  We have now considered all the fragments of the Gospel of the Hebrews that have been preserved to us in the writings of Justin Martyr, Origen, Jerome and Epiphanius. But there is another storehouse of texts and references to a Gospel regarded as canonical at a very early date by the Nazarene or Ebionite Church. This storehouse is that curious collection of the sayings and doings of St. Peter, the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies. That the Gospel used by the author or authors of the Clementines was that of the Hebrews cannot be shown; but it is probable that it was so. The Clementines were a production of the Judaizing party in the Primitive Church, and it was this party which, we know, used the Gospel of the Twelve, or of the Hebrews. The doctrine in the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies bears close relations to that of the Jewish Essenes. The sacrificial system of the Jewish Church is rejected. It was not part of the revelation to Moses, but a tradition of the elders.290 Distinction in meats is an essential element of religion. Through unclean meats devils enter into men, and produce disease. To eat of unclean meats places men in the power of evil spirits, who lead them to [pg 194] The observance of times is also insisted on—times at which the procreation of children is lawful or unlawful; and disease and death result from neglect of this distinction. “In the beginning of the world men lived long, and had no diseases. But when through carelessness they neglected the observance of the proper times ... they placed their children under innumerable afflictions.”292 It is this doctrine that is apparently combated by St. Paul.293 He relaxes the restraints which Nazarene tradition imposed on marital intercourse. The rejection of sacrifices obliged the Nazarene Church to discriminate between what is true and false in the Scriptures; and, with the Essenes, they professed liberty to judge the Scriptures and reject what opposed their ideas. Thus they refused to acknowledge that “Adam was a transgressor, Noah drunken, Abraham guilty of having three wives, Jacob of cohabiting with two sisters, Moses was a murderer,” &c.294 The moral teaching of the Clementines is of the most exalted nature. Chastity is commended in a glowing, eloquent address of St. Peter.295 Poverty is elevated into an essential element of virtue. Property is, in itself, an evil. “To all of us possessions are sins. The deprivation of these is the removal of sins.” “To be saved, no one should possess anything; but since many have possessions, or, in other words, sins, God sends, in love, afflictions ... that those with possessions, but yet having some measure of love to God, may, by temporary inflictions, be saved from eternal punishments.”296 [pg 195]“Those who have chosen the blessings of the future kingdom have no right to regard the things here as their own, since they belong to a foreign king (i.e. the prince of this world), with the exception only of water and bread, and those things procured by the sweat of the brow, necessary for the maintenance of life, and also one garment.”297 Thus St. Peter is represented as living on water, bread and olives, and having but one cloak and tunic.298 And Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius, describes St. James, first bishop of Jerusalem, as “drinking neither wine nor fermented liquors, and abstaining from animal food. A razor never came upon his head, he never anointed himself with oil, and never used a bath. He never wore woollen, but linen garments.”299 The Ebionites looked upon Christ as the Messiah rather than as God incarnate. They gave him the title of Son of God, and claimed for him the highest honour, but hesitated to term him God. In their earnest maintenance of the Unity of the Godhead against Gnosticism, they shrank from appearing to divide the Godhead. Thus, in the Clementines, St. Peter says, “Our Lord neither asserted that there were gods except the Creator of all, nor did he proclaim himself to be God, but he pronounced him blessed who called him the Son of that God who ordered the universe.”300 The Ebionitism of the Clementines is controversial. It was placed face to face with Gnosticism. Simon Magus, the representative of Gnosticism, as St. Peter is the representative of orthodoxy, in the Recognitions and Homilies, contends that the God of the Jews, the Demiurge, the Creator of the world, is evil. He attempts to prove this by showing that the world is full of pain [pg 196] This doctrine St. Peter combats by showing that present evils are educative, curative, disguised blessings; and by calling all those passages in Scripture which attribute to God human passions, corruptions of the sacred text in one of its many re-editions. “God who created the world has not in reality such a character as the Scriptures assign Him,” says St. Peter; “for such a character is contrary to the nature of God, and therefore manifestly is falsely attributed to Him.”301 From this brief sketch of the doctrines of the Ebionite Church from which the Clementines emanated, it will be seen that its Gospel must have resembled that of the Hebrews, or have been founded on it. The “Recollections of the Twelve” probably existed in several forms, some more complete than others, some purposely corrupted. The Gospel of the Hebrews was in use in the orthodox Nazarene Church. The