after a discussion on the points at issue between paganism and Christianity.1 The conditions calling for apologetic writing were constant as long as there remained pagans to be convinced; but the threat or outbreak of persecution furnished, of course, special occasions for it. The approaching celebration of the thousandth anniversary of the foundation of Rome (248 A.D.), the consequent discouragement of the Christians, and the presumed likelihood of persecution breaking out again after the long peace, were, we may imagine, among the causes that prompted Ambrosius to ask Origenes for a reply to a heathen attack that had been made some seventy years earlier, and probably moved Minucius Felix also to produce his apologetic dialogue. It was the object of both authors to make a helpful contribution to the cause of the Church at a time of special difficulty and danger. 3 6 In regard to the manner and tone of the Christian apologetic, the Apologists evince an intense willingness to make their replies to pagan objections complete and intelligible. Origenes carefully guards against even the appearance of leaving any point raised by his opponent unanswered.a The tone of such controversies naturally varied a good deal. Theophilus reproaches Autolycus for his empty and boastful attacks 5 and for being hard upon him; but on the whole their conversations had been very friendly." Tertullianus, having to grapple with no individual heathen adversary, is uniformly trenchant and disrespectful. Origenes constantly utters reproaches against his long-deceased antagonist.8 He accuses him of writing in an unphilosophic tone, without a real love of truth,10 but from sheer enmity to the Christians and their 1 There is an interesting study of Octavius in Boissier FP i. 261-289. 2 Neumann SK 251f. It is proper, however, to remind the reader that several scholars date Minucius Felix before Tertullianus. * Theoph. iii. I ( . . . ἔτι λῆρον ἡγῇ τυγχάνειν τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας . . . διὸ δὴ κἀγὼ οὐκ ὀκνήσω ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαί σοι .); Minuc. xiv. 7 (diligenter quantum protest singula ponderemus), xvi. 4. Orig. Cels. Pref. 3, i. 28, 41, ii. 46, iv. 18, v. 1, 53, vii. 1. Note also his request at the end of his work (viii. 76) that Ambrosius would send him any later work of Celsus that he might refute it also. Other special points about Origenes' polemic are the occasional mention of his reliance on Divine help (iv. I, V. I, vii. 1, viii. 1, 76: cf. Theoph. iii. 1), his appeal to posterity (iv. 85), and his use, for purposes of illustration or argument, of pagan stories unlikely to appeal to any but pagan readers (i. 37, ii. 16). * Theoph. i. I : ἐπειδὴ οὖν, ὦ ἑταῖρε, κατέπληξάς με λόγοις κενοῖς καυχησάμενος ἐν τοῖς θεοῖς σου τοῖς λιθίνοις καὶ ξυλίνοις, κτλ. • Theoph. ii. r: σκληρῶς τὰ πρῶτα ἔχοντός σου πρὸς ἡμᾶς. L.c. they had parted μerà πλeioтns piλias. 8 Patrick 118. • Orig. Cels. i. 40, 71, ii. 40, iii. 42, iv. 41 (åpiλoσop, etc.). 10 Op. cit. ii. 3 fin., iv. 46, vi. 16, 77 fin. (not piλaλn@ŵs); cf. vii. 14 fin. 3 faith,1 and with a reckless desire to overthrow whatever they said 2 Op. cit. ii. 3 fin. Op. cit. i. 39 (Celsus is like TŵV 6 Op. cit. ii. 21, 45 (ἐπιπόλαιον). Op. cit. ii. 20, vi. 37 (Euteλeσ-). Op. cit. Pref. 4. 11 Op. cit. v. 58. 13 Op. cit. ii. 20, v. 53. 19 Op. cit. i. 6, 49, v. 59 fin. 25 26 io Op. cit. i. 4of, v. 9, 54f, viii. 66, 71. 22 20 Op. cit. ii. 21, 39, 46, iii. 52f, vi. 38, viii. 1. Op. cit. i. 39, ii. 36, vi. 74 (πaιš-). Op. cit. i. 39, iii. 54, 73, vii. 46, viii. 41 (Noɩdop-). 27 Op. cit. iv. 30, 37, 39. 28 Op. cit. i. 37, iii. 22, iv. 30, vi. 74 (Bwμóλox-). 29 Op. cit. vi. 74 fin., viii. 71 fin. 31 Op. cit. vi. 67, viii. 63, 66. 33 Op. cit. ii. 20. (pλvapia). 30 Op. cit. v. 3. 35 Op. cit. iv. 81, vi. 38 (ó yevvádas). 37 32 Op. cit. i. 8 init. (dewbτns). 34 Op. cit. iv. 30 (ὁ σεμνὸς φιλόσοφος). 