Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Pseudo-Clementine Literature/The Clementine Homilies/Homily XVII/Chapter 19

by Anonymous

Chapter XIX.—Opposition to Peter Unreasonable.

“If, then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made Himself known to you, and spoke to you, it was as one who is enraged with an adversary; and this is the reason why it was through visions and dreams, or through revelations that were from without, that He spoke to you.  But can any one be rendered fit for instruction through apparitions?  And if you will say, ‘It is possible,’ then I ask, ‘Why did our teacher abide and discourse a whole year to those who were awake?’  And how are we to believe your word, when you tell us that He appeared to you?  And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching?  But if you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His utterances, interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him.  For in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church,^[1] you now stand.  If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad repute.^[2]  But if you say that I am condemned, you bring an accusation against God, who revealed the Christ to me, and you inveigh against Him who pronounced me blessed on account of the revelation.  But if, indeed, you really wish to work in the cause of truth, learn first of all from us what we have learned from Him, and, becoming a disciple of the truth, become a fellow-worker with us.”

Footnotes

1. Matt. xvi. 18.
2. We have adopted an emendation of Schwegler’s.  The text reads, “in good repute.”  [The word “condemned” is supposed to be borrowed from the account of the contest at Antioch in Gal. ii. 11, where it is applied to the Apostle Peter.  This passage has therefore been regarded as a covert attack upon the Apostle Paul.—R.]