IV. Clementine Homilies—Fictional Views by “Clement’s” Fabricated Characters

The Clementine Homilies, falsely attributed to Clement of Rome, usually dated in the third century, are early ecclesiastical “fictional” writings. In other words, the characters are not real, but fabricated. And the identity of the author is not known. Many of the Homilies are in dialogue form, one character arguing against the viewpoint of another. They are clearly fictional, so their words cannot be taken as an authoritative statement of the theological beliefs of the day.CFF1 911.4

They do, however, demonstrate that the question of Innate Immortality was already under discussion, and constitute a reflection of variant views of the time. Inherent immortality was denied by one of Clement’s characters, “Simon Magus,” meaning the “magician,” and affirmed by another—“Peter,” as he was named. Their historical prototypes, whose names are thus invoked, are not, of course, to be held accountable. ^{2929) The Clementine Homilies, in ANF, vol. 8, pp. 223-346; Edgar J. Goodspeed, History of Early Christian Literature, pp. 127: 128. Best of all is Johannes Quasten, Patrology, vol. 1, pp. 59-63. CI H. J. Schoeps, Urgemeinde, Judentum, Gnosis (1956); also B. Rehm, Geichische Christliche Schriftsteller, vol. 42.} The Homilies clearly contain “much legendary matter.” ^{3030) ODCC, art., “Clementine Literature,” p 301.}CFF1 912.1

1. CLASHING VIEWS AND UNCERTAIN DATING

There has been much discussion as to whether the Clementine Recognitions (in ten books) preceded his Homilies (in twenty discourses), or the reverse. ^{3131) B. M. Ridle “Introductory. Note to the Pseudo-Clementine Literature,” in ANF vol. 8, pp 69, 70: ODCC, loc. cit. Hilgenfeld, Cave, Whiston, Rosenmüller, and Staüdlin held that the Recognitions came first, but Ulhorn, Schmit, and Cullmann place the Homilies first. See also Möhler, Lücke, and Schliemann.} It is generally believed that there is a definite connection between the two. ^{3232) ODCC, loc. cit.} The Recognitions are likewise usually dated in the third century. Many feel that there is probably a common background—a single basic unit—for the Clementina in a lost document. ^{3333) Ibid. Cf. A. C. Headlam The Clementine Literature, in J T.S., iii, and F. J. A. Hort, Notes Introductory to the Story of the Clementine Literature. See also “Introductory Notice to the Recognitions of Clement,” in ANF, vol. 8, p. 73.}CFF1 912.2

Translator Thomas Smith dubs “Clement’s” writings “strange and curious documents,” not intended to be, or presented as, historical facts. He says:CFF1 912.3

“Choosing the disciples of Christ and their followers as his principal characters, he [“Clement”] has put into their mouths the most important of his beliefs, and woven the whole together by a thread of fictitious narrative.” ^{3434) “Introductory Notice,” in ANF, vol. 8, p. 73.}CFF1 912.4

Smith also cites Hilgenfeld as believing that there are “many interpolated passages of a much later date.” ^{3535) Ibid.} The testimony of the Homilies is not therefore determinative. But it is a record of the talk of the times. With such an understanding, let us now note the testimony of these documents.CFF1 912.5

2. RANGES OVER CREATION, LIFE, DEATH, PUNISHMENT

Homily I raises the question of life and death—“ceasing to exist”—and punishment. And it queries “whether the soul is immortal or mortal.” ^{3636) The Clementine Homilies, chap. 4, in ANF, vol. 8, pp. 223, 224.} In Homily II “Clement” raises the issue of “Future Rewards and Punishments,” and still presses on the question of whether the soul is “immortal,” and of present “punishment” in Hell.” ^{3737) Ibid., chap. 13, p. 231.} This appears further in chapter twenty-nine, where “Simon Magus” is not convinced that the “soul of man is immortal.” ^{3838) Ibid., chap. 29, p. 234.} Then in Homily III “Clement” turns to the problem of the punishment of the wicked, and has “Simon” observe:CFF1 913.1

“He [God] brings the soul to Himself by reason of His love towards it. And although it be sinful, it is His nature to save it, after it has been suitably punished for the deeds it hath done. But if any one shall deny Him, or in any other way be guilty of impiety against Him, and then shall repent, he shall be punished indeed for the sins he hath committed against Him, but he shall be saved, because he turned and lived.” ^{3939) Ibid., chap. 6, p. 240.}CFF1 913.2

3. WICKED CONSUMED AND DESTROYED BY FIRE

Clement makes “Simon” quite positive in his declaration concerning the complete destruction of the wicked:CFF1 913.3

“But those who do not repent shall be destroyed by the punishment of fire, even though in all other things they are most holy. But, as I said, at an appointed time a fifth [“Perhaps, rather, ‘the greater;’” note 2] part, being punished with eternal fire, shall be consumed. For they cannot endure for ever who have been impious against the one God.” ^{4040) Ibid. (Italics supplied.}CFF1 913.4

It is observed, by translator Riddle, that “the first twentyeight chapters of this homily have no exact parallel in the Recognitions, much of the matter is peculiar to this work”—the Homilies. ^{4141) Ibid., p. 239, footnote 41.}CFF1 913.5

