and difficulties, when we pursue it further than the books of the New Testament, and the most ancient writers in the Christian Church” ("Eccles.  Hist.,” p. 27, ed. 1847).  What “ancient writers” Mosheim alludes to it is difficult to guess, as may be judged from his criticisms quoted below, on the “Apostolic Fathers,” the most ancient of all; and in estimating the worth of his opinion, it is necessary to remember that he was himself an earnest Christian, although a learned and candid one, so that every admission he makes, which tells against Christianity, is of double weight, it being the admission of a friend and defender.

To the credit of Paley’s apostolic evidences (Clement, Hermas, Polycarp, Ignatius, and letter from Smyrna), we may urge the following objections.  Clement’s writings are much disputed:  “The accounts which remain of his life, actions, and death are, for the most part, uncertain.  Two Epistles to the Corinthians, written in Greek, have been attributed to him, of which the second has been looked upon as spurious, and the first as genuine, by many learned writers.  But even this latter seems to have been corrupted and interpolated by some ignorant and presumptuous author....  The learned are now unanimous in regarding the other writings which bear the name of Clemens (Clement) ... as spurious productions ascribed by some impostor to this venerable prelate, in order to procure them a high degree of authority” (Ibid, pp. 31, 32).

“The first epistle, bearing the name of Clement, has been preserved to us in a single manuscript only.  Though very frequently referred to by ancient Christian writers, it remained unknown to the scholars of Western Europe until happily discovered in the Alexandrian manuscript....  Who the Clement was, to whom these writings are ascribed, cannot with absolute certainty be determined.  The general opinion is, that he is the same as the person of that name referred to by St. Paul (Phil. iv. 3).  The writings themselves contain no statement as to their author....  Although, as has been said, positive certainty cannot be reached on the subject, we may with great probability conclude that we have in this epistle a composition of that Clement who is known to us from Scripture as having been an associate of the great apostle.  The date of this epistle has been the subject of considerable controversy.  It is clear from the writing itself that it was composed soon after some persecution (chapter I) which the Roman Church had endured; and the only question is, whether we are to fix upon the persecution under Nero or Domitian.  If the former, the date will be about the year 68; if the latter, we must place it towards the close of the first century, or the beginning of the second.  We possess no external aid to the settlement of this question.  The lists of early Roman bishops are in hopeless confusion, some making Clement the immediate successor of St. Peter, others placing Linus, and others still Linus