, so that bodies may be tormented in it, how can evil spirits be punished in it? For it is undoubtedly the same fire which is to serve for the punishment of men and of devils, according to the words of Christ:
Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; Matthew 25:41 unless, perhaps, as learned men have thought, the devils have a kind of body made of that dense and humid air which we feel strikes us when the wind is blowing. And if this kind of substance could not be affected by fire, it could not burn when heated in the baths. For in order to burn, it is first burned, and affects other things as itself is affected. But if any one maintains that the devils have no bodies, this is not a matter either to be laboriously investigated, or to be debated with keenness. For why may we not assert that even immaterial spirits may, in some extraordinary way, yet really be pained by the punishment of material fire, if the spirits of men, which also are certainly immaterial, are both now contained in material members of the body, and in the world to come shall be indissolubly united to their own bodies? Therefore, though the devils have no bodies, yet their spirits, that is, the devils themselves, shall be brought into thorough contact with the material fires, to be tormented by them; not that the fires themselves with which they are brought into contact shall be animated by their connection with these spirits, and become animals composed of body and spirit, but, as I said, this junction will be effected in a wonderful and ineffable way, so that they shall receive pain from the fires, but give no life to them. And, in truth, this other mode of union, by which bodies and spirits are bound together and become animals, is thoroughly marvellous, and beyond the comprehension of man, though this it is which is man.
I would indeed say that these spirits will burn without any body of their own, as that rich man was burning in hell when he exclaimed,
I am tormented in this flame, Luke 16:24 were I not aware that it is aptly said in reply, that that flame was of the same nature as the eyes he raised and fixed on Lazarus, as the tongue on which he entreated that a little cooling water might be dropped, or as the finger of Lazarus, with which he asked that this might be done — all of which took place where souls exist without bodies. Thus, therefore, both that flame in which he burned and that drop he begged were immaterial, and resembled the visions of sleepers or persons in an ecstasy, to whom immaterial objects appear in a bodily form. For the man himself who is in such a state, though it be in spirit only, not in body, yet sees himself so like to his own body that he cannot discern any difference whatever. But that hell, which also is called a lake of fire and brimstone, Revelation 20:10 will be material fire, and will torment the bodies of the damned, whether men or devils — the solid bodies of the one, aerial bodies of the others; or if only men have bodies as well as souls, yet the evil spirits, though without bodies, shall be so connected with the bodily fires as to receive pain without imparting life. One fire certainly shall be the lot of both, for thus the truth has declared.
Some, however, of those against whom we are defending the city of God, think it unjust that any man be doomed to an eternal punishment for sins which, no matter how great they were, were perpetrated in a brief space of time; as if any law ever regulated the duration of the punishment by the duration of the offense punished! Cicero tells us that the laws recognize eight kinds of penalty — damages, imprisonment, scourging, reparation, disgrace, exile, death, slavery. Is there any one of these which may be compressed into a brevity proportioned to the rapid commission of the offense, so that no longer time may be spent in its punishment than in its perpetration, unless, perhaps, reparation? For this requires that the offender suffer what he did, as that clause of the law says,
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Exodus 21:24 For certainly it is possible for an offender to lose his eye by the severity of legal retaliation in as brief a time as he deprived another of his eye by the cruelty of his own lawlessness. But if scourging be a reasonable penalty for kissing another man's wife, is not the fault of an instant visited with long hours of atonement, and the momentary delight punished with lasting pain? What shall we say of imprisonment? Must the criminal be confined only for so long a time as he spent on the offense for which he is committed? Or is not a penalty of many years' confinement imposed on the slave who has provoked his master with a word, or has struck him a blow that is quickly over? And as to damages, disgrace, exile, slavery, which are commonly inflicted so as to admit of no relaxation or pardon, do not these resemble eternal punishments in so far as this short life allows a resemblance? For they are not eternal only because the life in which they are endured is not eternal; and yet the crimes which are punished with these most protracted sufferings are perpetrated in a very brief space of time. Nor is there any one who would suppose that the pains of punishment should occupy as short a time as the offense; or that murder, adultery, sacrilege, or any other crime, should be measured, not by the enormity of the injury or wickedness, but by the length of time spent in its perpetration. Then as to the award of death for any great crime, do the laws reckon the punishment to consist in the brief moment in which death is inflicted, or in this, that the offender is eternally banished from the society of the living? And just as the punishment of the first death cuts men off from this present mortal city, so does the punishment of the second death cut men off from that future immortal city. For as the laws of this present city do not provide for the executed criminal's return to it, so neither is he who is condemned to the second death recalled again to life everlasting. But if temporal sin is visited with eternal punishment, how then, they say, is that true which your Christ says,
With the same measure that you mete withal it shall be measured to you again? Luke 6:38 and they do not observe that
the same measure refers, not to an equal space of time, but to the retribution of evil or, in other words, to the law by which he who has done evil suffers evil. Besides, these words could be appropriately understood as referring to the matter of which our Lord was speaking when He used them, viz., judgments and condemnation. Thus, if he who unjustly judges and condemns is himself justly judged and condemned, he receives
with the same measure though not the same thing as he gave. For judgment he gave, and judgment he receives, though the judgment he gave was unjust, the judgment he receives just.
But eternal punishment seems hard and unjust to human perceptions, because in the weakness of our mortal condition there is wanting that highest and purest wisdom by which it can be perceived how great a wickedness was committed in that first transgression. The more enjoyment man found in God, the greater was his wickedness in abandoning Him; and he who destroyed in himself a good which might have been eternal, became worthy of eternal evil. Hence the whole mass of the human race is condemned; for he who at first gave entrance to sin has been punished with all his posterity who were in him as in a root, so that no one is exempt from this just and due punishment, unless delivered by mercy and undeserved grace; and the human race is so apportioned that in some is displayed the efficacy of merciful grace, in the rest the efficacy of just retribution. For both could not be displayed in all; for if all had remained under the punishment of just condemnation, there would have been seen in no one the mercy of redeeming grace. And, on the other hand, if all had been transferred from darkness to light, the severity of retribution would have been manifested in none. But many more are left under punishment than are delivered from it, in order that it may thus be shown what was due to all. And had it been inflicted on all, no one could justly have found fault with the justice of Him who takes vengeance; whereas, in the deliverance of so many from that just award, there is cause to render the most cordial thanks to the gratuitous bounty of Him who delivers.
The Platonists, indeed, while they maintain that no sins are unpunished, suppose that all punishment is administered for remedial purposes, be it inflicted by human or divine law, in this life or after death; for a man may be scathless here, or, though punished, may yet not amend. Hence that passage of Virgil, where, when he had said of our earthly bodies and mortal members, that our souls derive —
Hence wild desires and grovelling fears,
And human laughter, human tears;
Immured in dungeon-seeming night,
They look abroad, yet see no light,
goes on to say:
Nay, when at last the life has fled,
And left the body cold and dead,
Ee'n then there passes not away
The painful heritage of clay;
Full many a long-contracted stain
Perforce must linger deep in grain.
So penal sufferings they endure
For ancient crime, to make them pure;
Some hang aloft in open view,
For winds to pierce them through and through,
While others purge their guilt deep-dyed
In burning fire or whelming tide.
They who are of this opinion would have all punishments after death to be purgatorial; and as the elements of air, fire, and water are superior to earth, one or other of these may be the instrument of expiating and purging away the stain contracted by the contagion of earth. So Virgil hints at the air in the words,
Some hang aloft for winds to pierce; at the water in
whelming tide; and at fire in the expression
in burning fire. For our part, we recognize that even in this life some punishments are purgatorial — not, indeed, to those whose life is none the better, but rather the worse for them, but to those who are constrained by them to amend their life. All other punishments, whether temporal or eternal, inflicted as they are on every one by divine providence, are sent either on account of past sins, or of sins presently allowed in the life, or to exercise and reveal a man's graces. They may be inflicted by the instrumentality of bad men and angels as well as of the good. For even if any one suffers some hurt through another's wickedness or mistake, the man indeed sins whose ignorance or injustice does the harm; but God, who by His just though hidden judgment permits it to be done, sins not. But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment of the world to come.
Quite exceptional are those who are not punished in this life, but only afterwards. Yet that there have been some who have reached the decrepitude of age without experiencing even the slightest sickness, and who have had uninterrupted enjoyment of life, I know both from report and from my own observation. However, the very life we mortals lead is itself all punishment, for it is all temptation, as the Scriptures declare, where it is written,
Is not the life of man upon earth a temptation? Job 7:1 For ignorance is itself no slight punishment, or want of culture, which it is with justice thought so necessary to escape, that boys are compelled, under pain of severe punishment, to learn trades or letters; and the learning to which they are driven by punishment is itself so much of a punishment to them, that they sometimes prefer the pain that drives them to the pain to which they are driven by it. And who would not shrink from the alternative, and elect to die, if it were proposed to him either to suffer death or to be again an infant? Our infancy, indeed, introducing us to this life not with laughter but with tears, seems unconsciously to predict the ills we are to encounter. Zoroaster alone is said to have laughed when he was born, and that unnatural omen portended no good to him. For he is said to have been the inventor of magical arts, though indeed they were unable to secure to him even the poor felicity of this present life against the assaults of his enemies. For, himself king of the Bactrians, he was conquered by Ninus king of the Assyrians. In short, the words of Scripture,
An heavy yoke is upon the sons of Adam, from the day that they go out of their mother's womb till the day that they return to the mother of all things, Sirach 40:1 — these words so infallibly find fulfillment, that even the little ones, who by the layer of regeneration have been freed from the bond of original sin in which alone they were held, yet suffer many ills, and in some instances are even exposed to the assaults of evil spirits. But let us not for a moment suppose that this suffering is prejudicial to their future happiness, even though it has so increased as to sever soul from body, and to terminate their life in that early age.
Nevertheless, in the
heavy yoke that is laid upon the sons of Adam, from the day that they go out of their mother's womb to the day that they return to the mother of all things, there is found an admirable though painful monitor teaching us to be sober-minded, and convincing us that this life has become penal in consequence of that outrageous wickedness which was perpetrated in Paradise, and that all to which the New Testament invites belongs to that future inheritance which awaits us in the world to come, and is offered for our acceptance, as the earnest that we may, in its own due time, obtain that of which it is the pledge. Now, therefore, let us walk in hope, and let us by the spirit mortify the deeds of the flesh, and so make progress from day to day. For
the Lord knows them that are His; 2 Timothy 2:19 and
as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are sons of God, Romans 8:14 but by grace, not by nature. For there is but one Son of God by nature, who in His compassion became Son of man for our sakes, that we, by nature sons of men, might by grace become through Him sons of God. For He, abiding unchangeable, took upon Him our nature, that thereby He might take us to Himself; and, holding fast His own divinity, He became partaker of our infirmity, that we, being changed into some better thing, might, by participating in His righteousness and immortality, lose our own properties of sin and mortality, and preserve whatever good quality He had implanted in our nature perfected now by sharing in the goodness of His nature. For as by the sin of one man we have fallen into a misery so deplorable, so by the righteousness of one Man, who also is God, shall we come to a blessedness inconceivably exalted. Nor ought any one to trust that he has passed from the one man to the other until he shall have reached that place where there is no temptation, and have entered into the peace which he seeks in the many and various conflicts of this war, in which
the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. Galatians 5:17 Now, such a war as this would have had no existence if human nature had, in the exercise of free will, continued steadfast in the uprightness in which it was created. But now in its misery it makes war upon itself, because in its blessedness it would not continue at peace with God; and this, though it be a miserable calamity, is better than the earlier stages of this life, which do not recognize that a war is to be maintained. For better is it to contend with vices than without conflict to be subdued by them. Better, I say, is war with the hope of peace everlasting than captivity without any thought of deliverance. We long, indeed, for the cessation of this war, and, kindled by the flame of divine love, we burn for entrance on that well-ordered peace in which whatever is inferior is for ever subordinated to what is above it. But if (which God forbid) there had been no hope of so blessed a consummation, we should still have preferred to endure the hardness of this conflict, rather than, by our non-resistance, to yield ourselves to the dominion of vice.
But such is God's mercy towards the vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory, that even the first age of man, that is, infancy, which submits without any resistance to the flesh, and the second age, which is called boyhood, and which has not yet understanding enough to undertake this warfare, and therefore yields to almost every vicious pleasure (because though this age has the power of speech, and may therefore seem to have passed infancy, the mind is still too weak to comprehend the commandment), yet if either of these ages has received the sacraments of the Mediator, then, although the present life be immediately brought to an end, the child, having been translated from the power of darkness to the kingdom of Christ, shall not only be saved from eternal punishments, but shall not even suffer purgatorial torments after death. For spiritual regeneration of itself suffices to prevent any evil consequences resulting after death from the connection with death which carnal generation forms. But when we reach that age which can now comprehend the commandment, and submit to the dominion of law, we must declare war upon vices, and wage this war keenly, lest we be landed in damnable sins. And if vices have not gathered strength, by habitual victory they are more easily overcome and subdued; but if they have been used to conquer and rule, it is only with difficulty and labor they are mastered. And indeed this victory cannot be sincerely and truly gained but by delighting in true righteousness, and it is faith in Christ that gives this. For if the law be present with its command, and the Spirit be absent with His help, the presence of the prohibition serves only to increase the desire to sin, and adds the guilt of transgression. Sometimes, indeed, patent vices are overcome by other and hidden vices, which are reckoned virtues, though pride and a kind of ruinous self-sufficiency are their informing principles. Accordingly vices are then only to be considered overcome when they are conquered by the love of God, which God Himself alone gives, and which He gives only through the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who became a partaker of our mortality that He might make us partakers of His divinity. But few indeed are they who are so happy as to have passed their youth without committing any damnable sins, either by dissolute or violent conduct, or by following some godless and unlawful opinions, but have subdued by their greatness of soul everything in them which could make them the slaves of carnal pleasures. The greater number having first become transgressors of the law that they have received, and having allowed vice to have the ascendency in them, then flee to grace for help, and so, by a penitence more bitter, and a struggle more violent than it would otherwise have been, they subdue the soul to God, and thus give it its lawful authority over the flesh, and become victors. Whoever, therefore, desires to escape eternal punishment, let him not only be baptized, but also justified in Christ, and so let him in truth pass from the devil to Christ. And let him not fancy that there are any purgatorial pains except before that final and dreadful judgment. We must not, however deny that even the eternal fire will be proportioned to the deserts of the wicked, so that to some it will be more, and to others less painful, whether this result be accomplished by a variation in the temperature of the fire itself, graduated according to every one's merit, or whether it be that the heat remains the same, but that all do not feel it with equal intensity of torment.
I must now, I see, enter the lists of amicable controversy with those tender-hearted Christians who decline to believe that any, or that all of those whom the infallibly just Judge may pronounce worthy of the punishment of hell, shall suffer eternally, and who suppose that they shall be delivered after a fixed term of punishment, longer or shorter according to the amount of each man's sin. In respect of this matter, Origen was even more indulgent; for he believed that even the devil himself and his angels, after suffering those more severe and prolonged pains which their sins deserved, should be delivered from their torments, and associated with the holy angels. But the Church, not without reason, condemned him for this and other errors, especially for his theory of the ceaseless alternation of happiness and misery, and the interminable transitions from the one state to the other at fixed periods of ages; for in this theory he lost even the credit of being merciful, by allotting to the saints real miseries for the expiation of their sins, and false happiness, which brought them no true and secure joy, that is, no fearless assurance of eternal blessedness. Very different, however, is the error we speak of, which is dictated by the tenderness of these Christians who suppose that the sufferings of those who are condemned in the judgment will be temporary, while the blessedness of all who are sooner or later set free will be eternal. Which opinion, if it is good and true because it is merciful, will be so much the better and truer in proportion as it becomes more merciful. Let, then, this fountain of mercy be extended, and flow forth even to the lost angels, and let them also be set free, at least after as many and long ages as seem fit! Why does this stream of mercy flow to all the human race, and dry up as soon as it reaches the angelic? And yet they dare not extend their pity further, and propose the deliverance of the devil himself. Or if any one is bold enough to do so, he does indeed put to shame their charity, but is himself convicted of error that is more unsightly, and a wresting of God's truth that is more perverse, in proportion as his clemency of sentiment seems to be greater.
There are others, again, with whose opinions I have become acquainted in conversation, who, though they seem to reverence the holy Scriptures, are yet of reprehensible life, and who accordingly, in their own interest, attribute to God a still greater compassion towards men. For they acknowledge that it is truly predicted in the divine word that the wicked and unbelieving are worthy of punishment, but they assert that, when the judgment comes, mercy will prevail. For, say they, God, having compassion on them, will give them up to the prayers and intercessions of His saints. For if the saints used to pray for them when they suffered from their cruel hatred, how much more will they do so when they see them prostrate and humble suppliants? For we cannot, they say, believe that the saints shall lose their bowels of compassion when they have attained the most perfect and complete holiness; so that they who, when still sinners, prayed for their enemies, should now, when they are freed from sin, withhold from interceding for their suppliants. Or shall God refuse to listen to so many of His beloved children, when their holiness has purged their prayers of all hindrance to His answering them? And the passage of the psalm which is cited by those who admit that wicked men and infidels shall be punished for a long time, though in the end delivered from all sufferings, is claimed also by the persons we are now speaking of as making much more for them. The verse runs:
Shall God forget to be gracious? Shall He in anger shut up His tender mercies? His anger, they say, would condemn all that are unworthy of everlasting happiness to endless punishment. But if He suffer them to be punished for a long time, or even at all, must He not shut up His tender mercies, which the Psalmist implies He will not do? For he does not say, Shall He in anger shut up His tender mercies for a long period? But he implies that He will not shut them up at all.
And they deny that thus God's threat of judgment is proved to be false even though He condemn no man, any more than we can say that His threat to overthrow Nineveh was false, though the destruction which was absolutely predicted was not accomplished. For He did not say,
Nineveh shall be overthrown if they do not repent and amend their ways, but without any such condition He foretold that the city should be overthrown. And this prediction, they maintain, was true because God predicted the punishment which they deserved, although He was not to inflict it. For though He spared them on their repentance yet He was certainly aware that they would repent, and, notwithstanding, absolutely and definitely predicted that the city should be overthrown. This was true, they say, in the truth of severity, because they were worthy of it; but in respect of the compassion which checked His anger, so that He spared the suppliants from the punishment with which He had threatened the rebellious, it was not true. If, then, He spared those whom His own holy prophet was provoked at His sparing, how much more shall He spare those more wretched suppliants for whom all His saints shall intercede? And they suppose that this conjecture of theirs is not hinted at in Scripture, for the sake of stimulating many to reformation of life through fear of very protracted or eternal sufferings, and of stimulating others to pray for those who have not reformed. However, they think that the divine oracles are not altogether silent on this point; for they ask to what purpose is it said,
How great is Your goodness which You have hidden for them that fear You, if it be not to teach us that the great and hidden sweetness of God's mercy is concealed in order that men may fear? To the same purpose they think the apostle said,
For God has concluded all men in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all, Romans 11:32 signifying that no one should be condemned by God. And yet they who hold this opinion do not extend it to the acquittal or liberation of the devil and his angels. Their human tenderness is moved only towards men, and they plead chiefly their own cause, holding out false hopes of impunity to their own depraved lives by means of this quasi compassion of God to the whole race. Consequently they who promise this impunity even to the prince of the devils and his satellites make a still fuller exhibition of the mercy of God.
So, too, there are others who promise this deliverance from eternal punishment, not, indeed, to all men, but only to those who have been washed in Christian baptism, and who become partakers of the body of Christ, no matter how they have lived, or what heresy or impiety they have fallen into. They ground this opinion on the saying of Jesus,
This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If a man eat of this bread, he shall live forever. John 6:50-51 Therefore, say they, it follows that these persons must be delivered from death eternal, and at one time or other be introduced to everlasting life.
There are others still who make this promise not even to all who have received the sacraments of the baptism of Christ and of His body, but only to the Catholics, however badly they have lived. For these have eaten the body of Christ, not only sacramentally but really, being incorporated in His body, as the apostle says,
We, being many, are one bread, one body; 1 Corinthians 10:17 so that, though they have afterwards lapsed into some heresy, or even into heathenism and idolatry, yet by virtue of this one thing, that they have received the baptism of Christ, and eaten the body of Christ, in the body of Christ, that is to say, in the Catholic Church, they shall not die eternally, but at one time or other obtain eternal life; and all that wickedness of theirs shall not avail to make their punishment eternal, but only proportionately long and severe.
FoundationOf Their Faith.
There are some, too, who found upon the expression of Scripture,
He that endures to the end shall be saved, Matthew 24:13 and who promise salvation only to those who continue in the Catholic Church; and though such persons have lived badly, yet, say they, they shall be saved as by fire through virtue of the foundation of which the apostle says,
For other foundation has no man laid than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day of the Lord shall declare it, for it shall be revealed by fire; and each man's work shall be proved of what sort it is. If any man's work shall endure which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. But if any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 They say, accordingly, that the Catholic Christian, no matter what his life be, has Christ as his foundation, while this foundation is not possessed by any heresy which is separated from the unity of His body. And therefore, through virtue of this foundation, even though the Catholic Christian by the inconsistency of his life has been as one building up wood, hay, stubble, upon it, they believe that he shall be saved by fire, in other words, that he shall be delivered after tasting the pain of that fire to which the wicked shall be condemned at the last judgment.
I have also met with some who are of opinion that such only as neglect to cover their sins with almsdeeds shall be punished in everlasting fire; and they cite the words of the Apostle James,
He shall have judgment without mercy who has shown no mercy. James 2:13 Therefore, say they, he who has not amended his ways, but yet has intermingled his profligate and wicked actions with works of mercy, shall receive mercy in the judgment, so that he shall either quite escape condemnation, or shall be liberated from his doom after some time shorter or longer. They suppose that this was the reason why the Judge Himself of quick and dead declined to mention anything else than works of mercy done or omitted, when awarding to those on His right hand life eternal, and to those on His left everlasting punishment. Matthew 25:33 To the same purpose, they say, is the daily petition we make in the Lord's prayer,
Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Matthew 6:12 For, no doubt, whoever pardons the person who has wronged him does a charitable action. And this has been so highly commended by the Lord Himself, that He says,
For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Matthew 6:14-15 And so it is to this kind of almsdeeds that the saying of the Apostle James refers,
He shall have judgment without mercy that has shown no mercy. And our Lord, they say, made no distinction of great and small sins, but
Your Father will forgive your sins, if you forgive men theirs. Consequently they conclude that, though a man has led an abandoned life up to the last day of it, yet whatsoever his sins have been, they are all remitted by virtue of this daily prayer, if only he has been mindful to attend to this one thing, that when they who have done him any injury ask his pardon, he forgive them from his heart.
When, by God's help, I have replied to all these errors, I shall conclude this (twenty-first) book.
First of all, it behooves us to inquire and to recognize why the Church has not been able to tolerate the idea that promises cleansing or indulgence to the devil even after the most severe and protracted punishment. For so many holy men, imbued with the spirit of the Old and New Testament, did not grudge to angels of any rank or character that they should enjoy the blessedness of the heavenly kingdom after being cleansed by suffering, but rather they perceived that they could not invalidate nor evacuate the divine sentence which the Lord predicted that He would pronounce in the judgment, saying,
Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. Matthew 25:41 For here it is evident that the devil and his angels shall burn in everlasting fire. And there is also that declaration in the Apocalypse,
The devil their deceiver was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where also are the beast and the false prophet. And they shall be tormented day and night forever. Revelation 20:10 In the former passage
everlasting is used, in the latter
for ever; and by these words Scripture is wont to mean nothing else than endless duration. And therefore no other reason, no reason more obvious and just, can be found for holding it as the fixed and immovable belief of the truest piety, that the devil and his angels shall never return to the justice and life of the saints, than that Scripture, which deceives no man, says that God spared them not, and that they were condemned beforehand by Him, and cast into prisons of darkness in hell, 2 Peter 2:4 being reserved to the judgment of the last day, when eternal fire shall receive them, in which they shall be tormented world without end. And if this be so, how can it be believed that all men, or even some, shall be withdrawn from the endurance of punishment after some time has been spent in it? How can this be believed without enervating our faith in the eternal punishment of the devils? For if all or some of those to whom it shall be said,
Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, Matthew 25:41 are not to be always in that fire, then what reason is there for believing that the devil and his angels shall always be there? Or is perhaps the sentence of God, which is to be pronounced on wicked men and angels alike, to be true in the case of the angels, false in that of men? Plainly it will be so if the conjectures of men are to weigh more than the word of God. But because this is absurd, they who desire to be rid of eternal punishment ought to abstain from arguing against God, and rather, while yet there is opportunity, obey the divine commands. Then what a fond fancy is it to suppose that eternal punishment means long continued punishment, while eternal life means life without end, since Christ in the very same passage spoke of both in similar terms in one and the same sentence,
These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal! Matthew 25:46 If both destinies are
eternal, then we must either understand both as long-continued but at last terminating, or both as endless. For they are correlative — on the one hand, punishment eternal, on the other hand, life eternal. And to say in one and the same sense, life eternal shall be endless, punishment eternal shall come to an end, is the height of absurdity. Wherefore, as the eternal life of the saints shall be endless, so too the eternal punishment of those who are doomed to it shall have no end.
And this reasoning is equally conclusive against those who, in their own interest, but under the guise of a greater tenderness of spirit, attempt to invalidate the words of God, and who assert that these words are true, not because men shall suffer those things which are threatened by God, but because they deserve to suffer them. For God, they say, will yield them to the prayers of His saints, who will then the more earnestly pray for their enemies, as they shall be more perfect in holiness, and whose prayers will be the more efficacious and the more worthy of God's ear, because now purged from all sin whatsoever. Why, then, if in that perfected holiness their prayers be so pure and all-availing, will they not use them in behalf of the angels for whom eternal fire is prepared, that God may mitigate His sentence and alter it, and extricate them from that fire? Or will there, perhaps, be some one hardy enough to affirm that even the holy angels will make common cause with holy men (then become the equals of God's angels), and will intercede for the guilty, both men and angels, that mercy may spare them the punishment which truth has pronounced them to deserve? But this has been asserted by no one sound in the faith; nor will be. Otherwise there is no reason why the Church should not even now pray for the devil and his angels, since God her Master has ordered her to pray for her enemies. The reason, then, which prevents the Church from now praying for the wicked angels, whom she knows to be her enemies, is the identical reason which shall prevent her, however perfected in holiness, from praying at the last judgment for those men who are to be punished in eternal fire. At present she prays for her enemies among men, because they have yet opportunity for fruitful repentance. For what does she especially beg for them but that
God would grant them repentance, as the apostle says,
that they may return to soberness out of the snare of the devil, by whom they are held captive according to his will? 2 Timothy 2:25-26 But if the Church were certified who those are, who, though they are still abiding in this life, are yet predestinated to go with the devil into eternal fire, then for them she could no more pray than for him. But since she has this certainty regarding no man, she prays for all her enemies who yet live in this world; and yet she is not heard in behalf of all. But she is heard in the case of those only who, though they oppose the Church, are yet predestinated to become her sons through her intercession. But if any retain an impenitent heart until death, and are not converted from enemies into sons, does the Church continue to pray for them, for the spirits, i.e., of such persons deceased? And why does she cease to pray for them, unless because the man who was not translated into Christ's kingdom while he was in the body, is now judged to be of Satan's following?
It is then, I say, the same reason which prevents the Church at any time from praying for the wicked angels, which prevents her from praying hereafter for those men who are to be punished in eternal fire; and this also is the reason why, though she prays even for the wicked so long as they live, she yet does not even in this world pray for the unbelieving and godless who are dead. For some of the dead, indeed, the prayer of the Church or of pious individuals is heard; but it is for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not spend their life so wickedly that they can be judged unworthy of such compassion, nor so well that they can be considered to have no need of it. As also, after the resurrection, there will be some of the dead to whom, after they have endured the pains proper to the spirits of the dead, mercy shall be accorded, and acquittal from the punishment of the eternal fire. For were there not some whose sins, though not remitted in this life, shall be remitted in that which is to come, it could not be truly said,
They shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in that which is to come. Matthew 12:32 But when the Judge of quick and dead has said,
Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, and to those on the other side,
Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels, and
These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life, it were excessively presumptuous to say that the punishment of any of those whom God has said shall go away into eternal punishment shall not be eternal, and so bring either despair or doubt upon the corresponding promise of life eternal.
Let no man then so understand the words of the Psalmist,
Shall God forget to be gracious? Shall He shut up in His anger His tender mercies as if the sentence of God were true of good men, false of bad men, or true of good men and wicked angels, but false of bad men. For the Psalmist's words refer to the vessels of mercy and the children of the promise, of whom the prophet himself was one; for when he had said,
