Men of Marked Individuality: Tertullian and Origen

V.--MEN OF MARKED INDIVIDUALITY.

In treating of martyrs, apologists, and theologians, we have already portrayed most of the representative men of the era, as far as suits our purpose. But there are two who may well claim a somewhat fuller sketch, as being eminent exponents of peculiarly interesting types of character. We refer to Tertullian and Origen.

TERTULLIAN was born at Carthage, not far from the middle of the second century. He was the son of a centurion in the service of the proconsul. The advantages of a good education seem to have been supplied to him. He became sufficiently versed in the Greek to write treatises in that language. Eusebius speaks of him as a "man who made himself accurately acquainted with the laws of the Romans." [Hist. Eccl., ii. 2.] This may be taken as an indication that he pursued for a time the life of an advocate. The style of his writings is also strongly suggestive of training in such a vocation. Apart from the testimony of his numerous writings to his energetic use of his pen, few definite facts are given of his life after his conversion. Jerome speaks of him as "Tertullianus presbyter," and there are some indications in his own writings that he belonged to the clergy. [De Anima, ix.] He lived in marriage relations, and me have two letters from him addressed to his wife. His career as a Christian was divided into two sections by his espousal of Montanism; though as a Montanist he simply exhibited, in intensified form, the traits by which he had previously been characterized. Obscurity rests upon the close of his life. He probably died about the year 220.

Tertullian, no doubt, took no small element of character from the national stock. He was in native temperament a Carthaginian, filled with the ardor and passionate impulses congenial to the burning African soil. He gave his whole soul to whatever he espoused. Though we have no definite account of his conversion, we are justified in presuming that his conviction was no sooner enlisted on the Christian side than Christianity filled his whole horizon, and became the one object of his hopes and ambitions. Unreserved devotion to an object of his affection, and vehement opposition to an object of his dislike, were irrepressible tendencies of his nature. No virtue was so difficult for him to cultivate as patience. It was an oft-defeated struggle after this grace which led to his pathetic exclamation, "I, most miserable, ever sick with the heats of impatience, must of necessity sigh after, and invoke, and persistently plead for, that health of patience which I possess not." [De Patientia, i.] "To him," says Pressensé "moderation was impossible: he went to extremes both in hatred and love, both in language and in thought; but every act and word was the result of deep conviction, and was animated by that which alone can give vitality to the efforts of any human spirit, --a sincere and earnest passion for truth. Even the excess of his vehemence gave him an element of power, for it commanded the service of a fiery eloquence. His whole character is summed up in the one word "passion," --passion made to subserve the holiest of causes, pure from all petty ambition, but constantly betraying itself into harshness and injustice toward others." [Martyrs and Apologists, Book II., chap. iii.]

This fulness of the emotive element naturally conditioned the intellectual factor in Tertullian. We should not expect to find in him great philosophical breadth or thorough intellectual consistency. "Tertullian's mind," says Neander, "had acuteness, depth, and dialectic dexterity, but no logical clearness, repose, and arrangement; it was profound and fruitful, but not harmonious; the check of sober self-government was wanting. Tertullian, though an enemy of philosophical speculation, which seemed to him to be a falsifier of the truth, was not destitute of a speculative element; but it wanted the scientific form. Feeling and imagination prevailed above the purely intellectual. An inward life, filled with Christianity, outran the development of his understanding." [Antignosticus, Intro.]

In the style of Tertullian we see an image of the man. "It is strong, even to hardness; it is strained, incorrect, African, but irresistible. It is poured forth like lava from an inward furnace, kept ever at white heat; and the track of light it leaves is a track of fire too. The language of Tertullian is full of sharp antitheses, like those which characterize his thoughts. In every phrase one might seem to hear the sharp clash of swords that meet and cross, and the spark which dazzles us is struck from the ringing steel. Hence that incomparable eloquence, which, in spite of sophisms and exaggerated metaphors, rules us still." [Pressensé.] It is, perhaps, in his Apologeticus that Tertullian's power as a writer appears at highest advantage. This is not free from the faults commonly pertaining to his style. "Nevertheless," says Pressensé, "we do not hesitate to place among the very masterpieces of the human mind this incorrect harangue, so mightily is it moved with a great impulse."

