in praise of virginity, and teaching how it may be kept pure and incorrupt. And the remaining part of the sentence, relating to other apostolical men, and other eminent writers, would likewise have been different. 4. If Jerom had these two epistles before him, and had supposed them to be written by Clement of Rome, he would not have failed to make great use of them in his books against Jovinian, and in his apology for them. Moreover they would also have been often quoted in his other writings, where he recommends virginity, and gives directions about preserving it.

9. Epiphanius, who flourished about A. D. 368, and afterwards, in his article of the heresy of the Carpocratiaus, speaking of the first bishops of Rome, quotes Clement thus: For" he says in one of his epistles.' The passage there quoted, is in the 54th chapter of the epistle to the Corinthians, which we have. Hereby we perceive that Epiphanius acknowledged more than one epistle of Clement. And we have learned from Jerom, that about that time it was not uncommon to speak of two epistles, as written by Clement.

In another place, the heresy of the Ebionites, says Epiphanius: There are other books used by them, as the Circuits of Peter, written by Clement: [probably meaning the recognitions:] in which they have made many interpolations. But Clement himself confutes them in the cir'cular letters written by him, which are read in the holy 'churches---He teaches virginity which they reject. He 'commends Elias, and David, and Samson, and all the prophets, whom they abuse.'

Mr. Wetstein' thinks, that Epiphanius here intends the epistles published by him. But to me it appears plain, that Epiphanius intends the two epistles spoken of by Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, and by Jerom, in his Catalogue, and which we have had published now above a century by Patrick Young, from whence several other editions have been since made. For the epistles here spoken of by Epiphanius were circular, and read in the churches. So were ours. Indeed Eusebius and Jerom speak of but one only publicly read in christian assemblies. But the other might be so read likewise. There is reason to think, that both were read in some churches. For the eighty-fifth

[ocr errors]


Λεγει γαρ εν μια των επιτολων αυτ8. κ. λ. Η. 27. n. 6. p. 107.

0 -

· ὡς αυτος Κλημης αυτος κατα παντα ελέγχει, αφ' ων εγραψεν επιτολων εγκυκλίων των εν ταις αγιαις εκκλησίαις αναγινωσκομενων--Αυτος γαρ παρθενίαν διδάσκει, και αυτοι και δέχονται. Αυτος γαρ εγκωμιάζει Ηλιαν και Δαβιδ και Σαμψων, και παντας τες προφητας ως στοι βδελυτονται. Η. 30. n. xv. p. 139. P See before, note *, p. 192


apostolical canon, as it is called, reckons two epistles of Clement among the books of the New Testament. And our two epistles were at the end of the Alexandrian manuscript, after the books of scripture generally received; which affords an argument, that both these epistles were publicly read in the place where it was written and it should be taken notice of by us, that here we have two new witnesses to the number of Clement's epistles, as two only. If Jerom could say of our epistles, (as we have seen he might,) that Clement almost throughout discourseth of the purity of virginity, Epiphanius might say, he teacheth it. He also says, that Clement commends Elias, David, Samson, and all the prophets, which is the proper character of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, though not the whole of it, and particularly insisted on by that early writer Irenæus: in which, says he, Clement exhorts the Corinthians to peace among themselves, and reminds them of the doctrine lately re'ceived from the apostles; which declares, that there is one God Almighty, maker of the heavens and the earth, who 'called Abraham, who spake to Moses, and sent the pro"phets.' All which perfectly suits the epistle to the Corinthians, which we still have in our hands, and in the name of Clement, as may appear to any upon consulting ch. 17, 18, 19, 20, 43, and other places. Mr. Wetstein objects, that Samson is not named in the epistle just mentioned, whereas he is in his. But though we do not now find Samson's name in what remains of that epistle, he may have been there. And as we have it not entire, I think it would be presumption to say he was not there named.



10. Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century, has two articles for Clement bishop of Rome. In the first he says, That Clement wrote a valuable epistle to the Corinthians, which is so esteemed by many, as to be read 'publicly. But that which is called the second to the same is rejected as spurious.'

