to him; whom therefore the generality of learned men, both of ancient and modern times, without scruple, conclude to have been referred to in that passage. Vid. E de contempt. cher. Lugd. Mundi, and bert Stad. in nia a Junio 5. I shall not say any thing of what is reported by some concerning his noble birth and family; of his studies at Athens; and of the occasion and manner of his conversion to Christianity; which they tell us, was Chron. A wrought by St. Peter, whom he met with Barnabas at ter TestimoCæsarea; and who there first declared to him the doc- citata. trine of Christ, and inclined him to a good opinion of it. All which is very uncertain, and justly doubted of by many. I shall choose rather to observe that whatever his condition was before he became a Christian, he was held in no small reputation after; but merited such a character from the ancient fathers, as is hardly given to any besides the Apostles. Nay, some of them doubt not in plain terms to call him an Apostle; h and though h Clem. Alex St. Hierome durst not go so far as that, yet he gives him another title but little short of it; he tells us that i Hieron. In he was an Apostolic man, and as Ruffinus k adds, almost an Apostle. 6 To declare more particularly how he spent the first part of his life, after his conversion, is neither necessary to the design I have now in hand, nor can any certain account be given of it. Only as we are told in the general, that he was St. Peter's disciple, so it may not be improbable that for some time he attended his motions, and was subject to his direction. 7. But whatever he was, or wherever he laboured before, in this I think antiquity is absolutely agreed, that he at last became Bishop of Rome; and was placed in that See by the express direction of one, or both the Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul. To whom he succeeded, or at what time to fix his entrance on that great charge, is a point that I suppose will never be agreed upon among learned men. If any could have settled this matter beyond dispute, it had without question been Strom. lib.iv. Isaiam. c. 52. k De Adulterat. lib. Ort ginis. sert. de suc R. PP. cum. Hen. Dod son. dissert. V. Num. 7. Dissert. sin. Pearson Dis done by those of our own nation, who as they have the cess. prim. R latest searched with all possible diligence into it, so nevAppend. er were there any better qualified for its determination.. welli. Pear But as their mutual disagreement, m after all their enPosthum.cap deavours to fix this point, shews that one of them must m Dodwelli have been mistaken; so I doubt not but it will suffigul. cap. xv. ciently satisfy all such as shall consider the high character they have so justly obtained both by their learning and judgment in these kind of disquisitions, that they are points not to be determined; and that he who shall do the best upon them, may only be said to have made a good guess, in a subject too hard for any at this distance clearly to decide, n pag. 220. B Dodwell Dissert. singul. cap. xi. p. 151. tle to the Co vii. rat. Lib.Orig. S. Nor is there any less controversy among learned men concerning the death of St. Clement, than there has been about the order and time of his succession to his Bishopric. That he lived in expectation of martyrdom, and was ready to have undergone it, should it have o Clem Epis- pleased God to have called him to it, the epistle we rinth. Num. are now speaking of, sufficiently shews us. But that he did glorify God by those particular sufferings which some have pretended, is I confess to me a matter of some doubt. For first, it must be acknowledged that p De Adulte- Ruffinus P is one of the first authors we have that speaks q Hist. Ec- of him as a martyr. Neither Eusebius 4 (who is usually very exact in his observations on such things,) nor any of the fathers still nearer his time, viz. Iranæus, Clemens, Alexandrinus, Tertullian, &c. take any notice of it. And for the account which some others have ad more lately given us of the manner of his death, besides Pos- that in some parts it is altogether fabulous; it is not imson, Num.22. probable, but that as our learned friend Mr. Dodwell has observed, the first rise of it may have been owing Chro. A no. to their confounding Flavius Clemens the Roman consul, with Clement, Bishop of Rome: who did indeed $ Hist. Eccles. suffer martyrdom for the faith about the time of which they speak; and some other parts of whose character, cles. Lib. iii. c. 34. r Dodwel. sert. thum. Pear pag. 215. a Vid. Euseb. xcvii. Et in Euseb. Annot. calig. p. 205. b.Euseb. Lib. iii. cap. 18. such as his relation to the emperor, and banishment înto Pontus, they manifestly ascribe to him. Eccles. Lib. ler. Patr. A 9. However, seeing Eusebiust refers his death to the t Euseb Hist. third year of Trajan, famous for the persecution of the iii. cap. 34 church, and may thereby seem to insinuate that Clement also then suffered among the rest; and that Simeon Metaphrastes has given a long and particular account u Apud Coreof his condemnation to the mines first, and then of his Tom, death following thereupon; as I shall not determine any thing against it, so they who are desirous to know what is usually said concerning the passions of this holy man, may abundantly satisfy their curiosity in this particular, from the accurate collection of Dr. Cave in the life of this saint; too long to be transcribed into the present dis course. 