SAINT CLEMENT the first, successor to Anacletus, was a native of Rome and a disciple of Saint Peter. Saint Paul speaks of him in terms of warm interest in his Epistle to the Philippians. According to common tradition, Clemens Romanus is one of the first, if not the first, bishop of Rome after the apostles, and certainly a leading member of that church towards the end of the 1st cent.

(1) Among the most authentic proofs of the connexion of Clement with the Roman church is the mention of his name in its liturgy. The early Christians on the death of a bishop did not discontinue the mention of his name in their public prayers. Now the Roman Canon of the Mass to this day, next after the names of the apostles, recites the names of Linus, Cletus, Clemens; and there is some evidence that the liturgy contained the same names in the same order as early as the 2nd cent; Probably, then, this commemoration dates from Clement’s own time.

(2) An independent proof that Clement held high position in the church of Rome is afforded by the Shepherd of Hermas, a work not later than the episcopate of Pius (A.D. 141–156), the writer of which claims to have been contemporary with Clement. He represents himself as commissioned to write for Clement the book of his Visions in order that Clement might send it to foreign cities, that being his function; while Hermas himself was to read the Vision at Rome with the elders who presided over the church. Thus Clement is recognized as the organ by which the church of Rome communicated with foreign churches; but the passage does not decide whether or not Clement was superior to other presbyters in the domestic government of the church.

 (3) Next in antiquity among the notices of Clement is the general ascription to him of the Epistle to the Church of Corinth, commonly known as Clement’s first epistle. This is written in the name of the church of Rome, and neither in the address nor in the body of the letter contains Clement’s name, yet he seems to have been from the first everywhere recognized as its author. We may not unreasonably infer from the passage just cited from Hermas that the letter was even then celebrated.

About A.D. 170 it is expressly mentioned by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, who, acknowledging another letter written from the church of Rome to the church of Corinth by their then bishop Soter, states that their former letter written by Clement was still read from time to time in their Sunday assemblies. Eusebius speaks of this public reading of Clement’s epistle as the ancient custom of very many churches down to his own time. In the same place he reports that Hegesippus, whose historical work was written in the episcopate next after Soter’s, and who had previously visited both Rome and Corinth, gives particulars concerning the epistle of Clement, and concerning the dissensions in the Corinthian church which had given rise to it. The epistle is cited as Clement’s by Irenaeus, several times by Clement of Alexandria, who in one place gives his namesake the title of Apostle; by Origen; and in fact on this subject the testimony of antiquity is unanimous. A letter which did not bear Clement’s name, and which merely purported to come from the church of Rome, could scarcely have been generally known as Clement’s, if Clement had not been known at the time as holding the chief position in the church of Rome.

 (4) Last among those notices of Clement which may be relied on as historical, we place the statement of Irenaeus that Clement was third bishop of Rome after the apostles, his account being that the apostles Peter and Paul, having founded and built up that church, committed the charge of it to Linus; that Linus was succeeded by Anacletus, and he by Clement. This order is adopted by Eusebius, by Jerome in his Chronicle, and by Eastern chronologers generally.

A different order of placing these bishops can also, however, lay claim to high antiquity. The ancient catalogue known as the Liberian, because ending with the episcopate of Liberius, gives the order, and duration of the first Roman episcopates: Peter 25 years, 1 month, 9 days; Linus 12 years, 4 months, 12 days; Clemens 9 years, 11 months, 12 days; Cletus 6 years, 2 months, 10 days; Anacletus 12 years, 10 months, 3 days: thus Anacletus, who in the earlier list comes before Clement, is replaced by two bishops, Cletus and Anacletus, who come after him; and this account is repeated in other derived catalogues. Irenaeus himself is not consistent in reckoning the Roman bishops. The order, Peter, Linus, Clemens, is adopted by Augustine and by Optatus of Milevis. Tertullian states that the church of Rome held Clement to have been ordained by Peter; and Jerome, while adopting the order of Irenaeus, mentions that most Latins then counted Clement to have been second after Peter, and himself seems to adopt this reckoning in his commentary on Isaiah. The Apostolic Constitutions represent Linus to have been first ordained by Paul, and afterwards, on the death of Linus, Clement by Peter. Epiphanius suggests that Linus and Cletus held office during the lifetime of Peter and Paul, who, on their necessary absence from Rome for apostolic journeys, commended the charge of the church to others. This solution is adopted by Rufinus in the preface to his translation of the Recognitions. Epiphanius has an alternative solution, founded on a conjecture which he tries to support by a reference to a passage in Clement’s epistle, viz. that Clement, after having been ordained by Peter, withdrew from his office and did not resume it until after the death of Linus and Cletus. A more modern attempt to reconcile these accounts is Cave’s hypothesis that Linus and after him Cletus had been appointed by Paul to preside over a Roman church of Gentile Christians; Clement by Peter over a church of Jewish believers, and that ultimately Clement was bishop over the whole Roman church. Still later it has been argued that the uncertainty of order may mean that during the 1st cent. there was no bishop in the church of Rome, and that the names of three of the leading presbyters have been handed down by some in one order, by others in another. The authorities, however, which differ from the account of Irenaeus, ultimately reduce themselves to two. Perhaps the parent of the rest is the letter of Clement to James giving an account of Clement’s ordination by Peter; for it seems to have been plainly the acceptance of this ordination as historical which inspired the desire to correct a list of bishops which placed Clement at a distance of three from Peter. The other authority is the Chronicle of Hippolytus, pub. A.D. 235, for it has been satisfactorily shown that the earlier part of the Liberian catalogue is derived from the list of Roman bishops in this work. The confusion of later writers arises from attempts to reconcile conflicting authorities, all of which seemed deserving of confidence: viz. (1) the list of Irenaeus, and probably of Hegesippus, giving merely a succession of Roman bishops; (2) the list of Hippolytus giving a succession in somewhat different order and also the years of the duration of the episcopates; and (3) the letter to James relating the ordination of Clement by Peter. The main question, then, is, which is more entitled to confidence, the order of Irenaeus or of Hippolytus? and we have no hesitation in accepting the former. First, because it is distinctly the more ancient; secondly, because if the earlier tradition had not placed the undistinguished name Cletus before the well-known Clement, no later writer would have reversed its order; thirdly, because of the testimony of the liturgy. Hippolytus being apparently the first scientific chronologer in the Roman church, his authority there naturally ranked very high, and his order of the succession seems to have been generally accepted in the West for a considerable time. Any commemoration, therefore, introduced into the liturgy after his time would have followed his order, Linus, Clemens, Cletus, or, if of very late introduction, would have left out the obscure name Cletus altogether. We conclude, then, that the commemoration in the order, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, had been introduced before the time of Hippolytus, and was by then so firmly established that even the contradictory result arrived at by Hippolytus (because he accepted as historically true the ordination of Clement by Peter as related in the Ep. to James) could not alter it. The Recognitions are cited by Origen, the contemporary of Hippolytus; and the account which their preface gives of Clement’s ordination seems to have been fully believed by the Roman church.

The death of Clement and the consequent accession of Evaristus is dated by Eusebius in his Chronicle A.D. 95, and in his Church History the third year of Trajan, A.D. 100. According to the chronology of the Liberian Catalogue, the accession of Evaristus is dated A.D. 95. Now no one dates the death of Peter later than the persecution of Nero, A.D. 67. If, therefore, Clement was ordained by Peter, and if we retain the order of Irenaeus, Clement had an episcopate of about 30 years, a length far greater than any tradition suggests. Hippolytus, probably following the then received account of the length of Clement’s episcopate, has placed it A.D. 67–76; and, seeing the above difficulty, has filled the space between Clement and Evaristus by transposing Cletus and, as the gap seemed too large to be filled by one episcopate, by counting as distinct the Cletus of the liturgy and the Anacletus of the earlier catalogue. Apparently it was Hippolytus who devised the theory stated in the Apostolic Constitutions, that Linus held the bishopric during the lifetime of Peter; for this seems to be the interpretation of the dates assigned in the Liberian Catalogue, Peter 30–55, Linus 55–67. But the whole ground of these speculations is removed if we reject the tale of Clement’s ordination by Peter; if for no other reason, on account of the chronological confusion which it causes. Thus we retain the order of Irenaeus, accounting that of Hippolytus as an arbitrary transposition to meet a chronological difficulty. The time that we are thus led to assign to the activity of Clement, viz. the end of Domitian’s reign, coincides with that which Eusebius, apparently on the authority of Hegesippus, assigns to Clement’s epistle, and with that which an examination of the letter itself suggests.

