element alert or eIe>ranarls
him as a contumacious vassal, pronounced null and void the measures which limited ecclesiastical freedom, and menaced him with excommunication. The duke, inspired by his grandfather Louis XV , replied by arresting and then expelling all the Jesuits in his dominions. The Bourbon kings all protested against the brief and the use which it made of the bull in ctena Domini, and insisted on its withdrawal and the suppression of the Society of Jesus. Clement was stubborn, and the sovereigns proceeded to use force, Louis XV Occupying Avignon and the Comtat Venaiesin, and the king of Sicily taking possession of Benevento and Ponte
Corvo and preparing to go farther. Clement ha
called a secret consistory for Feb. 3, 1789, to
the situation; but in the preceding night he die
of apoplexy, a natural result of such heavy care is a man of his age. (A• HAUCK.)
BIBLI06BAP87: A. von Reumont, (iexlvichte der Stadt Rom, III. ii. 868. Berlin, 1870; Itanke, Popes, ii. 443 448 Bower. Pop", iiL 847 369.
Clement XIV. (Lorenzo Ganganelli): Pope 1781774. He was the eon of a physician, b. at Arcan
gelo, in the Papal States, Oct. 31, 1705; he enters
the Franciscan order, became a consultor of th
inquisition, and was made cardinal is 1759. H had been an advocate of reconciliation with th
Bourbon courts, and it has been often asserts
that he promised before his election to suppress the Jesuits. He was chosen only after s t
months' conclave, marked by incessant intrigu He disappointed those who looked for a speed decision of the burning question by adopting cautious and temporizing policy. He gave t
Jesuits new privileges, and declared to Louis X V.
he could neither censure nor suppress a institute confirmed by nineteen of his predecessors;
but, on the other hand, he refused to see the general of the Order, and closed his eyes to the fact that laws which infringed on ecclesiastical prerogatives had been passed in Portugal, Naples, Venice, the electoral provinces of Bavaria and Maine, sad even in the Empire under Maria Theresa. The brief directed against perms was recalled, and the bull In ctena Domini (q.v.) no longer solemnly read. Conciliation, in fact, was offered to all the estranged powers: an understanding was reached with Portugal; and the nunciature at Lisbon was reestablished. But the ambassadors of France, Spain, and Naples insisted pertinaciously on the suppression of the Jesuits. France and Naples held ecclesiastical territory, ss it were a pledge for the granting of their demands; there was talk in all three kingdoms of a formal renunciation of papal authority sad the establishment of an independent patriarch. The pope now resolved to suppress the Order. It was important, however, that the step would content the Roman Catholic powers, and not rather give the signal for fresh attacks. Clement seems to have first assured himself cautiously of this. The devout Maria Theresa was so attached to the Order that he had to use his authority to detach her from it. Then he took the first definite steps, as sovereign of the Papal States; on Oct. 17, 1772, the Jesuits were removed from the Collegio Romano and the Roman seminary on s pretext, cad then
THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG
their houses in the Papal States were closed, generally after a visitation. The support Previously given to the exiled Portuguese Jesuits was withdrawn. Finally, on July 21, 1773, Clement signed the brief Dominos ac Redsmptor poster, entirely suppressing the Order. It was signed only after it had been submitted to the Catholic powers, and not published until Aug. 16. In this document he gave as the ground for his action that the Order was no longer bringing forth the rich fruits for which it was designed, and cited other instances of the suppression of regular orders. He explained his long hesitation as due to the need of diligent in
d ' veetigation and mature deliberation. Not a word
discuss implied the abandonment of any claim made by the
d Church or its head; his censures of the Order were not based on the popular charges. The decree was at once put into execution in Rome. Several of
the fathers who were proved to have concealed or misappropriated money, property, or documents belonging to the Order were imprisoned, and Ricci,
the general, was put under strict surveillance. The news gave great satisfaction in many quarters;
d France and Naples restored the papal territories in
e Apr., 1774. Only in the non papal countries of
Prussia and Russia were the Jesuits allowed openly
e to continue their ministrations. Much obscurity
d hangs over the close of Clement's life. The asser
tions that he repented of his action and declared
it had been wrung from him by force, and that he was poisoned by the Jesuits, have been often made and as often denied. He died Sept. 22, 1774, leaving is the Museum Pio Clementinum a monument to his uncontested devotion to art and learning, though the moat diverse views have been and will always be held as to his general character.
