Larger font
Smaller font
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font


    This one of the Fathers was born about the middle of the second century, although whether in Athens or Alexandria is not known. It is most probable that he was a Greek, but as a writer he is connected only with Alexandria. Of his worthiness to be called one of the Fathers of the Christian church, the reader can decide for himself after reading what the best writers say of him, in connection with a few extracts from his own writings. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says of him:—
    “Though he never succeeds in defining the office of reason on the field of authority, or in fully separating that of pagan thought which Christianity can assimilate, from that which it must reject, he is, nevertheless, exceedingly suggestive, and often eminently striking.”
    FACC 165.1

    That is to say, he did not distinguish any difference between paganism and Christianity. Now “exceedingly suggestive” and “eminently striking” ideas may make very interesting reading, but we want something more than that alone in a leader of Christian thought. Nearly all the pagan writings which have been preserved, contain “exceedingly suggestive” and “eminently striking” ideas (some of them altogether too “suggestive”), but shall we therefore call them Christian Fathers? Of course not; and yet this is all the claim that Clement has to that title, because, as the above quotation teaches, he never became Christian enough to distinguish fairly between paganism and Christianity.FACC 165.2

    It was this lack of perception in the so-called Christian Fathers that filled the church with pagan ideas, and resulted in the great apostasy. No matter how honest Clement’s intentions may have been, his pagan notions certainly made him most unfit to be a teacher in the Christian church.FACC 166.1

    Mc Clintock and Strong’s Encyclopedia says of Clement:—
    “Of the early Christian writers, Clement was the most learned in the history, philosophy, and science of the nations of his day, and the influence of his studies is apparent in his writings, which display rather the speculative philosopher than the accurate theologian—more the fanciful interpreter than the careful expounder of the Scriptures on true exegetical principles.”
    FACC 166.2

    Learning and Christianity are by no means identical, nor is learning a substitute for Christianity. If a man is indeed a Christian, thoroughly settled in the simple principles of Christianity, then the more learning he has the better. But if a man is an opponent of Christianity, his learning can be only a curse; and even though he be friendly to Christianity, and a professed Christian, if he is ignorant of the simple, fundamental principles of the gospel, his learning is a curse to the cause which he professes; for many will be dazzled by the splendor of his genius, and will follow him into error; his learning is the ignis-fatuus which beguiles the confiding wayfarer to his destruction. To show that this was the case with Clement of Alexandria, we have only to quote the following from Mosheim’s “Ecclesiastical Commentaries:”—FACC 166.3

    “When once this passion for philosophizing had taken possession of the minds of the Egyptian teachers and certain others, and had been gradually diffused by them in various directions throughout the church, the holy and beautiful simplicity of early times very quickly disappeared, and was followed by a most remarkable and disastrous alteration in nearly the whole system of Christian discipline. This very important and deeply-to-be-regretted change had its commencement in the century now under review [the second], but it will be in the succeeding one that we shall have to mark its chief progress. One of the earliest evils that flowed from this immoderate attachment to philosophy, was the violence to which it gave rise in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. For, whereas, the Christians had, from a very early period, imbibed the notion that under the words, laws, and facts, recorded in the sacred volume, there is a latent sense concealed, an opinion which they appear to have derived from the Jews, no sooner did this passion for philosophizing take possession of their minds, than they began with wonderful subtilty to press the Scriptures into their service, in support of all such principles and maxims as appeared to them consonant to reason; and at the same time most wretchedly to pervert and twist every part of those divine oracles which opposed itself to their philosophical tenets or notions. The greatest proficients in this pernicious practice were those Egyptian teachers who first directed the attention of the Christians towards philosophy, namely, Pantaenus and Clement.”—Cent. 2, sec. 33.FACC 166.4

