Some have supposed that in this passage seven teachers are named, others that there are only five, and various conjectures have been hazarded as to what persons were meant. The only one about whom conjecture has any basis for speculating is the last, for Eusebius states (Hist. Ecd., v. 11 ) that Clement made mention of Pantaenus as his teacher in the Hypotyposes. The reference in this passage is plainly to one whom he might well designate as his teacher.

To the information which Clement here supplies subsequent writers add little. By Eusebius and Photius he is called Titus Flavius Clemens, and “the Alexandrian” is added to his name. Epiphanius tells us that some said Clement was an Alexandrian, others that he was an Athenian (Hoer., xxxii. 6), and a modern writer imagined that he reconciled this discordance by the supposition that he was born at Athens, but brought up at Alexandria. We know nothing of his conversion except that he passed from heathenism to Christianity. This is expressly stated by Eusebius (Prcep. Evangel., lib. ii. cap. 2), though it is likely that Eusebius had no other authority than the works of Clement. These works, however, warrant the inference. They show a singularly minute acquaintance with the ceremonies of pagan religion, and there are indications that Clement himself had been initiated in some of the mysteries (Protrept., cap. ii. sec. 14, p. 13, P.). There is no means of determining the date of his conversion. He attained the position of presbyter in the church of Alexandria (Eus., Hist, Eccl., vi. 11, and Jerome, De Vir. III., 38), and became the successor of Pantaenus in the catechetical school of that place. Among his pupils were Origen (Eus., Hist. Eccl., vi. 7) and Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem (Eus., Hist. Eccl., vi. 14). How long he continued in Alexandria, and when and where he died, are all matters of pure conjecture. The only further notice of Clement that we have in history is in a letter written in 211 by Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, to the Antiochians, and preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., vi. 11). The words are as follows.:—“This letter I sent through Clement the blessed presbyter, a man virtuous and tried, whom ye know and will come to know completely, who being here by the providence and guidance of the Ruler of all strengthened and increased the church of the Lord.” A statement of Eusebius in regard to the persecution of Severus in 202 (Hist. Eccl., vi. 3) would render it likely that Clement left Alexandria on that occasion. It is conjectured that he went to his old pupil Alexander, who was at that time bishop of Flaviada in Cappadocia, and that when his pupil was raised to the see of Jerusalem Clement followed him there. The letter implies that he was known to the Antiochians, and that it was likely he would be still better known. Some have conjectured that he returned to Alexandria, but there is not the shadow of evidence for such conjecture.

Eusebius and Jerome give us lists of the works which Clement left behind him. Photius has also described some of them. They are as follows:—1. π ∣ Λ>s "Eλληvαs λJγos 0πpoτpeπτικ<is, A Hortatory Address to the Greeks. 2. δ ιraιδa∙γωy0s, The Tutor, in three books. 3. 2τpa>μaτtls, or Patch-work, in eight books. 4. τls & σωζiμtvos πλούσιος, Who is the Rich Man that is Saved ? 5. Eight books of 'Υποτυπώσεις, Adumbrations or Outlines. 6. On the Passover. 7. Discourses on Fasting. 8. On Slander. 9. Exhortation io Patience, or to the Newly Baptized. 10. The κανών iκκλησιaσrικ ∣ is, the Rule of the Church, or to those who Judaize., a work dedicated to Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem.

Of these, the first four have come down to us complete, or nearly complete. The first three form a series. The Hortatory Address to the Greeks is an appeal to them to give up the worship of their gods, and to devote themselves to the worship of the one living and true God. Clement exhibits the absurdity and immorality ot the stories told with regard to the pagan deities, the cruelties perpetrated in their worship, and the utter uselessness of bowing down before images made by hands. He at the same time shows the Greeks that their own greatest philosophers and poets recognized the unity of the divine Being, and had caught glimpses of the true nature of God, but that fuller light had been thrown on this subject by the Hebrew prophets. He replies to the objection that it was not right to abandon the customs of their forefathers, and points them to Christ as their only safe guide to God.

