(a.) Mild in temper and disposition; merciful; compassionate.

(c.750-818) Confessor, born Ireland; died Auxerre, France. So great was his fame that Charlemagne invited him to his court and made him regent of the school of Paris from 775 until his death. After Alcuin's retirement (796), Clement was named master of the royal school at Aix-la-Chapelle. He is probably the author of a biography of Charlemagne. Buried in the church of Saint Amator. Feast, March 20,.

(Jacques Clement) (died 1558) Composer of the Netherland school, born Flanders. He is said to have been chapel-master to the court of Charles V. The pseudonym, non Papa, was used to distinguish him from his contemporary, Pope Clement VII. A forerunner of Palestrina and Lassus, his works are chiefly sacred, including masses, motets, and psalms.

Paul's fellow helper at Philippi, whom Origen (Commentary, John 1:29) identifies with the Clement, the apostolical father afterward bishop of Rome, whose epistle to the Corinthian church (part of the Alexandrius manuscript of Greek Old and New Testament) is extant. Philippi being closely connected with Rome, as a Roman colony, might easily have furnished a, bishop to the Roman church.

CLEMENT . The name of a fellow-worker with St. Paul ( Philippians 4:3 ). There are no sufficient grounds for identifying him with Clement, bishop of Rome, the writer of the Epistle to the Church of Corinth .

J. G. Tasker.

Mild, a Christian of Philippi, Paul's "fellow-labourer," whose name he mentions as "in the book of life" (Philippians 4:3 ). It was an opinion of ancient writers that he was the Clement of Rome whose name is well known in church history, and that he was the author of an Epistle to the Corinthians, the only known manuscript of which is appended to the Alexandrian Codex, now in the British Museum. It is of some historical interest, and has given rise to much discussion among critics. It makes distinct reference to Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians.

Fellow labourer with Paul at Philippi. Philippians 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 churchClement 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.

His fanciful use of the O.T. scriptures is remarkable. Thus in speaking of the appointment of bishops and deacons he says, "Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the scripture, in a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'" Chap. xlii. This is doubtless intended as a quotation from Isaiah 60:17 in the LXX, but altered to suit his purpose; for the LXX reads "I will make thy princes peaceable, and thine overseers righteous." As an emblem of the resurrection Clement relates the heathen fable of the phoenix living five hundred years, and then rising again as a fresh bird from its own ashes. He then adds that God "even by a bird shows us the mightiness of His power to fulfil His promise." Chaps. xxv., xxvi. Though there are many pious remarks scattered through the epistle, there is on the whole a great difference between it and holy scripture; a deep dark line separates it widely from everything that bears the stamp of divine inspiration.

1. Occasion.-The Epistle of Clement itself supplies complete information as to the circumstances under which it was written. Dissension had arisen within the Christian community at Corinth, and the Church was torn asunder. The original ground of contention is not mentioned, but the course of the strife is clearly indicated. A small but powerful party of malcontents (i. 1, xlvii. 6) had used their influence to secure the deposition of certain presbyters, men duly appointed according to apostolic regulations, who were, moreover, of blameless reputation and unfailing zeal in the performance of their duties (xliv. 3). A fierce controversy was raging, and the Corinthian Church, hitherto renowned for its virtues, especially such as are the outcome of brotherly love (i. 2-ii.), had become a stumbling-block instead of an example to the world (xlvii. 7). Once before, the Church of Corinth had shown the same spirit of faction (1 Corinthians 1:10; 1 Corinthians 1:12). History was now repeating itself, but the latter case was much worse than the former. Then, the contending parties had at least claimed to be following the lead of apostolic men, but now the main body of the Church was following ‘one or two’ contumacious persons in rebellion against their lawful rulers (xlvii.).

The news of this state of things was brought to Rome. How it came it is impossible to say. Ill news travels apace, and Rome is within easy reach of Corinth. It seems clear that no direct appeal was made to Rome by either contesting party. Yet in the ordinary course of things the Roman Church would soon hear of the Corinthian trouble, for communication seems to have been fairly frequent between the principal Christian communities in the early days (note the stress laid on the duty of hospitality, i, x, xi, xii, xxxv.). At any rate the Christians at Rome heard of the Corinthian dissension while it was still at its height (xlvi. 9). When the tidings first came, they themselves were suffering under the stress of external persecution (i. 1, vii. 1), but as soon as the storm had abated, a letter was written in the name of the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth, expressing the sorrow which the Corinthian feud had caused to the Christians at Rome, and admonishing the Corinthians to remember the primary duty of φιλαδελφία and bring their strife to an end. That Epistle has survived to the present day. It is known as ‘the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.’

2. Date and authorship

(1) Date.-The terminus a quo for the dating of the Epistle is fixed by its reference to the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul (v. 4, 6), and its use of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xxxvi, xliii.). Even if we accept the earliest possible dates for the death of the apostles and for the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of Clement cannot have been written before a.d. 70. The terminus ad quem is also fixed by the fact that Clement’s Epistle was indubitably used by Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians (Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. [Apostol. Fathers, pt. i., 1890] vol. i. p. 149ff.). If Lightfoot be correct-as seems most probable-in dating Polycarp’s letter c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 110 (St. Ign. and St. Polyc. 2 [Apostol. Fathers, pt. ii., 1889], vol. i. p. 428ff.), the date of Clement’s Epistle must fall between the years a.d. 70 and a.d. 110.

Fortunately it is possible to reduce these limits very considerably. The Epistle contains distinct allusions to two serious persecutions already suffered by the Church at Rome. During the former of these, we are told, ‘women suffered cruel and unholy insults as Danaids and Dircae,’ and ‘a vast multitude of the elect’ endured ‘many indignities and tortures’ before ‘they reached the goal in the race of faith and received a noble reward’ (vi. 1, 2). When the Epistle was written this persecution was a matter of past history, but its victims are still spoken of as ‘those champions who lived very near to our own time’ and ‘the noble examples which belong to our generation’ (τοὺς ἔγγιστα γενομένους ἀθλητάς … τῆς γενεᾶς ἡμῶν τὰ γενναῖα ὑποδείγματα, v. 1). The second persecution was still in progress when the news of the Corinthian schism was brought to Rome. The Epistle opens with an apology for the delay in writing which has been caused by ‘the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which have befallen us’ (τὰς αἰφνιδίους καὶ ἐπαλλήλους γενομένας ἡμῖν συμφορὰς καὶ περιπτώσεις, i. 1). The writer’s words suggest that the method of attack adopted in the later persecution was different from that of the earlier one. That the two are not to be identified is made plain in vii. 1, where a clear distinction is drawn between the martyrs of an earlier date and ‘us’ who ‘are in the same lists,’ whom ‘the same contest awaits.’

