Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/66

CLEMENT

that the essence of God is to be unborn, consequently the Son Who is begotten is not God. He is a creature, the first-born of all creation and the Image of God. The Holy Ghost is the creature of the Son.) The agreement with Eunomius's of 381-3 is less close. As the Eunomian passage was found by Rufinus in both the recensions of Clement known to him, we may suppose that the interpolation was made in the original work by a Eunomian about 365-70, before the abridgment R. was made about 370-80. (The word archiepiscopus used of St. James suggests the end of the fourth century. It occurs in the middle of that century in some Meletian docu- ments cited by Athanasius, and then not till the Council of Ephesus, 431.)

H. has also a disquisition on the generation of the Son (xvi, 15-18, and .xx, 7-8). The writer calls God and, and both Mother and Father of men. His idea of a changeable God and an unchangeable Son projected from the best modi- fication of God has been mentioned above. This ingenious doctrine enables the writer to accept the words of the Nicene definition, while denying their sense. The Son may be called God, for so may men be, but not in the strict sense. He is, begotten , He is not or . Apparently He is not , nor was there a time when He was not, though this is not quite distinctly enunciated. The writer is clearly an Arian who manages to accept the formula of Nicaea by an acrobatic feat, in order to save himself. The date is therefore probably within the reign of Constantine (d. 337). while the great council was still imposed on all by the emperor — say, about 330.

But this is not the date of H., but of the original behind both H. and R.; for it is clear that the Euno- mian interpolator of R. attacks the doctrine we find in H. He ridicules and, he declares God to be unchangeable, and the Son to be created, not begotten from the Father's essence and consubstantial. God is not masculo-femina. It is clear that the interpolator had before him the doctrine of H. in a yet clearer form, and that he substituted his own view for it (R. iii. 2-11). But it is remark- able that he retained one integral part of H.'s theory, viz., the origin of the Evil One from an accidental mixture of elements, for Rufinus tells us (De Adult, libr. Origenis) that he found this doctrine in R. and omitted it. The date of the original is therefore fixed as after Niciea, 325, probably c. 330; that of H. may be anywhere in the second half of the fourth century. The Eunomian interpolator is about 365-70, and the compilation of R. about 370-80.

The original author shows a detailed knowledge of the towns on the Phoenician coast from Caesarea to Antioch. He was an Arian, and Arianism had its home in the civil diocese of the Orient. He uses the "Præp. Evang." of Eusebius of Casarea (written about 313). In 325 that historian mentions the dialogues of Peter and Appion as just published — presumably in his own region; these were prob- ably the nucleus of the larger work completed by the same hand a few years later. Citations of Pseudo-Clement are by the Palestinian Epipha- nius, who found the romance among the Ebionites of Palestine; by St. Jerome, who had dwelt in the Syrian desert and settled at Bethlehem; by the travelled Rufinus; by the "Apostolical Constitutions", compiled in Syria or Palestine. The work is rendered into Syriac before 411. The Arian author of the "Opus imperfectum" cited it freely. It was in- terpolated by a I'Ainomian about" 365-70. All these indications suggest an Arian author before 350 in the East, probably not far from Cæsarea.

The author, though an Arian, probably belonged nominally to the Catholic Church. He wrote for the heathens of his day, and observed the stiff and often merely formal disciplina arcani which the fourth cen- tury enforced. Atonement, grace, sacraments are omitted for this cause only. "The true Prophet" is not a name for Christ used by Christians, but the office of Christ which the author puts forward towards the pagan world. He shows Peter keeping the evening agape and Eucharist .secret from Clement when unbaptized; it was no doubt a Eucharist of bread and wine, not of bread and salt.

The great pagan antagonist of the third century was the neo-Platonic philosopher. Porphyry; but under Constantine his disciple lamblichus was the chief restorer and defender of the old gods, and his system of defence is that which we find made the official religion by Julian (361-3). Consequently, it is not astonishing to find that Simon and his disci- ples represent not St. Paul, but lamblichus. The doctrines and practices repelled are the theurgy and magic, astrology and mantle, absurd miracles and claims to union with the Divinity, which character- ized the debased neo-Platonism of 320-30. It is not against Marcion but against Plato that Pseudo- Clement teaches the supremacy of the Creator of all. He defends the Old Testament against the school of Porphyry, and when he declares it to be interpolated, he is using Porphyry's own higher criticism in a clumsy way. The elaborate discussion of ancient history, the ridicule cast on the obscene mythology of the Greeks, and the philosophical explanations of a higher meaning are also against Porphyry. The refutation of the grossest idolatry is against lam- blichus.

It is perhaps mere accident that we hear nothing of the Clementines from 330 till 360. But about 360- 410 they are interpolated, they are revised and abridged in H., yet more revised and abridged in R., translated into Latin, translated into Syriac, and frequently cited. It seems, therefore, that it was the policy of Julian which drew them from obscurity. They were useful weapons against the momentary resurrection of polytheism, mythology, theurgy, and idolatry.

The principal editions have been mentioned above. The literature is so enormous that a selection from it must suffice. Somewhat fuller lists will be found in, Chronologies II. in, Patrologic and Geschichte der kirchlichen Litteratur and in , Repertoire, — , Die Clementinen (1844);. ''Die Clem. Recogn. und'' Hom, nach ihrem Ursprung und Inhalt (Jena, 1848); Kritische ''Untersuchungen über die Evangelien Justina, der Clem. Hom.'' und Marcions (Halle, 1850);, Die Hom, und Recogn. des Clemens Romanus (Gottingen, 1854);, Die clemetinischen Schriften (Gotha, 1869);, Quellen der romischen (1872) and Apokr. Apostelgeschichte (1887), H;, in ''Dict. Chr. Biog. (1877);, Die'' Clemensroamne. (Gotham 1890); in Kirchener. (1884); The Clementine Homilies in Studia Biblica (Oxford, 1890), II;, The Purpose of the World-Process and the Problem of Evil in the Clementine and Lactantian Writings in Studia Biblica (1896), IV; ], Index of noteworthy words and phrases found in the Clementine writings in Lightfoot Fund Public. (London. 1893);, Clementine Recognitions (lectures delivered in 1884; pub. London, 1901); , De Clemens Roman (1902);, The Clementine Literature in ''Journ. Theol. Stud. (1903), III, 41;, Origen and'' Pseudo-Clement in ''Journ. Theol. Stud.'', III, 436; , ''Origenes und Pseudo-Clemens in Zeitschr. fur Wiss.'' Theol. (1903), XLVI. 342; in. Gesch. der allchristi Literatur (1893), I, 212; and II. Chronologie. 518; . Die Pseudoclementinen in Texte und Unters., New Series, X,. The Date of the Clementines in Zeitschr, ''fur News Test. Weiss''(1908). An English translation of the Recognitions. by the, D.D., will be found in the Ante-Nicene Library, III, and of the Homilies, ibid., XVII (Edinburgh, 1871-2).

John Chapman.

Clement Mary Hofbauer (, Saint, the second founder of the Redemptorist Congregation, called "the Apostle of Vienna", b. at Tasswitz in Moravia, 26 December, 1751; d. at Vienna, 15 March, 1821. The family name of Dvorak was better known by its German equivalent, Hofbauer. The youngest of twelve children, and son of a grazier and butcher, he was six years old when his father died. His great