2. Reincarnation in Clement's Surviving Works
clement of alexandria on trial
enormous esteem for Origen made him believe that even if the Greek text of De principiis contained some controversial theories, it was because of tampering with the manuscript by heretics. As translator and faithful disciple, Rufinus' wanted to pass on the 'genuine' thought of his theological master. This explanation aside, there are other substantial common characteristics in Origen's and Clement's treatment of these concepts. For both of them, theology led to the exploration of issues and hypotheses, rather than to the creation of what would later be defined as 'dogma'. Therefore their treatment of reincarnation was a part of their investigation into the problem, rather than a pronouncement of a defined theological opinion.
2. Reincarnation in Clement's Surviving Works According to Stählin's Register the word μετεμψύχωσις does not appear in Clement's oeuvre. As a result our search is based only on some secondary references which may support Photios' charge. These cases reveal a lack of clarity on Clement's part; an absence of criticism rather than an open affirmation of the hypothesis. The following examples demonstrate the difficulties with Clement's handling of the subject.
The first evidence can be found in Book 5 of the Stromateis (5.58.6), where Clement stresses the value of hiding the message of the doctrines in symbols and allegories. This methodology, Clement believes, will protect the core teaching of a doctrine from abuse and misunderstanding by unprepared or malevolent listeners. To exemplify the prudence of this, Clement refers to the famous myth from Plato's Republic
(10.614–621), which presents Er's vision of souls descending and entering new human bodies. We can assume that Clement's audience recognised the myth from the brief reference. However, Clement does not infinite in terms of both beginning and end. Second, time is not simply the morally indifferent natural continuum in which action take place meaninglessly: this is where action has a purpose aiming at an end. Action is meaningful, since this is subject to judgment and has an eschatological perspective" (ibid. 53). I would like to add that both accounts are equally applicable to Clement's world view. For the first point, see, e.g., Clement, Strom. 6.58.1, 6.93.5. For the second, see, e.g., QDS 33, 42; Paed.
1.28.3–1.28.5; Adumb. 1.9; Strom. 1.173.5–1.173.6; see also B.E. Daley, The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 44–7.
the transmigration of souls
not criticise or correct Plato. Thus one may think that he agrees with the axiom and all the consequences of Plato's story. This assumption would, however, go against Clement's intention in the introduction to this passage, where his main concern is to emphasis the pedagogical point about the value, now in a Christian framework, of veiling the doctrines in allegorical teaching. For Clement it is a necessary step to introduce the disciples into the Christian mysteries, gradually unveiling to them in stages the depth of the new teaching. Interestingly,
Clement also does not defend Plato against the accusation that he taught the doctrine of reincarnation, but rather stresses the wisdom of the Greek sage in using myths, metaphors and allegories in his teaching. This point has priority in Clement's lectio, even though he knew that Plato taught the doctrine of reincarnation.
Even more clearly, the same approach is seen in a passage from the Excerpta ex Theodoto where Clement refers to the Basilideans' interpretation of a passage from Deuteronomy (5.9) or Numbers (14.18):
"the followers of Basilides refer 'God visiting the disobedient unto the third and fourth generation' to reincarnations."20 If we believe
Clement's record, the Basilideans accepted reincarnation as a part of the divine plan of salvation, including the necessary punishment for sins committed in a previous life. This theology combines Scriptural revelation with Platonic metaphysics and anthropology quite adventurously as it tries to explain the meaning of suffering in the present world. Without trying to assess this particular fusion of Platonism and the Bible, it must be noted that Clement's brief reference in the Excerpta ex Theodoto is not followed by any effort to refute the theory of the Basilideans. Clement criticises this approach elsewhere21 and assumes that the reader already knows about the erroneous interpretation of the Scriptures by his adversaries. It is thus Clement's adapta20 Ex. Th. 28.1: τὸ "θεὸς ἀποδιδοὺς ἐπὶ τρίτην καὶ τετάρτην γενεὰν τοῖς ἀπειθοῦσι" φασὶν οἱ ἀπὸ βασιλείδου κατὰ τὰς ἐνσωματώσεις (trans. Casey).
