THE CHURCH IN ROME
IN THE FIRST CENTURY

iii

MCMXCIX

iv

THE BAMPTON LECTURES

FOR 1913

LECTURE
VII

1
Cor. i. l0: ‘Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ that ye all speak the same thing, that there be no divisions among
you.’

Before
proceeding to the consideration of that earliest official document of the
Roman Church commonly known as the ‘First Epistle of Clement to the
Corinthians,’ some reference should be made to the order of the episcopal
succession in that Church. It is only necessary to touch upon it briefly
here, for it has been treated so fully and thoroughly by many writers that
it appears sufficient to state the conclusion arrived at and generally
accepted, viz. that the order of names is that given by Irenaeus, Linus,
Anencletus or Cletus, Clemens, and that the traditional terms assigned to
their episcopates, Linus twelve years, Anencletus twelve years, and
Clemens nine years, are approximately correct. If Linus became bishop in
68 A.D.
this would make the close of the episcopate of Clemens to coincide with
the first year of the second century.[1]

As
to the exact character of the office that they held, and of the
organisation of the Church during these decades, there has been much
difference of opinion, and from lack of the necessary material to clear up
doubtful points such difference of opinion will probably always continue
to exist. The constitution of the Mother Church of Jerusalem after 42
A.D.
seems to have followed strictly the Jewish model, James and the elders or
presbyters corresponding to the 181High
Priest and the Sanhedrin.[2]

The
position of James was undoubtedly monarchical, but there is no strict
analogy between his position and that of the Christian bishop of the time
of Ignatius. James’s position was exceptional. His authority, derived at
once from near relationship to the Lord and from his own lofty personal
character, placed him on a level with the acknowledged leaders of the
Twelve. He ranked with Peter and John, as one of the pillars of the
Church.[3]

But
just as the earliest local organisation of the Church at Jerusalem
followed the Jewish model that was at its side, so did that of the
Christian communities which sprang into being among the Diaspora.
There is no hint given that the presbyters that were ordained in every
city were officials of a type unknown to the Synagogue.[4]

Each
Christian ecclesia like each Jewish synagogue had its presbyters,
and in large cities, like Rome, as there were a number of distinct
synagogues, so there were several distinct Christian congregations or
Churches, such as the Church in the house of Aquila and Prisca. In so far
as there was a new departure, it lay in the fact that the Christian
presbyter was a spiritual as well as an administrative official. Little as
we are told in the New Testament on the subject, the picture drawn in the
Apocalypse of the four and twenty presbyters seated round the throne of
God and taking the leading part in the worship of Heaven seems to place
this beyond reasonable question.

But
though the original model of Christian organisation was the Synagogue,
more and more as the Gentile element increased and became predominant
would the separate congregations or ecclesiae gradually acquire Gentile
characteristics, derived from the constitution of the various associations
for religious cults and other purposes, known as collegia,
sodalitates,
θ ί
α
σ
ο
ι
or
ἔ
ρ α ν ο ι ,
which, with the licence or at least the connivance of the state, were to
be 182found
in every part of the empire.[5]

The
choice, for instance, by the early Christians of the word ecclesia
in preference to synagoge was probably deliberate. Both words are
used in the LXX, ecclesia as the translation of the Hebrew
Qātal signifying a religious assembly, synagoge as that of
the Hebrew word ēdhāh, a general assembly of the whole people. The
adoption of the term ecclesia, says Harnack, ‘was the happiest
stroke which the primitive (Christian) community accomplished in the way
of descriptive titles.’[6]

Its
choice was at once distinctive and would have familiar associations to
Gentile ears.

So,
too, with the term episcopus. This word in the sense of ‘overseer’
occurs many times in the LXX, and its ecclesiastical use was probably
suggested by familiarity with certain passages in this Greek version of
the Old Testament, which was the only Scriptures with which the vast
majority of the early Christians were acquainted.[7]

But
again it must not be forgotten that the name would be the more readily
adopted by Greek-speaking Christians of Gentile origin, since it was
already well known as the title of officials engaged in secular duties, as
Overseers or Superintendents. When it first passed into Christian use is
unknown, but its earliest appearance is in the remarkable words addressed
by St. Paul to the presbyters of the Ephesian Church, whom he had summoned
to meet him at Miletus as he was journeying to Jerusalem in 57
A.D.
‘Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit set
you as overseers (ἐπισκόπους)
to shepherd (ποιμαίνειν)
the Church of God, which He purchased with His Blood.’[8]

Here
we find certain presbyters described 183as
‘overseers’ and their special function as that of shepherding or tending
the flock, implying that in the local organisation of the Church their
duty was not only that of government, guidance, and discipline, but of the
provision of spiritual food. Again in the Epistle to the Philippians St.
Paul salutes ‘the saints in Christ Jesus with the overseers and deacons.’
Turning to the Pastoral Epistles we have the qualifications set forth
carefully, which should guide Timothy and Titus in their choice of persons
fit for the Church’s official ministry.[9]

From
these instructions two facts seem to come out clearly: that while all
episcopi
were presbyters, only a limited number of the presbyters were
episcopi.
In other words these titles cannot be used convertibly. An episcopus,
or presbyter-bishop if one may so style him, differed from the ordinary
presbyter in that he had certain superadded duties of oversight and
superintendence such as were connoted by his name. There is a spiritual
side to his office: he must be ‘apt to teach,’ ‘able to exhort in the
sound doctrine and to convict the gainsayers’; and a business or
administrative side: ‘he must be blameless, as God’s steward.’[10]

The
language of St. Peter, ‘Ye were as sheep going astray but are now returned
to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls,’[11]

while
184it
seems to point to an equivalence of the two terms Shepherd and
Bishop—pastor
and episcopus—no
less significantly marks out the sphere of duty—as the pastorate of souls.
That it was possible to be a presbyter without having a specific local
charge, just in the same way as in modern days there are priests without
cure of souls, seems to be conveyed in another passage of this epistle,
where St. Peter addresses the presbyters, as their fellow presbyter,
exactly as St. John at a later date styled himself simply the presbyter '
in the opening salutation of his second and third Epistles, and indeed it
was as John the Presbyter that he was best known in his old
age.[12]

Certainly
neither Peter nor John was a local official. The whole passage runs as
follows: ‘the presbyters therefore among you I exhort who am your
fellow-presbyter . . . tend (shepherd) the flock of God which is
among you, exercising the oversight (acting as episcopi)
not of constraint but willingly like God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of
a ready mind; neither as lording it over your allotted charges,[13]

but
making yourselves ensamples to the flock.’ The presbyters therefore who
were addressed were presbyter-bishops, and it may be gathered they had
each of them a separate cure, over which they had independent spiritual
rule, and moreover that they 185received
stipends, otherwise it would not have been necessary to warn them against
the danger of seeking after filthy lucre. It will be at once seen how
appropriate is the name of ‘rulers’ which is applied to these officers of
the Church in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The exhortation ‘obey your
rulers and submit to them; for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they
that shall give account’[14]

at
once emphasises the authority which, as we have seen, these
presbyter-bishops exercised, and likewise defines the double sphere of
their jurisdiction and the two aspects of their office, as at once
‘shepherds of souls’ and ‘God’s stewards.’