The Paedagogus is divided into three books. In the first Clement discusses the necessity for and the true nature of the Paedagogus, and shows how Christ as the Logos acted as Paedagogus, and still acts. In the second and third books Clement enters into particulars, and explains how the Christian following the Logos or Reason ought to behave in the various circumstances of life—in eating, drinking, furnishing a house, in dress, in the relations of social life, in the care of the body, and similar concerns, and concludes with a general description of the life of a Christian. Appended to the Foedagogue are two hymns, which are, in all probability, the production of Clement, though some have conjectured that they were portions of the church service of that time.

Stromata, or rather 'S,τρωμa.τeιs, are coverlets made out of miscellaneous pieces of cloth. The title is used by Clement to designate a miscellaneous collection of materials, and Clement’s work is unquestionably of this nature. It is impossible to give a brief account of its varied contents. Sometimes he discusses chronology, sometimes philosophy, sometimes poetry, entering into the most minute critical and chronological details; but one object runs through all, and this is to show what the true Christian Gnostic is, and what is his relation to philosophy. The work was in eight books. The first seven are complete. The eighth now extant is really an incomplete treatise on logic. Some critics have rejected this book as spurious, since its matter is so different fτom that of the rest. Others, however, have held to its genuineness, because in a Patch-work or Book of Miscellanies the difference of subject is no sound objection, and because Photius 'seems to have regarded our present eighth book as genuine (Phot., cod. Ill, p. 89b, Bekker).

The treatise Who is the Rich Man that is Saved ĭ is an admirable exposition of the narrative contained in St Mark’s Gospel, x. 17-31. It was in all probability preached.

The Hypotyposes have not come down to us. Cassiodorus translated them into Latin, freely altering to suit his own ideas of orthodoxy. Both Eusebius and Photius describe the work. It was a short commentary on all the books of Scripture, including some of the apocryphal works, such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Revelation of Peter. Photius speaks in strong language of the impiety of some opinions in the book (Bibl., cod. 109, p. 89a, Bekker), but his statements are such as to prove conclusively that he must have had a corrupt copy, or read very carelessly, or grossly misunderstood Clement. Notes in Latin on the first epistle of Peter, the epistle of Jude, and the first two of John have come down to us; but whether they are the translation of Cassiodorus, or indeed a translation of Clement’s work at all, is a matter of dispute.

The treatise on the Passover was occasioned by a work of Melito on the same subject, Two fragments of this treatise were given by Petavius, and are contained in the modern editions.

We know nothing of the work called The Ecclesiastical Canon from any external testimony. Clement himself often mentions the btκλησιaστικi>s κavωv, and defines it as the agreement and harmony of the law and the prophets with the covenant delivered at the appearance of Christ (Strom., A. cap. xv. 125, p. 803, P.). No doubt this was the subject of the treatise. Jerome and Photius call the work Ecclesiastical Canons, but this seems to be a mistake.

Of the other treatises mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome nothing is known. A fragment of Clement, quoted by Antonius Melissa, is most probably taken from the treatise on slander.

Besides the treatises mentioned by Eusebius, fragments of treatises on Providence and the Soul have been preserved. Mention is also made of a work by Clement on the Prophet Amos, and another on Definitions.

In addition to these Clement often speaks of his intention to write on certain subjects, but it may well be doubted whether in most cases, if not all, he intended to devote separate treatises to them. Some have found an allusion to the treatise on the Soul already mentioned. The other subjects are Marriage (γαμικδy λoγos), Continence, the Duties of Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Widows, Prophecy, the Soul, the Transmigration of the Soul and the Devil, Angels, the Origin of the World, First Principles and the Divinity of the Logos, Allegorical Interpretation of Statements made with regard to God’s anger and similar affections, the Unity of the Church, and the Resurrection.

Two works are incorporated in the editions of Clement which are not mentioned by himself or any ancient writer. They are ∈κ rw Θeoδiτoυ κai τηs hvaroλικηs κaλoυμivηs διδασκαλίας κατά τoυs Ούαλεντίνου χpivoυs iπιτoμal, and fκ των προφητικών tκλoγai. The first, if it is the work of Clement, must be a book merely of excerpts, for it contains many opinions which Clement opposed. Mention is made of Pantaenus in the second, and some have thought it more worthy of him than the first. Others have regarded it as a work similar to the first, and derived from Theodorus.