BIBIdOaBAPBY: Letters. Wile a disoorsi di (ianpanedli, Flor epos, 1845; Cdementie XIV. epiatolar ac brevia, ad. s Tlieiner, Paris, 1852. Consult: A. von Rsumont, Qattpanalli, Papal Clenunt XIV., Berlin, 1847; J. CrdtinesuJoly, ClErnent XIV. et den JEauitsa, Paris. 1847; A. Theiner, (ieechicRte den Pontificata Clemens' XIV., 2 vole., Paris, 1853; (i. X. D. Rsvignsn, Cllynent %111. et CumwnE XIV:, Paris. 1855; Bower, Popes, iii. 359 389; R,snke. Popes, u. 449 461.
CLEMENT: A missionary bishop of the Celtic or old British Church in the Eastern parts of the
Frankish domains who, like Adalbert (q.v.) in Neustria, stood in the way of the Romanizing innovations of Boniface in the first half of the eighth century (see BoNIIrwcE, SAINT). We know of him only from the accounts of his opponents, who stigmatize him as a " heretic, misleader of the people, disseminator of error, servant of the devil, and false priest." He was married and had two sons. Justifying himself by the Mosaic law, he rejected the canonical prohibition of marriage with the widow of a deceased brother. He had views
of his own on predestination and election, and seems to have held to some sort of universalism. He disputed the authority of the Fathers, Augustine
and Jerome, and did not acknowledge the supremacy of the pope. At the instigation of Boniface a
Frankish synod in 745 condemned him to imprisonment; a Roman synod added the anathema of the Church. Nevertheless Clement held fast to the
opinions and practises of his fatherland. His ul
•imate fate is not known. A. WERNER.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Rettberg, KD, i. 324 32b; H, Hahn, Jahrbucher des frBnhiachen Reicha, pp. 87 82, Berlin, 1883; P. JaffB, Bibliotheca rerum (iermanicarum, iii. 133, 138149, Berlin, 1888; J. H. A. Ebrard, Die iroecho#iache Miaaionekircha, Gilteraloh, 1874; A. Werner, Banitakue, pp. 113, 273, Leipeic, 1875; Hauck, KD, i. bll.
CLEIIIENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
His Life (¢ 1). His Literary work (¢ 2). His 6ignificance for the Church (¢ 3). His Eclecticism (¢ 4). His Dependence upon Philosophy (¢ b). His Relation to Ethics (¢ 8). And to Scripture and the Church (¢ 7).
Clement of Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clemens),
one of the most distinguished teachers of the Church
of Alexandria, was born about the middle of the
second century, and died between 211 and 216.
He was certainly not born in Egypt (Strum., i. 1).
The indication of Athens as his birthplace by
Epiphaniue is supported by the classical quality of
his Greek. His parents seem to have been pagans,
of the well to do class. The thorough
:. Me Life. ness of his education is attested by his
constant quotation of the Greek poets
and philosophers. In quest of the best instruction,
he traveled in Greece, Italy, Palestine, and finally
Egypt. He became the colleague of Pantlenus,
the head of the catechetioal school of Alexandria,
and finally succeeded him in the direction of the
school. During the persecution of Septimius Seve
rus (202 or 203) he sought refuge with Alexander,
then bishop [possiblygf Flaviada] in Cappadocia,
afterward of Jerusalem, from whom he brought s
letter to Antioch in 211.
