Section 2.--place and date of composition; author.

The recovery of the entire text of the Second Epistle settles the question as to the purpose of the work. As was previously surmised, it is a homily (comp. chaps. xvii., xix., xx.); moreover, it was "read" by the author at public worship after the Scripture lesson (see Chap. xix). But as to place, date, and author, there is still diversity of opinion. The three questions are closely related. The view of Bishop Lightfoot seems, on the whole, most tenable. He regards the homily as of Corinthian origin, delivered, in all probability, between a. d. 120 and 140, but the work of an unknown author, who seems to have been one of the presbyters of the church,--possibly the bishop. The allusions to the athletic games are in favour of Corinth. On this theory the title is thus accounted for: The genuine Epistle of Clement was addressed to the Corinthians, and read in the church of that city from time to time. This homily was probably read in the same manner, and at length united in a manuscript copy with the other. Each was "to the Corinthians:" hence it was gradually inferred that both were Epistles of Clement. Of this succession or movement Lightfoot finds some indications in the manuscript authorities.

The internal evidence of an early date has been increased by the discovery of the concluding portion, but there is nothing to determine the exact time of composition. The distinction made in Chap. xiv. between the Old and New Testaments, as well as the use of the Gospel of the Egyptians (at the close of chap. xii.), taken in connection with the unmistakeable citations of New-Testament passages as of Divine authority, point to the first half of the second century as the probable period. The absence of all direct opposition to Gnosticism points to an origin within the same limits. All these considerations make against the view of Hilgenfeld, who attributes the homily to Clement of Alexandria, thus assigning it to the latter half of the second century.

In regard to the author, nothing further is learned from the newly recovered portion, except the fact that he was a preacher. Even this does not determine his ecclesiastical position, since at that early date much freedom of utterance was permitted in Christian assemblies. It is, however, very probable that the author was a presbyter; and it is not improbable that he was the chief presbyter, or local bishop.

The homily is still attributed to a person named Clement, but there are three theories as to what Clement. (1) Bryennios stands almost alone in claiming that the document is the work of Clemens Romanus. The internal evidence against this view was quite sufficient before the full text of the two Epistles was known; now it is to be regarded as abundantly conclusive. Even the English version of the two writings will suggest to the intelligent reader the points of difference. (2) As intimated above, Hilgenfeld regards Clement of Alexandria as the author; but this places the homily too late. Moreover, the writings of the Alexandrian Father stand immensely above this feeble, commonplace, and chaotic production. Even the citation from the Gospel of the Egyptians, common to both, ¹ is differently used by the two authors; Clement of Alexandria opposing the interpretation favoured in this homily, as well as objecting to the authority of that apocryphal Gospel. Hilgenfeld's argument from the word philosophein in chap. xix., is invalidated by the improbability of that reading; see note in loco. (3) The most plausible view, as Bishop Lightfoot admits, is that of Harnack. He assigns the homily to a third Clement, referred to, as he supposes, in the Shepherd of Hermas, ² and living somewhat later than Clement of Rome. In favour of this may be urged: some similarity to the Shepherd of Hermas, the probability that at the date of the later writing Clement of Rome was not living, and the easy explanation it affords of the traditional title. But, while a third Clement may have lived at Rome, we have no evidence other than the doubtful hint in the Shepherd. The allusion in that work seems far more appropriate to the well-known Clement of Rome. The argument from the later date of the Shepherd proves very little; not only is the date uncertain, but the visions are placed quite early. The editor of this series, while accepting a. d. 160 as the probable date of the Shepherd, regards it as a compilation, introducing "Hermas and Clement to identify the times which are idealized in his allegory." ³ The view of Bishop Lightfoot, therefore, seems to be the safest.