See Keferstein, Philo's Lehn v. </. gottl. Mittelwesen (Leips. 1846) : Niednef, /'< \i>-,i;> <ij>ii<I Philonem (in the Zeitschr.f. hist. Theol. L849);( ilarke's Coram, ad Ioc.Joh.; Bryant, PhUo Judceus (Cambr. L797,8vo). SeeLooos.
III. Christianity in Contact with Ancient Philosophy. — The only direct trace of the contact of Christianity with Western philosophy in the N. T. is in the account of Paul's visit to Athens, where "certain philosophers of the Epicureans and of the Stoics" (Acts xvii, 18) the representatives, that is. of the two great moral schools which divided the West — (i encountered him;'' and there is nothing in the apostolic writings to show that it exercised any important influence upon the early Church (comp. 1 Cor. i. 22 24). lint it was otherwise with Eastern speculation, which, as it was less scientific in form, penetrated more deeply through the mass of the people. The -philosophy" against which the Co- lossians were warned (Col. ii. 8) seems undoubtedly to have been of Eastern origin, containing elements simi- lar to those which were afterwards embodied in various Shapes of gnosticism, as a sellish asceticism and a su- perstitious reverence lor angels (ver. 16 23), and in the Epistles to Timothy, addressed to Ephesus, in which city Paul anticipated the rise of false teaching (Acts -\x, .'Hi), two distinct forms of error may be traccl. in addition to Judaism, due more or less to t he same influ- ence. < in' ,,| these was a vain spiritualism, insisting on ascetic observances, and interpreting the resurrection as a moral change (1 Tim. iv, 1 7: 2 Tim. ii, 16-18) ; the other a materialism allied to sorcery el Tim. iii. 13, yo- I in I, 'liner i- that which is peculiarly •• false- styled gnosis" 1 1 Tim. vi, 20), abounding in "profane and old wives' fables" (iv, 7i and empty discussions (i. 6; vi, 20) ; the latter has a close connection with ear- lier tendencies at Ephesus(Acts \i\. 19), and with the traditional accounts of Simon Magus (comp. viii, 9), whose working on the early Church, however obscure, was unquestionably most important. Thesi nistic and yet complementary forms of heresy found a wide development in later times: but it is remarkable that no trace of dualism, of the distinction of the Crea- tor and the Redeemer, the Demiurge and the true Cod. which formed bo essential a tenet of the Gnostic schools.
occurs in the N. T. ( comp. Thiersch. VtrSUch 'Mr Her-
steUung </. hist. Standpunktes, etc.. p. 281 804).
The writings of the Bub-apostolic age, with the ex- ception of the famous anecdote of Justin Martyr | Dial.
■J 4), throw little light upon the relations of Christian- ity and philosophy. The heretical systems again are too "Ic urc and complicated t" illustrate' more than the general admixture of foreign (especially Eastern I tenets with the apostolic teaching. One book, however, has been preserved in various shapes, which, though -till unaccountably neglected in Church histories, contains a vivid delineation of the .speculative struggle which Christianity had to maintain with Judaism and hea- thenism, flie Clementine llnmilli .< ted. Dressel, 1853) and Recognitions (ed. < iersdorf, 1838 | are a kind of phi- losophy of religion, and in subtlety and richness of thought yield to no early Christian writings, flic pict- ure which I he supposed author draws of hi- early relig- ion- doubts is evidently taken from life (Clem. Recogn. i. l 3; Xeauder. i'h. Ili.<t. i. 1.;. EngL transl.); and in tin- discussions which follow there are clear traces "I
| Western as well a- Eastern philosophy (Uhlhorn,Die Horn. a. Recogn. -/. Clem. limn. p. 104, etc.).
At the close of the 2d century, when the Church of Alexandria came into marked intellectual pre-eminence, the mutual influence of Christianity and Neo-Platonism opened a new field of speculation, or. rather, the two systems were presented in forms designed to meet the acknowledged wants of the time. According to the commonly received report. Origen was the scholar of Ammonius Sacra-, who first gave consistency to the
I later Platonism, and for a long time he was the c tem- porary of Plotinus (A.D. 205 'J7in. who was it- noblest expositor. Neo-Platonisra was. in fad. an attempt to seize the spirit of Christianity, apart from its historic basis and human elements. The separation between the two was absolute; and yet the splendor of the one- sided spiritualism of the Neo-Platonists attracted in some cases the admiration of the Christian fathers (Ba- sil. Theodoret I, and the wide circulation of the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius the Areopai;ite served to prop- agate many of their doctrines under an orthodox name among the schoolmen and mystics of the Middle Ages i Vogt, A'. u-Platonismus u. < lirisU nthum, 1836 ; Herzog, Encyklop. s. v. Neu-Platonismus). See Neo-Plato-
M-M.
The want which the Alexandrian fathers endeavored to satisfy is in a great measure the want of our own time. If Christianity be truth, it must have points of special connection with all nations and all periods. The difference of character in the constituent writings of the X. T. are e\ idenily typical, and present the Gospel in a form (if technical language may be used) now ethical, now logical, now mystical. 'flic varieties of aspect thus indicated combine to give the idea of a harmonious whole. Clement rightly maintained that there is a ••gnosis" in Christianity distinct from the errors of gnosticism. The latter was a premature attempt to connect the Gospel with earlier systems; the former a result of conflict grounded on faith (Mbhler, Patrologie, p. 424, etc.). Christian philosophy may be in one sense