Thus
after the martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul such evidence as we
possess points to the government of the Church in Rome passing into the
hands of that inner committee of the presbyterate consisting of those who
had spiritual charge of the several congregations or domestic Churches in
the capital. At their head we find a president, either elected or chosen
by seniority of office, bearing the title of The Bishop, but at first
differing in no way from the other presbyter-bishops except in precedence,
as primus
inter pares.

The
analogy between the earliest Christian organisation and that of the
Synagogue has already been pointed out. The presbyters ordained by the
Apostles from city to city were to a certain extent the Christian
counterparts of the Jewish presbyters, but, as the Christian Church had no
Temple and no priestly caste entrusted with the conduct of sacrificial
worship, the Christian presbyter differed from the Jewish in that his
functions were not merely administrative but spiritual and liturgical. In
the same way the government of the Church by a committee of
presbyter-bishops representing the several congregations with a
Bishop-president at their head was analogous to that of cities like
Alexandria, in which the Jewish population was 186large,
where the government was entrusted to a gerousia or committee of
archons representing the several synagogues, whose president bore the name
of Gerousiarch.[15]

The
contention of Dr. Hatch in his Bampton Lectures that the Christian
presbyters were purely administrative and judicial officers is not, as we
have shown, borne out by a careful examination of the scriptural
references to their functions, nor is the supposed evidence of the
‘Didache’ to the existence in the latter part of the first century of a
hierarchy of Apostles, Prophets and Teachers, whose authority was supreme
in spiritual matters and to whom the presbyters and deacons were
subordinate, really tenable. Notably to the Prophet a lofty position is
assigned in the ‘Didache,’ especially in the conduct of worship and in the
celebration of the Eucharist.[16]

The
discovery of this work and its first publication in 1883 has had an
immense influence in moulding the opinions of recent writers on the early
organisation of the Church, particularly those of Harnack,[17]

but
it may be asked what proof is there that its picture of first-century
Church life and order is trustworthy? We have indeed the witness of many
passages in the Acts and Epistles to the fact that the prophet with his
peculiar charismatic gift of ecstatic (chiefly eschatological) utterance
occupied a prominent place in the early Christian communities, but these
passages also testify not merely that the prophet, as such, had no
definite place in Church organisation, but that his influence was
intermittent and even spasmodic, and that, at Corinth for instance, he
might be a disturbing factor in the assemblies, an element, to use St.
Paul’s words, ‘of 187confusion
rather than of peace.’[18]

The
truth is that there are very cogent reasons for holding the ‘Didache’ to
be a fourth-century document, whose author in his presentation of
first-century Christianity drew largely upon his imagination.[19]

It
is not wise therefore to base any arguments or theories about the true
character of the earliest organisation of the Church upon a writing whose
date is very disputable and whose origin and sources are
unknown.

Leaving
therefore the ‘Didaches’ on one side let us now try to supplement the
evidence as to the state of the Church in Rome and elsewhere about 68
A.D.
that has been gathered from the canonical books of the New Testament,
evidence that on the face of it is very incomplete and obscure,
188by
an examination of two works both of them Roman and at one time regarded as
almost canonical, I mean the (so-called) ‘First Epistle of Clement to the
Corinthians’ and ‘The Shepherd of Hermas.’ These writings with the
Epistles of Ignatius are first-class authorities, but clearly much depends
upon a knowledge of the date of their first appearance. That of Ignatius’
epistles has been determined within very narrow limits, 107 to 109
A.D.
The notice about Hermas in the Muratorian fragment and the Liberian
catalogue is, as I shall attempt to show later, most probably a blunder.
The date of Clement’s Epistle was at one time regarded as uncertain, but
since the publication of Light-foot’s great work on the Apostolic Fathers,
the opinion of scholars has become practically unanimous that it was
written at the close of the reign of Domitian, about 96 A.D.;
indeed this date may be regarded as one of the ‘accepted results’ of
present-day criticism. I feel therefore how very bold it is on my part to
venture even to hint at a difference of view. I have never however been
able to convince myself that this ‘accepted result’ is correct, and I
welcome the opportunity afforded me by these lectures for stating my
reasons for doubting the soundness of the arguments on which it is
based.

Of
the authenticity of the anonymous epistle which opens with the
words[20]

‘the
Church of God sojourning in Rome to the Church of God sojourning in
Corinth’ or of the accuracy of the early, continuous, and widespread
tradition, which assigned the actual authorship to that Clement who in the
earliest lists of the bishops of Rome stands the third in order from the
Apostles, there is absolutely no question.[21]

The
patristic evidence is conclusive, and is admitted as such. But the
corollary to this postulate, that because Clement was the author therefore
the epistle was written during the time of his episcopate, 92 to 101
A.D.,
189does
not follow. Nevertheless the assumption has been made with surprising
unanimity, and it has led to the date at which this letter was sent to
Corinth being assigned to the time when the Church found deliverance from
the persecution of Domitian by that tyrant’s assassination. Nay, to such
an extent has this pre-supposition gained possession of the mind even of a
writer like Bishop Lightfoot, so eminently careful and cautious in the
handling of historical evidence, that in his criticism of the chronology
of the early Roman succession, he writes ‘ The date of Clement’s epistle
is fixed with a fair degree of certainty at 95 or 96 A.D.,
as it was written during or immediately after the persecution under
Domitian. This year therefore must fall within the episcopate of
Clement.’[22]

But
surely this is something like arguing in a circle, for I venture to say
that there does not exist any definite evidence, internal or external,
that the epistle was written during or immediately after the persecution
of Domitian. It will be my object to show that such evidence as we possess
points to a very different conclusion, viz. that when Clement gave
literary expression to the message from the Church in Rome to the Church
in Corinth he was not yet the official head of the Roman Church, and
further that the probable date of the epistle is the early months of 70
A.D.

It
will be necessary to deal with the arguments for and against
seriatim.

