Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book VI/Chapter 13

The Writings of Clement. On the life of Clement, see Bk. V. chap. 11, note 1. He was a very prolific writer, as we can gather from the list of works mentioned in this chapter. The list is repeated by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 38) and by Photius (Cod. 109&#8211;111), the former of whom merely copies from Eusebius, with some mistakes, while the latter copies from Jerome, as is clear from the similar variations in the titles given by the last two from those given by Eusebius, and also by the omission in both their lists of one work named by Eusebius (see below, note 10). Eusebius names ten works in this chapter. In addition to these there are extant two quotations from a work of Clement entitled &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#960;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#8055;&#945;&#962;. There are also extant two fragments of a work &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8055; &#968;&#965;&#967;&#8134;&#962;. In the Instructor, Bk. II. chap. 10, Clement refers to a work On Continence (&#8001; &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#7952;&#947;&#954;&#961;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#8055;&#945;&#962;) as already written by himself, and there is no reason to doubt that this was a separate work, for the third book of the Stromata (to which Fabricius thinks he refers), which treats of the same subject, was not yet written. The work is no longer extant. In the Instructor, Bk. III. chap. 8, Clement speaks of a work which he had written On Marriage (&#8001; &#947;&#945;&#956;&#953;&#954;&#8056;&#962; &#955;&#8057;&#947;&#959;&#962;). It has been thought possible that he may have referred here to his discussion of the same subject in Bk. II. chap. 10 of the same work (see the Bishop of Lincoln&#8217;s work on Clement, p. 7), but it seems more probable that he referred to a separate work now lost. Potter, p. 1022, gives a fragment which is possibly from this work.

In addition to these works, referred to as already written, Clement promises to write on First Principles (&#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#7936;&#961;&#967;&#8182;&#957;; Strom. III. 3, IV. 1, 13, V. 14, et al.); on Prophecy (Strom. I. 24, IV. 13, V. 13); on Angels (Strom. VI. 13); on the Origin of the World (Strom. VI. 18),&#8212;perhaps a part of the proposed work on First Principles, and perhaps to be identified with the commentary on Genesis, referred to below by Eusebius (see note 28),&#8212;Against Heresies (Strom. IV. 13), on the Resurrection (Instructor, I. 6, II. 10). It is quite possible that Clement regarded his promises as fulfilled by the discussions which he gives in various parts of the Stromata themselves, or that he gave up his original purpose.

