the apostles were invited by the priests, and by the hi h riest Caiaphas, to the tem le; and how James the arc bishop stood u on the top 0 ' the stairs, andk for seven days, one after anot er, proved out of the Lord's scriptures, to the whole body of the people, that Jesus was the Chi-ist.’

The title of archbishop may be allowed to be added by Rufinus, or some other interpolater: but Dominic Scriptures, or the Lord’s Scriptures, is a term often used by the > christian writers of the second century. It must be owned to be out of character to speak of the scriptures of the New Testament in a dispute with Caiaphas, at which time none of them were written. But the author here forgot himself. And indeed it is next to impossible for a writer not to sa somehthings improperly in a work of this kind, and of this en t .

However, after all, erhaps hereby are meant only the scriptures of the Old estament, and this phrase may be judged equivalent to ‘ the written word of God.’

18. It may be now proper to distinguish the passages alleged out of these books of Recognitions, and observe the value of them. Here are passages of our four gospels: and one might conclude that the author owned them all, were it not for a] difficulty which I shall mention by and by; which may render it doubtful whether he used the four gospels, or some one gospel containing in it all these things. The reader will consider whether this difficulty be of an moment. He seems to own the first epistle of St. John, and the book of the Revelation. He was well acquainted too with the book of the Acts of the Apostles; but how far he owned it, I cannot say. As for the passages relating to St. Paul’s epistles, they may be reckoned not very "‘ material; or however not sufficient to prove, that they were esteemed by this writer to be of authority. It may be suspected that the author had no great kindness for the apostle Paul ; and for that reason made as little use of his epistles, and of the Acts of the Apostles, as might be, though he was well enough ac uainted with them.

This aut or, whoever he he, hears testimony likewise to many principal facts of the New Testament. He givesn an account of our Lord’s temptation. He mentions° the choice of the twelve apostles, and afterwards of other seventy-two disciples. In one placeP he speaks of the twelve apostles in such a manner, as if he intended to exclude Paul from the honour of the apostleship, and even to den him the character of a ‘ sufficient and faithful preacher of hrist’s word.’ Here are also relationsq of the miracles of our blessed Lord's ministr , and of ' his death and resurrection, and the extraor inary signs attending those events.

k Et Jacobus archiepiscopus stans in summis gradibus, per septem continuos dies, univelso populo de Scripturis Dominicis adsignaverit, quod Jesus esset Christus. L. i. sect. 73.

1 See below, num. v. 3. of this chapter.

m Equidem observavi, nec in Clementinis, nec in Recognitionibus, quae apocrypha saepe diximus ab Ebionaeis fuisse depravata, Paulum apostolum

citatum invenin'. Coteler. Annot. ad Clementin. Homil. xix. sect- 2" L. iv. sect. 34.

' 20. To all these things does this writer bear witness. And yet, from his sly insinuations, and injurious reflections upon St. Paul, it may be suspected that he was a mere Ebionite; the ancients' assuring us that this sect of christians rejected the authority of that apostle and his epistles. If this be our author’s real character, what has been here alle ed from this work ought to be considered as one instance 0 the advanta e which may be made of the sentiments of those calle heretics, for confirming the evangelical scriptures and history; which I hope will applear more fully hereafter.

. Hitherto I have taken no notice of the Clementine Homilies; nor do I intend a large account of them; but it may be thought impro er to omit them entire] y. They are nineteen Homilies in reek, published by Cotelerius, with two letters prefixed; one of them written in the name of Peter, the other in the name of Clement, to James; bishop of Jerusalem: in which last letter the are intitled ‘ Clement’s Epitome of the Preaching an Travels of Peter.’ But it may be questioned whether one or both these letters do not belong ‘to the Recognitions. Photiust seems to favour this supposition: at least, in his time, they were both prefixed to some editions of the Recognitions. The nineteenth Homily is im erfect at the end: and there is wanting another whole Homi y to complete the number of twenty.

° L. i. sect. 40.

