Skip to main content

Full text of "The Apostolic Fathers : a revised text with introductions, notes, dissertations, and translations"

See other formats 


oe Age meee Tet le me tot he Me Relig Mes fe Se aia ortte Miser tentgs Br, yes 


re 


ices 


- 


ween aie es 


I ork Ay 
* oe ~ 


Ae 
eee 


Cerys : * ‘ 
oe an, 4 eB eas 
' oa 


Meher ie Nig ty Ni Me in: Moy igs he Ya in As br dis gh eg Par Ain eg ag te Ry Naess gn irs Geen ein thy Ne eM bre er 
Jo Taig: Nerthg igs te Hinge ag Ite Pigs So Mgitoveg ig Sy typ Ort beAgn lig hero Sarin tet clo ip: bes: ter ips MMe Spite ta Ty Do MG my Meenre Oe 


Mere Maso lig. Net hetady Sheath ait, Rees 
1g) Se bes Bia tar ay thee Wig Sie eM yplaniter te Re” 


Be ha to Oe ate 

Ee eed ete 
Tot Aa 0! ihe My My Tha Varta, ing fay "Fee hy gp 
hg Dae Ta Rig Tp Te Sp igre NP 


he bag ing he, Fey’ 2S Me Oy Ab Veg Sig Mp or iter ince 
ho ante ar x0 eS 


. 
wa yhiing Ne Ay Viatle he dis 
ip delay hy hee in wag “vee hype Me 
ee Ren! gather Nertyte Te Len tyrtigs Ny 'tgnaie? “oA ee eg tigaly® thy tg 
(yelte Rar typhorMe Nyt shin Neg tig lh hh eg heh 0 Haley 0! ihe Noe 


I 
sig We: te Mgt ag Pir Dect iep gag tee halon Cer ect thp a eRe int 
ag te a rite Ahir Hee Minot hy Mes Vig tw SB Nii Men! woke 


rath Mo ty Oe M24 


to Age te Meine 


oS Neg tat Be Meg olin: te te rei ihe te Melita ets 


My fir 


Lee oe ee erat ty eee Me oes er ee ee 
Meee et ee le NoteeMo tor Relte Bee” 


Ano See tar Valet, 20% tae ap Mee eg Behe We: 


tee tye Ra i th Re Bia, 
a ashe Re he MM Mh 


rub ae 
a) 


SM GE AR We ey ae ea Se oh die oa 


PVi8 ORE SR A Dee et ote AN, 
= Or Oe 


atl 


flea PrghhtSnctestn La Me ofthat 


on na nin. psin th a gE oteg Tee 


* 


gent ayo 
sna iee 


geet teste 
Sigh etn teat agit tr relaitteSp me MVBS 5 
la GEARS eg ae oN Hag oy 


weet Oe 


ate arrears 
x 


as gd eee? 


> 
x peep? 





LIBRARY OF 
WELLESLEY <OLEEGE 


, (ees d ly 


PRESENTED BY 


Mrs. Ropes 





Mk 
A the oe ‘a 


ON 
be? 3 "i 








Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Wellesley College Library 


https://archive.org/details/apostolicfathersO102clem 





aS al ry 
? £ f 5 
fo wf yy. 
4 Ai A ” sé ce _ 
{4 a a & rn (2 fA 
vA 





ook APOSTOLIC FATHERS 


FIRST PART 


VOR oi 





PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS 
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 


TABLE OF CONTLER Ps. 


SECOND VOLUME. 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT. 


PAGE 

INTRODUCTION. I—4 
The authorities for the text. Other sources of evidence. Symbols used. 

TEXT AND NOTES. 5—188 


THE SO-CALLED SECOND EPISTLE OF 8S. CLEMENT. 


INTRODUCTION. IgI—2I10 


The attribution to Clement in the manuscripts [191]. External evidence 
against this [192, 193]. The designation ‘to the Corinthians’ [193, 194]. 
Internal evidence. Not an Epistle, but a homily [194—197]. Probably 
delivered in Corinth [197—199]. MHarnack’s theory of its Roman origin 
considered [199—201]. Limits of date [201—204]. Theories of authorship. 
(i) Bryennios’ theory, Clement of Rome [204—206]. (ii) Hilgenfeld’s 
theory, Clement of Alexandria [206, 207]. (iii) Harnack’s theory, the 
Clement mentioned in Hermas [207, 208]. Analysis [2zo8—210]. 


TEXT AND NOTES. 211—261 
THE LACUNA IN THE ALEXANDRIAN MANUSCRIPT. 263—267 
CORRIGENDA IN THE COLLATION OF THE CONSTANTINOPOLITAN MANU- 
SCRIPT, 268 
TRANSLATIONS. 


1. THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS. 271—305 
2. AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 306—316 


vl TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF: PORTUS. 
PAGE 
INTRODUCTION. 317, 318 


Interesting problems presented by his personality and life. The dis- 
covery of the Philosophumena. His relation to our main subject through 
his intimate connexion with (i) the early history of the Roman Church, 
(ii) the earliest western list of Roman bishops. 


f ANCIENT REFERENCES TO: HIPPOLYTOS. 318—365 

1 Hippolytus [318—324]. 2 Chair of Hippolytus [324—326]. 3 Eu- 
sebius [326, 327]. 4 Liberian Chronographer [328]. 5 Epiphanius [328]. 
6 Apollinaris? [328]. 7 Damasus [328, 329]. 8 Hieronymus [329—33r]. 
9g Rufinus [331]. 1o Prudentius [332—338]. 11 Palladius [338]. 12 Theo- 
doret (338, 339]. 13 Gelasius [340]. 14 Andreas of Czesarea [340]. 15 Li- 
ber Pontificalis [340—342]. 16 Cyrillus of Scythopolis [343]. 17 Gregory of 
Tours [343]. 18 Eustratius of Constantinople [343]. 19 Stephanus Gobarus 
[343]. 20 Leontius of Byzantium [343]. 21 Chronicon Paschale [344]. 
22 Concilium Lateranense [344]. 23 Anastatius Apocrisiarius [344, 
345]. 24 Anastatius Sinaita [345]. 25 Pseudo-John of Damascus [345]. 
26 Germanus of Constantinople [345]. 27 Pseudo-Chrysostom [346]. 
28 Georgius Syncellus [346]. 29 Nicephorus [346]. 30 Georgius Hamar- 
tolus [347]. 31 Photius [347—349]. 32 CEcumenius [349]. 33 Zonaras 
[349]. 34 Suidas [349]. 35 Nicephorus Callistus [349, 350]. 36 Ebed- 
Jesu [350]. 37 Inscriptions relating to reliques [351, 352]. 38 Itineraries 
[352—354]. 39 Western Service Books [354, 355]. 40 Calendars and 
Martyrologies [355, 356]. 41 Florus-Beda [356, 357]. 42 Ado of Vienne 
[357—360]. 43 Menza [361, 362]. 44 S. Petrus Damianus [362]. 
45 Passio Sancti Sixti Laurentii Hippolyti [363, 364]. 46 Acta SS. 
Cyriaci Hippolyti Aureae etc. [364, 365]. 


2. MODERN LITERATURE. 365—370 


3. NAMESAKES OF S. HIPPOLYTUS. 37°—377 


Points of contact with the story of the son of Theseus [370]. Five other 
namesakes, real or imaginary persons [371]. (1) Hippolytus the martyr 
of Antioch [371, 372]. (2) Hippolytus the Alexandrian connected with 
Dionysius [372]. (3) Hippolytus the Greek captain of brigands [373—376]. 
(4) Hippolytus the soldier, the warder of S. Laurence [376]. (5) Hippolytus 
of Thebes [377]. 


4. GAIUS OR HIPPOLYTUS. 377—388 


Was there such a person as Gaius? [377]. Works ascribed to him [377]. 
The ‘Refutation of all Heresies’ proved not his, but Hippolytus’ [378]. 
Yet the author of the ‘Refutation’ must have written all the works ascribed 
to Gaius, except the ‘Dialogue with Proclus’ [378—380]. The ‘Dialogue’ 
too by Hippolytus. Gaius simply the name of the orthodox disputant, 
wrongly considered the author [381, 382]. All facts predicated of Gaius 
are predicable of Hippolytus [382, 383]. Testimony of the Letter of the 
Smyrnzeans [383]. The evidence of Eusebius [383, 384]. Presumption 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. Vil 


PAGE 
that Hippolytus wrote against Montanism [384—386]. The argument from 


style [386]. Objections met [386, 387]. The ‘ Heads against Gaius’ [388]. 


5. THE LITERARY WORKS OF HIPPOLYTUS. 388—405 


Introduction [388]. (1) Biblical and Exegetical [389—395]. (2) Theo- 
logical and Apologetic [395—399]. (3) Historical and Chronological [399]. 
(4) Heresiological [400—403]. Spurious Hippolytean works [403—405]. 


6. THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. 405—413 


Metrical passages embedded in Irenzeus [405—407]. Verse employed for 
theological teaching and for lists of the scriptures [407]. The Muratorian 
Canon, history, date and country [407]. A translation from a Greek 
treatise in verse [408—411]. The notice of Hermas common to the Mura- 
torian Canon and the Liberian Catalogue, and Salmon’s inference [411, 412]. 
The treatise probably by Hippolytus [412]. Included among the titles on 
the Chair [412, 413]. Its date [413]. 


77 THE COMPENDIUM AGAINST ALL THE HERESIES. 413—418 
8. THE REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES. 418 
9. ZABLE OF THE LITERARY WORKS OF HIPPOLYTUS.  419—421 
m HARLY AND MIDDLE LIFE OF HIPPOLYTUS. 422, 423 


His connexion with Irenzeus [422]. With Origen [423]. 


11. WAS HIPPOLYTUS A NOVATIAN? 


The allegation of Prudentius derived from Damasus’ inscription [424]. 
Damasus’ statement avowedly based on hearsay [425]. Contemporary 
“ignorance of Hippolytus’ history [425]. Considerations on the other side; 
(i) the silence of Cyprian and the Liberian Catalogue, (ii) the chronology 
[425—427]. 


424—427 


12. THE SEE OF HIPPOLYTUS. 427—434 


Ignorance of early writers on this point [427, 428]. His allocation to 
Bostra based on a blunder [428]. Le Moyne’s inference untenable [429]. 
His association with the see of Portus Eastern in origin [429, 430]. 
_ Theories of Bunsen and Déllinger [430—432]. Most probably ‘bishop of 
the Gentiles,’ with Portus as head-quarters [433, 434]. 


13. HIPPOLYTUS THE PRESBYTER. 435, 436 


Unique position of Hippolytus among contemporaries [435]. The title 
*‘presbyter’ represents not office, but dignity [435]. To whom applied [435]. 
Subsequently misunderstood [436 ]. 


14. LATER YEARS, BANISHMENT, AND DEATH. 436—440 
The pontificates of Zephyrinus and Callistus [436]. Peace of the Church, 

internal and external, under Urbanus [437]. Literary activity of Hippo- 

lytus [437]. Death of Alexander Severus succeeded by the persecution 

under Maximin [437, 438]. Banishment of Pontianus and Hippolytus 

to Sardinia [438, 439]. Their death, and deposition [439, 440]. 


Viil TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


PAGE 
13. THE STATUE OF HIPPOLYTUS. 440—442 


16. POSTHUMOUS HONOURS AND SANCTUARIES. 442—468 


(1) The cemetery of Hippolytus in the Ager Veranus [442]. His 
sanctuary there [443—445]. Evidence of Prudentius [445]. The Romanus 
commemorated by Prudentius [446—451]. The sanctuary and _ festival 
described by Prudentius [451—453]. Gradual decadence of this shrine [454, 
455]. The adjacent cemetery of S. Laurence [455]. Importance and 
architectural history of the basilica of S. Laurence [456—458]. Reliques 
of Hippolytus transferred thither [459, 460]. Consequent transformation in 
the personality of Hippolytus [460]. Hippolytus the gaoler substituted for 
Hippolytus the divine [460—463]. Subsequent history of the cemetery of 
Hippolytus [463, 464]. (2) The sanctuary on the Vicus Patricius [464, 465]. 
(3) The sanctuary at Portus [466]. (4) The castle and commemoration at 
Fossombrone [466, 467]. Reverence paid to Hippolytus outside Italy, 
especially in France [467, 468]. 


ie SPURIOUS ACTS OF LIPPOLYT US. 


_ Acts of the Laurentian Cycle. 468—474 
Acts of the Portuensian Cycle. 474—477 


APPENDIX. 


1. S. PETER IN ROME. 481—502 
2. THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 503—512 


INDICES. 


1. INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES. 515—517 
2. INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 518—532 


Peres Leia lik OP 5S. Cie hiEeaie 


TO 


ir -CORIN FHEANS: 


CLEM., II. I 


ie. 
man 


vie ead 
, Pty yh 





HE authorities for the text are three in number, two Greek manu- 
scripts and a Syriac version. 

(1) Codex Alexandrinus (A), where the Epistles of Clement 
are added to the New Testament; an uncial manuscript probably 
belonging to the fifth century. It is fully described above, 1. p. 116 
sq. It is much blurred and worn, and a leaf has disappeared 
towards the end of the First Epistle. Thus it omits from § 57 av? 
av yap ndikovy to the end of § 63. In the Second Epistle it breaks 
off at § 12 ovre apoev ovte OAAv Todro, the end of the manuscript 
being lost. The so-called v éfeAxvotixdy is almost uniformly in- 
serted. All deviations from this authority in my text are noted in 
the apparatus criticus beneath. The lacunae in this manuscript are 
not stated, except where a various reading is concerned; but a 
complete list is given at the end of the Epistles. 

(2) Codex Constantinopolitanus (C), a cursive manuscript dated 
A.D. 1056, and containing the whole of the Two Epistles. It is 
described fully above, 1. p. 121 sq. The v é@eAxvortixoy is syste- 
matically omitted, though there are one or two exceptions. All the 
variations of this manuscript likewise are recorded beneath, with the 
exception of the v épeAxvo7ixov which it seemed unnecessary to 
notice. 

(3) Syriac Version (S), where the Epistles of Clement are found 
incorporated among the Epistles of the New Testament in the 
Philoxenian (Harclean) version. The extant manuscript is dated 
A.D. 1170. This authority also is described fully in the introduc- 
tion, I. p. 129 sq. How far this version may be accepted as evidence 
for the text, and to what extent it seemed advisable to record 
the variations from the Greek, I have there stated with sufficient 
precision. 

The relations of our three authorities to each other, and the value 
to be assigned to each, are considered at length in the general intro- 
duction. 


| 


— 


4 THESEPISTLE OF Ss. CLEMENT. 


Besides these authorities (the manuscripts and the version) we have 
two other sources of evidence; (1) Clement quotes very largely from 
the Lxx, and the text of the Lxx therefore may be used as a testimony. 
But discretion must be exercised since the degree of accuracy in quot- 
ing must be a matter of experience ; and we cannot even assume, where 
there are variations, that the reading which agrees with the Lxx text 
gives the actual words of our author, a tendency to restore the actual 
form of the original being noticeable in transcribers ; (2) Clement him- 
self is frequently quoted by later fathers, especially by his namesake 
Clement of Alexandria. But here again discretion is needed, for the 
fathers—notably the Alexandrian Clement—often quote very loosely 
and from memory. 


Where our chief authority (A) deserts us, it is necessary to be espe- 
cially careful in dealing with the others. On this account I have given 
the variations of the Syriac version in greater fulness in these parts 
than elsewhere ; as this is the only check on possible errors in the one 
Greek manuscript (C) which we possess here. In these same parts I 
have uniformly inserted the v é@eAkvorixoy, though wanting in C, be- 
cause it would certainly have had a place in A, and therefore presumably 
represents the original text of Clement. 


A very few words only are necessary to explain the notation. The 
authorities are designated as above A, C,S. Where an authority omits 
any word or words, this is signified by ‘om.’; where it is defective by 
mutilation or otherwise, so that we cannot tell the reading, this is ex- 
pressed by ‘def.’ Where the reading is doubtful, as for instance when 
it is impossible to say what Greek text the Syriac version represents, the 
abbreviation is ‘dub.’ The abbreviations ‘app.’ and ‘prob.’ stand for 
‘apparently ’ and ‘probably’. The square brackets [ | in the text imply 
that it is doubtful whether the words or letters so enclosed ought to 
stand as part of the original text. The word ‘Clem’ in the textual 
notes signifies Clement of Alexandria; and, where necessary, the re- 
ference to the page of Potter’s edition is added. 


Tree KO PANE TO Yc. 


‘H °EKKAHCIA rov Oeov 4 rapotkovca ‘Pwunv 


Tpoc KopiN@ioyc]| For the titles of this epistle in the several authorities 


see I. pp. 117, 122, 131. 


‘THE CHURCH OF ROME to the 
CHURCH OF CORINTH, elect and con- 
secrate ; greeting in Christ Jesus.’ 

On the form of the address, as 
~ connected with the question of the 
authorship, see the introduction, I. 
Pp. 352 Sq. 

The writer’s name is suppressed 
here, as it seems also to have been 
suppressed in another letter of the 
Church of Rome to the Church of 
Corinth written more than half a 
century later during the episcopate 
of Soter; see Dionys. Corinth. in 
Euseb. #7. £. iv. 23. 

This address is imitated in the 
openings of three early Christian 
documents at least; (1) The ZAzstle 
of Polycarp, see 1. p. 149; (2) The 
Letter of the Smyrn@ans, giving an 
account of Polycarp’s martyrdom, 
see Jenat. and Polyc. \. p. 610 sq; 
(3) The Apostolic Constitutions. For 
other openings which it has influenced 
(though in a iess degree), see the note 
on mapoxovoa below. 

I. mapoixovoa| ‘sojourning tn. 
(1) The primary idea in this word is 
transitoriness. The distinction be- 
tween mdpo.kos a Lemporary and kar- 
ouxos a Permanent resident appears 
from Philo Sacr. Ab. e¢ Cain § 10 
(I. p. 170) 6 yap Tots éyxukAlous povors 


eravéx@y tTapoiket copia, ov Karotkel, 
de Conf. ling. § 17 (1. p. 416) karg- 
Knoav ws ev matpid., ovx ws emt Eévns 
map@knoav, Greg. Naz. Orat. xiv (I. 
p. 271) tis thy Kat@ oKnyny Kal THv 
avo modw (dvaipnoe); Tis mapotkiav 
kal xatotxiay; Orat. vii (I. p. 200) ek 
THs Tapotkias eis THY KaTotKiay peTa- 
okevaCouevor: Comp. Gen. xxxvi. 44 
(XXXVIL. 1) katr@xet Oe “laxoB év rn yn ov 
TAp@OKNoEV O TaTHp avTOv ev yn Xavaay, 
Heb. xi. 9, Luke xxiv. 18. Thus adp- 
OLKOS, Trapolkely, Tapoikia, are said of 
the captivities of Egypt (Acts vii. 6 
from LXX, xill. 17) and of Babylon 
(Theoph. ad Aut. ili. 25, 28). See 
especially the uses of raporketv, karot- 
kev, in reference to the migrations of 
Israel, in Judith v. 7—10. Of these 
captivities the present earthly condi- 
tion of the Christian people is the 
antitype (Heb. iv. 1). 

(2) Connected with this primary 
conception is the secondary idea of 
non-citizenship. In the inscriptions 
‘the sojourners’ are opposed to ‘the 
citizens,’ C. Z. G. 3595 ot re woNira 
kal of mapoikoe wavres (Comp. 20. 1625, 
1631, 2906, 3049). The Christians are 
no citizens on earth. They dwell in 
the world as aliens, £évo1, raperidnpuor, 
mapoxot, I Pet. i. 17, ii. II ; comp. 
Heb. xi. 13. So too Clem. Rom. ii. 


6 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


> qn rot ~ / / 
TH €kKAnoia Tov Ocov TH TapolKoVveNn KopwOov, KAn- 
Z L 


~ ¢ lod land / 
Tots, nytacmevors ev OeAnuate Oeov dia tov Kupiov 


3. mavtoxpdropos] A; Tov mavroxpdropos C (comp. Ag. Covst. 1. 1). 


§ 5 xaradeiavtes THY Tmapotkiay Tov 
kogpou Tovtrov (comp. C. /. G. 9474 
Tov Biou TovTov THY mapokiav), Ep. ad 
Diogn. 5 marpidas oixovow idias dAN 
@s TapolKOL’ peTEXOVTL TAYT@Y ws TO- 
Nira kai ravO vropevovew ws E€vou 7a- 
ga &€vn matpis €oTw avT@y Kal Taca 
marpis evn, where the writer is de- 
scribing the Christians. A good 
illustration of this sense of mapoukeiv 
is Orig. c. Cels. iii. 29 ai 8€ rod Xprorod 
exkAnoia, cvveEeraCouevat Tals ov Tap- 
otkovot Onpoyv exkAnoials, os PwaTHpEes 
elo ev Koope, 2. 30 éxkAnoias Tod 
cov mapotxovoas exkAnoias Tov Kad 
exdoTny mod Sjyyov. Compare also 
the parable in Hermas Vzs. 1.1. In 
the prologue to Ecclesiasticus oi éy 
™ tmapotkia are the Jews of the dis- 
persion, so that sapoxia is almost 
equivalent to Svaomwopa; and, as the 
latter word is transferred to the 
Christian people, the spiritual Israel 
(1 Pet. i. 1 mapemdypors Scaozropas), So 
is the former. Hence the form of 
address here, which appears also 
Polyc. Phil. rh éexxdnoia rod Ocod rH 
mapotkovon Biiimmous, Mart. Polyc. 4 
TapotKovoa Suvpvay k.T-A., Dionys. Co- 
rinth. in Euseb. H. £. iv. 23 r7 mapot- 
Kovon Voprivay, Epist. Gall. in Euseb. 
FLE.V.1 oi év Buévyy kai Aovydovve rijs 
TadXias mapotxovvtes SotAot Xpiotov. 
From this the substantive zapouxia 
came to be used in a concrete sense, 
‘the body of aliens,’ for the Christian 
brotherhood in a town or district. 
The earliest instances which I have 
observed are Mart. Polyc.inscr. racas 
Tais Kata mavTa TOTov Tis dyias Kal 
kaOoXixis €xkAnoias traporkias, Dionys. 
Corinth. [?] in Euseb. H. £Z. iv. 23 
da Tats Aourais kara Kpnrnv maporkias, 
Iren. in Euseb. H. £. v. 24 eipnvevov 


5 alpve- 


Tois G70 TOY TapolKL@Y ev ais eTNpEiTO, 
Apollon. in Euseb. . £. v. 18 7 idia 
Tapoikia avrov dbev nv ovK €d€EaTo: 
whence farochia, parish. It seems 
not strictly correct to say that wapor- 
kia was equivalent to the later term 
dtoiknors ; for mapoxia, though it is 
sometimes a synonyme for dcoiknots 
(e.g. Conc. Aucyr. Can. 18), appears to 
have been used much more generally. 
The explanation often given of rapa: 
kia, aS though it denoted the aggre- 
gate of Christian communities in the 
neighbourhood of a large town, re- 
ceives nocountenancefrom the earliest 
usage of mapotkos, etc.; for the prepo- 
sition is not local but temporal, and 
denotes not proximity but transito- 
viness. For the accusative after mapo:- 
kev see the note on Polyc. PAz/. inscr. 

I. KAnrots «.t.A.| Taken from the 
salutation in 1 Cor. i. 1, 2, nyvacpévors 
ev XpioT@ “Inoov, kAyrois ayious. Cle- 
ment not unnaturally echoes the lan- 
guage of S. Paul’s Epistle to the 
Corinthians, even where he does not 
directly quote it. Similarly the Epi- 
stle of Ignatius to the Ephesians pre- 
sents parallels to S. Paul’s Epistle to 
the same church, especially in the 
opening salutation. The same rela- 
tion again exists between Polycarp’s 
Epistle to the Philippians and the 
corresponding letter of S. Paul. For 
the meaning of nysacpévors, ‘ conse- 
crated to be God’s people,’ see the 
notes on rots ayious Phil. i. 1. 

3. xapis k.7.A.] xapis div Kal eipyyy 
is the common salutation in S. Paul, 
excepting the Pastoral Epistles. With 
the addition of wAnOuvOein however it 
occurs only in the two Epistles of 
S. Peter, from whom probably Cle- 
ment derived the form, as the First 


1] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 7 


~ al > / Con > 5) 
nov ’Inoov Xpirrov. yapts vuty Kal Elonvn aTO TavTO- 


kpatopos Qeou dia *Inoot Xpiotov wAnOuvGein. 


\ \ > > Vif 
I. Ava ras ai:vdiovs Kat émadAndovus yevopévas 


dlous] ar@yndiove A. yevouevas| C; 
Epistle is frequently quoted by him. 
In Jude 1 we have @deos viv kat 
eipnvn kal dyamrn mAnOvuvbein. 

mavroxpatopos| The LXxX rendering 
of MIN2¥ in the expression ‘ the Lord 
of Hosts’ (see Stanley, few7sh Church 
Il. p. 87), apparently not a classical 
word. In the New Testament it 
occurs once only out of the Apoca- 
lypse, 2 Cor. vi. 18, where S. Paul is 
quoting from the Lxx. So again 
SS 2, 32 (LXX), 56, 60, 62 (comp. § 8 
mavrokparopik®), Polyc. Phz/. inscr., 
Herm. Vzs. ili. 3 (Sim. v. 7), Mart. 
Polyc. 14. See also Pearson Exfo- 
sition of the Creed p. 78 sq (ed. 
Chevallier) for its position and signi- 
ficance in the Latin Creed. As a 
Latin translation of ravroxpdrwp, ‘om- 
nipotens’ is the survival of the fittest, 
its defunct rivals being ‘omnitenens,’ 
‘omnipollens,’ etc. Conversely the 
Latin ‘omnipotens’ is sometimes 
translated by mavroduvayos for mar- 
Tokpatwp ; comp. Caspari Quedllen 2. 
Gesch. a. Taufsymbols UW. pp. vi, 24, 
204 Sq, 209-212. The two occur to- 
gether in the Liturgy of S. James, 
adytos ¢l, mavtokpatwp, mayvrodvvape 
(Swainson’s Greek Liturgies p. 270 
sq). 

I. ‘We should have written sooner, 
but our own troubles have hindered 
us. We are grieved to hear that one 
or two headstrong ring-leaders have 
fanned the flame of discord among 
you. This was not your wont in 
former days. Your firm faith, your 
sober piety, your large hospitality, 
your sound knowledge, were the ad- 
miration of all. Authority was duly 
respected by you. Your young men 


anes evag A. S has a present; comp. § 9. 


were modest ; your wives were quiet 
and orderly.’ 

5. Tas aidydious «.r.A.] This lan- 
guage accurately describes the perse- 
cution which the Roman Christians 
endured under Domitian. Theirtreat- 
ment by this emperor was capricious, 
and the attacks upon them were re- 
peated. While the persecution of 
Nero was one fierce and wholesale 
onslaught in which the passions of the 
multitude were enlisted on the em- 
peror’s side, Domitian on the other 
hand made use of legal forms and 
arraigned the Christians from time 
to time on various paltry charges; see 
above, I. p. 81, p. 350 sq. Apollonius 
in Philostr. Vz¢. Afol/. vii. 4 distin- 
guishes two kinds of tyrants of which 
Nero and Tiberius respectively are 
the types—the one passionate and 
reckless (oppoons Kat akpirov), the 
other stealthy and treacherous (vzo- 
xaOnuévns), the one acting with vio- 
lence, the other using forms of 
justice. Obviously he places the 
contemporary tyrant Domitian in 
this second class. Again Domitian 
is described by Suetonius (Domiit. 
II) in language closely resembling 
Clement’s, ‘non solum magnae sed 
et callidae zuofinataegue saevitiae.’ 
Compare the accounts in Euseb. 
H.. E. iii. 17 sq, Chrov. an. 95, Dion 
Cass. lxvii. 14, Suet. Domit. 12, 15. 
So Mart. Ign. 1 speaks of oi modXol 
ext Aopetiavod Suwypoi (though this 
refers especially to Antioch). These 
and other passages referring to the 
persecution of Domitian are given in 
full above, I. p. 104 sq. In one of 
these attacks the writer’s namesake, 


8 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [1 


NMiv oupopas Kat wEpiTTWoES, adEeAPoL, Bpadioy vopt- 
5) \ a co > 
Couey éeriatpodny memounoba rept Twv emiCnTOUMEevwY 


~ , / oe > / 
Tap Ul mpayMaTwY, ayannTol, THs TE adAOTPLas 


\ / co 5) qn ~ ~ cr \ > / 
Kal Eevns Tots €kAeKTOIS TOU Oeov, pLapas Kal avootou 


1 nui] AS; Ka? judy C. 


diov] Bpadecov A. 


and patron (as I venture to think), 
Flavius Clemens, a kinsman of the 
emperor, fell a victim; see I. 33 sq. 
Thus the notice here accords with 
external testimony which places the 
Corinthian feuds to which this letter 
refers in the reign of Domitian ; see 
the introduction, I. p. 347. Volkmar 
(Theol. Fahrb. 1856, p. 286 sq, and 
elsewhere), who assigns a much later 
date to this epistle, is obliged to refer 
the notice here to the sufferings of 
the Christians under Trajan; but 
there is no evidence that this perse- 
cution extended to Rome. Our epistle 
therefore was probably written to- 
wards the close of Domitian’s reign 
or on the accession of Nerva (about 
A.D. 95 or 96). Other notices of time 
in the body of the letter agree with 
this result; see above, I. p. 348 sq. 

emahAnAous | ‘ successtve, repeated, 
a comparatively late but common 
word, ¢g. Philo zz Flacc. 14 (Il. p. 
534 M.) ras cuvexeis kai émahAndovs 
kakwoets, Plut. Pomp. 25 xwdvvors 
emaAAnAots Kal mrodéwous ; see Lobeck 
Paral. p. 471. It is restored indeed 
by Hermann in Soph. 4 zz. 57, but this 
restoration is very doubtful, and the 
word there must have the sense ‘ re- 
ciprocal.’ For emaddndovs yevopevas 
comp. Alciphr. EZ. 1. 23 xiv muKvy 
kat emaAAnAos hepopéevyn. Other- 
wise we might read émadAnda@s, which 
occurs Lpist. Gall. § 14 in Euseb. 
Va hp Aa 

I. vopi¢owev] The whole passage 


mepimTaces] A; mepiotdcas C; lapsus et 
damna S, which evidently represents repurrmoes (see I. p. 136). 
ayanrnroi S; om. C. See below § 4, where S makes the same change. 


adedpoi] A; 
Bpa- 


3 Tap’ vuivy mpaynatwv] A; mpayudtwv map buiv C; 


will mean ‘ Owzng to the sudden and 
repeated calamities and reverses 
which have befallen us, we consider 
we have been somewhat slow to pay 
attention to the questions of dispute 
among you. Yhe reader must be 
cautioned against the rendering a- 
dopted in some translations, English 
and Latin ; ‘those things which you 
enquired of us,’ ‘the points respecting 
which you consulted us,’ ‘ea quae 
fuerant quaesita a vobis.’ This 
rendering involves a historical mis- 
statement. The expression contains 
no allusion to any letter or other ap- 
plication from the Corinthians to the 
Romans. Clement does not write 
map vpev, but map’ vpiv; and ra ém- 
(nrovpeva Means simply ‘the matters 
of dispute,’ not ‘desiderata,’ as it is 
sometimes rendered, emi(yrnua being 
‘a question.’ It would appear that 
the Roman Christians had not been 
directly consulted by the Church of 
Corinth, but having heard of the 
feuds by common report (§ 47 avdrn 7 
axo7) wrote this letter unsolicited. 

4. &€vns] Doubtless the right read- 
ing; comp. Clem. Hom. vi. 14 os adn- 
Oeias adXotpiay odcav Kai E€rmv. No 
sense can be made of &evos. The 
doubling of epithets (a\Xorpias kai 
fevns) is after Clement’s manner, 
especially in this opening chapter ; 
€.g. papas kat avociov, mpomethn kal 
av0adn, mavaperov Kai BeBaiay, etc. 

5. mporwma] Not simply ‘Persons’ 
but ‘vimgleaders’; comp. § 47, and 


1] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 9 


iE ra} Ce 2 i ~ \ > i 
5oTagEWS, HY OAIYa TPOTWTA TeOTETH Kat avOadn 


/ > ~ > / 5] f J \ 
UTAaPXOVTa Els TOTOUTOV aTrovolas E€EKAVTAY, WOTE TO 


\ \ , \ ~ > / > / 
OEMVOV Kal Tept onto Kal TaOLV avOpw7rots agiaya- 


TNTOV dvoua Yuwv peyahws Bac pyunOyva. Tis yap 


f \ e ~ \ - \ J 
TApETLON UNG as MpOS UMaS THY TavapEeTOV Kal BeBatav 


dub. S. ayamrnroi] AC; om. S. 


4 Ems] CS; geo A. 8 Bdac- 


dnunOnva] A; BracdnucioPa C; ut laederetur or laedatur (\3ND3) S, which 


perhaps represents Br\adOFvac. 


see the note on Ign. Magn. 6. The 
authors of these feuds are again men- 
tioned as few in number, § 47 dv ev 
7 Svo mpocena oraciaew mpos Tovs 
mpeoBurtépous. 

6. eis Tooovtoy k.t.A.| ‘have kindled 
to such a pitch of recklessness’; comp. 
§ 46 cis rocavtny dmrévoray épxdpeba. 
Editors have taken offence at the 
expression, but its awkwardness is 
no sufficient reason for altering the 
text; comp. § 45 eis rocovro éénpicay 
@vpov. Otherwise vo arovoias might 
be read. In amdvora shamelessness 
rather than /ol/y is the prominent 
“idea, so that the azovevonpévos is de- 
scribed by Theophrastus (Char. xiii) 
as one wholly devoid of self-respect. 
So § 47 TO 
geuvov THs tmepiBontov iradeAdias: 
comp. Ign. Lph. 8 exkAnoias ris dia- 
Bonrov Trois aidow. 

8. dvona vpar| ‘your reputation’ or 
‘character’ or ‘worth. See the note 
on Ign. Ephes. 1 to modvayarnroy 
ovopa 0 Kextnobe hice. The addition 
of the pronoun seems to require this 
sense, and the epithets as well as 
the whole context, suggest it. On 
the other hand the expression BAac- 
nucitvy to dvoua, where there is no 
qualifying pronoun or adjective, 
means ‘to speak evil of, ‘to blas- 
pheme the Name,’ i.e. of Christ or of 
God; e.g. 2 Clem. 13 iva 70 évopa 80 
npas pn Braodnpqra, Clem. Alex. 
Strom. iii. 6 (p. 532) de ods Kat rd 


TO oepvoy k.T.A.| 


ovona BAacdnpetra. For this abso- 
lute use of To ovouwa, which is not 
infrequentin earlier Christian writers, 
see the note on Ign. Ephes. 3, and 
comp. Phil. 1. to (with my note). 
It might be thought that ro dvopa 
vpov here would mean ‘the name of 
Christ which you bear’; but this 
would have been expressed other- 
wise, e.g. James ll. 7 BAacdnpovow 
TO Kadov Ovopa TO emixAnOev eh vpGs, 
Herm. S7zyz. vill. 6 émauryuvOevres TO 
ovoma Kupiov tro émixAnOev én’ avrovs. 
It is hardly necessary to add that 
Bracghnuetv is frequently used of 
calumniating or maligning human 
beings; e.g. Rom. xiv. 16 u7 Bdao- 
dynpeicOw vuov TO ayadov (comp. ili. 
8). 

tis yap «.t.A.] The whole pas- 
sage as far as éeropeveo Ge is quoted by 
Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 17 (p. 610) vai 
py év tH mpos KopwOiovs emuctoAn oO 
dmdéctodos KAnuns kal avros nuty TUTrov 
TWa TOU yYwoTiKoOD vmoypaperv heyet, 
Tis yap x.r.A. 

9. mapemOnunoas| This ‘bimaris 
Corinthus’ was a natural halting 
place on the journey between Rome 
and the East, as we see in the case 
of S. Paul and his companions, and 
somewhat later of Hegesippus (Eus. 
H. E. iv. 22). Diogenes is repre- 
sented as visiting it (Dion Chrys. 
Orat. viii. p. 151 ed. Emper) 6re mAet- 
ato. avOpwrot exet Tuviact...kat OTL 7 
modus womep ev Tptod@ Tihs “EAAddos 


IO THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [x 


€ ~ / > / / J 
UMaV mioTW ovK éoKiuacev; THY TE TwHpova Kal 


) = > - Deel, 2 2 , \ \ 
émiekyn ev Xpiot@ evoeBerav ovK efavpacev; Kal TO 


peyaNompeTres THS piro€evias vuwv nOos ovK éxnpueev 5 


\ \ / \ > ~ ~ > > id é 
Kat Thy TeNELav Kat aodarn yvwowy OVK EMakapLoey 5 


/ \ / > ~ \ ~ / 
ATPOTWTOANUTTWS Yao TavTa ETOLELTE, KaL TOLS VOLI- 
a ~ > / € / - ¢€ 
pois Tou Oceou érropeveoOe, vroTaccopevot Tols nyou- 
/ ¢ lad \ \ \ / > / 
Mevols UM@Y Kal TIUnVY THY KaOnKOVTaY arrovELoYTES 


1 tuav mictw] AC; micrw tuev Clem 610. 2 émveky ev] CS Clem; 
emveknvy A. 3 ovk] AC; om. S. 4 dopary| acdadryv A. 5 ampoo- 
wrodnumTws| A; amporwmrodjmTws C Clem (edd.). 
Tots voulwous] Tocvouoc A; zz lege (NDYODID) S; & Tots vous C3 & Tors 
voutuors Clem, which is approved by Wotton and others. The rendering of S 
shows nothing as regards the reading; for (1) the preposition would be required in 
any case; (2) the singular is explained by the accidental omission of rzdwz ; 
(3) vducuov is elsewhere translated by ND19) (vduos) in this version (comp. §§ 3, 40). 


émovetre] emorecrar A. 


éxe.ro. So also it is called the zepi- 
maros or ‘lounge’ of Greece ; see| Dion 
Chrys. | xxvii. p. 522 with the context, 
os €va Ta TOAMAGY Kal Kar éviavTOY 
Kataipovtav eis Keyxpéas eumopov 7 
Gewpov 7 mpecBevtny 7) Stepxopevov. 
Hence there was an abundant de- 
mand for hospitality there ; see below 
on § 10 duto€eviar, § 35 adidogeviar. 

mavaperov| Not found either in LXx 
or New Testament, but a favourite 
word with Clement: see §§ 2, 45, 57, 
60, with the note on § 57. He de- 
lights in such compounds, e.g. zap- 
peyeOns, Tavayios, maymAnOns, mavte- 
TOmTNS. 

2. emveckn| ‘forbearing. This yield- 
ing temper, this deference to the 
feelings of others, was the quality es- 
pecially needed at such atime. For 
émcixeca comp. S$ 13, 56, 58, 62, and 
see Philippians iv. 5. It was emi- 
nently a characteristic of Clement 
himself; see I. p. 97. 

TO peyadomperes x.T.A.] For the 
reproof lurking under this allusion 
to their past hospitality, see the note 
on ddro€eviar § 35. 

4. yvoow] Here used generally. 


For the more special sense see the 
note on § 48. 

5. dmpoowmoAnprras| For this ad- 
verb see I Pet. i. 17, Barnab. 4. For 
the forms, -Anurres, -AnmTws, see 
Winer’s Grammar p.53(ed. Moulton). 
For an instance of the capricious 
orthography of both our MSS comp. 
§ 12 ovdAr[p]Wouévous, ovdAn[p]P- 
Oévras. 

rois vopipous| ‘by the ordinances’ ; 
so § 3 &€y Tols vopimors TeY mpoo- 
Taypdrev avtod mopeverOa, § 40 Trois 
vouimots Tov Seomdtov dkodovOovrtes, 
Hermas V7zs. i. 3 €av tnpnowow Ta 
vouysa tov Oeov. The phrase rots 
vouipors mopeverOar Occurs LXX Lev. 
XVili. 3, XX. 23, and ev rots vopipors 
mopeverOar Jer. Xxvi (xxxiii). 4, Ezek. 
v. 6,7) xx 18. For the dative, de 
noting the rule or standard, see Ga- 
latians v. 16, 25, vi. 16. 

6. Trois nyoupevors| i.e. the officers 
of the Church, as § 21 rovs mponyov- 
pévous nuav: comp. Heb. xiii. 7 pry- 
MOVEVETE TOV NYOUVLEVOY VE@Y oLTWES 
eAdAnoay viv Tov Aoyov Tod Geov, and 
again xiii. 17, 24; Hermas Vs. ii. 2, 
ili. Q of mponyovpevor THs ekkAnolas. 


Io 


1] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


IPE 


~ > ~ / / / \ \ 
TOs Trap UL mpeo BuTEpoLs* VEOLS TE PETOLA Kal TEVA 


a > / / > ? \ 2 
VOELV ETETPETETE? yuvalEly TE EV AuwuwW Kal TEU 


\ c > / / ? ~ / 
Kal ayyn CUVELONTEL TavTa E€miTENEly TapnyyéeAXeETE, 


/ / \ of ¢ ~ sf ~ 
OTENYOVTC as KaOynkovTws TOUS avopas EAUTWV* €V TE TW 


7 ro ~ / \ \ \ ss 
KaVOVL THS UTOTaYyNS UVTapXoVTas Ta KaTa TOV OIKOV 


~~ > ~ > “ 
TEUYWS OiKOUpyElY Ed\WaTKETE, TaVY TwPpovovaas. 


I have adopted vouiwos from Clem, but év is not wanted (see the explanatory 
note) and was probably his own insertion. 
ecOa A, 7 tuov}] AS; om. C. 

8 tui] AS; juw C. 
dpauy S (certainly omitting cal ceuvr), but the transposition of ayr@ and dpuouw 
may be due to the convenience of translation; see above, I. p. 137. 
Koupye] A; oikovpety (but apparently y has been erased) C; curam-gerentes 


6 éropeverGe] CS Clem; mropev- 
KkadynKxovoay| kabixovoar A. 
9 apouw Kal ceuvy kal ayy] AC; ayvy Kai » 


13 ol- 


operum (studiose agentes in operibus) S. See the lower note. 


Similarly oimpoicrapevortpar, I Thess. 
v. 12. The reference therefore is not 
to civil officers, as some take it; and 
the mpeoBurépos in the next clause 
refers to age, not to office, as the 
following véois shows. The ‘pres- 
byters’ or ‘elders,’ properly so called, 
are exhausted in rots nyoupevors, but 
these are not the only seniors to 
whom reverence is due, and Clement 
accordingly extends the statement so 
as to comprise all older men, thus 
preparing the way for the mention of 
‘the young’ also asaclass. Similarly 
§ 21, where, as here, sponyovpevor, 
mpecBuTepor, véol, yuvaikes, Occur in 
succession. There is the same diffi- 
culty about the use of wpeoBuvrepox in 
connexion with vewrepor in I Pet. v. 
1 sq, Polyc. Phz?. 5, 6. 

Q. emetpémete] ‘ye enjoined, as 
e.g. in Plat. Lege. p. 784 C, Xen. 
Anab, vi. 5. 11 (see Kiithner’s note). 

yuvagiv te x.7.A.] See Polyc. Phzi. 
4 mera Kal Tas yuvaikas x.t.d., where 
Polycarp follows Clement’s language 
here and in § 21. 

II. otepyovcas| It should probably 
be taken with the foregoing clause, 
and I have altered the punctuation 


accordingly. For the change from the 
dative (yuvagéiv) to the accusative 
(crepyovoas) comp. Mark vi. 39 én- 
éra&ev avtois avak\cOnvat mavras, Acts 
XV. 22 okey trois dmoordAols k.T.d. 
exdeEapévous avdpas €& avtTay méuyat, 
and see Jelf’s Gram. S§ 675, 676. 

€y TE TS Kavovt k.T.A.| 1.e. ‘not over- 
stepping the line, not transgressing 
the limits, of obedience’; e.g. § 41 p7 
TapekBaivev Tov wpiopévoy ths et- 
Toupyias avTov kxavova. On the me- 
taphor of xavev, ‘a measuring line, 
see Galatians vi. 16, and the note on 
§ 7, below. 

13. oixoupyetv] ‘to ply their work 
in the house.” The classical forms 
are oikoupos, oikovpety, and these pre- 
vail even at the Christian era and 
much later; e.g. Philo de Sfec. Leg. 
31 (IL. p. 327) Ondrclas (epappocer) 
oikoupla, de E-xvecr. 4 (II. p. 431) yuvai- 
kas c@dpovas oixoupovs Kat pidavdpous, 
and the illustrative passages in Wet- 
stem on ‘Tit. 11/5. Boutin: Tita, 5 
aappovas, ayvas, oikoupyovs, aya@as, 
Urotaccopevas Tos idios avdpacw, 
which passage Clement may have 
had in his mind, the great prepon- 
derance of the best authorities have 


i2 


EE 


4 , 
VEVOMEVOL, UTOTATOOMEVOL 


oikoupyovs, not oikouvpovs; and this 
reading the ablest recent editors 
(Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott 
and Hort) have adopted. In this 
passage of Clement also A has oik- 
ovpyovs, and so apparently it was 
read originally in C, but the y has 
been erased. Bryennios says ‘vew- 
Tépa xeip amndeWe To y. But judg- 
ing by the photograph, I should 
imagine that it was impossible to say 
who erased the letter—whether the 
original scribe or some later cor- 
rector. 1am disposed to think that 
the original scribe wrote down oikoup- 
yous, following an older MS which he 
had before him, and then after his 
wont (see above, I. p. 126 sq) corrected 
it into the more classical form. At 
all events there is a tendency in the 
later scribes and correctors to re- 
turn to the more classical form, as we 
see from the later corrections of AC 
in Tit. ii. 5. The Syriac here is 
PMIAyT }PYNIT, the same rendering 
being given in the Peshito and Har- 
clean in Tit.1.5. It seems to repre- 
sent oixovpyovs rather than oixoupous, 
the first element of the word (ofkos) 
having been already exhausted in 
the translation of the preceding ra 
kata Tov oixkovy and therefore not 
needing repetition. Perhaps how- 
ever it may be intended to combine 
the ideas of -oupyetvy and -ouvpet. The 
same verb is more commonly a ren- 
dering of pepyzvay or éemipedcto Oar. 

II. ‘Submission and contentment 
were the rule of your lives. The 
teaching of God was in your breasts ; 
the passion of Christ before your eyes. 
Peace and good-will reigned among 
you. Spiritual graces and incessant 
prayers distinguished you. You loved 
the brethren ; you bore no malice to 
any; you loathed faction; you re- 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[11 


llavres te éramewodpovette, pndev cdraCo- 


ral v\ € / 
fuaXrXov Hy UTOTaTOOVTES, 


joiced in doing good. The ordinan- 
ces of God were graven on your 
hearts.’ 

2. vrotagoopevot k.T-A.]| See Ephes. 
¥. 21, Phil. ii. 3, Rom. xii. 10, 16;a0— 
yet v. 5 (v-1): 

3. cov x«.t.A.| Doubtless a refer- 
ence to our Lord’s words recorded 
Acts xx. 35, pakapiov éorw paddov 
diddvar 7) AapBavew ; see below, § 13, 
where the context of the passage is 
echoed. It was no new command- 
ment however, though instinct with 
a new meaning. Maxims similarly 
expressed had been uttered by the 
two opposite schools of philosophy, 
starting from different principles and 
speaking with different motives. For 
the Epicureans see Plut. Jor. p. 
778 C’Emikxovpos Tov ed macxew TO ev 
Tovety ov povoy KaAALov adda Kal 7dLo0v 
eivai now, ad for the Stoics, Seneca 
Efpist. \xxxi. § 17 ‘Errat si quis bene- 
ficium accipit libentius quam reddit’ 
(both quoted by Wetstein on Acts 
be): 

Trois epodios x.t.A.| i.e. ‘the provi- 
sion which God has supplied for the 
journey of life’ Similarly Seneca 
Epist. \xvii. § 3 ‘Quia quantulum- 
cumque haberem, tamen plus jam 
mihi superesset viaticl quam viae,’ 
Epictet. Déss. ill. 21. 9 €xovras te 
epodtov TowdvtTov eis tov Biov, Plut. 
Mor. p. 160 B ws pn povov tov Cay 
GAAd Kal Tov amoOvnoKey THY Tpodny 
épdd.ov odcay ; comp. Dionys. Corinth. 
in Euseb. A. £E. iv. 23 é€xxAnoias 
moAAais Tais Kata macav mroAw e:od.ia 
néurew. It is the same sentiment 
as I Tim. vi. 8, ¢yovres dtatpodas kat 
oKerdopata TovTos apkerOnoopeOa. 
The idea of spiritual sustenance 
seems to be out of place here, though 
ésddva not unfrequently has this sense. 
For this and other reasons the words 


1] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 13 


o ' ~ ’ ~ } ee a 
HAION AIAONTEC H AAMBANONTEC, TOIS Epodiors tou Oéceou 


3 Tov Geot] A; tof Xpiorod CS. 


Tots ed. Tou ©. dpx. must be connected 
with the preceding clauses, so that 
the new idea is introduced by kai 
mpooéxovres. The Syriac version in- 
deed attaches cai mpocéyovres to the 
preceding sentence, but it manipu- 
lates the words following, as if it had 
read rovs te dyous...eveaTepyicpéevor 
(om. 7re). 

tov @eov] The reading rov Xpu- 
Tov is accepted by Bryennios and 
Hilgenfeld (ed. 2) on the authority 
of C. On the other hand Harnack 
retains tod Qeov; while Donaldson 
hesitates between the two readings. 

As regards external evidence, the 
balance is fairly even. If the view 
maintained above (I. pp. 124 sq, 139 
sq, 142 sq) of the relative value of 
our authorities be correct, A is en- 
titled to as great weight as CS to- 
gether. Moreover the obvious doc- 
trinal motive, which in C has led to 
the deliberate substitution of Aoyos 
for mvedpa in another place (ii. § 9), 
must deprive it of much value in 
the present case. On the other hand 
it is urged with probability that, as 
Photius (767. 126) complains of 
Clement’s language in this epistle 
OTL apxtepea kal mpootarny Tov Kipuiov 
nav “Incovv Xpiotov eLsvopalov ovde 
tas Oeomperets Kat vndorépas adike 
meoi avtov devas, he cannot have had 
tou Geov in his text. But, as the 
declaration of Christ’s divinity lurks 
under the reference of the pronoun 
avrov, it might very easily have es- 
caped the notice of Photius who in 
the course of this single embassy 
read as large a number of books as 
would have sufficed many a man not 
ill-informed for a life-time. Even 
if the inference were more certain, 
this evidence would not go far, for 
Photius is a late writer. 


On the other hand Gaius (or rather 
Hippolytus) early in the third century 
inthe Lzttle Labyrinth(H. E.v.28; see 
Routh ReZ. Sacr. 11. p. 129) mentions 
Clement with Justin, Miltiades, and 
Tatian, besides ‘several others,’ a- 
mong those éy ois Oeodoyeitar o 
Xpioros. Routh (p. 145) supposes 
Clement of Rome to be meant (as 
also does Bunsen, Azffol. I. p. 440), 
because the author of the Z7f¢le 
Labyrinth refers distinctly to works 
written ‘defore the time of Victor’ 
who became bishop about A.D. 189 
or 190, and indeed the whole argu- 
ment turns on this point. To this it 
may be added that Hippolytus after- 
wards (p. 131) uses an expression re- 
sembling the language of the Roman 
Clement here, 6 evomdayxyvos Gecds 
kat Kvpios nuayv “Inoovs Xpiotros ovK 
eBovAeTo... dwokeoOar paptupa Tor 
idiwov mabey, and that Clement of 
Alexandria (who is the alternative) 
can only have died a few years (ten 
or at most twenty) before the passage 
was written. On the other side it 
may be urged that the order of the 
names, “Iovotivov cai MuiAtiadouv kat 
Tarcavov cal KAnpevtos Kal €répov mret- 
ovev, points to the Alexandrian Cle- 
ment ; but this is not conclusive, since 
in the very next sentence the chrono- 
logical order of Melito and Irenzeus, 
is inverted, tra yap Eipnvaiov te kat 
MeXitwvos Kal tay AoiTay Tis ayvoet 
B:Bdia ; The question therefore must 
remain undecided; though the rea- 
sons in favour of the Roman Clement 
seem to preponderate. As it is very 
improbable that so early a writer as 
Hippolytus should have recognised 
as genuine any other writings a- 
scribed to Clement of Rome, his judg- 
ment must have been founded upon 
this epistle. 


14 THE JEPISTLE: OF StCLEMENT [11 


The external evidence therefore is 
far from conclusive; and if any de- 
cision on the reading is possible, it 
must be founded upon internal evi- 
dence. But here the considerations 
which present themselves are numer- 
ous. 

(1) As a question of accidental 
error in transcription, the probability 
is evenly balanced; for yu instead of 
év, and 6v instead of xv, are equally 
common with scribes. 

(2) On the other hand, if we have 
a deliberate alteration, the chances 
that Xpucrod would be substituted 
for @cod are, I think, greater than the 
chances of the converse change. 
Such language as aia Gcov, rabnuara 
@cov, and the like, though common 
in the second and third centuries, 
became highly distasteful in later 
ages; and this from various motives. 
The great Athanasius himself pro- 
tests against such phrases, c. Afollin. 
ii. 13, 14 (I. p. 758) mas ovv yeypapare 
éru Geds 6 Oia capkos mabey Kal ava- 
ards ;...ovdapov S€ aia Ocod diya cap- 
kos trapadedaxacw ai ypadpai 7 cov dia 
capkos mabovra katavacravra. And how 
liable to correction such expressions 
would be, we may infer from the long 
recension of the Ignatian Epistles, 
where the original language of the 
writer is deliberately altered by the 
interpolator, who appears to have 
lived in the latter half of the fourth 
century (Zphes. 1 év aipari Gcov, where 
Xp.iorov is substituted for Gcov ; Kom. 
6 rod wabovs Tov Geov pov, where this 
interpolator softens down the lan- 
guage by inserting Xpiorod before 
Tov Geov pov, while others substitute 
tov Kupiov pov or tov Xpiorov). At 
this time the heresy to which such 
expressions seemed to give counte- 
nance was Apollinarianism. At a 
later date, when the Monophysite 
controversy arose, there would be a 
still greater temptation on the part of 
an orthodox scribe to substitute rod 


Xptorov for rou Gcov. The language 
of Anastasius of Sinai (Hodeg. 12, 
13, p. 97 sq) shows that these pas- 
sages of earlier writers (he mentions 
among others Ign. Row. 6) were con- 
stantly alleged in favour of Mono- 
physite doctrine, and he himself has 
some trouble in explaining them 
away. Writing against these same 
heretics Isidore of Pelusium (£7. i. 
124) says Gcod mabos ov héyeTar, Xpio- 
Tov yap TO mdaOos yeyove k.T.A. On the 
other hand, it might be said that the 
Monophysites themselves would be 
under a temptation to alter xv into 
6v ; and accordingly Bryennios sup- 
poses that in this passage the reading 
of A is due to the Monophysites (or, 
as he adds, perhaps to the Alexan- 
drian divines). This does not seem 
very likely. (a) In the first place, it 
would be a roundabout and precari- 
ous way of getting a testimony in 
favour of their doctrine. If rod Xpio- 
rov (thus assumed to be the original 
reading) had been in direct connexion 
with ra mwa@ypara, a change in this 
direction would not be improbable ; 
but it would never have occurred to 
any one to alter rots edodios Tov 
Xpistod into rots epodiors Tov Geo, 
because there happened to be the ex- 
pression ra wa@ypara avrov in the 
next sentence, so that avrov would 
naturally be referred to the genitive 
after trois éhodios. It would have 
been much simpler to change avrov 
into rod Geov at once. (4) Secondly, 
the dates are not favourable to this 
supposition. The MS which has @ecov 
is assigned by the most competent 
authorities to the fifth century, and 
by some of them to the earlier half 
of the century (see above, I. p. 117); 
and, though not impossible, it is 
not probable that the Monophysite 
controversy would have influenced 
the transcription of the MS at this 
date. On the other hand Photius, 
our earliest authority for rod Xprorov 
(supposing that his evidence be ac- 


1 TO THE CORINTHIANS. 15 


cepted), wrote four centuries later, 
when there had been ample time for 
such manipulation of the text. But, 
besides the doctrinal motive which 
might have suggested the change 
from G¢co0d to Xpicrod, there may also 
have been an exegetical reason. The 
word édodioy, viaticum, was used espe- 
cially of the eucharistic elements (e.g. 
Lit. D. Mare. p. 29, Lt. D. L[acob. p. 
75, Neale), and there would be a na- 
tural desire to fix this sense on S. 
Clement here. 

(3) The probability that such lan- 
guage as Ta maOjpata Tov Geo should 
have been used by an early Chris- 
tian writer can hardly be questioned. 
These early writers occasionally used 
language so strong in expressing 
their belief of our Lord’s divinity, as 
almost to verge on patripassianism ; 
so Ign. Ephes. 1 avalwmupnoavtes ev 
aipart Geov, Ign. Rom. 6 emirpearé 
poe piuntny elvar Tov maOovs TOV Oeod 
pov, Melito (Routh Ae/. Sacr. I. p. 
122) 6 Geos mérovbev wrod SeEas “Io- 
panXiridos, Test. xit Patr. Levi 4 
ent To Taber Tod viorov (a very 
ancient writing ; see Galatians p. 307 
sq), Tatian-ad Graec. 13 tov memor- 
O@sros Geod, Tertull. de Carn. Chr. 5 
‘passiones Dei,’ ad U-xvor. il. 3 ‘ san- 
guine Dei’ (and so elsewhere Ter- 
tullian speaks of ‘God crucified,’ 
“God dead, ‘the flesh of God, ‘the 
murderers of God’; see de Carn. 
ar 5, adv. Marc. ii. 16, 27, v-. 5), 
Anc. Syr. Doc. p. 8 (ed. Cureton) 
‘God was crucified for all men,’ etc. 
And similar passages from writers of 
these and the succeeding generations 
might be multiplied. See Abbot l.c. 
p- 340 sq, Otto Corp. Apol. Christ. 
IX. p. 445. The nearest parallel in 
the New Testament is Acts xx. 28, 
THY ekkAnoiay Tov Geov nv TepLeTrouy- 
gato Sua Tov atpatos Tov idiov; but 
even if rou Geov be the correct read- 
ing (as possibly it is), the form of ex- 
pression is far less strong than in 
these patristic references. 


(4) It is more to the purpose to 
urge that, though such language is 
not uncommon in other writers, it has 
no parallel in Clement; that he else- 
where speaks of the blood ‘ of Christ’ 
($$ 7,21, 49) and describes it'as ‘ pre- 
cious to God His Father’ (§ 7) ; and 
that throughout this epistle he applies 
the term Geds to the Father as distin- 
guished from Christ. This argument 
has considerable weight, but must 
not be overstrained. The Catholic 
doctrine of the Person of Christ ad- 
mits both ways of speaking. Writers 
like Tertullian, who use the most ex- 
travagant and unguarded language 
on the other side, are commonly and 
even in the same context found speak- 
ing of Christ as distinct from God ; 
and the exact proportions which the 
one mode of speaking will bear to 
the other in any individual writer 
must be a matter of evidence. It is 
clear from the newly discovered end- 
ing (§ 58 ¢m yap o Geds «.7.A.) that he 
could have had no sympathy with 
Ebionite views of the Person of 
Christ. Moreover, in the passage 
especially quoted (§ 7) one authority, 
which probably preserves the right 
reading, omits Geo. And after all the 
alternative remains which Abbot is 
disposed to favour (p. 343), that Cle- 
ment wrote avrov negligently, not re- 
membering that tov Geov had imme- 
diately preceded and referring it in 
his own mind to Christ. 

(5) It remains to enquire whether 
the connexion is more favourable to 
Tov Gceov Or Tov Xpiorov. This will 
depend partly on the connexion of 
the sentences. If the punctuation 
given in my text be retained, rov 
Geov is almost necessary; for ra épo- 
dca then refers to the ordinary means 
of subsistence. Hilgenfeld reads and 
punctuates trois epodiows tov Xpiorov 
apkovpevot kal mpocéxovres, under- 
standing by the term ‘spiritual sus- 
tenance.’ This seems to me to give 
an awkward sense (for the mention 


16 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [11 


/ \ / \ / ~ 
apKOUMEVOL’ Kal TPOTEXOVTES TOUS Noyous avTou eT L- 


land / OF ~ lf \ \ 
pedws evEerTEpVITMEVOL NTE TOS OTAaYXVOLS, Kal TA 


rabyuata avtou nv po opadpav vpuov. 


OvtTws €l- 


onyn Babeia kai Nurrapa €d€O0TO TaTW Kal akKOpETTOS 


/ > 9 oh \ / / C gue 
moos eis a@yabo7oay, Kat mAnons TvevpaTos aytou § 


2 éveorepvicpévar] C3 ecrepmopevor A. 
5 mAnpnys . . Exxvows.. eylvero] AC; plenae effusiones...erant S, 


dero A. 


4 Numapa €d€50T0] Aevtrapacde- 


as if md/pers éxxvcers...éyivovro, for the plural here cannot be explained by rzbuz. 


of ‘contentment’ is then somewhat 
out of place) and an unnatural punc- 
tuation (for kat mpooéxorres then be- 
comes a clumsy addition). 

I. rovs Adyous] For the accusative 
after mpooéxovres compare e.g. Exod. 
Xxxiv. II mpocexe od TavTa doa eyo 
évrédANopai cou, Is. i. 10 mpow€xere vo- 
pov Geov, Neh. ix. 34 ov mpooéaxov 
ras évrodds (v.1.) cov Kal Ta papripia 
gov. 

2. eveotepriapevor| ‘ye took them to 
heart, i.e. rovs Aéyous, which is the 
accusative to eveorepyicpevor as well 
as to mpoaéxovtes ; SO § 12 ciade£a- 
pévn avtous éxpuiev. For evorepvi- 
¢eoOa. compare Clem. Alex. Paed. 1. 6 
(p. 123) Tov owrnpa evorepvioacba, 
Euseb. JZart. Pal. 8 peifova tov oo- 
patos Tov hoyopoy evertepyiapern, 720. 
II prnpas adtav (rav ypapar) eveorép- 
noto, 2b. Laud. Const. 5 § 5 trav €xet 
darev tdextov 7iOov eveatepyicpEevos, 
A post. Const. procem. everrepyicpevor 
rov poBov adrov, 2b. v. 14 evotepyicd- 
pevos avtov. There seems to be no 
such word as orepvifeoOa, and there- 
fore éveorepiopevor must be read. If 
éorepyicpevor Could stand, Cotelier’s 
explanation would probably be cor- 
rect, ‘Clementi eorepyicpevon sunt, 
qui Latinis pectorosi, homines lati 
capacisque pectoris (2 Cor. vi. 11), 
as the analogy of omd\ayyviferda 
suggests ; and later critics seem to 
be wrong in making it equivalent to 
éveatepyiapevor, Which owes its trans- 


itive sense to the preposition. 

ra raOypara avrov x.t.A.| Compare 
Gal. iii. 1 ois car’ odOadpors “Inoovs 
Xpiocris mpoeypahn earavpapévos, of 
which Clement’s expression is per- 
haps a reminiscence. In this passage 
it has been proposed to read pa6y- 
para for rajpara; and the confusion 
of pabnryis, maOnryjs, in Ign. Polyc. 
7, and paémjpara, waOjpara, in Ign. 
Smyrn. 5, shows that the interchange 
would be easy. This emendation was 
originally adopted to meet the diffi- 
culty of the expression ‘ the sufferings 
of God.” Among others it found an 
advocate in the late Ezra Abbot 
(Bibliotheca Sacra, April 1876, p. 313 
sq) in a learned paper on Acts xx. 
28. But it has obtained some favour 
even since the discovery of thealterna- 
tive reading rov Xpuorov. Yet (1) The 
parallels quoted in the note on row 
@eov prove that no alteration is need- 
ed, since ra waOnpatra avtov would be 
a natural expression to a writer of 
this age; (2) The reading pa@npara 
would destroy the propriety of the 
expressions in the parallel clauses as 
read in the MS, eveorepricpevor refer- 
ring to rovs Adyous and mpo opOahpav 
to ra maOnpara, ‘the words in your 
hearts,the sufferings before youreyes’; 
(3) While ra wa@jpara is a common 
expression in the New Testament, 
being used especially to denote the 
sufferings of Christ, the word pa6npa 
does not once occur either there or 


0 


1] TO THE CORINTHIANS. iy. 


a] ? \ / Oats VA CA Aa 

exxvols él mavTas éyiveTo' peotol TE datas BovArs 
> ’ ~ / > 5) ~ / > , 

év dya0n mpobumia pet edoeBous merronoews €EeTEl- 
A — ron \ \ 7 7 

vaTe Tas YElpas VuwY TpOS TOV TavTOKpaTopa Oéeor, 
, \ / / af af / 

ikeTevovTes avTov idews yeverOa, eiTt aKovTES rucap- 


TETE. 


6 dcias] AS; Oelas C: see the lower note. 


A. ékereivate] A; éferelvere CS. 
note. axovres] AC; éxdvres S. 

in the Apostolic fathers ; and in the 
only passage in the LXx where it is 
found (Jer. xiii. 21) there is a v.l. 
pabnras (for paénpara), which ap- 
proaches more nearly to the original 
Hebrew; (4) Though ra paéyjpara tov 


- Geov might stand, still ai didayai Tov 


cov (or some similar expression) 
would be more natural. 

3. elpnyvn Badeta] 4 Mace. ili. 20 
Babeiay eipyyny d:a Thy evvopiay nuay 
eiyov, Hegesipp.in Euseb. A. £. iii. 32 
yevonevns eipnyns Babeias ev mdon ék- 
kAnoia, Athenag. Suppl. 1 7 ctpraca 
oikoupevn TH vpeTépa cuvecer Badeias 
eipnyns arodavovow, Liture. S. Basil. 
p. 165 (Neale) BaGeiav cai avadaiperov 
eipnynv, Euseb. Vzt. Cozst. i. 61. 

5. ayaborouiar| ‘ deneficence’ ; again 
just below and §§ 33, 34: comp. I Pet. 
Iv. 19, Zest. x1z Patr. Jos. 18. The 
allied words occur several times in 
S. Peter: dyadomoveiy 1 Pet. ii. 15, 20, 
ili. 6, 17; a@yaOorous, I Pet. ii. 14. 
While kaXoroia regards the abstract 
character of the action, dya@oroia 
looks to its results and more especi- 
ally to its effect on others. 

6. ooias| For the confusion of 
ocioc and 6e10c comp. S§ 14, 21, and 
see above I. pp. 138, 140. For daias 
see § 45 ev dia kal duopm mpobéce., 
§ 56 dia Tis boias madeias adrod ; for 
Oeias, § 40 ra BAbn rhs Oeias yroceas. 
There might possibly be a question 
which of the two words should be read 
here: but (1) we have a combination 


CLEM. II. 


> ~ \ \ \ £ 
aywv nv Upiv HMepas TE Kal VUKTOS UTED TacNs 


7 mwemo.Onoews] metonOnoewo 
g tNéws] A; ttewv C: see the lower 
nudprete] AC; peccabatis (huaprdvere) S. 


of two authorities (including the best) 
against one; and (2) the other in- 
stances show that the tendency is to 
change oovos into deios, and not con- 
versely. 

9. ihéos yeveoOa| The adverb 
itk€ws is recognised by Hesychius, but 
no instances are given in the lexicons. 
As it appears only to occur in the 
expression ihkéws yiverOa (Lull. de 
Corr. Hellén. Xi. p. 453 (1887) unre 
ot Oeot ik€ws avT@ yevowvto, 2 Macc. il. 
23,\ Vil. 3751 X.| 26); 16) 15° probablya 
grammatical mistake of the later lan- 
guage, the true construction being 
forgotten and the word being erro- 
neously treated as an adverb (idkéws 
instead of ikews). In this passage it 
may be due to the transcriber and 
not to Clement himself. At all events 
our MS (A) in the three passages of 
2 Maccabees has itéws, where the 
common text has a proper grammati- 
cal construction iAew yevopévov, ihe 
yeveoOa, thew yevopevov. In Herm. 
Vis. ii. 2, S2m. ix. 23, we have the ex- 
pression fAews yiverOa, but the con- 
text fails to show whether idews is 
treated as an adverb or an adjective. 
E. A. Sophocles Lex. s.v. gives an 
instance of the adverb idews from 
Moschion, and the inscription above 
quoted proves it to be a possible 
word. 

10. ayov Av K.t.A.] Comp. Col. ii. I. 

juépas Te kal vuxtos| Hilgenfeld 
calls attention to the fact that the 


2 


ow 
ie 


18 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [11 


THS adehporTnTos, Els TO cwCec bau peTa O€ous Kal 
guveoycews Tov ao.Ouov TwVv eKNEeKTWY a’TOU: ELAL- 
KplWels Kal GKEpaloL NTE Kal duvnoikakot Els aAANHAOUS" 
Taca TAGS Kal Tav oxXioua BOEeXUKTOY Uuiv: él Tots 


/ ~ / a \ / 
TapanrTwuacw Tols TAnatov évevOEiTE’ Ta VoTEpHMaTa 


I peta Séovs] C3 per’ EdXéous (eMavova A) AS. 
veo A. 


2 eiduxpiveis| evderKpt- 
3 axépator] axepeot A. ayy notkaxot] C; auauynocxaxor A. 
So I read the ms with Tischendorf, but previous editors gave it avauynotxakot. 

4 Boeduxrov] A; add. jv C, and so probably S. 


5 Tots wXyolov] A; Tov 


writer elsewhere has the same order 
‘day and night’ §§ 20, 24, and argues 
thence ‘scriptorem non e Judaeis, qui 
noctem anteponunt, sed e gentilibus, 
Romanis quidem, ortumesse.’ This ar- 
gument is more specious than sound. 
Thus in the Apocalypse the order is 
always ‘day and night,’ iv. 8, vii. 15, 
mit AG; Kiv. £1; Xx.( 103. 4n¢S: Paul/al- 
ways ‘night and day,’ 1 Thess. ii. 9, 
neat. eo achess 1.3, 1) Cima: wy §,/\2 
Tim. i. 3; while by S. Luke either 
order is used indifferently in both the 
Gospel (ii. 37, xviii. 7) and the Acts 
(ix! OAs aoe, SA, XKVI. 7). 

I. adeAddrntros| A word peculiar to 
S. Peter in the New Testament; 1 
Pee 17, v.90. So Polyc. P2710 
‘fraternitas,’ where the Greek is not 
extant; Herm. J/and. 8. 

peta Seovs| I have ventured to 
adopt this reading, as other recent 
editors have done, on the inferior au- 
thority of C (meta Aeoye for mete- 
Aeoyc), because it rescues the passage 
from a difficulty and so commends it- 
self. By this combination pera déous kat 
aovuvevdnoews the whole clause is trans- 
ferred from God to the believer, and 
cuverdnoews becomes intelligible. With 
the whole expression comp. Lzturg. 
D. Facob. p. 55 (Neale) dds nyiv, Ki- 
ple, peta Travros oBov Kal cuverdnoews 
ka@apas mpockopioa «.t.’. For the 
idea of fear as an agent in the work 
of salvation see Phil. ii. 12; and for 


the expression pera déous Heb. xii. 28 
Aarpevopev evapéotws TO Oe@ pera ev- - 
AaBeias kat Séovs (the correct reading), 
an epistle which has largely influ- 
enced Clement’s language elsewhere. 
For the use of ouvetdnous here comp. 
S 34 ouvaybevres TH ovverdnoe. It de- 
notes inward concentration and as- 
sent. Zahn (Gott. Gel. Anz. Nov. 8, 
1876) still retains the reading per’ €Xé- 
ous, explaining it of brotherly kindness 
shown towards offenders, and pro- 
poses ovvabAnceas for cvverdnoews. He 
might have quoted A fost. Const. ii. 13 
€meita eTa EAEOVS Kal OiKTLPMOU Kal 
mpooAnWeaws OikeLov UTLTXVOUpEVOS av- 
To o@tnpiay for this sense. Lipsius 
(Fenaer Literaturz. Jan. 13, 1877) 
accepts pera déovs, but holds by his 
conjecture cvvdenoews (Academy, July 
9, 1870), though it is now rendered 
unnecessary. Donaldson (7heo/. Rev. 
Jan. 1877) suggests pera redeias cur- 
eXevoeas. . 

2. ovvevdnoews| If the reading 
ehéovs be retained, cvverdyoewms must 
mean ‘with the consent of God,’ but 
this is hardly possible. I had ac- 
cordingly hazarded the conjecture 
evdoxnoews (EYAOKHCEWC for CYNEI- 
AHcewc), which is less violent than 
cuvaweoews, cuveiEews, cuvSenoews, and 
other emendations. This conjecture 
struck me before I was aware that 
Davis had suggested cuvevdoxnoews, 
of which word I cannot find any in- 


11] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 19 


? > af > / 5) / Ss 2 \ 7 > 
avTwv idia ExplveTe’ GueTaMEeANTOL NTE ETL TaTH aya- 
t 
aA o > a By] > ! las / 
Oorrotia, ETOIMO! €IC TAN EPfON AfPdOON* TH TAaVAaDETYW 
Kal oe Baciiw TONITELA KEKOOMNMEVOL Ta ewer tb (3 
[LLG np TavTa ev TH PoPw 


~ a \ / \ \ / 
QUTOU ETETENELTE’ TA TPCT TAYMATAa Kal Ta OLKALW LATA 


~ / Cyan \ ’ = ’ c a > ! 
TOU Kupiov ET! TA TIAATH THC KAPAIAC Y MOON ErerpamtiTo. 


wrynolov C3; vicinorum S. 
atrouuwor A. 


I. p- 126). 


stance. The clause would then mean 
‘of His mercy and good pleasure’: 
comp. § 9 ikérau yevopevou Tod éd€ous 
Kal THS ypnoTotntos avtov. The lexi- 
cons supply a few instances of the 
form evdoxnors (e.g. Diod. xv. 6, Dion. 
Hal. ili. 13), which also occurs below 
§ 40 (see the note). In the N. T. the 
allied word evdoxia is generally said 
of God; Matt. x1. 26 (Luke x. 21), 
Eph. i. 5,9, Phil. ii. 13. If however 
we accept déous (see the last note), no 
emendation is needed. 

Tov aptOpov x.7.A.| See the note on 
§ 59, where the same expression oc- 
eurs. So too in our Burial Service, 
‘shortly to accomplish the number 
of Thine elect.’ 

eiAKpivets Kal axépator| For eidukpe- 
vets, See Philippians i.10; for axépacot, 
Philippians ii. 15. 

3. apynoikaxot]| So we have apyyn- 
auxaxws below, § 62. Comp. Jest. 277 
Patr. Zab. 8 apunoixakor yiveo Oe, Clem. 
Alex. Strom. vii. 14 (p. 883) dpvnot- 
kakov evar diOaoxer, Hermas Aland. ix. 
avTos auynoikakos eott, and so Szvom. 
i. 18 (p. 398) d¢ duynorkakias. 

5. Tots mAnoiov| A brachylogy for 
Tois TOY TAnoiov. Jacobson quotes 
Eur. Hec. 996 pn epa trav mAyoiov. 

6. aperapéAntor k.T.A.] 1.e. ‘When 
you had done good, you did not wish 
it undone ; when there was an oppor- 
tunity of doing good, you seized it.’ 
The latter clause érowouk.t.A. is from 
Titus ill. I mpos wav epyov dyabor Eroi- 


6 téta] C; wdua A; idia S. 
8 ceBacuiw] A, and so apparently S; ceBacuwrarn C (see 
Q émeteneire] ereTehactar A. 


7 roo] 


pous etvar: comp. 2 Cor. ix. 8, and see 
below § 34 with the note. 

8. odureia] ‘the graces of your 
heavenly citizenship’; see Phil. 1. 27, 
Ephes. ii. 12, 19. For modureia, ro- 
Atreveo Oar, see S§ 3, 6, 21, 44, 51, 54. 

9. avrov] i.e. rod Geod, understood 
from tj mavapér@ Kat oeBacpio To- 
Aireta; Comp. § 54 THY adyerapeAnToy 
moXtelay Tov Geod. 

Ta mpootaypata] The two words 
occur together frequently in the Lxx: 
see esp. Mal. iv. 4, and comp. I Sam. 
RKx, | 25) Ezek. xi: 20. xVill.| QO, soteut ts 
Crc. 

10. émita mary x.7.A.| Taken from 
the LXX of Prov. vii. 3, emiypawoy de 
émi TO TAdTos THs Kapdias cov, where 


mAdros Corresponds to the Hebrew mb 
‘a tablet.’ The phrase is repeated in 
the LXxX with slight modifications in 
Prov. xxii. 20, and in some copies 
also in . Prov. . iii) (3,3 but \thereas 
nothing corresponding in the Hebrew 
of Prov. xxii. 20. Wotton’s state- 
ment that mAdros occurs in this sense 
‘passim’ in the LXX is erroneous. 
From this LXxX reading the expres- 
sion ro mAdtos Ths Kapdlas is not un- 
common in the Christian fathers (e.g. 
Iren. i. praef. 3, and other passages 
quoted by Wotton), and ra mAary 
was doubtless written by Clement 
here. But it seems not improbable 
that the expression arose from a very 
early corruption of the LXX text (a 
confusion of rAdros and m\akos), since 


ee 


20 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [111 


> / ‘N / my \ » ‘ 
émeTeNeaOn TO vyeypampevov' “Edaren kal étien kal 
ETAATYNOH KAl €TTAYYNOH KAl ATTEAAKTICEN O HPATTHMENOC. 


"Ex tTouvrou Gros Kal POovos, [kai] Epis Kal oTaots, 


Maca Sofa Kat mrAaTVopOs €600y Umtv, Kat 


\ > / / \ > / 
dlwyuos Kal adkKaTacTacia, ToANEMOS Kal alyuarwota, 
e/ ? / cs 5S ; > ' eee 2 
ovTws ernyepOnoay oi stimol él ToYC ENTIMoyc, OL AdOFOL 


> > ¢ / ’ c 
émt Tous évdogous, of adpoves Eri Tous povisous, oi 


a1 


NEOl €Ml ToYc mpecByTépoyc. 


1 €660n] 600n A. 
cev A. 


\ ~ ' ” 
Ola TovTO TOppa ateEctIN 


3 ameddxricev] CS, Deut. xxxii. 15; ameyaaxtt- 
4 kat épis] As épis (om. kal) CS. 


8 drectw] A; est S 


(which probably represents darecrw); daéorn C, which is nearer to the Lxx of Is. 


mAdé is the natural equivalent of mb 
and is frequently used elsewhere in 
the LxxX to translate it. S. Paul’s 
metaphor in 2 Cor, iil. 3 is derived 
from the original of Prov. vii. 3. 

III. ‘But, like Jeshurun of old, 
you waxed wantonwith plenty. Hence 
strife and faction and open war. 
Hence the ignoble, the young,. the 
foolish, have risen against the highly- 
esteemed, the old, the wise. Peace 
and righteousness are banished. The 
law of God, the life after Christ, are 
disregarded. You have fostered jea- 
lousy, whereby death entered into the 
world.’ 

I. mAarvopos| ‘enlargement, room 
to move in, i.e. freedom and plenty, 
opposed to Odifis, crevoxwpia, avay- 
kn; aS 2 Sam. xxii. 20 mpoepOacay pe 
nuepat Oiweds pov kai eyéveto Kv- 
plos éemuotypiypa pov kal ée€nyayev pe 
eis mAatuvopov kal e&eidero pe, Ps. 
cxvil. 5 €k Odivvews émexaXeoauny Tov 
Kupuov kal émnKxovoév pov eis TAaTVO- 
pov: comp. Ps. xvii. 20, Cxvili. 45, 
Ecclus, xlvii. 12. See also the oppo- 
sition of ev evpyxydpm and orevoyo- 
petoOa, Hermas Mand. v. 1 ev evpv- 
x@pe@ karoikovy ayad\duacera. Hence 
the Latin use of dlatare, dilatatio. 

2. epayev k.t.d.] A very free quota- 
tion from the LXx of Deut. xxxii. 14, 


15, kal aia oradvAns emev (v. 1. émov) 
olvov’ Kat eayev “lakaB kai everAnoOn 
Kal drreAakticev 6 nyamnpévos, eAuravOn, 
erraxvvOn, emdatvvOn. It diverges still 
more from the original Hebrew. 
Justin Dzaé. 20 (p. 237 B) quotes the 
same passage, but his quotation has 
no special resemblances to that of 
Clement. 

4. (dos «.t.A.| The words occur in 
an ascending scale: frs¢ the inward 
sentiment of division (¢jA0s develop- 
ing into POdvos) ; xext, the outward 
demonstration of this (€pss develop- 
ing into oraow); lastly, the direct 
conflict and its results (duwypes, axa- 
TaoTacia, TOAEMOS, aiypadocia). 

(nos kai POdvos| These words oc- 
cur together also below, §§ 4, 5: 
comp. Gal. v. 20, 21, Test. 2a Pais 
Sym. 4 amo mavros (ydov kai Pbovov. 
For the distinction between them see 
Trench WV. 7. Sym. ser. 1 § xxvi, and 
Galatians \.c. Zndros is ‘rivalry, am- 
bition,’ the desire of equalling or 
excelling another. It does not ne- 
cessarily involve the wish to deprive 
him of his advantages, which is im- 
plied in Pédvos ; but, if unduly che- 
rished, it will lead to this; § 4 da 
(ros Aaveid POovov ecxev, Plat. Me- 
mex. Pp. 242 A mpotov pev CHros aro 
(jrov de dovos, Aisch. Agam. 939 


11] 


TO.UTHE CORINTHIANS: ZN | 


- ’ \ > / 5) ~ 5) / v4 \ 
H AIKAIOCYNH K@l €lonvn, Ev TW a7roNELTTELY EKaTTOV TOV 


/ ~ ~ pa io / 5) > ? on 
poBov Tov Oeov Kai év TH TicTE avToU auBAVwTHTAL 
‘ 


pnoe EV TOLS VOMIMOLS THY TPOTTAYMATwWY aVTOV TrOpEV- 


ecOa pnde TodTEVer Oa KaTa TO KaOyKov To XpioTo, 


At ef > ~ 
d\Xa éxactoy BadiCev Kata Tas émiOumias THs Kapdias 


qn ~~ ~ ~ of 5] ~ 5) 
avToU THs Tovnpas, (yAov adikov Kal doe Bn cavetAnpo- 


> a \ ’ Sah > \ ' 
Tas, Ot OU K@L BANATOC EICAAOEN EIC TON KOCMON. 


lix. 14 agéornxev, given in the lower note; see above, I. p. 124 sq. 
Aelrew] amoecmi A; daoduretv C, and so probably S. 


Q atro- 
10 WioTel] more 


A. 13 adda] AC, but Bryennios prints d\n’, as if this were the reading 


on C. 


0 & apOdvnros y ovdx émifndos méAet, 
Arist. Rhett. ii. 4 vf? av (nrodtocda 
BovAovrat kal pr POoveic Gar. 

5. axatactacia] ‘tumult’; comp. 
Luke xxi. 9 rod€pous kal dxaracracias, 
2 Cor. xil. 20 €pis, (jAos...axataora- 
cia, James iil. 16 dmov yap (dos kai 
epiOeva, exet akaTacTacia K.T.X. 

6. of arisor x.t.A.] Is. iii. 5 mpoo- 
KoWet TO Tatdiov mpos TOV mpeaBuTnY, 
6 Grysos mpos Tov evTipov. 

8. moppo ameotw x.t.d.| Is. lix. 14 
kat 7 Oukacocvyn pakpay adéatnkev. 

10. apBrvernoa| ‘grown dim- 
sighted’. The Atticists condemned 
apBAverety and preferred duBdAver- 
rew ; Thom. Mag. p. 39. The word 
and the form apBdvereiy are as old 
as Hippocrates, Progn. I. p. 38 (ed. 
Foes.). In the LXx it occurs 1 Kings 
xiv. 4 (displaced and found between 
xii. 24 and xii.25in B). But in most 
places where it occurs there is a v.1. 
apBAverrew. Comp. a Gnostic writer 
in Hippol. Ref v. 16 (p. 133 ad fin.). 

12. To ka@jKov TO Xpiote] The ex- 
pression has a close parallel in Phil. 
i. 27 a&iws Tov evayyediov Tod Xpictod 
modrever Oe, from which perhaps it is 
taken. The emendations suggested 
(Xpicriav@ or ev Xpior@ for Xpiore) 
are therefore unnecessary. 

14. (dov x.7.A.] Comp. § 45 ddcKcov 


THs Kapdtas| CS; om. A. 


rs Kal} AC 3/om;"S. 


(nrov avetAnhoror. 

15. kal Oavatos k.t.A.| From Wisd. ii. 
24 POdve dé diaBodrov Oavatos etonhOev 
eis Tov Koopov ; comp. Rom. v.12. The 
following passage of Theophilus con- 
nects the quotation from the Book of 
Wisdom with Clement’s application 
of it: ad Autol. il. 29 (p. 39) 6 Zara- 
vas...ep @ ovK toxvoev Oavateoat 
avtovs POove epomevos, nvika ewpa 
Tov "ABed evapeatovrvta T@ Oe@, Evep- 
ynoas cis rov adedpoy avrov Tov KaXov- 
pevov Kaivy éroinoev arokretvar Tov 
ddedpov avrov Tov "ABeA, Kal ovT@s 
apxn @avarov €yEVETO eis TOVOE TOV KOo- 
poov k.T.A, 

IV. ‘Said I not truly that death 
came into the world through jea- 
lousy? It was jealousy which prompt- 
ed the first murder and slew a 
brother by a brother’s hand ; jealousy 
which drove Jacob into exile, which 
sold Joseph as a bondslave, which 
compelled Moses to flee before his 
fellow-countryman and before Pha- 
raoh, which excluded Aaron and 
Miriam from the camp, which swal- 
lowed up Dathan and Abiram alive, 
which exposed David to the malice 
not only of foreigners but even of the 
Israelite king.’ 

The idea of jealousy bringing death 
into the world had a prominent place 


22 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [iv 


IV. léeyparrat yap ouTws’ Kai éréneto med’ HMe- 
pac, HNEfKEN KAIN ATO TON KAPTION TAC FAC O8YCIAN T@ Oew, 
kal ABeEA HNEPKEN Kal AYTOC ATO TON TPWTOTOKWN TON TPO- 
BATWN KAl ATO TON CTEATWN AYT@N. Kal ETTEIAEN O Oeoc 
él “ABeA Kai én) Toic Awpoic ayTo¥, én) Aé Kain Kal etm 
TAic Oyclaic ayTOY OY TpocécyeN. Kal eAYTHOH KAIN AIAN 
Kal CYNETECEN TH TPOCHMW ayToy. Kal elmenN 6 Oedc Tpoc 
Kain, iNa Ti TEpiAytoc €réNoy; Kal TNA TI CYNETIECEN TO 

1 ottws] AS; om. C. 2 7% Ocew] AS; 7H Kuplw C, with the LXx. 

3 mpoBarwy] AC; add. advrot S, with Lxx. 4 emeidev] emidé A. 7 ™@ 
mpocwrw| A with the LXX; 706 mpdowmov CS, in accordance with what follows. 


g éavy] A; a C. 


in the teaching of the Ophites as re- 
ported by Iren. i. 30. 9,‘ Ita ut et dum 
fratrem suum Abel occideret, primus 
zelum et mortem ostenderet’: and Ire- 
nzeus himself also speaks of the ¢7Xos 
Gr Kean, di1.°23.°4, “iv. ¥6."8 ‘(See the 
last passageespecially). Mill supposes 
that the idea was borrowed from 
Clement. As regards the Ophites 
however it is more probable that 
they derived it from a current inter- 
pretation of the name Kaiv: comp. 
Clem. Hom. iii. 42 Tov pev mp@rov 
kadéoas Katy, 8 éppnvevera (Aros, os 
kal (ni@oas aveihev Tov adeAov adrov 
”ABeX. In a previous passage (iii. 25) 
this pseudo-Clement calls Cain dp- 
orepicov dvopa, because dyn exet THS 
épunveias Thy exdoxny, épynveterar yap 
kat krjots (MIP) Kat pros (NIP) k.7.A. 
The interpretation xrjovs is adopted 
by Philo de Cherub. 15 (1. p. 148), de 
Sacr. Ab. et Ca. 1 (I. p. 163), guod Det. 
pot. ins. 10 (I. p. 197), etc., and by 
Josephus Azz. i. 2. I. 

I, kat eyévero kT.A.] Gen. iv. 3—8, 
quoted almost word for word from 
the Lxx. The divergences from the 
Hebrew text are very considerable. 

7. t@ mpooem@| The case is diffi- 
cult to account for, except as a very 
early transcriber’s error in the LXX ; 


II dpfes avrod] A; avrod dpges C. S has the same 


for the form of the Hebrew is the 
same here as in the following verse, 
where it is translated ouverecev To 
mpocerov, and the dative though in- 
telligible is awkward. 

9. ovk €av opOds k.7.A.]| The mean- 
ing of the original is obscure, but the 
LXX translation which Clement here 
follows must be wrong. The words 
opOes diéAns stand for mna> on 
(‘doest good, at the door’), which the 
translators appear to have under- 
stood ‘doest right to open’; unless 
indeed they read nAn3 for Mnd, as 
seems more probable (for in the older 
characters the resemblance of 3} and 
5 is very close). At all events it 


would seem that they intended dueAns 


to refer to apportioning the offerings 
(comp. Ley. i. 12, where it represents 
mn3 and is used of dividing the 
victim): and they might have under- 
stood the offence of Cain to consist 
in reserving to himself the best and 
giving God the worst: see Philo 
Quaest. in Gen. 1. § 62—64 (1. p. 43 
sq, Aucher), de Agric. 29 (I. p. 319), 
and de Sacr. Ab. e¢ Ca. 13, 20 sq, 
(I. p. 171 sq, 176 sq), in illustration 
of this sense. The Christian fathers 
however frequently give it a directly 
moral bearing, explaining dp@as py 


Iv] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 23 


TPOCWITON COY; OYK EAN OPOGC TPOCENEPKHC OpOwWC AE ME 


AIEAHC, HMAPTEC; HCYYACON’ Tpoc ce H ATIOCTPOdH ayToy, 


Kal cy ApzZEIC ayToy. 


MON ayToy’ 


AIEAO@MEN EIC TO TIEAION. 


Kal elmen Kain mpdc “ABEA TON AdeA- 


KAl EFENETO EN TO 


EINAl AYTOYC EN T@ TEAI@ ANECTH Kain Eri “ABEA TON BAeA- 


MON AYTOY KAl ATTEKTEINEN AYTON. ‘Opate, aded pot, (dos 


kat POovos ddeAoktoviay KaTEepyacaTo. 


Ova (nos 


e \ e as > \ > / > \ / 5) ~ 
0 matyp nuov “laxw amédpa dro mpocwmov ’Hoav 


order as A, but this would be most natural in the Syriac. 


12 déAPwpev | 


AC; add. igitur (=6h) S. This addition is found in some Mss of the LXx. 


mediov| madsov A. 
ayamntot S; see above, § 1. 
A; ¢ndov C. 


dveAns to refer either to the obliquity 
of Cain’s moral sense or to his un- 
fairness in his relations with his bro- 
ser, e7o./Iren. ii.) 23:4 “Quod non 
recte divisisset eam quae erga fra- 
trem erat communionem,’ iv. 18. 3 
‘Quoniam cum zelo et malitia quae 
erat adversus fratrem divisionem ha- 
bebat in corde, etc.’, Origen Sed. zx 
Gen. (Il. p. 30) od Sdueihev opOas* rijs 
Geias vopobecias kateppovncer k.T-d. 

10. yavxacov| The word corre- 
sponds to the Hebrew 71> ‘lying,’ 
which the LXX have treated as an 
imperative ‘lie still’; comp. Job xi. 
19. Much stress is laid on novyacov 
by Philo de Sodr. 10 (I. p. 400), and 
by early Christian expositors, e.g. 
Clem. Hom. ii. 25, Iren. ll. cc. 

12. OveAdwpev eis To mediov] This 
clause is wanting in the Hebrew and 
Targum of Onkelos, but found in the 
LXxX, the Samaritan and Peshito 
versions, and the later Targums. 
Origen’s comment is_ interesting ; 
Sel. in Genes. (II. p. 39) €v TO “EBpaixe 
TO hexGev Vrd Tov Kaiv mpos rov”ABedX 
ov yéypamrat kal of mept AxviAay edevéav 
Ort €v TO aroxpipe@ haciv oi “EBpaiou 
ketoGar Tovto évtavOa Kata THY TeV 
€Bdounkovra éxSoxry. These or similar 


13 wediw] maw A. 
15 Kateipydcaro] AS; kareipyacavto C. 


14 adehgpol] AC; 
(ros] 


words are plainly wanted for the 
sense, and can only have been omit- 
ted accidentally. The Masoretes 
reckon this one of the twenty-eight 
passages where there is a lacuna in 
the text: see Fabric. Cod. Apocr. 
V. T. 1. p.104 sq. Philo enlarges on 
the allegorical meaning of ro wediov. 

15. 6a ¢jAos| On the two declen- 
sions of (jos see Winer § ix. p. 78, 
A. Buttmann p. 20. Clement (or his 
transcriber) uses the masculine and 
the neuter forms indifferently. 

16. 6 watnp nuov| So § 31 6 maryp 
juav “ABpaap, § 60 xabds eSaxas Tots 
Tatpacw nuav, § 62 of mpodednropevor 
marépes nav (where see the note). 
From these passages it has been in- 
ferred that the writer was a Jewish 
Christian. The inference however is 
not valid; since Clement, like S. Paul 
(Gals i11..75)/0,. 20, Roms Av BE TB, 
ix. 6—8) or Justin (Dza/. 134), might 
refer to spiritual rather than actual 
parentage; comp. I Pet. iii. 6 Sdppa... 
ns eyeyvnOnre téxva. So too Theophi- 
lus of Antioch (quoted by Jacobson), 
though himself a Gentile, speaks of 
Abraham (ad Autol. iii. 28, comp. iii. 
24) and David (iii. 25) as ‘ our fore- 
father.’ To these references add 20, 


24 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [1v 


Tou adeAPov avtov. CyAos éroincev ‘lwand expr Oa- 
vaTou dwyOnvar Kat mexpt Sovreias eioedOeiv. Cydos 
guyetv jvaykacey Mwiony dro rpocwrov Papaw Bact- 
Aéws Atyvrtov év TW akovVTaL avTOY a0 TOU OmoduvAoU 
Tic cC€ KATECTHCEN KPITHN H AIKACTHN €C() HM@N; MH ANE- 
Ae€IN ME CY OEAEIC, ON TPOTION ANEIAEC EyOeCc TON AiryTITION; 
dia Gyros ’“Aapwv cat Mapiau €€w ths mapeufsodns 
nurtcOnoav. Cydos Aabav cai “APeipwv CwvTas KaTI- 


> c/ \ \ / \ \ \ 
yayev eis a0ov, dia TO TTaTiaTal av’TOUS TPOS TOV 


2 eiaeNOelv] A; €dOetv C, and so probably S. 
apxovra kal duxaoryy CS, with the Lxx. 


xbeés Cy 
nurynoOnoav A. 
dua (Hrov C. 


7 Ova) CS 3 oma. A. 


Aaveid] 6a6 AC. 


ill. 20 of ‘“EBpaio., ot Kai mpomaropes 
nov, ap ov kal tas tepas BiPdous 
EXOmev K.T.A. 

5. tis oe x.7.A.| From the Lxx of 
Exod. ii. 14, which follows the He- 
brew closely, inserting however x6és 
(or eyes). Clement has xpurny 7 for 
dpxovta kai, perhaps from confusion 
with Luke xii. 14 xpirjy 7) peprotny 
(the best reading, though A and some 
others have dixacrny 7) peptotnv). The 
LXX is quoted more exactly in Acts 
vil. 27 and in Afost. Const. vi. 2. The 
life of Moses supplies Clement witha 
twofold illustration of his point ; for 
he incurred the envy not only of the 
king (aro mpoocwrov Papaw), but also 
of his fellow-countrymen (éy r@ axov- 
gat avrov x.t.A.), aS in the parallel 
case of David below. 

7. ~Aapov x.t.A.]| The Mosaic re- 
cord mentions only the exclusion of 
Miriam from the camp, Num. xii. 14, 
15. In this instance and in the next 
(Dathan and Abiram) the jealous per- 
sons are themselves the sufferers. 

9. tov Oeparovra x.t.r.| The ex- 
pression is used of Moses several 


See the lower note. 
¢nros] A; Sov C. 
Gros] S; diagnroo A; dud EHrov C. 


5 Kpirnv i) Oxaoryv] A; 
6 éxGés] A; 

8 nvrNicOnoar | 
10 Oa (nros] A; 


I have followed the best Mss of the N.T. for 


times, e.g, Exod. iv. Io, xiv. 31, Num. 
xii. 7, 8, Josh. viii. 31, 33: comp. below 
§§ 43, 51, 53, Barnab. § 14, Just. Mart. 
Dial. 56 (p. 274 D), Theoph. ad Autol. |» 
ili. 9, 18, etc. ‘O Oeparwyv Tov Cecov 
was a recognised title of Moses, as 
0 didos Tov Geov was of Abraham. 
10. Aavel6] Or perhaps Aavid. 
There is, so far as I know, no au- 
thority for AaBid, except in com- 
paratively recent Mss. Yet Hilgen- 
feld reads AaBid. Funk says ‘C AaBid 
ubique,’ and a similar statement is 
made by Gebhardt, being misled by 
Bryennios. The word is contracted 
in C in all its three occurrences in 
Clement; §S§ 18, 52, as well as here. 
II. vmo tov dd\dopvA@y] The Phi- 
listines, 1 Sam. xxi. II, xxix. 4 sq. 
12. vo SaovA] 1 Sam. xviii. 9 ‘And 
Saul eyed (vmoBAeropnevos LXX, A) 
David from that day and forward.’ 
V. ‘Again, take examples from 
our own generation. Look at the 
lives of the chief Apostles. See how 
Peter and Paul suffered from jea- 
lousy; how through many wander- 
ings, through diverse and incessant 


v] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


25 


10 fepatrovta Tov Oeov Mwvonv. sia (ndos Aaved (p0o- 
vov ExXEV OU Movoy Ud TwY drNoPiAwY, dAAA Kal 
v7o Caour [ Bacireéws *lopanr] édiwyOn. 


/ - ? c / 
V. ’AAN Wa TeV dpyaiwy UroderyuaTwv TavcW- 
a} Jean \ af / > / 
peOa, EAMOwuev El Tos Eyyiota yevouévous dOANTAS: 
/ ~ ~ ~ x ~ / 
15 \aBwuev THs yeveas Huwv Ta yevvaia Vrodelypara. 
A ~ / ¢€ / \ / 
Ata Gidov Kat POovoy ot péeyioror Kat SiKadTaTot 


/ > / e/ / af 
oTVAOL €d1w vy Onoav Kal €ws Oavatov nOAncav. 


AaBw- 


\ > lam e va \ 9 \ > / 
Mev 7pO 6pbarpav nHuwy Tous ayalous dérooToXous: 


the orthography of the word. 
A; amo Tot Zaovr C. 


Tw] vrodiyparwyv A. 


Ir vro] A; amo C. 
Baciréws "IopandA] AS; om. C. 
I5 yevvaia] yevvea A. 


12 UTd ZaovA] 
13 Umoderypa- 
16 péy.orat] CS ; 


...0To A. The word péyioroe was rejected by Tischendorf and several editors 
(myself included) as insufficient for the space, and some other word substituted to 
fill the lacuna of A, but the text of the other authorities removes all doubt. 


persecutions, they bore testimony to 
Christ; how at last they sealed their 
testimony with their blood, and de- 
parted to their rest and to their 
glory.’ 

14. eyytoral ‘very near,’ as com- 
pared with the examples already 
quoted. The expression must be 
qualified and explained by the men- 
tion of 7 yevea nuay just below. It 
has been shown that the close of Do- 
mitian’s reign is pointed out both by 
tradition and by internal evidence as 
the date of this epistle (I. p. 346 sq). 
The language here coincides with 
this result. It could hardly be used 
to describe events which had happen- 
ed within the last year or two, as 
must have been the case if the letter 
were written at the end of Nero’s 
reign. And on the other hand 7 
yevea nuov would be wholly out of 
place, if it dated from the time of 
Hadrian, some 50 years or more after 
the death of the two Apostles. 

a@Anras| See the note on Ign. 
Polye. 1. 


17. otvdot] See the note on Gala- 
titans il. 9, where it is used of S. Peter 
and other Apostles. The accentua- 
tion orvAou is there discussed, and it 
has the support of C here. 

18. dyabovs] So too Clem. Hom. 
il. 16 0 & dyads Iérpos mpoomndjcas 
k.T.A.. quoted by Harnack. Editors 
and critics have indulged in much 
licence of conjecture, suggesting 
ayious, mpetous, Oeiovs, etc., in place 
of aya@ovs. This has led to the state- 
ment made in Volkmar’s edition of 
Credner’s Gesch. des N. T. Kanon p. 
51, that A reads a ovs (a supposed 
contraction for mpérovs). Nothing 
can be farther from the truth. The 
word adyaovs is distinctly legible in 
full in A, and it is confirmed by the 
other authorities. Such an epithet 
may be most naturally explained on 


‘the supposition that Clement isspeak- 


ing in affectionate remembrance of 
those whom he had known person- 
ally. Otherwise the epithet seems 
to be somewhat out of place. 


26 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [v 


Ilérpov, os Ova (Aov adikov ovx eva ovdeé Ovo aAXAa 


/ c / / \ / / 
WAELOVAS UTNHVEYKEV TOVOUS, KL OUTW faoTupnaas €7T0- 


1 Ilérpov, ds] C; ...0c A; Petrus S. Before the discovery of C, the lacuna of A 


was filled up [6 Ilérp]os or [Ilérp]os. 
seen. 
portavit (see § 14). 


I. Ilérpov «.t.A.] A passage in 
Peter of Alexandria (de Poentzt. 9, see 
I. p. 164), where the two Apostles 
are mentioned in conjunction, was 
probably founded on Clement’s ac- 
count here, for it closely resembles 
his language. The same is also the 
case with a passage of Macarius 
Magnes Afgocr. iv. 14, quoted in the 
note on vréderEevy below. This juxta- 
position of S. Peter and §S. Paul, 
where the Roman Church is con- 
cerned, occurs not unfrequently. 
The language of Ignatius, Rom. 4, 
seems to imply that they had both 
preached in Rome; and half a cen- 
tury later Dionysius of Corinth (Euseb. 
Ff. £. ii. 25) states explicitly that they 
went to Italy and suffered martyr- 
dom there kara rov adroy karpov. This 
is affirmed also a generation later by 
Tertullian, who mentions the different 
manners of their deaths (Scorp. 15, 
de Praescr. 36); and soon after Gaius, 
himself a Roman Christian, describes 
the sites of their graves in the im- 
mediate neighbourhood of Rome 
(Euseb. 7. £. ii. 25); see also Lac- 
tant. de Mort. Pers. 2, Euseb. Dem. 
Ev. iil. 3, p. 116. The existing Acta 
Petri et Pauli (Act. Apost. Apocr. p. 
1, ed. Tischendorf) are occupied with 
the preaching and death of the two 
Apostles at Rome; and this appears 
to have been the subject also of a 
very early work bearing the same 
name, on which see Hilgenfeld /Vov. 
Test. extr. Can. Rec. iv. p. 68. This 
subject is further discussed in the 
excursus S. Peter tn Rome appended 
to the first volume. 


The true reading could not have been fore- 


2 Umrnveyxev] Urnveyxe C; and so doubtless S, which has Sap tulit, 
As regards A, Young read tréuewev; but Mill and others 


But not only was this juxtaposition 
of the two Apostles appropriate as 
coming from the Roman Church; 
it would also appeal powerfully to 
the Corinthians. The latter commu- 
nity, no less than the former, traced 
its spiritual pedigree to the combined 
teaching of both Apostles; and ac- 
cordingly Dionysius (Il. c.), writing 
from Corinth to the Romans, dwells 
with emphasis on this bond of union 
between the two churches: comp. 
1 Gor. a: Wa. 

2. paptupnaas| ‘having borne his 
testimony. The word padptus was 
very early applied especially, though 
not solely, to one who sealed his tes- 
timony with his blood. It is so ap- 
plied in the Acts (xxii. 20) to S. Ste- 
phen, and in the Revelation (ii. 13) 
to Antipas. Our Lord Himself is 
styled the faithful and true paprus 
(Rev. i. 5, il. 14), and His paprupia 
before Pontius Pilate is especially 
emphasized (1 Tim. vi. 13). Doubt- 
less the Neronian persecution had 
done much to promote this sense, 
aided perhaps by its frequent oc- 
currence in the Revelation. After 
the middle of the second century at 
all events paprus, waprupetiy, Were used 
absolutely to signify martyrdom; 
Martyr. Polyc. 19 sq, Melito in 
Euseb. 4. £. iv. 26, Dionys. Corinth. 
z0, ii. 25, Hegesippus 2d. ii. 23, iv. 22, 
Epist. Gall. 26. v. 1, 2, Anon. adv. 
Cataphr. zd. v. 16, Iren. Haer. 1. 28. 
I, il. 3. 3,'4, 1h 12, 10; nn 18,5 ere 
Still even at this late date they con- 
tinued to be used simultaneously of 
other testimony borne to the Gospel, 


v] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 24 


pevOn Ets Tov oetAopevoy ToTov THS So0—NS. dua CyAov 


professed to see the H, and Wotton accordingly says ‘proculdubio legendum est 


bmnveyKev’. 
hand Tischendorf sees part of an H. 


According to Jacobson ‘hodie nihil nisi yt restat’. 


On the other 


I could discern traces of a letter, but these 


might belong equally well to an € or an H. 


short of death: e.g. by Hegesippus, 
Euseb. H. £. iil. 20, 32, by Apollonius 
2b. v. 18 (several times), and in a 
document quoted by Serapion zd. v. 
19. A passage in the Epistle of the 
Churches of Gaul (A.D. 177) illustrates 
the usage, as yet not definitely fixed 
but tending to fixity, at this epoch: 
ovxy ama& ovde Sis adda odds 
paptupnoartes kat €k Onpioy avis 
avadnpOertes...ovT avTol paptupas €av- 
TOUS GVEKNPUTTOV OUTE pV nuiy eéTpe- 
Tov TOUT@ TH ovopate mpocayopevew 
avtrovs* GAN elmoré Tis Huey Ov emioToO- 
Aijs 7 Sia AGyou paptupas avTovs mpoc- 
eimev, ememAnooov mikpas’ déws yap 
TapexX@povv THv THs papTupias mpoo- 
nyopiay T@ Xpiot@ TH TLoT@ kai ady- 
Ow@ paptupt...Kal érepipvyokovTo TOV 
e€eAnAvOorav 76n paptipav Kai €dheyov" 
€keivor 75n paptupes ovs ev TH 
OmoAoyia Xptoros nElwoeyv ava- 
AnPOnvat, éemicppayrodpevos av- 
Tov Sta ths €€dd0u THY papTupiay’ 
nmets Sé Opodoyor pérpioe kai TaTet- 
voi (Euseb. H. £. v.2). The distinc- 
tion between pdprus and opodoynrns 
(more rarely opodoyos), which the 
humility of these sufferers suggested, 
became afterwards the settled usage 
of the Church; but that it was not so 
at the close of the second century 
appears from the Alexandrian Cle- 
ment’s comments on Heracleon’s 
account of dmodoyia in Strom. iv. 9, 
p- 596; comp. also Tertull. Prax. 1 
‘de jactatione martyrii inflatus ob 
solum et simplex et breve carceris 
taedium.’ Even half a century later 
the two titles are not kept apart in 
Cyprian’s language. The Decian 
persecution however would seem to 
have been instrumental in fixing 


this distinction; see Euseb. JZart. 
Pal. \1 wpo Tov paptupiov bua Kavty- 
pov UTopovns Tov THS Omodoyias d.a- 
Anoas dyova. 

Thus the mere use of paprupety in 
this early age does not in itself ne- 
cessarily imply the martyrdoms of 
the two Apostles; but on the other 
hand we need not hesitate (with 
Merivale, Hist. of the Romans Vi. p. 
282, note 2) to accept the passage 
of Clement as testimony to this fact. 
For (1) Clement evidently selects ex- 
treme cases of men who €ws Oavarov 
70\noav; (2) The emphatic position 
of zaprupnoas points to the more defi- 
nite meaning; (3) The expression is 
the same as that in which Hegesip- 
pus describes the final testimony, the 
martyrdom, of James (Euseb. 1. £. 
li. 23 kal oUT@s €paptvpnoer) and 
of Symeon (Euseb. 7. £. ili. 32 kat 
oUtT@ paptupet); (4) Dionysius of 
Corinth couples the two Apostles to- 
gether, as they are coupled here, say- 
ing €uaptvpnoay Kata TOY avTOY KaLpov 
(Euseb. H. £&. ii. 25), where martyr- 
dom is plainly meant and where pro- 
bably he was writing with Clement’s 
language in his mind. The early 
patristic allusions to the martyrdoms 
of the two Apostles have been already 
quoted in the last note. It should 
be added that S. Peter’s martyrdom 
is clearly implied in John xxi. 18, 
and that S. Paul’s is the almost in- 
evitable consequence of his position 
as described by himself in 2 Tim. iv. 
6 sq. 

3. Tov ddetdopevoy torov| The ex- 
pression is copied by Polycarp (PAz?. 
9), where speaking of S. Paul and 
the other Apostles he says, eis rov 


28 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [v 


Kal Ep [lavXos Urropovns BpaBetov umederEev, EMTAKIS 


1 kal épw] CS; def. A. Here again the calculation of the space has proved 
fallacious. Editors, before the discovery of CS, filled in the lacuna of A with xal 
6 or kal simply. BpaBetov] BpaBroy A. vmédeter] edecEev C; tulit (por- 
tavit) 1'D S. As regards the reading of A, there is some doubt. Young printed 
améoxev, but Mill formerly and Jacobson recently read the MS y....€N. Ac- 
cordingly Wotton and most later editors have written taécxev. With respect to the 
Y my own observation entirely agrees with Tischendorf’s, who says ‘ post BpaBcov 
membrana abscissa est neque litterae quae sequebatur vestigium superest’. Indeed 
(if I am right) there can hardly have been any such trace since the MS was bound, 


opedopevoy avtois Tomov cict mapa TO 
Kupia. So Acts i. 25 rov romov tov 
idvov (comp. Ign. Magn. 5), Barnab. 
IQ Tov wpicpevoy Tomov, and below 
§ 44 rov idpuvpevov avrois rorov. An 
elder in Irenzeus (probably Papias) 
discourses at length on the different 
abodes prepared for the faithful ac- 
cording to their deserving, Haer. v. 
3G, Ivsq. 

I. BpaBetov] S. Paul’s own word, 
7 Corsi 24, Phil. i.:14...See also 
Mart. Polyc. 17 BpaBetov avavtippy- 
Tov amevnveypevov, Tatian ad Graec. 
33 axpacias BpaBeiov amnvéyxaro: and 
comp. Orac. Szd. il. 45, 149. The 
word is adopted in a Latin dress, 
bravium or brabtum, and occurs 
in Tertullian, in the translation of 
Irenzeus, and in the Latin versions 
of the Scriptures. 

vréderEev] ‘Pointed out the way Zo, 
taught by his example’; comp. § 6 
Umoderypa KaAdLOTOY eyévovTO ev nuiv. 
The idea of vmédevéev is carried out 
by vmoypappos below; for the two 
words occur naturally together, as in 
Lucian Rhet. Praec. 9 vmodeckvis ta 
AnpooGevous ixvn...mwapadeiypata trapa- 
rideis Tav Aoyov ov padia pupetoOa... 
kal TOY Xpovoyv Taumodvy vroypaet THs 
OOouropias: SO vrrodeckvieww edmidas 
and vmoypapew eAmidas are converti- 
ble phrases, Polyb. ii. 70. 7, v. 36. I. 

This conjecture vmedeEev, which I 
offered in place of the vmécyey of 
previous editors, occurred indepen- 
dently to Laurent, who had not seen 


my edition, and it was accepted by | 
Gebhardt (ed. 1); though in his later 
edition Gebhardt has adopted the 
simpleverb édefevfromC. If Milland 
Jacobson are right, this cannot have 
been the reading of A, as the initial 
Y was once visible. My reasons for 
doubting whether this was possible, at 
least in the later condition of the MS, 
are given in the upper note. On the 
other hand vmédecEev is supported by 
a passage in the recently discovered 
work of Macarius Magnes Afocr. iv. 
14 (p. 181, Blondel), where speaking 
of .S. Peter and:.S. ‘Paul he says; 
éyvocav vrodetEa Tovras [1.e. Tots 
mioTevovoty |, moiows ayo@ow oO THs Tic- 
Tews ouyKkexpotnra otedavos. In the 
context, which describes the labours 
and martyrdoms of these same two 
Apostles, the language of Macarius 
appears to give many echoes of this 
passage in Clement; vméyewar evoe- 
Bos Siddoxovres, Tov adtkoupEevev Ureép- 
paxot, ToAAG...TO KOT pNvUcarTes, 
tov Biov To TéAos amyvTnoEr, péxpt 
Gavarov...mpoxuwdvvevoat, THs evKAElas 
Tov €mawvov, of yevvadat, ava THY oiKov- 
pevnv, BpaBetov...nr@pevot, TUmoL av- 
Spelas...yevopevot, moda Tay Kadov 
adyovucparay, tis didaxis Kai Tov Knpvy- 
patos, paptupiov So€ay, mixpais...Baca- 
vous, UTOLOVA TOAAN, yevvaiws pepe. It 
seems highly probable therefore that 
the use of vmodecxvuvae in this some- 
what strange connexion was derived 
by him from the same source. Comp. 
also Ep. Gall, § 23 in Euseb. A. £, 


v] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 29 


deo pa operas, gpuyadeveis, AGac Geis, KnpvE ryevo- 


so that Jacobson was certainly mistaken and Mill perhaps so; but I have so far 
regarded this statement, as to offer a conjecture which respects the y. On the 
other hand the 2 at the beginning of the next line is clearly legible even in the 


photograph, though it has not been discerned by previous editors. 


Tisch. says ‘ 2 


quum paullo minus appareat, possit erasum credi’. The letter is certainly faint, 
but though I have inspected the Ms more than once, I can see no traces of erasure. 
For other reasons which have led me to prefer trédecéev to @erkev see the lower 


note. 


v. I eis thy Tov omev vroTUT@ OLY 
vmobeckyuay ote pndev poBepov srov 
matpos ayann, unde adyewdv dtrov Xpic- 
tov doéa. S. Paul himself says (Acts 
XX. 35) vmédevEa vpiv ore x.t.A. C is 
found in other cases to substitute the 
simple verb, where A has the com- 
pound (see I. p. 127), and would 
naturally do so here, where the 
meaning of the compound was not 
obvious. The rendering of S, which 
also translates BpaBetov by certamen, 
corresponds fairly with tméoyer sug- 
gested by some editors ; but this was 
certainly not the reading of A. 

émraxis| In 2 Cor. xi. 23 S. Paul 
speaks of himself as év duAakais me- 
ptocotépws ; but the imprisonment at 
Philippi is the only one recorded in 
the Acts before the date of the Se- 
cond Epistle to the Corinthians. 
Clement therefore must have derived 
his more precise information from 
some other source. Zeller (Theol. 
Fahrb. 1848, p. 530) suggests that the 
writer of this letter added the captivi- 
ties at Czesarea and at Rome to the 
five punishments which S. Paul men- 
tions in 2 Cor. xi. 24. But the wevra- 
kis there has no reference to impri- 
sonments, which are mentioned se- 
parately in the words already quoted. 
I should not have thought it neces- 
sary to call attention to this very 
obvious inadvertence, if the statement 
had not been copied with approval 
or without disapproval by several 
other writers. 

2. puvyadevbeis |] We read of S, Paul’s 


flight from Damascus (Acts ix. 25, 
2 Cor. xi. 33), from Jerusalem (Acts 
ix. 30), from Antioch of Pisidia (xiii. 
50), from Iconium (xiv. 6), from Thes- 
salonica (xvil. 10), from Bercea (xvii. 
14), and perhaps from Corinth (xx. 3). 
Some of these incidents would be 
described by gvyadevOeis, but it is 
perhaps too strong a word_to apply 
to all. On gvyadevew, which though 
found even in Attic writers was re- 
garded by purists as questionable, 
see Lobeck Phryn. p. 385. The read- 
ing paBdevdeis (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 25) 
which was proposed to fill the lacuna 
in A is objectionable, because the 
form pafdi¢ew alone is used in the 
Lxx and O. T. (and perhaps else- 
where, in this sense). 

AGacbeis| At Lystra (Acts xiv. 19). 
An attempt was made also to stone 
him at Iconium, but he escaped in 
time (xiv. 5). Hence he says (2 Cor. 
xl. 25) adma€& éedOacOnv. See Paley 
Hor, Paul. iv. § 9. 

kjpvé| S. Paul so styles himself 
2 Tim. i. 11. Epictetus too calls his 
ideal philosopher kjpvé ray Bear, Diss. 
iii, 29. 13}i:-22. 69. “The Stotes} ke 
the Christians, were essentially kypu- 
kes in their mode of action. The 
picture of Diogenes at Corinth, given 
in Dion Chrysost. Ovaz. viii, ix, might 
stand mutatis mutandis for S. Paul. 
The word is accentuated kypv& (not 
knpvé) in C in accordance with the 
rule of the grammarians; see Chand- 
ler’s Greek Accentuation p. 181, no. 
669. 


30 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [v 


af ~ Coal \ a y A ~ 
Mevos Ev TE TH avaTOAnH Kal év TH OVTEL, TO YyEVVatov 
rf t t 


~ / ~ 7 / 7 / 
THS TloTEWS avTOU KEos Ea BEV, SiKatoovvny Sia~as 


v4 \ y, NAS \ \ / - y b) / 
OAOV TOV KOTMOY Kat ETL TO TEpua THs SUTEws EAOwY" 


r re] AC;-om. S. 


2 tlorews| micrawwo A. 
atvns CS, connected by punctuation in both these authorities with @\aBe. 


dixacoovvnv|] A; dikao- 
Bryen- 


nios had overlooked the reading of C in his edition, but corrects the omission 


I. To yevvaiov x.t.d.| ‘ the noble re- 
nown which he had won by his faith’ ; 
i.e. his faith in his divine mission to 
preach to the Gentiles: see Credner’s 
Gesch. des N. T. Kanon (1860) p. 52. 

3. oAov Tov Koopor k.t.A.] In the spu- 
rious letter of Clement to James pre- 
fixed to the Homzlzes it is said of S. 
Peter 6 rns bUcews TO OKOTELVOTE- 
pov Tov KOapov pépos ws TavTaY 
ikavarepos cbatioa Kedevobeis ... Tov 
€oopevoy ayaboy Oho TO KOT L@ pNv- 
cas Baowdéa, péxpis evtava THs “Peuns 
yevomevos...auTos Tov viv Biov Biaiws 
To (hv petndAa€gev (§ I, p. 6 Lagarde). 
This passage is, I think, plainly 
founded on thetrue Clement’s account 
of S. Paul here; and thus it accords 
with the whole plan of this Judaic 
writer in ¢ransferring the achieve- 
ments of S. Paul to S. Peter whom 
he makes the Apostle of the Gentiles : 
see Galatians p. 315. 

To tTéppa tis dvcews| ‘the extreme 
west. Inthe Epistle to the Romans 
(xv. 24) S. Paul had stated his in- 
tention of visiting Spain. From the 
language of Clement here it ap- 
pears that this intention was fulfilled. 
Two generations later (c. A.D. 180) an 
anonymous writer mentions his hav- 
ing gone thither; ‘Sed et profec- 
tionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam 
proficiscentis, Fragm. Murat. (pp. 
19, 40, ed. Tregelles, Oxon. 1867; or 
Westcott Hzst. of Canon p. 517, ed. 
4). For the expression 70 répya tis 
dvcews pointing to the western ex- 
tremity of Spain, the pillars of Her- 
cules, comp. Strab. il. I (p. 67) wépara 


dé avris (rhs oikovpéevns) TiOnot mpos 
dvoer ey Tas “HpakAelous otndas, i. 4 
(p. 106) péype Tov akpoy ths “IBnpias 
dmep Svopiketepa eats, iii. I (p. 137) 
TOUTO (TO lepov akpernpLov) éote TO SuTE- 
K@TaTOV ov THs Evpw@mns povoy adda Kat 
THS oikovpevns amaons onpetov’ mepa- 
ToUTal yap umd Taev dvely Hreipav 7 
cikoupéevn mpos Svat, Tois Te THS Evpo- 
ms akpots kai Tois mpeTos THs AiBuUns, 
ili. 5 (p. 169) éesd)) Kata Tov mopOjov 
eyévovTo Tov Kata THY KaAmny, vopicar- 
Tas TEppovas elvat THS oikoUpEMNs...Ta 
axpa, 2b. (p. 170) ¢nreiv emi rev Kuplos 
Aeyopevav oTnd@v Tovs THs oikovperns 
opous (these references are corrected 
from Credner’s Kanon p. 53), and 
see Strabo’s whole account of the 
western boundaries of the world and 
of this coast of Spain. Similarly 
Vell. Paterc. i. 2 ‘In ultimo Hispa- 
niae tractu, in extremo nostri orbis 
termino.’ It is not improbable also 
that this western journey of S. Paul 
included a visit to Gaul (2 Tim. iv. 
10; see Galatians p. 31). But for the 
patriotic belief of some English wri- 
ters (see Ussher \A7zt. Lech Angie 
I, Stillingfleet Ovzg. Brit. c. 1), who 
have included Britain in the Apo- 
stle’s travels, there is neither evidence 
nor probability ; comp. Haddan and 
Stubbs Counc. and Eccles. Doc. 1. 
p. 22 sq. This journey westward 
supposes that S. Paul was liberated 
after the Roman captivity related 
in the Acts, as indeed (independ- 
ently of the phenomena in the Pas- 
toral Epistles) his own expectations 
expressed elsewhere (Phil. ii. 24, 


v] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 31 


/ \ = / e/ , 
Kal papTupnoas ETL TWY NYOUMEVWY, OVTWS amndAaYN 
o / \ > \ J y / “A 
TOU KOM MOU Kal Els TOV ayLov TOTOV ETropEeVON, UTrOMOVIS 
/ / / 
YEVOMEVOS MEYLOTOS UTTOYPaUMOS. 


Didache p. py’ - 
mundo S (see the note on ii. § 19). 


Philem. 22) would suggest. Those 
who maintain that this first Roman 
captivity ended in his martyrdom 
are obliged to explain ro réppa ris 
dvcews Of Rome itself. But it is in- 
credible that a writer living in the 
metropolis and centre of power and 
civilization could speak of it as ‘the 
extreme west,’ and this at a time 
when many eminent Latin authors 
and statesmen were or had been 
natives of Spain, and when the com- 
mercial and passenger traffic with 
Gades was intimate and constant. 
(For this last point see Friedlander 
Sittengesch. Roms U. p. 43, with his 
references.) On the other hand Phi- 
lostratus says that, when Nero ban- 
ished philosophers from Rome, Apol- 
lonius of Tyana tpémera emi ra éore- 
pia THs yns (iv. 47), and the region 
which he visited is described imme- 
diately afterwards (v. 4) ra Tadepa 
Keirat KaTa TO THs Evp@mns Téppa 
(quoted by Pearson JMznor Theol. 
Works 1. p. 362). This is the natural 
mode of speaking. It is instructive 
to note down various interpretations 
of emt ro Téppa ths SUaews Which have 
been proposed : (1) ‘to his extreme 
limit towards the west’ (Baur, Schen- 
kel); (2) ‘to the sunset of his labours’ 
(Reuss); (3) ‘to the boundary be- 
tween the east and west’ (Schrader, 
Hilgenfeld) ; (4) ‘to the goal or centre 
of the west’ (Matthies) ; (5) ‘before 
(vr for emi) the supreme power of 
the west’ (Wieseler, Schaff). Such 
attempts are a strong testimony to 
the plain inference which follows from 


3 éml] The word is distinctly legible in AC, and therefore 
the conjecture 7d (see below) is inadmissible. 


5 Tov kdouov] AC; ab hoc 


érropetOn| AC; susceptus est (érnp0n?) S. 


the passage simply interpreted. 

4. emi trav nyoupevar] ‘before rulers’ ; 
comp. § 37 Tots nyoupevors nuav...ToU 
Baoihéws Kat Tov nyoupevor, § 51 of 
nyovpevoe Aiyirrov, § 55 mwoAXot Bacr- 
eis kal nyovpevot, § OI Tots Te apxovow 
Kal nyoupevois nua@v emt ths yns. The 
names of Nero and Helius (Dion 
Cass. lxiii. 12), of Tigellinus and Sa- 
binus (the przetorian prefects A.D. 
67), etc., have been suggested. In the 
absence of information it is waste of 
time to speculate. Clement’s lan- 
guage does not imply that the Apo- 
stle’s paptupia emi Tay nyoupévay took 
place in the extreme west (as Hil- 
genfeld argues), for there is nothing 
to show that én ro réppya x.r.A. and 
paptupynoas emt Tay nyoupévey are in- 
tended to be synchronous. Indeed 
the clause kal émi ro réppa Ths ducews 
edOadv seems to be explanatory of the 
preceding S:xcavootyny didaéas GAov TOY 
koopov, and the passage should be 
punctuated accordingly. 

6. vroypappos |‘ a copy, an example, 
as for instance a pencil drawing to be 
traced over in ink or an outline to be 
filled in and coloured. The word oc- 
curs again S§ 16, 33; comp. 2 Macc. 
ii. 28, 20,1 Petoit 23, Polyes Fed8, 
Clem. Hom. iv. 16. The classical 
word is umoypadn. For an explana- 
tion of the metaphor see Aristot. Gen. 
An. il. 6 (I. p. 743) kal yap ot ypadeis 
Umoypawavres Tails ypappais ovTws €va- 
heipovart Tois xp@pact TO Caov. The 
sister art of sculpture supplies a simi- 
lar metaphor in vrorv’meors, the first 
rough model, 1 Tim. i. 16, 2 Tim. 1. 13. 


32 
VA, 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[v1 


/ ~ / i 
Tovtots Tois avopacw doiws moTEVoOapeEvols 


/ \ Va a J ~ 
cuvnOpoia On modu mAnOos éxkNEeKTwV, OlTIWES TOAXQisS 


Day \ / \ ~ 7 7 
aikiais Kat Bacavoi, dia CiXos maQovtes, UTOOELY La 


3 <Hros] A; gHAov C, and so again in the next line. 
5 Aavaides cai Aipxat] A ; davatées cai delp kai C ; danaides et 
I am not prepared to say now that the word is written AaHatAec as I 


xXOica A. 

dircae S. 

VI. ‘ But besides these signal in- 
stances, many less distinguished 


saints have fallen victims to jea- 
lousy and set us a like example of 
forbearance. Even feeble women 
have borne extreme tortures without 
flinching. Jealousy has separated 
husbands and wives: it has over- 
thrown cities, and uprooted nations.’ 

2. modv mdAnbos| The reference 
must be chiefly, though not solely, 
to the sufferers in the Neronian per- 
secution, since they are represented 
as contemporaries of the two Apo- 
stles. Thus ev nyiv will mean ‘among 
us Roman Christians,’ and the aikia 
kat Bacavo. are the tortures described 
by Tacitus Anz. xv. 44. The Ro- 
man historian’s expression ‘ multi- 
tudo ingens’ is the exact counterpart 
to Clement’s odd mA7 Gos. 

modAais aikias x.t.A.| ‘by or amid 
many sufferings.” Previous editors 
have substituted the accusative, zrod- 
Aas aixias; but, as the dative is fre- 
quently used to denote the means, 
and even the accessories, the circum- 
stances (see Madvig Gr. Syzt. § 39 
sq), I have not felt justified in alter- 
ing the reading. In this case dca 
(ndos mabortes will be used absolute- 
ly, and moAXais aixias «.7.A. will ex- 
plain vddevypa éyévorto. 

5. Aavaides kai Aipxac] This read- 
ing is supported by all our authori- 
ties, with minor corruptions, and I 
have therefore replaced it in the text, 
though not without misgiving. If it 
be not correct, the error must have 
existed in the archetypal Ms from 


4 dtwxPetoa] diw- 


which our three extant authorities 
were derived. But such testimony, 
though very strong, is not decisive, 
since we find this common ancestor 
at fault in other places; see above, 
I. p. 145. If correct, it must refer to 
those refinements of cruelty, patron- 
ized by Nero and Domitian but not 
confined to them, which combined 
theatrical representations with judi- 
cial punishments, so that the offender 
suffered in the character of some hero 
of ancient legend or history. For the 
insane passion of Nero, more espe- 
cially, for these and similar scenic 
exhibitions, see Sueton. /Vero I1, 12; 
and for illustrations comp. Fried- 
lander Szttengeschichte Roms M1. p. 
234 sq. Thus one offender would 
represent Hercules burntin the flames 
on (Eta (Tertull. Afo/. 15 ‘qui vivus 
ardebat Herculem induerat’); ano- 
ther, Ixion tortured on the wheel (de 
Pudic, 22 ‘puta in axe jam incendio 
adstructo’). We read also of crimi- 
nals who, having been exhibited in 
the character of Orpheus (Martial. 
Spect. 21) or of Dzedalus (2d. 8) or of 
Atys (Tertull. Afo/. 15), were finally 
torn to pieces by wild beasts. The 
story of Dirce, tied by the hair and 
dragged along by the bull, would be 
very appropriate for this treatment; 
but all attempts to make anything of 
the legend of the Danaids entirely 
fail. Arnold (Veronische Christenver- 
Jolgung p. 38, 1888) cuts the knot by 
suggesting that additions were made 
to the original legend of the Danaids 
for the purposes of the amphitheatre ; 


vi] 


/ ? / 5) Cela 
KaANLOTOV EYEVOVTO EV HUILV. 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 33 


dua Gyros Siwy beioa 


5 yuvatkes, tAavaides kat Aipxart, aixiopata sewa Kai 


formerly read it (H and n being frequently indistinguishable where the Ms is creased 
and blurred), and I was certainly in error as regards the division of the lines in my 


first edition. 


just as in these scenic exhibitions 
Orpheus was torn to pieces by a bear 
(Martial Sfec¢t. 21). But after all 
the difficulty still remains, that the 
mode of expression in Clement is 
altogether awkward and unnatural 
on this hypothesis. Harnack, who 
however expresses himself doubtfully 
on the reading, quotes Heb. x. 32 
ToAAnY GOAnow vrepeivare TaOnparor, 
TOUTO wey OVELOLO POLS TE Kal OdiWveow 
GeatpiCopevor, but here Gearpifo- 
pevot is best explained by 1 Cor. iv. 
Q O€arpoy eyernOnuev TO KOT W@ KT, 
where no literal scenic representation 
is intended. Laurent explains the 
words by saying that the punishment 
of the Danaids and of Dirce ‘in pro- 
verbium abliisse videtur.’ But he can 
only quote for the former és rov ray 
Aavaidey ridov ddpomopety Lucian 77m. 
18, which is hardly to the point, as it 
merely denotes labour spent in vain. 
Clement of Alexandria indeed (.Szvomz. 
iv. 19, p. 618) mentions the daughters 
_ of Danaus with several other exam- 
ples of womanly bravery among the 
heathens, and in the earlier part of 
the same chapter he has quoted the 
passage of his Roman namesake 
($ 55) relating to Esther and Judith; 
but this does not meet the difficulty. 
It has been suggested again, that 
these may have been actual names 
of Christian women martyred at 
Rome: but the names are perhaps 
improbable in themselves, and the 
plurals cannot well be explained. 
Having regard to the difficulties 
of this expression I am disposed 
still to favour the acute emendation 
of Wordsworth (on Theocritus xxvi. 


CLEM. II. 


1) which I placed in the text in my 
first edition, yuvaikes, veavides, madi- 
oxat, as highly probable and giving 
an excellent sense; ‘ Women, tender 
maidens, even slave-girls’: comp. 
August. Serm. cxlili (Vv. p. 692 sq) 
‘Non solum vir sed etiam mzdieres 
et pueri et Awe//ae martyres vicerunt,’ 
Leo Sevm. \xxiv (I. p. 294) ‘ Non so- 
lum viri sed etiam /oemznae nec tan- 
tum impubes pueri sed etiam ¢enerae 
virgines usque ad effusionem sui 
sanguinis decertarunt’; quoted by 
Wordsworth (l.c.). To these illustra- 
tions add Minuc. Fel. 37 ‘viros cum 
Mucio vel cum Aquilio aut Regulo 
comparo? pueri et mulierculae nos- 
trae cruces et tormenta, feras et 
omnes suppliciorum terriculas, in- 
spirata patientia doloris inludunt.’ 
For the meaning of radiocnyn in Hel- 
lenistic Greek see the notes Galatians 
iv. 22. 

Tischendorf calls it ‘liberrima con- 
jectura.’ So it is, but there is a free- 
dom which justifies itself; and the 
corruption is just such as might have 
occurred at an early date, when the 
epistle was written on papyrus. I have 
been informed by Mr Basil H. Cooper, 
through a common friend, that he 
proposed this very same emendation 
in the Monthly Christian Spectator, 
January, 1853, p. 16. He assured 
me that it had occurred to him inde- 
pendently; and that, till quite re- 
cently, he believed the credit which 
had been assigned to another to be 
due to himself, and wrote to this 
effect to the Western Times as lately 
as 1871, not knowing that Words- 
worth’s emendation was published 


3 


34 


THE EPISTLE OF S, CLEMENT [vi 


> / lol 3 \ \ ~ / y ' 
dvooia mabovaa, ert Tov THs TinTews BEBatov Spopov 


/ Avs! / i ~ ~ 
kaTyvTnoav, Kal ENaBov yepas yevvaiov at dobeveis TO 


TWMATL. 

jANOLwoEV 
NYN OCTOYN 
(ros Kat 
peyara €FepiCwoev. 


5 doréwy] ocrawy A; dara&v C. 
karéoxawe C. 


in 1844. The fact of its having 
occurred independently to two minds 
is a strong testimony in its favour. 
Bunsen (Hippolytus 1. p. xvili, ed. 
2, 1854) enthusiastically welcomes 
this emendation as relieving him 
‘from two monsters which disfigured 
a beautiful passage in the epistle of 
the Roman Clement.’ Lipsius also 
in a review of my edition (Academy, 
July 9, 1870) speaks favourably of it; 
and Donaldson (Afostolical Fathers 
p. 122, ed. 2)’ calls it ‘admirable, 
though elsewhere ( 7heo/. Rev. Janu- 
ary 1877, p. 45) he himself offers 
another conjecture, yevvaiai re kai dov- 


Aa. Lagarde (Armen. Stud. p. 73) 
conjectures dvadkides Kat Koptkai ; 
Haupt (Hermes Ul. p. 146, 1869) 


suggests dyvides Sikaca, Comparing 
Clem. Alex. Protr. 12 (p. 92) ai rov 
Ocov Ovyarépes, ai apvades ai Kadai. 

2. Katnvrnoay x.t.A.]| The verb 
karavray signifies to arrive at a destz- 
mation, and the corresponding sub- 
stantive xardayrnya is ‘a destination, a 
goal,’ Ps. xix.6: comp. Schol.on Arist. 
Ran. 1026 (993) €Aaiar ortyndov torar- 
Tal, ovgat kaTavTnpa Tov Spopov. 
Thus 6 BéBaos Spopos ‘the sure course,’ 
ie. the point in the stadium where 
the victory is secured, is almost equi- 
valent to ‘the goal.’ For xaravrap éri 
comp. 2 Sam. ili. 29, Polyb. x. 37. 3, 
xv, T.'9; 


7 ékepifwoe] A; efepplfwoe C. 


> / \ b) lon N 

(ros amnddoTplwcEey yaueTas avopwv Kal 
\ ¢ \ € \ -~ \ € val 3 ¥ a 

To pnlev vio Tov TaTpos nuwy “Adap, TofTo 

EK T@N OCTEWN MOY KAdl CApZ EK TAC CAPKOC MOY. 


a} / / lA AS 
Epis moe peyadas kateoTpeWev Kat eOvn 


6 épis] epeo A. xatéotpevev] AS; 


Q vrouvncKovtes| A; 


4. tovto viv x.7.A.| From the LXxX 
of Gen. ii. 23, which corresponds with 
the Hebrew. 

6. Hros kai gpis| The two words 
occur together, Rom. xiii. 13, 2 Cor. 
xll. 20, Gal. v. 20: see above, § 3. 

modes peyddas x«.t.A.| See Ecclus. 
XXVlil. I4 modews oxyupas Kabeie Kal 
oikias peytotavev Karéotpe We. Jacob- 
son refers to Jortin, who supposes 
that Clement had in his mind Horace 
Carm. i. 16. 17 sq, ‘ Irae Thyesten 
exitio gravi stravere, et altis urbibus 
ultimae stetere causae cur perirent 
funditus.’ 

7. e&epiCwoev| For the form see Tis- 
chendorf /Vov. Test. 1. p. lvi (ed. 7), 
A. Buttmann Gramm. p.28 sq. Most 
editors needlessly alter the read- 
ing to eEeppi{woev. Compare peyado- 
pnpova § 15, huvddopoet § 23 and ii. 
§ 31. For C see above, I. p. 127. 

VII. ‘While instructing you, we 
would remind ourselves also. We 
are all entered in the same lists; we 
must all run on the straight path; 
obeying the will of God and respect- 
ing the blood of Christ. Examples 
of penitence in all ages are before 
our eyes. Noah preached repentance 
to his generation: Jonah to the men 
of Nineveh. All whosoever listened 
to them were saved.’ 

9. vmouvnocxovres| Comp. O7ph. 
Hymn. \xxvii. 6 (p. 345, Herm.) @ird- 


vit | 


VII. 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


a, 


ol / / ~ ca 
TavtTa, dyarnrtol, ov povoy vuads vovbeTour- 


/ \ \ \ ¢ / 
Tes Elo TENNOMEV, AANA Kal EavTOUS FUTOMYnoKOYTES Tt: 


\ lon > ra ee \ \ 
év yap TW avTW EOMEVY OKaMMaTL, Kal 


> \ / 
AYWY ETLKELTAL. 


e > x CA 
6} AUTOS 1) [ALY 


x J \ \ \ 
Ato a7roXeitwmevy Tas KEvas Kal pa- 


/ / Ash ? \ \ ? ~ \ \ 
Talas dpovtioas, kal ENOwpev él Tov evKNEH Kal OEMVOY 


a / e lan LA 
as TapacowEws nUWV KaVOVa. 


e ta 
vroutuvnoKkovTes C. 


juiv C; dub. S. 


ypumvos vrouynoKoved re mravra (a refer- 
ence given by Hefele). So also pry- 
oxoua in Anacr. ap. Athen. xi. p. 
463 A prnoketa evppoovyns (which 
editors perhaps unnecessarily alter 
intO pyoera OY pynoera). But as the 
scribe of A blunders elsewhere in add- 
ing and omitting letters under similar 
circumstances (see above, I. p. 120), 
we cannot feel sure about the read- 
ing. The word occurs again § 62, 
where C reads tropipynokovtes, as it 
does here (see I. p. 126 sq). There is 
the same divergence of form in the 
MSS of the spurious Ignatius, Zazs. 9. 

10. oKkappare] ‘lists’ The oxdypa 
is the ground marked out by digging 
a trench or (as Krause supposes) by 
lowering the level for the arena of a 
contest: see Boeckh Cor. /uscr. no 
2758, with the references in Krause 
Flellen. 1. p. 105 sq, and for its meta- 
phorical use Polyb. xl. 5. 5 ovd€ eri 
TOU okappatos oY TO dy AeEyopevor, 
Epict. Dzss. 
okdupa mpoekadeiro mavra ovtivaody. 
A large number of examples of this 
metaphor in Christian writers is given 
by Suicer s.v. This word and many 
others referring to the games, as 
agonotheta, epistates, brabium, etc., 
are adopted by the Latins (see esp. 
the long metaphor in Tertull. ad 
Mart. § 3), just as conversely military 
terms are naturalised from Latin into 
Greek; see Ign. Polyc. 6 with the 


iv. 8. 26 eis rocovro 


to €v yap] AS; Kal yap év C. 
II amoNdelrwuev| A; droNrwpev C. 


\ »/ Is \ \ 
kat iOwpev TL KaXNoV Kal 


nui ayov] A; ayo 
T2 eUKNen] evkAatn A. 


notes. In the phrase tzép ra éoxap- 
péva mOav, adreoOa (e.g. Plat. Crat. 
p- 413 A, Lucian Gal/. 6, Clem. Alex. 
Strom. v. 13, p. 696; see below on 
kavov), ‘to do more than is required 
orexpected,’ ra €ckappéva is thetrench 
cut at the end of the leap beyond the 
point which it is supposed the great- 
est athlete will reach (Pind. Mem. v. 
36 paxpa 81) avrodev Gdpa@ vrookdr- 
ToL Tis’ Exw yovatwy ehadpoy oppar). 
Krause indeed (He//en. 1. p. 393) 
interprets ta éoxaypéeva of the line 
marking the leap of the preceding 
combatant, but this explanation does 
not account for the peter use. 

0 autos piv dyoy] See Phil. - 30 
Tov aUTOV ayava ExXOVTES OLoY a ev 


€pol. 
II. émixerrat] ‘awaits’; as Ign. 
Rom. 6 6 tokeros pou emixerrac: Comp. 


Heb. xii. I Tov mpokeipevoy nyuiv a- 
yava, Clem. Rom. ii. § 7 &v xepow o 
ayov. 

kevas kat pataas] ‘empty and fu- 
tile,” the former epithet pointing to 
the quality, the latter to the aim or ef- 
fect of the action. The combination is 
not uncommon; e.g. LXX Is. xxx. 7, 
Hos. xii. 1, Job xx. 18; comp. The- 
oph. ad Aut. iii. 3, Plut. Vzt. Artax. 
15, Mor. p. 1117 A. 

13. THs mapaddaews | The lacuna was 
variously filled so long as A was our 
only authority, the best suggestions 
being reXeedoews and dbAjnoews. The 


SS ere 


36 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[vit 


\ / ~~ 7 
vi Tepmvov Kal Ti mpoodeKTOV EvwTLOY TOU TOITaYTOS 


pas. 


5) > \ fe la an \ ~~ 
adTevicwpev eis TO aia Tou XpioToU Kat yvwuEV 


y) ~ \ oe / \ A e / 
ws COTW TimLOV TH TaTpL avTOU, OTL dia THY NuETEPaY 


> \ \ - / , / 
TwTnplav éxyulev TAVTL TW KOO UW MEeTavOlas Xap 


To tTaTpt avTod] S; 
3 TS p 


Te warp ab’tod TG Oe@~ C3; TwHew[Kkarrarp}iavrov A, 


presumably. An upright stroke (probably 1) and a portion of a preceding letter 


(which might be p) are visible. 
if 8 re 2d quod. 


See the lower note. 
4 petravoias xdpw] AC ; peravolay S. 


drt] S translates as 
Bensly points out that 


the omission in S may be easily explained by the homceoteleuton in the Syriac, 


Smvan7, XN. 


true reading could hardly have been 
anticipated ; but it adds to the close- 
ness of the parallel in Polycarp PAz7. 
7 Sw aroXurovTes THY paTaLoTnTa TOV 
ToAAav kal Tas WevdodiacKadias ert 
rov €& apxns np mapadobévra oyov 
emioTpeyopev, a passage already 
quoted by the editors. By roy rijs 
mapaddcews nuay kavova Clement ap- 
parently means ‘the rule (i.e. measure 
of the leap or race) which we have 
received by tradition’, referring to 
the examples of former athletes quo- 
ted in the context; comp. § 19 émt rov 
e€ dpxns mapadedopevoy nuiv ths eipy- 
vns okorov (to which passage again 
Polycarp is indebted), § 51 tas mapa- 
SeSopévns nuiv Karas kal Sikalws opo- 
devias. Clement’s phrase is borrow- 
ed by his younger namesake, S¢vom. 
i. I (p. 324) mpoBnoerar nyiy Kata Tov 
evk\en Kal Geuvoy Ths mapadocews Ka- 
vova. 

kavova| This is probably a con- 
tinuation of the metaphor in okdaupa: 
comp. Pollux ili, 151 ro 6€ pérpov 
Tov mOnuatos Kavev, 6 dé pos Ta 
éoxappéva’ obey emi tev Tov Spov Vrep- 
TNOOVT WY of TapotuaCopevot Aéyouet TN- 
Sav Umep ta eoxappéeva. See § 41 (with 
the note). Thus kavov will be the 
measure of the leap or the race as- 
signed to the athlete. 

Ti kadov k.t.A.] From Ps. cxxxii. I 
idod d1 Ti kadov f) Ti Tepmvdy K.T.A, 


5 Umnveyxey] A; 


sustulit VAD S3 érjveyxe C. dvéA- 

I. mpoadexrov evariov] So azmddek- 
Tov évemtov, I Tim. li. 3 roro Kadov Kal 
GrodeKTov €vemloy TOU TaTHpPos nav 
@cod, of which Clement’s language 
here seems to be a reminiscence: 
comp. I Tim. v. 4, where xador kat is 
interpolated in the common texts 
from the earlier passage. The simple 
mpoodextos appears in the LXX, Prov. 
xi, 20, xvi. 15, Wisd. ix. 12 (comp. 
Mart. Polyc. 14), but the compound 
evmpoadexros iS commoner in the 
N. T., and occurs three times in Cle- 
ment ($$ 35, 40 twice). 

3 Tiptoy TO marpi] Compare 1 Pet 
i. 19 Tyul@ aipare os Guvod auedpov Kal 
aomidov Xpiorov. 

matpi| The lacuna after ro Oco 
in A must, I think, be supplied by 
kat matpi rather than zarpi alone for 
two reasons; (1) If warpi were con- 
tracted trpi, aS is most usual in the 
MS, the letters would not be sufficient 
to fill the space; (2) We find o Geds 
kat matnp frequently in the Apostolic 
writings followed by rov Kupiov, etc. 
(e.g., Rom. xv. 6,, 2 Cor. a1. 3) ety 
1 Pet. i. 3, Rev. i. 6), whereas 6 Geds 
matnp is never so found. In fact with 
any genitive following, the alternative 
seems to be 6 Geds kal matnp or Geds 
marnp. On the other hand 6 ©eos 
matnp occurs once only in the N. T. 
(Col. iii. 17, with a v.1), and there it 
is used absolutely. On the whole 


vit] 


/ 
UTNVEYKEV. 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 37 


/ > A / \ 
dreANOwpev Els Tas Evens TacTas Kal KaTa- 


/ e/ > a \ on i , s/ 
padOwpuev OTL év yEeved Kal yeved peTavolas TOTOV EdwKEY 


¢ / ~ / > ~ he, > / 
oO O€OTOTNS TOLS BovNopevors emia Tpapnvat €7 QuTOP. 


cad 5 / c / ? / 
Nwe éxnpvEev peravoiav, Kal ol vmakovoaytes éowOy- 


Owpev eis]..... wuevers A 3 déXMwpev (om. els) C ; transeamus super S (which probably 


represents dcéAOwuev eis). 


In Rom. vy. 12 els mavras dvOpwrous 6 Oavaros dindOev 


both Pesh. and Harcl. have 2 2 not by 73 as S has here. In § 4 duedOetv 


els is rendered by " ay. The verb dueNGew is frequent in the LxXx, 
7 0 deorétns|] AC; om. S. 


AC ; om. S. 


however the correct reading is pro- 
bably preserved in the Syriac, the 
different positions of r@ Oe@ in the 
two Greek MSS showing that it wasa 
later addition. 

5. umnveyker] ‘offered. So it is gene- 
rally taken, but this sense is unsup- 
ported; for Xen. He//. iv. 7. 2, Soph. 
El. 834, are not parallels. Perhaps 
‘won (rescued) for the whole world’ 

dteAOwpev «.7.A.] This passage is 
copied in Afgost. Const. ii. 55 0 yap 
Ocds, Geos @v Edéous, aw apyis ExdoTny 
yeveay emi peravoray kadet dua Tov Ou- 
kaiay...rovs dé &v TH Katakdvop@ dua 
Tov Nae, Tovs ev Soddpuois Ova Tov 
pirokévov Awr (see below § 11) k.r.A. 

6. -yeved xal yevea] ‘each successive 
generation. A Hebraism preserved 
ma the LXX;-Esth: ix: 27, Ps. xviii. 11, 
Peete 5 C2) 1; “etc? ‘comp. Luke: 1. 
50 yeveas kal yeveas (vv. ll.). 

torov| The same expression é.d6var 
Tomov petavoias occurs also in Wisd. 
xll. 10; comp. Heb. xii. 17 peravoias 
Tomov ovx evpev, Tatian. ad Graec. 15 
ovk €xeu petavolas tomov, Afost. Const. 
ii. 38 romov petavoias w@picev, V. 19 
AaBeiv avtov tomov peravoias. The 
corresponding Latin ‘foenttentiae 
locus’ occurs in the celebrated letter 
of Pliny to Trajan Plin. et Traz. 
Epist. 96. The emendation rvzoy 
is not needed. 

7. Seomorns] Very rarely applied 
to the Father in the New Testament 


kal] 


(Luke ii. 29, Acts iv. 24, Rev. vi. Io, 
and one or two doubtful passages), 
but occurring in this one epistle some 
twenty times or more. The idea of 
subjection to God is thus very pro- 
minent in Clement, while the idea of 
sonshif, on which the Apostolic 
writers dwell so emphatically, is kept 
in the background; see Lipsius p. 
69. This fact is perhaps due in part 
to the subject of the epistle, which 
required Clement to emphasize the 
duty of szdmission; but it must be 
ascribed in some degree to the spirit 
of the writer himself. 

8. Noe exnpvéev «.t..] The Mo- 
saic narrative says nothing about 
Noah as a preacher of repentance. 
The nearest approach to this concep- 
tion in the Canonical Scriptures is 
2 Pet. ii. 5, where he is called d:xaco- 
avyns knpvé. The preaching of Noah 
however is one of the more promi- 
nent ideas in the Sibylline Oracles ; 
see especially i. 128 sq. Nde d€uas Oap- 
guvov €ov Aavici te mace Knpuéov 
peravotay k.t.A. This passage,though 
forming part of a comparatively late 
poem, was doubtless founded on the 
earliest (pre-Christian) Sibylline (111. 
97—828 of the existing collection) 
which is mutilated at the beginning 
and takes up the narrative of the 
world’s history at a later point than 
the deluge. Indeed this earliest Sibyl 
(if the closing passage of the book 


38 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [ VII 


> ~ A \ > / € \ 
gav. ‘lwvas Nwevitas Kxataotpodny éxnpvEev, oi oe 
/ > ,] ~ ¢€ VA > 7 5) / 
METAVONTAaYTES ETL TOIs GuapTHUacW a’TwV E~\AaATAVYTO 
\ \ ¢ / \ / / / 
Tov Oeov ikerevoavTes Kal éEXaBov cwTnpiav, KaiTreEp 


7: a ~ xf 
aANOTpPLOL TOU Oceov ovTes. 


WILL. 


e \ la / a la \ 
Oi AETovpyot THs yapitos Tov Oeov dia 


/ web yd \ / ? / \ ? \ 
TVEUMATOS aylouv TeEpl MEeTavolas EXaAnNTAaV, Kal AUTOS 


I of 6é]C; ode A; olde S. 
S. 5 Aecroupyol] Aucroupyor A. 


still belongs to the same poem) con- 
nects herself with the deluge by 
claiming to be a daughter-in-law of 
Noah (iii. 826). From these Ora- 
cles it seems not improbable that 
Clement, perhaps unconsciously, de- 
rived this conception of Noah. To 
this same source may probably be 
traced the curious identification in 
Theophilus ad Autol. ill. 19 Noe xa- 
TayyéhAwy Tois Tore avOpworors pehew 
KaTakAvopov ecco bat mpoedryrevoev av- 
Trois Néyov" Acdre Kade vas 6 Oceos 
eis petavoray’ 610 oikeiws Aevkadiov e- 
kAn6n ; for Theophilus has elsewhere 
preserved a long fragment from the 
lost opening of the earliest Sibylline 
(ad Autol. ii. 36), and this very 
passage incorporates several frag- 
ments of hexameters, e.g. Aetre kale 
...Qeos els petavorav. As Josephus also 
quotes the Sibyllines, he too in his 
account of Noah (Azz. 1. 3. I émewev 
€ml TO KpeiTToy avTovs THY Sudvovay Kal 
Tas mpageis perapéepey, quoted by Hil- 
genfeld here) may have been influ- 
enced by them. See on this subject 
I. p. 178 sq. For the Mohamme- 
dan legends of Noah, as a preacher of 
repentance, see Fabricius Cod. Pseud. 
Vet. Test. 1. p. 262. To the passages 
there collected from apocryphal and 
other sources respecting Noah’s 
preaching add this from the Afo- 
calypse of Paul § 50 (quoted also by 
Hilgenfeld) eyo «ivi Noe...cal ovk 
emavodyny tois avOpemos knpiocew* 


3 ixerevoavres] A; ixerevovres C, and so apparently 
8 wera Spxov] AC; Bryennios reads med’ Spkouv 


Meravoeire, iSov yap kataxhvopos épxe- 
ta (p. 68, ed. Tisch.). A passage 
cited by Georg. Syncell. (Chrox. p. 
47 ed. Dind.) from Enoch, but not 
found in the extant book, seems to 
have formed part of Noah’s preach- 
ing of repentance; see Dillmann’s 
Henoch pp.xxxviii,lxi. See also below 
§ 9, with the note on madtyyevecia. 

I. xaraotpodpny| ‘overthrow, ruin’ ; 
comp. Jonah iii. 4 xat Nuvev?) xara- 
orpadpnoera.. 

4. dAdorpioe x.t-rA.] ‘aliens from 
God, i.e. ‘Gentiles’: comp. Ephes. 
li. 12 dmnAXoTpl@péevoe THs TodiTet- 
as Tov Iopayh...kai dO eot Ev TO KOTHO. 
Both addorpioe and addcdvAo are 
thus used, as opposed to the cove- 
nant-people. 

VIII. ‘God’s ministers through 
the Spirit preached repentance. The 
Almighty Himself invites all men to 
repent. Again and again in the 
Scriptures He bids us wash away 
our sins and be clean; He proclaims 
repentance and promises forgiveness.’ 

5. Ot Aecroupyot| i.e. the prophets ; 
though they are not so called in the 
LXX or New Testament. 

8. Zé yap e¢y@ x.t.A.] Loosely quoted 
from Ezek. xxxill. I1 (6 eyo, rade 
héyer Kuptos, ov BovAopat Tov Oavarov 
Tov doeBovs ws amootpéa Tov aceBA 
amo Tis odov avTov kal (Hv avrov. 
amrootpopyn amoorpéware do THs odo 
vpav* kal iva Ti amoOvnckere, oikos “Io- 


panr; K.T.A. 


Io 


vu] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


39 


de 6 deamroTns Twv dTavTwY TEL pEeTavoias éENaAnoEV 
META dpkov" Za rap érw, A€ret Kypioc, oy BoyAOmal TON 
BANATON TOY AMAPT@AOY, WC THN METANOIAN’ TpooT els 
Kal yvounv ayabnv: Metanotcate, oikoc “IcpadaA, amd TAC 


ANOMIAC YMON* EITION TOIC Ylolc TOY AaoY Moy: “EAN CIN 


which has no manuscript authority. 


mpooTndec A. 
(etrayv) S. 


Io. Meravonoare x.t.A.] It is usual 
to treat these words as a loose quo- 
tation from Ezek. xviii. 30 sq otkos 
"Iopann, Aéyer Kupios, emiotpapnre kai 
GmootpéeWate €k Tacav Tay aceBeLov 
Upav...cai iva Ti damoOvioKete, otkos 
‘Iopand ; dSuote ov Oedw Tov Gavaroy Tov 
amoOvnoxovros. If taken from the 
canonical Book of Ezekiel, the words 
are probably a confusion of this pas- 
sage with the context of the other 
(Ezek. xxxiii. II), as given in the 
preceding note. See however what 
follows. 

II. “Eav oow k.t.d.| This passage is 
generally considered to be made up 
of Ps. clii. 10, II ov kata Tas apaprias 
Hav emoinaey nuiv ovde KaTa Tas avo- 
plas nuav avraméd@xeyv nuiv’ ote Kata 
TO UYpos TOU OUpavoU amo THs yns €kpa- 
Taiwoe Kiptos TO €Xeos avTov emt Tovs 
hoBovpévous avtov, and Jer. ill. 19, 22 
kat eima, Ilarépa xadéoeré pe kal an 
e“ou ovK amootpadpnocobe ... émurtpa- 
nre vio émurtpeportes Kal idgouar Ta 
cuvtpimpata vpev, together with Is. 1. 
18 kat €av wow ai adpaptia «.T.X. 
Such fusions are not uncommon in 
early Christian writers and occur 
many times in Clement himself. But 
several objections lie against this 
solution here; (1) No satisfactory 
account is thus rendered of the words 
€ayv GoW TUppOTEpal KOKKOU Kal peAave- 
Tepat odkkov k.T.A.: for the passage of 
Isaiah, from which they are supposed 
to be loosely quoted, is given as an 
zndependent quotation immediately 


11 tuwv|] AS ; Tod Aaod pov C. 
"Eav] AC; xay [?] or kai éav S. 


yap] AS; om. C. Q tpooriGels | 
elmov] AC; dum dicis tu 


afterwards. (2) The expression zpoo- 
Tels Kal yve@pnv ayabnv seems to im- 
ply that, even if not a continuation 
of the same passage, they were at all 
events taken from the same prophet 
as the words quoted just before. (3) 
This inference is borne out by the 
language used just below in intro- 
ducing the passage from Isaiah, kai ev 
érép@ Tom@, implying that the previous 
words might be regarded as a single 
quotation. (4) A great portion of 
the quotation is found in two differ- 
ent passages of Clement of Alexan- 
dria, and in one of these the words 
are attributed to Ezekiel: Quzs div. 
salv. 39 (p. 957) ov BovAopar Tov Oa- 
vaTov Tov auapt@Aov adda THY perd- 
voiay’ Kav @ow ai auapTtiac vuaoY as 
goukovyv eprov, ws xLova AevKava, Kav 
feayTepoy TOU GKOTOUS, WS epLov evKOY 
exvias tmouow, and Paedag. i. 10 
(p. 151) dnol yap dua “leCexind* *Eav 
emtotpapnre €& OAns THS KapOlas kal 
elmnte, Ilarep, akovoouat tyav ws aod 
ayiov. Thus it seems to follow either 
(1) That in the recension of the can- 
onical Ezekiel used by the two 
Clements the passage xxxiil. II was 
followed by a long interpolation con- 
taining substantially the words here 
quoted by Clement of Rome; or 
(2) That he is here citing some apo- 
cryphal writing ascribed to Ezekiel, 
which was a patchwork of passages 
borrowed from the canonical pro- 
phets. The latter supposition is fa- 
voured by the language of Josephus 


40 


c 


al 


THE EPISTLE OF S..CLEMENT [ VIII 


AMAPTIAL YM@N attd TAc fAC €wc TOY oYpaNnof, Kal EAN 
GCIN TYPPOTEPAl KOKKOY KAl MEAANWTEPAI CAKKOY, KAl ETTI- 
cTpadAte mpdc me €Z SAnc TAC KapAiac kal eiTHTe, TTAtep, 
eTAKOYCOMAl YM@N GC Aao¥ Arloy. Kae €v ETEDW TOTW 
NEveL outws* Aoycacée Kal KABAPOI FENECHE’ AEAECHE TAC 
TTONHPIAC ATO TON YYY@N YM@N ATIENANTI TON OPOAAMO@N 
MOY’ TIAYCACOE ATIO THN TIONHPI@N YM@N, MABETE KAAON 
TIOIEIN, EKZHTHCATE KPICIN, PYCACOE AAIKOYMENON, KPINATE 


6PhaN@ Kal AlKAIwWCATE YHPd, KAl AEYTE Kal AIEAEPYOWMEN, 


3 Kapdlas] A; wuxys CS. 
ovtws|] A; ovTws Aéyer CS. 
yéverbe] yeverOar A. 
mavoacbat A. 
(om. kai) S. 


(Ant. x. 5. 1), od povov ovros (lepepias) 
mpoeOeamice TavTa Tois dxAols GAG 
kat o mpodntns ‘leCekindos mpa@tos 
mept tovtav dvo BiBAria ypawas xaré- 
hurev. This statement however may 
be explained by a bipartite division 
of the canonical Ezekiel, such as 
some modern critics have made; and 
as Josephus in his account of the 
Canon (c. Apion. i. 8) and elsewhere 
appears not to recognise this second 
Ezekiel, this solution is perhaps more 
probable. Or again his text may be 
corrupt, 8’ (=8vo) having been merely 
a repetition of the first letter of Gu- 
Bria. See also the remarks of Ewald 
Gesch. des V. Isr. V. p. 19. Apocry- 
phal writings of Ezekiel are men- 
tioned in the Stichometry of Nice- 
phorus (see Westcott Canon p. 504), 
and from the connexion (Bapovx, 
"ABBakovp, “E¢exinA, kai Aad, Wevd- 
emtypadpa) it may be conjectured that 
they were interpolations of or addi- 
tions to the genuine Ezekiel, like the 
Greek portions of Daniel. This hy- 
pothesis will explain the form of the 
quotations here. At all events it 
appears that some apocryphal writ- 
ings attributed to Ezekiel existed, 


4 aod ayiov] C Clem 1523; Aawayww A. 
Novcacbe] Novoacba A. 
apédeobe] apereoOar A; adédere C, 
8 pioacde] pucacba A. 
xnpe] As xnpav C; dub. S. 


5 Névet 
kal] A; om. CS. 
7 twavoacbe] 
9 kal Sixawoare] AC; Ecxaudoare 
kal dueNeyxOamev] Kar. . eheX- 


’ for Tertullian (de Carn, Christ. 23; 


comp. Clem. Alex. Stvom. vii. 16, 
p- 890) and others quote as from Eze- 
kiel words not found in the Canonical 
book: see the passages collected in 
Fabric. Cod. Pseud. Vet. Test. p. 1117. 
Hilgenfeld points out that one of 
these, ‘In quacunque hora ingemue- 
rit peccator salvus erit’, is closely 
allied to Clement’s quotation here. 
This apocryphal or interpolated E- 
zekiel must have been known to Jus- 
tin Martyr also, for he quotes a 
sentence, éy ois Gy vuas KatahaBa, ev 
rouTos Kat kpweo (Dial. 47, p. 267), 
which we know from other sources 
to have belonged to this false Eze- 
kiel (see Fabric, l.c. p. 1118); though 
Justin himself from lapse of memory 
ascribes it to our Lord, perhaps con- 
fusing it in his mind with Joh. v. 
30. (On the other hand see West- 
cott Zztrod. to Gosp. p. 426.) So too 
apocryphal passages of other pro- 
phets, as Jeremiah (Justin. Dzad. 72, 
p. 298) and Zephaniah (Clem. Alex. 
Strom. Vv. 11, p. 692), are quoted by 
the early fathers. The passage of Je- 
remiah quoted by Justin must have 
been an interpolation, such as I sup- 


un 


Io 


1x] 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


4i 


Aérel’ KAI EAN @CIN Al AMAPTIAL YMON WC MOINIKOYN, OC 


YIGNA AEYKANG@* EAN AE WCIN WC KOKKINON, @C EPION Aey- 


KANO. 


Kal EAN OEAHTE Kal EICAKOYCHTE MOY, TA AfAOd TAC 


ric darecbe’ GAN AG MH OEAHTE MHAE EICAKOYCHTE MOY, 


MAYdIPA YMA&C KaTéAETAl’ TO fAp cTdMa Kypioy E€AdAHCEN 


TAYTA. 


/ a \ ? \ ? io / 
TAaVTAS OUV TOUS ayamnToUs avToU PBouAOMEVOS 


/ ~ > , la vo 
MeTavolas MEeTATYELV, ETTHPLEEY TH TAaYTOKPATOPLKH 


if 3 la 
BovAnmatt avTou. 


A t / ~ a a) 43 U 
IX. Ato vraxovowpev TH peryadorpeTet Kai EvOoEw 


Owuev As; Kal dvarexOauery C; loguamur cum alterutro (om. kai with Pesh) S: 


see above, I. p. 143. 
5.8% 13 payecbe] payecOa A. 
om. S with the Pesh. 


pose was the case with Clement’s 
citation from Ezekiel; for he writes 
avTn 1) Tepikomn 7 €k T@V Ady Tov 
"lepeuiov ere eotly eyyeypaypern ev 
Tiow avrvypadpos Tav ev ouvaywyais 
"Tovdaiwy, mpo yap oAiyou xpovov TavTa 
e&éxoway «.t.A. On the apocryphal 
quotations in Clement see below S$ 
13, 17, 23, 29, 46 (notes). 

2. peAdavorepa] The comparative 
peAavetepos occurs Strabo xvi. 4 § 12 
(p. 772), but I cannot verify Jacob- 
son’s further statement ‘hanc formam 
habes saepius in LXx.’ It is derived 
from the late form pedavos =péAas, 
on which see Lobeck Paral. p. 139. 
Another late form of the superlative 
iS peAawvoraros. 

gaxkov] Comp. Rev. vi. I2 kal o 
mAwos eyevero wédas OS OaKKOS TPpi- 
xevos, Is. 1. 3 evdtow Tov ovpayov oKo- 
Tos Kal as oakkoy Onow TO TepiBo- 
Aaov avtov. It was a black hair- 
cloth. Thus Hilgenfeld’s emenda- 
tion Adkxkov is superfluous, besides 
being out of place, for the comparison 
is between garment and garment. 
The okorovs of the existing text of 
Clem. Alex. may at once be rejected. 

4. ev érépm tom@| Is. i. 16—20. 
The quotation is almost word for 


10 Néyer] A; add. x’puos CS, with Hebrew and 


Gédnre] OeAXnra A. 14 yap] AC; 


word from the Lxx. See Hatch 
Essays in Biblical Greek p. 177, for 
the various readings in the MSS of 
the LXxX and in the quotation. It is 
twice quoted by Justin Martyr, AZol. 
i. 44 (p. 81), 1. 61 (p. 94), and the first 
verse again in a third passage, Dzad. 
18 (p. 235); but his quotations do 
not agree verbatzm one with another. 
Almost all the various readings of our 
authorities here, xaOapoi (kai xa8apot), 
apéheaOe (adedete), Kal Scxawoare 
(Suxaraoate), xnpa (xnpav), Sevre Kal 
(Sedre), SuekeyxOopev (dtarexOopev, 
etc.) are found in the MSS of the Lxx 
or in Justin or in both. 

