ing, that they may have understanding in all their life, reading continually the law of God.'

41. Thus this author, in an indirect manner, and a pretended prophetical style, bears a large testimony to the christian religion; to the facts, principles, and books of the New Testament. He speaks of the nativity of Christ, the meekness and unblamableness of his life, his crucifixion at the instigation of the Jewish priests, the wonderful concomitants of his death, his resurrection, and ascension. He represents the character of the Messiah as God and man, the Most High God with men, eating and drinking with them, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world, of the Gentiles and Israel, as eternal high priest and king. He likewise speaks of the effusion of the Holy Spirit upon the Messiah, attended with a voice from heaven; his unrighteous treatment by the Jews; and their desolations, and the destruction of the temple, upon that account; the call of the Gentiles; the illuminating them generally with new light; the effusion of the Spirit upon believers, but especially, and in a more abundant measure, upon the Gentiles. Here is little notice taken of our Lord's miracles: however he speaks of the Messiah as a man who renews the law in the power of the Most High;' in which expressions the working of miracles seems to be implied. Here are also passages which seem to contain allusions to the gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, the Acts of the Apostles, the epistle to the Ephesians, first to the Thessalonians, first to Timothy, the epistle to the Hebrews, the first epistle of St. John, and the book of the Revelation. And, as far as was consistent with his assumed character, the author declares the canonical authority of the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistles of St. Paul. Lastly, he recommends the reading of the holy scriptures.

the

X

6

42. I fear that some will think I have insisted too long upon this book: but it could by no means be quite omitted, as every one must be convinced by the contents of it, and age in which it was written, according to the general opinion of learned men; either at the end of the first, or, at the utmost, some time in the second century and I was willing to make an end with it at once. I think it cannot be disagreeable to see the testimonies of a variety of authors. And since some have been pleased to disguise themselves, and appeared under borrowed names and characters; it may be not only an entertainment, but a confirmation of our ύμων γραμματα, ἵνα έχεσι συνεσιν εν παση τη ζωη αυτών, αναγινωσκοντες αδιαλείπτως τον νόμον του Θεού. * See numb. 18.

faith, to find them also asserting in their way the chief things concerning the christian religion.

IV. They who are desirous to inform themselves concerning The Recognitions of Clement, may find satisfaction in the judgment of Cotelerius upon them, and in the testimonies prefixed to his edition of this work; and Grabe's learned and judicious Preface to the writings of St. Clement, in his Spicilegium.

2

The first ecclesiastical writer, who has mentioned this work, is Origen, by whom it is twice cited; once in the third Tome of his Commentaries upon Genesis, which passage is preserved in his Philocalia, where he calls it by the title of The Travels;' and again in his Tracts upon St. Matthew. He seems to quote it as Clement's, or at least as a book ascribed to him. It may be argued, from these few quotations of this book in all the remaining works of Origen, whether Greek or Latin, that it was in no great esteem with him, and of no authority.

The next author, whose testimony we are to consider, is Eusebius. Having spoken, in the third book of his Ecclesiastical History, of the first epistle of St. Clement of Rome, and then of the second ascribed to him, he adds: More'over, some men have, not long since, produced large and voluminous writings as his, containing Disputations of 'Peter and Appion, of which there is no mention made by 'the ancients; nor have they the pure apostolical doctrine. What therefore is the genuine and acknowledged writing of Clement, is manifest.'

Upon this passage we are to observe, in the first place, that b Valesius and Cotelerius, and some others, reckon that hereby Eusebius intends the Recognitions; of which they suppose the Disputations, or Dialogues, of Peter and Appion to be a part. But I think that Grabe has proved these Disputations to be a different work. He observes that Photius mentions the Recognitions, and the Disputations of Peter and Appion, distinctly, as two different * Και Κλημης δε ὁ 'Ρωμαιος, Πετρε αποςολα μαθητης, συνφδει τέτοις εν τῳ παροντι προβληματι προς τον πατέρα εν Λαοδικεια ειπων εν ταις Περιόδοις. Philoc. cap. 23. p. 18. Cantabr.

Tale aliquid dicit et Petrus apud Clementem, ad Matthæi cap. xxvi. 6. Op. Lat. p. 172. Paris. 1571.

