first principles of Christianity; but this is a widely different thing from the preparation of men to preach the gospel, as it embraced only a course of instruction to candidates for baptism. It is not till some time in the latter half of the second century, that any distinct evidence is found, in ancient writers, of men who were trained for preachers in schools established for the purpose. This higher kind of school may have grown out of the other or have been reared on its foundation, and retained the same name; just as the Theological Seminary here has arisen on the foundation of the original school, Phillips Academy.

And, indeed, as in this modern case, so in the ancient one at Alexandria, we have no reason to suppose that the institution ceased to contain a department for inferior branches, when it became a school of theology; for we learn from Eusebius, (VI. 3, 4, 15,) that catechumens and such as were just baptized, vtoporiorol, were found among the scholars of Origen, and were at first taught by him the elements of Christianity, but afterwards committed to his assistant, Heraclas. It is also manifest that christian youth were taught in this school. Eusebius (VI. 6) speaks of Origen when a boy as being taught here by Clement.

It is not easy to determine the precise date of the seminary at Alexandria. There is a degree of probability that it was a resort for theological students under Athenagoras as early as the year 160; but possibly, not till the time of Pantaenus, about 181. In all probability, as a theological seminary, it arose gradually from small beginnings, not being endowed with funds or established by any public act of authority. If we suppose Athenagoras to have been at first employed as a teacher of catechumens, and to have begun by degrees to discharge the higher office of instructing such students in divinity as might desire his aid; and that thus the inferior school gradually assumed the higher character, we shall probably come as nigh the truth as it is possible to ascertain it, from the scanty and apparently conflicting accounts that are left us. But more of this in the sequel. Thus much is certain, that the seminary was in successful operation, as a divinity school, under Pantaenus, near the close of the second century.

This school at Alexandria was also the first of the kind, and the most important. Others were soon formed on the same

model at Caesarea, Antioch, Edessa, etc.

As to the time and manner of its termination, about the same

degree of doubt is left in the writings of the fathers, as in the case of its origin; and probably from the same cause. As it seems gradually to have arisen from a mere school of catechumens, so we are left to conclude that it as gradually subsided into the same inferior grade; for we hear no more of it as a divinity school, after the time of Theodosius the Great, A. D. S95, when Rhodo left it. We may then consider the period of its duration as a little more than two hundred years, viz. from about A. D. 160 to 395.

Occasion and Object of its Existence.

During the apostolic age, God appears to have granted special aid and a special commission to those whom he would put into the ministry of his word, by the gift of tongues, and perhaps by other miraculous qualifications. How long such gifts were continued to the church, we know not; but we may reasonably conclude from history and the analogy of divine providence, that they were gradually withdrawn, as the exigency subsided. Thus left by degrees to train her own teachers, the church soon began to feel her need of the regular means. She found her self assailed from without by all the learning and subtlety of heathen philosophy and Jewish envy; and from within, by a swarming host of heretics. To meet the power and craft of such assailants, learning and skill, as well as glowing piety, were demanded. And these could better be imparted by men who should devote their whole time to the work of instruction, than by those whose chief occupation was preaching.

It is likewise supposed by some, that the Christians were induced to emulate the example of heathen philosophers, in the establishment of schools in which the true philosophy from heaven might be taught, instead of what treated of heathen Gods; and especially in the city of Alexandria, where a splendid heathen establishment was then flourishing.2--Thus much for the occasion which called this and kindred seminaries into being.

The object of the institution, requires a few remarks in addition to what is implied in the preceding. The ultimate de

1 Guerike, Part I. p. 118.

2 See Guerike, Part I. p. 11.

sign was, to prepare men for the ministry. But to this end, a course of training in grammar, logic, languages, philosophy, etc. was pursued. The Christians were not then in possession of inferior seminaries in which the requisite acquisitions in literature and science could be gained. But to what extent such branches of secular knowledge were pursued in this school, we are not informed. This, however, is certain, that some of the most distinguished teachers of the school, were extremely fond of such studies, and regarded them as of the highest importance to the christian student. Origen, as appears from a passage in his letter to Gregory Thaumaturgus, regarded philosophy as a highly important preparative and aid to christian doctrine.2 Clement also, in many places,3 commends the Grecian philosophy as fitted to clear the way and prepare the soul for the reception of the faith. Both he and Origen, and also Athenagoras, were deeply versed in secular knowledge, as their writings amply testify. The same was doubtless true in general of the other teachers, as is implied in what Rufinus says of Didymus, (II. 7,) viz. "He attained to such learning and knowledge in divine and human things, as to become a teacher in the ecclesiastical school." Such knowledge was therefore requisite for the office. And we have proofs enough that it was employed in their course of teaching, by these enthusiastic lovers of human as well as divine learning.4

It may be proper here to make a few remarks on the

Management of the School.