As regards the range of his thoughts and principles, Tertullian cannot be excused from the charge of a certain one-sidedness, as might be judged from the single fact of his affiliation with Montanism. He carried his supernaturalism and asceticism beyond the true mean. He crowded out, in a measure, the thought of sanctifying the world by the thought of renouncing or repudiating the world. Piety, shaped according to his model, would savor of extreme Puritanism. Still, much is to be found in his conception of Christianity that is worthy of imitation; and, as a matter of fact, Tertullian has been a powerful factor in the religious and theological world. Especially influential has been his emphasis upon the practical side of Christianity. "The special claim," says Neander, "of this Father upon our attention, arises from his being the first representative of that peculiar form of the Christian and theological spirit which has prevailed in the Western Church through all successive ages, --that form in which the anthropological and soteriological element predominates. In Tertullian we find the first germ of that spirit which afterwards appeared with more refinement and purity in Augustine; as from Augustine the scholastic theology proceeded, and in him also the Reformation found its point of connection."

ORIGEN was born at Alexandria in the year 185. The character of his parents was such as to shed a sanctifying influence upon his early years. His father, Leonides, was a man of stanch and intelligent piety, and spared no pains to foster the holy flame in the heart of the thoughtful and gifted boy. Origen more than realized his best hopes; and we have the picture of the father taking such delight in the piety of the son, that betimes he would bend over his sleeping form and reverently kiss his uncovered breast, as being a sanctuary of the Spirit of God. The alert faculties of the youth were developed under the able tuition of such teachers as Pantænus and Clement. The period of youth was hardly passed before he became a teacher of others, and was compelled to shoulder the full responsibilities of manhood. In his eighteenth year, through the martyrdom of his father, --whom he exhorted to confess Christ even unto death, and was anxious himself to do likewise, -- he became chargeable with his own support and that of his mother. He resorted to teaching, beginning with lessons in grammar, but passing speedily to the presidency of the catechetical school, a perilous honor at that time. But Origen delighted in the opportunities of his position, and manifested his fearless fidelity by encouraging to the last such of his disciples as were called to the ordeal of martyrdom. Meanwhile, he spared no pains to become a master of sacred learning. That his time for his chosen studies might be increased, he sacrificed food and sleep, and lived after a pattern of extreme abstinence. To add still more to his asceticism, the enthusiasm for a theory was joined with the practical demands of his position; and he thought it incumbent upon himself to become a eunuch for the kingdom of God, an error of which he did not fail to repent in after-years. Broad-minded and intellectually daring, he resorted to the study of heathen philosophy as a preparation for defending Christianity, and did not hesitate even to attend the lectures of the Neo-Platonist philosopher Ammonius Saccas. He became a zealous student of the Hebrew, and made use of his acquaintance with the language in his extensive series of commentaries, which he commenced at the solicitation of his friends. His "De Principiis," containing a system of theology, was also sent forth among his earlier publications. Already he had reached a foremost place among Christian scholars. But at the zenith of this prosperity, adversity was prepared. Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, became animated by an implacable opposition to Origen. Jealousy of the overshadowing reputation of the great teacher may have been among the motives of the Alexandrian bishop, but the immediate occasion of his persecuting policy was the irregularhonors bestowed upon Origen by certain bishops of Palestine, --first, by inviting him, while yet a layman, to preach; and then ordaining him, without consultation with the Alexandrian see, to the office of presbyter. Demetrius seems to have regarded this as an unpardonable trespass against his episcopal dignity, and did not rest until he had deposed Origen from the priesthood, and ex-communicated him from the church of Alexandria. The Roman church concurred in this sentence; but in Palestine and some other Eastern districts it was regarded with profound disapprobation. To avoid dissension in the Alexandrian church, Origen retired from the Egyptian metropolis. An asylum was readily afforded him in Palestine, and a large portion of his remaining years was spent in Cæsarea. Abundant employment was still found for voice and pen. Among other memorials of this period is his great apologetic work, "Contra Celsum," a reply to the attack of the heathen philosopher Celsus upon Christianity. "Write ten very rapidly, at the pressing instance of Ambrose, it has no regular method. Origen wished to re-write it, but time failed him. It remains, nevertheless, the masterpiece of ancient apology, for solidity of basis, vigor of argument, and breadth of eloquent exposition. The apologists of every age were to find in it an inexhaustible mine, as well as an incomparable model of that royal, moral method inagurated by St. Paul and St. John, which alone can answer its end, because it alone carries the conflict into the heart and conscience, to the very centre, that is, of the higher life in man." [Pressensé, Martyrs and Apologists, Book II., chap. ii.] During the Decian persecution, Origen was made the victim of barbarous severities, being cast into a dungeon at Tyre and loaded with chains. His death, hastened by these tortures, occurred about the year 254.

