Three types of theology developed in the ante-Nicene Church: the Asia Minor school, best represented by Irenus (_v._ 33); the North African, represented by Tertullian and Cyprian (_v._ 39); and the Alexandrian, in the Catechetical School of which Clement and Origen were the most distinguished members. In the Alexandrian theology the tradition of the apologists (_v._ 32) that Christianity was a revealed philosophy was continued, especially by Clement. Origen, following the bent of his genius, developed other sides of Christian thought as well, bringing it all into a more systematic form than had ever before been attempted. The Catechetical School of Alexandria was the most celebrated of all the educational inst.i.tutions of Christian antiquity. It aimed to give a general secular and religious training. It appears to have been in existence well before the end of the second century, having been founded, it is thought, by Pantnus. Clement a.s.sisted in the instruction from 190, and from about 200 was head of the school for a few years. In 202 or 203 he was forced by persecution under Septimius Severus to flee from the city. He died before 215. Of his works, the most important is his three-part treatise composed of his _Protrepticus_, an apologetic work addressed to the Greeks; his _Pdegogus_, a treatise on Christian morality; and his _Stromata_, or miscellanies. Origen became head of the Catechetical School in 203, when but eighteen years old, and remained in that position until 232, when, having been irregularly ordained priest outside his own diocese and being suspected of heresy, he was deposed. But he removed to Csarea in Palestine, where he continued his work with the greatest success and was held in the highest honor by the Church in Palestine and parts other than Egypt. He died 254 or 255 at Tyre, having previously suffered severely in the Decian persecution. His works are of the highest importance in various fields of theology. _De Principiis_ is the first attempt to present in connected form the whole range of Christian theology. His commentaries cover nearly the entire Bible. His _Contra Celsum_ is the greatest of all early apologies. The _Hexapla_ was the most elaborate piece of text-criticism of antiquity.

Additional source material: Eusebius. _Hist. Ec._, VI, deals at length with Origen; Gregory Thaumaturgus, _Panegyric on Origen_, in ANF. VI.

(_a_) Clement of Alexandria, _Stromata_, I, 5. (MSG, 8:717.)

Clements view of the relation of Greek philosophy to Christian revelation is almost identical with that of the apologists, as are also many of his fundamental concepts.

Before the advent of the Lord philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness. And now it becomes useful to piety, being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith through demonstration.

For thy foot, it is said, will not stumble if thou refer what is good, whether belonging to the Greeks or to us, to Providence. For G.o.d is the cause of all good things; but of some primarily, as of the Old and the New Testament, and of others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly till the Lord should call the Greeks also. For this was a schoolmaster to bring the h.e.l.lenic mind to Christ, as was the law to bring the Hebrews. Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ.

Now, says Solomon, defend wisdom, and it will exalt thee, and it will shield thee with a crown of pleasure.(66) For when thou hast strengthened wisdom with a breastwork by philosophy, and with expenditure, thou wilt preserve her una.s.sailable by sophists. The way of truth is therefore one.

But into it, as into a perennial river, streams flow from every side.

(_b_) Clement of Alexandria, _Stromata_, VII, 10. (MSG, 9:47.)

See Clement of Alexandria, _VIIth Book of the Stromateis_, ed. by Hort and Mayor, London, 1902. In making faith suffice for salvation, Clement clearly distinguishes his position from that of the Gnostics, though he uses the term gnostic as applicable to Christians. See next pa.s.sage.

Knowledge [gnosis], so to speak, is a perfecting of man as man, which is brought about by acquaintance with divine things; in character, life, and word harmonious and consistent with itself and the divine Word. For by it faith is made perfect, inasmuch as it is solely by it that the man of faith becomes perfect. Faith is an internal good, and without searching for G.o.d confesses His existence and glorifies Him as existent. Hence by starting with this faith, and being developed by it, through the grace of G.o.d, the knowledge respecting Him is to be acquired as far as possible.

But it is not doubting, in reference to G.o.d, but believing, that is the foundation of knowledge. But Christ is both the foundation and the superstructure, by whom are both the beginning and the end. And the extreme points, the beginning and the end, I mean faith and love, are not taught. But knowledge, which is conveyed from communication through the grace of G.o.d as a deposit, is intrusted to those who show themselves worthy of it; and from it the worth of love beams forth from light to light. For it is said, To him that hath shall be given [_cf._ Matt.

13:12]to faith, knowledge; and to knowledge, love; and to love, the inheritance.

Faith then is, so to speak, a compendious knowledge of the essentials; but knowledge is the sure and firm demonstration of what is received by faith, built upon faith by the Lords teaching, conveying us on to unshaken conviction and certainty. And, as it seems to me, the first saving change is that from heathenism to faith, as I said before; and the second, that from faith to knowledge. And this latter pa.s.sing on to love, thereafter gives a mutual friendship between that which knows and that which is known. And perhaps he who has already arrived at this stage has attained equality with the angels. At any rate, after he has reached the final ascent in the flesh, he still continues to advance, as is fit, and presses on through the holy Hebdomad into the Fathers house, to that which is indeed the Lords abode.

