and Anacletus, between him and the apostle.  The internal evidence, again, leaves the matter doubtful, though it has been strongly pressed on both sides.  The probability seems, on the whole, to be in favour of the Domitian period, so that the epistle may be dated about A.D. 97” ("The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers.”  Translated by Rev. Dr. Roberts, Dr. Donaldson, and Rev. F. Crombie, pp. 3, 4.  Ed. 1867).  “Only a single-manuscript copy of the work is extant, at the end of the Alexandrian manuscript of the Scriptures.  This copy is considerably mutilated.  In some passages the text is manifestly corrupt, and other passages have been suspected of being interpolations” (Norton’s “Genuineness of the Gospels,” vol. i, p. 336.  Ed. 1847).

The second epistle is rejected on all sides.  “It is now generally regarded as one of the many writings which have been falsely ascribed to Clement....  The diversity of style clearly points to a different writer from that of the first epistle” ("Apostolic Fathers,” page 53).  “The second epistle ... is not mentioned at all by the earlier Fathers who refer to the first.  Eusebius, who is the first writer who mentions it, expresses doubt regarding it, while Jerome and Photius state that it was rejected by the ancients.  It is now universally regarded as spurious” ("Supernatural Religion,” pp. 220, 221).  “There is a second epistle ascribed to Clement, but we know not that this is as highly approved as the former, and know not that it has been in use with the ancients.  There are also other writings reported to be his, verbose and of great length.  Lately, and some time ago, those were produced that contain the dialogues of Peter and Apion, of which, however, not a syllable is recorded by the primitive Church” (Eusebius’ “Eccles.  Hist.” bk. iii., chap. 38).  “The first Greek Epistle alone can be confidently pronounced genuine” (Westcott on the “Canon of the New Testament,” p. 24.  Ed. 1875).  The first epistle “is the only piece of Clement that can be relied on as genuine” ("Lardner’s Credibility,” pt. ii., vol. i., p. 62.  Ed. 1734).  “Besides the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians there is a fragment of a piece, called his second epistle, which being doubtful, or rather plainly not Clement’s, I don’t quote as his.” (Ibid, p. 106.)

This very dubious Clement (Paley quotes, be it said, from the first—­or least doubtful—­of his writings) only says that one of Paley’s original witnesses was martyred, namely Peter; Paul, of course, was not an eye-witness of Christ’s proceedings.

The Vision of Hermas is a simple rhapsody, unworthy of a moment’s consideration, of which Mosheim justly remarks:  “The discourse which he puts into the mouths of those celestial beings is more insipid and senseless than what we commonly hear among the meanest of the multitude” ("Eccles.  Hist,” p. 32).  Its date is very doubtful; the Canon of Muratori puts it in the middle of the second century, saying that it was written by Hermas,