The passages I have quoted have sufficiently shown, not only the age of Clement, and of this epistle, but the character of it, and also that this is the only piece of Clement that can be relied on asd genuine. I shall therefore be excused, if I do not quote the Constitutions, Recognitions, or any other piece, as his: no, not that which is called his second epistle: though I shall give some account of it, after I have put down my extracts out of this.

e

Indeed the second epistle might be shown by many arguments not to be genuine, though some learned men have been willing to own it as such. It is expressly rejected as spurious by Photius. Grabe has well observed, that the forementioned Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in the second century, makes mention of but one epistle of Clement: that Clement of Alexandria and Origen, who have quoted the first, never take any notice of the second: nor yet Irenæus, who has so particularly mentioned the first, and could not well have omitted to mention the other also, if he had known any thing of it. From all which Grabe concludes, with great probability, that this piece was not written before the middle of the third century.

I would only farther observe, that some have supposed our Clement to have been of the family of the Cæsars, and to have suffered martyrdom. But both these suppositions seem to be originally owing to a confounding him with Flavius Clemens, the consul: who was a near relation of Domitian, and was also put to death by him for christianity. That Clement was no martyr, is fairly concluded from the silence of Irenæus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and others: who could not have omitted this, if there had been any ground for it.

A Book of the New Testament expressly quoted by

St. Clement.

In this epistle there is but one book of the New Testament expressly named, which is the first epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians.

I

N. T.

I. 1 Cor. i. 12. "Now this

say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of

CLEMENT.

I. Ch. xlvii. Takes into your hands the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle.

e Cod. 113.

f Spicil.

d Vid. Phot. Cod. 112, 113, et 126. p. i. p. 266-269. 8 Αναλαβετε την επιςολήν τε μακαρις Παυλε τε αποστολε. Τι πρωτον υμιν εν αρχή τε ευαγγελια εγραψεν ; επ' αληθειας πνευματικώς επεςειλεν ύμιν, περι αυτε τε, και Κηφα τε, και Απολλω, κ. λ.

Apollos, and I of Cephas, What did he at the first write and I of Christ."

St. Clement here quotes this epistle to the Corinthians themselves: to whom, he says, it was written by the apostle Paul. I need not observe, how strong an argument this is for the genuineness of the first epistle to the Corinthians, which we now have. And he says, Paul wrote, and admonished them, by the Spirit: or, as in the original, spiritually. Quotations and Allusions.

* Γίνεσθε εν οικτιρμονες, καθώς και ὁ πατηρ ύμων οικτιρμών εςι.—Διδοτε, και δοθήσεται ύμιντῳ γαρ αυτῳ μετρῳ ῳ μετρείτε, αντιμετρηθήσεται ὑμιν. Μαλιτα μεμνημενοι των λόγων τε Κυριε Ιησε ούς ελαλησε-- Ούτως γαρ ειπεν Ελεείτε ίνα ελεήθητε, αφιετε ινα αφεθῃ ὑμιν· ὡς ποιεῖτε, οὕτω ποιηθησεται ὑμιν· ὡς δίδοτε, οὕτω δοθήσεται ὑμῖν· ὡς χρησευεσθε, οὕτως χρησευθήσεται ὑμιν· ῳ μετρῳ μετρείτε, εν αυτῳ μετρηθήσεται ὑμιν.

This passage shows the great respect, which was paid to the words of Christ, [as recorded by the evangelists,] since having quoted a text of the Old Testament, as dictated by the Holy Spirit; he yet demands a still more especial regard to the words of Christ, which there follow.

Here is however one difficulty and it is a difficulty which may frequently occur, whilst we are considering these very early writers, who were conversant with the

apostles, and others, who had seen and heard our Lord, and were in a manner as well acquainted with our Saviour's doctrine and history as the evangelists themselves; unless their quotations or allusions are very express and clear. The question then here is, whether Clement in these places refers to words of Christ written and recorded; or whether he reminds the Corinthians of words of Christ, which he and they might have heard from the apostles, or other eye and ear witnesses of our Lord. Le Clerck in his Dissertation on the Four Gospels is of opinion, that Clement refers to written words of our Lord, which were in the hands of the Corinthians, and well known to them. On the other hand, I find, bishop Pearson' thought, that Clement speaks of words which he had heard from the apostles themselves, or their disciples.

