Our author undoubtedly means Pau!; I do not know why he does not name him: but here seem to be marks of ill-will towards St. Paul. Gamaliel is complimented with the" character of a brother, whilst his disciple is a furious enemy. Then the main reason why this enemy designed for Damascus, is said to be, that he thought Peter had fled thither,' after the disturbance at the temple: which is an invidious charge. And he says nothing of the conversion of this enemy, though according to our accounts, and those undoubted, it happened soon after some things here related, in the way to Damascus; and was in all respects very extraordinary, and the greatest triumph of truth in any age.

Farther, the author has a relation of Simon of Samaria, that he affirmed himself to be the supreme power of the High God,' (See Acts viii. 10.) and that he once believed in our Jesus.' See ver. 13. He says too, that Christ's 'disciples, in imitation of their master, when they suffered, did in like manner pray for their murderers;' where he seems to refer to Stephen's prayer, Acts vii. 60; and perhaps to other instances of the like eminent virtue in the followers of Jesus.

I think here is a good proof, that the author of this work was acquainted with the Acts of the Apostles.

11. For with God "he is not a Jew, who is called a Jew among men; nor is he a Gentile, who is called a Gentile," Rom. ii. 28. There is another place which contains a reference to Matt. vi. 24, or Rom. vi. 16.

12. It is here said that the Israelites had a cup afforded them from the rock which followed.' 1 Cor. x. 4. It is ordered among the greatest of crimes, to partake of the table of dæmons; that is, to taste of what has been offered to them.' See 1 Cor. x. 20, 21.

13. So has your soul, by long negligence, produced

"See note 2, p. 369, 370.

▾ Idcirco autem præcipue Damascum festinârat, quod et illuc crederet confugisse Petrum. Ubi supra. Adserentem se esse quendam

stantem,et virtutem summam excelsi Dei. L. i. sect. 72.

- Nam inde quid dicam, quod et Jesu nostro crediderat. L. iii. sect. 49. Imitantes quoque discipuli magistrum, etiam ipsi, cum paterentur, simi

liter pro interfectoribus suis orabant. L. vi. sect. 5.

2 L. v. sect. 34.

a L. v. sect. 12.

Et ex sequenti petrâ poculum ministratum. L. i. sect. 35.

Quæ autem animam simul et corpus polluunt, ista sunt, participare dæmonum mensæ: hoc est, immolata degustare.--et si quid aliud est quod dæmonibus oblatum est. L. iv. sect. 36.

many and pernicious notions of things, and science, falsely so called." 1 Tim. vi. 20.

66

6

opinions of

made like

14. In Hebr. vii. 2, Melchisedec, who was unto the Son of God,' is called King of Peace.' This author says twice, that Christ was ordained of God to be the King of Peace.' But one cannot be positive that herein is any reference to the epistle to the Hebrews.

15. There is therefore an evident sign that such things are not spoken from the true God, when sometimes a lie is mixed with them; forf "there is never any lie in the truth." 1 John ii. 21.

He says, the wedding garment' is the grace of baptism. The things whereby that garment may be defiled, are these: If any one departs from God the Father,— and receives any other teacher than Christ.-These are things which pollute the garment of baptism even unto death.' Here seems to be an allusion to 1 John v. 16, 17.

16. Clement himself says, 'God ordered that the whole

h

multitude of mankind should be born into this visible world, that from among them he might choose friends for his Son, with whom he might rejoice; and who might be "made ready" for him, as a beloved "bride for her husband." But till the time of "the marriage is come," which is when the future world appears,'—and what follows. See Rev. xix. 7-9; xxi. 2.

17. Beside these, there are some general things which seem to relate to the scriptures of the New Testament.

Among the ten books, which Clement, at the end of the third book of these Recognitions, says he had already sent to James, the contents of one of them are thus described: The eighth is concerning those words of our Lord which seem to contradict one another, but do not, and in what manner they are to be cleared.' And somewhat of this kind is performed in the preceding part of this very work, as appears from our quotations.

In another place Peter is supposed to tell Clement, 'How

4 Et intelligentias falsa scientiæ. L. vi. sect. 2.

Et agatis gratias largitori omnium, Patri, per eum quem posuit Regem Pacis. L. iv. sect. 32. ad hunc quem diximus a Deo destinatum Regem Pacis accessit. Ibid. sect. 34.

f In veritate enim nunquam mendacium est. L. iv. sect. 36.