21 Clement, Strom. 4.81.1–4.83.2, 4.88.1–4.88.5. The latter fragment refers again to ἐνσωμάτωσις and Clement again suggests that this is a teaching characteristic of the followers of Basilides. Clement's interpretation was questioned by P. Nautin, "Les fragments de Basilide sur la souffrance et leur interprétation par Clement d'Alexandrie et Origèn", in Mélanges d'histoire des religions offerts à Henri-Charles Peuch
(Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1974), 393–404. But recently Clement's account received a more balanced examination in W.A. Löhr, Basilides and seine
Schule: Eine Studie zur Theologie und Kirchengeschichte des zweiten Jahrhundert, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 83 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebieck,
1996), 138–44.
clement of alexandria on trial
tion and recording of the theological data that is problematic, not his view on reincarnation.
The third illustration is found in the sixth Stromata, here Clement quotes a passage from Isidore' work "Expositions of the Prophet
Parchor" (τῶν τοῦ προφήτου Παρχὼρ Ἐξηγητικῶν) where Isidore, following Aristotle,22 states that all people have demons accompanying them since their ἐνσωμάτωσις: "Aristotle states that all people are accompanied by demons, which joined them at the moment of embodiment."23 In its original, Aristotelian context, there is no suggestion of reincarnation, but Isidore, according to Clement, interpreted the teaching of Aristotle in a way that supported his claim about the rebirth of the soul. But the whole passage is left by Clement unchallenged and without any suggestion that Clement had a different view from Isidore on the uniqueness of human birth. These examples reveal Clement's careless approach to what were, from a later, postNicene dogmatic perspective, erroneous and heretical opinions rather than any support for the thesis that he believed in the transmigration of the souls. He was well aware of the origin and significance of the theory of reincarnation, which in his view could not be reconciled with the apostolic tradition.24 For instance, the he thought that 'the Egyptians' were the first to believe in reincarnation (δὲ Αἰγυπτίων τά τε ἄλλα καὶ τὸ περὶ τὴν μετενσωμάτωσιν τῆς ψυχῆς δόγμα)25 and he knew the meaning and consequences of the theory of metempsychosis.26 He knew two versions of reincarnation, one which presumes that human souls enter only into human bodies and another which supposes that they may enter animal bodies as well.27
22 Aristotle, Frg., 193, in V. Rose (ed.), Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1967).
23 Clement, Strom. 6.53.3: καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης δαίμοσι κεχρῆσθαι πάντας ἀνθρώπους λέγει συνομαρτοῦσιν αὐτοῖς παρὰ τὸν χρόνον τῆς ἐνσωματώσεως.
24 Clement saw himself as an heir of the apostolic tradition (see Eusebius, HE 6.13.9). This subject is discussed recently by Osborn, Clement of Alexandria, 175–8. I wish to note that also his theological opponents believed that they continue the apostolic legacy, for more details, see P. Ashwin-Siejkowski, Clement of Alexandria, 109–
44.
25 Clement, Strom. 6.35.1. Clement's opinion may be influenced by Herodotus' record (Hist. 2.123.2).
26 For instance, see Clement's reference to Philolaus' teaching on the link in the current life between the soul and the body as 'a tomb' (DK 44B14), in Strom. 3.17.1.
In the context of the Pythagorean doctrine, this 'imprisonment' can be dissolved through the philosophical life and practice of virtues, which may prevent the soul from the further incarnations.
27 Clement, Strom. 7.32.8.
the transmigration of souls
The examples from the existing works prove convincingly, that Clement did not subscribe to the theory of incarnation in any shape or form. On the contrary, he occasionally showed some disapproval of it.
Photios claimed to have found the heretical view in Clement's Hypotyposeis, but this would be highly inconsistent with the existing oeuvre and Clement's thought. We are informed by Clement himself that he wrote a special treatise Περί ψυχῆς.28 It is possible that in this work he discussed in detail the issue of the origin of the human soul, or even, as Boulluec suggests, developed a critique of Basilides' and Isidore's views on reincarnation.29 But again, taking into account
Clement's whole outlook on the origin, nature and destiny of the human soul which was much more biblical than Pythagorean or Platonic, it is hard to believe that he might have radically revised his position. Clement of Alexandria was first and foremost a Christian hermeneutist and exegete whose main effort was not to speculate on esoteric mysteries, but rather to elaborate on the Scriptures in order to educate his pupils.30 Two examples of that approach can be seen in the following elaboration of the biblical themes.