Clement occupies a profoundly interesting position in the history of Christianity. He is the first to bring all the culture of the Greeks and all the speculations of the Christian heretics to bear on the exposition of Christian truth. He does not attain to a systematic exhibition of Christian doctrine, but he paves the way for it, and lays the first stones of the foundation. In some respects Justin anticipated him. He also was well acquainted with Greek philosophy, and took a genial view of it; but he was not nearly so widely read as Clement. The list of Greek authors whom Clement has quoted occupies upwards of fourteen of the quarto pages in Fabricius’s Bibliotheca Groeca. He is at home alike in the epic and the lyric, the tragic and the comic poets, and his knowledge of the prose writers is very extensive. He made a special study of the philosophers. Equally minute is his knowledge of the systems of the Christian heretics. And in all cases it is plain that he not merely read but thought deeply on the questions which the civilization of the Greeks and the various writings of poets, philosophers, and heretics raised. He pondered on all he read that he might gain a clearer insight into the truth. But it was in the Scriptures that he found his greatest delight. He believed them to contain the revelation of God’s wisdom to men. He quotes all the books of the Old Testament except Ruth and the Song of Solomon, and amongst the sacred writings of the Old Testament he evidently included the Book of Tobias, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus. He is equally full in his quotations from the New Testament, for he quotes from all the books except the epistle to Philemon, the second epistle of St Peter, and the epistle of St James, and he quotes from the pastor of Hermas, and the epistles of Clemens Romanus and of Barnabas, as inspired. He appeals also to many of the lost Gospels, such as those of the Hebrews, of the Egyptians, and of Matthias.

Notwithstanding this adequate knowledge of Scripture, the modern theologian is disappointed to find very little of what he deems characteristically Christian. In fact Clement regarded Christianity as a philosophy. The ancient philosophers sought through their philosophy to attain to a nobler and holier life, and this also was the aim of Christianity. The difference between the two, in Clement’s judgment, was that the Greek philosophers had only glimpses of the truth, that they attained only to fragments of the truth, while Christianity revealed in Christ the absolute and perfect truth. All the stages of the world’s history were therefore preparations leading up to this full revelation, and God’s care was not confined to the Hebrews alone. The worship of the heavenly bodies, for instance, was given to man at an early stage that he might rise from a contemplation of these sublime objects to the worship of the Creator. Greek philosophy in particular was the preparation of the Greeks for Christ. It was the schoolmaster or paedagogue to lead them to Christ. Plato was Moses atticizing. Clement varies in his statement how Plato got his wisdom or his fragments of the Reason. Sometimes he thinks that they came direct from God, like all good things, but he is also fond of maintaining that many of Plato’s best thoughts were borrowed from the Hebrew prophets; and he makes the same statement in regard to the wisdom of the other philosophers. But however this may be, Christ was the end to which all that was true in philosophies pointed. Christ himself was the Logos, the Reason. God the Father was ineffable. The Son alone can manifest Him fully. He is the Reason that pervades the universe, that brings out all goodness, that guides all good men. It was through possessing somewhat of this Reason that the philosophers attained to any truth and goodness; but in Christians He dwells more fully and guides them through all the perplexities of life. It is easy to see that this doctrine in regard to Christ may be misconstrued. If Jesus were the Reason, thus visible in all goodness, how could there be a real difference between Him and the Father, or how could He really become incarnate! Photius, probably on a careless reading of Clement, argued that he could not have believed in areal incarnation. But the words of Clement are quite precise and their meaning indisputable. He believed in a personal God different from the universe. He believed in a personal Son of God who was the Reason and Wisdom of God; and he believed that this Son of God really became incarnate. The object of His incarnation and death was to free man from his sins, to lead him into the path of wisdom, and thus in the end elevate him to the position of a god. But man’s salvation was to be gradual. It began with faith, passed from that to love, and ended in full and complete knowledge. There could be no faith without knowledge. But the knowledge is imperfect, and the Christian was to do many things in simple obedience without knowing the reason. But he has to move upwards continually until he at length does nothing that is evil, aud he knows fully the reason and object of what he does. He thus becomes the true Gnostic, but he can become the true Gnostic only by contemplation and by the practice of what is right. He has to free himself from the power of passion. He has to give up all thoughts of pleasure. He must prefer goodness in the midst of torture to evil with unlimited pleasure. He has to resist the temptations of the body, keeping it under strict control, and with the eye of the soul undimmed by corporeal wants and impulses, contemplate God the supreme good, and live a hfe according to reason. In other words, he must strive after likeness to God as He reveals himself in his Reason or in Christ. Clement thus looks entirely at the enlightened moral elevation to which Christianity raises man. He believed that Christ instructed men before He came into the world, and he therefore viewed heathenism with kindly eye. He was also favourable to the pursuit of all kinds of knowledge. All enlightenment tended to lead up to the truths of Christianity, and hence knowledge of every kind not evil was its handmaid. Clement had at the same time a strong belief in evolution or development. The world went through various stages in preparation for Christianity. The man goes through various stages before he can reach Christian perfection. And Clement conceived that this development took place not merely in this life, but in the future through successive grades. The Jew and the heathen had the gospel preached to them in the world below by Christ and His apostles, and Christians will have to pass through processes of purification and trial after death before they reach perfect knowledge and perfect bliss.