The trilogy into which Clement's principal remains are connected by their purpose and mode of treatment is composed of the Protrepticus (" Ezt ltortation "), the Pxdagogus (" Iytatructor "), and the Stromata (" Miscellanies "). Overbeck calls it the boldest literary undertaking in the history of the Church, since in it Clement for the first time attempted to set forth Christianity for the faithful in the traditional forms of profane literature. The Protrepticua forms an introduction inviting the reader to listen, not to the mythical legends of the heathen gods, but to the " new song " of the Logos, the beginning of all things and creator of the world. He demonstrates the folly of idolatry and the pagan mysteries, the horrors of pagan sacrifice, and shows that the Greek philosophers and poets only guessed at the truth, while the prophets set forth a direct way to salvation; sad now the divine Logos speaks in his own person, to awaken all that is good in the soul of man and to lead it to immortality. Having thus laid a foundation in the knowledge of divine truth, he goes on in the Pmdagogua to develop a Christian ethic. His design does not prevent him from taking a large part of his material from the Stoic Musonius, the master of Epictetus; but for Clement the real instructor is the incarnate Logos. The first book deals with the religious basis of Christian morality, the second sad third with the individual cases of conduct. As with Epictetus, true virtue shows itself with him in its external ev
Clement of Alezaa3ris
idences by a natural, simple, and moderate way
of living. The Stromata goes further and aims at
the perfection of the Christian life by
s. His initiation into complete knowledge.
Literary The first of these works is addressed
Work. to the unconverted, the second to the
new Christian, and the third appeals
to the mature believer. It attempts, on the basis
of Scripture and tradition, to give such an account
of the Christian faith as shall answer all the demands
of learned men, and conduct the student into the
innermost realities of his belief. Clement entitled
this work StrBmatei8, "patchwork," because it dealt
with such a variety of matters. He intended to
make but one book of this; at least seven grew out
of it, without his having treated all the subjects
proposed. The absence of certain things definitely
promised has led scholars to ask whether he wrote
an eighth book, as would appear from Eusebius
(VI. xiii. 1) and the Florilegia, and various attempts
have been made to identify with it short or frag
mentary treatises appearing among his remains.
In any case the " excerpts " and " selections "
which, with part of a treatise on logical method,
are designated as the eighth book in the single
(11th century) manuscript of the Stromatd, are not
parts of the Hypotyposes which Clement is known to
have written. This work was a brief commentary
on selected passages covering the whole Bible, as is
shown in the fragments preserved by (Eoumenius
and in the Latin version of the commentary on the
Catholic Epistles made at the instance of Cassio
dorus. Besides the great trilogy, the only complete
work preserved is the treatise " Who is the Rich
Man that Shall Be Saved? " based qn Mark x. 17 31,
and laying down the principle that not the posses
sion of riches but their misuse is to be condemned.
There are extant a few fragments of the treatise on
the Passover, against the Quartodeciman position of
Melito, and only a single passage from the " Eccle
siastical Canon " against the Judaizers. Several
other works are only known by their titles.
The significance of Clement in the history of the development of doctrine is, according to Harnack, that he knew how to replace the apologetic method by the constructive or systematic, to turn the simple church tradition into a scientific dogmatic theology. It is a marked characteristic of his that he sees only superficial and transient disagreement where others find a fundamental opposition. He is able to reconcile, or even to fuse, differing views to an extent which makes it almost impossible to attribute to him a definite individual system. He is admittedly an eclectic (Strum., i. 37). This attitude determines especially his treatment of 3. His Sig non Christian philosophy. Although
nificance the theory of a diabolical origin for it
for the is not unknown to him, and although
Church. he shows exhaustively that the phi
losophers owe a large part of their
knowledge to the writings of the Old Testament, yet
he seems to express his own personal conviction
when he describes philosophy as a direct opera
tion of the divine Logos, working through it as well
as through the law and his direct revelation in the
Gospel to communicate the truth to men. It is
Clement of eleaadrla THE NEW HERZO(i !88
Clement of Rome
true that the knowledge of the philosophers was
elementary, fragmentary, and incapable of imparting true righteousness; and it was far surpassed by the revelation given through the law and the prophets, as that again was still further surpassed by the direct revelation of the incarnate Logos; but this idea of relative inferiority does not prevent him from showing that his whole mental attitude is determined and dominated by the philosophical tradition. Thus he emphasizes the permanent importance of philosophy for the fulness of Christiara knowledge, explains with special predilection the relation between knowledge and faith, and sharply criticizes those who are unwilling to make any use of philosophy. He pronounces definitely against the sophists and against the His hedonism of the school of Epicures. Eclecticism. Although he generally expresses himself unfavorably in regard to the Stoic philosophy, he really pays marked deference to that mixture of Stoicism and Platonism which characterized the religious and ethical thought of the educated classes in his day. This explains the value set by Clement on gnosis. To be sure, he constantly opposes the heretical gnosis. Faith is the foundation of all gnosis, and both are given by Christ. As faith involves a comprehensive knowledge of the essentials, knowledge allows the believer to penetrate deeply into the understanding of what he believes; and this is the malting perfect, the completion, of faith. In order to attain this kind of faith, the " faith of knowledge," which is so much higher than the mere " faith of conjecture," or simple reception of a truth on authority, philosophy is permanently necessary. In fact, Christianity is the true philosophy, and the perfect Christian the true Gnostic but again only the " Gnostic according to the canon of the Church " has this distinction. Also, he rejects the Gnostic distinction of " psychic " and " pneumatic " men; all are alike destined to perfection if they will embrace it.