    In another place (Commentaries, cent. 2, sec. 25, note 2) Mosheim speaks of Clement as blind and misguided. Thus:—
    “There can be no question, however, but that Clement is to be ranked amongst the first and principal Christian defenders and teachers of philosophic science; indeed that he may even be placed at the head of those who devoted themselves to the cultivation of philosophy with an ardor that knew no bounds, and were so blind and misguided as to engage in the hopeless attempt of producing an accommodation between the principles of philosophic science and those of the Christian religion. He himself expressly tells us in his ‘Stromata,’ that he would not hand down Christian truth pure and unmixed, but ‘associated with, or rather veiled by, and shrouded under, the precepts of philosophy.’ For, according to him, the rudiments or seeds of celestial wisdom communicated by Christ to the world, lay hid in the philosophy of the Greeks, after the same manner as the esculent part of a nut lies concealed within a shell.... For he appears to have been firmly persuaded that the essence of the Greek philosophy was sound, wholesome, and salutary. In fact, that it was perfectly consonant to the spirit of Christian wisdom, but that it was compassed about and veiled from immediate observation by a cloud of superstition and idle fictions, just in the same way as the kernel of a nut is concealed by the shell, and that we should, therefore, make it our business industriously to penetrate this exterior covering, so as to discover the true relationship between human and divine wisdom. The origin of the Greek philosophy he, without scruple, attributes to the Deity himself.”
    FACC 167.1

    Surely such an one cannot be a safe man to follow, for all the ideas which he advances will be pagan ideas, and whoever accepts them as representatives of Christianity, will have a paganized Christianity, or a Christianized paganism, whichever one chooses to call it. The thoughtful reader can easily picture from the above quotation, how the papacy (which has been aptly called “paganism baptized”) arose upon the teaching of the Fathers. But teaching from which the papacy was developed, is not the teaching from which pure Christianity can be developed. The same fountain cannot send forth both sweet water and bitter.FACC 168.1

    Killen’s idea of Clement as an expositor of Scripture is expressed in the following paragraph:— “Clement, as is apparent from his writings, was extensively acquainted with profane literature. But the formed quite too high an estimate of the value of the heathen philosophy, whilst he allegorized Scripture in a way as dangerous as it was absurd. By the serpent which deceived Eve, according to Clement, ‘pleasure, an earthly vice which creeps upon the belly, is allegorically represented.’ Moses, speaking allegorically, if we may believe this writer, called the divine wisdom the tree of life planted in paradise; by which paradise we may understand the world, in which all the works of creation were called into being. He even interprets the ten commandments allegorically. Thus, by adultery, he understands a departure from the true knowledge of the Most High, and by murder, a violation of the truth respecting God and his eternal existence. It is easy to see how Scripture, by such a system of interpretation, might be tortured into a witness for any extravagance.”—Ancient Church, part 2, sec. 2, chap. 1, paragraph 15.FACC 168.2

    And Archdeacon Farrar shows in the following paragraph, that although Clement possessed great learning, he lacked the most essential wisdom—that of the Bible:—
    “His attitude towards the inspired writings is that of his age. He makes room for legends even in the New Testament story. His quotations are loose and paraphrastic, and are sometimes attributed to a wrong author. He quotes verses which have no existence. He refers to apocryphal writings as though they were inspired. He attributes the book of Wisdom to Solomon, and the book of Baruch to Jeremiah. He quotes even the ‘Revelation’ and ‘Preaching’ of Peter, as well as the ‘Epistle of Barnabas’ and the ‘Teaching of the Twelve Apostles’ as having scriptural authority. He believes in the miraculous inspiration of the Septuagint, the Sibyl, and Hystaspes, and he calls Plato ‘all but an evangelical prophet.’”—History of Interpretation, p. 184.
    FACC 169.1

    With this much by way of preliminary, we may introduce our readers to Clement himself, as he appears in his own writings.FACC 169.2

    The first quotation which we will give is from “The Instructor,” a series of homilies covering almost every subject. The translator, Rev. William Wilson, ranks it “among the most valuable remains of Christian antiquity;” and it cannot be denied that there are some good things in it. There are some points concerning hygiene and good manners that would not be out of place in any book intended as a manual for the young,—just such things as we may suppose were taught to the children of all educated and refined heathen of ancient times. But even in “The Instructor” the good things are intermingled with so much that is utterly destitute of sense, that one minute the reader will think that Clement was a wise instructor of youth, and the next will be ready to aver that he was a fool. In the first chapter of book 2 he gives the following as a reason why people should stint themselves in the quantity of food which they eat:—
    “And they say that the bodies of children, when shooting up to their height, are made to grow right by deficiency in nourishment. For then the spirit, which pervades the body in order to its growth, is not checked by abundance of food obstructing the freedom of its course.”
    FACC 170.1