Shall God forget to be gracious? Shall He shut up in His anger His tender mercies? and then immediately subjoins,
And I said, Now I begin: this is the change wrought by the right hand of the Most High, he manifestly explained what he meant by the words,
Shall he shut up in His anger His tender mercies? For God's anger is this mortal life, in which man is made like to vanity, and his days pass as a shadow. Yet in this anger God does not forget to be gracious, causing His sun to shine and His rain to descend on the just and the unjust; Matthew 5:45 and thus He does not in His anger cut short His tender mercies, and especially in what the Psalmist speaks of in the words,
Now I begin: this change is from the right hand of the Most High; for He changes for the better the vessels of mercy, even while they are still in this most wretched life, which is God's anger, and even while His anger is manifesting itself in this miserable corruption; for
in His anger He does not shut up His tender mercies. And since the truth of this divine canticle is quite satisfied by this application of it, there is no need to give it a reference to that place in which those who do not belong to the city of God are punished in eternal fire. But if any persist in extending its application to the torments of the wicked, let them at least understand it so that the anger of God, which has threatened the wicked with eternal punishment, shall abide, but shall be mixed with mercy to the extent of alleviating the torments which might justly be inflicted; so that the wicked shall neither wholly escape, nor only for a time endure these threatened pains, but that they shall be less severe and more endurable than they deserve. Thus the anger of God shall continue, and at the same time He will not in this anger shut up His tender mercies. But even this hypothesis I am not to be supposed to affirm because I do not positively oppose it.
As for those who find an empty threat rather than a truth in such passages as these:
Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire; and
These shall go away into eternal punishment; Matthew 25:41, 46 and
They shall be tormented for ever and ever; Revelation 20:10 and
Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, Isaiah 66:24 — such persons, I say, are most emphatically and abundantly refuted, not by me so much as by the divine Scripture itself. For the men of Nineveh repented in this life, and therefore their repentance was fruitful, inasmuch as they sowed in that field which the Lord meant to be sown in tears that it might afterwards be reaped in joy. And yet who will deny that God's prediction was fulfilled in their case, if at least he observes that God destroys sinners not only in anger but also in compassion? For sinners are destroyed in two ways — either, like the Sodomites, the men themselves are punished for their sins, or, like the Ninevites, the men's sins are destroyed by repentance. God's prediction, therefore, was fulfilled — the wicked Nineveh was overthrown, and a good Nineveh built up. For its walls and houses remained standing; the city was overthrown in its depraved manners. And thus, though the prophet was provoked that the destruction which the inhabitants dreaded, because of his prediction, did not take place, yet that which God's foreknowledge had predicted did take place, for He who foretold the destruction knew how it should be fulfilled in a less calamitous sense.
But that these perversely compassionate persons may see what is the purport of these words,
How great is the abundance of Your sweetness, Lord, which You have hidden for them that fear You, let them read what follows:
And You have perfected it for them that hope in You. For what means,
You have hidden it for them that fear You,
You have perfected it for them that hope in You, unless this, that to those who through fear of punishment seek to establish their own righteousness by the law, the righteousness of God is not sweet, because they are ignorant of it? They have not tasted it. For they hope in themselves, not in Him; and therefore God's abundant sweetness is hidden from them. They fear God, indeed, but it is with that servile fear
which is not in love; for perfect love casts out fear. 1 John 4:18 Therefore to them that hope in Him He perfects His sweetness, inspiring them with His own love, so that with a holy fear, which love does not cast out, but which endures for ever, they may, when they glory, glory in the Lord. For the righteousness of God is Christ,
who is of God made unto us, as the apostle says,
wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: as it is written, He that glories, let him glory in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 1:30-31 This righteousness of God, which is the gift of grace without merits, is not known by those who go about to establish their own righteousness, and are therefore not subject to the righteousness of God, which is Christ. Romans 10:3 But it is in this righteousness that we find the great abundance of God's sweetness, of which the psalm says,
Taste and see how sweet the Lord is. And this we rather taste than partake of to satiety in this our pilgrimage. We hunger and thirst for it now, that hereafter we may be satisfied with it when we see Him as He is, and that is fulfilled which is written,
I shall be satisfied when Your glory shall be manifested. It is thus that Christ perfects the great abundance of His sweetness to them that hope in Him. But if God conceals His sweetness from them that fear Him in the sense that these our objectors fancy, so that men's ignorance of His purpose of mercy towards the wicked may lead them to fear Him and live better, and so that there may be prayer made for those who are not living as they ought, how then does He perfect His sweetness to them that hope in Him, since, if their dreams be true, it is this very sweetness which will prevent Him from punishing those who do not hope in Him? Let us then seek that sweetness of His, which He perfects to them that hope in Him, not that which He is supposed to perfect to those who despise and blaspheme Him; for in vain, after this life, does a man seek for what he has neglected to provide while in this life.
Then, as to that saying of the apostle,
For God has concluded all in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all, Romans 11:32 it does not mean that He will condemn no one; but the foregoing context shows what is meant. The apostle composed the epistle for the Gentiles who were already believers; and when he was speaking to them of the Jews who were yet to believe, he says,
For as you in times past believed not God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief; even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. Then he added the words in question with which these persons beguile themselves:
For God concluded all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all. All whom, if not all those of whom he was speaking, just as if he had said,
Both you and them? God then concluded all those in unbelief, both Jews and Gentiles, whom He foreknew and predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that they might be confounded by the bitterness of unbelief, and might repent and believingly turn to the sweetness of God's mercy, and might take up that exclamation of the psalm,
How great is the abundance of Your sweetness, O Lord, which You have hidden for them that fear You, but have perfected to them that hope, not in themselves, but
in You. He has mercy, then, on all the vessels of mercy. And what means
all? Both those of the Gentiles and those of the Jews whom He predestinated, called, justified, glorified: none of these will be condemned by Him; but we cannot say none of all men whatever.
But let us now reply to those who promise deliverance from eternal fire, not to the devil and his angels (as neither do they of whom we have been speaking), nor even to all men whatever, but only to those who have been washed by the baptism of Christ, and have become partakers of His body and blood, no matter how they have lived, no matter what heresy or impiety they have fallen into. But they are contradicted by the apostle, where he says,
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variances, emulations, wrath, strife, heresies, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and the like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, for they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21 Certainly this sentence of the apostle is false, if such persons shall be delivered after any lapse of time, and shall then inherit the kingdom of God. But as it is not false, they shall certainly never inherit the kingdom of God. And if they shall never enter that kingdom, then they shall always be retained in eternal punishment; for there is no middle place where he may live unpunished who has not been admitted into that kingdom.
And therefore we may reasonably inquire how we are to understand these words of the Lord Jesus:
This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever. John 6:50-51 And those, indeed, whom we are now answering, are refuted in their interpretation of this passage by those whom we are shortly to answer, and who do not promise this deliverance to all who have received the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's body, but only to the Catholics, however wickedly they live; for these, say they, have eaten the Lord's body not only sacramentally, but really, being constituted members of His body, of which the apostle says,
We being many are one bread, one body. 1 Corinthians 10:17 He then who is in the unity of Christ's body (that is to say, in the Christian membership), of which body the faithful have been wont to receive the sacrament at the altar, that man is truly said to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ. And consequently heretics and schismatics being separate from the unity of this body, are able to receive the same sacrament, but with no profit to themselves — nay, rather to their own hurt, so that they are rather more severely judged than liberated after some time. For they are not in that bond of peace which is symbolized by that sacrament.
But again, even those who sufficiently understand that he who is not in the body of Christ cannot be said to eat the body of Christ, are in error when they promise liberation from the fire of eternal punishment to persons who fall away from the unity of that body into heresy, or even into heathenish superstition. For, in the first place, they ought to consider how intolerable it is, and how discordant with sound doctrine, to suppose that many, indeed, or almost all, who have forsaken the Catholic Church, and have originated impious heresies and become heresiarchs, should enjoy a destiny superior to those who never were Catholics, but have fallen into the snares of these others; that is to say, if the fact of their Catholic baptism and original reception of the sacrament of the body of Christ in the true body of Christ is sufficient to deliver these heresiarchs from eternal punishment. For certainly he who deserts the faith, and from a deserter becomes an assailant, is worse than he who has not deserted the faith he never held. And, in the second place, they are contradicted by the apostle, who, after enumerating the works of the flesh, says with reference to heresies,
They who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
And therefore neither ought such persons as lead an abandoned and damnable life to be confident of salvation, though they persevere to the end in the communion of the Church catholic, and comfort themselves with the words,
He that endures to the end shall be saved. By the iniquity of their life they abandon that very righteousness of life which Christ is to them, whether it be by fornication, or by perpetrating in their body the other uncleannesses which the apostle would not so much as mention, or by a dissolute luxury, or by doing any one of those things of which he says,
They who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Consequently, they who do such things shall not exist anywhere but in eternal punishment, since they cannot be in the kingdom of God. For, while they continue in such things to the very end of life, they cannot be said to abide in Christ to the end; for to abide in Him is to abide in the faith of Christ. And this faith, according to the apostle's definition of it,
works by love. Galatians 5:6 And
love, as he elsewhere says,
works no evil. Romans 13:10 Neither can these persons be said to eat the body of Christ, for they cannot even be reckoned among His members. For, not to mention other reasons, they cannot be at once the members of Christ and the members of a harlot. In fine, He Himself, when He says,
He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him, John 6:56 shows what it is in reality, and not sacramentally, to eat His body and drink His blood; for this is to dwell in Christ, that He also may dwell in us. So that it is as if He said, He that dwells not in me, and in whom I do not dwell, let him not say or think that he eats my body or drinks my blood. Accordingly, they who are not Christ's members do not dwell in Him. And they who make themselves members of a harlot, are not members of Christ unless they have penitently abandoned that evil, and have returned to this good to be reconciled to it.
But, say they, the Catholic Christians have Christ for a foundation, and they have not fallen away from union with Him, no matter how depraved a life they have built on this foundation, as wood, hay, stubble; and accordingly the well-directed faith by which Christ is their foundation will suffice to deliver them some time from the continuance of that fire, though it be with loss, since those things they have built on it shall be burned. Let the Apostle James summarily reply to them:
If any man say he has faith, and have not works, can faith save him? James 2:14 And who then is it, they ask, of whom the Apostle Paul says,
But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire? Let us join them in their inquiry; and one thing is very certain, that it is not he of whom James speaks, else we should make the two apostles contradict one another, if the one says,
Though a man's works be evil, his faith will save him as by fire, while the other says,
If he have not good works, can his faith save him?
We shall then ascertain who it is who can be saved by fire, if we first discover what it is to have Christ for a foundation. And this we may very readily learn from the image itself. In a building the foundation is first. Whoever, then, has Christ in his heart, so that no earthly or temporal things — not even those that are legitimate and allowed — are preferred to Him, has Christ as a foundation. But if these things be preferred, then even though a man seem to have faith in Christ, yet Christ is not the foundation to that man; and much more if he, in contempt of wholesome precepts, seek forbidden gratifications, is he clearly convicted of putting Christ not first but last, since he has despised Him as his ruler, and has preferred to fulfill his own wicked lusts, in contempt of Christ's commands and allowances. Accordingly, if any Christian man loves a harlot, and, attaching himself to her, becomes one body, he has not now Christ for a foundation. But if any one loves his own wife, and loves her as Christ would have him love her, who can doubt that he has Christ for a foundation? But if he loves her in the world's fashion, carnally, as the disease of lust prompts him, and as the Gentiles love who know not God, even this the apostle, or rather Christ by the apostle, allows as a venial fault. And therefore even such a man may have Christ for a foundation. For so long as he does not prefer such an affection or pleasure to Christ, Christ is his foundation, though on it he builds wood, hay, stubble; and therefore he shall be saved as by fire. For the fire of affliction shall burn such luxurious pleasures and earthly loves, though they be not damnable, because enjoyed in lawful wedlock. And of this fire the fuel is bereavement, and all those calamities which consume these joys. Consequently the superstructure will be loss to him who has built it, for he shall not retain it, but shall be agonized by the loss of those things in the enjoyment of which he found pleasure. But by this fire he shall be saved through virtue of the foundation, because even if a persecutor demanded whether he would retain Christ or these things, he would prefer Christ. Would you hear, in the apostle's own words, who he is who builds on the foundation gold, silver, precious stones?
He that is unmarried, he says,
cares for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord. 1 Corinthians 7:32 Would you hear who he is that builds wood, hay, stubble? But he that is married cares for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 1 Corinthians 7:33
Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it,— the day, no doubt, of tribulation —
because, says he,
it shall be revealed by fire. 1 Corinthians 3:13 He calls tribulation fire, just as it is elsewhere said,
The furnace proves the vessels of the potter, and the trial of affliction righteous men. Sirach 27:5 And
The fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide — for a man's care for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord, abides —
which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward,— that is, he shall reap the fruit of his care.
But if any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss,— for what he loved he shall not retain:—
but he himself shall be saved, — for no tribulation shall have moved him from that stable foundation —
yet so as by fire; 1 Corinthians 3:14-15 for that which he possessed with the sweetness of love he does not lose without the sharp sting of pain. Here, then, as seems to me, we have a fire which destroys neither, but enriches the one, brings loss to the other, proves both.
But if this passage [of Corinthians] is to interpret that fire of which the Lord shall say to those on His left hand,
Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, Matthew 25:41 so that among these we are to believe there are those who build on the foundation wood, hay, stubble, and that they, through virtue of the good foundation, shall after a time be liberated from the fire that is the award of their evil deserts, what then shall we think of those on the right hand, to whom it shall be said,
Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you, Matthew 25:34 unless that they are those who have built on the foundation gold, silver, precious stones? But if the fire of which our Lord speaks is the same as that of which the apostle says,
Yet so as by fire, then both — that is to say, both those on the right as well as those on the left — are to be cast into it. For that fire is to try both, since it is said,
For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 1 Corinthians 3:13 If, therefore, the fire shall try both, in order that if any man's work abide — i.e., if the superstructure be not consumed by the fire — he may receive a reward, and that if his work is burned he may suffer loss, certainly that fire is not the eternal fire itself. For into this latter fire only those on the left hand shall be cast, and that with final and everlasting doom; but that former fire proves those on the right hand. But some of them it so proves that it does not burn and consume the structure which is found to have been built by them on Christ as the foundation; while others of them it proves in another fashion, so as to burn what they have built up, and thus cause them to suffer loss, while they themselves are saved because they have retained Christ, who was laid as their sure foundation, and have loved Him above all. But if they are saved, then certainly they shall stand at the right hand, and shall with the rest hear the sentence,
Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you; and not at the left hand, where those shall be who shall not be saved, and shall therefore hear the doom,
Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire. For from that fire no man shall be saved, because they all shall go away into eternal punishment, where their worms shall not die, nor their fire be quenched, in which they shall be tormented day and night forever.
But if it be said that in the interval of time between the death of this body and that last day of judgment and retribution which shall follow the resurrection, the bodies of the dead shall be exposed to a fire of such a nature that it shall not affect those who have not in this life indulged in such pleasures and pursuits as shall be consumed like wood, hay, stubble, but shall affect those others who have carried with them structures of that kind; if it be said that such worldliness, being venial, shall be consumed in the fire of tribulation either here only, or here and hereafter both, or here that it may not be hereafter — this I do not contradict, because possibly it is true. For perhaps even the death of the body is itself a part of this tribulation, for it results from the first transgression, so that the time which follows death takes its color in each case from the nature of the man's building. The persecutions, too, which have crowned the martyrs, and which Christians of all kinds suffer, try both buildings like a fire, consuming some, along with the builders themselves, if Christ is not found in them as their foundation, while others they consume without the builders, because Christ is found in them, and they are saved, though with loss; and other buildings still they do not consume, because such materials as abide for ever are found in them. In the end of the world there shall be in the time of Antichrist tribulation such as has never before been. How many edifices there shall then be, of gold or of hay, built on the best foundation, Christ Jesus, which that fire shall prove, bringing joy to some, loss to others, but without destroying either sort, because of this stable foundation! But whosoever prefers, I do not say his wife, with whom he lives for carnal pleasure, but any of those relatives who afford no delight of such a kind, and whom it is right to love — whosoever prefers these to Christ, and loves them after a human and carnal fashion, has not Christ as a foundation, and will therefore not be saved by fire, nor indeed at all; for he shall not possibly dwell with the Saviour, who says very explicitly concerning this very matter,
He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matthew 10:37 But he who loves his relations carnally, and yet so that he does not prefer them to Christ, but would rather want them than Christ if he were put to the proof, shall be saved by fire, because it is necessary that by the loss of these relations he suffer pain in proportion to his love. And he who loves father, mother, sons, daughters, according to Christ, so that he aids them in obtaining His kingdom and cleaving to Him, or loves them because they are members of Christ, God forbid that this love should be consumed as wood, hay, stubble, and not rather be reckoned a structure of gold, silver, precious stones. For how can a man love those more than Christ whom he loves only for Christ's sake?
It remains to reply to those who maintain that those only shall burn in eternal fire who neglect almsdeeds proportioned to their sins, resting this opinion on the words of the Apostle James,
He shall have judgment without mercy that has showed no mercy. James 2:13 Therefore, they say, he that has showed mercy, though he has not reformed his dissolute conduct, but has lived wickedly and iniquitously even while abounding in alms, shall have a merciful judgment, so that he shall either be not condemned at all, or shall be delivered from final judgment after a time. And for the same reason they suppose that Christ will discriminate between those on the right hand and those on the left, and will send the one party into His kingdom, the other into eternal punishment, on the sole ground of their attention to or neglect of works of charity. Moreover, they endeavor to use the prayer which the Lord Himself taught as a proof and bulwark of their opinion, that daily sins which are never abandoned can be expiated through almsdeeds, no matter how offensive or of what sort they be. For, say they, as there is no day on which Christians ought not to use this prayer, so there is no sin of any kind which, though committed every day, is not remitted when we say,
Forgive us our debts, if we take care to fulfill what follows,
as we forgive our debtors. Matthew 6:12 For, they go on to say, the Lord does not say,
If you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will forgive you your little daily sins, but
will forgive you your sins. Therefore, be they of any kind or magnitude whatever, be they perpetrated daily and never abandoned or subdued in this life, they can be pardoned, they presume, through almsdeeds.
But they are right to inculcate the giving of aims proportioned to past sins; for if they said that any kind of alms could obtain the divine pardon of great sins committed daily and with habitual enormity, if they said that such sins could thus be daily remitted, they would see that their doctrine was absurd and ridiculous. For they would thus be driven to acknowledge that it were possible for a very wealthy man to buy absolution from murders, adulteries, and all manner of wickedness, by paying a daily alms of ten paltry coins. And if it be most absurd and insane to make such an acknowledgment, and if we still ask what are those fitting alms of which even the forerunner of Christ said,
Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance, Matthew 3:8 undoubtedly it will be found that they are not such as are done by men who undermine their life by daily enormities even to the very end. For they suppose that by giving to the poor a small fraction of the wealth they acquire by extortion and spoliation they can propitiate Christ, so that they may with impunity commit the most damnable sins, in the persuasion that they have bought from Him a license to transgress, or rather do buy a daily indulgence. And if they for one crime have distributed all their goods to Christ's needy members, that could profit them nothing unless they desisted from all similar actions, and attained charity which works no evil He therefore who does almsdeeds proportioned to his sins must first begin with himself. For it is not reasonable that a man who exercises charity towards his neighbor should not do so towards himself, since he hears the Lord saying,
You shall love your neighbor as yourself, Matthew 22:39 and again,
Have compassion on your soul, and please God. Sirach 30:24 He then who has not compassion on his own soul that he may please God, how can he be said to do almsdeeds proportioned to his sins? To the same purpose is that written,
He who is bad to himself, to whom can he be good? Sirach 21:1 We ought therefore to do alms that we may be heard when we pray that our past sins may be forgiven, not that while we continue in them we may think to provide ourselves with a license for wickedness by almsdeeds.
The reason, therefore, of our predicting that He will impute to those on His right hand the almsdeeds they have done, and charge those on His left with omitting the same, is that He may thus show the efficacy of charity for the deletion of past sins, not for impunity in their perpetual commission. And such persons, indeed, as decline to abandon their evil habits of life for a better course cannot be said to do charitable deeds. For this is the purport of the saying,
Inasmuch as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me. Matthew 25:45 He shows them that they do not perform charitable actions even when they think they are doing so. For if they gave bread to a hungering Christian because he is a Christian, assuredly they would not deny to themselves the bread of righteousness, that is, Christ Himself; for God considers not the person to whom the gift is made, but the spirit in which it is made. He therefore who loves Christ in a Christian extends alms to him in the same spirit in which he draws near to Christ, not in that spirit which would abandon Christ if it could do so with impunity. For in proportion as a man loves what Christ disapproves does he himself abandon Christ. For what does it profit a man that he is baptized, if he is not justified? Did not He who said,
Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God, John 3:5 say also,
Unless your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven? Matthew 5:20 Why do many through fear of the first saying run to baptism, while few through fear of the second seek to be justified? As therefore it is not to his brother a man says,
You fool, if when he says it he is indignant not at the brotherhood, but at the sin of the offender — for otherwise he were guilty of hell fire — so he who extends charity to a Christian does not extend it to a Christian if he does not love Christ in him. Now he does not love Christ who refuses to be justified in Him. Or, again, if a man has been guilty of this sin of calling his brother Fool, unjustly reviling him without any desire to remove his sin, his almsdeeds go a small way towards expiating this fault, unless he adds to this the remedy of reconciliation which the same passage enjoins. For it is there said,
Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has anything against you; leave there your gift before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Matthew 5:23-24 Just so it is a small matter to do almsdeeds, no matter how great they be, for any sin, so long as the offender continues in the practice of sin.
Then as to the daily prayer which the Lord Himself taught, and which is therefore called the Lord's prayer, it obliterates indeed the sins of the day, when day by day we say,
Forgive us our debts, and when we not only say but act out that which follows,
as we forgive our debtors; Matthew 6:12 but we utter this petition because sins have been committed, and not that they may be. For by it our Saviour designed to teach us that, however righteously we live in this life of infirmity and darkness, we still commit sins for the remission of which we ought to pray, while we must pardon those who sin against us that we ourselves also may be pardoned. The Lord then did not utter the words,
If you forgive men their trespasses, your Father will also forgive you your trespasses, Matthew 6:14 in order that we might contract from this petition such confidence as should enable us to sin securely from day to day, either putting ourselves above the fear of human laws, or craftily deceiving men concerning our conduct, but in order that we might thus learn not to suppose that we are without sins, even though we should be free from crimes; as also God admonished the priests of the old law to this same effect regarding their sacrifices, which He commanded them to offer first for their own sins, and then for the sins of the people. For even the very words of so great a Master and Lord are to be intently considered. For He does not say, If you forgive men their sins, your Father will also forgive you your sins, no matter of what sort they be, but He says, your sins; for it was a daily prayer He was teaching, and it was certainly to disciples already justified He was speaking. What, then, does He mean by
your sins, but those sins from which not even you who are justified and sanctified can be free? While, then, those who seek occasion from this petition to indulge in habitual sin maintain that the Lord meant to include great sins, because He did not say, He will forgive you your small sins, but
your sins, we, on the other hand, taking into account the character of the persons He was addressing, cannot see our way to interpret the expression
your sins of anything but small sins, because such persons are no longer guilty of great sins. Nevertheless not even great sins themselves — sins from which we must flee with a total reformation of life — are forgiven to those who pray, unless they observe the appended precept,
as you also forgive your debtors. For if the very small sins which attach even to the life of the righteous be not remitted without that condition, how much further from obtaining indulgence shall those be who are involved in many great crimes, if, while they cease from perpetrating such enormities, they still inexorably refuse to remit any debt incurred to themselves, since the Lord says,
But if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses? Matthew 6:15 For this is the purport of the saying of the Apostle James also,
He shall have judgment without mercy that has showed no mercy. James 2:13 For we should remember that servant whose debt of ten thousand talents his lord cancelled, but afterwards ordered him to pay up, because the servant himself had no pity for his fellow-servant, who owed him an hundred pence. Matthew 18:23 The words which the Apostle James subjoins,
And mercy rejoices against judgment, James 2:13 find their application among those who are the children of the promise and vessels of mercy. For even those righteous men, who have lived with such holiness that they receive into the eternal habitations others also who have won their friendship with the mammon of unrighteousness, Luke 16:9 became such only through the merciful deliverance of Him who justifies the ungodly, imputing to him a reward according to grace, not according to debt. For among this number is the apostle, who says,
I obtained mercy to be faithful. 1 Corinthians 7:25
But it must be admitted, that those who are thus received into the eternal habitations are not of such a character that their own life would suffice to rescue them without the aid of the saints, and consequently in their case especially does mercy rejoice against judgment. And yet we are not on this account to suppose that every abandoned profligate, who has made no amendment of his life, is to be received into the eternal habitations if only he has assisted the saints with the mammon of unrighteousness — that is to say, with money or wealth which has been unjustly acquired, or, if rightfully acquired, is yet not the true riches, but only what iniquity counts riches, because it knows not the true riches in which those persons abound, who even receive others also into eternal habitations. There is then a certain kind of life, which is neither, on the one hand, so bad that those who adopt it are not helped towards the kingdom of heaven by any bountiful almsgiving by which they may relieve the wants of the saints, and make friends who could receive them into eternal habitations, nor, on the other hand, so good that it of itself suffices to win for them that great blessedness, if they do not obtain mercy through the merits of those whom they have made their friends. And I frequently wonder that even Virgil should give expression to this sentence of the Lord, in which He says,
Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that they may receive you into everlasting habitations; Luke 16:9 and this very similar saying,
He that receives a prophet, in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receives a righteous man, in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man's reward. Matthew 10:41 For when that poet described the Elysian fields, in which they suppose that the souls of the blessed dwell, he placed there not only those who had been able by their own merit to reach that abode, but added —
And they who grateful memory won
By services to others done;
that is, they who had served others, and thereby merited to be remembered by them. Just as if they used the expression so common in Christian lips, where some humble person commends himself to one of the saints, and says, Remember me, and secures that he do so by deserving well at his hand. But what that kind of life we have been speaking of is, and what those sins are which prevent a man from winning the kingdom of God by himself, but yet permit him to avail himself of the merits of the saints, it is very difficult to ascertain, very perilous to define. For my own part, in spite of all investigation, I have been up to the present hour unable to discover this. And possibly it is hidden from us, lest we should become careless in avoiding such sins, and so cease to make progress. For if it were known what these sins are which, though they continue, and be not abandoned for a higher life, do yet not prevent us from seeking and hoping for the intercession of the saints, human sloth would presumptuously wrap itself in these sins, and would take no steps to be disentangled from such wrappings by the deft energy of any virtue, but would only desire to be rescued by the merits of other people, whose friendship had been won by a bountiful use of the mammon of unrighteousness. But now that we are left in ignorance of the precise nature of that iniquity which is venial, even though it be persevered in, certainly we are both more vigilant in our prayers and efforts for progress, and more careful to secure with the mammon of unrighteousness friends for ourselves among the saints.
But this deliverance, which is effected by one's own prayers, or the intercession of holy men, secures that a man be not cast into eternal fire, but not that, when once he has been cast into it, he should after a time be rescued from it. For even those who fancy that what is said of the good ground bringing forth abundant fruit, some thirty, some sixty, some an hundred fold, is to be referred to the saints, so that in proportion to their merits some of them shall deliver thirty men, some sixty, some an hundred — even those who maintain this are yet commonly inclined to suppose that this deliverance will take place at, and not after the day of judgment. Under this impression, some one who observed the unseemly folly with which men promise themselves impunity on the ground that all will be included in this method of deliverance, is reported to have very happily remarked, that we should rather endeavor to live so well that we shall be all found among the number of those who are to intercede for the liberation of others, lest these should be so few in number, that, after they have delivered one thirty, another sixty, another a hundred, there should still remain many who could not be delivered from punishment by their intercessions, and among them every one who has vainly and rashly promised himself the fruit of another's labor. But enough has been said in reply to those who acknowledge the authority of the same sacred Scriptures as ourselves, but who, by a mistaken interpretation of them, conceive of the future rather as they themselves wish, than as the Scriptures teach. And having given this reply, I now, according to promise, close this book.
Source. Translated by Marcus Dods. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 2. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120121.htm>.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732 at newadvent.org. (To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.
CONTACT US | ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT

Question: who mentioned an abode where the souls of the dead remained until the universal judgment

Answer: Irenaeus

Question: what is the name of the book that deals with purgatory

Answer: Christian Dogmatics

what is the name of the book that deals with purgatory

Question: until what did the souls of the dead remain

Answer: the universal judgment

until what did the souls of the dead remain

Question: what concept has been described as one which contains the concept of universal judgment

Answer: purgatory

Question: when did renaeus write

Answer: 130-202

Question: how long did the souls of the dead remain

Answer: until the universal judgment

how long did the souls of the dead remain

"gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita" (P. L., col.

397), quoted in Catholic Encyclopedia: Purgatory.

"Ps.

In the early 5th century , Augustine spoke of the pain that purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life .

" gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita " ( P. L. , col .

397 ) , quoted in Catholic Encyclopedia : Purgatory .

And Gregory the Great said that those who after this life " will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames , " and he adds " that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life .

|A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z|
Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more all for only $19.99...
The subject is treated under these heads:
Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.
The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined:
"Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful" (Denzinger, "Enchiridon", 983).
Further than this the definitions of the Church do not go, but the tradition of the Fathers and the Schoolmen must be consulted to explain the teachings of the councils, and to make clear the belief and the practices of the faithful.
That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, is clearly the teaching of Scripture. God indeed brought man out of his first disobedience and gave him power to govern all things (Wisdom 10:2), but still condemned him "to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow" until he returned unto dust. God forgave the incredulity of Moses and Aaron, but in punishment kept them from the "land of promise" (Numbers 20:12). The Lord took away the sin of David, but the life of the child was forfeited because David had made God's enemies blaspheme His Holy Name (2 Samuel 12:13-14). In the New Testament as well as in the Old, almsgiving and fasting, and in general penitential acts are the real fruits of repentance (Matthew 3:8; Luke 17:3; 3:3). The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance and the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, can. xi) reminds the faithful that God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God.
All sins are not equal before God, nor dare anyone assert that the daily faults of human frailty will be punished with the same severity that is meted out to serious violation of God's law. On the other hand whosoever comes into God's presence must be perfectly pure for in the strictest sense His "eyes are too pure, to behold evil" (Habakkuk 1:13). For unrepented venial faults for the payment of temporal punishment due to sin at time of death, the Church has always taught the doctrine of purgatory.
So deep was this belief ingrained in our common humanity that it was accepted by the Jews, and in at least a shadowy way by the pagans, long before the coming of Christianity. ("Aeneid," VI, 735 sq.; Sophocles, "Antigone," 450 sq.).
Epiphanius (Haer., lxxv, P.G., XLII, col. 513) complains that Aërius (fourth century) taught that prayers for the dead were of no avail. In the Middle Ages, the doctrine of purgatory was rejected by the Albigenses, Waldenses, and Hussites. St. Bernard (Serm. lxvi in Cantic., P.L. CLXXXIII, col. 1098) states that the so-called "Apostolici" denied purgatory and the utility of prayers for the departed. Much discussion has arisen over the position of the Greeks on the question of purgatory. It would seem that the great difference of opinion was not concerning the existence of purgatory but concerning the nature of purgatorial fire; still St. Thomas proves the existence of purgatory in his dissertation against the errors of the Greeks, and the Council of Florence also thought necessary to affirm the belief of the Church on the subject (Bellarmine, "De Purgatorio," lib. I, cap. i). The modern Orthodox Church denies purgatory, but is rather inconsistent in its way of putting forth its belief.
At the beginning of the Reformation there was some hesitation especially on Luther's part (Leipzig Disputation) as to whether the doctrine should be retained, but as the breach widened, the denial of purgatory by the Reformers became universal, and Calvin termed the Catholic position "exitiale commentum quod crucem Christi evacuat . . . quod fidem nostram labefacit et evertit" (Institutiones, lib. III, cap. v, 6). Modern Protestants, while they avoid the name purgatory, frequently teach the doctrine of "the middle state," and Martensen ("Christian Dogmatics," Edinburgh, 1890, p. 457) writes: "As no soul leaves this present existence in a fully complete and prepared state, we must suppose that there is an intermediate state, a realm of progressive development, (?) in which souls are prepared for the final judgment" (Farrar, "Mercy and Judgment," London, 1881, cap. iii).
The Catholic doctrine of purgatory supposes the fact that some die with smaller faults for which there was no true repentance, and also the fact that the temporal penalty due to sin is at times not wholly paid in this life. The proofs for the Catholic position, both in Scripture and in Tradition, are bound up also with the practice of praying for the dead. For why pray for the dead, if there be no belief in the power of prayer to afford solace to those who as yet are excluded from the sight of God? So true is this position that prayers for the dead and the existence of a place of purgation are mentioned in conjunction in the oldest passages of the Fathers, who allege reasons for succouring departed souls. Those who have opposed the doctrine of purgatory have confessed that prayers for the dead would be an unanswerable argument if the modern doctrine of a "particular judgment" had been received in the early ages. But one has only to read the testimonies hereinafter alleged to feel sure that the Fathers speak, in the same breath, of oblations for the dead and a place of purgation; and one has only to consult the evidence found in the catacombs to feel equally sure that the Christian faith there expressed embraced clearly a belief in judgment immediately after death. Wilpert ("Roma Sotteranea," I, 441) thus concludes chapter 21, "Che tale esaudimento", etc.:
Intercession has been made for the soul of the dear one departed and God has heard the prayer, and the soul has passed into a place of light and refreshment." "Surely," Wilpert adds, "such intercession would have no place were there question not of the particular, but of the final judgment.
Some stress too has been laid upon the objection that the ancient Christians had no clear conception of purgatory, and that they thought that the souls departed remained in uncertainty of salvation to the last day; and consequently they prayed that those who had gone before might in the final judgment escape even the everlasting torments of hell. The earliest Christian traditions are clear as to the particular judgment, and clearer still concerning a sharp distinction between purgatory and hell. The passages alledged as referring to relief from hell cannot offset the evidence given below (Bellarmine, "De Purgatorio," lib. II, cap. v). Concerning the famous case of Trajan, which vexed the Doctors of the Middle Ages, see Bellarmine, loc. cit., cap. Viii.
The tradition of the Jews is put forth with precision and clearness in 2 Maccabees. Judas, the commander of the forces of Israel,
making a gathering . . . sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:43-46)
At the time of the Maccabees the leaders of the people of God had no hesitation in asserting the efficacy of prayers offered for the dead, in order that those who had departed this life might find pardon for their sins and the hope of eternal resurrection.
There are several passages in the New Testament that point to a process of purification after death. Thus, Jesus Christ declares (Matthew 12:32): "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." According to St. Isidore of Seville (Deord. creatur., c. xiv, n. 6) these words prove that in the next life "some sins will be forgiven and purged away by a certain purifying fire." St. Augustine also argues "that some sinners are not forgiven either in this world or in the next would not be truly said unless there were other [sinners] who, though not forgiven in this world, are forgiven in the world to come" (City of God XXI.24). The same interpretation is given by Gregory the Great (Dial., IV, xxxix); St. Bede (commentary on this text); St. Bernard (Sermo lxvi in Cantic., n. 11) and other eminent theological writers.
A further argument is supplied by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15:
"For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."
While this passage presents considerable difficulty, it is regarded by many of the Fathers and theologians as evidence for the existence of an intermediate state in which the dross of lighter transgressions will be burnt away, and the soul thus purified will be saved. This, according to Bellarmine (De Purg., I, 5), is the interpretation commonly given by the Fathers and theologians; and he cites to this effect:
See also St. Thomas, "Contra Gentes,", IV, 91. For a discussion of the exegetical problem, see Atzberger, "Die christliche Eschatologie", p. 275.
This doctrine that many who have died are still in a place of purification and that prayers avail to help the dead is part of the very earliest Christian tradition. Tertullian "De corona militis" mentions prayers for the dead as an Apostolic ordinance, and in "De Monogamia" (chapter 10) he advises a widow "to pray for the soul of her husband, begging repose for him and participation in the first resurrection"; he commands her also "to make oblations for him on the anniversary of his demise," and charges her with infidelity if she neglect to succour his soul. This settled custom of the Church is clear from St. Cyprian, who (P.L. IV, col. 399) forbade the customary prayers for one who had violated the ecclesiastical law. "Our predecessors prudently advised that no brother, departing this life, should nominate any churchman as his executor; and should he do it, that no oblation should be made for him, nor sacrifice offered for his repose." Long before Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria had puzzled over the question of the state or condition of the man who, reconciled to God on his death-bed, had no time for the fulfilment of penance due his transgression. His answer is: "the believer through discipline divests himself of his passions and passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, passes to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance for the faults he may have committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more, not yet attaining what he sees others have acquired. The greatest torments are assigned to the believer, for God's righteousness is good, and His goodness righteous, and though these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one, "yet" etc. (P.G. IX, col. 332).
In Origen the doctrine of purgatory is very clear. If a man departs this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter. "For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (1 Corinthians 3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones? Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works." (P.G., XIII, col. 445, 448).
The Apostolic practice of praying for the dead which passed into the liturgy of the Church, is as clear in the fourth century as it is in the twentieth. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Mystagogical Catechesis V.9) describing the liturgy, writes: "Then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bishops that are dead; and in short for all those who have departed this life in our communion; believing that the souls of those for whom prayers are offered receive very great relief, while this holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar." St. Gregory of Nyssa (P.G., XLVI, col. 524, 525) states that man's weaknesses are purged in this life by prayer and wisdom, or are expiated in the next by a cleansing fire. "When he has quitted his body and the difference between virtue and vice is known he cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested. That same fire in others will cancel the corruption of matter, and the propensity to evil." About the same time the Apostolic Constitution gives us the formularies used in succouring the dead. "Let us pray for our brethren who sleep in Christ, that God who in his love for men has received the soul of the departed one, may forgive him every fault, and in mercy and clemency receive him into the bosom of Abraham, with those who in this life have pleased God" (P.G. I, col. 1144). Nor can we pass over the use of the diptychs where the names of the dead were inscribed; and this remembrance by name in the Sacred Mysteries--(a practice that was from the Apostles) was considered by Chrysostom as the best way of relieving the dead (Homily 41 on First Corinthians, no. 8).
The teaching of the Fathers, and the formularies used in the Liturgy of the Church, found expression in the early Christian monuments, particularly those contained in the catacombs. On the tombs of the faithful were inscribed words of hope, words of petition for peace and for rest; and as the anniversaries came round the faithful gathered at the graves of the departed to make intercession for those who had gone before. At the bottom this is nothing else than the faith expressed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio"), and to this faith the inscriptions in the catacombs are surely witnesses.
In the fourth century in the West, Ambrose insists in his commentary on St. Paul (1 Corinthians 3) on the existence of purgatory, and in his masterly funeral oration (De obitu Theodosii), thus prays for the soul of the departed emperor: "Give, O Lord, rest to Thy servant Theodosius, that rest Thou hast prepared for Thy saints. . . . I loved him, therefore will I follow him to the land of the living; I will not leave him till by my prayers and lamentations he shall be admitted unto the holy mount of the Lord, to which his deserts call him" (P.L., XVI, col. 1397). St. Augustine is clearer even than his master. He describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness" etc., and in the resurrection he says there will be some who "have gone through these pains, to which the spirits of the dead are liable" (City of God XXI.24). Thus at the close of the fourth century:
So clear is this patristic Tradition that those who do not believe in purgatory have been unable to bring any serious difficulties from the writings of the Fathers. The passages cited to the contrary either do not touch the question at all, or are so lacking in clearness that they cannot offset the perfectly open expression of the doctrine as found in the very Fathers who are quoted as holding contrary opinions (Bellarmine "De Purg.", lib. I, cap. xiii).
The very reasons assigned for the existence of purgatory make for its passing character. We pray, we offer sacrifice for souls therein detained that "God in mercy may forgive every fault and receive them into the bosom of Abraham" (Apostolic Constitutions); and Augustine (City of God XXI.13, 16) declares that the punishment of purgatory is temporary and will cease, at least with the Last Judgment. "But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment."
It is clear from the Liturgies and the Fathers above cited that the souls for whose peace sacrifice was offered were shut out for the time being from the sight of God. They were "not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness". Still, for them "death is the termination not of nature but of sin" (Ambrose, "De obitu Theodos."); and this inability to sin makes them secure of final happiness. This is the Catholic position proclaimed by Leo X in the Bull "Exurge Domine" which condemned the errors of Luther.
Are the souls detained in purgatory conscious that their happiness is but deferred for a time, or may they still be in doubt concerning their ultimate salvation? The ancient Liturgies and the inscriptions of the catacombs speak of a "sleep of peace", which would be impossible if there was any doubt of ultimate salvation. Some of the Doctors of the Middle Ages thought uncertainty of salvation one of the severe punishments of purgatory. (Bellarmine, "De Purgat." lib. II, cap. iv); but this opinion finds no general credit among the theologians of the medieval period, nor is it possible in the light of the belief in the particular judgment. St. Bonaventure gives as the reason for this elimination of fear and of uncertainty the intimate conviction that they can no longer sin (lib. IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1 q. iv): "Est evacuatio timoris propter confirniationem liberi arbitrii, qua deinceps scit se peccare non posse" (Fear is cast out because of the strengthening of the will by which the soul knows it can no longer sin), and St. Thomas (dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) says: "nisi scirent se esse liberandas suffragia non peterent" (unless they knew that they are to be delivered, they would not ask for prayers).
In the Bull "Exurge Domine" Leo X condemns the proposition (n. 38) "Nec probatum est ullis aut rationibus aut scripturis ipsas esse extra statum merendi aut augendae caritatis" (There is no proof from reason or Scripture that they [the souls in purgatory] cannot merit or increase in charity). For them "the night has come in which no man can labour", and Christian tradition has always considered that only in this life can man work unto the profit of his own soul. The Doctors of the Middle Ages while agreeing that this life is the time for merit and increase of grace, still some with St. Thomas seemed to question whether or not there might be some non-essential reward which the souls in purgatory might merit (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a. 3). Bellarmine believes that in this matter St. Thomas changed his opinion and refers to a statement of St. Thomas ("De Malo", q. vii, a. 11). Whatever may be the mind of the Angelic Doctor, theologians agree that no merit is possible in purgatory, and if objection be urged that the souls there merit by their prayers, Bellarmine says that such prayers avail with God because of merit already acquired "Solum impetrant ex meritis praeteritis quomodo nunc sancti orando) pro nobis impetrant licet non merendo" (They avail only in virtue of past merits as those who are now saints intercede for us not by merit but by prayer). (loc. cit. II, cap. iii).
At the Council of Florence, Bessarion argued against the existence of real purgatorial fire, and the Greeks were assured that the Roman Church had never issued any dogmatic decree on this subject. In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37, no. 3) speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, "gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita" (P.L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life "will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames," and he adds "that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life" (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. "Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur", and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; "Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta". How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops "to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification', and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion" (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio").
Scripture and the Fathers command prayers and oblations for the departed, and the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio") in virtue of this tradition not only asserts the existence of purgatory, but adds "that the souls therein detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar." That those on earth are still in communion with the souls in purgatory is the earliest Christian teaching, and that the living aid the dead by their prayers and works of satisfaction is clear from the tradition above alleged. That the Holy Sacrifice was offered for the departed was received Catholic Tradition even in the days of Tertullian and Cyprian, and that the souls of the dead, were aided particularly "while the sacred victim lay upon the altar" is the expression of Cyril of Jerusalem quoted above. Augustine (Serm. clxii, n. 2) says that the "prayers and alms of the faithful, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar aid the faithful departed and move the Lord to deal with them in mercy and kindness, and," he adds, "this is the practice of the universal Church handed down by the Fathers." Whether our works of satisfaction performed on behalf of the dead avail purely out of God's benevolence and mercy, or whether God obliges himself in justice to accept our vicarious atonement, is not a settled question. Francisco Suárez thinks that the acceptance is one of justice, and alleges the common practice of the Church which joins together the living and the dead without any discrimination (De poenit., disp. xlviii, 6, n. 4).
The Council of Trent (Sess. XXV) defined that indulgences are "most salutary for Christian people" and that their "use is to be retained in the Church". It is the common teaching of Catholic theologians that
(1) Augustine (City of God XX.9) declares that the souls of the faithful departed are not separated from the Church, which is the kingdom of Christ, and for this reason the prayers and works of the living are helpful to the dead. "If therefore", argues Bellarmine (De indulgentiis, xiv) "we can offer our prayers and our satisfactions in behalf of those detained in purgatory, because we are members of the great body of Christ, why may not the Vicar of Christ apply to the same souls the superabundant satisfaction of Christ and his saints--of which he is the dispenser?" This is the doctrine of St. Thomas (IV, Sent., dist. xlv, q. ii, a. 3, q. 2) who asserts that indulgences avail principally for the person who performs the work for which the indulgence is given, if they but secondarily may avail even for the dead, if the form in which the indulgence is granted be so worded as to be capable of such interpretation, and he adds "nor is there any reason why the Church may not dispose of its treasure of merits in favour of the dead, as it surely dispenses it in favour of the living".
(2) St. Bonaventure (IV, Sent., dist. xx, p. 2, q. v) agrees with St. Thomas, but adds that such "relaxation cannot be after the manner of absolution as in the case of the living but only as suffrage (Haec non tenet modum judicii, sed potius suffragii). This opinion of St. Bonaventure, that the Church through its Supreme Pastor does not absolve juridically the souls in purgatory from the punishment due their sins, is the teaching of the Doctors. They point out (Gratian, 24 q. ii, 2, can.1) that in case of those who have departed this life, judgment is reserved to God; they allege the authority of Gelasius (Ep. ad Fausturn; Ep. ad. Episcopos Dardaniae) in support of their contention (Gratian ibid.), and they also insist that the Roman Pontiffs, when they grant indulgences that are applicable to the dead, add the restriction "per modum suffragii et deprecationis". This phrase is found in the Bull of Sixtus IV "Romani Pontificis provida diligentia", 27 Nov. 1447.
The phrase "per modum suffragi et deprecationis" has been variously interpreted by theologians (Bellarmine, "De indulgentiis", p.137). Bellarmine himself says: "The true opinion is that indulgences avail as suffrage, because they avail not after the fashion of a juridical absolution 'quia non prosunt per modum juridicae absolutionis'." But according to the same author the suffrages of the faithful avail at times "per modum meriti congrui" (by way of merit), at times "per modum impetrationis" (by way of supplication) at times "per modum satisfactionis" (by way of satisfaction); but when there is question of applying an indulgence to one in purgatory it is only "per modum suffragii satisfactorii" and for this reason "the pope does not absolve the soul in purgatory from the punishment due his sin, but offers to God from the treasure of the Church whatever may be necessary for the cancelling of this punishment".
If the question be further asked whether such satisfaction is accepted by God out of mercy and benevolence, or "ex justitia", theologians are not in accord — some holding one opinion, others the other. Bellarmine after canvassing both sides (pp. 137, 138) does not dare to set aside "either opinion, but is inclined to think that the former is more reasonable while he pronounces the latter in harmony with piety ("admodum pia").
That an indulgence may avail for those in purgatory several conditions are required:
If the state of grace be not among the required works, in all probability the person performing the work may gain the indulgence for the dead, even though he himself be not in friendship with God (Bellarmine, loc. cit., p. 139). Francisco Suárez (De Poenit., disp. Iiii, s. 4, n. 5 and 6) puts this categorically when he says: "Status gratiae solum requiritur ad tollendum obicem indulgentiae" (the state of grace is required only to remove some hindrance to the indulgence), and in the case of the holy souls there can be no hindrance. This teaching is bound up with the doctrine of the Communion of Saints, and the monuments of the catacombs represent the saints and martyrs as interceding with God for the dead. The prayers too of the early liturgies speak of Mary and of the saints interceding for those who have passed from this life. Augustine believes that burial in a basilica dedicated to a holy martyr is of value to the dead, for those who recall the memory of him who has suffered will recommend to the martyr's prayers the soul of him who has departed this life (Bellarmine, lib. II, xv). In the same place Bellarmine accuses Dominicus A Soto of rashness, because he denied this doctrine.
Do the souls in purgatory pray for us? May we call upon them in our needs? There is no decision of the Church on this subject, nor have the theologians pronounced with definiteness concerning the invocation of the souls in purgatory and their intercession for the living. In the ancient liturgies there are no prayers of the Church directed to those who are still in purgatory. On the tombs of the early Christians nothing is more common than a prayer or a supplication asking the departed to intercede with God for surviving friends, but these inscriptions seem always to suppose that the departed one is already with God. St. Thomas (II-II.83.11) denies that the souls in purgatory pray for the living, and states they are not in a position to pray for us, rather we must make intercession for them. Despite the authority of St. Thomas, many renowned theologians hold that the souls in purgatory really pray for us, and that we may invoke their aid. Bellarmine (De Purgatorio, lib. II, xv,) says the reason alleged by St. Thomas is not at all convincing, and holds that in virtue of their greater love of God and their union with Him their prayers may have great intercessory power, for they are really superior to us in love of God, and in intimacy of union with Him. Francisco Suárez (De poenit., disp. xlvii, s. 2, n. 9) goes farther and asserts "that the souls in purgatory are holy, are dear to God, love us with a true love and are mindful of our wants; that they know in a general way our necessities and our dangers, and how great is our need of divine help and divine grace".
When there is question of invoking the prayers of those in purgatory, Bellarmine (loc. cit.) says it is superfluous, ordinarily speaking, for they are ignorant of our circumstances and condition. This is at variance with the opinion of Francisco Suárez, who admits knowledge at least in a general way, also with the opinions of many modern theologians who point to the practice now common with almost all the faithful of addressing their prayers and petitions for help to those who are still in a place of purgation. Scavini (Theol. Moral., XI, n. 174) sees no reason why the souls detained in purgatory may not pray for us, even as we pray for one another. He asserts that this practice has become common at Rome, and that it has the great name of St. Alphonsus in its favour. St. Alphonsus in his work the "Great Means of Salvation", chap. I, III, 2, after quoting Sylvius, Gotti, Lessius, and Medina as favourable to his opinion, concludes: "so the souls in purgatory, being beloved by God and confirmed in grace, have absolutely no impediment to prevent them from praying for us. Still the Church does not invoke them or implore their intercession, because ordinarily they have no cognizance of our prayers. But we may piously believe that God makes our prayers known to them". He alleges also the authority of St. Catharine of Bologna who "whenever she desired any favour had recourse to the souls in purgatory, and was immediately heard".
It is the traditional faith of Catholics that the souls in purgatory are not separated from the Church, and that the love which is the bond of union between the Church's members should embrace those who have departed this life in God's grace. Hence, since our prayers and our sacrifices can help those who are still waiting in purgatory, the saints have not hesitated to warn us that we have a real duty toward those who are still in purgatorial expiation. Holy Church through the Congregation of Indulgences, 18 December 1885, has bestowed a special blessing on the so-called "heroic act" in virtue of which "a member of the Church militant offers to God for the souls in purgatory all the satisfactory works which he will perform during his lifetime, and also all the suffrages which may accrue to him after his death" (Heroic Act, vol. VII, 292). The practice of devotion to the dead is also consoling to humanity and eminently worthy of a religion which seconds all the purest feelings of the human heart. "Sweet", says Cardinal Wiseman (lecture XI), "is the consolation of the dying man, who, conscious of imperfection, believes that there are others to make intercession for him, when his own time for merit has expired; soothing to the afflicted survivors the thought that they possess powerful means of relieving their friend. In the first moments of grief, this sentiment will often overpower religious prejudice, cast down the unbeliever on his knees beside the remains of his friend and snatch from him an unconscious prayer for rest; it is an impulse of nature which for the moment, aided by the analogies of revealed truth, seizes at once upon this consoling belief. But it is only a flitting and melancholy light, while the Catholic feeling, cheering though with solemn dimness, resembles the unfailing lamp, which the piety of the ancients is said to have hung before the sepulchres of their dead."
APA citation. (1911). Purgatory. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
MLA citation. "Purgatory." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm>.
Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by William G. Bilton, Ph.D. In memory of Father George P. O'Neill — Former pastor of St. John the Baptist Church, Buffalo, N.Y.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.
CONTACT US | ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT

