Proof-Texts and Cross-References
Job 14v1 [3], v12 [3], v14 [3], v18-19 [3]; Is. 26v20 [3|9]; Mt. 3v2, 4v17; Rom. 3v28, 8v25 [18], 9v13 [18]; Eph. 2v4-6 [18]; Philip. 4v3 [3]; 1 Jn. 3v1 [18], 4v10 [18]
Introduction
Clement I of Rome (+-30-99 AD) [3] was the first Apostolic Father [1|2|34] of the Christian Church, and the fourth Bishop [2|3|6] of the Church of Rome [1] [not to be mistaken for the Roman Catholic Church].
According to Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339 AD), "the Father of Church History" [3], Clement served as the fourth Bishop of Rome from 88 to 97 AD. [3|6]
Allegedly, Clement was ordained to the ministry by the Apostle Peter. [3]
Agreements
We both uphold and defend the doctrines of the Omniscience of God [9], Unconditional Election [9|17|19|20], Limited Atonement [9|17|21], Irresistible Grace [9|20], Justification by Faith Alone [Sola Fide] [9|27|29], Conditional Immortality [Conditionalism] [3|9], Intermediate Unconsciousness [Psychopannychism] [3|9], and Final Destruction [Annihilationism] [3|9].
Alleged Papacy
Catholics generally believe, that Clement was their second [1], third [1], or fourth [4|30] Bishop [Pope].
Yet, "there is no evidence for monarchical episcopacy in Rome at so early a date" [2|15].
No Documentation on ANY of the Ealy 'Bishops of Rome'
According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, Clement would have "appointed seven notaries, one for each ecclesiastical area of Rome" [4|30].
IF that was the case, one would expect that at least one of these notaries would have preserved a list of the original "bishops of Rome".
Yet, they apparently did not, since we have no preserved writings from any of these alleged notaries.
The first list was apparently compiled by Hegesippus around 155 A.D. [4]
Yet, we have no preserved copy of Hegesippus' work, except citings from Epiphanius.
The only list we do have came from Irenaeus around 180 A.D., and it contains no details about ANY early bishops.
In other words, "there does not exist any actual evidence of the precise dates of any 'reign' of those considered to have been early Roman Catholic leaders" [4].
The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:
"Now Linus and Cletus had each twelve years attributed to them in the list. If Hippolytus found Cletus doubled by an error (Cletus XII, Anacletus XII), THE ACCESSION OF CLEMENT WOULD APPEAR TO BE THIRTY-SIX YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE APOSTLES. AS THIS WOULD MAKE IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR CLEMENT TO HAVE BEEN THEIR CONTEMPORARY, IT MAY HAVE CAUSED HIPPOLYTUS TO SHIFT HIM TO AN EARLIER POSITION. Further, St. Epiphanius says (loc. cit. ): 'Whether he received episcopal ordination from Peter in the life-time of the Apostles, and declined the office, for he says in one of his epistles 'I retire, I depart, let the people of God be in peace', (for we have found this set down in certain Memoirs), OR WHETHER HE WAS APPOINTED BY THE BISHOP CLETUS AFTER HE HAD SUCCEEDED THE APOSTLES, WE DO NOT CLEARLY KNOW.' The 'Memoirs' were certainly those of Hegesippus. It seems unlikely that he is appealed to only for the quotation from the Epistle, c. liv; probably Epiphanius means that Hegesippus stated that Clement had been ordained by Peter and declined to be bishop, but twenty-four years later really exercised the office for nine years. Epiphanius could not reconcile these two facts; Hippolytus seems to have rejected the latter...The Church of Corinth had been led by a few violent spirits into a sedition against its rulers. No appeal seems to have been made to Rome, but a letter was sent in the name of the Church of Rome by St. Clement to restore peace and unity. He begins by explaining that his delay in writing has been caused by the sudden calamities which, one after another, had just been falling upon the Roman Church. The reference is clearly to the persecution of Domitian...There is little intentional dogmatic teaching in the Epistle, for it is almost wholly hortatory. A passage on the Holy Trinity is important. Clement uses the Old Testament affirmation 'The Lord liveth', substituting the Trinity thus: 'As God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth and the Holy Spirit -- the faith and hope of the elect, so surely he that performeth', etc...The Epistle is in the name of the Church of Rome but the early authorities always ascribe it to Clement. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, wrote c. 170 to the Romans in Pope Soter's time: 'To-day we kept the holy day, the Lord's day, and on it we read your letter- and we shall ever have it to give us instruction, even as the former one written through Clement'" [31]
Some Catholic scholars admittedly felt that Clement succeeded Peter, while most scholars believe that there were no bishops of Rome at the time of Clement's alleged reign.