    The proprietor of Dotheboy’s Hall would have called that sound gospel, but sensible people know that temperate, healthful living is not starvation.FACC 170.2

    The following, from the same chapter, is a good sample of the way in which he mixes with that which is sensible, the allegorical, the fanciful, and the nonsensical:— “From all slavish habits and excess we must abstain, and touch what is set before us in a decorous way; keeping the hand and couch and chin free of stains; preserving the grace of the countenance undisturbed, and committing no indecorum in the act of swallowing; but stretching out the hand at intervals in an orderly manner. We must guard against speaking anything while eating; for the voice becomes disagreeable and inarticulate when it is confined by full jaws; and the tongue, pressed by the food and impeded in its natural energy, gives forth a compressed utterance. Nor is it suitable to eat and drink simultaneously. For it is the very extreme of intemperance to confound the times whose uses are discordant. And ‘whether ye eat or drink, do all in the glory of God,’ aiming after true frugality, which the Lord also seems to me to have hinted at when he blessed the loaves and cooked fishes with which he feasted the disciples, introducing a beautiful example of simple food. That fish then which, at the command of the Lord, Peter caught, points to digestible and God-given and moderate food. And by those who rise from the water to the bait of righteousness, he admonishes us to take away luxury and avarice, as the coin from the fish; in order that he might displace vainglory; and by giving the stater to the tax-gatherers, and ‘rendering to Caesar the things which are Caeear’s,’ might preserve ‘to God the things which are God’s.’ The stater is capable of other explanations not unknown to us, but the present is not a suitable occasion for their treatment. Let the mention we make for our present purpose suffice, as it is not unsuitable to the flowers of the Word; and we have often done this, drawing to the urgent point of the question the most beneficial fountain, in order to water those who have been planted by the Word.”FACC 170.3

    From the above it will be seen that he had a wonderful gift of imagination, which he exercised freely in the interpretation of Scripture. As he intimates, this is only a small portion of the fancies that he has on the simple matter of Peter’s catching a fish. But we shall note still greater manifestations of his genius. Speaking of the miracle of turning water into wine, he says of Christ:—“He gave life to the watery element of the meaning of the law, filling with his blood the doer of it who is of Adam, that is, the whole world; supplying piety with drink from the vine of truth, the mixture of the old law and of the new word, in order to the fulfillment of the predestined time.”—The Instructor, book 2, chap. 2.FACC 171.1

    This is simply a collection of words without sense. What edification sensible people can find in such stuff is a mystery. And what we have quoted might be multiplied many times, if we had space to give long extracts.FACC 172.1

    The “Stromata,” or “Miscellanies,” is, as its title indicates, of a miscellaneous character. According to Eusebius, the full title was, “Titus Flavius Clement’s Miscellaneous Collections of Speculative Notes, Bearing upon the True Philosophy.” Says the translator in his introduction:—
    “The aim of the work, in accordance with this title, is, in opposition to gnosticism, to furnish the material for the construction of a true gnosis, a Christian philosophy, on the basis of faith, and to lead on to this higher knowledge those who, by the discipline of the Paedagogus [“The Instructor”], had been trained for it.... . He describes philosophy as a divinely ordered preparation of the Greeks for faith in Christ, as the law was for the Hebrews; and shows the necessity and value of literature and philosophic culture for the attainment of true Christian knowledge.”
    FACC 172.2

    Again the translator says:—
    “Clement’s quotations from Scripture are made from the Septaugint version, often inaccurately from memory, sometimes from a different text from what we possess, often with verbal adaptations; and not rarely different texts are blended together.”
    FACC 172.3

    And it is to such a mixture as this,—of conjectural Scripture “arranged” and “adapted” according to his own ideas, and the speculations of heathen philosophy,—that people are being directed for their knowledge of Christianity. The man who gets his light from such a fog bank is truly to be pitied.FACC 173.1

