usage of Eusebius seems to me to require, then the testimony of Hegesippus is to the effect that the divisions of the Corinthian Church took place in the reign of Domitian. The latter interpretation makes Hegesippus say nothing with regard to Clemens. Nor have we any express testimony that Hegesippus mentioned Clemens. Hegesippus remained for some time at Corinth, and seems to have instituted particular inquiries into the divisions that had taken place there. We know also that in his work he mentioned the letter sent by the Roman Church to the Corinthianh; and the words in which Eusebius announces this "after some things said by him with regard to the letter of Clemens," would incline us to believe that he did mention Clemens; but the description of the letter may possibly have been Eusebius's own. We therefore get from Hegesippus no statement with regard to Clemens but we learn from him that the circumstances which called forth the Roman letter took place in the reign of Domitian. On this information we shall be warranted in believing that Clemens flourished at that time, if we get satisfactory testimony to his authorship of the epistle. The first witness to this is Dionysius, an overseer of the Corinthian Church, whose words will be adduced hereafter. We notice here simply that the testimonies of Hegesippus and Dionysius conjoined give Clemens as living in the time of Domitian.

Most of the other writers who mention Clemens supply us with information only in regard to the place he held in the line of the overseers of the Roman Church. The most important is Irenæus. His words are: "The blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, having founded and built up the Church, gave the office of oversight to Linus. This Linus Paul has mentioned in his letters to Timothy. He is succeeded by Anencletus. After him, in the third place from the Apostles,

8 In Hist. Eccl. ii. 11, iii. 28 and iii. 29, the xpóvos is expressed; in ii. 6, iii. 18, and iii. 32, either xpóvos or the name of the reigning emperor is to be supplied. The passages might be indefinitely increased.

h Euseb. Eccl. Hist. iv. 22.

Clemens obtains the oversight, who also saw the Apostles
themselves and conversed with them, and who still had the
preaching of the Apostles ringing in his ears, and their
doctrine before his eyes i." The minute accuracy of these
statements is open to question. Everything must depend
on the critical faculty of Irenæus, which unfortunately
was not great. The assertion that Paul and Peter founded
the Roman Church and built it up is exceedingly questionable.
For that Paul did not found it, we know from his Epistle
to the Romans; and that Peter had very little connection
with it, is also matter of certainty; and indeed it is not im-
probable that he had no connection with it at all. Besides
this, there is extreme unlikelihood that there was only one
overseer in the Roman Church at a time, as the statement of
Irenæus seems to imply. The Corinthian Church had more
than one; most of the churches of which we know anything
had more than one;
and we may
therefore rest assured that
the Roman Church had also more than one. In addition to
this, we see a perverting influence at work in the minds of
Irenæus and his contemporaries, in their strong wish to be
able to trace up their doctrines to the days of the Apostles.
How powerfully this motive acted, alongside of the inactivity
of true historical criticism, on the minds of Clemens Alex-
andrinus and Origen, will become evident in various parts
of this work. In this case Clemens Alexandrinus speaks of
Clemens as an apostle; and Origen calls him a disciple of
the Apostles, and identifies him with the person mentioned
in Philippians iv. 3 m.

The most precise information which we have is in Eusebius. He quotes Irenæus, and elsewhere gives the same succession as he gave, stating that Clemens succeeded Anencletus in the twelfth year of the reign of Domitian, 93 A.D.", and died in the third year of the reign of Trajan, 101 A.D. On what i Irenæus, Hæres. iii. c. 3; also in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 6.

k Clemens Alexandr. Strom. iv. c. 17.
m Origen in Joann. tom. vi. c. 36.

1 Origen, De Princip. lib. ii. c. 3.

n Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 15.

• Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 34. In the Armenian version of the Chronicon the date of his oversight is given as the seventh year of Domitian's reign. Jerome's version agrees with the Ecclesiastical History.

authority Eusebius assigned these dates we do not know, but we can have little doubt that he was tolerably careful; and, on the whole, this is the most satisfactory information we can now obtain on the subject P.

