because they may be of use to others. Sometimes it is, 'Peter says in the Preaching :' sometimes only, Peter says,' if he had but a little before expressly named the book: just as it is usual to quote what Paul or Peter says in the Acts. a And that Clement did not suppose this book to be St. Peter's, may be argued from his quotation of a passage of St. Paul out of the same book, in this manner: This the apostle Paul will manifest, saying in the Preaching of Peter.' This seems to shew, that Clement thought this book was composed by some person who wrote the history of Peter's preaching, inserting also some discourses of the apostle Paul, and perhaps of others likewise; but calling the whole, from the principal subject of it, The Preaching of Peter. 2.) I observe then farther, that Clement has no where mentioned the name of the author of this book as he has done of the book of the Acts, containing the history of the preaching of Peter, and some others, though chiefly of Paul, which he has ascribed to St. Luke. Nor does it appear that he knew who was the author of the Preaching of Peter: if he had, it is likely he would have mentioned him. Of any book, to be received as of authority, one would be glad to know the name and character of the author; whether he was an apostle, or at least an apostolical man; a follower or disciple of apostles, and intimately acquainted with them. 3.) Clement has no where called this book scripture,' or used any particular expression of high respect and veneration in his quotations of it. 4.) The testimony of Eusebius ought to be of considerable weight in this point. Having, in his Ecclesiastical History, spoken of the first and second epistle of Peter, he says: "But the 'book intitled his Acts, and the gospel named according to him, and that which is termed his Preaching, and that called his Revelation, we know that they have not been delivered (to us) 'as catholic writings; forasmuch as no ecclesiastical writer of the ancients, or of our time, has made use of testimonies out of them.' It is very strange that Eusebius should so forget himself as to say this, if so great a man as Clement of Alexandria had quoted the Preaching of Peter, as a book of that apostle, or of an apostolical man. Or, if he had quoted it as a book of authority, we must suppose the stream of antiquity to have been strong against him; otherwise Eusebius could hardly have expressed himself in this manner. 5.) Nevertheless it seems that Clement, when he quotes any words of Peter, or Paul, out of this book, quotes them as if he thought them to be really theirs, and that they were there recorded in a credible manner. This seems to appear in these expressions: Peter says in the Preaching: This Peter himself will manifest, when he subjoins: Wherefore also Peter, in the Preaching, speaking of the apostles, says.' And yet perhaps it may be questioned, whether Clement has not so distinctly named this book, whenever he takes any thing out of it, with a design that every one may the better judge of the authority of what he produces from it as much as to say, I take this out of the book intitled The Preaching of Peter; and let it avail as much as it can. There may be some foundation for this conjecture, since Clement has never called this book Scripture, nor mentioned the name of the author or composer of it. Upon the whole, it must be allowed to be difficult to decide, what authority Clement assigned to this book; but, at the same time, I see no proofs of his esteeming it a book of sacred scripture, in the highest meaning of these terms. I would observe in general concerning the Preaching of Peter, which contained, as it seems; a history of the Preaching of Peter chiefly, but also of the preaching of Paul, and perhaps of some others: that if it had been composed by an apostolical man, a disciple of apostles, intimately acquainted with them, and there had been a credible tradition concerning the book, and the author of it; it might be a book of sacred authority, like the Acts of the apostles, written by Luke, an apostolical man: provided also, that it had in it nothing manifestly false and absurd; as I suppose it would not, if it had been written by such a person, and credibly wit a The Greek words are among the citations", and are thus justly rendered by Grabe: Declarabit in