Companion to the Bible

by E. P. Barrows

APPENDIX TO PART III.

WRITINGS OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, WITH SOME NOTICES OF THE APOCRYPHAL NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS.

1. A wide distinction should be made between the writings of the apostolic fathers which are acknowledged to be genuine, or the genuineness of which may be maintained on more or less probable grounds, and the large mass of spurious works afterwards palmed upon the Christian world as the productions of apostles or their contemporaries. The latter constitute properly the New Testament Apocrypha, though the term is sometimes applied in a loose way to both classes of writings. The writings of the apostolic fathers, though possessing no divine authority, are valuable as showing the state of the Christian churches at the time when they were composed in respect to both doctrine and discipline, as well as the various errors and divisions by which they were troubled. Their testimonies to the genuineness of the New Testament have been already considered. Chap. 2, No. 10. Some of the apocryphal works also, worthless as they are for instruction in the doctrines and duties of Christianity, throw much light on the religious spirit, tendencies, and heretical sects of the times to which they belong. Others of these writings are unutterably absurd and puerile, worthy of notice only as showing the type of the puerilities current in the age of their composition.

I. WRITINGS OF CLEMENT.

2. Appended to the Alexandrine manuscript (Chap. 26, No. 5) is an epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, followed by part of a so-called second epistle to the same church. The first of these epistles is acknowledged to be genuine. It was known to the ancient fathers as the work of Clement of Rome, and highly commended by them. Their quotations from it agree with the contents of the epistle as we now have it, nor does it exhibit any marks of a later age; for the author's reference to the well-known fable of the phoenix as a type of the resurrection (chap. 25), constitutes no real difficulty. It may prove that he was credulous, but not that he belonged to a later than the apostolic age. The ancients represent this Clement to have been identical with Clement bishop of Rome. Whether he was also identical with the Clement named by the apostle Paul (Phil. 4:3), is a question that we may well leave undecided. The epistle was written shortly after some persecution (chap. 1), which Grabe, Hefele, and others suppose to have been that under Nero; Lardner, Cotelerius, and others, that under Domitian. Upon the former supposition it was written about A.D. 68—a supposition apparently favored by the way in which he refers to the temple and service at Jerusalem as still in existence (chaps. 40, 41); upon the latter, about A.D. 96 or 97.

3. The occasion of the epistle, which Clement writes in the name of the church at Rome, is easily gathered from its contents. As in the days of Paul, so now, the Corinthian church was troubled by a "wicked and unholy sedition," fomented by "a few rash and self-willed men," who had proceeded so far as to thrust out of their ministry some worthy men. Chap. 44. It would seem, also, from chaps. 24-27 that there were among them those who denied the doctrine of the resurrection. To restore in the Corinthian church the spirit of love and unity is the grand scope of the epistle. The author commends them for their orderly and holy deportment before their present quarrel arose, traces it to its true source in the pride gendered by the honor and enlargement granted them by God, and urges them to lay aside their contentions by every motive that the gospel offers—the mischiefs that strife occasions, the rules of their religion, the example of the Saviour and holy men of all ages, the relation of believers to God, his high value of the spirit of love and unity, the reward of obedience and punishment of disobedience, etc. Comparing the church to an army, he insists earnestly on the necessity of different ranks and orders, and the spirit of obedience. Comparing it again to the human body, he shows that all the particular members, each in his place, should conspire together for the preservation of the whole.

Clement's style has not the merit of compactness and conciseness. He is, on the contrary, diffuse and repetitious. But a thoroughly evangelical spirit pervades the present epistle, and it is, moreover, characterized by a noble fervor and simplicity. "It evinces the calm dignity and the practical executive wisdom of the Roman church in her original apostolic simplicity, without the slightest infusion of hierarchical arrogance." Schaff, Hist. Christ. Church, vol. 1, p. 460. In its internal character, as in the time of its composition, it approaches the canonical writings of the New Testament more nearly than any other remains of antiquity.

4. The second epistle ascribed to Clement is not mentioned by any of the fathers before Eusebius, who speaks of it doubtingiy: "But it should be known that there is said to be also a certain second epistle of Clement. But it is clear to us that this is not equally known with the first, for we know that the ancients have not made use of it." Hist. Eccles. 3. 38. It is generally acknowledged to be spurious, and is, perhaps, as Hefele suggests, one of the homilies falsely ascribed to Clement. With this supposition its contents well agree; for it does not seem to have, like the first, a definite end to accomplish. It opens with a general exhortation that the Corinthians should think worthily of Christ in view of the great work which he has wrought in their behalf, and urges upon them a steadfast confession of him before men, not by empty words, but by a life of holy obedience. It sets before them the incompatibility of the service of God and mammon, and dwells with especial earnestness on the high rewards of eternity in comparison with the pleasures and pains of the present life; as if the writer had in mind those who were exposed to the double peril of substituting an empty profession for the living spirit of obedience, and of apostatizing from Christ through fear of persecution and martyrdom.

5. Besides the above, there is a mass of writings current in ancient days under the name of Clement which are acknowledged by all to be spurious. Among these are: The Recognitions of Clement; The Clementines, or, according to the Greek title, Clement's Epitome of Peter's Discourses in Travel; Clement's Epitome concerning the Acts and Discourses of Peter in Travel—three forms of substantially the same work. It will be sufficient to give a brief notice of the Recognitions. The author, apparently a Jew by birth and a philosopher of the Alexandrine school, has embraced a form of Christianity mixed up with the dogmas of his philosophy. For the purpose of attacking and overthrowing the false religious notions of his age, he invents an ingenious historic plot. Clement, a Roman citizen, who, as appears in the sequel, has been separated in early life from his father, mother, and two brothers, whom he supposes to be dead, is introduced as sending to James, who presides over the church at Jerusalem, with an accompanying letter, an account of his early education; his acquaintance with the apostle Peter, who chooses him to be his companion in travel; Peter's conversations with himself and the rest of the company; his public addresses and acts; especially his famous encounters with Simon Magus, whom he overthrows and puts to public shame. In the course of their journeying they visit a certain island, where they meet with a poor woman begging alms, who is found, upon the relation of her history, to be the mother of Clement. Upon farther inquiry it appears that two of Peter's company, Nicetus and Aquila, are her sons and the brothers of Clement. Finally, Peter encounters on the sea-shore, whither he had gone to perform for the newly discovered mother and sons the rite of baptism, an old man who is found to be the long lost husband and father. From these recognitions the work receives its title. But this historic plot is only the occasion of introducing the writer's theological and philosophical opinions, with especial reference to the prevailing errors of his day. Any page of the work is sufficient to show that Peter and Clement had nothing to do with its composition. It cannot be placed earlier than the close of the second or the beginning of the third century. Prefixed to these Clementine writings, and having reference to them, are two spurious epistles, one from Peter to James, president of the church at Jerusalem, with the proceedings of James consequent upon the reception of it, and one from Clement to James. These it is not necessary to notice.