quoted by him, it would appear that the idea was held by heterodox and orthodox alike.1 The only original contribution by Clement to it is that though the truth was stolen, it was none the less true, a real possession however acquired. He did not invent the hypothesis, but he found in it a weapon at once to disarm the opposition of the narrower section in the Church, and a means of constructing a bridge between Greek thought and Christian truth. Apart from the fantastic theories noted above, he makes no attempt to show that direct historical contact between the Hebrew Scriptures and Greek thought can be demonstrated, or in what way the transition of analogous facts or conceptions from the one sphere into the other took place or was possible. But when we call to mind the manner in which the hypothesis of literary dependence has been exaggerated as a solvent for the problems of the New Testament by the extreme Dutch school, or even how the argument from analogy has been pushed by the more extravagant adherents of the school of Gunkel, we shall wonder less at the uncritical attitude of Clement in the second century. The main difference, so far as their attitude to Christianity is concerned, is that Clement, starting from the conception of the absolute originality of Christianity, regarded all other truth as secondary and derivative: the modern representatives of the theory of analogy regard Christian truth as derivative and secondary, without recognising any truth as absolute or uniquely divine.

Apart from this relation of dependence on the Hebrew Scriptures, the philosophy of the Greeks was in some important respects inferior to Christianity. Its relation was that of Hagar to Sarah, of a maid to a mistress.3 had not led to the abandonment of idolatry.

1 Str., vi. 6 53.

3 Ib., i. 532, from Philo.

It

Many of

2 Ib., i. 20 100

4 Ib., vi. 644.

Ꭰ

its teachers had imperfect conceptions of God, and paid honour to the elements: at best, they knew Him as Creator, not as Father in the Christian sense.1 Both philosophy and Christianity come from God, the one source of all good things; but the former had only come from Him in the way of natural sequence, not as a principal end, though to the Greeks before the Advent it may have been given as a principal end. Like the good land, philosophy shares in the rain from heaven, but the result is not the same. It may be compared to nuts, the whole of which is not eatable. It is by no means to be regarded as a substitute for Christianity. On the contrary, philosophers are but children, unless they have become mature men through Christ. Though men have studied the Greek philosophy, they must learn the truth of Christ in order to be saved. To act or speak without the word of truth is as if a man tried to walk without feet." Christian piety is a kind of science, and as such has distinctive principles of its own. As well try to become a rhetorician by taking up the principles of medicine, or a physician by taking up the principles of rhetoric, as try to become a Christian by other than Christian principles. The difference between Christianity and philosophy is thoroughgoing and far-reaching. Philosophy at best contains but a fragment of the truth of which Christianity contains the whole. "Like as the Baccha tore to pieces the limbs of Pentheus, so have the sects of philosophy, both barbarian and Greek, done with truth, each claiming as the whole the portion that has fallen to it." 10 The difference between philosophy and Christianity is

1 Str.,
i. II
4 Ib., i. 17.

a difference

7 Prot., vii. 75.

9 Prot., vii. 74; Str., vi. 17160

8 Stäh., vol. iii. p. 229, fr. 68.

3

between names and things, between the probable and the true,1 between truth and guessing at truth,2 between the particular and the universal; for that which the chiefs of philosophy only guessed at, the disciples of Christ apprehend and proclaim. Moreover, the truth in Greek philosophy is not only fragmentary but elementary. It is not concerned with such intellectual objects as are beyond the sphere of this world. Like geometry or painting, it presents only one side of the truth which it delineates." It does not embrace the majesty of the truth.7 In the dark night of the pre-Christian era it was as the faint light of a wick whose light was taken from the sun. With the proclamation of the Word it is extinguished, as the lamp by the sun; the whole night is illumined. "While truth is one, many things contribute to its investigation, but the discovery is only through the Son. . . . There is the truth of geometry and there is the truth of music, and in right philosophy there would be Hellenic truth. But the only authoritative truth is that in which we are taught by the Son of God. . . . The Greek truth has the same name as our truth, but it differs from it in respect of the grandeur of knowledge, and more authoritative process of demonstration, and divine grace, and the like." It lacks the spiritual and moral force which Christianity imparts. It says that man was made for the vision of heaven, and yet worships the things that appear in the heavens.10 Its lack of moral force is mainly due to the fact that while the self-control of the Greek philosopher is directed against ministering to lust in act, the self-control of the Christian is directed against the lusting itself.11

The primary ground of the inferiority of philosophy is

found in the uniquely divine origin of Christianity. His argument here, so far as it seeks to prove the truth of the Christian faith, is based mainly on a series of what he regards as necessary presuppositions. He assumes the necessity of revelation, and seeks to support it. We needed a Divine Teacher, because the soul was too feeble to apprehend things that are as they really are. Hence the Saviour was sent down.1 Men speaking about God are not trustworthy, in so far as they are merely men. The feeble and mortal cannot speak worthily of Him who is unoriginated and incorruptible, nor can the work of Him who made it.2 In refutation of the theory of Valentinus, that men were saved by natural constitution, he deems it sufficient to point to the fact that in that case the teaching both of the Old and the New Testament was a superfluity, and that the higher natures, apart from the advent of Christianity, would some time or another have come to the light. But if the Valentinians admitted that the sojourning of the Saviour was a necessity, then the peculiar prerogatives of nature were gone. He assumes the divine origin of the Christian Scriptures. All other systems of thought depend on some teacher, who in turn depended on his predecessor, and so on in like manner in an ascending series; but Christianity is taught by Him who was taught of none, but is Himself the teacher of all created beings. He adduces what he calls an unanswerable argument that it is God who speaks in detail of the matter under investigation and presents it in writing. "Who, then, is so atheistic as to disbelieve God, and to demand demonstration from God as from man?" If the followers of Pythagoras regard his ipse dixit as a matter of faith shall we demand from God the Saviour proof of

1 Str, v. 17.

3 Ib., v. 13.

2 Ib., vi. 18 165. Cf. ib., i. 28 178.

Ib., vi. 7 57, 58.

what is said? Theism involves Christianity. Admit the existence of Providence, and it would be impious to suppose that the whole of prophecy and the dispensation in relation to it did not take place in accordance with Providence.2 A first principle must be assumed, for a first principle which required the support of anything else could not be regarded as a first principle. The demonstration which is based on opinion is human, the demonstration of the Scripture is based on knowledge. Scripture itself, being derived from the First Principle, shares like characteristics. " With a view to the discovery of realities we use Scripture as a criterion. . . . That cannot be a first principle which needs to be judged. We, embracing by faith the first principle without demonstration, receive demonstration concerning the first principle from the first principle itself, and are instructed by the voice of the Lord with a view to the knowledge of the truth. Human testimony needs confirmation, but by the voice of the Lord we prove that which is under inquiry, and this is more trustworthy than any demonstration, rather is the only real demonstration." If, in the ordinary sense of the word, demonstration of the truth of Christianity is unnecessary or impossible, nevertheless, in the judgment of Clement, it has a demonstration of its own. The organ

5

of this demonstration is faith. "Faith is a grace which leads up from that which cannot be demonstrated to that which is universally simple, which is neither with matter, nor matter, nor under matter." So far from being facile or vulgar, faith is something divine. It is the foundation of knowledge." "Unless ye believe, ye will not understand." When the Scripture says that God is faithful, it implies that He is worthy of faith when making any assertion." Cf. ib. ii. 29. 6 Ib., ii. 630, &c.

1 Str., ii. 5 24.

♦ Ib.

2 Ib., v. 17. 5 Ib., ii. 4 14.

Ib., vii. 16 95. 7 Ib., ii. 627.