whatsoever, that precepts bind everywhere; and, hence, we must conclude, in accordance with the axiom, ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus, that this is true, even though they are imposed by territorial jurisdiction.

They cannot, however, be urged judicially, and they cease with the cessation of the superior's power, unless they have been imposed either by a legitimate document, or in the presence of two witnesses. On the other hand, if either of these formalities is observed in the imposition of a precept, it can be urged judicially, and remains perpetually. Of course, if the superior expressly limits its duration, even though it is imposed in either of these ways, it will not continue longer than the period specified; and hence, for example, a precept imposed ad beneplacitum always ceases with the cessation of the superior's power. When a precept is imposed by a document to produce these two effects the canon states that it must be legitimate, thereby implying that it must be drawn up or at least signed by a notary.

J. KINANE.

VOL. X-33

THE 'PRIMA CLEMENTIS'

REV. T. E. GARDE, O.P.

ONE of the earliest Patristic writings that have come down to us is the so-called Prima Clementis, or First Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians. In reality the title is incorrect. For the Second Epistle to the Church of Corinth, formerly attributed to St. Clement, is not really his. Indeed, the Prima Clementis-we may retain the expression for convenience sake-is the only authentic writing of Clement of Rome-an only writing, however, which is of the greatest importance and utility to the theologian, the apologist, and the historian. In its pages we get an insight into the faith of the Church of Rome towards the close of the first century, for the like of which we seek in vain elsewhere. Non-Catholic scholars, such as Lightfoot and Harnack, have studied it with the greatest care, sometimes with no other end in view than that of attacking the fundamental dogmas of the Roman Church. Nor has Catholic scholarship neglected altogether this important document. Bardenhewer and Rauschen in Germany, Batiffol and Duchesne in France, in Italy Vizzini and Mercati, have given due attention to the Prima Clementis in their Patristic writings. And yet-why should we not admit it ?-the Epistle on the whole is little known to ecclesiastics: the majority, perhaps, have never read it; seldom, if ever, is it quoted in the pulpit. Indeed, the regrettable fact still remains that the systematic study of the Fathers has not reached that place of honour in our curriculum of ecclesiastical studies which it should hold. Nevertheless, the recent legislation on preaching reminds us that, after the Sacred Scripture, the Fathers must be the chief source from which the Christian orator may draw. It is in the hope of furthering in some way-be it ever so small-the study of the holy Fathers, that the following pages are

written.

1 The Didache is probably earlier than the Prima Clementis. The date of the so-called Epistle of Barnabas is doubtful.

After treating briefly of the life of St. Clement, and of the authenticity of his Letter to the Church of Corinth, our chief attention will be directed to the contents of the Letter itself. If we quote it freely, it is with a view to putting before our readers some of the more beautiful passages in this fascinating Epistle. Some may be induced to read it and study it for themselves. If so, the writer will consider his time and labour amply repaid.

The history of St. Clement of Rome is involved in great obscurity. Some points are certain, some doubtful; others again are merely legendary. That Clement was Bishop of Rome towards the close of the first century, is beyond all reasonable doubt. On this most important point the voice of tradition is unanimous. And few, if any, among modern scholars, would dare to call it in question. But beyond this, all is obscure; nothing is known for certain regarding the person, the religious origin, the succession in the Roman Pontificate, and the death of our saint. St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Philippians (iv. 3), mentions a Clement as one of his fellow-labourers in the Gospel. Is this Clement of Rome? Some Fathers and ecclesiastical writers would have it so. The Church, in her liturgy, has supported the identification. Modern scholars, however, are inclined to reject it, or at most accept it as a mere conjecture. Less probable still is the identification of our saint with the Consul Titus Flavius Clemens, a member of the Imperial family. The pseudo-Clementina, from which some arguments for the identification are drawn, are of no value in reconstructing the life of St. Clement, being written probably no earlier than the fourth century. Then again, Flavius Clemens died for the faith. Of the martyrdom of our saint, however, we are not quite certain. Lastly, no early writer mentions the imperial relationship of St. Clement, a relationship which, were it true, would be well worthy of being recorded in the life of this early Pope.

As regards the religious origin of St. Clement, we are left equally in doubt. Here, it is true, the intrinsic evidence of his Epistle to the Corinthians forms a basis of argument. The expression, Our father Jacob' led Tillemont to conclude that Clement was of Jewish origin. Lightfoot,

1 Origen. in Joann. vi. 36; Eusebius, H.E., iii. 4, 15; Jerome, Catal. c. 15.

2 Cf. Mass and Office of St. Clement, 23rd November.

3 Cf. Vizzini, Bibliotheca S.S. P.P., vol. i. p. 84.

Clem. iv. 8.