In the words of Roman Catholic scholar, F.A. Sullivan:
"ADMITTEDLY THE CATHOLIC POSITION, THAT BISHOPS ARE THE SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES BY DIVINE INSTITUTION, REMAINS FAR FROM EASY TO ESTABLISH... The first problem has to do with the notion that Christ ordained apostles as bishops... The apostles were missionaries and founders of churches; THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, NOR IS IT AT ALL LIKELY, THAT ANY ONE OF THEM EVER TOOK UP PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN A PARTICULAR CHURCH AS ITS BISHOP... The letter of the Romans to the Corinthians, known as I Clement, which dates to about the year 96, provides good evidence that about 30 years after the death of St. Paul the church of Corinth was being led by a group of presbyters, WITH NO INDICATION OF A BISHOP WITH AUTHORITY OVER THE WHOLE LOCAL CHURCH... Most scholars are of the opinion that the church of Rome would most probably have also been led at that time by a group of presbyters... THERE EXISTS A BROAD CONSENSUS AMONG SCHOLARS, INCLUDING MOST CATHOLIC ONES, THAT SUCH CHURCHES AS ALEXANDRIA, PHILIPPI, CORINTH AND ROME MOST PROBABLY CONTINUED TO BE LED FOR SOME TIME BY A COLLEGE OF PRESBYTERS, AND THAT ONLY IN THE SECOND CENTURY DID THE THREEFOLD STRUCTURE OF BECOME GENERALLY THE RULE, WITH A BISHOP, ASSISTED BY PRESBYTERS, PRESIDING OVER EACH LOCAL CHURCH" [4|36]
The idea, "that Clement was the fourth pope, that he was the successor to Linus, and that all other leaders passed through him" [4|30], by-and-large came from the writings of Irenaeus of Lyon (+-120-202 AD).
In "Against Heresies", Book 3, Chapter 3, Paragraphs 2 to 3, he wrote:
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] BY INDICATING THAT TRADITION DERIVED FROM THE APOSTLES, OF THE VERY GREAT, THE VERY ANCIENT, AND UNIVERSALLY KNOWN CHURCH FOUNDED AND ORGANIZED AT ROME BY THE TWO MOST GLORIOUS APOSTLES, PETER AND PAUL; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus" [4]
According to Irenaeus, Apostolic Tradition confirmed, that it was Peter and Paul who first started the great church in Rome and that they [NOT Peter alone] passed the leadership to Linus, who allegedly passed it on to Cletus, then to Clement.
BUT Irenaeus was mistaken, and his "apostolic tradition" in error.
In Romans Chapter 15 Verses 20 to 22, Paul writes to the Church of Rome, saying:
"And I have so preached this Gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MANS FOUNDATION: But as it is written, They to whom it hath not been preached of him, shall see: and they that have not heard, shall understand. FOR THE WHICH CAUSE ALSO I WAS HINDERED VERY MUCH FROM COMING UNTO YOU" (Rom. 15v20-22, 1582 Rheims New Testament)
He could not possibly have "build upon another mans foundation", if he was the founder or co-founder of the Church of Rome.
The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:
"Paul would have worded his Epistle otherwise, IF THE COMMUNITY ADDRESSED WERE EVEN MEDIATELY INDEBTED TO HIS APOSTOLATE" [4|44]
Noted Roman Catholic scholar, F.A. Sullivan, agrees:
"... IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT PAUL EVER APPOINTED ANY ONE PERSON AS 'RESIDENT BISHOP' OVER ANY OF HIS CHURCHES... Irenaeus focuses on the church of Rome which he describes as 'greatest, most ancient and known to all, founded and established by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.' HERE WE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE A BIT OF RHETORIC, AS THE CHURCH OF ROME WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT SO ANCIENT AS THOSE OF JERUSALEM OR ANTIOCH, NOR WAS IT ACTUALLY FOUNDED BY PETER OR PAUL" [4|45]
No Proof of Clement's Superiority or Primacy from His Epistle to the Corinthians
Catholics generally believe, that Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians confirms, "that he had the authority over all other Christian churches" [4], meaning "the cathedra went to the bishops of Rome and therefore (according to this line of reasoning) is still there today" [4].
I have three problems with that claim:
➢ One. This letter was sent "to the church of God sojourning at Corinth" [9] from "The church of God which sojourns at Rome" [9]. Clement wasn't mentioned, EVEN ONCE, meaning that "even if it was from Clement, he apparently did not feel he himself had what Catholics now call the cathedra (the ecclesiastical chair or authority), for it was unsigned" [4].
➢ Two. There is no indication, that the Corinthians ever addressed Clement. According to 1 Clement, the Church at Corinth "consulted US" [chapter 1] [9], that is, "the church of God which sojourns at Rome" [chapter 1] [9].
➢ Three. Recent Catholic scholarship admits that '1 Clement' does not establish the primacy of the Roman Church.
In the words of Roman Catholic scholar, F.A. Sullivan:
"In the past, Catholic writers have interpreted this intervention as an early exercise of Roman primacy, BUT NOW IT IS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AS THE KIND OF EXHORTATION ONE CHURCH COULD ADDRESS ANOTHER WITHOUT ANY CLAIM TO AUTHORITY OVER IT... I CLEMENT CERTAINLY DOES NOT SUPPORT THE THEORY THAT BEFORE THE APOSTLES DIED, THEY APPOINTED ONE MAN AS BISHOP IN EACH OF THE CHURCHES THEY FOUNDED. This letter witnesses rather to the fact that in the last decade of the first century, the collegial ministry of a group of presbyters... was still maintained in the Pauline church of Corinth. This was most likely also the case in the church in Rome at this period" [37]
In the words of Roman Catholic scholar, Stephen K Ray:
"There is NO CLEAR STATEMENT IN EITHER CLEMENT OR IGNATIUS, IN THE FORM OF A DOGMATIC PRONOUNCEMENT OF ROME'S PRIMACY..." [4|42]
In other words, "the often repeated Roman claim that they have an unbroken line of successors from Peter beginning with Linus or Clement is historically inaccurate" [4].
Embellishment
There are also a number of other Roman Catholic embellishments of Clement.
