CHAPTER XIV
VI. 14.]
THE SCRIPTURES MENTIONED BY CLEMENT.
Gospel according to Mark® had this occasion.
As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.
And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When
Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it.
But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external' facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual
Gospel,®> This is the account of Clement.
Again the above-mentioned Alexander,?
in a certain letter to Origen, refers to Clement, and at the same time to Pantzenus, as being among his familiar acquaintances.
He writes as follows : self as next after the successors of the apostles.
In them he promises also to write a com-
mentary on Genesis."
In his book on the Passover™ he acknowledges that he had been urged by his friends to commit to writing, for posterity, the traditions which he had heard from the ancient presbyters ; and in the same work he mentions Melito and Irenzus, and certain others, and gives extracts from their writings.
CHAPTER XIV.
The Scriptures mentioned by him.
To sum up briefly, he has given in the Hypotyposes' abridged accounts of all canonical Scripture, not omitting the disputed books, ?—I refer to Jude and the other Catho- "For this, as thou knowest, was the will of God, that the ancestral friendship existing between us should remain unshaken; nay, rather should be warmer and stronger. For
we know well those blessed fathers who have trodden the way before us, with whom we shall soon be; Panteenus, the truly blessed man and master, and the holy Clement, my master and benefactor, and if there is any other like them, through whom I became acquainted with thee, the best in everything, my master and brother." lic epistles, and Barnabas® and the so-
called Apocalypse of Peter.
He says that the Epistle to the Hebrews? is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language ; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found
in this epistle and in the Acts.
But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at So much for these matters.
But Adaman-
tius, — for this also was a name of Origen, — when Zephyrinus " was bishop of Rome, visited the very beginning by giving his name.
Farther on he says:
"But now, as the blessed presbyter said, since the Lord being the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the 6 On the composition of the Gospel of Mark, see Bk. II. chap.
15, note 4, and with this statement of Clement as to Peter's attitude toward its composition, compare the words of Eusebius in § 2 of that chapter, and see the note upon the passage (note 5).
7 Ta gwmatiKa.
8 See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 7.
9 Mentioned already in chaps. 8 and 11.
10 We see from this sentence that at the time of the writing of this epistle both Pantznus and Clement were dead.
The latter was still alive when Alexander wrote to the Antiochenes (see chap. rr), i.e. about the year arr (see note 5 on that chapter).
How much longer he lived we cannot tell. the epistle referred to here must of course have been written at any rate subsequent to the year arr, and hence while Alexander was bishop of Jerusalem.
The expression '' with whom we shall soon be" (mpds ots wer' dAlyor éadueda) seems to imply that the epistle was written when Alexander and Origen were advanced in life, but this cannot be pressed.
Hebrews, Paul, as sent to the Gentiles, on account of his modesty did not subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews, through respect for the Lord, and because being a herald and apostle of the Gentiles he wrote to the Hebrews out of his superabundance."
Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: The Gospels containing the gene-
alogies, he says, were written first.
The 11 [t is from this passage that we gather that Alexander was a student of Clement's and a fellow-pupil of Origen's (see chap. 8, note 6, and chap. 2,note 1). The epistle does not state this directly, but the conclusion seems sufficiently obvious.
12 The name Adamantius ('Adayavrios from addmas unconquerable, hence hard, adamantine) is said by Jerome (Ef. ad
Paulam, § 3; Migne's ed. Ef. XX XIII.) to have been given him on account of his untiring industry, by Photius (Cod. 118) on account of the invincible force of his arguments, and by Epiphanius (He~.
LXIV. 74) to have been vainly adopted by himself.
But Eusebius' simple statement at this point looks rather as if Adamantius was a second name which belonged to Origen from the beginning, and had no reference to his character.
We know that two names were very common in that age.
This opinion is adopted a Tillemont, Redepenning, Westcott, and others, although many still hold the opposite view. Another name, Chalcenterus, given to him by Jerome in the epistle already referred to, was undoubtedly, as we can see from the context, applied to him by Jerome, because of his resemblance to Didymus oF Alexandria (who bore that surname) in his immense industry as an author. their immediate disciples.
Eusebius' words are a little ambiguous, but they seem to imply that he thought that Clement was a pupil of immediate disciples of the apostles, which Clement does not assert in this passage, and can hardly have asserted in any passage, for he was in all probability born too late to converse with those who had seen any of the apostles.
28 In his Stromata (VI. 18) Clement refers to a work on the origin of the world, which was probably to form a part of his work On Princifles.
'This is perhaps the reference of which Eusebius is thinking when he says that Clement in the Stromata promises eis Thy Téveow vropvnparieiaderv.
If so, Eusebius' words, which imply that Clement promised to write a commentary on Genesis, are misleading.
29 On this work, see note 8.
1 See the previous chapter, note 3.
2 On the Axtzlegomena of Eusebius, and on the New Testament anon in general, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note r.
8 On the Epistle of Barnabas, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 20.
4 On the Apocalypse of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 9.
5 On the Epistle to the Hebrews, see above, Bk. III. chap. 3, 13 On Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note 5.
He was bishop from about 198, or 199, to ci This gives considerable range for the date of Origen's visit to Rome, which we have no means of fixing with exactness.
There is no reason for supposing note 17.
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
A eK tion to the well-known translations of Aquila,* Symmachus,* and Theodotion,' he discovered certain others which had been concealed from remote times,—in what out-of-the-way corners I know not,—and by his search he brought them to light.
Since he did not
Rome, "desiring," as he himself somewhere says, "to see the most ancient church of Rome."
After a short stay there he returned to
Alexandria.
And he performed the duties of catechetical instruction there with great zeal; Demetrius, who was bishop there at that time, urging and even entreating. him to work diligently for the benefit of the brethren."
3 Aquila is first mentioned by Irenzus (Adv. Her. III, 2x.
1, quoted by Eusebius, Bk. V. chap. 8, above), who calls him a Jewish proselyte of Pontus; Epiphanius says of Sinope in Pontus,
Tradition is uniform that he was a Jewish proselyte, and that he lived in the time of Hadrian, or in the early part of the second century according to Rabbinic tradition.
He produced a Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was very slavish in its adherence to the original, sacrificing the Greek idiom to the Hebrew without mercy, and even violating the grammatical structure of the former for the sake of reproducing the exact form of the latter.
Because of its faithfulness to the original, it was highly prized by the Rabbinic authorities, and became more popular among the Jews in general than the LXX.
(On the causes of the waning popularity of the latter, see note 8, below.) Neither Aquila's version, nor the two following, are now extant; but numerous fragments have been preserved by those Fathers who saw and used Origen's Hexafpla.
CHAPTER XV.
