Roman origin of the Clementines question ed. times reflects: but the teaching of St James appears here in an exaggerated and perverted form. The author lays great stress on works, and so far he copies his model: but his interpretation of works is often formal and ritualistic, and in one passage he even states the doctrine of supererogation'. Whether the tone of this writing is to be ascribed to the traditional feelings of Judaism yet lingering in the Church, or to the influence of a Judaic section still tolerated, or to the constitution of the author's own mind, it is impossible to say. The view of Christian ethics here presented deviates considerably, it is true, from St Paul's teaching; but the deviation is the same in kind and not greater in degree than marks a vast number of medieval writings, and may in fact be said to characterize more or less distinctly the whole medieval Church. Thus it affords no ground for the charge of Ebionism. Hermas speaks of law indeed, as St James speaks of it; yet by law he means not the Mosaic ordinances but the rule introduced by Christ. On the other hand his very silence is eloquent. There is not a word in favour of Judaic observances properly so called, not a word of denunciation direct or indirect against either the doctrine or the person of St Paul or his disciples. In this respect the Shepherd presents a marked contrast to the truly Ebionite work, which must be taken next in order. The Clementine writings have been assigned with great confidence by most recent critics of ability to a Roman authorship. Of the truth of this view I am very far from convinced. The great argument-indeed almost the only argument-in its favour is the fact that the plot of the romance turns upon the wanderings of this illustrious bishop of Rome, who is at once the narrator and the hero of the story. But the fame of Clement reached far beyond the limits of his own jurisdiction. To him, we are specially told by a contemporary writer, was assigned the task of corresponding with 1 Sim. v. 3: comp. Mand. iv. 4. So for instance Baur, Schliemann, Ritschl, Hilgenfeld: and this view is adopted by Dean Milman Latin Christianity 1. p. 31, who speaks of it as 'the unanimous opinion of those who in later days have critically examined the Clementina.' Uhlhorn is almost alone among recent critics in raising his voice against this general verdict: p. 370 sq. foreign churches'. His rank and position, his acknowledged wisdom and piety, would point him out as the best typical representative of the Gentile converts: and an Ebionite writer, designing by a religious fiction to impress his views on Gentile Christendom, would naturally single out Clement for his hero, and by his example enforce the duty of obedience to the Church of the Circumcision, as the prerogative Church and the true standard of orthodoxy. At all events it is to be noticed that, beyond the use made of Clement's name, these writings do not betray any familiarity with or make any reference to the Roman Church in particular. On the contrary, the scenes are all laid in the East; and the supreme arbiter, the ultimate referee in all that relates to Christian doctrine and practice, is not Peter, the Clementine Apostle of the Gentiles, the reputed founder of the Roman Church, but James the Lord's brother, the bishop of bishops, the ruler of the mother Church of the Circumcision. If the Roman origin of these works is more than doubtful, the time of writing also is open to much question. The dates assigned to the Homilies by the ablest critics range over the whole of the second century, and some place them even later. If the Roman authorship be abandoned, many reasons for a very early date will fall to the ground also. Whenever they were written, the Homilies are Their importance among the most interesting and important of early Christian writings; exaggerbut they have no right to the place assigned them in the system of a modern critical school, as the missing link between the Judaism of the Christian era and the Catholicism of the close of the second century, as representing in fact the phase of Christianity taught at Rome and generally throughout the Church during the early ages. 1 Hermas Vis. ii. 4 πέμψει οὖν Κλή μης εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις· ἐκείνῳ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται. 2 The Epistle of Clement to James, prefixed to the work, is an exception; for it gives an elaborate account of the writer's appointment by St Peter as his successor. The purpose of this letter, which is to glorify the see of Rome, shows that it was no part of and proba bly is later than the Homilies them- If the Homilies had really been ated. sent the doctrine of the Roman Church. The very complexion of the writer's opinions is such, that they can hardly have been maintained by any large and important community, They can at least in the West. Had they presented a purer form of Judaism, not repre- founded on the Old Testament Scriptures, a more plausible case might have been made out. But the theology of the Clementines does not lie in a direct line between the Old Testament and Catholic Christianity it deviates equally from the one and the other. In its rejection of half the Mosaic law and much more than half of the Old Testament, and in its doctrine of successive avatars of the Christ, it must have been as repugnant to the religious sentiments of a Jew trained in the school of Hillel, as it could possibly be to a disciple of St Paul in the first century or to a Catholic Christian in the third. Moreover the tone of the writer is not at all the tone of one who addresses a sympathetic audience. His attacks on St Paul are covert and indirect; he makes St Peter complain that he has been misrepresented and libelled. Altogether there is an air of deprecation and apology in the Homilies. If they were really written by a Roman Christian, they cannot represent the main body of the Church, but