Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 November 2011
One of the most fruitful branches of recent patristic study has been the effort to determine the relation between early Christian theology and Greek philosophy. Starting from the assumption that the affinities between the two were many and close, scholars have found themselves able to draw detailed inferences of literary and intellectual dependence, and in the case of many Christian authors to discover the exact sources from which they drew their philosophic ideas, or at least to assign these to some contemporary school. Without such work an accurate estimate of the fathers' views and ways of thinking is impossible, but it must be remembered that an author is not explained, or even fairly represented, by showing how much he may have derived from others, for in the last analysis his finished thought is his own, however extensive the foreign material employed in its construction. It is not, therefore, at the end but at the beginning of his work that the historian of thought can expect most help from the investigation of sources, since even an author who differs from his contemporaries in his answers to current problems must usually begin by seeing them as they do. The background of an author's thought must have supplied the starting point for many of his ideas.
1 Cf. Plato, Sophist, pp. 246–247. Aristotle used this distinction as a principle of classification of the philosophers who went before him. Cf. De anima, 404b, 30–405a, 7 (Simplicius, Comm. pp. 30–31), Meta. A, 7–8, p. 988; he was followed in this by the later doxographers, e.g. Galen, Hist. Phil. 14 (Diels, Dox. Graeci, 608,18).
2 Timaeus, pp. 27D–28A
3 Timaeus, p. 92C.
4 ‘Unreal’ but not ‘non-existent’, cf. Zeller, Phil. der Griechen, 4te Aufl. iii. 1, pp. 89, n. 1, 119, 125.
5 Cf. Leisegang, Hans, Der heilige Geist, I. Berlin, 1919Google Scholar.
6 ἀσώματος came to be the catchword of Platonic metaphysics. A history of the word and the ideas lying behind it is much needed. Something of its importance can be seen from the following passages: Plato, Soph. pp. 246–257; Polit. 286A; Phileb. 64B; Phaedo 85E; Aristotle, De anima 404b, 30–405a, 7; 405a, 27; 405b, 11; 409b, 21; Meta. A, 7,988a, 25; A, 8, 988b, 25; De gen. et corr. 5, 320a, 30; Topica vi. 12, 149b, 1; Nat. Auscult. iv, 1, 209a, 16; idem iv. 4, 212a, 12; idem iv, 8, 215b, 5, 10; Plutarch, Moralia, pp. 1073e, 424e, 926a–b, 718 f., 1014b–c, 1029d, 1085c, 894c, 602f, 905b, 1074a–c, 1073e. 1080–1081, 960c, 1002c, 1086a, 63c; Vitae, Marcellus c. 14, p. 305e; Seneca, Ad Helviam viii, 3; Epistulae 90. 29; 89.16; 58. 11–15; Cicero de nat. deor. i, 12, 30; Diels, Doxographi Graeci, pp. 606 6, 13.12, 615, 387.10, 409.26, 308, 288, 449, 395, 608.18, 305, 460.27.
7 Schmekel, Philosophie der mittleren Stoa, pp. 353 ff.
8 The question of Posidonius's influence has been much discussed. Cf. K. Gronau, Poseidonius und die jüdisch-christliche Genesis-exegese (1914); K. Reinhardt, Poseidonios, Munich, 1921.
9 The figure of Ammonius Saccas remains in the same obscurity as that of Pantaenus. The relations of Clement to Pantaenus were similar to those of Plotinus to Ammonius. Origen is supposed to have been a pupil of Ammonius; cf. Zeller, Kleine Schriften, ii. pp. 91 ff.
10 Cf. Euseb., Praep. ev. ix. 7; xi. 9–10; Nemesius, De nature humana ii.
11 Cf. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchl. Literatur, II. 2te Aufl. 1914, pp. 43 ff.
12 The loss of the prefaces to Strom. Bk. i. prevents us from knowing exactly his intentions when he began to write it. How difficult he found it to stop can be seen from Protrept. xii, 123.
13 Clement calls it ἡ ἐποπτεία, technical term for initiation into the Eleusinian mysteries, cf. Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. XI. 1, 248–249. Ziegert draws attention to the fact that in the mysteries ἐποπτεία was used of seeing the sacred symbols exhibited by the priests to the initiates, and maintains that Clement transferred it to the vision of truth revealed by mystic intuition, cf. Studien u. Kritiken, lxvii, 1894, pp. 728 ff.
14 Clement's treatment of paganism may be compared in this respect with Irenaeus's treatment of Gnosticism.
15 Protrept. ii. 24.
16 Protrept. ii. 26. Wendland refers the three versions to a common source in Posidonius's περὶ θεῶν, Archiv f. Gesch. der Phil, i, 1887, pp. 200–210.
17 The reference is to a famous incident recorded in Plutarch's Alcibiades 19. Note the peculiarly appropriate ἐξορχήσομαι.
18 ἐκκυκλήσω: an ἐκκύκλημα was a stage device for showing interiors. It was used by Aeschylus (Ag. 1372), Sophocles (El. 1466, Ant. 1294), and Aristophanes (Ach. 408).
19 Protrept. ii. 12, 1.
20 On the place which these deities held in the world to which Clement addressed his writings, cf. J. Geffcken, Der Ausgang des griechisch-römischen Heidentums, Heidelberg, 1920, chaps. 1–2.