FHeractlas} But when he saw that he had not time for the deeper study of divine things, and for the investigation and interpretation of the Sacred
Scriptures, and also for the instruction of those who came to him,—for coming, one after another, from morning till evening to be taught by him, they scarcely gave him time to breathe,
—he divided the multitude.
And from those whom he knew well, he selected Heraclas, who was a zealous student of divine things, and in other respects a very learned man, not ignorant of philosophy, and made him his associate in the work of instruction.
He entrusted to him the elementary training of beginners, but reserved for himself the teaching of those who were farther advanced.
4 Symmachus is said«by Eusebius, in the next chapter, to have been an Ebionite; and Jerome agrees with him (Comment. ix Hab., lib. II. c. 3), though the testimony of the latter is weakened by the fact that he wrongly makes Theodotion also an Ebionite (see next note).
It has been claimed that Symmachus was a Jew, not a Christian; but Eusebius' direct statement is too strong to be set aside, and is corroborated by certain indications in the version itself, e.g. in Dan. ix. 26, where the word. xpicrés, which Aquila avoids, is used.
The composition of his version is assigned by Epiphanius and the Chroz. paschale to the reign of Septimius
Severus (19321x); and although not much reliance is to be placed upon their statements, still they must be about right in this case, for that Symmachus' version is younger than Irenzus is rendered highly probable by the latter's omission of it where he refers to those of Theodotion and Aquila; and, on the other hand, it must of course have been composed before Origen began his Hezxagla.
Symmachus' version is distinguished from Aquila's by the purity of its Greek and its freedom from Hebraisms.
The author's effort was not slavishly to reproduce the original, but to make an elegant and idiomatic Greek translation, and in this he succeeded very well, being excellently versed in both languages, though he sometimes sacrificed the exact sense of the Hebrew, and occasionally altered it under the influence of dogmatic prepossessions.
The version is spoken very highly of by Jerome, and was used freely by him in the composition of the Vulgate.
For further particulars in regard to Symmachus' version, see the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 19 sq.
5 It has been disputed whether Theodotion was a Jew or a Christian.
Jerome (de vzr. 27/7. 54, and elsewhere) calls him an Ebionite; in his £4. ad Augustin. c. 19 (Migne's ed. Ef. 112), a Jew; while in the preface to his commentary on Daniel he says that some called him an Ebionite, guz altero genere fudeus est.
Irenzus (Adv.
Her, XII, 21. 1) and Epiphanius (de mens. e¢ fond. 17) say that he was a Jewish proselyte, which is probably true.
The reports in regard to his nationality are conflicting.
The time at which he lived is disputed.
The Chron. paschale assigns him to the reign of Commodus, and Epiphanius may also be urged in support of that date, though he commits a serious blunder in making a second Commodus, and is thus led into great confusion.
But Theodotion, as well as Aquila, is mentioned by Irenzeus, and hence must be pushed back well into the second century.
It has been discovered, too, that Hermas used his version (see Hors article in the ¥ohns Hopkins
CHAPTER XVI.
Origen's Earnest Study of the Divine Scriptures.
So earnest and assiduous was Origen's research into the divine words that he learned the Hebrew language,! and procured as his own the original Hebrew Scriptures which were in the hands of the Jews.
He investigated also the works of other translators of the Sacred Scriptures besides the Seventy."
And in addiUniversity Circular, December, 1884), which obliges us to throw it back still further, and Schiirer has adduced some very strong reasons for believing it older than Aquila's version (see Schiirers
Gesch. d. Fuden im Zettalter Fesu, V1. p. 709).
Theodotion's version, like Aquila's, was intended to reproduce the Hebrew more exactly than the LXX did.
It is based upon the LXX, however, 'which it corrects by the Hebrew, and therefore resembles the former that Eusebius is incorrect in putting it among the events occurring during Caracalla's reign (211-217).
On the other hand, it must have taken place before the year 216, for in that year Origen went to Palestine (see chap. 19, note 23) and remained there some time.
Whether Origen's visit was undertaken simply from the desire to see the church of Rome, as Eusebius says, or in connection with matters of business, we cannot tell. much more closely than Theodotion's does.
We have no notices of the use of this version by the Jews.
Aquila's version (supposing it yousnen hae Theodotion's) seems to have superseded it entirely. heodotion's translation of Daniel, however, was accepted by the Christians, instead of the LXX Daniel, and replacing the latter in all the MSS. of the LXX, has been preserved entire.
Aside from this we have only such fragments as have been preserved by the Fathers that saw and used the Hexapla.
It will be seen that the order in which Eusebius mentions the three versions here is not chronological.
He simply follows the order in which they stand in Origen's Hexafila (see below, note 8).
Epiphanius is led by that order to make Theodotion's version later than the other, which is quite a mistake, as has been seen.
14 On Demetrius' relations to Origen, see chap. 8, note 4.
1 On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
1 Origen's study of the Hebrew, which, according to Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 54), was '' contrary to the custom of his day and race,"' is not at all surprising.
He felt that he needed some knowledge of it as a basis for his study of the Scriptures to which he had devoted himself, and also as a means of comparing the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old Testament, a labor which he regarded as very important for polemical purposes.
As to his familiarity with the Hebrew it is now universally conceded that it was by no means so great as was formerly supposed.
He seems to have learned only about enough to enable him to identify the Hebrew which corresponded with the Greek texts which he used, and even in this he often makes mistakes.
He sometimes confesses openly his lack of critical and independent knowledge of the Hebrew (e.g. Hom. in Num. XIV. 1; XVI. 4).
He often makes blunders which seem absurd, and yet in many cases he shows considerable knowledge in regard to peculiar forms and idioms.
His Hebrew learning was clearly fragmentary, and acquired from various sources.
Cf. Redepenning, I. p.-365 sq.
? On the LXX, see Bk. V. chap. 8, note 31.
For further particulars in regard to the versions of Aquila and Theodotion, and for the literature of the subject, see Schiirer, zbzd.
Pp. 704 sq6 We know very little about these anonymous Greek versions of the Old Testament.
Eusebius' words ('' which had been concealed Srom remote times," tov wadat AavOavovaas xpdvov) would lead us to think them older than the versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, One of them, Eusebius tells us, was found at Nicopo-
VI. 16.]
ORIGEN'S HEXAPLA.
a ee prominent translations, he adds not only a fifth, but also a sixth and seventh.?
He states of one of these that he found it in a jar in Jericho in the time of Antoninus, the son of Severus.
Having collected all of these, he divided
them into sections, and placed them opposite know the authors, he simply stated that he had found this one in Nicopolis near Ac-
tium' and that one in some other place. In the Hexapla® of the Psalms, after the four a we De Be ee a eee ee eee lis near Actium, another in a jar at Jericho, but where the third was discovered he did not know.
Jerome (in his Prologus in expos.
Cant. Cant. sec. Originemt ; Origen's works, ed. Lommatzsch, XIV.