9. Ouxarwoare xnpal ‘eve redress 
to the widow, preserving the same 
construction as in xpivate opdava@. 
The LXx however has the accusative 
xnpavy in the second clause though 
with a various reading xnpa. 

10. Aéyer] Sc. 0 Kvpios, which words 
occur in the LXxX of Isaiah in accord- 
ance with the Hebrew. 

16. mayroxpatopik@] Apparently the 
earliest instance of this word ; comp. 
S 60. 

IX. ‘Let us therefore obey His 
gracious summons. Let us contem- 
plate the bright examples of obedi- 


42 THE. EPISTLE OF S.;CLEMENT [1x 
S > ~ Ny 72 / / = 59 / \ ~ 
BovAncet avTOU, Kal LKETaL yevosevot Tov EAEOUS KaL THS 
iA Lon / > , 
XENTTOTNTOS AVTOU TPOTTETWMEV Kal ETLTT PEW WEY ETL 
\ > \ ~ 5) / \ 
TOUS OLKTIDMOUS aUTOU, aTOALTOYTES THY paTaLoTroVviaY 
, 4 \ \ > / sf land 5) / 
THV TE Epi Kat TO Els OavaTov ayov (ros. aTEvicwpeEV 
Eis TOUS TEAELWS NELTOVOYNOaYTAas TH MEevyaNoTpETTEL do&n 5 
py i Meyadorrp 


> ~ / / <\ € o © 
avTov. AaBwuer "Evwx, Os Ev Vrakon Oikatos evpeeEis 
é 


1 yevouevar] AC; but S seems to read yuwdpevo. 


3 oikTipmovs] ovxTerpyoug A. 
5 Tedelws] AC; reXelous S. 


ence in past ages: Enoch who was 
translated and saw not death; Noah 
through whom a remnant was saved 
in the ark.’ 

3. pataormoviay| The word occurs 
in Classical writers, e.g. Plut. Zor. 
119 E, Lucian Dial. Mort. x. 8 (I. p. 
369) ; comp. Theoph. ad Aufol. ii. 7, 
12, ili. 1. Polycarp, PAz/. 2, appa- 
rently remembering this passage has 
dmo\urovres THY KEVnY paTaLtodoyiay 
kal THY TOV TOAA@Y TAayny. But this 
does not justify a change of reading 
here ; for paraioroviay, which is the 
reading of all the authorities here, is 
more appropriate, and a transcriber’s 
error is more likely in the MSs of 
Polycarp (all derived from one very 
late source) than in all our copies of 
Clement: nor is it impossible that 
Polycarp’s memory deceived him. 
Maraodoyia occurs I Tim. i. 6. 

4. drevicwpev x.t.A.]| Clement of 
Alexandria Strom. iv. 16 (p. 610), after 
giving an earlier passage from this 
epistle (see § 1), adds cir’ éudavéore- 
pov ’Areviowpev x.t.A. down to ‘PaaB 
7 wopyn (§ 12), but contents himself 
with a brief abridgement, and does 
not quote in full, so that he gives but 
little aid in determining the text. 

5- TH meyadorperet O6&| The same 
expression occurs in 2 Pet. i. 17. 
The word peyadompenns is frequent 
in Clement, §§ 1, 19, 45, 58, 61, 64, 


éhéous] edXavovs A. 


amohurovtes] AC ; but S apparently azoNelovres. 
AecToupyjcavTas] AcToupynoavtac A. 


7 Gava- 


and just above (comp. peyadomperea 
S60). It is only found this once in 
the NT: 

6. *Evex| Clement is here copying 
Heb. xi. 5 "Ev@y petetéOn tod py idew 
Oavarov kat ovx nupiokero (comp. 
Gen. v. 24); though the words are 
displaced, as often happens when the 
memory is trusted. In the sequence 
of his first three instances also, 
Enoch, Noah, Abraham—he follows 
the writer of that epistle. See also 
the language in Ecclus. xliv. 16, 17, 
to which Clement’s expressions bear 
some resemblance. 

dikacos| The book of Enoch is 
quoted as ’Evey 6 Sixatos in Test. xit 
Patr. Levi 10, Juda 18, Dan. 5, Benj. 
g. Thus it seems to have been a re- 
cognised epithet of this patriarch, and 
perhaps formed part of the title of 
the apocryphal book bearing his 
name. It was probably the: epithet 
applied to him also in the opening 
of the extant book, i.2, in the original ; 
see also xii. 4, xiv. I, xv. I, and else- 
where. 

7. avrov | i.e. Enochhimself. Forthis 
reflexive use of avrod see A. Buttmann 
p. 98 sq. Comp. also §§ 12, 14, 30. 

8. madvyyeveciay] i.e. ‘a second birth, 
a renewal, of the world after the 
flood; as Ovac. Std. i. 195 (comp. 
vii. II) kai devrepos eooera aidy, 
words put into the mouth of Noah 


x] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


peTeTeOn, Kal ovyx evpeOn avTou BavaTos. 


43 


~ \ 
Nowe mioros 


€ \ \ ~ / > ~ / / 
evpeUels dua THs NELTOUPYLas aVTOU TadiyyEvEeriay KOO Mw 


5) / \ / > > a e / \ > 
exnpveey, Kal dlecwoev Ol avTOU O O€O7TOTNS Ta €loeA- 


/ ’ e 7 ~ > \ / 
10 JovTa év dpmovoia Coa ets THY KIBwTor. 


X. "ABpaau, 6 Piros mpoc~ayopevbeis, muxTOs ev- 


tos] A; 6 Oavaros C. 
Necroupyla C. 
dominus universi 655 N79). 


himself. See Philo Vzz, Moys. ii. 12 
(ii. p. 144) maduyyevecias éyévovto nye- 
poves kal Seurépas apynyerat Trep.odov, 
where also it is used of the world 
renovated after the flood. Somewhat 


similar is the use in Matt. xix. 28, 


where it describes the ‘new heaven 
and new earth.’ The Stoics also 
employed this term to designate the 
renewed universe after their great 
periodic conflagrations ; see Philo de 
Mund. incorr. 14 (Il. p. 501) of ras 
extup@oets Kal Tas madtyyeverias €io- 
nyovpevo. Tov Koopov, Marc. Anton. 
xl. I thy mepiodixny madvyyeveciay Tav 
dAwv (with Gataker’s note). For 
Christian uses see Suicers.v. Any 
direct reference to the baptismal 
water (Aourpov madryyevecias, Tit. iil. 
5), as typified by the flood (comp. 
I Pet. iii. 21), seems out of place here ; 
but madtyyeveoia appears to allude 
indirectly to the renewal of the Corin- 
thian Church by repentance. See 
the next note. 

10. €v ouovoia| An indirect reference 
to the feuds at Corinth. Even the 
dumb animals set an example of 
concord ; see below § 20 ra éAayiora 
tav (@wv tas auvedevoets avTay ev 
omovoia kal eipnvyn mowovvra. The word 
oudvora is of frequent occurrence in 
Clement. 

X. ‘Abraham by obedience left 
his home and kindred, that he might 
inherit the promises of God. Not 
once or twice only was a blessing 


8 dua THs NecToupylias] AS (but AuTovpyrao A); év TH 
Q 6 decrdrns] S translates the word here and in other passages 
Il mioros| muotio A. 


pronounced upon him for his faith. 
He was promised a race countless as 
the stars or the sand in multitude, 
and in his old age a son was granted 
to him.’ 

II. o didos] From Is. xli. 8 ‘Abra- 
ham my friend’ (LXX ov nyamnoa) : 
comp. 2 Chron. xx. 7, and see the 
passages of the LxXxX quoted by 
Roensch Zeztschr. f. Wass. Theol. 
XVI. p. 583 (1873). See also James 
lil. 23 kal Pidos Geod exAnGn, and below 
S$ 17 idos mpoonyopevOn Tov Cecod. 
In the short paraphrase of the Alex- 
andrian Clement this chapter relating 
to Abraham is abridged thus, ’ABpaap 
‘Os Oud riot kal pirogeviay piros Geod 
matnp O€ tov “Ioaax mpoonyopevOn ; 
and it has therefore been suggest- 
ed to read 6y giAoc for o @iAoc. 
But no alteration is needed. Abra- 
ham is here called ‘the friend’ abso- 
lutely, as among the Arabs at the 
present day he is often styled ‘El- 
Khalil’ simply: see d’Herbelot s.v. 
Abraham, and Stanley’s Fewish 
Church 1. p. 13. So too Clem. Hom. 
XVili. 13 ovT@s dSvvarat...ovdé "Evdy © 
evapeotnoas pn eldévar ovTe Noe 0 Ol- 
Katos pr) emiotacOa. ote “ABpaay 6 
itos pr ovveva, which has other 
resemblances with this passage of the 
genuine Clement; Clem. Recogn. 1. 
32 ‘Abraham pro amicitiis quibus 
erat ei familiaritas cum Deo.’ It is 
an indication how familiar this title 
of Abraham had become in the Apo- 


44 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [x 


/ > ~ > e lA , ~ cP ~ 
peOn ev TW avTov UmNKOOY yever Oat Tois pnuaciw TOU 
Oceov. 


ta / ~ \ 5) an af ~ \ 
€K THS TuyyEvelas av’TOU Kal €K TOU OlKOV TOU TAT POS 


c > ¢ ~ > a= > ~ lant 5) ~ \ 
ovTos Ov U7rakons e€nNOev ex THS yns avTOU Kal 


~ 4 ~ > \ li > > \ Ss 
QUTOV, OTWS YHV OALYyHY Kal Guyyevetay aobeEvy Kal oiKoV 


\ \ Uh a ? / es 
fukpov KaTaXirwy KANpovounon Tas emayyeNlas TOU 5 


5G / \ = ” > an a ‘ 
Oéeou. AEVEL yap aUTO* AmeAOe €K TAC fFAc coy Kal éK 
TAc CYrreNelac coy Kal €k TOY OiKOY TOY TATPOC Coy €ic THN 
TAN HN AN COl AEizZW, Kal TOIHCW ce Eeic EONOC MELA KAl eY- 
AOTHC® Ce KAI MEFAAYNG TO ONOMA COY, Kal ECH EYAOPHME- 
NOC’ Kal €YAOrHCW TOYC EYAOLFOYNTAC CE Kal KATAPACOMAI 
TOYC KATAPWMENOYC CE, KAI EYAOPHOHCONTA! EN CO! TACAI Al 

\ = es \ y > a ~ 5) \ 
@yAal TAc fAc. Kal wad eé€v TW draxwpirOnvat QUTOV 
9 \ A \ Lor ’ ~ e / > ’ x > 
aTrO WT ELTEV AUTW O Oéceos: ANaBAEWac TOIC OOAA- 
MOIC COY, iA€ ATO TOY TOTMOY, OY NYN CY €l, TPO BOppAN Kal AIBA 


KAI ANATOAAC Kal BdAACCAN’ OTI TACAN THN TAN, HN CY Opde, 


3 ovyyevelas] cuyyenac A. 
pacowa] A; Katapdoooua C. 
alwvos C. 
add. Tod ovpavod S. 


5 emayyeNlas] erayyeNecac A. 
15 a PAb ons: 
19 “Hényayev] A; é&nyaye dé CS. 

24 ynpa] yipec C; see the note on § 63. 
6e3] AS; om. C. For a similar omission see Ign. Rom. 4. 


IO KaTa- 
16 aiwvos] As rod 

21 Tovs agrépas] AC; 
25 TW 

mpos] A; eis C3 


super S (with the Hebr. and Pesh. of Gen. xxii. 2, where the Lxx has 颒 or ézi), 


stolic age, that Philo once inadver- 
tently quotes Gen. xvill. 17 ’ABpadp 
Tov didouv pov for tov maidos pov and 
argues from the expression, de Sodr. 
II (1. p. 401), though elsewhere he 
gives the same text correctly de Leg. 
All, iii. 8 (1. p. 93), Quaest. in Gen. iv. 
21 (p. 261 Aucher). Ata much earlier 
date one Molon (Joseph. ¢. AZ. ii. 14, 
33) who wrote against the Jews and 
is quoted by Alexander Polyhistor 
(Euseb. Praep. Ev. ix. 19, p. 420) in- 
terpretedthename Abraham as qarpos 
didov, apparently reading DOAN as 
if it were ON7AN. And in the Book of 
Jubilees c. 19 (Dillmann in Ewad/d’s 
Fahrb. Wl. p. 15) it is said of this 
patriarch that ‘he was written down 
on the heavenly tablets as a friend 


of the Lord.’ Later Rabbinical illus- 
trations of this title will be found in 
Wetstein on James il. 23, and espe- 
cially in Beer Leben Abraham’s, notes 
427, 431, 950. Comp. Tertull. adv. 
Fud. 2 ‘unde Abraham amicus Dei 
deputatus ?’ 

6. "AmeAGe x.7.A.] From LXX Gen. 
xl. I—3 with slight but unimportant 
variations. In omitting kai dedpo 
after tov marpds cov Clement agrees 
with A and the Hebrew against the 
common text which inserts the words. 
He also reads evAoynOnoovra with A 
against the common text évevAoynOn- 
govra, but evAoynwévos where A has 
evAoyntos. See Hatch &rblical Greek 
p. 154 for the various readings in this 
passage in the MSS of the LXx, in Acts 


“5 


30 


x1] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 45 
col AwWcwW AYTHN Kal TH crépmati coy €wc ai@noc: kal 
TOIHC@ TO CTépMA COY ®C THN AMMON TAC [LAc’ él AYNATAI 


Tic €ZApl@MACAl THN AMMON TAC LAC, KAl TO CTTEPpMdA Coy 
> ' \ , lf 2 ; c \ . 
éZaplOmHeHceTal Kal TraAw Neyer’ “EZHraren 6 Oedc TON 


"ABPAAM Kal EIEN AYT@' ANABAEYON EIC TON OYPANON Kal 


> ' 


API 


ic] Bl \ , > U A > \ a 
Seo. EC&TAL TO CTTEPMA COY° €ETTICTEYCEN AE ABpadam TW 


> 


OMHCON TOYC ACTéPac, Ei AYNHCH E€ZAPIOMACAl ayTOYC’ 


a es ' > a > ’ \ / \ 
Oed, KAI EAOPICOH AYT@ EIC AIKAIOCYNHN. Ata wiotw Kat 
/ / ol Ce \ > / \ rf 
piro€eviav €d00n avTw vULOS EV YNpa, Kat Ov U7TaKons 
/ \ / ~ ~ \ ray la / 
TmooonveyKev avtov Ouciav Tw Oew Tpos Ev TwY OpEwY 
*. af > ~ 
wy edeEey avTo. 
\ / \ 3 / \ , 

XI. Ata Pirogeviay cat eioeBevav Awt éowbn éx 

/ vont , 7 / \ \ \ 
Codopuwr, THS TEDL Vy WPOU TAGHS kpieions ola TUPOS Kal 

, / / e / e/ \ 2 / 

Geiou: 7™poondov Tomnaoas 0 O€EOTOTNS, OTL TOUS éXriCov- 

hee | 5) \ ? > / 4 \ e a 
Tas ém@ avTov ovK éyKaTaNelTel, ToUs d€ ETEPOKALVETS 
Tischendorf, with whom 
Wright agrees, reads it xpi@ynono and appeals to the photograph. The photo- 
graph seems to me more like xpifevono, and another inspection of the Ms itself 
confirms me. I can see no traces of the left-hand stroke of an H. 


Ocov A. mojoas| AC; S translates as if éwoincev. 
and so too apparently S; eis avrév C. 


dpéwy] oparwy A. 28 xpieions] A, as I read it. 


29 Oelov] 
30 é@ avrov] A, 


vii. 3, and in Philo Mgr. Abrah. I (1. 
p- 436). Clement agrees with Philo in 
quoting azed6e for ¢&ed Oe. 

12. ev To SvaxwpicOjva] The ex- 
pression is taken from Gen. xili. 14 
peta TO StayopicOjva tov Adt am 
avTov. 

13. "AvaSdéWas x.7.A.] From LXx 
Gen. xiii. 14—16, almost word for 
word. 


25. mpos év x.7.A.] Gen. xxii. 2 ep” 
év TOV OpéwV OV Ay OL ElTTO. 

XI. ‘Lot’s faith and good deeds 
saved him from the destruction of 
Sodom and Gomorrah; while his own 
wife perished and remains a monu- 
ment to all ages of the punishment 
with which God visits the disobedient 
and wavering.’ 

28. xpiOeions da mupds| Comp. Is. 


19. "Eényayev] From LXX Gen. xv. 
5, 6, with unimportant variations. 

24. pidro€geviar] i.e. his entertaining 
the angels; comp. Heb. xiii. 2. Simi- 
larly of Lot just below, § 11, and of 
Rahab, $12. The stress laid on this 
virtue seems to point to a failing in 
the Corinthian Church. See also the 
note on aduro€eviay below, § 35. 


Ixvi. 16 €v t® muplt Kupiou kpiOnoera 
maca 7 yn. The emendation xcavéeions 
for kpiOeions is unnecessary as well 
as weak. 

29. momoas| A nominative abso- 
lute; see Winer § xxviii. p. 194, 
A. Buttmann p. 251 sq. 

30. érepoxdweis] ‘swerving astde, 
especially in a bad sense; Epictet, 


46 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[x1 


e / > / \ > A / 
UTapyovTas els KONaoLW Kal aikiopoy TiOnowW’ ouvecen- 


/ \ 5) ~ -~ / e / g / 
dovens yap avTw aS. rYUVQLKOS, ETENOYVWMOVOS u7TapXOU- 


\ ’ ’ € / > ~ a 9 / e/ 
ONS Kat OUK EV OMOVOLA, Els TOVTO ONHMELOV éeTEOn wore 


ie ’ \ V4 € A TA ~ ¢€ / / > 
yever Oar auTyv oTHAnY aXoOs EWS THS NMEOaAS TaUTHS, ELS 


\ \ ‘s aA e/ e 4 \ e / 
TO yvworoy eivat TaoW OTL ol Oirvuyor Kal oi SirtaCor- 


1 kd\acw] AC; but S translates as if xptow. 
read erepoyvwuoo by Tischendorf and Jacobson, erepoyywuou by Vansittart. 


2 €repoyvwpovos] C; A is 
The 


last letter appears to me like c with possibly y superposed. Wright is probably 
correct in his explanation that the y is seen through from eype@H on the oppo- 


site side of the page. 
lom;, C. 6 Kpliua] xptua C. 


Diss. iii. 12. 7 érepoxkwads exw mpos 
noovnv. See below, $47 rovs érepoxXu- 
veis Umrepxovtas ad’ nuav. So €érepo- 
kAwia Clem. Hom. Ep. ad Jac. 15, said 
of the ship of the Church heeling 
over, when not properly trimmed. 

2. ێrepoyvepovos| The word has 
two senses, either (1) ‘dissentient, 
otherwise-minded,’ Cyril. Alex. zz Es. 
xlviii (II. p. 642), lii (II. p. 736) oAorpo- 
Tws ETEpoyvepovas Tap’ éekeivous ; OF (2) 
‘wavering, double-minded’, Cyril. 
Alex. Cord. Cat.in Ps. 1. p.225 dubixou 
Te kal €Tepoyvepovos. As it seems to 
be defined here by ovk ev opovoia, the 
first meaning must be adopted; 
though Lot’s wife was alse érepoyve- 
pov in the other sense, and as such 
is classed among oi dipuyor cai duora- 
¢ovres below. In ev opevoia there is 
again an allusion to the feuds at 
Corinth ; see above § 9. 

3. is Touro x.7t.A.]| Here sore is 
dependent not on eis rovro, but on 
gonpeiov eréOn ; and eis tovro ‘to this 
end’ stands independently, being 
afterwards explained by eis ro yvo- 
OTOV Eval K.T.X. 

4. €ws THs nu. Tavtns | A pillar of salt 
identified with Lot’s wife is mention- 
ed as standing in Wisdom x. 7, am- 
orotons Wuxns pynpetov eornkvia oTnAn 
addos, and in Joseph. dvz. i. 11. 4 who 
says that he himself had seen it. So 


The reading therefore is erepoyrwpoc. 
onuelwow] onucwow A. 


3 Todro] AS; 
8 pidokeviar] 


too Irenzeus (Haer. iv. 31. 3) speaks 
of it as ‘statua salis semper manens, 
which he makes a type of the Church. 
Cyril of Jerusalem also, Cafech. xix. 
8 (p. 309), describes Lot’s wife as éorn- 
Aurevjéevn Sv aiadvos. The region a- 
bounds in such pillars of salt (see 
Robinson’s Azblical Researches, ete. 
II. p. 108 sq). Medizeval and even 
modern travellers have delighted to 
identify one or other of these with 
Lot’s wife. 

5. of diyvvxor] The word occurs only 
twice, James i. 8, iv. 8, in the New 
Testament. Both the word and the 
warning are very frequent in Cle- 
ment’s younger contemporary Her- 
mas, 2s. Wh °2, Wi: °2, 3, %°7; Ieee 
iv. I, 2, Szm. vill. 7, etc., but especi- 
ally Wand. ix, x. Comp. also Didache 
4 ov Supuxnoes morepov garat 7) ov, 
with the corresponding passage in 
Barnab. 19. See below § 23 with 
the note (comp. Clem. Rom. ii. § 11). 

XII. ‘Rahab also was saved by 
her faith and her hospitality. She 
believed in the might of the Lord 
God, and she rescued the spies; 
therefore she and her family were 
spared. She was gifted too with a 
prophetic spirit, for the scarlet thread 
typified the saving power of Christ’s 
blood.’ 

8. ‘Paa8| This account is taken 


~ 


4 


x11] 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


47 


\ ~ a va / 7 \ 
TES wept THS TOV Oeov duvauews Eis Kpiua Kal Els ON- 


/ / ~ ~ , 
MELWOLY TAGDALS TALS YEVEALS YlVOVTal. 


XII. 


Awa miotw Kat pirogeviay éowOn ‘PaacB 7 


/ 3 , \ € Ves a aA ~ \ 
mopyn* exreuplevtwy yap vio *Incov tov tov Navn 


> \ € / af \ ~ - 
1oKaTackoTwy es THY ‘lepiyw, Eyvw 0 Baoirevs THS yrs 


iL 
Ns 
aE 


/ J - \ / ~ , 
OTL NKaolY KaTaTKOTEVTaL THY Ywoayv av’TwY, Kat é€eE- 


A, but CS repeat the preposition, see dua gudogeviavy. For C see Bryennios Didache 


P: py’ 
TEeupoévTwy] exrepbevtwy A. 
10 THv|] A; om. C. 
Bryennios Didache p. py’. 


from the book of Joshua; but Cle- 
ment gives it in his own words, even 
when recording the conversational 
parts. The instance of Rahab was 
doubtless suggested by Heb. xi. 31, 
James ii. 25; for both these epistles 
were known to S. Clement and are 
quoted elsewhere. His expression 


— §480a riorw kai drogeviay connects the 


id 


‘two aspects, to which the two Apo- 
stolic writers severally direct atten- 
tion, the mioris of the one, the gpya 
of the other; comp. §§ 31, 33, 34, 49 
(notes). See also the note on the @udo- 
Eevia of Abraham § Io. 

7 wopyn| For the insertion 7 ém- 
Aeyopevn see above, I. pp. 125, 139. 
The object of this interpolation is to 
suggest a figurative sense of the 
word; comp. Orig. zz Jes. Nave 
om. ii. § 3 (il. p. 403) ‘Raab in- 
terpretatur latitudo. Quae est ergo 
latitudo nisi ecclesia haec Christi, 
quae ex peccatoribus velut ex mere- 
tricatione collecta est?...talis ergo et 
haec meretrix esse dicitur, quae ex- 
ploratores suscepit Iesu’; comp. 2d. 
vi. § 3 (p. 411). From a like motive 
the Targum interprets the word in 
Josh. ii. 1 by NMYPIND =aavdoxevtpia 
‘an innkeeper, and so Joseph. Azz. 
V. I. 2 Umoxwpovow els TL KaTAy@yLoV... 
dvTes EV TH THS “PaxyaBns KaTaywyia, 
etc, This explanation has been a- 


h wopyn| A; % émi\eyouevn répyn CS; see the lower note. 


Q €K- 


Tod Tov] A; Tod (omitting the second Tod) C. 
11 ééreuver] A; @reupev C; dub. S. For C see 


dopted by several Jewish and some 
Christian interpreters; see Gesenius 
Thes. S. Vv. MI, p. 422. Others again 
have interpreted the word as meaning 
‘Gentile’. The earliest Christian 
fathers took a truer view, when they 
regarded this incident as an antici- 
pation of the announcement in Matt. 
xm. 315 6c. Justin az, 111, isem. 
iv. 20. 12. 

In Heb. xi. 31 also 7 émAeyouévn 
mopyn is read for 7 mopvn by ®& (first 
hand) and likewise by the Harclean 
Syriac, this part being preserved 
only in the Cambridge MS (see above, 
I. p. 130 sq). Bensly also calls my 
attention to a passage in Ephraem 
Syrus Of. Graec. 1. p. 310 opoiws dé 
kal ‘PaaB n emdeyouern mopyn Sia Tis 
pitogevias ov cuvam@deTo Tois arret- 
O@ncaot, SeEauévn Tovs Katackdrovs év 
eionvyn. Immediately before, this 
father has mentioned Abraham and 
Lot as examples of persons rewarded 
for their duto€evia, so that he seems 
to have had the passage of S. Clement 
in view. 

g. tov tov Navy] In the Lxx Num. 
XXxll. 12, Deut. xxxil. 44, Josh. vi. 6, 
etc., he is called "Incods 6 rot Navn, 
and the same expression is adopted 
here, though in the genitive it sounds 
somewhat awkwardly. 

11. avtov] Not avrady, as most edi- 


48 THE EPISTLE OF SPCEEMENT [x1 


meuvvev avopas Tous auvAAnMomEevous avToUs, OTS 
c 6 \ 
n ovv dirog€evos ‘PaaB 
elodefapuevn avTouvs éxpuev els TO UrEepwov Vo THY 
pevn 0 UTEPWOV UTO TH 


ovdAnuplertes Cavatwhwow. 


/ > / A ~ an 
Awokadayunv. émistabevtwy 0€ TwWY Tapa Tov Bacr- 


iz \ / \ \ 2 A c , a 
Aews Kat AEevyovtwy: Iipoc cé ElCAABON O| KATACKOTIO! TAC 
rac HM@N* é€Zdrare ayToyc, O fap BaciAeyc OYT@C KEAEYE! 

\ / > = \ € ” a“ = 
1] O€ atrexp.0n: EicAA@ON MEN OI! OANAPEC, OYC ZHTEITE, 
TpOc Me, AAAA EYOEWC ATIAABON Kal TOPEYONTAI TH OAB’ 
e t > ~ > / \ > \ 
UmovenKVUoUca avTois é€vadAa£. Kai eirev mpos Tous 
I cud\Anupoudvous|] cuA\nYouevova A, though just below it has cudAnupbevres. 

For the omission of “~ compare exwep@Gevtew above. C has avAdnPouévous, ovd- 

Anpbévres. For the orthography see § 1 ampoowrodnuTTws. 5 dNeyovrwy] AC; 

add. wiz S. 8 dm7ndOov] A; é&dOov C. 

g évakdaé] CS. For A, Tischendorf prints ex... as though the 2nd letter were 

legible; but nothing more than e1 can be discerned, and the 1 might as well be 


6 ovTws]..Two A; ovTw C. 


the upright stroke of N as of k. 


tors print it; comp. § 9 and see the 
note on Phzlippians iii. 21. 

I. Tovs cvAAnpopevous| 1.€e. of cvA- 
Anporra. For this construction see 
Winer § xviii. p. 121, and the notes 
Galatians 1. 7. 

4. Awokardunyr] ‘flax-stalks’ laid on 
the flat roof of the house to dry; see 
Josh. ii. 6. So Joseph. (Azz. v. 1. 2) 
explains it, Aivou yap aykadidas emi Tov 
réyous éuxe. The word vmepaov does 
not occur in the original narrative, 
which describes the men’s lurking 
place as on the house-top (émi rov 
Saparos). But Clement would not 
necessarily be familiar with Eastern 
customs and might easily substitute 
a wrong expression. 

Q. vmodexviovca avtois| Clement 
must have made a slip of memory, 
as he has done already in vmepdor; 
for in the original narrative Rahab 
shows the opposite route not to the 
king’s messengers but to the spies. 

evadda€é]| ‘22 the reverse’ or ‘oppo- 
stte direction.’ The word évadda& has 
twomeanings ; (1) ‘alternately, which 


to éyw] AS; om. C. 


rt bua] A; 


is its more frequent sense; (2) ‘cross- 
wise, or ‘inversely’; e.g. Aristot. 
Anim. Hist. iii. 4 (p. 515, Bekker) 
etepar (Pr€Bes)...pepovew evaddAdk€, 7 
pev €k Tov apiotepav eis Ta Seiad, 7 Oe 
eis Ta apiorepa ek TOV SeEvav. So too 
the attitude of Jacob crossing his 
hands, when he blesses the sons of 
Joseph, is described in Barnab. 13 
(professing to quote the words of 
Genesis) kal éroinoev “laxaB evadda€ 
Tas xeipas x.r.A. Again in mathe- 
matical language speaking of propor- 
tion, evadda€ is Permutando, i.e. the 
inversion of the antecedents and 
consequents, as defined by Euclid v. 
def. 13 éevaddAak Aoyos eoti AnWis rod 
Nyoupéevou pos TO nyovpevoy kal Tov €mo- 
pévov mpos TO émopevoy: Comp. Aristot. 
Anal. Post. i. § (1. p. 74), il. 17 (p. 99), 
Eth. Nic. v. 6 (p. 1131), who is rather 
fond of the word. The attempts to 
supply the lacuna in A were signal 
failures before the discovery of the 
second MS. 

II. 06 @oBos x.r.X.] The expression 
does not occur in the LXxX here, but 


Io 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 49 


XII] 


s/f } , , > \ , c \ 

avooas* Tin@ckoyca fIN@CcKw® érw OT! Kypioc 6 Oec€dc 
YMO@N TTAPAAIAWCIN YMIN THN [AN TAYTHN, O TAP MdBOC Kal 
6 TPOMOC YMQ@N ETTETTECEN TOIC KATOIKOYCIN AYTHN. OC EAN 


OYN féNHTAl AABEIN AYTHN YMAC, AlACWCATE ME KAI TON 
OIKON TOY TraTpdc Moy. Kal €lTrav auTn’ "Ectal 0YTMC OC 
EAAAHCAC HMIN. @C EAN OYN FN@C TAPArINOMENOYC HMAC, 
CYNAZEIC TIANTAC TOYC COYc YTIO TO TEfOCc COY, Kal AlACwWOH- 
CONTAI’ OCOl FAP EAN EYPEODCIN EZ@ TAC OIKIAC, ATTOAOFNTAL 
Kal mpocelevto avty Sovvat onpetov, Orws Kpeuaon €K 


~ af Cis tes if / on e/ \ 
TOU OLKOU QUTHS KOKKLVOV, 7 poondov FJOLOUVYTES OTL Ola 


om= €S. 
posed in S. 
Anoas] A; AeAdAnKas C. 


Totoeyoocou A; Td oréyos (om. cov) C; 
reads gov, not ov as sometimes stated. 


(kai door) S. éav] A; av C. 
is common elsewhere; e.g. Gen. ix. 2, 
Deut. il. 25, xi. 25. These passages 
illustrate not only the combination 
of @oBos and rpopos, but the repeti- 
tion of the article before the latter. 
Cotelier observes that Clement seems 
to have had in his copy of the Lxx 
(Josh. i. 9) the words kai xarémrno- 
Gov TayTEs Of KaTOLKOUYTES THY yny ap 
tjpov, which are wanting in all the 
best MSS, though supplied in the 
Complutensian edition and repre- 
sented in the original Hebrew. The 
existing text of the LXxX has only em- 
ménrakey yap 0 PoBos vpay ep nas. 
16. reyos] The text of our au- 
thorities makes it difficult to decide 
whether we should read oréyos or 
teyos. The former occurs in the LXX 
only once, Epist. Jer. 8; the latter 
not at all in the Lxx, but in Aquila 
Num. xxv. 8 In these passages 
they are used for ‘lupanar’; and 
Teyos especially has frequently this 


bad sense elsewhere (e.g. Ovac. 
seal. iii 186; v.,, 387). But. the 
CLEM. II, 


poBos, Tpduos] C; PoBoo, ...moo A. 
12 avrynv] AC; rhv ynv S. 

ws] AC; not translated in S. 

mapaywouevous] AS (by the pointing); rapayevouévous C. 


The two words are trans- 
édv] A; av C. 15 €Ad- 

eav] A; av C. 
16 76 Téyos cou] 
tectum domus tuae S. See below. A 


17 boo yap] AC; et omnes cll qui 


18 kpeudon] A; éxxpeudon CS. 


word is perhaps not intended to bear 
the meaning here. 

18. mpooéGevro x.t.r.] ‘they went 
on to give her a sign’. The word is 
used in imitation of the LXx diction, 
where it very frequently renders 4D) 
and thus reproduces the Hebraism 
“to. add, to. do,” asve.c., Luke sirasar 
mpoobeioa eirev, Acts Xli. 3 mpooéOero 
ovAd\aBeiv kai éerpov, and so commonly 
in the LXx. In this sense both the 
active and middle are used. Har- 
nack strongly objects to the transla- 
tion ‘praeterea ei signum dederunt’ 
and renders ‘praeterea mandaverunt 
ei ut signum daret, apparently taking 
mpooriber Oa ‘to enjoin’ or ‘impose.’ 
This seems an impossible rendering, 
and moreover in the narrative (Josh. 
ii. 19) the spies are represented as 
giving the sign of the scarlet thread 
to Rahab in the first instance. 

19. mpodndov k.t.A.| So Justin Dead. 
III (p. 338) To cvpBodroyv Tov KoKkivov 
orapriov...1o otpBodov Tod atparos 
Tov Xpiorov edndov, OS’ od of wadat 


4 


50 


THE EPISTLE OF 8S. CLEMENT 


[ XII 


Lg J ~ / / sf ro os 
ToU aiuatos Tov Kupiov AvTpwois EoTar Tac Tots 


/ \ 5) / f) \ A , 
TWlOTEVOVGLY Kal éAmriCovely E€7l TOV Oeov. 


‘Opare, 


> / ? / / > \ / 2 a 
ayamnTol, ov povoy miaTis ada mpopyTela ev TH 


\ ? 
YYUVQLKL YEVOVEV. 


XIII. 


Tarewoppovncwpev ovv, adedpol, drrobeue- 


- ’ y \ / \ > / A 
vo. madcav ddaCoveiay Kat Tudos Kat appoovvny Kat 


1 Tod Kuplov] AC; Tod xpicrob S (see the passage of Justin in the lower note). 


2 Kal édmlifovcw] AC; om. S. 


Mopvot Kal AOtkot EK TravT@Y TaV eOVaY 
owtovra k.t.A., perhaps getting the 
idea from this passage. Irenzeus (iv. 
20. 12) copies Justin, ‘Raab for- 
nicaria conservata est cum universa 
domo sua, fide signi coccini etc.’ 
pee also ‘Origen /xz Fes. fiom. 
iii. § 5 (II. p. 405), vi § 4 (II. p. 411), 
In Matth. Comm. Ser. 125 (ill. p. 
919). From this time forward it 
becomes a common type with the 
fathers. Barnabas (§ 7) similarly ex- 
plains the scarlet wool of the scape- 
goat (see the note there). Compare 
also Heb. ix. 19, which may have 
suggested this application to Cle- 
ment. 

The word mpodnAos occurs twice be- 
sides in Clement § 11 mpodndov rroiunoas 
6 Seomérns ote (the same construction 
which we have in Heb. xii. 14 mpodn- 
Nov ott €& "Iovda k.t.A.), § 40 mpodnrwv 
ovv nui dvtav trovtov. It may be a 
question in many passages whether 
the preposition denotes priority in 
time or adistinctness. In Demosth. 
de Cor. 293 «i pev yap jv oou mpodnda 
Ta péAAovTa...TOT Eder mpohéeyery, ei Oé 
py mponoes K.T.A.. 20. 199 ef yap Hv 
dmaot mpodnka ta péddovta yevrnce- 
cOa. Kat mpondecay amavres Kai od 
mpovreyes. On the other hand mpdéy- 
Nos frequently signifies ‘plain,’ ‘mani- 
fest,’ ‘famous,’ ‘illustrious,’ and it is 
explained by mpodarjs in the Greek 
lexicographers. 


3 ov] A; dru od CS. 


dda] A; add. cal 


3. adda mpodnreia] So Origen zz 
Fes. Hom. iii. § 4 (iI. p. 403) ‘Sed et 
ista meretrix quae eos suscepit ex 
meretrice efficitur jam propheta etc.’ 

4. yéyovev| The perfect tense yéyo- 
vev, ‘7s found, must unquestionably be 
the right reading here; comp. 1 Tim. 
ii. 14 9 O€ yun eEararnbeioa ev mapa- 
Bdaoe yéyovey, where, as here, the 
tense denotes the permanence of the 
record and the example. See also 
Gal. ili. 18 r@ S€ “ABpadw Ov éemayye- 
hias Keyaplorar O Geds, iv. 23 0 ek THS 
maidioKns Kata odpka yeyevynrat, where 
the explanation of the perfect is the 
same. So too frequently in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, e.g. vii. 6 
dedexataxey, Xi. 28 mremoinkev. 

XIII. ‘Let us therefore be hum- 
ble, and lay aside anger and pride. 
The Holy Spirit condemns all self- 
exaltation. Let us call to mind the 
words in which the Lord Jesus com- 
mends a gentle and forgiving spirit. 
The promise of grace is held out to 
patient forbearance.’ 

5. dmobepevor «tA.] So § 57 
pdbere vmordccecOa amobeuevor rh 
avafova Kal vmrepnpavoy ths yAooons 
tpav avdadecav. Comp. Heb. xii. 1 
OyKov amroGéuevot travra, James 1. 21, I 
Pet miz'%. 

6. rudos] A neuter form like éXeos, 
¢ndos, mAovTOs, etc., for which see 
Winer § ix. p. 78 and Jacobson’s 
note on (jAos above § 4. For an ex- 


a1 


x1 | TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


51 
3 / \ 7 \ 7 ‘* iz \" A 
Opyas, Kal TolnowpuEev TO yeypaupEvov" Eyer yap TO 
TTVEU [La TO cry.ov" MH kayyace@ 0 comdc EN TH COdia ayTo¥, 


c 


\ > \ > aw. 2 yee > a \ c ’ > a 
MHAE O ICYYPOC EN TH ICyY! AYTOY MHAE O TIAOYCIOC EN Tw 


TAOYTW AYTOY, AAA HO Kayy@menoc EN Kypi@ Kayydcdw, TOF 


> a > \ " ! , / 
€KZHTEIN AYTON KAI TIOIEIN KPIMA KAl AIKAIOCYNHN’ MAALO TA 


/ io / ~ / ? = e\ ? / 
meuvnpevo, THY Nowy ToU Kupiou *Incov, ovs ENaAnoev 


Cs. 
p. 126. 


4 yéyovey] A; éyer76n C; dub. S. See the lower note and comp. I. 
6 ddagovelay] C3 adagovay A. 


tupos] A; t&dov C, 


10 GAN 4 6] A; add 6 C, and so perhaps S. 


ample of rudos Jacobson here quotes 
Conc. Ephes. Can. 8 (Routh Scrzpz. 
Eccl. Opusc. p. 395). As the v is long 
in the older writers but short in the 
more recent (e.g. Greg. Naz. II. pp. 
490 Vv. 44, 880 v. 45, ed. Caillau), I have 
accentuated it according to this later 
usage; see L. Dindorfin Szeph. Thes. 
s.v. and compare the analogy of orv- 
Xos, otvAos, Galatians il. 9. 

8. My xavydo6 x.t.’.] This pas- 
sage is taken from 1 Sam. ii. 10, or from 
Jer. ix. 23, 24, or from both combined. 
The editors have overlooked the first 
of these passages, quoting only the 
second, though in several points Cle- 
ment’s language more closely resem- 
bles the first. The latter part in 
I Sam. ii. Io runs GAN 7 &v TovT@ 
kavxyac0@ 6 Kavy@pevos cumeEl Kal 
yweokew tov Kipiov kat Trovety Kpipa 
kal Suxacoovyny év pec THs ys; while 
the corresponding passage in Jere- 
miah diverges still more from Cle- 
ment’s quotation. On the other hand 
S. Paul quotes twice (1 Cor. 1. 31 
kaos yéypamrra, 2 Cor. x. 17) 0 kavxo- 
pevos ev Kupia kavyacdo. The resem- 
blance of Clement’s language to S. 
Paul may be explained in two ways ; 
either (1) S. Paul does not quote lite- 
rally but gives the sense of one or 
other passage (1 Sam. ii. Io or Jer. 
ix. 23sq); and Clement, writing after- 
wards, unconsciously combines and 
confuses S. Paul’s quotation with the 


original text; or (2) A recension of 
the text of Jeremiah (or Samuel) was 
in circulation in the first century 
which contained the exact words o 
Kavx@pevos ev Kupi@ xavxyacOo. The 
former is the more probable hypo- 
thesis. Jren; iv. 57. 3, quotes jer ix, 
24 as it stands in our texts. In 
neither passage does the Hebrew 
aid in solving the difficulty. In 1 Sam. 
il. 10 it is much shorter than and quite 
different from the Lxx. Lucifer pro 
Athan. li. 2 (Hartel, p. 148) quotes 
it ‘non glorietur sapiens in sua sa- 
pientia nec glorietur dives in divitiis 
suis, sedin hoc glorietur qui gloriatur, 
inquirere me et scire in Dominum 
gloriari, quia ego sum Dominus qui 
facio misericordiam et judicium et 
justitiam super terram.’ As Cotelier 
remarks, he seems to have read éx¢y- 
tew with Clement, for he has ‘in- 
quirere’ three times in this context, 
but the coincidence may be acci- 
dental. On the other hand Antioch. 
Palest. Hom. xiii (Bzbl. Vet. Patr. 
p. 1097, Paris 1624) quotes directly 
from I Sam. il. Io, and betrays no 
connexion with Clement’s language. 

12. pepvnpévor x.t.A.] Comp. Acts 
XX. 35 pnpovevery TOV AOyeav Tov Kupiov 
"Inood, ore eimev k.t.A. See above § 2 
7 0vov AapBavortes x.7.A. (with the note), 
where Clement’s language reflects 
the context of this quotation. 


4—2 


52 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [x01 


OiaoKkwy érieikeav Kat pakpoOupiav: ovTws yap EimeV 
-EAedte INA EACHOATE, AdieTE INA AMEOH YMIN* GC TIOIEITE, 
OYTO TOIHOHCETA! YMIN* Wc AIAOTE, OYTWC AOBHCETAI YMIN* 
G@C KPINETE, OYTWC KPIOHCECHE’ GC YPHCTEYECHE, OYTWC YPH- 
CTEYOHCETAI YMIN' W METP@ METPEITE EN AYTG METPHOHCE- 
tar ymin. Tavry ty évToAy Kal Tos TapayyéAuacw 
TOUTOLS FTNPLEWpEV EavTOUS Els TO TopeverOaL UVrNKOOUS 
OvTas TOls adyLompETEeTt Novos avTou, TaTretvoppo- 


I émvelKevav] emverxiay A. ovTws] C;..Two A. 2 ’EneGte] A; 
éXectre C. agiere] A; dere C. 3 ovrws] C, and in all the other 
places in this sentence where it occurs; so too A, except in the first, where it has 
OUT. xpnoreverbe] xpnoreverOa A. 5 @ 
Méerpw...meTpnOnoerar duty] here, AS Clem; before ws xpivere x.7.d., C. év 
ait@] S; evautn A; ovTws C; om. Clem. 


4 Kplvete] kpwerar A. 


mopever Oar] mopeverbe C. 


2. ’Edeare x.t.A.] The same saying 
which is recorded in Matt. vii. I, 2, 
Luke vi. 36—38, to which should be 
added Matt. v. 7 paxapior of €Aenuoves 
6Tt avrot éAenOjoovrat, V1. 14 eav yap 
apyre trois avOpeémos x.t.r., Luke vi. 
31 Kaas Oédete va Tolmow «k.T.d. 
(comp. Mark xi. 25). As Clement’s 
quotations are often very loose, we 
need not go beyond the Canonical 
Gospels for the source of this pas- 
sage. The resemblance tothe original 
is much closer here, than it is for 
instance in his account of Rahab 
above, § 12. The hypothesis there- 
fore, that Clement derived the saying 
from oral tradition or from some 
lost Gospel, is not needed. Polycarp 
indeed (PAz/. 2) in much the same 
words quotes our Lord as saying 
adiere kal apeOnoerat vpiv, edeeire wa 
eAenOnre, but it can hardly be doubted 
from his manner of introducing the 
quotation (pynpovevovres av elev oO 
Kupuos didaoxwv), that he had this 
passage of Clement in his mind 
and does not quote independently. 
See also Clem. Alex. Stvom. ii. 18 
(p. 476) edeare, now o Kupuos k.t.A., 


10 mpaiv] A; mpaov C. 


7 ornpléwmev] A; ornplfwuev C. 
Ta Aéyia] A 


where it is quoted almost exactly as 
here, except that éy avr@ is omitted. 
He betrays no misgiving that he is 
not quoting directly from the Gospel, 
when evidently he has taken the 
words from his namesake the Roman 
Clement. Comp. AZos?t. Const. li. 21, 
Ps-Ign. Tvral/. 8. 

On the form édeay (for éXeciv) see 
Winer § xv p. 97 sq, A. Buttmann 
p. 50; comp. Clem. Hom. xviii. 6. 
Previous editors needlessly read éXe- 
etre here. 

4. os xpynoreverGe] The corre- 
sponding words in S. Luke (vi. 36) 
are yiveoOcoikrippoves. In Justin Dal. 
96 and Aol. i. 15 they are quoted 
yiveobe S€ xpnorol Kat oikrippoves, and 
in Clem. Hom. ii. 57 yiverOe ayabot 
kat oixtippoves. Theverbxypnorever@at 
occurs’ 1 Cor, xii2-4- 

5. @ perpo k.t.A.] Quoted also in- 
directly Clem. Hom. xviii. 16 6 pérpo 
€weTpnoay, petpnOn avrois T@ io@. See 
Mark iv. 24, besides the passages 
already quoted from the other Evan- 
gelists. 

8. dytorperéot] Compare Polyc. 
Phil. 1. This is apparently the earli- 


xiv] 


~ \ € 
VOUVTES. now yap o 


c , 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. eo 


c/ J > \ ’ > ' 
aytos Aoyos: “Et Tina éemiBAEyo, 


To AAA H ETI TON TIPAYN KAl HCYYION KAl TPEMONTA MOY TA AGFIA; 


XIV. Aikaov otv kal Gowov, dvdpes adeAoi, Vrn- 


/ € ~ a / - FN ~ > > fe 
Koous nuas uadAov yeverSat TH Oew 4 Tots Ev dNaCovela 


\ > / é aN > cond 3 x 
Kal AKATACTAGLA [AUG ENOU On OuSs apxynyots €€ ako OU= 


Geiy. 


PraBnvy yap ov THY TUXOVTaV, madXdov OE Kiy- 


c , , He a | e , > ~ ¢€ 
15 OuvoV UTTOLO OMEV MEYQ), EaYV piloxuwvouves ET LOW MEV E€aU=- 


\ ~ / ”~ > / ef > / 
mOUS TOLS GeAnuacw TWYV avOpwrrwr, OPTLVES €€akovTi- 


3 sf \ / > \ > ~ ~ 
Covow €ls Eply Kat OTATELS Els TO ATAaNAOTPIWOAL Huds 


Tovs Adyous C (with Lxx); dub. S. 
al. 12 muds] AS; tuds C. 
Co. adafoveta] adagova A. 


11 davov] AC; Betov S. See also §§ 2, 
yevécbar TG Oew] A; TH Oew yevéo Oar 


13 ¢(MAous] A; Fpdov C. 17 épw] 


A; épes S (where the plural depends merely on 7z0uz, and would be suggested by 


the plural of the following word); aipésers C Nicon. See above, I. p. 125. 
eis T0] AC; 70d Nicon. 


ces| oracic A. 


est passage in which the word occurs. 
Suicer gives it a place ‘quia a lexi- 
cographis omissa,’ but does not quote 
either of these passages in the Apo- 
stolic fathers. 

Q. ‘Emi riva k.r.A.] A quotation from 
the Lxx of Is. Ixvi. 2 with slight and 
unimportant variations. For a dis- 
tinction between mpavs and novxios 
see Bengel on 1 Pet. ili. 4 (where 
both words occur). Comp. also 
Hatch Bzblical Greek p. 73 sq. 

XIV. ‘We ought to obey God 
rather than man. If we follow men, 
we shall plunge ourselves into strife 
and peril; if we follow God, we 
shall be gentle and loving. The 
Scriptures teach us, that the guileless 
and meek shall inherit the earth; 
but that the proud and insolent shall 
be blotted out.’ 

II. Aikawov x.t.A.] This passage as 
far as kxad@s €xovros is quoted in 
Nicon the Monk, in an extract given 
by Cotelier from the Paris Mss “eg. 
2418, 2423, 2424. He strings together 
with this passage quotations from §S 
15, 46, of this epistle, and § 3 of the 


f 
OoTa- 


Second. See the several references. 

Umnkoous x.T.A.] For the stress laid 
by Clement on the duty of dmakoy, 
see §§ 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 58, 60, 63. 

13. pucepov] The form puoepos 
occurs again below § 30; and in both 
places the editors have altered it to 
pvoapos. This is not necessary: see 
Lobeck Pathol. p. 276. In Lev. xviii. 
23 it is so written in A; and simi- 
larly in Mark i. 42 exaepio6n is read 
in the best MSs: see Tischendorf on 
Acts: x./15 and :proleg..p; Is(ed-+7); 
Winer § v. p. 56. See also the form 
puepay (for prapav) in Boeckh C. /. G. 
no. 3588. So likewise the play on 
iepevs, puepevs, in Apost. Const. il. 28. 
(C writes pvoapay for pvcepay in § 30, 
but not so here). 

apxnyois| Comp. § 51 dpynyol tis 
oTaTEws. 

15. pipoxuddvves| ‘22 a foolhardy 
spirit’; Appian Czv.i. 103. It does 
not occur in the LXx or New Testa- 
ment. 

16. e£axovri¢ovow] The word here 
appears to mean, ‘launch out.’ Gene- 
rally, when it occurs metaphorically, 


54 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[xiv 


TOU Kadws ExXOVTOS. xXonTTEVTWMEDAa avTOIS KATA THY 
evoTAayyviavy Kal YAUKUTHTA TOU TroWoavTOS Has. 
yeyparra yap" XPHCTOI ECONTAI OIKHTOpEc FAC, AKAKO! 
Aé yTOAEIDOHCONTA!I ET! AYTAC’ O1 A€ TapaNOoMOYNTEC €2Z0- 
A€OpeYOHCONTA ATT AYTAC™ Kal TaN Never’ ETAoN aceBa 
YTEPYYOYMENON KAl ETTAIPOMENON GC TAC KEApoyc TOY AiBa- 


NOY, KAl TAPAAOON Kal IAOY OYK HN, KAl EZEZHTHCA TON TOTION 


1 avrots] A; éauvrots CS. 


OpevOncovrar C. See the lower note. 


aceBnv A; Tov adoeBn C3; there is the same v. 1. in the Lxx. 
7 Tov Torov...etpov] AC; avrov kai odx ebpéOn 6 Témos 


avmrepomevov A. 
avtov (with the Lxx) S. 


Aoyous Or yAwooas would be under- 
stood, if not expressed. 

I. avtois] ‘towards them, the 
leaders of the schism ; comp. 2 Thess. 
lll. 15 un Os €xOpor nyetoGe x.7.A. This 
must be done ‘in imitation of the com- 
passion of the Creator Himself’ (xara 
Thy evoTmayxviay k.T.A.); comp. Matt. 
v. 44. Others substitute avrots = d\An- 
Aos, but this is not so good. More- 
over, as the contracted form avrov 
etc., for éavrod etc., seems never to 
occur in the New Testament, it isa 
question whether Clement would have 
used it : see the note on avrdy § 12. 

2. evomdayxviay k.t.A.] The same 
combination occurs in Theoph. ad 
Autol. ii. 14 tiv yAukitnta Kal ev- 
omAayxviay kal Suxavoovvny k.T.A. quoted 
by Harnack. 

3. xpnotrot «.7.A.] From Prov. ii. 
21,22. The first part of the quota- 
tion ypnorol...ém avrns is found in A 
with a very slight variation (and par- 
tially in S), but B omits the words; the 
second runs in all the best Mss of the 
LXX, 0601[d¢| aaeBav ex yijs oXovvrat, of 
dé mapdvopor cao Onoovraram avtis. In 
quoting the latter part Clement seems 
to be confusing it with Ps. xxxvil. 39 
of d€ mapavopor eEodoOpevOnaovrat eri 


2 yAuktrnta] yAuKyrnta C. 
am atrns}] AC; om. S (by homceoteleuton). 


4 ob O€... 
€foXePpevyjoovrar] A; e&oXo- 
5 Hidov] ov A. aceBn] 


6 émarpouevor | 


Q évKardXepua] evkarahimua A; éyxarddeupa 
Cc: 10 KoAAnOGmev] AC; akorovby}cwuev Nicon. 


12 Odros 6 dads] 


To avto, which occurs in the context 
of his next quotation. 

4. é€odeOpevOnoovra| On the vary- 
ing forms odebpevew and ododpeveuv 
see Tischendorf WVov. Test. p. xlix. 
Our chief MSs for the most part writes 
the word with an e. 

5. Eldov doeBq x.7.A.] From the 
LXxX of Ps. xxxvil. 36—38 with unim- 
portant variations. The LXxX has kal 
e(ntnoa avrov Kal ovy evpéOn Oo Toros 
avrov. In the Hebrew there is 
nothing corresponding to 6 rozos 
avrov. Without hinting that he is 
quoting from a previous writer, Cle- 
ment of Alexandria, Strom. iv. 6 (p. 
577), strings together these same six 
quotations, beginning with Ps. xxxvii. 
36 sq and ending with Ps. xii. 4 sq 
(rappnoidcopa €v avt@). In compar- 
ing the two, we observe of the Alex- 
andrian Clement, that (1) In his first 
passage he restores the text of the 
LXX, and quotes kal e(jtnoa avrov 
k.7.A.3; (2) For the most part he follows 
Clement of Rome, e.g. in the remark- 
able omission noted below (on a@Aada 
yernOnr@ x.T.A.); (3) He inserts be- 
tween the quotations an explanatory 
word or sentence of his own; (4) He 
ends this string of quotations with the 


15 PWNTO. 


xv] 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 55 


AYTOY KAl OYY EYPON. YAaccE SKAKIAN KAl [AE EYOYTHTA, OTI 


ECTIN ENKATAAEIMMA ANOPOTW EIPHNIKO. 
/ > = / 
XV. Totvyy KodhAnOwpev Tois eT’ EvoEBElas Eipn- 
/ \ \ ~ 3) ue / / > / 
YEvOVTLV, Kal un TOIs MEO UrroKploEews BouvAopeEvoLS Eipn- 


/ © c \ “ U ' n 
VnV. dévyeL yap mov’ Oytoc 6 Aadc TOIC YElAECIN ME TIMG, 


H AE KAPAIA AYT@N TOppa@ ATIECTIN ATT EMOY. 


\ / 
Kat maXy* 


T@ ctdmati ayT@n eYAOrOfcan, TH AE KAPAIA AYT@N KATH- 


A and apparently S; 6 dads obros C. 

13 dweotw] A Clem; daéxyee C Nicon; dub. S. 
youv C; evAoyovo. Clem. See I. p. 127. 
katnpavro] C (with LXx); xarap&vrac Clem; Tischendorf says of the 


the LXx. 


reading of A ‘xkarnpovvro certum est,’ but Wright reads it xarypwvro. 
several times and could not feel certain. 


\ / / > ’ > \ a ’ 
Kat madi Aeyet* “HrdtmHcan aYTON TG cCTOMATI 


Tois xeiNeow] AS; 7H orduare C. 
14 evNoyotcav] A; evdXo- 
Th 5é] AC Clem; xai 77S, with 


I looked 
On such forms as xarnpouvvro see 


Tischendorf Nov. Tesz. prol. p. lvii (ed. 7). 


very words of the Roman Clement, 
Tamrewopovovvray yap ...TO Toipviov 
avrov, without any indication that he 
is citing from another. 

Q. évkarddeppal ‘a remnant,’ i.e. 
a family or a memorial of some 
kind, as in ver. 39 ra éyxaraNeippata 
Trav aceBav €Sod0bpevoerat: comp. Ps. 
Xxxiv. 16 tov é€odoOpedoat ex ys To 
pynuoouvoyv avtay, quoted by Clement 
below, § 22. 

XV. ‘Letus then attach ourselves 
to the guileless and peaceful; but 
avoid hypocrites who make a show 
of peace. Against such the denun- 
ciations of Scripture are frequent and 
severe; against the idle profession of 
God’s service—against the deceitful 
and proud lips.’ 

12. Otros o Nads| From Is. xxix. 13, 
which is quoted also Matt. xv. 8, 
Mark vii. 6. Clement follows the 
Evangelists rather than the original 
text. For the opening words of the 
original, éyyifer por 6 ads otros ev 
T® oTOmaTt avTOU Kal ev Tois xeiheow 
avTay Tiuaciy pe, they give the sen- 
tence in a compressed form otros o 
Aads (6 Aads avros Matt.) rots yeiheowv 


we tywa as here. Both Evangelists 
have améyes with the LXx, where 
Clement has ameorw. Clem. Alex. 
follows our Clement, modifying the 
form however to suit his context. In 
Clem. Rom. ii. § 3 it is quoted exactly 
as here, except that o Aaos otros stands 
for ovros 6 Aads. Justin quotes the 
Lxx, Dzal. 78 (p. 305). For various 
readings in the MSs of the LXx and 
quotations from it see Hatch Bzbiical 
Greek p. 177 sq. 

14. To ordpare x.t.A.] From LXx 
Ps. lxii. 4, with unimportant varia- 
tions. 

evdoyovcay | for evdAdcyour. See 
Sturz Dial. Mac. p. 58, and the refer- 
ences in Winer § xiii. p. 89. In the 
LXxX here SB have evAoyovcav. Clem. 
Alex. (edd.) quotes evAoyovar. 

15. “Hydmnoav «t.A.] From Ps. 
Ixxviil. 36, 37. almost word for word. 
’Enict@bnoay is here a translation of 
JONI, ‘were stedfast.’ Though nya- 
mnoay is read by the principal MSs 
(SB) of the Lxx, the original reading 
was probably jzarnoar, as this corre- 
sponds with the Hebrew. See also 
Hatch Biblical Greek p. 204 sq. 


56 THE EPISTLE OF 8S. CLEMENT [xv 


AYTON KAI TH FAMCCH AYTO@N EYPEYCANTO AYTON, H AE KaPAla 
AYT@N OYK EYOEIA MET AYTOY, OYAE ETICTMOHCAN €N TH 


’ > n \ BS By] , \ ' 
AIAOHKH AYTOY. Ola TOUTO “"A\AAA FENHOHTW TA yelAH TA 


Kal wad 
-EZoAeOpeycat Kypioc manta TA yelAH TA AGAIA, FADCCAN 


AOAIA TA AASAOFNTA KATA TOY AIKAIOY ANOMIAN’ 


MEPAAOPHMONA, TOYC EITMONTAC, THN TA@CCAN HM@N MELAAY- 
NOMEN, TA YEIAH HM@N TAP HMIN ECTIN* TIC HM@N KYPIOC 
ECTIN; ATO TAC TAAAIT@PIAC T@N TT@YON Kal ATO TOF 


1 évevcavro] AS Clem; éwegar C. 3 dua TovTo] CS Clem; om. A. 


yernojnrw) A Clem; yevnfein C. 
Clem by homceoteleuton. 


4 Ta ANadodyTa...Ta SONA] S; om. AC 


5 yA@ooayv meyaropnmova rods eirévras]| AS; kai 


yraooav pmeyadopnuova rods eirévras Clem; yA@ooa peyadopjuwv’ Kal madw* Tods 
eirévras C. The scribe thus patches up by insertion and alteration the text which 
the previous omission had dislocated, so that it may run grammatically and make 


sense; see I. p. 143. 


3. dua rodto| This should not be 
treated as part of the quotation, since 
it is not found in any of the passages 
of the Psalms which are here strung 
together. The Alexandrian Clement 
however (p. 578), quoting from his 
Roman namesake, may perhaps have 
regarded it as such. 

“Adaka k.t.A.] Iventuretotranscribe 
(within brackets) the note in my first 
edition; from which it will be seen 
how far I had divined the reading of 
the text, as since confirmed by the 
Syriac version. 

[The words adaka yernbjrw ra xeiAn 
ra Ookva are taken from the Lxx, Ps. 
xxx. 19. Those which follow are from 
the LXx Ps. xi. 3—6 éefoXoOpevoar 
Kupwos mavta ta xeihn ta Soda [kal] 
yA@ooav peyadopnpova tovs eimovras 
x.7.A. Since in the quotation of Cle- 
ment, as it stands in the MS, yAdooav 
peyadopnpova has no government, it 
seems Clear that the transcriber’s eye 
has passed from one ra yeiAyn ra Sdda 
to the other and omitted the intro- 
ductory words of the second quota- 
tion. I have therefore inserted the 
words e£oAeOpevoat Kvptos mavra ra 


6 peyadtvwuev] A; weyaduvotuer C Clem; dub. S. 


xeiAn ta SoAca. Wotton and others 
detected the omission but made the 
insertion in the form kat “Eé. K. 7. 
tT. x. ta Oodra kat. This does not 
explain the scribe’s error. The kai 
before yAéooay peyadopypova, though 
found in AB, is marked as to be 
erased in S and is omitted in many 
MSS in Holmes and Parsons; and in 
our Clement’s text of the LXX it must 
have been wanting. The Hebrewomits 
the conjunction in the corresponding 
place. The existing omission in the 
text of the Roman Clement seems to 
be as old as the end of the second 
century, for his Alexandrian name- 
sake (see the note on eidov doeBi 
k.T.A. above) gives the passage, aAaXa 
yemOnrew mavra ta xeidn Ta Sodia kal 
yAGooay peyadopnpova k.T.X., inserting 
kat before yA@ooay, though quoting 
it in the main as it is quoted here. 
Orwehavethealternative ofsupposing 
that a transcriber of the Alexandrian 
Clement has independently made a 
similar omission to the transcriber 
of the Roman. For the form peyadopy- 
pova see the note on efepifacer § 6.] 
7. map npiv] ‘2x our power, our 


Io 


g 


xvi] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


57 


CTENAPMOY T@N TENHT@N NYN ANACTHCOMAI, A€rel Kyptoc: 
OHCOMAl EN CWTHPIW, TAPPHCIACOMAI EN AYTO. 


XVI. 


> 5) a > \ \ / ? ~ 
OUK ETTALNDOMEVWY ETL TO TTOLMYLOY AUTOU. 


Tarewoppovovvray yap éotw 6 Xpioros, 
TO OKNTT POV 
[tis peyarwourys| ToD Qeov, 6 Kupros [pov] Xpioros 
"Incovs, ox nev év KouTro céaCovetas OUOE uTepnpa- 


/ / if 5) \ ~ Q X \ 
vias, Kaimrep Ouvamevos, d\Aa TaTrEeLvoP~povwy, Ka0ws TO 


7 wap nuiv] A Clem; map’ nuav CS. 
oTHoopal] avacryncomev A. 


Awavvns}] AC; om. S Hieron. 
used equally for o 
xpeatos CS Hieron. 


AC [Hieron]; add. 7\Gev S. 


own. It represents the Hebrew NN. 
The dative is correctly read also by 
Clem. Alex. and some Mss of the 
LXx ; but SAB have map’ nue. 

9. dvaornoopa| The reading of 
A avaotnoopev has arisen from ava- 
oTnoope, Whence avactnocopé: Comp. 
atxpadord (aiypadtociar) for atyparo- 
oa (aiywadewoia) in 1. § 6. So too 
S 41 ovveidnow (cvvednot) for cuver- 
Snow= ovveonoes. 

10. Onoopa x.t.A.| ‘ZL wll place 
him in safety, I will deal boldly by 
him. The Hebrew of the last clause 
is wholly different from the LXx. 

XVI. ‘Christ is the friend of the 
lowly; He Himself is our great pat- 
tern of humility. This is the leading 
feature in the portrait which the evan- 
gelic prophet has drawn of the lamb 
led to the slaughter. This too is 
declared by the lips of the Psalmist. 
If then He our Lord was so lowly, 
what ought we His servants to be?’ 

12. ovk ématpoevoy k.T.A.| Comp. 
1 Pet. v. 3, Acts xx. 29. The word 
qoimviov occurs again §§ 44, 54, 57. 

TO oKnmTpoy K.T.A.| The expression 
is apparently suggested by Heb. 1. 8, 
where Ps. xlv. 6 paBdos evdurnros 7 
paBdos ths BacwAelas gov is applied to 


14 ddagovelas] adagovac A. 


8 dd} A; om. CS Clem. Q ava- 


10 év cwrnplw] Clem; evowrnpra A; NIPWEDA (Ev 
cwrnpia or év cwrnpiy) S; om. C. The Mss of the LXX vary. 
juav] A; om. C Hieron; dub. S, for }W) is 
KUptos and 6 KUpios Huw. 


13 THs meya- 


Xpictos “Incovs] A; éinoots 
15 Tamewoppovwv ] 


our Lord. Fell refers to the applica- 
tion of the same text made by Justin 
Dial. 63 (pp. 286 sq) to show ore kal 
TpooKuyynros eoTt kal Geds Kat Xpuoros. 
Jerome zz Ssaz.) lin ‘13° (lV. p. G12) 
quotesthis passage of Clement, ‘Scep- 
trum Dei, Dominus Jesus Christus, 
non venit injactantia superbiae, quum 
possit omnia, sed in humilitate.’ This 
application of our Lord’s example 
bears a resemblance to Phil. il. 5 sq 
and may be an echo of it. 

13. peyatoovrns] The word is 
doubtful here, but occurs several 
times in Clement elsewhere, S$ 20, 
27, 36, 58, 61, 64, 65; and this fact is 
in its favour. 

14. €v koumr@ x.t.A.] Macar. Magn. 
Afpocr. iv. 2 (p. 159) modvs yap otros 
THs Gdaoveias 6 KOptros. 

adagoveias x.t.d. | The adjectives dXa- 
(ov and vmepydavos occur together, 
Rom. i. 30, 2 Tim. ili. 2. The one 
refers to the expression, the other to 
the thought; see the distinction in 
Trench WV. 7. Syz. § xxix. Ist ser. 

15. kaimep Suvapevos| This passage 
implies the pre-existence of Christ; 
comp. Phil. ii. 6 sq os év poppy Gcod 
dmapxyov «T.A.; see the introduction 
I. p. 398 sq. 


58 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[XvI 


> A / \ > = 5) / A \ / F 
TVEULa TO ayloy wept avTou eXaAnoeEV’ yow yap 
Kypie, Tic émicTeYCeN TH AKOH HM@N; Kal 6 Bpayi@n Kypioy 
! > , ? U > ' > a c ! 
TINI ATTIEKAAYDOH; ANHPFEILAAMEN ENANTION AYTOY, WC TIAIAION, 
@c piza éN FH Alya@cH’ OYK ECTIN EfA0C ayT@, OYAE AOzZA° 
KAl €lIAOMEN AYTON, KAI OYK E1YEN E1AOC OYAE KAdAAOC, SAAB 
TO €iA0C AYTOY ATIMON, EKAEITION TIAPA TO E1AOC TAN ANOPO- 
TON’ ANOPOITOC EN TAHPH WN KAI TION® Kal ElA@C HEpeEIN 
MAAAKIAN, OTL ATTECTPATITAI TO TIPOCMTION AYTOY, HTIMACOH 
Kal OYK €AOFICOH. OYTOC TAC AMAPTIAC HM@N Gepel KAI TEP! 
HM@N OAYNATAI, KAl HMEIC EAOFICAMEBA AYTON EINAl EN TION® 


3 avnyyetdapmer] avnyyirauev A, madiov] AS; medlov C. 4 €ldos 
avr@] A (with LXx); at7v@ ei60s C; and so S, but the order cannot be pressed in 


this case. 


5 Kdéddos] AC; ddfav S, but NMAIW is probably a copyist’s 


error for NID, the former word having occurred in the previous sentence. 


6 ékXelrov] exNurrov A. 


2. Kupue x.7-A.| A Messianic appli- 
cation is made of this 53rd chapter 
of Isaiah by S. Matthew viii. 17 (ver. 
A) ie ., Nark xv. 28 (ver. | 12), 
be po uke xa) 37. (ver:' 12), by 
S.upounsa. 20 (ver.i4, 7), x11, 38 (ver.1), 
by Philip Acts viii. 32 sq (ver. 7, 8), 
by S. Paul Rom. x. 16 (ver. 1), and 
by. neter (7 Pets a1../230Sq) (ver. 4, 
9). Barnabas also (§ 5) applies ver. 
5, 7,to our Lord; and Justin both in 
the Afology and in the Dialogue 
interprets this chapter so frequently: 
ceenesp. Apos 1.50, 51 .(p, 851Sq), 
Dial. 13 (p. 230 sq), in both which 
passages it is quoted in full. For Jew- 
ish Messianic interpretations of this 
chapter see Hengstenberg Chrzséol. 
II. p. 310 sq (Eng. trans.), Schottgen 
Hor. Hebr. il. p. 138 sq, and espe- 
cially Driver and Neubauer The jifty- 
third Chapter of Isaiah according to 
the fFewish Interpreters, Oxf. and 
Lond. 1877, with Pusey’s preface. 

Clement’s quotation for the most 
part follows the Lxx tolerably closely. 
The more important divergences 
from the LXxX are noticed below. 


To €l60s Tay dvOpirwv] AC; mdvras dvOpwrous S. 


The LXx itself differs considerably 
from the Hebrew in many points. 
See also Hatch Azblical Greek p. 
178 sq, p. 201 sq, on the form of the 
early quotations from this passage 
of the Lxx. 

3. avnyyetiapev «.t.r.] The LXx 
reading here is devoid of sense and 
must be corrupt, though the Mss and 
early quotations all present avyyyeiia- 
pev. As this word corresponds to the 
Hebrew Sy) (Aq. Theod. dvaByoerat, 
Symm. dvéBn), Is. Voss proposed 
avereidapev (see Grabe Diss. de Variis 
Vities LXX p. 38); but even this 
alteration is not enough, and we 
should require avérevkev. The follow- 
ing meaning however seems gene- 
rally to have been attached to the 
words; ‘We—the preachers—an- 
nounced Him before the Lord; as 
a child is He, as a root etc.’ (see 
Eusebius and Jerome on the pas- 
sage); but Justin Dzal. 42 (p. 261) 
strangely explains os madioy of the 
child-like submission of the Church 
to Christ. The interpretation of Ori- 
gen ad Rom. viii. § 6 (Iv. p. 627) 


Io 


15 


xvi] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


59 


Kal €N TAHPH Kal EN KAK@CEL AaYTOC AE ETPAYMATICOH Ala 
TAC AMAPTIAC HM@N KAl MEMAAAKICTAI AIA TAC ANOMIAC HMON. 
TAIACIA EIPHNHC HMON €T AYTON' TM MOAWTI AYTOY HMEIC 
IA@HMEN. TIANTEC WC TIPOBATA ETTAANHOHMEN, ANOPWTTIOC TH 
OA@ aYTOY EMAANHOH* Kal Kypioc TApe€A@KEN AYTON YTIEP 
T@N AMAPTION HM@N. KAl AYTOC AIA TO KEKAKOCOAI OYK 
ANOIFEl TO CTOMA’ GC TPOBATON ET] CHATHN HYOH, KAl OC 
AMNOC €ENANTION TOY KEIPANTOC AM@NOC, OYTWC OYK ANOITE! 


TO cTOMA ayTOf. EN TH TATIEIN@CE! H KPICIC AYTOY HPOH’ 


See the lower note for the LXx reading. 12 auaprlas, dvoulas] A; transposed 
in CS. See the lower note. 13 matdela] madia A. 15 Umép Tw 


dmaptiav|] AC; rats duapriars S with the Lxx. See the lower note. IQ &v 
Th Tatewwoa] AC; add. ejus S, where the punctuation attaches it to the previous 


sentence. plows] Kpiceco A. 


is not quite clear. The fathers of 
the fourth and fifth centuries gene- 
rally interpret os pita év yn dupoon 
as referring to the miraculous con- 
ception. In the order éy, avr. os 
mao. Clement agrees with SA Justin 
p- 230 (p. 85, 260 sq, éevdmuoy avrov); 
and so the old Latin, e.g. Tertull. adv. 
Marc. iii. 17 (and elsewhere) ‘annun- 
tiavimus coram ipso velut puerulus 
etc.’: but B has os raid. év. adr., the 
order of the Hebrew. 

6. mapa TO €i0. t. avOp.| The LXx 
S, Clem. Alex. p. 440, mapa mavras (S 
corr. from ray) tods viovs Tay avOpa- 
mov; B, Justin p. 230, Tertull. adv. 
Mare. iii. 7, adv. Fud. 14, mapa rovs 
viovs Trav avOperav; A, Tertull. adv. 
Marc. iii. 17, mapa mavras avOporovs ; 
Justin p. 85, Clem. Alex. p. 252, mapa 
Tovs dvOparous. 

7. kal rovm| Wanting in the Lxx. 
The words must have crept in from 
below, ev move kat €v mAny7, either by 
a lapse of memory on Clement’s part 
or by an error in his copy of the LXx 
or in the transcription of Clement’s 
own text. 

8. améotparta] The original is 


11919 DID AND, ‘as hiding the face 
Jrom him’ or ‘fromus.’ The LXXseem 
to have adopted the latter sense, 
though they have omitted 391 ; ‘zs 
face ts turned away, i.e. aS one 
ashamed or loathed; comp. Lev. xiii. 
45. 

12. duaprias, avouias| So B, Justinp. 
230; but SA, Barnab. § 5, Justin p. 
85, transpose the words, reading avo- 
pias in the first clause and dyaprias 
in the second. 

14. avOperos| ‘each man, distribu- 
tive; a Hebraism not uncommon in 
the LXX; and the use is somewhat 
similar in John ii. 25, I Cor. xi. 28. 

15. umep Tov auaptiov| The LXx has 
Tats auaptias, and so Justin pp. 86,230, 
Clem. Alex. p. 138; but Tertull. adv. 
Prax. 30 ‘pro delictis nostris.’ 

19. ev TH TaTmewooerk.T.A.] This pas- 
sage is also quoted from the LxXx in 
Acts viil. 33 €v ty Tamewocer [avtod| 
” Kplows avtov npn, where the first 
avrov Should be omitted with the best 
MSS, so that S. Luke’s quotation ac- 
cords exactly with the Lxx. For the 
probable meaning of the Lxx here 
see the commentators on Acts lL.c.; 


60 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XvI 


THN FENEAN AYTOY Tic AlnfHceTal; OT! alpetal ato TAC FAC 
H zwd aytoy 210 TAN ANOMI@N TOY AAOY MOY HkKEl EC BANO- 
TON. Kal A@CW TOYC TONHPOYC ANTI TAc Tadfc ayToy kal 
TOYC TAOYCIOYC ANTI TOY BANATOY aYTOY STI ANOMIAN OYK 
€TOIHCeEN, OYAE EYpéOH AdAOC EN TH cTOMaTI ayTo¥. Kal 
Kypioc BoyAeTal KA@ADICAl AYTON TAC TAHTAc’ €AN AWTE TrEPI 
AmapTiac, H YYYH YMON OETA! CTEPMA MAKPOBION. Kal Kypioc 
BoyAeTal AmeAEIN ATO TOY TONOY TAC YyyyAc ayTo¥, Aelzal 
aYT@ mAc kal TAAcal TH CYNECE, AIKAIMCAl AIKAION ey Aoy- 
AEYONTA TOAAOIC’ KAI TAC AMAPTIAC AYT@N AYTOC ANOICEL Ald 
1 Thy yeveav] AC; xal rhv yeveay S. 2 nkec] AC; 4xOn S. See the 
lower note. 7 dWera] eWerar A. 8 ris puxjs] AC; dd THs pux7s S. 


The } which represents dro before rod wévov is pointed as if =pér. 12 Tos] 


and for patristic interpretations of 
yeved, suicer I. p. 744. 5.v. The 
Hebrew is different. 

2. hKet| 7xOn LXX and Tertull. adv. 
Fud. 10; but jee is read by Justin 
pp. 86, 230, though elsewhere he has 
1xOn p. 261 (MSS 7xOnv), Comp. p. 
317 Ort amo TeV Gdvyopidy Tov aov 
axOnoera eis Oavarov. As nxOn may 
easily have been introduced from 
ver. 7, #kes was perhaps the orig- 
inal reading of the LXx; and so it 
stands in some MSS in Holmes and 
Parsons. 

3. kat Sdoo x.t.A.] The LXxX clearly 
means that the wicked and the 
wealthy should die in requital for 
His death; as Justin Dzal. 32 (p. 
249) avti Tod Oavarov avrovd rods mAov- 
ciovs GavatwOnoeo Oa. Thus the refer- 
ence to the crucifixion of the thieves 
and the entombment in Joseph’s 
grave, which the original has sug- 
gested to later Christian writers, is 
rendered impossible in the Lxx. This 
application however is not made in 
the Gospels, where only ver. 12 éy 
Tots avopo.s €Aoyio On is quoted in this 
connexion, nor (I believe) in any fa- 
ther of the second century nor even 


in Tertullian or Origen. 

5. ovde evpéOn Sddos] So A in the 
LxXx, but SB (corrected however in 
S by later hands) have simply ovde 
dodov, following the Hebrew more 
closely. In 1/?Petruiy @2>arel tie 
words 0s dpuaptiay ovK émoinoev ovde 
evpebn dodros €vT@ oTOpart avTov, though 
this is not given as a direct quotation 
and may have been intended merely 
as a paraphrase, like much of the 
context. But it is quoted by Justin 
also kat ovy evpéOn Sodos p. 230, and 
ovde evpeOn Sddros p. 86, though in a 
third passage he has ovde dodov p. 330. 
And so likewise Tertull. adv. Fud. 
to ‘nec dolus in ore ejus inventus 
est; Origen iI. p. 92. CG; 11. pp 2300 
287 C, and Hippol. zz Psalm. 7 (p. 
191 Lagarde). The passage of S. 
Peter might have influenced the form 
of quotation and even the reading of 
the MSS in some cases: but the pas- 
sages where ovde evpeOn Sodos appears 
are so numerous, that we must sup- 
pose it to have been so read in some 
copies of the LXX at least as early as 
the first century. This reading is 
found in several MSS in Holmes and 
Parsons. 


Io 


20 


XVI] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 61 


TOYTO AYTOC KAHPONOMHCE! TOAAOYC KAl TON ICYYP@N meptei 
cKYAa’ 4NO® GN TIADEAGOH EIC GANATON H YYYH AYTOY Kal TOIC 
> U > U \ > \ c ' al > , \ 
ANOMOIC €AOPICOH’ KAI AYTOC AMAPTIAC TIOAAGN ANHNEPKEN Kal 

\ \ c ’ > a , K \ / 5) / i 
AIA TAC AMAPTIAC AYTON TTAPEAOOH. alt Tat AUTOS pnow 


Ero Aé EiMI CKMAHZ KAI OYK ANOPTIOC, ONEIAOC ANOPMTON 


KAl €Z0YOENHMA AdOF. TIANTEC O1 BEWPOYNTEC ME EZEMYKTHDI- 


CAN Me, EAAAHCAN EN YEIAECIN, EKINHCAN KEQAAHN, “HAtTICEN 
étt! Kypion, PycacO@ AYTON, CWCATW AYTON, OT! BEAE! AYTON. 
©) > / } 5) / / e e \ e } } / 

PaTE, aVOPES ayaTHTOL, TIs O UTOYPAaMMOS O CECOME- 


eA 2 \ e / e/ 5) / / 
VOS nly? EL yao O Kupuos OUTWS ETATELVOPOOVNG EV, Tl 


A; év rots C, and so probably S, which has 3 not 9. 15 8] AS; om. C. 


17 éxiynoav] exewnoav A. 


6. ris mAnyjs] So SB Justin pp. 86, 
230 ; but A (LXX) has amo rns mAnyis. 
For xa8api¢ew or xabaipew Twos Comp. 
Herod. i. 44. So the intransitive 
verb xaapevew (Plato Epzsz. viii. p. 
356 E) and the adjective xa@apos 
(Herod. ii. 38) may take a genitive. 

ddre| So also LXX (SAB) and Jus- 
tin pp. 86, 230 (MSS, but many edd. 
dérat). Eusebius comments on this 
as the LXX reading, and Jerome dis- 
tinctly states it to be so. Accordingly 
it was interpreted, ‘If ye make an 
offering’ (or, translated into its Chris- 
tian equivalent, ‘If ye be truly con- 
trite and pray for pardon’). With 
Sovvac wept comp. Heb. v. 3 mept éav- 
Tov mpoodhéepew epi apaptiav. The 
meaning of the original is doubtful, 
but dére seems to be a rendering of 
pn taken as a second person, ‘ ¢hou 
shalt give. The reading ddra ‘ gzve 
himself; which some editors here 
would adopt, is quite late and can 
hardly stand. 

7. Kuptos BovAderar k.7.A.| The LXx 
departs very widely from the Hebrew, 
but its meaning is fairly clear. For 
agenetv amo, ‘to diminish from, comp. 
Rev. xxii. 19, Exod. v. 11, and so fre- 


18 671] AC; ef S. 


quently. Tertullian however reads 
Thy Wuynv ‘eximere a morte animam 
ejus,’ adv. Fud, 10. TWAaca (sc. adrov) 
stands in the present text of the LXx 
(SAB), and in Justin pp. 86, 230, nor 
is there any indication of a different 
reading: but, as yw» stands in the 
corresponding place in the Hebrew, 
the original reading of the LXx was 
probably mAjoa, as Grabe suggested 
(Diss. de Vit. Var. LX X, p. 39). Com- 
pare the vv. ll. pacoe: and pyoces in 
Mark ix. 18. 

I2. Trois avopots] év Tots avopors LXX 
(SAB), Justin pp. 86, 231, (though in 
the immediate neighbourhood of the 
first passage he has pera ray dvopor, 
p- 85); pera dvoporv, Luke xxii. 37, 
(+Mark xv. 28+). 

14. avtos] Christ Himself, in whose 
person the Psalmist is speaking. 
Comp. § 22, where avréis mpockanei- 
ra has a similar reference. The 
words are an exact quotation from 
the LXx Ps. xxil.6—8. The applica- 
tion to our Lord is favoured by 
Matt. xxvii. 43. 

19. 6 tmoypaupos|] See the note 
above on § 5. 


62 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XvI 


ToMowpEev nels ot Vo TOV Cuyov THs yapiTOs avTOU 
ou avtou éNOortes 3 

XVII. Mipnral yevopeba Kdxeivwv, ofrwes év dép- 
pac aiyelois Kal pndwTais TEepieTaTHaaY KnpvooOor- 
Tes Thv éXevow TOV XpioTod: Réyouev Se "HALav Kal 
"Erioae Er O€ Kal *leCexiujrA, Tovs mpopntas’ mpos Tov- 
TOLS Kai TOUS pEeu“apTUpHEVoUS. EéuapTupnOn pEeyadws 


2 €\OdvrTes] S3 eOovtoc A; 
ére 6€] AS$ om. C. 


I tojowuev] A; torjoouey C; dub. S. 


dmenOdvres C. 6 ’EXioaé] As ’EXtooae C. 


kal] AC; om. S. 
add. dé C. 


I. tov Cvydv tis xapiros| A verbal 
paradox, explained by the ‘easy yoke’ 
of Matt. xi. 29,30. The following 6? 
avrov is ‘through His humiliation and 
condescension.’ 

XVII. ‘We should also copy the 
humility of the prophets who went 
about in sheepskins and goatskins ; 
of Abraham the friend of God, who 
confessed that he was mere dust and 
ashes; of Job the blameless, who 
condemned himself and all men as 
impure in the sight of God; of Moses 
the trusty servant, who declared his 
nothingness before the Lord.’ 

The whole of this chapter and part 
of the next are quoted by Clem. Alex. 
Strom. iv. 16 (p. 610) in continuation 
of §$9sq (see the note there): but he 
cites sofreely, abridging and enlarging 
at pleasure, and interspersing his own 
commentary (e.g. tyv ovxy varorin- 
Tovoay vOL@ aivirTomevos apapTiay yvo- 
oTikas petpioraberv), that he cannot 
generally be taken as an authority 
on the text, and (except in special 
cases) I have not thought it worth 
while to record his variations. 

3. ev d€éppaow x«.t.d.] From Heb. xi. 
37. For the prophets’ dress comp. 
Zech. xiii. 4 ‘The prophets shall be 
ashamed...neither shall they wear a 


mpos Tovras] AC; add. 6é S. 
g atevifwv] A; arevicas C; drevicw S, apparently, for it 
renders e¢ dicit cogitans humiliter, videbo gloriam Dei. 


7 €uaprupyon] AS; 
Tatewoppovayv] C; 


garment of hair’? (where the LXx 
omits the negative and destroys the 
sense, kal évdvcovra Séppw rptyivny) ; 
see also Bleek Hedy. l.c., Stanley’s 
Sinat and Palestine p. 305. The 
word pndvorn is used in the LXX to 
translate MAIN, paludamentum, ‘a 
mantle’; e.g. of Elijah and Elisha, 
1 Kings xix. 13, 10; 2 Kings 1. 6,422) 
14. Though not a strict equivalent, 
it was doubtless adopted as describing 
the recognised dress of the prophet. 
Ezekiel is fitly classed with the older 
prophets, as representing a stern and 
ascetic type. His dress is nowhere 
mentioned in the O. T., but might 
be taken for granted as the ordinary 
garb of his office. Clem. Alex. after 
ynrwrais adds kat Tptyov Kkapnrelov 
Théypacw, as after “IeCexuyA he adds 
kai Iwavynv, the former interpolation 
preparing the way for the latter. 

6. ’EAucae| A frequent form in the 
best MSS of the LXx (with a single or — 
a double a), e.g. 2 Kings 11. 1 sq. The 
editors have quite needlessly changed 
it into "EAtooaiov, which is the form 
in Clem. Alex. 

rovs mpodnras] Epiphanius has 
been thought to refer to this passage 
in Haer. xxx. 15, avros (KAnpns) eyko- 
puater Hdiav kai AaBid Kat Sapo kat 


Io 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 63 


XVII] 


"ABpaau Kai diros mpoanyopevOn Tov Oeov, kai réryer 
areviCwy eis THy Sd€av Tov Oeov, TaTevodpovav *Era 
Aé eiMi fA Kal ctoAdc. rt O€ Kal TEpL "loB ovTws ye- 
ypamTa “laB Aé HN Alkaloc Kal AMemTITOC, AAHOINGC, 8E0- 
ceBHc, dmeydMENOC ATO TANTOC KAKOY? GAN’ avTOS EavTOU 
KaTNYOpEL Neyo, OyAeic KaOapdc AattdO fytTOY, OYA AN 

TaTewoppwvuv A. 


11 6€] CS Clem; om. A. kal] AC [Clem]; om. 


S with Lxx. aAnOiwvds] arynbewoo A; adnOivds kai Clem 611. I2 Kaxov] 
AC Clem; zovnpot mpdyuaros (with Lxx) S. 13 Karnyopet Aéywr] C; 
ROTIYY?; «05: A; contra setpsum dicens loquitur (as if xatnyopav Néye) S. 00d” 


dv] C; 085 ef Clem; def. A. See the lower note. 


mavras Tovs mpodyras x.t.A.; but the 
reference must be to the spurious 
Epistles on Virginity, where Samson, 
as well as the others, is mentioned by 
name (see above, I. p. 409). 

7. Tovs pepaptupnuévors| ‘borne 
witness to, approved, whether by God 
or by men; see below, §§ 17, 18, 19, 
ae, 44,,47,,Acts vi. 3, Heb. xi. 2, 4, 5, 
39, 3 Joh. 12, etc. Here the testimony 
of God’s voice in Scripture seems to 
be intended, as appears from the 
examples following. 

8. giros mpoonyopevOn] Comp. 
James ii. 23, and see above, § Io with 
the note. 

9. tHv Soéav] i.e. the outward ma- 
nifestation, the visible light and glory 
which betokened His presence; as 
erdixod, xvi. 7, 10, xxiv. 16, 17, 
meet 1O, 22. xi. 26, 290, Luke i. 9, 
mearxv. 40 sq, 2 Cor. ili. 7 sq, etc. 

tarewoppovav| A favourite word 
with Clement; see § 2, 13 (twice), 
16 (three times), 19, 30, 38, 48. In 
like manner razewodpoovvn and ra- 
meivoois occur several times. The 
scribe of A reads rarewodpor wy here, 
as he reads ramewogpov ov § 19. In 
both cases his reading must be cor- 
rected. This verb occurs only once 
om the Exx (Ps. cxxxi. 2), and not 
once in the New Testament. 

"Eyo Oe «.7.A.] Quoted exactly from 


the EXX Gen. xviii. 27. 

II. "168 jv x.t.A.] A loose quotation 
from Job i. 1, where SB have adnéi- 
vos Gueumrtos Sikatos GeooeBys, and A 
dueumrtos Sixatos ddnbewwos OcoreBrs. 

13. Katnyopet déywv] I prefer this 
to Kkatnyopav héyer OF KaTnyopay etrev. 
Wotton is certainly wrong in saying 
that he could read eiwevin A. There 
is no trace of the word and cannot 
have been any. He must have made 
some confusion with the eizey below, 
which is blurred. 

Ovdeis x.7.A.] A loose quotation 
from the LXxX Job xiv. 4, 5. 

ovd’ av| All the best MSS of the 
LXX agree in reading éay kal, which 
many editors have preferred here. 
On the other hand Clem. Alex. Strom. 
iv. 16 (p. 611) has ov® e?, and as in 
the rest of this quotation he follows 
his namesake pretty closely, where he 
departs from the Lxx, he may have 
done so in this instance. Origen, 
who frequently quotes the text, gene- 
rally has ovd ay (e.g. I. p. 829) or 
ovo ei (III. pp. 160, 685), but some- 
times omits the negative. In AZosz. 
Const. ii. 18 it is quoted as here. 
The passage is one of very few out- 
side of the pentateuch quoted by 
Philo, de Mut. Nom. 6 (1. p. 585), 
who reads ris yap...xal a... 


64 


migc HMépac H H ZH ayToy. 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[XVII 


Movons tmictéc én 6A\® TH 


By > A > / \ \ io ¢ / > Leys 
oikw ayto? €kAnOn, Kal Ova THs UaNpEetias avToU ExpiveEV 


¢ \ xl \ ~~ 7 \ van ) 7 
0 Geos Aiyurtoy dia THY MaTTiywY Kal TwY aikiopa- 


TWV QUTWY. 


> \ > =~ / 
adda Kakeivos dogacbes peyadws ovK 


€ueyadopnuovnoev, aA’ eitrev, emt THs BaTou xenma-5 


~ a / ’ > > ’ a ! 
TlOMOU AUTW OLOOMEeVOU, Tic eimi érw, OT! me TémmTeEic; 
Z 3 


2 avrod pri] AS (with Heb. ili. 2); om. C. 


5 él tys Bdrou] ¢€ 


rently) S. 
(or Tod) Barov S3 ék ris Bdrov Clem. 


I. motos x.t-A.] He is so called 
Num. xil. 7; comp. Heb. iii. 2. The 
avrovu 1S tov Qeov, for the LXxX has 
pov. 

2. wmnpecias| Comp. Wisd. xiii. 
ax 7, 

éxpwev x.t.A.| Compare § II xpe- 
Geians Sta mupos. Moses was the 
instrument in fulfilling the prophecy 
uttered before, Gen. xv. 14 (comp. 
Acts vil. 7) ro dé €Ovos & éav Sovdcv- 
TOOL KPLYO Ey@. 

5. é€ueyadopnuovnoev| See the note 
on efepicacer, § 6. 

émt ths Barov| A cannot have so 
read the words as they stand in C, 
unless this line was very much longer 
than the preceding or following one. 
Moreover emi rod tis Barov xpnpatio- 
pod avT@ Sidopévov is in itself a very 
awkward and unlikely expression. 
Probably A read émt rhs Barov or eri 
Tov Barov, this being a common mode 
of referring to the incident; Luke xx. 
37 (comp. Mark xii. 26), Justin Dzad. 
128 (p. 357), Clem. Hom. xvi. 14, 
A post. Const. v.20. The reading of 
C must be attributed to the in- 
decision of a scribe hesitating be- 
tween the masculine and feminine 
genders ; the word being sometimes 
masculine, o Paros (e.g. Exod. iii. 
2, 3, 4, Apost. Const. vii. 33), some- 
times feminine (Deut. xxxiii. 16, Acts 
vil. 35, Justin Dzal. 127, 128, Clem. 


éxpwev] AC; xplvec (appa- 


eho Barov A; én rod ris Barou C3 ém rips 


See the lower note. 9g drwper] 
Flom. xvi. 14, Apost. Const. v. 20). 
So we have ézi rov Batov Mark xii. 
26 (though with an ill-supported v.1), 
but emi t7s Barov Luke xx. 37. In 
Justin DzaZ. 60 (p. 283) we meet with 
dro ths Barov, 0 Baros, 6 Baros, 6 Batos, 
ek ths Barov, in the same chapter. 
See on this double gender of the word 
Fritzsche on Mark l.c. 

6. Tis eius éyo|] From Exod. iii. 11 
Tis eis ey@, OTL TOpEevoopal K.T.A. 

7. eyo dé «7.A.| From Exod. iv. 
10 laxvopevos kai BpadiyAwooos eye 
elpe. 

8. “Eyod O€é eipe dtpls x7.A.] This 
quotation is not found in the Old 
Testament or in any apocryphal book 
extant whole or in part. The nearest 
parallel is James iv. 14, moia yap 7 
(a) vuav; atpuls [yap] éore 7 mpos oAL- 
yov awopéevn «.t.4. Compare also 
Hosea xt. 3 ‘As smoke from the 
chimney’ (or ‘the window’), where 
the LXX seems to have translated 
originally drpis amo dxpidwr (see Sim- 
son’s Hosea p. 44), corrupted into 
azo Saxpvev in B and corrected into 
éx xarvodoxns from Theodotion in A; 
and Ps. cxix. 83 ‘I am become like 
a bottle in the smoke,’ where again 
the LXX mistranslates doel dokds ev 
maxvn. In none of these passages 
however are the words very close, 
nor are they spoken by Moses. Per- 
haps therefore this should be reckon- 


Io 


XviIT] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 65 


Sg ! > > ' \ \ / 

ér@ AE EIMI ICYNOMWNOC Kal BpadyrAwccoc. Kal Tadwy 
, > \ ! ? > \ 2 \ Y 

Aeyel, Era Aé eimi AatTMic AT10 KyYO@pac. 


XVIII. 


A ISW \ rat x € / e ey \ 
avelo; mpos ov eimev 0 Oeos, EYpon ANApaA kKaTA THN 


V4 \ xf > \ os / 
Ti o€ ei7wuev émt Tw mMEeu“apTUpNnUEVH 


KAPAIAN Moy, AayelA TON TOY leccal, EN EAEEI AIDNIW EYPICA 
> ’ ’ \ \ > \ / \ \ / > , ! 
aytén. a@AAa@ Kal avTos AEyEr Tos TOV Oeov? ’E\EeuHcON 


A; elrowmev C, 
AS: om C. 


ed among S. Clement’s quotations 
from apocryphal books, on which 
Photius (476/. 126 pnra twa os amo 
Ts Oeias ypadis EeviCovra mapevoayet) 
remarks: see also §§ 8, 13, 23, 30, 46 
(notes). Hilgenfeld supposes that the 
words were taken from the Assump- 
tion of Moses. This is not impossible ; 
but the independent reason which he 
gives for the belief that Clement 
was acquainted with that apocryphal 
work is unsatisfactory; see the note 
on the phoenix below, § 25. I have 
pointed out elsewhere (§ 23) another 
apocryphal work, from which they 
might well have been taken. The 
metaphor is common with the Stoics: 
see Seneca 7road. 392 sq ‘ Ut cali- 
dis fumus ab ignibus Vanescit...Sic 
hic quo regimur spiritus effluit’, M. 
Anton. x. 31 kamvoy kal To pndéy, Xil. 
33 vekpa kal karvos; so also Empedo- 
cles (in Plut. Od. AZor. p. 360 C, quoted 
by Gataker on x. 31) had said, wxv- 
popot Karrvoto Sikny apdevres amenrap. 

kvOpas| Another form of xvtpas, 
just as «Oey and yirey are inter- 
changed. The proper Ionic genitive 
would be xv@pns, which is used by 
Herodes in Stob. Florzl. \xxvill. 6 
(quoted in Hase and Dindorf’s S7eph. 
Thes.). Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 1 (p. 165) 
has xv@pidiots ; and for instances of 
kvOpivos (for yurpivos) see Lobeck 
Pathol. p. 209. In the text of Clem. 
Alex. here xvrpas is read. 

XVIII. ‘Again take David as an 


CLEM. II. 


10, 11 Aaveid] 6a5 AC. See above, § 4. 
rr éAéer] C3 eXavee A; éXalw S Clem (edd.). 


10 6 Geds] 
See below. 


example of humility. He is declared 
to be the man after God’s own heart. 
Yet he speaks of himself as over- 
whelmed with sin, as steeped in im- 
purity, and prays that he may be 
cleansed by God’s Spirit’. 

10. mpos ov] Comp. Rom. x.21, Heb. 
i. 7, and see Winer § xlix. p. 424. 

Evpov «.r..| A combination of Ps. 
Ixxxix. 21 etdpov Aaveld tov doddov 
pov, év éAaim dyi@ pou e€xpica avrov, 
with 1 Sam. xiii. 14 dvOp@mov kara 
THY KapOlay avTov, or rather with Acts 
xiii. 22 edpov Aaveid Tov Tov “lecoat, 
dvdpa Kara tiv Kapdiay pov (itself a 
loose quotation from 1 Sam. xiii. 14). 
In the first passage eAai@ the reading 
of SA is doubtless correct, the cor- 
responding Hebrew being }DY; though 
edger is read by B. But Clement ap- 
pears to have read éAéec as our Greek 
MSS testify. Similarly in § 56, when 
quoting Ps. cxli. 5, he reads eAawoo 
(i.e. €Aeos) duaptodey for éAatov ayap- 
twrov. On the interchange of at 
and ¢ in this word see above, I. p. 121. 
On the other hand Clem. Alex. 
Strom. iv. 17 (p. 611), quoting this 
passage of his namesake, restores 
the correct word éAai@ (if his editors 
can be trusted), as he would do 
naturally, if accustomed to this read- 
ing in the Psalms. 

12. ’Edénoovk.t.r.| The 51st Psalm 
quoted from the LXx almost word for 
word. The variations are very slight 
and unimportant. 


66 


THE EPISTLE OF So CLEMENT [XVIII 


me, 6 Oedc, KATA TO MEfa EAEOC COY, Kal KATA TO TIAHOOC 
TON OIKTIPM@N COY EZAAEIYON TO ANOMHMA MOY. ETT TAEION 
TAYNON ME ATTO TAC ANOMIAC MOY, Kd) ATTO THC AMAPTIAC MOY 
KAOAPICON Me’ OTI THN ANOMIAN MOY €f@ FINDCK@, Kal H 
AMAPTIA MOY EN@TIION MOY €CTIN AIA TTANTOC. COl MONW® HMAP- 
TON, KAl TO TTONHPON @NQ@THION COY éTOIHCA’ OTC AN AIKAI@- 
OHc EN TOIC AOfoic coy, KAl NIKHCHC EN TO KPINECOAl CE. 


iMoy rap EN ANOMIAIC CYNEAHMQMOHN, KAl EN AMAPTIAIC EKIC- 


CHCEN ME H MHTHP MOY. 


AAHAA KAI TA KPYMIA TAC codmiac coy EAHAWCAC MOL. 


1 eos] eXavog A. 


2 oikTipnwv] oixreipnov A. 


> , > ’ : \ 
iAOY fap AAHOEIAN HPATTHCAC™ TA 


PAN- 


émt mdelov K.T.A.] C 


omits the rest of the quotation from this point to é£ov#evdoe (inclusive) at the end 


2. emt mAetov k.t.A.| i.e. ‘wash me 
again and again’. The Hebrew is 
‘multiply (and) wash me’. 

6. omwsk.t-A.] This verse is quoted 
also Rom. iii. 4. The middle xpiveo- 
@a, ‘to have a cause adjudged, to 
plead, is said of one of the parties to 
a suit. The ‘pleading’ of God is a 
common image in the Old Testament; 
e.g. Is. 1. 18, v. 3. In this passage 
however the natural rendering of the 
Hebrew would be xpivew, not kpiveo- 
6a. 

7. vuenons| Thefuturevcjoers isim- 
probable (see Winer § xli. p. 304), 
especially with a preceding SixcarwOijs ; 
and the Ms A is of no authority where 
it is a question between and el. 
The LXx text (SB) has wxnons. 

8. exiconoer] ‘conceived’, not found 
elsewhere in the Lxx. The sense 
and construction which the word has 
here seem to be unique. Elsewhere 
it denotes the fastidious appetite of 
women at such a time and takes a 
genitive of the object desired; comp. 
Arist. Pax 497. 

9. ta adnda k.7.d.] The LXX trans- 
lators have missed the sense of the 
original here. 

11. toodn@| As one defiled by le- 


prosy or some other taint was purged 
according to the law; see Lev. xiv. 
4 sq, Num. xix. 6, 18, and Perowne 
On the Psalms, ad loc. 

12. dkoutveis| For the word akourti- 
¢ew see Sturz de Dial. Mac. p. 144. 
It was perhaps invented to translate 
the Hiphil of Yu. 

16. ed6és] A common form of the 
neuter in the LXx, e.g. Judges xvii. 6, 
Xxi. 25, 2 Sam. xix: 6; 16; ete, Sa 
masculine ev@7s also occurs, e.g. Ps. 
KC. 14 

19. tyenovuro] The word occurs 
frequently in the Greek philosophers. 
The Stoics more especially affected 
the term, To nyepovixov, OF ye“oviKoV 
without the article, using it to signify 
the principle of life, the centre of 
being, the seat of the personality, 
the element which determines the 
character, etc. (see Menage on Diog. 
Laert. vii. 86 § 159; Schweighauser 
on Epictet. Dzss. i. 20. 11 with the 
index; Mayor on Cic. de Nat. Deor. 
ii. 11 § 29). Considering the world 
to be an animated being, they dis- 
cussed what and where was 
nycpouixov. The Stoic definition of 
nyepovixoy in the human being, as 
given by Chrysippus, appears in 


Io 


its." 


r5 


XVIIT | TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


67 


TIEIC ME YCCHMW, KA) KADAPICOHCOMAI® TIAYNEIC ME, Kal Ymep 
YIONA AEYKANOFCOMAI* AKOYTIEIC ME APAAAIACIN KAI ey bpocy- 


NHN° APdAAIACONTAL OCTA TETATIEINDMENA. 


ATTOCTPEYON TO 
TPOCWTON COY ATO T@N AMAPTIM@N MOY, KAl TACAC TAC &NO- 
EZAAEIWON. 


MIAC MOY KAPAIAN KA@APAN KTICON €N €MOI, 6 


Oedc, Kal TNEYMA EYOEC EfKAINICON EN TOIC EfKATOIC MOY. 
MH ATTOPIYHC Me ATTO TOY TPOCwITOY COY, Kal TO TINEYMA TO 
ATION COY MH ANTANEAHC at? émof. ATOAOC MO! THN AfaAd- 


AIACIN TOY C@THPIOY coy, Kal TNEYMaTI HTEMONIK@ CTH- 


of the chapter; see I. p. 128. 


mAuvueis A. 


Diog. Laert. l.c. rd kupidraroy ris 
Wuxis €v @ ai davracia kai ai dppat 
ylvovrat kal dev 6 Aoyos dvaméurerat. 
M. Antoninus divides the human 
being (ii. 2) into three parts, capkia, 
TVEvpaTLoY, nyepovixov, Which corre- 
sponds to his triple division else- 
where (iil. 16) capa, Wuyx7, vods ; Comp. 
tb, v. 11. In Epictetus the use of the 
word is very frequent. A full defini- 
tion of it is given in Sext. Empir. ix. 
§ 102 (p. 414 Bekker) raca: ai éni ra 
Bépy TOU Odov e€arrogTeAAOpevar Svuvd- 
PELs WS amd TLVOS THYNS TOD TyEep“or- 
Kov e£amootéAXovTra, with the context. 
It is identified by various writers 
with the Aoyos or with the vovs or 
with the mvedya or with the Wuy7, 
according to their various philoso- 
phical systems. In Latin it becomes 
principatus in Cicero (de Nat. Deor. 
Lc. ‘principatum id dico quod Graeci 
nyewovxov vocant’) and principale in 
Seneca (Z/. 92 § 1, 113 § 23, and 
elsewhere). So Tertullian de Resurr. 
Carn. 15 ‘principalitas sensuum quod 
Hyepouxov appellatur,’ de Anim. 15 
‘summus in anima gradus vitalis 
quod nyepouxov appellant, id est 
principale.’ 

The Hebrew word 27), here trans- 
lated nyepouxdy, signifies ‘prompt’, 


metov] mAcov A. 
Ms 10 gov] A (with Lxx); om. S (with Hebr.). 


7 viKnons)| wuKnoew 
II wdvvets] 


16 éyxdro.s] evkatou A, 


‘spontaneous’, and so ‘liberal in 
giving’. Hence it gets a secondary 
meaning ‘a prince’ or ‘a noble’, 
‘generosity’ or ‘liberality’ being con- 
nected with persons of this high rank. 
In this meaning, which is extremely 
common, the LXxX translators seem 
to have taken it here; and the ideas 
which heathen philosophy associated 
with the word nyeporkos suggested it 
as an equivalent. Thus rveipa nye- 
povxoy would mean ‘a spirit which 
is a principle or source of life.’ The 
Hebrew phrase itself however seems 
to signify nothing more than ‘an 
open, hearty, free spirit.’ 

But, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit 
is the fountain-head of all spiritual 
life, the expressions mvedpua yepovikor, 
‘spiritus principalis’, came soon to 
be used by Christian writers of the 
Holy Spirit ; and the passage in the 
Psalms was so explained, as e.g. by 
Origen Comm. ad Rom. |. vii. § 1 (Op. 
IV. p. 593 De la Rue) ‘principalem 
spiritum propterea arbitror nomi- 
natum, ut ostenderetur esse quidem 
multos spiritus, sedinhis principatum 
et dominationem hunc Spiritum sanc- 
tum, qui et principalis appellatur, 
tenere’. This connexion indeed 
might appear to them to be suggested 


§ 5 


68 


PICON ME. 
ETTICTPEWOYCIN ETT! CE. 
TAC CWTHPIAC MOY. 


CYNHN COY. 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


AIAAZ@ ANOMOYC TAC OAOYC Coy, 


[ XvIII 


\ an 
KAI aceBelc 


PY¥cal me €Z aimaTw@n, 6 Oedc, 6 Dede 
APAAAIACETAL H FA@CCA MOY THN AIKAI0- 


Kypie, TO cTdMA Moy ANOIzZeICc, Kal TA YelAH 


Moy ANarreAel THN AINECIN COY’ OTI ei HOEAHCAC OBYCIAN, 


EAWKA AN’ OAOKAYTM@MATA OYK EYAOKHCEIC. 


Bbycia TO Oew 


an f ' , \ 
TINEYMA CYNTETPIMMENON® KAPAIAN CYNTETPIMMENHN KAl, Tes 


TATIEINDMENHN 6 QOcedc OYK €Z0YNENDCEL. 


> > e/ 
XIX. Tov toco’twy ovv Kal TOLOUTwWY OUTWS [E- 


~ \ Ki 
papTupnMevwy TO TamTEWoppovovy Kai TO UrocEES ola 


> e - > / 9 la > \ \ \ \ € lan 
THS UTakons OU Movoy nuas aAAa@ Kal Tas TPO NMwY 


48q TO ordua...7& xei\n] A; the words are transposed in S with the Lxx and 


Hebrew. 

om. C; kal otirws S. 
11 d\Aa] CS; addao A. 
yeveds) C. 


by the words of the Psalm itself, 
since TO mvevpa TO ayloy cov Occurs 
in the preceding verse. So in the 
Fragm. Murator. p. 18 (Tregelles), 
where speaking of the four Gospels 
this very early writer says that they 
are in perfect accord with one another 
‘cum uno ac principali Spiritu de- 
clarata sint in omnibus omnia’; on 
which passage see Hesse Das Mura- 
torische Fragment p. 109 sq. Thus 
mvevpa rnyepovrxov furnishes an ad- 
ditional instance of the alliance of 
the phraseology of Greek philosophy 
with scriptural ideas, which is a 
common phenomenon in early Chris- 
tian literature. 

amnpicov| So SB read in the Lxx, 
but A and others ornpifov. On 
these double forms see Buttmann 
Ausf. Gr. Spr. § 92 (1. p. 372); and 
on the use of ornpicor, etc., in the 
New Testament, Winer § xv. p. IOI. 
The scribe of A in Clement is in- 
consistent; for he has éornpiéev § 8, 


otnpiéwper § 13, but éornjpucer § 33, 


9 Tocol’Twr, Too’Twv] A; transposed in CS. 
Io Tamewogppovody] tamewoppovoy A; Tamewdppov C. 


ottws] A; 


Tas mpd uav yeveds] AS; rods mpd hus (omitting 
12, 7e| AC; om. S. 


13 av’rod] AC; Tod Oeod S. 


and ornpicov here. 

2. aiuarwv] The plural denotes es- 
pecially ‘dloodshed’, as in Plat. Legg. 
ix. p. 872 E, and the instances col- 
lected in Blomfield’s Gloss. to A‘sch. 
Choeph. 60: see also Test. xzz Patr. 
Sym. 4 eis aiwata mapoévver, Anon. 
in Hippol. Haer. v. 16 aipaot xaiper 6 
Toude Tov Koopouv Seororns, Tatian. ad 
Graec. 8, The same is the force also 
of the Hebrew plural 0%", of which 
aiuata here and elsewhere is a ren- 
dering: comp. Exod: xxii. I, where, 
as here, ‘bloodshed’ is equivalent to 
“blood-guiltiness’. 

XIX. ‘These bright examples of 
humility we have before our eyes. 
But let us look to the fountain-head 
of all truth; let us contemplate the 
mind of the universal Father and 
Creator, as manifested in His works, 
and see how patience and order and 
beneficence prevail throughout crea- 
tion’. 

9. Tov tocovrev «.r.A.| An imita- 
tion of Heb, xii. 1, 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 69 


XIX] 


yeveas BeXTious Erroincev, ToUs TE KaTadeEapmevous TA 
Aoyia avTou év PoBw Kai ddryOeia. Tlod\Nwy ovv Kal 
peyadwy Kat évdoEwv weTerypores Tpacewy, émavadpa- 
15 wey ert Tov EE apxns Tapadedomevoy Hutv Tijs Eipnyns 
OKOTOV, Kal ATEVITWMEYV Els TOV TATEPA Kal KTLETHY TOU 
CUMTAYTOS KOTMOV, Kal Tats MEYANOTPETETL Kal UTTEp- 
Barrovaas avTou Owpeais THS Elonvns EvEepyeriais TE 
Ko\AnOwpuev’ idwuev avTov KaTa diavoray Kal éuBréVw- 
20 MEV TOIS OupacW THS WuyNs Eis TO paxpoOupov avtou 


/ ~ >/ e / \ a 
BovAnpa? vonowpmev Tes aOPYNTOS UTaDYEL TPOS Tacay 


\ / > ~ 
THY KTLIOLY AUTOU. 


14 mpdfewy] C; mpagacwv A; add. rovtwr, ddeXgol dyaryroi S. 
AC; hujus mundi S; see above, § 5, and below, ii. § 1g. 


17 Koopou] 
IQ KoNAn- 


dawev] AC; consideremus (vontwpev) et adhaereamus S, but this is probably one 
of the periphrases which abound in S (see I. p. 136). 


10. tamewodppovovr| See the note on 
ramewodppover above, § 17; and comp. 
§ 38 below. 

TO umodees| ‘submisstveness’, ‘sub- 
ordination’. This seems to be the 
meaning of the word, which is very 
rare in the positive, though common 
in the comparative vmodeéorepos ; see 
Epiphan. aer. lxxvil. 14 70 vrodeés 
kal nAaTT@pevoy, a passage pointed 
out to me by Bensly. Accordingly 
in the Syriac it is rendered adiminutio 
et demissto. Laurent says ‘Colo- 
mesius male substantivo szdjectio 
vertit; collaudatur enim h. 1. volun- 
taria sanctorum hominum egestas’, 
comparing Luke x. 4, and Harnack 
accepts this rendering ‘egestas’. But 
this sense is not well suited to the 
context, besides being unsupported ; 
nor indeed is it easy to see how 
vrodens could have this meaning, 
which belongs rather to éevdens. It 
might possibly mean ‘fearfulness’, a 
sense assigned to it by Photius, 
Suidas, and Hesychius, who explain 
it vmopoBos. But usage suggests its 


connexion with d¢ona zudigeo, like 
amrodens, evdens, katadens, rather than 
with d¢os ézmor, like ddens, repiSens. 

12. karadeEapevovs |] Davies proposes 
karadefonevovs. The emendation would 
have been more probable if the pre- 
position had been different, d:adeEo- 
févous and not katadeEouévovs. 

14. perevdnpores| ‘participated in’, 
i.e. profited by as examples. The 
achievements of the saints of old are 
the heritage of the later Church. 

15. elpnyns cxoroy| ‘the mark, the 
goal, of peace’. God Himself is the 
great exemplar of peaceful working, 
and so the final goal of all imitation. 

21. dopyntos| ‘calm’; Ign. Philad. 
I, Polyc. PAzd. 12 (note). Aristotle 
attaches a bad sense to the word, as 
implying a want of sensibility, 7. 
Vic. ii. 7. Others however distin- 
guished dopynoia from dvacbnota (see 
Aul. Gell. i. 27); and with the Stoics 
it was naturally a favourite word, e.g. 
Epict. Dzss. iil. 20. 9 TO dvekrikdy, TO 
dopyntor, Td mpdor, iii. 18. 6 evorabas, 
aldnpoves, dopyntws, M. Anton. 1. 1 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [ xx 


7O 


ca / lo y 
XX. Oi ovpavol TH Stounoe av’ToU cadevopmevoL 
? > / ¢ / 5) om e / \ \ \ 
év elonyn VToTaTTOVTaL avTM" NMEpa TE Kal VUE TOV 
/ Paks 5) ~ / / ~~ 5) / 
TeTaypevov Um avTou Spomov SLavvovawy, undev &ANAOLS 
> / vA / \ / 2 / \ 
€umooiCovTa. HALOS TE Kal GDEANYN aoTEPwWY TE KXOpOL 
\ \ \ a > ¢ / / if 
KaTa TyHvy dlaTayny avToU év oOpmovoia oixa mans 5 


/ > / \ > / ’ ~ 
mapekBacews €€eALTGOVGLY TOUS ETLTETAYMEVOUS aUTOLS 


/ 
Opto pious. 


1 diorxnoe| AC; dixauwoe S apparently. 
aoTépwv re xopoi] AC; but S translates as if dorepés re kal xOpo.. 
In S it is rendered 27 omni egressu cursus 


Bdoews] .apexBacewo A; mapaBdoews C. 


TO KadonOes kal dopyntov. The word 
does not occur in the Lxx or New 
Testament. 

XX. ‘All creation moves on in 
peace and harmony. Night and day 
succeed each other. The heavenly 
bodies roll in their proper orbits. 
The earth brings forth in due sea- 
son. The ocean keeps within its 
appointed bounds. The seasons, the 
winds, the fountains, accomplish their 
work peacefully and minister to our 
wants. Even the dumb animals ob- 
serve the same law. Thus God has 
by this universal reign of order mani- 
fested His beneficence to all, but 
especially to us who have sought 
His mercy through Christ Jesus’. 

I. gadevopevor] If the reading be 
correct, this word must refer to the 
motion of the heavenly bodies, ap- 
parently uneven but yet recurrent 
and orderly; and this reference seems 
to be justified by eeAiacovow below. 
SareverGa is indeed frequently used 
in the Old Testament to express 
terror and confusion, in speaking of 
the earth, the hills, etc.; but never of 
the heavens. So too in the Sibylline 
Oracles, iii. 675, 714, 751. On the 
other hand Young would read py 
caevouwevor; and Davies, improving 
upon this correction, suggests ov 
caAdevopevot, repeating the last letters 


a ~ \ \ y 5) ~ ~ 
yn KvopopovTa Kata TO OeAnpa avTov Tots 


4 Te kai] AS; kal (om. te) C. 
6 mapek- 


of avrov. But such passages in the 
New Testament as Matt. xxiv. 29, 
Heb. xil. 26, 27, are not sufficient to 
justify the alteration ; for some ex- 
pression of motzon is wanted. Not 
‘fixity, rest,’ but ‘regulated change’ 
is the idea of this and the following 
sentences. For this reason I have 
retained gaXevopevor. In the passage 
of Chrysostom quoted by Young in 
defence of his reading, zz Psalm. 
cxlviii. § 2 (V. p. 491) ovdév cuvexvOn 
Toy ovT@v’ ov Oadatra THY yy éméKdv- 
wev, ovx NALtos TOE TO Opepevoy KaTe- 
Kavoev, oUK ovpavos TrapecadevOn K.T.A., 
this father would seem purposely to 
have chosen the compound zapagca- 
Never Oa to denote dsorderly motion. 
The same idea as here is expressed in 
Theoph. ad Autol. i. 6 dorpev xopeiav 
ywomerny ev TH KUKA@ TOV ovpavod ois 7 
moAvroikiros copia Tov Geod macw idva 
ovowata KéxAnkev, Comp. 20. il. 15. 

5. év opovoia] Naturally a frequent 
phrase in Clement; §§ 9, 11, 34, 49, 
50, comp. §§ 21, 30, 60, 61, 63, where 
likewise the word opovora occurs. 

6. mapexBaoews| The other reading 
mapaBdoews destroys the sense. For 
the whole passage comp. AZoszt. 
Const. vii. 34 poornpes...amapaBaroy 
odtovtes tov Sodtyov kal Kar ovdev 
mapadAaooortes THS Ons TMpooTayns. In 
the immediate neighbourhood is the 


Xx | TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


71 


2V/ ~ \ / > / \ \ \ 

tdlows Kaipots THY TravTANOn avOpwros TE Kat Enpawy Kat 

-~ = = ? 5) > \ f > / y \ 

TaoW TOS OVW ET avTHY Cwois avaTehrEL TOOGHY, EN 

a \ ’ ~ / lm / 

dwyorTaTovca unde addrolwovTAa TL TwV SEdoymaTLCUE- 

e ~ > > / \ f 

vwv Um avToU. aBicowy TE aveetxviaoTa Kal VvEpTE- 
/ ~ 9 pe , 

pwy aveKoinynTa KpiuaTa ToIs avTOls DUVEXETAaL TPOG- 


/ \ / land / , \ \ 
TAYMATLW. TO KUTOS THS aTrELOOU Gartacons KaTa THY 


tpsorum, which probably represents tapexBdcews, and where probably the reading 


was 6id for dixa. 8 mavrd\nbyn] A; traumrd7On C. g én’ avrny] 


A; én’ airis C; 2 zlla S. 


same quotation from Job xxxviii. II as 
here in Clement. 

e€ehiccovow] Comp. Plut. Mor. 
p- 308 A rocavtras nuepars Tov avTns 
KUkAov e€eAiooes (Of the moon), Heliod. 
LE th. Vv. 14.01 8é wept Tov vopéa KiKXovus 
dyepdxous é&eXittovres (both passages 
given in Hase and Dindorf’s S7eph. 
Thes.). Thus the word continues the 
metaphor of yopoi, describing the 
tangled mazes of the dance, as e.g. 
Eur. Zvoad. 3. The opicpot therefore 
are their defined orbits. 

g: é€@ avtnv| For the accusative 
so used see Winer § xlix. p. 426. 

dvare\iet| Here transitive, as e.g. 
Gen. 1i./18, Is. xlv. 8, Matt. v. 45); 
comp. Epiphanes in Clem. Alex. 
Strom. ili. 2, p. 512, Atos Kowvas 
tpopas (wos amacw avaréAder (MSS 
avaté\Aew), which closely resembles 
our Clement’s language here. 

10. trav. dedoypaticpévov k.T.A.] 
Comp. § 27 ovdev pn mapedAOn Tadv Se- 
Soypariopevev Um’ avTov. 

12. xpipara| ‘statutes, ordinances, 
i.e. the laws by which they are 
governed, as e.g. 2 Chron. xxx. 16 
é€oTnoayv em Tv oTdoW avTdey KaTa 
TO Kpiwa avtoy (‘as they were ap- 
pointed’), 2 Chron. iv. 7 tas Avyvias 
kara TO Kpiva avToy (Comp. ver. 20). 
But kpivata is very awkward, and 
several emendations have been sug- 
gested, of which kAiwara is the best. 


We may either adopt this, or (as I 
would suggest in preference) strike 
out the word altogether. In either 
case we may fall back upon the con- 
jecture of Lipsius (p. 155, note) that 
Kpiwara was written down by some 
thoughtless scribe from Rom. xi. 33 
ave€epevynta Ta Kpiyata avTov Kal ap- 
e€tyviacrot ai oOol avtov (he gives the 
reference ix. 33, which is repeated 
by Jacobson, and still further corrupt- 
ed ix. 23 by Hilgenfeld). Indeed the 
same word seems still to be running 
in the head of the scribe of A when be- 
low he writes kpuyara for kuzara. The 
véprepa are the ‘subterranean regions’ 
regarded physically. Yet xpivara is 
the reading of all our authorities. It 
must have been read moreover by 
the writer of the later books of the 
Apostolic Constitutions, vil. 35 ave&- 
txviacros kpivaow. My attention has 
been called also to the connexion of 
words in Ps. xxxvi (xxxv). 5 Ta kpiata 
cov [@oei] G8vccos ToAX7. 

13. 70 KUtos| ‘the hollow, the basin,’ 
as Ps. lxiv. 7 0 cuvtapaooe@y TO KUTOS 
ths Oakaoons. In Dan. iv. 8 ro kvros 
is opposed to 7d vos. Comp. also 
Theoph. ad Autol. 1. 7 6 ovytapacowy 
TO KUTos THs Oaracons, and AZost. 
Const. viii. 12 6 cuotTnodpevos a- 
Buvooov kai péya kvUTos avTH Te- 
piGeis...mnyats devao.s peOvaas... 
éviavTav KUKAOLS...vepav ouSpoToKer 


72 THE EPISTLE OF 8. CLEMENT 


[xx 


bY la \ > \ \ 
Onpuoupyiav av’tov avaTadey cic tac cyNarwmrdc OU Tap- 


/ 98 FS a \ 
exBaiver Ta tepiteOepeva avtTn KAEOpa, ada Kalws 


/ la e/ ~ 
dueTagev avtTy, ovTws TroLet. 


1 Onptovpylav] Snucovpyecav A. 
Kpuwata A. 


Siadpopais eis xapmov yovas kat 
(d@v avotacw, ordbpov avépov 
duamveovrwy x.t.A., in which passage 
the resemblances cannot be acci- 
dental. 

I. eis tas ouvaywyas| From LXX 
Gen. i. 9 kai cuvnxOn TO Vdwp TO vro- 
KdT® TOU ovpavod eis Tas TUVaywyas 
avTov, wanting in the Hebrew. It 
refers to the great bodies of water, 
the Mediterranean, the Caspian, the 
Red Sea, etc: 

mapekBaiver x«.t.A.] From Job 
XXXVili. 10, I1 eOéuny Sé avrn dpa 
mepubeis KAetOpa Kat mvAas, cima Oe avTA 
Meéype tovrou ehevon kal ovx vrepBnon, 
ad\N é€v ceavtn cuvtTpiBnoerai cou Ta 
xvpata: comp. also Ps. civ. 9, Jer. v. 22. 

4. @keavos x.t.A.] This passage is 
directly quoted by Clem. Alex. Stvom. 
V.1i2 (p..603), by Origen de Prec: 
WO; (1. 1p. 02,83), Select. ta Leech. 
will, 3 (111. p, 422), by Jerome ad 
Pephes. iW. 2 (Vik, ps. 571)... | Tt must 
also have suggested the words of 
Irenzeus Yaer. 11. 28. 2 ‘Quid autem 
possumus exponere de oceani accessu 
et recessu, quum constet esse certam 
causam? quidve de his quae ultra 
eum sunt enuntiare, qualia sint?’? On 
the other hand the expression 6 zroAvs 
kal amépavtos avOperois okeavos used 
by Dionys. Alex. in Euseb. #H. £. 
vii. 21 may be derived indirectly 
through Clement or Origen. On 
Photius see below, p. 86. 

5. améparos| ‘zmpassable, as the 
context shows, and as it is rendered 
in the translation of Origen de Princ. 
li. 3 (‘intransmeabilis’), The com- 
mon form in this sense is améparos ; 


owrpiBjcera] A; cuvtpiBjcovra C. 


a / a a 
elev yao’ “Ewc wae 
3 otrws] A; ovTw C. 4 Kvpara] 
5 avOp. aép.| A; dmép. 


though arépavros is read here not only 
in our MSS, but by Clem. Alex. p. 693 
and Dionys. Alex. in Euseb. H. £. vii. 
21, or their transcribers, and may 
possibly be correct. Yet as I could 
not find any better instances of this 
use than Eur. Med. 212, Atsch. Prom. 
159 (where Blomf. suggests dzéparos), 
and in both passages the meaning 
may be questioned, I have preferred 
reading améparos as quoted by Origen 
Select. in Ezech., viii. 3. 

The proper meaning of dzrépartos, 
‘boundless,’ appears from Clem. Hom. 
XV1. 17, XVli. 9, 10, where it is found in 
close alliance with azretpos. See also 
Clem. Alex. Fragm. p. 1020. On the 
other hand for dméparos comp. e.g. 
Macar. Magn. A foer. iv. 13 (p. 179) pet 
TO Ocper kal T@ Yeysaue TOAVS kal amrépa- 
tos. The lines in A here are divided 
aTTepan|toc ; and this division would 
assist the insertion of the n. An 
earlier scribe would write atrepdtoc 
for attrepaltoc. See Didymus Zs. 
Psal. 138 (p. 1596 ed. Migne) «i yap 
kal @keavos amépavtos, GAN ovy Kat of 
per avTov Koopot Tais Tov Seamdrou 
Siarayais Svidvvovrar’ mavta yap Ta Tpos 
avrov yeyernpéva Orro.[ Grota? | ror €or 
Tayais THs éavTov mpovoias Siovkovpeva 
idvvera. This language may possibly 
have been derived from Origen, and 
not directly from Clement. Anyhow 
the recognition of both the various 
readings, rayais, Siarayais, is worthy 
of notice. 

of per avrov koopot k.T.A.| Clement 
may possibly be referring to some 
known but hardly accessible land, 
lying without the pillars of Hercules 


xx] 


HZeIc, KAl TA KYMATA COY EN COl CYNTPIBHCETAI. 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 73 


\ 
WKEAVOS 


/ / \ e / ~ a 
avOpwros admepaTos Kal Ol MET AVTOV KOTMOL Tals avTats 


a “ 3 / / 
Tayats Tov decmoTou dLevOuvoyTat. 


avOp. C. 
Didym. See the lower note. 


and in foreign seas: as Ceylon (Plin. 
NV. fH. vi. 22 ‘Taprobanen alterum 
orbem terrarum esse diu existima- 
tum est, Antichthonumappellatione’), 
or Britain (Joseph. &. F. ii. 16. 4 vrép 
w@keavov érépav e(ntnaay oikoupévny Kal 
BEXPL TOV ayaTOpHT@Yy mpoTepoy Bper- 
tavey Ounveykay ta omAa). But more 
probably he contemplated some un- 
known land in the far west beyond 
the ocean, like the fabled Atlantis of 
Plato or the real America of modern 
discovery. From Aristotle onwards 
(de Caelo ii. 14, p. 298, Meteor. ii. 5, 
p. 362), and even earlier, theories had 
from time to time been broached, 
which contemplated the possibility 
of reaching the Indies by crossing 
the western ocean, or maintained the 
existence of islands or continents 
towards the setting sun. The Cartha- 
ginians had even brought back a 
report of such a desert island in the 
Atlantic, which they had visited, 
[Aristot.] Wzrab. Ausc. § 84 p. 836, 
§ 136 p. 844, Diod. v. 19, 20; see 
Humboldt Exam. Crit. I. p. 130. 
In the generations before and after 
the time of Clement such specula- 
tions were not uncommon. Of these 
the prophecy in Seneca’s Medea 
li. 375 ‘ Venient annis saecula seris 
Quibus oceanus vincula rerum Laxet 
et ingens pateat tellus etc.,’ is the 
most famous, because so much stress 
was laid on it by Columbus and his 
fellow discoverers: but the state- 
ments in Strabo i. 4 (p. 65), Plut. 
Mor. p. 941, are much more remark- 
able. The opinions of ancient writers 
on this subject are collected and ex- 


\ \ \ 
Kalpol Eaplvol Kal 


dméparos] Orig; zztransmeabilis S; awépaytos AC Clem, Dionys, 
6 tayats] AC; dtarayats Origen. 


See below. 


amined in the Ist volume of A. von 
Humboldt’s Exam. Crit. dela Géogr. 
du Nouveau Continent : see also other 
works mentioned in Prescott’s Feraz- 
mand and Isabella Il. p. 102. This 
interpretation is quite consistent with 
the fact that Clement below (§ 33) 
speaks of the ocean as ro mepiéxov 
THY ynv Voap. 

At all events this passage was 
seemingly so taken by Irenzeus and 
Clement of Alexandria, and it is dis- 
tinctly explained thus by Origen (Sed. 
in Ezech. viii. 3 sq, de Princ. il. 6) 
who discusses it at great length. All 
these fathers acquiesce in the exist- 
ence of these ‘other worlds.’ Ata 
later date however this opinion came 
to be regarded with suspicion by 
Christian theologians. Tertullian, de 
Pall. 2, Hermog. 25, was the first 
to condemn it. The idea of the 
Antipodes is scouted by Lactantius 
Div. Inst. iii. 24, with other fathers 
of the fourth century and later (comp. 
August. de Czv. Dez xvi. 9); and in the 
reign of Justinian (¢.A.D. 535) the spe- 
culations of Cosmas Indicopleustes 
(Montfaucon Coll. Nov. Patr. i. p. 
113 sq), who describes the earth as 
a plain surface and a parallelogram 
in form (see Humboldt le. I. p. 41 
sq), stereotyped for many centuries 
the belief of Christian writers on this 
subject. It was made a special charge 
against Virgilius, the Irish geome- 
trician, bishop of Salzburg (+ A.D. 
784); see Stokes J/reland and the 
Celtic Church p. 224 sq. 

6. tayais] ‘directions, as Hermes 
in Stob. Ecl. 1. 52. 40 émomrnp toivuy 


THE EPISTLE OF S$. CLEMENT [xe 


74 


\ \ \ \ ea 5) / 
Oepivol Kat peToTwpLVOL Kal Keep wen év elonvn MeTa- 
/ 5) / > \ \ \ 
Tapadiwoacw aAndos. avEenwy oTraQuot KaTa Tov 
sf \ \ / q 4 
OLov KaLpoV THY AELTOUPYLaY aVTwV aTpOTKOTWS ETLTE- 
> / / \ \ / \ / 
Novaw" déevaol TE TWHYal TOs aTONavoOW Kal vYyElav 
an , > / / \ \ 
Onpuovpynbeioa diva éAAElWEws TapeyovTaL TOUS TOS 5 
lo > / / / 5) / land / \ 
Cons avOpwrois waCous. Ta TE EAXaYIOTA TWY CwwY Tas 
/ a 5) € / dé ~ 
TUVEAEVTELS AUTWY EV OMOVOIa Kai ElonYN ToOLOVYTAL. 
a / € / \ \ , ~~ 
Tatra mavta 6 peyas Snmuoupyos Kal deomoTns Tw 
€ / ) SIPS WG / / =: p) 
dTavTwy év Elpyvy Kal OMOVOLa TPOTETAEEY Elval, EVEDYE- 


I perotwpwol| weGorwpivo A. peTatrapad.doacw] A, and so app. S; mera- 


diddacu C. 
it had read dveuol re crabuwr. 
ANecroupyerav A. 
Se byelav] A; dvylevay C. 


Tayns ota Tov Oday o€vdepKys eds 
’Adpaoreca, with other passages quoted 
by Hase in Steph. Thes. s.v. Origen 
Sel. in Ezech. \.c., and apparently 
also de Princ. |.c. (for the Latin is as- 
posttionibus), has dvatayais, which 
some editors adopt ; but he would 
naturally substitute a common for 
an unusual word, and his quotation 
throughout is somewhat loose. 

I. peramapadiddacw | ‘ give way in 
succession’; again a rare word, of 
which a few instances are collected 
in Hase and Dindorf’s Steph. Thes. 

2. avépov orabuoi] From Job 
XXVili. 25 émoinoey b€ dvépav crabpov 
kal vdodtev peétrpa, where it means 
‘weight, as the original shows. 
Clement however may have mis- 
understood the meaning; for he 
seems to use the word in a different 
sense, ‘ the fixed order’ or ‘ the fixed 
stations, as the context requires. 
The common Greek expression in 
this sense is oraces, e.g. Polyb. i. 
75.8 Kata Twas dvépwv ordoels, ix. 5. 
23 émix@plor Tas TaY dvé“ov oTaceLs 
kddAd\oTa ywookovor: see Schweig- 
hauser on Polyb. 1. 48. 2. A good 


4 advan] A; advvan C. 
5 mpos fwys] A; mpos fwyv C.. S translates 


2 dvéuwy] A; add. re CS. S translates ventigue locorum as if 


3 THv] AS; Kat rn C. Aecroupylav] 
dmé\avow] AC; add. re 


illustration of Clement’s meaning is 
the noble passage in Lucretius v. 
737 Sq: 

3. dmpookormas|] So again § 61 
Suérrery THY vmTO Gov OEedopevny avrots 
nyewoviay ampookores. For the cor- 
responding adjective admpdcxoros, 
which seems to have been a spe- 
cially Pauline word (Acts xxiv. 16, 
as well as 1 Cor. x. 32, Phil, i) 10) 
see Philippians |.c. 

4. vyeiay] A common form in late 
writers: see Lobeck Paral. p. 28 
(with the references), Phrvyn. p. 493, 
Pathol. p. 234. It is so written in 
several inscriptions, and so scanned 
in Orph. Hymn. lxxxiv. (8 (pr 350; 
Herm.) ¢cABov emumveiovoa Kat nrt0- 
xetpov vyeiavy (unnecessarily altered 
by Porson, Eur. Ovest¢. 229, into jmu- 
xeup vyievav), and elsewhere. Editors 
therefore should not have substituted 
vyievav. Compare rapeia § 50. 

5. tovs mpos Cans watovs| The meta- 
phor was perhaps suggested by Jer. 
Xviil. I4 (LXX) py ékAeiYrouow amo 
méTpas pacroi, which however departs 
from the existing reading of the He- 
brew. For mpos (ans, ‘on the side of 


xxI] 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


75 


~ \ / > \ ¢ ~ \ 
10 TWY Ta TAaVTA, UTEpEKTEpLTTWS OE NUaS TOUS TOT TE- 


15 


Aa ~ a \ ~ / e - 
pevyoras TOls OLKTIDMOIs avTOU 61a TOU Kupiou NUwY 


‘Incov Xpicrov, w 


é 


> ~~ a a 7 
ALWYAS TWY ALWYWY. apn. 


¢€ f 2 \ 
4 So€a Kat 4 peyadwourn els Tous 


> > ? / o 
XXI. ‘Opate, ayamrnrol, pn at evepyeriae avTou 


Ig > / ~ ( C P| \ > / 
al joAAat YEVWOVTAL ELS KOLUA TAL HULVY, EaVY LH aELWS 


qn \ \ \ >» / > / ? 
avUTOU TONITEVOMEVOL Ta KaNa Kal EvapETTa EvwTLOV av- 


~ ~ > c E 
Tov Tolwmev pe? opmovotas. 


ea quae ad vitam, omitting wagovs altogether. 
10 mpoomepevyétas] AS; mpoogpevyortas C. 
12 kal 7 weyadwovvn|] AC; om. S. 


if cukAjWes) S. 
forts] ouxTecpuou A. 


Ever yap jou: TIneyma 


7 ouveNedoers] AC; auxilia (as 
II otKTup- 
15 els Kpiua 


macw juiv] A; es xpluara obv juiy C (EICKPIMATACYN for EICKPIMATTACIN) ; 


in gudicium nobis S; see l. p. 143- 


life, ‘conducive to life, comp. Acts 
XXV1l. 34 mpos THs UueTepas TaTnplas, 
Clem. Hom. vill. 14 mpos Koopov kat 
rep Weas, and see Winer § xlvii. p. 391. 
This sense of mpos is more common 
in classical Greek. 

7. ovvedevoers] Comp. Jer. viii. 7 
‘The stork in the heaven knoweth 
his appointed times; and the turtle 
and the crane and the swallow ob- 
serve the time of their coming’, etc. 
Or it may refer to their pairing at 
the proper season of the year. Comp. 
Ptolem. Geogr. 1. 9 (quoted in Szeph. 
Thes.). 

8. Sdnusovpyos| Only once in the 
New Testament, Heb. xi. 10: in the 
LXX again only in 2 Macc. iv. 1 (and 
there not of the Creator). On the 
Christian use of this Platonic phrase 
see Jahn’s Methodius 1. pp. 11, 39, 9I. 

10. mpoodevyer| Altogether a late 
and somewhat rare word: see I Sam. 
xxix. 3 (Sym.). It does not occur in 
the Lxx or New Testament. 

12.  d0€a kai 7 pey.| So again § 64. 
In the doxology Jude 25 also the two 
words occur together; comp. Ecclus. 
xliv. 2. 


XXI. ‘His blessings will turn to 


16 avrod pri.] AC; om. S. 


our curse unless we seek peace and 
strive to please Him. He sees all 
our most secret thoughts. Let us 
therefore offend foolish and arrogant 
men rather than God. Let us honour 
Christ ; let us respect our rulers, and 
revere old age; let us instruct our 
Wives in purity and gentleness, and 
our children in humility and the fear 
of God. His breath is in us, and His 
pleasure can withdraw it in a mo- 
ment’. 

15. a&iws moditevopevot] The ex- 
pression occurs in Phil. i. 27. Cle- 
ment’s language here is echoed by 
Polycarp Phd. 5. 

16. evapeota evomiov| Heb. xiii. 21; 
comp. Ps. cxiv. 9. 

17. éyes yap x«.t.A.] Clem. Alex. 
Strom. iv. 17 (p. 611 sq) cites the re- 
mainder of this section and the whole 
of the next, continuously after §§ 17, 18 
(seethenote § 17). For the most part he 
quotes in the same loose way, abridg- 
ing and interpolating as before; but 
here and there, as in the long passage 
Tas yuvaikas nuov...dvehet avtyv, he 
keeps fairly close to the words of his 
original and may be used as an au- 
thority for the readings. 


76 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xx1 


} t > n \ a a ’ / 
Kypioy AYYNOc €peYN@N TA TAMIEIA TAC FAcTPpOc. lSwpev 
Co > 7 ) \ / 2V\ / > \ a 
Tws éyyus é€oTw, Kal Ott ovdev NEANOEY avTOY TwY 
A 
Ol- 


oy p) A ~ e on ’ A lan / 
Ka.lov ouv éoTw py ALTOTAKTElY Huas amo TOU OeXr- 


5) ~ c ca 2O\ > > . / 
EVVOLWY HUwY OVdE TwWY SLaNOYLoMwY wy ToLoUMEDa. 


5 ~ ~ I if a \ ? / 
patos avTov: pardAov avOpwros adpoot Kat avoynTois 5 
\ / 5 / C 
kal émaipopeévors Kal éyKavxywpevors ev a&aCoveta ToU 
/ > la / \ -~ a \ / 
Aoyou av’twv TpocKkoWwuev 7 TH Oew. Tov Kupiov 


‘Incovv [Xpirrov], ov TO aia vrep jpav 600, évTpa- 


I A’xvos] C Clem 611; Avxvov A. 
AC; add. zodzs S. 


Trew C. 5 paddov] AC; add. oe S. 
pevor A. adafoveia] adagovia A. 
A; om. CS. véous] vaouo A. 


Ilveta Kupiov «.t.r.| From Prov. 
xx. 27, which runs in the LXX das 
Kuplov mvon avOparrer os épevva (épavra) 
Tapeia (rapweia) KowWlas. A adds 7 
hvxvos after advOperay, but this must 
originally have been a gloss suggest- 
ing an alternative reading for dds, as 
Avxvos 1s actually read by Aq. Sym. 
Theod. ; seea similar instance of cor- 
rection in this MS noted above on § 17. 
Comp. also Prov. vi. 23 Avyvos evToAy 
vopov kai dos, from which passage 
perhaps Avyvos came to be interpo- 
lated here. Hilgenfeld prints Aéyeu yap 
mov mvevpa Kupiov Avyvos epevvar K.T.A. 
and finds fault with Clem. Alex. for 
making the words mvevya Kupiou part 
of the quotation (Aéyex yap ov 7 ypapn 
IIvevpa Kupiov k.t.A.); but they seem to 
be wanted to complete the sentence. 
Our Clement in fact quotes loosely, 
transposing words so as to give a 
somewhat different sense. See below, 
Is. lx. 17 quoted in § 42. For the exact 
words héyer yap mov see S§ 15, 26, and 
for other instances of Aéyex (or dyoi) 
with no nominative expressed, §§ 8, 
To, 16, 29, 30, 46. On the spelling of 
Tap.eia (rapeta) Clement (or his tran- 
scriber) is capricious: see § 50 (note). 


Tameta] AC; taueta Clem. 
&rt] AC; om. (?)S. 


2 éoTw | 
4 Nuroraxtety| A; Neurotak- 
6 éyKavxwuévos] eyKavxw- 
8 Xpicrév] A; om. CS. 10 7uwv] 
II wadelav| madcay A. Tov poBou] 

2. éyy’s éorw] As below § 27; 
comp. Ps. xxxiv. 18, (Cxix,, 151;7eame 
18, Ign. Ephes. 15 ra kputra nuar ey- 
yvs até eorw (with the note), Herm. 
Vzs. ii. 3. There is no allusion here 
to the nearness of the advent, as in 
Phil. iv. 5 (see the note there). 

ovdev éAnOev x.7.A.] This passage 
is copied by Polycarp P&zl. 4 «ai 
heAnOev avTov ovdev ovTe oyiopov 
oute evvotay. On diadroyopol, ‘z2zward 
guestionings, see the note on Phil. 
jis AL 

4. uroraxtety| So avroponeiv be- 
low, § 28. Ignatius has the same 
metaphor but uses the Latin word, 
Polyc. 6 pynris tpav decéptwp evpeb7: 
see the note there. 

On the authority of our older Ms I 
have preferred the form Aurorakreiv. 
There is poetical authority for the 
simple vowel in DArrora€wv; see 
Meineke Fragm. Com, Il. p. 1214, 
Ill. p. 71, with the notes. So too in 
analogous words, wherever they occur 
in verse, the form in z is found: e.g. 
Auravyns, Aurovadtns, u- 
momvoos, Auroaapkys, Autowvxetv. The 
grammarians differed on this point ; 
see Choeroboscus in Cramer’s A necd. 


Aurovaus, 


to 


15 


XxI] 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


77 


la \ 7 a 5) = \ 
77 @ MEV * TOUS TT POnYOUMEVOUS MOV alder Omer, TOUS 


f lon 7 \ L / 
TpEecBUTEPOUS uwY TYLNTwWMEY, TOUS VEoUS TaWdEvTwWMEY 
\ E eed Zi “ — \ ~~ e a 
THV Talwélav TOU poBov tov Qeou, Tas yuvaikas juov 


émt TO ayabov diopbwowpeba: TO ad€iayarntov THs 


¢ VA Ss 3 A \ ’ / ~ oh 
ayveias nOos évoeEacOwoar, TO AKEPALOY TNS TOAUTNTOS 


3 Ct 7 3 / \ oY \ ~ / 
avTwy BovAnpa adroveEaTwoar, TO €TLELKES THS yAWO- 


qn \ lon qn \ Vf \ 
ons avTwv dla THS oLyNs pavepov ToNncTaTwoayv’ THY 


5 / ? a \ \ / > \ a“ - 
ayaTNny avTwWV, Un KaTa TpooKALoEls, aAAa Tac TOLS 


Ae om, S. 


ayvelas. 


Clem as évdeEdtwoav (ad loc. and comp. p. pké’). 
15 ovyns] CS Clem; gwvno A. 


(kal BovdrAnua) S. 


13 ayvelas] ayviao A. Clem 612 has the order 700s ris 
evdeEdoOwoav] AC Clem. Bryennios wrongly gives the reading of A 


14 BovAnua] AC; NIAY 
16 mpockNXicers] 


AS; mpooxd\jces C. This same itacism occurs several times in C, §§ 47, 50. 


Graec. Bibl. Oxon. UU. p. 239 Aéeyer 
6 *Qpos ott mavta Tapa TO delmo Sia 
Ts et SupOoyyou ypaderat, oiov Neuro- 
vews, euroragia, euroraéiov, Neutro- 
atparevov’ 0 O€ ‘Opryévns dia Tov t Eyer 
ypapecOa. There seems to be no 
poetical and therefore indisputable 
authority for the eu. 

5. app. kai avont.| LXX Jer. x. 8 
dua appoves kal dyonroi eior, found in 
some copies, but not in the principal 
Mss. The former word points to 
defective reason, the latter to defec- 
tive perception. Comp. § 39. 

6. eykavyepévors x.t.A.] See James 
iv. 16 Kkavxyaocde ev rais adagoveiars 
ULOV. 

7. Tov Kvpiov x.t.A.] Clem. Alex. 
(p. 611 sq), as commonly punctuated, 
quotes the passage tov Kvpiov Incovv 
héyo...00 TO aiwa vmrep judy nyidoOn 
evTpam@pev ovyv Tors Mponyoupévous 1- 
Pav, kal aidecOapev Tovs mpecBuTépovs” 
TILNT@pEV TOs Véous, TaLdeVT@pEY THY 
maieiav Tov Geov. A different punctua- 
tion, kai aidecOapev" Tovs mpeaButépous 
TLULNT@LEV" TOUS VEOUS TALOEVT@MEVK.T.A., 
would bring the quotation somewhat 
nearer to the original. 

Q. Tovs mponyoupévous| i.e. the offi- 


cers of the Church ; see the note on 
Tois nyoupévois § 1. The following 
Tous mpeoSurepous must therefore refer 
to age, not to office. 

IO. tTovs véous k.t-A.| Copied by Po- 
lycarp Phzl. 4 ra réxva radevew rH 
mawWelav Tou pofov Tov Geov. Comp. 
Prov. xvi. 4 (xv. 33) @oBos Kupiou 
maioeia, and Ecclus. i. 27 where the 
same words are repeated. 

15. ovyyjs| They must be eloquent 
by their silence, for yuvaéi koopov 7 
ovyn pepe. This meaning is so obvi- 
ously required, that I had restored 
oltyns in my first edition on the au- 
thority of the Alexandrian Clement 
alone in place of the senseless davis 
of A. It is now confirmed by our 
two new authorities. Hilgenfeld re- 
fers to 1 Cor. xiv. 34 sqjga Tim. ii. £1, 

Thv aydmnv x.t.A.| So too Polyc. 
Phil. 4 dyardoas taytas é& ioov ev 
maon éykpareia. The numerous close 
coincidences with this chapter in 
Polycarp show plainly that he had 
our epistle before him. 

16. kata mpookAioes| From 1 Tim. 
V. 21 pndev mowwv Kata mpooKAow. 
The word mpdckdso1s occurs again 


SS 47, 50. 


78 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[XxI 


/ A A (ey ¢ / , \ 
poBoupevais tov Oedv doiws ionv mapexéeTwoav' Ta 
7 € - ~~ ~ if / 
TEkVa nuwVy THs Ev XpioTw Tradelas UETALaUPavEeTwoay 
, i \ lo > , / 
pabetwoav, Ti Tarevoppoovwn mapa Oew ioyvel, TL 
> ‘a e \ \ lan lo / 4 e / ) al 
ayarn ayvn Tapa TW Oew dvvatat, Tws 6 PoBos avTou 
\ \ / \ MA \ 3 “~ / 
KaNos Kai meyas Kal odCwy TavTas Tous Ev AUTH OTIWS 
> / 5) Lo / 5) \ / > 
dvacTpepopevous év kabapa diavoia EpevynTns yap €or 
> ~ \ / e e \ lan _~ 
Evvoltwy Kat €vOuunoEewy? OV 4 VON aUTOU EV HUY ETTLY, 
Aye 7 = 9 / 
Kat oTav OéXAn avEeNEL AUTH. 
L 


\ \ \ \ lam / ~ if / 
TIS’ Kal yap avTOS Oia TOU TVEVMATOS TOU ayloV OUTS 


Tatra 6é ravta BeBaot 4 év XpicTe@ Tic- 


TPOCKANELTAL nuas’ Aefte TEKNA, AKOYCATE MOY, POBON 
Kypioy AlAdz@ YmM&c. TIC ECTIN ANOPOTOC O BEAWN ZOHN, 
ATATION HMEpac iAEIN APADAC; TAYCON THN FAWCCAN COY ATTO 


KAKOY, Kal yelAH TOY MH AdAACAl ADAON* EKKAINON ATTO 


2 jpov] S Clem; tuav AC. peTarauBavérwoav] AC; peradaBérwoar 


Clem. 3 loxver] wx A. 4 To] A; om. C Clem. avtod] ACS; 
Tov kuptov Clem. 5 katowgwv] AC; et liberans et salvans S; cwgwv (om. kat) 
Clem. dolws] AC; Geiws S. See above, §§ 2, 14. 6 dcavoia] AC; 


éotw] AC; om. Clem. 7 évOuunoewy] C3 evOuunoawy 
8 aveNet] A; avacpe? CS. g 6¢] AC; om. S. 
10 ovTws] AC; but Bryennios reads ovrw without indicating that he is departing 
from his MS. 12 Tis éotw dvOpwmos] C omits from here to picerar adrov 6 
Kvpwos, and begins again elra mwodXai ai wdoriyes ToD auaptwdod x.7.Xd. (1. 21). 


kapdla Clem. 
A; évOuunudtwy Clem. 


I. doiws| This word is best taken ful and God-loving, but threatening 


with mapeyérwoar, for it would be an 
unmeaning addition to rots @oBoupé- 
vois Tov Geov. 

6. épevyntyns x.t.d.| As Heb. iv. 12 
kputikos evOupnoewv kai evvoidy Kap- 
dias. 

7. ov...avtovu] A Hebraism, for 
which see Winer § xxii. p. 161. 

8. dvedet] On the rare future €\é 
of aipéw see Winer § xv. p. 94 with 
his references: comp. Exod. xv. 9, 
2 Thess. ii. 6. 

XXII. ‘All these things are as- 
sured by faith in Christ. He himself 
speaks to us by the lips of David, 
promising all blessings to the peace- 


utter destruction to the sinful and 
disobedient’. 

9. Tatra dé mavra xk.t.X.]| i.e. Faith 
in Christ secures all these good re- 
sults ; for itis He Himself who thus 
appeals to us, not indeed in the flesh, 
but through the Spirit, where David 
says ‘Come etc.’ For avros zpocka- 
Netra See above, § 16 avrés dyow, with 
the note. 

II. Aevre x.7.A.] From LXX Ps. xxxiv. 
Ir sq almost word for word. The 
differences are unimportant. 

18. To pynpoovvoy| See the note on 
éveataveyspa above § 14. 

exexpa&ev| In the existing text of 


ut 


& 


XXIII] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


79 


KAKOY KAl TTOIHCON ArAOGN: ZHTHCON EIDHNHN KAI AI@ZON 
AYTHN. O@OAAMO!} Kypioy é@mi Aikaioyc, KAl @Ta ayto¥F TPOC 
AEHCIN AYT@N* TIPUC@TION AE Kypioy émi tmolofNtac Kaka 
TOY €ZoAEOpEfcal EK FAC TO MNHMOCYNON AYTON. EKEKPAZEN 
6 Aikaloc Kai 6 Kypioc eicHKOYCEN ayTOyY Kal éK TACAN 
TOAAAL Al BAIVEIC TOT 
EiTa’ 


TON BAIPEWN AYTOY EPYCATO AYTON. 
AIKAIOY Kal €K TAC@N HYceTal aYTON 6 Kypioc: 
TToAAal ai mactirec tof AmMapT@AOY, TOYc Aé EATIZONTAC 
etl Kypion €A€OC KYKAOCEL. 
> tA \ 7 ‘ a 
Xi. *O OLKTLOMWY KATA TaVTa Kal EVEPYETLKOS 
\ af / > \ \ 3 > V6 
TaTHO EXEL OTAaYYVa ETL TOUS po Boupeévous QUTOV, 
/ \ a \ 7 > lan ~ ~ 
NTLWS TE KAL TPOTHYWS TAS KALTAaS aUTOU QTOOLOOL TOtS 
/ > ~ ec lo / \ \ ~ 
TPOTEPYoMEvos avTW aA Ciavoia. dio py diwvyo- 


ev, unde ivdadrA€obw 7 \uyn juwv éml Tals UTepBad- 


14 kal] A Clem (with Lxx); om. S. xeihn] A; add. cov S Clem with the 


ax (y. 1.): 16 6@0aduol] A Clem (with A of Lxx and Hebr); é7e 6f0adwol 
S (with BS of Lxx). mpos| A; eis Clem with the Lxx. 18 éxéxpacev x.7.X.] 
See below. 20 OriWew] ONarwy A. avTov] om. Clem. modal ai 


OriWes...6 Kvpios] S; om. A; def. C. 21 elra] C; et iterum S, frequently a 
translation of kat ra\uv, which possibly we should read here; but see below, § 23, 
MeTa TADTA. 22 at] ACS; wév yap Clem. ToD auaprwrov] AC; Trav 
apaprwrav Clem LXX. Tovs dé éArifovras] A Clem; rov dé édrifovra CS with the Lxx 
and Hebr. 23 €Neos] C Clem; edatoo A. 24 olkTipuwr] oxrepuwv A. 


Clem. Alex. this is read éxéxpagev dé 6 
Kupwos kai eionkovae, obviously a cor- 
ruption. 

20. mrodAai ai Odipers k.t.A.] This is 
from Ps. xxxiv (xxxiii). 20, the verse 
but one following the preceding quo- 
tation. The LxXxX however has the 
plural réy dixai@y, adrovs, and so it is 
quoted in 4 Macc. xviii. 15. The 
Hebrew has the singular, and so the 
Peshito. The words have obviously 
been omitted in A owing to the re- 
currence of ToAAat ai, and should be 
restored accordingly. 

TloAAai ai paoreyes k.t-A.] An exact 
quotation from Ps. xxxii. Io (LXxX), 
except that rots éAmifovras is sub- 


stituted for rov éAmifovta. 

XXIII. ‘God is merciful to all 
that fear Him. Let us not spurn 
His gracious gifts. Far be from us 
the threats which the Scriptures hurl 
against the double-minded, the im- 
patient, the sceptical. The Lord will 
certainly come, and come quickly’. 

28. ivdaddr\é0ba] ‘znudulge in ca- 
prices and humours’. The word is 
generally passive, ‘to be formed as 
an image’, ‘to appear’, and with a 
dative ‘to resemble’; see Ruhnken 
Timaeus s.v. Here however it is a 
middle signifying ‘to form images, to 
conjure up spectres’, and so ‘to in- 
dulge in idle fancies’, like the later 


80 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[xx11I 


Noveas kal évdoEas dwpeats avTov. moppw yevérOw ad’ 


juov i ypapn avtn, Omov AEyer* Tadainwpoi eicin oi 


Alwyyol, O| AlcTAZONTEC THN YYXHN, O1 A€rontec, Tafta Hkoy- 


CAMEN KAl ETT] TON TATEPM@N HMO@N, KAI 1AOY PEFHPAKAMEN 


I méppw yevécOw] AS; méppw ye yevéoOw C. See below, § 33. 
3 Tiv poxqv] A; TH poxp C; dub. S. 


AS; avrod C. 


use of davtatecOa. The lexicons do 
not recognize this use, but see Dion 
Chrys. Orat. xii. 53 (p. 209 M) mpore- 
pov pev yap dre ovdev cades eiddres 
GAAnv aAXos averAarropev idéav, Tay 
To Ovnrov Kata THY é€avtov Svvayw Kal 
pvow ivSaddopevor kat Gvewperrortes, 
Sext. Emp. adv. Math. vii. 249 eat 
(pavracia) maw amo vmapxovTos pév 
elo, ovK avto O€ Td vmapxoyv ivdad- 
Aovrat K.T.A., Xl. 122 0 Tov mAOUTOY 
peéeytotov ayabov ivdaddopevos, Clem. 
Alex. Protr. 10 (p. 81) xpvaov 7j 
Aiov 7 Sevdpov 7 mpak&iv 7 mados 
7) vooov 7 poBov ivddad\rAcoOar ws Geor, 
Method. Symp. vill. 2 éru evdnuovoar 
Tols gopaow ivdaddovra Ta Geta. (The 
last two passages I owe to Jahn’s 
Method. i. p. 51; the others I had 
collected before I saw his note.) So 
woadpa most frequently suggests the 
idea of an unreal, spectral, appear- 
ance, as Wisd. xvii. 3 ivdaApaow ék- 
tapacoopevot, Clem. Hom. iv. 4 pavr- 
Tagpata te yap Kal ivOadpara ev peony 
tT dyopa daiverOa troy dv nuépas 
Tacav éxmAntres THY modu, Athenag. 
Suppl. 27 ai odv adoyor avra Kai iv- 
dadparaders THs Wuxns Kiwyces €ida- 
Aopavets amorixktovat pavracias, where 
he is speaking of false objects of wor- 
ship. 

2. Tadaima@por x.t.A.]| The same pas- 
sage is quoted also in the 2nd Epistle 
ascribed to Clement (§ 11), being there 
introduced by the words Aéyer yap Kal 
6 mpopntikos Adyos. Though the quo- 
tation there is essentially the same, 
yet the variations which it presents 
show that it cannot have been de- 


2 aury] 


5 ouvBéBnkev] 


rived directly or solely from the First 
Epistle. Moreover it is there con- 
tinued, ovrws kal 6 Aads pov axatacTa- 
aias kal ONipets eoyev, emerta amoAn- 
Wera ta ayaa. As this passage does 
not occur in the Old Testament, it 
must have been taken from some lost 
apocryphal writing. Some writers 
indeed have supposed that Clement 
here, as he certainly does elsewhere 
(e.g. S$ 18, 26, 29, 32, 35, 39, 46, 50, 
52, 53, and just below rayd né&er 
k.T.A.), iS fusing several passages of 
the Canonical Scriptures, such as 
James i. 8, 2 Pet. iii. 4, Mark iv. 26, 
Matt. xxiv. 32 sq (Mark xiil. 28 sq, 
Luke xxi. 29 sq); but the resem- 
blances though striking are not suffi- 
cient, and this explanation does not 
account for the facts already men- 
tioned. The description 6 rpodnrikos 
Aoyos and the form of the quotation 
o Aaos pov «.T.A., aS given in the 2nd 
Epistle, show that it must have been 
taken from some spurious prophetic 
book formed on the model of the 
Canonical prophecies. I would con- 
jecture that it was E/dad and Modad, 
which was certainly known in the 
early Roman Church; see Herm. Vs. 
li. 3 eyyds Kupuos rots emirtpehopevors, 
os yéypanta ev T@ “ENOad kal M@dad 
Tois mpopynrevoaow €v TH Epnu@ TO 
hag, a passage alleged by Hermas 
for the same purpose as our quota- 
tion, to refute one who is sceptical 
about the approaching afflictions of 
the last times. On this apocryphal 
book see Fabricius Cod. Pseud. V.T. 
I,p. 801. It may have been forged by 


Xx] 


Kal OYAEN HMIN TOYT@N CYNBEBHKEN. 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. SI 


= > ‘ ’ 
@ ANOHTOI, CYMBAAETE 


EayToYc ZYA@* AdBETE AMTIEAON’ TIP@TON MEN YAAOPOEl, 


= ' - ’ 3 4 \ 
eita BAacTOc FINETAI, EITA PYAAON, EITA ANOOC, KAI META 


aA » \ a ~ J > 
TAYTA OMOAZ, elTa CTADYAH TIAPECTHKYI4. ‘Opate, OTL EV 


A; cup BéBnxer C. 


6 mpa&rov pev puddopoet] AS; om, C. 


7 Kal wera 


Tatra] translated in S as if efra, the cal being omitted. 


some Christian to sustain the courage 
of the brethren under persecution 
by the promise of the Lord’s advent; 
and, if so, the resemblances to the 
New Testament writings in this quo- 
tation are explained. Hilgenfeld sug- 
gests the Assumption of Moses (see 
the notes § 17, 25) as the source of 
this quotation, but does not assign 
any reason for this view except his 
own theory that Clement was ac- 
quainted with that work. 

of Sivvvyor x.t.A.]| Comp. James i. 8 
aynp Sivvvxos akatdotatos €v mdcats 
tais oOois avrov. For the parallels in 
Hermas see the note on § 11. The 
conjecture in the last note is con- 
firmed by the fact that Hermas gives 
repeated warnings against duuyxia 
and even speaks thereupon in the 
context of the passage referring to 
‘Eldad and Modad.’ For close re- 
semblances to this quotation see V’zs. 
iii. 4 dia rods Supvxous rovs diadoyi- 
Coevous év tats xapdiais avtady ei apa 
éorau tavta 7 ovk eotat, Mand. ix. oi 
yap Suotagovres eis Tov Cedy obToi eiow 
ot divuyxor k.7.A. 

3. of Aéyovres x.7.A.] 2 Pet. iii. 4 
kat Aéyovtes Ilov cori 7 emayyeXia Ths 
mapovoias avtov; ad’ fs yap oi marepes 
exouinOnoay, mavta ovraws Siapever av 
apxns KTicews. 

4. kat emt] ‘also in the time of”. 
Either the speakers use the first 
person jxovcapey as identifying them- 
selves with the Israelite people of 
past generations, or (as seems more 
probable) emi rav rarépwy must mean 
‘when our fathers were still alive’, 
i.e. ‘in our childhood and youth.’ It 


CLEM.. Tt. 


will be remembered that this apo- 
cryphal prophecy is supposed to be 
delivered to the Israelites in the 
wilderness. At all events we cannot 
arbitrarily change emi into amo with 
Young and most subsequent editors 
(Jacobson and Hilgenfeld are excep- 
tions), for emi is read in both our 
MSS, both here and in ii. § II. 

6. AaBere apymedov «.t.A.] The 
words strongly resemble Mark iv. 26 
sq (comp. Matt. xxiv. 32 sq, Mark xiii. 
28 sq, Luke xxi. 29 sq). See also 
Epict. Dzss. ili. 24. 86 @s cdKoy, ws 
atapvan, TH TeTaypevn pa Tov Erovs, 
iii. 24. QI ro uAXoppoeiv kat To iaxada 
yivesOar avti ovxov Kal doraidas &k 
Ths orapvAfs xt... M. Anton. xi. 35 
dpphak, ctapvdAyn, oradis, mavra pera- 
Bodat ovk eis TO pr) Ov GAN’ els TO viv 


Ln) Ov. 

gvAdopoet] For the orthography 
see the note on e&epifacer § 6. 

8. mapeornkvia) ‘v7pe’; Exod. ix. 
41 7 yap kptOn mapeotnkvia. So Theo- 
phrastus Caus. Plant, vi.7. 5 mapiora- 
pevos kal e€vatapevos, of wine ripening 
and going off (see Schneider’s note). 
Similarly mapayiveoOa is used, e.g. 
Herod. i. 193 mapayiverat 0 GirTos. 
The words dudaf, crapvdn, oradis 
(doradis), denote the sour, ripe, and 
dried grape respectively; see the 
passages in the previous note, and add 
Anthol. Il. p. 3, IV. p. 131 (ed. Jacobs). 

‘Opare «.t.A.] This sentence is 
generally treated by the editors as 
part of the quotation, but I think this 
wrong for two reasons; (1) In the 
2nd Epistle, where also the passage 
is cited, after crapvAn mapeotnxuia fol- 


6 


82 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XXIII 


Kapa OAlyw eis TéTELpOV KaTaYTa 6 Kap7ros TOU EvAoU. 
am’ addnOeias Tayv Kal éEaipuns TeAELwOnceTat TO Bov- 
Ansa avTou, TUVETTLAPTUPOUVENS Kal THS yoagns Ort 
TAYY HZel Kal OY YpoONiel, KAl EZai@nuc HzZe1 6 Kypioc eic 
TON NAON AYTOY, KAl O ATIOC ON YMEIC TIPOCAOKATE. 

XXIV. Katavoiowpev, dyarntol, mas 0 SexmoTns 
€mWeiKvUTaL OlnveKwS Huly THY péANOVTAY advacTAacLY 


> ce \ > \ > , A MB ~ 
éxecOar, ns THy adrapynv éEroucato Tov Kupioy ’Incour 


’ ~ > / 
XpirTov EK VEKOWV avacoTynoadas. 


\ \ / / 
KaTa Kalpov yivomEvny advacTacw. 


1 mwémepov| mempov A. 
efarxvno A. 


Hon S. 


A; in omni tempore S. 


