« ПретходнаНастави »
here, as in the Recognitions ; not as written but heard by Peter, or learned by others from apostles, or others who had heard our Lord. Thus, Peter i says,
6 Our Master declared the faithful poor blessed.' • Whereforek he himself, being a true prophet, said, “ I am the gate of life; he that enters in by me, enters into life;" John X. 9.–And again : My sheep_hear my voice," ch. x. 27.
Hel said, moreover, “I am he of_whom Moses prophesied,” ch. v. 46. In another place: For m so the prophet swore to us, saying, Verily I say unto you, except ye be born again of living water in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.". This is supposed to be a reference to John iii. 3, 5. But he seems to have joined together several texts.
3. If this be the work of an Ebionite, as is generally n supposed, and seems not improbable,o it may be argued, that, when the author wrote, the p four gospels were owned by that sect, or at least by some branch of it. For though there may be some interpolations in these Homilies, there is no reason to think that any texts have been added. If such a thing had been attempted, we should have had here some passages out of other books of the New Testament, and possibly out of St. Paul's epistles. It is very probable also that we should have met with some forms of quotation, different from those now used in these Homilies.
I see no way of evading this conclusion, but by supposing that all 9 these texts of our several gospels were in
Πλην και διδασκαλος ημων πισος πενητας εμακαρισεν. Ηom. XV. sect. 10. Κ Δια τουτο αυτος αληθης ων προφητης ελεγεν, Εγω ειμι η πυλη της ζωης ο δι' εμου εισερχομενος, εισερχεται εις την ζωην.- -και παλιν, Τα εμα προβατα akovel TNS euns pwvng. Hom. xiii. sect. 52.
Ετι μην ελεγεν, Εγω ειμι περι ου Μωϋσης προεφητευσεν. Ιbid.
Ούτως γαρ ημιν ωμοσεν ο προφητης, ειπων Αμην υμιν λεγω, εαν μη αναγεννηθητε υδατι ζωντι, εις ονομα Πατρος, Υιου, 'Αγιο Πνευματος, ου μη EGEMONTE Elg TNV Bao lelav twv ovpavwv. Hom. xi. sect. 26.
n Vid. Præfat. Clerici, et judicium Cotelerii de Clementinis, apud Patres Apost. Mill. Proleg. 670.
o Vid. Hom, iii. sect. 12. vii. sect. 8. xvi. sect. 15. et alibi.
P It is generally said, that the Ebionites . received the gospel according to • St. Matthew only.' So Irenæus : Solo autem eo quod est secundum Matthæum evangelio utuntur, et apostolum Paulum recusant, apostatam eum legis dicentes. Iren. 1. i. cap. 26. al. 25. or, the gospel according to the
Hebrews, making little account of the rest.' So Eusebius : Evayyelew de μονω τω καθ“Εβραιες λεγομενη χρωμενοι, των λοιπων σμικρον εποιoντo λογον. H. E. 1. iii. cap. 27. • The gospel according to Matthew 'alone, which they • call according to the Hebrews; and that not entire, but corrupted and mu'tilated.' So Epiphanius, Hær. xxx. sect. 3. p. 127. C. sect. 13. p. 137. C. This account of their opinion may suffice for the present.
9 In this work are several things peculiar to St. Luke, which are not in any
some one gospel used by the Ebionites, called the gospel of Matthew, or according to the Hebrews, or by whatever other name it was distinguished. However, either way our evangelical history is confirmed.
This observation upon these Homilies may be reckoned applicable likewise to the Recognitions.
4. Though neither of these books be of any sacred authority, they may be both of some use; and may deserve a more particular examination than has been yet given them. I have said as much of them as is consistent with the nature of the present work, which does not allow me to stay too long upon any one piece. And yet I suppose enough has been said to render it probable, not only that the Clementine Homilies, but also that the book of Recognitions, which Mr. Whiston, in our time, has recommended to us, • as certainly to be esteemed in the next degree to that of • the really sacred books of the New Testament,' is the work of an Ebionite; and therefore, if there is in it any Arianism, it has been interpolated.
