THE PLATONIC AND NEOPLATONICTRADITIONS AND ROOTS OF CHRISTIANITY

By IAN ELLIS-JONES PhD (UTS)

Excerpts from a thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements ofThe Liberal Catholic Institute of Studies (Australian Campus)

for a Diploma in Religious Studies

The Liberal Catholic Church in the Province of Australasia (Including Indonesia)This thesis is not an official document of the Liberal Catholic Church

Copyright © Ian Ellis-Jones 2009All Rights Reserved

1

Van der Leeuw wrote (1927a:61) that “[e]very great movement begins with inspiration and

ends in dogma”. Regrettably, Christianity is no exception.

Although Christianity began its life as a Jewish sect it cannot be stressed enough that

several of its key “building block” Christian concepts such as Christ as the Logos, and even

the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity itself, came not from Judaism nor from Gnosticism, let alone

from any one or more of the many different competing Gnostic sects, as is often (wrongly)

asserted, but from mainstream Greek philosophy.1 Indeed, the whole concept of the Logos,

as well as the concept of the Trinity in its more Christian form at least,2 are of Greek

philosophical origin,3 and their incorporation into mainstream Christianity is very much

associated with the so-named Alexandrian School of Theology. Sadly, certain other ideas,

that still form the backbone of conventional, traditional Christianity, such as the doctrine of

vicarious atonement, also came not from Judaism but from Greco-Roman mystery religion

but were unfortunately carnalized and literalized by those sections of the Church which

would in time become dominant to such an extent that the original religious understanding

and significance became almost unrecognisable in the process. As regards the influence of

Greco-Roman mystery religion, the prominent Baptist minister and civil rights activist, the

late Martin Luther King, Jr, in his study of the influence of the Greco-Roman mystery

religions, especially Mithraism, upon Christianity, wrote (1949-50:Online):

The Greco-Roman world in which the early church developed was one of diverse religions. The conditions of that era made it possible for these religions to sweep like a tidal wave over the ancient world. The people of that age were eager and

1 There were many fundamental differences between the Gnostics and the Alexandrians. For example, Gnostics saw no need for faith whereas Clement and other Alexandrians regarded knowledge (gnosis) as being the result and perfection of faith, the latter having primacy as a “first principle” for the foundation of knowledge.2 Insofar as the Trinity is concerned, although notions of a divine trinity, triplicity or triad can be found in many other religions, its most immediate and temporal connection with what became mainstream Christianity was via Greek philosophical thinking. The history and source of the Christian Doctrine of the Holy Trinity are not to be found in Christian revelation but in Platonic philosophy. Indeed, the very language of the doctrine comes from classical Greek philosophy. It was Origen who set out on a doctrinal basis the Holy Trinity based upon standard Middle Platonic triadic emanation schemas. The word, as opposed to the concept, of the Trinity was actually created by the Christian apologist Tertullian (c160-220 CE) as a shorthand expression to refer to what he saw as the triune nature of the Godhead as expressed in the Bible. It was not until “the last quadrant of the 4th century ... that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'One God in three Persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought”: The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 14, p 295.3 Even the idea of the immortality of the human soul was not derived by the Jews from the Hebrew Bible (the “Old Testament” of the Christian Bible) but rather was taken from Plato. Both the Jewish communities of antiquity as well as the early Christian churches were deeply influenced by Greek philosophical ideas. The New Testament of the Christian Bible provides no scriptural basis for belief in an "immortal soul" surviving consciously after death. The words “immortal soul” are found nowhere in the Bible. The word “immortal” occurs only once in the entire Christian Bible (see 1 Tim 1:17), where it refers specifically to God. Only God has immortality.

zealous in their search for religious experience. The existence of this atmosphere was vitally important in the development and eventual triumph of Christianity.

These many religions, known as Mystery-Religions, were not alike in every respect: to draw this conclusion would lead to a gratuitous and erroneous supposition. They covered an enormous range, and manifested a great diversity in character and outlook, "from Orphism to Gnosticism, from the orgies of the Cabira to the fervours of the Hermetic contemplative." [Angus, The Mystery Religions and Christianity, p vii.] However it is to be noticed that these Mysteries possessed many fundamental likenesses; (1) All held that the initiate shared in symbolic (sacramental) fashion the experiences of the god. (2) All had secret rites for the initiated. (3) All offered mystical cleansing from sin. (4) All promised a happy future life for the faithful. [Enslin, Christian Beginnings, pp 187, 188.]

It is not at all surprising in view of the wide and growing influence of these religions that when the disciples in Antioch and elsewhere preached a crucified and risen Jesus they should be regarded as the heralds of another mystery religion, and that Jesus himself should be taken for the divine Lord of the cult through whose death and resurrection salvation was to be had. That there were striking similarities between the developing church and these religions cannot be denied. Even Christian apologist had to admit that fact.

...

There can hardly be any gainsaying of the fact that Christianity was greatly influenced by the Mystery religions, both from a ritual and a doctrinal angle. This does not mean that there was a deliberate copying on the part of Christianity. On the contrary it was generally a natural and unconscious process rather than a deliberate plan of action. Christianity was subject to the same influences from the environment as were the other cults, and it sometimes produced the same reaction.

Whatever the origins of the various doctrines and dogmas of what became conventional,

traditional, mainstream Christianity - and some of those doctrines and dogmas did arise out

of Judaism Christianity – the Christian Church as a whole (unlike the Liberal Catholic

Church) continues to affirm the Jewish roots and flavour of the Gospel stories and

teachings and of the Church’s fundamental doctrines and seeks to downplay the influence

of the philosophies and religions of the Greco-Roman world. Like most things in life, the

true position is much more complex.

Professor Samuel Angus, sometime Professor of New Testament and Historical Theology,

St Andrew’s College, University of Sydney, and a leading authority on the environment of

early Christianity and, in particular, the Greco-Roman mystery religions (see, especially,

Angus [1925] 1975; 1929; 1931) wrote that

... Greek religion is that of the most cultured people who ever lived on this earth of ours. Religion deals with the ageless quest of the spirit – man’s effort to base his

life on some enduring foundation. We must approach the religion of the Greek in the spirit of sympathy. God is the god not of the Jews only, but of the Greeks. Clement of Alexandria said, “There were two revelations of God – one the revelation of Philosophy to the Greeks, and one the revelation of religion among the Hebrews”.4

Manly P Hall has written that if, as we Liberal Catholics generally assert to be the case,

there is an underlying unity of the true wisdom of the world’s religious traditions and

teachings, esoterically understood, then the philosophical basis of what Hall refers to as

“the doctrine of religious unity” originates in “the most mature and convincing of Plato’s

conclusions” (1945:19). The Athenian-born Plato (c427-347 ECE), who Dean Inge in his

book Christian Mysticism rightly described as “the father of European Mysticism”, wrote5

and spoke of “The One” and “The Good”. Plato saw philosophy as being “a kind of logos[,]

and Plato’s notion of logos6 may be analysed in modern terms as ‘the reasonable use of

words in thinking’” (Urmson and Rée 1989:242). Consistent with his doctrine of generals

and particulars, with religion being a “general”, and the world’s different religions being

specialized “particulars”, Plato wrote and spoke of the existence of two different worlds, the

first (but not in time or origin) being our phenomenal or physical world of visible things.

However, there is another world of ideas7 and forms, each of which (the “Ones

Themselves”) made manifest in our everyday supposedly material world as things visible, in

which these ideas and forms are “visible only to the mind itself, or rather not visible but

intelligible, grasped only by the pure intellect using bare words” (Urmson and Rée

1989:243).

So, according to Plato, there is a world of being, in which everything exists, “always is”,

“has no becoming” and “does not change” (the world of forms), and there is a world of

becoming, which “comes to be and passes away, but never really is” (the physical world or

cosmos).8 Accordingly, we have such things as Goodness, which is distinct from things

which are good in themselves, and Beauty, which is also distinct from things which are

beautiful, and so forth. However, there is only one Goodness, one Beauty, and so forth.

This Platonic idealism is found in many parts of our Liberal Catholic Liturgy, but most

4 Extracted from notes of Angus’s 1933 lecture on Greek religion, as quoted by Ernest H Vines in Parer (1971:23).5 Hall (1945:78) writes that the “most important and least known” of Plato’s writings are his Five Books on Theology, which, fortunately, were preserved by Proclus of Alexandria, surnamed the Platonic Successor.6 The word Logos refers not only to the expression of the Divine but also to its intelligibility: see Mitchell (2006:66).7 For Plato the word “idea” meant first visible form and then form in general.8 See Plato’s Timaeus, 28a.

especially in the Act of Faith when we speak of God being “Love and Power and Truth and

Light”. Unless there be One which Itself is Beauty, Justice, as well as such other things as

Love, Power, Truth and Light, “there would be no sense in calling anything beautiful”

(Urmson and Rée 1989:243), just, loving, powerful, true or full of light.

From Plato’s theory of forms - that the real world originates in the realm of ideas, that ideas

shape and create reality, that what we see as the so-called material world is only a shadow

of the real word - these ideas can easily be seen in the writings of Bishop Leadbeater,

especially in The Science of the Sacraments, which is essentially a treatise of the power of

the mind to generate ideas and then translate those ideas into thought forms of great

transformative power.9 Plato’s concept of “The One” also had a powerful impact on

Christian metaphysics and mysticism and coalesced perfectly with Jewish monotheism

(see, eg, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord” (Deut 6:4)).

For Plato, human improvement was “the supreme good, toward which all learning should

actively trend” (Hall 1945:79). We see this emphasis on the need for human improvement in

the services in The Liturgy pertaining to the Holy Orders. Examples include the following,

extracted from various services of Holy Orders:

“[Y]ou must learn self-control and acquire additional powers. Instead of allowing your body to direct and enslave you, you should endeavour to live for the soul. Wherefore as a first step you must learn in this grade of cleric to control, and rightly to express yourselves through, the physical body ... “ (The Ordination of Clerics, 359)

“In this order, you learn control of the emotions and passions, as before you learned to master the crude instincts of the physical body. ... If through carelessness or selfishness the emotions have been allowed to become self-centred, it is our duty not to kill them out, but to purify and raise them; to substitute for devotion to our own pleasure devotion to God and humanity; to put aside, as far as may be, affection for self for the affection that gives, caring nothing for any return; not to ask love, but to give love.” (The Ordination of Doorkeepers, 362)

“As you had to learn to purify emotion, so also must your mind be pure. As you learned to perceive the necessity for physical cleanliness, or to throw off with repugnance the lower emotion, so also must you thrust away unworthy thought, remembering that all thought is unworthy that is impure, selfish, mean or base; such, for example, as would seek for flaws instead of gems in thinking of the character or work of another. ... Wherefore as readers it is your duty to train and develop the powers of your mind, to study and fit yourselves that you may help to train and develop the minds of others.” (The Ordination of Readers, 364-365)

“In this grade of exorcist it is your duty by strenuous effort to develop the power of the will and by its exercise to cast out from yourselves the evil spirit of separateness and

9 See also Thought-Forms by Besant and Leadbeater.

selfishness. Having learned to control your own evil habits, you will have greater power to help others to cast out the evil from themselves, not only by example but by precept and even by direct action on your part.” (The Ordination of Exorcists, 367)

“From ancient times, also, it has been required of those who enter this order that they strive to acquire certain virtues of character, such as are typified by the vestments delivered unto them. By the amice, control of speech; by the maniple, the love of service or diligence in all good works; by the tunicle, the spirit of joy and gladness, or freedom from care and depression, that is to say, confidence in the good law, which may be interpreted as a recognition of the plan revealed by almighty God for the perfecting of his creation.” (The Ordination of Subdeacons, 378)

The above are more than just moral exhortations. In each grade or order grace or spiritual

power is conferred to the extent to which the candidate is open to it and does what is

required, invoking the help of the One who has, and is, all Power. By such means, personal

transformation, especially in the form of ego deflation at great depth, takes place.

Plato’s idealism was dominated not just by the importance of striving for human

improvement at all levels but also by the “supremacy of the mind ... with the possibility of

the intellect accomplishing through proper cultivation all that is necessary to the security of

man” (Hall 1945:79). In the opinion of Plato, a philosophic and contemplative life was a

necessity in order for there to be any participation in the Divine life. Our Liturgy makes it

clear (see, for example, the above excerpts) that more than proper use and control of the

intellect is required, and, further, that there is a Mind that is above all human minds of which

our individual minds form but a small part.

Plato’s idea that the universe is “the body of a blessed god”, that “the earth itself is an

eternal animal crawling endlessly through space, ever living, but ever changing its

appearances” (Hall 1945:78), had a powerful influence on early Christian thinking and

undoubtedly played a key role in the development of the Christian notion of the “mystical

body of Christ” as well as Leadbeater’s understanding of the importance of building a

“Eucharistic temple”. Indeed, it is not overstating things to say that the Liberal Catholic

understanding of the Holy Eucharist being a means by which divine power can be

spiritualized and brought to descend to and upon the so-called material world, for the

purpose of quickening and hastening the evolution of not only the congregants but indeed

the inhabitants of the whole world is very Platonic in its philosophical idealism.

We can also see Plato’s influence in our Liberal Catholic understanding of the descent of

spirit into matter, and all that ensues thereafter, namely, “the ineffable sacrifice of thy Son,

the mystery of his wondrous incarnation and passion, his mighty resurrection and his

triumphant ascension” (Liturgy 217). This teaching may have come to our Church most

immediately from Theosophy but, again, it was Plato who in his writings “set forth the

descent of human souls out of the mystery of the milky way, like seeds falling into the

matrix of generation” (Hall 1945:78). The process of involution, according to Plato,

proceeds as follows, as described by Hall (1945:78):

Arriving within the seminal humidity of the sub-lunary sphere, the souls become intoxicated with the effluvium of matter and take upon themselves bodies, by which process they die out of their spiritual estate in order to be born as physical beings. Thus, birth is truly death; and each man is locked within the sarcophagus of his own body. Here he must remain until he is liberated by the philosophic disciplines.

The “progress of human consciousness”, according to Plato, was achieved by two means,

writes Hall (1945:79):

By the first, release from matter was the result of a slow evolutionary process; the human being grew by experience alone, following the difficult course of trial and error.

The second, or philosophic approach, was unfoldment through personal effort. The mind was weaned from its attachments to purely physical pursuits by discipline and the study of the sciences, especially geometry. Over the gate of Plato’s academy [Mouseion] in Athens was carved the inscription: “Let no man ignorant of geometry enter here.”10

Hall (1945:79) writes of the significance of Plato in these terms:

The scope of the Platonic teachings can be estimated from the statement of Jowett, the English translator of the collected works of Plato. This learned, if somewhat mid-Victorian translator said, “The germs of all ideas, even most Christian ones, are to be found in Plato.”

Voltaire observed that in pure point of doctrine, Plato should have been the first canonized saint of the Christian Church.

Ferrier, in the Institutes of Metaphysics, summed up a considerable learning in this terse statement: “All philosophic truth is Plato rightly defined; all philosophic error is Plato misunderstood.”

10 Ageometretos medeis eisito (“Let not one destitute of geometry enter my doors"). Plato also wrote, "The knowledge of which geometry aims is the knowledge of the eternal": Resp, VII, 52. However, it was Plutarch, and not Plato, who wrote, "God geometrizes", and "Plato said God geometrizes continually": see Plutarch, Convivialium disputationum, liber 8,2. “God geometrizes”, said the mystics and occultists in the Middle Ages, partly out of self-protection for fear of persecution which did in fact occur, and partly because what was being spoken of was otherwise seen to comprise a coherent system of symbols, albeit in the nature of a mystery.

Plato also developed the idea of a “World-Soul”, the creation of which, according to Platonic

cosmology, is as follows (as described by Ferguson 1976:Online):

The Divine Craftsman is good and desires all things to be like himself. So he brings order out of chaos and fashions a world-soul; the cosmos is thus a living creature endowed with life and intelligence. The material universe includes fire and earth to make it visible and tangible, and the other elements to give it proportions. The father creates the divine heavenly bodies, the visible gods, and entrusts to them the fashioning of the mortal part of man; he himself creates form what is left over from the creation of the world-soul souls equal in number to the stars.11

Now, prior to the Christian era, Athens reigned supreme over Alexandria12 as a centre for

the study of philosophy and higher learning. However, Athens was “too intimately

associated with the faded glories of polytheism to dispute with [Alexandria] the supremacy”,

writes the United Free Church minister the Rev William Fairweather in his book Origen and

Greek Patristic Theology (1901:3). In time, in the earliest centuries of the Christian era,

“there flourished in Alexandria many schools of philosophy” (“Fr John” 1963:13):

Amongst them we find the Jewish school (Philo); the Gnostics, the School of the Christian Apologists (Clement of Alexandria and Origen), the Neoplatonic School organized by Plotinus and Porphrey. The early Christian Fathers associated with these Schools aimed mainly at achieving a scientific exposition of the revealed truths of religion, but from the nature of the case they could not fulfil their task of defence against “paganism” with which they were everywhere surrounded without touching on most of the questions that belong to the domain of philosophy. Greek philosophy was never entirely abandoned, and the school of Aristotle, who had been a disciple of Plato, continued to exercise great influence on the minds and deliberations of the early Fathers of the Church.13

As Moussa (nd:Online) has pointed out, Alexandria had become, by the middle of the

Second Century CE, “one of the intellectual capitals of the Roman Empire”, in large part as

a result of the hard work of the Ptolemies. The city had a large Jewish community, which, in

many ways, paved the way for the growth and developemnt of Christianity in the city. Then,

in time, there were a number of Christian communities. Most of the Christians in Alexandria

were native Egyptians who had little or no interest in Greek philosophy and

intellectlualizing. There was, however, a smaller, highly educated, community of Christians

in Alexandria who were very familiar with Greek philosophy. When an Alexandrian school of

philosophy of the Christian kind finally developed, the school that eventuated reflected the

mysticism found throughout the Middle East and tended to interpret Sacred Scripture 11 J Ferguson, An Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Mysticism and the Mystery Religions, as quoted in “Platonic Dualism”, [Online] viewed 1 May 2009, <http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/gnosis/dualism.html>.12 Alexandria, in Egypt, was built by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE.13 “Fr John” (1963:13).

allegorically14 rather than literally – an approach that would later find favour with many

prominent Liberal Catholics, especially Fr Geoffrey Hodson.15 As mentioned elsewhere in

this thesis, the very early Christian church, especially the Church of Antioch, the most

ancient church after that of Jerusalem, having been founded by Saints Peter16 and Paul

themselves, was highly mystical in its spirituality, and this was certainly true of the

Alexandrian Church Fathers as well. Fairweather has written of some of the more important

factors that led to Alexandria becoming the important place that it did become for early

Christianity (1901:2):

Everything combined to mark out Alexandria as the place most likely to take the lead in any great intellectual movement. Many currents of thought met and mingled in this cosmopolitan city, which witnessed not only the first attempts at a scientific theology, but also the simultaneous rise of the last great system of ancient philosophy. As a result of the syncretism of the period, a remarkable spirit of toleration prevailed in the community; the adherents of different cults and creeds lived side by side in mutual goodwill.

It was not a Christian but the Hellenized (and more particularly, Alexandrian) Jewish

philosopher Philo, also known as Philo Judaeus as well as Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE - 50

CE), a contemporary of Jesus, who is generally credited with having developed the

teachings about the Logos in the first century CE. The Jewish Encyclopedia refers to the

distinctive and idiosyncratic manner in which Philo developed the concept of the Logos:

This name [Logos], which he borrowed from Greek philosophy, was first used by Heraclitus and then adopted by the Stoics. Philo's conception of the Logos is influenced by both of these schools. From Heraclitus he borrowed the conception of the "dividing Logos" (λόγος τομεύς), which calls the various objects into existence by the combination of contrasts ("Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit," § 43 [i. 503]), and from Stoicism, the characterization of the Logos as the active and vivifying power. But Philo borrowed also Platonic elements in designating the Logos as the "idea of ideas" and the "archetypal idea" ("De Migratione Abrahami," § 18 [i. 452]; "De Specialibus Legibus," § 36 [ii. 333]). There are, in addition, Biblical elements: there are Biblical passages in which the word of Yhwh is

14 See, especially, Gal 4:24 (“Now this is an allegory ...”). Grant and Freedman ([1960] 1993:27) write that Clement and Origen were of the view that “the synoptic provided a literal, historical account of Jesus’s work, while John composed an allegorical version which gave the inward, spiritual meaning of Jesus”. The writers also note that “Origen sometimes argued all four gospels were partly historical and partly symbolical” (also at 27).15 See, eg, The Hidden Wisdom in the Holy Bible, vols 1-4 (vols 1-2, 1967; vol 3, 1971; vol 4, 1981) (Wheaton IL: Theosophical Publishing House (Quests Books), and The Christ Life from Nativity to Ascension (Wheaton IL: Theosophical Publishing House (Quests Books), 1975). Philo is noted for his allegorical interpretation of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible). This translation was “made in the first instance for the use of Greek-speaking Jews living in Alexandria” (A Concise Bible Dictionary, London: Cambridge University Press, nd, p 138).16 St Peter is reputed to have been the first among the Bishops of Antioch, the Church of Antioch itself having been established in, it is generally believed, 33 CE. In 325, at the First Council of Nicea, the bishopric of Antioch was recognized as a Patriarchate as were those of Rome, Alexandria and Jerusalem.

regarded as a power acting independently and existing by itself, as Isa. lv. 11 (comp. Matt. x. 13; Prov. xxx. 4); these ideas were further developed by later Judaism in the doctrines of the Divine Word creating the world, the divine throne-chariot and its cherub, the divine splendor and its shekinah, and the name of God as well as the names of the angels; and Philo borrowed from all these in elaborating his doctrine of the Logos.17

Philo, a Middle Platonist,18 who greatly admired both the Essenes as well as the

Pythagoreans (but especially the latter),19 is sometimes referred to as having been a

Gnostic, but “although some of the raw material of Gnosticism can be found in Philo, he is

not, except in the vaguest sense, himself a Gnostic” (Chadwick 1967, as quoted in Churton

2005:42). There is certainly room for confusion and disputation, for Philo did indeed

combine and synthesize Jewish religious ideas with Greek (both Stoic and Platonic)

philosophy in a highly idiosyncratic fashion. Indeed, the Jewish Encyclopedia goes so far as

to say that Philo’s God was “not the God of the Old Testament, but the idea of Plato

designated as Θεός, in contrast to matter”:20

Nothing remained, therefore, but to set aside the descriptions of God in the Old Testament by means of allegory. Philo characterizes as a monstrous impiety the anthropomorphism of the Bible, which, according to the literal meaning, ascribes to God hands and feet, eyes and ears, tongue and windpipe ("De Confusione Linguarum," § 27 [i. 425])21

Philo, according to Churton (2005:40)

wrote polemics against those who taught two gods; at the same time, Philo himself called the Logos (the divine instrument of creation) “a second god,” “archangel,” “Lord,” and “Name.”