235) reports that the '' fifth edition " (guinta editio) was found zm 'Actio i:tore ; but Epiphanius, who seems to be speaking with more exact knowledge than Jerome, says that the " fifth
" was discovered at Jericho and the " szxth" in Nicopolis, near Actium (De mens. et pond. 18).
Jerome calls the authors of the "' fifth" and "' sixth"
$udaicos translatores, which according to his own usage might mean either Jews or Jewish Christians (see Redepenning, p. 165), and at any rate the author of the "sixth" was a Christian, as is clear from his rendering of Heb. iii. 13: ¢&)A@es ToD gHoat Tov Aaodv gov Sia 'Incod rod xpiotod.
The "fifth" is quoted by Origen on the Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, minor prophets, Kings, &c.; the " sixth," on the Psalms, Song of Songs, and Habakkuk, according to Field, the latest editor of the Hexrap/a.
Whether these versions were fragmentary, or were used only in these particular passages for special reasons, we do not know.
Of the ''seventh"' no clear traces can be discovered, but it must have been used for the Psalms at any rate, as we see from this chapter.
As to the time when these versions were found, we are doubtless to assign the discovery of the one at Nicopolis near Actium to the visit made by Origen to Greece in 231 (see below, p. 396).
Epiphanius, who in the present case seems to be speaking with more than customary accuracy, puts its discovery into the time of the emperor Alexander each other, with the Hebrew text itself.
He thus left us the copies of the so-called Hexapla.
He arranged also separately an edition of Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion with the Septuagint, in the Tetrapla."
Christians with using only a translation which did not agree with the original, and therefore was of no authority, while the Christians, on the other hand, accused the Jews of falsifying their Scriptures, which should agree with the more pure and accurate LXX.
Under these circumstances, Origen conceived the idea that it would be of great advantage to the Christians, in their polemics against the Nake to know more accurately than they did the true form of the XX text, and the extent and nature of its variations from the Hebrew.
As the matter stood everything was indefinite, for no one knew to exactly what extent the two differed, and no one knew, in the face of the numerous variant texts, the precise form of the LXX_ itself (cf. Redepenning, II. p. 156 sq.).
The Hebrew text given by Origen seems to have been the vulgar text, and to have differed little from that in use to-day, With the LXX it was different.
Here Origen made a special effort to ascertain the most correct text, and did not content himself with giving simply one of the numerous texts extant, for he well knew that all were more or less corrupt.
But his method was not to throw out of the text all passages not well supported by the various witnesses, but rather to enrich the text from all available sources, thus making it as full as possible.
Wherever, therefore, the Hebrew contained a passage omitted in the LXX, he inserted in the latter the translation of the passage, taken from one of the other versions, marking the addition with ' obeli"; and wherever, on the other hand, the fullest LX X text which he had contained more than the Hebrew and the other versions combined, he allowed the redundant passage to stand, but marked it with asterisks.
The Hexaplaas a whole seems never to have been reproduced, but the LXX text as contained in the fifth column was multiplied many times, especially under the direction of Pamphilus and Eusebius re Hs had the original
MS. at Czesarea), and this recension came into common use.
It will be seen that Origen's process must have wrought great confusion in the text of the LXX;; for future copyists, in reproducing the text given by Origen, would be prone to neglect the critical signs, and give the whole as the correct form of the LXX; and critical editors to-day find it very difficult to reach even the form of the LXX text used by Origen.
The Hexaf/a is no longer extant.
When the Czsarean MS. of it perished we do not know.
Jerome saw it, and made large use of it, but after his time we have no further trace of it, and it probably perished with the rest of the Czsarean library before the end of the seventh century, perhaps considerably earlier.
Numerous editions have been published of the fragments of the le eo: taken from the works of the Fathers, from Scholia in MSS. of the LXX, and from a Syriac version of the Hexaplar LXX, which is still in large part extant.
The best edition is that of Field, in two vols., Oxford, 1875.
His prolegomena contain the fullest and most accurate information in regard to the Hexafla.
Comp. also Taylor's article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., and Redepenning, IL. p. 156 sq.
Cxigen seems to have commenced his great work in Alexandria.
This is implied by the account of Eusebius, and is stated directly b Epiphanius (Her. LXIV. 3), who says that this was the first wor which he undertook at the solicitation of Ambrose (see chap. 18).
We may accept this as in itself quite probable, for there could be no better foundation for his exegetical labors than just such a piece of critical work, and the numerous scribes furnished him by Ambrose
(222-235).
The other one, which Epiphanius calls the '' fifth," was found, according to him, in the seventh year of Caracalla's reign
(217) 'in jars at Jericho."
We know that at this time Origen was in Palestine (see chap.
19, note 23), and hence Epiphanius' report may well be correct.
If it is, he has good reason for calling the latter the "fifth," and the former the "sixth."
The place and time of the discovery of the '' seventh" are alike unknown.
For further particulars in regard to these versions, see the prolegomena to Field's edition of the Hexapila, the article Hexaf/a in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., and Redepenning, II. 164 sq.
7 Nicopolis near Actium, so designated to distinguish it from a number of other cities bearing the same name, was a city of Epirus, lying on the northern shore of the Ambracian gulf, opposite the promontory of Actium.
8 Origen's Hexapla (ra eEarrda, To é£ardoov, 70 é£acéAcdor, the first form being used by Eusebius in this chapter) was a polyglot
Old Testament containing the Hebrew text, a transliteration of it in Greek letters (important because the Hebrew text was unpointed), the versions of Aquila, of Symmachus, of the LXX, and of Theodotion, arranged in six columns in the order named, with the addition in certain places of a fifth, sixth, and even seyenth Greek version
(see Jerome's description of it, in his Commentary on Titus, chap.
3, ver. 9). The parts which contained these latter versions were sometimes called Octaf/a (they seem never to have borne the name nonapla).
The order of the columns was determined by the fact that Aquila's version most closely resembled the Hebrew, and hence was put next to it, followed by Symmachus' version, which was based directly upon the Hebrew, but was not so closely conformed to it; while Theodotion's version, which was based not upon the Hebrew, but upon the LXX, naturally followed the latter.
Origen's object in undertaking this great work was not scientific, but polemic; it was not for the sake of securing a correct Hebrew text, but for the purpose of furnishing adequate means for the reconstruction of the original text of the LXX, which in his day was exceedingly corrupt,
It was Origen's belief, and he was not alone in his opinion (cf.
Justin Martyr's Dial. with Trypho, chap. oak that the Hebrew Old Testament had been seriously altered by the Jews, and that the LXX< (an inspired translation, as it was commonly held to be by the Christians) alone represented the true form of Scripture.
For two 'centuries before and more than a century after Christ the LXX stood in high repute among the Jews, even in Palestine, and outside of Palestine had almost completely taken the place of the original
Hebrew.