The result thus arrived at casts great doubt on the identification of the Roman Clement with the Clement named Phil. IV. 3. This identification is unhesitatingly made by Origen (in Joann. I. 29) and a host of later writers. Irenaeus also may have had this passage in mind when he speaks of Clement as a hearer of the apostles, though probably he was principally influenced by the work which afterwards grew into the Recognitions. But though it is not actually impossible that the Clement who held a leading position in the church of Philippi during Paul's imprisonment might thirty years afterwards have presided over the church of Rome, yet the difference of time and place deprives of all likelihood an identification merely based upon a very common name. Lightfoot has remarked that Tacitus, for instance, mentions five Clements. Far more plausibly it has been proposed to identify the author of the epistle with another Clement, who was almost certainly at the time a distinguished member of the Roman church. We learn from Suetonius and from Dio Cassius, that in 95, the very year fixed by some for the death of bishop Clement, death or banishment was inflicted by Domitian on several persons addicted to Jewish customs, and amongst them Flavius Clemens, a relation of his own, whose consulship had but just expired, was put to death on a charge of atheism, while his wife Domitilla, also a member of the emperor's family, was banished. The language is such as heathen writers might naturally use to describe a persecution of Christians; but Eusebius expressly claims one Domitilla, a niece of the consul's, as a sufferer for Christ; and cites the heathen historian Brutius as stating that several Christians suffered martyrdom at this time. If, then, the consul Clement was a Christian martyr, his rank would give him during his life a foremost position in the Roman church. It is natural to think that the writer of the epistle may have been either the consul or a member of his family. Yet if so, the traditions of the Roman church must have been singularly defective. No writer before Rufinus speaks of bishop Clement as a martyr; nor does any ancient writer in any way connect him with the consul. In the Recognitions Clement is represented as a relation of the emperor; not, however, of Domitian, but of Tiberius. A fabulous account of Clement’s martyrdom, probably of no earlier origin than the 9th cent., tells how Clement was first banished to the Crimea, worked there such miracles as converted the whole district, and was thereupon by Trajan’s order cast into the sea with an anchor round his neck, an event followed by new prodigies.

The only genuine work of Clement is the Epistle to the Corinthians already mentioned. Its main object is to restore harmony to the Corinthian church, which had been disturbed by questions apparently concerning discipline rather than doctrine. The bulk of the letter is taken up in enforcing the duties of meekness, humility, submission to lawful authority, and but little attempt is made at the refutation of doctrinal error. Some pains, it is true, are taken to establish the doctrine of the Resurrection; but this subject is not connected by the writer with the disputes, and so much use is made of Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians that we cannot lay much stress on the fact that one of the topics of that epistle is fully treated. The dissensions are said to have been caused by the arrogance of a few self-willed persons who led a revolt against the authority of the presbyters. Their pride probably rested on their possession of spiritual gifts, and perhaps on the chastity which they practised. Though pains are taken to show the necessity of a distinction of orders, we cannot infer that this was really questioned by the revolters; for the charge against them, that they had unwarrantably deposed from the office of presbyter certain who had filled it blamelessly, implies that the office continued to be recognized by them. But this unauthorized deposition naturally led to a schism, and representations made at Rome by some of the persons ill-treated may have led to the letter of

Clement. It is just possible that we can name one of these persons. At the end of the letter a wish is expressed that the messengers of the Roman church, Ephebus and Bito, with Fortunatus also, might be sent back speedily with tidings of restored harmony. The form of expression distinguishing Fortunatus from the Roman delegates favours the supposition that he was a Corinthian, and as Clement urges on those who had been the cause of dissension to withdraw for peace' sake, it is possible that Fortunatus might have so withdrawn and found a welcome at Rome. Another conjecture identifies him with the Fortunatus mentioned in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians.

However precarious this identification may be, internal evidence shows that the epistle is not so far from apostolic times as to make it impossible. None of the apostles are spoken of as living, but the deaths of Peter and Paul, described as men of their own generation, are referred to as then recent, and some of the presbyters appointed by the apostles are spoken of as still surviving. The early date thus indicated is confirmed by the absence of allusion to controversial topics of the 2nd cent., and by the immaturity of doctrinal development on certain points. Thus “bishop” and “presbyter” are, as in N.T., used convertibly, and there is no trace that in the church of Corinth one presbyter had any very pronounced authority over the rest. The deposition of certain presbyters is not spoken of as usurpation of the authority of any single person, but of that of the whole body of presbyters. Again, to the writer the “Scriptures" are the books of the O.T.; these he cites most copiously and uses to enforce his arguments. He expressly mentions St. Paul's Ep. to the Corinthians; and twice reminds his hearers of words of our Lord. The way in which he uses the quotations implies the existence of written records recognized by both parties. Besides these, without any formal citation he makes unmistakable use of other N.T. books, chiefly of Heb., but also of Rom. and other Pauline, including the Pastoral epistles, Acts, James, and I. Peter. Still, their authority is not appealed to in the same manner as is that of the O.T. It may be mentioned here that Clement’s epistle contains the earliest recognition of the Book of Judith. He quotes also from O.T. apocryphal books or interpolations not now extant.

To fix more closely the date of the epistle, the principal fact available is, that in the opening an apology is made that the church of Rome had not been able to give earlier attention to the Corinthian disputes, owing to the sudden and repeated calamities which had befallen it. It is generally agreed that this must refer to the persecution under either Nero or Domitian. A date about midway between these is that to which the phenomena of the epistle would have inclined us; but having to choose between these two we have no hesitation in preferring the latter. The main argument in favour of the earlier date, that the temple service is spoken of as being still offered, is satisfactorily met by the occurrence of a quite similar use of the present tense in Josephus. Indeed the passage, carefully considered, suggests the opposite inference; for Clement would Judaize to an extent of which there is no sign elsewhere in the epistle, if, in case the temple rites were being still celebrated, he were to speak of them as the appointed and acceptable way of serving God. All the other notes of time are difficult to reconcile with a date so close to the apostles as the reign of Nero.

As to whether the writer was a Jew or a Gentile, the arguments are not absolutely decisive; but it seems more conceivable that a Hellenistic Jew resident at Rome could have acquired the knowledge of Roman history and heathen literature exhibited in the epistle, than that one not familiar from his childhood with the O.T. could possess so intimate an acquaintance with it. This consideration, of course, bears on the question whether Flavius Clemens could have written the letter.

The letter does not yield any support to the theory of 1st cent. disputes between a Pauline and an anti-Pauline party in the church. No such disputes appear in the dissensions at Corinth; and at Rome the Gentile and Jewish sections of the church seem in Clement’s time to be completely fused. The obligation on Gentiles to observe the Mosaic law does not seem a matter of concern. The whole Christian community is regarded as the inheritor of the promises to the Jewish people. Clement holds both SS. Peter and Paul in the highest (and equal) honor.

The epistle was known until 1875 only through a single MS., the great Alexandrian MS. brought to England in 1628, of which an account is given in all works on the criticism of the N.T.

An entirely new authority for the text of the epistle was gained by the discovery in the library of the Holy Sepulchre at Fanari, in Constantinople, of a MS. containing an unmutilated text of the two epistles ascribed to Clement. The new authority was announced, and first used in establishing the text, in a very careful and able ed. of the epp. by Bryennius, metropolitan of Serrae, pub. in Constantinople at the end of 1875. The MS., which is cursive and dated A.D. 1056, is contained in a small octavo volume, 7 ½ inches by 6, which has, besides the Epp. of Clement, Chrysostom's synopsis of the O.T., the Ep. of Barnabas, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (occupying in the MS. less space by one fourth than the second Ep. of Cement), and a collection of Ignatian epistles. It gives a very good text of the Clementine letters, independent of the Alexandrian MS., but, on the whole, in tolerably close agreement with it, even in passages where the best critics had suspected error. Besides filling up small lacunae in the text of the older MS., it supplies the contents of the entire leaf which had been lost. This part contains a passage quoted by Basil, but not another quoted by Pseudo-Justin, confirmed in some degree by Irenaeus, which had been referred to this place. Except for trifling omissions we must have the letter now as complete as it was originally in the Alexandrian MS. For Harnack; on counting the letters in the recovered portion, found that they amounted almost exactly to the average contents of a leaf of the older MS. Lightfoot has pointed out that by a small change in the text of Ps.-Justin, his reference is satisfied by a passage in the newly discovered conclusion of the second epistle. The new portion of the first principally consists of a prayer, possibly founded on the liturgical use of the Roman church. What has been said in the beginning of the letter as to the calamities under which that church had suffered is illustrated by some of the petitions, and prayer is made for their earthly rulers and that they themselves might submit to them, recognizing the honor given them by God, and not opposing His will. Very noticeable in this new part of the letter is the tone of authority used in making an unsolicited interference with the affairs of another church. “If any disobey the words spoken by God through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in transgression, and no small danger, but we shall be clear from this sin." "You will cause us joy and exultation if, obeying the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, you cut out the lawless passion of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and concord in this letter. But we have sent faithful and discreet men who have walked from youth to old age unblameably amongst us, who shall be witnesses between us and you. This have we done that you may know that all our care has been and is that you may speedily be at peace." It remains open for controversy how far the expressions quoted indicate official superiority of the Roman church, or only the writer's conviction of the goodness of their cause. We may add that the epithet applied by Irenaeus to the epistle proves to have been suggested by a phrase in the letter itself.

