in the fecond volume of Cotelerius, and then reflect that their genuine remains are extremely fhort, we shall be induced to conclude that these authors have done nothing else than copy the Bible. Lardner, indeed, is more rigid in the felection of thefe teftimonies; yet the greater part of the paffages which he has quoted are in no respect convincing. I will not delay the reader with the confideration of the other teftimonies, as I have fhewn by the two paffages which are generally dwelt upon as of the greatest weight, that Barnabas cannot be placed in the number of evidences for the Authenticity of the New Teftament.

"Give to every one that afketh thee"-Пar αιτουντι σε δίδου, fays Barnabas, ch. 19. It is pre tended that this is a proof of his having read the Gospel of St. Matthew, because the fame command is found in it, ch. v. 42. Dr. Lardner himself perceives the weakness of this proof; and therefore says, p. 16-" It may be queftioned, whether he refers at all to any written gospel."

2. Clemens

2. Clement of Rome.

UNDER the name of Clement, who was Bishop of Rome, and an affiftant of the Apoftle St. Paul', we have different writings; but of these only the two epiftles to the Chriftian community at Corinth can offer any pretenfion to this title.

Of the Second epiftle, as it is called, there is only a fragment remaining, which nevertheless exhibits pretty evident marks of forgery. Irenæus was acquainted with only one epiftle of Clement, and from this he has quoted.

₫ Philip. iv. 3.

f

* See Coteler. vol. i. 185-189. John Lewis Frey also has published an accurate edition of the works of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, (Basel. 1742. 8vo.) which I fhall use for the purpose of quotation in the following work, on account of its conveniency. What remains of that which is called the fecond epistle, stands p. 88-103.

f Adversus hærefes, Lib. iii. cap. 3. § 3. p. 176, of the edition which was published at Paris, by Renatus Maffuet, 1710, fol.

Eufebius

Eufebius was indeed informed of this fecond epiftle; but he rejects it, because he cannot discover any traces of it among the ancients. Dionyfius, Bishop of Corinth, in the fecond century, mentions only one epistle; and both Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, have quoted the firft, but never noticed the fecond, as has been remarked by Grabe-The tenour itself of this fragment betrays, that it is not the work of Clement: for it cites the Gospels often, and by name, which is univerfally contrary to the cuftom of the genuine epistle'.

8 Hift. Eccl. Lib. iii. cap. 38. p. 134. —ŏTI μN τους αρχαίους αυτη κεχρημενους ισμενο

In the Spicileg. Patrum et hæreticorum Seculi, 1-3, which was published at Oxford, 1698 and 1700, in 2 vol. in 8vo. Vol. i. p. 266-69.

iSee Lardner's Credibility, vol. ii. p. 49.-The fame circumftance makes me fufpect the genuineness of the two Syriac epiftles, which Wetstein has publifhed at the end of his Greek Teftament, and defended as genuine. But the filence of antiquity, and the recommendation of celibacy found therein, compel us absolutely to reject them.

But

But the teftimonies of the ancients, for what is called the firft epiftle, are much more numerous and complete*. Befides the paffages quoted above, we find in Eufebius, in two different places, very ample information concerning it. In the third book of the Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, chap. xvi'. he fays-" Of this Clement we have an important and excellent epiftle, which is univerfally received as genuine. He wrote it in the name of the community at Rome to that at Corinth, in which great diffenfions at that time exifted. This epiftle is read, as we know, agreeably to an old cuftom, in moft of the churches. And that fuch diffenfions did actually at that time exift at Corinth, Hegefippus is an incontrovertible evidence." The epiftle then which the ancients held to be a genuine work of the Roman Cle

* It stands in Cotelerius, vol. i. p. 145-181. and in Frey, p. 1-78.

Page 107, 108.

ment,

ment, was written in the name of the community at Rome to the Christians at Corinth, on account of fome diffenfions which had arisen among them.In the thirty-eighth chapter of the fame book, he points out the contents of that epiftle more amply. "In this epiftle," fays he", Clement ufes many fentiments taken from the Epiftle to the Hebrews; he even quotes fome word for word: and hence it is manifeft, that that Epiftle (to the Hebrews) is not a modern compofition, but in all probability has been justly placed among the writings of the Apoftle (St. Paul). This epiftle which St. Paul wrote to the Hebrews in their mother-tongue, was tranflated, as fome affert, by the Evangelift St. Luke; or, according to the opinion of others, by this very Clement; and the latter fuppofition is the more probable, because the epiftle of Clement, and that to the Hebrews, are