The beliefs of Clement have caused considerable difference of opinion among modern scholars. He sought the truth from whatever quarter he could get it, believing that all that is good comes from God, wherever it be found. He belongs, therefore, to no school of philosophers. Some have insisted that he was an eclectic. Daehne has tried to show that he was Neo-Platonic, and Reinkens has maintained that he was essentially Aristotelian. His mode of viewing Christianity does not fit into any classification. It is the result of the period in which he lived, of his wide culture and the simplicity and noble purity of his character.

It is needless to say that his books well deserve study; but the study is not smoothed by beauty of style. Clement despised ornament. He wished to avoid everything that might seem to deceive. He thought also that it was quite possible to throw pearls before swine, and that care should be taken to prevent this by digressions and difficulties which only the earnest student would encounter. He is singularly simple in his character. In discussing marriage he refuses to use any but the plainest language. A euphemism is with him a falsehood. But he is temperate in his opinions; and the practical advices in the second and third books of the Poedagogue are remarkably sound and moderate. He is not always very critical, and he is passionately fond of allegorical interpretation ∙ but these were the faults of his age.

All early writers speak of Clement in the highest terms of laudation, and he certainly ought to have been a saint in any Church that reveres saints. But Clement is not a saint in the Roman Church. He was a saint up till the time of Benedict XIV., who read Photius on Clement, believed him, and struck the Alexandrian’s name out of the calendar. The Pope was unquestionably wrong; and many Roman Catholic writers, though they yield a practical obedience, have adduced good reason why the decision of the Pope should be reversed (Cognat, p. 451).

The editions of Clement’s works are by (1) Petrus Victorius, 1550; (2) Sylburg, 1592; (3) Heinsius, 1616; (4) Fronto Ducaens, 1629, 1641, 1688; (5) Potter, London, 1715 (this was by far the best edition, and has...

Clement IV. (Gui Foulques, archbishop of Narbonne) was elected Pope in February 1265. Before taking orders he had been successively a soldier and a lawyer, and in the latter capacity had acted as secretary to Louis IX. of France, to whose influence he was chiefly indebted for his elevation. At this time the Holy See was engaged in a conflict with Manfred, the usurper of Naples; and Clement, whose election had taken place in his absence, was compelled to repair to Italy in disguise. He immediately took steps to ally himself with Charles of Anjou, the French pretender to the Neapolitan throne, who marched into Naples, and having defeated and slain Manfred in the great battle of Benevento, established himself firmly in the kingdom. Clement is said to have disapproved of the cruelties committed by Charles, and there seems no foundation for the charge of his having advised the latter to execute the unfortunate Conradin, the last of the church’s hereditary antagonists of the house of Hohenstaufen. His private character was unexceptionable, and he is especially commended for his indisposition to promote and enrich his own relatives. He also did himself great honour by his encouragement and protection of Roger Bacon. He died in November 1268, and was buried at Viterbo, where he had resided throughout his pontificate.

Clement V. (Bertrand de Goth, archbishop of Bordeaux) is memorable in history for his suppression of the order of the Templars, and as the Pope who removed the seat of the Roman see to Avignon. He was elected in June 1305, after a year’s interregnum occasioned by the disputes between the French and Italian cardinals, who were nearly equally balanced in the conclave. According to Villani he had bound himself to subserviency towards the Freuch monarch by a formal agreement previous to his elevation; however this may be, it is unquestionable that he conducted himself throughout his pontificate as the mere tool of that monarch. His first act was to create nine French cardinals. The removal of the seat of the Papacy to Avignon (1308) might seem palliated by the factious and tumultuary condition of Rome at the period, but it proved the precursor of a long “Babylonish captivity,” in Petrarch’s phrase, and marks the point from which the decay of the strictly Catholic conception of the Pope as universal bishop is to be dated. The guilt or innocence of the Templars is one of the most difficult of historical problems, the discussion of which belongs, however, to the history of the order.