Lightfoot gives references to a succession of writers who have quoted the epistle. Polycarp, though not formally quoting Clement’s epistle, gives in several passages clear proof of acquaintance with it. A passage in Ignatius’s epistle to Polycarp, c. 5, may also be set down as derived from Clement, but other parallels collected by Hilgenfeld are extremely doubtful. The epistle does not seem to have been translated into Latin, and was consequently little known in the West.

The Second Epistle to the Corinthians.—This letter also formed part of the Alexandrian MS., but its conclusion had been lost by mutilation. We now have it complete in the edition of Bryennius. In the list of contents of the older MS. it is marked as Clement’s second epistle, but not expressly described as to the Corinthians. It is so described in the later MS. It is not mentioned by any writer before Eusebius, and the language used by some of them is inconsistent with their having accepted it. Eusebius mentions it as a second letter ascribed to Clement, but not, like the former, used by the older writers, and he only speaks of one as the acknowledged epistle of Clement. The two epistles are placed among the books of the N.T., in the 8th book of the Apostolic Constitutions, which probably belongs to the 6th cent. The second epistle is first expressly cited as to the Corinthians by Severus of Antioch early in the same cent. Internal evidence, though adverse to Clementine authorship, assigns to the work a date not later than the 2nd cent., and probably the first half of it. The writer is distinctly a Gentile, and contrasts himself and his readers with the Jewish nation in a manner quite unlike the genuine Clement; and his quotations are not, like Clement’s, almost exclusively from O.T.; the gospel history is largely cited, and once under the name of Scripture. Many of the quotations, however, differ from our canonical gospels, and since one of them agrees with a passage referred by Clement of Alexandria to the gospel of the Egyptians, this was probably the source of other quotations also. The epistle would seem from this to be earlier than the close of the 2nd cent., at which time our four gospels were in a position of exclusive authority. The controversies with which the writer deals are those of the early part of the 2nd cent. In language suggested by the Ep. to the Ephesians, the spiritual church is described as created before the sun and moon, as the female of whom Christ is the male, the body of which he is the soul. It seems likely that a work using such language had gained its acceptance with the church before Gnostic theories concerning the Aeons Christus and Ecclesia had brought discredit upon such speculations. The doctrine of the pre-existence of the church is, as Harnack noted, one of several points of contact between this work and the Shepherd of Hermas, making it probable that both emanate from the same age and the same circle. We therefore refer the place of composition to Rome, notwithstanding an apparent reference to the Isthmian games which favours a connexion with Corinth. The description of the work as an Ep. to the Corinthians, never strongly supported by external evidence, is disproved by the newly discovered conclusion, whence it clearly appears that the work is, as Dodwell and others had supposed, no epistle, but a homily. It professes, and there seems no reason to doubt it, to have been composed to be publicly read in church, and therefore the writer's position in the church was one which would secure that use of his work. But he does not claim any position of superiority, and the foremost place in ruling and teaching the church is attributed to the body of presbyters. He nowhere claims to be Clement. But it is not strange that an anonymous, but undoubtedly early document of the Roman church should come to be ascribed to the universally acknowledged author of the earliest document of that church; nor that when both had come to be received as Clement’s, the second should come to be regarded as, like the first, an epistle to the Corinthians.

The Two Epistles on Virginity.—These are extant only in Syriac, and only in a single MS. purchased at Aleppo c. A.D. 1750, for Wetstein. He had commissioned a copy of the Philoxenian version of the N.T. to be bought, and this MS. proved to be only a copy of the well-known Peshito. But the disappointment was compensated by the unexpected discovery of these letters, till then absolutely unknown in the West. After the Ep. to the Hebrews, the last in the Peshitta canon, the scribe adds a doxology, and a note with personal details by which we can date the MS. A.D. 1470, and then proceeds, “We subjoin to the epistles of Paul those epistles of the apostles, which are not found in all the copies”, on which follow II. Peter, II., III. John, and Jude, from the Philoxenian version, and then, without any break, these letters, with the titles: “The first epistle of the blessed Clement, the disciple of Peter the apostle”, and “The second epistle of the same Clement”. The MS. is now preserved in the library of the Seminary of the Remonstrants at Amsterdam. The letters were published, as an appendix to his Greek Testament, by Wetstein, who also defended their authenticity. The last editor is Beelen (Louvain, 1856 ). The letters, though now only extant in Syriac, are proved by their Graecisms to be a translation from the Greek, and by the existence of a fragment containing an apparently different Syriac translation of one passage in them. This fragment is contained in a MS. bearing the date A.D. 562. The earliest writer who quotes these letters is Epiphanius. In a passage, which until the discovery of the Syriac letters had been felt as perplexing, he describes Clement as “in the encyclical letters which he wrote, and which are read in the holy churches”, having taught virginity, and praised Elias and David and Samson, and all the prophets. The letters to the Corinthians cannot be described as encyclical; and the topics specified are not treated of in them, while they are dwelt on in the Syriac letters. St. Jerome, though in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers he follows Eusebius in mentioning only the two letters to the Corinthians as ascribed to Clement, yet must be understood as referring to the letters on virginity in his treatise against Jovinian where he speaks of Clement as composing almost his entire discourse concerning the purity of virginity. He may have become acquainted with these letters during his residence in Palestine. The presumption against their genuineness, arising from the absence of notice of them by Eusebius and every other writer anterior to Epiphanius, and from the limited circulation which they appear ever to have attained in the church, is absolutely confirmed by internal evidence. Their style and whole colouring are utterly unlike those of the genuine epistle; and the writer is evidently one whose thoughts and language have been moulded by long and early acquaintance with N.T., in the same manner as those of the real Clement are by his acquaintance with the Old. The Gospel of St. John is more than once cited, but not any apocryphal N.T. book. Competent judges have assigned these epistles to the middle of the 2nd cent., but their arguments hardly suffice to exclude a somewhat later date.

CLEMENTINE LITERATURE

Among the spurious writings attributed to Clement of Rome, the chief is one which purported to contain a record made by Clement of discourses of the apostle Peter, together with an account of the circumstances under which Clement came to be Peter’s travelling companion, and of other details of Clement’s family history. This work assumed a variety of forms. The Ebionitism with which the original work had been strongly coloured was first softened, then removed. Changes were also made with a view to improvement of the story; and as time went on far more interest was felt in the framework of narrative than in the discourses themselves. In the latest forms of the work, several of the discourses are omitted, and the rest greatly abridged. In early times, even when the work was rejected as heretical, it yet seems to have been supposed to rest on a groundwork of fact, and several statements passed into church tradition which appear primarily to rest on its authority. Afterwards, in its orthodox form, it was accepted as a genuine work of Clement and a trustworthy historical authority. On the revival of learning the disposition was to disregard the book as a heretical figment quite worthless to the student of church history. Later it was seen that even if no more than a historical novel composed with a controversial object towards the end of the 2nd cent., such a document must be most valuable in showing the opinions of the school from which it emanated; and accordingly the Clementine writings play an important part in all modem discussions concerning the history of the early ages of the church.

I. Clement, having stated that he was born at Rome and from early years a lover of chastity, gives a lively description of the perplexity caused him by his anxiety to solve the problems, what had been the origin and what would be the future of the world, and whether he himself might look forward to a future life. He seeks in vain for knowledge in the schools of the philosophers, finding nothing but disputings, contradiction, and uncertainty. At length a rumour that there had arisen in Judaea a preacher of truth possessed of miraculous power is confirmed by the arrival of Barnabas in Rome, who declares that the Son of God was even then preaching in Judaea, and promising eternal life to His disciples. Barnabas is rudely received by the Roman rabble, and returns to his own country in haste to be present at a Jewish feast. Clement, though desirous to accompany him for further instruction, is detained by the necessity of collecting money due to him; but sails shortly after for Palestine, and after a fifteen days' voyage arrives at Caesarea. There he finds Barnabas again and is introduced by him to Peter, who had arrived at Caesarea on the same day, and who was on the next to hold a discussion with Simon the Samaritan. Peter forthwith frees Clement from his perplexities, by instructing him in the doctrine of the "true prophet." For one who has received the true prophet's credentials there is an end of uncertainty; faith in Him can never be withdrawn, nor can anything which He teaches admit of doubt or question. Clement by Peter's orders committed his teaching to writing, and sent the book to James, to whom Peter had been commanded annually to transmit an account of his doings. We are next told that Simon postponed the appointed discussion with Peter, who uses the interval thus gained to give Clement a continuous exposition of the faith, in which God's dealings are declared from the commencement of the world to the then present time. This section includes an account of a disputation held on the temple steps between the apostles and the various sects of the Jews, viz. the priests, the Sadducees, the Samaritans, the Scribes and Pharisees, and the disciples of John. When the apostles are on the point of success the disputation is broken off by a tumult raised by an unnamed enemy, who is unmistakably Saul, who flings James down the temple steps, leaving him for dead, and disperses the assembly. The disciples fly to Jericho, and the enemy hastens to Damascus, whither he supposes Peter to have fled in order there to make havoc of the faithful. At Jericho, James hears from Zacchaeus of the mischief being done by Simon at Caesarea, and sends Peter thither to refute him, ordering him to report to him annually, but more particularly every seven years. In the section just described there are some things which do not harmonize with what has gone before. The date of the events related is given as seven years after our Lord's passion, although the previous story implies that Clement’s voyage had been made in the very year that ended our Lord's ministry. Also in one place Peter is mentioned in the third person, though he is himself the speaker. These facts prove that the story of Clement has been added on to an older document. It has been conjectured that this document was an Ebionite work, the contents of which, as described by Epiphanius, well correspond with those of this section, and the title of which might be explained as referring to discourses on the temple steps. But this conjecture encounters the difficulty that the author himself indicates a different source for this part of his work.