As respects personal character, Origen presents us, beyond question, with a very lofty type of manhood. We see in him a nature broad, tolerant, gentle, and sincere, a nature in which composure and zeal, courage and meekness, steadfastness and self-renunciation, were united and reconciled. He disdained all artifices, desired no other weapon than the truth, and met opponents upon the open field of honest discussion. His view of life was too high that earthly fame and prosperity should beget in him any feeling of pride or self-sufficiency, and his loyalty to the same elevated standard kept him from complaint and malice under the sting of persecution. Referring to those who had cast him out of their fellowship, he said, "We ought much rather to feel pity than hatred for them, and pray for them rather than revile them. We have been called unto blessing, not unto cursing." In Origen, passion was subject to reason, and reason was under the sway of the milder principles of the gospel. He was not destitute of the element of enthusiasm, as may be judged from the powerful impression which he made upon his pupils; still, self-control appears more characteristic of him than intensity. In this, as in other respects, he stands in striking contrast with Tertullian. As Pressensé remarks, "These two men contrast with each other in every feature. On the one hand, we have a genius large and calm as a summer sea, serene in all its depth and breadth; on the other, we have a torrent foaming and eddying between narrow banks. On the one hand, we have a noble and lofty toleration, a sympathetic nature, everywhere seeking and finding allies for its cause, quick in discovering the points of contact between Christianity and all that had gone before it; on the other, a haughty intolerance, everywhere seeking and finding foes. The one interposes between hostile parties, he fulfils the part of a firm and conciliatory mediator between ancient philosophy and the gospel; the other will hear of no such reconciliation. The former takes pleasure in calm discussions, in conferences peacefully conducted, and in which mutual respect is shown; the latter will not suffer a heretic to speak, or, if he deigns to argue with him, he opens the argument with invectives."

When considering Origen, we are obliged to look for faults in the theologian rather than in the man. As a theologian, he exhibits defects just the opposite of those discovered in Tertullian; that is, he exhibits an undue comprehension and an undue idealism. In pursuance of the former, he included within the circle of Christian thought various items that belong outside of that circle. In pursuance of the latter, he undervalued the historical in revelation, gave too large a place to the allegorical in scriptural interpretation, and yielded a loose rein to speculation. These defects, however, while they qualify, do not cancel, the merits of his works, so amply are his speculative aberrations offset by products of profound thought and painstaking scholarship.

Ordinances

II. -- ORDINANCES.

1. BAPTISM.--A high significance was attached to baptism in the early Church. This was due, in some degree, to the circumstances of the times, as well as to the essential importance of baptism as the seal of discipleship, and the rite of initiation into the Church of Christ. To men of heathen antecedents, baptism could appear as nothing less than the boundary-line, in crossing which they renounced all that was old or customary to them, and entered upon a life emphatically new. It signified a transition such as those nurtured in Christianity from childhood cannot easily apprehend. The rite was much the same to these early converts that it is to the Hindu convert in the present, to whom it often means death to his old ties and associations, and a life in entirely new relations. With the first growth of ceremonialism, therefore, it might be expected that an exaggerated estimate of the virtue of baptism would find place. Something of this occurred within the first period of Christian history. In the time of Tertullian, there were those whose estimate of the absolving power of baptism manifestly verged upon superstition; and the Church generally, in his day, looked upon the rite as the consummation of repentance, the seal of the remission of sins, a means of gracious benefits, as well as a sign of grace already received. At the same time, there were strong protests from men of high standing against the idea that an adult candidate could reap any substantial benefit from this rite, apart from an exercise of genuine repentance and faith.

The stress laid upon baptismal absolution led to certain practical results. Some were inclined to delay the reception or the administration of the rite. They argued, that since baptism was not to be repeated, and any grievous sin would forfeit the baptismal absolution, it was better to practise delay than to run the risk of losing so valuable a grace. It was precisely this view of the case which led Tertullian to deprecate the baptism of infants and children, and also to advise unmarried and widowed adults to defer the ordinance "until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence." [De Baptismo, xviii.] Another result of centring the expectation of absolution upon baptism was a special incentive toward a system of penance. Since for sins committed after baptism no sacramental cleansing was provided, it was easily argued that rigorous inflictions must be imposed upon the transgressor in order to secure the pardon of these.

The form in which baptism was administered in the early Church is not without interest as a subject of historical inquiry, but it has little to do with deciding present obligation. The essence of Christianity is not so far embraced in outward rites that one unvarying form is alone valid. As the Church of to-day is at liberty to vary from the form of church government prevalent in the first centuries, tend from the manner of administering the eucharist most in vogue at that time, so it is at liberty to vary as respects the externals of baptism, only fulfilling the requirements of Christ that one should be born of water and the Spirit.