2 ekalpyns| ekeguno A. ~ 
7 emideikvuTar dinvex@s nuiv| A (but emduxvura); denvexds 
nutv émidelkvuce C; monstrat nobis perpetuo S. 
g Xpiordv] AS; om. C. 

ywopuevnv] AC; add. juty S. 


5) ? \ 
LOW MEY, ayannNTOl, THV 
¢€ / \ \ 
nmepa Kat vE 
4 ekalgvns] 
8 riv arapxyv] AC; add. 


Io Kara Kaipov] C; Karaxat... 
II Kolparat... 


nuépa] AC; S renders as if it had read xowmarac [ris] vuxrds, dvicrarar fuépas. 


lows immediately the sentence otras 
kat 0 ads pou x.t.A.; the words opare 
k.7.A. not only not being quoted but 
being hardly compatible with the form 
of the context as there given ; (2) opare 
is an expression by which Clement 
himself elsewhere, after adducing a 
quotation or an example, enforces its 
jesspu ; ‘as’ § 4,112;116, 41, 50. 

I. eis wémeipov| ‘to maturity’. The 
construction karavray eis is common 
in the LXxX and N.T.; see also above 
S 5. | 

4. raxd n&ev «.t.A.]| A combina- 
tion of Is. xill. 32 tayd epyerar Kal ov 
xpomet (comp. Hab. ii. 3, Heb. x. 37), 
and Mal. ili. I cat éeEaidyns n&eu eis 
Tov vaov avtovd Kipios ov vpeis Cynreire 
Kal 0 ayyedos ths Svabykns ov vpeis 
Oédere. The substitution of 6 dyios 
for 6 dyyedos x.7.A. may have been 
intentional, but is much more pro- 
bably an inadvertence of Clement, 
who quotes from memory largely but 
loosely and is influenced by the in- 
terpretation which he has in view 


(e.g. § 42 katraoryow Tovs emirKorous 
x.T.A., Where he cites Is. lx.17). This 
portion of Malachi’s prophecy is 
quoted much less frequently in early 
Christian writers than we should have 
expected. On the other hand the 
first part of the same verse idod amo- 
aTé\Akw Tov dyyeAov pov is quoted 
Matth. xi. 10, Mark i. 2, Luke vii. 27, 
and not seldom by the early fathers, 
by whom, following the evangelists, it 
is explained of John the Baptist. 

XXIV. ‘All the works of the 
Creator bear witness to the resur- 
rection. The day arises from the 
grave of the night. The young and 
fruitful plant springs up from the 
decayed seed’. 

The eloquent passage in Tertullian 
de Resurr. Carn. 12, 13, where the 
same analogies are adduced, is pro- 
bably founded on this passage of 
Clement (see above, I. p. 160). Com- 
pare also Theoph. ad Aut. i. 13, 
Tertull. Afol. 34, Minuc. Fel. 48, 
especially the passage of Theophilus, 


2 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 83 


xxv] 


>’ / ~ ~ > lot e / 3 
avactaow nuiv OnAovow"’ KomaTat 7 wE, avicratat 
e , ‘ e e 7 / \ 5) / / 
noepa* 1 nMEepa ameow, vuE emepxeTa. DAaBwuev 
\ , 7 = \ / / 
TOUS KapTroUS* 0 OTTOpOs TwS Kal TiVa TpOTOV yiveTaL ; 
a c ’ Q. oF > \ - / ~ 
EZAAOEN O CTTEIPWN KL éBadev Els THY YnV EkaoTOY TwY 
/ e/ / > \ ~ \ 
OTEPUATWY, ATWA TETOVTA Els THY YoY Enpa Kal yuma 
/ > > ~ / ~ 
diadveTat. eit ék THs StadvcEws 7) pevyarewoTys Tis 


/ ~ / Ae / ? ~ 
mTpovolas Tov bearTOTOU avicTnoW avTa, Kal éK TOU EvOS 


af > 
wA€ELOVa avEe Kat EKPE PEL KapTrov. 


XXV. “ISwuev TO mapado£ov onpeiov, TO yiv0- 


> ~ > a / A 
20 MEVOV Ev TOLS avVaTOALKOLS TOTOLS, TOUTETTLY TOIS TEL 


dvioratat nuepa] dvicrarat } huépa C; avioraray... A. After the Tisch. thinks 


he sees part of a second H and would therefore read 4 *udpa. Having more than 
once inspected this Ms, I could only discern a stroke which might as well belong to 
a M as to an H; and the parallelism of the clauses suggests the omission of the 


article. 


which has many points in common 
with Clement. 

8. tv amapynv|] 1 Cor. xv. 20 
Xpioros é€ynyeprac ék vexpov dmapyn 
TOY Kekolunuevoy ; COMp. ver. 23. It 
is evident from what follows that 
Clement has this 15th chapter in his 
mind. 

IO. kara katpov|] ‘at its proper 
season’, Inmy first edition I adopted 
the reading xara xaipovs, ‘at each 
recurring season’; as in the parallel 
passage Theoph. ad Aut. i. 13 xara 
Kaipovs mpopépovaw Tovs kapzovs, but 
in deference to the recently dis- 
covered authorities, I now adopt 
Kara Katpov. 

12. AdBwpev] So again § 37 Aa- 
Bopev TO copa yor. 

14. e&dGev x.t.X.] The expression 
is borrowed from the Gospel narra- 
tive; Matt. xiii. 3, Mark iv. 3, Luke 
oH 

15. yuuva] See 1 Cor. xv. 36 sq, 
from which this epithet is derived. 
It denotes the absence of germina- 
tion: see the rabbinical passages 


15 pa kal yuuva] AC; Enpay S. 


quoted by Wetstein on 1 Cor. l. c., 
and Methodius in Epiphan. Aaer. 
Ixiv. 44 (p. 570) xarapade yap ra orép- 
pata Tas yuuva Kal Goapka BadXderar 
eis THY yh K.T.X. 

16. dvadverac] ‘voc’. Comp. Theoph. 
ad Aut. i. 13 mpe@tov amoOvncket 
kat Avera. This analogy is derived 
from 1 Cor. xv. 36; comp. John xii. 
24. 

18. av&e.] Intransitive, as in Ephes. 
ii, 21, Col. ii. 19. It is treated how- 
ever as a transitive in the Syriac, 
where av&ec and éxdépec have the 
same subject as aviornow. 

XXV. ‘The pheenix isa still more 
marvellous symbol of the resurrec- 
tion. After living five hundred years 
he dies. From his corpse the young 
bird arises. When he is fledged and 
strong, he carries his father’s bones 
and lays them on the altar of the sun 
at Heliopolis. This is done in broad 
daylight before the eyes of all: and 
the priests, keeping count of the 
time, find that just five hundred 
years have gone by’. 


6—2 


34 


thy “ApaBiav. 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[xxv 


A / 
Opveov yap eat 0 mpocovopaceTat 


1 dpveov] opvatov A. 


I. Opveov x.t.A.] The earliest men- 
tion of the phoenix is in Hesiod 
(Fragm. 50 ed. Gaisf.), who however 
speaks merely of its longevity. It is 
from Herodotus (ii. 73) that we first 
hear the marvellous story of the burial 
of the parent bird by the offspring, 
as it was told him by the Egyptian 
priests, but he adds cautiously éyot 
pev ov miota Aéyovres. It is men- 
tioned again by Antiphanes (Athen. 
xiv. p. 655 B) ev “HAiov pév dace yly- 
veoOar more goimkas. From the 
Greeks the story passed to the Ro- 
mans. In B.C. 97 a learned senator 
Manilius (Plin. VV. H. x. 2) discoursed 
at length on the pheenix, stating that 
the year in which he wrote was the 
215th since its last appearance. He 
was the first Roman who took up the 
subject. At the close of the reign of 
Tiberius—a.D. 36 according to Pliny 
(following Cornelius Valerianus) and 
Dion Cassius (viii. 27), but A.D. 34 
as Tacitus reports the date—the 
marvellous bird was said to have 
reappeared in Egypt. The truth of 
the statement however was ques- 
tioned by some, as less than 250 
years had elapsed since the reign of 
the third Ptolemy when it was seen 
last (Tac. Am. vi. 28). But the 
report called forth many learned dis- 
quisitions from savants in Egypt 
both native and Greek. A few years 
later (A.D. 47) the bird was actually 
exhibited in Rome (‘in comitio pro- 
positus, gwod actis testatum est, are 
Pliny’s words) and may have been 
seen by Clement, but no one doubted 
that this was an imposture. The 
story of the phoenix of course has a 
place in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (xv. 
392 ‘Una est quae reparet seque ipsa 
reseminet ales’ etc.), and allusions 
to it in Latin poets are naturally 


not unfrequent. Claudian devotes a 
whole poem to it. Another ascribed 
to Lactantius (Corp. Poet. Lat. p. 1416 
ed. Weber) also takes this same sub- 
ject. The references to the phoenix 
in classical and other writers are 
collected by Henrichsen de Phoenicis 
Jabula Havn. 1825. 

The main features of the account 
seem to have been very generally 
believed by the Romans. Thus Mela 
(iii. 8), who seems to have flourished 
in the reign of Claudius, repeats the 
marvellous story without any expres- 
sion of misgiving. Pliny indeed de- 
clines to pronounce whether it is 
true or not (‘haud scio an fabulose’); 
but Tacitus says no doubt is enter- 
tained of the existence of such a bird, 
though the account is in some points 
uncertain or exaggerated. Again 
felian (fzst. An. vi. 58), who lived 
in Hadrian’s reign, alleges the phoenix 
as an instance of the superiority of 
brute instinct over human reason, 
when a bird can thus reckon the time 
and discover the place without any 
guidance; and somewhere about the 
same time or later Celsus (Origen c. 
Cels. iv. 98, I. p. 576), arguing against 
the Christians, brings it forward to 
show the greater piety of the lower 
animals as compared with man. 
Still later Philostratus (Vzt. Ajol7. 
ill. 49) mentions the account without 
recording any protest. I do not lay 
any stress on such passing allusions 
as Seneca’s (Z%. Mor. 42 ‘Ille alter 
fortasse tamquam phoenix semel anno 
quingentesimo nascitur’), or on de- 
scriptions in romance writers like 
Achilles Tatius (iii. 25), because no 
argument can be founded on them. 

It thus appears that Clement is 
not more credulous than the most 
learned and intelligent heathen wri- 


XXV]| 


ters of the preceding and following 
generations. Indeed he may have 
thought that he had higher sanction 
than the testimony of profane authors. 
Tertullian (de Resurr. Carn. 10) took 
Ps. xcii. 12 Sikawos ws hoimE avOnoer 
to refer to this prodigy of nature, and 
Clement may possibly have done the 
same. Even Job xxix. 18 is trans- 
lated by several recent critics, ‘With 
my nest shall I die and like the 
pheenix lengthen my days’ (comp. 
Lucian Hermot. § 53 nv pn poivixos 
érn Pieon), therein following some 
rabbinical authorities: but even if 
this be the correct rendering, the Lxx 
version, through which alone it would 
be known to Clement, gives a different 
sense to the words, 7 nAkia wou ynpa- 
get womep ortéeAexos oivxos, modvy 
xpovov Bidow. The passage of Job 
xxix, 18, in relation to the pheenix, is 
the subject of a paper by Merx in 
his Archiv. f. Wess. Forsch. d. Alt. 
Test. 11. p. 104 sq (1871). 

At all events, even before the Chris- 
tian era the story had been adopted by 
Jewish writers. In a poem on the 
Exodus written by one Ezekiel, pro- 
bably an Alexandrian Jew in the 2nd 
or 3rd century B.C. (see Ewald Gesch. 
IV. p. 297), the phoenix, the sacred 
bird of Egypt, is represented as ap- 
pearing to the Israelite host (see the 
passage quoted by Alexander Poly- 
histor in Euseb. Praep. Evang. ix. 
29, p. 446). Though the name is not 
mentioned, there can be no doubt 
that the phoenix is intended; for the 
description accords with those of 
Herodotus, Manilius (in Pliny), and 
Mela, and was doubtless taken from 
some Egyptian painting such as He- 
rodotus saw and such as may be seen 
on the monuments to the present day 
(see Wilkinson’s Auc. Egypt. 2nd 
ser. I. p. 304, Rawlinson’s Herod. I. 
p. 122). Inthe Assumption of Moses 
too, if the reading be correct (see 
Hilgenfeld Mov. Test. extra Can. 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 85 


Rec. 1. p. 99), the ‘profectio phoenicis’ 
is mentioned in connexion with the 
exodus, and it seems probable that 
the writer borrowed the incident from 
Ezekiel’s poem and used it in a simi- 
lar way. The appearance of the 
phoenix would serve a double pur- 
pose; (1) It would mark the epoch; 
(2) It would betoken the homage paid 
by heathen religion to the true God 
and to the chosen people: for Alex- 
andrian Jews sought to give expres- 
sion to this last idea in diverse ways, 
through Sibylline oracles, Orphic 
poems, and the like; and the atten- 
dance of the sacred phoenix on the 
departing host would not be the least 
eloquent form of symbolizing this 
homage in the case of Egypt. But 
this Ezekiel, though he coloured the 
incident and applied it to his own 
purpose, appears not to have invent- 
ed it. According to Egyptian chro- 
nology the departure of the Israelites 
was coincident or nearly coincident 
with an appearance of a phcenix (i.e. 
with the beginning of a _ phcenix- 
period). Tacitus (Azz. vi. 28) says 
that a phoenix had appeared in the 
reign of Amaszs. If this were the 
earlier Amoszs of the 17th or 18th 
dynasty and not the later Amoszs of 
the 26th dynasty (the Amaszs of 
Herod. ii. 172), the time would coin- 
cide; for the Israelites were consi- 
dered by some authorities (whether 
rightly or wrongly, it is unnecessary 
here to enquire) to have left Egypt 
in the reign of this sovereign; e.g, 
by Ptolemy the priest of Mendes 
(Apion in Tatian ad Graec. 38 and 
Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 21, p. 378) and 
by Julius Africanus (Routh’s Re/. Sacr. 
II. p. 256). For rabbinical references 
to the phcenix, which seem to be 
numerous, see Buxtorf Lex. Rad. s. v. 
Syn, Lewysohn Zoologie des Talmuds 
p- 352 sq; comp. Henrichsen l.c. 
Il. p. 19. The reference in a later 
Sibylline too (Orac. Szb. viii. 139 


86 


drav hoivixos eméhOn mevraypovowo) Was 
probably derived from an _ earlier 
Jewish poem. 

Thus the mere fact that the phoenix 
is mentioned in the Assumption of 
Moses affords no presumption (as 
Hilgenfeld supposes) that Clement 
was acquainted with that work; for 
the story was well known to Jewish 
writers. In the manner and purpose 
of its mention (as I interpret it) the 
Assumption presents no coincidence 
with Clement’s Epistle. The pas- 
sage in the Assumption of Moses is 
discussed by Ronsch in Hilgen- 
feld’s Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol. 
XVII. p. 553 sq, 1874. Ré6nsch takes 
the reading profectio Phoentces, and 
explains it of the ‘migration from 
Phoenicia’, i.e. Canaan, into Egypt 
under Jacob. And others also take 
fynicis to mean Pheenicia, explaining 
it however in different ways. See 
Hilgenfeld’s note to Mos. Assumpt. 
p- 130. In this way the phoenix en- 
tirely disappears from the passage. 

Of subsequent Christian fathers, 
Tertullian, as we saw, accepted the 
story without misgiving. As Theo- 
philus of Antioch (ad Aut. i. 13) fol- 
lows Clement’s analogies for the re- 
surrection up to a certain point, but 
omits all mention of the phcenix, 
I infer that his knowledge of Egyp- 
tian antiquities (see ii. 6, ill. 20 sq) 
saved him from the error. For the 
same reason, aS we may conjecture, 
Origen also considers the fact to be 
very questionable (c. Ceds. iv. 98, I. 
p. 576). But for the most part it 
was believed by Christian writers. 
S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Caz. xviii. 8),S. 
Ambrose (see the quotations, I. 167, 
172), Rufinus (Sywb. Afost. 11, p. 73), 
and others, argue from the story of 
the phoenix without a shadow of mis- 
giving. In Afgost. Const. v. 7 it is 
urged against the heathen, as a fact 
which they themselves attest; and 
Epiphanius (A cor. 84) says eis dxonv 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[XxXv 


adixrat moAA@y micTay TE Kal atioTor. 
On the other hand Euseb. (Vz¢. Const. 
iv. 72) gives it merely as a report, 
Greg. Naz. (Orat. xxxt. § 10, 1p. 
562 D) says cautiously ef rm motos 
6 Aoyos, and Augustine de Anim. iv. 
33 (20) (X. p. 404) uses similar lan- 
guage, ‘Si tamen ut creditur’; while 
Photius (4262. 126) places side by 
side the resurrection of the phoenix 
and the existence of lands beyond 
the Atlantic (§ 20) as statements in 
Clement to which exception may be 
taken. Other less important patris- 
tic references will be found in Suicer’s 
Thes. s.v. hoiné. 

It is now known that the story 
owes its origin to the symbolic and 
pictorial representations of astrono- 
my. The appearance of the phoenix 
is the recurrence of some prominent 
astronomical phenomenon’ which 
marked the close of a period. Even 
Manilius (Plin. VV. H. x. 2) had half 
seen the truth; for he stated ‘cum 
hujus alitis vita magni conversionem 
anni fieri iterumque significationes 
tempestatum et siderum easdem re- 
verti. For the speculations of 
Egyptologers and others on the 
phoenix period see Larcher J/ém. de 
L’ Acad. des Inscriptions etc. 1. p. 166 
sq (1815), Lepsius Chronol. ad. Aegypt. 
p- 180 sq, Uhlemann Hando. d, Ae- 
gypt. Alterthumsk. Il. p. 39 Sq, 79 
sq, IV. p. 226 sq, Poole Horae Ae- 
gyptiacae p. 39 sq, Ideler Handd. der 
Chron. I. p. 183 sq, Creuzer Sym. u. 
Mythol. i. p. 163 sq, Brugsch 4egyp- 
tische Studien in Zettschr. da. Deutsch. 
Morgenl. Gesellsch.X. p. 250 sq (1856), 
Geograph. Inschrift. der Altaegypt. 
Denkmaler 1. p. 258 (1857), Wiede- 
mann Die Phoenix-Sage in Zettschr. 
J. Aegyptische Sprache etc. XVI. p. 89 
sq (1878), Lauth Die Phoenix-Periode 
1880 (a separate issue of a paper in 
A bhandl. ad. Bayer. Akad. der Wiss.). 
The actual bird, around which this 
mass of symbolism and of fiction has 


Xxv | 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


87 


~ - \ / af 
pong’ TOUTO [MOVOYEVES UTapXOV Gi ET) TEVTAKOCIA’ 


I povoyeves] wovoyevno A. 


gathered, bears the name dennu in 
the Egyptian language and appears 
to be the ardea cinerea (or purpurea), 
a bird of passage; see Wiedemann 
Lc. p. 104. 

Thus the phoenix was a symbol 
from the very beginning. Horapollo 
says that in the hieroglyphics this 
bird represented a soul, or an inun- 
dation, or a stranger paying a visit 
after long absence, or a restoration 
after a long period (dmoxardoracw 
modvxpoviov), Hzerogl. i. 34, 35, il. 57. 
The way was thus prepared for the 
application of Clement. This Apo- 
stolic father however confines the 
symbolism to the resurrection of 
man. But later patristic writers di- 
versified the application and took 
the phcenix also as a type of the Per- 
son of our Lord. The marvellous 
birth and the unique existence of 
this bird, as represented in the myth, 
were admirably adapted to such a 
symbolism: and accordingly it is so 
taken in Epiphan. (l.c.), Rufinus (L.c.), 
and others; see especially an un- 
known but apparently very ancient 
author in Sfzcz/. Solesm. Il. p. 345. 
Some of these writers press the par- 
allel so far as to state that the phoenix 
arises after three days. The fact 
that a reputed appearance of the 
phoenix was nearly coincident with 
the year of the Passion and Resur- 
rection (see above, p. 84) may have 
assisted this application. At a later 
date the Monophysites alleged the 
phoenix as an argument in favour of 
their peculiar doctrines (see Piper 
Mythol. u. Symbol. der Christl. Kunst. 
I. I, p. 454). 

For the representations of the 
phoenix in early Christian art see 
Piper l.c. p. 456 sq. Before it ap- 
pears as a Christian symbol, it is 


found on coins and medals of the 
Roman emperors (for instances see 
Piper p. 449) to denote immortality 
or renovation, with the legend SAEC. 
AVR., or AETERNITAS, or aiwn. It is 
significant that this use begins in the 
time of Hadrian, the great patron 
and imitator of Egyptian art. 

I. povoyeves] ‘alone of tts kind, 
unigue’. This epithet is applied to 
the pheenix also in Origen, Cyril, and 
Afpost. Const. v. 7, and doubtless as- 
sisted the symbolism mentioned in 
the last note. The statement about 
the phoenix in AZost. Const. paci yap 
Opveov TL povoyeves Umapxew K.T.A. 1S 
evidently founded on this passage of 
Clement; comp. e.g. ef roivuy...d0 
adoyou opvéov SeikyuTar 7 avactaois 
x.7.A. with Clement’s language in 
§ 26. So also in Latin it is ‘unica’, 
‘semper unica’, Mela iii. 9, Ovid Am. 
i. 6. 54, Lactant. Phoex. 31, Claudian 
Laud. Stil. ii. 417. Thus Milton 
Samson Agonistes 1699 speaks of 
‘that self-begotten bird...That no 
second knows nor third, and again 
Paradise Lost V. 272 ‘A phoenix gaz’d 
by all, as that sole bird, When to 
enshrine his reliques in the Sun’s 
Bright temple to A‘gyptian Thebes 
he flies’. Why does Milton despatch 
his bird to Thebes rather than Heli- 
opolis? 

érn mevraxooia]| The longevity of 
the phcenix is differently stated. 
Hesiod gives it (9x 4xX3X9=) 972 
generations of men; Manilius (Plin. 
NV. H. x. 2) 509 years; Solinus (Polyh. 
36) 540 years; authorities mentioned 
in Tacitus 1461 years, which is the 
length of the Sothic period; Martial 
(v. 7), Claudian, Lactantius, and 
others, 1000 years; Chzremon (in 
Tzetzes Chil. v. 6. 395) 7006 years, 
But, says Tacitus, ‘maxime vulgatum 


88 THE EPISTLE OF S “CLEMENT [XXV 


U / a \ 2 / - > ~ ? / 
yevouevov TE Non moos amoAVTW TOU arobavely avTO, 
A ~~ ~ / \ / \ ae 
ONKOV é€avTw TOLEL EK NiBavov Kal opupvys Kal THY 
lon / > ray / lan 
Aowrwy apwuaTwv, els Ov mAnpwlevTos TOU xpovouU 
vo / \ ~ A 
EloepxeTar Kal TeAEVTA. ONTOMEVNS d€ THS TapKos 
/ a A ? - > / - 
oKwWANE Tis yevvaTal, OS EK THS ikKLaOOS TOU TETE- 
, / > / ~ oy 
AevTHKOTOS Cwou avaTpepomevos mTEpoduel* EiTAa YEV- 
a / af SM \ ~ e/ \ 
vaios yevouevos aipes TOY ONkOY €KkElvoy OTOU Ta 
~ lon / , \ ~ , 
doTa TOU mpoyeyovoTos éoTiv, Kal TavTa BactaCwy 
/ > \ an ? a“ f c/ a > / 
Siavver aro THs “ApaBicns ywpas ews THs Atyvmtou 
? / ¢ Ie \ c / / 
eis THY Aeyouevrnv ‘HAtovrroNw: Kat nuepas, (Ae7rov- 
/ > \ 9 \ A ~ / \ / 
TwY TavTwY, éemimTas emt TOV Tov HALov Bwyoy TiOnowW 
1 te] A; 6€ CS. 3 Tod xpovod] AC; add. wvelae suae S. 


AC; add. zz zllo S. 6¢] AS; re C. 
the latter translating ascitur in ea tlic. 


4 TedeUTE] 
5 yevvara] As éyyerarat CS, 
ds] AC; dors (apparently) S. 


TETE= 


NeuTnKéros] TeNeuTnKoTOs A}; TedeuTHTavTos C; see I. p. 126. 
éxetvov] AC; S adds MYTH FD (=xukd60ev adtod). 


quingentorum spatium’; and this is 
adopted by almost all the Christian 
fathers together with most heathen 
writers; of the latter see a list in 
Lepsius Chron. p. 180. 

I. tov amoGaveiv avto| ‘so that it 
should die, explaining the preceding 
yevopevoy mpos amroAvow ‘at the eve of 
its dissolution’; comp. § 46 épyopeOa 
@ote emAabéoOa nuas. This con- 
struction seems to me preferable to 
connecting avro with what follows, 
as in the Syriac version; for in this 
case I should expect that avro éavr@ 
would stand in juxtaposition, as e.g. 
hom viii. 23, 2 Cor. i. 9. 

5. oke@dAn€ tis yevvara| This mode 
of reproduction is not mentioned by 
Herodotus (ii. 73); but it formed part 
of the story as related by Manilius to 
the Romans and is frequently men- 
tioned by subsequent writers. To 
this account is sometimes added the 
incident that the parent bird lights 
its own pyre and that the worm is 


7 onkov 
8 Bacrdfwv] Bacrafgov 


found in the smouldering ashes; e.g. 
Artemid. Oneirocr. iv. 47 avros éaute 
Toimoduevos ek Kagias Te Kal opupyns 
mupay amobvnoker: KavOeions Oe THs Tv- 
pas pera xpovov €k Tis arob0d oKeAnKa 
yevvacba héyovow k.r.A. (comp. Mar- 
tial v. 7). Itis interesting to observe 
the different stages in the growth of 
the story, as follows; (1) The lon- 
gevity alone (Hesiod); (2) The en- 
tombment and burial of the parent 
by the offspring (Herodotus) ; (3) The 
miraculous birth of the offspring from 
the remains of the parent (Mani- 
lius); (4) The three days’ interval 
between the death of the parent and 
resuscitation of the offspring (Epi- 
phanius). 

6. yevvaios] ‘strong, lusty, as e.g. 
Dion Chrys. vil. p. 228 R ioxupot ere 
véou kal yevvaio. Ta oopara. It corre- 
sponds to Ovid’s ‘Quum dedit huic 
aetas vires’. 

g. duavver] ‘makes tts way’, fre- 
quently used absolutely, e.g. Polyb. 


15 


XXVI| 


> / \ 4 > > E > ~ 
QAUTA, KAL OUTWS ELS TOUTTLOW agpoppa. 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


89 


Ol ovuy LEpELS 


\ A ~ / \ 
EMLIOKETTOVTAL Tas dvaypapas TwWY XpovwY Kal Evpio- 


\ m »/ , 
KOVOLY QUTOV TEVTAKOGLOD TOU ETOUS TETANPWMEVOU EAN- 


AvGEvat. 


XXVI. 


\ \ S Vf [x 
Méya kat Oavuaoctov ovv vouiCopuerv eivat, 


> \ ~ e / 5] / I 
EL O Onmloupyos TwYv adTavTwY avacTacW ToMmoETal 


a > ~ 7 / / 
TWV OTLWS AUTH SovAevoavTwy €v memoOnoe TicTEws 


> = J \ ? 2 / / con 
dyabyns, Strov Kat dv Opveov OEeikyvuow uty 

ome a > , 3 -~ / MA 
A€elov THs ETTayyeNlas auTov; AEeyel yap 


EZANACTHCEIC ME Kal 


\ > ' ¢ \ > > n Ge 
Kal YTIN@Cd, EZHTEPOHN, OT! CY MET EMOFY El. 


A. Q dtavder] C3 duavevee A; migrat volans S. 


amavrev C. 
12 lepets] AC; add. of rijs Alyirrov S. 


C. 19 dpvéou delxvucwv] opvaov dixvucw A. 


20 emaryyeNias] emayyedetag A. 


ili. 56. 1 (azo), iv. 70. 5 (ek), il. 54. 6 
(pos). The word occurs above, § 20. 
The reading of A, davever, is out of 
place, for it could only mean ‘turns 
aside’, i.e. for the purpose of avoiding. 
Several instances of the confusion of 
Svavvery and dvavevew by transcribers 
are given by Jahn Methodius Ul. p. 
IIo. 

13. tas dvaypadas| ‘the public re- 
cords’; comp. Tatian ad Graec. 38 
Aiyurtiov dé eiow ai én’ axpiBes xpo- 
veov avaypapai. For the Egyptian 
dvaypagai see also Diod. Sic. i. 44, 69, 
a, (53; Jaseph..4 AZ. 1..6'sq. The 
recently discovered register of the 
epiphanies of the bulls Apis is a par- 
allel instance of such chronological 
records; see Bunsen’s Egy# I. p. 62 
(2nd ed.). 

XXVI. ‘Is it then strange that 
God should raise the faithful, when 
He has given this marvellous sign? 
To such a resurrection we have the 
testimony of the Scriptures’. 

16. Méya kat Oavpaordy] For the 


€ZOMOAOPHCOMAI COI’ 


TO Meya- 
Kai 


> , 
EKOIMHOHN 


Tov" 
Kal 
\ ; 
Kat aX 


Il mavtTwv] A; 


émurTas] AS; om. C, doubtless owing to the following é7i. 


14 weTAnpwuévov] AS ; mAnpouuévou 
beyanetov] meyadiov A, 
22 €&nyépOnv] A; Kal é&nyépOnv CS. 


same combination of epithets see 
S$ 50, 53. 

17. 06 Snproupyos k.t.A.] See above 
§ 20. On this Platonic phrase com- 
pare Jahn Methodius I. pp. 39, 91. 

18. ev wemovOnoer k.t.X. | ‘22 the con- 
fidence which comes of honest faith’: 
comp. Ephes. iii. 12 ev memorOnoes Sua 
Ths miotews avtov, and below § 35 
miotis ev memorOnoet, The phrase ric- 
tis ayaén occurs Tit. ii. 10, where 
however wioris seems to mean ‘fi- 
delity.’ 

19. To peyadetor| ‘the greatness’; 
comp. S$ 32,49. It occurs Acts ii. 11, 
Luke 1. 49 (v.1.), and several times in 
the LXx. 

20. Aéyer yap wov] Taken apparently 
from Ps. xxvill. 7 kal dvéOadev n capé 
pou kal ex OeAnparos pov é£ouodoynao- 
pat avt@ (comp. Ps. Ixxxvii. 11). 

21. €kowunOny x.r.r.| A confusion of 
Ps. ill, 5 €y@ e€kousnOnv cal v7veca, 
eEnyepOnv ore Kupios avriAnweral pov, 
and Ps. xxiii. 4 ov @oBnénoouat Kaka 
OTe OV per E00 EL. 


we wT 


go THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XXvVI 


lo Ne El° Kal ANACTHCEIC THN Ca KA MOY TAY THN THN 
: 
ANANTAHCACAN TAYTA EON Oc 


XX VII. 


¢ Neue ~ fe a 2 ~ ? / \ ~ 
al Yuya HUWY TH TIOTW EV TALS eTayyeNlals Kal TW 


Tavrn ouv TH €ATIOL Tpoc dedec Owoay 


/ ~ / 
Oikalw €v TOLS KpluacLy. 
é 
a a 9 \ ( \ A > / 
TOAAW uaAAov avTos ov \evoeTat* ovdEev yap aduva- 
A vo lad 5) \ \ / > 
Tov mapa TH Oew, et pn TO Wevoacba. dvaCwrvpn- 
> V / a con \ / / 
CATW OUV 4 TIOTIS AUTOU EV HIV, Kal vonowmEY OTL 
/ 2 \ ? = b) / an l 
TavTa eyyus avTw €oTwW. €v AOYW THS MEeyadwourns 
~ / \ lf \ ? Up a / 
avTOU GUVETTHTATO Ta TavTa, Kal Ev NOYW OvVATAaL 


' > U ' 


\ if ' > a > a n” 
avuTa KaTaoTpeya. Tic €pel ayYT@* TI €moiHcac; H TIC 


> ' a ' an > ’ > an 4 / 
ANTICTHCETAI TW KPaTel i) FAG Icyyoc AYTOYs | ; ORE Gérer Kal 


1 odpxa] capxay A. 
(avar\joacay?) S. 
A; om. C; dub. 8. 
7 rp] A; om. C3; see above, § 21. 


1o 7a mwdvta] A, and so probably S; mdv7a C. 


15 of] A; om. C. 


accidentally omits xe:pwv in recording the reading of C (p. 51). 


16 moinow] monoew A. 


\ 


2 advavTAncacav] A; dvtAhoacav C; toleravit 
3 mpocdedéoOwoav] AS; mpocdexécOwaar C. 
T@ dixaly] A; dicaly (om. 7M) C, and so apparently S. 


4 &v] 


70] A, and so apparently S; om. C. 
13 mojoet] AS; morjoa C. 

xepav] ACS; Bryennios 
17 TO oTe- 


péwua K.T.A.] C runs 76 orepéwua kal dxovovTa ai dwval mdvtwy Brerrouévww Kal 


axovounevwv’ PoBnOduev xk.7.X., omitting many words. 


I. "I1d8 Aéyer] From LXX Job xix. 
26 dvactrnoe S€ pov TO Toya TO avav- 
TAovy ravra as read in A, but NB have 
dvactnoat To dێppya pov To avavrAovy (or 
aytAovv) ravra. The Hebrew original 
is different from either. For the con- 
fusion of davarAjoa and avavtrAnoa 
in this passage of Job and in Prov. 
ix. I2 see Schleusner Lex. Vet. Test. 
s.v. avavtdew, Field Orig. Hexapl. il. 
p. 36. It may be a question what 
reading the Syriac translator had 
here, but the same word Sap is used 
elsewhere (e.g. Eus. 4. £. viii. 14) to 
render avarAavres; see Payne Smith 
Thes. Syr. S. V. 

Harnack refers to the discussion 
of this passage of Clement in Caspari 
Quellen z. Gesch. ad. Taufsymools iil. 


p. 158. 


The omissions here are not 


XXVII. ‘Let us therefore cling 
fast to God. He has promised, and 
Hecannot lie. Whatsoever He wills, 
He is able to perform. To His power 
no bounds are set. To His eye and 
His mind all things are open. The 
heavens declare His glorious works’. 

4. T® mioT@ k.7.A.]| Comp. Heb. x. 
23 micros yap 6 émayyeiAduevos, and 
ree a 

6. ovdev yap advvarov x.r.d.| Com- 
pare Heb. vi. 18 év ois ddvvarov Wev- 
cacOa [Tov] Geov, with Matt. xix. 26 
(Mark x. 27); see also Tit. i. 2. 

7. avaConupnoara | Intransitive; see 
the note on Ign. Ephes. 1. The con- 
text seems to suggest that 7 miortis 
avrov should be rendered ‘ His faith- 
fulness’, as in Rom. iii. 3; see Gada- 
tzams p. 155. 


0 mapayyeivas un Wevdeo Oat 5 


xxvul] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


OI 


ws OéXNer ToInoeL TavTa, Kal ovoEY py mrapehOy TOV 
OedoyMaTIoOMevwy UT avTOU. TavTa eévwriov avToU 
Elio, Kal ovoev AEANOEV THv BovAny av’ToU, Et Oi oF- 
PANO! AIHPOFNTAI ADZAN Oceoy, TOIHCIN AE YEIP@N ayToY 
ANOrreAAE! TO CTEPEMMA’ H HMEPA TH HMEPa EpeyreTal PAma, 
Kal NYZ NYKTI ANAOPrEAAE!L FN®@CIN’ KAl OYK EICIN AGO! OYAE 
AdAIAI, ON OYY] AKOYONTAI Al PDWNAI dYTON. 


XXVIII. 


“ > 5) / Sf 
VWV, poBnbwper QUTOV Kal aTrONELTTWMEV pavrwy E0yav 


/ > , \ > / 
Hlavtwy ovv BAEeropévwy Kal akovopeE- 


\ / / = / > ~ ~ 
puapas émifuuias, a Tw édAE€e avToU oKeTracOwper 
é 


amo Twv pMeANOYTWY KPLLATwY. TOU yap TIS Huw 
altogether explained by the practice of abridging quotations (see I. p. 128). 
18 dvayyé\Ne] A; dvayyede? S (with Hebr. and Lxx A); def. C. In the previous 
line S has the present (dvayyéANev). 18, 19 Adyot, Aadcat] S transposes these 
words, as in the LXx. 19 al dwval] The text of S is perhaps corrupt here. 
As it stands, the translator would appear to have had rats gwvats NPA, instead of 
dp, unless it is a very loose paraphrase. 20 obv] A; re (MD) S; om. C 
(see the note on 76 orepéwua k.T.X.). 21 dmodelrwuev] A; amoNirwpev C, 
22 papas] AS; BdaBepas C (see Bryennios Did. p. py’). 23 Tay meddédv- 
Twv Kpydtav] AC; Tod wéAdNovTos Kpluaros (TINYT NII) S. The variation cannot 


be explained by vzéuz here, and must have been deliberate; see also § 21. 


9. éyyds aité] So Ign. Ephes. 15 
ovdev AavOdver rov Kvpiov, dAda Kai Ta 
KpuTTa nav eyyus avT@ eat, which is 
perhaps a reminiscence of this pas- 
sage: compare § 21 above. 

év hoy@ «.t.A.| See Heb. i. 3 hép- 
oy Ta TavTa TO pyyate THs Svvawews 
avtov: comp. Wisd. ix. I. See the 
introduction, I. p. 398, on the relation 
of Clement to the Logos doctrine. 

II. Tis épet avr@ x.t.A.] From Wisd. 
xii, 12 tis yap épel Ti éroinoas 7 Tis 
avrioTnoeTat T@ Kpiwati gov; Comp. 
Wisd. xi. 22 xpares Bpaxiovds cov tis 
dvtistnoetat; The expression 76 xpa- 
Tos THs taxvos avrov occurs in Ephes. 
i. 19, vi. 10, The xparos is the ioyvs 
exerted on some object. 

13. ovdev pr mapéAOn «.7.A.] Comp. 
Matt. v. 18. 

15. ei Of ovpavol x«.r.A.] ‘seeing 


that The heavens etc? The ei is no 
part of the quotation. So treated 
the passage presents no difficulty ; 
and the corrections proposed (e.g. 
the omission of e?, or the reading kai 
of ovpavol) are unnecessary. Perhaps 
also the kai before ovx eioiv should be 
excluded from the quotation in the 
same way. The quotation is then 
word for word (except the interchange 
of Aoyou and Aadai) from the LXx 
Ps, x1x. I—3. 

19. ov...avrav| See above the note 
on § 20. 

XXVIII. ‘Therefore, since He 
sees and hears all things, let us for- 
sake our vile deeds and take refuge in 
His mercy. We cannot escape His 
powerful arm; neither in the height 
of heaven nor in the abyss of ocean 
nor in the farthest parts of the earth’. 


Q2 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XXVIII 


om 3 \ _~ ~ A ~ ~ 
duvata uyely aro THS KpaTalas YELPOS aVTOU; TOLOS 
~ ’ , ~ 
de Koopos OeFeTai TVA TwWY aVTOMOAOUYTWY aT aUTOU 5 
Ul / \ - a > ' ‘ a 
Neyer yap mov To ypadeov’ Mof apHzm kal moY Kpy- 


BHcomal ATO TOY TpOCcwMOY COoY EAN ANARG EIC TON OYPAa- 


c 


NON, CY €l €kel’ EAN ATIEAOW Eic TA EcyaTa TAC Ac, kel H 


AEZIA COY’ EAN KATACTPWCW EIC TAC ABYCCOYC, EKE! TO TINEYMA 


5 el éxet] A (with Lxx ABS); éxe? ef CS. 
7 ov] AC; om. S. 


éxel 7 beEtad cou] AS; od éxet ef C. 
dmodpdon] A; amodpacy (or amodpace) S; Tis dmodpd- 


2. avroworovvtev| See above, ku- with the Prophets; see Furst Der 


morakrew § 21, and the note on decép- 
top Ign. Polyc. 6. 

3. To ypadetoy] ‘the writing.  S. 
Clement here seems to adopt the 
threefold division of the Old Testa- 
ment books which appears in Ecclus. 
(prol.), in S, Luke (xxiv. 44), in Philo 
(de Vit. cont. 3, Il. p. 475), in Jose- 
phus (c. Ag.i. 8), and generally. The 
third division is called ra dAXa BiBXia 
and ra Aoura Tov BiBAiwv in Ecclus., 
Wadpol in S. Luke, tuvo. in Philo and 
Josephus. Its more general name in 
Hebrew was D°D1N5, ‘the writings’, 
translated sometimes by ypadeia, 
sometimes by ay:oypada: comp. Epi- 
phan. Haer. xxix. 7 (I. p. 122) ov yap 
dmnyopevtat map avtois vouobecia kat 
mpopfyra kat ypadeta ra rapa Iovdaios 
kaAdovpeva, and again map’ avtois yap 
mwas 6 vow“os kal of mpopyra: Kal Ta 
ypaheta Neyoueva k.t.d., Mens. et Pond. 
4 (II. p. 162) ta xadovpeva ypadeia 
mapa Tiot O€ ayioypada Aeyoueva. In 
the first of these passages however 
Epiphanius includes the historical 
books among the ypadeta, and in the 
second he confines the term to them, 
placing the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, 
etc., in a separate section which he 
calls of ortynpets. This does not 
truly represent the Jewish tradition, 
in which 1, 2 Chronicles alone be- 
longed to the 0°21N3, while the his- 
torical books generally were ranged 


Kanon des Alten Testaments p. 10 
sq, p- 55 sq. Elsewhere he uses 
ypapeta more widely, Haer. xxvi. 12 
(p. 94) aAAa pupia rap’ avdrois rem\ac- 
peva ypadeia ; comp. Deut. x. 4 (Aq.). 
John Damascene likewise (de Fid. 
Orthod. iv. 17, 1. p. 284), following 
Epiphanius, describes the historical 
books from Joshua to 2 Chronicles, 
aS Ta kadovpeva ypadeia mapa Tic O€ 
aytoypapa. In the Classical language 
(as also LXX Job. .1x..24,<Hex ice 
XVll. 1) ypagetoy is not ‘a writing’ but 
‘a pen.’ 

Ilot ag@n€w| A very loose quota- 
tion from Ps. cxxxix. 7—10, where 
the slight variations of the principal 
MSS of the LXx do not affect the wide 
divergences in Clement’s quotation. 
Compare also the parallel passage in 
Amos ix. 2, 3, to which Clement’s 
quotation presents some faint resem- 
blances. It is important to observe 
that in using xaraorp#ce, ‘make my 
couch,’ Clement conforms to the ori- 
ginal NYSN, where the LXxX has ka- 
taBo. ‘This is the more remarkable, 
as he elsewhere shows no knowledge 
of the Hebrew, and in the Psalms 
generally quotes pretty accurately 
from the LXx. Whence then did he 
get this word? We may conjecture 
that he was acquainted with one of 
the versions afterwards included by 
Origen in his Hexapla. The 5th 


IO 


XXIX]| TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


93 


coy. mol ouv TIS dmenOn Hn Tou dmodépacn aro TOU Ta 
TAVTA EUTEDLEXOVTOS § 

XXIX. [lpocéAOwpev ovv avtw év dowwoTnT. \Ww- 
Xs, ayvas Kal duavTous yelpas aipovTes mpos avTor, 
adyanwvTes TOV éTLELKH Kal EVOTAAYYVOY TaTEpa Huw 
ds ékAoyis pépos éroincey éavt@. OlTw yap ye- 


ypanrrat’ "Ote AlemépIZEN O YYICTOC EONH, DC AIECTIEIPEN 


ce C. 
It émveckn] emcecxny A. 


version (e in Origen) has orpe#c or 
kataotpwcew (see Field’s Hexapl. ad 
loc.), and as this seems to have been 
the one found in an old cask either 
at Jericho or Nicopolis (Euseb. . £. 
vi. 16, Epiphan. A/ens. et Pond. 18, 
p. 174 ; see Hody de Bibl. Text. Orig. 
etc. p. 587 sq), it may very well have 
been an ancient Jewish tradition prior 
to the age of Clement. Clem. Alex. 
Strom. 1. 22 (p. 625) quotes the 
passage nearly in the form which it 
has here (though substituting the Lxx 
xata8e for xaraorpeow), and doubt- 
less derived it through the medium 
of the Roman Clement, so that he is 
not an independent authority. 
agnéo| The verb adnxew is not 
found in the Lxx or N.T., and is 
altogether a rare word ; comp. Plato 
Resp. vii. p. 530 E, Antiphon in 
Bekker Axecd. p. 470 S.v. adnxovros. 

XXIX. ‘Therefore let us approach 
Him in prayer with pure hearts and 
undefiled hands. We are God’s spe- 
cial portion and inheritance, of which 
the Scriptures speak once and again’. 

See on the liturgical character of 
this portion of Clement’s Epistle 
which follows, the introduction, I. 
p- 386 sq. 

IO. ayvas x.t-A.| 1 Tim. ii. 8 ésai- 
povras oaiovs xeipas, Athenag. Suppl. 
13 emaip@pev oalovs xXEipas avT@; See 
also Heliodorus the tragedian in Ga- 


7a] A; om. C, and so probably S. 
12 pépos] A; add. quds CS. 


g otv] AC; om. S. 


oUTw] ovTws C. 


len. de Antid. ii. 7 (XIV. p. 145, ed. 
Kiihn) add’ ooias pev yetpas és népa 
Aaumpov deipas (quoted by Wetstein 
on I Tim. ii. 8). The expression de- 
scribes the attitude of the ancients 
(as of Orientals at the present day) 
when engaged in prayer, with ex- 
tended arms and uplifted palms. 

12. éxdoyns pépos k.t.r.] ‘has made 
us Hts special portion, or rather ‘has 
set apart for Himself a special por- 
tion’. In either case the exdoys pépos 
is the Christian people, the spiritual 
Israel, who under the new covenant 
have taken the place of the chosen 
people under the old; as 1 Pet. ii. 9 
vuets be yevos exdexrov, Bacidesov iepa- 
Teupa, €Ovos ay.ov, Aaos eis Tmepuroinow 
k.7T.A. See the notes on maporxoica 
and nyiacpévors (§ 1). Thus pépos ék- 
Aoyns here is coextensive with oi ékde- 
Aeypevor VO TOU Ceov Sia "Incod Xpio- 
tov § 50 (comp. § 64). The words 
épos exAoyns are not to be translated 
‘a portion of his elect’ but ‘a portion 
set apart by election,’ ékXoyns being a 
genitive of the same kind as in Acts 
ix. 15 okevos exAoyns, Iren. i. 6. 4 omep- 
para exdoyns. The expression therefore 
has no bearing on the question whe- 
ther Clement was a Jewish or Gentile 
Christian. See the note on Aaos below. 

13. “Ore duepepeCev x.t.A.] From the 
LXxX Deut. xxxii. 8, 9, almost word 
for word. 


94 THE EPISTLE 


OF S. CLEMENT 


[XxIXx 


yioyc ’Addm, ECTHCEN OPld EON@N KATA APIOMON ArPPéAWN 


GE OY. 
KAHPONOMIAC aYTOY ‘IcpaHa. 


EreNHOH mepic Kypioy Adoc ayToy ‘lakwsB, cyOINICMa 
A ir / / 
Kal €v ETEODW TOTW EYEL* 


lAoy Kypioc AamBAaNel EdYT@ EONOC Ek MécoY EONAN, OctrEp 


I dpiOuor] apiOov A. 


I. kata apiOpoyv x.7.A.]| The idea 
conveyed by the LXxX which Clement 
quotes is that, while the Gentile na- 
tions were committed to His inferior 
ministers, God retained the people 
of Israel under His own special 
guardianship: comp. Dan. x. 13 sq, 
xii. I, but esp. Ecclus. xvii. 17 éxaor@ 
€Ove Katéatnoev nyovpevoy Kai pepis 
Kupiov “Iopanad éarww, and F2bzlees § 15 
(Ewald Fahré. il. p. 10) ‘ Many are 
the nations and numerous the people, 
and all are His, and over all hath 
He set spirits as lords...but over 
Israel did He set no one to be Lord, 
neither angel nor spirit, but He alone 
is their ruler etc.’, with the context. 
See also Clem. Hom. xviii. 4, Clem. 
Recogn. ii. 42 (references which I 
should have overlooked but for Hil- 
genfeld Afpost. Vat. p. 65). Clem. 
Alex. Strom, vii. 2 (p. 832) uses the 
text to support his favourite idea that 
heathen philosophy is the handmaid 
of revelation ; odros ear o did0vs Kal 
Tois "EAAnot tHv Pirrocodiar dia Tay v- 
modeeaTepar dyyéeAav’ cial yap ovvdiave- 
veunwéevot mpoorage: Oeia Te kal apxaia 
dyyeAou kara €6yn, GAX’ 7 pepis Kupiov 7 
d0€a rav miotevorvtov. On the other 
hand the present text of the Hebrew 
runs ‘ He set the boundaries of the na- 
tions according to the number of the 
sons of Israel (Sxw 992 BD) ; for 
(or ‘while’, °3) the portion of Jehovah 
is His people, Jacob is the rod of His 
inheritance’. So too the Peshito and 
Targum of Onkelos. But it is diffi- 
cult to get any good sense out of this 
reading, and the parallelism of the 
verses is thus shattered. I can hardly 
doubt therefore that the LXx is right, 


2 éyev7On] AC; xal éyev4On S with Lxx. 


and the error can be easily explained. 
The ends of the lines have got out of 
gear ; Sx, which in the present text 
occupies the end of ver. 8, has been 
displaced from its proper position at 
the end of ver. 9, and thrust out the 
original word D'MONN, which has thus 
disappeared. The ‘sons of God’ are 
mentioned Job i. 6, ii. I, xxxviil. 7, 
and in all places are translated (as it 
appears, correctly) by dyyedou [rod 
©cov| in the LXxX; see Gesen. Thes. 
p. 215. This conjecture is confirmed 
by the fact that the Samar. Pent. reads 
‘Israel’ at the end of both verses, 
thus presenting an intermediate read- 
ing between the LXx and the present 
Hebrew text. Justin Martyr Dzad. 
§ 131 (p. 360 B) refers to the difference 
between the Hebrew and LXxX texts; 
see also Origen Jz Num. Hom. xxviii. 
§ 4 (II. p. 385), 2a Ezech. Hom. xiii 
(III. p. 401). The reading of the He- 
brew text is naturally adopted in 
Clem. Hom. xviii. 4, as it is by 
Justin’s Jewish opponents. Thewriter 
lived late enough to have got it from 
one of the Judaizing versions. On 
the other hand the LXxX is quoted by 
Philo de Post. Ca. 25 (I. p. 241), de 
Plant. 14 (1. p- 338). 

2. ads] We have here the com- 
mon antithesis of Aads ‘the chosen 
people’, and ¢6m ‘the Gentiles’; as 
eg. Luke ii. 32, Acts iv. 27, xxvi. 
17, 23, Romi: ‘xv. mo; 4d; ele aie 
becoming the Aaos however the Is- 
raelites do not cease to be called an 
€Ovos (see esp. Joh. xi. 50), but are 
rather ¢6vos ayiov (as Exod. xix. 6, 
I Pet. ii. 9) or €Ovos ex pécov eOvav 


(as below): so Justin Dzad. 24 (p. 242) 


XXx] 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 95 


5 AAMBANE! ANOPWTOC THN ATIAPYHN AYTOY TAC SAW, Kal EZE- 


AEYCETAl EK TOY EBNOYC EKEINOY ALIA ALI@N. 


XXX. ‘Ayiou ovv mepis VrapyovTes TroInTwpEV TA 


oY 


7 ‘Ayiov ovv] AfIOYN (the oy above the line being written prima manu) A; 
ayla otv uepis S; ayia ovv wépn C. Seel. p. 143. 


iva yévnrat €Ovos Sixaov, Aads PvAdo- 
cov tiorw (from Is, xxvi. 2). All such 
titles, referring primarily to the Israel 
after the flesh, are transferred by 
Clement, following the Apostolic wri- 
ters, to the Israel after the spirit; see 
- abovethenoteson §1,and comp. below 
§ 64 eis Aady mrepiovaroy, and especially 
Justin Dza/. 119 (p. 347). I call at- 
tention to this, because Hilgenfeld 
(Zettschr. f. Wissensch. Theol. 1858, 
p. 585, and here) distinguishes the 
Aads of the first passage and the ¢Ovos 
of the second, as though they referred 
to the Jewish and Gentile Christians 
respectively. Of such a distinction 
the context gives no indication; and 
the interpretation moreover supposes 
that Clement departs from the ob- 
vious meaning of the passages in- 
corporated in the second quotation, 
where the original reference of ¢Ovos 
is plainly to the Israelites. See the 
note on éexAoy7s wépos above. 
cxoimcpa] ‘a portion measured out 
by a line’ (see the note on xavoy, 
§ 7), a2 common word in the Lxx 
exactly representing the Hebrew ban. 

4. “ISovd Kupuos x.7.A.] A combina- 
tion of several passages ; Deut. iv. 34 
ei emeipacey 6 OGeds eciaehOav Rafeiv 
€auT@ €bvos €k pécou €Ovous év Tmeipac- 
H@ x.T.A., Deut. xiv. 2 cal o¢ éEehe~aro 
Kupios 6 Geds cov yevéoOar ce adv 
avT@ Teptovo.oy ard mavTwv Tov eOvav 
k.T.A. (Comp. vii. 6). 

@omep AapBaver x.t.A.]| The pas- 
sages most nearly resembling this 
are, Num. xvill. 27 AoyioOjoerar vyiv 
Ta adaipépata vpaov ws aiTos amo ao 
kal adaipepya dio Anvov, 2 Chron. xxxi. 


14 dovva tas amapxas Kupiov kal ta 
dyia tov dyiwv, Ezek. xlviii. 12 €ora 
avTois 7) amapyn Sedouevn ex Tay arap- 
XOY Tis ys, Gy.ov ayiov amo Ta opie 
k.T.X. With the context; but in all these 
passages the reference of the ‘ first- 
fruits’ is different. As Clement’s quo- 
tations elsewhere are so free (e.g. $§ 
18, 26, 32, 35, 39, etc.), he may only 
have combined these passages and 
applied them from memory; but 
the alternative remains that he is 
quoting from some apocryphal wri- 
ting, such as the spurious or interpo- 
lated Ezekiel quoted above (see the 
notes S§ 8, 13, 17, 23, 46). The aya 
ayiwy are the specially consecrated 
things, the offerings or first-fruits, as 
in the passages just quoted ; see also 
Lev: xxi.,22, Ezek xlin13)) Phere: 
pression is applied here either to the 
people of God themselves, or to their 
spiritual oblations (see below, §§ 40, 
44). 

XXX. ‘ Therefore, as the portion of 
the Holy One, let us be holy our- 
selves; let us lay aside all sins which 
defile ; let us shun pride and ensue 
peace ; let us be on our guard against 
slander and backbiting ; let us seek 
not our own praise, but the praise of 
God. Self-will is accursed in His 
sight ; but His blessing rests on the 
gentle and lowly-minded’. 

7. ‘Ayiov ovv pepis| i.e. ‘As the 
special portion of a Holy God’: 
comp. I Pet. 1. 15 sq xara rov KaXé- 
gavra vas ayioy Kal avTol ayou ev 
maon avactpopn yevnOnte, Siote ye- 
ypanra (Lev. xi. 44) “Aysou vec Oe or: 


eyo ayos. On the liturgical charac- 


96 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xxx 


TOU aylacmouv TavTa, pevryovTes kaTadadias, uiapas TE 
kal dvayvous cuumAoKas, welas TE Kal vewTEptopous 
kat BdeAuKTas émiOupias, wvoTEpav poryelav, BdeAVKTHY 
vTepnpaviay. Oedc rap, pnow, YTEPHMANOIC ANTITACCE- 
TAl, TATTEINOIC AE AiAwciIn yApIN. KoAAnOwmev ovv éxel- 
vois ois 4 yapis dro Tov OQeou dédoTa. évdovaowmeba 
THY Omovoiav, TaTrEWoPpovoUYTEs, EYKPATEVOMEVOL, a7rO 
mavTos \ilupicmou Kal KaTaXadias moppw éauTous 
TOLOUVTES, Epryols OiKalovpevot Kal pn Doyo. Evel 
yap° ‘O TA TOAAA AEFON Kal ANTAKOYCETAI’ H O EYAAAOC 
OETA EINAI AIKAIOC; EYAOPHMENOC FENNHTOC LFYNAIKOC GAI- 


’ \ \ > eT; 1 € af € ~ 
rOBloc’ MH TOAYC EN PHMACIN TINOY. O €érawos 1 [LWV 


2 dvdyvous] C; ayvouc A. cupmdokds] AC; kal cupmdoxds S, rendering 
the word however by contentiones (jurgia), and connecting papas Te Kal dvdryvous 
with karadaduds. te] AS; om. C. 3 muoepav] As puoepav (uvoapav 
lage CS. porxelav] morxiavy A, Bbedukrhv] A; kat Bdeduxriy CS. 
4 Geos] AC. Bryennios reads 6 Qeds, as if it had some manuscript authority. 
6 dd] AS; om. C. 8 xaradadias...€avrovs] AC; S translates as if karada- 
Nds...€avTav, connecting dd mavTds YiOupicuod with éyxparevduevot. 9 kal] 
AS$ om. 10 7] » A; ef C; 7 (apparently) S, for it translates z//e gui 


ter of the language here used, see 
above, I. p. 387. 

I. hevy. karad.| I Pet. ii. 1 amoOépe- 
vol...mdoas KatadaXuds. 

2. dvayvovs] Something may still 
be said for Adyvous which I read in 
my first edition after Colomiés ; comp. 
Athenag. Suppl. 19 Tots dkxoAdorots 
Kat Adyvots, 21 Aayveias 7 Bias 7 mAEO- 
ve&ias, Clem. Recogn. ix. 17 (the Greek 
is preserved in Czesarius) pedicous, 
Aayvous, Sayovavras, Acta Petrz in 
Isid. Pelus. £7. 11. 99 (see Hilgenfeld’s 
Nov. Test. extr. Can. Rec. WV. p. 70) 
0 yap itoxpyparos ovK éxopynoe Tov 
Ts dktTnpoovrvns Adyov ovdé 6 Aayvos 
Tov TEept cw@ppouvrns k.t.A., Clem. Alex. 
Paed. ii. 10 (p. 222—225). The com- 
mon form was Aayvos, the Attic 
hayyns; see Lobeck Phryn. p. 184. 
Neither word (avayvos or Adyvos) oc- 


curs in the LXxX or New Testament. 

3. puoepay| For this form see the 
note on § 14. 

4. ©cds yap x.t.d.] From Prov. iii. 
34 Kuptos vmepnpavois x.t.A. Int Pet. 
v. 5, James iv. 6, it is quoted 6 Geds 
umepnpavos «.t.’. The Hebrew has 
simply 81 ‘he’. 

8. Wid. ai katad.] See below, § 35. 
The words occur together also 2 Cor, 
xii. 20; comp. Rom. i. 30 Widupioras, 
KaradaXous. 

9. épyous Sixacovpevor] See the note 
at the beginning of § 33, and the in- 
troduction, I. pp. 96, 397. 

10. ‘OrazoAXa k.t.A.] From the Lxx 
of Job xi. 2, 3, almost word for word. 
It diverges widely from the Hebrew, 
and the sentiment evAoynpevos x.t.X. 
has no connexion with the context. 
It may be conjectured that the words 


she) 


r5 


20 


XXxI| TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


97 


of > a \ \ > 9 ~ > \ \ 
écoTw év Ocw kat pn €€ avTwy, avTETaWETOUS yap 
a / e / ~ ~ / e ~ 
puoet 0 Oeos. 1 paptupia THs ayabys mpaEews juwy 
f e sf A y a , ~ 
didocbw vm addwv, Kabws €00n Tois TaTpaoLW Huw 
Tots Ouaios. Opacos Kai avOadea Kal ToAUa Tots 
f \ ~ oa ? / \ 

KaTnpaueévois v7o Tou Oeov: EmleiKela Kal Ta7eELvo- 
/ \ aie \ ~~ / \ a 
Ppocvrvn kat mpavTys Tapa Tots nvNOYNMEVOLS UTO TOU 


Oeov. 
XXX E 


10 / e ¢ \ lon b) / 
LOwWMEV TIVES al COOL THS EvVAOYIAS. 


qn = ~ ? / > ~ \ 
KodAnO@pev ovv Tr EevAoYia avTOU, Kal 
> E \ 
QVATUNLEWMED TA 


an apxns yevopeva. Tivos yap nuroynOn o TaTNO 


juav ABpaau; ovxt Sikacocvyny Kal adynbeav dia Tio- 


/ N \ / / \ 
Tews momoas; “loaaxk peta rerolbnocews ywwoKwy TO 


multum dicit et audit in hac (hoc) quod qui bene loguitur, etc. Ir evhoynueé- 
vos] A; om. C; S substitutes yevynrés, thus repeating the same word, ss sT5s, 
12 nuav] AS; tua C. 13 Oew] A; 7H Oew C. yap] AC; om. S. 
14 ayaSjs] AS; om. C. nuav| A; tuoav CS. 15 €060n] edenOn A. 
£7 ume, Tov Geov| AS: om. C. See I.. p. 125. émvetkera] emeckia A. 
18 mpaitys] A; mpadrns C. S transposes tarewodpootvn and mpaitns, probably 


for convenience of translation; see I. p. 137. 


yevintos yuvaikos oduydBios crept in 
from xiv. I Bpords yap yevynros yuvat- 
kos oAcyoBtos, Which may have stood 
next to this passage in a parallel 
column, and the evAoynpevos will have 
come from the first word of the next 
verse, 9! misread 4)93. 

II. yevynros] See the note on Ign. 
Ephes. 7. 

12. ‘O érawos x.t.A.| See Rom. ii. 
29 ov 6 émawwos ovK €& avOp@rev aN 
€k tov @eov, 2 Cor. x. 18 ov yap 6 
€avToyv ovvioravey K.T.A.; Comp. I Cor. 
ive 5. 

13. avrov| So read for avrayv. On 
the forms avrov, avr, etc., as inad- 
missible here, see §§ 9, 12, 14, 32 
(notes). 

avterawetovs| No other instance of 
the word is given in the lexicons. 


(oe Ye A 


15. um addoy] See Prov. xxvii. 2. 


CLEM. II. 


23 dia tictews] AS; om. C. 


18. mpavtns| This word is distin- 
guished from tarewvoppoovvn, Trench 
N. T. Syn. tst ser. § xliv, and from 
émvetkera 20. § xlili. 

XXXI. ‘Let us therefore cling to 
His blessing: let us study. the re- 
cords of the past, and see how it was 
won by our fathers, by Abraham and 
Isaac and Jacob’. 

21. dvatudiEwperv| ‘unroll’, and so 
‘pore over’; comp. Lucian Migr. 7 
Tovs hoyous ovs TOTe NKkOVTA GuVayei- 
pov kal avarv\itrov. 

22. 6 matnp nuoyv| See the note on 
§ 4. 

23. odxt Suxarcocvyny x.t.r.]| Com- 
bining the statement of S. Paul (Rom. 
iv. I sq, Gal. ii. 6 sq) with that of 
S. James (ii. 21 sq). See the note at 
the beginning of § 33, and the intro- 
duction, I. p. 96. 


A 


THE EPISTLE OF 8S. CLEMENT [XXX 


98 


péAANOV OdEwWs MpoonyeTo Oucia. "laxwB peta Tarel- 
a rs an \ 
voppoourns éFeydpnoev THS YS avToU dv adeAov Kal 
éropev0n moos AaBav Kai édovdAevcev, Kat éd00n ait@e 
\ / = 93 'g 

To OwoekacKnmrTpov Tov ‘lopann. 

XXXII. ’€av tis ka@ év Exaorov eitAtKpwes KaTa- 

’ } fot la > ) ~ 4 

vonon, ETiyvwoeTa PEeyanNEla TwY UT avTOU dEdoMEvwY 
Swoewv.. €£ avTOoU yap tepeis Kal NevITa TavTes ot 


Nertoupyouvtes TH OvoitacTnpiw Toi Oeovs €€ avTov 


1 Hdéws| AC; Kal Hdéws S. 
& éav) S, which is perhaps correct. 
A. 7 Swpeav] Swpawy A. 
iepets C. 


I. 7Oéws x.t.A.] There is nothing in 
the original narrative which suggests 
that Isaac was a willing sacrifice ; 
Gen. xxii. 7, 8. According to Jose- 
phus however, Azz. i. 14. 4, on hear- 
ing his father’s purpose he déyerar 
mpos nOovny Tovs Aoyous and dpynoer 
emt Tov Bwpoy kal THY opayny. See also 
Beer’s Leben Abraham’s p. 65 sq 
with the notes p. 709 sq, where ample 
rabbinical authorities are collected 
for this addition to the narrative. The 
idea is brought out strongly by Melito 
(Routh’s Rel. Sacr. 1. p. 123) 6 Se 
*Ioaak ovya memeOnpévos ws KpLos, OUK 
dvoiyov TO oropa ovde beyyopuevos 
avn’ To yap Eihos od PoByOeis ovde 
To TUp mTonOels ovde TO Taety AvTN- 
Geis €Baoracey tov TUmov tov Kupiov 
k.T.A., Where there is an obvious 
reference to Is. lili. 7 in ovdé Pbey- 
youevos hovn. Philo de Abr. 32 (II. 
p. 26) is seemingly ignorant of this 
turn given to the incident. 

4. 10 da@dexdoxnrtpov| Equivalent 
to ro dw@dexaddvAov, which occurs below 
§ 55 and Acts xxvi. 7; for oxfmrpov 
(ow), ‘a branch or rod’, is a syn- 
onym for ‘a tribe’; e.g. 1 Kings xi. 
31, 32 Kat ddcw oor déxa oKAmTpa Kal 
duo oKnntTpa €orae avT@, and again 
ver. 35, 36 (see § 32); comp. Zest. xii 


See the lower note. 


oi] AC; om. (apparently) S. 


"Edy ] conj.; def. A; 6 av C; guae si (as if 
et\cKpivws] tALKpUW... 
avTo0] S; atray AC. iepets] Az; of 


8 Nevroupyouvres] Ncroupy... 


Patr. Nepht. 5 ra dé0dexa oxnntpa Tov 
"Iopana. 

XXXII. ‘If any one will consider, 
he may see what blessings God show- 
ers on the faithful. What great ho- 
nours did He confer on this patriarch 
Jacob! From him was derived the 
priestly tribe of Levi: from him came 
the great High-priest, the Lord Jesus; 
from him are descended kings and 
rulers through Judah. And by the 
other tribes also he was the father of 
countless multitudes. It was God’s 
will, not their own righteous doing, 
whereby they were glorified. And 
by His will also, not by our own 
piety or wisdom, are we and all 
men justified through faith—by His 
Almighty will to whom be glory for 
ever’. 

5. Edy] Previous editors read ei; 
but, though e with the conjunc- 
tive is possible (see Phzlippzans iii. 
II), it is rare and ought not to be 
introduced unnecessarily. 

eiluxpwas] ‘azstinctly, severally’. 
It seems to be a military metaphor 
from etAn ‘turma’; see the note, 
Philippians i. to. 

6. vm avrod| i.e. rov Gcov. There 
is a little awkwardness in the sudden 
transition to ¢€ avrov, which must re- 


XXXII] 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


2 


/ ~ ~ ~ 
0 Kupios *Incovs TO Kata capka: €£€ a’Tov Bacirels 


\ s/f \ e / \ \ ’ / \ \ 
Kal apXOVTES Kal nyoumevol, KaTa Tov “lovdav: Ta bE 


\ ~ 5) co 5) > a / € F 
AolmTa TKNTTPA a’TOU OUK EV pLKpa do€n UTAPXOUGLY, 


€ ? / Co eh EY \ t 
ws eTayyelXauevou Tou Oeov OTL “Ectai TO crépma coy 


@c o1 dcTepec TOY O¥panof. 


Mavtes ovy édo€dcOncav 


\ > / > > 5) ~ s\ ~ sf > ~ \ 
Kal eueyaNuvOncav OU OL AUTWYV Yy TWYV EpYyYwv QAUTWV 


= / Cy / > \ \ r 
THS OlKaLoTpayias ns KaTELpyacavTO, adANa Oia TOU 


Teo A. 
IyoUmEVoL, dé] A; te CS. 
Tage C. 12 Tod Qeod] A; Geod C. 


fer to Jacob; but rev vm advrov ded. 
Sdwpeoy can only be said of God (as 
in §§ 19, 23, 35), nor can vm avrov 
be translated ‘fer eum’, as in the 
Latin version of Young. Lipsius (de 
Clem. Rom. Ep. p. 55) explains ‘De 
beneficiis a Jacobo in nobis collo- 
catis’ and Harnack adds ‘haec dona 
sunt sacerdotes, ipse Dominus se- 
cundum carnem, reges.’ 

7. €& avtov| i.e. from Jacob. The 
following clauses render it necessary 
to read avrov for avtév, which might 
otherwise stand. For the whole pas- 
sage comp. Rom. ix. 4, 5 @v...7 Xa- 
Tpela Kal al éemayyeNlat, ov of marépes 
kat €€ oy Xpiotos TO KaTa oapKa. 

9. 0 Kvuptos “Inoovs] He is men- 
tioned in connexion with the Leviti- 
cal tribe, as being the great High- 
priest, a favourite title in Clement: 
see the note § 36. Comp. Ign. Phzlad. 
Q KaNol Kal of iepets, Kpetacov O€ 6 ap- 
xvepevs. With Levi He is connected 
as a priest; from Judah He is de- 
scended as a king. Hence His name 
is placed between the two, as the 
link of transition from the one to the 
other. But there is no ground for 
assuming that by this collocation Cle- 
ment implies our Lord to have d- 
scended from Levi, as Hilgenfeld (4- 
post. Vat. p. 103, and here p. 98, ed. 2) 
thinks. The Epistle to the Hebrews, 


10 Kata] AC; oi xara S, this being a repetition of the last syllable of 


11 atrov] AS; om. C. d6éy] AS; 


14 avrwv] avira C. 


which Clement quotes so repeatedly, 
and from which his ideas of Christ’s 
high-priesthood are taken, would dis- 
tinctly teach him otherwise (vii. 14). 
A double descent (from both Judah 
and Levi) is maintained in the Zesz¢. 
ait Patr. (see Galatians p. 308), but 
this writing travels in a different 
cycle of ideas. And even in this 
Judaic work the Virgin herself is 
represented as belonging to Judah. 
In Iren. Fragm. 17 (p. 856, Stieren) 
likewise a double descent is ascribed 
to our Lord éx d€ Tov Aevi kat rod 
Tovda TO Kata oapka ws Bacidevs Kal 
iepevs eyervnOn. On the descent from 
Levi see Sinker Zest. of Twelve Patr. 
p. 105 sq. 

IO. xara tov lovéay| ‘after Fudah, 
i.e. as descended from him and 
thereby inheriting the attribute of 
royalty, Gen. xlix. 10. This idea of 
the royalty of the patriarch Judah 
runs through the Zes¢. 27z Patr., e.g. 
Jud. I 6 waryp pov “lax@B nv€ato poe 
héeyou, BacwWevs Eon Katevodovpevos év 
Tact. 

12. "Eorac x.r.A.| Comp. Gen. xv. 5, 
Xxll. 17, xxvl. 4. It is not an exact 
quotation from any of these passages, 
but most closely resembles the first. 

i4. 60 avrav| Not avray. See 
above the notes on §§ 9, 12, 14, 30. 

15. THs Stkavompayias x.t.A.] Comp. 


a 


100 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XXXII 


/ 5) > Wee a oi \ 7 > vo 
OeXnpatos avTov. Kal rpuets ovv, dia OeAnmaTos avToU 
> ~ ~ / DX» € ~ , 
év Xpioto “Inco KAnbévtes, o0 Ov EavToy diKaoupeBa 
2S \ \ ~ € / / \ / \ > if a\ 
ovde Oia THS NMETEPAS Toias n TUVETEWS 7 EevoeBElas 7 
of fe Id 5) lf lA > \ 
Epywv wy KaTeipyacapela ev ooloTnTt kapolas, ada 
\ las / a) re, / \ > 2A e 
Sia THs TlaTEws, OU Ns MavTAas TOUS aT alwyos O Tap- 


/ A > / fe) 3f ¢ ‘4 > A 
TokpaTwo O6eos GOLKALWOEV" Ww ETTW 7] doga els Tous 


Seis ~ Be 
ALWVYAS TWVY ALWYW). 


XXXII. 


any. 
Ti ovv Tromowpev, adedpol; dpynowpmev 


> \ = > Le \ > / \ / 
dro tis dyaborotias Kal éyKaTaXelTwmEev THY aya- 


1 avrod] AC; rod Oeod S. 
homeeoteleuton. 
Tous] Tou A. 


below, § 45. 


3 huetépas| nuepac A. 
6 rovls aidvas Tov aidvwy] AS; aidvas C. 
8 TM ody rovjowuer, ddeXpol] AS; rl obv époduer, dyamyroi C. 


kat uets...0edruaros avtod] AS; om. C, by 


3 mdvras|] A; dravras C. 
See also 


This variation is obviously suggested by Rom. vi. 1, where the argument is the 


same; see I. p. 125. 
dpyjowmev] A; dpynooper C. 
A; xaraNitropev C; dub. S. 


Tit. iii. 5 odk €& epyav tay ev dikat- 
ootvn & éroujoapey jets GAA Kata 
TO avTou €Aeos K.T.A. 

2. &¢ éavray] i.e. nuady avtTay, as 
ef, Rom. vil. 23, 2 Cor. i. 9, iil, I, 5, 
and commonly. 

3. coias 7} ovvécews| The words 
occur together 1 Cor. i. 19 (from Is. 
xxix. 14), Col. i. 9; so too cogot Kat 
cuveroi, Matt. xi. 25 (Luke x. 21). 
They are explained in Arist. £7h. 
Nic. vi. 7, 10. The first is a creative, 
the second a discerning faculty. 

6. 7 dd€a] See the notes on Gala- 
Zians i. 5. 

XXXIII. ‘What then? If we are 
justified by faz¢h, shall we leave off 
doing good? God forbid. We must 
needs work. The Almighty Himself 
rejoices in His own beneficent works. 
The heaven, the earth, the ocean, the 
living things that move on the land 
and in the sea, are His creation. 
Lastly and chiefly He made man 
after His own image. All these He 
created and blessed. As we have 


For d5e\¢ol translated as if dyamnrot see above, §§ 1, 4. 
g kai] AS; om. C. 


10 édoa 6 Seordrns| A; 6 Seomérns édoa C. 


eyKaranelrwper | 


seen before that the righteous have 
ever been adorned with good works, 
so now we see that even the Creator 
thus arrayed Himself. Having such 
an example, let us do good with all 
our might’. 

In § 31 we have seen Clement com- 
bining the teaching of S. Paul and 
S. James in the expression ovyxi dxavo- 
cuvny kai addjnOecay Sid TicTews Tojeas; 
So here, after declaring emphatically 
that men are not justified by their 
own works but by faith (§ 32 od dv 
avTay 7) Tov épyev avreéy x«.T.A., and 
again ov Oud...€pyov ov kareipyacapeia 
év ootornre kapdlas dda bia THs TicTews 
k.T.A.), he hastens to balance this 
statement by urging the importance 
of good works. The same anxiety 
reveals itself elsewhere. Thus, where 
he deals with the examples adduced 
in the Apostolic writings, he is care- 
ful to show that neither faith alone 
nor works alone were present: § Io 
of Abraham 61a riorw kal didrogeviav 
€006n avT@ vids x.7.A., § 12 of Rahab 


15 


XXXII1| TO THE CORINTHIANS. IOI 


mv; pwnlauws TovTo éaca 0 SearoTns ef jpiv ye 
yevnOnvar, dda oTEVT WEY META EKTEVELaS Kal TpO- 
Qupias mav épyov dyabov émitedeitv. attos yap 6 
Snpuoupyos Kat deomoTns THY arravTwY El TOs Epryots 
avToU ayaNNiaTal. Tw yao TaupeyeleaTAaTW avTOU 
KpaTeL OUpavous ETTIPLOEV, Kal TH akaTaANT TH avTou 
guverer OveKOoUNTEV avTOUS* yy TE SLEexwWLTEV aro 
TOU TEPLEXOVTOS aUuTHV voaTos Kal nO pacev €ml TOV 


ye yevnOjvar] A; yernOfva (om. ye) CS. Above, § 23, we have the same pheno- 
menon, though there the relations of A and C are reversed, A omitting and C re- 


taining ye. 


fervyeotadtw Leont Damasc. 


dpacev] AC Damasc ; édpacev Leont. 


dua miotw kai diro€eviay €owOn. See 
Westcott Canon p. 23. Nor is it 
only where doctrine is directly con- 
cerned that Clement places the teach- 
ing of the Apostles of the Circum- 
cision and the Uncircumcision in 
juxtaposition, as e.g. § 49 dyamn xa- 
AUmres TAROoS apuaptiay, ayarn wavtTa 
avéxerat x.T.A. (See the note there). 
This studied effort to keepthe balance 
produces a certain incongruous effect 
in the rapid transition from the one 
aspect of the antithesis to the other; 
but it is important when viewed in 
connexion with Clement’s position as 
ruler of a community in which the 
two sections of the Church, Jewish 
and Gentile, had been in direct an- 
tagonism and probably still regarded 
each other with suspicion. On this 
position of Clement, as a reconciler, 
see Galatians p. 323, and the intro- 
duction here, I. p. 96. A part of this 
chapter is quoted by Leontius and 
John Res Sacr.ii (see above, I. p. 188) 
with considerable variations. 

8. Ti otv womoopev| Evidently 
modelled on Rom. vi. I sq. 


It is wanted here for the sense. 
14 adyadNGrac] A; dyddXerac C Leont Damasc. 


Il éxrevelas] exrevia... A. 
TwapmeyebectaT@| AC; mrap- 


15 éornpicev] AC; éornpiéey Leont Damasc. 
7™n| A Leont Damasc; év rH C; dub. S. 
Tad a pioev A; yqv dé dtexadpicev Leont ; ynv dé éxwpicev Damasce. 


16 ynv Te duexedpicey] C3 ynv 
17 # 


10. éaca 6 Seomorns x.t.r.| True 
to his dictum that everything is da 
OeAnparos avrov and nothing dv éav- 
trav, he ascribes the prevention of 
this consequence solely to God’s pro- 
hibition. On o deomorns see the note 
above, § 7. For the preposition in 
ep nuiv, ‘22 our case, comp. John xii. 
BOS Acts. Vi 3.5) xx1.'245:2) Coerie ae 

I2. avros yap x.t.A.| This passage 
as far as av€averOe xai mAnOuvedGe is 
quoted (with some omissions and va- 
riations) by John of Damascus Sacr. 
Paral, (Wi. p. 316). 

13. Snusoupyos x.t.A.] So Clem. Hom. 
Xvll. 8 rdvrev Snptoupyoy Kat Seorérny. 

I5. eornpicevy] See the note on 
atnpioop § 18. 

17. meptexovtos| This has been 
thought to imply an acceptance of 
the theory of the @xeavds morapos 
supposed to encircle the earth ; comp. 
e.g. Herod. 11. 21 ro & @xeavov yy 
mepi macav peery, M. Ann. Seneca Szas. 
i. I ‘de Oceano dubitant utrumne 
terras velut vinculum circumfluat.’ 
But, as Clement does not use the 
word oxeavos, and as it is not un- 


102 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT | XXXII 


dopadyn Tov idiov BovAnuatos Geuediovs Ta TE EV 
aitTy Cwa horwvta tH EavToU diataker éxedevoev 
elvat’ OarXacoav Kai Ta ev auth Coa 7 POOnmLoupyn- 
gas évéxheicev Th EavTov duvaue* él mao TO é€o- 
XwWTaTOV Kal Tappeyeles KaTa Sidvotav, avOpwrov Tats 5 
lepais Kal duwpols YEpolv EmAaTEY THS EavTOU ELKOVOS 
YapakThpa. ovTws yap gnow o Oeos* Tlotticamen an- 
OPWITON KAT EIKONA KAl KAO OMOIWCIN HMETEPAN. KAI ETTOI- 


HCEN 6 Oedc TON ANOP@TION, APCEN KAI OAAY ETOIHCEN dy- 


Td TE €v avry...duvdper] 


3 Tpodnp.oupynoas | 
4 evéxrecev | evéxdicey A. €mi 


1 BovAjuatos] AC; OeAjwaros Leont Damasc. 
om. Leont Damasce. 
TpOOnfl..+-- cas A; mpoero.udoas CS. 


2 é€auvtov] AS; éaurdy C. 


mwaot...dvOpwrov] AC; émi rovras tov éEoxwrarov (€&srarov Leont) kal raumeyédn 


dv@pwrov Leont Damasc S. 
the other authorities see the last note. 


natural to speak of the water ‘ gird- 
ling’ the land independently of this 
theory, the inference is questionable. 
See the note on § 20. 

3. mpodnptovpynoas| i.e. before ra 
ev tT yn (ea ouravta, which have 
been already mentioned out of their 
proper place. 

4. evexdecoev] ‘zuclosed within 
their proper bounds’: see above § 20 
TA TEplikeleva avUTH KAEiOpa. 

To e€f0x@eTaToy x7.A.] Is this an 
accusative after émAacev, avOperov 
being in apposition? Or is it a 
nominative absolute, referring to the 
whole sentence which follows, av6pa- 
Tov...xapaxtnpa? On the construction 
adopted depends the sense assigned 
to xara Oidvocay which will mean 
respectively either (1) ‘27 zutellectual 
capacity’, referring to man; or (2) ‘as 
an exercise of Hts creative tintellt- 
gence’, referring to God. The former 
appears to be generally adopted; but 
the latter seems to me preferable; for 
a sentiment like Hamlet’s ‘How 
noble in reason! how infinite in 
faculty !’ is somewhat out of place on 


5 maupeyebes| A; trampeyebéorarov C. For 


6 iepats] AC; idtas atrod Leont 


the lips of Clement, and such a strong 
expression as zapupéyeOes xara did- 
vovay jars with his language elsewhere 
about human intellect, e.g. §§ 13, 32, 
36. The rappeyebes kata didvoray 
therefore seems to have the same 
bearing as 77 dxaradnTT@ avrov cvvéet 
above. John of Damascus indeed 
takes the sentence otherwise, but he 
omits cata dravocap. 

5. maupéeyeOes| The word does 
not occur either in the LXX or in the 
G.T., but is foundin Symmachus Ps. 
Ixvii (Ixviii). 31 ouvdd@ rappeyebav 
(Field’s Orig. Hexafpl. 11. p. 204). 

6. apopos] ‘faultless’. See the 
note on popockornber, § 41. 

7. Tlouowpev x.t.A.| A broken quo- 
tation from the LXx Gen. 1. 26, 27, 
clauses being left out. 

8. eikdva, ouoiosw| These words 
are distinguished in reference to this 
text by Trench WV. 7. Syz. Ist ser. 
§ xv. 

Dorner (Person Christi 1. p. 100, 
Engl. trans.) considers it probable 
that ‘under the expression exav Gcov, 
whose yapaxtjpa man bears, we are 


XXXIV | TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


103 


toyc. Tavra ovv mavTa TeNELlwoas ETNVET EV aUTa Kal 
nuAoynoev Kal elev? AyzANEcbE Kal TAHOYNECOe. Eido- 
pev OTL év Epyos ayabois mavtes éexoopiOnoav oi Oi- 
Kator* Kal av’Tos ovv 0 Kuptos épyous éavToy Koopnoas 
éyapn. 
mporehOwuev TH OeAnuate avTov, EE GANS ioXVOS Hua 


af > a \ ¢ \ np: 
EXOVTES OUVY TOUTOV TOV UTTOY PAMMOV QAOKVWS 


€Epyacwuela Epyov Suxaoovrns. 


XXXIV. ‘O dyalos épyarns pera Tappnolas Nap- 


Damasc. 8 eixdva] Damasc adds juerépay and omits it after duolwou. 
3 Ul b] is > / 
10 ermvecev] AC; émaivecey Leont; émroincevy Damasc. 


avéavecOar A. wAnOvver Be] wANOUVeT Oa A. 


11 Avédvecde] 


ACS. 
AC; éxounOnoay S. 


A3 Ts icxvos C. 


to understand the Son’. Though the 
text in Genesis is so interpreted by 
later fathers (e.g. Clement of Alex- 
andria and Origen), I see no indi- 
cation in the context that this idea 
was present to the mind of the Roman 
Clement. See the remarks on the 
logos-doctrine above, I. p. 398. 

II. AvéaveoOe «.7.A.] From the 
LXX Gen. i. 28. 

Eidowev| The sense seems to re- 
quire this substitution for idwpev; see 
the introduction I. p. 120 for similar 
errors of transcription. ‘We saw be- 
fore,’ says Clement, ‘that all the 
righteous were adorned with good 
works (§ 32), and now I have shown 
that the Lord God Himself etc.’ By 
6 Kupuos is meant 6 Onprovpyos kal 
Seomotns Tey amavTev, aS appears 
from ovv and from eyapn taken in 
connexion with what has gone before 
(compare dyaA\ara above). 

12. drux.t.d.] If the reading ro be 
retained, we must understand a cog- 
nate accusative such as koopnya: e.g. 
Soph. £7. 1075 rov dei marpos (sc. 
otovoy) Seiikaia orevayovoa. ‘This is 


possible ; but the reading of A is dis- 


12 67t] CS; add 7d A. 
13 ow] A; 6é CS. 
See above, § 30, and comp. I. pp. 126, 141. 


Hidouwev] Young (marg.); cdwmev 
epyots] eyyour A. exoounOnoar | 
épyos| A; add ayaéots CS. 


15 €€] A; xai €& CS. icxvos | 


credited by the fact that the scribe’s 
attention was flagging here, for he 
writes eyyos for epyous and (as we 
have seen) wWepev for edouer. On 
these grounds I proposed the omis- 
sion in my first edition, and it has 
since been confirmed by our new 
authorities. 


14. vmoypappov] See the note on 
S 5. 
15. mpocéAOwopey| The verb mpoo- 


épxecOar occurs several times of 
approaching God in the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, and in the imperative 
mpocepxeueOa more especially twice, 
iv. 16, x. 22. See also above § 29 
mpocehOopev ody ato «7T.A.; Comp. 
SS 23, 63. 

XXXIV. ‘The good workman re- 
ceives his wages boldly: but the 
slothful dares not face his employer. 
The Lord will come quickly with 
His reward in His hand. He will 
come attended by myriads of angels, 
hymning His praises. Let us there- 
fore with one voice and one soul cry 
to Him, that we may be partakers of 
His glorious promises, which surpass 
all that man can conceive’. 


104 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XXXIV 


\ af = Sf 5) a ¢ \ \ 

Baver Tov apTov Tov Epyou avTOU, 6 vwOpos Kat Tap- 
, > ) ~ tou / > - / 

Eyuevos ovK avTodpUadpet Tw EpyomapEeKTN aUTOU. O€OV 

S / ¢ - S. 2 A 
ou éoTw mpoOvmous nuas eivar eis ayaboroitav: €€ 
a \ / / \ Curr > \ 
avToU yao éoTW Ta TavTa* TeOAEyEL yap nuly* “ldaoy 
6 Kypioc, kal 6 micO0c ayTOY TPO TPOCWMOY AYTOY, ATOAOF- 
c ' \ Werke) > a , 3) Le 
Nal €kdcT@ KATA TO épron ayToy. [lootpemerar ovy nuas 
Ue 5) ef o / ane 2 > \ 2 \ 
miaTevovTas €& SANS THS Kapolas Ex a’TH py apryous 
\ 7 > \ ~ af / \ 7 
pnoe Taperevous Eivar ert mav Epyov ayabov’ TO Kau- 


e ~ \ € / 4 > p) ~ € 
XNA nMwy Kal n Tappynola EoTwW EV a’TwW* VTOTAG- 


1 6 vwOpds] AC; 6 0€ vwApos S. 


AC. S translates as if it referred to rpo@vmous vuds x.T.X. 
6 Ilporpémerat] mporpererte A. 


KUptos (om. 6) C. 


I. 6 vwOpos «.t.r.| Both these 
words occur in the epistle to the He- 
brews, and nowhere else in the N.T. 
For vwOpos see Heb. v. II, vi. 12; 
for mwapeipevos, ib. xii. 12. The com- 
bination appears in Ecclus. iv. 29 
voOpos Kal mapemmevos ev Tols epyots 
avrov, which passage perhaps Cle- 
ment had in his mind. 

2. avtopOarpet] ‘faces’, as Wisd. 
xii. 14, Acts xxvii. 15, Barnab. § 5. 
The word occurs frequently in Poly- 
bius. Comp. dvtomeiy Theoph. ad 
Autol. i. 5, avroppareiv Afost. Const. 
vi. 2. For dvrop@adpeiv itself see 
Lit. D. Facob. p. 25 (ed. Hammond). 

épyorapexty| ‘hzs employer’. Ihave 
not found any other instance of 
this word, which is equivalent to 
epyodorns. Compare also épyodaBos, 
epyoduaxrns (Exod. iii. 7, v. 6, etc.). 

3. €& avrov| i.e. Tov épyorapéxtov 
NL@V. 

4. *Idod 6 Kupwos «.7.A.]| The be- 
ginning is a confusion of Is. xl. Io 
idov Kuptos (6 eos duav S) Kiptos (om. 
Kupuos sec. A) pera ioyvos epxerat kal 
6 Bpaxiwy add. avrod A) pera xupias’ 
idov 0 picOos avTov per avTov Kal TO 
épyov evayriov avtov, and Is, lxii. 11 
idod 6 GaTnp aor Tapayéyovey (col oO 


€& avrov] 
5 6 Kupios] A; 
7 mioTevovTas| CS ; 


3 nuas] AC; wmas S. 


ceTp mapayiverar SA) €x@v Tov éav- 
Tov puoOov, kal TO epyov avrod (om. 
avtov A) rp0 mpoo@mov avrov: but the 
ending comes from Prov. xxiv. I2 os 
arodidwow exdoT@ Kata Ta epya avToU, 
unless (as seems more probable from 
the connexion) it is taken from Rev. 
Xxli. 12 idod €pyopar raxd Kal 0 pro Oos 
pov peT emov amodovva ExdoT@ ws TO 
épyov €orat avtov. Clem. Alex. Strom. 
lv. 22 (p. 625) has the same quo- 
tation, but is copying the Roman 
Clement. 

7. en avT@| i.e. TO pide, ‘wth 
our reward in view’. The position 
of é& oAns THs Kapdias is Opposed to 
such corrections as én’ avro TO or emt 
vo for the MS reading en’ avr@ ; nor 
does any alteration seem needed. 

8. pndé mapeysévous x.t.A.| Comp. 
2 Tim. il. 21 eis may €pyov dyadov 
nrouacpevoy, 20. lil. 17, Tit. ill. 1, and 
see above, § 2. The pyre after py in 
A was so suspicious (see Winer § lv. 
p. 513, A. Buttmann p. 315) as to call 
forth the suggestion in my first edition 
that it should probably be read pnée ; 
see the vv. ll. in Luke vii. 33, Eph. iv. 

“27. Our new authorities have con- 
firmed the justice of this suspicion. 

12. Mupiai x.t.A.] Dan. vii. 10 (Theo- 


XXXIV | TO THE CORINTHIANS. 105 


rogwucla Tw OeXnmaTL avTOU: KaTavonowpEV TO Tay 
TAnOos TwV ayyeéAwY avTOU, TwS TW OeAnpate avTou 
NELTOUPY OVE TApETTWTES* Never yap 1 ypagn > Myptat 
MYPIAAEC TTAPEICTHKEICAN AYTQO, KAI YIAIAl YIAIAAEC EAEITOYP- 
rOYN ayT@: Kai €xékparon: Arioc, drioc, drioc Kypioc ca- 
15 Bawe, TAHPHC TAcCa H KTICIC TAC AdZHC AYTOY. Kat 1] [LELS 
ovv, €v Omovoia Eri TO adTO GuvaxOEevTEs TH TUVELdHCEL, 
ws EF éEvos oTOuaTos Bonowuev mpos adTov éxTEVWS Eis 


\ / e GC E lo / | 5] / 
TO peTOXOUs nuas yeverOar TwY pEeyadrwy Kal EvooEwv 


om.A. See i. p. 124. 
Toupyovow] iTovpyouow A. 


both this word and zrapeoTrjkecay as presents. 


Lxx and Hebr. 


dot.) xAua xudiddes Ehecrovpyouv avTa@ 
(€Oepamevoy avTov LXX) kal pvpiae po- 
piades TapetoTnKeicayv avT@, the clauses 
being transposed by Clement. The 
order of the clauses in the Hebrew is 
the same as in the Greek versions. 
Yet Iren. Haer. ii. 7, 4, Euseb. Praep. 
Ev. vil. 15 (p. 326), Greg. Nyss. Hom. 
vitt-in Lccles. (1. p. 463), Cyril. Hier. 
Catech. xv. 24 (p. 237), and others, 
give the quotation with the inverted 
clauses as here; but, as it is quoted 
with every shade of variation in dif- 
ferent fathers and even these same 
fathers in some cases give the right 
order elsewhere, no stress can be 
laid on this coincidence which seems 
to be purely accidental. 

14. Kat éxéxpayov| A loose quotation 
from LXX Is. vi. 3. "Exéxpayoy is an 
imperfect of a new verb kexpayo 
formed from xéxpaya ; see Buttmann 
Ausf. Griech. Sprachl. § 111 (Il. p. 
37)- 

15. Kat nets ovv x.t.A.] The con- 
nexion of this passage with the li- 
turgical services had struck careful 
observers, even before the discovery 
of the liturgical ending of the epistle 
(SS 60, 61) had furnished a solid ba- 


8 pndé] C, and so probably S; uyre A. 
13 €\ectovpyour] C3 ALTovpyoww A. S translates 


I2 Aew- 


15 xriow] AS; y# C with 


16 TH cuvedjoer] AC; 22 una consctentia S. 


sis for such conjectures. Probst more 
especially (Lzturg. d. adret ersten 
Fahrh. 41 sq) emphasizes this con- 
nexion. The phenomena which ex- 
pressly point to it are (1) the ‘ter 
sanctus’, and more especially the 
connexion of Is. vi. 3 with Dan. vii. 
10; (2) The expressions émi 70 avro 
ouvaxbévres (comp. Ign. Ephes. 13, 
Philad. 4, Smyrn. 7, 8), €& évos oro- 
patos (comp. Rom. xv. 6), éxrevas (see 
I; p. 385); ete; (3) The’ quotation 
opOadpos «.7.A. For more on this 
subject see the introduction, I. p. 
386 sq. 

16. ry cuvednoer| ‘22 heart, in con- 
sctousness’; comp. Eccles. x. 20 kai ye 
ev cuverOnoet cou Baoréa pr) KaTapacn, 
i.e. ‘in your secret heart’, The pre- 
sence of their hearts, and not of their 
bodies only, is required. The com- 
mentators however either translate 
as though it were év ayaOn ovvedyoet, 
or give tn cvveOnoes the unsupported 
sense ‘harmony, unanimity’. This 
last is apparently the sense assigned 
to it by the Syriac translator ; see 
the upper note. Others have pro- 
posed to read ouvdjoe: or cuvedia. 


106 


ETayyeNtwy avTou, 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[XXXIV 


Neyer yap* "Opeadmdc oYK Elden 


Kal OYC OYK HKOYCEN, KAl ETT] KAPAIAN ANOP@TMOY OYK ANEBH, 


OC& HTOIMACEN TOIC YTIOMENOYCIN AYTON. 


1 OpOaruds] A; a dfPOaruds CS (with 1 Cor. il. 9). 


Tots wrouevovcw] A; Tots dyar@ow CS (see 


nroiwacev] A; add. kipios CS. 
the lower note). 


I. "OpOadrpos k.7..] This quotation 
occurs also in S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. 9 
(where it is introduced by kaos yé- 
ypamrat), in the form a o@Oadpos ovk 
eidev Kal os ovK HKOVGEY Kal emt Kapdiay 
avOpémov ovK aveBn oa Aroipmacey oO 
Geos rois ayamaéaw avrov. It is cited 
again in ii. § 11 (comp. § 14), Mart. 
Polyc. 2, Clem. Ep. ad Virg. i. 9; see 
also Lagarde’s Gesamm. Abhandl. p. 
142. It is apparently taken from 
Isaiah lxiv. 4, which runs in the 
LXX amd Tov aidvos ovK HKovoaper 
ovdé of d6pOarpot nuay cidov Gedy my 
gov kal Ta epya gov a Tomoes Tots 
Umopévovow €deov, but more nearly in 
the Hebrew, ‘From eternity they 
have not heard, they have not heark- 
ened, neither hath eye seen a god 
[or ‘O God’] save thee (who) worketh 
[or ‘(what) He shall do’] to him 
that awaiteth Him’ (see Delitzsch 
ad loc.); combined with Is. lxv. 16, 
17 ovk avaBnoeTar avT@v emt THY Kap- 
Siav...ov py éeméAOn avt@v emt THY Kap- 
diav. Clement mixes up S. Paul’s 
free translation or paraphrase from 
the Hebrew (the latter words oca 
nroiwacev k.t.A. being apparently the 
Apostle’s own explanatory addition) 
with the passage as it stands in the 
LXX ; just as above, § 13, in quoting 
Jer. ix. 23, 24 (or 1 Sam. ii. 10) he con- 
denses it after S. Paul. Fora similar 
instance see above § 34 idovd 6 Kupuos 
k.7.A. The passages, which Hilgen- 
feld suggests as the sources of the 
quotation (4 Esdr. x. 35 sq, 55 sq), 
diverge more from the language of 
S. Paul and Clement, than these 
words of Isaiah. 


3. doa AC; om: a: 


The passage, if we may trust S. Je- 
rome, occurred as given by S. Paul, 
both in the Ascension of Isaiah and 
in the Apocalypse of Elias (Hieron. 
zm Is. \xiv. 4, IV. p. 761; Prol.in Gen. 
IX. p. 3) And Origen, zz Matth. 
XXVIL. 9 (III. p. 916), says that S. Paul 
quotes from the latter, ‘In nullo re- 
gulari libro hoc positum invenitur, 
nisi (ef py, ‘but only’) in Secretis 
Eliae prophetae’. This assertion is 
repeated also by later writers (see 
Fabricius Cod. Ps. V. 7. 1. p.,to7a) 
doubtless from Origen, but combated 
by Jerome (ll. cc. and Zfzsz. lvii. § 9, 
I. p. 314), who refers the quotation to 
Is. Ixiv. 4. If it could be shown that 
these apocryphal books were prior to 
S. Paul, this solution would be the 
most probable ; but they would ap- 
pear to have been produced by some 
Christian sectarians of the second 
century, for Jerome terms them ‘Ibe- 
rae naeniae’ and connects them with 
the Basilideans and other Gnostics 
who abounded in Spain (Il. cc.; see 
also c. Vigzl. 11. p. 393, and comp. 
Fabricius p. 1093 sq). If so they 
incorporated the quotation of S., 
Paul in their forgeries. For a simi- 
lar instance of incorporation see the 
notes on Galatians vi. 15. At all 
events both these works appear from 
the extant remains to have been 
Christian. For the Afocalypse of 
Elias see Epiphan. Haer. xlii (p. 372), 
who says that the quotation in Eph. 
v. 14 (which is obviously Christian) 
was found there; and for the Ascen- 
szon of Isatah, this same father Haer. 
Ixviil. 3 (p. 712), where he quotes a 


XXxv| 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


107 


XXXV. ‘Ws paxapia Kal Oavuarta Ta Swpa Tov 


5 Oeov, dyarnrot. 


passage referring to the Trinity. In- 
deed there is every reason to believe 
that the work known to Epiphanius 
and several other fathers under this 
name, is the same with the Ascension 
and Viston of Isaiah published first 
by Laurence in an A£thiopic Version 
and subsequently by Gieseler in a 
Latin. The two versions represent 
different recensions ; and the passage 
‘Eye hath not seen, etc” appears in 
the Latin (xi. 34) but not in the 
“Ethiopic (see Jolowicz Aimmelfahrt 
u. Viston des Propheten Iesaia p. 90, 
Leipzig 1854). The Latin recension 
therefore must have been in the hands 
of Jerome ; though this very quotation 
seems to show clearly that the Athi- 
opic more nearly represents the ori- 
ginal form of the work (see Licke 
Offenbarung d. Fohannes p. 179 sq). 
Both recensions alike are distinctly 
Christian. 

It was at all events a favourite 
text with certain early Gnostic sects, 
who introduced it into their formula 
of initiation and applied it to their 
esoteric teaching ; see Hippol. Haer. 
Beret 20, 27, vi. 24. ‘This perverted 
use of the text was condemned by 
their contemporary Hegesippus (as 
reported by Stephanus Gobarus in 
Photius 4z0/. 232), as contradicting 
our Lord’s own words pakdpio ot 
opOadpol vuey x.7.A. In other words 
he complained that they would re- 
strict to the initiated few the know- 
ledge which Christ declared to be 
laid open to all. But Stephanus Go- 
barus himself, writing some centuries 
later and knowing the text only as it 
occurs in S. Paul, is not unnaturally 
at a loss to know what Hegesippus 
means by this condemnation (ov oid 
6 Tt kat Tabev parny pev eipnoOa TavTa 
héyer k.7.A.). On the use which some 


b oy) ‘6 / / ’ } 
Cwn ev abavacia, NauTpoTns év Oi- 


modern critics have made of this re- 
ference to Hegesippus in Stephanus 
Gobarus, see Galatians p. 320. 

For the connexion of this quotation 
opOarpos ovK eidev x.7.A. with the 
earlier liturgies, see the introduction, 
I. p. 389 sq. 

Fabricius (p. 1073) quotes a par- 
allel from Empedocles (Fragm. Phi- 
los. 1. p. 2, ed. Mullach) ov? émidepxra 
tad’ avOpacw ovr emakovaoTa, ovTE voO@ 
TepiAnnra. 

3. vmopevovow] It is clear that 
Clement wrote vmopnevovow from the 
words which follow at the beginning of 
the next chapter riva otv Gpa éorly ra 
erormatomeva Tols Vropevovow; Where 
he picks up the expression according 
to his wont; see the note on § 46 
Tov éxdextov pou StacrpéWar. On the 
other hand S, having broken the 
connexion by substituting dyaréow 
for vmopévovow, re-establishes it by 
the expedient of adding kai ayardyrev 
to vmopevovray in § 35. On this 
reading (vmopevovow) see also I. p. 
390, note. 

XXXV. ‘Great and marvellous 
are God’s gifts even in the present! 
How then can we conceive the glory 
that hereafter awaits His patient ser- 
vants? Let us strive to attain this 
reward. And to this end let us do 
what is well-pleasing to Him: let us 
shun strife and vainglory; let us 
lay aside all selfish and unbrotherly 
sins. Remember how in the Psalms 
God denounces those who hearken 
not to His warning voice, who persist 
in wronging their neighbours, count- 
ing on His forbearance. He tells us 
that the sacrifice of praise is the path 
of salvation’. 

5. Aapmporns| ‘cheerfulness, ala- 
crity, strenuousness’, aS e.g. Plut. 
Vit. Cim. 17, Polyb. xxxii. 23. I (see 


108 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XxXXV 


4 sae : ; : 
katocuvn, adyera év mappyoia, miaTis EV meTrollnoel, 
éykparea év dyiacu@’ Kal TaVTA UTeTITTEY TaVTA U7r0 
Thy Slavolavy Huwv. Tiva ovv apa eat Ta ETOLUACO- 
meva Tols Uiromevovaly; oO OnMLoUpYoOs Kal TaTHP TeV 
aiwvwY 6 Tavaylos AUTOS YWwWOKEL THY TOTOTNTA Kal 


\ \ > ~~ ¢ qn oR > / e a 
THv KaNNovyv avTa@V. pels OY dywvicwpeba evpEeOnvat 


wn ant ~~ e / , c/ / 
év TW apiOuw TwY UTOMEVOYTwWY a’TOV, OTWS METAa- 


~~ > / van lol N.’ of ~ 
Bwuev Twv éernyyeApevwy Owpewv. Tws d€ ExTat TOU- 


> / aN 5) / Ss / € ~ \ 

TO, ayamnTol; é€ay eoTHplypEry 1 H Olavola nuwy ola 
/ \ \ / oa | > lon \ > / 

TicTews mpos Tov Oeov' éav ex(yTwWMEV Ta EVapEeTTa 


Kal eUTpocoeKTa avTwM* Eay ETLTEMETWMEV TA dYnKOVTA 

2 éyxparera] eyxparia A. tréminrey mavTa| A; vronimte. mavta C ; vTo- 
ninrovra S, some letters having dropped out, yrrortittte| ita] NTA. 
TaTnp Tov aiwvev o mavdy.s|] AS; Tay aiwvwy Kal marinp mavayos C. 7 viro- 
pevivtwy] AC; add. kal dyaravrwv S. For the reason of this addition see the note 
on § 34 6d0ahpos k.T.X. avtév] A; om. CS. 8 rdv éernyyeuever Swpeav] 
Tavernyyeduevwviwpawy A; Tv dwpeav Ta érnyyeduévwv C, and so probably S. 
g dyarnroi}] AC; om. S. n 7) nn A; 4 (om. 7) C. dia mistews] Young; fer 
fidem 8; miorews (om, 61a) A; misTas C. Io exgnrauev] A; exgnrnowper C. 
Ta evdpesta kal edmpdcdexta a’t@] AS; Ta dyabd Kai evdpecta air@ Kal edmpic- 


4 Kal 


Schweigh. Lex. s.v. XKaympos). Com- 
pare the similar word gaidporns. The 
position of Aaumporns here seems to 
require this sense, for all the words 
in the parallel clauses (wy, adjOea, 
mioris, eykparea, refer to the moral 
consciousness, not to any external 
advantages. 

I. mlotis ev memoOnoe] See the 
note above, § 26. 

2. kat ravra x.t.A.| ‘These,’ Cle- 
ment argues, ‘are already within our 
cognisance. What then are the joys 
in store for those who remain sted- 
fast to the end?’ Comp. 1 Joh. ui. 2 
vov téxva Qeod eopev kal ovr@ écdave- 
pan Ti eoopeba. 

5. mavaywos] Apparently the first in- 
stance of the word, which afterwards 
takes a prominent place in the 
language of Greek Christendom ; un- 


less indeed the occurrences in4 Macc. 
Vil. 4, xiv. 7, are earlier. 

9. d1a ricrews| The reading of the 
Syriac version is unquestionably 
right ; see I. p. 143. The omission of 
dua in A may perhaps be explained by 
the neighbourhood of dudvora. Hil- 
genfeld and Gebhardt read muords. 
Lipsius (p.15) defends wicrews, trans- 
lating ‘cogttationes fidet’, but this 
would require ai dudvovat THs TicTE@s. 

II. evmpoodexra] See the notes on 
$7, 40. 

13. macay adckiay x.t.’.]| The whole 
passage which follows is a reminis- 
cence of Rom. i, 29 sq movety ra py 
kaO@nkovta...7aon adikia movnpia m\eo- 
ve&ia...¢€prdos SdAov kaxonOeias, YrOupio- 
Tas kataddadovs Oeoorvyeis...umepnpa- 
vous ddatovas...emtyvovTes OTL of Ta 
Tolavta mpaccovtres a&tor Oavarov ciciv, 


15 


20 


XXxv] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 109 


th duwuw BovAjoe avTov Kal dkoNovOnowpev TH O0@ 
n apopc 7 nownev TH 604 
Con / > / 3 ¢ ~ ~ 5) / 
Ths dAnbeias, adroppivavtes ap éavTwy Taoay adikiay 

\ > J , A / \ / 
Kal aVOMLAY, TAEOVEELAD, EDELS, KakonOelas TE Kal doXous, 
, ld (3 e 
Wibupispouvs Te Kal KaTadadias, Geootuyiay, v7eEpn- 
/ > / J \ 
paviay TE Kai aaCovelar, Kevoooglavy TE Kal adido- 


/ Co \ e / \ 7 a 
Feviav. TavTa yap ol TpaccovTes oTUYyNTO TH OEw 


e / > / \ e / > / > \ \ 
UTapYoUTIW: OU OVOY O€ OL TPATTOYTES aUTA, d\NG Kat 

/ \ e / = \ 
Neyer yao n ypadn’ Te de 


AMAPTWAG eEiTEN 6 Oedc: “Ina Ti cy AIHPH TA AlKAI@MATA 


OL GDUVEVOOKOUYTES Q@UTOLS. 


MOY, KAL ANAAAMBANEIC THN AIOOHKHN MOY ETT] CTOMATOC COY; 


cy A€ EMICHCAC TIAIAEIAN, KAl EZEBAAAEC TOYC AGLOYC MOY Eic 


dexta C. 14 dvoulay] A; movnpiav CS (comp. Rom. i. 29). teoveclav | 
AS om: C. 15 Katahadids] Katadiiuao A. brepnpaviay te] AC; Kal 
vrepnpaviay S. 16 ddagovelay] adagovia A. apirokeviav] CS; pidokeriay 
A. 18 pdvov] pov A. 20 dunyn] A; éxdunyn C3; dub. S. This is a 


v.l. in the Lxx also. 21 éml] A (as the Hebr. Sy); dua CS with the Lxx. 
cov] wou A. So the Ms seems clearly to read (as even the photograph shows), 


though Tisch. gives it cov. 
1. r) inclusive. 
Tadelav] maduav A, 


ov povov avTa Trotovaw (Vv. 2. mowovvres) 
ad\Aa Kat cuvevdoxovow (v. 2. cuvevdo- 
Kovvres) Tols mpacoovow. On the 
reading mo.ovvtes, cuvevdoKxovrTes, SUP- 
ported by Clement’s language here, 
see Tischendorf’s note. 

16. apwo€eviavy] This was the sim- 
plest emendation of the reading of A 
(see the note on pr arnpedeira § 38), 
and it is now confirmed by our new 
authorities. The word occurs Orac. 
Sibyll. viii. 304 tis apirokevins tavrny 
ticovot mpaneCavy. Other proposed 
readings were diAoripiav, pidrodogiar, 
irtoverxiav. The suggestion of Lip- 
sius (p. 115), that the Corinthians 
had failed in the duty of providing 
for others, appears to be correct. 
But the word seems to point rather 
to their churlishness in not enter- 
taining foreign Christians at Corinth, 
than (as he maintains) to the niggard- 


22 ov 6€ k.T.X.] C omits all to 6 puduevos (p. 111, 
After the omission comes kal é&v T@ TéXNet Ovola aivéocews K.T.r. 
éféBaddes] eLaBadreo A; é&€Bares S; def. C. 


liness of their contributions towards 
the needs of poor Christians abroad, 
though they may have failed in this 
respect also (see the note § 38). The 
duty of entertaining the brethren 
from foreign churches was a re- 
cognized obligation among the early 
Christians. In former times the 
Corinthians had obtained a good re- 
port for the practice of this virtue 
(S I TO peyadomperés ths iro€evias 
vpav nos), but now all was changed. 
Hence the stress laid on the fos- 
pitality of Abraham (§ 10), of Lot 
(§ 11), of Rahab (§ 12); for this 
virtue cannot have been singled out 
in all three cases without some special 
reference. 

19. T@ d€ auaptod@ x.t.A.] From 
the LXxX Ps. 1. 16—23, with slight va- 
riations, of which the more important 
are noted below. 


IIO THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XxXXv 


\ ' , ’ an \ 

TA OTTICW. €1 EDEMPEIC KAETITHN, CYNETPEYEC AYTH, KAl META 
MOIYON THN MEDIAd coy éTIBEIC’ TO CTOMA COY ETTAEONACEN 
KAKIAN, KAl H FA@CCA COY TEDIETTAEKEN AOAIOTHTA’ KAOHMENOC 

A an > n ’ \ \ A c a n 
KATA TOY AAEADOY COY KATEAAAEIC, KAl KATA TOY YIOY THC 
MHTPOC COY ETIGEIC CKANAAAON’ TAYTA ETTOIHCAC Kal ECIFHCA’ 5 
OT! €comal O6moloc’ €AE€PZ@ CE Kal 


YTEAABEC, ANOME, col 


TTAPACTHCM CE KATA TIPOCWTION Coy. CYNETE AH TAYTa, Ol 


ETHIAANOANOMENO! TOY Ocof, MHTOTE APTACH @C AEN, Kal 


2 émredvacey] A; émdedvagey S. 


avoua A; dvouiay S. See the lower note. 
kaTa mpocwmdy cov Tas auaprlas cov S. See the lower note. 
see below; jv ACS (with some Mss of the Lxx). 


Tov Oeot|] AS; pou C. 


3. KkaOnpevos| Implying deliberate 
conspiracy ; see Perowne on Ps. i. I. 

6. avope] LXX avopiay (B); but S 
has avope, though it is afterwards cor- 
rected into avopeay (dvopiay). *Avo- 
piay is read by Justin Dzal. 22 (p. 
240), Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 14 (p. 
798); but dvowe Clem. Alex. Strom. 
iv. 24 (p. 634). The Syriac does not 
favour avope (as Wotton states), ex- 
cept that the existing pointing in- 
terprets it thus. The reading of 
our MS A here shows how easy was 
the transition from the one to the 
other, avoua: (dvowe) and avoyia (= avo- 
piav). See the notes on avaornocopa 
§ 5, and 7 det€w just below. Though 
dyvoue makes better sense, the original 
reading of the LXx here must have 
been avopiay (not avope as Wotton 
thinks); for the translators must 
have misread {AN Ny ND ‘Thou 
thoughtest, I shall surely be’, as if 
max min not ‘Thou thoughtest 
destruction (or iniquity), I shall be’, 
since nj is elsewhere translated by 
dvopia, Ps. lvii. 2, xciv. 20; and Theo- 
dotion, whose version agreed with the 
Lxx (see Field’s Hexap/. ad loc.), 
must have read it in the same way. 

7. mapaotnow oe Kt.r.] ‘2 well 


13 acbevelas] acbenac A. 


4 ddedpov] adeAgouc A. 6 dvope] 
7 oe KaTa Tpbowmdy cov] A; 

10 7] LxXx (BS) 
atr@| AC; adrots S. 


14 TovTov] C; TOYTOY 


bring thee face to face with thyself, 
show thee to thyself in thy true light.’ 
The oe is omitted in BS of the Lxx 
and doubtless had no place in the 
original text of this version which 
agreed with the Hebrew, ‘I will lay 
in order (the matter) before thee’. 
Justin Dza/. 22 (l.c.) and other wri- 
ters supply an accusative tas auaprias 
gov, which is found also in a large 
number of MSS (see Holmes and 
Parsons). 

8. ws A€wv] i.e. ‘lest he seize you 
as tt were a lion’. The words os éov 
are absent from the LXx (and Justin 
Dial. 22 p. 402), as also from the 
Hebrew. They must have come 
from Ps. vii. 3, either as a gloss in 
Clement’s text of the LXX or as 
inadvertently inserted by him in a 
quotation made from memory. 

10. 7 deté@] As 7 is read in the LXx 
(BS) and in Justin l.c., and as the 
parallelism in the opening of the 
next chapter (7 od0s év 7 evpopev TO 
cwTnpioy x.T.A.) Seems to require it, 
I have restored it for jv. For similar 
corruptions in the MS A see § 15 ava- 
otnoopey (note), § 36 ovary, § 41 cuver- 
dnow, ii. § 6 atypartoou. If qv be 
retained, carjpiov must be taken as a 


XXXVI] TO THE CORINTHIANS. Faia 
MH H O PYOMENOC. OyCIA AINE€CEWC AOZACEI ME, KAl kel 
OAOC H AEIZW AYT@ TO CWTHPION TOY Oecof. 


XXXVI. 


e/ € € / > / 5) © e/ \ 
Avtn 7 0d0s, dyamrnrot, év 1 EVPOMEV TO 


cwTipiov nuwv ’Incovv Xpirrov Tov dpxepea TwY TpOC- 


~ c = \ 7 \ \ ~ 5] / 
Popwy NUwY, TOY TWEOCTTATHY Kal Bonov Tis aaGevetas 


a \ / > , 2 Wick a la 
N[LOV. Ola TOUTOU ATEVIOWMEV ELS Ta un TV oupavwry: 


\ / / \ sf \ , 
dia TovTou évoTTpiCoueba THv apwuov Kal VrEepTaTny 


af io / ~ > 
Ow aitov: dia TovTov jvewyOnoav juwv ot opbarpoi 


~ / \ / € 9 / , ae / 7 
TNS Kapolas* Ova TOVTOU 4 dovvETOS Kal éoKoTwpEN Sia- 


(the superscribed y being prima manu) A; totro S, and so ll. 15, 16, but not 1. 17, 


orp. 1x2 I. 2. 


Twuevn| AC; éoxoticuévn Clem 613. 


nominative in apposition with 6dds. 
XXXVI. ‘On this path let us tra- 
vel. This salvation is Jesus Christ 
our High-priest. Through Him our 
darkness is made light, and we see 
the Father: for He is the reflexion of 
God’s person. He has a place far 
above all angels, being seated on 
God’s right hand and endowed with 
universal dominion and made tri- 
umphant over His enemies. These 
enemies are theythat resist God’s will.’ 
I2. tov apytepéa] This is founded 
on the teaching of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews (ii. 17, lil. 1, iv. 14, 15, etc.), 
of which Clement’s language through- 
out: this section is an echo. See 
again §§ 61, 64. Photius (4707. 126) 
alludes to these two passages in his 
criticism of Clement, dpyiepéa kal 
mpootatny Tov Kipiov nay Inoody é&0- 
vopateay ovde Tas Oeomperets Kal UWndo- 
tépas apike mepi avtov devas (see the 
note, § 2). The term dpycepeds is 
very frequently applied to our Lord 
by the earliest Christian writers of 
all schools; Ign. Phzlad. 9, Polyc. 
meee. 2) Fest) xe. Paty) Rub. ''6, 
Sym. 7, etc., Clem. Recogu.i. 48, Jus- 


arevicwuev] A; contemplemur (or contemplabimur) S; arevigomer C. 
15 evortpigoueba] AC; videamus (or videbimus) tanguam in speculo S. 
xXOnoav|] A; avewxOnoay C; et aperti sunt S. 


16 qvew- 


quev] AC; vue S. 17 €oKo- 


tin Dial. 116 (p. 344). 

13. mpooratny| ‘guardian, patron, 
who protects our interests and pleads 
our cause’. To a Roman it would 
convey all the ideas of the Latin ‘ pa- 
tronus,’ of which it was the recognized 
rendering, Plut. Vz¢. Rom. 13, Vit. Ma- 
vit 5. Comp. mpooraris Rom. xvi. 2. 

ths doGeveias| In connexion with 
the work of the great High-priest, as 
in Heb. iv. I5. 

15. evorrpiCopeba] Christ is the mir- 
ror in whom is reflected the faultless 
countenance of God the Father (av- 
Tov); comp. 2 Cor. ii. 18 rv doéav 
Kupiov katonrpiCouevot, Philo Leg. A U7. 
iil. 33 (I. p. 107) pydé xatonrpicaipny 
év G\i@ tii thy ony idéay 7 €v col TA 
Geo ; comp. John i. 14. 

duwpoyv| ‘faultless’, ‘fleckless’, be- 
cause the mirror is perfect. For the 
meaning of duepos, see the note on 
popookomnber, § 4I. 

17. Sua TovTov k.t.A.] Quotedin Clem. 
Alex. Strom. iv. 16 (p. 613) 6 &y TH 
mpos Kopwiovs emiotodAn yéeyparrat, 
Aut “Inootd Xpicrod n dovveros...jpas 
yevoao bat. 

n dovvetos kT.A.}| Rom. i. 21 Kat 


I12 THE EPISTLE OF 8. CLEMENT [Xxxv1 


an) , > \ \ lan lan A 
vora nuav avabarre els TO [Bavuaoctov avTov] dws: dia 
, sf)’ e / lon r) / Uf 
TovTou OéAnoev 6 SeamoTHs THS AOavaToV YyvwoEWS 
ey Md a 5) > ! A ’ > 
N|Las yevoad Gat Oc MN ATIAYPACMA TAC MEfAA@CYNHC AyY- 
TOY TOCOYT@ MEIZMN ECTIN ArfréAWN, Scw AlAmbopwTEPON 
wv ’ / e/ c an 
ONOMA KEKAHPONOMHKEN. YEYOaTTAL yap ouTws? ‘O TOIaN 
ToYc 4rréAOYe ayYTo¥Y TNEYMaTA Kal TOYC AEITOYPOYC ayTOY 
\ ’ \ \ = coe o) ~ e/ i 
mypoc @Adra. “Emt d€ Tw vim avTOUV oUVTWS EtTTEV O 
/ cr , > \ 7 t ’ » 
OeamoTns: Yidc MOY €i CY, 6rd CHMEPON FEFENNHKA CE* Al- 
THCAl Trap €mO¥, KAl A@CW COl EONH THN KAHPONOMIAN COY, 
1 7d Oavuacrov airod Pos] A (with 1 Pet. ii. 9); 76 Pas S with Clem; 76 
Oavpactov dds C. 2 Ths dbavdrov ywooews] AC ; mortis scientiae S (Oavdrov 
-yvdéoews), where THs has been absorbed in the preceding syllable of deomérys and 


For an instance of @dvaros for d@dvaros see il. 
5 dvowa KexAn- 


Gavdrov is written for d@avdrov. 
§ 19, and conversely of d@dvaros for Odvaros Ign. Zphes. 7. 


povouncev] A; KexNnpovdunkev dvoua C (with Heb. i. 4). 
A (with Heb. i. 7); ¢doya mupds C (as Rev. ii. 18). 


7 mupds proya] 
13. T@ Oedjpare avdTov] 


CS; rwOeAnmaTiTwOednua...... A, as correctly read by Tisch. The lacuna has space 
for seven letters and should probably be filled up (with Tisch.) travrov, the words 


T@ OedXnuare being written twice over. 


ésxotic6n 1 dovvetos avTay kapdia, 
Ephes. iv. 18 éoxotapévor [v. 2. €oKo- 
Tigpevor| ty Suavoia. These passages 
are sufficient to explain how Clem. 
Alex. in quoting our Clement writes 
éokotiopeérn, but not sufficient to justify 
the substitution of this form for écxo- 
Topern in our text. See A. Jahn’s 
Methodius i. p. 77, note 453. 

I. avaadvXer k.7.A.] i.e. ‘Our mind, 
like a plant shut up in a dark closet, 
had withered in its growth. Removed 
thence by His loving care, it revives 
and shoots up towards the light of 
heaven.’ Comp. I Pet. il. 9 Tov ex 
oKOorous vpas KadécayTos eis TO Oav- 
pacrov avtov das. See also Clem. 
Alex. Paed. i. 6 (p. 117) mpos To aidiov 
avatpexopnevov os and the note on 
§ 59 below éxadeoey nuas k7.A. It is 
strange that editors should have 
wished to alter ava@a\Xer, which con- 
tains so striking an image. 

3. Os av k.t.A.] The whole passage 
is borrowed from the opening of the 


18 eikrik@s] éxtix@s C; lenzter 


Epistle to the Hebrews, from which 
expressions, arguments, and quota- 
tions alike are taken: see esp. i. 3, 4, 
5, 7, 13. For the meaning see the 
commentators on that epistle. On 
ovopa, ‘title, dignity’, see Philippians 
i. 30} 

5. ‘O mov x«.t.A.| From LXX Ps. 
civ. 4. It is quoted exactly as in Heb. 
i. 7, mupos dAdya being substituted 
for mip pdéyov of the LXxX (BS, but A 
has swupoo ddeya which shows the 
reading in a transition state). 

8. Yids pov k.7.A.] From LXX Ps. 11.7 
word for word, after Heb. i. 5: comp. 
Acts xiii. 33 (in S. Paul’s speech at 
the Pisidian Antioch), where it is 
again quoted. In both these passages 
the 7th verse only is given; Clement 
adds the 8th, airnoai k.r.X. 

II. Kaov x.7.A.| From LXX Ps. cx. I 
word for word, after Heb. i. 13. 

XXXVII. ‘We are fighting as 
soldiers under our heavenly captain. 
Subordination of rank and obedience 


Io KAl THN KATACYECIN COY TA TEpaTa TAC LAC. 


r5 


XXXVII] 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ry 


\ / 
Kat waXy 


/ \ / ’ > a a ” A 
Aevyel 7 pOSs avTov: Kaesoy ék AEZION MOY, EWC AN OH 


TOYC €YOpoYc cCOY YTIOTIOAION TON TIOAMN coy. 


} > 
Tives ovv 


eS ae e ‘a \ > / - y 
Ol €xOpot ; Ol pavAor Kal AVTLTATOOMEVOL TW GeAnuate 


aUTOU. 


XXXVII. 


Crpatevowucba ov, avopes adedpoi, 


A , / ~ / / 
META Traons EKTEVELAS EV TOIS AUWMOLS TPOTTAYPMacLW 


> a / \ / a 
aQuTOU* KATAVOHOWMEV TOUS OT PATEVOMEVOUS TOLS nyou- 


ir r ~ / ~ 5] ~ “~ 
MEVOLS NUMWVY, TWS EVTAKTWS, TWS ELKTLKWS, TWS UTOTE- 


I 
(placide) TYND'D7S; eye... A, as I read it. The first part has originally 
been written E1€KT, but the 1 is prolonged and altered into an y, and an | is 


superscribed between € and k, so that it becomes eveikr-. 
After this he reads w (‘non integra’); it seems to me 


Tischendorf prol. p. xix. 


So far I agree with 


more like an | with a stroke of another letter which might be k, so that I read the 


part before the lacuna evecxrek. 


But the Ms is so worn, that it is impossible to 


speak confidently. The lacuna seems too great for a single letter, and this again 
is an objection to evecxtw[o], the reading of Tisch. But the uneven length of the 


lines diminishes the force of this objection. 


to orders are necessary conditions in 
an atmy. There must be harmonious 
working of high and low. So it is 
with the human body. The head 
must work with the feet and the feet 
with the head, for the health and 
safety of the whole.’ 

15. Srpatevowpeba]2 Cor. x.3, 1 Tim. 
fis, 2 Lim. ti. 3, 4, len. Polyc. 6. 

17. katavonowpey «.t.d.| So Seneca 
de Trang. An. 4 ‘Quid si militare 
nolis nisi imperator aut tribunus? 
etiamsi alii primam frontem tene- 
bunt, te sors inter triarios posuerit, 
inde voce, adhortatione, exemplo, 
animo, milita’. 

Trois Hyoupevois npav] ‘under our 
temporal rz/ers. For this sense of 
of nyovpevor see the note §5. On the 
other hand of nyovpevos is used else- 
where of the officers of the Church: 
see § 1 (note). For the dative after 
otpareveoOa see Ign. Polyc. 6 apéo- 
Kete @ otpateveobe, Appian Lell. Czv. 


CLEM. II. 


See the lower note. 


1. 42 rots év avTn “Popaiors...exnpvEev... 
otpatevoew éavt@ (where orparedoew 
is transitive). 

18. eixtixds| ‘ concesstvely’. In 
my former edition I had proposed, 
with the evidence then before me, to 
read eveurixos. The adverb evetk- 
Tws is recognized in the Etym. Magn., 
and of the adjective evexros the Lexi- 
cons give several instances, e.g. Dion 
Cass. Ixix. 20. On the other hand 
of eveuktixos, -kas, though legitimate 
forms, no examples are given in the 
lexicons. But in the light of the 
recently discovered authorities, eik- 
TiK@s Seems to me more probable. 

The alternative would be to read 
extikas With C. The word €xrixds 
means ‘habitually’, and so ‘fami- 
liarly’, ‘easily’, ‘readily’ (i.e. ‘as a 
matter of habit’); comp. Epict. Dass. 
ili. 24. 78 ovdAdoyiopods iv dvadvons 
extixotepov, Plut. A7or, 802 F éxrixos 
) Texvixas 7 Suatpetixas, Porph. de 


8 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XxxvII 


114 


> CG \ / a 
Taypevws émiTeAovow Ta SiaTacoopEeva. OV TaVTES 
3 \ sf 10e / 0G € / ioe 
ELOLY ETTAGYXOL OUVOE YIALAPYOL OVOE EKATOYTAPXOL OUOE 
y 2S \ \ ~ > Ber, > - 
TEVTNKOVTADY OL OUOE TO kabeEns: aNN e€kaovTos €v Tw 
\ r) / ~ / \ 
idlw TadymaTL Ta EWLTATTOMEVaA VITO TOU Bactrews Kal 
TOV HryouMevwy E7LTEAEL. 01 MErdAO! AlYA TAN MIKPANS 
> af c \ ' a ’ ’ 
OU OUVAaYT al ELVAL, OUTE O1 MIKPO! AlYd TON METAAQN: CY[- 


' ! > > “ Lee / ~ , 
Kpacic tic éctin éy maou, Kal é€vy ToUTOLs xpyaots. AaBw- 


1 émtedodow] A; Tedodo. C; dub. S. 
2 émapxor] AC; S adopts the Greek word taapxo, but it 
does not necessarily imply any variation in the Greek text. 


dvaracoomeva S. 


Abst. iv. 20 TO atriov Tod cuppeve 
elzrois dy Kal Tov Exrixads Siapévetv, Diod. 
Sic. iii. 4 pedérn modvxpovia kal pyney 
yupvatovres Tas Yuxas éxrikas exaoTa 
TOY yeypaupévov dvaywedcKovol, 1.€. 
‘fluently’ (where he is speaking of 
reading the hieroglyphics). So here, 
if the reading be correct, it will mean 
‘as a matter of course’, ‘promptly’, 
‘readily’. The adjective is used in 
the same sense, e.g. Epict. Déss. ii. 
18. 4 et re mroveiv €O€deus Extixov. The 
reading of C confirms my account of 
A as against Tischendorf’s, though 
he still adhered to his first opinion 
after my remarks. There can be little 
doubt now, I think, that the account 
in my upper note is correct; for the 
reading of Tischendorf has no re- 
lation to the éxruxnés of C. The ey 
(altered from e1, as it was first written) 
must be explained by the preceding 
ey of evrdxrws catching the scribe’s 
eye as he was forming the initial 
letters of either ExTIKWC OF EIKTIKWC. 
He had written as far as e1, and at 
this point he was misled by the same 
conjunction of letters trwcey just 
before. Whether this e1 was the be- 
ginning of e1kTiKwc, Or an incom- 
plete ex as the beginning of exTikwe, 
may be doubtful. In the latter case 
we must suppose that the second 1, 
written above the line, was a de- 
liberate (and perhaps later) emenda- 


Ta Staracocoueva] AC; mavra TH 


4 émiracoomeva | 


tion to get a word with an adequate 
sense; but on the whole it seems 
more probable that he had eikTiKkwec 
in his copy, and not extikwc as read 
in C. If so, eixrexos has the higher 
claim to be regarded as the word 
used by Clement. It is difficult to 
say whether the rendering in S repre- 
sents eixtixa@s or éxtiuxos. In the Pe- 
shito Luke vii. 25 s3°D9 stands for 
padakos, and in the Harclean Mark 
xill. 28 for dwadcs. Thus it seems 
nearer to eikxrixas than to exrikas. 
The word eixrikos occurs Orig. de 
Prine. iii. 15 (I. p. 124), and occa- 
sionally elsewhere. On these ad- 
jectives in -1cos see Lobeck Phryn. 
pe 226. 

I. ov mavres x.t.A.] Comp. 1 Cor. 
Xil..29, 30. 

2. émrapyouk.t.A.| See Exod. xviii. 
21 kataotnoets [avrovs| ém avrav xu- 
apxous kal €xaTovtapxous Kal mevTNKOV- 
Tdapxous Kal Sexaddpyxovus (comp. ver. 25). 
The reference here however is to 
Roman military organization as the 
context shows; comp. Clém. Hom. x. 
14 6vrep yap Tporov cis €or 0 Kaicap, 
éyer O€ Um avrov Tovds SiocKyTas (vraTt- 
Kovs, emapyous, xiALdpxous, €xaTovTap- 
xous, Sexaddpxous), Tov adrov tporov 
k.7t-A. The émapyo therefore are 
‘prefects’, émapyos being used especi- 
ally of the ‘praefectus praetorio’, e.g. 
Plut. Galb. 13, Otho 7; comp. Dion 


[0 


XXXVIII] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


PTS 
\ ~ - \ / ~ ~ / 

Mev TO THOMA Huw 4 KEepadry diya TwYv TodwY ovbEV 
/ 2O\ / / fq An \ \ 

ETT, OUTWS OUOE ot Odes Siyxa THs KEpaAns’ Ta OE 
4 7 lanl / ~ co \ af 
EAaylisTa péAn TOV GDwWUaATOS HuwY avayKala Kal ev~ 


eh fs ef a / > \ , a 
XenoTa elolvy OAW TW DwuaTL’ aNAA TaVTA GuVT VE! 


: \ e -~ and ~ > \ ii / \ 
Kal u7oTayy pla xXonTaL Els TO cwCerbat oAOV TO 


TWA. 


XXX VITI. 


7 oy e a / \ - 2 
CwCecbw ovv nuwv drAov TO cwHpua év 


A; vroraccoueva C. The converse error appears in the Ms of Ign. Zphes. 2 ém- 


Tacodmuevor for vroraccomevot. 
Il ouvmvet] As cuumver C. 


Cass. Fragm. (v. p. 203 ed. L. Dind.) 
aicxpov éott, Kaioap, éxatovrapy® oe 
diaréyeo Oa tav émapyov ¢éw éatorov. 
The xAiapyou, éxatovrapyou, again are 
the common equivalents for ‘tribu- 
ni’, ‘centuriones’, respectively. But 
for wevtnxovzapxos I do not know any 
corresponding term in the Roman 
army. If it represents the ‘ optio’ the 
lieutenant or the signifer ‘the ensign’ 
(see Lohr Zakttk u. Kriegswesen p. 
41), the numerical relation of 50 to 
100 has become meaningless. 

3. €xaoros x«.7.A.] I Cor. xv. 23 
Exaotos O€ ev tO idiw Taypate ; Comp. 
below § 41. 

4. Baowhéws| Comp. | Pet. ii. 13 sq 
etre Baoidel...eire yeudow 3; Comp. 
Joh. xix. 15, Acts xvii. 7. The offi- 
cial title of the emperor in Greek 
was avtokpatap, but Bacireds is found 
in common parlance, though the cor- 
responding ‘rex’ would not be used 
except in gross flattery. 

5. of peyador x.7.A.] See Soph. 47. 
158 (quoted by Jacobson) kairo opu- 
Kpol peyddov xapis odadepoy mipyou 
pupa méAovrar x.t.A. (with Lobeck’s 
note), Plato Leg. x. p. 902 E ovdé yap 
dvev opixpdy Tovs peyddouvs hac of 
AvOodoyot AiBouvs ed keicOa, with the 
remarks of Donaldson, New Cratz. 
$455, on this proverb. I have there- 
fore ventured to print the words as a 


8 ovd€év éorw] A and so prob. S; éorw ovdé C. 
12 xpnTat] A; xparac C: see the note on ii. § 6. 


quotation, and indeed Clement’s text 
seems to embody some anapeestic 
fragments. 

6. guykpacts x.7.A.] This seems to 
be a reference to Eurip. Fragm. £ol. 
2 a\WX’ €ore tis cvyKpacis Gor eyew 
kados, for Euripides is there speaking 
of the mutual cooperation of rich and 
poor: see the passage quoted from 
the context of Euripides on 6 mAov- 
gtos K.T.A. Just below § 38. Cotterill 
(Peregrinus Proteus p. 25) points out 
that this extract appears in close 
proximity to the passage from So- 
phocles quoted in the last note in 
Stobeeus FVorz/. xliii. 18, 20 (p. 82 sq, 
Meineke). Comp. 1 Cor, xii. 24 dAAa 
0 Ocds ouvEKépaceY TO Topa. 

7. AaBowev To odpa x.7.r.] Sug- 
gested by 1 Cor. xii. 12 sq (comp. 
Rom. xii. 4); see esp. ver. 22 ra 8o- 
Kovvta péAn Tov odparos dobevécrepa 
vmapxewv avayKata €or. For AdBapev 
see above, § 5. 

XXXVIII. ‘So therefore let the 
health of the whole body be our aim. 
Let weak and strong, rich and poor, 
work together in harmony. Let each 
man exercise his special gift in humi- 
lity of heart and without vainglory, 
remembering that he owes everything 
to God and giving thanks to Him 
for His goodness.’ 


2 


116 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xxXxVHI 


7° ~ \ A = is 
Xpista ‘Incov, Kae UToTacacécOw ExasTos TW WANTLOV 
~ \ \ ? t > - ~ 
avtov, Kabws Kai éréOn év TO YapiouaTL avTOV. O 
O) \ \ > ln \ > la e A 2 \ > 
isyupos pn atnedeitw Tov acbevn, Oo oe aaOevys ێv- 
\ b / € / > , ~ 
TpeTeaOw Tov iaxXUpoV' O TAOVOLOS ETLXOPNYELTW TH 


~ ¢ Oe \ ’ i ~ o > / EO 
TTWVXW, O O€ TTWYVOS EUV ANLOTELTW TW EW, OTL EOWKEY 5 


avtea dv ov dvarAnpwbn avTou TO VoTE } coos 
@ Ot ov avamtrAnpwln avToV TO VoTEPNMa. O po 


7 \ / ~ \ p) , 
evoekvucOw tHv copiay av’tov py ev Aovots adr év 
af p) qa ¢e la A tne lm / 
Epos ayabois’ 6 TaTEwoppovev py EAVTM MAPTUPELTH, 
5) 5) ras € b) e / € \ ~ € € \ 
avn éaTw vd érepov EéavTov paptupeicOa, oO ayvos 
> a \ oS \ \ / / / 
éy Tr TapKl NTW Ka PY dNaCoveverOw, yivwwoKwy OTL 
l 


1 "Inood] A; om. CS. 2 kat] A; om. CS. 3 eH arnuedeitw] 
untepedecrw As; Tnwedecrw (omitting why) CS. Obviously the a of drnuedeirw had 
already disappeared from their prototype as it has from A, and the transcribers are 
obliged to erase the counterbalancing negative 7? in order to restore the sense; 
see above, I. p. 143. éevtperécbw] C; évrperérw A, retained by Gebhardt ; 
but it is a soloecism. év Nbyous] AC; Advyots 
pdvov Clem 613, év epyos] A; épyos C, thus omitting év here, while conversely 
Clem has omitted it in év \dyous. S has it in both, but no stress can be laid on the 
fact, as the translator repeats the preposition where it does not occur in the Greek; 


7 évdexvicw] evdixvucdw A. 


See 4. p-, 137- 
see above, § 19. 


I. vmoraccécbw exaotos k.T-A.] 
Fopohes:'y. 21; comp. 1 Pet. v. 5. 

2. Kabds kat eréOn| Sc. 6 mAncior, 
‘according as he was appointed with 
his special gift’; comp. 1 Pet. iv. 10 
exaotos Kabas €haBev xapicpa, I Cor.vil. 
7 €xaoTos tOlov éxet xapiopa €k Ceou, 
Rom. xii. 6 ¢yovres yapiouata Kara 
rv xapw tHv Sobeiaay ni Svaopa. 

3. pn atnpedeiro] This reading 
makes better sense than wAnppedeiro 
(for Clement is condemning the depre- 
ciation of others) and accounts more 
easily for the corruption; see the 
omission of a in ddudokeviar § 35. 

4. 6 mdovows x«.t.A.] See Eurip. 
Fragm. Aol. 2 (of which the context 
is cited above, § 37) a py yap €or. TO 
mévyntt, TAovows bidwo* a 8 of mdov- 
rouvres ov KexTnpeba, ToLoWw mTéevnoL 
xpopevor OnpdpeOa. The resemblance 


8 ramrewvoppovav] A, and so prob. S; rarewoppwv C Clem; 
py éavr@ paprupelrw] AC ; waprupeirw py éavrg@ Clem. 


here confirms the conjecture that in 
the earlier passage Clement has the 
words of Euripides in his mind. 

6. avarAnpoby x.7.d.] For the ex- 
pression see 1 Cor. xvi. 17, Phil. ii. 
30: comp. Col. 1. 24. 

6 codes k.t.A.]| This passage down 
to rHv eykpdrevay is quoted in Clem. 
Alex. Strom. iv. 16 (p. 613) between 
extracts from §§ 40, 41 (see the notes 
there). 

10. 7rw] ‘let him be zt’. For this 
emphatic use compare Ign. Ephes. 
15 dpewov eotw ovwmar Kal eivat 7 da- 
AowrTa py etvat, Iren. ii. 30. 2 ovk 
ev TO héyew GAN’ Ev T@ evar o kpeitrov 
Seixvvtba odeider. I have preferred 
Laurent’s happy emendation jr to 
ovyare which has also been suggested, 
both because it better suits the vacant 
space in A, and because it is the 


Io 


15 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. E17 


XXXVIII] 


c/ / a ? a \ > / 

ETEPOS ETTLY O ETLY OPNYOV avTW THY éyKpateav. ’Ava- 
/ ai / ? / J / 
Aoyiowpela otv, addeApoi, éx moias UAns éyernOnpuev: 
~ \ / 2 7 > \ / , 
Tow Kat Tives elonNOamev Els Tov KOoMoV é€K ToloU 

/ \ / e J lanl \ y a 
Tapou Kat okOTOUS 6 TAaGAas Huds Kal Onpuoupynoas 
> / > \ la ’ ~ / \ 
ELONYVAYVEV €ls TOV KOG MOV GaUTOU, TPOETOLUaAT AS Tas 

/ a“ \ Css en = s 
evepyerias avTov mplv nuas yevvnOjva. TavTa oop 
/ 2 ? ay a p) / \ / ? 
TAaVTA €& auTOU ExoYTES OPElAOMEV KATA TAaYTa Evya- 
~ ~ e / > \ be com S5f 
PlOTELY aUTwW' Ww 7 do€a ELS TOUS Alwyas TWY alwywrY. 
/ 
any. 
9 édrw] ACS; & re Clem. 
eaurov vp’ érépov C; S translates the sentence sed ad aliis testimonium detur (uap- 
TupelaOw) super ipso. €avtov] AC; av’rov Clem. 1o €v] AC; om. 
Clem; dub S. 77] Laurent (his earlier suggestion had been éorw, Zeitschr. 
f: Luther. Theol. XX1V. p. 423). CS Clem omit the words 7jrw kal: see above, I. 
p- 142. In A the margin of the parchment is cut off, so that nothing is visible. 
There seems however to have been room for 7Tw, as the size of the letters is often 
diminished at the end of the lines ; see below. 


13 kai tives] C3 katte... As om. S. eionOapev] ...onMOauev A; eiojAOouev C. 
15 Tov Kdouov] AC; S has hunc mundum, but it probably does not represent a 


up’ érépou éavrovy] A; adrov bd’ érépov Clem; 


Ir éyxparevav] eyxpatiay A. 


various reading ; see the critical note on ii. § 19. 


kara mavta] AC; om. S. 


form found elsewhere in Clement, 
§ 48. Hort suggests ornrw, com- 
paring 1 Cor. vii. 37. At the end of 
a line it is not safe to speak positively 
about the number of letters to be sup- 
plied, as there the letters are some- 
times much smaller and extend be- 
yond the line; but ovydrw seems 
under any circumstances too long 
to be at all probable. Hilgenfeld’s 
reading, 6 ayvds év Tj capkt kat [avros] 
uy GdafovevéoOw, supplies the lacuna 
in the wrong place. For the senti- 
ment see Ign. Polyc. 5 et rus Svvara 
ev ayveia pévew eis Tipny THs TapKis 
Tov Kupiov, ev akavxnoia meveTw’ eay Kav- 
XNonTa, dmadderTo (see above, I. p. 149), 
Tertull. de Virg. Vel. 13 ‘Et sia Deo 
confertur continentiae virtus, quid 
gloriaris, quasi non acceperis’, pas- 
sages quoted by Wotton. Clement’s 
language is not sufficient to explain 


17 OpetNouev] odiNomev A. 


evxaptoTeiv] evyapiort A. 


the allusions of Epiphanius and Je- 
rome (quoted above, I. pp. 170, 173), 
which doubtless refer to the spurious 
Epistles on Virginity; see above, I. 
p- 408 sq. 

13. moto. kal rives] 1 Pet. i. II eis 
Tiva i) Trolov KaLpor. 

elon Oapev| For the form see Winer 
§ xiii. p. 86. 

€k tolov tapou x.t.A.| Harnack re- 
fers to Ps. cxxxix (cxl). 15 ro dcrouv 
pov...emoinaas év Kkpup7 kal 7 UmocTacis 
pou ev TOls KaT@TATOLS THs yis. 

I5. mpoerouwdoas «.t.A.]| See the 
fragment from ‘the 9th Epistle’ of 
Clement of Rome in Leontius and 
John Sacr. Rer. ii (Mai Script. Vet. 
Nov. Coll. Vu. p. 84) given above, I. 
p. 189. Though it has some points 
of resemblance with this passage in 
our epistle, it cannot have been taken 
from it. 


118 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xxxIx 


af 
XXXIX. "“Adpoves kal dovveror Kat pwpol Kat 
cdimaloevTor yAEVACOVTW Huas Kal puKTHpICovTLY, EavTOUS 
Tl yap 
, Lf 3\ / 2 \ a / / 
dvvatat OvnTos; 4 Tis laXUS YNYEVOUS; YEeypamTat yap" 


/ 5) / qn } 6 2) ~ 
BovAomeEvot érraiper Oat Tals OLAVOLALS aAUTWY. 
O¥k HN mophH pd d@OaAM@N MOY? BAA’ H AYPAN Kal 
QO@NHN HKOYON. TI fap; MH KAdBAPOC EcTAal Bpotdc ENANTI 
Kypioy; H 4110 TON EpraN AYTOY AMEMTITOC ANHP; El KATA 


TAIAMN AYTOY OY TIICTEYE!, KATA AE APFEAWN AYTOY CKOAION 


1” Adpoves...dmaldevror] AS; dppoves kai dmaldevro kal wwpoi C. 


6 xadapds] AC; xdan corruptor S, perhaps connecting 


fovew] puxtipngovow A. 


2 puKTnpl- 


it with xaGalpew, as if kaOarpérns: see above, I. p.140. The translator however may 


have had $6¢pos in his text. 
évayrioy C (with Lxx B). 


XXXIX. ‘What folly is the arro- 
gance and self-assumption of those 
who would make a mockery of us! 
Have we not been taught in the 
Scriptures the nothingness of man? 
In God’s sight not even the angels 
are pure: how much less we frail 
creatures of earth! A lump of clay, 
a breath of air, the sinner is consumed 
in a moment by God’s wrath: and 
the righteous shall inherit his for- 
feited blessings.’ 

I. “Adpoves x.t.’.] Comp. Hermas 
Sim. ix. 14 adpev ef kat dovveros. 

2. xAevdtovow x.t.dr.] Ps. xliv. 14 
(v. 1), Ixxix. 4, puxtnpiopos Kal ydev- 
aopos; comp. Afpost. Cozist. iil. 5 wur- 
Tnpioavres xAevdcovot. In C éavrovs 
is connected with the preceding words 
by punctuation. 

4. ynyevovs| As a LXX word, ynyemms 
is a translation of DON in Jer. xxxii. 
20. In Ps. xlix (xviii). 2 of re ynyevets 
Kat ot viol Tov avOpdrov is a rendering 
of YN 132 DJ OFN 122 D) where the 
next clause of the verse has mAovauos 
kat mévns. In Wisd. vii. 1 Adam is 
called ynyevjs mpwromdactos. The 
word occurs Zest. xii Patr. Jos. 2, 


éora] AC; éorw S. 
y ef] AC; 7S. 
this is due to the false pointing; see above, I. p. 138. 


évav7t] A (with Lxx SA); 
8 raidwy] AC; operum S, but 


avrov] A; éavrod C. 


Clem. Alex. Paed.i. 12 (p.156), Strom. 
iv. 6 (p. 577). In classical writers 
the ynyeveis are the fabled giants, the 
sons of Uranus and Gea, and rebels 
against the Olympians (e.g. Soph. 
Trach. 1058 o ynyevns orpatos y.- 
yavrev, Aristoph. Av. 824 of Geoi 
Tous ynyeveis...kabuTepnkorticav, See 
Pape Worterb. d. Griech, Eigennam. 
s. v.). Connected with this idea is 
the translation of DX, where it 
means ‘the shades of the dead’, by 
ynyeveis in the LXX of Prov. ii. 18, 
ix. 18 ; while in these and other pas- 
sages the other Greek translators 
(Theodotion, Symmachus) render the 
same word by yiyavres or Gecouaxor: 
see Gesenius 7hesaur. s.v. NDI on 
the connexion of ‘Rephaim’ and the 
giants. Altogether we may say that 
the word (1) signifies originally ‘hu- 
mility and meanness of origin’, and 
(2) connotes ‘separation from and 
hostility to God’. 

yéyparrac yap] A long passage 
from the LXxX Job iv. 16—v. 5, the 
words ovpavos dé...avTov being inserted 
from Job xv. 15 (see below). The 
variations from the LXX are for the 


XXXIX] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


119 


Tl E€TENOHCEN* OYPANOC AE OY KAOAPOC EN@TMION aYTOY Ea 
IO AE, O1 KATOIKOYNTEC OIKIAC TTHAINAC €2Z @N Kal AYTO! ék TOF 
AYTOY THAOY ECMEN’ ETTAICEN AYTOYC CHTOC TPOTION, Kal ATO 
TP@IGEN Ewc EcTrépac OYK ETI E/ICIN® Tapa TO MH AYNACOal 
AYTOYC EAYTOIC BOHOACAI ATIOAONTO’ ENEDYCHCEN AYTOIC Kal 
ETEAEYTHCAN, TIAPA TO MH EYEIN AYTOYC COMIAN. €TMIKAAECAI 
I5 Aé, €l| TiC COl YTAKOYCETAI, H El TINA ATION APPéAWN OWH" 
Kal rap A@PONA ANAIPEl OPFH, TETTAANHMENON AE OANATOI 
ov] AC; om. S. Il émraev adrovs] AC (but 


A erecev); érecov airod S; see above, I. p. 140. ontos| onrov stands in A 
(as I read it), by a transposition with the termination of the next word. Tischendorf 


miorever] AC; misrevoec S. 


gave ontoo, but afterwards acquiesced in my reading of the Ms. 
12 érce] AC; om. S. 
go] A, and so prob. S (with Lxx BS); cou C (with Lxx A). 


tpotoc A; see the last note. 


most part slight. 

5. Ovx nv poppy x.t.A.] The words 
of Eliphaz reproving Job. He relates 
how a voice spoke to him in the dead 
of night, telling him that no man is 
pure in God’s sight. The Lxx differs 
materially from the Hebrew, but the 
general sense is the same in both. 
The ov« is not represented in the 
Hebrew, and it may have been in- 
serted by the LXX to avoid an anthro- 
pomorphic expression ; but the trans- 
lators must also have read the pre- 
ceding words somewhat differently. 

7. «i kata traidoyv xrtA.| ‘seeing 
that against His servants He ts dis- 
trustful, and against (to the discredit 
of) His angels He noteth some Ge- 
pravity,’ 

Q. ovpavos dé x.t-A.| From Job xv. 
15 (likewise in a speech of Eliphaz) 
ei KaTa ayiwy ov muaTEvel, oUpavos S€ ov 
kaOapos évaytiov avtov. The fact that 
nearly the same words occur as the 
first clause of xv. 15, which are found 
likewise in iv. 18, has led Clement 
to insert the second clause also of 
this same verse in the other passage 
to which it does not belong. 

€a d€, of Katouxovytes| ‘how much 


Tpomov] CS; 
15 ef pri] AC; 7S. 
6Wy] A; dYe C. 


more, ye that dwell’, In the LXx BS 
read tovs d€ xarotxovvras, but A éa de 
Tovs Kxatotkouvras ‘let alone those that 
dwell’. The latter is a better render- 
ing of the Hebrew and must have 
been the original LXxX text. Sym- 
machus has s0c@ padXov, to which 
éa with this construction is an equiva- 
lent, Job xv. 16, xxv. 6. 

10. oikias mndivas| The houses of 
clay in the original probably signify 
men’s bodies: comp. 2 Cor. v. I 7 
emiyeltos nu@y oikia Tov oxyvous, Called 
before (iv. 7) dorpakiwva oxevn. But 
the LXx by the turn which they give 
to the next clause, ¢€ dv kat adrol 
k.7.A.. seem to have understood it 
literally, ‘We are made of the same 
clay as our houses’; e& dy being ex- 
plained by é« rot avrov mndov. 

II. Kal amd mpaidev x«.t.r.] Kal is 
found in BS but omitted in A. By 
amo mpatGey x.t.A. is Meant ‘in the 
course of a single day’; comp. Is. 
SXEVIN; 12; 17> 

14. éredevtrnoay| In the LXx A so 
reads with all authorities here; but 
BS have é&npav@noapr. 

16. dpyyn, (jAos] ie. indignation 
against God, such as Job had shown, 


120 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XXXIX 


‘ aA a 


zAdoc. €r@ Aé EWpakaA Aponac Pizac BadONTAac, AAA eEY- 


2 , ” c ! , c c \ 
Oéwc EBPWOH AYT@N H AlAITA. TOPp@ [TENOINTO O1 YIOI 
AYT@N ATO COTHPIAC’ KOAABPICOEIHCAN ETT] BYPAlc HCCON®N, 
KAl OYK €cTAl 6 EZAIPOYMENOC* A FAP EKEINOIC HTOIMACTAI, 


AikAIO! EAONTAIT AYTO! Aé EK KAK@N OYK EZAIpETO! ECONTAI. 5 


1 6é] AC; om. S. 
a present. 


2. Otarral ‘their abode’; as e.g. 
xm JOD. vill. 6, 22, x1. 14, xxxix. 6, 

3. KodaBpiobeinoay| ‘mocked, in- 
sulted’, as Athen. vill. p. 364 A kada- 
Bpigovar Tovs oikéras, ameiovot Tots 
mwoAdois. Suidas after others says 
Ko\aSpicbein*® xAevacGein, extiaxOein, 
dripacGein: Kodapos yap Kai kadaBpos, 
O puKpos xoipos* avTl Tov ovdEVvds Aoyou 
a&ios voy.cOein. And so _ Bochart 
Hieroz. ii. § 57, 1. p. 707, ‘ xodkaBpicew 
Hellenistis contemnere, quia porcello 
apud Judaeos nihil fuit contemptius’. 
But this derivation cannot be correct ; 
for (to say nothing else) the word was 
not confined to Hellenist Jews. The 
same Athenzeus, who furnishes the 
only other instance of the verb koAa- 
Bpi¢e, has also two substantives, xoAa- 
Bpos or KadaBpos (iv. p. 164 E, xv. p. 
697 C) ‘a licentious song’, and kada- 
Bpicpos (xiv. p. 629 D) ‘a certain 
Thracian dance’. The latter is de- 
fined by Pollux (iv. 100) ©pakcxdy 
opxnpa kal Kapixov. Here therefore 
the derivation must be sought. The 
jeering sallies and mocking gestures 
of these unrestrained songs and dan- 
ces would be expressed by xkoAafpi- 
Ce. The reading of A in the Lxx 
oKxodaBpicbeinoay, compared with oxo- 
pakifew, might seem to favour the 
other derivation, if there were suffi- 
cient evidence that xdAaB8pos ever 
meant xorpid.ov. 

ert Ovpais nooover| ‘at the doors 
of their tnferiors’. There is nothing 
corresponding to jyocover in the He- 


Bandvras] A; Baddovras C (with Lxx), and S also has 
evdéws] A (with Lxx BS); ed@vs C (with Lxx A). 
qroiuacrar] AC; éxelvor nroiuacay S: for the LxxX see below. 


4 €xelvots 
5 é&alperor] 


brew, where ‘at the gate’ means ‘in 
court, in judgment’. 

4. a@ yap ékeivors x.T.A.] In the LXX 
(BS) a yap éxeivoe ovvyyayov (eb€épicav 
A), dixacoe eSovrat x.7.A. For é£aiperou 
ecovra A has e£epeOnoovra (i.e. €&a- 
peOnoovra). The LXX in this verse 
diverges considerably from the He- 
brew. e¢&aiperou here has the some- 
what rare sense ‘ rescued, exempt, as 
e.g. Dion. Hal. A. R. vi. 50. 

XL. ‘This being plain, we must 
do all things decently and in order, as 
our Heavenly Master wills us. The 
appointed times, the fixed places, the 
proper ministers, must be respected 
in making our offerings. So only 
will they be acceptable to God. In 
the law of Moses the high-priest, the 
priests, the Levites, the laity, all have 
their distinct functions’. 

The offence of the Corinthians 
was contempt of ecclesiastical order. 
They had resisted and ejected their 
lawfully appointed presbyters ; and— 
as a necessary consequence—they 
held their agape and celebrated their 
eucharistic feast when and where 
they chose, dispensing with the in- 
tervention of these their proper offi- 
cers. There is no ground for sup- 
posing (with Rothe Anfange p. 404 
sq), that they had taken advantage 
of a vacancy in the episcopate by 
death to mutiny against the presby- 
ters. Of bishops, properly so called, 
no mention is made in this epistle (see 
the notes on §§ 42, 44); and, if the 


XL] TO THE CORINTHIANS. E21 


Ss ~ sf / \ 9 
XL. [lpodnAwy ovv juiy OvTwy ToVTwWY, Kal éy- 

/ > \ / ~ / / 7 
Kexugotes eis Ta Baby ts Celas yywoews, TavTa 
~ e/ ¢€ / ~ > / 
Tage Tovey dpeiNopev Ooa O deamoTHs EmLTENEL ExE- 
\ \ / Is y 
Nevoey KATA KapOUS TETAYMEVOUS' Tas TE TpOTopas 


efeperou A. 
a&dedgpol S. 
A. dca] AC; stcut (ws?) S. 


government of the Corinthian Church 
was in any sense episcopal at this 
time, the functions of the bishop were 
not yet so distinct from those of the 
presbyters, but that he could still be 
regarded as one of them, and that no 
special designation of his office was 
necessary or natural. On the late 
development of the episcopate in Co- 
rinth, compared with the Churches of 
Syria and Asia Minor, see the disser- 
tation in Philippians p. 213 sq, and 
Lgnat. and Polyc. \. p. 562 sq, ed. 1 
(p. 579, ed. 2). 

6. IIpodyA@v «.r.A.) This passage 
as far as xatpovs TeTaypévovs is quoted 
in Clem. Alex. Stvom. iv. 16 (p. 613). 

eyxexuores] ‘peered into, pored 
over’. See below §§ 45, 53, Polyc. 
Phil. 3, Clem. Hom. iii. y. In all 
these passages it is used of searching 
the Scriptures. Similarly wapaxir- 
fey james 1-25, 1 Pet. 1.12.’ The 
word exkxexudres in Clem. Alex. must 
be regarded as an error of transcrip- 
tion. 

7- ta Babn rns Oeias yreoews| The 
large and comprehensive spirit of 
Clement, as exhibited in the use 
of the Apostolic writers, has been 
already pointed out (notes on §§ 12, 
915/33, 49). ‘Here it is seen froma 
somewhat different point of view. 
While he draws his arguments from 
the law of Moses and his illustrations 
from the Old Testament, thus show- 
ing his sympathy with the Judaic side 
of Christianity, he at the same time 
uses freely those forms of expression 


6 hiv dvrwv] AC; dvtwy jyuiv Clem 613. 
éykexugores] AC; éxkexugdres Clem. 


rovtwy] AC; add. 
8 dgeiouev] ofiAouev 


which afterwards became the watch- 
words of the Gnostic sects and were 
doubtless frequently heard on the 
lips of their forerunners his contem- 
poraries. To this class belongs ra 
Ban tHs yvdoews (comp. I Cor. ii. 
10) : see S. John’s language in Rev. ii. 
24 oirwes ovK €yvwoav ta Badéa 
Tov Sarava, ws NE€yovo vy, Which is 
illustrated by Iren. Haer. ii. 22. 3 
‘profunda Dei adinvenisse se dicen- 
tes’, ii. 28. 9 ‘aliquis eorum qui alti- 
tudines Dei exquisisse se dicunt’, 
Hippol. Haer. v. 6 émexddeoay éavtovs 
yvwotikovs, packovtes ovo. Ta Baby 
ytv@oKetv; Compare the description 
in Tertullian adv. Valent. 1 ‘Si 
bona fide quaeras, concreto vultu, 
suspenso supercilio, A/tum est aiunt’, 
and see Galatzans p. 298. It is sig- 
nificant too that yvdaus is a favourite 
word with Clement: see $$ 1, 36, 41, 
and especially § 48 77 Svvarés yvoow 
e€eurey (with the note). Again in 
S 34 he repeats the favourite Gnostic 
text ‘Eye hath not seen etc.’, which 
they misapplied to support their prin- 
ciple of an esoteric doctrine. See 
the note there. 

9. tas Te mpooopas x.t.A.] Editors 
have failed to explain the reading of 
the MS satisfactorily. Two modes of 
punctuation are offered. The main 
stop is placed (1) after ékéXevcev, so 
that we read kara kaip. ter. tds Te 
mpood. k.7.A.; but in this case we get 
an unmeaning repetition, xara xarpovs 
TeTaypmevous and wpicpevots KalpoisK.T.A. 
belonging to the same sentence: or 


122 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[XL 


\ / > lan > an \ > cP a aN 
kat AELTOUVPYLas E7TLMEAWS é€miTeAcio Oat Kal OUK €LKNH 7; 


? / Sl / ? I ie / ~ \ 
aTaxTws éxehevoev yiverOal, AN wpioepevois Kalpots Kal 


c/ od \ \ / ’ = / ’ \ 
w@pais' TOU TE Kal dla Tivwy émiTEAEioOar Geel, avTOS 


e/ ma € 4 ’ a id Ss See / 
WOLOEV TH UTEPTATW AUTOU BovAncer’ LY OOLWS TAaAVTAaA 


ie > > / ] if of — / 
ylvoueva év evdoknoe evmpoovekTa ein TH OeAnmaTL 5 


QUTOU. 


I AeToupyias] NecTroupyerag A. 
for the insertion are given below. 
2 G@dd’] A; adda C. 
Tov. 


mavTa] mavrara A; mavra ta C. For S see below. 


e Ss ~ / = q 
Oi OVY TOLS TPOTTETAYMEVOLS KQaLOOLS 7 OLOUVTES 


émiued@s] conj.; om. ACS. The reasons 
émiTrehetoOat kal] AC; om. S: see below. 
3 wpas rod Te] AC. S translates as if it had read wpas ré 
4 vmeprary] A; breprarn C3; see the lower note, 2nd above, I. p. 127. 


5 ev eddoxjoa] AC: S 


translates the sentence, za wt, guum omnia pre fiant, velit ut acceptabilia sint volun- 
tati suae, thus apparently taking évevdoxjoe (one word) as a verb and reading 


(2) after emiredetaOa, in which case 
emitedeioGar must be governed by 
opetdounev. But, with this construc- 
tion (not to urge other obvious objec- 
tions) there is an awkwardness in 
using the middle émiredcioda in the 
same sense in which the active em- 
teketv has occurred just before; 
though the middle in itself might 
stand. (In James iv. 2, 3 however 
we have airety and aireioOa side by 
side.) I have therefore inserted ém- 
peA@s, Supposing that the omission 
was due to the similar beginnings of 
the two words (as e.g. atwvoy for awov 
awwvioy ii. § 9; see also the note on 
ii. § 10 evpety); comp. I (3) Esdr. viii. 
21 mavta Kata Tov Tov Geov vdpov 
emiTehecOnrw éemipedos TH C€@ 
TO vpiorm, Herm. Mand. xii. 3 rHv 
Siakoviav...reXer emisedhas. Thus the 
passage reads smoothly and _ intel- 
ligibly. An alternative would be to 
omit emitedcioOac (and this is done 
by the Syriac translator), as having 
been inserted from below (da rive 
emireAeioOar), and to take ras Te 
mpoogopas Kai Aeirovpyias in appo- 
sition with doa, but this does not 
seem so good for more than one 
reason. For the growth of the various 


readings in our authorities, see I. 
p- 143. I should have preferred ras 
S€ mpoodopas, as Tischendorf de- 
ciphers A, but (unless I misread it) 
it certainly has re, as also have CS. 
On the Christian sense of rpoodopat 
see the note on mpoceveyxovras ta 
ddpa § 44. 

2. Katpois kat apas| A pleonasm, 
as in Dionys. de Jsocr. 14 (p. 561) py 
ev kaip@ yiverOa pnd ev pa, Plut. 
Ages. 36 tod KaXov Katpov oikeiov 
eivat kai opay. The words differ only 
so far, that xarpds refers to the fizxess, 
epa to the apfointedness, of the time. 
Demosth. Olynth. ii. p. 24 pndéva 
Karpov pind @pav mapadetrwv shows 
that wpa does not refer to the ‘hour 
of the day’, as this use of the word 
was only introduced long after the 
age of Demosthenes. 

4. vumeptarw| I have not ventured 
to alter the reading to vmeprarn, since 
even in classical writers compara- 
tives and superlatives are sometimes 
of two terminations; e.g. Thucyd. iii. 
$9, LOI, v. 7I, 110. See Buttmann 
Griech. Sprachl. § 60 anm. 5. 

mavra ywopeva] I have struck out 
ta before yiwoweva aS a mere repe- 
tition of the last syllable of wavra 


XL| TO THE CORINTHIANS. 123 


eo. 2 / , \ / 
TAs mpoapopas AUTWV ev TpOTOEKTOL TE KL MaKkaplol, 


n~ ~~ / ~~ 
Tois yap vopiuors tov SeomoTtov axoNovGouvTes ov 


va \ cond yl / 

Stamaptavovow. Te yap apxlEeper drat erroupryiae 
a aay af 

Sedouévar eiciv, Kal Tots tepevo.w dios 6 Toros 


, \ A 10 } / Fe 
TOOGTETAKTAL, Kal A€viTals LOLaL LAKOVLIAL ETTLKELV—= 


ein] A; add. wavra C (thus repeating it a second time in the 
6 mpoorerayuévos] A; mpoorayetor C, 


elvac for ein. 
sentence) ; for S see the last note. 
g dpxepe?] AC; dpxepebow S. This is probably due to a misapprehension of 
the translator or of a scribe who supposed that the Christian bishops were meant. 
10 6 rémos] A; rézos (om. 6) C. S translates as if it had read dios rézos. 
Ir Neviras...émixewTar] AC (but emexwrac A); levitae in ministeriis propriis po- 


nuntur §. 
and as interfering with the sense. 


The omission of ra is confirmed by 
the Syriac. 


