CLEMENT AND ORIGEN.

69

Clement's mind, which, though of a high order, was not adapted for systematic development; hence, we find in his writings many important ideas scattered abroad, many suggestions and germs of deeper investigations, but also much that is indefinite, a medley of heterogeneous elements, which required to be sifted and arranged. He was fitted to give an impulse for the development of the School, but not, strictly speaking, to be its Founder. This honour was reserved for ORIGEN, the greatest Church-teacher of the East. His father, a learned grammarian, gave him a very liberal education, and excited in him an ardent desire for the study of Grecian Literature; at the same time, he sought to impress his head with the truths of Christianity. These two elements proceeded simultaneously without mixing with one another. He appears to have derived from his father the current ecclesiastical direction, and a one-sided literal mode of interpreting the Scriptures. He himself refers to having occupied such a standpoint; for he says, that at one time he knew Christ after the flesh and the letter, but now he knew him so no more.† This is equivalent to saying, that his theological development was marked by two distinct stages, and that he had advanced from a literal to a spiritual mode of viewing. While restricted to the former, his ascetic zeal had led him into the error of making a literal application to himself of Christ's words in Matt. xix. 12. As he had experienced the defects of the literal standpoint, it is easily understood how he afterwards veered round to

*His important dogmatic writings are: Commentaries (róμoi), Homilies, some in the original Greek, others in the translation of Rufinus and Jerome ; Tepi άpxwr in Origenes de principiis ed. et annot. instruc. E R. Redepenning: Lips. 1836. Compare K. F. Schnitzer, Origenes üb. d. Grundlehren der Glaubenswissenschaft. Wiederherstellungsversuch (aus der Ueberarbeitung des Rufin): Stuttg. 1835. Contr. Celsum, libb. viii. ed. Spencer, Cantabr. 1658, 4to. Uebers. von Mosheim, Origenes, 8 Bb. v. d. christl. Wahrheit. gegen d. Weltweis Celsus, 1745, 4to. περὶ εὐχῆς εἰς μαρτύριον προτρεπτικὸς λόγος. Important dogmatic passages of his writings are to be found in the Philocalia of Basil of Cæsarea and Gregory Nazianzen. The Commentaries, ed. D. Huetius, 2 tom. fol. Rothomag. 1668. Par. 1679. Col. 1685. Collected editions of his works, De la Rue: Par. 733--59, 4 t. fol. Lommatzsch, 1831 sq. 25 t. 8.-Origeniana by Huet in his edit., and in De la Rue's, t. iv.-G. Thomasius, Origenes e. Beitr. zur Dogmengesch: Nurab. 1837. Redepenning, Origenes e. Darstellung seines Lebens u. sur. Lehre. 2 Bb. 841. 46. Ritter, Gesh. d. Philosoph. V.

+Com. in Matth. t. xv § 3.

the opposite extreme, and substituted a one-sided spiritualism for a sensuous contractedness. It would assist us in understanding his development, if we knew more of the first influence of Clement over him. He could not have been subject to this in his youth, on account of the standpoint he then occupied. The Neoplatonic philosophy which he learned at the lectures of a distinguished teacher, Ammonius Saccas, contributed much to the change in his views. It gave his mind a new speculative, dogmatic direction, which prepared him for adopting that of Clement, and systematically developing the Alexandrian Gnosis. He endeavoured to make himself master of the most widely different systems of Eastern or Western origin, and in all of them, as they appeared from his own standpoint, to separate the true from the false. The great liberality and moderation with which he treated other standpoints, formed one of his characteristics; hence, he could put himself in communication with minds cast in very different moulds, and lead them off their own standpoint to adopt other convictions. He made too great a separation between yvãos and Tíoris, but yet the affection with which he sympathised with the Tol is admirable, since he recognises the necessity of various stages of development. In a remarkable passage, he rebukes the haughtiness of those who despised the little ones in the Church, and did not recollect that Christ had said " Of such is the kingdom of God,"-in this respect Christ became a child to children.† Christianity appears to him as an image of Christ. In all his writings the apologetic interest is predomi

* See Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 19. Ritter contends that Ammonius Saccas had been his teacher. See, on the other hand, Redepenning's Origenes i. 230. L. Kruger, über d. Verhältniss des Origenes zu Am. Sackas, in Ilgen's Zeitschrift f. histor. Theol. 1843. 1.

+ In Malth. xv. § 6, 8. Compare also the beautiful fragment of a letter to Firmilianus of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia, in the Spicilegium Solesmense, ed. a. B. Pitra: Par. 1852, i. 268. Exeuntes Hebræi de terrà Ægypti et arma bellica non habentes ac præliorum certamina nescientes, terrore perculsi sunt, videntes armatos Ægyptios insequentes. Propterea dicit eis Moyses: vos tacebitis et Deus pugnabit pro vobis. Si nihil hæc Scriptura significare voluisset, dici poterat; vos pugnabitis, et Deus pugnabit pro vobis. Quid vero ad timorem belli pertinebat ut diceret; (et) vos tacebitis? Nisi quia in filiis Israel non habentibus usum bellicum designabantur fideles, qui in simplicis fidei soliditate firmati et disputandi scientiam non habentes, sed regulam fidei in corde servantes, taciturnitate superant adversarios, expugnare nitentes recti dogmatis veritatem. [JACOBI.]