The
cause of the writing of the epistle was the outbreak of schism and
dissension in the Corinthian Church described by the writer as ‘that
abominable and unholy sedition, foreign and strange to the elect of God,
which a few head-strong and self-willed persons have kindled to such a
pitch 190of
madness, so that your name, once respected and widely spoken of and
worthily beloved of all men, hath been greatly defamed.’[23]

The
cause of this sad change is ascribed to jealousy and envy, and the
examples of Cain and Abel, of Jacob and Esau, of Joseph, of Moses, and of
David and Saul are brought forward as warnings of the evil consequences
which indulgence in jealousy and envy produces. The writer then proceeds:
‘But let us cease to speak of examples of ancient days, and let us come to
those who very recently were athletes [of the faith]; let us take the
illustrious examples of our own time. Through envy and jealousy the
greatest and most righteous pillars were persecuted and contended even
unto death. Let us take before our eyes the good apostles.’[24]

Then
follow references to the martyrdoms of St. Peter and of St. Paul. This
epithet ‘good’ has exercised the minds of critics, but there seems to be
no doubt that it is the true reading. Lightfoot remarks ‘Such an epithet
may be most naturally explained on the supposition that Clement is
speaking in affectionate remembrance of those whom he had known
personally, otherwise the epithet would be out of place.’ Does not the
same comment apply, it may be asked, to the readers of the Epistle? Peter
and Paul were regarded as the founders of the Corinthian as well as of the
Roman Church, and the epithet points to their memory being still quite
fresh. Then in the following chapter Clement gives a description of the
climax of the Neronian persecution; 191briefly
but with graphic strokes he tells us how ‘to these men of holy living was
gathered together a great multitude of the elect, who having suffered
through jealousy many indignities and tortures became very splendid
examples amongst ourselves. Persecuted through jealousy, women after
having suffered in the guise of Danaids and Dirces terrible and monstrous
outrages attained the goal which made sure to them the race of faith and
those who were weak in body received a noble reward.’ If any one were to
read those paragraphs for the first time without any presuppositions or
arrière-pensées,
would they doubt that they told of scenes of horror which not only the
author but all those in whose name he wrote had literally before their
eyes, and which still haunted the minds of the witnesses?

Further,
if Clement had just passed through the persecution of Domitian in which so
many Christians of illustrious rank suffered, with whom as bishop he must
have had intimate relations, is it conceivable that none of their examples
should have been brought forward, but only those of an already distant
persecution, whose memory more recent events must have tended to throw
into the background? But it is said that Clement is speaking of what
happened under Domitian in the sentence which follows the opening
salutation—‘by reason of the sudden and successive troubles and calamities
which have befallen us, we consider that we have been somewhat slow in
giving attention to the questions in dispute among you.’[25]

But
it may be asked, is it possible to read into these words so large a
reference? The Domitianic persecution, when it came, must have touched
Clement himself and his fellow-Christians at Rome far too severely and
closely for the subject to have been dismissed thus casually and once for
all in the ten opening words of a sentence containing fifty-nine words?
When one considers that according to the opinion of the critics this
Epistle was written almost 192immediately
after the death of Domitian the Persecutor, it seems mere trifling to
suppose that the deep sorrow and keen sense of bereavement that must have
been filling the Roman Church at the sad fate of so many of its foremost
members could not have found here or elsewhere in this lengthy letter more
fitting expression. But if the date of the document be, as I hold that it
is, the early months of 70 A.D.,
then the reference to ‘the sudden and successive troubles and calamities,
which have befallen us’ receives a natural explanation, one written large
in the historical records of the time,[26]

and
a mere allusion to which would be sufficient to account to the Corinthians
for the delay of the Roman Church in dealing with the questions on which
its advice had been sought.[27]

In
the whole course of its long and chequered history the city of Rome has
never experienced so many ‘sudden and successive troubles and calamities’
as befell it in the course of the year 69 A.D.,
and the brief reference to them by the writer of this Epistle is seen to
be as aptly as it is tersely phrased.

The
internal evidence of the Epistle is in many important respects strongly in
favour of the early date. In the organisation of the Church only ‘bishops
and deacons’ are mentioned, exactly as they are in St. Paul’s Epistle to
the Philippians, while the title ‘bishop’ is to the same extent
inter-changeable with that of ‘presbyter’ as it is in the Acts and the
Pauline epistles, and the word ‘rulers’ has the same sense as in the
Epistle to the Hebrews.[28]

The
Apostles 193derive
their authority directly from Jesus Christ, the presbyter-bishops and
deacons from the Apostles, who are described as having gone through town
and country preaching the good tidings that the kingdom of God was about
to come.[29]

All
this is thoroughly primitive. It is too the mark of a very early date that
while Clement three times speaks of the Lord Jesus as ‘child or servant of
God’—παῖς
Θεοῦ—only
once is the word son—υἱός—used,
and that in a quotation from the second Psalm taken direct from the
Epistle to the Hebrews.[30]

Again
as to Clement’s references to the canonical writings of the New Testament,
Dr. Lightfoot, though on other grounds he supports the late date for this
Epistle, writes thus—‘one important test of date in early Christian
writings lies in the Biblical quotations—both the form and the
substance. Now the quotations from the Gospels in this letter exhibit a
very early type. They are not verbal; they are fused; and they are not
prefaced by “It is written” (γέγραπται)
or “The Scripture saith” (ἡ
γραφὴ λέγει)
or the like, but a more archaic form of citation is used, “The Lord spake”
(ὁ
Κύριος εἶπεν)
or some similar expression.’[31]

A
very considerable admission. On the other hand the abundant use that is
made of the Pauline epistles, especially Romans and 1 Corinthians, of 1
Peter, and more than any other of the Epistle to the Hebrews, is very
natural in one who was the disciple and companion of St. Peter and St.
Paul, and whose conversion tradition assigns to St. Barnabas.[32]

It
is difficult to see how the evidential value of c. xli. can be explained
away. It is so important as a witness for the early date that it must be
given in full. ‘Let each 194of
you, brethren, in his own order give thanks[33]

[at
the Eucharist], keeping a good conscience without passing beyond the
appointed rule of his service[34]

with
reverence. Not in every place, brethren, are the perpetual daily[35]

sacrifices
offered, or the free-will offerings or the sin offerings and the trespass
offerings, but in Jerusalem alone, and there not in every place is it
offered, but before the sanctuary in the altar-court; after the victim
which is being offered has been inspected for blemishes by the high priest
and the aforesaid ministry. They then who do anything contrary to the
seemly order of His [God’s] will have death as their punishment. Ye see,
brethren, how in proportion as we have been deemed worthy of fuller
knowledge, so much the greater is the danger to which we are exposed.’
Those who cling to the Domitianic date for this Epistle are driven to
strange shifts to find any plausible argument for denying to this passage
its obvious sense, that at the time when it was written the Temple at
Jerusalem was still standing, and the daily sacrifice had not ceased.
Lightfoot and others bring forward Josephus’ account of the Mosaic
sacrifices (‘Ant.’ iii. cc. 9, 10) written in 93 A.D.,
in which the historic present is freely used. But as Hefele[36]

pointed
out some years ago, there is a wide distinction between the two cases.
Josephus, in describing a ritual system that had passed away, employs a
well-known artifice of the historian in 195order
to lend vividness to his narrative. Clement on the other hand brings
before the eyes of his readers the fixed order of the Jewish worship with
the purpose of showing to them that the maintenance of such order was a
Divine institution. But if the Temple had been destroyed and that order of
worship had been violently brought to an end, would not his whole argument
fall to the ground and his opponents be able to retort that the complete
disappearance of the Jewish sanctuary, its official hierarchy and ordered
ritual was a proof that such a system no longer could claim the divine
sanction?