    But Bishop Coxe is willing to vouch for the orthodoxy of Clement. In a foot-note to the paragraph last quoted, after speaking of the supposition of Photius, that “one of the works of Clement (now lost) contained many things unworthy of his orthodoxy and piety,” he says:—
    “But his great repute in the Catholic Church after his decease, is sufficient to place his character far above all suspicions of his having ever swerved from the ‘faith of the church.’”
    FACC 173.2

    Ah, yes; just so; perhaps an apology will be expected from those who have spoken slightingly of his value as a teacher of Christianity. Who could doubt the orthodoxy of a man who has always been held in high repute by the Catholic Church? This is all the indorsement that Clement really has. Let Protestants change their name before they presume to quote Clement of Alexandria as authority for anything.FACC 173.3

    The translators in their introductory note say further of Clement’s writings:—
    “Of course there is throughout plenty of false science, and frivolous and fanciful speculation.”
    FACC 173.4

    Indeed there is, and without further ado we will let our readers judge for themselves. The heading of the sixth chapter of book 5 is, “The Mystic Meaning of the Tabernacle and its Furniture,” and the following is part of what he gives on that subject:—“Again, there is the veil of the entrance into the holy of holies. Four pillars there are, the sign of the sacred tetrad of the ancient covenants. Further, the mystic name of four letters which was affixed to those alone to whom the adytum was accessible is called Jave, which is interpreted, ‘who is and shall be.’ The name of God, too, among the Greeks contains four letters.FACC 173.5

    “Now the Lord, having come alone into the intellectual world, enters by his sufferings, introduced into the knowledge of the ineffable, ascending above every name which is known by sound. The lamp, too, was placed to the south of the altar of incense; and by it were shown the motions of the seven planets, that perform their revolutions toward the south. For three branches rose on either side of the lamp, and lights on them; since also the sun, like the lamp, set in the midst of all the planets, dispenses with a kind of divine music the light to those above and to those below.”FACC 174.1

    After the reader has pondered on the above to his heart’s content, he may proceed to this, which is from the same chapter:—
    “North of the altar of incense was placed a table, on which there was ‘the exhibition of the loaves;’ for the most nourishing of the winds are those of the north. And thus are signified certain seats of churches conspiring so as to form one body and one assemblage.
    FACC 174.2

    “And the things recorded of the sacred ark signify the properties of the world of thought, which is hidden and closed to the many.FACC 174.3

    “And those golden figures, each of them with six wings, signify either the two bears, as some will have it, or rather the two hemispheres. And the name cherubim meant ‘much knowledge.’ But both together have twelve wings, and by the zodiac and time which moves on it, point out the world of sense.”FACC 174.4

    And when the reader has thoroughly assimilated all the instruction conveyed in this, he may revel in the following wonderful elucidation of the “deep things” of the Bible:—
    “But I think it better to regard the ark, so called from the Hebrew word Thebotha, as signifying something else. It is interpreted, one instead of one in all places. Whether, then, it is the eighth region and the world of thought, or God, all-embracing, and without shape, and invisible, that is indicated, we may for the present defer saying. But it signifies the repose which dwells with the adoring spirits, which are meant by the cherubim.
    FACC 175.1

    “For he who prohibited the making of a graven image, would never himself have made an image in the likeness of holy things. Nor is there at all any composite thing, and creature endowed with sensation, of the sort in heaven. But the face is a symbol of the rational soul, and the wings are the lofty ministers and energies of powers right and left; and the voice is delightsome glory in ceaseless contemplation. Let it suffice that the mystic interpretation has advanced so far.FACC 175.2

    “Now the high priest’s robe is the symbol of the world of sense. The seven planets are represented by the five stones and the two carbuncles, for Saturn and the moon. The former is southern, and moist, and earthy, and heavy; the latter aerial, whence she is called by some Artemis, as if Aerotomos (cutting the air); and the air is cloudy. And co-operating as they did in the production of things here below, those that by divine providence are set over the planets are rightly represented as placed on the breast and shoulders; and by them was the work of creation, the first week. And the breast is the seat of the heart and soul.”FACC 175.3

