CRISTO RAUL. READING HALL THE DOORS OF WISDOM |
 |
THE HISTORY OF THE POPES |
 |
THE SAINTS OF THE SECOND CENTURY
POLYCARPUS. (AD c. 70-150)
Polycarpus, bishop of
Smyrna, one of the most prominent figures in the church of the 2nd century. He
owes this prominence less to intellectual ability, which does not appear to
have been pre-eminent, than to the influence gained by a consistent and
unusually long life. Born some 30 years before the end of the 1st century, and
raised to the episcopate apparently in early manhood, he held his office to the
age of 86 or more. He claimed to have known at least one apostle and must in
early life have met many who could tell things they had heard from actual
disciples of our Lord. The younger generation, into which he lived on,
naturally recognized him as a peculiarly trustworthy source of information
concerning the first age of the church. During the later years of his life
Gnostic speculation had become very active and many things unknown to the faith
of ordinary Christians were put forth as derived by secret traditions from the
apostles. Thus a high value was attached to the witness Polycarp could give as
to the genuine tradition of apostolic doctrine, his testimony condemning as
offensive novelties the figments of the heretical teachers. Irenaeus states that
on Polycarp's visit to Rome his testimony converted many disciples of Marcion
and Valentinus.
Polycarp crowned his other
services to the church by a glorious martyrdom. When, at the extremity of human
life, it seemed as if he could do no more for the church but continue his
example of holiness, piety, and orthodoxy, a persecution broke out in which he,
as the venerated head of the Christian community in Asia Minor, was specially
marked out for attack. He gave a noble exhibition of calm courage, neither
courting nor fearing martyrdom, sheltering himself by concealment while
possible, and when no longer so, resolutely declaring in defiance of threats
his unshaken love for the Master he had served so long. Such a death, following
on such a life, made Polycarp's the most illustrious name of his generation in
Christian annals.
Irenaeus states that
Polycarp had been instructed by apostles and conversed with many who had seen
Christ, and had also been established "by apostles" as bishop in the
church at Smyrna; and doubtless Tertullian is right in understanding this to
mean that he had been so established by St. John, whose activity in founding
the episcopate of Asia Minor is spoken of also by Clement of Alexandria in his
well-known story of St. John and the robber.
The testimony of Irenaeus
conclusively shows the current belief in Asia Minor during the old age of
Polycarp, and it is certain that Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna at the time of
the martyrdom of Ignatius, i.e. c. 110. Ignatius, journeying from Antioch to
Rome, halted first at Smyrna, where, as at his other resting places, the
Christians flocked from all around to receive his counsels and bestow
attentions on him. From the city where he next halted he wrote separate letters
to the church of Smyrna and to Polycarp its bishop. A later stage was Philippi,
and to the church there Polycarp wrote afterwards a letter still extant,
sending them copies of the letters of Ignatius and inquiring for information
about Ignatius, the detailed story of whose martyrdom appears not yet to have
reached Smyrna. The question as to the genuineness of the extant Epistle of
Polycarp is very much mixed up with that of the genuineness of the Ignatian
letters. The course of modern investigation has been decidedly favourable to the genuineness of the Ignatian letters
[IGNATIUS], and the Ep. of Polycarp is guaranteed by external testimony of
exceptional goodness. It is mentioned by Polycarp's disciple Irenaeus, and an
important passage is quoted by Eusebius. Further, as Lightfoot has conclusively
shown, it is impossible that Polycarp's letter and those of Ignatius could have
had any common authorship. Some of the topics on which the Ignatian letters lay
most stress are absent from that of Polycarp; in particular, Polycarp's letter
is silent about episcopacy, of which the Ignatian letters speak so much, and it
has consequently been thought probable either that episcopacy had not yet been
organized at Philippi, or that the office was then vacant. The forms of
expression in the two letters are different; N.T. quotations, profuse in
Polycarp's letter, are comparatively scanty in the Ignatian ones; and, most
decisive of all, the Ignatian letters are characterized by great originality of
thought and expression, while Polycarp's is but a commonplace echo of the
apostolic epistles. When we compare Polycarp's letter with the extant Though Polycarp's epistle is
remarkable for its copious use of N.T. language, there are no formal
quotations, but it is mentioned that St. Paul had written to the church of
Philippi, to which Polycarp's epistle is addressed. The language in which St.
Paul's letters are spoken of, both here and in the epistles of Ignatius,
decisively refutes the theory that there was opposition between the schools of
John and Paul. It illustrates the small solicitude of Eusebius to produce
testimony to the use of N.T. books undisputed in his time, that though he
notices (iv. 14) Polycarp's use of I. Peter, he is silent as to this express
mention of St. Paul's letters. Polycarp's Pauline quotations include distinct
recognition of Eph. and I. and II. Tim., and other passages clearly show a use
of Rom., I. Cor, Gal., Phil., II. Thess. The employment of I. Peter is
especially frequent. There is one unmistakable coincidence with Acts. The use
of I. and II. John is probable. The report of our Lord's sayings agrees in
substance with our Gospels, but may or may not have been directly taken from
them. The coincidences with Clement's epistle are beyond what can fairly be
considered accidental, and probably the celebrity gained by Clement's epistle
set the example to bishops elsewhere of writing to foreign churches. Polycarp
states, however, that his own letter had been invited by the church of
Philippi. Some church use of Polycarp's epistle seems to have continued in Asia
until Jerome's time; if we can lay stress on his rather obscure expression (Catal.) "epistolam quae usque hodie in conventu Asiae legitur." The chief difference between Clement's and
Polycarp's letters is in the use of the O.T., which is perpetual in the former,
very rare in the latter. There is coincidence with one passage in Tobit, two in
Ps., and one in Is.; and certainly in one of the last 3 cases, possibly in all
three, the adopted words are not taken directly from the O.T., but from N.T.
This difference, however, is explained when we bear in mind that Clement had
probably been brought up in Judaism, while Polycarp was born of Christian
parents and familiar with the apostolic writings from his youth.
Our knowledge of Polycarp's
life between the date of his letter and his martyrdom comes almost entirely
from notices by IRENAEUS. The first is in his letter to FLORINUS; the second in
the treatise on Heresies; the third in the letter of Irenaeus to Victor, of
which part is preserved by Eusebius (v. 24). Irenaeus, writing in advanced
life, tells how vivid his recollections still were of having been a hearer of
Polycarp, then an old man; how well he remembered where the aged bishop used to
sit, his personal appearance, his ways of going out and coming in, and how
frequently he used to relate his intercourse with John and others who had seen
our Lord, and to repeat stories of our Lord's miracles and teaching, all in
complete accord with the written record. The reminiscences of Irenaeus are in
striking agreement with Polycarp's extant letter in their picture of his
attitude towards heresy. He seems not to have had the qualifications for
successfully conducting a controversial discussion with erroneous teachers, nor
perhaps the capacity for feeling the difficulties which prompted their
speculations; but he could hot help strongly feeling how unlike these
speculations were to the doctrines he had learned from apostles and their
immediate disciples, and so met with indignant reprobation their attempt to
supersede Christ's gospel by fictions of their own devising. Irenaeus tells
how, when he heard their impiety, he would stop his ears and cry out, "O
good God! for what times hast Thou kept me that I should endure such things!"
and would even flee from the place where he was sitting or standing when he
heard such words. In so behaving he claimed to act in the spirit of his master
John, concerning whom he told that once when he went to take a bath in Ephesus
and saw Cerinthus within, he rushed away without bathing, crying out, "Let
us flee, lest the bath should fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth,
is within"; and when Marcion meeting Polycarp asked him, "Do you
recognize us?" he answered, "I recognize thee as the firstborn of
Satan." This last phrase is found in the extant letter. He says,
"Every one who doth not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is
antichrist; and whosoever doth not confess the testimony of the Cross is of the
devil; and whosoever perverteth the oracles of the
Lord to his own lusts and saith that there is neither resurrection nor
judgment, this man is a first-born of Satan." This coincidence has, not
very reasonably, been taken as a note of spuriousness of the letter; the idea
being that a writer under the name of Polycarp who employs a phrase
traditionally known as Polycarp's betrays himself as a forger striving to gain
acceptance for his production. It might rather have been supposed that a
coincidence between two independent accounts of Polycarp's mode of speaking of
heretics ought to increase the credibility of both. Irenaeus, who reports the
anecdote, was acquainted with the letter, and, if we cannot accept both, it is
more conceivable that his recollection may have coloured his version of the anecdote.
