The Theological review
None
fi ASE ares SS Fae Ea EG ee Ss < Ke POR AA ‘BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA PURCHASED WITH THE INCOME OF THE FUND GIVEN BY FREDERICK MADGE 1820-1908 SON OF THE REV. THOS. MADGE, 1786-1870, OF ESSEX STREET CHAPEL, LONDON, 1825-1859 THEOLOGICAL REVIEW, A Quarterly Journal OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT AND LIFE. NOU XY. Nos. US—OAUL WILLIAMS AND NORGATE, 14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON; Anp 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. MancuzsterR: JOHNSON & RAWSON, 89, Marker StRezET. 1878. ’ } wh Te Pe eset Peete Ly wl 2% e ome ies & Fh gr gen te eles hioNnDONE PRINTED BY 0. GREEN (178, STRAND. © Ag C6 C. Higham /6 v. /705 THE THEOLOGICAL REVIEW, No. LX.—Janvuary, 1878. IL—ON THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. [Printed for the Hibbert Trustees. | THE early ages of the Church have a charm as strong as it is natural for all men to whom Christianity is something more than a name. To many minds they suggest the pleasing vision of a time in which the battle of creeds, the rivalry of sects, and the bitter enmities of zealous partizans, were unknown—a time when Christianity was flowing fresh and clear from its Foun- tain-head, unpolluted by the impurities which have mingled themselves with its waters during their course through the centuries. To others, who look back upon that far-off past not so much for the gratification of sentiment or to contemplate the creation of a pious fancy, as with a desire to ascertain the actual characteristics of the period in which the new religion was established, the influences by which its early adherents were affected, and the dangers to which they were exposed— to such the first centuries of the Church’s history will have a - different, but a deeper, because a more rational, interest. Never before has this interest made itself so manifest as in our own day, and at no other time have such painstaking etforts been made to obtain a clear and intelligible view of the obscurest portion of the history of our religion. In proof of this, it is _ needful only to refer to the works associated with the Tiibin- gen school and the literature to which they have given rise. Every known writing which could be supposed to throw light - upon the period under debate has been eagerly examined and VOL. XV. B gy 2” 02 On the Clementine Homilies. made to yield up its evidence in support of some theory or in aid of its refutation. No doubt mistakes have been made and too hasty judgments formed. Conclusions, which a few years since were regarded as all but, if not quite, final and indispu- table, are now upheld only in a much modified form or are abandoned altogether by many who formerly accepted them in their integrity. But, be their conclusions final or not, the works of such men as Baur, Schwegler, Zeller and Hilgenfeld, have been of incalculable service in awakening and Sa RSENS attention to this important subject. It would be out of place here to enter upon any discussion of the theory* defended by Baur and his followers, that the history of primitive Christianity is the history of the opposi- tion of Ebionitism to Paulinism, an opposition which gradu- ally toned down and was finally merged in the unity of the Catholic Church. Those to whom the discussions connected with this theory are familiar, will remember how prominent a part is played in them by the work to which this essay is devoted. It is in the Clementine literature that the hostility to Paul finds for itself fullest expression, and that Peter is most obviously extolled at the expense of his (supposed) rival. Peter is here represented as the true Apostle of the Gentiles, and it is he who comes off victorious from a conflict with his opponent at Antioch, the scene of the famous rebuke adminis- tered by his fellow-apostle, as reported by the latter. Cle- ment, known to us as the fellow-labourer of Paul, is in these writings represented as Peter’s firm friend, and the false apos- tle’s determined foe. In a word, Peter is extolled as the champion of a Judaized, or, more accurately, of an Essenic Christianity, and Paul is caricatured as an artful, unscrupulous * See Zeller, “ Vortriige und Abhandlungen,” p. 865; also the essays on the Tiibingen School and on F. C. Baur, passim. + It is not meant by this that, according to the Homilist, Peter and his oppo- nent (Simon Magus) meet face to face at Antioch. On the contrary, Simon’s influence over the people of Antioch is represented as already destroyed before Peter reaches the city, but by a plan put into execution at Peter’s instigation and by one of his immediate followers. The particulars of what transpired at Antioch in this connection are given at the close of Hom, xx. \ oie wi fr. On the Clementine Homilies. 