Under the influence of its universal use among the a the Christians adopted it, and looked upon it as inspired Scripture just as truly as if it had been in the original tongue.
Early in the second century (as Schiirer points out) various causes were at work to lessen its reputation among the Jews.
Chief among these were first, the growing conservative reaction against all non-Hebraic culture, which found its culmination in the Rabbinic schools of the second century; and second, the ever-increasing hostility to Christianity.
The latter cause tended to bring the LXX into disfavor with the Jews, because it was universally employed by the Christians, and was cited in favor of Christian doctrines in many cases where it differed from the Hebrew text, which furnished less support to the particular doctrine defended.
It was under the influence of this reaction against the LXX, which undoubtedly began even before the second century, that the various versions gee! men- (see — 18) may well have devoted themselves largely to this very work, as Redepenning remarks.
But the work was by no means completed at once.
The time of his discovery of the other versions of the Old Testament (see above, note 6) in itself shows that he continued his labor upon the great edition for many years (the late discovery of these versions may perhaps explain the fact that he did not use them in connection with all the books of the Old
Testament?); and Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 18) says that he was engaged upon it for twenty-eight years, and completed it at Tyre.
'This is quite likely, and will explain the fact that the MS. of the work remained in the Cesarean library.
Field, however, maintains that our sources do not permit us to fix the time or place either of the commencement or of the completion of the work with any degree of accuracy (see p. xlviii. sq.)- 9 Valesius remarks that there is an repent hea here, and that it should be said '' not only a fifth and sixth, but also a seventh."
All the MSS. and versions, however, support the reading of the text, and we must therefore suppose the inconsistency (if there is one, which is doubtful) to be Eusebius' own, not that of a scribe. tioned took their rise.
Aduila especially aimed to keep the Hebrew text as pure as possible, while making it accessible to the Greekspeaking Jews, who had hitherto been obliged to rely upon the LXX.
It will be seen that the Christians and the Jews, who originally accepted the same Scriptures, would gradually draw apart, the one party still holding to the LXX, the other going back to the original; and the natural consequence of this was that the Jews taunted the 10 Greek: éy rois tetpamdois émuxatackevdcas.
The last word indicates that the Tefrafla was prepared after, not before, the Hexapla (cf. Valesius zx hoc loco), and Redepenning (p. 175 sq.) gives other satisfactory reasons for this conclusion.
The design seems to have been simply to furnish a convenient abridgment of
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[Vic7, Origen's presentation of the truth, and, as if his mind were illumined by light, he accepted the orthodox doctrine of the Church. Many
others also, drawn by the fame of Origen's learning, which resounded everywhere, came to him to make trial of his skill in sacred literature. And a great many heretics, and not a few of the most distinguished philosophers, studied under him diligently, receiving instruction from him not only in divine things, but also in secular philosophy.
For when he perceived
that any persons had superior intelligence he instructed them also in philosophic branches
—in geometry, arithmetic, and other preparatory studies—and then advanced to the systems*® of the philosophers and explained their writings. And he made observations and comments upon each of them, so that he became celebrated as a great philosopher even among the Greeks themselves.
And he
instructed many of the less learned in the common school branches,' saying that these would be no small help to them in the study and understanding of the Divine Scriptures. On this account he considered it especially necessary for himself to be skilled in secular and philosophic learning.'
CHAPTER XVII.
The Translator Symmachus} As to these translators it should be stated that Symmachus was an Ebionite.
But the heresy of the Ebionites, as it is called, asserts that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary, considering him a mere man, and insists strongly on keeping the law in a Jewish manner, as we have seen already in this history.2
Commentaries of Symmachus are still extant in which he appears to support this heresy by attacking the Gospel of Matthew.'
Origen states that he obtained these and other commentaries of Symmachus on the Scriptures from a certain Juliana,* who, he says, received the books by inheritance from Symmachus himself.
CHAPTER XVIII.
Ambrose.
AxsouT this time Ambrose,! who held the heresy of Valentinus,? was convinced by the larger work, fitted for those who did not read Hebrew; that is, for the great majority of Christians, even scholars.
1 On Symmachus, see the previous chapter, note 4.
2 In Bk. III. chap.27.
For a discussion of Ebionism, see the notes on that chapter.
CHAPTER XIX.
3 On the attitude of the Ebionites toward the Canonical Gospel of Matthew (to which, of course, Eusebius here refers), see 22d. note 8. All traces of this work and of Symmachus' " other interpretations of Scripture'? (dAAwv sis tas ypadas épunve@y), mentioned just below, have vanished.
We must not include Symmachus' translation of the Old Testament in these other works (as has done by Huet and others), for there is no hint either in this pasCircumstances related of Origen.
THE Greek: philosophers of his age are
witnesses to his proficiency in these subjects.
We find frequent mention of him in their writings. Sometimes they dedicated their own works to him ; again, they submitted their labors to him as a teacher for his judgment. Why
need we say these things when even Porphyry,' who lived in Sicily in our own times and a ee SO SE es SASSI EE Re ary tastes and devoted to the study of the Scriptures, and' Jerome says of him non inelegantis ingenti futt, sicut ejus ad Originem eptstole indicio sunt (l.c.).
The affection which Origen felt for him is evinced by many notices in his works and by the fact that he dedicated to him the E.xhortatio ad Martyr., on the occasion of his suffering under Maximinus.
It was also at Ambrose's solicitation that he wrote his great work against Celsus, which he likewise dedicated to him. sage or in that of Palladius (see next note) of a reference to that version, which was, like those of Aquila and Theodotion, well known in 'Origen's time (see the previous chapter).
4 This Juliana is known to us only from this passage and from Palladius, Hist. Laus.147.
Palladius reports, on the authority of an entry written by Origen himself, which he says he found in an ancient book (év madatoratw BiBAtw orxynpe), that Juliana was a virgin of Czsarea in Cappadocia, and that she gave ie to Origen in the time of some persecution.
If this account is to be relied upon, Orien's sojourn in the lady's house is doubtless to be assigned, with act, to the perecutos of Maximinus (235-238; see below, chap.
28, note 2).
It must be confessed, however, that in the face of the sbeolute silence of Eusebius and others, the story has a suspicious look.
1 Of the early life of Ambrose, the friend of Origen, we know nothing.
We learn from Origen's Exhortatio ad Martyr: c. 14, and Jerome's de vr. iil. c. 56, that he was of a wealthy and noble family (cf. chap. 23 of this book), and from the Exhort. ad Mart. c. 36, that he probably held some high official position.
Eusebius says here that he was for some time a Valentinian, Jerome that he was a Marcionite, others give still different reports.
However that was, the authorities all agree that he was converted to the orthodox faith by Origen, and that he remained devoted to him for the rest of his life.
