I happened to come upon the writings of a certain William Goode, an Anglican clergymen and fierce evangelical, who, in the course of disputing those who promoted typically erroneous views of the beliefs and practices of the gnostics touched upon the question of the gospel of Clement of Alexandria. I have read his rather lengthy entry on Clement of Alexandria in his The Divine Rule Of Faith And Practice, Or, A Defence Of The Catholic Doctrine That Holy Scripture Has Been, Since The Times Of The Apostles and have come to the conclusion that it stands as the best paper ever written on the subject of whether Clement of Alexandria's writings can be interpreted to witness the existence of a 'secret gospel' like that mentioned in the Letter to Theodore - this, not withstanding the fact that the book itself was written 110 years before Morton Smith's discovery of the MS.
For whatever reason, the debate over the authenticity of this letter discovered written in the blank pages of a book found in the Mar Saba monastery, never engages the question of whether or not Clement is the likely author of the text. While Goode clearly has no idea that such a text would be discovered years later, he lays out what can be viewed as a case for the existence of such a document at the time Clement was active.
The Dictionary of National Biography describes the book as follows - 'The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice,' 2 vols 1848 8vo, and again revised and enlarged in 3 vols. 1853, 8vo. This is an 'expansion of Chillingworth's doctrine that the Bible alone is the religion of protestants,' supported by a systematic collection of church authorities, and is perhaps the most learned exposition of distinctively evangelical theology."
Without getting to deeply into the overarching thesis of the work, Goode successfully demonstrates that while it is impossible to deny that Clement is indeed a Gnostic and perfectly embodies the 'secret system' ascribed to contemporary heretics by writers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian, it would be a complete misunderstanding to infer that Clement did not strictly employ a canon of writings from which his unique opinions developed. Indeed Goode clearly assumes that Clement deliberate hid from his readership a gospel text or some body of apostolic writings which was used as the foundation of all his highly unusual opinions. Here then is Goode's original narrative:
Clement of Alexandria (fl. a 192)
We come to Clement of Alexandria, one of the most learned of the early Fathers whose remains are extant, but one whose works, valuable as they are, exhibit strong traces of feelings and habits of thought derived more from human philosophy than fron divine revelation.(cf. Strom. 1)
In entering upon a review of his opinions on the subject before us, we have at once to remark his advocacy of a notion somewhat similar to that of our opponents, and which might by an incautious reader be confounded with it, but which nevertheless is far from being the same, and moreover is one almost peculiar to himself, of the Fathers yet extant. It was his opinion, then, as we learn from Eusebius, that "the Lord, after his resurrection, conferred the gift of knowledge upon James the Just, John and Peter, which they delivered to the rest of the Apostles, and those to the seventy disciples."(Euseb. HE 3.1) And in the first Book of his Stromata, he says that the teachers from whom he had learned the Christian doctrine, "preserved the true tradition of the blessed Gospel as delivered by Peter, and James, and John, and Paul, the holy Apostles, having received it in succession the son from his father, though few are like the fathers ; and at length, by God's help, are depositing with us those seeds received from their forefathers and the apostles."(Strom. 1) A knowledge of this tradition he considers to be necessary to constitute a perfect Christian, whom he calls a Gnostic, distinguishing him from the ordinary Christian, whom he speaks of as having only common faith.(Strom. 5)
This "Gnostic tradition," however, as he frequently calls it,(Strom 4) was not intended for Christians in general. The Lord, he tells us, "permitted the Divine mysteries and the holy light to be communicated to those who were capable of receiving them. He did not immediately reveal them to many, because they were not adapted to many, but to a few, to whom he knew them to be adapted, and who were both able to receive them and to be conformed to them. Secret things, like God, are entrusted to speech and not to writing."(Strom. 1)
And hence he exhorts the Gnostic, "Be cautious in the use of the word, lest any one who has fallen in with the knowledge taught by you, and is unable to receive the truth, should disobey and be ensnared by it; and to those who come without understanding, shut the fountain, whose waters are in the deep, but give drink to those who are athirst for truth. Conceal, therefore, this fountain from those who are not able to receive the profundity of the knowledge. The Gnostic, who is master of this fountain, will himself suffer punishment, if he gives occasion to one who as yet is only conversant with little things of taking offence, and of being swallowed up as it were by the greatness of his discourse, or if he transfers one who is only an operative to speculation, and leads him away by occasion of a momentary faith [which has no solid grounds in his mind to rest upon]."(Strom. 5)
Of this tradition Clement professes to give in his Stromata some account, though not of the whole of it, concealing some part intentionally, as too profound for common ears, and delivering the rest so that a common reader would not understand its full Gnostic sense,(Strom. 1) and, moreover, acknowledging that some part of what had been delivered to him had escaped his recollection, not being committed to writing and other parts partially obliterated by the lapse of time, a tolerably good proof of the insufficiency of oral tradition for the conveyance of truth. But we will quote his own words.