Question: who wrote about purgatorial fire in the early 5th century

Answer: Augustine

who wrote about purgatorial fire in the early 5th century

Question: who said purgatorial flames are more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life

Answer: Gregory the Great

Question: when did augustine speak of purgatorial fire

Answer: 5th century

when did augustine speak of purgatorial fire

Question: in what century did augustine speak of purgatorial fire

Answer: 5th

in what century did augustine speak of purgatorial fire

Question: what causes pain more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life

Answer: purgatorial fire

what causes pain more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life

Question: where is purgior erit ignis quam quidquid potest

Answer: Catholic Encyclopedia: Purgatory

where is purgior erit ignis quam quidquid potest

another is the Visio Tnugdali.

Other legends localized the entrance to Purgatory in places such as a cave on the volcanic Mount Etna in Sicily .

A History of the Church in the Middle Ages by F. Donald Logan Thus the idea of purgatory as a physical place became widespread on a popular level , and was defended also by some theologians .

Question: who wrote a history of the church in the middle ages

Answer: F. Donald Logan

who wrote a history of the church in the middle ages

Question: where is the entrance to purgatory located

Answer: Visio Tnugdali

where is the entrance to purgatory located

Question: where is the cave on mt etna located

Answer: Sicily

Question: who defended the idea of purgatory

Answer: theologians

Visions of the Other World in Middle English by Robert Easting, p. 16 ; The legend of the "Purgatory of Saint Patrick": from Ireland, until Dante and beyond.

Visions of the Other World in Middle English by Robert Easting , p. 16 ; The legend of the " Purgatory of Saint Patrick " : from Ireland , until Dante and beyond .

CLAUDIA DI FONZO
(testo depositato soggetto a copyright)
The legend of the "Purgatory of Saint Patrick": from Ireland, until Dante and beyond.
"Yes by Saint Patrick .... Touching this vision here
It is an honest ghost, that let me tell you"
(Hamlet, Act I, Scene 5)
"...A cursory reading of some of popular medieval accounts of otherworld journeys [...] reveals that Owen's experiences in Saint Patrick's Purgatory conformed to the conventions of well-worn literary genre..."
However, before we can talk about the literary genre, it would be useful to discuss some recurring "themes", common narrative patterns, characterising primary models which structure the Irish "Eachtra", that is, the stories of adventure such as the Eachtra Connla, the "Imram", or better, those voluntary travels, such as the one taken by Maeldúin, Ua Chorra prototype of the Christian Navigatio sancti Brandani - , by Snedgus and by Mac Riagla and the "fís", real and irrefutable visions. Among these we must include those of the monks Fursa, Laisrén and Adamnán and those of the laymen such as Tundalo and the knight Owain to the Purgatory of Saint Patrick.
And if the reason for the descent into this hell is very old and the representation of an "Other world" has been researched in and of itself as well as in relationship to the Divine Comedy "in the Celtic tradition a visit to the Other world, the "Tir Tairgire" or "Tír na nÓg" was an integral part of the Eachtra or adventure story" and precisely within this tradition, having quickly become a Christian one, the legend of the Purgatory of Saint Patrick is born, codified into three different Latin versions "represents in some way the birth of literature about the Purgatory", even though the identification of a third intermediate reign was already present at the time of the Greeks. Furthermore, Blochet had noted how the Purgatory of Saint Patrick offered certain points of commonality with the oriental legends of the Ascension: in particular with the Arda Viraf and the oriental vision of Hell. Among the motifs in the oriental ascendence was that of the bridge ( the Persian cinvat already present in the Visio Pauli), a metaphoric theme that in other texts might be similar to the hebrew-semitic idea of the ladder (also present in the vision of Adamnán) assuming a double nature of the sometimes infernal element (such as is the case of the Visio Alberici: "Post hec vidi scalam ferream (...). Pedes autem per scalam ascendentium et descendentium exurebantur in illis gradibus ignitis", sometimes purgatorial one (in the Visio Pauli,and later in the Purgatory of Saint Patrick).
All of this describes only in small part the importance that this "zipper legend" had and its popularisation on the European continent.
It tells the story of the monk Patrick, captured by pirates and transported to Ireland, later becoming an apostle for those peoples "cum tota Britannia algore incredulitas rigesceret". The Chronica Hybernienses recounts how one day, Christ himself had led the monk, who in the Vita Tertia has the reputation of being a thaumaturgical hero, a miracle worker, to a legendary cave, a sort of well which tradition identifies as being located in Lake Derg or the Red Lake in the county of Donegal, which, by passing through it, one can enter into the hereafter: "De hoc quoque purgatorio et eius origine quod sequitur tradunt veteres historiae hybernienses". The story of the Irish knight, Owain, who ventures into that cavern at one time indicated to bishop Patrick is told by Matteo Paris in his column published in his Chronica maiora in the year 1153 and later in the Tractatus de Purgatorio sancti Patricii by Henricus Saltereiensis written between the years 1170 and 1185. The legend, started in Ireland, had various versions in different languages, middle English, Anglo-Norman, Provençal, old French and Spanish. They all tell the story of the foundation of Purgatory and the visit made by knight Owain there, how he entered into the cavern, after the preliminary rituals and repentance, how he had been warned by men dressed in white about the tortures and torments that he would encounter, what punishment he would have suffered before arriving in the Heaven on earth from which he was to be excluded. Those who were allowed to enter into the mysterious cavern located on an island in the Lake Derg were to report back to the others, upon their return, exactly what they saw and heard. The narration finished with the acts of the archives of the abbey, but not one of these summations ever arrived all the way to our part of the world. There are many versions of the legend and they are told in many languages.
Kölbing distinguished three Latin versions of the legend: a complete unedited version was published in the work of Joannes Colganus; an intermediate version which he identifies in the Tractatus de Sancti Patrici by Henry of Saltrey, and a brief version which can be found in the aforementioned Cronica majora by Matteo de Paris.
Paul Meyer, in his revisitation of the writings of Kölbing brings to light that a further text was missing, the manuscript Ee. 6 from the Cambridge University Library II, an Anglo-Norman translation of the Latin text by Henricus Saltereiensis handed down from this manuscript only and from the fragment An (called by others F) Lansdowne 383. In 1891, Meyer compiled a comprehensive list of the seven French texts and with reference to the three middle-English translations ((¹ a, OM1, OM 2) wrote that "ne parait faite après l'un des poèmes français".
Mall published two Latin texts according to the manuscripts of Bamberg E. VII. 59 and Arundel 292 from London, which closely follow original font to which Marie de France made reference. Frati produced the text of the legend contained in the extract by Stephan of Bourbon De septem donis Spiritus Sancti according to the lesson of the Parisian codicil 15970 in the National Library (ff.158 v- 159 v). Keeping along the lines of the latest research, the Latin versions of the Tractatus de Purgatorio Sancti Patricii by Henricus can be grouped together in two families: a e b . The manuscripts of the first family, precisely, Ar British Library MS Arundel 292, B Bamberg, Staatliche Bibliothek MS E. VII. 59, H British Library MS Harley 3846, U Utrecht, University Library, MS 173, contain the edited version of the Tractatus ; the manuscripts of the second, L Lambeth Palace Library, MS 51, R British Library MS Royal 13 B VIII e S Cambridge, Sidney Sussex College, MS 50, contain the more extensive version.
Easting believes that the edited version is a successive reduction of the more extensive one: "I argued that b may represent a closer approximation to the original shape of T [Tractatus], as Henry of Saltrey either composed it or revised it, and that the shorter a versions represent a reduction of b rather than that b is an expansion of a, as Warnke argued"
An ulterior critical edition is being prepared of the Tractatus which will consider all the new acquisitions and the existing relationships among the many different forms of the text found in the over one hundred fifty manuscripts, all works of Jean-Michel Picard and Yolande de Pontfarcy, who had already been involved in the past in researching this topic.
The most famous and well known among the French poetic versions is that of Marie de France who was the greatest go between in the popularisation of the legend of the knight Owain in all of Europe. After the translation done by Marie de France, as Le Goff writes, there were many editions of the Purgatory of Henry in Latin as in the other common languages, particularly in French and in English.
However, writes Frati, "it is not quite true to affirm that only the legend of the knight Owain reached us; since other narratives of truly historic descents made into the cavern of Saint Patrick can be found in manuscripts from the richest Italian and foreign libraries, and there is also the testimony of other descents made by writers likewise trustworthy". In 1328, Raimondo Visconte di Perilhos, chamberlain for the King of France, after the death of King John I of Aragon, decided to become a "new Aeneas", to go into the cavern of Saint Patrick. In the year 1358, Malatesta da Rimini, called the Ungaro, completed his descensio into Purgatory, which has been recorded in the Fons memorabilium universi by Domenico di Bandino DArezzo. Cecco di Meletto da Forlì writes himself, in a letter honouring Malatesta, about "locus ille cavernosus". Another vision recounts the peregrinatio to the Purgatory of Saint Patrick done in 1358 by a certain Lodovico Di Sur.
At the beginning of the fifteenth century the Purgatory of Saint Patrick became the subject of a much more original vision that the ones from the preceding century. The writer, William Stauton, tells of being led into the cave by the prior of Saint Matthew in the year 1409, with devout processions and prayers by the prior himself and by some monks from the convent who offered up prayers to him which to ease his way: Jhesu Criste, fili Dei vivi, miserere mihi peccatori. This vision has been conserved in two manuscripts in the British Library Additional 34, 193 e Royal 17 B XLIII. In the fifteenth century, the legend by Henricus (Enrico di Saltrey) gained a greater popularisation but received less credit until the Pontiff Alexander VI, having listened to the report of the trip of the Dutch monk from the monastery in Eymstadt, ordered the destruction of the "Purgatory", effected then on the 17th day of March, St. Patricks day, in the year 1497. However the legend just like a serpent lies in the field of the literary production of all of Europe, in France as in Spain and in England and it had a widespread, although tardy diffusion even in Italy where it is possible to find as many as seven different versions, betrayed by a number of manuscripts destined to increase. A shorter version of the narrative, as Bieler writes, can be found in the Legenda aurea by Jacopo da Varagine. An brief Italian text has been published in the Vite dei Santi Padri (IV, 88). Other more ample versions were printed by Villari and by Grion. The edition published by Grion, betrayed by a manuscript from the fifteenth century owned by Monga di Verona, is a document written in the Veneto dialect which is derived from the same font as the Tuscan edition, produced by Villari, even though it has been more popularised. "The Tuscan version has as its hero Owain, the name of Ireland; Jacopo da Varaggio in the thirteenth century and Domenico Cavalca in the fourteenth mistake it for the one of the hero of Pugliese Nicolò; the Venetian friar gives him the name, very popular in Venice, of Alvise". Lucia Bertolini returned to edit the Tuscan V version herself, published by Villari, acquiring a modern edition. The impossibility of demonstrating the existence of a archetypal version has made it necessary to choose a single manuscript between the two testimonies already considered by Villari, Pal. 93 (P) and the Conv. Soppr. G. 3,676 (M) from the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale in Florence and a third manuscript II, IV, 64 (F) this one again from the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale in Florence. This last testimony is preferred to the other two because of its low coefficient of errors, which has required the intervention of the editor in only a few points. To the testimonies used by the scholar, Lucia Bertolini, Mario Degli Innocenti has added the ms. Rome, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Bibl. Corsiniana, Fondo Rossi, 30 (44 C 5), and has collated it into Bertolinis edition. He has published the results confirming the observations made by Bertolini in relation to the traditional manuscript of the legend: "the multiplicity of the versions, the great possibility of contamination, the lack of a complete census of the Italian popularisation, of the Latin manuscripts of the Tractatus and ( ) of the manuscripts of the French translations". Therefore, the professor has identified a seventh edition of the legend to add to the six already marked by Bertolini, handed down from at least nine manuscripts and at least included in the Vite dei Santi Padri by Cavalca which Bieler spoke of, popularised by the Legenda aurea. An ulterior development in the research of Mario Degli Innocenti pertains to the popularisations from the French version: the edition from Veneto of the legend handed down from the manuscript of the Monga family and published by Grion (G) and the Lombard version, attested to by the ms. T 67 sup. of the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan (A) for which Degli Innocenti publishes his edition.
The legend "best seller of the Middle Ages", to today identified as a possible font of the Commedia, and utilised by at least two ancient commentators in order to illustrate the poem itself and more precisely the one by Alberico da Rosciate in his general introduction to the Purgatory and by Benvenuto da Imola. The text of the annotations by Alberico, which is for the most part a translation from Latin by the one written by the other Bolognese jurist Jacopo della Lana (1324-28), is betrayed by a very limited number of manuscripts: Cod. Bodleiano Canon. Misc. 449 of Oxford (olim Canonici di Venezia), Parigino cod. ital. 538 (Pa), Cod. Barb. Lat. 4037 di Roma, Parig. Cod. Lat. 8701, Cod. Laurenziano Pl. XXVI, sin 2 di Florence, Parigino cod. it. 79 and the manuscript by Grumelli in the Biblioteca Angelo Mai of Bergamo, Cassaforte 6, 1 (già D 9, 16). From this last manuscript, we can reproduce, in these offices, the transcription of the part of the general Preface to the second canticle which recounts the legend of the Purgatory of Saint Patrick, the interpolation would be ascribed to Alberico himself , of which we find mention also in the Dictionarium Juris, under the entry Purgatorium: "Purgatorium, an sit locus materialis, vide XXV di .s. c. qualis hinc et c. seq. et primo ad Corin. III et in Psalmo: Iubilate Deo ver. Transivimus per ignem et aquam, et deduxit nos in refrigerium et plene in secunda parte comediae Dantis, quam titulavit purgatorium. vide etiam de quodam purgatorio in legenda sancti Patricij, supra purgatio". The interpolation of Alberico follows closely the Legenda aurea, where he himself declares to have found it: "in legendis sanctorum in festo sancti Patricii"
Grumelli manuscript, Bibl. Civica Angelo Mai (Cd. Grumelli Cassaforte: 6, 1 già d . 9. 16)
Preface cc. 140 r.-v.: Purgatorium. For Transcription see in "Studi Danteschi" 1993.
Even Benvenuto da Imola refers to the legend. We cite from the annotation printed in the year 1374 present in the electronic data bank of the Dartmouth Dante Project , leaving the other two editions with the same annotation aside: the Recollecte and the text of the Ashburnamiano 843. Benvenuto, in the comment on the first poem of the Purgatory, writes that Hell, is two-fold: essential and moral. Therefore, in the same way, the Purgatory is also two-fold: essential and moral. Furthermore, the Purgatory, according to an opinion shared by many theologians, is underground and is part of Hell, just as is stated in the fourth book of Gregory; the only punishment that exists is the fire, although the spirit can be purified elsewhere, as Gregory says of Pascasio, who is purified in ice, or by the intercession of some holy man sicut sanctus Patricius impetravit quod quidam purgaretur in quodam loco subterraneo, ex quo postea fabulose ortum est ibi esse purgatorium.
Benvenuto 1373: Purg I, 100-108.
Questa. Hic Cato, quia mandaverat novum poetam recingi junco, docet ubi inveniantur junci, et describit locum ubi abundant; sed ad intelligentiam huius literae est praesciendum, quod poeta noster fingit quod in illo hemisperio inferiori ex opposito inferni est una parva plana insula circularis, in cuius medio est unus mons altissimus usque ad coelum, qui circa medium est muratus et factus ad gradus circulariter; et sicut gradatim descenditur ad centrum inferni, ita gradatim ascenditur ad cacumen istius montis contigui coelo: sicut si quis volens ascendere arenam Veronae incipiat a fundo et tendat ad altum: sed in arena itur ab intra, hic vero itur ab extra in circuitu montis per unam viam excisam, quam poeta cornicem vocat, ut saepe patebit in processu. Nunc ad literam. [ ] Et hic nota, lector, quod sicut notavi in principio inferni et postea saepissime per totum, quod infernus est duplex, scilicet essentialis et moralis, et quod poeta alterutro calle procedens tractavit de utroque, et praecipue de morali maxime in dando poenas omnibus generibus peccatorum; ita a simili purgatorium est duplex, scilicet essentiale et morale. Ideo autor descripturus purgatorium eodem modo nunc tractat de essentiali, nunc de morali, sed principalissime de morali in describendo situm et distinctionem omnium poenarum poenitentium. Unde ut videas clare quod poeta loquitur moraliter in descriptione huius loci, volo te scire aliqua circa purgatorium essentiale. Et primo quidem nota, quod locus purgatorii, secundum communem opinionem theologorum, dicitur esse sub terra, quia talis locus vilis correspondet vilitati foeditatis culpabilis, qui locus creditur esse pars inferni a quibusdam propter verbum Gregorii quarto dialogorum, ubi dicit, quod sub eodem igne electus purgatur, et damnatus crematur. Unde sola poena ignis est in purgatorio. Potest tamen ex divina dispensatione alibi anima purgari, sicut dicit ibidem Gregorius de anima Pascasii qui purgabatur in glacie, quod Deus concedit vel propter velociorem liberationem, ut possit aliis suam indigentiam revelare, sicut patuit in Pascasio praedicto, vel ad instructionem nostram, ut poena evidens nos terreat, sicut de aliquibus audivi a viventibus, vel propter impetrationem alicuius sancti viri, sicut sanctus Patricius impetravit quod quidam purgaretur in quodam loco subterraneo, ex quo postea fabulose ortum est ibi esse purgatorium; sicut etiam a simili in mari siculo insula Vulcani dicitur esse unum ostium inferni, quia ex se emittit tonitrua et incendia, in quem locum anima Theodorici regis gothorum visa est demergi cuidam sancto eremitae. Est autem poena purgatorii durissima; nam Augustinus in quodam sermone dicit quod ille ignis est durior quam quicquam poenarum in hoc saeculo quis possit audire, videre, vel cogitare. Ex his ergo evidenter apparet quod autor describit hic locum purgatorii moraliter. Et ultimo Cato dat tertium et ultimum documentum optimum, dicens: poscia non sia di qua vostra reddita, quia homo ingressus purgatorium, idest poenitentiam, non debet amplius redire versus infernum, idest, vitia, a quibus recessit. Et respondet quaestioni tacitae, quia posset dicere Virgilius: et quis diriget nos in viam virtutis respondet: lo sol, che surge omai , idest incipit oriri post Luciferum, vi mostrerà prender lo monte , idest, radius divinae gratiae qui oritur in intellectu talium viatorum ostendet vobis arduum iter virtutis. Et dicit: a più lieve salita , idest carpetis montem, ubi invenietis viam faciliorem.
An important consideration regards the topographical ambivalence of the Purgatory of Patrick: sometimes the cavern can be found near Lake Derg, other times in the mountains in the Connaught. The different location of the locus purgatorii and its nature dates back to the same Anglo-Norman writers from the twelfth century: Henry of Saltrey (Tractatus) and Marie de France talk about a pit (fossa/une fosse) located in a desert in no way associated with a lake or an island; Jocelin of Furness in the Life of Saint Patrick (1185/86) talks about a mountain in the Connaught, known by the name of Cruachán Aigle. "From Jocelin and the Annals of Loch Cé we learn that Croagh Patrik, like Lough Derg, was visited by Irish pilgrims in the twelfth century in imitation of Saint Patrick's visit".
How incisive the location of the Purgatory of Saint Patrick is in that crevice or a pit and how the nature of the locus purgatorii preserved its characteristics of an abyss is deduced from the apocryphal Charta S. Patricii in which a relationship between the place indicated to Patrick and the veneration of Saint Michael the Arcangel is established when "quadam autem nocte", as Patrick was sound asleep, Jesus Christ appeared before him and he said: "Patrici serve meus, scias me elegisse locum istum ad honorem nominis mei, et ut hic honoranter invocent adiutorium archangeli mei Michaelis. Et hoc tibi signum et fratribus tuis, quatenus et ipsi credant: brachium tuum sinistrum arescet, donec quae vidisti annuntiaveris fratribus qui in cella sunt inferiori, et denuo hic redieris".
The iconography which, in Italy, is referred to in the legend, betrays the ambivalence of the location of the Purgatory of Saint Patrick and demonstrates a promontory in which in the cavity, the Purgatory of Saint Patrick can be found. I am referring to the fresco, done in 1346 and discovered in 1975 in the choir of the Monastery of St. Francis (Borgo Nuovo - Todi), attributed to Iacopo di Mino del Pelliciaio. The fresco, which takes up the entire wall of the monastery, figures souls which are freed from Purgatory: a mountain quarry in which seven caverns can be seen, and on the peak of which there is a pit, the Irish monk and the Knight Nicolaus; the passage into Heaven is granted by way of the Virgin Mary and S. Filippo Benizi. The fresco was probably derived from the Legenda Aurea which describes the entrance into Purgatory, located in the cavern of a mountain, much like a fissure.
The revolution which Alighieri brings about consists of the definitive removal of Purgatory from underground. He transforms the mountain into a ladder (escalina: Purg. XXVI, 146), through which the movement is upwards, in a sort of high tower which is possible to approach only through a door reached by a flight of stairs (Purg. XXI, 48), using a clever play on the duplication of the motif. This in no way takes away from the fact that the purgatorial mountain which we find in at least two branches of the tradition of Saint Patrick "is a precise parallel of the mountain in Dantes poem".
The idea of Hell and Purgatory of the visionaries is, rather, of underground places and a relic of such a structure is the moral organisation of the two Dantesque domains informed from the beginning by a progressive augmentum of the fault as of the punishment, gradatim to descend into the infernal downward spiral according to le tre disposizion che 'l ciel non vole / incontenenza, malizia e la matta / bestialitade and to ascend into the purgatorial mountain afterwards, which the love for the spirit wanders for malo obietto / o per troppo o per poco di vigore, ut sicut in Burcho seu foramine Inferni descendit de gradu in gradum, ita ut de gradu in gradum ascendit predictum montem. Among those ancient annotations, Benvenuto da Imola, in addition to maintaining the traces of the legend of the Purgatory of Saint Patrick, also proposes the differences, which dates back to Peter of Dante, between the essential Hell and the moral one and in the same way, between an essential purgatory and a moral one: infernus est duplex, scilicet essentialis et moralis ita a simili purgatorium est duplex, scilicet essentiale et morale.
The revolution of the imago mundi which Dante initiates with respect to the visionaries is not to be underestimated or of limited importance but rather it avails itself of the theological reflection of its times, and in particular the one relative to the Confessio culpae and to the evolution of the sacrament of Confession which at the time of the monks in Ireland, starting with Patrick and on from there, was conceived as an extraordinary fact to do only once in a life time and that, rather, at the time of Dante, became an act practised almost annually. The development of this concept has given its contribution to the definition of the problem. To the category of the "quantity", relative to the serious and less serious, whether it is in corpore vivo or else post mortem, the category of the "quality" has been added, relative to the nature of the sin committed, or better, if it is with or without repentance, whether it is venal or mortal, and if the first category, in so far as augmentum of the fault like in the suffering, is valid for the two reigns of Hell and Purgatory, the second becomes the distinctive character of it. So, in fact, Alberico da Rosciate continues in his general preface to the second canticle cited above in c. 140 v.:
"[P]er corer miglior acqua etc. auctor in hac prima parte tractare intendit de statu animarum divisarum a corpore que sunt libere ab Infernali pena non tamen ex toto a culpa propter quam priusquam conscendant ad beatitudinem vitte eterne opportet purgari ab ipsa ne malum aliquod remaneat impunitum. Circa quam culpam notandum est quod culpa sive peccatum comitti potest altero de duobus modis, quorum unum dicitur mortale; aliud veniale. Mortale est quando homo ex toto recedit ab ordine virtuoso et etiam a deo. Et tali peccato debetur pena infernalis de qua habita est plena mundo in prima parte. Quia peccatum mortalle est contra deum qui est sempiternus et deo pena eius sempiterna et infinita iuxta illud psalmi 21 et Mathei 7 discedite a me omnes qui operamini Iniquitatem etc. Venialle est illud quod quando comittitur adhuc remanet homo in ordine virtuoso et cum remorsu conscientie, nec ex toto recedit a deo. Et talia peccata purgantur in purgatorio commensurando penam pro modo culpe Ysaye 21 in mensura contra mensuram cum abiecta fuisset iudicabo eam".
Whether Dante used or didnt use the legend is a problem to examine also in light of the fact that the ancient commentators also used it, just as was written. Grion wrote that "In Venice, Dante found the legend of the cavern of Saint Patrick rather well established". In Padova, the well in the courtyard of Rinaldo Scrovegni is called Hell. Grion remembers the Latin verses attributed to Dante in the Vita Dantis by Boccaccio: "Ultima regna canam fluido contermina mundo, / Spiritibus quae lata patent, quae premia solvunt /Pro meritis cuicumque suis " and notes that the domains bordering the liquid world could have easily been the island of Brandano and the Purgatory of Saint Patrick. To me the hypothesis seems interesting for which the Ulysses of Dante, in addition to the Columns of Hercules could have noticed the mountain of the Purgatory, he, the anti-Owain or better, the anti-Nicola of the Legenda aurea the anti-Alvise of the edition written in te Venetian dialect or the anti-Ugo of the legend of the Discesa di Ugo D'Alvernia all'Inferno who died while submerged in those sacred waters, he who does not become a miles christianus of the Arthur Patrick Christ who must return. It is not necessary to demonstrate that in the thirteenth century the voyage towards Purgatory was attributed to the hero of Ithaca, rather, it is enough to speak about a superimposition of motifs for which the new Aeneas, Paul, little by little was substituted for the miles christianus Patrick Owain/Nicola/Alvise/Ugo which are condensed together to become Paul, Aeneas, Arthur, Orpheus, heroes of their own national epics or chanson whose anti-model, within the Dantesque system, is Ulysses and the fallen angel Lucifer, the knight who did not trust in God but only in his own powers.
Even in Italy the legend had imitators. Wright observes that in the fourteenth century, the Purgatory of Saint Patrick was introduced in the Italian fiction through the Guerin meschino: "The whole is, in fact, a palpable and poor imitation of Dante, built upon the legend of Henry of Saltrey". In reality it would be necessary to make the same consideration even for what could have been the work of fiction, founder of the family of the travellers cycle, Ugo DAlvernia. Ugo dAlvernia, writes Rajna, "is worthy of being carefully considered not only because it contains this imitation, in my opinion the most ancient one, of the Commedia, but also for the form in which it is written. Observing carefully, it seems to me that the same one is the unedited one which was written by Renardo published for himself by Teza. Another monument which offers us the same (language*) form of language is the Buovo d'Antona discovered personally by me. To compare the three compositions under this aspect, revealing the differences which run between them, and those others that they in turn have with the Italic-French of the Venetian texts, will be a study which I will undertake with the greatest of care (for which*) I am capable, and I have high hopes of being able to extract a certain resolution of the problems posed in the face of this literature from Northern Italy".
In reality it is important to make the same consideration even for what might be the founding father of fiction of the series of travellers, the Ugo dAlvernia, writes Rajna, an important popular go between for the diffusion of the legend in Italy, before Guerin Meschino, was in fact the descent of Ugo into the "Inferno", produced in that Franco-Italian literature that Formisano defines "no mans land" and that makes up an important chapter in the fortune of the chanson de geste, the "point of intersection between the old traditions of the epic and the new tradition of the singers".
To conclude, it is worth proposing a couple of reflections about the meaning of a legend, the legend of Patrick, which often, just as anything else which occurs through the visions belonging to the same genre, has been considered only a fable for wicked children invented by factious monks.
"Patrick has left us two rather brief writings, the Confessione and an Epistola, both generally accepted as authentic".
The first short piece is an apology of the idea that the missionary needed certain moral and intellectual qualities in order to carry out his service, the second, the Epistola is directed against Coroticus, governor of a part of Britannia, which had raged against the neophytes of Patrick. Remarkable for our purposes is the Libro di Armagh, which contains the four Dicta Patricii of which Detti,the fourth "asks the Irish to conform themselves to the Romans, and sing the Kyrie eleison " at each canonical moment. Although the authenticity of the two Detti is uncertain, it would not seem at all impossible that the legend of the cistercense monk Henricus considered such a need and used the filigreed didactics in order to exemplify his Tractatus where, in fact, the prayer that is said to the knight Owain and that he had to repeat in face of various dangers is "Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner", just as it appears in Marie de France, in the Legenda aurea, in the preface by Alberico who later reproduced it. Evidence of the profound Christianism of the Irish Eachtra is this scream from the sky at Jerico that implores Jesus the healer in the Gospel of Luke, which is also the Kyrie eleison of the liturgy. It is the prayer of the agens Dante, the first words that he pronounces in the Commedia while turning to his guide: miserere di me.
Home