P Propter quod observate cautius, ut nulli doctorum credatis, nisi qui Jacobi fratris Domini ex Hiemsalem detulerit testimonium, vel ejus quicunque post ipsum fuerit. Nisi enim quis illuc ascenderit, et ibi fuerit probatus quod sit doctor idoneus, et fidelis, ad praadicandum Christi verbum; nisi inqnam, inde detulerit testimonium, recipiendus omnino non est. Sed neque propheta, neque apostolus, in hoc tempore, speretur a vobis aliquis alius praeter nos. Unus enim est verus propheta cujus nos duodecim apostoli verba priedicamus. Ipse enim est annus Dei acceptus, nos apostolos habens duodecim menses L. iv. sect. 35. This is absolutely to exclude St. Paul, who was an apostle ‘ neither of men, nor by man,‘ as he openly professes, Gal. i. 1. See also ver. 11, 12, 17 ; ch. ii. 6. Against which claims of St. Paul this discourse of our author seems to be designedly levelled ; as also possibly against 2 Cor. ii. 16, where St. Paul says, “ And who is sufficient for these things?" or, as some read, “ Who is so sufficient for these things P" Vid. Mill. in loc.

1 L. i. sect. 6, 7. l. V. sect. 10, ll. " L. i. sect. 41—43.

'. Irenae. l. i. c. 26. al. 25. Orig. cont. Cels. l. v. p. 274. Euseb. H. E 1. cap. 27. 1 God. 112, 113.

Le Clerc“ thinks that these Clementine Homilies were composed by an Ebionite in the second century. The learned Benedictine, Bernard Montfauqon, is" of a quite different opinion, supposing them to have been forged much later; and not to have been mentioned by any author, till long after the age of St. Athanasius. This is one of his arguments, that the Synopsis, in which the Clementines are mentioned, was not composed by that father. Grabe w says, the Clementines spoken of in that Syno sis, are not the same with our Clementine Homilies; whiclii is very probable: those Clementines, mentioned in the Synopsis, are not the Clementine Homilies, but the Clementine Epitome, published by Cotelerius at the end of the Homilies. Montfaucon’s argument, therefore, for the late age of the Synopsis may be very good, as I think it is; and Le Clerc too may 'udge very rightly about the time of writing the Homi ies. For though these Clementine Homilies are ancient, they were not cited by the name of Clementines; but were either reckoned another edition of the Recognitions, or called the ‘ Travels of Peter,’ or the ‘ Disputation of Peter and Appion.’ That they were sometimes mentioned by this last title, is probable, as will be shown presently.

In these Homilies is the same fictitious historyx of the separation of Clement, and his father, and mother, and brethren, and their recognizing each other, with that in the Recognitions: and there is a great agreement between these two works in several other things, though each has some other matters wanting in the other. Rufinusy says that there were two editions of the Recognitions: it is likely that by the other, which he left untranslated, he1 means these Homilies. He does not say which is the first edition, though that may be reckoned a point of some moment, if we could determine it. I am apt to think the Clementine Homilies may be the original, or the first edition, and the Recognitions an improvement of them, because they appear more finished and artificial.

“ Sequuntur ipsa Clementina,——opus hominis Ebionitae, qui vixit seculo secundo. Pref. ad Patres Apost. sect. 6. _

' Ad haze in apocryphis Novi Testamenti numerantur in Synopsi Khmtw'rra, seu Homilia: Clementines, quarum mentionem primo reperimus, diu post Athanasii aevum, apud Nicephorum Patriarcham. Sunt enim illaa opus diversum a Recognitionibus, quarum Origenes, Rufinus, et alii meminere, licet_ejusdem sint argumenti, et, ut videtur, postea confictae. In Synops. Scriptures Admonit. apud Athanasii Op. T. ii. p. 125.

" Spicil. T. i. p. 287. " Vid. Homi]. xii. xiii. xiv.

Y Puto quod non te lateat, Clementis hujus in Graico ejusdem operis Avayvmaswv, hoc est, Recognitionum, duas editiones haberi; et duo corpom ease librorum, in aliquantis quidem diveisa, in multis tamer: ejusdern narmtionis. Rufin. Praaf. ad Gaudentium.

' Vid. Cave, H. L. P. i. p. 19. in Clement. Rom.