One of the latest incidents
in Polycarp's active life was a journey which, near the close of his
episcopate, he made to Rome, where Anicetus was then bishop. We are not told
whether the cause of the journey was to settle points of difference between
Roman and Asiatic practice; those existed, but did not interrupt their mutual
accord. In particular Asiatic Quartodecimanism was at
variance with Roman usage. We cannot say with certainty what kind of Easter
observance was used at Rome in the time of Anicetus, for the language of
Irenaeus implies that it was not then what it afterwards became; but the
Asiatic observance of the 14th day was unknown in Rome, although Polycarp
averred the practice of his church to have had the sanction of John and other
apostles, and therefore to be what he could by no means consent to change.
Anicetus was equally determined not to introduce into his church an innovation
on the practice of his predecessors; but yet showed his reverence for his aged
visitor by "yielding to him the Eucharist in his church." This phrase
seems capable of no other interpretation than that generally given to it, viz.
that Anicetus permitted Polycarp to celebrate in his presence.
The story of the martyrdom
of Polycarp is told in a letter still extant, purporting to be addressed by the
church of Smyrna to the church sojourning in Philomelium (a town of Phrygia) and to all the people of the holy Catholic Church in every
place. This document was known to Eusebius, who transcribed the greater part in
his Eccl. Hist. (iv. 15). A trans. of this and of Polycarp's Ep. appears in the
vol. of Apost. Fathers in Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. &
T. Clark). The occurrence of the phrase "Catholic Church" just quoted
has been urged as a note of spuriousness; but not very reasonably, in the
absence of evidence to make it even probable that the introduction of this
phrase was later than the death of Polycarp. We know for certain that the
phrase is very early. It is used in the Ignatian letters (Smyrn.
8), by Clem. Alex. (Strom. vii. 17), in the Muratorian Fragment, by Hippolytus
(Ref. ix. 12) and Tertullian.
Remembering the warfare
waged by Polycarp against heresy, it is highly probable that in his lifetime
the need had arisen for a name to distinguish the main Christian body from the
various separatists. The whole narrative of the martyrdom bears so plainly the
mark of an eye-witness, that to imagine, as Lipsius and Keim have done, some
one capable of inventing it a century after the death of Polycarp, seems to
require great critical credulity. With our acceptance of the martyrdom as
authentic Hilgenfeld and Renan coincide. We see no good reason to doubt that
the narrative was written, as it professes to be, within a year of the
martyrdom, by members of the church where it occurred and who had actually
witnessed it; and we believe it to have been written specially to invite
members of other churches to attend the commemoration on the anniversary of the
martyrdom. It is deeply tinged by a belief in the supernatural, but it is
uncritical to cast doubts on the genuineness of a document on the assumption
that Christians of the 2nd cent., under the strain of a great persecution, held
the views of their 19th-cent. critics as to the possibility of receiving
supernatural aid or consolation.
The story relates that
Polycarp's martyrdom was the last act of a great persecution and took place on
the occasion of games held at Smyrna, eleven others having suffered before him.
These games were probably held in connection with the meeting of the Asiatic
diet, which met in rotation in the principal cities of the province. If more
information were available as to this rotation and as to the seasons when these
meetings were held, we should probably be able to fix the date of Polycarp's
martyrdom with more certainty.
The proconsul came from
Ephesus, the ordinary seat of government, to preside. It may have been to
provide the necessary victims for the wild beast shows that the Christians were
sought for (some were brought from Philadelphia) and required to swear by the
fortune of the emperor and offer sacrifice. The proconsul appears to have
discharged his unpleasant duty with the humanity ordinary among Roman
magistrates, doing his best to persuade the accused to save themselves by
compliance, and no doubt employing the tortures, of which the narrative gives a
terrible account, as a merciful cruelty which might save him from proceeding to
the last extremes. In one case his persuasion was successful. Quintus, Phrygian
by nation, who had presented himself voluntarily for martyrdom, on sight of the
wild beasts lost courage and yielded to the proconsul's entreaties. The
Christians learned from his case to condemn wanton courting of danger as
contrary to the gospel teaching. The proconsul lavished similar entreaties on a
youth named Germanicus, but the lad was resolute, and instead of showing fear,
provoked the wild beasts in order to gain a speedier release from his
persecutors. The act may have been suggested by the language of Ignatius; and
certainly this language seems to have been present to the mind of the narrator.
At sight of the bravery of Germanicus, a conviction seems to have seized the
multitude that they should have rather chosen as their victim the teacher who
had inspired the sufferers with their obstinacy. A cry was raised, "Away
with the atheists! Let Polycarp be sought for!" Polycarp wished to remain
at his post, but yielded to the solicitations of his people and retired for
concealment to a country house, where he spent his time, as was his wont, in
continual prayer for himself and his own people and for all the churches
throughout the world.
Three days before his
apprehension he saw in a vision his pillow on fire, and at once interpreted the
omen to his friends: "I must be burnt alive." The search for him
being hot, he retired to another farm barely escaping his pursuers, who seized
and tortured two slave boys, one of whom betrayed the new place of retreat.
Late on a Friday night the noise of horses and armed men announced the pursuers
at hand. There seemed still the possibility of escape, and he was urged to make
the attempt, but he refused, saying "God's will be done." Coming down
from the upper room where he had been lying down, he ordered meat and drink to
be set before his captors and only begged an hour for uninterrupted prayer.
This was granted; and for more than two hours he prayed, mentioning by name
every one whom he had known, small or great, and praying for the Catholic
church throughout the world. At length he was set on an ass and conducted to
the city. Soon they met the irenarch Herod, the
police magistrate under whose directions the arrest had been made, in whose
name the Christians afterwards found one of several coincidences which they
delighted to trace between the arrest of Polycarp and that of his Master.
Herod, accompanied by his father Nicetes, took
Polycarp to sit in his carriage, and both earnestly urged him to save his life:
"Why, what harm was it to say Lord Caesar, and to sacrifice, and so on,
and escape all danger?" Polycarp, at first silent, at last bluntly
answered, "I will not do as you would have me." Annoyed at the old
man's obstinacy, they thrust him out of the carriage so rudely that he scraped
his shin, the marks no doubt being visible to his friends when he afterwards
stripped for the stake. But at the time he took no notice of the hurt and
walked on as if nothing had happened. At the racecourse, where the multitude
was assembled, there was a prodigious uproar; but the Christians could
distinguish a voice which cried, "Be strong, Polycarp, and play the
man!" Under the protection of the tumult the speaker remained
undiscovered; and the Christians believed it a voice from heaven. The proconsul
pressed Polycarp to have pity on his old age: "Swear by the fortune of
Caesar, say 'Away with the atheists!'". The martyr, sternly looking round
on the assembled heathen, groaned, and looking up to heaven said, "Away
with the atheists!" "Swear then, now," said the proconsul,
"and I will let you go; revile Christ." Then Polycarp made the
memorable answer, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He has
never done me wrong; how, then, can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour! " The 86 years must clearly count from
Polycarp's baptism; so that if we are not to ascribe to him an improbable
length of life, we must infer that he was the child of Christian parents and
had been baptized, if not in infancy, in very early childhood. The magistrate
continuing to urge him, Polycarp cut matters short by plainly declaring himself
a Christian and offering, if a day were assigned, to explain what Christianity
was.