After stating that he is about to deliver the tradition which he had been taught by his Christian instructors, he adds, — "But I well know that many things have escaped us, having by the length of time fallen from my recollection, being unwritten, whence, in order to assist the weakness of my memory, and supply myself with a systematic exposition of the principal points, as a useful record for keeping for keeping them in remembrance, I have found it necessary to use this delineation of them. There are indeed some things which I do not recollect, for there was in those blessed men great power. And there are some things which remained unnoted for some time, and which have now escaped me; and some things are nearly obliterated from my memory, perishing in my own mind, since such a service is not easy to those who are not experienced. But reviving the recollection of these things in my writings, I purposely omit some things, making a prudent choice, fearing to write what I even speak with caution and reserve ; not in the spirit of envy, for that would be unjust, but fearing for my readers, lest by any means they should otherwise be made to fall, and we should be found putting, as those who speak in proverbs say, a sword into the hands of a child."(Strom. 1)
Now certainly our opponents have here a patron not only of oral tradition, but also of "reserve in the communication of religious knowledge," but, unfortunately for their cause, not the sort of tradition for which they are contending. The notion of this Gnostic tradition delivered only by our Lord to three or four of the Apostles, and disclosing certain hidden meanings of the truths and doctrines of Christianity not intended for Christians in general, is one of which Clement is, of those whose writings remain to us, almost the only supporter.
Nay, his statements on this point are directly opposed to those of Irenseus and Tertullian, who both inveigh strongly against any such notion. The former speaks of it as a tenet of the Carpocratian heretics, who, he tells us, 'said that Jesus spoke some things privately in a mysterious manner to his disciples and commanded them to deliver those things to those that were worthy and obedient.'(Irenaeus AH 1) And he says, "That Paul taught plainly what he knew, not only to his companions, but to all who heard him, he himself manifests. . For in Miletus the bishops and presbyters being assembled, ... he says, ' I have not shunned to declare to the whole counsel of God.' Thus the Apostles plainly and willingly delivered to all those things which they had themselves learned from the Lord."(ibid AH 3) And again, he says, "The doctrine of the Apostles is manifest and firm, and conceals nothing, and is not that of men who teach one thing in secret and another openly. For this is the contrivance of counterfeits, and seducers, and hypocrites, as the Valentinians do."(ibid AH 3.15)
And thus Tertullian; — "All the sayings of the Lord are proposed to all."(Praescript. 8) And he accuses those of "madness" who "think that the Apostles did not reveal all things to all, but that they committed some things openly to all, without exception, and some secretly to a few."(ibid 25)
Most justly, therefore, is this notion of Clement, as to a secret tradition reserved for a few, pronounced by a learned prelate of our Church, who is referred to with approbation by our opponents to be "destitute of solid foundation."(cf. Bishop of Lincoln's account of Clement)
And the reserve recommended, is a reserve only in communicating this Gnostic tradition, not in preaching the great doctrines of Christianity ; and one which even to this limited extent is entirely opposed, as we have shown, to the views of Irenaeus and Tertullian.
At any rate, as this Gnostic tradition is confessedly delivered by Clement so that the uninitiated cannot avail themselves of it, his writings will not serve to show us its true nature; and unless our opponents can lay claim to the possession of the key which unlocks this treasure, his tradition, and his notions respecting it, are to us equally useless and inapplicable. The knowledge of the profundities of this mystic tradition is gone, and with it the applicability to any practical purpose of all that is said respecting it.
But, with this exception, he speaks agreeably to the view we have been attempting to establish, as I shall now proceed to show. For:
First, he acknowledges no divine informant but Scripture, and this supposed Gnostic tradition.
Secondly, with respect to the claims of Scripture, as the rule of faith, he speaks thus.