3 magician—in each case alike without regard to historical accu- racy. Much, however, as the Clementine Homilies and Recog- nitions have been discussed by the authors mentioned above and by others, it cannot be said that agreement, save as to their general scope and tendency, has been arrived at in regard to the teaching of their contents. It is the more important, therefore, to pursue such an investigation with care; and restricting it for the present to the Homilies, this essay offers an analysis of their contents and a detailed examination of the system of doctrine and church-life they were intended to teach. One or two preliminary questions naturally suggest them- selves—the first as to the place, and the second as to the time, to which the composition of the Homilies should be referred. That they were written at Rome and for Romans there can be little doubt. This appears from the fact that Peter is repre- sented as journeying to the metropolis, from the references made to Cesar, and from the prominence given to Clement.* Only at Rome would that name have sufficient interest or carry weight enough to warrant the author in using it to obtain currency for his work, and in assigning to Clement the impor- tant part which he plays in the narrative. The question of date, however, is more difficult to decide— a difficulty attested by the disagreement among critics, some of whom assign the Homilies to the middle of the second cen- tury, others to the end of that century, and others again to the beginning of the third century or even later. We, for our part, are inclined to adopt the earliest date, and to assign the Homilies approximately to the year 150 A.D. That they cannot belong to a much earlier period is shown by the unmistakable polemic against Marcion contained in them; that they must not be placed much later seems to be * There can be little doubt that the author of the Clementines, intentionally or unintentionally, identifies the Clement mentioned in’ Phil. iv. 3, with Clemens Romanus, to whom the Hpistles to the Corinthians are ascribed. That these Cle- ments were quite distinct personages seems to be beyond dispute. (See “ Patrum Apostolicorum Opera,” edited by Gebhardt, Harnack and Zahn, 1875, pp. Ixxxvii, Ixxxviii. ) B2 4, On the Clementine Homilies. indicated by the fact that the author, in advocating an epis- copal form of church government, does not venture to speak of a bishop of Rome, or to bring Peter, the bishop-maker, to Rome. Now we know from the newly-discovered and complete text* of the so-called} Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, - that at the date at which it was written, (about) 150 A.D., there was at Rome no bishop in the Old-Catholic sense of the term, i.e. as distinct from and superior to the presbyters. Twice in chap. xvu. of that work, reference is made to the presbyters as the authorities in the Church to whom obedience is due and as the source of instruction for believers, but nowhere does the author make allusion to an ’Exicxoros. A few years, however, after the date} of this Epistle (or Homily), a bishop of Rome does make his appearance in the Passover controversy in the person of Anicetus (about A.D. 160), and from this time on, though not earlier, episcopacy at Rome is an established fact. Had the episcopal system, therefore, already taken root at Rome when the Homilist wrote, he would certainly have shown that the bishopric could trace its foundation back to Peter himself; but being precluded from doing this, he only ventures to say that the apostle was on his way to the metropolis, and. leaves it to his readers to infer what would have taken place had Peter reached the goal of his journey. That there existed at Rome towards the end of the first half of the second century a party desirous of adopting an epis- copal form of Church constitution, is abundantly shown by passages in the “ Pastor of Hermas.” There we find, inyall * This text was discovered at Constantinople in the library of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and was published at the close of 1875, the editor being Philotheos Bryennios, Metropolitan of Serra. Six missing chapters of the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and the latter half of the Second Epistle, are now recovered and made known by this most fortunate and valuable discovery. + We say “so-called,” for the Second Epistle turns out to be a Homily, and not an Epistle. This is clear from the chapter (xvii.) to which reference has been made. Those who are addressed are there exhorted to believe, &c. not only “now . ... but also when they go home.” See also note by Bryennios, p. 138, note 3. t+ Harnack says (Schiirer’s Theologische Literaturzeitung, 19 Feb., 1876): “The Second Epistle of Clement is historically comprehensible only if its composition be placed rather before than after the middle of the 2nd century.” On the Clementine Homilies. 