Who was Clement of Rome?

You lean much upon the Fathers. Forgive me if I think you have not much read them. You tell us, that you have taken from the authenticated work of every author you have quoted, as may be ascertained by reference to their writings. Now, that you are not personally acquainted with them, you have afforded most unequivocal proof in your pamphlet, in this: that you have supposed the Clement who wrote the Stromata to be the Clement who was, as you say, a "fellow-labourer of the apostles, who was Pope of Rome, third after Peter, and is often mentioned by St. Paul, in his Epistles." "The church, he writes," you say, "which is one," etc., and you quote "St. Clem. 7 Stromat." Now, the very smallest acquaintance with the Fathers would have saved you so glaring a mistake as you have here made. There was a Clement, companion of Paul, who wrote a letter to the church of Corinth, and who (though there is the greatest confusion and contradiction as to the succession of the first bishops of Rome) is stated by respectable historians to have been the third bishop of Rome. Two letters have been attributed to him; one is believed to be authentic — a pious effort to compose the strifes of the church of Corinth. But (must I say so? As my readers may be peasants of the North of Ireland, it may be necessary) Clement of Alexandria, who never was a bishop at all, was the author of the Stromata. He flourished from 192 A.D. to the beginning of the third century. He was president of the school of Alexandria. He was a great philosopher as well as a Christian, but of doubtful soundness enough on some points, and full of philosophical speculations. However, whatever the value of Clement's opinions, one thing is quite clear, that you did not consult him yourself; whether you did the other Fathers, which you quote, every one must judge by this example for himself. One thing is certain: you must be an utter stranger to the Fathers, to have taken Clement of Alexandria for Clement of Rome.

In the Fathers we get to a date yet earlier than any version. We reach up to some who are believed to have been instructed by the apostles personally, and who came into contact with many who had seen our Lord. The few who are accredited to have lived in the time of the apostles, called Apostolic Fathers, and who are referred, to as quoting scripture, are, 1, Clement, supposed to be the one named in Philippians 4:3 (now called Clement of Rome, to distinguish him from Clement of Alexandria). 2, Polycarp, martyred A.D. 169. 3, Barnabas, first or second century. 4, Ignatius, martyred A.D. 107.

Fellow labourer with Paul at Philippi. Phil. 4:3. He is accounted to be one of the Apostolic Fathers, a name given to those who lived in the times of the apostles and who have left writings bearing their names.

CLEMENT, EPISTLES OF. There are two epistles ascribed to Clement, and which in the Codex Alexandrinus follow the Revelation. The first is considered genuine, but the second is very doubtful. Eusebius says of the first that it was read in the churches in early times and also in his own day. He calls it 'an Epistle in the name of the church of Rome (over which church Clement is recorded as bishop) to the church at Corinth.' Apparently there was dissension in the church at Corinth: he thus addresses them: "It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and ancient church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters." A great deal is said about repentance, love, and good works; but sacrifices to be offered at Jerusalem are strangely interwoven with the exhortations, though he was writing to Gentiles.

Verse 3. 'And I entreat thee also, true yokefellow,' etc. To the contending sisters his word would convey both entreaty and injunction.3 His true yoke-fellow he only asks4 to mediate and seek to bring together again two who had entitled themselves to his honourable as well as loving remembrance as his fellow-labourers in the Gospel. Who this true yoke-fellow5 was it is in vain to conjecture, as we have on this subject no trustworthy information. It is of more interest to notice the prominence here given to women in the work of the Gospel. Euodias and Syntyche were probably among the women to whom Paul and Silas spake by the river-side,6 and had since sought diligently to propagate, in such manner doubtless as became the Lord's true handmaidens,7 the truth they had themselves received. Lydia, the mother of the Church at Philippi, was most likely dead at the date of this Epistle, or her name would hardly have been lost in this general reference to Paul's fellow-labourers. Why Clemens is here particularly named, and whether he was then at Rome or at Philippi, are also matters of uncertainty. That he is the same who is later known to us as Clemens Romanus, and whose Epistle to the Corinthians is the earliest extant example of patristic, as distinguished from Apostolic, writings, is not at all improbable; but, like most other facts of no true spiritual value, it is incapable of proof. The mention here made of 'the book of life' may well bring to our remembrance the Lord's words to the seventy who had freshly proved the virtue of His name.8 Were the names of those who preached Christ spitefully at Rome also written in the book of life? He is silent on this point, and so am I.