    “The twelve stones, set in four rows on the breast, describe for us the circle of the zodiac, in the four changes of the year.”FACC 175.4

    Some may think that this is enough; but we now have to present the most valuable part of the whole book,—the part which so many are anxiously longing to have in convenient form for general circulation, in order to settle the minds of doubters. It is what Clement has to say concerning the observance of Sunday. In book 5, chapter 14 of the “Stromata,” he says:—
    “And the Lord’s day Plato prophetically speaks of in the tenth book of the ‘Republic,’ in these words: ‘And when seven days have passed to each of them in the meadow, on the eighth day they are to set out and arrive in four days.’ By the meadow is to be understood the fixed sphere, as being a mild and genial spot, and the locality of the pious; and by the seven days each motion of the seven planets, and the whole practical art which speeds to the end of rest. But after the wandering orbs the journey leads to Heaven, that is, to the eighth motion and day. And he says that souls are gone on the fourth day, pointing out the passage through the four elements. But the seventh day is recognized as sacred, not by the Hebrews only, but also by the Greeks; according to which the whole world of all animals and planets revolve.”
    FACC 176.1

    On this Bishop Coxe has the following in a foot-note:—
    “The bearing of this passage on questions of Sabbatical and dominical observances, needs only to be indicated.”
    FACC 176.2

    No doubt; but we cannot help wishing that the good bishop had taken the trouble to indicate the bearing that it has on those questions, for we don’t see how common people are going to find out for themselves. Truly the Sunday institution must be reduced to desperate straits, when it has to depend in any measure upon a “prophecy” uttered by a heathen philosopher, especially when neither that “prophecy” nor its interpretation by the speculative Clement contains any mention of Sunday.FACC 176.3

    Again, in his exposition of the ten commandments, Clement says:—
    “And the fourth word is that which intimates that the world was created by God, and that he gave us the seventh day as a rest, on account of the trouble that there is in life. For God is incapable of weariness, and suffering, and want. But we who bear flesh need rest. The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a rest—abstraction from ills—preparing for the Primal Day, our true rest; which, in truth, is the first creation of light, in which all things are viewed and possessed. From this day the first wisdom and knowledge illuminate us. For the light of truth—a light true, casting no shadow, is the Spirit of God indivisibly divided to all, who are sanctified by faith, holding the place of a luminary, in order to the knowledge of real existences. By following him, therefore, through our whole life, we become impassible; and this is to rest.”—Stromata, book 6, chap. 16.
    FACC 177.1

    It really makes no difference what Clement says upon any subject, but for the benefit of those who imagine that in the above he throws his feeble influence in favor of Sunday observance, we quote the following from the very next paragraph:—
    “Having reached this point, we must mention these things by the way; since the discourse has turned on the seventh and the eighth. For the eighth may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh, and the seventh manifestly the sixth, and the latter properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work. For the creation of the world was concluded in six days.”
    FACC 177.2

    It will be seen that by this hocus-pocus, Clement, if his jumble of words can be said to have any meaning, makes out that the seventh day is really the true Sabbath. The statement seems to be that that which some call “the eighth day,” namely Sunday, may be the seventh day, and a day of work, and that the real seventh day may be the sixth, and the true Sabbath, as it really is. That is what his words mean, if they mean anything, which we greatly doubt. If anyone, however, thinks that a different meaning should be attached to these words, we shall not dispute with him, for it is one of those passages so characteristic of the Fathers, to which each individual may attach his own meaning, and all be equally correct.FACC 177.3

    There is just one more reference in Clement’s writings to the “Lord’s day,” and it is on this wise:—
    “He [the gnostic], in fulfillment of the precept, according to the gospel, keeps the Lord’s day, when he abandons an evil disposition, and assumes that of the gnostic, glorifying the Lord’s resurrection in himself. Further, also, when he has received the comprehension of scientific speculation, he deems that he sees the Lord, directing his eyes towards things invisible, although he seems to look on what he does not wish to look on.”—Id., book 7, chap. 12.
    FACC 178.1