5 three books—Visiones, Mandata and Similitudines—traces of a struggle for the supremacy among the officers of the Church. Thus in Vis. iii. 9, these officers are represented as’ loving the first seats, and as striving with one another (as we may infer) for the supreme authority. But in Mand. xi. it is more plain to what the writer refers. “Audi nunc et de spiritu terrestri, vacuo et fatuo, virtutem non habente. Primum autem hunc homo putatur spiritum habere; exaltat enim se et vult primam cathedram habere, et improbus est et verbosus,” &c. And, again, Simil. vii. 7 alludes to the same desire for supremacy on the part of some in the Church: “ At vero hi, qui virides quidem virgas, sed scissuras habentes tradiderunt, fideles sem- per fuerunt et boni, sed habentes inter se quamdam invidiam et zelum de principatu et dignitate. Verum omnes hujusmodi insipientes sunt et fatui, qui habent inter se emulationem de principatu.” That the presbyterial should thus give place to a monarchic system of church government was most natural, and we may be sure that the change which the author of the “Pastor of Hermas” feared and tried to avert was helped on in no small degree by the, danger into which the churches were thrown about the middle of the second century by the spread of Gnostic heresies. The need would be felt in each community of Christians to which the heretical doctrines found their way, of having some chief authority who might be regarded as the repository of the true tradition, and to whom the final appeal might be made in matters of dispute. Nowhere would this need be more strongly felt than in Rome. Rome naturally attracted to herself all who wished to gain for their doctrines something more than a local notoriety. Thither found their way men of all shades of opinion—Marcion, as well as the writer of the Homilies ; and, amid the conflict of opinions, that which a few years previously had been the object merely of petty personal ambition became an absolute necessity for the Church, viz., that one man should be invested with special authority and power, and that he should represent in his per- son the unity of the brotherhood. To what period, then, can 6 On the Clementine Homilies. we more appropriately assign the Homilies—a work strenu- ously advocating the “monarchic” system of church govern- ment, and professedly adducing apostolic authority in its sup- port—than to that shortly preceding the appointment of the first bishop of Rome? But welcome as the work would be at that time on the ground of its support of monarchic views in general, it had another claim to the consideration of the Christian community at Rome. Nothing is more certain than that from a very early period in its existence the Roman church assumed a superior- ity over other churches. It was the church of the metropolis, and as such would no doubt be regarded with some measure of peculiar respect. But in addition to this, it was the only one of the churches of the Western world which claimed an apostolic foundation. On that ground it assumed to be for the West what the church of Jerusalem once claimed to be for the East, the fountain-head of true Christian doctrine—a con- sideration which would of itself naturally tend to enhance the church’s view of its own importance. Thus we find in the (First) Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians—a work belong- ing to the last decade of the first century—the church at Rome asserting its authority even at that early date to meddle in the affairs of its sister-churches. The Corinthians are bidden to beware of disobeying Clement's injunctions, and are warned that disobedience will involve serious danger (chap. lix.);* and finally a deputation of trusty men is mentioned, who are sent to enforce the views of the author upon the refractory Corinthians (chap. Ixiii.). Now, in entire harmony with this assumption of superiority on the part of the church at Rome, the Homilist represents the church at Jerusalem as exercising authority over all other churches, and all bishops or presbyters as subordinate to James, the bishop of Jerusalem. We say that this is in harmony with the claims set up by the church in Rome, because at the time when the Homilist wrote, the church at Jerusalem had ceased to be of any account, and the autho- * Bryennios’ edition. yo On the Clementine Homilies, — 7 rity which it had once possessed, but was then unable to exercise, would most naturally be taken up and wielded by the church of the metropolis. This seems to be what was in the writer's mind when he speaks of James and shows the dignity of his position by making even Peter submissive to his behests. Apart from this, there would be little or no meaning in introducing the name and speaking of the authority of the chief pastor of the church at Jerusalem, for the Barkochba insurrection and the building of Cilia Capitolina had effectually scattered the band of Jewish Christians once forming that church, and had destroyed for ever their power and prestige. Persecuted by the fierce insurrectionists because they were Christians, driven from the holy city by the Romans because they were Jews, these Jewish Christians in their low estate could no longer pretend to dictate to the Gentile churches. In the East there was no one church with paramount claims to succeed to the position which Jerusalem had occupied; but in the West there was Rome, standing alone, without a