Gruber's Encyklop. xviii. s. 4 ff. Dähne, de yváσe Clem. et de Vestigiis Neoplatonicæ Philos. in ea obviis, Lips. 1831. Eylert, Clemens als Philosoph und Dichter, Leipz. 1832. Baur, Gnosis, s. 502 ff. Möhler, Patrologie, s. 430. Lämmer (cf. § 42). [Lardner, Works, ii. 220-224.] Editions by Sylburg, Heidelberg 1592. Best by Potter, Oxon. 1715, fol. Ven. 1757; smaller ed., R. Klotz, Lips. 1831, 3 vols. [Bishop Kaye, Account of Writings and Opinions of Clem. of Alex., Lond. 1839. Journal of Sacred Lit. 1852. Leutzen, Erkennen und Glauben, Cl. v. Alex. und Anselm v. Cant., Bonn 1848. Reinkens, De Clem. Alex., Vratislav. 1851. Reuter, Clem. Alex. Theol. Moralis, Berol. 1853. H. Lämmer, Clem. Alex. de Log. doct., Lips. 1855. Clement and the Alexandrian School, in North British Review, Aug. 1855. Abbé Herbert-Duperron, Essai sur la Polémique et la Philos. de Clém. d'Alex., Paris. 1855. Alleged fragments of Clem., Nolte in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1859, s. 597 ff. Opinions of Cl. Alex. in Huber's Phil. d. Kirchenväter, 1859, s. 130-184. Abbé J. Cognat, Clément d'Alexandrie, sa doctrine et sa polémique, Paris 1859; transl. in Ante-Nicene Lib.]

(11) Origen, surnamed adaμávтivos, xaλκévтeρos, was born at Alexandria, about the year 185, a disciple of Clement, and died at Tyre in the year 254. He is undoubtedly the most eminent writer of the whole period, and the best representative of the spiritualizing tendency, though not wholly free from great faults into which he was led by his genius. "According to all appearance he would have avoided most of the weaknesses which disfigure his writings, if understanding, wit, and imagination had been equally strong in him. His reason frequently overcomes his imagination, but his imagination obtains more victories over his reason," Mosheim (translat. of the treatise against Celsus, p. 60). Accounts of his life are given in Euseb. vi. 1-6, 8, 14-21, 23-28, 30-33, 36-39, vii. 1. Hieron. De Viris Illustr. c. 54. Gregory Thaumaturg. in Panegyrico. Huctius in the Origeniana. Tillemont, Mémoires, art. Origène, p. 356-76. Schröckh, iv. s. 29. [Lardner, ii. p. 469-486 and passim.] On his doctrines and writings, comp. Schnitzer, Origenes, über die Grundlehren der Glaubens wissenschaft, Stuttg. 1835. Gottf. Thomasius, Origenes, ein Beitrag zur Dogmengeschichte des 3 Jahrhunderts, Nürnberg 1837.

*

Redepenning, Origenes, eine Darstellung seines Lebens und seiner Lehre, 2 Bde. Bonn 1841-46. The labours of Origen embraced a wide sphere. We can only refer to what he did for biblical criticism (Hexapla) and exegesis (onμewσeis, Tóμοi, opiniai, cf. Philocalia), as well as for homiletics, which appears in his writings in the simplest forms. His two principal works of doctrinal importance, Tepi ȧpxwv (De Principiis, libri iv.), edit. by Redepenning (Lips. 1836), and Schnitzer's translation before mentioned; and Karà Kéλoov (contra Celsum), lib. viii. (translated, with notes by Mosheim, Hamb. 1745). Minor treatises: De Oratione, De Exhortatione Martyrii, etc. Complete editions of his works were published by Car. de la Rue, Paris 1733 ff., 4 vols. fol., and by Lommatzsch, Berl. 1831 ff., 25 vols. [also by the Abbé Migne, Paris 1857, 7 vols. large 8vo. His principal works are translated in the Ante-Nicene Library.]

[Fischer, Commentatio de Origenis Theologia et Cosmologia, 1846; Greg. Nyss. Doctrina de hominis Natura cum Origen. comparata, E. G. Möller, Halle 1854. Origen and the Alex. School, North British, 1855. Mosheim's Comment. in Murdock's edition, ii. p. 143-209. Article on Origen, in British Quarterly, by R. A. Vaughan, 1845. Abbé E. Joly, Etudes sur Origène, 1860. Huber's Phil. d. Kirchenväter, 1859, S. 150-184.]

The doctrinal systems of Clement and Origen unite under a more general aspect, and form what is called the theology of the Alexandrian school. The distinguishing characteristics of this theology, in a formal point of view, are a leaning to speculation and the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures; as to their matter, they consist of an attempt to spiritualize the ideas, and idealize particular doctrines, and they thus form a striking contrast with the peculiarities of Tertullian in particular. Comp. Guericke, De Schola quæ Alexandriæ floruit Catechetica, Halæ 1824, 2 vols. [Baur, Gnosis, s. 488-543.]

