acquainted with the other Apoftles, and had undoubtedly a perfect knowledge of all their doctrines and writings; who even himself prefided, at the time of the Apoftles, as bishop, over a community to which St. Paul had written one of his longeft epiftles, many difficulties have very forcibly occurred to me. I will here point them out; perhaps they may excite others to examine this important document with more accuracy. -Firft: in this fhort epiftle, which occupies about forty fmall octavo pages, Clement quotes almoft fifty paffages from the Old Teftament, fometimes word for word, and fometimes by name. It was therefore by no means contrary to the fashion of thofe days to quote many fcriptural paffages by way of proof. Why then does he appeal to the Scriptures of the New Tef tament fo feldom verbally, and only in a fingle inftance by name? They were all at that time compofed, the Reve

lation

be faid to leffen, if not entirely to remove, their force.-As to the firft, I answer, That Clement very rarely makes his quotations from the Old Teftament by name; but almoft conftantly only according to their contents. Nor was it very cuftomary for the ancient writers to quote by name, as may be feen for inftance in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, . in which the author quotes generally according to the contents only, or with an indeterminate phrafe, "one in a certain place teftified." Moreover, Clement prefumed that the contents of the New Teftament were already known to the Chriftians at Corinth. But this he could not prefume in refpect of the Old Teftament, which was generally unknown to the heathen converts.-With regard to the fecond difficulty, it appears to me that the immediate object of Clement was not fo much to prove Chap. i. ii.

the