Alexandrian school, which after being lost sight of, has re appeared in later times the idea of a divine education of mankind which prepared not only the Jewish nation, but collective antiquity, for Christianity as their ultimate aim. Thus he says, Philosophy prepared the way for the royal doctrine of the Gospel; since by discipline, moral training, and the recognition of a Providence, it renders men susceptible of the reception of the truth. It is plain therefore, that till the advent of the Saviour, the Law was given to the Jews and Philosophy to the Greeks. From that epoch all men were called to be a peculiar righteous people through the Christian Faith, since the one God of both Greeks and Barbarians, or rather of the whole human race, has collected all together through one Lord."+ The language is very remarkable in which he shows how Christianity must appropriate the elements of Grecian culture in order to ennoble it. He uses the image of improving the wild olive tree by grafting. The fruitbearing power of the wild plant is ennobled by the graft of the noble scion, while this in its turn gains power from the trée on which it is grafted. Thus the Grecian Philosophy is ennobled by Christianity and at the same time imparts to it a power of extension.‡

In the idea which the Alexandrians maintained respecting the true yvãos and its relation to rioris, we find, especially as stated by Clement, two opposing elements; on the one hand the Christian view prevails according to which the idea of Faith is presupposed as the common ground of life for all; on the other hand the Platonic view of the relation of Tornun to doğa is brought in, and produces the opposition of an esoteric and exoteric doctrine. The mixture of the Christian and Platonic elements belongs to the very essence of this School; for as it generally happens, when a new tendency is formed various elements traverse each other. Clement developes the sound principle (first mentioned) against the Gnostics; but in

* Strom. i. 309.

+ Strom. vi. 694; compare vi 636.,σαφῶς γὰρ, οἶμαι, ἐδήλωσεν τὸν ἕνα καὶ μόνον θεὸν, ὑπὸ μὲν Ἑλλήνων ἐθνικῶς, ὑπὸ δὲ Ἰουδαίων ἰουδαϊκῶς, καινῶς δὲ ὑφ ̓ ἡμῶν καὶ πνευματικῶς γινωσκόμενον· πρὸς δὲ καὶ ὅτι ὁ αὐτὸς θεὸς ἀμφοῖν ταῖν διαθήκαιν χορηγός, ὁ καὶ τῆς ἑλληνικῆς φιλοσοφίας δωτὴρ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, δι' ἧς ὁ παντοκράτωρ παρ' Ελλησι δοξάζηται, παρέστησεν.

Strom. vi. 672.

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.

65

opposing the confined sensuous standpoint of Faith, he elevates the yas so far above the Tiers, that it is no longer a mere formal distinction, but two different standpoints of the Christian life are set up, and there is an actual approximation to the Gnostics. The correct view is given when he states, that the true Gnosis is founded on Faith, and is thus distinguished from the false; that faith is as necessary for the spiritual life of the yvwariós, as breathing for the bodily life *; and when he says that by Faith a new sense is given to man for understanding divine things. "Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I make all things new; he gives eyes in order to see what no eye has seen; ears to hear what no ear has heard; new eyes, ears, and hearts. The disciples of the Lord will believe and know with these new organs; will speak and act in a spiritual manner." He describes Faith † as the knowledge of things necessary to salvation, and Gnosis as a scientific development of what is received by faith. Hence he terms yvão a scientific faith.§ In another passage he vindicates Gnosis against those who would make faith alone of any value, and say that Gnosis profits nothing; that the one thing needful is to obtain salvation, and this is possible only by Faith. In refuting these persons, Clement makes use of a Parable, in which Christ is compared to a vine; do they imagine that grapes can be obtained, without care being taken, from the first, of the branches? As grapes can only be obtained by the labour of the vinedresser, who must dig, and prune, and tend, so the contents of the Christian faith can be attained only by scientific labour.|| Gnosis, therefore, is attained, when the contents of the Tíoris are developed; when foreign elements are separated with scientific consciousness, and the faith is proved and vindicated. To show the relation of tígris to yvos, Clement quotes Is. vii. 9., which in the Septuagint Version differs from the Hebrew. "If ye do not believe, ye cannot understand. Henceforward this passage was regarded * Strom. ii. 373.

