completely imbued with the elements of Hellenic culture, _endeavored to
find a mean between it and the religion of their fathers_, which they had
no wish to renounce. To this end they availed themselves of the system
most in vogue with those who, in Alexandria, busied themselves with
religious matters—that of the _Platonic philosophy_, which had already
acquired a mighty influence over their own intellectual life.... On the
one hand, they firmly adhered to the religion of their fathers.... On
the other hand, their minds were possessed by a philosophical culture at
variance with these convictions. They were themselves not unconscious
of the conflicting elements that filled their minds, and must have felt
constrained to seek some artificial method of combining them into a
harmonious whole. Thus they would be involuntarily driven to intercalate
in _the old records of religion_, which for them possessed the highest
authority, a _sense foreign to their true spirit_, supposing all the
while that they were thereby really exalting their dignity as the source
of all wisdom.”[67] 3. _This intercalation of Greek philosophy_ with the
truth delivered to the Jewish nation brought the schools of the Hebrews
to such a position that the Son of man, when receiving His education,
avoided them altogether, and in His public teaching warned His people
against the schools of the doctors, who for the Word of God taught the
traditions of men. _This mingling of education then meant the crucifixion
of Christ and the ruin of the Jewish nation._ 4. The early Christian
church, composed of members called out from the Jewish schools and
from the purely pagan doctrines, at first taught their children truths
based upon the Scriptures; but before the close of the first century,
the tendency to commingle Christian teachings and heathen philosophy was
already noticeable. Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, referring to this
fact, said, “The _mystery of iniquity_ doth already work.”
[Sidenote: Papal education sophistry]
This tendency, seen in the days of Paul, grew into a habit; and as
Christian youth prepared for gospel work by attending the schools at
Alexandria and elsewhere, an entire change took place.
It now becomes our duty to follow this changed system of education, which
is indeed but a mixture of Christian and pagan, and hence not a separate
and distinct system at all. It was designated by the apostle to the
Gentiles as “the mystery of iniquity.” As found in the third century,
Mosheim described it thus: “It is necessary, however, to observe that the
methods now used of defending Christianity, and attacking Judaism and
idolatry, degenerated much from the primitive simplicity, and the true
rule of controversy. The _Christian doctors_, who had been _educated in
the schools of the rhetoricians and sophists_, rashly employed the arts
and evasions of their subtle masters in the service of Christianity; and,
intent only upon defeating the enemy, they were too little attentive to
the means of victory, indifferent whether they acquired it by artifice
or plain dealing. This method of disputing, which the ancients called
economical, and which _had victory for its object, rather than truth_,
was, in consequence of the prevailing taste for rhetoric and sophistry,
almost universally approved.”[68]
The effect of the Christian schools’ teaching Greek literature,
sophistry, and rhetoric was bearing its fruit in an unmistakable way.
The simplicity of the gospel and of the man of God, who was the _truth_,
was fast passing away. Even at this early date we find the germ of the
order of Jesuits, who, in the Middle Ages, carried out the theory of
the Platonists, and asserted “that it was no sin for a person to employ
falsehood and fallacies for the support of truth, when it was in danger
of being borne down.” It was at this time, and under the influence of
these same doctors and teachers, that there arose the practice of
attributing the writing of certain books to illustrious authors; “hence,
the book of canons, which certain artful men ascribed falsely to the
apostles, ... and many other productions of that nature, which, for a
long time, were too much esteemed by credulous men.”[69] How far men had
departed from the simplicity of the gospel is evident.
[Sidenote: Error introduced by teachers]
The spread of ideas contrary to the purity of the gospel was almost
universally begun in the schools professing to be Christian; and teachers
were, almost without exception, the leaders in these intellectual moves,
which in reality form the basis for every change in government or
religion. Throughout the history of the centuries, men have arisen who
were noted for their intellectual prowess, men of strong mind, who were
searching for truth. By tracing the work of a few representative teachers
through the first three or four centuries, _we see the papacy appearing
as the direct result of educational principles_.
In order to make this clear, let us begin with the teachings of Clement
in the school of Alexandria. It may be hard to distinguish between truth
and error, as we trace the intricate windings of philosophy in the days
of the early church; but it is necessary to find the origin of those
leading principles of the papacy against which the Reformation contended.
