CHAPTER VI. —THE FATHERS OF THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES
Section 3.—Clemens Alexandrinus.

have seen, in considering Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, that even in the second century there was, besides much very inaccu­rate interpretation of particular passages of Scripture, some ten­dency manifested to deviate from the simplicity of scriptural doctrine as taught by the apostles, though not yet carried out to any considerable extent. Since there is as much of this tendency manifested by Irenaeus, who was no philosopher, as by Justin, who was well acquainted with the literature and philosophy of paganism, we cannot trace the incipient corruption of doctrine wholly at least to the influence of philosophical speculation, or indeed to any one specific cause, except what is in some sense the proximate cause of all error and heresy, —viz., the want of due subjection to the authority of God’s word, and of due diligence and impartiality in the use of the right means of attaining to a correct knowledge of its meaning.

It was at Alexandria, and through the labors and writings of Clemens Alexandrines, and of Origen, who successively presided over the catechetical school of that city, that the progress of corrup­tion in the interpretation of Scripture, and in the exposition of the scheme of divine truth, was most extensively promoted through the influence of false philosophy. Alexandria was at this period per­haps the most celebrated school of philosophy in the world; and in consequence of the attention there generally given to philosophical pursuits, and the great number of men of cultivated minds and speculative habits, it seems to have been thought proper, even at an early period in the history of the church, to seek to provide for young men instruction in the doctrines of Christianity of a higher kind, —i.e., of a more literary and philosophical description than was usually furnished in other places; —though there is no sufficient ground for the tradition that the school was established by Mark the Evangelist. In adopting and carrying out this general idea, there was nothing that could be reasonably objected to. There is cer­tainly no reason why Christians should not be just as well acquainted with literature and philosophy, according to their means and circumstances, as the generality of those around them; and there is no reason why their literary and philosophical knowledge should not exert some influence upon the way in which they expound and defend the truths of revelation. The danger arises only from giving to philosophy a place and influence to which it has no well­ founded claim, and especially from employing it in such a way as implies, or leads to, a casting down of the word of God from the place of authority, which it ought ever to occupy.[1] Men who are familiar with philosophical discussions, and who can speculate upon many topics connected with God, and man’s duty and des­tiny, are very apt to think that they have a means of acquiring certain knowledge of these subjects, which is not open to mere readers of the Bible; they are very apt to overestimate their pri­vileges in this respect, to imagine that they do not need to restrict themselves to the constant application of the same standard as ordinary men; and at length they too often come to place their own speculations in the position of modifying at least, if not super­seding, the information of Scripture. This was what took place at Alexandria in the course of the third century; and this is what, under a variety of aspects, has been exhibited more or less exten­sively at all times when practical religion was low, and when literature and philosophy were flourishing. Christianity certainly does not discourage men from bringing all the powers of their minds to bear upon what may be called a philosophical examina­tion of all the objects that come under their cognizance, including equally the material universe, and human beings, individually and collectively. The evils which literature and science may have inflicted upon the cause of true religion are to be prevented or cured, not by prohibiting and abandoning literary and philosophi­cal pursuits, but by keeping them in their proper place, and espe­cially by steadily and faithfully applying the great truths that the Bible is the word of God; that all that it contains is true; that it is the only source whence full and certain knowledge concerning God, concerning man’s relation to his Maker, and his duty and destiny, can be derived. So long as these truths are held and faithfully acted upon, literature and philosophy will do no harm to religion; and if it be alleged that an addiction to philosophical pursuits has a tendency to prejudice men against these truths, or to prevent them from fully following them out, even when they pro­fessedly admit them, we must deny that this tendency is inherent, and still more, that it is irresistible, and maintain that the temp­tation (for it is nothing more) may be, and should be, guarded against.