+ Strom. ii. 365.

† Strom. vii. 731.—Ἡ μὲν οὖν πίστις συντομός ἐστιν, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, τῶν κατεπειγόντων γνῶσις, ἡ γνῶσις δε ἀπόδειξις τῶν διὰ πίστεως παρειλημμένων ἰσχυρὰ καὶ βέβαιος, διὰ τῆς κυριακῆς διδασκαλίας ἐποικοδομουμένη τῇ πίστει, εἰς τὸ ἀμετάπτωτον καὶ μετ ̓ ἐπιστήμης καταλεπτὸν παραπέμπουσα.

§ Strom. ii. p. 381. D.

Τ Ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσητε, οὐδὲ μὴ συνῆτε.

Strom. i. 291.

F

as the locus classicus on the subject, and with it the sentiment became current, that the intellectus must proceed from the fides.

Other passages in Clement's writings differ from the above, in which he speaks under the influence of Platonic Intellectualism, to the effect that genuine spiritual Christianity is only to be known on the standpoint of the γνωστικός: πίστις here appears only a sensuous faith, founded on external authority; Man is not raised by it to the true love of God, but is only determined by the sensuous motives of fear and hope. Life in divine Truth, disinterested love to God can be found only in the yvworzós. With these views is connected a twofold standpoint for the interpretation of the Scriptures, the literal method and the allegorical. Clement accordingly distinguishes the standpoint which adheres to historical facts, from the gnostic, on which man raises himself to higher ideas; there are some who recognise Christ only as the Son of David; others (a few) who acknowledge Him as the Son of God.t Here is a blending of religious and philosophical knowledge, since the solution of speculative difficulties is sought for in Holy Writ, a purpose for which it was not given. Some maintained, it appears, in opposition to the Alexandrian Gnosis, that to acknowledge that which could not be understood as unintelligible, was the only knowledge possible of such subjects, Clement replied that the Gnostic understood that which was unintelligible to others, for nothing was unintelligible to the sons of God; hence there was nothing which they could not be taught. Consequently, he sets no bounds to the Gnosi in reference to speculation.

We find the same principles carried out in ORIGEN. In his writings, χριστιανισμὸς σωματικὸς is contrasted with πνευματικός, just as in Clement is stands related to yvos. He sets out from the idea that spiritual communion with Christ is the fountain of all divine life and knowledge; that the earthly manifestation of Christ was an image of his eternal divinę activity; that the ἐπιδημία αἰσθητὴ is a symbol of the ἐπιδημία vonth, and now it is a matter of the highest moment, by spiritual communion with Him to understand Him also in his manifestation. As on the standpoint of the Old Testament there were various stages of religious development, an 'Ioudaïouds * Strom. vi. 663. Strom. vi. 649.

+ Strom. vi. 680.