5. é€v evOoxnae| SC. ToU Geov. See 
the note on § 2. But possibly we 
should here for €YAOKHCEIEY- 


IIPOCAEKTA read EYAOKHCEIOCY- 
TIPOCAEKTA ; asin Epiphan. Haer. 
Ixx. 10 (p. 822) evdoxnoer Geov. 

9. TO yap apxiepet «.t.r.] This is 
evidently an instance from the old 
dispensation adduced to show that 
God will have His ministrations per- 
formed through definite fersozs, just 
as below (§ 41) ov mavtaxod x.r.A. 
Clement draws an illustration from 
the same source that He will have 
them performed in the proper Zlaces. 
There is therefore no dzrect¢ reference 
to the Christian ministry in dpytepevs, 
iepets, Aevira, but it is an argument 
by analogy. Does the analogy then 
extend to the ¢#ree orders? The an- 
swer to this seems to be that, though 
the episcopate appears to have been 
widely established in Asia Minor at 
this time (see Philippzanus p. 209 sq 
with the references given above, p. 
121), this epistle throughout only 
recognizes two orders, presbyters 
and deacons, as existing at Corinth 
(see esp. the notes on émokdrer § 42, 
and on eay xownOdow, diadeEovrar 
«.7.A. § 44). It has been held indeed 


by some (e.g. Lipsius p. 25) that, this 
being so, the analogy notwithstand- 
ing extends to the number three, 
Christ being represented by the high- 
priest (see the note § 36), the presby- 
ters by the priests, and the deacons 
by the Levites. But to this it is a 
sufficient answer that the High- 
priesthood of Christ is wholly differ- 
ent in kind and exempt from those 
very limitations on which the passage 
dwells. And again why should the 
analogy be so pressed? It would be 
considered ingenious trifling to seek 
out the Christian equivalents to évde- 
Aexirpod 7) evydv 7} mept awaptias Kal 
7Anppedreias below (§ 41), or to érapxor, 
xAlapxot, Exardvrapxol, TEevTNKOVTApXOL, 
«.t.A. above (§ 37); nor is there any 
reason why a closer correspondence 
should be exacted from this passage 
than from the others. Later writers 
indeed did dwell on the analogy of 
the threefold ministry ; but we cannot 
argue back from them to Clement, in 
whose epistle the very element of 
threefoldness, which gives force to 
such a comparison, is wanting. 

10. tdsos 6 Toros x.t.d.] ‘ The office 
assigned to the priests ts special’. 
On this sense of romos comp. below 
§$ 44 rot iSpupévov avtois tomrov, and 
see the notes on Ign. Polyc. 1 éxdixet 
jou Tov TOTOY. 


124 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[XLI 


€ oe \ af qn oe ~ / 
Tau’ oO Aatkos avOpwros Tols Aalkols TOT TAayMacLV 


O€OETAL. 


XU. 


2 dédera] A; dédorac CS. 


I. Aaixds] Comp. Clem. Hom. E- 
pist. Cl. § 5 odrws éxaor@ atx apap- 
ria €oTw x.7.A., Clem. Alex. Sztvom. 
ili. 12 (p. 552) xiv mpeoBvrepos 7 Kay 
Sudkovos kav daikds, 26. v. 6 (p. 665) 
k@Avpa daikns amortias. In Tertul- 
lian ‘laicus’ is not uncommon, e.g. 
de Praescr. 41 ‘nam et laicis sa- 
cerdotalia munera injungunt’. In 
the LXX Aaos is used not only in 
contradistinction to ‘the Gentiles’ 
(see the note on § 29 above), but 
also as opposed to (1) ‘The rulers’, 
eee bron xkiv. 10, xxx. 24,).(2) 
ailine< priests’, e.g: Exod. xix. 24, 
Nenhiivil. 73 (vill...1), Is. xxiv. 25 
comp. Jer. xxxlv (xli). 19 rous adpyovras 
*Iovda Kai Tovs Suvdatas Kal Tovs tepeis 
kal Tov Aaov. From this last contrast 
comes the use of Aaikds here. The 
adjective however is not found in the 
LXX, though in the other Greek ver- 
sions we meet with Aaikds ‘laic’ or 
‘profane’ and Aaixovy ‘to profane’, 
Deutvxx 6, xxvill.. 30, Ruth ;1.\12, 
1 Sam. xxi. 4, Ezek. vii. 22, xlviii. 15. 

XLI. ‘Let each man therefore 
take his proper place in the thanks- 
giving of the Church. Then again, 
in the law of Moses the several sacri- 
fices are not offered anywhere, but 
only in the temple at Jerusalem and 
after careful scrutiny. If then trans- 
gression was visited on the Israelites 
of old with death, how much greater 
shall be our punishment, seeing that 
our knowledge also is greater’. 

4. evxaptoreit@| The allusion here 
is plainly to the public services of the 
Church, where order had been violat- 
ed. Thus evyapioria will refer chiefly, 


3 tuwv] A; juav CS. 
A; evbapeoreirw CS. See the lower note. 


J ¢ - 9 / b) Coney WANA / 
Exaoros vuwv, addedpoi, ev TH iWlw Tay- 


4 evxapioTrelrw] 
cuverdjnoer] cuverdnow A. 5 Mn 


though not solely, to the principal act 
of Christian thanksgiving, the celebra- 
tion of the Lord’s Supper, which at a 
later date was almost exclusively term- 
ed evyapicria. The usage of Clement 
is probably midway between that of 
S. Paul where no such appropriation 
of the term appears (e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 
16, 2: Cor. ix. 11,12; Phil: iyo) ie 
il. I, etc.), and that of the Ignatian 
Epistles (Phzlad. 4, Smyrn. 7) and of 
Justin (AZol. i. § 66, p. 97 sq, Daal. 
41, p. 260) where it is especially so 
applied. For the id.oy rdypa of the 
people at the eucharistic feast see 
Justin Afol. i. § 65 (p. 97 D) of (ie. 
TOU TMpoeaTaTos TaY adeAparv) cuvTEdE- 
gavtos Tas evyas Kal THY evyaploTiay 
mas o Aaos emevhnpet Aéyov *Apny... 
evxaptotncavtos O€ TOU mpoeaT@Tos Kal 
emeupnunoavros mavtos Tov Aaov x.7.A., 
and again zd. § 67 (p. 98 E). See 
Harnack Der Christliche Gottesdienst 
etc. (Erlangen, 1854). 

Though the reading evapeoreira 
is simpler, evyapioreitw is doubtless 
correct; comp. § 38 with Rom. xiv. 
6,11 Cor. ‘xiv. 17.) For anotites 
instance of confusion between evapec- 
rev and evxapiorety in our authorities, 
see § 62. 

ev aya$n ovveidnoe.| Acts xxiii. 
15:1) Tim. 1.:5,/ 19, ty Bet. mis aG ee 
comp. xaA7n ovveidnois, Heb. xiii. 18. 
For an explanation of the reading 
ovveldnow in A see above § 15. 

6. «xavova] Compare the metaphor 
2 Cor. x. 13, 14, kata TO pérpov rod 
kavovos and vzepexteivowev: see also 
the note on § 7. 

mpoogpépovtat| The present tense 


XLI] 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


i253 


> / et LD > ~ / € , 
pate evyapioteitw Oew év aya ovvednoe vrapxwr, 
\ / \ e / ~ ~ 
5 Mn TapeKBaivwy Tov woiouEevoy THS NELTOUPYias avTOU 
/ / lan 
Kavova, év ceuvoTntt. Ou ravraxov, adeXol, tooaPe- 


/ > Foe > ~ 5) € 
povTat Ouoia €VOEAEX LT LOU nN EVX WY i Tepl duapTias Kal 


mapexBalywy] AC (but mapacxBawwwy A); et perficiens S. 
6 mpoopépovra] AC; om. S. 


yiac A. 


has been thought to imply that the 
sacrifices were still offered and the 
temple yet standing, and therefore to 
fix the date of the epistle before the 
destruction of Jerusalem, i.e. about 
the close of Nero’s reign. To this 
very early date however there are 
insuperable objections (see the intro- 
duction, I. p. 346 sq, and notes on §§ 1, 
5,44, 47). Clement therefore must use 
mpoogepovra: as implying rather the 
permanence of the record and of the 
lesson contained therein than ¢he con- 
tinuance of the institution and prac- 
tice itself. Indeed it will be seen 
that his argument gains considerably, 
if we suppose the practice discon- 
tinued; because then and then only 
is the sanction transferred from the 
Jewish sacrifices to the Christian 
ministrations, as the true fulfilment 
of the Divine command. If any one 
doubts whether such usage is natural, 
let him read the account of the Mosaic 
sacrifices in Josephus Avy. ili. cc. 9, 
Io (where the parallels to Clement’s 
present tense mpoodépovra: are far too 
numerous to be counted), remember- 
ing that the Avtiguzties were pub- 
lished A.D. 93, i.e. within two or three 
years of our epistle. Comp. Barnab. 
7 sq, Epist. ad Diogn. 3, where also 
the present is used. This mode of 
speaking is also very common in the 
Talmud; comp. Friedmann and 
Graetz Die angebliche Fortdauer des 
jiidischen Opfercultus etc. in the 
Theolog. F ahrb. XVII. p. 338sq (1848), 
and the references in Derenbourg 
L’ Hist. et la Géogr. de la Palestine 


Necroupylas] AcToup- 
7 evxwv] A; mpocevxav C. 


p.- 480sq. Seealso Grimm in Zézésch. 

J. Wiss. Theol, X11. p. 28 sq (1870) 
with reference to the bearing of this 
phenomenon on the date of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews. Comp. 
Apost. Const. il. 25 amo tev bvowy 
kal amo maons mAnppedeias Kal Tept 
duaptiav, where parts of the context 
seem to be suggested by this passage 
of Clement, though the analogies in 
the O: T. are interpreted after the 
fashion of a later age. 

7 evdedextopod] ‘of continuity, 
perpetuzty’, the expression used in 
the LXxX for the ordinary daily sacri- 
fices, as a rendering of 7°9N (e.g. 
Exod. xxix. 42, Neh. x. 33); and thus 
opposed to the special offerings, of 
which the two types are the freewill 
offerings (evy@v) and expiatory offer- 
ings (wept ayaptias 7 mAnppedeias). 
Of the last two words ayapria denotes 
the sin-offering (AXON) and wAnppe- 
Aeva the trespass-offering (AWN). A 
similar threefold division of sacrifices 
is given by Philo de Vict. 4 (Il. p. 240) 
TO OAOKAUTOY, TO TOTNPLOY, TO TrEpl auap- 
tias, and by Josephus Azz. ili. 9. Isq 
7 OXoKa’T@oLs, 4 XaptoTnpLos Ovaia, 
7 UmTép duaptdadwy (passages referred to 
in Jacobson’s notes); see also Ewald 
Alterth. des Volkes Isr. p. 52 sq. 
Here the 6vaia évdeXexiopov stands 
for the cdoxavtépara generally, as 
being the most prominent type; and 
in the same way the Oucia evx@yv, as 
a part for the whole, represents the 
peace-offerings (cwrjpia in the LXX 
and Philo) which comprised two spe- 
cies (Lev. vii. 11—17), the vow or 


126 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xur 


mAnupereias, aN’ 7 €v ‘lepoveadnu porn? KeKet S€ ovK 
év TavTl ToTw mpormepeTat, AN Eurrpoocbev Tov vaov | 
moos TO Ovo.actnpiov, pwuorKkornbey TO mpoapepo- 
pevov Sia TOU dpxLEepews Kal THY TPOELONUEVWY NeLTOVp- 


van 3S \ \ ~ lon / a ~ 
yov. ol ovy mapa to Ka0jKkov THs BovAncEews avToU 5 


a / / \ / of 
TOLOVVTES TL Oavatov TO T POG TLUOV EXOUCLD. 


I mwAnumeXNclas] tAnMpENLac A; mAnMMEAnUdTwY C. S has a singular. 
AS; om. C (as a pleonasm after dA)’ #). 
4 Ttav] AC; ceterorum S. 


sacrificia S. 
5 BovAjnoews] A; BovrAtjs C; dub. S. 


free-will offering (which Clement has 
selected) and the thanksgiving-offer- 
ing (which Josephus takes as the 
type). On the other hand, when 
speaking of expiatory offerings, Cle- 
ment gives both types. 

evyov| The v. 1. mpocevyay has 
parallels in James v. 15, 16, Ign. 
Ephes. 10, Rom. 9. It is explained 
by the tendency to substitute a 
common word for a less common. 
Here evx@v is unquestionably right ; 
for more especially in the later lan- 
guage, while mpocevyn is ‘a prayer’ 
in the more comprehensive sense, 
evxn is ‘a vow’ specially. In the 
LXX mpooevy7 is commonly a render- 
ing of mbpn, but evxy Of I) or 1. 
For evyyn ‘a vow’ see Acts xviii. 18, 
xxi. 23. In the only other passage 
in the N.T. in which it occurs, James 
v. 15, the idea of a vow may possibly 
be present, though it is certainly not 
prominent, and in the context (ver. 14, 
and prob. ver. 16) mpocevxecOat is 
used of the same act. But, though 
evx7 might undoubtedly be said of a 
‘prayer, supplication’, it is not so evi- 
dent conversely that mpooevyn could 
be used of a vow specifically. In 
Numb. vi. 4 sq, where a vow is 
distinctly meant, the word occurs 
many times in the same context and 
the form is evyf#s throughout, though 
an ill-supported reading mpocevyijs 


‘Opate, 


povy| 
2 wpoogpéperat] AC; offeruntur 

Aecroupyav] AcToupywy A. 
7 dow] AC; add. yap S. KaTN- 
occurs in one instance. In Ps. Ixi 
(lx). 6, where the word is 193, the LXx 
(with Symmachus) have mpocevyoy, 
but Aquila more correctly evyév, thus 
preserving the fundamental meaning 
of the Hebrew word, though the con- 
noted idea of ‘ prayer’ is so prominent 
in the context as to explain the LXx 
rendering. 

2. eumpoobev x.t.A.] The vads is 
here the shrine, the holy-place ; the 
O@votacrn prov, the court of the altar: 
see the note on Ign. Ephes. 5. The 
iepov comprises both. This distinc- 
tion of vads and iepoy is carefully 
observed in the N.T.: see Trench 
N.T. Synon. ist ser. § iii. 

3. popookornber] ‘after inspection’, 
with a view to detecting blemishes. 
A flaw or blemish, which vitiates a 
person or thing for holy purposes, is 
in the LXX pépos. Doubtless the 
choice of this rendering was partly 
determined by its similarity in sound 
to the Hebrew 011, for otherwise it 
is not a very obvious or natural equi- 
valent. [A parallel instance is the 
word oxnyy, chosen for the same rea- 
sons, as a rendering of Shechinah, 
and carrying with it all the signifi- 
cance of the latter.] Hence duepos 
inthe LXx signifies ‘without blemish’, 
being applied to victims and the like, 
and diverges from its classical mean- 
ing. Hence also are derived the words 


XLIT] 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


127 


/ e/ / / s / 
adeAol, dow mAEtovos KaTHEWEnUEV yywWTEWS, TOTOUTH 


~ e f: / 
smaAAov UroKeiueOa Kivduve. 


XLII. Of drooroXor jpyiv einyyericOnoav aro TOU 


Kupiov *Incov. Xpiorov, *Incovs 0 Xpioros aro Tov 
P p p 


Ocov éEereupOn. 


€ \ > > \ > > \ e 
6 Xpiotos ovy ao Tov OQeov, Kai ol 


EwOnuwev] xarakiwhnuev A, as Tisch. (preef. p. xix) reads it, but I could not see dis- 


tinctly. 
(om. 6) C. 


popookoTos, popookKorrety, Which seem 
to be confined to Jewish and Christian 
writers: Philo de Agric. 29 (I. p. 320) 
ovs EvloL pOLOTKOTOVS Gvoyatovaty, iva 
duopa kal down mpocaynra TO Boye 
Ta tepeia xt... Polyc. Phil. 4 mavra 
popookoretra, Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 
18 (p. 617) joav dé kav tals TOY OvoLdy 
Tpocaywyais Tapa TH vou@ oi iepeiwov 
popooxora, Afost. Const. il. 3 ye- 
yparrat yap, M@pockoreiabe Toy pér- 
Aovta eis iepwavynyv mpoxerpicerOa (a 
paraphrase of Lev. xxi. 17). 

4. dpxtepéws| Wotton suggests 
tepéws, ‘quum sacerdotum inferioris 
ordinis potius quam summi sacerdotis 
Sit tas Oucias popookoreiv’?; but dia 
ToU apxtepéws x.t-A. belongs rather to 
mpoopéperat than to popooKornber, as 
the order seems to show. The three 
conditions are (1) that it must be 
offered at the proper place, (2) that 
it must be examined and found with- 
out blemish, (3) that it must be 
sacrificed by the proper persons, the 
high priests or other priests. The 
dud Tov dpxtepéws k.T.A. is Comprehen- 
Sive, so as to include all sacrifices. 

5. To KkaOnKov k.7.A.| ‘ the seemly or- 
dinance of His wll.’ For the geni- 
tive comp. Plut. Aor. p. 617 E éx ray 
‘Ounpov To Oewpnua tovto AapBaver 
Ka@nkovTov. 

6. TO mpootipoyv| 2 Macc. vii. 36. 
°Emitipiov *Attikos, mpootuyov “EXAn- 
vik@s Moeris S. v. emiripiov. This is one 


g etnyyeNicOncav] AC; evangelizaverunt (active) S. Hilgenfeld 
wrongly gives the reading of C evayyeNicOncar. 
11 éeréugpOn...d7d Tod Geot] AS; om. C (by homceoteleuton). 


Io 6 Xpioris] A; xpioros 


among many instances of the excep- 
tional character of the Attic dialect, 
for mpoorimov occurs as early as 
Hippocrates ; see for other examples 
Galatians vi. 6 and p. 92 (p. 89, ed. 1), 
Philippians i. 28, ii. 14. In the 
inscriptions it is a very common 
word for a fine. 

‘Opare x.t.A.] This sentence is 
quoted by Clem. Alex. Stvom. iv. 16 
(p. 613). 

7. yvdcews| See the note on ra 
Ba@n ths Oeias yudcews § 40. 

XLII. ‘The Apostles were sent 
by Christ, as Christ was sent by the 
Father. Having this commission 
they preached the kingdom of Godand 
appointed presbyters and deacons in 
every place. This was no new insti- 
tution, but had been foretold ages 
ago by the prophet.’ 

Q. evnyyedicOnoay| ‘were taught 
the Gospel’, as Matt. xi. 5 (Luke vii. 
22), Heb. iv. 2,6; for the first aorist 
apparently is always passive, being 
used with a nominative either of the 
person instructed or the lesson con- 
veyed; and nyiv will be ‘for our 
sakes’. Itmight bea question however 
whether we should not read nudy, as 
in the opening of § 44. 

Il. e&eméupOn| This is attached by 
the editors generally to the following 
sentence. Yet I can hardly doubt 
that it belongs to the preceding 
words; for (1) The position of ody 


128 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XLII 


admoaToko amo tov Xpixtou" éyévovTo ovv auporepa 
evTakTws €x CeAnuatos Ocod. mapayyedias ovv NaBov- 
TES Kal mAnpopopybevtes cia THs avactacews Tov Kv- 
piov nuwv 'Incov Xpiotou Kal wlotwbevtes év TW oye 
Tov Oceov peta TAnpoHopias mvevpmartos aryiov éErOov, 
evayyeACouevo THY PBacielav Tov Oeov wéedrew Ep- 
yeoOu. KaTa Ywpas ovv Kai TodELS KNPVoTOVTES Kab- 


/ \ > \ : lon / a“ , 
lOTAVOVY Tas aATTAPV AS QAUTWY, OOK MAT AYTES TW TT VEU- 


3 > / \ / lan / 
atl, €ls émieKOTOUS Kal OlakOvous TwY MeANOVTWY 


2 NaBévres] AC; add. of amécro\u S. 


4 tov] A; om. C; dub. S 


(1 being the common rendering of 6 Kvpios as well as of 6 Kupios quar). 


seems to require this; (2) The awk- 
ward expression that ‘Christ was 
taught the Gospel by the Father’ 
thus disappears; (3) We get in its 
place a forcible epigrammatic paral- 
lelism 6 Xpiotos ovv x.7.A. For the 
omission of the verb to gain terse- 
ness, and for the form of the sentence 
generally, see Rom. x. 17 dpa 9 
mioris €& axons, 7 S€ axon dia pnyaros 
Xpworov, 1 Cor. ill. 23 vets be Xprorod, 
Xpuoros b€ Geov; comp. also Rom. v. 
Beene Cor 19a) a 3; (Gal. ai, .9..) My 
punctuation has been accepted by 
Gebhardt and Harnack and by 
Hilgenfeld (ed. 2), and is now con- 
firmed by the Syriac version. For 
the thought see Joh. xvii. 18 kaos 
€ue améoreiias eis TOY KOTMOY, Kayo 
ameorei\a avrovs eis TOV KOT MOV, XX. 21 
kaOos améoradkév pe 0 Tatnp, Kayo 
méumro vas. See also the notes on 
Ign. Ephes. 6; and comp. Tertull. de 
Praescr. 37 ‘in ea regula incedimus, 
quam ecclesia ab apostolis, apostoli 
a Christo, Christus a Deo tradidit’ 
(quoted by Harnack). 

2. mapayyedias| ‘word of com- 
mand’, received as from a superior 
officer that it may be passed on to 
others ; as e.g. Xen. Cyz. il. 4. 2, Iv. 
au278 


4. miotwOevtes| 2 Tim. lil. 14 péve 
év ois euabes kal émiotwOns. 

5- pera mAnpogopias x.r-A.| ‘with 
jirm conviction inspired by the 
Holy Ghost’: comp. 1 Thess. i. 5 év 
mvevpate ayi@ «Kat [ev] mAnpodopia 
ToAA7. 

7. ka0ioravov] The same word is 
used in Tit. i. 5 xaraoryons kara modu 
mpeoButepovs. Both forms of the im- 
perfect xa@iocravoy (from icravw) and 
kadiorev (from ioraw) are admissible, 
at least in the later language; see 
Veitch Greek Verbs p. 299. But I 
cannot find any place for either of 
the readings of our MSS, kaGeoravoy 
and ka@uorav. 

xepas] ‘country districts’, as op- 
posed to towns ; comp. Luke xxi. 21, 
Joh; iv. 35, Acts vit 1, James vin 
Hence the ancient title ywpemicxoros ; 
see Philippians p. 230. 

8. ras dmapxas avtav] ‘the first- 
SJruits of their preaching’ ; or perhaps 
avtey refers not to the Apostles but 
to the y@pa kai wodes, and is like the 
genitives in Rom. xvi. 5 6s éorw 
amapx) ths “Agias, I Cor. xvi. 15 ore 
€otl amrapxn tis "Axatias, which pas- 
sages Clement may have had in his 
mind. 


Soxiwacavres] 1 Tim. iii. 10 Soxe- 


on 


/ 
10 TLOTEVEL). 


a5 


> 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


XL] 129 


Kal TOUTO OU KalVws, Ex yop On Tow 
xpovwy éyéyparto mepl émioKOTWY Kal ClaKkovwy* 
OUTS yap TOU Never 1 ypagn* KatacTHc@ ToyYc émI- 
CKOTIOYC AYT@N EN AIKAIOCYNH KAl TOYC AIAKONOYC AYTA@N 
EN TICTEl. 


XLII. 


M4 \ ~ / ~ , 
moTevlevTes mapa OQeov epyov To.wvTe KaTeETTHOAY 


\ VA \ ? e > ~ 
Kat ti @avyuactov ae ot & Xpirro 


\ / 
TOUS 7 POELONMEVOUS ; 


» 


TON EN OAD TH OIK® 


7 Kabicravoy] kabectavoyv A; kadiorav C. 
sancto (or rather sazctos, for the word has 726272) S. 


e/ \ , \ ' 
O7oV Kal O MaKapLlos TICcTOC bEps- 


oe ~~ % / an 
Mwvons Ta dvaTeTaypeva avTo 


8 ro mvevpart] AC; spiritu 
10 Kawws|] AC; kevas S. 


12 ottws] AC, but Bryennios tacitly writes oJrw; see the note on § 56. 


patécOwoav mparor, eira Siakoveir@oay : 
see below § 44 SdiadeEwrtar erepor 
Sedoxiysacpévor avdpes. 

To mvevpari] ‘by the Spirit’, which 
is the great searcher, 1 Cor. 11. Io. 

9. eémiokdmous| i.e. mpeaBurepous ; 
for Clement thrice mentions ezioxozrot 
kat Sudkovor in conjunction (as in Phil. 
ji. I ody émickorots kal Siakdvors), and 
it is impossible that he could have 
omitted the presbyters, more especi- 
ally as his one object is to defend 
their authority which had been as- 
sailed (S$ 44, 47, 54). The words 
€miakorros and mpeoBurepos therefore 
are synonymes in Clement, as they 
are in the Apostolic writers. In Igna- 
tius they first appear as distinct titles. 
See Philippians p. 93 Sq, Pp. I9I sq. 

12. Katraornow|Loosely quoted from 
LXX Is. lx. 17 d@0@ Tovs Gpyovras cov 
€v eipyvy Kal Tovs émlioKOTOUsS Gov eV 
Sixatoovvy. Thus the introduction of 
the didkovos is due to misquotation. 
Irenzeus also (Haer. iv. 26. 5) applies 
the passage to the Christian ministry, 
but quotes the Lxx correctly. The 
force of the original is rightly given 
in the A. V., ‘I will also make thy 
officers [magistrates] peace and thine 
exactors [task-masters] righteous- 


CLEM. II. 


ness’; i.e. ‘there shall be no tyranny 
or oppression’. For émicxomos, ‘a 
task-master’, see Phz/ippians p. 93. 

XLIII. ‘And no marvel, if the 
Apostles of Christ thus ordained mi- 
nisters, seeing that there was the 
precedent of Moses. When the au- 
thority of the priests was assailed, he 
took the rods of the twelve tribes 
and placed them within the taber- 
nacle, saying that God had chosen 
the tribe whose rod should bud. On 
the morrow when the doors were 
opened, Aaron’s rod alone had bud- 
ded, and the office of the priesthood 
was vindicated.’ 

16. murrevOévres| ‘entrusted with’. 
The construction moreveoOai re is 
common in S. Paul: Rom. iii. 2, 
B Cory i':17;Gal.it. 7; ¥9thess, 1 
E Pina ry Tit. iF 

17. motos Oeparev x.t.r.] From 
Heb. ill. 5 Motojs pev moris év dro 
T@ olk@ avTov os Oeparwv, where there 
is a reference to Num. xii. 7 ovy 
ovTws 0 Oepdrav pov Maions év do 
T@ OlK@ pov TLoTOs eoTw. On Oeparav 
see above § 4. For the combination 
of epithets here comp. Justin Dza/. 56 
(p. 274) Motions odv 6 paxdptos Kal 
motos Oepamrwv Geod k.T.A. 


9 


130 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XLII 


( éonuewoato év Tats iepais BiBAos, wo Kal 
TavTa nye Ss  LEp ye | 
/ \ n qn 
émnkoAovOnoay ot NoiTrot TpOPHTal TUVETTLLAPTUPOUYTES 
nn ~ / ~ / / 
Tols Um avTou vevomoleTnpEevols.  €KELVOS yap, (nou 
> \ ~ / Pant ~ 
EUTETOVTOS TEDL THS LEepwovVYs Kal TTAaTLAaCoVTwWY THY 
~ , a sf PES / Wha! / = 
gurAwv oroia aitav ein TO EvdoEw dvomati KEKOopNME- 5 
Ce id \ / ? ~ 
vn, €kéAEvoEev Tous OwoEKAa puAapyous mpoceveyKelv 
ITw palo : : EKaT vAnS Kav 
avTw pafdous Eemuyeypaupevas ExaorTns dvdr 
/ \ \ > a of \ > y a 
ovouas Kat AaBwy avTas EdncEv Kal éExdpayioev Tots 
/ a 7 \ 9 nf ’ \ > \ 
dakTvAlos Twv pvrapxwv, Kal dmwéBeTO a’Tas Eis THY 
\ ~ / \ \ / ~ rl 
oKnYNV TOU MapTUpLoU él THY TpawECav Tov OeéeouU: 19 
\ ¥ \ \ 9 / \ a rd / 
Kal KAEloas THY oKHYNnY EcppayioEV Tas KAElOas Woau- 
\ \ / \ LO 5) a ov] ? ' 
Tws Kat Tas Oupas* Kal eirev avTois’ “AnApec ddedol, 


Hc AN yAfic H pdBAoc BAacTHCH, TAaYTHN €KAEAEKTAI 6 


\ > \ c , \ tal > a 
Deoc cic To IEPATEYEIN KAI AEITOYPFEIN AYTO. 


I éonmewmoaro] eonutwoaro A. 


5 gviwv] AC; add. racay [rod] Icpayd S. 


8 avras] AS; adros C. 
éoppdyiev. 
See I. p. 140. 


I. eonuevooato|] ‘recorded as a 
sign’: comp. § II els kpiua kat eis 
Onpelwow Tacals Tals yeveais yivovrat. 
So in the narrative to which Clement 
here refers, Num. xvii. 10 does ryv 
paBdov ’Aapaov...cnpeiov trois viois Tay 
avnkooy. 

iepais| On this epithet see below, 
§ 53. 

2. oi Aowrot mpopyra] Moses ap- 
pears as the leader of the prophetic 
band, who prophesied of the Messiah, 
in Deut. xviii. 15, as emphasized in 
Acts iii. 21 sq, vii. 13. 

3. éxeivos yap x.t.A.] The lesson 
of this narrative is drawn out also by 
Joseph. Azz. iv. 4. 2, and by Philo 
Vit. Moys. iii. 21 (Ul. p. 162). 

5. ovopart] i.e. ‘dignity, office’, sc. 
Tis tepwaovuns ; aS § 44 emi rod dvoparos 
ms emurkonjs. On this sense of dvoua 


Towtas 


2 érnkodovOncav] A; AKod\ovOnoav C, 
Kekoounuéevn| Kekoounuevw A. 


Tots] A; é Tois C, a repetition of the last syllable of 
II KAeloas] kXuoac A. 
15 Tov] A; om. C. 


12 Ovpas] S; paBdous AC, 
16 émedelEato] ...delEaTo A; 


see above § 36. 

7. €kaotns pvdjs| For the geni- 
tive of the thing inscribed after ém- 
ypapew comp. Plut. Mor. 400 E rov 
€vravOa rovrovi Onoaupoy emtypawa THs 
moAews. Here however dvds might 
be governed by kar’ dvoua. 

8. ednoev x.t.d.] This incident, 
with the following éogpdyev rds 
kXetdas woatras, is not given in the 
biblical narrative (Num. xvii). It 
seems however to be intended by 
Josephus (1.c.) rév tore (re?) avdpav 
KaTaonunvapevov avras, olmep exourCov, 
kal Tov m7Oous, though his language 
is obscure. Comp. Xen. We//, iii. 1. 
27 katéxhewoev avta Kal KaTeonunvaro 
kat dvdakas Katréatyoev. 

II. waavtas kai] So also poles 
kai Ign. Ephes. 16, 19, Tradl. 13. 

18. mpoethev] ‘Zook out’. For this 


XLIv] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


131 


\ / / , \ > 7 \ 
150€ yevouerns cuvexadecey mravta Tov ‘Iopanr, Tas 


\ af 
20 KQO7rOV Exyouod. 


, lon “ \ / ~ 
éEaxooias yiiuadas Twyv avopwv, Kal éredeiEaTo Tois 
/ \ TO \ J \ \ ~ 
QuAapyxots Tas opeayt aS Kal nvoreev THY OKHVyV TOU 
, \ ~ \ Sf } : ( ef e 
fapTuplov Kal mpoeiAev Tas paBdous: Kai evpeOn 7 
, / ~ \ 
paBdos ’Aapwy ov povov BeBAacTnKvia dANaA Kal 
/ ~ > , 9 
Ti OoKEiTE, adyamnTOL; ov ponder 
é 
oe a ~ , s/ / a/ 
Mwions tovto pedrAew evecbar; pardiota joery arAN 
e/ \ - / a € 
iva pn akatactacia yevnta ev Tw ‘loparjrA, ovTws 
> / > \ “ \ 7 ~ ’ ~ \ 
ETOINTEV ELS TO dogacbrjva TO OVoMa TOU aAnOwov Kat 
/ wn ~e e / > \ 3 es ~ be 4 
povov Qeov: w 7 do€a ELS TOUS alwvas TwWY alwywY. 
/ 
apn. 
\ > / € ca / \ a 
XLIV. Kal ot a@rootoXo jnuwv éyvwoav dia Tov 
y _ oo _ / oy af a 
Kupiouv nuwv “Incov Xpiotov, btu Epis ExTar emi Tov 
17 Tas cppayidas] AC; om. S. 18 mpoethev] mpoe.... AS 
mpoethe C; sustulit S. 23 eis TO] A; 


wore C and so apparently S. The variation is to be explained by the uncial letters, 
EICTO, WCTE. 24 Qeot] S; def. A; Kupiou C. S translates as if it had 


eréderée C, 
20 Soxetre] doxecra A. 


read Tod udvouv adyOwod Oeod. 


sense of the active mpoarpety see Judith 
Xlii. 15 mpoeAovoa thy Kepadny ek THs 
mnpas. Though it occurs compara- 
tively seldom, it is a strictly classical 
use, ¢ penu promere; see the com- 
mentators on Thucyd. vill. 90. The 
much commoner form is the middle 
voice with a different sense, wpoaipeto- 
6a pracferre, eligere. 

20. ov mpondet x.7-A.] This passage 
is loosely quoted or rather abridged 
and paraphrased by one Joannes. 
The quotation is given in Sfzc7/. 
Solesm, 1. p. 293 (see above, I. p. 187). 

23. Tov adnOuov x.t.A.] Comp. Joh. 
XVil. 3. 

XLIV. ‘So likewise the Apostles 
foresaw these feuds. They therefore 
provided for a succession of tried 
persons, who should fulfil the office 
of the ministry. Thus it is no light 


27 Kupiov] ky CS; yy A. 
éstat] AC; but S seems to have read éoruv. 


Epis] epero A. 
éml] A; mepi C, and so app. S. 


sin of which you are guilty in ejecting 
men so appointed, when they have 
discharged their duties faithfully. 
Happy those presbyters who have 
departed hence, and are in no fear of 
removal from their proper office.’ 

26. nyov] Comp. 2 Pet. ili. 2 ris 
TOY aTooTO\@y vpeav evToAns, Where 
vpov (not nuey) is the correct reading, 
as quoted by Hilgenfeld; so that it is 
an exact parallel to Clement’s expres- 
sion. See the note on rovs ayadovs 
amooroNous § 5. 

27. €pts e€orat x.t-rA.] See Tert. de 
Bapt. 17 ‘ episcopatus aemulatio scis- 
matum mater est’, quoted by Har- 
nack. 

Tov odvopatos k.T.A.] On dvoua see 
above §§ 36, 43. The émioxom here 
is of course the ‘ office of presbyter’, 
as in I Tim, ili. 1. 


9—2 


132 


J ~ 
OVOMATOS THS ETLTKOTNHS. 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[XLIV 


A , Ss \ nN hee 0 
Ata tTavrTnv ovv tHv aiTtiav 


, 5] / , / \ 
Tpoyvorw etAnpores TENELAVY KATETTHOAV TOUS TPOEL- 


1 otv] AC; om. S. 


3 meragd] mweroév A. 


émipovav | erwounr] A; 


érdounv C. S translates e¢ 2x medio (interim) super probatione (émt Soxiuhv or émt 


Soxiuy) dederunt etiam hoc ita ut st homines ex iis ete. 


2. Tovs mpoetpnuevous] SC. émioKd- 
mous Kat Stakovous, § 42. 

3. pera&d| ‘afterwards’; comp. 
Acts xili. 42 eis TO pera&d caBBaror, 
Barnab. § 13 eidev d¢ “IaxaB rimov TO 
mvevpartt TOU Aaov Tov perak&V, Theoph. 
we aiol. i. 8, Wi. 21,'23. See also 
the references in Meyer’s note to 
Acts l.c. 

eryornvy Sedexacw] ‘have given 
permanence to the office’: comp. 
Athenag. de Resurr. 18 deira Se dra- 
Soxis Sua THY Tov yévous Staporny. 
For émyovn (which occurs occasion- 
ally also in classical writers of this 
age) see Epist. Gall. § 6 in Euseb. 
v. 1, Tatian ad Graec. 32. This read- 
ing was adopted by Bunsen, but he 
wrongly interpreted it ‘life-tenure’ 
(see Jenat. von Antioch, etc. p. 96 
sq, Hippolytus 1. p. 45 2nd ed); and 
it has consequently found no favour. 
The original author of this emenda- 
tion émiovny is mentioned by Ussher 
(Ignat. Epzs¢. proleg. p. cxxxvil) who 
quoting the passage adds this note 
in his margin; ‘émpovny D. Petrus 
Turnerus [Savilian Professor at Ox- 
ford, t 1651] hic legit, ut comtinuatio 
episcopatus ab apostolis stabilita 
significetur; quod Athanasiano illi, 
kai BéBaa pever, bene respondet’. 
Other suggestions, émuoyny, émirpo- 
THY, ETLOKOTINV, ETLETOANVY, ATOVOUNY, ETL 
vopov, are either inappropriate or di- 
verge too widely from the authorities. 
It seems impossible to assign any fit 
sense to the reading eémwopny con- 
formably with usage or derivation. 
The word elsewhere has two mean- 
ings only; (1) ‘encroachment or rav- 
age’, e.g. of the spread of fire (Plut. 


See the lower note. 


Alex. 35) or poison (Elian A. A. xii. 
32), (2) ‘a bandage’ Galen XVIII. I. 
p.791(Kuhn)and frequently (see Hase 
in Steph. Thes.). It might also consis- 
tently with its derivation have the 
sense ‘distribution, assignment’, like 
émuvéunots. If it is to be retained, we 
have the choice (1) of assuming a 
secondary meaning ‘injunction’, de- 
rived from the possible (though un- 
supported) sense ‘assignment’ (so 
Lipsius p. 19 sq); or (2) of giving to 
emwvoun the known meaning of em- 
vouis, ‘an after enactment’, ‘a codicil’ 
(so Rothe Anfange p. 374 sq; see 
the note on xoiunddow). Of these 
alternatives the former is preferable, 
but both are unwarranted. I have 
the less hesitation in making so 
slight a change in the reading of the 
chief MS, because peroév before and 
eOwxaci after show that the scribe 
of A wrote carelessly at this point. 
Hilgenfeld (ed. 2), not knowing the 
reading of S, conjectured ei Sox, 
which he explains kat pera&d 
(‘jam conditis ecclesiis’) émi Sox 
édwkay (TO dvoua THS éemLoKOTAS) OTwS 
(‘hac ratione inducta’) x.7.A., adding 
‘jam ecclesiarum ai amapyai spiritu 
probati episcoporum et diaconorum 
munera susceperunt, post eos sola 
probationis ratione episcopi con- 
stituti sunt’. But notwithstanding 
the coincidence of this conjecture 
with S, I do not think that a reading 
so harsh can possibly stand. The 
word émwwopny is retained by Laurent, 
who explains it ‘adsignatio muneris 
episcopalis’ (a meaning of émuwopy 
which though possible is unsup- 
ported, and which even if allowable 


XLIV | 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


133 


4 \ : \ 7 4 > \ 
pnuevous, Kat peTagu émmovyy dedwKkaci Omws, éav 


kounOacw, SiadéEwvTar ETEpor SedoKisacpEvor avdpes 


dedwdxacw] edwxacw A; @dwxay C. 
and similarly S inserts homines ex tis. 


in itself would be very awkward 
here); and in their first edition by 
Gebhardt and Harnack, where it is 
interpreted ‘dispositio, praeceptum’ 
(a meaning which would be adequate 
indeed, but which the word could 
not, I think, possibly have). In ed. 
2 however Harnack expresses a be- 
lief that the word is corrupt and 
suggests émBodnv. Hagemann (fo- 
mische Kirche p. 684) conjectures 
erwopiv, ‘d. h. wenn diese Form des 
Accusativs von emwopis nachgewiesen 
werden koénnte’; and Hort quite 
independently suggested to me ‘ ém- 
vouida, or conceivably but improbably 
emrivouw, aS we have both yapira and 
Xap, ynorida and vot, kdeida and 
kAew’, and refers to Philo de Creat. 
Princ. 4 (Il. p. 363 M.) where Deu- 
teronomy is so called (comp. Quzs 
ver. div. 33, 51, 1. Pp. 495, 509). 
Donaldson conjectures éidowa ‘an 
addition’ (Zheol. Rev. Jan. 1877, p. 
45), and Lipsius émirayny (Jen. Lit. 
13 Jan. 1877). 

The Latin quotation of Joannes 
Diaconus (I. p. 187) contains the words 
‘hanc formam tenentes apostoli etc.’, 
and Card. Pitra (Spzczl. Solesm. 1. p. 
293) considers that ‘forma’ here repre- 
sents émwoun (so too even Ewald 
Gesch. Vil. p. 269), congratulating 
himself that the sense of emvoyn is 
thus decided. A late Latin para- 
phrase would be worthless as an au- 
thority, even if this view of its mean- 
ing were correct. But a comparison of 
the order of the Latin with the original 
of Clement shows that the words mean 
‘the Apostles following this precedent 
set by Moses’, and that ‘forma’ there- 
fore has nothing to do with éemvopy. 


4 Koiundwow] A; Twes KounOwow C, 
dvdpes] AS; om. C. 


For edexaow it is a question whe- 
ther we should read dcdexacw or 
édwxav. The former involves a less 
change, and the transition from the 
aorist (karéornoav) to the perfect 
(Sed@xacw) may be explained by the 
fact that the consequences of this 
second act are permanent. 

4. Kowunddcw] sc. of mpoeipnuevor, 
i.e. the first generation of presbyters 
appointed by the Apostles themselves; 
and avroéyv too will refer to these 
same persons. Rothe (lc.) refers 
both to the Apostles themselves. 
He assumes Clement to be here de- 
scribing the establishment of episco- 
pacy properly so called, and supposes 
émwvoun, Which he translates ‘after- 
enactment’, to refer to a second 
Apostolic Council convened for this 
purpose. I have discussed this theory 
at length elsewhere (PAzlipfians p. 
199 sq). Of his interpretation of this 
particular passage it is enough to say 
that it interrupts the context with 
irrelevant matter. The Apostles, says 
Clement, first appointed approved 
persons to the ministry (ka@icravoy 
Soxyuacavtes § 42), and afterwards 
(weraév) provided for a succession so 
that vacancies by death should be 
filled by other approved men (€repou 
SeOoxtwacpevor avdpes). The presby- 
ters at Corinth, who had been rudely 
ejected from office, belonged to these 
two classes: some were appointed 
directly bythe Apostles (karacradévras 
vm ekelvoy); others belonged to the 
second generation, having been ap- 
pointed by the persons thus immedi- 
ately connected with the Apostles 
(kataotabévras vp érépwv eddoyipov 
avdpav). 


134 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


| XLIV 


\ - \ Ss U ? 
THY NELTOUPYiav av’TwV. Tous OW KaTacTabevTas UT 
2 / 3\ aye lems Re / ? / ? a 
éxelvwy n peTacy vp éErépwy EAdOYipwY avdpwv, TuVEV- 
/ CG / / \ / 
Ooknoaons THs €KKAnoLas Taons, Kal AELTOVPYNTaYTAS 
'd lam a ~ \ 
dueuTTWs TH Troywiw Tov XpioToU peTAa TaTrEwoppo- 
lé € / ? ld / 
auns jovxws Kal dBavavows, ME“apTUPHEVOUS TE TOA- 
na \ / , / if 
Nols xpovors UO TavTwY, TOUTOUS OU diKalws vouLCopEV 


2 peTasd] werogv A. 
ynoavras| \uroupynoavtac A. 
pévous] mewaprupnmevors A. 


I. tods ovv xaractabévras k.t.A.] 
This notice assists to determine the 
chronology of the epistle. Some of 
those appointed by the Apostles had 
died (of rpoodouropjcartes), but others 
were still living (of xaracraOévres Ur 
é€xeivov). See the introduction, I. p. 
349. Here again pera&d means ‘after- 
wards’, as above. 

2. ovvevdoxnodaons k.t.A.] Wotton 
quotes Cyprian’s expression ‘plebis 
suffragium’ referring to the appoint- 
ment of Church officers, Zfzs¢. lv 
(p. 243), Ixvili (p. 292). Add also 
the more important passage £#zsv. 
Ixvii (p. 288), where the part of the 
laity in such appointments is de- 
scribed. See also the account of the 
appointment of Polycarp to the epis- 
copate in the spurious Pionius, 77. 
Polyc. 23. 

4. TO Toyvig tov Xpicrod|] The 
phrase occurs again S$ 54, 57 (comp. 
§ 16). See also Acts xx. 28, 29, 1 Pet. 
¥. 2,3; 

5. dBavavoas |‘unassumingly’. The 
adjective occurs AZost. Const. ii. 3 
gata d€ evormAayxvos, aBdvavoos, aya- 
mnrikos, Where again it refers to 
the qualifications for the ministry. 
See below § 49 ovdév Bavavoov év 
ayann, ovdev vrepypavoy, Clem. Alex. 
Paed. iii. 6 (p. 273) petradoréov dhidrav- 
Opwmas, ov Bavavows ovde aalovikas, 
Job xli. 26 (Theod.) viot Bavavotas 
(Heb. 7M’ ‘pride, arrogance’). In 


dvipwrv] AC; add. éxdedeypévous S. 
5 aBavatcws] aBavdows C. 


re] ACs om, S. 


3 AevToup- 
pewapTupy- 
6 rovrous] AC; add. 


Arist. Eth. Nic. ii. 7, iv. 2, Bavav- 
cia is the excess of peyadomperesa 
‘lavish profusion’, the result of vzd- 
garity. Somewhat similar is the 
sense which the word has here and 
in the passages quoted, ‘vulgar self- 
assertion’. 

8. dpéumres kat doiws| So 1 Thess. 
li. 10. 

mpoceveykovras ta Sapal What 
does Clement mean by sacrifices, by 
gifts (Sépa) and offerings (mporpopas)? 
In what sense are the presbyters said 
to have presented or offered the gifts? 
The answers to these questions must 
be sought in the parallel passages ; 
§ 18 évoia TH OeS mvedpa ovyrerpiype- 
vov, S$ 35, 30 Avaia aivécews do€acer 
pe kali exet 000s 7 SeiEw atT@ TO TwTH- 
ptov Tov Geod: adrn 7 600s, ayamnrol, 
év 7) EUpopev TO GaTnpLoy nav “Inaody 
Xpiorov Tov dpxvepéa THY mpoopopor 
nav, TOY mpooTaTny Kat PBonOov THs 
dobeveias nuov, § 41 exactos vpar, 
adedhoi, ev TH idim Taypare evxapio- 
reiro TO Oc@ ev ayaby cuvednoe 
dmdpxor, pi) TapekBaivwv Toy wpLoMEevor 
tis ecrovpyias avrov kavova, § 52 
Gicov 7H Ged Ovolay aivécews kal 
todos TO VWioT@ Tas Evxas Cov K.T.A. 
These passages are illustrated by 
Heb. xiii. 15, 16, d¢ avrov ody (i.e. 
dua ToD apxtepéws “Invov, VV. II, 12) 
dvapépopev Ovoiav aivécews Sta trar- 
TOs T@ Oe, TouréaTiv, KapTov xeLéov 
GpodoyovvT@y TH ovomatt avTov" Ths 


to 


XLIV| TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


135 


4 \ > \ 

auapTia yao ov puiKpa 
~ af \ / \ ¢ / 

noiv EoTaL, éav TOUS AMEMTTWS KaL OTLWS TPOTEVEY- 


amoBarAeo Oat Ths NELTOUpYias. 


'g \ ~~ lan a > / 7 
KovTas Ta Owpa THs éEmioKoTNs aToBahwuEV. jakdpLoL 
€ t / c/ a} 
oi mpoodoropncavTes mperBuUTEpOL, oOLTLVES EyKapTrOV 
\ / af \ ee 4 b) \ b) a 
kal TeAElay Exyov THY dvadNvow* ov yao evAaBouYTaL 


ouv S. 
in S. See the lower note. 
AS; éoriv C. 


dé evmotias Kal Kowevias pr émidavOd- 
veoGe, Toravtas yap Ovoias evapeoret- 
Tat 0 Geos, to which epistle Clement 
is largely indebted elsewhere. The 
sacrifices, offerings, and gifts there- 
fore are the prayers and thanks- 
givings, the alms, the eucharistic 
elements, the contributions to the 
agape, and so forth. See esp. Cozst. 
A post. i. 25 ai tore Ovoia viv evyal 
Kat Oenoets Kal evxapiotiat, ai Tore 
dmapxyai kal Oexata kal ddaipéuara 
kat d@pa viv mpoodopal ai dra trav 
Ogl@yv éeTLoKOT@Y Tporhepope- 
vat Kupio «r.A., § 27 mpoonker ovy 


kal vpas, ddeAdoi, Gvoias vue roe 


mpoopopas To éeTLTKOT@ TpOTHE- 
pety ws apyxeper x.t.A., § 34 Tods 
KapTovs Uuav Kal Ta epya TOV xELpaV 
vua@v eis evAoyiay vuav mpoodpéportes 
avT@ (SC. TO emiokoT@)...Ta SOpa vuav 
diddvres avT@ ws iepei Oeov, § 35 py- 
KéTL €aoas vpas (6 Oeds) Ovew Gdoya 
(da...00 Snmov Kal Tay eiahopav vyas 
nrevOepwcev ay odeirere Tois iepevow 
kal TOV eis Tous Seopevous evmoi@y 
K.T.A., § 53 Oa@pov dé eat Ge@ 1 Exdorov 
mpooevx7 Kal evxapiotia. These pas- 
sages show in what sense the pres- 
byters might be said to ‘offer the 
gifts’, They led the prayers and 
thanksgivings of the congregation, 
they presented the alms and contri- 
butions to God and asked His bless- 
ing on them in the name of the 
whole body. Hence Clement is 
careful to insist (§ 40) that these of- 
ferings should be made at the right 


7 amoBd\rXecPar] C; amoBarerOat A. 
NecToupylas] Acroupyiac A. 
Q makdpio.] AC; add. yap S. 


It is rendered by an active verb 
8 écrat] 


time and in the right place and 
through the right persons. The first 
day of the week had been fixed by 
Apostolic authority not only for com- 
mon prayer and breaking of bread 
(Acts xx. 7) but also for collecting 
alms (1 Cor. xvi. 2); and the pres- 
byters, as the officers appointed by 
the same authority, were the proper 
persons to receive and dispense the 
contributions. On the whole subject 
see Hofling de Lehre der altesten 
Kirche vom Opfer etc. p. 8 sq (Er- 
langen 1851). 

10. @yxaprov x.t.’.] The same com- 
bination of epithets occurs again § 
56 €ora avrots €ykapros kal Tedeia 7 
mpos Tov Geov K.T.A. 

II. redelav] ie. ‘22 mature, ripe 
age’, so that it has borne fruit (¢yxap- 
mov). Comp. the compound redevo- 
kaptretvy Which occurs several times in 
Theophrastus (e.g. Hzs¢. PZ. i. 13. 4, 
Caus. Pl. iii. 6.9). The work of these 
presbyters had not, like those Corin- 
thian elders whose cause Clement 
pleads, been rudely interfered with 
and prematurely ended. 

mv avarvow| ‘their departure’; 
comp. Phil. i. 23, 2 Tim. iv. 6. The 
metaphor seems to be taken from the 
breaking up of an encampment (see 
Philippians \.c.), so that it is well 
suited to mpoodoiropnoarrtes. 

ovk evAaBovvra py] ‘they have no 
fear lest’: comp. 1 Macc. iii. 30, xii. 
40 (v.1.). In Acts xxiii. 10 evAaBn- 
Geis is a false reading. 


136 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[XLIV 


lg > \ / \ ~ / ~ 
pn Tis avTOUS meTaTTHON aro TOU idpumEevou avTots 


, 
TOT7TTOU. 


eel \ ed DP igh € ~~ , -~ 
OpwMEV yap OTL Evlovs Vues METHYaYETE Kas 


(é - >’ / qn / 
TONLTEVOMEVOUS EK TNS AMEUTTWS AUTOS FTETLUNMEVNST 


NEtTOUpYias. 


XLV. Pirovexo Exrte, ddedpol, kal CrrAwTal TreEpl 


~~ 9 , 3 / 
TWVY AVYKOVTWVY ELS OWTIHPLAV. 


9 / > \ 
EVKEKUPAaTE Els Tas 


ypapas, Tas adneis, tas [dia] Tov mvevpatos Tov 


2 pernyayeTe] merayaryere A. 


3 mwoNdurevouevous] AS; modurevoapévous C, 


aueurTws| AC; om. S, perhaps from a feeling that it was not appropriate with 


TETLULNMEV NS. 
éore] esta A. 


S inserts a negative. See the lower note. 
Tas ypapas] A; Tas iepas ypadds CS. This is probably 


C; ef éyxexvqate S. 


taken from § 53 émicracde ras iepas ypadpas...xal éyxekUgare K.T.X. 7 
No better way of filling the lacuna in A 


Tov] CS; def. A: see the lower note. 


2. tomov] On the Jlace of the de- 
parted see the note on § 5. There is 
here also an allusion to the other 
sense, ‘office’; see § 4o (with the 
note). 

3. tretysnwernst| ‘respected by 
them’. So all the authorities. But 
I am disposed to read rernpnpévns: 
comp. I Thess. v. 23 auéurras...tnpn- 
Ocin. My emendation was accepted 
by Gebhardt (ed. 1), and indeed it 
seems to be required notwithstand- 
ing the coincidence of our existing 
authorities. In their second edition 
however Gebhardt and Harnack re- 
turn to reriunuévns, explaining it ‘offi- 
cio quo inculpabiliter ac legitime 
honorati erant’, and supposing that 
Tipay Twi Te Can mean ‘aliquid alicui 
tamquam honorem tribuere’. But 
the passages quoted by them, which 
seem to favour this meaning, Pind. 
Ol. [l. Pyth.] iv. 270 aay ré cou tipa 
aos, Soph. Azz. 514 exeiva SvoceBn 
Tyas xapw |comp. also 47. 675], are 
highly poetical. Moreover even in 
these the expression must be referred 
to the original meaning of ripay, ‘to 
respect (and so ‘to scrupulously ob- 


4 Aecroupylas] Acroupyeac A. 
6 r&v dvnkévrwy] C (as I had conjectured); ...avykovrwy A. 


5 Pirdverkor] didovixar A. 
EVKEKUPATE] EV...... Te As éyxextgpare 


Tas 01a 


serve’) a thing for a person’ (comp. 
e.g. Eur. Ovest. 828 marp@ayv tipov 
xapw with Soph. Azz. l.c.); and thus 
they afford no countenance for a pas- 
sive use TiynacGai run ‘to be bestowed 
as an honour on a person’. The in- 
stances of the passive, which are 
quoted in their note, all make against 
this interpretation ; e.g. Euseb. H. Z. 
X. 4 yepapa hpovnoe: mapa Cecod rtert- 
pnpéve, Const. Ap. il. 26 6 émiokomos 
...Geov a€ia retiunuévos. If rerisnpeé- 
yvns can stand at all here, it must 
mean ‘respected’, i.e. ‘duly dis- 
charged’. Hilgenfeld (ed. 2) speaks 
favourably of rernpnpevns. 

XLV. ‘Your zeal is misplaced, 
my brethren. Search the Scriptures. 
You will indeed find that God’s ser- 
vants have been persecuted, but their 
persecutors are always the impious 
and unholy. Did pious men shut up 
Daniel in the lions’ den? Or cast 
the three children into the fire? This 
was the deed of the wicked who knew 
not that God mightily shields His 
faithful people. And so He has crown- 
ed the sufferers with everlasting re- 
nown and honour.’ 


on 


Io 


XLV | TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


137 


Be ft x hee 4 i0e a) ioe 
ayiov: émictacbe ST ovdey adikoy ovde TrapaTreToln- 


a / / 
pévov yéyparta év av’tais. ovx evpyoeTe diKatous 
E ~ / / 
admroBeBAnuévous aro Ooiwy avopwuv’ édiwy Onoay Ol- 
> \ / ~ / 5) e \ 
Kalol, GAN’ vo avouwy’ éedvAakicOnoav, add v7 


> Ls 2 / e \ / ? / 
dvociwy: é\OacOnoav vo Tapavouwy: amextavOnoay 


¢ \ a A af _ / 
UTO TWY LapoV Kal adLKOY CnAOV aveLAnpoTwr. 


occurred to me in my first edition than ras Tov. 


TAUTA 


I saw that the pjoes of all previous 


editors could not stand, as the usual expression is either mvevuatos aylov or Tov 


TvEvpLaTos TOU aylov. 


Oe evphoere] C; ...upnoerac A; zuvenitis (a present) S. 
vouwr] C; vromra..vouwy A; add vd wapavduwv S: see l. p. 142. 
tov] A; amo trav C; adX’ bd (or dd) Trav S. See the last note. 
(as I had conjectured, ed. 1); miapwv AS. 


143. tavta] AC; kal ratra S. 


5. idoverxor ore x«.t.A.] By read- 
ing tev avnkovrar, instead of py avn- 
kovrev (by which previous editors 
supplied the lacuna of A), I changed 
éore from an indicative to an impera- 
tive; ‘Contend zealously, if you will, 
but let your zeal be directed to things 
pertaining to salvation’; comp. Gal. 
We t7, 16, ¥ Pet. ili. 13. There is a 
Gcov (jos, and in some sense also a 
Gcov didroverxia. My conjecture was 
approved by Tischendorf and ac- 
cepted by Gebhardt, and is now con- 
firmed by C. S translates gore as an 
indicative, and is obliged in conse- 
quence to insert a negative with dv7- 
xovryr, thus falling into the same trap 
as the editors. Compare Barnab. 
S$ 17 Amive pou n uxt TH émiOvpia 
fou p17 TapadeAourévat TL TOY GynKOVT@Y 
eis cwTnpiay. For avnkew eis see also 
Ign. Philad. 1, Smyrn.8, Polyc. Phzi. 
13. For ra ayjxovra with a dative 
see S§ 35, 62. 

6. évxexudare| See the note above 
§ 4o. 

7. Tas Oia Tov mvevpatos| The emen- 
dation tas tot mvevparos, which I pro- 
posed somewhat hesitatingly, was 
adopted by Gebhardt in place of 
the pyoeis mvevparos of previous edi- 


8 émictacbe] eriracba A. 


9 yéyparrat] A; yéypamro 
12 Urd Tapa- 
13 Umd 
pucapov] C 
ddtxov] AC; ddlkwy S: see I. p. 


tors. It is confirmed to a greater 
extent than I could have hoped by 
CS, which have ras 61a rov mvevparos. 
It is difficult however to see how 
there was room for so many letters 
in the lacuna of A; for the space 
left for tagdvarov is at most half a 
letter more than is taken up in the 
next line by orvovd, i.e. six letters. 
Since the lacunz here are at the 
beginnings, not (as commonly) at the 
ends of the lines, there can be no un- 
certainty about the spaces. I have 
therefore placed é.a in brackets. 

8. mapamerompévoy| ‘ counterfeit, 
spurious’. For the metaphor see 
Basil. (?) 22 saz. 1. 22 (I. p. 416 E) 
pnmou KiBdndos 7 Spaxun, TovTéott, py- 
TOU doypa Taparemoimpévoy, With the 
whole context in which the metaphor 
is developed. So maparoeiy Justin 
Dial. 69, 115, waparoinors Iren. i. 9. 2. 

II. épvdaxic@ncay| Many editors 
read evepuAakia Onaayr, but this is open 
to objection, for there seems to be 
no authority for a verb éeudvaAakila; 
and indeed such a compound is hard- 
ly possible, for dvAakig¢o is derived 
not from @vAakn but from dvAaé. 

13. papov] The emendation (uapov 
for prapwv) which I made in my first 


138 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xiv 


/ > lan + / \ of 2 
TAT XOVTES EVKAEWS HYEyKaV. Ti Yap ElTwpuEV, adEA- 
/ ‘ \ € \ lan , \ \ / 
got; Aavindr vo Twv PoBousevwy Tov Oeov EBANOn Eis 
tA Ud \ / / A 
Aakkov NeovTwy; 7H ’Avavias kat “ACapias kai Mioanr 
c \ land / \ ~ ae4 
uTo Twy OpnoKevovTwy THv peEeyaroTpETTH Kal evoo£ov 
, Poe lf > / A 
Oonoxeiay Tov VWioTov KaTeEipyOnoay Eis KapLVOY TrUpOS$ 
~~ at \f 3 lat ‘g 
MnPauws TovTO yevoito. Tives ovv ot Ta’Ta dpacay- 
\ \ / / / ~ 
TES} Ol OTVYNTOL Kal TAaGHS Kaklas TANPELS Els TOTOUVTO 
5) / ae ef, \" ’ / \ / / 
eEnpioav Oupov ware Tous év Ooia Kal duwuw mpobere 
, ~ la > cde id qn \ ? ’ 
OovAEevoyTas TW Ocew Els ALKLAV trepiBareivt, My ELOOTES 


I evKAews| evkawo A. 


elmwpev] ecrouev A; elrouev C3 dicam (eirw) S. 


5 Tov vyicrov] AC. The present text of S has NDT rod Kupiov, but this is 


doubtless a corruption of NWT rod bicrov. 
7 oTvyntol] CS; crunra A. 
the last syllable of the preceding word -ets). 


cav C. 


edition is now confirmed by C. For 
the confusion of o and » in A com- 
pare evropuer Just below, and see above, 
I. p.120. Here the immediate neigh- 
bourhood of ray would suggest the 
change to a transcriber. Compare 
S$ I puapas kal dvociov oraceas, § 3 
(prov adtkov Kal doeBn dveAnporas. 

5. Opnoxeiay| The word is here 
used in its correct sense (see Trench 
N. T. Syn. ist ser. § xlviii); for the 
incident turns on an act of external 
worship. 

6. pnOapes x.t.Ar.] ie. ‘Let us not 
entertain the thought, let us not so 
pervert facts’. 

8. e&jpicay] ‘persisted in strife’. 
So Plut. Pomp. § 56 ovk« e&epicas dA 
oiov nrtnOeis, Appian. Bell. Civ. ii. 
I5I idovetkdtrepor Sé trois e&epicovaow 
évres. SO too e€epiotns Eur. SupPl. 
894, efepiorixds Diog. Laert. x. 143. 
For the whole expression comp. § 1 
els TocouTovarrovoias €&€xavoay. Hilgen- 
feld reads éEnpéO:c-ay, but this, besides 
being unsupported and unnecessary, 
would give a wrong meaning, for épe- 
Gifw, e€epeOifw, are transitive. 

9. mepiBareiv] ‘to drive round’, 


katelpx@noav] A; KabelpxOn- 
eis] AS; om. C (owing to 
9g mwepiBarew] AC; jaciant S. 


If the reading be correct, the idea of 
the preposition (as in mepimimrew) 
must be ‘sudden and complete 
change’. But I cannot find any 
parallel; for in Eur. Hel. 312 PoBos 
yap és TO Seiwa mepiBardy p aye the 
meaning of the word is wholly differ- 
ent. Elsewhere (see Schweighauser 
Lex. Polyb. s.v. mepiBdddeoOat) repi- 
Bade has been substituted for mapa- 
BdArew, and this may possibly have 
been the case here. So Heb. xili. 9 
mepipeper be and rapadepecbe are con- 
fused. Comp. § 55 mapéBadev. Our 
Greek Mss however are agreed in 
reading mepiBadeiv here. 

IO. vmépuayos k.r.A.| “Yréppaxos is 
said of God, 2 Macc. xiv. 34 (comp. 
Wisd. x. 20): vmepaomiotys is fre- 
quently so applied (especially in con- 
nexion with Sonos), Ps. xvii. 2, XxViil. 
7, 9, XXXlll. 20, CXIV.) 17, 18, 10; Gime 
comp. § 56 wécos Umepaomicpos oT. 

II. ev kadapa ovverdnoer| The same 
expression occurs I Tim. iii. 9, 2 Tim. 
i, 33 comp, Ign. 27a/7.07- 

mavapér@| See the note on § 1. 

14. eyypaho] ‘vecorded, notable, 
Jamous’. The word occurs also ina 


on 


Io 


15 


XLV1| 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


139 


/ e/ , \ e / 9 ~ 
OTL O UbirTos UTEPMAYOS KQL UTEPATTIAOTYS ETTLY TWY 


a / , lo / 7 
év kaBapa ouvednoe NATPEVOYTWY TH TavAapEeTW OVO- 


? = © ¢ / > \ as a IP 
pat. a’tou: w 4 dog€a els TOUS alwyas THY alwywr. 


any. 


e 4 ¢ / > / / \ 
ot 6€ vmomevovTes év mremrowWnoeL dogav Kal 


\ 2 / 2 / / Ne ah aren ahi 
Tiny ExAnpovouncav, éemnpOnoav TE Kal Eyypahor EeyeE- 


> \ vo a 4 {2 lo > ¥ 
vovTo amo Tov Oéeov ev TW [YNnM“OTUYW aVTWY Els TOUS 


nw wn 7 
QLWVAS TWV ALWVwWY. 


XLVI. 


°’ / 
aun. 

Vi ey € , aA \ 
Totovrois ovv UTOOELY MaGLy KoAAnOynvat Kal 


nuas Sei, dEAMOL. yéeypaTTat yap" Kord&cOe Toic Sriolc, 


12 Twv aiavwv] S; rwva.... A; om. C. See above, § 32. 


14 &yypagor] 


C (as conjectured by Laurent p. 424); eradpo A. For éyypapoe éyévovto S has 


scvriptit sunt. 
17 ovv] AC; om. S. 


fragment ascribed to our Clement in 
Joann. Damasc. clog. i. 49 (II. p. 752 
ed. Lequien) 66ev yypadov rept avrod 
(i.e. rod “ABpadw) icropiay yevéo da 
@kovopnoev ; but see especially Herm. 
S7m. V. 3 €ora n Ovoia cov Sekt) mapa 
TO Gem kai eyypahos Eorat 7 vynoTeia 
avtTn (comp. Vzs. 1. 3 evypadpyoovrat 
eis Tas BiBAous ths (wns), Apost. Can. 
§ 19 6 yap éumumAGy ara pr voodvyTos 
eyypaphos AoyicOnoerar Tapa TH Cea, 
§ 29 6 yap Onoavpivey év tH Bacirela 
éyypahos éepyarns oyirOnoera mapa 
T@ Oc@ (Lagarde’s Rel. Fur. Eccles. 
pp. 78, 79, see Hilgenfeld ov. Test. 
gir. Can. IV. pp. ‘102, 1045; this 
writing elsewhere bears traces of the 
influence of Clement’s epistle, e.g. in 
§ 23 which reproduces the language 
of Clem. § 40). It is however un- 
necessary to substitute tao for azo 
with Hilgenfeld; e.g. in this very 
chapter we have amoBeBAnpévous azo 
ogiwy avdpeav: see also I Cor. i. 30, 
James i. 13, with the examples in 
Winer § xlvii. p. 389. The phrase 
TO pyNnmocvvoy avTov, OF avToy, is com- 
mon in the LXx. It might be a 
question here whether we should 
read avrov or avroy, but § 26 Td pyn- 


15 avtwv] A; avrod CS. 


18 KodA\dode] ko\Nacba A. 


16 aunv|] AC; om. S. 


pocuvoy adray (and indeed the general 
use of the genitive with pynudovvoy in 
the Lxx of the persons whose memo- 
rial is preserved) points distinctly to 
auTov. 

XLVI. ‘Copy these bright exam- 
ples. Cleave to the righteous, to the 
elect of God. To what end are these 
strifes and divisions? Have you for- 
gotten that, as there is one God, one 
Christ, one Spirit, so also there is one 
body? Would you rend asunder its 
limbs? Remember how the Lord de- 
nounces the man through whom the 
offences shall come. Already have 
your feuds been a scandal to many, 
and yet they continue.’ 

18. KodAaoée x«.t.A.]| This quota- 
tion is no where found in the Old 
Testament. The nearest approach is 
Ecclus. vi. 34 tis coos; avt@ mpoo- 
Ko\AnOnrt. Similar words however 
occur in Hermas V7zs. ili. 6 pndeé Kod- 
A@pevor Tois ayiows, Sz. Vill. 8 of ev 
Talis mpaypateias eumeduppévoe Kal 7) 
Ko\A@pevoe Tots ayiow, S272. 1x. 20 
ov KoAA@vtat Tots SovAots Tov Geo. 
It is perhaps another of those apocry- 
phal quotations to which Photius 
alludes (see the notes on §§ 8, 13, 17, 


140 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XLVI 


o c ’ > a c ' \ / , 
OT! O!1 KOAA@MMENO! AYTOIC APIACOHCONTAIL. KL TaXw ev 


/ / / \ > \ ? ' 5 i=sarx Py \ 
ETEpw Tomw Neryetr* Metd dnApdc AOMoy AO@oc EcH Kal 


META EKAEKTOY EKAEKTOC ECH KAI META CTpEBAOY Ala- 
, ~~ Ss ~~ / \ / e 
ctpéyeic. KOoAAnO@pev ovv Tois aOwots Kal OuKaloLs 


\ e p) \ a an e/ / } \ 
eiaiy O€ ovToL éxAeKTOL Tov Ocov. “Iva Ti Epes Kat 
\ \ / \ / / / 
Guyot Kai dityootaciat Kat oxiouata moEMos TE EV 
ey fis 3\ : \ \ sf Were a \ , Wea = 
Umiv; 7 OVX Eva Oeov Exouev Kal Eva XpioTov Kal EV 
6 médeuds Te] AC; S has the plural (as determined by rzduz) médeuot re and 


adds et contentiones SNVS81D), which probably represents cai udxat, since the same 
word elsewhere stands for wdxat (e.g. James iv. 1, Pesh., Hcl.; 2 Tim. ii. 23, 


23, 29); or possibly Clement is giving 
from memory the sense of some ca- 
nonical text or texts. This passage 
is imitated by Clem. Alex. Strom. 
v. 8 (p. 677) yéypamrat dé, Mera avdpos 
aOdov abg@os €on Kal peta exdexToU 
ekAexTos €on kal peta otpeBAod dia- 
otpéewes’ KodAAacba ovy Tois ayiots 
mpoonkel OTL of KOAA@peEVOL avTOIS aylac- 
O@noovra, where the change of form 
suggests that the Alexandrian Cle- 
ment did not recognise the source of 
the quotation in his Roman name- 
sake. Part of this passage is loosely 
quotedalsoby Nicon thus: coAAnOdpev 
ovy Tois aOdous Kal dixaious* eiot dé ov- 
Tou €kAEKTOL TOU Oeov" yéypamrat yap’ 
KodAaoGat (koAAaobe) Tots ayiots, dre 
of KoAA@pevot avTots ayvac Ono ovra (see 
above § 14). 

2. Mera dvdpos x.t.A.] An accurate 
quotation from Ps. xviii. 25, 26: but 
the application of the passage by S. 
Clement to the influence of good or 
bad companionship is wholly wrong. 
The ‘Thou’ of the Psalmist is God 
Himself, and the passage teaches 
that He deals with men according to 
their characters. 

5. €peus x.t.A.] The words are ar- 
ranged in an ascending scale; see 
the notes on Galatians Vv. 20,21. Ov- 
pot are ‘outbursts of wrath,’ as in l.c. 
Atyooracia is weaker than oyxiopa, as 


it is stronger than otaois § 51: as 
araots developes into dtyooracia, so 
dtxooTacia widens into cxicpa. 

6. soAepos Te ev vpiv] comp. James 
Wy Bs 

7. ovxt €va Geov k.t.A.| From Ephes. 
iv. 4 Sq €v oOpa kat ev mvedpa, 
kabods Kal éexrAnOnre ev pia eAmids ths 
KAN Ges vpov’ eis Kuptos, pla mio- 
tis, ev Banticpa, eis Ceds...€r be 
EKATT@ HuGv €O06n 7H xapts K.T.A. | 
comp. 1 Cor. viii. 6, xil. I2 sq. See 
also Hermas Sz. ix. 13 €covtat eis 
Ev mvevpa, eis EV. copa...kal Hv avTav 
ev mvedpa Kal ev oopa, ix. 18 éora 7 
éxkAnoia Tov Geov Ev capa, pia Ppovn- 
gis, €is vous, pla miotis, pla ayamn, 
Ign. Magn. 7. 

This mention of Geds, Xproros, 
mvevpa, has a parallel in the reference 
to the Trinity quoted by S. Basil (de 
Spir. Sanct. xxix, 1. p. 16) as from 
our Clement, but not found in our MS 
and probably belonging to the lacuna 
from § 58, (7 yap 6 Geos kal Cn 0 Kupuos 
"Inoovs Xptoros kal TO mvevpa TO Gytop. 
Owing to this parallel, I have taken &v 
mvevpa aS an accusative and connect- 
ed it with the preceding words, rather 
than as a nominative, in which case 
it would be attached to the following 
clause, kai pia KAjow ev Xpior@; but 
the construction is doubtful. The 
construction and punctuation has 


XLVI] 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


IAI 


- ~ , \ > be Ct ae e eee \ / 
WVEUMA THS YaolTos TO Exkyuvlev EP Huass Kat pla 


~ Cant / \ =~ A 
KAjow év XpicTo ; iva Ti OueXKouev Kal SlacTMOMEV TA 


, al ~ \ 7 \ A ~ \ 
MéeAn Tov Xpirtov, Kal oTAaTLAaCOMEV TOS TO THUA TO 


J \ 3 / > / > / / 9 
LOLOV, Kat ELS TODAUTHV ATOVOLAV Epxomueba QO FE ‘e7t= 


Aabéobat juas tt péAn é€opev AAAHAWY; jpunoOnTeE 


- / > “ ‘on / € eee J / A — 
Twv Noywv ‘Inco Tov Kupiov nuwv* eimev yap? Of¥ai 


Tit. iii. 9, Hcl.). 


The connecting particles in the Greek are favourable to such 


an addition; but it is suspicious, as being perhaps borrowed from James iv. 1. 


Q déAxopwev] AS; diéAkwmev C. 
huav inood xpiucrod CS. 


been confirmed by the Syriac, since 
I first proposed it. 

12. péAnéopev| Rom. xii. 5 of roAXot 
a es EE TS > a A \ > 
év c@pa ecpev ev Xpiot@, TO Oe Kal 
eis GAAnA@v peAn. 

13. Ovaix.r.r.] Two different sayings 
of our Lord are here combined. The 
first is recorded in Matt. xxvi. 24, 
Mark xiv. 21, ovai S€ to dvOpa7@ 
éxeiv@ Ov ov 6 vids Tod dvOpemov mapa- 
didorau’ Kadov nv adt@ ei ovK eyervnOn 
0 avOpemos exeivos; and more briefly 
in Luke xxii. 22, rAjy oval T6 dvOparre 
exeiva Oe ov mapadidora. The second 
runs in Matt. xviii. 6, 7, 6s & dv oxav- 
dation &va Tay pLKpey TovT@Y ToY 
TLioTEvOVT@Y Eis Ee, TVUEpEL AUTO iva 
KpewacOn pvAXos ovkos mept TOV Tpa- 
xXnAov avTod kal KxatarovticOn ev TO 

, - , en fey ee , 
mehayet THs Oaddoons...ovai Te avOpana 
d¢ ov TO oxavdadov épyerar: in Mark 
1X. 42, Os Gv ox. €. T. p. T. T. 7. Eis 
wie , > tee GX > , 
ene, KaXov eotw avt@ waAXov ei Tepi- 
KEeLTaL LL. OV. 7. T. TP. AUTO kal BEBANTAL 

> \ U a -* 

eis tHv Oadacoav: in Luke xvii. 1, 2, 
avevdextov éoTw Tov Ta oKavdada p) 
€Oeiv, mANY ovat SV od EpxeTac’ Avort- 


Teel avT@ ef AiOos pudtKos TeEpikertar. 


7. T. Tp. avTovd Kali @ppimta eis tH 
O6ddaccay, 7) wa cxavdadion TOY piKpav 
touroy eva. Hermas Vs. iv. 2 has 
oval Tois dkovcacw Ta pnyata Tatra Kal 
Tapakovoacw" aipeT@tepov Hv avtois TO 
pn yevynOnva.: and in Clem. Hom. 
xii. 29 a saying of our Lordis quoted, 


13 “Inoot rod Kuptov quay] A; 70d Kxuplov 


ra ayaba édOciv Sei, paxaptos Sé Ot ov 
EpxeTar’ opoiws kal Ta Kaka avayKn 
edGeiv, oval dé dv od epyera. S. Cle- 
ment here may be quoting from our 
canonical gospels (confusing them 
together), or from oral tradition, or 
possibly (though this seems the least 
probable supposition) from some 
written account no longer extant, e.g. 
the Gospel of the Hebrews. The 
first solution presents no difficulties; 
for the insertion of} eva rév éxNexrav 
pov ckavOaXioa is not a more violent 
change than is found in many of his 
Old Testament quotations; eg. the 
perversion of Is. lx. 17 at the end of 
§$ 42. See also the fusion of different 
passages in §§ 18, 26, 29, 32, 35, 39, 
50, 52, 53. The quotation of Clem. 
Alex. Strom. ili. 18 (p. 561) is not an 
independent authority, for it is evi- 
dently taken from the Roman Cle- 
ment. 

I have no doubt that the Syriac 
has preserved the right reading ; and 
this for three reasons. (1) This 
reading is farther from the language 
of the canonical Gospels and there- 
foremorelikely to have been changed; 
(2) Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 
ili. 18 (p. 561), so read the passage in 
the Roman Clement ; (3) The word 
duactpewar explains the sequel 16 
oXigpa Vay ToAXods SiéaTpeev (‘per- 
verted not one, but many’), it being 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XLVI 


142 


T@ ANOPOTIG EKEINGD’ KAAON HN AYT@ ei OYK @feENNHOH, H 
ENA T@N €EKAEKTON MOY CKANAAAICAI* KPEITTON HN AaYTH 
TEPITEGANAI MY AON KAl KATATIONTICOANAL EIC THN BAAACCAN, 
Ho Ena TAN EKAEKT@N MOY AlacTpéyal TO oXlTMa VuwY 
moAXous SueaTpeWev, ToAAous eis dOupiav EBarev, TOA- 


\ 5) 7 \\ / e ~ > 4 \ 
Aous Els duo Tay OV; Tous TavTas ynuas els AUTTHV* Kal 


co ry ‘A 
ETiMLOVOS UMW ETTLY H OTAGLS. 


1 otk] A; wy C, 


pov oxavdadicac AC. See the lower note. 


mdvras S. nuds|] AS; vmas C. 

after Clement’s manner to take up 
and comment on a leading word in 
his quotations; e.g. $14 ANOpwTTw 
eipHNIka@ followed by § 15 KodAn- 
Oa@pev tois pet evocBeias eipnvev- 
oval, § 27 @N OYX! AKOYONTAI 
followed by § 28 mavrwv ody Brero- 
pevov Kal akovopevar, §29€fFENHOH 
Mepic Kypfoy...arla Af{WN fol- 
lowed by § 30 ‘Ayiov ovv pepis, § 
30 Oedc...AfAWCIN XAPIN followed 
by ois 7 yapts avo Tov Ocod Séborat, 
§ 34 Oca HTO{MACEN TOTC YTIO- 
MENOYCIN dYTON followed by § 35 
tiva ovv dpa eoTl Ta éTo.patopeva 


= 
¢ 


Tots Umropevovaw; § 35 dAOC A 
AEiZW AYT@ TO CWTHPION TOY 
Ocoy followed by § 36 avrn 7 dbs... 
év 7 eUpopmev TO GeTHpLoy por, 
§ 36 ewe &N OB TOYC €xOpoye 
x.7.A. followed by rives ody of € x Opot, 
§ 46 (just above) meta ANAPpOC 
AOWOY AOMoC ECH Kal meETA 
EKAEKTOY EKAEKTOC ECH followed 
by KodAnOdpev odv rots dOdors... 
elo O€ ovro. ékdEKTOL TOU Geod, § 
48 ANO{ZaTE MOI TIYAAC AIKAalO- 
CYNHC k.7.A. followed by moddav ody 
TUAGY ave@yviay 7 ev Sixatoavyy 
avtn eoriv, § 50 ON APEOHCAN al 
ANOMI{AI «7. followed by § 51 dca 
ovv mapeméoapev...dkidcopev ape O7- 
vat npiv, §57 KATACKHNWCEI ETT 
€ATfAt TEeTTIOIOWC followed by § 


4 Tov é€xXexTwv pov Siacrpéyar] S Clem; Trav puxpav 


6 rods mavras| AC; Tovs dé 
Ir avrod re...’AmoANw] A; éavTod Kai 


58wakatacknvdcaper TeToLOoTes 
x.t.A. I have collected these ex- 
amples, because this characteristic 
determines the readings in three 
passages of interest (here and §§ 35, 
57; comp. also § 51), where there are 
variations, 

6. diocraypov|] The word is rare, 
but occurs in Hermas Sz. ix. 28, 
Plut. Mor. 214 F. 

XLVII. ‘Read the epistle which 
Paul the Apostle wrote to you long 
ago. See how he condemns strife and 
party spirit in you. Yet then you 
had this excuse, that you chose as 
leaders Apostles and Apostolic men. 
Now even this palliation of your 
offence is wanting. It is sad indeed 
that two or three ringleaders should 
sully the fair fame of the Corinthian 
Church and bring dishonour on the 
name of Christ.’ 

8. rnv émustoAnv] It must not be 
inferred from this expression that Cle- 
ment was unacquainted with the 2nd 
Epistle to the Corinthians; for exactly 


in the same way Irenzeus (i. 8. 2) 


writes év rj mpos Kopw6ious (where the 
present Latin text specifies ‘in prima 
ad Corinthios epistola’), and again 
(iv. 27. 3) ‘in epistola quae est ad 
Corinthios’, and (iv. 27. 4) quotes 
2 Thessalonians as ‘ea quae est ad 
Thessalonicenses epistola’. So also 


Io 


XLVII] 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


143 


XLVI. ’AvaraBere thy émiotoAny Tov fakaplou 


/ : nn / / ~ ~ ’ > rand =~ 
[lavXov Tov aroaToXov. TI TPWTOV UY EV apxn TOU 
é 


> 7 Sf 5 ea 5) / ~ PY , 
evaryyeAlou eypaver ; é7 adnleias TVEUMATLKWS €ETTE- 


~ b - \ im V5 / 
OTENEV Uy TEDL AUTOU TE Kal Knpa Te kal AroAXo, 


\ \ \ 7 / ¢ ~ om > > t 
dla TO Kal TOTE TpocKAiaeEs Uuas TeTojoOa arN 7 


amo\\w kat Knda, C, thus conforming the order to 1 Cor. i. 12 (comp. iv. 6). 
the same order as A, but omits re in both places. 


S has 
It also repeats the preposition 


before each word, but no stress can be laid on this (see above, I. p. 137). 
12 mpockNices] A; divisionesS; mpooxdyjoes C. For this itacism see above § 21. 


Orig. c. Cels. 1. 63 év ry mpos Tipddedv 
not, iii. 20 TH mpos Seacadonrikels, 
Method. Sym. iii. 14 (p. 22 Jahn) 
AaBera dé pera yetpos 6 BovAopevos THY 
mpos KopwOiovs émuctoAnv, Macarius 
Magnes Afocr. iii. 36 (p. 131 Blondel) 
kal €v TH mpos KopwOlovs dé éemurroAn 
Reyer Ilepi dé trav mapbévev émirayny 
Kupiov ovk éyo x.t.A., Hieron. £pzst. 
lii. 9 (1. p. 264) ‘lege Pauli epistolam 
ad Corinthios, quomodo diversa mem- 
bra unum corpus efficiunt’, Anast. 
Sin. Hodeg. 12 (p. 97) ex THs mpos 
Kopw6iovs, and Chrysostom in his 
preface to the Colossians (XI. p. 322 
B, ed. Bened.) refers to 2 Timothy as 
7 mpos Tyuodbeov (emiatoAy). Where 
the context clearly shows which 
epistle is meant, no specification is 
needed. On the other hand I have 
not observed any distinct traces of 
the influence of 2 Corinthians on 
Clement’s language or thoughts. 
paxapiov| Polyc. P27. § 3 rod paka- 
piov kat évddEouv TlatvAov, 7b. § II 
‘beatus Paulus.’ This passage of 
Clement is perhaps the earliest in- 
stance of the specially Christian sense 
of paxapios: comp. Rev. xiv. 13 
pakapioe of vexpot of ev Kupio drobvn- 
okovtes amaptt. In § 43 he applies 
the epithet to Moses; in § 55 to 
Judith. The word continues to be 
used occasionally of the living, e.g. 
Alex. Hieros. in Euseb. H. £. vi. 11 


dia KAnpevtos tov pakaplov mpecBv- 


Tépov, and even in later writers. 

Q. mparov| ‘first and foremost’, re- 
ferring to the position and promi- 
nence assigned to this topic in the 
First Epistle to the Corinthians. It 
does not seem to be quite correct to 
explain the word with different com- 
mentators either (1) Of ¢zme purely, 
in which case it adds nothing to ép 
apxn Tov evayyeXiov; or (2) of guality 
purely, as if it signified the primary 
value and excellence of the injunc- 
tion. 

ev apxn «.T.A.] i.e. ‘in the first days 
of the Gospel, soon after your con- 
version. The expression occurs in 
S. Paul himself, Phil. iv. 15. See 
also the note on Polyc. PAzéZ. 11 ‘in 
principio’. It is quite impossible that 
apxn Tov evayyediov can mean (as 
Young, Cotelier, and others suppose), 
‘the beginning of his epistle’ as 
containing his evangelical teaching 
(Iren. iv. 34. 1 ‘legite diligentius id 
quod ab apostolis est evangelium 
nobis datum’). 

II. mept avtov te «.t.A.] I Cor. i. 
Io sq. The party whose watchword 
was é€y® Xpiorod is passed over in 
silence by Clement, because the men- 
tion of them would only have com- 
plicated his argument. Moreover it 
is not probable that their exact theo- 
logical position was known to him or 
his contemporaries. 

12. mpookdices] See above on § 21. 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XLvII 


144 


.e / ~ / A 
TpooKALOsS EKELVN NTTOV auapTiay UMlY mMpoTHVvEyKEV 
Uh \ 
TpooeEKALONTE yap drooToXols peu“apTupnpevols Kat 
a \ \ / 
cdvopt dedokiyuacpuevw map avTois. vuvi d€ KaTavonoaTeE 
~ 7 \ \ \ - / 
Tives Uuas SueaTpEevav Kal TO GEuvoy THs TEpLBoNTOU 
/ € ~ 5) / > , > / \ 
piraceApias Vuwv euelwoav. aloxpd, ayamnTol, Kal 
/ lal 9 a a 
Nav aioxpa, Kat avagia trys év Xpiotw dywyns, 
/ \ / 4 
dkoverOa Thy BeBaotatny Kal dpyaiay Kopiwbiwv éx- 


/ Sete) \ - / ic \ \ 
KAno Lay OL E€V VW Ovo TPOCTWT Aa oTacLa Ce 7 pos TOUS 


Uf 
mpeo BuTEpoUs. 


I mpockXuo1s] mpdokAnors C3 mpookdrAnoes A. 
mpoonveyxev] A; émiveyxe C, and so apparently S. 


so apparently S. 
2 mpocexNiOnre] A; mpocexdAnOnre C. 


e/ \ / > ~ 
Kal avTN H Akon Ov MOVOY Els Huas Exw- 


nrrov] A; yrrova C, and 


pewaptupnuévois]| AS; dedoximacpévors 


C, which reads conversely pewaprupnuévy for dedoxiuacuévw in the next line. 


3 map avrots] AS; map’ airav C. 
BeBaorarny, as if BeBaoryra. 
moe som. 


2. pepwaptupnuevors| ‘attested, fa- 
mous’: see the note on §17. So Ign. 
Eph. 12 Wiavdov...tov pewaptupynpevov. 

3. avdpt deSoxiuacper@| Apollos 
therefore is not regarded as an Apo- 
stle; see Galaizaus pp. 96, 98. 

4. TO oeuvoy k.7.A.] Comp. § I dote 
TO oepvoy Kal TEpiBinrov Kal macLy av- 
Oparos akvayarnroy dvopa tuay peya- 
Aas BraohnpenOjva. 

5. aicxpa kai Alay aicypa] Comp. 
§ 53 émioracde Kat Kadds emiotacée. 
See also Theoph. ad Aufol.i. 17 kaha 
kal kada Aiav, Hippol. p. 36 (Lagarde) 
mavra pev Kada kat Kada Alay Ta Tov 
cov, Clem. Recogn. iii. 25 ‘ Ignoras, 
O Simon, et valde ignoras’, and per- 
haps Hermas Mand. vili. ov Soxet oor 
ravTa Tovnpa etvat Kal Aiay rovnpa Tots 
dovAots Tov Geov; (if this be the right 
punctuation). The very words aicypa 
kal Aiav aicxypa occur in Maximus (?) 
on Jude 7 in Cramer’s Catena p. 
157 

6. ayeoyns| ‘education’, ‘training’, 
as below § 48. The word is used 


5 euelwoav] euiwoav A. 


6 Xpicrg] AC; add. inaod S. 


4 wep.Bojnrov] AC; om. S translating 
aicxpa, ayamnrot| 
aywyns] AS; dydans C. 


commonly of any systematic disci- 
plinary or scholastic training. 

7. axoverOa]| i.e. ‘It is a disgrace- 
ful state of things, that z¢ should be 
reported, the word axoveoOa being 
dependent on aicypa...xkai avaésia. I 
mention this, because the construc- 
tion is generally mistaken; some 
editors wanting to understand def 
and others substituting dkovera: for 
axovecOai. For the plural aicypa 
k.7.A. see Jelf’s Gramm. § 383. 

dpxaiav| This epithet seems not to 
be consistent with the very early date 
which some critics would assign to 
Clement’s epistle: see I. p. 364 sq, 
and the notes on §§ 5, 44. 

8. mpocwral ‘persons’, or rather 
‘vingleaders’; as in § 1. See the 
note on Ign. Magu. 6. 

g. axon] Thus it was a rumour or 
report which had reached the ears of 
Clement and the Roman Church re- 
specting the feuds at Corinth; like 
those earlier accounts of irregularities 
in the same Church which reached 


Io 


XLVI] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


145 


5 \ \ ~ / 
pnoev adda Kal €lS TOUS ETEPOKALVELS UTapYOVTAS ap 
e ~ 4 \ / 2 U Cee Me BTA 
Huov, wore Kal PAacdnyulas émipeper bar Ta GvopaTt 
I \ \ ¢€ / > VA e ~ \ / 
Kupiouv dia Thv vueTepav adpoovrny, EavTots 6€ KivOuvoy 
lis 
érreFepyaCeo Oa. 
4 Ss ~ / \ 
XLVI. *€£apwpyev ovv tovto év Taye kal Te0c- 
/ and i) \ / / 
TETWUEV TH OETTOTH Kal KNaVT WEY LKETEVOVTES AUTOD, 
J ef fe ? FP Oy am Nid be ea \ 
omws ithews yevomevos emikaTad\Aayn nuly Kal Emme THY 
\ > / (ing a ¢ 4 ? \ ? 
cEeunv THs PiradeAPias juwv ayyyv aywynv atoKaTa- 


THON Huas. 


7 kal] AC; om. S. 
te C; et vobis ipsis S. 
AS; tyiv C. 


11 muav] AS; bear C. 
16 idews yevduevos] A; yevduevos ttews C. 
émt Ti K.T.r.] S translates loosely vestituat nos ad priorem wlam 


/ \ / > lo > A 
TuAn yap SiKalocuvns avEewyuta els Cwny 


12 éaurots 6€] As; éavrois 
t ra 
Tw] 


modestiam nostram amoris fraternitatis et ad puram illam conversationem, but this 


probably does not represent a various reading. 
dvewyvia eis fwhv] A; els fwhv dvewyvia CS. 


18 juds] AS; buds C. 


the ears of S. Paul (1 Cor. v. I dd@s 
dkovetat k.T.A., Xi. 18 axkovo oxiopata 
k.7.A., Comp. i. 11). It is quite a mis- 
take to suppose that the Church of 
Corinth had formally and by letter 
asked advice; see the note on § 1 
vouicopey K.T.X. 

10. érepoxdAweis| See the note on 
§ 11. 

II. oorte...Bracgnulas emupéper Oar} 
‘so that you heap blasphemies’; ém- 
dépecba being middle as frequently 
elsewhere, and the subject being vpas 
or possibly rovs érepoxAweis vrapxor- 
ras. Comp. Rom. il. 24 76 yap ovopa 
Tov Qeov Ov vuas BArAaodnpetrar ev rots 
eOvecw, kaos yéypanrat. 

I2. xivduvov] i.e. the danger of in- 
curring God’s wrath, as § 14 kivduvoy 
vmoicopev peyav, § 41 TocovT@ paddov 
vrokeipeba kivdvve. 

13. émeEepyatec Oa] ‘wzthal to cre- 
ate’; for this is the force of émi, as in 
Demosth. de Cor. p. 274 év © émeEeip- 
ydoato TowvToy 0 macau Tols mporépors 
eméOnxe Tédos. Here éavrois will be 
equivalent to tvyuiv avrois: see the note 


CLEM., II. 


17 Muay] AS; tua C. 


on § 32 and Winer § xxii. p. 163. 

XLVIII. ‘Let us put our sin away. 
Let us fall on our knees and implore 
God’s pardon. Righteousness in 
Christ is the only gate which leads 
to life. Is any one faithful, wise, 
learned, energetic, pure? He should 
be the more humble in proportion as 
he is greater. He should work for 
the common good.’ 

16. emtkataAdayn| While no other 
instance of the verb émixcaraAd\dooew 
is given in the lexicons, the sub- 
stantive appears in Theophrast. Cha- 
ract. 26 rod xadkod Thy éemixaradXayny, 
where it seems to signify ‘the dis- 
count’. 

Thy ceuyny x.t.r.| The expression 
is copied by Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 
17 (p. 613) 7 cep ovv THs hirarOpo- 
mias Kat ayy) aywyn Kata Tov KAnpevra 
To Kotvagedes (yret, where the insertion 
of cai relieves the sentence. Comp. 
the words at the close of this chapter. 
"Ayoyn is ‘conduct’, as in § 47: see 
also. 2) Tim: iy 10; “Esthi in ‘20; x3, 
2 Mace) iv. 16, vi.'8, x1. 24, 


IO 


146 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[XLVI 


avtn, KaOws yeypamrat’ "ANoiZaTE MOI TYAAC AIKAIOCYNHC, 
INA EICEAOON EN ayTAIC EZOMOAOPHCHMAI TH Kypiw: aYTH 
H myAH TOY Kypioy, Aikaior eiceAeYcoNTai €N AaYTH. 7OA- 
Awy OV TUAWY dvEwyULOV, 1H Ev OiKALOTUVN avTH EOTLY 


crys o > = / ¥, € > / \ 
yn év Xpiore@, Ev n pakaptor TravTes ol EtoeNOovTES Kat 5 
é t 


1 avrn] A; éorlv atrn C, and so apparently S. 
2 wa] S Clem; om. AC. See the next note. 
ynooua C with Clem. See above, I. p. 143. 
g Siaxpicer] C3 dvaxpraxpioer A, as read by Tischendorf; see prol. p. xix. 


dvolgate] AC; aperi S. 
é£ouoroynowuac AS; é£ouodo- 
5 7) AC; om. S apparently. 
As far 


as the c he appears to me to have deciphered the Ms correctly. Jacobson, instead 


of cel, reads it CIN. 


This seemed to me more like the traces in the ms, but I 
could not see it distinctly. See below. 


Tw yopyds év épyos, ATw ayvos| 


Clem (see below); 7j7w dyvds AC. S has sit homo (quispiam) fidelis, sit validus, 


I. “Avot€ate x.7.A.] From the LxXx 
Ps. cxvili. 19, 20, word for word. This 
passage, as far as jr yopyds év epyots, 
is loosely quoted with interpolations 
of his own by Clem. Alex. S¢vom. i. 
7 (p- 338 sq), who gives his authority 
as 6 KAnuns év tT mpos Kopwdiovs ém- 
otoAnj. Elsewhere Szrom. vi. 8 (p. 
772), after quoting Ps. cxvill. 19, 20, 
he adds (by a lapse of memory) é&n- 
youpevos S€ TO pyTov Tov mpodyrov 
BapvaBas émipéeper, Tod\kov muddy 
dvewyulav...oi eiceAOovres, though a 
few sentences below he cites the words 
€oT® Toivuy muoTos... wadAov pelCov 
eiva, as from ‘Clement in the letter 
to the Corinthians’. His two quota- 
tions do not agree exactly either with 
the original text of Clement or with 
one another. These facts make it 
clear that he cites chiefly from me- 
mory, and this must be borne in 
mind in using his quotations to cor- 
rect the text of the Roman Clement. 

2. €Eoporoynowpya] The best MSS 
of the Lxx have ¢£opodroyncopa, 
which is substituted for the conjunc- 
tive by most editors here, but é£o- 
poroynowpa: will stand; see Winer 
§ xli. p. 300. Hilgenfeld inserts wa 
before eiaeA Oar, following Clem. Alex. 
Strom. \.7 (p. 338); but the quotation 


of the later Clement is much too 
loose to be a guide here, and he pro- 
bably inserted the iva to improve the 
grammar of the sentence. 

3. woAXOv ovv muAdy «.7.d.] Per- 
haps a reference to our Lord’s saying, 
Matt. vil. 13, 14. 

5. 7 ev Xpiota]| John x. 9 eyo cis 
n Ovpa, Hermas Sz, ix. 12 9 mvAn 6 
vids Tov Geov eoti (and the whole sec- 
tion), Ign. Phz/ad. 9 airés av Odpa Tob 
matpos, Clem. Hom. iil. 52 dia rovro 
adros adnOns av mpopntns edeyev, Eyo 
elute 1 7UAN THs Cons k.T.A., Hegesipp. 
in Euseb. H. £. 11. 23 dmayyedov 
nu tis 7 Ovpa Tov “Inco. 

6. ogvornre x.t.A.] The usual com- 
bination of 6avs and Oikaws. See 
the note’on ii. § 5. 

7. tw Tis micros K.TA.] i.e. ‘If a 
man has any special gift, let him 
employ it for the common good, and 
not as a means of self-assertion.’ 
The same gifts of the Spirit are enu- 
merated, though in the reverse order, 
in 1 Cor. xil. 8,9 @ pev yap dia Tod 
mvevpatos dSidora Adyos copias, add@ 
d€ Aoyos yyWoews KATA TO AUTO TrEdpA, 
eTép@ Tiotis ev TO avTe mvevpare. 
Unless Clement is using this lan- 
guage without warrant, the temper 
of the factious Corinthians of his 


XLVIII| 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


147 


ff A / ~ . / 
KaTevOuvovTes THY Topelavy avTwWY EV OOLOTHTL Kal 


7 / / r 
diKkaloovrvyn, aTapayws TavTa émiTeourTEs. 


By 
TW TIS 


/ sf \ = > ~ >} \ > 
TlETOS, NTW OvVAaTOS YyYwoW E€ELTELY, NTW Godos EV 
/ li af \ af 7 
diakpioe: NOywv, Tw Yyopyos ev Epyols, Tw ayvos: 
/ \ ~ ~ > / e/ 
TocTouTwW yao padXov Tarewodpovery odeiAa, oow 


sctentiam possideat ( possidebit), laboret (laborabit) sapiens in interpretatione verb- 


orum, sit purus in operibus. 


This represents substantially the same Greek with 


AC, except that 7rw divaros yrGow ékeureiv, nrw copds x.T.X. must have been 
corrupted into 7rw dvvaros, yywouw Efe, movetrw codpds, as Bensly points out. 
Io TocovTw yap] AS; Clem rogot7w (om. yap) C; Tosotréy tis Anton Max. 


yap] AS; om. C. 
Anton Max.; dub. S. 


time must have closely resembled 
that of their predecessors in S. Paul’s 
age. 

8. yvaow e€eumetv] ‘to utter, ex- 
pound a yveois’, i.e. ‘to bring out the 
hidden meaning of ascripture’. For 
this sense of yydous see the note on 
Barnabas § 6. The possession of 
yvdors was an old boast of the fac- 
tious Corinthians, I Cor. vili. I, Io, 
II, xiii. 2, 8; and the vaunt has not 
without reason been attributed espe- 
cially to the party among them which 
claimed as its leader Apollos, the 
learned Alexandrian, ‘mighty in the 
scriptures’ (Acts xviii. 24). 

g. dsaxpices] The reading of A 
(if it be correctly given dcaxprakpiow) 
is a corruption of dvaxpiow (= d.a- 
kptot) which itself arose out of d.a- 
kptow and this out of deaxpioer: see 
for other instances of a like error the 
note on dvacrnoopa § 15. Otherwise 
Suaxpiceow might be read (see above, 
I. p. 120, for similar corruptions), as 
the plural dvaxpicers occurs Rom. xiv. 
I dcaxpioess Stadoyiope@y, I Cor. xii. 10 
Suaxpicers mvevparav. 

nt@ yopyos| ‘let him be energetic’. 


In later writers yopyos is ‘active, 


quick, strenuous’; e.g. Dion. Hal. 
de Comp. Verb. p. 133 (Reiske) ro 


pev avtav [trav Kodwv| yopydrepoy TO 


Tatewogppovery ddeiha] AC Clem; ddeihec tramewodppoveiv 
odeirer] ogirer A. 


daw] AC Clem; écov Anton Max. 


dé Bpaditrepov, Epict. Dzss. 11. 16. 20 
éy pev TH GXOAR yopyot Kat Kara- 
yA@ooo, ili. 12. IO aoxnoov, ei yop- 
yos el, NowWopovpevos avexyerOa xk.T.X., 
M. Antonin. xii. 6 ei odv yopyos i, 
tavtny Oepamevoov. The departure 
in the later usage of the word from 
its Attic sense ‘terrible’ is noted by 
the old lexicographers. The pas- 
sage is twice quoted by Clem. Alex., 
Strom. i. 7 (p. 339) avrixa 6 KAnpns ev 
TH mpos KopuGiovs emuorodn Kata hééw 
noi, tas Siahopas éxriOéwevos Tav 
kata thy exkAnolay Ookipev, "Htw tis 
TLoTOS, 7Tw SuvaTos Tis yy@ouy EkeuTreiv, 
qt@ aodos ev diaxpicer Adyov, Aro 
yopyos ev epyos, and Strom. vi. 8 (p. 
722 Sq) €otw Toivyuy motos O TOLOvTOS, 
gata Suvatos yvoow e€eireiv, 7T@ To- 
gos év dtaxpioes Adyar, 7Tw yopyos €v 
epyos, jT@ ayvdos: ToTOUT@ yap wahdov 
ramewvoppovety dpeidet, dow Soxet par- 
Aov peifwov eivat: 6 KAnuns ev TH mpos 
KopiwvOiovs gnoi. The correction 
adopted in the text (after Hilgenfeld) 
seems to be justified by these two 
quotations. It does not however 
find any support in our existing au- 
thorities. The reading of the MS 
may be explained as arising out of a 
confusion, the transcriber’s eye pass- 
ing from one similar ending to an- 
other, 


Lo 


148 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xvi 


a ~ Sy \ a A 
Ooxet padAov pelCwy eivat, Kal CnTelv TO Kowwenes 
ae \ \ \ A 
TaACW Kal MN TO EaUTOU. 
/ Vd ~ lé \ 
XLIX. ‘O éywv adyarnv év Xpiote TroncaTw Ta 
~~ rl / \ \ bes / 
tov Xpictov TapayyéAuata. Tov deauoyv THs ayarns 
- a , , ) he A \ ~ - 
tov Oeov Tis duvata eEnynoacbar; TO MeyaNeEloy THs 5 


“ > ~ , > \ 5) casi Sey: > ra 
KaNXovys avToU TIS aPKETOS €LETELY 5 TO Uvos Els O 


> / e b) Id > y / ry 
advayel 4 ayarn dvexdinyntov éoTwy. 


€ ~ ~ ~ 
nuas To Ocew 


ayarn Ko\rNa 


5 / / ~ e ~~ 
ayarn KadvrrTer Anos auapTiWY* 


5) / / SOL. / a »Q\ / 
adyarn TavTa avexeTat, TavtTa wakpoOuuet* ovdev Ba- 


tT pel~wv] AC Clem; om. Anton Max. 
Tischendorf reads A, but other collators give it rypycaTw. 


myself. 
TOLNTATW. 

Dayan... 2 
but this is a lapse of the pen. 


I. paddov peifov|] See Matt. xxiii. 
11. For the double comparative see 
the note on Phzlippians i. 23. An- 
tonius Melissa Loc. Comm. ii. 73 (34) 
and Maximus Sevm. 49 both quote 
this sentence as from Clement in a 
somewhat different form, rocovréy Tis 
uadrrov odeiher ramewodpoveivy, ocov 
Soke addXov eivac: but they cannot 
be regarded as zudependent authori- 
ties for omitting peifwr, since in such 
collections of excerpts the later com- 
piler generally borrows directly from 
his predecessor: see Philippians p. 
251, note 2. The Syriac connects 
paddov with dokei. 

(nreiv x.r.A.] I Cor. x. 24 pdets 
TO €avtov (nteit@ adda TO Tov Erépou, 
and 2d. ver. 33 pn (yrov To éwavTov 
atppopov adda TO Tov ToAAOY. For 
(ntew To €avrov see also I Cor. xiii. 5, 
Phil iu 21. 

TO Kowwpedés| ‘the common ad- 
vantage’; comp. Philo de Foseph. 
11. p. 47 M. dia 7d Kkowaeres POdvorvta 
tovs dAdous, M. Anton. iii. 4 yopis 
peyadns kat KowwopPedovs avaykns, A fost. 
Const. vi. 12 ou nrotvres mpos ro 


3 tmooatw)] CS. So also 
I could not satisfy 


On the first two inspections I inclined to tnpynoarw, but on the last to 
There are various readings rower, Tnpouev (both well supported) in 
6 dpxerds] ACS. Bryennios represents C as omitting dpxerds, 


G ’ 


7 éotlv. ayanwn] A; éorly  dydmrn C. 


kowadenés. 

XLIX. ‘Who shall tell the power 
and the beauty of love? Love unites 
us to God: love is all enduring: love 
is free from pride and vulgarity: 
love brooks no strife or discord. In 
love all the saints were perfected. 
In love God took us to Himself. 
In love Christ gave His body for 
our bodies and His life for our lives.’ 

3. ‘O eyo x.7.A.] This resembles 
our Lord’s saying in John xiv. 15 éay 
dyarraré pe, Tas évtodas Tas eas THpN- 
oere (v.1. rypnoare): comp. I Joh. v. 
I—3. 

4. tov dSeoporv] i.e. ‘the binding 
power’: comp. Col. iii. 14 ryv ayarny 
6 é€orw avvdeopos Ths TedELOTNTOS. — 
This clause is quoted by Jerome ad 
Ephes. iv, 1 (VI. p. 606) ‘Cujus rei et 
Clemens ad Corinthios testis est, 
scribens Vinculum charitatts Det qui 
(guis) potertt enarrare 2’ 

6. apkeros e&eureiv] Previous edit- 
ors had misread the Ms A, and writ- 
ten dpkei, ws ee, eimetv. For the 
construction of apkerés see I Pet. iv. 3. 
The word occurs also Matt. vi. 34, 


XLIX | 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


149 


> ’ |g xA\ e , > , , 
10 vavoov €v ayamy, ovdev UTEepnpavoy: ayarn cyiopa 


a7 / / - / ~ 
OUK EXEL, ayaTN Ov OTaTIaCE, ayaTn TavTa Tole év 


€ / 5) ~ > / 5) / / e > \ 
Omovola* EV TH aYaTTY eTeNELWOnTay TavTES Ol éKNEKTOL 
t 


~ ~ / 5) / 29 \ EIA / > > > 
Tov Qeov: diya ayarns ovdev evapertov éotw TH Oew: 


? ? / / ¢ ~ € / \ A 
év ayarn mpooehaBeTo yuas oO deamoTns* Sia THY 


/ aA af \ € an \ er 5) ox) al 
I5ayanny, iv ETXEV TPOS Huas, TO aipa avTOU EdwKEV 


vmep nuwv Incovs Xpiotos 6 Kupios nuwy év OeAnpate 


= \ ~ \ > \ 
Ocov, Kal THv GapKa Vmrep THS TapKOs Huw@Y Kal THY 
\ \ la and a 
Wuyny uvmep Twov Wuyey juov. 


The whole of the preceding passage is disturbed in CS by false punctuation. 


8 rd7j00s] AC; but S translates NNW ‘ murum.’ 


13 ovdév...7T@ OBew] AC, 


and so Clem (except that he omits ésrw); Deo placere nemo potest (as if ovdevi 


evapecTeiy éoTWw T@ Oeq@) S. 
dédwkev C. 
18 tov Yuxwr] AS; THs pux7s C. 


x. 25, Hermas Vzs. iii. 8. 

TO Uwos x«z.A.| See the elabo- 
rate metaphor in Ign. Ephes. 9 ava- 
pepopevar cis TA VY Oia THs pnxarijs 
“Inoov Xpicrod x.r.A. The passage of 
Clement from this point, as far as 
Ths Baowreias Tov Xpiorod (§ 50), is 
loosely quoted and abridged by Clem. 
Alex. Strom. iv. 17 (p. 613 sq). 

8. ayann Kadvmret k.t.A.] ‘throws 
a veil over, omits to notice, forgets, 
Jorgives’, The expression is taken 
from I Pet. iv. 8 (comp. James v. 20), 
which again seems to be a loose quo- 
tation from Prov. x. 12, where the 
original has pywH-d> ‘all sins’ for 
‘a multitude of sins’, and the Lxx 
rendering is still wider, wavras Sé 
Tovs ju) Pidoverckodvras Kadvrret idia. 
For this Hebrew metaphor of ‘cover- 
me? see Ps; xxxiix 1, lxxxv. 3, Neh. 
ili. 37 (iv. 6). 

Q. ayarn mavra avéxerac] An imi- 
tation of 1 Cor. xill. 4, 7, 7 dyamn 
pakpoOvpel...mavra oréyel...7avta vTo- 
péver: and indeed the whole passage 
is evidently inspired by S. Paul’s 
praise of love. The juxtaposition of 


14 nuas] AS; tuds C. 
16 brép Nua "Inoods Xpiotds] AS; inoods xpioros brép juwv C. 


15 €dwkev] A; 


the language of S. Paul and the lan- 
guage of S. Peter is a token of the 
large and comprehensive sympathies 
of one who paid equal honour to 
both these great Apostles (§ 5),though 
rival sectarians claimed them for their 
respective schools. See Gadatzans p. 
323, with notes above §§ 12, 33. 

Bavavoor] ‘ coarse, vulgar, self-as- 
serting, arrogant’. See the note on 
adBavaicoas § 44. 

10. oxiopa ovk exer k.7.A.] The ex- 
pressions are in an ascending scale 
(1) ‘knows nothing of outward 
schisms’; (2) ‘does not even foster 
a factious spirit’; (3) ‘nay, preserves 
entire and universal harmony’. 

I2. éreXewdOnoav| I John iv. 18 ode 
hoBovpevos ov TeTeNeiwrat ev TH Ayan. 

14. dca tTHv dyanny x.t.A.] Comp. 
John xv. 12, Gal. 11..20, Ephes. vez: 

17. Kat tTHv capxa] Wotton quotes 
Iren. v. I. 1 t@ iSi@ aipate AuTpacape- 
vou nas tov Kupiov kal ddvtos thy 
Wuyny trép Tov nueTépav Wuxer kal 
THY OapKa THY EavTOU avT TOY NLETEPOV 
capkay, which seems to have been 
taken from this passage of Clement. 


150 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [L 


e ~ , lad 7 \ / 
L. ‘Opate, dyamntol, mws péya kal Oavyaotor 
5) ¢ ? / \ ~ / Sin ate! sf 
EOTLY  ayamNn, Kal THS TENELOTNHTOS AUTHS OUK ETL 
5) / , € \ om ¢ lo \ ra \ 
éEnynots* Tis lkavos €v avTn evpeOnvat, EL un oOvS ap 
L € y, / ; > \ > / > | 
KaTatwwon 6 OQeos; dewueOa ovv Kal aitwpeba dro 
ey ES , 5) Ay ee b) ? / c - / 
TOU €NEouS avTOU, iva €v ayarn evpeOwpev Oiya Tpoc- 
/ > / of € \ - A 
KAicews avOpwrivns awuol. al yeveal aca ao 
\ e/ = e , ~ ? / 
"Adau éws THodE nuepas mapndOov, GAN ot ev ayarn 
2 ) ayarn)] A; ayarn C. avris A; atrod C. S translates ejusdem (ipsius) 
perfectionis. It seems to have had ai’rns and made it agree with rededrnros. 
ovK €or K.T.X.] AC; S translates 2on est sermo ullus suffictens ut inventatur, thus 


reading éjyyols tts and making ixavés feminine. 3 €énynots] eEnynoeo A. 
ei uy] AC; S apparently adds év ayarn kai, but a false punctuation has confused 


the translation of the whole context. 


ous av kataéwwon] Tischendorf seems to 
N 


have rightly deciphered A as reading OYCAKATAZIWCH, though the superscribed 


N is not distinct. 
the last note. 


L. ‘In this marvellous love let us 
pray God that we may live. We can 
only do so by His grace, ‘Past 
generations, thus perfected in love, 
now dwell in the abodes of bliss, 
awaiting His kingdom: for He has 
promised to raise them again. Happy 
are we, if we pass our time here in 
harmony and love. For then our sins 
will be forgiven us: we shall inherit 
the blessing promised to the elect of 
God through Christ.’ 

2. ths TeAevoTnTOS k.T.A.| See I John 
iv. 18 ov rereAelwTat ey TH Gyan, above 
§ 49 erededOnoay, and below ot ev 
dyann TeAe.wOevres ; Comp. I John ii. 
By IVs (12. 

3. €v avtn evp.] Comp. Phil. iii. 9. 

6. ai yeveat raca] Comp. §7 els 
Tas yeveas Taoas. 

8. x@pov evocBav] ‘the place as- 
signed to the pious’, like rov dewdope- 
vov tomov ths doéns § 5, or rou iSpv- 
pévov avtois Torov § 44. See the note 
on § 5,and comp. Iren. v. 31. 2(quoted 
by Wotton here) ai Wuyai arépyovra 
eis Tov [ddparov] Tomov Tov wpiopévor 


4 Kkatakiwon] S; katadwwén C. For the reading of A see 
dewueBa] supplicemus S; .....0a A; deoueba C; I had conjec- 


avtais amo Tov Ocov, KaKet pexpL THS 
dvactdcews Poitact, mepiyévovear THY 
avagtacw «.7.A. See also Afost. 
Const. viii. 41 y@pos evocBav avet- 
pevos «.t.A., Lebas-Waddington Asie 
Mineure Inscr. 168 evoeBewv xapov 
deEaro maor pirov. For xadpov evoeBov 
the existing text of Clem. Alex. has 
xepav evoeBov, ‘the country, the 
realms of the pious’, which suggests 
a more sensuous image, conveying a 
notion similar to the ‘Elysian fields’. 
The one might be translated ‘locus 
piorum’, the other ‘campus piorum’. 
But y@pos, rather than y#pa, accords 
with the language of the Roman 
Clement elsewhere. A place in Si- 
cily, named after two brothers famous 
for their piety, was called indiffer- 
ently EvocBav xopa and EvoceBav 
x@pos; see Bentley’s Dissert. on Pha- 
lar. v (I. p. 238, ed. Dyce). 

9. é€v TH emickory K.T-A.] Luke xix. 
44 Tov Katpov Ths émtaKoms cov, I Pet. 
ii. 12 do€ac@ow Tov Gedy ev juépa em- 
oxomns, Wisd. ill. 7 kat ev Kaip@ ém- 
okoms avTav dvadduovow, Polycra- 


Io 


L| TO THE CORINTHIANS. I51 


/ -~ ~ / of ~ 
TeAewlevTEes KaTa THY TOU OEov yap EXxovaL ywpor 
3 C ec 7 5 > a 
evoeBwv? ot pavepwOncovta év TH é€muoKkoT THS Ba- 
~ 7 / / > ’ > \ 
aiNeias TOU Oceov. yeypamTa yap: EjicéAgete cic A 


c 


TAMEIA MIKPON OCON OCON, EWC OY TApeAOH H OPrH kal 


G6yYMOC MOY, KAl MNHCOHCOMAI HMEPAC AfABAC KAI ANACTHCW 
c aA > A a c a / a / 
YMAC €K TWN OBHKWN YMMN. [PAKAPLOL NMEV, ayanrnTol, 
> \ / ~ land > - ¢ / 
él Ta Tp0TTAayMaTa Tov Oéeou EmrolovpEv Ev Opovoia 
? / 2 \ 5) ~ Cle a eS / \ € f 
ayamns, €ls TO apebnvat Huiv OL ayamns Tas aLAOTLas. 
tured dewuefa (ed. 1). obv] AC; add. dyamnrot S. aitwueba] AS; 
airovmeba C. 5 avrov] AC; Tov Geot S. mpookNicews] A; mpooxAnoews 
C; adhaerentia S. On this itacism see above, § 47. 7 Thode nuépas] A; 
THS Huepas THode C; while Clem has rjcde THs Nuépas. The reading of S is inde- 


terminable. g ot] AS; of dé C. 10 Geod] CS; .y A; Tischendorf 
reads yy; but I could only see y, the first letter being hopelessly blurred. 


eicéhOere] CS; euoed.... A. 


LXx, but the other authorities point to eicé\Gere. 
12 Oupuds] Ov... A; 6 Ouuds C. 


Tapueta C, 
15 nuiv] AS; vu C. 


tes in Euseb. H. £. v. 24 mepipéevor 
THY GTO TOV OVpavar emioKoTHY ev 7 EK 
VeKp@v avaoTnoeTal. 

10. EioeAGere x.t.A.] A combination 
of passages. The opening is taken 
from the LXX Is. xxvi. 20 eloedOe eis 
Ta Tapeta Gov, arokAEicov THY OUpay cov, 
droxpvBnOt pixpov dcoyv ocov, €ws ay 
mapedOn 7 6py) Kupiov: the close pro- 
bably from Ezek. xxxvii. 12 avaf&o 
Upas €K TOV pynuatoyv vuov. The in- 
termediate words kai prynoOnocopa 
nuépas ayadns are not found any- 
where. They may possibly be in- 
tended to give the general purport 
of the promise which they introduce: 
see a parallel instance in § 52. The 
combination of the two passages 
from different prophets was probably 
suggested by the verse in Isaiah 
which immediately precedes the 
words quoted, dvacrncovrat of vexpol 
Kat eyepOnoovrat ot ev Tots pynpetors (Is. 
Exvi..19).. Comp. 5 Esdr. a. 16,‘ et 
resuscitabo mortuos de locis suis et 
de monumentis educam illos etc.’ 


It is quite possible that A read eiseNOe with the 


II Tamela] Tama A; 
13-quev] CS; éouey A. 


II. rapeta| ‘the inner chamber’, 
q1n. Onthe form see Lobeck Phryn. 
p. 493, Paral. p. 28. The same ten- 
dency to elide the « before ec appears 
in vyela $20. In § 21 however our 
chief MS writes tapueva. 

daov daov| Comp. Heb. x. 37 (with 
Bleek’s note). 

opyy Kat Oupos] opyn is the settled 
temper, ‘auger’; Oupos the sudden 
outburst, ‘wrath’. See the distinc- 
tion in. /Trench’s , 1V.. 42s Syst 
ser. § xxxvil, and to the passages 
there collected add Joseph. 2. F. ii. 
8. 6 dpyns tapiar Sikavoe Oupod Kabex- 
tiukol, Hermas JZand. v. 2 ék dé ths 
muikpias Oupos, ek Se Tod Oupov dpyn, 
K.T.A. 

14. émovodpev|] If the reading be 
correct, the point of time denoted in 
egpev Must be the second advent, so 
that the deeds of this present life are 
regarded as past. 

€v opovoia ayarns| § 49 ayarn mavta 
TOLEL EV OMovoia. 


15. d¢ ayamns |‘ through God’s love’, 


152 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [L 


yeyparrat yao" Makapiol GN AMEBHCAN al ANOMIAL Kal 
GN ETTEKAAYDOHCAN al AMAPTIAIT MAKAPIOC ANHP OY OY MH 
AoricHtal Ky¥pioc AMapTian OYA€ ECTIN EN TH CTOMATI aYT[OY] 
AdAoc. OUTOS 6 Makapiomos éyevEeTo Emi ToUs éxNEAEY- 
pevous U0 ToU OQceov dia “Incot Xpiotov tov Kupiov 5 
MOV, 1 do€a Eis TOUS AlwYAaS THY AiwywY. ayND. 
I pakdpior] makaxapio. A. 2 00] A; @ CS. There is the same v. l. in 
the Lxx:; 5 Tov Qeov] A; Qeod C. 


CS ; mape...uev A. See the lower note. 
bably A. See the lower note. 


7 Twapevécamev Kal érorjoaper | 
8 apeOjvar juiv] CS, and so pro- 
10 THs €Amldos] AC 3 spez nostrae S, but it 


probably does not represent a different Greek text. 


of which we become partakers by 
ourselves living in love. There is 
the same transition from the _ be- 
liever’s love to God’s love in § 49 
dixa ayamns k.T.A. 

I. Maxdpioe x.t.A.| From the LXx 
of Ps. xxxll. I, 2, word for word, as 
read in A (S writes agetOnoav). For 
ob B has o. In Rom. iv. 8 it is a 
question whether ov or @ is the cor- 
rect reading. 

4. otros 0 pakapicpos| Suggested 
by Rom. iv. 9, where after quoting 
the same passage from the Psalms 
S. Paul continues, 6 paxapiopos ody 
ovTos emt THY TeptTounv «x.t.A. For 
pakapiopos see also Rom. iv. 6, Gal. 
iv. 15 (note). 

7. Taperecauey Kal emouoaper| 
There can be no doubt about the 
reading of our two new authorities; 
for though the last word indeed, as 


now read in the Syriac MS, is pias 


transgresst sumus, the diacritic point 
has been altered and it was originally 


Ia jecimus, But what was the 


reading of A? The editors have 
hitherto given mapéBnuev; but the 
older collators Young and Wotton 
professed only to see zape...uev, and 
after’ C was discovered, Gebhardt 
(ed. 2), observing that nothing was 
said either by Tischendorf or by my- 


11 pdPov] AC; add. 


self ‘de litera B adhuc conspicua’, 
suggested that the reading of A was 
not mapeBnuev but waperéoapey and 
that the following words kai émoiumoa- 
pev were omitted owing to homceote- 
leuton, for there certainly is not 
room for them. I believe he is right. 
Having my attention thus directed to 
the matter, I looked at the MS again. 
I could not discern a B but saw 
traces of a square letter which looked 
like tr followed by a curved letter 
which might be e. Not satisfied 
with my own inspection, I wrote 
afterwards to Dr E. M. Thompson, 
now chief librarian of the British 
Museum, to obtain his opinion. He 
read the letters independently exactly 
as I had done, and says confidently 
that the reading was mapemécapev. 
This reading is favoured by the words 
which follow Kadov yap avOpdr@ €&o- 
podoyeioOa Tepi TOY TapaTT@paTaY 
(see the note on § 46), as also by 
the loose paraphrase of the younger 
Clement Strom. iv. 18 (p. 614) jy de 
kal TEpLTeoH Akwv Tova’Tn Til Tept- 
ordoe Oia tas mapepnt@cets TOU avTt- 
keyevov, Where mepiréon seems to 
have been suggested by the associa- 
tion of sounds. 

LI. ‘We must therefore ask par- 
don for our sins. Above all ought 
the leaders of these factions to deny 


LI] 


LI. 


lo ral / 
TLWOS TWVY TOU GYTLKELMEVOU, 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


153 


/ Ss , \ Le / 
“Oca ovv qaperecauev Kat érromoapey Ola 


agwowuev adeOnvar juiv 


AA) themes / e/ \ / \ / 
KQ@L EKELVOL O€, OLTLVES aoxynyor OTAGEWS Kal dryooTtacias 


5) / ? / \ \ lon 5) / =~ 
evyernOnoay, opetAovew TO KOLVOV TNS €NTLOOS GKOTELD. 


e \ \ / \ > / / e \ 
ol yap META ofou Kal ayarns TOALTEVOMEVOL EAUTOUS 


/ lanl > / / 3\ \ / 
GéXovew pardov aikiats TEOLTLATELV H TOUS TANCLOV, 


de S. 


12 OéXovew] AC; cogunt (coarctant) S. 


aikias] ovxwao A. 


Tischendorf (prol. p. xix) considers that it is altered into atxiaca prima manu, but 


I could not distinctly see this correction. 


Tovs mAnolov] AC ; Tots rAnoior S, 


which also omits 6¢ éavréy, thus throwing the syntax into confusion. 


themselves for the common good. 
It is well always to confess our 
wrong-doings, and not to harden 
our hearts. Let us take warning by 
the fate of the factious opponents of 
Moses who were swallowed up alive 
in the pit, and by the fate of Pharaoh 
and his host who were overwhelmed 
in the Red Sea, because they har- 
dened their hearts.’ 

7. O.a tivos k.t.d.] ‘dy any of the 
wreles (or of the ministers) of the ad- 
versary’. 

8. Tov avtixeysévov] So o avtidiKxos 
I Pet. v. 8, and perhaps o avtevepyov 
Barnab. § 2. ‘O avrixeipevos itself is 
not so used in the New Testament 
(except possibly in 1 Tim. v. 14), but 
occurs Wart. Polyc. 17, and in later 
writers. 

ape@nvat nuiv] So the lacuna in 
A is now supplied in our new 
authorities in place of ovyyvopny. 
Among other suggestions I had pro- 
posed dpeOjvac in my notes ; comp. 
§ 50 els 7d adeOjvar nyiv...yéypanrat 
yap: Makadpiot bv adpeOnoay x.7.d. It 
is entirely after Clement’s manner to 
take up the key word of a quotation 
and dwell upon it; see the instances 
collected above, § 46. There can be 
no doubt therefore that Tischendorf 
misread A. Nevertheless he re- 
iterated the statement to which I - 


took exception and said ‘Emen- 
datione veteris scripturae vix opus 
est [ovy}yrvop[nv]; literarum yop 
pars superior in codice superest, 
quapropter de vera lectione vix du- 
bito: dubitat vero Lightf. et dicit 
etc’ “ He’ took’ no’ notice of “my 
grammatical objection to this con- 
struction of a&odyv. I had urged that 
the instances where a&wdyv appears 
to govern an accusative of the thing 
claimed (e.g. Dan, ii. 23, Esth. v. 6, 
ix. 12, Xen. Mem. iii. 11. 12) are not 
decisive. I might have added a 
further lexical objection ; for neither 
in the LXX nor in the N.T. nor in the 
Apostolic Fathers are ovyywookey, 
cvyyvepn, ever said of God. The fact 
is that the MS is eaten into holes here 
and nothing can be vead. The letters 
can only be conjectured from the in- 
dentations left. Dr E. M. Thomp- 
son of the British Museum whom I 
consulted and whose practised eye I 
should trust much more than my 
own, gives it as his opinion that 
cuyyvepny would not fit into these 
indentations but that ade@nvainpl[uv] 
might. 

9g. dtyooracias| See the note on 
§ 46. 

IO. Td Kowvov ths eAmidos] Comp. 
Ign. Ephes. 1 vrép Tod Kowod dvouaros 
kal eA7ridos with the note. 


154 THEY PIST GE OF) SeCLEMENT [LI 
~~ ys e 4G / ¥. aN = 
MaNhov 0€ EavTwY KaTayvwow epovolw n THS Tapa- 
Ne On. tr ~ c \ 
dedoperns juivy Karws Kal SiuKcalws Omodwrias. KaNov 
\ > iA ~ \ ~ / 
yap avOpwrw EEomoAoyeto bar rept Tw TAPATTWUA~ 
\ a“ \ / > lan) \ > / 
TwY 4 OKANPUVaL THY Kapdiay avTov, Kabws éxkAnpuvOn 
/ ~ / \ \ / ~ 
Hy Kapdla Tw TTATLACOVTWY TpPOS TOV Oepatovta Tou 
~ et Lone e \ if / ° , / 
Ocou Mwvonv: wy To Kpiua mpddnrov éyevnOy. Kate- 
\ ) e/ ~ ’ al 
Bnoav yap eis ddou CWUTES, Kal OANATOC TIOIMANE! 
2 ' \ \ ¢ A > ~ id 
aytoyc. Papaw Ka 7 GTpaTla avTOU Kal TayTEs 
. / > / ’ a \ c ? ! 
OL nyoumevoe Atyumrou, Td Te kpmata Kal of dNaBATAl 
an > af \ > V4 5) : 
auTwV, ov Ot aAAnY TWA aiTiav éBvOicOycay eis Oa- 


\ \ > Sf > \ \ \ 
Aacoav épvOpav Kai dmwAovto, a\Aa Sta TO CKAN- 


5 oraciagovrwy] A; oracidvtwy CS, but there is a tendency in S in these cases 


to translate by a past where the principal verb is a past, as here. 
movta] AS; avOpwirov C. See the lower note. 


depa- 
g Alyirrov] S; ...vrrov A; 


avrod C. Perhaps the archetype of C was partially erased here and ran a..v.Tov. 


dvaBdrat] avaBdaras C. 


2. kadov...7] Matt. xviii. 8, Mark 
ix. 43,45; see Winer Gramm. § xxxv. 
Pp. 255. 

4. oxkAnpova x.t.A.] Ps. xcv. 8; 
comp. Heb. iii. 8, 15, iv. 7. 

5. tov Oepdarovra| See the various 
reading in C. Moses is called a@- 
O@peros Tov Geov, Deut. xxxiii. I, Josh. 
miv.|).6,/4,°Chron.. xxiii, .14,.2 Chron. 
xxx. 16, Ezra 11. 2. Familiarity with 
the phrase (which is_ especially 
prominent in Deut. xxxiii. I, where 
it prefaces the Song of Moses) would 
lead to its introduction here. Else- 
where (§ 53) C alters the designation 
Oepamwy tov Ocov in another way. 
On the other hand @eparwyv tot Gcod 
is itself a common designation of 
Moses (see the note on § 4), and 
might well have been substituted for 
the other expression here. But the 
preponderance of authority must be 
considered decisive as to the reading. 

6. KkatéBnoav yap x.t.A.] Num. xvi. 


1o ov] oa A. 
13 yH Atydrrov] ynavyv... A; Alyirrw CS. 


12 a’rwy] here A; after xapdias C. 
14 Mwicéws] pwvcew AZ 


32, 33 nvolxOn n yn Kal Karémuev avdrovs 
...kal katéBnoay atrol kat doa éoTw 
avtay (evra eis adov. Comp. Afost. 
Const. 1. 27 AaOay kat ’ABeipodv Cortes 
katéBnoay eis ddov kal paBdos Bdao- 
Tyoaoa x.t.r. (comp. § 43); see also 
205 Wis. 3s 

7. towmavet] Clement is quoting 
from Ps. xlvili (xlix). 14 os wpoBara 
ev d0n €Oevro, Oavatos Tmoimavet avTous. 
The reading could not have been 
foreseen, and the lacuna in A was 
supplied with xarézuev, before our new 
authorities revealed the true reading. 

Q. Ta Te Gppara kal of dvaBara]| 
The expression is borrowed from the 
Mosaic narrative, where it occurs 
several times, Exod. xiv. 23, 26, 28, 
comp. xv. 19, Jer. li (xxvili). 22, Hagg. 
Li, 22. 

12. Tas aovvérous kapdias| As Rom. 


1. 21 éoxoticOn 1 daovveros avTav 
kapOla. 
LII. ‘The Lord of the universe 


Lu] 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


P53 


- ~~ \ / / \ \ / 
puvOnvar avTwy Tas aoVVETOUS Kapdlas META TO YEVET- 


Gai Ta onueia Kal Ta Teopata év yn AtyurrTouv sia 
nie p yn Airy 


TOU OeparrovTos tou Qeov Moicéws. 


LIL. 


"Ampoodens, addeApoi, 6 SeamoTns vrapyel 


Co € / oT \ 5) \ 7 > \ \ > 
TwWY aTravTwy, ovdEev oUvdEVOS ypnCEL EL pn TO E£O- 
ra 


~ >] la 
poroyetcbar avTw. 


gnoiv yap o ékNextos Aaveis: 


*EZomoAorHcomal T@ Kypiow, kal apécel aYT@ YMEP MOCYON 


NEON KEPATA EKMEPONTA KAI OTTAAC™ 


> / 


iAETWCAN TIT@YO! KAl 


> ’ \ , f fa) a) n ' 
20€YPPANOHTWCAN. Kal TaAL Eye? Ofcon TH Dew Oycian 


> ! \ > ' a c t \ > ’ P \ > f 
AINECEWC KAI ATIOAOC TW YYICT@ Tac Eyyac COY* Kal ETT 


pwoéws C. 


16 ovéév} ..dev A; om. CS. 


To] A; rod C. The ovdév 


has obviously been omitted by carelessness before ovdevds, and thus has necessitated 


the further change of 76 into Tod. 
dad AC. See above, § 4. 
twoav] AS; om. C. 

21 émixddecar] emixadece A. 


wants nothing. He demands of us 
only confession. He asks no sacri- 
fice, but the sacrifice of praise and 
thanksgiving; for so the Psalmist 
teaches us.’ 

15. “Ampoodens| ‘wants nothing be- 
sides’. Comp. Joseph. Azz. viii. 4. 3 
ampoodees yap TO Oeioy amavrwy (with 
the context), Act. Paul. et Thecl. 
S$ 17 (p. 47 Tisch.) Geds dmpocdens, 
Clem. Hom. xi. 9 6 Geds yap dvevdens 
ay avtos ovdevos Seira, Epist. ad 
Diogn. 3 6 rowuoas Tov ovpavov Kat THY 
yiv kal wavtTa Ta €v avtois...ovdevos av 
avtos mpoadéoito TovT@y kK.t.rA., A- 
thenag. Sufpl. § 13 6 rovde rod mav- 
Tos Onp.ovpyos Kal matnp...avevdens Kai 
ampoodens, § 29 advevdecs...Td Oeior, 
Resurr. § 12 mavtos yap éotw ampoo- 
dejs, Tatian ad Graec. 4 6 yap mav- 
Tov avevdens ov SiaBdAnréos ih’ nudy 
ws evdens, Theophil. ad Aut. ii. 10 
dvevdens @v. See also Acts xvii. 25 
with the passages from heathen wri- 
ters collected there by Wetstein. 
This was a favourite mode of speak- 


17 avtT@m] AC; add. povor S. 
1g véov] vatov A. 
21—2 Kal émixdderm...doédces pe] AS; om. C. 


Aaveid] 
19, 20 Képara...evppavd7- 


ing with the Stoics. The parallel 
passages quoted above would sup- 
port the connexion of tov amavrwy 
either with dzpoodejs or with o deo- 
motns. The latter seems more forcible 
and more natural here, besides that 
o Oeométns Tay adravTay is a Common 
phrase in Clement, S§ 8, 20, 33. It 
is however connected with 6 deamorns 
in the Syriac. 

18. ’E€opodoynoopat x.r.A.] Comp. 
Ps. Ixix. 31, 32, kat apéoer r@ Oe@ vTEp 
poaxov véov Képata exPépovra kal on- 
Ads’ id€rwoay x.t.’. The introductory 
words éfouoroynoowa. T@ Kupi@ are 
not found in the context, though they 
express the sewse of the preceding 
verse aivéow TO Ovoya k.T.A., and occur 
frequently elsewhere. 

20. ©Ovcov «.7.A.] The first part 
Gvoov...d0€aces we occurs in Ps. xlix 
(1). 14, 15 word for word, except that 
the second gov is omitted in some 
MSS: the last clause is taken from 
Ps, li. 17 @vcia TH Ge@ mvevpa ovv- 
TETPLULLEVOY. 


156 THE EPISTLE OF S, CLEMENT [ui 


KAdAECAl ME EN HMEPA BAIYEMC COY, Kal EZEAOYFMAI CE, Kal 
AozZAcelc Me’ OycIA rap TH Oew@ TINEYMA CYNTETPIMMENON. 
/ lanl , \ 
LIT. ’Erioracbe ydp cai ckadws ériotacbe Tas 
€ \ / ’ , §. (4 > \ / 
lepas ypadas, ayamnrtol, Kal eyxexupate eis Ta OYA 
Mwv- 


/ \ vA > \ af \ / 
gews yap avaBaivovTos els TO Opos Kal TomoayToS 


~ q > > / > ~ / 
Tov Qeov: els advauynow ovv TavTa ypapouer. 


TETTEPAKOVTA NMEpAasS Kal TETTEPAKOVTA VUKTAaS Ee 
WNOTELA Kal TaTEWwWoEL, Elev TPOS aUTOV O Oeos: 
Moy¥cf, Moc, kaTABHOI TO TAyoc ENTEYOEN, OTI HNOMHCEN 
6 Aadc coy oYc €ZHrarec €k rAc Airymtoy: mapéBHCAaN TAyY 


1 gov] A; om. S. 3 émlaracbe] emrotacba A. 
addeApot S, omitting dyamyroi 1. 20; see above, § I. 4 kal éykexvgare] 
CS; ...exupare A. 5 ypagmouev] CS. In A.only the final stroke 1, being 
part of the N, is visible (though Tischendorf says ‘ante Mwvoews praecedit punc- 
tum, non | quod Jacobsonus videre sibi visus est’). 6 avaBaivovros] A, not 
dvaBdvros as Jacobson would read; for the | is distinct and cannot have formed 
the first stroke of N as he supposes; dvaBdvros C. S has a past tense, but on such 
a point its authority cannot be urged. As usual C alters the tenses where they 
do not seem appropriate ; see above, I. p. 126. eis] C3 ...6 Aj; ws mpos (or ws 
eis) S. 7 TecoepdxovTa] TecoapdxovTa C in both places. In either case the 
word is mutilated in A, so that we cannot determine the form, but the preference 
of this Ms for the forms in € can leave little doubt. 


yap] AC; add. 


I. é€eAodpa] For this future see 
Buttmann Gv. Sprachl. I. p. 100, 
Winer Gramm. § xciv. Clem. Alex. 
Strom. iv. 18 (p. 614), after dia ras 
TAapeUMTOoELS TOU avTikemevou (already 
quoted p. 152), goes On pupnoduevos 
tov Aavid yaret E€opodoynoopar k.T.A. 
Tore cuvreTpyipevor, stringing together 
the same quotations as in this chap- 
ter of the Roman Clement. 

LIII. ‘You are well versed in the 
Scriptures. I therefore quote them 
only to remind you. Remember how 
Moses entreated God for the people, 
how he would accept no honour for 
himself, but asked to be blotted out 
with them, if they might not be for- 
given.’ 

3. émictacbe x.t.’.] For the form 
of the sentence see the note on § 47 
aigxpa, dyamnrot, kat Aiav aioxpa. 


tas tepas ypadas] Comp. Polyc. 
Phil. 12 ‘Confido enim vos bene 
exercitatos esse in sacris literis et 
nihil vos latet?. So 2 Tim. ii. 15 
[ra] icepa ypdupara, the only passage 
in the New Testament where this 
epithet is applied to the Scriptures. 
It occurs above § 43, and in 2 Macc. 
viii. 23, and is so used both by Philo 
and by Josephus. 

4. éyxexupare| See the note on § 4o. 

6. momoartos| ‘spent, as several 
times inthe N.T. See the references 
in Grimm’s Clav. Nov. Test. s.v. rove 
It. d, p. 527 (ed. Thayer). 

8. elev mpos avrov k.t.A.] The first 
part, as far as padXov 7) rovro, is taken 
from Deut. ix. 12—14, which how- 
ever commences somewhat differently 
kat ele Kuptos 7pos pe* “Avaorn@t, kata- 
Bn@ ro raxos, the remainder following 


Io 


Lut] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


157 


ék thc 6Aof Fe éneTeiAM AYTOIC, EMOIHCAN EayTOIC Yo- 


> , / : : 
NEYMATA. KQL €L7reV Kuptos mpos avTov* NeddAuka tpdc 


cé &t1az Kal Alc Aér@N, “E@paka TON AAON TOYTON, Kal IAOY 
ECTIN CKAHPOTPAYHAOC* EACON ME EZOAEOPEYCAl AYTOYC, Kal 
E€ZaAElyw TO GNOMA AYTON YTOKATMOBEN TOY OYPANOY Kal 
’ > ” ’ \ \ \ \ n 
TOIFCWM Ce EIC EBNOC MELA KAI BAYMACTON KAI TIOAY MAAAON 


a \ 3 *. lal sie = 
H tToYto. Kal eimen Mwycic: MxHdbamadc, Kypies adec TEN 


AMAPTIAN T@ AA@ TOYTW F KAME EZAAEIYON EK BIBAOY ZON- 


N\ / p) / \ , p) , 
TWN. @& MEvyaArns ayamns, wW TEAELOTNTOS dvuTrepBAnTovu" 


9 Mwaiic#, Mwiicf] ...cnuwvon A; won, uwon C (this MS is most capricious, and 
both before and after this uses the other form pwrofs); om. S. 
Aiytbrrov] C3 exyno....... v A; é€& Alydrrou S, with the Hebrew. II €rolncav] 
AC (Lxx A with the Hebr); kal érolncay S. The xal appears in B of the 
LXX. xovetuata] AC; xwvevua (owing to the absence of 77buz) S. In the 
Lxx A has xwvevrd, B xwvevya with the Hebr. 14 éoTw] def. A; éore CS with 
Clem. The editors (myself included) following Young had supplied the lacuna in 
A with dads from the Lxx (i500 ads cxAnporpdxnréds éoriv), though Potter (Clem. 
Alex. Strom. iv. 19, p. 617) had warned them that Clement of Alexandria supplied 
the right word (éo7vr). éacov] AC; kal éacov S. In the Lxx B has xai viv 
éforeOpevoa] ....ceApevoae A; efodoBpetoa C ; éfodeOpevow (or -oPpedow) 
S apparently. 17 elrev] def. A; etre C. Thy dpaptiav] AC; peccatum 
hoc S. 19 @ weyddrns] A; meyddns (om. @) C. 


TO €k Ys 


éacov. 


the LXxX very closely (compare also 
Exod. xxxii. 7, 8). After paAdov 4 
rouro the parallel narrative in Exod. 
Xxxli is taken up, and the substance 
of vv. Io, 31, 32 1S given in a com- 
pressed form. See Barnab. § 4 Aéyer 
yap ovtas Kupios, Movon, Mavon, xa- 
raBnOs TO Taxos, OTL HYOunoEY 6 dads 


both writers from Exod. iii. 4. 

16. @avpacrov] So quoted also by 
Clem. Alex., but it is icyvpov in the 
LXx. The combination péya kai 
Oavpacrov occurs also §§ 26, 50. 

mov paddAov 7 TovTo] i.e. mXetov 
rovrov, an attempt to render the 
Hebrew idiom 339) 34, ‘greater 
than it’. 


gov ous eEnyayes €k ys Aiy’mrov, and 
again § 14 eimev Kupios mpds Moionpr, 
Motion, Moion, xataBnO to Tayos ort 
6 Aaods cov ov eEnyayes ex ys Aiyimrou 
nvopnoev. The coincidence in the 
repetition of the name Maton, Mavon, 
is not sufficient to show that the one 
writer was indebted to the other (as 
Hilgenfeld seems to think, here and 
p- xx); for, though the name is not 
repeated at this place in either of the 
Mosaic narratives, it may very easily 
have been inserted independently by 


See 11. § 2 from Is. liv. 1. 

Clem. Alex., Strom. iv. 19 (p. 617) 
avtika ovx 6 Mavons «.t.A., para- 
phrases the remainder of this chapter 
from kal ecimev «.r.X., giving the same 
quotations as the Roman Clement. 

19. ® | According to the rule of 
the grammarians the interjections 
should be so accentuated, not 3, é6; 
see Chandler Greek Accentuation 
§ 904, p. 246 sq. The editors here 
vary. 


158 THE EPISTLE OF S$. CLEMENT [art 


/ / \ v 3 ~ oy 
Tappno.aceTat Oeparwy mpos Kupliov, aliTeiTar apeow 
~ / s\ \ ~ cr > ~ 
Tw ANGE 4 Kal EavToOV EEarerpOjvar per avTwv a£LOl. 
/ > > ad ~ of 
LIV. Tis ovv év vmiv yevvaios; Tis evomAayxXvVos § 
/ / > / > / > > > \ 
Tis memAnpoopnuevos ayamns; ElTaTwr Ei oc épe 
/ af \ lo sf . oN 
OTATIS Kal Epis Kal TYITMATA, EKYWPW, ATTELML OU Ea 5 
/ \ qn \ \ ~ 
BovAncOe, Kal Tow Ta TpoTTaTocOMEvVa U7TO TOU 
/ , \ a = / 
mAnGous: povoy TO Toiunov Tov Xpiorov EtpnveveTH 


\ rot lA i Cn £ 
pera Tov kaleoTauEevwy TpETBUTEPwWY. TOUTO O ToOLN- 


1 Oepdrrwv] AS; deorérns C. 


éyw €xxwp® (apparently) S. 
kXatoo A. 10 Témos] ToTwo A. 


I. Oeparwv] Bryennios adopts the 
reading of C Seomorns, i.e. Sas a 
master’; but this does not represent 
the fact and cannot be right. 

LIV. ‘Is any one noble, tender- 
hearted, loving? Let him declare 
his willingness to withdraw, that the 
flock of Christ may be at peace. He 
will not want a place of retirement. 
The whole earth will be ready to 
receive him, for Zhe earth zs the 
Lorad’s and the fulness thereof. This 
has been the conduct of the true 
citizens of God’s kingdom in all 
ages.’ 

3. Tis ovv x.7.A.] This passage, as 
far as xalecrapévav mpecBuTépor, 1S 
quoted in a collection of extracts 
preserved by an anonymous writer in 
Syriac ; see above, I. p. 183. 

Epiphanius also (aer. xxvii. 6, p. 
107) quotes a few words, but incor- 
rectly and at second hand (see above, 
I. p. 408 sq). He had read them in 
certain vaoprynpatiopoi, which I have 
elsewhere (I. p. 327 Sq) given reasons 
for supposing to have been the ‘ Me- 
moirs’ (vropvnpata) of Hegesippus. 
The passage suggests to Epiphanius 
a solution of the difficulty attending 
the lists of the early Roman bishops. 
He conjectures that Clement, after 


3 vutv] AS; juiv C. 
pnuevos] AC; plenus (impletus) S. See the lower note. 
6 Botd\nobe] BovrAncOa A. 


4 tem)Anpogo- 

5 éexxwpo] AC; 
g kréos] 

12 moNTelav TOO Oeod] A; Tov Oeov 


being consecrated by S. Peter, may 
have acted as he here advises others 
to act, and have refrained from active 
ministrations (sapaitnodpevos npyet) 
till the deaths of Linus and Cletus. 
Compare Cic. pro M7l. § 93 (to which 
Fell refers) ‘Tranquilla republica 
cives mei (quoniam mihi cum illis 
non licet) sine me ipsi, sed per me 
tamen, perfruantur; ego cedam at- 
que abibo. It would seem (from 
the reference to patriotic kings and 
rulers in the next chapter) as though 
Clement had read this passage. 

There are several echoes of this 
passage in John of Ephesus (iv. 13, 
48, 60), as pointed out by Bensly. 
If these be not accidental he probably 
got them from the vzopynpaticpot 
which supplied Epiphanius with his 
quotation, orfrom the collection which 
the Syriac writer had before him. 

4. memAnpopopnpevos| In the New 
Testament this verb has only the 
following senses: (1) ‘to fulfil’, 2 
Tim. iv. 5, 17; (2) in the passive 
‘to be fully believed’ (e.g. Luke i. 1), 
or ‘to be fully persuaded’ (e.g. Rom. 
iv. 21). Here, if the reading be cor- 
rect, it must be equivalent to wemAn- 
popevos, ‘ filled full’; but of this sense, 
though natural in itself, the lexicons 


Io 


Lv] 


e la) / 7 5) ln / 
oas EaUTW Meya KAEOS EV X pio TEPLTTOLNGDET AL, Kal 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


159 


\ 


~~ ts / 3 / rn \ , c an \ \ 
Tas TOTOS defer at avuTov' tof yap Kypioy F rA kai T6é 


’ a aes = € / \ > / 
TAFPOMA AYTAC. TAaVUTA OL TOALTEVOMEVOL THY AMETAME- 


if a“ ZN ES. / \ i 
AnTov rwoAtTelav Tov Ocou érroinoay Kat TolmooveLy. 


LV. “Iva S€ Kal Vrodeiypata éOvwev éveyKwper" 


\ ~ \ 7 la > / 
mo\Aol Bacirels Kal rryoupevot, NOLpuKOU TLVOS EVO TAaV- 


TOS Kalpov, xXpnomodoTnbevTeEs TaApedw@Kay EaUTOUS EIS 


qmoduretav C. 
para C. 


13 brodel-ypara] AS (7ibuz however being omitted) ; bropv7}- 
evéyxwpev] AC; add. vobis S. 


14 ToAXol...Kacpod] C3; multi 


veges et magnates e principibus populorum, qui quum tempus afflictions vel famis 
alicujus instaret populo S. This is unusually paraphrastic, but perhaps does not 


represent a various reading. 


do not furnish any example nor have 
I succeeded in finding a distinct 
instance. In the only passage how- 
ever where it occurs in the LXx, 
Eccles. viii. I1 émAnpodopynOn xapdia 
viav Tov avOparrov ev avrois Tov ToLAoat 
To tovnpor, the corresponding Hebrew 
is 35 xdv, ‘the heart was full to do 
etc.’ The word seems to be confined 
almost exclusively to biblical and 
ecclesiastical writings. 

8. Kxabecrapevor| ‘duly appotnted, 
as described in the earlier chapters, 
§ 43,44 (rovs karaoradevras im éxeivor). 

IG. tov yap Kupiov x.t.A.] A noble 
application of Ps. xxiv. 1. He retires 
in God’s cause, and there is room 
for him everywhere on God’s earth. 

II. moAcrevdpevor...modureiav| The 
idea of a spiritual polity to which the 
several members owe a duty is pro- 
minent in the context (e.g. vo rod 
mAnOovs), and is still further developed 
by the comparison with secular states 
andstatesmen inthe following chapter. 

12. moXtreiav TOU Oeov | Comp. Aart. 
Polyc. 17 thy averiAnrtoy avtod to- 
Aureiav. 

LV. ‘Even heathen nations have 
set bright examples of this self-denial. 
Kings and rulers have died for the 
common weal: statesmen have of their 


There is however a confusion of Noiuds and Aros. 


free will withdrawn into exile to lull 
factions. Among ourselves many 
have become slaves to ransom or to 
feed others. Even women, strength- 
ened by God’s grace, have been brave 
as men. Judith and Esther by 
their patriotic courage delivered the 
people from slavery and destruction.’ 

14. moAAol Baowwets x.7.A.] Such 
feats of patriotism as were exhibited 
by Codrus, by Bulis and Sperthias, by 
M. Curtius ; ‘Quantus amor patriae 
Deciorum in pectore, quantum dilexit 
Thebas, si Graecia vera, Menoeceus.’ 
The Aommexos Tis Karpos is a type of 
the sort of crisis which called forth 
these deeds of heroic self-sacrifice. 
Origen (22 Foanm. vi. § 36, IV. p. 153) 
refers to this passage, peywaptrvpynrat 
dé kal mapa tots ¢Oveow dtu modXdoi 
Ties, owuKav evoxnavtay ev Tas 
éavrav matpict voonudray, éavrovs 
opayia imép Tod Kowvod trapaded@xace™ 
Kal mapadéyerar Tav@ ovTws yeyovevat 
ovK dddéyws muaTevoas Tats ioropiats oO 
motos KAnuns vo Tavdov paptupov- 
pevos. In several other passages also 
(c. Cels. i. 31, I. p. 3493 2 Foann. 
xxvill. §14, IV. p. 393; ada Rom. iv. 
§ 11, IV. p. 541) he uses similar lan- 
guage, but without mentioning Cle- 
ment’s name, 


160 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[Lv 


/ / shld \ ~ ~ / \ 
Oavatov, iva pvowvTal dla TOU éavTwV QlpkaTOS TOUS 


is 
TONLTaS. 


3 lA > lA e/ 4 
TOAAOL E€EXwWoNnTay iWlwy ToEWV, Wa MY 


if \ qn / A a 
oTaciaCwow él mAElov. emietauefa mroNXous Ev Hpty 


/ e \ > / e/ e , , 
TapaceowkKOTas EAUTOUS ELS dEopa, OTTWS ETENOUS AUTPW- 


OOoOvYTal. 


, \ \ > ~ e / > / 
AaBovtes Tas Tisas avTwWY ETEPOUS EYYwMLOaD. 


\ A > , \ 
TOAAOL EavTOUS TrapedwKay Els OoVAEiaV, Kal 


TOANaL 


~ qn la / Can) ~ 
yuvatkes évouvapwbeioa dia THs xXapitos Tov Oéeov 


5 mapédwxav] A and so S (apparently) ; é&édwxay C. 
S has a singular. 
12 Ov dydrnv...d\aod] AC; propter amorem 


C (see Bryennios Didache p. py’). 
Q THs TOAEws] AC ; urbe sua S. 


2. moddoi e€exapnoay x.t.r.| Like 
Lycurgus at Sparta, or Scipio Afri- 
canus at Rome. Of the latter it is 
remarked by Fell that ‘ Clementis 
nostri fere verbis urbi valedixit, di- 
cens Exeo, st plus quam tibi [tbe 
guam| expedit crevi’? (Seneca Efpzst. 
86). 

3. ev nuw)| Gundert (Zeztschr. f. 
Luther. Theol. 1853, p. 649 sq) ex- 
plains this ‘among us Romans,’ sup- 
posing that Clement is still referring 
to examples of heathen self-devotion. 
This view is adopted by Lipsius (p. 
155), Hilgenfeld, and others. But, 
whatever may have been the miseries 
inflicted on the Roman citizens by the 
civil wars and by imperial despotism, 
the mention of slavery and ransom 
seems to be decisive against this in- 
terpretation. Here, as in the parallel 
passage § 6, ev nuiv may refer indeed 
to Romans but to Christian Romans, 
of whom a considerable number be- 
longed to the slave class and the 
lower orders. The ransom of slaves 
and the support of captives were re- 
garded as a sacred duty by the early 
Christians generally, and the brethren 
of Rome especially were in early 
times honourably distinguished in 
this respect: see the notes on Ign. 
Smyrn. 6 and on Rom. 1. 

4. Avrpe@covra| This construction 


dovrelay] A; dovrelas 
8 "Iovdid] covded A. 


of dws with a future is possible (see 
Winer § xii. p. 304), though it does 
not occur in the New Testament, 
where iva is several times so used. 
But we ought perhaps to read Autpe- 
covra, though both our Greek MSS 
have Aurpeaovra.. 

6. ras tuysas adrav| ‘the value of 
themselves” The form adroy (adopt- 
ed by Hilgenfeld) must certainly be 
rejected from the New Testament, 
and probably from Clement also: see 
above 9, 12, 14, 30, 32. 

éyroptcav| The word is used se- 
veral times in the LXxX and gener- 
ally as a translation of 53x71 ‘to give 
to eat’: comp. also 1 Cor, xine 
Like so many other words (e.g. xop- 
ratecOa, see the note Philippians 
iv. 12), it has in the later language 
lost the sense of ridicule or meanness, 
which belonged to it in its origin; 
and Coleridge’s note on its ‘half sa- 
tirical’ force in 1 Cor. xiii. 3 (quoted 
in Stanley’s Corinthzans |.c.) seems to 
be overstrained. On the other hand, 
it is especially appropriate of feeding 
the poor and helpless, the sick man 
or the child. 

moAAal yuvaikes x.7.A.] The whole 
of this passage about Judith and 
Esther is paraphrased by Clem. Alex. 
Strom. iv. 19 (p. 617), immediately 
after the paragraph relating to Moses 


on 


TO 


Lv] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 161 


émeTeNeoavTo woAAa avopeia. “lovdiO 4 paxapia, év 
TVYKNELT Mw ovans THS TOAEWS, HTNTATO Tapa TwV 
mperButépwv eabyvar aitny €€edOetv eis THv TapeuBo- 
ANY TOV a\NopuAwv’ Tapacovaa ouv éauTny TW KLV- 
due eEnOev Ov dyarnv THS TaTpiOos Kat TOU Naov 
TOU dvTos év GuyKAELTU@, Kal TrapedwKev Kuptos ’OXo- 


’ 2 \ / ? e/ Nee / \ 
Peovnv EV YELpL OnXelas. OVX NTTOV Kal y TEAELA KATA 


civitatis patrum suorum et propter populum S. 


14 Onrelas] Oncac A, 


(already quoted p. 156); and some- 
times he gives the very words of the 
elder Clement, e.g. 7 reXeia kata riotu 
’EoOnp. But he does not acknow- 
ledge his obligation in this passage, 
though in the preceding chapter he 
has directly quoted the Roman Cle- 
ment. 

8. “Iovdid] This passage has a 
critical value as containing the ear- 
liest reference to the Book of Judith, 
which was apparently unknown to, 
as it is unmentioned by, Josephus. 
Volkmar (Theol. Fahrb. 1856 p. 362 
sq, and 1857 p. 441 sq, Ezul. in die 
Afokr. 1. I. p. 28, and elsewhere), 
followed by Baur (Lehrd. der Christi. 
Dogmeng. ed. 2, p. 82, and in other 
places), Hitzig (Zettschr. fiir Wis- 
sensth. Theol. 1860, It. p. 240 sq), 
and Graetz (Gesch. der Fuden vom 
Untergang etc. p. 132 sq, ed. 2, 1866), 
places the writing of that book after 
the Jewish war of Trajan, and as 
a consequence denies the authenti- 
city of the Epistle of Clement. More 
sober critics however date the Book of 
Judith about the second century be- 
fore the Christian era, e.g. Fritzsche 
Pagl. Pp. 127 Sq, in the « Kavege/. 
flandb. zu den Apokr., Ewald Gesch. 
des Volkes Isr. 1V. pp. 396, 541 sq, 
Westcott in Smzth’s Dictionary of 
the Bible 1. p. 1174, besides R. A. 


OIBENE. TT, 


13 ovykAetoug |] cvykriouw A. 


qTrov.] nrrovee A; yrTov CS. 


Lipsius (Zeztschr. f. Wessensch. Theol. 
1859, II. p. 39 sq) and Hilgenfeld (zd. 
1858, I. p. 247 Sq, 1861, IV. p. 335 sq), 
who both have directly refuted Volk- 
mar’s theory; and indeed the date 
and authenticity of Clement’s Epistle 
are established on much more sub- 
stantial grounds than the shadowy 
and fanciful argument by which it is 
attempted to postdate the Book of Ju- 
dith. On this book see also an arti- 
cle of Lipsius Fiidische Quellen zur 
Fudithsage (Zeitschr. f. Wessensch. 
Theol. 1867, X. p. 337 Sq). Formore 
on this subject see the introduction, 
I. p. 353 Sq. 

I2. tov Aaov]| ‘the chosen people’ 
(see the note on § 29), and thus op- 
posed to adAodvAc. 

14. év xeupl Ondelas| Taken from 
Judith xiii. 15 émdragev avrdv 6 Kipuos 
év xeipl Ondelas, Xvi. 5 Kvpios mavro- 
Kparap nOernoev avtovs év xerpt Ondeias. 
The expression éy yepi therefore 
would seem to be the common Ara- 
maism, equivalent to dua: see the 
note on Galatians ili. 19. On the 
other hand the construction mapa- 
Sodvac ev xeupi (or év xepoiv) is com- 
mon in the LXX as an equivalent to 
mapadovva eis xetpas: e.g. the same 
expression J) jn} is translated) first 
kal mapédexey év xeupi (A) and then kat 
mapédaxev eis xetpas in Josh. x. 30, 32. 


tT 


162 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [LV 


miatw Eobip xwovvw éavtyy rapéBarev, iva TO dwoe- 
kadurov Tod *lopanA péAdAov dmodéoOa pyonTat’ dia 
yap THS VNOTELAS KAL THS TATELWWOEWS AUTNS iElwoev 
Tov TavTerontyy SexToTHy, Oeov THY alwYywy Os LOwY 


\ \ a ~ 3 ~ 3 A \ / re 
TO TaTrewov THS Wuyns avTys épveaTo TOV Naov, wy 5 


yapw EKLVOUVEUCEV. 


LVI. 


\ Con oy a \ Cae) / 
Kat nueis ovy évtuywpev rept Tw Ev TLL 


/ / e/ ~ 5) n 5) , 
TAVATTWMATL UTAUPKOVTWY, OTT WS 606 QUTOILS €E7TLELKELA 


\ / > \ Ss 9 \ \ eC U- ’ \ 
KQL TaTrevvoPppocuvy ELS TO ELE al auTous py yp ada 


I TO dwiexddurov] A; Swiexdgurroy C ; tribum S. 


As; rarewacews C. 


3 THs Tatewuoews| 


4 Oeorérnv] A; om. C obviously by homceoteleuton. S 


has sfectatorem universi et dominum saeculorum deum, as if the order had been 


Seorétny Tov aidvuey Oedv. 


5 éptvoaro] A; épptoaro C. 


av xdpw 


éxwdvvevcev] AC (but éxwddvevoe C); ex its propter quae erat [ populus| in pert- 


culo S, probably only a mistranslation. 


I. 10 dadexapvrov] So Acts xxvi. 
7, Protev. Facob. § 1; see above 76 
Swdexacknntpov § 31 with the note. 

3. n&iocev| ‘desired, entreated’, 
with an accusative of the person and 
without any dependent case or clause 
expressing the thing asked: as e.g. 
1 Macc. xi. 62 kai 7£i@cay oi amo Tans 
Tov “Iwvabav Kai edwxev avrois Seas, 
Clem. Hom. iii. 55 mpl avrov aéio- 
onte. With an infinitive or a final 
clause added this use of a£cody tua is 
more common. On another more 
questionable construction of a&.dy 
see above § 51. 

4. mavteromtnv| So below § 64, 
Polyc. Phil. 7, Clem. Hom. iv. 14, 23, 
v. 27, villi. 19. The word is not found 
in the LXX or New Testament. In the 
Orac. Sibyll. procem. 4 maverdmtns 
occurs; and in heathen writers zap- 
omtns is a common epithet of Zevs. 

Gcdv trav aidver] ‘the God of all 
the ages’: comp. marnp tav aidyev 
§ 35, 6 Bacrdeds Sy aidvoy I Tim. i. 
17; comp. Ps. cxlv. 13 7 BaowWeia 
gov Baciteia Tavrav Tov aiovev. The 
devil on the other hand is the god 


7 Tov...brapxévrov] AC; gui appre- 


(2 Cor. iv. 4) or the ruler (Ign. 
Ephes. 19) of this age or zon (rov 
aidvos rovTov). See also the passage 
in Clem. Hom. xx. 2 sq. 

LVI. ‘Let us intercede for offen- 
ders, that they may submit in meek- 
ness and humility. Let us be ever 
ready to give and to take admonition. 
The Scriptures teach us that chas- 
tisement is an instrument of mercy 
in the hands of God, that He inflicts 
it as a fatherly correction, that it isa 
blessing to be so chastised, that the 
man who endures patiently shall be 
restored again, shall be delivered 
from all perils, shall end his days in 
peace, and be gathered into the gar- 
ner like the ripe sheaf, in due season.’ 

7. € TW TapanTepate K.T.A.| See 
Gal. vi. 1, of which this passage is 
perhaps a reminiscence. The npeis 
and jpiv seem to refer especially to 
the rulers of the Church and to con- 
trast with the vyeis, the leaders of the 
feuds, at the beginning of § 57. 

8. émeixera] ‘a spirit of concession’, 
See the notes on § I émeskyn and § 13 
emveikeca, The context here points to 


Io 


LVI] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 163 


T@® OeAnuatt TOU Oeov. ovTWws yap ~oTar a’Tots éy- 
Kap7ros Kai TeNEla 4 TOs TOV OeEov Kal ToUs dyious MET’ 
OiKTIpUMY pvEela. dvataBwuev madelav, Ef’ 7 ovdels 
opeirda dyavaxTelv, ayaryntol. 1 vovlernots, jv moLov- 
pba eis dAAnAOUS, KaAY EoTW Kal UTEpayay wWpéALpOS" 


KOAAa yap nuads Tw OeAnuate TOV OEov. ovTWs yap 


c 


/ / t 2 ' ! 
Qyow O aytos Novos? Tlaidey@n érraideycén me 6 
KAl TM OANAT@ OY TApEAWKEN Me. “ON rap draTd K¥proc 


Kyploc, 


hensi sunt S (comp. Gal. vi. 1). 8 émelkera] emeckia A. 10 otrws] AC. 
Bryennios here, and again six lines below, tacitly reads ofrw, and is followed by 


Hilgenfeld. C however has its usual contraction for -ws, not for -w, and therefore 


agrees with A in both places. 


sanctos S, as if it had read #)...% for xal...xat. 
madeiav| maduay A. 


Tipuav pvela] orxTepuwvuvia A. 
7. vovdérnots] voulernoes A. 


its derivation and primary meaning, 
eis TO efEau avrovs k.T.A. 

IO. @ykapmos kal Tedeia] See the 
note on § 44, where there is the same 
combination of epithets. 

II. 1 mpos Tov Gedy k.r.A.] i.e. The 
record of them before God and the 
Church will redound to their benefit, 
and they will receive pity. The ex- 
pression 7 mpos tov Gedy pyeia is al- 
most equivalent to the Old Testa- 
ment phrase pynpocuvoy evavtt Kupiov, 
x00. Xxvill; 23, xxx. 16; Is. xxii. 18, 
Fcclus. |. 16, comp. Acts x. 4. See 
also § 45 eyypadoa éyévovto amo Tod 
Gcod ev TO pynwoovry@ avTor. 

