INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

The so-called second Epistle of Clement is now known to be the work of another author and has been placed elsewhere in this series.

The following is the INTRODUCTORY NOTICE by the original editors and translators, Drs. Roberts and Donaldson:

The first Epistle, bearing the name of Clement, has been preserved to us in only one manuscript. Though very frequently referenced by ancient Christian writers, it remained unknown to the scholars of Western Europe until it was happily discovered in the Alexandrian manuscript. This manuscript of the Sacred Scriptures (known and generally referred to as Codex A) was presented in 1628 by Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I, and is now preserved in the British Museum. Attached to the books of the New Testament contained within it are two writings described as the Epistles of one Clement. Of these, the one now before us is the first. It is reasonably perfect, but there are many slight lacunæ, or gaps, in the manuscript, and one whole leaf is thought to have been lost toward the end. These gaps, while numerous in some chapters, generally do not exceed a word or a syllable and can for the most part be easily supplied.

It cannot be determined with absolute certainty who the Clement to whom these writings are ascribed was. The general opinion is that he is the same person of that name referred to by St. Paul (Philippians 4:3). The writings themselves contain no statement regarding their author. The first and by far the longer of them simply claims to have been written in the name of the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth. However, in the catalogue of contents prefixed to the manuscript, they are both clearly attributed to a Clement; and the consensus of most scholars is that, at least regarding the first Epistle, this statement is correct, and that it should be regarded as an authentic work of the friend and fellow-worker of St. Paul. This belief can be traced back to an early period in Church history. It is found in the writings of Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 3.15), Origen (Commentary on John, 1.29), and others. Internal evidence also supports this opinion. The doctrine, style, and manner of thought are all in agreement with it; therefore, although, as has been said, absolute certainty cannot be reached, we may conclude with great probability that this Epistle is a composition of the Clement known to us from Scripture as an associate of the great apostle.

The date of this Epistle has been the subject of considerable controversy. It is clear from the writing itself that it was composed shortly after some persecution (chapter 1) which the Roman Church had endured; the only question is whether to attribute this to the persecution under Nero or Domitian. If the former, the date would be about A.D. 68; if the latter, we must place it toward the close of the first century or the beginning of the second. We possess no external evidence to settle this question. The lists of early Roman bishops are in hopeless confusion, with some making Clement the immediate successor of St. Peter, others placing Linus, and others still placing Linus and Anacletus between him and the apostle. The internal evidence, again, leaves the matter doubtful, though it has been strongly argued on both sides. The probability seems, on the whole, to favor the Domitian period, so that the Epistle may be dated to about A.D. 97.

This Epistle was held in very great esteem by the early Church. The account given of it by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 3.16) is as follows:

“There is one acknowledged Epistle of this Clement (whom he has just identified with the friend of St. Paul), great and admirable, which he wrote in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church at Corinth, sedition having then arisen in the latter Church. We are aware that this Epistle has been publicly read in very many churches both in old times and also in our own day.”

The Epistle before us thus appears to have been read in numerous churches as being almost on a level with the canonical writings. Its place in the Alexandrian manuscript, immediately after the inspired books, is in harmony with the position thus assigned to it in the primitive Church. There does indeed appear to be a great difference between it and the inspired writings in many respects...