    Bishop Coxe thinks that the original of Clement’s argument seems to imply that he is here speaking of the Paschal festival, instead of a weekly rest day. It makes little difference. Those who wish to count it as evidence in favor of Sunday-keeping are welcome to do so, but they must also accept the following heathen interpretation of Scripture:—
    “Wherefore the Lord preached the gospel to those in hades. Accordingly the Scripture says, ‘Hades says to Destruction, we have not seen his form, but we have heard his voice.’ It is not plainly the place, which, the words above say, heard the voice, but those who have been put in hades and have abandoned themselves to destruction, as persons who have thrown themselves voluntarily from a ship into the sea. They, then, are those that hear the divine power and voice. For who in his senses can suppose the souls of the righteous and those of sinners in the same condemnation, charging Providence with injustice?
    FACC 178.2

    “But how? Do not (the Scriptures) show that the Lord preached the gospel to those that perished in the flood, or rather had been chained, and to those kept (in ward and guard)? And it has been shown also, in the second book of the ‘Stromata,’ that the apostles, following the Lord, preached the gospel to those in hades. For it was requisite, in my opinion, that as here, so also there, the best of the disciples should be imitators of the Master; so that he should bring to repentance those belonging to the Hebrews, and they the Gentiles; that is, those that had lived in righteousness according to the law and philosophy, who had ended life not perfectly, but sinfully. For it was suitable to the divine administration, that those possessed of greater worth in righteousness, and whose life had been pre-eminent, on repenting of their transgressions, though found in another place, yet being confessedly of the number of the people of God Almighty, should be saved, each one according to his individual knowledge.”—Id., book 6, chap. 6.FACC 179.1

    From this we see that the “new theology” of a probation after death is very old. There is no doubt but that many will be rejoiced to find in Clement such testimony for the “larger hope;” but let those who feel inclined to accept such teaching, make up their mind to accept also that to which it leads, namely, purgatory and prayers and masses for the dead. For if the dead are on probation, it needs no argument to show that they should be prayed for. This doctrine has been the means of bringing a vast amount of treasure into the Roman Catholic Church, and it is not to be wondered at that that church has always held Clement in so great repute.FACC 179.2

    We have just one more “excellent piece of knowledge” to present from the writings of Clement. It is very long, but it is so good an example of the “false science, and frivolous and fanciful speculation,” of which the translator rightly says there is a “plenty” throughout all Clement’s writings, that we give it. If it were omitted, the reader could not form a correct idea of the beauty and clearness of Clement’s style, and his value as a Christian interpreter. It is chapter 11 of book 6 of the “Stromata,” and is entitled, “The Mystical Meanings in the Proportions of Numbers, Geometrical Ratios, and Music:”—FACC 180.1

    “As then in astronomy we have Abraham as an instance, so also in arithmetic we have the same Abraham. ‘For, hearing that Lot was taken captive, and having numbered his own servants, born in his house, 318 (tie),’ he defeats a very great number of the enemy.FACC 180.2

    “They say, then, that the character representing 300 is, as to shape, the type of the Lord’s sign, and that the Iota and the Eta indicate the Saviour’s name; that it was indicated, accordingly, that Abraham’s domestics were in salvation, who having fled to the sign and the name became lords of the captives, and of the very many unbelieving nations that followed them.FACC 180.3

    “Now the number 300 is, 3 by 100. Ten is allowed to be the perfect number. And 8 is the first cube, which is equality in all the dimensions—length, breadth, depth. ‘The days of men shall be,’ it is said, ‘120 (rch) years.’ And the sum is made up of the numbers from 1 to 15 added together. And the moon at 15 days is full.FACC 180.4

    “On another principle, 120 is a triangular number, and consists of the equality of the number 64 (which consists of eight of the odd numbers beginning with unity), the addition of which (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15) in succession generate squares; and of the inequality of the number 56, consisting of seven of the even numbers beginning with 2 (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14), which produce the numbers that are not squares.FACC 180.5