From philosophy he takes his conception of the Logos, the principle of Christian gnosis, through whom alone God's relation to the world and his revelation is maintained. God he considers transcendentally as unqualified Being, who can not be defined in too abstract a way. Though
S. His De his goodness operated in the creation
pendence of the world, yet immutability, aelf
Upon phi suffiewncy, incapability of suffering
losophy. are the characteristic notes of the
divine essence. Though the Logos is
most closely one with the Father, whose powers he
resumes in himself, yet to Clement both the Son
and the Spirit are " filet born powers and first
created "; they form the light stages in the
scale of intelligent being, and Clement distin
guishes the Son Logos from the Logos who is im
mutably immanent in God, and thus gives a foun
dation to the charge of Photius that he " degraded
the Son to the rank of a creature." Separate from
the world as the principle of creation, he is yet in
it as its guiding principle. Thus a natural life is a
life according to the will of the Logos. The Incar
nation, in spite of Clement's rejection of the Gnostic
Docetism, has with him s decidedly Docetic clan
aster. The body of Christ was not subject to human needs. He is the good Physician; the medicine which he offers is the communication of saving gnosis, leading men from heathenism to faith and from faith to the higher state of knowledge. This true philosophy includes within itself the freedom' from sin and the attainment of virtue. As all sin has its root in ignorance, so the knowledge of God and of goodness is followed by well doing. Against the Gnostics Clement emphasizes the freedom of all to do good.
Clement lays great stress on the fulfilment of moral obligations. In his ethical expressions he is influenced strongly by Plato and the Stoics, from whom he borrows much of his terminology. He praises Plato for setting forth the 6. His greatest possible likeness to God as
Relation the aim of life; and his portrait of the to Ethics. perfect Gnostic closely resembles that of the wise man as drawn by the Stoics. Hence he counsels his readers to shake off the chains of the flesh as far as possible, to live already as if out of the body, and thus to rise above earthly things. He is a true Greek in the value which he sets on moderation; but his highest ideal of conduct remains the mortification of all affections which may in any way disturb the soul in its career. As Harnack says, the lofty ethical religious ideal of the attainment of man's perfection in union with God, which Greek philosophy from Plato down had worked out, and to which it had subordinated all scientific worldly knowledge, is taken over by Clement, deepened in meaning, and connected not only with Crt, but with ecclesisatical tradition.
The way, however, to this union with God is for Clement only the Church's way. The communication of the gnosis is bound up with holy orders, which give the divine light and life. The simple faith of the baptized Christian contains all the essentials of the highest knowledge; by the Eucharist the believer is united with the Logos and the Spirit, and made partaker of incorruptibility. Though he lays down at starting a purely spiritual conception of the Church, later the exigencies of his controversy with the Gnostics make him lay more stress on the visible church.
y. And to As to his use of Scripture, the extraScrlpture ordinary breadth of his reading and and the manifold variety of his quotations
Church. from the most diverse authors make
it very difficult to determine exactly
what was received as canonical by the Alexandrian
Church of that period. Though he uses the Apoo
ryphal Gospels, our four alone have supreme author
ity for him. For the other New Testament writings
he seems not to have had as definite a line of de
marcation; but whatever he recognized as of
apostolic origin had for him an authority distinct
from, and higher than, that of all other ecclesiastical
tradition. (N. BonrwETSes.)
BIBLIOdRAPHT: The beet text of Clement is is course of
publication by O. 8tithlin, to be in 3 vole., vole. i. ii.,
Leipeic,1905 08: that by J. Potter, 2 vole., Oxford, 1715, in
reproduced in MPG, viii. ix. T. Zahn has given a Supple
menlum Ctemenainurt in his Forschu"gn, iii. 1 178, 319
321, Erlanaen, 1884. The best Ena. trsnet. is m dNF.
