Associate professor of church history princeton theological seminary baker book house

Download 4.04 Mb.
Size4.04 Mb.
1   ...   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38

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






y a



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.

(A. Hwucg.)

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.
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.


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.

(G. UHnaoxrrt.)

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 

1   ...   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38

The database is protected by copyright © 2020
send message

    Main page