17 C H Toy, C Siegfried and J Z Lauterbach, “Philo Judaeus”, in JewishEncylopedia.com, viewed 12 May 2009, <http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=281&letter=P#1056>. See also Churton (2005:43) who also refers to the Stoic background of the Logos. Tatian the Assyrian (c110-180 CE), who was an early Christian theologian, apologist and writer who had been trained in Greek philosophy and who may have later established a school of his own in Mesopotamia, is said by some to have been the first Christian writer to declare that God created matter by the power of the Logos: see Studer (1992). (Tatian took and combined the four Gospels of the New Testament in his Diatessaron. According to Grant and Freedman ([1960] 1993:27) “he retained the order of none of them, though for the Galilean ministry of Jesus he relied primarily on Matthew, and for the story of the Crucifixion, on John”.) As mentioned, the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus (c535-475 BCE) also spoke of the eternal Logos, by which he meant Godly Wisdom from whom everything received its existence. 18 Middle Platonism refers to the development of Platonism, or ideas associated with Plato, during the period from roughly 130 BCE up to the late 2nd century CE. Philo was a later Middle Platonist, and perhaps the most prominent one of the lot. Middle Platonism was followed by Neoplatonism which took shape in the 3 rd century CE.19 The ancient Pythagoreans had an evening ritual or mediation in which they would reflect upon their individual acts and omissions of the past day, asking themselves the following three questions: (1) In what I have failed? (2) What good have I done? (3) What have I not done that I ought to have done?20 Toy, Siegfried and Lauterbach (Online). 21 Toy, Siegfried and Lauterbach (Online).

Nevertheless, Philo, whose “soul [was] athirst for God” and entire aim was to “see God”

(Kirk [1934] 1966:21), always described “God as One, or, in Greek terms, as the Monad”

(Churton 2005:43), this God being “beyond all being”. This was a truly transcendent God

which, according to Philo, was even “beyond the Monad”. According to the Jewish

Encyclopedia “Philo's transcendental conception of the idea of God precluded the Creation

as well as any activity of God in the world”.22 This God brought the cosmos into being in two

ways, first, by means of a pure act of the will, and then by means of his Logos (or word) the

physical world or cosmos was brought forth. (This idea forms the basis of the thinking of

those Liberal Catholics of a Theosophical mindset, and others as well, who make a

distinction between the God who is Absolute and Beyond Being on the one hand, and the

“God or Logos (Word) of the Solar System to which this planet belongs” (Pigott 1925:21) on

the other. This last mentioned God, who is God at least in the fullest sense in which we,

with our own limited understanding, can conceive of such a Being, is analogous to what

Plato and the Stoics referred to as the World-Soul (of which the human soul is an

emanation). Indeed, Philo also embraced “the Stoic doctrine of the immanence of God”.23 In

short, God is both “entirely outside of the world” as well as “the only actual being therein”.24

Philo was “perhaps the first to see the Platonic Ideas as God’s thoughts” (Churton

2005:43). He wrote of redemption in terms of “losing self in something higher”, with “the

goal of spiritual life as being the vision of God” (Churton 2005:46 and 47, respectively),

something which was also, in Philo’s words, a “vision of peace”, for God alone is perfect

peace” (see Kirk [1934] 1966:21). This vision of God could be experienced only in moments

of ekstasis (ecstasy). We cannot see God with ordinary physical sight, but only with the

“eye of the soul” (Kirk [1934] 1966:22), and that requires a special kind of asceticism, self-

mortification and purity of body, mind and spirit:

Who, then, shall be the heir? Not that reasoning which remains in the prison of the body according to its own voluntary intentions, but that which is loosened from those bonds and emancipated, and which has advanced beyond the walls, and if it be possible to say so, has itself forsaken itself. "For he," says the scripture, "who shall come out from thee, he shall be thy heir." Therefore if any desire comes upon thee, O soul, to be the inheritor of the good things of God, leave not only thy country, the body, and thy kindred, the outward senses, and thy father's house, that is speech; but also flee from thyself, and depart out of thyself, like the Corybantes, or those possessed with demons, being driven to frenzy, and inspired by some

22 Toy, Siegfried and Lauterbach (Online). 23 Toy, Siegfried and Lauterbach (Online). 24 Toy, Siegfried and Lauterbach (Online).

prophetic inspiration. For while the mind is in a state of enthusiastic inspiration, and while it is no longer mistress of itself, but is agitated and drawn into frenzy by heavenly love, and drawn upwards to that object, truth removing all impediments out of its way, and making everything before it plain, that so it may advance by a level and easy road, its destiny is to become an inheritor of the things of God.25

At the same time Philo wrote that the root of sin was the lust to become equal to God.26 He

saw the so-called Fall (as it is known in conventional Christianity) as being simply the result

of creation or involution into a lower world, for there was still an “unbroken union with God

in love” with the soul being God’s bride.27 This is very much the Liberal Catholic position.

Philo wrote of the importance of silent contemplation and the meditative state, which will

bring about not just emotional equanimity but also peace and union with the Divine:

When therefore the soul is made manifest in all its sayings and doings, and is made a partaker of the divine nature, the voices of the external senses are reduced to silence, and so likewise are all troublesome and ill-omened sounds, for the objects of sight often speak loudly and invite the sense of sight to themselves; and so do voices invite the sense of hearing; scents invite the smell, and altogether each varied object of sense invites its appropriate sense. But all these things are put at rest when the mind going forth out of the city of the soul, attributes all its own actions and conceptions to God.28

Philo translated the Jewish Scriptures in light of the language and thought forms of a

number of different stands of Greek thought (in particular, Stoic, Platonic and

Neopythagorean). In the process, he gave a “spiritual interpretation of the Jewish scriptures

and taught his Logos-doctrine which afterwards was to prove such a useful receptacle for

the doctrine about Christ” (van der Leeuw 1927a:67). Philo used the word Logos (which he

described as the “Idea of Ideas”) to refer to both the “governing principle of [the] relation

between transcendent God and lower world” as well as “God’s image” (Churton 2005:43

and 44), hence his reference to the “divine man” (cf Moses at the burning bush) being

indwelled by the Logos. To Philo the idea of the Logos was central and had a mystical

power, for he was in no doubt that “contemplation of and speculation about the works of the

Logos [would] reveal secrets” (Churton 2005:45). He also spoke of the “power” of God

mediating between God and the world as “mysteries” and, in various places, as “esoteric”.29

25 “Who is the Heir of Divine Things?”, Ch 17, 14:68-70, in Yonge (Online).26 “Legum allegoriae”, 149; “De cherubim”, 58-64, in Philo (1973).27 “De posteritate Caini”, 12; “De cherubim”, 42-53, in Philo (1973).28 “Allegorical Interpretation III”, Ch 4, 14:44, in Yonge (Online).29 “De scrificiis Abelis et Caini”, 60, 131-32; “De Abrahamo”, 122; “De fuga et inventione”, 95; “De cherubim”, 48, in Philo (1973).

Philo had an enormous impact on the thinking and theology of the Christian Greek Fathers

who were shortly to make their own mark in Alexandria. Fairweather writes (1901:3):

Philo and his predecessors had to a great extent paved the way for a systematized expression, in terms of Greek philosophy, of the contents of Jewish-Christian tradition. Under the influence of philosophical and Oriental ideas the jagged edges of Judaism had been toned down, and elements of a metaphysical and mystical nature assumed. In the doctrine of the Logos a meeting-point had been found between Jewish monotheism and Gentile philosophy.

As mentioned earlier, the concept of the Logos was of great importance to Philo but he did

not actually invent the concept. Insofar as the Doctrine of the Trinity is concerned, although

notions of a divine trinity, triplicity or triad can be found in many other religions, its most

immediate and temporal connection with what became mainstream Christianity was via

Greek philosophical thinking. The history and source of the Doctrine of the Trinity are not to

be found in Christian revelation per se but in Platonic philosophy. Indeed, the very language

of the doctrine comes from classical Greek philosophy. It was Origen (c185-254 CE) who

set out on a doctrinal basis the Holy Trinity based upon standard Middle Platonic triadic

emanation schemas. The word, as opposed to the concept, of the Trinity was actually

created by the Christian apologist Tertullian (c160-220 CE) as a shorthand expression to

express what he saw as the triune nature of the Godhead as expressed in the Bible. It was

not until “the last quadrant of the 4th century ... that what might be called the definitive

Trinitarian dogma 'One God in three Persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian

life and thought”.30

Significantly, when polytheism began to displace monotheism in Ancient Greece in about

600 BCE, it was the philosophers who objected most vehemently and eloquently to what

they saw as a distortion, indeed corruption, of the true Ancient Wisdom. For example,

Xenophon (570-466 BCE) said:

Among gods and people there exists one Most High God, Who does not resemble them either mentally, or externally. He is all sight, all thought, all hearing. He eternally and immovably resides in one place ... With His thought He governs all without difficulty.31

30 See The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 14, p 295.31 As cited in Bishop Alexander (Mileant), trans N and N Semyanko (ed D Shufran), “The One God Worshipped in the Trinity”, viewed 5 April 2009, <http://www.orthodoxpr.com/Orthodox/OneGod.html>.

The preponderance of historical records supports the view that it was in the 2nd century

(c190 CE) that the Christian Church decided to establish what might be called a “Christian

School” in the City of Alexandria. “At first it was a school for children only”, but out of this

school emerged “the famous Catechitical [sic] School [of Alexandria]”,32 also known as the

“Alexandrian School of Theology” or simply the “Alexandrian School”. The Church’s aim,

both in setting up this School and otherwise, was to demonstrate that “true philosophy led

the way to Christianity and not to Paganism”.33 Fairweather writes that the “moulding of

Christian theology according to the Greek type is specially identified with the Catechetical

School of Alexandria” and that the School arose “out of the necessities of the Alexandrian

Church” itself (1901:8).

The first director of, and “the principal exponent of Christianity” (van der Leeuw 1927a:67)

in, the Catechetical School of Alexandria34 was, according to Bishop Eusebius, a converted

Sicilian-born Stoic named Pantaenus35 (died c212 CE) who, as a result of his travels to and

throughout India, had acquired an understanding of the “doctrines of Indian religious

philosophy” (van der Leeuw 1927:67) which be brought to Alexandria.36 We are told that the

“venerable” (Farrar 1886:183) Pantaenus discovered that “true philosophy is found, not in

the Porch, but in Nazareth, in Gethsemane, in Gabbatha, in Golgotha; and he set himself to

make it known to the world”.37 Regrettably, “only a few fragments” of his writings remain

(Farrar 1886:183). However, there is no doubt that under Pantaenus’ leadership the

Catechetical School of Alexandria became quite well-renowned, such that it has been said

that “[a]ll the learning of Christendom may be traced to this source”.38

The Catechetical School was a “Christian school ... honourably distinguished from the

pagan schools of the period by making a virtue a subject for practice, and not merely for

32 See “Great Theosophists: Ammonius Saccas” (Online).33 See “Great Theosophists: Ammonius Saccas” (Online), quoting from Fr George Stebbing’s The Story of the Catholic Church (1915). However, according to St Jerome, the school “existed as a catechetical school from the Apostles’ time”: see “Pantaenus The Alexandrian Philosopher” (Online).34 The Catechetical School of Alexandria made special use of the method of teaching known as “Socratic dialogue”, a method designed “for the expulsion of ignorance and error, and for the cultivation of a genuine love of truth” (Fairweather 1901:11). Socratic dialogue is used to this day as a teaching and learning method in many law schools throughout the world, especially in the United States of America.35 Later Saint Pantaenus.36 Pantaenus, with whom Clement of Alexandria became closely associated, first as master and pupil respectively, and later as colleagues, was the head, if not the actual founder, of the Alexandrian School, which was founded in around 190 CE. He may have been the head of the Alexandrian School before he went to India.37 “Pantaenus The Alexandrian Philosopher” (Online). Pantaenus is quoted by Eusebius in Hist Eccl, VI.14.2.38 “Pantaenus The Alexandrian Philosopher” (Online).

definition and discourse” (Fairweather 1901:11-12). Furthermore, the theology that

emerged from this Alexandrian School of Theology was a “constructive” one as opposed to

the “defensive theology substituted for the living teaching of Christ” (van der Leeuw

1927a:66 and 70) that was elsewhere developing in Christianity around about the same

time. Van der Leeuw writes (1927a:66-67):

Alexandria has always been one of the most remarkable of the Christian churches; here Egypt, Greece, Israel, Rome and the Orient met, not only in commerce, but also in intellectual and spiritual intercourse. Nowhere did the new faith find a richer ground to develop. ... Naturally the Christian church in Alexandria became with Rome the leading Church of the Christian religion. Here from the earliest days the instruction of members in the Christian doctrine was organised better than anywhere else; here for the first time we find a critical study and arrangement of the Christian scriptures.

Fairweather has written (1901:1-1):

The Greek patristic theology was the result of the application of the specific methods of Greek philosophy to the new material supplied by the Christian history, with the view of constructing a reasoned theory of God and the universe. As such it was “the last characteristic creation of the Greek genius.” In the New Testament God is represented from a religious point of view; but for the Greek mind, which conceived God metaphysically as abstract Being, a scientific theology was indispensable. The facts of Christianity had to be so interpreted as to yield a conception of God which would at once conserve His unity, and yet admit of His organic connection with man as Lord and Saviour. Naturally this result was reached only through a process of development.

It has been mentioned already that, early in the Christian era, the Jewish philosopher Philo

emphasised the mystical quality of our relationship with the Divine, the latter being seen by

Philo to be “supra-rational” in nature and which can only be contacted and experienced

through and in moments of ekstasis (ecstasy). As such, he was a forerunner of

Neoplatonism, which otherwise took shape in the 3rd Century CE, and which will be the

subject of more detailed consideration later in this chapter of this thesis. Philo himself had a

direct and very profound influence upon both the Athenian-born Clement of Alexandria39

(c150-215 CE), a convert to Christianity from paganism40 who would in time succeed

Pantaenus as the head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria,41 and his pupil and

protégé Origen of Alexandria (c185-254 CE), each of whom were late Second Century

39 Titus Flavius Clemens, but known as Clement of Alexandria (cf Clement of Rome).40 Fairweather (1901:12) writes that Clement’s own studies in religion led him to “forsake paganism and embrace Christianity”.41 Clement, who studied under Pantaenus, was also a pupil of Tatian the Assyrian. He was a convert to Christianity.

Greek Fathers of the early Christian Church, with the latter (Origen) undoubtedly being one

of the greatest of all Christian theologians.42 Fairweather writes (1901:13):

In the great work of winning the Greek world for Christianity, Clement was the immediate precursor of Origen, the forerunner without whom Origen, as we know him, could not have been.

Clement of Alexandria, himself a student of and successor to Saint Pantaenus, was highly

knowledgeable in both Greek43 and Egyptian philosophy which led him to conclude that

“truth could be found even in the heathen systems”.44 For Clement, philosophy was “no

work of darkness, but in each of its forms a ray of light from the Logos, and therefore

belonging of right to the Christian” (Fairweather 1901:14). Clement “combined in himself the

nobility of Greek culture with the depth of Christian faith” (van der Leeuw 1927a:67-68), and

was largely responsible for developing what can only be described as an eclectic form of

“Christian Platonism”.45 Although “no systematic theologian in the modern sense, Clement

may be said to have laid the foundation of a true scientific dogmatic” (Fairweather 1901:24).

Van der Leeuw writes (1927a:68):

He considered Greek philosophy and Jewish law to be the paedagogus meant to lead man to Christ, and believed that the Logos directed and inspired the philosophy of Greece until He could be fully manifested in Christ. Thus Christianity was shown as the natural and necessary consummation of Greek and Jewish culture ...

As mentioned earlier, the Christians in Alexandria were not all of one mind and accord. The

majority of Christians in the city, those who were Egyptian-born and bred, had little or no

interest in Greek philosophy. Then there was a smaller group of Christians who were very

42 Alexander, later bishop of Jerusalem, was also a pupil of Clement at the Catechetical School. Other notable Alexandrian theologians include Saint Cyril of Alexandria (c378-444), a Doctor of the Church and once “Pope of Alexandria” when that city was at the height of its influence and power in the Roman Empire, and Saint Athanasius of Alexandria (c293-373) (one of four great Doctors of the Eastern Church). Mention should also be made of Athenagoras (c133-190), an Athenian philosopher who converted to Christianity and became an important Christian apologist and who almost certainly had some connection with the catechetical school in Alexandria (although he was probably never its head, as has been claimed by some writers). Cyril taught that there was “one (mia) nature of the incarnate Logos” (mia fusij tou qeou Logou sesarkwmenh). Sadly, Cyril’s organized campaign of attacks, some extremely violent in nature, on those whom he saw as dissenters or heretics ultimately “brought an end to the teaching of Greek philosophy in Alexandria” (Bushby 2004:263). As regards the teaching of philosophy in Athens, that came to an end as a result of an edict of the Emperor Justinian “who prohibited its teaching and caused all schools closed” (Bushby 2004:263).43 Clement saw much of value in Platonic metaphysics, Stoic ethics and Aristotelian logic (Chadwick [1967] 1993:97).44 See “Great Theosophists: Ammonius Saccas” (Online). 45 Clement himself admitted to being an eclectic: see his Stromata, I:37. See Hoyland (1928) for an inter-relationship between Platonism and Christianity; the otherwise scholarly study is, however, marred by a praeparatio evangelica style of approach, that is, seeing Plato’s views and teachings as a preparation for a similar expression of teaching in the Gospels purportedly proclaimed by Jesus himself.

“Greek”, and espcially Platonic, in their philosophising. Clement sought to expound a

“middle way” between the views of these two different groups of Christians. Fairweather

has spoken of how Clement was able to successfully combine the best of Greek philosophy

with the revealed wisdom from the Hebrew Bible and the prophets culminating in Jesus’

incarnation (1901:86-87):

The true goal of the Greek philosophy, as well as of the revealed wisdom proclaimed by the prophets, was the incarnation of Jesus, which focussed [sic] all previous self-communications of the Eternal Reason. A knowledge essentially devoid of error is thus guaranteed to us. ... Clement held that a man’s life is likely to be virtuous in proportion to his knowledge of the truth. ... By the union of the divine and human natures in His own person, Christ has become the source of the new life of humanity.

Fairweather has also written of how Clement saw philosophy as the divine precursor to

Christianity (1901:15):

What philosophers of all schools had been aiming at was also the aim of Christianity, viz a nobler life. The difference, according to Clement, was this: while the ancient philosophers had been unable to get more than glimpses of the truth, it was left to Christianity to make known in Christ the perfect truth.

Clement’s writings, which display his “profound indebtedness to Middle Platonism” (Churton

2005:117), perhaps best exemplify what our own Bishop Frank Pigott had in mind when he

wrote of the “lost gnosis” in his book The Parting of The Ways (1925:35), for, as Churton

has pointed out (2005:115):

[Clement] was not declared to be a heretic, and his works have therefore survived in the orthodox circles. Of all the extant writings of the first centuries of the Christian era, it may be that those of Clement conform most closely to what Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons might have called the gnosis “truly so-called.”

Clement, who attained the rank of presbyter in the Church of Alexandria (Fairweather

1901:13), is famous for having written, “There is one river of truth, but many streams fall

into it from this side and that.”46 Bishop Pigott (1934:Online) has written concerning

Clement’s statement:

Judaism is one such tributary; Hellenism is another; the genius of the Latins has also poured in in very large measure; and more recently the Nordic races, chiefly but not wholly through Protestantism, have added their special contribution. And now there comes another tributary bearing the ancient wisdom of the East. It is as yet but a trickle but it may be destined to flow in greater and greater fullness. Charles Leadbeater is mainly responsible for that.

46 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, I:5.

Clement was “a Christian who [also] called himself a Gnostic”, indeed a “self-confessed

Gnostic” (Churton 2005:115 and 117, respectively). He saw himself as a “true Gnostic”.

Indeed, he spoke, quite unashamedly, of the Christian being a “Gnostic”, whilst making it

clear that he was referring not to any of the various schools and sects which were active in

the 2nd century and which called themselves “gnostic” but rather to that true or

“ecclesiastical gnosis” (Farrar 1886:185) which the Apostle Paul referred to as “my

knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph 3:4).47 Clement railed against what he labeled “the

Apostlic orthodoxy” and “the evangelical canon” (Farrar 1886:185) which, in his view, had

perverted and corrupted the true religion and teachings of Jesus.

R F Horton, in his book The Mystical Quest of Christ, writes (1923:9) that, insofar as

Clement was concerned

What was revealed in Christ was the utmost that we could know; and the additions made by the Gnostic systems were fictitious.

As a Gnostic Christian whose “inquiring spirit caused him ... to travel through many lands in

search of the most distinguished Christian teachers” (Fairweather 1901:12-13), Clement

affirmed that “the true wisdom or gnosis was that inner illumination to which the true

Christian could attain if he lived the life of purity and love which our Lord had taught” (van

der Leeuw 1927a:69). He believed that there were differences in knowledge (gnosis)

between Christians. The more enlightened ones were those who had methodically devoted

themselves to living a highly moral life, along Platonic lines, in their acquisition of a deeper

knowledge and understanding of the Divine. Clement’s aim was “to bring his students to a

state of spiritual vision, not as a single experience so much as a dynamic, growing

movement, of which this life on earth formed only a part” (Churton 2005:117). Fairweather

writes (1901:15):

As the world must needs go through several stages preparatory to the coming of Christ, so must a man advance by degrees from faith (πιστις) to love, and from love to knowledge (γνῶσις), to the position of a perfect Christian.

47 Clement especially opposed those Gnostics who taught that the material world or the created order was alien to and from Almighty God.

Faith was thus only the first step toward gnosis, for, according to Clement, the Christian

“must advance from faith to knowledge by the path of simple obedience and rectitude”

(Fairweather 1901:31). In his Stromateis Clement has this to say about faith and gnosis:

Faith then is a compendious knowledge of the essentials, but gnosis is a sure and firm demonstration of the things received through faith, being itself built up by the Lord’s teaching on the foundation of the faith, and carrying us on to unshaken conviction and scientific certainty. ... [T]here seems to me to be a first kind of saving change from heathenism to faith, a second from faith to gnosis; and this latter, as it passes on into love, begins at once to establish a mutual friendship between that which knows and that which is known. And perhaps he who has arrived at this stage has already 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 press on through the holy Hebdomad [the seven planetary spheres] into the father’s house, to that which is indeed the Lord's abode, being destined there to be, as it were, a light standing and abiding forever, absolutely secure from all vicissitude.48

The reference to “the holy Hebdomad [the seven planetary spheres]” is significant, as we

are familiar with the “seven days of creation”, the “seven rays”, the “seven mighty spirits

before the throne” (cf Rev 1:4), and so forth. Hodson in his book The Seven Human

Temperaments writes (1952:2):

The One becomes Two or androgyne. These Two interact to produce the Third Aspect of the threefold manifested Logos. These Three in turn unite in all their possible combinations to produce seven groups of three. In three of these groups, one of the three predominates; in three others, two predominate and in the seventh, all are equally manifest. Since divine consciousness is focused and active in each of these Emanations, they are regarded as finite Beings or "Persons".

From the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity, the Seven emerge, who are known in Christian Cosmogony as the Seven Mighty Spirits before the Throne, in Judaism as the Seven Sephiroth and in Theosophy as the Seven Planetary Logoi, each the Logos of a Scheme of seven Chains of globes.49

All of this is beautifully captured in the Ascription in the Liberal Catholic Church’s service of

Benediction of the Most Holy Sacrament (see Liturgy 262):

To the most holy and adorable Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three Persons in one God; to Christ our Lord, the only wise counsellor, the Prince of peace; to the seven mighty spirits before the throne; and to the glorious assembly of just men

48 Stromata, VII.49 In cosmic numerology or “sacred geometry” the number “seven” represents such things as fullness, individual completeness (the number “twelve” representing corporate completeness), the perfection of the human soul, and grace. It is considered to be the “divine number” and thus the most spiritual of all numbers.

made perfect, the Watchers, the Saints, the Holy Ones, be praise unceasing from every living creature; and honour, might and glory, henceforth and for evermore.

Not only did Clement take from Greek philosophy the concept of the Logos, he “divinised” it

such that both the Son and the Holy Spirit were also “first-born powers and first created”. In

that regard, Clement distinguished the so-called Son-Logos from the Logos itself. Thus, the

Liberal Catholic/Theosophical understanding of Christ as the World Teacher, expressing

himself through, among others, the person and personality of Jesus, has its origins and

finds early expression in Clement. Churton (2005:117) writes:

Clement saw Christ the Logos as the implicate, unifying factor of all the projected archetypes. This also meant that Clement saw all religions as being the sacred expressions of the divine archetypes, while the divine Logos-Christ, present (if unseen) in all, united the All.

In the writings and teachings of Clement, God “is manifested through the Son, by whose

grace as Logos He has in some degree been known to the nobler spirits of every age and

country” (Fairweather 1901:26). These ideas are reflected in various parts (for example, in

the “Prayers of Intent” and in “The Commemoration of the Saints”) of the Service of the

Holy Eucharist in The Liberal Catholic Liturgy (217 and 219; 235 and 237)

Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, we thy humble servants, bearing in mind the ineffable sacrifice of thy Son, the mystery of his wondrous incarnation, [his blessed passion,] his mighty resurrection, and his triumphant ascension, do here make before thy divine majesty the memorial which our Lord hath willed us to make ……And we join with them in worship before thy great white throne, whence flow all love and light and blessing through all the worlds which thou hast made.

For Clement the Christian gospel was “the highest revelation of the Logos, who has given

indication of his presence wherever men rise above the level of the beasts and of the

uncivilised savage” (Fairweather 1901:24). “The eternal Word has appeared as man in

order to become our Teacher and Saviour” (Fairweather 1901:29).

Clement, like Liberal Catholics, had a high vision of humankind, and its innate divinity and

potential. His philosophy and theological system recognised the reality of sin, but there was

no place for any Calvinistic-type sin-sodden view of our innate total depravity or the like.

Thus, Clement rejected and denied the doctrine of “original sin” - something the Jews have

always repudiated as well - but he was still nevertheless of the view that “fallen man [was]

powerless to restore himself to good” (Fairweather 1901:29). We needed the help of Christ

to achieve that. Having said that, Clement was very much a Universalist, being a firm

believer in the doctrine of apocatastasis. He would have had no difficulties at all in agreeing

with that part of the Liberal Catholic Act of Faith that states that “all his sons shall one day

reach his feet, however far they stray” (Liturgy 210; 229). Any “punishments” meted out by

God were, according to Clement, “saving and disciplinary, leading to conversion”.1

Fairweather writes (1901:33):

… Clement held that after death perfect blessedness will be reached through a further process of further development, accepted the Pauline doctrine of a glorified resurrection body, and allowed the possibility of repentance and reformation until the last day, when probation would cease.2

God was thus not an angry, vengeful god that needed to be appeased. It was simply a case

of our impurity which needed “to be overcome, so that unity with the Divine may be

attained” (van der Leeuw 1927a:70). We “wander from the path which leads to

righteousness” (Confiteor, Liturgy 204; 224) out of ignorance of who and what we really are.

All of this was, for Clement, part and parcel of the Christian doctrines of creation and

redemption.

Clement saw Jesus, not so much as Saviour, but as Way-Shower and Exemplar, with the

way being one of self-sacrifice and selfless self-giving. Only by such means could one be

initiated into the “Mysteries of the Kingdom of God”. Clement spoke of those Mysteries in

these terms:

But the Mysteries are delivered mystically, that what is spoken may be in the mouth of the speaker; rather not in his voice, but in his understanding. "God gave to the Church, some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ."

The writing of these memoranda of mine, I well know, is weak when compared with that spirit, full of grace, which I was privileged to hear. But it will be an image to recall the archetype to him who was struck with the Thyrsus.3

1 See Stromata, VII, 2; Pedagogue, I, 8. Quoted in Hanson (1899), ch 9. See also “Apocacatastasis”, New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol 1, [Online] viewed 9 April 2009, <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc01.html?term+Apocatastasis>.2 See Stromata, VII, 2, 16.3 Stromata, 1, 1. Online version: viewed 28 April 2009, <http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book1.htm>.

Van der Leeuw writes (1927a:70) that Clement understood Christ’s self-giving as being a

living allegory4 of the need for our own crucifixion of our egos:

The message which Christ brought to man was not that life meant a crucifixion, but that through the crucifixion of our earthly self the spirit within could attain to the new birth.

As regards the nature of the “mysteries” that Clement saw as his duty and responsibility to

expound, Clement’s approach was very much in the esoteric tradition which was followed

by Jesus himself who said, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but

for those outside everything is in parables” (Mk 4:11). Thus, Fairweather writes (1901:19):

Founding on Col 1:25 ff, Clement holds that hidden mysteries received by the apostles from the Lord had been handed down in direct succession until those who possessed the tradition of the blessed doctrine “came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds (Strom I 1, vi 8). These Christian mysteries were not disclosed to the general body of the pupils attending the Catechetical School ... They had the fundamental dogmas of the Church expounded to them, but not the abstruser speculations about “the being of God, the origin of the world, the last things, the relation of reason to revelation, of philosophy to Christianity, of faith to knowledge,” which were reserved for the enlightened.5

In Clement’s system of theology, salvation did not depend upon any notions of vicarious

atonement or propitiation or expiation as traditionally understood by conventional,

mainstream Christianity. Fairweather writes (1901:30) that:

When all is said … there is no doubt that, in the general view of Clement, salvation hangs not upon Christ’s finished work as a sacrificial victim for the sins of men, but merely upon the fact of a spiritual transformation wrought in us by the Word as the world’s Instructor.

The Christian life therefore becomes one of imitating God, especially Christ Jesus. For

Clement, that is the basis of Christian morality and ethics. Fairweather writes (1901:32):

This is the one great principle running through his often very detailed treatment of Christian ethics. By the aid of the incarnate Word we are enabled to become imitators of God.

4 Fairweather writes (1901:18 fn 1) that, according to Clement, “Scripture [had] even a fourfold sense – the literal, the mystic, the moral, and the prophetic”. See Stromata, 1, 28.5 Col 1:25-30 reads as follows: “Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.”

We find this idea reflected in the Service of the Holy Eucharist in The Liberal Catholic

Liturgy (221; 239):

Under the veil of earthly things now have we communion with our Lord Jesus Christ; soon with open face shall we behold him and, rejoicing in his glory, be made like unto him. Then shall his true disciples be brought by him with exceeding joy before the presence of his Father's glory.

Fairweather (1901:26) writes that one of the “merits” of Clement is that “he grasps so firmly

the doctrine of the Trinity”, and then goes to on to describe the God in whom Clement

believed (1901:26):

God is inexpressible, having neither parts, qualities, nor relations. “He is formless and nameless, though we sometimes give Him titles which are not to be taken in their proper sense,- the One, the Good, Intelligence or Existence, or Father, or God, or Creator, or Lord” (Strom v 12). This idea of God whom he further speaks of as the great “depth” or “abyss,” would hardly be distinguishable from the abstraction of Philo and the Alexandrian Platonists, were it not for the qualifying declaration that to the Son of God there is nothing incomprehensible. God is therefore not absolutely, but only relatively, incomprehensible.”

Thus, according to Clement, although the Father was essentially unknowable, the Son “as

the mood or consciousness of the Father may become the object of knowledge”

(Fairweather 1901:27).6 Clement also wrote of the “essential unity” between the God and

the Father and God the Son. Further, there was also the Holy Spirit, for Clement wrote, “O

mystic marvel, the universal Father is one, and One the universal Word, and the Holy Spirit

is one and the same everywhere.”7

Churton refers to Clement’s “system” of thought and teaching as being “one of the earliest

formulations of a type of Neoplatonism” (2005:117), the latter being “a partly gnosticized

form of Platonic tradition” (2005:417). Neoplatonism, which “took for its religious ideal the

direct apprehension of the divine essence” (Fairweather 1901:23), will shortly be the subject

of separate consideration. As for Clement, he may or may not have been a self-confessed

Gnostic Christian, but even the modern day Gnostic scholars are quick to point out that he

avoided the excesses and extravagances of much of the thinking of early Gnostics sects,

refusing, for example, “the temptation of some Gnostics to sunder the whole within a

dynamic of precosmic conflict” (Churton 2005:117).

6 Clement referred to God the Son as the “Name, Energy, Face, etc, of God” (Fairweather 1901:27).7 Paedogogus I, 6.

Clement was, above all, a believer in reason and intellectual freedom, something of

immense importance to Liberal Catholics. Fairweather writes (1901:16-17):

Clement further maintained that, in order to be a full-grown Christian manhood, practical piety must be combined with intellectual freedom. There must, he held, be scope for reason as well as for faith, for knowledge as well as for love. This led him to attach less importance to mere historical facts than to the underlying ideas. The letter of revelation he brought under the judgment of reason. But not so as to make reason independent of faith, which he declared to be as necessary for spiritual as breath for physical life.

Regrettably, but not surprisingly, Clement’s eclecticism met with some opposition, and in

203 CE he was deposed as head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria and replaced by

his pupil Origen.

Origen, “the great teacher of the Greek Church” (Fairweather 1901:viii), indeed the greatest

early Christian theologian and church father, and one who was extremely well-versed in

Greek philosophy, succeeded Clement as head of the Alexandrian School of Theology. He

was a prolific writer on Christian teachings who “valued dogma [but] abjured dogmatism”

(Fairweather 1901:1x). Among his various writings, De Principiis, Origen’s treatise of

systematic theology, was “the first constructive theology the [Christian] Church had yet

produced” (van der Leeuw 1927a:77). It is no wonder that even John Cardinal Newman

could say of Origen, “I love the name of Origen.”8 F W Farrar, in his Brompton Lectures

compiled and published with the title History of Interpretation, also paid high tribute to the

significance of Origen as a Christian theologian and philosopher (1886:188):

Like the influence of Socrates in Greek philosophy, so the influence of Origen in Church history is the watershed of multitudes of different steams of thought.

Origen, like Clement and others of the early Christian era in the Platonic and Neoplatonic

tradition, believed in the essential oneness of all life and, in particular, “the indestructible

unity of God and all spiritual essence” (Fairweather 1901:96). Origen never doubted that

the word of God was “the sole source of absolute certitude, and the sole repository of

essential truth” (Fairweather 1901: ix-x), and that the Gospel was “the power of God unto

salvation to every one that believeth” (Rom 1:16), but he “attache[d] the greatest value to a

scientific conception of Christianity ... [h]ence the union in him of the Platonic philosopher

with the orthodox traditionalist” (Fairweather 1901:89). According to Origen, all Christian

8 Newman, as cited in Fairweather (1901:v).

doctrine had to be subjected to the light of reason and not simply accepted on faith at face

value. Fairweather writes (1901:89):

As the revelation of the highest reason, Christianity must lend itself to elucidation by the science of reasoning, and, in fact, it admits of being stated in clear dogmatic propositions.

Such an approach to the construction, interpretation and application of Christian doctrine

and dogma has been a cornerstone of Liberal Catholic writing and thought throughout the

years. For example, Parry and Rivett ([1969] 1985:3) write:

The [Liberal Catholic] Church’s official attitude is simply to bestow the fullness of all those teachings and sacraments that may broaden the understanding, whilst allowing the right to non-literal and unprejudiced interpretation of doctrine and scripture, and the right to be open-minded.

Origen affirmed and expounded both the transcendence of God as the one eternal Essence

and the immanence of God in the whole of creation, with the latter being revealed in Christ.

We see the influence of this thinking in various parts of The Liberal Catholic Liturgy, but

perhaps never more beautifully than in this portion of the Service of the Holy Eucharist (see

Liturgy 218; 236):

All these things do we ask, O Father, in the name and through the mediation of thy most blessed Son, for we acknowledge and confess with our hearts and lips that ++ by him were all things made, yea, all things both in heaven and earth; ++ with him as the indwelling life do all things exist, and ++ in him as the transcendent glory all things live and move and have their being:

Fairweather sums up Origen’s position on the matter with these words (1901:96):

We live and move and have our being in God because by His power and reason He fills and holds together all the diversity of the world. The task to which Origen addresses himself resembles in certain respects that attempted by the Neoplatonists; for him as for them the problem is how to establish the organic unity of God and the world, and counteract the dualism of Oriental theosophies.9

9 Cf Acts 17:28 (“For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring”). The reference to the One in whom we live and move and have our being is, according to several scholars, “based on an earlier saying of Epimenides of Knossos (6 th century BC[E])” (Note, The New American Bible [Fireside Study Edition/Catholic]). Epimenides of Knossos was a Greek seer, philosopher and poet. The saying “For we are also his offspring” comes from Aratus of Soli, a 3 rd century BCE poet from Cilicia (Note, The New American Bible). Aratus (c315 BCE/310 BCE-240 BCE) was a Greek didactic poet. In this and other verses of his writings the Apostle Paul displays his intimate familiarity with Greek writings and teachings. Also of interest is that Mithraism came to the West when Cilician pirates were settled in Greece in the first century BCE. One of the major cities in Cilicia was Tarsus from which Paul came some 180 years after the Cilician pirates had been resettled. Paul was demonstrably familiar with Greco-Roman mystery religion and his concept of the indwelling cosmic Christ often bears little resemblance to or connection with the historical Jesus.

Not surprisingly, Origen, like Clement, was also a firm believer in Christian Universalism,10

the pre-existence of the human soul11 (with the latter, the human soul, being seen to be a

“mirror” of the Deity), and the final salvation of all human beings, but this should come as

no surprise to students of the history of the early Church. John Wesley Hanson, the

scholarly author of Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During Its

First Five-Hundred Years ([1899] Online), has written this about the Early Christian

Church’s almost universal belief in “universal salvation”:

Universal Restitution was the faith of the early Christians for at least the First Five Hundred Years of the Christian Era. ...

The surviving writings of the Christian Fathers, of the first four or five centuries of the Christian Era, abound in evidences of the prevalence of the doctrine of universal salvation during those years.12

Thus, Origen believed that although “the created spirit in the exercise of its own free will

shall fall away from God, it must still return to being in him”. These are sentiments, indeed

deep convictions that receive eloquent expression in The Liturgy of the Liberal Catholic

Church (see, especially, the Confiteor and the Act of Faith). Fairweather writes (1901:96)

that the “ultimate deification of humanity is a leading idea in the Greek theology”, something

which is reflected in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. For example, Jesus

himself affirmed, “Is is not written in your law, I said ye are gods” (Jn 10:34; cf Ps 82:6).13

10 See De Principiis, II, x:3, 4.I, I; Against Celsus, iv, 13; VIII. Lxxii. Quoted in Hanson (1899), ch 10.11 "In the temporal world which is seen, all beings are arranged according to their merits. Their place has been determined by their conduct" (De Principiis 3.3.5).12 See <http://www.tentmakerorg/books/Prevailing.html> (viewed 9 April 2009). See also Stetson (2008).13 One of T S Eliot's most memorable poems "East Coker" begins with the words, "In my beginning is my end", and concludes with the words, "In my end is my beginning" (see M Roberts (ed), The Faber Book of Modern Verse, London: Faber and Faber, 1960, pp 126, 133) – in all, a most apt poetic expression of the position expounded by both early Greek Patristic thought and Liberal Catholic theology.

Van der Leeuw (1927a:80) points out that Origen - just like Jesus himself who spoke in

parables to the masses but to his “inner group” revealed “the secret of the Kingdom of God”

(see Mk 4:11) - in his various lectures and writings gave “teachings such as the majority

could understand” but it was “only in the company of a small group of closer disciples that

he could expound the deeper doctrines and be understood”. Origen, like Clement, spoke

and wrote of his belief in the “mysteries of Jesus”, participation in those mysteries, and of

“the wisdom hidden in a mystery”.14 In several passages of Contra Celsum, Origen’s

famous refutation of Celsus’ attack on Christianity, Origen makes it clear that he “not only

believed in the existence of the Christian mysteries ... he knew and spoke of them with the

authority of one who had been initiated into them” (van der Leeuw 1927a:85). One such

passage from Contra Celsum is as follows:

... whoever is pure not only from defilement, but from what are regarded as lesser transgressions, let him be boldly initiated in the mysteries of Jesus, which properly are made known only to the holy and pure. ... The initiated of Celsus accordingly says, “Let him whose soul is conscious of no evil come.” But he who acts as initiator, according to the precepts of Jesus, will say to those who have been purified in heart, “He whose soul has, for a long time, been conscious of no evil, and especially since he yielded himself to the healing of the world, let such an one hear the doctrines which were spoken in private by Jesus to His genuine disciples.” ... [Celsus] does not know the difference between inviting the wicked to be healed, and initiating those already purified into the sacred mysteries!15

Fairweather, in his book Origen and Greek Patristic Theology, writes (1901:70):

According to Origen, the Spirit’s chief object in Scripture is to communicate ineffable mysteries regarding the affairs of men, ie souls inhabiting bodies. [De principiis iv 11.] But, passing forthwith into the region of the transcendent, he remarks that among those matters which relate to souls we must rank as primary the doctrines bearing upon God and His only-begotten Son, namely, “of whose nature He is, and in what manner He is the Son of God, and what are the causes of His descending even to the assumption of human flesh, and of complete humanity: and what also is the operation of this Son, and upon whom and when exercised.”

The Alexandrian theologians were also eminent philosophers, believing that philosophy was

“of divine origin” (Philip 1998:Online). In particular, as has already been pointed out on a

number of occasions, the Alexandrian School of Theology had a special focus on both

Christian and pagan (Greek) writings,16 and Alexandria itself (which was in its heyday one of

14 Contra Celsum, III, 61.15 Contra Celsum, III, 60. See also Contra Celsum, III, 59, 61 and 62.16 Clement, in particular, was extremely well versed in the writings and teachings of persons such as Marcion, Plato, Aristotle and Socrates as well as the works of many “gnostic” scholars.

the intellectual capitals of the Roman Empire) also had more than a passing acquaintance

with Buddhism,17 which itself had an influence upon Greek thought.18 Insofar as Origen’s

system of theology was concerned, his “philosophy of revelation accounts for the Gnostic

and Neoplatonic features mixed up with it” (Fairweather 1901:87).

Origen, who was “speculative to the verge of audacity” (Fairweather 1901:ix), and “even

more of an idealistic philosopher than Plato himself” (Fairweather 1901:87), gave us a “key”

which, if used wisely and intelligently, enables us to find the “lost gnosis”, the true

theosophia, or what Besant ([1909] 1984:60) referred to as “the wisdom underlying all

religions when they are stripped of accretions and superstitions ... teachings [that] aid the

unfoldment of the latent spiritual nature in the human being, without dependence or fear”.

The key is this – every religion, according to Origen, has a body, a soul, and a spirit. Van

der Leeuw describes it this way (1927:82-83):

Origen’s conception of the Scriptures was that they could be interpreted in three different ways, the first according to the letter or the body of the Scriptures, the second according to the soul, giving the allegorical meaning of the different passages, and the third according to the spirit, giving the esoteric interpretation.

Origen found the scriptural basis for his tripartite method of interpretation in the Hebrew

Bible, relevantly, among other parts of the Tanakh, in Proverbs 22:20-21:

Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?19

When one applies this key to the sacred scriptures of the world’s great religions one finds

that, when they are interpreted literally, they are for the most part at odds with each other,

and largely, if not entirely, irreconcilable. Thus, a passage of scripture such as “Jesus saith

unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”

17 Buddhist gravestones from the Ptolemaic period have been found in Alexandria.18 Clement of Alexandria wrote concerning the Buddha, Buddhism, and the influence of Buddhism on Greek thought in his Stromata (Miscellanies), Book 1, Chapter 15, at a time when there already were in existence (and had been for some time) several active Buddhist communities in the Hellenistic world. Indeed, there appears to have been more than a little syncretism between Buddhism and Greek philosophical thought. Many of the ancient Greek philosophers (eg Hegesias of Cyrene, who lived c300 BCE) appear to have been attracted to Buddhist asceticism and teachings.19 Fairweather writes (1901:74 fn 2) that the word translated (in the KJV and the RV) “excellent things” literally means “three” or “in triple form” and is so rendered by the Greek Septuagint (τρισσως) and the Vulgate (tripliciter), “perhaps with the idea of repetition to emphasise the truth”. In any event, Origen used Prov 22:20 as support for his threefold interpretation of sacred scripture.