rival; and the church in Rome, as we have seen, was both willing and eager to assume the prerogatives which formerly had been exercised, as of right, by the church at Jerusalem. A work in which these prerogatives are emphasized could not but seem timely if appearing at Rome about the middle of the second century. Upon these grounds we assign the Homilies to A.D. 150 as the year in which they were most probably composed. The matter is, however, one which cannot be finally and absolutely decided with our present sources of information, and no date can be suggested with more than a limited degree of certainty as to its accuracy. But it may be urged with apparent plausibility that a work which is on the very face of it a fiction—which no one can for a moment suppose to have come from the hand of Clement, or to give a faithful and accurate account of the sayings and doings of the Apostle Peter—could surely find no favour or eredence even in Rome, however much it might harmonize with the tendencies of the church in that city. To this it is sufficient to reply that we must not judge of | 8 On the Clementine Homilies. the second century by our own. The uncritical Christians of that age, who were dependent mainly upon tradition, and, so far as we know, had as yet no recognized collection of authori- tative writings by which to guage new works pretending to embody apostolic teaching,—these were not the men to cast - doubt and suspicion upon any work which coincided with their opinions and met their requirements. The men who, a few years after the establishment of episcopacy in their midst, could accept the statement of the “ Muratorian Fragment,’* that the “ Pastor of Hermas” was written while Pius occupied the chair of the church in Rome, would hardly hesitate to acknowledge a work because it converted the Pauline Clement into the devoted follower of a Judaizing Peter. A church which in the latter half of the second century was ready to trace back an unbroken line of bishops to Peter and Paul as the founders of the See, would not easily be scandalized, espe- cially if any work presented to it professed to be backed up - by apostolic authority. We need, therefore, scarcely trouble ourselves with Dean Mansel’s doubt as to “whether the author had any intention of passing it [the Homilies] off as a genuine production of Clement.’{ To speak, however, as he does of the Clementines as a “romance,” is misleading, for there is not the slightest indication that the Homilist intended his work to be regarded in any other light than as a record of historical fact. If it be objected that we thus accuse our author of a highly immoral proceeding—of a daring attempt to falsify tradition—we have only to turn to the last Homily ~ to discover that the Homilist did not place truthfulness very high in the scale of the virtues. There (Hom. xx.) the blame- less Peter, the model of all that is good and Christian (or, as the author would say, “ Jewish”), is represented as inciting an old man to utter a whole string of falsehoods in order to bring about the discomfiture of the arch-heretic, Simon Magus. If, then, the “lord” of the Homilist could be conceived as doing * See Hilgenfeld, ‘“ Historisch-Kritische Hinleitung in das Neue Testament,” 1875, p. 89, &e. + Ireneeus, Adv. Her. III. 3, 2. t Mansel, “The Gnostic Heresies,” p. 221. On the Clementine Homilies. 9 evil that good might come, the “servant” would not feel him- self precluded from adopting a similar course. That such a work as the Homilies could be produced in the second century must appear to all who consider it a most sug- gestive and significant fact, because it throws light upon the credulity, no less than upon the internal condition, of the com- munities which were known to the writer. Significant, too, is the fact, that within an hundred years of his death there appears at Rome, the scene of his martyrdom, a work in which the great Apostle of the Gentiles is not merely opposed on points of doctrine, but is represented as the bitterest and most unscrupulous enemy of the religion he was the foremost to avow and the boldest to defend. That Paul’s teaching should be forgotten, as it was, very rapidly, is not surprising ; he wrote many “things hard to be understood,” especially hard to those who were strangers to the Law and its teaching. Hence, as Zeller* well points out, the simplicity of the Jewish-Christian doctrines as compared with those taught by Paul, told largely in favour of the former, and we are little astonished to find Christianity in the second century tending to become only a new form of legalism. But what may well surprise us is the unrelenting hate of that Jewish faction, which, not content with thwarting and saddening a noble life, continued its attacks with yet greater virulence upon the dead. We are thus helped in some measure to understand how keen was the opposition with which Paul had during his hfetime to contend. It should perhaps be noticed here that the name of Paul does not occur anywhere in the Homilies, but it is abundantly evident that he is attacked under the guise of the magician Simon. Peter’s enemy, the man who depends upon visions, and not upon personal intercourse, for his knowledge of Jesus, must be none other than Paul. But, be it observed, the magi- cian is made to play more réles than one, and it is sometimes a little difficult to know in which of his characters he is sup- * “Vortrage und Abhandlungen,” p. 242. 