In order to do so, we go to the source of the stream, which is usually
found at Alexandria, in the schools conducted by Christian teachers,
or doctors, as they are often called. The foremost, the all-absorbing
doctrine of the papacy, is the substitution of works for faith. Christ’s
one lesson, illustrated in hundreds of ways, to the multitudes and to the
few, was wisdom by faith, eternal life by faith. The early church was
founded upon this principle, and faith in God’s Word was the first maxim
in the home school, in the church school, and in the seminaries of the
early Christians. Faith gives the hearing ear, as in the case of Solomon;
this gives the ability to _study_, which brings true wisdom.
[Sidenote: Corruption took place gradually]
How or where faith was lost can not be stated in positive terms. As wood,
under favorable conditions, changes, bit by bit, into solid stone, one
atom of wood giving place to a grain of sand, and so on till the form
of the tree, once an embodiment of life, now lies a hard and lifeless
stone, retaining, however, each scar of branch and leaf, each crack or
wrinkle of the bark, yea, even the annual marks of growth and the grain
of the wood; so faith in God’s Word was lost, atom by atom, and the lost
faith was replaced by human philosophy. Alexandria was to the Christian
school what the marsh is to the fallen tree. Much Greek philosophy
contained elements of truth; many truths were by the Greeks put in
brilliant settings. God himself had evidently revealed to the minds of
men, such as Plato, Pythagoras, Aristotle, and others, principles of
truth; but it was not supposed that men to whom had been opened the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge through His word and through His Son
should ever find it necessary to search for a few gems of truth amidst
a mass of error. Turning from the pure light to search for these stray
thoughts in Greek philosophy, _men lost their faith in God, failed to
give His word its proper place_, and erelong the living, fruit-bearing
tree was but an image of its former self, molded in stone.
That the reader may see that this mingling of truth and error was adopted
in place of the pure word, he is referred to Neander’s description of
Clement and his quotations of that eminent scholar’s reasoning.[70]
[Sidenote: Clement’s school work]
Without taking the space necessary to give this quotation, we pass to the
thought that Clement introduced this Greek philosophy into the school
he was teaching, and through his disciples paved the way for the papacy
in its power. Of the Alexandrian school we read: “What was the original
aim of the school itself? Was it at the outset merely an institution for
communicating religious instruction to the heathen, or had there long
existed in Alexandria a school for educating teachers for the Christian
church—a sort of theological seminary for the clergy?... We find that
originally a single person was appointed by the bishop of Alexandria to
hold the office of catechist, whose business it was to give religious
instruction to the heathen and probably _also to the children of the
Christians in that place_.... Men were required for this office who
possessed a perfect acquaintance with the Grecian religion, AND MOST
ESPECIALLY MUST THEY HAVE RECEIVED A PHILOSOPHICAL EDUCATION, SO AS TO
BE ABLE TO CONVERSE AND TO DISPUTE WITH ANY LEARNED PAGANS, who, after
long investigation on other questions, might turn their attention to
Christianity.
“_It was not enough to teach here, as in other churches, the main
doctrines of Christianity...._ WITH THESE ENLIGHTENED CATECHUMENS, it
was necessary to go back to the primitive sources of the religion in
Scripture itself, and to seek to initiate them into the understanding of
it—for such required a faith which would stand the _test of scientific
examination_.”[71]
In order to meet the demands made by pagans and Greek philosophers the
school stooped from its exalted position of teaching a wisdom acquired by
faith, and substituted a course of study which “would _stand the test of
scientific examination_.”
[Sidenote: Clement and higher criticism]
Clement, one of the earliest teachers in this school, “points out the
need of high and rich talents in the holder of the catechetical office
at Alexandria.” “The range of instruction imparted by these men,”
says Neander, “gradually extended itself, for they were the first who
... attempted to satisfy a want deeply felt by numbers—the want of a
_scientific exposition of the faith, and of a Christian_ science.” Here
is perhaps the best place for one to attribute the change from faith to
a scientific demonstration of the truths of the universe. Here is marked
the time, so far as one is able to point it out with definiteness, of
the transit from education by faith to education of the senses, from
the spiritual to the intellectual and the physical. The fruit and the
utter folly of the wisdom of the Greek and Egyptian sages (?) of this
intellectual system are seen in its ripened state in the Dark Ages.