21 Protrept. v–viii. The statement about Theophrastus is noteworthy. ὁ δὲ Ἐρέσιος ἐκεῖνος Θεόϕραστος ὁ Ἀριστοτέλους γνώριμος πῇ μὲν οὐρανόν, πῇ δὲ πνεῦμα τὸν θεόν, Protrept. v. 66, 5. With this is to be compared Cicero, De nat. deor. i. 35: Nee vero Theophrasti inconstantia ferenda est; modo menti divinum tribuit principatum, modo caelo, turn autem signis sideribusque caelestibus. Cf. i. 33 where it is said of Aristotle: modo enim menti tribuit omnem divinitatem, modo mundum ipsum deum dicit. Behind Cicero's ‘menti,’ however, is to be read νῷ not πνεύματι. Clement (and probably his source) makes Theophrastus into a Stoic.
22 Plato, Epist. ii. p. 312 E.
23 κρᾶσις τῶν ὄλων, cf. Exc. ex. Theod. § 17, von Arnim, Fragm. vet. Stoic, ii. 145, 151. Cornutus, De nat. deor. c. 3. Zeller, Phil, der Griech. 4te Aufl. iii. 1, p. 129.
24 Protrept. vi. 72, 4–5.
25 The verses begin: τἀγαθὸν ἐρωτᾷς μ᾽ οἶόν ἐστ᾽; ἄκουε δή. Clement quotes them later as if from a treatise of Cleanthes περὶ τοῦ θεοῦ, Strom, v. 14, 110, 2, but no other fragment of Cleanthes justifies this platonizing interpretation of τἀγαθόν; cf. A. C. Pearson, Fragments of Zeno and Cleanthes, pp. 299–301; A. B. Krische, Die theologische Lehre der griech. Denker, pp. 420 ff. Whether Clement is responsible for the error or was deceived by a source from which he derived the quotation cannot be determined. He had, however, a considerable knowledge of Cleanthes (cf. Strom, v. 3, 17; viii. 9, 26; v. 8, 48; vii. 6, 33), and in one passage (Strom, ii. 22, 131) quotes chapter and verse of his work on pleasure. The equivalence of God and τὸ ἁγαθόν is frequent in Clement, cf. Protrept. ix. 88,1 οἱ τἀγαθοῦ προσκυνηταί, Ibid. iv. 49. 2.
26 σύντομοι σωτηρίας ὁδοί, Protrept. viii. 77, 1; cf. Paed. i. 3, 9.
27 Protrept. viii. 77, 1.
28 Protrept. xi. 117.
29 The definition of piety is given in Protrept. ix. 86, 2. θεοσέβεια δὲ ἐξομοιοῦσα τῷ θεῷ κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν τὸν ἄνθρωπον; cf. Hermes Trismeg. ed. Parthey, p. 62, εὐσέβεια δέ ἐστι θεοῦ γνῶσις.
30 Protrept. xi. 116, 1.
31 Protrept. x. 99, 4.
32 Protrept. x. 100, 2; 103, 4; xi, 113, 3; 114, 1; ii. 23, 1; ii. 10, 3; v. 65, 4.
33 Protrept. i. 9, 5; ix. 85, 1; x. 95, 2–3; i. 8, 3; cf. Paed. i. 4, 10, 1.
34 Protrept. i. 4, 3; x. 92, 2; x. 104, 3.
35 Protrept. i. 6, 3; i. 8, 1; i. 8, 3; x. 95, 1.
36 The metaphor of the physician was a favorite one with Clement as with the Stoics: Protrept. x. 91, 3; cf. Paed. i. 2, 6, 1; i. 1, 3, 1–3.
37 Protrept. i. 8, 2; i. 8, 3; ix. 87, 3; x. 95, 1–2; Ecl. proph. 9, 1–3; 20, 4; Strom. ii. 7.
38 This aspect of Clement's idea of faith appears clearly in Protrept. x. 95, 3.
39 Clement's idea of truth can be studied in the following passages: Protrept. i. 2, 1–2; i. 4, 2; i. 6, 2–3; ii. 10, 1; ii. 12, 1; ii. 24, 2; vi. 68, 2; vi. 69, 1; vi. 71, 1; vii. 74–77; viii. 77, 1; viii. 80, 4; ix. 85, 3; x. 89, 2; x. 95, 2; x. 109, 1; xi. 114, 3; xii. 121, 3.
40 Clement, like Jesus and unlike most Christian thinkers in the interval, held that salvation was open to all but achieved by few. This type of pessimism held no implications unfavorable either to the justice or to the mercy of God; cf. Exc. ex Theod. 27, 4–7.
41 Protrept. xi. 116, 1.
42 Protrept. ix. 85, 3.
43 Protrept. i. 6, 3.
44 Protrept. ii. 27, 2.
45 Protrept. ix. 82, 2.
46 The classic example of this is in the Apostles' Creed.
47 Protrept. i. 6, 1; viii. 82, 2; x. 89, 2; x. 91, 3; x. 94, 1; x. 95, 2; x. 99, 3; xi. 113–114; xi. 115, 4; xii. 123, 1; Paed. i. 5, 21, 2. Clement does not hesitate to attribute maternal as well as paternal care to God; Protrept. x. 91, 3; Quis dives salv. 37.