The principal evidences that the early Church baptized by sprinkling or pouring are the following: (1) The great number said to have been baptized on the Day of Pentecost; (2) occasions in apostolic history where no mention is made of leaving the house for the rite; (3) representations of Christ's baptism found in the Catacombs and ancient mosaics, which picture Him as standing in the Jordan, and having the water poured upon His head by the Baptist, also other instances of a kindred significance. "In the Roman Church, and the other churches of Italy," says Kraus, "in the third and fourth centuries, baptism was administered by a kind of union of immersion with pouring or sprinkling. The sprinkling of the head and the whole body [the candidate standing in the water] forms the
main feature in the pictures at Rome." [Die Römischen Katakomben, Buch IV., cap. vi.]

On the side of immersion the following evidences may be quoted: (1) The New-Testament description of baptism as an instrument of burial and resurrection (Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12); an image, however, whose force is somewhat neutralized by the representation of baptism as an outpouring (Acts i. 5, compared with ii. 16-18). (2) The modern and long-standing practice of the Oriental and Greek Churches. [It should be noticed that in the Coptic, Armenian, and Nestorian Churches the validity of aspersion has been recognized. (A. J. Butler, Ancient Coptic Churches, ii. 267, 268.)] (3) Certain sentences in the writings of the early Fathers in which baptism is described as an immersion. One of the clearest of these is the following from Tertullian: "When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil and his pomp and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed (mergitamur or mersitamur), making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the gospel." [De Corona, iii. Compare Adv. Prax., xxvi.; Cons. Apost., iii. 16, 17; Canones Apost., 1.] (4) The statement of distinguished historians, like Neander, that immersion was the prevalent mode of baptism in the early Church. [Various writers have concluded that the candidate was immersed in a nude state; but it is to be noticed that the evidence that is quoted belongs to a later date then the present period, Ambrose being among the earliest to whom appeal is made. It may be questioned also whether such statements upon the point as are found imply complete nudity, or the dispensing with a cincture.]

A comparison of these different lines of evidence can hardly fail to suggest that diversities as to the mode of administering baptism early found place in the Church. It is, perhaps, too much to affirm that practice was uniform even through the whole of the apostolic age. It is certain that we cannot add a very long space to that age without discovering more or less of variety. Surely many of the stanchest advocates of immersion will hesitate to believe that the triple immersion mentioned by Tertullian was continuously and universally practised in the Church frorn the Day of Pentecost down to his time. There is a certain intrinsic improbability that so elaborate a rite had its origin in the days of apostolic simplicity. But if there was a departure in this respect, there may have been in other respects also.

Whether immersion was the prevalent form of baptism in the first three centuries, or not, it certainly was not regarded throughout this period as of the essence of baptism. This appears from the following statement in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles: "Now, concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first uttered all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if thou hast not running water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water upon the head thrice, into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit." [Chap. vii.] The case of the clinics, or those baptized by sprinkling on a sick-bed, supplies equally decisive evidence. To be sure, there was more or less of objection to the clinics; but in the intelligent verdict of the Church this was based, not upon the mode, but upon the doubtful religious conditions, of their baptism. The objection was substantially the same as that which is now frequently expressed against sick-bed repentance. Thus the Council of Neo-Cæsarea (A.D. 314) objected in general to promoting clinics to the office of presbyter, for the reason that a Confession of faith which is first made on a sick-bed is more likely to be the offspring of necessity than of free choice. [Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, § 17. The council allowed that a person so baptized might, in virtue of conspicuous zeal and faith, or by reason of the lack of others equally well fitted for the office, be made priest.] The council, however, did not assume to deny that clinic baptism is real baptism. A still more liberal verdict seems to have been rendered by Cyprian more than half a century earlier. "It ought not to trouble any one," says he, "that sick people seem to be sprinkled or affused, when they obtain the Lord's grace, when Holy Scripture speaks by the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel, and says, 'Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean.' Whence it appears that the sprinkling also of water prevails equally with the washing of salvation; and that when this is done in the Church [that is, not among schismatics and heretics], where the faith both of receiver and giver is sound, all things bold, and may be consummated and perfected by the majesty of the Lord and the truth of faith." [Epist., lxxv. 12, Ad Magnum.] Cyprian maintains that persons so baptized are just as legitimate Christians, and just as truly partakers of the Holy Spirit, as are others, and decides that they ought not to be re-baptized. This decision has all the more weight from the fact that Cyprian insisted upon re-baptism in cases where a large portion of the Church of his day did not require it.