That Clement Was Baptized by the Apostle Peter
"He was among the first baptized by St. Peter... " [4|30]
Neither the Bible, nor any of the Apostolic Fathers, gave any hint that Clement was baptized by Peter. "That claim appears to have been a later fabrication" [4]
That Clement Appointed Seven Notaries
"He appointed seven notaries, one for each ecclesiastical area of Rome, to edit and file all information regarding martyred Christians..." [4|30]
Again, no historical record to confirm, that Clement appointed any notaries, let alone one for each ecclesiastical area.
That Clement Introduced Liturgical Vestments
"Clement was the one to introduce the liturgical vestments into the sacred functions and the use of the word Amen." [4|30]
Again, no historical record to confirm, that Clement introduced ANY liturgical vestments into ANY sacred functions.
Clement could not possibly have introduced liturgical vestments, since "they did not exist that early" [4].
Even The Catholic Encyclopedia itself admits, that "In [the] days" [4|35] of Stephen 1 (254-257 AD), "the vestments worn by the clergy at Mass and other church services did not differ in shape or material from those ordinarily worn by the laity" [4|35].
In other words, The Catholic Encyclopedia's claim, that "Clement was the one to introduce liturgical vestments" [4|30], is proven false by The Catholic Encyclopedia itself.
That Clement was the First Pope to Abdicate
"He can be considered the first pope to have abdicated" [4|30]
Again, no historical record to confirm, that Clement ever abdicated his alleged papacy.
IF he did originally turn down the job and then later in life abdicate his position, it would seem like Clement himself did not place much value on being the "successor to Peter".
Martyrdom
According to apocryphal acta dating to the 4th century at earliest, Clement was banished from Rome to work in a stone quarry at Chersonesus [1|15], during the persecution instigated by the famous Roman Emperor, Trajan (53–117 AD). [1|33]
Clement was eventually "martyred there, by drowning" [3], being "tied to an anchor and thrown from a boat into the Black Sea" [1].
Writings
Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians
Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians, commonly known as "1 Clement" [2|3|41], was written around 95/96 AD [3|7|41], "in response to a dispute in which certain presbyters of the Corinthian church had been deposed" [1|15].
"Scholarly consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of the letter's authenticity" [2|14].
1 Clement "generally considered to be the oldest Christian epistle in existence outside of the New Testament" [2], is "the oldest specimen of post-Apostolic literature we now possess" [3].
It was "read in numerous churches (in Eusebius’ time), as being almost on a level with the canonical writings." [3]
The letter is quite lengthy, "twice as long as the Epistle to the Hebrews" [2].
Among other things, the letter demonstrates Clement's familiarity with both, the Old and New Testaments.
There are four English translations of 1 Clement.
➢ The Charles Hoole translation is available from Early Christian Writings [38].
➢ The J.B Lightfoot translation is available from Early Christian Writings and the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM).
➢ The John Keith translation is available from New Advent [9].
➢ The Roberts-Donaldson translation is available from Early Christian Writings and the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) [28].
Quotations
ON THE OMNISCIENCE OF GOD
In Clement's "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 21, he wrote:
"Let us reflect how near He is, and that NONE OF THE THOUGHTS OR REASONINGS IN WHICH WE ENGAGE ARE HID FROM HIM." [9]
According to Clement, neither our thoughts or reasonings are hidden from God.
ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
One particular passage from Clement's "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 58, are often sighted in defense of both, Trinitarianism AND Binitarianism.
Trinitarians will quote the Keith translation, which reads:
"For, as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost live..." [9]
While Binitarians will quote the Hoole and Lightfoot translations, which reads:
"For as God liveth, and as the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit,..." [38|39]
Dr. Thiel of the Church of God, points out that "a careful reading of the above rendering simply says that the God and Christ live, but it does not say that about the Holy Spirit" [39], concluding that "his statement about God and the Lord living suggests that the Holy Spirit is somehow different" [4], and "not a being like the Father or the Son" [39].
In other words, Thiel believes, that Clement held to a binitarian, and "not a trinitarian view" [4]
Thiel's argument fails, however, since it is based on a logical fallacy, an "Argument from Silence", whereby he draws "a conclusion based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence." [40]
ON THE DOCTRINE OF UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
In Clement's "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 50, he wrote:
"You see, BELOVED, HOW GREAT AND WONDERFUL A THING IS LOVE, and that there is no declaring its perfection. WHO IS FIT TO BE FOUND IN IT, EXCEPT SUCH AS GOD HAS VOUCHSAFED TO RENDER SO?" [9]
According to Clement, only those God "vouchsafed to render so", will partake in His love. That is consistent with what the New Testament teaches concerning God's love. [18]
While unconditional election was not the subject of his letter, Clement's incidental references to "the elect" [chapter 6] [9], "the elect of God" [chapter 1] [9|41], and "the number of God's elect" [chapter 2] [9]; being "called and sanctified by the will of God" [salutation] [9|41], "reveal something of the doctrinal framework and nomenclature that existed in the early church" [41] - which advocates of freewill theology rarely, if ever, employ.
ON THE DOCTRINE OF LIMITED ATONEMENT
In Clement's "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 49, he wrote:
"Let him who has love in Christ keep the commandments of Christ. Who can describe the [blessed] bond of the love of God? What man is able to tell the excellence of its beauty, as it ought to be told? The height to which love exalts is unspeakable. LOVE UNITES US TO GOD. Love covers a multitude of sins. Love bears all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is nothing base, nothing arrogant in love. Love admits of no schisms: love gives rise to no seditions: love does all things in harmony. By love have ALL THE ELECT OF GOD been made perfect; without love nothing is well-pleasing to God. IN LOVE HAS THE LORD TAKEN US TO HIMSELF. ON ACCOUNT OF THE LOVE HE BORE US, JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD GAVE HIS BLOOD FOR US by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls." [9|17]
According to Clement, Jesus shed His blood for "us", namely "all the elect", because of "the love which He had toward us" - a love that "unites us to God" (Eph. 2v4-6; 1 Jn. 3v1, 4v10), and therefore, only pertains to His elect. (Rom. 8v25, 9v13) [18]
Yet, some apologists simply ignore what Clement said in chapter 49, in an attempt to establish universal atonement from elsewhere ...