Gospel used by the author of the Clementines was in use in the same community. It is therefore natural to conclude their substantial identity. But though substantially the same, and both closely related to the Canonical Gospel of St. Matthew, they were not completely identical; for the Clementine Gospel diverged from the received text of St. Matthew more widely than we are justified in concluding did that of the Gospel of the Hebrews. That it was in Greek and not in Hebrew is also probable. The converts to Christianity mentioned in the Recognitions and Homilies are all made from Heathenism, [pg 197] The Clementine Gospel was therefore probably a sister compilation to that of the Hebrews and of St. Matthew. The Memorabilia of the Apostles had circulated in Hebrew in the communities of pure Jews, in Greek in those of Gentile proselytes. These Memorabilia were collected into one book by the Hebrew Church, by the Nazarene proselytes, and by the compiler of the Canonical Gospel of St. Matthew. This will explain their similarity and their differences. From what has been said of the Clementines, it will be seen that their value is hardly to be over-estimated as a source of information on the religious position of the Petrine Church. Hilgenfeld says: “There is scarcely any single writing which is of such importance for the history of the earliest stage of Christianity, and which has yielded such brilliant disclosures at the hands of the most careful critics, with regard to the earliest history of the Christian Church, as the writings ascribed to the Roman Clement, the Recognitions and the Homilies.”302 No conclusion has been reached in regard to the author of the Clementines. It is uncertain whether the Homilies and the Recognitions are from the same hand. Unfortunately, the Greek of the Recognitions is lost. We have only a Latin translation by Rufinus of Aquileia (d. 410), who took liberties with his text, as he informs Bishop Gaudentius, to whom he addressed his [pg 198] Various opinions exist as to the date of the Clementines. They have been attributed to the first, second, third and fourth centuries. If we were to base our arguments on the work as it stands, the date to be assigned to it is the first half of the third century. A passage from the Recognitions is quoted by Origen in his Commentary on Genesis, written in A.D. 231; and mention is made in the work of the extension of the Roman franchise to all nations under the dominion of Rome, an event which took place in the reign of Caracalla (A.D. 211). The Recognitions also contain an extract from the work De Fato, ascribed to Bardesanes, but which was really written by one of his scholars. But it has been thought, not without great probability, that this passage did not originally belong to the Recognitions, but was thrust into the text about the middle of the third century.303 I have already pointed out the fact that the Church in the Clementines is never called “Christian;” that the word is never employed. It belonged to the community established by Paul, and with it the Church of Peter had [pg 199] The author of the Recognitions twice makes St. Peter say that the only difference existing between him and the Jews is in the manner in which they view Christ. To the apostles he is the Messiah come in humility, to come again in glory. But the Jews deny that the Messiah was to have two manifestations, and therefore reject Christ.304 Although we cannot rely on the exact words of the quotations from the Gospel in the “Recognitions,” there are references to the history of our Lord which give indications of narratives contained in the Gospel used by the pseudo-Clement, therefore by the Ebionite Christians whose views he represents. We will go through all such passages in the order in which they occur in the “Recognitions.” The first allusion to a text parallel to one in the Canonical Gospels is this: “Not only did they not believe, but they added blasphemy to unbelief, saying he was a gluttonous man and slave of his belly, and that he was influenced by a demon.”305 The parallel passage is in St. Matthew xi. 18, 19. It is curious to notice that in the Recognitions the order is inverted. In St. Matthew, “they say, He hath a devil.... They say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber;” and that the term “wine-bibber” is changed into “slave of his belly.” Probably therefore in this instance the author of the [pg 200] In the very next chapter the Recognitions approaches St. Matthew closer than the lost Gospel. For in the account of the crucifixion it is said that “the veil of the Temple was rent,” whereas the Gospel of the Hebrews stated that the lintel of the Temple had fallen. But here I suspect we have the hand of Rufinus the translator. We can understand how, finding in the text an inaccuracy of quotation, as he supposed, he altered it. The next passage relates to the resurrection. “For some of them, watching the place with all care, when they could not prevent his rising again, said that he was a magician; others pretended that he was stolen away.”306 The Canonical Gospels say nothing about this difference of opinion among the Jews, but St. Matthew states that it was commonly reported among them that his disciples had stolen his body away. Not a word about any suspicion that he had exercised witchcraft, a charge which we know from Celsus was brought against Christ later. The next passage is especially curious. It relates to the unction of Christ. “He was the Son of God, and the beginning of all things; he became man; him God anointed with oil that was taken from the wood of the Tree of Life; and from this anointing he is called Christ.”307 Then St. Peter goes on to argue: “In the present life, Aaron, the first high-priest, was anointed with a composition of chrism, which was made after the pattern of that spiritual ointment of which we have spoken before.... But if any one else was anointed with the same ointment, as deriving virtue from it, he became either king, or prophet, or priest. If, then, this temporal grace, compounded by men, had such efficacy, consider [pg 201] Here we have trace of an apparent myth relating to the unction of Jesus at his baptism. Was there any passage to this effect in the Hebrew Gospel translated by St. Jerome? It is hard to believe it. Had there been, we might have expected him to allude to it. But that there was some unction of Christ mentioned in the early Gospels, I think is probable. If there were not, how did Jesus, so early, obtain the name of Christ, the Anointed One? That name was given to him before his divinity was wholly believed in, and when he was regarded only as the Messiah—nay, even before the apostles and disciples had begun to see in him anything higher than a teacher sent from God, a Rabbi founding a new school. It is more natural to suppose that the surname of the Anointed One was given to him because of some event in his life with which they were acquainted, than because they applied to him prophecies at a time when certainly they had no idea that such prophecies were spoken of him. If some anointing did really accompany the baptism, then one can understand the importance attached to the baptism by the Elkesaites and other Gnostic sects; and how they had some ground for their doctrine that Jesus became the Christ only on his baptism. It is remarkable that, according to St. John's Gospel, it is directly after the baptism that Andrew tells his brother Simon, “We have found the Messias, which is ... the Anointed.”308 Twice in the Acts is Jesus spoken of as the Anointed: “Thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed.”309 The second occasion is remarkable, for it again apparently associates the anointing with the baptism. [pg 202] But if in the original Hebrew Gospel there was mention of the anointing of Jesus at or after his baptism, as I contend is probable, this mention did not include an account of the oil being expressed from the branch of the Tree of Life; that is a later addition, in full agreement with the fantastic ideas which were gradually permeating and colouring Judaic Christianity. After the baptism, “Jesus put out, by the grace of baptism, that fire which the priest kindled for sins; for, from the time when he appeared, the chrism has ceased, by which the priesthood or the prophetic or the kingly office was conferred.”311 The Homilies are more explicit: “He put out the fire on the altars.”312 There was therefore in the Gospel used by the author of the [pg 203] In St. John's Gospel, on which we may rely for the chronological sequence of events with more confidence than we can on the Synoptical Gospels, the casting of the money-changers out of the Temple took place not long after the baptism. In St. Matthew's account it took place at the close of the ministry, in the week of the Passion. That this exhibition of his authority marked the opening of his three years' ministry rather than the close is most probable, and then it was, no doubt, that he extinguished the fires on the altar, according to the Gospel used by the author of the Clementines. Whether this incident occurred in the Gospel of the Hebrews it is not possible to say. We are told that “James and John, the sons of Zebedee, had a command ... not to enter into their cities (i.e. the cities of the Samaritans), nor to bring the word of preaching to them.”313 “And when our Master sent us forth to preach, he commanded us, But into whatsoever city or house we should enter, we should say, Peace be to this house. And if, said he, a son of peace be there, your peace shall come upon him; but if there be not, your peace shall return unto you. Also, that going from house to city, we should shake off upon them the very dust which adhered to our feet. But it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for that city or house.”314 The Gospel of the Clementines, it is plain, contained an account of the sending forth of the apostles almost identical with that in St. Matthew, x. “And ... Jesus himself declared that John was [pg 204] The Beatitudes, or some of them, were in it. “He said, Blessed are the poor; and promised earthly rewards; and promised that those who maintain righteousness shall be satisfied with meat and drink.”317 “Our Master, inviting his disciples to patience, impressed on them the blessing of peace, which was to be preserved with the labour of patience.... He charges (the believers) to have peace among themselves, and says to them, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the very sons of God.”318 “The Father, whom only those can see who are pure in heart.”319 Again strong similarity with slight difference. “He said, I am not come to send peace on earth, but a sword; and henceforth you shall see father separated from son, son from