From chap. 23 we learn that he urged Origen to undertake the composition of commentaries on the Scriptures, and that he furnished ample pecuniary means for the prosecution of the work.
He was also himself a diligent student, as we gather from that chapter (cf, also Jerome, de vir. zl. c. 56).
From chap. 28 we learn that he was a confessor in the persecution of Maximinus (Jerome calls him also a deacon), and it seems to have been in Czsarea or its neighborhood that he suffered, whither he had gone undoubtedly on account of his affection for Origen, who was at that time there (cf. the Exhort. c. 41).
He is mentioned for the last time in the dedication 2d conclusion of Origen's Contra Celsum, which was written between 246 and 250 (see chap. 36, below). Jerome (/.c.) states that he died before Origen, so that he cannot have lived long after this.
He left no writings, except some epistles which are no longer extant.
Jerome, however, in his Ef. ad Marcellam, § x (Migne's ed., Ep. 43), attributes to Ambrose an epistle, a fragment of which is extant under the name of Origen (to whom it doubtless belongs) and which is printed in Lommatzsch's edition of Origen's works, Vol, XVII. Pp. 5.
Origen speaks of him frequently as a man of education and of liter2 On Valentinus, see above, Bk. IV. chap. rr, note z.
3 Greek, aipécers.
4 éyxvnAca ypdumara; "the circle of those arts and sciences which every free-born youth in Greece was obliged to go through before applying to any professional studies" (Liddell and Scott, defining ¢yx. madeia).
5 On Origen's education, see p. 392, below.
. 1 Porphyry, one of the most distinguished of the Neo-Platonists, disciple, biographer, and expounder of Plotinus, was born in 232 or 233 in the Orient (perhaps at Tyre), and at the age of thirty went to Rome, where he came into connection with Plotinus, and spent a large part of his life.
He was a man of wide and varied learning; and though not an original thinker, he was a clear and vigorous writer and expounder of the philosophy of Plotinus.
It may be well, at this point, to say a word about that remarkable school or stem of philosophy, of which Plotinus was the greatest master and ory the chief expounder. Neo-Platonism was the most prominent phenomenon of the age in the philosophic world.
The object of the Neo-Platonists was both speculative and practical: on the one side to elaborate an eclectic system of philosophy which should reconcile Platonism and Aristotelianism, and at the same time do justice to elements of truth in other schools of thought; on the other
VI. 19.]
PORPHYRY'S ACCOUNT OF ORIGEN.
i et SS aaa truth about him in some cases where he could not do otherwise ; but uttering falsehoods where he thinks he will not be detected.
Sometimes he accuses him as a Christian; again he describes his proficiency in philosophic learning.
But hear his own words : wrote books against us, attempting to traduce the Divine Scriptures by them, mentions those who have interpreted them ; and being unable in any way to find a base accusation against the doctrines, for lack of arguments turns to reviling and calumniating their interpreters, attempting espe- 'Some persons, desiring to find a solu-
tion of the baseness of the Jewish Scriptures rather than abandon them, have had recourse to explanations inconsistent and incongruous with the words written, which explanations, instead of supplying a defense of the foreigners, contain rather approval and praise of themselves.
For they boast that the plain words of Moses are enigmas, and regard them as oracles full of hidden mysteries ; and having bewildered the mental judgment by folly, they make their explanations."
Farther on he says:
" As an example of this absurdity take a
man whom I met when I was young, and who was then greatly celebrated and still is, on account of the writings which he has left. I refer to Origen, who is highly honored by the teachers of these doctrines.
For this man,
having been a hearer of Ammonius,' who had attained the greatest proficiency in philosophy of any in our day, derived much benefit from his teacher in the knowledge of the sciences ; but as to the correct choice of life, he pursued a course opposite to his.
For
Ammonius, being a Christian, and brought up by Christian parents, when he gave himself to study and to philosophy straightway conformed to the life required by the laws.
But Origen, having been educated as a Greek in Greek literature, went over to the barbarian recklessness.2
And carrying over the. learning cially to slander Origen, whom he says he
knewinhis youth.
But truly, without knowing it, he commends the man; telling the EEE side, to revivify and srenginen the old paganism by idealizing and urifying it for the sake of the philosophers, and at the same time giving it a firmer philosophic basis than it had hitherto possessed. eo-Platonism, taken as a whole, has therefore both a p. ilosophic and a religious motive.
It may be defined in the briefest terms, in its philosophic aspect, as an eclectic revival of Greek metaphysics
(especially Platonic-Aristotelian), modified by the influence of Oriental philosophy and of Christianity; in its religious aspect, as an attempt to restore and regenerate pa; anism by means of philosophy.
In its earlier and better days, the philosophic element greatly predominated, —in fact, the religious element ma) be said to have 'been, in large part, a later growth; but gradually the latter came more and more into the foreground, until, under Jamblichus (d.
330 A.D.), the chief, master of the Syrian school, Neo-Platonism degenerated into a system of religious mysteries, in which theur ic practices played a prominent part.
Under Proclus (d. 485), the great master of the Athenian school, the philosophic element was again emphasized; but Aristotelianism now gained the predominance, and the system became a sort of scholastic art, and gradually degenerated into pure formalism, until it finally lost all influence. he extent of the influence which Christi ity. exerted upon Neo-Platonism is a greatly disputed point. Wes all, perhaps, come nearest the truth if we say that its influence was in the main not direct, but that it was nevertheless real, inasmuch as it had introduced problems up to that time undiscussed, with which Neo-Platonism busied itself; in fact, it may almost be said that Neo-Platonism was at first little more than (Aristotelian-) Platonism busying itself with the new problems of salvation and redemption which Christianity had thrown into the world of thought.
It was un-Christian at first (it became under Porphyry and later Neo-Platonists anti-Christian), because it solved these problems in a way different from the Christian way.
This will explain the fact that all through, whether in the more strictly philosophic system of Plotinus, or in the more markedly religious and theurgic system of Jamblichus, there ran a vein of mysticism, the conception of an intimate union with the supreme
God as the highest state to which man can attain.
Porphyry, with whom we are at present concerned, was eminently practical in his thinking.
The end of philosophy with him was not knowledge, but holiness, the salvation of the soul, He recommended a moderate asceticism as a chief means of freeing the soul from the bonds of matter, and thus permitting it to rise to union with God.
At the same time, he did not advise the neglect of the customary religious rites of Paganism, which might aid in the elevaee tion of the spirit of man toward the deity.
It was with Porphyry that Neo-Platonism first came into direct conflict with Christianity,
2 Of the life of Ammonius Saccas, the "' father ofNeo-Platonism," very little is known, He is said by. Suidas (s. v. Origenes and by Ammianus Marcellinus to have been a porter in his youth and to have gained his second name from his occupation.
