Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 5.djvu/834

Rh 820 CLEMENS The Hypotyposes have not come down to us. Cassiodorus trans lated them into Latin, freely altering to suit his own ideas of orthodoxy. Both Eusebius and Photius describe the work. It was a short commentary on all the books of Scripture, including some of the apocryphal works, such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Reve lation of Peter. Photius speaks in strong language of the impiety of some opinions in the book (Bibl., cod. 109, p. 89a, Bekker), but his statements are such as to prove conclusively that he must have had a corrupt copy, or read very carelessly, or grossly misunderstood Clement. Notes in Latin on the first epistle of Peter, the epistle of Jude, and the first two of John have come down to us ; but whether they are the translation of Cassiodorus, or indeed a trans lation of Clement s work at all, is a matter of dispute. The treatise on the Passover was occasioned by a work of Melito on the same subject. Two fragments of this treatise were given by Petavius, and are contained in the modern editions. We know nothing of the work called The Ecclesiastical Canon from any external testimony. Clement himself often mentions the tKKrjffia(TTiKbs KO.VUV, and defines it as the agreement and harmony of the law and the prophets with the covenant delivered at the appearance of Christ (Strom., vi. cap. xv. 125, p. 803, P. ). No doubt this was the subject of the treatise. Jerome and Photius call the work Ecclesiastical Canons, but this seems to be a mistake. Of the other treatises mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome nothing is known. A fragment of Clement, quoted by Antonius Melissa, is most probably taken from the treatise on slander. Besides the treatises mentioned by Eusebius, fragments of treatises on Providence and the Soul have been preserved. Mention is also made of a work by Clement on the Prophet Amos, and another on Definitions. In addition to these Clement often speaks of his intention to write on certain subjects, but it may well be doubted whether in most cases, if not all, he intended to devote separate treatises to them. Some have found an allusion to the treatise on the Soul already mentioned. The other subjects are Marriage (ya^iKbs oyos], Continence, the Duties of Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Widows, Prophecy, the Soul, the Transmigration of the Soul and the Devil, Angels, the Origin of the World, First Principles and the Divinity of the Logos, Allegorical Interpretation of Statements made with regard to God s anger and similar aifections, the Unity of the Church, and the Resurrection. Two works are incorporated in the editions of Clement which are not mentioned by himself or any ancient writer. They are e/c TIV &eoS6rov Kal TTJS &vaToiKrjs KoAoKjueV?)? $t5afficaias K&amp;lt;XT& TOVS OuaXfvrli ov xptvovs eViTOyUcu, and t/c tStv trpo(j)rjriKwi ^/cAoyai. The first, if it is the work of Clement, must be a book merely of excerpts, for it contains many opinions which Clement opposed. Mention is made of Pantsenus in the second, and some have thought it more worthy of him than the first. Others have regarded it as a work similar to the first, and derived from Theodoras. Clement occupies a profoundly interesting position in the history of Christianity. He is the first to bring all the culture of the Greeks and all the speculations of the Christian heretics to bear on the exposition of Christian truth. He does not attain to a systematic exhibition of Christian doctrine, but he paves the way for it, and lays the first stones of the foundation. In some respects Justin anticipated him. He also was well acquainted with Greek philosophy, and took a genial view of it ; but he was not nearly so widely read as Clement. The list of Greek authors whom Clement has quoted occupies upwards of fourteen of the quarto pages in Fabricius s Bibliotheca Grceca. He is at home alike in the epic and the lyric, the tragic and the comic poets, and his knowledge of the prose writers is very extensive. He made a special study of the philosophers. Equally minute is his knowledge of the systems of the Christian heretics. And in all cases it is plain that he not merely read but thought deeply on the questions which the civilization of the Greeks and the various writings of poets, philosophers, and heretics raised. He pondered on all he read that he might gain a clearer insight into the truth. But it was in the Scriptures that he found his greatest delight. He believed them to contain the revelation of God s wisdom to men. He quotes all the books of the Old Testament except Ruth and the Song of Solomon, and amongst the sacred writings of the Old Testament he evidently included the Book of Tobias, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus. He is equally full in his quotations from the New Testament, for he quotes from all the books except the epistle to Philemon, the second epistle of St Peter, and the epistle of St James, and he quotes from the pastor of Hernias, and the epistles of Clemens Romanus and of Barnabas, as inspired. He appeals also to many of the lost Gospels, such as those of the Hebrews, of the Egyptians, and of Matthias. Notwithstanding this adequate knowledge of Scripture, the modern theologian is disappointed to find very little of what he deems characteristically Christian. In fact Clement regarded Christianity as a philosophy. The ancient philo sophers sought through their philosophy to attain to a nobler and holier life, and this also was the aim of Chris tianity. The difference between the two, in Clement s judgment, was that the Greek philosophers had only glimpses of the truth, that they attained only to fragments of the truth, while Christianity revealed in Christ the absolute and perfect truth. All the stages of the world s history were therefore preparations leading up to this full revelation, and God s care was not confined to the Hebrews alone. The worship of tha heavenly bodies, for instance, was given to man at an early stage that he might rise from a contemplation of these sublime objects to the worship of the Creator. Greek philosophy in particular was the pre paration of the Greeks for Christ. It was the schoolmaster or pcedagogue to lead them to Christ. Plato was Moses atticizing. Clement varies in his statement how Plato got his wisdom or his fragments of the Reason. Sometimes he thinks that they came direct from God, like all good things, but he is also fond of maintaining that many of Plato s best thoughts were borrowed from the Hebrew prophets ; and he makes the same statement in regard to the wisdom of the other philosophers. But however this may be, Christ was the end to which all that was true in philosophies pointed. Christ himself was the Logos, the Reason. God the Father was ineffable. The Son alone can manifest Him fully. He is the Reason that pervades the universe, that brings out all goodness, that guides all good men. It was through possessing somewhat of this Reason that the philosophers attained to any truth and goodness ; but in Christians He dwells more fully and guides them through all the perplexities of life. It is easy to see that this doctrine in regard to Christ may be miscon strued. If Jesus were the Reason, thus visible in all good ness, how could there be a real difference between Him and the Father, or how could He really become incarnate { Photius, probably on a careless reading of Clement, argued that he could not have believed in a real incarnation. But the words of Clement are quite precise and their meaning indisputable. He believed in a personal God different from the universe. He believed in a personal Son of God who was the Reason and Wisdom of God ; and he believed that this Son of God really became incarnate. The object of His incarnation and death was to free man from his sins, to lead him into the path of wisdom, and thus in the end elevate him to the position of a god. But man s salvation was to be gradual. It began with faith, passed from that to love, and ended in full and complete knowledge. There could be no faith without knowledge. But the knowledge is imperfect, and ths Christian was to do many things in simple obedience without knowing the reason. But he has to move upwards continually until he at length does nothing that is evil, and he knows fully the reason and object of what he does. He thus becomes the true Gnostic, but he can become the true Gnostic only by con templation and by the practice of what is right. lie has to free himself from the power of passion. He has to give up all thoughts of pleasure. He must prefer goodness in the midst of torture to evil with unlimited pleasure. He has to resist the temptations of the body, keeping it under strict control, and with the eye of the soul undimmed by