I certainly make no question but the first three gospels were written before this time. And I am well satisfied, that Clement might refer to our written gospels, though he does not exactly agree with them in expression. But whether he does refer to them, is not easy to determine, concerning a man, who very probably knew these things before they were committed to writing: and even after they were so, might continue to speak of them, in the same manner he had been wont to do, as things he was well informed of, without appealing to the scriptures themselves. However either way he by these passages greatly confirms the truth of our gospels. If he be supposed to refer to them, the case is clear. If the words are spoken of, as what he had received from the apostles or others, he confirms our gospels, forasmuch as these words are agreeable to those which are there recorded: and he speaks of them, as certain and well known; both to himself, and the Corinthians of that time. We are therefore assured by Clement, that

* Clemens quidem non laudat nomine ullum evangelistam, sed bis Xoyes sermones Jesu Christi, quorum jubet memores esse Corinthios, cap. xiii. et cap. xlvi. Quæ manifesto videntur respicere ad scriptos sermones, eosque manibus Corinthiorum vulgo tritos. Ac sane prior locus exstat, Luc. vi. 36, 37, et 38, quamvis non totidem prorsus verbis, sed eodem plane sensu. Posteriora vero verba leguntur, Matt. xxvi. 24. Marc. ix. 42. Luc. xvii. 2. Matt. xviii. 6. Fateor tamen hic etiam sensum potissimum respici. Sed sic solent quoque apostoli passim laudare Vetus Testamentum, et varia loca in unam orationem conjungere: nec tamen dubium est, quin respiciant ad libros sacros, quos etiamnum habemus, et quorum sacrosancta dudum erat auctoritas. Dissert. iii. p. 542. a.

1 Cum veritati magis mihi consonum videatur ab apostolis ipsis, aut eorum discipulis, hæc accepisse Clementem.

I have not room for his whole argument, which is in Vindic. Ignat. Part ii cap. ix.

our evangelists have truly and justly recorded the words of Christ, which he spake, teaching gentleness and longsuffering, and that they are worthy to be remembered with the highest respect.

But though here is a difficulty, yet I suppose, most learned men may be of that opinion, which I have spoken of as Le Clerc's. Indeed when St. Paul exhorts some in a like manner, Acts xx. 35, "To remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive: "I believe, it is generally reckoned, he refers them not to any writing, but only to some words of Christ, of which he and they were well informed. But nevertheless, it does not follow, that this form of reference ought always to be so understood. It may be as well used to refer to written, as to unwritten, words of the Lord. We shall find Polycarp using the same form, when he very probably, or rather certainly, refers to our written gospels. • Remembering what the Lord said teaching.' See hereafter, in Polycarp, Numb. IV. and VIII.

6

Before we proceed any farther, we ought likewise to observe, that the learned Dr. Millm concludes from a passage of Irenæus, that Clement did in his manner obscurely quote Matt. xxv. 41. Irenæus" is arguing with some heretics, and refers them to the epistle of Clement, who therein ' delivers the doctrine received from the apostles, which 'declares, that there is one God Almighty, the maker of 'the heaven and the earth,——who brought in the flood, and 'called Abraham,who spake to Moses,and sent the prophets, who has prepared the fire for the devil and his angels. That He is declared by the churches to be the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, they who will may learn 'from the epistle itself.' And this is one of Mill's arguments, that the true reading of that text of Matthew is not, as in our copies, "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels;" but everlasting fire, which my Father has pre'pared for the devil and his angels.'

6

I must leave it to the reader to consider, whether it can be hence determined, that Clement did here refer to Mat

m Citavit nimirum obscurius, suo more, locum illum. Matt. xxv. 41. Prolegom. n. 140. vid. et n. 141, 343, 369, et ad Matthæi locum.

-et

Adnuntians quam in recenti ab apostolis acceperat traditionem, annuntiantem unum Deum omnipotentem, factorem cœli et terræ,- -qui induxerit cataclysmum, et advocaverit Abraham,- qui colloquutus sit Moysi,prophetas miserit, qui ignem præparaverit diabolo et angelis ejus. Hunc Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi ab ecclesiis annuntiari, ex ipsâ scripturâ, qui velint, discere possunt, apostolicam ecclesiæ traditionem intelligere. Iren. lib. iii. c. 3. sect. 3.