"Obtain the consent of
the people," answered the proconsul.
"Nay," replied
Polycarp, "I count it your due that I should offer my defence to you, because we have been taught to give due honour to the powers ordained of God; but as for these people, I owe no vindication to
them."
The proconsul then had
recourse to threats, but finding them unavailing, ordered his crier thrice to
proclaim in the midst of the stadium, "Polycarp has confessed himself a
Christian." Then arose a furious outcry from heathen and Jews against this
"father of the Christians," this teacher of Asia, this destroyer of
the worship of the gods. Philip the asiarch, or
president of the games, was called on to loose a lion on Polycarp, but refused,
saying the wild beast shows were now over. Then with one voice the multitude
demanded that Polycarp should be burnt alive; for his vision must needs be
fulfilled. Rushing to the workshops and baths they collected wood and faggots;
the Jews, as usual, taking the most active part. We have evidence of the
activity of the Jews at Smyrna at an earlier period, and at a later in the
story of the martyrdom of Pionius. When the pile was
ready Polycarp proceeded to undress himself; and here the story has an autoptic
touch, telling how the Christians marked the old man's embarrassment as he
tried to take off his shoes, it having been many years since the reverence of
his disciples had permitted him to perform that office for himself. When he had
been bound (at his own request, not nailed) to the stake, and had offered up a
final prayer, the pile was lit, but the flame bellied out under the wind like
the sail of a ship, behind which the body could be seen, scorched but not
consumed. The fumes seemed fragrant to the Christians, whether as the effect of
imagination or because sweet-scented woods had been seized for the hasty
structure. Seeing that the flame was dying out, an executioner was sent in to
use the sword, when so much blood gushed forth that the flame was nearly
extinguished. The Christians were about to remove the body; but Nicetes here further described as the brother of Alce,
interfered and said, "If you give the body, the Christians will leave the
Crucified One and worship him," an idea deeply shocking to the narrator of
the story, who declares it was impossible for them to leave, for any other,
Christ the Holy One Who died for the salvation of the world. Him, as the Son of
God, they worshipped; martyrs they loved on account of the abundance of their
zeal and love for Him. The Jews eagerly backing up Nicetes,
the centurion had the body placed on the pyre and saw it completely consumed,
so that it was only the bones, "more precious than jewels, more tried than
gold", which the disciples could carry off to the place where they meant
on the anniversary to commemorate the martyr's "birthday."
The epistle closes with a
doxology. Euarestus is named as the writer; Marcion
[or Marcianus] as the bearer of the letter. Then follows by way of appendix a
note, stating that the martyrdom took place on the 2nd of the month Xanthicus, the 7th before the calends of March [there is a
various reading May], on a great sabbath at the 8th hour; the arrest having
been made by Herod; Philip of Tralles being chief
priest, Statius Quadratus proconsul, and Jesus Christ King for ever. A second
note states that these Acts were transcribed by Socrates (or Isocrates) of
Corinth, from a copy made by Caius, a companion of Polycarp's disciple
Irenaeus. A third note states that this again had been transcribed by Pionius from a copy much decayed by time, the success of
his search for which was due to a revelation made by Polycarp himself, "as
will be shown in what follows," from which we infer that the martyrdom was
followed by a Life of Polycarp.
The first chronological note
may be accepted as, if not part of the original document, at least added by one
of its first transcribers, and therefore deserving of high confidence. The name
of the proconsul Statius Quadratus indicates best the date of the martyrdom.
Eusebius in his chronicle had put it in the 6th year of Marcus Aurelius, i.e.
A.D. 166. M. Waddington (Mémoires de l’Académie des
Inscriptions, 1867, xxvi. 235) showed that Eusebius's date was doubtful.
Eusebius seems to have had no real knowledge of the date, and to have put it
down somewhat at random, for he places Polycarp's martyrdom and the Lyon's
persecution under the same year, though the Lyon's martyrdoms were as late as
177. At this time the ordinary interval between the consulship and proconsulate ranged between 12 and 16 years. Quadratus we
know to have been consul A.D. 142. We are at once led to reject Eusebius's date
as placing the inadmissible interval of 24 or 25 years between the consulship
and proconsulate. Waddington made out a probable case
for A.D. 155, and an additional argument appears decisive. The martyrdom is
stated to have taken place on Sat. Feb. 23, and among the possible years 155 is
the only one in which Feb. 23 so fell. The reading of this chronological date
is not free from variations. The "great sabbath" would in Christian
times be thought to mean the Sat. in Easter week, and as Easter could not occur
in Feb. there was an obvious temptation to alter Mar. into May, but none to
make the opposite change, and we have independent knowledge that Feb. 23 was
the day on which the Eastern church celebrated the martyrdom. But we do not
know why Feb. 23 should be a "great" Sabbath. We believe the true
explanation to be that the Latin date in this note is not of the same antiquity
as the date by the Macedonian month. Probably Pionius,
when he recovered the very ancient copy of the martyrdom, translated the date
2nd Xanthicus into one more widely intelligible and
thus determined the date of subsequent commemorations. We accept, then, the 2nd Xanthicus as an original note of time faithfully
preserved by a scribe who did not understand its meaning, because he
interpreted according to the usage of his own day. When we have abandoned the
date Sat. Feb. 23 we lose one clue to fixing the exact date of the martyrdom,
but we gain another. Since Nisan 2nd was Sat. the year must be one in which
that lunar month commenced on a Friday. The only such years within the
necessary limits were 155 and 159, and 155 again agrees best with the usual
interval between consulship and proconsulate. The
date Apr. 8, which A.D. 159 would require, is likely, moreover, to be too late.
The chief difficulty raised by the date 155 is that if we adopt it the
chronology of the Roman bishops obliges us to put Polycarp's visit in the last
year of his life and the first of the episcopate of Anicetus.
St. IGNATIUS A.D. c. 50-117
Ignatius, St. (called Theophorus), Oct. 17, the 2nd bp. of Antioch (c. 70–c.
107), between Enodius and Hero. He is sometimes
reckoned the 3rd bishop, St. Peter being reckoned the first.
The question of the life and
writings of Ignatius, including the connected subject of the Ep. of Polycarp to
the Philippians, has been described by M. Renan as the most difficult in early
Christian history next to that of the fourth gospel.
About 165 Lucian in his
satire de Morte Peregrini relates (cc. 14–41) that
Peregrinus was made a prisoner in Syria. The Christians of Asia Minor sent
messengers and money to him according to their usual custom when persons were
imprisoned for their faith. Peregrinus wrote letters to all the more important
cities. The coincidence of this story with that of Ignatius, as told afterwards
by Eusebius, would be alone a strong evidence of connection.
Theophilus, bp. of Antioch
(fl. before 167), has a coincidence with Ignat. ad Eph. xix. 1, where the
virginity of Mary is said to have been concealed from the devil.
Irenaeus, c. 180, bears
witness that Polycarp wrote to the Philippians, and mentions how a Christian
martyr said, "I am the bread-corn of Christ, to be ground by the teeth of
beasts that I may be found pure bread"—words found in Ignat. ad Rom. iv.