That he was of Christian parents and afterward embraced paganism is stated in this passage by Porphyry, songs Eusebius (if 10, below) and Jerome assert that he remained a Christian.
From all that we know of the teachings of Ammonius Saccas as reported to us by Plotinus and other Neo-Platonists, we cannot imagine him to have remained a Christian. The only solution of the diff culty then is to suppose Eusebius (whom Jerome follows) to have confounded him with a Christian of the same name who wrote the works which Eusebius mentions (see note 16). Ammonius was an Alexandrian by birth and residence, and died in 243._ His teaching was of a lofty and noble character, to judge from Plotinus' descriptions, and as a teacher he was wonderand its enmity against the latter goes far to explain the iereagnl emphasis which he and the Neo-Platonists who followed him lai upon religious rites and practices.
Its philosophy, its solution of the great problems of the age, was essentially and radically different from that of Christianity; and althou h at first they might run alongside one another as independent schools, without much thought of conflict, it was inevitable that in time the ginye and then the active hostility, should come.
Neo-Platonism, like hristiani , had a solution of the great problem of living to offer to the world, —in an age of unexample corruption, when thoughtful men were all seeking for a solution, —and each was essentially exclusive of the 'other.
The attack, therefore, could not be lon delayes. Porphyry seems to have begun it in his famous work in fteen books, now lost, which was answered 2" extenso by Methodius of Tyre, Eusebius, and Apolinarius of Laodicea. The answers, too, have perished; but from 'extant fragments we are able to see that Porphyry's attack was very fully fascinating.
He numbered among his pupils Herennius, Longinus, the pagan Origen, and Plotinus.
The Christian Origen also studied under him for a time, according to this passage.
He wrote nothing (according to the Vita Plot. c, 20), an hence we have to rely solely upon the reports of his disciples and successors for our knowledge of his system.
It is difficult in the absence of all direct testimony to ascertain his teaching with exactness.
Plotinus claims to give only what he learned from Ammonius, but it is evident, from his disagreement in many points with others of Ammonius' disciples, that the system taught by him was largely modified by his own thinking.
It is clear that Ammonius, who undoubtedly took much from his great master, Numenius, endeavored to reconcile Plato and Aristotle, thus laying the basis for the speculative eclecticism of Neo-Platonism, while at the same time there must have been already in his teaching the same religious and mystical element which was pee to some extent in all his disciples, and which played so learned and able.
He endeavored to point, out the inconsistencies in the sacred narrative, in order to discredit its divine origin.
At the same time, he treated Christ with the greatest respect, and ranked him very high as a sage (though only human), and found much that was good in his teaching.
Augustine (De consensu Evang. 1.15) says that the Neo-Platonists praised Christ, but railed at his disciples (cf. Eusebius' words in this chapter).
Porphyry was a very prolific writer; but only a few of his works are now extant, chief among them the apoppai mpds Ta vontd, or Sententia, a brief but comprehensive exposition of his philosophic system.
We learn from this chapter that he had met Ongen when very young (he was but about twenty when Origen died) ; where, we do not know.
He lived to be at least sixty-eight years old (see his Vita Plot. 23), and Suidas says that he died under Diocletian, i.e. before 305 A.D.
On Porphyry and Neo-Platonism in general, see the great works of Vacherot (Hist. critique de Ecole d''Alexandrie) and Simon arge a part in Neo-Platonism.
7d BapBapov réAunua.
Porphyry means to say that Origen was originally a heathen, and was afterward converted to Christianity; but this is refuted by the universal tradition of antiquity, and is clearly a mistake, as Eusebius (who calls it a " falsehood") (Hist. de (Ecole d'Alexandrie); also Zeller's Philosophie der
Griechen, and especially Erdmann's History of Philosophy (Engl. trans., London, 7889).
THE. CHURCH HISTORY OF "EUSEBIUS:
[VI. 19. rE ll TTT which he had obtained, he hawked it about, in his life conducting himself as a Christian and contrary to the laws, but in his opinions of material things and of the Deity being like a Greek, and mingBecoming acquainted through them with the figurative interpretation of the Grecian mysteries, he applied it to the Jewish Scriptures." ¥
These things are said by Porphyryinthe
third book of his work against the Christians.'* He speaks truly of the industry and learning of the man, but plainly utters a falsehood (for what will not an opposer of Christians do?) when he says that he went over from the Greeks," and that Ammonius fell from a life of piety into heathen customs.
For the
doctrine of Christ was taught to Origen by his parents, as we have shown above.
And Ammonius held the divine philosophy unshaken and. ling Grecian teachings with foreign fables.*
For he was continually studying Plato, and he busied himself with the writings of Numenius*® and Cronius,® Apollophanes,' Longinus,®
Moderatus,® and Nicomachus," and those famous among the Pythagoreans. Anc he used the books of Chzremon"™ the Stoic, and of Cornutus." remarks below.
Porphyry's supposition, in the absence of definite knowledge, is not at all surprising, for Origen's attainments in secular learning were such as apparently only a pagan youth could or would have acquired.
; # On Origen's Greek culture, see p. 392, and also his own words quoted below in § 12 sq.
: f 5 Numenius was a philosopher of Syria, who lived about the middle of the second century, and who exerted great influence over Plotinus and others of the (Nes Flatonicts.
He was, perhaps, the earliest of the Orientalizing Greek philosophers whose thinking was affected by the influence of Christian ideas, and as such occupies an important place in the development of philosophy, which prepared the way for Neo-Flatonism.
His object seems to have been to reconcile Pythagoras and Plato by tracing the doctrines of the latter back to the former, and also to exhibit their agreement with Jewish and other Oriental forms of thought.
It is significant that he was called by the Church Fathers a Pythagorean, and that he himself called Plato a Greek-speaking Moses (cf.
Erdmann's Ast. of Phil. I. p. 236).
He was a prolific writer, but only fragments of his works are extant.
Numerous extracts from the chief of them (mepi taya000) have been pers by Eusebius in his Prep. Evang. (see Heinichen's ed. ndex I.).
8 Of Cronius, a celebrated Pythagorean philosopher, apparently a contemporary of Numenius, and closely related to him in his thinking, we know very little.
A brief account of him is given by Porph ry in his. Vzta Plot. 20.
The Apollophanes referred to here was a Stoic philosopher of Antioch who lived in the third century 8.c., and was a disciple of Ariston of Chios.
None of his writings are extant. a.
8 Longinus was a celebrated philosopher and rhetorician of Athens, who was born about 213 and died in 273 a.D.
He traveled widely in his youth, and was for a time a pupil'of Ammonius Saccas at Alexandria; but he remained a genuine
Platonist, and seems not to have been influenced the eclecticsm of the Neo-Platonists.