Now it is a well-established fact that during the 1st cent. a.d. the Roman Church suffered two, and only two, serious persecutions. The first was that of Nero (circa, about a.d. 64), in the course of which, according to an ancient tradition, St. Paul lost his life. The second was that of Domitian. Nero’s persecution was a savage onslaught on all Christians indiscriminately; that of Domitian took the form of sharp intermittent attacks aimed at individuals. In fact, the difference between the two was precisely the difference between the two persecutions mentioned in the Epistle of Clement. It seems, therefore, a safe conclusion that the references of the Epistle are to the persecutions of Nero and Domitian, and that the Epistle was written either just before or just after the termination of the latter of the two, i.e. c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 95-96. This date suits admirably the other indications of time contained in the Epistle, all of which point towards the close of the 1st cent. a.d. An earlier date is precluded by the following facts: (a) the Church of Corinth is already called ἀρχαία (xlvii. 6); (b) presbyters are mentioned who have succeeded successors of the apostles (xliv. 3); (c) the language used of the Roman envoys ‘who have walked among us from youth unto old age unblameably’ (lxiii. 3) seems to imply that a generation has almost passed since the Church of Rome was founded. On the other hand, the Epistle cannot have been written later than the end of the century, because (a) St. Peter and St. Paul are included amongst the ‘examples of our own generation’ (v. 1); (b) ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος are still regarded as interchangeable terms (xliv. 4, 5), whereas very early in the 2nd cent. they were used to denote distinct offices (Ign. Epp., passim). Finally, external evidence of an early and reliable kind (a) connects the Epistle with the episcopate of Clement, third bishop of Rome, and (b) places his episcopate in the last decade of the 1st cent. a.d. (Hegesippus, ap. Eus. HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] iv. 22; Dion. Cor. ap. Eus. HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] iv. 23; Iren. adv. Haer. III. iii. 3). In view of this accumulation of evidence, it is impossible to doubt that the Epistle of Clement was written about a.d. 95-96.

(2) Authorship.-The Epistle itself claims to be the letter not of an individual but of a community. The author’s name is nowhere mentioned. Nor indeed do we find in the statements of Hegesippus, Dionysius of Corinth, and Irenaeus, the three earliest writers who connect the Epistle with the name of Clement, any definite assertion that Clement was the author. Eusebius, to whom we owe our knowledge of Hegesippus, does indeed declare that that writer ‘makes some remarks concerning the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians’ (HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] iv. 22), but the title here given to the letter is due to the historian and not to Hegesippus, whose own words have unfortunately not been preserved. Dionysius of Corinth, c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 170 (ap. Eus. HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] iv. 23), speaks of τὴν πρότεραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν (sc. ἐπιστολήν), but his statement is ambiguous. διὰ Κλήμεντος might mean that Clement was the author, the amanuensis, or even the bearer of the Epistle. Similarly the language of Irenaeus (circa, about a.d. 180) is indefinite as to the actual authorship of the letter: ἐπὶ τούτου οὖν τοῦ Κλήμεντος … ἐπέστειλεν ἡ ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐκκλησία ἱκανωτάτην γραφὴν τοῖς Κορινθίοιν (adv. Haer. III. iii. 3). Yet it must be admitted that there is nothing in the language of any of these three writers to exclude the possibility of believing that they regarded Clement as the author of the Epistle. The absence of more explicit statement on the subject is probably due to the fact that they looked upon the letter as the utterance of the whole Roman Church rather than of one man. The Epistle is first definitely ascribed to Clement of Rome in the writings of his namesake of Alexandria (circa, about a.d. 200), who, though his usage is not quite uniform, on at least four occasions speaks of Clement as the author (Strom. i. 7, iv. 17-19, v. 12, vi. 8). All later writers are unanimous in accepting this opinion (Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. vol. i. p. 160ff.).

It is unreasonable to doubt that they are justified in doing so. That Clement was head of the Roman community at the time of the Corinthian schism is as well attested as any fact of early Church history, and as such he would be the natural mouthpiece of the Church of Rome in its communications with a sister community. At any rate, this function is attributed to him by the writer of ‘Hermas’ (πέμψει οὖν Κλήμης εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις, ἐκείνῳ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται, Vis. II. iv. 3), and ‘Hermas’ may have been written as early as a.d. 110-125 (V. H. Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, pt. i. pp. 34-41). Again, however worthless as historical documents the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies may be, they at least bear witness to the fact that, by the middle of the 2nd cent. a.d., Clement was regarded as an author. It is difficult to understand what could have given rise to that opinion except the belief that he was the author of the Epistle to the Corinthians. Certainly at that date no other writings of importance were attributed to him. But the real value of the Epistle depends not so much on its authorship as on its date, which is sufficiently indicated by purely internal evidence.

3. Contents

Introductory.-(a) Opening salutation from ‘the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth.’ (b) Apology for apparent lack of interest in the Corinthian trouble. The Romans’ previous silence due to the ‘sudden and repeated calamities’ which have befallen them.

(1) The Corinthian trouble-its cause and the remedy.-Now at last we have an opportunity of speaking our mind about ‘the detestable and unholy sedition which a few headstrong and self-willed persons have kindled’ till the once honoured name of the Church of Corinth is now greatly reviled (i. 1). For indeed the Church of Corinth has hitherto been a model of Christian virtues, especially of sobriety in all things, of self-sacrifice and moderation (i. 2-ii.). But, like Israel of old, you have been spoiled by your good progress. Excellence has given way to jealousy and envy (iii.). Envy and ill-will always result in suffering. So much we may learn from the stories of Cain, of Jacob, of Moses, Aaron and Miriam, of Dathan and Abiram, and of David (iv.). Or think of those who suffered martyrdom ‘nearest our own time’-of Peter and Paul and the multitude of others (v, vi.). These examples ought to warn us who have to face the same expression of the world’s envy to be free from envy ourselves. If we have not kept ourselves free from it, then let us use the ‘grace of repentance’ which Christ’s death won for man (vii.), even as the men of old repented at the preaching of Noah and of Jonah (vii. 5ff.).

The Holy Spirit Himself, through the prophets, calls men to repentance (viii.). Let us be obedient to His call, following the example of Enoch and Noah (ix.). Obedience to God brought blessings upon Abraham (x.); faith and care for others saved Lot from the fate of Sodom (xi.), and Rahab from the fate of Jericho (xii.). ‘Arrogance and conceit and folly and anger’ must be laid aside. The promises of the Scriptures and of the Lord Jesus are for the humble-minded (xiii, xiv.), who are genuinely so (xv.). What an example of humility was set by Christ Himself (xvi.) and by the saints of old-Elijah, Elisha, Ezekiel, Abraham, Job, Moses (xvii.), and David (xviii.)! Self-seeking and discord are contrary to the will of the Creator (xix.); the harmony of the natural world proves His own long-suffering and love of settled order (xx.). Let us therefore act as befits the servants of such a Master, for He reads the secrets of all hearts. Let us reverence rulers, honour elders, and train our families to do the same (xxi.); for Christ, through the Holy Spirit, and the Father both commend the single-hearted and condemn such as are double-minded (xxii, xxiii.). The Lord will come quickly (xxiii.).

(2) The resurrection of the body. Faith and works the means by which the elect obtain this and the other blessings of God.-Let us have no doubt about the resurrection of the dead. Life out of death is the very law of Nature. Day grows out of night, the plant from the death of the seed (xxiv.), the phœnix from its parent’s ashes (xxv.). In the Scriptures God has promised a resurrection. His promise and His power are alike sufficient, for He is almighty and cannot lie. Therefore let our souls be bound to Him with this hope (xxvi-xxviii.).