* Ηδη δε και έτερα πολυεπη και μακρα συγγραμματα, ώς τε αυτε, χθες και πρωην τινες προηγαγον, Πετρε δε και Απίωνος διάλογες περιέχοντα, ών εδ' όλως μνημη τις παρα τοις παλαιοις φερεται. Ουδε γαρ καθαρον της αποτολικής ορθοδοξίας αποσώζει τον χαρακτηρα. Η μεν ουν το Κλημεντος όμολογεμένη γραφη, πρόδηλος εσιν. L. iii. c. 38. bIn loc. Euseb. Judic. de Libris Recognitionum apud Patres Apostol. Spicileg. T. i. p. 271. et seq.

works and though in the tenth book of the Recognitions Appion is named several times, yet there is no mention of any dispute of Peter with him. Secondly, whether Eusebius here intends the Recognitions or not, he has condemned them. He owns nothing for St. Clement's but his epistle to the Corinthians, and rejects every thing else ascribed to him; this book, in particular, if it was then extant.

e

In another place Eusebius rejects a book entitled The 'Acts of Peter,' together with several others, as not having 'been delivered to them for catholic writings.' If by these Acts of Peter he intends the Recognitions, they are here expressly rejected by him. It is plain, from Photius, that a part of this work was called The Acts of Peter.' Photius himself speaks of the whole work by that title, and commends the style of it, as much superior to the Constitutions. Grabe mentions a manuscript, in which it has this title: The Itinerary of St. Clement, concerning the * Acts and Words of the blessed Apostle Peter.' And it is obvious to every one, from the contents, that the Recognitions may be very properly called Peter's Acts.' If by the Acts of Peter, rejected here in the beginning of the third book of his history, Eusebius means the Recognitions; we have a good reason of his not mentioning them particularly afterwards, in the 38th chapter of the same book, where he speaks of the genuine and supposititious works of St. Clement.

Epiphanius says: The Ebionites use likewise several other books, as the Travels of Peter written by Clement; which too they have corrupted, leaving little that is genuine' as appears, he says, from the epistles of Clement, which contain a different doctrine. Forasmuch as Epiphanius does not say that these Travels were forged, but only that they were corrupted,' he is supposed to allow that they were originally written by Clement.

Jerom's opinion of the works of Clement may be reckoned to be the same with that of Eusebius; since in his article • Το γε μην των επικεκλημένων αυτού Πραξεων- ουδ' όλως εν καθολικοις

oμev Tapadεdoμeva. L. iii. cap. 3. p. 72. Å.

· Εν ώ αἱ τε λεγομεναι το αποτολες Πετρες Πράξεις, και αἱ προς Σίμωνα τον μάγον Διαλέξεις, και ετι ὁ Αναγνωρισμος Κλημεντος και πατρος, και των adλwv adeλøwv. Phot. Cod. 112, 113.

8 Η μεντοι γε των τε Πετρα Πράξεων βιβλος τῳ τε λαμπρῳ και τη σεμνοτητι.—και τη αλλη αρετη λόγω τοσουτο εχει προς τας διαταγας το TapaλaтTOV, K. λ. Ibid. p. 289. ver. 45.

i

Itinerarium S. Clementis de Factis et Dictis B. Petri Apostoli. Spic. T. i. p. 276. Χρώνται δε και αλλαις τισι βιβλοις, δήθεν ταις Περιόδοις καλεμεναις Πετρε, ταις δια Κλημεντος γραφείσαις, νοθευσαντες τα μεν εν αυταίς, ολιγα δε αληθινα εάσαντες. Hær. 30. sect. 15.

of St. Clement, in his Catalogue, he does little more than transcribe the passage of Eusebius, in which he censures the Dialogues of Peter and Appion. And if the Recognitions are not the same with those Dialogues, yet he may be supposed to reject them by consequence, in as much as he insists upon no other piece of Clement, as genuine, beside the epistle to the Corinthians. In another work he refers to a book under the name of The Travels,' or The Travels of Peter,' which appears to have been of no authority. Once more he quotes Clement in his Travels,' or in Peter's Travels,' for something not found expressly in this work at present.

Rufinus, who translated the ten books of Recognitions out of Greek into Latin, in whose translation only we now have them, plainly supposes them to have been written by m Clement of Rome; but that the copies, in his time, had been corrupted in some places.

