« VorigeDoorgaan »
epistles published by him. But 1. Jerom must be understood to mean the two well known epistles of Clement, of which he had spoken in his Catalogue: which are plainly the same, and no other than those spoken of by Eusebius of Cæsarea in his Ecclesiastical History, to which he refers, and indeed transcribes. It is the more reasonable, and even expedient, so to understand him, because the books against Jovinian were written about the same time with the catalogue: from which it appears, that he had then no knowledge of any other epistles of Clement. If he had, he would not have omitted there to take notice of them. And in his other works, as we have seen, he quotes no epistle of Clement, but his well known and universally received epistle to the Corinthians. Here he speaks of two, it having been then not uncommon to ascribe to Clement another epistle, beside that which was universally received by the ancients, as we saw him acknowledge in the Catalogue. 2. Jerom here speaks hyperbolically, a style very frequent with him, as all know, and especially in his books against Jovinian: where he so exalted virginity, and depreciated marriage, as to give general offence, though at that time virginity was in great esteem. In those epistles, says Jerom, Clement discourseth almost throughout of the purity of virginity. The meaning of which really is no more, than that there are in his epistles some things favourable to virginity. Jerom may be supposed to refer to some things in ch. 21, 29, 30, 35, 38, 48, and 58, of the epistle to the Corinthians: particularly to such places as these, where Clement says: Let our [or your] children partake of the discipline of Christ—Let them know how much a chaste love avails with God, how great and excellent his fear is, saving all ⚫ who serve him in holiness with a pure mind. We being the portion of the holy one, let us do all things that pertain unto holiness, shunning impure and unchaste embraces. Among the blessed and wonderful gifts of God Clement reckons continence, [or chastity] in holiness.' Again: Let therefore our whole body be saved in Jesus Christ.'. Afterwards, in the same chapter: Let not him that is chaste [or pure] in the flesh, grow proud, knowing that it is from another he received the gift of continence.' And near the end he prays, That God may give them patience, long-suffering, continence, chastity, and sobriety." To these and other things in the epistles to the Corinthians Jerom & may be supposed to refer. And he may intend a large part of that which is called Clement's second epistle: in which are recommended chastity, self-denial, and mortification to the delights of this world. Jerom might have a regard to that epistle from chap. 4, to chap. 12, that is, the end, so far as we have it. Where are such expressions as these: "keeping the flesh chaste.' 'We ought therefore to keep our flesh as 'the temple of God.' Serving God with a pure heart.' And the like. That such expressions as these may be the foundation of what he says is manifest from what immediately precedes the passage which we are considering. It is,' says he, an act of eminent faith, and eminent virtue, to be a holy temple of God, to" offer ourselves a whole burnt-offering to the 'Lord," Rom. vii. 1. And, according to the same apostle, to be "holy both in body and spirit," • 1 Cor. xii. 34. These are eunuchs, who in Isaiah call themselves a dry tree-To these eunuchs Clement writes.'The hyperbolical style appears likewise in what follows: In like 'manner many apostolical men, and martyrs, and others illustrious for their piety and eloquence, as may be easily seen in their own writings.' It is true, that many, beside Clement, have discoursed of chastity, and of purity in soul and body. But who are they, of whom it can be said, without an hyperbole, that they had written books, discoursing almost throughout of the purity Η μακροθυμίαν, εγκρατειαν, αγνειαν, και σωφροσύνην. сар. 58.
tiâ viri, quos ex propriis scriptis nôsse perfacile est.' Hic vero
ad Corinth. cap 21.
b Ibid. cap. 30.
εγκρατεία εν αγιασμῳ. c. 35.
κ. λ. Ep.
• Σωζεσίω το ήμων όλον σώμα εν Χριςῳ Ιησε. c. 38.
• Ο άγιος εν τη σαρκι μη αλαζονευέσθω, γινωσκων, ότι
ἕτερος εσιν ὁ επιχορηγών αυτώ την εγκρατειαν. Ibid.
Et posteriora quidem loca de continentiâ virginali aperte loquuntur, priora vero licet castitatem in genere, ipsamque conjugalem, concernant, ab Hieronymo tamen in disputa. tionis fervore aliorsum trahi potuerunt. Grabe Spic. T. I. p. 263.
-και την σαρκα άγνην τηρησανίες. Ep. 2. cap. 8.
* Δει εν ήμας, ὡς ναον θες, φυλάσσειν την σαρκα. cap. 9. κ Ημεις εν εν καθαρᾳ καρδια δελεύσωμεν τῷ θεῷ. Ib. c. xi. 1 Grandis fidei est, grandisque virtutis, Dei templum esse purissimum, totum se holocaustum offerre Domino, et juxta eumdem Apostolum, esse sanctum et corpore et spiritu. Hi sunt eunuchi, qui se lignum aridum ob sterilitatem putantes, audiuut per Isaïam, &c.