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Rome
ii. 171 804. An exhaustive bibliography to 1888 is in ANF, Bibliography, pp. 38 42 ; s list of later works is given in Harnack, Litkratur, ii. 1, pp. 4 5. On the criticism of the text consult: C. C. J. Bunsen, Analacta Ants Nieces. i. 157 340. London, 1854: T. B. Mayor, in Classical Review, ix (1894), 38b 391; O. BtAhlin, Beitrdpe our Renntniea der MSS. den Clemens Alex., Nuremberg. 1895; W. Christ, Phslolopiaehe Studien as ClamenaAiaxandrinue, Munich, 1900.
General discussions are: C. E. Freppel, C16nunt d'Alozandrie, Paris, 1873; B. F. Weeteott. General Hint. of N. T. Canon, pp. 339 340, 350 354. London, 1875; C. Bigg, Christian Platonieta of A7exandrfia, pp. 38 114, Oxford, 1888; KrBger, History, pp. 182 173; 9cha$, Christian Church, ii. 781 785 et passim; Harnaok, L'stteradar, i. 298327, 838,841, ii. 1, pp. 1 eqq.; O. Stiihlin, TU, new series, Vol. v., 1901; DCB, i. b59 587: KL, iii. 508 517; O. Bardenhewer, Oeachia5te der allkimMichen 1%ttemtur, Vol. ii., Freiburg, 1903.
On the teaching of Clement consult: F. J. Winter, Die Ethik den Clement eon Alexandrien Leipeie, 1,882; J. H. Miiller, Id6ea dogmatiquea de CIEment d'Alexarulrie. $traeburg, 1881; J. Kaye, Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria, London. 1835: J. Cognat. C16rnen6 d'Alexandrie, as doctrine et 8a poUmique, Paris. 1859: W. Scherer, Alamesa non Alexandrian and nine Erkenntniaaprinz%pien, Munich, 1907.
On his relation to earlier teaching consult: C. Meik.
Clemens Alex. in seiner Abhdnpipkeit roan der priecAiachen Philoaophie, Leipeie, 1879; E. Hitler, in Hermea, zai (1888), 128 133; E. Kutter, Clemens Alex. and das N. T., Giessen, 1897; E. de Faye, CLt!ment d'Alexandria, Paris, 1898.
On Clement as s hymniet consult Julian, Hymnology.
CLEMENT OF ROME.
Discordant Traditions (¢ 1).
Relationship to the Flavians (12). The First Epistle (¢ 3).
Questions Unsettled (¢ 4).
Second Epistle and Other Writings (15).
According to tradition Clement was an early
bishop of Rome and a distinguished Christian
author. But of the writings attributed to him
most are certainly not his and not one is undis
puted, and the facts of his life are no
r. Discord better authenticated. He is men
ant Tra tinned in all the lists of the early
ditions. bishops of Rome, though there is no
agreement about the place of his name.
Irenaeus (Hcer., III. iii. 3), representing the Roman
tradition of c. 180, gives Peter, Lines, Anencletus,
Clement; with this agree Eusebius (Hist ecel. and
Chron.), Epiphanies (Hcer., xxvii. 6), and Jerome
(De trir. ill., xv.), though the last named is aware
that some of the Latins give a different order, and
he, as well as Epiphanies, gives the form Cletus
for Anencletus. A different order occurs first in
the " Chronicle " of Hippolytus, where Clement
takes third place, before Cletus; this order recurs
in the Catologus Liberidxius, and is accepted by
Augustine, Optatus, and others. In the Apostolic
Constitutions also (vii. 46), Clement immediately
follows Lines, the variant name now giving two
distinct persons, Cletus and Anencletus. The
catalogue of the time of Sylvester reverts to the
older order, while the LeTier Feliciantisy fusing this
and the Liberian, gives Peter, Lines, Cletus, Clem
ent, Anencletus. According to the epistle to James
attributed to Clement (preceding the Clementine
Homilies), Peter designated Clement as his suc
cessor, and himself installed him. This view
probably originated with the purpose of bring
ing Clement into closer relation with Peter;
and the lists which put Clement third, between Lines and Cletus or Anencletus, are very likely attempting a compromise between it and the other tradition. It is safe to say that Clement does not belong to the epoch immediately following the apostles, but that two men came between him and Peter. He was not bishop of Rome in the strict sense, as the first epistle shows that there was no bishop there in his time. The developed episcopal idea of a later age was carried back in the attempt to trace the succession to the apostles; and the earliest authorities justify no more than the assertion that he was one of the leading presbyters, or perhaps the first of them.