He was a man of marked ability, of the broadest culture, and a thorough master of Greek style. is numerous writings we possess a large part of one beautiful work entitled mepi tywous (often published), and fragments of some others (e.g. in Eusebius' Prep.
Evang. XV.21).
Longinus was the teacher of Porphyry 'before the latter went to Rome to study under Plotinus. and friends the poet Persius.
Most of his numerous works have perished, but one on the Nature of the Gods is still extant in a mutilated form (see Gall's Opuscula).
See Suidas (s.v. Kopvodros) and Dion Cassius, XLII. 29.
18 Origen was not the ant to interpret the Scriptures allegorically.
The method began among the Alexandrian Jews some time before the Christian era, the effort being made -to reconcile the Mosaic revelation with Greek piece a and to find in the former the teachings of the latter.
This effort appears in many of the apocryphal books, but the great exponent of the method was the Alexandrian Philo, It was natural that the early Christians, especially in Alexandria, should be influenced by this already existin method of interpretation, which enabled them to make of the Ol
Testament a Christian book, and to find in it all the teachings of the Gospel.
Undoubtedly the Old Testame.t owes partly to this princiie of interpretation its adoption by the Christian Church. ad it en looked upon as the Jewish Scriptures only, containing Jewish national history, and in large part Jewish national prophecy, it could never have retained its hold upon the early Care. which was so bitterly hostile to all that savored of Judaism.
The early Gentile Christians were taught from the beginning by Jewish Christians who could not do otherwise than look upon their national Scriptures as divine, that those Scriptures contained prophecies of Jesus
Christ, and hence those Gentile Christians accepted them as divine.
But it must be remembered that they could of course have no meaning to these Gentile Christians except as they did prophesy of Christian things or contain Christian teaching.
'They could not be content to find Christian prophecy in one part and only Jewish history or Jewish prophecy in another part. 7 must @// be Christian if it was to have any meaning to them.
In this emergency the allegorical method of interpretation, already practiced upon the Old Testament by the Alexandrian Jews, came to their assistance and was eagerly adopted.
The so-called epistle of Barnabus is an early and most significant instance of its use.
With Clement of Alexandria the matter first took scientific shape.
He taught that two senses are everywhere to be assumed; that the verbal sense is only for babes in the faith, and that the allegorical sense alone leads to true spiritual knowledge.
With Origen allegorical interpretation reached its height.
He taught a threefold sense of Scripture, corresponding to body, soul, and spirit.
Many voices were raised against his interpretation, but they were directed against his particular explanations of the meaning of passages, seldom against his method.
In the early centuries Alexandria remained the chief center of this kind of exegesis, while Antioch became in the fifth century the seat of a school of exegetes who emphasized rather the grammatical and historical interpretation of Scripture over against the extremes of the Alexandrian teachers.
And yet even they were not entirely free from the vicious methods of the age, and, moreover, errors of various kinds crept in to lessen their influence, and the allegorical method finally proved almost universally; and it has not even yet fully
Porphyry has made a mistake in classing Longinus with those other philosophers whose works Origen studied.
He was a younger contemporary of Origen, and cannot even have studied with Ammonius until after Origen had left Alexandria.
It is possible, of course, that Origen in later life read some of his works; but Porphyry evidently means that the works of all the philosophers, Longinus among them, had an influence upon Origen's intellectual development.
Heinichen reads 'AABivov instead of Aoyyivov in his text, on the assumption that Porphyry cannot possibly have written Aoyyivov; but the latter word has the support of all the MSS. and versions, and there is no warrant for making the change.
We must simply conclude that Porphyry, who, of course, is not peetencts to give an exact list of all the hilosophical works which Origen had read, classes Longinus, the celebrated philosopher, along with the rest, as one whose works such a student of Greek philosophy as Origen must have read, without thinking of the serious anachronism involved. lost its hold.
This method of Scripture interpretation has, as Por-phyry says, its analogy in the methods of the Greek philosophers during the centuries immediately preceding the Christian era.
It became early the custom for philosophers, scandalized by the licentious stories of their gods, to interpret the current myths allegorically and refer them to the processes of nature.
Homer and others of the ancient poets were thus made by these later ee to teach et ne of nature of which they had never dreamed.
With the Neo-Platonists this method sacked sity highest perfection, and while the Christian teachers were allegorizing the Old Testament Scriptures, these philosophers were transforming the popular myths into records of the profoundest physical and spiritual processes.
Porphyry saw that the method of pagans and Christians was the same in this respect, and he may be correct in assigning some influence to these writings in the shaping of Origen's thinking, but the latter was an allegorist before he studied the philosophers to whom Porphyry refers (cf. chap, 2, § , above), and would have been an allegorist had he never studie: i Alle 'ory was in that age - the atmosphere of the Church as well as of the philosophical school.
® Moderatus was a distinguished Pythagorean philosopher of the first century after Christ, whose works (no longer extant) were not without influence over some of the Neo-Platonists.
10 Nicomachus was a Pythagorean of the first (or second?) century after Christ, who gained great fame as a mathematician and exerted considerable influence upon European studies in the fifteenth century.
Two of his works, one on arithmetic and the other on music, are extant, and have been published.
11 Chzremon was a Stoic philosopher and historian of Alexandria' who lived during the first century after Christ.
He was for a time librarian at the Serapeum in, 'Algeaadria, and afterward went to Rome to become a tutor of Nero.
His chief writings were a history of Egypt, a work on Hieroglyphics, and another on Comets (mentioned by Origen in his Contra Cels. I. 59). He also wrote on grammatical subjects.
His works, with the exception of a fragment of the first, are no longer extant.
Cf, Eusebius' Pref. Evang. V. to, and Suidas, s.v. '"OQpryévys.
2? Cornutus, a distinguished Stoic philosopher, lived and taught in Rome during the reign of Nero, and numbered among his pupils
14 On this great work of Porphyry, see note z.
15 See note 3.
V1. 19.]
ORIGEN'S GRECIAN LEARNING.
pp mon dress, he laid it aside and assumed and still wears the philosopher's garment ;"* and he continues the earnest investigation of Greek works." unadulterated to the end of his life.* His works yet extant show this, as he is celebrated among many for the writings which he has left.
For example, the work entitled The Harmony of He says these things in defending himself for his study of Grecian literature.
About
this time, while he was still at Alexandria, a soldier came and delivered a letter from the governor of Arabia" to Demetrius, bishop of the parish, and to the prefect of Egypt who was in office at that time, requesting that they would with all speed send Origen to him for an interview.
Being sent by them, he went to Arabia.
And having in a short time accomplished the object of his visit, he returned to Alexandria.
But sometime after a considerable
war broke out in the city,* and he departed from Alexandria.
And thinking that it would be unsafe for him to remain in Egypt, he went to Moses and Jesus, and such others as are in
the possession of the learned. These things are sufficient to evince the slander of the false accuser, and also the proficiency of Origen in Grecian learning.