Question: who wrote visions of the other world in middle english

Answer: Robert Easting

who wrote visions of the other world in middle english

Question: what was the title of the book by robert easting

Answer: Visions of the Other World

what was the title of the book by robert easting

Question: what book by robert easting contains the legend of saint patrick

Answer: Visions of the Other World in Middle English

what book by robert easting contains the legend of saint patrick

Question: how old was robert easting when he wrote visions of the other world

Answer: 16

how old was robert easting when History of purgatory wrote visions of the other world

Question: what is the name of the place where the souls of saints patrick and dante

Answer: Purgatory of Saint Patrick

what is the name of the place where the souls of saints patrick and dante

Question: where did the legend of saint patrick come from

Answer: The legend of the "Purgatory of Saint Patrick

where did the legend of saint patrick come from

Question: who was the author of the purgatory of saint patrick

Answer: Dante

who was the author of the purgatory of saint patrick

Question: where did robert easting write visions of the other world

Answer: Middle English

where did robert easting write visions of the other world

p. 202 At the Council itself , the Greek Metropolitan Bessarion argued against the existence of real purgatorial fire .

Denzinger (latin) 1290
1300 691 (De processione Spiritus Sancti. )
In nomine igitur Sanctae Trinitatis, Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, hoc sacro universali approbante Florentino Concilio, diffinimus, ut haec fidei veritas ab omnibus Christianis credatur et suscipiatur, sicque omnes profiteantur, quod Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre et Filio aeternaliter est, et essentiam suam suumque esse subsistens habet ex Patre simul et Filio, et ex utroque aeternaliter tamquam ab uno principio et unica spiratione procedit (cf Cc. Lugdun. ll: *850);
1301 691 declarantes, quod id, quod sancti Doctores et Patres dicunt, ex Patre per Filium procedere Spiritum Sanctum, ad hanc intelligentiam tendit, ut per hoc significetur, Filium quoque esse secundum Graecos quidem causam, secundum Latinos vero principium subsistentiae Spiritus Sancti, sicut et Patrem. Et quoniam omnia, quae Patris sunt, Pater ipse unigenito Filio suo gignendo dedit, praeter esse Patrem, hoc ipsum quod Spiritus Sanctus procedit ex Filio, ipse Filius a Patre aeternaliter habet, a quo etiam aeternaliter genitus est.
1302 691 Diffinimus insuper, explicationem verborum illorum 'Filioque' veritatis declarandae gratia, et imminente tunc necessitate, licite ac rationabiliter Symbolo fuisse appositam.
1303 692 Item, in azymo sive fermentato pane triticeo corpus Christi veraciter confici; sacerdotesque in altero ipsum Domini corpus conficere debere, unumquemque scilicet iuxta suae Ecclesiae sive occidentalis sive orientalis consuetudinem.
1304 693 (De sorte defunctorum.)
Item, si vere paenitentes in Dei caritate decesserint, antequam dignis paenitentiae fructibus de commissis satisfecerint et omissis, eorum animas poenis purgatoriis post mortem purgari: et ut a poenis huiusmodi releventur, prodesse eis fidelium vivorum suffragia, Missarum scilicet sacrificia, orationes et eleemosynas, et alia pietatis officia, quae a fidelibus pro aliis fidelibus fieri consueverunt secundum Ecclesiae instituta.
1305 693 - Illorumque animas, qui post baptisma susceptum nullam omnino peccati maculam incurrerunt, illas etiam, quae post contractam peccati maculam, vel in suis corporibus, vel eisdem exutae corporibus, prout superius dictum est, sunt purgatae, in caelum mox recipi et intueri clare ipsum Deum trinum et unum, sicuti est, pro meritorum tamen diversitate alium alio perfectius.
1306 693 - Illorum autem animas, qui in actuali mortali peccato vel solo originali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen disparibus puniendas (cf. DS 856-858 ).
1307 694 (Ordo sedium patriarch.; primatus Rom.)
Item diffinimus, sanctam Apostolicam Sedem, et Romanum Pontificem, in universum orbem tenere primatum, et ipsum Pontificem Romanum successorem esse beati Petri principis Apostolorum et verum Christi vicarium, totiusque Ecclesiae caput et omnium Christianorum patrem ac doctorem exsistere; et ipsi in beato Petro pascendi, regendi ac gubernandi universalem Ecclesiam a Domino nostro Jesu Christo plenam potestatem traditam esse; quemadmodum etiam in gestis oecumenicorum Conciliorum et in sacris canonibus continetur.
1308 Renovantes insuper ordinem traditum in canonibus ceterorum venerabilium patriarcharum, ut patriarcha Constantinopolitanus secundus sit post sanctissimum Romanum Pontificem, tertius vero Alexandrinus, quartus autem Antiochenus, et quintus Hierosolymitanus, salvis videlicet privilegiis omnibus et iuribus eorum.
1309 (Synodales Concilii Basileensis) ... tres propositiones quas fidei veritates vocant, quasi Nos et omnes principes ac praelatos et alios fideles et devotos Apostolicae Sedis haereticos facerent, protulerunt, quarum tenor sequitur in haec verba: 'Veritas de potestate concilii generalis universam Ecclesiam repraesentantis supra papam et quemlibet alterum declarata per Constanciense et hoc Basiliense generalia concilia, est veritas fidei catholicae. Veritas haec, quod papa concilium generale universalem Ecclesiam repraesentans actu legitime congregatum super declaratis in praefata veritate, aut aliquo sine eius consensu nullatenus auctoritate potest dissolvere, aut ad aliud tempus prorogare, aut de loco ad locum transferre, est veritas catholica. Veritatibus praedictis pertinaciter repugnans est censendus haereticus.' (Reprobatio:) ... ipsasque propositiones superius descriptas iuxta pravum ipsorum Basiliensium intellectum quem facto demonstrant, veluti sano S. Scripturae et sanctorum patrum et ipsius constanciensis Concilii sensui contrarium necnon praefatam assertam declarationis seu privationis sententiam cum omnibus inde secutis et quae in futurum sequi possent, tamquam impias et scandalosas necnon in manifestam Dei Ecclesiae scissuram ac omnis ecclesiastici ordinis et christiani principatus confusionem tendentes, ipso sacro approbante Concilio damnamus et reprobamus, ac damnatas et reprobatas nuntiamus.
1310 695 Quinto, ecclesiasticorum sacramentorum veritatem pro ipsorum Armenorum tam praesentium quam futurorum faciliore doctrina sub hac brevissima redigimus formula. Novae Legis septem sunt sacramenta: videlicet baptismus, confirmatio, Eucharistia, Paenitentia, extrema unctio, ordo et matrimonium, quae multum a sacramentis differunt Antiquae Legis. Illa enim non causabant gratiam, sed eam solum per passionem Christi dandam esse figurabant: haec vero nostra et continent gratiam, et ipsam digne suscipientibus conferunt.
1311 695 - Horum quinque prima ad spiritualem uniuscuiusque hominis in seipso perfectionem, duo ultima ad totius Ecclesiae regimen multiplicationemque ordinata sunt. Per baptismum enim spiritualiter renascimur; per confirmationem augemur in gratia, et roboramur in fide; renati autem et roborati nutrimur divina Eucharistiae alimonia. Quod si per peccatum aegritudinem incurrimus animae, per paenitentiam spiritualiter sanamur : spiritualiter etiam et corporaliter, prout animae expedit, per extremam unctionem ; per ordinem vero Ecclesia gubernatur et multiplicatur spiritualiter, per matrimonium corporaliter augetur.
1312 695 - Haec omnia sacramenta tribus perficiuntur, videlicet rebus tamquam materia, verbis tamquam forma, et persona ministri conferentis sacramentum cum intentione faciendi, quod facit Ecclesia: quorum si aliquod desit, non perficitur sacramentum.
1313 695 - Inter haec sacramenta tria sunt: baptismus, confirmatio et ordo, quae characterem, id est, spirituale quoddam signum a ceteris distinctivum, imprimunt in anima indelebile. Unde in eadem persona non reiterantur. Reliqua vero quattuor characterem non imprimunt, et reiterationem admittunt.
1314 696 Primum omnium sacramentorum locum tenet sanctum baptisma, quod vitae spiritualis ianua est : per ipsum enim membra Christi ac de corpore efficimur Ecclesiae. Et cum per primum hominem mors introierit in universos (cf: Rom 5, 12), nisi ex aqua et Spiritu renascamur, non possumus ut inquit Veritas, in regnum caelorum introire (cf. Jo 3, 5 ). Materia huius sacramenti est aqua vera et naturalis : nec refert, frigida sit an calida. Forma autem est: Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Non tamen negamus, quin et per illa verba: 'Baptizetur (falso in plurimis ed.: baptizatur) talis servus Christi in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti', vel 'Baptizatur manibus meis talis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti', verum perficiatur baptisma; quoniam cum principalis causa, ex qua baptisma virtutem habet, sit sancta Trinitas, instrumentalis autem sit minister, qui tradit exterius sacramentum: si exprimitur actus, qui per ipsum exercetur ministrum, cum sanctae Trinitatis invocatione, perficitur sacramentum.
1315 696 - Minister huius sacramenti est sacerdos, cui ex officio competit baptizare. In causa autem necessitatis non solum sacerdos vel diaconus, sed etiam laicus vel mulier, immo etiam paganus et haereticus baptizare potest, dummodo formam servet Ecclesiae et facere intendat, quod facit Ecclesia.
1316 696 - Huius sacramenti effectus est remissio omnis culpae originalis et actualis, omnis quoque poenae, quae pro ipsa culpa debetur. Propterea baptizatis nulla pro peccatis praeteritis iniungenda est satisfactio: sed morientes, antequam culpam aliquam committant, statim ad regnum caelorum et Dei visionem perveniunt.
1317 697 Secundum sacramentum est confirmatio; cuius materia est chrisma confectum ex oleo, quod nitorem significat conscientiae, et balsamo, quod odorem significat bonae famae, per episcopum benedicto. Forma autem est : Signo te signo crucis, et confirmo te chrismate salutis, in nomine Pattis et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.
1318 697 - Ordinarius minister est episcopus. Et cum ceteras unctiones simplex sacerdos valeat exhibere, hanc non nisi episcopus debet conferre: quia de solis Apostolis legitur, quorum vicem tenent episcopi, quod per manus impositionem Spiritum Sanctum dabant, quemadmodum Actuum Apostolorum lectio manifestat: Cum enim audissent, inquit, Apostoli, qui erant Hierosolymis, quia recepisset Samaria verbum Dei, miserunt ad eos Petrum et Ioannem. Qui cum venissent, oraverunt pro eis, ut acciperent Spiritum Sanctum: nondum enim in quemquam illorum venerat, sed baptizati tantum erant in nomine Domini Iesu. Tunc imponebant manus super illos, et accipiebant Spiritum Sanctum (cf. Act 8 ,14 ss). Loco autem illius manus impositionis in Ecclesia datur confirrnatio. Legitur tamen aliquando per Apostolicae Sedis dispensationem ex rationabili et urgente admodum causa simplicem sacerdotem chrismate per episcopum confecto hoc administrasse confirmationis sacramentum.
1319 697 Effectus autem huius sacramenti est, quia in eo datur Spiritus Sanctus ad robur, sicut datus est Apostolis in die Pentecostes, ut videlicet Christianus audacter Christi confiteatur nomen. Ideoque in fronte, ubi verecundiae sedes est, confirmandus inungitur, ne Christi nomen confiteri erubescat et praecipue crucem eius, quae Iudaeis quidem est scandalum, gentibus autem stultitia (cf. 1 Cor 1, 23) secundum Apostolum; propter quod signo crucis signatur.
1320 698 Tertium est Eucharistiae sacramentum, cuius materia est panis triticeus, et vinum de vite, cui ante consecrationem aqua modicissima admisceri debet. Aqua autem ideo admiscetur, quoniam iuxta testimonia sanctorum Patrum ac Doctorum Ecclesiae pridem in disputatione exhibita creditur, ipsum Dominum in vino aqua per mixto hoc instituisse sacramentum. Deinde, quia hoc convenit dominicae passionis repraesentationi. Inquit enim beatus Alexander Papa, quintus (successor) a beato Petro: 'In sacramentorum oblationibus, quae intra Missarum solemnia Domino offeruntur, panis tantum et vinum aqua permixtum in sacrificium offerantur. Non enim debet in calice Domini aut vinum solum aut aqua sola offerri, sed utrumque permixtum: quia utrumque, id est, sanguis et aqua, ex latere Christi profluxisse legitur (cf. Jo 19, 34)'. Tum etiam, quod convenit ad significandum huius sacramenti effectum, qui est unio populi christiani ad Christum. Aqua enim populum significat, secundum illud Apocalypsis: Aquae multae, populi multi (cf. Apc 17,15). Et Iulius Papa, secundus (sueccessor) post beatum Silvestrum, ait: 'Calix dominicus iuxta canonum praeceptum vino et aqua permixtus debet offerri, quia videmus in aqua populum intelligi, in vino vero ostendi sanguinem Christi. Ergo cum in calice vinum et aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur, et fidelium plebs ei, in quem credit, copulatur et iungitur.' Cum ergo tam sancta Romana Ecclesia a beatissimis Apostolis Petro et Paulo edocta, quam reliquae omnes Latinorum Graecorumque ecclesiae, in quibus omnis sanctitatis et doctrinae lumina claruerunt, ab initio nascentis Ecclesiae sic servaverint et modo servent, inconveniens admodum videtur, ut alia quaevis regio ab hac universali et rationabili discrepet observantia. Decernimus igitur, ut etiam ipsi Armeni se cum universo orbe christiano conforment, eorumque sacerdotes in calicis oblatione paululum aquae, prout dictum est, vino admisceant.
1321 698 Forma huius sacramenti sunt verba Salvatoris, quibus hoc confecit sacramentum; sacerdos enim in persona Christi loquens hoc conficit sacramentum. Nam ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi, et substantia vini in sanguinem convertuntur: ita tamen, quod totus Christus continetur sub specie panis et totus sub specie vini. Sub qualibet quoque parte hostiae consecratae et vini consecrati, separatione facta, totus est Christus.
1322 698 Huius sacramenti effectus, quem in anima operatur digne sumentis, est adunatio hominis ad Christum. Et quia per gratiam homo Christo incorporatur et membris eius unitur, consequens est, quod per hoc sacramentum in sumentibus digne gratia augeatur; omnemque effectum, quem materialis cibus et potus quoad vitam agunt corporalem, sustentando, augendo, reparando et delectando, sacramentum hoc quoad vitam operatur spiritualem; in quo, ut inquit Urbanus (IV) Papa (DS 846) gratam Salvatoris nostri recensemus memoriam, a malo retrahimur, confortamur in bono, et ad virtutum et gratiarum proficimus incrementum.
1323 699 Quartum sacramentum est paenitentia, cuius quasi materia sunt actus paenitentis, qui in tres distinguuntur partes. Quarum prima est cordis contritio; ad quam pertinet, ud doleat de peccato commisso, cum proposito non peccandi de cetero. Secunda est oris confessio; ad quam pertinet, ut peccator omnia peccata, quorum memoriam habet, suo sacerdoti confiteatur integraliter. Tertia est satisfactio pro peccatis secundum arbitrium sacerdotis; quae quidem praecipue fit per orationem, ieiunium et eleemosynam. Forma huius sacramenti sunt verba absolutionis, quae sacerdos profert, cum dicit: Ego te absolvo; minister huius sacramenti est sacerdos habens auctoritatem absolvendi vel ordinariam vel ex commissione superioris. Effectus huius sacramenti est absolutio a peccatis.
1324 700 Quintum sacramentum est extrema unctio, cuius materia est oleum olivae per episcopum benedictum. Hoc sacramentum nisi infirmo, de cuius morte timetur, dari non debet; qui in his locis ungendus est: in oculis propter visum, in auribus propter auditum, in naribus propter odoratum, in ore propter gustum vel locutionem, in manibus propter tactum, in pedibus propter gressum, in renibus propter delectationem ibidem vigentem. Forma huius sacramenti est haec: 'Per istam sanctam unctionem et suam piissimam misericordiam indulgeat tibi Dominus, quicquid deliquisti per visum', et similiter in aliis membris.
1325 700 - Minister huius sacramenti est sacerdos. Effectus vero est mentis sanatio et, in quantum animae expedit, ipsius etiam corporis. De hoc sacramento inquit beatus Iacobus Apostolus: 'Infirmatur quis in vobis ? Inducat presbyteros Ecclesiae, ut orent super eum, ungentes eum oleo in nomine Domini; et oratio fidei salvabit infirmum, et alleviabit eum Dominus, et si in peccatis sit, dimitten tur ei' (Iac 5, 14s).
1326 701 Sextum est sacramentum ordinis, cuius materia est illud, per cuius traditionem confertur ordo: sicut presbyteratus traditur per calicis cum vino et patenae cum pane porrectionem; diaconatus vero per libri Evangeliorum dationem; subdiaconatus vero per calicis vacui cum patena vacua superposita traditionem et similiter de aliis per rerum ad ministeria sua pertinentium assignationem. Forma sacerdotii talis est: 'Accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificium in Ecclesia pro vivis et mortuis, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti'. Et sic de aliorum ordinum formis, prout in Pontificali Romano late continetur. Ordinarius minister huius sacramenti est episcopus. Effectus augmentum gratiae, ut quis sit idoneus Christi minister.
1327 702 Septimum est sacramentum matrimonii, quod est signum coniunctionis Christi et Ecclesiae secundum Apostolum dicentem 'Sacramentum hoc magnum est: ego autem dico in Christo et in Ecclesia' (Eph 5, 32). Causa efficiens matrimonii regulariter est mutuus consensus per verba de praesenti expressus. Assignatur autem triplex bonum matrimonii. Primum est proles suscipienda et educanda ad cultum Dei. Secundum est fides, quam unus coniugum alteri servare debet. Tertium indivisibilitas matrimonii, propter hoc quod significat indivisibilem coniunctionem Christi et Ecclesiae. Quamvis autem ex causa fornicationis liceat tori separationem facere, non tamen aliud matrimonium contrahere fas est, cum matrimonii vinculum legitime contracti perpetuum sit.
1328 His omnibus explicatis praedicti Armenorum oratores nomine suo et sui patriarchae et omnium Armenorum, hoc saluberrimum synodale decretum cum omnibus suis capitulis, declarationibus, diffinitionibus, traditionibus, praeceptis et statutis omnemque doctrinam in ipso descriptam necnon quicquid tenet et docet Sancta Sedes Apostolica et Romana Ecclesia, cum omni devotione et obedientia acceptant, suscipiunt et amplectuntur. Illos quoque Doctores et sanctos Patres, quos Ecclesia Romana approbat, ipsi reverenter suscipiunt. Quascunque vero personas et quicquid ipsa Ecclesia Romana reprobat et damant, ipsi pro reprobatis et damnatis habent.
1330 703 Sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia, Domini et Salvatoris nostri voce fundata, firmiter credit, profitetur et praedicat, unum verum D e u m omnipotentem, incommutabilem et aeternum, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum, unum in essentia, trinum in personis: Patrem ingenitum, Filium ex Patre genitum, Spiritum Sanctum ex Patre et Filio procedentem. Patrem non esse Filium aut Spiritum Sanctum; Filium non esse Patrem aut Spiritum Sanctum; Spiritum Sanctum non esse Patrem aut Filium: sed Pater tantum Pater est, Filius tantum Filius est, Spiritus Sanctus tantum Spiritus Sanctus est. Solus Pater de substantia sua genuit Filium, solus Filius de solo Patre est genitus, solus Spiritus Sanctus simul de Patre procedit et Filio. Hae tres Personae sunt unus Deus, et non tres dii: quia trium est una substantia una essentia, una natura, una divinitas, una immensitas una aeternitas omniaque sunt unum, ubi non obviat relationis oppositio.
1331 704 'Propter hanc unitatem Pater est totus in Filio, totus in Spiritu Sancto; Filius totus est in Patre, totus in Spiritu Sancto; Spiritus Sanctus totus est in Patre, totus in Filio. Nullus alium aut praecedit aeternitate aut excedit magnitudine, aut superat potestate. Aeternum quippe et sine initio est, quod Filius de Patre exstitit; et aeternum ac sine initio est, quod Spiritus Sanctus de Patre Filioque procedit.' Pater quidquid est aut habet, non habet ab alio, sed ex se; et est principium sine principio. Filius quidquid est aut habet, habet a Patre, et est principium de principio. Spiritus Sanctus quidquid est aut habet, habet a Patre simul et Filio. Sed Pater et Filius non duo principia Spiritus Sancti, sed unum principium: sicut Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus non tria principia creaturae, sed unum principium.
1332 705 Quoscumque ergo adversa et contraria sentientes damnat, reprobat et anathematizat et a Christi corpore quod est Ecclesia, alienos esse denuntiat. Hinc damnat Sabellium personas confundentem et ipsarum distinctionem realem penitus auferentem. Damnat Arianos, Eunomianos, Macedonianos solum Patrem Deum verum esse dicentes, Filium autem et Spiritum Sanctum in creaturarum ordine collocantes. Damnat et quoscumque alios, gradus seu inaequalitatem in Trinitate facientes.
1333 706 Firmissime credit, profitetur et praedicat, unum verum Deum, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum, esse omnium visibilium et invisibilium c r e a t o r e m: qui quando voluit, bonitate sua universas, tam spiritales quam corporales, condidit creaturas: bonas quidem, quia a summo bono factae sunt, sed mutabiles, quia de nihilo factae sunt, nullamque mali asserit esse naturam, quia omnis natura, in quantum natura est, bona est.
1334 706 Unum atque eundem Deum Veteris et Novi Testamenti, hoc est, Legis et Prophetarum atque Evangelii profitetur auctorem: quoniam eodem Spiritu Sancto inspirante utriusque Testamenti Sancti locuti sunt: quorum libros sucipit et veneratur, qui titulis sequentibus continentur:
1335 706 Quinque Moysi, id est Genesi, Exodo, Levitico, Numeris, Deuteronomio; Josue, Judicum, Ruth, Quatuor Regum, Duobus Paralipomenon, Esdra, Neemia, Tobia, Judith, Hester, Job, Psalmis David, Parabolis, Ecclesiaste, Canticis Canticorum, Sapientia, Ecclesiastico, Isaya, Jeremia, Baruch, Ezechiele, Daniele, Duodecim Prophetis Minoribus id est Osee, Johele, Amos, Abdia, Jona, Michea, Naum, Abachuc, Sophonia, Ageo, Zacharia, Malachia; Duobus Machabeorum, Quatuor Evangeliis Mathaei, Marci, Lucae, Johannis; Quatuordecim Epistolis Pauli, Ad Romanos, Duabus ad Corinthios, Ad Galatas, Ad Ephesios, Ad Philipenses, Duabus ad Thesalonicense, Ad Colocenses, Duabus ad Timotheum, Ad Titum, Ad Philomenon, Ad Hebraeos; Petri duabus; Tribus Johannis; Una Jacobi; Una Judae; Actibus Apostolorum et Apocalypsi Johannis.
1336 707 - Propterea Manichaeorum anathematizat insaniam, qui duo prima principia posuerunt, unum visibilium, aliud invisibilium; et alium Novi Testamenti Deum, alium Veteris esse dixerunt.
(décret pour les Jacobites)
1337 708 Firmiter credit, profitetur et praedicat, unam ex Trinitate personam, verum Deum, Dei Filium ex Patre genitum, Patri consubstantialem et coaeternum, in plenitudine temporis, quam divini consilii inscrutabilis altitudo disposuit, propter salutem humani generis veram hominis integramque naturam ex immaculato utero Mariae Virginis assumpsisse et sibi in unitatem personae copulasse tanta unitate, ut quidquid ibi Dei est, non sit ab homine separatum; et quidquid est hominis, non sit a deitate divisum; sitque unus et idem indivisus, utraque natura in suis proprietatibus permanente, Deus et homo, Dei Filius et hominis filius, aequalis Patri secundum divinitatem, minor Patre secundum humanitatem: immortalis et aeternus ex natura divinitatis, passibilis et temporalis ex conditione assumptae humanitatis.
1338 709 Firmiter credit, profitetur et praedicat, Dei Filium in assumpta humanitate ex Virgine vere natum, vere passum, vere mortuum et sepultum, vere ex mortuis resurrexisse, in caelum ascendisse, sedereque ad dexteram Patris, et venturum in fine saeculorum ad vivos mortuos que iudicandos.
1339 710 Anathematizat autem, exsecratur et damnat omnem haeresim contraria sapientem. Et primo damnat Ebionem, Cerinthum, Marcionem, Paulum Samosatenum, Photinum omnesque similiter blasphemantes, qui percipere non valentes unionem personalem humanitatis ad Verbum, Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum verum Deum esse negaverunt: ipsum purum hominem confitentes, qui divinae gratiae participatione majore, quam sanctioris vitae merito suscepisset, divinus homo diceretur.
1340 710 Anathematizat etiam Manichaeum cum sectatoribus suis, qui Dei Filium non verum corpus, sed phantasticum sumpsisse somniantes, humanitatis in Christo veritatem penitus sustulerunt.
1341 710 Necnon Valentinum asserentem, Dei Filium nihil de Virgine Matre cepisse, sed corpus caeleste sumpsisse atque ita transisse per uterum Virginis, sicut per aquaeductum defluens aqua transcurrit.
1342 710 Arium etiam, qui asserens, corpus ex Virgine assumptum anima caruisse, voluit loco animae fuisse deitatem.
1343 710 Apollinarem quoque, qui intelligens, si anima corpus informans negetur in Christo, humanitatem veram ibidem non fuisse, solam posuit animam sensitivam, sed deitatem Verbi vicem rationalis animae tenuisse.
