Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson
INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS. [A.D. 30–100.] CLEMENT was probably a Gentile and a Roman. He seems to have been at Philippi with St. Paul (A.D. 57) when that first-born of the Western churches was passing through great trials of faith. There, with holy women and others, he ministered to the apostle and to the saints. As this city was a Roman colony, we need not inquire how a Roman happened to be there. He was possibly in some public service, and it is not improbable that he had visited Corinth in those days. From the apostle, and his companion, St. Luke, he had no doubt learned the use of the Septuagint, in which his knowledge of the Greek tongue soon rendered him an adept. His copy of that version, however, does not always agree with the Received Text, as the reader will perceive. A co-presbyter with Linus and Cletus, he succeeded them in the government of the Roman Church. I have reluctantly adopted the opinion that his Epistle was written near the close of his life, and not just after the persecution of Nero. It is not improbable that Linus and Cletus both perished in that fiery trial, and that Clement’s immediate succession to their work and place occasions the chronological difficulties of the period. After the death of the apostles, for the Roman imprisonment and martyrdom of St. Peter seem historical, Clement was the natural representative of St. Paul, and even of his companion, the “apostle of the circumcision;” and naturally he wrote the Epistle in the name of the local church, when brethren looked to them for advice. St. John, no doubt, was still surviving at Patmos or in Ephesus; but the Philippians, whose intercourse with Rome is attested by the visit of Epaphroditus, looked naturally to the surviving friends of their great founder; nor was the aged apostle in the East equally accessible. All roads pointed towards the Imperial City, and started from its Milliarium Aureum. But, though Clement doubtless wrote the letter, he conceals his own name, and puts forth the brethren, who seem to have met in council, and sent a brotherly delegation (Chap. lix.). The entire absence of the spirit of Diotrephes (St. John, Ep. 3. 9), and the close accordance of the Epistle, in humility and meekness, with that of St. Peter (Ep. 1, 5:1–5), are noteworthy features. The whole will be found animated with the loving and faithful spirit of St. Paul’s dear Philippians, among whom the writer had learned the Gospel. Clement fell asleep, probably soon after he despatched his letter. It is the legacy of one who reflects the apostolic age in all the beauty and evangelical truth which were the first-fruits of the Spirit’s presence with the Church. He shares with others the aureole of glory attributed by St. Paul (Phil. 4:3), “His name is in the Book of Life.” The plan of this publication does not permit the restoration, in this volume, of the recently discovered portions of his work. It is the purpose of the editor to present this, however, with other recently discovered relics of primitive antiquity, in a supplementary volume, should the undertaking meet with sufficient encouragement. The so-called second Epistle of Clement is now known to be the work of another, and has been relegated to another place in this series. The following is the INTRODUCTORY NOTICE of the original editors and translators, Drs. Roberts and Donaldson:— THE first Epistle, bearing the name of Clement, has been preserved to us in a single manuscript only. Though very frequently referred to by ancient Christian writers, it remained unknown to the scholars of Western Europe until happily discovered in the Alexandrian manuscript. This MS. of the Sacred Scriptures (known and generally referred to as Codex A) was presented in 1628 by Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I., and is now preserved in the British Museum. Subjoined to the books of the New Testament contained in it, there are two writings described as the Epistles of one Clement. Of these, that now before us is the first. It is tolerably perfect, but there are many slight lacunæ, or gaps, in the MS., and one whole leaf is supposed to have been lost towards the close. These lacunæ, however, so numerous in some chapters, do not generally extend beyond a word or syllable, and can for the most part be easily supplied. Who the Clement was to whom these writings are ascribed, cannot with absolute certainty be determined. The general opinion is, that he is the same as the person of that name referred to by St. Paul (Phil. 4:3). The writings themselves contain no statement as to their author. The first, and by far the longer of them, simply purports to have been written in the name of the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth. But in the catalogue of contents prefixed to the MS. they are both plainly attributed to one Clement; and the judgment of most scholars is, that, in regard to the first Epistle at least, this statement is correct, and that it is to be regarded as an authentic production of the friend and fellow-worker of St. Paul. This belief may be traced to an early period in the history of the Church. It is found in the writings of Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 15), of Origen (Comm. in Joan., i. 29), and others. The internal evidence also tends to support this opinion. The doctrine, style, and manner of thought are all in accordance with it; so that, although, as has been said, positive certainty cannot be reached on the subject, we may with great probability conclude that we have in this Epistle a composition of that Clement who is known to us from Scripture as having been an associate of the great apostle. The date of this Epistle has been the subject of considerable controversy. It is clear from the writing itself that it was composed soon after some persecution (chap. i.) which the Roman Church had endured; and the only question is, whether we are to fix upon the persecution under Nero or Domitian. If the former, the date will be about the year 68; if the latter, we must place it towards the close of the first century or the beginning of the second. We possess no external aid to the settlement of this question. The lists of early Roman bishops are in hopeless confusion, some making Clement the immediate successor of St. Peter, others placing Linus, and others still Linus and Anacletus, between him and the apostle. The internal evidence, again, leaves the matter doubtful, though it has