(Jn 14:6) leads Christian fundamentalists to say things such as, “God has spoken his final

word in Jesus Christ”, and “If Christianity is right, all other religions are wrong”.20 The result

– a truly horrible state of affairs which has resulted in thousands of years of acrimony,

needless division, wars, inquisitions, heresy trials, witch hunts, martyrdoms, executions,

and so forth.

Now, when one starts to interpret scriptures allegorically,21 that produces a vast

improvement, and we start to see enormous similarities between the world’s various sacred

scriptures. However, the allegorical method of interpretation has its limitations and involves

a lot more subjectivity and intuitive guesswork than its proponents care to admit, and

suffers from an unavoidable ex post facto and somewhat mechanical superimposition of an

already adopted system of metaphysical or esoteric belief system

The third method of interpretation - the “spiritual” one - leads one to conclude that, despite

the many obvious differences in the contents of the world’s religions, there is, if one is

honest enough to admit it, some underlying common message, namely that all life is one,

that the One becomes the many so that the many may know themselves to be one, that we

all come from God (whether we care to use that word or not to describe the Sacred or the

Holy and the Ineffable One), that we belong to God, and live, move and have our being in

God, and are godlike in nature, and are each on our way back to God, that as we sow, so

shall we reap, that what belongs to us by right of consciousness can never be lost, and so

forth. All of this is affirmed and embraced by the Liberal Catholic Church and is given

abundant expression in The Liturgy. Origen expressed it this way:

Since then Scripture itself also consists as it were of a visible body, and of the soul in it that is perceived and understood, and of the spirit which is according to the patterns and shadow of the heavenly things - come, let us call on Him who made for Scripture body and soul and spirit, a body for them that came before us, a soul for us, and a spirit for them that in the age to come shall inherit life eternal, and shall attain to the heavenly and true things of the law; and so let us for the present search not the letter but the soul. And if we are able, we shall ascend also to the spirit, in our account of the sacrifices whereof we have just read.22

20 In logic, a statement of the last mentioned kind is not an argument at all, but only what is known as a “conditional statement”, as it does not state the premises necessary to support its conclusion. In short, it is a fallacy.21 Although Origen was certainly not the first to expound the allegorical method of interpretation, he was certainly “the first who attempted to give it a scientific basis” (Fairweather 1901:73). According to Origen, the function of allegorism was to “discover, exhibit, and expound the deeper sense of Scripture” (Fairweather 1901:76).22 Origen, In Lev Hom, V.

For Origen, the Scriptures were “a mine of speculative truths” even though he “never

depart[ed] from the position that the Bible is the sole guide to those higher truths which,

however they may vary as regards the form of their presentation, remain always the same

in substance” (Fairweather 1901:71). Nevertheless, there was indeed a divine purpose as

respects “the concealment of spiritual truths under cover of some narrative of visible things

or human deeds, or of the written legislation” (Fairweather 1901:71), for although “the letter

of Scripture is capable of edifying ‘the multitude,’ who cannot investigate the mysteries …

[t]he great instrument for discovering and interpreting the deeper mysteries underlying the

letter of Scripture is the allegorical method” (Fairweather 1901:71, 73).

Origen also shared Clement’s views on the interrelationship, but also the contradistinction,

between faith and gnosis. Fairweather has this to say about Origen’s views on this matter

(1901:94-95):

Faith Origen views as a whole-hearted belief manifesting itself in a ready obedience. While accepting the doctrine of justification by faith alone, he holds that the faith which does not influence conduct is dead. A living faith cannot consist in sin, but changes the whole walk and conversation. ......Faith … gradually develops into knowledge, and the life of faith advances with every increase in the number of doctrinal propositions the truth of which is recognised.

Although the “mystic element [was] not predominant” in Origen, it was “certainly present”

(Fairweather 1901:93). Thus, Origen, consistent with his mystical understanding of the

Logos (which, according to Clement, is always actively working in the responsive human

soul, ever revealing new spiritual truths to the disciple on the path), placed little weight or

significance upon “the Crucified One” (that is, Jesus Christ) except as a divine teacher and

special manifestation of the Logos. Fairweather writes (1901:91):

To the perfect, Christ is nothing more than the manifestation of the Logos who has been from eternity with the Father, and whose activity has also been eternal. It is not as the Crucified One, but merely as a divine teacher that He is of consequence to the wise. “He was sent indeed as a physician to sinners, but as a teacher of divine mysteries to those who are already pure, and who sin no more.” (Contra Celsum, iii 63).

Fairweather has written of the importance of these early Church Fathers (1901:4):

The special task, then, to which the Christian theologians of Alexandria addressed themselves, was that of harmonising the apostolic tradition concerning Christ with the theological conclusions of the Jewish-Alexandrian philosophers – a task which necessarily involved considerable modification of absolute statement on the one side or the other.

Thus, the early Greek Fathers of the Church saw Christianity as embodying all that was

good and noble in Greek philosophy and pagan religion. Indeed, they went further than that,

stating that whatever “elements of truth” were contained in the former reached their

completion or had their culmination in Christian doctrine. Fairweather writes (1901:92) of

the hybrid or heterodox nature of at least certain elements of Origen’s system of theology:23

The moral and religious ideal set forth in the system of Origen is one which has its roots partly in Neoplatonic mysticism and partly in Holy Scripture.

Fairweather sums up Origen’s views and contribution to Christian thought with these words

(1901:93):

For him the ideal to be sought by the human spirit is “the state without sorrow, the state of insensibility to all evils, of order and peace – but peace in God.” The way to attain this is through self-knowledge, repression of the sensuous, and due cultivation of “the meditative hour”: but in all this he sees nothing inconsistent with the most active endeavours to promote the kingdom of God.

Archdeacon F W Farrar, who certainly did not approve of Origen’s “version” of Christianity,

nevertheless could not, and did not, deny the immense impact Origen had on the early

Church. Farrar writes (1886:201):

The influence of Origen was wide and deep [(fn 1:) Gieseler says that “his exegetical writings were the model and source for all succeeding Greek commentators” (i. 232); he might have added, and for most Latin ones also], and all the more so because he did not expand and systematise in the Christian Church, as Philo had done in the Jewish, the principles which [were] at work in the writings of [other Church] Fathers.

Over time, the religious and mystical philosophy later known as Neoplatonism24 evolved.

The term is problematic and controversial in that several of those most intimately

associated with this school of philosophy, especially the Egyptian-born Plotinus (204-270

CE) and Porphyrey (c234-c305 CE), would have seen themselves as being Platonists, and

23 Elsewhere in his book Origen and Greek Patristic Theology Fairweather refers to what he regards as Origen’s “essentially heterodox [theological] system” (1901:97) in which Origen incorporated “so many philosophical doctrines with those of Scripture, [so as] to weave them into one heterodox system” (1901:94).24 The term Neoplatonism (neuplatonisch in German) was first coined by a German historian.

can still be seen to this day to have been Platonists,25 notwithstanding that as time went by

the movement increasingly became a synthesis of not only a number of distinct schools of

Greek thought and philosophy (in particular, Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism and

Pythagoreanism)26 but also esoteric elements from such places as Egypt and India. It would

later become the foundation and backbone of Christian mysticism, and otherwise had a

profound influence upon early Christian thinkers such as Augustine and Pseudo-

Dionysius.27 Also, several notable early Christian philosophers (for example, Justin and

Athenagoras) wrote unashamedly of the connections between Christianity on the one hand

and Platonism and Neoplatonism on the other.28

Neoplatonism built upon many of the foundations already laid down by Platonism itself,

especially the core idea that “Man originally by the power of the Divine Image within him

could control all Nature, but gradually lost this power through his own fault” (Corelli

1966:421) (cf the traditional Christian doctrine of the Fall). For the Neoplatonist, the human

mind was a noble thing - indeed the very throne of the Godhead Itself. The emphasis was

not on our “total depravity” but on our high calling and innate potential as the image and

very likeness of God. Alexandrian Christology may be said to have begun with Origen, who

believed not only in the pre-existence and multiple ages of the human soul29 but, more

importantly, in an eternal, as opposed to a once-only in time, generation of the Son, the

25 This was certainly the view of the eminent Thomas Taylor who was the first to translate the works of Plotinus into English (see Mead (1914)) as well as that of the classical scholar John D Turner.26 Despite what the German philosopher, scholar and literary critic Friedrich Schlegel wrote, albeit in relation to the question of “universals” (see Benn 1 1882:283), namely, “Every man is born either a Platonist or an Aristotelian”, there has always been synthesisation and syncretisation. 27 Neoplatonism also had an influence upon Islamic and Jewish thinkers.28 Christian Gnostics, such as Valentinus, did likewise, albeit highly selectively.29 Belief in the pre-existence of the soul was “not peculiar to Pythagoras and Plato, but was also current in the East, and may well have been suggested to Origen by certain Jewish apocrypha in which there was a large admixture of Oriental ideas” (Fairweather 1901:87-88). As to whether or not Origen actually believed in reincarnation, the evidence from Origen's own extant works (see, eg, his Commentaries on Jn 6:7 [229 CE] and Mt 10:20 [248 CE]: see “Reincarnation” [Online]) tends to suggest that Origen did not actually believe in reincarnation per se or not at least as the doctrine was generally understood. A local synod (not being an ecumenical council as such) condemned Origen’s teachings on pre-existence of the soul held in 543 CE. What was subsequently condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople held in 553 CE - an ecumenical council which was not primarily concerned with the issue of reincarnation but with an issue known as “The Three Chapters” - was not Origen’s supposed belief in reincarnation but the actions of certain Origenists (namely Evagrius and the Isochrists) who had redefined and reformulated (and thereby distorted) Origen's original Christology so that it came to read like a defence of reincarnation. We may never know what Origen’s precise views actually were on the matter of reincarnation. For example, in Contra Celsum it is unclear whether Origen is asserting his own personal association with Plato’s belief in transmigration of souls (reincarnation) or simply referring to Celsus as having made such an association. See also Weatherhead (1957:4, fn 1) who refers to, among other material, certain statements contained in an article written by the Liberal Catholic priest G N Drinkwater that had been published in an issue of The Liberal Catholic. See, generally, Hampton (1925) and Cooper (1927).

Logos, by means of which God communicates Itself from and throughout all eternity.30 It

was also Origen who wrote the decisive and seminal text of Christian Neoplatonism known

as De Principiis (On First Principles).

Neoplatonism, as a religious philosophy, is a special form of idealistic monism,31 asserting

that all reality is ultimately mental, that the physical world is produced by the mind, and that

we experience the physical world through the medium of ideas … and not directly.

Neoplatonism has been described as being “the basic philosophy of Plato with special

emphasis upon its mystical content” (Hall 1945:27) – in other words, Platonic mysticism.32

As such, Neoplatonism postulates one infinite and primeval Source of Being, which is the

source of all life as well as absolute causality, and the only real existence in which all things

subsist and have their being. Unity is reality, not just the underlying reality behind all

appearances of diversity. Indeed, according to Neoplatonists, diversity is an illusion in any

event. The “key” to all Neoplatonic thinking is, firstly, that all life is one, and secondly, that

good is co-eternal with unity (Hall 1945:40). This understanding of life needs to be

experienced, not just intellectually, but at the deepest levels of one’s being.

Neoplatonists placed a special emphasis on “the attainment of the state of enlightenment”,

meaning “the individual attainment of the philosophic state” (Hall 1945:37 and 38) such that

the “eternal prisoner”, our spirit long buried in the tomb or sepulchre of matter or substance

- the very essence of Life Incarnate - can rise to perfected glory by means of an ongoing

process of purification, knowledge and service to others. The Neoplatonists were also

Universalists, affirming not only their belief in the “oneness of life - God’s life and ours -

[which] is distinctly an Eastern teaching” (Pigott 1934:Online) but also embracing the view

that whilst the One ever seeks perfect Self-conscious expression by becoming and taking

the form of the many, the many (indeed, all) will eventually find their way back to the One

Source of Being. This is beautifully reflected in the Act of Faith of the Liberal Catholic

Church (see Liturgy 210, 229):

30 The Alexandrian School of Theology also laid the foundations for the development of Christian humanism.31 The Liberal Catholic philosophical orientation is highly monistic in nature. Tettemer ([1951] 1974:252) describes monism in these terms: “I could no longer see how the source of all things, Being, Itself, could create anything outside itself, as the dualism of Christianity teaches; for outside Itself there could be only non-being, or nothing.”32 Neoplatonists drew inspiration from, and meditated upon, not just the writings of Plato but also the teachings of Pythagoras.

We believe that God is love and power and truth and light; that perfect justice rules the world; that all his sons shall one day reach his feet, however far they stray. We hold the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man; we know that we do serve him best when best we serve our brother man. So shall his blessing rest on us + and peace for evermore. Amen.

Such optimism, especially as regards the idealistic manner in which God is described,

together with the notions of the perfectibility of all human beings, and the idea that perfect

justice rules the word, are very Platonic, and that Platonism carried through to the

Neoplatonism of the 3rd century and, many centuries later, in the revival of Neoplatonism

that occurred, first during the Renaissance,33 and later in the 19th century, re-manifesting

itself, especially in the United States of America, in such movements as Transcendentalism,

New Thought, Christian Science, Theosophy and other metaphysical movements, but not

unfortunately in mainstream conventional Christianity. Manly P Hall writes that

Neoplatonism was “too broad and profound a system of philosophy to gain general

acceptance” (1945:18). This is not at all surprising, for, as Fairweather points out (1901:23),

the Neoplatonists “borrowed whatever appeared to them good from every possible source”.

Fairweather goes on to say (1901:23):

They contemplated nothing less than the introduction of a universal religion, constructed on principles so broad that the wise of all the earth could adhere to it. It was their aim to set matters right between philosophy and theology, between doctrine and life, and to satisfy the needs of the soul on a scale to which Christianity could make no pretension.

H P Blavatsky supports the view that the “Ancient Wisdom” entered Christianity in a

prominent way by means of Neoplatonism. She writes (1879:Online):

There were Theosophists before the Christian era, notwithstanding that the Christian writers ascribe the development of the Eclectic theosophical system to the early part of the third century of their Era. Diogenes Laertius traces Theosophy to an epoch antedating the dynasty of the Ptolemies; and names as its founder an Egyptian Hierophant called Pot-Amun, the name being Coptic and signifying a priest consecrated to Amun, the god of Wisdom. But history shows it revived by Ammonius Saccas, the founder of the Neoplatonic School. It was the aim and purpose of Ammonius to reconcile all sects, peoples and nations under one common faith -- a belief in one Supreme Eternal, Unknown, and Unnamed Power, governing the Universe by immutable and eternal laws.

33 During this period Greek and Arabic Neoplatonic texts were acquired, translated and disseminated, resulting in a revival of interest in the philosophy.

Ammonius Saccas,34 who was referred to immediately above by Madame Blavatsky, was

an Alexandrian-born philosopher and “Philalethian, lover of truth”,35 who “received his early

education in the children’s school which preceded the Catechitical [sic] School”,36 and who

“never committed anything to writing”.37 Hall writes that Ammonius’ convictions were “the

direct result of internal inspiration rather than formal study and disputation” (1945:179).

Perhaps most importantly, he was the teacher for some eleven years of Plotinus,38 to whom

“the work of recording the Neoplatonic teachings was taken up”.39 Although many writers

(and not just Blavatsky) refer to Ammonius Saccas as having been the founder of

Neoplatonism, it is Plotinus who is generally credited with having been the principal founder

(in the sense of his having been the developer and perfector) of Neoplatonism,40 indeed

“the greatest exponent of Neoplatonism” (von Krusenstierna 1977:28), although it is clear

that Ammonius Saccas was the biggest single influence on Plotinus in terms of the

development of his philosophy of Neoplatonism.

Plotinus was also associated with the Alexandrian School of Theology. His system of

metaphysics and cosmology was quite complex involving three hypostases, namely the

One, the Intelligence or Mind (Nous),41 and the Soul – a veritable trinity of sorts, in which

the Intelligence (cf the Son, in the Christian religion) derives and acknowledges its source in

and from the One, as a result of the self-reflection of the latter. The relationship has been

described as being as follows (Moore 2008:Online):

The Intelligence may be understood as the storehouse of potential being(s), but only if every potential being is also recognized as an eternal and unchangeable thought in the Divine Mind (Nous). ... The being of the Intelligence is its thought, and the thought of the Intelligence is Being.

In Christian terms, God thinks but one thought, and that thought is God’s Son. Roman

Catholic archbishop Fulton J Sheen, after referring to Plato’s question, “If there is only one

34 Also known as Ammonius of the Sack, he died between 240 and 245 CE. He was the first person to use the term “theosophy” (von Krusenstierna 1977:28).35 See “Great Theosophists: Ammonius Saccas” (Online).36 See “Great Theosophists: Ammonius Saccas” (Online). Many assert that Ammonius Saccas was largely self-taught.37 See “Great Theosophists: Plotinus” (Online).38 Origen was another pupil or “disciple” of Ammonius Saccas. 39 See “Great Theosophists: Plotinus” (Online). It is said that Saccas started the Neoplatonic School in Alexandria in 193 CE: See “Great Theosophists: Ammonius Saccas” (Online).40 Others, such as Proclus, also played an important role in developing and perfecting the teachings of Ammonius Saccas.41 Plotinus also refers to the Intelligence as Being, God (theos), as well as the Demiurge (the latter being a more “Gnostic” concept).

God, what does He think about, for if He is an intelligent being He must think of

something?”, gave this as an answer in his book The Divine Romance:

God does not think one thought, or one word, one minute and another the next. Thoughts are not born to die, and do not die to be reborn, in the mind of God. All is present to Him at once. In Him there is only one Word. He has no need of another. That Thought or Word is infinite and equal to Himself, hence a Person unique and absolute, first-born of the spirit of God; a Word which tells what God is, a Word from which all human words have been derived, and of which created things are but merely the broken syllables or letters; a Word which is the source of all the wisdom in the world.42

The wording and the thought forms employed by Fulton Sheen in many of his writings43

show the influence of Platonic and Neoplatonic thought on Christian thought – even within

mainsteam Christianity.

Plotinus was not a traditional theist nor a pantheist, and is probably best referred to as a

panentheist. He described the path of spiritual realization as a “flight of the alone to the

Alone” (Mehta [1955] 1957:12). As for the human soul itself, Plotinus saw it as being

comprised of two parts, namely a higher or divine part, which by its very nature is

unchangeable and eternal (cf the notion of “the Self”), and a lower part being the seat of the

personality (the “false self”, if you like, comprising the various “I’s” and “me’s” that give the

appearance of being the real person but which have no real existence in and of themselves

whatever). Plotinus’ concept of the One, which is entirely self-sufficient and omnipresent,

from which everything else emanates and has its being, is very “eastern”, and finds much

expression in and throughout the Liberal Catholic Liturgy. For example, in the service of the

Holy Eucharist, we find the following beautiful passage in the Prayer of Consecration

(Liturgy 215):

… [W]e lift our hearts in adoration to thee, O God the Son, who art consubstantial and coeternal with the Father, who, abiding unchangeable within thyself, didst nevertheless in the mystery of thy boundless love and thine eternal sacrifice send forth thine own divine life into the universe and thus didst offer thyself as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, dying in very truth that we may live.

42 Sheen (1930:Online), viewed 5 May 2009, <http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3782>.43 See also Three to Get Married (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1951), in which Sheen writes (1951:Online): “The Trinity is the answer to the questions of Plato. If there is only one God, what does He think about? He thinks an eternal thought: His Eternal Word, or Son. If there is only one God, whom does He love? He loves His Son, and that mutual love is the Holy Spirit.” What Sheen is either unable or unwilling to acknowledge are the Greek roots of the Trinity, although he does state, rather patronisingly, that “The great philosopher [viz Plato] was fumbling about for the mystery of the Trinity ... [but] it was Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Who revealed to us the inmost life of God”.

Omnipotent, all-pervading, by that self-same sacrifice thou dost continually uphold all creation, resting not by night or day, working evermore through that most august hierarchy of thy glorious saints, who live but to do thy will as perfect servants of thy wondrous power, to whom we ever offer heartfelt love and reverence.

All of the notable persons referred to above who were associated in one way or another

with the Alexandrian School of Theology were not content simply to believe. They wanted to

know. That should be our aim, both individually and as a Church, today. Despite censure,

hostility and charges of heresy and so forth, much of the mysticism of the Alexandrian

School, being part of what Besant ([1931] 2002) has referred to as an otherwise unbroken

and continuous “Universal Wisdom Tradition”,44 along with other associated ideas and

concepts such as theosis (or “divinisation”), finding the “Hidden God” in our very own lives,

and “waking up to mystery”, were absorbed into some forms and expressions of Christian

thinking, and can be found to this day in Christian churches such as the Maronite Catholic

Church, the Antiochian Orthodox Church45 - even though those two churches have their

origins in the Church of Antioch - and the Liberal Catholic Church. All these churches lay

special emphasis on the idea that the Son of God became man so that we might become

God. This is a very Eastern perspective. Regrettably, mainstream traditional Christianity

has, for the most part, moved in an altogether different direction. As the American Liberal

Catholic Bishop John M Tettemer ([1951] 1974:211) writes:

It is interesting to speculate on what would have been the development of Christianity if the Arabs had not brought Aristotle to the Western World in the ninth century, and if the Platonism of Augustine, or even the Neoplatonism of Plotinus, had become the prevailing philosophy in Europe, during that period in which the Church’s doctrines were to receive their final form.46

Sadly, as Hall (1945:172) pointed out:

Neoplatonism could not compete successfully with the rising tides of Christian Aristotelianism, therefore it never became a popular school of thought. For some

44 The Wisdom Tradition (or the so-called “Ancient Wisdom”) can be traced in, inter alia, the Upanishads, the writings of Lao-tze, The Book of the Dead of ancient Egypt, the Kabbalah, various Gnostic writings, the Pythagorean, Platonic and Neoplatonic schools of philosophy (and, as regards the latter, especially Dionysius the Areopagite, also known and more correctly referred to as Pseudo-Dionysius), Plotinus, the Rosicrucians, the Knights Templar, Freemasonry, Scandinavian and Celtic folklore, the great Christian mystics such as Meister Eckhart, St John of the Cross and Mother Julian of Norwith, Hawaiian Huna, Native American spirituality, Maori traditions, Australian Aboriginal dreamtime stories, and so forth.45 The Antiochian Orthodox Church (also known as The Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and All the East) is one of the five churches that comprised the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church before the East-West Schism (the “Great Schism”). Over time, the rise in power of the See of Constantinople, and later Rome itself, reduced the importance of the Church of Antioch, and much that was mystical in Christianity (in particular, early Christianity) was lost as a result.46 Re-Quest edition of I Was a Monk.

reason, the negative emotions and attitudes come easier to men than do the more constructive impulses. It is easier to dislike than to like, and we are far more likely to distrust than to trust. We hope for the best, but we prepare always for the worst. We talk of the brotherhood of man, but develop elaborate systems to prove the inequality of nations and the perfidy of individuals. We talk of the fatherhood of God, and then preach of the gentile and the constant menace of heathenism. In business there is much mouthing of such words as ethics, cooperation, and fair-play, but ceaseless practice of ruthless competition.