In his comments on the First Epistle of Peter (1.3), where the apostle explains spiritual as opposed to biological birth, Clement refers to a theological opinion:
28 Ibid. 2.113.2, 5.88.4. It is plausible that this lost treatise aimed to present Clement's view on human beings, not just on the human soul. It would be then an 'anthropological' or 'psychological' study, comparable to Aristotle's De anima, but unfortunately this is only a theory. It is certain that Clement knew Aristotle's work and, as in the Stromateis, used it as a reference book with some authority, cf. e.g.
Strom. 2.137.1, 4.155.2, 5.71.2, 8.10.3.
29 In relation to Strom. 2.113.2, Boulluec highlights the polemical context of Clement's note about his treatise Περί ψυχῆς in which the Alexandrian scholar criticises
Basilides' and Isidore's anthropological and psychological views. Rejecting their theories of the human soul as a 'Trojan Horse' inhabited by evil spirits, Clement responded with his own theory. Boulluec also suggests that Clement's promise to develop his arguments against yet another Gnostic, Cassian (Strom. 3.95.2) ,and his erroneous theory of human beings had been realised in the form of first sections of his Eclogae
Propheticae. This collection of exegetical notes, Boulluec concludes, contains passages from to the lost Περί ψυχῆς (See Boulluec, Stromata V, 287–8). I wish to add that it is quite possible that Clement's critique in Περί ψυχῆς included a polemic against some Gnostic theories, including also Basilides' doctrine of reincarnation.
30 See D. Ridings, "Clement of Alexandria and the Intended Audience of the Stromateis", Studia Patristica 31 (1996): 517–21; A. van den Hoek, "The 'Catechetical'
School of Early Christian Alexandria and Its Philonic Heritage", Harvard Theological
Review 90 (1997): 59–87.
clement of alexandria on trial
Therefore he says, that the soul never returns a second time to the body in the presence life, neither if it became angelic or evil, so as by the assumption of flesh again did not have the opportunity of sinning. In the resurrection, however, the soul returns to the body, and both are joined to one another according to their specific nature.31
There is no doubt that the Clement of Alexandria had in mind a version of the theory of reincarnation, which was current in Alexandria and possibly assimilated to a new Christian theology. The 'new birth'
(ἀναγέννησις/regenaratio) is understood and explained by Clement as a metaphor for baptism, or the new life of faith in Christ.32 It does not denote any second physical birth or entering into a new body in a new incarnation. The text points out that neither the souls of the good
'angelic' people nor the souls of evil ones have a second chance to come down and go through the cycles of transmigration. In Clement's view the crucial union between the body and the soul is established at the very moment of creation of a human being, as the second piece of evidence explains. The human soul was created and given directly by God to human beings:
Moses says correctly, that the body which Plato calls "the earthly tabernacle"33 was formed of the ground, but that the rational soul was breathed by God into man's face.34
The obvious motif from Genesis 2.7 receives, in Clement's exegesis, a strong Platonic flavour, and serves to highlight the origin of the human soul with its rational power, but also its potential to achieve full similarity to its original model—the divine Logos. The human soul is connected with the body not as an outcome of accident, fate or as a form of punishment, but as an important union by which the body may also
31 Clement, Frg., in Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus, 3:203: Decebat autem iterum nunquam reverti secundo ad corpus animam in hac vita, neque iustam, quae angelica facta est, neque malignam, ne iterum occasionem peccandi per susceptionem carnis accipiat, in resurrectione autem utramque in corpus reverti.
32 e.g. Clement, Strom. 3.83.1, 3.95.1; Ex. Th. 25.2, 78.2; Ecl. 5.2, 7.1.
