to a closer examination of the difference between enthusiasm and true Inspiration. Miltiades a rhetorician, wrote a book against Montanism to the effect, that a Prophet ought not to speak in ecstasy, * and maintained on the contrary, that a Prophet must be perfectly conscious of his own ideas. On this assumption it was attempted to find the developed Christian truth in the Prophets of the Old Testament. teachers of the Alexandrian Church, Origen particularly, believed that the Prophets, by spiritual communion with the Logos (πionuía vonrn), arrived at a clear knowledge of revealed truths.

The

There is a trace worth noticing of a peculiar opinion respecting the nature of Inspiration in the Old Testament, which was held by certain opponents of the doctrine of the Trinity, of whom Origen speaks. They said that the Holy Spirit in the Prophets, was not the same as the Holy Spirit in the Apostles. We might suppose this founded on the Gnostic distinction of the inspirations of the Demiurgos and of the Supreme God; but the Gnostics do not thus make use of the name of the Holy Spirit, and Origen distinguishes from them the persons who employed such language. We must compare what Eusebius says of such an Antitrinitarian party, since he accuses them of an arbitrary critical treatment of Holy Writ; and then adds that some of them had positively denied the Law and the Prophets, and under the pretence of Grace had maintained an antinomian and impious doctrine ‡ It is of special importance, that they pleaded the doctrine of Grace as a cloak for their sentiments; that is, they professed to extol the manner in which God operated through Christ; they were at issue with the Church respecting the authority of the Old Testament; they lowered that, and placed Christianity so * Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v. 17.-πeρì toỡ μỷ deïv πpopýτŋv év škoTάOEI λαλεῖν.

In epist. ad Titum, ed. Lommatzsch. v. p. 288.-Sed et si qui sunt, qui spiritum sanctum alium quidem dicant esse, qui fuit in prophetis, alium autem, qui fuit in apostolis Domini nostri Jesu Christi ̄unum atque idem delictum impietatis admittunt, quod illi, qui, quantum in se est, naturam deitatis secant et scindunt, dicentes unum legis et alterum evangeliorum deum.

Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v. 28, fin.-vioi dè avтãv ovdè rapaxaρáσσεiv ἠξίωσαν αὐτάς, ἀλλ ̓ ἁπλῶς ἀρνησάμενοι τόν τε νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας ἀνόμου καὶ ἀθέου διδασκαλείας προφάσει χάριτος εἰς ἔσχατον ἀπωλείας ὄλεθρον κατωλίσθησαν.

INSPIRATION AND PLATONISM.

95

much the higher, in opposition to those who were disposed to find it already in the Old Testament. This account of them appears to agree with the description given by Origen.

In the first ages of Christianity, the Platonic philosophy had led to many interesting inquiries among the heathen, respecting the idea of Inspiration. On one side there was the Unbelief of those, who saw in all Religion nothing but human Institutions, and made use of Oracles and the like under this notion; on the other side were those who maintained that every response was verbally inspired by the gods. Differing from both these parties, Platonism constructed another view. Setting out from the idea of a natural operation of God on the human soul, Plutarch* maintained that the excitement of the religious consciousness proceeded from God, but that the particular form in which it presented itself, depended on human agency. Such ideas could be readily applied to the Christian idea of Inspiration; we actually find in the Church teachers the comparison which Plutarch employs, of an inspired soul to a musical instrument. But they attach quite a different meaning to it, since they do not lay any stress on what is peculiar in the instrument, and which modifies the style of the Inspiration in its actual manifestation; but only adopt it so far as to say, that the instrument is made to vibrate from without, to illustrate the pure passivity of man. The Platonic ideas, which we find elsewhere in the most ancient Church teachers, are not placed in connexion with the idea of Inspiration. Justin Martyr transfers the Platonic relation of the vous to the voɛgòv in Man, to the relation of the λóyos to the OTégua λoyinóv, the human reason allied to God. From a perpetual Revelation of the divine λóyos to what is allied to it in Man, proceeded all the seeds of truth in the ancient world; but only something fragmentary, not the full Revelation of the divine λόγος could be effected by the σπέρμα λογικόν. Human prejudice and short-sightedness produced errors and contrarieties in the ancient world; but in Christ we have the complete self-revelation of the divine λóyos, and in him alone absolute Religion and Truth.‡ CLEMENT of

De Pythia Oraculis, capp. vii. x. xx. xxi.