1. the passage of Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius as a testimony to Ignatius.
Origen, early in 3rd cent.,
Prol. in Cant., writes, "I remember also that one of the saints, by name
Ignatius, said of Christ, 'My love was crucified'"—words found in Ignat.
ad Rom. vii. 2. Origen also says, "I find it well written in one of the
epistles of a certain martyr, I mean Ignatius, 2nd bp. of Antioch after Peter,
who in the persecution fought with beasts at Rome, that the virginity of Mary
escaped the prince of this world".
Eusebius, early in 4th
cent., gives a full account which explains these fragmentary allusions and
quotations. In his Chronicle he twice names Ignatius as 2nd bp. of Antioch
after the apostles; in one case adding that he was martyred. In his
Ecclesiastical History, besides less important notices of our saint and of
Polycarp, he relates how Ignatius, whom he calls very celebrated among the
Christians, was sent from Syria to Rome to be cast to the beasts for Christ's
sake. When journeying under guard through Asia he addressed to the cities near
places of his sojourn exhortations and epistles. Thus in Smyrna, the city of
Polycarp, he wrote to Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles.
He wrote to the Romans, begging them not to impede his martyrdom. Then he tells
how Ignatius, having left Smyrna and come to Troas, wrote thence to the
Philadelphians and Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp.
St. Chrysostom has a homily
on St. Ignatius which relates that he was appointed by the apostles bp. of
Antioch; was sent for to Rome in a time of persecution to be there judged;
instructed and admonished with wonderful power all the cities on the way, and
Rome itself when he arrived; was condemned and martyred in the Roman theatre;
and his remains were transferred after death with great solemnity to Antioch.
Theodoret frequently cites
the 7 Vossian epistles, and mentions Ignatius as
ordained by St. Peter and made the food of beasts for the testimony of Christ.
Severus, patriarch of
Antioch (513–551), has a long catalogue of sayings from Ignatius, in which
every one of the 7 epistles is laid under contribution.
We possess also a multitude
of Acts of the martyrdom of St. Ignatius, which, if we could accept them, would
supply very particular accounts of his life and death.
Ignatius is sent for by
Trajan to Rome, as a teacher dangerous to the state; an argument takes place
before the senate between the emperor and the saint; the lions kill him, but
leave the body untouched, and it remains as a sacred deposit at Rome.
Eusebius in the Chronicle
omits (contrary to his custom) the durations of the episcopates of Antioch. We
can, therefore, place Ignatius's death any time between Ab. 2123, Traj. 10, and 2132, Traj. 19. In
H. E. iii. 22, Eusebius, in a general way, makes the episcopates of Symeon and
Ignatius contemporary with the first years of Trajan and the last of St. John
and with Polycarp and Papias. We may date his epistles, journey, and death in
any year from 105; to 117. Funk fixes it at 107.
The tradition that Ignatius
was martyred at Rome can be traced higher than the records of Eusebius and
Origen. The designation of world-famed, which Eusebius gives him, shows the
general tradition; and the words of Origen are to the same effect. The testimony
of Irenaeus which Eusebius adduces as perfectly agreeing with the tradition
known to him, dates but 70 years after the fact. True, these expressions come
from writers who knew the epistles; but the mere existence of the epistles at
such a date, even if they were spurious, would be sufficient proof of the
existence of the tradition; and it is impossible that such a story should have
arisen so soon after Trajan, if it had contradicted known facts or prevalent
customs of his reign.
Eusebius clearly wrote with
the collection of letters before him, and knew of no other collection besides
the 7 he mentions. These he arranges according to place and time of writing,
gives his quotation from Romans as out of "the Epistles," and cites
Irenaeus's quotation from Ignatius, as proof of that writer's knowledge of
them, although Irenaeus did not mention the author's name.
The circumstances of the
journey and martyrdom of Ignatius, gathered from the seven epistles and from
that of Polycarp, are as follows: He suffers under a merely local persecution.
It is in progress at Antioch while he is in Smyrna, whence he writes to the
Romans, Ephesians, Magnesians, and Trallians. But
Rome, Magnesia, and Ephesus are at peace, and in Troas he learns that peace is
restored to the church in Antioch. Of the local causes of this Antiochene
persecution we are ignorant, but it is not in the least difficult to credit.
The imagined meeting of the emperor and the saint is not found in the epistles;
it is "the world" under whose enmity the church is there said to
suffer. All now recognize that, according to the testimony of the letters,
Ignatius has been condemned in Antioch to death, and journeys with death by
exposure to the beasts as the settled fate before him. He deprecates
interposition of the church at Rome (quite powerful enough at the end of the
1st cent. to be conceivably successful in such a movement) for the remission of
a sentence already delivered. The supposition of Hilgenfeld ( that prayer to
God for his martyrdom, or abstinence from prayer against it, is what he asks of
the Romans seems quite inadmissible, and we could not conceive him so assured
of the approach of death if the sentence had not been already pronounced. The
right of appeal to the emperor was recognized, and could be made without the
consent of the criminal, but not if the sentence had proceeded from the emperor
himself. Thus the Colbertine Martyrdom, which makes
Trajan the judge at Antioch, contradicts the epistles no less than the Vatican
which puts off the process to Rome. MS. Colb. brings
Ignatius by sea to Smyrna; but Eusebius, who had read the epistles, supposes
the journey to be by land, and he is clearly right. The journey "by land
and sea" (ad Rom. v.) may easily refer to a voyage from Seleucia to some
Cilician port, and thence by road. The ordinary way from Antioch to Ephesus was
by land, and Ignatius calls the messenger to be sent by the Smyrnaeans to
Antioch. Ignatius did not, as was usual, pass through Magnesia and Ephesus, but
left the great road at Sardis and came by Laodicea, Hierapolis, Philadelphia,
and perhaps Colossae, as he had certainly visited Philadelphia and met there
the false teachers from Ephesus. The churches written to were not chosen at
random, but were those which had shown their love by sending messengers to him.
The replies were thus, primarily, letters of thanks, quite naturally extending into
admonitions.
We find him in the enjoyment
of much freedom on his journey, though chained to a soldier. In Philadelphia he
preaches, not in a church, but in a large assembly of Christians; in Smyrna he
has intercourse with the Christians there and with messengers of other
churches. He has much speech with the bishops concerning the state of the
churches. That of Ephesus he treats with special respect, and anticipates
writing a second letter (ad Eph. xx.); that of Tralles he addresses in a markedly different manner (ad. Tr. 2, 12). He must,
therefore, have had lime in Smyrna to acquaint himself with the condition of
the neighbouring churches. If the writing of epistles
under the circumstances of his captivity should cause surprise, it must be
remembered that they are only short letters, not books. He dictated to a
Christian, and thus might, as Pearson remarks, have finished one of the shorter
letters in an hour, the longest in three. Perpetua and Saturus wrote in prison
narratives as long as the epistles of Ignatius (Acta SS. Perp. et Fel. Ruinart). A ten days' sojourn would amply meet the
necessities of the case; and there is nothing in the treatment to which the
letters witness inconsistent with that used to other Christian prisoners, e.g.
St. Paul. The numberless libelli pacis,
written by martyrs in prison, and the celebrations of the holy mysteries there
with their friends, show that the liberty given Ignatius was not extraordinary.
