defence of the Nicene faith, in the point of our blessed Saviour's divinity; which he largely shews our present author to have been far from doing any prejudice unto.

15. Such have been the different judgments of learned men, both heretofore, and in our present times, concerning this book. It would be too great a presumption for me to pretend to determine any thing as to this matter; and having subjoined the work itself in our own language, every one may be able to satisfy himself what value he ought to put upon it. That there are many useful things to be found in it, but especially in the second, and I think the best part of it cannot be denied. And for the other two, it must be considered, that though such visions as we there read of, being no longer continued to these latter ages, may warrantably be despised in the pretenders of the present days; yet we cannot doubt but that at the time when this book was written, the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were very frequent and we need not question but that such revelations too among the rest, were communicated to holy men for the benefit of the Church.

16. But I shall not pursue this subject any farther: nor will I add very much to what I have before said with relation to St. Clement and his first Epistle, concerning that part which still remains of a second under his name, and which concludes the following collection.

17. That this second Epistle was not of so great a reputation among the Primitive Fathers, as the foregoing, Eusebius not only tells us,(p) but gives us this testimony of it, that he could not find it quoted, as the other was, by any of them. But St. Jerome is more severe ;(g) he represents it to us as rejected by them and Photius after him, calls it a spurious piece.(r) And not to mention any more, our most

(h) Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 38. (9) De Script. in Clemente.

(r) Phot. Cod. 112, 113.

Reverend Bishop Usher not only concurs in the same censure, but offers several arguments too in proof of it.(s)

18. And yet, when all is done, it does not appear but that St. Clement was indeed the author of this, as well as of the other Epistle before spoken of; though it was not so much esteemed by, nor by consequence so generally known to the antients as that. In the manuscript of St. Thecla(t) we find this set forth under the same title with the other. And in all the other catalogues of the antients, wherever one is spoken of, the other is for the most part set together with it: as may particularly be observed in the Apostolical Canons,(z) not to mention any other collections of this kind.

19. Nor does Eusebius(v) deny this Epistle to be St. Clement's, but only says that it was not so celebrated as the other. And true it is, we do not find it either so often or so expressly mentioned as that. But yet if the conjecture of Wendeline,(w) approved by a very learned man(x) of our own country, may be admitted; Eusebius himself(y) will afford us an instance of one who not only spake of it, but spake of it as wont to be publicly read in the Church of Corinth. For discoursing of the Epistles of Dionysius, Bishop of that See, he tells us, that in one of them which he wrote to the Romans, he took notice of St. Clement's Epistle in these words: to day have we kept the Lord's day with all holiness; in which we have read your Epistle, as we shall always continue to read it for our instruction, together with the former written to us by Clement. What that Epistle was of which Dionysius here speaks, as written by the Church of Rome to that of Corinth, and publicly read

(8) Dissert. de Script. Ignat. cap. 10.

(t) Vid Catal Bevereg. Codex canon. vindicat. 289.
(u) Canon 85.
(v) Hist. Eccles. lib. 3. c. 38.

() Divinat. de Epist. Clem.

(x) Bevereg. Cod. Canon. Vindic. lib. ii. c. 9. § 10, p. 286.

(y) Euseb Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. c. 23.

in the congregation there, does not appear. Bishop Beveridge, after Wendeline, conceives it to have been that which Clement wrote in the name of that Church to them; and so the former Epistle spoken of by Dionysius, will be this second, written in his own name to the Corinthians, not by the authority of the Roman Church. But this others() will by no means allow; they suppose the letter which Dionysius says was read that day among them, to have been some other Epistle, either of Soter, or of the Church of Rome; and make use of this very passage, to prove that they had received but one Epistle from St. Clement, nor knew of any other that had been written by him.

་

20. And yet Epiphanius(a) expressly tells us, that this Epistle, no less than the foregoing, was in his time wont to be publicly read in the congregation. And though St. Jerome and Photius speak indeed but meanly of it in those places where they seem to deliver the judgment of Eusebius rather than their own opinion; yet upon other occasions(b) they make no exception against the authority of it, but equally ascribe it to St. Clement with the other, of which there is no doubt.