    “Again, according to another way of indicating, the number 120 consists of four numbers—of one triangle, 15; of another, a square, 25; of a third, a pentagon, 35; and of a fourth, a hexagon, 45. The five is taken according to the same ratio in each mode. For in triangular numbers, from the unit 5 comes 15; and in squares, 25; and of those in succession, proportionally. Now 25, which is the number 5 from unity, is said to be the symbol of the Levitical tribe, and the number 35 depends also on the arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic scale of doubles—6, 8, 9, 12; the addition of which makes 35. In these days, the Jews say that seven months’ children are formed. And the number 45 depends on the scale of triples—6, 9, 12, 18—the addition of which makes 45; and similarly, in these days they say that nine months’ children are formed.FACC 181.1

    “Such, then, is the style of the example in arithmetic. And let the testimony of geometry be the tabernacle that was constructed, and the ark that was fashioned,—constructed in most regular proportions, and through divine ideas, by the gift of understanding, which leads us from things of sense to intellectual objects, or rather from these to holy things, and to the holy of holies. For the squares of wood indicate that the square form, producing right angles, pervades all, and points out security. And the length of the structure was three hundred cubits, and the breadth fifty, and the height thirty; and above, the ark ends in a cubit, narrowing to a cubit from the broad base like a pyramid, the symbol of those who are purified and tested by fire. And this geometrical proportion has a place, for the transport of those holy abodes, whose differences are indicated by the differences of the numbers set down below.FACC 181.2

    “And the numbers introduced are sixfold, as three hundred is six times fifty; and tenfold, as three hundred is ten times thirty; and containing one and two-thirds (zpidmoiroi), for fifty is one and two-thirds of thirty.FACC 181.3

    “Now there are some who say three hundred cubits are the symbol of the Lord’s sign; and fifty, of hope and of the remission given at Pentecost; and thirty, or as in some, twelve, they say points out the preaching (of the gospel); because the Lord preached in his thirtieth year; and the apostles were twelve. And the structure’s terminating in a cubit is the symbol of the advancement of the righteous to oneness and to ‘the unity of the faith.’FACC 181.4

    “And the table which was in the temple was six cubits; and its four feet were about a cubit and a half.FACC 182.1

    “They add, then, the twelve cubits, agreeably to the revolution of the twelve months, in the annual circle, during which the earth produces and matures all things; adapting itself to the four seasons. And the table, in my opinion, exhibits the image of the earth, supported as it is on four feet, summer, autumn, spring, winter, by which the year travels. Wherefore also it is said that the table has ‘wavy chains;’ either because the universe revolves in the circuits of the times, or perhaps it indicated the earth surrounded with ocean’s tide.”FACC 182.2

    And this is the man of whom Bishop Coxe says that “after Justin and Irenaeus, he is to be reckoned the founder of Christian literature.” His writings are said to introduce us “to a new stage of the church’s progress.” Heaven save the mark! If this be “progress,” let us have retrogression. It does indeed show rapid progress toward the sinks and quagmires of Romanism; and only he who spurns all such “Christian literature” as poison, and returns to the simple truths of the gospel, as unfolded by Christ and his apostles, can hope to walk in the light. But no one who quotes Clement in behalf of Sunday-keeping, can consistently refuse to accept all the heresy and trash which Clement wrote.FACC 182.3

    In the following explanation we find Rome’s authority for withholding the Bible from the common people:— “For many reasons, then, the Scriptures hide the sense. First, that we may become inquisitive, and be ever on the watch for the discovery of the words of salvation. Then it was not suitable for all to understand, so that they might not receive harm in consequence of taking in another sense the things declared for salvation by the Holy Spirit.”—Id., chap. 15.FACC 182.4

    That is to say, that the Scriptures are veiled in obscurity, because people would be apt to misunderstand them if they were written in simple language! And Clement has the sublime egotism to suppose that his insane ravings are an exposition of the “veiled” Scriptures! Worse than all, scores and hundreds of professed Protestant ministers are willing to concede his claim.FACC 183.1

    Again we say, Let no one who is not willing to write himself down a Roman Catholic, presume to quote with approval the writings of Clement of Alexandria.FACC 183.2

    Larger font
    Smaller font