[Sidenote: Christian students fed on pagan ideas]
The same paragraph in Neander continues: “To their school were attracted
not only those educated pagans, who, having by their teaching been
converted to Christianity, and being seized with a desire to devote
themselves and all they possessed to its service, chose ... the
Alexandrian catechists for their guides, but also _those youths_, who,
having been brought up within the Christian pale, were thirsting after a
more profound knowledge, in order to prepare themselves for the office of
_church teachers_.”[72]
[Sidenote: Opposing voices]
This school did not find its pathway always strewn with roses; for there
were church teachers of the primitive class “who looked chiefly to the
practical and real, ... and who were in continual dread of a corruption
of Christianity by the admixture of foreign philosophical elements,” and
these offered some opposition to the transit from an education of faith
in God’s Word to one of scientific investigation and reason.
[Sidenote: Clement’s justification]
Those were days of lively debate, and the defenders of Christian
education more than once contended for its principles. “‘Thus much,’
observes Clement, ‘I would say to those who are so fond of complaining:
if the philosophy is unprofitable, still the study of it is profitable,
if any good is to be derived from thoroughly demonstrating that it is an
unprofitable thing.’” This argument is indulged in at the present time by
those who espouse the cause of modern education, and wish to defend the
study of the classics and the doctrine of evolution.
The words of Clement in his arguments sound doubly striking, when we
remember that to-day the feeling that the education of the senses
will ultimately tend to the grasping of eternal truth by faith is
just as firmly held as then, notwithstanding the fact that a careful
investigation shows that this can never be the case, and that the only
avenue to _truth_ is through faith, first, last, and all the time. He
says: “Perhaps the latter [philosophy] was given to the Greeks in a
special sense, as preliminary to our Lord calling the Gentiles, since it
educated them as the law did the Jews, for Christianity; and philosophy
was a preparatory step for those who were to be conducted through Christ
to perfection.”[73]
[Sidenote: Clement lost his faith]
Accordingly, we find Clement perpetually verging toward the gnostic or
platonic position. “With an idea of faith which flowed from the very
essence of Christianity, there was associated in his mind the still
lingering notion, derived from the Platonic philosophy, of an opposition
between a _religion of cultivated minds_, and arrived at by the medium of
science, and a religion of the many, who were shackled by the senses and
entangled in mere opinion.”[74]
[Sidenote: Birth of the papacy]
Here is distinctly seen the beginnings of that system of education which
elevates the few and holds the masses in subjection. Herein lies the
wellspring of a monarchical government and a papal hierarchy. It was the
propagation of the system of education introduced into the Alexandrian
school by Clement that formed the papacy. We are not surprised to
read in history of the contest between the churches of Alexandria,
Constantinople, and Rome. Rome as arbiter was called to decide between
the Greek Catholics and the Alexandrians; and from the downfall of both
her rivals she gained the pontifical throne; but it was only to crown
the educational ideas of the Alexandrian school, and sway the world by
the enforcement of the principles of that system of instruction _which
substitutes scientific research for faith_.
God had once called his people out of Egypt; but the church, forsaking
the purity of the gospel, returned thither for its education. The
Reformation was its second call, and to-day the third call is sounding.
Having followed with some care the ideas first introduced by Clement,
and finding that the result of the position taken by this teacher was
that faith was destroyed and scientific reason substituted, we turn to
the further development of this educational idea as advocated by one of
Clement’s most noted pupils and his successor in the Alexandrian school.
I refer to Origen.