Tovs dyious| ‘the Christian brother- 
hood’, as in the Apostolic writers: 
comp. Ign. Smyrna. 1, Mart. Polyc. 
20. See 2 Cor. vill. 21. Two other 
interpretations have been proposed : 
(1) ‘the saints’, i.e. the beatified dead, 
in which case 7 mpos Tovs ayious pveia 
is supposed to refer to invocation of 
saints. It is needless to say that this 
idea would be an anachronism in Cle- 
ment and for some generations after. 
(2) ‘the holy angels’, a sense which 


II 7 mpos...aylous] AC; sve in deum sive in 


Tov] A; om, C. 12 Oik- 
13 dpelher] ofirer 


of aye frequently has, e.g. Job 
xV...15, Zech. xiv, 5,: Ecclus:, xiv a 
Tobit viii. 15, 1 Thess, ili. 13 (pas- 
sages quoted by Hilgenfeld). This 
is a possible interpretation (comp. 
I Tim. v. 21 Scapaprvpopat évemioy 
Tov Geov xat Xpicrod “Incod Kai Tov 
€exNextav dyyédov), but the com- 
mon usage of oi ayo in the Apostolic 
writings is a safer guide. 

I2. dvaddBopev madeiav] ‘let us 
receive correction’, comp. Heb, xii. 7 
eis mratdelay vropéveTe K.T.A. 

13. 7 vovdernows| On the difference 
between vovOecia (vovOérno.s) and 
matoeia, see Trench /V.7. Syz. Ist ser. 
§ xxxll; comp. Ephes. vi. 4. On the 
forms vovGecia, vovbérnots, see Lobeck 
Phryn. p. 512. 

16. ITadevov x.7.A.]| From the Lxx 
Ps. cxviil. 18 word for word. 

17. “Ov yap ayara «.7.A.] From LXx 
Prov. iii, 12 word for word, as SA; 
but for wawdever B has éAéyyer. The 
Syro-Hexaplar text wavers, giving the 
equivalent to wadeveu in the text and 
to éhéyyes in the margin. In Heb. 
Bil.) @ 1b. is quoted with madever as 


fit-¢@ 


164 THE EPISTLE (OF 5S) }CLEMENT 


[LvI 


TAIAEYE!, MACTIFOIL AE TANTA YION ON TIApadEyeTal Tlaideycel 
me rap, Pyolv, Aikaloc EN EAEEl Kal EAErzZE1 Me, FeAcoct AE 


c ra \ ’ ’ \ / 
AMAPTMAON MH AITTANATO THN KEMAAHN MOY. Kal TaN 


revel’ Makdpioc ANO@pa@toc ON HAerzZeN 6 Kyploc, Noyde- 
c 


AATEIN 
A , > , 

KAI TIAAIN ATTIOKAOBICTHCIN’ 

7 


IACANTO. 


TIOIEl, ETTAICEN, Yelpec 


AYTOY EZAKIC €Z ANAPKO@N EZEAEITAI Ce, EN AE TO 
c U > a U , > a © ' > U 
EBAOM@ OYY AYETAI COY KAKON’ EN AIMW PYCETAI CE EK BANA 

> , ‘ > \ , , \ > A 
TOY, EN TTOAEM®@ AE EK yeElpoc cIAHPOY AyYCel cEe° KAI ATTO 


MACTIFOC FA@CCHC CE KPYYEl, KAl OY MH MOBHOHCH KAKON 


ETTEPYOMENWN* AAIKMN KAI 

2 dlixaos] AS; kdpuos C. 
See the lower note. 
depends on the absence of xzdz07. 
sent ay in S. 


AN OMO)N 


KATATEAACH, ATTO AE 


éNeos] ehavor A; édeor (i.e. Earov) C and so S. 
3 auaprwrov] A; duaptwrdod C, and so S, but the singular 
4 ov] A; ov ay C. There is nothing to repre- 
5 amavaivov] AC; vrejzctat (or rejzciamus) S, and so the Pesh. 


8 ovx aera] oveoera A; od wh dnrar C; non attrectabit S. Both readings 


are found in the mss of the Lxx. 


évy Nyu@] AC; add. 6é S. I2 ov py 


poBnOys] A; ob poBnOyon C. Both readings are found in the mss of the Lxx. 


here: in Rev. iii. 19 both words are 
combined, eyo ocous éav dida, ehéyyo 
kat madevo. Clem. Alex. Paed. I. 9 
(p. 145) has waidever, but his quotation 
is perhaps not independent of the 
Roman Clement. On the other hand 
Philo de Conj. Erud. grat. § 31 (I. 
P- 544) quotes it with éAéyye. This, 
which corresponds with the Hebrew, 
was probably the original reading of 
the LXxX, and all the texts with wa 
devec may perhaps have been derived 
directly or indirectly from the quota- 
tion in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
I. Tadevoer x.7.A.| From Ps. cxli. 
5, word for word, if we read ¢Aaopy. 
Our chief MS however has eAauog, i.e. 
édeos (for so thescribe generally writes 
the word; see I. p. 121). On the 
other hand, the original reading of 
the LXX was unquestionably ¢Aaoy 
édaov is the oz/, ¢daws the olve- 
tree and therefore out of place here) 
as it is in SBA, and apparently in 


all existing MSS of the Lxx, the He- 
brew being jw ; but €Aaros (i.e. €Aeos) 
might not unnaturally be substituted 
by some early transcriber on account 
of the preceding ev édéer. It is there- 
fore not impossible that Clement 
found this reading in his text of the 
LXX; see another instance of the 
same error above, § 18 (note). For 
the curious confusion of @deos (€Aauos) 
and €Aaoyv (é€Aeov) in the liturgies 
see Swainson’s Greek Liturgies pp. 
xllii, 90, 127, 265, 331; where the 
answer of the people, ¢Aeos, eipnyn, 
becomes by expansion ¢Aecov (€Aauov) 
eipnyns, Ovoiay aiveréws. The sym- 
bolism of the o/zve as denoting peace, 
and the manifold ritual uses of oz/ 
(see Smith-Cheetham Dic?. of Christ. 
Antig. p. 1453 sq) would assist in this 
confusion. 

4. Makdpwos x.r.A.] From LXx Job 
v. 17—26 as read in BS, with slight 
and unimportant differences. The 


Io 


Lv11] 


OHPION APPIWN OY MF MOBHOHC. 


COYCIN COI’ €lTA FN@CH, OT! ElPHNEYCE! Coy O 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


165 


ei 


OApec rap Arplol eipHNey- 


) O1KOC’ F Ae 


\ a 


AialTaA TAC CKHNAC COY OY MF AMAPTH, FN@CH AE STI TOAY 


I5 TO cmépma coy, TA AE TEKNA COY McTIEPp TO TIAMBOTANON 


To¥ &rpof: édeycu A€ EN TAdw Actep citoc @pimoc Kata 


KAIDON QEDIZOMENOC, H @CTIEP OHMM@NIA AAWNOC KAO pan 


a / ° i. / 
cyNkomicdeica. MAETETE, AyaTNTOL, MOTOS UTEpaTTIC- 


/ ~ / ¢ \ ~ / \ 
Mos €OTW TOs TaLdEVOMEVOLS UO TOU deaTOTOU’ TaTHP 


\ > Ao x\ } / 5] \ b) On ¢c ~ } N land 
20yao ayavos wy Taloevel Els TO eAenOnvat nas Ola TNS 


€ / / 2 a“ 
oolas WALOELAS QUTOU. 


Ev LT. 


yap] AC; de S. 
ACS em, 5. 
Taupyravov C. 


18 cuvkomicbetca] ov.....cOeca A; ovyKkomucbetoa C. 


13 elpnvedoer] AC; eipnvever S. 
14 gov] AS; om. C. 
16 édevon] AC; but Bryennios tacitly prints éAevce. 


c a > ¢ \ \ a / 
Ypeis ovv, of Thy KaTaBoAnv THS TTATEWS 


n 6€ Siaira...auapry] 
15 mwauBdravov] LXX; ...... Tavov A; 


20 €NenOjvat] CS; 


...n@nvac A. Tischendorf justly remarked on the common restoration voudern7- 


vac; ‘id vix recte, quum syllabae non ita dirimi solent [i.e. vovder|nOnvat]. 
quiritur potius simile verbum ac mro|n@qva.’ 


text of A presents considerable varia- 
tions, chiefly in adding clauses which 
are found in the Hebrew but wanting 
in BS. The points in which Clement’s 
quotation agrees with A, as against 
BS (e.g. ovx aera: for ov pn anrat), 
are insignificant. 

7. €€axis x.T.A.| For this Hebraism 
where two successive numbers are 
given to denote magnitude and in- 
crease, see Prov. vi. 16 Hebr. (six, 
seven, as here); Micah v. 5, Eccles. 
oi 2 (seven, eight) ; Exod. xx. 5, efc. 
(three, four); Job xxxili. 29 Hebr. 
(two, three). 

10. kakov| The LXX text prefixes 
amo (SBA). In the Syriac version 
adikev is made dependent on xaxoy 
‘the evils of the unrighteous’. 

12. Ojpes yap x.t.A.| As in the vision 
of Hermas /Vzs. iv. I, 2, where the 
wild beast is thus pacified. 

13. 7 d€ Sara] ‘the abode’; see 
above § 39. The Hebrew is quite 


Re- 
21 madelas| C3 m..drao A. 


different. 

15. To mapBdoravov| ‘the manifold 
herbage’. It seems to be a amaé 
Aeyouevoy till quite a late period. 
There is nothing in the Hebrew 
(awy) to explain the adoption of so 
unusual a word. 

16. ev rapw] A Hebraism for eis 
tapov ; see another instance on § 55 
mapéOwxkey ev xeupl. 

17. Onwova| A word, it would ap- 
pear, almost confined to the Lxx, 
though @nuey is as old as Homer, 
Od. v. 368. 

18. vumepacmicpos| ‘protection’, 2 
Sam. xxil. 36, Ps. xviii. 35, Lam. iii. 64, 
Eccles. xxxi (xxxiv). 19. It does not 
occur in the New Testament. See 
the note on vrepaomicrys above, § 45. 

20. dyabds dy] ‘of His kindness’ 
(as e.g. Ps. Ixxiil. 1), corresponding 
to ov yap ayara x.t.A. above. 

LVII. ‘And do you leaders of the 
schism submit to the elders, and ask 


166 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [Lvir 


/ , ~ lA \ 

TOMNGAVTES, UTOTAYNTE TOs mpeaPuTEpOIs Kal Tal- 
/ / / A / ~ 
devOnTE Els peTavolav, KauwayTes Ta YyovaTa THS 
VA ~ / / / \ 
Kapolas Umov: pabere VrotaccecOal, arolEuevor THY 
/ \ J cal 6g lal / 
aNaCova Kat vmeonpavoy ths yAwoons Uuwv avla- 
/ / land “~ / me 
delay cauevov yap éoTw vply ev TH TOLMYLW TOUS 
a) x \ 2 is € 6n aN @’ 

XpisTov puikpovs Kat €AAoyimous evpEeOnva, n Ka 
€ \ - 2 oy ? o 2 / ? ~ 
UTEpoxny SoKouvTas éxpipyvar éx THs EAmLOOS aUTOU. 


e/ A / e / / > \ ’ 
ouTws yap Evel n TavapeTos Godia* *lAoy Tporcomal 


4 adrdfova] AC; ddagovelar S. 


yiuous] A; add. tuds C. S is doubtful. 


10 vrnkovcate] AC; tankovete S. 


ddéw] AS; duddéar C. 
Cie a A3 si (fv) S. 
A; om. S. dtay] orap A. 


pardon of God on your knees. It is 
far better that you should be of no 
account, so that the flock of Christ 
may have peace. Remember how 
sternly Wisdom rebukes the dis- 
obedient in the Book of Proverbs. 
She will laugh them to scorn when 
destruction cometh as a tempest. 
They mocked at her counsels before, 
and she will not hear them then.’ 

I. vior. Trois mpeoB.| The same ex- 
pression occurs, I Pet. v. 5. 

2. Kdp\yavres x.t.X.] Compare the 
expression in the prayer of Manasses 
(Apost. Const. ii. 22) viv krtivo yovu 
kapdias. So too Greg. Naz. Carm. ii. 
50, ver. 58 ovmoré cou Kdyapo yovvar 
€uns Kpadins (II. p. 946, Caillau), and 
similarly Sir C. Hatton to Q. Eliza- 
beth (Froude’s /Zzs¢ory X1. p. 166) ‘I 
can use no other means of thankful- 
ness than by bowing the knees of my 
own heart with all humility’ etc. A 
strong oriental metaphor like ‘ gird- 
ing the loins of the mind’ (1 Pet. i. 
13), or ‘rendering the calves of the 
lips’ (Hosea xiv. 2). 

4. dddgfova kal vmepnpavoy| See 
Trench WV. 7. Syn. 1st ser. § xxix. 

7. Ooxovvtas| ‘held in repute’; 
see the note on Galatians ii. 2 


14 vu pri.] AC; duo S. 


6 é\)o- 

Q o- 

13 qvika av] 
15 mapy] Cs 


add. kal crevoxwpla C, a 


yrdoons] As yAwrrys C. 
8 dod] AC; add. yap S. 


16 Ortfis] A; 


Ths éAmidos avtov] i.e. Tov Xpu- 
orov, either a subjective or an ob- 
jective genitive, ‘the hope which He 
holds out’ or ‘the hope which reposes 
in Him’, 

8. 1 mavapetos copia| The Book 
of Proverbs, besides the title com- 
monly prefixed to the LXx Version, 
Tlapoipiae or Tapormiar Sadopertos, is 
frequently quoted by early Christian 
writers as 7 mavapetos copia ‘the Wis- 
dom which comprises all virtues’ 
(for mavaperos comp. § 1); see esp. 
Euseb. A. £. iv. 22, where speaking 
of Hegesippus he says, od povos de 
outros dAAa kal Eipyvaios kal o was 
TOV apxaiov xopos mavaperov cotiav 
Tas Sohopa@vos mrapotmias ekadovy. Some- 
times it bears the name oodia sim- 
ply; e.g. in Just. Mart. Dzad. § 129 
(p. 359 A), Melito in Euseb. 4.2. 
iv. 26, Clem. Alex. Protr. § 8 (pp. 
67,68), Paed. ii. 2 (p. 182 9 Ocia codia), 
Strom. li. 18 (p. 472), Orig. Hom. 
xiv in Gen. § 2 (Il. p. 97), besides 
others quoted in Cotelier. It is a 
probable inference from Eusebius 
(ll. cc.) that both Melito and Heges- 
ippus derived the name from Jewish 
sources, and this is borne out by the 
fact that the book is called nmDDN, 


LvIt] 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


167 


YMIN E€MAic TINOAc PACIN, AIAdZ@ AE YmM&c TON EMON AGFON: 


\ 


Kal 


\ 


n c 


IO€melAF EKAAOYN KAI OYYXY YTHKOYCATE, KAI EZETEINON AGroyYce 
OY Tpocelyete, AAAA AKYpOYC ETOleITe TAc émadc Boy- 
Adc TOIC Aé Emoic EAErYOIC FIEIOHCATE’ TOITApOYN Karo 


TH YMETEPA ATIMAEIA ETTITEAACOMAI, KATAYAPOYMAI AE ENIKA 


7 2 c f By] \ c ” > ! c Lo. W 
AN EPYHTAl YMIN OAEOPOC KAI WC AN AMIKHTAL YMIN ADN®W 


I5 60pyBoc, F AE KATACTPpOmH OMOIA KaTairidl TapH, F 6tan 


EPYHTAl YMIN OAIVIC KAI TOAIOPKIA. 


E€CTAl fap, OTAN ETTIKa-= 


familiar combination in S. Paul, Rom. ii. 9, viii. 35. S has affictio (xrsdoy) et 
angustia (W*WIAN) guae a proelio (NAP }OF); where afiictio represents OALYis 


and angustia quae a proelio is a paraphrase of moNopkia. 


The alternative that 


angustia quae a proelio represents orevoxwpla kal modopkia, treated as a év did Svoiv, 


is not likely. 
wanting also in the LXx. 


‘Wisdom’, by rabbinical writers (see 
Furst Kanon des Alten Testaments, 
1868, p. 73 sq). The personification 
of Wisdom in the opening would lead 
naturally to this designation; e.g. 
Iren. iv. 20. 3, v. 20. 1, Philo de Ebr. 
8 (I. p. 362), though Philo himself 
quotes the book as rapoupiar 7. § 20 
(I. p- 369). Whether the epithet 
mavapetos Was first used by Clement 
and derived from him by later writers, 
Or not, it is impossible to say. At 
the same time the title 7 mavaperos 
copia is given, not only to the canoni- 
cal Book of Wisdom, but also to the 
apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon 
(Method. Symp. i. 3, u. 7, noted by 
Hilgenfeld; Epiphan. de Mens. et 
Pond. § 4, 11. p. 162 ed. Petau; Greg. 
Nyss. c. Eunom. vii, U1. p. 638, Paris 
1638; [Athanas.] Syzops. § 45, II. p. 
132 F, tTys codias Sodouavtos ths de- 
youéevns mavaperov; and others: and 
its title in the list of books prefixed 
to A is copia 7 mavdperos), and to the 
apocryphal Ecclesiasticus or Wis- 
dom of Jesus the son of Sirach 
(Euseb. Chron. Ol. cxxxvii ‘quem 
vocant Panareton, Dem. Evang. viii. 
2 p- 393 Incovs o Tov Seupay 6 rH 
KaXoupeévny tavapetoy codiay cuvtd€as, 


The space in A will not admit cal orevoxwpia, and these words are 
émikanéonobe] emixadeonofar A. 


Hieron. Prot. 2a I 20r.. Sai. Ip. 
1293, etc.). Joannes Damasc. de Fid. 
Orth. \v. 17 (1. p. 284) says 7 mavdpe- 
TOs, TouTéaTLv 7 Sopia Tod SoAopavtos 
kat 7 Sodpia rov “Incov, thus including 
both these apocryphal bocks under 
the term, but excluding Proverbs 
which he has before mentioned as 
mapotmia; and so Jerome Praef. ix 
Libr. Salom. (1X. p. 1293) ‘ Fertur et 
mavaperos Jesu filii Sirach liber et 
alius Wevderiypapos qui Sapientia Sa- 
lomonis inscribitur’, Moreover the 
name of ‘ Wisdom’ is occasionally 
given also to Ecclesiastes (Fiirst l.c. 
p. 91) and to the Song of Songs 
(Furst lc. p. 85, and Cotelier here). 
And still more generally the third 
group of the Old Testament writings, 
the dyiwypapa or ypadeia, is some- 
times called 7IND3N ‘ Wisdom’ (Fiirst 
l.c. p. 55), because it comprises Pro- 
verbs and the allied books, as it is 
elsewhere called yadpoi or vuvor (see 
above § 28) from another most im- 
portant component element. 

*Idod ~=k.t.A.] A close quotation 
from the LXxX Prov. i. 23—33. The 
variations are unimportant, and not 
greater than between one MS and 
another of the LXx. 


168 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [LVII 


AE€CHCOE ME, EF AE OYK EICAKOYCOMAl YM@N* ZHTFCOYCIN 
ME KAKOI Kal OYY €YPHCOYCIN’ EMICHCAN [dp COdIAN, TON 
Aé OBoN TOY Kypioy oY TpoelAanTo, OYAé FOEAON Emaic 
Ul n > ‘ A > \ > t 8 
TIPOCEYEIN BOYAAIC, EMYKTHPIZON AE EMOYC EAELYOYC* TOIFAP- 
ofN €AONTAI TAC éayT@N OAOY TOYC KApTOYc, Kal TAC 
c al > ' , . > > a \ > U 
EAYTON ACEBEIAC TIAHCOHCONTAI® ANG OWN FAP HAIKOYN NH- 
TIOYC, ONEYOHCONTAI, Kal @ZeETACMOC AacEeBelc GAEI* O AE 


> Lad > , Uy > > > ! ’ \ c 
EMOY AKOYWN KATACKHNOCE! ET EATIIAL TETIOIOWC, KAI HCY- 
Ul > , ? \ \ n 
yacel APOBwC ATO TANTOC KAKO¥. 
1 (nthoovew] Snrncovet C3 ST.....4 A; §nrodow (?) S. 3 rou] A; om. G 


mpoethavro] mpoetia... A (as in the Lxx; Tischendorf who formerly read zpooiha 
afterwards accepted my reading of A); mpoeidovro C (see above, I. p. 127)3 elege- 


runt S. 


7 éLeracuds doeBets det] C3 tnquisitio ctmpiorum perdit ipsos S. 


8 mero.Ows] confidens S, using the same expression which occurs just below (§ 58) 


as the rendering of zremoufdTes; om. C: see the lower note. 


6. mAno@nocovra] Our principal MS 
(A) fails us at this point. The letters 
mAnoOnoov occur towards the end of 
the last line in a page, fol. 167 b. 
The margin is torn, so that a few 
letters have disappeared. It resumes 
again at the beginning of § 64, a leaf 
having been lost; see the introduc- 
tion, I. p. 118. 

7. e&eracpos| ‘enguiry’, ‘investi- 
gation’, i.e. ‘trial and judgment’, 
as in Wisd. iv. 6. The Hebrew 
however is mSw, ‘security’, ie. 
‘false confidence’; which the LXx 
translators seem either to have mis- 
read or to have connected with 2nNw, 
‘to wask; ‘enquire’... In the ‘earlier 
part of the verse the Lxx departs 
widely from the Hebrew. 

8. memoi8ds| This word does not 
occur in the great MSS of the Lxx 
(SBA); nor indeed, so far as I know, 
is the reading xaracknvoce em (v. 1. 
ev) eAmids wemotOes found in any MS 
of this version, though dvamavceta 
év eipnyn memovOws appears in place of 
it in no. 248 (Holmes and Parsons), 
this last being a Hexaplaric reading 
(see Field’s Hexapla ad loc.). Clem. 


10 Tavayiw] C; 


Alex. however clearly so quotes it, 
Strom. ii. 22 (p. 501 sq) 7 mavdperos 
Sodia Aeyer* “O S€ ewov axovav Kata- 
oKnvecer €m éAmids retolOws" 4 yap THs 
eAmidos amokaracTacis opavipes éAmis 
eipntat* dua [1. d10] tod Karacknydce 
Ty A€Eeu TayKddws mpoceOnke TO Ile- 
moles ; though elsewhere, S¢vom. ii. 8 
(p- 449), iv. 23 (p. 632), he has 
avaravoetat én eipnyns (-vn) memolbos. 
It is clear that wemordes is genuine 
in the text of our Clement; since he 
dwells upon it in the beginning of 
the next chapter, xatacxnvéocaper 
merrovOores k.t.A. For other examples 
of this manner of emphasizing the 
key-word of a quotation see the 
note on § 46. From the manner in 
which Clem. Alex. begins his quota- 
tion from Prov. i. 33, it may perhaps 
be inferred that the passage of his 
elder namesake was in his mind. 
LVIII. ‘Let us therefore obey, 
that we may escape these threatened 
judgments, and dwell in safety. Re- 
ceive our counsel, and you will never 
have occasion to regret it. As surely 
as God liveth, he that performeth 
all His commandments shall have 


Io 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 169 


LVI] 


/ S on / > f 
LVI. ‘Y¥aaxovowuey ovy Tw Tavayiw Kat évooEw 
7 land / \ , \ qn 
OvomaTt avTov, puyovTes Tas mpoElonmevas dia TIS 
iE lo “ / J / 
codias Tots drebovow ameras, a KaTaoKnvwow"EY 
/ \ / ~ / > 4 
memro.loTeEs ETL TO OTLWTATOV THS MEeyaXwouvyns avTOU 
sf / \ \ - \ af 
dvoua. d€€acbe THv cupBovAny Huwv, Kal EoTat 
> / Cr, es —~ \ ec \ \ ~~ e Lg 
dueTamednta vulv. Cy yap oO ae Kal Ci 0 glee: 
land \ A \ al \ ¢ c 
‘Incovs Xpiotos Kat TO TvEUAa TO aYLOY, N TE TIOTIS 
\ ? \ ond la iA / b) 
Kal 4 €Amis TwWY EKAEKTWY, OTL O TOLNTAaS EV TATEI- 
/ x 39 a 5) / ? / \ 
voppoovrvy per ExTEvoUS ETLELKELaS amETaMEANTWS TA 


S translates as if dyiw. In § 35 mavd-yos is fully rendered. Il guyovtes] C; 
gevyovtes (?) S. 13 dcuwrarov] C; S renders as if dovov, but the translator’s 
practice elsewhere in rendering superlatives is so uncertain, that no inference can 


be drawn as to the reading. 
(| CS; Basil omits this second 7. 
and the beginning of the next. 


a place among them that are saved 
through Jesus Christ, through whom 
is the glory unto Him for ever.’ 

10. mavayio] So also above, § 35 ; 
see the note there. 

II. tHs oodpias] Wisdom is re- 
presented as the speaker in the pas- 
sage of Proverbs just quoted. More- 
over this name Sodia was given to 
the whole book ; see above, p. 166. 

12. katacknveceper|‘dwellin peace’. 
As the common LxXxX rendering of 
jaw, for which purpose it was chosen 
doubtless in part owing to the simi- 
larity of sound (see the note on papo- 
oxonnéev, § 41), it implies the idea of 
‘rest, peace’. 

I5.  dperapéAnta]| A somewhat 
favourite word of Clement, S§ 2, 54. 
So dpetapeAntos, below. For the 
plural see Kuhner Gramm. Il. p. 59 sq. 

(7 yap x.t.A.] This passage is quoted 
by S. Basil, de Spir. Sanct. 29 (II. 
p- 61); see above, I. p. 169, where the 
quotation is given. For the form of 
adjuration (7 6 Geds...d71, ‘As surely 
as God liveth...so surely’, comp. @ 
Kupwos d7t...which occurs frequently 


14 Hudv] add. adedgoi [uov] S. 


15 Kal 
Kvpios] twice in S, at the end of one line 


in the’ LXX,. ee) © Sam 5143) wee 
16, xxix. 6, 1 Kings xxii. 14, 2 Kings 
vi 20; etc. \¢ So! too: Romi) xiv. aia 
(a éyd, eyes Kupios, dre emot xK.T.A. 
(where S. Paul is quoting loosely 
from Is. xlv. 23, combining it how- 
ever with the (@ eyo «.r.A. of Is. 
xlix. 18); comp. 2 Cor. i. 18, and see 
Fritzsche Rom. Il. p. 242 sq, III. 
p. 187. For a similar reference to 
the Trinity see above, § 46. Here 
They are described as ‘the faith and 
hope (i.e. the object of faith and 
hope) of the elect’; for 7 re wiotis 
K.T.A. are obviously in apposition to 
the preceding words. For éAmis, 
meaning ‘the object of hope’, see the 
note on Ign. Magn. 11 "Inoot Xpiorot 
THs eAmidos nuev; comp. I Tim. 1. I. 
On the other hand the sense of riotis 
is different in Ign. Smmyrn. 10 7 
Tedkela mlatis, Inoovs Xpuotos (see 
the note there). 

I7. tov exdrextov| A_ favourite 
word with Clement, §§ 1, 2, 6, 46, 49, 
52, 59. 

18. per éxrevovds émetxeias]| The 
phrase occurs again below, § 62. It 


170 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[Lvin 


c \ ~ on / / \ / 
vo Tov Qeou Sedopéva OiKalwWpmaTa Kal TpOTTAYyPaTa, 


© ? / Ae / yA > \ 2 \ 
ouTOS évTETaYpEVOS Kal EANOYLMOS EaTaL Els TOY adoLOuoV 


Tov cwCouévev Sia “Inoot Xpiotov, d¢ ov éotw aiT@ 


€ / > \ > io la Dal A 
n O0€a Els TOUS alwyas TWY alwywr. 


LIX. 


auny. 


> \ / > / n ens > - 
Eav 6€ tives advreOyowow Tots Um avToU 


4 “ 4 id e/ / \ 
oc HIL@V ELONMEVOLS, YLVWOKETWOAYV OTL TAVATTWOEL Kat 


/ > ~ e \ > I ¢e ro \ > ~ 
KLVOUV@ OU pKpG EéauvTOUS EevOnTovELY, nMeELs dé a&0wor 


I kal mpoordymara] C; om. S. 


is a sort of oxymoron, or verbal para- 
dox, like ‘strenua inertia’, ‘lene tor- 
mentum’: for émeixera involves the 
idea of ‘concession’; comp. 1 Thess. 
iv. II wdoripetoba novxdgew. So 
Greg. Naz. Orvat. iv. 79 (I. p. 116), 
speaking of Julian’s persecution, says 
émuetkas eBtacero. The substantive ém- 
eikeca occurs also §§ 13, 30, 56: the 
adjective emenkns, 1, 21, 29. The fre- 
quency of these words aptly indicates 
the general spirit of the letter; see 
the note on § 1, and the introduc- 
tion, I. p. 97. 

2. éAAoyos| Used here, as in 
§ 57, for those who have a place 
among the elect of God: see also 
§§ 44, 62. Comp. Plato Phzleb. 17 E 
ovK €AGytpov odd evapLOpor. 

tov dpiOpov] As above §§ 2, 35, 
and below § 59, with the note. 

3. tTav colopévav] ‘of those that 
are in the way of salvation’, as 
Luke xiii. 23, Acts ii. 47, 1 Cor. 1. 18, 
2 Cor. ii. 15. The opposite is oi 
dmo\Avpevot, I Cor. i. 18, 2 Cor. il. 15, 
iy-uc,)2 Lhess. u. to... Comp. also 
Clem. Hom. xv. 10, Apost. Const. 
viii. 5, 7, 8. In the Afost. Const. viii. 
5 (comp. v. 15) the words are roy 
ap.Opov Tav c@fopéver as here. 

LIX. ‘If any disobey our counsels, 
they will incur the greatest peril ; 
while we shall have absolved our- 
selves from guilt. And we will pray 
that the Creator may preserve intact 


11 GOpavorov] C; add. deus S. 


the number of His elect through 
Jesus Christ, who called us from 
darkness to light. Open our eyes, 
Lord, that we may know Thee, who 
alone art Holiest of the holy and 
Highest of the high ; who settest up 
and bringest low; who bestowest 
riches and poverty, life and death ; 
who art the God of all spirits and of 
all flesh; whose eye is all-seeing, 
and whose power is omnipresent; 
who multipliest the nations and 
gatherest together Thine elect in 
Christ. We beseech Thee, Lord) 
assist the needy, the oppressed, the 
feeble. Let all the nations know 
that Thou art God alone, and Jesus 
Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy 
people, the sheep of Thy pasture.’ 

5. vm avrouv| i.e. tov Gcov. In 
the same way they again claim to 
be speaking with the voice of God 
below, § 63 rois id’ nuay yeypappe- 
vos Sua Tov ayiov mvevmatos; Comp. 
§ 56 py nuty adda T@ OeAnpate Tod 
@cov. See also Ign. Phzlad. 7. 16 
mvevpa ov mAavatat, awd Ceod GY... 
eAddovv...... Gcod dovn, where a simi- 
lar claim is made. 

6. mapanrrdce] ‘fault’, ‘ trans- 
gression’; Jer. xxii. 21. Comp. Justin 
Dial. 141 (p. 371). It does not occur 
elsewhere in the LXX, nor at all in the 
N.T., though mwapamrwpa is common. 
Polybius uses it several times: comp. 
also Sext. Empir. adv. Math, i. 210. 


LIX] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


171 


écoucOa dro TavTNS THS duapTias* Kai aitnooueba, 
éxtevn Thy Sénow Kal ikeciay TroltovpeEvol, OTWS TOY 
dp.Quov Tov KaTnpiOunpevov Twv éKNEKT@V aUTOU EV 
Sw TH Koouw SiapvraEn aOpavorov 6 SnpLoupyos 
TOV dTavTwy Sia TOU Hyamnpévov Taidos avTou *Incov 
Xpiorov, 8 ov éxadecev nuas dro oKOToOUs Els Pas, 


A > / 5) > / / , / > - 
aro ayvwolas Els EmiyvwoL do€ns OVOMATOS GUTOU. 


13 Xpicrod] C; add. domini nostri S. 
a clerical error in transcribing the Syriac suffix. 


7. dda] As above, § 46. For 
the whole expression, d@dos «ivat do 
dpaprias, comp. Num. v. 3I. 

Q. Tov adpiOuov x.7.A.| See Rev. 
vii. 4. sq. The same phrase roy apié- 
pov Tav é€kXexTav avrovd has occurred 
already § 2. In one of the prayers 
in the last book of the Afostolic 
Constitutions (viii. 22) we have o rhv 
Tov KOgu“ov avoTacw dia TaY Evepyou- 
pévov haveporroujcas Kal Tov apLOwov 
TOV ekexTay cov dSiapvAdrtwr, where 
the expression here is combined with 
another which occurs below (§ 60) ; 
thus clearly showing that the writer 
borrows directly or indirectly from 
Clement. 

II. G@Opaverov] The word does not 
ercur in, the Lxx or N.T., It is 
however not uncommon in classical 
writers: e.g. Dion Cass, lili. 24 
@Opavorov Kal odoKAnpoy TO Siaddx@ 
THY woAw mapéd@xev, Which passage 


illustrates its sense here. Comp. 
Apost. Const. vill. 12 Srapvdagys 
aoeiorov. 


6 Snuuoupyos k.T.A.| The same phrase 
occurs above § 26; comp. § 33. For 
Snpsoupyos see the note on § 20. 

12. Tod nyamnpévov mratdds k.7.A.] So 
again lower down in this chapter, 
dia "Incov Xpiotod Tov yyamnpevov 
mados cov, and Ingots Xpioros 6 ais 
gov. It is worth observing in con- 
nexion with the other coincidences, 


nuds| C3; meS; but this is doubtless 
14 dd] C3 xal-d7o S. 


that these expressions 0 nyamnpévos 
(ayamnros) mais cov, 6 mais gov, OCCUr 
several times in the prayers in the 
Apost. Const. Vill. 5, 14, 39, 40, 41. 
Comp. also List. ad Diogn. 8, 
and Mart. Polyc. 14, where it is 
twice put into the mouth of Poly- 
carp, who was certainly a reader of 
Clement’s Epistle. This designa- 
tion is taken originally from Is. xli. 1, 
quoted in Matt. xii. 18 idov, o mais 
pou ov npérica, 6 ayamntos pov [eis] 
ov evdoknoeyv 4 Wx pou ; where mais 
is ‘servant, minister’ (33). Comp. 
Acts iil. 13,26, iv. 27,-305,, Buble 
higher sense of vids was soon im- 
ported into the ambiguous word sais: 
e.g. Apost. Const. vill. 40 Tov povoye- 
vous cov matdos “Incov Xpiotov, LPzst. 
ad Diogn. 8, Tren: aii, 12, 5; (6, ehe; 
and probably Mart. Polyc. 14 6 rod 
dyanntod maidds cov “Incov Xpiorod 
mamnp. And so Clement seems te 
have used the word here. 

13. éxadecev x.t.A.| From 1 Pet. 
il. 9 Tov ék GKOTOUS Upas KadécarTos Els 
To Gavpacrov avtod das. The epithet 
@avpaocroy which is wanting here is 
supplied by § 36 (as read in the 
Greek MSS) avaOa\X\et eis TO Oav- 
paotoy [avrov| das, where however 
the epithet is omitted in the Syriac 
and in Clem. Alex. 

14. ayvecias| ‘stubborn ignorance’, 
a stronger word than dayvoias: comp. 


172 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [LIx 


\ \ ae ky ’ i? ’ \ \ r) / , 
[Aos jutv, Kupre], eATLCEW ETL TO GpxXEYyovo TacNHs 
id sf / ’ / \ 9 \ ~~ te 
KTIOEWS OVOMA TOU, avol~as Tous dpUadmous THs Kapdias 

qt 2) \ / \ / o > c aN 
HUMOY ELS TO YWWOKELY DE, TOV MOVOY fYICTON EN YYHAOIC, 


[eral 4 > \ Lal a 
ATION EN APIOIC ANATIAYOMENON, TOY TATIEINOYNTA YBPIN 


1 Ads fuiv, Kupe] om. CS; see below. 


sanctum S 3 see below. 
vwicros C; see the lower note. 


Pore i. 15. It occurs also Job 
axa. 16, Wise. xiii. 1,°1) Cor ‘xv. 34. 
See also Clem. Hom. ti. 6, ii...47, 
iv: O, XVili, 13, 18. 

eis emlyvaow So€ns| Comp. Afost. 
Const. vill. 11 6 d1a Xpiorod Kypvypa 
yroceas Sovs nuiv eis emiyvaauy tis 
ons Oo€ns Kal Tov OvopaTos Gov. 
The language of Clement here seems 
to be inspired by Ephes. i. 5 sq. 

I. e€Ami¢ew] Some words have been 
omitted in the Greek MS, as the first 
editor has correctly seen. The words 
supplied in the text, Ads nuiv, Kupie, 
will suffice. The same omission 
existed also in the text from which 
the Syriac Version was made. In 
consequence of this, cov, oe, ce, cov, 
erraidevoas, nyiaoas, ertunoas, are there 
altered to avoid the abrupt transition 
from the third person to the second ; 
and at length words are inserted 
before ’Aéwodpev to introduce the 
second person. On the recurrence of 
lacunz in our authorities see above, 
I. p. 145 sq. Hilgenfeld gets over 
the difficulty in part by substituting 
avotEov for dvoigas: while Gebhardt 
and Harnack deny that the text is 
either defective or corrupt, and at- 
tempt to justify the transition by 
such passages as Acts i. 4, xxlil. 22, 
etc. (see Winer § lxiii. p. 725). But 
the phenomena of our two authorities 
show that Bryennios was right. 

apxeyovov| i.e. ‘Thy Name which 
was the first origin of all crea- 
tion’, maons xricews being governed 
by dpxeyovov. As an active sense 


Kapdlas] cordium S. 


2 dvoud cov] C3 nomen ejus 


3 o€] C3 eum S. bwnnrois] 
5 duadvovra] dissipantem S. éOvev | 


is obviously wanted, it must be 
accented adpyeydvoy, not dpxéyovor, 
as by Bryennios: comp. [Aristot.] 
de Mund. 6 (p. 399 Bekker) da 
TY TpeTnv Kal apxatdyovoy airiay, 
where again we should accentuate 
dpxaoyovovy, for the expression is 
synonymous with 6 ravtav nyepov 
te kat yevétrwp which follows imme- 
diately after. So too perhaps even 
in Clem. Alex. Stvom. vi. 16 (p. 810) 
THY apxeyovov juepav, for just below 
it is defined as mparny T@ dvtt horos 
yéveouv: but in Clem. Alex. Proér. 
5 (p. 56) 76 wip ws apxéyovoy céBorres 
it may be doubtful whether the fire 
is regarded as a principium prin- 
cipians (apxeyovov), or a principium 
principiatum (dpxéyovov). In Greg. 
Naz. OZ. I. p. 694 we have ro 
apxéyovoyv oxotros. The word occurs 
also Iren.'i. I, 1 (twice); 1 5.;2)en 
9. 3, in the exposition of the Va- 
lentinian system, where likewise the 
accentuation may be doubtful. It 
is not found in the LXx ory Nie 
Editors seem universally to accen- 
tuate it adpxéyovos (see Chandler’s 
Greek Accentuation § 467); but, I 
think, on insufficient grounds. 

2. tous opOadpors x.7.A.] suggested 
by Ephes. 1. 17 sq ev émtyveoe: av- 
Tov, mepwticpévovs Tovs oddGadpovs 
THs KapOlas vuav eis TO eidévae vpas 
x.7.A. See also above § 36 jvewxOn- 
cay nav ot odOadpol rhs Kapdias. 
Comp. JZart. Polyc. 2, Apost. Const. 
Vii. 39. 

3. ywookew x«.t.A.] Comp. John 


LIx| 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


173 


c U \ ’ \ > al \ 
5 YTEPHMANWN, TOV AIAAYONTA AOLPICMOYC EBNON, TOV TIOl- 


a > a \ c \ la) 
OYNTA TATIEINOYC E1C YYOC Kal TOYC YYHAOYC TATIEINOYNTA, 


\ ' \ ' 
TOV TAOYTIZONTA KAl TIT@YIZONTA, TOV ATIOKTEINONTA KAl 


a a J / VA 
ZAN TolofNTa, MOVOY EvEpYyETHY TvEevMaTwY Kal Oeéeov 


i / > ’ > a > , 
TAGYS DTAPKOS, TOV €TIBAETIONTA EN TAIC ABYCCOIC, TOV 


C3; dvOpdrwv (=arvwv) S. 
THv| C3 ebperyy S. 


xvii. 3 a ywodocxoolvy oe Tov povoy 
adnOwov Cecor. 

Tov povov k.t.r.| Apost. Const. viii. 
5 0 ay povos tnpioTos...0 ev vndois 
KQTOLKO@V. 

tyuoroy x.7.A.] From the Lxx Is. 
Ivii. I5 6 UWuoros 6 ev VYndols KaT- 
ouKGy Tov aiava, dys év ayiows 
dvowa alta, wuoTos év dyiows ava- 
mavopevos. So in the prayer AZost. 
Const. viii. 11 bore ev tYndois, ayte 
év dyiows dvaravopeve, doubtless taken 
from Clement. Similarly the ex- 
pression 6 é€v dylous dvamavopevos in 
other liturgies, D. Marc. pp. 178, 189, 
D. Facob. p. 49 (comp. p. 29), S. 
Chrysost. p. 94 (ed. Hammond). 

I have substituted vwrAois, as the 
reading both of the Lxx and of the 
Apost. Const. Moreover the Syriac 
here translates by the same words, 
NDINID. NOW, which render vyoros, 
ev vWndois, in the Hexaplaric Version 
of Is. lvii. 15: thus using two differ- 
ent words. This however is not de- 
cisive in itself. 

4. tov ramewodvtra x.t.A.] From 
Is. xiii. 11 UBpw vmepnpaver taret- 
YOoo. 

5. tov Osadtvovra|] Probably from 
Ps. xxxiii. 10 daokedager Bovdas evar, 
aGeret 5é Aoytopovs haar. 

Tov tmoovvrTa «t.A.| Job v. II 
Tov TowvvTa Tarewovs eis Vos Kal 
dmodwdotas e&eyeipovta, Is. x. 33 Ta- 
mewaOnoovrat oi VWndoi, Ezek. xxi. 26 
érareivwoas To vWnddv Kal vyooas 
TO Tamewoyv, 20. XVil. 24 eyo Kupios 6 
tarewav Evdov vyndov Kal v Wav Evdov 


8 hv mrowtvral] redimit et vivificat S. 


evepye- 


rarewov. See also Matt. xxill. 12, 
Luke xiv. I1, xvill. 14. 

7. tov mAourifovra x.T-A.] From 
1 Sam. ii. 7 Kvpsos mr@xi¢er Kat mov- 
rite, Tamrewwot Kal avuot. Comp. also 
Luke i. 53. See Greg. Naz. Orat. 42 
§ 5 (I. p. 751) 6 mrwxif@y Kat mdov- 
titov Oeds, 0 Oavarav Kai (woyovar 
K.T.A. 

Tov amokreivovta k.T.A.| Deut. xxxii. 
39. eyo amoxtevd Kai Hv Totnoe, 
1 Sam. ii. 6 Kuptos Oavarot kat (woyovet: 
comp. 2 Kings v. 7 0 Oeds eye row 
Gavardoa kal Cworoijoat; 

8. evepyérnv] Comp. Ps. cxv. 7 émi- 
otpepov, Wuxn pov...dTe Kupuos evnp- 
yernoé ae. So too Liturg. D. Mare. 
p. 188 Wuyijs evepyera. 

mvevpdteov x.t.A.] Modified from 
Num. xvi. 22, xxvii) 16. Seevalse 
§ 62 Seonorns Toy mvevpaTeY kal 
kdplos maons capkos, with the parallels 
in the note. Comp. Liturg. D. Facob. 
Pp. 45 punoOnti, Kvpre, 6 Geos Tay mvev- 
parev Kal mdons oapKos. 

Q. Tov émBdérorta «.7.A.]| Ecclus. 
xvi. 18, 19, aBvocos Kat yn oadevby- 
govra €y TH émurkomH avTov, dua Ta 
6pn kat Ta Oepedca THS yns eV TO 
eriBrevat eis avta Tpdu@ cvoceiovrat. 
Comp. Liturg. S. Basil. p. 106 0 
kaOnuevos emt Opovov Soéns kal em- 
Brérov adBvooovs. For the unusual 
emtBrerew ev, ‘to look into’, or 
*at’, compe Eccles. i; 11,2. Chron. 
XVI. 9. 

Tov enomtny k.t.A.] See Ps. xxxii 
(xxxili). 13, which passage Clement 
may perhaps have had in mind, as 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [Lx 


174 


2 uf ? / sf \ la / 
éromTny avOpwrivwy epywyv, Tov TwY KLWOUVEVOYTwY 
/ \ a“ > ' in A \ 
Bonfov, Tov Twv smHATICMENWN CHTAPA, TOV TaVTOS 
/ / \ y \ b 
TVEUMATOS KTIOTHY Kal éioKoToY, Tov mAnOvvovTa 
sf > \ ~ \ > / 3 / \ ’ 
€0vn émi yns Kat €k TravtTwy ékNeEEapevoy Tous aya- 
qn , \ ~ ~ ~ > / , 
mavras o€ dia “Incov Xpiotov Tov Hyamnuevou raidos 5 
3 ¢ ~ / / / : 
cou, Ol ot nas érraldevoas, nylacas, ETIMnoas. aEt- 


a , / \ / \ > , 
OUMEeV Oe, S€aTOTA, BOHOON yeverOat Kai ANTIAHTITOPA 


HWY. 


\ > / e a Ca ‘ \ \ 
tous €v O@AiWer juwv Twoov* Tous Ta7reLvoUS 


1 TOv KwévvevévTwr] tllorum qui affliguntur S, but it is probably a loose para- 


phrase. 5 oe] C; eum S. 


nylacas, ériunoas] tnstruxit nos et sanctificavit nos et honoravit nos 8. 
pev K.T.X.] S prefixes e¢ dicemus ili cum supplicatione. 
It seems to be required, as Hilg. and Gebh. have seen. 


Ss: om. C. 


he has already adopted an earlier 
verse of the same Psalm in this con- 
text. For érémrns comp. 2 Mace. vil. 
35 Tov mavToKpatopos emomtov Geod, 
Esther v. I rov wavrov éromtny Gecov. 

I. Tov Tov KivdvvevovToy xk.T.A.] 
Judith ix. 11 eAarrdvey ef Bondds, 
avTiAnrrap aobevovvtav, aTreyverpevav 
oKerraoTns, amnAniopévoy caTnp. For 
adnnAnicpévo. comp. Is. xxix. 19, 
Esth. iv. ad fin. See also Liturg. 
D. Marc. p. 181 4 ais trav admnd- 
mopevoy (comp. Liturg. S. Basil. 
p. 122), Act. S. Theodot. § 21 (in Rui- 
nart) ‘Domine Jesu Christe, spes 
desperatorum’. 

3. mvevpatos ktiornv] Zech. xii. 1 
Kupwos...tAdocev mvetpa avOpemov ev 
avr@, Is. lvii. 16 mvevpa map’ €mod 
efeXevoetal, Kal mvony macapy 
émoinoa. In Amos iv. 13 we have eyo 
...KTiC@y mvedpa, Where it apparently 
means ‘the wind,’ but might easily 
be understood otherwise. 

ériaxorov| Job x. 12 7 dé éemicxorn 
gov edvAaké pov TO mvedpa, I Pet. il. 
25 Tov moyweva Kat emioKoroy Ta 
Wuxev tpav, Wisd. i. 6 6 Geos...ris 
kapOlas avrov éeriakorros addnOns. Comp. 
Liturg. D. Marc. p. 181 érickore 
wagons wapKos. 


> A 
Ey@ 


6 cov] C3; cus S. quas émaldevoas, 
aéLov- 
7 oe] so apparently 
déorrora] 


6. a&sodpev x.t.r.] See the prayer 
in the Afost. Const. vili. 12 €r 
aéwoipév oe...07@s TavT@Y émikoupos 
yevn, wavtav BonOos Kai avrinnTep 
(with the context), which is evidently 
indebted to this passage of Clement. 
Comp. Ps. cxvili (cxix). 114 BonOes 
pov kal dvTiAnmT@p pov El ov. 

8. rovs ev Oder x.7.A.] Compare 
the prayer in Liturg. D. Marc. p. 185 
AvUtpw@cat Seopiovs, e&édAov Tovs 
€y avayxas, TetvavtTas xOopTagcop, 
6AtyoWvuyxyovvTas mapakadecoy, 
TemNavynpévous emiatpeWoy, €oKo- 
Tirpévovs PaTtaywynoov, TETTMKOTAS 
€yerpov, oadevouévovs otypigov, ve- 
voonkotas tagal...... dpovpos nuav 
kal dytiAnmT@p Kata mavTa yevo- 
fevos, where the coincidences are 
far too numerous and close to be 
accidental. See also Afost. Const. 
il. 6. 

10. doeBeis|] Comp. § 3 (HAov AdiKov 
kal doeBn avewknporas. The reference 
in aoeBeis is not to unbelievers, but 
to factious and unworthy members of 
the Church. For this word Geb- 
hardt (Zeztschr. f. Kirchengesch. I. p. 
307, and ad loc.) conjectures daGeveis ; 
and this may have been the reading 
of S. But the occurrence of rovs 


LIx] 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


175 


7 # \ r of 2 / 
eAXenoov® TOUS TWETTWKOTAS EVELOOV ; TOS d€oMevors 


’ 7 \ p) lon a] \ , = 
éeripavntu* TOUS aoe (Ets lagal*’ Tous 7 NAVO)ULEVOUS TOU 


~ ys / \ a 7 
Aaouv wou em loTpewvov* YopTacoy Tous TeLvwYTAas* Nu- 


\ / ~ > / \ 
TpWOaL TOUS d€oMLOUS Hwy * é€avacTynoov Tous aaGe- 


~~ / \ cy ~ , 
vouvTas* mapakahewoy Tous oNyoWuYoUYTAasS* PNaTw- 


' / \ Py e/ \ =) c \ ' \ 
CAN GE TAaVTA TA EONH, OTL cy ei 6 Oedc mONOC, Kat 


cond N ~ \ c a ! \ 
‘Incovs Xpioros 6 mais Gov, Kal imeic dadbc coy kal 


TPOBaTA TAC NOMAC coy. 


domine bone S. 
1o émiddvnh] C3 émiotpddnd S. 
S; see the lower note. 
presented in S. 


doOevovyras just below is a serious 
difficulty, and on this account I have 
hesitated about accepting it. It is 
not sufficient to answer with Harnack, 
‘aoOevodvres animo, doOeveis corpore 
imbecilles sunt’; for both words are 
used indifferently either of physical 
or of moral weakness. Supposing 
that doeBeis were the original read- 
ing, the rendering of S may repre- 
sent either doGeveis (a corruption of 
doeBeis) Or vevoonkdras (a substitu- 
tion of a familiar liturgical form, as 
appears from Lz¢. D. Marc. p. 185, 
quoted above). The Syriac word 
here, NA 3, is the same as in the 
Peshito Luke ix. 2 ia@oat rots doGe- 
vets (Vv. 1. doOevotvras). Comp. Polyc. 
Phil. 6 émiotpépovres ta arrorerdayy- 
péva, emlioKkenTopevor Tovs acbeveis, 
which, so far as it goes, is in favour 
of Gebhardt’s emendation. 

Tovs TAav@pEvoUS k.T.A.] Ezek. xxxiv. 
16 To wemavnpévov emiotpéwo (where 
B has ro wAavdpevor arootpéwa). 

II. Avtpwcat Tods Secpiovs| The re- 
ference in this and the neighbouring 
clauses is doubtless to the victims 
of the persecution under Domitian; 
see the note on § 1. The care of 
the ‘prisoners’ naturally occupied a 
large space in the attention of the 


8 rods Tarrewwovs Ehénoov] om. S, owing to the homceoteleuton. 
aceBeis] C3 aegrotos (acbevets or vocotvras ?) 

14 ge] See Bryennios Didache p. py. It is unre- 
15 0 wats cou] add. ailectus (6 Ayamnuévos) S. 


early Church in the ages of per- 
secution: comp. Heb. x. 34, xiii. 3, 
and see the note on Ign. Smmyrz. 6. 
A prayer for those working ‘in the 
mines’ is found generally in the 
early liturgies; comp. Afost. Const. 
Vill. IO vmrep Tav ev perdddols Kal ée£o- 
, \ - % = a4 
plats kat qvAakais kal Seopois ovT@v 
dua TO Gvoua Tod Kupiov denOdper, 
Liturg. D, Marc. p. 181 robs év puda- 
Kats 7) év eTadXols...KaTeyouevous mav- 
Tas €Xénoov, mavtas édevOepacoy, Lit. 
D. Fac. p. 44 prnoOntt, Kupre...... 
Xpistiavayv tav ev Secpois, Tav ev 
vAakais, Tov €v aixpad@cias kal 
> , los > , A s 
e€opias, Tov ev petaddots Kal Bacdvois 
kal mixpais SovAeias OvT@y TaTépey Kat 
adeAhar nuar. 

12. efavactnooyv x.t.d.] Comp. I 
Thess. v. 14 mapapvOetobe rods ddtyo- 
Wuxous, avréxerbe rdv do bevar, quoted 
by Harnack. 

, © eee 

13. yvorecay x.7.d.| I Kings viii. 
60 dras yydou Tavtes of Naot THs yijs 
o / c \ KN \ \ > 
ott Kuptos 0 Geos autos Geos Kai ovK 
eat ért, 2 Kings xix. 19 yveoorra 
maca ai Baotdeiar THs yns OTe ov 
Kupuos 6 Geds pdvos (comp. Is. xxxvil. 
20), Ezek. xxxvi. 23 yyooorra ra €6yn 
ére eye eiys Kuptos x.7.A. Comp. John 
XVil. 3. 

I5. mpets x.7.A.] From Ps. xcix (c). 


176 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [Lx 


\ \ / ~ J / XN 
LX. Cu tnv aévaov tov Koopov avoTtacw dia 
~ b) / b) e if v, \ 
Tw évepyouuevwy éedaveporoincas’ av, Kupie, TH 
3 y af \ / ~ ~ 
OLKOUMEVNY EKTLIOaS, O TIOTOS é€v TaGals Tais yeEvEais, 
/ ~ 7 \ Tee \ 
dikatos Ev Tos Kpiuaciv, OavpuaoTos év taxi Kal peya- 
/ € \ > “ / \ \ > > 
Nom perrela, 0 Gocdos év TH KTICELY Kal DUVETOS EV TW 5 
\ f / 3 A ~~ / A 
Ta yevoueva édpacat, 6 ayabos év Tols dpwuevols Kal 
\ ~~ / \ / > a \ > U 
motos év Tots memolWoaw emt GE, é\EfmMon kal OiKTIP- 


sf ¢ on A 5) / e ~ \ \ 5) / \ 
MON, aQDES uly TAS avOMlas HMwWY Kal Tas aOLKias Kal 


1 Xv] add. yap S. 
word in the same way. 
5 6 copds] C; codds (om. 6) S. 
nus), probably xpyorés, S. 


dévaov] dévyvaov C 3 comp. § 20, where C writes the 
Tov Kécpuou] add. Aujus S, as in other passages. 
kai] C; om. S. 

10 Kaddpicov] kaBapeis C; purifica S: see below. 


= sof : 
7 mats] mites (benig- 


12 Kal Sixaocivy Kal dmdérynTL] om. C; restored by Bensly from S, which has e¢ 


2 yvare ore Kuptos avTos €oTW 0 O€ds... 
npets [d€| Naos avrov Kal mpoBata THs 
vous avrod: comp. 20. Ixxviii (Ixxix). 
ig, xCiV (xe). 7. 

LX. ‘Thou didst create all things 
in the beginning. Thou that art 
faithful and righteous and marvellous 
in Thy strength, wise and prudent 
in Thy creative and sustaining en- 
ergy, beneficent and stedfast to them 
that put their trust in Thee, merciful 
and full of compassion, forgive us 
all our offences. Reckon not every 
sin against Thy servants: but purify 
us with Thy truth and direct our 
steps in holiness. Make Thy face to 
shine upon us, and protect us with 
Thy mighty hand and Thine out- 
stretched arm from them that hate 
us. Give peace to us and to all the 
inhabitants of the earth, as Thou 
gavest to our fathers when they 
called upon Thee’. 

I. 30 rv dévaov k.t.A.| The main 
part of this sentence is borrowed in 
Apost. Const. viii. 22 (quoted above 
on § 59 Tov dpiOuor x.t.d.). Comp. 
Wisd. vii. 17 eid€var ovoracw Kdopov 
kal €vépyelay OTOLX ELOY. 

Sia Tay evepyoupévey KT.A.] 1. 


‘didst reveal the inherent constitution 
of the world by the succession of 
external events’; comp. Rom. i. 20. 
The word gdaveporoeiy is late and 
somewhat rare. 

3. oO murtos k7.A.] Deut. vil. 9 
Geos motos 0 hvAdocoay SiaOyknv...eis 
xXtAlas yeveas. 

6. ێdpaca] Comp. Prov. villi. 25 
Tpo Tov Opn eOpadOnva. 

6 dyads «.7.d.] i.e. ‘He is benefi- 
cent where His operations can be 


seen, and He is trustworthy where |, 


faith takes the place of sight’. The 
contrast here is between the things 
which are actually seen and the 
things which are taken on trust; 
comp. Heb. xi. I éorw 6€ miotis... 
Tpayparav éheyxos ov Pderopever. 
For opepéevors Hilgenfeld has épa- 
pévots; Harnack and Gebhardt (fol- 
lowed by Lipsius Yen. Lit. Jan. 
13, 1877) read cwfopévors, the latter 
having previously conjectured owpis- 
pevors (Zeztschr. f. Kirchengesch. 1. 
p. 307); Zahn proposes dcvovpevors 
(Gott. Gel. Anz. 1876, p. 1417). There 
is no sufficient reason however for 
questioning the text. The idea, and 
in part the language, is taken from 


Lx] 


\ / \ / 
Ta TapaTTwpaTa Kat TAnMpEAELAS. 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


177 


\ / a 
Mn Noyton Tacay 


auaptiav dovAwY Gov Kal Taiwickav, d\Xa Kabapiooy 


e lm A \ a ~ / \ , 
nas Tov Kafapiouov THs ons adANOEias, Kal KaATEYOYNON 


\ ! ex > G ' \ , 
TA AIABHMATA HILO EN OCIOTHT! K@l OuKaLOGUYY Kal 
cf 


¢ / ’ 7 \ a \ \ \ 
amTNOTHTL KAPAIAC TOpEeyEecOAl KGL TIOIEIN TA KAAA KAI 


2 , 


ENWITION 


/ 
Val, 


EYAPECTA ao ou 
MOV. 


\ 2 sd 


\ 
Kal 


> / ~ ’ / 
EVWT7TLOV TWV AON KOVTWV 


/ > ’ \ t ’ > 
O€o7T0Ta, ETIMANON TO TTPpOCWTON Coy ed’ 


c al > > / > \ ~~ . ~ A 
HMAC €I1C AfPADA EV Elonvy, ELS TO oKeTrac Onjvat yMasS TH 
L ‘ 


in justitia et in simplicitate. 


The omission is due to homceoteleuton. 


I have 


not inserted the prepositions, because it is a common practice of S to repeat 


them, where they are not repeated in the Greek ; see I. p. 137. 


16 ێv eipyvn| 


pacts S; but this is probably due to an error of Syriac transcription, since a single 
letter (7 for 1) would make the difference. 


Wisd. xiii. 1, ek Tay dpwpevav dyabav 
ovK ltoyuoay eidévat TOY OVTA OvTE ToIs 
Epyols mpooyovrTes ETeyv@oay TOV TEX- 
vitnv. The language in the latter 
part of the sentence is suggested by 
celus. iv. 10°-sq_ Tis 
Kupia Kat karnoxvv6n;...dvore oikrip- 
pov Kal eAenpoy o Kupuos, kat apinow 
apaprias. 

7. édejpoy x.t.A.| A very frequent 
combination of epithets in the LXx. 

10. kxaOapicov] This is perhaps the 
simplest emendation of xadapeis, the 
reading of the MS, which cannot 
stand ; xaddapicov having been written 
kaOdpevoov, and the two last letters 
having dropped out. Otherwise we 
might read xa@dapns. Bryennios, Hil- 
genfeld, and Gebhardt tacitly retain 
xaOapeis. For the expression comp. 
Num. xiv. 18 xafapiop@ ov kabaprei 
Tov évoxov, quoted by Bryennios. 

II. tHs ons adnOeias] See John 
XViil. 17 dylacov avtovs év TH adnOeia 
K.T-A.; COMP. XV. 3. 

karevOuvov x.T.A.] Ps. xxxix (xl). 3 
katevOuve Ta SiaBnuata pov, CxXviii 
(cxix). 133 Ta StaBnward pov karevbu- 
voy Kata TO Adyiov gov. The phrase 
katevOvvewy Ta SuaBnpata occurs also 


CLEM:. 11, 


> 
EVETTLOTEVOE 


Ps. 3xxvi° (2xxvil). 23, (FP row ae. oe 
The word dsaBnpara, ‘steps’, is rare, 
except in the LXxX and writers influ- 
enced by it. 

12. é€v oovdtnte k.7.A.] I Kings ix. 4 
av €av TropevOns evemuov epyov, Kabads 
erropevOn Aaveid, ev ooLoTnTe Kapdias. 

13. mow «7.A.] Deut. xiii. 18 
Toueiv TO KaAOY Kal TO apeaTov évavTiov 
Kupiov rov @cov cov: comp. 2d. vi. 18, 
Mile D5, 20, XXi-. O 

I5. eripavov | Ps. Ievi (Ixvii). I 
emipavat TO Tpdcwmoy avtov ed npas : 
comp. 2b, xxx (xxxi). 18, Ixxix (Ixxx). 
35 Fs KO, CSNill (CXIR) Tans Sopeaiog 
Liturg. D. Marc. p.179, Apost. Const. 
Vill..18, 37: 

16. eis dyada] See Jer. xxi. 10 
€oTnpikKa TO Tpocwmov pov emi TH 
ToOAW...ovK eis adyaba; comp. Amos 
ix. 4, Jer. xxiv. 6. For eis dyaOa see 
alsoi.Gen~ |..20;,.Deut.. sox, cet. 
Comp. Liturg. D. Facob. p. 44 
puna Onre...ravtav els ayaov. 

oxerracOnva| For this connexion of 
oxera¢ew comp. Is. li. 16 vad thy 
OK THS YELpoS pov okKEeTaT@ Ge 
(comp. Wisd. v. 17, xix. 8), Deut. 
XXXill. 27 oKxerdoer oe...uT0 loydy 
Bpaxtovev devawy: and for the anti- 


12 


178 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[Lx 


! a n \ ec ~ \ / 
yelp! coy TH Kpatalé Kal pucOjvat aro maons apuap- 
‘ a ! ' rat c na \ en ~ 
Tias tH Bpayioni coy TO YYHA@: Kal puogar nas 
\ 4 / lo / \ \ 
dmo TwY pucoVYTwWY Huas ddikws. dos Omdvolay Kat 


/ ~~ \ la) qn a »\ a 
Elonvny ruiv TE Kal TaoW TOls KaTOLKOVoW THY YY, 
\ af ~ / € ~ > 
kaQws EdwKas TOLS TATPATW NMBV, ETIKAAOYMEN@N GE 
c> > ' wy ! ef is / a 
avTov bolws én Tictel Kal dAHOeElA, [WoTE TWCETBaL Huas| 


/ / wn / \ / 
UINKOOUS ylVOMEVOUS TW TAVTOKPATOPL Kal TAVADETW 


6 éctws] S; om. C. This use of the adverb is characteristic of Clement; other- 


wise I should have hesitated to introduce it on such authority. 
S renders ef 2m veritate oboedientes fuerunt nomint tuo 


nuds| om. CS; see below. 


ev I Ss 
worTe cwferbar 


etc., thus connecting év dAnOela with the following clause. 7 ™WavTo- 
kpdropt kat mavapérw| The words are transposed in S, but this does not imply 


thetical yerpi kparara, Bpaxion vWnro, 
Exod. vi. 1, Deut. iv. 34, v. 15, vil. 
19, ix. 26, xi. 2, xxvi. 8, Jer. xxxix 
(xexI1)) 2 Fs) Fzele,' xx. 93; 34. 

3. Tov pucovvrey «x.t.A.]| Comp. 
Justin. Aol. i. 14 (p. 61) rods adixas 
pucovvras meidew meipdpevor, quoted 
by Harnack. 

5. emekadoupeverv k.7.A.] Ps. cxliv 
(cxlv). 8 maou rots émixadovpevors avrov 
év ddnOeia. For ev miorer kat adneia 
comp. 1 Tim. ii. 7. 

7. wmnkdovs «7.A.| This might 
be a loose accusative, referring to 
the datives nyiv re kai maow «k.7.d.; 
comp. Ephes. i. 17, 18 d0 vpiv 
mvedpa codias...... TEePoTLapEevous 
rovs 6Oarpovs x7... Acts xxvi. 3 
emi cov péAAov onpepoy arodoyeic Oat, 
pddticra yroortny ovra oe k7.d., and 
see Winer § xxxiii. p. 290, § Ixiii. 
pp. 709 sq, 716, Kiihner II. p. 667 sq. 
But a double transition, marpdow, 
émikadovpéevav, yevouevous, would be 
very harsh; and for reasons which 
are stated in the introduction (I. p. 
145 sq), I cannot doubt that some 
words have dropped out, such as I 
have inserted. Bryennios supplies 
kai caoov nuas; Gebhardt reads 
imnkoos yevonevors ; and Hilgenfeld 
alters the whole sentence. Lipsius 


(Fen. Lit. Jan. 13, 1877) would insert 
émikadovpéev oe puoat tovs before ev 
TLOTEL K.T.A. 

mavroxparop.| So Hermas V7s. iil. 3 
TO pnmate TOU TavToKpaTopos Kal ev- 
dd€0v ovopatos. At first it had oc- 
curred to me to read zravroxparopika, 
as it occurred to Gebhardt, and as 
Hilgenfeld actually reads; comp. § 8 
T® TavtTokpatoptk@ BovAnpate avrTov. 
The expression travroxparopixoy évopa 
occurs in Macar. Magn. Agocr. iv. 30 
(p. 225). The omission of -x@ before 
kat would be easily explained, es- 
pecially as the archetypal MS is 
shown to have been mutilated in this 
neighbourhood. But the parallel pas- 
sage from Hermas quite justifies the 
reading of the MS. Inthe LXxX zapro- 
Kpatwp seems to be always applied 
directly to God either as an epithet 
of Geos or Kvpuos, or independently ; 
and so in Clement himself, inscr., 2, 
32. But the sense of ro dvopa, as 
almost an equivalent to 6 Gecs (see 
[Clem. Rom.] ii. § 13, and the note 
on Ign. £phes. 3), explains the ex- 
ceptional usage here and in Hermas. 

mavapét@ k.t.\.] For this expression 
comp. § 45, and for the word mavdpe- 
ros the note on § 1. 

8. ois te adpyovow x.r.r.| The 


IO 


LXxI] 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


179 


a / \ / A 
OvouaTi GoU, Tots TE apyovcW Kal NYOUMEVOLS HmMeoV 


éml THS Yis. 


LXI. 


Cu, déo7roTa, eOwKas Ti €€ovclav tis Ba- 


hs > a \ Le Zs \ > / 
aiNelas avTots dia TOU peyahorperrous Kal avexdunyn- 


/ > \ / eon \ \ 
TOU KpaTous GOV, €ElS TO YLYWOKOVTAS Mas THV UO 


= - pe , / \ \ e , 
gov avtois dedouevny So€av Kal Ty VroTracocerbat 


5] ~ \ 3 / ~ 7 / 2 <r P) ; 
auToIs, pndev évavTioupéevous TW OeAHpaTi cov" ois Os, 


any different Greek text: see above, I. p. 137. Also Tavapérw is translated as if 


evTiu@, NPD (see § 3). 


But a single letter would make the difference, NIMD 


excellenti. Elsewhere $53 IN" is the translation of ravdperos (see §§ 1, 2, 45, 


57); and the translator might here consider himself excused from the repetition of 


mav- which occurs in both words. See also on mavayiy above, § 58. 
10 €dwxas]| add. zW/zs S. 


Te] C3; Kal Tots S. 


punctuation, which I have adopted, 
was suggested to me by Hort. It 
accords with the preceding words 
evapeota €VOTLOV aov Kal EV@TLOV TOY 
apxovrev nav; it disposes of the 
superfluous avrois (see however § 21, 
note); and it throws Sv into its 
proper position of prominence; e.g. 
§$ 60 30 tiv dévaov «rd. and S 61 
just below, 30 ydp, Séomora xr. 
See Athenag. Suppl. 1 evdacBécrara 
Ovaxeevous kal Sukadrata mpds te Td 
Oeiov Kat thy dvperépay Baowreiar ; 
comp. Theoph. ad AvxfZol. i. 11, who 
quotes Prov. xxiv. 21 Tiva, vie, Oedy 
kat Baowéa x7.A. The previous edi- 
tors have all connected the words 
Tots Te Gpxovow k.r.d. with the follow- 
ing sentence, as apparently does C. 
LXI. ‘To our earthly rulers, O 
Lord, Thou hast given the power, 
that we may render them due obe- 
dience in entire submission to Thy 
will. Therefore grant them health, 
peace, stability. For Thou, O 
Sovereign of heaven and King of 
Eternity, givest honour and authority 
to the sons of men upon earth. So 
guide their counsels, that they may 
administer well the power thus en- 
trusted to them, and may obtain 


8 rots 
14 dos] precamur ut des S. 


Thy favour. O Thou, who alone 
art able to do this and far more 
than this, we praise Thee through 
our High-priest Jesus Christ, through 
whom be glory unto Thee for ever’. 

10. ths Baotdreias] ‘of the sove- 
rergnty’, i.e. ‘of the secular power’. 
For the genitive comp. Dan. xi. 20 
mpacoay dofav Bacwrelas, 20. 21 ew- 
kev em avrov dd€av Baoirelas. The 
BaoiXeia is the secular as contrasted 
with the spiritual power; and, as 
such, it is frequently opposed to 
icpoovm, e.g. Apost. Const. ii. 34 b0@ 
Wux7 oduatos Kpeirrar, ToaoUT® tepw- 
avn Paodeias (comp. vi. 2), Test. 
Duod. Patr. Jud. 21. 

13. vmordooerOa avrois x.t.X.] 
See I Pet. ii. 13, 15 drordynre Tan 
avOperivy ktice. dia tov Kupwov...6re 
ovtws eotly TO OéXnpa Tod Ocod; 
comp. Rom. xiii. 2 6 dytiraccdpevos 
™ e€ovcia tH Tov cod Siatayp av- 
béornkev. 

14. dds «.7.A.] In accordance with 
the Apostolic injunctions, Rom. xiii. 
Tisq, oPite alts 45, h) Pety iin Igese 
comp. Wisd. vi. 1 sq. See also Polyc. 
Phil. 12. For other passages in 
early Christian writers relating to 
prayers for temporal rulers, see 


| 


180 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [LXI 


/ € / apy e 6 9 , ’ \ 
Kupie, veytetav, etpnvnv, opovoiar, evoTaberav, Els TO 
/ \ A A lo 4 ~ / 
OlemELY AUTOUS THY UTO wou SEdopmEvnY avTOIS nyEmoviay 

/ \ / Vd > / ~ 
dmpockoTws. ov yap, OecroTa émoupanle, Baoirev 
an > ¥ / _ ¢ ~ ~ 5 J / \ 
TwY aiwvwy, Sidws Tots viots THY advOpwrwy SoEay Kal 
\ \ / ~ \ “ la e / Pe 
Tyuunv Kal E€ovTlavy TwY ETL THS YNS UTTAaPXOVTWY" GU, 
/ / \ \ 5) al \ A \ \ 
Kupie, SuevOuvoy tyv BovAnv av’Twy KaTa TO KaXov Kal 
> / e/ / > / \ 
evapEer Tov evwriov Tov, Sws OLéTrovTES Ev ELpnYN Kal 
aA 5] ~ \ € \ ~ 5) a / 
mpavTnTe evoeBws THY VITO TOU avTOIS dedouevny é£ou- 
e/ / / c li \ > 
ciav iNew Gov TUYYaVwWoLV. O povos duVAaTOS TOINT aL 


TavTa Kal TepiccoTepa ayaba pe nuwv, cor E€oMO- 


9 ted cov tuyxdvwow] tranguille compotes fant auxilii quod (est) a te S, ob- 


viously a paraphrase. 


13 yevedv] C3; yeveas S. 


16 xal] S; om. C. 


The clause is translated in S ‘et de dis (vebus) scilicet (13) quae in ea (religione), 
quae maxime utiles sunt illis qui volunt dirigere vitam (conversationem) excellentiae 
et pietatis et juste, as if the translator had read rév whediwwrdrwv 67 (?) €v avr Th 


. " A 
évdperov...dvevuvew. 


At all events he must have had a text which a corrector 


had emended by striking out or altering e/s, so as to govern lov by dtevduvew: 


Bingham Azz¢. xiii. 10. 5, Harnack 
Christl. Gemeindegottesd. p. 218 sq 
(Justin Martyr), p. 378 sq (Tertullian). 
The Apologists naturally lay stress 
on the practice, as an answer to the 
charge of sedition. 

I. evoraberav|] ‘stability’, ‘tran- 
guillity’, comp. § 65. The word may 
mean either ‘firmness, steadiness’ 
as a moral quality, or ‘stability’ as a 
material result. The latter seems to 
be intended here: comp. 2 Macc. 
xiv. 6 otk éavres thy Baoweiay evora- 
Geias tuxeiv, Wisd. vi. 26 Baowevs 
ppovipos evorabera Sypov. 

3. ampookoras| ‘without stum- 
bling’, ‘without any jar or collision’ ; 
as § 20 ry Aevroupyiav avrav ampoo- 
KOT@S emLTEAOVOW. 

Bacwet Tav aidvev| The phrase 
occurs only 1 Tim. i. 17 in the N.T.,, 
and as av.l. in Rev. xv. 3; but it is 
found in the Lxx, Tobit xiii. 6, 10; 
see also Liturg. D. Fac. p. 40. 
Comp. § 35 marnp trav aidver, § 55 


Gcds Tav aidywy. Here the Eternal 
King is tacitly contrasted with the 
temporary kings, the Baoweds trav 
aidvev with the Baouwels Tov ai@vos 
rovrov (comp. Ign. Rom. 6). 

6. dvedOuvov] As above § 20. Other- 
wise it is not a common word, and 
does not apparently occur at all in 
the Lxx or N.T. 

10. ped’ nuov| As Luke i. 72 
Toujoat €AEeos META TOV TATEPOV NLOY, 
2b. x. 37, and so probably Acts xiv. 27, 
xv. 43; comp. Ps. cxviil (Cxix)age 
xpnorotnra émoinoas petra Tov Sovdov 
gov. It is the Hebraism Dy mAwy. 

II. apytepéws x.t.A.] See the note 
on § 36. 

12. 7 Oda x.7.A.| See the note on 
§ 20. It is a favourite form of dox- 
ology in Clement. 

13. «is yeveay yeveav] i.e. ‘the 
generation which comprises all the 
generations’; as Ps. ci (cil). 24 ev 
yeved yevedy Ta ern cov : comp. Ephes. 
lil. 21 Tov aidvos trav aidverv. This is 


me NR, 


Lx] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 181 


/ \ - > / ~ 

Aoyouucba Oia TOU apxLepews Kal TpoTTaTOV TeV 

onl ¢€ can) af | ~ ~ > "er ¢ / \ 
Wuyev nuwv “Inoov Xpistov, o& ov ool 7 doFa Kal 

rd / \ ~ \ > \ ~ 
n meyaXwourn Kal vUV Kal Els Yyeveay yEevewy Kal Eis 
A + io va 7 
TOUS GlWYaS TWY AlWYwWY. any. 
\ \ - > / ~ / € - 

Is LXIL. [lept ev tev dvyxovtwv ™ OpnoKeia jpov, 

\ a ’ , > > , / ~ / 

Kal TwV wPeEAwWTAaTwY Els EvapEeTov Biovy Tots BéNovow 
> ~ \ Fi / \ , > ~ 
evoeBws Kal OiKaiws drevOvvery [tv mopeiav avtwr |, 

€ land ’ / ~ 7 ? 

LKaVWS ETETTELAGMEV UML, aVvopES adedpol. Tepl yap 
/ \ / \ / > / > 
TLOTEWS KAL METAVOLAS Kal Yyynolas ayamns Kal éy- 
see above, I. pp- 144, 145. In the Syriac we should probably read MIWDW3 for 


NIVSW, i.e. 2 pretate (=evoeBds) for et Pietatis. 
om. CS: see below. 


17 Thy wopelav av’Ttov] 
19 €yKpateias] NNVIY by super continentia (as if 
umep eyKpareias) S, for another preposition (20% de) has been used before for 
mept. Perhaps however the insertion of a different preposition is a mere rhetorical 
device of the translator; or by may be an accidental repetition of the first syllable 
of the following word, as the Syriac forms of the letters would suggest. We cannot 


safely infer a different Greek text. 


a rare mode of expression, the com- 
moner forms being eis yeveds yeveov 
Or eis yeveay kal yeveav, which are 
quite different in meaning. 

LXII. ‘Enough has been said 
by us however concerning the things 
pertaining to our religion and neces- 
sary for a virtuous life. For we have 
left no point untouched concerning 
faith and repentance and the like, 
reminding you that ye ought in all 
righteousness to pay your thanks- 
giving to God, living in harmony 
and peace and love; like as our 
fathers behaved with all humility 
towards God and towards all men. 
And we have done this with the 
more pleasure, because we knew that 
we were speaking to faithful men, 
who had made a diligent study of 
God’s oracles’. 

15. Tov adynxovrwy| With a dative 
as in § 35; see the note on Ign. 
Philad. 1. It has a different con- 
struction, avykew eis, § 45. See the 


note there. 

tT Opnokeia nuov| Comp. § 45 rev 
Opnokevovr@v THY peyadompera kal 
evdogov Opnokeiav tov bWicrov. This 
passage explains the force of the 
words here: ‘that befit men who 
serve the one true God’. 

16. evaperov] See the note on Ign. 
Phitad. i. 

17. SvevOdvew]| The MS is ob- 
viously defective here ; and we must 
supply some such words as rp 
mopeiay avtav (see § 48), or ra dtaB7- 
para (§ 60), or perhaps with Bryen- 
nios tyv BovdAny aivtav (§ 61). See 
the introduction, I. p. 145 sq. 

18. txavos emeoreidapev| Bryennios 
has called attention to the similarity 
of language used by Irenzeus, when 
describing this epistle, ili. 3. 3 émt 
TouTov ovv tov KAnpevtos, ordcews 
ouk oAtyns Tots ev KopivO@ yevomnevns 
adeAdois, eméotetAev 4 ev “Popn eK- 
kAngia ikav@tratny ypadny trois Ko- 
pwOiors. 


182 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[Lx 


/ \ / a / “ 
KpaTelas Kal Twhpoovvns Kal Vromovns TavTa TOTOV 


évnrAapnoapev, vrouyuvnoKovTes Oetv Umas ev OiKaLo- 


/ \ ? , \ / cam / 
ouvyn Kat adAnOeia Kat pakpoOupia TW TAaVTOKPATOPL 


“ / -~ € ~ , > 
Oew OTlLWS EVAPETTELVY, OMOVOOUYTAaS AUVNOLKAKWS EV 


/ \ > / \ > “ / \ \ 
ayarn Kat €lonvy PETA EKTEVOUS ETTLELKELAS, Kadws Kat 


, / lod / 
ol 7 POOEONAWMEVOL TATEPES HLwY EUNPET TNO AY TATELVO- 


A \ 
povovyTes Ta 71 pos TOV TATEpa Kal Oecov KaL KTLO- 


1 Tomov] add. scripturae S. 
same confusion above, § 41. 
5 ka0ws Kal] Kaws (om. kal) S. 


deum (Ocov wayKtiarny 2?) S; comp. § 19. 


4 evapecteiv] S3 evdxapireiv C: see the 
The reading of S was anticipated by Hilg. and Gebh. 


7 Ocdv Kal Krlornv] wniverst creatorem 
8 mpds] S; om. C. The authority 


of S in such a case is valueless in itself (see I. p. 137), but the preposition seems to 


be required here. 


tanto sint (erunt) per ea quae monuimus. 
has translated it word for word, regardless of sense. 


I. mavta tomov x.t.A.] ‘we have 
handled every topic’; Bryennios adds 
by way of explanation, paduora d€ rev 
ayiov ypaper, thus taking mdvta to- 
mov to mean ‘every passage’; and 
so it is rendered in the Syriac Ver- 
sion, ‘place of Scripture’. In this 
sense tomos occurs above in the ex- 
pression ¢v érép@ tome, SS 8, 29, 46. 
But this meaning does not seem at 
all natural here, where the word is 
used absolutely. For rémos ‘a topic, 
argument’, comp. e.g. Epict. Dass. 
i. 7. 4 éemiokxeiv Tia Townréoy Tov 
TOT@Y TOUT@Y, Il. 17. 31 Grav TovToy 
€xmovnon...Tov Torov, and see other 
references in Schweighzeuser’s index 
to Epictetus, s.v. For wndradav 
comp. e.g. Polyb. vill. 18. 4 macay 
€ mivovay ewnrapa. 

4. evapeorteiv| Doubtless the cor- 
rect reading, as it explains the sub- 
sequent evnpéornoav. For another 
example of the confusion of evapec- 
reiv, evxapiorety, in the authorities, 
see § 4I. 

dpynotxaxws| See § 2 durnoixaxor 
(with the note). This word involves 
an appeal to the swferers from the 


g Hdvov] 7 d¢ wy S, which translates the clause, e¢ haec 
The translator has had a corrupt text and 


éredy capes jdeimev 


schisms, who are bidden to harbour 
no grudge. 

5: pera exrevods x.t.A.]| See the 
note on § 58, where the same ex- 
pression occurs. 

6. of mpodednrAwpevor k.t.A.] See 
S$ 17, 18, 19; comp. also § 30 €d06n 
[7 paprupia] tois matpaow nuav Trois 
Sixaiors, and § 31 advarvAiEwpev ra 
amr apxns yevopweva’ Tivos xapw nu- 
oynOn o matnp nuov ABpaau; k.T-d. 
For this use of warépes in speaking 
of Jewish worthies, see the note on 
S 4. 

Io. eAdoywraros| See the note 
on § 58 edAoyipos. 

eyxexupoow] Comp. § 53 Karas 
eriotacGe tras iepds ypadds, ayarnroi, 
kal eyxexvbate eis Ta Adyta TOU Qeoi, 
with the note. For the word éykvr- 
rey see the note on § 4o. 

LXIII. ‘We ought therefore to 
regard so many great examples, and 
to bow the neck in submission; that 
laying aside all strife we may reach 
our destined goal. Ye will make 
us happy indeed, if ye obey and 
cease from your dissensions in ac- 
cordance with our exhortation to 


LXx1I1| TO THE CORINTHIANS. 183 


Thv Kal Tpos TavTas avOpwrovs. Kal TavTA TOTOUTW 
c/ e / > \ ~ af / 
nowov vTEeuvynoauev, €7rElon capws nO€LEV ypapew 

10 jas dvopacw mioTois Kal EAAOYIMWTATOLS Kal éYKE- 

/ > \ / ~ 7 q qf 
kupoow és Ta NOYLA THS qatelas Tou Oéeov. 


LXIUL 


/ e ie: / ec ~ \ 
ToTOUTOLS UTovEiypacw mMpoceNGovtas v7obeivat Tov 


\ > ~ / \ 
Oeurtov ovy €oTw Tots TolovTOLs Kal 


/ A \ ~ ¢ a / ? / 
Tpaxnrov Kal TOY THS UTTAaKONHS TOTO avaTTAYNWOAVTAS 


ypapew] guia scilicet manifeste est tis; oportuit enim (uev) ut scriberemus S, i.e. 
éred}) capes 7° Set (or ber) ev yap ypddew x.7.’. Again a corrupt reading, or 
rather a false division of the words, has been translated almost verbatim. For the 
facility with which yap might be omitted or inserted before ypdgw, see Ign. Lone. 7. 
10 €A\Noytmwrato.s] doctis S. 13 Urobevar Tov Tpdxnrov] cnclinemus collum 
nostrum et subjiciamus nos 8. 14 avatAnpdoavras...nuav] implentes in- 
clinemur illis qui sunt duces animarum nostrarum S; dvawdynpdca C, omitting 


all the other words: see the lower note. 


peace. And we have sent to you faith- 
ful men who have lived among us 
unblameably from youth to old age, 
to be witnesses between us and you. 
This we have done, to show you 
how great is our anxiety that peace 
may be speedily restored among 
you’. 

12. Ocwirov | The use of this word 
seems to be extremely rare, except 
with a negative, ov Oemirov (e.g. Tobit 
li. 13) Or a@éprov (see below). 

Tots TotovTois k.T.A.| § 46 Tovovrors 
ovv vmovelypacw KoAAnOnvar Kat mas 
Sei «.r.A. For rowvrois Kat tooovro.s 
comp. § 19. 

13. mpooedOovras| ‘having acceded 
to, attended to, assented to, studied’, 
as in § 33; comp. I Tim. vi. 3 «¢ 
Tis €repodiOackaNe Kal py mpooépxeTat 
vytaivovaw Adyos. So we find mpco- 
épxerOar apetn ‘to apply oneself to 
virtue’, Philo de Migr. Abr. 16 
(I. p. 449); mpowépxerOar Trois vopors 
‘to study the laws’, Diod. i. 95; 
mpooépxecOa tH copia, TH pirocopia, 
‘to become a follower of wisdom, of 
philosophy’, Philostr. Vz¢. Ag. 1. 2 
[pidtz)aiis 187 (p.. 50), comp. -LXX 


Ecclus. vi. 26 6 mpoceAOay ary (i.e. 
TH copia); mporépxer Oar PoB@ Kupiov 
‘to give heed to the fear of the Lord’, 
LXxX Ecclus. i. 30; mpooépxeo@at py- 
devi Tav eipnuéevov Philo de Gig. 9 (I. 
p. 267); mpooéepxecOar TH oye, Orig. 
6 Cel. m1. 48. > These sensesiare 
derived ultimately from the idea of 
‘approaching a person as a disci- 
ple’; eg. Xen. Mem. i. 2. 47 avmep 
évekev kal Swxparer TpoaHAGov. 

vrobeivat tov tpaxndrov] ‘submit 
your, neck}, 1.e ‘too the yoke; 
comp. Ecclus. li. 26 tov rpaxndov 
vpav vmobere bro Cvyov (comp. 20. vi. 
2A, 1 25)), Hpictets (Dass) veo ag 
gcautov OovAov, vmébnkas 
So too Acts xv. Io 
emiOeivas Cuyoy emi Tov Tpaxndov. The 
expression is used in a different 
sense in Rom. xvi. 4 umep ths Wuxis 
frou TOY é€avT@y TPaxnAov vréOnkKar, 
where it means ‘laid their neck on 
the block’, net ‘pledged their lives’, 
as Wetstein and others take it. 

14. Tdmov avarAnpecartas| ‘ fo oc- 
cupy the place’, ‘fulfil the function’ ; 
comp. I Cor. xiv. 16 0 dvamAnpov 
where the 


Tapedwkas 
Tov Tpaxndop. 


‘ , ~ °. , 
TOY TOTOY TOU idLwTOU, 


184 THE EPISTLE ‘OF Si CLEMENT (Lx 


moockANOnvar Tols Vrapyovow adpynyots Twv Wuxev 
UOV, OTWS HOVYAaTAVTES THS paTaias oTATEWS ETL TOV 
TpoKElMevov Huiv év dAnOEla TKordv Siva TavTos [AW [LOU 
KaTaVTNOWMEV. Yyapayv yap Kal dyadNiaow july TapeE- 
Eee, éav Vrnkool yevouevor Tois UP rudy yeypaupevors 5 
Sia TOU dylov mvevmatos éxkdWnte Thy adOémTov TOU 


/ € ~ 5) A \ A sf A > / é 
CXous UMwWY Opynv KaTa THY EVTEVELV nv erroioapeta 


> / / 3 lanl q 4 ~~ 
TEDL ELYHVNS Kal Ofovolas Ev THOE TH EMLTTOAN. 
é 4 


2 novxacavtes| guéescentes et tranguilli S. 


4 ayadXNlacw] add. magnan S. 


choice of this elaborate expression 
is probably a studied’ paradox to 
bring out the honourable character 
of a private station; romos denoting 
official position or dignity (see above, 
S 40, and the note on Ign. Polyc. 1), 
while idvwrns implies the opposite of 
this. So too here the object may 
be to enhance the important /uzctzon 
of obedience. See Clem. Hom. iii. 
60 roy euoyv dvarAnpovrta rorov, and 
comp. Joseph. B. F. v. 2. 5 orpari- 
Tou Ta&w amomAnpovrta. 

I. mpookdOnva k.T.A.| These 
words are wanting in the Greek 
Ms, and I have restored them by 
retranslation from the Syriac: see 
the critical note. The true pardzsan- 
ship is here tacitly contrasted with 
the false; the rightful Zeaders with 
the wrongful. The language is ex- 
plained by what has gone before; 
S 14 puoepod (ndous dpxnyois é&a- 
Kodovbeiv, § 51 ekeivor olruves dpxnyot 
Ths oTavews Kal Otxyooracias eyevnOn- 
cav, § 47 dia ro kal rore mpookXicets 
Upas tmemoiujcOa... mpoceKAlOnre ‘yap 
K.T-A., § 50 Wa ev ayarn evpeOapev Sixa 
mpookricews avOpwrivns duopor (comp. 
S 21 py Kata mpookXices). The com- 
mand to choose the right partisan- 
ships here has a parallel in § 45 
iroverkot €OTE...7EPL TOY aYNKOVT@Y 
els gatnpiay (see the note). The 


5 yeypauuevois] add. vodis S. 


 Erréu- 
3 pwpouv] add. et scandalo S. 
7 &vrevéw) 


Syriac is pnt pnd yqns 
INWDIT NII. ~=For j39n3 I cannot 
think of any word so probable as 
mpookdOnvat, Since }37 is a common 
translation of xAivew, and in § 21 
mpookXicers isrendered NON7T NID; 
though mpookdiveo Oa, mpdokduots, are 
rendered otherwise, but variously, in 
S§ 47, 50, Acts v. 36,1 Tim. v. 21. On 
the other hand S72 ‘ductores’ 
might be variously rendered. It most 
commonly represents 6 nyovpevos(S§ 1, 
32, 37 in a double rendering, 55, Heb. 
xlil. 7, 17, 24); but elsewhere nyepor, 
KaOnyntns, odnyos, etc., even BovAeuTys. 
I have given apynyés, because it 
brings out the contrast which Cle- 
ment seems to have had in his mind. 
In §§ 14, 51, however, dpynyds is ren- 
dered otherwise, NW", NIW™, and so 
commonly. 

2. oracews|] Comp. Clem. Hom. 
1. 4 TOY TowWvT@Y oyicpav novyxacew. 
This construction follows the analogy 
of verbs denoting cessation, etc. 
(see Kuhner II. p. 341 sq). It is un- 
necessary therefore to read novyaca- 
ons, as Gebhardt suggests. 

3. okorov| Comp. § 6 emi rov ris 
miatews BéBacov Spomoy Karavrncwper, 
and § 19 eravadpapoper emi Tov €€ apxns 
mrapadeSopévoy nuiv THs eipnyns oKoTO?r, 
which explains the idea in the wri- 
ter’s mind here. The expression 


LXIV| 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


185 


‘ Li WEL \ i) / > \ , 
Vrapev d€ Kal avdpas miaTous Kat Gwhpovas, amo vEo- 


> / 4 , / > Chi 
lo THTOS avacTpapEevTas EWS YNpoUS ameuTTTWS Ev Huty, 


c / sf \ _ \ = 
olTwes Kal fapTupEs EDoVTaL MEeTaEV UVMw@V Kal HuwY. 


~ \ ’ / 
TouTO o€ €7oljoapeEV 


af > A ? / 
:ppovtis Kal yéyovev Kal EoTW Els TO Ev TAaxEL 


ELONVEUT AL. 


e/ 
tva 


3 ~ «/ — ~ 
ELONTE OTL TATA 7MiV 


U[LasS 


LXIV. Aourov 6 rwavteromrtns Oeos kai SexroTns 


lanl / \ / 
Tov mveynatwy Kat Kupros 


supplicationem et exhortationen S. 
Twes kal] S; otrwes (om. kal) C. 


itself is perhaps suggested byt Eleb: 
Xll, I Tpéy@pev Tov TpoKeiwevov new 
adyova. For oxomoy comp. Phil. ili. 14. 

popov|] ‘fault, defect’: see the 
note on popockxomnbéy § 41. In the 
Old Testament it is always a trans- 
lation of D\% ‘a blemish’. 

4. xapay x.t.A.] As in Luke i. 14 
(comp. Matt.’v. 12, Rev. xix. 7); see 
also Mart. Polyc. 18. This combi- 
nation of words yapa kali dyadXiacts 
does not occur in the LXx. 

6. ia Tov ayiov mvevpatos] See 
the note on § 59 rois vm avrov ov 
nuav eipnuévors. Harnack takes these 
words with éexkoWyre, but this does 
not seem so natural. 

dOéuirov| Acts x. 28, 1 Pet. iv. 3; 
and so too 2 Macc. vi. 5, vii. I, x. 34. 

7. ¢ndous| See the note on g A. 

evtrevéw| This should probably be 
explained of the ‘appeal’ to the Cor- 
inthians oe see the note on 
[Clem. Rom.] ii. § 19. Itmight how- 
ever refer to thes foregoing ‘prayer’ 
to God for concord; comp. e.g. 1 Tim. 
Maiev. §, Ferm. Mand.x.'2:; 

9. avdpas| Claudius Ephebus and 
Valerius Bito, whose names are given 
below, § 65. For the light which 
this notice throws on the early history 
of the Roman Church see the in- 
troduction, I. p. 27 sq; and for its 
bearing on the date, see I. p. 349. 


/ {¢ € > , 
TaOnS TAaPKOS, O exAeEa- 


g 6€ kal] S; dé (om. Kal) C. 
15 Aourdv] C; 


II ot- 
..cov A; dourdv dé S. 


10. ynpovs] So Luke i. 36 yype 
(the correct reading), and in several 
passages in the LXX, e.g. Ps. xci (xcii). 
14 ynpet, I Kings xiv. 4 ynpous, 
Ecclus. viil. 6, etc., with more or less 
agreement in the principal Mss; so 
also Clem. Hom. iil. 43. On this 
form see Winer Gramm. § ix. p. 73 Sq, 
Steph. Zhes. s.v., ed. Hase. Our MS 
has also ynpet above in § 10, where A 
reads ynpa. 

LXIV. ‘Finally, may the God of 
all spirits and all flesh, who hath 
chosen us in Christ Jesus, grant us 
all graces through Christ, our High- 
priest, through whom be glory and 
honour to Him. Amen.’ 

15. Aourov] For Xourdy or 76 dor- 
mov, with which S. Paul frequently 
ushers in the close of his epistles, 
see Philippians ii. 1. The happy 
conjecture of Vansittart which I 
adopted in my first edition is con- 
firmed by our new authorities. 

mavterontns| See the note on § 55. 

Geds...T@y mvevpatyv «.T.A.] Num. 
XXV1l. 16 Kupwos 6 Geos Trav mvevpat@v 
Kal t1aons aapkds (Comp. Xvi. 22): see 
also Heb. xil. 9 r@ marpi Tov mvevpd- 
tov, Rev. xxll. 6 Kupios 0 Ocds tov 
TVEVLATOY TOV TpopnTav. 

16. 0 &€kAeEauevos| See Luke ix. 35 
O vios rou 6 ékXedeypévos (the correct 
reading, though there are wv. Il. 


186 


\ / > “A 
mevos Tov Kuprov *Incour 
> \ / / 
ets Aaov TeEpLovaLoY, dwn 


\ \ e/ 
MeyaNorpeTes Kal ayLov 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT 


[LXIV 


\ \ € a > 3 = 
XpirTov Kat yuas Ov avTou 
maon \ruxyn émikekAnpevn TO 

2 es eae tt ag 
1 > = 7 / 
OvOMa avTOU TIOTLY, poBor, 


2 / / / ’ lf ¢€ / 
Elonynv, vmouovnv, pakpoOumlay, eyKpaTelav, ayvelrav 


\ / > > / ~ > / lo 
kat Gwppocvyny, Els EVAPETTHOLW TW OVOMATL AUTOU 5 


1 nas] AS; nets C. 


plav] A; Kat waxpodupiav CS. 
éyKpareav Kal ayvelav S. 
évouatt] AC; add. sancto S. 


exAextos and dyamnros). So too Luke 
XXlill. 35 0 Xpioros 6 Tov ©Oeov ek- 
Aextos : comp. I Pet. il. 4sq. Harnack 
refers to Hermes Sz. v. 2 éxde&a- 
pevos SovAdv Twa moro Kal evapedTov 
evriywov, where the servant entrusted 
with the vineyard represents Christ. 
It is clear from Enoch xl. 5, xlv. 3, 4, 
li. 3, lit. 6, xii. 1, that 6 éxAexros was 
a recognized designation of the 
Messiah. 

I. npas de avrov] Ephes. i. 4 xaé- 
os e&eheEato nuas ev avT@ (i.e. ev 
XpwioT@). 

2. els adv meptovowov| Deut. xiv. 
4 kal oe e&ehéEato Kuptos 6 eds cov 
yevéoOa oe aov av’T@ Tepwovorvov ; 
comp. 20. vii. 6, xxvi. 18, Exod. xix. 5, 
Ps. cxxxiv. 4, Tit. i. 14 xadapion 
€auT@ aov meprovowov. In the LXX 
ads meptovovos is a translation of 
abip Oy, the expression doubtless 
present to S. Peter’s mind when he 
spoke of Aads cis mwepuroinow (1 Pet. 
ii. 9). In Mal. iii. 17 mS9p is trans- 
lated eis mepuroinow in the LXx, and 
meptovotos by Aquila. As mbip is 
‘peculium ’, ‘opes’, (bap ¢ acquisivit’), 
meprovavos Would seem to mean ‘ac- 
quired over and above’, and hence 
‘specially acquired’ with a meaning 
similar to the classical é£aiperos. It 
was rendered at once literally and 
effectively in the Latin Bible by 
‘peculiaris’. See my Revzston of the 


3 meyadomperés kal dy.ov] AC; sanctum et decens 
(tx) magnitudine et gloriosum S; see above, I. p. 137. 
povnv] AC; et cimorem et concordiam et amorem et patientiam S. 


poBov, eipnvnv, viro- 
4 paKpodu- 


éyKpareav, ayvelavy] AC (but aynav A); kai 
5 Kal cwhpoavvnv] AS; cwppoctvny (om. kal) C. 
6 apxrepéws] AC; add. magni S. 


7 50g] 
English New Testament p. 195 sq 
(édi-2). 

emuxexAnuery | ‘which hath in- 
voked his name’; comp. Acts ii. 21, 
ix. 14, 21, xxil. 16, etc. So it is trans- 
lated actively in the Syriac. Or is it 
rather, as the perfect tense suggests, 
‘which ts called by his name’? This 
latter makes better sense, especially 
in connexion with Aads mepiovoros ; 
but with this meaning the common 
constructions in biblical Greek would 
be ef nv (or ef 7) emixéxAnrae TO 
dvona avrov (e.g. Acts xv. 17, James 
ll. 7, and freq. in the LXX), or rH éae- 
KekAnwevn TO Ovoparte avrov (Is. xlili. 7). 

4. dyveiav kai cwhpocvynv| So too 
leon. Ephes. 10; comp. ‘Tit! aig 
a@ppovas, ayvas. 

5. evapeotnow| The word occurs 
Lest. git Pair Vsiias 

6. apxtepéws kal mpoorarov| See 
the note on § 36 above, where the 
expression is expanded. 

7. Oo€a kai peyatwavvn| See the 
note on § 20, where also these two 
words occur together in a doxology : 
comp. also § 59, where nearly the 
same combination of words as here 
is repeated. In Rev. v. 13 we have 
7 Tin Kal y Soa kal TO Kpatos els Tovs 
ai@vas TOY aiaver. 

LXV. ‘We have sent Claudius 
Ephebus and Valerius Bito to you. 
Let them return to us quickly accom- 


LXv| TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


187 
1a TOU caipy Lepews Kal T POG TATOV yuwv *lnoov XpirTou* 
&’ ov avt@ ddfa Kal meyadwourn, KpaTos, Tyuy, Kal 
aunv. 

LXV. Tous d€ drextaduevous ad’ nuwv Kravduov 


“ \ / \ SN lon ba 
VUV Kal ELS TWAVTAS TOUS ALWVAS TWV ALWVYWY,. 


? 2 lé , ‘ \ ‘4 
10” EgnBov cai Ovadépiov Bitwva cuv kat Poptovvatw év 
AC; maca 56a S, which omits the following words kai weyadkwovvn, Kpdtos, TLLh, 
kat] om. C, Tin] A; Kal rin C. 8 mavras] AC; 
10 Kal Ovadépiov] AC; Valerium (om. kal) or e¢ Alerium S; but this 
is doubtless owing to the accidental omission of a } before prands) by a Syrian 


Kal voy Kal. 
om. S.; 


scribe. 


avy (om. kai) S. 


panied by Fortunatus, and bear glad 
tidings of harmony and peace re- 
stored among you. The grace of 
our Lord Jesus Christ be with you 
and with all. Through Him be glory 
to God for ever.’ 

9g. KaAavdiuv x«7.A.]| These two 
names, Claudius and Valerius, sug- 
gest some connexion with the im- 
perial household ; as the fifth Czesar 
with his two predecessors belonged 
to the Claudian gens and his empress 
Messalina to the Valerian. Hence 
it happens that during and after the 
reign of Claudius we not unfre- 
quently find the names Claudius 
(Claudia) and Valerius (Valeria) in 
conjunction, referring to slaves or 
retainers of the Cesars. It is not 
impossible therefore that these two 
delegates of the Roman Church were 
among the members of ‘ Czsar’s 
household’ mentioned in Phil. iv. 22, 
and fairly probable that they are in 
some way connected with the palace; 
see the dissertation in Phzliphians p. 
169 sq. On this subject see also the 
introduction, I. p. 27 sq. Of the two 
cognomina Ephebus is not so un- 
common, On the other hand Bito 
is rare in Latin, though commoner 
in Greek (comp. Pape-Benseler 
Worterb. ad. Griech. Eitgennamen s.v. 


Birov). For instances in Latin of 


Birwva] AC; om. S. The punctuation of both C and §S is faulty 
here, in separating names which belong to the same person. 
Poprowvatw] A; Povprowdatw C; Frutunato S. 


avv kal] AC; 


this and allied names see above, I. 
p. 28. In Muratori, 1367 no. 12, it 
occurs as awoman’s name, LONGINVS. 
BITONI. VXORI. AMENTO. 

10. guy kai oprovvdra| For the 
position of kat comp. Phil. iv. 3 pera 
kat KAnpervtos (quoted by Laurent 
p- 425). Hilgenfeld adds ‘from the 
Assumption of Moses’ Clem. Alex. 
Strom. vi. 15 (p. 806) oy kai To 
XadeB. The clever emendation of 
Davies ctv Tai boprovvare is there- 
fore unnecessary ; and moreover the 
testimony of A is now reinforced by 
one other Greek MS. The form of 
expression seems to separate Fortu- 
natus from Ephebus and Bito: and, 
if so, he was perhaps not a Roman 
who accompanied the letter, but a 
Corinthian from whom Clement was 
expecting a visit. In this case there 
is no improbability in identifying 
him with the Fortunatus of 1 Cor. 
xvl. 17; for Fortunatus seems to be 
mentioned by S. Paul (A.D. 57) as 
a younger member of the household 
of Stephanas, and might well be alive 
less than forty years after, when 
Clement wrote. It must be remem- 
bered however, that Fortunatus is a 
very common name. See above, I. 
p-,.29, nate 3, p..62,, note. 1, 

ev eipnvy k.t.A.] I Cor. xvi. II mpo- 
mépvare S€ avtov ev eipnyn. 


188 


THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT. [LXV 


5] / \ land VA / \ € ~ 
Elpnyn META Xapas ev TaXEL advaTEUyaTE TPOS 1Mas, 
/ a \ , ores r = ea 
Omws Oattov Thy EevKTalay Kal érimoOnTHY Helv Elpnyny 
\ / / > \ / \ € a“ 
Kal OMOVOLav amrayyeAAwol* Els TO TAaYXLOV Kal Nas 
4 \ ~ / = 
xapnvar mept THS evoTalelas UMD. 
/ lol / cond a ~ c ~~ 
‘H xapis Tov Kupiov juwv Incov Xpiorov pel vuwv 5 
\ \ / ~ ~ / Gy \ ~ 
Kal META TavTWY TavTayHn TwY KEeKANMEVWY VITO TOU 
oe \ ? ? = b) G 3 Toa / / Ui \ 
Ocou kai Ov avrov: Si ov avTw So€a, TYun, KpaTOS Kal 
/ Vf MIR \ ~ A 6 > \ 
peyadwovrvn, Opovos aiwvios, ao TwWY alwywy Els TOUS 
aes as ay / 
ALWVAS TWY ALWYwWY. any. 
I dvaméuparte] averewpare A. 
kal oudvoravy] AC; ouovoray kal envy S. 


e(pnvnv 
3 amayyé\\wow] A (the first \ being 
supplied above the line but prima manu); amayyeidwow C. TaxLov] Taxero A. 
4 evoTabelas] evoratiac A. 7 Kal d¢ adrod] AS; 6¢ av’rod (om. kat) C. TUN 
...a70 Tov aidvwv] AC; om. S. As the general tendency of S is rather to add than 
to omit, the omissions in this neighbourhood (more especially in the proper names) 
suggest that the translator’s copy of the Greek was blurred or mutilated in this part. 
It must be observed however that the omissions of S, here and above § 64, reduce 


2 émimoOynrnv) A; émvrddnrov C. 


the doxology to Clement’s normal type; comp. e.g. §§ 32, 38, 43, 45, 50- 


AS; kai es C, 


8 eis] 


For the subscriptions in our authorities see above, I. pp. 117, 122, I3I- 


2. @Oarrov] This form is doubly 
strange here, as it does not occur in 
the New Testament, and Clement 
uses the usual taysoyv two lines be- 
low. O©arrov however is found in 
Mart. Ign. 3, 5, Mart. Polyc. 13, in 
which latter passage Oarroy and ra- 
xvov occur in consecutive sentences 
as here. Both our MSS agree in 
reading Oarroyv here, and rayvoy just 
below. 

evxtaiav| The word does not oc- 
cur in the LXxX or New Testament, 
though common in classical Greek. 

exuroOnrnv| As an adjective of 
three terminations; comp. Barnab. 
S 1 » eémuroOntn ovis vpov, where 
Hilgenfeld unnecessarily reads émuro- 
Ontos. The feminine does not occur 
in the LXX or New Testament. For 
similar instances of adjectives of 
three terminations in the New Tes- 
tament see A. Buttmann p. 22 sq; 
and on the whole subject refer to 


Lobeck Farad. p. 455 sq, especially 
P- 473 Sdq- 

4. evotabetas | ‘tranguillity’ ; comp. 
Wisd. vi. 26, 2 Macc. xiv. 6. On ev- 
orale see the notes to Ign. Polyc. 4. 

6. kal peta mavroy x«.t.rA.] For a 
benediction similarly extended see 
I Cor. i. 2 odv mace Tots emiKadoupEvors 
TO Ovopa K.T.A. 

8. Opovos aiwvos| This doxology 
is imitated in JZart. Polyc. 21 "Inaov 
Xpicrov © 9 Soga, Tin, peyakoovrn, 
Opovos aiwvios, amd yeveas eis yevear. 
Here Opoves aiwvos seems to be 
thrown in as an after thought, the 
ascription having ended with kat 
peyadkwovrn ; and the idea of aiwmos 
is prolonged by the thrice repeated 
aidvwy, aidvas, aiaver. 

For the obligations of the begin- 
ning and end of this same document 
to the Epistle of Clement see Zgvaz. 
and Polyc. 1. p. 610 sq, ed. I (p. 626 
sq, ed. 2). 


THE SO-CALLED 


2 OND EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENS 


ee Oo RIN TANS 


oo oi ioe ka) 
a Ake 
an Ue fu Ny a oe 
hs ae ia : ; : ral 
ree Mf Mire 


a ihe a Pita 





AN ANCIENT: HOMILY. 


I. 


E have seen that ihe table of contents prefixed to our leading 
ms (A) ascribes to Clement the Second Epistle equally with 
the First. On the other hand it ought to be noticed that there is no 
heading tpoc kopinéioyc B, as the corresponding title of the First would 
lead us to expect. If we could feel sure that this phenomenon was 
not due to the mutilation of the ms (see above, I. p. 117), the fact 
would be significant. ‘Though the scribe held the Second Epistle to 
be not only a letter of Clement, but also (as we may perhaps infer) 
a letter to the Corinthians; yet the absence of such a title might 
have been transmitted from an earlier copy, where the work was 
anonymous and not intended to be ascribed to this father. But the 
alternative supposition that the title has disappeared by mutilation is 
at Jeast not improbable (see below, p. 199). In the later Greek ms (C) 
the second Epistle is entitled ‘Of Clement to the Corinthians’, like the 
first (see above, I. p. 122). 

On the other hand the Syriac Version makes a distinction between 
the two (see I. p. 131 sq). The First Epistle is described as ‘The 
Catholic Epistle of Clement the disciple of Peter the Apostle to the 
Church of the Corinthians’; where not only is the epistle not numbered, 
but a distinguishing epithet is prefixed. In the case of the Second 
however, though the scribe makes no difference in the authorship and 
designation of the two, the title is given more simply ‘Of the same 
(Clement) the Second Epistle to the Corinthians.’ This distinction 
may be accidental; but a probable explanation is, that in some Greek 
ms, from which the Syriac Version was ultimately derived, the First 
Epistle stood alone, the Second not having yet been attached to it. 


While the First Epistle is universally attributed to Clement, the 
balance of external testimony is strongly opposed to his being regarded 


IQ2 THE EPISTLES OF S CLEMENT. 


as the author of the Second. It is first mentioned by Eusebius, who 
throws serious doubts on its genuineness (77. Z. iii. 37). After describing 
the First he adds, ‘I should mention also that there is said to be a 
Second Epistle of Clement (icréov 8 ws kat devrépa tis etvar A€yerar Tod 
KAyjpevtos érictoAy) : but we do not know that this is recognised like the 
former (ov pv €f opoiws TH tpotépa Kal Tadtyv yvwpysov erictapeOa) ; for 
we do not find the older writers making any use of it (67t nde Kal Tovs 
apxaiovs avtT Kexpnuevous topev). Then after summarily rejecting other 
pretended Clementine writings, because ‘ they are never once mentioned 
by the ancients’ and ‘do not preserve the stamp of Apostolic orthodoxy 
intact’, he concludes by referring again to the First Epistle, which he 
calls ‘the acknowledged writing of Clement (7 tod KAjpevtos ouodoyov- 
pevn ypady). And in other passages, where he has occasion to 
speak of it, he uses similar expressions, ‘¢ie Epistle of Clement’, ‘the 
acknowledged Epistle of Clement’ (ZZ. £. iii. 16, iv. 22, 23, vi. 13). The 
statement of Eusebius is more than borne out by facts. Not only is a 
Second Epistle of Clement not mentioned by early writers ; but it is a 
reasonable inference from the language of Hegesippus and Dionysius of 
Corinth’ (as reported by Eusebius), and of Irenzeus and Clement of 
Alexandria (as read in their extant writings), that they cannot have known 
or at least accepted any such epistle*. Rufinus and Jerome use still 
more decisive language. ‘The former professedly translates Eusebius, 
‘Dicitur esse et alia Clementis epistola cujus nos notitiam non accept- 
mus’; the latter tacitly paraphrases him, ‘ Fertur et secunda ejus nomine 
epistola guae a veteribus reprobatur’ (de Vir. Ill. 15). These writers are 
not independent witnesses, but the strength, which they consciously or 
unconsciously add to the language of the Greek original, has at least a 
negative value ; for they could not have so written, if any Second Epistle 


1 Hegesippus, A. Z£. iii. 16, iv. 22: 
Dionysius, H. Z. iv. 23. The words of 
the latter are Thy ofmepoy otvy KuptaKny 
dylav nuépay dinydyouer, ev 7 dvéyrwpev 
Wav Thy éemioToNnv, jv eEomev del more 
dvaywwoKovres vov0ereicOar, ws Kai Ti 
mpotépay huiv dua KdXnuevros ypadetcar. 
He is writing in the name of the Corin- 
thians to the Romans, acknowledging a 
letter which they had received from the 
brethren in Rome written apparently by 
their bishop Soter; and he declares that 
his Church will preserve and read from 
time to time this second letter from the 
Romans, as they do the former which 


was written by Clement. Thus he seems 
to know of only one letter of Clement to 
the Corinthians. The passage however 
has been strangely misinterpreted, as 
though ri mporépay meant ¢he former 
of Clements two epistles —a meaning 
which the context does not at all favour 
and which the grammar excludes, for then 
we should require ry mpotépar rav dud 
Kdjuevtos ypapeoav. 

* The passages from these, and later 
fathers, to whom I shall have occasion 
to refer, are given in full above, I. p. 


153 Sq. 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 193 


of Clement which might be accepted as genuine had fallen within the 
range of their knowledge. 

Early in the 9th century Georgius Syncellus still speaks of ‘the one 
genuine letter to the Corinthians’ (CZronog. a.D. 78, 1. p. 651, ed. Dind.); 
and later in the same century Photius (472. 113) writes, ‘ The so-called 
Second Epistle (of Clement) to the same persons (the Corinthians) is 
rejected as spurious (ws vofos aodokialerar).’ 

Meanwhile however this epistle had been gradually gaining recog- 
nition as a genuine work of Clement. The first distinct mention of it 
as such is in the ms A, which belongs probably to the fifth century ; but 
the notice of Eusebius implies that even in his day some persons 
were disposed to accept it. Ata later period its language and teaching 
made it especially welcome to the Monophysites and from the close 
of the 5th century it is frequently quoted as genuine. Thus citations 
are found in TIMOTHEUS of ALEXANDRIA (I. p. 180 sq) in the middle 
of the 5th century and in Severus of ANTIOCH (I. p. 182 sq) during 
the early decades of the 6th, besides certain anonymous Syriac 
collections (1. p. 183 sq), which may date from this latter period or 
subsequently. The doubtful reference in the PSEUDO-JuUSTIN has been 
discussed above (I. p. 178 sq). To the 6th century also may perhaps 
be ascribed the AposToLicaL Canons, where (can. 85) ‘Two Epistles 
of Clement’ are included among the books of the New Testament (see 
above, I. p. 187). About the opening of the 7th century again it 
is quoted by DororHEus the ARCHIMANDRITE (see I. p. 190); in the 
8th century by JoANNES DaMASCENUS (see I. p. 193), if indeed the 
passage has not been interpolated’; and in the 11th by Nicown of 
RH#THUS (see the notes, § 3). If in the Stcchometria attached to the 
Chronography of NicepHorus (ta.D. 828) it is placed with the First 
Epistle among the apocrypha, this classification does not question its 
genuineness but merely denies its canonicity. 


But what is the external authority for considering it an “fzs¢le to the 
Corinthians? We have seen that it is called an Afzst/e from the first ; 
but the designation fo the Corinthians is neither so early nor so 
universal. It was not so designated by Eusebius or Jerome or 
Timotheus. But in SEvVERUS of ANTIOCH (c. A.D. 520) for the first 
time a quotation is distinctly given as ‘from the Second Epistle to 
the Corinthians’. The Syriac s itself which contains the extract from 
Severus ‘can hardly,’ in Cureton’s opinion, ‘have been transcribed later 
than the commencement of the 8th century and might have been 


1 See the investigation above, I. p. 373 Sq- 
CLEM. II. "3 


194 THE EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT. 


written about the end of the 6th.’ In other Syriac extracts also which 
perhaps belong to the 6th century, it is quoted in this way. In the 
copy used by Photius again it appears to have been so entitled (B70/. 
126 BiBrWaprov év @ KAnpevtos éxiotoAal pds KopwOiovs B" évedépovto, 
compared with Bibl. 113 7 Aeyopévn Sevtépa pds Tovs avrovs) ; 
and John Damascene twice cites it as ‘the Second Epistle to the 
Corinthians’. 


Passing from the external to the internal evidence, we have to seek 
an answer to these several questions; (1) Is it truly designated an 
Epistle? (2) Was it addressed to the Corinthians? (3) What indi- 
cations of date does it give? (4) Who was the author, Clement or 
another ? 


2. 


Having considered the external testimony, we are now in a position 
to interrogate the internal evidence. 

The questions suggested by the common attribute, ‘The Second 
Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,’ are threefold; (1) Was it an 
epistle? If not, what is the nature of the document? (2) Was it 
addressed to the Corinthians or to some other Church? (3) Was it 
written by Clement or by some one else? In order to answer this 
last question we have to enquire what indications we find of date and 
authorship ? 


(i) The answer to our first question is ready to hand. If the First 
Epistle of Clement is the earliest foreshadowing of a Christian liturgy, 
the so-called Second Epistle is the first example of a Christian Aomz/y. 

The newly recovered ending has set this point at rest for ever. 
The work is plainly not a letter, but a homily, a sermon’. The speaker 
addresses his hearers more than once towards the close as ‘brothers 
and sisters’ (§§ 19, 20). Elsewhere he appeals to them in language 
which is quite explicit on the point at issue. ‘Let us not think,’ he 
says, ‘to give heed and believe now only, while we are being admonished 


1 Grabe (Spzc. Patr. 1. p. 268, 300) in Clement’s name. The event has 
supposed it to be a homily forged in shown his conjecture to be right as to 
Clement’s name. He referred to Anas- the character of the document. In all 
tasius (Quaest. 96), who quotes from the other respects he is in error. The Cle- 
sacred and apostolic doctor Clement in ment of Anastasius is not the Roman, 
his first discourse (Aéyw) concerning but the Alexandrian; and our homily 
‘providence and righteous judgment,’ as__ bears no traces of a forgery or of pre- 
showing that such homilies were forged tending to be Clement’s. 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 195 


by the presbyters; but likewise when we have departed home, let us 
remember the commandments of the Lord, etc.’ (§ 17). And again a 
little later he speaks still more definitely; ‘After the God of truth, 
I read to you an exhortation to the end that ye may give heed to the 
things which are written (i.e. to the scriptures which have just been 
read), so that ye may save both yourselves and him that readeth in the 
midst of you’ (§ 19). These words remind us of the language in 
which Justin, who wrote within a few years of the probable date of this 
homily, describes the simple services of the Christians in his time. 
‘On the day called Sunday,’ he says, ‘all remaining in their several cities 
and districts, they come together in one place, and the memoirs of the 
Apostles [i.e. the Gospels, as he explains himself elsewhere] or the 
writings of the Prophets are read, as long as time admits. Then, when 
the reader has ceased, the president (6 zpoeorws) in a discourse (da 
Adyov) gives instruction and invites (his hearers) to the imitation of these 
good things. Then we all rise in a body and offer up our prayers’ 
‘(Apol. i. 67, quoted in the notes on § 19). Here then is one of these 
exhortations, which is delivered after the ‘God of truth’ has been first 
heard in the scriptures’; and, this being so, the preacher was doubtless, 
as Justin describes him, 6 zpoeotus, the leading minister of the Church, 
i.e. the bishop or one of the presbyters, as the case might be. A 
different view indeed has been taken by Harnack. He supposes that 
the homily was delivered by a layman’, drawing his inference from the 
mention of the presbyters (in § 17 just quoted) as persons whom the 
preacher and his hearers alike were bound to listen to. But this 
language can only be regarded, I think, as an example of a very 
common rhetorical figure, by which the speaker places himself on a 
level with his audience, and of which several instances are furnished by 
the genuine Epistle of Clement, who again and again identifies himself 
with the factious brethren at Corinth (see the note on $17). On very rare 
occasions indeed we read of laymen preaching in the early Church ; but 
such concessions were only made to persons who had an exceptionally 
brilliant reputation, like Ongen*. Asa rule, this function belonged to 


1 Exception has been taken to this 
expression meta Tov Ocdv THs adnOeias. 
Zahn (Gott. Gel. Anz. p. 1418) and 
Donaldson (Z%eol. Rev. January, 1877, 
p- 46) propose dédyov for Oedv, while 
Gebhardt suggests rovwy or Tévov (TONON 
or TONOY for TONON). But it is difficult 
to see why our preacher should not have 
used this phrase, when he elsewhere in- 


troduces an evangelical quotation with 
Aéyet 0 Oeds, § 13; see the note on the 
passage. We do not even know whether 
the lesson to which he here refers was 
taken from the Old or the New Testa- 
ment. 

2 See p. Ixxii, note 11, p. 138 (ed. 2). 
So also Hilgenfeld, p. 106 (ed. 2). 

3 The objections raised in his case 


13—2 


196 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
the chief ecclesiastical officer in the congregation. A presbyter did 
not preach when the bishop was present; a deacon was for the most 
part regarded as incompetent to preach on any occasion’. 

The question therefore respecting the class of writings to which this 
document belongs is settled beyond dispute. The homiletic character 
of the work was suggested long ago by Grabe and others; and in my 
own edition I had regarded the opinion that it was a sermon or treatise 
rather than a letter as prima facie probable, though so long as the end 
was wanting this view could not be regarded as certain. On the other 
hand the theory propounded by Hilgenfeld, that we had here the letter 
of Soter bishop of Rome to the Corinthians, mentioned by Dionysius of 
Corinth about a.D. 170, was eagerly accepted by subsequent critics and 
editors. In a courteous review of my edition which appeared in the 
Academy (July 9, 1870) Lipsius espoused this theory as probable. And 
still later, on the very eve of the discovery of Bryennios, Harnack in 
the excellent edition of the Patres Apostolict of which he is coeditor 
had confidently adopted Hilgenfeld’s opinion; ‘Nullus dubito quin 
Hilgenfeldius verum invenerit,’ ‘mireris...neminem ante Hilgenfeldium 


verum invenisse’ (prol. pp. xci, xcil, ed. 1). 


show that the practice was rare. Alex- 
ander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of 
Ceesarea (Euseb. 1. £. vi. 19), writing to 
Demetrius of Alexandria, defend them- 
selves for according this privilege to 
Origen, as follows: mpooé@ynxe dé Tots 
ypdupmaciw, br. TovTo ovdé ToTE HKovTOn 
ovde viv yeyévyTal, 76 TWapévTo émicKoT OD 
Aaikods Outrelv, ovK 016’ Orrws mpopavds ovK 
GAnOHR A€ywv. Strov yodv eEvpicxovTar oi 
EmLTNOELOL TpPds TO WHEAEW Tos ddeAgors, 
kal mapakadobyrat TO Aaw Mpocoptdely 
bd THv aylwy émickdTav, woTep ev Aapdy- 
dors Evers bd Néwvos cal &v “Ikovip 
IlavAtvos bd Kédoov kcal €v Zuvvddors 
Ocddwpos bd ’ArTikod Trav wakaplwy dbed- 
puv: eikds 6é cal €v GdXos TéTos TolTO 
ylvecOa, nuas dé un eidévar. 

1 See Bingham Azftzg. xiv. 4. 2, 4; 
Augusti Christl. Archdol. V1. p. 315 sq; 
Probst Lehre u. Gebet pp. 18 sq, 222. 

2 See esp. pp. 177, 178. I cali at- 
tention to this, because my view has been 
misrepresented. Thus Lipsius (Academy, 
July 9, 1870) wrote of me, ‘ He holds 


This view was highly 


strongly with Hilgenfeld that the docu- 
ment is really a letter, not a homily.’ 
So far from holding this view strongly, 
I have stated that we find in the docu- 
ment ‘nothing which would lead to this 
inference,’ and again that it ‘ dears no 
traces of the epistolary form, though it 
may fossibly have been a letter’; but 
I did not consider that in the existing 
condition of the work certainty on this 
point was attainable, and I therefore 
suspended judgment. When my able 
reviewer goes on to say of me ‘ He also 
agrees with Hilgenfeld in the opinion, 
that the epistle was composed during the 
persecution under Marcus Aurelius,’ he 
imputes to me a view directly opposed to 
that which I have expressed (p. 177, ed. 1). 

I think also that the reader would 
gather from the manner in which I am 
mentioned by Harnack (p. lxvi, note 2, 
p. lxxv) as ‘ refuting’ Grabe, that I had 
maintained the document to be an epistle 
and not a homily; though probably this 
was not intended. 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 197 
plausible and attractive; but it was open to one objection which I 
pointed out as fatal to it. It did not satisfy the primary conditions of 
the letter mentioned by Dionysius of Corinth, which was written in the 
name of the whole Roman Church, whereas our author speaks in the 
singular throughout’. 


(iil) As regards the audience addressed by the preacher Corinth 
has highest claims. Ifthe homily were delivered in that city, we have 
an explanation of two facts which are not so easily explained on any 
other hypothesis. 

first. The allusion to the athletic games, and presumably to the 
Isthmian festival, is couched in language which is quite natural if 
addressed to Corinthians, but not so if spoken elsewhere. When the 
preacher refers to the crowds that ‘land’ to take part in the games 
(cis rods POaprods ayavas katamdéovew, § 7) without any mention of the 
port, we are naturally led to suppose that the homily was delivered in 
the neighbourhood of the place where these combatants landed. Other- 
wise we should expect eis tov "IoOyov, or eis KopuvGov, or some explana- 
tory addition of the kind’. 

Secondly. ‘This hypothesis alone satisfactorily explains the dissemi- 
nation and reputed authorship of the document. It was early attached 
to the Epistle of Clement in the mss and came ultimately to be attri- 
buted to the same author. How did this happen? The First Epistle 
was read from time to time in the Church of Corinth, as we know. 
This homily was first preached, if my view be correct, to these same 
Corinthians; it was not an extempore address, but was delivered from 
a manuscript*; it was considered of sufficient value to be carefully pre- 


1 Wocher (der Brief des Clemens etc. 
p- 204) suggested that the author was 
Dionysius himself. This theory had the 
advantage of connecting it with Clement’s 
genuine letter (though not very directly) ; 
and it explained the local colouring. But 
it has nothing else to commend it. 

2 Thus in Plat. Zuthyd. 297 C veworl, 
foot Ookewv, KaTamemAevKoTL, Where the word 
is used absolutely, we naturally under- 
stand the place in which the speaker is 
at the time. 

3 § 19 mera Tov Ocdy Tis ddnOelas dva- 
yivaokw buiv évreviw eis TO tpoodxew 
Tos yeypamméevors, iva Kal éavTo’s cwonTeE 


Kal Tov avayliva@aoKkovTa év tuiv. It is 


possible however, that the homily was 
originally delivered extempore and taken 
down by short-hand writers (raxvypagor, 
notarii), and that the references to the 
reader were introduced afterwards when 
it was read in the Church as a homily. 
The employment of short-hand writers 
was frequent. We read of discourses of 
Origen taken down in this way (Euseb. 
H.£. vi. 36): and Origen himself on one 
occasion (Comm. in Zoanm. vi. praef., IV. 
p. 101) excuses himself for not having 
gone on with his work by the fact that 
the ‘customary short-hand writers’ were 
not there, kai of cuv7bes 6é Taxvypddor 
bn TapovTes TOO €xecOa Tw VTayopetcewr 


198 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 

served; and (as we may venture to suppose) it was read publicly to the 
Christian congregation at Corinth from time to time, like the genuine 
Epistle of Clement. The fact that these Corinthians took for public 
reading not only the Epistle of Clement, which might be thought to 
have acquired a peculiar sanctity by its venerable age, but also the 
much later letter of the Romans under bishop Soter, shows the practice 
of this church in reference to uncanonical documents. In this way it 
would be bound up with the Epistle of Clement for convenience. In 
such a volume as is here supposed, the Epistle of Clement would be 
numbered and entitled thus: 


rN 
KAHMENTOC TIPOC KOPINOIOYC 


with or without the addition emictoAu ; while the homily which stood 
next in the volume might have had the heading 


B 
TTPOC KOPINOIOYC 
with or without the addition Aoroc or omiAia, just as Orations of Dion 
Chrysostom bear the titles tpoc adeZaNApeic, Trpoc atrameic; the author 
of the sermon however not being named. In the course of transcription 
the enumeration a, 8, would easily be displaced, so that the two works 
would seem to be of the same kind and by the same author’. Asa 
matter of fact, indications are not wanting in our existing authorities, 
that after this homily had been attached to S. Clement’s Epistle it re- 
mained anonymous in the common document which contained both 
works. In the Alexandrian Ms there is no heading at all to the so- 
called Second Epistle (see above, I. p. 117). This fact however cannot 


€xwdvov; comp. Photius Azb/. 121. At alternative is suggested by Harnack 


a later date this became a common mode 
of preserving pulpit oratory: see Bing- 
ham Ant. xiv. 4. 11. It was not un- 
common for sermons and lectures to be 
taken down surreptitiously: see Gaudent. 
Praef. p. 220 (Patrol. Lat. Xx. p. 831 
Migne) ‘notariis, ut comperi, latenter ap- 
positis’ (with the note). On stenography 
among the ancients see Ducange G/os- 
savium IV. p. 642 sq (ed. Henschel) s. v. 
Nota, together with the references col- 
lected in Mayor’s Bib/. Clue to Lat. Lit. 
p- 175 sq. See also Contemporary ke- 
view October 1875, p. 841 note. This 


Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. 1. p. 268. The 
hypothesis would at all events have the 
merit of explaining the incoherence and 
looseness of expression which we find in 
this work; but in the absence of evi- 
dence it is safer to assume that the ser- 
mon was committed to writing by the 
preacher himself. 

1 This opinion was arrived at indepen- 
dently of the remarks of Zahn (Gott. Gel. 
Anz. Nov. 8, 1876, p. 1430 sq), and I am 
the more glad to find that he accounts for 
the common heading of this sermon in a 
similar way. See also I. p. 371, note I. 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 199 


be pressed, for it seems not unlikely that the title has been cut off’. 
But in the case of the Syriac version the testimony is free from suspicion. 
Here the genuine letter is called in the heading not ‘ The First Epistle 
of Clement’ but ‘The Catholic Epistle of Clement,’ as if it were the 
only known letter written by this father (see above, p. 191). In both 
cases however the scribes themselves have in some other part of their 
respective Mss designated our work the Second Epistle of Clement ; 
and this fact renders the survival of the older form only the more signi- 
ficant. 

For these reasons I adhere to Corinth as the place of writing. On 
the other hand Harnack has with much ability maintained the Roman 
origin of this document’; and it is due to his arguments to consider 
them. 

The external evidence seems to him to point in this direction. He 
remarks on the fact that this writing appears to have been very little 
known in the East during the earliest ages. It is first mentioned by 
Eusebius, and Eusebius himself, as Harnack argues from his language, 
only knew it from hearsay*. It is very far from certain however, that 
this is the correct inference from the historian’s words, ioréov 8 ws Kat 
devrépa tis etvar Néyerar ToD Kdypevtos émiotoAn’ ot pv 6 opolws TH 
TpoTépa Kal TavTnv yvwpiynov émiotapeOa, ote pnde Tovs apxaiovs avTH 
Kexpnuevovs iopev (ZZ. £. iii. 38). The hearsay implied in déyerat 
may refer equally well to the authorship as to the contents of the 


1 This possibility was overlooked by 
me in my first edition pp. 22, 174. My 
attention was directed to it by a remark 
of Harnack (Z. f. K. 1. p. 275, note 1), 
who however incorrectly states that in A 
the First Epistle has ‘ page-headings over 
the columns.’ There is only one such 
page-heading, which stands over the first 
column as the title to the work. Having 
omitted to inspect the Ms myself with this 
view, I requested Mr E. M. Thompson 
of the British Museum to look at it and 
to give me his opinion. His report is to 
this effect: 

The title to the First Epistle has small 
ornamental flourishes beneath. Between 
the bottom of these and the text there 
is a space of ~ of an inch. Over the 
first column of the Second Epistle (where 
the title should be, if there were any) 
the top of the leaf is cut obliquely so 


that the space left between the top of 
the leaf and the text varies from 4% to # of 
an inch. Thus the space is quite con- 
sistent with the supposition that the title 
has been cut away. Moreover there is 
a single spot at the top of the page, 
which may have been the end of an 
ornamental flourish under the title, though 
this is doubtful. 

The photograph for the most part 
represents these facts fairly well. 

2 In two careful and valuable articles 
in the Zectschrift f. Kirchengeschichte 1. p. 
264 sq, p. 329 sq, as well as in the prole- 
gomena to the 2nd ed. of the atres 
Apostolict Pt. 1, p. lxiv sq. He stated 
this view first in a review of the edition 
of Bryennios in the 7heologische Literatur- 
zettung Feb. 19, 1876. 

& Zefa Miley We 200 Sq 4 Proll .iaee 
note 2. 


200 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


book. In other words, Eusebius does not throw any doubt on the 
existence of such a work, but on its genuineness; and the language 
which follows suggests that the historian was himself acquainted with it. 
If the testimony of Eusebius be set aside, the earliest reference to its 
contents is found in the Quwaest. et Resp. ad Orthodoxos § 74, falsely 
ascribed to Justin Martyr’. This work is supposed to have been 
written at the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century, and, 
as Harnack says, unless all appearances are deceptive, to have emanated 
from the Syro-Antiochene Church*®. Our next direct witness in point 
of date is probably the Alexandrian ms, about the middle of the fifth 
century. From that time forward the testimonies are neither few nor 
indistinct®. 

This evidence is somewhat slight ; but it cannot be alleged against 
the Eastern origin of the work. Such as it is, it a/7 emanates from the 
Last. Neither early nor late do we hear a single voice from the West 
testifying to the existence of this Clementine writing, except such as are 
mere echoes of some Greek witness. External testimony therefore, 
though it may not be worth much, is directly opposed to Harnack’s 
theory. 

From the zzternal character of the work again Harnack draws the 
same inference. He remarks on the close resemblances to the 
Shepherd of Hermas, and thence infers that it must have emanated 
‘ex eadem communione ac societate*.’ Thus he makes it a product 
of the Church of Rome. 

If these resemblances had referred to any peculiarities of the Roman 
Church generally, or of the Shepherd of Hermas in particular, the 
argument would have been strong. But this is not the case. The 
most striking perhaps is the doctrine of the heavenly Church (§ 14). 
But the passage, which is quoted in my notes, from Anastasius shows 
that this distinction of the celestial and the terrestrial Church, so far 
from being peculiar, was a common characteristic of the earliest 
Christian writers. And the statement of Anastasius is borne out by 
extant remains, as will appear from parallel passages also cited there. 
Again the pre-incarnate Son is spoken of in both documents as ‘Spirit’; 
but here also, though such language was repugnant to the dogmatic 
precision of a later age, the writers of the second century and of the 


1 See 1. p. 178 sq, and the notes on 3 The references in my notes seem to 
§ 16. show that it was known to a very early 

2 See the article by Gass in Illgen’s writer, the author of Afost. Const. i—vi. 
Zeitschr. f. ad. hist. Theol. 1842, 1V. p. 143 4 Prol. p. lxx sq: comp, 2. J; iam 
sq, quoted by Harnack Z. f, K. 1. p.274- pp. 340, 344 Sq; 363- 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 201 


earlier part of the third constantly use it without misgiving (see the 
note on § 9). Again both writings speak of baptism as ‘the seal,’ and 
the exhortation to purity of life takes the form of an injunction to ‘guard 
the seal.’ But in this case likewise we have an image which is common 
in Christian writers of the second century (see the note on § 7). Nor 
are other coincidences wanting, though less striking than these. 

On the other hand the two writings present marked contrasts on 
points of special prominence. ‘There is a wide divergence for instance 
between the rigid, almost Encratite, view of the relations between the 
sexes which our Clementine author enunciates!, and the reasonable 
position of Hermas, which led the fierce Tertullian to denounce him as 
‘pastor moechorum’.’ And again the difference of language regarding 
the relations of the two covenants is equally great. I cannot indeed 
regard the author of the Shepherd as a Judaizer, any more than I 
could regard our Clementine writer as a Marcionite: but the tendency 
of the one is to see in the Church a development of the Synagogue, 
whereas the other delights to set them in sharp contrast. And alto- 
gether it may be said that the points of difference in the two documents 
are more fundamental than the points of coincidence. 


(iii) The third question, relating to the daze and authorship, receives 
some illustration from the newly discovered ending, though not so much 
as might have been hoped. Generally speaking the notices in this 
portion confirm the view which was indicated in my first edition, that 
it belongs to the first half of the second century, nor do they contain 
anything that is adverse to this view. MHarnack, as the result of a 


1 § 12 Toro éyer iva ddedpos K.T.r. 
On the other hand Hermas (JZand. iv. t) 


TH MEANOVTH gov 4bENP7, as showing 
that Hermas looked upon the single life 


writes “EvréANopai co, Pact, pudrddocew 
Thy ayvelav: kal wn avaBawéTrw cov én 
Tiy Kapdlay mepl yuvatxos dAXoTpias 7 
wept mopvelas Twos H Tepl ToLOUTwWY TeV 
OMoLwudTwY Tovnpav* TovTO yap Today 
apaptiay peyddnv éepydgn’ THs O€ offs 
fvnmovetwv avToTEe yuvackos ovdé- 
In this same sec- 
tion the husband is enjoined to take back 
into his society the wife who has been 
unfaithful, and just below (§ 4) second 
marriages are permitted to Christians, 
though the greater honour is assigned 
to those who remain in widowhood. On 
the other hand Harnack (Z. fi. X. 1. 
p- 348) quotes Vs. ii. 2 77 oupBiw cov 


TOTE GUAPTHCELS. 


as the ideal state, and he concludes that 
neither writer ‘thought of stopping mar- 
riage among Christians for the present.’ 
It is not clear what the words in zs. ii. 2 
may mean; nor again is it certain that 
our Clementine preacher intended to en- 
force an absolute rule or to do more than 
give counsels of perfection. But the fact 
remains that the direct language of the 
one is in favour of latitude, of the other 
in favour of restraint. 

2 Tertull. de Pudic. 10 ‘scriptura Pas- 
toris quze sola moechos amat...adultera et 
ipsa et inde patrona sociorum,’ 2d. 20 ‘illo 
apocrypho Pastore moechorum.’ 


202 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


thorough examination of the whole epistle, sets the limits of date as 
A.D. 130—-160; and, if it emanated from Rome (as he supposes to 
have been the case), he thinks that it must have been written within 
the first two decades of this period, i.e. within A.D. 130—150". 

This view is reasonable. If it were necessary to mention any limits 
of date, where so much uncertainty exists, I should name a.D. 120—140}; 
but, as there is nothing in the work which militates against a still 
earlier date, so again it is impossible to affirm confidently that it 
might not have been written a few years later. The two main points 
in which the recently recovered portion strengthens the existing data 
for determining the age of the document are these. 

First. We are furnished with additional information respecting 
the relations of the author to the Canon of the New Testament. He 
distinguishes between the Old and New Testament: the former he 
styles ‘the Books,’ ‘the Bible’ (ra B.BAla), while the latter (or a part 
of it) is designated ‘the Apostles’ (§ 14). This distinction separates 
him by a broad line from the age of the Muratorian writer, of Irenzus, 
and of Clement of Alexandria, i.e. from the last quarter of the second 
century. The fact also that he uses at least one apocryphal Gospel, 
which we can hardly be wrong in identifying with the Gospel of the 
Egyptians (see the notes on § 12), apparently as an authoritative 
document, points in the same direction. The writers just mentioned 
are all explicit in the acceptance of our four Canonical Gospels alone, 
as the traditional inheritance of the Church. This argument would be 
very strong in favour of an early date, if we could be quite sure that our 
homily was written by a member of the Catholic Church, and not by 
some sectarian or half-sectarian writer. On this point there is perhaps 
room for misgiving, though the former seems the more probable 
supposition. The general acceptance of this homily and its attribution 
to Clement certainly point to a Catholic origin ; and in its Christology 
also it is Catholic as opposed to Gnostic or Ebionite, but its Encratite 
tendencies (not to mention other phenomena) might suggest the 
opposite conclusion. 

On the other hand our preacher quotes as ‘scripture’ (§ 6) a saying 
which appears in our Canonical Gospels. But this same passage is 
quoted in the same way in the Epistle of Barnabas, which can hardly 
have been written many years after A.D. 120 at the very latest, and may 
have been written much earlier ; and even Polycarp (§ 12), if the Latin 
text may be trusted, cites Ephes. iv. 26 as ‘scripture.’ Stronger in the same 


2. fo. de. ep 363.2, comp. Prol. to be of Roman origin, he places it not 
p- Ixxiii sq (ed. 2), where, supposing it later than a.D. 135—140 (145). 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 203 


direction is the fact that in the newly recovered portion our anonymous 
author introduces a saying of our Lord in the Gospels with the words 
‘God saith’ (§ 13), having immediately before referred to ‘the Oracles of 
God’ in this same connexion, and that he elsewhere describes the 
reading of the Scriptures as the voice of ‘the God of truth’ speaking to 
the congregation (§ 19). As regards this latter passage however we do 
not know whether the scriptural lessons which had preceded the delivery 
of this homily were taken from the Old or from the New Testament. 

Secondly. The relations of the preacher to Gnosticism furnish an 
indication of date though not very precise. He attacks a certain type 
of this heresy, but it is still in an incipient form. The doctrinal point on 
which he especially dwells is the denial of the resurrection of the body, 
or (as he states it) the ‘resurrection of this flesh’ (§§ 8, 9, 14, 16). As 
the practical consequence of this denial, the false teachers (§ 10 kaxod:- 
dacxaXodvres) were led to antinomian inferences. They inculcated an 
indifference (advadopia) with regard to fleshly lusts, and they permitted 
their disciples to deny their faith in times of persecution. This anti- 
nomian teaching is denounced by the preacher. But his polemic against 
Gnosticism does not go beyond this. There is no attack, direct or 
indirect, on the peculiar tenets of Valentinus and the Valentinians, of 
Marcion, or even of Basilides. And not only so, but he even uses 
language with regard to the heavenly Church which closely resembles 
the teaching of Valentinus respecting the zon Ecclesia (see the note 
on § 14), and which he would almost certainly have avoided, if he had 
written after this heresiarch began to promulgate his doctrine’. In like 
manner the language in which he sets the Church against the Synagogue 
would probably have been more guarded, if it had been uttered after 
Marcion had published his Antitheses in which the direct antagonism 
of the Mosaic and Christian dispensations was maintained. As it is a 
reasonable inference from the near approaches to Valentinian language 
in the Ignatian Epistles that they were written in the pre-Valentinian 
epoch’, seeing that the writer is a determined opponent of Gnosticism, 
and would not have compromised himself by such language after it had 
been abused, so also the same inference may be drawn here. 

These considerations seem to point to a date not later than a.p. 40: 
and altogether the topics in this homily suggest a very primitive, though 
not apostolic, age of the Church. Whether we regard the exposition of 
doctrine or the polemic against false teachers or the state of the Christian 


1 This argument drawn from therela- 2Z./f. X.1. pp. 359, 360. 
tion of the writer to Gnosticism is justly 2 See Jenat. and Polyc.1. p. 374, ed. 1; 
insisted upon by Harnack Pro/. p. Ixxii, __p. 385, ed. 2. 


204. THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


society or the relation to the Scriptural Canon, we cannot but feel that 
we are confronted with a state of things separated by a wide interval 
from the epoch of Irenzeus and Clement of Alexandria. At the same 
time other arguments have been alleged in favour of an early date, which 
will not bear the stress that has been laid upon them. Thus it is said 
that the preacher betrays no knowledge of the writings of S. John, or pos- 
sibly even of S. Paul’. As regards S. John, I have called attention to an 
indication that our author was not unacquainted with the Fourth Gospel 
(see the note on § 17), though the inference is not certain. As regards 
S. Paul, I cannot see any probable explanation of his appeal to ‘the Apo- 
stles’ as supporting his doctrine respecting the heavenly Church, except 
that which supposes him to be referring to S. Paul, and more especially 
to the Epistle to the Ephesians—not to mention echoes of this Apostle’s 
language elsewhere in this homily*. But even if it be granted that he 
shows no knowledge of the writings of either Apostle, does it follow 
that he had none? What numbers of sermons and tracts, published in 
the name of authors living in this nineteenth century, must on these 
grounds be relegated to the first or second! And again, if he says 
nothing about episcopacy’, does it follow that he knew nothing about 
it, and therefore must have written before this institution existed ? 
This argument again would, I imagine, remove to a remote antiquity 
a large portion, probably not less than half, of the theological literature 
of our own age. 


But, while criticism suggests probable or approximate results 
with regard to the locality and the date, it leaves us altogether in the 
dark as respects the authorship; for the opinions maintained by the 
three editors who have discussed this question since the recent dis- 
covery of the lost ending, must, I venture to think, be discarded. All 
three alike agree in the retention of Clement as the author, but under- 
stand different persons bearing this name. 


(x) In the first place Bryennios (p. pv’) maintains that the homily 
is the work of none other than the famous Clement whose name it 
bears, the bishop of Rome’. This view however has nothing to recom- 


Prenack Pro. p. ixxili, Z. 7. K. 1. 
p- 361 sq. He regards it as uncertain, 
though probable, that our author had 
read S. Paul’s Epistles. At the same 
time he considers it strange that S. 
Paul’s name is not mentioned. As most 
of our author’s quotations (even when 


taken from the Old Testament) are ano- 
nymous, this fact can hardly surprise us. 

2 See the notes on § 14. 

3 Harnack Prol. p. Ixxii, Z. f- K. 1. p. 
359- 

4 This had been the view of Cotelier, 
Bull, Galland, Lumper, and others; who 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 205 


mend it, and has found no favour with others. Indeed all the arguments 
which, even when we possessed it only in a mutilated form, were suf: 
ficient to deter us from ascribing it to the author of the genuine epistle 
or indeed to any contemporary, are considerably strengthened, now that 
we have it complete. 

(i) The writer delights to identify himself and his hearers with 
Gentile Christianity. He speaks of a time when he and they worshipped 
stocks and stones, gold and silver and bronze (§ 1). He and they are 
prefigured by the prophet’s image of the barren woman who bore many 
more children than she that had the husband, or, as he explains it, 
than the Jewish people ‘who seem to have God’ (§ 2). On the other 
hand the genuine Clement never uses such language. On the contrary 
he looks upon himself as a descendant of the patriarchs, as an heir of 
the glories of the Israelite race; and (what is more important) he is 
thoroughly imbued with the feelings of an Israelite, has an intimate 
knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures (though not in the original 
tongue), and is even conversant with the apocryphal literature of the 
race and with the traditional legends and interpretations. In short 
his language and tone of thought proclaim him a Jew, though a 
Hellenist. (11) On the difference in style I do not lay great stress; 
because, where there is much play for fancy, there is much room 
also for self-deception, and criticism is apt to become hypercritical. 
Yet I think it will be felt by all that the language of this Second 
Epistle is more Hellenic and less Judaic, though at the same time more 
awkward and less natural, than the First. (iii) The argument from the 
theology is stronger than the argument from the style, but not very 
strong. ‘There is a more decided dogmatic tone in the Second Epistle 
than in the First. More especially the pre-existence and divinity of 
Christ are stated with a distinctness ($$ 1, 9) which is wanting in the 
First, and in a form which perhaps the writer of the First would have 
hesitated to adopt. (iv) The position of the writer with respect to the 
Scriptures is changed. In the First Epistle Clement draws his 
admonitions and his examples chiefly from the Old Testament. The 
direct references to the evangelical history are very few in comparison. 
On the other hand in the Second Fpistle the allusions to and quotations 
from gospel narratives (whether canonical or apocryphal) very decidedly 
preponderate. ‘This seems to indicate a somewhat later date, when 
gospel narratives were more generally circulated and when appeal could 


wrote without the light which the dis- the question, and still regarded it as an 
covery of the lost ending has thrown on _ epistle. 


206 THE EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT. 


safely be made to a written Christian literature. This last argument 
more especially has received a large accession of strength by the re- 
covery of the lost ending, and would be conclusive in itself. The gulf 
which separates our preacher from the genuine Clement in their respective 
relations to the New Testament Scriptures (see above, p. 202) has been 
widened by the additional evidence. 


(2) On the other hand Hilgenfeld (p. xlix, ed. 2) surmises that the 
author was not the Roman Clement but the Alexandrian. He argues 
that our preacher was not a presbyter, but a catechist’. He points to 
the passage (§ 19) in which (as he reads it) the duty of studying 
‘philosophy’ is inculcated*. And, as Dodwell had done before him’, 
he imagines that he sees resemblances in this sermon to the style and 
thought of the Alexandrian Clement. He therefore suggests that this 
was an early production of the Alexandrian father. 

The inference however with regard to the preacher’s office is 
highly precarious, as we have seen already (p. 195); nor does it 
materially affect the question. The mention of ‘philosophy’ again 
disappears, when the passage is correctly read. The Syriac Version 
shows clearly that giAorovetiy is the true reading, and that irccodget, 
as a much commoner word, was written down first from mere inadvert- 
ence by the scribe of C and afterwards corrected by him*. Nor again 
is it possible to see any closer resemblance to the Alexandrian Clement 
in the diction and thoughts, than will often appear between one early 
Christian writer and another; while on the other hand the difference 
is most marked. The wide learning, the extensive vocabulary, the 
speculative power, the vigorous and epigrammatic expression, of the 
Alexandrian Clement are all wanting to this sermon, which is con- 
fused in thought and slipshod in expression, and is only redeemed from 
common-place by its moral earnestness and by some _ peculiarities 
of doctrinal exposition. Where there is want of arrangement in the 
Alexandrian Clement, it is due to his wealth of learning and of thought. 


1 See pp. xlix, 106. 


§ 17 el yap évroNds éxouer...d3d Twv eidw- 


He explains 


hwy aroomady kai kaTnxety as referring 
to the official position of the preacher ; 
but compare e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 19, Gal. 
vi. 6. 
2 See pp. xlix, 84, 106. 

3 Dissert. in Tren. i. § xxix p. 53. 

4 Compare the note on this word 
¢totrovetv § 19 with that on peradjwerat 


§ 14. In both cases the scribe has cor- 
rected the word which he first wrote 
down, and in both the correction is sup- 
ported by the Syriac Version. Hilgen- 
feld has consistently adopted the scribe’s 
first writing in both cases. On p. 84 he 
has incorrectly given ¢tAomoetv as the 
correction in C. It should be ¢udo7o- 
velv. 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 207 


In our author on the other hand the confusion is the result of in- 
tellectual poverty. Nor again is the difference between the two writers 
less wide as regards their relation to the Canon of the New Testament. 
It is true that both alike quote the Gospel of the Egyptians, and (as 
it so happens) the same passage from this Gospel. But this very fact 
enables us to realize the gulf which separates the two. Our author 
uses this apocryphal work as authoritative, and apparently as his chief 
evangelical narrative ; Clement on the other hand depreciates its value 
on the ground that it is not one of the four traditionally received by 
the Church. Our author interprets the passage in question as favouring 
ascetic views respecting the relation of the sexes: Clement on the other 
hand refutes this interpretation, and explains it in a mystical sense’. 


(3) Lastly ; Harnack is disposed to assign this homily neither to 
the Roman bishop nor to the Alexandrian father, but to a third person 
bearing the name of Clement, intermediate in date between the two. 

In the Shepherd of Hermas (Vs. ii. 4) the writer relates how he 
was directed in a vision to send a copy of his book to ‘ Clement,’ and 
it is added, ‘Clement shall send it to the cities abroad, for he is charged 
with this business’ (réuper odv KAnjuns cis tds e€w odes’ exetvo yap 
As Hermas is stated to have written this work during 
the episcopate of his brother Pius (c. A.D. 140—155), it is urged that 
the Clement here mentioned cannot have been the same with the illus- 
trious bishop of Rome (see above, I. p. 359 sq). Thus the notice in the 
Shepherd gives us another Roman Clement, who flourished about the 
time when our homily must have been written. Here, argues Harnack, - 
we have an explanation of the phenomena of the so-called Second Epistle 
of Clement. If we suppose that towards the end of the third century a 
homily known to have emanated from the early Church of Rome and 
bearing the name of Clement was carried to the East, it would not 
unnaturally be attributed to the famous bishop, and thus, being attached 


2 , 
émiTérpamrat). 


1 Strom. iii. 13, p- 553 (quoted below, 
p- 236 sq). Julius Cassianus, like our 
preacher, had interpreted the passage as 
discountenancing marriage ; and Clement 
of Alexandria controverts him, substitut- 
ing another interpretation. While the 


The discovery of the conclusion of the 
passage however decides in favour of the 
former. 

It is in reference to this very passage 
from the Gospel of the Egyptians, that 
Clement of Alexandria urges in answer 


passage was still mutilated, the opinion 
was tenable that it was doubtful whether 
our author’s explanation was more closely 
allied to the interpretation of Cassianus 
or to that of Clement of Alexandria, 
though I inclined to the latter supposition. 


to Cassianus, év Tots mapasdedouévors nuty 
rérrapow evaryyeNlous ovK éxouev 7d pyrdv, 
GAN év to Kar Alyumriovs. Thus he is 
diametrically opposed to our preacher on 
the one point where we are able to com- 
pare their opinions. 


208 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


to his genuine epistle, might easily before the close of the fourth cen- 
tury be furnished with the incorrect title KAyjpevtos mpos Kop 6iovs 
érisToAn [2’. 

This view has much more to recommend it, than the two which 
have been considered already. But the foundation on which it rests is 
inadequate. The existence of this second Roman Clement is un- 
supported ; and as I have shown above (I. p. 359 sq), the reference in 
Hermas must be explained in another way’. 


As all these hypotheses fail us, we must be content to remain still 
in ignorance of the author; nor is it likely now that the veil will ever 
be withdrawn. The homily itself, as a literary work, is almost worth- 
less. As the earliest example of its kind however, and as the product 
of an important age of which we possess only the scantiest remains, 
it has the highest value. Nor will its intellectual poverty blind us 
to its true grandeur, as an example of the lofty moral earnestness and 
the triumphant faith which subdued a reluctant world and laid it pros- 
trate at the foot of the Cross. 


3. 
The following is an analysis of the fragment : 


‘My brethren, we must look on Christ as God. We must not think 
mean things of Him who has been so merciful to us, who has given us 
life and all things (§ 1). In ws is fulfilled the saying that the barren 
woman hath many children. The Gentile Church was once unfruitful, 
but now has a numerous offspring. We are those simners whom Christ 
came especially to save (§ 2). Therefore we owe all recompense to 
Him. And the return which He asks is that we should confess Him in 
our deeds. ‘The worship, not of the lips only, but of the heart, must be 
yielded to Him (§ 3). He has denounced those who, while they obey 
Him not, yet call Him Lord. He has declared that, though they be 
gathered into His bosom, He will reject them (§ 4). Let us therefore 
remember that we are sojourners here, and let us not fear to quit this 
world. Rather let us call to mind His warning, and fear not those who 
kill the body, but Him who can destroy body and soul together. All 


1 Hagemann (Ueler den zweiten Brief the fiction, being the letter of recom- 
des Clemens, etc. in the Theolog. Quartal- mendation written in the name of the 
schr. XLIII. p. 509 sq, 1861) supposed great Roman Clement. So far he antici- 
that this is the letter mentioned by Hermas _ pated the theory of Harnack. 

(Vis. ii. 4). He regarded it as part of 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 209 


things earthly we must hold foreign to us (§ 5). On this there must be 
no wavering. We cannot serve two masters. This world and the 
other are deadly foes. It must be our choice to do Christ’s will. 
Even Noah, Job, and Daniel, could not have rescued their own children 
from destruction. How shall we then, if we keep not the baptismal 
seal intact, present ourselves in God’s kingdom? (§ 6). The lists are 
open; the struggle approaches. Let us crowd thither to take our 
part. Let us fight to win the immortal chaplet. But, so doing, we 
must observe the laws of the contest, if we would escape chastisement. 
A horrible fate awaits those who break the seal (§ 7). Now is the 
time for repentance. Now we can be moulded like clay in the hands 
of the potter. After death it will be too late. If we keep not small 
things, how shall we be trusted with great? If we guard not the seal 
intact, how shall we inherit eternal life ? (§ 8).’ 

‘Deny not, that men shall nse in their bodies. As Christ came in 
the flesh, so also shall we be judged in the flesh. Let us give ourselves 
to God betimes. He reads our very inmost thoughts. To those who 
do His will Christ has given the name of brothers (§ 9). This will let 
us ever obey. If we fear men and choose present comfort, we shall 
purchase brief pleasure at the price of eternal joy. They who lead 
others astray herein are doubly guilty (§ 10). We must not falter. The 
prophetic word denounces the double-minded; it foretells how the 
course of things is maturing to its consummation, as the vine grows 
and ripens. God is faithful; and, as He has promised, so will He give 
joys unspeakable to the righteous (§ 11). The signs, which shall herald 
the approach of His kingdom, Christ has foretold. Ze two shall be 
one in universal peace. Zhe outside shall be as the inside in strict sin- 
cerity. Zhe male shall be as the female in the cessation of all sexual 
longings (§ 12).’ 

‘Let us repent forthwith, that we may be forgiven, and God’s name 
may not be blasphemed by our inconsistency. When God’s oracles 
say one thing and we do another, they regard them as an idle tale— 
when God’s precepts tell us to love our enemies and we hate one 
another (§ 13). Fulfilling God’s command, we shall be members of the 
eternal, spiritual Church, which is Christ’s body. This is the meaning 
of the words Male and female created He them. The Church, like Christ, 
was spiritual, and became flesh. This flesh we must keep pure, that we 
may attain to the spiritual, the immortal (§ 14).’ 

‘Whosoever obeys this precept of chastity saves both himself and 
the preacher. This is the only return which speaker and hearer alike 
can make to their Creator. God promises an immediate answer. We 


CLEM. II. 14 


210 THE EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT. 


must close with it and escape condemnation (§ 15). Therefore let us 
repent, while there is time, and obtain the mercy of Jesus. The Day 
cometh as a heated furnace. Heaven and earth shall melt away. 
Almsgiving and love are best ; for they cover a multitude of sins (§ 16). 
We are commanded to convert others; how much more to save our 
own souls. Let us not forget the preacher’s lesson, when we go to our 
homes. Let us meet more frequently together. The Lord will come 
and gather all nations, rewarding them after their works. The worm 
of the unbeliever shall never die, but the righteous shall give glory to 
Him, seeing His judgments on the wicked and His faithfulness to His 
servants (§ 17). Let us be found among His thankful servants. In the 
midst of temptations, I strive after righteousness (§ 18). Give heed to 
these exhortations from the Scriptures. Set an example to the young 
by your obedience. Be not offended by exhortation; nor deterred by 
present suffering. It is the price of future glory (§ 19). This life is 
only the arena; the crown shall be awarded hereafter. Else, it were a 
matter of mere traffic.’ 

‘To the one invisible God, who manifested truth and life to us 
through the Saviour, be glory for ever (§ 20).’ 


[TPOC KOPINOIOYC B.] 


I. “AderAPoi, ovTws det ruas poveiv epi *Inoou 


a a ~ / \ 
Xpiorov, ws epi Oeov, ws mept KpiTov CwvTwy Kat 


VEKNWV. 


Kat ov def nuas piKpa cpoveiv wept THS TwTN- 


[tpoc Kopin@ioyc B.] The authorities for this title will be found on I. pp. 


117, 122, 131 sq. 
I Huds] S; buds C. 


I. ‘My brethren, we must think of 
Christ as God, as judge of all men. 
It is no light crime to have mean 
views of Him by whom we were 
called and who suffered for us. What 
worthy recompense can we pay to 
Him, who has given us light and 
life, who has rescued us from the 
worship of stocks and stones, has 
scattered the dark cloud that hung 
over us, has brought back our stray- 
ing footsteps, and thus has called us 
into being?’ 

I. “AdeAdoi x.7.A.] The opening of 
the epistle, as far as maOeivy évexa 
nuov, is quoted by Timotheus of 
Alexandria (A.D. 457) as ‘from the 
beginning of the Third Epistle,’ 
immediately after a quotation ‘from 
the First Epistle on Virginity’ (see 
above, I. p. 181); and by Severus of 
Antioch (c. A.D. 513—518) as ‘from 
the Second Fpistle to the Corinthians’ 
(see I. p. 183). It is also found in 
more than one anonymous Syriac 
collection of excerpts (see I. p. 185). 

Photius (4707. 126) remarks on the 
opening of this epistle, contrasting 


3 Huds] S; vas C. 


it with the First as respects its 
Christology, 7 dé Sevrépa kat avty vov- 
Geciav Kat wapaiverw kpeitrovos eioayer 
Biov kat év apy Ceov tov Xpiorov 
knpvooer: see the notes on § 2, 36, 
58, of the First Epistle, and the re- 
marks in I. p. 398 sq. 

2. xKpirov «.7.A.] The expression 
occurs in Acts x. 42 (in a speech of 
S. Peter): comp:,.2 Tim. iv..1, 0 Pee: 
iv. 5. See also Barnab. § 7, Polyc. 
PRES. 

3. puxpa dpoveiv] ‘to have mean 
views. The Ebionites, whom the 
writer of this epistle attacks, were 
said to have earned the title of ‘poor’ 
by their mean and beggarly concep- 
tion of the Person of Christ; see 
esp. Origen de Princ. iv, 22 (1. p. 183) 
of mtw@xol TH Savoia "EBi@vaio. ths 
mTexeias THS Siavoias em@vupol, EBiov 
[}wIN] yap o mrexos mapa ‘EBpaiors 
ovopaterat, Cc. Ceds. ii. I (I. p. 385), 27 
Matth. t. xvi. § 12 (UL. p. 734) ro 
"EBi@vai@ Kal mT@XEvorTL TEpl THY «is 
Inoovy riorw, and again zz Gen. 727 
fiom. 5 5 (11. p. 68) ;: Euseb. #72, 


e 


ill, 27 "EBtwvatovs tovrous oikeiws ére- 


i432 


212 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [1 


~ ry ra) \ ~ ~ \ A ~ 
plas nuwvs év TH yap Ppovely nuas puKpa TeEpt avTOU, 
Kai ot 


TEDL [LKPwV [ duaptavovow, Kal jpets | duapTavoper, OvK 


pukpa Kai éAmiGouev AaBetv, G@KOVOVTES WS 
eidotes Tobey ExANOnuev Kal Vio Tivos Kal Eis OV TOTO, 
kal boa vrréuewev “Incovs Xpirtos mabeiv Evexa jpov. 
Tiva ouv pels avT@ Swoouey advTyucbiav; n Twa 
kaprrov a&tov ov iuiv avTos éwKev; roca d€ avTw 


2 aBeiv] A; drodaBe C. The reading of S is uncertain, for Sap (the word 
used here) occurs elsewhere indifferently as a rendering of both NauBdvew and amo- 


au Bdavew, e.g. below §§ 8, 9, II. 


3 duaprdvovow, kal Nuets] S; om. AC: see the lower note. 


ws mept] CS Sever Timoth; womep A. 
7 kaprov] AC; 


add. offeremus illi S. This however does not perhaps imply any additional words 


dyp.Cov of mpotor TT@XO@S Kal TaTELVaS 
Ta Tept Tov Xpictov So€afovtras, Eccl. 
Theol. i. 14 ot rpwtoxnpukes EBiwvaiovs 
evopatoy “EBpaikn heovn mraxovs tiv 
Suavotay aTroKadovrtes TOvs Eva pev Oedv 
héyovras e«idévar kal Tod GwTHpos TO 
TOGpa pn apvovpevous tHv S€ Tov viov 
Oedrnta pn eiddras, with other pas- 
sages collected in Schliemann C/Ze- 
ment. p. 471 sq. Origen’s language 
perhaps does not necessarily imply 
that he gives this as a serious account 
of the term, but only that they were 
fitly called ‘poor.’ Eusebius how- 
ever, mistaking his drift, supposes 
this name to have been a term of 
reproach imposed upon these here- 
tics by the orthodox; instead of 
being, as doubtless it was and as 
perhaps Origen knew it to be, self-as- 
sumed in allusion to their voluntary 
poverty. The idea of a heresiarch 
named Ebion, which is found first in 
Tertullian (de Praescr. 33, and else- 
where), is now generally allowed to 
be a mistake. 

2. ot dkovortes] ‘we who hear, 
according to the text of the Greek 
Mss. For the article compare Clem. 
Rom. § 6 ai dodeveis r@ copari, and 
see below § 19 pn dyavaxtoper oi 
doopo.; but the expression is awk- 


ward and misplaced. Young sug- 
gested kairo. which others have 
adopted, but this is not the particle 
required. The Syriac quotations of 
Timotheus and Severus have ‘and 
when we hear, as though the article 
were absent from their text; but, 
allowance being made for the license 
of translation, no stress can be laid 
on this fact. Photius (476/. 126) 
remarks on the looseness and in- 
consequence of expression in this 
Second Epistle (or rather in the two 
epistles, but he must be referring 
especially to the Second), ra & 
avTais vonmata éppypéva mas Kal ov 
ouvexh THY axodovbiay banpye puAdr- 
tovra. Several instances of this will 
be noted below, and this passage, 
if the Greek text be correct, furnishes 
another illustration; but the Syriac 
comes to the rescue by inserting the 
words which I have placed in brackets 
and removes the difficulty. ; 
6. dvtiyucbiav| The word occurs 
Rom. 1. 27, 2 Cor. vi. 13, Theoph. ad 
Auztol. ii. 9. Though apparently not 
common, it is a favourite word with 
our author ; see just below and §§ 9, 
11. The sentiment is taken from Ps. 
CXVI. 12 ri avtarodaow TO Kupi@ k.7.X.; 
8. doa] ‘mercies, kindnesses, as it 


1] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 213 


> / / \ - \ eA 2 / € \ 
opetAopuev Gora; TO pws yap july ExapioaTo, ws TaTNp 
a £ > / -~ sf 
ULoUS 1umas TooTHyopEvaEV, ATOAAUMEVOUS HUaS ETwoeED. 
~ > Sy > ~ / \ \ if “e: 
10 TOLOV OUY aivoy avTa@ Swowpuev j pucOoy avTyucbias wy 
‘Aa [3 : me 7 Olavol ooKuvouvTtes AiPou 
ehaPouev; mnpor OvTES TH OLavola, TPOTK TES S 
\ / A \ \ / \ / af 
kal €uAa Kai ypvooyv Kat apyupov Kal yaAkov, Epya 
vf ~ / af \ oy > \ 
avOpwrwyv: Kai 6 Bios yuwv OAos aXNO oOvdEV HY EL pH 


id > / 5 , \ r 
Oavatos. AMAVOWOLV OUV TEOLKELMEVOL Kat TOLAUTHS 


in the Greek text. 


