In what relation did the writer of the Seven Letters stand to the Asian Churches which he addressed? This is

an important question. The whole spirit of the early development of law and procedure and administration in

the early Church is involved in the answer. That the writer shows so intimate a knowledge of those

Churches that he must have lived long among them, will be proved by a detailed examination of the Seven

Letters, and may for the present be assumed. But the question is whether he addressed the Churches simply

as one who lived among them and knew their needs and want, who was qualified by wisdom and age and

experience, and who therefore voluntarily offered advice and warning, which had its justification in its

excellence and truth; or whether he wrote as one standing in something like an official and authoritative

relation to them, charged with the duty of guiding, correcting and advising those Asian Churches, feeling

himself directly responsible for their good conduct and welfare.

The question also arises whether he was merely a prophet according to the old conception of the prophetic

mission, coming, as it were, forth from the desert or the field to deliver the message which was dictated to

him by God, and on which his own personality and character and knowledge exercised no formative

influence; or whether the message is full of his own nature, but his nature raised to its highest possible level

through that sympathy and communion with the Divine will, which constitutes, in the truest and fullest

sense, "inspiration." The first of these alternatives we state only to dismiss it as bearing its inadequacy

plainly written on its face. The second alone can satisfy us; and we study the Seven Letters on the theory

that they are as truly and completely indicative of the writer's character and of his personal relation to his

corespondents as any letters of the humblest person can be.

Probably the most striking feature of the Seven Letters is the tone of unhesitating and unlimited authority

which inspires them from beginning to end. The best way to realise this tone and all that it means is to

compare them with other early Christian letters: this will show by contrast how supremely authoritative is

the tone of the Seven Letters.

The letter of Clement to the Church of Corinth is not expressed as his own (though undoubtedly, and by

general acknowledgment, it is his letter, expressing his sentiments regarding the Corinthians), but as the

letter of the Roman Church. All assumption or appearance of personal authority is carefully avoided. The

warning and advice are addressed by the Romans as authors, not to the Corinthians only, but equally to the

Romans themselves. "These things we write, not merely as admonishing you, but also as reminding

ourselves." The first person plural is very often used in giving advice: "let us set before ourselves the noble

examples"; and so on in many other cases. Rebuke, on the other hand, is often expressed in general terms.

Thus, e.g., a long panegyric on the Corinthians in sect. 2: "Ye had conflict day and night for all the

brotherhood...Ye were sincere and simple and free from malice one towards another. Every sedition and

every schism was abominable to you, etc.," is concluded in sect. 3 with a rebuke and admonition couched in

far less direct terms: "that which is written was fulfilled; my beloved ate and drank, and was enlarged and

waxed fat and kicked; hence come jealousy and envy, strife and sedition, etc." The panegyric is expressed in

the second person plural, but the blame at the end is in this general impersonal form.

A good example of this way of expressing blame in perfectly general, yet quite unmistakable, terms is found

in sect. 44. Here the Corinthians are blamed for having deposed certain bishops or presbyters; but the

second personal form is never used. "Those who were duly appointed...these men we consider to be

unjustly thrust out from their ministration. For it will be no light sin for us if we thrust out those who have

offered the gifts of the bishop's office unblamably and holily." It would be impossible to express criticism of

the conduct of others in more courteous and modest form, and yet it is all the more effective on that

account: "if we do this, we shall incur grievous sin."