« السابقةمتابعة »
"death. But let us now fee how Clement him"felf, when he writes to James the Lord's Bro62 ther, begins his own Narrative." So far Rufis. Whence we learn, that in the Fourth Cenfury 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 thofe parts that favour'd the Arians, which Rufinus, an Athanafian, was willing to fuppofe to be fpurious; that even in those Points all the Copies and Editions had the fame Doctrines; that they were exactly agreeable to the Notions of Eunomius, or the most honeft and down-right of those that have fo long been call'd Arians: That fome grofs Interpolations were even then inferted into this Work; which yet appears to be meant of the fpurious Edition, which now paffes under the Name of the Clementine Homilies; either as ftill extant, or as worse interpolated by the Ebionites which Epiphanius intimates; but not of the ge- Heref.xxx nuine Edition quoted by the Antients, tranflated by Rufinus, and here put into our native Language;
as the Learned well obferve, and as is visible on Lives of the comparison. We here alfo learn that this Cle- the Prim. ment was then believ'd to be the fame with him whom Paul puts among fuch his Fellow-labourers Tom. I. whose names were in the Book of Life. We alfo n. 11. learn that that great Chasm in the Third Book, Grabe Spi where the Difcourfe was about the Trinity, and cileg. Tom. I. p. 279, moft plainly Eunomian, was left untranflated by Rufinus; and is thereupon wanting in several Manufcripts ftill; of which matter fee the Note Pag. 119. upon that Place. But as to the Epiftle of Cle- infrà. ment to James here mention'd, and which was wont to be inferted before the Recognitions; and as to that other of Peter to James mentioned by Photius, and both still extant, they feem
Pag. 602, to me well plac'd in Cotelerius's Edition, before the Clementine Homilies, or fpurious Edition of this Work; and do hardly appear to me of the fame Authority and Antiquity with the genuine Work it felf; as having neither internal Characters, nor external Teftimonies to support their Pretences to be really genuine; as we shall fee there are for the Recognitions themselves. Clement indeed, at the conclufion of the Third 5.75. P. Book, fpeaks of his having fent Ten Books to 178, 179. James, whofe Contents he there diftinctly enumerates, as the fubftance of Peter's Preaching; no fmall part of whofe Subjects are here largely treated of alfo. But then, if we remember there was a very antient, and, in a lower fense, a facred Book of our Religion ftiled Kúpufua Terpe, the Preaching of Peter; and obferve, that the antient Fragments fhew it to be fomewhat of a piece with the Recognitions, and with those ten Subjects or Heads; we shall rather fuppofe that Book to be therein referr'd to, or at feaft fome Comment upon it, than have the deaft fufpicion that any of thefe, or the like fmall and occafional Letters could be at all meant thereby. So I have not publifh'd thofe Epiftles.
II. I fhall fhew, that the main Contents of this Book appear to be deriv'd from the Companions of the Apostles themselves; and fo that it generally includes original Chriftian Doctrines and Rules deriv'd at the laft from thofe Apoftles. Now this feems plainly imply'd in the nature and circumftances of the Work it felf; wherein Clement and other Apoftolical Men are introduc'd as the Hearers of Peter; as laying down the main Doctrines that he taught in his Preaching, and the Arguments he us'd in his Difputations with Simon Magus, and others;
without any figns of a later and merely human Compofition. The Subjects here treated of are plainly fuch as mens Minds were concern'd with