"Christian Debater", for example, pointed to Clement's "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 32, as proof that Clement believed "Christ died for all people" [16].
"All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has JUSTIFIED ALL MEN; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." [9]
Note, the passage does NOT say, that God 'DIED for all men', but that He "JUSTIFIED all men".
IF Clement meant to say, that God "JUSTIFIED all men", without exception, he would be confirming Universal Salvation; because [universal] justification begets [universal] salvation, since THOSE JUSTIFIED ARE SAVED. (Rom. 3v24, 5v9, 8v30; Tit. 3v7)
BUT, that cannot be, since Clement himself believed, that only some would be saved [chapters 2, 7, 11, 12, 58 and 60].
Furthermore, the context of chapter 32 [chapters 31 to 32], repeatedly speaks of "us", "our", "we", and "ourselves", clarifying that Clement was referring to believers only, namely those "called by His will in Christ Jesus" [9].
ON THE DOCTRINE OF IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
In his "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 29, he writes:
"Let us then draw near to Him with holiness of spirit, lifting up pure and undefiled hands unto Him, loving our gracious and merciful Father, who has MADE US PARTAKERS IN THE BLESSINGS OF HIS ELECT. ... And in another place [the Scripture] says, 'Behold, THE LORD TAKES UNTO HIMSELF A NATION OUT OF THE MIDST OF THE NATIONS, AS A MAN TAKES THE FIRST-FRUITS OF HIS THRESHING-FLOOR; and from that nation shall come forth the Most Holy'." [9|20]
In his "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 30, he continues:
"Seeing, therefore, that WE ARE THE PORTION OF THE HOLY ONE, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, ... 'For God, [says the Scripture], resists the proud, but GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.' Let us cleave, then, to THOSE TO WHOM GRACE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY GOD." [9|20]
According to Clement, the elect were "MADE partakers" of God's blessings, having become "the portion of the Holy One", being 'taken' and 'given grace' by Him.
In his "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 36, he continues:
"THIS IS THE WAY, BELOVED, IN WHICH WE FIND OUR SAVIOUR, even Jesus Christ, the High Priest of all our offerings, the defender and helper of our infirmity. BY HIM we look up to the heights of heaven. BY HIM we behold, as in a glass, His immaculate and most excellent visage. BY HIM ARE THE EYES OF OUR HEARTS OPENED. BY HIM OUR FOOLISH AND DARKENED UNDERSTANDING BLOSSOMS UP ANEW TOWARDS HIS MARVELOUS LIGHT. BY HIM THE LORD HAS WILLED THAT WE SHOULD TASTE OF IMMORTAL KNOWLEDGE, ..." [9]
ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE
In his "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 7, he wrote:
"Let us turn to every age that has passed, and learn that, from generation to generation, the Lord has granted a place of repentance to all such as would be converted unto Him. NOAH PREACHED REPENTANCE, AND AS MANY AS LISTENED TO HIM WERE SAVED. Jonah proclaimed destruction to the Ninevites; but they, REPENTING OF THEIR SINS, PROPITIATED GOD BY PRAYER, AND OBTAINED SALVATION, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE ALIENS [TO THE COVENANT] OF GOD." [9]
According to Clement, the Ninevites were "saved", that is "obtained salvation", simply because they repented of their sins.
In his "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapters 32 to 33, he wrote:
"And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are NOT JUSTIFIED BY OURSELVES, NOR BY OUR OWN WISDOM, OR UNDERSTANDING, OR GODLINESS, OR WORKS WHICH WE HAVE WROUGHT IN HOLINESS OF HEART; BUT BY THAT FAITH THROUGH WHICH, from the beginning, ALMIGHTY GOD HAS JUSTIFIED ALL MEN; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works. For by His infinitely great power He established the heavens, and by His incomprehensible wisdom He adorned them. He also divided the earth from the water which surrounds it, and fixed it upon the immovable foundation of His own will. The animals also which are upon it He commanded by His own word into existence. So likewise, when He had formed the sea, and the living creatures which are in it, He enclosed them [within their proper bounds] by His own power. Above all, with His holy and undefiled hands He formed man, the most excellent [of His creatures], and truly great through the understanding given him— the express likeness of His own image. For thus says God: Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness. So God made man; male and female He created them. Having thus finished all these things, He approved them, and blessed them, and said, Increase and multiply. We see, then, how all righteous men have been adorned with good works, and how the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with His works, rejoiced. Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and LET US WORK THE WORK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS WITH OUR WHOLE STRENGTH." [9|27|29]
According to Clement, our justification does NOT depend on "ourselves", "our own wisdom", "our own ... understanding", "our own ... godliness", or even "our own works", even those "done in holiness of heart"; but on faith alone. (Rom. 3v28)
The fact, that Clement, a Roman bishop, advocated salvation through faith alone, has devastating implications for Roman Catholicism. [29]
As a result, Roman Catholic apologists "put forward various arguments in an attempt to prove that Clement didn't advocate the doctrine" [29].
