Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Elucidation. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Elucidation.
————————————
If anything could be more
dreary than the Manichæan heresy itself, it may be questioned
whether it be not the various views that have been entertained
concerning our author. I have often remarked the condensation of
valuable information given by Dr. Murdock in his notes upon Mosheim,
but he fails to get in the half that needs to be noted.2207
2207
Mosheim, E. H., vol. i. p 383, note 5, Murdock’s
edition, New York, 1844. His references to Lardner in this case
do not accord with my copy. | He tells
us that “Alexander of Lycopolis flourished probably about
a.d. 350.” He adds,
“Fabricius supposes that he was first a Pagan and a Manichee, and
afterwards a Catholic Christian. Cave is of the same
opinion. Beausobre thinks he was a mere pagan.2208
2208
Histoire des Manichéens (Lardner’s reference), pp.
236–237. | Lardner
thinks he was a Gentile, but well acquainted with the Manichees and
other Christians,2209
2209
Credib., vol. vii. p. 574, ed. London, 1829. | and that he
had some knowledge of the Old and New Testaments, to which he
occasionally refers. He speaks with respect of Christ and
the Christian philosophy, and appears to have been “a learned and
candid man.” Of an eminent Christian bishop, all this seems
very puzzling; and I feel it a sort of duty to the youthful student to
give the statements of the learned Lardner in an abridged form, with
such references to the preceding pages as may serve in place of a
series of elucidations.
According to this invaluable critic, the learned
are not able to agree concerning Alexander. Some think he
was a Christian, others believe that he was a heathen. Fabricius,
who places him in the fourth century, holds to this latter
opinion;2210
2210
Lardner’s reference is: Bib. G., lib. v. c. 1,
tom. 5, p. 290. | all which agrees
with our Cave.2211
2211 Long
extract from Cave ubi supra. He quotes the Latin of
Cave’s Diss. on Writers of Uncertain Date. | Photius
makes him Archbishop of Nicopolis.2212
2212
Lardner’s reference is to Photius, Contra Manich.,
i. cap. 11. | Tillemont thinks2213
2213
Lardner quotes from the Hist. des Manich., art. 16.,
Mémoires, etc., tom. iv. | he was a pagan philosopher, who wrote to
persuade his friends to prefer “the doctrine of the
churches” to that of Manes. Combefis, his editor,2214
2214
Reference defective. See Lardner, Credib., vol. iii.
269. Here will be found (p. 252) a learned examination of
Archelaus, and what amounts to a treatise on these
Manichæans. | thinks him very
ancient, because he appears to have learned the principles of this
heresy from the immediate disciples of the heretic.
Beausobre,2215
2215 For
Beausobre’s summary of Alexander’s deficiencies, see
condensed statement in Lardner, vol. iii. p. 575. | the standard
authority, is of like opinion, and Mosheim approves his
reasoning.
Nothing in his work, according to Lardner, proves that
our author wrote near the beginning of the fourth century, and he
decides upon the middle of that century as his epoch.
Alexander gives a very honourable character to the
genuine Christian philosophy, and asserts its adaptation to the common
people, and, indeed, to all sorts of men.2216
2216 Cap.
i. p. 241, supra. A beautiful exordium. A
recent writer, speaking of Potamiæna and Herais, virgin martyrs,
and catechumens of Origen, remarks, that “the number of young
women of high character who appreciated the teachings of this great
master, many of whom were employed as copyists of his works, is
creditable to the state of Christian society at that period”
(Mahan, Church Hist., p. 237). It was to avoid scandal as
well as temptation in his relations with these that he fell into his
heroic mistake. | He certainly is not mute as to
Christ. His tribute to the Saviour is, if not affectionate, yet a
just award to Him.2217
2217 Cap.
xxiv. p. 251, supra. Who can imagine that the author of
this chapter is not a Christian? Observe what he says of
“the Word.” | By the “council of all
together,” he intends the College of the Apostles,2218 made up of
fishermen and publicans and tent-makers, in which he sees a design of
the blessed Jesus to meet this class, and, in short, all classes.
It is clear enough that Alexander has some knowledge of Christ, some
knowledge of the received doctrine of the churches,2219 or orthodox Christians; and he appears to
blame the Manichees for not receiving the Scripture of the Old
Testament.2220
He argues against their absurd opinion that Christ
was “Mind;”2221
also that, though crucified, He did not suffer:2222 and he affirms2223 that it would be more reasonable to
say, agreeably to the ecclesiastical doctrine, that “He gave
Himself for the remission of sins.” He refers to the
sacrifice of Isaac,2224 and to the story of Cain and
Abel;2225
2225 Note
the reference to the Old and New Testaments entire, p. 243,
supra. | also to the
mysterious subject of the angels and the daughters of men.2226
2226 Cap.
xxv. p. 252, supra. | Like an
Alexandrian theologian, he expounds this, however, against the literal
sense, as an allegory.
My reader will be somewhat amused with the terse
summing-up of Lardner: “I am rather inclined to think he
was a Gentile.…He was evidently a learned and rational man.
His observations concerning the Christian philosophy deserve particular
notice. To me this work of Alexander appears very
curious.” E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|