We are next introduced to two disciples of Peter, Nicetas and Aquila, who had been disciples of Simon. These give an account of the history of Simon and of his magical powers, stating that Simon supposed himself to perform his wonders by the aid of the soul of a murdered boy, whose likeness was preserved in Simon's bed-chamber. Prepared with this information, Peter enters into a public discussion with Simon which lasts for three days, the main subject in debate being whether the difficulty of reconciling the existence of evil with the goodness and power of the Creator does not force us to believe in the existence of a God different from the Creator of the world. The question of the immortality of the soul is also treated of, and this brings the discussion to a dramatic close. For Peter offers to settle the question by proceeding to Simon's bed-chamber, and interrogating the soul of the murdered boy, whose likeness was there preserved. On finding his secret known to Peter, Simon humbles himself, but retracts his repentance on Peter's acknowledging that he had this knowledge, not by prophetic power, but from associates of Simon. The multitude, however, are filled with indignation, and drive Simon away in disgrace. Simon departs, informing his disciples that divine honours await him at Rome. Peter resolves to follow him among the Gentiles and expose his wickedness; and having remained three months at Caesarea for the establishment of the church, he ordains Zacchaeus as its bishop, and sets out for Tripolis, now the centre of Simon's operations. This brings the third book of the Recognitions to a close; and here we are told that Clement sent to James an account in ten books of Peter's discourses, of which the author gives the contents in detail, from which we may conclude that they formed a work really in existence previous to his own composition. These contents can scarcely be described as an abstract of the three books of the Recognitions; for though the same topics are more or less touched on, the order and proportion of treatment are different. One of the books is described as treating of the Apostles' disputation at the temple; and therefore it seems needless to look for the original of this part in the Ascents of James or elsewhere.

II. On Peter’s arrival at Tripolis he finds that Simon, hearing of his coming, had fled by night to Syria. Peter proceeds to instruct the people; and his discourses containing a polemic against heathenism, occupy the next three books of Recognitions. Book VI terminates with the baptism of Clement and the ordination of a bishop, after which Peter sets out for Antioch, having spent 3 months at Tripolis.

III. With book VII the story of Clement’s recognition of his family begins. We shall presently discuss how an occasion is skillfully presented for Clement’s relating his family history to Peter. That history is as follows: Clement’s father, Faustinianus, was a member of the emperor’s family, and married by him to a lady of noble birth, named Mattidia. By her he had twin sons, Faustus and Faustinus, and afterwards Clement. When Clement was five years old, Mattidia told her husband that she had seen a vision warning her that unless she and her twin sons speedily left Rome and remained absent for ten years, all must perish miserably. Thereupon the father sent his wife and children with suitable provision of money and attendance to Athens, in order to educate them there. But after her departure no tidings reached Rome, and Faustinianus, having in vain sent others to inquire for them, at length left Clement under guardianship at Rome, and departed himself in search of them. But he too disappeared, and Clement, now aged thirty-two, had never since heard of father, mother, or brothers. The story proceeds to tell how Peter and Clement on their way to Antioch go over to the island of Aradus to see the wonders of a celebrated temple there. While Clement and his party are admiring works of Phidias preserved in the temple, Peter converses with a beggar woman outside, and the story she tells of her life is in such agreement with that previously told him by Clement, that Peter is able to unite mother and son. The vision which she had related had been feigned in order to escape from the incestuous addresses of her husband's brother, without causing family discord by revealing his wickedness. On her voyage to Athens she had been shipwrecked, and cast on shore by the waves, without being able to tell what had become of her children. All now return to the main land, and on telling the story to their companions who had been left behind, Nicetas and Aquila recognize their own story and declare themselves to be the twin sons, who had been saved from the wreck and sold into slavery by their rescuers. Mattidia is baptized. After the baptism Peter and the three brothers, having bathed in the sea, withdraw to a retired place for prayer. An old man in a workman's dress accosts them and undertakes to prove to them that prayer is useless, and that there is neither God nor Providence, but that all things are governed by astrological fate (genesis). A set disputation takes place and occupies books 8 and 9; the 3 brothers, being well trained in Grecian philosophy, successively argue on the side of Providence, and discuss the evidence for astrology. The discussion is closed by a dramatic surprise. When all the old man's other difficulties have been solved, he undertakes to produce a conclusive argument from his own experience. His own wife had been born under a horoscope which compelled her to commit adultery, and to end her days by water in foreign travel. And so it turned out. She had been guilty of adultery with a slave, as he had learned on his brother's testimony, and afterwards leaving Rome with her twin sons on account of a pretended vision, had perished miserably by shipwreck. Peter has now the triumph of fully reuniting the family and gaining a victory in the discussion, by showing the complete falsification of the astrological prediction. From the account given by Rufinus, it would seem that one of the forms of the Recognitions known to him closed here; but in the tenth book as we have it, the story is prolonged by discourses intended to bring Faustinianus to a hearty reception of Christianity. After this Simon is again brought on the stage. He has been very successful at Antioch in showing wonders to the people and stirring up their hatred against Peter. One of Peter's emissaries, in order to drive him to flight, prevails on Cornelius the centurion, who had been sent on public business to Caesarea, to give out that he had been commissioned to seek out and destroy Simon, in accordance with an edict of the emperor for the destruction of sorcerers at Rome and in the provinces. Tidings of this are brought to Simon by a pretended friend, who is in reality a Christian spy. Simon, in alarm, flees to Laodicea, and there meeting Faustinianus, who had come to visit their common friends, Apion (or, as our author spells it, Appion) and Anubion, transforms by his magic the features of Faustinianus into his own, that Faustinianus may be arrested in his stead. But Peter, not being deceived by the transformation, turns it to the greater discomfiture of Simon. For he sends Faustinianus to Antioch, who, pretending to be Simon, whose form he bore, makes a public confession of imposture, and testifies to the divine mission of Peter. After this, when Simon attempts again to get a hearing in Antioch, he is driven away in disgrace. Peter is received then with the greatest honour and baptizes Faustinianus, who has meanwhile recovered his own form.

We turn now to the story as told in the Homilies. The opening is identical with that of the Recognitions, except for one small variation. Clement, instead of meeting Barnabas in Rome, has been induced by an anonymous Christian teacher to sail for Palestine; but being driven by storms to Alexandria, there encounters Barnabas. It is not easy to say which form is the original. On the one hand, the account that Clement is delayed from following Barnabas by the necessity of collecting money due to him is perfectly in place if the scene is laid at Rome, but not so if Clement is a stranger driven by stress of weather to Alexandria. The author, who elsewhere shows Alexandrian proclivities, may have wished to honour that city by connecting Barnabas with it; or was perhaps unwilling that Peter should be preceded by another apostle at Rome. On the other hand, the rabble which assails Barnabas is in both versions described as a mob of Greeks, and the fifteen days' voyage to Palestine corresponds better with Alexandria than with Rome. The narrative proceeds as in Recognitions as far as the end of Peter's disputation with Simon at Caesarea; but both Peter's preliminary instructions to Clement and the disputation itself are different. In Homilies Peter prepares Clement by teaching him his secret doctrine concerning difficulties likely to be raised by Simon, the true solution of which he could not produce before the multitude. Simon would bring forward texts which seemed to speak of a plurality of Gods, or which imputed imperfection to God, or spoke of Him as changing His purpose or hardening men's hearts and so forth; or, again, which laid crimes to the charge of the just men of the law, Adam and Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. In public it would be inexpedient to question the authority of these passages of Scripture, and the difficulty must be met in some other way. But the true solution is that the Scriptures have been corrupted; and all those passages which speak against God are to be rejected as spurious additions. Although this doctrine is represented as strictly esoteric, it is reproduced in the public discussion with Simon which immediately follows. This disputation in Homilies is very short, the main conflict between Peter and Simon being reserved for a later stage of the story. It is here stated, however, that this disputation at Caesarea lasted three days, although only the subjects treated on the first day are mentioned. We have next a great variation between Homilies and Recognitions. According to Homilies, Simon, vanquished in the disputation, flies to Tyre, and Nicetas, Aquila, and Clement are sent forward by Peter to prepare the way for him. There they meet Apion, and a public disputation on heathen mythology is held between Clement and Apion, the debate going over many of the topics treated of in the tenth book of Recognitions. On Peter's arrival at Tyre, Simon flies on to Tripolis, and thence also to Syria on Peter's continuing the pursuit. We have, as in Recognitions, discourses delivered to the heathen at Tripolis, and the story of the discovery of

Clement’s family is in the main told as in Recognitions, with differences in detail to be noticed presently. In Homilies, the main disputation between Peter and Simon takes place after the recognitions, and is held at Laodicea, Clemen’'s father (whose name according to Homilies is Faustus) acting as judge. The last homily contains explanations given by Peter to his company after the flight of Simon; and concludes with an account similar to that in Recognitions, of the transformation of Clement's father.