Some Roman Catholic apologists have "argued that Clement was only excluding works we do in our own strength, not works God empowers us to do" [29].
The truth, however, is that Clement already excluded those 'works God empowers us to do', namely those "done in holiness of heart" [9|27|29], as a requirement for justification, in chapter 32; and encouraged us to "work the work of righteousness WITH ALL OUR STRENGTH", in chapter 33.
Yet, some apologists simply ignore what Clement said in chapters 7, 32, and 33, in an attempt to establish justification by works from elsewhere ...
➢ Our first misquotation comes from Clement's "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 30, wherein he spoke of being "justified BY OUR DEEDS, and not by our words" [9|29].
That surely sounds like Clement denied Justification by Faith Alone [Sola Fide], until you read the context.
"Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, BEING JUSTIFIED BY OUR WORKS, AND NOT OUR WORDS. For [the Scripture] says, He that speaks much, shall also hear much in answer. And does he that is ready in speech deem himself righteous? Blessed is he that is born of woman, who lives but a short time: be not given to much speaking. Let our praise be in God, and not of ourselves; for GOD HATES THOSE THAT COMMEND THEMSELVES. LET TESTIMONY TO OUR GOOD DEEDS BE BORNE BY OTHERS, as it was in the case of our righteous forefathers. Boldness, and arrogance, and audacity belong to those that are accursed of God; but moderation, humility, and meekness to such as are blessed by Him." [9|29]
Clement is speaking of justification in the sense of vindication ["let testimony to our good deeds be borne by others"], not in the sense of attaining to eternal life.
Furthermore, Clement's would-be claim, that we are "justified by our works" [chapter 30], would directly contradict his later claim, that we are "NOT justified by ... the works which we have wrought in holiness of heart" [chapter 32].
Now, either Clement contradicted himself; or our Catholic friends are mistaken, and the context of their quote, does NOT support the meaning they wish to attribute to it.
➢ Our second misquotation comes from Clement's "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 12, wherein he said that "Through faith and HOSPITALITY Rahab the harlot was saved" [9|29].
That surely sounds like Rahab was saved, because of her hospitality, until you read the context.
"ON ACCOUNT OF HER FAITH AND HOSPITALITY, RAHAB THE HARLOT WAS SAVED. For when spies were sent by Joshua, the son of Nun, to Jericho, the king of the country ascertained that they had come to spy out their land, and sent men to seize them, in order that, when taken, they might be put to death. But the hospitable Rahab receiving them, concealed them on the roof of her house under some stalks of flax. And when the men sent by the king arrived and said, There came men unto you who are to spy out our land; bring them forth, for so the king commands, she answered them, The two men whom you seek came unto me, but quickly departed again and are gone, thus not discovering the spies to them. Then she said to the men, I know assuredly that the Lord your God has given you this city, for the fear and dread of you have fallen on its inhabitants. When therefore you shall have taken it, keep ye me and the house of my father in safety. And they said to her, It shall be as you have spoken to us. As soon, therefore, as you know that we are at hand, you shall gather all your family under your roof, and they shall be preserved, but all that are found outside of your dwelling shall perish. Moreover, they gave her a sign to this effect, that she should hang forth from her house a scarlet thread. And thus THEY MADE IT MANIFEST THAT REDEMPTION SHOULD FLOW THROUGH THE BLOOD OF THE LORD TO ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE AND HOPE IN GOD. You see, beloved, that THERE WAS NOT ONLY FAITH, BUT PROPHECY, IN THIS WOMAN." [9]
In an attempted response to Roman Catholicism, Kevin Moldenhauer suggested that "Clement [was] addressing salvation in the sense of safety from the Israeli invasion, NOT THE ATTAINING OF ETERNAL LIFE." [29] In other words, "The SALVATION IN QUESTION is physical, NOT SPIRITUAL." [29]
WRONG. The passage clearly speaks of "her faith", and how the sign she received from the spies "made it manifest THAT REDEMPTION SHOULD FLOW THROUGH THE BLOOD OF THE LORD TO ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE AND HOPE IN GOD.", and that "THERE WAS NOT ONLY FAITH, BUT PROPHECY, IN THIS WOMAN".
Notwithstanding, the Roman Catholic argument fails, nonetheless.
According to Clement, it was through "FAITH and hospitality" that she was saved. So was Abraham. [chapter 10]
"Faith" here preceding "hospitality": For true "faith [is] fruitful of virtue" [chapter 1], says Clement; while "faith" without works is dead. (Js. 2v14-20)
In other words, hospitality here "saves", only because it flows from "faith" that saves.
➢ Our third misquotation comes from Clement's "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 58, wherein he spoke of those who "without repentance has observed the ordinances ... the same shall obtain a place and name in the number of those who are being saved" [9|29].
Again, that surely sounds like Clement was of the opinion, that we could be saved through the works of obedience, without repentance.
"Let us, therefore, flee from the warning threats pronounced by Wisdom on the disobedient, and yield submission to His all-holy and glorious name, THAT WE MAY STAY OUR TRUST UPON THE MOST HALLOWED NAME OF HIS MAJESTY. RECEIVE OUR COUNSEL, AND YOU SHALL BE WITHOUT REPENTANCE. For, as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost live—both the faith and hope of the elect, HE WHO IN LOWLINESS OF MIND, WITH INSTANT GENTLENESS, AND WITHOUT REPENTANCE HAS OBSERVED THE ORDINANCES AND APPOINTMENTS GIVEN BY GOD - THE SAME SHALL OBTAIN A PLACE AND NAME IN THE NUMBER OF THOSE WHO ARE BEING SAVED THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, through whom is glory to Him for ever and ever. Amen." [9]
In context, Clement was confirming, that if the Church of Corinth would "receive [his] counsel" [9], there would be no need to repent.