Clement may have acted conscientiously in his suppression of an order which had heretofore been regarded as a main bulwark of Christianity, but there can be little doubt that his principal motive was complaisance towards the king of France, or that the latter was mainly actuated by jealousy and cupidity. Clement’s pontificate was also disastrous for Italy. The Emperor Henry VII. entered the country, established the Visconti in Milan, and was crowned by Clement’s legates in Rome, but was unable to maintain himself there, and died suddenly, leaving great part of Italy in a condition of complete anarchy. The dissensions of the Roman barons reached their height, and the Lateran palace was destroyed in a conflagration. Other remarkable incidents of Clement’s reign are his sanguinary repression of the heresy of Fra Dolcino in Lombardy and his promulgation of tl ιe Clementine Constitutions in 1313. He died, leaving an inauspicious character for nepotism, avarice, and cunning, in April 1314. He was the first Pope who assumed the triple crown.

Clement VI. (Pierre Roger, archbishop of Rouen), the fourth of the Avignon popes, was elected in May 1342. Like his immediate predecessors, he was devoted to France, and he further evinced his French sympathies by refusing a solemn invitation to return to Rome, and by purchasing the sovereignty of Avignon from Joanna, queen of Naples, for 80,000 crowns. The money was never paid, but Clement may have deemed that he gave the queen a full equivalent by absolving her from the murder of her husband. The other chief incidents of his pontificate were his disputes with Edward III. of England on account of the latter’s encroachments on ecclesiastical jurisdiction, his excommunication of the Emperor Louis of Bavaria, his negotiations for reunion with the Eastern Church, and the commencement of Rienzi’s agitation at Rome. He died in December 1352, leaving the reputation of “a fine gentleman, a prince munificent to profusion, a patron of the arts and learning, but no saint” (Gregorovius; see also Gibbon, chap. 66).

Clement VII. (Giulio de’ Medici), the most unfortunate of the Popes, was the son of Giuliano de’ Medici, assassinated in the conspiracy of the Pazzi, and consequently nephew of Lorenzo the Magnificent and cousin of Pope Leo X. Upon the latter’s accession to the Papacy, Giulio became his principal minister and confidant, especially in the maintenance of the Medici interest at Florence. At Leo’s death, Cardinal Medici, though unable to gain the Papacy for himself or his ally Farnese, took a leading part in determining the unexpected election of Adrian VI., to whom he succeeded in the next conclave (November 1523). He brought to the Papal throne a high reputation for political ability, and possessed in fact all the accomplishments of a wily diplomatist, but the circumstances of the times required a man of far different mould. His worldliness and lack of insight into the tendencies of his age disqualified him from comprehending the great religious movement which then convulsed the church; while his timidity and indecision no less disabled him from following a consistent policy in secular affairs. At first attached to the imperial interest, he was terrified by the overwhelming success of the emperor in the battle of Pavia in to joining the other Italian princes in a league with France. This policy in itself was sound and patriotic, but Clement’s zeal soon cooled; by his want of foresight and unseasonable economy he laid himself open to an attack from the turbulent Roman barons which obliged him to invoke the mediation of the emperor. When this danger seemed over he veered back to his former engagements, and ended by drawing down upon himself the host of the imperialist general, the Constable Bourbon, who, compelled to satisfy his clamorous mercenaries by pillage, embraced the opportunity of leading them against Rome. The city was assaulted and sacked on May 5, 1527, and Clement, who had displayed no more resolution in his military than in his political conduct, was shortly afterwards obliged to surrender himself together with the castle of St Angelo, where he had taken refuge. After six months’ captivity he was released upon very onerous conditions, and for some years subsequently followed a policy of subserviency to the emperor, endeavouring on the one hand to induce him to act with severity against the Lutherans in Germany, and on the other to elude his demands for a general council. One momentous consequence of this dependence on Charles V. was the breach with England occasioned by Clement’s refusal, justifiable in point of principle, but dictated by no higher motive than his fear of offending the emperor, to sanction Henry VIII.’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon. Towards the end of his reign Clement once more gave indications cf a leaning towards a French alliance, which was prevented by his death in September 1534. As a man he possessed few virtues and few vices; as a pontiff he did nothing to disgrace the church and nothing to restore its lustre; his adroitness and dexterity as a statesman were counteracted by his suspicion and irresolution; his administration affords a proof that at eventful crises of the world’s history mediocrity of character is more disastrous than mediocrity of talent.