48 The care of the Logos is said to be paternal: πειράζει σε ὁ κύριος ἐκλέξασθαι τὴν ζωήν, συμβουλεύει σοι ὡς πατὴρ πείθεσθαι τῷ θεῷ, Protrept. x, 95, 2.
49 Protrept. x. 99, 3.
50 Ibid.
51 Protrept. xii. 122, 4–123, 1.
52 Cf. Strom, iv. 6, 27, 2, θέλημα δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπίγνωσις τοῦ θεοῦ.
53 Cf. Protrept. x. 89, 2, ii. 25, 2.
54 Conversion is, strictly speaking, a return to sonship, the resumption of a previous relation temporarily severed; cf. Protrept. ii. 27, 2–3; i. 6, 4; ii. 25, 3; x. 91, 3; 92, 2.
55 Cf. Protrept. i. 5, 2–4; i. 6, 4; n. 25, 3.
56 Epist. Apost. ed. Schmidt, pp. 66 ff.; Iren. iii. 22, 2; v. 1, 3; iv. 20, 2; Athan., De incarnat. 54, 3. See Loofs, Dogmengeschichte, 4te Aufl. pp. 141, 231–233.
57 θάνατος γὰρ ἀΐδιος ἀμαρτία, Protrept. xi. 115, 3, cf. xi. 112, 3; x. 96, 3; xii. 120, 1–5; Strom, iv. 3, 8, 4; iv. 3, 12, 1.
58 See above, p. 51.
59 Stählin, iii. p. 202.
60 Cf. Journal of Theol. Studies, Oct. 1923, pp. 43ff.
61 Cf. Protrept. x. 98, 1–3; xii. 122, 2–3.
62 Cf. Paed. i. 13, 101, 1–2; 102. 4.
63 Protrept. ix. 88, 2–3; cf. i. 6, 3; i. 8, 3; iv. 56, 2.
64 This difficulty, which is common to all Christian Platonists, was made easier by the pioneer work of Philo in showing how by the allegorical method of exegesis biblical verses could be given a meaning appropriate to any theological context. On Clement's indebtedness to Philo in this respect, see C. Siegfried, Philo v. Alex, als Ausleger des Alten Testaments, Jena, 1875, pp. 343–351, and Stählin's notes passim.
65 Protrept. ix. 88, 1.
66 Protrept. ii. 23, 1; ii. 85, 2; iv. 51, 6; iv. 63, 3; vi. 68, 3; iv. 69,1–3; vi. 71, 1; cf. i. 7. 3.
67 Philosophy of Plotinus, i. p. 132. A striking example of this in Clement is Ecl. proph. 25, 3.
68 Epist. moral. 95, 65.
69 Cf. Plutarch, Moralia, p. 439 C–F; Plato, Lysis, pp. 208 C, 223 A.
70 καὶ γὰρ ὁ βίος ὁ χριστιανῶν δν παιδαγωγούμεθα νῦν, σύστημά τί ἐστι λογικῶν πράξεων, τουτέστιν τῶν ὐπὸ τοῦ λόγου διδασκομένων άδιάπτως ἐνέργεια, ἢν δὴ πίστιν κεκλήκαμεν, Paed. i. 13, 102, 4.
71 καὶ ἔστιν ὴ μὲν πρᾶξις τοῦ χριστιανοῦ ψυχῆς ἐνέργεια λογικῆς κατὰ κρίσιν ἀστεἰαν καὶ δρεξιν ἀληθείας διὰ τοῦ συμϕυοῦς καὶ συναγωνιστοῦ σώματος ἐκτελουμένη. καθῆκον δὲ ἀκόλουθον ἐν βίῳ θεῷ καὶ χριστῷ βούλημα ἔν, καταρκούμενον ἀϊδίῳ ζωῆ, Paed. i. 13,102, 3.
72 Paed. i. 2, 5, 1.
73 ἔστιν οὖν ὀ παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν λόγος διὰ παραινέσεων θεραπευτικὸς τῶν παρὰ ϕύσιν τῆς ψυχῆς παθῶν, Paed. i. 2, 6, 1.
74 Ibid., κυρίως μὲν γὰρ ἡ τῶν τοῦ σώματος νοσημάτων βοήθεια ἰατρικὴ καλεῖται, τέχνη ἀνθρωπίνη σοϕίᾳ διδακτή. λόγος δὲ ὀ πατρικὸς μόνος ἐστὶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἰατρὸς ἀρρωστημάτων παιώνιος καὶ ἔπῳδος ἄγιος νοσούσης ψυχῆς. It is interesting to find in Clement this term ‘sick soul’ which has had such vogue among psychologists of religion since James's Varieties of Religious Experience; cf. Eclog. proph. 11, 2. In Strom, i. 7, 3 there is a reference to healthy-mindedness.
75 (Paed. i. 2, 4, 2–3.
76 Zeller, Gesch. der Phil.. 4te Aufl. iii. 1, pp. 264 ff.
77 Ibid., pp. 259–260; Strom, vii. 2, 7, 4–5.
78 Paed. i. 2, 4, 1–2.
79 Paed. i. 2, 4, 3.
80 Paed. i. 3, 7, 1–2.
81 Paed. i. 3, 9, 3.
82 Excerpt, ex. Theod. 56.
83 Paed. i. 6, 31, 2; i. 6, 52, 2. The σοϕοί referred to in i. 6, 25, 2 are probably also Valentinians.
84 Cf. Harnack, Die Terminologie der Wiedergeburt und verwandter Erlebnisse in der ältesten Kirche (T. U. xlii), pp. 127–128.