To this analysis must be added an account of the prefatory matter. Neither the Latin nor Syriac version of the Recognitions translates any preface; but Rufinus mentions having found in his original a letter of Clement to James, which he does not prefix, because, as he says, it is of later date and he had translated it elsewhere. The remark about later date need not imply any doubt of its genuineness, but merely that the letter, which purports to have been written after the death of Peter, is not rightly prefixed to discourses which claim to have been written some years previously. The letter itself is preserved in the MSS. of the Homilies, and gives an account of Peter's ordination of Clement as his successor at Rome, and closes with instructions to Clement to send to James an abstract of Peter's discourses. The work that follows purports to contain an abridgment of discourses already more fully sent to James; and is given the title: "An epitome by Clement of Peter's discourses during his sojournings". The Homilies contain another preface in the form of a letter from Peter himself to James. In this no mention is made of Clement, but Peter himself sends his discourses to James, strictly forbidding their indiscriminate publication, and charging him not to communicate them to any Gentile, nor even to any of the circumcised, except after a long probation, and the later ones only after such an one had been tried and found faithful with regard to the earlier. Subjoined is an oath of secrecy to be taken by those to whom the writings shall be communicated. Examination shows that the letter of Clement cannot belong to the Homilies; for its account of Clement’s deprecation of the dignity of the episcopate, and of the charges given to him on his admission to it, are in great measure identical with what is related in the 5th homily, in the case of the ordination of Zacchaeus at Caesarea. These are omitted from the story as told in the Recognitions. The inference follows that the letter of Clement is the preface to the Recognitions. Thus, according to the conclusion we form on other grounds as to the relative priority of the two forms, either R., when prefixing his account of Clement’s ordination, transposed matter which the older document had contained in connection with Zacchaeus, or Homilies, when substituting for the letter of Clement a letter in the name of Peter himself, found in Clement’s letter matter which seemed too valuable to be wasted, and therefore worked it into the account of the first ordination related in the story, that of Zacchaeus. The letter of Peter thus remains as the preface either to the Homilies or to the earlier form of the work before the name of Clement had been introduced. On the question of relative priority it may be urged that it is more likely that a later writer would remove a preface written in the name of Clement, in order to give his work the higher authority of Peter, than that the converse change should be made; and also that the strong charges to secrecy and to the communication of the work in successive installments would be accounted for, if we suppose that at the time of the publication of the Homilies another version of Peter's discourses had been in circulation, and that the writer was anxious to offer some account why what he produced as the genuine form of the discourses should not have been earlier made known. Respecting this relative priority there has been great diversity of opinion among critics: Baur, Schliemann, Schwegler, and Uhlhorn give the priority to H., Hilgenfeld and Ritschl to R.; Lehmann holds R. to be the original for the first three books, H. in the later part. Lipsius regards both as independent modifications of a common original. Without speaking over-confidently, our own conclusion is, that while neither of the existing documents can claim to be the original form, they are not independent; that H. is the later and in all that relates to Clement's family history has borrowed from R. Probably the original form contained little but discourses, and was probably an esoteric document, in use only among the Ebionites; and the author of R. may have added to it the whole story of Clement’s recovery of his parents, at the same time fitting the work for popular use by omitting or softening down the harshest parts of its Ebionitism; and finally, H., a strong Ebionite, may have restored some of the original discourses, retaining the little romance which no doubt had been found to add much to the popularity and attractiveness of the volume. The following are some of the arguments which prove that H. is not an original.

 (1) The story of Clement’s first recognition of his family is told in exactly the same way in R. book 7, and in H. book 12. Clement, anxious to be permitted to join himself permanently as travelling companion to Peter, reminds him of words used at Caesarea: how Peter had there invited those to travel with him who could do so with piety, that is, without deserting wife, parents, or other relations whom they could not properly leave. Clement states that he is himself one thus untrammelled, and he is thus led to tell the story of his life. These words of Peter, to which both R. and H. refer, are to be found only in R. , not in H. It has been stated that the ordination of Zacchaeus at Caesarea is told fully in H., and only briefly in R. In recompense R. has a long section describing the grief of the disciples at Peter's departure and the consolations which he addressed to them; all this is compressed into a line or two in H. It is matter which any one revising R. would most naturally cut out as unimportant and uninteresting; but we see that it contains words essential in the interests of the story, and can hardly doubt that these words were introduced with a view to the use subsequently made of them. This instance not only shows, as Lehmann admits, that H. is not original in respect of the Caesarean sections, but still more decisively refutes Lehmann's own hypothesis that it was H. who ornamented an originally simpler story with the romance of the recognitions. Either the author of that romance, as is most probable, was also the author of Peter's Caesarean speech, which has little use except as a preparation for what follows; or else, finding that speech in an earlier document, used it as a connecting link to join on his own addition. In either case he must have been fully alive to its importance, and it is quite impossible that he could have left it out from his version of the story. Moreover, of the two writers H. and R., H. is the one infinitely less capable of inventing a romance. Looking at the whole work as a controversial novel, it is apparent all through that H. feels most interest in the controversy, R. in the novel.

 (2) Further, in the same section in the passage common to H. and R., Peter sends on Nicetas and Aquila to prepare the way for his coming. He apologizes for parting company with them, and they express grief at the separation, but console themselves that is it only for two days. On their departure Clement says, "I thank God that it was not I whom you sent away, as I should have died of grief." Then follows the request that Peter would accept him as his inseparable companion. This is all consistent as told by R.; for these regrets are expressed on the first occasion that any of the three brothers is removed from personal attendance on Peter. But as H. tells the story, Peter had already sent on Clement, while still unbaptized, together with Nicetas and Aquila, to Tyre, where they hold a disputation with Apion. There is not a word of grief or remonstrance at the separation for more than a week, and it is therefore strange that subsequently there should be so much regret at a two days' parting. It is plain that H. has interpolated the mission to Tyre; but failed to notice that he ought in consistency to have modified some of the next portion of R. which he retained. This disputation with Apion has been alleged as a proof of the priority of H., for Apion is introduced also into R., but only as a silent character; and it is urged that the original form is more likely to be that in which this well-known adversary of Judaism conducts a disputation, than that in which he is but an insignificant companion of Simon. But this argument does not affect the relative priority of H. and R., whatever weight it may have in proving R. not original. Eusebius mentions a long work ascribed to Clement, and then but recently composed (as he infers from not having seen it quoted by any earlier writer), containing dialogues of Peter and Apion. This description may be intended for the Homilies; but may refer to a still earlier work. There are expressions in R. which seem to imply that the writer believed himself to be making an improvement in substituting for Peter as a disputant against heathenism, persons whose early training had been such as to give them better knowledge of heathen mythology and philosophy.

 (3) The story of Clement’s recognition of his brothers contains plain marks that H. has abridged R. According to R., Nicetas and Aquila, seeing a strange woman return with Peter and Clement, ask for an explanation. Peter then repeats fully the story of the adventures of Clement’s mother. Nicetas and Aquila listen in silence until Peter describes the shipwrecked mother searching for her children and crying, "Where are my Faustus and Faustinus?" then, hearing their own names mentioned, they start up in amaze and say, "We suspected at the first that what you were saying might relate to us; but yet as many like things happen in different persons' lives, we kept silence; but when you came to the end and it was entirely manifest that your statements referred to us, then we confessed who we were." H. avoids what seems the needless repetition of an already-told story, and only states in general terms that Peter recounted Mattidia’s history; but the amazed starting-up of the brothers, and their words, are the same as in R.; while, as the incident of the mention of their former names is omitted, it is in this version not apparent why the conclusion of Peter's speech brought conviction to their minds. Evidently H., in trying to shorten the narrative by clearing it of repetition, has missed a point in the story.