We must approach Him in holiness of soul, for we are His ‘elect,’ His ‘special portion’ (xxix.); as such we must put away all lust, strife, contention, and pride. ‘Boldness and arrogance and daring are for them that are accursed of God; but forbearance and humility and gentleness are with them that are blessed of God’ (xxx.). This, then, is how the blessing of God is obtained. We see it in the case of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (xxxi.). They were blessed ‘not through themselves, in their own works or righteous doing,’ but because they accepted the will of God, i.e. through faith. So we are justified by faith (xxxii.).

Yet we must never be slack in works. Does not the Creator rejoice to work unceasingly? We must follow His example, for we are made in His image (xxxiii.). We must imitate the diligence of the angels, if we would win the promises of God (xxxiv.). How blessed and marvellous are the gifts which God prepares for them that patiently await Him! If we would enjoy them, we must first have done with all bitterness and strife, vainglory and inhospitality, which are hateful to Him (xxxv.). Jesus Christ, ‘the Guardian and Helper of our weakness,’ will aid us in our efforts, and He is mightier than any angel (xxxvi.).

(3) Discipline is indispensable in a corporate society: provision made for this in the Mosaic Law and in the Divinely appointed ministry of the Church.-We are Christ’s soldiers (στρατευσώμεθα, xxxvii. 1): soldiers must be under discipline, each in his own rank. Look at the soldiers in the Roman army; think of the limbs in a human body; ‘all the members conspire and unite in subjection, that the whole body may be saved’ (xxxvii.). So the members of the Christian body must perform each his own function for the common weal (xxxviii.). Only ‘senseless and stupid and foolish and ignorant men ‘seek power and exaltation, forgetting the utter nothingness of man, and the condemnation of the Scriptures for such as themselves (xxxix.).

Regard for order and decency is Divinely taught in the Mosaic Law, which expressly prescribes how, when, and by whom each of its rites shall be performed, every man having his own appointed place, whether high priest, priest, Levite, or layman (xl.). So we, who are under the Christian Law, must be content to perform the function which is appointed for us (xli.).

The Christian ministry is a Divinely appointed order. Jesus Christ was sent forth from God, and Himself sent forth the apostles. They, in turn, when they had preached in town and country, appointed such of their converts as were approved by the Spirit, to be ‘bishops and deacons unto them that should believe’ (xlii.). In this they followed the example of Moses, who appointed a succession of priests, and to prevent all future dispute, confirmed the appointment of Aaron’s line by the miracle of the budding rod (xliii.). The apostles, too, were Divinely warned that strife would arise over the bishop’s office. They therefore provided for a regular succession of the ministry from generation to generation (xliv. 1, 2).

(4) The Corinthians have disobeyed not only a specific ordinance of God, but also the fundamental Christian law of love. May they speedily repent.-You have sinned grievously in thrusting from their office men who were duly appointed according to the apostles’ directions, and have faithfully discharged the duties of a bishop (xliv. 3-6). It is monstrous that God’s officers should be persecuted by those who profess to be God’s servants. Read your Bible, and you will learn that when righteous men have suffered persecution-e.g. Daniel and the three Holy Children-they have suffered at the hands of the ungodly (xlv.). Surely you ought to be found on the side of the righteous rather than of the persecutors. We worship one God. We are one body in Christ, we have one spirit of grace. How can you bear such strife if you remember that we are members one of another? Remember what Jesus our Lord said concerning those who cause offence as you have done (xlvi.). St. Paul rebuked you for the same fault, but things are worse now. Then at least you professed to follow apostles or apostolic men, but now ‘the steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of one or two persons, maketh sedition against its presbyters’ (xlvii.). Let us have done with such feuds, and in penitence pray God to restore our former harmony (xlviii.).

Love is all-powerful: love, His own attribute, is acceptable to God: seek love, and you shall be saved (xlix. 1). Love is the only ground on which we can hope for God’s forgiveness. Let us therefore-and especially those who have caused strife-confess our offences and not harden our hearts as Pharaoh did, lest like Pharaoh we perish (li.).

God asks nothing of man but contrition, prayer, and praise (lii.). Remember how Moses fasted and prayed forty days on the mountain, offering his life for the life of his people (liii.). Let those of you who are the occasion of strife, copy his self-effacement (liv.), and follow the examples of those noble heathens-rulers and citizens, even women-who over and over again in the course of history have been willing to give up all for the good of their nation (lv.).

Let us intercede for one another. Let us be ready to give and to receive admonition. In God’s hands, chastisement is an instrument of mercy (lvi.). You especially, who first stirred up the strife, be first to repent-‘submit yourselves unto the presbyters, and receive chastisement unto repentance.’ The Scriptures contain many threats against the stubborn and impenitent (lvii.). Let us by obedience escape them, for they who obey God’s will shall be saved (lviii.). ‘But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him through us … they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger; but we shall be guiltless of this sin’ (lix.).

(5) Prayer for all mankind: final admonition and benediction.-We pray that God will keep His elect intact. We pray for inward light, for all who need, for the Gentiles’ conversion, for pardon and cleansing, for peace and concord, for deliverance from those who hate us wrongfully, for the grace of obedience to temporal authority, for earthly rulers, that they may govern in accordance with God’s will in peace and gentleness. We offer our praises to the Almighty Father ‘through the High Priest and Guardian of our souls, Jesus Christ’ (lix-lxi.).

We have said enough about the Christian life; about faith, repentance, love, temperance, sobriety, patience, righteousness, truth, longsuffering. We have spoken gladly, knowing that we spoke to men who have studied the oracles of God (lxii.). Follow the example of the Fathers; submit yourselves to authority. You will give us great joy if you cease from strife. With the letter we have sent faithful and prudent men who shall be witnesses between us (lxiii.).

May God endue with all virtues those who call on His name through Jesus Christ our High Priest and Guardian (lxiv.). We commend Claudius Ephebus, and Valerius Bito, who, with Fortunatus also, are the bearers of this letter. Send them back speedily with good news.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and all men.

4. Teaching.-The object of the Epistle was strictly practical. It is therefore unreasonable to expect to find in it precise definitions of Christian doctrine. Yet, in enforcing his practical lesson, the writer alludes to the main articles of the faith as he had learned it, and these incidental allusions are historically the more valuable, because they represent not the belief of one man but the tradition of a community.

The tradition, which lies behind the Epistle, is above all things catholic, in its recognition of the many-sidedness of Christian truth. It embraces almost every type of apostolic teaching which is expressed in the Epistles of the NT-the type of St. James no less than of St. Paul, of St. Peter as well as of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The one element which is lacking is the mysticism of St. John, probably because the Johannine writings were not yet in existence (Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. vol. i. p. 95ff.).

At the same time it must be admitted that the Epistle betrays a certain failure to grasp the full meaning of the more profound doctrines of the NT. This is especially evident in its treatment of the Pauline idea of justification by faith. To St. Paul faith is the mainspring of the Christian life, the source of all Christian virtues. To the writer of the Epistle, faith is nothing more than one amongst many virtues. He is conscious of no incongruity in placing ‘faith’ and ‘hospitality’ side by side as equal conditions of salvation (xii. 1; cf. Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. vol. i. p. 397).