2 out captious opposition any truths or sound reasonings put forward by unbelievers.1 But despite such concessions, he represents the few correct statements uttered by Celsus as due to his catching glimpses of truth during lucid intervals in the course of his struggle with the demons. It is distressing to find the greatest Christian apology of those early centuries-perhaps the greatest of the whole Christian era-marred by these traces of controversial bitterness. In criticizing the distinguished author for his failure in this respect, it will be fair to bear in mind that the style of the work to which he was replying was apparently hardly less provocative, and that the author of it had been long dead: we cannot believe that Origenes would have written in this way of any living opponent, particularly if the latter's attack had been characterized by reasonable courtesy and fair-mindedness. In respect of tone, the apology of Minucius forms somewhat of a contrast to that of Origenes. He represents the heathen Cæcilius as speaking with some heat, but his Christian friend Octavius as replying to Cæcilius' arguments with studied mildness.4 CHAPTER IV ATTITUDE TO HEATHEN LEARNING AND INTELLECT IN THE CHURCH.-It was a matter of common knowledge that Christianity had been embraced for the most part by simple - minded and unlearned people. The prophets of old, Jesus himself, the converts of Jesus and Paul,' and the majority 1 Orig. Cels. vii. 46, viii. 76 fin. (åpiλoveikws). 2 Op. cit. viii. 63, 66. Minuc. v. 3f, viii. 1, xiv. 1, xvi. 1, 5, and see next note. 4 Minuc. xvi. 1 (Et Octavius: Dicam equidem, ut potero pro uiribus, et adnitendum tibi mecum est, ut conuiciorum amarissimam labem uerborum ueracium flumine diluamus). Cf. Neumann SK 245 ("Zwischen Origenes und Minucius Felix bestehen keine grundsätzlichen Unterschiede; aber der römische Weltmann weiss seine Überzeugungen gefälliger und milder vorzutragen als der griechische Gelehrte. Und auch diesen würde seine grössere Schroffheit zu keiner Provocation verleitet haben "). Cf. Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, 1888, Lect. V. Christianity and Greek Philosophy' (116-138); Harnack KS 141-143. 6 Theoph. ii. 35 fin. 7 Iren. II. xix. 7 (i. 320); Orig. Cels. i. 27, 29, 62, iii. 47f. of living Christians,1 were folk of this type. Such Christians, Origenes explained, could not be expected to understand fully the deeper doctrines of the faith (though some of them might claim to know everything 2), and Christian teaching had consequently to be put in simple terms for them.3 That there was, however, a considerable minority of well-educated, thoughtful, and intelligent believers, capable and even eager to enter into the philosophic side of Christianity, is abundantly clear, not only from the quality and quantity of contemporary Christian literature, but also from statements of fact which that literature contains.* UNFAVOURABLE CRITICISM OF HEATHEN PHILOSOPHY.-In championing the cause of a faith which contradicted in so many points the scientific views of the age, and the adherents of which were for the most part uneducated people, the Apologist's strongest plea undoubtedly was the obvious fact that the moral results achieved by Christian teaching in the lives of men were immeasurably superior to those secured by the pursuit of philosophy.5 Even the philosophers themselves had in some cases been guilty of flagrant immoralities. Unlike Christianity, the teachings of philosophy had not been widely accepted, nor had the philosophers undertaken any large mission for the betterment of mankind." All men had not got the leisure and aptitude for philosophy; and not only was it perfectly possible for a man to enjoy the main 8 1 Cl. Strom. I. xx. 99 (σχεδόν οἱ πάντες ἄνευ τῆς ἐγκυκλίου παιδείας καὶ φιλοσοφίας τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς, οἱ δὲ καὶ ἄνευ γραμμάτων, κτλ.); Minuc. v. 4, viii. 4f, xii. 7; Orig. Cels. i. 27, vi. 14. Orig. Cels. i. 12. Orig. Cels. i. 9f, 13, iii. 52f, iv. 10, v. 15f, 20, vi. If, 13, vii. 60, viii. 23. During this whole period, the catechetical school of Alexandria was at the height of its fame. Cf. also Perpet. ii. 1. (Vibia Perpetua, honeste nata, liberaliter instituta); Greg. Thaum. Paneg. i. 3 (general commendation of philosophers), v. 56 (Gregorius' own gentle birth, and education in rhetoric), vi. 75-85, xi. 133-135, 141 (Origenes instils his passion for philosophy into his pupils), xiii. 151ff, xiv. 170ff, xv. 182 (comprehensive range of philosophic study allowed and commended by Origenes to his pupils); Orig. Cels. i. 26f, 29, iii. 19, 44, 47f, 52f, 57, v. 28, vi. 14: Harnack ME ii. 33-42 (an interesting section "the spread of Christianity among the aristocratic, the cultured, the wealthy, and the official classes before Constantinus). on " 5 Cl. Strom. I. xvi. 80 (ή Ελληνική φιλοσοφία . . . ἐξασθενεῖ πράττειν τὰς κυριακὰς evrolás); Tert. Apol. 49; Greg. Thaum. Paneg. ix. 124f, xi. 133-135; Orig. Princ. IV. i. 1, Cels. i. 18, 64, iii. 57, 75, vii. 49, 59–61. Tert. Apol. 46 (i. 282–285); Minuc. xxxviii. 