| << | Contents | >> |
Clement of Alexandria
(Gentlemen of the Jury, cap. ii. p. 485.)
This strange rendering of ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταὶ (which we were taught to translate O judices, in our school-days) occurs three times on this page, and I felt bound to retain it. But why import such an anachronism into the author’s work, and the forensic eloquence of the Athenians? Better do violence to idiom, like our English Bible (“men and brethren”), and say, O men and judges. Why not judges? See Sharon Turner (Anglo-Saxons, i. p. 476) and Freeman (Norman Conquest, v. p. 451).
(Aristobulus, cap. iii. p. 487,note 7.)
In addition to the note in loc., it may be well to mention the Stromata (book i. cap. xv. p. 316), as another place where this name occurs. The learned Calmet (Works, tom. ix. p. 121), in his Dict. Critic., has a valuable statement as to the difficulties connected with this name and the probability that there were two so called, who have been confused in the citations and references of authors.
(Egyptians, cap. iv. p. 488.)
The paradoxical genius of Warburton ought not to dissuade us from enjoying the amusement and instruction to be found in his Divine Legation. In many respects he reminds me of this great Alexandrian Father, and they are worthy of being studied together. Let me instance, in connection with this subject, the second book, e. g. p. 151, on Metempsychosis (Hurd’s Edition, vol. ii. 1811).
<page 521>
(Egyptian Women, book vi. cap. iv. p. 488.)
“Last, about women,” says our author; and one would infer least. But Rawlinson (Herod., vol. ii. p. 47, ed. New York) has a long and learned note on this subject. “Queens made offerings with the kings, and the monuments show that an order of women were employed in the service of the gods.” … Then he says, “A sort of monastic institution seems to have originated in Egypt at an early time, and to have been imitated afterwards, when the real conventual system was set on foot by the Christians, in the same country.” This may be worthy of being borne in mind, when we come to the cœnobitic life of the Thebaid, which lies, indeed, beyond the limits of our ante-Nicene researches. But persecution had already driven Christians to the desert; and the ascetic type of piety, with which the age and its necessities imprinted the souls of many devout women, may have led them at a very early period to the “imitation” of which Rawlinson speaks. The “widows” recognised by the ante-Nicene canons, would naturally become the founders of “widows’ houses,” such as are to be seen among the pious Moravians in our times. (See Bunsen, Hippol., iii. p. 81.)
(Philosophy, cap. vii. p. 493.)
In justice to Clement’s eulogies of philosophy, we must constantly bear in mind his reiterated definitions. We have here a very important outline of his Christian Eclecticism, which, so far from clashing with St. Paul’s scornful references to Gentile wisdom, seems to me in absolute correspondence with his reference to “science falsely so called” (1 Tim. vi. 20). So, when the apostle identifies philosophy with “the rudiments of the world,” he adds, “and not after Christ.” Now, Clement’s eclectic system yokes all true philosophy to the chariot-wheels of the Messiah, as in this instance; making all true science hinge upon “the knowledge of the Son of God.” How these chapters shine in contrast even with Plato.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0001 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page