eft. Whereas even our Lord himself, the Son of God, confefs'd that the Father alone knew the Day and Hour of the Judgment, faying plainly, Of that Day and Hour knoweth no one; neither the Son, but the Father only: If therefore the Son was not afham'd to refer the knowledg of that Day to his Father, but faid what was true; neither are we a fhamed to leave thofe things which in Difputes are too hard for us to God. For no one is above his Mafter. Which feems to me fo plain an allufion, and yet fo next to impoffible to be made the contrary way, that it gives great reason to fuppofe that Ireneus was not unacquainted with thefe Recognitions. However, the next Paffage in him is more exprefs, and is an almoft direct L.vic.35. Quotation of the fame Recognitions. The Pref P. 461. byters, fays he, who were the Difciples of the Apoftles, fay, that this is the appointment and difpofition of thofe that are faved; and that they must go on to Perfection by fuch degrees; and fo by the Spirit afcend to the Son, and by the Son to the Father. Which most valuable Quotation is not only not found in any other antient Authors, much lefs in any that could pretend to be Difciples of the Apostles, as here, but is the very Arian or Eunomian Doctrine of thefe Recognitions; nay feems to be directly taken out of them. For I.. vi. §.7, there the Author affirms, that Water in the. Creation was moved by the Spirit; and that the Spirit has his Origin from God; that he is, as it were, the Hand of God. And presently afferts in plain words, that all things were produc'd out of Water; while that Water in the beginning was made by the Only-begotten; and that Almighty God is the Head of the Only-begotten: by whom, in the Order already defcrib'd, we pro..ch to the

Ether.

(3.) Origen, who was a Youth of great Learning before the end of the Second Century, has two known Quotations out of the Recognitions, and thofe exprefs ones alfo: the one of which is very long, and quoted out of a par ticular Book and both the Quotations are in all our prefent Copies accordingly. In the first cafe his words are, And Clement of Rome, the Philocal. Difciple of the Apostle Peter, faid what is agreea- C. 23. ble to our affertion, in the prefent Question to his Father, in Laodicea, in his Travels, in the 14th

--

Book, &c. In the other they are thefe, Some- In Matth.
what like this Peter fays to Clement, &c.. Now xxvi. 6.
what is here chiefly remarkable, befides the ge- Op. Lat.
neral Antiquity and Authority of thefe Recog-
nitions here own'd in the very days of Origen,
is the alteration of the Divifions or Books as
to their Limits and Numbers in our prefent
Copies, from what they were originally; fince
what is now in our Tenth, is by Origen quoted
out of the Fourteenth Book, the place for it
in the Homilies ftill. And if the ift, 2d, 3d,
8th, and 10th Books were antiently divided in-
to two, as their double length, and fometimes
their Nature feem plainly to require, the whole
would be Fifteen, and the Quotation of Origen be
in the 14th Book, as it ought to be. Which is the
more to be allow'd, because the present number
Ten feems only to have been chofen, from the
confounding thefe Recognitions themselves with L. iii. §.

the other Ten Books therein mentioned.

75.

(4) Epiphanius fpeaks of a very much in- Haref. III: terpolated Ebionite Edition of thefe Travels of s. 15. Peter, as they are called, which were written by Clement. But whether the Edition he means be that extant under the name of the Clementine Homilies, tho worfe interpolated,and more alter'd

than

H

1. 18.

than ours, or whether it was rather a Third Edition, peculiar to the Ebionites, I fhall not determine. Only fo far is plain, that our genuine Edition here publish'd is unconcern'd in this matter, as not anfwering Epiphanius's Characters; nay being directly contrary to the main Doctrine of the Ebionites. Only we may here obferve, that the Recognitions in general were fully believ'd by Epiphanius, as well as Rufinus, to be written by Clement himself; and that they were antiently of fo great Reputation, that Hereticks thought to bring confiderable Advantage to their Caufe by interpolating them; which they would not have car'd to have done, but upon the fuppofition of their confiderable Authority in the Church..