Petri Prædicatione apostolus Paulus dicens. Spic. T. i. p. 65. Whereas in the Latin version in St. Clement's works it is, præter Petri Prædicationem declarabit Paulus. επικεκλημένων αυτα πραξεων, και το κατ' VOL. I. - Το τε μην των αυτον ωνομασμένον ευαγγέλιον, το, τε λεγόμενον αυτ8 κήρυγμα, και την καλεμένην αποκάλυψιν, εδ' όλως εν καθολικοις ισμεν παραδεδομένα ότι μη σε αρχαίων μη τε των καθ' ήμας τις εκκλησιασικός συγγραφέας ταις εξ αυτών συνεχρησατο μαρτυρίαις. Η. Ε. 1. iii. sect. 5, p. 72. A. 3 & nessed to as such. But hitherto we have not met with, as I apprehend, any testimony to this book, the Preaching of Peter, that it was written by an apostle, or an apostolical man. No one, I hope, will be offended at the prolixity of the argument upon this question, who considers the importance of it." 3. The Revelation of Peter is to be next considered. Of this Eusebius has informed us, that Clement in his Institutions, where he had written notes upon divers books of scripture that were contradicted, had written notes also upon this. And it still appears quoted twice or thrice in the Extracts of the Scriptures of the Prophets, supposed to be a fragment of Clement's Institutions, or collected out of them. But that this was not esteemed by Clement a book of authority, may be concluded from what Eusebius says in the passage lately cited from him, that it had not been delivered as a catholic writing' or scripture and secondly, in that it is not quoted in any of the remaining works of Clement. If it had been reckoned by him a book of that character, it is very probable it would have been there quoted. c 4. Clement has a passage too, which Grabe supposes to have been a book called the Acts of Peter: but if it was, it is plain this book was not owned by Clement, as a book of scripture; since he has never quoted it, and this passage is introduced by Clement as an uncertain report. They say therefore of Peter,' and what follows: which shews, it is a matter of which he was not well assured. 5. Clement has likewise cited a book called Traditions of Matthias, or Traditions in general, in which are some words ascribed to Matthias. But, from the places in which he mentions these Traditions, it is evident he did not rely upon them, if he did not think them forged by some heretics. The passages of Clement, in which he mentions or refers to these Traditions, are collected by Grabe, and Jones, to whom the reader is referred. There is no need we should insist any longer upon them here. But, beside the passages collected by those learned men from Clement's remaining Greek works, there is another passage in the Latin Adumbrations upon the first epistle of St. John, a I have discoursed largely of St. Clement's opinion of the authority of this book: I add a conjecture concerning the age of it. It was written before the end of the second century, as appears from Clement's quotations of it: it was written after the Sibylline Verses, because it refers to them. If therefore they were composed about the middle of the second century, this book was written somewhat later. That the Sibylline Verses are referred to in this book, the Preaching of Peter, appears to me probable from two quotations of it in St. Clement, which I here put down. That, as God desired the salvation of the Jews, giving them prophets; so likewise, raising up the most approved of the Greeks to be prophets to them in their own language, as they were able to receive the divine beneficence, he distinguished them 'from the bulk of Mankind, the apostle Paul will manifest in the Preaching of Peter, saying: "Take likewise the Greek books. Consider the Sibyl, how she declares the one God, and things future. Take also and read Hystaspes, and you 'will there find the Son of God most clearly and evidently "described." Str. 1. vi. p 636. C. D. See Blondel Des Sibylles, 1. i. c. 5. This suits our Sibylline Verses; beside that it also shews, that the Preaching of Peter was written after Hystaspes, another forgery. In the other passage the Sibylline Verses are plainly described: Whence also Peter in The Preaching, speaking of the apostles, says: "But when 'we had perused the books which we had of the prophets, ' mentioning Jesus Christ sometimes in parables, sometimes enigmatically, sometimes clearly and expressly; we found his coming, and