The evils to which we have referred were extensively mani­fested in the school of Alexandria; and Clement and Origen proved great corrupters of the word of God, and of the system of divine truth, and did permanent and extensive injury to the church of Christ. They themselves imbibed largely the principles of the eclectic or neo-Platonic philosophy, —a combination of the doctrines of Plato with the Oriental theosophy, as it is commonly called; i.e., in other words, they adopted on philosophical grounds views upon many points inconsistent with the doctrines of Scripture, and then sought to accommodate the Scriptures to their preconceived opinions, in place of seeking honestly and impartially for the true meaning of Scripture, and regulating their whole system by that standard. The great problem which the more respectable of the ancient philosophers proposed to themselves was, to show how human nature might be improved and brought to a state of per­fection; and this they often did in the way of explaining how a perfect man—a good and wise man—might be formed. Clement took up this idea, and followed it out in its different stages or de­partments, in the three principal works of his which have come down to our times. He displays, undoubtedly, in these works, a good deal of talent and extensive learning. He has, indeed, pre­sented to us some interesting information upon topics connected with the literature and philosophy of heathen antiquity, which is not now to be learned from any other source; though it may be said with truth that he manifests fully as accurate an acquaint­ance with profane as with sacred literature. His first work is ad­dressed to the heathen, and is called “AogoV IIrotreptikoV,” —a hortatory address; and, being directed to the object of showing that, in order to men being truly wise and good, they must re­nounce heathenism and embrace Christianity, and that there are quite sufficient grounds why they should do so, it partakes very much of the general character of the apologies written by some of the other fathers of the second or third centuries. Its principal peculiarity is that, while exposing fully and eloquently the heathen mythology and religious worship, it is occupied to some extent in adducing the testimonies of heathen philosophers in favor of some of the great principles of natural religion, which are also embodied in the Christian revelation.[2] This was very natural in Clement’s situation, called as he was to recommend Christianity to men of education, who were versant in the literature and philosophy of heathen antiquity; and there was nothing in itself objectionable about it. There is certainly nothing wrong in noticing the testimonies of ancient philosophers or legislators, so far as they go, in favor of the great principles of natural religion; and it is quite obvious how they may be legitimately applied to good and useful purposes. But there is too much reason to fear that, in Clement’s case, it indicated too much of a disposition to make advances towards the adherents of the old religions, and to accommodate Christianity, in some measure, to their, views and principles. It is, indeed, when viewed in connection with other parts of Clement’s system, something not unlike the germ of the notion which has been advocated by some latitudinarian writers of modern times, who have represented Christianity as little else than a more accurate, complete, and authoritative republication of the law or religion of nature.

His second work is called “PaidagwgoV,” and professes to unfold the instruction necessary for those who have been led to embrace Christianity, but who are still only in the position of catechumens,—only in the course of preparation for the ordinance of baptism; and in this part there comes out very clearly the lamentable deficiency of Clement’s system, both in respect to doctrine and duty. He represents Christ as the “Pædagogus,”­ the Great Teacher, —but he dwells much more upon the circumstances and manner of His teaching, than upon the matter or substance of it. And while he thus gives a very partial and defective view of Christ’s office as a prophet, he almost wholly omits any reference to His offices as a priest and a king. And, thereafter, the greater part of the work is occupied, not with the expo­sition of truth or doctrine, but with practical directions for the regulation of conduct. The concluding work in the series is en­titled “Etrwmata,” and is devoted to the object of bringing out the character of the confirmed believer—the gnwstikoV, or wise man, as Clement calls him; and here, too, as in the former work, we have to notice the deplorable deficiency of Clement’s system, both of doctrine and duty. His scheme of doctrine is very meager and latitudinarian, and his system of morality is characterized by very considerable errors and extravagances; and while great prominence is given to many points that are intrinsically insignificant and merely external, there is comparatively little said about those great essential internal principles of right action, on which the inspired writers principally insist. In regard to doctrine, there is no reason to suspect Clement of unsoundness upon the subject of the Trinity; but then it must be remembered that that truth has been always held in soundness so far as intellectual profession goes, though retained in unrighteousness so far as its proper practical application is concerned, even in the apostate Church of Rome; and that, therefore, however fundamentally important it is in itself, and however well adapted to contribute in its practical applications to the spiritual nourishment and growth in grace of the most advanced believer, a profession of it is no very stringent test of men’s proficiency either in the faith or in the experience of divine truth.

The other peculiar and fundamental doctrines of the gospel seem to have been less clearly and firmly held by Clement than by Justin and Irenaeus; and the traces of deviation from sound doctrine which we had occasion to notice in them are somewhat more fully developed in him. He, more unequivocally than they, asserts the doctrine of free will in a sense which Calvinists in general would condemn. It cannot indeed be said that he denies or overturns the doctrines of grace; and he asserts explicitly, in opposition to, some heretics of the period, that faith is not natural —i.e., is not the product of the unaided efforts of men’s natural powers—but is something supernatural and divine. Still it seems pretty plain that he had very inadequate views of what was necessary, and of what has been and is done on God’s part, in order to the justification and sanctification of sinners; and ascribed to men’s own powers a greater amount of influence in acquiring saving knowledge, and attaining to wisdom and righteousness, —in becoming first pistoi, and then gnwstikoi, —than either Scripture or experience sanctions. Nay, his views upon this subject were so erroneous and confused, that on one occasion he goes so far as to say, that Christ assumed human nature, and came into the world, in order to show men that their own powers were sufficient to obey the will of God,[3] —a statement very much resembling the Socinianism or Latitudinarianism of modern times, and which scarcely admits of any such explanation or modification as to con­sist with the possibility of believing that its author rightly understood and apprehended the fundamental principles of the gospel. It is but too evident that Clement, in his anxiety to show to the cultivated and literary youth of Alexandria how, by embracing Christianity, they might become wise and good, accommodated to their preconceived notions the system which he enforced upon them, and represented it as leaving to themselves a larger share of the capacity of producing the desired result than was at all consistent with the reality of the case, as represented to us in Scripture.