Irenaeus (ut sup.) makes Clement a disciple of the apostles. Origen (on John i. 29), Eusebius, Epipha,nius, and Jerome identify him with the Clement mentioned by Paul in Phil. iv. 3, and Chrysostom (on I Tim.) even makes him a companion of Paul on all his journeys; while the Jewish Christian Clementine place him in the closest relations to Peter. Various attempts were made to combine these conflicting views. The Apostolic Constitutions regard Lines as appointed by Paul, Clement by Peter. Refines regards Lines and Cletus as having performed episcopal functions in Peter's lifetime, and Clement as appointed by the apostle when both were dead. Epiphanies explains that Clement was appointed by peter indeed, but laid down his office for a time, during which Lines and Cletus held it. Modern scholars have usually doubted his being a disciple of the apostles, even when they admit his authorship of the first epistle to the Corinthians. The identification with the Clement of Phil. iv. 3 is abandoned by most of these scholars.
Another mooted question concerns the assertion of the Homilies and Recognitions that clement was a connection of the imperial house. a. Relation It is in any case necessary to substiship to the tuts Domitian for Tiberius, whom the
Flavians. Clementine name in order to secure
greater antiquity. Assuming that not
only the Fla,vie Domitilla mentioned by Eusebius,
but also the consul Flavius Clemens whom Domitian
put to death, belonged to the Christian community,
we should have two prominent Christians of the
name of Clement in Rome at the same time. The
pseudo Clementine literature identified them as
one person. Von Gebhardt and Harnaek leave
the question undecided, while Lightfoot is inclined
to regard them as two persons. Really nothing is
known of Clement's life except what the first
epistle tells us. It is even uncertain whether be
was of Jewish or pagan descent, though both views
have found convinced advocates.
Among the numerous writings which bear the name of Clement, decidedly the most important are the two epistles to the Corinthians. Until 1875 only one manuscript of these was known, as imperfect copy forming part of the famous Codex Alexdndrinus, from which Junius published them with a Latin translation (Oxford, 1633); new editions were made from the manuscript by Wotton (Cambridge, 1718), Jacobson (Oxford, 1834), Tischendorf (Leipsic, 1863, 1873), Lightfoot (Lon
Clement of B,oms
THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 140
don, 1889), told Von Gebhardt and Harnaek (Leip
aic, 18`lb), besides facsimile reproductions in 1856
and 1879. In 1875, however, appeared the first
complete edition, based upon a new manuscript
discovered is Constantinople. Von Gebhardt still
considered the Alexandrine manuscript the more
authoritative, and there are reasons for holding
this view, even since further light has been thrown
on the question by the discovery of a Syriac and a
Latin version, the latter only of the first epistle.
This first epistle is an official communication
from the Church of Rome to that of Corinth, which
was then divided by controversies apparntly re
lating to the position and authority of the pres
byters. In order to put an end to the strife, the
Roman Church intervenes, apparently unsolicited,
and sends a deputation to Corinth, " to be witnesses
between you tend us." The official character of the
letter comes out more clearly now that it exists
complete, and new light is thrown on the relation
of the Roman Church to the others.
3. The First It is true there is no question of a con
Epistle. etitutionally established primacy, but
the Roman Church, as the most ma
ture and firmly settled, keeps a watchful eye on
the concerns of the others. The Clementine
authorship is attested by Dionysius, bishop of
Corinth (of. Eusebius, Hint. eccl., iv. 23), lreneeeus
(Nor., III, iii. 3), Clement of Alexandria, and
Origen. In the East the letter was read in public
worship as Scripture. Attempts made by Calo
vius (1673) and others to deny its authenticity
were revived with Semler, Ammon, and later
with Baur and Schwegler; but the arguments of
such critics have not been found decisive. The
majority of scholars now hold that it was written
is the first century, though many of them leave
the question of authorship unanswered. Doubts
have been expressed in recent years about the
prayer in chap. 59, but Lightfoot and others
have rendered improbable the theory of a later
addition; the question is still unsettled whether
this prayer is an official formula of the Roman
Church or the composition of Clement.