Hæc sunt quæ usque ad mortem baptismi polluunt indumentum. L. iv. sect. 36. Ex quibus eligeret amicos Filio suo, cum quibus lætaretur, et qui eo, tanquam sponso, ut dilecta sponsa, pararentur. Verum usque ad nuptiarum tempus, quod est præsentia seculi venturi statuit. L. ix. sect. 3. i Octavus de verbis Domini quæ sibi videntur esse contraria, sed non sunt; et quæ sit horum solutio. L. iii. sect. 75.

k

the apostles were invited by the priests, and by the high priest Caiaphas, to the temple; and how James the arch bishop stood upon the top of the stairs, and for seven days, one after another, proved out of the Lord's scriptures, to the whole body of the people, that Jesus was the Christ.'

The title of archbishop may be allowed to be added by Rufinus, or some other interpolater: but Dominic Scriptures, or the Lord's Scriptures, is a term often used by the christian writers of the second century. It must be owned to be out of character to speak of the scriptures of the New Testament in a dispute with Caiaphas, at which time none of them were written. But the author here forgot himself. And indeed it is next to impossible for a writer not to say some things improperly in a work of this kind, and of this length.

However, after all, perhaps hereby are meant only the scriptures of the Old Testament, and this phrase may be judged equivalent to the written word of God.'

6

18. It may be now proper to distinguish the passages alleged out of these books of Recognitions, and observe the value of them. Here are passages of our four gospels: and one might conclude that the author owned them all, were it not for a difficulty which I shall mention by and by; which may render it doubtful whether he used the four gospels, or some one gospel containing in it all these things. The reader will consider whether this difficulty be of any moment. He seems to own the first epistle of St. John, and the book of the Revelation. He was well acquainted too with the book of the Acts of the Apostles; but how far he owned it, I cannot say. As for the passages relating to St. Paul's epistles, they may be reckoned not very m material; or however not sufficient to prove, that they were esteemed by this writer to be of authority. It may be suspected that the author had no great kindness for the apostle Paul; and for that reason made as little use of his epistles, and of the Acts of the Apostles, as might be, though he was well enough acquainted with them.

This author, whoever he be, bears testimony likewise to many principal facts of the New Testament. He gives"

* Et Jacobus archiepiscopus stans in summis gradibus, per septem confinuos dies, universo populo de Scripturis Dominicis adsignaverit, quod Jesus esset Christus. L. i. sect. 73.

1 See below, num. v. 3. of this chapter.

m

Equidem observavi, nec in Clementinis, nec in Recognitionibus, quæ' apocrypha sæpe diximus ab Ebionais fuisse depravata, Paulum apostolum citatum inveniri. Coteler. Annot. ad Clementin. Homil. xix. sect. 2.

n L. iv. sect. 34.

an account of our Lord's temptation. He mentions the choice of the twelve apostles, and afterwards of other seventy-two disciples. In one place he speaks of the twelve apostles in such a manner, as if he intended to exclude Paul from the honour of the apostleship, and even to deny him the character of a sufficient and faithful preacher of Christ's word.' Here are also relations of the miracles of our blessed Lord's ministry, and of his death and resurrection, and the extraordinary signs attending those

events.

20. To all these things does this writer bear witness. And yet, from his sly insinuations, and injurious reflections upon St. Paul, it may be suspected that he was a mere Ebionite; the ancients assuring us that this sect of christians rejected the authority of that apostle and his epistles. If this be our author's real character, what has been here alleged from this work ought to be considered as one instance of the advantage which may be made of the sentiments of those called heretics, for confirming the evangelical scriptures and history; which I hope will appear more fully hereafter.

V. Hitherto I have taken no notice of the Clementine Homilies; nor do I intend a large account of them; but it may be thought improper to omit them entirely. They are nineteen Homilies in Greek, published by Cotelerius, with two letters prefixed; one of them written in the name of Peter, the other in the name of Clement, to James, bishop of Jerusalem: in which last letter they are intitled Clement's Epitome of the Preaching and Travels of Peter.' But it may be questioned whether one or both these letters do not belong to the Recognitions. Photiust seems to

• L. i. sect. 40.