10 On the Clementine Homilies. posed to present himself. That he does, however, at times personate the Apostle Paul is beyond doubt, and is especially worthy of remark. The difficult literary question as to the relationship one to another of the Clementine writings, we do not propose to dis- cuss here in detail. Such a discussion, to be at all adequate to the subject, would require to be extended to considerable length, and it is more than doubtful if any satisfactory conclu- sions could be obtained. The works on the Clementines of Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn are devoted mainly to the question whether priority is to be given to the Homilies or to the Re- cognitions. Hilgenfeld* gives the priority to the Recognitions, and holds that they again embody other and older writings, notably the Kyjpuypa Lérpov. Uhlhorn+ takes the opposite view, and believes the Recog- nitions to be an altered edition of the Homilies. He further tries to show that the original work upon which the Clemen- tine writings in their present form are based must be referred to the sects of Eastern Syria. Ritschl, in the first edition of his “Entstehung der Altka- tholischen Kirche,” supported the view propounded by Hilgen- feld ; but in the second edition (1857) he abstained} from any argument on the subject, because of the complications in which it has become involved by the controversy carried on between Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn. Schliemann’s work,§ which preceded those just mentioned, does not deal with the literary question at any length, but it is clearly at one with Uhlhorn in ascribing priority to the Homilies. * Hilgenfeld, “Die Clementinischen Recognitionem und Homilien nach ihrem Ursprung und Inhalt dargestellt,” 1848, + Ublhorn, “Die Homilien und Recognitionem des Clemens Rom. nach ihrem Ursprung und Inhalt dargestellt,” 1854. + See Ritschl, “Die Entstehung,” &c, 2nd ed., p. 264, note i. § Schliemann, “Die Clementinen nebst den verwandten Schriften und der Ebionitismus,” 1844, On the Clementine Homilies. TE The latest book on the subject, which we have met with, is by Lehmann,* and is an attempt to show how the views of Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn may be combined. We must content ourselves here with stating with all brevity what appears to be the most plausible view of the matter. The resemblance of the Homilies to the Recognitions is such as to indicate that the one work is in the main a revision and modification of the other. But it is quite possible, though this cannot be absolutely proved, that both draw from some com- mon and older work; and if so, it is not improbable that the Recognitions, though composed somewhat later, reproduce in parts that other work more faithfully than the Homilies. That - the Recognitions do date from a later period, though probably not later by more than a few years, seems to be borne out by the fact that we find in them in regard to some points, eg. the relation of Judaism to Christianity, greater agreement with what was later on the orthodox view than in the Homilies. This advance towards harmony with the tenets of the Old- Catholic Church also accounts for the greater circulation+ of the Recognitions than of the Homilies. Did we possess the original of the Recognitions, the matter might be somewhat simplified, for it is difficult to say how much license the Latin translator, Rufinus, may have allowed himself. Certainly the quotations from the Gospels, in several cases in which the same quotation occurs in both works, are given with more accuracy in the Recognitions, and this may be due entirely to the translator. But the whole question is, for our present pur- pose, of no great moment. It is sufficient to say here that it appears more difficult to account for the Homilies as a revision of the Recognitions, than to account for the Recognitions as a modified version of the Homilies. Both works are remarkable productions of the period to which they belong; but it will hardly be denied that of the two the Homilies contain more that is striking and suggestive, that they have the more strongly * J. Lehmann, “Die Clementinischen Schriften mit besonderer Rucksicht auf __ ihr literarisches Verhiltniss,” 1869. + See Schliemann, “Die Clementinen,”’ &c., pp. 127, 128, § x. 1 On the Clementine Homilies.. marked individuality. It is on this account that we desire to examine the Homilies, as being a remarkable composition, throwing some light upon the tendencies and characteristics of’a period which still remains enveloped in much obscurity. What Schwegler* has said of the “ Acts of the Apostles” may be applied with