(4.) As told above, in R. the recognition of Clement’s father crowns a disputation on astrological fate. In H. the whole story is spoiled. An old man accosts Peter, as in R., and promises to prove from his personal history that all things are ruled by the stars; but nothing turns on this. The recognition takes place in consequence of a chance meeting of Faustinianus with his wife, and has no relation to the subject he undertakes to discuss with Peter. The obvious explanation is, that H. has copied the introduction from R.; but omits the disputation because he has already anticipated it, having put the argument for heathenism into the mouth of the eminent rhetorician Apion, who seemed a fitter character to conduct the disputation than the unknown Faustinianus. Further H. (xx. 15) and R. (x. 57) both state that the magical transformation of Clement's father takes place on the same day that he had been recognized by his family. This agrees with the story as told by R.; but H. had made five days' disputation intervene between the recognition and the transformation. Thus in the account of each of the three sets of recognitions there is evidence that H. copied either from R. or from a writer who tells the story exactly as R. does; and the former hypothesis is to be preferred because there is no evidence whatever of R.'s non-originality in this part of his task.

 (5) We have seen that in H. there are two disputations of Simon with Peter, viz. at Caesarea and at Laodicea. There is decisive proof that in this H. has varied from the original form, which, as R. does, laid the scene of the entire disputation at Caesarea. The indications here, however, point to a borrowing not from R. but from a common original. H. does relate a disputation at Caesarea, but evidently reserves his materials for use further on, giving but a meagre sketch of part of one day's dispute, while he conscientiously follows his authority and relates that the dispute lasted three days. Afterwards at Laodicea the topics brought forward in the earlier discussion are produced as if new. Simon, e.g., expresses the greatest surprise at Peter's manner of disposing of the alleged spurious passages of the Pentateuch, although exactly the same line of argument had been used by Peter on the former occasion. The phenomenon again presents itself of a reference to former words of Peter which are not to be found in H. itself, but are found in R. Lastly, in the disputation at Laodicea, the office of summoning Peter to the conflict is ascribed to Zacchaeus, in flagrant contradiction of the previous story, according to which Zacchaeus was the leading man of the church at Caesarea before Peter's arrival, and had been left behind as its bishop on Peter's departure. This alone is enough to show that H. is copying from an original, in which the scene is laid at Caesarea. It may be added that the Apostolic Constitutions make mention only of a Caesarean disputation.

 (6) It has been stated that the last homily contains private expositions by Peter to his disciples, and these can clearly be proved to be an interpolation. In R., after the disputation on "genesis" in which Clement's father is convinced, the party having returned home and being about to sit down to meat, news comes of the arrival of Apion and Anubion and Faustinianus goes to salute them. In H. the party have retired to rest, and Peter wakes them up in the middle of the night to receive his instructions; yet in the middle of this midnight discourse we have an account, almost verbally agreeing with R., of the news of the arrival of Apion coming just as they were about to sit down to meat, and the consequent departure of Clement’s father. The discourse, thus clearly shown to be an interpolation, contains H.'s doctrine concerning the devil, and is in such close connexion with the preceding homily (which relates how Peter, in his Laodicean disputation, dealt with the problem of the permission of evil in the universe) that this also must be set down as an addition made by H. to the original story. We can see why H. altered the original account of a Caesarean disputation—namely, that he wished to reserve as the climax of his story, the solutions which he put into Peter's mouth of the great controversy of his own day.

 (7) In section H. II. 19–32, which contains the information given by Nicetas and Aquila concerning Simon, there are plain marks that H. is not original. Nicetas, in repeating a conversation with Simon, speaks of himself in the third person: "Nicetas answered," instead of "I answered." In the corresponding section of R., Aquila is the speaker, and the use of the third person is correct. Yet this matter, in which H. is clearly not original, is so different from R., that we conclude that both copied from a common original. One instance in this section, however, deserves to be mentioned as an apparent case of direct copying from R. In H. II. 22, Simon is represented as teaching that the dead shall not rise, and as rejecting Jerusalem and substituting Mount Gerizim for it; but nowhere else is there a trace of such doctrine being ascribed to Simon; and no controversy on these subjects is reported in the Homilies. There is strong reason for suspecting that H. has here blundered in copying R. I. 57, where a Samaritan, whom there is no ground for identifying with Simon, is introduced as teaching these doctrines of the non-resurrection of the dead, and of the sanctity of Mount Gerizim.

We turn to some of the reasons why R. must also be regarded as the retoucher of a previously existing story. The work itself recognizes former records of the things which it relates. In the preface it purports to be an account written after the death of Peter of discourses, some of which had by Peter's command been written down and sent to James during his own lifetime. R. III. 75 contains an abstract of the contents of ten books of these previously-sent reports. Again, R. V. 36, we are told of the dispatch to James of a further installment. Everything confirms the conclusion that R. is here using the credit which an existing narrative had gained, in order to obtain acceptance for his own additions to the story. Moreover, as we have seen, there are instances in the first division of the work where H. is clearly not original, and yet has not copied from R.; whence we infer the existence of an independent authority, at least for the earlier portion, employed by both writers. There are places where H. and R. seem to supplement one another, each supplying details omitted by the other; other places where it would seem as if an obscure passage in the common original had been differently understood by each; and in the discourses common to both, there are places where the version presented by H. preserves so much better the sequence of ideas and the cogency of argument that it is scarcely possible to think the form in R. the original. There are places, again, where both seem to have abridged the common original. Thus R. mentions concerning an early conversation, that none of the women were present. There is no further mention of women in the party until quite late in the story both H. and R. incidentally speak of Peter's wife as being in the company. In may be noted in passing that they do not represent Peter and his wife as living together as married people; but Peter always sleeps in the same room with his disciples. We may conjecture that the original contained a formal account of the women who travelled with Peter, and this is confirmed by St. Jerome, who refers to a work called the circuits of Peter as mentioning not only Peter's wife, but his daughter, of whom nothing is said either by H. or R. The work cited by Jerome contained a statement that Peter was bald, which is not found either in H. or R. In like manner we may infer that the original contained a formal account of the appointment of 12 precursors who were to go before Peter to the different cities which he meant to visit. H. several times speaks of the precursors, assuming the office to be known to the reader, but without ever recording its appointment. R. does give an account of its appointment, but one which implies that Peter had come attended by 12 companions, of whom Clement was already one. We have already mentioned inconsistencies in this first section from which we infer, that though the original form of the story mentioned the name of Clement, the introduction containing the account of Clement’s journey from Rome is a later addition.

We conclude that the work cited by Jerome is the common original of H. and R.; and a comparison of the matter common to the two shows that both pretty freely modified the original to their own uses. From what has been said concerning H. under No. 7, we infer that the original contained mention both of Clement and of Nicetas and Aquila, and it is likely that Clement was there too represented as the recorder of the discourses. The original must have contained an account of a three days' disputation with Simon held at Caesarea; it also included the polemic against heathenism contained in the Tripolis discourses, as may be inferred both from R. V. 36 and also from a comparison of the two records of these discourses. It is likely that the same work contained the disputation of Peter and Apion referred to by Eusebius, and that H. followed the original in making Apion a speaking character, although he has been involved in confusion in trying to combine this with the additional matter imported by R. We may conjecture too that it also contained a disputation by Anubion on the subject of "genesis." On the other hand, there is no evidence that the original contained anything concerning the recognitions by Clement of the members of his family. In this part of the story R. makes no acknowledgment of previous accounts sent to James; and he shows every sign of originality and of having carefully gone over the old story, skilfully adapting it so as to join on his own additions. It appears from H. II. 22, 26, that in quite an early part of the history the original introduced Nicetas and Aquila as addressing their fellow-disciple Clement as "dearest brother," and this probably gave R. the hint of representing them as natural brothers. R. omits these expressions in the place where they are inappropriate. A question may be raised whether the document referred to in R. III. 75, and which contained an account of the disputation with Simon, was part of the same work as that referred to in V. 36, which contained the disputation against the heathen. We have marked them as probably different. It may be remarked that Peter's daily bath, carefully recorded in the later books, is not mentioned in the three earlier. A question may be raised whether the original did not contain an account of a meeting of Simon and Peter at Rome; and it is not impossible that such an account may have been originally designed by the author; as one or two references to Rome as well as the choice of Clement as the narrator give cause to suspect. But that in any case the design was not executed appears both from the absence of any early reference to a Roman contest between Simon and Peter; and also from the diversity of the accounts given as to the manner of Simon's death, since we may believe that if the document we are considering had related the story, its version would have superseded all others.