Other representations may also be adduced, which, if not so decisive as the above, still indicate that baptism was not strictly identified with immersion in the thought of the early Church. One such appears in the current designation of martyrdom as the baptism of blood, and in the belief that it was a perfect substitute for all other baptism. "This," says Tertullian, "is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost." [De Baptismo, xvi.] Cyprian speaks to the same effect, declaring that catechumens who hold the true faith, and do battle for the Church, are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism, in case of death in this standing, since they are "baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood." [Epist., Ixxii. 22, Ad Jubaianum.] Now, the nature of this baptism precludes all idea of immersion, and the most artificial freak of the imagination would hardly be able to connect with it any image of immersion. The blood of a martyr might be sprinkled or poured upon his body, but that he should be actually immersed in it is simply impossible. Again, Tertullian, whatever his writings may contain in favor of immersion, speaks of sprinkling as a possible mode of consummating baptism. Referring to the supposition that the apostles in the ship, and Peter attempting to walk on the waves, were sufficiently baptized, he remarks: "It is one thing to be sprinkled (adspergi) or intercepted by the violence of the sea, another thing to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion." [De Baptismo, xii.] In another instance, speaking of one disposed to shirk the hardship of the repentance which ought to precede baptism, he asks: "Who will grant you, a man of so faithless repentance, one single sprinkling (asperginem) of any water whntever?" [De Pœnit, vi.] Finally, the selection of words to denote the rite, on the part of Tertullian and others, is highly significant. Had the earliest Fathers who wrote in the Latin language believed that immersion was an accurate and complete expression for Christian baptism, it would seem that there should have been no hesitation on their part to choose this as the standard term for the rite. Being accustomed to the verbs mergo and immergo in their mother tongue, they ought to have fixed at once upon immersio as being a word whose import their readers would perfectly comprehend. But what did they do? Tertullian, the oldest Christian writer of any note to use the Latin language, as a rule simply transfers the Greek word to his pages, and for baptism writes baptismus (occasionally baptisma. In his brief treatise on baptism he uses this word no less than fifty times. To be sure, the corresponding verb is with him tinguo rather than baptizo; still, he makes use of the latter, and quite as often, we should judge, as of the verb mergo, which is an exceptional term in his references to this sacrament. Cyprian, the next Latin writer who refers to the subject at ally length, borrows, as a rule, both the Greek noun and verb, and writes baptismus and baptizo. The voice of Christian antiquity is therefore clearly against the use of the word "immersion" as an exact and adequate substitute for the word "baptism."

As respects infant baptism, history records nothing explicit for or against it till near the close of the second century. The language of Irenæus is thought to be indicative of its practice. "He came," he says, "to save all through means of Himself; all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, -- infants and children and boys and youths; and old men." [Cont. Hær., ii. 22. 4.] Since in another connection [Ibid., iii; 17. 1.] he speaks of baptism as the means by which men are "born again to God," it is argued, with a fair show of probability, that in the above sentence he designed to include a reference to infant baptism. Tertullian's opposition to it but a little later shows that the baptism of infants was practiced more or less in that age; while his basing of his opposition on expediency indicates that it was not thought that any absolute impropriety pertained to the rite, or that infants were from their very nature incompetent to be candidates. It seemed to him needless and ill-advised to place children in their comparative innocence under the heavy responsibilities of the baptismal covenant. Cyprian, on the other hand, speaking in the name of a North African council, urged among other things the comparative innocence of children as a reason why they ought not to be refused so great a blessing as the initiatory rite of the Church and kingdom of Christ. In his view, and in that of his colleagues, baptism was evidently the common duty of parents to their newly born children. [Epist., lviii., Ad Fidum.] Origen is a witness to the same effect from the Eastern branch of the Church. He makes several references to infant baptism in his writings, and declares its administration a matter of apostolic tradition. [Comm in Epist., ad Rom., v. 9; In Lev. Hom., viii.] This is a very significant testimony; for even if the grounds upon which he based his verdict were not entirely conclusive, still it is not to be thought that a man of such thorough honesty as Origen, and such general carefulness in his statement of facts, would have made this statement without very considerable grounds. He must, at least, have known that infant baptism was no innovation of his age, and had evidence that it had been practiced for several generations.

As respects re-baptism, there seems to have been a common agreement in the Church that valid baptism was not to be repeated. The only question provoking controversy, in this relation, was whether baptism administered by heretics should be acknowledged as such, in case those baptized by such authority should apply for admission to the Catholic Church. Cyprian answered in the negative, the Roman bishop in the affirmative. Each had his following for the time being, but in the end the Roman principle gained the ascendancy; and it became the policy of the Church to receive without re-baptism those who had been baptized, even though it were among heretics, according to the regular trinitarian formula. Exception, however, was made against the baptism of certain classes of heretics. Thus the Council of Nicæa pronounced the baptism administered by the followers of Paul of Samosata invalid, [Canon 19.] though, according to Athanasius, these anti-trinitarians actually used the trinitarian formula.