85 Cf. C. Gore, Dissertations, pp. 113–114.
86 ϕώτισμα δὲ δι᾽ οὖ τὸ ἄγιον ἐκεῖνο ϕῶς τὸ σωτήριον ἐποπτεύεται, τουτέστιν δι᾽ οὖ τὸ θεῖον ὀξυωποῦμεν.
87 μόνον δὲ ἄρα οὶ πρῶτον δραξάμενοι τῶν ὄρων τῆς ζωῆς ἤδη τέλειοι; cf. with this, and with the reference below to baptism, Excerpta ex Theodoto 22.
88 Whether this was a legitimate criticism of the Valentinian position is another question.
89 αὐτὸς δὲ ὀ κύριος σαϕέστατα τῆς σωτηρίας τὴν ἰσότητα ἀπεκάλυψεν εἰπών … (John 6, 40), Paed. i. 6, 28, 5.
90 Paed. i. 6, 28, 3–5.
91 Paed. i. 6, 29.
92 ἔστι δὲ ἡ κατὰ τὸν θεὸν παιδαγωγία κατευθυσμὸς ἀληθείας εἰς ἐποπτείαν θεοῦ καὶ πράξεων ἁγίων ὑποτύπωσις ἐν αἰωνίῳ διαμονῇ, Paed. i. 7, 54, 1.
93 ὁ πάσης τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος καθηγεμὼν λόγος, Paed. i. 7, 55, 2.
94 Paed. i. 8, 66, 5 ff.
95 Paed. i. 8, 64, 3.
96 Paed. i. 8, 62–65.
97 Paed. i. 8, 63, 1.
98 Paed. i. 8, 70, 1.
99 Paed. i. 8, 70, 3.
100 In Clement's view God is above taking personal offence, partly because he is essentially above the category of personality. Neither Jehovah's outbursts of fury nor that colder resentment which Anselm conceived to be God's response to man's violation of his honor is consistent with Clement's conception of the divine nature.
101 Paed. i. 8, 68, 3.
102 Paed. i. 8, 74, 4, cf. 62, 2.
103 Strom, vi. 1, 1, 3–4; vi. 1, 2, 2, καὶ δὴ ὦδε ἔχοντες ἐμοί τε ὑπομνήματα εἶεν ἂν ζώπυρα, τῷ τε εἰς γνῶσιν ἑπιτηδείῳ εἴ πως περιτύχοι τοῖσδε, πρὸς τὸ συμϕέρον καὶ ὠϕέλιμον μετὰ ἱδρῶτος ἡ ζήτησις γενήσεται. Cf. Strom, iv. 2; vi. 8, 65, 1; vi. 10, 80, 5 — 81, 1.
104 Strom, i. 1.
105 Strom, iv. 2, 4, 1 ff.
106 This is clear from Strom, vi. 12 and vi. 14, 109, 1–2: πλέον δέ ἐστι τοῦ πιστεῦσαι τὸ γνῶναι, καθάπερ άμελεῖ τοῦ σωθῆναι τὸ καὶ μετὰ τὸ σωθῆναι τιμῆς τῆς ἀνωτάτω ἀξιωθῆναι. vi. 14, 111, 3: ὤσπερ οὖν τὸ μὲν ἁπλῶς σῷζειν τῶν μέσων ἐστίν, τὸ δ᾽ ὀρθῶς καὶ δεόντως κατόρθωμα, οὔτως καὶ πᾶσα πρᾶξις γνωστικοῦ μὲν κατόρθωμα, τοῦ δὲ ἁπλῶς πιστοῦ μέση πρᾶξις λέγοιτ᾽ ἄν, μηδέπω κατὰ λάγον ἐπιτελουένη μηδὲ μὴν κατ᾽ ἑπίστασιν κατορθουμένη, πᾶσα δὲ ἔμπαλιν τοῦ ἑθνικοῦ ἁμαρτητική. Cf. Strom, vi. 15, 115, 1; vi. 12, 96, 3.
107 Clement sees a similar difficulty in the system of Basilides (Strom, ii. 3), but is unable to escape entirely from sharing it.
108 This thesis is developed, Strom, iv. 21–23; cf. especially iv. 21, 130, 1 ff.; iv. 23, 160, 2 ff.
109 Strom, iv. 23, 149, 8–152, 3; iv. 25, 155, 1–157, 2; vi. 12, 103, 4–104, 3; vii. 11, 68. “The cause of these things (i.e. of the gnostic's moral achievements) is love, surpassing all knowledge in holiness and sovereignty. For by it the gnostic, owing to his worship of the best and highest, the stamp of which is unity, is made ‘friend’ and ‘son’ at once, and ‘perfect man’ indeed, grown ‘to the full measure of stature.’ Aye, and concord also is defined to be agreement about the same thing, and by ‘the same thing’ we mean unity; and friendship is brought about by similarity, because fellowship lies in unity. The gnostic, therefore, being naturally disposed to love God who is truly One, is himself a truly ‘perfect man’ and a ‘friend of God,’ being ranked and reckoned ‘as a Son.’ These are names expressive of nobility and knowledge and perfection in accordance with that vision of God which is the crowning height attainable by the gnostic soul, when it has been perfectly purified, being now deemed worthy to behold forever the Almighty ‘face to face.’ For having been made entirely spiritual it departs to its kindred sphere, and there, in the spiritual church, abides in the rest of God.” Quotations from Book vii of the Stromateis are given in Mayor and Hort's translation.