† (Just. Mart. ?) Cohortat. ad Græcos, § 8.

Apol. ii. c. 10.

Μεγαλειότερα μὲν οὖν πάσης ἀνθρωπείου διδασκαλίας φαίνεται τὰ ἡμέτερα διὰ τὸ λογικόν τὸ ὅλον τὸν

Alexandria traces all that there was of truth among the heathen before Christ, to the suggestions of the Divine Spirit, who for this purpose made use of individuals who were capable of training their fellow-men. Clement accounts for error by the mixture of the human, and in this respect distinguishes the Holy Scriptures from all other books.* He believed, that if we could collect the various contrarieties freed from the human prejudices, through which the scattered rays of Truth are presented, we should possess the pure Christian Truth. Yet Clement, no more than Justin, made use of these notions for distinguishing the divine and human in the idea of Revelation; Clement did not separate from one another the form and essence of Revelation, but regarded everything in them as a divine operation. Philo, though the magical idea of Inspiration is the leading one in his writings, has admitted a remarkable distinction of three stages of Inspiration. The highest stage is that in which God speaks in his own name. Here the person of the Prophet is altogether out of sight, and the Divine is presented immediate and pure, without any human admixture. The second stage is that in which the Prophet inquires of God, and God answers; here a mixture of the divine and human begins. In the third stage, the Prophet speaks in his own name, although he announces what is divine. Here there is also enthusiasm ; but the human, the individual, animated by the Divine Spirit, also comes into play. In Origen we find a similar distinction, though it is φανέντα δι' ἡμᾶς Χριστὸν γεγονέναι, καὶ σῶμα καὶ λόγον καὶ ψυχήν. Όσα γὰρ καλῶς ἀεὶ ἐφθέγξαντο καὶ εὕρον, οἱ φιλοσοφήσαντες ἢ νομοθετήσαντες, κατὰ λόγου μέρος εὑρέσεως καὶ θεωρίας ἐστὶ πονηθέντα αὐτοῖς. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ οὐ πάντα τὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐγνώρισαν, ὅς ἐστι Χριστὸς καὶ ἐναντία ἑαύτοις πόλλακις εἴπον.

* Str. vi, 693 Α.-ἀλλὰ καὶ αἱ τῶν ἐναρέτων ἀνθρώπων ἐπίνοιαι κατ' ἐπίνοιαν θείαν γίγνονται διατιθεμένης πιστῆς ψυχῆς καὶ διαδιδομένου τοῦ θείου θελήματος εἰς τὰς ἀνθρωπίνας ψυχὰς τῶν ἐν μέρει θείων λειτουργῶν συλλαμβανομένων εἰς τὰς τοιαύτας διακονίας. Cf. i. p. 287 C. + Vit. Moysis iii. p. 681, sq. ed. Francof. 1691.

+ In Joann. vi. 18.- ὥστι σοφὰ μὲν καὶ πιστὰ λέγειν καὶ σφόδρα ἐπιτεταγμένα τὰ ἀποστολικά, οὐ μὴν παραπλήσια τῷ· “ τάδε λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ” Καὶ τοῦτο ἐπίστησον, εἰ, ἐπὰν λέγῃ ὁ Παῦλος· “ πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος” ἐμπεριλαμβάνει καὶ τὰ ἑαυτοῦ γράμματα, ἢ οὐ τὸ, “ κάγω λέγω, καὶ οὐχ ὁ κύριος, καὶ τὸ “ ἐν πάσαις ἐκκλησίαις διατάσσομαι, καὶ τὸ “ οἷα ἔπαθον ἐν ̓Αντιοχεία, ἐν Ἰκονίῳ, ἐν Λύστροις,” καὶ τὰ τούτοις παραπλήσια ἐνίοτε ὑπ' αὐτοῦ γραφέντα καὶ κατ ̓ ἐξουσίαν, οὐ μὴν τὸ εἰλικρινὲς τῶν ἐκ θείας ἐπιπνοίας λόγων

ORIGEN AND IRENEUS.