Besides this tendency to leave out of view the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, and to exalt the natural powers and capacities of man in virtual opposition at least to the grace of the gospel, another evil result that flowed from Clement’s addiction to philosophical pursuits, and his desire to conciliate men of a similar. character, was, that he applied to Christianity the principle or device, common among the old philosophers, of an exoteric and an esoteric doctrine, —the one adapted to beginners, and the other to the more advanced or initiated; and that, in correspondence with this, he advocated the existence of a higher and lower standard of duty as well as knowledge, the lower binding upon all, and the higher to be applied only to some, and, of course, implying no ordinary share of merit on the part of those who attained it. Both these ideas are substantially implied in the distinction which Clement elaborates between pistiV and gnwsiV. He seems to have been the first among the Christian teachers who gave any countenance to these distinctions, and must therefore be regarded as, to a large extent, responsible for the mischief wrought by them upon the mode in which both doctrine and duty were afterwards inculcated in the church. An allegorizing perversion of Scripture had been practiced before this time by Christian writers; but to Clement attaches the responsibility of not only practicing it, but of laying it clown formally and explicitly, as a right and proper rule for the interpretation of Scripture.

Clement may be regarded as the earliest writer who has dis­cussed in detail the subject of Christian morality; for the epistle to Zenas and Serenus, ascribed to Justin Martyr, is of somewhat dubious origin, though its general character corresponds well enough with the interval between Clement and the apostolical fathers, i.e., with the period at which Justin lived. We have not, in any of the writings of the apostolic fathers, anything like a scheme or system of moral duty. We find in their writings nothing in this department but an earnest and affectionate press­ing of the plain precepts of Scripture. Matters, however, were changed, and changed for the worse, before the end of the second century, when Clement wrote. His object and plan naturally led him to describe pretty fully the system of Christian morality, and to enter into the details of ordinary duty; and it is melancholy to notice what a grievous declension there is from the scriptural mode of treating of this subject. He exhibits plain traces of the operation at once of what have been called the ascetic and the mystic systems of morality. On the one hand, he prohibits indulgences which the Scriptures do not condemn (as second mar­riages); and, on the other hand, he releases men from obligations which the Scriptures impose, —as, for example, when he denies the necessity for regular times and seasons for prayer and religious exercises, upon the ground that men ought always to cultivate a devotional spirit. He maintains, in flat contradiction to Scripture, that Christ was a mere Stoic, who was wholly exempted from, or raised above, all the ordinary feelings and affections of the human heart, and under this fictitious aspect holds Him up as a model for Christians to imitate. One of the worst features of his system of morality is, that his instructions manifest a great neglect of the state of the heart and the affections, and are to a large extent composed of minute rules and directions about external and very trivial things. As he enters with much minuteness of detail into the subjects of eating, drinking, furniture, feasts, perfumes, chaplets, baths, female ornaments, etc., he furnishes some curious enough information about the domestic manners and cus­toms of the period when he lived, while he does not convey a very high idea of the state of morality among the professing Christians of that age and country; and sets before us little or nothing that is at all fitted to promote the cause—of genuine Christian holiness of heart and life.

Such was the most eminent and influential Christian teacher of the end of the second, and beginning of the third, century, whose works have come down to us; and when we see what they contain, and what are their general character and tendency, we cannot but be impressed with the conviction that the church had already greatly degenerated, both in doctrine and in character. It is not surprising, and indeed rather creditable to the Church of Rome, that it has been made a matter of discussion among some of her writers whether Clement ever was canonized, i.e., whether he be legally entitled to the designation of a saint, and should in consequence be invocated and supplicated to intercede with God on our behalf. It is rather creditable that doubts should have been entertained upon this point; though, after all, there are many much worse men, and more heretical writers, in the Romish calendar of saints, than Clement of Alexandria.[4]

ENDNOTES:

[1] Vide Neander’s Hist. Of the Christ. Rel., vol. 2, pp. 195-234, and pp. 372-416, Rose’s translation; Gieseler, vol., 1, pp. 134-146, Cunningham’s translation.

[2] There is something similar in Justin, who especially quotes the poets.

[3] Sculteti Medulla, p. 152.

[4] Natalis Alexander, saec. 2, chap. 4, art. 7; Ittigius, saec. 2, pp. 61, 62.