In the other article he speaks of two epistles of Clement to the Corinthians, bound together in one book or volume; and he distinctly gives the character of each, with regard to their style and doctrine; but says nothing particularly about the genuineness of either.

11. Nicephorus Callisti, in the fourteenth century, so



9 Κλημεντος επιςολαι δυο. Αυτος και επιτολην αξιολογον προς Κορινθικς γραφει, ἧτις παρα πολλοις αποδοχης ηξιώθη, ως και δημοσια αναγινώσκεσθαι. Ἡ δε λεγόμενη δευτερα προς αυτες, ως νόθος, αποδοκιμάζεται. Cod. 113. p. 289. Αναγνωσθη βιβλιδαριον, εν ᾧ Κλημεντος επιτολαι προς Κορινθιες δυο ανεφέροντο. Cod. 126. p. 305.


agrees with Eusebius of Cæsarea, that I need not take any particular notice of him.



12. Mr. Wetstein' seems to suppose, that Dionysius Barsalibi, bishop of Amida near the end of the twelfth century, of whom there is an account in Dr. Asseman's Bibliotheca Orientalis, speaks of another letter of Clement, written against those who rejected marriage. Barsalibi,' says" Asseman, beside Ephrem, Chrysostom, and other authors, 'cites an epistle of Clement against those who rejected 'marriage.' Upon which I observe, 1. It does not certainly appear what Clement is here spoken of. 2. If Clement of Rome be intended, Barsalibi must mean one of the two epistles spoken of by Eusebius, Jerom, Epiphanius, and Photius, provided he deserves any regard; for there never were any other epistles ascribed to him by learned christians in former times. And it may be reckoned very likely, that Barsalibi cited the first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, particularly ch. 1, or 21. So, on account of some things in that epistle Epiphanius might say, that Clement teaches virginity, and Jerom, that almost throughout he discourseth of the purity of virginity. And with regard to some other passages Barsalibi might say, that he wrote against those who rejected marriage. In like manner a learned writer might say, that St. Paul in his epistles recommends virginity; and another, suitably to the argument of which he is treating, may say, he vindicates marriage. And both those authors would be understood to mean the same epistles. Yea they might both cite, or refer to one and the same epistle, for their several ends and purposes, particularly the first epistle to the Corinthians. Not now to instance in any other.

13. Mr. Wetstein says farther,

That probably these two epistles were suppressed, or laid aside, because of the ❝ strictness of the rules of piety contained therein.' Which to me appears a false and injurious reflection upon the christians of the early ages. There always were, especially in the first five centuries, pastors, and other eminent men, who approved of, and were themselves able to give right instructions for a good life. Nor can it be denied, that they were sufficiently zealous for virginity. They have preserved " Præter Ephræmum vero, Chrysostomum, -quibus Barsalibæum usum fuisse, supra dixi, auctores hi ab ipso citantur, videlicet, Dionysius epis. ad Timotheum: Clemens adversus eos qui matrimonium rejiciunt. Asseman. Bib. Or. T. II. p. 158.


Prolegom. p. vii. m.

▾ Tantum vero abest ut mirer, austeram Clementis disciplinam in epistolis istis traditam non placere, ut potius propter hanc ipsam causam eas et dudum sepositas esse, et per tot secula in tencbris latuisse existimem. Proleg. p. vii. fin.

and handed down to us the scriptures of the New Testament, than which no writings whatever have delivered better directions for the practice of strict virtue. And why should any man think, that the primitive christians would designedly suppress any writings of Clement of Rome, who was highly esteemed by all catholics in general, and by some others likewise? Insomuch that their works forged in his name, and ascribed to him, which had not the apostolical doctrine. We are well assured, that his epistle to the Corinthians was read in many churches, and the other likewise in some. If there had been any other epistles of Clement, they would have been esteemed, and often quoted, and not suppressed, or laid aside in obscurity. And how comes Mr. Wetstein now to speak of his epistles as obscure, when before he supposed them to be the same that had been quoted by Jerom in his books against Jovinian, and the same which Epiphanius said were read in the holy churches? Are these things consistent?