The literalist Christians in the Roman and later Protestant traditions ultimately won out. The

regrettable history of the Christian Church, at least in its so-called more traditional and

conventional forms, is one of increasing dogma, control and dependency. Creativity,

autonomy and freedom of belief on the part of the individual were progressively

discouraged. Dissent was not tolerated. Even the use of violence was justifiable if it

assisted in maintaining orthodoxy. For the most part Christian theology was systematized

along Aristotelian, as opposed to Platonic or Neoplatonic, lines, which was the “best” way to

achieve the desired result – uniformity, consistency, fidelity to the “one true faith” ... and

obedience … especially the latter. All of this is the very antithesis of Platonism and

Neoplatonism. Max Freedom Long, in What Jesus Taught in Secret, expressed it this way

(1983:113):

Christianity, once its basic pattern had been rather completely set, by about 400 [CE], became fixed, and, in a static condition, droned on and on through the Dark Ages.

Douglas Lockhart in his book Jesus the Heretic explains how Christianity “borrowed” from

Greek philosophical thought and Gnosticism much of its doctrinal and ethical teaching,

before proceeding to literalise and carnalize it to the point of absurdity, thereby totally

distorting the religion of Jesus, that is, the religion which he taught and by which he lived his

life. Lockhart writes (1997:264):

The Church Fathers tell us that the doctrines of the Gnostics had their foundations in Plato and Pythagoras, Aristotle and Heraclitus, and in the mysteries and initiations of the surrounding nations – in fact, in just about everything but Christ. So was there no actual connection with Christianity? Was Gnosticism just a parasitical body attached limpet-like to the body of the Faithful? Well, not quite. As we have seen from our survey of Paul’s interaction with the Samaritan gnosis, and the evolution of his Christology in alignment with religious ideas from Samaria and Arabia, the Christology eventually borrowed from Paul by the emerging orthodoxy at Rome was replete with Gnostic images and conceptions which they timorously interpreted back into absurd literalisms ... When merged with the heavily camouflaged history surrounding Jesus’ life and teachings found in the gospels, this muddle took on stupendous proportions and began to turn into the topsy-turvy theological nightmare modern thinkers are still trying to make sense of. Having popped Jesus physically into the sky, orthodoxy got rid of the primary influence on

Paul’s conception of the “mystic Christ”, ended up believing its own manufactured propaganda virtually by accident, and then made it anathema for anyone to disagree with this cutely concocted system of compulsory beliefs. And it really can’t be argued that all of this was done in innocence – that is academic foot-shuffling.47

The Liberal Catholic Church, as already mentioned, formally and proudly identifies itself,

from among the various schools of Christian thought, with the Platonic and Neoplatonic “as

being those most closely attuned to the Wisdom Tradition”48 which, as a Christian church,

the Liberal Catholic Church believes represents all that is true, valuable and original in

Christianity. Thus, the Liberal Catholic Church is therefore committed to preserving and

promulgating the truths contained in the Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophical and

theological traditions. It would not be overstating the point to assert that most Liberal

Catholics see subsequent theological developments (in particular, the theological writings of

Saint Thomas Aquinas - a person who was fundamentally an Aristotelian in philosophy –

and whose writings laid the foundation for the development of Catholic Christianity in a

highly restrictive and regulative manner)49 in what may be termed mainstream or traditional

Christianity as constituting an aberration, indeed a corruption, of Christ’s original teachings

and principles. As one writer on early Christian history puts it:

It’s rather odd, then, that a movement which likely started as a mystery religion would eventually reject all of its own “mystical” content, and go after other faiths, based on that rejection. This is one of many paradoxes that surround the origins of Christianity. Unfortunately, later Christians destroyed many records of the period, so we may never know precisely why this happened.

47 Emphasis in the original. Evidence of Paul’s panentheistic and cosmic Christology can be found in innumerable New Testament verses including but not limited to the following: “In Christ were created all things in heaven and on earth everything visible and everything invisible.... Before anything was created, he existed, and he holds all things in unity” (Col 1:15-17); “In him we live, and move, and have our being.... ‘We are his offspring’” (Acts 17:28); “For from him, and through him and to him are all things” (Rom 8:36); “There is one God who is father of all, over all, through all and within all” (Eph 4:6). See also the complementary Johannine version of Christological panentheism: “Through him all things came to be, not one thing had its being but through him. All that came to be had life in him and that life was the light of men, a light that shines in the dark, a light that darkness could not overpower” (Jn 1:2-5); “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” ( 1 Jn 1:5); “God is love, and anyone who lives in love, lives in God, and God in him” (1 Jn 4:16).48 Section 10 (Philosophical Background), [Final Draft] Statement of Principles & Summary of Doctrine, 9th ed (London: St Alban Press, 2006). Neoplatonism, in its theology, is panentheistic. Plotinus taught that there was an ineffable transcendent God (The One) of which subsequent realities were emanations. From the One emanates the Divine Mind (Nous) the Cosmic Soul (Psyche), and the World (Cosmos), in contradistinction to many Gnostic sects which held the inverse idea of panentheism. For them, matter was evil and ultimately flawed, and thus not part of God. This resulted in a dualistic nature of the universe, seen most clearly, and rigidly, in the teachings of Manichaeism. (Saint Augustine of Hippo passed through stages of Platonic philosophy and Manichaen theology before embracing Catholic Christianity at the age of 32.)49 Even though the Protestant Reformation broke with the natural law theology of St Thomas Aquinas, which had been the ruling legal and moral ideology of Catholic Europe for many centuries, and replaced it with what is known in law as legal positivism (which should not be confused with the philosophy known as “logical positivism”), the Protestant reformers remained Aristotelians for the most part in their basic theological orientation, despite their opposition to and fundamental break with Rome.

The reason for Christianity’s victory is both obvious and simple: Politics. It so happened that it became popular among the intelligentsia of the eastern imperial cities — especially in places such as Antioch, Alexandria, Nicaea, Carthage, etc. These cities had managed to ride out the turbulence of the first three centuries of the Empire. Roman Emperors, beginning with Constantine, needed the support of the eastern cities, if they were to make the Empire work. So Constantine, in 313, declared tolerance for Christianity, making it safe to be a Christian. Later Emperors added even more favours to the young religion (with the exception of Julian “the Apostate” who made an abortive attempt to make Mithras the state religion of Rome).

Once they had Imperial favour, Christians began ruthlessly stamping out all other religions. In other words, they did to others what had been done to them for nearly three centuries! They coerced conversions, and destroyed texts and monuments which were sacred to other religions.50

At this juncture, it is appropriate to mention Nestorius (386-c451) who was Archbishop of

Constantinople from 428-431 CE. He was a disciple of the School of Antioch51 which was

opposed to two so-called heresies, Arianism52 and Apollinarianism.53 However, Nestorius is

best remembered for a so-called heresy and Eastern Orthodox schismatic belief named

him, namely Nestorianism, even though it now seems that he probably never personally

held the actual belief.

50 See “Christianity and the ‘Mystery Religions’” (Online). 51 As previously mentioned, the Church of Antioch was the most ancient Christian church after that of Jerusalem.52 Arianism, being the belief attributed to Arius (c256-336 CE), held that the divine Jesus (God the Son) was not co-eternal with, but was otherwise created by, God the Father. The schismatic belief, which had also been opposed by Athanasius, was condemned at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE.53 Also known as Apollinarism, this belief held that Christ had a human body and a human “living principle”, but his divine nature (the Divine Logos) had taken the place of and otherwise supplied the functions of his nous (“thinking principle”, soul, mind, “higher self”). Such a belief is monophysite in nature, but not exclusively so. Monophysitism, an Eastern Orthodox schismatic belief condemned by the Council of Chalcedon held in 451 CE, contended that Jesus had only one completely fused nature, which was divine, as opposed to two natures, one human and the other divine. Monophysitism is not to be confused with Monothelitism, another Christological doctrine and schismatic belief which was officially condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople in 680-681 CE, that some say nevertheless developed from the monophysite position, that affirmed that Jesus had two natures but only “one will”. Maronites have been accused (wrongly, it would seem) of having once held Monothelitism. If anything, the Christology of Maronites tended to be Miaphysite, holding firm to the teaching and wording of Cyril of Alexandria - who spoke of “one (mia) nature of the incarnate Logos” (mia fusij tou qeou Logou sesarkwmenh) - but taking the view that this one nature had both a divine character and a human character whilst retaining all of the characteristics of both of those natures. Miaphysitism (also known as henophysitism) has, for centuries, been the basic Christology of the communion of Christian Churches known as the Oriental Orthodox Churches (also known as the Old Oriental Churches or the Non-Chalcedonian (Orthodox) Chuches). Those Churches include the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Indian Orthodox Church, and the Coptic Orthodox Church – but not the Antiochian Orthodox Church (although the latter is in communion with the Syriac Orthodox Church). In recent years, there have been a number of important agreed statements between representatives of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches on various matters including Christology: see, eg, Middle Eastern Oriental Orthodox Common Declaration (2001), [Online version] viewed 14 April 2009, <http://sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/20010317oomtg4.html>.

Nestorianism, which had its roots in the Antiochene tradition, affirmed that Jesus had two

(that is, dual) natures such that there was the human Jesus, as well as the divine Jesus,

with both of these natures being real and of equal importance, but each totally independent

of the other – in effect, tantamount to two persons living in the same body.54 At first glance,

it would seem that the Christology55 of the Liberal Catholic Church is Nestorian in nature,

what with its traditional emphasis on Jesus the man on the one hand, and the Living Christ

or World Teacher overshadowing and otherwise expressing himself through the personality

of Jesus on the other.

However, Nestorius refused to admit the existence of two Christs or two Sons, asserting, as

he often did, the union of the prosopon56 (person), and, upon a careful analysis of the

Treatise of Heracleides57 makes it clear that, if anything, his actual views were not

Nestorian as such (as that term has come to be understood and applied, for the most part

perjoratively by mainstream Christianity) but were otherwise very similar to those held by

many Christians in various traditions, especially Eastern and liberal ones, over the years.

Nestorius said of Christ, “the same one is twofold”, thus affirming his belief in a union of the

Divine Logos (God the Word) and the human nature or manhood (usia) of Jesus of

Nazareth. These two natures - the usia of God and that of Jesus - were said by Nestorius to

be “alien to each other” but otherwise formed a union in the one prosopon of Jesus Christ.

This was no ordinary union of prosopa, and ought not to be described or viewed as such,

but rather a communication idiomatum (a transfer of attributes) in which the Logos became

the prosopon of Jesus Christ’s human nature - a view that is not dissimilar to the early

54 Nestorianism, which also affirmed that Mary was the mother of the human Jesus (Christotokos) but not the Mother of God (Theotokos), was officially rejected at the First Council of Ephesus held in 431 CE, which officially declared that Jesus, although divine as well as human, was still only one person. The above mentioned Council of Chalcedon held in 451 CE officially declared that Jesus had two complete natures, one human and the other divine.55 To the extent, that is, to which it truly can be said that the Liberal Catholic Church has a definite Christology. See, in particular, Sections 3 (Overall Perspective) and 10 (Philosophical Background), [Final Draft] Statement of Principles & Summary of Doctrine, 9th ed (London: St Alban Press, 2006). All teachings of the Liberal Catholic “may be said to partake of the nature of a theosophy ... [which] differs from theology in emphasising the importance of each individual’s quest for spiritual understanding based upon personal experience (gnosis or sophia) as opposed to dogmatic imposition of particular interpretations of scripture, which may be limited by man’s knowledge of the world at any one time”: Section 10 (Philosophical Background).56 Nestorius used the word prosopon in two different but otherwise intertwined senses: first, to refer to the external appearance of a person or thing, and secondly, in the sense in which we use the word “person”” as a distinct, individual natural person, with the end result being that there can be no separation of the name of a person from the actual person himself or herself.57 Also known as the Bazaar of Heracleides, this 16th century text was discovered in 1895.

Liberal Catholic teaching of Christ, admittedly as the World Teacher, uniting himself with

Jesus”. Early Liberal Catholics and Theosophists who held this view of Christ (eg Besant

and Leadbeater) believed this union or overshadowing took place at the time of Jesus’

baptism. Nestorius was of the view that the union, giving rise to the God-Man, took place at

and from the moment of conception,58 with Mary subsequently giving birth to the incarnate

Christ as opposed to the Divine Logos which existed even before Mary and all other human

beings were conceived or born ... indeed, before time itself. Such a view is not the

Nestorianism that was declared schismatic, even heretical. Nestorius was correct –

humanity and divinity are inseparable, such that Jesus, the embodiment of the power of

suffering love, was at his most divine when he was at his most human, living, as he did, a

life of selfless self-sacrifice – a life which reached its culmination and fulfillment in his death

on the Cross. Hence, “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (Jn 14:9).59

Traditional Christians present a picture of early Christianity as being one of order, organization

and, for the most part, uniformity of doctrine and teaching, whilst acknowledging, of course,

that there were some sects and cults that tried, in vain, to present “alternative” but otherwise

heretical forms of Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth, and we now know that

there were competing and discordant forms of Christianity, with their own respective

jurisdictions, schools and doctrinal authorities, during the first few centuries of the Christian

Church. Even The Catholic Encyclopedia quotes sources that make it clear that, for no less

than the first three centuries of its existence, “the primitive church had no organization ... nor

had [the clergy] a special title”.60 The Roman Catholic Church continues to assert its right to

have been the church formed by the Lord Jesus Christ himself when he reportedly spoke

those oft-cited words, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will

build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18).61 However, the

New Testament scriptures do not give any sort of supremacy to Rome. For example, at the

58 See Anastos (1993:202-206), quoting from the Treatise of Heracleides.59 On the other hand, a Nestorian would take the view that Jesus’ sacrificial, suffering love “an act of Jesus in his humanity but not in his deity” (Grenz, Guretzhi and Nordling [1999] 2000:86).60 See Van Hove (1907:Online).61 Knight (1960:180; Online) writes: “The post-Pauline author of Eph 2: 20 is well aware that the Church did not begin with Peter. This we see in the following statement, ‘We are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief comer stone’” (cf Liturgy 224). Knight makes the point that “neither Apostolic Succession [in the Roman Catholic sense] nor Protestant individualism [in the form of one’s profession of faith in Christ] is to be discerned in the answer which our Lord gave to Peter” (1960:178; Online). The “rock” on which the Christian Church rests is, according to Knight, “the faithfulness of God, the reliability, the rocklike trustworthiness of God, onto which Peter steps, as when he was sinking in the Lake of Galilee” (1960:178; Online).

Apostolic Council of Jerusalem (see Acts 15:1-29) it was James, who is “appropriately

considered the first bishop of Jerusalem, the mother church [of all Christendom]” (Kushiner

1986:Online),62 was the presiding elder.

The First Council of Nicea held in 325 CE sanctioned the primacy of three dioceses, namely

Alexandria, Antioch and Rome. The bishop of Rome did not assume the title of Pope, at

least in the sense in which that title is used and understood today, until toward the end of

the 4th century (more precisely in 384 CE).63 The Roman diocese would later gain

prominence and preeminence for a number of reasons discussion of which goes beyond

the scope and purpose of this present thesis. However, it is sufficient, for present purposes,

to simply state that the early Christian churches in Asia Minor did not accept either the

primacy of Rome or the supremacy of the Roman bishops.

So, what went wrong with the Christian Church, a collection of churches none of which is in

full communion with all other churches, which for the most part has regrettably repudiated

its roots and carnalized the teachings of its founders? Lockhart sums it up as follows

(1997:352-353):

Circumstances favoured the growth of a predominantly Hellenistic viewpoint within the late first-century and early second-century Church, and this viewpoint eventually overcame the old Nazarene vision of Jesus as Jewish Messiah through an astute use of Paul’s Christological vision. Now the idea of Paul’s vision being usurped and made bend to orthodoxy’s utilitarian purposes will not be accepted by Christian apologists – in fact it will be cried down as a rank misinterpretation of those events which led to the formation of the Catholic Church. ... With the benefit of a false continuity set up between Nazarene, Petrine and Pauline viewpoints, the Catholic Church has been able to legitimize all of its historical moves since roughly the end of the first century.

W R Inge, sometime Dean of St Paul's, London, wrote, “To become a popular religion, it is

only necessary for a superstition to enslave a philosophy.”64 Right at the very beginning of

the Liberal Catholic Church, when it became known as such, Annie Besant wrote that the new

church “has in it the essence of the divine teaching for the people, freed from some of the

incongruities which have grown around the teaching of Christ and His message transmitted

62 Clement of Alexandria himself wrote that James the Just, as he was known, was chosen as bishop of Jerusalem: see Kushiner (1986:Online).63 There is historical evidence to show that the title “Pope” had been applied (albeit with a different understanding from that generally held today) to bishops of Rome even in the 2nd century CE, but that was also the case with respect to the bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria who were also called “Pope”.64 W R Inge, Outspoken Essays, 2nd ser, II:iii, “The Idea of Progress”.

by His disciples" and "should be at the very heart of the teaching that the Christ will give"

(Besant, as cited in Norton 1990:14-15). Leaving aside for the moment the last mentioned

reference to what was then and later referred to as “the expected Coming” (which did not

eventuate in the way some had imagined it would), Dr Besant’s words, sensibly construed,

remain appropriate for us today. The challenge for progressive Christians in today’s world is to

present the true message transmitted to Jesus’ disciples without the distortions and

corruptions in theology, and the rewriting of Church history, that have occurred over the past

2,000 or so years.

SELECT EXCEPTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. BOOKS, BOOK CHAPTERS, MONOGRAPHS, BOOKLETS AND PAMPHLETS

Abraham, P 1931. The Maronites of Lebanon. Wheeling WV: Our Lady of Lebanon

Church.

Achtemeier, P J 1985. Harper's Bible Dictionary. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Addington, J E [1969] 1996. The Hidden Mystery of the Bible. Marina del Rey CA: DeVorss

& Company.

Adyar, F (pseud of L Furze-Morrish) 1938. Christian Mysteries and the Catholic Church.

Melbourne: Robertson & Mullens.

Anastos, M V 1993. “Nestorius was Orthodox”, in P C Finney, D Scholer, and E Ferguson

(eds), Studies in Early Christianity: A Collection of Scholarly Essays, vol 9 (Doctrines of

God and Christ in the Early Church). London: Routledge.

Anderson, J 1962. Studies in Empirical Philosophy. Sydney: Angus & Robertson. [Sydney

University Press reprint, 2004.]

Anderson, J (ed J Anderson, G Cullum and K Lycos) 1982. Art & Reality: John Anderson

on Literature and Aesthetics. Sydney: Hale & Iremonger.

Anderson, J N D (ed) 1960. The World’s Religions. London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship.

Anderson, J N D 1968. Into the World. London: Falcon Books.

Anderson, J N D 1972. Morality, Law and Grace. London: Tyndale Press.

Anderson, N (ed) 1976. The World's Religions. Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans.

Anderson, N 1980. God's Law and God's Love: An Essay in Comparative Religion.

London: Collins.

Angus, S [1925] 1975. The Mystery-Religions: A Study in the Religious Background of

Early Christianity. New York: Dover. [Formerly published as The Mystery-Religions and

Christianity: A Study in the Religious Background of Early Christianity, London: John

Murray, 1925.]

Angus, S 1929. The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World: A Study in the

Historical Background of Early Christianity. London: J Murray.

Angus, S 1931. The Environment of Early Christianity. London: Duckworth.

Angus, S 1934a. Jesus in the Lives of Men. Sydney: Angus & Robertson.

Angus, S 1934b. Truth and Tradition. Sydney: Angus & Robertson.

Angus, S 1939. Essential Christianity. Sydney: Angus & Robertson.

Angus, S (ed E H Vines) 1962. Forgiveness and Life: Chapters from an Uncompleted Book,

The Historical Approach to Jesus. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.

Anson, P F [1964] 2006. Bishops at Large. Berkeley CA: Apocryphile Press (Independent

Catholic Heritage Series).

Argyle, M 2000. Psychology and Religion. London: Routledge.

Barnett, P 2002. Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament

Times. Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press.

Barnett, P 2005. The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years. Wm B Eerdmans

Publishing Co.

Beggiani, S 1991. Introduction to Eastern Christian Spirituality: The Syriac Tradition.

Scranton PA: University of Scranton Press.

Beggiani, S 1998. The Divine Liturgy of the Maronite Church: History and Commentary, 2nd

rev ed. [Maronite Rite series, vol 7.] New York: Saint Maron Publications.

Bell, V C 1936. Religion and Reality. Sydney: Angus & Robertson.

Benn, A W 1882. The Greek Philosophers, vols 1 and 2. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, &

Co.

Bernardino, A D (ed) 1992. Encyclopedia of the Early Church, vol 1. Cambridge: James

Clarke & Co.

Besant, A [1901] 1914. Esoteric Christianity: or The Lesser Mysteries. 3rd imp. Adyar,

Madras [Chennai]: Theosophical Publishing House.

Besant, A [1909] 1984. The Theosophic Life, 5th rpt (1999). Adyar, Chennai: Theosophical

Publishing House. [Originally published in The Theosophist, March 1909.]

Besant, A [1931] 2002. The Universal Wisdom Tradition and the Theosophical Society, 6th

reprint (first under this title). Adyar, Chennai: Theosophical Publishing House.

[Previously printed under the title Theosophy and The Theosophical Society (1931,

1952 and 1985).]

Bettenson, H 1991. The Early Christian Fathers, 11th ed. London: Oxford University Press.

Bettenson, H 9ed) 1977. Documents of the Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Betts, R B 1978. Christians in the Arab East. Athens: Lycabbetus Press.

Bigg, C 1968. The Christian Platonists of Alexandria. London: Oxford University Press.

Birnbaum, N 1964. “Religion”, in J Gold and W L Kolb (eds), A Dictionary of the Social

Sciences, London, Tavistock Publications.