This work bids fair for being the same with that censured by Eusebius, under the title of ‘ Dialogues of Peter and Appion.’ The whole work is prolix; and in the fourth, fifth, and sixth Homilies, is a history of A pion, and of a dispute with him. It is true, as Grabea wel observes, this dispute with Appion is not managed by Peter himself, but by Clement in his absence. But I do not know whether that be sufficient to overthrow this supposition; since Clement is reckoned the disciple of Peter, and his most intimate friend. And afterwards, in the seventh Homily, Appion is joined with Simon of Samaria, and others, who publicly declaim against Peter to the multitude. Not to add, that Clement relates that whole disputation to Peter, and receives his applauses for it.

Nor do I perceive that Photius says any thing to the prejudice of this opinion; he rather confirms it. In his article of the genuine and supposititious writings of Clement of Rome, the hooks mentioned by him are these five: the Constitutions; the Recognitions, under several titles, which he says are full of blasphemies against the Son, according to theArian doctrine; the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians; the second epistle, which he says is rejected as spurious; and the ‘ long. dis utation,’ as it is entitled, ‘of Peter and Ap ion,’ whic he likewise calls ipurious. If hereby he oes not mean the Clementine

omilies, they are quite omitted, which is not likely.

Nicephorus Callisti, in the fourteenth century, suspected the Clementines then in use in the church, to be the Dialogue of Peter and Appion. He had only one difficulty: thatb Dialogue was censured by Eusebius, as not agreeable to the right faith; whereas the book called the Clementines, in the time of Nicephorus, was highly approved in the church. But the reason of this I take to be very evident: his Clementines are the Clementine Epitome, as it is called, in which the Clementine Homilies are reformed and new

[ocr errors]

modelled. The most obnoxious or ofl‘ensive things, as not orthodox, had been left out, and other sentiments were inserted, a reeable to the age of him who reformed them. But still icephorus suspected those Clementines might be the Dialogue of Peter and Appion. We have much more reason to think the Clementine Homilies are the work which was sometimes spoken of under that title.

If our conjecture is not approved of, we must suppose that Dialogue to be lost; which is the opinion of 6 Fabricius.

1. In these Homilies are many passages of the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, and divers of them are different from those of the same gospels in the Recognitions. There is very little which can be certainly said to be taken from St. Mark’s gospel, though Cotelerius has sometimes put it in the margin. We have these words mentioned as Christ’s, after several other which are in Matthew and Luke: ‘ Hear,d Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord :’ which seems to be a reference to Mark xii. 29. He is su(pposed to refer,6 in several places, to Mark xii. 24; but I 0 not see why he may not as well intend Matt. xxii. 29. It is thought likewise thatf he refers to Mark i. 13, in what he says of our Lord’s temptation in the wilderness. The small number of plain references to this gospel may be accounted for from its great agreement with the other two gospels just mentioned. There are several passages out of St. John’s gospel : I shall mention some of them presently. But there is scarce any one passage which can be affirmed to be taken8 out of St. Paul’s epistles, or any other book of the New Testament. However, in the before-mentioned letter of Clementh to James, Peter is introduced speaking of his a proaching death, ‘ which he had been taught by his Lor and Master, Jesus Christ,’ much in the same manner as it is mentioned, 2 Pet. i. 14.

2. The words of Christ are mentioned and appealed to

c Disputatio uberior Petri et Appionis Eusebio memorata et Hieronymo intercidit; falliturque Oudinus [de Script. Ex. Eccl. T. i. cap. 22.] qui earn a Cotelerio, sub nomine Clementinorum, editam esse sibi persuasit. J. A. Fabric. Cod. Apocr. N. T. Part iii. p. 603. Hamb. 8vo. 1719.

d E951], Axes, Iaparlk, Kvag 4': Gang 13pm! Kvag sig esw. Horn. iii. sect. 57.

e Hom. ii. sect. 51. iii. sect. 50. xix. sect. 20.

' Qui inisit nos, Dominus noster et propheta, narravit nobis, quemad; ' modum diabolus quadraginta diebus cum eo collocutus, nihilque contra valens, promiserit se' ex suis sectatoribus apostolos ad fraudem faciendam missurum. Hom. xii. sect. 35. Jam ergo confitetur, per quadiaginta dies collocutum tentavisse se. Hom. ix. sect. 2.

: gid. Coteler. Not. in Hom. xix. sect. 2. in part cited above, Page 375ct. 2.

« 上一页继续 »