Once
more as to the dissensions at Corinth, little is told as to their cause
and character, except that the action of certain ‘headstrong and reckless
persons’ had led to some of the duly constituted presbyters being expelled
from their office, and that the ringleaders were few in number.[37]

Perhaps
the example held up before the authors of the discussion of the
hierarchical order of the Mosaic cult at Jerusalem may point to these
‘headstrong persons’ being Judaeo-Christians, who had strong opinions
about the absolute equality of all members of the Christian community, or
possibly without going so far as to object to the existence of the office
of presbyter they may have protested against the appointment of
uncircumcised Gentiles to this office. Moreover, while we have no
information to throw light upon the state of Corinth at the end of
Domitian’s reign, that town had been the scene of stirring events and
activities some thirty years earlier. In the autumn of 66 A.D.
Nero went to Greece. In November 67 A.D.
he witnessed at Corinth the Isthmian games, and in that city conferred
freedom upon Achaia, a privilege which was not revoked until six years
later by Vespasian, because of the disorders that broke out. What is even
more important, Nero at this time seriously set about the formidable
engineering task of cutting a navigable canal through the
Isthmus.[38]

For
196this
purpose no fewer than 6000 Jewish prisoners, captured by Vespasian in a
battle at Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee, were sent by that general to
Corinth to carry out the excavations,[39]

and
at the time of Nero’s death a considerable part of the work had been
completed. It was, however, then abandoned, with the result that a very
large body of fanatical Jewish Zealots must have remained at Corinth as
slaves or freedmen, their fierce patriotism still glowing unquenched by
defeat and bondage. Here then in 69 A.D.
were present all the elements for fomenting such an out-break of strife
and discord as actually took place.

Or
take the well-known reference to the story of the Phoenix,[40]

and
the analogy that it offers to the Resurrection. In recounting this legend
Clement was no more credulous than his contemporaries, one of whom, Pliny
the Elder, tells us in his ‘Natural History’ ‘that a phoenix was brought
to Rome in the censorship of the Emperor Claudius (47 A.D.)
and that it was exposed to public view in the Comitia,’ adding ‘this fact
is attested by the public annals.’[41]

Now
Clement, as a boy, may have actually seen this publicly exhibited wonder,
and the vivid impression made on the youthful imagination here finds
expression some twenty-two years later. It is just one of those little
touches that give added life to the narrative and connect the personality
of the writer with the events of his time. It is to be noted that Clement
does not hint at there being anything of a miraculous character in the
resurrection of the Phoenix, he speaks of it as a fact of natural
history.

Let
us now turn our attention to the passages on which the advocates of a late
date have chiefly relied. The beginning of chapter xliv. runs thus: ‘Our
Apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be
strife about the dignity of the bishop’s 197office.[42]

For
this reason then having received perfect foreknowledge they appointed the
aforesaid [bishops and deacons] and then they further laid down
regulations[43]

that
if they [any of these bishops and deacons] should fall asleep, other tried
men should succeed to their ministry. Those then who were appointed by
them or afterwards by other men of repute with the approval of the whole
Church, and have ministered unblameably to the flock of Christ in all
humility, peaceably and without arrogance[44]

and
who have for many years received high testimony from all[45]

—we
do not consider it just that these men should be ejected from their
ministration.’ Here the words ‘our Apostles’ clearly signify St. Peter and
St. Paul, held to be the joint founders of both the Churches of Rome and
Corinth. The careful advice and warnings addressed by both these Apostles
to the presbyter-bishops in their extant writings are a proof of the truth
of Clement’s assertion as to their having pre-vision about the
difficulties which might arise in the future concerning the authority and
position of these ‘rulers’ of the Church. But it does not follow, because
the Apostles laid down regulations for the filling up of these offices,
whenever they became vacant by death, or because, at the time when Clement
was writing, some of the holders of these offices had been appointed by
the Apostles, others by the choice of the presbytery with the consent of
the Church, or because among these were men who for many years had been
honoured and respected by all, that there-fore the Epistle was written
some decades after the Apostle’s martyrdom. Those who use this argument
overlook the possibility that the first presbyters of the Roman Church
were appointed by St. Peter about 44 or 45 A.D.,
and those of Corinth by St. Paul about 51 or 52 A.D.
Most of these would be literally ‘elders’—men well advanced in
198years
when first they took office—and in the interval between these dates and 70
A.D.
there must have been many vacancies by death and fresh appointments, some
directly by the Apostles, others in their absence by the Churches in the
manner ordained by Apostolical authority.

Again
in chapter xlvii., after condemning in the strongest terms the strifes,
parties, and divisions which were tearing to pieces the Corinthian Church,
Clement continues: ‘Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.
What was it that he first wrote to you in the beginning (ἐν
ἀρχῇ)
of the Gospel? In truth under the inspiration of the Spirit he sent you a
letter concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because that even then
you had given way to party spirit.’ Clement then proceeds to compare the
apostles of renown, the great leaders of those days (just mentioned), with
the present instigators of schism and dissension, and he denounces their
conduct in the words ‘It is shameful, beloved, very shameful and unworthy
of Christian conduct that it should be reported that the very steadfast
and primitive (ἀρχαίαν)
Church of Corinth should by one or two persons have been induced to rebel
against its presbyters.’ Now far too much stress has been laid by the
up-holders of the Domitianic hypothesis upon this word apxaiav as
signifying ‘ancient,’ and it is said that such a description could not
have been given of a Church only twenty years old. But is it not evident
that the word apxaia was suggested by the previous word apxrj, and that it
means no more than that the foundation of the Church at Corinth took place
in the earliest days of the preaching of the Gospel in Europe?[46]

199

The
following particulars concerning the envoys who were the bearers of this
epistle to Corinth have been held to necessitate a late date. ‘We have
sent faithful and discreet men who have passed their lives blamelessly in
our midst from youth to old age.’ And again ‘send back to us quickly in
peace and with joy our envoys Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito together
with Fortunatus also.’[47]

Now
the conjecture of Lightfoot that the names of Claudius Ephebus and
Valerius Bito point to their being freedmen of the Imperial household at
the time when Messalina was Empress is probably correct.[48]

But
if they received their manumission about 45 A.D.,
they may well have been from thirty-five to forty years of age at that
date, and so more than sixty in 70 A.D.
As there is reason to believe that Christianity was first brought to Rome
shortly after the death of St. Stephen, and as St. Peter’s first visit
took place at the very time when Messalina was at the height of her power,
there is no difficulty in giving these two men a place among the very
first converts to the faith. Fortunatus is separately mentioned, and we
may infer that he was not a Roman envoy but a Corinthian, and if a
Corinthian, then although the name is not uncommon, his identification
with the Fortunatus mentioned by St. Paul in his First Epistle to the
Corinthians is more than a possibility.[49]

It
is, however, extremely unlikely that the Fortunatus whose coming to
Ephesus refreshed St. Paul in 54 A.D.,
was still active and travelling to and fro as an emissary between his
native town and Rome in 96 A.D.,
more than forty years later.