1344 710 Anathematizat etiam Theodorum Mopsuestenum atque Nestorium asserentes, humanitatem Dei Filio unitam esse per gratiam et ob id duas in Christo esse personas, sicut duas fatentur esse naturas, cum intelligere non valerent, unionem humanitatis ad Verbum hypostaticam exstitisse, et propterea negarent verbi subsistentiam accepisse. Nam secundum hanc blasphemiam non Verbum caro factum est,sed Verbum per gratiam habitavit in carne: hoc est, non Dei Filius homo factus est, sed magis Dei Filius habitavit in homine.
1345 710 Anathematizat etiam, exsecratur et damnat Eutychen archimandritam: qui cum intelligeret, juxta Nestorii blasphemiam veritatem incarnationis excludi, et propterea oportere, quod ita Dei Verbo unita esset humanitas, ut deitatis et humanitatis una esset eademque persona, ac etiam capere non posset, stante pluralitate naturarum, unitatem personae: sicut deitatis et humanitatis in Christo unam posuit esse personam, ita unam asseruit esse naturam, volens ante unionem dualitatem fuisse naturarum, sed in unam naturam in assumptione transiisse, maxima blasphemia et impietate concedens aut humanitatem in deitatem, aut deitatem in humanitatem esse conversam.
1346 710 Anathematizat etiam, exsecratur et damnat Macarium Antiochenum omnesque similia sapientes, qui, licet vere de naturarum dualitate et personae unitate sentiret, tamen circa Christi operationes enormiter oberravit (aberravit) dicens, in christo utriusque naturae unam fuisse operationem unamque voluntatem. Hos omnes cum haeresibus suis anathematizat sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia, affirmans in Christo duas esse voluntates duasque operationes.
1347 711 Firmiter credit, profitetur et docet, neminem unquam ex viro feminaque conceptum a diaboli dominatu fuisse liberatum, nisi per fidem mediatoris Dei et hominum Jesu Christi Domini nostri: qui sine peccato conceptus, natus et mortuus, humani generis hostem, peccata nostra delendo, solus sua morte prostravit,et regni caelestis introitum, quem primus homo peccato proprio cum omni successione perdiderat, reseravit: quem aliquando venturum omnia Veteris Testamenti sacra sacrificia, sacramenta, ceremoniae praesignrunt.
1348 712 Firmiter credit, profitetur et docet, legalia Veteris Testamenti, seu Mosaicae legis, quae dividuntur in ceremonias, sacra sacrificia, sacramenta, quia significandi alicuius futuri gratia fuerant instituta, licet divino cultui illa aetate congruerunt, significato per illa Domino nostro Jesu Christo adveniente cessasse, et Novi Testamenti sacramenta coepisse. Quemcumque etiam post passionem in legalibus spem ponentem et illis velut ad salutem necessariis se subdentem, quasi Christi fides sine illis salvare non posset, peccasse mortaliter. Non tamen negat a Christi passione usque ad promulgatum Evangelium illa potuisse servari, dum tamen minime ad salutem necessaria crederentur, sed post promulgatum Evangelium sine interitu salutis aeternae asserit non posse servari. Omnes ergo post illud tempus circumcisionis et sabbati reliquorumque legalium observatores alienos a Christi fide denuntiat et salutis aeternae minime posse esse participes, nisi aliquando ab iis erroribus resipiscant. Omnibus igitur, qui christiano nomine gloriantur, praecipit omnino, quocumque tempore, vel ante vel post baptismum, a circumcisione cessandum; quoniam sive quis in ea spem ponat, sive non, sine interitu salutis aeternae observari omnino non potest.
1349 712 Circa pueros vero propter periculum mortis, quod potest saepe contingere, cum ipsis non possit alio remedio subveniri, nisi per sacramentum baptismi, per quod eripiuntur a diaboli dominatu et in Dei filios adoptantur, admonet, non esse per quadraginta aut octoginta dies seu aliud tempus iuxta quorundam observantiam sacrum baptisma differendum, sed quamprimum commode fieri potest, debere conferri: ita tamen, quod mortis imminente periculo mox sine ulla dilatione baptizentur, etiam per laicum vel mulierem, in forma Ecclesiae, si desit sacerdos, quemadmodum in decreto Armenorum plenius continetur (DS 1315).
1350 713 Firmiter credit, profitetur et praedicat, omnem creaturam Dei bonam, 'nihilque reiciendum, quod cum gratiarum actione percipitur' (1 Tim 4, 4), quia, iuxta verbum Domini (Mt 15, 11), 'non quod intrat in os, coinquinat hominem'; illamque Mosaicae legis ciborum mundorum et immundorum differentiam ad ceremonialia asserit pertinere, quae surgente Evangelio transierunt et efficacia esse desierunt. Illam etiam Apostolorum prohibitionem 'ab immolatis simulacrorum et sanguine et suffocato' (Act 15, 29) dicit illi tempori congruisse, quo ex Judaeis atque gentilibus, qui antea diversis ceremoniis moribusque vivebant, una surgebat Ecclesia, ut cum Judaeis etiam gentiles aliquid communiter observarent, et in unum Dei cultum fidemque conveniendi praeberetur occasio et dissensionis materia tolleretur: cum Judaeis propter antiquam consuetudinem sanguis et suffocatum abominabilia viderentur et esu immolatitii poterant arbitrari gentiles ad idololatriam redituros. Ubi autem eo usque propagata est christiana religio, ut nullus in ea Judaeus carnalis appareat, sed omnes ad Ecclesiam transeuntes in eosdem ritus Evangelii ceremoniasque conveniant, credentes 'omnia munda mundis' (Tit 1, 15): illius apostolicae prohihitionis causa cessante, etiam cessavit effectus. Nullam itaque cibi naturam condemnandam esse denuntiat, quem societas admittit humana : nec inter animalia discernendum per quemcumque, sive virum sive mulierem, et quocumque genere mortis intereant: quamvis pro salute corporis, pro virtutis exercitio, pro regulari et ecclesiastica disciplina possint et debeant multa non negata dimitti, quia, iuxta Apostolum, 'omnia licent, sed non omnia expediunt' (I Cor 6, 12; 10, 22).
1351 714 Firmiter credit, profitetur et praedicat, 'nullos extra catholicam Ecclesiam exsistentes (intra cath. E. non exs.), non solum paganos', sed nec Judaeos aut haereticos atque schismaticos, aeternae vitae fieri posse participes; sed in ignem aeternum ituros, 'qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius' (Mt 25, 41), nisi ante finem vitae eidem fuerint aggregati: tantumque valere ecclesiastici corporis unitatem, ut solum in ea manentibus ad salutem ecclesiastica sacramenta proficiant, et ieiunia, eleemosynae ac cetera pietatis officia et exercitia militiae christianae praemia aeterna parturiant. 'Neminemque, quantascumque eleemosynas fecerit, etsi pro Christi nomine sanguinem effuderit, posse salvari, nisi in catholicae Ecclesiae gremio et unitate permanserit'.
1352 715 Verum quia in suprascripto decreto Armenorum non est explicata forma verborum, quibus in consecratione corporis et sanguinis Domini sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia, Apostolorum Petri et Pauli doctrina et auctoritate firmata, semper uti consuevit, illam praesentibus duximus inserendam. In consecratione corporis Domini hac utitur forma verborum: 'Hoc est enim corpus meum'; sanguinis vero: 'Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum'. Panis vero triticeus, in quo sacramentum conficitur, an eo die, an antea decoctus sit, nihil omnino refert: dummodo enim panis substantia maneat, nullatenus dubitandum est, quin post praedicta verba consecrationis corporis a sacerdote cum intentione conficiendi prolata, mox in verum Christi corpus transsubstantietur.
1353 Quoniam nonnullos asseritur quartas nuptias tamquam condemnatas respuere, ne peccatum, ubi non est, esse putetur, cum secundum Apostolum mortuo viro mulier sit ab eius lege soluta, et nubendi, cui vult, in Domino habeat facultatem (cf. Rom 7, 3; I Cor 7, 39), nec distinguat, mortuo primo, secundo vel tertio, declaramus non solum secundas ac tertias, sed et quartas atque ulteriores, si aliquod canonicum impedimentum non obstet, licite contrahi posse. Commendatiores tamen dicimus, si ulterius a coniugio abstinentes in castitate permanserint, quia, sicut virginitatem viduitati, ita nuptiis castam viduitatem laude ac merito praeferendam esse censemus.
Denzinger (latin) 1290

Question: who argued against the existence of purgatorial fire

Answer: Bessarion

who argued against the existence of purgatorial fire

Question: what did the greek metropolitan bessarion argue against

Answer: real purgatorial fire

what did the greek metropolitan bessarion argue against

Question: what language was metropolitan bessarion

Answer: Greek

what language was metropolitan bessarion

Question: how many times did the greek metropolitan bessarion argue against the existence of

Answer: 202

how many times did the greek metropolitan bessarion argue against the existence of

Question: when did the greek metropolitan bessarion argue against the existence of purg

Answer: p. 202

when did the greek metropolitan bessarion argue against the existence of purg

Question: where did the greek metropolitan bessarion argue against the existence of purg

Answer: the Council

where did the greek metropolitan bessarion argue against the existence of purg

"Union of Brest (1595)

In effecting full communion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church by the Union of Brest ( 1595 ) , the two agreed , " We shall not debate about purgatory , but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church .

Articles Concerning Union With The Roman Church
These articles were accepted by the hierarchy of the Church in Kiev in three
languages: Ukrainian, Polish, and Latin. It is on this basis that the Church of Kiev is in
communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
The articles frequently refer to the King of Poland. The function of the King of
Poland vis-Ã -vis the Greek-Catholic Church were assumed by the Austrian Emperor. As there
is no longer a King of Emperor, and the Greek-Catholic Church is certainly not
state-supported in Ukraine, these functions revert to the synod or lapse entirely.]
We require prior guarantees of these articles from the Romans before we enter into
union with the Roman Church.
1. Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the
Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not
wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed
but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in
the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit
proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from
the Father through the Son.
2. That the divine worship and all prayers and services of Orthros, Vespers, and the
night services shall remain intact (without any change at all) for us according to the
ancient custom of the Eastern Church, namely: the Holy Liturgies of which there are three,
that of Saint Basil, that of Saint Chrysostom, and that of Epiphanius which is served
during the Great Lent with Presanctified Gifts, and all other ceremonies and services of
our Church, as we have had them until now, for in Rome these same services are kept within
the obed-ience of the Supreme Pontiff, and that these services should be in our own
language.
3. That the Mysteries of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ should
be retained entirely as we have been accustomed until now, under the species of bread and
wine; that this should remain among us eternally the same and unchangeable.
4. That the Mystery of Holy Baptism and its form should remain among us unchanged as we
have served it until now, without any addition.
5. We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the
Holy Church.
6. We will accept the new calendar, if the old one cannot be, but without any violation
of the Paschalia [the Easter cycle] and our other feasts as they were in the time of
unity, because we have some special feasts which the Romans do not have; on the sixth of
January we celebrate the memory of the Baptism of the Lord Christ and the first revelation
of the One God in Trinity. We call this feast Theophany, and on this day we have a special
service of the Blessing of Waters.
7. That we should not be compelled to take part in processions on the day of Corpus
Christi - that we should not have to make such processions with our Mysteries inasmuch as
our use of the Mysteries is different.
8. Likewise that we should not be compelled to have the blessing of fire, the use of
wooden clappers, and similar ceremonies before Easter, for we have not had such ceremonies
in our Church until now, but that we should maintain our ceremonies according to the
rubrics and the Typicon of our Church.
9. That the marriages of priests remain intact, except for bigamists.
10. That the metropolitanate, the episcopate, and other ecclesias-tical dignities shall
be conferred on no one except the Rus' people or Greeks, who must be of our religion. And
since our Canons require that the Metropolitain, the Bishops, and so on, first elected by
the clergy, must be worthy people, we ask the King's Grace that the election be free,
leaving intact the authority of the King's Grace to appoint the one whom he pleases. This
means that as soon as someone has died we should elect four candidates, and the King's
Grace will freely chose whom he wishes from among the four. This is necessary, especially
so that the persons named to such positions will be worthy and educated, for the King's
Grace, who is not of the same religion, cannot know who is worthy of this, and thus it has
happened that such uninstructed people were appointed that they were scarcely literate. If
the King's Grace should wish to appoint a layman to these spiritual posts, the appointee
must receive Holy Orders within no more than three months under pain of losing
appointment, according to the Constitution of the Parliament of Grondo and the Articles of
King Sigmund Augustus of blessed memory, approved by the present King's Grace, for at the
moment there are some who hold certain spiritual appointments in their hands but do not
receive Holy Orders even for years, justifying themselves with some sort of royal
"exemptions". We ask that in future this should not be.
11. That our Bishops should not send to Rome for the sacrae (permission to consecrate),
but, if the King's Grace names someone to a bishopric, that according to the old custom
the Archbishop-Metro-politain should have the duty and the right to ordain him. The
Metro-politain himself, before entering upon the office of metropolitain, should send the
sacrae to the Pope. Then, after he has received the sacrae from Rome, let the bishops
ordain him, at least two of them, according to their custom. If a bishop is elected
Metropolitain, let him not send for the sacrae, because he already has the episcopal
cheirotonia; he may take an oath of obedience to the Supreme Pontiff in the presence of
the Archbishop of Gniezno (who on that occasion will not be functioning as Archbishop, but
as Primate of Poland).
12. So that our authority would be greater and we should govern our faithful with
greater respect, we ask seats in the Senate of the King's Grace for the Metropolitain and
the bishops. We ask this for many reasons for we have the same office and hierarchical
dignity as the Roman Bishops.
13. And if in time the Lord shall grant that the rest of the brethren of our people and
of the Greek Religion shall come to this same holy unity, it shall not be held against us
or begrudged to us that we have preceded them in this unity, for we have to do this for
definite, serious reasons for harmony in the Christian republic [Poland] to avoid further
confusion and discord.
14. Most important of all, it is necessary that if in our dioceses presbyters -
Archimandrates, Hegumenoi, presbyters, and other clergy, but especially foreigners, even
bishops and monks who might come from Greece - of our Religion should not wish to be under
our obedience they should never dare to perform any divine service. For if that were
allowed then there would never be any order.
15. If in the future someone of our Religion should want to join the Roman Church,
denying his own Religion and Ceremonies, let him not be accepted, since he is degrading
the Ceremonies of the one Church of God, since, being already in one Church, we shall have
one Pope.
16. That marriages may freely take place between the Roman faithful and the Rus'
faithful, without any compulsion as to Religion, for both are already one Church.
17. Inasmuch as we have lost the possession of many ecclesiastical properties, some of
which our predecessors alienated by rights other than the free administration of these
goods during their personal lives, so that we find ourselves in such want and poverty that
we cannot provide satisfactorily for the needs of the churches, and indeed we ourselves
scarcely have the means of subsistence, we require that these properties be returned to
our churches. If anyone has legitimately acquired the lifetime usufruct of any
ecclesiastical benefice, let him be obliged to pay an annual rent to the Church, and upon
his death let the benefice revert to the Church. Such a benefice shall not be granted to
anyone without the consent of the bishop and his chapter. Every benefice to which the
Church presently has title is to be recorded in the Gospel Books, even if the Church does
not exercise any control over some benefices. In that way they will at least belong
indisputably to the Church. With this accomplished, the Church can then undertake to
regain those benefices which have been alienated at an earlier time.
18. Upon the death of the Metropolitain or of a bishop, the wardens and state treasurer
shall not interfere in the ecclesiastical properties. As is the custom and tradition of
the Roman Church, these properties shall be administered by the chapter until a new
Metropol-itain or bishop is elected. While this is already guaranteed to us by our
privilege, we ask that it be incorporated into the constitution of the kingdom.
19. That Archimandrates, Hegumenoi, monks and their monasteries, according to the old
custom shall be under the obedience of the bishops of their dioceses, for among us there
is only one monastic Rule, which even the bishops use, and we do not have
"Provincials".
20. That at the tribunal among the Roman Clergy we also should have two of our [clergy]
to look after the affairs of our Church.
21. That the archimandrates, hegumenoi, priests, archdeacons, and our other clergy be
held in the same esteem as the Roman clergy, and should enjoy and make use of the same
liberties and privileges which were granted by King Ladislaus; they should be exempt from
all taxation, both personal and concerning ecclesiastical property, in contrast to the
unjust practice which has hitherto obtained - if they possess some private properties then
they should pay taxes on them, whatever is just, as other proprietors do. Any priest and
other clergy who possesses ecclesiastical properties within the territories of the
senators and nobility are subject to them and must obey them: they should not appeal to
the courts or enter into quarrels with the landlords, but must acknowledge the right of
patronage. But accusations regarding the person of the clergy and their spiritual
functions, are subject only to the bishop, and the misdemeanors of the clergy shall be
punished exclusively by the bishop on the complaints of the landlord. Thus everyone,
clergy and laity, will have their rights preserved whole and inviolate.
22. That the Romans should not forbid us to ring bells in our churches on Good Friday,
both in the cities and everywhere else.
23. That we should not be forbidden to visit the sick with the Most Holy Mysteries,
publicly, with lights and vestments, according to our rubrics.
24. That without any interference we might be free to hold proces-sions, as many as are
required, on holy days, according to our custom.
25. That our Rus' monasteries and churches should not be changed into Roman Catholic
churches. And if any Roman Catholic has damaged or destroyed one of our churches or
monasteries, in his territory, he shall be obliged to repair it or build a new one for the
exclusive use of the Rus' people.
26. The spiritual Church Brotherhoods which have recently been erected by the
Patriarchs and confirmed by the King's Grace - for example, those in L'viv, in Brest, in
Vilnius, and elsewhere - in which we see great benefit for the Church of God and the
cultivation of divine worship if they wish to abide in this unity, shall be main-tained in
all their integrity under the obedience of their Metropol-itain and of the bishops in
whose dioceses they function and to whom each of them is properly ascribed.
27. That we shall be free to have schools and seminaries in the Greek and
Church-Slavonic languages in the localities where it is most convenient, and that our
printing-presses shall be free (of course under the supervision of the Metropolitain and
bishops, so that no heresies be propagated and nothing be printed without the knowledge
and consent of the Metropolitain and bishops).
28. Since there have been great abuses and disobedience on the part of some priests in
the dominions of the King's Grace as well as in the lands of the lords and magnates, so
that these priests have obtained the protection of the landlords and magnates for their
abuses, dissolving marriages, so that the wardens and other officials profit to some
extent by the fees from these divorces and therefore shield these priests, not permitting
the bishops and the synod to summon such wayward clerics, abusing and even beating our
visitators, we request that such abuses should cease, and that we would be free to correct
the wayward and keep order, and if someone should be excommunicated because of his
disobedience or for an abuse, let the government and the lords, once they have been
informed by the bishops or the visitator, not permit such excommunicated clergy to perform
clerical functions or serve in the churches until they have been absolved by their pastors
from their faults. This shall also be understood for archimadrates and hegumenoi and other
ecclesiastics who are subject to the bishops and to their authority.
29. Than the Cathedrals in the main cities and all the parish churches everywhere in
the dominions of the King's Grace, of every place and jurisdiction, whether founded by the
King, or by the city, or by a local lord, shall be subject to the bishop and under his
authority, and that lay people shall not administer them under any pretext, for there are
those who meddle against the obedience of the bishop, arranging matters as they wish and
who do not want to obey their bishops. Let this not occur in the future.
30. And if someone has been excommunicated by his bishops for any offense, let him not
be received into the Roman Church but, on the contrary, let his excommunication be
proclaimed there also. And we shall do the same with regard to those excommunicated from
the Roman Church, for this is a joint concern.
31. And when the Lord God by His will and holy grace shall permit the rest of our
brothers of the Eastern Church of the Greek tradition to come to the holy unity with the
Western Church, and later in this common union and by the permission of the Universal
Church there should be any change in the ceremonies and Typicon of the Greek Church, we
shall share all this as people of the same religion.
32. We have heard that some have departed for Greece to procure ecclesiastical powers
and return here to advise and influence the clergy and extend their jurisdiction over us.
We, therefore, request the King's Grace to order precautions to be taken on the state
borders so that anyone bearing such jurisdictions and excommuni-cations be barred from
entering the kingdom. Otherwise, grave mis-understandings could arise between the pastors
and the flocks of the Church.
33. All these things we the undersigned, desiring holy concord for the praise of God's
Name and for the peace of the Holy Church of Christ, we have given these articles which we
consider necessary for our Church and for which we require agreement in advance and
guarantees from the Holy Father the Pope and from the King's Grace, our merciful lord, for
greater security, we have committed our Instructions to our Reverend brothers in God,
father Hypatius Potij, the Protothrone, Bishop Volodymyr of Brest, and Father Cyril
Terlet-sky, Exarch and Bishop of Lutsk and Ostrih, so that in our name and in their own
name they should ask the Most Holy Father the Pope, and also the King's Grace, our
merciful lord, to confirm and guarantee beforehand all the articles which we have here
given in writing, so that assured as to the faith, the Mysteries, and our ceremonies, we
might come to this holy accord with the Roman Church without any violation of our
conscience and the flock of Christ committed unto us and likewise that others who are
still hesitating, seeing that we retain everything inviolate, might more quickly come
after us to this holy union.
Given in the Year of God 1595, the month of June, the first day according to the Old
Calendar.
MICHAEL, Metropolitain of Kiev and Halych and all Rus'
Hypatius, Bishop of Volodymyr and Brest
Cyril Terletsky, by the grace of God Exarch and Bishop of Lutsk and Ostrih
Leontius Pelchytsky, by the grace of God Bishop of Pinsk and Turov
[the seals of eight bishops are added, including Gedeon Balaban of L'viv and Dionysius
Zbirujski of Kholm.]

