Слике страница
PDF
ePub

6

[ocr errors]

8

6

works : and though in the tenth book of the Recognitions Appion is named several times, yet there is no mention of any dispute of Peter with him. Secondly, whether Eusebius here intends the Recognitions or not, he has condemned them. He owns nothing for St. Clement's but his epistle to the Corinthians, and rejects every thing else ascribed to him; this book, in particular, if it was then extant.

In another place e Eusebius rejects a book entitled The • Acts of Peter,' together with several others, “as not having

been delivered to them for catholic writings.' If by these Acts of Peter he intends the Recognitions, they are here expressly rejected by him. It is plain, from Photius, that a part of this work was called “The Acts of Peter.' Photius himself speaks of the whole work by that title, and commends the style of it, as much superior to the Constitutions. Grabeh mentions a' manuscript, in which it has this title: “ The Itinerary of St. Clement, concerning the • Acts and Words of the blessed Apostle Peter.' And it is obvious to every one, from the contents, that the Recognitions may be very properly called Peter's Acts. If by

• . the Acts of Peter, rejected here in the beginning of the third book of his history, Eusebius means the Recognitions ; we have a good reason of his not mentioning them particularly afterwards, in the 38th chapter of the same book, , where he speaks of the genuine and supposititious works of St. Clement. Epiphanius says: Thei Ebionites use likewise several

• other books, as the Travels of Peter written by Clement; . which too they have corrupted, leaving little that is genu• ine :' as appears, he says, from the epistles of Clement, which contain a different doctrine. Forasmuch as Epipha

a . nius does not say that these Travels were forged, but only that they were

corrupted,' he is supposed to allow that they were originally written by Clement.

Jerom's opinion of the works of Clement may be reckoned to be the same with that of Eusebius; since in his article

• Το γε μην των επικεκλημενων αυτου Πραξεων- -ουδ' ολως εν καθολικους ισμεν παραδεδομενα. L. iii. cap. 3. p. 72. Α.

Εν ώ αί τε λεγομεναι το αποσoλε Πετρε Πραξεις, και αι προς Σιμωνα τον μαγoν Διαλεξεις, και ετι ο Αναγνωρισμος Κλημεντος και πατρος, και των allwv adelpwv. Phot. Cod. 112, 113.

8 Η μεντοι γε των το Πετρο Πραξεων βιβλος τω τε λαμπρη και τη σεμνότητι. ----και τη αλλη αρετη λογα τοσουτο εχει προς τας διαταγας το hapallattov, k. 1. Ibid. p. 289. ver. 45.

Itinerarium S. Clementis de Factis et Dictis B. Petri Apostoli. Spic. T. i. p. 276.

Χρωνται δε και αλλαις τισι βιβλοις, δηθεν ταις Περιοδους καλεμεναις Πετρο, ταις δια Κλημεντος γραφεισαις, νοθευσαντες τα μεν εν αυταις, ολιγα δε αληθινα εασαντες. Hær. 30. sect. 15.

6

6

f

i

m

of St. Clement, in his Catalogue, he does little more than transcribe the passage of Eusebius, in which he censures the Dialogues of Peter and Appion. And if the Recognitions are not the same with those Dialogues, yet he

may be supposed to reject them by consequence, in as much as he insists upon no other piece of Clement, as genuine, beside the epistle to the Corinthians. In another work he refers to a book under the name of k « The Travels,' or • The Travels of Peter,' which appears to have been of no authority. Once more he quotes Clement in his Travels,' or in Peter's Travels,' for something not found expressly in this work at present.

Rufinus, who translated the ten books of Recognitions out of Greek into Latin, in whose translation only we now have them, plainly supposes them to have been written by Clement of Rome; but that the copies, in his time, had been corrupted in some places.

This book is, for a large part of it at least, a fiction, or romance, in which divers things concerning the christian religion are represented in a philosophical rnanner, in order to render them more agreeable to the Greeks. It is called • The Circuits,' or · Travels and Acts of Peter,' from the subject matter of it; as it contains an account of the apostle Peter's disputes with Simon Magus, and his discourses to other people, and many miracles wrought by him in several places ; at Cæsarea, Dora, Ptolemais, Tyre, Sidon, Tripoli, Laodicea, Antioch, and his journeys from one city to another. It is called · The Recognitions from

' Clement’s" recognizing his father, and mother, and brethren, who had been long separated from each other.