1. the eight Stromata of Clement are preserved among us, and have been given by him the following title: &#8220;Titus Flavius Clement&#8217;s Stromata of Gnostic Notes on the True Philosophy.&#8221; Clement&#8217;s three principal works, the Exhortation to the Greeks (see below, note 5), the Instructor (note 6), and the Stromata, form a connected series of works, related to one another (as Schaff says) very much as apologetics, ethics, and dogmatics. The three works were composed in the order named. The Stromata (&#931;&#964;&#961;&#969;&#956;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#8150;&#962;) or Miscellanies (said by Eusebius in this passage to bear the title &#964;&#8182;&#957; &#954;&#945;&#964;&#8048; &#964;&#8052;&#957; &#7936;&#955;&#951;&#952;&#8134; &#966;&#953;&#955;&#959;&#963;&#959;&#966;&#8055;&#945;&#957; &#947;&#957;&#969;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#954;&#8182;&#957; &#8017;&#960;&#959;&#956;&#957;&#951;&#956;&#8364;&#964;&#969;&#957; &#963;&#964;&#961;&#969;&#956;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#8150;&#962;) are said by Eusebius and by Photius (Cod. 109) to consist of eight books. Only seven are now extant, although there exists a fragment purporting to be a part of the eighth book, but which is in reality a portion of a treatise on logic, while in the time of Photius some reckoned the tract Quis dives salvetur as the eighth book (Photius, Cod. 111). There thus exists no uniform tradition as to the character of the lost book, and the suggestion of Westcott seems plausible, that at an early date the logical introduction to the Hypotyposes was separated from the remainder of the work, and added to some of the Stromata as an eighth book. If this be true, the Stromata consisted originally of only seven books, and hence we now have the whole work (with the exception of a fragment lost at the beginning). The name &#931;&#964;&#961;&#969;&#956;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#8150;&#962;, &#8220;patchwork,&#8221; sufficiently indicates the character of the work. It is without methodical arrangement, containing a heterogeneous mixture of science, philosophy, poetry, and theology, and yet is animated by one idea throughout,&#8212;that Christianity satisfies the highest intellectual desires of man,&#8212;and hence the work is intended in some sense as a guide to the deeper knowledge of Christianity, the knowledge to be sought after by the &#8220;true Gnostic.&#8221; It is full of rich thoughts mingled with worthless crudities, and, like nearly all of Clement&#8217;s works, abounds in wide and varied learning, not always fully digested. The date at which the work was composed may be gathered from a passage in Bk. I. chap. 21, where a list of the Roman emperors is closed with a mention of Commodus, the exact length of whose reign is given, showing that he was already dead, but also showing apparently that his successor was still living. This would lead us to put the composition at least of the first book in the first quarter of the year 193. It might of course be said that Pertinax and Didius Julianus are omitted in this list because of the brevity of their reigns, and this is possible, since in his own list he gives the reigns of the emperors simply by years, omitting Otho and Vitellius. The other list which he quotes, however, gives every emperor, with the number of years, months, and even days of each reign, so that there is no reason, at least in that list, for the omission of Pertinax and Didius Julianus. It seems probable that, under the influence of that exact list, and of the recentness of the reigns of the two emperors named, Clement can hardly have omitted them if they had already ruled. We can say with absolute certainty, however, only that the work was written after 192. Clement left Alexandria in 202, or before, and this, as well as the rest of his works, was written in all probability before that time at the latest.

The standard edition of Clement&#8217;s works is that of Potter, Oxford, 1715, in two vols. (reprinted in Migne&#8217;s Patr. Gr., Vols. VIII. and IX.). Complete English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Amer. ed., Vol. II. On his writings, see especially Westcott&#8217;s article in the ''Dict. of Christ. Biog. and for the literature on the subject Schaff&#8217;s Ch. Hist.'' II. 781.

2. The books entitled Hypotyposes The Hypotyposes (&#8017;&#960;&#959;&#964;&#965;&#960;&#8061;&#963;&#949;&#953;&#962;), or Outlines (Eusebius calls them &#959;&#7985; &#7952;&#960;&#953;&#947;&#949;&#947;&#961;&#945;&#956;&#956;&#8051;&#957;&#959;&#953; &#8017;&#960;&#959;&#964;&#965;&#960;&#8061;&#963;&#949;&#969;&#957; &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#959;&#8166; &#955;&#8057;&#947;&#959;&#953;), are no longer extant, though fragments have been preserved. The work (which was in eight books, according to this passage) is referred to by Eusebius, in Bk. I. chap. 12 (the fifth book), in Bk. II. chap. 1 (the sixth and seventh books), in Bk. II. chaps. 9 and 23 (the seventh book), chap. 15 (the sixth book), in Bk. V. chap. 11, and in Bk. VI. chap. 14 (the book not specified). Most of these extracts are of a historical character, but have to do (most of them, not all) with the apostolic age, or the New Testament. We are told in chap. 14 that the work contained abridged accounts of all the Scriptures, but Photius (Cod. 109) says that it seems to have dealt only with Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, the epistles of Paul, and the Catholic epistles (&#8001; &#948;&#8050; &#8005;&#955;&#959;&#962; &#963;&#954;&#959;&#960;&#8056;&#962; &#8033;&#963;&#945;&#957;&#949;&#8054; &#7953;&#961;&#956;&#951;&#957;&#949;&#8150;&#945;&#953; &#964;&#965;&#947;&#967;&#8364;&#957;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#953; &#964;&#8134;&#962; &#915;&#949;&#947;&#8051;&#963;&#949;&#969;&#962; &#954;.&#964;.&#955;.). Besides the detached quotations there are extant three series of extracts which are supposed to have been taken from the Hypotyposes. These are The Summaries from Theodotus, The Prophetic Selections, and the Outlines on the Catholic Epistles. On these fragments, which are very corrupt and desultory, see Westcott in the ''Dict. of Christ. Biog.'' They discuss all sorts of doctrines, and contain the interpretations of the most various schools, and it is not always clearly stated whether Clement himself adopts the opinion given, or whether he is simply quoting from another for the purpose of refuting him. Photius condemns parts of the Hypotyposes severely, but it seems, from these extracts which we have, that he may have read the work, full as it was of the heretical opinions of other men and schools, without distinguishing Clement&#8217;s own opinions from those of others, and that thus he may carelessly have attributed to him all the wild notions which he mentions. These extracts as well as the various references of Eusebius show that the work, like most of the others which Clement wrote, covered a great deal of ground, and included discussions of a great many collateral subjects. It does not seem, in fact, to have been much more systematic than the Instructor or even the Stromata. It seems to have been intended as a part of the great series, of which the Exhortation, Instructor, and Stromata were the first three. If so, it followed them. We have no means of ascertaining its date more exactly. are of the same number. In them he mentions Pant&#230;nus by name as his teacher, and gives his opinions and traditions.