Ignatius is always eager to know more Christians and to interest them in each
other. The news of the cessation of persecution in Antioch stirs him to urge
Polycarp to take an interest in that church. The great idea of the Catholic
church is at work in him. He does not deny that his request that messengers
should be sent to Antioch is an unusual one, but dwells upon the great benefit
which will result. But when Polycarp, a few weeks or months afterwards, writes
to the Philippians, the messenger had not yet been sent. Ignatius had but
lately passed through Philippi, by the Via Egnatia to Neapolis. The Philippians
immediately after wrote to Polycarp, and forwarded a message to the
Antiochenes, expecting to be in time to catch the messenger for Antioch before
his departure. Ignatius had plainly been suggesting the same thoughts to them
as to Polycarp; Polycarp wrote immediately after receiving the epistle of the
Philippians. He speaks of the death of Ignatius, knowing that the sentence in
Antioch made it certain; probably knowing also the date of the games at which
he was to die. But he is not acquainted with any particulars, since he asks for
news concerning the martyr and those with him, and at the request of the
Philippians forwards all the epistles of Ignatius to which he had access, viz.
those to the Asiatic churches; but not all that he knew to have been written.
VIII. The chief difficulty
in accepting the epistles as genuine has always arisen from the form of church
government which they record as existing and support with great emphasis. They
display the threefold ministry established in Asia Minor and Syria, and the
terms episcopos and presbiteros are applied to perfectly distinct orders—a state of things and use of language
which are argued to be wholly incompatible with a date early in the 2nd cent.
It is noteworthy that the testimony of the epistles on this point extends no
further than the localities named. To the Romans Ignatius only once names the
office of a bishop, and that in reference to himself; and in Polycarp's Ep. to
the Philippians there is no mention of any bishop, while the deacons and
presbyters are addressed at considerable length. The standpoint of the epistles
is perfectly consistent with the supposition that episcopacy existing from the
times of the apostles in Asia Minor and Syria and believed by the Christians
there to be a divinely ordained institution, made its way gradually into other
parts of the church, and that those who most valued it might yet know that it
did not exist in churches to which they wrote, or not be assured that it did,
and might feel it no part of their duty to enter upon a controversy concerning
it.
Zahn fairly observes that
there is no attempt, even in those epistles where obedience to the bishop is
most urged, to recommend it in opposition to other forms of church government.
Not only is the supposition that Ignatius was introducing episcopacy utterly
out of the question, but none of the epistles bear the slightest trace of any
recent introduction of it in the places in which it exists.
The presbyterate is
everywhere identified with the episcopate in its claims to obedience, and those
who resist the one resist the other. It is extremely hard to reconcile these
characteristics with the supposition that the letters were forged to introduce
the rule of bishops or to uplift it to an unprecedented position in order to
resist the assaults of heresy.
A good deal of uncertainty
remains as to the relations which the smaller congregations outside the limits
of the cities held in the Ignatian church order to the bishops of the cities.
No provision appears for episcopal rule over country congregations whose
pastors are not in the "presbytery"—an uncommon expression in
antiquity, but used 13 times by Ignatius.
The duties the epistles
ascribe to bishops are very similar to those which St. Paul lays upon
presbyters. Only in one place do they speak of the preaching of the bishop; and
it is not peculiar to him, but common with the presbyters. The deacons have
duties wholly distinct, concerned with the meat and drink given to the poor and
with the distribution of the mysteries of the Eucharist. But the presbyters are
very closely united with the bishop. They are not his vicars, and yet the
bishop is by no means a mere president of the college of presbyters. Zahn shows
that even though the development of episcopacy were thought to have taken place
through the elevation of one of a college to a presidency in those parts where
it did not exist in the end of the 1st cent., it would still be impossible to
hold this of Asia. The youth of many of the earliest Asiatic bishops puts this
theory entirely out of the question there. Whatever development is implied in
the passage from the state of things represented in I. Pet. and I. Tim. to
organized episcopacy, took place, according to the testimony of all records
both of Scripture and tradition, in the 30 years between the death of St. Paul
and the time of Domitian, had Asia Minor for its centre,
and was conducted under the influence of St. John and apostolic men from
Palestine, in which country Jerusalem offers the records of a succession of
bishops more trustworthy perhaps than that of any other see. Now the Syrian
churches were from the first in closest union with Palestine. Thus all the most
undoubted records of episcopacy in the sub-apostolic age centre in the very quarters in which our epistles exhibit it, a weighty coincidence in
determining their authenticity.
It is certainly somewhat
startling to those accustomed to regard bishops as the successors of the
apostles that Ignatius everywhere speaks of the position of the apostles as
corresponding to that of the existing presbyters, while the prototype of the
bishop is not the apostles, but the Lord Himself. It would be hasty, however,
to infer that Ignatius denied that the office and authority of the apostles was
represented and historically succeeded by that of the bishops. The state of
things visibly displayed when the Lord and His apostles were on earth is for
Ignatius the type of church order for all time. If, however, the epistles had
been forged to support episcopacy, they would not have omitted an argument of
such weight as the apostolical authority and succession.
The duty of submission is
with Ignatius the first call upon each member of the church, and exhortations
to personal holiness go hand in hand with admonitions to unity and obedience.
The bishop represents the principle of unity in the church.
Sprintzl ingeniously argues that the
supremacy of the bp. of Rome is taught by Ignatius, on the ground that, first,
he teaches the supremacy of the Roman church over others, and secondly, the
supremacy of the bishop in every church. But the explanation of the passage in
Romans is very doubtful, and the marked omission of any mention of the bp. of
Rome seems inconsistent with any supremacy apart from the natural position of
his church.
The emphatic terms in which
these letters propose the bishop as the representative of Christ have always
presented a stumbling-block to many minds, even apart from the question of
date. But before we pronounce these expressions exaggerated, we must remember
that obedience to the bishop is valued by the writer for the sake of unity,
while unity is for him the only fence against the heresy to which small and
disunited bodies are subject.
Identification of the
position of the church ruler with that of the Lord would be more easy to a
writer of an age very close to Christ than to one of later date. When the
divine nature of the Lord and His elevation in heaven came through lapse of
time to overshadow the remembrance of His life on earth, it seemed a superhuman
claim on the part of any office to say that it represented Him. But it would
naturally be otherwise when the recollection of His human intercourse with men
was fresh; for why should not men represent one so truly man? Thus the strong
expressions may really be a mark of early date.
In Sm. 8 is first found the
phrase Catholic church—an expression pronounced by Lipsius to prove of itself
the later date of the epistles. Such a decision is very precarious, even if,
with Lipsius, we reject the testimony of the Martyrdom of Polycarp to the use
of the expression. Sprintzl remarks that the phrase
"Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church" naturally
follows upon the preceding statement of the relation of the bishop to the
particular church: what the bishop is to it, that Christ is to the Catholic
church at large. Thus to Ignatius the church of each place is a miniature of
the church at large and its unity is guarded by all the sanctions of the
Christian faith. The one faith is, in the epistles, the bond of the church.
"The gospel" is that which the apostles proclaimed; not the four
written gospels, but the substance of the message of salvation.
We find in the epistles the
germ of the great ideas of worship afterwards developed in the church. The
altar-idea and the temple-idea as applied to the church are there. The
Eucharist holds its commanding place, though what its rites were at this early
period is hard to answer from the letters.
As to the theology of the
epistles, there have been great differences of opinion. The more significant
theological statements are uncontroversial, though called out by heresies to
which the writer opposes his conception of the nature of Christ. The originality
and reality of the revelation in Christ is the great point with him. Hence
follows the unreasonableness of Judaizing, which he sometimes presses in terms
apparently inconsistent with the recognition of Jewish Christians as really
believers. But probably, like St. Paul, he is treating the question from the
Gentile standpoint alone. Prophets and the law are worthy of all honour in Christ. The prophets were Christians in spirit,
and Christ raised them from the dead. They were believers in Christ; yea, even
the angels must believe in His blood.