(_c_) Clement of Alexandria, _Stromata_, V, 11. (MSG, 9:102, 106.)

The piety of the Christian Gnostic.

The sacrifice acceptable with G.o.d is unchanging alienation from the body and its pa.s.sions. This is the really true piety. And is not philosophy, therefore, rightly called by Socrates the meditation on death? For he who neither employs his eyes in the exercise of thought nor draws from his other senses, but with pure mind applies himself to objects, practises the true philosophy.

It is not without reason, therefore, that in the mysteries which are to be found among the Greeks l.u.s.trations hold the first place; as also the laver among the barbarians. After these are the minor mysteries, which have some foundation for instruction and preparation for what is to follow. In the great mysteries concerning the universe nothing remains to be learned, but only to contemplate and comprehend with the mind nature and things. We shall understand the more of purification by confession, and of contemplation by a.n.a.lysis, advancing by a.n.a.lysis to the first notion, beginning with the properties underlying it; abstracting from the body its physical properties, taking away the dimension of depth, then of breadth, and then of length. For the point which remains is a unit, so to speak, having position; from which, if we abstract position, there is the conception of unity.

If, then, we abstract all that belongs to bodies and things called incorporeal, we cast ourselves into the greatness of Christ, and thence advancing into immensity by holiness, we may reach somehow to the conception of the Almighty, knowing not what He is, but knowing what He is not. And form and motion, or standing, or a throne or place, or right hand or left, are not at all to be conceived as belonging to the Father of the universe, although it is so written. For what each of these signifies will be shown in the proper place. The First Cause is not then in s.p.a.ce, but above time and s.p.a.ce and name and conception.

(_d_) Origen, _De Principiis_, I, 2:2. (MSG, 11:130.)

Origens doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son was of primary importance in all subsequent discussions on the Trinity.

Let no one imagine that we mean anything unsubstantial when we call Him the Wisdom of G.o.d; or suppose, for example, that we understand Him to be, not a living being endowed with wisdom, but something which makes men wise, giving itself to, and implanting itself in, the minds of those who are made capable of receiving its virtues and intelligence. If, then, it is once rightly understood that the only begotten Son of G.o.d is His Wisdom hypostatically [substantialiter] existing, I know not whether our mind ought to advance beyond this or entertain any suspicion that the hypostasis or substantia contains anything of a bodily nature, since everything corporeal is distinguished either by form, or color, or magnitude. And who in his sound senses ever sought for form, or color, or size, in wisdom, in respect of its being wisdom? And who that is capable of entertaining reverential thoughts or feelings regarding G.o.d can suppose or believe that G.o.d the Father ever existed, even for a moment of time, without having generated this Wisdom? For in that case he must say either that G.o.d was unable to generate Wisdom before He produced her, so that He afterward called into being that which formerly did not exist, or that He could, butwhat is impious to say of G.o.dwas unwilling to generate; both of which suppositions, it is patent to all, are alike absurd and impious: for they amount to this, either that G.o.d advanced from a condition of inability to one of ability, or that, although possessed of the power, He concealed it, and delayed the generation of Wisdom. Therefore we have always held that G.o.d is the Father of His only begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him, what He is, but without any beginning, not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone contemplates within itself, or beholds, so to speak, with the naked soul and understanding. And therefore we must believe that Wisdom was generated before any beginning that can be either comprehended or expressed.

(_e_) Origen, _De Principiis_, I, 2:10. (MSG, 11:138.)

Origens doctrine of eternal creation was based upon reasoning similar to that employed to show the eternal generation of the Son, but it was rejected by the Church, and figures among the heresies known as Origenism. See below, 87, 93.

As no one can be a father without having a son, nor a master without possessing a servant, so even G.o.d cannot be called omnipotent(67) unless there exists those over whom He may exercise His power; and therefore, that G.o.d may be shown to be almighty it is necessary that all things should exist. For if any one a.s.sumes that some ages or portions of time, or whatever else he likes to call them, have pa.s.sed away, while those things which have been made did not yet exist, he would undoubtedly show that during those ages or periods G.o.d was not omnipotent but became omnipotent afterward: viz., from the time that He began to have those over whom He exercised power; and in this way He will appear to have received a certain increase, and to have risen from a lower to a higher condition; since there can be no doubt that it is better for Him to be omnipotent than not to be so. And, now, how can it appear otherwise than absurd, that when G.o.d possessed none of those things which it was befitting for Him to possess, He should afterward, by a kind of progress, come to have them?

But if there never was a time when He was not omnipotent,(68) of necessity those things by which He receives that t.i.tle must also exist; and He must always have had those over whom He exercised power, and which were governed by Him either as king or prince, of which we shall speak more fully when we come to discuss the subject of creatures.

(_f_) Origen, _De Principiis_, II, 9:6. (MSG, 11:230.)

The theory of pre-existence and the pretemporal fall of each soul was the basis of Origens theodicy. It caused great offence in after years when theology became more stereotyped, and it has retained no place in the Churchs thought, for the idea ran too clearly counter to the biblical account of the Fall of Adam.