the first Century; the Herefies confuted, those of that Age only; the Ceremonies and Rules mention'd, those that obtain'd in the fame Age; the Books cited or alluded to, thofe of the fame time, and no others. Nor indeed do I see the least sign in the whole Work that it is fo late as the days of Justin Martyr: nay indeed not any certain one that 'tis fo late as the fecond Century; no more than I fee the leaft indication of its composure by any ill Man, or on any ill defign. But on the contrary, all cir cumftances confpire to affure us that it was written by a learned, honeft, and eloquent Perfon, that had heard the Companions of the Apoft les preach to, and difpute with the Hereticks and Philofophers, and fet down what he . remembred of the fame, for the advantage of the future Ages of the Church; and that probably at their Defire, and with their Approbation. 'Tis true, there are fometimes fuch mistakes in this Work, especially in Chronology, that Clement himself, or any real Companion of the Apoftles could not easily be guilty of; but I think fcarce any fuch, but one that had heard thofe Companions preach and dif pute might easily fall into. So that to one of thefe Hearers of the Companions of the Apoftles is this Work to be most probably afcrib'd. Which will appear more plainly when we have prov'd,
III. That thefe 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 Atteftations to, and
(1.) Bardefanes, a moft learned Syrian, who came over to Christianity from the Valentinian Herefy, (to which he never,by Eufebius's account,appears to have return'd, whatever Epiphanius and others afterwards fuppofe) foon after the middle of the Second Century, wrote a very eminent Book about Fate, which he prefented to the Emperor Antoninus Verus; made up, as Epiphanius tells us, of Collections taken out of other Authors. In this Collection of Paffages there is a very large one out of these Recognitions, preferv'd by Eufebius, and ftill extant therein; tho without naming the Book whence it was taken. However, the nature of this Work, which was a Collection from others; the beginning of the Paffage in him, I will produce what I have to say, ὡς οἶδα, καὶ ὧν μέμνημαι, So far as I am acquainted with the particulars, or can remember them, which looks like that of a Quotation by Memory from Spicileg. another Work, whatever Dr. Grabe imagines to Tom. I. the contrary; and Bardefanes's alteration of a P. 278. Claufe, and mentioning the Conqueft of Arabia just Vid.p.298. then made by the Romans, which must have been in the days of the Emperor Verus and of Bardefanes, but of which the Recognitions have not a Syllable, as being of an antienter date, do make it pretty plain that Bardefanes took this long and famous Paffage out of the Recognitions, and not the Author of the Recognitions from Bardefanes; as the modern Athanafians, to put this ungrateful Book as low as poffible, are ready, without all Evidence, to fuppofe.
Citations from thefe Recognitions extant in Antiquity; which I fhall here produce: thofe I mean which belong to the Second, Third, and Fourth Centuries of the Church.
(2.) Ireneus about A. D. 180. wrote his Books against the old Herefies, wherein he stiles the Son and Spirit the Hands of God; by a phrafe peculiar to this Book. He alfo fays our Saviour's Generation is ineffable, as does Justin alfo; which Language is alfo peculiar to the Recognitions; as is that alfo, that God has no Name, properly fpeaking, which is the Notion of Justin and others; I mean this of the Apoftolical Men and Age earlier than these Writers. But befides thefe more obfcure Allufions, there are two others more remarkable, and one of them almost an exprefs Quotation in the fame Ireneus. The one is that Explication or Affirmation about our Saviour's not knowing the Day of Judgment, which is fo eminent and exprefs in Ireneus, and which is almost exactly deriv'd from thefe Recognitions. Hear the words of the Author of the Recognitions first, Si enim Magifter nofter L.x. §.14. Diem Horam, cujus etiam figna pradixit, ne- p. 585. fcire fe profeffus est, ut totum revocaret ad Patrem; Quomodo nos turpe ducemus fi aliqua nos ignorare fateamur, cum Magiftri in hoc habeamus exemplum? For if our Mafter did profess that he knew not that Day and Hour, whofe very Signs he foretold, that he might refer all to his Father; How Can we be ashamed to confefs we are ignorant in fome things, while we have the Example of our Mafter in the cafe? Now hear Irenæus, Quando- Lii. c.48. quidem & Dominus ipfe, Filius Dei, ipfum Judicii P. 176. Diem & Horam conceffit fcire folum Patrem, manifefte dicens, De Die autem illa & Hora nemo fcit, neque Filius, nifi Pater folus. Si igitur fcientiam Diei illius Filius non erubuit referre ad Patrem; fed dixit quod verum eft; neque nos erubefcimus qua funt in queftionibus majora fecundum nos referuare Deo. Nemo enim fupra Magiftrum