The question what special
heresies are denounced in the epistles possesses, in relation to their date, an
importance scarcely below that of episcopacy. All, except Romans, contain
warnings against heresy, and the exhortations to unity and submission to authority
derive their urgency from this danger. It was long a question whether two forms
of heresy, Judaic and Docetic, or only one, Judaeo-docetic,
were aimed at. But already in 1856, despite the arguments of Hilgenfeld it
appeared to Lipsius that the question was decided in the latter sense. The
heretics were wandering teachers, ever seeking proselytes, and all the
denunciations of heresy are directed against that mixture of Judaism with
Gnosticism, represented by some whom Ignatius met in his journey .
The great majority of
critics, whether adverse to the genuineness of the epistles or not, have
recognized that the seven epistles professing to be of Ignatius, as shown by
the individuality of the author there displayed, and the one of Polycarp, form
an indivisible whole. Romans, indeed, is the brightest and most interesting of
the letters. This is because its chief subject is his personal eagerness for
martyrdom; he is writing to the place where he expects to suffer, and to people
who can help or hinder his object.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA A.D. 150 - c. 215
His full name, Titus Flavius
Clemens, is given by Eusebius and Photius in the title of the Stromateis.
The remarkable coincidence of the name with that of the nephew of Vespasian and
consul in 95 cannot have been accidental, but we have no direct evidence of
Clement's connection with the imperial Flavian family. Perhaps he was descended
from a freedman of the consul; his wide and varied learning indicates that he
had received a liberal education, and so far suggests that his parents occupied
a good social position. The place of his birth is not certainly known.
Epiphanius, the earliest authority on the question, observes that two opinions
were held in his time, "some saying that he was an Alexandrian, others
that he was an Athenian". Alexandria was the principal scene of his labours; but there was no apparent reason for connecting
him with Athens by mere conjecture. The statement that he was an Athenian must
therefore have rested upon some direct tradition. Moreover, in recounting his
wanderings he makes Greece the starting-point and Alexandria the goal of his
search; and in the 2nd cent. Athens was still the centre of the literary and spiritual life of Greece. We may then with reasonable
probability conclude that Clement was an Athenian by training if not by origin,
and the fact that he was at the head of the catechetical school of Alexandria
towards the close of the century fixes the date of his birth c. A.D. 150–160.
Nothing is recorded of his
parentage; but his own language seems to imply that he embraced Christianity by
a personal act, as in some sense a convert, and this is directly affirmed by
Eusebius, though perhaps simply by inference from Clement's words. Such a
conversion would not be irreconcilable with the belief that Clement, like
Augustine, was of Christian parentage at least on one side; but whether
Clement's parents were Christians or heathens it is evident that heathenism
attracted him for a time; and though he soon overcame its attractions, his
inquisitive spirit did not at once find rest in Christianity. He enumerates six
illustrious teachers under whom he studied the "true tradition of the
blessed doctrine of the holy apostles." His first teacher in Greece was an
Ionian (Athenagoras?); others he heard in Magna Graecia; others in the East;
and at last he found in Egypt the true master for whom he had sought. There can
be no doubt that this master was Pantaenus, to whom he is said to have expressed
his obligations in his Hypotyposes. Pantaenus was then chief of the
catechetical school, and though the accounts of Eusebius and Jerome are
irreconcilable in their details and chronology, it is certain that on the death
or retirement of Pantaenus, Clement succeeded to his office, and it is not
unlikely that he had acted as his colleague before.
The period during which
Clement presided over the catechetical school (c. A.D. 190–203) seems to have
been the season of his greatest literary activity. He was now a presbyter of
the church and had the glory of reckoning Origen among his scholars. On the
outbreak of the persecution under Severus (A.D. 202, 203) in which Leonidas,
the father of Origen, perished, Clement retired from Alexandria, never, as it
seems, to return. Nothing is directly stated as to the place of his withdrawal.
There are some indications of a visit to Syria; and, later, we find him in the
company of an old pupil, Alexander, afterwards bp. of Jerusalem, and at that
time a bp. of Cappadocia, who was in prison for the faith. If therefore Clement
had before withdrawn from danger, it was through wisdom and not through fear.
Alexander regarded his presence as due to "a special providence", and
charged him, in most honourable terms, with a letter
of congratulation to the church of Antioch on the appointment of Asclepiades to
the bishopric of that city, A.D. 311. This is the last mention of Clement which
has been preserved. The time and the place of his death are alike unknown.
Popular opinion reckoned him
among the saints of the church; and he was commemorated in the early Western
martyrologies on Dec. 4. His name, however, was omitted in the martyrology
issued by Clement VIII after the corrections of Baronius; and Benedict XIV
elaborately defended the omission in a letter to John V of Portugal, dated
1748. Benedict argued that the teaching of Clement was at least open to
suspicion, and that private usage would not entitle him to a place in the
calendar
Works.—Eusebius, whom Jerome
follows closely with some mistakes has given a list of the works of Clement;
from the variations in the titles and the omission of 9, it is evident that he
derived his knowledge of these simply from the secondary Greek version of Jerome's
list. Elsewhere Clement speaks of his intention to write On First Principles;
On Prophecy; Against Heresies; On the Resurrection; On Marriage. But the
references may be partly to sections of his greater works, and partly to
designs never carried out.
No doubt has been raised as
to the genuineness of the Address, the Tutor, and the Miscellanies. Internal
evidence shows them all the work of one writer, and they have been quoted as
Clement's by a continuous succession of Fathers even from the time of Origen.
These three principal extant works form a connected series.
The first is an exhortation
to the heathen to embrace Christianity, based on an exposition of the
comparative character of heathenism and Christianity; the second offers a
system of training for the new convert, with a view to the regulation of his
conduct as a Christian; the third is an introduction to Christian philosophy.
The series was further
continued in the lost Outlines, in which Clement laid the foundation of his
philosophic structure in an investigation of the canonical writings. The mutual
relations of these writings show that Clement intended them as a complete system
of Christian teaching, corresponding with the "whole economy of the
gracious Word, Who first addresses, then trains, and then teaches",
bringing to man in due succession conviction, discipline, wisdom. The first
three books correspond in a remarkable degree, as has frequently been remarked,
with the stages of the neo-Platonic course, the Purification, the Initiation,
and the Vision. The fourth book was probably designed to give a solid basis to
the truths which were fleeting and unreal in systems of philosophy. Though his
style is generally deficient in terseness and elegance, his method desultory,
his learning undigested; yet we can still thankfully admire his richness of
information, his breadth of reading, his largeness of sympathy, his lofty aspirations,
his noble conception of the office and capacities of the Faith.
The works of Clement were
composed in the order in which they have been mentioned. The Tutor contains a
reference to the Address in the first section; and, if we can trust the
assertion of Eusebius, some of Clement's works were composed before the accession
of Victor (A.D. 192). Putting these two facts together, we may reasonably
suppose the Address written c. A.D. 190. It was addressed to Greeks and not to
Gentiles generally, as Jerome understood the word. It deals almost exclusively
with Greek mythology and Greek speculation. Its general aim is to prove the
superiority of Christianity to the religions and the philosophies of
heathendom, while it satisfies the cravings of humanity to which they bore
witness. The gospel is, as Clement shows with consummate eloquence, the New
Song more powerful than that of Orpheus or Arion, new and yet older than the
creation, pure and spiritual as contrasted with the sensuality and idolatry of
the pagan rites, clear and substantial as compared with the vague hopes of poets
and philosophers. In such a case, he argues, custom cannot be pleaded against
the duty of conversion. Man is born for God, and is bound to obey the call of
God, Who through the Word is waiting to make him like unto Himself. The choice
is between judgment and grace, between destruction and life: can the issue then
be doubtful? It is not difficult to point out errors in taste, fact, and
argument throughout Clement's appeal; but it would be perhaps impossible to
show in any earlier work passages equal to those in which he describes the
mission of the Word, the Light of men, and pictures the true destiny of man
The Tutor was written before
the Miscellanies, in which the Tutor is described generally —i.e. c. A.D.