death, and cross, and all the other sufferings which the Jews inflicted on him, and his resurrection and assumption to heaven, before the building of Jerusalem, as all these things had been written, which he was to suffer, and which should be after him." Str. 1. vi. p. 678. A. B. καθώς εγεγραπία ταυτα πανία, ο εδει αυτόν παθειν, και μετ' αυτον α εσαι. So I propose these words should be pointed, and I have translated them accordingly). For the original words I must refer the more learned and inquisitive to St. A. f • Μαλθιας εν ταις παραδόσεσι παραινων. Str. 1. ii. p. 380. Λεγεσι γεν [Carpocratiani] και τον Μαΐθιαν oulus disaga. Str. 1. iii. p. 436. D. Vid. & Str. vii. p. 765. B. 8 Spicileg. Patr. T. ii. p. 117, 118. h New and Full Method of settling the canonical Authority of the N. T. vol. i. p. 316. & seq. ¡ Fertur ergo in traditionibus, quoniam Joannes ipsum corpus quod erat extrinsecus tangens, manum suam in profunda misisse, et ei duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum taken from some traditions: which passage supposeth the genuineness of that epistle of St. John. Beausobre is of opinion, that this passage was in a work of Leucius, called Travels of the Apostles. d 6. Clement has also a saying, which he is supposed to ascribe to our Lord: 'Ask,' says he, great things, and the small shall be added to you.' These words are not exactly in any of our gospels, and it has been suspected that he took them out of some other gospel; but it has been sufficiently shewn that Clement owned only our four gospels. This passage may be allowed then to be a loose quotation of the sense of Matth. vi. 33. without confining himself exactly to the words of the text. Mr. Jones was much of this opinion, when he says: 'Cle'ment rather chose to expound the words [of Matth. vi. 33.], than literally to cite them. And 'this is most undeniably proved by another place, which I find in the same Clement, where he both produces the text, and these words as an exposition. Seek ye first the kingdom of 'heaven and its righteousness, "for these are the great things; but the small things," and things relating to this life, these shall be added to you.' Perhaps this exposition was added to the 33d verse of the sixth chapter of Matthew, in some copies of that gospel. The curious may do well to consult Mill upon the place. f e This is the only saying of Christ,' not in our gospels, taken out of Clement, in Grabe's collection of these things. As for any quotations of words of Christ from the gospel according to the Hebrews, or the gospel according to the Egyptians, we have sufficiently considered them already, in what has been said of those gospels. I think, upon the whole, it appears that there is no good reason to suppose that St. Clement received as scripture,' in the highest sense of the word, any Christian writings beside the books of the New Testament, now commonly received by us. XIV. I have as yet taken no particular notice of St. Clement's opinion of the Sibylline books: for, if they are genuine, they are not a Christian, but a Jewish or a Heathen writing, published long before the nativity of our Saviour. However, I think myself obliged to acknowledge, before I conclude this chapter, that St. Clement, St. Theophilus, and some other Greek fathers of the second century, had a much greater respect for the Sibyls than they deserved: for I am well satisfied that the Sibylline Verses quoted by them are the forgery of some Christian. The ancient Sibylline Verses did not recommend the worship of the one God alone, condemning all manner of idolatry, as these do which are cited by Justin, Theophilus, and Clement; not to mention at present any other things. Nevertheless it must be owned, that Clement calls the Sybil a prophetess, and seems to quote her verses as scripture, in the strictest sense of the word,' together with the scriptures of the Old Testament: so that if there be any books improperly advanced by him into the rank of sacred scripture, we may say that the Sibylline are the books. But yet, after all, I think it not likely that he did esteem them of equal authority with the books of the Jewish canon. g h i I shall observe but one thing more: That Clement himself affords us evidence, that those verses, which he quotes to the Greeks, were rejected by them in his