and the other apostles. This is the idea I have formed of this epistle, from a frequent perusal of it. And some learned men have been of much the same opinion.

It is probable, that at the writing of this epistle he had read St. Matthew; and that he refers to him in numbers I. II. III. IV. and perhaps at VI. and VII. But it cannot be thought strange, that a man who was contemporary with the apostles, and had the same spirit, and the like gifts with them, if he was not an apostle himself, should often speak and reason and argue like them, without quoting their writings, or referring to them.

XXI. Before we quite leave this epistle, we must take notice of a singular passage in it.

Ch. iv. As the Son of God says: "Let us resist all iniquity, and hate it.”

Menard upon the place says: This sentence we have in none of the gospels, but he had heard it from Christ, or some one of his disciples. It is like that passage of St. Paul, Acts xx. 35, "And to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said; It is more blessed to give than to receive."

XXII. And this passage may lead us to one observation more; that I do not in this epistle perceive any quotations or references to Apocryphal gospels. Nor do I at present recollect, that the learned men, who have so diligently collected the passages of those gospels, have suspected any quotations of them in this epistle, beside this last mentioned passage, and that at number I. And I think it without reason, that they have suspected these: it being no uncommon thing for writers to report the sense of a text or saying, without representing their very words. Or, as the same Menard upon that place says: He' there alleges not any one particular text of the gospel, but expresses the sense ' of many of Christ's sayings, concerning the necessity of 'enduring tribulations for the sake of eternal life: as "strait is the gate: He that will come after me”—and the like, which occur frequently in the gospels.'

-per omnia orthodoxus, et Apostolorum, præsertim St. Pauli, vestigiis insistens; ut si non laborum et itinerum, saltem dogmatum, participem ubique agnoscamus. Ad calcem J. Armachani de Barnabæ epist. præmonitionis, ap. Cotel. p. 13. Ed. Amst. 1698. y C. 4. Sicut dicit filius Dei: reSic inquit, nempe

sistamus omni iniquitati, et odio habeamus eam. Jesus. Non profertur hic certus aliquis Evangelii locus, sed sensus multorum Christi dictorum, de tribulationibus perferendis ab eis qui sunt æternæ vitæ studiosi: ut, Arcta via est, quæ ducit ad vitam: Qui vult venire post me, &c. et similia, quæ passim in Evangelio reperire est. Menard. ad. cap. vii. See likewise Jones, as before, vol. i. p. 518, 519.

29

CHAP. II.

ST. CLEMENT. HIS HISTORY.

THE next piece, which I am to quote, is the epistle of Clement, bishop of Rome, to the church of Corinth: whom ancient writers, without any doubt or scruple, relate to have been the same Clement, whom St. Paul mentions among his" fellow labourers, whose names are in the book of life," Philip. iv. 3. The epistle is written in the name of the whole church of Rome to the church of Corinth. And therefore it is called at one time the epistle of Clement, and at another the epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians. The main design of it is to compose some dissensions, which there were in the church of Corinth about their spiritual guides and governors. Which dissensions seem to have been raised by a few turbulent and selfish men among them. Upon this occasion Clement recommends not only concord and harmony, but love in general, humility, and all the virtues of a good life, and divers of the great articles and principles of religion. The style is clear and simple. It is called by the ancients an excellent, an useful, a great and admirable epistle. And the epistle still in our hands deserves all these commendations: though not entire, there being some pages wanting in the manuscript of it and though we have but one ancient manuscript of it remaining. For which reason it cannot be altogether so correct, as if we had a number of copies to compare together.

It being of considerable importance in these most early writings, to settle their true age; somewhat must be observed concerning the time when this epistle was written.

a

The succession of the first bishops of Rome lies at present in some uncertainty and obscurity. Bishop Pearson supΑπλως δε κατα φρασιν και εγγυς το εκκλησιασικό και απεριεργε χαρακτηρος. Phot. Cod. 126. b Photius commends the epistle in the main. But still he says, There are in it several things liable to censure. One is, that the 'writer, though he calls our Lord our high-priest and patron, gives him none of the higher and more divine titles. However he does not any where • openly blaspheme him. Αιτιασαιτο δ' αν τις εν ταυταις ότι αρχιερέα και προτάτην τον Κυριον ήμων Ιησεν Χριστον εξονομαζων, εδε τας θεοπρεπεις και ύψηλοτέρας άφηκε περί αυτε φωνας. Ου μην εδ' απαρακαλύπτως αυτόν εδαμη EY TOOLS Braonμet. Cod. 126. p. 306. That is, in modern language, it is a Socinian epistle. So upon many occasions, Photius is apt to censure ancient writers, who come not up to the orthodoxy of his time. Opera. Post. P. 172.