In other words, they would be "without repentance" [9], in very much the same way as those who would "live a godly life", in chapter 54, would have nothing "to be repented of".
The claim, that Clement believed in salvation by works, without repentance, is utter nonsense.
Clement repeatedly affirmed repentance as the gateway to salvation [chapter 7 and 8]; and obedience as a result.
The proof of Enoch's "righteousness", was his obedience. [chapter 9] The proof of Abraham's "faithfulness", was his obedience. [chapter 10]
ON THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL SECURITY
I am not aware of any quotes by Clement in support of either, Conditional- or Eternal Security.
Yet, various additional quotes have been tendered in defense of Clement's alleged confirmation of eternal security ...
➢ Our first misquotation comes from Clement's "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 8, where he wrote:
GREEK: pantas oun tous agapētous autou boulomenos metanoias metaschein estērizen to pantokratorikō boulēmati autou [22]
ENGLISH: "Desiring, therefore, that ALL HIS BELOVED SHOULD BE PARTAKERS OF REPENTANCE, HE HAS, BY HIS ALMIGHTY WILL, ESTABLISHED [these declarations]." [9]
The John Keith translation of 1 Clement, ends with the words "these declarations" [9] in parentheses [brackets], indicating that these words do not appear in the original text.
That is, because it was John Keith's contention, that it was the aforementioned "declarations", that was said to be "established".
John Gill (1697-1771) and Michael Horton (1964-), on the other hand, never qualified their quote with any explanation as to it's purpose.
Yet, according to Jack Cottrell, the passage "does not say WHAT God has established" [22].
WRONG. The passage DOES clarify WHAT God "established", namely "that all His beloved should be partakers of repentance". "Wherefore," continues chapter 9, "let us yield obedience to His excellent and glorious will; ... LET US TURN AND HAVE RECOURSE TO HIS COMPASSIONS." [9]
The passage, therefore, does NOT speak of Eternal Security, but of Repentance.
➢ Our second misquotation comes from Clement's "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 54, where he wrote:
"Who then among you is noble-minded? Who compassionate? Who full of love? ... These things they who live a godly life THAT IS NEVER TO BE REPENTED OF, BOTH HAVE DONE AND ALWAYS WILL DO." (John Keith translation) [9]
"Who then among you is noble-minded? who compassionate? who full of love? ... These things they who live a godly life, THAT IS NEVER TO BE REPENTED OF, BOTH HAVE DONE AND ALWAYS WILL DO." (Roberts-Donaldson translation) [28]
In context, "that [which] is never to be repented of", refers to the "godly life" of those who are "noble-minded", "compassionate", and "full of love", to such an extent that they will not partake in "sedition", "disagreements", and "schisms" against the presbyters, but rather "live on terms of peace with the presbyters".
Again, the passage does NOT speak of Eternal Security, but of Godliness.
Fact is, we currently have no conclusive proof, that Clement confirmed either, Eternal Security or Conditional Security.
ON THE CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL [CONDITIONALISM]
In his "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 30, he writes:
"Blessed is he that is born of woman, WHO LIVES BUT A SHORT TIME: ..." [3|9]
Clement was, of course, quoting Job Chapter 14 Verse 1 [3], 'who lives but a short time', "as opposed to living forever" [3].
In his "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 35, he writes:
"How blessed and wonderful, beloved, are THE GIFTS OF GOD! LIFE IN IMMORTALITY, splendour in righteousness, truth in perfect confidence, faith in assurance, self-control in holiness!" [3|9|10]
Here Clement presents "Life in immortality" as one of "the gifts of God", and NOT as a natural possession of human beings.
In his "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 36, he writes:
"By Him the Lord has willed that WE [the saved] SHOULD TASTE OF IMMORTAL KNOWLEDGE, ..." [3|9]
In his "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 39, he writes:
"For what can a MORTAL MAN do, or what strength is there in one made out of the dust?" [3|9]
Here Clement refers to man, in his totality, as "mortal", NOT immortal.
In his "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 48, he writes:
"Let us therefore, with all haste, put an end to this [state of things]; and let us fall down before the Lord, and beseech Him with tears, that He would mercifully be reconciled to us, and restore us to our former seemly and holy practice of brotherly love. For [such conduct] is THE GATE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, WHICH IS SET OPEN FOR THE ATTAINMENT OF LIFE, ..." [3|9]
Clement's reference to "brotherly love" as "the gate of righteousness... for the attainment of life" implies, that those who do not have this love have not walked through this "gate" and therefore do not have everlasting "life". [3]
Clement NEVER ONCE spoke of an "immortal soul" or "the immortality of the soul" [3|12]. "Clement clearly believed that immortality was conditional – to be bestowed on the righteous only." [3|13]
ON THE INTERMEDIATE UNCONSCIOUSNESS OF THE DEAD [PSYCHOPANNYCHISM]
In his "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 50, he wrote:
"All the generations from Adam even unto this day have passed away; but THOSE WHO, THROUGH THE GRACE OF GOD, HAVE BEEN MADE PERFECT IN LOVE, NOW POSSESS A PLACE AMONG THE GODLY, AND SHALL BE MADE MANIFEST AT THE REVELATION OF THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST. For it is written, 'ENTER INTO YOUR SECRET CHAMBERS FOR A LITTLE TIME, UNTIL MY WRATH AND FURY PASS AWAY; and I will remember a propitious day, and WILL RAISE YOU UP OUT OF YOUR GRAVES.'" [3|9]
Clement believed, that until "the revelation of the kingdom", the "place" of the departed "godly" were their "graves".