Quite a different impression as to relative originality is produced when we compare the doctrine of H. and R., and when we compare their narratives. The doctrine of H. is very peculiar, and, for the most part, consistently carried through the whole work; in R. the deviations from ordinary church teaching are far less striking, yet there are passages in which the ideas of H. can be traced, and which present the appearance of an imperfect expurgation of offensive doctrine. In H., Judaism and Christianity are represented as identical, and it is taught to be enough if a man recognize the authority either of Christ or of Moses; in R. he is required to acknowledge both. On this point, however, H. is not consistent; for in several places he agrees with R. in teaching the absolute necessity of baptism to salvation. H. rejects the rite of sacrifice altogether; according to R. the rite was divinely permitted for a time until the true prophet should come, who was to replace it by baptism as a means of forgiveness of sins. With respect to the authority of O.T. alleged for the rite of sacrifice, and for certain erroneous doctrines, H. rejects the alleged passages as falsified; R. regards them merely as obscure, and liable to be misunderstood by one who reads them without the guidance of tradition. The inspiration of the prophets later than Moses is denied by H. and admitted by R., though quotations from their writings are alike rare in both forms. According to H., the true prophet has presented himself in various incarnations, Adam, who is regarded as being identical with Christ, being the first and Jesus the last; and the history of Adam's sin is rejected as spurious; according to R., Christ has but revealed Himself to and inspired various holy men of old.

And, in general, concerning the dignity and work of our Lord, the doctrine of R., though short of orthodox teaching, is far higher than that of H. The history of the fall, as far, at least, as regards the temptation of Eve, is referred to by R. as historical; but concerning Adam there are intimations of an esoteric doctrine not fully explained. H. gives what may be called a physical theory of the injury done by demons. They are represented as having sensual desires, which, being spirits, they can gratify only by incorporation with human bodies. They use therefore the permission which the divine law grants them, of entering into the bodies of men who partake of forbidden food, or who, by worshipping them, subject themselves to their power; and with these the union is so close, that after death, when the demons descend to their natural regions of fire, the souls united to them are forced to accompany them, though grievously tormented by the element in which the demon feels pleasure. The opposition between fire and light is much dwelt on; and again, the water of baptism and other ablutions is represented as having a kind of physical efficacy in quenching the demonic fire. All this doctrine concerning demons shows itself comparatively faintly in R.; yet there seem indications that the doctrine as expounded in H., was contained in the original on which R. worked.

It is natural to think that the earlier form is that one of which the doctrine is most peculiar; the later, that in which the divergences from orthodox teaching are smoothed away. Yet it is not always true that originality implies priority; and the application of this principle has caused some of the parts of H. which can be shown to be the most recent, to be accepted as belonging to the original. For instance, we have seen that the private conversation between Peter and his disciples in the 20th homily bears on the face of it marks of interpolation; yet the clearness and peculiarity of its doctrine have caused it to be set down as belonging to the most ancient part of the work. The same may be said of the section concerning philanthropy at the end of the 12th homily, which, however, is wanting in the Syriac, and may be reasonably set down as one of the most modern parts. For it is an addition made by H. to the story of the recognitions as told by R.; and we have already shown that in all that relates to the recognitions H. is more recent than R.

We arrive at more certain results, if, examining the sections we have named, and for which H. is most responsible, we try to discover his favorite thoughts and forms of expression, and so to recognize the hand of the latest reviser in other parts of the work. Space will not permit such an examination here; but we may notice the fondness of H. for discovering a male and female element in things, and for contrasting things under the names of male and female. The almost total absence of the idea from R. makes it unlikely that it could have had any great prominence in the original document. The idea, however, became very popular in the sect to which H. belonged; and is noticed by a writer of the 10th cent. as a characteristic of some Ebionites then still remaining. The germ, however, of the distinction between male and female prophecy, on which H. lays so much stress, was apparently in the original document, which disposed of the testimony borne by our Lord to John the Baptist by the distinction that John was the greatest of the prophets born of women, but not on the level of the Son of Man. The general result of an attempt to discriminate what belongs to H. and R. respectively, from what they found in their common original, leads to the belief that H., far more nearly than R., represents the doctrinal aspect of the original, from which the teaching of H. differs only by legitimate development.

The Clementines are unmistakably a production of that sect of Ebionites which held the book of Elkesai as sacred. For an account of the sources whence our knowledge of this book is derived, and for the connection of the sect with Essenism. Almost all the doctrines ascribed to them are to be found in the Clementines—e.g. the doctrine of successive incarnations of Christ, and in particular the identification of Christ with Adam, the requirement of the obligations of the Mosaic Law, the rejection however of the rite of sacrifice, the rejection of certain passages both of O.T. and N.T., hostility to St. Paul, abstinence from flesh, the inculcation of repeated washing, discouragement of virginity, concealment of their sacred books from all but approved persons, form of adjuration by appeal to the seven witnesses, ascription of gigantic stature to the angels , permission to dissemble the faith in time of persecution; while again the supposed derivation of the book of Elkesai from the Seres is explained by R. VIII. 48, where the Seres are described as a nation by whom all the observances on which the Ebionites laid stress were naturally kept, and who were consequently exempt from the penalties of sickness and premature death which attended their neglect. Ritschl regards the book of Elkesai as an exposition of these doctrines later than the Homilies; but we are disposed to look on it as earlier than the work which formed the common basis of H. and R. A recognition of this book is not improbably contained in a passage which is important in reference to the use made by H. and R. of their common original. The date which the book of Elkesai claimed for itself was the third year of Trajan. Whether it actually were so old need not here be inquired, but the fact that it was confessedly no older might seem to put it at a disadvantage in comparison with the Pauline system which it rejected. But its adherents defended their position by their doctrine of pairs—viz. that it has been ever God's method to pair good and evil together, sending forth first the evil, then the countervailing good. Thus Cain was followed by Abel, Ishmael by Isaac, Esau by Jacob, so now, Simon Magus by Peter; and at the end of the world Antichrist will be followed by Christ. The penultimate pair enumerated takes, in the translation of Rufinus, a form scarcely intelligible; but the Syriac shows that the version given by R. did not essentially differ from that of H.; and that the contrasted pairs predicted by Peter are a false gospel sent abroad by a deceiver, and a true gospel secretly disseminated after the destruction of the holy place, for the rectification of the then existing heresies. It seems most probable that we are here to understand the doctrine of Paul and of Elkesai; and it may be noted that the fact, that, in this pair, gospels, not persons, are contrasted favours the conclusion that Hippolytus was mistaken in supposing Elkesai to be the name of a person. Two other of the contrasted pairs deserve notice: H. contrasts Aaron and Moses, R. the magicians and Moses. Again, H. contrasts John the Baptist and our Saviour, R. the tempter and our Saviour. In both cases the version of H. seems to be the original, since in that the law of the pairs is strictly observed that an elder is followed by a better younger; and we can understand R.'s motive for alteration if he did not share that absolute horror of the rite of sacrifice which ranked Aaron on the side of evil, or that hostility to John the Baptist which shows itself elsewhere in H., as, for example, in ranking Simon Magus among his disciples. There are passages in R. which would give rise to the suspicion that he held the same doctrines as H., but concealed the expression of them in a book intended for the uninitiated, for though in H. the principle of an esoteric doctrine is strongly asserted, the book seems to have been written at a later period, when concealment had been abandoned. However, the instance last considered is one of several, where R.'s suppression of the doctrinal teaching of his original seems to imply an actual rejection of it.

It remains to speak of that part of the Clementines to which attention has been most strongly directed by modern students of the early history of the church—their assault on St. Paul under the mask of Simon Magus. In the first place it may be remarked that the school hostile to St. Paul which found expression in these Clementines cannot be regarded as the representative or continuation of the body of adversaries with whom he had to contend in his lifetime. Their connexion was with the Essenes, not the Pharisees; and they themselves claimed no earlier origin than a date later than the destruction of Jerusalem, an event which would seem to have induced many of the Essenes in some sort to accept Christianity. We have seen that a theory was devised to account for the lateness of the period when what professed to be the true gospel opposed to St. Paul's was published. It follows that whatever results can be obtained from the Clementines belong to the history of the 2nd cent., not the first. The name of Paul is mentioned neither by H. nor R. Hostility to him appears in R. in a milder form; R., plainly following his original, ignores St. Paul's labours among the heathen, and makes St. Peter the apostle of the Gentiles; and in one passage common to H. and R., and therefore probably belonging to the earlier document, a warning is given that the tempter who had contended in vain with our Lord would afterwards send apostles of deceit, and therefore the converts are cautioned against receiving any teacher who had not first compared his doctrine with that of James, lest the devil should send a preacher of error to them, even as he had raised up Simon as an opponent to Peter. It need not be disputed that in this passage, as well as in that concerning the pairs already quoted, Paul is referred to, his preaching being spoken of in the future tense as dramatic propriety required, since the action of the story is laid at a time before his conversion. In both places Paul, if Paul be meant, is expressly distinguished from Simon. In the letter of Peter prefixed to the Homilies, we cannot doubt that Paul is assailed as the enemy who taught that the obligations of the Mosaic law were not perpetual, and who unwarrantably represented Peter himself as concurring in teaching which he entirely repudiated. There remains a single passage as the foundation of the Simon-Paulus theory.