of virginity? And where are their writings to be found? Dr. Cave understood Jerom exactly after this manner. As did Grabe likewise: whose remarks upon this passage of Jerom are so clear and full, and, as seems to me, satisfactory, that I think it great pity Mr. Wetstein did not observe and well consider them. If he had so done, it might have prevented those scornful reflections upon Dr. Cave, and Bishop Beveridge, and the two learned editors of Epiphanius and Jerom, which are at p. v. of the Prolegomena. Godfrey Wendelin, as cited by Mr. Wetstein, Prolegom. p. vi. supposed that Jerom had an eye to the latter part of the second epistle, which is now wanting. And to the like purpose Cotelerius in his note at the end of that fragment. And indeed it has seemed to me not improbable, that Jerom reckoned he had an advantage to his cause from the second epistle ascribed to Clement. And therefore here writing against Jovinian, when his mind was heated with his argument, he speaks of two epistles of Clement: though in his catalogue, where he writes as a critic and an historian, he speaks as if he thought one only to be genuine: nor has he quoted any other in his Commentaries. Nevertheless I am of opinion, that we have enough remaining of these two epistles, and particularly of that last mentioned, to justify our interpretation of Jerom: especially with that qualifying expression almost : which no man can think to be a mere expletive. 3. I observe farther. If Jerom had intended the two epistles published by Mr. Wetstein, he would have said: To these eunuchs Clement wrote two whole epistles 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 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 Carpocratians, speaking of the first bishops of Rome, quotes Clement thus: • Ford 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 recog• nitions] in which they have made many interpolations. But Clement himself confutes them in the circular 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 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
a Cæterum haud satis constat, quid sibi velit Hieronymus, cum de epistolis a Clemente ad Corinthios scriptis verba faciens, ' omnem pene sermonem suum de virginitatis puritate Clementem contexuisse,' scribat. Neque enim alias ab hisce quæ nunc extant epistolas ad Corinthios dedisse Clementem credi potest, nec in his utramque faciunt paginam virginitatis laudes. Id potius dicendum videtur, Hieronymum nimio. virginitatis studio abreptum, hyperbolicâ dictione usum esse, cumque Clemens pauculas periodos animi corporisque puritati docendæ impendat, totum sermonem virginitatis encomio dicatum esse voluisse. H. L. T. i. p. 20. De Clemente.
Hieronymus vero acriter disputans contra errorem Joviniani, eamdem conjugii ac virginitatis dignitatem coram Deo statuentis, hyperbolice ait, Clementem omnem pene sermonem suum de virginitatis puritate contexuisse. Quales
churches. For the eighty-fifth 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 ' received 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 prophets.' 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 Corin*thians, 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 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 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 there 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. A's 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 of 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
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 testimoniam Dionysii,. Episcopi Corinthiorum, proxime
post Clementem seculo florentis-Spic. p. 265. Secundum argumentum contra secundam Clementi adscriptar 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. b 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.
are such as these. The ministers of the grace of God have spoken of repentance by the Holy Spirit. And himself the Lord of all has spoken of repentance with an oath.' See Ézek. 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 him'self bespeaketh us by the Holy Spirit.' Look into the holy scriptures, which are the true sayings of the Holy Spirit.' Which forms of citation do not occur in the epistles published by Mr. Wetstein. I omit those common forms, in the same epistle to the Corinthians, It is written, and the scripture says, and the like.' 4. Clement's quotations of texts of scripture, especially of the Old Testament, which are large and numerous, are neat and distinct. But the writer of these two epistles jumbles texts and books together, and quotes in a very confused manner. How Clement quotes may be seen by any, who look into his epistle. Having quoted a passage of scripture, when he proceeds to take another passage out of another book, or out of the same book, he usually says: And in another place,' or the like. I do not deny, that the writer of these epistles does also sometimes make use of like forms of transition. But oftentimes his quotations are exceedingly jumbled and confused. For instance, Therefore he rightly ⚫said to such a generation: "My spirit shall not always dwell with man, because they are flesh. Every one therefore in whom is not the spirit of Christ, he is not his." As it is written : The spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him."' See Gen. vi. 3. Rom. viii. 9. 1 Sam. xvi. 14.
2. Mr. Wetstein as an instance of agreement between the epistle of Clement, and the epistles published by him, says, that there is a doxology in the middle of one of them. I suppose, that Mr. W- may refer to the sixth chapter of his second epistle, at the end of which there is an Amen. But I see not there, nor any where else in these epistles, neither in the middle, nor at the endings of them, one doxology. Which therefore leads me to observe another difference between these epistles, and the generally received epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. For in that epistle, as has been often observed by learned men, there are at least seven or eight doxologies.
3. THE TIME OF THESE EPISTLES. There are several things in these epistles, which will directly lead us to the time and occasion of writing them, and assure us of their late age..
A passage above cited shows, that when these epistles were written, Gentilism was not extinct in the Roman empire. For I allow, that they were not first written in Syriac, but in Greek, as Mr. Wetstein well argues. When therefore this author said, as above; we do not read the scriptures to Gentiles:' I reckon it a proof, that Gentilism still subsisted in the country where he lived. Which indeed I imagine to have been somewhere in the eastern part of the Roman empire.
Farther, these epistles were not written until after some ecclesiastics had begun to have with them what were called subintroduced women: nor till after it had been taken notice of and censured. Upon this subject the late learned Mr. Henry Dodwell" has a curious dissertation. Bingham likewise may be consulted. And some notice has been already taken of it in this work, ° particularly in the history of Paul of Samosata.
There were some unmarried clergymen, who, for the sake of domestic affairs, had women to live with them. Dodwell says, they were virgins consecrated to God. Bingham says, They ⚫ were commonly some of the virgins belonging to the church, whom they that entertained, pre⚫tended only to love as sisters with a chaste love.' It appears from St. Cyprian, that they dwelled together in the same house, and sometimes lodged in the same room, and in the same
P Ubi supr. n. i. ii.
9 As before, p. 331. * Legimus literas tuas, frater carissime,-postulans et desiderans, ut tibi rescriberemus, quid nobis de iis virginibus videatur, quæ cum in statu suo esse, et continentiam firmiter tenere decreverant, detecta sint postea in eodem lecto pariter mansisse cum masculis; ex quibus unum esse Diaconum dicis; plane easdem quæ se cum viris dormîsse confessæ sint, asseverare se integras esse-Primo igitur in loco,-elaborandum est-nec pati virgines cum masculis habitare, non dico simul dormire, sed nec simul vivere. Cyprian. ep. 4. al. 62.