4. CLEMENT SETS FORTH “PETER” AS IMMORTAL-SOULIST

There are periodic allusions to God as the Creator of man (Homily III, chapter six), creation by divine “fiat” (chapter thirty-three), also to the “Wiles of the Devil” (chapter eight), the “Eating of the Forbidden Fruit” (chapter twenty-one), Adam’s responsibility (chapter eighteen), and how man may become “immortal,” have “continuance,” and become “incorruptible” (chapter thirty-seven).CFF1 914.1

Homily IX (chapter fourteen) calls on Christians to repent in view of the “judgment,” for at the time of the judgment the wicked will be punished with unquenchable fire and the righteous receive their recompense in the flesh. Then in Homily XI (chapter eleven) Clement projects “Peter” as contending that all souls are immortal—“the soul even of the wicked is immortal”—with endless torture as unavoidable punishment. Here are “Peter’s” alleged words, as fabricated by Clement:CFF1 914.2

“And though by the dissolution of the body you should escape punishment, how shall you be able by corruption to flee from your soul, which is incorruptible? For the soul even of the wicked is immortal, for whom it were better not to have it incorruptible. For, being punished with endless torture under unquenchable fire, and never dying, it can receive no end of its misery.” ^{4242) Ibid., p. 286.}CFF1 914.3

This thought is continued in chapter sixteen, where Clement refers to “universal judgment” and “eternal punishments.” ^{4343) Ibid., p. 288.} But in Homily XV (chapter eight) he contrasts man’s choice as of “the present evil or the future goods.” ^{4444) Ibid., p. 310.}CFF1 914.4

5. FREE WILL EXPLAINS PRESENCE OF SIN AND DEATH

Next, in Homily XIX, chapter fifteen (“Sin the Cause of Evil”), Clement contends that “had not man sinned” death “would not have come to the race.” He adds that man “lost his immortality on account of his sin,” with suffering and death coming as a consequence. Then he asks and answers this question:CFF1 914.5

“Why, then, was the nature of man made at the beginning capable of death? I will tell you, because of free-will; for if we were not capable of death, we could not, as being immortal, be punished on account of our voluntary sin.” ^{4545) Ibid., p. 335.}CFF1 914.6

6. IMMORTALIZED THROUGH CHRIST’S REIGN

Finally, in Homily XIX, chapter twenty (“Pain and Death the Result of Sin”), Clement has “Peter” saying that “death is the separation of the soul from the body,” with the body “dissolved,” but the soul continuing on in existence. Then he states, curiously, “Man becomes immortal through the prevalence of the peaceful reign of Christ.” And he adds, “He will suffer no pain, so that he will not be mortal.” ^{4646) Ibid., p. 337.}CFF1 915.1

Two conflicting viewpoints are thus set forth—framed in the words of fictional characters. So the dual evidence of the Homilies, as pertains to our quest, ends. It is not conclusive, but it mirrors the clashing views of the time. And some feel that “Clement” himself favors the Conditionalist view.CFF1 915.2

7. SUBSEQUENT “RECOGNITIONS” SUSTAIN “HOMILIES” PORTRAYAL

Inasmuch as the Clementine Recognitions probably sprang from the same author, since they have the same fictional characters and characteristics, it is well to note that in the Recognitions the same “Simon” (Magus) still questions “whether the soul is immortal.” ^{4747) Recognitions of Clement (Thomas Smith, tr.), book 3, chap 39 in ANF, vol. 8, p. 124. In the Recognitions, Gnostic elements are to be noted. (cf. ODCC, p. 301; also ANF, vol. 8r pp. 69-74.} That was being strongly advocated in the third century. And in chapter forty-one, after acknowledging the “judgment to come,” “Simon,” used as a symbol of the wickedness of the Early Church, continues to challenge the claim that “the soul is immortal,” and declares, “For as soon as they die, their soul shall at the same time be extinguished.” ^{4848) Ibid., p. 125. (Italics supplied.} Then in book four (chapter twelve) “Peter” says that Enoch was “translated to immortality.” ^{4949) Ibid., p. 137.} But in book five (chapter twenty-eight), “Eternity of Puishments,” the fabricated Immortal-Soulist “Peter” is made to say:CFF1 915.3

“But if any persist in impiety till the end of life, then as soon as the soul, which is immortal, departs, it shall pay the penalty of its persistence in impiety. For even the souls of the impious are immortal, though perhaps they themselves would wish them to end with their bodies. But it is not so; for they endure without end the torments of eternal fire, and to their destruction they have not the quality of mortality.” ^{5050) Ibid., p. 150.}CFF1 915.4

Here, then, is the same conflict of views by the same opposing characters.CFF1 916.1

Thus it is seen that the Eternal-Torment concept is already coupled as an inseparable corollary to the basic Immortal-Soulism in the contention of this developing second school of thought. Then to this “Peter” adds, in book nine, chapter thirteen (“Retribution Here or Hereafter”), that “their punishment He [God] defers to the future.” He closes by referring to the “punishment of eternal fire in hell; and there their souls shall seek repentance, where they shall not be able to find it.” ^{5151) Ibid., p. 186.} So there is continuance in the clashing testimony of “Clement’s” two treatises. They simply constitute a reflection of the eddying currents of the times, and of the paralleling but conflicting schools on the nature and destiny of man, already in vogue. Innate Immortal-Soulism is definitely on the gain.CFF1 916.2