33 Timaeus 30c–d; Axiochus 365e–366a.
34 Clement, Strom. 5.94.3: εἰκότως ἄρα ἐκ γῆς μὲν τὸ σῶμα διαπλάττεσθαι λέγει ὁ Μωυσῆς, ὃ γήινόν φησιν ὁ Πλάτων σκῆνος, ψυχὴν δὲ τὴν λογικὴν ἄνωθεν ἐμπνευσθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς πρόσωπον. Alain Le Boulluec adds that Clement's terminology in the present passage—for example σκῆνος which denotes the material body—suggests that Clement accepted the Neophytagorean exegesis of the pseudoPlatonic dialogue (Axiochus 365e–366a) as authoritative in his interpretation of Scriptural revelation (see Boulluec, Stromata V, 302; see also Clement, Ecl. 17.1).
the transmigration of souls
participate in future resurrection.35 The soul is united with the body in order to ameliorate its nature. In the light of the evidence, it is quite clear that Clement did not conceive of a pre-existent soul, nor did he suggest that the soul of the average or perfect Christian Gnostic is consubstantial with the divine.36 The ultimate, eschatological union and communion with God "face to face" (πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον) will not dissolve the human soul.37 God does not give the soul to a body more than once. God does not create the soul of his own substance and ultimately God will neither annihilate his creation nor suspend its existence at the end of time. These theological axioms resound through all of Clement's surviving works.
Many scholars have emphasised Clement's debt to Platonism and his inclinations towards Gnosticism, but equally significant is his dependence on Philo of Alexandria and the literature of Hellenistic
Judaism. In these sources, reincarnation seems not to appear as a theological option.38 Clement of Alexandria as a Christian exegete,
35 Daley, The Hope of the Early Church, 46.
36 E.g. Ex. Th. 42.3; 50.2; 58.1. Outside of Clement's oeuvre, the idea of being consubstantial with the divine appears in Interp. Know. 13.20–36; 17.14–19.25; Tri. Trac.
122 [13–14] with an idiomatic statement: "the election shares body and essence [ⲞⲨϢⲂⲎⲢ Ⲛ̅ⲚⲞⲨⲤⲒⲀ] with the Saviour" (trans. Attridge and Pagels, in The Coptic
Gnostic Library, vol. 1). The eastern school of the Valentinian tradition represented the view that the spiritual group of Christians, as 'the body', were consubstantial with the Saviour, 'the head' of the Church.
37 Clement, Strom. 5.40.1; 1 Cor. 13:12.
38 This view will change in later Medieval Jewish mysticism, see G. Scholem, Major
Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken Books, repr. 1995), 249–50. However, Tzamalikos suggests that Origen accused the Jews of having a doctrine of reincarnation, while examining whether or not John the Baptist was Elias (John 1:21).
Tzamalikos notes: "On this issue [i.e. reincarnation], therefore, there is downright antithesis not only to the Greeks 'who introduce the notion of transmigration' [i.e.,
Comm. Matt. 13.1] but also to the Jews 'who held the doctrine about transmigration to be true, since it was derived from their fathers and was not alien to their secret teaching' [Comm. Jo. 6.12; sic, lege Comm. Jo 6.7]." However, I do not believe that Origen is talking about the Jews here. Before the crucial passage in which Origen attributed the doctrine of transmigration to 'the Jews', there is yet another section, in which Origen points out: "On the first point, at least, someone will say that John was not aware that he was Elias. They too, perhaps, will use this, who defend the doctrine of transmigration from these words, since the soul changes bodies and by no means remembers the former lives. These same people will also say that some of the Jews who agreed with the doctrine about the Savior have said that he, therefore, is one of the ancient prophets who has risen [Luke 9:19] not from the tomb, but from birth" (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 1–10, trans. R.E. Heine,
Fathers of the Church 80 [Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1989], 186). As noted by Heine, Origen may refer to the doctrine of Basilides and his followers. On another occasion, Origen reports that Basilides taught a theory
clement of alexandria on trial
Scriptural commentator and catechist remained within the bounds of the Jewish-Christian Alexandrian tradition. He was well aware of the alternative doctrines assimilating Scriptural revelation with Greek,
Egyptian or other oriental elements, which created room for belief in the transmigration of souls. This religious syncretism was outside
Clement's interest as a theologian and teacher. In brief, I find no evidence to suggest that Clement accepted a cycle of worlds or the belief in eternity or divinity of the soul. If found, these theories would support Photios' charge, but, on the contrary, the existing evidence shows the opposite: Clement of Alexandria did believe in the creation of the soul and the uniqueness of human life on earth.