(1) Doctrine of God.-The terms in which the Epistle speaks of God are unmistakably borrowed from the language of the OT and the Jewish synagogue. God is ‘the Almighty,’ ‘the all-seeing Master’ (Leviticus 6), ‘the Creator and Master of the universe’ (xxxiii. 2), ‘the Father of the ages, the All-holy One’ (xxxv. 3); ‘the Father and Maker of the whole world’ (xix. 2; cf. Ix. and lxii.); ‘the King of the ages’ (lxi. 2); ‘He that embraceth the whole universe’ (xxviii. 4). His unceasing activity in the natural world displays both His beneficence and His love of harmony (xx, xxxii.). Amongst men He is made known as ‘the Creator and Overseer … the Benefactor of all spirits and the God of all flesh’ (lix. 3). To the elect He is revealed as a ‘gentle and compassionate Father’ (xxix. 1), ‘the champion and protector of them that in a pure conscience serve His excellent Name’ (xlv. 7).

So much might have been said by a conscientious Jew; but in two passages at least, the language of the Epistle passes beyond the mere monotheism of Judaism: ‘Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was shed upon us?’ (xlvi. 6); ‘as God liveth and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect …’ (lviii. 2). The simple and natural way in which the Son and the Holy Spirit are here linked with the Father as equal objects of Christian faith and hope is quite inexplicable unless the writer was convinced of their essential Divinity and essential equality with the Father.

(2) Christology.-A clear allusion to the pre-existence of Christ is contained in the statement that He speaks through the Holy Spirit in the OT Scriptures (xxii. 1). A similar reference is probably to be found in the words ‘Jesus Christ was sent forth from God’ (xlii. 1). He is never actually called God,* [Note: The one possible exception is the passage ii. 1 which ends καὶ τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ ἦν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ὑμῶν. The question turns on a doubtful reading. As the antecedent of αὐτοῦ Cod. A reads τοῦ θεοῦ. If this be correct, the statement made above is not quite true. But the weight of MS authority (C and all three versions) is in favour of the reading τοῦ Χριστοῦ.] but His Divinity is implied when He is described as ‘the sceptre of the majesty of God’ (xvi. 2), who showed us ‘as in a mirror’ the very ‘face’ of God (xxxvi. 2).

But most frequently the Epistle speaks of Christ in His relation to mankind. He came to earth ‘to instruct, to sanctify, to honour us’ (lix. 3), to be our pattern of lowliness (xvi.). Yet He was no mere example to men. He shed His blood for our salvation (vii. 4, xii. 7, xxi. 6), and ‘gave His flesh for our flesh and His life for our lives’ (xlix. 6). By His death He ‘won for the whole world the grace of repentance’ (vii. 3). God raised Him from the dead, and we shall one day share His resurrection (xxiv. 1). Meanwhile He is ‘the High Priest of our offerings, the Guardian and Helper of our weakness’ (xxxvi. 1; cf. lxi. 3, lxiv.). ‘Through Him we taste the immortal knowledge’ (xxxvi. 2), ‘the full knowledge of the glory of God’s Name’ (lix. 2). Through Him we have our access to the Father (xx. 11, lxi. 3, lxiv.).

(3) The Holy Spirit.-In times past the Holy Spirit inspired the message of the prophets (viii. 1, xlv. 1). In the present He is a living power poured out upon the Church (xlvi. 6). His indwelling was the source of the manifold virtues which had formerly distinguished the Church of Corinth (ii. 3). The writer of the Epistle claims that his own words were written ‘through the Holy Spirit’ (τοῖς ὑφʼ ἠμῶν γεγραμμένοις διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, lxiii. 2).

(4) Justification by faith and works.-Salvation was won for man by the blood of Christ (vii. 4, xii. 7, etc.). On man’s part the necessary condition of salvation is ‘faith’ (xxxii. 4). Faith must find expression in good works (xxxiii.), for ‘we are justified by works and not by words’ (xxx. 3). By ‘faith and hospitality’ Rahab was saved (xii. 1). Abraham was blessed ‘because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith’ (xxxi. 2). ‘So we, having been called through His (sc. the Father’s) will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works … but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning’ (xxxii. 4). Yet we must ‘hasten with instancy and zeal to accomplish every good work’ (xxxiii. 1), even as the Creator maintains without ceasing His beneficent activity. In this way the writer of the Epistle co-ordinates the divergent language of St. Paul and St. James on the question of faith and works. Yet he certainly fails to rise to the full meaning of faith as it was understood by St. Paul.

(5) The resurrection of the dead.-The truth of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is dwelt upon at considerable length (xxiv-xxvi.). In proof of it, analogies are quoted from the natural world. The sequence of night and day, the growth of the plant from the death of the seed, and the story of the phœnix are all pressed into service. But the final argument is the promise of God in the Scripture, and the precedent of the Resurrection of Christ who is ‘the first-fruits’ of the harvest of the dead. The passage dealing with the Resurrection interrupts the argument of the Epistle, and it is not quite evident why the subject is introduced at all. It does not seem to have had any connexion with the Corinthian disagreement. Possibly it may have been suggested to the writer by a recent perusal of 1 Corinthians 15 (see xl

Mention is made of Clement in Philippians 4:3 as one of St. Paul’s fellow-workers. If μετὰ καὶ Κλήμεντος is connected with συλλαμβάνου, Clement was urged to help in the work of reconciling Euodia and Syntyche. But it is better to connect the phrase with συνήθλησαν, so including Clement among those with whom these women and St. Paul ‘laboured in the gospel’; i.e. he had been conspicuous in Christian work in Philippi. But the reference does not suggest that he was in Philippi when St. Paul wrote; it is too oblique for that. Would he not have been asked to use his good offices to effect a reconciliation? Two things are possible: (a) he may be dead, though his memory is fragrant (the reference to other ‘fellow-workers whose names are in the book of life’ is not inconsistent with this suggestion); (b) he may be with St. Paul, one of the band who gathered about him in his imprisonment and through whom the Apostle carried on his work. In that case Clement was in Rome, and one of the arguments against identifying him with Clement, bishop of Rome, who wrote the Letter to the Church of Corinth, would disappear. The difficulty of date is, however, serious, though not insuperable. If Clement were a promising convert from Philippi, who after serving there with marked success became a pupil and companion of St. Paul, he could not very well have been less than 35 or 40 years of age when Phil was written from Rome about a.d. 60. If this Clement is to be identified with Clemens Romanus, he must have lived to extreme old age. The identification, first made by Origen, cannot be proved; it is even precarious; but Kennedy goes too far when he calls it ‘absurd’ (Expositor’s Greek Testament , ‘Philippians,’ ad loc.).

The name is a common one.

Literature.-J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians4, 1878 (esp. note on p. 168ff.); H. A. A. Kennedy, Expositor’s Greek Testament , ‘Philippians,’ 1903; article on ‘Clement’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) ; E. B. Redlich, St. Paul and his Companions, 1913, p. 223.

J. E. Roberts.

(John Dvorák) (1751-1821) Confessor, apostle of Vienna, second founder of the Redemptorists, born Tasswitz, Moravia; died Vienna. He studied at Vienna, and visiting Rome as a pilgrim, he joined the Redemptorist Order and was ordained, 1785. With a companion, Thaddäus Hübl, he introduced the congregation into Warsaw, 1786, where it had phenomenal success until 1808, when its houses were suppressed and the fathers exiled from the grand-duchy. Clement then acted as chaplain to an Ursuline convent in Vienna. He was the chief supporter of religion in Austria, and contributed greatly to the extinction of Josephinism. Canonized, 1909. Feast, March 15,.