Bock, D L 2006. The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative

Christianities. Nashville TN: Thomas Nelson.

Bouquet, A C 1942. Comparative Religion. London: Penguin Books.

Bowne, B P 1887. Theism: Comprising the Deems Lectures for 1902. New York, Cincinnati

and Chicago: American Book Company.

Braden, C S 1949. These Also Believe: A Study of Modern American Cults & Minority

Religious Movements. New York: Macmillan.

Braden, C S 1963. Spirits in Rebellion: The Rise and Development of New Thought.

Dallas TX: Southern Methodist University Press.

Brandon, S G F 1972. Religion in Ancient History. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Brandt, M nd (but c1965). “There is No Religion Higher Than Truth”, in S Hodson and M J

van Thiel (compilers), C W Leadbeater: A Great Occultist (Publisher: Compilers). Online

versions: viewed 9 April 2009,

<http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/theosophy/oncwl1.html>;

<http://www.katinkahesselink.net/his/leadbeat.html#Introduct>.

Brightman, E S [1940] (1969). A Philosophy of Religion. Greenwood Press.

Broderick, R C 1944. Concise Catholic Dictionary. Milwaukee WI: The Bruce Publishing

Company.

Brooks, N L [1924] 1977. Mysteries, 3rd printing. St Louis MO: Divine Science Federation

International. Online version: viewed 2 April 2009,

<http://www.angelfire.com/wi2/ULCds/mystA.html>.

Brown, R E 1971. Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections. London: Chapman.

Brown, R E 1983. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity.

New York: Paulist Press.

Brown, R E 1984. The Churches the Apostles Left Behind. New York: Paulist Press.

Bruce, F F [1958] 1970. The Spreading Flame: The Rise and Progress of Christianity from

its First Beginnings to the Conversion of the English. [The Paternoster Church History,

vol 1.] Exeter, Devon, England: The Paternoster Press.

Bultmann, R 1956. Primitive Christianity in Its Contemporary Setting, trans R H Fuller.

Cleveland OH: World Publishing, Living Age/Meridian.

Burkitt, F C 1931. Church and Gnosis. Cambridge UK: University of Cambridge Press.

Burnet, J 1930. Early Greek Philosophy, 4th ed. London: A and C Black.

Burt, L W 1945a. The Churches and the People: Collapse of Orthodoxy – Mr Warwick

Fairfax’s Challenge: An Answer. Chatswood NSW: St Alban Press.

Burton, E J [1969] 1974. A Faith of Your Own. London: St Alban Press.

Burton, E J nd. The Apostolic Succession and the Sacramental Principle: A Contemporary

Examination. London: St Alban Press.

Bushby, T 2005. The Crucifixion of Truth. Buddina Qld: Joshua Books.

Bütz, J J 2005. The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity. Rochester VT:

Inner Traditions.

Campbell, B F 1980. Ancient Wisdom Revived: A History of the Theosophical Movement.

Berkeley CA: University of California Press.

Campenhausen, H von 1959. The Fathers of the Greek Church, trans S Godman. New

York: Pantheon.

Campenhausen, H von 1964. The Fathers of the Latin Church, trans M Hoffmann. London:

A & C Black.

Chadwick, H 1966. Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in Justin,

Clement, and Origen. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chadwick, H 1967. “Philo of Alexandria”, in A H Armstrong (ed), The Cambridge History of

Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chadwick, H [1967] 1993. The Early Church, rev ed. [Penguin History of the Church series,

vol 1.] London: Penguin Books.

Chetwynd, T 1986. A Dictionary of Sacred Myth. London: Unwin.

Chryssavgis, J 2004. Light Through Darkness: The Orthodox Tradition. Maryknoll NY:

Orbis Books.

Churton, T 1997. The Gnostics. New York: Barnes and Noble.

Churton, T 2005. Gnostic Philosophy: From Ancient Persia to Modern Times. Rochester

VT: Inner Traditions.

Cirlot, J E 1962. A Dictionary of Symbols. New York: Philosophical Library.

Clebsch, W 1974. Christianity in European History. London: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, A A 1970. The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition. New York: Harper & Row.

Cooper, I S 1927. Reincarnation: The Hope of the World, 2nd ed. Chicago: Theosophical

Press.

Cooper, I S 1964. Ceremonies of the Liberal Catholic Rite, 2nd ed. London: St Alban Press.

Cooper, I S 1979. Theosophy Simplified. Wheaton IL: Theosophical Publishing House.

Cooper, J 1996. Mithras. York Beach ME: Samuel Weiser.

Copleston, F C 1972. A History of Medieval Philosophy. London: Methuen.

Corelli, M 1966. The Life Everlasting: A Romance of Reality. Los Angeles: Borden

Publishing Co.

Corlett, W and Moore, J 1978. The Christ Story. London: Hamish Hamilton.

Creme, B 1980. The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters of Wisdom. Los Angeles:

Tara Center; London: The Tara Press.

Cross, F L (ed) 1958. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. London: Oxford

University Press.

Crouzel, H 1989. Origen: The Life and Thought of the First Great Theologian, trans A S

Worrall. Edinburgh: T &T Clark.

Cupit, D and Armstrong, P 1977. Who Was Jesus? London: BBC.

Dart, J 1988. The Jesus of Heresy and History: The Discovery and Meanings of the Nag

Hammadi Gnostic Library. San Francisco: Harper & Row. [Revised and Expanded

edition of The Laughing Savior: The Discovery and Significance of the Nag Hammadi

Gnostic Library (1976).]

Davies, A P 1956a. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: New American

Library (Mentor Books).

Dawson, D 1992. Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria. Oxford:

University of California Press.

De Purucker, G 1938. The Story of Jesus. Point Loma CA: Theosophical University Press.

Online version: viewed 17 April 2009,

<http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/christ/xt-jesus.htm>.

De Purucker, G 1996. Occult Glossary, 2nd ed. Wheaton IL: Theosophical Publishing

House.

Dearmer, P [1899] 1917. The Parson’s Handbook, 9th ed. London: Humphrey Milford.

Dillon, J M [1977] 1996. The Middle Platonists. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.

Dix, D G 1945. The Shape of the Liturgy, 2nd ed. Westminster: Dacre Press. Online version:

viewed 15 April 2009, from The Global Library: The Old Catholic Church:

<http://www.global.org/Pub/Shape_of_the_Liturgy.asp>.

Dix, M [1893] 1902. The Sacramental System Considered as the Extension of the

Incarnation. New York: Longmans.

Doane, T W [1882] 1985. Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions. New York:

Commonwealth (1892); Mokelumne Hill CA: Health Research (1985). (Kessinger

Publishing reprint, 1996.)

Dobin, J 1977. The Astrological Secrets of the Ancient Hebrew Sages. New York: Inner

Traditions.

Doherty, E 1999. The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Ottawa:

Canadian Humanist Publications.

Donaldson, J 1864-1866. A Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine: From the

Death of the Apostles to the Nicene Council, vols 1-3. London: Macmillan.

Eckel, Jr, F L 1960. A Concise Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Terms. Nashville TN and New

York NY: Abingdon Press.

Eckhart, M 1981. Meister Eckhart, trans E Colledge and B McGinn. New York: Paulist

Press.

Edge, H T [1943] 1997. The Universal Mystery-Language and Its Interpretation, 2nd and rev

ed. Covina CA: Theosophical University Press. Online version: viewed 28 April 2009,

<http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/edge-uml/edge-uml.htm>.

Editors of The Shrine of Wisdom [1936; 2nd ed 1968] 1984. The Human Soul in the Myths

of Plato. Fintry, Brook, Godalming, Surrey: The Shrine of Wisdom.

Ellis-Jones, I 2007. Beyond the Scientology Case: Towards a Better Definition of What

Constitutes a Religion for Legal Purposes in Australia Having Regard to Salient Judicial

Authorities from the United States of America as well as Important Non-Judicial

Authorities. Turramurra NSW: Author. [Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the

requirements of the postgraduate degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Law (C02028),

Faculty of Law, University of Technology, Sydney. Year of Submission of Thesis on

Completion of Examination: 2007. Year of Submission of Thesis for Examination: 2006.]

Online version: viewed 3 April 2009, <http://hdl.handle.net/2100/404>.

Ellwood, Jr, R S 1973. Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America. Englewood

Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Ellwood, Jr, R S 1979. Alternative Altars: Unconventional and Eastern Spirituality in

America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ellwood, [Jr,] R S 1995. “Theosophy”, in T Miller (ed), America’s Alternative Religions,

Albany NY: State University of New York Press.

Enslin, M S 1938. Christian Beginnings. New York: Harper and Brothers. [Reprinted, The

Literature of the Christian Movement: Part III of Christian Beginnings. New York: Harper

Torchbooks/Harper and Brothers, 1956.]

Eusebius 1975. Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, trans K Lake. London: Loeb Classical

Library.

Fairweather, W 1901. Origen and Greek Patristic Theology. [The World’s Epoch-Makers

series, ed O Smeaton.] New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Online version: viewed 15

May 2009, <http://ia340924.us.archive.org/1/items/origenandgreekp00fairgoog/

origenandgreekp00fairgoog.pdf>.

Farrar, F W 1886. History of Interpretation: Eight Lectures Preached Before the University

of Oxford in the Year MDCCCLXXXV on the Foundation of the Late Rev John Bampton.

London: Macmillan. [Kessinger Publishing reprint, 2004.] Online version: viewed 22 May

2009,

<http://www.archive.org/stream/essaysinbiblical00smituoft/essaysinbiblical00smituoft_dj

vu.txt>.

Ferguson, J 1974. Clement of Alexandria. New York: Twayne Publishers.

Ferguson J, 1976. An Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Mysticism and the Mystery Religions.

London: Thames and Hudson.

Ferm, V 1951. Concise Dictionary of Religion. New York: The Philosophical Library.

Fortescue, A 1910. "Liturgy", in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 9. New York: Robert

Appleton Company. Online version: viewed 9 April 2009, from New Advent:

<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09306a.htm>.

Fortescue, A 1912. The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy. New York and London:

Longmans, Green. Boonville NY: Preserving Christian Publications (1997 reprint of

1912 ed).

Fortescue, A [1917] 1918. The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described. London: Burns &

Oates. Online version: in “Altar Training”, viewed 15 April 2009, The Global Library: The

Old Catholic Church:

<http://www.global.org/Pub/Ceremonies_of_the_Roman_Rite_Described.asp>.

Freke, T [1998] 1999. The Wisdom of the Christian Mystics. Alresford, Hants UK: Godsfield

Press.

Freke, T and Gandy, P 1999. The Jesus Mysteries: Was the “Original Jesus” a Pagan

God? New York: Three Rivers Press/Random House.

Fritz, M 1992. God’s Surprising Presence: Praying with the Hebrew Scriptures. Winona

MN: Saint Mary’s Press.

Funk, R 1996a. Honest to Jesus. New York: HarperSanFrancisco.

Funk, R W, Hover R W, and The Jesus Seminar 1996b. The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus

Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: HarperOne.

Gaskell, G A 1960. Dictionary of All Scriptures and Myths. New York: Julian Press.

Gavin, F S B 1928. The Jewish Antecedents of the Christian Sacraments. London: SPCK.

[Kessinger Publishing reprint (1942 reprint ed).]

Gaving, F S B 1930. The Catholic Idea of the Eucharist in the First Four Centuries.

London: SPCK.

Gaynor, F (ed) 1953. Dictionary of Mysticism. New York: Philosophical Library.

Goodrick-Clarke, C and Goodrick-Clarke, N (eds) 2005. G R S Mead and the Gnostic

Quest. [Western Esoteric Masters series.] Berkeley CA: North Atlantic Books.

Gore, C G (ed) 1890. Lux Mundi, 10th ed. New York: United States Book Company.

Grant, M 1977. Jesus. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Grant, R M (ed) 1961. Gnosticism: An Anthology. London: Collins.

Grant, R M, with D N Freedman [1960] 1993. The Secret Sayings of Jesus. New York:

Barnes & Noble.

Greeley, A M 1971. The Jesus Myth. Garden City NY: Doubleday; London: Search Press

(1972).

Greeley, A M [1982] 1983. The Bottom Line Catechism for Contemporary Catholics.

London: W H Allen.

Greenlees, D 1951. The Gospel of the Mystic Christ (based on a new translation of St

John's Gospel and several Apocrypha, with explanatory notes and intro by Greenlees).

Adyar, Madras [Chennai]: Theosophical Publishing House.

Gregory, T E 1986. Vox Populi: Popular Opinion and Violence in the Religious

Controversies of the 5th Century AD. Columbus OH: Ohio State University Press.

Gregory of Nyssa (St) 1993. On the Soul and the Resurrection, trans C Roth. New York: St

Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Grenz, S J, Guretzhi, D and Nordling, C F [1999] 2000. The Hodder Pocket Dictionary of

Theological Terms. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Grigg, R 2000. Imaginary Christs: The Challenge of Christological Pluralism. Albany NY:

State University of New York Press.

Griggs, C W 1990. Early Egyptian Christianity from its Origin to 451 CC, vol. 2. Leiden, The

Netherlands: E J Brill.

Grove, D E [1925] 1962. The Mystery Teaching of the Bible. London: Theosophical

Publishing House.

Habel, N, O’Donoghue, M and Maddox, M 1993. Myth, Ritual and the Sacred: Introducing

the Phenomena of Religion. Underdale: University of South Australia.

Hall, M P 1945. Journey in Truth, 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Philosophical Research Society.

Hall, M P 2000. The Wisdom of the Knowing Ones: Gnosticism – The Key to Esoteric

Christianity. Los Angeles: Philosophical Research Society.

Halverson, M and Cohen, A (eds) [1958] 1960. A Handbook of Christian Theology. London:

Fontana Books.

Hampton, C 1925. Reincarnation: A Christian Doctrine. Los Angeles: St Alban Press.

Hanson, J W 1899. Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During

Its First Five-Hundred Years. Boston: Universalist Publishing House. [BiblioLife reprint,

2008.] Online version: viewed 9 April 2009,

<http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html>.

Happold, F C 1970. Mysticism: A Study and An Anthology, rev ed. London: Penguin

Books.

Harnack, A von 1908. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three

Centuries, 2 vols, trans and ed J Moffatt. London: Williams and Norgate. New York: G P

Putnam's Sons.

Harpur, T 2004. The Pagan Christ: Is Blind Faith Killing Christianity? Sydney: Allen &

Unwin.

Harrison, E F (ed) [1960] 1972. Baker’s Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids MI: Baker

Book House.

Haussig, H W 1966. A History of Byzantine Civilization, trans J M Hussey. London:

Thames and Hudson.

Heindel, M 1925. The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception or Mystic Christianity: An

Elementary Treatise Upon Man's Past Evolution, Present Constitution and Future

Development. 10th ed. Oceanside CA: The Rosicrucian Fellowship.

Heindel, M 1947. The Rosicrucian Philosophy in Questions and Answers, vol II. Oceanside

CA: The Rosicrucian Fellowship.

Heline, C 1950/1951. The New Age Bible Interpretation: An Exposition of the Inner

Significance of the Holy Scriptures in the Light of the Ancient Wisdom. Vol IV, Part I,

1950; Vol IV, Part II, 1951. Los Angeles: New Age Press.

Hexham, I [1994] 1999. Concise Dictionary of Religion, 2nd ed. Vancouver: Regent College

Press. Online version: viewed 10 March 2009,

<http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/concise/WORDS-S.html>.

Hodson, G 1925. The Hidden Wisdom in Christian Scriptures, [Online] viewed 24 February

2009, <http://www.global.org/Pub/GH_Hidden_Wisdom.asp>.

Hodson, G 1930. The Inner Side of Church Worship: An Offering on the Altar of the

Christian Faith (with a foreword by F W Pigott). Adyar, Madras [Chennai]: Theosphical

Publishing Press. Wheaton IL: Theosophical Press (1948 reprint).

Hodson, G 1952. The Seven Human Temperaments. [2nd ed 1953; 3rd ed 1956.] Adyar,

Madras [Chennai]: Theosphical Publishing House. Online version: viewed 1 May 2009,

<http://www.levir.com.br/theotext.php?cod=00596>.

Hodson, G 1967-81. The Hidden Wisdom in the Holy Bible, vols 1-4 (vols 1-2, 1967; vol 3,

1971; vol 4, 1981). Wheaton IL: Theosophical Publishing House (Quests Books).

Hodson, G 1971. The Priestly Ideal. London/Ojai/Sydney: St Alban Press.

Hodson, G 1975. The Christ Life from Nativity to Ascension. Wheaton IL: Theosophical

Publishing House (Quests Books).

Hodson, G 1977. Clairvoyant Investigations of Christian Origins and Ceremonial, with a

foreword (and also a glossary) by S von Krusenstierna. London/Ojai/Sydney/Miranda:

St Alban Press.

Hodson, S and van Thiel, M J (compilers) nd (but c1965). C W Leadbeater: A Great

Occultist. Publisher: Compilers. Online versions: viewed 9 April 2009,

<http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/theosophy/oncwl1.html>;

<http://www.katinkahesselink.net/his/leadbeat.html#Introduct>.

Hoeller, S [A] 1982. The Gnostic Jung and the Seven Sermons to the Dead. Wheaton IL:

Quest Books.

Hoeller, S A 1989. Jung and the Lost Gospels. Wheaton IL: Theosophical Publishing

House.

Hooker, I [R] 1981. The Foundations of the Liberal Catholic Church. [Thesis submitted in

fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts, Department of Religious

Studies, University of Sydney.] Sydney NSW: University of Sydney.

Horton, R F 1923. The Mystical Quest of Christ. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Hoyland, J S 1928. The Great Forerunner. London: Constable & Co.

Huxley, A [1946] 1994. The Perennial Philosophy. London: HarperCollins.

Hyde, D 1997. Rescuing Jesus: A Heretic’s Handbook. Kew, Victoria: Mandarin Books.

Inge, W R 1899. Christian Mysticism. London: Methuen & Co. Online versions: viewed 1

June 2009, <http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14596>.

Inge, W R 1929. The Philosophy of Plotinus, 2 vols. London: Longmans.

Inge, W R 1947. Mysticism in Religion. London: Hutchinson University Library.

Irenaeus 1981. Against the Heretics [Adversus Haereses], in The Ante-Nicence Fathers,

trans A Roberts and J Donaldson. Grand Rapids MI: William B Eerdmans.

James, W [1902] 1958. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature -

Being the Gifford Lectures on Natural Religion Delivered at Edinburgh in 1901-1902.

New York: New American Library.

Jinarājadāsa, C [1924] 1947. The Law of Christ: Sermons by a Buddhist at the Church of

St Alban (Liberal Catholic) Sydney, 2nd ed (1947). Adyar, Madras [Chennai]:

Theosophical Publishing House. [Kessinger Publishing reprint, 2007.]

Jinarājadāsa, C (compiler) 1952. On the Liberal Catholic Church: Extracts from Letters of C

W Leadbeater to Annie Besant, 1916-1923. Adyar, Madras [Chennai]: Theosophical

Publishing House.

Johnson, R A 1986. Inner Work. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Jonas, H 1958. The Gnostic Religion. New York: Beacon Press.

Joyce, D 1972. The Jesus Scroll: A Timebomb for Christianity? Melbourne: Ferret Books.

Jurgens, W A 1970. The Faith of the Early Fathers. Collegeville MN: The Liturgical Press.

Kaplan, A [1985] 2002. The Real Messiah? A Jewish Response to Missionaries. New

York: National Conference of Synagogue Youth.

Kelly, J N D 1978. Early Christian Doctrines. New York: Harper and Row.

Kelsey, M 1985. Resurrection. New York: Paulist Press.

Kersey, J 2007. The Apostolic Succession in the Liberal Rite. Roseau Valley, Dominica:

European-American University Press/The Liberal Rite.

Kohn, R 2003. The New Believers: Re-Imagining God. Sydney: HarperCollins.

Krusenstierna, S von 1977. Structure and Function of the Church - The Liberal Catholic

Church: Organization, 2nd rev ed. [Liberal Catholic Institute of Studies, Unit 6, Paper 1.]

Liberal Catholic Institute of Studies.

Krusenstierna, S von 1978a. A Brief History of the Liberal Catholic Church. [Liberal

Catholic Institute of Studies, Unit 3, Paper 1, Part 1.] Liberal Catholic Institute of

Studies.

Krusenstierna, S von 1978b. A Brief History of the Liberal Catholic Church. [Liberal

Catholic Institute of Studies, Unit 3, Paper 1, Part 2.] Liberal Catholic Institute of

Studies.

Krusenstierna, S von 1979. “The Doctrine of Christ”, in S von Krusenstierna (ed), Liberal

Catholic Doctrine. [Liberal Catholic Institute of Studies, Unit 5, Paper 3, vol 1.] Liberal

Catholic Institute of Studies.

Krusenstierna, S von [1988] 2000. Partaking in the Christian Mysteries. Melbourne: Order

of St Alban/Liberal Catholic Church in Australia/Church of St John the Beloved.

Kuhn, A B 1930. Theosophy: A Modern Revival of Ancient Wisdom. New York: Henry Holt

and Company.

Kunz, F 1959. “Theosophy”, in D D Runes (ed), Dictionary of Philosophy. Ames IA:

Littlefield Adams & Co.

Leadbeater, C W [1902] 2007. An Outline of Theosophy. London: Theosophical Publishing

Society. [Readapted by J van Driel; Lebach, Germany: 2007.] Online version: viewed 13

March 2009, <http://liberalkatholische-kirche.de/Buecher/An%20Outline%20of

%20Theosophy.pdf>.

Leadbeater, C W 1904. The Christian Creed: Its Origin and Signification. 2nd ed. London:

Theosophical Publishing Society. Reprinted 1920; 3rd ed, Sydney: St Alban Press,

1979. 

Leadbeater, C W [1913] 1954. The Hidden Side of Things, 5th ed. Adyar, Madras

[Chennai]: Theosophical Publishing House.

Leadbeater, C W 1914. The Christ: The World Saviour. Sydney: The Order of the Star in

the East.

Leadbeater, C W 1920. The Hidden Side of Christian Festivals. Los Angeles: St Alban

Press.

Leadbeater, C W [1920/1929/1967] 1967. The Science of the Sacraments. 1st ed (1920),

Los Angeles: St Alban Press. 2nd ed (1929), 5th ed (1967), Adyar, Madras [Chennai]:

Theosophical Publishing House.