Photios' charge, however, had its own context and agenda. As shown recently by Alexander Alexakis, the issue of reincarnation in Byzantine theology, and in particular during Photios' period, was still a subject of concern.39 According to Alexakis, it was a branch of Paulician heresy,40 which assimilated some Manichean ideas about of reincarnation (Comm. Rom. 5.1). Here, like Clement of Alexandria, indeed on the basis of Clement's indictment, Origen accuses Basilides of expousing a doctrine of reincarnation, which is a result of an amalgam of Platonism and mistaken exegesis within Alexandrian Jewish Gnosticism. The whole context of the dispute shows that Origen sets up an opposition between two kinds of interpretations of the Scriptures: one literal and erroneous and the other spiritual and correct. While the former is expressed by Origen's opponents, here Basilides and other Gnostics who believed in reincarnation, the second interpretation is pronounced by 'a churchman'. Therefore in Origen's concluding statement criticising 'the Jews' for the belief in a doctrine of reincarnation I see his polemic as being directed against heretics who like 'the Jews' are not able to comprehend the deeper, spiritual and true meaning of the Scriptures.
On Origen's identification of the 'literal' reading of the Scriptures with Jewish exegesis, as opposed to the spiritual, allegorical and Christian comprehension, see, e.g.,
Princ. 4.2.1; see also Young, Biblical Exegesis, 189.
39 A. Alexakis, "Was there Life beyond the Life Beyond? Byzantine Ideas on Reincarnation and Final Restoration", Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55 (2001): 155–77. Alexakis writes: "Later Byzantine authors stress the affinity of these heresies—Paulicianism and Bogomilism—with that of the Manichaeans and consider them as mutations of Manichaeanism" (ibid. 168). It should be added that for those Byzantine authors,
Manichaens believed in reincarnation. Therefore Alexakis concludes: "The Byzantines did not make any distinction between Paulicianism and Manichaeanism. In addition to the reference found in the treatise by John of Damascus mentioned above [i.e.,
Dialogus contra Manichaeos, 4.351–398], one might find an indirect connection of Paulicianism with the reincarnation doctrine in a Byzantine Formula for the Renunciation of the Manicheans. In chapter six of this formula those who believed in reincarnation are expressly condemned" (ibid. 170). These views were very much part of Photios' concerns in the ninth century.
40 See A. Louth, Greek East and Latin West, 135–8. Louth notes: "By the ninth century, however, the 'Paulician' heresy has become a concern in the Byzantine world,
the transmigration of souls
reincarnation and challenged orthodoxy on the ultimate destiny of the human soul.41 For a Byzantine defensor fidei, such as Photios, these contemporary ideas42 were yet another metamorphosis of the ancient heresies. Therefore it is not surprising that Photios, as a historian, took every effort to find the origins as well as the archetypes of these contemporary problems and then eliminate them for good from his
Byzantine Church and orthodox theology. Photios' attack on Clement's assumed views provided him with another opportunity to condemn the heretical theories of iconoclasts such as the Paulicians who had, as noted by Louth, gained a certain respectability in the late Byzantine world.43
In conclusion I wish to consider the following question: "If the evidence of Clement's 'innocence' is so strong, what gave Photios reason to think differently?" First, as he claims he had access to the lost work, the Hypotyposeis, where Clement might have discussed some issues related to the nature of the human soul in a similar, casual way, as he does in the passages examined above. The lack of clear distance between the opinions quoted and the beliefs of the commentator might have misled Photios who appreciated strict differences, exact definitions and rhetorical amplification of the errors of a text. In addition Photios appreciated the sharp line that separated heresy and and in the next century we begin to hear about the heresy of the 'Bogomils' … Both
Paulicianism and Bogomilism are characterized by their rejection of the hierarchy and sacraments of the Byzantine Church. It is likely that this is the heart of these movements of protest: they were protests against the wealth and worldliness of the Church that spilled over into a 'spiritual' rejection of all that this entailed. So the centre of their faith was Jesus Christ, understood as a spiritual being, who had come into the world, but who had not actually shared our humanity … They rejected veneration of the cross, as well as veneration of the relics and icons of the saints" (ibid. 135–6). In brief, these movements challenged Photios' valuable core beliefs. See also C. Ludwig, "The Paulicians and Ninth-Century Byzantine Thought", in Byzantium in the Ninth Century: Dead or Alive? Papers from the Thirtieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies,
Birmingham, March, 1996, ed. L. Brubaker, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine
Studies, Publication 5 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), 23–35, and Bibliography.