It is singular that the Epistle from the Church in Rome to that in Corinth (assigned to Clement, perhaps the earliest of these extra-scriptural remains) is passed by; for it is comparatively sober and grave, earnest and affectionate. Yet it seems inconceivable that the Clement (a name then of frequent occurrence), to whom the apostle alludes as "my fellow-labourer," could have written, as this Epistle does, of Danaides and Dirces* (chap. 6), or of the fabulous phoenix. This last first appears in the Fragments of Hesiod (Loesner, p. 450), and swells into the legend that Herodotus relates in his garrulous way (ii. 73). See also Tacitus (Ann. vi. 28), and the elder Pliny (Hist. Nat. x. 2). Is it not humbling that what the old pagan historian found incredible was accepted by Clement of Rome, with a whole cluster of later Fathers assenting, such as the Latins, Tertullian and Ambrose, and the Greeks, Origen, Epiphanius, Cyril Hier., Greg. Naz., etc.? Archbp. Wake and Mr. Chevallier were influenced by P. Young (Junius) to omit the heathen reference in chap. 6 as an interpolation; but the discovery since of added MS. evidence corroborates the insertion, however discreditable it must be to those who drew up the letter to Corinth. For Clement does not claim the Epistle as his own. It was probably a composite communication, like the letter from the apostles and elder brethren to the brethren of the Gentiles in Antioch and elsewhere (Acts 15), Clement taking the part in Rome that James had done before in Jerusalem. But what a wide difference between the brief and authoritative wisdom divine in the one, and the prolix elaboration, with faulty and compromising details, in the other!

When writing to the Romans, before his imprisonment, Paul expressed his intention of passing through Rome into Spain. "Whensoever I take my journey into Spain," he says, "I will come to you." Again, "When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain." (Rom. 15:24, 28) Some have thought that he did go to Spain immediately after his release. The principal evidence adduced in favour of this hypothesis is supplied by Clement, a fellow-labourer, mentioned in Philippians 4:3, said to be afterwards Bishop of Rome. The writer speaks of Paul as having preached the gospel in the east and in the west: — that he instructed the whole world (meaning, no doubt, the Roman Empire); and that he had gone to the extremity of the west, meaning Spain. As Clement was Paul's own disciple and fellow-labourer, his testimony is worthy of our respect; still it is not scripture, and therefore not in itself conclusive.

Great respect has constantly been shewn to the so-called fathers of the church, and to their writings, especially to the apostolic fathers. Naturally we might think that those who had the privilege of intercourse with the apostles would themselves be well instructed in the truth. But we doubt not that God allowed that there should be a deep, dark line of distinction between writings that were inspired and those that were not. And this we find to be the case, so that no one should be mistaken as to which is scripture and which is not. This difference is gathered from internal evidence, too plain to be mistaken; for indeed, external evidence might otherwise have led us astray, seeing that in the ancient Greek manuscripts some of these writings were placed along with the inspired books, and were in early days read in the meetings of Christians.*

Clement. Eusebius says Clement was "the friend of St. Paul," and wrote two Epistles to the Corinthians. They are therein warned of their disorders and strife, and earnest appeals are made to their heart and conscience. Yet the fabulous stories introduced mark them at once as uninspired, and the fanciful use made of the Old Testament makes them very untrustworthy. For instance, he gives the story of the phoenix, which was supposed to build its nest of frankincense and other spices, in which it enters and dies; but as it dies, a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. It takes up the nest, and flies to the city of Heliopolis, and places it on the altar of the sun, just five hundred years after the birth of the former bird. This is related with all seriousness as a fact, and is called a wonderful figure of the resurrection! As to quoting the Old Testament, when speaking of bishops and deacons he adds: "For thus saith the scripture in a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops [or, overseers] in righteousness, and their deacons [or, servants] in faith.'" This is from Isaiah 60:17, but altered by Clement. In the Septuagint it reads, "I will give thy rulers in peace, and thy overseers in righteousness;" and refers to Jerusalem, and not to the church. These are in the First Epistle.

The Second Epistle of Clement is not now believed to have been written by him.

