^{page 3 note 1} Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., ii. 14. 3; Tertullian, De An., iii. i; xviii. 3 f., 12; xxiii. 5 f. Adv. Hem., viii; Adv. Marc., i. 13; De Praescr., vii. 4ff.; Apol., xlvii. 9; Jerome, Ep., cxxxiii. 2. 1.

^{page 3 note 2} Whether Celsus was in fact an Epicurean or not, is a question still debated. Among the older commentators, Keim and Geffcken support the pro and con views respectively; more recently, DeWitt holds for the affirmative, while Chadwick denies it. In any case, the question is not material to this investigation, for the relevant point is that Origen does call him an Epicurean.

^{page 5 note 1} For a recent evaluation, see Otto A. Piper's review of The Secret Sayings of Jesus, Robert M. Grant in collaboration with Freeman, David Noel, in Theology Today, xvii (1960), 408.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 2} Cf. Schneider, Carl, Geistesgeschichte des antiken Christentums, München 1954, i, 268Google Scholar. An alternative view contending for an ‘autonomous essence’ of Gnosticism is well argued by Jonas, Hans, The Gnostic Religion, Boston 1958, 33.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 3} Irenaeus places Marcion slightly later than Valentinus in Adv. Haer., iii. 4. 3.

^{page 5 note 4} Lk. vi. 26.

^{page 6 note 1} Actually this too is an old Epicurean, as well as Academic, argument against providence; cf. Lucretius, v. 195–220; Cicero, Academ., ii. 38, 120.

^{page 6 note 2} Josephus, Ant., xiii. 5. 9; xiii. 10. 6; xv 10. 4; xviii. 1. 3; Bell. ii. 8. 11–14; Vita 2. For a more orthodox Jewish estimate of the relation between Sadducees and Epicureans, cf. Hamburger, Realencyklopädie jür Bibel und Talmud, Supplementband, Leipzig 55 ff. For the conventional Christian view, cf. Acts xxiii. 8; Hippolytus, Ref., ix. 24; Epiphanius, Rescr. ad Ac. et Paul., 172.

^{page 6 note 3} Cf. Mt. xxii. 23–33.

^{page 7 note 1} Jovinian was condemned by local synods at Rome and Milan under the presidency of pope Siricius and Ambrose respectively.

^{page 7 note 2} For Julian's side of the debate see below, 145–6.

^{page 7 note 3} Gregory argues that the existence of the Father is implicitly denied by the statement that the Son was not before he was begotten, because the Scripture calls the Son ‘the brightness of his glory’ (Heb. i. 3), and non-existence of the brightness logically involves non-existence of the glory.

^{page 8 note 1} Acts xvii. 18.

^{page 8 note 2} An Oxyrhynchus papyrus (ii. 215) preserves an Epicurean fragment in which the same Greek phrase occurs: τῇ τν νμων συμπɛριϕορᾷ; Clement, τῇ το νμου σνμπɛιϕορᾷ. Cf. also Sent. Vat., li.

^{page 8 note 3} Ellspermann, G. L. (The Attitude of the Early Christian Writers toward Pagan Literature and Learning, Washington 1949, 119)Google Scholar misunderstands the key sentence in this passage (‘Since then philosophy has disowned these men, is the Church not to exclude them?’), in which ‘philosophy’ clearly refers to Epicurus himself, and ‘these men’ to the renegade monks; not, as Ellspermann would take it, that ‘philosophy’ means the rest of pagan, non-Epicurean philosophy.

^{page 9 note 1} Cf. Lucian, Alex., 25, 38; Peregr., 11.

^{page 9 note 2} Simpson, A. D., ‘Epicureans, Christians, Atheists in the Second Century’, Transactions of the American Philological Association, lxxii (1941), 379.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 3} There seem to be no Epicurean implications, however, in the charges of gross debauchery that were brought against Christians with reference to their secret worshipservices. Cf. Min., Fel., Oct., ix. 1–7; Tertullian, Apol., viii. 3.

^{page 9 note 4} Cf. Cicero, D.N.D., i. 18. 49.

^{page 10 note 1} W. R. Inge, Origen (Proceedings of the British Academy, xxxii), 125.