190–195. The writer's design was "to prepare from early years, that is
from the beginning of elementary instruction, a rule of life growing with the
increase of faith, and fitting the souls of those just on the verge of manhood
with virtue so as to enable them to receive the higher knowledge of
philosophy".
The main scope of the Tutor
is therefore practical: the aim is action and not knowledge; but still action
as preparatory to knowledge, and resting upon conviction. It is divided into
three books. The first gives a general description of the Tutor, Who is the
Word Himself; of the "children" whom He trains, Christian men and
women alike; and of His general method, using both chastisements and love. The
second and third books deal with special precepts designed to meet the actual
difficulties of contemporary life and not to offer a theory of morals. It would
not be easy to find elsewhere, even in the Roman satirists, an equally vivid
and detailed picture of heathen manners. The second book contains general
directions as to eating and drinking, furniture, entertainments, sleep, the
relations of men and women, the use of jewellery. The
third book opens with an inquiry into the nature of true beauty. This leads to
a condemnation of extravagance in dress both in men and in women, of luxurious
establishments, of the misuse of wealth. Frugality and exercise are
recommended; and many minute directions are added—often curiously suggestive in
the present times—as to dress and behaviour. General
instructions from Holy Scripture as to the various duties and offices of life
lead up to the prayer to the Tutor—the Word—with which the work closes.
Immediately after the Tutor
are printed in the editions of Clement two short poems, which have been
attributed to him. The first, written in an anapaestic measure, is A Hymn of the Saviour Christ, and the
second, written in trimeter iambics, is addressed To
the Tutor. The first is said to be "Saint Clement's" in those MSS.
which contain it; but it may be a work of primitive date, like the Morning Hymn
which has been preserved in our Communion office as the Gloria in Excelsis. If
it were Clement's, and designed to occupy its present place, it is scarcely
possible that it would have been omitted in any MS.; while it makes an
appropriate and natural addition if taken from some other source. There is no
evidence to shew that the second is Clement's work; it is doubtless an effusion
of some pious scholar of a later date.
The Miscellanies. The title,
patchwork (or rather bags for holding the bedclothes), suggests a true idea of
the character of the work. It is designedly unmethodical, a kind of meadow, as
Clement describes it, or rather a wooded mountain, studded irregularly with
various growths, and so fitted to exercise the ingenuity and labour of those likely to profit by it. But yet the book is
inspired by one thought. It is an endeavour to claim
for the gospel the power of fulfilling all the desires of men and of raising to
a supreme unity all the objects of knowledge, in the soul of the true
gnostic—the perfect Christian philosopher. The first book, which is mutilated
at the beginning, treats in the main of the office and the origin of Greek
philosophy in relation to Christianity and Judaism. Clement shows that Greek
philosophy was part of the Divine education of men, subordinate to the training
of the law and the prophets, but yet really from God. In his anxiety to
establish this cardinal proposition he is not content with shewing that the
books of O.T. are older than those of the philosophers; but endeavours to prove also that the philosophers borrowed from the Jews. After this he
vindicates the character and explains the general scope of the law—"the
philosophy of Moses". The main object of the second book lies in the more
detailed exposition of the originality and superiority of the moral teaching of
revelation as compared with that of Greek philosophy which was in part derived
from it. The argument includes an examination of the nature of faith, resting
on a godly fear and perfected by love; and of repentance. He discusses the
sense in which human affections are ascribed to God; and shows that the
conception of the ideal Christian is that of a man made like to God, in
accordance with the noblest aspirations of philosophy. The book closes with a
preliminary discussion of marriage.
The third book investigates
the true doctrine of marriage as against those who indulged in every license on
the ground that bodily actions are indifferent ; and, on the other hand, those
who abstained from marriage from hatred of the Creator. Various passages of
Scripture wrongly interpreted by heretics are examined; and the two main errors
are shown to be inconsistent with Christianity. The fourth book opens with a
very interesting outline of the whole plan of the comprehensive apology for
Christianity on which he had entered. The work evidently grew under his hands,
and he implies that he could hardly expect to accomplish the complete design.
He then adds fresh traits to his portrait of the true "gnostic."
Self-sacrifice, martyrdom, lie at the root of his nature, virtues within the
reach of all states and of both sexes, though even this required to be guarded
against fanaticism and misunderstanding. Other virtues, as love and endurance,
are touched upon; and then Clement gives a picture of a godly woman, and of the
gnostic, who rises above fear and hope to that perfection which rests in the
knowledge and love of God.
In the fifth book Clement,
following the outline laid down, discusses faith and hope, and then passes to
the principle of enigmatic teaching. This, he argues, was followed by heathen
and Jewish masters alike; by Pythagoras; by Moses, in the ordinances of the
tabernacle; by the Aegyptians; and by many others.
The principle itself is, he maintains, defensible on intelligible grounds, and
supported by the authority of the apostles. For in fact the knowledge of God
can be gained only through serious effort and by divine help. This review of
the character and sources of the highest knowledge leads Clement back to his
characteristic proposition that the Greeks borrowed from the Jews the noblest
truths of their own philosophy.
The sixth and seventh books
are designed, as Clement states to show the character of the Christian
philosopher (the gnostic), and so to make it clear that he alone is the true
worshipper of God. By way of prelude Clement repeats and enforces what he had said
on Greek plagiarisms, yet admitting that the Greeks had some true knowledge of
God, and affirming that the gospel was preached in Hades to those of them who
had lived according to their light, though that was feeble compared with the
glory of the gospel. He then sketches the lineaments of the Christian
philosopher, who attains to a perfectly passionless state and masters for the
service of the faith all forms of knowledge, including various mysteries open
to him only. The reward of this true philosopher is proportioned to his
attainments. These are practically unlimited in range, for Greek philosophy,
though a gift of God for the training of the nations, is only a recreation for
the Christian philosopher in comparison with the serious objects of his study.
In the seventh book Clement
regards the Christian philosopher as the one true worshipper of God, striving
to become like the Son of God, even as the heathen conversely made their gods
like themselves. The soul is his temple; prayers and thanksgivings, his
sacrifice; truth, the law of his life. Other traits are At the close of the seventh
book Clement remarks that he "shall proceed with his argument from a fresh
beginning". The phrase may mean that he proposes to enter upon a new
division of the Miscellanies, or that he will now pass to another portion of
the great system of writings sketched out in Strom. iv. 1–3. In favour of the first opinion it may be urged that Eusebius
and Photius expressly mention eight books of the Miscellanies; while on the
other hand the words themselves, taken in connexion with vii. 1, point rather to the commencement of a new book. The fragment which
bears the title of the eighth book in the one remaining MS. is in fact a piece
of a treatise on logic. It may naturally have served as an introduction to the
examination of the opinions of Greek philosophers, the interpretation of
Scripture, and the refutation of heresies which were the general topics of the
second principal member of Clement's plan; but it is not easy to see how it
could have formed the close of the Miscellanies. It is "a fresh
beginning" and nothing more. In the time of Photius (c. A.D. 850) the
present fragment was reckoned as the eighth book in some copies, and in others
the tract, On the Rich Man that is Saved (Bibl. 111). Still further confusion
is indicated by the fact that passages from the Extracts from the Prophetical
Writings are quoted from "the eighth book of the Miscellanies", and
also from "the eighth book of the Outlines"; while the discussion of
prophecy was postponed from the Miscellanies to some later opportunity .