41 Alexakis, "Was There Life beyond the Life Beyond?", 170. As Ludwig notes, the important document of this period, Theophanes' Chronicle completed about 815 ce uses the expression: "Manichaeans, now called Paulicians" (Ludwig "The Paulicians",
31).
42 The Paulician heresy reached its climax under the leadership of Sergios in the first half of the ninth century, while the final defeat came with the policy of the Emperor Basil around 878 ce.
43 See Louth, Greek East and Latin West, 136.
clement of alexandria on trial
orthodoxy which was an expression of a genuine care for his Church.44
Clement's approach to theology based on the allegorical method, use of manifold sources and a truly eclectic collection of views did not help in this matter. Simply, Clement's and Photios' academic paradigms were too dissimilar to coexist. For the Byzantine scholar, Clement's writings imply some inclinations towards the opinion of his adversaries, when they received no criticism by the Alexandrian theologian.
This was the case with μετεμψύχωσις. Secondly, Photios may have made the mistake of pars pro toto. Without sufficient knowledge of the whole structure of Clement's theology, one isolated element, sufficiently magnified, might have provoked a conclusion which did not reflect Clement's intention and purpose. One detached theological or anthropological statement served to represent the paradigm and the whole theology and theory of salvation. Photios in his genuine defence of orthodoxy did focus on that detail, metempsychosis, while he lost sight of all the rest of Clement's eschatological doctrine.
44 See Photios' famous sermon, On the Image of the Virgin, delivered at the celebration of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, in Louth, Greek East and Latin West, 134; and, for the larger context, Louth, "Photios as a Theologian", 206–23.
the creation of eve in a blasphemous way
CHAPTER SEVEN
THE CREATION OF EVE FROM ADAM IN A BLASPHEMOUS
AND SHAMEFUL WAY
καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τὴν Εὔαν, οὐχ ὡς ὁ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς λόγος βούλεται, ἀλλ' αἰσχρῶς τε καὶ ἀθέως ἀποφαίνεται.
He does not accept that Eve came from Adam as the Scriptures of the Church considers, but he explains her birth in an disgraceful and blasphemous manner.
Photios' catalogue listed the present charge, that Clement interpreted the origin of Eve in an 'impious and sacrilegious' manner (αἰσχρῶς τε καὶ ἀθέως), just after the charge that he held that there were many world's before Adam (Chapter 2), and just before the next one: the sexual intercourse between the fallen angels and the human women
(Chapter 8). The context of the current charge, suggests a change of perspective: from the more metaphysical of Clement's errors, to Scriptural misunderstanding, that is, faulty exegesis. Yet Photios' trajectory continues to develop alongside the line of anthropology: reincarnation (Chapter 6) and now the anthropological status of the first woman. This line will be continued in the next accusation.
One important and preliminary question must be addressed as it is thus implicitly present in the charge. According to Photios, Clement's reading of Genesis 2:21-22 went against the evidence of ὁ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς λόγος, which may mean "the teaching/doctrine" (ὁ λόγος),
"the Scriptures of the Church" or "an established ecclesiastical authority/tradition". It seems ἐκκλησιαστικὸς denotes the Great Church of the second century, not Photios' contemporary ecclesiastical institution, as otherwise it would be difficult to expect Clement of Alexandria to be in accord with its doctrine. However, the present tense of the verb 'considers' (βούλεται) suggests otherwise: Photios appear to be saying that Clement's views were irreconcilable with the orthodox doctrine of the Church of Photios' time. If so, it is not surprising that not all elements of theological investigation from the early period of Christianity match the later pronouncements of the creeds and the councils. Even so, the charge calls for a short introduction to the first and second centuries' literary allusions to this subject, in an attempt