CLEMENT, a. Mild in temper and disposition gentle lenient merciful kind tender compassionate.

Mild; good; merciful

Christian writer, born probably at Athens; died c215 He succeeded Pantrenus as head of the catechetical school of Alexandria, Egypt, c190 During the persecution of 202 the school suffered and Clement withdrew to Caesarea in Cappadocia, where he governed the local Church during the imprisonment of his pupil, Bishop Alexander. He was honored as a saint until the 17th century, when his name was dropped from the Clementine revision of the Martyrology, owing to the uncertainty surrounding his life, teaching, and cult. His writings, lacking technical precision and order, were easily misjudged, and he was censured by Pope Gelasius and Photius; however, his rule of faith was sound. In opposition to the rationalizing Gnostics, then a force in Alexandria, he made faith the basis of his speculations, but interpreted Scripture in too allegorical a manner.

Clement of Alexandria. i. Life. —His full name, Titus Flavius Clemens, is given by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 13) and Photius ( Cod. 111) in the title of the Stromateis ( Τίτου Φλανίου Κλήμεντος [Photius adds πρεσβυτέρου Ἀλεξανδρείας ] τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν γνωστικῶν ὑπομνημάτων στρωματεῖς ). The remarkable coincidence of the name with that of the nephew of Vespasian and consul in 95 cannot have been accidental, but we have no direct evidence of Clement's connexion with the imperial Flavian family. Perhaps he was descended from a freedman of the consul; his wide and varied learning indicates that he had received a liberal education, and so far suggests that his parents occupied a good social position. The place of his birth is not certainly known. Epiphanius, the earliest authority on the question, observes that two opinions were held in his time, "some saying that he was an Alexandrian, others that he was an Athenian" (ὅν φασί τινες Ἀλεξανδρέα ἕτεροι δὲ Ἀθηναῖον , Haer. xxxii. 6). Alexandria was the principal scene of his labours; but there was no apparent reason for connecting him with Athens by mere conjecture. The statement that he was an Athenian must therefore have rested upon some direct tradition. Moreover, in recounting his wanderings he makes Greece the starting-point and Alexandria the goal of his search ( Strom. 1, § 11, p. 322); and in the 2nd cent. Athens was still the centre of the literary and spiritual life of Greece. We may then with reasonable probability conclude that Clement was an Athenian by training if not by origin, and the fact that he was at the head of the catechetical school of Alexandria towards the close of the century fixes the date of his birth c. a.d. 150–160. Nothing is recorded of his parentage; but his own language seems to imply that he embraced Christianity by a personal act, as in some sense a convert ( Paed. i. § 1, p. 97, τὰς παλαιὰς ἀπομνύμενοι δόξας ; cf. Paed. ii. § 62, p. 206, δάκρυά ἐσμεν . . . οἱ εἰς αὐτὸν πεπιστευκότες ), and this is directly affirmed by Eusebius (Praep. Ev. ii. 2 f.), though perhaps simply by inference from Clement's words. Such a conversion would not be irreconcilable with the belief that Clement, like Augustine, was of Christian parentage at least on one side; but whether Clement's parents were Christians or heathens it is evident that heathenism attracted him for a time; and though he soon overcame its attractions, his inquisitive spirit did not at once find rest in Christianity. He enumerates six illustrious teachers under whom he studied the "true tradition of the blessed doctrine of the holy apostles." His first teacher in Greece was an Ionian (Athenagoras?); others he heard in Magna Graecia; others in the East; and at last he found in Egypt the true master for whom he had sought ( Strom. i, § 11, p. 322). There can be no doubt that this master was Pantaenus, to whom he is said to have expressed his obligations in his Hypotyposes (Eus. H. E. vi. 13, v. 11). Pantaenus was then chief of the catechetical school, and though the accounts of Eusebius and Jerome (Eus. H. E. v. 10; Hieron. de Vir. Ill. 36, 38) are irreconcilable in their details and chronology, it is certain that on the death or retirement of Pantaenus, Clement succeeded to his office, and it is not unlikely that he had acted as his colleague before. The period during which Clement presided over the catechetical school ( c. a.d. 190–203) seems to have been the season of his greatest literary activity. He was now a presbyter of the church ( Paed. i. § 37, p. 120) and had the glory of reckoning Origen among his scholars. On the outbreak of the persecution under Severus (a.d. 202, 203) in which Leonidas, the father of Origen, perished, Clement retired from Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vi. 3), never, as it seems, to return. Nothing is directly stated as to the place of his withdrawal. There are some indications of a visit to Syria (Eus. H. E. vi. 11, ὃν ἴστε ); and, later, we find him in the company of an old pupil, Alexander, afterwards bp. of Jerusalem, and at that time a bp. of Cappadocia, who was in prison for the faith. If therefore Clement had before withdrawn from danger, it was through wisdom and not through fear. Alexander regarded his presence as due to "a special providence" (cf. Eus. H. E. vi. 14), and charged him, in most honourable terms, with a letter of congratulation to the church of Antioch on the appointment of Asclepiades to the bishopric of that city, a.d. 311 (Eus. H. E. vi. 11). This is the last mention of Clement which has been preserved. The time and the place of his death are alike unknown. Popular opinion reckoned him among the saints of the church; and he was commemorated in the early Western martyrologies on Dec. 4. His name, however, was omitted in the martyrology issued by Clement VIII. after the corrections of Baronius; and Benedict XIV. elaborately defended the omission in a letter to John V. of Portugal, dated 1748. Benedict argued that the teaching of Clement was at least open to suspicion, and that private usage would not entitle him to a place in the calendar (Benedicti XIV. Opera , vi. pp. 119 ff. ed. 1842, where the evidence is given in detail; cf. Cognat, Clément d’Alexandrie , pp. 451 ff.).

ii. Works. —Eusebius, whom Jerome follows closely with some mistakes (de Vir. Ill. 38) has given a list of the works of Clement ( H. E. vi. 13): (1) Στρωματεῖς , libb. viii.; (2) Ὑποτυπώσεις , libb. viii.; (3) Πρὸς Ἕλληνας λόγος προτρεπτικός ( adversus Gentes , Jerome); (4) Παιδαγωγός , libb. iii.; (5) Τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούασιος ; (6) Περὶ τοῦ πάσχα ; (7) Διαλέξεις περὶ νηστείας ; (8) Περὶ καταλαλίας ; (9) Προτρεπτικὸς εἰς ὑπομονήν ἢ πρὸς τοὺς νεωστὶ βεβαπτισμένους (omitted by Jerome); (10) Κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἢ πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαΐ ζοντας ( de Canonibus Ecclesiasticis et adversum eos qui Judaeorum sequuntur errorem, Jerome). Photius ( Bibl. Codd. 109–111) mentions that he read the first five works on the list, and knew by report 6, 7, 8 ( περὶ κακολογίας ); 10 (περὶ κανόνων ἐκκλησιαστικῶν ); from the variations in the titles and the omission of 9, it is evident that he derived his knowledge of these simply from the secondary Greek version of Jerome's list. Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 are still preserved almost entire. Of 2 considerable fragments remain; and of 6, 8, 10 a few fragments are preserved in express quotations.