The time for baptism was evidently, in the first stage of Christian history, immediately after conversion to the Christian faith. But, with increasing numbers and more complicated relations, the need of caution was apprehended, and a period was appointed for the instruction and proving of candidates for church-membership. The length of this varied according to place and circumstances. By the Council of Elvira, two years were prescribed to the catechumens as the term preparatory to the reception of baptism. [Canon 42.] According to the Apostolic Constitutions, three years should be the regular term, though the time might be shortened for a worthy candidate. [viii. 32.]

2. CONFIRMATION. -- Originally laying on of hands and anointing with oil were closely connected with baptism, and were significant of the impartation of the Holy Spirit. Gradually this ceremonial acquired the force of an independent rite, and under the name of confirmation was celebrated some time after baptism. It was not, however, till the thirteenth century that the practice of separating confirmation from baptism became universal in the Latin Church, and in the Greek Church the two remained closely associated. By the rule of the former Church, confirmation was made the prerogative of the bishop alone; in the latter, both presbyters and deacons had power to confirm.

3. THE EUCHARIST. --In the first centuries the eucharist was made a part of the regular service. It was, therefore, celebrated primarily at least once a week, and in some instances more frequently. The partaking of the elements was preceded by the kiss of brotherly love, by the presentation of the offerings of the congregation, and by prayer and thanksgiving. In the North African Church, in the time of Cyprian, even young children were permitted to taste the wine of the communion. The deacons were expected to carry the elements to those unable to meet with the congregation. Tertullian speaks of communicants reserving portions of the consecrated elements, apparently for the purpose of enjoying them in their sacramental virtue at home. [De Orat., xix.] A mystical presence and virtue were early connected with the eucharist; but it is only by an arbitrary reading of preconceived theories into the rhetorical phrases of a few writers, that any assertion of transubstantiation or of an actual repetition of Christ's sacrifice can be found in the writings of this period. Some ill-guarded expressions may have been indulged which served in a measure as a foundation for these dogmas; but, in the light of other expressions, it may confidently be affirmed that the Church of the first three centuries consciously entertained no such dogmas. [Not a single one of the passages cited by Alzog proves that its author entertained the Romish dogmas. (Kirchengeschichte, § 92.) As near an approach as any, probably, was Cyprian's interpretation of the eucharistic sacrifice. The fuller treatment of the subject belongs to the history of dootrine.]

Attacks of Heathen Authors

VII.--ATTACKS OF HEATHEN AUTHORS.

The irreconcilable opposition between heathenism and Christianity found illustration in the literary sphere as well as in that of civil relations. If the contest here was less marked, it was because heathen mind was less ambitious, and less capable of conducting a conflict with Christianity, than heathen power. It was easier, on the whole, to refute with fire and sword and the torture-rack than with arguments.

Some of the writers contemporary with early Christianity have left no allusion to it whatever in their works. So Seneca, the elder Pliny, and Plutarch. Tacitus has no higher terms for it than exitiabilis superstitio, [Annal., xv. 44.] Suetonius styles it superstitio malefica, [Nero, xvi.] and the younger Pliny is scarcely more complimentary, calling it superstitio prava et immodica. [Epist., x. 96 (97).] Marcus Aurelius, as we have seen, acknowledged the fearlessness with which the Christians met death, but reprobated their courage as the product of a blind and unthinking enthusiasm [Meditations, xi. 3.] The Stoic Arrhian wrote in much the same vein.