Question: when was the union of brest

Answer: 1595

Question: what did the greek metropolitan bessarion argue against the existence of

Answer: purgatorial fire

what did the greek metropolitan bessarion argue against the existence of

Question: what formed full communion between the roman catholic church and the ukrainian

Answer: Union of Brest

what formed full communion between the roman catholic church and the ukrainian

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), entry on Purgatory; cf.

" Union of Brest ( 1595 ) Article 5 Furthermore , the Council of Trent , in its discussion of purgatory , instructed the bishops not to preach on such " difficult and subtle questions " .

Catholic Encyclopedia ( 1913 ) , entry on Purgatory ; cf .

Question: when did the union of brest happen

Answer: 1595

Question: when was the catholic encyclopedia published

Answer: 1913

when was the catholic encyclopedia published

Question: who instructed the bishops not to preach on difficult and subtle questions

Answer: the Council of Trent

who instructed the bishops not to preach on difficult and subtle questions

Question: who did the council of trent instruct not to preach on difficult questions

Answer: bishops

who did the council of trent instruct not to preach on difficult questions

Question: who declared full communion between the roman catholic church and the ukrainian

Answer: Union of Brest

who declared full communion between the roman catholic church and the ukrainian

Question: what publication published the entry on purgatory

Answer: Catholic Encyclopedia

what publication published the entry on purgatory

Anglican apologist C. S. Lewis gave as an example of this speculation , which he interpreted as what the Church of England 's Thirty - Nine Articles , XXII meant by " the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory " , the depiction of the state of purgatory as just a temporary hell with horrible devils tormenting souls .

Eskimo North Internet Hosting
Linux Friendly Virtual Private Servers, Shell Accounts, and Hosting.
We Value Freedom Of Speech – Nobody is Deplatformed for Their Views.
Our Server has full support for https and http/2 protocols.
Knowledgeable human assistance via phone, e-mail, or tickets.
(206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.
- Web Apps
- Web based applications. These are programs that actually run and display in your browser, such as Web Mail, phpMyAdmin, a Java SSH Shell, forums, StatusNet, Traceroute, and Your IP.
- Services
- Information about the services we offer; Shell accounts with remote desktop capability and sound, Web hosting, Web Design, PC work, DSL, ISDN, and Dial access and other services.
- Support
- Setup e-mail and Usenet news clients, customize spam filters, including white listing, black listing, setting the sensitivity threshold and other tweaks. Setup X2Go, OpenNX, NX player, and other remote desktops and configure DSL and 56k dial-up accounts. Help with websites, frequently asked questions, and trouble tickets.
- Links
- Links to Customer pages as well as many useful resources on the web, including Linux resources, useful information about building websites, and local resources relating to Shoreline and the surrounding Puget Sound area resources.
- Information
- The Information section contains information about our history, contact information, eskimo news, information and graphics for linking to us (we always appreciate that), payment information and also various customer review sites where you can find independent reviews of our service.
- Games
- There are three games sections, Eskimo Arcade, games contained within our main website, presently is mostly broken as the result of a switch to https, I’m working on that, and two external sites Y B Bored (ybbored.com), and Defender Games (defender-games.net).
Check it out, explore, let me know of anything you think would make it better.
Try it out on your Smart Phone, it’s all responsive and mobile friendly. Some of the webmail options work on some SmartPhones. If the default webmail doesn’t work well for you, try the RoundCube or RainLoop alternatives. If neither of those work well, there is a ownCloud mail client that works very well on mobile devices.
Eskimo North, P.O. Box 55816, Shoreline, WA 98155 Tel: 206-812-0051

Question: who gave an example of speculation about purgatory

Answer: C. S. Lewis

who gave an example of speculation about purgatory

Question: what religion was c.s. lewis

Answer: Anglican

Question: what did lewis believe the church of england meant by "the romish

Answer: Thirty-Nine Articles

what did lewis believe the church of england meant by "the romish

Question: what was c.s. lewis' profession

Answer: Anglican apologist

Question: what did lewis believe purgatory was a temporary hell with

Answer: horrible devils

what did lewis believe purgatory was a temporary hell with

Question: what section of the thirty-nine articles did lewis write

Answer: XXII

what section of the thirty-nine articles did lewis write

The etymology of the word " purgatory " , he remarked , indicates cleansing , not simply retributive punishment .

"We want to know not how we should pray if we were perfect but how we should pray being as we now are."
What are we doing when we pray? What is at the heart of this most intimate conversation, the dialogue between a person and God? How does prayer—its form, its regularity, its content, its insistence—shape who we are and how we believe? In this collection of letters from C. S. Lewis to a close friend, Malcolm, we see an intimate side of Lewis as he considers all aspects of prayer and how this singular ritual impacts the lives and souls of the faithful. With depth, wit, and intelligence, as well as his sincere sense of a continued spiritual journey, Lewis brings us closer to understanding the role of prayer in our lives and the ways in which we might better imagine our relationship with God.
"A beautifully executed and deeply moving little book." —Saturday Review
"[Lewis] is writing about a path that he had to find, and the reader feels not so much that he is listening to what C.S. Lewis has to say but that he is making his own search with a humorous, sensible friend beside him." —Times Literary Supplement
C. S. (Clive Staples) Lewis (1898-1963), one of the great writers of the twentieth century, also continues to be one of our most influential Christian thinkers. He wrote more than thirty books, both popular and scholarly, including The Chronicles of Narnia series, The Screwtape Letters, The Four Loves, Mere Christianity, and Surprised by Joy.

Question: who gave an example of this speculation

Answer: C. S. Lewis

Question: what does the etymology of the word purgatory mean

Answer: cleansing

what does the etymology of the word purgatory mean

Question: what religion does c.s. lewis belong to

Answer: Anglican

Question: what was the church of england's reference to purgatory

Answer: Thirty-Nine Articles

what was the church of england's reference to purgatory

Question: what does the church of england's thirty-nine articles, xxii mean

Answer: the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory

what does the church of england's thirty-nine articles, xxii mean

Later speculations include the idea advocated by Saints Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Liguori of asking for the prayers of the souls in purgatory , a notion not accepted by all theologians .

Saint Francis de Sales argued that , in the mention in of every knee bowing at the name of Jesus " in heaven , on earth , and under the earth " , " under the earth " was a reference to those in purgatory , since it could not apply to those in hell .