The
assumption so commonly made that the Epistle, the actual authorship of
which by universal consent is 200attributed
to Clement, the third in order of succession of the Roman bishops, must
have been written during the period of his episcopate, 92 to 101
A.D.,
has in fact really no justification. There are very strong arguments
(besides those already brought forward) to be urged against it, both
negative and positive. The Epistle is written in the name of the Church of
Rome, and is throughout anonymous. From the first line to the last there
is not a single phrase which hints at the individuality of the writer or
gives any indication that he was a man of mark and authority, the personal
pronouns used are always ‘we’ and ‘us.’ Now such self-effacement would be
perhaps natural in the young Clement of 70 A.D.
It is quite in accordance with what Epiphanius tells us (quoting
apparently the lost memoirs of Hegesippus) about his voluntary refusal to
accept the post of presiding-bishop after the death of the Apostles,[50]

‘lest
he should cause strife and division,’ and of his withdrawal in favour of
his seniors, first of Linus, then of Anencletus. But tradition asserts
with no uncertain voice that Clement held a place apart in the Roman
Church as the first century began to draw to its close. It was not his
‘Epistle to the Corinthians’ which gave him fame, and which caused a
plentiful crop of legends to grow up around his name, but his distinction
first as being a personal disciple of St. Peter, by whom he was ordained
to the presbyterate, and also a fellow-worker with St. Paul, and secondly
from the high social position and family connexion which tradition
201assigns
to him, a tradition which I believe to be in substance correct.[51]

The
Clement, then, who became bishop in 92 A.D.
was an Apostolical man of exceptional authority, whose personality would
not lend itself to concealment. If he wrote the Epistle in 96 A.D.,
his name would give added weight to the advice of the Church over which he
presided. Moreover are there not strong grounds for holding that during
the quarter of a century of Flavian rule, at Rome and elsewhere, the
office of bishop had been growing in importance and respect and dignity,
and was gradually becoming monarchical in character? Can any unprejudiced
person read the language of Ignatius without perceiving that the primitive
organisation of the Roman and Corinthian Churches, as depicted in
Clement’s Epistle, could not have still subsisted unchanged until 96
A.D.?
Ignatius, remember, was a contemporary of Clement, his letters were
written not more than seven or eight years after Clement’s death, and in
these letters the authoritative and autocratic position of the bishop is
set forth again and again in terms that admit of no qualification. ‘Let no
man do aught pertaining to the Church apart from the bishop’—‘it is not
lawful apart from the bishop either to baptise or hold an
Agape’—‘whenever you are subject to the bishop, you appear to me
not to be living the ordinary life of men, but after the manner of the
life of Jesus Christ.’ It is quite clear that in such statements as these
Ignatius is not speaking of any new thing. With him the office of bishop
is of the very esse
and not merely of the bene
esse
of the Church. Without the three orders of bishop, presbyters, and deacons
‘there is’ he declares ‘no Church deserving of the name.’ In another
passage he speaks of ‘the bishops established in the furthest quarters as
being in the mind of Jesus Christ as Jesus Christ is the Mind of the
Father’ and of the ‘presbytery that is worthy of God being fitted to the
bishop as the strings to a harp.’[52]

These
words preclude 202any
mere local reference, and when one considers how close was the intercourse
between Antioch and Rome, it will be seen how extremely difficult it would
be to conceive of the Great Roman Community, for which Ignatius himself
expresses the utmost veneration,[53]

as
not possessing that qualification without which ‘it would not be deserving
the name of a Church.’ In other words in the year 96 A.D.
the organisation of the Roman Church was not that which we find in
Clement’s Epistle, nor was the position which Clement with his antecedents
must at that date have held consistent with the entire absence of the
personal note in the letter which he wrote to Corinth.

The
case in fact against this Epistle having been written by Clement during
his episcopate is very strong. It only remains to draw attention to two
pieces of documentary evidence, both of which indirectly confirm the
conclusion at which we have arrived. In a passage from the letter of
Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, to Soter, bishop of Rome, which has been
preserved to us by Eusebius, the words occur ‘to-day we have spent the
Lord’s Holy Day, in which we have read your epistle; reading which we
shall at all times receive admonishment, as also [is the case] with the
former epistle written to us by Clement.’[54]

Dr.
Bigg in the introduction to his Commentary on the First Epistle of St.
Peter compares the Greek words here used ἡμῖν
διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν
with those of St. Peter: ‘I have written to you by Silvanus’—διὰ
Σιλουανοῦ ὑμῖν ἔγραψα,
and he holds that the two passages must be understood in the same way, and
he says that Dionysius’s words ‘mean clearly that Clement was the
mouthpiece or interpreter of the Church of Rome.’[55]

This
implies that Clement, though no doubt a leading official, was in putting
into literary form and with a free hand the general instructions he had
received, only the servant, not the head of the Church acting on his own
initiative.203

The
evidence of Hermas has a double interest from the light that it throws
both on the date of ‘The Shepherd’ and upon the position of Clement. With
the date of ‘The Shepherd’ I shall deal in the next lecture. I will merely
state here that my contention will be that that part of Hermas’ work known
as ‘The Visions’ and possibly the whole of it was written in the course of
the first decade of Domitian’s reign. The reference to Clement occurs at
the close of the Second Vision. In the Vision an old woman, representing
the Church, had given to Hermas a small book containing a revelation,
which at her command he had copied out letter by letter. This done the
aged woman again came to him and asked him if he had already given the
book to the presbyters. On his replying that he had not, the aged woman
said—I quote the exact words—‘Thou hast done well, for I have words to
add. When then I shall have finished all the words, by thee it shall be
made known to all the elect. Thou shalt therefore write two little books
and shalt send them to Clement and to Grapte. Clement will then send to
the cities that are without, for to him this [charge] has been entrusted;
and Grapte will admonish the widows and the orphans. But thou shalt read
[the words] unto this city before the presbyters, who preside over the
Church.’[56]

This
passage has been variously interpreted, but it is allowed by the great
majority of critics that it contains a definite historical allusion to
Clement, the author of the Epistle from the Roman Church to the
Corinthians, and the comment of Lightfoot is perfectly just—‘the allusion
in Hermas seems to be an obvious recognition of the existence of this
letter. . . . Clement is represented as the writer’s
contemporary, who held a high office, which constituted him, as we might
say, foreign secretary of the Roman Church.’[57]

Precisely.
But such a description surely implies that at the time Clement was
occupying what can only be 204described
as a subordinate position, since he was charged with secretarial duties
entrusted to him by others. The particular charge was one that might very
well be assigned to a younger member of the presbyterate distinguished
among his colleagues for wider culture and greater familiarity with
literary Greek. The mere fact that his name is here coupled with that of
Grapte, apparently a deaconess, is of itself a proof that the Clement of
Hermas’ second Vision had not yet become at the close of a long and
honoured career the venerated bishop of 96 A.D.