In the Laodicean disputation which H. makes the climax of his story, a new topic is suddenly introduced, whether the evidence of the senses or that of supernatural vision be more trustworthy; and it is made to appear that Simon claims to have obtained, by means of a vision of Jesus, knowledge of Him superior to that which Peter had gained during his year of personal converse with Him. In this section phrases are introduced which occur in the notice of the dispute at Antioch, between Peter and Paul, contained in the Ep. to the Galatians. It need not be doubted, then, that in this section of the Homilies the arguments nominally directed against Simon are really intended to depreciate the claims of Paul. Since von Cölln and Baur first took notice of the concealed object of this section, speculation in Germany has run wild on the identification of Paul and Simon. The theory in the form now most approved will be found in the article on Simon Magus in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexikon. It has been inferred that Simon was in Jewish circles a pseudonym for Paul, and that all related of him is but a parody of the life of Paul. Simon as a historical character almost entirely disappears. Even the story told in the Acts of the Apostles has been held to be but a caricature of the story of Paul's bringing up to Jerusalem the collection he had made, and hoping by this gift of money to bribe the apostles to admit him to equal dignity. In order to account for the author of the Acts admitting into his narrative the section concerning Simon, explanations have been given which certainly have not the advantage in simplicity over that suggested by the work itself—viz. that the author having spent seven days in Philip's house had learned from him interesting particulars of his early evangelical work, which he naturally inserted in his history.

The Simon-Paulus theory has been particularly misleading in speculations as to the literary history of the tales concerning Simon. Lipsius, for instance, has set himself to consider in what way the history of Simon could be told, so as best to serve the purpose of a libel on Paul; and having thus constructed a more ingenious parody of Paul's life than any which documentary evidence shows to have been ever in circulation, he asks us to accept this as the original form of the story of Simon.

It becomes necessary, therefore, to point out on how narrow a basis of fact these speculations rest. To R., anti-Pauline though he is, the idea of identifying Simon with St. Paul seems never to have occurred. All through his book Paul is Paul, and Simon Simon. The same may be said of the whole of the Homilies, except this Laodicean disputation, which is the part in which the latest writer has taken the greatest liberties with his original. Before any inference can be drawn from this section as to an early identification of Simon and Paul, it must be shown that it belongs to the original document, and is not an addition of the last reviser only. The object of the latter may be inferred from what he states in the form of a prediction, that other heretics would arise who should assert the same blasphemies against God as Simon; which we may take as implying that the writer has put into the mouth of Simon doctrines similar to those held by later heretics against whom he had himself to contend. In particular, this Laodicean section is strongly anti-Marcionite; and it is just possible that this section may have been elicited by Marcionite exaggeration of the claims of Paul. But we own, it seems to us far more probable that H. has here preserved a fragment of an earlier document, the full force of which it is even possible he did not himself understand. Further, it is altogether unproved that in this earlier document this particular disputation was directed against Simon. The original work may well have included conflicts of St. Peter with other adversaries, and in another instance we have seen reason to think that H. has made a mistake in transferring to Simon words which in the earlier document referred to another. Again, even if the earlier writer did put Pauline features into his picture of Simon, it no more follows that he identified Simon with St. Paul than that the later writer identified him with Marcion. The action of the story being laid at a date antecedent to St. Paul's conversion, it was a literary necessity that if Pauline pretensions were to be refuted, they must be put into the mouth of another. At the present day history is often written with a view to its bearing on the controversies of our own time; but we do not imagine that a writer doubts Julius Caesar to be a historical character, even though in speaking of him he may have Napoleon Bonaparte in his mind. Now, though the author of the Clementines has put his own words into the mouth both of Simon and Peter, it is manifest that he no more doubted of the historical character of one than of the other. For Simon, his authorities were—(1) the account given in Acts VIII. which furnished the conception of Simon as possessed of magical powers; (2) in all probability the account given by Justin Martyr of honours paid to Simon at Rome; and (3) since R. refers to the writings of Simon, it can scarcely be doubted that the author used the work ascribed to Simon called the Great Announcement, some of the language of which, quoted by Hippolytus, is in the Clementines put into the mouth of Simon. Hence has resulted some little confusion, for the heresy of the Great Announcement appears to have been akin to the Valentinian; but what the Clementine author has addled of his own is Marcionite.

Quotations from N.T. in the Clementines.—All the four gospels are quoted; for since the publication of the conclusion of the Homilies by Dressel, it is impossible to deny that St. John's gospel was employed. Epiphanius tells us that a Hebrew translation of St. John's gospel was in use among the Ebionites. The quotations are principally from St. Matthew, but often with considerable verbal differences from our present text; and there are a few passages quoted which are not found in any of our present gospels. The deviations from the existing text are much smaller in R. than in H., and it may be asserted that R. always conforms to our present gospels in his own added matter.

Since it is known that the Ebionites used an Aramaic gospel, which in the main agreed with St. Matthew but with considerable variations, we may conclude that this was the source principally employed by the author of the original. H. seems to have used the same sources as the original; but yet two things must be borne in mind before we assert that variations in H. from our existing texts prove that he had a different text before him: one is the laity with which he cites the O.T.; the other, the fact that the story demands that Peter should be represented as quoting our Lord's discourses from memory and not from any written source; and the author would naturally feel himself entitled to a certain amount of licence in quotations of such a kind.

Place and Time of Composition of the Clementine Writings.—The use made of the name of Clement had caused Rome to be accepted as the place of composition by the majority of critics, but the opposite arguments urged by Uhlhorn appear conclusive, and to, at least, the original document an Eastern origin must be assigned. Hippolytus mentions the arrival in Rome of an Elkesaite teacher c. A.D. 220, whose doctrines would seem to have been then quite novel at Rome, and not to have taken root there. The scene of the story is all laid in the East, and the writings show no familiarity with the Roman church. The ranking Clement among the disciples of Peter may be even said to be opposed to the earliest traditions of the Roman church, which placed Clement third from the apostles; but it is quite intelligible that in foreign churches, where the epistle of Clement was habitually publicly read in the same manner as the apostolic epistles, Clement and the apostles might come to be regarded as contemporaries. Clement might naturally be chosen as a typical representative of the Gentile converts by an Ebionite who desired by his example to enforce on the Gentile churches the duty of obedience to the church of the circumcision. For all through it is James of Jerusalem, not Peter, who is represented as the supreme ruler of the churches.

The author of the original document habitually used an Aramaic version of N.T.; and there are a few phenomena which make it seem not incredible that the original document itself may have been written in the same language. Uhlhorn’s conjecture of Eastern Syria as the place of composition seems not improbable. The Recognitions with the prefatory letter relating the ordination of Clement as bishop of Rome may, however, have been a version designed for Roman circulation. The data for fixing the time of composition are but scanty. The Recognitions are quoted by Origen (with, however, a division of books differing from the present form) c. A.D. 230. This gives the latest limit for the publication of R. We may infer that the chronicle of Hippolytus A.D. 235 recognizes the Ep. of Clement to James, since it counts Peter as first bishop of Rome, and places the episcopate of Clement at a time so early as to make his ordination by Peter possible. It is not unreasonable to date the Ep. of Clement to James at least a quarter of a cent. earlier, in order to allow time for its ideas to gain such complete acceptance at Rome. Irenaeus is ignorant of the episcopate of Peter, but ranks Clement as a contemporary of the apostles. It is likely, therefore, that he knew the work on which the Recognitions were founded, but not this later version. As a limit in the other direction we have the use of the name Faustus for one represented as a member of the imperial family, which points to a date late than the reign of Antoninus, whose wife, and whose daughter married to Marcus Aurelius, both bore the name of Faustina. A section (R. ix. 17–29) is identical with a passage quoted by Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 6, 10, as from the dialogues of Bardesanes. But the date of Bardesanes himself is uncertain. The date assigned by Eusebius in his chronicle for his activity, A.D. 173, seems to need to be put later, because an authority likely to be better informed, the Chronicle of Edessa, with great particularity assigns for the date of his birth July 11, A.D. 154. Further, the dialogue cited by Eusebius and by R. has been now recovered from the Syriac, and has been published in Cureton’s Spicilegium Syriacum (1855). From this it appears that the dialogue does not purport to be written by Bardesanes himself, but by a scholar of his, Philippus, who addresses him as father and is addressed by him as son. This forbids us to put the dialogue at a very early period of the life of Bardesanes, and R. may have been the earlier. Merx (Bardesanes von Edessa) tries to show that other sections also in R. were later interpolations from Bardesanes; but his arguments have quite failed to convince us. On the whole, A.D. 200 seems as near an approximation as we can make to the probable date of R. The form H. must be dated later, possibly A.D. 218, the time when, according to Hippolytus, the Elkesaite Alcibiades came from Apamea to Rome. There is little to determine very closely the date of the original document. If we could lay stress on a passage which speaks of there being one Caesar we should date it before A.D. 161, when Marcus Aurelius shared the empire with Verus; and though this argument is very far from decisive, there is nothing that actually forbids so early a date, though we could not safely name one much earlier.