CLAUDIUS LYSIAS
CLE^IENT
215
as roads, aqueducts, harbours, were accomplished. The Emperor, like most of his class, was a hard worker, 'or countenanced the hard work of his freedmen. The position of importance occupied by these men is in fact a leading characteristic of the reign, and was most obnoxious to the old aristocracy, which may be said to have thus re- ceived its death-blow. The power of the Senate was greatly circumscribed. Claudius was, inter alia, something of an author. It was in fact the rule rather than the exception that Romans of high birth should, among their other accomplishments, be wielders of the pen. He began to write a history, but abandoned it unfinished. A second historical work was published, and some fragments of it have survived. He also wrote eight books of autobiography, and worked at Etrurian and Cartha- ginian history. The greater part of a speech he delivered in the Senate has been preserved on a bronze tablet at Lyons. His style is not without merits.
Literature. — Much valuable material has been found in the article by Groagr and Gaheis in Pauly-Wissowa, iii. cols. 2778- 2839 : cf. also A. v. Domaszewski, Gesch. der rom. Kaiser, ii. [Leipzig-, 1909] pp. 21-46. On the chronology of events in the Claudian period referred to in the KT see W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, London, 1895, pp. 48ff.,68f., Was Christ bom at Bethlehem}, do. IS9S, -p. 22Sf., Expositor, 6th series, xii. [1905] 299 ; the latest general treat- ment of Pauline chronology by the erudite French scholar, M. Gogaiel, in ' Essai sur la chronologie paulinienne' {RHR Ixv. [1912] 235-339). A. SOUTER.
CLAUDIUS LYSIAS.— See Lysias. CLAY.— See Potter and Predestination.
CLEAN, UNCLEAN, COMMON.- ' Common ' (koi- v6%, communis) is an honourable word in classical Greek = ' shared by the people.' In Hellenistic Greek, it has sometimes this same meaning (Ac 2'" 4^-, Tit 1^, Jude ^), but sometimes a less honourable one (=;Lat. vulgaris). This depreciation arose out of the transcendence of rel igion to the Eastern mind. What was ' shared by the people ' had become pro- faned for the god (cf. the English word ' worldly,' meaning first secular, then unspiritual). We see the process with kolvos in He 10^ — ' counted the blood of the covenant a common [i.e. secular] thing.' In Rev 21^ we go a step further, and ' any thing common' means the worldly, the tinspiritual (cf. Jos. Ant. XII. ii. 14, XIII. i. 1). Elsewhere 'common' cor- responds to positive, active uncleanness (Ac 10'^- ^ IP, Ro 14l^ 1 Mac l-i^-s^, Jos. Ant. XI. A-iii. 7; the verb is found in Ac 2r-8, He g^^).
The distinction, ' clean ' (m^apds) and * unclean ' {a.K6.0apro%), refers in the OT and primitive religions to definite departments of life, such as food, sanita- tion, contact with the dead, and marriage ( Lv 1 1-15). In the OT it is mainly a common-sense distinction, made, however, from religious motives, and be- coming part of the ritual of the Hebrews. It was thus a practical differentiation between them and surrounding peoples. It arose out of a good idea, but when separated from this idea grew into a proud national badge. Such national and religious customs, so long held, seem stronger than they are. One push of a new movement will often destroy, almost in a moment, the habits of centuries. We find this process to-day in the East. In the NT it may be seen in the case of Simon Peter ; he combined Christian beliefs and Jewish distinctions without at first being willing to perceive their variance. His vision (Ac 10) woke him, and, though he relapsed for an instant (Gal 2^), the work was done ; and when that generation passed away, the religious nature of these distinctions had gone from Christianity ; cleanliness, instead of being godliness, was next to godliness. These details of conduct were left to the reason and the
conscience. The transition stage, where some cling to the old laws and others obey the new spirit, with its problems of faith and charity, is treated in Ro 14.
There is another ground for this ceremonial dis- tinction of ' clean' and ' unclean,' i.e. contact with idolatry, which in the OT makes unclean (Dt 7^). St. Paul allows (1 Co 8) that an idol is nothing and cannot affect meats oti'ered to it. But idolatry is something — its atmosphere, its offerings, its gatherings into temples. It becomes the embodi- ment of demons (1 Co 10-°); there is a 'table' of demons, an agreement with hell, and no man can with impunity associate with even the outward forms which this agreement takes, or fi-equent the places where it is most generally made. The Apostle treats marriage {q.v.) in a similar way. He would place restrictions on the marriage of believers with unbelievers. It is as if a Christian were participating in idolatry (1 Co lO^^"^", 2 Co 6 ""^''"), or tiying to mingle the communion of God with the communion of devils. If, however, they are already married, the principle of faith triumphs over all forms. The believing partner sanctifies the unbelieving one, and their children are holy (1 Co 7''*). St. Paul recognizes the value of forms for the human spirit, but he subordinates them to the conscience. Many of the old tabus on food, marriage, travel, the Sabbath, were rooted in fact. They were based on laws of health, decency, human nature ; but they were not deeper than that. They were not religious principles to be obeyed without thought and absolutely guaranteeing purity.