[Sidenote: Origen]
Origen was born 185 A.D., in Alexandria; he received a most liberal
education, and was initiated at an early age into Hellenic science and
art; the principles of Christianity were instilled into his mind by such
teachers as Clement of Alexandria.[75] “He says himself that it was an
outward motive that first led him to busy himself with the study of
Platonic philosophy, and to make himself better acquainted generally with
the systems of those who differed from himself. _The moving cause was his
intercourse with heretics and pagans who had received a philosophical
education._”
“Attracted by his great reputation, such persons” came often to him, and
he thus defends himself for bestowing his time on the Greek philosophy:
“When I had wholly devoted my time to the promulgation of the divine
doctrines, and the fame of my skill in them began to be spread abroad,
so that both heretics and others, such as had been conversant with the
Greek sciences, and particularly men from the philosophical schools,
came to visit me, it _seemed to me necessary that I should examine the
doctrinal opinions of the heretics, and what the philosophers pretended
to know of the truth_.”[76]
These facts concerning Origen are given because the argument is
strikingly similar to that used by many ministers and teachers of the
present day, and because it shows how the Platonic philosophy gained such
a foothold in so-called Christian schools, and grew into the papacy.
[Sidenote: Representatives of three systems]
There are three individuals who stand as representatives of three
systems of education. PLATO personifies heathen philosophy; CHRIST said
of Himself, “I am the ... truth;” ORIGEN personifies the mixture of the
two,—truth and error,—and hence stands, from an educational standpoint,
as _the father of the papacy_, which is the mystery of iniquity. It
behooves us now to follow carefully the work of this man. After doing so,
one can more readily understand why the beast is represented as having
several heads.[77]
[Sidenote: Faith displaced by speculation]
I quote extensively from Mosheim: “The principal doctrines of
Christianity were now explained _to the people_ in their native purity
and simplicity, without any mixture of abstract reasonings or subtile
inventions; nor were the feeble minds of the multitude loaded with a
great variety of precepts. But the CHRISTIAN DOCTORS who had applied
themselves to the study of letters and philosophy, soon abandoned the
frequented paths, and _struck out into the devious wilds of fancy_. The
Egyptians distinguished themselves in this new method of explaining the
truth. They looked upon it as a noble and glorious task to bring the
doctrines of celestial wisdom into a certain subjection to the precepts
of their philosophy, and to make deep and profound researches into the
intimate and hidden nature of those truths which the divine Saviour had
delivered to his disciples. ORIGEN WAS AT THE HEAD OF THIS SPECULATIVE
TRIBE. This great man, enchanted by the charms of the _Platonic
philosophy_, set it up as the test of all religion, and imagined,
that the reasons of each doctrine were _to be found in that favorite
philosophy, and their nature and extent to be determined by it_. It must
be confessed that he handled this matter with modesty and with caution;
but he still gave an example to his disciples, the abuse of which could
not fail to be pernicious, and under the authority of which, they would
naturally indulge themselves without restraint in every wanton fancy.
And so, indeed, the case was; for the disciples of Origen, breaking
forth from the limits fixed by their master, _interpreted, in the most
licentious manner_, the divine truths of _religion according to the
tenor of Platonic philosophy_. From these teachers the _philosophical or
scholastic theology_ derives its origin.”[78]
[Sidenote: Beginning of higher criticism]
Mosheim says: “Origen unquestionably stands at the head of the
interpreters of the Bible in this century. But with pain it must be
added, he was first among those who have found in the Scriptures a
secure retreat for all errors and idle fancies. _As this most ingenious
man could see no possible method of vindicating all that is said in
the Scriptures against the cavils of the heretics_ and the enemies
of Christianity, PROVIDED HE INTERPRETED THE LANGUAGE OF THE BIBLE
LITERALLY, he concluded that he must expound the sacred volume _in the
way in which the PLATONISTS WERE ACCUSTOMED TO EXPLAIN THE HISTORY OF
THEIR GODS_.”[79]
[Sidenote: Higher criticism is Platonism]
Murdock, in his notes, says: “Origen perversely turned a large part
of Biblical history into moral fables and many of the laws into
allegories. Probably he learned this in the school of Ammonius, which
expounded Hesiod, Homer, and the whole fabulous history of the Greeks
allegorically. The predecessors of Origen, who searched after a mystical
sense of Scripture, still set a high value on the _grammatical, or
literal, sense;_ but he often expresses himself, as if he attached no
value to it. Before him allegories were resorted to, only to discover
predictions of future events and rules for moral conduct; but he betook
himself to allegories _in order TO ESTABLISH THE PRINCIPLES OF HIS
PHILOSOPHY_ on a Scriptural basis.... His propensity to allegories must
be ascribed to the fertility of his invention, _the prevailing custom_
of the Egyptians, _his education, the instructions he received from his
teachers_, and the example both of the philosophers, of whom he was an
admirer, and of the Jews.... He hoped, by means of his allegories, more
easily to convince the Jews, to confute the gnostics, and to silence the
objections of both. But we must not forget his attachment to that system
of philosophy which he embraced. _This philosophy could not be reconciled
with the Scriptures; ... and therefore the Scriptures must be interpreted
allegorically_, that they might not contradict his philosophy.... As the
body is the baser part of man, so the literal is the less worthy sense
of Scripture; and as the body often betrays good men into sin, so the
literal sense often leads us into error.”