The Philosophumena, ascribed to Origen, and published by Em. Miller, Oxf. 1851, under his name (puyévovs piλoσopovμενα ἢ κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἔλεγχος, e codice Paris. nunc primum ed.), is with greater probability assigned to Hippolytus, who had been held to be a bishop of Arabia (misled by Eusebius, vi. 20), but who died, as bishop of Portus Romanus [Döllinger

thinks he was an Antipope], a martyr's death, it is said, under Maximin (236-238). This work would then be the same with the ἔλεγχος κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων, ascribed to Hippolytus (edited by Duncker and Schneidewin, Gött. 1856-59), which is by others attributed to the Roman presbyter Caius (Baur in the Theolog. Jahrb. 1853), which is also found under the name λaßúpulos (Photius, c. 48). Comp. Opp. et Fragmenta, ed. J. A. Fabricius, Hamb. 1716-18, 2 vols. Haenel, De Hippolyto, Gött. 1839. *Jos. Bunsen, Hippolytus u. seine Zeit, Leipz. 1852-53. [English edition, 7 vols.] Gieseler, ubi supra. Jacobi in Neander's Dogmengesch. s. 54, and in Zeitschrift f. christl. Wissenschaft, 1831, s. 204. * Döllinger, Hippol. und Callistus, Regensb. 1853 [Eng. trans. Edin. 1877]. Ritschl in Theol. Jahrb. 1854. Volkmar, Hippolytus, 1855. F. C. Overbeck, Quæstionum Hippolytearum specimen, Jena 1864. [Comp. articles in Theol. Critic, 1852; Edinburgh Review, 1852-53; Christ. Rembr. 1853; Dublin Review, 1853, 54; North British, 1853; Journal of Class. and Sacred Philol. 1854; British Quarterly, 1853; Westminster Review, 1853. Comp. also Ch. Wordsworth, Church of Rome in Third Cent., 2d ed. 1855. Lenormant, Controverse sur les Philos., Paris 1853. Cruice, Etudes sur les Philos. 1852.]

$ 27.

Review of the General Doctrinal Character of this Period.

It is the characteristic feature of the apologetic period, that the whole system of Christianity, as a religious and moral fact, is considered and defended on all sides, rather than particular doctrines. Still certain doctrines are more discussed, while others receive less attention. Investigations of a theological and Christological nature are unquestionably more prominent than those of an anthropological character. The Pauline type of doctrine does not come to its rights as fully as does that of John (1). Hence, too, the emphatic prominence given to the doctrine of human freedom, to an extent which could not afterwards be approved (2). Next to

theology and Christology, eschatology was more fully developed in the struggle with millenarianism on the one side, and the scepticism of Grecian philosophers on the other (3).

(1) Comp. § 18, note 4.

(2) Origen expressly mentions the doctrine concerning the freedom of the will as a part of the prædicatio ecclesiastica; De Princip. procem. § 4 ff.; comp. the Special History of Doctrines, below.

(3) This has its natural grounds. The doctrine of the Messianic kingdom ruled the first period. This turned upon the point that the Lord was twice to come; once in His manifestation in the flesh, and again in His future coming to judgment. The doctrine of the resurrection of the body was treated with special predilection. And yet much was left open. Thus Origen expressly says that angelology and demonology, as well as various cosmological questions, had not been adequately defined in the doctrine of the Church; De Princip. procem. § 6, 7, 10.

Truth and Divinity of the Christian Religion in General.

*Tzschirner, Geschichte der Apologetik, vol. i. Leipz. 1808. By the same: der Fall des Heidenthums, Bd. i. Leipz. 1829. H. N. Clausen, Apologeta ecclesiæ Christianæ ante-Theodosiani, Havn. 1817. G. H. van Senden, Geschichte der Apologetik von den frühesten Zeiten bis auf unsere Tage, Stuttg. 2 vols. [Bolton, Apologists of Second and Third Centuries, repr. Boston 1853. Giles, Heathen Records and the Script. History, 1857. Ehrenfenchter, Apologetik, in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1857.]

THE principal task of this period was to prove the divine origin of Christianity as the true religion made known by revelation (1), and to set forth its internal and external character in relation to both Gentiles and Jews. This was attempted in different ways, according to the different ideas. which obtained regarding the nature of the Christian religion. The Ebionites considered the principal object of Christianity to be the realization of the Jewish idea of the Messiah (2); the Gnostics regarded it as consisting in breaking away from the traditional connection with the Old Testament (3). Between these two extremes the Catholic Church endeavoured, on the HAGENB. HIST. DOCT. I.

G