This book is, for a large part of it at least, a fiction, or romance, in which divers things concerning the christian religion are represented in a philosophical manner, in order to render them more agreeable to the Greeks. It is called The Circuits,' or Travels and Acts of Peter,' from the subject matter of it; as it contains an account of the apostle Peter's disputes with Simon Magus, and his discourses to other people, and many miracles wrought by him in several places; at Cæsarea, Dora, Ptolemais, Tyre, Sidon, Tripoli, Laodicea, Antioch, and his journeys from one city to another. It is called The Recognitions' from Clement's" recognizing his father, and mother, and brethren, who had been long separated from each other.

6

Mr. Whiston has a singular opinion concerning the author

* Possumus autem de Petro dicere, quod habuerit socrum eo tempore quo crediderit, et uxorem jam non habuerit: quanquam legatur in Ilepuodois et uxor ejus et filia. Sed nunc nobis de canone omne certamen est. Adv. Jovinian. 1. i. c. 14. p. 186. T. iv. p. 2. ed. Bened.

16 Deinde post annos tres veni Hierosolymam videre Petrum.' Non ut oculos, genas, vultumque ejus aspiceret; utrum macilentus an pinguis, adunco naso esset an recto; et utrum frontem vestiret coma; an (ut Clemens in Periodis ejus refert) calvitiem haberet in capite. Comment. in Ep. ad Galat. cap. i. ver. 18.

m Clemens, apostolorum discipulus, qui Romanæ ecclesiæ, post apostolos, et apostolus et martyr præfuit, libros edidit, qui Græce appellantur Avayvwpropos, id est, Recognitio.- -Sunt etiam alia nonnulla libris ejus inserta, quæ ecclesiastica regula non recipit. Rufin. de Adulteratione Librorum Origenis. Suscipe igitur, anime mi, redeuntem ad te Clementem nostrum ; suscipe jam Romanum. Idem, in S. Clement. Recognitionum Libros Præfat. ad Caudentium.

n L. ix sect. 38. et seq.

6

6

6

of this work. He allows, that it was not written by • Clement himself. This,' he says, ' is evident by the entire style and genius of the whole, as compared with the vastly different style and genius of Clement's genuine epistles and Constitutions:' but it was written by P some of the bearers of Clement, and other companions of the apostles.' According to this account, it is the work of some anonymous person, who was a hearer or disciple of apostolical men: but I think that it must be reckoned to be Clement's, or to be supposititious. This is evident from the testimonies of the ancients all along, who speak of this work as written by Clement, or at least ascribed to him. And that the author intended it should be esteemed the writing or composition of Clement, appears from the whole of the work, though from some passages more especially. It begins: I, Clement, who was born in the city of Rome,' and what follows. I shall transcribe a passage or two, taking Mr. Whiston's translation of them. In the 25th section of the first book, Peter says: Enough, O Clement; for thou hast repeated this discourse more clearly than Í ' delivered it. Then I replied, A liberal education has ⚫ enabled us to observe an agreeable method in discourse, 'to set proper truths in a clear light. Now if we use this ' talent in support of ancient errors, we lose the design of the decency and sweetness of language; but if we make use of this art and beauty of language for the confirmation of the truth, I suppose there may great • benefit accrue from it.' This is the design of the work, and it is Clement to whom this talent is ascribed here, and in other places. But more expressly still, near the conclusion of the third book, after the account of Peter's disputes with Simon Magus, and his discourses to other people, at Cæsarea; when they were almost ready to go from thence to Dora, it is said: He also, [that is, Peter,] when he per⚫ceived that I [Clement] fixed what I heard deep in my memory, gave it me in charge to put together all the most memorable passages, and to write them in books, and to send them to you, my Lord James, as I have accordingly ⚫ done in obedience to his orders. The first book, then, of those which I formerly sent to you, treats of the true 'prophet.' Where follow short contents of the ten books written and sent formerly:' so that the same Clement, who wrote those former books, writes these also. This work therefore, as it is ascribed to Clement, but is not his, • Preface to Mr. Whiston's translation of the Recognitions of Clement, p. 18. London, 1712. P Ibid. p. 17, et alibi.

6

6