A; dwoopev aire C. 

A; xpuadv (om. kat) CS. 
ovdév dAXo C; and so apparently S. 
ritatem S, 


is used in the Lxx Is. lv. 3 (quoted in 
Acts xiii. 34 ddc@ vpiy ra dora Aaveid 
Ta mora) for DDN: see Wolf Cur. 
Philol. p. 1197. Ina parallel passage 
2 Chron. vi. 42 the LXX has ra édén. 
In this case odeidopey will have a 
pregnant sense, ‘we have received 
and should repay” Perhaps how- 
ever it is simpler to take dova as 
‘religious duties’ (e.g. Eur. Suppl. 
368 cova mepi Geovs). The distinction 
between oova ‘what is due to God’ 
and dixaca ‘ what is due to men’ is as 
old as Plato (Gorg. p. 507 B) and 
runs through Greek literature: comp. 
Trench WV. 7. Syz. 2nd ser. § xxxviii, 
and Steph. Zhes. s. vv. Sikatos and 
dows. See also below, S§ 5, 6. 

os matnp «.t.A.| The reference 
is perhaps to Hosea il. I kal éora 
€v T@ ToT@ ov €ppeOn avrois OV ads 
pou vpeis, eket KAnOncovTat viol Oeod 
(avros, more especially as applied 
by S. Paul Rom. ix. 26. See also 
the quotation in 2 Cor. vi. 18 «ai 
€vopar vu eis maTépa Kal vpets eoeabe 
prot eis viovs Kal Ovyarépas (a combina- 
tion of 2 Sam. vii. 14 and Is. xlili. 6), 
and 1 Joh. iii. 1 ere moramny dyamny 
dédaxev nuly 6 matyp Wa Téxva Oceov 
KAnO@pev. 


dé] A; yap S; om. C. 

10 troiov ovv] C3; mov A; motov S: see above, I. p. 144. 

11 mypol] A; caect S; movnpol C. 
épya] AC; épyov S. 


8 ddethomer] odidomev A. 
avTy ddowmer | 
12 Kal xpvoov] 

13 dAdo ovdev] A; 

14 duatpwow] AC; tantam obscu- 


10, dadcwper| ‘can we give?’ The 
reading of C disposes of the gram- 
matical difficulty presented by a 
future conjunctive, ddcwper; see 
Winer Gramm. § xiii. p. 89 and is 
perhaps correct. Of all such future 
conjunctives however éd0#c@ is perhaps 
the best supported; see 2d. § xiv. 
P- 95: 

II. mnpot dvres x.t.A.| Arist. Eh. 
Nic. i, 10 rots 7) TeTNPwpEvols TpOs ape- 
tyv, Ptolemeus ad F7or. (in Epiphan. 
Haer. xxxili. 3, p. 217) ay povov TO THs 
Wuy7ns dupa adda Kal TO TOU GepaTos 
Tremnpopevov. Inthe New Testament 
Tpovv, mnpeots, Occur occasionally 
as various readings for rwpotv, repw- 
os, but are not well supported: see 
Fritzsche Rom. Il. p. 451 sq. 

mpookuvouvtes x«.t-A.] The writer 
of this epistle therefore is plainly 
a Gentile Christian: comp. § 2 7 
exkAnoia nuoy, and the introduction 
p. 205. 

13. 06 Bios] Their Bios was not fw 
but Oavaros: see the note on Ign. Rom. 
7. Comp. 1 Tim. v. 6 (60a réOynkev. 
See also the passage of S. Augustine 
quoted by Harnack, Cov/. i. 6 ‘in is- 
tam dico vitam mortalem an mortem 
vitalem nescio,’ 


214 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [1 


> / id 5) Te / > / ? if 
ayAvos yemovTes Ev TH Opacel, dveBAEY-apev a7roPEuEVoL 
5] ~ A / / ~~ p) ~ / ) Ve 
Exelvo O TeEpikeiuEeba vedos TH avTOU OeAXnoer. nrAEnoeV 
\ aA \ \ af 7 > 
yap nas kat omAayxucbes Ecwoev, Oeawapevos év 
¢ ~ \ / / / > / 
nly TWONAHY TAaYHY Kal adTwrELAY, Kal PNnOEMLaAV éAmrioa 
af \ lon 
EXOVTAS TwTNplas, EL MN THY Tap’ avToU. 
\ € la ? of > \ sf a 
yap nuas ovk ovtas Kai OéAnoev EK py OVTOS Elvat 


ra 
NMS. 

i, Ey@panOHTl, cTelpa H OY TIKTOYCA’ PAZON Kal 
BOHCON, H OYK WAINOYCA, OT! TOAAA TA TEKNA TAC EPHMOY 


MA&AAON H TAC €YOYCHC TON ANAPa. 


J . > ' 
O €L7TEV EYMPANGHTI 


2 TH avTov Oedjoet] As Tr Oedjoe avtod C3; voluntate nostra S, as if avrav. 
4 woddnv mwrdvnv] AC; hunc omnem (=tantum=rTocattnr) errorem multum S. 
eAmida éxovtas] C3; edmidavexovres A. S evidently read as C, though it trans- 


lates by a finite verb, e¢ guod ne una quidem spes salutis stt nobis. 
é€k un] A; éx Tod ph C. 


AG@s 66.5. 


I. aveBdéyrapev| Comp. § 9. 

amoOéuevor k.t.A.] The language 
here, though not the thought, is 
coloured by Heb. xii. I togotrov 
EXOVTES TEPLKELWEvOY Huiy vedos 
paptipav, OyKoy amoOépevoe mavra 
«.7.A. For the construction mepixeia bai 
tu ‘to be enveloped in or surrounded 
by a thing, see Acts xxviii. 20, Heb. 
Wok 

5. €xovras| sc. nuas. If this read- 
ing be correct it is perhaps go- 
verned by @eacdyevos rather than 
by ‘€cwce, ‘and this though we 
had no hope?’ But é¢xovres may be 
the right reading after all: in which 
case a word or words may have fallen 
out from the text; or this may be one 
of the awkward expressions to which 
allusion has been already made (on 
oi akovorTes). 

exddegev yap k.t.A.] Rom. iv. 17 
kadovvTos Ta pn dvta ws dvra, Philo 
de Creat. Princ. 7 (II. P: 307) Ta yap 
py ovTa exdhecey eis TO elvac: Comp. 
Hermas V7zs. I. I xrioas ék rod pi 
ovtos ta dvta, Mand. 1 tomoas ék 


6 yap] 
8 etppdvOnrt] AC; add. 


Too pr dvTos eis TO elvat Ta TayTa, 
Clem. Hom. iii. 32 TO Ta un OvTa eis TO 
eivat TvoTHTALEVO. 

II. ‘For what is the meaning of 
the scripture, Rejoice thou barren 
that bearest not? It has been ful- 
filled in us—the Gentile Church, 
which is even now more numerous 
than the Jewish. In like manner also 
it is written elsewhere, J came not to 
call gust men but sinners. Such 
sinners were we.’ 

8. EvdpdvOnre x.7..]| From the 
LxX Is. liv. 1, word for word. See 
the notes on Galatians iv. 27. The 
same application is also made in 
Justin AZol/. i. 53, p.88C. Philo also 
allegorizes this text (guod Omn. Prob. 
lib. 2, 11. p. 449), but in a wholly dif- 
ferent way. 

II. 7 é€xxAnoia npar| i.e. the Gen- 
tile Church, called o Xads judy below. 
Our author’s application seems so 
far to differ from S. Paul’s, that he 
makes the contrast between Gentile 
and Judaic Christendom, whereas in 
the Apostle it is between the new and 


’ / 
EKANEGED 5 


Io 


11] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 


n c > ' ~ s na \ in c 
cTeipa H oy TIikToyca, HMas Elev’ OTELVA yap HV 7 


2ES 
> / e ~ \ ~ ~ > aA / c\ A > 
EKKAYOLA HUWY 7pO TOU ooOnvat QUTH TEKVA. O O€ €L7TEV 
' c > > ' io / \ \ 
BOHCON H OYK Q@AINOYCA, TOUTO AEvYEL’ Tas MpoTEevyas 
¢ la) e ~ 3 / \ \ A / a ¢ 
nHMwv amAws avaepely ™pos TOV Oeceov MN, Ws al 
if. ~ ray \ oy a \ \ , 
Woivovoal, éyKkakwmMev. O O€ El7TEV STI TOAAA TA TEKNA 
a > , n x a ’ \ » 5 Veo 
TAc €pHmoy M&AAON H TAc EYOYCHC TON ANAPA, E7TEL EOHMOS 
’ / oy ’ \ lo ~ 9 \ ¢ lo \ \ 
€00KEL Etvat amo Tou OQeov o XAaos NMWV, VUVL O€ Tlo- 
/ / > / ro / s/f 
TEVOAVTES TMAELOVES évyevoueda TWV OOKOUYTWYV EVELV 


Oeceor. 


yap, Néyet, S. pntov] AC; kai pytov S. 12 muav] AC; om. S. 
13 Tas mpocevxas] AC; Ta mpds Tas mpocevxas (or TA mpds evXaS, as suggested 


kal éTépa O€ ypagn N€vyer OTL OYK AAOON kKa- 


by Bensly) S. See above, I. p. 141. 
15 éyxaxouev}] A; éxxaka@pev C. 
om. C. 


the old dispensation. Justin uses the 
text in the same way as our Pseudo- 
Clement. 

14. pn, os x.7.A.] If the order of 
the words be correct they can only 
mean ‘let usnot grow weary,as women 
in travail grow weary’; but it is 
strange that the writer should have 
confused his application of the text 
by this fanciful account of 7 ovK &di- 
vovoa, of which the natural explana- 
tion is so obvious. For éyxaxopev 
Cotelier and other editors would sub- 
stitute éxkaxk@uev; but this is a mis- 
take, as authority is against ékka- 
kev and for éyxaxeiv: see the note on 
Galatians vi. 9. 

17. amo rou Geov| For the pre- 
position after épnuos comp. Jer. xxxill 
(xl). 10 (dro dvOpérev kat Ktnvor), 
Xxxiv (xli). 22 (4m6 Tév KaToLKOUYT@Y?), 
xliv (li). 2 (do évoikov). The word 
involves asecondary idea of severance, 
and so takes azo. 

18. Aeioves] Writing about this 
same time, Justin Martyr gives a si- 
milar account of the greater numbers 
of the Gentile Christians: AZo/.1. 53 
(p. 88 B) mAeiovds Te Kai aAnOeorépovs 


14 ai wdlvovca] AC; 7 wdwovca S. 


17 Tod] A; om. C. 1g dé] AS; 


tous €& €Ovav tav a7 “lovdaiwy Kal 
Sapapéwy Xpiotiavors cidores. 

tov Soxovvtav éxew Ccov| Hil- 
genfeld quotes from the Praedicatio 
Petrt in Clem. Alex. Stvom. vi. 5 
(p. 760) pndé Kara “Iovdaiouvs c€eBecOe* 
kal yap €kelvol, povot olOmevot TOV 
Gedy yiv@oKety, ovK enioravTat 
(comp. Orig. 27 Foann. xiii. § 17, Iv. 
p. 226). 

19. érépa S€ ypapdy| Thus the 
Gospel, treated as a written docu- 
ment, is regarded as Scripture like 
the Old Testament. Comp. Barnab. 


§$ 4, and possibly 1 Tim. v. 18. See 
above, the introduction p. 202. 
ove 7AOov «.tT.rX.| The quota- 


tion agrees exactly with S. Mark ii. 
17, but might also be taken from S. 
Matthew ix. 13 ov yap nAOov x.7.X. 
On the other hand in S. Luke (v. 32) 
the form is different, ov« €AndAvda xa- 
Aéoat Sixaiovs aAAa GdyuupT@drods eis 
peravoray. Comp. also Barnab. § 5 ovk 
njAOev Kadéoa Sixaiovs dAda dpapta- 
hovs (where the words eis peravo.ar, 
added in the late MSS, are wanting in 
&), and Justin Afo/. i. p. 62 C ovk A- 


? c > Ul 
Gov k. 6. d. ap. eis peravo.ay. 


216 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


[11 


’ U > \ c , ~ if e/ ~ 
NECAl AIKAIOYC, AAAA AMAPTWAOYC. TOUTO AEYVEL, OTL O€L 
\ > / / 5) ~ / 5 / \ 
TOUS atroNNUMEVoUsS owe" EKELVO Yap E€OTLY MEYa Kal 
/ ’ A € ~ / 5) \ A / 
Oavpactor, OU TA EOTWTA oTnplCe a\Aa Ta Tin- 


c/ \ e \ sf\/ a“ A 
TOVTa. ouvTws Kat 0 Xpiotos OEAncEV GHoaL Ta 


/ af , \ \ / 
amroAAupeva, Kal ETwoev TOAXOUS, EA\OwWY Kal Kadéoas § 


Has On &TONAUMEVOUS. 
III. 


CC CC / e/ ~ a ~ ~ 
nas’ TOWTOV MEV, OTL NMEIS Ol CwVTES TOIS VvEKpots 


~ 5; af y ~ 5) 
Tocovrov ovv €X€0s TOoINGavTOS avTOU Eis 


~ 5) / \ > lo > nn r) \ 
Geots ov @vopev Kat ov mpooKuvotpev avdtots, ada 
J 5) 5) ~ \ / a 5) / / e 
Eyvwuev Ov av’tov Tov maTépa Tis dAnOeias: Tis 7 

~ \ / ) A \ ~ ec af 
yvwols i mpos avTov, n TO wy apveto Oa Ov ov EyvwpmeEV 


9 / / \ \ > / \ c ' ’ > ’ 
avTov; Neyer O€ Kal avTOS* TON GmoAorHcanté me [éna- 


4 oUTws] otrw C. 
éXeos] eXavog A. 


AC ais 0e S; 
Gelas C: see above, I. p. 127. 


évitiov Tov avOpwrwv] AC; om. S. 


4. oooa x.t.d.| Luke xix. 10 7AGev 
0 vios TOU avOpemov (yTHoa Kai cooat 
TO dmodwdds (compare the interpola- 
fon im) Matt.)xvill; 11), 1 Tim. 1/15 
"LX. 7AOev eis Tov Kocpov duaprwdods 
o@oal. 

III. ‘Seeing then that He has been 
so merciful and has brought us to 
know God, wherein does this know- 
ledge consist but in not denying Him 
by whom we were brought? If we 
confess Him, He will confess us be- 
fore the Father. This we must do, 
not with lips only but in our lives.’ 

8. Tots vexpois Oeois] Wisd. xv. 17 
Oynros d€ Ov vexpov épyatera xepow 
avopo.s* KpeitT@y yap é€ot. Tov oeBac- 
paT@v avTov, ay avros pev e(noer exeiva 
dé ovdézrore. 

12. eyes O€ kal avros k.7.A.] Nicon 
(see above on the First Epistle §§ 14, 
15) quotes this passage from the 


Xpiords] AS; Kupros C. 
Q kal ov mpockuvvotuev avtois] AS; om. C. 
AC; S translates as if it had read @rera 6€ 671; see above, I. p. 142. 
II yraots] yuwouo A. 

4) AC; om. S. 
The testimony of S cannot be alleged in such a case. 


7 ovv] AC; om. S. 
dda] 
10 Tis] 
 wpos avrov] AS; ris add7n- 
dpvetc bat] add. avrov C. 

12 avtév] AS; om. C. 

13 avrév] AC. S adds etiam 


Second Epistle; kai o Kupuos déyer 
Tov opodoynoarra...rov matpos pou" ev 
Tin O€...Tév évrodkov. Cotelier (on 
Clem. Rom. § 14) mentions the fact, 
but does not give the quotation in 
full. 

Tov opodoynocavra «.t.A.| A free 
quotation of Matt. x. 32 (comp. Luke 
xi. 8). 

evomtov k.T.A.| The omission in S 
is probably correct, the words having 
been inserted by scribes from a well- 
known evangelical passage, Luke 
xli.9. For a similar instance, where 
S preserves the true reading, see 
Clem. Rom. 46. Our preacher is in 
the habit of dropping out words in 
his quotations, and presenting them 
in skeleton. 

14. eav ovv] ‘2f after all, of only, 
For similar instances of the use of ody 
see Hartung Partrkel. 11. 11. 


Io 


15 Aoynowmev Ot ov éowOnper, 


20 


Iv] 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 


217 


TION TON ANOPWTWN|, OMOAOLHC@ AYTON EN@TION TOY TATPOC 


MOY. 


& Ss \ \ lm \ o € 
ovTos ovy éotiv 0 pucbos nuwy, Eav ouv Opo- 


? / \ 5) \ € 
év Tivt 6€ aUTOY OMoOAoO- 


“oP - > ZS Cm ray / i \ \ / ? ee 
TYYOUMEV, EV TW TOLELY A NEYEL Kal MY TAOAKOVELV aUTOU 


Co 3 ~ \ \ / ’ > \ ms >] \ 
TWY EVTONGY, KaL MN MOVOV YEINECIN AYTON TIM&N GAA 


> a ' A > a = ’ / \ \ 
€Z OAHC KAPpAIAC Kal €Z OAHC TAC AIANOIAC. Aevyel 6€ Kal 


5 “ oA c \ @ a ’ ’ a c \ 
ev TW "Hoaia: O Aadc oYTOC TOIC yEIAECIN ME TIMA, H AE 


KapAIA AYT@N TOPpo ATTECTIN ATT EMOF. 


IV. My povov ovv avtov Kkadwpev Kupiov, ov 


\ ~ - 
yap TovTo cwoE Huas. 


NEvyer yap" Oy m&c 6 AECON 


mol, Kypie, Kypie, cw@HceTal, AAN 6 TOIMN THN AIKAIOCYNHN. 


e/ S: 5) / 5) a sf ? \ € - 
WOTE OVV, adEAol, Ev TOs Epos avTOY OMoAOYaEL, 


ego (kay) as in Matt. x. 32. 
AC; merces magna S. 


14 pou] .AC; ‘om. S: 
ouv| A; om. CS. 


6 pucbos Nudr] 
17 avrov Tywav] AC; debe- 


mus invocare (vocare) eum S, as if dpethomev adrov émikadeloOa (kadely). 18 Tis] 
Ay om. C. diavoias] AC; duvdmews S. dé] yap AS; om. C. 19 0] 
o (i.e. ov) A. 20 avTwv] AS; avrod C. admeotw] A; dreorw (or éoTw) 


S; améornv C. 
24 avTov] aurwy A, 


18. e€& Odns x.t.A.] A reference 
ultimately to Deut. vi. 5 ; but as both 
words dsavoias and xapdias do not 
seem to occur in that passage in any 
one text of the LXX, we must suppose 
that the writer had in his mind the 
saying rather as it is quoted in the 
Gospels, esp. Mark xii. 30 é& 6Ans 
THs Kapdias Gov Kai e& dAns THs WuyAs 
gov kai €€ GAns ths dStavoias cov kai €€ 
oAns Tis iaxvos gov (comp. Matt. xxii. 
37, Luke x. 27). 

19. ‘O dads otros «.t.A.] From Is. 
xxix. 13, modified by the form in 
which it is quoted in the Gospels; 
see the note on the genuine Epistle 
of Clement § 15, where again it is 
quoted in almost exactly the same 
form as here. 

IV. ‘It is not enough to call Him 
Lord. We must confess Him by our 
works, by love and purity and guile- 


21 ovv] AS(?); om. C. 
oporoy@mev] As ouoroyjnowmev C. 


22 owoet] AC; cuca S. 


lessness. We must not fear men 
but God. For Christ Himself has 
warned us that, though we be His 
most familiar friends, yet if we do 
not His commandments, He will re- 
ject us.’ 

22. Ov mas 6 Néyov «.t.X.] From 
Matt. vii. 21 ov mas o Aéywv por, Kv- 
pte, Kupue, eioeXevoerae eis tHv Baci- 
Aevay Tay ovpavav, GAN Oo Tol@Y TO 
OéAnua Tov maTpds pou Tov é€y Tois 
ovpavois (comp. Luke vi. 46 quoted 
below). Justin (Aol. i. 16, p. 64 A) 
gives the exact words of S. Matthew 
(except ovxt for ov). Clem. Hom. viii. 
7 has ri pe Aéyets Kupre, Kure, kal ov 
mroveis a A€yw ; which closely resembles 
Luke vi. 46 ri d€ pe xadeire, Kupre, 
Kupwe, Kal oU mroveire a A€yw; Comp. 
Clem. Hom. viii. 5 ovdé €v TO mia Tevew 
dudacKdAos Kal Kupious avTovs éyeuw 
1 gwrnpia yivera, 


218 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [Iv 


2 ™~ > - e / 5) a \ ~ A 
éy TW ayaray éavToUs, Ev TH pn morxacBar puNde 
~ \ ~ > ~ 
kaTadadel adAjrAwy pnoe Cyrovv, GAN é€yKpaTels 
y 2 / b) / \ / > , 
evar, é€Xenuovas, ayalous’ Kal cuuracyew ddAnAOLS 
5] ¥ \ \ ~ 
oetAopey, kar wy pirapyupety. 
¢ ~ \ \ > ~ ? / 
OMOAOYwMMEV aUTOY Kal pn év Tots évavyTiow* Kal ov 


7 ~~ Sf 
€v TOUTOLS TOLS Epyots 


det nuas poPetcba Tous avOpwrous maddov, dda TOV 
Ocov. 


/ > \ 343 n , > a ' 
Kupuos: Ean HTe meT EMOY CYNHPMENO! EN TH KOATIM@ MOY 


\ Coy ~ lo iy > 
dla TOUTO, Ta’Ta VuwY TpATTOVTWY, ElTrEV O 


Kal MH TOIATE TAC ENTOAAC MOY, ATIOBAAW® YMAC Kal Epw 


1 ayarav AC; add. rovs tAnclov huwy was S: see above. 
7 tpav] As auov CS. 


opidtomey A. 
év T@ KOAT@ fou] AC; zz uno sinu S. 


I. pnde xaradade x.t.A.| James 
iv. Il mn kata\adeire GAAjA@y. See 
also Hermas JJand. 2 mpdétov pev 
pndevos katadave, with the whole 
section. 

3. ayabots| ‘kindly, beneficent, 
as Tit. 11. 5, 1 Pet. ii. 18; and so pro- 
bably 1 Thess. iii. 6. 

5. ov det nuas x.7.A.] Comp. Acts 
Iv. 19, V. 29. 

8. °Eay nre x.t-A.] Not found in 
the canonical Gospels, and perhaps 
taken from the Gospel of the Egyp- 
tians, which is quoted below; see 
S$ 5,8,12. The image and expressions 
are derived from Is. xl. 11 r@ Bpaxiou 
avtTov oud eu dpvas kal €v TO KOATO 
avtov Baoracer. The latter clause, 
though absent in BSA, is found in 
several MSS (see Holmes and Par- 
sons), in other Greek Versions, and 
in the original; and must be sup- 
posed to have been known to the 
writer of the Gospel in question. For 
the expression cuvdyew ev Kode, ‘Zo 
gather in the lap, see LXX Prov. 
XXX. 4 (Xxlv. 27). The image is car- 
ried out in the language of the next 
chapter, éoeaOe ws dpvia k.7.d. 

10. vmayere «.7.A.] The parallel 
passage in S. Luke xiii. 27 runs kai epei, 


4 dpelroper ] 
8 Kvpios] AC; éinaois S. 
Q monte] As moujonre C. 12 Tap- 


A€éyo vpiv, ovK oida [pas] wobev eore’ 
amooTnTe am é€uou mavTes epyarat adl- 
kias. Thisis much closer than Matt. 
vii. 23. The denunciation is taken 
from Ps. vi. 9 admootnte dm €uov mar- 
Tes of epyatouevor THY dyopiay. Com- 
pare the quotations in Justin AZol. 
i. 16 (p. 64 B) kal rore €p@ avrois* 
"Amoxwpeite am e€uov, epydrat THs avo- 
pias, Dial. 76 (p. 301 D) kai €p@ avrois: 
"Avaxapeire am éuov. See Westcott 
Canon p. 125 sq (2nd ed.). 

V. ‘We must break loose from 
the ties of this world. The Lord has 
warned us, that here we shall be as 
lambs among wolves; that we have 
cause to fear the perdition of our souls 
rather than the murder of our bo- 
dies. Our life here is brief and 
transitory; our life in heaven is eter- 
nal rest. Therefore should we look 
upon ourselves as aliens to the 
world.’ 

12. Hv mapoiay| ‘our sojourn- 
ing tn,’ i.e. ‘our dalliance with’: see 
the note on rrapocxovyres in the open- 
ing of the First Epistle. 

I5. “EoeoOe x.t.A.| This is a close 
parallel to Luke x. 3 amoaréAA@ vpas 
ws dpvas ev péo@ AVK@Y (comp. Matt. 
x. 16). As however Peter is not men- 


v| AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 219 


IOYMIN’ YTArETE ATT EMOF, OYK O1AA YMdC TIOOEN EcTé, epratal 


ANOMIAC. 
Mar. ey: adeA pot, 


~ / / \ 4 a 
OlKiay Tou KOOMOV TOUTOU TOLYTWMEV TO GéAnpa TOU 


\ 

katahelpavTes THY Trap- 
e a \ \ ~~ ~ > rt 

KaNETAVTOS Has, Kal py poPnOwuev é€eNOety Ex Tov 
/ ¢ / > c > ! 2 

KOGoU ToUTOU. DéryeEl yap 0 Kupios “Ececée ac dpnia én 
’ ’ > \ \ ¢ / > ~ / oats \ 
mécw AyK@Nn* amroxpilers d€ 0 Tletpos avTw Neyer Edn 
3 ' « ’ ‘ > ' 2s e 2? > va 
OYN AIACTIAPAZWCIN O! AYKOI TA APNIA; ELTTEV O Inoous TW 


/ \ ' > ' \ , e \ \ 
Fletpw- Mr oBeicOw@can TA APNIA TOYC AYKOYC’ META TO 


ATTOOANEIN AYTA. 


oxiav|] AC; mapoumiay S. 
A; dmoxrévtas C. 


tioned in the context, and as the con- 
tinuation of the quotation is not 
found in the canonical Gospels, the 
whole passage was probably taken 
from some apocryphal source, per- 
haps the Gospel of the Egyptians: 
see the note on S§ 4, 8, 12. As the 
same metaphor of the lambs occurs 
inthe apocryphal quotation just above 
(§ 4), they were probably taken from 
the same context. Photius (A767. 
126) remarks on the number of apo- 
cryphal quotations in this Second 
Epistle, Any dre pnta twa ws amd Tis 
Geias ypadas Eevitovra mapeoayet, wv 
ovS 1 mpern amnddakxto tTavtedas. 
(For apocryphal quotations in the 
First, which however are chiefly from 
the Old Testament and therefore not 
so prominent, see the notes SS 8, 13, 
17, 23, 29, 46.) 

19. kal vyeis x7.A.] The apocry- 
phal citation again runs parallel to 
the canonical Gospels, Matt. x. 28 
Kal pn poBetoGe aro Tay amoKTevyovT@Y 
TO copa, THY Sé ouxny py Suvapéever 
amokxteivar’ oBnOnre Sé€ paddov Tov 
Suvapevoy [kai] Wuxnv Kal cGpa adrondé- 
gat ev yeevvn, Luke xii. 4, 5 py oBy- 
Onre amo Tey amoKTEYYOYT@Y TO Goya 
kal peta TaUTa pn eXOVT@Y TEpLOaOTEpOY 


1g poBeicGe] poBewOau A. 


Kal YMEIC ME DOBEICAOE TOYC ATIOKTENNON- 


amoKkTévvovTas | 


TL Toinoat’ vrodciEw Se dpiv tiva PoBn- 
Onre. hoBnOnre Tov peta TO amoKretvat 
éxovra e€ovoiay €uBadeiv eis tHv yéer- 
vav* val, Aéyw viv, TovToy hoBnOnre. 
The saying is quoted also in Clem. 
Flom. xvii. 4 py poBnOynre amo Tov 
amoktevvovtos TO capa TH O€ Wuy7 mr 
Ouvamévov te Toiujoa’ PoBnOnre dé Tov 
Ouvawevoy Kal copa Kal ouyny eis THY 
yéevvay Tov mupos Badeiy, and in Justin 
Afpol. i. 19 (p. 66 B) px poBetabe rods 
dvaipovvtas vpas kal pera TtadTa py 
duvawévous Te Toujoal, eine, hoBnOnre 
d€ Tov peta TO amoGaveiy Suvamevoy kat 
Wux7v Kai copa eis yeevvay euBareir. 
The points of coincidence in the 
quotations of the Clementine Homi- 
lies and Justin with our pseudo-Cle- 
ment are worthy of notice, but they 
seem to be accidental. The expres- 
sion eis THv yéevvay Tov mupos (in the 
quotation of the Homilies) might 
have come from Matt. xviii. 9 (inter- 
polated in the parallel passage Mark 
ix. 47). For the amount of variation 
which may arise accidentally, see a 
parallel instance given by Westcott 
Canon p. 116; and it is instructive 
to observe the variations in two quo- 
tations of this very saying in Clem. 
Alex. Exc. Theod. p. 972 poBnOnre 


220 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


[Vv 
TAC YMA&C KAl MHAEN YMIN AYNAMENOYC TIOIEIN, AAAA oBEIcOE 
TON META TO ATTOOANEIN YMAC €YONTA EZOYCIAN WYYAC Kal 
' a tal > ’ ’ \ “f 
COMATOC, TOY BAAEIN EIC FEENNAN TrYPOC. Kai YLVWOKETE, 
> 4 4 ¢ > / e 5) on / fi = 
adeN Pot, OTL 4 €mldynpia n év TW KOTMW TOUTW THS 
\ , V¢ > \ 7 ¢ \ 
GaoKOS TaVTHS Mikpa EOTLY Kal oALyoxXpoVos* 7 O€ 
> ~ ~ / \ / 
érrayyeNia Tou Xpixrov peyadn Kat Gavpactn ExT, 
an if / \ = 
kal dvaravots THS peANovVons PBacirelas Kal Cwxs 
/ / Ss \ / -~ ~ 
aiwviov. Tl ouv éoTiv TomoayTas émiTUXELY aUTwY, 
? A \ re 4 \ / 5) / \ \ 
€l Mn TO OGlWs Kal OLKALWS dvaotpeper Oar, Kal Ta 
\ -~ > Ud ~ \ \ ~ 
Koopika TaVTa ws ddANoTpLa HyeloOar Kat mH ériOupetv 
1 poBeicbe] PoBecba A. 3 mupds] AC; om. S. 
emayyevea A. Xpictod] C; Kupiov S. éotiv] AC; om. (apparently) 
DS: 7 avamavois| A; 4 avdmavos C. 8 ti...émuruxew] AC; guid 


igitur est id quod facit ut attingatis S. The translator seems to have had rocjoav 
for moijoavtas in his text, and to have wrested the grammar to make sense of 


6 érayyeNia] 


it. 11 yap T@] A; T@ yap C. 
avra C. 


your, Aéyet, TOV peta Bavaroy Suvapevov 
kal Wuyxny kal copa eis yéevvay Badeir, 
and p. 981 6 carnp déyer PoBetcOa 
Seiy tov Suvapevov ravtny thy uxnv 
Kal TOUTO TO GHpa TO WuxtKov ev yeévyn 
dmoAéoat: comp. also Iren. ii. 18. 5 
‘Nolite timere eos qui occidunt cor- 
pus, animam autem non possunt 
occidere; timete autem magis eum 
qui habet potestatem et corpus et 
animam mittere in gehennam.’ 

amoxrévvovras| The passages quot- 
ed in the last note show that the 
substitution of dzokreivoyras is quite 
unnecessary. For the form dzoxrép- 
vey see Winer § xv. p. 95 (note), A. 
Buttmann p. 54. 

4. 1 éemiOnpial ‘sojourn’: comp. 
mapemiOnwot Heb. xi. 13, 1 Pet. i. I, 
li. 11, See the note on saporkiay 
above, which contains the same idea. 

7. kat avdmavots| ‘namely, rest 
For this use of kai see the notes on 
Galatians vi. 16. 

8. ti ovy x7.r.] ‘ What then ts tt 


13 Aéyer d€] AC; A€yer yap kai S. 


émOumety] emuduner A. tavra] AS; 


14 €av] C; add. ovv 


posstble for us to do that we may ob- 
tain them, but to walk holity and 
righteously. Thus re, which some 
would substitute for ro, interferes with 
the construction. For 6ciws cai dixaias, 
implying duties to God and to man 
respectively, see the note on dcva 
§ 1: comp. § 6 gyovres dua kai Sika. 
VI. ‘Our Lord has told us that 
no man can serve two masters. There 
is a direct antagonism between the 
world present and the world to come. 
We cannot keep the friendship of 
both. Let us then, if we would de- 
liver ourselves from eternal misery, 
obey the command of Christ and 
follow after the heavenly life. Even 
Noah, Job, and Daniel, it is written, 
could not by their righteous deeds 
rescue their own children. How then 
shall we enter the kingdom of God, 
if we keep not our baptismal vows ?’ 
13. Ovdeis x«.7.A.] Luke xvi. 13 
ovdels oikérns Svvarac Suot Kupiows 
Sovrcvew...o0 Stvacbe Oecd Sovdevew 


i 


O 


vi] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 221 


~~ > Lond ~ ~~ / ~ 
avTwv; évy yap Tw émBupeiy nuas KtTnoacOa TavTa 
~ ae = / 
dmTomimTouey THS OOOU THS OiKalas, 
, > \ > iy ’ \ 
aE: Aéyeu O€ O Kupios: OyAeic OIKETHC AYNATAI AYCI 
’ ’ \ e ~ / \ an 
KyPloic AOYAEYEIN. €ay HLELS OéXwpev Kal Oew dovA- 
rd \ ~ ? / ae > / ' \ \ 
evely Kal pauwva, aovudopov nui EeoTiy. TI fap TO 
6eAoc, EAN TIC TON KOCMON GAON KepAHCH THN AE YYXHN 
a af \ fe € JN \ e / / 
ZHMIWOH; EOTLY O€ OUTOS O alwy Kat O Mew) dvo 
> / Se / / \ \ \ 
éyOpoi: ovros Eyer pmolrxyelay Kal pbopav kat Pirap- 
/ > / > - \ / > / 
yuplav Kal amraTny, €KEeLvos O6€ TOUTOLS ATOTATOETAL. 


ov duvapueba ovv Tév Svo Piro eivar: Set SE Huds TOUTH 


dmoTagzauevous éxelvw xpaoba. 


/ / / / 
oiwueOa OTL BEATLOV 


5. 16 tov Kédcpov Sdov] Tov Kdcpmov (om. Gdrov) C; omnem hunc mundum S$, 
but the insertion of Auxc probably does not imply any different reading from A: 


see above, I. p. 141, and comp. below § 1g. 

18 kal PAopdavy] AC; om. S. 
Tots Toovras S. See conversely below on p. 2221. 8. 
oimpeba] oidueOa ACS. S also adds dé ddedgoi. 


(perhaps dzrodécy) S. 


xpjcba C. 


kat paywva. The words are the same 
in Matt. vi. 24, excepting the omis- 
sion of oikérns. 

I5. ti yap To ddedos xz7.A.] See 
Matt. xvi. 26, Mark viii. 36, Luke ix. 
25. The quotation here may have 
been derived from either S. Matthew 
or S. Mark, though it differs slightly 
from both. The divergence from S. 
Luke is greater. The saying is quoted 
also by Justin Afol/. i. 15; but Jus- 
tin’s quotation, while combining dif- 
ferent features of the three canonical 
Gospels, does not reproduce the 
special peculiarity (ri rd ddedos;) of 
our pseudo-Clement. 

17. éorw 8€ ovros 6 aloy x.r.d.] 
See the notes on Galatians i. 4. Com- 
pare also Clem. Hom. viii. 21, xx. 2. 

18. qOopav] Either (1) corrupt- 
ness, profiigacy generally, as in 2 Pet. 
i. 4, li. 12, 19; or (2) in a more’special 
sense, as Plut. Crass. 1 thy airiay ris 
pOopas amodvoduevos, Mor. p. 89 B 
kpiOnvar POopas. The connexion with 


17 §nuiwhn] AC; perdat 
1g Tovros] AC; 
21 xpacAa] A; 


potxeta here points to this latter sense; 
comp. Barnab. 10 ov pn yévn potxos 
ovde POopevs, Philo de Spec. Leg. 11 
(II. p. 310 M) adeAbov pev Kai cvyyeves 
adixnua potyetas POopa, Epictet. Dass. 
ii. 22. 28 dkpareis kal porxovs kal 
pOopeis, Iren. Haer. i. 28. 1, Clem. 
Hom. iv. 16, 24. 

20. tovt@ drotagapévous| ‘bidding 
farewell to this? Act. Paul. et Thecl. 
5 of droraEduevor TS Koop@ ToT, Ign. 
Philad. \1 droraédpevos tr Bio. The 
word is fairly common in the New 
Testament; see Lobeck Phryz. p. 23. 

xpacba| ‘consort with as a friend, 
according to a common sense of the 
word. The editors have substituted 
xpnoOa for the reading of the older 
MS; but there is sufficient authority 
for xpacOa in later writers: see Lo- 
beck Phryn. p. 61, Buttmann Azs/. 
Sprachl. § 105 (1. p. 487), Veitch /7- 
regular Verbs s.v. xpaopa. For the 
form in a comp. cvyxpac 6a Ign. Magn. 
3, mapaxpacba A post. Const. vi. to. 


222 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [vi 


3 4 9 0 Oo a 4 \ \ > / \ 
EOTLY TA EVUAOE PLTNTAaL, OTL LKPa Kal OALYOXpOVIa Kat 
4 9 ~ \ p) - \ > \ \ Pps 6 
pOapta: éxeiva O€ ayarnoa, Ta ayaba Kal apbapra. 

- \ A / A ~ 
mowovvTes yao TO OéeAnua Tov XpioTov evpyoomev ava- 

A / \ ~ (sud ~ 

mavow* él O€ pNye, OvdEV Huas pyoEeTar EK THS aiwviouv 
, \ / os a $ 
KoA\aoews, €av TapakovowMEv TwWY EVTOAWY aUTOU. 
, \ \ ae? ie / J ) \ > a 
Aeyer O€ Kal 4 ypadn év Tw 'leCeKinA, OTL’EAN dnactHi 
N@e kai I@B Kai AaNniHA, OY PYCONTAI TA TEKNA AYTAN EV 
ToOLoUTOL OiKaLOL OU 


a 2 / ? A \ € 
™T atxyuadwoia. et 6€ Kal ol 


2 ayada kal] ayaa 7a AC; om.S. Here probably the reading of C is to be 
preferred: for (1) It is more forcible in itself: (2) It explains the omission in S. 
2 yap] AS; om. C. dvaravow] AC; add. guae zllic S, as if it had read rh 
éxe?, but this may be only a translator’s gloss. 4 nuas| AC; om. S. 
6 dé] AC; ydp S. év Tr] AC; 700 S. 8 aixparwota] C3 arxypuarwoua 
A. of rovodror] AC; ofro. S: see conversely above on p. 221 1. 19. 
AC; om. S. 


dlkaoc] 
od dvvavta] here, A; after ducatordvas in C; but S has appa- 


4. aiwviov Koddcews] The ex- as in Zest. xz Patr. Jud. 17, 22, 23, 


pression occurs Matt. xxv. 46. 

6. év te “leCexink] Abridged from 
Ezek. xiv. 14—20, being taken es- 
pecially from ver. 14 éav aow oi Tpeis 
avdpes obtror ev péom avtns Noe kal 
Aavud Kat 7168, and ver. 18 ov py pu- 
covrat vious kat Ovyatrépas. The words 
€év TH aixyad@oig are the writer’s own 
addition and should not be treated 
as part of the quotation. It is worth 
noticing also that the order of the 
three names, which has given rise to 
so much speculation among modern 
critics, is changed by the pseudo- 
Clement, and a chronological se- 
quence is produced. The same order 
of the names appears in A fost. Const. 
ii. 14. Chrysostom also makes the 
same change in two passages quoted 
by Cotelier, Hom. xlizz in Gen. (IV. 
p. 436) and Exp. zx Ps. xviii (V. p. 
210). 

9. dkacocvvas| The plural, as 
in Deut. ix. 4 (v.1.), 6, 1 Sam. xxvi. 
2a, Vizek, ii. 20, xxxi. 13, Ecclus. 
xliv. 10. 

It. 7d Baoewvr| ‘the kingdom, 


Orac. Sib. iii. 159, Gaius (Hippoly- 
tus?) in Euseb. #. £. iii. 28, Hip- 
pol. Fragm. 59, 103, 105 (pp. 162, 
181, 182, Lagarde), Euseb. H. £. viii. 
17, Epiphan. aer. li. 9 (p. 432). 
Thus there is ample authority for 
this sense of Bacidev. Galland, 
desirous of retaining the more usual 
meaning ‘a palace,’ supposes the 
writer to refer to the parable of the 
marriage feast given by the king, 
Matt. xxii. 11, 12. If so, we might 
suppose that he explained the wed- 
ding garment of baptism, which is 
mentioned just before. But the refer- 
ence seems improbable. This more 
usual meaning of Baci\ewy would 
have a parallel in S. Anselm Cur 
Deus homo ii. 16 ‘ut nullus palatium 
ejus ingrediatur.’ 

I2. mapdkdrntos] ‘advocate, as it 
should always be translated in the 
New Testament. This is one coin- 
cidence of language in our pseudo- 
Clement with S. John: see esp. 1 
Joh. il. 1 mapdkAnrov exouev mpos tov 
matrépa. So above § 3 rov marépa tis 


Io 


vit] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 223 


duvavTat Tais éavTwy Sikaiocvvas pycacba Ta TéKVva 
QUTWY" HMEls, Eav pn THPHTwMEV TO BamTIoMa ayvoV 
Kal aduiavtov, moia memolnoea cioeNcvooueba Eis TO 
BaciNeov Tov Ocov; 7H Tis uwv mapakAnTos éoTat, 
éav pn evpeOapmev Epya ExovTes Gora Kal Sixaa; 


Vil. 


> / / ? \ ¢€ > , NG eZ > \ 
ELOOTES OTL EV XEPolv O ayoV, KOE OTL, ,€tS. "FOUS pbap- 


“Wate ovv, ddeXpoi pov, adyoucwpucba, 


\ lo / / 5) / 
Tous a@ywvas KaTam\eovow moNAol, aAXN’ OU TayTes 


rently the same order as A. Q picacOa Ta Téxva] A; Ta Téxva picacOa C. 
10 avvav] A; om. CS. Bdarricpa] AC; add. guod accepimus S. 
mom: CS. ov] A; om. C. As S always adds the possessive pronoun 


where the vocative ddeAgot stands alone in the Greek, its testimony is of no value 


14 ov] 


here: see above § 6. 


16 xatamdéovow] AC; certant (=dywvifovra) S, but 
*t probably does not represent a different reading in the Greek. 


Lower down 


S translates carardevowmev descendamus in certamen. 


aAnOeias, and see on this subject 
Westcott Canon p. 157 sq. 

13. 60a kal dixaca] See the notes 
on §§ I, 5. 

VII. ‘Therefore let us prepare for 
the struggle. Inthe Isthmian games 
many enter the lists, but not many 
are crowned. In this our immortal 
race we should all strive to win. In 
the earthly contests he who breaks 
the rules is scourged. What then 
shall befall those who in their heaven- 
ly course swerve from the right path? 
Their worm, it is written, dieth not, 
and their fire is not quenched.’ 

I5. ev xepolv 6 aywr]| 6 The contest 
zs at hand, as Xen. Cyr. i. 3. 2” Av- 
Spes ido, 0 pev ayav eyyds npiv: 
comp. Clem. Rom. 7 6 avrés npiv 
ayov emixerra. The reading arwn 
for aiwn is doubtless correct, and 
this is not the only instance of the 
confusion of the two words: see Hase 
and Dindorf Steph. Thes. p. 593 s.v. 
dyev, and to the references there 
given add A%sch. Agam. 495, and 
see 4 Macc. ix. 23, xl. 19. For é& 
xepaty, ‘at hand, see Plut. Vit. Cleom. 


22 ovK eAaTTova Ths ev xepat SuvoTuyiay, 
Vit. Brut. 36 ev xepov exov ras vrep 
Tav dov mpdées, etc.: compare vd 
xetpa, Hermas V7s. i111. 10 (with the 
note). 

ére eis Tovs POaprovs x.t.A.] An 
echo of 1 Cor. ix. 24, 25 wavres pev 
Tpéxovow, eis dé AauBaver TO BpaBer- 
ov and ékeivo. pev ody wa pOaprov 
atépavoy AaBoow, nuets dé apOaprov. 
Comp. Lucian Avnachars. 13 einé pot, 
mavres avTa AapBdvovew of dywvicrai ; 
3. odauads adda eis €& amdvrwv o Kpa- 
tTyoas avtay (a passage of which the 
context presents several coincidences 
with S. Paul; see Clark’s Pelopon- 
nesus p. 50), Seneca ZZ. lxxviii. § 16 
‘Athletae quantum plagarum ore, 
quantum toto corpore excipiunt? 
ferunt tamen omne tormentum glori- 
ae cupiditate; nec tantum, quia pug- 
nant, ista patiuntur, sed ut pugnent... 
nos quoque evincamus omnia, quorum 
praemium non corona nec palma est 
ete.’ 

16. Katramrdéovow] ‘resort’; comp. 
Plut. AZor. p. 81 E xcaramdeiv yap en 
Tovs moAXovs emt ayoAnv ‘AOnvace. 


224 


THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


[vir 


vo > \ ¢€ \ / \ 
oTepavovyTat, €l py ol MOANA KOTLATAaYTES Kal Ka- 


ca / 
AWS AYWVLTALEVOL. 
oTrepavwhaper. 


~ > / 3 e/ 7 
nMELS OUV adywruicwuEba, iva mavTeEs 

e/ / \ ¢ \ \ 5) a 
wate Oéwuev Thy Odov THv EvOeiar, 


ae , \ \ > \ / 
dyava tov aplaptov, Kal moNXol ets abTov KaTaT)eEv- 


, / \ = \ 
Twuev Kal aywuocwpueba, iva Kal orepavwlwpev* Kal 


1 ef un] AC; (Aun A) add. solum S. 
curramus); O&uev AC. See the lower note. 


S. 5 kai pri.] AC; om. S. 


Compounds of w\eiy are sometimes 
used metaphorically, as exmdeiv (He- 
rod. iii. 155 e&émAwoas tov dpevar), 
arromAew (Aristoph. -”. II. p. 907 Mei- 
neke arom\evoté ovv emt tov vupdiov), 
SuavAewv (Plato Phaed. 85 D Sdiamded- 
ca. tov Biov). But xatramAeivy can 
hardly be so explained here; and we 
must therefore suppose that the allu- 
sion is to the advepxys “IoOpod Seipas 
(Pind. Zsthm. i. 10), which would na- 
turally be approached by sea. Livy 
(xxxill. 32) describes the Isthmian 
games as ‘propter opportunitatem 
loci, per duo diversa maria omnium 
rerum usus ministrantis, humano 
generi concilium.’ In these later 
days of Greece they seem to have 
surpassed even the Olympian in im- 
portance, or at least in popularity: 
comp. Aristid. /sthm. p. 45 év th Kad- 
Alorn TO Tavnyvpewy THe Kal ovopac- 
roratn k.T.A. (see Krause He//en. Il. 2. 
p- 205 sq). If this homily was ad- 
dressed to the Corinthians (see 
above, p. 197), there would be singular 
propriety in this image, asin S. Paul’s 
contrast of the perishable and im- 
perishable crown likewise addressed 
to them, or again in the lessons which 
Diogenes the Cynic is reported to 
have taught in this city during the 
Isthmian games, maintaining the 
superiority of a moral over an athletic 
victory (Dion Chrysost. Ovat. viii, 
ix). 

I. komuacavres] A word used 
especially of training for the contest : 


3, Géwpev] conj. (so too S distinctly 
4 els abrov] AC; 2 certamen 
aywvicwpefal] AS; ayvicdpeba C. 


see the notes on Ign. Polyc. 6 and 
Philippians ii. 16. For the connexion 
here comp. 1 Tim. iv. I0 kal xomidpev 
kal ayvi(opeba (the correct reading). 

3. Oé€opev] For the accusative 
after this verb see Lobeck Paral. 
p. 511: comp. also Cic. OF ii. 10 
‘stadium currit’ (from Chrysippus). 
The reading of the Greek Mss, 
@oyev, can hardly stand. It is 
explained as referring to the dyo- 


vobecia; but in this case the 
aywvobérns should be God Himself 
(see Tertull. ad Mart. 3); and 


moreover Oepev tHv odoy is in itself 
an awkward expression. Gebhardt, 
having read @éwper in first edition, 
has returned to Oépev in his second, 
being apparently persuaded by Bryen- 
nios. Butthe argument of Bryennios 
appears to me to be based on a mis- 
conception. He urges that we can- 
not read @éwpev on account of the 
words immediately following, kal 
modo eis av’Tov KaTamAeVo@per, and 
he argues 6 6€ dpru dywuCopevos xpeiav 
ouK €xet els TOY aya@va KaTedOeiy, as if 
the reading @éwpev involved a hys- 
teron-proteron. But in fact this 
clause introduces an entirely new 
proposition, of which the stress lies 
on woAAoi ; ‘let us not only take part in 
this race (Gewpev tHy odov), but let us 
go there zz great numbers and con- 
tend (oAXoi katamAeVo@per kai ayor- 
owpeba).’ On the other hand it has 
not been shown that Oetvar ryv ddov 
or Tov dyava can be said of the com- 


vit] 


> 


x , y 
ee py duvaueba rravres 


~ / ee 
Tov oTedavou yevwueba. 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 


225 


~ \ ’ \ 
orepavwOyvar, Kav éeyyus 
2Q/ e ~ ohn a ¢ \ 
eldevat nas O€t, OTL 6 TOY 


\ 5) - / nN ~ / 
P0aptov adyava aywuCopuevos, éav evpeOn ~pleiowr, 
MacTiywlels aiperar Kal éEw PBadreTat TOU oTadiov. 


Ti OOKEITE$ 6 TOV THIS apbapoias aywva pbcipas, Ti 


7 eidévac] A; add. 5é CS. 
Ooxecrac A, 


batants themselves. Bryennios in- 
deed explains it @dpev éavrois jf 
mpo9epeGa, but this explanation stands 
self-condemned by the necessity of 
using either the reflexive pronoun 
(cavrois) or the middle voice (mpo- 
Oaue8a) to bring out the sense. The 
construction which we have here 
occurs from time to time with 6ée, 
but is more common with rpéyew, 
because the verb itself is more com- 
mon; e.g. Heb. xii. 1 tpéyopev roy 
Tpokeiwevoy nuiy ayava (see Bleek’s 
note). Polybius (i. 87. 1, xviii. 35. 
6) has the proverb rpéyew rhv éoyarny. 

5- kat ef pn duvdpeba k.t.d.| This 
seems to point to some public recog- 
nition of those who came nextafterthe 
victor. In the Olympian chariot races 
there were second, third, and fourth 
prizes; but in the foot racesthenotices 
of any inferior prize or honourable 
mention are vague and uncertain: 
see Krause He//en, Il. 1. p. 170 sq. 
This passage is quoted loosely by Do- 
rotheus Doctr. xxiii bs héyer kai 6 &ytos 
KAnuns, Kav pa) oreavarai tis, adda 
omovddcet ur pakpay evpeOnvat TOY OTE- 
pavoupéver. 

6. Kav éyyts «r.d.] See Joseph. 
B. J. 1. 21. 8 GOXa péyiora mpobels ev 
ois ov povoy of vikdvTes GAA Kal of per 
avTovs kal of rpito. Tov PBacwALKod 
movrov petedduBavov. Comp. Afosz. 
Cost. 1. TA. 

8. Pdcipwr] ‘ vitiating.” The word 
is used of violating the conditions of 
the contest, e.g. by making a false 


CLEM. II. 


6] here A; before aywvrifduevos, C. 
pbelpas] A; POelpwy C, so apparently S. 


10 doxetre] 


start or cutting off a corner or trip- 
ping up an adversary or taking any 
underhand advantage: comp. Epi- 
phan. Haer. lxi. 7 rapapOeipas ayava 
0 aGOAntns paotix9els exBddderar Tod 
adyovos (quoted by Cotelier). The 
word is specially chosen here for the 
sake of the neighbouring ¢é6aprév 
ap@apoias. See Chrysippus in Cic. 
Of. iii. Io ‘Qui stadium currit, eniti 
et contendere debet, quam maxime 
possit, ut vincat; supplantare eum 
quicum certet aut manu depellere 
nullo modo debet: sic in vita etc’, 
Lucian Cal. non tem. cred. 12 6 pev 
adyais Spopeds...r6 mAnolov 
kakoupyet...0 O€ KakOs €keivos kal avaOXos 
aVTAY@VLOTIS...€7l THY KAKOTEXViav erpa- 
meto x.t.A. The turn given to the 
image in @écipwy was perhaps sug- 
gested by 2 Tim. il. 5 ov oredavodras 
€ay pn vouipas dbAnon (comp. Epictet. 
Diss. i. 10. 8 Sos por admddeaEw ei 
vopipes nOAncas). 

Q. paortywbeis] i.e. by the paBdod- 
xo or, as they are sometimes called 
(e.g. Lucian Hermot. 40), paotvyo- 
gopo. Pollux (iil. 153) furnishes also 
a third name, paorvyovduor. Compare 
Herod. vili. 59 €v roto. aya@ou of mpoeé- 
aviotawevot parigovra, Thucyd. v. 50 
€v TO Ayou UT TV paBdovyay TANyas 
ehaBev, Lucian adv. [ndoct. 9, Piscat. 
33- On these police see Krause He/- 
en. Il. 1. pp. 112 sq, 139, 142, 144, II. 
2. p. 46 sq. See Schweighaeuser 
on Epictet. Dzss. ili. 15. 5 (p. 689). 

aipetat] ‘zs removed,’ 


ovdev 


15 


226 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [vil 


~ = \ \ / / \ 
mabeira; Twv yap pn THopnoTavTwY, hyo, THY Tdpa- 
yida 6 CK@AHZ AYT@N OY TEAEYTFK CE! KAI TO TYP AYT@N 
oY cBecOFceTal, KAI ECONTAI EIC OPACIN TACH CapPKI. 


VIII. 


\ \ ~ ie / 
mos yap €ouev Els THY xXElVa TOV TEXVITOV. 


y 5) \ > \ a / 
‘(Us ovv éomev émt yrs, meTavonowpmer 


v. \ ~ ~ \ — 
TpOTOV yap 6 KEpameus, €av Ton oKEvVOS Kal év Tals 
é 

eopcly avTov Siactpapn 4 ovvTpiBn, mwadw auto 
xepoly papn 1 peBn, 

9 , > \ \ ’ > \ i, nn 

dvarAacoe éav d€ mpopdon els THY Kapu.voy Tov 

\ ? A ~ AL / 5) ‘od e/ \ 

mupos avto BaNeiv, ovKeTt BonOyoe aita@ ovTws Kal 

-~ e/ \ 5) (g > / ? an \ 

NES, EwS EoMEev EV TOUTW TW KOTMM, EV TH TApKE 


1 madeira] A; meicera C. 2 70 Tip avTGv] AS; 7d rip (om. airdr) C. 


6 mown] A; moujon C, but the present tense is wanted here; see below. 
here, A; before duacrpapy, CS thus altering the sense. 
7 A] AS; om. C. 


Tou mupos] AC; om. S, but see the next note. 


doubtful. 


burat id et pereat (perdatur) S. 


I. tv oppayida] By a compari- 
son with § 6 éav wy tnpno@pev To Baz- 
Tica, it appears that baptism is here 
meant by the seal. So again § 8 r7- 
pnoate THY odpayida adomudov. Comp. 
Hermas Sz. vili. 6 eiAndores thy 
odpayida kai teOXakores avtny Kal pr 
THpHnoavTes Vyth K.T.A., S771. 1X. 16 OT- 
av 6€ AdBn thy odpayida...n oppayis 
ovy TO UOwp é€oriy K.z7.r., also SZ. 
Vill. 2, ix. 17, 31, Clem. Hom. xvi. 19 
TO copa opayidt peyiorn SiatetuTo- 
pevov (with the context), Act. Paz. 
et Thecl. 25 povov Sos por rHv év Xpio- 
T®@ opayida, Hippol. Axntichr. 42 
(p. 119, Lagarde), Cureton’s Ancient 
Syriac Documents p.44. So of Aber- 
clus it is said (Zen. and Polyc. 1. p.496) 
Aaprpav odpayeiday exovta. Suicer 
s.u. quotes Clem. Alex. Quzs div. salv. 


39 (p. 957), Strom. ii. 3 (p. 434), and 
later writers. Barnabas § 9 speaks 


of circumcision as a odpayis after S. , 


Paul, Rom. iv. 11. Butit may be ques- 
tioned whether S. Paul (odpayiodpevos 
2 Cor. i. 22, comp. Ephes. iv. 30) or S. 


kal] 
év] A; om. Coos 
8 avamrdooe] A; dvarddoe C. 


g Baretvy] AC; add. et com- 


It is not probable however that any corresponding 


John (Rev. ix. 4 tiv odpayida rod Geov 
él Tay petomayv) used the image with 
any direct reference to baptism. 

2. doK@dAnék.t.A.] Anaccuratequo- 
tation from the Lxx of the last verse 
of Isaiah (Ixvi. 24) 6 yap ox@Anێ adtav 
x7.A. The denunciation is uttered 
against rau avOpdrev trav mapaBeBn- 
koroy, and the context does not con- 
tain any reference to the broken seal. 

VIII. ‘We are as clay in the 
hands of the potter. At present, if we 
are crushed or broken, He can mould 
us again; but when we have been once 
thrown into the furnace, nothing will 
avail us. Therefore let us repent in 
time. After death repentance is too 
late. Let us keep the flesh pure now, 
that we may inherit eternal life here- 
after. This is our Lord’s meaning, 
when He says, /f ye kept not that 
which ts small, who shall give you 
that which ts great?’ 

4. ‘Qs ovv] ‘While then,” For this 
sense of ws see § 9 ws fyopuev xarpor, 
with the note. 


rat 
OV 5 


vur] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. a2 


3) 


5 4 \ / 3 / ~ 
a émpagtauev Trovnpa pmeTavonowpey EEF OANS THS Kap- 
7 74 ~ \ ~ / e/ af 
dias, iva owlwyev vio tov Kupiov, ws Exyouev Kat- 
\ , \ A \ Ps a ‘ 5 
pov peravoiass peta yao TO €€eNOelv nuas ex ToU 
"4 ae & / > S35 , aX 
Kooov, ovKeTt duvaueba éxet EEouodoyioacOa 7 peE- 
a af / ? 4 / \ / 
TAVOELV ETL. WOTE, adeA Pot, Tomnocavtes TO OédXnua 
~ \ \ \ / \ / 
TOU TATPOS Kal THY TapKa ayvnY THPNTAaYTES Kal Tas 
\ ~ / / / \ / 
évtodas tov Kupiov duvAaEavtes Anvoueba Cwny aiw- 


VLOV. 


MIKPON OYK €THPHCATE, TO MELA TIC YMIN ACE; 


words stood in the Greek text. 


ovrw C. 11 4} Cs; st guid S. 
dum S; ws éru C, 
mas ain. C. 


AC; add. super nostris peccatis S. 
16 odpxa] C; capxay A; add. judy S. 


5. mndos yap eopev x.t.r.]| The 
image of Jeremiah xviii. 4—6, adopt- 
ed by S. Paul Rom. ix. 21. The pre- 
sent passage is suggested rather by 
the prophet than by the Apostle. 
The image is drawn out in 7Zesé. xz 
Patr. Nepht. 2, and in Athenag. 
Suppl. 15. 

6. mow okevos Kat «.t.A.] There 
can be no doubt that the more 
graphic reading of A is correct. 
The very point of the comparison is 
that the breakage happens zz the 
making (mon), happens uwuzder the 
hands of the potter (ev rais yepow 
atvtov duaotpady), and not afterwards, 
aS Toinon...Tais xepolv avrov Kai diao- 
tpady would imply. 

7. ovvtpiBn| Rev. ii. 27 ws ta 
OkKEUN TA Kepapika ouyTpiBera. 

madw avTo dvarAacoe| Hilgen- 
feld refers to Theoph. ad Aztol. 
lil. 26 kaOarep oxevdos Tt, émav maa bev 
aitiay Twa ox, avaxveveta 7 ava- 
mAdooetar eis TO yevéoOa Kaivdy kal 
oAoKAnpoy ; see the references there 
given by Otto. 

8. éav d€ mpopOaon x.t.r.] ‘ When 


exouev katpdv] A; Karpov éxouerv C. 
Tod Kécpov] AC; rns capxés S. 


, \ ¢ / 2 ~ 5) / > \ 
Aéyer yap 6 Kupios év tw evayyedtw: Ei to 


AEF 
BonOjoer] A; Bonde? CS. ovTws] A; 
THs] A}; om. C, 12 €ws] A; 


13 peravolas] 
14 €£ouodoy7joac Gat] 
15 momoavtes] AC; add. ody (?) S. 


He has once cast it into the fiery 
Jurnace, He will no more come to tts 
rescue. mpopOavery occurs Matt. xvii. 
25 and several times in the Lxx. 

16. tv capa ayvny xt.r.] Act. 
Paul. et Thecl. 5 paxapior ot ayrny thy 
cdpka tnpnoavres, 12 THY oapKa py 
porvynte adda THpHnoNTE ayvnr. 

18. Ei ro puxpoy «.t.A.] Probably 
a quotation fused from Luke xvi. Io 
0 muaTos ev EXaxioT@ Kai ev TOAA® TLo- 
TOS €oTW, Kal 6 ev €haxioT@ GdtKos Kai 
év TOAA@ adiKds eat" ei ov ev TO 
ddikm pwapwva mictol ovK éyéverOe, TO 
GAnO.woy Tis vpiv miorevoe; and Matt. 
XXV. 21, 23, éml Odiya is micros, emt 
mo\A@y oe KaTaoTnoe. Irenzus (il. 34. 
3) cites it somewhat similarly, ‘ Si in 
modico fideles non fuistis, quod mag- 
num est quis dabit vobis?’? The quo- 
tation of our Clementine writer may 
perhaps be taken from an apocryphal 
gospel (see the notes on §§ 4, 5, 12) ; 
but the passage of Irenzeus, who can 
hardly have borrowed from an apo- 
cryphal source, shows how great di- 
vergences are possible in quotations 
from memory, and lessens the pro- 


I5—2 


228 


\ c La] cea (4 A 
rap YMIN OT! O TTICTOC 


’ > / Ss 
CTOC €CTIN. apa OUV 


/ A \ \ 
Tapka ayynvy Kat THY 


/ A / 
[aiwnov] Conv drodaBwper. 
4 amordBwyuev] A; amokaBnre CS: see the 


I 7oAX@] AC; Toddols S. 
lower note. 


bability of this solution. Hilgenfeld’s 
inference (p. xxxix), ‘Irenzeus hac 
epistula quamvis nondum Clementi 
Romano adscripta usus esse videtur,’ 
seems to me quite unwarranted by 
the coincidence. We have in fact a 
similar coincidence in Hippol. Haer. 
X. 33 (p. 336) iva emi TO puKp@ motos 
evpebeisxal To péya miotevOnva SuvnO7s. 

2. dpa ovv] A favourite colloca- 
tion of particles in S. Paul: see Fritz- 
sche on Rom. v. 18. The accentua- 
tion dpa ovr is erroneous. 

touto Aéyer] ‘He means this’: as 
in §, 2 (twice), § 12. See the note 
on Galatians ili. 17. The words there- 
fore which follow ought not to be treat- 
ed as an apocryphal quotation, as they 
are by several editors and others. 

3. domadov| For rnpety aomaor 
comp. I Tim. vi. 14, James 1. 27. 

4. aiwvoyv| The omission in the 
Syriac is probably correct; comp. 
S$ 14 tooavtny dvvarau ny cap& aitn 
petadaBety Cony x.t.A., § 17 cvvnypévoe 
@pev eri thy Conv. The epithet may 
have been inserted from the expression 
just above, Anyoueba Conv aidmor. 
Similarly in John xx. 31 alwmoy is 
added after (anv by NCD etc., and 
in t Tim. vi. 19 tHe aiwviov Cans 
(from ver. 12) is substituted for the 
less usual ris dvtwas (wns by several 
authorities. In Luke x. 25 Marcion 
read (w7v without aidmoy (see Tertull. 
c. Marc.iv. 25), and so one Latin copy. 

dmodaBapev] ‘secure. The pre- 
position implies that it is already 
potentially our own, so that we are 
only vecovering a right: see Gala- 
tians iv. 5 with the note. 


THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


[viq1 


EN €AAYICTM KAl EN TIOAA® TII- 
~ , / N 

TovuTo A€Eyel’ THpNnTaATE THY 
~ I e/ \ 

oppayida aomidov, wa TH 


The licence in the change of per- 
sons (rnpyjoate, droAaBwpev) has of- 
fended the transcribers here, though 
occasionally indulged in even by 
the best writers in all languages, 
e.g. Jeremy Taylor Works VI. p. 
364 ‘If ¢hey were all zealous for 
the doctrines of righteousness, and 
impatient of sin, in yourselves and 
in the people, it is not to be im- 
agined what a happy nation we 
should be.’ See also e.g. Rom. vii. 
4 eOavarenre, Kkapropopnoaper, Vill. 
15 eAaBere, kpaCoper, and frequently 
in S. Paul. 

IX. ‘Do not deny the resurrection 
of the body. As we were called in 
the flesh, so also shall we be judged 
in the flesh. As Christ being spirit 
became flesh for us, so shall we in 
the flesh receive our recompense. 
Let us love one another; let us make 
a return to God for His goodness. 
What must this return be? Sincere 
repentance and unceasing praise— 
the praise not of our lips only, but of 
our hearts and of our actions,’ 

5. Kat pn Aeyéro tis x.t.A.] This 
passage, as far as dmoAnWopeba rov 
pc Gov, is quoted in several collections 
of Syriac fragments, immediately after 
the opening sentence of this epistle: 
see the note on the beginning of § 1, 
and comp. I. p. 185. The sentence 
eis Xpworos...nuas ékadeoev is also 
quoted by Timotheus of Alexandria; 
see I. p. 180. 

avtn 1 oap& «.t.A.] Difficulties 
on this point were very early felt and 
met by S. Paul, 1 Cor.xv. 12 sq7am@ 
little later the precursors of Gnosti- 


1x] 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 


229 


IX. Kat pn AeyéTw Tis Vuwv, OTL aTH 4 Tape 


>’ , sA\ ee 
oU KplveTat ovdE avioTaTal. 


a / / 
yvweTe év Tim éeowOnTe, 


év Tim dveBAé\vaTe, et pn Ev TH TapKl TavTN OVTES; 
ha al ee a ’ 


5 tis] AC; S translates, as if it had read undeis. 


cism boldly maintained that the only 
resurrection was a spiritual resurrec- 
tion (2 Tim. i. 18). It afterwards 
became a settled tenet of the Gnostic 
sects to deny the resurrection of the 
body: see Polyc. Phz/. 7 és tw peGo- 
devn Ta Adyia Tod Kupiov mpos ras idias 
emOupias Kal Aéyn NTE avacTacw pre 
kpiow eiva, Justin Dzal. 80(p. 306 D) 
ei yap kal cuveBddeTe vets Tic Aeyo- 
pevors Xpiotiavots...ot Kal A€yovor py 
elvar vexp@v avdaotacw GAN dpa To 
amobvnoke Tas Wuyas avT@y avadap- 
BavecOa eis Tov ovpavoy, yn UroAdByTe 
avTovs Xptoriavovs x.7.A., Iren. ii. 31. 
2 tocovroy d€ amodéovcr Tov veKpov 
eyetpa...ut ne quidem credant hoc in 
totum posse fieri; esse autem resur- 
rectionem a mortuis agnitionem ejus, 
quae ab eis dicitur, veritatis’ (comp. 
Meat t, 2), Act: Paul. ef Thecl. 14 
Huets oe StOakomer, Nv Neyer ovTos ava- 
araow yevécOat, ore dn yéyovev ep ois 
EXOMEV TEKVOLS, Kal avicTapeOa Ceo ére- 
yvexores adnO7n, Tertull. de Res. Carn. 
19 ‘Nacti quidam sollemnissimam 
eloquii prophetici formam, allegorici 
et figurati, non tamen semper, resur- 
rectionem quoque mortuorum mani- 
feste annuntiatam in imaginariam 
significationem distorquent etc.,’ with 
the following chapters. 

From this doctrine the antinomian 
Gnostics deduced two consequences; 
(1) That the defilement of the flesh is 
a matter of indifference, provided 
that the spirit has grasped the truth. 
Against this error is directed the 
warning Hermas Szm. v. 7 tv odpka 
gov TavTnv puAacce Kkabapay Kai dpiav- 
Tov, iva TO TVEdPAa TO KaTEVoLKOUY ép 
aut paptupnon avtn Kal duxacwq 
gov oap&: Brere pyrore avaBy emt 


6 ode] A; otre C. 


THY KapOlavy Gov TY Gapka Gov Tar- 
thy POaprhy eivac kal mapaxpnon 
QUT €v wlagee@ TLvi KT.A. So too 
Ps.-Ign. Tars. 2 érepor dé [A€yovow] 
OTL 4 Gapé avtn ovK éyeiperat, Kal Cet 
droAavotikov Biov (Hy Kal pervévat. 
see also Orig. ¢.. Ceés. v.2225, - eats 
practical consequence our writer 
seems to have distinctly in view §§ 85 
g. (2) That it is legitimate to decline 
martyrdom and to avoid persecution 
by a denial of Christ with a mental 
reservation. Rightly or wrongly this 
charge is constantly brought against 
them by their antagonists. Thus 
Agrippa Castor, writing against Basi- 
lides (Euseb. H.£. iv. 7), represented 
him as teaching ddsadopety cidwAo0bv- 
T@y amoyevopévous Kal e&opvupevous 
admapadvAdktos THY mioTW KaTa TOUS 
Tov Oiwypev Kaipovs: and Iren. Haer. 
ii. 18. 5 ‘Ad tantam temeritatem pro- 
gressi sunt quidam ut etiam martyres 
spernant et vituperent eos qui prop- 
ter Domini confessionem occiduntur 
etc.’ (comp: 1. 24. 6). “This is‘atcon- 
stant charge in Tertullian. See on 
this subject Ritschl Althath. Kirche 
p- 495 sq. This view again seems to 
be combated by our writer, S$ 4, 5, 
7, 10. 

Schwegler Nachapf. Zeittalt. 1. p. 
453 Sq maintained that the expres- 
sion in our text is directed against 
docetic Ebionism. He is well re- 
futed by Hilgenfeld Afost. Vat. 
purrs sq: 

7. ev rim] ‘ix what, not ‘zn 
whom, as the following «7 py ev r7 
capki shows. 

aveBdeWate| ‘ye recovered your 
sight’; comp. § I rova’rns adyAvos 
yémovres ev TH Opacer aveBAEWaper K.T.A, 


230 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [1x 


an oy e = € \ “~ / \ 7 
dei ovv iuas ws vaov Oceov duvdracoew thy capKa’ 
c\ / \ ? ~ \ 2 J \ 2 Lge 
ov Tpomov yap ev TH oapKt éxAnOnTe, Kal év TH 
\ ? / > \ € / € / 
capkt édevoecbe. et Xpirtos 6 Kupios, 6 cwoas 
an \ \ \ - a) / \ 
NPGS, WY MEV TO TPWTOV TVEUMA, EYyEvEeTO TapE Kat 
J ~ / cf \ ~ / ~~ 
OUTWS Mas ExahETEV, OUTWS Kal Hels EV Ta’TH THS 
capkt admoAnWoucba Tov picbov. dyarwpuev ovv ad- 


/ e/ af / > \ / “~ 
AnAous, O7ws EAOwuEv TavyTeEs Els THY BactirElay TOU 


Oeouv. 


¢ of A ~ > ~ an) 
ws Eyouev Kaipov Tov tabyvat, émidwpev Eéav- 


2 kal év TH capkl...6 cdoas] AC; e¢ tx carne venit christus dominus (noster), 
unus existens, ts gut salvavit S. This may be explained by the obliteration of some 


letters, so that éXevcec@e was read eX...e, and translated as if 7\Oe. 


cecbe| eXevcecOar A. 
note. 

change. 
carne S Timoth Fragm-Syr. 


I. ws vaov Geov x.7.A.]| See Ign. 
Philad.'7 thv cdpka vpav ws vaoy Geod 
Tnpeire: Comp. I Cor. ili. 16, 17, Vi. 
19, 2 Cor. vi. 16, and see Ign. Ephes. 
g. 15 (with the notes). 

3. édevoecOe] Not, I think, eis 
Tv Baoweiay Tov Geodv, as Harnack 
takes it, but eis rnv kpiow. 

el Xpiotos x.t.A.] The reading ei 
for eis, now supported by ample 
authority, is evidently required by 
the context. Mill and others would 
have read ws, which gives the same 
sense. Editors quote as a parallel 
Ign. Magn. 7 cis éativ Incods Xpioros, 
but eis is quite out of place here, 
though appropriate there where the 
writer is dwelling on wnzty. It is 
possible that the reading of A 
€IC arose out of EIIC i.e. ef "Inaois, 
or €IOIC i.e. ef 6 "Incovs. The confu- 
sion would be easier, as the preceding 
word ends in €. 

4. ov péev| As though the sentence 
were intended to be continued in a 
participial form yevomevos dé. 

TO mpatoy mvevpa| The doctrine 
of the pre-existence of the Son, as 


3 €dev- 


ei] Fragm Syr; efs ACS Timoth: see the lower 
4 mvedua] AS; doyos C: see above, I. p. 125, for the motive of this 
éyéveto] AC; add. 6¢ S Timoth Fragm-Syr. 


kat otrws] A; Kal ovrws kal C. 


capé] AC; ix 
5 ékd- 


the Logos, is here presented in a 
somewhat unusual form ; comp. how- 
ever Hermas Szm. v. 6 76 mvetpa TO 
aylov, TO Mpoov, TO KTicay Tacay THY 
KTiow, Katdkirevy 0 Geos eis oapka hy 
eBovdeTo, 1X. I ékeivo yap TO mvedpa 
0 vids Tov Geod é€ativ, Theoph. ad Au- 
tol. ii. 10 obros otv Oy mvedpua Ceod Kal 
apx7 Kai copia kai dvvayis vpiorov 
KaTypxeTo eis Tous mpopytas kai Ov 
avrov éhdAet «.7.A., Tertull. adv. Mare. 
ill. 16 ‘spiritus Creatoris qui est 
Christus,’ Hippol. c. /Voet. 4 (p. 47 
Lagarde) Adyos capE jv, mvedpa jy, 
Svvapis Hv k.7.A. See especially Dor- 
ner Lehre von der Person Christz 1. 
p- 205 sq. 

8. ws exouev Karpov] ‘while we 
have opportunity’: comp. Gal. vi. 10 
(with the note), Ign. Smyrna. 9 os 
€rt kaipov €youev. Another instance 
of ws, ‘whzle, occurs above, § 8. 

10. mpoyveorns| Justin AZfol. i. 44 
(p. 82 B), Tatian ad Graec. 19, Theoph. 
ad Autol. ii. 15. 

II. ta ev xapdia] 2 Chron. xxxil. 31 
eidevat Ta ev TH Kapdia avrov, Deut. 
Vili. 2 dtayvao6n ra é€v tH Kapdia cov, 


Ix] AN 


ANCIENT HOMILY. 


231 


Tous T@ OeparrevovTi Ocw, avTmicbiay aiT@ SidovTes: 


moiav; TO meTavonoa 退 eEldKpLVoUs Kapdias* Tp0- 


/ / > a Is \ 5) \ ~ \ 
yuwoTns yap éoTW TwY TavTwWY Kal EldWS uwY TA 


> , 
€V Kapoia. 


= > a > NM 3 \ \ 
Owuev ovv avT@ aivov aiwyov, pn aro 


/ / 5) \ \ p) N / ef € a 
GTouMaTos povov a@\Aa Kal amo Kapdias, iva nuas 


/ e e , 
MpoooeenTat ws vious. 


‘AAEADOI MOY OYTO! EICIN Of TOIOfNTEC 


TATPOC MOY. 


\ A s 
Kal yao €elTEV O 


Kvpuos: 


TO O€AHMA TOF 


Aerev] AC; add. existens in carne (dv év TH capki) S, but this may be only a gloss 
of o’rws and probably does not represent any additional words in the Greek text. 


ovTws sec.] A; otTw C. 
om. C, 
tAckpivouc A. 
corde nostrum S. 
a8 13 nuas] AC; Kal quads S. 


I Sam. ix. 19,etc. Hilgenfeld reads 
Ta evkapdia, saying of A ‘évedpd:a (s. 
eykapdia) c. cod., Jun., év capdia ceteri 
edd.’ But, inasmuch as an iota sub- 
script or adscript never appears in 
MSS of this date, the transcriber could 
not have written év xapdia otherwise 
than he has done. Moreover, since év 
kapdia and ev rH Kapdia occur number- 
less times in the LXxX, whereas the 
adjective éyxapdios is not once found 
there, this reading seems to me im- 
probable. In Clem. Alex. Paed.i. 3 (p. 
103) I should be disposed conversely 
to read duop@y ra ev kapdia (for éykap- 
dia) Avyos. The word éyxapdios how- 
ever is legitimate in itself. 

12. aivov aiwvwv| This is doubtless 
the right reading; see above, I. p. 
120 and the note on evpeiv below 
§ 10. Comp. Afost. Const. iii. 1 rév 
ai@vioy ématvov. 

15. “AdeAdoi pov x.r.rA.| Matt. xii. 
49 idod n pnrnp pov kal of adedAdoi 
pov’ Oats yap ay momon TO OéAnpa TOU 
TaTpos mov TOU év ovpavois, avTos jou 
adekpos kal adeApr Kal pytnp éoriv 
(comp. Mark iii. 35) ; Luke viii. 21 


6 aroAnPiueba] arodnpouada A. 
9 TP OeparevovTt] AC; add. xzos S. 

II Ta €v Kapdla] TaevKapdia A; Ta éyKdpdia C3 ea quae in 
12 alvoyv aiwvioy] awviov (om. awov) A; aivoy (om. aidmor) 


ovv] AS; 


IO eiAtKpivods] 


15 movovvres] wouvres A. 


pntnp pov Kal adeAdoi pov ovroi cicw, 
of Tov Adyoy Tov CeEov akovoyTes Kai 
mowouvtes. Epiphanius, Waer. xxx. 14 
(p. 139), gives the saying Odroi eiow 
of adeAdoi pov kal 7 pyTnp, of moLodvTES 
ta Oednpara Tov tTaTpos pov, as it is 
assumed, from an Ebionite gospel 
(Westcott Canon p. 160, Hilgenfeld 
A post. Vat. p. 122); but I do not think 
his language implies more than that 
the Ebionites allowed the saying to 
stand in their recension of the Gos- 
pel, and he may be quoting loosely 
from the canonical Evangelists. A 
still wider divergence from the ca- 
nonical passages is in Clem. Alex. 
Ecl. Proph. 20 (p. 994) dyer oty eis 
eAevOepiay THY TOU TaTpOs DvyKANpoVo- 
fous viovs kal didous’ “AdeAdoi pov 
yap, now 6 Kuptos, kai cvykAnpovopot 
of mo.ovvtes TO Oé€Anpa Tov TaTpos 
pov, where the context shows that 
ovykAnpovopor is deliberately given as 
part of the quotation. Omitting «at 
ovykAnpovopor and inserting odroi eiow, 
it will be seen that this form of the 
saying agrees exactly with our pseudo- 
Clement’s quotation. 


232 


THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [x 


X. “Wore, ddedpot pov, momowpev To OéAnpa 


~ \ - / > / / \ 
TOU TaTpos TOU KaNETavTOS aie iva aad a Kal 


duwEwmev poaddov THY apeTny, Thy O€ Kaklay KaTa- 


AEiVwuEev ws Tpoovoimopov Tw GUAPTLOY MOY, Kal 


1 ddeApol ov] A; ddeApol (om. ov) C; aded@ol kal ddekpat [uov] S. On the 


uncertainty respecting the pronoun in S in such cases see below, § 13. 


X. ‘Let us therefore fulfil the will 
of our Father. Let us flee from vice, 
lest evil overtake us. Let us do good, 
that peace may pursueus. They who 
teach the fear of men rather than the 
fear of God, are duly punished. And, 
if they themselves alone suffered, it 
were tolerable. But now they shall 
have a double condemnation, for they 
lead others besides themselves into 
ruin.’ 

2. iva (yoopev] To be connected 
not with rod cadéoavros nas, but with 
TOLNT OLED. 

4. tmpoodoimopov] ‘a forerunner’; 
for xaxia is the evil disposition, while 
dpapria is the actual sin. On kakia 
see Trench JV. 7. Sym. 1st ser. § xi, 
where he quotes the definition of 
Calvin (on Ephes. iv. 32) ‘ Azzmz 
pravitas quae humanitati et aequitati 
est opposita et malignitas vulgo nun- 
cupata.’ The substantive mpoodoimo- 
pos seems to be very rare, though the 
verb mpoodouropety occurs occasion- 
ally. 

6. dyaboraeiv| See the note on 
the First Epistle § 2 dya@omo:iar. 

7. tevpeivt] sc. eipnyny ; ‘ For this 
reason aman cannot find peace. If 
we take the reading of the Greek MSS, 
no other meaning seems possible ; 
but it can hardly be correct. Yet 
this must have been the reading of 
S, which translates ‘on est homint 
(cuiguam) invenire homines tllos gui 
faciunt timorem humanumy as if the 
construction were ovk éoriy avOpwrov 
evpeiv (éxetvous) otrives «.7.A.; but for 


eras ‘gui faciunt, ought we not 


4 ™po- 


to read prasa ‘gui transeunt, 


thus more closely representing mapa- 
youat, which however it mistranslates? 
Previous editors have supposed the 


error to lie in dvO@pwmor, written AN ON 


in the Ms. Accordingly ANON (i.e. 
iy Gedv) has been suggested by Wot- 
ton ; OYNON (i.e. ovpavdv) by Davies; 
and AINON (aivov) by Hilgenfeld. 
But in the first correction the a is 
grammatically inexplicable ; and the 
second and third give unnatural ex- 
pressions. I believe the mistake is 
in €YPEIN, and should suggest 
G€IPHNHNEYPEIN or EIPHNEYEIN, 
or still better E€YHMEPEIN. If 
evnuepew ‘to prosper’ be adopted, 
the writer seems to have in mind 
Ps. xxxiv. 9 sq hoBnOnre tov Ku- 
.OUK €OTLY VOTEPHUAa TOLS 
poBovupevors .poBov Ku- 
plov diddéw tas. tis éorw avOpwmos 
6 bov Conv, dyarav nuépas idetv 
dyads 3...€kkALvoy amo kakov kal 
moinaov ayabov, (ytncov eipnyny 
kai Siw@~ov avtny, where the coinci- 
dences are striking. The contrast 
between the fear of men and the fear 
of God, which underlies this passage, 
would naturally suggest to our author 
the words in which the Psalmist em- 
phatically preaches the fear of the 
Lord. For evnpepeiv, evnwepia, Comp. 
2 Macc. v. 6, viii. 8, x. 28, xll. 11, xiii. 
16, xiv. 14. For the manner in which 
the transcriber of our principal MS 
drops letters (more especially where 
there is a proximity of similar forms) 
comp. 


, 
ploy martes.. 
/ 
avuTov.. 


S$ g awmov for aivoy aiwnor, 


x] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 


5 puywpev THy doeBeay, py Has KaTadaBy Kaka. 


233 


9 \ 
EaV 


\ / > ~ ’ e ~ > / 
yap orovdacwpev ayabororeiv, dw EeTar nuas eipyyn. 


\ / \ \ > / 9 a4 ¢€ ~ of 
Awa tTavTnv yap Thy aitiavy ovK éotw Tevpet av- 


odolropov] AC; proditorem (as if rpodérnv) S. This rendering again may be due to 


the obliteration of some letters in the word. 


6 yap] AS; dé C. 


mouvvreo for movovytes, § 11 acovk for 
as ovs ovx. See also in the First 
Epistle § 11 erepoyywpoo, § 25 Te- 
AeutnKoTOG, § 32 nuepac (for nuerépas), 
etc., and (if my conjecture be correct) 
S 40 the omission of éemipedos before 
emitedetc Oa. Lipsius (Academy July 
eeet070; comp. /en.-L27., 13 Jan. 
1877) would read ovx éorw eipnvn 
avOporrots oiruves k.T.A. 

Hilgenfeld (ed. 2, pp. xlvili, 77) 
supposes that there is a great lacuna 
at this point ovk gor evpeiv avOpa- 
mov | oitwes tmrapayovow doBovs av- 
Opwmwovs x.7-A. In this lacuna he 
finds a place not only for this quota- 
tion in the so-called John of Da- 
mascus (see above, I. p. 194 sq), but 
also for the reference to the Sibyl in 
Pseudo-Justin which I have discussed 
already (I. p. 178 sq). This theory 
however seems highly improbable for 
the following reasons. 

(1) Though there is good reason 
for assuming that the existing text 
is faulty at this point, the external 
facts are altogether adverse to the 
supposition that a great lacuna exists 
here, such for instance as would be 
produced by the disappearance of 
one or more leaves in an archetypal 
Ms. Such an archetypal MS must 
have been of very ancient date, for 
all our three extant authorities (see 
above, I. p. 145) have the same text 
here. It is not indeed impossible 
that this archetypal MS should have 
been defective, seeing that the com- 
mon progenitor of ACS certainly had 
minor corruptions. But though pos- 
sible in itself, this supposition is 


apaptiov] A; duaprnuarev C, 


hardly consistent with other facts. 
It is highly improbable that a long 
passage which had disappeared thus 
early should have been preserved in 
any MS accessible to the Pseudo- 
Damascene, or even to the Pseudo- 
Justin. Moreover the enumeration 
of verses in the Stichometria of Ni- 
cephorus seems to have been made 
when the epistle was of its present 
size, and is not adapted to a more 
lengthy document. In the colophon 
at the end of the Second Epistle (see 
above, I. p. 122) C gives oriyor x’, 
pnta xe. As Nicephorus (see I. p. 
196) gives the numbers of oriyou in 
the two Clementine Epistles as ,By’, 
Bryennios supposes that x’ here is 
an error for By’, the ,Bhaving dropped 
out. But, as Hilgenfeld himself has 
pointed out, as the pyra, or scriptural 
quotations, are given as 25, this must 
refer to the Second Epistle alone. 
When counted up, they do in fact 
amount to 25, one or two more or less, 
for it is difficult in some cases to de- 
cide whether to reckon the quotations 
separately or not. The 600 verses 
therefore must refer to the Second 
Epistle alone. I may add that this 
agrees with the reckoning of Ni- 
cephorus, which giving 2600 to the 
Two Epistles leaves 2000 for the 
First. Thus the proportion of the 
First Epistle to the Second is roughly 
as'2000°:/600, or asS-Io °3;) In“my 
translation the two Epistles take up 
respectively 344+ and 10% pages, these 
numbers being almost exactly as 
10: 3. 

(2) Again; though the two frag- 


234 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [x 


Oowrov, oltwes mapayovor poBous avOpwrivous, mpon- 
pnwevou uadrAov thy évOade atoAavow THY MéAXOU- 
cay érayyeNlav. adyvoovew yap rAikny exer Bacavov 
7 evOade amoXNavols, Kal olay Tpugny Exel 1) U“eANOVTA 
érayyeNla. Kal €l Mev aUTOL ovo. Tav’TAa Erpacco), 
aveKTOV 7v° vuv Oe émluévovoly KakodLloacKaNourTEs 


\ 5) id U4 5) > le v4 \ e/ 
Tas dvaitious Wuyas, ovK eEldoTes OTL Otoonv E€ovaLY 


\ / / \ e , a“ 
THY KPLOLVY, QUTOL TE KAL OL AKOVOVTES aUTWV, 


SB 


¢ a> ‘s 2 co if / 
Huets ovv é€v kabapa Kapdia dovAevowpev 


I mponpnuévor] mpoapoduefa AC. S translates, as if it had read mpoatpovmevo., 


which was also conjectured by Bryennios. 
mriknv] nrnknv A. 
5 emayyeria] emayyedea A. 


3 émayyeNtav] erayyedeav A. 
dvamavows C. 


2 amod\avow] AS; dvdmavow C, 
4 amédavots] AS; 
6 dvexrov jv] AC; S 


translates evat its fortasse respiratio, but this probably does not represent any 


ments which Hilgenfeld would assign 
to this lacuna are not incongruous in 
subject, yet the sentiments in the 
extant context on either side of the 
supposed lacuna are singularly appro- 
priate to one another, and in this 
juxtaposition seem to have been 
suggested by the language of Ps. 
Xxxlv. 9 sq quoted in my note. 

(3) The style of the fragment quoted 
by the Pseudo-Damascene betrays a 
different hand from our author’s, Its 
vocabulary is more _ philosophical 
(xaOoXov, Ta evKTa, UmOGecis Kal VAN, 
TadonTaota, kat evxnv), and altogether 
it shows more literary skill. 

The probable account of the quo- 
tations in the Pseudo-Justin and in 
the Pseudo-Damascene is given above 
(I. p. 178 sq, 194 sq). 

I. otrives] ‘men who, the antece- 
dent being the singular dvOpazov. 
This grammatical irregularity is not 
uncommon : see Jelf’s Gramm. § 819. 
Bsa 

mapayovot k.7.A.| ‘2troduce (instil) 
fears of men’: comp. § 4 ov dei 
npas poBetcOa rovs avOpwmovs paddov 
adda tov Geov. The passages in the 


lexicons will show that Hilgenfeld’s 
correction maperoayovaor for mapayouot 
is unnecessary. He rightly explains 
the words (Afost. Vat. p. 118) to refer 
to those Gnostics who taught that 
outward conformity to heathen rites 
was indifferent and that persecution 
might thus be rightly escaped: comp. 
kaxodtOackadourtes below, and see the 
note above on § 9 avrn 7 capé x.r.X. 

3. é€mayyediay| i.e. the subject, 
the fulfilment, of the promise, as e.g. 
Acts i. 4, Gal. iii. 14, Heb. vi. 15. 

6. advexrov nv] For the imperfect 
see Winer § xlii. p. 321. 

kaxoO.oackadovrvres| Ign. Phzlad. 2 
kakxoO.OackaAias. So kadodidackadous, 
To at ae 

7. Owonv «r.A.] For the form 
of the sentence comp. Gen. xliii. 11 
kal TO dpyvpuoy duooov AdBere. Comp. 
Apost. Const. v. 6 kai €érépows airoe 
dmadelas yevnooueOa kai Sdurdorépay 
vToigopmev THY Tit. 

XI. ‘Let us therefore serve God 
and believe His promise. If we wa- 
ver, we are lost. Remember how the 
word of prophecy denounces the dis- 
trustful, how it compares the fulfil- 


x1] 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 230 


~ ~ \ / , \ \ \ 
10TH Oew, Kal éoopueba Sixaor éav dé py SovrAEVow- 


A ~ \ / e ~ ~ > / - 
fev Oia TOU pH TioTEVELY Tuas ™ emayyeNia Tov 
rod , / , \ 
Ocov, Tarairwpor éxoucOa. éyer yap Kal 7 0- 
\ , 
QnTiKos Aoyos' 


ZONTEC TH KapAIAd, O| A€ronTec’ Tata tANTA HKOYCAMEN 


Tadaitw@pol eicin of Alyyyol, of AicTa- 


Kal €Tl TON TATépON HM@N, HMeic Aé HMEépan @Z Hmédac 
TIPOCAEXOMENO! OYAEN TOYTWN EwpdKameN. “ANGHTOI, CYM- 
BaAdeTe €ayToYc ZYAw, AdBeTE AmmTEAON’ TIP@TON MEN YA- 


> 3 ‘ ' a ey 3 
AOpOE!, E€1ITA BAaACTOC TINETAI, META TAYTA OMOMAZ, EITA 


different Greek. 7 avaitious] avetiovo A. 10 sq dovAevowmuev bia Tod 


bh muorevew x.7.d.] A; Sovdevowmer did 7d wy MuoTedew K.T.r. C3 TisTevowpmev, Sida 


TO Oety misreverv K.T.r. S. 
S. 14 wavTa] A; mada CS. 

ACs: om. S. ert] AC; azo S. 
As; pvddoppoe C. 


ment of God’s purpose to the gradual 
ripening of the fruit on the vine, how 
it promises blessings at the last to 
His people. God is faithful and He 


~ will perform. Let us therefore work 


patiently, and we shall inherit such 
good things as pass man’s under- 
standing.’ 

9. xaOapa xapdia] I Tim. i. 5, 2 
Tim. ii. 22 (comp. Matt. v. 8), Her- 
mas 7s. iii. 9. 

12. 6 mpodytixos Aoyos| See 2 Pet. 
i. 19. From some apocryphal source, 
perhaps Eldad and Modad: see the 
notes on the First Epistle § 23, where 
also the passage is quoted. The va- 
riations from the quotation in the 
First Epistle are these: (1) r7 xapdia] 
Thy Yuxnv (2) wavra] om. (3) mpeis 
O€...€apdxapev| Kat idod yeynpaxapev 
kat ovdev nuiy tovTav ovvBéBnKkev (4) 
avontot] @ avonro. (5) yiverac] add. 
eira vAXov, eira GvOos Kal. (6) ot- 
Ts kal k.T.A.] this close of the quota- 
tion not given. These variations are 
sufficient to show that the writer of 
the Second Epistle cannot have de- 
rived the passage solely from the 


12 Tadalmrwpo] AC; vere (ddnOGs or dvTws) miseri 
nKkovoauev] A; AKovouev CS. 


15 Kai] 


17 per] AC; om, S. pudrXopoet] 


18 wera Tatra] AS; efra C. 


First. At the same time the coinci- 
dence of two remarkable quotations 
in this very chapter (see below on ods 
OUK 7kKovcev K.T.A.), Which occur also 


.in the First Epistle, besides other 


resemblances (e.g. § 3), seems to 
prove that our writer was acquainted 
with and borrowed from the genuine 
Clement. 

The additions which some editors 
introduce into the text here (vioi 
after nuets dé, and ém after éwpa- 
kayev) are due to a mistake. The 
traces, which they have wrongly so 
read in A, are the reversed impres- 
sions of letters on the opposite leaf 
(now lost). The photograph shows 
this clearly. 

15. mmepav €& juepas] ‘day after 
day’: Num. xxx. 15, 2 Pet. ii. 8. This 
additional coincidence of the passage 
quoted with the language of 2 Peter 
(see the notes on the First Epistle, 
§ 23) is worthy of notice. It seems 
hardly possible that the two can be 
wholly independent, though we have 
no means of determining their rela- 
tion. 


236 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [x1 


CTAPYAH TAPECTHKYIA’ OYTWC Kal 6 AddC MOY AKATACTACIAC 
KAl BAlwelc EcyeN’ EmmeitTA ATIOAHWETAI TA ArABd. “Wore, 
ddedpot pov, wy Supvy@uev, d\Aa EAmioayTEs VIrO- 
pelvwpuev, iva Kal Tov pucOov KomiowpucOa, mictdc rap 
ectin 6 émtarrei\dmenoc Tas avTyucOias amodiovar éxa- 
oTwW TMV Epywy avTOU. éav ovy ToLTwpEV THY OlKal- 


/ > / a la > / > \ / 
ocurny évavTiov Tov OEov, evcanEopuev ers THY Bacirelav 


1 orapvat] AS; Bdracrds C. 
emita A. 3 adda] adr’ C. 
ovk HKovcey ovd€ dPOaduds eldev] AC 
vidit et auris non audivit (transposing 
1 Cor. iii. 9, and in Clem. Rom. 34. 


3. py Supvxdpev] See the note on 
the First Epistle § 11. 

4. muoros yap «t.A.] Heb. x. 23 
motos yap O emayyeapevos. 

5. amodiova éxaor@ x.t.d.] Matt. 
sis 27) Rom: 11.6, Rev. xxii. 12.. See 
also the quotation given in the First 
Epistle, § 34. 

7. elonéouev| ‘Vocem eionkew non 
agnoscunt lexica’, Jacobson. It oc- 
curs as early as Aé®schylus, and 
several instances of it are given in 
Steph. Thes. 

8. ovs «.7.A.] See the note on the 
First Epistle § 34, where the same 
passage occurs. The as should not 
be treated as part of the quotation. 

XII. ‘Let us then patiently wait 
for the kingdom of God. The time 
of its coming is uncertain. Our Lord’s 
answer to Salome says that it shall 
be delayed till #he two shall be one, 
and the outward as the inward, and 
the male with the female, netther 
male nor female. By this saying He 
means that mutual harmony must 
first prevail, that there be perfect 
sincerity, and that no sensual pas- 
sion be harboured.’ 

11. Ka@ wpayr| ‘ detzmes,’ ‘tempes- 
tive,’ according to its usual meaning ; 
e.g. Job v. 26, Zech. x. 1. It is com- 


6 Aads pov] AC; add. rparov S. 


2 érera] 
8 ovs 


4 wa] AC; om. S. 


(but A acovxk for acovcouk) ; oculus non 
the clauses) S. This latter is the order in 


g eldev] dev A. 12 é€me.dn] 


monly translated here ‘in horas’, 
‘from hour to hour’. 

13. empavetas] This word, as a 
synonyme for the wapovoia, occurs in 
the New Testament only in the Pas- 
toral Epistles, 1 Tim. vi. 14, 2 Tim. 
i. 10, iv. 1, 8, Tit. ii. 13; compare the 
indirect use in 2 Thess. ii. 8 ry emua- 
veia THS Tapoucias avToU. 

14. vmod twos| By Salome. This 
incident was reported in the Gospel 
of the Egyptians, as we learn from 
Clem. Alex. S¢vom. iii. 13, p. 553 (in 
a passage quoted from Julius Cassi- 
anus), where the narrative is given 
thus: muvOavouévns THs Tadopns, ToTeE 
yvocOnoerar Ta TEpt av npeTo, en O 
Kupwos, “Orav ro ths aicxvyns evdupa 
TaTnonre, Kal Grav yévnrat Ta Svo EY, 
kat TO appev peta Tihs Ondeias ovTeE 
dppev ovre Onrv. To this Clement 
adds év trois mapadeSopévors nuiv TET- 
rapow evayyediows ovK €xouev TO pyTOoV 
GAN év to Kar’ Alyumriovs. Similar 
passages from this gospel and ap- 
parently from the same context are 
quoted by Clement previously, Szvom. 
iii. 6 (p. 532) rH Zarwoun o Kupros 
muvOavopévn péxpt mote Oavatos ioxv- 
oet...Méxpis ay, elev, pets ai yuvaikes 
rikrere, and Strom. iii. 9 (p- 539 Sq) 


> - , A A , > 
kakelva éyovot Ta mpos Tar@pny et- 


xu] 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 


20% 


~ \ , \ / et > ” 
avtTov kat Anv\voueba Tas érayyeNias, as ofc o¥k Hkoy- 
CEN OYAE GHOAAMOC EIAEN, OYAE ETT) KAPAIAN ANOPHTTOY 


> ’ 
IO ANEBH. 


XII. 


"Exdeywuela ovv kal wpav tHv Bacidelay 


~ a > 9 / \ / > \ > of 
Tov Oeov év dyarn kal Sixaocvvy, éredy ovK ol- 


} \ € / an ’ 7 a a 
auev THY nuEpayv THs Emipavelas Tov OéeEov. 


ETEpw- 


\ \ > \ € / € / / e/ 
TnYeis yao avtos 6 Kupios vo twos, mote te 


A; émei C, or so probably S. 
AC; avrod S. 


13 émidavelas] emipaviac A. 
erepwTnbeis] A; épwrnfels C. 


TOU Ged] 
14 vd twos] AC; add. 


Tav admooréAwy S. The addition is unfortunate, for the questioner was Salome; see 


the lower note. 


pnueva, dv mpdorepov €uynaOnuev (Strom. 
lil. 6, Just quoted)* @éperar Se, otuat, 
ev T@ kat Aiyurtious evayyedio’® pact 
yap ore avros eimev 6 owtnp, "HdOov 
katadvoat Ta épya THs Ondeias...dev 
ELKOT@S Trepl GuYTEAELas pnViGaYToOS TOU 
Adyov, 7 Tateun pyoi* Méype rivos oi 
avOpwoto. damroOavotvra ;...aparernpn- 
pévas amoxpiverat 6 Kupwos, Méxpis 
ay tikrwow ai yuvaixes...ti Sé; ovyit Kal 
ta €&fs ToHv mpos Tadr@pny cipnuévav 
emipepovow oi mavta wadXov 7) TO Kara 
Tv adnOevay evayyeAK@ oToLynoayres 
Kavovt; pawevns yap avrns, Kadas otvy 
eroinoa my TeKovoa...dueiBerar éyav 
o Kuptos, Tacav gaye Bordvny, rnv de 
miKpiav €xovoav wi payns. One of the 
sayings in the last passage is again re- 
ferred toin Exc. Theod. 67,p.985, orav 
0 G@TNP Tpos Saropny héyn péxpe TOTE 
elvan Oavaroy axpis av ai yuvaikes Tikrw- 
ow. ‘There is nothing in these pas- 
sages to suggest that Clement himself 
had read this gospel (unless indeed, 
as has occurred to me, we should 
read ri S€ ovyi x«.7.A.; for ri dé; ody? 
k.t.A. in Stvom. ili. 9), and the ex- 
pressions Aéyovor, oifuat, daci, seem 
to imply the contrary; though it is 
generally assumed that he was ac- 
quainted with it. Of the historical 
value of this narrative we may remark: 
(1) The mystical colouring of these 
sayings is quite alien to the character 


ner] AC; venzt (a present) S. 


of our Lord’s utterances as reported in 
the authentic Gospels, though entirely 
in keeping with the tone of Greco- 
Egyptian speculation. Epiphanius 
thus describes this apocryphal gospel 
(Haer. \xii. 2, p. 514) woAda roratra ws 
ev TapaBvoT@ pvoTNpLwdes ek Mpoowmov 
Tov cwTHpos avapepera. (2) The only 
external fact which can be tested— 
the reference to Salome as childless— 
is in direct contradiction to the cano- 
nical narratives. This contradiction 
however might be removed by an 
easy change of reading, cadés ody ay 
€moinoa for kadés ovv éroinoa. The 
Egyptian Gospel was highly esteem- 
ed by certain Gnostic sects as the 
Ophites (Hippol. Haer. v. 7, p. 99), 
by the Encratites (Clem. Alex. Strom. 
ll. cc.), and by the Sabellians Epi- 
phan. Haer. l.c.). The Encratites 
especially valued it, alleging the pas- 
sages above quoted as discounte- 
nancing marriage and thus favouring 
their own ascetic views. This was 
possibly the tendency of the Egyp- 
tian Gospel, as is maintained by 
Schneckenburger (Ueber das Evang. 
der A-gypt. Bern 1834, p. 5 sq) and 
Nicolas (Evangiles Apocryphes p. 
119 sq); but the inference is at least 
doubtful. Clement of Alexandria 
refuses to accept the interpretations 
of the Encratites ; and though his own 


238 


THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


[x11 


9 ~ e / s ¢ »” A , a \ \ 
avTou 4 PBacirela, eimev* “Otan éctai TA AYO EN, Kal TO 


€Zm Gc TO é@cw, Kal TO APCEN META TAC OHAElAC, OYTE 


APCEN oyTEe OAAY. 


' ' \ o e/ a 
Ta Ayo O€ én €or, STav AadAw- 


e qn > / \ b \ / ’ / 
pev éavTois adAnOeav, Kal év Oval cwuaciy avvTroKpi- 


If / / \ 
Tws Ein pla Woyn. Kal 


I sq 70 &w ws 70 €ow] AS; ra fw ws Ta eow C. 
4 €aurois] C; avras A; nobis S, which represents 


3 dvo dé] A; dé dv0 C. 


are sometimes fanciful, still all the 
passages quoted may reasonably be 
explained otherwise than in an En- 
cratite sense. 

This quotation has a special inter- 
est as indicating something of the 
unknown author of our Second Epi- 
stle. As several of his quotations 
cannot be referred to the canonical 
Gospels (see §§ 4, 5, 8), it seems not 
unnatural to assign them to the apo- 
cryphal source which in this one in- 
stance he is known to have used. 
This suspicion is borne out by a fact 
to which I have called attention 
above. One of our Lord’s sayings 
quoted by him (§ 9) bears a close 
resemblance to the words as given in 
the Excerpta Theodotz,; and we have 
just seen that the Gospel of the 
Egyptians was quoted in this collec- 
tion. Thus our pseudo-Clement 
would seem to have employed this 
apocryphal gospel as a_ principal 
authority for the sayings of our Lord. 

3. Ta dvo dé &] i.e. when peace 
and harmony shall reign. So the 
opposite is thus expressed in Seneca 
de Ira iii. 8 ‘Non tulit Caelius adsen- 
tientem et exclamavit, Dzc aliquid 
contra, ut duo simus’; comp. Plato 
Symp. 191 D 0 €pas...emiyetpov Tmoijoa 
év ex Ovotv kal idcacOa thy pvow thy 
dvOperivny (quoted by Lagarde Fel. 
Fur. Eccl. p. 75). 

4. éavrois| ‘to one another, as 
e.g. Ephes. iv. 32, Col. iii. 13, 16, 
1 Pet. iv. 8, 10. If the reading of 


To €20 wc TO €cw, TOUTOS 


2 Onrelas] Onvac A. 


the MSS be correct, it must be aspi- 
rated avrots, and this form is perhaps 
less unlikely than in the earlier and 
genuine epistle (see the notes there 
on §§ 9, 12, 14, etc.). The expression 
occurs in Ephes. iv. 25 Aadeire ahn- 
Gevay ExaoTos peta TOU TANTIoy avTov. 
5. to ea ws to éow] Perhaps 
meaning originally ‘when the outside 
corresponds with the inside, when men 
appear as they are, when there is no 
hypocrisy or deception.’ The pseudo- 
Clement’s interpretation is slightly 
but not essentially different. This 
clause is omitted in the quotation of 
Julius Cassianus (S¢vom. ill. 13, p. 
553, quoted above), who thus appears 
to have connected ra dvo év closely 
with ro appev peta ths Ondelas and in- 
terpreted the expression similarly. 
See Hippol. Haer. v. 18 (p. 173 sq) 
Kal €or apoevoOnAvs Svvapis Kat éri- 
vota, d0ev GhAnAoLs avTicTOLYoDGW...ev 
OVTES...€0TLY OUY OUTS Kal TO havev am 
avTa@y, ev ov, dvo evpioxer Oar, aprevdbn- 
Aus €xov tHv Ondevay ev éavT@, a pas- 
sage quoted by this father from the 
Great Announcement of the Simo- 
nians. We may perhaps infer from 
a comparison of Cassianus’ quotation 
with our pseudo-Clement’s, that Cas- 
sianus strung together detached sen- 
tences, omitting all that could not be 
interpreted to bear on his Encratite 
views. Compare pseudo-Linus de 
Pass. Petr. Apost. (Bigne’s Magn. 
Bibl. Pair. \. p. 72 E) ‘Unde Domi- 
nus in mysterio dixerat: Si non fece- 


x11] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 


239 


/ A \ 7 \ / \ \ sf A lal 

Aeyer* THyv Wuynv Neyer TO Eow, TO SE EEW TO CH- 

, ra 7 oy \ ~ e/ 

pa Neyer. Ov TOTO OvY Gov TO GHA HaiveTat, ov- 
wie / ~ /} > a ~ J 

Tws Kat 1 Vuxn cov Ondos ExTw év Tots KaXoIs Epryots. 


\ \ a \ A U m” » ” A 
KQ@i TO APCEN META THC OHAEIAC, OYTE APCEN OYTE OAAY, 


€QUTOIS. 


dvot] A; dvo C. 


6 7d ow, TO 5¢ Ew] AS; 7d dw 7d 5é Gow C. 
Q @Xelas] Onduac A. 


A; didn C. 


ritis dextram sicut sinistram et sinis- 
tram sicut dextram, et quae sursum 
sicut deorsum et quae ante sicut 
retro, non cognoscetis regnum Dei,’ 
which ‘appears to contain another 
version of this saying’ (Westcott 
Introd. to Gospels p. 427). 

8. d7dos| The lexicons give only 
one instance of this feminine, Eurip. 
Med. 1197 SXos Hv Kataoracts. Com- 
pare réXevoy in Ign. Phzlad. 1. 

Q. Kal TO dpoev x.t.A.] This sup- 
posed saying of our Lord was inter- 
preted by Julius Cassianus, as for- 
bidding marriage. Whether this was 
its true bearing, we cannot judge, as 
the whole context and the character 
of this gospel are not sufficiently 
known. It might have signified no 
more than that ‘in the kingdom of 
heaven there is neither marrying nor 
giving in marriage (Matt. xxii. 30),’ 
or that the distinctive moral excellen- 
ces of each sex shall belong to both 
equally. Clement of Alexandria, an- 
swering Julius Cassianus, gives thefol- 
lowing interpretation of the passage: 
The male represents @upds, the female 
emtOupia, according to the well-known 
Platonic distinction; these veil and 
hinder the operations of the reason; 
they produce shame and repentance; 
they must be stripped off, before the 
reason Can assume its supremacy ; 
then at length amocraca rovde rod 
oxnaTos ro) Staxpiverar TO Gppev Kal rd 
Ondrv, Wux7 petaridera eis Evoow, odbé- 
Tepov ovaa. It appears from the con- 
text that our preacher’s interpretation 


5 70 ew] ws Td Gow AC3 70 ow ws 7d eéw S. 


8 dnXos] 


7 oUTws] ovTw C. 


was more Closely allied to that of 
Cassianus than to that of Clement. 
At the same time I have shown above 
(I. p. 408) that the statements of 
Epiphanius and Jerome, who speak 
of Clement as teaching virginity, do 
not refer to this epistle, as many sup- 
pose. And the references elsewhere 
in the epistle to the duty of keeping 
the flesh pure (SS 6, 8, 9, 14, 15) are 
as applicable to continency in wedded 
as in celibate life. Comp. e.g. Clem. 
Flom. iii. 26 yawov vopmirevet...eis ay- 
velay Travras ayet. 

This saying of the Egyptian Gos- 
pel, if it had any historical basis at 
all (which may be doubted), was 
perhaps founded on some utterance 
of our Lord similar in meaning to 
S. Paul’s ovc é dpoev kai Ondv, Gal. 
ili. 28. Jt is worth observing that 
Clement of Alexandria, in explaining 
the saying of the Egyptian Gospel, 
refers to these words of S. Paul and 
explains them similarly of the @upos 
and emOupia. See also the views of 
the Ophites on the dpoevdOndvs (Hip- 
pol. Haer. v. 6, 7), whence it appears 
that they also perverted S. Paul’s lan- 
guage to their purposes. The name 
and idea of dpoevoénAvs had their 
origin in the cosmical speculations 
embodied in heathen mythology ; 
see Clem. Hom. vi. 5, 12, Clem. Re- 
cogn. 1. 69, Athenag. Suppl. 21, Hip- 
pol. Haer. v. 14 (p. 128). 

It is equally questionable whether 
the other sayings attributed to our 
Lord in this context of the Egyptian 


THE \EBISTLES “OF)-S. CLEMENT. [x11 


240 


~ / 4 b) \ > \ p) \ 99 \ ~ 
TOUTO Aé€vyel, tva adEAHOs idwy adeApny + ovdev + Ppovy 
ite / : \ ~ \ Len fit 

mept avTns OnruKov, unde Poovy TL WEpL AUTOU apoEVIKOV. 

~ ec ~ > e / 

TavTa UuwY To.ovvTwY, pyoiv, éXevoeTat 4 Baorrela 
TOU TATPOS MOV. 

> 5) i¢ 

XII. ’AdeAdot totvt On more peTavonowpev’ 

/ p) \ \ 5) / \ / b) -~ 

yywuev ert TO ayabov: perro yap éopev ToAANS 


> e a \ f 
avolas Kal rovnpias. éFaNely wer ap nuev Ta mpo- 


1 700To] After this word A is mutilated, and the remainder of the so-called 


epistle is wanting; see I. p. 117. 
add. guum soror videbit fratrem S. 
omitting ovv. 


Gospel have any bearing on Encra- 
tite views. The words ‘so long as 
women bear children’ seem to mean 
nothing more than ‘so long as the 
human race shall be propagated,’ 
and ‘I came to abolish the works of 
the female’ may have the same sense. 
The clinching utterance, racav dye 
Boravny, thy dé mxpiay eyovoay pr 
gayns, which has been alleged as 
showing decisively the Encratite ten- 
dencies of the gospel, appears to 
me to admit of a very different inter- 
pretation. It would seem to mean 
very much the same as S. Paul’s 
mavra po. ¢EeoTw GAN ov mavTa oup- 
épet, and to accord with the Apos- 
tle’s injunctions respecting marriage. 

I. ovdev] The previous editors, 
while substituting gpovn for dpovet, 
have passed over ovdéy in silence. 
But with dpovy we should certainly 
expect pydev. The reading ovdév 
can only be explained by treating 
ovdev OndvKov as a separate idea, 
‘should entertain thoughts which 
have no regard to her sex,’ so as 
to isolate ovdév from the influence of 
wa; but the order makes this ex- 
planation very difficult. The gram- 
mars do not give any example of 
the use of ov (ovdév) which is ana- 
logous; see Kuhner II p. 747 sq, 


ovdév ppovy] ovdév Ppove? C. 


2 pnde] 
5 ’AdeXdol ody] ’AdeXqoi [nov] S, 


As S commonly renders ddeAgpolt alone by ‘AN /ratres mez, it is 


Winer § lv. p. 599 sq. The sentence 
is elliptical, and words must be 
understood in the second clause, 
pnde [dade iSovca addeApoyv] porn 
x.t.A. Similar words, it will be seen, 
are supplied in the Syriac; but I 
attribute this to the exigencies of 
translation, rather than to any differ- 
ence in the Greek text which the 
translator had. Gebhardt ingeni- 
ously reads pn® nde; but 7d¢e...adrod 
does not seem a natural combination 
of pronouns here. 

3. dnoiv| It does not follow that 
the preacher is quoting the exact 
words of the Gospel according to 
the Egyptians; for @yoiv may mean 
nothing more than ‘he says in effect,’ 
‘he signifies. See e.g. Barnab. 7 
ovT@, pyar, of OéXovrés pe ety x.7.A., 
a passage which has been wrongly 
understood as preserving a saying 
of Christ elsewhere unrecorded, but 
in which the writer is really giving 
only an explanation of what has 
gone before. This use of dnow 
occurs many times elsewhere in 
Barnab. S§ 6, 10, 11, 12, where the 
meaning is indisputable. 

XIII. ‘Let us therefore repent 
and be vigilant: for now we are full 
of wickedness. Let us wipe out our 
former sins ; and not be men-pleasers. 


XIIT| 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 


241 


/ > ~ ~ 
TENA a aoT } aTa Kat ETQAVOHOQAVTES Ex UYNS owla- 
Pe apapT ny ’ xX 


pev. Kat un ywopela avOpwraperkot* unde GeXwpev 


/ ¢ a Fe 5) \ \ ~ af 5) / 
to MOvov eavTols apeoketv, aX\Aa Kat ToIs EEwW avOowrors 


él TH OtKaocovvn, iva TO dvoua OU ruas Un Brarp ~ 
1 Ny as nas py 7 

qn Yj \ 6 \ \ ee oF ' 
penta. Aéyer yap Kal O Kuptos Alia TANTOC TO GNOMA MOY 


a > an a » \ / > \ > a 
BAACMHMEITAI EN TTACIN TOIC EONECIN® KL TAALY Oyai Ar ON 


uncertain whether the translator has mov in his text. 


domini S. Nuas|] S; buds C. 
Metrar] add. 6x’ suas S. 
the lower note. 


Yet we must approve ourselves by 
our righteousness to the heathen, 
lest God’s Name be blasphemed, as 
the Scriptures warn us. And how 
is it blasphemed? When the Ora- 
cles of God command one thing, 
and we do another: for then they 
treat the Scriptures as a lying fable. 
When for instance God’s Word tells 
us to love those that hate us, and 
they find that, so far from doing 
this, we hate those that love us, 
they laugh us to scorn, and they 
blaspheme the holy Name.’ 

5. ovv] This particle cannot stand 
after the vocative, and indeed is 
omitted in the Syriac. Perhaps ody 
is a corruption of pov, as ddeAdoi 
pov Occurs several times, S$ 9, Io, 11; 
or the scribe has here tampered with 
the connecting particles, as he has 
done elsewhere (§ 7 dare odv, adedpoi 
pov), and in this case has blundered. 

6. viopev emi x.r.A.] 2 Tim. ii. 26 
dvavywouv...cis To éxeivov O€édnua, 
I Pet. iv. 7 uppare eis mpocevyas, 
Polyc. Pha. 7 unpovres pos ras evyds. 

7- e€adeiyouer] Harnack quotes 
Acts iil. 19 peravonoare ody kal 
emtatpéeware eis To €EarerhOnvar 
UmOV Tas GwapTias. 

9. avOpwmdpecxot] Ephes. vi. 6, 
Col. ili. 22. See also the note on 
avOpenapecketv Ign. Rom. 2. 

10. éavrois] ‘one another, i.e. 


CLEM. II. 


Taow]om. S. 


II TO dvoua] add. 
Ea et] S.s.oms C; 13 BA\acdgn- 
mdédw Ovai dv dv] S; 6:6 C. See 


‘our fellow-Christians,’ as rightly 
explained here by Harnack; comp. 
§ 4 €v ré dyamav éavrods, § 12 NadGper 
€avrois adnOevav, but not § 15. 

tois €€w avOpwnas| ‘the heathen. 
For the expression of ¢£@ see the 
note Colossians iv. 5. 

II. ro dvopa] ‘the Name’; so 
Tertull. Zdol. 14 ‘ne nomen blas- 
phemetur” For other instances of 
this absolute use, and for the man- 
ner in which (as here) translators 
and transcribers supply the imagined 
defect, see the note on Ign. Ephes. 3. 

12. Ava mavros x.7.A.] From the 
LXX Is. lil. 5 rade Aéyer 6 KUpios, AC 
vpas dia mavtos ro dvopd pov Pda- 
odnpuetra ev trois €6veow. The Syriac 
translator inserts 6 vuas, and omits 
maow; but these are obvious altera- 
tions to conform to the familiar Lxx 
of Isaiah. 

13. Kat mddw Oval «.7.d.] I have 
adopted the reading of the Syriac 
here, because the Greek text is 
obviously due to the accidental o- 
mission of some letters (perhaps 
owing to homeeoteleuton), a common 
phenomenon in our MS. On the 
other hand it is hardly conceivable 
that any scribe or translator could 
have invented the longer reading 
of the Syriac out of the shorter 
reading of the Greek. The Syriac 
reading however is not without its 


16 


242 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [x11 


a Py ’ / aay e 
BAAC@HMEITAL TO ONOMA MOY’ €y Tive Brac pnpetrat 3 
4 0 my mole vuas a BovAoma a €0 a 

€v TW MY a AOMQL. T eUyn Yap, 
9 lA ~ / € ~ \ , ~ wn 
QKOVOVTa €K TOU OTOMATOS HUWY TA Aoyla Tou Oceov, 


e \ 
ws Kava 
\ a 
Ta Enya 
/ 
AEVOMEV, 


kal peyada Oavpater érerta, KkaTapabdvTa 
juov OTL ovK eoTW aia TeV pnuaTeV wy 5 
evOev eis Bracpnpiav TOETOVTAL, NEVovTES 
civat puOov tia Kal mAavnv. 


e/ \ / 
OTav yao akovowow 


~ / \ 3 ’ in. 3) 9 a 
Tap nuwy OTL Neyer 0 Oeos OY yapic ymin ei draTéte 


ToYc AfaTT@NTAcC YMAC, AAAA yApic YMIN €1 APaTTATE TOYC 


1 év tiv] add. 6é S: comp. § 3. 
3 nav] S; tuor C. 


add. rére S. 


difficulty. If the first quotation Ava 
qavros «.t.A. is taken from Is. li. 
5, whence comes the second Ova 
k.7.A.2 The explanation seems to 
be, that Is. lii. 5 itself was very 
frequently quoted in the early ages 
Ovai d¢ év (or OS ov) xK7.A. (See 
instances collected in the note to 
Ign. Zrall. 8), though there is no 
authority for it either in the LXxX or 
in the Hebrew. Our preacher there- 
fore seems to have cited the same 
passage in two different forms—the 
first from the Lxx, the second from 
the familiar language of quotation— 
supposing that he was giving two 
distinct passages. 

I. évtiwe«.r.A.] This is no longer 
any part of the quotation, but belongs 
to the preacher’s explanation. He has 
however put the words into the mouth 
of God Himself, after his wont: e.g. 
§ 12 ravra jpav rovovvrwv k.T.r., § 14 
tnpnoate Thy odpka k.t.A. The read- 
ing of the Syriac, yu mouiv nas a 
Aéyopuev, is obviously a correction 
to overcome this difficulty. For other 
examples where this preacher begins 
his explanations with ev rim see 


SS 3, 9- 


4 erera] add. dé S. 
S, the word being doubtless added to bring out the force of mi@ov. 


2 buds & BovrNoua] juas & Aéyouer] S. 
7 mOd0dv Twa] add. deliriz 
g adda] 


10 €xOpovs] add. tuav S. The addition of pronouns is very 


3. Ta Adyia TOU Geov] A synonyme 
for the Scriptures ; comp. Rom. iii. 
2, Heb. v. 12; Clem. Rom. 19)/523 
62, etc. The point to be observed 
is that the expression here refers to 
an evangelical record: see the next 
note below. Thus it may be com- 
pared with the language of Papias, 
Euseb. 4H. £. iii. 39 Mar@aios...ovve- 
ypawaro ta Aoya, which must have 
been nearly contemporaneous; see 
Essays on Supernatural Religion p. 
170 sq. Similarly our author above 
§ 2 quotes a gospel as ypagy. 

4. é€merra x.t.r.] Apost. Const. ui. 8 
0 ToLovTOS...BAacpnuiay mpowérpipe TO 
KowW@ Ths exkAnoias kai TH SiOacKadia, 
OS p7 ToLOvYT@Y exeiva G A€youery elvat 
Kaa k.T.A. 

8. Aéyes 0 Geos] ‘ God saith.” The 
passage quoted therefore is regarded 
as one of ra Aoyia Tov Geov. As the 
words of our Lord follow, it might 
perhaps be thought that the expres- 
sion déyer 0 Geds refers not to the 
Divine inspiration of the Gospel, 
but to the Divine personality of 
Christ, of whom the writer says § 1 
ovTws Set nuas poveiy mepi “Inoov 
Xpictov ws mepi Gcov. But, not to 


XIV] 


IO€YOpOYC Kal TOYC MICOFNTAC YMAC" 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 


243 


c/ / 
TaUTaA OTaV aKoU- 


\ ~ 2 
cwow, OavyaCovow tyv vmepBoAnv THs ayabornTos: 


/ \ J J > / \ a ? > 
oTav O€ idwow STL ov ovoY TOUS uLGOUVTAS OUK dya- 


=~ 5) 3) ek 29 \ \ 5) - a 
TWUEV, ANN OTL OVOE TOUS ayaTwYTAsS, KaTayeNwow 


e a“ \ a NO a 
NUWY, Kal Pracdhnpetra TO OvoMa. 
XIV. “Wore, aderpoi, mowtvres TO Oé€AnMa Tov 


\ € a a 5) 7 > ~ > / - / 
jwatpos nuav Qceov écoucba éx TNS EKKANO LAS TYS TOW- 
Pp 


~ ~ lan A ’ \ / 
TS, TNS TVEVMATLKNS, THS TO HALOV Kal GEAHVHS EKTIC- 
> 


common in S; and I have not thought it necessary to record several instances 


which occur below. 
translation. 
add. rot Xpicrod S. 


14 Kai] om. S. 


mention that such a mode of speak- 
ing would be without a parallel in 
the early ages of Christianity, the 
preceding ra Ady.a tod Ccod deter- 
mines the sense here. 

Ov xdpis x.7.A.| A loose quotation 
from Luke vi. 32, 35 ef dyamare rovs 
ayaravras vpas, rola vpiv xapis eoriv ; 
...7Anv ayarate Tovs €xOpovs vor... 
kal €orat 6 piobods vay trodvs. For the 
use of yapis comp. I Pet. ii. 19, 20. 

II. ayadornros] ‘goodness’ in the 
sense of ‘kindness,’ ‘ beneficence,’ 
as ayaOoroeiy in the context of St 
Luke (vv. 33, 35). This substantive 
does not occur in the N. T., and only 
rarely (Wisd. vii. 26, xii. 22, Ecclus. 
xlv. 23) in the LXx; the form com- 
monly used being dyaaovvn. 

XIV. ‘If we do God’s will, we 
shall be members of the eternal, 
spiritual Church; if not, we shall 
belong to that house which is a den 
of thieves. The living Church is 
Christ’s body. God made male and 
female, saith the Scripture. The male 
is Christ, the female the Church. 
The Bible and the Apostles teach 
us that the Church existed from 
eternity. Just as Jesus was mani- 
fested in the flesh, so also was the 
Church. If therefore we desire to 


13 671] om. S, perhaps owing to the exigencies of 
Bracdnuetrac] add. ovv S. 


p es” 
TO dvoual 


partake of the spiritual archetype, 
we must preserve the fleshly copy 
in its purity. This flesh is capable 
of life and immortality, if it be united 
to the Spirit, that is to Christ. And 
the blessings which await His elect 
are greater than tongue can tell.’ 

16. ths mperns x«.t.A.] This doc- 
trine of an eternal Church seems to 
be a development of the Apostolic 
teaching which insists on the fore- 
ordained purpose of God as having 
elected a body of men to serve Him 
from all eternity; see esp. Ephes. 
i. 3 SQ 0 evAoynoas nuas ev aon 
evAoyia mveumaTiKH €v ToIS éToU- 
paviots ev Xpiot@, kabas ée&edé~aro 
npas ev aUTO TPO KaTAaBoAHs Koopov 
..Tpooploas nuds eis viobeciay k.T.X., 
a passage aptly quoted by Bryennios. 
The language of our preacher stands 
midway in point of development, 
and perhaps also about midway in 
point of chronology, between this 
teaching of S. Paul and the doctrine 
of the Valentinians, who believed in 
an eternal zon ‘Ecclesia,’ thus car- 
rying the Platonism of our pseudo- 
Clement a step in advance. 

17. mpo nAiov x.t.r.| This expres- 
sion is probably taken from Ps. 
Ixxi (Ixxil). 5 oupmapapevet TO Frio 


16——2 


244 


THE EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT. 


[xIVv 


peévns* éav € wy Tomowpev TO OéAnua Kupiov, écoueba 


ék THS ypapns THs Neyovons “Erenr'OH 6 oiKdc moy 


CTTEAAION AHCT@N. 


2 €x Tis ypadhs THs Aeyovons] ex zis de quibus scriptum est S. 


/ oO e / ry A ~ 
WOTE OUV aipeTicwucOa aro THIS 


nl lan Ss 7 ~ 
éxkAnolas THs Cwns eivat, iva cwOwuer. 


/ 
OUVK olomat 


3 wore 


obv] C; wore, ddeApol [uov] S, omitting ofy. See above, p. 240. 


kal mpo THS TeAnYNS yeveds yeveav 
and 26. ver. 17 mp0 Tov HALov Siapevet 
To dvoya avtov; for though in these 
passages, as the Hebrew shows, mpo 
has or ought to have a different 
meaning (Aquila eis mpécwmov tis 
ceAnvns, Symmachus eumpoobey rijs 
ceAnvns), yet it was commonly so 
interpreted, as appears from Justin 
Dial. 64 (p. 288) daodeixvuta...dre 
ovtos (i.e. 6 Xpwords) Kat mpo Tod 
nAtov Av, in proof of which statement 
he cites the passages just quoted ; 
comp. 20. 45 (p. 264) os kal mpo 
éwoopov Kai oeAnvns nv, 34 (p. 252), 
76 (p. 302); and so Athanasius c. 
Arian. i. 41 (I. p. 351) ef d€ Kai, ws 
Wradreu Aavid ev r@ EBSopnkooTe TPaTw 
Wakue, Ilpo tov Alou Siapéver to 
dvopa avTov, Kal mpo Ths oeAnvns eis 
yeveds yeveav, mas éAdpBavev O etxev 
det x.t.A. Similarly too in his E2fos. 
in Psalm. \xxi (1. p. 897) he explains 
the two expressions, vv. 5, 17, mpo 
aidvey and mpo karaBoAjs Koopov 
respectively. Meanwhile Eusebius 
Comm. in Psalm. ad loc. (Of. V. Pp. 
800 ed. Migne) had mentioned and 
rejected this meaning; ov yap mpo 
THS oEeAnvns, ToUTecTL mpW yevérOat 
THY oeAnyny, GAN evadmiov womep Kal 
€umpoo ev nyoupevos THs oeAnvns. 

For the idea see esp. Hermas /zs. 
ii. 4 Tis ody €oriv; dnt. ‘H’ExxAnoia, 
now. eimov ovvy avto, Au ti ovy 
mpeaBurépa; Ort, hnciv, ravtayv TpeTn 
extia6n* Sia TovTo mpeaBurépa, kai dia 
TavTnV 0 KOopos KatnpTicbn, quoted by 
Bryennios. Comp. also Orig. c. Ceds. 
vi. 35, where speaking of the phrase 


dmoppolas ékkAnolas émeyeiov which 
Celsus had attributed among other 
absurdities to the Christians, he 
writes, raya éAnPOn ad Tov vo TiveV 
héyerOar exkAnoias Tivos emoupaviov 
kal Kpeitrovos aidvos amoppo.ay eivat 
Thy émt yns exkAnoiavy. And see the 
passages quoted in the notes on 
ra BiBAia k.7.A. and dvtiturov. Hil- 
genfeld quotes Clem. Alex, Strom. 
iv. 8 (p. 593) eixav dé ths ovpaviov 
éxkAnoias 7 émiyetos (this father has 
just before cited Ephes. v. 21 sq, 
Col. iii: 18 sq), 25. vi. 13 (op Fas) 
ai evravéa kata THY exkAnolav mpoKorral 
...pyunpata, oma, ayyedkis doéns 
kdkeivns THs oikovonias Tuyxavovow 
nv avapévery pac ai ypadal rods car’ 
ixvos k.T.A. 

2. é€k ths ypadpis x.t.A.] A loose 
expression, meaning ‘of those persons 
described in the Scripture’. The 
Syriac translator has paraphrased 
accordingly. The passage is Jer. vii. 
II pi) omnAatoy AnoTe@Y 6 Olkds pov, Ov 
emikeKAnTat TO Ovoua pov ém avT@ 
k.T.A., to which also our Lord alludes 
(Matt. xxi. 13, Mark xi. 17, Luke 
xix. 46). For the application here 
comp. Afost. Const. il, 17. 

3. ote ovv] A pleonasm which 
our author repeats elsewhere; §§ 4, 7. 

aipetiow@peba| ‘choose’, ‘prefer’; 
a common word in the Lxx. In 
the N.T. it is found only Matt. xii. 
18, in a quotation from Is. xlii. 1, 
where however it does not occur in 
the Lxx. See Sturz Dial. Mac. 144. 

4. ths Cwns| Harnack writes ‘Iu- 
daeorum synagoga est ecclesia mor- 


xIv] 


\ wes > ~ e/ 2 / 
50€ Umas ayvoeiv OTL ékKANTIAa 
Ever yap 1 ypahn "ETIOIHCEN O 


Xpictoy: 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 


245 
Cara C@MA  €CTIN 
) Oeodc TON 


Ey >" \ A Ni eh \ / 
ANOpwWITON ApceN Kal OAAY’ TO apaev EoTiv 0 XpioTos, 


A ~ Vf \ / \ e > A 
To OnXv 4 exKAnolia’? Kal OTL Ta BiBAla Kal ol drOCTO- 


8 7d Andru] C3 Kal 7d Ondv S. 
Prophetarum S. 


tis’. The contrast however is not 
between the Synagogue and the 
Church of Christ, but between mere 
external membership in the visible 
body and spiritual communion in the 
celestial counterpart. 

5. o@pda eoriy Xpictov| Ephes. 1. 
23 TH e€kkAnoia, Aris éoTl TO copa 
avrov; comp. 7b. iv. 4, I2 sq, 16, 
Beg, .40;°Rom. xii. 5, 1 Cor. x. 17; 
ait I2—27,, Col. i. 18, 24, ii. 19, 
ili. 15. 

6. ’Emoincey «.t.A.] Gen. i. 27 
emoingev 0 Qcos tov avOpwmov, Kat 
etkova Qcov emoincey avtov’ apoev kal 
Ondv emoincev adtovs. The applica- 
tion seems to be suggested by S. 
Paul’s treatment of this portion of 
the Mosaic account, Ephes. v. 31 sq; 
where, after representing the Church 
as the body and spouse of Christ, 
and quoting Gen. ii. 24, he says, ro 
puoTHpiov trovto péya éoTiv’ eyo dé 
héyw eis Xpiorov kai [eis] ryv éxxAn- 
ciav. 

8. «at dri] Some words have 
evidently dropped out in the MS 
here: see the introduction, I. p. 144 
sq. The lacuna is conveniently sup- 
plied by Aé€yovow Sprov after dvaber, 
as I have done. This seems to me 
better than the more obvious solution 
of Bryennios, who would attach this 
ott to the preceding vpas dyvoeiv, and 
understand merely gaai or didacKover 
or the like. The Syriac translator 
omits the dru and inserts a Aéeyovcr 
or some similar word. This is 
clearly an arbitrary correction. 

Ta BiBAia Kai oi amocroda| This is 


kal drt] atgue etiam S. 


Ta BiBXla] add. 


a rough synonyme for the Old and 
NewTestaments respectively. Though 
the Apostolic and Evangelical writ- 
ings are elsewhere in this epistle 
treated as ypadai (§ 2) and even as 
Adyia TOU Geod (§ 13), being thus co- 
ordinated in point of authority with 
the Old Testament, yet the term 
7a BiBdia, ‘the Books’, is not yet 
extended to them. For somewhat 
similar expressions for the Old and 
New Testaments in early writers, see 
the note on Ign. Philad. 5. The 
exact mode of expression is however 
unique. The Syriac translator’s 
‘books of the prophets’ is the ob- 
vious gloss of a later age. 

But what Books of the Old Testa- 
ment and what Apostolic writings 
had the preacher in view? 

(1) As regards the O.T. the an- 
swer is partly supplied by his own 
context. In the first place the history 
of creation in Genesis is contem- 
plated. Such treatment was alto- 
gether in accordance with the theo- 
logical teaching of his age. Anastasius 
of Sinai (Routh’s Red. Sacr. 1. p. 15; 
comp. Anastas. Of. p. 860, Migne) 
says, Ilariov rod mavu rod ‘IeparroXirov 
Tov ev TO emtaTnOiw oitnoaytos, Kal 
KAjpevros Tlavtaivov ths "Ade€ar- 
Spéwv tepews, kai “Aupoviov coperd- 
TOV, TAY apxaiwy Kal mpoTov cvdder 
eényntav, eis Xprortov THY 
€xkAnolay macav thy éEanpepoy von- 
gavtwy. We might almost suppose 
that Anastasius was here alluding 
to our pseudo-Clement, if he had 
not in a parallel passage (p. 962 


\ 
Kal 


246 


THE. EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


[XIV 


> / 5) a ‘a \ af / 
Noe THY ExKANTIaV OU VV Eivat, dANa avwbev [AEyovow, 


dnAov |: nv yap mvevpatikn, ws Kal 6 ’Incovs juav, epa- 


\ b) / (a c a 4 CS ine / 
vepwOn de ém’ éxxaTwy TWY HMEpwV iva Huds cwon: 


a me) VA \ \ Ss 5) / > ~~ \ 
4 EKKAnola O€ TYEUMATLIKH OVTA epaveowOn Ev TH TAPKL 


1 ov viv] add. dicunt S. 


héyouow dS7yrov] om. CS; see the lower note. 


2 ws Kal o’Incods judy, EpavepdOn O€ K.T.r.] et vir eius autem (be) spiritalis est, ts 


gui est tesus christus dominus noster, manzifestatus est autem, etc. S. 


Migne), where he is again enume- 
rating ancient interpreters who ex- 
plained the statements respecting 
paradise in Genesis as eis ryv Xpuorov 
exkAnolav avapepopeva, specified KAn- 
pns 0 =tpwpatevs. He writes again 
(p. 964), ‘admirabiles quos diximus 
interpretes...decreverunt...duos quos- 
dam esse paradisos...terrestrem et 
caelestem, qui cernitur et qui in- 
telligitur, sicut etiam est Christus 
caelestis simul et terrestris, congru- 
enter typo duarum ecclesitarum, ter- 
renae, inquam, et caelestis civitatis 
Domini virtutum etc.’ (a passage 
which illustrates the language of our 
preacher respecting the Church); 
and he himself accordingly maintains 
that whatever is said of Adam and 
Eve applies to Christ and the Church 
(e.g. pp. 999, 1007, 1027, 1050). But 
besides the Hexaemeron, our preacher 
may have been thinking of other parts 
of the O.T., such as Ps. xliv (xlv), 
in which ‘the queen’ was already 
interpreted of the Church (Justin 
Dial. 63, p. 287). So too he would 
not improbably have the Song of 
Solomon in his mind. 

(2) As regards the ‘Apostles’ 
again his context indicates his chief 
reference. The Epistle to the E- 
phesians seemed to him more es- 
pecially to inculcate this doctrine. 
But he would find it elsewhere. 
There are some indications that he 
was acquainted with the Epistle to 
the Hebrews ; and, if so, he would see 


3 nME- 


a confirmation of his view in mode 
cov (avros ‘Tepovoadnp émoupavio... 
Taynyupet kal EKKANTia TP@TOTOKY aTrO- 
yeypappevear év ovpavois (xii. 22, 23). 
Again such words as Apoc. xxi. 9, 10, 
THY vyupnv THY yuvaika Tov apviov... 
Thy ayiav ‘lepovoadnp KataBaivovaoar 
€K TOU OUpavod amo Tov Ceov, would 
suit his purpose admirably. 

I. ov viv K.7.A.] ‘not now for the 
first time, dut from the beginning’. 
For this sense of dvwfev see Luke 
i. 3, Acts xxvi. 5; comp. Justin Dzad. 
24 (p. 242) domep avwbev éxnpvocero, 
2b. 63 (p. 286) dre advabev 6 Ceds... 
yevvacOa avrov éueAde, where it is an 
explanation of rpo éwoddpou éyevynoa 
oe. Harnack compares Gal. iv. 26, 
etc., but the opposition to viv here 
suggests the temporal rather than 
the local meaning of avwéev. 

2. 0 ‘Incovs nuov] Sc. mvevpatikos 
Hv, SO that 6 “Incots, not 7 éxkAnaia, 
is the nominative of épavepabn : comp. 
S$ 9 Xptoros 6 Kupwos, 06 odcas nas, 
@v pev TO TpeTov mvevpa, eyévero 
cap& kal ovTws nuas éxddecev. For 
epavepoOn Sé x.r.A. Comp. I Pet. 1. 
20 Xpiorod mpoeyvwopévou pev mpd 
kataBoAjns Koopov, pavepwOevros Se 
em €oxarov (v.l. €oyarav) Ta xpo- 
veav Ov vas K.T.A. 

3. é@ écxdrov Trav nuepov]| ‘when 
the days were drawing to a close’, 
‘at the end of all things’; a not 
uncommon LXX expression, Gen. 
xlix. 1, Deut. iv. 30 (v.1.), Dan. it. 
28, x. 14, Hos. ii. 5,° Mic. 1¥. 57a 


XIV | AN 


ANCIENT HOMILY. 


247 


a va Cha es of ak ¢ ~ / 5) \ 
5 XpicTov, dnAovoa nly OTL, Eav TIS nUwVY THENHOH avTHV 
éy TH capKl Kal pn POelon, amoAnWeTar avTny év TO 
N wapKe pn plecon, n n 

4 i / € \ \ e/ > , , > 
TVEUMATL TH Aylw* 4 yap TapE avTH avTiTUTOS éoTLY 


= / ? \ a \ ? / / \ 
TOU mTvevuaTos’ ovdEls OvY TO avyTiTUTOY PbEipas TO 


pav] temporum S. + dytirumos] C; ¢typus S, and so 76 avtiruror just below; 
but this is probably owing to the poverty of the language. 


so 2 Pet. iii. 3, but in Heb. i. 2 the 
correct reading is ém éoyxatov Tap 
NMEpav. 

4. év 7H capki Xpictov] When Christ 
took a bodily external form, the 
Church did the same. Moreover this 
external form might be said to be 
€v TH Capki avtov, since the Church 
exists by union with Him. 

5. tnpnon avtny| ‘keep her pure 
and undefiled’, i.e. so far as con- 
cerns his own conduct as one member 
of the body. The believer in his own 
special department is required to do 
that which Christ does throughout 
the whole, Ephes. v. 27 mapaocrjoa 
évOoEov thy exkAnoiay, pr exovcay 
omidov 7) putida K.T.X. 

6. amoAnWera adrny| i.e. by being 
incorporated in the celestial, spiritual 


Church. 
8. 16 avtirumoy] ‘the counterpart, 


or copy’. The Platonic doctrine of 
ideas underlies these expressions. 
The avderrixor is the eternal, spiritual 
archetype, the orzginal document, as 
it were, in God’s own handwriting: 
comp. Tertull. de Monog. 11 ‘in 
Graeco authentico’, ‘the Greek origi- 
nal’, before it was corrupted by tran- 
scription; de Praescr. 36 ‘ipsae au- 
thenticae literae eorum’, ‘the auto- 
graph letters of the Apostles’; Dig. 
xxviii. 3. 12 ‘exemplo quidem aperto 
nondum apertum est testamentum ; 
quod si authenticum patefactum est 
totum, apertum’, where ‘authenti- 
cum?’ is the original, and ‘exemplum’ 
the copy; Julius in Athan. AZol. c. 


Arian. 28 (I. p. 116) mpoexouuce xetpa 
Ohoypahov avbevrixny, i.e. ‘written 
from first to last by his own hand’. 
The avtirumoy is the material, tem- 
porary manifestation, the imperfect 
and blurred ¢vazscripi of the original : 
comp. Synes. Afzst. 68 (p. 217) rots 
Tayvypapots ta avtituma Sovvar tov 
Tore ypapevrwy eméragéa, Epist. in 
Athan. AZol. c. Arian. 85 (I. p. 158) 
T@ avTitUT@ Tov Oeiov ypapparos. For 
avriturov, thus contrasted with the 
heavenly and true, comp. Heb. ix. 24 
avritura tav adnOwov, where the 
avritura are defined in the context 
as Ta vrodetypata THY ev Tois ovpavois 
and the aAn@iva as avra ta émouvpana. 
See also the anonymous Valentinian 
in Epiph. aer. xxxi. 5 (pp. 168, 169) 
avtitumos Tov mpodvtos *Ayevyntou, av- 
TiTUTOY THs mpoovons Terpados. And 
more especially for the pseudo-Cle- 
ment’s teaching here compare the 
Valentinian language, Iren. i. 5. 6 
o 69 Kal adrd éxxAnoiav eivar €yovow, 
adytitumov ths ave “ExkAncias. 
In such senses avrirumoy depreciates 
relatively ; and with this meaning 
the material elements in the eucha- 
rist were commonly called by the 
fathers dvtiruma of the body and 
blood of Christ,e.g. A fost. Const. v. 14, 
Vi. 30, vil. 25: see Suicer Zhes. s.v. 
On the other hand dyriruzoy is some- 
times opposed to rvzos, as the fin- 
ished work to the rough model, the 
realization to the foreshadowing, in 
which case it extols relatively; comp. 
Pet it. 21, 


248 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [XIV 


> A / sf > ro] 

avOevtikov meTaAnWeTat. apa ovv ToUTO Eye, ddEA- 
7 ar As , J ~ , 

poi, Tnpnoate thv oapKa iva Tov mvevuatos peTa- 
/ 

Aa Bnre. 


\ \ ~ af Ss € € / \ , 
Kal TO Tveupa Xpixtov, aoa Oovv O uBpicas THY TapKa 


’ \ / > \ if \ 3 / 
et d€ A€yomuev Elval THY TapKa THY ExKANo LAY 
e/ \ 5) / € ~ = > / 
UBpirev THv ExKAnoiav. O ToLOUVTOS oVV ov peTadn- 
a / v4 2 f 7 
Werat Tov mvevuatos, 6 éotTw 6 Xpiotos. ToTavTHy 
c/ ~ \ 3 
duvaTa 4 odpé abTy peTadraBetv Cwny Kal dbavaciay, 
/ ~ ~ / ~ € af 
KoAAnOEvTos avTH TOU MVvEvUATOS TOU ayiov. oOUTE 
4 


> = / / ~ a c t c 
éfemeiv Tis Ovvatat ovTe Aadyoat & HTOIMacen 6 


Kypioc Tots €KAEKTOLS auUTOU. 


XV. OvxK olopa b€ 6Tt puKpav cupBovAiav Errom- 


f \ / c\ / / 
TaUnV TEL eyKpaTelas, nv TONGTas TIS OU METAVONTEL, 


I peTadnperar| CS. 


In C however it was first written amoAnperar, and mera is 


written above by the same hand. See the note on ¢iAomovelv below, § 19. 40 
bBploas...rhv éxkyolav] is guz contumelia affecit carnem suam contumelia affecit 
carnem christi ecclesiam S. This might possibly represent 0 bBpicas THv cdpka 
[ri idlav, Tod xpioTod tiv cdpxa] UBpicev, tiv éxkAnolav, the words in brackets 
having been omitted in C by homeeoteleuton; but I am disposed to regard it as 


I. dpa ody x.t.A.] This apparently 
refers not to what has immediately 
preceded, but to an application which 
the preacher has made of an evan- 
gelical text several chapters before, § 8 
dpa ovv TovTo Aeyet Thpyoate THY Tapka 
ayynv x.t.rA. It is almost impossible 
however to trace the connexion of 
thought in so loose a writer. 

3. tHhv odpkal as being the Jody 
of Christ. This language does not 
occur in S. Paul, for in Ephes. v. 30 
€k THS Wapkos avrod is an interpolation. 
The relation of Christ to the Church 
is represented by S. Paul as that of 
the ead to the body, whereas here it 
is that of the sfzrzt to the body, so 
that ‘body’ is equivalent to ‘flesh’. 

Altogether our preacher seems to 
be guilty of much confusion in his 
metaphor in this context ; for here 
the relation of flesh to spirit repre- 
sents the relation of the Church to 


Christ, whereas just above it has re- 
presented the relation of the earthly 
Church and Christ to the heavenly 
Church and Christ. The insertion 
in the Syriac does not remove the 
difficulty. See the criticism of Pho- 
tius on the inconsequence of this 
writer’s sentiments, quoted above on 
S 1. 

7. peradraBeiv] With an accusa- 
tive, as e.g. Acts xxiv. 25, and com- 
monly in classical writers. On the 
different sense of the two cases with 
this verb see Kiihner II. p. 294 sq. 
The propriety of the change here 
will be obvious. Similarly ro avdev- 
TUKOV peTadnWera above. 

8. tov mvevpatos tov ayiov] See 
above, I. p. 125. The language here 
is still more unguarded than in § 9. 

9. e&ereiv| ‘express’; Clem. Rom. 
48. 

a ntoimacev] A reference to the 


Io 


xv] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 


249 


\ \ / 5) \ \ , 
a@\Na Kal éavToy cwoe Kaye Tov cUUPBovAEVTAaYTA. 
4 \ > 7 \ / \ \ 
pucOds yap ovK eat pKpos tAaVwWUEVnVY VvynV Kal 
b) , > , ? \ lan / \ 
dmoAAupeévny dtroaTpevat els TO TwOnval. TavTnY yap 
/ 7 ca 4 lant n , 
Exouev THv dvryucOiay arrodovva TH Oew TH KTinavTL 
lol \ > , \ / \ ’ / 
nuas, éav 0 NéEywY Kal AkovwY META TIO TEWS Kal ayaTnNS 
\ / \ 5) / b , oO S15 ‘Gj b) / 
Kat A€yn Kal aKOUN. EMmELYWUEV OUV EP ols ETTLOTEU- 
/ A. fe? / A / 2 ~ 
Gapev OikaloL Kal OGLOL, iva META TappHnolas alTwueEV 
\ \ \ / ” aA , > n > \ ? 
tov OQeov Tov A€yovTa “EtTi AdAAOYNTOC coy Epw IAoY Tdp- 
r \ \ a / \ , 
eIMi’ TOUTO Yap TO pyua peyadns Eat EéTTAYYEALAS 
~ / \ \ / / > 
Onmelov’ ETOLWLOTEPOV yap éEavTov Eyer 6 Kuptos Ets 


\ / ~ > ~ 
TO OLOOVAL TOU aITOUYTOS. 


merely a paraphrastic rendering of S. 


héywv kal dxodwr] S translates as if it had read 6 re Aéywv Kal 6 dKxodwy. 
mlorews Kal ayamns| cum caritate et cum fide S, transposing the words. 
repetition of the preposition see above, I. p. 137. 


/ > / 
TODAUTNS OVY KONTTOTNTOS 


It é€roinoduny | add. buy S, 17 0 
MeTG. 
On the 


22 els TO OLddvan TOU airobdvTos|] 


in illud ut det petitionem ejus qui petit ab ipso S, thus supplying a substantive to 


govern Tov airovvros and mistaking the sense. 


23 TocavUTnS...meTAauBavorTes | 


quoniam igitur hac jucunditate et bonitate det jucundamur S. 


same passage of which part has been 
already quoted by our preacher at 
the end of § 11. See the note on 
Clem. Rom. 34. 

XV. ‘He, that obeys this exhorta- 
tion to chastity, will save both him- 
self and the preacher. It is no small 
recompense to convert and save a 
perishing soul. Faith and love are 
the only return that speaker and 
hearer alike can make to God their 
Creator. So therefore let us be true 
to our belief, for God promises an 
immediate response, declaring Him- 
self more ready to give than we to 
ask. We must not grudge ourselves 
these bounties of His goodness ; for 
as the rewards of submission are 
great, so the punishment of disobedi- 
ence is great also.’ 

II. otoua] The word has oc- 
curred twice already in this writer 
S§ 6, 14. 


13. kal €avrov «.7.A.| 1 Tim. iv. 16 


kal weavTov owes Kal TOUS akovoyTds 
gov. See also below,§ 19. Harnack 
quotes Barnab. I paddov ovyxaipa 
€uavT® éAmifav cwbnva, dre adnOas 
Brera ev div exxeyupevov...Tvedpa. 

14. purOds «.r.A.] James v. 20 6 €m- 
oTpéwWas duapt@dov é€k rAavns dod 
avTod odo Wuxty €k OavaTovk.tar. 

16. dvtyucbiay| A favourite word 
with our author, especially in this 
connexion; see the note on § I. 

19. Sikavoe kal dovor] See on §§ 1, 5. 

20. “Ere Aadovrtos «.7.A.] Is. lviii. 
9 6 Geds eicaxovoerai gov, étt Aadody- 
ros gov epet “Idov mapeysu. Comp. 
Afost. Const. iii. 7, where, as here, it 
is quoted ¢po (though with a v.l.), 
probably (as Lagarde points out) 
from a confusion with Is. lxv. 24 ére 
Aadovvtay avTav €pa, Ti €or; So too 
it is given ‘dzcam’ in Iren. iv. 17. 3, 
but épet in Justin DzaZ. 15 (p. 233). 

23. Tov airodvros| sc. eis TO airetvy 
‘more prompt to give than the asker 


250 THE EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT. [xv 


peTahauBavovtes un POovycwuev EavTois TUYElv TOTOU- 
twv ayabwv. Sony yap noovny exer Ta pnuaTta TavTAa 
Tols TOWMoaclW avTa, TOTAVTHVY KaTaKpLow ExEL Tots 
TAapakoveacty. 

XVI “Wore, adedpoi, apopuny AaBovtes ovs5 
puikpav Eis TO METAVONOAL, Kapov EXOVTES ELT TPEV-wMEV 
émi Tov kadéoavta nuas Oedv, éws ETL EXouEV ToV 
TapacexXOMEVOY ruas. é€av yap Tals novrabelas Tav- 
TAs aToTtaewpeba kal Thy Wuynv nuwyv viknowpev ev 


I TocovTwy] C3; Torovrwy (?) S. 


go0| domini nostri zesu christi S. 


isptoask’s as in.the Collect “more 
ready to hear than we to pray’. The 
Syriac translator has misunderstood 
the sense. 

XV... * Therefore Jet. us repent 
and return to God betimes. If we 
conquer our appetites and desires, 
we shall obtain mercy of Jesus. For 
be assured, the day of judgment is at 
hand; as a heated furnace shall it 
be; the heavens shall be fused and 
the earth shall be as melting lead; 
and all the deeds of men shall be 
revealed. Almsgiving is a token of 
repentance. Fasting is greater than 
prayer, and almsgiving than both. 
Love covereth a multitude of sins, 
and prayer delivereth from death. 
Blessed is he that aboundeth in these 
things. For almsgiving removeth 
the burden of sin.’ 

5. ddopyny dAaBovres| So Rom. 
vii. 8, 11. Conversely dqdoppny &- 
Sova, 2 Cor. v. 12, 1 Tim. v. 14, Ign. 
Trall. 8. 

6. Kaipov eyovtes] So § 8 as 
€xomev Karpov peravolas, $9 as exomev 
Katpov Tov iaOnva.. 

7. tov tmapadexopevov] It is yet 
the xaipos edmpdadextos (2 Cor. vi. 2). 

ndumabeias| See again § 17. Not 


3 5 adeAgot] add. ayamyrot S. 
dexduevor] marépa dexduevoy (IIPA for I[APA) C3 patrem qui accipit S. 


8 mapa- 
11 ’In- 
16 kpelocwv vnorela mpocevy7s] C; 


a Biblical word. On this word, which 
was highly distasteful to the Stoics, 
see Wyttenbach on Plut. dor, 132 
c. It occurs at least as early as 
Xenophon, Cyr. vil. 5. 74. 

9. admoragéwpebal See on § 6. 

II. épyerau x.t.A.] Mal. iv. 1 idov 
npépa epxeTar Katomevn ws KAiBavos. 

13. tues] This is obviously cor- 
rupt, though both our authorities 
are agreed. I think that for rwes we 
should probably read [ai] dvvapecs, 
the expression being taken from Is. 
XXXIV. 4 kal Taxnoovra maca. ai duva- 
pets T@Y ovpavev ; comp. Afpac. Petr. 
in Macar. Magn. iv. 7 (p.165, Blondel) 
kat Taknoetat maca Sdvvapyis ovpavod. 
Where the MS was torn and letters 
had dropped out, it might easily be 
read tinec. Comp. 2 Pet. ili. 7, I0, 
Orac. S70. iii. 689 sq, Melito Afo/. 12, 
p-432(Otto). Though the existing text 
might be explained with Harnack and 
Hilgenfeld by the common belief in 
several heavens (comp. e.g. Orig. ¢. 
Cels. vi. 23), 1 can hardly think that 
our Clementine writer would have ex- 
pressed himself in this way, even if 
he had believed that some of the 
heavens would be spared from the 
conflagration. The pseudo-Justin 


XVI] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 251 


~ \ ~ \ / ~ A / 
1I0TW py Troliv Tas émiuuias avTHS Tas ToVNnpas, pETa- 
/ and / ~ / Nh ” 
Anvroueba Tov éNéous *Incov. TivwoKete O€ STL épyetai 
af c c ’ ~ / c Ul ’ \ 
non H HMEPA THS KOLTEWS WC KAIBANOC KAIOMENOC, Kal 
, ’ n > a \ ~ ~~ 
TAKHCONTAl TTivEst TON OYpAN@n, Kal Taga H YN ws 
/ ce en \ / \ / , \ 
poAtBos ért mupl THKOMEVOS, Kal TOTE avynoeTar Ta 
/ \ \ aI “ > , \ > 
I5kKpupia Kat avepa Eepya Twy avOpwrwy. Kadov ovv 
> £ e / ¢ / Us / 
EXenuoovvn Ws METAVOLA AMapTias’ KPELTTWY VHoOTELA 
qn > / \ > / Sy mh \ 
Tpocevyns, éAEenuocvyyn dé audoTepwvs ArdmH A€ kKa- 


bonum jejunium, oratio, S; but probably ff has dropped out. 
would bring the Syriac into conformity with the Greek. 


add. melior (kpeicowv) S. 


Quaest. ad Orthod. 74 probably refers 
to this passage: see I. p. 178 sq. 

14. podrrBos| This seems to be the 
correct form in the LxXxX generally, 
=a0G, x¥. 10, Num: xxxi. 22, Job 
xix. 24, etc. Both podrBos and pordiB- 
dos are certified by their occurrence 
in metre. 

15. xpudua kat mavepa] An exhaus- 
tive expression : comp. Wisd. vii. 21 
doa Té €oTt KpuTTa kal eudarvy eyvar. 
kadov ody x.t.A.] If there is no cor- 
ruption in the text of this passage, it 
offers another illustration of the cri- 
ticism of Photius on our pseudo- 
Clement, 47zb/. 126, quoted above, 
§ 1. This however may be doubt- 
ful. The preacher seems to be 
thinking of Tobit xii. 8, 9 dyadov 
Mpooevyn peTa vnoTeias Kal éAenpoov- 
Toijoat 
xpvaiov" 


vns kat OwKkatoovyns...Kadov 
eXennoovvnvy 7 Onoavpica 
eXenuoovvn yap ek Oavarov pverau Kai 
avtn doka0apiet Tacav auapriav, where 
the first sentence as read in S is 
ayabov mpocevyn peta vynoreias kal 
eXenpoovyn pera Stxatoovyns vmrep ap- 
gorepa. Here the very same function 
ex Oavarov pvecOa, which our text as- 
signs to prayer, is assigned to alms- 
giving. Moreover our text having 
stated that almsgiving is greater than 
prayer immediately afterwards as- 


This insertion 
17 €Xenuootyn de] 


signs a more important work to 
prayer than to almsgiving. These two 
facts combined throw doubt on the 
integrity of the text. It would seem 
as though somewords had been trans- 
posed and others perhaps omitted. 

16. ws petavora auaprias| ‘as repent- 
ance front sin is good’, if the text be 
correct ; for the sense will hardly 
allow us to translate ‘as being re- 
pentance from sin’. I suppose that 
eAenuoovrn here has its restricted 
sense of ‘almsgiving’, as in every 
passage where it occurs in the N.T. 

17. apdorépov]| See Ecclus. xl. 
24 umép aupdrepa edennoovyn pice- 
tat, where however the dudorepa 
are ddeAdot xai Bonbeva eis Karpov 
Oriiveas. 

ayann Se x.7.A.]| Taken from 1 Pet. 
iv. 8, where it is doubtless a quota- 
tion from Prov. x. 12. See the note 
on Clem. Rom. 49, where also it is 
quoted. There can be no doubt that 
in the original context it refers to 
passing over without notice, and so 
forgiving, the sins of others, nor is 
there any reason for interpreting it 
otherwise as adopted by S. Peter or 
by the genuine Clement. In James 
v. 20 the expression xadvwWer mAAO0s 
dpaptiav seems still to be used of the 
sins of others, but in the sense of 


THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [xv1 


252 


, A G a \ \ 5) ey 
AYTITE!l TAABOC AmMapTION’ mpomevyn Oe Ek KaANS TUVEL- 
ld f alg ~ \ 
Onoews ék Oavarou pveTat. paKdptos mas 6 evpebels 
2 / / p) / \ € 
€v TouTots TAnpys' €AEnMoouvn yap KoVdiopa apap- 


If , 
TLAS YLVETAL. 


XVII. 


by TIS HuwY TapamoAnTaL. 


/ c ¢ € 
Metavonowuev ovv é€& OAns Kapdias, iva 


> \ 5) \ sf 
El yao evToAas EXOMED, 


J \ ua / \ la > Id 5) ~ 
iva Kal TOUTO TPATTWMEV, aTO TWY ElOWAWY aTOO TAY 


7 wa Kal totro mpdoowuer] so apparently S; xal roiro mpdocoperv (om. wa) C. 
Similar omissions of iva appear in AC in § 48 é£ouoroyjowua (where S is correct), 


and in S itself in ii § 11 Kousowpeba (where AC are correct). 


Io wept] C; ad 


(adversus) S, as if mpés: but it perhaps does not represent a different reading. 


12 mpocéxew Kal muorevew] S; miorevew Kal mpocéxew C. 


‘burying them from the sight of 
God, wiping them out by the con- 
version and repentance ofthe sinner’. 
On the other hand our preacher 
seems certainly to take it as mean- 
ing ‘atones for a multitude of ome’s 
own sins’, as it is taken by some 
modern commentators: and so too 
Tertull. Scorf. 6. Clement of Alex- 
andria is hardly consistent with him- 
self. In Strom. ii. 15 (p. 463) he ex- 
plains it of God’s love in Christ 
which forgives the sins of men; 
whereas in Quzs div. salv. 38 (p. 
959) he takes it to mean that love, 
working in a man, enables him to 
repent and put away his own sins; 
and so apparently in Stvom. i. 27 (p. 
423). Origen Jz Lev. Hom. ii. § 5 (11. 
p. 190) refers it to the man’s own 
sins; but the turn which he gives to 
the passage is shown by his quoting 
in juxtaposition Luke vii. 47 adéwvrat 
avThs ai duapriat ai modXal, ore Hyarn- 
oev moAv—an explanation which re- 
moves the doctrinal objection to this 
interpretation, though the exegetical 
argument against it from the connex- 
ion of the passage in its original con- 
text (Prov. x. 12) still remains. 

I, Kadjs cuverdnoews| Heb. xiii. 
18. A commoner expression is aya67 


14 els olkov aman- 


cuveidnots ; see the note Clem. Rom. 
41. For xaapa cvveidyors see Clem. 
Rom. 45 with the note. 

2. €k Oavdrov pveta] This is said 
of éAenpootvyvn in Tobit iv. Io, xii. 9 
(already quoted); and of dcxacoovrn, 
which also signifies ‘almsgiving’, in 
Prov. x. 2, xi. 4; but not of mpocevy7. 
See the note on cadopr ovy k.t.A. above. 

3. ev] Comp. Ecclus. 1. 6 ceAnyy 
mAnpns ev népats. 

eXenuoovvn yap x.t.A.| Prov. xvi. 6 
(xv. 27) €Aenwoovvas Kat micrerw 
amroxa@aipovra apaptiat, Ecclus. iii. 30 
eXennoovvn €Etkaoerat duaptias: Comp. 
Dan. iv. 24 Tas duaprias cov év éden- 
poovvais AUTp@aa (Theod.). 

kovpicpa apaptias| i.e. ‘removes 
the load of sin’, as with Bunyan’s 
pilgrims. So 3 Esdr. viii. 83 ov, Kv- 
pte, 0 Koupicas tds dpuaprias nuor, 
comp. Ezr. ix. 13 éxovdioas nuay ras 
dvoias. 

XVII. ‘Let us therefore repent 
lest we perish. For, if we are com- 
manded to convert even the heathen 
from their idolatry, how unpardon- 
able would it be to allow the ruin 
of a soul which has once known the 
true God! Therefore let us assist 
the weak, that we and they alike 
may be saved. And let us not give 


Io 


XVIT] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 


253 
Kal KaTHXElV, TOTW paddov uxXnY Hon ywwoKovcay 
tov Ocov ov det arodAvo bar; cvAAaBwueEY ovv EavTots 
kal Tous doQevourtas dvayew rept TO dyabov, Sws 
cwOouev amravTes* Kal émiotpeyywuev aAANHAOUS Kai 
vovleTnowmev. Kal wn povoy apt. SoKwmEev TpoTEeyveELV 
Kal WioTEVELY EV Tw vovleteioba yuas UTO TWY TpET- 
Burépwv, d\Na Kal OTav Els OiKoY amadNayouEV, MYN- 

NayGuevr] C; domum dimissi fuerimus et cessaverimus ab omnibus S. The variation 


might easily be explained by an omission in C owing to homceoteleuton, but it is 
more probably a periphrastic rendering of S to express the full force of ama))dr- 


TecGa: see above, I. p. 136 sq. 


heed only while we are listening to 
the instructions of our presbyters, but 
also when we have departed to our 
homes. Let us also meet together 
more frequently, and thus endeavour 
to make progress in the command- 
ments of the Lord. He has declared 
that He will come to gather together 
all nations and languages. Then the 
unbelievers shall see His glory and 
shall bewail their past obstinacy. 
Their worm shall not die; and their 
sufferings shall be a spectacle to all 
men. Meanwhile the righteous, see- 
ing their torments, shall give glory 
to God, because there is hope for 
His true and zealous servants.’ 

5. Meravonoopev x.t.d.| The ex- 
pression peravoeiy €& oAns [rhs] kapdias 
has occurred already § 8, and will 
occur again § 19; comp. also § 9 
petravonoa €€ eidixpwovs Kapdias. 

6. mapardAnra] ‘perish by the 
way, i.e. ‘unexpectedly, through care- 
lessness, without sufficient cause’; as 
e.g. Lucian Gymn. 13 opd ovdevos 
peyddou évexa waparroAAvpevas, (Viger. 
13 d€dovna py =maparodAntar perakd 
Aovopevos, Hermot. 21 mepiower pe 
mapamroA opevon. 

evroAas €xouev|] It was our Lord’s 
command, Matt. xxvili. 19 sq; comp. 
Mark xvi. 15. If we adopt the reading 


of the Greek MS, kai rovro mpdocopev 
must be taken as parenthetical so 
far as regards the structure, ‘and we 
obey this command’; so that dzo- 
omav will then be governed by é- 
Todas €yopev. 

Q. ovddAdBauev k.t.A.] ‘Let us there- 
fore assist one another, that we may 
elevate the weak also as concerning 
that which ts good’. This may be the 
meaning, if the text is correct; but 
it would seem as though some verb 
had fallen out after cai. For éavtois 
see the note on § 13; and for dvdyew 
comp. Clem. Rom. 49. 

