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 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 e See his discourse prefixed to the genuine f Hist. Ec. A. D. 69. N. vi. 8 Disserta. sing. de Rom. Pont. success. c. xi. p. 153. h Vid. 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.

6

6

6

d Crit. A. D. 100. N. 2.

epistles of the apostolical fathers, p. 12.

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.

6

6

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 burntoffering, 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.

6

6

6

6

6

Irenæus says, When P 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 apostles, 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 προσφερονται θυσιαι, κ. λ. Ανηρ ιδιωτης ὁλοκαυτων θυει μεν βεν, και αρνιον, και εριφον—σφαγεντων δε τέτων, τον κύκλον τῳ αιματι δεύεσι τε βωμε οι ιερεις, ειτα καθαροποιησαντες διαμελίζεσι, και πασανTεg aλow εTI Tоv ßwμov avarilɛaσi, K. X. 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. 1. v. c. 6.

P Con.

6

⚫ 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, per'suading them to peace among themselves,' &c.

6

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 mentions in his 'epistle to the Philippians, ch. iv. 3.' Again, Of thist '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

6

6

6

' 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 Hebrews, 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,

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. w Ibid. c. 34. X Εν η της προς

s Ibid. c. 15.

▾ Ibid. c. 22.

c. 21. Εβραιες πολλα νοηματα παραθεις, ηδη δε και αυτολεξει ρητοις τισιν εξ αυτής χρησάμενος, κ. λ.

some think the evangelist Luke, others, that this very Cle'ment translated it [into Greek]: which last is the most likely, since there is a great resemblance between the style ' of the epistle of Clement and the epistle to the Hebrews; 6 as well as between the sentiments of those writings. It ' ought to be observed, that there is another epistle said to 'be Clement's: but this is not so generally received as the 'former; nor do we know the ancients to have quoted it. 'There have been also published not long since other large ' and prolix writings in his name, containing dialogues of 'Peter and Apion of which there is not the least mention made by the ancients. Nor have they the pure apostolical ' doctrine.' To add but one place more; speaking of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, about 170. Eusebius observes from this epistle to the church of Rome addressed to Soter their bishop at that time: That in his epistle Dionysius ⚫ makes mention also of the epistle of Clement to the Corin'thians, testifying, that it had been wont to be read there in the church from ancient time, saying, To-day we have kept the holy Lord's-day in which we read your epistle: which we shall continually read for our instruction, as well as the former written to us by Clement.'

6

6

6

With Eusebius, St. Jerom (though a Latin) agrees, in his book of Illustrious Men: Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writes in his epistle to the Philippians [ch. iv. 3.] "the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, for as much as Linus was the second, Anacletus the third (though most ' of the Latins think Clement to have been the second after 'the apostle Peter,) wrote a very useful epistle in the name ' of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, which in some places is read publicly.' He goes on to observe, as Eusebius had done before, its agreement with the epistle to the Hebrews. And then adds: There is also a 6 second

6

6

epistle with his name, but it is rejected by the ancients, ' and a long dialogue of Peter and Apion, which Eusebius has censured in the third book of his Ecclesiastical History. 'He died in the third year of Trajan' that is, A. D. 100.

All these testimonies agree together, and they are the most valuable we can have. It was indeed the more common opinion of the Latins, as Jerom owns, that Clement was next after Peter, but he does not follow them. And we find Tertullian, the most ancient Latin father remaining, though not so ancient as Irenæus, saying that Clement was

y Euseb. H. E. 1. iv. c. 23. p. 145. B. C. reckons St. Peter for the first.

a Petro ordinatum. De Præscr. c. 32.

Cap. 15.

a He

b Sicut Romanorum Clementem, a

c

ordained by Peter. To which, I think, it may be a sufficient answer to say, that Tertullian might be mistaken in this; and that the testimony of Irenæus, confirmed by Eusebius, is much more valuable than his. But if it be needful to reconcile Tertullian with others, this also may be done. For it may be said, that though Clement was ordained by Peter; it was not to the bishoprick of Rome or any other office in that church, but to some service of the gospel elsewhere. But I think, that is not agreeable to the words of Tertullian: which plainly intend an ordination in the church of Rome, either to the bishoprick of that church, or some other office in it. There is another way of reconciling this matter by saying, that Clement was ordained, or appointed by Peter, to be bishop in the church of Rome, but he declined it for some reason. Epiphanius has a conjecture, that though he was ordained bishop by Peter, he declined the exercise of that charge, till after the death of Linus and Cletus: and he builds that conjecture upon a passage of Clement, in this very epistle, chap. liv. Who is there among you that has any charity? Let him say, if this sedition, if this contention, be upon my account; I am ready to depart, I go away--only let the flock of • Christ be in peace.' And thus he might have practised what he here recommends. And Epiphanius says likewise, that this is related in some writings he had seen. But though we cannot be certain of this, yet I think it best to follow those testimonies I have first produced: according to which his bishoprick of Rome must have commenced in the year 91 or 92, and the epistle was written at the latter end of the reign of Domitian, in 95, or rather 96.

6

As for the opinion, that this epistle was written by him, after he had resigned, and in a supposed banishment, it hardly deserves any consideration: it being plainly confuted by the epistle itself, which appears to be written from Rome in the name of the church there, after some troubles, or when they were abated. And they desire the speedy return of the three brethren, whom they sent with it to Corinth. 'The messengers,' say they at the end of the epistle, whom 'we have sent unto you, Claudius Ephebus, and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus, send back to us again with all speed-that they may the sooner acquaint us with your peace and concord.'

Upon the whole, I think this epistle was written by Clement, when bishop, at the end of Domitian's persecution, in the year 96.

c Hær. 27. c. 6.