Clement gives us the same evidence as scripture, as far as he goes, and as history it is important; his epistle is universally received as genuine. He addresses the church; he knows no episcopacy there but that of the elders. As was just said of Paul, it was treating the bishop of Corinth with utter contempt if there were any such; but the evidence is positive: he knew of no such thing, but the contrary (C. 42). We read, "and thus preaching through countries and cities they appointed the firstfruits of their conversions to be bishops and deacons over such as should afterwards believe," quoting Isaiah, right or wrong, for the purpose. So 44: "So likewise our apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ that contentions should arise on account of the ministry, and therefore having a perfect knowledge of this, they appointed persons as we have before said, and then gave a direction (epinomen, a difficult word if the reading be right) in what manner, when they should have fallen asleep, other chosen and approved men should succeed in their ministry." And then he fully speaks of them in the plural, closing by saying, "blessed be those elders," etc. Clement's testimony then is perfectly clear on the subject. The apostle appointed elders, several, in a church; he arranged further succession; but of bishops, so-called now, he knows nothing. His statements contradict their existence.

N*. It is possible; but the church was long founded, and that does not make Peter bishop of Rome; indeed, in your earlier traditions Linus is represented as first, or Clement, but never Peter. And now, as to this succession, we are in the same uncertainty. Irenaeus tells us Linus was first, then Anacletus, then Clement; so Eusebius some two centuries later. But Tertullian much earlier than the latter, giving it as a positive register (census) of the succession, says Polycarp was appointed by John at Smyrna, and Clement ordained by Peter for Rome. But then our Apostolic Constitutions do as they did at Antioch, give us Linus appointed by Paul, and Clement by Peter (7, 46). Jerome (Cal. Vir. Ill. 15) tells us that Clement was the fourth from Peter, as he must be, if indeed Linus was the second, and Anacletus third. However, most of the Latins think that Clement was the second from Peter the apostle.

But in Optatus Mil. (De S. Don. 3, 3) we have another list given as quite certain — Peter, Linus, Clement, Anacletus. Epiphanius (27, 6), after a very long story as to how it came about, says that it was uncertain whether Cletus (the second, according to him) was ordained by the apostles, but that they were bishops during the lifetime of the apostles (Peter and Paul having both been bishops of Rome together). They having gone away, left Linus and Cletus in charge; then Clement, who had been first named but would not serve, on the death of Cletus was forced to take the see; but that at any rate the succession was Peter and Paul, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Evaristus. And to shew how little secure these lists are, were it of any importance, in what follows he leaves out one known to have held the See of Rome altogether, and puts another quite wrongly in his stead, having left him out in his proper place. Ruffinus (Praf. ad Recogn.) accounts for two of the statements, for people objected to them in his days, by making Linus and Cletus bishops while Peter was living, and Clement appointed by him before his death; he says it was the same at Caesarea, where Zaccheus was bishop. One of the popes (Celestine V) gives us another explanation of the matter; that Clement resigned because one pope should not appoint his successor, and Peter appointed him, and that then he took it afterwards on surer ecclesiastical ground — a singular view of apostolic authority. Remark again here how Paul, who certainly was first at Rome, is ignored.

As to Clement, we have a long exhortation to peace: the blood of Christ is owned (it is precious to God, and has obtained the grace of repentance for the whole world) as given for us (21, 49). If we walk aright, obey the commands of God, we shall get the blessing, as all the ancient worthies (7, 9). Faith he refers to, but only acting by faith to get the blessing. "For what (32) was our father Abraham blessed? was it not because that through faith he wrought righteousness?" He says we are not justified by our own wisdom, or by the works which we have done in the holiness of our hearts, but by that faith by which God Almighty justified all men from the beginning (32). As to the clergy, he owns no bishop at Corinth — this is very marked in the letter; like Polycarp, he owns presbyters only; his letter would have been a flagrant disrespect if there had been one, and he states that the apostles appointed presbyters, but he knew no prelacy. But he is the first to introduce what soon corrupted the church. In insisting on order he refers to the chief-priest, priests, Levites, and laymen. This he speaks of as Jewish, and only by way of illustration; still it gave the direction to thought. So he speaks of offerings at the appointed seasons and the appointed place: God has ordained by His supreme will and authority both where and by what persons they are to be performed (40). In a word, the full doctrine of redemption and peace is dropped, the Holy Ghost, as a present thing, unknown (he refers to the Corinthians having had a great effusion of the Holy Ghost), and the clergy set up distinctly, and that on the pattern of Judaism. Two things are objected to in him, and that even as long ago as Photius, that he was unsound as to the divinity of Christ, and the Phoenix. We easily see that the power of the Holy Ghost as inspiration was gone, so that the mere reference to the Phoenix is nothing extraordinary; what is to me in the matter is, that he refers to heathen priests and their inquiries as true knowledge and, so to speak, divine matters, and the miracle of the Phoenix appears as a plain sanction of heathenism.