The tradition with regard to the position of Clemens in the line of succession from the Apostles was by no means uniform. Eusebius had access only to the Greek form of it given in Irenæus. Tertullian seems to have regarded Clemens as the immediate successor of Peter. In attacking the churches of the heretics, he challenges them to exhibit "the order of their overseers so running down by succession from the beginning, that the first overseer had some one as his ordainer and predecessor who was either an Apostle or an apostolic man that had lived with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches hand down their rolls, as the Church of the Smyrneans relates that Polycarp was placed by John, and the Church of the Romans that Clemens was ordained by Peter." The inference from these words, that Tertullian regarded Clemens as the first overseer of the Roman Church, is not absolutely certain. For his argument would be sound, and perhaps stronger, if Clemens were only the third from the Apostles; for then the Roman Church could exhibit, not merely one, but several apostolic men in its roll. But still it has been universally taken to indicate that Tertullian believed Clemens to be the first, and at least the immense probability is that such was his belief. And Jerome expressly states that most of the Latins represented Clemens as the successor of Peter. Schliemann supposes that this belief owed its origin to the Clementines, which introduce Clemens as the disciple of Peterr. And he thinks he finds a passage in Origen confirmatory of this idea. For Origen, in quoting from the Recognitions, describes the writer as "Clemens the

P The conjectures of Pearson and Dodwell on this and other chronological points are discussed in Tillemont and Lardner. They do not deserve record here.

a Tertull. De Præscriptione Hæret. c. xxxii.

Die Clementinen von Adolph Schliemann, p. 120.

Roman, a disciple of the Apostle Peters." But the testimony of Origen does not help us much here. For Origen merely asserts that Clemens was a disciple, which he might have been even had he been third in the succession. And it is to me extremely doubtful whether we can with security assign the description of Clemens in the Philocalia to Origen. For nothing is more common than for an ancient editor to interpolate explanatory remarks-an instance of which occurs in chapter xxii. of this same Philocalia in relation to the same Clemens. He is there called "a bishop of Rome;" a mode of expression entirely unknown to the time of Origent. There is not however the slightest doubt that the Clementine stories were adopted by later writers as historical", and from the preface of Rufinus to the Recognitions we gather that many based the belief in Clemens's immediate succession of Peter on the letter of Clemens to the Apostle James. Tillemont has observed this ".

The fact probably was, that none of them knew anything about the matter. Writers subsequent to the time of Eusebius indulged in endless conjectures and opinions, some placing him first, some second, some fourth, and some trying to reconcile these various opinions. Of the attempts at reconciliation two may be noticed, more as characteristic of the mode in which these later writers dealt with such matters, than as likely to throw light on our investigation. Rufinus, in his preface to the Clementine Recognitions, tries to solve the difficulty by supposing that Linus and Anencletus were overseers of the Roman Church while Peter was alive, and after Peter's death it fell to the lot of Clemens to become overseer. This supposition has no testimony to support it, and probably Rufinus did not feel the need of its being thus

Philocal. Spencer, p. 81. c. xxiii. Lommatzsch, p. 226. t Philocal. p. 202. Lommatzsch.

u See Schliemann, p. 118-124.

supported. In one respect it seems to us to hit the truth. It frees Peter entirely from the oversight. It is not likely that either Peter or Paul was an overseer in any church. The other explanation is that of Epiphanius. It is only one of his conjectures on the subject. He supposes that Clemens received the appointment of overseer from St. Peter, but that he did not fill his office as long as Linus and Cletus were alive. This conjecture is based solely on the words of Clemens in the Epistle to the Corinthians. These words are an exhortation to a person filled with love to say, "If on account of me there are division, strife, and schisms, I go out of the way, I retirez."

There is one point in the statements with regard to Clemens which has attracted considerable attention. Is he the person mentioned in the Epistle to the Philippians? Now, as far as historical evidence goes, we must without hesitation affirm that it is not sufficient to prove his identity. The first mention of it occurs in Origen, whose authority in such a matter is null. The identity of name would be enough for him to warrant him in pronouncing an identity of persons. After his time writers are unanimous in representing him as the person, and Eusebius oftener than once thus speaks of himb. At the same time the objections which have been urged against the supposition (for it cannot be called a tradition,) are utterly weak. That the Clemens mentioned was a Philippian is probable enough, but there is no reason why a Philippian should not find his way to Rome and hold a high position in the Roman Church. Nor is there anything in the letter of the Roman Church inconsistent with the writer of it being a disciple of Paul. In fact the letter informs us thus much, that the writer knew at least some of the writings of Paul. So far as this point then is

z Hæres, xxvii. §. 6. Pan. lib. i. Tillemont gives a full account of the various attempts at solution, including even that of the Protestant Hammoud: tome second, prem. part. p. 484.

a Comment. in Joann. tom. vi. c. 36. Lommatzsch.

b Hist. Eccl. iii. 15.