Mr. Whiston has a singular opinion concerning the author

6

k Possumus autem de Petro dicere, quod habuerit socrum eo tempore quo crediderit, et uxorem jam non habuerit : quanquam legatur in Ieplodois et uxor ejus et filia. Sed nunc nobis de canone omne certamen est. Adv. Jovinian. 1. i. c. 14. p. 186. T. iv. p. 2. ed. Bened.

1. Deinde post annos tres veni Hierosolymam videre Petrum.' Non ut oculos, genas, vultumque ejus aspiceret ; utrum macilentus an pinguis, adunco naso esset an recto ; et utrum frontem vestiret coma; an (ut Clemens in Periodis ejus refert) calvitiem haberet in capite. Comment. in Ep. ad Galat. cap. i. ver. 18.

m Clemens, apostolorum discipulus, qui Romanæ ecclesiæ, post apostolos, et apostolus et martyr præfuit, libros edidit

, qui Græce appellantur Avayuwa plouos, id est, Recognitio.- Sunt etiam alia nonnulla libris ejus inserta, quæ ecclesiastica regula non recipit. Rufin. de Adulteratione Librorum Origenis. Suscipe igitur, anime mi, redeuntem ad te Clementem nostrum ; suscipe jam Romanun. Idem, in S. Clement. Recognitionum Libros Præfat. ad Čaudentium.

n L. ix. sect. 38. et seq.

n

6

6

6

[ocr errors]

6

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

;

[ocr errors]

6

of this work. He allows, that ito was not written by • Clement himself. This,' he says, ' is evident by the entire

style and genius of the whole, as compared with the • vastly different style and genius of Clement's genuine

epistles and Constitutions:' but it was written by P some • of the hearers of Clement, and other companions of the

apostles. According to this account, it is the work of some anonymous person, who was a hearer or disciple of apostolical men : but I think that it must be reckoned to be Clement's, or to be supposititious. This is evident from the testimonies of the ancients all along, who speak of this work as written by Clement, or at least ascribed to him. And that the author intended it should be esteemed the writing or composition of Clement, appears froin the whole of the work, though from some passages more especially: It begins: 'I, Clement, who was born in the city of Rome,' and what follows. I shall transcribe a passage or two, taking Mr. Whiston's translation of them. In the 25th section of the first book, Peter says : • Enough, O Clement • for thou hast repeated this discourse more clearly than I • delivered it. Then I replied, A liberal education has

enabled us to observe an agreeable method in discourse, " to set proper truths in a clear light. Now if we use this • talent in support of ancient errors,- we lose the design • of the decency and sweetness of language; but if we ' make use of this art and beauty of language for the

confirmation of the truth, I suppose there may great • benefit accrue from it. This is the design of the work, and it is Clement to whom this talent is ascribed here, and in other places. But more expressly still, near the conclusion of the third book, after the account of Peter's disputes with Simon Magus, and his discourses to other people, at Cæsarea ; when they were almost ready to go from thence

; to Dora, it is said : · He also, [that is, Peter,] when he per• ceived that I [Clement] fixed what I heard deep in my memory, gave it me in charge to put together all the most memorable

passages, and to write them in books, and to * send them to you, my Lord James, as I have accordingly * done in obedience to his orders. The first book, then, of • those which I formerly sent to you, treats of the true prophet. Where follow short contents of the ten books written and sent formerly :' so that the same Clement, who wrote those former books, writes these also. This work therefore, as it is ascribed to Clement, but is not his, ,

, • Preface to Mr. Whiston's translation of the Recognitions of Clement, p. 18. London, 1712.

P Ibid. p. 17, et alibi.

[ocr errors]

6

6

6

6

is supposititious, and the author can hardly escape the character of an impostor.

The judgment of Cotelerius upon these books of Recognitions, which he so well understood, is in short this, that • they9 are supposititious and apocryphal, composed by some learned and eloquent man in the second century.'

Which leads me to observe the time of these books. That they were in being in the latter part of the second, or the beginning of the third century, may be inferred from the citations of Origen; and that they were not extant much sooner, may be inferred from the silence of Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria about them. Moreover in the ninth book' of the Recognitions is a long passage, which appears to be taken out of the book Of Fate, written by Bardesanes; though the author does not give any hint that he takes it from another. As Bardesanes flourished about the year 180, and bis books were written originally in Syriac, it cannot be supposed that the Recognitions were published till near the end of the second century.