σωματικός, a senusuous Judaism where the παιδαγωγός was still necessary, and a higher standpoint of those, who, by the spiritual revelation of the λόγος in his ἐπιδημία νοητή, had raised themselves to the knowledge of Christianity; so within the pale of Christianity we distinguish those who, being in a preparatory stage, adhere only to the historical Christ, from those who rise above historical Christianity to its spirit, and to spiritual communion with the Logos. The latter have the Logos himself, the former have him only as incarnate; the latter have the Gnosis, the former have the Christianity of faith according to the letter. When Paul says that he would know nothing save Jesus Christ and him crucified, Origen does not understand this as characteristic of the highest Christian standpoint, but finds in it a condescension to the standpoint of the multitude.* To remain with Christ crucified, is, therefore, in his opinion, a subordinate standpoint, which the Gnosis must surpass in order to attain to the Idea, which is the Wisdom of the Perfect. With this also was connected the literal and the spiritual exposition of Holy Writ. In correspondence with his conception of Christ he regarded the historical narrative, the εὐαγγέλιον σαρκικόν as a symbol of a summary of eternal truths, of the εὐαγγέλιον πνευματικόν, οι αἰώνιον, and the highest style of exposition consisted in translating the former into the latter. At the same time, he did not search for the Spirit in the letter with a sound, scientific exegesis; but arbitrarily from his preconceived philosophical notions, attached a spiritual meaning to the letter. To speak more exactly, there was a threefold element which he assumed to exist in Holy Writ; the mere outward letter, corresponding to the body; in this was presented a general moral truth, intelligible to rioris and corresponding to the Jux lastly, there was the higher speculative truth analogous to the human voũs. Like Philo, Origen aimed in general to preserve the historical truth of the letter; but he found, likewise, in the Old and New Testament many things which he believed could not be explained literally; he acknowledged the discrepancies in the narratives of the Gospels, and in proof adduced difficulties similar to those brought forward in modern times by the advocates of mythical views. Instead of attempting to reconcile them, he arrived at the same conclusion as modern Hypercriticism, that

*Com, in Joann. i. § 11.

the historical correctness was to be denied; but this hypercritical element in his dogmatic tendency resulted from his looking, like Philo, only on the Divine, while on the contrary, our modern Hypercriticism sees nought but the Human. In these discrepancies he saw something intended by the Divine Spirit, who led susceptible minds to the conviction that the investigation of the idea, in which alone is reality, the knowledge of the divine agency of the λóyos in the symbolical representations, was the highest object to be attained. Such idealistic principles might have led him to deny altogether the reality of the life of Christ, but his own Christian spirit kept him from this; yet others went further. He himself remarks on the dangers of this method, and we find passages in his writings, in which he strongly condemns it.

Having given a general description of their tendency, let us now consider the peculiar mental culture of two of its representative men, CLEMENT and ORIGEN,

CLEMENT* was a Catechist and Presbyter of the Alexandrian Church. Among his writings, his Stromata, a work of a miscellaneous character, is peculiarly valuable, partly for his own thoughts, and partly for the quotations from ancient authors. In the composition of this work, in which he meant to delineate the Alexandrian Gnosis, it was, no doubt, part of his plan only to touch on several topics without fully discussing them; since, on account of other Church parties, he had reasons for not expressing with perfect distinctness many ideas of the Alexandrian Gnosis. He also wished, by the variety of its contents, to lead men of different standpoints to Christianity. Though this may serve to explain the absence of systematic completeness, yet it was partly owing to the structure of

* His writings are: λόγος προτρεπτικὸς προς Ελληνας παιδαγωγός, 3 books; στρώματα, οι στρωματεῖς, 8 books; τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος ; Fragments of the ὑποτυπώσεις (adumbrationes); ἐκ τῶν πρоηTIKν ÉKλoyai, Opp. ed.: Par. 1641, fol. Colon. 1688, fol. Potter: Oxon. 1715, 2 vols. fol. R. Klotz: Lpz. 1931-34, 4 vols. 8vo. Hofstede de Groote de Clemente Alexand.: Gron. 1826, fol. Von Cölln in der Encyclop. v. Ersch u. Gruber in Art. Clemens. Vol. xviii. p. 4. A. F. Dähne de gnosei Clementis Alex.: Lips. 1831, 46. Kling, Clem. Bedeutung für d. Eusteh. der christ. Theolog. Stud. u. Krit. 1841. Ritter, Gesch. der Philosoph. Vol. v. p. 421. Redepenning, Origines I. 70. H. Reuter, Clement Al. theologia moralis capitum selectorum particula: Ber. 1853. H Lemmer, Clementis Al. de λóyw doctrina: Lips. 1855.