From the scanty materials on this topic, the following may be gleaned as the most probable facts.

The government was chiefly in the hands of one man, as rector or prefect, who was also the principal teacher in the higher branches. Thus Origen, as before stated, at an early period taught catechumens and such as had recently been admitted to the church by baptism; but at a subsequent period, he committed this inferior branch of instruction to Heraclas

1 Guerike, Part I. p. 104 and seq.
3 Strom. I. Guer. P.I. p. 105.

2 See Guerike, PartI. p. 106.
4 Guer. See P. I.
p. 107.

whom he appointed as his assistant. In proof of there being one head, or rector, it is urged by Guerike,' that this position appears to be implied by the uniform language of the fathers when speaking of the school. They every where speak of a single man as being master of it for the time. Thus Eusebius speaks of Pantaenus, Clement, Origen, Heraclas, etc.2 Philip Sidetes also gives a catalogue of these rectors. But while one was always principal of the school, he not unfrequently had at least one associate, and perhaps an assistant besides. How many associates and assistants were employed, cannot be determined, as it is only from incidental remarks here and there in the early writers, that we come to know of any. In one instance, in time of persecution under Severus, we learn that Origen was left with the sole charge. We are not warranted to conclude that there were, at any one time, more than three teachers, including the principal; not often more than two; and frequently, but one.

3

To the rector, with his coadjutors, was doubtless committed the general management of the seminary. This we may infer from the nature of the case, and from the fact that the school flourished; for no seminary, of whatever kind, can prosper where the management is not chiefly confided to the teachers.

5

But while such was evidently the fact, it still appears that the bishop of Alexandria exercised some kind of general supervision over the school and its teachers. For when Pantaenus and Clement were driven away by persecution, A. D. 203, Demetrius, the bishop, appointed Origen to the sole charge of the school.4 On other occasions, he exhorted Origen to diligence in his work of catechising. He was also applied to by the governor of Arabia to send Origen to teach him the principles of Christianity, with which request he complied. And again, when Origen was too long detained in Palestine, Demetrius recalled him by letters and messengers; and at a later period, he excommunicated this catechist. In a subsequent age, Didymus was approved of by bishop Athenasius and other wise men, as a teach

6

1 Part I. p. 109. et. seq.

3 Euseb. VI. 3.

5 Euseb. VI. 8. 14.

2 Euseb. VI. 6. 26.

4 Euseb. VI. 3. Hieron. c. 54.

6 Euseb. VI. 19. 26.

er in this school. The fact hitherto has not been disputed, so far as I can learn, that the seminary was under the supervision of the bishop of Alexandria; but on this point I may have some further remarks to make in connexion with facts to be adduced in the sequel. I will barely add, in this place, that from the last cited authority, we may perhaps equally conclude that "other wise men" besides the bishop, were concerned in the supervision; and that we know but little of the nature and extent of this authority, supposed thus to have been exercised, or whether any rules were prescribed by the higher authority for conducting the affairs of the seminary, or whether any particular course of studies was marked out.

We now turn to another question, viz.

Why did the first seminary rise and flourish at Alexandria, rather than elsewhere?

A brief discussion of this point, will subserve a higher purpose to our general object, than the mere gratification of curiosity. The facts brought to view, will present sources of influence which could not fail materially to modify the school itself, and make it what in fact it became. Considering the influence which the place must have had on the seminary, it is obvious that any account of the latter must be very imperfect, without some notice of the moral causes that were in operation in the city itself.

Alexandria, situated at the western angle of the Delta of Egypt, in latitude 31° 11' N. was built by Alexander the Great, 332 B. C. Designing it as the capital of his mighty empire, and connecting with it the glory of his own name, he spared neither toil nor expense in its erection. The Ptolemies followed up his plan, and in the genuine spirit of Greeks, as they were by descent, they successfully strove to add literary glory to the commercial renown of their capital. In pursuance of this plan, philosophers and sages of every land and every sect, were invited to make it their abode. Its propitious location for commercial and other intercourse between the two great portions of the ancient world, the East and the West, was greatly conducive to the purpose of rendering it the emporium of literature as well as of commerce. Such it became. In its most flourishing period, it is supposed to have contained not less than 300,000 in

1 Rufinus, II. 7.