1. In comparison with the canonical books. It is evidentiy modelled after the canonical epistles, and yet is decidedly inferior to them. In regard to lan- guage, three words used by Clement are found only in the First Epistie of Peter ; eleven only in the epistles of Peter jmd Paul ; and twelve only in the episties of Paul. (See Westcott, p. 80.) The book of which it most reminds us is the Epistie to the Hebrews. Hence an ancient tradition, reported by Eusebius (Hitt. vi, 25) on the authority of Origen, that Clement was the author also of that epistle. But besides the many points of dissimilarity which discredit this par- ticular tradition, there is a marked inferiority pervad- ing the epistie of Clement as compared not only with the Epistle to the Hebrews, but with all the rest of the New Testament, which reacts powerfrilly as an argu- ment for the inspiration of the canonical books. The Old Testament quotations are more extended ; fanciful interpretations are given, as of the scarlet cord let down by Rahab typifying the blood of Christ ; fkbles are in- troduced, as of the phcenix in treating of the resur- rection ; attempts are made at fine writing, as in the twentieth chapter, devoted to a description of the or- der and harmony of nature ; with a tendency through- out to expatiation, which stands in strong contrast with the soberness, simplicity, terseness, and vigor of the apostolic epistles. A line has thus been deeply drawn between the inspbed and uninspired documents of the early Church.
2. With respect to the canon itself. Of the Old Tes- tament but little needs to be said. In the way either of express citation or of marked resemblance, nearly every book is recognized. Two at least of the apoc- ryphal books are quoted. Clement made use of the Septuagint, and quotes more accurately than some of the fk&ers, indicating that he either referred to a manuscript or had a better memory than common. The text employed by him, Hilgenfeld says, accords neither with the Alexandrian nor the Vatican Codex, but, where these are at variance, steers between them, agreeing sometimes with the one, sometime with the other. In quoting from the New Testament, Clement never calls it " Scripture" or " Scriptures," as he does the Old Testament ; but individual writers are either quoted or referred to, and in a way which implies his belief that they had an authority above his own. Apologizing for the attitude he assumes, he exhorts the Corinthians, as though that must end all contro- versy, to "take in their hands the epistie of the bless- ed apostle Paul." Besides the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the books indicated are Romans, 1 Corin- thians, Ephesians, Hebrews, and James; perhaps also
AiEMENT
878
CLEMENT
1 Tlmoth/ and Titos. In short, the usage is precise- ly what we should expect while the canon was not jet formed, but only silently forming.
8. With respect to the polity of the early Church. The object aimed at in the epistle called for certain definite statements on this point. And these are in complete accordance with the representations of the inspired books. In Clement, as in the Acts and Epis- tles of the New Testament, several features are palpa- ble. No distinction is madia between bishops and pres- b3rter8. For the local Church only two orders are rec- ognised: presbyter-bishops and deacons. And they were appointed at first by the apostles, afterwurds by these rulers themselves, though not to the exclusion of the brotherhood. The iniiiative was not with the congregation, but with its elders, " the whole Church eoruetUing." Such is the representation in the forty- fourth chapter; and it accords with what is related of Paul and Barnabas, who, instead of merely ordaimng^ as our version appears to teach, '^^ad appointed them elders in every church" (Acts xiv, 23). The New Testament representations are thus not only corrobo- rated, but also elucidated.
4. In relation to doctrine. The orthodoxy of Clem- ent, as of the earlier fathers in general, has been re- peatedly called in question, but without good reason. Doctrinal discussion, in the style of the Epistle to the Bomans, is certainly not attempted. But the leading features of the Gospel economy come clearly out. The divinity of Christ is taught quite as distinctly as in the Epistles to the Colossians and Hebrews. And so like- wise are the atonement and justification by faith. If good works are strongly emphasized, so also are they strong^ emphasized not only by James in his epistle, but by^Paul himself. And as there is no contradic- tion between Paul and James, there is none between Paul and Clement.
The LUeraJtwre of the subject is abundant. Of the text there have been three recensions. The epistle was first published by Junius, at Oxford, in 1638 ; again, more accurately, by Wotton, at Cambridge, in 1718 ; and, lastly, by Jacobson, at Oxford, in four suc- cessive editions, 1838, 1840, 1847, and 1866. Jacob- son's text is now the standard, and is as nearly per- fect as critical acumen and diligence could make it. Of earlier editions, embracing adl the apostolical fa- thers, the best are those of Cotelerius, Paris, 1672, as improved by Clericus (Antwerp, 1698), and again im- proved (Amsterdam, 1724), and of Ittiipus, with a val- uable dissertation (Leipsic, 1G99). Of later editions, the best are those of Jacobson, already named; of Hefele (Tubingen, 1839, 1842, 1847, 1855); and of Dressel (Leipsic, 1856, 1863). Of treatises, the most valuable are those of Lechler, Das apoitolische und das nachapostolische ZeitaUer (Haarlem, 1851 ; Stutt- gardt, 1857); HUgenfeld, Apoitolitche Voter (Halle, 1853) ; Lipsius, De Clementis Romam Epittola ad Co- rint^os Priore DUquisUto (Leipsic, 1855) ; and Donald- son, Critical History of Christian Literature and Doc- trine from the Death (^the Apostles to the Nicene Coun- cil (vol. i, London, 1864). Of English translations, the earliest was by Burton (London,' 1647) ; the next was that of Archbishop Wake (London, 1693, frequently re- published; admirably though inaccarately done); the next was anonymous (Aberdeen, 1768) ; then Cheval- lier (London, 1833, 1851, on the basis of Wake) ; and, lastly, Boberts and Donaldson (Edinburgh, 1867, vol. i of the "Ante-Nicene Library"). This last has not the scriptural tone of Wake, but is greatly superior to it in accuracy of rendering.