Nothing
is known of Grapte outside of this reference, and some critics have
supposed that the name was not that of a real woman, but is used here
allegorically. But if so, then is it not reasonable to suppose that the
whole passage is allegorical, not historical? If Grapte be a mere creature
of Hermas’ imagination, why not Clement? But those who seek in this way to
evade the difficulties attending this passage, which is so important for
fixing the dates both of Clement’s Epistle and of ‘The Shepherd,’ have
really no justification for taking refuge in allegory. The names Graptus
and Grapte though rare are both of them to be found in contemporary
inscriptions. One of these inscriptions is particularly interesting,[58]

as
it brings into collocation the names of Clemens and Graptus. It tells how
a certain Julius Graptus adorned a mausoleum with plantations in
205the
year when M. Arrecinus Clemens was consul for the second time, in other
words in the year 93 A.D.
Another inscription,[59]

a
fragment, contains the words Grapte uxor. This Julius Graptus and
Grapte the deaconess may well have been the children of Nero’s freedman
Graptus, described by Tacitus as active in his master’s service in the
year 59. Arrecinus Clemens was a near relation of the imperial Flavians;
if he were at the same time an elder brother of Clement the bishop, then
at once the mystery of the high family connexion which the Clementine
romances have woven around the name of the bishop disappears and becomes
explicable. That such a relationship existed is no mere random suggestion.
It is one which, as I shall endeavour to show elsewhere, is well deserving
of careful examination.[60]

[1] Lightfoot,
Apost. Fathers , part i. vol. i. pp. 63– 7, 79– 81. The whole subject is
exhaustively discussed and examined in his Excursus No. 5, pp. 201– 345,
on the ‘ Early Roman Succession,’see supra , pp. 70, 71; and p. 84, note
3.

[2] Harnack,
Constitution and Law of the Church , p. 34.

[3] Gal.
ii. 9;
also i. 19, and ii. 12.

[4] Hort,
Christiana Ecclesia , pp. 62–3; Lightfoot, Philippians , pp.
191–2.

[5] Hardy,
Studies in Roman History , ‘Christianity and the Collegia,’ pp.
129–43.

[6] Schürer,
Hist. of the Jewish People , 2 Div., vol. ii. pp. 59 ff.; Harnack, Const.
and Law , pp. 15–6; Hort, Christ. Eccl . pp. 3–18.

[7] Such
passages as Ps. cviii. (cix.), quoted by St. Peter,
Acts, i. 20, and Ezekiel, xxxiv. 11, or again Is. lx. 17, as quoted by Clement of
Rome, xlii. 5: καταστήσω
τοὺς
ἐπισκόπους
αὐτῶν
ἐν
δικαιοσύνῃ
καὶ
τοὺς
διακόνους
αὐτῶν
ἐν
πίστει.

[8] Acts, xx. 28. See Hort, Christ. Eccl .
pp. 97–104; Harnack, Const. and Law , p. 53. Among the numerous works on
the subject of the early organisation of the Christian Church are the
following: Hatch’s well-known and most important Bampton Lectures of 1881;
also his Hibbert Lectures of 1888, ‘The Influence of Greek Ideas and
Usages upon the Christian Church’ [edited by Dr. Fairhairn and published
1907]; Sohm, Kirchenrecht , 1892; Michiel, Les Origines de l’épiscopat ,
1900; Knopf, Das Nachapostolische Zeitalter , 1906; Batiffol, L’Eglise
naissante et le Catholicisme , 1909; Gwatkin (articles in Hastings’s
Dictionary ) ‘Bishops,’ ‘Church Government,’ &c.

[9] Comp.
1 Tim. iii. 2 with v. 17 and Titus, i. 7.

[10] 1 Tim. iii. 2; Titus, i. 7, 9: δεῖ
γὰρ
τὸν
ἐπίσκοτον
ἀνέγκλητον
εἶναι,
ὡς
Θεοῦ
οἰκονόμον.

[11] The
words of St. Peter deserve careful consideration. In 1 Peter ii. 25 the Apostle writes:
Ἦτε
γὰρ
ὡς
πρόβατα
πλανώμενοι·
ἀλλ᾽
ἐπεστράφητε
νῦν
ἐπὶ
τὸν
ποιμένα
καὶ
ἐπίσκοπον
τῶν
ψυχῶν
ὑμῶν
. The Shepherd here, whose office is described by the additional term
ἐπίσκοπος
(note there is only one article), being the Good Shepherd Himself, the
Lord Jesus Christ, of Whom all earthly ποίμενες
καὶ
ἐπίσκοποι
were the delegates and representatives. Can it be doubted that the Apostle
had here in his mind his Master’s commission so emphatically and lovingly
repeated Ποίμαινε
τὰ
πρόβατά
μοῦ—βόσκε
τὰ
προβάτιά
μου ? A very interesting passage is that at the opening of the fifth
chapter of this same First Epistle of St. Peter, vv. 1, 2: Πρεσβυτέρους
οὖν
ἐν
ὑμῖν
παρακαλῶ
ὁ
συμπρεσβύτερος
. . . ποιμάνατε
τὸ
ἐν
ὑμῖν
ποίμνιον
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
[Comp. Acts, xx. 28] ἐπ9ισκοποῦντες
. This last word is not found in Aleph and B, possibly omitted for
ecclesiastical reasons. Consult the excellent notes of Bigg’s commentary
on ii. 23 and v. 1, 2 (Int. Crit. Commentary Series), pp. 119–50,
182–8.

[12] 2
John, v. 1;
3 John, v. 1. For the identity of John
the son of Zebedee, the Apostle, with John the Presbyter—see Chapman’s
John the Presbyter . This writer’s arguments go to the very root of the
question.

[13] μηδ᾽
ὡς
κατακυριεύοντες
τῶν
κλήρων
. The word κλήρων
is ambiguous, but its most natural interpretation is that of separate
allotted charges or cures, otherwise the expression κατακυριεύοντες
would be unmeaning. Dr. Bigg ( Commentary on 1 Peter , p. 189) remarks
that St. Paul warns the presbyter-bishop that he is to be ‘no striker’ (
1 Tim. iii. 3; Tit. i. 7) and that this implies that
discipline in a congregation, many of whom were converted slaves, might be
roughly administered.

[14] Heb. xiii. 17; also xiii. 7 and 24. Twice in Clement (1 Cor
. i. 3 and xxi. 6) are the ἡγούμενοι
and the πρεσβύτεροι
distinguished from one another, i.e. there was an inner committee of
presbyter-bishops.

[15] The
analogy is made the more complete by the fact that the Greek title
ἄρχων was the
equivalent of a Hebrew
word signifying ‘shepherd.’ see Schürer, Hist. of the Jewish People , 2
Div., vol. ii. pp. 59ff, 247ff. In the inscriptions in the Jewish
cemeteries at Rome the titles ‘archon’ and ‘gerousiarch’ are frequent.
‘Presbyter’ has according to Schürer never been
found.

[16] Didache
, x. 7, xiii. 3, xv. 1, 2.

[17] Harnack,
Expansion of Christianity , vol. i. pp. 407 ff.; Constitution and Law of
the Church , p. 78 ff.; Die Lehre der Zwölf Apostel [ Texte and
Untersuchungen , ii. 1, 2, pp. 193–241]; Chronologie , pp.
428–38.