110 Strom, i. 1, 18.
111 Strom. 1, 2.
112 Philosophy of Plotinus, 2d ed., ii, p. 111.
113 Cf. Strom, iv. 25, 156, 1–2.
114 Stählin cites the following parallels; Aristotle, De anima i. 4, 409a, 6; Anal. post. i. 27, 87a, 36; Nicom. Geras., Introd. arithm. ii. 3, p. 84, 8 Hoche. To these add Sextus Empir., Adv. phys. ii. 281.
115 Cf. Plotinus, v. 3, 14; Inge on via negativa, op. cit. ii, pp. 145 ff.
116 The Stoic background of the Fourth Gospel is clear from John 4, 24.
117 Dial. c. Tryph. 2, 6, ed. Otto p. 8.
118 Ibid., 1, 5, ed. Otto p. 6.
119 II Apol. vii. 8; ed. Otto p. 186.
120 Supplic. pro Christianis 36 B; cf. Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten, Berlin, 1807, pp. 236–237.
121 Oratio ad Graecos 25, 2, ed. Goodspeed p. 291.
122 Strom, iii. 17, 103, 3; v. 28, 4–5; v. 11, 67, 1–3; v. 14, 109, 1; v. 11, 71, 1–5; De provid. Stählin, iii. pp. 219–220.
123 Strom, v. 11, 72–73; iv. 25, 155, 2.
124 Cf. De prov. Stählin, iii. pp. 219–220. These fragments have a late attestation, but as they contain nothing at variance with Clement's teaching elsewhere there is no reason to suspect them.
125 Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 2te Aufl., pp. 48 ff., 185 ff.; Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, pp. 126–127; E. Rohde, Psyche, 2te Aufl.ii, p. 258, n. 2.
126 Rom. 1, 9; 8, 16; cf. Rom. 12, 2; 14, 5; 1 Cor. 2, 11.
127 Eclog. prophet. 7–8; Strom, vi. 8, 61, 1 ff.; vii. 7, 44, 4 ff.
128 On the importance of this work for the development of systematic theology, cf. Grabmann, Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, i. pp. 80 ff.
129 Origen like Clement takes ἀόρατος as the biblical equivalent of ἀσώματος. Contra Cels. vii. 27, ed. Koetschau, ii. p. 178; Comm. on John xiii, 22 ed. Preuschen, p. 246.
130 On this passage see E. von Dobschütz, Das Kerygma Petri (T. U. xi.), pp. 82–84. For our purpose passages like Justin, I Apol. 63, 10, where ἀσώματος is used of angels or demons, are irrelevant. Cf. Otto's note, i. p. 173, n. 13; Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, II2, pp. 294, 296.
131 Cf. Comm. on John xiii, 21, ed. Preuschen, p. 244.
132 Cf. Origen, Comm. on John i, 26, ed. Preuschen, p. 31, ὁ δὲ σωτὴρ ‛ϕῶς’ ὢν ‛τοῦ κόσμου᾽ ϕωτίζει οὐ σώματα άλλὰ ἀσωμάτῳ δυνάμει τὸν ἀσώματον νοῦν, ἲνα ὡς ὐπὸ ἡλίου ἔκαστος ὴμῶν ϕωτιζόμενος καὶ τὰ ἄλλα δυνηθῆ βλέπειν νοητά. Cf. Origen, Comm. on John xiii, 22, p . 246.
133 For the view which Origen combats, cf. Tertullian, De baptismo 4.
134 Cf. Clem. Alex., Strom, v. 1, 7.
135 It is the latter that is prominent in the De principiis; cf. Comm. on John xiii, 21; Contra Cels. vi. 70–71; iii. 47; Comm. on Rom. iii, 1, ed. Lommatzsch, pp. 168–171 (cf. Harnack, Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes (T. U. xlii), pp. 93–94); for the former cf. Sel. in Genesim on Gen. 1, 26, Migne P. G. xii. 93–95; Hom, in Gen. i. 13–15, ed. Baehrens, pp. 15–19; iii. 1 ff., pp. 39 ff.; Contra Cels. vii. 27; iv. 5, may have been based on popular Christian ideas (Loofs, Dogmengeschichte, 4te Aufl., p. 125, n. 1).
