Sivut kuvina

death. But let us now see how Clement him. felf, when he writes to James the Lord's Bro,

ther, begins his own Narrative.” So far Rua firus. Whence we learn, that in the Fourth Cen: jury this work was esteem'd very antient, and of great Authority, and even the genuine Writing of Clement himself; that it was allow'd to contain, for the main, Doctrines really Apoftolical, except in those parts that favour'd the Arians; which Rufinus, an Athanasian, was willing to suppose to be spurious ; that even in those Points all the Copies and Editions had the same Doctrines; that they were exactly agreeable to the Notions of Eunomius, or the most honest and down-right of those that have so long been call’d Arians : That some gross Interpolations were even then inserted into this Work; which yet appears to be meant of the spurious Edition, which now passes under the Name of the Clementine Homilies; either as still extant, or as worse interpolated by the Ebionitesi which Epiphanius intimates ; but not of the ge. noine Edition quoted by the Antients, translated by Rufinus, and here put into our native Language; as the Learned well observe, and as is visible on Lives of the comparison. We here also learn that this Cle- the Prim. ment was then believ'd to be the same with him


inclement. whom Paul puts among such his Fellow-labourers Tom. 1. whose names were in the Book of Life. We also n. 11. learn that that great Chasm in the Third Book, Grabe Spiwhere the Discourse was about the Trinity, and çileg. Tom. most plainly Eunomian, was left untranslated by

1. p. 279,

230. Rufinus ; and is thereupon wanting in several Manuscripts still, of which matter see the Note Pag. 119. upon that place. But as to the Epistle of Cle- infrà. ment to James here mention'd, and which was wont to be inserted before the Recognitions ; and as to that other of Peter to James mentioned by Photius, and both still extant, they seem


Pag. 602, to me well plac'd in Cotelerius's Edition, before to 611, the Clementine Homilies, or spurious Edition of

this Work; and do hardly appear to me of the fame Authority and Antiquity with the genuine Work it self; as having neither internal Chao racters, nor external Testimonies to support their Pretences to be really genuine ; as we shall

see there are for the Recognitions themselves. L. III.

Clement indeed, at the conclusion of the Third 9.75: P. Book, speaks of his having sent Ten Books to 178, 179. Fames, whose Contents he there distinâly enu

merates, as the substance of Peter's Preaching; no small part of whose Subjects are here largely treated of also. But then, if we remember there was a very antient, and, in a lower fense,

sacred Book of our Religion stiled Kúpurua nétpo, the Preaching of Peter; and observe, thac the antient Fragments shew it to be somewhat of a piece with the Recognitions, and with those ten Subjects or Heads; we shall rather suppose that Book to be therein referr'd/to, or at least fome Comment upon it, than have the least suspicion that any of these, or the like small and occasional Letters could be at all meant thereby. So I have not pubiilh'd those Epistles.

Il. I shall few, that the main Contents of this Book appear to be deriv'd from the Companions of the Apostles themselves; and so that it generally includes original Christian Doctrines and Rules deriv'd at the last from those Apoftles. Now this seems plainly imply'd in the nature and circumstances of the Work it felf; wherein Clement and other Apostolical Men are introduc'd as the Hearers of Peter; as laying down the main Doctrines that he tauglit in his Preaching, and the Arguments he us'd in his Disputations with Simon stagns, and others;

without any signs of a later and merely human Composition. The Subjects here treated of are plainly such as mens Minds were concern'd with in the first Century; the Heresies confuted, those of that Age only; the Ceremonies and Rules mention'd, those that obtain'd in the same Age; the Books cited or alluded to, those of the same time, and no others. Nor indeed do I see the least sign in the whole work that it is so late as the days of Justin Martyr : nay indeed not any certain one that 'tis so late as the second Century; no more than I see the least indication of its composure by any ill Man, or on any ill design. But on the contrary, all circumstances conspire to assure us that it was written by a learned, honest, and eloquent Perfon, that had heard the Companions of the Apostles preach to, and dispute with the Here. ticks and Philosophers, and set down what he remembred of the fame, for the advantage of the future Ages of the Church, and that probably at their Desire, and with their Approbation. 'Tis true, there are sometimes such mistakes in this work, especially in Chronology, that Clement bimself, or any real Companion of the Apostles could not easily be guilty of; but I think scarce any such, but one that had heard those Companions preach and difpute might easily fall into. So that to one of these Hearers of the Companions of the Apos: tles is this work to be most probably ascrib’d. Which will appear more plainly when we have prov'd,