Perhaps the simplest solution is to suppose that at a very early date the
logical introduction to the Outlines was separated from the remainder of the
work, and added to MSS. of the Miscellanies. In this way the opinion would
arise that there were 8 books of the Miscellanies, and scribes supplied the
place of bk. viii. according to their pleasure.
The Outlines probably grew out of the
Miscellanies. Several express quotations from the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th books
of the Outlines have been preserved; but the fragments are too few and
Clement's method too desultory to allow these to furnish a certain plan of the arrangement
of the work.
The remaining extant work of
Clement, Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? is apparently a popular address
based upon Mark x. 17–31. The teaching is simple, eloquent, and just; and the
tract closes with the exquisite "story, which is no story" of St.
John and the young robber, which Eusebius relates in his History
Clements' Position and
Influence as a Christian Teacher.—In order to understand Clement rightly, it is
necessary to bear in mind that he laboured in a
crisis of transition. This gives his writings their peculiar interest in all
times of change. The transition was threefold, affecting doctrine, thought, and
life. Doctrine was passing from the stage of oral tradition to written
definition. Thought was passing from the immediate circle of the Christian
revelation to the whole domain of human experience. Life in its fulness was
coming to be apprehended as the object of Christian discipline. A few
suggestions will be offered upon the first two of these heads. Clement
repeatedly affirms that even when he sets forth the deepest mysteries, he is
simply reproducing an original unwritten tradition. This had been committed by
the Lord to the apostles Peter, James, John, and Paul, and handed down from
father to son, till at length he set forth accurately in writing what had been
delivered in word. But this tradition was, as he held it, not an independent
source of doctrine, but a guide to the apprehension of doctrine. It was not
co-ordinate with Scripture, but interpretative of Scripture. It was the help to
the training of the Christian philosopher, and not part of the heritage of the
simple believer. Tradition in this aspect preserved the clue to the right
understanding of the hidden sense, the underlying harmonies, the manifold unity
of revelation. More particularly the philosopher was able to obtain through
tradition the general principles of interpreting the records of revelation and
significant illustrations of their application. In this way the true
"gnostic" was saved from the errors of the false "gnostic"
or heretic, who interpreted Scripture without regard to "the
ecclesiastical rule". The examples of spiritual interpretation which
Clement gives in accordance with this traditional "rule" are
frequently visionary and puerile. But none the less the rule itself witnessed
to a vital truth, the continuity and permanent value of the books of Holy
Scripture. This truth was an essential part of the inheritance of the Catholic
church; and Clement, however faulty in detail, did good service in maintaining
it. As yet, however, the contents of the Christian Bible were imperfectly
defined. Clement, like the other Fathers who habitually used the Alexandrine
O.T., quotes the books of the Apocrypha without distinguishing them in any way
from the books of the Hebrew canon, and he appears to regard the current Greek
Bible as answering to the Hebrew Scriptures restored by Ezra. There is the same
laxity of usage in Clement with regard to the N.T. He ascribes great weight to
the Ep. of Barnabas; and makes frequent use of the Preaching of Peter; and
quotes the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews. Eusebius further adds that he wrote
notes on the Revelation of Peter, which is in fact quoted in the Extracts from
the Prophets. The text of his quotations is evidently given from memory. But as
the earliest Greek writer who It is impossible here to
follow in detail Clement's opinions on special points of doctrine. The contrast
which he draws between the gnostic (the philosophic Christian) and the ordinary
believer is of more general interest. This contrast underlies the whole plan of
his Miscellanies, and explains the different aspects in which doctrine,
according to his view, might be regarded as an object of faith and as an object
of knowledge. Faith is the foundation; knowledge the superstructure. By
knowledge faith is perfected, for to know is more than to believe. Faith is a
summary knowledge of urgent truths: knowledge a sure demonstration of what has
been received through faith, being itself reared upon faith through the
teaching of the Lord. Thus the gnostic grasps the complete truth of all
revelation from the beginning of the world to the end, piercing to the depths
of Scripture, of which the believer tastes the surface only. As a consequence
of this intelligent sympathy with the Divine Will, the gnostic becomes in perfect
unity in himself, and as far as possible like God. Definite outward observances
cease to have any value for one whose whole being is brought into an abiding
harmony with that which is eternal: he has no wants, no passions; he rests in
the contemplation of God, which is and will be his unfailing blessedness.
In this outline it is easy
to see the noblest traits of later mysticism; and if some of Clement's
statements go beyond subjects which lie within the powers of man, still he
bears impressive testimony to two essential truths, that the aim of faith
through knowledge perfected by love is the present recovery of the divine
likeness; and that formulated doctrine is not an end in itself, but a means
whereby we rise through fragmentary propositions to knowledge which is
immediate and one.
The character of the
gnostic, the ideal Christian, the perfect philosopher, represents the link
between man, in his earthly conflict, and God: it represents also the link
between man and men. The gnostic fulfils through the gospel the destiny and
nature of mankind, and gathers together the fruit of their varied experience.
This thought of the Incarnation as the crown and consummation of the whole
history of the world is perhaps that which is most characteristic of Clement's
office as an interpreter of the faith. It rests upon his view of human nature,
of the providential government of God, of the finality of the Christian
dispensation. Man, according to Clement, is born for the service of God. His
soul is a gift sent down to him from heaven by God, and strains to return
thither. For this end there is need of painful training; and the various
partial sciences are helps towards the attainment of the true destiny of
existence. The "image" of God which man receives at his birth is
slowly completed in the "likeness" of God. The inspiration of the
divine breath by which he is distinguished from other creatures is fulfilled by
the gift of the Holy Spirit to the believer, which that original constitution
makes possible. The image of God, Clement says elsewhere, is the Word (Logos),
and the true image of the Word is man, that is, the reason in man. It flows
necessarily from this view of humanity, as essentially related to God through
the Word, that Clement acknowledged a providential purpose in the development
of Gentile life. He recognized in the bright side of Gentile speculation many
divine elements. These he regarded as partly borrowed from Jewish revelation,
and partly derived from reason illuminated by the Word, the final source of
reason. Some truths, he says, the Greek philosophers stole and disfigured; some
they overlaid with restless and foolish speculations; others they discovered,
for they also perhaps had "a spirit of wisdom". He distinctly
recognized the office which Greek philosophy fulfilled for the Greeks as a
guide to righteousness, and a work of divine providence. He regarded it as a
preparation for justifying faith, and in a true sense a dispensation, a
covenant.
The training of Jews and of
the Greeks was thus in different ways designed to fit men for the final
manifestation of the Christ.
The systems were partial in
their essence, and by human imperfection were made still more so. The various
schools of philosophy, Jewish and heathen, are described by Clement under a
memorable image, as rending in pieces the one truth like the Bacchants who rent
the body of Pentheus, and bore about the fragments in triumph. Each, he says,
boasts that the morsel which it has had the good fortune to gain is all the
truth. Yet by the rising of the light all things are lightened, and he who
again combines the divided parts and unites the exposition in a perfect whole
will look upon the truth without peril.
Towards this great unity of
all science and all life Clement himself strove; and by the influence of his
writings kept others alive to the import of the magnificent promises in the
teaching of St. Paul and St. John. He affirmed, once for all, upon the threshold
of the new age, that Christianity is the heir of all past time, and the
interpreter of the future. Sixteen centuries have confirmed the truth of his
principle, and left its application still fruitful.
|