Leadbeater, C W [1925] 1969. The Masters and the Path. Adyar, Madras [Chennai]:

Theosophical Publishing House. Online version: viewed 15 May 2009,

<http://www.anandgholap.net/Masters_And_Path-CWL.htm>.

Leadbeater, C W [1930] 2001. How Theosophy Came to Me: Autobiographical

Reminiscences. Adyar, Chennai: Theosophical Publishing House.

Leadbeater, C W 1959. Man Visible and Invisible. Adyar, Madras [Chennai]: Theosophical

Publishing House.

Leadbeater, C W 1973. The Inner Side of Christian Festivals. 2nd rev ed of The Hidden

Side of Christian Festivals. Sydney: St Alban Press.

Leadbeater, C W 1975. A Textbook of Theosophy. Adyar, Madras [Chennai]: Theosophical

Publishing House.

Leadbeater, C W 1983. The Christian Gnosis. Sydney: St Alban Press.

Leadbeater, C W (ed S von Krusenstierna) 1993. The Sacraments. [Abrdg and rev ed of

The Science of the Sacraments.] Sydney: St Alban Press.

Leadbeater, C W and Jinarājadāsa, C [1951] 2000. The Law of Sacrifice. 3rd ed. Adyar,

Chennai: Theosophical Publishing House.

Leeuw, G van der [1938] 1967. Religion in Essence and Manifestation. Gloucester MA:

Peter Smith.

Leeuw, J J van der 1927. The Dramatic History of the Christian Church from the

Beginnings to the Death of St Augustine. Adyar, Madras [Chennai]: Theosophical

Publishing House. [Kessinger Publishing reprint, 2005.]

Leeuw, J J van der 1927a. The Dramatic History of the Christian Church from the

Beginnings to the Death of St Augustine. Adyar, Madras [Chennai]: Theosophical

Publishing House. (Kessinger Publishing reprint, 2005.)

Leeus, J J van der 1927b. The Fire of Creation, 2nd ed rev, with a foreword by C

Jinarājadāsa. Adyar, Madras [Chennai]: Theosophical Publishing House.

Leeuw, J J van der 1930. Revelation or Realization: The Conflict in Theosophy. [Based on

a lecture delivered to the London Federation of the Theosophical Society on 15 June

1930, to the Dutch Convention of the Theosophical Society on 21 June 1930, and to the

Geneva Congress of the European Federation of Theosophical Societies on 30 June

1930.] Amsterdam: N V Theosofische Vereeniging Uitgevers Maatschappij; Firma H

Tulp. Online versions: viewed 16 April 2009, <http://www.tphta.ws/JJL_RRCT.HTM>;

<http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/jjleeuw.htm>.

Leeuw, J J van der [1926; 1940] 2001. Gods in Exile, 3rd ed (1940). Adyar, Madras

[Chennai]: Theosophical Publishing House.

Lewis, H S [1929] 1955. The Mystical Life of Jesus, 11th ed. San Jose CA: Supreme Grand

Lodge of AMORC.

Liberal Catholic Church 1918. Statement of Principles. London: Liberal Catholic Church.

Liberal Catholic Church [1919/1924/1942/1967/1983] 1983. The Liturgy According to the

Use of the Liberal Catholic Church. 1st ed (1919), 2nd ed (1924), 3rd ed (1942), 4th ed

(1967), 5th ed (1983). London: Liberal Catholic Church/St Alban Press.

Liberal Catholic Church [1920] 1926. Statement of Principles, Summary of Doctrine and

Table of the Apostolic Succession. London: Liberal Catholic Church (1920); Sydney: St

Alban Press (1926).

Liberal Catholic Church 1921. The St Alban Hymnal: Compiled for the Use of the Liberal

Catholic Church in the United States of America. Los Angeles, London and Sydney: St

Alban Press.

Liberal Catholic Church 1928. The St Alban Hymnal: Compiled for the Use of the Liberal

Catholic Church. Los Angeles and Sydney: St Alban Press.

Liberal Catholic Church 1952. The Liberal Catholic Liturgy: With Music as Used at the

Church of St Alban, Sydney. Sydney: The Church of St Alban.

Liberal Catholic Church 1966. 4:2 The Australian Liberal Catholic, Jubilee Issue 1916-

1966, February-March.

Liberal Catholic Church 1967. Table of the Apostolic Succession in the Liberal Catholic

Church 1739-1967. Sydney: St Alban Press.

Liberal Catholic Church 1986. Statement of Principles and Summary of Doctrine. London:

St Alban Press.

Liberal Catholic Church 2003. Table of the Apostolic Succession in the Liberal Catholic

Church Including Relevant Episcopal Consecrations, Appointments and Jurisdiction

1719-2002, 6th ed, Advent 2002. London, Ojai CA, Sydney NSW and Miranda CA: St

Alban Press. Online version: viewed 2 April 2009,

<http://www.eglise-catholique.org/ApostolicSuccession.pdf>.

Liberal Catholic Church 2004. General Constitution of the Liberal Catholic Church. London:

Liberal Catholic Church. Online version: viewed 26 May 2009,

<http://kingsgarden.org/English/organizations/LCC.GB/Publications/OfficialDocuments/

2004GeneralConstitution.pdf>.

Liberal Catholic Church 2006. [Final Draft] Statement of Principles and Summary of

Doctrine. 9th ed. London: St Alban Press.

Liberal Catholic Church nd. The Holy Eucharist in the Liberal Catholic Church. Ojai CA: St

Alban Press.

Liberal Catholic Church nd. Religion for Today in the Liberal Catholic Church. Ojai CA: St

Alban Press.

Liberal Catholic Church nd. What is the Liberal Catholic Church? Ojai CA: St Alban Press.

Liberal Catholic Church International 1977a. The Holy Eucharist and Other Services. San

Diego CA: St Alban Press.

Liberal Catholic Church International 1977b. Statement of Principles. San Diego CA: St

Alban Press.

Liberal Catholic Church of Ontario (Canada) 1986. Table of the Apostolic Succession in the

Liberal Catholic Church. Online version: viewed 13 May 2009,

<http://www.thedegree.org/libcath.html>.

Liberal Catholic Church of Saint Thomas, Melba, ACT (Province of Australia) nd. Notes on

The Holy Eucharist. Privately printed.

Liberal Catholic Church, Province of the USA nd. Basic Tenets of the Liberal Catholic

Church, [Online] viewed 24 February 2009,

<http://members.tripod.com/~LiberalCatholic/tenets.htm>.

Liberal Catholic Church, Province of the USA nd. What is The Liberal Catholic Church?

(from the pamphlet of the same title published by St Alban Press, Ojai CA [Leaflet No

2]). Online version: viewed 24 February 2009,

<http://members.tripod.com/~SRLCC/whatislc.htm>.

Lilla, S R 1971. Clement of Alexandria. London: Oxford University Press.

“Liturgy of St John Chrysostom: The Basis of the Liberal Catholic Liturgy”. Online version:

in “Liturgy”, The Global Library: The Old Catholic Church: viewed 17 March 2009,

<http://www.global.org/Pub/JC_Liturgy.asp>.

Lockhart, D 1997. Jesus the Heretic: Freedom and Bondage in a Religious World.

Shaftesbury, Dorset, and Rockport MA: Element Books.

Lockhart, D 1999. The Dark Side of God: A Quest for the Lost Heart of Christianity. New

York: HarperCollins; Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Logan, A H B, and Wedderburn, A J M (eds) 1983. New Testament and Gnosis.

Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Long, M F 1983. What Jesus Taught in Secret. Camarillo CA: DeVorss & Company.

Lossky, V 1976. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Crestwoos NY: St

Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Lost Books of the Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, The [1926, 1927] 1974. New

York: New American Library.

McGregor, G 1979. Gnosis: A Renaissance in Christian Thought. Wheaton IL: Quest

Books.

Macoby, H 1986. The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. New York: Harper

& Row.

Maine, G F 1953. The Life and Teachings of the Master. London and Glasgow: Collins.

Mannin, E [1940]. Christianity - or Chaos?: A Re-statement of Religion. London: Jarrolds.

Marion, J 2004. The Death of the Mythic God: The Rise of Evolutionary Spirituality.

Charlottesville VA: Hampton Roads Publishing Company.

Maronite Rite, The: Questions on the Maronites 1978. Sydney: Maronite Diocese of Saint

Maroun’s.

Marshall, G N 1970. Challenge of a Liberal Faith. New York: Pyramid Books.

Martin, L H 1987. Hellenistic Religions: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Mathews, O 1981. The Bible – Unclaimed Legacy. Edinburgh: Floris Books.

Matthews, E M 1959. Freedom of Thought: An Encyclical. Los Angeles: Liberal Catholic

Church.

Matthews, E M nd. The Liberal Catholic Church and Its Place in the World. Los Angeles: St

Alban Press.

Mead, G R S (ed) 1914. Select Works of Plotinus, trans T Taylor. London: G Bell and

Sons.

Melton, J G 1996. The Encyclopedia of American Religions, 5th ed. New York: Gale.

Metaphysical Bible Dictionary 1931. Unity Village MO: Unity School of Christianity.

Meyendorff, J 1975. Christ in Eastern Christian Thought. Crestwood NY: St Vladimir's

Seminary Press.

Miller, R J (ed) 1992. The Complete Gospels. New York: HarperSanFrancisco.

Moussa M nd. Clement of Alexandria: The Original Christian Philosopher. Online version:

viewed 9 April 2009, <http://www.coptic.net/articles/ClementOfAlexandria.txt>.

Moyes, G 1989. Discovering the Young Church. Sutherland NSW and Claremont CA:

Albatross Books.

Murphy, D 1997. A Return to Spirit: After the Mythic Church. Sydney: E J Dwyer.

Murray, G 1935. Five Stages of Greek Religion. [The Thinker’s Library series, No 52.]

London: Watts & Co.

Murray, G 1940. Stoic, Christian and Humanist. London: C A Watts & Co; Allen & Unwin.

Murray, W J 1918. The Changeless Reality: New Thoughts on Old Doctrines.

New York: Divine Science Publishing Co.

Murray W J 1922. The Realm of Reality. New York: Divine Science Publishing Assn.

Nash, R 1992. The Gospel and the Greeks. Dallas TX: Probe Books.

Nissen, H J 1988. The Early History of the Ancient Near East, 9000-2000 BC, trans E

Lutzeier, with K J Northcott. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Norton, R 1990. The Willow in the Tempest: A Brief History of the Liberal Catholic Church

in the United States, 1817-1942. Ojai CA: St Alban Press.

O'Meara, D J (ed) 1982. Neoplatonism and Christian Thought. New York: State University

of New York Press.

Origen 1979. Against Celsus, trans F Crombie. [The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol 4.] Grand

Rapids MI: Eerdmans.

Origen 1966. On First Principles, trans G W Butterworth. New York: Harper and Row

1966).

Ortiz, J C 1982. Living with Jesus Today. Altamonte Springs FL: Creation House.

Osborn, E 1981. The Beginning of Christian Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Otto, R [1917] 1977. The Idea of the Holy, trans by J W Harvey. London: Oxford University

Press.

Pagels, E [1979] 1988. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Random House; London:

Weidenfeld and Nicolson (1979); Penguin Books (1988).

Parrinder, G [1976] 1995. Mysticism in the World’s Religions. Oxford: Oneworld

Publications.

Parry, J B and Godby, M C 1972. The Work of Transformation. Sydney: St Alban Press.

Parry, J B and Rivett, R A [1969] 1985. An Introduction to the Liberal Catholic Church: A

Short Outline of its Principles and Doctrines, 3rd ed. Ryde NSW: St Alban Press.

Parry, K (ed) 2007. The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing.

Pelikan, J 1985. Jesus Through the Centuries. New York: Harper & Row.

Pepper, M (ed) 1989. The Pan Dictionary of Religious Quotations. London: Pan Books.

Peter, J 1965. Finding the Historical Jesus: A Statement of the Principles Involved.

London: Collins.

Philip, T V 1998. East of the Euphrates: Early Christianity in Asia. Delhi: Indian Society for

Promoting Christian Knowledge/Christian Sahitya Samithy, Tiruvalla. Online version:

viewed 8 April 2009, <http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=1553>.

Philo 1973. Philo, trans F H Colson and G H Whitaker. London: Heinemann.

Pigott, F W [1925] 1927. The Parting of the Ways: Teachings of the Liberal Catholic

Church Compared and Contrasted with Traditional Catholic Teachings. 1st ed, Sydney:

St Alban Press [St Albans Booklets, No 1], 1925. London: Theosophical Publishing

House, 1927.

Pigott, F W 1953. Catholicism Past and Future. Ojai CA: St Alban Press. [Online] viewed

24 February 2009, <http://www.global.org/Pub/Pigott_Catholicism.asp>.

Pike, J A [1964] 1965. A Time for Christian Candour. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Pitkin, W H 1973. Qualifications for the Priesthood in the Liberal Catholic Church. Ojai CA:

St Alban Press.

Pitkin, W H [1938] 1977. Credo: First Steps in the Faith. Ojai CA: St Alban Press.

Platt, W C 1982. The Liberal Catholic Church: An Analysis of a Hybrid Sect. [Columbia

University PhD Dissertation.] Ann Arbor MI: University Microfilms International.

Plotinus [250 CE]. The Six Enneads, trans S Mackenna and B S Page. Online version:

viewed 1 June 2009, <http://classics.mit.edu/Plotinus/enneads.html>.

Plotinus [250 CE] 1991. The Enneads, trans S MacKenna, with an intro and notes by J

Dillon. London: Penguin Books.

Poole, C A 1982. Mysticism – The Ultimate Experience. San Jose CA: Supreme Grand

Lodge of AMORC Inc.

Prophet, E C 1988. The Lost Years of Jesus: Documentary Evidence of Jesus’ 17-Year

Journey to the East. Gardiner MT: Summit University Press.

Pye, M 1972. Comparative Religion. Newton Abbot: David and Charles.

Radin, P [1937] 1957. Primitive Religion: Its Nature and Origins. New York: Dover.

Revill, D 1992. The Roaring Silence: John Cage: A Life. New York: Arcade Publishing.

Rivett, R [A] 1979. The Meaning and Purpose of the Liturgy. [Liberal Catholic Institute of

Studies, Unit 4, Paper 1.] Liberal Catholic Institute of Studies.

Robertson, J M 1936. Christianity and Mythology, 2nd ed. London: Watts & Co.

Robinson, J M (ed) [1977] 1988. The Nag Hammadi Library in English, rev ed. San

Francisco: Harper & Row.

Roe, J 1986. Beyond Belief: Theosophy in Australia 1879-1939. Sydney: New South

Wales University Press.

Salibi, K 1985. The Bible Came From Arabia. London: Jonathan Cape.

Sandmel, S 1979. Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction. New York/Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Schonfield, H 1985. Those Incredible Christians. Shaftesbury, Dorset, England: Element

Books.

Schonfield, H 1993. The Passover Plot. Shaftesbury, Dorset, England: Element Books.

Schwaller de Lubicz, R A 1981. Symbol and the Symbolic. New York: Inner Traditions

International.

Schüller, G W 1997. Krishnamurti and the World Teacher Project: Some Theosophical

Perceptions, with a foreword by J Santucci, in series Occasional Papers, vol V.

Fullerton CA: Theosophical History. Online version: viewed 24 February 2009,

<http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/thopv/kandwt_print.html>.

Schuon, F 1953. The Transcendent Unity of Religions, trans P Townsend. London: Faber

and Faber.

Schweitzer, A [1911] 2005. The Quest for the Historical Jesus, trans W Montgomery, with

preface by F C Burkitt. Mineola NY: Dover Publications.

Shearman, H 1980. Charles Webster Leadbeater: A Biography. London: St Alban Press.

Sheehan, E [W] [1925] 1977. Teaching and Worship of the Liberal Catholic Church, 2nd

(rev) ed (with a foreword to the 2nd ed by W H Pitkin). Ojai CA: St Alban Press.

Shepherd, T W 1977. The Sacraments, rev ed. London/Ojai CA/Sydney/Miranda CA: St

Alban Press/Liberal Catholic Church.

Shorto, R 1997. Gospel Truth: The New Image of Jesus Emerging from Science and

History and Why It Matters. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Slosser, B 1979. Miracle in Darien. Plainfield NJ: Logos International.

Smart, N 1960. A Dialogue of Religions. London: SCM Press.

Smart, N 1962. Historical Selections in the Philosophy of Religion. London: SCM Press.

Smart, N 1969. The Religious Experience of Mankind. New York: Charles Scribner's

Sons.

Smart, N 1973. The Phenomenon of Religion. New York: Herder & Herder.

Smart, N 1992. The World’s Religions: Old Traditions and Modern Transformations.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smart, N 1996. Dimensions of the Sacred: An Anatomy of the World’s Beliefs. London:

HarperCollins/Fontana Press.

Smith, A 2006. Philokalia: The Eastern Christian Spiritual Texts - Selections Annotated and

Explained, trans G E H Palmer, P Sherrard and K Ware. Woodstock VT: SkyLight Paths

Publishing.

Smith, H 1991. The World’s Religions. New York: HarperOne. [Rev reprint ed; originally

published as The Religions of Man, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958.]

Smith, H 2005. The Soul of Christianity: Restoring the Great Tradition. New York:

HarperOne.

Smith, J Z (ed) 1995. The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion. San Francisco:

HarperSanFrancisco.

Smith, S W 1967. The London Heretics: 1870-1914. London: Constable.

Souter, G 1994. Mosman: A History. Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press.

Spencer, S 1963. Mysticism in World Religion. New York: Peter Smith; London: Penguin

Books.

Staal, F 1975. Exploring Mysticism. London: Penguin Books.

Stalker, J [M] [1880] 1891. The Life of Jesus Christ. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Staniforth, M (trans) 1968. Early Christian Writings: The Apostolic Fathers. London:

Penguin Books.

Stebbing, G 1915. The Story of the Catholic Church. London: Sands.

Stein, M 1999. Jung on Christianity. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Steiner, R [1907] 1966. Theosophy of the Rosicrucian, 2nd ed, trans M Cotterell and D S

Osmond. London: Rudolf Steiner Press.

Steiner, J [1911] 1973. From Jesus to Christ, new ed, rev trans / revised by C D Davy.

London: Rudolf Steiner Press.

Stetson, E 2008. Christian Universalism: God’s Good News For All People. Mobile AL:

Sparkling Bay Books.

Strachan, G 1985. Christ and Cosmos. Dunbar, Scotland: Labarum Publications.

Studer, B 1992. “Creation”, in A D Bernardino (ed), Encyclopedia of the Early Church, vol

1, Cambridge: James Clarke & Co.

Suzuki, D T 1957. Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist - The Eastern and Western Way.

New York: Macmillan.

Tarnas, R 1993. The Passion of the Western Mind. New York: Ballantine Books.

Taylor, E S 1966. The Liberal Catholic Church: What Is It? London: St Alban Press.

Tettemer J [M] (Fr Ildefonso) (ed J Mabie) [1951] 1974. I Was a Monk: The Autobiography

of John Tettemer. New York: Alfred A Knopf (1951); Wheaton IL: Theosophical

Publishing House/Pyramid Publications [Re-Quest Books] (1974).

Thayer, T B 1855. The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment. Boston:

Universalist Publishing House. Online version: viewed 9 April 2009,

<http://www.tentmaker.org/books/OriginandHistory.html>.

Thiering, B 1992. Jesus the Man: A New Interpretation from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Sydney:

Doubleday.

Thiering, B 1995. Jesus of the Apocalypse: The Life of Jesus after the Crucifixion. Sydney:

Doubleday.

Thiering, B 1998. The Book That Jesus Wrote: John’s Gospel. Sydney: Doubleday.

Thompson, T L [1992] 2000. Early History of the Israelite People from the Written and

Archaeological Sources. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers.

Thurston, H 1907. “Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament”, in The Catholic Encyclopedia,

vol 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Online version: viewed 13 March 2009,

from New Advent: <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02465b.htm>.

Tillett, G [J] 1982. The Elder Brother: A Biography of Charles Webster Leadbeater.

London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; San Diego: Point Loma Publications.

Tillett, G J [1986] 2008. Charles Webster Leadbeater, 1854-1934: A Biographical Study by

Gregory Tillett. [PhD Thesis, The University of Sydney, Sydney, 1986.] Online version

(2008): published at Leadbeater.org, viewed 18 March 2009,

<http://leadbeater.org/tillettcwlcontents.htm>.

Timothy, H B 1972. The Early Christian Apologists and Greek Philosophy. Assen: Van

Gorcum.

Torkington, D [1995] 1999. The Mystic: From Charismatic to Mystical Prayer. New York:

Alba House. [Part of a trilogy of books on prayer, the others being The Hermit and The

Prophet.]

Traer, R 1993. An Interfaith Dictionary. Oxford: IARF.

Trigg, J W 1983. Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third-century Church. Atlanta

GA: John Knox Press.

Tully, M 1996. An Investigation into the Lives of Jesus: God, Jew, Rebel, The Hidden

Jesus. London: BBC Books.

Udny, E F 1927. A Help to Worship in the Liberal Catholic Church: Being a Study of Her

Eucharistic Service and of the Nicene Creed, with a foreword by F W Pigott. London:

Theosophical Publishing House.

Underhill, E (ed L Barkway and L Menzies) [1953] 1984. An Anthology of the Love of God:

From the Writings of Evelyn Underhill. London and Oxford: A R Mowbray & Co.

Urmson, J O and Rée, J (eds) 1989. The Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy

and Philosophers, new ed, revised. London and New York: Routledge.

An Alphen, J 1991. Catechism: 99 Questions and Answers on the Liberal Catholic Church,

3rd ed. London, Ojai CA and Sydney: St Alban Press.

Van Hove, A 1907. “Bishop”, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 2. New York: Robert

Appleton Company. Online version: viewed 14 April 2009, from New Advent:

<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm>.

Vermes, G 1998. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 4th ed. London: Penguin

Books.

Vernon, R [2000] 2002. Star in the East: Krishnamurti - The Invention of a Messiah.

Boulder CO: Sentient Publications.

Vines, E H 1970. Gems of the East - Or God in Every Nation: A Booklet on Comparative

Religion with a Brief Introduction to Some Non-Christian Religions, 3rd ed. Sydney:

West Publishing Corp.

Vivekananda, S (ed S Chetanananda) [1976] 2002. Meditation and Its Methods, with a

foreword by C Isherwood. Hollywood CA: Vedanta Press; Kolkata, India: Advaita

Ashrama.

Wagner, W 1994. After the Apostles. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Ward, G L 1990. Independent Bishops: An Independent Directory. Detroit: Apogee Books.