It happens that this passage, together with somewhat more, is quoted by Eusebius from Bardesanes himself. That Bardesanes did not take that passage from the Recognitions, but the author of the Recognitions from him, has been clearly shown bys Grabe, upon as good evidence as can be desired in a thing of this nature: though, in my opinion, it needs no proof. I shall only just add, therefore, that, as Eusebius has ascribed that passage to Bardesanes, we ought to rely upon him for the author of it. It is a point that cannot be reasonably contested or disputed. Eusebius, when he introduces the quotation, says, he takes it out of a · Dia• logue of Bardesanes the Syrian;' and at the end u he says again, · Thus far the Syrian.'

Nevertheless Mr. Whiston disputes this point; but his objections do not appear to be material : nor do I suppose that any man, who looks into Grabe bimself, can be much moved by them. But whereas Mr. Whiston observes, that

Epiphanius tells us the book Of Fate,' written by Bardesanes, was made

up of collections taken out of other 9 Quantum ex re ipsâ, veterum testimoniis, ac recentiorum judiciis colligere licet, libri isti pseudepigraphi sunt et apocryphi, sécundo sæculo compositi a viro docto quidem juxta ac diserto, sed philosopho magis et philologo quam theologo.—ap Patr. Ap. T. i. p. 484.

r From sect. 19. to sect. 29. & Spicil. Patr. T. i.

p.

278. Præp. Evang. l. vi. cap. 9, 10. p. 275 A.

Tooavta kai o Evpos. Ibid. p. 280. C. • Preface, as before, p. 12.

[ocr errors]

6

6

t

[ocr errors]

W

• authors, Hær. 56. sect. 2, I must take the liberty to say, that I do not perceive Epiphanius to tell us any such thing.

With regard to the age of this work, I would add farther, that the arguments here used against heathenism seem to imply, that the christian was not yet the prevailing established religion. And the author often* speaks of the power of christians to heal diseases, and expel dæmons, as if it was common in his time. And that such gifts were enjoyed by many christians in the second, and the beginning of the third century, we are assured by Irenæus, Tertullian, , Origen, and others : after which time, or however after the end of the third century, they were not so common, if they did not quite cease.

Mr. Whiston's y opinion of this book is, . That if it be • not in some sense or other itself a sacred book, yet ought it certainly to be esteemed in the next degree to that of the really sacred books of the New Testament. In the opinion of many other learned men, it is a worthless piece, of little or no use. We will endeavour however to make some good use of a work, which cost the author a great deal of labour, and in which are some excellent sentiments, and fine passages; though at the same time there are several very great faults, for which no good excuse can be made;

6

[ocr errors]

a

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

w It is likely that Mr. Whiston's mistake is owing to his misinterpretation of Epiphanius, Her. 56. sect. 1. Ος πολλα [προς] Αβειδαν τον αγρονομων κατα ειμαρμενης λεγων συνελογησατο" which are thus rightly rendered by Petavius : Idem adversus Abidam astrologum contra fatum pluribus disputavit. But supposing Mr. Whiston to have understood the Greek word in the sense of collecting,' he had no right to say, that • Epiphanius tells us, the book • Of Fate was made up of collections taken out of other authors.' For those collections might be the fruit of Bardesanes' own observations, as they plainly were, according to his own account. See Grabe, Spicil. p. 78. * L. iv. sect. 14, 20, 32, 33.

y As before, p. 38. ? Enfin cet ouvrage n'est d'aucune utilité, soit pour la manière dont il est écrit, soit pour les choses qu'il contient. Du Pin, Bibliothèque. St. Clement Romain. En un mot, on le regarde comme un ouvrage qui n'est d'aucune prix, ni d'aucune utilité. Tillemont, Mem. Ecc. T. Ü. P. i. St. Clement, Art. 6. p. 295.

a He says, in the first book, that, whilst Jesus Christ was teaching in Judea, in the reign of Tiberius, ' A certain man [Barnabas) stood in one of the most public places of the city, [of Rome,] and proclaimed to the people, and said, “Oye citizens of Rome, hearken to me. The Son of God is now present in the region of Judea, and promises, to all that are willing to hear him, eternal life." B. i. sect. 7. This is said, I suppose, as more agreeable to Greeks and Romans, at the time of the author's writing, than the real truth. For this is contrary to the gospels and the Acts, according to which Christ was not preached to the Gentiles till some time after his resurrection. And the author, as if he were himself sensible of the impropriety of this part of his fiction, makes Barnabas soon leave Rome upon a little ill treatment. He introduces Peter relating a silly miracle in Judea.— Whilst,' says he, VOL. II.

2 B

[ocr errors]
« ПретходнаНастави »