conjecture; and even Guerike himself supposes, that Pantaenus and Clement received nothing except perhaps the gifts of their students; and even these, when the school fell into Origen's hands, he declined; for Eusebius informs us that he sold his books and subsisted on the avails at the rate of four oboli a day, rather than be beholden to those about him.1 At that time, it is manifest there was no public stipend. And as to the conjecture of any having been provided when the church grew richer, it manifestly rests on the assumption, that the school had become a public institution, which is the very point I am calling in question, and which wants proof. We may say, that it ought to have been publicly endowed at this period, in so large a city and amid so much wealth of bishops and others. And so, it seems, thought Cassiodorus respecting his proposed endowment of such a school at Rome three hundred years after, and amid immensely greater wealth of the church.

As a further point of resemblance to a more private establishment, I remark, that the principals appear to have appointed their own assistants; and that without perhaps even consulting the bishop. It was thus, as appears from Eusebius, that Origen appointed Heraclas as his assistant in the lower branches of the school. All this is perfectly consistent with the views before given of the general superintendence of the bishop. Supposing the school a mere private establishment, yet as it was of great public importance to the church, the bishop might well consider it his duty to look after its interests, to see that it was continued by a succession of teachers, and to use all his influence in promoting its prosperity and urging the teachers to the faithful discharge of their duty. A common parish minister, at the present day, would do no less with respect to an important though private school among his people. It may be further remarked, that the direct authority which the bishop of Alexandria exercised over the teachers, appears to have been in his assumed capacity of bishop over his presbyters, rather than as governor of the school. It was thus that he excommunicated Origen; which he did after Origen had voluntarily resigned his charge of the school and retired to Cæsarea. Still, we may well suppose a bishop, in those days of increasing arrogance, to have conducted himself with an air of authority towards this school, as towards 1 Euseb. VI. 3. 2 Euseb. VI. 15. 3 See note by Valesius to Euseb. VI. 26.

every thing pertaining to religion, which would ill comport with primitive simplicity and with our present views of clerical propriety; and yet this would not prove the school to have been of a public nature.

The Influence of the School and the number of its Pupils.

These may be conjectured from the nature of the case, and from incidental notices in the works of the fathers.

The men at the head of it were generally renowned for talents and learning. Some of them, as Origen, acquired fame among the heathen as well as among Christians. They were among the most able men and conspicuous writers of their times, and exerted an almost boundless influence by their compositions, as well as by their direct efforts in the school.

As to the number of pupils, Eusebius frequently makes such allusions as to imply that they were very numerous. He says, for instance, of Origen, that "so many flocked to him that he had scarcely time to breathe, one company after another coming from morning to evening, to his school."2 Many of the scholars were also distinguished for their proficiency, as it is recorded of some of the most conspicuous men in the eastern church at that period, that they studied under these preceptors. We may therefore regard as well founded the lively remark of Hospinian,3 that multitudes, renowned for learning and piety, issued forth from the school, as from the Trojan horse, and applied themselves to the blessed work of the Lord in the churches of the East.

That the school was in high repute and exerted an extensive influence, is amply apparent from the manner in which the fathers everywhere speak of it, as well as from the frequency with which it is mentioned. Eusebius calls it, the school of the faithful, ἡ τῶν πιστῶν διατριβή, and διδασκαλεῖον τῶν ἱερῶν Aoyov, the school of sacred science, "which (he adds) we are informed, is furnished with men who are very able scholars, and industrious in divine things." He also gives it a variety of other designations, as τὸ τῆς κατηχήσεως διδασκαλεῖον, ἡ τοῦ 1 Euseb. VI. 19. 2 Euseb. VI. 15.

3 Quoted by Guer. I. p. 107.

1834.] Its influence, numbers, designation, and teachers. 23

κατηχεῖν διατριβή. Sozomen calls it τὸ ἱερὸν διδασκαλεῖον τῶν ἱερῶν μαθηματῶν. Jerome calls it ecclesiastica schola. Nicephorus, θεῖα διατριβή, ἱερὸν διδασκαλεῖον, and ἱερὰ διετριβή.

