ROM the Early Fathers we step back to the Apostolic Fathers. By the Apostolic Fathers I here mean men who were alive before the last of the apostles had passed away. They were the friends of the friends of our Lord; men who had heard the story of our Lord's life from the lips of His own disciples themselves, and from many of the intimate and close friends of these.

      Here again I select three: Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Papias. In the last chapter we were considering the writings of about the year 175, A. D. Now let us go a hundred years farther back still, and fix in our minds the year 75, A. D. All these three men were born before this date, Polycarp may have been about five years of age, Papias perhaps fifteen years of age, and Clement a man, but of what age I am unable to say.

      In this year, 75, A. D., it is important to remember that one of the Lord's disciples was still alive, and [41] perhaps others. St. John was bishop of the church at Ephesus. His friend Andrew who went with him to Asia Minor, and also Philip who settled at Hierapolis, may also have been alive at this time. Jerusalem had been destroyed five years previously. The Apostle Paul had written his Epistles some years before this date on which we fix, and had now for some years been in the enjoyment of that "Crown of Life" which he tells us the Lord has laid up for the faithful in heaven. All the New Testament, with the exception of the later writings of John, was in the possession of the churches.

      When the Apostle Paul was a prisoner at Rome, he was very poor and in needy circumstances. One of the churches which he had planted--that at Philippi--made a collection for him, and sent it to him with good wishes and prayers. Their kindness to him at such a time touched his heart, and drew from him many kind words. He wrote them an affectionate letter which has been preserved and has a place in our New Testament as the Epistle to the Philippians. It stands among his many letters as one of the most tender, gentle, loving, and peaceful of them all. In the fourth chapter and the third verse he mentions a fellow-laborer whose name is Clement. John is thought by some to be identical with Clement of Rome. [42]

      We have no reliable history to inform us of the early life of Clement, just as we have but little to tell us of the early life of our Lord's disciples, and of the Lord Himself. In all probability he was a Jewish convert to Christianity, as were Paul and many of the leaders of the Christian Church in the first century. But though we know so little of his origin, we are not left in doubt as to his manhood and later life. He was an immediate disciple of the disciples of our Lord. He was the friend of several of them, knew them, was acquainted with their writings, and occupied a most important and influential position in the church.

      Many have thought that Clement was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and some have said that he wrote the Acts of the Apostles. It is certain that many other works were ascribed to him; so great and influential was his place and name. He was third Bishop of Rome and such has been the respect in which his name and memory have been held, that almost a score of the Bishops or Popes of Rome have taken and used his name. At what exact date he died it is not easy to say. Eusebius, a learned man, who was born in the year 260, A. D., and died about the year 340, A. D., tells a little about Clement. This man, Eusebius, was the most famous of scholarly men in the church in his day. He wrote [43] a history of the church from the Apostolic times to his own. In this chronicle he places the death of Clement in the year 95, A. D.

      If this be correct, Clement was the Bishop of Rome at the same time that John was Bishop at Ephesus. How many of the disciples he knew we cannot say; but it is certain that he was the friend of several. He would thus be in a most favored position for knowing what was the teaching of the Apostles respecting our Lord's life and death, the account of which we have in our Gospels. And he would know of the other parts of the New Testament if they were then in existence. Have we any evidence that he did know of the New Testament? Let us see.

      Clement wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians, which fortunately is preserved to us to this day. We have examined the precious old Bible called the Alexandrian Manuscript, the famous Codex A., which is in the British Museum, and which was written about the middle of the fifth century. Bound up with the New Testament volume of that priceless treasure is to be found with other inspired writings the Epistle to the Corinthians which Clement wrote. It has been translated into English and is now published together with the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. [44]

      If you get it and read it through you will find that it is saturated with the language of the New Testament. In its doctrine, the style in which it is written, and its general thought, it is unquestionably based upon the New Testament. A copy of it lies before me and I have just been reading it again, and say without hesitation that it could never have been written by any man who did not know the New Testament as it was spoken and written by the disciples and Apostles of our Lord. It contains the words of Peter, James, John, and Luke. It has passages based upon the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Thessalonians, Ephesians, Timothy, Titus, of James, of Peter, to the Hebrews, and the Acts of the Apostles.

      Here, then, is another and most valuable link in the chain of evidence which shows that our New Testament came from the disciples and Apostles of our Lord. It confirms me in the faith that my New Testament is the same in substance which the church in the first century possessed. For if the disciples had not spoken and written the contents of the New Testament in those years of the first century. Clement could not possibly have written in their language. It is almost impossible to overestimate the importance of the writings of these ancient saints and fathers. The testimony which they bear to the existence of our Gospels and Epistles is such that, [45] whether we believe them or disbelieve them, we are forced to admit that the Gospels and Epistles were in existence, or these Fathers could not have quoted them in the language in which they are written as they have done. This will be more apparent and convincing when we have added the testimony of Polycarp and Papias to that of Clement. [46]

[HWGI 41-46]