10. And this may suffice to have been observed, in short, concerning St. Clement himself: as for the epistle we are now speaking of to the Corinthians, I have already taken notice how great a value was put upon it in the most primitive ages of the church, and what a mighty commendation has been left us of it, by the writers of those times. Nor indeed does it at all come short of the highest praises which they have given to it; being a piece composed with such an admirable spirit of love and charity; of zeal towards God, and concern for the church of Christ; of the most excellent exhortations, delivered with the greatest plainness and simplicity of speech, and yet pressed many times with such moving eloquence, that I cannot imagine what could have been desired in such an epistle more proper for the end for which it was composed: what could have been written more becoming an Apostolical age, and the pen of one of the most eminent Bishops of it. 11. But that it may be better understood by those who may think fit to peruse it, there are a few things which it will be necessary for me in this place to observe concerning it. not. in Epist. cip. 12. And the first is, the occasion that was given for the writing of this epistle. For if we have no particular account about what it was, yet we may from the subject of it give a very probable guess at it. When St. Paul wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians, the two great things that seemed to have especially called for it, were, first, the divisions of that church upon the account of their teachers, and through their vain conceit of their own spiritual gifts: and, secondly, the great mistake that was getting in among them concerning the nature of the future resurrection. And although the Apostle by his writing and authority did at that time put a stop to the one, and set them right as to the other; yet it seems after his death, they began again to fall not only into the same contentions, but also into the same error, that had caused them so much trouble before. 13. This gave St. Clement occasion to write the following epistle to them: in which having first taken notice of the rise of those new seditions that were broke out among them, and having exhorted them to a Christian composure with regard to them, he in the next place goes on, by many arguments, to establish the undoubted truth and certainty of the future resurrection; which was the other thing in which St. Paul had before observed them to have been greatly and dangerously mistaken. 14. This then was the occasion, and is the main subject and design of the following epistle. But about what time it was written, it is not so easy to determine. Jun x Vid. in An-ius supposes it was written by St. Clement in the Clem.in prin- name of the church of Rome, about two years before his martyrdom, and that from the place of his banishment: which also seems to have been the opinion of our learned Mr. Burton y in his notes upon this epistle. Baroninal. ad Ann. us places it six or seven years sooner, about the twelfth year of Domitian. With him Cotelerius a agrees, only Epist. p. 82. he supposes that the persecution was then drawing to y Annot. 2.p. 41. z Baron. An xcv. Num. 1. a Coteler. Not. inClem. b Dodwell. Append. ad. cap. vi. Dis sert. 2. Pear wards an end; it being otherwise not probable that such an embassy could have been sent from Rome with the epistle, as by the remarks at the close of it, we find there was. But Mr. Dodwell b with much greater probability, thinks it to have been written still sooner, viz. immediately after the end of Nero's persecution: and to son. pag.219. that refer those troubles complained of by St. Clement in the very beginning of his epistle; and in which he e Epistle, c.i. elsewhere d speaks of St. Peter and St. Paul, as some of a Ibid. c. v. the latest instances of any that had died for the sake of their religion. C 15. Now that which seems more to countenance this opinion is, that St. Clement, in another part of his epis Num. 24. d loc. supr. cit. g Epist. c.lix. tle e speaks of the temple service not only as still con- e Chap. xii. tinuing, but as being in such a state as necessarily supposes all things to have been still in peace and quiet at Jerusalem, from whence that learned manf with great f Dodwel. reason concludes, that this epistle must have been written somewhat before the 12th year of Nero, in which the Jewish wars first broke out. Let us add to this, that in the close of this epistle we find mention made of Fortunatus as the person whom the Church of Corinth had probably sent to Rome with an account of their disasters, and by whom, together with the two delegates of their own, the Roman Church returned this epistle to the Corinthians. Now Fortunatus is expressly said by St. Paul to have been an old disciple in his time; insomuch that he places him with Stephanus who was the first fruits of Achaia.* Therefore we must conclude that this epistle could not have been written so late as some would have it, seeing this man was not only still alive, but in a condition of undertaking so great a journey as from Corinth to Rome: for from thence it is most likely he was sent with the letter of that church to Rome; and so became the bearer of this epistle, which was written in the name of the Church of Rome in answer to it. *1 Cor. xvi. 15, 17. |