[Sidenote: Here is reason above faith]
Mosheim himself tells us how Origen determined when a passage should
be interpreted literally and when allegorically: “Whenever the words,
if understood literally, will afford a valuable meaning, one that is
worthy of God, useful to men, and accordant with truth and correct
reason, _then the literal meaning is to be retained_; but whenever the
words, if understood literally, will express what is absurd, _or false,
or contrary to correct reason, or useless, or unworthy of God_, then
the literal sense is to be discarded, and the moral and mystical alone
to be regarded. This rule he applies to every part both of the Old
Testament and the New.” This reasoning is sufficiently strong for any of
our modern _higher critics_. If it led directly to the removal of the
Word of God from the common people of the Middle Ages, because teachers
adjudged no minds but their own capable of determining whether a certain
passage should be interpreted literally or allegorically, to what will
the same treatment of the Scriptures now lead? And if the disciples of
Origen lacking the caution of the great teacher, were led into the gross
licentiousness of the heathen, how much of the wickedness of modern
society should be attributed to the spirit of higher criticism, echoed
from the pulpit, and breathed from the schoolroom?
[Sidenote: Minds prepared for the papacy]
Mosheim continues: “He [Origen] assigns two reasons why fables and
literal absurdities are admitted into the Sacred Volume. The first is,
that if the literal meaning were always rational and good, the reader
would be apt to rest in it, and not look after the moral and mystical
sense. The second is, that fabulous and incongruous representations
often afford moral and mystical instructions which could not so well be
conveyed by sober facts and representations.”
Perhaps this is enough to show that scholasticism, or a philosophical
interpretation of the Scriptures had its origin in the Christian schools.
By this it is plain why these youth became papists, instead of followers
of the meek and lowly Galilean. There was no other theory which could,
so effectually as this, have stamped out faith. No other teaching than
this same higher criticism could have more truly developed that power
which “speaketh great words against the Most High, and thinketh to change
times and laws.” It formed the beast in the third century; it is forming
the image to the beast in the present century. Students under such
instruction had received ample preparation for a belief in the right of
the church to interpret Scripture, and a belief in the infallibility of
the pope.
[Sidenote: Scholasticism and higher criticism]
We have seen the origin of two of the streams which, uniting, helped
swell the torrent of the papacy. There are still other tributaries to
this mighty river. Each rises somewhere in heathendom, flows with
a devious course, but finally, as if in accordance with some great
natural law, unites with those other currents in forming the mystery of
iniquity. Each stream is an educational principle, opposed in itself
to Christianity; but instead of being lost in the depths of the main
channel, it seems to develop greater power of doing evil, and brings its
adherents into more complete degradation after the mingling than before.
[Sidenote: Mysticism]
The third principle which presents itself for analysis is known as
_mysticism_. Both the teachings of Clement and the scholasticism of
Origen exalted reason above faith. Mysticism was advocated by Origen and
later by Augustine. It is defined as “that faculty of reason, from which
proceeds the health and vigor of the mind, ... an emanation from God into
the human soul, and comprehended in it the principles and elements of
all truth, human and divine.”[80] There is a spark of divinity in every
man. It is the object of Christian education to develop the image of
Christ in the human being; but with the mystics, it was maintained that
“silence, tranquillity, repose, and solitude, accompanied with such acts
of mortification as might tend to extenuate and exhaust the body, were
the means by which the hidden and internal word was excited to produce
its latent virtues and to instruct men in the knowledge of divine things.”
[Sidenote: Education continues to decline]