"He, therefore," he says, "who believes the divine Scriptures with a firm conviction, receives an incontrovertible demonstration, namely the voice of God, who gave the Scriptures."(Strom. 2)
Again; "But the just shall live by faith; that faith which is according to the Testament and the commandments; since these [Testaments], which are two as it respect name and time, having been given by a wise oeconomy, according to age and proficiency, are one in effect. Both the old and the new were given by one God, through the Son."(Strom. 2)
Again; "But since a happy life is set before us by the commandments, it behoves us all to follow it, not disobeying anything: that is said, nor lightly esteeming what is becoming, though of the most trifling nature, but following whithersoever the word may lead ; if we err from it, we must necessarily fall into endless evil. But they who follow the divine Scripture, by which believers walk, that they may become, as far as they can, like the Lord, ought not to live carelessly, but, &c."(Strom. 3)
Again, he tells us, that for those who, "for the benefit of their neighbours, betake themselves, some to writing, and others to the oral delivery of the word, while learning of another kind is useful, the perusal of the Dominical Scriptures is necessary for the proof of what they say."(Strom. 6)
And in the seventh book of his Stromata, replying to the objection of the heathen to Christianity, on the ground of its followers being divided into so many sects, he says, — "But when proof is being given, it is necessary to descend to the particular questions, and to learn demonstratively, from the Scriptures themselves, how, on the other, both the most perfect knowledge, and that which is in reality the best sect, are in the truth alone and the ancient Church."(Strom. 7)
Nor let it be supposed that by the words "the ancient Church," he says anything opposed to our view; for, by that phrase, he means the Church under the Apostles; as is evident, not only by the time when he wrote, but from his own words a little further on.(Strom. 7)
Again, he says, — "They who are willing to labour for the acquisition of those things which are of the greatest excellence, will not desist from their search for truth, before they have received a proof from the Scriptures themielves, persuade through faith demonstratively;"(Strom. 7)
and again; — "The truth is found . . . by confirming each of the things demonstrated by the Scriptures from like Scriptures."(Strom. 7)
And a little further on his language clearly shows that he appealed to the Scripture alone as the rule and judge of controversies, in disputing with those who differed from him, where he says, — "When we have overthrown them by by demonstrating that they are clearly opposed to the Scriptures, you will see the leaders of the doctrine opposed do one of two things ; for either they give up the consequence of their own doctrines or the prophecy itself, or rather their own hope."(Strom. 7)
"They," he says, "who do not follow God whithersoever he may lead them, fall away from that exalted state [which has been describing]; and God leads by the divinely-inspired Scriptures."(Strom. 7)
From these passages, I think it is evident it is evident that the Holy Scriptures were proposed by Clement, as the authoritative rule of faith and judge of controversies for all Christians, and to all but his Gnostic Christian, the sole and exclusive rule and judge.
Unless, then, our opponents are willing to contend for his notions about a Gnostic tradition, delivered to four of the apostles, and left as deposits with certain rabbies of the church for the benefit of a few mature Christians,(cf. Strom. 7) they will derive no benefit from Clement's testimony on this matter.
Moreover, notwithstanding his notions about a Gnostic tradition, it is evident that he considered it to be only an exposition of Scripture, and not as containing any additional doctrines or points of faith; for he says ; — "We offer that which cannot be contradicted, even that of which God is the author; and of each of those things which form the subject of our inquiries, he has taught us in the Scriptures."(Strom. 5)
And it is clear from many passages, that he considered the Gnostic tradition as only explanatory of Scripture, and not adding to it any new points of faith. Thus he says, when about to give a description of the Christian faith, "We shall bring testimonies from the Scriptures hereafter, in their proper places; hut we shall give what they deliver, and describe the Christian faith (or Christianity) in a summary way . . . and if what we say should appear to any of the vulgar contrary to the Dominical Scriptures, they must know that, from that source, they have their breath and life; and taking their origin from them, profess to give the sense only, not the words."(Strom. 5)
So, also, he intimates elsewhere, that the Gnostic tradition delivered only things "agreeable to the divinely-inspired oracles."(Strom. 7) And that "the Gnostic knows antient things and conjectures things to come, by the Scriptures."(Strom. 6)
Hence, he says, that "they who have only tasted the Scriptures are believers; but they who have advanced further are perfect indexes of the truth, namely, the Gnostics, as, in things pertaining to this life, those who understand things further are perfect indexes of the truth, namely, the Gnostics, as, in things pertaining to this life, those who understand any art possess something more than the ignorant, and produce that which is superior to the ideas of the vulgar."(Strom. 7)
It is evident, therefore, that, therefore, that (as the learned prelate already quoted has observed) "the same Scriptures were placed in the hands of Clement's Gnostic, and of the common believer; but he interpreted them on different principles he affixed to them a higher and more spiritual meaning. The same doctrines were proposed as the objects of his faith, but he explained them in a different manner; he discovered in them hidden meanings which are not discernable by the vulgar eye."[p. 225 - 235]