P Propter quod observate cautius, ut nulli doctorum credatis, nisi qui Jacobi fratris Domini ex Hierusalem detulerit testimonium, vel ejus quicunque post ipsum fuerit. Nisi enim quis illuc ascenderit, et ibi fuerit probatus quod sit doctor idoneus, et fidelis, ad prædicandum Christi verbum; nisi inquam, inde detulerit testimonium, recipiendus omnino non est. Sed neque propheta, neque apostolus, in hoc tempore, speretur a vobis aliquis alius præter

nos.

Unus enim est verus propheta cujus nos duodecim apostoli verba prædicamus. Ipse enim est annus Dei acceptus, nos apostolos habens duodecim menses. L. iv. sect. 35. This is absolutely to exclude St. Paul, who was an apostle neither of men, nor by man,' as he openly professes, Gal. i. 1. See also ver. 11, 12, 17; ch. ii. 6. Against which claims of St. Paul this discourse of our author seems to be designedly levelled; as also possibly against 2 Cor. ii. 16, where St. Paul says, "And who is sufficient for these things?" or, as some read, "Who is so sufficient for these things?" Vid. Mill. in loc. L. i. sect. 6, 7. 1. v. sect. 10, 11. L. i. sect. 41-43. Irenæ. 1. i. c. 26. al. 25. Orig. cont. Cels. 1. v. p. 274. Euseb. H. E Cod. 112, 113.

1. iii. cap. 27.

u

V

favour this supposition: at least, in his time, they were both prefixed to some editions of the Recognitions. The nineteenth Homily is imperfect at the end: and there is wanting another whole Homily to complete the number of twenty. Le Clerc " thinks that these Clementine Homilies were composed by an Ebionite in the second century. The learned Benedictine, Bernard Montfauçon, is of a quite different opinion, supposing them to have been forged much later; and not to have been mentioned by any author, till long after the age of St. Athanasius. This is one of his arguments, that the Synopsis, in which the Clementines are mentioned, was not composed by that father. Grabe says, the Clementines spoken of in that Synopsis, are not the same with our Clementine Homilies; which is very probable: those Clementines, mentioned in the Synopsis, are not the Clementine Homilies, but the Clementine Epitome, published by Cotelerius at the end of the Homilies. Montfauçon's argument, therefore, for the late age of the Synopsis may be very good, as I think it is; and Le Clerc too may judge very rightly about the time of writing the Homilies. For though these Clementine Homilies are ancient, they were not cited by the name of Clementines; but were either reckoned another edition of the Recognitions, or called the Travels of Peter,' or the Disputation of Peter and Appion.' That they were sometimes mentioned by this last title, is probable, as will be shown presently.

6

X

In these Homilies is the same fictitious history of the separation of Clement, and his father, and mother, and brethren, and their recognizing each other, with that in the Recognitions: and there is a great agreement between these two works in several other things, though each has some other matters wanting in the other. Rufinus says that there were two editions of the Recognitions: it is likely that by the other, which he left untranslated, he means

Sequuntur ipsa Clementina,——opus hominis Ebionitæ, qui vixit seculo secundo. Præf. ad Patres Apost. sect. 6.

Ad hæc in apocryphis Novi Testamenti numerantur in Synopsi KλnuevTia, seu Homilia Clementinæ, quarum mentionem primo reperimus, diu post Athanasii ævum, apud Nicephorum Patriarcham. Sunt enim illæ opus diversum a Recognitionibus, quarum Origenes, Rufinus, et alii meminere, licet ejusdem sint argumenti, et, ut videtur, postea confictæ. In Synops. Scripturæ Admonit. apud Athanasii Op. T. ii. p. 125.

Spicil. T. i. p. 287.

Vid. Homil. xii. xiii. xiv.

Puto quod non te lateat, Clementis hujus in Græco ejusdem operis Avayvwoɛwv, hoc est, Recognitionum, duas editiones haberi; et duo corpora esse librorum, in aliquantis quidem diversa, in multis tamen ejusdem narrationis, Rufin. Præf. ad Gaudentium.

* Vid. Cave, H. L. P. i. p. 19. in Clement. Rom.