[18] See
especially 1 Cor. xiv. passim, also xii. 28, 29; and Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5, iv. 11. The
passages which the author of the Didache had chiefly in his mind were no
doubt 1 Cor. xii. 28, where St. Paul writes
‘God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondly prophets,
thirdly teachers,’ and Eph. iv. 11: ‘He gave some apostles, and
some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers’ Hort
remarks ( Christian Ecclesia , pp. 157–61) ‘much profitless labour has
been spent on trying to force the various terms used into meaning so many
different ecclesiastical offices. Not only is the feat impossible, but the
attempt carries us away from St. Paul’s purpose, which is to show how many
different functions are those which God has assigned to the different
members of a single body . . . ; these passages give us
practically no evidence respecting the formal arrangements of the
ecclesiae of that age; though they tell us much of the forms of activity
that were at work within them.’ Dr. Bigg’s account of New Testament
prophets and prophecy in his Introduction to 1 Peter , pp. 43–48, is clear
and illuminating. He comments on the fact that in 1 Peter there is no
allusion to Christian prophecy. For the ‘prophets’ in sub-Apostolic times
and in the Didache see his introduction to the Doctrine of the Twelve
Apostles , pp. 28–38.

[19] In
Dr. Bigg’s Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (Early Church Classics,
S.P.C.K., 1898) just referred to, he gives a series of reasons for holding
this document to have been written early in the fourth century. More
recently in the Journal of Theological Studies , April 1912, Dean Armitage
Robinson announces his adhesion to Dr. Bigg’s view as to a probable late
date for the Didache . The author, he argues, was trying to represent the
state of the Church in accordance with what he thought to be the Apostles’
teaching, not as it was in his own days. His description is not derived
from contemporary knowledge. See also an article in the same journal,
October 1911, by Rev. A. S. Duncan Jones, on ‘The Nature of the Church,’
in which the writer cricicises the views of Harnack and of Sohm on the
constitution of the early Church.

[20] ἡ ἐκκλησία
τοῦ
Θεοῦ ἡ
παροικοῦσα Ῥώμην
τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
τῇ
παροικούσῃ
Κόρινθον
.

[21] Eus.
Hist. Eccl . iii. 16, 37. The epistle is called by Eusebius
μεγάλη,
θαυμασία,
ἀνωμολογημένη
παρὰ
πᾶσιν
.

[22] Lightfoot,
Apost. Fathers , part i. vol. i. p. 342. The italics are mine. Among the
older writers Hefele in his Prolegomena to the Epistle (1855) writes as to
the date ‘ tota haec quaestio facillime posset dissolvi si tempus
Clementis episcopatus plane constaret. ’ Workman ( Persecution in the
Early Church , p. 206) writes: ‘As I incline to a later date for the
epistle of St. Clement, I see no reason to reject the succession of
bishops as Linus, Cletus, Clement. . . . The question of
succession is bound up with the date of the Epistle.’

[23] Clement,
1 Cor . i. 1.

[24] Ibid
. v. 1: ἀλλ᾽
ἵνα
τῶν
ἀρχαίων
ὑποδειγμάτων
παυσώμεθα,
ἔλθωμεν
ἐπὶ
τοὺς
ἔγγιστα
γενομένους
ἀθλητάς·
λάβωμεν
τῆς
γενεᾶς
ἡμῶν
τὰ
aενναῖα
ὑποδείγματα.
Lightfoot translates τοὺς
ἔγγιστα
γενομένους
ἀθλητάς
‘those champions who lived very near to our tune’; Gregg (Early Church
Classics): ‘those great ones, who are nearest to our time’; Hippolyte
Hemmer, Clément de Rome (1909): ‘ venons en aux athlètes tout récents. ’
τῆς
γενεᾶς
ἡμῶν
can only mean ‘our own time,’ i.e. the time in which all of us are living,
not a period thirty years ago. When John the Baptist cried ‘0 generation
of vipers,’ or our Lord ‘Whereto shall I liken this generation?’ or ‘An
adulterous generation seeketh after a sign,’ or St. Peter ‘save yourselves
from this untoward generation,’ they were speaking to and of the living
men and women they saw around them, and so does Clement in this
passage.

[25] διὰ
τὰς
αἰφνιδίους
καὶ ἐπαλλήλους
γενομένας
ἡμῖν
συμφορὰς
καὶ
τεριπτώσεις,
ἀδελφοί,
βράδιον
νομίζομεν
ἐπιστοφὴν
πεποιῆσθαι
περὶ
τῶν
ἐπιζητουμένων
παῤ ὑμῖν
πραγμάτων.

[26] See
Lecture VI, pp. 168–170. Also Tac. Hist . i. 2. Philostratus, Apollonius
of Tyana (ed. Phillimore, ii. p. 58): ‘Galba was killed at Rome itself
after grasping at the Empire; Vitellius was killed after dreaming of
empire; Otho, killed in lower Gaul, was not even buried with honour, but
lies like a common man. And destiny flew through all this history in one
year.’

[27] Unless
the advice of the Church at Rome had been sought, there could have been no
reason to excuse delay in attending to the matter. Zahn, Intr. to N.T .
vol. i. p. 269, holds that Fortunatus, who is mentioned in Clement’s
Epistle lxv. brought the news of the Corinthian dissensions to Rome. See
also Stahl, Patristische Untersuchungen , 1901.

[28] Clement,
1 Cor . xlii, 4, 5; x1iv. 1. 4, 5; liv. 2; lvii. 1, for rulers.
ἡγούμενοι i. 3,
προηγούμενοι
xxi. 6.

[29] Ibid.
xlii. 2, 3: ὁ
Χριστὸς
οὖν
ἀπὸ
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
καὶ
οἱ
ἀπόστολοι
ἀπὸ
τοῦ
Χριστοῦ
. . . . ἐξῆλθον
(οἱ
ἀπόστολοι)
εὐαγγελιζόμενοι
τὴν
βασιλείαν
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
μέλλειν
ἔρχεσθαι
.

[30] Ibid.
lx. 2. 3, 4, xxxvi. 4; Heb. i. 5.

[31] Lightfoot,
Apost. Fathers , part i. vol. i. p. 353.

[32] Of
the four epistles named, 1 Corinthians dealt with a situation in some
respects similar to that described by Clement and in the same town. Romans
and Hebrews were addressed to Rome, and 1 Peter written in Rome. The use
made by Clement of Hebrews strengthens the argument for its Barnabas
authorship.

[33] 5εὐχαριστείτω
, perform his act of Eucharistia.

[34] λειτουργία
, a word transferred to Christian ministerial services, especially that of
the Eucharist, from the LXX. where it signifies the ‘ services’ of the
priests in their Temple duties.

[35] ἐνδελεχισμόν
. This word is used in the LXX. to distinguish the sacrifices that were
obligatory every day from those of free will. See Ex. xxix. 42, xxx. 8; Numbers, xxviii. 6.