Appendix:
As to the perspicuity of Scripture, and its aptness to teach the faith, (with the exception, of course, of the mysticisms of his "Gnostic tradition,") he speaks thus; — "The divine oracles exhibiting to us most clearly the way to true religion, lay the foundations of the truth; and the divine Scriptures and wise institutions compendiously lead to salvation; destitute of ornament and external beauty of language, and words suited to captivate and allure, they rouse man suffocated by vice; strengthening us against the evils incident to human life, by one and the same word serving many purposes, turning us on the one hand from the delusion that would be injurious to us, and on the other clearly exhorting us to the salvation set before us.""(Exhort. p. 65)
Again; "The Apostle, knowing this doctrine to be truly divine, says, 'Thou, O Timothy, from a babe hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith in Christ.' For those Scriptures are truly holy which make men holy and even divine. The same Apostle consequently calls the writings or volumes composed of these sacred words and syllables, ' divinely inspired, profitable for doctrine. For reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; That the man of God may be perfect, Throughly furnished unto all good works."(ibid p. 71)
Again: "Hear ye who are far off, hear ye who are near; the word has not been concealed from any; it is a common light, and shines upon all men. No one is in darkness who knows the word. Let us hasten to obtain salvation, &c; where, though there may be a difference of opinion on the point, the context seems to me to. show that by the word he means the Scripture rather than the Logos." (ibid p. 76)
Again, he says, — "On this account the Scriptures were translated into the language of the heathen, that they might never be able to put forward the plea of ignorance, having it in their power to hear the truths of Christianity, if only they are willing. Truth interprets itself differently to what any man says respecting truth."(Strom. 1)
Again: "The Prophets have spoken to us according as we who are bound by flesh are able to hear, the Lord accommodating himself to the infirmity of men with a view to their salvation."(Strom. 2)
Again, referring to the "Shepherd" of Hermas, he says, that an observation of Hermas, that he had written the book given to him in a vision according to the letters, not knowing how to form the syllables, was intended to signify, "that the Scripture was clear to all taken according to the mere words, and that faith in it in that signification possessed the elements of the truth, and therefore it was allegorically called the literal reading; but we hold that the Gnostic exposition of the Scriptures, when faith advances, is likened to the syllabical reading."(Strom. 6)
And hence he says, in a passage quoted above, that "they who have tasted the Scriptures only are believers."
From which passages it is evident that he considered that the Scriptures alone were adapted to give at least sufficient instruction in the faith to make men good Christians, though he supposed them to need the impartation of his Gnostic tradition to lead them on to perfection, for "the Gnostic only," he tells us, "can understand and explain those things which are spoken obscurely by the Spirit."(Strom. 6)
And with respect to the obscurities of Scripture, he says that the Scriptures conceal their meaning on several accounts; first, that we may be diligent seekers and always on the watch to find out the words of salvation; moreover, it was not fit that all should know the meaning, lest, receiving what was savingly spoken by the Holy Spirit otherwise than was intended, they might be injured."Wherefore the holy mysteries of the prophecies preserved for the elect, and those who are through faith admitted to knowledge, are veiled in parables."(Strom. 6:15)
And, with the exception of his Gnostic tradition, he makes Scripture the interpreter of Scripture. Thus, in passages quoted above, he says, "We, giving perfect proof respecting the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, persuade through faith demonstratively," and again; — "The truth is found . . . by confirming each of the things demonstrated by the Scriptures from like Scriptures."(see above)
And he tells us that the Scriptures are to be expounded according to the ecclesiastical rule, (which he calls just before the rule of truth,) and that the "ecclesiastical rule is the consent and harmony of the Law and the Prophets with the Covenant delivered by the advent of our Lord."(see above)
And hence he speaks elsewhere of those who "explain the truth by showing the harmony of the Covenants (or, Testaments.)"
By which, and other passages,* it is evident how much Clement attributed to the interpretation of Scripture by itself."
The point of citing this study is not to argue that Goode 'knew' of Secret Mark but rather that he lays out of scenario which anticipates its discovery. It is very much the conclusion of our last post in our study of Strom. 6:15. There is no doubt that the exposition of 'Scripture by Scripture' is a core tenet of contemporary Alexandrian Christianity (not only Clement but Origen too). The question comes down to whether Clement's meaning can be limited to the study of the known gospels by the Scriptures of the 'Old Testament' or something like Secret Mark. It is my opinion that anyone reading Clement with an open mind has to come to agree with the latter proposition.
Of course, there aren't many open-minded people in scholarship these days. They accuse Morton Smith of having an 'agenda' in discovering an hitherto unknown text of Clement because they are only catching an image of their own reflection ...