Adverf.Jo (5.) Ferom quotes thefe Travels of Peter twice; vin. c. 14. and fo that in one Quotation he seems to intiIn Galat. mate they might be reckon'd among the Uncanonical Books of the New Teftament, and fo of no fmall Authority among Chriftians. But this is to be here noted concerning the Quotations of Ferom, that they both imply our present Copies not to be intirely compleat and perfect: which is alfo a neceffary Confequence of fome other Quotations from them afterwards: unless we fuppofe that thofe that made fuch Quotations, either mistook, or that they themselves ufed the interpolated Copies; which in this Cafe is very eafy to be believ❜d.

Op. Athan.

Vol. III.

§.

202.

(6.) The Author of the Synopfis Sacræ Scriptu re, among the Works of Athanafius, directly 5. 76. Preckons thefe Travels of Peter, with the like Travels of John and Thomas, the Gofpel of Thomas, the Doctrine of the Apostles, and the Clementines, as the doubtful or fecondary Sacred Books of the New Teftament; juft as fome

other

ether Stichometrie and Catalogues do afterwards
allo. So that they long kept up a confiderable
Reputation in the Church. And thefe are the
Atteftations or Citations belonging to our Re-
cognitions that can be reckon'd within the first
Four Centuries. After which the later Authors
are of little moment; tho if the Reader delire
them, he may find them and most of thefe alfo,
prefix'd before Cotelerins's Edition of this Book.
And here 'tis not improper to bring in Dr.Grabe's
very juft Obfervation, to confute thofe that pre-
tend the Author of this Book to have been an He-
retick. His words are thefe: That the original Wri- Spicileg.
ter of thefe Travels of Peter was a Catholick is ex- Tom. I.
ceeding probable, becaufe otherwise the Orthodox Fa- P. 279.
thers would never have cited them so often as they
did; nor have reckon'd them among the doubtful
Books of the New Testament."

IV. Thefe Recognitions were not intended as intirely a true Hiftory of Facts, or written by Clement himself; but are a Conference or Dialogue wherein the true Doctrines of the Gofpel are deliver'd in a Philofophical way, futed to the Defires and Benefits of the Greeks and Romans, and, written by fome of the Hearers of Clement, and other Companions of the Apoftles. That they are not exact Fact is fo vilible in the intire Contexture and Compofition of the whole, that when I confider how obviously this dramatick or parabolick Genius is every where difplay'd therein, I cannot but wonder that the Learned among the Moderns fhould not have difcover'd it before. I fay among the Moderns only for of old it feems to have been own'd for fuch; as the Quotations above, especially that where Rufinus fays many Doctrines of the Gospel are therein deliver'd under the Perfon

of Peter, does imply. And when I believe that all the Speeches of Job and his Friends, as they are now poetically fet down in that Book; all the Parables of our Saviour himself; and all the Difcourfes of Sebaftian and others in the Winter Evening Conference, were intirely fact and reality, or pretended to be fo by their Authors, I fhall alfo believe the fame concerning the like Speeches in thefe Recognitions before us; but not much fooner. I mean this, as in the other cafes, without the leaft Impeachment of the real Truth of the Foundations, or importance of the noble Verities, fo far as it appears the Author intended to inform us of the fame. Nor are a few fuppofals in the Dramatick parts of this Book, which are disagreeable to Sincerity, and to the Rules therein elsewhere deliver'd, other than plain Indications of this nature of the Book before us; juft as our Lord's defcribing Luke xvi. how an unjuft Steward cheated his Mafter, and yet commending his Wifdom in the management of that Cheat, is a like evident fign that his Difcourfe was not at that time Historical, but Parabolical. That this Book was not written by Clement himself, as was believ'd even in the Fourth Century, is evident by the intire Stile and Genius of the whole, as compar'd with the vaftly different Stile and Genius of Clement's genuine Epistles and Conftitutions. Nor do I perceive that any of the Quotations till the Fourth Century fuppofe any fuch thing; but rather imply, with Irenaus, that the particular Author was unknown, but that it was a Work deriv'd from fome of the Hearers of Clement and other Companions of the Apostles, who fet down in Writing what they remembred to have heard preach'd and declar'd in Difputations by thofe

1-8.