VI. After the Recognitions, and the Clementine Homilies, there follows, in the Patres Apostolici, a book entitled The Clementine Epitome ; which had already been mentioned, and needs not to be now enlarged upon; it having plain marks of a later age than that we are concerned with at present. It seems to have been composed out of the Recognitions and Homilies, and perhaps some other works, leaving out some things, and adding others. Cotelerius," who published it, is much of this opinion. To this Clementine Epitome, or some such like piece, the author of the Synopsis, ascribed to St. Athanasius, refers, when, of our three other gospels. I shall put down references to them; not proposing this, however, as a complete collection of texts taken from the gospel of that evangelist. Words of Luke x. 7, are found in Homily iii. sect. 71. chap. X. 18. Hom. xix. sect. 2. ch. x. 20. Hom. ix. sect. 22. ch. xi. 52. Hom. iii. sect. 18. and Hom. xviii. sect. 16. The parable of the unjust judge, Luke xviii. 1-17. in Hom. xvii. sect. 5. Our Lord's visit to Zaccheus recorded, ch. xix. 1-10. Hom. ïïi. sect. 63. ch. xix. 43. Hom. iii. sect. 15. ch. xxiii. 34. Hom. xi. sect. 20. And it is reasonable to suppose, that the author used many more things of St. Luke's and St. John's gospel, as well as of St. Matthew's, than those which we find recited or referred to in this work. But we shall have another opportunity of speaking more distinctly and at large of these things; I mean, when we come to consider the testimony of those called heretics. For if this be indeed the work of an Ebionite, we shall be obliged to take some notice of it once more.
Ex Homiliis Clementinis, et Recognitionum libris, tum ex epistolå Clementis ad Jacobum, Clementis martyrio, atque narratione Ephraimi, composita fuit ista Epitome, per eos homines, qui doctrinæ et pietatis suæ esse duxerunt, quicquid superfluum, falsum, et periculosum videbatur, id omne aut tollere, aut mutare et corrigere. Not. i. ad Epitom. Clement.
among the contradicted or apocryphal books of the New Testament, such as the Travels of Peter, the gospel according to Thomas, and some others, he mentions the Clementines, out of which,' he says, those things have been
s • • selected which are true and divinely inspired.' This is probably the book which Nicephorus likewise speaks of, as being in his time approved by the church.
But, in composing of it, not only those things were selected which are true and right in the ancient Clementines, but divers other things were added. Thus, in the Clementine Homilies, Clement says, “I give thanks to God; in the" Recognitions, ' I give thanks to Almighty God.' But in the parallel place of this Clementine Epitome, Clement says, 'I give thanks to God, even the Father, and to his only-begotten Son, and to his Holy Spirit.' The preaching of Barnabas at Rome, which w we before observed as it stands in the Recognitions, in this Epitome is thus represented: “0 Romans, hear! the Son of God is in Judea, promising eternal life to all that are willing ;
-be converted, therefore, and * acknowledge one God in three persons. In the Clementine Homilies Peter says to Clement, . If you would know the things of God, you can learn them from himn only! [that is, from Christ
, the true prophet]. And bis doctrine y and true preaching is, that there is one God, who made the world. In the parallel place of the Clementine Epitome, Peter says to Clement: would know the things concerning God, you” can learn them only from our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ. And it is his doctrine, that there is one God in three persons, who made the wbole world. But we have no occasion to insist any longer on this book.
VII. I have spoken of these three pieces in the order in which they are placed by Cotelerius and Le Clerc, in their editions of them. But, as I before observed, I take the Clementine Homilies to be the original work upon which
* Εξ ών μετεφρασθησαν εκλεγεντα τα αληθεσερα και θεοπνευσα. Αpud Athanas. Op. T. ii. p. 202. 'Hen Evyapısw Tu OeQ. Hom. i. sect. 21.
Omnipotenti, inquam, Deo gratias ago. L. i. sect. 18.
Εγω μεν, εφη, ηδη ευχαρισω τω θεώ και Πατρι, και τη μονογενει αυτά Υιω, και το Πνευματι αυτο το Αγιω. sect. 19.
♡ See num. iv. note a, p. 369, 370. * Kai YPWTE TOV EV TPLOI ÚTOSTOEolv &va Osov. Clementin. Ep. sect. 7.
Y Eσιν τε αυτο το τε βελημα και το αληθες κηρυγμα, ότι εις θεος, ου koguos spyov. Hom. i. sect. 12.
Παρα το Κυριο και θεου και Σωτηρος ημων Ιησε Χρισ8, αυτου το βουλημα, ότι εις θεος εν τρισιν υποτασεσιν, ου ο κοσμος εργον ο πας. Cl. Ep. sect. 22, 23.
- If you
the Recognitions were formed; as the author of the Cle mentine Epitome has borrowed from both.