Clement VIII. (Ippolito Aldobrandini) was elected in January 1592. The most remarkable event of his reign was the reconciliation to the church of Henry IV. of France after long negotiations carried on with great dexterity by Cardinal D’Ossat. Europe is principally indebted to this Pope for the peace of Vervins (1598), which put an end to the long contest between France and Spain. Clement also annexed Ferrara to the States of the Church upon the failure of the line of Este, the last addition of importance to the Pope’s temporal dominions. The execution of Giordano Bruno, February 17, 1600, is a blot upon an otherwise exemplary pontificate. Clement was an able ruler and a sagacious statesman, the general object of whose policy was to free the Papacy from its undue dependence upon Spain. The conferences to determine the questions of grace and free will, controverted between the Jesuits and Dominicans, were commenced under him, but he wisely abstained from pronouncing a decision. He died in March 1605, leaving a high character for prudence, munificence, and capacity for business. His reign is especially distinguished by the number and beauty of his medals.

Clement IX. (Giulio Rospigliosi) was elected Pope in June 1667. Nothing remarkable occurred under his short administration beyond the temporary adjustment of the disputes between the Roman see and those prelates of the Gallican church who had refused to join in condemning the writings of Jansenius. He died in December 1669.

Clement X. (Emilio Altieri) was elected in April 1670, at the age of eighty. His years and infirmities led him to devolve the charge of the government upon his nephew, Cardinal Altieri, whose interference with the privileges of ambassadors occasioned disputes in which the Pope was obliged to yield. Little else of importance occurred during his reign, which terminated in July 1676.

Clement XI. (Giovanni Francesco Albani) was elevated to the pontificate in November 1700, and died in March 1721. The most memorable transaction of his administration was the publication in 1713 of the bull Unigenitus, which so greatly disturbed the peace of the Gallican church. By this famous document 101 propositions extracted from the works of Quesnel were condemned as heretical, and as identical with propositions already condemned in the writings of Jansenius. The resistance of many French ecclesiastics and the refusal of the French parliaments to register the bull led to controversies extending through the greater part of the 18th century. Another important decision of this Pope’s was that by which the Jesuit missionaries were forbidden to take a part in idolatrous worship, and to accommodate Christian language to pagan ideas under plea of conciliating the heathen. The political troubles of the time greatly embarrassed Clement’s relations with the leading Catholic powers, and the moral prestige of the Holy See suffered much from his compulsory recognition of the Archduke Charles of Austria as king of Spain. His private character was irreproachable; he was also an accomplished scholar, and a patron of letters and science.

Clement XII. (Lorenzo Corsini) was Pope from July 1730 to February 1740. His first act was the trial and condemnation of Cardinal Coscia, guilty of malversation under his predecessor. Nothing else of importance occurred under his administration, during the greater part of which, according to some historians, he was afflicted with blindness. He was the first pontiff who condemned the Freemasons.

Clement XIII. (Carlo Rezzonico, bishop of Padua) was elected in July 1758. Notwithstanding the meekness and affability of his character, his pontificate was disturbed by perpetual contentions respecting the investiture of Parma, and subsequently by the demands of France, Spain, and Portugal for the suppression of the Jesuits. Clement warmly espoused the cause of the order in an apostolical brief issued in 1765. The pressure put upon him by the Catholic powers, however, was so strong that he seemed about to give way, when, having convoked a consistory to receive his decision, he died suddenly, February 3, 1769, not without suspicion of poison.