We have frequently shown by those statements which we are able to adduce from the divine Scriptures that G.o.d, the Creator of all things, is good, and just, and all-powerful. When in the beginning He created all those beings whom He desired to create, _i.e._, rational natures, He had no other reason for creating them than on account of Himself, _i.e._, His goodness. As He himself, then, was the cause of the existence of those things which were to be created, in whom there was neither any variation nor change nor want of power, He created all whom He made equal and alike, because there was no reason for Him to produce variety and diversity. But since those rational creatures themselves, as we have frequently shown and will yet show in the proper place, were endowed with the power of free choice, this freedom of his will incited each one either to progress by imitation of G.o.d or induced him to failure through negligence. And this, as we have already stated, is the cause of the diversity among rational creatures, deriving its origin not from the will or judgment of the Creator, but from the freedom of the individual will. G.o.d, however, who deemed it just to arrange His creatures according to merit, brought down these differences of understanding into the harmony of one world, that He might adorn, as it were, one dwelling, in which there ought to be not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay and some, indeed, to honor and others to dishonor, with those different vessels, or souls, or understandings. And these are the causes, in my opinion, why that world presents the aspect of diversity, while Divine Providence continues to regulate each individual according to the variety of his movements or of his feelings and purpose. On which account the Creator will neither appear to be unjust in distributing (for the causes already mentioned) to every one according to his merits; nor will the happiness or unhappiness of each ones birth, or whatever be the condition that falls to his lot, be deemed accidental; nor will different creators, or souls of different natures, be believed to exist.

(_g_) Origen, _Homil. in Exod._, VI, 9. (MSG, 12:338.)

In the following pa.s.sage from Origens _Commentary on Exodus_ and the four following pa.s.sages are stated the essential points of Origens theory of redemption. In this theory there are two elements which have been famous in the history of Christian thought: the relation of the death of Christ to the devil, and the ultimate salvation of every soul. The theory that Christs death was a ransom paid to the devil was developed by Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory the Great, and reappeared constantly in theology down to the scholastic period, when it was overthrown by Anselm and the greater scholastics. Universal redemption or salvation, especially when it included Satan himself, was never taken up by Church theologians to any extent, and was one of the positions condemned as Origenism. See 93.

It is certain, they say, that one does not buy that which is his own. But the Apostle says: Ye are bought with a price. But hear what the prophet says: You have been sold as slaves to your sins, and for your iniquities I have put away your mother. Thou seest, therefore, that we are the creatures of G.o.d, but each one has been sold to his sins, and has fallen from his Creator. Therefore we belong to G.o.d, inasmuch as we have been created by Him, but we have become the servants of the devil, inasmuch as we have been sold to our sins. But Christ came to redeem us when we were servants to that master to whom we had sold ourselves by sinning.

(_h_) Origen, _Contra Celsum_, VII, 17. (MSG, 11:1445.)

If we consider Jesus in relation to the divinity that was in Him, the things which He did in this capacity are holy and do not offend our idea of G.o.d; and if we consider Him as a man, distinguished beyond all others by an intimate communion with the very Word, with Absolute Wisdom, He suffered as one who was wise and perfect whatever it behooved Him to suffer, who did all for the good of the human race, yea, even for the good of all intelligent beings. And there is nothing absurd in the fact that a man died, and that his death was not only an example of death endured for the sake of piety, but also the first blow in the conflict which is to overthrow the power of the evil spirit of the devil, who had obtained dominion over the whole world. For there are signs of the destruction of his empire; namely, those who through the coming of Christ are everywhere escaping from the power of demons, and who after their deliverance from this bondage in which they were held consecrate themselves to G.o.d, and according to their ability devote themselves day by day to advancement in a life of piety.

(_i_) Origen, _Homil. in Matt._, XVI, 8. (MSG, 13:1398.)

He did this in service of our salvation so far that He gave His soul a ransom for many who believed on Him. If all had believed on Him, He would have given His soul as a ransom for all. To whom did He give His soul as a ransom for many? Certainly not to G.o.d. Then was it not to the Evil One?

For that one reigned over us until the soul of Jesus was given as a ransom for us. This he had especially demanded, deceived by the imagination that he could rule over it, and he was not mindful of the fact that he could not endure the torment connected with holding it fast. Therefore death, which appeared to reign over Him, did not reign over Him, since He was free among the dead and stronger than the power of death. He is, indeed, so far superior to it that all who from among those overcome by death will follow Him can follow Him, as death is unable to do anything against them. We are therefore redeemed with the precious blood of Jesus. As a ransom for us the soul of the Son of G.o.d has been given (not His spirit, for this, according to Luke [_cf._ Luke 23:46] He had previously given to His Father, saying: Father, into Thy hands I commit my spirit); also, not His body, for concerning this we find nothing mentioned. And when He had given His soul as a ransom for many, He did not remain in the power of him to whom the ransom was given for many, because it says in the sixteenth psalm [Psalm 16:10]: Thou wilt not leave my soul in h.e.l.l.

(_j_) Origen, _De Principiis_, I, 6:3. (MSG, 11:168.)