[36] Hefele,
Patrum Apost. opera (1855), xxxiv.: ‘ Sed res utraque, Iosephi et
Clementis, longe dissimilis est. Iosephus, sacros populi sui ritus
describens, per figuram, historicis non inusitatam, praesenti, quod
dicimus, historico utitur. Clemens, autem, ut Corinthos ad ordinem
servandum adducat, lectoribus ordinem Iudaici cultus ante oculos ponit.
Quodsi autem templum iam fuisset destructum, tota S. Patris argumentatio
fuisset infirma, ipsaque adversarios invitasset, ut dicerent: En,
eversione templi Hierosolymitani Deus ipse testatus est, talem ordinem
sibi non esse exoptatum. ’

[37] Clement,
1 Cor. i. 47.

[38] Henderson,
Life and Principate of Nero , pp. 392 ff., 495 ff.; Philostratus,
Apollonius of Tyana (Bewick), p. 216.

[39] Josephus,
Bell. Iud. iv. 10: ‘Out of the young men he chose 6000 of the strongest
and sent them to Nero to dig through the isthmus of
Corinth.’

[40] Clement,
1 Cor . xxv.

[41] Pliny,
Nat. Hist . x. 3 (Bostock’s tr., p. 481); compare Tac. Ann . vi. 28. Pliny
was himself a sceptic—‘there is no one but doubts it was a fictitious
phoenix only.’

[42] 1
Pet. v. 1-6;
1 Tim. iii. 5–13; Tit. i. 5-11; compare 1 Cor. xi. 18, 19; Rom. xii. 6–8; Eph. iv. 11-12; Heb. xiii. 17.

[43] The
reading here επινομην is probably corrupt. The translation of I.
. . . legem dederunt has been adopted.

[44] ἀβαναύσως
, the opposite disposition to those having βάναυσος
, arrogance, pride; compare I Pet.
5:3.

[45] μεμαρτυρημένους
πολλοῖς
χρόνοις
ὑπὸ
πάντων

[46] St.
Paul ( Phil. iv. 15) in his Epistle to the
Philippians writes: ‘and ye yourselves also know, ye Philippians, that in
the beginning of the Gospel ( ἐν
ἀρχῇ
τοῦ
εὐαγγελίου
), when I
departed from Macedonia, no
church had fellowship with me in the matter of giving and receiving, but
ye only.’ And in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians ( xi. 9): ‘when I was present with you and
in want, I was not a burden on any man; for the brethren when they came
from Macedonia supplied the measure of my want.’ We thus see that St.
Paul himself
applies the expression ἐν
ἀρχῇ
τοῦ
εὐαγγελίου to
his first visit
to Corinth.
Compare St. Luke, i. 2 οἱ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς
αὐτόπται
.

[47] Clement,
1 Cor. lxiii. and lxv.

[48] Lightfoot,
Apost. Fathers , part i. vol. i. p. 27 ff.

[49] τοὺς
δὲ
ἀπεσταλμένους
ἀφ᾽
ἡμῶν
Κλαύδιον
Ἔφηβον
καὶ
Οὐαλέριον
Βίτωνα
σὺν
καὶ
Φορτουνάτῳ
. The words σὺν
καὶ
place Fortunatus in a different category from Ephebus and Bito. Th. Zahn (
Intr. to N.T. vol. i. p. 269) holds that Fortunatus was a delegate from
Corinth and that it had been he who had brought the news of the
dissensions to Rome. Lightfoot also (part i. vol. i. p. 29 and vol. ii. p.
187) is of opinion that Fortunatus was a Corinthian and that there is no
improbability in identifying him with the Fortunatus of 1 Cor. xvi. 17.

[50] See
the most interesting chapter on the Hypomnemata of Hegesippus in Eusebiana
, by H. J. Lawlor (Clarendon Press. 1912). Mr. Lawlor produces very strong
arguments and evidence (pp. 73–94) to show that Epiphanius in writing his
Panarion had before him a copy of Hegesippus’ Memoirs, and further that
those Memoirs contained a great deal of information about the early
history of the Churches of Jerusalem, Corinth, and Rome: ‘We find that,
just as in the case of Jerusalem and Corinth, so in that of Rome, what he
[Hegesippus] wrote was mainly a résumé of the history of the Christian
community, special attention being paid to the circumstances under which
each bishop succeeded to his charges’ (p. 85). Among other passages of
Epiphanius that which explains how it was that Clement though appointed
bishop by the Apostles Peter and Paul was not first but third in
succession, i.e. the story of his resignation in favour of Linus and
Anencletus, was probably taken from Hegesippus (p.
9).

[51] See
‘Clementine’ Homilies and Recognitions , the Epistles to Virgins , the
Apostolical Constitutions .

[52] Smyrn.
8; Trall. 2. 3, 4; Eph . 3, 4; Magn . 3, 6, 7; Philad . 4,
etc.

[53] Romans
(salutation): ἥτις
καὶ
προκάθηται
ἐν
τόπῳ
χωρίου
Ῥωμαίων,
ἀξιόθεος
, ἀξιοπρεπής,
ἀξιομακάριστος,
ἀξιέπαινος,
ἀξιεπίτευκτος
, ἀξίαγνος
καὶ
προκαταθημένη
τῆς
ἀγάπης
, Χριστώνομος,
Πατρώνομος
.

[54] Eus.
Hist. Eccl . iv. 23.

[55] Bigg,
1 Peter , Intr. p. 5.

[56] Hermas, Vision iii. 4:
γράψεις
οὖν
δύο
βιβλαρίδια
καὶ
πέμψεις
ἓν
Κλήμεντι
καὶ ἓν
Γραπτῇ.
πέμψει
οὖν
Κλήμης
εἰς
τὰς
ἔξω
πόλεις,
ἐκείνῳ
γὰρ
ἐπιτέτραπται·
Γραπτὴ
δὲ
νουθετήσε ι
τὰς
χήρας
καὶ
τοὺς
ὁρφανούς·
σὺ
δὲ ἀναγνώσῃ
εἰς
ταύτην
τὴν
πόλην
μετὰ
τῶν
πρεσβυτέρων
τῶν
προϊσαμένων
τῶς
ἐκκλησίας
.

[57] Lightfoot,
Apost. Fathers , part i. vol. i. p. 348.

[58] C.I.L. xii. 3637: m. ARRECINO CLEMENTE
II L. BAEBIO HONORATO cos IVLIVS.GRAPTUS.MAG.
MAESOLEVM.EXCOLVIT.ET.VT.ESSET.FRVns
ornaviT.POSITIS.ARBORIBVS.VITIBVS.ROSAriis idem
OBLATA.SIBI.A.COLLIBERTIS.IMMVNITATE ET TITVLO.
qVO.BENIVOLENTIA.EIVS.CONTINERETVR ne.QVA.PARTE.VTILITATIBVS.EORVM.

qvAVIS.VIDERETVR.IMMVNITATEM
reMISIT.ET.TITVLO.QVEM.DE.SVO. posVIT.    CONTENTVS.FVIT.
Emended by Mommsen.

[59] 1.
C.I.L. xii. 4822: GRAPTE VXOR

[60] See
Lecture VIII. pp. 227– 35, and Note D of the Appendix.