c

poses, that Clement was bishop of Rome from the year of our Lord 69, or 70, to the year 83, the second of Domitian:d Pagi, that Clement succeeded Linus in 61, and sat in the see of Rome till 77, when he abdicated, and died long after a martyr in the year 100. Those learned men, who place the bishoprick of Clement so early, or that suppose he might write this epistle before he was bishop, (as Dodwell,) usually place it before the destruction of Jerusalem. The archbishop of Canterbury concludes, that this epistle was written shortly after the end of the persecution under Nero, between the 64 and the 70 year of Christ. Le Clerc places it in the year 69, and Dodwells in 64. Du Pin, Tillemont, and others think, he was not bishop till the year 91, or 93. This is the more common opinion, and is agreeable to the sentiments of Irenæus, Eusebius, and others, the most ancient christian writers.

I shall observe some notes of time in the epistle itself, and then the testimonies of the ancients.

First, Of notes of time in the epistle itself. The Romans begin with saying, that the calamities and afflictions, which had befallen them, had somewhat retarded their answering 'the Corinthians to those things they had required of them.' This letter therefore was written soon after some persecution, or at the conclusion of it; either the persecution of Nero about 64, or that of Domitian in 94, or 95, the next persecutor of the church. But that it was written after the latter, and not so soon as that of Nero, may be argued from divers passages. In the 44th ch. Clement seems to intimate, that there had then been some successions in the church, since those appointed by the apostles: for he says, Wherefore we cannot think, that those may be justly 'thrown out of their ministry, who were either appointed by 'them, [the apostles,] or afterwards chosen by other eminent 6 men with the consent of the whole church,' -and have 'been for a long time commended by all.' In the 47th chapter he bids the Corinthians take into their hands the epistle of Paul written to them in the beginning of the 'gospel:' and in the same chapter he calls the church of Corinth an ancient church.' I know indeed, that learned a Crit. A. D. 100. N. 2. e See his discourse prefixed to the genuine f Hist. Ec. A. D. 69. N. vi. b Vid.

6

epistles of the apostolical fathers, p. 12.

8 Disserta. sing. de Rom. Pont. success. c. xi. p. 153. Cotelerii judicium de priore S. Clem. Ep. apud Patres, Ap. T. i. p. 141. Of this opinion was Dr. Cave, when he wrote his Apostolici, vid. Life of St. Clement, sect. iv. but altered it afterwards. Vid. Hist. Lit. Clemens.

i Μεμαρτυρημένες τε πολλοις χρόνοις ὑπὸ παντων.

το ευαγγέλιο εγραψεν.

Αρχαιαν Κορινθιων εκκλησίαν,

* Εν αρχή

men, who are for the more early date of this epistle, endeavour to evade the force of the argument taken from these two last expressions: but I think, it cannot be done without some violence to them.

m

There is indeed a passage in the 41st chapter, from whence it is argued, that the temple at Jerusalem must have been standing, when Clement wrote; because he speaks in the present tense concerning the sacrifices of the Mosaic law: That the sacrifices are not offered every where, but only ' at Jerusalem.' But I am surprised, so many learned men should have insisted on this argument. Josephus, in his Antiquities, not finished before the year 93, continually speaks in the present tense, when he gives an account of the several kinds of sacrifices appointed by the law. A "private" person, says he, when he brings a whole burnt'offering, sacrificeth an ox, and a lamb, and a kid. When 'these are slain, the priests pour out the blood round about 'the altar. Then having washed them, they divide the 'members, and having sprinkled them with salt, lay them ' on the altar, &c.' By which all men will understand no more, than that this was the appointment of the law: and that when sacrifices were brought this was the way of offering them. And, as Cotelerius observes, the same style may be used concerning the same matter to this very day.