been strongly pressed on both sides. The probability seems, on the whole, to be in favour of the Domitian period, so that the Epistle may be dated about A.D. 97. This Epistle was held in very great esteem by the early Church. The account given of it by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 16) is as follows: “There is one acknowledged Epistle of this Clement (whom he has just identified with the friend of St. Paul), great and admirable, which he wrote in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church at Corinth, sedition having then arisen in the latter Church. We are aware that this Epistle has been publicly read in very many churches both in old times, and also in our own day.” The Epistle before us thus appears to have been read in numerous churches, as being almost on a level with the canonical writings. And its place in the Alexandrian MS., immediately after the inspired books, is in harmony with the position thus assigned it in the primitive Church. There does indeed appear a great difference between it and the inspired writings in many respects, such as the fanciful use sometimes made of Old-Testament statements, the fabulous stories which are accepted by its author, and the general diffuseness and feebleness of style by which it is distinguished. But the high tone of evangelical truth which pervades it, the simple and earnest appeals which it makes to the heart and conscience, and the anxiety which its writer so constantly shows to promote the best interests of the Church of Christ, still impart an undying charm to this precious relic of later apostolic times. [N.B.—A sufficient guide to the recent literature of the Clementine MSS. and discoveries may be found in The Princeton Review, 1877, p. 325, also in Bishop Wordsworth’s succinct but learned Church History to the Council of Nicæa, p. 84. The invaluable edition of the Patres Apostolici, by Jacobson (Oxford, 1840), with a critical text and rich prolegomena and annotations, cannot be dispensed with by any Patristic inquirer. A. C. C.] Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds. “Introductory Note to the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.” The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Vol. 1. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885. 1–3. Print. The Ante-Nicene Fathers.
====================
CLEMENT OF ROME Discordant Traditions (§ 1) Relationship to the Flavians (§ 2) The First Epistle (§ 3) Questions Unsettled (§ 4) Second Epistle and Other Writings (§ 5) 1. Discordant Traditions 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 undisputed, and the facts of his life are no better authenticated. He is mentioned in all the lists of the early bishops of Rome, though there is no agreement about the place of his name. Irenæus (Hœr., III. iii. 3), representing the Roman tradition of c. 180, gives Peter, Linus, Anencletus, Clement; with this agree Eusebius (Hist eccl. and Chron.), Epiphanius (Hœr., xxvii. 6), and Jerome (De vir. ill., xv.), though the last-named is aware that some of the Latins give a different order, and he, as well as Epiphanius, 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 Catalogus Liberianus, and is accepted by Augustine, Optatus, and others. In the Apostolic Constitutions also (vii. 46), Clement immediately follows Linus, 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 Liber Felicianus, fusing this and the Liberian, gives Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Anencletus. According to the epistle to James attributed to Clement (preceding the Clementine Homilies), Peter designated Clement as his successor, and himself installed him. This view probably originated with the purpose of bringing Clement into closer relation with Peter; and the lists which put Clement third, between Linus 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. Irenæus (ut sup.) makes Clement a disciple of the apostles. Origen (on John 1:29), Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome identify him with the Clement mentioned by Paul in Phil. 4:3, and Chrysostom (on 1 Tim.) even makes him a companion of Paul on all his journeys; while the Jewish-Christian Clementina place him in the closest relations to Peter. Various attempts were made to combine these conflicting views. The Apostolic Constitutions regard Linus as appointed by Paul, Clement by Peter. Rufinus regards Linus and Cletus as having performed episcopal functions in Peter’s lifetime, and Clement as appointed by the apostle when both were dead. Epiphanius explains that Clement was appointed by Peter indeed, but laid down his office for a time, during which Linus 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. 4:3 is abandoned by most of these scholars. 2. Relationship to the Flavians Another mooted question concerns the assertion of the Homilies and Recognitions that Clement was a connection of the imperial house. It is in any case necessary to substitute Domitian for Tiberius, whom the Clementina name in order to secure greater antiquity. Assuming that not only the Flavia 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 Harnack 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 he 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, an imperfect copy forming part of the famous Codex Alexandrinus, 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 (London, 1869), and Von Gebhardt and Harnack (Leipsic, 1875), besides facsimile reproductions in 1856 and 1879. In 1875, however, appeared the first complete edition, based upon a new manuscript discovered in 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. Jackson, Samuel Macauley, ed. The new Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia of religious knowledge 1908–1914: 139–140. Print.
=============================
CHAPTER XV Clement, the Third Bishop of Rome IN the twelfth year of the same reign Clement succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years. The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians informs us that this Clement was his fellow-worker. His words are as follows: “With Clement and the rest of my fellow-laborers whose names are in the book of life.” Eusebius of Caesaria. “The Church History of Eusebius.” Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine. Ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Vol. 1. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890. 147. Print. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series.
12 th year of Domitian is Eusebius' dating