Quotations are also found from a treatise περὶ προνοίας , and from another περὶ ψυχῆς , to which Clement himself refers (Strom. iii. 13, p. 516; v. 88, p. 699). Elsewhere Clement speaks of his intention to write On First Principles ( περὶ ἀρχῶν , Strom. iii. 13, p. 516 ; id. 21, p. 520; cf. iv. 2, p. 564); On Prophecy ( Strom. v. 88, p. 699; id. iv. 93, p. 605); Against Heresies ( Strom. iv. 92, p. 604); On the Resurrection ( Paed. i. 6, p. 125); On Marriage ( Paed. iii. 8, p. 278). But the references may be partly to sections of his greater works, and partly to designs never carried out (cf. Strom. iv. 1–3, pp. 563 f.). No doubt has been raised as to the genuineness of the Address, the Tutor, and the Miscellanies. Internal evidence shews them all the work of one writer (cf. Reinkens, de Clemente, cap. ii. § 4), and they have been quoted as Clement's by a continuous succession of Fathers even from the time of Origen ( Comm. in Joh. ii. 3, p. 52 B; Strom. ; anonymous). These three principal extant works form a connected series. The first is an exhortation to the heathen to embrace Christianity, based on an exposition of the comparative character of heathenism and Christianity; the second offers a system of training for the new convert, with a view to the regulation of his conduct as a Christian; the third is an introduction to Christian philosophy. The series was further continued in the lost Outlines ( ὑποτυπώσεις ), in which Clement laid the foundation of his philosophic structure in an investigation of the canonical writings. The mutual relations of these writings shew that Clement intended them as a complete system of Christian teaching, corresponding with the "whole economy of the gracious Word, Who first addresses, then trains, and then teaches" (Paed. i. 1), bringing to man in due succession conviction, discipline, wisdom. The first three books correspond in a remarkable degree, as has frequently been remarked (Potter, ad Protrept. i.), with the stages of the neo-Platonic course, the Purification ( ἀποκάθαρσις ), the Initiation ( μύησις ), and the Vision ( ἐποπτεία ). The fourth book was probably designed to give a solid basis to the truths which were fleeting and unreal in systems of philosophy. Though his style is generally deficient in terseness and elegance, his method desultory, his learning undigested; yet we can still thankfully admire his richness of information, his breadth of reading, his largeness of sympathy, his lofty aspirations, his noble conception of the office and capacities of the Faith.

I. The Address to the Greeks ( Λόγος προτρεπτικὸ;ς πρὸς Ἕλληνας : Cf. Strom. vii. § 22, p. 421, ἐν τῷ προτρεπτικῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ ἡμῖν λόγῳ ).—The works of Clement were composed in the order in which they have been mentioned. The Tutor contains a reference to the Address in the first section ( ὁ λόγος ὁπηνίκα μὲν ἐπὶ σωτηρίαν παρεκάλει, προτρεπτικὸς ὄνομα οὐτῷ ἦν : cf. Strom. vii. § 22; Pott. p. 841); and, if we can trust the assertion of Eusebius ( H. E. v. 28), some of Clement's works were composed before the accession of Victor (a.d. 192). Putting these two facts together, we may reasonably suppose the Address written c . a.d. 190. It was addressed to Greeks and not to Gentiles generally, as Jerome understood the word ("adversus gentes," de Vir. Ill. 38). It deals almost exclusively with Greek mythology and Greek speculation.

Its general aim is to prove the superiority of Christianity to the religions and the philosophies of heathendom, while it satisfies the cravings of humanity to which they bore witness. The gospel is, as Clement shews with consummate eloquence, the New Song more powerful than that of Orpheus or Arion, new and yet older than the creation (c. 1), pure and spiritual as contrasted with the sensuality and idolatry of the pagan rites, clear and substantial as compared with the vague hopes of poets and philosophers (2–9). In such a case, he argues, custom cannot be pleaded against the duty of conversion. Man is born for God, and is bound to obey the call of God, Who through the Word is waiting to make him like unto Himself. The choice is between judgment and grace, between destruction and life: can the issue then be doubtful (10–12)?

It is not difficult to point out errors in taste, fact, and argument throughout Clement's appeal; but it would be perhaps impossible to shew in any earlier work passages equal to those in which he describes the mission of the Word, the Light of men (p. 88), and pictures the true destiny of man (pp. 92 ff.).

II. The Tutor (ὁ Παιδαγωγός; cf. Hos_5:2 quoted in Paed. i. 7 p. 129).—The Tutor was written before the Miscellanies in which the Tutor is described generally (Strom. vi. § 1 p. 736)—i.e. c. a.d. 190–195. The writer's design was "to prepare from early years that is from the beginning of elementary instruction (ἐκ κατηχήσεως) a rule of life growing with the increase of faith and fitting the souls of those just on the verge of manhood with virtue so as to enable them to receive the higher knowledge of philosophy" (εἰς ἐπιστήμης γνωστικῆς παραδοχήν Strom. l.c.).

The main scope of the Tutor is therefore practical: the aim is action and not knowledge; but still action as preparatory to knowledge, and resting upon conviction. It is divided into three books. The first gives a general description of the Tutor, Who is the Word Himself (1–3); of the "children" whom He trains, Christian men and women alike (4–6); and of His general method, using both chastisements and love (7–12). The second and third books deal with special precepts designed to meet the actual difficulties of contemporary life and not to offer a theory of morals. It would not be easy to find elsewhere, even in the Roman satirists, an equally vivid and detailed picture of heathen manners. The second book contains general directions as to eating and drinking (1 f.), furniture (3), entertainments (4–8), sleep (9), the relations of men and women (10), the use of jewellery (11 f.). The third book opens with an inquiry into the nature of true beauty (c. 1). This leads to a condemnation of extravagance in dress both in men and in women (2 ff.), of luxurious establishments (4 f.), of the misuse of wealth (6 f.). Frugality and exercise are recommended (8–10); and many minute directions are added—often curiously suggestive in the present times—as to dress and behaviour (11 f.). General instructions from Holy Scripture as to the various duties and offices of life lead up to the prayer to the Tutor—the Word—with which the work closes. Immediately after the Tutor are printed in the editions of Clement two short poems, which have been attributed to him. The first, written in an anapaestic measure, is A Hymn of the Saviour Christ ( ὕμνος τοῦ Σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ ), and the second, written in trimeter iambics, is addressed To the Tutor ( εἱς τὸν Παιδαγωγόν ). The first is said to be "Saint Clement's" (τοῦ ἁγίου Κλήμεντος ) in those MSS. which contain it; but it may be a work of primitive date, like the Morning Hymn which has been preserved in our Communion office as the Gloria in Excelsis. If it were Clement's, and designed to occupy its present place, it is scarcely possible that it would have been omitted in any MS.; while it makes an appropriate and natural addition if taken from some other source. There is no evidence to shew that the second is Clement's work; it is doubtless an effusion of some pious scholar of a later date.