more truth to this work: “On the whole, then, the ‘ Acts of the Apostles’ has the value of an historical docu- ment only for that time, those conditions and that situation, to which it owes its origin, and in this view it certainly justifies very important inferences.” In like manner, the Clementines help us to judge what were the influences the author found at work in the community for which he wrote, and we shall see how he sought to mediate between opposing parties, and to provide a theological system which he hoped might prove the basis of a union. To heathenism of all kinds he naturally offers uncompromising opposition, and towards the Gnosticism of Marcion he takes up a like position ; yet.to those who had leanings towards Gnosticism in general he offers a Gnostic system of his own. He favours the position of Jewish Chris- tians by contending that Christianity is but Judaism, purged from the errors which had crept into and distorted it; while, on the other hand, he conciliates Gentile believers by dispens- ing with the rite of circumcision, and by representing Peter as the Apostle of the Gentiles. In a word, the author becomes, so far as parties inside the Church are concerned, “all things to all men,” if perchance he may thereby unite all, and avert such dangers as he saw to be threatening Christianity in general, and such especially as affected Jewish Christians in particular. From these general observations we pass on to give an ana- lysis of the contents of the work.t The two letters which are * Schwegler, ‘‘ Das nachapostolische Zeitalter,” Vol. IL. p. 115. + In preparing this essay I have used the text of the Homilies edited by Drewet, 1853. It is hardly necessary to observe that until Dressel’s discovery of the “Codex Ottobonianus,”’ nearly the half of Hom. xix. and the whole of Hom. xx. were missing. In giving quotations from the Homilies, I have in most instances availed myself of the translation published in Clark’s “Ante-Nicene Christian Library,” under the editorship of Dr. Roberts and Dr. Donaldson, On the Clementine Homilies. 13 prefixed to the Homilies purport to be, the one from Peter to James, the bishop of Jerusalem, the other from Clement to James. The connection between these letters and the Homilies is, however, still a disputed question. Schliemann* thinks that both belong to the Homilies, and are intended not only to lend weight and authority to that work, but also mutually to support each other. Hilgenfeld+ holds that the letters come from two distinct authors, and that they refer to two separate works, and denies that the Epistle of Peter to James can have any connection with the Homilies. Uhlhorn,{ on the contrary, urges, as we think, with much force, reasons for believing that the Epistle of Peter to James is intended to stand as prologue to the Homilies, and that the Epistle of Clement to James has a similar relationship to the Recognitions. That this latter Epistle does not belong to the Homilies seems to be clear, partly because we miss in it characteristic peculiarities of style, and also because it contains one passage (that relating to the installation of Clement as bishop of Rome) which is evidently a close imitation of Hom. iii. 60. On the other hand, the letter of Peter to James agrees well both with the style and the dog- matic position of the Homilies, and we may therefore venture to assume, without entering into a fuller discussion of the question, that it was designed by our author to stand as the introduction to his work. The letter seems to be intended to suggest to readers the idea that the Homilies which follow contain, so far as they go, Peter's real teaching, which was and had often been mis- represented by slanderers— and furthermore to leave the impression that the author has not told all he knows, since the full accounts of Peter's discourse are committed only to a - select few, and must not be made known to the public at large. The letter contains merely a request that James would commit Peter’s writings to the keeping of trusty men, who might be relied upon to interpret them aright. Following this * “Tie Clementinen,” &c., pp. 80—85. + “Die Clem. Recog.,” &c., pp. 26—44. + “Die Homilien,” &., p. 78 £ 14 On the Clementine Homilies. letter is an account of the steps taken by James to carry out the wishes of his co-apostle. The elders are summoned toge- ther, and James tells them the purport of Peter’s communi- cation. He then states the qualifications of the man who can be entrusted with the precious documents: he must not only be a tried man, but he must also be circumcised (a qualifica- tion not specified by Peter) ; he must take an oath of fidelity to his trust; and finally he is to receive the writings but part at a time. The elders agree to the conditions proposed by their leader, thank God for giving them such a bishop, and then (the narrative continues) “we rose up and prayed to the God and Father of all,” &c. The use of the first person in this last sentence is very remarkable. Its effect is to lead us to suppose that the