Clement XIV. (Giovanni Vincenzo Antonio Ganganelli), the best and most calumniated of the popes, was born in 1705, and was originally a Franciscan monk. Having acquired a great reputation as a preacher, he became the friend and confidant of Pope Benedict XIV., and was created a cardinal by his successor. He was elected Pope on May 19, 1769, after a conclave extremely agitated by the intrigues and pretensions of the Catholic sovereigns, who were resolved to exclude every candidate favourable to the Jesuits. Theiner has satisfactorily vindicated Ganganelli from the charge of having given a formal pledge on this subject. He may probably have leant to the views of the Catholic powers, but if so his motive was widely different from the subservience which had induced his predecessor Clement V. to gratify Philip the Fair by the suppression of the Templars. The breach between the temporal and the spiritual authorities had become threatening, and the guiding principle of Clement’s policy was undoubtedly the reconciliation of the European sovereigns, whose alienation threatened to produce the results which we have seen accomplished in our own times. By yielding the Papal pretensions to Parma, he obtained the restitution of Avignon and Benevento, and in general he succeeded in placiqg the relations of the spiritual and the temporal authorities on a satisfactory footing. Whether from scruple or policy he proceeded with great circumspection in the suppression of the Jesuits, the decree to this effect not being framed until November 1772, and not signed until July in the following year. This memorable measure, which takes rank in history as the most remarkable, perhaps the only really substantial, concession ever made by a Pope to the spirit of his age, has covered Clement’s memory with obloquy in his own communion. There cannot be any reasonable doubt of the integrity of his conduct, and the only question is whether he acted from a conviction of the pernicious character of the Society of Jesus, or merely from a sense of expediency. In either case his action was abundantly justified, and to allege that though beneficial to the world it was detrimental to the church is merely to insist that the interests of the Papacy are not the interests of mankind. His work was hardly accomplished ere Clement, whose natural constitution was exceedingly vigorous, fell into a languishing sickness, generally and plausibly attributed to poison. No conclusive evidence of this, however, has been produced; and it is but just to remark that poison would more probably have been administered before the obnoxious measure had been taken than when it was already beyond recall. Clement expired on September 22, 1774, execrated by the Ultramontane party, but regretted by his subjects for his excellent temporal administration. No Pope has better merited the title of a virtuous man, or has given a more perfect example of integrity, unselfishness, and aversion to nepotism. Notwithstanding his monastic education, he approved himself a statesman, a scholar, an amateur of physical science, and an accomplished man of the world. As Leo X. indicates the manner in which the Papacy might have been reconciled with the Renaissance had the Reformation never taken place, so Ganganelli exemplifies the type of Pope which the modern world might have learned to accept if the movement towards free thought could, as Voltaire wished, have been confined to the aristocracy of intellect. In both cases the requisite condition was unattainable; neither in the 16th nor in the 18th century has it been practicable to set bounds to the spirit of inquiry otherwise than by fire and sword, and Ganganelli’s successors have been driven into assuming a position analogous to that of Paul IV. and Pius V. in the age of the Reformation. The estrangement between the secular and the spiritual authority which Ganganelli strove to avert is now irreparable, and his pontificate remains an exceptional episode in the general history of the Papacy, and a proof how little the logical sequence of events can be modified by the virtues and abilities of an individual. The history of Clement’s administration has been written in a spirit of the most violent detraction by Cretineau-Joly, and perhaps too unreservedly in the opposite spirit by Father Theiner, the custodian of the archives of the Vatican. Theiner calls attention to the disappearance of many documents which have apparently been abstracted by Clement’s enemies. Ganganelli’s familiar correspondence has been frequently reprinted and is much admired for its elegance and urbanity. (r. g.)

CLEMENT, François (1714—1793-), a French historian, was born at Brézé, near Dijon, and was educated at the Jesuit College at Dijon. At the age of seventeen he entered the society of the Benedictines at Saint Maur, and worked with such intense application that at the age of twenty-five he was obliged to take a protracted rest. He now resided in Paris, where he wrote the 11th and 12th vols, of the Histoire littéraire de la France. Clément also revised the Art de vérifier les dates (1783-92). The king appointed him on the committee which was engaged in publishing maps, acts, and other documents connected with French history, and the Academy of Subscriptions chose him as a member. He was engaged in preparing another edition of the Art de vérifier les dates, which was to include the period before the Christian era, when he died suddenly of apoplexy at the age of sixty-nine. (The work was afterwards brought down from 1770 to 1827 by Cy Courcelles and D'Urban.)