Thus has the name of Clement, the companion and fellow labourer of the apostle Paul, been abused by men of three several denominations and characters; an Ebionite, an Arian, and a Catholic. The hand of an Ebionite, in the Clementine Homilies, is, I think, generally acknowledged by learned moderns: and Epiphanius, speaking of the Travels of Peter, says, they had been altered and corrupted by the Ebionites. It was very natural for him, who
supposed those travels were written by Clement, to say that they were corrupted by the Ebionites; for certainly the peculiar principles of that sect could not proceed from a fellow-labourer of the apostle Paul. But that there was no good foundation, in the most early antiquity, for supposing Clement to be the author of any of these pieces, may be concluded from Eusebius. I apprehend it must appear probable, from our extracts and observations, that the Clementine Hoinilies were composed by an Ebionite; and that the main ground and foundation at least of the Recognitions, also is the work of a man of the same sect.
Some Arian must have interpolated the Recognitions, as is evident from the character of them in Photius before mentioned ; and from Rufinus, who a says, that in some
" * places (in his Greek copies of the Recognitions) the doctrine of Eunomius is so plainly put down, that one would believe Eunomius himself was the speaker, teaching, that *the Son of God was created out of nothing. These things, I suppose, could not be written before the fourth century.
That the Clementine Epitome was composed by an orthodox christian, is notorious. However, it may be said in favour of the catholics, that none of them appear to have had any hand in any of these Clementines during the first three centuries. It may be added likewise, that it was known that the Clementine Epitome was not an original piece; and that it was not pretended to be really written by Clement, but was allowed to consist of things selected out of some other work or works. This may be concluded froin the author of the Synopsis : but yet this does not amount to a full vindication of this book, and the title given
In quibus [Recognitionis libris] cum ex personâ Petri apostoli doctrina quasi vere apostolica in quamplurimis exponatur; in aliquibus ita Eunomii dogma scribitur, [al. inseritur,] ut nihil aliud quam ipse Eunomius disputare credatur, filium Dei creatum ex nullis extantibus asseverans.
De Adulteratione Libr. Origenis.
to it. For though the learned author of the Synopsis knew very well, as it seems, that the book of Clementines, in use in the church, was not really written by Clement, but was an orthodox modern book, composed out of some other more ancient writings, which were not completely catholic; yet the generality of people would be induced, from the title, to take it for the work of Clement himself. Nor is the account of this book in the Synopsis just and fair: since, as has been shown, it is not a mere epitome of the ancient Clementines, but has inany additions.
I am far from taking pleasure in mentioning these things: but there is a necessity of distinguishing genuine and supposititious works. And I hope I may rely upon what is said by that great b author, Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, speaking of the various readings of the several copies of the New Testament: • Depend on it, no truth, no matter of • fact fairly laid open, can ever subvert true religion.' It is possible that some weak and inconsiderate men may be offended at the detection of forged and supposititious writings; but I think that truth would suffer much more in the end by letting them pass without censure.
It cannot be, I think, beside the purpose, to put down in this place a passage of a letter of Salvian, presbyter of Marseilles in the fifth century, to Salonius, bishop of some place in Gaul, or near it. Salvian wrote a treatise, in four books, against covetousness, without putting his name to it. It begins with an epistolary address in this manner:
Timothy, the least of the servants of God, to the catholic • church spread over the whole world, grace be to thee, and peace, from God our Father, and from Jesus Christ our
Lord, with the Holy Spirit. Salonius, dissatisfied about this, sent his scruples in a letter to Salvian, as appears from what Salvian writes by way of answer, which is to this purpose:
• You d ask me, my dear Salonius, why the name of Timothy has been put to some books lately composed and inscribed to the church by some man of our time. You add likewise, that unless I clearly show the reason of this title, since they are called Timothy's, perhaps they ought to be reckoned apocryphal. Salvian 6 Remarks upon a Discourse of Free-Thinking, sect. 32.
. It is not certain what place he was bishop of. Vid. Cave, Hist. Lit. P. i. p. 457. Stephan. Baluz. Not. ad Salvian. p. 374. Paris. 1669. Du Pin, Bibliothèque.
d Quæris a me, O mi Saloni, caritas mea, cur ellis nuper a quodam hujus temporis homine ad ecclesiam factis, Timothei nomen inscriptum sit. Addis præterea, quod nisi rationem vocabuli evidenter expressere, dum nomipantur Timothei, inter apocrypha sint fortasse reputandi. Salvian. ep. ix.