In other words, he rejected the notion of Particular Judgment.
Yet, some apologists simply ignore what Clement said in chapter 50, in an attempt to establish particular judgement from elsewhere ...
➢ Our first misquotation comes from Clement's "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 5, wherein he said, that following the death of Paul of Tarsus (5-67 AD), he "was removed from the world, and went into the holy place" [9].
That surely sounds like Clement believed he went to heaven immediately after his death.
Yet, Clement never once used the word "heaven".
In light of his latter clarification in chapter 50, it would seem like "the holy place", Clement was referring to, was none other than the grave, or "secret place" [chapter 50] [9], where he now "possess a place among the godly" [chapter 50] [9].
ON THE FINAL DESTRUCTION OF THE WICKED [ANNIHILATIONISM]
Clement's unequivocal support for Conditional Immortality [Conditionalism], of course, serves as ample proof of his support for Final Destruction [Annihilationism].
Yet, various additional quotes have been tendered in defense of Clement's confirmation of annihilationism ...
➢ Our first misquotation comes from Clement's "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 41, where he wrote:
"Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are PUNISHED WITH DEATH" [3|9]
It has been suggested, that Clement's reference to "death" here, should serve as proof that he rejected Eternal Conscious Torment, because "Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His (i.e., God's) will, ARE PUNISHED WITH DEATH (NOT 'TORMENT')." [3]
WRONG. The context of chapter 41 [chapters 40 to 44] quickly shows, that the above-mentioned quote, does NOT speak of the eternal destruction of the wicked, but of physical death, namely God's punishment for the disobedience of His own ministers. This is confirmed by the very next line, "You see, BRETHREN, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to US, THE GREATER ALSO IS THE DANGER TO WHICH WE ARE EXPOSED" [9].
➢ Our second misquotation comes from Clement's "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 51, where he wrote:
"Pharaoh with his army and all the princes of Egypt, and the chariots with their riders, were sunk in the depths of the Red Sea, and PERISHED, ..." [3|9]
It has been suggested, that "The Greek word here translated 'perished' is apolonto, which literally means 'destroyed' -- not 'tormented'" [3].
Yes, of course, Pharaoh's army was destroyed, and not tormented.
BUT, attempting to prove that Clement hereby referred to anything other than physical death, is a stretch.
Yet, some apologists simply ignore what Clement said in chapters 30, 35, 36, 39, and 48, in an attempt to establish eternal conscious torment from elsewhere ...
➢ Our first misquotation comes from Clement's "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 11, wherein he said that God "gives up such as depart from Him to punishment and TORTURE" [9].
That surely sounds like Clement taught eternal conscious torment.
Yet, Clement never used the words "eternal torment" anywhere in chapter 11, or the rest of his letter, for that matter.
He merely confirmed what both, tormentists AND annihilationists, already believe, namely that the wicked will be punished and tortured.
The tormentists believe, that the wicked will be tormented for all eternity; while the annihilationists believe, that the wicked will be tormented, and then destroyed forever.
NO contradiction, and NO support for Eternal Conscious Torment.
➢ Our second misquotation comes from Clement's "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 17, where he said, that "Moses was called faithful in all God's house; and through his instrumentality, God punished Egypt with plagues and TORTURES." [9]
That surely sounds like Clement taught eternal conscious torment, until you read the context.
Clement was referring to the ten plagues and tortures, that God inflicted upon Egypt, to persuade Pharaoh to release the ill-treated Israelites from slavery. (Ex. 7-12)
ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
In Clement's "First Epistle to the Corinthians", Chapter 26, he wrote:
"Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all things TO RAISE UP AGAIN THOSE THAT HAVE PIOUSLY SERVED HIM in the assurance of a good faith...?" [3|9]
It has been suggested, that by pointing out that God would raise those that piously served Him, Clement was "implying that God will not 'raise up again' those who have not so served Him." [3]
WRONG. The above-mentioned quote was taken from Chapter 26, itself a continuation of Clement's earlier discussion of the believer's hope of resurrection, running from chapter 24 to chapter 27. [9] He never, once, addressed the issue of resurrection as it pertains to the wicked. In other words, this is nothing, but an assumption.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Paul refer to Clement I in Philippians Chapter 4 Verse 3?
According to Origen of Alexandria (184/185–253/254 AD) [3|4|31], Eusebius of Caesarea (260/265–339/340 AD) [4|31], Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320–403 AD) [4|31], and Jerome (347–420 AD) [4|31], the Apostle Paul was indeed referring to Clement of Rome, when he wrote:
"And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for THEY HAVE LABORED SIDE BY SIDE WITH ME IN THE GOSPEL TOGETHER WITH CLEMENT and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life." (Philip. 4v3, RSV)
Whether or not this was the same Clement, of course, "cannot be determined from the passages in Philippians" [4].
According to Dr. B Thiel, "one would think that CLEMENT WOULD BE MENTIONED [IN] OTHER WRITINGS FROM PAUL IF CLEMENT WAS TO HAVE PREEMINENCE - BUT INSTEAD HE IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE ELSE IN ANY NEW TESTAMENT WRITING." [4]
Yet, any conclusion drawn from an Argument from Silence is a fallacy rooted in a number of assumptions. [32]
In return, Clement only referred to Peter once [chapter 5], and Paul twice [chapters 5 and 47]; but Moses eleven times [chapters 4, 17, 43, 51 and 53]! And, he never once referred to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.