account of the proceedings at Jerusalem is given by an eye-witness, by a member of that primitive church which might be supposed to be best able to know what was true Christian teaching and what not. Thus, as it seems to us, some light is thrown upon the connection between Peter's letter, the “ Contestatio,’ and the Homilies. That letter and the report of James’ speech are to bear independent witness to the importance of those discourses of which the Homilies are the epitome. It is worthy of notice that while in the body of the work Peter is represented as using a Gentile as his amanuensis, here in the preface James will entrust only the. “circumcised” with matters of importance and confidence. Would it not seem as though our author here gives expression to his own deeply-rooted preference for Jewish Christians—a preference which would lead him, did expediency permit, to surround Peter as well as James with believers of the cireum- cision? As this cannot be, he contents himself with giving a momentary glimpse of that primitive church in which, if Gen- tiles were found at all, they at any rate occupied no positions of influence or importance, and in which the authority of the bishop, now beginning to be recognized by the church of the West, was submissively and cheerfully acknowledged by all. Hom. i. In the first Homily, Clement tells us how he was first brought into contact with Peter. From his youth up he On the Clementine Homilies. 15 had been perplexed with questionings to which he could obtain no satisfactory answers from the philosophers. At length he decided to go to Egypt to consult the necromancers of that country, that so his mind might be set at rest as to the immor- tality of the soul. Before this plan could be put into exe- cution, the report reached Rome that a wonder-worker had appeared among the Jews, proclaiming among them the king- dom of the invisible God. Six months later, Clement heard more particulars about this new teacher and his doctrine, and determined to go to Judea himself, that he might inquire into the matter. He is borne by adverse winds to Alexandria, where he falls in with Barnabas,* and receives from him in- struction in the new faith. Barnabas soon leaves Alexandria, and Clement follows him as rapidly as he can to Caesarea Stratonis, where he is introduced to Peter, “the most esteemed disciple of the man who had appeared in Judea.” Peter invites Clement to become his travelling companion, that so he may be thoroughly indoctrinated with the truth, listening to the addresses which are to be delivered from city to city till the goal of the apostle’s journey, Rome, is reached. Clement con- curs, and Peter proceeds to give his new disciple a discourse on the Prophet of Truth, who had appeared to deliver men from the results of their wickedness, and to let in upon them the light of heaven. The Prophet shows men things as they are, and gives them the certainty they cannot otherwise obtain. Clement is fully won over to the new faith by Peter, and is commissioned by the apostle to write out the discourse he had heard for transmission to James. Hom. ui. Next morning he receives from Peter further in- struction about the Prophet of Truth, to whom men ought to trust themselves as to an infallible guide. The doctrine of that prophet is, “that there is one God, whose work the world is ; who, being altogether righteous, will certainly at some time * Tt is noteworthy that Clement is instructed in Christian truth by Barnabas, the man from whom Paul parted company, and between whom and the apostle _ there was probably some more serious cause of disagreement (known to the early _ Church, though unknown to us) than the trifling matter relating to Mark. 16 On the Clementine Homilies. render to every one according to his deeds.” All the principles of the universe God has divided into pairs, e.g. heaven and earth, day and night, &c. Man he has made self-controlling, with the ability to be either righteous or unrighteous. Now in the rest of creation the better precedes that which is infe- rior—e.g. the heavens are first created, then the earth ; but in the history of humanity the process is reversed, and from the first parents onwards the worse comes first and the better after- wards—e.g. first Cain, then Abel, &c.—first John the Baptist, then Christ—first Simon Magus, then Peter. Clement ex- presses a wish to know more about the magician, anc receives a full account of him from two young men who once belonged to the company of Simon’s followers. In this account Simon is represented as an ambitious Samaritan, who studied at Alexandria, became skilful in magic, and finally gave himself out to be a power greater than the Creator. At one time he was a disciple of John the Baptist, and in fact he became the Baptist’s successor. He works miracles, but in doing so he is, unlike Christ, actuated by no feeling of compassion for mankind. Peter is about to meet this magician in public debate, and proceeds to prepare Clement's mind for a right understanding of the matters to be discussed, by