time. For having proposed to them the 'Sybil prophetess, as a mistress' to teach them, and quoted some verses m manui præbuisse discipuli. Propter quod et infert: Et ma- 112, 113. f e ... ... * Ωρα τοίνυν, . . . επι τας προφητικας ιέναι γραφας γραφαι δε αἱ θειαι, και πολιτειαι σώφρονες, συντομοι σωτηριας όδοι· . . . αυλικα γεν ἡ προφήτις ήμιν ασαίω πρωτη Σιβυλλα το ασμα το σωτήριον . . . ενθέως σφοδρα την μεν απαίην απεικάζεσα τῷ σκολει. Ιερεμίας δε ὁ προφήτης, ὁ πανσοφος, μάλλον δε εν Ιερεμία το άγιον πνευμα. κ. λ. Adm. ad G. p. 50. C. D. 51. A. If the Sibylline Verses are the prophetical books recommended in the Preaching of Peter, as appears probable from what has been said at note a, they seem to be represented also as ancient and divine scripture by the author of that work. I shall transcribe his words, to be considered by those who are so disposed. So Peter goes on in the place there cited: Καθως εγεγραπία ταυτα πανία, ο εδει αυτόν πα θειν, και μετ' αυτον & εσαι. Ταυλα εν επιγνοντες, επισεύσαμεν τῷ Θεῷ δια των γεγραμμένων εις αυτόν. Και με ολιγα επιφέρει παλιν, θεία πρόνοια τας προφητειας γεγενησθαι παρίσας ώδε· Εγνωμεν γαρ ὅτι ὁ Θεός αυτα προσεΐαξεν ονίως, και εδεν αίες γραφής λεγομεν. Str. 1. vi. p. 673. Β. την Διδασκαλον δε ύμιν παραθήσομαι την προφητιν Σίβυλλαν. Adm. ad G. p. 32. D. 2 from her, he adds: But if you do not choose to hearken to a prophetess, hear your philosopher, the Ephesian Heraclitus.' Why should they not hearken to a prophetess as ready as to a philosopher? Clement gives us the reason: the philosopher was theirs, the prophetess not. The heathen people therefore knew nothing of these verses till they were found out, or rather forged, by some Christian, and then incautiously and imprudently recommended by others. CHAP. XXIII. b POLYCRATES. HIS HISTORY. POLYCRATES was bishop of the church of Ephesus, the latter part of the second century. He was the eighth Christian bishop of his family. About the year 196, he called a numerous synod of the bishops of Asia, upon occasion of the controversy about the time of celebrating Easter, which was then kept by the churches of Asia Minor on the fourteenth day of the moon, on whatever day of the week it happened; but by the Romans, and most other churches, on the Lord's day following. Victor, bishop of Rome, required the bishops of Asia to follow the custom of other churches. Polycrates, having consulted the bishops of Asia, wrote a letter with their approbation to Victor, and the church of Rome, declaring their resolution to keep Easter at the time they had hitherto observed it: whereupon Victor excommunicated all the churches of Asia, and those in their neighbourhood. Of this epistle there are two fragments in Eusebius. This is in short the history of Polycrates. It will be confirmed by that part of his letter which I am now about to transcribe, so far as is suitable to our purpose. Only I would first of all observe, that Jerom confirms the account given by Eusebius; and farther speaks of Polycrates as a person of considerable capacity and authority; and says, he flourished in the time of the emperor Severus, who began his reign in 193. We therefore,' says Polycrates, observe the true and genuine day, neither adding nor detracting any thing. For in Asia there are great lights buried, which shall be raised up in the day of the Lord's advent, in which he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall raise up all his saints; as Philip, one of the twelve apostles; and moreover John, who leaned upon the Lord's breast. And what need I mention Melito, the eunuch, who conducted him'self in all things by the Spirit; who rests in Sardis, expecting the visitation from heaven, at which he shall rise from the dead? All these have kept the day of Easter on the fourteenth 'day according to the gospel; not transgressing in the least, but following the rule [or canon] of faith. And so have I Polycrates, who am the least of all, according to the tradition of my ' relations, some of whom also I have followed; for seven of my relations have been bishops, and I am the eighth and my relation always kept the day, when the people [of the Jews] 'cast away their leaven. I therefore, brethren, who h am sixty-five years of age in the Lord, and who have conversed with the brethren in many parts of the world, and have read over all the holy scripture, am not moved at what I am threatened with. For they who are greater than me have said: "We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts, v. 29. We are at present to observe only what has a relation to any particular books of the New Testament, or to the collection of them in general. When Polycrates calls Melito an eunuch, possibly he refers to Matth. xix. 12, where our Lord says: "There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of hea ven's sake." * Συ δε, αλλ' ει μη προφήτιδος επακέεις, το γε σε ακεσον φιλοσοφε το Εφεσιε Ηρακλειτ8. ib. b Vid. 33. B. P. Eus. H. E.l. iii. c. 31. 