II. kal émotpéyaper| to be con- 
nected with ovAAdBoper, and not 
made dependent on d6zas, as it is 
punctuated by Bryennios. 

I2. pn povov apre «.t.r.| This 
clearly shows that the work before 
us is a sermon delivered in church ; 
comp. § 19 pera Tov Gedy THs aAnOeias 
avayveok@ viv evrev&w K.T.X. 

13. tav mpeoBurépar| ‘the fres- 
byters, who delivered their exhorta- 
tions after the reading of the Scrip- 
tures; see the note on § I9 pera 
Tov Geov x«.t-A. This sermon itself 
was obviously such an exhortation; 
but the preacher, doubtless himself a 
‘presbyter’, puts himself in the posi- 
tion of his hearers and uses the 


THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [XVII 


254 


, -~ a / \ 
povevwuev Twv TOO Kupiov évTadpatwv, Kal py avTi- 


J \ ~ ~~ ~ A 
mapedkwuela dro Twy KoomKoVv éemibusuwv, dra 


/ / / 
TUKVOTEPOV TpoTEpXOMEvoL TrEpwuUEeOa MpoKOTTELW eV 
-~ 2 ~ = / / / \ 9.2 NN 
Tais évTo\ats Tou Kupiov, iva maytes to avto dpo- 


qn / > >’ \ \ / > \ 
VOUVTES GUYHYMEVOL wuEV Ert THY Cwnv. Elev yap O 


if. ” a ’ \ Py] ) \ 
Kupios “Epyomat cynararein mdnTa TA EONH, PyYAAC Kal 


; ~ \ / \ € / A > A 
rA@ccac’ ToUTO 6€ Aeyel THv nuepayv THs ETLPavEelas 


> = / ? \ / ¢ ~ / \ \ 
avTov, OTE EAOwy AUTPWOETAL Huas ExaoTOV KaTa Ta 


af ~ \ ” \ ’ -_ \ | 
Epya avTov. Kai GyONTal THN AdZAN aUTOU Kal TO 


/ e af \ / ’ , \ 
KPaTOS OL AMLOTOL, Kat EenoOnoovra ioovTes TO Ba- 


3 mpocepxouevar] C3 mpocevydueva S. 7 Thy nuépav] super (de) die S. 
g Ti Sdéav adrod Kai 7d Kpdros] gloriam cjus in robore et potestate S. This again 
might be explained by an omission in C owing to the oa of similar hegum 
nings of words, rhv dd€av adrod [kara Thy Sivauw (or tiv icxdv)] Kal 7d Kpdros ; 


but such an expression in Greek would be very awkward. 
therefore that vobur e¢ potestas is a double rendering of 70 xpdros. 


third person, by a common form of 
speech, to avoid egotism: comp. e.g. 
Clem. Rom. 63 yovyaoarvtes THs pa- 
Talas OTATEWS...KATAVTHT @MEV. 

I. advtrurapedkopebal ‘be dragged 
off in the opposite direction’ ; comp. 
Pers. Sa¢. v. 154 ‘duplici in diversum 
scinderis hamo’. The lexicons do 
not give this word. 

2. Koopikdv embvpiav] The ex- 
pression occurs Tit. 11.12. The word 
koopixos is apparently not found in 
the Lxx,-and only once besides (in 
a somewhat different sense) in the 
N. T., Heb. ix. 1. 

3. muKvoTEpov mpocepxopevor| ‘com- 
ing more frequently’, i.e. ‘to this 
place of meeting’, or perhaps ‘to 
the presence of God’ (comp. Heb. 
me, -22, Clem, Rom. 23, 29). “On 
these injunctions to more frequent 
services, see the note on Ign. EPA. 
13 omovdatere TuKVOTEpOY auVEpxEo- 
ac; comp. ib. Polyc. 4 mukvorepor 
guvayayal ywécOwoav. The Syriac 
reading however may be correct. 


It is more probable 
The preposi- 


5. o Kdpwos] Perhaps meaning 
‘Christ’, as Harnack takes it, re- 
ferring to § 3, where Is. xxix. 13 
seems to be put into the mouth of 
our Lord. 

6. "Epxopack.t.A.| From Is. lxvi. 18 
epxouar ouvayayety mavta Ta €Ovn Kal 
Tas yAwooas, Kai 7£ovo Kal dWovrat 
tv Sogav pov... There is nothing cor- 
responding to gdvAas in either the 
Hebrew or the LXx; and our preach- 
er must have got it from the familiar 
combination of ‘nations and tongues’ 
in Daniel, e.g 
pvdai kai yAdooa in the LXx. 

7. tTovro O€ déyer| ‘but by this he 
means’: see the note on § 8. 

Thy npépavy x1.A.] The same ex- 
pression has occurred § 12, where 
see the note on émdaveias. 

8. Avrpdaera] It is called jpépa 
amodutpooews in Ephes. iv. 30. For 
other passages, where dmodv’rpeocis 
refers to the final redemption, see 
Luke xxi. 28, Rom. viii. 23. 

exagtov «.t.A.| As only those who 


ill. 7 mavta ta €6vn 


xvi] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 


259 


, w~ 7, ) ~~ 5) nl V4 3 \ e ~~ 
ciNeov ToU Koopou év TH “Incov NEyovTes, Oval uty, 
4 \ Ss J \ > / \ 
OTL GU NS Kal OUK HOELMEV Kal OUK EmLoTEVOMEV, Kal 

> > / ~ / ~ > is 
ouk éreOouela Tois mpecBuTEpols Tots avayyéeNNovoL 

~ \ ie / = Ric , > a > 
HM TEE. THS TwWTHpLas nuwY? Kal ‘O CKMAHZ aAYTAN oY 
TEAEYTHCE! KAl TO TYP AYTON OY CBECOHCETAI Kal ECONTAI 
> o ’ 1 \ / 7 / ~ 
eic Spacin ACH CapKl. THY NMepav Exelvny Ever THS 
/ af \ > eon 7 \ 

Kpicews, OTav OvrovTat Tous év nuiv aoeBnoavTas Kal 
/ \ 5) \ ? A ~ e 
Tapadoyioauevous Tas évtoAas ‘Incov Xpiotov. ot 

\ / VA \ / \ / 
dé dikaior EUTpaynoavTEs Kal VTouElvavTes Tas Baca- 


tion (in place of the conjunction) may then be accounted for in two ways; (1) The 
translator read kata Kpdros for kal rd Kpdros; or (2) A Syriac transcriber inadver- 


tently wrote 2 for 1. 
above, p. 181. 


5. AéyovTes] et tunc dicent S. 


shall be released are contemplated, 
this must imply different grades of 
happiness. I do not see sufficient 
reason for doubting the genuineness 
of AuvTpecerau. 

9. kal dWovra] A continuation 
of the quotation from Isaiah, the 
intervening words being a paren- 
thetical explanation. See also Matt. 
axav.) 30; Rev. 1.7. 

10. gencbnoovra} ‘shall be a- 
Mmazed’,.as. i Pet. iv. 4,12. .The 
active Sevi¢ovra, ‘ perplexing’, ‘amaz- 
ing’, occurs in Acts xvii. 20. This 
sense is found in Polybius and from 
his time onward. See also the note 
on gev.cpor, Ign. Ephes. 19. 

To Bacieoyv|] ‘the kingdom’ or 
‘sovereignty’; see the note on § 6. 
We must understand ev r@ “Inood 
‘in the hands, in the power, of Jesus’, 
as in the common idiom eiva: év ri: 
see Rost u. Palm Grech. Worterd. 
S.v. év i. 2. b. 

12. ov 7s] ‘Thou wast He’; see 
esp. John vill. 24 édy py meorevonre 
Ore €y@ eipt, amobaveiabe ev tais 


The latter explanation seems to be more probable: see 
10 léévres] C3; eidéres (from cdolres) S. 
kéoou] mundi huius S. See the note on § 19 €v TO kdopy. 


II TOU 
év TO "Inood] om. 
17 Nui] S; vu C. 


duapriats var, 20. ver. 28 ToTe yyo- 
ceoOe dru eyo eipt, Xili. 19 Wa 
TioTevonte...oT. eyo eiwt. The 
preacher seems to be alluding to 
this language of our Lord, as re- 
corded by St John. 

14. 0 oxoAné «.7.A.] From Is. Ixvi. 
24, the last verse of the prophet. 
Our preacher has already quoted 
this passage, § 7; see the note there. 

17. orayv dwovra] ‘when men shall 
see’, the nominative being  sug- 
gested by the preceding «is épaow 
maon capki. For the future indica- 
tive with oray see Winer xlii. p. 388; 
but no dependence can be placed on 
the MS in such a case. 

18. mapadoytoapevors | ‘played false 
with’, ‘attempted to cheat’; see 
Ign. Magn. 3 rov adparov mapadoyi- 
¢erac (with the note). See 4 Esdr. 
vli. 72 with Bensly’s note (p. 63). 

19. evmpaynoaytes| If the reading 
be correct, it must mean ‘having 
been virtuous’ and not (as else- 
where) ‘having been prosperous’ ; 
comp, Occaorpayety. 


256 THE EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT. [xvi 


\ / e , a ~ J 
yous Kal plonoavTes Tas Houmaleias THs Wuyns, OTaV 
/ \ / \ 7 A 
GeacwvTat Tous aoToynocavTas Kal dpvnoapevous ova 
~ / 3\ \ ~ af \ > ~ c/ / 
TwWV ANOYwY Hn Ola TwY Epywy tov ‘Incovv, ows Koda- 
~ / \ > sf do 
Covrat dewais Bacavos rupli doBéoTw, EoovTa Sof€av 
, land = rt / e/ \ 
diovtes TH Oew attwv, NEyovTes STL "EoTra €Amris 5 


Tw SedovAevKoTt Dew EF ANS Kapdias. 


XVIII. 


Kai nets ovv yevwucba ex TeV evxapl- 


/ lo , ~ ~ \ \ 3 ~ 
oTovvTwy, Twv dedovAEvKOTWY TH OEw, Kal pH EK TOY 


VA ros 
Kplwomevwy aceBwv. 


\ \ > \ \ 
Kal yap avtos mavOauapTwrdos 


\ \ / \ \ / ’ ae), \ > 
wy Kat pnw duywy Tov Teipacuov, aAXN ETL wy Ey 10 


2 da] H dua S. 
5 Oddvres] S; ddvres C. 


I. 7dumaGeias] See the note on §16. 

2.  doroxnoavras| ‘missed the 
mark’, ‘gone astray’; see 1 Tim. 
iG, wi, 2%, 2 Dims ii18. <The word 
is not uncommon in Polybius and 
later classical authors. 

4. mupi doBeorw| Matt. iii. 12, 
Mark ix. 43, Luke iii.17. For the re- 
ference of pseudo-Justin to this state- 
ment see I. p. 178 sq. 

XVIII. ‘Let us take our place 
with those who, having served God, 
will join in this thanksgiving. I 
myself, though I am still surrounded 
by the temptations of the devil, yet 
strive to follow after righteousness, 
that I may escape the judgment to 
come.’ 

9. mavOapaprodos| The word is 
not given in the lexicons. Compare 
mavOapaptnros Afost. Const. vii. 18, 
Barnab. 20 (where the MSS agree in 
writing it without an aspirate), mavra- 
Suxos Philo de Creat. Pr. 3 (11. p. 362). 

II. dpyavois|] ‘the instruments, 
engines’; comp. Ign. Rom. 4. The 
word does not occur in the N.T.; 
and in the Lxx it seems to be ap- 
plied only to musical instruments, 


4 Tupi] C3 et zene S. 
7 ovv] add. adeAgot [ov] S. 
gevywy C; S has o'Sp which perhaps represents guvywr. 


écovrat] add. év ayadNdoee S. 


Io guywr] 
15 evrevéw] C; 


or military engines, or the like. 
The metaphor here is_ probably 
military; comp. 2 Macc. xii. 27 
evOade dpyavev Kat Bede@v modal 
mapabéoets, and see Ephes. vi. 16 
ta Békn Tod movnpov [ra] wemupopéva. 
The preacher finds himself ev auqu- 
Bodr@, the enemy having environed 
him with his engines of war. 

12. dtxacocvyny dioxew] A phrase 
occurring in the Pastoral Epistles, 
1 Tim. vi. 11, 2 Tim. ii. 22 (comp. 
Rom. ix. 30). 

kav éyyvs|] ‘at all events near, 
if I cannot actually reach it’. For 
this use of cay comp. Ign. Ephes. 10 
Kay €k TOY Epyey, with the note. 

XIX. ‘Therefore, brothers and 
sisters, I have exhorted you to give 
heed to the Scriptures, that ye may 
save both me and yourselves. Your 
hearty repentance and earnest pur- 
suit of salvation is the return which 
I ask for my trouble. Your zeal 
will thus stimulate all the young 
who have any regard for godliness. 
And let us not be annoyed when we 
are admonished and turned away 
from sin. Half-heartedness and dis- 


XIX] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 


25/7 


7 ~ 3 7 - / 
sMecols Tols opyavois Tov dtaBoAov, orovdatw Thy 
/ / / \ om 
Oukatoouvny SiwKEW, O7rws loYVTW Kav éyyuUs avTis 
/ / \ / \ / 
yeverOa, poBoumevos THY Kpiow THY MéANOVTAD. 
e/ \ \ 
XIX. “Wore, adeApol Kal adeAdal, META TOV 
Oo \ - 5) fa / > / eon af > A 
15 Geov ts adnleias avaywwoKw vulv evtevEwW eis TO 
/ ~ / e/ \ \ 
TPOTEXELV TOS YEYPAMMEVOLS, Va Kal EaUTOUS TwWoNTE 
\ \ >’ / ~ \ \ cand ~ 
Kal Tov avaywwoKovTa év vuiv' wucboy yap aiTo vuas 
A ~ b) J / / € ~ 
TO peTavonoa €€ OANS Kapdias TwTnplav éavToOis Kal 


\ / ~ \ / \ a 
Cony OvoovTas. TOUTO Y%pP TOLGOAVTES OKOTOY Tracly 


clearly a‘gloss. See 5. p. m1. § 
17 Tov avarywwoKovra &v tui] me gui lego 


supplicationem, id est, admonitionem S; 
a > , 
governs T7s adneias by évrevéw. 


wrong ; 


vobis verba (or oracula) det S. 19 
was anticipated by Bensly, Gebhardt, and 


belief obscure our sense of right and 
and our understandings are 
darkened by our lusts. Let us prac- 
tise righteousness. Blessed are they 
who obey these precepts. They may 


oxomdv|] S; xdmrov C. This reading of S 
Hilgenfeld. 


~ / , r . 
kaA@y ToUT@Y piunoews Troveira ; Orig. 
c. Cels. ili. 50 kal 80 dvayvoopator 

A lod > \ , 
kat Ova Tov eis avta Sinynoewy mpotpe- 
TovrTes pev emt tTHyv eis Tov Oedv Tor 
of > , \ \ , , 
oA@y evoéBevay Kai Tas cuvOpovous Tav- 


Tn aperas, amrorperovtes O€ k.T.d. ; Afost. 
Const, li. 54 peta THY dvdyyecw kai 
Thy Wadu@diay kai thy emt Tais ypa- 
ais didackadiavy. See also the notes 
on § 17 pa povoy dpte x«.t.A. and the 
introduction, p. 195. For the ex- 
pression 6 O©¢d0s ts dAnOeias see 


suffer in this world, but they will 
reap the fruit of immortality. Let 
not the godly man be sorrowful, 
if he suffer now. An eternal life in 
heaven awaits him, where he shall 
live in bliss with the fathers, and 
where sorrow shall have no place.’ 


Méxpts eYX@pEt” 


14. ddeAdoi cai adeAdai] Comp. 
§ 20. So Barnab. 1 viot Kat Ovya- 
téepes, Rel. Fur. Eccl. p.74 (Lagarde). 
peta tov Ocov «t.A.] i.e. ‘After 
you have heard the voice of God 
in the Scriptures’, as it is rightly 
explained by Bryennios. The ser- 


mon or exhortation followed imme- 


diately after the reading of the 
Scriptures in the weekly gatherings 
of the early Church: Justin AZo. 
i. 67 cuvédevots yiverat kal Ta aTrouyn- 
povetpara TOV aTooTOA@Y 7) Ta Ovy- 
yedupara TOV mpopnray a dvaywaokerat, 
ira, mavoapévou TOD 
dvaywdoKovros, 0 mpoeatas dia Aéeyou 
THY vovOeciay Kat mpoKAnow THs Tav 


CLEM. II. 


S$ 3 Tov marépa tris adnOeias (comp. 
§ 20). Its use here as a synonyme 
for the Scripture is explained by the 
preacher's language above § 13, ra 
Aoyia TOU Oeov, Aéyer 6 Geds. 

15. evrevéw] ‘appeal’ ‘entreaty’; 
as’ €.g,' Justin Agaf 1.” £) (p93), 
Joseph. Azz. xvi. 2. 5, Philo Vz. 
Moys. iii. 32 (1. p. 172), and so most 
frequently in classical authors. For 
its commoner sense in Christian 
writers, ‘supplication to God’, see 
the note on Clem. Rom. 63. 

16. waxaik.t.A.] Comp. Ezek. 1ii.21. 

18. petavonoa x.t.r.| See the note 


S 17. 


17 


258 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [xix 


~ / h qq uy: \ \ ’ lA 
Tois veots Oyoouev Tots BovAopevois mEpL THY eve Berav 
\ \ 
Kal py 
’ ~ af \ > ad € »/} e/ 
anows EXWMEV Kal ayavaKTwMEV OL agodol, OTaY TIS 


/ ~ Cal ~~ 
kal THY xpnoTOTNTa Tov OéEeov diAozovely. 


e ~ ~ \ > / > \ - > / > \ 

Nas vouletn Kal ETLOTPEPN anO0 THS GoiKlas Els THY 
t 

/ Cia 4 \ \ 7 / 

OLKALOGUYNY, EVLOTE Yep TOV pa 7 PAGO OVTES ou VylVw- 

\ \ / / \ > a > 

oKopev Oia THY OipuxXlav Kal dmioTiaY THY évovmTay EV 


lo / ~ > ! \ ' \ 
Tos oTnOeow yuwv, Kal éckoTiCMedda THN AIANOIAN U7TO 


a ~ ~ / 
Twv émiuuwyv Twy paTaiwv. 


/ e/ > ic qn 
Kalocvyny iva eis TEAOS TwOwpED. 


mpaewuevy ouv THY OI- 


7 € / 
MakapLlol OL TOUTOLS 


/ a / \ / / 
UTAKOVOVTES TOLS TPOTTAYyMaGLY* Kav OAlyov xXpoVvoY 


2 girorovety] manifestent amorem laboris S: see Michaelis in Castell. Lex. Syr. 
p- 656. The scribe of C has first written ¢iAocopetv, but has afterwards corrected 


it so as to be read @iAXoTovetv. 


stprentes S. 5 lore] S; eva C. 


See p. 206. 


3 ol dcopa] C3 tanguam ilk in- 
II T@ Kéouw] S; add. rovrw C. I have 


the less hesitation in striking out ro’vw here because the general tendency of S is 
to insert the pronoun, not to omit it, in this connexion: e.g. § 5, 19, 38, 60, ii. 18. 
dOdvarov] S; dé @dvarov C. The correction was obvious, even before the reading 
of S was known; and the only question was whether to read rév & a@dvaroy or 


2. giromoveiy] Ecclus. Prol. trav 
Kata THY ێppnvelav mredpiiorrovnpevar. 
The word occurs in classical writers 
of the best age. 

3. py ayavaxropev| Clem. Rom. 
56 madelav ef 7 opeiner 
ayavaxkrety. 


ot acodo.| ‘fools that we are’, for 
this is the force of the article; comp. 
S$ I of axovovres (with the note). For 
aaodos comp. Ephes. v.15. It seems 
not to occur again in the Bible 
(except Prov. ix. 8 in A, where there 
is nothing corresponding in the He- 
brew); and is not very common 
elsewhere. 

6. Supvxiav] As above § 11 pa 
dupuxepev. See the notes on Clem. 
Rom. 11,23. To the references there 
given add Barnab. 19 ov pun dupuxnons 
TOTEpOV €oTAL 7) Ov. 

7. eokotiopebak.t.A.| From Ephes. 
iv. 17, 18, ev patatTntt Tov voos av- 


ovdels 


od > , ] > s ‘ 
Tov, eokoT@pevor (V. 1. eoxorirpevor) 


ty Stavoia; comp. Clem. Rom. 36 7 
davveros Kal €oxotopemn Sudvova nov. 

10. OAlyov xpovoy x«.t.A.| Comp. 
I Pet. i. 6 dAtyov Gpti ei déov, AuTN- 
Oévres, V. 10 oAlyov maOdvras. For 
kaxoradeiy see 2 Tim. ii. 9, iv. 5, 
James v. 13; comp. ovykaxoradeiv, 
2 Tim 1. Bs 0.5 3 

12. xaprov tpvyncovow]| Hos. x. 12 
omeipate éavtois eis Oikavoovyny, Tpv- 
yyoate eis kaprov Cais. 

13- pakaptos adrov x.t.A.] See Hip- 
pol. de Univ. p. 69 (Lagarde) 9 rév 
TaTépa@v Sikaiwy Te papery Oris Tay- 
ToTe pela dvapmevovT@y thy pera 
TOUTO TO Xx@pioy avaravow kai aiwviay 
avaBiwour...addAa Kal ovror [oi GdcKor] 
TOY TOV TaTépwv xXopov Kal Tovs 
Sixalovs opéat, kat em adt@ TovT@ 
kodaCopevol...kal TO copa...dvvatos 
0 Geds dvaBidaas abavaroy Tose, 
and lower down dmog6éy£orrat 
horny ovtas AéyovTes, Atxaia cov 7 
kpiows, and again ro mip daBeortov 


20 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 259 


xx] 


/ - / \ 7 ~ 
kakoTa@nowow €v TW KOTUW, TOV dBavaToY THS ava- 
/ \ / \ oy Ei e 
TTATEWS KapTOV TpYYynTOVGLY. jy ovY AUTELTOW O Ev- 
/ \ > \ ~ ~ 4 van J 
aeBys, €av él Tois vuY xpovols TaXaLTwWPH* jakapLOs 


\ / / ~ af \ ~ / 
QUTOV AVAMEVEL XPOVOS' EKELVOS aVW META TWY TATEDWY 


9 / 3 f > \ > / 7k 
dvaBiwoas evppavOncetat els TOV AAVTNTOY aiwva. 


XX. “Adra unde Exeivo Thy Stavorav Vuwv Tapac- 


7 c/ , \ > / a \ 
OéTW, OTL PAEOMEY TOUS aOiKOoUS mWAOUTOUYTAS, Kal 


/ \ ~ ~ / 
OT EVOVWPOUMEVOUS TOUS TOU Oceou SovAous. 


Vé 
LOT EUW MEV 


ouv, ddeAPOl Kal ddEAPal> OEov CwvTos meipav dOAovpEr, 
kal yupvaCoueba Tw viv Biw iva TO weNOVTL TTEPavw- 


>| bd / 
TOV abavarov. 
for adavdrou yvdcews in S itself. 


For another instance of the same error comp. § 36 davdrou yrdcews 


12 tpvyjoovow] delectabuntur...in S, i.e. 


Tpupjoovow; for the same word (OD) and its derivatives are used to translate 


Tpupy, § 10, and tpupy, évrpupav 2 Pet. il. 13. 
to xpévos and punctuates after rarépwv. 

S has 7uav) uh tapaccétw THv Kapdiay budv Rup 783. 
19 Qeod] dre Geod S. 


muoTevouev C, 


Suapéver...cK@ANE SE Tis Cumupos k.T.A. 
(comp. § 17). These resemblances 
suggest that our Clementine homily 
was known to this writer. 

15. avaSiwoas| 2 Macc. vil. 9 ame- 
Oavovtas nuas imép TOV avTov vopev 
eis ai@vov dvaBioow (wns nas ava- 
OTNCEL. 

advmnrov] ‘inaccessible to sorrow’, 
stronger than dAvmov; comp. Clem. 
Hom. xi. 17 obv npiv tov advrov 
ai@va kAnpovopjaat. 

XX. ‘Be not dismayed, if you see 
wrong-doers prospering, while the 
servants of God are straitened. Be- 
lieve it, this present life is the arena 
of our conflict; the crown will be 
awarded in the future. Our reward 
is not instantaneous. If it were so, 
then the pursuit of it would be a 
matter of traffic and not of piety.’ 

‘To the one invisible God of truth, 
who sent us a Saviour and through 
Him manifested truth and life to us, 


14 €kxewvos] S attaches this 
16 mde éxeivo...rapaccérw] CS (but 
18 micrevwuev|] S; 


be the glory for ever.’ 

16. “AAA unde éekeivo x.7.A.] This 
passage is quoted loosely and with 
some omissions in the Sacr. Parall. 
(MS Rupef.), which bear the name 
of Joannes Damascenus, Of. II. p. 783 
(Le Quien); see above, I. p. 193 sq. 
It will be seen that in the quotation 
the original words are altered, so as 
to conform to well-known scriptural 
passages; €.2. yy Tapaccéro thy 
KapOlay voy is substituted for pndé 
€xelvo Thy Sidvoay vuov tapaccéra, 
after John xiv. I, 27; and evoéBevay 
is substituted for OeocéBevav, after 
Ee Pim, vis, 

19. mwetpav] For the accusative after 
adketv comp. eg. Plato Leg. viii. 
p. 830 A, Plut. Vzt. Demetr. 5; and 
for such accusatives generally see 
Kuhner II. p. 264. For an elaborate 
application of the same metaphor 


see § 7. 


17—2 


260 THE EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT. [xx 


~ ~ / \ \ a] 
Oauev. ovvdels Tov Stkalwy Taxvv Kaprrov EXaBev, aAN 


> / > / > \ \ \ la / € 

exdexeTar avtov. ei yap Tov pucbov Twy diKalwy oO 

Ocos cuvTOpws dredioov, evOéws Eurropiay noKoUpEV Kal 

5) / ? ~ \ > / 5) \ 

ov OeooéBerav: édoKovpev yap evar Sikaol, ov TO 

\ ~ 

evoeBes dAAa TO KEpdadéov SiwKoVvTES* Kal Ota TOUTO 

’ ~ 3\ > y 

Geia xpiow EBAaWev rveipa pr ov SiKaov, Kat €Ba- 
puvev deo pols. 

Ta povw Oem cdopatw, mato THs adAnOelas, TH 

Pyros pau, pio te n 2 ne 

b] € ~ lal \ a 

éFarooTethavTt Hpiv TOV GWTNHpa Kal apynyov TNS 


adbapcias, 8’ ov Kal édaveowoev juiv thy adAnOeray 
ee? p pe 


1 taxdv] C Rup; celeriter (raxv) S, using the same adverb which renders ovyTd- 


pws just below. 


ceBées] C Rup; OeoceBes S. 


4. OeoceBevav| See 1 Tim. ii. Io. 
It occurs occasionally in the LXx. 

5. Oia rovro x«.7.A.] i.e. fon ac- 
count of these sordid motives Divine 
judgment overtakes and cripples the 
spirit of a man, seeing that it is not up- 
right, and loads it with chains’. The 
word BAamrew is used especially of Di- 
vine vengeance surprising its victim, 
checking and maiming him in his 
mid career; e.g. Hom. Od. i. 195 
adda vu Tov ye Beoi BAarrovar KedevOov, 
2b. xiv. 178 tov Oێ tis adBavarwv Brae 
gpevas, Xen. Symp. vill. 43 qv py 
cos Branry, Plut. Vzt. Caes. 45 vo 
Gcod patiora Barropéva THY yvaounv 
éokos «7.4. Trag. in Lycurg. « 
Leocr. p. 159 otav yap opyn Satpover 
Bdantn Twa, TOUT avTO mpeTor, e€ap- 
aupeitar dpevav tov vovy tov éaOdov 
kT.A.. and so frequently. Sordid 
motives bring their own punishment 
in a judicial blindness (SAamret rved- 
pa). The aorist here has its common 
gnomic sense, and is the most ap- 
propriate tense: see Kihner II. p. 
136 sq. Previous editors seem to 


7 despots] S; decpds C. 
add. domini nostri tesu christi (im apposition) S. 


3 cwrbpws dmedidov, ev0éws] CS; evOéws amedidov Rup. 
4 ov OeocéBevav] CS; ovK evoéBeray Rup. 


5 ev- 
8 ts ddnOeias] 


ov 70] CS; ov dia ro Rup. 
Q nuly Toy owTHpA Kal apxn- 


have mistaken the sense. Bryennios 
says py Ov Sikaov, TovTEcTW, ddikas, 
but it is not clear what he means. 
Hilgenfeld reads decpovs, and ex- 
plains ‘Christiani non omni ex parte 
justi persecutionem gentilium patie- 
bantur’. Harnack, misled by the 
aorist, says ‘auctor dabolum respi- 
cere videtur, quem tamquam avaritiae 
principem et auctorem hic infert (?)... 
censuit igitur, diabolum jam hoc tem- 
pore catenis onustum esse’. He might 
have quoted Wolsey’s warning to 
Cromwell in Henry VIII, ‘ By that 
sin fell the angels’. 

8. T@ povm Gem aopatw] Comp. 
1 Tim. i. 17 dopdt@ povo Oc. 

matpl ths adnOeias| As in § 3. So 
also o ©eds rns adnOeias § 19. The 
Syriac translator takes ‘the Truth’ 
here to denote Christ Himself (John 
xiv. 6); comp. Orig. c. Cels. vill. 63 
UTO TOU QEod Kat THs povoyevods avT@ 
adAnOeias. So Papias (Euseb. 7. £. 
iii. 39) speaks of Christ’s personal 
disciples as receiving commandments 
amr avtns THs adnOelas. 


Lael 


oO 


xx] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 261 


\ ‘ > / / > - € / > \ IA 

Kal THY ETOUpaVvLoV Cwny, QUTW 1 d0ga ELS TOUS alwyas 
GC A ad / 

TWV ALWYWY. aun. 


yov THs apGapoias] salvatorem et principem vitae et salutis nostrae S. Il fay] 
C; delectationem (SOD\2) S; which word elsewhere is a rendering of tpu@7 (see 
above, § 19) or of ddNavats (see i § 20). alte 7 Od&a] atgue etiam jesu christo 
domino nostro cum spiritu sancto gloria et honor et imperium (i.e. n dEa Kal yn TYuy 
kal TO Kpdros) S. 


9. Tov caTnpa «7.A.] Acts v. 31 pias. Comp. Zfést. Vienn. 17 (in 
apxnyov kal ogwtipa compared with LEuseb. #7. £. v. 1) apynyov tis Cons 
ill. 15 Tov dpxynyov ths (wns: see also Tov Geov. 

Heb. ii. 10 rov apynyov ths oetTn- 









* 






ae, Le cing Br: . 
a 

tdi “ F) 
fon 





math mt? PA 


woleyssies 


Page 


16. 


26. 


27. 
28. 


29. 
30. 
34: 


= 


NN 


3 nul av...[ xapes 


La 


me WN N 


bp S&S N 


The lacune in the Alexandrian Manuscript. 


[TTpoc] Kopin61oye 

[H eéxxAy|ota...y mapot- 
kovoa. |‘Poynv | 

TH Tal porxov |on 

nylacpev]ots...r0d | Kupiov 

v |uiv.. .rav- 
To| pao |pos 

[Ava tas] aidpvedéovs...[-ye- 
vop. |évas 

[ repulrroces...[ vou |iCopev 

meroun| oO ja 

[ra]p’ vpiv...[r]yAs Te 

vrotac| o |ovres 

Aap Bal v lovres 

ap| k |ovpevor 

Ava prov kat POovolv ot 
péyt|oroe 

atvA[ou edi |yOnoar...€ws 
davaro| v 7OAncav | 

mpo op$arpalvy nd] ... 
amtrooToXov| s 

ILérpov] ds...0vx [eva ov]de 
dvo 

u7| nveyKev | rovous...LapTu- 
ee 

oderAl opevor]...dua Cirol v 

kat épw]| IadAos... [ve 
dec |Eev 

[ puya |devbeis ...y[ evo |wevos 

elv 7H] dicen 


Karnvty| cay | 


Page 


34. 


35: 


36. 


31: 


49. 


I 


mm & NW N 


un 


on 


La 


Tovt|o| 

ootéwv pov] 

vropvycKor| Tes | 

oKappal Te 

érixe| tar]...Kevas | kat | 

eI pev | 

t| 7s 
tow | nev 


Trapado |oews ... [Kat 


[kat ti mpo|odextov... Tod 
trou| noavT jos 

[arevio |wpev...[ Kat yv |onev 

TO Oc@ | Kat tarp |i adrod 

[cwr|npiav...7@ Kol op] 

[ dueAG Jwwev...[ Kai] KaTapa- 
Owpev 

yevea [ka]t...€du| «lev 

[ 3 ueAe x Popev 

[ai] apaprias...dpuadv [ws] 

[zpos oe cionA|Gov 

Lyis mpGv]...0 yap Balov- 
Aeds ov|Tws 

elonAOov [pev of av |dpes 

[adXa ed €|ws...zopevor| rar 
ie 


év[ adAag] 
ylwovt|oxovoa...o7. | Kvpos 
0 @c<os| 


bpiv [tHv woldAw tavdryv. 
Omitted in the colla- 
tion. For zoAw C has 


Te 


264 


Page 


THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


49. 12 0 [tpoluos...rots xa[rou]- 


0° 


65. 


68. 


KOUG LY 
yev| naw | 
avro[d| 
duxarocvy| nV | 
dvdacKo|v]...[ov]|rws 


2 éhen6[7|re...w[s] movetre 


on 


| 


rounOyoetar dpltv] ..d06%- 
cetau [vty | 

kp\OnoeoGe ws x |pyotev- 
eae... xpylorevOy |oerau 

pee| Tpetre | 

[ratty T]H.-.rapayyérl pa- 
ow} 


Eav| TOUS ei|s 


[ovra|s...ad[rod — t |azrewo- 
ppovovvTes 

[pyoily yap...[eri] Bra 

[ yo |bxLov 

[ O¢ |kaov 


[k]oi madu 

TH yAdoon ait lav 

[a jerav 

katny|opet A€ywv|...a70 pu- 
m[ov ovd av| 

adto[d]...ev dAw [7 

oikw| adrov...| vrype|oias 

Altyurrov]...[aix.jopatov 

Kael ivos | 

éu.| eya |Aopnuovycer ...é[ mt 
Ts| Barov 

d1d0| we |vov. ..7réurr| evs | 

Bp|a|dvyAwooos 

efadeup|ov]...ev enol ¢ | 

amo pi |Wys...[Kkaltorved lua 

avravé|Ans am é|uod...77Vv 
ayad| Xiao w 

t\od }~=— gwrnpiov...|yyeno|- 

VKD 


d1da| Ew ave |uwous...a| ceBet|s 


Page 


68. 


79: 


82. 


83. 


89. 


2 


3 


4 
5 
4 


5 
6 


| 
18 


ae) 


13 
14 


15 
16 


17 
18 


a” 


[ptoal] pe 

THs [owt |ypias... [dyad ]Aca- 
oetar...[ dix |avcoovvyy 

[ av Jotéeus 

avay|y]eAet...9| 0 |eAnoas 

éurool| Clovra...aoré| p |ov 

duataynv | a.|dTod 

[wr JapexBacews...[to]ds emt 
TETOY[LEVOUS 

mp|oawrrov 6e| 

[rod e€oAe |Opedoo...uv7- 
u[oovvov | 

0 O[ixatos]...ad7[ od Kat éx] 
TAT OV 

aldrov épv|oato 

pao tryes|...€A[ wiCov |ras 

kukrooe| t| 

k| at evep }yetuKos 

el rt tovs| PoBovpevous 

ntiws [Te] Kat...avz7| ov] 

Tporepxonevoy s| 

Us 

éx vex| pav | 

kata. Kat{pov]...yuép[a Kat | 

dyAodto|wW]... 

nl wépa]...... erép| xerau a- 
Bw |wev 

[ws Kal] tiva tpdmov 

[éép\Oev 0 o|reipwv...[ €xa- 
oro |v 

tre| covra | 

dujadverar]...4  peyalreo- 
T|ns 

[ avic |rnow 

ei| ova| 


[tdw |uev...[yev }owevov 


20 |70|rous 


20 
2I 
22 


[A ]éyer 
[kat exounyOnv 
eEy| y|epOnv...[ Kai maduy 


Page 
go. 
97: 


98. 


10o. 


Iol. 


102. 


105. 


Di. 


E 


24 
I 


wm on Am BW N 


~ 
O 


[a ee | 
Om bh W N SS 


i 
~I 


THE ALEXANDRIAN MANUSCRIPT. 


[t7) |v capKa pov 

metoOna| ews yuo |oKwv 

90€[ ws mpoonye|ro...Tamet- 
vopp| oovvys | 

av|Tod du” ade] pov 

mpos| AaBav]...€06[naitd| 

tov |'Iopayr 

éedv| tus... €iAuxpwr| ds | 

[ve] yarcta...dedopné[verr | 

iepei| s | 

Aevtoupy| ody |res 

tia7| €|ws 

ayaborout| as] 

deoror| ns | 

peta. exteveial s| 

ayab| ov | 

6| eo7d |rys...€p| yous | 

avt|ov| sec. 

eornpice| v | 

avulverer Oued |opgoer... 
[ Ste |puo ev 

[emt tov 


1 Bp ov| Anja. |ros 


14 
15 
16 
17 


av| ry C|aa...[dvar lage 

Garac|cav x |at...mpodnm- 
[ ovpyy|oas 

[ du |vdpe 

[ka |i...[avOpw7 jov 

[7 |AnGos 

k| at THY Kata |oyeow...7| 7s 
vis] 

av| Tov: KdOov]...ews av [Oa 

tovs| €xOpovs cov vzore- 
diol v Tov ro |dav 


e| XPpot | ...avteraca| ouevor| 
.. OeAnpal Te 
avrov | 


av6| pes aded |por 
exteveials év Tots| apwdors 


[avrod]...oTpal revo |wevous 


Page 
IT3. 
rig. ft 
I15. 


Ae 9 So | 


Evy. 


BIGS 1 
Eons OG 


E30 


22 
58 
24 
EAG02 03 
5 
6 


7 
a7. S 


9 


265 


| pov |...eveuktex| ds | 

érteAo| 6 low... mavre|s| 

odo v | 

oA[ ov | 

vrotaccێoG| w | 

cabal s | 

paptupetr| w | 

pl ap |rupetc bau 

[yrw] Kat...ywwolKov ore 

et |epos...[avt@] THv...ava- 
Aoyu| cop. |eBa 

otas | vAns| 

tives ei lop AOapev ... [ex 
trot |ov 

[o rAa]oas 

[eion |yayev ... [rpo]erouua- 
cas 

[avrjov...[rad]ra 

[o]petAopev 

alee 

[a ]bpoves 

el KeA Jevorev 

[Kai ému]deiEaro 

[ras odpa|yidas...r7[ v oxy- 
vnv | 

mpoe|tAev tas] paBdovs 

p[aBdos]... BeBXal oryxvia| 

mp| onder | 

pérXrAew [eoec Gar] 

ax[atacra|oia...ovruls 

érot|noev...7[6 dvo]ua 

povou [cod | 

ToAttevoper| ous | 

frovek[ or] 

[rv] avykovrwv ... év[ Kexv- 
pa.|re 

[tas tov] mvevparos 

[ore ov]dev...aapazel zrovn |- 
[LEVOV 

[ovx elupyoere 


266 


Page 
137.10 
14a 
12 
13 
bao) a 
2 
3 
E99. EI 
£2 
13 
140. 4 
PEO.) 3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
FS. © 
9 
10 
II 
12 
13 
14 
15 
G2 5 
2 
3 
4 
6 
eee | 
8 
9 
10 


THE EPISTLES OF 'S. CLEMENT. 


arose| BAnp|évous .. 
wx Onoar 


. [ede]- 


vo avol wo |v 

[avlociwy...v0 zal pa|vo- 
pLov 

[v]ro rav...[a]veAnporwv 

[e]UxAews... [7] yap 

fe|enfoy 

[7] Avavias 

[ra |vapérw 

9 ddێ[a ei]s...7dv ail ovo 

aluqv...[o]i dé  vrolp|e- 
VOVTES 

[ k oAAnPopev 

evpe| Onvar| 

[o cds: dedpe]Oa.. .ar| 0 

Tov éAd€lous...| evpeOaper | 

avOpa| rivys|...7aca|e azo 

"Adap] éws...rapq| Gov | 

redcwwH€v| Tes ]...€xo| vow | 

pavep| wOyoov|rar ... Bact- 
A[ eas] 

tort [@clov...cio€A| Here] 

ocov dol ov] 

Ou[ wos ]...7u€p[ as | 

[éx| tov OnKav 

[mpoo|raypata...é|v o|n0- 
voia. 

apeOy| var | 

al pé |Onooyr 

érexa| Av |pOyoar...a| yp | 

apaptialv]|...av7| ov | 

él yé|vero 

npl dv |...al to |vev 

"Ooa. [ov |v rape| réca|nev 

[rob avrix| ee |vov...[ade- 
Ojvar piv | 

oiri[v les apxyny| or] 

éyer| 9 |Onoav 


Lal , 
Tal v| TAPQATT WILT OV 


Page 


154. 


Phe. 


157. 


6 [xpi |ua...xareB[n|oav 
7 Calv|res ... Oa[ varos 
peavet 


TOu- 


8 alvrovs...orpa[ tia avr |ov 
Q nyovpel vor 
[avaBa|rat 
10 [airialy 
11 [épvOp|av...[ 7d xd |npv69- 


VQt 


Aiy|varov ve 


12 aov|vérov|s 
13 [ta onpjeta [Kat]... Aiyi- 
| rrov| 
14 [rod @|eparovtos...[ M]wi- 
oéw|s| 
15 [o| deordrys 
16 [ov]dev...[ €€ ]owodroyetobau 
17 [o é]«Aexros 
18 éoporoyyco| »|ae 
20 m[{a|Aw 
21 ailvé|oews 
3 ériotac| Oe ra.|s 
4 [kat éyxlexipare 
5 [@e0d cis alvauvyow...tad- 
ta. [ypadpoper | 
6 avaBai[vovros  «i|s...mouy- 
cav| Tos 
| Tecoep |aKovTa sees Teo| cepa- 
kovt |a 
8 [kat tarew|oce...avtov [o 
Ocds | 
9 [Mwi]o7 Mwio?...[ To rax0s] 
evrevbev 
10 [6 Aads olov...[ Aiyvrro]v 
It ék [THs od00]...[ erotnoa|v 
12 [Katetze|v...AeAaAy| kampos | 
13 [éWpaxa| tov Naoy 
14 [eorw o]KAnpotpaxyndros... 
[we eSod |eOpedoau 
15 e€alrctipw t]o ovopa...vmo- 
ka twOev | . 


Page 


THE ALEXANDRIAN MANUSCRIPT. 


157. 16 [ce eis €|Ovos...[ Kat ror }v 


165. 


166. 


167. 


17 [kal etrev M|wions... Kupre 
[ades rHv] 

15 [ro oTréppa. cou | Ta O€ TEKVO. 
...[70 mapBo|ravov 

16 édevo[y dé ev Taldw...wpt- 
pols Kata, 

1 | kat |pov...@a| rep Onpw |via 

18 ov[vKopi|oGeioa ... ayamry- 
[roi zocos| 

19g tlots adev|opevars ... de- 
o7md| Tov maTHp 

20 ydp| ayabos...made| ver] eis 

t|0 éA€|nOnvae 
21 m|au|deias 
22 [rs] ordoews 
I viota| yy |re rau dev |- 
Onre 

2 Kkapar| tes | 

4 av0ad| eva |v 

5 [ev] To ropviw 

8 mpojoopale 

g vpilv...[d€ vuds 

Io éx[«dn éxadovv]...vrnKov- 
gate Kal egéret|vov 

II ov [mpocetyere]...ézo| etre 
Tas éuas| 

12 evlots éd€yxous] ... Tovya- 
[podv Kaye | 

13 amwdci|a émvyedaco lua... 
[ yvixa 

14 av| épxyta...oAefpols Kai 

ws av alpixytat 

15 O[opuBos 7 dé]...«[araryide 

ma |p7 


Page 


FO: 


168. 


267 


16 vpl[tv OrAds]...ylap, orav 
er |kadeono be 

1 [ovK cioa|xovoopuar...€qr|7q- 
covoty | 

2 evpy|covow]...[ Tov 

3 6€ o|Bor .... rpoeiAal vro 
ovde | 

4 mpooéy| ev BovaAais]...€uod|s 
eXéyxovs | 


5 THls éavtdv]...[Kat THs 
6 éavtav]...rAyoOyoov| TaL... 


At this point the ms breaks off 


until 
185. 


186. 


218. 


221. 


else 


225. 


239. 


240. 


5 ...Ao |urov...@eds [ kat | 
16 [zalons 


t [rolv Kupov 

2 [ils Aaov...[W]ux7 

3 peyado| m |peres...[ 2 |éorw 
4 opetro[pev]...7[ ovrors | 
5 [avrov] kai 

6 tolds] avOpudrovs 

7 olia]...rpaccdr| tov] 

8 éuold]...no[ 0] 

9 pols] 

14 dovdeveltv]...d] ovA levewv 
15 aovpdo[p|ov 

1 otepaly|wOjvar 

11 [ty] érayyeAia 


12 tadairwp| ot]... rpo[ py |ruxos 
13 «io[w| 

14 7|9] Kapdia...calvra] 

15 mal Té |pwv 

6 e[w | 

8 év t[ ots] Kadots 

I Tovr[o... 


Here the Ms ends. 


THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


Corrigenda in the collation of the Constantinopolitan ms {C}. 


Page 

48. arr evbéws 

70: ovpavot (OM. ot) 

Es Tapat Beipeva 
OUTWS 

74- KaLpOV Kal 

93. OU OUV TLS 


\ \ 

papas Kat (OM. Te) 

/ ‘\ 
peas Te Kal 

> / a “ 
evapecTEtTo THO Ocw 
evdeAex no Lov 
ava 4 mpoaKALcts 


Ne) 
ON 
_ 
Cw WN Tk N & & G CoN fe CO 


143. 
KOAWS (om. Kal) 


\ > , 
Tpos avapvyow 


TRANSLATIONS. 








te. Pik. Ob. os CLE NEE Be 


TU 


THES CORLNEEEANS:. 


HE Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the 

Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth, to them 
which are called and sanctified by the will of God through 
our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace from A\I- 
mighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied. 

1. By reason of the sudden and repeated calamities and 
reverses which are befalling us, brethren, we consider that we 
have been somewhat tardy in giving heed to the matters of 
dispute that have arisen among you, dearly beloved, and to 
the detestable and unholy sedition, so alien and strange to 
the elect of God, which a few headstrong and self-willed 
persons have kindled to such a pitch of madness that your 
name, once revered and renowned and lovely in the sight of 
all men, hath been greatly reviled. For who that had sojourned 
among you did not approve your most virtuous and stedfast 
faith? Who did not admire your sober and forbearing piety in 
Christ ? Who did not publish abroad your magnificent disposi- 
tion of hospitality? Who did not congratulate you on your 
perfect and sound knowledge? For ye did all things without 
respect of persons, and ye walked after the ordinances of God, 
submitting yourselves to your rulers and rendering to the older 
men among you the honour which is their due. On the 


292 S. CLEMENT OF ROME 


young too ye enjoined modest and seemly thoughts: and 
the women ye charged to perform all their duties in a blame- 
less and seemly and pure conscience, cherishing their own 
husbands, as is meet ; and ye taught them to keep in the rule 
of obedience, and to manage the affairs of their household in 
seemliness, with all discretion. 

2. And ye were all lowly in mind and free from arrogance, 
yielding rather than claiming submission, sore glad to give than 
to receive, and content with the provisions which God supplieth. 
And giving heed unto His words, ye laid them up diligently 
in your hearts, and His sufferings were before your eyes. 
Thus a profound and rich peace was given to all, and an 
insatiable desire of doing good. An abundant outpouring also 
of the Holy Spirit fell upon all; and, being full of holy counsel, 
in excellent zeal and with a pious confidence ye stretched out 
your hands to Almighty God, supplicating Him to be propi- 
tious, if unwillingly ye had committed any sin. Ye had conflict 
day and night for all the brotherhood, that the number of His 
elect might be saved with fearfulness and intentness of mind. 
Ye were sincere and simple and free from malice one towards 
another. Every sedition and every schism was abominable to 
you. Ye mourned over the transgressions of your neighbours: 
ye judged their shortcomings to be your own. Ye repented 
not of any well-doing, but were ready unto every good work. 
Being adorned with a most virtuous and honourable life, ye 
performed all your duties in the fear of Him. The command- 
ments and the ordinances of the Lord were written on the 
tables of your hearts. 

3. All glory and enlargement was given unto you, and 
that was fulfilled which is written; M/y beloved ate and drank 
and was enlarged and waxed fat and kicked. Hence come 
jealousy and envy, [and] strife and sedition, persecution and 
tumult, war and captivity. So men were stirred up, the mean 
against the honourable, the ill-reputed against the highly-reputed, 
the foolish against the wise, the young against the elder. For 
this cause vighteousness and peace stand aloof, while each 


=" 


at lt 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 2743 


man hath forsaken the fear of God, and become purblind 
in the faith of Him, neither walketh in the ordinances of His 
commandments nor liveth according to that which becometh 
Christ, but each goeth after the lusts of his evil heart, seeing 
that they have conceived an unrighteous and ungodly jealousy, 
through which also death entered into the world. 

4. For so it is written, And 2t came to pass after certain 
days that Cain brought of the fruits of the earth a sacrifice 
unto God, and Abel he also brought of the firstlings of the sheep 
‘and of their fatness. And God looked upon Abel and upon his 
gifts, but unto Cain and unto his sacrifices He gave no heed. 
And Cain sorrowed exceedingly, and his countenance fell. And 
God said unto Cain, Wherefore art thou very sorrowful? and 
wherefore did thy countenance fall? If thou hast offered aright 
and hast not divided aright, didst thou not sin? Hold thy peace. 
Unto thee shall he turn, and thou shalt rule over him. And 
Cain said unto Abel his brother, Let us go over unto the plain. 
And it came to pass, while they were in the plain, that Cain 
rose up against Abel his brother and slew him. Ye see, brethren, 
jealousy and envy wrought a brother’s murder. By reason of 
jealousy our father Jacob ran away from the face of Esau his 
brother. Jealousy caused Joseph to be persecuted even unto 
death, and to come even unto bondage. Jealousy compelled 
Moses to flee from the face of Pharaoh king of ‘Egypt, while 
it was said to him by his own countryman, Who made thee a 
judge or a decider over us? Wouldest thou slay me, even as 
yesterday thou slewest the Egyptian? By reason of jealousy 
Aaron and Miriam were lodged outside the camp. Jealousy 
brought Dathan and Abiram down alive to hades, because they 
made sedition against Moses the servant of God. By reason 
of jealousy David was envied not only by aliens, but was 
persecuted also by Saul [king of Israel]. 

5. But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us 
come to those champions who lived very near to our time. Let 
us set before us the noble examples which belong to our 
generation. By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and 

CLEM. II. 18 


274 S. CLEMENT OF ROME 


most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and 
contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the 
good Apostles. There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous 
jealousy endured not one nor two but many labours, and thus 
having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. 
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed 
out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been 
seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been 
stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the 
noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught 
righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the 
farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his 
testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world 
and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable 
pattern of patient endurance. 

6. Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multi- 
tude of the elect, who through many indignities and tortures, 
being the victims of jealousy, set a brave example among 
ourselves. By reason of jealousy women being persecuted, after 
that they had suffered cruel and unholy insults as Danaids and 
Dirce +, safely reached the goal in the race of faith, and received 
a noble reward, feeble though they were in body. Jealousy 
hath estranged wives from their husbands, and changed the 
saying of our father Adam, 7hzs now zs bone of my bones and 
flesh of my flesh. Jealousy and strife have overthrown great 
cities and uprooted great nations. 

7. These things, dearly beloved, we write, not only as 
admonishing you, but also as putting ourselves in remembrance. 
For we are in the same lists, and the same contest awaiteth us. 
Wherefore let us forsake idle and vain thoughts; and let us 
conform to the glorious and venerable rule which hath been 
handed down to us; and let us see what is good and what is 
pleasant and what is acceptable in the sight of Him that made 
‘us. Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and under- 
stand how precious it is unto His Father, because being 
shed for our salvation it won for the whole world the grace 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 275 


of repentance. Let us review all the generations in turn, 
and learn how from generation to generation the Master hath 
given a place for repentance unto them that desire to turn 
to Him. Noah preached repentance, and they that obeyed 
were saved. Jonah preached destruction unto the men of 
Nineveh ; but they, repenting of their sins, obtained pardon of 
God by their supplications and received salvation, albeit they 
were aliens from God. 

8. The ministers of the grace of God through the Holy 
Spirit spake concerning repentance. Yea and the Master of the 
universe Himself spake concerning repentance with an oath; 
For, as I live, satth the Lord, I desire not the death of the sinner, 
so much as his repentance ; and He added also a merciful judg- 
ment: Repent ye, O house of Israel, of your iniquity; say unto 
the sons of My people, Though your sins reach from the earth 
even unto the heaven, and though they be redder than scarlet and 
blacker than sack-cloth, and ye turn unto Me with your whole heart 
and say Father, I will give ear unto you as unto an holy people. 
And in another place He saith on this wise, Wash, be ye 
clean. Put away your iniquities from your souls out of My sight. 
Cease Jrom your iniquities ; learn to do good; seek out judgment ; 
defend him that is wronged: give judgment for the orphan, and 
execute righteousness for the widow ,; and come and let us reason 
together, saith He,; and though your sins be as crimson, I will 
make them white as snow, and though they be as scarlet, [ will 
make them white as wool, And tf ye be willing and will hearken 
unto Me, ye shall cat the good things of the earth; but of ye be not 
willing, neither hearken unto Me,a sword shall devour you; for 
the mouth of the Lord hath spoken these things. Seeing then that 
He desireth all His beloved to be partakers of repentance, He 
confirmed it by an act of His almighty will: 

9. Wherefore let us be obedient unto His excellent and 
slorious will; and presenting ourselves as suppliants of His 
mercy and goodness, let us fall down before Him and betake 
ourselves unto His compassions, forsaking the vain toil and the 
strife and the jealousy which leadeth unto death. Let us fix 

18—2 


276 S. CLEMENT OF ROME 


our eyes on them that ministered perfectly unto His excellent 
glory. Let us set before us Enoch, who being found righteous 
in obedience was translated, and his death was not found. 
‘Noah, being found faithful, by his ministration preached regene- 
ration unto the world, and through him the Master saved the 
living creatures that entered into the ark in concord. 

10. Abraham, who was called the ‘friend, was found faithful 
in that he rendered obedience unto the words of God. He 
through obedience went forth from his land and from his 
kindred and from his father’s house, that leaving a scanty land 
and a feeble kindred and a mean house he might inherit the 
promises of God. For He saith unto him; Go forth from thy 
land and from thy kindred and from thy fathers house unto the 
land which I shall show thee, and I will make thee into a great 
nation, and I will bless thee and will magnify thy name, and thou 
shalt be blessed. And I will bless them that bless thee, and I will 
curse them that curse thee; and in thee shall all the tribes of the 
earth be blessed. And again, when he was parted from Lot, God 
said unto him; Look up with thine eyes, and behold from the 
place where thou now art, unto the north and the south and the 
sunrise and the sea; for all the land which thou seest, I will give 
tt unto thee and to thy seed for ever; and I will make thy seed as 
the dust of the earth. If any man can count the dust of the earth, 
then shall thy seed also be counted. And again He saith; 
God led Abraham forth and said unto him, Look up unto the 
heaven and count the stars, and see whether thou canst count them. 
So shall thy seed be. And Abraham believed God, and it was 
reckoned unto him for righteousness. For his faith and hospitality 
a son was given unto him in old age, and by obedience he ~ 
offered him a sacrifice unto God on one of the mountains which 
He showed him. 

11. For his hospitality and godliness Lot was saved from 
Sodom, when all the country round about was judged by fire 
and brimstone; the Master having thus foreshown that He 
forsaketh not them which set their hope on Him, but appointeth 
unto punishment and torment them which swerve aside. For 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 277 


when his wife had gone forth with him, being otherwise-minded 
and not in accord, she was appointed for a sign hereunto, so 
that she became a pillar of salt unto this day, that it might 
be known unto all men that they which are double-minded 
and they which doubt concerning the power of God are set for 
a judgment and for a token unto all the generations. 

12. For her faith and hospitality Rahab the harlot was 
saved. For when the spies were sent forth unto Jericho by 
Joshua the son of Nun, the king of the land perceived that 
they were come to spy out his country, and sent forth men to 
seize them, that being seized they might be put to death. So 
the hospitable Rahab received them and hid them in the upper 
chamber under the flax-stalks. And when the messengers 
of the king came near and said, The spies of our land entered 
wn unto thee: bring them forth, for the king so ordereth: then 
she answered, The men truly, whom ye seek, entered in unto 
me, but they departed forthwith and are journeying on the way; 
and she pointed out to them the opposite road. And she 
said unto the men, Of a surety I perceive that the Lord your 
God delivereth this city unto you; for the fear and the dread of 
you ts fallen upon the inhabitants thereof. When therefore tt shall 
come to pass that ye take it, save me and the house of my father. 
And they said unto her, /¢ shall be even so as thou hast spoken unto 
us. Whensoever therefore thou perceivest that we are coming, thou 
shalt gather all thy folk beneath thy roof, and they shall be saved ; 
for as many as shall be found without the house shall perish. 
And moreover they gave her a sign, that she should hang out 
from her house a scarlet thread, thereby showing beforehand 
that through the blood of the Lord there shall be redemption 
unto all them that believe and hope on God. Ye see, dearly 
beloved, not only faith, but prophecy, is found in the woman. 

13. Let us therefore be lowly-minded, brethren, laying 
aside all arrogance and conceit and folly and anger, and let 
us do that which is written. For the Holy Ghost saith, Lez 
not the wise man boast in his wisdom, nor the strong in his 
strength, neither the rich in his riches; but he that boasteth let 


278 S. CLEMENT OF ROME 


him boast in the Lord, that he may seek Him out, and do judg- 
ment and righteousness ; most of all remembering the words of 
the Lord Jesus which He spake, teaching forbearance and long- 
suffering: for thus He spake; Have mercy, that ye may recetve 
mercy; forgive that 1t may be forgiven to you. As ye do, so 
shall it be done to you. As ye give, so shall ut be given unto you. 
As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye show kindness, so shall 
kindness be showed unto you. With what measure ye mete, tt 
shall be measured withal to you. With this commandment and 
these precepts let us confirm ourselves, that we may walk in 
obedience to His hallowed words, with lowliness of mind. For 
the holy word saith, Upfou whom shall I look, save upon him 
that ts gentle and quiet and feareth Mine oracles ? 

14. Therefore it is right and proper, brethren, that we 
should be obedient unto God, rather than follow those who 
in arrogance and unruliness have set themselves up as leaders 
in abominable jealousy. For we shall bring upon us no com- 
mon harm, but rather great peril, if we surrender ourselves 
recklessly to the purposes of men who launch out into strife 
and seditions, so as to estrange us from that which is right. 
Let us be good one towards another according to the com- 
passion and sweetness of Him that made us. For it is written: 
The good shall be dwellers in the land, and the innocent shall be 
left on tt; but they that transgress shall be destroyed utterly from 
zz. And again He saith; / saw the ungodly lifted up on high 
and exalted as the cedars of Lebanon. And I passed by, and 
behold he was not; and I sought out his place, and I found it 
not. Keep innocence and behold uprightness; for there is a 
remnant for the peaceful man. 

15. Therefore let us cleave unto them that practise peace 
with godliness, and not unto them that desire peace with dis- 
simulation. For Hesaithinacertain place; This people honoureth 
Me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; and again, 
They blessed with their mouth, but they cursed with their heart. 
And again He saith, Z7hey loved Him with their mouth, and 
wrth their tongue they led unto Him, and their heart was not 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 279 


upright with Him, neither were they stedfast in H1s covenant. For 
this cause Let the deceitful lips be made dumb, which speak iniquity 
against the righteous. And again; May the Lord utterly destroy 
all the deceitful lips, the tongue that speaketh proud things, even 
them that say, Let us magnify our tongue; our lips are our own; 
who is lord over us? For the misery of the needy and for the 
groaning of the poor I will now arise, saith the Lord. TI will set 
him in safety ; I will deal boldly by him. 

16. For Christ is with them that are lowly of mind, not 
with them that exalt themselves over the flock. The sceptre 
[of the majesty] of God, even our Lord Jesus Christ, came not 
in the pomp of arrogance or of pride, though He might have 
done so, but in lowliness of mind, according as the Holy Spirit 
spake concerning Him. For He saith; Lord, who believed our 
report? and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? We 
announced Him in His presence. As achild was He, as a root in 
a thirsty ground. Thereis no form in Him, neither glory. And 
we beheld Him, and He had no form nor comeliness, but His form 
was mean, lacking more than the form of men. He was a man of 
stripes and of towl, and knowing how to bear infirmity: for Hts 
face is turned away. He was dishonoured and held of no account. 
Fle. beareth our sins and suffereth pain for our sakes: and we 
accounted Fim to be in toil and in stripes and in affitction. And 
fle was wounded for our sins and hath been afflicted for our 
wniguities. The chastisement of our peace 1s upon Him. With 
flis bruises we were healed. We all went astray lke sheep, 
each man went astray in his own path: and the Lord delivered 
Flim over for our sins. And He openeth not His mouth, because 
Fle is affiucted. As a sheep He was led to slaughter; and as a 
lamb before his shearer 1s dumb, so openeth He not His mouth. 
In His humiliation His judgment was taken away. His genera- 
tion who shall declare? For His life is taken away from the 
earth. For the iniguities of my people He ts come to death. 
And I will give the wicked for His burial, and the rich for 
His death ; for He wrought no iniquity, neither was guile found 
wz His mouth, And the Lord desireth to cleanse Him from 


280 S. CLEMENT OF ROME 


His stripes. Tf ye offer for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived 
seed. And the Lord desireth to take away from the toil of Fits 
soul, to show Him light and to mould Him with understand- 
ing, to justify a Fust One that is a good servant unto many. 
And He shall bear their sins. Therefore He shall inherit many, 
and shall divide the spoils of the strong; because His soul was 
delivered unto death, and He was reckoned among the transgres- 
sors; and He bare the sins of many, and for their sins was He 
delivered up. And again He Himself saith; But / am a worm 
and no man, a reproach of men and an outcast of the people. All 
they that beheld me mocked at me; they spake with their lips ; 
they wagged their heads, saying, He hoped on the Lord; let 
Him deliver him, or let Him save him, for He desireth him. 
Ye see, dearly beloved, what is the pattern that hath been 
given unto us; for, if the Lord was thus lowly of mind, what 
should we do, who through Him have been brought under the 
yoke of His grace? 

17. Let us be imitators also of them which went about in 
goatskins and sheepskins, preaching the coming of Christ. 
We mean Elijah and Elisha and likewise Ezekiel, the pro- 
phets, and besides them those men also that obtained a good 
report. Abraham obtained an exceeding good report and was 
called the friend of God; and looking stedfastly on the glory 
of God, he saith in lowliness of mind, But 1 am dust and ashes. 
Moreover concerning Job also it is thus written; Axd Fob 
was righteous and unblameable, one that was true and honoured 
God and abstained from all evil. Yet he himself accuseth 
himself saying, Vo maz is clean from filth, no, not though hts 
life be but for a day. Moses was called fatthful in all His 
house, and through his ministration God judged Egypt with 
the plagues and the torments which befel them. Howbeit 
he also, though greatly glorified, yet spake no proud words, but 
said, when an oracle was given to him at the bush, Who am J, 
that Thou sendest me? Nay, [ am feeble of speech and slow of 
tongue. And again he saith, Lut [ am smoke from the pot. 

18. But what must we say of David that obtained a good 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 281 


report? of whom God said, / have found a man after My 
heart, David the son of Fesse: with eternal mercy have I 
anointed him. Yet he too saith unto God; Have mercy upon 
me, O God, according to Thy great mercy; and according to 
the multitude of Thy compassions, blot out mine iniquity. Wash 
me yet more from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my 
sin. For I acknowledge mine iniquity, and my sin is ever 
before me. Against Thee only did I sin, and I wrought evil in 
Thy sight, that Thou mayest be justified in Thy words, and 
mayest conquer in Thy pleading. For behold, in tniquities was 
L conceived, and im sins did my mother bear me. For behold 
Thou hast loved truth: the dark and hidden things of Thy 
wisdom hast Thou showed unto me. Thou shalt sprinkle me with 
hyssop, and I shall be made clean. Thou shalt wash me, and I 
shall become whiter than snow. Thou shalt make me to hear 
of joy and gladness. The bones which have been humbled shall 
rejoice. Lurn away Thy face from my sins, and blot out all 
mine tniquities. Make a clean heart within me, O God, and 
renew a right spirit in mine inmost parts. Cast me not away 
Srom Thy presence, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me. 
Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation, and strengthen me with 
a princely spirit. I will teach sinners Thy ways, and godless 
men shall be converted unto Thee. Deliver me from bloodguilti- 
ness, O God, the God of my salvation. My tongue shall rejoice 
in Thy righteousness. Lord, Thou shalt open my mouth, and 
my lips shall declare Thy praise. For, if Thou hadst desired 
sacrifice, [ would have given it: in whole burnt-offerings Thou 
wilt have no pleasure. A sacrifice unto God is a contrite spirit ; 
a contrite and humbled heart God will not despise. 

19. The humility therefore and the submissiveness of so 
many and so great men, who have thus obtained a good report, 
hath through obedience made better not only us but also the 
generations which were before us, even them that received His 
oracles in fear and truth. Seeing then that we have been par- 
takers of many great and glorious doings, let us hasten to re- 
turn unto the goal of peace which hath been handed down to 


282 S. CLEMENT OF ROME 


us from the beginning, and let us look stedfastly unto the 
Father and Maker of the whole world, and cleave unto His 
splendid and excellent gifts of peace and benefits. Let us 
behold Him in our mind, and let us look with the eyes of 
our soul unto His long-suffering will. Let us note how free 
from anger He is towards all His creatures. 

20. The heavens are moved by His direction and obey Him 
in peace. Dayand night accomplish the course assigned to them 
by Him, without hindrance one to another. The sun and the 
moon and the dancing stars according to His appointment circle 
in harmony within the bounds assigned to them, without any 
swerving aside. The earth, bearing fruit in fulfilment of His will 
at her proper seasons, putteth forth the food that supplieth 
abundantly both men and beasts and all living things which 
are thereupon, making no dissension, neither altering anything 
which He hath decreed. Moreover, the inscrutable depths of the 
abysses and the unutterable statutes of the nether regions are 
constrained by the same ordinances. The basin of the boundless 
sea, gathered together by His workmanship zzto tts reservotrs, 
passeth not the barriers wherewith it is surrounded; but even 
as He ordered it, so it doeth. For He said, So far shalt thou 
come, and thy waves shall be broken within thee. The ocean which 
is impassable for men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed 
by the same ordinances of the Master. The seasons of spring 
and summer and autumn and winter give way in succession 
one to another in peace. The winds in their several quarters 
at their proper season fulfil their ministry without disturbance ; 
and the everflowing fountains, created for enjoyment and health, 
without fail give their breasts which sustain the life of men. 
Yea, the smallest of living things come together in concord and 
peace. All these things the great Creator and Master of the 
universe ordered to be in peace and concord, doing good unto 
all things, but far beyond the rest unto us who have taken 
refuge in His compassionate mercies through our Lord Jesus 
Christ, to whom be the glory and the majesty for ever and ever. 
Amen. 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 283 


21. Look ye, brethren, lest His benefits, which are many, 
turn unto judgment to all of us, if we walk not worthily of 
Him, and do those things which are good and well-pleasing in 
His sight with concord. For He saith in a certain place, The 
Spirit of the Lord ts a lamp searching the closets of the belly. Let 
us see how near He is, and how that nothing escapeth Him of 
our thoughts or our devices which we make. It is right there- 
fore that we should not be deserters from His will. Let us rather 
give offence to foolish and senseless men who exalt themselves 
and boast in the arrogance of their words, than to God. Let us 
fear the Lord Jesus [Christ], whose blood was given for us. Let 
us reverence our rulers; let us honour our elders; let us instruct 
our young men in the lesson of the fear of God. Let us guide 
our women toward that which is good: let them show forth 
their lovely disposition of purity ; let them prove their sincere 
affection of gentleness ; let them make manifest the moderation 
of their tongue through their silence; let them show their love, 
not in factious preferences, but without partiality towards all 
them that fear God, in holiness. Let our children be par- 
takers of the instruction which is in Christ: let them learn how 
lowliness of mind prevaileth with God, what power chaste love 
hath with God, how the fear of Him is good and great and 
saveth all them that walk therein in a pure mind with holiness. 
For He is the searcher out of the intents and desires; whose 
breath is in us, and when He listeth, He shall take it away. 

22. Now all these things the faith which is in Christ con- 
firmeth: for He Himself through the Holy Spirit thus inviteth 
us: Come, my children, hearken unto me, I will teach you the 
fear of the Lord. What man is he that desiveth life and 
loveth to see good days? Make thy tongue to cease from evil, 
and thy lips that they speak no guile. Turn aside from evil 
and do good. Seek peace and ensue it. The eyes of the Lord 
are over the righteous, and His ears are turned to their prayer. 
Lut the face of the Lord ts upon them that do evil, to destroy 
their memorial from the earth. The righteous cried out, and 
the Lord heard him, and delivered him from all his troubles. 


284 S. CLEMENT OF ROME 


Many are the troubles of the righteous, and the Lord shall de- 
liver him from them all. Then again; Many are the stripes of 
the sinner, but them that set their hope on the Lord mercy shall 
compass about. 

23. The Father, who is pitiful in all things, and ready 
to do good, hath compassion on them that fear Him, and kindly 
and lovingly bestoweth His favours on them that draw nigh 
unto Him with a single mind. Wherefore let us not be 
double-minded, neither let our soul indulge in idle humours 
respecting His exceeding and glorious gifts. Let this scrip- 
ture be far from us where He saith; Weyetched are the double- 
minded, which doubt in their soul, and say, These things we did 
hear in the days of our fathers also, and behold we have grown old, 
and none of these things hath befallen us. Ye fools, compare your- 
selves unto a tree; take a vine. First tt sheddeth its leaves, then 
a shoot cometh, then a leaf, then a flower, and after these a 
sour berry, then a full ripe grape. Ye see that in a little 
time the fruit of the tree attaineth unto mellowness. Of a 
truth quickly and suddenly shall His will be accomplished, the 
scripture also bearing witness to it, saying; He shall come quickly 
and shall not tarry; and the Lord shall come suddenly into Fits 
temple, even the Holy One, whom ye expect. 

24. Let us understand, dearly beloved, how the Master 
continually showeth unto us the resurrection that shall be here- 
after; whereof He made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, 
when He raised Him from the dead. Let us behold, dearly 
beloved, the resurrection which happeneth at its proper season. 
Day and night show unto us the resurrection. The night falleth 
asleep, and day ariseth; the day departeth, and night cometh 
on. Let us mark the fruits, how and in what manner the 
sowing taketh place. The sower goeth forth and casteth into 
the earth each of the seeds; and these falling into the earth 
dry and bare decay: then out of their decay the mightiness of 
the Master’s providence raiseth them up, and from being one 
they increase manifold and bear fruit. 

25. Let us consider the marvellous sign which is seen in 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 285 


the regions of the east, that is, in the parts about Arabia. 
There is a bird, which is named the phcenix. This, being 
the only one of its kind, liveth for five hundred years; and 
when it hath now reached the time of its dissolution that it 
should die, it maketh for itself a coffin of frankincense and myrrh 
and the other spices, into the which in the fulness of time 
it entereth, and so it dieth. But, as the flesh rotteth, a certain 
worm is engendered, which is nurtured from the moisture of 
the dead creature and putteth forth wings. Then, when it is 
grown lusty, it taketh up that coffin where are the bones of its 
parent, and carrying them journeyeth from the country of 
Arabia even unto Egypt, to the place called the City of the 
Sun; and in the day time in the sight of all, flying to the 
altar of the Sun, it layeth them thereupon; and this done, it 
setteth forth to return. So the priests examine the registers 
of the times, and they find that it hath come when the five 
hundredth year is completed. 

26. Do we then think it to be a great and marvellous thing, 
if the Creator of the universe shall bring about the resurrection 
of them that have served Him with holiness in the assurance 
of a good faith, seeing that He showeth to us even by a bird 
the magnificence of His promise? For He saith in a certain 
place; Aud Thou shalt raise me up, and I will praise Thee ; and 
L went to rest and slept, I was awaked, for Thou art with me. 
And again Job saith; And Thou shalt raise this my flesh which 
hath endured all these things. 

27. With this hope therefore let our souls be bound unto 
Him that is faithful in His promises and that is righteous in 
His judgments. He that commanded not to lie, much more 
shall He Himself not lie: for nothing is impossible with God 
save to lie. Therefore let our faith in Him be kindled within 
us, and let us understand that all things are nigh unto Him. 
By a word of His majesty He compacted the universe; and by 
a word He can destroy it. Who shall say unto Him, What 
hast Thou done? or who shall resist the might of His strength ? 
When He listeth, and as He listeth, He will do all things; and 


286 S. CLEMENT OF ROME 


nothing shall pass away of those things that He hath decreed. 
All things are in His sight, and nothing escapeth His counsel, 
seeing that The heavens declare the glory of God, and the fir- 
mament proclaimeth His handiwork. Day uttereth word unto 
day, and night proclaimeth knowledge unto night; and there 
are neither words nor speeches, whose voices are not heard. 

28. Since therefore all things are seen and heard, let us 
fear Him, and forsake the abominable lusts of evil works, 
that we may be shielded by His mercy from the coming 
judgments. For where can any of us escape from His strong 
hand? And what world will receive any of them that desert 
from His service? For the holy writing saith in a certain 
place; Where shall I go, and where shall I be hidden from Thy 
face? If I ascend into the heaven, Thou art there; tf I depart 
into the farthest parts of the earth, there is Thy right hand ; if 
I make my bed in the depths, there is Thy Spirit. Whither then 
shall one depart, or where shall one flee, from Him that 
embraceth the universe ? 

29. Let us therefore approach Him in holiness of soul, 
lifting up pure and undefiled hands unto Him, with love towards 
our gentle and compassionate Father, who made us an elect 
portion unto Himself. For thus it is written: When the Most 
High divided the nations, when He dispersed the sons of Adam, 
Fle fixed the boundaries of the nations according to the number 
of the angels of God. His people Facob became the portion 
of the Lord, and Israel the measurement of His inheritance. 
And in another place He saith; Lehold, the Lord taketh for 
Himself a nation out of the midst of the nations, as a man taketh 
the firstfruits of his threshingfloor; and the holy of holies 
shall come forth from that nation. 

30. Seeing then that we are the special portion of a Holy 
God, let us do all things that pertain unto holiness, forsaking 
evil-speakings, abominable and impure embraces, drunkennesses 
and tumults and hateful lusts, abominable adultery, hateful 
pride; Hor God, He saith, reszsteth the proud, but giveth grace 
to the lowly. Let us therefore cleave unto those to whom 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 287 


grace is given from God. Let us clothe ourselves in con- 
cord, being lowly-minded and temperate, holding ourselves aloof 
from all backbiting and evil speaking, being justified by works 
and not by words. For He saith; He that saith much shall 
hear also again. Doth the ready talker think to be righteous ? 
Blessed ts the offspring of woman that liveth but a short time. 
Be not thou abundant in words. Let our praise be with God, 
and not of ourselves: for God hateth them that praise them- 
selves. Let the testimony to our well-doing be given by 
others, as it was given unto our fathers who were righteous. 
Boldness and arrogance and daring are for them that are ac- 
cursed of God; but forbearance and humility and gentleness 
are with them that are blessed of God. 

31. Letus therefore cleave unto His blessing, and let us see 
what are the ways of blessing. Let us study the records of the 
things that have happened from the beginning. Wherefore was 
our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought 
righteousness and truth through faith? Isaac with confidence, 
as knowing the future, was led a willing sacrifice. Jacob with 
humility departed from his land because of his brother, and went 
unto Laban and served; and the twelve tribes of Israel were 
given unto him. 

32. If any man will consider them one by one in sin- 
cerity, he shall understand the magnificence of the gifts that are 
given by Him. For of Jacob are all the priests and levites who 
minister unto the altar of God; of him is the Lord Jesus as 
concerning the flesh; of him are kings and rulers and governors 
in the line of Judah; yea, and the rest of his tribes are held in 
no small honour, seeing that God promised saying, Thy seed 
shall be as the stars of heaven. They all therefore were glorified 
and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or 
the righteous doing which they wrought, but through His will. 
And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, 
are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom 
or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holi- 
ness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God 


288 S. CLEMENT OF ROME 


justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom 
be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. 

33. What then must we do, brethren? Must we idly 
abstain from doing good, and forsake love? May the Master 
never allow this to befal us at least; but let us hasten with 
instancy and zeal to accomplish every good work. For the 
Creator and Master of the universe Himself rejoiceth in His 
works. For by His exceeding great might He established the 
heavens, and in His incomprehensible wisdom He set them in 
order. And the earth He separated from the water that sur- 
roundeth it, and He set it firm on the sure foundation of His 
own will; and the living creatures which walk upon it He com- 
manded to exist by His ordinance. Having before created the 
sea and the living creatures therein, He enclosed it by His own 
power. Above all, as the most excellent and exceeding great 
work of His intelligence, with His sacred and faultless hands 
He formed man in the impress of His own image. For thus 
saith God; Let us make man after our image and after our like- 
ness. And God made man; male and female made He them. 
So having finished all these things, He praised them and blessed 
them and said, /ucrease and multiply. We have seen that all 
the righteous were adorned in good works. Yea, and so the 
Lord Himself having adorned Himself with works rejoiced. 
Seeing then that we have this pattern, let us conform ourselves 
with all diligence to His will; let us with all our strength work 
the work of righteousness. 

34. The good workman receiveth the bread of his work with 
boldness, but the slothful and careless dareth not look his em- 
ployer in the face. It is therefore needful that we should be 
zealous unto well-doing, for of Him are all things: since He fore- 
warneth us saying, Lehold, the Lord, and Hts reward ts before His 
Jace, to recompense each man according to his work. He exhort- 
eth us therefore to believe on Him with our whole heart, and 
to be not idle nor careless unto every good work. Let our boast 
and our confidence be in Him: let us submit ourselves to 
His will; let us mark the whole host of His angels, how they 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 289 


stand by and minister unto His will. For the scripture saith, 
Ten thousand times ten thousands stood by Him, and thousands of 
thousands ministered unto Him: and they cried aloud, Holy, holy, 
holy is the Lord of Sabaoth; all creation is full of Hits glory. 
Yea, and let us ourselves then, being gathered together in con- 
cord with intentness of heart, cry unto Him as from one mouth 
earnestly that we may be made partakers of His great and 
slorious promises. For He saith, Eye hath not seen, and ear hath 
not heard, and it hath not entered into the heart of man, what 
great things He hath prepared for them that patiently await Him. 

35. How blessed and marvellous are the gifts of God, dearly 
beloved! Life in immortality, splendour in righteousness, truth in 
boldness, faith in confidence, temperance in sanctification! And 
all these things fall under our apprehension. What then, think 
ye, are the things preparing for them that patiently await Him? 
The Creator and Father of the ages, the All-holy One Himself 
knoweth their number and their beauty. Let us therefore con- 
tend, that we may be found in the number of those that patiently 
await Him, to the end that we may be partakers of His promised 
gifts. But how shall this be, dearly beloved? If our mind be fixed 
through faith towards God; if we seek out those things which 
are well pleasing and acceptable unto Him; if we accomplish 
such things as beseem His faultless will, and follow the way of 
truth, casting off from ourselves all unrighteousness and ini- 
quity, covetousness, strifes, malignities and deceits, whisperings 
and backbitings, hatred of God, pride and arrogance, vainglory 
and inhospitality. For they that do these things are hateful to 
God; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent 
unto them. For the scripture saith; But unto the sinner said 
God, Wherefore dost thou declare Mine ordinances, and takest My 
covenant upon thy mouth? Yet thou didst hate instruction, and 
didst cast away My words behind thee. If thou sawest a thief, thou 
didst keep company with him, and with the adulterers thou didst 
set thy portion. Thy mouth multiplied wickedness, and thy tongue 
wove deceit. Thou sattest and spakest against thy brother, and 
against the son of thy mother thou didst lay a stumbling-block. 

CLEM. II. 19 


290 S. CLEMENT OF ROME 


These things thou hast done, and I kept silence. Thou thoughtest, 
unrighteous man, that I should be like unto thee. I will convict 
thee, and will set thee face to face with thyself. Now understand 
ye these things, ye that forget God, lest at any time He seize you as 
a lion, and there be none to deliver. The sacrifice of praise shall 
glorify Me, and there 1s the way wherem I will show him the 
salvation of God. 

36. This is the way, dearly beloved, wherein we found our 
salvation, even Jesus Christ the High-priest of our offerings, the 
Guardian and Helper of our weakness. Through Him let us 
look stedfastly unto the heights of the heavens; through Him 
we behold as in a mirror His faultless and most excellent 
visage; through Him the eyes of our hearts were opened; 
through Him our foolish and darkened mind springeth up 
unto [His marvellous] light; through Him the Master willed 
that we should taste of the immortal knowledge; Who being the 
brightness of His majesty 1s so much greater than angels, as 
He hath inherited a more excellent name. For so it is written; 
Who maketh Fis angels spirits and His ministers a flame of 
five; but of His Son the Master said thus; Zhou art My Son, 
1 this day have begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee 
the Gentiles for Thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for 
Thy possession. And again He saith unto Him; Szt Thou on 
My right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy 
feet. Who then are these enemies? They that are wicked and 
resist His will. 

37. Let us therefore enlist ourselves, brethren, with all earn- 
estness in His faultless ordinances. Let us mark the soldiers 
that are enlisted under our rulers, how exactly, how readily, how 
submissively, they execute the orders given them. All! are not 
prefects, nor rulers of thousands, nor rulers of hundreds, nor 
rulers of fifties, and so forth; but each man in his own rank 
executeth the orders given by the king and the governors. The 
great without the small cannot exist, neither the small without 
the great. There is a certain mixture in all things, and therein 
is utility. Let us take our body as an example. The head 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 291 


without the feet is nothing; so likewise the feet without the 
head are nothing: even the smallest limbs of our body are 
necessary and useful for the whole body: but all the members 
conspire and unite in subjection, that the whole body may be 
saved. 

38. So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ 
Jesus, and let each man be subject unto his neighbour, ac- 
cording as also he was appointed with his special grace. Let 
not the strong neglect the weak; and let the weak respect the 
strong. Let the rich minister aid to the poor; and let the poor 
give thanks to God, because He hath given him one through 
whom his wants may be supplied. Let the wise display his 
wisdom, not in words, but in good works. He that is lowly 
in mind, let him not bear testimony to himself, but leave testi- 
mony to be borne to him by his neighbour. He that is pure in 
the flesh, let him be so, and not boast, knowing that it is Another 
who bestoweth his continence upon him. Let us consider, 
brethren, of what matter we were made; who and what manner 
of beings we were, when we came into the world; from what a 
sepulchre and what darkness He that moulded and created us 
brought us into His world, having prepared His benefits afore- 
hand ere ever we were born. Seeing therefore that we have all 
these things from Him, we ought in all things to give thanks to 
Him, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. 

39. Senseless and stupid and foolish and ignorant men 
jeer and mock at us, desiring that they themselves should be 
exalted in their imaginations. For what power hath a mortal ? 
or what strength hath a child of earth? For itis written; 7/ere 
was no form before mine eyes; only I heard a breath and a 
voice. What then? Shalla mortal be clean in the sight of the 
Lord, or shall a man be unblameable for his works? seeing 
that He 1s distrustful against Hts servants, and noteth some 
perversity against Flis angels. Nay, the heaven ts not clean in 
His sight. Away then, ye that dwell in houses of clay, whereof, 
even of the same clay, we ourselves are made. He smote them 
like a moth, and from morn to even they are no more. Because 


19—2 


292 5S. CLEMENT OF ROME 


they could not succour themselves, they perished. He breathed 
upon them and they died, because they had no wisdom. But call 
thou, uf perchance one shall obey thee, or uf thou shalt see one of 
the holy angels. For wrath killeth the foolish man, and envy 
slayeth him that ts gone astray. And TI have seen fools throwing 
out roots, but forthwith their habitation was eaten up. Far be 
their sons from safety. May they be mocked at the gates of 
wferiors, and there shall be none to deliver them. For the things 
which are prepared for them, the righteous shall eat; but they 
themselves shall not be delivered from evils. 

40. Forasmuch then as these things are manifest beforehand, 
and we have searched into the depths of the Divine knowledge, 
we ought to do all things in order, as many as the Master hath 
commanded us to perform at their appointed seasons. Now the 
offerings and ministrations He commanded to be performed 
with care, and not to be done rashly or in disorder, but at fixed 
times and seasons. And where and by whom He would have 
them performed, He Himself fixed by His supreme will: that 
all things being done with piety according to His good pleasure 
might be acceptable to His will. They therefore that make 
their offerings at the appointed seasons are acceptable and 
blessed: for while they follow the institutions of the Master 
they cannot go wrong. For unto the high-priest his proper 
services have been assigned, and to the priests their proper 
office is appointed, and upon the levites their proper minis- 
trations are laid. The layman is bound by the layman’s 
ordinances. 

41. Let each of you, brethren, in his own order give thanks 
unto God, maintaining a good conscience, and not transgressing 
the appointed rule of his service, but acting with all seemliness. 
Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices 
offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the 
trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the 
offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in 
the court of the altar; and this too through the high-priest and 
the aforesaid ministers, after that the victim to be offered hath 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 293 


been inspected for blemishes. They therefore who do any thing 
contrary to the seemly ordinance of His will receive death as 
the penalty. Ye see, brethren, in proportion as greater know- 
ledge hath been vouchsafed unto us, so much the more are we 
exposed to danger. 

42. The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord 
Jesus Christ ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then 
Christ is ae God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both 
therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having 
therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through 
the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the 
word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went 
forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should 
come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they ap- 
pointed their first-fruits, when they had proved them by the 
Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. 
And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been 
written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient 
times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, 7 well 
appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in fatth. 

43. And what marvel, if they which were entrusted in Christ 
with such a work by God appointed the aforesaid persons? 
seeing that even the blessed Moses who was a fazthful servant 
in all His house recorded for a sign in the sacred books all 
things that were enjoined upon him. And him also the rest of 
the prophets followed, bearing witness with him unto the laws 
that were ordained by him. For he, when jealousy arose con- © 
cerning the priesthood, and there was dissension among the 
tribes which of them was adorned with the glorious name, com- 
manded the twelve chiefs of the tribes to bring to him rods 
inscribed with the name of each tribe. And he took them and 
tied them and sealed them with the signet rings of the chiefs of 
the tribes, and put them away in the tabernacle of the testimony 
on the table of God. And having shut the tabernacle he sealed 
the keys, and likewise also the doors. And he said unto them, 
Brethren, the tribe whose rod shall bud, this hath God chosen to be 


294 S. CLEMENT OF ROME 


priests and ministers unto Him. Now when morning came, he 
called together all Israel, even the six hundred thousand men, 
and showed the seals to the chiefs of the tribes, and opened the 
tabernacle of the testimony, and drew forth the rods. And the 
rod of Aaron was found not only with buds, but also bearing 
fruit. What think ye, dearly beloved? Did not Moses know 
beforehand that this would come to pass? Assuredly he 
knew it. But that disorder might not arise in Israel, he did 
thus, to the end that the Name of the true and only God might 
be glorified : to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. 

44. And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ 
that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office. 
For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknow- 
ledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they 
provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other 
approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those 
therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other 
men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have 
ministered unblameably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of 
mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have 
borne a good report with all—these men we consider to be un- 
justly thrust out from their ministration. For it will be no light 
sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of 
the bishop’s office unblameably and holily. Blessed are those 
presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure 
was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one should 
remove them from their appointed place. For we see that ye 
have displaced certain persons, though they were living honour- 
ably, from the ministration which they had +respected+ blame- 
lessly. 

45. Be ye contentious, brethren, and jealous about the 
things that pertain unto salvation. Ye have searched the 
scriptures, which are true, which were given through the Holy 
Ghost ; and ye know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is 
written in them. Ye will not find that righteous persons have 
been thrust out by holy men. Righteous men were persecuted, 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 295 


but it was by the lawless; they were imprisoned, but it was by 
the unholy. They were stoned by transgressors: they were slain 
by those who had conceived a detestable and unrighteous jea- 
lousy. Suffering these things, they endured nobly. For what 
must we say, brethren? Was Daniel cast into the lions’ den by 
them that fear God? Or were Ananias and Azarias and 
Misael shut up in the furnace of fire by them that professed 
the excellent and glorious worship of the Most High? Far be 
this from our thoughts. Who then were they that did these 
things? Abominable men and full of all wickedness were 
stirred up to such a pitch of wrath, as to bring cruel suffering 
upon them that served God in a holy and blameless purpose, 
not knowing that the Most High is the champion and pro- 
tector of them that in a pure conscience serve His excellent 
Name: unto whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. But 
they that endured patiently in confidence inherited glory and 
honour; they were exalted, and had their names recorded by 
God in their memorial for ever and ever. Amen. 

46. To such examples as these therefore, brethren, we 
also ought to cleave. For it is written; Cleave unto the saints, 
for they that cleave unto them shall be sanctified. And again 
He saith in another place; W2th the guiltless man thou shalt 
be guiltless, and with the elect thou shalt be elect, and with the 
crooked thou shalt deal crookedly... Let us therefore cleave to the 
cuiltless and righteous: and these are the elect of God. Where- 
fore are there strifes and wraths and factions and divisions and 
war among you? Have we not one God and one Christ and 
one Spirit of grace that was shed upon us? And is there not 
one calling in Christ? Wherefore do we tear and rend asunder 
the members of Christ, and stir up factions against our own 
body, and reach such a pitch of folly, as to forget that we are 
members one of another? Remember the words of Jesus our 
Lord: for He said, Woe unto that man. It were good for him 
uf he had not been born, rather than that he should offend one 
of Mine elect. It were better for him that a mill-stone were 
hanged about him, and he cast into the sea, than that he should 


296 S. CLEMENT OF ROME 


pervert one of Mine elect. Your division hath perverted many ; 
it hath brought many to despair, many to doubting, and all 
of us to sorrow. And your sedition still continueth. 

47. Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. 
What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel ? 
Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself 
and Cephas and Apollos, because that even then ye had made 
parties. Yet that making of parties brought less sin upon you; 
for ye were partisans of Apostles that were highly reputed, 
and of a man approved in their sight. But now mark ye, who 
they are that have perverted you and diminished the glory of 
your renowned love for the brotherhood. It is shameful, dearly 
beloved, yes, utterly shameful, and unworthy of your conduct 
in- Christ, that it should be reported that the very sted- 
fast and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of 
one or two persons, maketh sedition against its presbyters. 
And this report hath reached not only us, but them also which 
differ from us, so that ye even heap blasphemies on the Name 
of the Lord by reason of your folly, and moreover create peril 
for yourselves. 

48. Let us therefore root this out quickly, and let -us 
fall down before the Master, and entreat Him with tears, that 
He may show Himself propitious, and be reconciled unto us, and 
may restore us to the seemly and pure conduct which belongeth 
to our love of the brethren. For this is a gate of righteous- 
ness opened unto life, as it is written; Open me the gates of 
righteousness, that I may enter in thereby and praise the Lord. 
This ts the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall enter in thereby. 
Seeing then that many gates are opened, this is that gate which 
is in righteousness, even that which is in Christ, whereby all 
are blessed, that have entered in and direct their path in 
holiness and righteousness, performing all things without con- 
fusion. Let a man be faithful, let him be able to expound 
a deep saying, let him be wise in the discernment of words, 
let him be strenuous in deeds, let him be pure; for so much 
the more ought he to be lowly in mind, in proportion as he 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 297 


seemeth to be the greater; and he ought to seek the common 
advantage of all, and not his own. 

49. Let him that hath love in Christ fulfil the command- 
ments of Christ. Who can declare the bond of the love of 
God? Who is sufficient to tell the majesty of its beauty? 
The height, whereunto love exalteth, is unspeakable. Love 
joineth us unto God; Jove covereth a multitude of sins; love 
endureth all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is 
nothing coarse, nothing arrogant in love. Love hath no di- 
visions, love maketh no seditions, love doeth all things in con- 
cord. In love were all the elect of God made perfect ; without 
love nothing is well-pleasing to God: in love the Master took 
us unto Himself; for the love which He had toward us, Jesus 
Christ our Lord hath given His blood for us by the will of God, 
and His flesh for our flesh, and His life for our lives. 

50. Ye see, dearly beloved, how great and marvellous 
a thing is love, and there is no declaring its perfection. Who is 
sufficient to be found therein, save those to whom God shall 
vouchsafe it? Let us therefore entreat and ask of His mercy, 
that we may be found blameless in love, standing apart from the 
factiousness of men. All the generations from Adam unto this day 
have passed away: but they that by God’s grace were perfected in 
love dwell in the abode of the pious; and they shall be made 
manifest in the visitation of the kingdom of God. For it is 
written: Exter into the closet for a very little while, until Mine 
anger and My wrath shall pass away, and [ will remember a good 
day, and will raise you from your tombs. Blessed were we, dearly 
beloved, if we should be doing the commandments of God in 
concord of love, to the end that our sins may through love be 
forgiven us. For it is written; Blessed are they whose tniguities 
are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed ts the man to 
whom the Lord shall impute no sin, neither ts guile in his mouth. 
This declaration of blessedness was pronounced upon them that 
have been elected by God through Jesus Christ our Lord, to 
whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. 

51. For all our transgressions therefore which we have com- 


298 S. CLEMENT OF ROME 


mitted through any of the wiles of the adversary, let us entreat 
that we may obtain forgiveness. Yea and they also, who set them- 
selves up as leaders of faction and division, ought to look to the 
common ground of hope. For such as walk in fear and love desire 
that they themselves should fall into suffering rather than their 
neighbours; and they pronounce condemnation against them- 
selves rather than against the harmony which hath been handed 
down to us nobly and righteously. For it is good for a man 
to make confession of his trespasses rather than to harden his 
heart, as the heart of those was hardened who made sedition 
against Moses the servant of God; whose condemnation was 
clearly manifest, for they went down to hades alive, and death 
shall be their shepherd. Pharaoh and his host and all the rulers 
of Egypt, their chariots and their horsemen, were overwhelmed 
in the depths of the Red Sea, and perished for none other reason 
but because their foolish hearts were hardened, after that the 
signs and the wonders had been wrought in the land of Egypt 
by the hand of Moses the servant of God. 

52. The Master, brethren, hath need of nothing at all. 
He desireth not anything of any man, save to confess unto 
Him. For the elect David saith ; F wll confess unto the Lord, 
and it shall please Him more than a young calf that groweth 
horns and hoofs. Let the poor see it, and rejowe. And again 
He saith; Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows 
to the Most High: and call upon Me in the day of thine afftic- 
tion, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me. For 
a sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit. 

53. For ye know, and know well, the sacred scriptures, 
dearly beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of God. 
We write these things therefore to put you in remembrance. 
When Moses went up into the mountain and had spent forty 
days and forty nights in fasting and humiliation, God said 
unto him; Moses, Moses, go down quickly hence, for My people 
whom thou leddest forth from the land of Egypt have wrought 
iniquity : they have transgressed quickly out of the way which thou 
didst command unto them: they have made for themselves molten 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 299 


tmages. And the Lord said unto him; J have spoken unto thee 
once and twice, saying, I have seen this people, and behold it ts 
stiff-necked. Let Me destroy them utterly, and I will blot out 
their name from under heaven, and I will make of thee a nation 
great and wonderful and numerous more than this. And Moses 
said; Way, not so, Lord. Forgive this people their sin, or blot 
me also out of the book of the living. O mighty love! O un- 
surpassable perfection! The servant is bold with his Master ; 
he asketh forgiveness for the multitude, or he demandeth. that 
himself also be blotted out with them. 

54. Who therefore is noble among you? Who is com- 
passionate? Who is fulfilled with love? Let him say; If by 
reason of me there be faction and strife and divisions, I retire, 
I depart, whither ye will, and I do that which is ordered by 
the people: only let the flock of Christ be at peace with its duly 
appointed presbyters. He that shall have done this, shall win 
for himself great renown in Christ, and every place will receive 
him: for the earth ts the Lords and the fulness thereof. Thus 
have they done and will do, that live as citizens of that kingdom 
of God which bringeth no regrets. 

55. But, to bring forward examples of Gentiles also; many 
kings and rulers, when some season of pestilence pressed upon 
them, being taught by oracles have delivered themselves over to 
death, that they might rescue their fellow citizens through their 
own blood. Many have retired from their own cities, that they 
might have no more seditions. We know that many among our- 
selves have delivered themselves to bondage, that they might 
ransom others. Many have sold themselves to slavery, and re- 
ceiving the price paid for themselves have fed others. Many 
women being strengthened through the grace of God have 
performed many manly deeds. The blessed Judith, when the 
city was beleaguered, asked of the elders that she might be 
suffered to go forth into the camp of the aliens. So she 
exposed herself to peril and went forth for love of her country 
and of her people which were beleaguered; and the Lord de- 
livered Holophernes into the hand of a woman. To no less 


300 S. CLEMENT OF ROME 


peril did Esther also, who was perfect in faith, expose herself, that 
she might deliver the twelve tribes of Israel, when they were on 
the point to perish. For through her fasting and her humiliation 
she entreated the all-seeing Master, the God of the ages; and 
He, seeing the humility of her soul, delivered the people for 
whose sake she encountered the peril. 

56. Therefore let us also make intercession for them that 
are in any transgression, that forbearance and humility may 
be given them, to the end that they may yield not unto us, but 
unto the will of God. For so shall the compassionate remem- 
brance of them with God and the saints be fruitful unto them, 
and perfect. Let us accept chastisement, whereat no man ought 
to be vexed, dearly beloved. The admonition which we give one 
to another is good and exceeding useful; for it joineth us unto the 
will of God. For thus saith the holy word; The Lord hath 
indeed chastened me, and hath not delivered me over unto death. 
For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every 
son whom He receiveth. For the righteous, it is said, shall chasten 
me in mercy, and shall reprove me; but let not the +mercyt of sin- 
ners anoint my head. And again He saith; Blessed is the man 
whom the Lord hath reproved, and refuse not thou the admonition 
of the Almighty. For He causeth pain, and He restoreth again: 
He hath smitten, and His hands have healed. Six times shall 
He rescue thee from afflictions: and at the seventh no evil 
shall touch thee. In famine He shall deliver thee from death, 
and in war He shall release thee from the arm of the sword. 
And from the scourge of the tongue shall He hide thee, and thou 
shalt not be afraid when evils approach. Thou shalt laugh at the 
unrighteous and wicked, and of the wild beasts thou shalt not 
be afraid. For wild beasts shall be at peace with thee. Then 
shalt thou know that thy house shall be at peace: and the abode 
of thy tabernacle shall not go wrong, and thou shalt know that — 
thy seed 1s many, and thy children as the plenteous herbage of — 
the field. And thou shalt come to the grave as ripe corn reaped 
in due season, or as the heap of the threshing floor gathered 
together at the right time. Ye see, dearly beloved, how great 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 301 


protection there is for them that are chastened by the Master: 
for being a kind father He chasteneth us, to the end that we 
may obtain mercy through His holy chastisement. 

57. Ye therefore that laid the foundation of the sedition, 
submit yourselves unto the presbyters, and receive chastisement 
unto repentance, bending the knees of your heart. Learn to 
submit yourselves, laying aside the arrogant and proud stub- 
bornness of your tongue. For it is better for you to be found 
little in the flock of Christ and to have your name on God’s 
roll, than to be had in exceeding honour and yet be cast 
out from the hope of Him. For thus saith the All-virtuous 
Wisdom ; Behold I will pour out for you a saying of My breath, 
and I will teach you My word. Because I called and ye obeyed 
not, and [ held out words and ye heeded not, but made My coun- 
sels of none effect, and were disobedient unto My reproofs ; there- 
fore I also will laugh at your destruction, and will rejoice over you 
when ruin cometh upon you, and when confusion overtaketh you 
suddenly, and your overthrow 1s at hand like a whirlwind, or 
when anguish and beleaguerment come upon you. For it shall 
be, when ye call upon Me, yet will I not hear you. Evil men shall 
seek Me, and shall not find Me: for they hated wisdom, and 
chose not the fear of the Lord, neither would they give heed unto 
My counsels, but mocked at My reproofs. Therefore they shall 
cat the fruits of their own way, and shall be filled with their 
own ungodliness. For because they wronged babes, they shall be 
slain, and inquisition shall destroy the ungodly. But he that 
heareth Me shall dwell safely trusting in hope, and shall be quiet 
From fear of all evil. 

58. Let us therefore be obedient unto His most holy 
and glorious Name, thereby escaping the threatenings which 
were spoken of old by the mouth of Wisdom against them 
which disobey, that we may dwell safely, trusting in the most 
holy Name of His majesty. Receive our counsel, and ye 
shall have no occasion of regret. For as God liveth, and the 
Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, who are the 
faith and the hope of the elect, so surely shall he, who with 


302 S. CLEMENT OF ROME 


lowliness of mind and instant in gentleness hath without regret- 
fulness performed the ordinances and commandments that are 
given by God, be enrolled and have a name among the number 
of them that are saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is 
the glory unto Him for ever and ever. Amen. 

59. But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the 
words spoken by Him through us, let them understand that 
they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and 
danger; but we shall be guiltless of this sin. And we will 
ask, with instancy of prayer and supplication, that the Creator 
of the universe may guard intact unto the end the number 
that hath been numbered of His elect throughout the whole 
world, through His beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom 
He called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to the full 
knowledge of the glory of His Name. 

[Grant unto us, Lord,] that we may set our hope on Thy 
Name which is the primal source of all creation, and open the 
eyes of our heart, that we may know Thee, who alone abides? 
Highest in the high, Holy in the holy ; who layest low the inso- 
lence of the proud ; who scatterest the tmaginings of nations; who 
settest the lowly on high, and bringest the lofty low ; who makest 
rich and makest poor; who killest and makest alive ; who alone 
art the Benefactor of spirits and the God of all flesh; who 
lookest into the abysses, who scannest the works of man; the 
Succour of them that are in peril, the Saviour of them that are 
in despair ; the Creator and Overseer of every spirit ; who mul- 
tipliest the nations upon earth, and hast chosen out from all 
men those that love Thee through Jesus Christ, Thy beloved 
Son, through whom Thou didst instruct us, didst sanctify 
us, didst honour us. We beseech Thee, Lord and Master, to 
be our help and succour. Save those among us who are in 
tribulation; have mercy on the lowly; lift up the fallen; 
show Thyself unto the needy; heal the ungodly; convert the 
wanderers of Thy people; feed the hungry; release our 
prisoners; raise up the weak; comfort the faint-hearted. Let 
all the Gentiles know that Thou art God alone, and Jesus 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 303 


Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy 
pasture. 

60. Thou through Thine operations didst make manifest 
the everlasting fabric of the world. Thou, Lord, didst create 
the earth. Thou that art faithful throughout all generations, 
righteous in Thy judgments, marvellous in strength and ex- 
cellence, Thou that art wise in creating and prudent in esta- 
blishing that which Thou hast made, that art good in the 
things which are seen and faithful with them that trust on 
Thee, pitiful and compassionate, forgive us our iniquities and 
our unrighteousnesses and our transgressions and shortcomings. 
Lay not to our account every sin of Thy servants and Thine 
handmaids, but cleanse us with the cleansing of Thy truth, 
and guide our steps to walk in holiness and righteousness 
and singleness of heart, and to do such things as are good 
and well-pleasing mn Thy sight and in the sight of our rulers. 
Yea, Lord, make Thy face to shine upon us in peace for our 
good, that we may be sheltered by Thy mighty hand and 
delivered from every sin by Thine uplifted arm. And deliver 
us from them that hate us wrongfully. Give concord and 
peace to us and to all that dwell on the earth, as Thou gavest 
to our fathers, when they called on Thee in faith and truth 
with holiness, [that we may be saved,| while we render obedi- 
ence to Thine almighty and most excellent Name, and to our 
rulers and governors upon the earth. 

61. Thou, Lord and Master, hast given them the power 
of sovereignty through Thine excellent and unspeakable might, 
that we knowing the glory and honour which Thou hast 
given them may submit ourselves unto them, in nothing re- 
sisting Thy will. Grant unto them therefore, O Lord, health, 
peace, concord, stability, that they may administer the go- 
vernment which Thou hast given them without failure. For 
Thou, O heavenly Master, King of the ages, givest to the 
sons of men glory and honour and power over all things that 
are upon the earth. Do Thou, Lord, direct their counsel ac- 
cording to that which is good and well-pleasing in Thy sight, 


304 S. CLEMENT OF ROME 


that, administering in peace and gentleness with godliness the 
power which Thou hast given them, they may obtain Thy 
favour. O Thou, who alone art able to do these things, and 
things far more exceeding good than these for us, we praise 
Thee through the High-priest and Guardian of our souls, Jesus 
Christ, through whom be the glory and the majesty unto 
Thee both now and for all generations and for ever and ever. 
Amen. 

62. As touching those things which befit our religion and 
are most useful for a virtuous life to such as would guide 
[their steps] in holiness and righteousness, we have written fully 
unto you, brethren. For concerning faith and repentance and 
genuine love and temperance and sobriety and patience we 
have handled every argument, putting you in remembrance, 
that ye ought to please Almighty God in righteousness and 
truth and long-suffering with holiness, laying aside malice and 
pursuing concord in love and peace, being instant in gentle- 
ness; even as our fathers, of whom we spake before, pleased 
Him, being lowly-minded towards their Father and God and 
Creator and towards all men. And we have put you in mind of 
these things the more gladly, since we knew well that we were 
writing to men who are faithful and highly accounted and have 
diligently searched into the oracles of the teaching of God. 

63. Therefore it is right for us to give heed to so great and 
sO many examples, and to submit the neck, and occupying the 
place of obedience to take our side with them that are the 
leaders of our souls, that ceasing from this foolish dissension we 
may attain unto the goal which lieth before us in truthfulness, 
keeping aloof from every fault. For ye will give us great joy 
and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by 
us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger 
of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made 
for peace and concord in this letter. And we have also sent 
faithful and prudent men that have walked among us from 
youth unto old age unblameably, who shall also be witnesses 
between you and us. And this we have done that ye might 


TO THE CORINTHIANS. 305 


know that we have had, and still have, every solicitude that 
ye should be speedily at peace. 

64. Finally may the All-seeing God and Master of spirits 
and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ, and us 
through Him for a peculiar people, grant unto every soul that is 
called after His excellent and holy Name faith, fear, peace, 
patience, long-suffering, temperance, chastity and soberness, that 
they may be well-pleasing unto His Name through our High- 
priest and Guardian Jesus Christ, through whom unto Him be 
glory and majesty, might and honour, both now and for ever 
and ever. Amen. 

65. Now send ye back speedily unto us our messengers 
Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, together with Fortunatus 
also, in peace and with joy, to the end that they may the 
more quickly report the peace and concord which is prayed 
for and earnestly desired by us, that we also may the more 
speedily rejoice over your good order. 

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all 
men in all places who have been called by God and through 
Him, through whom is glory and honour, power and greatness 
and eternal dominion, unto Him, from the ages past and for 
ever and ever. Amen. 


CLEM. II. 20 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 


RETHREN, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ, as 

of God, as of the Judge of quick and dead. And 

we ought not to think mean things of our Salvation: for 
when we think mean things of Him, we expect also to receive 
mean things. And they that listen as concerning mean things 
do wrong; and we ourselves do wrong, not knowing whence 
and by whom and unto what place we were called, and 
how many things Jesus Christ endured to suffer for our 
sakes. What recompense then shall we give unto Him? 
or what fruit worthy of His own gift to us? And how 
many mercies do we owe to Him! For He bestowed the 
light upon us; He spake to us, as a father to his sons; He 
saved us, when we were perishing. What praise then shall we 
give to Him? or what payment of recompense for those things 
which we received ? we who were maimed in our understanding, 
and worshipped stocks and stones, gold and silver and bronze, 
the works of men; and our whole life was nothing else but 
death. While then we were thus wrapped in darkness and 
oppressed with this thick mist in our vision, we recovered our 
sight, putting off by His will the cloud wherein we were wrapped. 
For He had mercy on us, and in His compassion saved us, 
having beheld in us much error and perdition, even when we 


AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 307 


had no hope of salvation, save that which came from Him. For 
He called us, when we were not, and from not being He willed 
us to be. 

2. Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not. Break out and cry, 
thou that travailest not; for more are the children of the desolate 
than of her that hath the husband. \n that He said, Rejozce, thou 
barren that bearest not, He spake of us: for our Church was 
barren, before that children were given unto her. And in that 
He said, Cry aloud, thou that travailest not, He meaneth this; 
Let us not, like women in travail, grow weary of offering up our 
prayers with simplicity to God. Again, in that He said, For 
the children of the desolate are more than of her that hath the 
husband, He so spake, because our people seemed desolate and 
forsaken of God, whereas now, having believed, we have become 
more than those who seemed to have God. Again another 
scripture saith, J came not to call the righteous, but sinners. He 
meaneth this; that it is right to save them that are perishing. 
For this indeed is a great and marvellous work, to establish, not 
those things which stand, but those which are falling. So also 
Christ willed to save the things which were perishing. And He 
saved many, coming and calling us when we were even now 
perishing. 

3. Seeing then that He bestowed so great mercy on us; 
first of all, that we, who are living, do not sacrifice to these dead 
gods, neither worship them, but through Him have known the 
Father of truth. What else is this knowledge to Himward, but 
not to deny Him through whom we have known Him? Yea, 
He Himself saith, Whoso confesseth Me, Him will I confess 
before the Father. This then is our reward, if verily we shall 
confess Him through whom we were saved. But wherein do 
we confess Him? When we do that which He saith and are not 
disobedient unto His commandments, and not only honour Him 
with our lips, but with our whole heart and with our whole mind. 
Now He saith also in Isaiah, Ths people honoureth Me with their 
lips, but their heart is far from Me. 

20—2 


308 AN ANCIENT HOMILY 


4. Let us therefore not only call Him Lord, for this will not 
save us: for He saith, Wot every one that saith unto Me, Lord, 
Lord, shall be saved, but he that doeth righteousness. So then, 
brethren, let us confess Him in our works, by loving one another, 
by not committing adultery nor speaking evil one against 
another nor envying, but being temperate, merciful, kindly. 
And we ought to have fellow-feeling one with another and not 
to be covetous. By these works let us confess Him, and not 
by the contrary. And we ought not rather to fear men but 
God. For this cause, if ye do these things, the Lord said, 
Though ye be gathered together with Me in My bosom, and do not 
My commandments, I will cast you away and will say unto you, 
Depart from Me, I know you not whence ye are, ye workers of 
iniquity. 

5. Wherefore, brethren, let us forsake our sojourn in this 
world and do the will of Him that called us, and let us not be 
afraid to depart out of this world. For the Lord saith, Ye shall 
be as lambs in the midst of wolves. But Peter answered and said 
unto Him, What then, tf the wolves should tear the lambs? Jesus 
said unto Peter, Let not the lambs fear the wolves after they are 
dead; and ye also, fear ye not them that kill you and are not able 
to do anything to you, but fear him that after ye are dead hath 
power over soul and body, to cast them into the gehenna of fire. 
And ye know, brethren, that the sojourn of this flesh in this 
world is mean and for a short time, but the promise of Christ is 
great and marvellous, even the rest of the kingdom that shall be 
and of life eternal. What then can we do to obtain them, but 
walk in holiness and righteousness, and consider these worldly 
things as alien to us, and not desire them? For when we desire 
to obtain these things we fall away from the righteous path. 

6. But the Lord saith, Vo servant can serve two masters. If 
we desire to serve both God and mammon, it is unprofitable for 
us: For what advantage is it, if a man gain the whole world and 
Jorfeit his soul? Now this age and the future are two enemies, 
The one speaketh of adultery and defilement and avarice and 


BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 309 


deceit, but the other biddeth farewell to these. We cannot 
therefore be friends of the two, but must bid farewell to the one 
and hold companionship with the other. Let us consider that 
it is better to hate the things which are here, because they are 
mean and for a short time and perishable, and to love the things 
which are there, for they are good and imperishable. For, if we 
do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; but if otherwise, then 
nothing shall deliver us from eternal punishment, if we should 
disobey His commandments. And the scripture also saith in 
Ezekiel, Though Noah and Fob and Daniel should rise up, they 
shall not deliver their children in the captivity. But if even such 
righteous men as these cannot by their righteous deeds deliver 
their children, with what confidence shall we, if we keep not our 
baptism pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God? 
Or who shall be our advocate, unless we be found having holy 
and righteous works? 

7. So then, my brethren, let us contend, knowing that the 
contest is nigh at hand, and that, while many resort to the cor- 
ruptible contests, yet not all are crowned, but only they that 
have toiled hard and contended bravely. Let us then contend 
that we all may be crowned. Wherefore let us run in the 
straight course, the incorruptible contest. And let us resort to 
it in throngs and contend, that we may also be crowned. And 
if we cannot al! be crowned, let us at least come near to the 
crown. We ought to know that he which contendeth in the 
corruptible contest, if he be found dealing corruptly with it, is 
first flogged, and then removed and driven out of the race-course. 
What think ye? What shall be done to him that hath dealt 
corruptly with the contest of incorruption? For as concerning 
them that have not kept the seal, He saith, Tezr worm shall not 
die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be for a 
spectacle unto all flesh. 

8. While we are on earth, then, let us repent: for we are 
clay under the craftsman’s hand. For in like manner as the 
potter, if he be making a vessel, and it get twisted or crushed in 


310 AN ANCIENT HOMILY 


his hands, reshapeth it again; but if he have once put it into the 
fiery oven, he shall no longer mend it: so also let us, while we 
are in this world, repent with our whole heart of the evil things 
which we have done in the flesh, that we may be saved by the 
Lord, while we have yet time for repentance. For after that we 
have departed out of the world, we can no more make confession 
there, or repent any more. Wherefore, brethren, if we shall have 
done the will of the Father and kept the flesh pure and guarded 
the commandments of the Lord, we shall receive life eternal, 
For the Lord saith in the Gospel, // ye kept not that which ts 
little, who shall give unto you that which ts great? For I say 
unto you that he which ts faithful in the least, 1s faithful also in 
much. So then He meaneth this, Keep the flesh pure and the 
seal unstained, to the end that we may receive life. 

9. And let not any one of you say that this flesh is not 
judged neither riseth again. Understand ye. In what were ye 
saved? In what did ye recover your sight? if ye were not in 
this flesh. We ought therefore to guard the flesh as a temple of 
God: for in like manner as ye were called in the flesh, ye shall 
come also in the flesh. If Christ the Lord who saved us, being 
first spirit, then became flesh, and so called us, in like manner 
also shall we in this flesh receive our reward. Let us therefore 
love one another, that we all may come unto the kingdom of 
God. While we have time to be healed, let us place ourselves in 
the hands of God the physician, giving Him a recompense. 
What recompense? Repentance from a sincere heart. For He 
discerneth all things beforehand and knoweth what is in our 
heart. Let us therefore give unto Him eternal praise, not from 
our lips only, but also from our heart, that He may receive us as 
sons. For the Lord also said, These are My brethren, which do 
the will of My Father. 

10. Wherefore, my brethren, let us do the will of the Father 
which called us, that we may live; and let us the rather pursue 
virtue, but forsake vice as the forerunner of our sins, and let us 
flee from ungodliness, lest evils overtake us. For if we be dili- 


BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 311 


gent in doing good, peace will pursue us. For for this cause is 
a man unable to attain happiness, seeing that they call in the 
fears of men, preferring rather the enjoyment which is here than 
the promise which is to come. For they know not how great 
torment the enjoyment which is here bringeth, and what delight 
the promise which is to come bringeth. And if verily they were 
doing these things by themselves alone, it had been tolerable: 
but now they continue teaching evil to innocent souls, not 
knowing that they shall have their condemnation doubled, both 
themselves and their hearers. 

11. Let us therefore serve God in a pure heart, and we 
shall be righteous; but if we serve Him not, because we believe 
not the promise of God, we shall be wretched. For the word of 
prophecy also saith: Wretched are the double-minded, that doubt 
an their heart and say, These things we heard of old in the days 
of our fathers also, yet we have waited day after day and have 
seen none of them. Ve fools! compare yourselves unto a tree; 
take a vine. First tt sheddeth tts leaves, then a shoot cometh, after 
this a sour berry, then a full ripe grape. So likewise My people 
had tumults and afflictions: but afterward they shall receive good 
things. Wherefore, my brethren, let us not be double-minded 
but endure patiently in hope, that we may also obtain our 
reward. For faithful is He that promised to pay to each man 
the recompense of his works. If therefore we shall have wrought 
righteousness in the sight of God, we shall enter into His 
kingdom and shall receive the promises which ear hath not 
heard nor eye seen, neither hath it entered into the heart of man. 

12. Let us therefore await the kingdom of God betimes in 
love and righteousness, since we know not the day of God's 
appearing. For the Lord Himself, being asked by a certain 
person when His kingdom would come, said, When the two shall 
be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male with the female, 
neither male nor female. Now the two are one, when we speak 
truth among ourselves, and in two bodies there shall be one 
soul without dissimulation. And by the outside as the inside He 


312 AN ANCIENT HOMILY 


meaneth this: by the inside He meaneth the soul and by the 
outside the body. Therefore in like manner as thy body 
appeareth, so also let thy soul be manifest in its good works. 
And by the male with the female, neither male nor female, He 
meaneth this; that a brother seeing a sister should have no 
thought of her as of a female, and that a sister seeing a brother 
should not have any thought of him as of amale. These things 
if ye do, saith He, the kingdom of my Father shall come. 

13. Therefore, brethren, let us repent forthwith. Let us be 
sober unto that which is good: for we are full of much folly and 
wickedness. Let us wipe away from us our former sins, and let 
us repent with our whole soul and be saved. And let us not be 
found men-pleasers. Neither let us desire to please one another 
only, but also those men that are without, by our righteousness, 
that the Name be not blasphemed by reason of us. For the Lord 
saith, Every way My Name ts blasphemed among all the Gentiles ; 
and again, Woe unto him by reason of whom My Name is blas- 
phemed. Wherein is it blasphemed? In that ye do not the 
things which I desire. For the Gentiles, when they hear from 
our mouth the oracles of God, marvel at them for their beauty 
and greatness ; then, when they discover that our works are not 
worthy of the words which we speak, forthwith they betake 
themselves to blasphemy, saying that it is an idle story and a 
delusion. For when they hear from us that God saith, /¢ zs xo 
thank unto you, tf ye love them that love you, but this ts thank 
unto you, if ye love your enemtes and them that hate you; when 
they hear these things, I say, they marvel at their exceeding 
goodness; but when they see that we not only do not love 
them that hate us, but not even them that love us, they laugh 
us to scorn, and the Name is blasphemed. 

14. Wherefore, brethren, if we do the will of God our 
Father, we shall be of the first Church, which is spiritual, which 
was created before the sun and moon; but if we do not the will 
of the Lord, we shall be of the scripture that saith, Wy house was 
made a den of vobbers. So therefore let us choose rather to be of 


BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. 333 


the Church of life, that we may be saved. And I do not sup- 
pose ye are ignorant that the living Church is the body of 
Christ: for the scripture saith, God made man, male and female. 
The male is Christ and the female is the Church. And the Books 
and the Apostles plainly declare that the Church existeth not 
now for the first time, but hath been from the beginning: for she 
was spiritual, as our Jesus also was spiritual, but was manifested 
in the last days that He might save us. Now the Church, 
being spiritual, was manifested in the flesh of Christ, thereby 
showing us that, if any of us guard her in the flesh and 
defile her not, he shall receive her again in the Holy Spirit: 
for this flesh is the counterpart and copy of the spirit. No 
man therefore, when he hath defiled the copy, shall receive the 
original for his portion. This therefore is what He meaneth, 
brethren ; Guard ye the flesh, that ye may partake of the spirit. 
But if we say that the flesh is the Church and the spirit is Christ, 
then he that hath dealt wantonly with the flesh hath dealt wan- 
tonly with the Church. Such an one therefore shall not partake 
of the spirit, which is Christ. So excellent is the life and immor- 
tality which this flesh can receive as its portion, if the Holy 
Spirit be joined to it. No man can declare or tell those things 
which the Lord hath prepared for His elect. 

15. Now I do not think that I have given any mean counsel 
respecting continence, and whosoever performeth it shall not 
repent thereof, but shall save both himself and me his coun- 
sellor. For it is no mean reward to convert a wandering and 
perishing soul, that it may be saved. For this is the recompense 
which we are able to pay to God who created us, if he that 
speaketh and heareth both speak and hear with faith and love. 
Let us therefore abide in the things which we believed, in 
righteousness and holiness, that we may with boldness ask of 
God who saith, Whzles thou art still speaking, I will say, Behold, 
I am here. ¥or this word is the token of a great promise: for 
the Lord saith of Himself that He is more ready to give than 
he that asketh to ask. Seeing then that we are partakers of so 


314 AN ANCIENT HOMILY 


great kindness, let us not grudge ourselves the obtaining of so 
many good things. For in proportion as the pleasure is great 
which these words bring to them that have performed them, so 
also is the condemnation great which they bring to them that 
have been disobedient. 

16. Therefore, brethren, since we have found no small 
opportunity for repentance, seeing that we have time, let us 
turn again unto God that called us, while we have still One 
that receiveth us. For if we bid farewell to these enjoyments 
and conquer our soul in refusing to fulfil its evil lusts, we shall be 
partakers of the mercy of Jesus. But ye know that the day of 
judgment cometh even now as a burning oven, and the powers of 
the heavens shall melt, and all the earth as lead melting on the 
fire, and then shall appear the secret and open works of men. 
Almsgiving therefore is a good thing, even as repentance from 
sin. Fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving than both. 
And love covereth a multitude of sins, but prayer out of a good 
conscience delivereth from death. Blessed is every man that 
is found full of these. For almsgiving lifteth off the burden 
of sin. 

17. Let us therefore repent with our whole heart, lest any 
of us perish by the way. For if we have received commands, 
that we should make this also our business, to tear men away 
from idols and to instruct them, how much more is it wrong 
that a soul which knoweth God already should perish! There- 
fore let us assist one another, that we may also lead the weak 
upward as touching that which is good, to the end that we all 
may be saved: and let us convert and admonish one another. 
And let us not think to give heed and believe now only, while 
we are admonished by the presbyters; but likewise when we 
have departed home, let us remember the commandments of the 
Lord, and not suffer ourselves to be dragged off the other way 
by our worldly lusts; but coming hither more frequently, let us 
strive to go forward in the commands of the Lord, that we all 
having the same mind may be gathered together unto life. For 


BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR. . 315 


the Lord said, / come to gather together all the nations, tribes, and 
languages. Uerein He speaketh of the day of His appearing, 
when He shall come and redeem us, each man according to his 
works. Azd the unbelievers shall see His glory and His might: 
and they shall be amazed when they see the kingdom of the 
world given to Jesus, saying, Woe unto us, for Thou wast, and 
we knew it not, and believed not; and we obeyed not the 
presbyters when they told us of our salvation. And Thezr 
worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they 
shall be for a spectacle unto all flesh. Ue speaketh of that day of 
judgment, when men shall see those among us that lived ungodly 
lives and dealt falsely with the commandments of Jesus Christ. 
But the righteous, having done good and endured torments and 
hated the pleasures of the soul, when they shall behold them 
that have done amiss and denied Jesus by their words or by 
their deeds, how that they are punished with grievous torments 
in unquenchable fire, shall give glory to God, saying, There will 
be hope for him that hath served God with his whole heart. 

18. Therefore let us also be found among those that give 
thanks, among those that have served God, and not among the 
ungodly that are judged. For I myself too, being an utter sinner 
and not yet escaped from temptation, but being still amidst the 
engines of the devil, do my diligence to follow after righteousness, 
that I may prevail so far at least as to come near unto it, while 
I fear the judgment to come. 

19. Therefore, brothers and sisters, after the God of truth 
hath been heard, I read to you an exhortation to the end that 
ye may give heed to the things which are written, so that ye 
may save both yourselves and him that readeth in the midst of 
you. For I ask of you as a reward that ye repent with your 
whole heart, and give salvation and life to yourselves. For 
doing this we shall set a goal for all the young who desire to 
toil in the study of piety and of the goodness of God. And let 
us not be displeased and vexed, fools that we are, whensoever 
any one admonisheth us and turneth us aside from unrighteous- 


316 AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 


ness unto righteousness. For sometimes while we do evil things, 
we perceive it not by reason of the double-mindedness and un- 
belief which is in our breasts, and zwe ave darkened in our under- 
standing by our vain lusts. Let us therefore practise righteousness 
that we may be saved unto the end. Blessed are they that obey 
these ordinances. Though they may endure affliction for a short 
time in the world, they will gather the immortal fruit of the 
resurrection. Therefore let not the godly be grieved, if he be 
miserable in the times that now are: a blessed time awaiteth 
him. He shall live again in heaven with the fathers, and shall 
have rejoicing throughout a sorrowless eternity. 

20. Neither suffer ye this again to trouble your mind, that 
we see the unrighteous possessing wealth, and the servants of 
God straitened. Let us then have faith, brothers and sisters. 
We are contending in the lists of a living God; and we are 
trained by the present life, that we may be crowned with the 
future. No righteous man hath reaped fruit quickly, but waiteth 
for it. For if God had paid the recompense of the righteous 
speedily, then straightway we should have been training ourselves 
in merchandise, and not in godliness; for we should seem to be 
righteous, though we were pursuing not that which is godly, but 
that which is gainful. And for this cause Divine judgment over- 
taketh a spirit that is not just, and loadeth it with chains. 

To the only God invisible, the Father of truth, who sent 
forth unto us the Saviour and Prince of immortality, through 
whom also He made manifest unto us the truth and the heavenly 
life, to Him be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. 


Lh. 
PEPPOLVTUS::OBiv PORES: 


HE PERSONALITY and life of Hippolytus are beset with 

thorny and perplexing questions on all sides. Of what country 
was he a native? Where and how did he spend his early life? Under 
what influences was he brought in his boyhood and adolescence? Was 
he a simple presbyter or a bishop? If the latter, what was his see? 
Of the works ascribed or attributed to him, how many are genuine? 
What were his relations to the Roman See? Was he guilty of heresy 
or of schism? If the one or the other, what was the nature of the 
differences which separated him? Was this separation temporary or 
permanent? Was he a confessor or a martyr, or both or neither? 
What was the chronology of his life and works? More especially, at 
what date did he die? Has there, or has there not, been some con- 
fusion between two or three persons bearing the same name? What 
explanation shall we give of the architectural and other monumental 
records connected with his name? 

These questions started up, like the fabled progeny of the dragon’s 
teeth—a whole army of historical perplexities confronting us suddenly 
and demanding a solution—when less than forty years ago the work 
entitled Pz/osophumena was discovered and published to the world. 
To most of these questions I shall address myself in the dissertation 
which follows. The position and doings of Hippolytus are not uncon- 
nected with the main subject of these volumes. In the first place; 
whereas the internal history of the Church of Rome is shrouded in 
thick darkness from the end of the first century to the beginning of the 
third, from the age of Clement to the age of Hippolytus—scarcely a 
ray here and there penetrating the dense cloud—at this latter moment 
the scene is suddenly lit up with a glare—albeit a lurid glare—of light. 
Then again; we have some reason for believing that the earliest 
western list of the Roman bishops may have been drawn up by Hip- 


218 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


polytus himself, and it is almost absolutely certain that the first con- 
tinuator of this list, in whose work the earliest notice of Hippolytus 
occurs outside his own writings, was a contemporary (see above, I. 
Pp. 255, p- 259 sq). The questions asked above have not indeed in 
very many cases any immediate connexion with the matters with which 
we are directly concerned; but they hang very closely together one 
with another, and this seemed a fit opportunity of placing before the 
reader the results, however briefly, yet with some sort of completeness, 
of the investigations and discoveries which have been stimulated by the 
publication of the Phzlosophumena. 


i 
ANCIENT REFERENCES FO*AIPPOLYVTOS: 


Following the course which I have pursued in other cases, I shall 
here gather together the ancient documentary evidence and traditions 
relating to Hippolytus, considering that I shall best consult the con- 
venience of my readers as well as my own, by so doing. At the head 
of these are placed the references from Hippolytus himself to his own 
life and writings. In so doing I shall take the liberty of assuming pro- 
visionally the Hippolytean authorship of several writings, deferring the 
reasons for so assigning them till the proper occasion. The cross-refer- 
ences from the one to the other in these writings are the most import- 
ant and unsuspicious evidence of authorship. I shall also include some 
notices of Gaius the Roman presbyter, a contemporary of Hippolytus ; 
because the two are frequently confused in ancient authorities—so 
much so as to arouse the suspicion that Gaius was only another name 
for Hippolytus, and that he had no distinct personality. This question 
also I shall discuss presently. 

These notices will be cited in the discussions which follow as 42, 
with the number and letter, and (where necessary) the page. 


1. Hu1ppotytus [c. a.D. 230]. 

(a) Refutatio Haeresium i. prooem. (p. 2, Miller). 

Oddéva pdOov tov Tap’ "EAAnoL vevopicpévwov wapartytéov. Tota yap 
kal Ta dovorata abrav Sdypata wyynréov Sia tH brepBdddovoay Tav aipe- 
TUKOV paviay, Ol dia TO OLWTaY aTroKpUTTELW TE TA AppyTa éavTav pvoTHpLa 
évopicOnoav ToAXots Meov ceBev: ov Kai tada perpiws TA Soypata é&eOE- 
peOa, od Kara Aewrov éroeiEavTes, GAN’ adpopepads eA€yEavtes, pydev akvov 
Hynoapevor TA appyra. avtav eis Pos aye, drus Oe aiviyparwv nudv éxbe- 
péevov ta Sdgavta adtois ainyvvOévres punmote Kal Ta appyta é&evrovTes 


nr > , , , aN. per / , he 22 
abéous em wElEwrev, TAVOWVTAL [re] THS aroyiorou Yvorys KQL abeuirou ETT LX EL- 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 319 


, b 3 5 x e x \ 5 4 3 ‘\ ‘\ e , 3 , 
pyoews. GAN eel opd py Svtwrovpevors adrovs THY yueTépav emueckerav 
A 3 ~ 
pnde AoyiLopevors, ws Weds paxpoOvmet iw aitdv Bracdypovmevos, orws 7 
BD a 
aides Oevres petavonowow % ereivaytes dikaiws KpiOdor, BracGels rpoerpe 
, ber a A Sale , A \ @& ? 2\ 2 x as 
deiEwv aitav Ta aroppyTa pvoTypia...tadra dé Erepos ovK éeySer } TO ev 
A e / > 
exkAyoia mapadobey ayiov rvedua, OV TUXOVTES TPOTEPOL Ot amoaTONOL peETE- 
a a , e e A , , ~ 
Socav Tots opOds mwemictevKoow: av ypets duddoxor TvyxXavovTes THS TE 
QUTHS YapiTos peTEexoVTES apxiepaTeias TE Kal SidacKadias Kal Ppovpol THs 
A , 
exkAnoias edoyrpévor ovK oPOadru@ vuoralopev ovdé Aoyov opHor 
gwwTawev K.T.A, 


This extract is taken from the text of Diel’s Doxographz Graecz (Berolin. 1879) ; 
the remaining extracts, from the edition of Duncker and Schneidewin. 


(6) Ref. Haer. vi. 42 (p. 202). 
‘ ‘\ ‘\ e , , ] “~ 4 A 
Kai yop kai o paxapios tpecBitepos Hipyvatos mappyciairepov Ta 
3 td . \ A 4, \ > , 3f£/ € 
ehéyxw tpocevexGeis Ta Tovatra Aovopata Kat amoAvtpwcets ef€HeTo, adpo- 
Pepeatepov cituv & mpaccovoL, ols evTUXOVTES TIVES ATOY HPVHVTAL OUTWS 
, ce J “a “ ‘ ‘ ea , > 
maperdnpévat, act apvetobar pavOavovres. 510 ppovtis nuty yeyevntar axpt- 
Béorepov emilnrica Kai avevpety AeTTOpEpas, a Kal év TO TPwWTwW AoUTPO 
Tapadidoact K.T.A. 


i) Ae. Baer. vi. 58 (p. 221°Sq)- 

“A raparibévar pou ovk edogev, ovta PAvapa kal dovotata, non TOU paKa- 
plov mpecBurépov Eipyvaiov dewas kat rerovnpevws ta dSoypata aditav due 
Aeyéavtos, map ov Kal adtdv edevpypara [rapeAndaperv] eiderxvivtes 
abrovs IvOayopeiov gitocodias Kat aotpoddywv reptepyias TadTa operept- 
capévous eyxadelv Xpiot@ Tavta mapadedwxévar. 


(dq) Ref. Haer. ix. 6, 7 (p. 278 sq). 
TIoAXod toivuv Tov wept Tacav aipécewy yevomevov yyty aydvos pnbev ye 
dveféXeyxtov Katadirovet, TepirelreTaL viv 6 méyLoTos ayuv, exdinynyoac Gat 
‘\ é \ b) se aie > , ¢e / 3 e > aA \ 
kal dued€yfar tas é€d’ nyiv éravactacas aipéces, d: av Tiwes auabets Kal 
todpnpot diackedavvvew érexeipnoav THY exkAnoiav, MEyLOTOV TAapaxoV KATO. 
TavTa TOV KOTMOV ev TAL TOls TiTTOIs euBadAovTes. SoKel yap emt THY 
GpXNyov TOV KaKaV yevowevynv yvounv opynoavras dieéyEat, tives ai Tavrys 
GpxXal, Orws evyvwoTor at éxpuaddes aitTns araci yevopevat katappovnbacr. 
3 a“ lal 
Teyévytai tis ovopate Noyros, 7 yéver Zuvpvatos. ovtos eionyjnoato 
Ps > asic , , e , \ \ , 2 , 
aipeow ex Tov HpakXetirov doypatwv: ob dudkovos Kat pabyrys yiverat ‘Exi- 
aA ae / 
yovds Tis TovvoHa, Os TH Puy émidnunoas éréorerpe THY AOeov yvdmnv. 
, 7 \ / .s / 3 / A 3 , ) , 
pabytrevoas KAcomévys, kat Biw Kat tpdrw adAdTpios THS éxKAyoias, éxpa- 


ebay 


\ / 3 > an ~ / / , \ 5) r! 
Tuve TO Odypa, KaT éxeivo Kalpod Lepupiver duérev vouilovros tTHv éxxAnoiar, 
3 \ 2 , \ > 5 A a a / / / 
avopos idudtov Kal aicxpoKepdovs: [ds] TO Kepder tpoapepopevw TeLOdmevos 


7, A A A Kir , 6 , 6 \ 3 x e /, 
OVVEXKWPEL TOLS TPOTLOVOL TH EOMEVEL PaUNTEVEOUAL, KAL AUTOS vTOOvUpO- 


320 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


a , ~ a lel 
PEVOS TO XpOVH ETL Ta adiTAa Opunto, TvpBovAov Kai TvVAywVLGTOD TOV KAKOV 
¥ x A , = \ ¢ ‘ ‘ 3 a Y EAR! ‘ 
ovtos avT@ KadXictov, ov tov Biov Kai rnv édevpebeicay aiperw pet od Todd 
> , "A ~ \ / ‘ La / 
éxOycomat. tovtwy Kata diadoxnv duemewe TO didacKadeloy KpaTvVopevoV 
Kat eradgov dua to cvvaiperOar avtois tov Zepupivov Kai tov Kadduortov, 
Kaito. nav pydérote ovyxwpnoavtwy, adda mAEoTAKLs avTiKaberTUTwV 
\ > \ \ , \ ” / \ > / e 
Tpos avrovs Kal dueAeyEavTwy Kal axovtas Biacapevwv THV adyOerav opodo- 
ns a \ N ¢ ° , Sele N A > , , e , 
yew" ot mpos ev wpav aidovpevor Kai bro THS AANGeias Tvvayouevor wpodo- 
3 > ‘ mi a ek \ | | U > , 
youv, met ov ToAd b€ eri Tov adtov BopBopov avexvAiovTo. 
(e) Ref. Haer. ix. 8 (p. 280). 
> - a 
AXN «i Kai mpotepov Exxertar bf yNuov ev Tots Procogovpevors y doga 
e , 3 , Cal A \ “ iA A A > Ld 
HpakXeirov, adda ye doxel tpocavarapaxOyvar Kal viv, Orws dua Tod éyyt- 
ovos edéyxov ghavepas didayOdow of rovtov vouilovres Xpiotod civar pwaby- 


‘ > A > \ lal A 
TAS, OVK OVTAS, GAG TOU OKOTELVOD. 


(f) Ref. Haer. ix. 11—13 (p. 284 sq). 
\ > , \ 
Tavrnv tyv aipeow éexparvve KadXuortos, avnp év Kakia Tavovpyos Kal 
ir \ A: r¢ a) , ‘\ A 3 A 6 , . \ 7, eh, 
ToikiAos mpos tAavyv, Onpwuevos Tov THS eriaKoTNS Ypovoyv. tov Zepuptvor, 
A A Bd a) 
avopa idwityv Kal aypdupatov Kal ameipov Tdv éxKAnoLATTLKOY Opwr, OV 
4 , Nee , > / 2 2. Ss , +” 
meOwv Sopact kai araitnoerw areipynpevats Hyev els 6 EBovXreTO, OvTa Swpo- 
/ a“ > A > “ 
Anmrnv kai pirapyvpor, érebev aet craves euBareiv avapérov Tav adeAgar, 
hes \ > if te 7 , / ‘ e “~ io 
QUTOS TA appoTepa pépyn VoTEpoV KEpKw7retots AOyous POS EavTod diAtay 
, ‘ a“ X > , / 4 a XN > 3997 
KatacKkevalwy, kai Tots wev adneay [A€ywv ouoia] Ppovoder mote Kat idiav 
A > 3 a a) 
Ta Opowa ppovetv [A€ywv]| yrata, tadw 8 ad Tois Ta ZaBedrXiov odpoiws, dv 
i avtov 2&€ duvapevo Goiv. év yap Ta vd ynudv tapavetoba 
Kal avtov 2geaTyoe Suvapevov KatopOodv. yap To ”: p l 
> > , a \ A a , 3 / c.3 > re Vn , 
ovK éoxAnpiveto, nvika d€ ov TO KadXiotw euovaley, vr avTov avereteto 
\ \ , \ / Ld “ a: a € X 
mpos To doypa TO KXeomévous pérew pacKovros Ta Opo.a poveiv. oO € 
, X \ 4 > A > > / vO be ” c 5 , > 
TOTE Mev THV TaVvoUpyiay avTOD ovK évoel, avOis dE EyVH, ws dUNYNTOMAL pET 
A , , /, A > 
ov TOA. avtov dé tov Zepupivov mpoaywv Sypwocia ereHe Néyew: “Eyo oda 
° A \ > a“ ‘\ \ > an ¢ HOE ‘ Q g 
eva @eov Xpictov Incoty, kat tAnV avTov ETEpov ovdEeva yevnTov Kat 7aGy- 
> e > Py e , ” ” 
tov: mote dé A€ywv: Ovy o Ilaryp améfavev, adda 0 Yios: ovtws aravorov 
A a e \ tA / e A > 
THV oTagW ev TH AOD SueTHPHTEV? OV TA VONMATA yVOVTES NMELS OV TVEXW- 
A ) , XN 3 , e ,w a ) ? a 3 > , 
podpev, eA€yxovtes Kal avtikaGiorapevor vTep THS aAyOeias: Os eis amovotay 
aA x : A a e A + > , 
Xopav Oia TO TavTas avTOD TH VroKpicer GrvTpEexeLY, NUas S€ ov, amrexader 
Sag) , 3 A \ / \ > “A ae ae. 4 ‘ / 
nuas diWéous, éenav tapa Biav Tov évdourvxodvra avTG iov. TovTov tov Biov 
A , \ dst \ / ce / 
Soxel uty ayarntov éxécOa, eel Kata TOV avTOoV xpovov Hulv éyeyovel, 
lal a a / > \ > ra ‘ , 
oTws dua TOD pavyvat TOU ToOLOVTOV THY avaTTpOPyY EvETLYVWOTOS Kal TAXA 
lal A Sf 7 = 
Tots vodv éxovow evynOys yévytat 7 dua ToUTOU éiKEXElpNLEVY AlpeTis. OUTOS 
5 / . A A 5 , » 4 , e .Y 7 aA > ~ 
éuaptupynoev ert PovoKiavod érapxov ovTos “Pwyys 0 O€ TpOTOsS THS avTOv 
/ a 
paptupias Toad. jv" 
/ \ a »* 
Oixérns érvyxave Kaprodopov tivos avdpos miuctod ovtos é« THs Kai- 
Jaa 4 , e / 7 \ e al wn > 42 
gapos oikias. TovtTw 0 Kapzodopos, ate dy ws micT@, XpHua ovK oALyov 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 32% 


?, 
kateriorevoev, erayyeapevos Képdos mpocoicev ex tpaypyarteias tpameLe- 
tuys: Os AaBo imelav € ipnoev ev TH A {Vy TLTKLVY) AuKH, @ 
ns Os AaBwv tparelav érexeipnoey ev TH Neyomevyn TiTKWH ToUTALKH, © 
OUK XN 67 ral , 3 14) e \ ~ \ ) X A 
vk odtyat tapabjKar TH ypovw érioTEVOnoay dro xNpov Kat adeAPwv TpoO- 
i bd 
oxnpatt Tov Kaproddpov. o d€ egadavicas ta mavta yrope. ov Tadra 
/ ? ‘ > A , e > A 
mpagavtos ovk eurev Os amayyeiky TO Kapropopw: o b€ én amaiteiv 
Xo > > ~ ~ \ c , \ \ \ ~~ / 
Oyous Tap avTov. Tatta cuvidwv o KadXoros Kal tov rapa Tov deamoTou 
, € , ai 2 \ ‘ \ / , a 
kivduvov vpopwpevos, atédpa thy pvyynv Kata Oadacoav Tovovpevos: Os 
ev ‘\ X A 3 A Tl / ¢ \ > / y Save a. Né 
pwv mAotov év to Iloptw eromov mpos avaywyyv, orov étvyxave wAEor, 
7 “ / \ 
avéBy mAevadpevos. aA’ ovde ovTws Aabeiy SedvvyTar- ov yap éAuTev ds 
> , nn 7 \ / c \ > \ ‘\ \ if 
arayyeihn TH Kapropopw to yeyevnévov. 0 O€ émiotas Kata Tov Ayeva 
A la A A > \ 
éreipato ert To mAotov opyav kata [Ta] peunvuwévas TovTo d€ nv éoTOS ev 
cal ~ \ / c / 
peow TH Apert. Tod dé wopOpews Bpadvvovtos idwv réppwHev 0 Kaddtotos 
\ 8 4 x > “A Xr , \ \ ¢ \ Ab ie O A 
tov decroTny, OV év TH TAOiw Kal yvods EavTov crvelnpOal, nhetdnoe Tod 
A Nee A , »” e \ > \ 6 x, ce be 
fqv Kai €oxata Tatra Aoywoapevos eppupev Eavtov eis tTHV Gadacoav. ot de 
A / 5 \ / y 25% > 4 ~ ‘\ 3 \ 
vavTa. KatamyonoavtTes eis TA TKapN aKovTAa avToV aveiAovTo, Tov Oe azo 
nn wn , , \ 7 nw e \ 3 4 > 
TS yas peyaha Bowvtwy' Kal ovTws TO Seo7roTH TapadoGels éxavynxOn eis 
\ e | 4 ray € , . , , ? XV / c 
THv “Pwpnv, dv o dearotns eis tictpiwov KatéGeTo. xpovov be dieAOovTos, ws 
\ / 
oupBaiver yiverOar, tpoceAOovtes adeApoi rapekadovy tov Kapzrodopor, 
4 > , (oe / ‘ / / 2 aN ¢ a ” 
oTws eayayn THS Koacews Tov dparérnv, hacKkovTEs aVTOV OModAoyeELY ExEW 
, y= PY , ea , c 3 , A “Sa 
Tapa Tis xpnWa amoKkeipevov. Oo d€ Kapzodopos, ws evAaBys, Tod pev idiov 
~ ~ ~ “~ > 
eheyev adeidety, tov 5€ tapabynkav dpovtileww—zroAXoi yap aito arexAaiovTo 
7 ~ A \ 
A€yovTes, OTL TO adtod Tpocxypatt erictevoay TH KadAtoto, a TerioTEvKeEL- 
‘ \ ee > ~ . te c \ \ »” ? , 
gav—xai mweobeis éxehevoev eayayeiv aitov. o de wndev Exwv arrod.dovat, 
A 4 2 , \ , \ \ a“ / , 
kai wadw amodivpackew py Suvapevos dia TO PpovpetaGa, TéexVQV Oavarov 
2 / \ , , > / e ate, / 7 ee 
erevonoe, Kal caBBatw oKnWapevos amlévar ws eri ypewoTas, wpunoev ert 
\ \ A na 
THY cuvaywynv Tov “lovdaiwy cuvnypever, Kal oTas Katectaclaley avTar. 
¢ \ 4 e > > a 2 / ak \ y > , 
oi d¢ Katactaciacbévtes tr aitov, evuBpicavtes aitov Kal tANyas éupopy- 
a > 
gavtes €ovpov eri tov Povoxiavov érapxov dvta THS TOAEwS. aTeKpivayTO 
/, e A a 
8¢ rade- “Pwpator cvveywpyocav nyuty Tovs tatpwous vopous Sypocia avarye- 
f Ls pg ee \ Se , SL Aw , > 
vwokew, ovtos d€ érece\Owv exwAve Katactacialwy yuov, PaocKwv elvat 
Xpioriavds. tod de Bovexiavod tpo Byyatos tvyxavovtos Kati Tots im’ “lov- 
5 , , A wn , > A 2 »” ec > 
aiwv Aeyopévors kata tod KadXiotov ayavaxtovvtos, ovk éduev 0 aTray- 
7 ~ 7 \ , ec .Y 4 > \ \ lal ~ 
yethas 7@ Kapzoddpw ta mpaccopeva. o O€ oretoas eri TO Bnpya Tod 
> / > / / , / \ \ 3 “A , > / > 
érapxouv é€Boa- Aéouat, kipre Povoexiavé, py ov aiT@ TioTeve, OV yap EoTL 
, ~ / e 
Xpiotiaves, apopynv dé Entel GOavatov ypypata pov todd adavicas, ws 
> , A ies , e \ “~ / c ~ A 
amodeigw. Ttav dé ‘lovdaiwy troBoAnv Tovto vopicavtwv, ws CytodvTos Tov 
~ , A , 
Kapzrodépov tatty TH mpopace efeAéoOar avtov, wadAov éripGovws Kate- 
4, A A ‘ 
Bowv rod érdpxyov. o de KiwyOels im aitav, pactiywoas adtov edwxev eis 
/ 
pétadXov Sapdovias. peta xpovov Oe érépwv éxel OvTwv papTipwv, GeAnoaca 
c > 
7 Mapxia épyov tu ayabov epyacacba, ovca piAdbeos raddaxy Kopddov, 


A , ‘ , ah + sc2s a > ‘ Y > 
TpooKa ET APLEVY) TOV AAKAPLoV Ovtxropa, OVTQ €TLOKOTOV THS E€KK OLAS KaT 


CLEM. II. 21 


522 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


> a i a U4 , ea 2 / , e X , > 
€xelvo KaLpov, érypwra, Tives elev €v Yapdovia paptupes. Oo S€ rdavTwv ava- 
A & Sgea es, \ A / 3 y+ > ». X\ / > 
dovs Ta ovopata, TO TOD KadXiorov ovk edwxev, cidws Ta TeTOApymeva Tap 
3 ~ “A > a > / e / A ~ / , \ 
avTov. TvxXOvCA oy TAS afiwoews y Mapkia wapad Tov Kopoddov, didwor tv 
> 7 \ ‘\ / 
arokvoy.ov éerictoAnv “YaxivOw tiwi oradovt. zperButépw, Os AaBdv du€- 
‘ X53 \ a 3 a lal ~ 
mrevoev eis THV Dapdoviav, Kat arodods TH KAT eKElvo KALPOD THS Xwpas emt- 
, 3 / \ , \ cal 7 e % ~ 
TpomevovT, areAvoe TOS paptupas 7AnV TOU KaAXiorov. o dé yovureTav 
\ , er \ oh oA a > , \ 5 € fans 
Kal OakpUwv ikereve Kal attos TvxELV aToAvcews. Svtwrnbets ovv 6 “Yaxw- 
> lod \ , > 
Bos agvot tov émitporov...... , packwv Opéfas eivar Mapkias, taooopevos 
3 a \ ae 4 ¢ \ \ 3 / \ \ / &e 
avT@ TO axivovvov: o d€ weioOels améAvoe Kat Tov Kaddorov. ov mapaye- 
/ ¢ Ovt / ” 6 5% A 4 IAN? > \ 4 \ > 
vopevov 0 Ovixtwp ravu nxXGero eri TO yeyovott, GAN eel evaTayxvos HV, 
ag / Sie A e \ ~ » > ‘ > ‘\ ‘ 
yovxace puvdacoopmevos O€ TOV iO TOoAAGY OveLdov (ov yap HY paKpaV Ta. 
ee:3 3 A X /, ) + be x A K / > , , 
vr avTov teroAunpeva), €Tt O€ Kal TOV Kaproopov avtumimtovtos, meyer 
3 \ / > "A a] Me C057 > tee As 5 “~ ae e 
avrov Katapeve é€v AvOelw, opicas avTa pyvaidv ti extpopys. pe ov 
a / AY \ \ \ , a 
koiunow Zepuptvos cvvapapevov avtov cxwv mpos THY KaTacTacLW TOD 
»Y / Me a ioL lal \ a \ > \ cal "A 6 s > .Y 
KANpov, ETiMLNTE TO Wiw KAKO, Kal TOUTOV pETAyaywV ao TOD AvOeiov eis TO 
/ , e 2 N \ / \ , a 
KOLLNTHPLOV KaTETTHTEV. Ww aEl GvVOV Kal, KabwWs POacas rpocizov, vro- 
/ 3 \ 4 > / ld “ » / / 4 
Kpioe aitov Oeparetwr, eEnpavice pte Kpivar ta Aeyopeva Svvapevov pyre 
A \ a / 2 4 “4 Were Y \ a ¢ e al 
voowTa THV TOU KaAXiorov ériBovdnv, TavTa avT@ mpos a YOETO OpLAOdVTOS. 
7 ‘ \ A / \ / , og a la A 
ovTw peta THY TOV Zedupivov TeAevTyV vouilwyv TeTvXNKEVaAL OV eOnpGTO, TOV 
bd] , e \ a > “a \ 
aBérAdov aréwoev ws py ppovodtvta opbas, dedouxws ene Kat vopilwv ovTw 
, ? / \ \ \ > / id ¢ Ake 7 
divacbat arotpipacbat THY mpos Tas éxxAnoias KaTyyopiay, ws pn GAAoTpiws 
A > > , N A \ , , 
dpovov. yVv ovv yoys Kat wavovpyos Kal él xpovw ovvypTace trodXovs. 
4 Se \ \ 3N\ PY / 5] ~ dt \ 0 de an ¢ 
Exwv O€ Kal TOV lov eyKElmevov Ev TH Kapdia, Kal evléws pndev Ppovarv, apna 
X\ \ > , \ 3 n / \ \ / ee. ae > / > na 
d€ Kal aidovpevos Ta adnOyn Eyerv, dua TO Snpocia yuiv ovedilovra eizety, 
\ \ \ \ ~ a“ lal 
diGcol éore, adda Kal dia To v0 TOD SaBeArAXiov cvxvads Katnyopeicbat ws 
/ ‘\ / 4 > ~ L 4 U /, ‘ iA 
nrapaBavra THY mpuTnV TiaTLY, éepEedpev alpeow ToLavde, A€ywv Tov Adyov 
Se > e?7 3) oe \ / iit x 4 aA Sc A \ 
GUTOV €ival VOY, GUTOV Kal TaTépa ovomate ev Kadovpevov, Ev dé OV TO 
A > , > + > , + \ er 4 \ \ \ 35 
Tvedpa adiaipetov’ ovK aAXo eivat zatépa, ado bé viov, Ev € Kal TO avTO 
a / / + / 
Umapyew* Kal Ta TavTG yéuelv TOD Gelov TVEYpaTOS TA TE GVW Kal KaTw* Kal 
> Ait an f. ‘\ ~ > 4 A \ , > \ 
elvat 70 ev TH TapPevw capKwbev Treva ovy Erepov Tapa Tov Tatépa, adda 
an S \ / > 7 \ 
€v kal TO aUTO. Kal TOUTO ElvaL TO EipNEVOV? OV TWLOTEVELS OTL eyw eV 
D i io yp év é€m“ol; To pev yap Breropevoy, orep éort 
TO TATpl Kal O TaTHp ev Emoc; bev yap JLEVOV, OTTED eOTiV 
»” an > \ es \ \ 49 A ean \ n “ > 
avOpwros, ToUTO elvat TOV ViOV, TO O€ Ev TH VIO ywpynOev Trvetpa TovTO €lvaL 
\ tg > , / 7. «A , , / \ es > ay ee c % 
TOV TaTepar ov yap, Pyoiv, épw dvo0 Geovs, watrépa Kal vidv, aAN’ Eva. oO yap 
PY 7, A / \ / \ / 5 /, € 4 
ev avT® yevouevos Tatip tpochaBopevos THY capka eOeorointev Evwoas 
e “ i Be , 7 e ta 0 / \ eX ¢ 0 / XN “ a 
EaUTO, Kal éroingey Ev, ws KaheioOar taTépa Kai viov Eva Oeov, Kat TOvTO EV 
Aa / \ § , ra) > 5 , Ue \ , bé a 
dv mpocwrov pn dvvacGat etvar dv0, Kal OUTwWS TOV TaTépa TupTeToVOEvaL TH 
ea > ‘ / / \ / / Noa = / 
vid od yap Géde Eyer TOV waTépa TeTovOévar Kal ev elvat TPOTWTOV...... 
3 nw A 5 A 4 / c > , A 4 ec vA 
expvyetv THY eis TOV waTépa BAacdypiav o avoynTos Kat ToLKiNos, 0 avw KaTw 
Y 4 \ “~ > a \ 7 
oxedalwv BrAacpyias, iva povov Kata THs adnGeias Néyew Soxy, ToTE pev 
/ us ‘ / “ 
eis TO SaBeAAlov Soypa eumirtwv, rote dé cis TO Oeoddtov ovk aidetrar. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 323 


A ¢ 4 / / A \ ~ > , 
TowatTa o yoys ToAunoas ovveotycato didacKaXetov Kata THs éxKkAnolas 
9 8 8 L& \ A \ \ \ 5 \ A > 6 4 A 
ovtws dudagas, Kal mpM@Tos Ta pos Tas ydovas Tois avOpwrois cvyxwpetv 
erevonoe, Néeywv TacW UT avtov adiceobar apaptias. o yap rap éré i 
noe, dEy paptias. yap map €répw Twi 
, \ - \ + BI Ct / > / 
guvayonevos Kat Aeyouevos Xpiotiavos el TL av apapty, paciv, ov oyilerac 
> ~ e e , 5 5 , A A K ANG An & a ° > 
aUT@® 7 GamapTia, ei tpocdpawor TH TOV KadAtctov cxody. ov TH dpw ape- 
, \ / , Md \ me FS a Ley 
oKomevor TOANOL cuveidnow TerAynyoTes Gua TE Kal VO TOAAOV aipécewv 
> , \ / ~ lA c > “~ 
amoBAnbevres, Twes d€ Kal eri KaTayvwce ExBAnTOL THS exKAnTias UP HudV 
/ P Lal / Aa nn 
yevomevor, mpocxwpyoavtes avtots érAnfuvay to didacKkadetoy advtod. ovTos 
/ o / ¢ , \ \ / al 
edoypmaticev Orws ei éxickoTos apapto. tT, ei Kal mpos Oavatov, py dev 
/ , eee / eee 5 A2KZ \ , \ 5 / 
KatatibecOar. eri tovTov npgavto ériocKoTo. Kal mpecBUTEpor Kai diakovor 
or \ / , 6 > HN / > be y > / a 
(yapo. Kat tplyapo. kabictacbar eis KAnpous: ei de Kal Tis ev KANpw dv 
\ ~ ~ / e \ ec / 
yop.oin, pévew Tov To.ovTov év TO KANPH ws py NuapTHKOTA él ToUTW 
4 5 n~ \ e \ nm  ] 4 e , \ , 9S e s . 
pacKkwv cipnoGar to vrd Tov aTooToAov pyfev- od Tis ci O Kpivwv adA- 
/ \ \ “~ \ ~ 
AoTtptov oixéeTnv; GAAA Kai wapaBodrnv tov Cilaviwv pos Todtro édy 
, y \ , A pe 
AéyerGar: apete ta Lilavia cvvavéerv TH Gitw, TovTecTW ev TH éx- 
Xr 4 .Y e , tAX \ \ \ \ ~ N a 5 ec , 
KAyolia Tovs aaptavovtas. ada kat tTHv KiBwrov Tov Nae eis opoiwpa 
> X / » 4 3 ® \ , \ hv \ , \ / \ 
exxAyalas Epy yeyovevat, év y Kal KUves Kal AVKOL Kal KOpaKEsS Kal TaYTa Ta 
\ x > / 7 / ” > > > / c 4 4.2 
Kafapa Kai axaGapta: ovTw dackwv dety eivar ev exkAnola opotws Kat doa 
‘\ cal \ > ? > 7, & 
mpos TovTo Ovvatos HV cuvayew oVTwWS YpuHnVvevoev, OV Ol Akpoatal yabEvTes 
A , , > , e a A aA e An 
Tots doypace diapevovoty eumailovres éavTots Te Kul 7oAXOLs, OV TO SidacKa- 
r s / 4 %, 5 ‘ \ x 6% , oe hs OR X 8 \ \ 
€lw Guppeovow OxXAoL. 410 Kat TANOdvVoVTAL yavpLWmevoL ert OXAOLS OLA Tas 
c , a 3 / c 4 e / 3Qvh ec lal 
nOovas, aS ov cuvex¥pyoev 0 Xpioros: ov KaTadpovyncayTes ovdev apapTeiy 
, ’ Ch is A 3 A \ \ \ \ 
Kwhvovol, PagKovtTes avTov adievat TOIs EvOOKOVTL. Kat yap Kal yuvaléty 
LYRE > * > a / > / 3 / nv A 267 \ 
erétpewev, ei avavopor elev Kal ndtkia ye exxalowrTo avatia 7) éavtdv agiav py 
/ a Gi. \ / a 4 g a bY (see 2 
BovrAowTo Kafaipeiy dia TO vopipws yapnOqvar, exew eva ov ay aipnowvrac 
, 4 eon 4 5] , \ A / > \ > \ .¥ 
GvyKo.TOV, €iTe OiKéryV eite eNevOEpov, Kal TovTOV Kpivety avTi avdpos py 
, , 4 + lad x / | 
vopw yeyapnuevnv. evOev npEavro erixeipety tictal Aeyopevar atokiows dap- 
, n \ \ / 
MaKOLS Kal TepideopelaOat Tpos TO TA GvAAGpPBavopeva KaTaBadrAEV, dua TO 
/ 5 , / » / / 2¢ > aA 6 ‘ \ , 
pyre x Sovrov BovAcoHar Exew TExvov pyte €& EdTEAODS, dia THY ovyyéveLaY 
e e Lal ¢ > / ” 
Kal UTEepoyKov ovciav. Opare cis oonv avéBetav exwpyceEV O avojos poryetay 
‘ , ) A Sten / Osi AA / a / e X € 
Kat povov év TO avT@ divdacKwy Kal éri TovToLs TOls TOAUHMacL EavTOvS ot 
\ , > an A 
amnpvOpiacpevot kafodixny exxAnoiav atrokaXety éryerpovar, Kal TLVEs Vopt- 
> , > A / , , 
Covres «0 TpaTTEe GuVTpPeXOVTW autos. el TOVTOV TpwTWSs TeTOAUYTAL Sev- 
3 rf / ; 
Tepov avtois Pamtiopa. 
A \ Ss ¢ f / , e , \ 
Tatra perv ovv 0 Gavpaciitatos KaddXduotos cuveotycato, ov duapéver TO 
an / ec. / \ ud \ la , al 
didacKadrelov pvrtacoov ta ey Kai tTHv mapadoow, py duaxpivov tice det 
al A 7.3 , / \ / 24? e \ \ ey} Ae 
KOWwwvely, Tao. O akpitws TpoTdépov THY KoLYWViay: ap Ov Kal THY TOD OVO- 
~ \ \ / A , 
patos pmeréecxov erikAnow Kadcicba dia TOY TpwWTOTTATHTAVTA TOV TOLOVTWY 
, , 
epywv KadXorov KadAoriavot. 
Me \ / \ / / “~ /, b] 2 ‘ 
Tovtov xara mdvta Tov Koopov dSinynbeions THs didacKkadias, évidav THY 
4 cA / b' > / / > 4 , 
mpaypateiav avynp doA.os Kal amrovoias yew, “AdkiB.iadys Tis KadXovpevos, 


PQs 


324 : EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


oixdv év ’Arrapela ths Supias, yopyotepov Eavtov Kai edpvérrepov év KvBetats 
A tal A 4 4, , 

kpivas ToD KadXiorov, érqOe rH “Puyn hépwv BiBrov twa, packwv TavTyv 
a a > Af 

aro Snpav ris TapOias tapeAnpevar tive avdpa Sixavov HAxacat. 


(g) Ref. Haer. x. 1—5 (p. 310). 


/ 4 2 a / a \ a CN sy 2 - 
Tade eveorw év TH Sexaty TOU Kata Tacav alperewv EXEyXOU 
\ / 
eTLTOULN TAaVTWV TOV piiocdgur, 


> X\ “a ~ ee 4 
ET LT OLY TAC WV [roy] QALPETEWYV, 


Pe Yo 


pes beso. A / ec A > , / 
Kal él wact, Tis 0 THS aAnOeias Aoyos. 
A“ ~ \ 4 
5. Tov AaBipwhov tadv aipécewy od Bia Siappygavres, adAa povw 
a , > ud 
éXéyxw adnbeias Suvaper Siarvoarres, tpooysey eri TV THS aAnOeias azo- 


devEuv k.7.A. 
(2) Ref. Haer. x. 6 (p. 311). 


an /, 
SuprepiAaBovres tolvuev ta ravtTwv Tév Tap “EAAno. copav Soypata év 
/ / \ be ~ e , 3 U4 A \ \ iN A / 
técoapot BiBrios, Ta dé Tols aipervapxyas ev TevTE, VOV Tov wept aAnNGELas 


Noyov év a erei~opev, dvakepadaLrovpevor mpaOTov Ta Tact SedoKypeva. 


(2) \ Mes. aeaer. x. 4Z0 ((p. 13g). 


*Hoav 8é otro. 68 éOvn, dv Kai Ta Ovopata éxteBeipeba ev Erépars BiBAots. 


(2) fee Siar. x. 32 (p. 334). 


/ \ / > a \ 4 
Ei diropabyoover Kai Tas ToUTwv ovoias Kal Tas aitias THS KaTa TaVvTA 
8 , 3 é / »y ° , ¢ na BiBr , 
netovpylas émilntycovow, eicovtar évtvxovtes nuav BiBAw mepLexovey 
A A 4 3 \ nw iy A 
Ilept tHs Tov mavtos ovalas: TO dé vov ixavov elvar ékPéobar tas ai- 
/ a 2 / fi A a / \ / a / 2Q7 
tias, as ov yvovtes “EAXgves koud TO Adyw Ta pépy THS KTicews edd~avav 
> ve 
TOV KTiCaVTA ayVONTAVTES. 


\Y) Ke, Haer, x. 34 (p. 338). 

Tovovtos 6 repi 70 Oelov adyOys Adyos, © avOpwro. “EAAyvés Te Kat Bap- 
Bapo., Xaddatoi te Kai “Acovpio, Atyvmtioi te Kai AiBves, “Ivdoi Te Kat 
AiOiores, KeAtoi te kat of otpatnyovvtes Aativol, tavtes Te of THY Eipwrnv 
“Aciav te kat AuBinv KatoKodytes, ois av Bovdos eyo yivoual, prravOpwrov 
Aoyou vrdpywov pabytys kal pirtavOpwros, orws tpoadpapovtes didaxO7re 


> e “ , cm / 
TAP NLWV, TIS O OVTWS Weos. 


2. CHAIR OF Hippoiytus [c. A.D. 236?]. 


The date of the statue of Hippolytus will be discussed hereafter. 
It is sufficient to say here that it must have been erected within a few 
years of his death. He is seated on a chair, of which the base is 
inscribed on the back and two sides. The inscription on the back, 
which is curved, is here marked A. It stands on the right-hand side 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 325 


of this curved back to one facing the same way as the statue, and is 
mutilated. The left-hand side of the back was without any inscription. 
The inscriptions on the right and left sides (the spectator still facing 
the same way), which are straight, are here marked B, C, respectively. 
The positions of the inscriptions may be seen from the engravings of 
the chair in Fabricius 1. p. 36 sq. For the inscriptions themselves see 
also Boeckh-Kirchhoff Corp. Zuscr. Graec. 8613 (Iv. p. 280). 


A. 


[mpoc Toye toydal]loyc 
[Trep! O1KONOM lac 
[eic Toye y]aAmoye 
[eic THN er |racTpIMy@ON 
5 YTep TOY KATA IW 
ANHN 
EYAarfeAlOY KAI ATTO 
KAAY VEC 
TEP YAPICMATOON 
10 ATTOCTOAIKH TIAPAdO 
cic 
\PONIKOON 
Tpoc EAAHNAC 
KAI TIPOC TIATWONA 
15 H Kal TIED] TOY TIANTOC 
TIPOTPETITIKOC TIPOC CE 
BHDEINAN 
ATTOAEIZIC YPONGN 
TOY TIACYA 
20 KATA €N TO TTINAKI 
@AAl IC TIACAC TAC [Pda 
ac 
Trep! OY KAI CAPKOC 
ANACTACEWC 
25 TEP! TATABOY Kal 
TIOBEN TO KAKON 


_In 1 2 the remaining letters might be part of -was or -mas or -vias. In l. 14 
matwva is obviously an error for rAatwva. In 1. 20 kara is apparently an error for 
kara 7a and not for xa@a (as taken by Kirchhoff). In]. 21 if the first word is cor- 
rectly read wda:, the second ts is an itacism for ets. 