Warshaw, T S [1978] 1980. Abingdon Glossary of Religious Terms. Nashville TN:

Abingdon.

Watts, A W 1951. The Wisdom of Insecurity. New York: Random House/Vintage Books.

Wach, J 1958. The Comparative Study of Religions. New York: Columbia University

Press.

Watts, A W 1968. Myth and Ritual in Christianity. Boston: Beacon Press.

Watts, A W 1972. The Supreme Identity. New York: Vintage Books.

Wedgwood, J I 1914. Varieties of Psychism, with a foreword by A Besant. Adyar, Madras

[Chennai]: Theosophical Publishing House. [Kessinger Publishing reprint, 2007.] Online

version: viewed 17 April 2009, <http://www.anandgholap.net/Varieties_Of_Psychism-

J_I_Wedgwood.htm>.

Wedgwood, J I 1919. The Liberal Catholic Church and the Theosophical Society: Where

They Agree and Where They Differ. Los Angeles: St Alban Press.

Wedgwood, J I 1920. The Lambeth Conference and the Validity of Archbishop Mathew's

Orders. [An Open Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury.] Sydney: privately printed.

Wedgwood, J I 1926. The Distinctive Contribution of Theosophy to Christian Thought.

London: Theosophical Publishing House.

Wedgwood, J I 1927. The Place of Ceremonies in the Spiritual Life. London: St Alban

Press.

Wedgwood, J I [1928] 1984. The Presence of Christ in the Holy Communion, with a

foreword (being an appreciation of the author) by G N Drinkwater. London:

Theosophical Publishing House. London, Ojai and Sydney: St Alban Press [Selected

Works of J I Wedwood, vol 2, 1984].

Wedgwood, J I 1929. The Larger Meaning of Religion. London: Theosophical Publishing

House. [Kessinger Publishing reprint.]

Wedgwood, J I 1961. Meditation for Beginners, 4th ed (ed and amended). London:

Theosophical Publishing House.

Wedgwood, J I 1967. The Beginning of the Liberal Catholic Church. Lakewood NJ: Ubique.

Wedgwood, J I (ed W H Pitkin) 1976a. The Beginnings of the Liberal Catholic Church,

February 13, 1916. London and Ojai CA: St Alban Press.

Wedgwood, J I 1976b. New Insights Into Christian Worship, with a short biography of the

author by E J Burton, and a foreword by S von Krusenstierna. London: St Alban Press

[Selected Works of J I Wedwood, vol 1].

Wedgwood, J I 1982. The Divine Liturgy According to St John Chrysostom, mod 2 version

(Christmas 1982). [Adapted for Liberal Catholic Usage initially under the auspices of

Bishop J I Wedgwood.] Liberal Catholic Church: privately printed. [Copy kindly supplied

by The Rev Dr A F Mowle.]

Wedgwood, J I 2004. The Collected Works of James I Wedgwood. San Diego CA: St

Alban Press.

Wedgwood, J I nd. The Facts Regarding the Episcopal Succession in the Liberal Catholic

Church. Np.

Weigall, A nd [but 1928]. The Paganism in Our Christianity. London: Hutchinson & Co.

Welburn, A [1991] 2004. The Beginnings of Christianity: Essene Mystery, Gnostic

Revelation and the Christian Vision, 2nd rev ed. Edinburgh: Floris Books.

Wells, G A 1988. The Historical Evidence for Jesus. Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books.

Wells, G A 1992. Did Jesus Exist? Amherst NY: Prometheus Books.

Weston, W 1976. Serving the Sick Through the Church. Dee Why NSW: St John’s

Anglican Church; [printed by] Hogbin, Poole (Printers) Pty Ltd.

Weyer, R van de 2003. A World Religions Bible. Alresford, Hampshire: John Hunt

Publishing (O Books).

Wicks, C C 1977. The Liberal Catholic Church and Some Facets of Its Doctrine. London,

Ojai CA and Sydney: St Alban Press.

Wills, G 2006. What Jesus Meant. New York: Viking Penguin [Penguin Books].

Wilson, A (ed) 1991. World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts. [A Project

of the International Religious Foundation.] New York: Paragon House.

Wilson, A N [1992] 1993. Jesus. London; HarperCollins/Flamingo.

Wilson, R McL 1958. The Gnostic Problem. London: Mowbray.

Wilson, R McL 1968. Gnosis and the New Testament. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wind, E 1980. Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wine, S 1985. Judaism Beyond God. Farmington Hills MI: Society for Humanistic

Judaism.

Wolfson, H A 1947. Philo, vols 1-2. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Wright, N T 1992a. The New Testament and the People of God [vol 1 of Christian Origins

and the Question of God]. London: SPCK; Minneapolis: Fortress.

Wright, N T 1992b. Who Was Jesus? London: SPCK.

Wright N T 1996a. Jesus and the Victory of God [vol 2 of Christian Origins and the

Question of God]. London: SPCK; Minneapolis: Fortress.

Wright, N T 1996b. The Original Jesus. Oxford: Lion; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Wright, N T 2003. The Resurrection of the Son of God [vol 3 of Christian Origins and the

Question of God]. London: SPCK; Minneapolis: Fortress.

Yonge, C D 1854-1890. The Works of Philo Judaeus: The Contemporary of Josephus,

Translated from the Greek. London: H G Bohn. Online version: viewed 12 May 2009,

<http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge>.

Zalta, E N (ed) 2006. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford CA: Metaphysics

Research Lab/Center for the Study of Language and Information/Cordura Hall, Stanford

University. Online version: viewed January 19 2006,

<http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html>.

Zeller, E 1955. Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy, trans L R Palmer. New York:

Meridian Books.

II. JOURNAL ARTICLES AND OTHER WRITINGS INCLUDING PRINTED COPIES

OF TALKS, ADDRESSES, SERMONS AND MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS

Beggiani, S 2008. “To Be a Maronite, To Be a Maronite in the United States” (website

article dated 4 June 2008, St Maron Maronite Church, Detroit MI). Online: viewed 13

March 2009,

<http://www.saintmaronchurch.com/st_maron/Welcome/Entries/2008/6/4_To_be_a_Mar

onite,_to_be_a_maronite_in_the_United_StatesBy_Chorbishop_Seely_Beggiani_.html>

Besant, A 1929. “Sacrifice” (extract from a lecture published in The Australian Theosophist,

15 March 1929), 9:4 The Liberal Catholic (Province of Australasia), July 1929.

Blavatsky, H P 1879. “What is Theosophy?” 1:1 The Theosophist, October 1879. Reprinted

in H P Blavatsky: Collected Writings, 2:87-89. [Condensed] Online version: viewed 27

April 2009, <http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/theos/th-hpb.htm>.

Bradley, A 1964. “Tact and Tolerance”, 2:3 The Australian Liberal Catholic, June 1964.

Brandt, H M 1964. “The Future Development of Our Church”, 2:4 The Australian Liberal

Catholic, September 1964.

Brown, A H 1960. “The World’s Most Precious Gift”, 11:8 Provincial News [Official Organ of

the Liberal Catholic Church in the Province of Australia], September 1960.

Burt, L W 1945b. “Is the Bible the Word of God?” (printed copy of radio broadcast from St

Alban’s Liberal Catholic Church, Sydney NSW, 7 January 1945). Chatswood NSW: St

Alban Press.

Burt, L W 1960a. “Is Jesus God?” 11:8 Provincial News [Official Organ of the Liberal

Catholic Church in the Province of Australia], September 1960.

Burt, L W 1960b. “Liberal Catholic Christianity”, 11:8 Provincial News [Official Organ of the

Liberal Catholic Church in the Province of Australia], September 1960.

Burt, L W nd. “Will There be Another Reformation?” (printed copy of radio broadcast from

St Alban’s Liberal Catholic Church, Sydney NSW). Chatswood NSW: St Alban Press.

[Also included in L W Burt, The Churches and the People: Collapse of Orthodoxy – Mr

Warwick Fairfax’s Challenge: An Answer, Chatswood NSW: St Alban Press, 1945,

entitled “The Churches and the People (Part III): Logic in Religion”.]

Burton, E J [1971] 2008. “The Claims of Theology”, 26:4 Communion, Christmas 2008.

[First published in 39:5 The Liberal Catholic, March 1971.]

“Christianity and the ‘Mystery Religions’”, on Early Christian History website:

<http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/>. Online: viewed 5 May 2009,

<http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/mystrel.html>.

Cockerham, A W 1957. “The Liberal Catholic Ministry”, The Liberal Catholic, January and

September 1957.

Cockerham, A W 1959. “The Liberal Catholic Ministry”, The Liberal Catholic, March and

June.

“Did Jesus Visit India?”, 101 New Dawn, March-April 2007. Online version: viewed 13 April

2009, <http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Article/Did_Jesus_Visit_India.html>.

Ellis-Jones, I 2006. “Krishnamurti and the Star in the East” (expanded version of an

address delivered at the Sydney Unitarian Church on 3 September 2006). Online

version: viewed 14 March 2009,

<http://www.sydneyunitarianchurch.org/KrishnamurtiStarinEast.pdf>.

Ellis-Jones, I 2007b. “What Did Jesus Really Say?” (précis of an address delivered at the

Sydney Unitarian Church on 6 May 2007). Online version: viewed 17 March 2009,

<http://www.sydneyunitarianchurch.org/JesusReallySayPrecis.pdf>.

Ellis-Jones, I 2007c. “Christian Mysticism” (salient points of addresses delivered at the

Sydney Unitarian Church on 3 June 2007 and 1 July 2007). Online version: viewed 17

March 2009, <http://www.sydneyunitarianchurch.org/Christian_Mysticism.pdf>.

“God Beyond God, The”, Gnostic Alliance: Self-Knowledge [Online] viewed 17 March 2009,

<http://www.freewebs.com/gnosticalliance/thegodbeyondgod.htm>.

“Great Theosophists: Ammonius Saccas”, 25:2 Theosophy, December 1936. Online

version: viewed 24 February 2009,

<http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/setting/saccas.html>.

“Great Theosophists: Jesus, The Christ” (Part 1 of 2), 24:7 Theosophy, May 1936. Online

version: viewed 24 February 2009,

<http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/setting/jesusone.html>.

“Great Theosophists: Jesus, The Christ” (Part 2 of 2), 24:8 Theosophy, June 1936. Online

version: viewed 24 February 2009,

<http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/setting/jesustwo.html>.

“Great Theosophists: Plotinus”, 25:3 Theosophy, January 1937. Online version: viewed 24

February 2009,

<http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/setting/plotinus.html>.

Harman, C F [1963] 1964. “Is There a Christian Theosophy?”, 2:4 The Australian Liberal

Catholic, September 1964. [Abridged from the June 1963 Quarterly Review of the

Churches’ Fellowship for Psychical and Spiritual Studies (UK).]

Hodson, G 1929. “Thoughts on Church Worship”, 9:4 The Liberal Catholic (Province of

Australasia), July 1929.

Hodson, G 1998. “The Miracle of Birth and the World Master” (extracts from The Kingdom

of the Gods), 66:3 The Liberal Catholic, Advent 1998. Online version: viewed 25

February 2009, <http://www.lcc.cc/tlc/lxvi3/miracle.htm>.

Hoeller, S A 1989a. “The Gnosis of The Eucharist”, 11 Gnosis: A Journal of Western Inner

Tradition, Spring 1989. Online version: viewed 10 March 2009,

<http://www.gnosis.org/gnosis_eucharist1.html>.

Hoeller, S A 1989b. “Wandering Bishops: Not All Roads Lead to Rome”, 12 Gnosis: A

Journal of Western Inner Tradition, Summer 1989. Online version: viewed 10 March

2009, <http://www.gnosis.org/wandering_bishops.html>.

Hooker, I [R] 2000. “The Vision of the Founders”, 68:1 The Liberal Catholic, Easter 2000.

Hort, L [D] 1957. "The Liberal Catholic Church in Sydney", Provincial News (Sydney),

September 1957.

Jenkins, O B 2000. “Eastern Orthodoxy”, on the Orville Jenkins website (Thoughts and

Resources on Culture, Communication and Concepts): <http://orvillejenkins.com/>.

Online version: viewed 26 May 2009,

<http://orvillejenkins.com/religions/orthodoxobj.html>.

Jinarājadāsa, C 1951. Letter to the Editor (dated 5 November 1951), 32:10 The Canadian

Theosophist, 15 December 1951. Online version: viewed 26 February 2009,

<http://theosophy.katinkahesselink.net/canadian/Vol-32-10-Theosophist.htm>.

“John, Fr” 1963. “Corpus Christi”< 1:2 The Australian Liberal Catholic, March 1963.

King, M L, Jr 1949-50. "The Influence of the Mystery Religions on Christianity". [Paper

paper written for course “Development of Christian Ideas”, Crozer Theological

Seminary.] The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr, vol 1 [Called to Serve: January 1929-

June 1951], I:211–225, Martin Luther King, Jr, Papers in the Department of Special

Collections, Boston University, Box 114, XV, 26 (1 of 2). Online versions: viewed 29

May 2009,

<http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/kingpapers/article/alabama_christian_movem

ent_for_human_rights_acmhr/>;

<http://glasgowgnostic.blogspot.com/2008/08/influence-of-mystery-religions-on.html>.

King, R nd. “Christian Mysteries”. Online version: in “Liberal Catholic Church”, viewed 15

April 2009, from The Global Library: The Old Catholic Church:

<http://www.global.org/Pub/RK_ChristianMysteries.asp>.

Krusenstierna, S von 1963. “A Liberal Catholicism”, 1:4 The Australian Liberal Catholic,

September 1963.

Kushiner, J M 1986. “James the Just of Jerusalem”, Touchstone, Fall 1986. Online version:

viewed 21 April 2009, <http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=01-01-

005-f>.

Langley, L K 1998. “Rome and Liberal Catholic Orders”, 66:1 The Liberal Catholic, Easter

1998.

Leadbeater, C W 1904. "The Ancient Mysteries", The Theosophist, November and

December 1904.

Leadbeater, C W 1911. “The Attitude of the Enquirer”. [Originally published in The Adyar

Bulletin, February 1911.] Online version: viewed 26 February 2009,

<http://www.cwlworld.info/html/articles.html>.

Leadbeater, C W 1917b. “The Church and Its Work”, 38 The Theosophist, August 1917,

and September 1917.

Leadbeater, C W 1925. "Christ and Crucifixion", The Liberal Catholic, December 1925.

Leadbeater, C W 1926. "The Coming of the Christ", The Star in the East, January/March

1926.

Leeuw, J J van der 1921. "The Historical Meaning of the Liberal Catholic Church," St

Alban's Monthly Paper, July 1921.

Lockhart, D 2006. “The Lost Secret of Christianity”, on Douglas Lockhart website:

<http://douglaslockhart.com/>. Online version: viewed 26 May 2009,

<http://douglaslockhart.com/pdf/LOST_SECRET.pdf>.

Lutyens, E 1926. “The Eternal Sacrifice”, 3:6 The Liberal Catholic (Province of the USA),

March 1926.

McCarson, B 2002. “What is Religion?”, viewed 16 October 2004,

<http://www.metareligion.com/Psychiatry/Analytical_psychology/what_is_religion.htm>.

McCarty, D 2006. “Living in Mystery, Walking in Wonder”, Quest, June.

McGarry, J 1966. “An Interview with the Rev B A Bidwell”, 4:2 The Australian Liberal

Catholic, Jubilee Issue 1916-1966, February-March 1966.

Metz, T 2009. “Seven Propositions of the Liberal Catholic Church” (from a sermon

delivered at the Cathedral of Our Lady and All Angels, Ojai CA), 26:6 Communion

[Magazine of the Liberal Catholic Church in the Province of Australasia Including

Indonesia], St Alban’s Day 2009.

Moore, E 2008. “Plotinus”, in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 29 April

2009, <http://ww.iep.utm.edu/p/plotinus.htm>.

Mowle, A [F] 2007. “LIBERAL CATHOLICS and ‘liberal catholics’?” [Letter to the Editor],

25:7 Communion [Magazine of the Liberal Catholic Church in Australia], Michaelmas

2007.

Oliveira, P 2006. “Towards a Liberal Catholic Theology”, 25:1 Communion [Magazine of

the Liberal Catholic Church in Australia], March 2006.

Oliveira, P 2007a. “Jesus in the Liberal Catholic Liturgy”, 25:5 Communion [Magazine of

the Liberal Catholic Church in Australia], Annunciation/Easter 2007.

Oliveira, P 2007b. “Our Identity as a Church in the Twenty-First Century”, 25:8 Communion

[Magazine of the Liberal Catholic Church in Australia], Christmas 2007.

“Pantaenus The Alexandrian Philosopher”. Online version: viewed 28 April 2009,

<http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pantaenus.html>.

Parry, [J] B 1965b. “Theology in the Liberal Catholic Church’s Future”, 3:3 The Australian

Liberal Catholic, June 1965.

Parry, [J] B 1967. “Are We Still Progressive?”, 4:7 The Australian Liberal Catholic, June

1967.

Pigott, F W 1934. “Bishop Leadbeater Remembered”, The Liberal Catholic, April 1934;

Online version (extracts): viewed 8 April 2009,

<http://www.cwlworld.info/html/liberal_catholic_church.html>.

Pigott, F W 1942. "The Liturgy", The Liberal Catholic, July 1942.

“Reincarnation”, Catholic Answers website, viewed 9 April 2009,

<http://www.catholic.com/library/Reincarnation.asp>.

Rivett, R [1972] 2006. “Mysticism and the Church Today” (from Communion, June 1972),

25:3 Communion [Magazine of the Liberal Catholic Church in Australia], Michaelmas

2006.

Rivett, R [1972] 2008b. “Mysticism Within the Church” (based on an article in Communion

in 1972), 26:2 Communion, St Alban’s Day/June 2008.

Rivett, R [nd] 2008c. “The Great Unknown: ‘I AM the Way - The Way of Jesus” (adapted

from a retreat talk, cont’d), 26:4 Communion [Magazine of the Liberal Catholic Church in

Australasia Including Indonesia], Christmas 2008.

Rumble, L. “Are Liberal Catholic Orders Valid?” 58 The Homiletic and Pastoral Review,

March 1958.

Taylor, E S 1970. “The Development of Christian Doctrine”, 39 The Liberal Catholic, June

1970.

Tettemer J [M] 1927. “C W Leadbeater: His Influence on Christianity”, The Liberal Catholic,

February 1927.

Tettemer J [M] 1980. “A Bishop’s Pilgrimage”, Communion [Magazine of the Liberal

Catholic Church in Australia], Michaelmas 1980.

Thompson, C 1963. “The Divine Liturgy”, 1:2 The Australian Liberal Catholic, March 1963.

Tillett, G [J] 1972. “The Relevance of Mysticism in the Church Today”, 41 The Liberal

Catholic, March 1972.

Tillett, G [J] 2004. “Leadbeater, Damodar and Krishnamurti”, Email dated 8 September

2004, Theos-Talk [Email Discussion List associated with the Theosophy World

monthly], viewed 7 April 2009,

<http://www.theos-talk.com/archives/200409/tt00310.html>.

Tillett, G [J] 2005. “LCC and TS”, Email dated 24 May 2005, Theos-Talk [Email Discussion

List associated with the Theosophy World monthly], viewed 26 May 2009,

<http://www.theosophy.com/theos-talk/200505/tt00618.html>.

Toy, C H, Siegfried, C and Lauterbach, J Z. “Philo Judaeus”, in JewishEncylopedia.com,

viewed 12 May 2009, <http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?

artid=281&letter=P#1056>.

Ulrich, S M nd. “The Lynching of Nestorius”, [Online] viewed 14 April 2009,

<http://www.metamind.net/nestor.html>.

Van Alphen, M 2002. “Jesus Christ and his True Disciples”, The Esoteric Christianity E-

Magazine, August 2002. Online version: viewed 24 February 2009,

<http://www.lcc.cc/ecem/vanalphenmf/jesus.htm>;

<www.lcc.cc/ecem/vanalphenmf/jesus.pdf>.

Wedgwood, J I 1917. “The Old Catholic Church”, 27 The Vahan, December 1917.

Wedgwood, J I 1926. "The Liberal Catholic Church: Its Doctrinal Position", The Liberal

Catholic, July 1926.

Wedgwood, J I 1928a. “The Liberal vs Orthodox vs Roman Churches”. Online version: in

“Liberal Catholic Church”, viewed 25 February 2009, from The Global Library: The Old

Catholic Church: <http://www.global.org/Pub/JIW_Orthodoxy.asp>.

Wedgwood, J I 1938. “History of the Liberal Catholic Church”, The Liberal Catholic,

January, February, and June 1938.

Wedgwood, J I 2009. “An Interpretation” (originally published in the book The Presence of

Christ in the Holy Communion published in 1928), 74:2 The Liberal Catholic, April 2009.

“ “What is Religion? Functional Definitions of Religion: Examples of How Religion Operates

and What Religion Does”, viewed November 2 2004,

<http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion.blrel_def_functionales.htm>.

Wicks, C [C] 1968. “A First Communion”, 4:11 The Australian Liberal Catholic, June 1968.

Wicks, C C 1970. “The Christian Gnostics and Their Teachings”, 39 The Liberal Catholic,

September 1970.

Wicks, C C 1973. “The Antecedents of the Liberal Catholic Church”, 42 The Liberal

Catholic, September 1973.

Wicks, C C 1978. “The Virgin Mother – History or Myth?”, 47 The Liberal Catholic, March

1978.

III. MULTIMEDIA

Hidden Story of Jesus, The 2007. Presented by Dr Robert Beckford and directed by David

Batty. London: Juniper Communications/Channel 4 Television Corporation.

Liberal Catholic Church in Australia 1991. International Videocassette No 2: The Larger

View/The Instruments of Transformation/The Work of Transformation. Lane Cove,

Sydney NSW: St Alban Press (The Australian Liberal Catholic Tape Library). VHS video

cassette. [DVD copy in possession of Ian Ellis-Jones.]

Liberal Catholic Church in Australia nd. The Larger View: The History and Ideals of the

Liberal Catholic Church, narrated by L Furze-Morrish. Gardner VIC: The Australian

Liberal Catholic Tape Library. Audio cassette/Program GP 26.

National Geographic 2006. Gospel of Judas. Washington DC: National Geographic

Society.

St Alban Press 2005. Liberal Catholic Church International Liturgical Music. San Diego CA:

St Alban Press/LCCI. Compact disc/CD#4.

-oo0oo-