Lucian, in the second half of the second century, gave a somewhat more extended notice of Christianity. He treated it as might be expected of an Epicurean humorist, not with hatred, but with infidel pleasantry. From the stand-point of his materialistic scepticism, all forms of religious belief were only differently colored vagaries; all alike were deserving of ridicule. His caricature of Christianity is of a piece with the heaped up sarcasms which he bestows on the heathen mythologies. As all faith, in his view, was folly, he pictures the Christians as a simple-minded set, good-natured indeed, but given up to delusion in thought and in practice. Among their delusions he ridicules in particular their wonderful brotherly love and their confident hope of immortality. To put his sarcasms in the most piquant form, he brings forward a strange genius, Peregrinus Proteus, who goes through various adventure, holds temporarily a place in the Church, experiences as a prisoner the lavish charity of the Christians, is afterwards expelled from their communion, takes up the role of a Cynic philosopher, and finally ends his life by a voluntary and ostentatious leap into the fire in the presence of a great multitude. After telling in a humorous way how his brethren of every class flocked to the prison of Peregrinus, while he was in durance for the faith, he gives this estimate of the Christians: "These people, in all such cases, where the interest of the whole community is concerned, are inconceivably alert and active, sparing neither trouble or expense. Accordingly, Peregrinus by his imprisonment amassed money to a large amount, in consequence of the presents that were sent him, and raised a considerable income from it. For these poor people have taken it into their heads, that they shall, body and soul, be immortal and live to all eternity; thence it is that they contemn death, and that many of them run voluntarily into his clutches. Besides, their original legislator taught them that they were all brothers when they had taken the great step to renounce the Grecian deities, and bow the knee to their crucified sophist, and live in conformity to his laws. All things else they despise in the lump, holding them vain and worthless, without having a competent reason for being attached to their opinions." [The Lifes-End of Peregrinus, translated by William Tooke.]

Another attack from the seat of the scornful, but more extended, and based upon a larger knowledge of Christianity, came from the eclectic philosopher Celsus, [Origen speaks of Celsus as an Epicurean philosopher, though not always confining himself to Epicurean tenets in his polemic against Christianity (Cont. Celsum, i. 8). He appears to have drawn much from Platonism.] who lived about the same time as Lucian. His elaborate treatise, entitled a "True Discourse," was early destroyed; but its contents are well indicated by the quotations of Origen, who took pains to answer it, proposition by proposition. The work of Celsus was written in a spirit of intense hatred, and spares no thrust which criticism, calumny, and sarcasm could supply. Some of his strictures are such as a, superficial rationalism always employs as a choice part of its stock in trade.

Celsus goes through the whole round of accusation. Master and disciple are equally slandered. Judaism and Christianity are both attacked; but the former is first subsidized for an assault upon the latter, and a Jew is made to utter every biting criticism which the more fanatical of his party might be imagined capable of producing. Christ is represented as the child of an adulterous connection between Mary and a Roman soldier. His ministry was that of an intentional deceiver, a "God-hated sorcerer," who learned his trade of working lying wonders in Egypt. [Cont. Celsum, i. 28, 32,71.] The claim that he was a divine being, the Son of God, is in every way preposterous. This claim, on the one hand, rests on a baseless assumption as to man's worth. It assumes that all things were made for men, that men are of unspeakable account in the eyes of God. Arrogant assumption! "Irrational animals are more beloved by God than we." "All things were not made for man, any more than they were made for lions, eagles, or dolphins. God is no more angry on account of men than on account of apes or flies." He only cares for the world as a whole, and the world as a whole grows neither better nor worse. [Cont. Cel., iv. 63, 85, 97, 99.] A divine incarnation argues an incredible and needless degradation of God. "No God, or Son of God, either came or will come down." [v. 2.] On the other hand, the divine claims of Christ are positively refuted by the facts of His life and death. He "obtained his living in a shameful and importunate manner," in the company of "the wickedest of tax-gatherers and sailors. [i. 62.] His life is a spectacle of impotence, contradictory on every side to the idea of divine strength. He could not even gain over His own disciples. [ii. 39.] He was powerless to avert a most shameful death. [ii. 9.] Think of the Son of God being nailed to a cross, God showing himself powerless to execute His threats against a disobedient nation in any better way than this; "whereas a malt who became angry with the Jews slew them all, from the youth upwards, and burned their city!" [iv. 73.] The claim to divinity is also contradicted by the inability of Christ to defend His followers. What help does He afford?" Do you not see [Christian] that even your own demon is not only reviled, but banished from every land and sea; and you yourself, who are, as it were, an image dedicated to him, are bound and led to punishment, and fastened to the stake, whilst your demon, or, as you call him, the Son of God, takes no vengeance on the evil-doer?" [Cont. Cel., viii. 39.] Never did a people appear more forsaken than this sect of the Nazarenes." If any of you transgresses even in secret, he is sought out and punished with death" [viii. 69.] (a very emphatic testimony, by the way, from the heathen side, as to the severity of heathen persecution). The story of the resurrection is a very poor expedient to help out the claim of Christ. Who were the witnesses of that event? "A half-frantic woman" as you state, and some other one, perhaps, of those who were engaged in the same system of delusion, who had either dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind, or under the influence of a wandering imagination had formed to himself an appearance according to his own wishes." [ii.55.] How strikingly at this point Celsus anticipates Renan! The "half-frantic woman" of the former is only a less refined expression for the French critic's "Mary [who] alone loved enough to pass the bounds of nature, and revive the ghost of the perfect Master."