Should we thereby consider Paul, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, of lesser importance than Moses?
Personally, I am with Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome.
Videos
IF you are reading this off-line, please visit us on-line to view the embedded videos.
Bibliography
1. Pope Clement I (Wikipedia; 21 July 2014)
2. Apostolic Fathers (Wikipedia; 21 July 2014) ✔
3. Prof. Dr. John H. Roller. The Doctrine of Immortality in the Early Church (Concord, NC: 5847 Brookstone Drive, USA, 28027-2535704-782-9574) ✔
4. Dr. B. Thiel, PhD. Clement: Leader of Rome? (COG Writer; 2008) ✔
5. Paul F. Pavao. Clement of Rome (Christian History for Everyman; 21 July 2014)
6. Mark Hoffman. 1989 World Almanac, p. 509 ✔
7. LeRoy Froom. The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, p. 762 ✔
8. First Epistle of Clement (Wikipedia; 21 July 2014)
9. John Keith, trans. Letter to the Corinthians (Clement) (New Advent; 21 July 2014) ✔
10. Kirsopp Lake. The Apostolic Fathers, p. 67 ✔
11. Kirsopp Lake. The Apostolic Fathers, p. 79 ✔
12. Henry Constable. The Duration and Nature of Future Punishment, p. 168 ✔
13. LeRoy Froom. The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, p. 767 ✔
14. Louth 1987:20; preface to both epistles in William Jurgens The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol 1", pp 6 and 42 respectively. ✔
15. F.L. Cross, ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church: St. Clement of Rome (New York: Oxford University Press; 2005) ✔
16. Calvinism: Absent Among Pre-Nicene Christians (Bible Query/Christian Debater, P.O. Box 144441 Austin, TX 78714 (512) 218-8022; 22 July 2014) ✔
17. Argin Gerigorian. Particular Atonement According to Clement of Rome (Blogerigorian; 3 February 2014) ✔
18. EJ Hill. The Love of God (Hillside; 22 July 2014) ✔
19. Argin Gerigorian. Predestination According to Clement of Rome (Blogerigorian; 31 January 2014) ✔
20. Calvinism in the Early Church By the Early Church Fathers (A Puritan's Mind; 22 July 2014) ✔
21. Clement of Rome (Theopedia; 23 July 2014)
22. Jack Cottrell. Did The Early Christian Fathers Teach Calvinism? (Arminian Perspectives; 26 July 2011) ✔
23. John Gill. The Cause of God and Truth (Aaron Ward, 1738) ✔
24. Michael Horton. Putting Amazing Back Into Grace: Embracing the Heart of the Gospel (Baker Books, 2011) p.252 ✔
25. Jennie. Catholic But Not Roman Catholic: Baptismal Regeneration: Clement of Rome (Pilgrim's Daughter; 15 November 2009)
26. Michael. Clement of Rome: On Eternal Security (Renewing Truth; 23 October 2013)
27. Mark Nenadov. A Review of a Presentation by Bob Freund: 'Doctrines of the Remnant' [Slides 28-33] (All Things Expounded; 24 July 2011) ✔
NOTE: Some of the quotes Mark attributed to Clement of Rome, was in fact that of Clement of Alexandria.
28. Roberts-Donaldson, trans. Clement of Rome, Epistle 1 (Early Christian Writings; 23 July 2014)
29. Kevin Moldenhauer. Early Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration (In Defense of the Faith; 24 July 2014) ✔
30. A. Lopes. The Popes: The Lives of the Pontiffs through 2000 Years of History (Roma: Futura Edizoni, 1997) p. 2 ✔
31. J. Chapman. Transcribed by Gerard Haffner. Pope St. Clement I (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV. Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York) ✔
32. Argument from silence (Wikipedia; 27 July 2014) ✔
33. John Chapman. Pope St. Clement I (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908) ✔
34. VIDEO: Early Christian Church History #1: Who's Who In Early Pre-Nicene Christian Writers (Christian Answers/YouTube; 10 May 2011) ✔
35. Mann H. Transcribed by Kenneth M. Caldwell. Pope St. Stephen I. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. ✔
36. F.A. Sullivan. From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church (Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 2001) pp. 13-15 ✔
37. F.A. Sullivan. From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church (Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 2001) pp. 91, 101 ✔
38. Charles Hoole, trans. Letter to the Corinthians (Clement) (Early Christian Writings; 6 August 2014) ✔
39. Dr. B. Thiel, PhD. Binitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning (COG Writer; 6 August 2014) ✔
40. Argument from silence (Wikipedia; 7 August 2014) ✔
41. Daniel Chamberlin. Sovereign Grace in 1 Clement (Covenant Baptist Church; 7 August 2014)
42. Stephen K. Ray. Upon This Rock. St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999) p. 141 ✔
43. Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 3, Verses 2,3). Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight ✔
44. Merk A. Transcribed by W.G. Kofron. Epistle to the Romans. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII. Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York ✔
45. F.A. Sullivan. From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of The Episcopacy in the Early Church (Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 2001) pg. 35, 147 ✔
For more information on Clement of Rome, please visit the Clement of Rome Archives at A Puritan's Mind, All Things Expounded, and Biblicalia; or simply run a SOHO Search.
Revisions
21-27.07.2014 / 29-30.07.2014 / 01.08.2014 / 03-07.08.2014