1. v. c. 24. Eus. 1. v. c. 24. p. 192. B. C. & Socrat. H. E. 1. v. c. 22. p. 284. B. d Hæc propterea posui, ut ingenium & auctoritatem viri ex parvo opusculo demonstrarem. Floruit temporibus Severi principis. De Vir. Ill. cap. 45. e Ap Eus. p. 191. * Ετι δε και Ιωαννης ὁ επι το ςήθος Κυριο αναπεσων. • Ούλοι πανίες είηρησαν την ήμεραν της τεσσαρεσκαιδεκαίης της πασχα κατα το ευαγγελιον· μηδεν παρεκβαινονίες, αλλά καία τον κανόνα της πίςεως ακολουθενίες. p. 191. D. » Εγω ουν, αδελφοι, ἑξήκονία πεντε είη εχων εν Κυρίῳ, και συμβεβληκως τοις απο της οικουμένης αδελφοις, και πασαν άγιαν γραφήν διεληλυθως, ο πυρομαι επι τοις καταπλήσσομε νοις. Οί γαρ εμε μείζονες ειρηκασι, πειθαρχειν δει Θεώ μαλλον η ανθρωποις. Ρ. 192. Α. When he observes of John, that he leaned on the Lord's breast;' he very probably refers to those places of St. John's gospel where this particular is mentioned: as ch. xiii. 25; xxi. 20.. Where he says, that greater than he had said: "We ought to obey God rather than men," there is an undoubted reference to Acts, v. 29. He moreover speaks of many who had observed this feast on the fourteenth day according to the gospel; probably meaning thereby the collection of gospels, which he likewise calls 'the rule of faith.' Lastly, he says, he had read over the holy scripture;' meaning, it is likely, the scriptures of the Old and the New Testament, and perhaps those of the New in particular. This testimony needs not be summed up: it lies in a short compass. b CHAP. XXIV. Heraclitus, and several other writers near the end of the second century. a HERACLITUS, says Cave, flourished about the year 196. He is mentioned by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, together with several other writers of the church, who lived in the reign of Commodus and Severus, or about that time. c Moreover,' says he, there still remain, in the hands of many, divers monuments of the ' laudable industry of those ancient and ecclesiastical men. Of such of them as have come to 'our knowledge are the writings [or commentaries] of Heraclitus upon the apostle: and of 'Maximus, concerning the question so much discoursed of among the heretics, Whence pro'ceeds evil? and concerning the creation of matter: and of Candidus upon the six days work, ' and of Appion upon the same argument. Likewise the treatise of Sextus on the resurrection, ' and a book of Arabianus, and innumerable other:' whose time, Eusebius says, he did not know. He goes on: There are besides treatises of many others, whose names we have not 'been able to learn; orthodox and ecclesiastical men, as the interpretations of the divine 'scripture given by each one of them manifest.' f h St. Jerom has inserted a short account, in his book of Illustrious Men, of all these writers, whom Eusebius has mentioned by name: of Heraclitus, Maximus, & Candidus, Appion, Sextus, and Arabianus. And Eusebius in another work' has preserved a large fragment of Maximus, of whom he there gives a great encomium. m Of Heraclitus St. Jerom says, agreeably to Eusebius: In the time of Commodus and 'Severus he wrote commentaries upon the apostle:' by which is generally understood, that Heraclitus wrote commentaries upon the epistles of St. Paul. It is pity, Eusebius, or Jerom, if they had read Heraclitus, did not give us a more particular account of his performance, and how many of the apostle's epistles he had explained. I have nothing farther to add here, but that it may be probably concluded that all, or most, of those writers, who, as Eusebius says, had manifested their orthodoxy by their interpre'tations of the divine scriptures,' had taken some notice of the books of the New, as well as of the Old Testament. |