136 Origen, Contra Cels. vii. 27 and 36 ff.
137 Cf. Origen's τινων ἁπλῶν καὶ ἀκεραίων καὶ μὴ εἰδότων τὸ τοῦ λόγου βούλημα, Contra Cels. vii. 27.
138 Anthropomorphism of this kind was current at the time of Celsus (177–178 A.D.), who took it to be common Christian belief (loc. cit.). It must have been known to Irenaeus (Adv. haer. ii. 13, 3–4), who treats it with his usual caution, and to Tertullian, who made dangerous concessions to it. The first whom we know to have defended this position was Melito (Origen, Selecta in Gen. 1, 26; Jerome, De viris illustr. c. 24; Gennadius, De dogm. eccles. c. 4; cf. Harnack, Überlieferung der griechischen Apologeten (T. U. i), pp. 243 ff.), and the first to conduct a sustained attack upon it was Origen, although Clement also condemned it in strong terms. Anthropomorphism became a menace in the 4th century. The Egyptian monks found Origen's immaterialism one of the most objectionable parts of his teaching. Socrates relates an amusing incident about Theophilus of Alexandria. A mob of fanatical ascetics stormed his residence, threatening his life because he maintained that God was immaterial and man not made in God's physical image. The tactful bishop found no difficulty in condemning Origen, and dodged the theological issue by a graceful compliment. Turning to the infuriated monks who sought his life he remarked: οὔτως ὑμᾶς εἶδον ὡς θεοῦ πρόσωπον. The incident is significant in showing that among the educated clergy the influence of Origen's immaterialism was paramount. Socr. H. E. vi. 7, Migne P. G. 67, 684; cf. Epiphan., Haer. 70; Aug., Conf. vi. 3; Aug., Epist. cxix; cf. Harnack, Dogmengesch., 4te Aufl., ii. p. 122, n. 2.
139 Harnack, Dogmengesch., 4te Aufl., ii. p. 122, n. 2.
140 Strom, vi. 16, 136, 3; v. 11, 71, 4–5; ii. 16, 72, 1–3; ii. 19, 102, 6.
141 Strom, vi. 3, 32, 3–34, 3.
142 Strom, ii. 16, 72, 1 ff.; iv. 23, 151, 1–2; vi. 8, 64, 1.
143 Strom, vi. 9, 71; vii. 11, 67; vii. 14, 84.
144 Protrept. x. 98, 3. ῾εἰκὼν᾽ μὲν γὰρ ῾τοῦ θεοῦ᾽ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ … εἰκὼν δὲ τοῦ λόγου ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ ἀληθινός ὁ νοῦς ὁ ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ, ὁ ῾κατ᾽ εἰκόνα᾽ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ῾καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν.᾽ διὰ τοῦτο γεγενῆσθαι λεγόμενος τῆ κατὰ καρδίαν ϕρονήσει τῷ θεῷ παρεικαζόμενος λόγος καὶ ταύτη λογικός. Cf. Protrept. iv. 59, 2; i. 5, 3; xii. 122, 4; Paed. i. 3, 9, 1; i. 12, 98, 2–3; iii. 2, 5, 3; iii. 12, 101, 1; Strom, ii. 8, 38, 5; ii. 19, 97,1; ii. 19, 102, 2; ii. 19,102, 6; iv. 6, 30, 1.
145 Paed. i. 12, 98, 2–3; Strom, ii. 22, 131–136; cf. Stählin, Clem. Alex. u. d. Septuaginta, pp. 12 f.
146 Hippol., Refutatio vi. 14; cf. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. i. 18, 1, 2; iii. 23, 2. Cf. F. C. Baur, Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, i. p. 188, n. 2.
147 I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, II, Index, ‘Imitation of God.’
148 Cf. I Clem. 14, 3; 33, 5–7, Justin, I Apol. 10, 1; 10, 25; 15, 13; II Apol. 4, 2; 13, 6, Dial. c. Tryph. 96; Epist. ad Diognet. 10,4–6; Tatian 15. In Ignatius imitation of God is usually imitation of Christ, cf. Eph. 1, 1; 10, 3; Philad. 7, 2; 8, 2; cf. Martyr. Polyc. 1, 2.
149 Theaet., p. 176 (cf. Phaedrus 253 A), where the moral life inspired by the vision of heavenly reality is called ὁμοίωσις θεῷ κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν. See I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, 2d series, 1924, pp. 153–159.
150 Cf. Epictetus, Diss. ii. 14, 12 ff.; i. 3, 1; ii. 8, 11; A. Bonhöffer, Die Ethik des Stoikers Epiktet, 1894, pp. 2–4, 32ff.; A. Bonhöffer, Epiktet u. das Neue Testament, Giessen, 1911, p. 311; Seneca, De beneficiis 4, 25; Dial. 7, 15, 4–5; Epist. 31, 8–11; 41, 1–5.
151 De opificio mundi, Mangey pp. 15 ff., Cohn and Wendland pp. 23 ff.; cf. Abrahams, Studies, ii. pp. 153–159.
152 Strom, ii. 19,102, 6; cf. Paed. iii, 1, 1, 5; Protrept. x. 98, 3; xii. 121, 1.
153 Strom, ii. 19, 102, 2.
154 Euseb., Praep. evang. vii. 1, ed. Giflord iii. p. 349. Abrahams, Studies, ii. p. 158.
155 Strom, ii. 19, 97, 1: οὖτός ἐστιν ὁ ῾κατ᾽ εἰκόνα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν,᾽ ὁ γνωστικός, ὁ μιμούμενος τὸν θεὸν καθ᾽ ὄσον οἶόν τε, μηδὲν παραλιπὼν τῶν εἰς τὴν ἐνδεχομένην ὁμοίωσιν, ἐγκρατευόμενος, ὑπομένων, δικαίως βιούς, βασιλεύων τῶν παθῶν, μεταδιδοὺς ὦν ἔχει, ὡς οἷός τέ ἐστιν, εὐεργετῶν καὶ λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ; cf. Protrept. iv. 59, 2–3; Paed. i. 3, 9, 1–2.