by Saint Francis de Sales (1567-1622), Bishop and Doctor of the Church
From the "Catholic Controversy" (originally published by Burns and Oates, London 1886)
Translated by Rev. Henry Benedict Mackey, O.S.B.
INTRODUCTION.
CHAPTER I.
Of the name of purgatory.
CHAPTER II.
Of those who have denied purgatory: and of the means of proving it.
CHAPTER III.
Of some passages of the scripture in which mention is made of a purgation after this life, and of a time and a place for it.
CHAPTER IV.
Of another passage of the New Testament, to this effect.
CHAPTER V.
Of some other passages by which prayer, alms, deeds and holy actions for the departed are authorised.
CHAPTER VI.
Of certain other places of Scripture by which we prove that some sins can be pardoned in the other world.
CHAPTER VII.
Of some other places from which by various consequences is derived the truth of purgatory
CHAPTER VIII.
Of the councils which have received purgatory as an article of faith.
CHAPTER IX.
Of the testimony of the ancient fathers to the truth of purgatory.
CHAPTER X.
Of two principal reasons, and of the testimony of outsiders in favour of purgator
INTRODUCTION
The Catholic Church has been accused in our age of superstition in the prayer which she makes for the faithful departed, inasmuch as by this she supposes two truths which, it is maintained, do not exist, namely: that the departed are in punishment and need, and that they can be helped. Whereas, the departed are either damned or saved; the damned are in pain, but it is irremediable; and the saved enjoy perfect bliss: so the latter have no need and the former have no means of receiving help; wherefore it is useless to pray to God for the departed. Such is the summing up of the accusation. It ought surely to suffice anybody who wishes to frame a right judgment of this accusation to know that the accusers were private persons and the accused the universal body of the Church. But still, as the temper of our age has led to the submitting all things, however sacred, religious, and authoritative they may be, to the control and censure of everybody, many persons of honour and eminence have taken the cause of the Church in hand to defend it, considering that they could not better employ their piety and learning than in the defence of her, at whose hands they had received all their spiritual good, -Baptism, Christian doctrine, and the Scriptures themselves. Their reasons are so convincing that if they were properly balanced and weighed against those of the accusers their validity would at once be recognised. But unhappily, sentence has been given without the party being heard. Have we not reason, all we who are domestics and children of the Church, to make ourselves appellants, and to complain of the partiality of the judges, leaving on one side for the present their incompetence? We appeal then from the judges not instructed to themselves instructed, and from judgments given, the parties not heard, to judgments, parties heard. Let us beg all those who wish to judge of this difference to consider our allegations and proofs so much the more attentively as there is question not of the condemnation of the accused party who cannot be condemned by her inferiors, but of the condemnation or salvation of the judges.
CHAPTER I.
Of the name of purgatory.
WE maintain, then, that we may pray for the faithful departed, and that the prayers and good works of the living greatly relieve them and are profitable to them -for this reason, that all those who die in the grace of God, and consequently in the number of the elect, do not go to Paradise at the very first moment, but many go to Purgatory, where they suffer a temporal punishment, from which our prayers and good works can help and serve to deliver them. There lies the point of our difference.
We agree that the blood of Our Redeemer is the true purgatory of souls; for in it are cleansed all the souls in the world; whence S. Paul speaks of it, in the 1st of Hebrews, as making purgation of sins. Tribuations also are a purgatory, by which our souls are rendered pure, as gold is refined in the furnace. The furnace trieth the potter's vessels, and the trial of affliction just men.(Ecclus. xxvii) Penance and contrition again form a certain purgatory, as David said of old in the 50th Psalm: Thou shalt wash me, 0 Lord, with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed. It is well known also that Baptism in which our sins are washed away can be again called a purgatory, as everything can be that serves to purge away our offences: but here we take Purgatory for a place in which after this life the souls which leave this world before they have been perfectly cleansed from the stains which they have contracted since nothing can enter Paradise which is not pure and undefiled-are detained in order to be washed and purified. And if one would know why this place is called simply Purgatory more than are the other means of purgation above-named, the answer will be, that it is because in that place nothing takes place but the purgation of the stains which remain at the time of departure out of this world, whereas in Baptism, Penance, tribulations, and the rest, not only is the soul purged from its imperfections, but it is further enriched with many graces and perfections ; whence the name of Purgatory has been limited to that place in the other world which, properly speaking, is for no purpose but the purification of souls. And agreeing as to the blood of Our Lord, we so fully acknowledge the virtue thereof, that we protest by all our prayers that the purgation of souls, whether in this world or in the other, is made solely by its application:-more jealous of the honour due to this precious medicine than those who so highly value it that they undervalue the using of it. Therefore by Purgatory we understand a place where souls for a time are purged of the spots and imperfections they carry with them from this mortal life.
CHAPTER II.
Of those who have denied purgatory: and of the means of proving it.
IT is not an opinion adopted lightly-this article of Purgatory. The Church has long maintained this belief to all and against all, and it seems that the first who impugned it was Aerius, an Arian heretic, as S. Epiphanius testifies (Haer. 75), and S. Augustine (Haar. 53), and Socrates (ii. 35) -about twelve hundred years ago. Afterwards came certain persons who called themselves Apostolics, in the time of S. Bernard. Then the Petrobusians, about five hundred years back, who also denied this same article, as S. Bernard (sermons 65 and 66 on the Cant. of Cant. and ep. 241) and S. Peter of Cluny (epp. I, 2, and elsewhere) record. This same opinion of the Petrobusians was followed by the Vaudois, about the year 1170, as Guidon says in his Summa; and some Greeks were suspected on this matter, justifying themselves in the Council of Florence, and in their apology presented to the Council of Basle. In fine, Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, and those of their party, have altogether denied the truth of Purgatory: for although Luther, in disputatione Lipsica, says that he firmly believed, yea certainly knew, that there was a Purgatory, still he afterwards retracted this in the book, De Abroganda Missa Privata. And it is the custom of all the factions of our age to laugh at Purgatory, and despise prayers for the dead. But the Catholic Church has strongly opposed all these, each in its time, having in her hand the Holy Scripture, out of which our forefathers have drawn many good reasons.
For (I.) she has proved that alms, prayers, and other holy actions can help the departed: whence it follows that there is a Purgatory, for those in hell can have no help in their pains, and into Paradise, all good being there, we can convey none of ours for those who are therein; wherefore it is for those who are in a third place, which we call Purgatory. (2.) She has proved that in the other world some of the departed have been delivered from their punishments and sins; and since this cannot be done either in hell or in Paradise, it follows that there is a Purgatory. (3,) She has proved that many souls, before arriving in Paradise, passed through a place of punishment, which can only be Purgatory. (4 .) Proving that the souls below the earth gave honour and reverence to Our Lord, she at the same time proved Purgatory, since this cannot be understood of those poor wretches who are in hell. (5.) By many other passages, with a variety of consequences, but all very apposite. In these one ought so much the more to defer to our doctors, because the passages which they allege now have been brought forward for the same purpose by those great ancient fathers, without our having to make new interpretations in order to defend this holy article; which sufficiently shows how candidly we act in this matter: whereas our adversaries draw conclusions from the Holy Scripture which have never been thought of before, but are quite freshly started simply to oppose the Church.
So our reasons will be in this order, (1.) We will quote the passages of Holy Scripture, then (2.) Councils, (3.) ancient Fathers, (4.) all sorts of authors. Afterwards we will bring forward reasons, and at last we will take up the arguments of the opposite party and will show them not to be sound. Thus shall we conclude by the belief of the Catholic Church. It will remain for the reader to avoid looking at things through the medium of passion, to think attentively over the soundness of our proofs, and to throw himself at the feet of the divine goodness, crying out in all humility with David: Give me understanding and I will search thy law, and I will keep it with my whole heart.(Psalm cxviii. 34) And then I doubt not that such men will return into the bosom of their grandmother the Church Catholic.
CHAPTER III.
Of some passages of the scripture in which mention is made of a purgation after this life, and of a time and a place for it.
THIS first argument is irrefragable. There is a time and a place of purgation for souls after this mortal life. Therefore there is a Purgatory; since hell cannot allow any purgation, and Paradise can receive nothing which needs purgation. Now that there is a time and place of purgation after this life, here is the proof.
(1.) In Psalm lxv. 12: We have passed through
fire and water, and thou hast brought us out into a refreshment.
This place is brought in proof of purgatory by Origen (Hom. 2 5 in Numeros), and by S. Ambrose (in Ps. xxxvi., and in sermon 3 on Ps. cxviii.), where he expounds the water of Baptism, and the fire of Purgatory.
[2.]In Isaias (iv. 4]: If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Sion, and shall wash away
the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning.
This purgation made in the spirit of judgment and of burning is understood of Purgatory by S. Augustine, in the 20th Book of the City of God, ch. 25. And in fact this interpretation is favoured by the words preceding, in which mention is made of the salvation of men, and also by the end of the chapter, where the repose of the blessed is spoken of; wherefore that which is said- the Lord shall wash away the filth- is to be understood of the purgation necessary for this salvation.And since it is said that this purgation is to be made in the spirit of heat and of burning, it cannot well be understood save of Purgatory and its fire.
(3). In Micheas, in the 7th chapter 8,9: Rejoice not, thou my enemy, over me, because I am fallen: I shall arise, when I sit in darkness, the Lord is my light. I will bear the wrath of the Lord. because I have sinned against him, until he judge my cause and execute judgment for me: he will bring me forth into the light, I shall behold his justice.
This passage was already applied to the proof of Purgatory amongst Catholics from the time of S. Jerome, 1200 years ago, as the same S. Jerome witnesses by the last chapter of Isaias ; where he says that the when I shall sit in darkness . . . I will bear the wrath of the Lord . . . until He judge my cause- cannot be understood of any pain so properly as of that of Purgatory.
[4] In Zachary (ix. 11): Thou also by the blood thy testament hast sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water. The pit from which these prisoners are drawn is the Purgatory from which Our Lord delivered them in his descent into hell, and cannot be understood of Limbo, where the Fathers were before the resurrection of Our Lord in Abraham's bosom, because there was water of consolation there, as may be seen in Luke xvi. Whence S. Augustine, in the 90th Epistle, to Evodius, says that Our Lord visited those who were being tormented in hell, that is, in Purgatory, and that he delivered them from it; whence it follows that there is a place where the faithful are held prisoners and whence they can be delivered.
(5.) In Malachy (iii. 3): And he shall sit refining and cleansing the silver: and he shall purify the sons
of Levi, and shall refine them as gold and as, silver, &c.
This place is expounded of a purifying punishment by Origen (Hom. 6 on Exodus), S. Ambrose (on Ps. xxxvi.), St. Augustine (de civ. Dei xx. 2 5), and S. Jerome (on this place). We are quite aware that they understand it of a purgation which will be at the end of the world by the general fire and conflagration, in which will be purged away the remains of the sins of those who will be found alive; but we still are able to draw from this a good argument for our Purgatory. For if persons at that time have need of purgation before receiving the effects of the benediction of the supreme Judge, why shall not those also have need of it who die before that time, since some of these may be found at death to have remains of their imperfections. In truth if Paradise cannot receive any stains at that time, neither will it receive them any better at present. S. Irenaeus in this connection, in chapter 29 of Book V., says that because the militant Church is then to mount up to the heavenly palace of the Spouse, and will no longer have time for purgation, her faults and stains will there and then be purged away by this fire which will precede the judgment. (6.) I leave on one side the passage of Psalm xxxvii. -0 Lord. rebuke me not in throe indignation nor chastise me in thy wrath:-which S. Augustine interprets of hell and Purgatory in such sense that to be rebuked in indignation refers to the eternal pains, and to be chastised in wrath refers to Purgatory.
CHAPTER IV.
Of another passage of the New Testament, to this effect.
IN the 1st Corinthians ( iii. 13, 14, 15): The day of the Lord shall declare (every man's work), because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he hims&shall be saved, vet so as by fire.
This passage has always been held as one of the important and difficult ones of the whole Scripture. Now in it, as is easily seen by one who considers the whole chapter, the Apostle uses two similitudes. The first is of an architect who with solid materials builds a valuable house on a rock: the second is of one who on the same foundation erects a house of boards, reeds, straw. Let us now imagine that a fire breaks out in both the houses. That which is of solid material will be out of danger, and the other will be burnt to ashes. And if the architect be in the first he will be whole and safe; if he be in the second, he must, if he would escape, rush through fire and flame, and shall be saved yet so that he will bear the marks of having been in fire: he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. The foundation spoken of in this similitude is Our Lord, of whom S. Paul says: I have planted . . . and as a wise architect I have laid the foundation: . . . and then afterwards : For no one can lay another foundation but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. The architects are-the preachers and doctors of the Gospel, as may be known by considering attentively the words of this whole chapter. And as S. Ambrose interprets, and also Sedulius on this place, the day of the Lord which is spoken of means the day of -judgment, which in the Scripture is ordinarily called the day of the Lord, as in Joel ii : the day of the Lord ; in Sophonias i: the day of the Lord is near; and in the word that follows in our passage: the day of the Lord shall declare it; for it is on that day that all the actions of the world will be declared in fire. When the Apostle says it shall be revealed by fire; he sufficiently shows that it is the last day of judgment; [as] in the Second to the Thessalonians i.: when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with the a ngels of his power, in a flame of glory;and in Psalm xcvi.: fire shall qo before his face.
The fire by which the architect is saved-he himself shall be saved yet so as by fire-can only be understood of the fire of Purgatory.
For when the Apostle says he shall be saved, he excludes the fire of hell in which no one can be saved; and when he says he shall be saved by fire, and speaks only of him who has built on the foundation, wood, straw, stubble, he shows that he is not speaking of the fire which will precede the day of judgment, since by this will pass not only those who shall have built with these light materials, but also those who shall have built in gold, silver, &c. All this interpretation, besides that it agrees very well with the text, is also most authentic, as having been followed with common consent by the ancient Fathers. S. Cyprian (Bk. iv. ep. 2) seems to make allusion to this passage. S. Ambrose, on this place, S. Jerome on the 4th -of Amos, S. Augustine on Psalm xxxvi., S. Gregory (Dial. iv. 39), Rupert (in Gen. iii. 32), and the rest, are all express on the point; and of the Greeks, Origen in the 6th Homily on Exodus, Ecumenius on this passage (where he brings forward S. Basil), and Theodoret quoted by S. Thomas in the I st Opusculum contra errores Groec.
It may be said that in this interpretation there is an equivocation and impropriety, inasmuch as the fire spoken of is taken now for that of Purgatory, now for that which will precede the day of judgment. We answer that it is a graceful manner of speech, by the contrasting these two fires. For notice the meaning of the sentence : the day of the Lord shall have light from the fire which will go before it, and as this day shall be lighted up by the fire, so this same day by the judgment shall cast light on the merit and defect of each work; and as each work shall be brought clearly out, so the workers who will have worked with imperfection shall be saved by the fire of Purgatory. But besides this, if we should say that S. Paul uses the same word in different senses in the same passage it would be no new thing, for he employs words in this way in other places, but so properly that this serves as an ornament to his language: as in the 2d of Corinthians, 5th chapter Him who knew no sin for us he hath made sin :-where who sees not that sin in the first part is taken in its proper sense, for iniquity ; and the second time figuratively, for him who bears the penalty of sin ?
It may be said again that it is not said that he will be saved by fire, but as by fire, and that therefore we cannot conclude there is a Purgatorial fire. I answer that there is a true similitude in this passage. For the Apostle means to say that he whose works are not absolutely solid will be saved like the architect who escapes from the fire, but at the same time not without passing through the fire; a fire of a different quality from that which burns in this world. It is enough that from this passage we evidently conclude that many who will gain possession of the kingdom of paradise will pass through fire: now this will not be the fire of hell, nor the fire which will precede the judgment; it will therefore be the fire of Purgatory. The passage is difficult and troublesome, but well considered it gives us a manifest conclusion for our contention; -so that we have here two places by which we can learn that after this life there are a time and a place of purgation.
CHAPTER V.
Of some other passages by which prayer, alms, deeds and holy actions for the departed are authorised.
THE second argument which we draw from the Holy Word in favour of Purgatory is taken from the Second of the Machabees, chapter xii.; where the Scripture relates that Judas Machabaeus sent to Jerusalem twelve thousand drachms of silver for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, and afterwards it says: It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought tray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins. For thus do we argue. It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins; therefore after death there will be time and place for the remission of sins; but this place cannot be either hell or Paradise, therefore it is Purgatory. This argument is so correct that to answer it our adversaries deny the authority of the Book of Machabees, and hold it to be apocryphal, but in reality this is for lack of any other answer. For this book has been held as authentic and sacred by the third Council of Carthage , which was held about 1200 years ago, and at which S. Augustine assisted, as Prosper says (in Chron.); and by Innocent I. in the Epistle to Exuperius ; and by S. Augustine in the 18th Book of the City of God, c. 36,-whose words are these: "It is the Catholic Church which holds these books canonical, and not the Jews; " and by the same S. Augustine, in the book De Doctrina Christiana, chap. viii.; and by Damasus, in the decree on the canonical books which he made in a council of seventy bishops; and by many other Fathers whom it would be long to cite. So that to answer by denying the authority of the book, is to deny at the same time the authority of antiquity.
We know how many things are alleged in support of this negation, which things for the most part only show the difficulty there is in the Scriptures, not any falsehood in them. It only seems to me necessary to answer one or two objections that are made. They first say that the prayer was made to show the kind feeling those persons had towards the departed, not as if they thought the dead had need of prayer: but this the Scripture contradicts by those words: that they nzay be loosed from sins. Secondly, they object that it is a manifest error to pray for the resurrection of the dead before the judgment ; because this is to presuppose either that souls rise again and consequently die, or that bodies do not rise again unless by means of the prayers and good actions of the living, which would be against the article I believe in the resurrection of the dead: now that these errors are presupposed in this place of the Machabees appears by these words _For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. The answer is that in this place they do not pray for the resurrection either of the soul or of the body, but only for the deliverance of souls. In this they presuppose the immortality of the soul. For if they had believed that the soul was dead with the body they would not have striven to further their release. And because among the Jews the belief in the immortality of the soul and the belief in the resurrection of bodies were so connected together that he who denied one denied the other; -to show that Judas Machabaeus believed the immortality of the soul, it is said that he believed the resurrection of bodies. And in the same way the Apostle proves the resurrection of bodies by the immortality of the soul, although it might be that the soul was immortal without the resurrection of bodies. The following occurs in the I st of Corinthians, chapter xv.: What doth it profit me if the dead rise not again ? Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die. Now it would not at all follow that we might thus let ourselves run riot, even if there was no resurrection: for the soul, which would remain in existence, would suffer the penalty due to sins, and would receive the guerdon of her virtues. S. Paul then in this place takes the resurrection of the dead as equivalent to the immortality of the soul. There is therefore no ground for refusing the testimony of the Machabees in proof of a just belief. But if, in the very last resort, we would take it as the testimony of a simple but great historian- which cannot be refused us- we must at least confess that the ancient synagogue believed in Purgatory, since all that army was so prompt to pray for the departed.
And truly we have marks of this devotion in other Scriptures which ought to make easier to us the reception of the passage which we have just adduced. In Tobias, chap. iv.: Lay out thy bread and thy wine on the burial of a just man; and do not eat or drink thereof with the wicked. Certainly this wine and bread was not placed on the tomb save for the poor, in order that the soul of the deceased might be helped thereby, as the interpreters say commonly on this passage. It will perhaps be said that this Book is apocryphal, but all antiquity has always held it in credit. And indeed the custom of putting meat for the poor on sepulchres is very ancient even in the Catholic Church. For S. Chrysostom, who lived more than twelve hundred years ago, in the 32d Homily on the Book of S. Matthew, speaks of it thus: "Why on your friends' death do you call together the poor? Why for them do you beseech the priests to pray?" And what are we to think of the fasts and austerities which the ancients practised after the death of their friends? The men of Jabes Galaad, after the death of Saul, fasted seven days over him. David and his men did the same, over the same Saul, and Jonathan, and those who followed him, as we see in this [last] chapter of 1st Kings, and in the 1st chapter of 2nd Kings. One cannot think that it was for any other purpose than to help the souls of the departed; -for to what else can one refer the fast of seven days? So David, who, in the 2nd Kings, chapter xii., fasted and prayed for his sick son, after his death ceased to fast, showing that when he fasted it was to obtain help for the sick child, which, when it died, dying young and innocent, had no need of help; wherefore David ceased fasting. Bede, more than 700 years ago, interprets thus the end of the 1st Book of Kings (in Sam. L. iv. a io.). So that in the ancient Church, the custom already was to help by prayer and holy deeds the souls of the departed:- which clearly implies a faith in Purgatory.
And of this custom S. Paul speaks quite clearly in the 1st of Corinthians chap xv., appealing to it as praiseworthy and right. What shall they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not again at all? Why then are they baptized for them? This passage properly understood evidently shows that it was the custom of the primitive Church to watch, pray, fast, for the souls of the departed. For, firstly, in the Scriptures to be baptized is often taken for afflictions and penances ; as in S. Luke, chap xii., where Our Lord speaking of his Passion says: I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized and how am I straitened until it be accomplished!-and in S. Mark. chap x., he says : Can you drink of the chalice that I drink of; or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized? -in which places Our Lord calls pains and afflictions baptism. This then is the sense of that Scripture: if the dead rise not again, what is the use of mortifying and afflicting oneself, of praying and fasting for the dead? And indeed this sentence of S. Paul resembles that of Machabees quoted above: It is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again. They may twist and transform this text with as many interpretations as they like, and there will be none to properly fit into the Holy Letter except this.
But [secondly] it must not be said that the baptism of which S. Paul speaks is only a baptism of grief and tears, and not of fasts, prayers, and other works. For thus understood his conclusion would be very false. The conclusion he means to draw is that if the dead rise not again, and if the soul is mortal, in vain do we afflict ourselves for the dead. But, I pray you, should we not have more occasion to afflict ourselves by sadness for the death of friends if they rise no more - losing all hope of ever seeing them again - than if they do rise? He refers then to the voluntary afflictions which they undertook to impetrate the repose of the departed, which, questionless, would be undergone in vain if souls were mortal and the dead rose not again. Wherein we must keep in mind what was said above, that the article of the resurrection of the dead and that of the immortality of the soul were so joined together in the belief of the Jews that he who acknowledged the one acknowledged the other, and he who denied the one denied the other. It appears then by these words of S. Paul that prayer, fasting, and other holy afflictions were practised for the departed. Now it was not for those in Paradise, who had no need of it, nor for those in hell, who could get no benefit from it; it was, then, for those in Purgatory. Thus did S. Ephrem expound it twelve hundred years ago, and so did the Fathers who disputed against the Petrobusians.
The same can one deduce from the words of the Good Thief, in S. Luke, chap. xxiii. when, addressing Our Lord, he said: Remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. For why should he have recommended himself, he who was about to die, unless he had believed that souls after death could be succoured and helped? S. Augustine (Contra Jul., B. vi.) proves [from] this passage that sins are pardoned in the other world.
CHAPTER VI.
Of certain other places of Scripture by which we prove that some sins can be pardoned in the other world.
IF there are some sins that can be pardoned in the other world it is neither in hell nor in heaven, therefore it is in Purgatory. Now, that there are sins which are pardoned in the other world we prove, firstly, by the passage of S. Matthew in chap. xii., where Our Lord says that there is a sin which cannot be forgiven either in this world or in the next: therefore there are sins which can be forgiven in the other world. For if there were no sins which could be forgiven in the other world, it was not now necessary to attribute this property of not being. able to be forgiven in the next world to one sort of sins, but it sufficed to say it could not be forgiven in this world. When Our Lord had said to Pilate : My kingdom is not of this world, in S. John, chap. xviii., Pilate drew this conclusion: Art thou a king, then? Which conclusion was approved by Our Lord, who assented thereto. So when he said that there is one sin which cannot be forgiven in the other world, it follows very properly that there are others which can. They try to say that these words, neither in this world nor in the world to come, only signify, for ever, or, never; as S. Mark says in chap. iii., shall never have forgiveness. That is quite true ; but our reason loses none of its force on that account. For either S. Matthew has properly expressed Our Lord's meaning or he has not: one would not dare to say he has not, and if he has, it still follows that there are sins which can be forgiven in the other world, since Our Lord has said that there is one which cannot be forgiven in the other world.
And please tell me - if S. Peter had said in S. John, chap. xiii.: Thou shalt never wash my feet either in this world or in the other, would he not have spoken [properly], since in the other world they might be washed ?-and indeed he does say: thou shalt not wash my feet for ever. We must not believe then that S. Matthew would have expressed the intention of Our Lord by these words neither in this world nor in the next , if in the next there cannot be remission. We should laugh at a man who said: I will not marry either in this world or in the next, as if he supposed that in the next one could marry. He then who says a sin cannot be forgiven either in this world or in the next, implies that there may be remission of some sins in this world and also in the other. I am well aware that our adversaries try by various interpretations to parry this blow, but it is so well struck that they cannot escape from it, unless by starting a new doctrine. And in good truth it is far better, with the ancient Fathers, to understand properly and with all possible reverence the words of Our Lord, than, in order to found a new doctrine, to make them confused and ill-chosen. S. Augustine (de Civ. Dei, lib. xxi., c. 24), S. Gregory (Hom. 7, de Dec., c. 39), Bede (in Marc. iii.), S. Bernard (Hom. 66 in Cant.), and those who have written against the Petrobusians, have used this passage in our sense, with such assurance that S. Bernard to declare this truth brings forward nothing more, so much account does he make of this.
In S. Matthew (v.), and in S. Luke (xii.): Make an agreement with thy adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him; lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
Amen, I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou pay the last farthing.
Origen, S. Cyprian, S. Hilary, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, and S. Augustine say that the way which is meant in the whilst thou art in the way is no other than the passage of the present life: the adversary will be our own conscience, which ever -fights against us and for us, that is, it ever resists our bad inclinations and our old Adam for our salvation, as S. Ambrose expounds, [and] Bede, S. Augustine, S. Gregory, and S. Bernard. Lastly. the judge is without doubt Our Lord in S. John (v.): The Father has given all judgment to the Son. The prison again, is hell or the place of punishment in the other world, in which, as in a large jail, there are many buildings; one for those who are damned, which is as it were for criminals, the other for those in Purgatory, which is as it were for debt. The farthing, of which it is said thou shalt not go out from thence till thou pay the last farthing, are little sins and infirmities, as the farthing is the smallest money one can owe.
Now let us consider a little where this repayment of which Our Lord speaks - till thou pay the last farthing-is to be made. And (1.) we find from most ancient Fathers that it is in Purgatory: Tertullian (Lib. de Anima c. x.), Cyprian (Epist., lib. iv. 2), Origen (Horn. 3 5 on this place of Luke), with Emissenus (Hom. 3 de Epiph.), S. Ambrose (in Luc. xii.), S. Jerome (in Matt. v.), S. Bernard (serm. de obitu Huberti).
(2.) When it is said till thou pay the last farthing, is it not implied that one can pay it, and that one can so diminish the debt that there only remains at length its last farthing ? But just as when it is said in the Psalm (cix.): Sit at my right hand until I make thy enemies, &c., it properly follows that at length he will make his enemies his footstool; so when he says thou shah not go out till thou pay, he shows that at length he will pay or will be able to pay.
(3.) Who sees not that in S. Luke the comparison is drawn, not from a murderer or some criminal, who can have no hope of escape, but from a debtor who is thrown into prison till payment, and when this is made is at once let out? This then is the meaning of Our Lord, that whilst we are in this world we should try by penitence and its fruits to pay, according to the power which we have by the blood of the Redeemer, the penalty to which our sins have subjected us; since if we wait till death we shall not have such good terms in Purgatory, when we shall be treated with severity of justice.
All this seems to have been also said by Our Lord in the 5th of S. Matthew, where he says: He who is angry with his brother shall be guilty of the judgment; and he who shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be guilty of the council ; but he who shall say, thou fool, shall be guilty of hell fire: now it is only the third sort of offence which is punished with hell; therefore in the judgment of God after this life there are other pains which are not eternal or infernal, -these are the pains of Purgatory. One may say that the pains will be suffered in this world; but S. Augustine and the other Fathers understand them for the other world. And again may it not be that a man should die on the first or second offence which is spoken of here? And when will such a one pay the penalty due to his offence ? Or if you will have that he pays them not, what place will you give him for his retreat after this world? You will not assign him hell, unless you would add to the sentence of Our Lord, who does not assign hell as a penalty save to those who shall have committed the third offence. Lodge him in Paradise you must not, because the nature of that heavenly place rejects all sorts of imperfections. Allege not here the mercy of the Judge, because he declares in this place that he intends also to use justice. Do then as the ancient Fathers did, and say that there is a place where they will be purified, and then they will go to heaven above.
In S. Luke, in the 16th chapter, it is written Make unto yourselves friends of the mammon of iniquity, that when you shall fail they may receive you into eternal tabernacles. To fail, what is it but to die? -and the friends, who are they but the Saints ? The interpreters all understand it so; whence two things follow, -that the Saints can help men departed, and that the departed can be helped by the Saints. For in what other way can one understand these words: make to yourselves friends who may receive you? They cannot be understood of alms, for many times the alms is good and holy and yet acquires us not friends who can receive us into eternal tabernacles, as when it is given to bad people with a holy and right intention. Thus is this passage expounded by S. Ambrose, and by S. Augustine (de Civ. Dei xii. 27). But the parable Our Lord is using is too clear to allow us any doubt of this interpretation; for the similitude is taken from a steward who, being dismissed from his office and reduced to poverty, begged help from his friends, and Our Lord likens the dismissal unto death, and the help begged from friends unto the help one receives after death from those to whom one has given alms. This help cannot be received by those who are in Paradise or in hell, it is then by those who are in Purgatory.
CHAPTER VII.
Of some other places from which by various consequences is derived the truth of purgatory
S.PAUL to the Philippians (ii.) says these words: That in the name of Jesus every knee may bow, of things in heaven, of things on earth and of things under the earth (infernorum). In heaven we find the Saints on their knees, bending them at the name of the Redeemer. On earth we find many such in the militant Church, but in hell where shall we find any of them ? David despairs of finding any when he says: Who shall confess to thee in hell? (Ps.vi.)So Ezechias in Isaias (xxxviii.):For neither shall hell confess to thee. To which that also ought to be referred which David sings elsewhere (xlix. 16): But to the sinner God hath_ said: Why dost thou declare my justice and take my covenant in thy mouth? For if God will receive no praise from the obstinate sinner, how should he permit the wretched damned to this this holy office. S. Augustine makes great account of this place for this purpose in the 12th book on Genesis (xxxiii.). There is a similar passage in the Apocalypse (v.): Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof? And no man was able neither in heaven, nor in earth, nor under the earth. And further down in the same chapter: And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth . I heard all saying: To him that sitteth upon the throne and to the Lamb, benediction and honour and glory and power for ever and ever. And the four living creatures said Amen. Does he not hereby uphold a Church, in which God is praised under the earth? And what else can it be but that of Purgatory?
CHAPTER VIII.
Of the councils which have received purgatory as an article of faith.
AERIUS, as I have said above, was the first to teach against Catholics that the prayers they offered for the dead were superstitious. He still has followers in our age in this point. Our Lord in his gospel (Matt. xviii.) furnishes us our rule of action on such occasions. If thy brother shall o ffend thee . . . tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. Let us hear then what the Church says on this matter, in Africa, at the 3d Council Of Carthage (c. 29), and at the 4th (c. 79); in Spain, at the Council of Braga (cc. 34, 39); in France, at the Council of Chalons (de cons. d. 2, Can. visum est), and at the 2nd Council of Orleans (c. 14); in Germany, at the Council of Worms (c. 20); in Italy, at the 6th Council under Symmachus; in Greece, as may be seen in their synods, collected by Martin of Braga (c. 69). And by all these Councils you will see that the Church approves of prayer for the departed, and consequently of Purgatory. Afterwards, what she had defined by parts she defined in her general body at the Council of Lateran under Innocent III. (c. 66), at the Council of Florence in which all nations assisted (Sess. ult.), and lastly at the Council of Trent (Sess. 25).
But what more holy answer from the Church would one have than that which is contained in all her Masses? Examine the Liturgies of S. James, S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, which all the Oriental Christians still use; you will there see the commemoration of the dead, almost as it is seen in ours. If Peter Martyr, one of the learned men belonging to the adverse party, confesses, on the 3d chapter of the 1st of Corinthians, that the whole Church has followed this opinion, I have no need to dwell on this proof. He says it has erred and failed,-ah ! who would believe that ! Who art thou that judgest the Church of God? If any one hear not the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. If the salt lose its savour wherewith shall it be salted; if the Church err by whom shall she be set right ? If the Church, the faithful guardian of truth, lose the truth, by whom shall the truth be found? If Christ cast off the Church, whom will he receive,-he who admits no one but through the Church? And if the Church can err, can you not also, 0 Peter Martyr, fall into error? -without doubt: I will then rather believe that you have erred than the Church.
CHAPTER IX.
Of the testimony of the ancient fathers to the truth of purgatory.
IT is a beautiful thing, and one full of all consolation, to see the perfect correspondence which the present Church has with the ancient, particularly in belief. Let us mention what makes to our purpose concerning Purgatory.All the ancient Fathers have believed in it, and have testified that it was of Apostolic faith. Here are the authors we have for it. Among the disciples of the Apostles, S. Clement and S. Denis. Afterwards, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, Ephrem, Cyril, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Gregory Nyssen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Origen, Boethius, Hilary, that is, all antiquity as far back as 1200 years ago, which was the time before which these Fathers lived. It would have been easy for me to bring forward their testimonies, which are accurately collected in the books of our Catholics; -of Canisius, in his Catechism, of Sanders On the Visible Monarchy, of Genebrard in his Chronology, of Bellarmine in his Controversy on Purgatory, of Stapleton in his Promptuary. But particularly let those who would see at length and faithfully quoted the passages of the ancient Fathers, take up the work of Canisius, revised by Buzaeus.
Certainly, however, Calvin spares us this trouble, in Book iii. of his Institutions (c. 5, ~I0), where he thus speaks: "More than 1300 years ago it was received that prayers should be offered for the dead;" and afterwards he adds: "But all, I confess, were dragged into error." We need not then seek out the names and the localities of the ancient Fathers to prove Purgatory, since in reckoning their value Calvin puts them at zero. What likelihood that one single Calvin should be infallible and that all antiquity should have gone wrong! It is said that the ancient Fathers have believed in Purgatory to accommodate themselves to the vulgar. A fine excuse! was it not for the Fathers to correct the people's error if they saw them erring, not to keep it up and give in to it? This excuse then is but to accuse the Ancients. But how shall we say the Fathers have not honestly believed in Purgatory, since Aerius, as I have said before, was held to be a heretic because he denied it? It is a shame to see the audacity with which Calvin treats S. Augustine, because he prayed and got prayers for his mother S. Monica; and the only pretext he brings forward is that S. Augustine, in Book 21 of the de Civitate seems to doubt about the fire of Purgatory. But this is nothing to the purpose; for it is true that S. Augustine says one may doubt of the fire and of the nature thereof, but not of Purgatory. Now whether the purgation is made by fire or otherwise, whether or no the fire have the same qualities as that of hell, still there ceases not to be a purgation and a Purgatory. He puts not then Purgatory in question but the quality of it; as will never be denied by those who will look how he speaks of it in chapters 16 and 24 of the same Book of the de Civitate, and in the work De Curd Pro Mortins Agenda, and a thousand other places. See then how we are in the track of the holy and ancient Fathers, as to this article of Purgatory.
CHAPTER X.
Of two principal reasons, and of the testimony of outsiders in favour of purgatory.
HERE are two invincible proofs of Purgatory. The first:- there are sins which are light in comparison with others, and which do not make man guilty of hell. If then a man die in them, what will become of him? Paradise receives nothing defiled (Apoc. xxi): hell is too extreme a penalty, it is not deserved by his sin: it must then be owned that he will stay in a Purgatory, where he will be duly purified, and afterwards go to heaven. Now that there are sins which do not make man deserving of hell, Our Saviour says in Matthew (v.): Whosoever is angry with his brother shall be guilty of the judgment ; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be guilty of the council ; and whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall be guilty of hell fire (gehennce ignis). What, I pray you, is it to be guilty of the gehenna of fire but to be guilty of hell? Now this penalty is deserved by those only who call their brother, thou fool. Those who get angry, and those who express their anger in words not injurious and defamatory, are not in the same rank; but one deserves judgment, that is, that his anger should be brought under judgment, like the idle word (Matt. xii.) of which Our Lord says man shall render an account in the day of judgment,- account must be rendered of it: the second deserves the council, that is, deserves to be deliberated about whether he shall be condemned or not (for Our Lord accommodates himself to men's way of speaking) the third alone is the one who, without question, infallibly shall be condemned. Therefore the first and second kinds of sin do not make man deserving of eternal death, but of a temporal correction; and therefore if a man die with these, by accident or otherwise, he must undergo the judgment of a temporal punishment, and when his soul is purged thereby he will go to heaven, to be with the blessed. Of these sins the Wise Man speaks (Prov xxiv.): The just shall fall seven times a day: for the just cannot sin, so long as he is just, with a sin which deserves damnation: it means then that he falls into sins to which damnation is not due, which Catholics call venial, and these can be purged away in the other world in Purgatory.
The second reason is, that after the pardon of sin there remains part of the penalty due to it. As for example, in the 2nd of Kings, chap. xii., the sin is forgiven to David, the Prophet saying to him: The Lord hath also taken away thy sin: not thou shalt not die. Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme for this thing, thy child shall die the death.

Question: what did saint robert bellarmine and alphonsus liguori propose

Answer: asking for the prayers of the souls in purgatory

what did saint robert bellarmine and alphonsus liguori propose

Question: who argued that the mention of every knee bowing at the name of jesus

Answer: Saint Francis de Sales

who argued that the mention of every knee bowing at the name of jesus

Question: who suggested asking for the prayers of the souls in purgatory

Answer: Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Liguori

who suggested asking for the prayers of the souls in purgatory

Question: who suggested asking for the prayers of souls in purgatory

Answer: Alphonsus Liguori

who suggested asking for the prayers of souls in purgatory

Question: what is the term for heaven, on earth, and under the earth

Answer: purgatory

what is the term for heaven, on earth, and under the earth

Question: saint francis de sales argued that the mention of every knee bowing at the name

Answer: hell

saint francis de sales argued that the mention of every knee bowing at the name

Question: what did bellarmine and liguori ask for

Answer: prayers of the souls in purgatory