3. Besides these there is his Hortatory Discourse addressed to the Greeks; three books of a work entitled the Instructor; another with the title What Rich Man is Saved? the work on the Passover; discussions on Fasting and on Evil Speaking; the Hortatory Discourse on Patience, or To Those Recently Baptized; and the one bearing the title Ecclesiastical Canon, or Against the Judaizers, &#8001; &#7952;&#960;&#953;&#947;&#949;&#947;&#961;&#945;&#956;&#956;&#8051;&#957;&#959;&#962; &#954;&#945;&#957;&#8060;&#957; &#7952;&#954;&#954;&#955;&#951;&#963;&#953;&#945;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#954;&#8056;&#962;, &#7970; &#960;&#961;&#8056;&#962; &#964;&#959;&#8058;&#962; &#8125;&#921;&#959;&#965;&#948;&#945;&#970;&#950;&#8057;&#957;&#964;&#945;&#962;. Jerome: de canonibus ecclesiasticis, et adversum eos, qui Jud&#230;orum sequuntur errorum. Photius mentions the work; calling it &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#954;&#945;&#957;&#8057;&#957;&#969;&#957; &#7952;&#954;&#954;&#955;&#951;&#963;&#953;&#945;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#954;&#8182;&#957;, but he had not himself seen it. It is no longer extant, but a few fragments have been preserved, and are given by Potter.

Danz (De Eusebio, p. 90) refers to Clement&#8217;s Stromata, lib. VI. p. 803, ed. Potter, where he says that &#8220;the ecclesiastical canon is the agreement or disagreement of the law and the prophets with the testament given at the coming of Christ.&#8221; Danz concludes accordingly that in this work Clement wished to show to those who believed that the teaching of the law and the prophets was not only different from, but superior to the teachings of the Christian faith,&#8212;that is, to the Judaizers,&#8212;that the writers of the Old and New Testaments were in full harmony. This might do, were it not for the fact that the work is directed not against Jews, but against Judaizers, i.e. Judaizing Christians. A work to prove the Old and New Testament in harmony with each other could hardly have been addressed to such persons, who must have believed them in harmony before they became Christians. The truth is, the phrase &#954;&#945;&#957;&#8060;&#957; &#7952;&#954;&#954;&#955;&#951;&#963;&#953;&#945;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#954;&#8057;&#962; is used by the Fathers with a great variety of meanings, and the fact that Clement used it in one sense in one of his works by no means proves that he always used it in the same sense. It is more probable that the work was devoted to a discussion of certain practices or modes of living in which the Judaizers differed from the rest of the Church Catholic, perhaps in respect to feasts (might a reference to the Quartodeciman practice have been perhaps included?), fasts and other ascetic practices, observance of the Jewish Sabbaths, &amp;c. This use of the word in the sense of regula was very common (see Suicer&#8217;s Thesaurus). The work was dedicated, according to Eusebius, to the bishop Alexander, mentioned above in chap. 8 and elsewhere. This is sufficient evidence that it was written considerably later than the three great works already referred to. Alexander was a student of Clement&#8217;s; and since he was likewise a fellow-pupil of Origen&#8217;s (see chap. 8, note 6), his student days under Clement must have extended at least nearly to the time when Clement left Alexandria (i.e. in or before 202. ). But Clement of course cannot have dedicated a work to him while he was still his pupil, and in fact we shall be safe in saying that Alexander must have gained some prominence before Clement would be led to dedicate a work to him. We think naturally of the period which Clement spent with him while he was in prison and before he became bishop of Jerusalem (see chap. 11). It is quite possible that Clement&#8217;s residence in Cappadocia with Alexander had given him such an acquaintance with Judaizing heresies and practices that he felt constrained to write against them, and at the same time had given him such an affection for Alexander that he dedicated his work to him. which he dedicated to Alexander, the bishop mentioned above.