III. The Miscellanies ( Στρωματεῖς ). —The title, patchwork (or rather bags for holding the bedclothes, like στρωματόδεσμοι ), suggests a true idea of the character of the work. It is designedly unmethodical, a kind of meadow, as Clement describes it, or rather a wooded mountain (vii. § 111), studded irregularly with various growths, and so fitted to exercise the ingenuity and labour of those likely to profit by it (vi. § 2, p. 736, Pott.). But yet the book is inspired by one thought. It is an endeavour to claim for the gospel the power of fulfilling all the desires of men and of raising to a supreme unity all the objects of knowledge, in the soul of the true gnostic—the perfect Christian philosopher. The first book, which is mutilated at the beginning, treats in the main of the office and the origin of Greek philosophy in relation to Christianity and Judaism. Clement shews that Greek philosophy was part of the Divine education of men, subordinate to the training of the law and the prophets, but yet really from God (§§ 1–58; 91–100). In his anxiety to establish this cardinal proposition he is not content with shewing that the books of O.T. are older than those of the philosophers (59–65; 101–164; 180–182); but endeavours to prove also that the philosophers borrowed from the Jews (66–90; 165 f.). After this he vindicates the character and explains the general scope of the law—"the philosophy of Moses" (167–179). The main object of the second book lies in the more detailed exposition of the originality and superiority of the moral teaching of revelation as compared with that of Greek philosophy which was in part derived from it (§§ 1 ff.; 20–24; 78–96). The argument includes an examination of the nature of faith (4–19; 25–31), resting on a godly fear and perfected by love (32–55); and of repentance (56–71). He discusses the sense in which human affections are ascribed to God (72–75); and shews that the conception of the ideal Christian is that of a man made like to God (97–126), in accordance with the noblest aspirations of philosophy (127–136). The book closes with a preliminary discussion of marriage. The third book investigates the true doctrine of marriage (§§ 57–60) as against those who indulged in every license on the ground that bodily actions are indifferent (1–11; 25–44); and, on the other hand, those who abstained from marriage from hatred of the Creator (12–24; 45–46). Various passages of Scripture wrongly interpreted by heretics are examined (61–101); and the two main errors are shewn to be inconsistent with Christianity (102–110). The fourth book opens with a very interesting outline of the whole plan of the comprehensive apology for Christianity on which he had entered (§§ 1–3). The work evidently grew under his hands, and he implies that he could hardly expect to accomplish the complete design. He then adds fresh traits to his portrait of the true "gnostic." Self-sacrifice, martyrdom, lie at the root of his nature (8–56; 72–77), virtues within the reach of all states and of both sexes (57–71), though even this required to be guarded against fanaticism and misunderstanding (78–96). Other virtues, as love and endurance, are touched upon (97–119); and then Clement gives a picture of a godly woman (120–131), and of the gnostic, who rises above fear and hope to that perfection which rests in the knowledge and love of God (132–174). In the fifth book Clement, following the outline laid down (iv. 1), discusses faith and hope (§§ 1–18), and then passes to the principle of enigmatic teaching. This, he argues, was followed by heathen and Jewish masters alike (19–26); by Pythagoras (27–31); by Moses, in the ordinances of the tabernacle (32–41); by the Aegyptians (42–44); and by many others (45–56). The principle itself is, he maintains, defensible on intelligible grounds (57–60), and supported by the authority of the apostles (61–67). For in fact the knowledge of God can be gained only through serious effort and by divine help (68–89). This review of the character and sources of the highest knowledge leads Clement back to his characteristic proposition that the Greeks borrowed from the Jews the noblest truths of their own philosophy. The sixth and seventh books are designed, as Clement states (vi. § 1) to shew the character of the Christian philosopher (the gnostic), and so to make it clear that he alone is the true worshipper of God. By way of prelude Clement repeats and enforces (§§ 4–38) what he had said on Greek plagiarisms, yet admitting that the Greeks had some true knowledge of God (39–43), and affirming that the gospel was preached in Hades to those of them who had lived according to their light (44–53), though that was feeble compared with the glory of the gospel (54–70). He then sketches the lineaments of the Christian philosopher, who attains to a perfectly passionless state (71–79) and masters for the service of the faith all forms of knowledge, including various mysteries open to him only (80–114). The reward of this true philosopher is proportioned to his attainments (115–148). These are practically unlimited in range, for Greek philosophy, though a gift of God for the training of the nations, is only a recreation for the Christian philosopher in comparison with the serious objects of his study (149–168). In the seventh book Clement regards the Christian philosopher as the one true worshipper of God (§§ 1–5), striving to become like the Son of God (5–21), even as the heathen conversely made their gods like themselves (22–27). The soul is his temple; prayers and thanksgivings, his sacrifice; truth, the law of his life (28–54). Other traits are added to the portraiture of "the gnostic" (55–88); and Clement then meets the general objection urged against Christianity from the conflict of rival sects (89–92). Heresy, he replies, can be detected by two tests. It is opposed to the testimony of Scripture (93–105); and it is of recent origin (106–108). At the close of the seventh book Clement remarks that he "shall proceed with his argument from a fresh beginning" (τῶν ἑξῆς ἀπ ἄλλης ἀρχῆς ποιησόμεθα τὸν λόγον ). The phrase may mean that he proposes to enter upon a new division of the Miscellanies , or that he will now pass to another portion of the great system of writings sketched out in Strom. iv. 1–3. In favour of the first opinion it may be urged that Eusebius ( H. E. vi. 13) and Photius ( Cod. 109) expressly mention eight books of the Miscellanies ; while on the other hand the words themselves, taken in connexion with vii. 1, point rather to the commencement of a new book. The fragment which bears the title of the eighth book in the one remaining MS. is in fact a piece of a treatise on logic. It may naturally have served as an introduction to the examination of the opinions of Greek philosophers, the interpretation of Scripture, and the refutation of heresies which were the general topics of the second principal member of Clement's plan (iv. 2); but it is not easy to see how it could have formed the close of the Miscellanies . It is "a fresh beginning" and nothing more. In the time of Photius (c. a.d. 850) the present fragment was reckoned as the eighth book in some copies, and in others the tract, On the Rich Man that is Saved ( Bibl. 111). Still further confusion is indicated by the fact that passages from the Extracts from the Prophetical Writings are quoted from "the eighth book of the Miscellanies " (Bunsen, Anal. Ante-Nic. i. 288 f.), and also from "the eighth book of the Outlines " (id. 285); while the discussion of prophecy was postponed from the Miscellanies to some later opportunity ( Strom. vii. 1, cf. iv. 2). Perhaps the simplest solution is to suppose that at a very early date the logical introduction to the Outlines was separated from the remainder of the work, and added to MSS. of the Miscellanies . In this way the opinion would arise that there were 8 books of the Miscellanies , and scribes supplied the place of bk. viii. according to their pleasure.

IV. The Outlines ( Ὑποτυπώσεις ) probably grew out of the Miscellanies . Several express quotations from the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th books of the Outlines have been preserved; but the fragments are too few and Clement's method too desultory to allow these to furnish a certain plan of the arrangement of the work. They agree, however, fairly with the summary description of Photius, and probably books i.–iii. contained the general introduction, with notes on the O.T. ("Genesis, Exodus, and the Psalms"); books iv.-vi., notes on the Epp. of St. Paul; books vii. vii i., on the Catholic Epp.

In addition to the detached quotations, there can be no reasonable doubt that the three series of extracts, (a) The summaries from the expositions of Theodotus and the so-called Western school , (b) The selections from the comments on the prophets , and (c) The outlines on the Catholic Epistles , were taken from the Outlines . But partly from the method of compilation, partly from the manner in which they have been preserved in a single MS., these fragments, though of the deepest interest, are at present only imperfectly intelligible.