It may not be out of place here to inquire, Why the school was denominated catechetical? The answer to this query may give us some clue to the mode of teaching.

I observe, then, that xarnɣew signifies to sound in the ears of any one, to give oral instruction. Hence, xaτnnτns, a catechist, as the teachers of this school were severally called; and hence, too, zaτnnois, instruction, especially in the first elements, and as delivered viva voce. With great propriety might the primeval schools among Christians for the instruction of converts and children in the first elements of sacred knowledge, be denominated catechetical schools, the instruction being doubtless chiefly oral. Such was originally the school at Alexandria, as we have already seen. Now, as it appears to have changed its character gradually, it might very naturally retain its primitive designation; especially if we suppose the oral mode of teaching, which is particularly indicated by the term, to have been still continued. And this supposition is by no means an improbable one, as we have no evidence of a change in this particular.

We may then, without violence to existing evidence, imagine these venerable teachers, seated in the midst of their pupils "from morning to evening" as they thronged around them in successive classes, and thus giving instruction, not in stiff and formal lectures coldly read from a manuscript, but with all the life and delight and ample illustrations of familiar conversation. And if so, what modern lecturer would not envy them their station? and what pupil would not crave a seat in this assemblage of ancient and paternal simplicity?

We come now to a still more important inquiry.

By whom was the School taught?

Who were these christian sages, that thus spent their lives in training preachers of the gospel? Some answer to this question

1 Euseb. V. 10. VI. 3.

Niceph. IV. 32.

2 Euseb. VI. 15.

Sozo. III. 15. Hieron. Catal. c. 38.

is indispensable to the completeness of our plan; but the answer shall be as brief as the nature of the case will admit. After a notice of the lives of the catechists, we shall proceed to consider the doctrines which they taught.

And here, at the outset, for the sake of perspicuity, I will present the tabular view of these teachers, as drawn up by Guerike, with some trifling variations in the notation.

This sign denotes probability as regards the dates and the persons to which it is affixed. Parts of years could not be conveniently noted with accuracy in this table.

The cross denotes doubt.

ATHENAGORAS.

Though placed at the head of this catalogue, very little is known of his history; and it remains a doubtful question whether he was ever a teacher in this school. None of the more early fathers either assert or deny the fact. Philip Sidetes, a loose but learned and voluminous writer of "Christian History," and who flourished in the time of Theodosius the Great, is the only author who mentions Athenagoras as one who presided over this school. This historian, though not worthy of much credit, may perhaps be believed in this particular, as he was himself a pupil of one of the Alexandrian catechists, and as he could have no perceivable motive to falsify in this particular.2 He asserts, that "Athenagoras was the first who presided over the school in Alexandria." Guerike (in the passages above referred to) has clearly shown, that this assertion cannot be refuted, though some passages from the fathers, imperfectly understood, have been adduced to prove Pantaenus to have been the founder. The probability, as may be inferred from what I have before stated, is, that neither was, in the strict sense of the term, the founder of the school; but that it had been in existence, in its inferior character as a school for catechumens, perhaps even from the days of St. Mark. Under Athenagoras, it may have begun to assume the higher character of a theological seminary, which it afterwards more fully acquired under Pantaenus. Hence Pantaenus, being the first teacher of any great celebrity, is frequently mentioned; while none but Philip takes any notice of Athenagoras in this capacity.

Mosheim and the great majority of writers on the subject, espouse the opinion, that Athenagoras was one of the catechists in this school. Supposing him to have had the charge of the school, it still remains a question, when and how long he presided. Philip speaks of him as having flourished under the reigns of Adrian and Antoninus Pius; but Mosheim proves that it must have been at a later period, from the fact that his apology was composed in the time of Aurelius. Guerike, therefore, with the highest degree of probability, places the period in the latter half of the second century, from about the year 160 to

181.

1 See Socrates, VII. 27.

3 P. I. p. 22.

VOL. IV. No. 13.

2 See Guer. P. I. pp. 4. 19.

4