In the next place, I shall put down some ancient testimonies concerning this epistle, not barely to ascertain the time of it, but also to represent the value of it, and its occasion, design, and argument.

Irenæus says, When the blessed apostles [Peter and Paul] had founded and established the church, [at Rome,] they delivered the office of the bishoprick in it to Linus. Of this Linus Paul makes mention in his epistles to Timothy, [2 Tim. iv. 21.] To him succeeded Anencletus. After whom, in the third place after the apostles, Clement ⚫ obtained that bishoprick, who had seen the blessed apos'tles, and conversed with them: who had the preaching ' of the apostles still sounding in his ears, and their traditions 'before his eyes. Nor he alone, for there were then still

n

* Ου πανταχε προσφέρονται θυσίαι, κ. λ. Ανηρ ιδιωτης ὁλοκαυτων ώνει μεν βεν, και αρνιον, και εριφον-σφαγέντων δε τέτων, τον κύκλον τῳ αιματι δεύεσι το βωμα οι ιερεις, είτα καθαροποιησαντες διαμελίζεσι, και πασαντες αλσιν επι τον βωμον ανατιθεασι, κ. λ. Antiq. 1. iii. c. 9. sect. 1. vid. et sect. 2, 3. Sed Clemens, inquiunt viri doctissimi, meminit, cap. 41, oblationem in templo. Quidni meminisset? cum nunc quoque, tot elapsis seculis, par mentio idemque sermo haberi queat; quemadmodum legenti patebit. Judicium de priore Ep. Clement. ubi supra. p. 141. Hær. 1. iii. c. 3. et apud Euseb. H. E. l. v. c. 6.

P Con.

'many alive, who had been taught by the apostles. In the 'time therefore of this Clement, when there was no small 'dissension among the brethren at Corinth, the church at Rome sent a most excellent letter to the Corinthians, persuading them to peace among themselves,' &c.

6

Thus Irenæus makes Clement the third in succession after the apostles. In like manner Eusebius. In the 'second of whose reign [that is, of Titus, and according to 'Eusebius's account, A. D. 79.] Linus, bishop of the 'church of the Romans, when he had governed it twelve ' years, delivered it to Anencletus.- -Ins the twelfth year

of this reign, [Domitian's, A. D. 92.] Anencletus having 'been bishop of the church of Rome twelve years, was suc'ceeded by Clement, whom the apostle inentions in his epistle to the Philippians, ch. iv. 3. Again, Of this Clement there is one epistle acknowledged by all a great ⚫ and admirable epistle, which as from the church of Rome he ' wrote to the church of the Corinthians, on occasion of a dis'sension that there was then at Corinth. And we know that 'this epistle has been formerly, and is still publicly read in 'many churches. Furthermore, Hegesippus is a sufficient ' witness of the dissension which there was at Corinth in 'the time of Clement.' In another place: At" the same time [beginning of Trajan's reign] Clement still governed the church of Rome, who was the third in that succession, ' after Paul and Peter. For Linus was the first, and after 'him Anencletus.' And he' afterwards says that Clement died in the third year of Trajan, [that is, A. D. 100,] having been bishop nine years. Farther: " And the epistle

W

' of Clement acknowledged by all, which he wrote to the Corinthians, in the name of the church of Rome. In * ' which inserting many sentiments of the epistle to the He'brews, and also using some of the very words of it, he 'plainly manifests that epistle [to the Hebrews] to be no 'modern piece. And hence it has been not without reason ' reckoned among the other writings of the apostle. For Paul having written to the Hebrews in their own tongue,

6

It is plain from these several observations of Irenæus, that he had not the least suspicion this epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusalem; but when all or most of the apostles had been for some time dead. Nor would it have been worth observing, that in the year 70, there were many living, beside Clement, who had been taught by the apostles; at which time it would be strange, not to suppose a great part of them still alive. r Eus. H. E. 1. iii. c. 13. t Ibid. c. 16. u Ibid. Ibid. c. 34. * Εν η της προς

Ibid. c. 15.

▾ Ibid. c. 22.

c. 21. Εβραίος πολλα νοηματα παραθεις, ηδη δε και αυτολέξει ρητοις τισιν εξ αυτης χρησάμενος, κ. λ.