(a ) The summaries from Theodotus ( ἐκ τῶν Θεοδότου καὶ τῆς ἀνατολικῆς καλουμένης διδασκαλίας κατὰ τοὺς Οὐαλεντίνου χρόνους ἐπιτομαί ) are at once the most corrupt and the most intrinsically difficult of the extracts. It appears as if the compiler set down hastily the passages which contained the interpretations of the school which he wished to collect, without regard to the context, and often in an imperfect form. Sometimes he adds the criticism of Clement (ἡμεῖς δέ , § 8; Ἐμοὶ δέ , § 17; ὁ ἡμέτερος [ λόγος ], § 33); but generally the Valentinian comment is given without remark (οἱ ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου , §§ 2, 6, 16, 23, 25; οἱ Ουαλεντινιανοί , §§ 21, 24, 37; ὥς φησιν ὁ Θεόδοτος , §§ 22, 26, 30; φησί , §§ 41, 67; φασί , §§ 33, 35; λέγουσιν , § 43). It follows that in some cases it is uncertain whether Clement quotes a Valentinian author by way of exposition, or adopts the opinion which he quotes. The same ambiguity appears to have existed in the original work; and it is easy to see how Photius, rapidly perusing the treatise, may have attributed to Clement doctrines which he simply recited without approval and without examination. Thus, in the fragments which remain, occasion might be given to charge Clement with false opinions on the nature of the Son (§ 19), on the creation of Eve (§ 21), on the two Words (§§ 6, 7, 19), on Fate (§§ 75 ff.), on the Incarnation (§ 1). There is no perceptible order or connexion in the series of extracts. The beginning and end are equally corrupt. Some sections are quite detached (e.g. §§ 9, 18, 21, 28, 66, etc.); others give a more or less continuous exposition of some mystery: e.g. §§ 10–16 (the nature of spiritual existences); 39–65 (the relations of wisdom, Jesus, the Christ, the demiurge; the material, the animal, the spiritual); 67–86 (birth, fate, baptism).

(b ) The prophetic selections ( ἐκ τῶν προφητικῶν ἐκλογαί ) are for the most part scarcely less desultory and disconnected than the Summaries , but far simpler in style and substance. They commence with remarks on the symbolism of the elements, and mainly of water (§§ 1–8). Then follow fragmentary reflections on discipline (9–11), on knowledge, faith, creation, the new creation (12–24), fire (25 f.), on writing and preaching (27), on traits of the true gnostic (28–37). A long and miscellaneous series of observations, some of them physiological, succeeds (38–50), and the collection closes with a fairly continuous exposition of Psalms 18 (19 ).

Manuscript. —The summaries from Theodotus and the prophetic selections are at present found only in Cod. Flor. (L.). The text given in the edd. of Clement is most corrupt. The conjectural emendations and Latin trans. of J. Bernays, given by Bunsen in his ed. of the fragments of The Outlines ( Anal. Ante-Nic. i.), are by far our most valuable help for the understanding of the text. Dindorf, in his ed., has overlooked these.

(c) The third important fragment of the Outlines consists of a Latin version of notes on detached verses of I. Peter Jude and I. II. John with several insertions probably due in some cases to transpositions in the MS. (e.g. 1 hae namque primitivae virtutes—audita est Pott. p. 1009 stands properly in connexion with the line of speculation on Jud_1:9; and in others to a marginal illustration drawn from some other part of the work (e.g. Jud_1:24 cum dicit Daniel—confusus est). Cassiodorus says (Inst. Div. Litt. 8) that Clement wrote some remarks on I. Peter i. II. John and James which were generally subtle but at times rash; and that he himself translated them into Latin with such revision as rendered their teaching more safe. It has generally been supposed in spite of the difference of range (James for Jude) that these Latin notes are the version of Cassiodorus. It seems however more probable that the printed notes are mere glosses taken from a Catena and not a substantial work. The Adumbrationes were published by de la Bigne in his Bibliotheca Patrum Par. 1575 (and in later editions); but he gives no account of the MS. or MSS. from which the text was taken. Ph. Labbe however states (de Scriptt. Eccles. 1660 i. p. 230) that he saw an ancient parchment MS. "qui fuit olim Coenobii S. Mariae Montis Dei," which contained these Adumbrationes under that title together with Didymus's commentary on the Catholic Epistles. De la Bigne then probably found the notes of Clement in the "very ancient but somewhat illegible MS." from which he took his text of Didymus which follows the Adumbrationes (Bibl. vi. p. 676 n.).

V. The remaining extant work of Clement Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? (τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος;) is apparently a popular address based upon Mar_10:17-31. The teaching is simple eloquent and just; and the tract closes with the exquisite "story which is no story" of St. John and the young robber which Eusebius relates in his History (iii. 23).

iii. Clements' Position and Influence as a Christian Teacher.—In order to understand Clement rightly it is necessary to bear in mind that he laboured in a crisis of transition. This gives his writings their peculiar interest in all times of change. The transition was threefold affecting doctrine thought and life. Doctrine was passing from the stage of oral tradition to written definition (1). Thought was passing from the immediate circle of the Christian revelation to the whole domain of human experience (2). Life in its fulness was coming to be apprehended as the object of Christian discipline (3). A few suggestions will be offered upon the first two of these heads. (1) Clement repeatedly affirms that even when he sets forth the deepest mysteries he is simply reproducing an original unwritten tradition. This had been committed by the Lord to the apostles Peter James John and Paul and handed down from father to son till at length he set forth accurately in writing what had been delivered in word (Strom. i. § 11 p. 322; cf. vi. 68 p. 774; and fragm. ap. Eus. H. E. ii. 1). But this tradition was as he held it not an independent source of doctrine but a guide to the apprehension of doctrine. It was not co-ordinate with Scripture but interpretative of Scripture (Strom. vi. 124 f. pp 802 f.; de Div. Sal. § 5 p. 938). It was the help to the training of the Christian philosopher (ὁ γνωστικός) and not part of the heritage of the simple believer. Tradition in this aspect preserved the clue to the right understanding of the hidden sense the underlying harmonies the manifold unity of revelation. More particularly the philosopher was able to obtain through tradition the general principles of interpreting the records of revelation and significant illustrations of their application. In this way the true "gnostic" was saved from the errors of the false "gnostic" or heretic who interpreted Scripture without regard to "the ecclesiastical rule" (Strom. vi. 125 p. 803 κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός: ὁ ἐκκλ. κ. ib. vi. 165 p. 826; vii. 41 p. 855; cf. ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας ib. vi. 124 p. 802; 131 p. 806; vii. 94 p. 890; ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας ib. i. 96 p. 375; vii. 105 p. 897). The examples of spiritual interpretation which Clement gives in accordance with this traditional "rule" are frequently visionary and puerile (e.g. Strom. vi. 13

(clehm' uhnt) A fellow worker in the gospel with Paul (Philippians 4:3 ). He was apparently a member of the church at Philippi. Otherwise, no more information about him is available.

Mentioned in Philippians 4:3 . It is conjectured, though without evidence, that this is the same Clement who was afterwards a bishop at Rome, commonly called Clemens Romanus. The church at Corinth having been disturbed by divisions, Clement wrote a letter to the Corinthians, which was so much esteemed by the ancients, that they read it publicly in many churches.