• Mémoires pour Servir à l'histoire Ecclésiastique, 'St. Clement,' art. I.

from the style and contents of the whole Epistle, comes to a somewhat similar conclusion. Such arguments, however, are far from conclusive. Even a convert from paganism might refer to Jacob as 'Our father'; and, if well-read in the Old Testament, he could quote it quite as freely as does St. Clement.

If the Roman Pontificate of Clement is certain, not so, however, the order of his succession. On this point the very earliest writers disagree. According to some, he was the immediate successor of St. Peter. Others, especially Irenaeus and Eusebius, place Clement after Linus and Anacletus. Various attempts were made by subsequent writers to reconcile these two traditions. But the testimony of Irenaeus seems by far the more trustworthy. Clement, consequently, was fourth in the line of Roman Pontiffs, and according to Eusebius," his Pontificate lasted nine years-from the twelfth year of Domitian to the third of Trajan, i.e., from A.D. 92 to A.D. 101.

St.

As the life, so the death of St. Clement is shrouded in darkness. The story of his exile in the Chersonesus, and of his martyrdom in the Black Sea, is known to all. But the Acts of his martyrdom are of late origin, and modern scholars give them little or no credence. According to Bardenhewer, they can hardly claim to be more than poetry and saga.'• The very fact of his martyrdom is not beyond all doubt. Eusebius, for instance, and St. Jerome are silent on this point. Yet we find the tradition of his martyrdom firmly established in Rome towards the end of the fourth century. His name, too, has been inserted in the Canon of the Mass-a privilege granted to none but martyrs. Hence the fact of his martyrdom remains very probable, notwithstanding the silence of early historians, and our ignorance as to how and where this glorious Pontiff laid down his life for the faith. But let us pass on to the consideration of the Prima Clementis; and, firstly, a few words as to its claims to authenticity.

Under the name of St. Clement of Rome many writings have come down to us. We are concerned here only with

1 S. Clemens of Rome, Appendix, p. 263 sqq.

*Tertullian, De Praeser., c. 32; Pseudo-Clementina.

Adv. Haer. iii. 3.

4 H.E., iii. 15.

5 Ibid., iii. 34.

Patrology, English translation, p. 26. Cf. Rauschen, Manuale di Patrologia,

4 edit. Italiana, p. 42.

his First Epistle to the Corinthians. In any case, as we have already remarked, it alone is really his. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, the two Letters to Virgins, the Pseudo-Apostolica, and the Pseudo-Clementina, though formerly attributed to St. Clement, are now generally held to be spurious. But is the so-called First Epistle really authentic? Scholars, such as Schwegler, Baur, and Hilgenfeld, denied its authenticity. Present-day critics, on the contrary, are unanimous, or nearly so, in defending it. Positive intrinsic proof, indeed, there is none. The name of St. Clement occurs nowhere throughout the whole Epistle. But the external evidence, both explicit and implicit, is very strong. The testimony of Eusebius,1 and still more that of Dionysius of Corinth, in his Epistle to Pope Soter, written about A.D. 170, leave little room for doubt. The words of Dionysius are worth quoting. 'To-day,' he says, we have celebrated the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your letter. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former letter which was written to us by Clement.' • This is the earliest explicit argument in favour of the authenticity. But the letter of St. Polycarp to the Philippians, written probably about A.D. 107 or 108, is full of reminiscences of the Prima Clementis. Once he actually quotes St. Clement, without, however, naming him. There is no necessity to delay any longer in establishing a point so generally admitted.

6

There is scarcely any necessity to remind our readers that the Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians was written in Greek. The occasion of the Letter was an 'abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have made blaze up to such a frenzy that the name (of the Church of Corinth), venerable and famous and worthy as it is of all men's love, has been much slandered.' ' A few presumptuous young men rose up against their ecclesiastical superiors and deprived them of their dignity. The base rose up against the honourable, those of no reputation

1 H.E., iii. 38.

? In Eusebius, H.E., iv. 23.

3 Polycarp, Phil. ix. 2. Cf. 1 Clem. v. 4.

In our quotations we have, with rare exceptions, followed the English translation by Prof. Kirsopp Lake. Loeb Classical Library, Apostolic Fathers, vol. i; London: William Heinemann.

51 Clem. i. 1.