The attempt to determine the date of the epistle
depends, first, on the question whether the perse
cution at Rome mentioned at the outset was that
under Nero or that under Domitian. The earlier
critics preferred the former, which gives 64 68 as
the date. Scarcely any modern scholars, except
Hefele and Wieseler, adhere to this view. On the
other hand, sufficient reasons forbid placing the
date as late as the second century. According to
sliv. 3 there are still some presbyters in office who
were instituted by the apostles, and similarly v. 3
seems to assert that members of the Church con
temporary with Peter and Paul are living; there
is no trace of Gnostic heresies; the
4. Ques constitution of the Church, in both
dons Un Rome and Corinth, is not the episco
settled. pal, but the presbyterial. Most su
thorities, accordingly date the epistle
between 93 and 97; Lightfoot would come down
as far as the reign of Nerva, and Harnack's latest
opinion is in favor of the end of Domitian's (93 95),
which is supported by Hegesippus (in Eusebius,
Hilt. eccl., iii. 16). Diverse views, again, have been held as to the doctrinal standpoint of the epistle. Schwegler, followed by Reuach, considered it a compromise between Jewish Christianity and Paulinism. Lemma's view that the author was a fanatical Jewish Christian is disproved by the way in which he speaks of Paul and uses the Pauline epistles and Hebrews. However, Paul's propositions appear here as little more than mere formulas. His great doctrine of justification through faith is indeed strongly expressed (xxxii. 4); but the obligation of doing good works is derived only from the will and example of God, without the mention of any relation between justifying faith and moral power.
The second epistle, completely known only since
1875, is regarded by most scholars as a homily,
rather than a letter. The question remains in
what church and by whom it was delivered. Har
naok's theory that it is of Roman origin, perhaps
written by another Clement, the one mentioned
by Herman in his Shepherd, is scarcely tenable.
Lightfoot thinks it originated in Corinth, which is
likely. Its date is chown to be in the second cen
tury by its attitude toward the New Testament
canon and toward Gnosticism. Be
g. Second tween 130 and 140 is the most probable
Epistle time. Its teaching contains some and Other peculiar points, which can not be
Writings. pressed to show that the author
belonged to a separate sect, but mean
only that he lived in a time of little exact dogmatic
formulation. Of the numerous other writings
which have borne the name of Clement, it may
safely be said that the Homilies and Recognitions,
in the various forms comprised under the name
Clementina (q.v.), are not by him; nor are the
Apostolic Constitutions (q.v.). The two " Letters
to the Virgins " are worth notice. They exist only
in a Syriac version in a codex belonging to the
Remonstrant seminary at Amsterdam, and were
first printed by Wetstein in 1752, then more care
fully by Beelen (Loewen, 1856, with a Latin ren
dering, which Funk improved and appended to his
Opera patrumopoatolicorum, vol. i., Tiibingen,1887).
The theories of their origin range between two
impossible extremes. one medieval, that of Cot
terill; the other Clementine, that of Villeoourt
(who edited the epistles for MPG) and Beelen
(ut sup.). The form they presuppose for eccle
siastical customs and ascetic practise belongs to
a later time, possibly that of Cyprian but not
too much later, since they were probably known
by Epiphanius (Hter., xxx. 12), and certainly by
Jerome (Ad Jovin., i. 12). They must have been
originally one book, and were perhaps divided into
two (as Harnack suggests) to take the place of the
two epistles of Clement, which were contained in
the older Syria manuscripts of the New Testa
ment. This would account for their ascription to
Clement, as nothing else does.
BaL:oassray: The boat text and discussion is in J. B.
Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, part i., S. Clement of
Rome, a Revised Text with Introductions, 2 vols., London,
1890; text alone in idem, The Apostolic Fathers . . . ed.
J. R. Harmer, ib. 1891. Translation is in AN F, ix. 229