In the opinion of Celsus, the followers of the "God-hated sorcerer" rank no better than their chief, except as their ignorance may serve to excuse them. He counts it a piece of irrational stubbornness in the Christians that they should persist in maintaining their religion contrary to the laws of the State. [i. 1;v.34.] He charges them in particular with preferring ignorance to knowledge, the vile to the righteous. Their maxims, he says, are of the following nature: "Do not examine, but believe!" "Your faith will save you." "The wisdom of this life is bad, but foolishness is a good thing." [Cont. Cel., i. 9; iii. 18, 44.] "Those who invite to a participation in other mysteries," he continues, "make proclamation as follows: 'Every one who has clean hands and a prudent tongue;' others, again, thus: 'He who is pure from all pollution, and whose soul is conscious of no evil, and who has lived well and justly.' Such is the proclamation made by those who promise purification from sine. But let us hear what kind of persons these Christians invite. Every one, they say, who is a sinner, who is devoid of understanding, who is a child, and, to speak generally, whoever is unfortunate, him will the kingdom of God receive." [iii. 59.] The number of parties, Or factions, found among the Christians is also cited as a ground of reproach. [iii. 10.]

Many of the objections of Celsus, it is to be observed, were really of the nature of compliments to Christianity. They serve to illustrate how far the plane of the Christian religion is above that of an unspiritual philosophy, since they originated in the inability of the pagan critic to appreciate either the nobility of the Divine condescension, or the fitness of human condescension to men of low estate.

An attack in a somewhat profounder spirit came from Porphyry of Tyre, a representative of Neo-Platonism in the latter part of the third century. This was the philosophy of the heathen revival, which began in the latter half of the second century, and its character corresponded to its age and associations. Unlike the earlier philosophies, it assumed a distinctively religious cast; it patronized the heathen religion, and sought a rational interpretation of its mythology; it recognized man's craving after the supernatural, and was possessed with a spirit of ready assent to what appeared to be tokens of the supernatural, Eclectic in spirit, it did not shun to borrow, to a certain extent, from Christianity. Still, it was radically hostile to Christianity. It favored the persecuting policy of the Roman government. One of its representatives, Hierocles, was a prominent instigator and agent of the Diocletian persecution. It treated with scorn the claim for exceptional reverence toward Christ, and sought to exhibit the religious heroes of heathenism as being still more deserving. Thus the life of the philosopher and magician Apollonius of Tyana was idealized and set forth is something rivalling the life depicted in the gospel history. Hierocles openly drew the parallel in the early part of the fourth century, with the design of exhibiting the superiority of the heathen teacher and wonder-worker. [Lactantius, Inst. Div., v. 2, 3.] The same design, as many critics conclude, lay at the basis of the biography of Apollonius, which Philostratus wrote near the beginning of the third century. [Opinion is not unanimous as to the conscious intent of Philostratus. A brief summary of the evidence in favor of the conclusion expressed above may be found in Pressensé, Martyrs and Apologists, Book III, chap, i.; J. H. Newman, Historical Sketches, vol. ii.] A like interest may perhaps be detected in the endeavor of Porphyry and Jamblichus to exalt Pythagoras beyond measure.

Unlike Celsus, Porphyry ascribed to Christ the character of a noble and sincere teacher of the truth. We are not to calumniate him, but only to pity those, who, in pursuance of a delusion which fate has brought upon them, worship him as God since his exaltation to heaven. From such fragments as remain of his work against Christianity, Porphyry seems to have made a special effort to invalidate the authority of Scripture, and to disparage the apostles as compared with their Master. He denied the genuineness of the Book of Daniel, emphasized the disagreement between Peter and Paul at Antioch as being contradictory to the authority of their teaching, [Jerome, Epist., cxi. 6 (Migne).] alleged that the repudiation of sacrifices by Christians was out of harmony with their prescription in the Old Testament, [Augustine, Epist., cii.] and questioned whether the doctrine of eternal punishment could be reconciled with the rule of proportionate penalty which Christ himself enunciated. [Ibid.] He also intimated that the late appearance of Christ in the history of the race agrees ill with the supposition of necessary dependence upon him for salvation. [Ibid. Compare Jerome, Epist., cxxxiii.]

Hierocles, who wrote in the time of the Diocletian persecution, though assuming to deal with Christianity in a friendly and candid way, was less remote than Porphyry from the tactics of Celsus. As Lactantius represents, he ventured to assail Christ himself, as well as his followers, with odious accusations [Inst. Div., v. 2, 3. See also Euseb., Adv. Hieroclem.]