father, husband from wife, and wife from husband, mother from daughter, and daughter from mother, brother from brother, father-in-law from daughter-in-law, friend from friend.”320 This is fuller than the corresponding passage in St. Matthew.321 “It is enough for the disciple to be as his master.”322 “He mourned over those who lived in riches and luxury, and bestowed nothing upon the poor; showing that they must render an account, because they did not pity their neighbours, even when they were in poverty, whom they ought to love as themselves.”323 “In like manner he charged the Scribes and Pharisees during the last period of his teaching ... with hiding the key of knowledge which they had handed down to them from Moses, by which the gate of the heavenly kingdom might be [pg 205] “Every kingdom divided against itself shall not stand.”328 “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.”329 The writer knew, in the same terms as St. Matthew, our Lord's sayings: “Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine.”330 “Whosoever shall look upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her in his heart.... If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members perish, rather than thy whole body be cast into hell-fire.”331 [pg 206]The woes denounced on the Scribes and Pharisees,332 and the saying that the Queen of the South should “rise in judgment against this generation,”333 are given in the Recognitions as in St. Matthew, as also that “the harvest is plenteous,”334 “that no man can serve two masters,”335 and the saying on the power of faith to move mountains.336 We have the parables of the goodly pearl,337 of the marriage supper,338 and of the tares,339 but also that of the sower,340 which does not occur in St. Matthew, but in St. Luke. This therefore was found in the Gospel used by the author of the Recognitions. There are two other apparent quotations from St. Luke: “I have come to send fire on the earth, and how I wish that it were kindled”;341 and the story of the rich fool.342 The first, however, is differently expressed from St. Luke. There are just two more equally questionable quotations: “Be ye merciful, as also your heavenly Father is merciful, who makes his sun to rise upon the good and the evil, and rains upon the just and the unjust.”343 We have the Greek in one of the Homilies.344 In St. Luke it runs, “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.”345 In St. Matthew, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and [pg 207] The next passage is a saying of our Lord on the cross, which is given in the Recognitions: “Father, forgive them their sin, for they know not what they do.”347 In the Homilies we have the original Greek: “Father, forgive them their sins, for they know not what they do.”348 Rufinus has unconsciously altered the text in translating it by making “sins” singular instead of plural. It is not necessary to note the insignificant difference of the word ? in the Homily and the word t? in the Gospel. But who cannot see that the addition of the words, “their sins,” completely changes the thought of the Saviour? Jesus prays God to forgive the Jews the crime they commit in crucifying him, and not to pardon all the sins of their lives that they have committed. The addition of these two words not merely modify the thought; they represent another of an inferior order. They would not have been introduced into the text if the author of the Gospel used by the pseudo-Clement had had the Gospel of St. Luke before him. These words were certainly not derived from St. Luke; they are due [pg 208] We find in both the Recollections and Homilies a passage which has been thought to be a quotation from St. John: “Verily I say unto you, That unless a man is born again of water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”350 Here, again, the hand of Rufinus is to be traced. The same quotation is made in the Homilies, and it stands there thus: “Verily I say unto you, Unless ye be born again of the water of life (or the living water) in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.”351 That the narrative of the interview with Nicodemus was in the Gospel of the Hebrews, we learned from Justin Martyr quoting it. We will place the parallel passages opposite each other:
The fragment in the Homilies clearly belongs to the same narrative as the fragment in Justin's Apology. Both are addressed in the second person plural, “Except ye be born again;” in the Gospel of St. John the first is, “Except a man be born again;” the second, “Except a man be born of water and spirit;” both in the third person singular. The form of the first answer in Justin differs from that in St. John: “he cannot enter the kingdom,” “he cannot see the kingdom.” That these are independent accounts I can hardly doubt. The words, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” are an obvious interpolation, perhaps a late one, in the text of the Homilies; for Rufinus would hardly have omitted to translate this, though he did allow himself to make short verbal alterations. There is another apparent quotation from St. John in the fifth book of the Recognitions: “Every one is made the servant of him to whom he yields subjection.”353 But here again the quotation is very questionable. St. John's version of our Lord's saying is, “Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.” St. Paul is much