written in a fimilar ftyle, and the fentiments in both works tolerably well harmonife together." The epiftle which we ftill poffefs agrees accurately with this defcription. It is written in the name of the community at Rome to the Christians at Corinth, and to diffuade them from diffenfions and factions, and particularly from an oppofition to their Presbyters, or Teachers.-The importance and excellence which Eufebius, and the force which Irenæus, in the above-mentioned paffage, faw in it, muft be afcribed to that inclination of the ancients to confider every thing as beautiful, excellent and forcible, which came from a venerable teacher. The epiftle, judged impartially, is written in a tedious style; the author repeats the fame fubject, probably ten times, without giving it additional force, is rich in unmeaning epithets, wrefts fcriptural paffages to his purpose, and often ex tends tends a matter too far, in order to deduce from it an argument which he fuppofed good and edifying. Notwithstanding thefe defects, it is one of the most valuable remains of antiquity. Even its great age makes it respectable; for at the latest it was compofed in the laft ten years of the firft century; moft probably about the year 96". The credit of its author, and particularly the circumstance of its having been written in the name of an entire and very confiderable community, add extraordinary weight to its teftimony. It thus becomes a public document, and contains not the evidence of a private individual, but of the whole Church at Rome. We must therefore greatly regret, that it now appears neither fufficiently n Formerly I was of the ufual opinion, that this epistle was written before the deftruction of Jerusalem. But Lardner has produced arguments, which appear to me incontrovertible, that it must be ascribed to the year 96. Credibility, vol. ii. p. 23-28. 1 correct the New Teftament. 47 correct nor perfect. Only a fingle manufcript of it is come down to us. In this fome leaves are wanting; and this defect appears to be in that very part which regards the information on the fcriptural books. For in all probability that is wanting which Eufebius, in the above-mentioned paffage, and Irenæus Adv. hæres, have quoted from it.--Eufebius fays, that Clement in this epiftle, had adopted many fentiments of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, and even tranfcribed fome paffages. The former are found indeed in the epiftle, which still exifts, but not the latter: unless we fuppofe that the words of Eufebius are not to be taken in their moft literal meaning. But Irenæus, in proof of the antiquity of the then prevailing doctrine, appeals to this epiftle of Clement. 66 In it," thefe are his words, "he delivers the doctrine which he had very lately received from the B. iii. q. 38. Lib. iii. cap. 3. § 3. p. 176. |