III. That these Recognitions were written at the lowest in the former part of the Second Century it felf. Now this must be proved by an Induction of the particular Attestations to, and


[ocr errors]



Citations from these Recognitions extant in Antiquity; which I shall here produce : those ! mean which belong to the Second, Third, and

Fourth Centuries of the Church. Ap. Eufeb.

(!:) Bardesanes, a most learned Syrian, who Prepar. came over to Christianity from the Valentinian He. Evang. resy, (to which he never, by Eusebius's account,ap: L. vi. c..

pears to have return'd, whatever Epiphanius and

others afterwards suppose) soon after the midHæres. Iri. $. 2. dle of the Second Century, wrote a very emi

nent Book about Fate, which he presented to the Emperor Antoninus Verus ; made up, as Epipbanius tells us, of Collections taken out of other Authors. In this Collection of Passages there is a very large one out of these Recognitions, preferv'd by Eufebius; and still extant therein ; tho without naming the Book whence it was taken. However, the nature of this Work, which was a Colle&tion from others; the beginning of the Passage in him, I will produce what I have to say, ως οίδα, και ών μέμνημαι, o far as I am acquainted with the particulars, or can remember them, which

Jooks like that of a Quotation by Memory from Spicileg. another Work, whatever Dr. Grabe imagines to Tom. I. the contrary; and Bardesanes's alteration of a p. 278.. Clause, and mentioning the Conquest of Arabia just Vid.p.298.

then made by the Romans, which must have been in the days of the Emperor Verus and of Bardesanes, but of which the Recognitions have not a Syllable, as being of an antienter date, do make it pretty plain that Bardesanes took this long and famous Passage out of the Recognitions, and not the Author of the Recognitions from Bardesanes; as the modern Athanafians, to put this ungrateful Book as low as possible, are ready, without all Evidence, to suppose.

(2.) 'Irenæus about A. D. 180. wrote his Books against the old Heresies, wherein he stiles the Son and Spirit the Hands of God; by a phrase peculiar to this Book. He also says our Savi. our's Generation is ineffable, as does Justin alfo; whịch Language is also peculiar to the Recognitions; as is that also, that God has no Name, properly speaking, which is the Notion of Justin and others; I mean this of the Apostolical Men and Age earlier than these Writers. But besides these more obscure Allusions, there are two others more remarkable, and one of them almost an express Quotation in the same Ireneus. The one is that Explication or Affirmation about our Saviour's not knowing the Day of Judgment, which is so eminent and express in Ireneus, and which is almost exactly deriv'd from these Recognitions. Hear the words of the Author of the Recognitions first, Si enim Magister nofter L.x. S.14.

Diem e Horam, cujus etiam figna pradixit, ne- P. 585 1 foire se professus est, ut totum revocaret ad Patrem;

Quomodo nos turpe ducemus fi aliqua nos ignorare fateamur, cum Magistri in hoc habeamus exemplum? For if our Master did profess that he knew not that Day and Hour, whose very Signs he forea told, that he might refer all to his Father ; How can we be ashamed to confess we are ignorant in some things, while we have the Example of our Master in the case ? Now hear Ireneus, Quando-Lii. c.48. quidem Ó Dominus ipse, Filius Dei, ipsum Judicii P. 176. Diem Horam concessit scire solum Patrem, manifeste dicens, De Die autem illa á Hora nemo scit ; neque Filius, nisi Pater folus. Si igitur scientiam Diei illius Filius non erubuit referre ad Pae trem ; sed dixit quod verum eft ; neque nos erubescimus qua sunt in quastionibus majora secundum nos referuare Dco.

Nemo enim supra Magiftrum


« EdellinenJatka »