centuries was an eclectic system, in which Platonism held a decided pre-eminence so far as factors from the heathen world are concerned.

As respects the worth of heathen philosophy as a whole, a considerable difference appears in the estimates of different church fathers. Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, are examples of the most favor able estimate. Justin Martyr imputes to every race of men a share in the Word, that is, the divine reason or enlightening principle, and says of the heathen philosophers, poets, and sages, that "each man spoke well in proportion to the share he had of the spermatic Word." (1 Apol., XLVI.; 2 Apol., XIII.) Clement of Alexandria is still more positive and explicit in recognizing a divine factor in the heathen learning. He does not hesitate to declare that philosophy "is in a sense a work of Divine Providence," and says that it had the office of a "schoolmaster to bring the Hellenic mind to Christ. . . . As the proclamation [of the Gospel] has come now at the fit time, so also at the fit time were the law and the prophets given to the barbarians, and philosophy to the Greeks, to fit their ears for the Gospel." Not only did it train the Greeks in righteousness, but it serves still as a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith through demonstration, or it supplements the faith already entertained by supplying greater breadth of view and greater firmness of conviction. (Stromata, I. 1, 2, 5, 7; VI. 6, 17.) Origen in open terms paid less tribute to philosophy than Clement; but indirectly he recognized it still more, since he imported it more largely into his own system of thought.

It is not to be imagined, however, that any of the fathers. in their appreciation of philosophy were inclined to assign it a co-ordinate place with the Gospel. "Philosophy," says Ackermann, "was of little value to them, as such; and their estimation of it, whether slight or high, had respect only to its agency as preparatory to Christianity and as conducive

|

to the development of Christian faith. Their commendation did not proceed from a heart divided between Plato and Christ; their whole ardor and enthusiasm was unalterably directed to the Lord; and when they pointed with commendation to Plato, this was only because he seemed to them to point to Christ, and because, in their opinion, if he had lived till the time of Christ, he would have fallen in homage before the Lord Jesus, and would have beheld with joy the realization of his ideals in and through Him." (The Christian Element in Plato.) The same writers who have been quoted as commending philosophy are emphatic in their declarations of its insufficiency, and indeed of its poverty, as compared with the Christian revelation. Both Justin and Clement are found qualifying the relative merit of the philosophers by the supposition that they obtained their noblest thoughts from the Jewish Scriptures. (1 Apol., XLIV.; Strom., V. 1, 5.) Both affirm the fragmentary nature of the Greek wisdom. Justin teaches that, whereas lawgivers and philosophers were permitted to gaze only upon some part of truth, and so often fell into contradiction with themselves, truth full-orbed and entire has been manifested in Christ. (2 Apol., X.) The sects of the philosophers, says Clement, have treated truth as the Bacchantes treated Pentheus when they tore his limbs. asunder; they have torn off "a fragment of eternal truth, not from the mythology of Dionysus, but from the theology of the ever-living Word." Besides its failure to comprehend the whole truth, the Hellenic philosophy is destitute of strength to perform the commandments of the Lord. Philosophers are children unless they have been made men by Christ." (Strom., I. 11, 13, 16.) "The Gospel," says Origen," has a demonstration of its own more divine than any established by Grecian dialectics." (Contra Celsum, I. 2.)

66

Irenæus appears to have occupied a comparatively neutral position, neither specially opposing nor specially com

mending heathen philosophy. In one instance he quotes Plato in favorable contrast with the Gnostic heretics. (Contra Hæreses, III. 25. 5.) An historical, practical interest was dominant with this eminent exponent of Christian faith and life.

On the part of some of the fathers, we find wellnigh a wholesale disparagement of philosophy. Tatian questions whether any noble thing has been produced by philosophy, and says of the philosophers that they "dogmatize one against another, though each one vents but the crude fancies of the moment." (Oratio ad Græcos, II., III.) Tertullian acknowledges that philosophers have sometimes entertained truths which are held by Christians. But he gives them no special credit for the possession, since, as he maintains, they have come to it by chance, as a ship might fortunately make harbor in the dense darkness, or else by virtue of that intelligence which is common to all men. He sees a strong presumption against philosophers, in the fact that they have supplied to heresy its chief arsenal, and indeed may fairly be named “patriarchs of heretics." He concludes, therefore, that all fellowship with philosophy should be disclaimed. “What,” he exclaims, "has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon. Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the Gospel!" (De Præscriptione Hæreticorum, VII.; De Anima, II., III.) As if to predicate the most extreme opposition possible, he says (referring to Christ's death and resurrection), "It is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd; the fact is certain, because it is impossible." (De Carne Christi, V.) Such language, however, is not to be taken too seriously. Tertullian speaks here, as in many instances, in

hyperboles; and probably meant little else than the commonly accepted truth, that many things incredible to the natural man are most worthy of God, and altogether within the compass of His power. In his own range Tertullian was among the most alert of men to find reasons for his faith. With Lactantius also we find on the whole a very adverse estimate of heathen philosophy. In his view, its theoretical value is reduced wellnigh to nothing by the disagreements of its exponents, while its want of practical value is clearly proved by its failure to reform the lives of its votaries. (Div. Inst., Lib. III.)

It may justly be concluded from the above review, that the Catholic fathers in general had little inclination to consult heathen philosophy for the substance of any part of their teaching. They reveal everywhere a conviction of the superiority and adequacy of their own oracles as regards the essence of religious truth. We are warned, therefore, against assuming a too radical influence from philosophy upon their teaching. At the same time, it must be conceded that philosophy was somewhat of a factor in the doctrinal developments of the period. 1. In so far as it contributed to the rise of heresies, it supplied an occasion for a definite construction of Christian doctrines. 2. It nurtured in quite a proportion of the fathers a tendency to speculative thought, a tendency to explore Christianity upon its theoretical side, instead of being wholly occupied with its practical aspects. 3. It colored the exposition of certain points of Christian theology. Platonism, for example, directly or indirectly modified the mode of expounding the doctrine of the Logos. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that the substance of this doctrine came from Platonism, or that even the form of its exposition was not under obligation to other than Platonic antecedents. 4. It supplied to the most speculative of the fathers some of their less central tenets. Origen, for instance, adopted the Platonic theory of the pre-existence of

souls, and gave it considerable importance in his system of thought.

Neo-Platonism had its origin in this period. As a developed system, however, it came after the great majority of the ante-Nicene fathers. The more conspicuous examples of its influence belong to the next period. It will be of practical advantage, therefore, to defer its consideration.

SECTION II.-HEATHEN CRITICISM AND HERESIES.

Heathen assaults upon the persons and upon the faith of Christians served as a direct occasion of doctrinal development. In order to justify themselves before the persecuting power, and to moderate its fury, it was necessary to answer the charges that were made against their conduct and their beliefs. These charges in the first instance were only brief comments expressive of contempt or abhorrence. But after the middle of the second century more ample notice began to be taken of Christianity by heathen authors, and we have the ironical portraiture by Lucian, and the serious attempts at refutation by Celsus and Porphyry. References of either sort were a challenge to Christian writers, and their replies involved an effort at the definite construction and clear statement of Christian doctrines.

Not less was the incentive which came from heresies. It was with no false sense of their responsibility that the fathers of the Church set themselves with full vigor against those alien systems which used the name of Christianity to cover dogmas contradictory to its essence. In this early formative period, when there was no record of long-established creeds to exercise a conservative influence, it was exceedingly important that all corruptions and counterfeits of Christianity should be thoroughly exposed and vanquished. The circumstances of the case warranted the zeal which was expended upon the refutation of heresies.