21. Having said thus much concerning these two last pieces, with which the present collection is concluded; I have but this to add, that they are both of them now first of all put into our own language, and presented to the perusal of the English reader: the former from the old Latin version, which is by some(c) much complained of, though by others(d) as stiffly defended the latter from the original Greek, as it was published by Mr. Patrick Young from the Alexandrian manuscript, the only copy that, for aught ap、 pears, does at this day remain of it.

(z) See Dr. Grabe Spicileg. tom. 1. page 265.

(a) Hæres. 27. num. 6.

(b) See Hieron. adv. Jovin. tom. iii. fol. 12. Photius Cod. 126. in

Clem.

(c) Barthius apud Cotelet. not. in Herm. p. 44.

(d) Cotelerius ibid.

OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS.

99

22. If any one shall ask how it came to pass that our learned countryman, Mr. Burton, when he set out the former Epistle of St. Clement in English, did not su join this to it; the answer which himself (e) warrants us to return, is this: that taking what has been said by the antients before mentioned, in the strictest sense, he looked upon this Epistle as a spurious piece, which though it carried the name of St. Clement, was yet truly no more his, than those constitutions and recognitions, which are also published under the same name, but are generally acknowledged to be none of his, as in the prosecution of this discourse I shall take occasion more fully to shew..

23. As for the Epistle itself, I have concluded it somewhat sooner than the Greek, which yet remains of it, does. But that which I have omitted being only an imperfect piece of a sentence, which would have made the conclusion much more abrupt than it is now; I chose ramer to add what followed here, than to continue it there. And to make the reader the better amend for this liberty, I have not only subjoined what remains of St. Clement, but have endeavoured to make out the sense of what is wanting in our copy fom the other Clement, who seems to have followed chis original.

"For the Lord himself being asked by a certain. person, (f) when his kingdom should come, answered, when two shall be one, and that which is without as that which is within; and the male with the female, neither male nor female. Now two are one, when we speak the truth to each other; and there is, (without hypocrisy,) one soul in two bodies. And that which is without as that which is within; he means this; he calls the soul that which is within, and the body that which is without. As therefore thy body appears, so let thy soul be seen by its good works. And the male with the female, neither male nor fe

(e) Burton's Notes upon St. Clement. Clem. Rom. ex. ms. Regio.

p.
94.

male; He means:(g) he calls our anger the male, our concupiscence the female. When therefore a man is come to such a pass, that he is subject neither to the one nor the other of these; both of which through the prevalence of custom, and an evil education, cloud and darken the reason; but rather having dispelled the mist arising from them, and being full of shame, shall by repentance have united both his soul and spirit in the obedience of reason; then, as Paul says, there is in us neither male nor female.

CHAPTER IX.

THAT THE PIECES HERE PUT TOGETHER ARE ALL THAT REMAIN OF THE MOST PRIMITIVE AND APOSTOLICAL ANTIQUITY.

That there are several other Treatises pretended to have been written within the compass of this period, but non such as truly come up to it. Of the Epistle of our Saviour Chris to Abgarus, and the occasion of it; that it is not probable that any such letter was written by him. The Epistles ascribed to the Virgin Mary, spurious. So is the Epistle pretended to have been written by St. Paul to the Laodiceans. Of the acts, the gospel, the preaching, and revelations of St. Peter. Of the liturgy attributed to St. Matthew, and the discourse said to have been written by him concerning the nativity of the blessed Virgin. Of the liturgies ascribed to St. Peter, St. Mark, and St. James. Of the gospels attributed to several of the Apostles. Of the Apostles' creed, and the canons called Apostolical. Of the other pieces under the names of St. Clement and St. Ignatius, and particularly of the recognitions and epitome of Clement. Of the History of the life, miracles, and assumption of St. John, pretended to have been written by Prochorus, one of the seven Deacons. Of the histories of St. Peter and St. Paul, ascribed to Linus, Bishop of Rome. Of the lives of the Apostles, attributed to Abdias, Bishop of Babylon. Of the Epistles of St. Martial. Of the Passion of St. Andrew, written by the Presbyters of Achaia. Of the works ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, That, upon the whole, the pieces here put together, are all that remain of the Apostolical times, after the books of the holy Scripture.

1. HAVING said thus much concerning the several pieces here put together, and the authors of them, it (g) Ex. Clem. Alexandrin,