156 Paed. i. 12, 98, 1 ff.
157 Strom, i. 11, 51, 1: ἁλλὰ καὶ οἱ Στωϊκοί, ὧν καὶ αὐτῶν μέμνηται, σῶμα ὄντα τὸν θεὸν διὰ τῆς ἀτιμοτάτης ὔλης πεϕοιτηκέναι, λέγουσιν, οὐ καλῶς. Cf. Protrept. v. 66, 3; Strom. vii. 7, 37, 1–2; Cf. Mayor and Hort, Clement of Alexandria, Book VII of the Stromateis, pp. 254–255. My exposition of Clement's doctrine of prayer is based chiefly on Stromateis vii. 7. I have therefore omitted references to special points except in the case of quotations.
158 Cf. Strom, vii. 5,29, 3–8: “And if the word holy is taken in two senses, as applied to God himself and also to the building raised in his honor, surely we should be right in giving to the church, which was instituted to the honor of God in accordance with sanctified wisdom, the name of a holy temple of God, that precious temple built by no mechanic art, nay, not embellished even by an angel's hand, but made into a shrine by the will of God himself. I use the name of the church now not of the place but of the congregation of saints. This is the shrine that is best fitted for the reception of the greatness of the dignity of God. For to Him who is all-worthy, or rather in comparison with whom all else is worthless, there is consecrated that creature which is of great Worth owing to its pre-eminent holiness. And such would be the gnostic who is of great worth and precious in the sight of God, he in whom God is enshrined, i.e., in whom the knowledge of God is consecrated. Here too we should find the likeness (τὸ ἀπεικόνισμα), the divine and sanctified image (τὸ θεῖον καὶ ἄγιον ἄγαλμα)—here in the righteous soul, after it has been itself blessed as having been already purified and now performing blessed deeds. Here we find both that which is enshrined and that which is in process of enshrinement, the former in the case of those who are already gnostics, the latter in those who are capable of becoming so, though they may not yet be worthy to receive the knowledge of God. For all that is destined to believe is already faithful in the eye of God and consecrated to honor, an image of virtue dedicated to God.”
159 Strom, vii. 7, 35, 3–7.
160 Strom, vii. 7, 43,1–5.
161 “Yet the petition is not superfluous, even though good things be granted without petition made. For instance, thanksgiving and prayer for the conversion of his neighbors are the duty of the gnostic. Thus the Lord also prayed, returning thanks for the ‘accomplishment’ of his ministry and praying that ‘as many as possible might share in knowledge’ in order that God ‘who alone is good,’ alone is the Saviour, ‘may be glorified through his Son’ in those who are being saved through the salvation which is according to knowledge, and that the knowledge of him may grow from age to age. Howbeit the mere faith that one will receive is itself also a kind of prayer stored up in a gnostic spirit.” Strom, vii. 7, 41, 6–8.
162 Strom, vii. 7, 38,1 f. and 7,34 f.
163 Cf. Strom, vii. 3, 13, 1 ff.: “As to the rest I keep silent, giving glory to God: only I say that these gnostic souls are so carried away by the magnificence of the vision (θεωρίας) that they cannot confine themselves within the lines of the constitution by which each holy degree is assigned and in accordance with which the blessed abodes of the gods have been marked out and allotted; but being counted as ‘holy among the holy’ and translated absolutely and entirely to another sphere, they keep on always moving to higher and yet higher regions, until they no longer greet the divine vision in, or by means of, mirrors, but with loving hearts feast forever on the uncloying never-ending sight, radiant in its transparent clearness, while throughout the endless ages they taste a never-wearying delight and thus continue, all alike honored with an identity of pre-eminence. This is the apprehensive ‘vision of the pure in heart.’ This, therefore, is the life-work of the perfected gnostic, viz., to hold communion with God through the great High Priest, being made like the Lord, as far as may be (ἐξομοιούμενον εἰς δύναμιν τῷ κυρίῳ), by means of all his service towards God, a service which extends to the salvation of men by his solicitous goodness towards us, and also by public worship and by teaching and by active kindness. Aye, and in being thus assimilated to God (ἐξομοιούμενος θεῷ) the gnostic is making and fashioning himself and also forming those who hear him, while, so far as may be, he assimilates to that which is by nature free from passion that which has been subdued by training to a passionless state: and this he effects by ‘undisturbed intercourse’ and communion ‘with the Lord.’ Of this gnostic assimilation (ἐξομοιώσεως) the canons, as it appears to me, are gentleness, kindness, and a noble devoutness.” Cf. Strom, vi. 12, 102, 1 ff.
164 Christian philosophy can never be wholly free from the restraint of Christian history and tradition, and is in constant danger either of breaking too definitely with them, as the Gnostics did, or of allowing itself to be oppressively bound by them. Some of these difficulties are made admirably clear by Lebreton, ‘Le désaccord de la foi populaire et de la théologie savante dans l'Église chrétienne du IIIe siècle, Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, 1923, pp. 481 ff., 1924, pp. 5 ff.; and Batiffol, Primitive Catholicism, pp. 246 ff.
165 Cf. Strom, i. 7, 37, 6 and de Faye's comment, Clément d'Alexandrie, Paris, 1906, pp. 153–154.
166 A brief study of Stählin's critical notes shows this. I have verified a considerable number of Clement's quotations from Plato, and have found that he quotes with that same facile inaccuracy that characterizes his use of the New Testament, though in occasional instances a real difference in text is possible.
167 It must be remembered that whereas in the exegesis of the Old Testament Clement is sometimes dependent on Philo, in the New he is often breaking fresh ground.