nearer: [pg 210] The quotation in the Recognitions is not from St. Paul, for the author expressly declares it is a saying of our Lord. St. Paul could not have had St. John's Gospel under his eye when he wrote, for that Gospel was not composed till long after he wrote the Epistle to the Romans. He gives no hint that he is quoting a saying of our Lord traditionally known to the Roman Christians. He apparently makes appeal to their experience when he says, “Know ye not.” Yet this fragment of an ancient lost Gospel in the Clementine Recognitions gives another colour to his words; they may be paraphrased, “Know ye not that saying of Christ, To whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are?” It appears, therefore, that this is an earlier recorded reminiscence of our Lord's saying than that of St. John. There is one, and only one, apparent quotation from St. Paul in the Recognitions: “In God's estimation, he is not a Jew who is a Jew among men, nor is he a Gentile that is called a Gentile, but he who, believing in God, fulfils his law and does his will, though he be not circumcised.”355 St. Paul's words are: “He is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.” There is no doubt a resemblance between these passages. But it is probable that the resemblance is due solely to community of thought in the minds of both [pg 211] The Recognitions mention the temptation: “The prince of wickedness ... presumed that he should be worshipped by him by whom he knew that he was to be destroyed. Therefore our Lord, confirming the worship of one God, answered him, It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve. And he, terrified by this answer, and fearing lest the true religion of the one and true God should be restored, hastened straightway to send forth into this world false prophets and false apostles and false teachers, who should speak, indeed, in the name of Christ, but should accomplish the will of the demon.”356 Here we have Christ indicated as the one who was to restore that true worship of God which Moses had instituted, but which the Ebionites, with their Essene ancestors, asserted had been defaced and corrupted by false traditions. And in opposition to this, the devil sends out false apostles, false teachers, to undo this work, calling themselves, however, apostles of Christ. There can be little doubt who is meant. The reference is to St. Paul, Silas, and those who accepted his views, in opposition to those of St. James and St. Peter. In Homily xii. is a citation which seems to indicate the use of the third Canonical Gospel. At first sight it appears to be a combination of a passage of St. Matthew and a parallel passage of St. Luke. It is preceded in the Homily by a phrase not found in the Canonical Gospels, but which is given, together with what follows, [pg 212]
The passage in the Homily is more complete than those in St. Matthew and St. Luke. The two Canonical Evangelists made use of imperfect fragments destitute of one member of the sentence. One cannot but wish to believe that our Lord pronounced a benediction on those who did good in their generation. “There is amongst us,” says St. Peter in his second Homily, “one Justa, a Syro-Phoenician, a Canaanite by race, whose daughter was oppressed with a grievous disease. And she came to our Lord, crying out and entreating that he would heal her daughter. But he, being asked by us also, said, ‘It is not lawful to heal the Gentiles, who are like unto dogs on account of their using various meats and practices, while the table in the kingdom has been given to the sons of Israel.’ But she, hearing this, and begging to partake as a dog of the crumbs that fall from this table, having changed what she was (i.e. having given up the use of forbidden food), by living like the sons of the kingdom, obtained healing for her [pg 213] That the Ebionites perverted the words of our Lord to make them support their tenets on distinction of meats is obvious. In the Clementine Homilies we have thrice repeated a saying of our Lord which we know of from St. Jerome and St. Clement of Alexandria, who speak of it as undoubtedly a genuine saying of Christ, “Be ye good money-changers.”359 This text is used by the author of the Clementines to prove the necessity of distinguishing between the gold and the dross in Holy Scripture. And to this he adds the quotation, “Ye do therefore err, not knowing the true things of the Scriptures; and for this reason ye are ignorant also of the power of God.”360 The following are some more fragments from the Clementine Homilies: “He said, I am he of whom Moses prophesied, saying, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise unto you of your brethren, like unto me: him hear ye in all things; and whosoever will not hear the prophet shall die.”361 This saying of Moses is quoted by both St. Peter and St. Stephen in their addresses, as recorded in the Acts. It is probable, therefore, that our Lord had claimed this prophecy to have been spoken of him. But St. Luke had never heard that he had done so, as he makes no allusion to it in his Gospel or in the speeches he puts in the mouths of Peter and Stephen in the Acts. [pg 214]“It is thine, O man, said he, to prove my words, as silver and money are proved by the exchangers.”362 “Give none occasion to the evil one.”363 Twice repeated we have the text, “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”364 In St. Matthew's Gospel (iv. 10) it runs, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” In the Clementines: “He alleged that it was right to present to him who strikes you on one cheek the other also, and to give to him who takes away your cloak your hood also, and to go two miles with him who compels you to go one.”365 This differs from the account in St. Matthew, by using for the word ??t??a, “tunic,” of the Canonical Gospel, the word af?????, “hood.” There are other passages identical with, or almost identical with, the received text in St. Matthew's Gospel, which it is not necessary to enter upon separately. They are: Matt. v. 3, 8, 17, 18, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, vi. 8, 13, vii. 