must have emanated from one of the many heresies with which the metropolis swarmed in the second century, when all promulgators of new doctrine gathered there, as the largest and therefore the most favourable market for their spiritual Notice in tus. wares. There is another reason also for thinking that this Gnostic Hippoly- Ebionism cannot have obtained any wide or lasting influence in the Church of Rome. During the episcopate of Callistus (A. D. 219223) a heretical teacher appears in the metropolis, promulgating Elchasaite doctrines substantially, though not identically, the same with the creed of the Clementines, and at first seems likely to attain some measure of success, but is denounced and foiled by Hippolytus. It is clear that this learned writer on heresies regarded the Elchasaite doctrine as a novelty, against which therefore it was the more necessary to warn the faithful Christian. If the Ebionism of the Clementines had ever prevailed at Rome, it had passed into oblivion when Hippolytus wrote. ite lean Roman of the Pas The few notices of the Roman Church in the second century No Ebion. point to other than Ebionite leanings. In their ecclesiastical ordi- ings in the nances the Romans seem anxious to separate themselves as widely Church. as possible from Jewish practices. Thus they extended the Friday's fast over the Saturday, showing thereby a marked disregard of the sabbatical festival'. Thus again they observed Easter on a different day from the Jewish passover; and so zealous were they in favour of their own traditional usage in this respect, that in the Paschal Evidence controversy their bishop Victor resorted to the extreme measure of chal controversy. renouncing communion with those churches which differed from it2. This controversy affords a valuable testimony to the Catholicity of Christianity at Rome in another way. It is clear that the churches ranged on different sides on this question of ritual are nevertheless substantially agreed on all important points of doctrine and practice. This fact appears when Anicetus of Rome permits Polycarp of Smyrna, who had visited the metropolis in order to settle some disputed points and had failed in arranging the Paschal question, to celebrate the eucharist in his stead. It is distinctly stated by Irenæus when he remonstrates with Victor for disturbing the peace of the Church by insisting on non-essentials. In its creed the Roman Church was one with the Gallic and Asiatic Churches; and that this creed was not Ebionite, the names of Polycarp and Irenæus are guarantees. Nor is it only in the Paschal controversy that the Catholicity of the Romans may be inferred from their intercourse 1 Tertull. de Jejun. 14; see Neander Ch. Hist. I. p. 410 (Bohn). 2 On the Paschal controversy see Euseb. H. E. v. 23-25. Polycrates on behalf of the Asiatic Churches claimed the sanction of St John; and there seems no reason to doubt the validity of this claim. On the other hand a different rule had been observed in the Roman Church at least as far back as the episcopate of Xystus (about 120129) and perhaps earlier. It seems probable then that the Easter festival had been established independently by the Romans and those who followed the Roman practice. Thus in the first instance the difference of usage was no index of Judaic or antijudaic leanings: 3 In Euseb. Η. Ε. V. 24 ή διαφωνία Other communi with other Christian communities. The remains of ecclesiastical cations literature, though sparse and fragmentary, are yet sufficient to reveal with a wide network of intercommunication between the churches of the foreign churches. second century; and herein Rome naturally holds a central position. The visit of Hegesippus to the metropolis has been mentioned already. Not very long after we find Dionysius bishop of Corinth, whose 'orthodoxy' is praised by Eusebius, among other letters addressed to foreign churches, writing also to the Romans in terms of cordial sympathy and respect'. On the Catholicity of the African Church I have already remarked: and the African Church was a daughter of the Roman, from whom therefore it may be assumed she derived her doctrine'. Internal condition of the Roman Church. The gleams of light which break in upon the internal history of the Roman Church at the close of the second and beginning of the third century exhibit her assailed by rival heresies, compromised by the weakness and worldliness of her rulers, altogether distracted and unsteady, but in no way Ebionite. One bishop, whose name is not given, first dallies with the fanatical spiritualism of Montanus; then suddenly turning round, surrenders himself to the patripassian speculations of Praxeas. Later than this two successive bishops, Zephyrinus and Callistus, are stated, by no friendly critic indeed but yet a contemporary writer, the one from stupidity and avarice, the other from craft and ambition, to have listened favourably to the heresies of Noetus and Sabellius'. It was at this point in her history that the Church of Rome was surprised by the novel doctrines of the Elchasaite teacher, whom I have already mentioned more than once. But no one would maintain that at this late date Ebionism predominated either at Rome or in Christendom generally. Ebionites indeed there were at this time and very much later. 1 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. 2 Tertull. de Praescr. 36. Cyprian Epist. 48 (ed. Fell) writing to Cornelius speaks of Rome as 'Ecclesiae catholicae radicem et matricem,' in reference to the African Churches. 8 Tertull. adv. Prax. 1. Tertullian, now a Montanist, writes of Praxeas who had persuaded this nameless bishop of Rome to revoke his concessions to Montanism, 'Ita duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romae procuravit, prophetiam expulit et haeresim intulit, paracletum fugavit et patrem crucifixit.' For speculations as to the name of this bishop see Wordsworth's Hippolytus pp. 131, 132. Hippol. Haer, ix. 7 sq. |