97

not clear that he derived it from PHILO. He distinguishes the idea of Inspiration in the strictest sense, and applies it to a case, in which also the human element is noticeable. He inquires whether Paul, when in 2 Tim. iii. 16., he speaks of Holy Scripture as Jóvevoros, intended to include his own writings. The Apostolic writings were, indeed, wise and trustworthy, and very weighty, but not equal to those in which it is said, "Thus saith the Lord, the Almighty." In the former, there was not the same pure inspiration of the Divine Spirit as in the latter. His critical acuteness might have led Origen to notice other passages of the New Testament, to illustrate the distinction of the Divine and the Human. Yet where he observes differences in the narratives of the Evangelists, he explains them, according to his common idea of Inspiration. He disputes with other Christians, who found no difficulty in the admission of these discrepancies, and concludes that, because such differences are irreconcilable, they must have been designed. They were intended to lead to the acknowledgment that the Truth was ideal, that the Fact was internal, and only represented as external. He would rather give up the full reality of facts than admit any differences. He says, "We believe that the Gospels were written down under the co-operation of the Holy Spirit; no error, no falsehood, can be allowed in the Evangelists; the discrepancies do not arise from defect of memory." This idea of Inspiration led many to a Hypercriticism; for since they could not see their way through the discrepancies of the Gospels, they attached themselves to one Gospel for which they had a special preference, and rejected the rest as unapostolic.

IRENEUS also, though he has not formally developed his ideas on Inspiration, shows traces of his recognition of two factors the divine agency, and the conditions of human individuality. For instance, in the writings of Paul, he does not attribute everything to divine inspiration, but makes the quality of Paul's style to depend on his mental characteristics

* In Joann. vi. 18.—καὶ ἀκολουθόν γε, μηδενὸς σφαλλομένου τῶν Εὐαγγελιστῶν, μηδὲ ψευδομένου, ὡς εἴποιεν ἂν οἱ πιστεύοντες, ἀμφότερα κατὰ διαφόρους καιροὺς εἰρηκέναι—οὐ γὰρ περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν, ὡς οἴονταί τινες, οἱ ἀπομνημονεύοντες διαφόρως ἠνέχθησαν μὴ ἀκριβοῦντες τῇ μνήμῃ ἕκαστον τῶν εἰρημένων ἢ γεγενημένων.

See Hagenbach's Observ. circa Origenis method. interpretanda Script. S.: Basil. 1823.

H

on the prodigious force and pressure of his thoughts.* We find the like in TERTULLIAN, who, by the circumstance that the idea of Inspiration became more intense in the Montanistic Prophecies, was induced to mark degrees in Inspiration. He perceived that the ecstatic form could not be attributed to the Apostles, and hence supposed a mode of Inspiration, in which the human element was active.† He remarks that Paul in his manner of treating the Old Testament, was not always consistent, and attributes his dispute with Peter (Gal. ii.) to the ardour he felt as a Neophyte. This implies that he viewed the operation of the Divine Spirit to be conditioned by a person's natural course of development. He supposes that Paul's mind was gradually transformed by the influence of Christian principle. As Tertullian varies in his mode of expressing himself, so, when he wishes to establish the authority of the apocryphal Book of Enoch, he gives an uncertain and very hazardous idea of Inspiration. What relates to ourselves is not to be rejected, and what serves for edification is divinely inspired.§

B. THE DOGMAS OF SPECIAL DOGMATICS.

a. THEOLOGY IN THE STRICT SENSE.

1. THE ORIGIN OF THE IDEA OF GOD.

The Church Teachers in this age had little occasion to contend with atheists; but since they endeavoured to establish

* Adv. Hær. iii. 7, 2.—Quoniam autem hyperbatis frequenter utitur apostolus, propter velocitatem sermonum suorum et propter impetum qui in ipso est Spiritus, ex multis quidem aliis est invenire.

+ De Monagam. c. 3, on 1 Cor. c. 7.-Denique conversus ad alteram speciem dicendo: nuptis autem denuncio, non ego, sed dominus, ostendit illa, quæ supra dixerat, non dominicæ auctoritatis fuisse sed humanæ æstimationis.

Adv. Marc. i. 20.-Nam et ipsum Petrum ceterosque, columnas apostolatus, a Paulo reprehensas opponunt, quod non recto pede incederent ad evangelii veritatem, ab illo certe Paulo, qui adhuc in gratia rudis, trepidans denique, ne in vacuum cucurrisset aut curreret, tunc primum cum antecessoribus apostolis conferebat. Igitur, si ferventer adhuc, ut neophytus, adversus Judaismum aliquid in conversatione reprehendendum existimavit, etc.

§ De Cult. Fem. i. 3.-Sed cum Enoch eadem scriptura etiam de domino prædicaret, a nobis quidem nihil omnino rejiciendum est, quod