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21, viii. 11, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, ix. 13, x. 28, 34, xi. 25, 27, 28, xii. 7, 26, 34, 42, xiii. 17, 39, xv. 13, xvi. 13, 18, xix. 8, 17, xxii. 2, 32, xxiii. 25, xxiv. 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, xxv. 41. In all, some fifty-five verses, almost and often quite the same as in St. Matthew's Gospel. There is just one text supposed to be taken from St. Mark's Gospel, four from St. Luke's, and two from St. John's. But I do not think we are justified in concluding that these quotations are taken from the three last-named Canonical Gospels. That they are not taken [pg 215] We find, “He, the true Prophet, said, I am the gate of life; he that entereth through me entereth into life.”366 The words in St. John's Gospel are, “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved.”367 The idea is the same, but the mode of expression is different. “Again he said, My sheep hear my voice.”368 The quotation from St. Mark is too brief for us to be able to form any well-founded opinion upon it. It is this: “But to those who were misled to imagine many gods, as the Scriptures say, he said, Hear, O Israel; the Lord your God is one Lord.”369 No prejudice would exist among the Ebionites against the Gospel of St. Mark, but the Christology of the Johannine Gospel, its doctrine of the Logos, would not accord with their low views of Christ. The Ebionites who denied the Godhead of Jesus could hardly acknowledge as canonical a Gospel which contained the words, “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
The resemblance is striking. Nevertheless I do not think we have a right to conclude that this passage in the Clementine Homilies is necessarily a citation from St. John. The text is quoted in connection with the peculiar Ebionite doctrine of seasons and days already alluded to. When our Lord says that he heals the sins of ignorance, he is made in the Clementine Gospel to assert that the blindness of the man was the result of disregard by his parents of the new moons and sabbaths, not wilfully, but through ignorance. “The afflictions you mentioned,” says St. Peter in connection with this quotation, “are the result of ignorance, but assuredly not of wickedness. Give me the man who sins not, and I will show you the man who suffers not.” But though this is the interpretation put on the words of our Lord by the Clementine Ebionite, it by no means flows naturally from them; it is rather wrung out of them. The words, I think, mean that the blindness of the man is symbolical; its mystical meaning is ignorance. Our Lord by opening the eyes of the blind exhibits himself as the spiritual enlightener of mankind. He is come to unclose men's eyes to the true light that he sheds abroad in the world. In St. John's Gospel, after having declared that blindness was not the punishment of sin in the man or his [pg 217] Put this last declaration in connection with the saying, “I am come to heal the sins of ignorance,” and the connection of ideas is at once apparent. The blindness of the man is symbolical of the ignorance of the world. “I am the light of the world, and I have come to dispel the darkness of the ignorance of the world.” And so saying, “he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay.” A few important words in Christ's teaching had escaped the memory of St. John. But they had been noted down by some other apostle, and the recollections of the latter were embodied in the Gospel in use among the Ebionites. The texts resembling passages in St. Luke are four, but all of them are found in St. Matthew's Gospel as well. “Blessed is that man whom his Lord shall appoint to the ministry of his fellow-servants.”371 “The Queen of the South shall rise up with this generation, and shall condemn it; because she came from the extremities of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here, and ye do not believe him. “The men of Nineveh shall rise up with this generation and shall condemn it, for they heard and repented at the preaching of Jonas: and behold, a greater is here, and no one believes.”372 [pg 218]The compiler of St. Matthew's Gospel had this striking passage in an imperfect condition. St. Luke had it with both its members. So had also the compiler of the Clementine Gospel. The wording is not exactly identical with that in St. Luke, but the difference is not material, “Ye do not believe him,” “And no one believes,” exist in the Ebionite, not in the Canonical text. “For without the will of God, not even a sparrow can fall into a gin. Thus even the hairs of the righteous are numbered by God.”373 |
|