168 This seems to me certain, though the proof would require a long discussion. In spite of the beautiful rendering of 1 Cor. 13 in I Clem. 49–50 and occasional passages in Ignatius and Hermas, Paul's mysticism was as little understood as his theory of justification. In Irenaeus he receives more attention, but Irenaeus is no mystic, and uses Paul chiefly to support his “physische Erlösungslehre” (Loofs, Leitfaden, 4te Aufl., pp. 146 ff.). John fared even worse. A measure of the popular understanding of his gospel can be taken from the Epistola Apostolorum; Irenaeus understands him no better than Paul, and Ignatius turned John's thought into an emotional, not an intellectual, mysticism. Of Justin, who is probably nearest to Clement in his conception of Christianity, it cannot be certain that he knew the Fourth Gospel.
169 The following passages illustrate this, though of course it is not maintained that Clement gives the correct exegesis in each case: Protrept. ix. 84, 6–85, 1; ix. 88, 2–3; x. 92, 4–93, 1; x. 98, 3; x. 100, 4; 101, 2; xi. 112, 2–113,1; xi. 115, 4–5; Paed. ii. 1, 5–6; iii. 1, 2–3; Strom, ii. 4, 12, 1; vi. 13,107, 3–14; 108, 5; vi. 12, 102, 1–2; i. 1, 4, 1–4; i. 1, 7,1–4; i. 5, 32, 4; i. 8, 41, 6–42, 4; i. 9, 45,1–6; i. 11, 53, 4–54, 4; ii. 5, 21, 1; ii. 5, 22, 5–8; ii. 22, 136, 1–6; iv. 7, 42, 3; vii. 2, 9, 4–11, 3; vii. 3,16, 6; vii. 7, 46, 3; iv. 18, 111, 1–4; iv. 7, 52; iv. 21,132–133.
170 For instance, Clement's insistence that the value of salvation is inherent and absolute; Strom, iv. 6, 29, 3–4 and iv. 22, 136–138; iv. 23, 147, 4 ff.
171 Philosophy of Plotinus, 2d ed., ii. pp. 206–209.
172 This is the point of Clement's theory of the equality of salvation, of his emphasis on the value of εὐσέβεια and good conduct as the response to God's love, and of his theodicy.
173 Cf. S. Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, pp. 289–626; J. Geffcken, Der Ausgang des griechisch-römischen Heidentums, Heidelberg, 1920, pp. 4–89.
174 Cf. Schmekel, Philosophie der mittleren Stoa, pp. 446 ff.
175 Early mentions of Clement given by Stählin, i. pp. ix–xvi. The first printed edition of Clement's work was a product of the revival of patristic learning inspired by Marcellus Cervinus, librarian of the Vatican and later Pope Marcellus II. Petrus Victorius, who undertook the work at Marcellus's suggestion and under Cosmo de' Medici's patronage, intimates that it was not carried through without opposition. “Haec igitur sunt, quae praesidio fuerunt optime auctori pereunti ac pene jam e manibus elapso: in quo certe ut dolendum est tam utilem gravemque scriptorem tarn diu latuisse: acriterque accusandi, qui tam egregios ac fructuosos veterum labores supprimunt, ita magnopere laetandum ipsum in vitam rediise, atque omnem impetum fortunae evasisse; amandique ac toto pectore celebrandi, qui hujuscemodi monimenta, magna superiorum hominum cura, beneficioque Deorum e tot incendiis bellorum tempestatibusque, erepta, pervulgant, et ab anni huiuscemodi iniuria in perpetuum vindicant,” ed. Victorius, Florence, 1500, p. 4. On the succeeding editions of Clement's works see Stählin, i. pp. lxv ff. The question of Clement's orthodoxy was much discussed in the sixteenth century, when his name was dropped from the Roman martyrology on the recommendation of Baronius. In meeting a protest against the act Benedict XIV treated the questions of Clement's status and theological position with discretion and impartiality, though he was probably as much influenced by moderns like Petavius and Berbeirac as by Photius and Cassiodorus. In spite of this undercurrent of suspicion Clement has continued to have many admirers within the church.
176 The Index contains the following item: “Opuscula alterius Clementis Alexandrini apocrypha,” which has often been taken to refer to the author of the Stromateis. That this is far from certain has been shown by Cognat, Clément d'Alexandrie, pp. 464–466, and Bigg, Christian Platonists, 2d ed., p. 317, n. 1.
177 De oratione 8.
178 Ibid., 11, 13,19.
179 Ibid., 12.
180 Ibid., 9, 1; 11.
181 Ibid., 8, 13.
182 Ibid., 5–7. These skeptics are probably the followers of Prodicus mentioned by Clement, Strom, vii. 7, 41.
183 Ibid., 3–4.
184 Ibid., 18–30.
185 Ibid., 31–32.
186 Ibid., 14, 31.
187 De principiis i, Praef. 2.
188 The influence of Christian Platonism can be seen in such studies as Inge's Christian Mysticism (Bampton Lectures), 1899, and Dom Cuthbert Butler's Western Mysticism, London, 1922.
189 Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theol. i. 3, 1–2; i. 6, l–2; i. 89,1; ii. 1, 4. Even in Protestant scholasticism its influence survived; cf. E. Troeltsch, Vemunft und Offenbarung, pp. 15 ff.