14. Upon the whole it appears to me very clear, that there never were more than two epistles of Clement bishop of Rome, received by christians in former times. Those two I suppose to be the same which are at the end of the Alexandrian manuscript, and now are, and for more than a century have been well known to the learned. Suppose a man should say, that he had found two epistles of the apostle Paul, or the apostle Peter, which for many ages past have been unknown, would he deserve to be credited? It is almost as strange and surprising for any man to say the like of Clement of Rome, a man so highly esteemed in all antiquity, and so much taken notice of by Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Jerom, Photius, and others. The epistles therefore, which have been published by Mr. Wetstein, are not Clement's. They cannot be his. There is no need to open the packet. Thus much may be certainly known without looking into it.

III. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. However, as we have already taken a view of these epistles, and have made some extracts out of them, we will now examine them more distinctly. And however good and pious they may be, it is likely, there will still offer more reasons for confirming the persuasion that they were not written by Clement.

1. And in the first place I observe, that the quotations of scripture, and forms of quoting the scriptures, in these epistles, are different from those in the universally acknowledged epistle to the Corinthians; for that is the epistle to

which I shall have an eye; it being, in my opinion," the only genuine writing of that apostolical man, Clement of Rome. 1. The author of these epistles useth some phrases and expressions concerning the scriptures not found in Clement, nor in any of the apostolical fathers, that I remember. As we have learned from the law and the prophets, and the Lord Jesus Christ; the law and the New Testament; the divine apostle.' 2. In these epistles many more books of the New Testament are quoted, than in the acknowledged epistle of Clement. 3. This writer's forms of quotation in the Old Testament are different from those of Clement. What are this writer's forms may be seen in the extracts at the beginning of this dissertation. In Clement's epistle to the Corinthians the forms of quotation are such as these.



The ministers of the grace of God have spoken of re'pentance by the Holy Spirit. And himself, the Lord of 'all, has spoken of repentance with an oath.' See Ezek. xxxiii. And, Let us do that which is written. For the Holy Spirit says.' And in the same chapter or section. For the holy word says.' And in another chapter. For himself bespeaketh us by the Holy Spirit.'


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

c Cap. 45.


w I am not singular in that opinion, which is much confirmed, as any may perceive, by the testimonies of ancient writers largely alleged here in the article of external evidence. H. Grotius declared himself to the like purpose in the year 1634, in his judgment upon these epistles, the year after their publication by P. Young. Alteram epistolam, cujus fragmentum additum est, quamquam Clementis et ipsa in libris nonnullis nomen prætulit, non esse tamen ei tribuendam, etiam veteres judicârunt. Quorum auctoritati accedit characteris diversitas. H. Gr. ep. 347. Grabe, who has since carefully examined the early writings of christianity, is clearly of the same opinion, induced thereto chiefly by the letter of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, and the silence of ancient writers before Eusebius, concerning any second epistle of Clement- -pluraque sunt, quæ pene demonstrare mihi videntur, epistolam secundam Clementis ad Corinthios supposititiam esse. Et primo quidem maxime considerandum est testimonium Dionysii, Episcopi Corinthiorum, proxime post Clementem seculo florentis--Spic. p. 265. Secundum, argumentum contra secundam Clementi adscriptam epistolam suppeditat silentium omnium antiquorum Patrum, apud quos nullam ejus vel citationem invenit Eusebius--Ibid. p. 267. And indeed, it seems strange to me, that any learned men should still quote the second epistle as Clement's.

* What books of the New Testament are quoted or alluded to by Clement, may be seen in his epistle, and in the large extracts made out of it in the first volume of this work, ch. ii. And at the conclusion of ch. iii. where are extracts out of the fragment of the second epistle ascribed to Clement, it was observed, that therein the gospels are several times quoted more expressly, than in Clement's epistle to the Corinthians. This was there taken notice of as an internal character, confirming the supposition that it had not the same author with the epistle to the Corinthians, and that it is of a later date. y Ep. ad Corinth. c. 8. b Cap. 22.

Ib. cap. 13.

a Ibid.

« ElőzőTovább »