nant against philosophic heathens and heretics. This interest for the vindication of Christian truth appears throughout, even where he concedes too much to Platonism. He was destined

to prepare the way for a new period of Christian development, to harmonize contrarieties, but he did not succeed in carrying on this process successfully on all points. His dispute with Demetrius, his bishop, was attended with important consequences, for it occasioned his leaving Alexandria and going to Cæsarea. The outward cause of the controversy was the hierarchical jealousy of Demetrius; but the real ground lay deeper, and outward circumstances only served to bring that hidden cause into public notice, which was the contrariety between Origen's Gnostic tendency and the antiguostic. It is to be regretted that we only possess some slight notices of the affair. A work by Origen, entitled Tegi apxuv (De principiis), which treated either of the Principles of Christianity, or, more probably, of the Principles of Being, gave the first impulse to the controversy. This work, which had been made public against his will, by his friend Ambrosius, formerly a Gnostic, contained many speculative developments and problems, which called forth a violent opposition from the other party. He was accused of falsifying the doctrines of Christianity, and suffered excommunication. Unfortunately that work, from which we might have learnt his theology, has come down to us, with the exception of a few Greek fragments, only in the incorrect Latin Version of the Presbyter Rufinus. We cannot with certainty assume, that Origen held all the opinions here expressed, at a later period. He might, perhaps, afterwards retract many of his bold assertions; and hence this work must be compared with his later writings, much of which we possess only in a Latin Version. Among his Greek works the most important are, his treatise against Celsus, and his Commentaries on the Gospels of John and Matthew, which are more valuable for the History of Dogmas than for Exegesis. Owing to his peculiar view of the business of exposition, and of its various standpoints, he brought forward his Dogmas even in his exegetical writings, and frequently sought to point them cut in Scripture, after he had erroneously placed them there. His homilies are not alto gether safe sources for ascertaining his peculiar Dogmas, since it is not certain whether he always brought his own opinions

before the public, or only accommodated himself to an exoteric standpoint.

During the controversy carried on after his death, between his own adherents and the antignostic Church party, the learned Pamphilus, a Presbyter at Cæsarea, in Palestine, who suffered martyrdom in the Diocletian persecution (A.D. 309), composed a Vindication of Origen, which was completed after his death by his pupil Eusebius, and of which we possess some fragments in the original Greek, and the first book in the Latin translation of Rufinus.* That controversy shows the leading tendencies which regulated the development of Dogmas, and it was a most important consequence that they acted as counterpoises to one another. Thus the practical Christian spirit checked the idealistic tendency of arbitrary speculation; then again, a scientific tendency was diffused by the School of Origen, which spiritualized the gross sensuous element.

THE SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOGMAS.

A. THE HISTORY OF INTRODUCTORY DOGMAS.

If we now turn to the history of particular Dogmas we have, first of all, to treat of those ideas which belong to the introduction to the doctrines of Christianity. Our first inquiry is respecting the highest source of our knowledge of the Christian faith, whether it is supernatural Revelation or Reason, whether inward or outward, the Christian consciousness, or the Holy Scriptures and Tradition, whether written or oral Tradition is the highest source.

1.

OF WRITTEN AND ORAL TRADITION AS NORMAL SOURCES
OF KNOWLEDGE.

The inquiry, whether in the first ages of the Church oral Tradition or Holy Writ was the higher source of Christian knowledge, necessarily came under discussion at the Refor

Apolog. pro Origene, libb. v., lib. vi. of Eusebius. Greek fragments. Phot. cod. 109. lib. 1. in Rufinus' translation. Origen, Opera, De la Rue, t. iv. p. 17.

ORAL TRADITION AND THE SCRIPTURES.

73

mation. This induced Archbishop USHER,* to make a collection of passages respecting the use of Holy Writ; at a later period the subject came again under consideration in the development of German Theology, when LESSING† rejected the common Protestant view, and maintained, that in the most ancient times a regula fidei had been regarded as a source of knowledge. On the opposite side F. WALCH, of Göttingen, wrote his treatise on "the use of Scripture in the first three centuries," 1779. In later times F. DELBRÜCK‡ re-opened the inquiry, and by his assertions in favour of Tradition called forth the rejoinders of NITZSCH, LÜCKE and SACK.§ Lastly, A. DANIEL in a controversial pamphlet pleaded in favour of the Catholic view of Tradition, to which JACOBI wrote a reply. In the examination of the question partial views have been taken, as often on the Protestant side as on the Catholic. The Protestants transferred their own standpoint to antiquity, and the Catholics failed to recollect that Tradition in the Apostolic Age must have been different from what it is at present. Here, as it often happens, error has arisen from the wish to retain the standpoint of an earlier age unaltered, under new developments and altered relations. If we go back to the origin of the Christian dispensation, we shall find that the Apostles were commissioned, first of all, to propagate the truth by oral announcement. this their writings were only subsidiary, as the occasion might require in consequence of what they had taught by word of mouth. But in all cases, whatever they declared as teachers,

Το

* Historia dogmatica controversiæ inter orthodoxos et pontificios de Scripturis et sacris vernaculis. ed. Wharton: Lond. 1690. + In his Streitschriften gegen Götze Werke, viii.

Melanchthon der Glaubenslehre: Bonn. 1828.

§ Ueber das Ansehen der h. Schrift im Verhältniss zur Glaubensregel in der protest. u. in d. alten Kirche Drei Sendschrieben an Herrn Delbrück: Bonn. 1897.

Theologische Controversen. 1846.

¶ Die Kirch. Lehre von d. Tradition u. d. Schrift in ihrer Entwicklung.

** Compare also, W. L. Christmann, üb. d. ursprüngl. Verhaltniss von Tradition u. Schrift, Logos u. Kabbala: Tub. 1125. C. W. Ch. Weinmann, Darstellung u. unpartheiische Kritik der Streitfrage ub. d. Tradit. als Quelle religios. Lehren u. Ueberzeugungen, 1825. D. Schenkel. ub. d. ursprungl. Verhaltniss der Kirche zum Kanon. 1838. J. Kirchhofer, Quellensammlung zur Geschichte des neu. testamentl. Kanons bis auf Hieronymus: Zür. 1844.