"which it had lately received from the apostles There seems now to be no doubt whatever concerning the authenticity of the Epistle. It was not known to exist entire till the year 1628, when a copy of it was sent by Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, and afterwards of Constantinople, as a present to Charles the First, from which manuscript it was printed by Patrick Young in 1633. There is also a second Epistle ascribed to Clement: but since many persons have pronounced it to be spurious, I give no quotations from it, though it contains some express evidence of the divinity of Christ. There seems no reason to think that Clement suffered martyrdom. Dr. Whitby, in his "Reply," to Dr. Waterland, asserts of Clement of Rome, that "he constantly "separates Jesus Christ from that God whom he 66 styles the true and only God, but never once calls "him God." I should wish the reader to bear this observation in mind, and to pronounce upon the truth of it after he has read the following quotations from the Epistle. 5. Clementis 1a. Epistola, c. 2. p. 147-8. The construction of Clement's words in the second chapter obliges us to apply the term God to Jesus Christ, who suffered upon the cross. The first sentence of the chapter is this: "Ye have all "been humble-minded, arrogant in nothing, sub 66 66 "jected rather than subjecting, giving rather than receiving, being satisfied with the supplies sent "from God: and paying careful attention to His words, ye have fixed them deeply in your minds, "and His sufferings were before your eyes." The person, whose words and sufferings had made such an impression upon them, is said to be God: and it is equally evident that the sufferings were those of Jesus Christ, who was therefore considered by Clement to be God. See No. 39. and 44. 66 m 6. Clementis 1a. Epistola, c. 16. p. 156. . The following passage may remind us of St. Paul's words in Phil. ii. 6, 7. "For Christ belongs to the "humble-minded, who do not exalt themselves over "his flock. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the sceptre of "the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of splendour or of pride, although he might have "done so, but humble," &c. This passage strongly confirms the usual interpretation of Phil. ii. 7. that the first humiliation of Christ consisted in his divesting himself of his divine nature and assuming the human. Clement expressly says, that Christ might have come in pomp and splendour, which power he could not have had, if he were a mere man, and had no existence prior to his human birth. Neither is it probable that Clement would have · Πάντες τε ἐταπεινοφρονεῖτε, μηδὲν ἀλαζονευόμενοι—τοῖς ἐφοδίοις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀρκούμενοι, καὶ προσέχοντες τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ ἐπιμελῶς ἐστερνισμένοι ἦτε τοῖς σπλάγχνοις, καὶ τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ ἦν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ὑμῶν. m Τὸ σκῆπτρον τῆς μεγαλωσύνης τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Χριστὸς Ἰη σοῦς, οὐκ ἦλθεν ἐν κόμπῳ ἀλαζονείας, οὐδὲ ὑπερηφανίας, καίπερ δυνάμε νος· ἀλλὰ ταπεινοφρονῶν. Jerom seems to have read καίπερ πάντα δυνάμενος, although he had power to do all things, or was omnipotent: for he translates it cum posset omnia. (In Esaiam lii.) called a mere man the sceptre of the majesty of God. The passage may remind us of similar expressions in the fathers: e. g. Justin Martyr": "God sent "him to them: and was it, as we might suppose of "a man in regal power, to awe and to confound? "by no means: but in gentleness and meekness." Irenæus; "For he might have come to us in his "own incorruptible glory, but we could not have "borne the greatness of his glory:" which words may remind us of the passage already quoted from Barnabas, at p. 3. No. 2. and of a still stronger passage in Origen P: "Who [the Word] being in the beginning with God-became flesh, that he 66 66 might be comprehended by those who were not "able to look at him, in that he was the Word, and "was with God, and was God." And in another place 9, "Coming down once to that which was not "able to look at the dazzling brightness of his divi 66 nity, he became in a manner flesh." Tertullian says, "God could not have entered into conversa"tion with men, unless he had assumed human feel 66 ings and affections, by which he could temper the "greatness of his majesty, which would have been "intolerable to human weakness, with a humility "which might be unworthy of Him, but necessary "for man." See also Arnobius, No. 344. It will perhaps be thought, that these later writers did not carry the doctrine of Christ's divinity at all higher than it was maintained by Barnabas and Clement in the first century: to which I may add, that the fact of it having been optional with Christ to appear in the human or a superior nature, is as expressly maintained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. ii. 16, 17, 18. as in the passages above quoted from the fathers. St. Paul certainly believed that Christ assumed the human nature: vid. Heb. iv. 15: v. 2. Phil. ii. 7. Rom. viii. 3. 7. Clementis 1a. Epistola, c. 22. p. 161. The preexistence of Christ, and his identity with the Jehovah of the Old Testament, is implied in the manner in which Clement quotes Psalm xxxiv. 11. Having given exhortations to moral conduct in the different relations of life, he says, "But it is faith in "Christ which confirmeth all these things: for he himself thus calleth us by the Holy Ghost, Come "ye children," &c.s He then quotes the Psalm 66 from the 11th to the 19th verse. It might perhaps be said, that the words in this Psalm were spoken by David, and not by God. This remark however does not affect the argument. Clement considered that they were spoken by God: and since he says in this place that they were spoken by Christ, it is evident that in the opinion of Clement it was indifferent whether he referred them to Jehovah or to Christ. It may be mentioned that Clement of Alexandria makes a large extract from this part of the Epistle, and he quotes the passage before us thus: "But it is faith in Christ which "confirmeth all these things. Come ye children, 5 Ταῦτα δὲ πάντα βεβαῖοι ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ πίστις. Καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς διὰ καλεῖται ἡμᾶς, Δεῦτε, κ. τ. λ. "saith the Lord, hearken unto me," &c. The extract is not given literally: but it is plain that Clement of Alexandria, as well as his namesake of Rome, made God the speaker of the words in Psalm xxxiv.; and we have an equal testimony to the divinity of Christ, whether we refer the term Lord, which is used by Clement of Alexandria, to Jehovah or to Christ. If he meant Jehovah, he clearly understood Christ to be one with Jehovah: because the passage before him, which he was quoting from Clement of Rome, attributes the words to Christ. If he meant Christ by the word Lord, he held the preexistence of Christ, and made him the source of inspiration to the Psalmist. 8. Clementis 1a. Epistola, c. 32. p. 166. That Christ had another nature beside the human, is also clearly implied by the expression, that "Christ came of Abraham according to the flesh "" It is needless to adduce similar passages from St. Paul's Epistles, such as Rom. i. 3. ix. 5. &c. &c. in all of which, the words according to the flesh must be taken to imply a descent from some other source which is not carnal. 9. Clementis 1a. Epistola, c. 36. p. 168. We may observe also, that Clement says of Christ "Who being the brightness of His majesty is so "much higher than the angels, as he hath by in"heritance obtained a more excellent name:" which words are evidently taken from Heb. i. 3, 4.; and confirm the remark of Eusebius, that the style and u - Εξ αὐτοῦ ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς τὸ ἀγγέλων, ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον ὄνομα κεκατὰ σάρκα. * Ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς μεγαλωσύνης αὐτοῦ τοσούτῳ μείζων ἐστιν κληρονόμηκεν. |