telling him that the Scriptures have been falsified, and that their falsifi- cation has been permitted in order that the fidelity.of men to their Maker may be tested. It was with a view to this that the Master said, “Be ye good money-changers,” separating what is true from what is false. Against God and just men, therefore, we must believe nothing bad, even on the authority of Scripture—e.g. Adam did not sin, Noah never drank to excess, and so on. Hom. iii. On the following day Peter informs his attendants that Simon has changed the subject of the debate, and is going to argue that the Scriptures teach polytheism. That the Serip- tures do admit of such an argument, Peter does not deny ; but he asserts that all passages which lend support to any but a monotheistic conception of God have been inserted into Holy Writ by the evil one, whose office it is to find out and destroy On the Clementine Homilies. aly? such as are'ready[to accept untrue teaching in respect of the Deity. The only infallible guide to the truth is the Prophet of Truth, who knows all things, and, unlike false prophets, speaks in clear, intelligible words, and has the prophetic spirit not spasmodically, but as a permanent possession.. Those who teach error would find no credence did men rightly understand the doctrine of pairs. In this connection it should be borne in mind that the first man was created in the likeness of God, and therefore possessed the Divine Spirit, and was entirely free from sin. He has re-appeared in different forms and under different names, proclaiming the truth, but in his own time he will receive the reward of his labours and obtain eternal rest. Along with the primal man, Adam, was created another being of much inferior nature, who is the source of false prophecy. “The male is wholly truth, the female wholly falsehood. But he who is born of the male and the female, in some things speaks truth, in some falsehood.” Hearing that the time has arrived for the disputation with Simon to com- mence, Peter goes forth, and, greeting the assembly with a salutation of peace, urges his hearers to follow that manner of life which is pleasing to God, that so they may obtain peace. God is the bestower of all good, and it is but right that man should acknowledge his Maker, and refuse to admit that any being shares the Creator’s throne. Simon hereupon accuses Peter of imposing upon the people by teaching them that there is but one God, not Gods, in opposition to the Jewish Scrip- tures. According to these Scriptures, urges Simon, the Creator is subject to passions and characterized by defects not compa- tible with the nature of the Highest God. To this Peter replies that the passages adduced by Simon in support of his position “were not written by a prophetic hand.” The teaching of Christ forms a test by which we may find out what in the Scriptures is true and what false—thus, e.g. Christ says that heaven and earth shall pass away, but not one jot or tittle shall fail from the Law. Now heaven and earth still endure, but sacrifices, &c., have passed away, showing that they were * not true ordinances of God. VOL. XV. Cc 18 On the Clementine Homilies. After three days’ discussion, Simon runs away to Tyre. Peter sees the advisability of pursuing his enemy, but first he has to make arrangements for the church at Cesarea. He calls the faithful together, and after pointing out the benefits accruing to a community from a monarchic form of govern- ment, nominates Zaccheus as his successor. Peter then expa- tiates upon the special duties, responsibilities and hopes of bishops. It belongs to the bishop to command, to the congre- gation to obey; to disobey the bishop is to disobey Christ. That he may be free from worldly care, the congregation should make provision for the bodily necessities of their bishop, and he is to be assisted in the discharge of the functions of his office by elders and deacons. Obliged himself to tarry for a few days at Ceesarea, Peter sends forward Clement and two others, that they may learn what Simon is doing at Tyre, and report accordingly. Hom. iv. Arrived at Tyre, Clement and his friends learn that Simon has made a great impression upon the people of the town, and has persuaded them that Peter is a dangerous magician. Next morning comes news that Simon has gone on to Sidon, leaving behind him at Tyre three of his followers, one of whom, Appion, is known to Clement. The remainder of Hom. iv., and the whole of Homs. v. and vi, are taken up with conversations between Clement and Appion and Appion’s friends on the subject of religion. Clement justifies his depar- ture from the ereed of his fathers, and dwells upon the demo- ralizing tendency of heathen mythologies. There is little that is specially worthy of note in these conversations, which are brought to a close by the arrival of Peter. The apostle stays but a few days at Tyre, and then passes on to Sidon. At both towns he delivers addresses, heals those who had been smitten with diseases by Simon, founds churches, and appoints bishops. 