5; Orig. Cels. vii. 47, 49. Tertullianus disparaged even the virtues of philosophers; note his treatment of patience (Pat. 1, 2 [. . . affectatio humana caninae aequanimitatis stupore formata. .]). Cl. Strom. VI. xviii. 167; Greg. Thaum. Paneg. xiv. 158-160; Orig. Princ. IV. i. 1, Cels. vi. I. 8 Orig. Cels. i. 9. spiritual and moral benefits of Christianity without being learned,1 but also it was far better for him to possess these benefits without philosophy than to be a philosopher and lack them.2 Further than this, the philosophers, despite their pretensions to wisdom,3 had not for the most part abandoned the gross polytheism, idolatry, and error of heathenism, and had done little or nothing to discountenance them: such changes as some of them had advocated (e.g. atheism) were not improvements.1 These two charges of moral impotence and religious error constituted in Christian eyes a most damning indictment, sufficient to account for that marked aversion from all heathen learning which characterized much, if not the whole, of contemporary Christian thought. Passages from the Pauline Epistles, in which human wisdom was slightingly spoken of, were often quoted,5 though authors interested in the cultivation of Christian learning strove to limit the application of such passages to sophistry, false doctrines, etc., and contended that they implied no censure against intellectual study of the right sort. It is clear that less educated Christians were often very sweeping in their rejection of the philosophic habit of mind." Christians generally seem to have paid but scant respect to the philosophers themselves and their doctrines. Apollonius, when making his defence before the Senate, was mildly rebuked by a Cynic philosopher, and told him in reply that he was a blind and senseless dissembler. Theophilus says that the philosophers 1 Cl. Protr. xi. 112, Strom. I. XX. 99, IV. viii. 58; Hipp. Ref. x. 5 (1); Minuc. xvi. 5f; Orig. Cels. i. 9-14: but cf. Cl. Strom. 1. vi. 35 (áλλà κaláтεр καὶ ἄνευ γραμμάτων πιστὸν εἶναι δυνατόν φαμεν, οὕτως συνιέναι τὰ ἐν τῇ πίστει λεγόμενα οὐχ οἷόν τε μὴ μαθόντα ὁμολογούμεν) and Greg. Thaum. Paneg. vi. 79 (οὐ τοίνυν οὐδὲ εὐσεβεῖν ὅλως δυνατὸν εἶναι ἔφασκεν [sc. Ωριγένης], ὀρθῶς λέγων, μὴ φιλοσοφήσαντι). Iren. II. xxvi. 1 (i. 345); Ps-Just. Orat. 5; Cl. Strom. vII. ii. II; Orig. Cels. i. 9. 3 Tert. Anim. 2 init. (ii. 558). Theoph. ii. 8, iii. 7f; Tert. Nat. ii. 3f; Cl. Protr. v. 64-66, vi. 67, Strom. I. xi. 52, VI. vi. 44; Orig. Cels. i. 21, ii. 13, v. 43, vi. 4, 17, vii. 44, 66, viii. 38. 5 Iren. II. xxvi. 1 (i. 345); Cl. Strom. II. xi. 48; Hipp. Dan. 111. ii. 2–5, Diog. xii. 5; Orig. Orat. xxi. 2, Cels. vi. 12; Cypr. Test. iii. 69; Dion. Alex. on Eccles i. 18 (Feltoe 212). Iren. II. xxvi. 1 (i. 345); Cl. Strom. 1. iii. 22-24, viii. 39-42, xi. 50f, xviii. 88f; Orig. Princ. III. iii. 1-3, Cels. i. 13, iii. 47f, vi. 4. Cf. Greg. Thaum. Paneg. vii. 106-108 for a severe criticism of the rhetors.' ? See above, p. 238, for the allegations of Celsus himself, and cf. Cl. Strom. 1. ix. 43 (Ενιοι δὲ εὐφνεῖς οἰόμενοι εἶναι ἀξιοῦσι μήτε φιλοσοφίας ἅπτεσθαι μήτε διαλεκτικῆς, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ τὴν φυσικὴν θεωρίαν ἐκμανθάνειν, μόνην δὲ καὶ ψιλὴν τὴν πίστιν ἀπαιτοῦσιν). In Hipp. Dan. IV. iii. 6 the Hellenes as a race are represented as a leopard because they are “sharp in mind and resourceful in reasoning and bitter in heart." * Act. Apoll. 33f: . . . ὁμολογεῖ δὲ ἡ ὑπόκρισις ἡ ἐν σοὶ τὴν ἀβλεψίαν τῆς καρδίας σου, εἰ καὶ προελεύσῃ εἰς πλῆθος ἀργολογίας τοῖς γὰρ ἀνοήτοις ἡ ἀλήθεια ὄντως λοιδορία νομιστέα. |