4. In the Stromata, he has not only treated extensively of the Divine Scripture, but he also quotes from the Greek writers whenever anything that they have said seems to him profitable.

5. He elucidates the opinions of many, both Greeks and barbarians. He also refutes the false doctrines of the heresiarchs, and besides this, reviews a large portion of history, giving us specimens of very various learning; with all the rest he mingles the views of philosophers. It is likely that on this account he gave his work the appropriate title of Stromata.

6. He makes use also in these works of testimonies from the disputed Scriptures, the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, and of Jesus, the son of Sirach, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and those of Barnabas, and Clement and Jude.

7. He mentions also Tatian&#8217;s Discourse to the Greeks, and speaks of Cassianus This Cassianus is mentioned twice by Clement: once in Strom. I. 21, where Clement engages in a chronological study for the purpose of showing that the wisdom of the Hebrews is older than that of the Greeks, and refers to Cassian&#8217;s Exegetica and Tatian&#8217;s Address to the Greeks as containing discussions of the same subject; again in Strom. III. 13 sqq., where he is said to have been the founder of the sect of the Docet&#230;, and to have written a work, De continentia or De castitate (&#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#7952;&#947;&#954;&#961;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#8055;&#945;&#962; &#7970; &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#949;&#8016;&#957;&#959;&#965;&#967;&#8055;&#945;&#962;), in which he condemned marriage. Here, too, he is associated with Tatian. He seems from these references to have been, like Tatian, an apologist for Christianity, and also like him to have gone off into an extreme asceticism, which the Church pronounced heretical (see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 4). Whether he was personally connected with Tatian, or is mentioned with him by Clement simply because his views were similar, we do not know, nor can we fix the date at which he lived. Neither of his works referred to by Clement is now extant. Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 38) mentions the work which Eusebius speaks of here, but says that he had not been able to find a copy of it. It is called by Clement, in the passage referred to here by Eusebius, &#8125;&#917;&#958;&#951;&#947;&#951;&#964;&#953;&#954;&#959;&#8054;, and so Eusebius calls it in his ''Pr&#230;f. Evang.'' X. 12, where he quotes from Clement. But here he speaks of it as a &#967;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#947;&#961;&#945;&#966;&#8055;&#945;, and Jerome transcribes the word without translating it. We can gather from Clement&#8217;s words (Strom. I. 21) that the work of Cassianus dealt largely with chronology, and hence Eusebius&#8217; reference to it under the name &#967;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#947;&#961;&#945;&#966;&#8055;&#945; is quite legitimate. as the author of a chronological work. He refers to the Jewish authors Philo, Aristobulus, Josephus, Demetrius, and Eupolemus, as showing, all of them, in their works, that Moses and the Jewish race existed before the earliest origin of the Greeks.

8. These books abound also in much other learning. In the first of them the author speaks of himself as next after the successors of the apostles.

9. In them he promises also to write a commentary on Genesis. In his book on the Passover he acknowledges that he had been urged by his friends to commit to writing, for posterity, the traditions which he had heard from the ancient presbyters; and in the same work he mentions Melito and Iren&#230;us, and certain others, and gives extracts from their writings.