He defends his diligence in this direction against some who blamed him for it, in a certain epistle," where he writes as follows :
"When I devoted myself to the word, and the fame of my proficiency went abroad, and when heretics and persons conversant with Grecian learning, and particularly with philosophy, came to me, it seemed necessary that I should examine the doctrines of the heretics,
Palestine and abode in Cesarea.
While there the bishops of the church in that country requested him to preach and expound the Scriptures publicly, although he had not yet been ordained as presbyter.
This is evi-
and what the philosophers say concerning
the truth.
And in this we have followed Pantzenus,® who benefited many before our time by his thorough preparation in such things, and also Heraclas," who is now a member of the presbytery of Alexandria.
I found him with the teacher of philosophic learning, with whom he had already continued five years before I 21 See above, Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 21.
22 The words used to designate the official who sent for Origen (6 ths "ApaBias Hyovmevos) lead us to think him a Roman, and overnor of the Roman province of Arabia, which was formed by the Emperor Trajan in the year 106, and which comprised only the northern part of the peninsula.
We know no particulars of this visit of Origen to that province, but that he was remembered and held in honor by the people is proved by chaps. 33 and 37, which record that he was summoned thither twice to assist in settling doctrinal difficulties. began to hear lectures on those subjects."
And though he had formerly worn the comeee 16 This is certainly a mistake on Eusebius' part (see above, note
2), in which he is iollowed by Jerome (de vir. zl. c. 55).
Against the identification of the Christian Ammonius, whose works are mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome, with Ammonius Saccas, may be urged first the fact that the teaching of Ammonius Saccas, as known to us from Porphyry's Vzta Plotind and from other Neo-Platonic sources, is not such as could have emanated from a Christian; and, in the second place, the fact that the Christian Ammonius, according to Eusebius, was the author of more than one important work, while Longinus (as quoted by Porphyry in the Vita Plot. c. 20) says explicitly that Ammonius Saccas wrote nothing.
It is clear from Eusebius' words that his sole reason for supposing that Ammonius Saccas remained a Christian is the existence of the writings to which he refers; and it is quite natural that he and others should erroneously attribute the works of an unknown Christian of Alexandria, named Ammonius, to the celebrated Alexandrian philosopher
28 In the sixth year of his reign (216 a.p.) Caracalla visited Alexandria, and improved the occasion to take bloody vengeance upon the inhabitants of the city, from whom had emanated a number of satirical and cutting comments upon the murder of his brother
Geta.
He instituted a horrible butchery, in which young and old, guilty and' innocent, perished, and in which scholars were objects of especial fury.
(See Herodian, IV. 8, 9, and Dion Cassius, LXXVII. 22-24, and cf. Tillemont, Azst. des Emp. III. p. 115 sq.)
This was undoubtedly the occasion, referred to here, which caused Origen to flee from the city and retire to Palestine.
% of ryde éxioxomo.
The ryde must refer to Palestine, not to Ceesarea, for '' bishops" are spoken of, not "' bishop."
25 In the apostolic age, and the paneer immediately succeeding, it was the privilege of every Christian to take part in the public meetings of the Church in the way of teaching or prophesying, the only condition being the consciousness of guidance by the Spire (see x Cor. xiii.) We cannot call this teaching and prophesying reaching in our sense of the term.
The services seem rather to Lave resembled our "' open prayer-meetings."
Gradually, as the services became more formal and stereotyped, a stated address by the "' president" (as Justin calls him) became a regular part of the service (see Justin's Aol. I, 67), and we may assume that the liberty of teaching or prophesying in the public meetings did not now belong to all the members as it had in the beginning.
The sermon, in our sense of the word, seems to have been a slow growth, but a direct development from this exhortation of the president mentioned by Justin, 'The confinement of the s aking (or preaching) to a single individual, — the leader, — which we see in Justin, is what we find in subsequent generations quite generally established.
It becomes, in time, the prerogative of the bishop to preach, and this prerogative he confers upon his presbyters also (not universally, but in most cases), while deacons and laymen are almost everywhere excluded from the right.
We see from the present chapter, however, that the custom was not the same in all parts of the Church in the time of Origen.
The principle had evidently before this become firmly established in Alexandria that only bishops and presbyters ghoul preach.
But in Palestine no such rule was recognized as 'binding.
At the same time, it is clear enough that it was excepof the same name, especially since it was known that the latter had been a Christian in his youth, and that he had been Origen's teacher in his mature years. We know nothing about the life of the Christian Ammonius, unless he be identified with the presbyter Ammonius of Alexandria, who is said by Eusebius to have perished in the ersecution of Diocletian.
The identification is possible; but even if it be accepted, we are helped very little, for is only the death, not the life, of the presbyter Ammonius with which Eusebius acquaints us.
Ammonius' writings, whoever he may have been, were well known in the Church.
Eusebius mentions here his work On the Harmony of Moses and Fesus (mepi TIS Mwicéws Kai "Incod cupdwvias), and in an epistle addressed to Carpianus (see above, p.
38 sq.) speaks of a Diatessaron or Harmony of the Four Gospels (rd bua Tecodpwr evayyéAcor), composed by Ammonius.
Jerome mentions both these works (de vir. z/l. 55), the latter under the title Evangelici Canones.
He refers to these Canones again in his preface to the Four Gospels (Migne's ed., Vol. X. 528); and so does Victor of Capua.
The former work is no longer extant, nor have we any frace of it.
But there is extant a Latin translation of a Diatessaron which was made by Victor of Capua, and which was formerly, and is still, by many scholars supposed to be a version of this work of Ammonius.
By others it is thought to'be a translation of Tatian's Diatessaron.
Yor further particulars, see above, Bk.
IV. chap. 29, note rz.
'dcr, 17 The names of the persons to whom this epistle was addressed we do not know, nor can we ascertain the exact time when it was composed, though it must have been written before Heraclas became
'bishop of Alexandria, and indeed, we may assume, while Oaigen was tional even there for laymen to preach (in the presence of their bishops), for Alexander in his epistle, instead of saying that laymen preach everywhere and of right, cites particular instances of their preaching, and says that where they are qualified a' are especially
Peteaed: by the bishops to use their gifts; so that the theory that the prerogative belonged of right to the bishop existed there just as truly as in Alexandria.
Origen of course knew that he was acting contrary to the custom (if not the canon) of his own church in thus preaching publicly, and yet undoubtedly he took it for granted that in Alexandria, and still engaged in the study which he de ends in the epistle, i.e., if Eusebius is correct in the order of events, before 216 A.D. (see note 23).
18 On Pantenus, see Bk. V. chap. xo, note 1.
19 On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
20 éxeiywy Tov Adywr. e was perfectly right in doing what these bishops requested him to