326 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
B. 


ETOYC A BaciAelac adEZANAPOY AYTOKPATOPOC Efe 
NETO H Al TOY TIACYA EIAOIC ATTPEIAIAIC CABBAT@ EM 
BOAIMOY MHNOC [ENOMENOY ECTAI TOIC €ZHC ETECIN KAO 
WC YTIOTETAKTAl EN TO TIINAKI EFENETO AE EN TOIC TIAPOd 
YHKOCIN KAOW@C CECHMEIWTAI ATTONHCTIZECBHAI AE 

A€l OY AN ENTTECH KYPIAKH 


After this follow the tables for the calculation of the Passover ac- 
cording to a cycle of sixteen years. The times of the celebrations of 
the Passover mentioned in the Old Testament are noted by the side 
of the respective days from the eZoAoc down to the magoc ypictoy. 
Seven cycles are given so as to exhibit the relations of the days of the 
week to the days of the month. 


CG: 
ETE] AAEZANAPOY KAICAPOC 
TO & APYH 
Al KYPIAKAlL TOY TIACYA KATA ETOC 
Al AE TIAPAKENTHCEIC AHAOYCI THN AICTTPOE?2. 


Then follows a table in which the days of the month on which 
Easter Day falls are given for 112 (i.e. 16 x 7) years, le. from A.D. 222 
to A.D. 333, calculated in accordance with the above cycle. The dis 
mpo e& is the dissextum, and the wapaxevryces (‘marks in the margin’) 
here promised are omitted by the carelessness of the stone-cutter, 
though the leap-years are marked in the previous table of cycles 
by SS. 


3. Eusesius [c. a.p. 325]. 


(a) Wistor. Hales. N.-25. 

Ovdev F HTTov Kai éxkAnovactiKos avyp, Taios ovopati, kata Lepuptvov 
“Pp at Oo \ > , ov" cd bn Ul / 4 4 \ re) , - , 

wpaov yeyovws éemiaKomov: os 0n LpoxAw THs Kata Ppvyas mpolotapevw 

, > , 8 Ay 6 \ 5 \ 5 ‘\ A . a , » 6 wn 
yvopns éyypadws diadexGets avta On TalTa wept Tov ToTwV, EvOa TOV 
eipnmevov aTooTOAwV Ta iepa oKyvopata Karat ébevrat, byoiv: 

"Eyo be Ta TpoTava TOV aTooTOAWYV exw Oetfar. ea yap GedAnoys 
> fal pe \ \ A aL UN \ cay \ > , ¢ / \ / 
dmeNOciv ext tov Batixavov 7» emt THY Odov THY ‘QoTiav, evpyoes Ta Tpd- 
Tala TOV TAUTHV LOpuTapLevewv Tv exkAnotav. 

(6) Hist. Eccl. ii. 28. 

/ m 

Kara rtovs dednAwmévovs xpovous étépas aipeoews apxnyov yever Oat 

J Tas ae 
KypwOov TmapeAndapev. L'atos, ov puvas no TpOTEpov TapateGepat, €v 


A / 5 nw / “a X\ ~ > nw A 
TY PEPOEevy AVTOV Cytyoe TavtTa rept TOU avTov ypaet’ 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 327 


“AAAa Kal KypwGos o 8 aroxadtWewy ws id arootdAov peyadou 
, , ea c i ie3 , 2 A , , 
yeypappevwv Tepatoroyias nytv ws dv ayyéAwv ait@ dederypévas wWevdo- 
pevos ereoaye, Aeywv peta THY avacTacw ériyeov etvac TO Bacideov 
~ A \ / > / 4: e a > c \ \ £ 
tod Xpuctod, kal madw eérifvpiais Kat ydovais év ‘lepovoadnu thv capKa 
/ / \ 3 \ e , la la A A 
moAutevopevyv Sovreverv. Kal éxOpos trapxwv Tats ypadpais Tov cod 


apiOmov xiAvovtaetias év yaw éoptys Oélwv tAavav éyer yiver Oa. 


(ey ffest. Eccl, Wil. 31. 
2 ae a aA , ee a , > ls , , 
Kai év td Tatov dé, ob puixpo tpoo9ev éuvnoOnpev, duadoyw IpoxAos, 
\ a > A \ / \ A / \ a / 3 a 
mpos Ov eroreito thy Cytnow, wept THS Bidiwrov Kat Tov Ovyarépwv adrod 
onl a ~ 7 
TeXevTAS ovvadwy Tots exTeHeiow ovTW PyTiV: 
/ / 
Mera robdrov d€ mpodytides Téecoapes at Diriarov yeyevynvtar év ‘Tepa- 
a \ \ > , ¢€ / Ro > \ rn Sac ~ \ 
woke TH Kata THV Actav' 0 Tados avTwVY EOTLY EKEL, KGL O TOU TaTpOS 
avT wv. 
apt fist. Sci. Vii 20: 
+ aA u x 
Hxpalov dé kata totro mAelovs Aoyior Kal exkAyoLaoTiKoL avdpes, wv 
\ > / a \ > / 4 + a ec a 
Kat emioTtoAas, ass mpos aAAynAovs SieXapatrov, eT. viv cwlopevas evpeEtv 
y+ aA \ ) ec A > , > ~ > 5 if £ A 
eVTopov. atl Kal eis nuas epvAdyOynoav ev TH Kat AiXiav BiBdAtobnKy zpos 
A / 
TOU THVUKade THY avTOOL SierovTOs exKAnoiav “AXE~avdpov erioKevacbeioy, 
> > e \ > \ ‘ Y ~ \ ~ e / acy :S > \ 
ap 7s Kal avTol Tas vAas TAS peTa XElpas VToMécEWs eri TavTO ovVA- 
a , a , \ b] a \ , 
yayetv dedvvypefa.  tovtwy BypvAAos ovv éemiotoAats Kal cvyypappatov 
diadopovs diAokaXias KkatadéAoirev. ericxoros 8 ovTos WV TOV KATA 
c 
Bootpav “ApaBwv: woavtws d€ Kat ‘ImmoAvtos, érépas wov Kal avtos mpo- 
p Pp ? p 
> a N > 
eats exkAynolas. AGE dé eis yas Kat Tatov Aoywrtatov avdpds duaAoyos 
eri Pwyns cata ZLepuptvov mpos Upoxdov THs Kata Ppvyas aipéoews v7ep- 
PAXOUVTA KEKLVNMEVOS, ev w TOV OL evaVTias THY TEPL TO TUVTATTELY KaLVaS 
ypadas mporéreiav te Kal TOApav éeriotopilwv Tov TOD Lepovd amoaToAoV 
A lal \ c \ 
dexarplav povwy etitToAGv pvnmovevet, THY Tpos EPpatous py ovvapiOuyoas 
tats Aourats: érel Kal eis devpo mapa “Pwpaiwy tisiv ov vopilerar Tod 


> v2 , 
amroacToAov TVYXAVEL. 


fey. £test. Freel. Vii 32. 


Tore d9Ta Kai ‘ImmoXvtos ovvtattwov peta TAELoTWV aAAwy UVropvnaTwY 
Kal TO TIED| TOY TACYA TeTonTa, cvyypappa, EV @ TOV XpovwY avaypa- 
yy éxOewevos Kai Twa Kavova ExKaLoEeKaeTNploos TeEpl TOV TATXa TpOGets emt 
To mpwtov eros AXeéadvdpov avtoxparopos Tovs xpovous Teprypaper. av dé 
AowTaV aiTov ovyypaypatwov ta eis nuas eAOCvTa éotl Tade™ CIC THN 
EZAHMEPON, E1C TA META THN €ZAKMEDON, TIPOC MAPKI@NA, 
EiC TO ACMA, E1C MEPH TOF iezeKIHA, TEP] TOY MACcYAa, TPOC 
ATACAC TAC aAlpéceic’ mAcioTa te GANa Kal mapa ToAdots evpous ay 


cwlopeva, 


328 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


4. LIBERIAN CHRONOGRAPHER [A.D. 354]. 
(a) Depositio Martyrum (see above, I. p. 251). 
Idus Aug. Ypoliti in Tiburtina et Pontiani in Calisti. 


There is reason to believe that this notice is not later than A.D. 335 
(see I. p. 250, 264) and may have been much earlier. 


(6) Catalogus Episcoporum (see above, I. p. 255). 


Eo tempore Pontianus episcopus et Yppolitus presbiter exoles sunt 
deportati in Sardinia in insula nociva, Severo et Quintiano cons. 


[A.D. 235]. , 
This notice in all probability dates from about A.D. 255 (see I. p. 
263). 
5. EPpipHANIus [c. A.D. 375]. 


diaeres. XXxi. 35 (p. 205). 
a val > #©& ~ - > ° 

“Hyets 6€ apxeoOevtes Tots Te Tap yudv AexGetow oALyots Kal Tots vz0 
a“ “ > / / / La ld A “~ ‘ 
Tov THS adnOeias cvyypapewv TovTwv exOeiot Te Kai ovvtaxGeior, Kal 
opavtes OTL aAXAOu werovyKacr, pyyt € KAynpys kat Eipnvatos kat “IxrdXdvtos 
Kal aAXot mAeiovs, ot kal Oavpactws THY KaT adToVY TeTOLnVTAaL avaTpoTyY, 
“ lal lal > lal 
ov Tavy TL TO KapaTw Tpocbetival, ws Tpoeirov, YOeAnTapev, ikavwOévtes Tots 


Tpoeipnpevols avopact K.T.A. 


6. APOLLINARIS? [c. A.D. 370]. 


Mai Script. Veter. Nov. Collect. 1. p. 173. 


’ArroAwvapiov...EiaéBios 0 Tlapidov Kai ‘Irrodvtos 0 aywrartos éri- 
oKxoros Pwuns arexalovor tHv mpoKemevyv TOO NaBovxodovecop dopacw TH 
Tov tpopytov Aavind ortacia. 

A comment on Daniel ii. 34 in a Catena; see Lagarde p. 171. Reasons will be 
given below (p. 431 sq) for questioning the ascription to Apollinaris. 


7. Damasus [a.D. 366—384]. 


(a) ILnscriptio in Coemeterio Hippolytz. 


HIPPOLYTVS FERTVR PREMERENT CVM JVSSA TYRANNI 
PRESBYTER IN SCISMA SEMPER MANSISSE NOVATI 
TEMPORE QVO GLADIVS SECVIT PIA VISCERA MATRIS 
DEVOTVS CHRISTO PETERET CVM REGNA PIORVM 
QVAESISSET POPVLVS VBINAM PROCEDERE POSSET 
CATHOLICAM DIXISSE FIDEM SEQVERENTVR VT OMNES 
SIC NOSTER MERVIT CONFESSVS MARTYR VT ESSET 

HAEC AVDITA REFERT DAMASVS PROBAT OMNIA CHRISTVS 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 329 


This inscription is preserved in a S. Petersburg ms (formerly of 
Corbei, and afterwards of S. Germain des Prés) which contains a 
sylloge of inscriptions, and is described in Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 
1881, p.5sq. The sylloge is printed in De Rossi’s Zuscr. Christ. Urb. 
Rom. i. p. 82, where also (p. 72 sq) it is described. A full account of 
this particular inscription, which appears on fol. 24 sq, is given in the 
same Bud/. l.c. p. 26 sq. It is headed Xn geo Hypolite martyrae, and by 
an error of the scribe the last line of another inscription, belonging to 
the martyr Gordianus (see pp. 14, 39), ‘Praesbiter ornavit renovans 
vicencius ultro’ has been attached to it. In 1425 the reigning Pope 
Martin V issued an order that marble and other materials might be 
taken from the desolate and ruined suburban churches to construct the 
pavement of S. John Lateran; and accordingly De Rossi has found 
and deciphered three fragments of this very Damasian inscription from 
the cemetery of Hippolytus embedded in the pavement of this distant 
basilica. 


(4) Lnscriptio altera in eodem Coemeterio. 


LAETA DEO PLEBS SANCTA CANAT QVOD MOENIA CRESCVNT 
ET RENOVATA DOMVS MARTYRIS [HIPP]OLITI 
O RNAMENTA OPERIS SVRGV[NT AVCTORE DAM|ASO 
N ATVS QVI ANTISTES SEDIS A[POSTOLICAE]| 
INCLITA PACIFICIS FACTA ES[T HAEC AVLA TRIVMPHIS| 
SERVATVRA DECVS PERPETV|AMQUE FIDEM| 

HAEC OMNIA NOVA QUAEQVE VIDIS LE[O PRESBYTJER HORNAT, 


where the first six lines give an acrostich LEONIS, and gwuaegue is 
contracted into qq in the inscription itself. Damasus is described as 
‘natus antistes,’ because his father had been ‘exceptor, lector, levita, 
sacerdos,’ as Damasus wrote in another inscription (Bul. di Archeol. 
Crist. 1881, p. 48); and thus he himself was, as it were, born to his 
future high office in the Church. 

This inscription is given by De Rossi in the Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 
1883, p. 60 sq (comp. 2d. 1882, p. 176). It was found in the vestibule 
leading to the crypt of S. Hippolytus. 


8. HiERoNyMus [a.D. 378— 400] 
(a) De Vir. 1. 59. 


Gaius sub Zephyrino, Romanae urbis episcopo, id est, sub Anto- 
nino, Severi filio, disputationem adversus Proculum, Montani sectato- 
rem, valde insignem habuit arguens eum temeritatis super nova pro- 
phetia defendenda, et in eodem volumine epistulas quoque Pauli trede- 


330 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


cim tantum enumerans quartam decimam, quae fertur ad Hebraeos, 
dicit non eius esse; sed apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Pauli apo- 
stoli non habetur. 


(b) De Vir. Tl. 6x. 


Hippolytus, cuiusdam ecclesiae episcopus—nomen quippe urbis 
scire non potui—in ratione paschae et temporum canone scripsit et usque 
ad primum annum Alexandri imperatoris sedecim annorum circulum, 
quem Graeci €KKAIAEKAETHPIAA vocant, repperit, et Eusebio, qui super 
eodem pascha decem et novem annorum circulum, id est, évveaxaidexae- 
Typida Composuit, occasionem dedit. Scripsit nonnullos in scripturas 
commentarios, e quibus haec repperi: zz Hexaemeron, in Exodum, in 
Canticum Canticorum, in Genesim, tn Zachartam, de Psalmts, in Esatam, 
de Daniele, de Apocalypst, de Proverbits, de E-cclesiaste, de Saul et Pythonissa, 
de Antichristo, de Resurrectione, contra Marcionem, de Pascha, adversus 
Omnes Hereses, et TPOCOMIAIAN de Laude Domint Salvatoris, in qua 
praesente Origene se loqui in ecclesia significat. Huius aemulatione 
Ambrosius, quem de Marcionis heresi ad veram fidem correctum dixi- 
mus, cohortatus est Origenem in scripturas commentarios scribere, 
praebens el septem et eo amplius notarios eorumque expensas et librari- 
orum parem numerum, quodque his maius est, incredibili studio cottidie 
ab eo opus exigens. Unde et in quadam epistula épyodwxryvy eum 
Origenes vocat. 


(c) £pist. xxxvi. 16 ad Damasum (I. p. 169, Vallarsi). 

Quoniam autem polliciti sumus et de eo quid significaret in figura 
adjungere, Hippolyti martyris verba ponamus, a quo et Victorinus 
noster non plurimum discrepat ; non quod omnia plenius executus sit, 
sed quod possit occasionem praebere lectori ad intelligentiam latiorem ; 
‘Isaac portat imaginem Dei Patris, Rebecca Spiritus Sancti, ete.’ 


After this follows a long quotation from Hippolytus in which the history of Esau 
and Jacob is figuratively explained. The letter was written A.D. 384. 


(d@) £pist. xlviii. 19 ad Pammachium (1. p. 232, Vallarsi). 

Scilicet nunc enumerandum mihi qui ecclesiasticorum de impari 
numero disputarent, Clemens, Hippolytus, Origenes, Dionysius, Euse- 
bius, Didymus, nostrorumque Tertullianus, Cyprianus, etc. 


Jerome is defending himself against a charge of misinterpretation affecting the odd 
and even days in the account of the Creation in Genesis. This letter was written A.D. 


393° 
(ce) LZpist. \xx. 4 ad Magnum (I. p. 429, Vallarsi). 
Hunc [Clementem] imitatus Origenes decem scripsit S¢vomateas, 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 331 


Christianorum et philosophorum inter se sententias comparans...Scripsit 
et Miltiades contra Gentes volumen egregium. Hippolytus quoque et 
Apollonius, Romanae urbis senator, propria opuscula condiderunt. 


Jerome is defending himself against the charge of desecrating theology by illustra- 
tions from secular literature. This letter was written A.D. 397. 


(f) pist. \xxi. 6 ad Lucinium (1. p. 434, Vallarsi). 

De sabbatho quod quaeris, utrum ielunandum sit; et de eucha- 
ristia, an accipienda quotidie, quod Romana ecclesia et Hispaniae 
observare perhibentur, scripsit quidem Hippolytus vir disertissimus ; et 
carptim diversi scriptores e variis auctoribus edidere. 

This letter was written in the year following the preceding, A.D. 398. 


(g) Lpést. \xxxiv. 7 (1. p. 529). 
Nuper sanctus Ambrosius sic Hexaemeron illius [Origenis] compi- 
lavit, ut magis Hippolyti sententias Basiliique sequeretur. 


This letter is assigned to A.D. 400. 


(4) Comm. in Daniel. ix. 24 (Vv. p. 689). 


Hippolytus autem de eisdem hebdomadibus opinatus est ita; 
‘Septem hebdomadas ante reditum populi etc.’ 


(¢) Comm. in Matt. i. praef. (vu. p. 7). 

Legisse me fateor ante annos plurimos in Matthaeum Origenis 
viginti quinque volumina...et Theophili Antiochenae urbis episcopi 
commentarios ; Hippolyti quoque martyris et Theodori Heracleotae, 
etc. 


This commentary was written A.D. 398. 


(2) Chronicon it. p. 179 (ed. Schone). 
Geminus presbyter Antiochenus et Hippolytus et Beryllus episcopus 
Arabiae Bostrenus clari scriptores habentur. 


A notice under Ann. Abr. 2244, Alexandr. 6. 


g. RurFinus [fT A.D. 410]. 
Flist. Eccl. vi. 16. 


Unde et nos, ut fateamur quod verum est, totius huius operis 
nostri et historiae conscribendae materiam sumpsimus. Erat ergo 
inter caeteros et Beryllus scriptorum praecipuus, qui et ipse diversa 
opuscula dereliquit. Episcopus hic fuit apud Bostram Arabiae urbem 
maximam. Erat nihilominus et Hippolytus, qui et ipse aliquanta 
scripta dereliquit episcopus. 


332 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


This passage corresponds to H. £. vi. 20 of Eusebius (see above, p. 327). The 
rest of Rufinus’ translation may be passed over. This extract alone is given here, 
because its looseness has apparently been the occasion of much error respecting the 
see of Hippolytus. 


10. PRUDENTIUS [c. A.D. 407]. 
Peristephanon ; De Passione S. Hippolyti (p. 440 sq, ed. Dressel). 


Innumeros cineres sanctorum Romula in urbe 
Vidimus, O Christi Valeriane sacer. 
Incisos tumulis titulos et singula quaeris 
Nomina? difficile est ut replicare queam. 
5 Tantos iustorum populos furor inpius hausit, 
Cum coleret patrios Troia Roma deos. 
Plurima litterulis signata sepulcra loquuntur 
Martyris aut nomen aut epigramma aliquod. 
Sunt et muta tamen tacitas claudentia tumbas 
10 Marmora, quae solum significant numerum. 
Quanta virum iaceant congestis corpora acervis, 
Nosse licet, quorum nomina nulla legas. 
Sexaginta illic defossas mole sub una 
Relliquias memini me didicisse hominum ; 
15 Quorum solus habet comperta vocabula Christus, 
Utpote quos propriae iunxit .amicitiae. 
Haec dum lustro oculis, et sicubi forte latentes 
Rerum apices veterum per monumenta sequor ; 
Invenio Hippolytum, qui quondam schisma Novati 
20 Presbyter attigerat, nostra sequenda negans, 
Usque ad martyrii provectum insigne tulisse 
Lucida sanguinei praemia supplicii. 
Nec mirere, senem perversi dogmatis olim 
Munere ditatum catholicae fidei. 
25 Cum iam vesano victor raperetur ab hoste, 
Exsultante anima carnis ad exitium, 
Plebis amore suae multis comitantibus ibat; 
Consultus, quaenam secta foret melior, 
Respondit: Fugite, o miseri, exsecranda Novati 
30 Schismata ; catholicis reddite vos populis. 
Una fides vigeat, prisco quae condita templo est; 
Quam Paulus retinet, quamque cathedra Petri. 
Quae docui, docuisse piget: venerabile martyr 
Cerno, quod a cultu rebar abesse Dei. 


35 


40 


45 


5° 


55 


60 


65 


7° 


75 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 


His ubi detorsit laevo de tramite plebem, 
Monstravitque sequi, qua via dextra vocat, 

Seque ducem recti, spretis anfractibus, idem 
Praebuit, erroris qui prius auctor erat: 

Sistitur insano rectori Christicolas tunc 
Ostia vexanti per Tiberina viros. 

Illo namque die Roma secesserat, ipsos 
Peste suburbanos ut quateret populos. 

Non contentus humum celsae intra moenia Romae 
Tingere iustorum caedibus assiduis. 


Taniculum cum iam madidum, fora, Rostra, Suburram, 


Cerneret eluvie sanguinis affluere: 

Protulerat rabiem Tyrrheni ad littoris aram, 
Quaeque loca aequoreus proxima Portus habet. 

Inter carnifices et constipata sedebat 
Officia, exstructo celsior in solio. 

Discipulos fidei, detestandique rebelles 
Idolii, ardebat dedere perfidiae. 

Carcereo crinita situ stare agmina contra 
Iusserat, horrendis excrucianda modis. 

Inde catenarum tractus, hinc lorea flagra 
Stridere ; virgarum concrepitare fragor. 

Ungula fixa cavis costarum cratibus altos 
Pandere secessus et lacerare iecur. 

Ac iam lassatis iudex tortoribus ibat 
In furias, cassa cognitione fremens. 

Nullus enim. Christi ex famulis per tanta repertus 
Supplicia, auderet qui vitiare animam. 

Inde furens quaesitor ait: Iam, tortor, ab unco 
Desine: si vana est quaestio, morte agito. 

Huic abscide caput; crux istum tollat in auras, 
Viventesque oculos offerat alitibus ; 

Has rape praecipites, et vinctos coniice in ignem: 
Sit pyra, quae multos devoret una reos. 

En Tibi, quos properes rimosae imponere cumbae, 
Pellere et in medii stagna profunda freti; 

Quos ubi susceptos rabidum male suta per aequor 
Vexerit, et tumidis caesa labarit aquis. 

Dissociata putrem laxent tabulata carinam, 
Conceptumque bibant undique naufragium. 

Squamea coenoso praestabit ventre sepulcrum 


334 


80 


85 


go 


95 


I0o0 


105 


LTO 


T15 


EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


Bellua consumptis cruda cadaveribus. 

Haec persultanti celsum subito ante tribunal 
Offertur senior nexibus implicitus. 

Stipati circum iuvenes clamore ferebant 
Ipsum Christicolis esse caput populis: 

Si foret exstinctum propere caput, omnia vulgi 
Pectora Romanis sponte sacranda deis. 

Insolitum lethi poscunt genus, et nova poenae 
Inventa, exemplo quo trepident alii. 

Ile supinata residens cervice, Quis, inquit, 
Dicitur? affirmant dicier Hippolytum. 

Ergo sit Hippolytus, quatiat, turbetque iugales, 
Intereatque feris dilaceratus equis. 

Vix haec ille: duo cogunt animalia freni 
Ignara, insueto subdere colla iugo: 

Non stabulis blandive manu palpata magistri, 
Imperiumque equitis ante subacta pati: 

Sed campestre vago nuper pecus e grege captum, 
Quod pavor indomito corde ferinus agit. 

Iamque reluctantes sociarant vincula bigas, 
Oraque discordi foedere nexuerant. 

Temonis vice funis inest, qui terga duorum 
Dividit, et medius tangit utrumque latus, 

Deque iugo in longum se post vestigia retro 
Protendens trahitur, transit et ima pedum. 

Huius ad extremum sequitur qua pulvere summo 
Cornipedum refugas orbita trita vias ; 

Crura viri innectit laqueus, nodoque tenaci 
Astringit plantas, cumque rudente ligat. 

Postquam composito satis instruxere paratu 
Martyris ad poenam verbera, vincla, feras: 

Instigant subitis clamoribus atque flagellis, 
Iliaque infestis perfodiunt stimulis. 

Ultima vox audita senis venerabilis haec est: 
Hi rapiant artus; tu rape, Christe, animam. 

Prorumpunt alacres, caeco et terrore feruntur, 
Qua sonus atque tremor, qua furor exagitant. 

Incendit feritas, rapit impetus, et fragor urget : 
Nec cursus volucer mobile sentit onus. 

Per silvas, per saxa ruunt: non ripa retardat 
Fluminis, aut torrens oppositus cohibet. 


120 


125 


130 


135 


140 


145 


150 


$55 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 


Prosternunt sepes et cuncta obstacula rumpunt: 
Prona, fragosa petunt; ardua transiliunt. 

Scissa minutatim labefacto corpore frusta 
Carpit spinigeris stirpibus hirtus ager. 

Pars summis pendet scopulis; pars sentibus haeret ; 
Parte rubent frondes; parte madescit humus. 

Exemplar sceleris paries habet illitus, in quo 
Multicolor fucus digerit omne nefas. 

Picta super tumulum species liquidis viget umbris, 
Effigians tracti membra cruenta viri. 

Rorantes saxorum apices vidi, optime papa, 
Purpureasque notas vepribus impositas. 

Docta manus virides imitando effingere dumos 
Luserat et minio russeolam saniem. 

Cernere erat, ruptis compagibus, ordine nullo 
Membra per incertos sparsa iacere situs. 

Addiderat caros gressu lacrymisque sequentes, 
Devia quo fractum semita monstrat iter. 

Moerore attoniti atque oculis rimantibus ibant, 
Implebantque sinus visceribus liaceris. 

Ille caput niveum complectitur, ac reverendam 
Canitiem molli confovet in gremio. 

Hic humeros truncasque manus et brachia et ulnas 
Et genua et crurum fragmina nuda legit. 

Palliolis etiam bibulae siccantur arenae, 
Nequis in infecto pulvere ros maneat. 

Siquis et in sudibus recalenti aspergine sanguis 
Insidet, hunc omnem spongia pressa rapit. 

Nec iam densa sacro quidquam de corpore silva 
Obtinet, aut plenis fraudat ab exsequlis. 

Cumque recensitis constaret partibus ille 
Corporis integri qui fuerat numerus, 

Nec purgata aliquid deberent avia toto 
Ex homine, extersis frondibus et scopulis: 

Metando eligitur tumulo locus; Ostia linquunt: 
Roma placet, sanctos quae teneat cineres. 

Haud procul extremo culta ad pomoeria vallo 
Mersa latebrosis crypta patet foveis. 

Huius in occultum gradibus via prona reflexis 
Ire per anfractus luce latente docet. 

Primas namque fores summo tenus intrat hiatu 


335 


336 


160 


165 


170 


175 


180 


185 


Igo 


195 


EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


Illustratque dies limina vestibuli. 

Inde, ubi progressu facili nigrescere visa est 
Nox obscura, loci per specus ambiguum, 

Occurrunt caesis immissa foramina tectis, 
Quae iaciunt claros antra super radios. 

Quamlibet ancipites texant hinc inde recessus 
Arcta sub umbrosis atria porticibus: 

Attamen excisi subter cava viscera montis 
Crebra terebrato fornice lux penetrat. 

Sic datur absentis per subterranea solis 
Cernere fulgorem, luminibusque frui. 

Talibus Hippolyti corpus mandatur opertis, 
Propter ubi apposita est ara dicata Deo. 

Illa sacramenti donatrix mensa, eademque 
Custos fida sui martyris apposita, 

Servat ad aeterni spem vindicis ossa sepulcro, 
Pascit item sanctis Tibricolas dapibus. 

Mira loci pietas, et prompta precantibus ara 
Spes hominum placida prosperitate iuvat. 

Hic corruptelis animique et corporis aeger 
Oravi quoties stratus opem merui. 

Quod laetor reditu, quod te, venerande sacerdos, 
Complecti licitum est, scribo quod haec eadem, 

Hippolyto scio me debere; Deus cui Christus 
Posse dedit, quod quis postulet, annuere. 

Ipsa, illas animae exuvias quae continet intus, 
Aedicula argento fulgurat ex solido. 

Praefixit tabulas dives manus aequore laevi 
Candentes, recavum quale nitet speculum. 

Nec Pariis contenta aditus obducere saxis, 
Addidit ornando clara talenta operi. 

Mane salutatum concurritur: omnis adorat 
Pubis; eunt, redeunt, solis adusque obitum. 

Conglobat in cuneum Latios simul ac peregrinos 
Permixtim populos relligionis amor. 

Oscula perspicuo figunt impressa metallo ; 
Balsama diffundunt; fletibus ora rigant. 

Iam cum se renovat decursis mensibus annus, 
Natalemque diem passio festa refert, 

Quanta putas studiis certantibus agmina cogi, 
Quaeve celebrando vota coire Deo? 


200 


205 


210 


215 


220 


225 


230 


235 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 


Urbs augusta suos vomit effunditque Quuirites, 
Una et patricios ambitione pari. 

Confundit plebeia phalanx umbonibus aequis 

- Discrimen procerum, praecipitante fide. 

Nec minus Albanis acies se candida portis 
Explicat, et longis ducitur ordinibus. 

Exsultant fremitus variarum hinc inde viarum ; 
Indigena et Picens plebs et Etrusca venit ; 

Concurrit Samnitis atrox habitator et altae 
Campanus Capuae, iamque Nolanus adest. 

Quisque sua laetus cum coniuge, dulcibus et cum 
Pignoribus, rapidum carpere gestit iter. 

Vix capiunt patuli populorum gaudia campi, 
Haeret et in magnis densa cohors spatiis. 

Angustum tantis illud specus esse catervis 
Haud dubiui est, ampla fauce licet pateat. 

Stat sed iuxta aliud quod tanta frequentia templum 
Tune adeat, cultu nobile regifico, 

Parietibus celsum sublimibus, atque superba 
Maiestate potens, muneribusque opulens. 

Ordo columnarum geminus laquearia tecti 
Sustinet, auratis suppositus trabibus: 

Adduntur graciles tecto breviore recessus, 
Qui laterum seriem iugiter exsinuent. 

At medios aperit tractus via latior alti 
Culminis exsurgens editiore apice. 

Fronte sub adversa gradibus sublime tribunal 
Tollitur, antistes praedicat unde Deum. 

Plena laborantes aegre domus accipit undas, 
Arctaque confertis aestuat in foribus, 

Maternum pandens gremium, quo condat alumnos 
Ac foveat fetos accumulata sinus. 

Si bene commemini, colit hunc pulcherrima Roma 
Idibus Augusti mensis, ut ipsa vocat 

Prisco more diem quem te quoque, sancte magister, 
Annua festa inter dinumerare velim. 

Crede, salutigeros feret hic venerantibus ortus, 
Lucis honoratae praemia restituens. 

Inter solemnes Cypriani vel Celedoni, 
Eulaliaeque dies currat et iste tibi. 


CLEM. II. 


22 


507 


338 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


Sic te pro populo cuius tibi credita vita est, 
240 Orantem Christus audiat omnipotens. 
Sic tibi de pleno lupus excludatur ovili, 
Agna nec ulla tuum capta gregem minuat. 
Sic me gramineo remanentem denique campo 
Sedulus aegrotam pastor ovem referas. 
245 Sic, cum lacteolis caulas compleveris agnis, 
Raptus et ipse sacro sis comes Hippolyto. 


iY.) *PALLADIUS) [CMA D, 42a}. 
FTist. Lausiac. 148 (Patrol. Grace. XXXi1. p. 1251, Migne). 
"Ev addw BiBrWapio ervyeypappevw “Irrodvtov Tob yvwpipov Tav 
amootoAwy evpov Suyynua ToLovToV. 
Eiyeveotarn tis Kal wpauotarn mapbevos vmqpxev év TH KopivOw x.7.X. 


12. THEODORET [4.D. 446]. 
(2) Dialogus i (tv. p. 54 sq, Schulze). 
TOY Arioy immoAyToOy émIcKOTOY KAI MAPTYpOc, EK TOY 
Adroy tof eic TO Kypioc Toimainel Me 
Kat xiBwros dé ex EvdAwy K.T.X. 
TOY aytoy ék to¥ Adroy TOY eEic TON EAKANAN KAl THN 
ANNAN. 


> 


"Aye 5y por, & Sapovydr, x.7.A. 
TOY aytoy €k TOY AOroy TOY Eic THN APYHN TOY Hcaloy. 
Aiyirtw pev tov Kocpov azeikace K.T.A. 
(2) Dialogus ii (Iv. p. 130 sq). 
TOY Arloy immoAyTOY éTICKOTOY Kal MAPTyPOC, EK TOY 
AOPOY TOY EIC THN T@N TAAANTWN AIANOMHN. 
Tovtovs 5€ Kat Tovs ETEPOOOEOUS pyoelev ay TUS “yeLTVLGV K.T.A. 
n > n > n \ ! ‘ > ~ 
TOY AYTOY EK TEC Tpoc BACIAIAA TINA ETTICTOAHC. 
"Amapynv ovv tovrov héyer TOV KEKOLUNMLEVWY, ATE TpwTOTOKOY TOV 
veKpOv k.T.A. 
an > n > n ’ n >? na \ > 
TOY ayToy €K TOY AGroy TOF eEic TON EAKANAN Kal EIC 
THN ANNAN. 
Kal Oud TOUTO TpEls KaLPOL TOU evLAVTOD mpoETUTOVVTO €is auToOV TOV 


cuoTnpa K.T.A, 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. | 339 


> i] \ 


TOY aytofy é@k tof Adroy TOY Elc THN WAHN THN Me- 
rAAHN. 

‘O tov drodwAdta ék yas Tpwrotactov avOpwrov K.T.d. 

TOY aytoy ék THc EpMHNEiAc TOY B Yyadmoy. 

Otros 6 mpoedOay eis Tov Koopov Meos Kal avOpwros éhavepwOn x.7.X. 


TOY ayToy éK« TOY Adroy Elc TON KF WAAMON. 

"Epxera. éxt tas ovpavias tuAas, ayyeAot avtTd cvvodevovar «.T.A. 

(c) Diéalogus ili (iv. p. 232 sq). 

TOY Arioy immoAYyToy émicKkdTOY Kal MApPTypoc: €K THC 
TPOC BACcIAIAA TINA ETTICTOAFC. 

“Arapynv ovv Totrov Aéyer THY KEKOLUNMEVWY, ATE TPWTOTOKOY TOV 
veKpov k.T.A. 

TOY ayTOY Ek TOY AGroy eEic TOYC AYO AHCTAC. 

“Apdotepa tapécye TO TOD Kupiov capa TO KOTWH, Aiwa TO iepoy Kal 
Udwp TO aytov K.T.A. 

(2) Haereticae Fabulae ii. 3 (IV. p. 330). 

Kata tovtov dé [tod KypivOov] od povov of rpoppnbevtes ovvéeypaiay, 
ada ovv éxeivors kai Taios cat Avovucwos 6 ris “AXeEavdpéwv érioKoros. 

(¢) Haereticae Fabulae ii. 5 (IV. p. 331). 

Kat @eddotos d& o Buldvrios 6 oKuteds tavTa ToiTw [7d “Apréporr] 
TeppovynKws éTépas yyyoato ppatpias. Tovtov d€ Oo TpirpaKkapios Bixtwp 
0 THS Powys éricKxoros amexynpréev, Ws Tapaxapatar Teipadevta THs éxkAy- 
gias ta doypara. Kata THs TovTwv aipécews 6 CMIKPOC ovveypady 
AABYPINGOC, ov Twes Opryévous UrokapBavover roinna, ad 6 XapakTnp 
eheyxer TOs AEyovtas. elite OE Exeivos elite aANos cuveypaie, ToLOVdE eV 
avt@ dinyetrar Suyynpa. Natad.ov py tiva, k.t.X. 

(f) aereticae Fabulae iii. 1 (IV. p. 340 Sq). 

kata tovtwv [Trav NuxoAairdy] Kat o mpoppnbels avvéypaye KAnyns Kat 
Ripnvatos kal ‘Opvyevyns kai “ImmoAvtos éricxoros Kal paptup. 

(¢) Haereticae Fabulae ili. 3 (IV. p. 342). 

kata dé IIpdKxAov tis auras aipécews [THs Kata Ppvyas| mpoorarev- 
cavtos cvvéypawe Taios, ov cal mpoobev éuvncbnpev. 

(2) Lpistolae 145 (IV. p. 1252). 

kal ot tovtTwy mpecButepor “Tyvarios kat IloAvKapzos kal Eipnvatos 
kai ‘Iovotivos kat ‘Immodvtos, ov of mAelous ovK apxepéwv mpoAdprrover 
povov, adda Kal TOV papTUpwv diakoopmover Xopor. 


22—2 


340 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


13. GELASIUS [A.D. 492—496]. 


Bibl. Patr. viu. p. 704 (Lugdun.) : see Lagarde, p. go sq. 
HIPPOLYTI EPISCOPI ET MARTYRIS ARABUM METROPOLIS IN MEMORIA 
HAERESIUM ; 


‘Hic procedens in mundum Deus et homo apparuit etc.’ 


14. ANDREAS OF C&SAREA [c. A.D. 500 ?]. 


(a) Ln Apocalyps. Synops. (Cramer’s Catena, p. 176). 
Ilept d€ rov Georvevorov tis BiBXAov o év aylous Bacidevos Kat Tpnyoptos 
0 Oetos tov Aoyov kai KvpiAdos kai Tamias kai Eipnvatos cat MeOddi0s Kat 


e , te | XA , 3 / / 
ImmoXvtos, OL EKKANOLAGTLKOL TATEPES, exeyyvot muotwoad Gat. 


(2) Ln Apocalyps. xiii. 1. 

Tots d€ ayious Mefodiw Kai “Immodvtw Kai érépois eis adtov Tov 
> , \ \ , > , > A , nw , 
avtixpiotov To mapov Oypiov ekeiAnmrat, €k THS ToAVTapaxov Tov Biov 
tovtov Jadacons Kal ToAvKipovos eSepxopmevov K.T.A. 


Hippolytus is also quoted on xii. 18 and on xvii. to (comp. 
Cramer’s Catena, p. 385). 


15. LiBER PONTIFICALIS [c. A.D. 530, A.D.?]. 


On the two recensions of the Zzber Pontificalts and their respective 
dates see above, I. p. 303 sq. 


A. Relating to S. Hippolytus. 
(a) Vita Pontiani |a.D. 230—235]| 1. pp. 62, 145 (Duchesne). 


Eodem tempore Pontianus episcopus et Yppolitus presbiter exilio 
sunt deputati ab Alexandro in Sardinia insula Bucina, Severo et Quin- 
tiano consulibus. 

The same in both recensions, but ‘deportati’ for ‘deputati’ in the later (see above, _ 
I. p. 255). 

The date of the exile does not fall during the reign of Alexander, but of Maxi- 
minus. The text of the Liberian Catalogue has ‘insula nociva’ (see above, I. p. 255), 
which is doubtless correct (see Duchesne’s note, p. 146); but there was an island 
‘Bucina’ or ‘ Bucinna,’ one of the Aigates; Pliny V. Z. iii. 8, § 92, Steph. Byz. s.v. 
The latter however wrongly calls it a ‘ city’ of Sicily. 


(b) Vita Gregorit [11 [a.D. 731—741] 1. p. 419. 
Item in ecclesia beati Genesii martyris tectum noviter restauravit ; 
ubi et altare erexit in nomine salvatoris Domini Dei nostri etc. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 341 


(c) Vita Hadriani [a.D. 772—795| 1. p- 511. 

Simul et cymiterium beati Yppoliti martyris juxta sanctum Lau- 
rentium, quae a priscis marcuerant temporibus, noviter restauravit. 
Pari modo et ecclesiam beati Christi martyris Stephani, sitam juxta 
praedictum cymiterium sancti Yppoliti, similiter restauravit. 


(@) Vita Leonis ITI |a.v. 795—816] 1. p. 12. 


Fecit autem hisdem almificus pontifex in basilica beati Yppoliti 
martyris in civitate Portuense vestes de stauraci duas, unam super 
corpus ejus et aliam in altare majore. 


(e) Vita Leonts IV [a.v. 847—855] 1. p. 115 sq. 


Ipse vero a Deo protectus et beatissimus papa multa corpora 
sanctorum... infra hujus alme urbis moenia congregavit mirifice. Nam et 
corpora sanctorum martyrum 1111 Coronatorum sollerti cura inquirens 
repperit; pro quorum desiderabili amore basilicam quae sanctorum fuerat 
nomini consecrata... in splendidiorem pulcrioremque statum perduxit... 
eorumque sacratissima corpora cum Claudio, Nicostrato... Ypolito 
quidem, cum suis famillis numero xXvlll... pariter sub sacro altare 
recondens locavit. 


tt. ). 125. 


Obtulit et in ecclesia beati Ipoliti martiris, qui ponitur in insula 
Portuensi, que nuncupatur Arsis, vestem de fundato habentem gam- 
madias ex argento textas I, vela de fundato numero III. 

There seems to be some confusion between this notice and the last in Dollinger 
p- 38. We read of ‘insulam quae dicitur Assis (v./. Arsis), quod est inter Portum et 


Hostia,’ Vita Silvestri 1. p. 184. The island between the two branches of the Tiber 
is clearly meant; but why it was so called, does not appear; see Duchesne’s note, 


F899: 

B. Relating to S. Laurentius. 

(a) Vita Silvestri [a.D. 314—335] 1. p. 181. 

Eodem tempore fecit [Constantinus Augustus] basilicam beato 
Laurentio martyri via Tiburtina in agrum Veranum supra arenario 
cryptae et usque ad corpus Laurenti martyris fecit gradus ascensionis et 
descensionis. In quo loco construxit absidam et exornavit marmoribus 
purphyreticis et desuper loci conclusit de argento, et cancellos de 


argento purissimo ornavit, qui pens. lib. 1, et ante ipsum locum in 
crypta posuit etc. 


(6) Vita Xysti LIT [a.D. 432—-440] 1. p. 233 sq. 


Item fecit Xystus episcopus confessionem beati Laurenti martyris 


342 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


cum columnis porphyreticis et ornavit platomis transendam, et altare 
et confessionem sancto martyri Laurentio de argento purissimo, pens. 
lib. L, cancellos argenteos supra platomas purphyreticas, pens. lib. ccc. 
Absidam supra cancellos cum statua beati Laurenti martyris 
argenteam, pens. lib. cc. 
Fecit autem basilicam sancto Laurentio, quod Valentinianus Augustus 
concessit, ubi et optulit etc. 


(c) Vita Pelagit IT (A.D. 579—590] I. p. 309. 
Hic fecit supra corpus beati Laurenti martyris basilicam a funda- 
mento constructam et tabulis argenteis exornavit sepulchrum ejus. 


(2) Vita Hadriant |a.D. 772—795]| I. p. 500. 


Fecit in aecclesia beati Laurenti martyris foris muros, scilicet ubi 
sanctum eius corpus requiescit, vestem de stauracim; et in aecclesia 
maiore aliam similiter fecit vestem. Nam et tectum eiusdem beati 
Laurenti bassilicae maiore, qui iam distectus erat et trabes elus confracte, 
noviter fecit. 


(e) 2. p. 504. 
In ecclesia vero beati Laurentii martyris atque levite foris muros 
hulus civitatis Romae fecit vela etc. 


(f) 7%. p. 505. 

Item ipse ter beatissimus praesul in basilica maiore, quae appellatur 
sancte Dei genetricis, qui aderat iuxta basilicam sancti Laureptii 
martyris adque levite ubi eius sanctum corpus requiescit, foris muros 
huius civitatis Romae, obtulit vela de stauracim etc. 


(g) 72. p. 508. 

Immo et porticus quae ducit ad sanctum Laurentium foris muros a 
porta usque in eadem basilicam noviter construxit. Hic idem almi- 
ficus vates eandem basilicam sancti Laurentii martyris ubi sanctum 
elus corpus quiescit, adnexam basilicae maioris quam dudum isdem 
praesul construxerat, ultro citroque noviter restauravit. Immo et 
aecclesiam sancti Stephani iuxta eas sitam, ubi corpus sancti Leonis 


episcopi et martyris quiescit, similiter undique renovavit una cum 
cymiterio beatae Cyriacae seu ascensum eius. 


[ey ae. 1) GLI: 
Fecit autem idem praesagus antistes in confessione beati Laurentii 


foris muros imaginem ex auro purissimo in modum evangeliorum, 
elusdem beati Laurentii effigies continentem, etc. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 343 


16. CyYRILLUS OF SCYTHOPOLIS [c. A.D. 555]. 


Vita S. Euthymit p. 82 (Hippol. Of. 1. p. ix sq, Fabricius). 

"Erovs méumtov éénkooTov TeTpaKocLogTOD KaTa TOUS cvyypadevTas 
Xpovous V70 TAY ayiwy Tatépwv “ImToAUTOV Tod wadaLod Kal yvwpipov TAV 
arootoAwy Kat Exidaviov Tob Kumpwrov x.7.X. 

17. GREGORY OF Tours [c. A.D. 577]. 

Hist. Franc. 1. 30 (1. p. 47 sq, ed. Arndt et Krusch). 


Sub Decio vero imperatore...Xystus Romanae ecclesiae episcopus 
et Laurentius archidiaconus et Hyppolitus ob dominici nominis confes- 
sionem per martyrium consummati sunt. 


18. EUSTRATIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE [c. A.D. 578]. 
Adv. Psychopannychitas 19 (Hippol. Of. i. p. 32, Fabricius). 
A€fel TOINYN IMMOAYTOC O MAPTYC KAI ETTICKOTIOC PamHC 
EN T@ AEYTEPW AUTO EIC TON AANIHA TOIAYTA. 


, > \ > iv A Cf “~ > 
Tote pev ovv cvotas Alapias apa tots Nourots du vuvov k.T.A. 


Ig. STEPHANUS GoOBARUS |[c. A.D. 575—600?]. 
Photius Bibliotheca 232 (p. 291 B). 


e 3 , 
"Ett O€ wotas vroAnes eoxev “Immodvtos kai “Exupavios rept NixoAaov 
Tov evos Tov £ diakdvwv Kal OTe itxupas avTOD KaTaywucKovoU, k.T.d. 


ce an \ ‘\ c \ , 
"Ort ‘ImmoAvtos kai EKipnvatos tyv mpos “EBpatovs éruotoAnv LavAov 
OUK exelvou elval dace. 


Tivas urodnwes elyev 0 aywwratos ‘Imrohvtos rept THs TOV MovtavioTav 
aipecews, Kal Tivas o ev aytows THS Niaons Tpyyopuos. 


20. LEONTIUS oF ByzaNtIuM [c. A.D. 620]. 


(a) De Sectis Act. iii. § 1 (Patrol. Graec. LXXXVI. p. 1213, Migne). 
"Eyévovto 5é év Tots xpovois Tots amo THS yevVyTEwWS TOV XproToU pExpL 
“ 4 / / \ / Y ? / c 

ts Bactreias Kwvotavtivov didacKxado. Kai matépes olde’ ‘Tyvatios o 
@coddpos, Hipnvatos, “lovotivos diAocopos Kat paptus, KAjyys Kat 
‘ImmoAvtos érioxoro. Popys, x.7.X. 

(2) c¢. Lestorium et Eutychem Lib. i (tb. p. 1312). 

TOY Arloy immoAYToOy €tIcKOTIOY Kal MAPTYpOc EK TON 
EYAOTIM@N TOY Badadm. ‘ 


~ \ , a 
Iva detxy To cvvapdorepov exwv ev EavTe@ k.T.X. 


344 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


21. CHRONICON PASCHALE [c. A.D. 630]. 


p. 12 sq (ed. Bonn. ). 


‘ImmoAutos Tolvuy 6 THs evoeBelas paptus, éricKoTos yeyovws TOU 
kaXovpevov Ildptov wAnoiov tHs “Powys, EN TH POC ATIACAC TAC 
AIpECEIC CYNTAPMATI eypawer emt €Eews ovTUS. 

‘Opa pev odv Ste dirovetkias TO epyov. A€yer yap ovTws* eroinoe TO 

4, eS \ / A c 4 \ 4 5 \ > X na a / c 
macxa 0 Xpiotos TOTe TH Huepa Kai erafev’ dio Kape det, Ov TpoTOV oO 
Kipios éroinoev, ovtw movetv: metAavytar dt py) ywooKwv OTL @ Kapa 
éracxev 0 Xpiotds ovK ehaye TO KaTa Vomov TaTXa, OdTOS yap HV TO 
TATXA TO TPOKEKNPVYLEVOV Kal TO TEAELOVMEVOY TH WPLTMEVY NMEPG. 

kal madw 0 atts EN TH TPOTW AOP@ TOY TMeEpl TOY Arloy 
TACYA CYPFPAMMATOC ElpyKeEV OUTS" 

Ovdé év Trois mpwrots ovde ev ToIs eo yaTOLS K.T.A. 

Wordsworth (pp. 51, 267) ascribes this passage to Peter of Alexandria, and so 
apparently did Bunsen (Wordsworth p. 51, Ddollinger p. 1g) in his earlier work, but in 
his second edition (1854) he does not say anything of the kind (I. p. 420). The 
authorship of Peter of Alexandria could only be maintained on the supposition that 
the whole passage after the mention of his name (p. 4) is his; but this is impossible for 
two reasons; (1) The writer quotes from ‘the great Athanasius the luminary of the 
Alexandrian Church’ (p. 9), who was only a very little child when Peter flourished ; 
(2) He uses such language as aeurapOévou Kal kara adjOecay OeoroKov Mapias (p. to), 
which would be an anachronism in the mouth of Peter. A better case might be made 


out for Athanasius, but the author is probably the writer of the Chronicon Paschale 
himself. 


22. CONCILIUM LATERANENSE [a.D. 649]. 
Labb. Coc. vil. p. 287 (ed. Coleti). 
TOY ArlOY IMMOAYTOY EmicKOTIOY Kal MApTypoc €k TOF 
TEp! BEOAOLIAC AOPoY. 
To Oédew exer 0 Meds, ov TO py OeAewv, k.7.X. 
tb. VIL. p. 293. 


TOY ArlOY IMTOAYTOY ETICKOTOY KAl MAdptypoc ék TAC 
ElC TO TACYA EZHPHCEWC. 


“Odos jv | év| mace Kat mavtaxod, yeuioas O€ TO Tav k.T.X. 


23. ANASTASIUS APOCRISIARIUS [A.D. 665]. 


Epist. ad Theodos. Gangren. (Patrol. Lat. CXx1x. p. 664 sq, Migne). 


Praeterea misi ad praesens cum hac epistola mea Deo honorabilibus 
vobis...rotulam habentem testimonia ex dictis sancti Hippolyti episcopi 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 345 


Portus Romani ac martyris Christi Dei nostri...Hunc quippe librum 
Byzantii nobis antequam passi fuissemus delatum, cum hunc totum 
vellemus transcribere, subito juxta consuetudinem suam insistentes 
adversarii latronum more rapuerunt, et non valuimus ex ipso plusquam 
haec octo testimonia tollere. 


TOY ArloY ImMmOAYTOY ETICKOTIOY TOpTOyY, HfOYN TOY Atl- 
MENOC POMHC, KA! MAPTYPOC TAC AAHOEIAC, EK TOY KATA 
BHpwNoc kal HAIKoc (Vv. lL HAIKI@NOC) TON AIPETIK@N TrEpl 
BEOAOLFIAC KAl CAPKWCEWC KATA CTOIYEION AOLOY, OV y apxy, 
"Ay.os, ay.os, aytos Kipios caBaw), dovyyte pwvy Bodvta ta cepadip tov 
cov dogalwou’ 


"Arreipoduvapw yap OeAnoe: Tod Ocod .7.A. 


24. ANASTASIUS SINAITA [c. A.D. 680]. 

(a) Hodegus 23 (Patrol. Grace. UXXX1X. p. 301, Migne). 

IMMOAYTOY €MICKOTOY PM@MHC EK TOY TEP! ANACTACEwC 
KAI APOapCIAC ADroy. 

"Ecovra, pyciv, év TH avactacet ot avOpwrrot k.T.X. 

(4) Quaestiones 41 (p. 592, Migne). 

 immoAytoy €k TOY eic TO ACMA ACMATON. 

Kat ov waca y wAovola avtn yvdous; Tov dé TA puaoTypia k.T.X. 

(c) Quaestiones 48 (p. 604, Migne). 

ITMMOAYTOY €K TOY €IC TON AANIHA. 

Tov yap odypadv Kvnwav Tov voy émiKpatovowv él Ta Lxvy THY TOOMV 
K-T.A. 

25. PsEUDO-JOHN oF Damascus [c. A.D. 700 ?]. 

(2) Sacra Parallela Rupef. (Op. u. p. 787, Lequien). 

TOY APIOY IMMOAYTOY POMHC. 

Tavta O€ KaT avayKyy éxopev SinynoacOa, dws THY Varovolay, K.T.X. 

(2) Sacra Parallela Rupef. (Op. i. p. 781). 

IMMOAYTOY E€MICKOMOY Pa@MHC TrEpI ypICcTOY Kal TOY ANTI- 
YPIcToy. 

adda TovTwV év mpooirin cis SdEav Ocod cipnuevov. 


26. GERMANUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE [c. A.D. 720]. 


Rerum Eccl. Contempl. (Patrol. Graec. xcvi. p. 417, Migne). 


~ c / “ 
Tovto Kal ‘Immodvtos “Pwuns kal 6 adytos KupiAdos A€yovow ev Tots 


346 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


.Y ye Ss , / > a n ~ nw 
Tept tov Avtixpiotov Aoyos avtav év TO ELakiTXLALOTTH TEVTAKOLOOTO 
/ 
ere. THV eAAOVTAY Tapovoiav Ever Oa. 


See Overbeck Quaest. Hippol. p. 30 sq. 


27. PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM [a.D. ?]. 


De Pseudo-prophetis (Chrysost. Op. Vill. app. p. 79). 

ILod ‘Iyvatios 70 Tob Ocod oixntrypiov; ov 0 Avovvowos 70 werevov TOU 
ovpavod; tod ImmdAvtos 0 yAvKitatos Kai evvoveTaros; 

This work is manifestly spurious. The reference to Dionysius the Areopagite in 


this very passage is a sufficient evidence. We have no means of ascertaining its date; 
but it was evidently many generations later than Chrysostom. 


28. GEORGIUS SYNCELLUS [A.D. 792]. 


(a) Chronographia p. 674 (ed. Bonn.). 

‘ImmoAvtos tepos ptAdcodos ericKxoros Iloprov tov Kata tiv “Pony 
opodpa duarperas nvOe év TH Kata Xpiorov pirocodia, tAKloTa WuywodedH 
CWTATTOV VTopyypaTa. €E1C TE yap THN EZAHMEPON Kal Eic TA 
META THN €ZAHMEPON, EIC TOAAA TE TON TPODHT@N, MAAICTA 
l€ZEKIHA KAl AANIHA T@N MEPAAQN, ETL BV EIC TA ACMATA Kal 
Eic AAAAC TIANTOIAC TAAAIAC Kal N€AC fpaddc, év ols Kat ec 
THN EN TIATM@ TOY BEOADTOY ATIOKAAYYIN, TIPOC MAPKIONA 
kal TAC AOITIAC AIPECEIC, Kal TON EZKAIAEKAETHPIKON TOY TACYA 
KANONA €6€VeTo Teprypawas eis TO mpwTov Eros “AXeEavdpov ToD Mappaias 
TOUTOV, Kal TvvTOMwS pavat Jeoppadys ToTapos TH exkAnola Covrwv vapatwv 
yéeyove, TOV LapTupLKOV TrEepLOéuevos OTEpavov Tpos TH TENEL. 


(6) Chronographia p. 685 (ed. Bonn.). 
, ‘ > , \ “a \ / \ / e A ‘ / 
Tavu yap oAtyov Tepit TOV KaTa TOvTE TOUS XpOVoOUS LEpwV Kal paKkapiwy 
/ > / , / / ¢ / lal 
Tatrépwv eripvnobeis, KAjpevtos Aeyomévov Stpwpatéws, “Imrodvtov Tod 
iepopaptupos, Adpixavod tov toropixod, Avovuciov tov peyadov “Ade€av- 


Spelas, kat aAAwv. 
P ’ 


29. NICEPHORUS [7 A.D. 828]. 


Antirrhetica i. 13 (Spicil. Solesm. 1, p. 347): 

TOY APIOY IMMOAYTOY EMICKOTIOY TOpTOY Kal MAPTyPpOCc EK 
TOY KATA BHPWNOC KAI FAIKIMNOC T@N AIPETIK@N AGroy ov 
n apxn’ “Ayvos, aytos, ayvos. 

To yap ameipov kat ovdéva Aoyov 7) TpoTov K.T.A. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 347 


30. GrorcIuS HAMARTOLUS [c. A.D. 810]. 


Chronicon iii. 134, p. 336 (Migne, Patrol. Graec. cx. p. 521). 

Ob pv dé dAAG Kal oO Oetos ‘Immodvtos ‘Pwuns rept Tov KypvyparTos 
Kal THS TeAcWoEws TOV arocTdOAw SdieEiav ey: “Iwavyyns [dé] 0 adeAdos 
TaxwBov Kypiocwv év 7H “Acia tov doyov [Tob evayyediov| eéEwpicby év 

, Cal / c | n , < , 5 Cal , > 
Ilatpw tH vyow v7o Aopetiavod Baoéws “Pons, Kaxetbev wadw eis 
lal A 3, > > ‘\ > / 
"Edecov éx THs eLopias avaxAnOeis tro NepBa kai To Kat avtov evayyedvov 
, »” \ \ > , , > , e \ 
ovyypawapevos, vba Kat tTHv aroxaAupw Ocacapevos eTehevTNTEV, OV TO 
Neiavov LyrynGev ody edpeOn. 


31. Puortus [c. ap. 850]. 


(a) Luibliotheca 48. 
"A , 6 i , \ an , a5 = 9.4 cy 2 
veyvocOn ‘Iwoymrov ep! TOY TANTOC, o &v adAols aveyvwy émvypa- 
, \ an a \ > U . 4 XN \ an a 
popevov TED! THC TOY TANTOC aiTiac, év adAos d€ TEP! THc TOF 
\ > ' 5 \ > \ / / X\ > > a 
TANTOC oOyciac. é€ote dé év dvat Aoydios. Seixvuogr dé ev adtots 
\ / a 
mpos éavtov otaciagovta IlAdtwva, éX€éyxer O€ Kai wept Wuyns Kal vAys 
> / 
Kal avactacews “AAxivovv GAodyws Te Kal Wevdds cizovta, avrevodye dé 
\ Hering \ , A c , , , , , 
TaS oikelas Tepl TovTw”v Tov Vrofécewy Sokas, Seixvuci Te pec BUTEpov 
n~ , 3 FF a ‘ 
‘EXAnVwv TOAA@ TO ‘Tovdaiwy yevos. dogaler b€ GvyKetobar Tov avOpwrov 
2 by \ a te ee 2 , a \ \ > , 
€k Tupos Kal yys Kal VdaTOS, Kal ETL ex TVEVpATOS, O Kal WuynVv ovomalet. 
\ = 4 5 ~ , o , 
TEpt ov TVEVpLATOS avTats A€Leotv OVTW Hyot. 
, 7 lal , 
Tovrov to kKupwitepov aveAouevos aya TO owpatr erAace, Kal dua 
> “~ “~ 
mavTos peAovs Kal apOpov mopeiav avT@ Kateckevacev’ 6 TO CwpatL 
X \ \ x a lal 3 A + A , 
ouutAacGev Kai dua mavtTos duKvovpevov TO avT@ elder Tov BXeropevov 
, , \ a x ! e , \ \ , ie 
cwpatos TeTUTWTAL, THY ovoiay de YuypoTEpoV DrapxeL pos Ta Tpla, Ov wv 
An , 
TO COMA TVVNPHLOCTAL. 
> A“ “A > 7 
Ovrw pev ody avagins THS Te TOV Tovdaiwy wept avOpwrov dvatodoyias 
A sues \ A ” Sd \ \ / > , , \ 
Tatra citwv Kal THS adAys aiTov TEpi Tos Adyous acKYyoeEws, dieEEtoL Kal 
% a £ wn \ / ~ An > m~ 
Tepl THS KoTpoyovias Kehadrawwdds. wept pevtot Xpirtov tod adnOwod 
~ “A “a lal > > A 
cov nav ws eyyvota Geodoyet, KARoW TE avTiv avapbeyyouevos Xpicrod, 
\ \ A yf > > ¢ 
Kal THV €K TaTpOs appacToy yEévvnow apeuTTws avaypapwv. “O tias 
” ‘ > lal c > , ” \ , > , JAA 
imws Kat apdidogety, ws lwonmrov ein TO ovvTaypariov, avareioeev. ovdéey 
\ \ al / > A \ A 6 / 53 \ > cal 
S€ TO THS Ppdoews AVTO pos Ta v7OoXoLTaA TOU avdpos a7rodel. 
= \ a ¢ > ¢ ‘ ? 
Evpov d€ év rapaypadais ote ovK eotw o Adyos ‘lwoynrov, dAAad Taiov 
\ , > ‘p / 8 , ¢ , X \ 
Twos mpeaButépov ev Pwyn diatpiBovros, ov hac. ovvtagar kat TON Aad- 
, " e \ , , \ , a A 
BYPINQON’ ov Kat duaAoyos éperar mpds [IpdxAov twa iréppaxov THS THY 
~ , > a 
Movravoctay aipecews, avertypadouv dé xatadepbevtos tod oyou Paci 
‘\ \ > , / \ A 
tous pev Iwonrov érvypawat, tors 5€ “loverivov tod paptupos, adAovs 8é 


, 7 ‘\ % / 
Kipynvaiov, womep Kat tov AaBvpwOdv tives éréypayav Opryévous. eet 


348 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


of. > a A c 
Tatov éort rovnua tH aAnOea Tod cuvtetaxotos Tov AafBupiwGov, ws Kal 
> A > a , , , e an > A ‘ 
autos év TO TéLa ToD AafvupivOov duesaptipatro éavtod civar Tov TrEPI 
a a ' > mace >” 
THic TOY TANTOC OYcIac Aoyov. ei 8 ErEpos Kai ovx OVTOS EOTLY, OUTH 
/ »” re ‘ A , , ~ @ A 
fou yéyovev evdndov. Tovtov tov Tatov mperButepdv pact yeyevyo0ar THs 
4. / 5 /, a te 27 A , an > s 
Kata Pwunv éxxAnotas éxt Ovixtopos kat Zedupivov tav apxlepewv, XELpO- 
a \ SIA Ay a ay, , \ Ed 4 
TovnOnvar d€ avtTov Kal éOvav éricxorov. auvtagar d€ Kal eTepov Aoyov 
/ a > ' ' \ ' \ 
idtws KATA THC APTEMM@NOC AIPECEWC, KAL KATA TIPOKAOY d€ o7ov- 
daotov Movravod orovdaiav duadew ovvretaxevat, ev 7) TpioKaideKa. movas 
erioToAas apiOetrar [lavdov, ovk éykpivwv tTHv pos “EBpaiovs. 


(2) Libliotheca 121. 


c ’ c 
ITTOAYTOY KATA AIPECEWN BIBAIAADION. 
5 4 , c 
Aveyvwobn BiBrtdapiov “Immodvrov' pabytyns dé EHipynvatov o ‘Inzo- 
= \ , \ 
Autos. qv O€ TO GUVTaypa Kata aipécewy APB’, apxiv Tovovpevov Aoat- 
/ \ , ~ \ A / 
Geavovs, Kat pexpt Nontov xat Noyriavev diadapBavov. tavtas d€ dynow 
, A c na e e , 
eXeyxors vToBANOAVvaL opstrAodvvTos Kipynvatov, wv Kat avvoww o “ImmoXdvtos 
/ z 
Tovovpevos TOOE TO PuBAiov hyot ovvTeraxevar. THV 5€ dpaciw cays eote 
Kal UTOTELVOS Kal GrrépiTToOs, €i Kal mpos Tov "ATTLKOV OUK émloTpédetat 
f + a 7 ba \ 
Aoyov. A€yer O€ adAa TE Tia THS axpiBeias evTopeva, Kal OTL Y TpOS 
c fal > ‘4 e 
EBpaiovs érurtoAn ovK éott Tod amoaroAov TlavAov. Aé€yetar dé odTOS 
\ al rad a \ , > / e \ / “4 
Kat tporouirciv TH AGO Kata pipynow ‘Optyévovs, od Kal cuvybys pariora 
Lar \ a 4 e A c \ , a7 ah \ / ec 
kal épactys Tov Noywv VrNpXEV, Ws Kal TpotpeWacbar avrov THY Eelav vmo- 
/ “a b. 4 
pvynpatica, ypapyv, éyKatTaoTyYoas aVTw Kal VTOypadéas ETA Taxvypadous 
A LES , / > / ee \ a U cme 
Kal €tépovs TorovTouvs ypadpovtas eis KaAXos, ov nV Kal THS Samavyns avTOS 
A nw > ~ > \ 
XOpnyos’ Kal TadTa VINpEeTOvpEVOS AUTO aTalTEly AVTOV aTApaLTATWS TO EpyoV, 
> e \ >. \ / > lal aA > a A > / ~ 
€€ ov Kal épyodiwKTnv év pula Tov emicToAM@v mapa ‘OQpvyevovs KAnOjVvaL, 


mretora b€ Kal ovTos Aéyerar cvyyeypaevar. 


(c) Bibliotheca 202. 

c \ > 

ITTOAYTOY EMICKOTOY KAI MAPTYpOC e€iC TON AANIHA 
EPMHNEIA* KAl AGFOC TrEpl YpICTOY Kal ANTIYPICTOY. 

> , c , 5 / \ / e / > \ / 

Aveyvwc6y ImmoXvtov érirko7rou Kal paptupos Epunveta eis Tov Aavund., 
kata Aeéw pev ov Tovetrar THY avaTTvéLy, TAY TOV vobV ye, ws Eos Eizely, 
ov Tapatpexer* ToAAG pevTOL GpXaLoTpOTWS Kal OUK eis TO VETEPOV SuNKpLBw- 

/ , 2 2 9 4 3 DY 4 / , eT 2 \ \ 

pevov katahéyet. GAN exelvwv ovk av ein Sikaros oyov vréxew" Tovs yap 
2 ‘ / / ? , ? a cal / > > 
apxnv Gewpias kataBadromévovs ov dikas azraiteiy ToY Tapepevwv, adr 
> lal , ., A lal 5 a A 5 ,? y a , a 
ayarav patioTa avTAs Te THS eTLBOAHS Kal ep OToV av KatadnWews THV 
duacKkoroupevwv tpoywpoin. To d€ THY TOD Avtixpictov Tapovciay, Ka Hv 
Kal 4 Tod aicOyTod Koopov Todde GuVTéAELa LoTaTal, pyde Tots pabytats 
deoevors TOU Ywrhpos amoxadvWavtos, €ita avtTdav tTavTnV TevTaKoT ios 


»” ] ‘\ nw e , , c \ lal > \ / an 
ereow aro Xpiot0d vraxGévta mweprypapacbar, woavel TOV ato TpwTNS TOU 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 349 


/ tal e , a, 58 , \ ‘ , > A 
Koopov KataBoAns éaxiryxiAiwy erdv cuvTedovpevur, Kal THY Siadvow avTod 
cal xv nw , 
eheotavat, Toto Kal Oepuorépas av ein TOV mpoonKovTOS yvwpns, Kal 7 
) , > , > , 3 3 > 3 / ~ 4 , c 
aropacis avOpwrivys ayvoias, add’ ovk érimvoias THs avwHev duedéyxe. 7 
Se , 3A \ \ 4 x 3 Lov , = Loe xX e 4 > ‘ 
E Ppacis aVT@ TO caés OTL pariora, oikeousevyn TpETroL av Epunveia, ei Kal 
‘igh \ ud , \ a 
tovs Artixovs ov Te para Oeopous dvowretTa.. 
4 ° nw A Qo 4 \ nr \ . ! 
SvwvaveyvwcOy avtov Kat erepos AOyos TEP! YPICTOY KAI ANTIYPIC- 
> = 4 aZON nw Xo ioe 8 , \ \ A U 
TOY, ¥@ ® H Te avTH Tov Aoywv idea Siarpére, Kal TO THY vonuaTu” 


e / / \ > / 
amovoTepov TE Kal apXaloTpo7rov, 


32. CEcuUMENIUS [c. A.D. ggo?]. 
In Apocalyps. Praef. (Cramer’s Catena p. 173). 
[pos rovrous kat ‘Imrodvtw 76 “Powys tpoédpm EN TH TOY €1C AANIHA 
EPMHNEIA AOPOY. 


33. ZONARAS [C. A.D. 1120 ?]. 


(a2) Anna. vi. 4 (p. 267). 

"Ev 5€ 76 zpos "EXAnvas avtod Aoye, Os KATA TAATWNOC ETLyeyparrat 
Tept Thc TOY TANT OC AiTIAC, Ov Kal o dy.os “Iwavyns Aapacknvos pveiav 
merointar ev TH Tovynbeton atta BiBAw TH Kadovpévy TlapadAAnXra, tTadra 

, \ , , \ » > , A A , 
pyou mavres yap dikatol TE Kal adiKoL éevesrLov TOD Dod Aoyov, k.7.X. 

(b) Annal. xii. 15 (p. 620). 

Tore OvpBavod ths erickomAs THs “Pwpaiwy moAews TpoeaTHTos Kal 
ec oA y+ > \ e 4, \ , b} 4 ~ NES / 
Imrodvtos nvGei avnp iepdtatos Kat coputatos érickoTos Tod Kara “Pujunv 
Iloptov yevopevos, Os kat moAAd ovyypappata cvveypawaro, diaopa Tis 
Oeias ypadyns eénynoapevos. 


34. SuIDAS [c. A.D. 1100 ?]. 
p. 1058, ed. Bernhardy. 
‘Im7odvtos* ovtos éypawev €ic TAC OpACEIC TOY AANIHA vrournwa 
kal €1C TAC TIAPOIMIAC COAOM@NTOC. 


35. NICEPHORUS CALLISTUS [c. A.D. 1300]. 


Eccles. Hist. iv. 31. 

Tots 5€ xara Sevppov xpovois kal ‘Imrodvros o Loprov tis ‘Pons 
éricxoros yeyovos axpalov jv. Kal 8) moAAGV vVrOMVnLATwY GvVETaS 
avTe yeypappévwv, kal TO TEP] TOY TACYA exTMerar ovyypappa, év O THV 
xpovov avaypadyyv éxOéuevos Kal Twa Kavova ExkaiWeKaernpioos Tept Tod 


lal , , 
macxa poets ext TO mpwtov eros “AXdeEdvdpov Teprypaper Tovs xpdvovs. 


350 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


Ta ye pnv attod ovyypaypara tatra eiou’ BuBAiov Eic THN EZAHMEPON’ 
ETEpOV EIC TA META EZAHMEPON’ GVTIPPYTLKOS TIDOC MAPKI@)NA* EIC 
TO ACMA TON ACMATWN’ EIC MEPH TOY iEZEKIHA’ TEP] TOY TACYA’ 
CYNTAPMA POC TACAC TAC alpéceEeic Piwodedeotatov’ TEpl TAC 
’ n ’ \ > , »y” Lal 
TApOyciAc TOY ANTIYPicTOy Tepl ANACTACEwC’ Kal GAda mAeioTa. 
EIC ZAYAPIAN’ TEP! YAAM@N* €1C TON HCalAN’ €1C TON AANIHA’ 
TEP] ATIOKAAYPEDC’ TEP! TAPOIMI@N’ TEP! CAOYA KAl TTYO8WNOC™ 
TEP] ETAINWN TOY KYPIOY FMMN IHCOY YpICcTOY €Y ots mapovTos 
> , Bee. \ \ A ‘ , > , + a \ 
Opryevovs wpidynoe. Twa d€ TOV Cvyypappatwv éerryfipa Exwv, TO Tepl 
Xpictod =paptupiw peta tatta TeAewhels Tov THs ayvolas ameTpipato 
a Py e ae] , 2 \ 5) , A / 2 U 
[Aw}LoV. e€ WV pact KQl Opcyevnv apxyVv EOKYKEVAL TALS Gevats emuBadrew 
ypadais. tooatra dé kat Ta ImroAvtov. 


36. EBED-JESU [c. A.D. 1300]. 


Catalogus c. vii (Assemanus Libliotheca Orientalis Ul. p. 15). 


Kvpuos ‘ImdAvutos paptus ft 3.cr2.90 walladar’ eo 
Kal éerioKkomos eypaiye BuBAtov resocha mM wAdanmdaAKa 
Tept oikovoplas Kal Epunvelayv mzasa :rWhastoarm Ana 


nw ~ (4 
Aavinr TOU fALKpOu Kal Soveavvas 


Lara rian Actas 
> MOC Q Nasal; xia 


KO.L kepada Kata L'atov 


Kai aToAoyiay vrép THS aroKaNv- : 
. wv wa a 
re meaalx jss qanass 
Kal Tov evayyeAiov Iwavou river rharataa 


TOU amoaToXov Kai evayyeALTTOD, \solvaara we ase 


Though this Catalogue was originally written in Syriac, I have 
thought it worth while to translate the passage into Greek, so as to show 
its correspondences with other lists of Hippolytus’ writings. 

There can be no reasonable doubt that oixovouias (ver. 3) is the 
right translation, the corresponding Syriac word being an ordinary 
rendering of oixovoyiéa in its technical sense referring to the Incarnation; 
see Payne Smith’s Zhes. Syv.s. v. p. 818. The expression ‘the little 
Daniel,’ if the epithet be correctly so translated rather than ‘ young,’ 
occurs again 47b/. Orient. 1v. p. 6, where Assemani explains it of the 
apocryphal additions to Daniel, i.e. the history of Susanna, the Song of 
the Three Children, and Bel and the Dragon, though Susanna is 
mentioned separately in the preceding line. On the other hand Wright 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 351 


(Catal. of Syr. MSS of Brit. Mus. i. p. 19) gives an account of a Ms 
containing the prophets of the Old Testament and other matter, which 
between Susanna and Baruch has ‘ Daniel the youth (so he translates 
it) concerning our Lord and the end of the world.’ 


37: INSCRIPTIONS RELATING TO RELIQUES. 


(a) ILnscriptio in Basilica S. Laurentit. 


CONTINET HOC TEMPLUM SANCTORUM 
CORPORA PLURA 
A QUIBUS AUXILIUM SUPPLEX HIC 
POSCERE CURA 
CUM XISTO JACET HIC LAURENTIUS 
IGNE CREMATUS 
ET PROTOMARTIR STEPHANUS LEVI 
TA BEATUS 
POST HOS IPOLITUS COLLIS RE 
IO LIGATUS EQUORUM 
CUM NUTRICE SUA CUM CUNC 
TA PLEBE SUORUM 
ROMANUS MILES TRIPHOMIA 
VIRGO CIRILLA 
ET QUADRAGINTA QUOS PASSIO 
CONTINET ILLA 
JUSTINUSQUE SACER DEFUNCTOS 
QUI TUMULABAT 
CIRIACE VIDUA QUE SANCTOS 
20 CLAM RECREABAT 
CUJUS MATRONE FUIT HEC 
POSSESSIO CARA 
IPSIUS NOMEN SPECIALITER 
OPTINET ARA 
MARTIR IRENEUS QUI TECUM 
MARTIR ABUNDI 
DECEDENS SPREVIT FALLACIS 
GAUDIA MUNDI 
YLARUS ET ZOSIMUS PELAGIUS 
30 HIC RETINENTUR 
“TERTIUS ET XISTUS CUM MULTIS 
QUI RETICENTUR 


352 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


This inscription was found in the narthex of the lower basilica of 
S. Laurentius in 1853. It is given in De Rossi Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 
1881, p. 87. The alternate (shorter) lines are in red. It belongs to the 
xilith century. For the reference in ‘passio illa’ see below, p. 473. 
In the inscription itself, 1. 13 MILES is written MILEX, and in 1. 29 YLARVS 
is XLARVS. 


(6) Lnscriptio in Ecclesia S. Silvestri. 


M4 IN N DNI HEC EST NOTICIA NATALICIORUM 
SCORUM HIC REQUIESCENTIUM 
* * 
MENSE AUGUSTO DIE VIII NA SCORU 
QUIRIACI LARGI ET SMARAGDE ARCHEL 
DIE XIII M SS NA SCI YPPOLITI, 


where M SS means mensis suprascripti (i.e. August), This table of 
the inscription, relating to the male saints, was known long ago, and will 
be found in Muratori /Vouv. Thes. p. MCMLXVI. 


MM INN. DNI. HAEC. NOT. NAT. SC[ARUM| 
HIC REQUIESCENT|IUM | 
* * 
MENSE AUG. D. VIII. N. SCAR. MEMMIAE 
ET JULIANAE 
D. VIII. M. SS. N. SCAE ARTHEMIAE 
D. XII. M. SS. N. SCAE CONCORDIAE 
MENSE SEPT. D. XXX. N. SCAR SOFIAE 
PISTIS. HELPIS. ET. AGAPE 
MENSE OCT. D. XIII. N. SCAE CONCHYLE 
D. XVIII. M. SS N. SCAE TRIFONIAE 
D. XXVIII. M.-SS. «N. SCAR (\CYRILLAE 


This table, relating to the female saints, has been pieced together 
recently by De Rossi; see Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 39 sq. 
These were the reliques taken from the demolished and rifled 


suburban cemeteries and placed by Paul I between a.pD. 757—761 in 
his monastery of S. Silvester in Capite. 


38. ITINERARIES, 


These extracts are taken from De Rossi Roma Sotterranea i. p. 
144 sq, where the documents are described and their dates fixed. ‘The 


extracts are on pp. 178, 179. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. S53 


(a) Ltinerarium Codicis Salisburgensis | A.D. 625—638}. 


Postea illam viam demittis et pervenies ad S. Ypolitum martyrem 
qui requiescit sub terra in cubiculo, et Concordia mulier eius martyr 
ante fores, altero cubiculo S. Triphonia regina et martyr, et Cyrilla 
filia eius et martyr, quas meditus Decius interfecit uxorem et filiam, 
et S. Genisius martyr. Postea pervenies ad ecclesiam S. Laurentii; ibi 
sunt magnae basilicae duae in quarum quis speciosiorem et pausat, 
et est parvum cubiculum extra ecclesiam in hoc occidentur. Ibi 
pausat S. Abundius et Herenius martyr Via Tiburtina; et ibi est ille 
lapis quem tollent digito multi homines nescientes quid faciunt. Et 
in altera ecclesia sursum multi martyres pausant. Prima est Cyriaca 
sancta vidua et martyr, et in altero loco S, Justinus, et iuxta eum 
S. Crescentius martyr, et multitudo sanctorum, longe in spelunca deor- 
sum S. Romanus martyr. Postea ascendes ad ecclesiam S. Agapiti 
martyris et diaconi S. Syxti papae. 

In 1. 4 for ‘meditus’ read ‘Messius’; in |. 6 for ‘in quarum...pausat’ read 
probably ‘in quarum quae speciosior est pausat’; and in l. 7 ‘ occidentur’ should be 


read ‘ occidente,’ even if some greater correction is not needed. 
This is the itinerary attached to William of Malmesbury’s Gesta Regum Anglorum. 


(6) Lpitome Libri de Locis Sanctorum Martyrum |a.vD. 635—645 |. 


Juxta Viam Tiburtinam (prope murum civitatis ecclesia est S. 
Januaril episcopi et martyris, eademque via) ecclesia est S. Agapiti 
multum honorabilis martyrum corporibus. Et prope eandem viam 
ecclesia est S. Laurentii maior, in qua corpus eius primum fuerat 
humatum, et ibi basilica nova mirae pulchritudinis, ubi ipse modo 
requiescit. Ibi quoque sub eodem altare Abundus est depositus et 
foris in portico lapis est, qui aliquando in collo eiusdem Abundi pen- 
debat in puteum missi: ibi Hereneus, Julianus, Primitivus, Tacteus, 
Nemeseus, Eugenius, Justinus, Crescentianus, Romanus sunt sepulti, 
et S. Cyriaca, S. Simferosa, et Justina cum multis martyribus sunt 
sepulti. Inde in boream sursum in monte basilica S$. Hippolyti est, 
ubi ipse cum familia sua tota xvilli martyres iacet. Carcer ibi 
est in quo fuit Laurentius. Ibi est Triphonia uxor Decii Caesaris et 
Cyrilla filia elus: inter utrasque Concordia et S. Geneseus, et multi 
martyres ibi sunt. 

In 1. 1, 2, the words in brackets are in a later hand. In 1. 11 read ‘sepultae’. 


(c) LNotitia Portarum Viarum Ecclesiarum |a.D. 648—682]. 


Sexta porta et via Tiburtina, quae modo dicitur S. Laurentii, iuxta 
hance viam iacet S. Laurentius in sua ecclesia et Habundius martyr. 
Et ibi prope in altera ecclesia pausant hi martyres, Ciriaca, Romanus, 


CLEM. II, x 


354 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


Justinus, Crescentianus, et ibi non longe Ipolitus vel basilica S. Ippo- 
lyti, ubi ipse cum familia sua pausat, id est xvii [v. 2 xxviii]. Et ibi 
requiescunt beata Triphonia uxor Decii et filia eius Cirilla et Concordia 
nutrix eius. Et in altera parte viae illius est ecclesia Agapiti martyris. 


(2) Topographia Einstedlensts [after a.D. 750]. 


In via Tiburtina foris murum in sinistra S. Ypoliti, in dextera S. 
Laurentii. 


(ce) Liber Mirabilium Urbis Romae |later, various recensions]. 
Coemeterium in agro Verano ad S. Laurentium. 


39. WESTERN SERVICE BOOKS. 


(a) Sacramentarium Leonianum (Muratori Liturgia Romana Vetus 
I. p. 400). 

Idibus Augusti. 

NATALE SANCTORUM HIPPOLYTI ET PONTIANI. 

Tibi enim, Domine, festiva solemnitas agitur, tibi dies sacrata cele- 
bratur, quam Sancti Hippolyti martyris tui sanguis in veritatis tuae 
‘ testificatione profusus magnifico nominis tui honore signavit. 


(2) Sacramentarium Gregorianum (Muratori Il. p. 112). 
Idibus Augusti. 
NATALE SANCTI HIPPOLYTI. 


Da nobis, omnipotens Deus, ut beati Hippolythi martyris tui vene- 
randa solemnitas et devotionem nobis augeat et salutem. 


(c) Missale Mixtum Mozarabicum (Patrol. Lat. uxxxv. p. 816 sq). 


Hunc [Laurentium] Hipolitus dum sibi traditum asservaret custodia 
militari etc. 

With more to the same effect. So again p. 818. 

SANCTI HYPOLITI SOCIORUMQUE EJUS. 


But this document has been added to from time to time, and contains saints of the 
13th century, e.g. Thomas Aquinas. 


(2) Breviarium Gothicum Sanctorale (Patrol. Lat. LxXxxvt. p. 
1134 84). 
Aug. xiii. In festo sancti Hippolyti Martyris. 
Ferreis percalidus unguibus artifex 
Armat spiniferi spicula cardui ; 


Corrupta penitus viscera martyris 
Perfundunt rosei flumina sanguinis. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 355 


Hinc ad cornipedum terga ferocium 
Innexu religant; tractus in aspera. 
* * % 
Christe Domine omnipotens, qui sanctum martyrem tuum Hippoly- 
tum, dum equina feritate per spinarum traheretur acumina, etc. 
There is no trace of any connexion with S. Laurentius here, and no 
mention of any companions. 
See more on this subject in De Rossi Lulettino p. 30 sq (1882). 


40. CALENDARS AND MARTYROLOGIES. 


(a) Liberian Chronographer [a.D. 354]. 
Successio episcoporum (Mommsen, p. 635; see above, I. p. 255). 
Eo tempore Pontianus episcopus et Yppolitus presbyter exoles 
sunt deportati in Sardinia, in insula nociva, Severo et Quintiano 
cons. [A.D. 235]; 


Depositio Martyrum (Mommsen, p. 632 sq). 
villi Idus Aug. Xysti in Calisti 
iii Idus Aug. Laurenti in Tiburtina 
Idus Aug. Ypoliti in Tiburtina 
et Pontiani in Calisti 
Non. Sept. Aconti in Porto, et Nonni et Herculani et Taurini. 


(6) Ancient Syriac Martyrology [c. A.D. 350?] ed. Wright, pp. 4, 8. 


Jan. 30. In the city of Antioch, Hippolytus. 
Aug. 1. On the same day, the commemoration of Xystus, bishop 
of Rome. 


(c) Calendar of Polemius Sylvius [a.D. 448]. 


iii Idus Aug. Natalis S. Laurentii mart. 
ii Idus Aug. Hyppoliti mart. 


(@) Consular Fasti [a.D. 493]. 


Decio 11 et Rustico [4.p. 251]. 
His coss. passus S. Laurentius 111 Idus August. 


(ec) Kalendarium Carthaginense. 


viii Idus Aug. sancti Systi episcopi et martyris Romae. 
iii Idus Aug. sancti Laurenti. 
Idus Aug. sancti Hippoliti. 


23—2 


356 EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT. 


(f) Martyrologium Hieronymianum (Hieron. Of. Xi. pp. 551; 
585 sq). 

iv Kal. Febr. In Tursia, Constanti, Hippolyti episcopi de an- 
tiquis. 

iii Kal. Febr. In Antiochia, passio sancti Hippolyti martyris. 

Prid. Kal. Febr. In Alexandria, Tarsici, Zotici...Gelasi, Hippo- 
lyti, Ursini, Tyrsi. 

viii Idus Aug. Romae in coemeterio Calesti, via Appia natalis 
Sixti episcopi, et Felicissimi... Laurentii, Hippolyti, et militum 
centum sexaginta duorum. 

iv Idus Aug. Romae via Tiburtina, natalis sancti Laurentii archi- 
diaconi et martyris. In via Appia Felicissimi. Et alibi Cres- 
centiani... Pontiani. 

Idus Aug. Romae, natalis sanctorum, Hippolyti martyris, 

Pontiani episcopi, Cornelii, etc. 
xiii Kal. Sept. In Portu Romano, natalis sancti Hippolyti mar- 
tyris. In Sardinia natalis sancti Luxuri, ete. 
x1 Kal. Sept. Et in portu Romano peregrinorum martyrum. 
x Kal: Sept: In portu urbis Romae natalis sancti Hippolyti 
qui dicitur Nunnus cum sociis suis. In Ostia 
natalis sancti Quiriaci, Archelai. 


(g) Martyrologium Vetus Romanum (Patrol. Lat. CXXul. pp. 147, 
165, Migne). 
i Kal. Febr. Antiochiae, passio sancti Hippolyti. 
viii Id. Aug. Romae, via Appia, Xisti papae et martyris. 


vi Id. Aug. Romae, via Ostiensi, Cyriaci martyris cum allis xxi 
quando viii die mensis Augusti reconditi sunt. 
v Id. Aug. Romae, Romani militis 


Vigilia sancti Laurentii. 
iv Id. Aug. | Romae Laurentii archidiacon. martyris et militum 
clxv. 
Idus Aug. Romae, Hippolyti martyris cum familia sua, et 
S. Concordiae nutricis ejus. 


On the relations of the older Roman Martyrologies see Zenat. and Polyc. 1. p. 554 
(ed. 1), p. 570 (ed. 2). 
41. FLorus-Bepa [c. a.p. 870]. 


Patrol. Lat. XCiv. pp. 827, 999 sq. 


iii Kal. Febr. [Vacat]. 
vii Kal. Aug. Romae S. Xysti episcopi. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 357 


vi Idus Aug. Natalis S. Cyriaci. 

vIdus Aug.  Vigilia S. Laurentii. Eodem die Romae S. Romani 
militis, qui confessione S. Laurentii compunctus 
petiit ab eo baptizari; et mox jubente Decio 
cum fustibus exhibitus ac decollatus est. 

iv Idus Aug. Natale S. Laurentii sub Decio; qui post plurima 
tormenta carceris, verberum diversorum, lami- 
narum ardentium, ad ultimum in craticula ferrea 
assatus martyrium complevit. 

Idibus Aug. Romae S. Ypoliti, qui tempore Decii ligatus pedes 
ad colla indomitorum equorum sic per carduos 
tribulosque tractus emisit spiritum; et Concor- 
diae nutricis ejus, quae ante ipsum plumbatis 
caesa martyrizatur; et aliorum de domo ejus 
decem et novem, qui simul decollati sunt. 


42. ADO OF VIENNE [fT A.D. 874]. 


Martyrologium (Patrol. Lat. CXXil1. pp. 224, 318 sq, Migne). 


III KAL, FEBR. 

Passio sancti Hippolyti martyris qui Novati schismate aliquantulum 
deceptus, operante gratia Christi correctus ad charitatem ecclesiae 
rediit; pro qua et in qua illustre martyrium postea consummavit. 

VIII IDUS AUG. 

Romae, via Appia, in coemeterio Callisti, natale S. Sixti episcopi et 
martyris et in coemeterio Praetextati sanctorum Felicissimi et Agapiti 
diaconorum ejusdem, sub Decio imperatore, Valeriano praefecto; qui 
tenuit beatissimum senem Sixtum episcopum Romanum cum omni clero 
suo et reclusit eos in custodia publica etc. 

[Sixtus, Felicissimus, and Agapitus, are beheaded with others. | 

V ID. AUG. 

Vigilia sancti Laurentii. 

Eodem die Romae, sancti Romani militis qui in confessione sancti 
Laurentii compunctus petiit ab eo baptizari, et mox jubente Decio cum 
fustibus exhibitus ac decollatus est. 

IV ID. AUG. 

Romae natale sancti Laurentii archidiaconi et martyris sub Decio. 
Cui beatus Sixtus omnes facultates ecclesiae et thesauros, pergens ad 
coronam martyril, tradidit. 

[ Hippolytus his gaoler, seeing the miracle of giving sight to the blind 
wrought by Laurentius, is converted and baptized.  Laurentius is 


358 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


brought before the tyrant Decius, ordered to surrender the treasures of 
the Church, and put to torture. | 

Tunc unus ex militibus, nomine Romanus, credidit Domino Jesu 
Christo et dixit beato Laurentio: Video ante te hominem pulcherrimum 
stantem cum linteo et extergentem membra tua; adjuro te per Christum 
qui tibi misit angelum suum, ne me derelinquas. Levatus igitur beatus 
martyr de catasta et solutus, redditus est Hippolyto tantum in palatio. 
Veniens autem Romanus offerens aquam misit se ad pedes beati 
Laurentii ut baptizaretur; qui benedicta aqua baptizavit eum: quod 
factum audiens Decius jussit eum sibi exhiberi cum fustibus. Non 
interrogatus coepit clamare, Christianus sum. Et jubente Decio eductus 
foras muros portae Salariae decollatus est quinto Idus Augusti. Cujus 
corpus noctu collegit Justinus presbyter et sepelivit in crypta in agro 
Verano. 

[Laurentius then undergoes martyrdom, being roasted alive on a 
gridiron. | 

Mane autem primo adhuc crepusculo rapuit corpus ejus Hippolytus 
et condivit cum linteis et aromatibus ; et hoc factum mandavit Justino 
presbytero. Tunc beatus Justinus et Hippolytus plorantes et multum 
tristes tulerunt corpus beati martyris et venerunt in via Tiburtina, in 
praedium matronae viduae Cyriacae in agro Verano, ad quam ipse 
martyr fuerat noctu, cui et linteum dedit, unde pedes sanctorum ex- 
terserat, et illud ibi jam hora vespertina sepelierunt tv Idus August. 
Et jejunaverunt agentes vigilias noctis triduo, et multitudine Christi- 
anorum. Beatus autem Justinus presbyter obtulit sacrificium laudis, 
et participati sunt omnes. 

Eodem die Romae, militum centum et sexaginta quinque. Tunc 
passi sunt Claudius, Severus, Crescentio, et Romanus, ipso die quo 
beatus Laurentius, post tertium post diem passionis sancti Sixti. 

ID. AUG. 

Romae, sancti Hippolyti martyris, sub Decio imperatore, Valeriano 
praefecto. Hunc beatum Hippolytum vicarium sanctus Laurentius, 
cum apud eum esset in custodia, baptizavit. Qui de sanctis exsequiis 
martyris post tertium diem ad domum suam rediens dedit pacem 
omnibus servis suis et ancillis, et communicavit de sacrificio altaris 
beati Laurentii martyris. Et posita mensa, priusquam cibum sumeret, 
venerunt milites et tenuerunt et perduxerunt ad Decium. Quem ut 
vidit, subridens dixit ei: Numquid et tu magus effectus es, quia corpus 
Laurentii abstulisse diceris? Sanctus Hippolytus respondit ; Hoc feci 
non quasi magus, sed quasi Christianus. Decius furore repletus jussit 
ut cum lapidibus os ejus contunderetur. Et exspoliavit eum veste qua 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 359 


induebatur habitu Christiano et dixit ei: Sacrifica, et vives; sin aliter, 
peries per tormenta sicut Laurentius. Sanctus Hippolytus dixit ; 
Exemplum merear beati Laurentii martyris fieri, quem tu, miser, ausus 
fuisti ore polluto nominare. Extensus igitur fustibus et cardis diu 
caesus est, donec caedentes deficerent. Inde levatus est a terra, et 
jussit eum Decius vestiri militari veste qua gentilis utebatur, et dixit ei: 
Recole militiam, et esto noster amicus, et in conspectu nostro utere 
militia pristina quam semper habuisti. Cumque beatus martyr dixisset ; 
Militia mea haec est, Christianum firmum militare, unde cupio ad 
celerem palmam cum fructu venire; iracundia plenus Decius dixit 
Valeriano; Accipe omnes facultates ejus, et interfice eum crudeli 
exanimatione. Valerianus itaque, exquisita omni facultate ejus, invenit 
in domo Hippolyti omnem familiam Christianam, quam conspectui suo 
praesentari fecit. Et jussit beatum Hippolytum foras muros portae 
Tiburtinae cum familia sua duci. Beatus vero Hippolytus confortabat 
omnes, dicens ; Fratres, nolite metuere, quia ego et vos unum Deum 
habemus. Et decollati sunt promiscui sexus numero decem et novem. 
Beatus vero Hippolytus ligatus pedes ad colla indomitorum equorum, 
sic per carduetum et tribulos tractus, emisit spiritum. Nocte venit 
beatus Justinus presbyter, et collegit corpora, et sepelivit in campo 
eodem juxta Nympham, ad latus agri Verani, Idibus Augusti. 

Eodem die natale sanctae Concordiae, nutricis ejusdem_ beati 
Hippolyti. Cum Valerianus ad familiam beati Hippolyti sibi prae- 
sentatam dixisset, Considerate aetates vestras, ne simul pereatis cum 
Hippolyto domino nostro (¢ vestro) ; respondit beata Concordia, Nos 
desideramus potius cum domino nostro pudice mori quam impudice 
vivere. Ad hoc Valerianus ; Genus, inquit, servorum nisi cum suppliciis 
non emendatur. Et jussit ut beata Concordia cum plumbatis caederetur. 
Et cum caederetur, emisit spiritum, corpusque ejus est in cloacam 
projectum. Cumque diu quaereret illud sanctus Justinus, et non in- 
veniret, ita tristis redditur ut non cessarent flere oculi ejus. Tertio 
decimo vero die post passionem sancti Hippolyti, venit quidam miles 
Porphyrius nomine, ad Irenaeum cloacarium qui occulte Christianus 
erat, et dicit ei; Si secretum possis custodire, divulgabo arti tuae mul- 
tum ad quaestum ; ante hos dies jussit Valerianus praefectus in con- 
spectu suo quamdam creditariam Hippolyti plumbatis deficere, et corpus 
ejus in cloacam jactari: haec in vestibus suis spero quod margaritas 
habet absconsas vel aurum. Audiens haec Irenaeus, intimavit secreto 
beato Justino presbytero; qui flectens genua gratias egit Deo. Por- 
phyrius autem noctu veniens cum Irenaeo invenit corpus sanctum; sed 
in vestimentis nihil invenerunt. Beatus autem Irenaeus vocavit ad se 


360 EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT. 


quemdam Christianum Abundium nomine, et tulerunt corpus ejus et 
perduxerunt ad beatum Justinum; qui gratias agens Deo illud sus- 
cepit, et juxta corpora martyrum Hippolyti et aliorum sepelivit, vill 
Kalendas Septembris. 

XV KAL. OCT. 

Item Romae via Tiburtina, ad sanctum Laurentium, natale beati 
Justini presbyteri, quem beatus Sixtus ordinavit. 

[After speaking of the relations of Justinus with S. Laurentius and 
S. Cyriaca, the account concludes :| 

Hic sanctum Hippolytum et Concordiam, Irenaeum, Abundium, 
Cyrillam filiam Decii Caesaris, martyres, et alios plurimos sepulturis 
condivit. Et persecutione Decii, Galli, et Volusiani, confessionis gloria 
insignissimus fuit. 

Romae, in crypta arenaria, sanctorum martyrum Narcissi et Cre- 
scensionis. 

VII KAL. SEPT. 

Item natalis sanctorum Irenaei et Abundi Romae; quos Deciana 
persecutione jussit Valerianus incloacari eo quod corpus beatae Con- 
cordiae cloacam missum levaverunt. Et ipsorum quoque corpora 
levavit Justinus presbyter et sepelivit in crypta juxta beatum Lauren- 
tium. | 

XV KAL, NOV. 

Item Romae sanctae Triphoniae uxoris Decii Caesaris ; quae, viro 
suo post interfectionem beatorum Sixti et Laurent divinitus punito, 
petiit baptizari cum filia Decii Cyrilla a Justino presbytero ; et alia die 
defuncta est ac juxta Hippolytum in crypta sepulta quinto decimo Kal. 
Novembris. 

VIII KAL. NOV. 

Ipso die Romae via Salaria natalis quadraginta et octo militum, qui 
simul baptizati a beato Dionysio papa; et mox jubente Claudio 
imperatore decollati sunt. Quorum corpora noctu collegerunt beatus 
Justinus presbyter et Joannes, et sepelierunt in crypta cum multitudine 
Christianorum in via Salaria in clivum Cucumeris viii Kal. Novembris, 
ubi positi sunt et alii martyres centum viginti et unus. Inter quos 
fuerunt quatuor milites Christi, Theodosius, Lucius, Marcus, et Petrus. 
Hi videntes ad se venire armatos, rogabant ut primi decollarentur. 
Scriptum in passione sanctorum martyrum Sixti, Laurentii, et Hippolyti. 

V KAL. NOV. 

Romae sanctae Cyrillae filiae Decii Caesaris quae sub Claudio 
principe jugulata et necata est gladio, ac sepulta a Justino presbytero 
cum matre sua juxta sanctum Hippolytum. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 361 


43. MeEN«#a [a.D. ?]. 


Jan. 30 (p. 230, ed. Venet. 1877). 
"A@dnots Tov ayiov tepoyaptupos ‘ImmoAdvtov tama “Poyys Kat tov odv 
a , Af A \ A lal 
avtTw Kevooupivov, SaBatvov, Xpvoyjs, kat tov Nowrav" 
ToApy Oardaccav ‘Immedvtos cicdvver 
e / 7 2 , f 
oia Kpoatvwy immos év dei rédw 
* * * 
e / / a » ea 
ImzoXvtov TOovTOU TpLaKOOTH EKTaVE pevpa. 
Autry 7 tepa. opapyupis UrApxev ext THS Baotrcias KAavdiov, 7yenovevovros 
/ lal \ > / ¢ , / \ c x “ 
Aixapiov tod Kat OvAriov “Pwpvrov kadovpévov’ kal o pev Kevooupivos, 
payirtpos dv Kal TH Bacirel ayarupevos, éo€Beto Tov Xpicrov AeAnOoTws 
\ a a c , 3 x \ 3 f > eer 
kal tov Xpirtiavav vrepnorilero’ yvwobeis de amexdeicOn ev pvdraxy 
eva vexpov avactnoas émeice TavTas TOUS OTpaTWTas TIOTEDTAL TO 
Xpict@’ oitiwes tpoorager Too Tupavvov amexehadiabynoav, Kat ory avTots 
c / A A € / e \ a / \ 
9 pakapia Xpvof Kai o TavTns vroupyos ZaPaivos, mpotepov moAXas 
uTopeivavtes Tyuwpias dia To dSiaKoveivy Tois aylows Kal Tovs ixapas avTav 
exuaooe Kal €avtovs ddecperv. 
Tatra pafwv 0 paKkapwwitatos mamas ‘ImmdAvtos, CyAw Oeiw ki7nfeis, 
ne Nur \ , \ / c <a , a a 
mr\Ge Kat nreyEe Tov tYpavvov Kata mpocwrov. oO dé Ureplécas TH Ovpo 
Tpatov pev avtov éBacavice peta TOV akoAovfovvTwy avTd TpecBuTépwv 
Kal SuaKovwv Kal TOU érioKOTOU" €iTA OnTAS AUTOV TAS XElpas Kal TOUS Tddas 
év TO BvOG THs Oadracons éppule, Kal ovTws éreAcwOnoav. 
This is found also in the AZenologium of Basil (Patrol. Graec. CXVI. 
p. 285, Migne) almost verbatim; but the words tov kai OvAriov 
‘Pwpdtrov kadovpévov are omitted. Hippolytus however is called raza 
simply without the addition of ‘Pops. 


August toth (p. 53). 
TH v tod abrod pyvos pvnyn Tov ayiwv paptipwv Aavpevtiov apxe- 
dvaxovov, Zicrov rama “Pwynys, cat ‘Imrodvrov. 
* *% % 
Tov ‘ImmoAvtov tmrodécpuov Brérw 
évavTiov TacxXovTa TH KAnoe Talos. 
omtycav dexaty Aavpevtiov jute ixOuv. 
[The charge of Xystus to Laurentius and the Martyrdom are then 
recorded as in the Latin Acts. | 


3 
HicaxGets 54 Aavpévtios 0 dpxidiaKovos Kal Ta lepa ypypata amactov- 
> 7 en F \ ‘ \ N Nu es Z a , \ 
pevos, aityoas apagas Kal Aa Boy tovs xwAovs Kal avamrnpous, ots Sveverpe TA 
4 \ a e , > , »” \ ‘ , a 
Xpypara, Kat tals apatas emuotiBaoas, yyaye mpos Tov PBacir€a: ods 


362 EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT. 


iowv Kal opy.o eis KeAeveL TOV ayLov Aavpevtiov tupOjvar opodpas, €lTa, 
A An > a r al > e , Pa) / of ‘ 9 ae 
BrnPjva ev tH pvdaky. ev N yevouevos lato TavTas OTOL Tpos aUTOV 
> , ra, apts r , ¢ € A , 
epoiTwv, W GV EKUTTOS KATELXETO VOONMATL. aTrEp O tpiBovvos KadAXivikos 
Brérwv, 0 kat TH eipKtTH emiotaray, ériotevoe TH XpioTd Kal eBarricOy. 
‘\ lal be / ce i Pi “ “ \ \ a] \ 
peta ToUTO 0€ TapiaTata. Oo ayltos Aavpevtios TH Baoire, kat pn reoUets 
Oicar tors cidwros ert eoydpas amAodTa, Kdtwlev VparTopevov Tupds: 
\ a) 2 a a lal 3 , > ~ A nw \ , lal 
Kat ev avTy TO Oe@ evxapioTyoas adynKe TO TvEVpA, Kal KNnoElas THS 
 ] , \ ae y 4 
opeAopmevyns Tapa TOV Ir7roAvrov TUYXGVEL. 
Totro yvovs 0 Bactdeds Kal petateupapevos aitoy éxéAevoe Kivapais 
an na > 7 ad 2 / © iS. rae," ‘ 
oLonpats paotiywOnvas, eira immo mpoodeOjvat ayplo.ss vp wv emt ToAv 
tA lal n~ \ nA , / \ o Cal ¢ / ec , 
cupopevos TO MeO TO Tvedpa mapeOero. Neyerau d€ OTL ™ éBdopy np-Epa. 
\ \ 6 an Q 7 c Xr. , 4 > A , >. QA 
peta TO Tale TOV ayLov Imz7oAvrtrov Aextos Kat OvadXeptavos KaOywevor ETL 
Tov immrov avtav tov adixerOar Tpos To O€atpov é&érvevoay, Kpagas O 
, 5 ~ 7 lal “4 c na > c Ve c 3 , ts 
Aex.os €v TH wpa Tov Gavatov avtov: °Q ‘Im7modute, ws aixuadwrov ovTw 
/ > 4 A XA ‘\ c > , 3 & 
Sedepevoy amrayels ME; éxpage O€ Kal O OvadXepiavos: Ivpivais pe Katyvats 
oo o lal \ A / tay, \ > / A , 
ovtws €AKeis; TovTo be OyAov yeyove Ka OAV THY OiKOUPEVHV, KaL TAVTES 
> / ol , “~ 4 is mn > lal n~ &e c , 5 A 
éorepewOnoav TH micte: TOD Kupiov nudv “Incot Xpiotov, 6 7 dogo eis Tovs 
alovas. pny. 
The same account is given in a much abridged form in the Meno- 
logium of Basil (Patrol. Graec. CXvIl. p. 580, Migne). 


44. S. Petrus Damianus [c. A.D. 1060]. 


Epistola ad Nicolaum If (Hippol. Of. 1. p. xi, ed. Fabricius). 


Beatus quoque Nonus martyr, qui et Hippolytus, memoriae nostrae 
non praetereundus occurrit; qui nimirum postquam triginta millia Sara- 
cenorum ad Christi fidem efficacissima praedicatione convertit, post- 
quam beatam quoque Pelagiam de lupanaribus ad ecclesiae pudicitiam 
provocavit, postquam denique nonnullos sanctarum expositionum libros 
luculenter explicuit, tandem episcopatum deseruit, de Antiochenis par- 
tibus unde erat oriundus abscessit, Romanos fines appetiit: cumque 
beata Aurea apud Ostiam civitatem saxo cervicibus alligato in mari- 
nis fluctibus martyrium consummasset, beatus Nonus sanctum cada- 
ver pia devotione collegit et cum omni diligentia tumulavit. Quem 
mox idem persecutor, qui dicebatur Ulpius, juxta Tyberis alveum in 
foveam aquis plenam mergi praecipit; cujus postmodum corpus con- 
summato triumphali martyrio in civitate, quae Portus dicitur, Christiana 
devotio sepelivit. Illico audita vox veluti infantium per unam fere 
horam clamantium, Deo gratias. Qui ergo talem vitae meruit clau- 
sulam, liquido patuit quia episcopatum deserens coram Deo non incurrit 
offensam. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 363 


45. Passio Sancti Sixt1 LAURENTII HI1PPOLyYTI. 


Hippolytus Romanus p. xiii, ed. Lagarde. 


Xystus igitur Romae urbis episcopus apud Athenas natus et doctus, 
prius quidem philosophus, postea vero Christi discipulus, audiens Decium 
Caesarem Romam esse venturum ait; 


[He gives instructions in the face of the coming persecution; en- 
trusting his archdeacon Laurence with ‘universas facultates ecclesiae’. 
The treasures are sold by the archdeacon and distributed to the poor. 
Decius arrives, bringing with him two Persians, Abdo and Sennes, 
bound for the name of Christ. The tyrant puts Abdo and Sennes to 
death. Their bodies] 
noctu a Christianis sublata sunt et posita in cimiterio Pontiani die 
iii Kal. Augusti. Post haec autem jussit ad se adduci Xystum urbis 
episcopum. 


[Xystus is then condemned to death. | 


Decollatus est autem extra muros urbis via Appia in loco qui ap- 
pellatur clivus martyrum. Rapuerunt autem Christiani corpus ejus et 
posuerunt in cimiterio Calisti die octavo Id. Aug. Eodem namque die 
Decius Caesar adduci in conspectum suum beatum Laurentium prae- 
cepit et ait; Ubi sunt thesauri ecclesiae quos penes te esse cognovimus? 
Cui beatus Laurentius dicit; Biduo mihi dentur induciae, ut ex omnibus 
ecclesiis universa deferam. Tunc Caesar jussit ut sub custodia Hip- 
polyti ducis Laurentius ageret. 


{Laurentius converts his guard Hippolytus by his words and deeds. 
He is then handed over to Valerianus the Prefect of the city, and put to 
death by roasting on a gridiron. | 


Die vero eadem rapuit corpus ejus Hippolytus et condivit aro- 
matibus et posuit in crypta abditissima quarto iduum augustarum, 
fecitque illic biduum jejunans et orans. Egressus autem tertia die 
Hippolytus venit ut ingrederetur domum, et priusquam caperet cibum, 
a militibus conprehensus est et perductus ad Caesarem. Cui Caesar 
ait: Numquid et tu magus effectus es, ut corpus Laurentii abstulisse 
dicaris? Sanctus Hippolytus, cujus jam gloriae corona parata erat, 
ad laudem intrepidus respondens dixit: Hoc feci non quasi magus 
sed ut Christianus. Quo audito Decius Caesar ira commotus jussit os 
ejus contundi lapidibus et exui eum vestem quam habuit et extensum 
ad cardos ferreos caedi. Post haec autem seminecem jussit duci extra 
urbem et pedes ejus ligari pedibus equorum indomitorum et dimitti 


364 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


in cardeto. Dum autem eum traherent, reddidit spiritum. Tunc 
corpus ejus rapuerunt Christiani et posuerunt in crypta, quae est juxta 
agrum praetorianum die id. aug. Post diem autem septimum passionis 
ejus dedit munera Decius et sedit in curru una cum Valeriano prae- 
fecto urbis; ut jam descenderent et amphitheatrum introirent, uno 
momento ambo expiraverunt. Clamabat autem Decius in hora mortis 
suae dicens: O Hippolyte, quasi captivum me vinctum ducis. Vale- 
rianus autem clamabat: O Laurenti, igneis me catenis vinxisti et trahis. 


46. Acta SS. Cyriaci, HIPPOLYTI, AUREAE, ETC. 


Hippolytus Romanus, p. v (ed. Lagarde). 


MAPTYPION TOY ALIOY KYPIAKOY, iITTOAYTOY, MAazZIMOY, 
YPYCAC, KAl TON AOITTION. 

"Ev tats ypépars KAavdiov tod tapavopov Bacidéws, mapovtos PiKaptov 
OvAriov ‘Pwopvddov, péyiotos avnpOy dwwypos Tots THViKADTA ovaW Xprotia- 
vols. Hv ovv Tis avnp Kevooupivos x.7.X. 


(Then follows the account of the good confession of Censurinus who 
is accordingly imprisoned at Ostia, where he is visited and looked after 
by one Chryse of royal race, who had undergone many persecutions for 
Christ. The priest Maximus and the deacon Archelaus offer spiritual 
ministrations. The guards of Censurinus are struck by a miracle wrought 
and by exhortations spoken by Maximus. | 


Tore opoupadov adravres avtav, 6 Te BAALE, MaEipos, Tavpivos, “EpKov- 
Avavos, NeBépios, Sropakivos, Myvas, Kopupodc.os, “Epps, Madpos, EvcéBuos, 
“‘Pwortikios, Movakpios, “Apavotvos, “OAvpmios, Kumpios, Kai @eddwpos o 

lal » € \ oy \ \ , lal , / 
TpiBovvos, eBadov EavTovs apna mpos TOUS Todas TOD pakapiwraTov Magimou 
TOU mpeo BuTEepov. 


[They are all baptized and looked after by Chryse; and Cyriacus 
the bishop anoints and seals them. Then follows the story of the shoe- 
maker, who having lost his son, a child of twelve years, is converted to 
Christ. The child is restored to life and christened Faustinus. Owing 
to this resurrection, Chryse is accused of magic, and tortured on the 
wheel and in other ways. Cyriacus, Maximus, and Archelaus are put to 
death, as are also the soldiers. Cyriacus and Maximus are burned by 
the presbyter Eusebius on the Ostian Way, on vi Id. Aug. The other 
soldiers are laid near them. | 


a \ aE ‘\ 2 a 4 c , , 
Tavpivov d€ kat EpxovAravoy év 7 UIdprw ‘Pwyns xaréxpuwer. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 365 


{Then Romulus commands Chryse to be brought before him. She 
confesses Christ boldly. In a fury he orders her to be beaten with 
leaden bullets, but to no effect. | 


~ \ ~ / 5 ~ 
"ExéXdevoe 5¢ wadw AGov péyav SecpevOnvar Kata Tod TpaxnAov avTis 
A ~~ Qo \ 7 A a 7 
Kal ovtws kpenacbnvar ev TH Oadacoy’ yoTLWoS TO aylov TOpa TrepinOev Ews 
“A > A 7 e P / ce \ \ c , 
Tov aiyiadod: drep 0 pakapwitatos Novos 0 Kat perovopacbeis “Immodvtos 
, \ a / 2 a iol ee, / + 6 \ , 
cvvyyayev, Kal TOUTO KaTeHapey Ev TO idlw avTAS XwplM, EVHA Kal KATOKEL, 


tal ~ ‘ ~ / 
e£wm TAY TELXewv THS OotTyTlas TOAEWS TH TPO evvéa Kadravdav YerreuPpiwv. 


[Then follows the apprehension of Sabinianus a Christian, the pro- 
curator (émyeAntns) of that district, who is ordered to discover the 
whereabouts of Chryse’s treasures. Romulus orders him to be cruelly 
tortured. | 


~ AQ > , e , e / c 4, >; ‘ ” 
Totro d€ akovoas 6 pakapiwtaros ‘ImmoAvtos 6 mperBitepos eAOwv Eat 
3 ae wn A A > 5S yy 
evotiov TOD Pwpyrdrov kal Aaurpa TH pwvy cizev’ °O. abAsE x.7.A. 
A / 
TatvTa akovoas 0 doeBéeatatos “Pwyvrdros Ovp6y opddpa Kal tpocérace 
‘ Ld 3 fal \ \ a , > , A 
Tous Todas avTod Kal Tas xElpas Sedepevoy cis BoOvvoy KataxpynpvicOjvat. 
~ ° , ce , , > - , >. \ , 4 
Tov ovv pakapiov ‘ImroAvtouv BvbiLopévou év TH Teixer eis TOV BoOvvov TopToV 
‘\ > / 7 ° yy \ 3 4 c \ / 
Tov avayopevopevov Ildptov (sic), advw dwvn nxovobn woe dSiactypatos 
”? a“ A A \ A a 
wpas pas, Kabdrep vytinv Neyovtwv edxapiotias TO Ocg Kal év TO TaAVTA 


eizely adynKev TO Teva TO Kupiw TH po Sexapuds Kadavddy SerreuBpiwv. 


[The rest of the story is taken up with the martyrdom of Sabinianus 
which is placed v Kal. Febr. | 


§ 2. 
MODERN LITERATURE. 


There is no complete edition of the works of Hippolytus. Of the 
Philosophumena, as a whole, the best and most convenient text is that 
of Duncker and Schneidewin, but the first book has been edited with 
special care by Diels; of the other Greek remains, that of Lagarde. 
The fragments preserved in Syriac, Arabic, and Coptic, must be sought 
elsewhere. Migne’s edition of the Greek works (without the Piz/osophu- 
mena) is very Convenient as containing a reprint of the most important 
parts of Fabricius and De Magistris, besides other materials from older 
writers. 

Of the several lists of the literature connected with Hippolytus 
the fullest is in Richardson’s Azblographical Synopsis of Antenicene 


366 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. - 


Literature, Buffalo 1887. The plan of my own list differs from his. 
My aim is not completeness, but usefulness. For this reason I have 
struck out a large number of works which have been superannuated 
either by the discovery of the Phz/osophumena or from other causes. 
On the other hand I have introduced very many (e.g. a complete list of 
De Rossi's articles in the Bz//ettino, which bear directly or indirectly on 
the subject), because I have found them of great use, even where they 
did not bear the name of Hippolytus on their face. For this same 
reason also I have mentioned a few of the principal works on the 
Muratorian Canon, because in the subsequent discussions (see below, 
p. 405 sq) I have connected it with Hippolytus. 


A. £ditions. 


BARDENHEWER Des Heiligen Hippolytus v. Rom Commentar zum Buche 
Daniel (Freiburg im Br. 1877). 

Canisius Lectiones Antiguae 11. p. 218 (ed. Basnage 1725). The 
Chronica in one Latin version (see above I. p. 259), reprinted in 
Du Cange Chron. Pasch. 11. p. 23 (ed. Bonn). 

De LA RvuE Onig. Ofer. 1. p. 872 sq (1st book of Philosophumena). 

Diets Doxographi Graecd p. 144 sq p. 553 sq (Berolin. 1879). rst 
book of Phzlosophumena. 

DUNCKER ET SCHNEIDEWIN S. Hippolyti Episcopi et Martyris Refuta- 
tionts Omnium Haeresium Libri Decem (Gotting. 1859). 

FapRIclus (J. A.) S. Hippolyti Episcopi et Martyris Opera Vol. 1. (1716), 
Vol. 1. (1718) Hamburg. Works omitting Phzlosophumena. 

GALLAND. Libliotheca Patrum i. p. 409 sq. 

Tewpyiadns (B.) wept opacews tov zpodytov AavyA, in ’ExkAynoaorKy 
“Adybera 1885 May. 

Gwynn Hermathena vi. p. 397 sq Hippolytus and his Heads against 
Caius; ib. vu. p. 137 (1889) Hippolytus on S. Matthew xxiv. 15— 
22. 

HANEBERG Canones S. Hippolyti Arabice etc. (Monachii 1870). 

KENNEDY (J. H.) Commentary of St Hippolytus on the Book of Daniel 
(Dublin 1888). 

LAGARDE fippolytus Romanus (Lips. et Lond. 1858). Works omitting 
Philosophumena. 

Analecta Syriaca p. 91 sq (Lips. et Lond. 1858). (Fragments.) 

Le Moyne Varia Sacra i. Prol. p. 23, Text p. 53 sq, Il. p. 930 sq notes 
(ed. 2, Lugd. Bat. 1694) Contra Graecos. 

Mat (A.) Script. Vet. Coll. Nov. vu. 

Biblioth. Nov. Patr. vit. Pars ui. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 367 


MIGNE fatrologia Graeca X. p. 201 sq (Paris, 1857). Works omitting 
LPhilosophumena. 

MILLER (E.) Ovigenis Philosophumena (Oxon. 1851). (Editio princeps 
of great part of the Phzlosophumena). 

MommMsen Uever den Chronographen vom Jahre 354, p. 549 sq (Leipz. 
1850), an extract from the Abhandl. der Konigl. Sachs. Gesellsch. 
ad. Wiaissensch. The Chronica in the second Latin version, with 
the accompanying works. 

RoutH Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Opuscula i. p. 45 sq (ed. 2, Oxon. 
1840) Contra Haeresim Noetz. 

TREGELLES Canon Muratorianus (Oxf. 1867). 

WorpswortH fippolytus and the Church of Rome (ed. 2, Oxf. and 
Cambr. 1880) Philosophumena ix (p. 62 sq); Fragm. de Universo 
(p. 306 sq). 


B. Literature. 


ALLARD fiistoire des Persécutions pendant la premitre moitié du Trotsivme 
Siecle p. 195 sq (Paris 1866). 

ARMELLINI (T.) De prisca refutatione Haereseon Origents nomine ete. 
commentarius (Romae 1862). 

Avpt (B.) Les Chrétiens dans ? Empire Romain (A.D. 180—249) p. 428 sq 
(Paris 1881). 

L Eglise et [ Etat (a.D. 249—284) p. 362 sq (Paris 1885). 

BaRonius Annales Ecclesiastici s. ann. 226, 229, Il. p. 407, 409 sq 
(Venet. 1738). 

BaxMANN Dae Philosophumena u. die Peraten in Zeitschr. f. die Histor. 
Theol. (1860). 

Benson (E. W., now ArcHeP.) Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology 
1, p. 188 sq (1854) Ox the Martyrdom and Commemorations of 
Saint Hippolytus. 

BIANCHINI (F.) De Kalendario et Cyclo Caesaris et de Paschali Canone 
S. Hippolyté ete. 

BoLuaNnpD. Acta Sanctorum Januarius Il. p. 1027 (Jan. 30 De S. Aippolyto 
Presbytero Antiocheno), Augustus 111. p. 4 sq (Aug. 13, De S. Mart. 
Romanis Hippolyto Concordia etc.), Vv. p. 504 sq (Aug. 22, De S. 
Lfippolyto Episc. et Mart. in Portu Romano), tv. p. 755 sq (Aug. 24 
De SS. Aurea seu Chryse Virgine, Censorino, etc.). 

BuNSEN (Cur. C. J.) Aippolytus and his Age (ed. 2, London, 1854). 

Caspart Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols etc. Ul. p. 374 sq 
(Christiania 1875). 

Cave Scriptorum Lcclesiasticorum Historia Literaria i. p. 102 sq. 


368 | EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


Cruice Etudes sur de nouveaux documents des Philosophumena (Paris 
1853). Histoire de l’Eglise de Rome sous les Pontificats de S. 
Victor, de S. Ziphirin, et de S. Calliste (Paris 1856). 

De Macistris (S.) Acta Martyrum ad Ostia Tiberina (Romae 1795) 
(parts reprinted in Migne, p. 547). 

De Rossi (G. B.) Bullettino di Archeologia Cristiana 

Serie Prima. 

pp. 8, 16 sq, 32, 33, 47, (68 sq,.°73((1863)) Basta 
di §. Lorenzo fuor le mura; UU. p. 33 (1864) Scoperte nella 
basilica di S. Lorenzo nell’ agro Verano; UU. p. 41 sq (1864) 
Le due basiliche di S. Lorenzo nell’ agro Verano; Iv. p. 1 sq, 
p- 17 $q, p- 65 sq, p. 77 sq (1866) Lsame archeologico e critico della 
storia di §. Callisto narrata nel libro nono det Filosofument ; 
Iv. p. 37 sq, 63 (1866) LZ monumenti cristiani di Porto; Iv. p. 99 
(1866) Lo Xenodochio di Pammachio in Porto; v. p. 49 sq (1867) 
I monumenti del secolo quarto spettanti alla chiesa di S. Pudenztana. 

Serie Terza. 

I. p. 16 sq (1876) Scoperte nell’ agro Verano e nel Sotterraneo 
Cimitero di Ciriaca; 1. p. 145 sq (1876) Arcosolio dipinto del 
Cimitero di Ctriaca ete.; 1. p. 5 sq (1877) 2 museo epigrafico 
Cristiano Pio-Lateranense (see p. 15 sq); VI. p. 5 Sq (1881) 
La Silloge epigrafica d’un codice gia corbetense etc.; V1. p. 26 sq 
(1881) Llogio Damasiano del celebre [ppolito martire sepolto presso 
la via Tiburtina; vi. p. 86 sq (1881) Dello scavo fatto nell’ 
antica basilica di S. Lorenzo per collocare ul sepolcro di Pio LX ete.; 
VI. p. 93 sq (1881) L’epitafio metrico del papa Zostmo sepolto in 
SS. Lorenzo nell’ agro Verano. 

Serie Quarta. 

I. p. 9 sq (1882) 22 Cimitero di S. Ippolito presso la Via 
Tiburtina e la sua principale cripta storica ora dissepolta ; 1. p. 76 
(1882) Continuazione delle scoperte nella cripta storica e nelle 
adjacenti gallerie del cimitero di S. L[ppolito; u. p. 60 sq (1883) 
Tscrizione storica det tempi di Damaso papa nel Cimitero di S. 
Ippolyto; iW. p. 7 sq (1884, 1885) L Carmi di S. Damaso; Vv. 
p- 60 sq (1887) Zhe Hippolytus of the Appian Way. 

Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae i. p. Uxx1x sq De Hippoliti 
Cyclo inventione, etc.; 11. p. 72 sq Sylloge Centulensis p. 82. 

Roma Sotterranea i. p. 178 sq, 181, LVotices in the Ltinerartes; p. 263 
sq The Hippolytus of the Appian Way; 1. p. 23 sq The Hippolytus 
of the Appian Way; ii. p. 193—226 (The Acts of Hippolytus and 
the Greek Martyrs, and the Arenartum Hippolytt), 301—312, 317. 

DOLLINGER Hippolytus and Kallistus (Regensburg 1853). 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 360 


DRASEKE Zu Pseudo-Hippolytos (Contra Beronem etc.) in Jahrb. f. Protest. 
Theol. X. p. 342 sq (1884); Zu Hippolytos Demonstratio adv. 
Judaeos, ib. X11. p. 456 sq (1886). 

Beron und Pseudo-Fippolytos in Zeitsch. f. Wiss. Theol. Xxx. p. 291 


sq (1886). 
DucHESNE (L.) Liber Pontificalis Tome 1 (1886); Tome 1, Fascicule 
i (1888). 


ErRBES Die Lebenszeit des Hippolytus nebst der des Theophilus von Antio- 
chien in Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol. xv. p. 611 sq (1888). 

Fapricius 4ibliotheca Graeca vil. p. 183 sq, ed. Harles r8or. 

Funk Theolog. Quartalschr. LXit. p. 277 sq (1881) Lst der Basilides der 
Philosophumen Pantheist? Lx. p. 423 sq (1881) Ueber den 
Verfasser der Philosophumenen; LXvi. p. 104 sq (1884) Die Zeit 
der EHippolyt-statue. 

GRUBER Die Ophiten (Wirzburg 1864). 

GUNDERT Zeitschr. f. Luther. Theol. Xvi. p. 209 Sq, XVII. pp. 37 Sq, 
443 Sq. 

GUTSCHMID (A. vy.) Ueber die Verhiltniss d. Hippolytischen Liber Genera- 
tionts etc. zu Julius Africanus (1856). 

HaGEMANN Die Rémische Kirche (Freiburg 1864). 

Harnack Dogmengeschichte i. p. 437 sq and elsewhere (1886). 

Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus (Leipzig 1873), 
ZLettschr. f. Histor. Theol. p. 170. 

Heinrici Die Valentianische Gnosis etc. (Berlin 1871). 

Hesse (F. H.) Das Muratorische Fragment (Giessen 1873). 

HILGENFELD Zettschr. f. Wiss. Theol. v. p. 400 sq (1862) Der Gnosticis- 
mus und die Philosophumena; XX1. p. 228 sq (1878) Der Basilides 
des Lippolytus. 

Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums (Leipzig 1884). 

Hort in Smith-Wace Dict. of Christ. Biogr. 1. p. 268 s.v. Basilides. 

Jacosi Deutsche Zeitschr. f. Christl, Wiss. 1851 no. 25; 1853 no. 24. 
Herzog’s Real-Encyhlopidie s.v. Hippolytus ed. 2 (1880). Brieger’s 
Zeitscthr. f. Kirchengesch. 1. p. 481 sq (1878) Das ursprungliche 
Basilidianische System. 

JuncMANN WDissertationes in Histor. Eccles. p. 173 sq (Ratisbon 
1880). 

Kime (E. J.) De Hippolyti Vita et Scriptis (Jena 1839). 

LANGEN (J.) Geschichte der Rimischen Kirche (Bonn 1881). 

Liesius (R. A.) Quellenkritik des Epiphanios (Wien 1865). 

Die Quellen der Aeltesten Ketzergeschichte (Leipzig 1875). 
Smith-Wace Dict. of Christ. Biogr. iv. s.v. Valentinus. 


CLEM. II. 24 


370 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


LumpER Histor. SS. Pair. vi. p. 1 sq (Aug. Vind. 1791); reprinted in 
Migne. 

Notte Theolog. Quartalschr. 1862 p. 624 sq 

OVERBECK Quaestionum Hippolytearum Specimen (Jena 1864). 

R&vILLE (A.) Revue des. Deux Mondes 1865, i. p. 892; Saint Hippolyte 
et la Société Chretienne de Rome au commencement du ILI’. Siecle. © 

RoEPER (G.) Philologus vu. p. 511 Sq, 607 sq, 767 (1852). 

Ruccerius (Const.) De Portuensi S. Hippolyti Eptscopi et Martyris 
Sede etc. (Romae 1771), reprinted in Lumper and in Migne. 
SALMON in Smith-Wace Duct. of Christ. Biogr. 1. p. 506 sq, 509, 

Chronicon Canisianum, Chronica Hlorosii; u. p. 679 Gnosticism ; 
ul. p. 85 sq, Aippolytus Romanus ; iv. p. 80 Ophites etc. 
Hlermathena 1. p. 82 sq (1874) Chronology of Hippolytus; XI. 
p- 389 sq (1885) Cross-references in the Philosophumena. 
Infallibility of the Church, p. 382 sq (London 1888). 
SmMEDT Dissertationes Selectae (Ghent 1876) De Auctore Philosophumenon 
p-. 83 sq. 
TILLEMONT AZemoires I. p. 238 sq, 672 sq. 
Uxntyorn Das Basilidianische System (Gottingen 1855). 
VOLKMAR Lippolytus und die Romischen Zeitgenossen (Zurich 1855). 
Westcott Canon of the New Testament Appendix C (ed. 6, 1888) 
Muratorian Canon. 
WorpswortTu (Bp Chr.) S¢ Aippolytus and the Church of Rome (ed. 2, 
Oxf. and Cambr. 1880). 


§ 3. 
NAMESAKES OF S. HIPPOLYTUS. 


Among these stands foremost the hero of Greek story, who has 
bequeathed not only his name, but also the myth of his death, to the 
Christian theologian and bishop. I need not however dwell now on 
this inherited legend, of which I shall have to speak hereafter. I would 
only remark on one other point of contact, which (over and above the 
name) might suggest the propriety of adapting the legend of the earlier 
Hippolytus to the later. The son of Theseus was the type and 
embodiment of continence in Greek mythology. The opponent of 
Zephyrinus and Callistus was the champion of purity in the Church— 
the severe opponent of any laxity which might endanger the virgin 
discipline of the Christian brotherhood, 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 371 


But my business now is rather with those contemporaries or nearly 
contemporaries—real or imaginary persons—who have been blended 
with the hero of the Tiburtine Way, and thus have confused his per- 
sonality and involved his history in endless perplexity. Of such name- 
sakes I single out five. 

(1) ippolytus the martyr of Antioch. Déllinger (p. 51 sq) sup- 
posed that he had read the riddle of this Antiochene martyr’s creation ; 
and indeed his solution seemed, with the imperfect knowledge which 
they then possessed, to be highly plausible. He supposed that the 
same passage of Eusebius which, as translated by Rufinus, had be- 
stowed on Hippolytus the see of Bostra (see below, p. 428), had also, 
as adopted by Jerome’, transformed him into a presbyter of Antioch. 
The notice in the Chronicon of Jerome (Euseb. Chron. 1. p. 179) 
under the year 227 is ‘Geminus presbyter Antiochenus et Hippolytus 
et Beryllus episcopus Arabiae Bostrenus clari scriptores habentur.’ 
Dollinger postulates the omission of ‘et’ in some copies, so that the 
connexion ‘presbyter Antiochenus Hippolytus’ would be established 
In the Hreronymian Martyrology we have under iii Kal. Febr. (Jan. 30) 


In Antiochia passio sancti Hippolyti martyris. 
Moreover on the previous day (Jan. 29) we have 
iv Kal. Feb. Hippolyti episcopi de antiquis, 


and on the succeeding (Jan. 31) there is also a mention of a Hippolytus. 
These all doubtless represent the same person, the notices having been 
derived from different but allied sources. Accordingly in the Of 
Roman Martyrology there is a similar notice on the same day 


Antiochiae passio sancti Hippolyti, 


and consequently his name occurs in this place in Ado and the later 
Latin Martyrologies. But Dollinger’s hypothesis offers no explanation 
of the difference of the day, iii Kal. Feb. in place of Id. Aug. 

The publication of Wright’s Syriac Martyrology shows that this 
Antiochene Martyr Hippolytus was a real person celebrated on this day 
from the beginning. 

Later Kanun [Jan.] 30 In the city of Antioch, Hippolytus. 

Here, as elsewhere, the contents of this ancient list have found their 


1 See AR.8.k. So far as regards to him elsewhere (Vir. /W/ustr. 64), where 
Hippolytus and Beryllus this notice is he describes him as ‘ Antiochenae eccle- 
taken from Euseb. H. £Z. vi. 20; but — siae presbyter,’ who flourished under the 
Eusebius does not mention Geminus. Je- emperor Alexander. 
rome himself however devotes a few lines 


24—2 


372 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


way into the Roman Martyrologies through the so-called Hieronymian. 
But they can tell us nothing about him; except that they transfer to 
him the notice ascribing the lapse into Novatianism and recantation 
which belongs first to the Roman Hippolytus. The Greek books 
are equally ignorant of any circumstances relating to the life or 
martyrdom of this Antiochene Hippolytus. But the A/enea, like the 
later Latin Martyrologies, clothe him with borrowed plumage taken 
from the martyr of the Tiburtine Way—adopting however not the 
Novatianism but the incidents of the Chryse legend as told in the 
Roman story (see AR. 44). But both Eastern and Western Martyro- 
logies preserve for this Antiochene Hippolytus his proper day. 

This Hippolytus therefore is a real person distinct from any Roman 
Hippolytus, as the Syriac Martyrology (p. 646) shows; and it is strange 
that a modern critic, Erbes, should have confused the two and imagined 
that he had found support for his theory of the Antiochene origin of 
the Roman Hippolytus. But he does not seem to have seen the notice 
in the Syriac Martyrology, which is the key to the whole position. I 
may mention by the way that the expression, ‘of the ancients,’ de 
antiguis, 1s Characteristic of this Syriac Martyrology and designates 
those martyrs and confessors who perished in some earlier persecution 
than the last under Diocletian, which was recent when the list was first 
drawn up. 

(2) Hippolytus, the Alexandrian connected with Dionysius. In his 
account of the letters of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria (A.D. 249— 
265), the historian Eusebius (4 Z. vi. 46) mentions among others one 
addressed to the Romans, which he describes as duaxovixy dia “ImroAvtov. 
This Hippolytus therefore must have been the delegate who was 
charged with delivering the letter. What may have been the purport of 
this letter dvaxovixy, de ministerizs or de diaconis, we cannot say. But as 
we are told on contemporary authority (see I. p. 255) that Fabianus 
bishop of Rome (fA. D. 250) about that time ‘regiones divisit dia- 
conibus,’ it is a reasonable conjecture that the letter had some reference 
to these arrangements. Cornelius the successor of Fabianus informs 
us (Z7.£. vi. 43) that there were in the Roman Church in his time 
‘seven deacons and seven subdeacons.’ We may therefore believe that 
there is some truth in the notice of the Liber Pontificalis (1. p. 64) 
found even in its earlier form (c. A.D. 530), which adds to the con- 
temporary notice above quoted ‘et fecit vii subdiaconos qui septem 
notarlis imminerent ut gesta martyrum fideliter colligerent.’ At all 
events this division of the city by Fabianus among the seven deacons 
was sufficiently important in the eyes of the contemporary chronicler to 


HIPPOLYTUS OF -PORTUS. Sia 


entitle it to a special notice which is unique of its kind in his chronicle. 
But however this may be, Hippolytus is a fairly common name, and 
we should want better evidence than we possess that the Roman 
Hippolytus was living and able to take a long journey at so very late a 
date; nor is there any notice which connects him even remotely with 
Alexandria. 

(3) Aippolytus the Greek captain of brigands. In the Vottia 
Portarum, Viarum, Ecclesiarum, or guide book of the close of the 
7th century, which William of Malmesbury has appended to his Gesta 
Anglorum, there is a notice referring to the papal crypt on the Appian 
way, ‘non longe pausant martyres Hippolitus, Adrianus, Eusebius, Maria, 
Martha, Paulina, Valeria, Marcellus’ (Rom. Soft. 1. p. 181). The 
portion of the Acts of these Greek martyrs is extant in a single 
Latin ms, of which the text has been carefully edited by De Rossi 
Rom. Sott. Wi. p. 201 sq. Baronius, who had first published them, 
took considerable liberties with the ms, so that his text is worth- 
less. The heading is; ‘Pridie Kl. Decembris festivitas sanctorum 
martyrum, Eusebii presbyteri, Marcelli diaconi, Hippolyti, Hadrias, 
Paulinae, Neon et Mariae, Maximi, Martanae, et Valeriae.’ The date 
given is ‘Valeriano et Lucullo consulibus’’ [4.pD. 265], but the persecut- 
ing emperor is represented to be Decius [a.D. 250—252] and the 
Roman bishop Stephen [a.p. 254—257]. They begin by describing 
how ‘ Hippolytus the monk’ lived in the crypts (‘in cryptis’) where he 
gathered together the believers in secret. The place is more than once 
called ‘arenarium.’ Paulina, the wife of Hadrias, is the sister of Hip- 
polytus, and Maria and Neon are their children, aged thirteen and ten 
respectively. They are all converted and undergo martyrdom, though 
not at the same time. Paulina suffers first, together with Eusebius the 
priest and Marcellus the deacon, and they are buried by Hippolytus in 
the ‘arenarium’ at the first mile-stone from the city. Then Neon and 
Maria; and they too are buried, vi Kal. Nov., ‘in ipsa via Appia milliario 
ab urbe Roma primo in arenario ipso ubi consueverant convenire.’ A 
few days afterwards Hadrias and Hippolytus are seized and beaten to 
death. Their bodies are left ‘in eodem loco juxta insulam Lycaoniam’; 
but a certain deacon* comes by night and reverently deposits them in 
the same ‘arenarlum’ with the rest v Id. Nov. Nine months later two 


1 De Rossi has been able to explain * The present text says ‘ venit quidam 
how a false consular date became attached Hippolytus diaconus noctu’; but obvi- 
to this persecution, Bzzl/. di Archeol. ously the transcriber through carelessness 
Crist. 1887, p. 65. has substituted the wrong name. 


374 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


Greek Christian ladies, Martana and her daughter Valeria, arrive in 
Rome. ‘They also die as confessors, apparently starved to death; and 
are buried in the same place iv Id. Dec. 

Though these Acts are free from the accumulation of horrors and of 
miracles which condemn so many other accounts of martyrdom, their 
chronological inconsistencies, not to mention other signs, show that 
they cannot be a contemporary or nearly contemporary record. De 
Rossi (&. S. 11. p. 200) contents himself with stating that in their 
present form they ought not to be placed later than about the eighth 
century. 

We have however older evidence for the story than these Acts in 
two inscriptions which were read by the medieval pilgrims in the ce- 
metery of Callistus in the neighbourhood of the papal crypt. They run 
as follows ; 


NATA MARIA SIMUL CARO CUM FRATRE NIONE 
GAUDENTES SACRAM PROMERUERE FIDEM 

DIVITIAS PROPRIAS CHRISTI PRAECEPTA SECUTI 
PAUPERIBUS LARGA DISTRIBUERE MANU 

QUORUM PRECLARIS MONITIS MULTOQUE LABORE 
ACCESSIT SUMMO SANCTA CATERVA DEO 

POST ANIMAS CHRISTO TRADENTES SANGUINE FUSO 
UT VITAM CAPERENT NON TIMUERE MORI 

HORUM VIRTUTES QUEM PASSIO LECTA DOCEBIT 
RITE SUIS FAMULIS DISCET ADESSE DEUM 


OLIM SACRILEGAM QUAM MISIT GRAECIA TURBAM 
MARTYRII MERITIS NUNC DECORATA NITET; 
QUAE MEDIO PELAGI VOTUM MISERABILE FECIT 
REDDERE FUNEREO DONA NEFANDA JOVI. 
YPOLITI SED PRIMA FIDES CELESTIBUS ARMIS 
RESPUIT INSANAM PESTIFERAMQUE LUEM. 
QUEM MONACHI RITU TENUIT SPELUNCA LATENTEM 
CHRISTICOLIS GREGIBUS DULCE CUBILE PARANS 
POST HUNC ADRIAS SACRO MUNDATUS IN AMNE 
ET PAULINA SUO CONSOCIATA VIRO. 
xili K. JUN. 


These inscriptions are given by De Rossi Rom. Soft. 111. p. 194 (comp. 
I. p. 263) and in Luscr. Christ. Urb. Rom. u. p. 66 sq. For reasons 
which seemed satisfactory, but which it is unnecessary to repeat here, 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 375 


De Rossi had inferred that these inscriptions must be anterior to the 
7th century and were probably written in the 5th or at the latest in the 
6th (111. p. 197). A few letters of the first inscription itself have been 
discovered very recently (Bud/. di Archeol. Crist. 1887, p. 60 sq), which 
fully confirm this surmise. They suggest the age of Symmachus as the 
date of the inscription. The fragment contains the date v Id. Nov. at 
the heading, which is the day of Hippolytus’ martyrdom. 

Our evidence however goes much farther back than this date. In 
the inscription which pope Damasus (A.D. 366—384) placed in or near 
the papal crypt he enumerated the illustrious dead who were buried 
there (see Rom. Soft. 11. p. 23; comp. Luscr. Christ. Urb. Rom, 1. 
p. 66); and among these are specified 


HIC POSITUS LONGA VIXIT QUI IN PACE SACERDOS 
HIC CONFESSORES SANCTI QUOS GRAECIA MISIT, 


where we have evidently a reference to this same group of Greek 
martyrs and confessors of whom this Hippolytus was the chief; though 
he does not tell us any particulars about them. To one of this group, 
possibly to Hippolytus himself, may refer the Damasian verses Juser. 
Christ. Urb. Rom. i. p. 108, where he apostrophizes a certain martyr 
‘quod fama refert, te Graecia misit,’ but it throws no additional light on 
the subject. 

Comparing the extant Acts with the inscriptions above cited, which 
once were read in the cemetery of Callistus, we see that these Acts 
take up the story at a late point, after the conversion of Hippolytus. 
They must therefore have lost their beginning; or at all events they 
presuppose some previous document giving an account of the earlier 
history. This story related how Hippolytus was the captain of a band 
of Greek robbers ; how on his voyage he had vowed a vow to Stygian 
Jove (funereo Jovi) or Pluto; how arrived at Rome he had established 
himself in an arenarium or disused cave whence sand had been ex- 
tracted ; how he had been converted to the Christian faith and exchanged 
the life of a free-booter for the life of a recluse (‘monachi’); how he had 
been instrumental in the conversion of his companions and gathered 
together a Christian congregation in this cave; and how finally he had 
left this arenarium as a catacomb (‘dulce cubile’) for Christian folk—he 
himself and his companions being buried there. 

These are doubtless the martyrs who are commemorated in the 
Hieronymian Martyrology under xiii Kal. Jul., where the notice as 
corrected by De Rossi (Rom. Sott. 1. p. 2643; comp. ill. p. 197) from a 
comparison of Mss runs 


376 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


Romae in coemeterio Hippolyti sanctorum Honorii, Evodii, Petri, 
Valeriae, etc.’ 


thus giving xiii Kal. Jul. where the inscription (as transcribed) has 
xiii Kal. Jun., so that there must be an error in the one or the other. 
This is a very common form of blunder, see e.g. /gnat. and FPolyc., 
Ep. 000, eo. 1; p..633, ed. 2. 

On this notice De Rossi points out that the consuls of the year 386, 
Honorius and Evodius, are mixed up with the names of the martyrs, 
probably (as he suggests, 111. p. 197) because the bodies of Gervasius 
and Protasius, commemorated on this same day (xiii Kal. Jul.), were 
discovered in this year. Marcellus is connected with these Greek 
martyrs in the Acts, as we have seen; but of Petrus, here associated 
with them, no account has been given. Of Maria and Neon there are 
some traces though very corrupt in this M/artyrology under vi Kal. Nov. 
The bodies of Hippolytus, Adrias, Maria, Neon and Paulina were de- 
posited in S, Agatha of the Suburra under Leo IX (a. D. 1048—1054); 
but whether they were translated thither straight from their original 
resting place we do not know. 

A description of the catacomb supposed by De Rossi to be the 
arenarium of Hippolytus to the N.E. of the cemetery of Callistus is given 
in Rom. Sott. U1. p. 213 8q, p. 301 sq (see Tay. xlii—xlv). He places it in 
the second half of the third and beginning of the fourth century. From 
this sanctuary on the Appian Way, not from the more famous cemetery 
on the Tiburtine, was taken in the year 1646 the sepulchral in- 
scription bearing the words aT EPOLITV (ad Hippolytum); see om. 
Sott. 11. p. 215, Bull. dt Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 48. 3 

(4) Hippolytus the soldier, the warder of S. Laurence. Much has 
been written on the supposed confusion of Hippolytus the theologian 
and Hippolytus the soldier; and not a few critics have found in this 
confusion the key to most of the perplexities which confront us in the 
story of Hippolytus. I shall have occasion to discuss the whole subject 
at a subsequent point; and it will then be shown that this was not a 
case of confusion. ‘There was no Hippolytus the warder of S. Laurence 
distinct from Hippolytus the famous divine: but at a very late period 
in his legendary career popular opinion transformed him from a cleric 
into a soldier, connecting him at the same time with S. Laurence. 


1 In the Berne Ms, generally our best pian way with the more famous Cemetery 
authority for the text of this Wartyrology, ofthe more famous Hippolytus ; see Rom. 
the scribe has inserted VIA TIBVRTINA,  Sof¢z. 11. p. 198. 
thus confusing this arenarium on the Ap- 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 377 


(5) Lippolytus of Thebes, a writer of the eleventh century; on whom 
see Fabricius 4707. Graec. vu. p. 198 sq, ed. Harles. Fragments of this 
writer are included in Fabricius Hippol. Of. 1. App. p. 43 sq. He is © 
quoted by Michael Glycas as ‘ImreAutos 0 OnBatos. In Niceph. Call. 
H. E. ii. 3 a fragment of this writer is given as from Hippolytus és 
Iloprov ris mpecBurépas “Pudyys érioxoros érvyxavev wv. He was the 
author of a Chronicle (xpovixov otvtaypa). The accounts De Duodecim 
Afpostolis and De Septuaginta Discipulis, which have sometimes been 
included in the works of our Hippolytus, are his. 


S$ 4. 
GAIUS QR AIPPOLYTUS ? 


Gaius, the Roman presbyter, plays an important part in the literary 
history of Christianity at the opening of the third century. If the 
ravages of time have spared only fragments of his works, he has not 
been more hardly treated in this respect than many famous writers of 
the Antenicene Church. Even without the important fragment desig- 
nated the Muratorian Canon, and the elaborate Refutation of all 
Heresies discovered in our own generation, both of which works have 
been ascribed to him by some modern critics, the literary remains 
bearing his name with the accompanying notes occupy some thirty 
pages in Routh’s collection. Will it be thought audacious if I venture 
to question the existence of such a person ? 

The works attributed to Gaius by ancient writers and included under 
his name by Routh are the following: 

(1) The Dealogue with Proclus, directed against the Montanists. 
It is quoted several times by Eusebius, who mentions Gaius as the 
author (/7. £. ii. 25, 11; 28; 31, vi. 20). 

(2) A treatise on the Cause of the Universe, directed against the 
Platonic’ doctrine. Photius (4. 32. a) states that certain persons 
attribute it to Gaius. Aconsiderable fragment of this work is extant. 

(3) The Lzttle Labyrinth, from which long quotations are given by 
Eusebius, and which is mentioned by name by Theodoret (AR. 12 e). 
Of the relation of this work to the Zadyrinth of Photius I shall have 
something to say hereafter (p. 378 sq). 

(4) A treatise Against the Heresy of Artemon, mentioned by Pho- 
tius (AR. 32. a) as assigned to Gaius. 


378 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


But besides the works above enumerated, of whose literary parentage 
some account must be given, before we can dispose of Gaius, certain 
facts are recorded of his life, which seem at first sight to give him a 
substantial existence and to resist any attempt to annihilate him. 

We learn from Eusebius that he was a member of the Catholic 
Church (éxxAyo.actixos avyp); that he was a man of great learning 
(Aoyuwraros); that he resided at Rome; that he held the dialogue with 
the Montanist Proclus during the pontificate of Zephyrinus; and that he 
received only thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, thus excluding the Epistle to 
the Hebrews. Jerome, as usual, derives all his knowledge from Euse- 
bius, and repeats the same statements somewhat more loosely. Theodoret 
only knows Gaius as the writer of the Dialogue against Proclus. Photius 
(AR. 32. a) is somewhat fuller. ‘This Gaius,’ he writes, ‘is reported to 
have been a presbyter of the Church in Rome during the pontificate of 
Victor and Zephyrinus, and to have been ordained bishop of the 
Gentiles.’ 

I have already alluded to the fact that the ‘Refutation of all 
Heresies,’ which was brought to light less than forty years ago, was 
added to the literary achievements of Gaius by several able critics. This 
fresh honour was the immediate occasion of his downfall. The Refuta- 
tion is now ascribed by pretty general consent to his learned contem- 
porary Hippolytus. On this point the representatives of the most 
opposite schools—Bunsen, Wordsworth, Dollinger—are agreed; and 
the coincidence with respect to the authorship is the more striking, 
because the work affords material for manifold theological contro- 
versy. 

Unhappily for the fame of Gaius the Refutation cannot stand alone. 
Its author must have written all the treatises ascribed by ancient 
authorities to this learned Roman presbyter with the exception of the 
Dialogue with Proclus. 

The Treatise against Artemon may be conveniently taken first. There 
cannot be much doubt that this treatise is identical with the Zztile Laby- 
vinth mentioned by Theodoret (AR. 12. e). For though the extant 
fragments are directed chiefly against Theodotus, another leading 
monarchian, yet Eusebius, to whom we are indebted for their preser- 
vation, says that the work was written ‘against the heresy of Artemon’ 
(H. £. v. 28); and Theodoret, after mentioning both Artemon and 
Theodotus, says ‘against the heresy of these men was composed the 
Little Labyrinth,’ f 

The testimony of Photius (4A. 32. a) requires careful scrutiny. 
After discussing the authorship of the Zveatise on the Universe he men- 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 379 


tions marginal notes (év wapaypadais) to the effect that it was written by 
Gaius, an elder living in Rome, who they say composed Zhe Labyrinth 
also, and of whom a Dralogue is extant against a certain Proclus, 
champion of the Montanist sect; which (treatise Ox the Universe) 
being left anonymous has been ascribed to diverse persons, just as 
The Labyrinth has been ascribed by one to Origen. But ‘in truth,’ he 
continues, ‘it is the work of Gaius who composed Zhe Labyrinth, as 
he himself testifies that the 7reatise on the Nature of the Universe is 
his.’ ‘They say that this Gaius,’ he adds, ‘composed another treatise 
also specially directed against the heresy of Artemon, and an important 
Dialogue against Proclus, a champion of Montanus.’ 

What does Photius mean by this Zabyrinth ? Shall we identify it 
with the Zztt/e Labyrinth of Theodoret? Our first impulse is to identify 
the two; but, if so, Photius must have given an incorrect account, 
for he obviously contemplates two separate works. This however he 
might very well have done, since he seems not to have seen the Lii#le 
Labyrinth. But another solution offers itself, which deserves more 
consideration. There is every reason to believe that the Summary 
comprising the roth book of the Phzlosophumena was circulated sepa- 
rately from the main portion of the treatise, and fell into the hands 
of some who were unacquainted with the rest. Now in the opening 
words of this 1oth book Hippolytus says that after ‘breaking through 
the Labyrinth of Heresies,’ he will proceed to the Demonstration of the 
Truth. It would seem therefore that this summary was known as the 
Labyrinth from the opening words. This explains the further statement 
of Photius that ‘at the close of the Labyrinth he testifies that he wrote 
the treatise On the Nature of the Universe’; for in one of the final 
chapters the author of the Philosophumena (x. 32) refers his readers to 
this work, as his own. 

But though different works are probably indicated by the Lztéle 
Labyrinth and the Labyrinth, the nomenclature points to the identity 
of authorship. The same person, who would describe a general work 
on heresies as penetrating a labyrinth, would select as the appropriate 
title for a special treatise dealing with a particular group of heresies the 
Little Labyrinth. Thus the reference in the Philosophumena gives an 
additional confirmation of the Hippolytean authorship of the treatise 
Against Artemon. Even before the discovery of the PAzlosophumena, 
Routh had suggested this as the probable inference from the facts 
before him’. 


1 In the Fournal of Philology p. 98 sq, appeared in its original form, I had 
where this essay Gaius or Hippolytus? identified the Little Labyrinth of Theo- 


eno. EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


The Little Labyrinth. The comparison of Eusebius with Theodoret 
leaves no doubt that by this name the treatise Against Artemon is meant 
as I have just shown. Gaius therefore is deprived of the credit of the 
authorship of this work. Indeed the identification of the two supplies 
additional grounds for turning to Hippolytus as the true author. 

To Hippolytus also must be assigned the (Vature of the Universe. 
For this ascription there are abundant reasons, as I shall show below 
(p. 395 sq). It is sufficient to say here that the author of the Pefutatio 
distinctly claims it as his own work ; and no case has been made out for 
denying the Refutatio to Hippolytus. Indeed we may consider this 
latter point as established irrefragably, whatever doubt may have been 
entertained among critics at an earlier date. 


[The above paragraphs are taken partly from an article which I 
wrote in 1868 in the Journal of Philology 1. p. 98 sq, in which I 
was disposed to maintain that Gaius was only the double of Hippolytus, 
and that a/7 the works ascribed to the former belong nghtly to the 
latter. Only here and there a correction of statement has been rendered 
necessary in the foregoing paragraphs by further knowledge. So far I 
adhere to my former opinions. But in the light of recent discovery, as 
I shall explain presently, I feel myself no longer able to maintain this 
extreme view. It is now quite certain that there was a certain Gaius, 
against whom Hippolytus wrote. Yet my former discussion seems to 
me worth while reproducing in part, because it brings out many 
difficulties attending the question which have never been solved and 
because it offers some suggestions which may not be useless in other 
ways even in the light of further knowledge. If we could suppose the 
writer against the Montanists to be Hippolytus, and the opponent 
of the Apocalypse some unknown person of the name, we should have 
a solution of our difficulties; but I feel that I have no right to suggest 
this solution, except provisionally, with the evidence now before me. | 


Thus stripped of his borrowed plumage, Gaius retains only the 
Dialogue with Proclus the Montanist. Of this work a brief notice 
is given by Eusebius, who also preserves two or three short fragments. 
It appears from these that the dialogue professed to have been held in 
Rome during the pontificate of Zephyrinus ; that Gaius was the orthodox 


doret with the Labyrinth of Photius, as the roth book of the Phzlosophumena 
writers before me had done; but the gives another aspect to the question. The 
investigations of subsequent critics, show- _ two can no longer, I think, be treated as 
ing the separate use of the Summary in titles of the same work. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 381 


and Proclus the Montanist disputant ; that in defending the prophesyings 
of his sect Proclus appealed to the four daughters of Philip, who with 
their father were buried at Hierapolis; and that, as a set-off against 
these precious reliques, Gaius offered to show his antagonist the tombs 
of St Peter and St Paul, the one at the Vatican, the other on the 
Ostian Way. Moreover, a passage is quoted (obviously from a speech 
of Gaius), which, as the exact expressions have an important bearing on 
the subject of this paper, I shall here quote at length: 

“ But Cerinthus also, by means of revelations purporting to have 
been written by a great apostle, lyingly imposes upon us marvellous 
prodigies which he professes to have been shown him by angels, 
saying that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ is an earthly 
kingdom, and again that men shall live in Jerusalem in the flesh 
and be the slaves of lusts and pleasures. And, being an enemy 
to the scriptures of God, he would fain deceive, and says that a tale 
of a thousand years is to be spent in marriage festivities’.” 

Having thus given the facts which bear upon the decision, I will 
state my hypothesis. Unless I am mistaken, it explains all the pheno- 
mena better than they have hitherto been explained ; and, if so, it may 
fairly claim a hearing. 

Gaius is simply an interlocutor in a dialogue against the Montanists 
written by Hippolytus. By this person, who takes the orthodox side in 
the discussion, Hippolytus may have intended himself, or he may have 
invented an imaginary character for dramatic purposes. In other 
words, such a dialogue may really have taken place, or the narrative may 
be fictitious from beginning to end. In the former case, we may 
suppose that Gaius was his own praenomen; for then he would naturally 
so style himself in the dialogue, just as Cicero appears under the name 
of Marcus in his own writings. Not being a slave and being in some 
sense a Roman, Hippolytus must almost necessarily have had two 
names, if not more; just as his Alexandrian contemporary is styled in 
full T. Flavius Clemens, and his African contemporary Q. Septimius 
Florens Tertullianus. Such a combination as Gaius Hippolytus -is 
natural in itself, and indeed occurs in an extant inscription found at 
Placentia; Q. POBLICIO L.L.c. HIPPOLYTUS*”. On the latter supposition 


1 Euseb. H £. ul. 28 adda cal Xpicrov' cal wddw émidvulas al ndovais 
KypwOos 6 dv droxadiWewv ws vo amo- é ‘Iepovoadnu Tyy capka moNdTevomévny 
oro\ov meyadou yeypauuévev Tepatoroyias  dovrevew. Kal éxOpos irapywy Tals ypagats 
hu ws oe dyyékuww at’rd Sederypévas Tod Oeod dpiOudy xudovTaetias Ev yduw 
Wevddmevos émerodyer, éywy pera THY  éopTns OéXwv mravay Néyer yevéoOa. 
dvdoracw éemlyevov elvat TO Bacidevov Tov 2 Gruter, DCCCCLXXXIX. 4. 


382 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


(that Gaius is an imaginary person), we may appeal to the legal formula 
‘Ubi tu Gaius, ego Gaia,’ as suggesting that Hippolytus might avail 
himself of the name which corresponds to the anonymous N. or M. of 
our own formularies'. Of the former kind of dialogue, where the author 
himself is the orthodox disputant, the work of Justin against Trypho may 
be taken as a type: of the latter, where a fictitious person maintains the 
right cause, the dispute between Jason and Papiscus by Ariston of 
Pella will serve as an example’. 

I suppose then that the copies of the Dialogue in general circulation 
were anonymous. The title may have run AdAoyos Tatov cat Ipdxdov 
(or zpos IpdxXov) 7 Kata Movravorav. A writer, into whose hands this 
Dialogue fell, would naturally infer, as Eusebius inferred, (and the 
analogy of Justin’s work would favour the inference), that Gaius was the 
actual author of the book. The few particulars which Eusebius gives 
respecting the life of Gaius were doubtless drawn from the Dialogue 
itself. Those which are added by Photius came from the other 
writings attributed to Gaius, from the Cause of the Universe or the 
Labyrinth, or perhaps even from the efutation itself. The critics, 
whom he quotes and to whom he is indebted for these particulars, had 
observed the cross references from one work to another and correctly 
inferred therefrom the identity of authorship. Among these cross references 
was one which connected the authorship of the Dialogue of Gaius and 
Proclus with the other works, just as these are connected among them- 
selves and proved to belong to the same author. Hence Gaius assumed 
to be the author of the Dialogue was credited with the other works 
also. 

This is the explanation of the fact that all the particulars, which are 
predicated of Gaius, are predicated or predicable of Hippolytus also. 
They both flourish during the same pontificates ; they are both styled 
‘presbyters,’ and both live in Rome; they both receive only thirteen 
Epistles as written by St Paul, excluding the Epistle to the Hebrews ; 
they both are men of great learning, though the Roman Church for 
some generations before and after this time was singularly devoid of 


literary eminence. And lastly, we have here an explanation of the 


1 So Tertullian AZo/. 3 ‘Nemo re- 
tractat, ne ideo bonus Gaius et prudens 
Lucius, quia Christianus’; 726. 48 ‘At 
enim Christianus, si de homine hominem 
ipsumque de Gaio Gaium repromittat.’ 

2 The work of Minucius Felix stands 
midway between the two; for, while the 


chief disputant on the right side is a 
third person, the writer himself is sup- 
posed to be present. Another instance 
of an early polemical writing thrown into 
the form of a dialogue is the dispute of 
Archelaus and Manes. (Routh’s el. 
Sacr. Vv. p. 3 Sq.) 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 383 


otherwise not very intelligible statement, that Gaius was appointed 
‘bishop of the Gentiles’ (4. 32. a); for Hippolytus in the Refutation 
speaks of himself as holding the episcopal office (42. 1), and addresses 
the Gentiles more than once as though they were his special charge’. 
If the designation ‘bishop of the Gentiles’ is not strictly correct, it was 
at least a very easy inference from his language in this work; and 
probably he expressed himself similarly elsewhere, when the occasion 
demanded, as for instance in the treatise on the Universe addressed to 
the Greeks. 

To this identification of Gaius and Hippolytus another ancient 
notice also points. The extant manuscripts of the Martyrdom of Poly- 
carp profess to be derived ultimately from a copy which was ‘tran- 
scribed from the writings (or manuscripts or lectures) of Irenus the 
disciple of Polycarp by Gaius who also was intimate with Irenzeus2.’ 
Now I shall not stop to enquire whether this postscript to the account 
of Polycarp’s martyrdom contains authentic matter or not; but in any 
case it would seem that the transcriber here intended was none other 
than our Gaius, the Roman presbyter; for he is the only notable per- 
sonage of the name and age, whose attestation would be of value to 
accredit the genuineness of the narrative. If so, it is remarkable that 
he is represented as a disciple of Ireneus. For Hippolytus also at- 
tended the lectures of this father, and was much indebted to them for 
the materials of his earlier Compendium against Heresies. In his later 
Refutation also he twice mentions Irenzus as ‘the blessed elder,’ and 
in the second of the two passages avows his great obligations to him 
(Ref. Haer. vi. 42, 45). May we suppose that Gaius in the Dialogue 
with Proclus expresses himself similarly with respect to this father ? 

Again, the hypothesis of an anonymous copy falls in with another 
class of facts mentioned above. The knowledge of Eusebius was limited 
in character and extent by the materials within his reach. To the 
library at Caesarea, collected by the diligence of his friend Pamphilus, 
we probably owe the valuable remains of early Christian literature which 
he has preserved to us; and, where this library was defective, his know- 
ledge would be defective also. Now it appears to have contained some 
volumes bearing the name of Hippolytus; for, though he passes over 


1 x. 31, 32, 34- In the close of the Eipyvatov uadyrod rod Tlo\vkdprrov, 6s Kal 


treatise, which is wanting, he may have 
alluded to his episcopate more directly, in 
connexion with the Gentiles to whom 
this peroration is addressed. 


> n ’ \ Jee bd ~ 
“ Tara weteypavaro uev Taios €x rwv 


guveTouTevcaTo T@ Hipnvalw; or, as it 
appears in the Moscow MS, ék TovTwy ov, 
ws mpodéXexTat, Tov Tov Eipnvatov ovy- 
ypauparwy Taios wereypayaro (see Jenat. 
and Polyc. Il. pp. 401, 403, ed. 2). 


384 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


this father very lightly, he gives a list of several books written by him, 
adding, ‘And you may find very many works besides still extant in the 
hands of many persons’ (#7. Z£. vi. 22). But, in addition to the works 
which he enumerates, the library also contained another stray volume, 
from which the writer’s name was accidentally omitted, and of which 
Eusebius therefore did not recognise the authorship. This volume 
comprised the Dialogue of Gaius and Proclus, the Little Labyrinth, and 
the Cause of the Universe. ‘The first of these Eusebius ascribes to Gaius 
(of whom he evidently knows nothing besides), because Gaius is the 
orthodox interlocutor. The second he quotes but quotes anonymously, 
not knowing who was the author. Of the third it is worth remarking 
this negative fact, that he has not included it in his list of the works of 
Hippolytus, though it is so included in the catalogue on the statue. 
From its subject it probably would not assist his historical researches, 
and he therefore does not quote from it, and probably did not read it. 
In the same form also—perhaps in a copy transcribed from the arche- 
type in the Cesarean library—the three anonymous treatises fell into 
the hands of the critic or critics mentioned by Photius. They saw from 
the cross-references that the three works must be ascribed to the same 
author ; and, either following Eusebius or drawing the same easy but 
incorrect inference independently, they attributed the Dialogue against 
the Montanists to one Gaius. To Gaius therefore this anonymous 
volume was assigned. 


But independently of the theory itself, are there reasons for sup- 
posing that Hippolytus ever did write against Montanism? There is 
at least a presumption, that so ruthless a scourge of heterodoxy in all 
its forms should not have left this type of error unassailed. Besides 
writing two general works against all the heresies—his earlier Compen- 
dium, the little book read by Photius, and apparently preserved (though 
not without considerable modifications) in the Latin treatise attached 
to the Praescriptio of Tertullian (see below, p. 413 sq), and his later and 
fuller work, the Refutation, first brought to light and published in our 
own generation—he likewise attacked in special treatises the more im- 
portant heresies which were rife in his own age and church. We have 
seen how he refuted the monarchian doctrines of Theodotus and 
Artemon, by which the Roman community was assailed about this 
time. We have moreover an extant fragment of a work against Noetus 
(whether an independent treatise or not), whose heretical views also 
threatened this same church in his day. He wrote likewise against 
Marcion. It would seem strange therefore if so persistent a champion 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 385 


of orthodoxy had been silent about Montanism, which was certainly one 
of the most formidable antagonists of the Catholic Church among the 
Roman Christians at this time. 

On the other hand, in the Aefiutation he dismisses this heresy very 
briefly. Bunsen complains that ‘the whole article is meagre,’ and fails 
to fulfil the promise which Hippolytus made at the outset, that he 
would leave no form of error unanswered. I think this meagreness is 
easily explained on the hypothesis which I have put forward. Just as 
in a previous section Hippolytus had dismissed the heresy of Theodotus 
(though second in importance to none in its influence on the Christian 
history of his time) with a very few lines’, because he had controverted 
it in the Little Labyrinth, so now he disposes of Montanism with the 
same despatch, because he either has written, or intends to write, a 
special treatise on the subject. If the words which follow refer, as they 
perhaps do, not to the Noetians who are mentioned just before, but to 
the Montanists who are the main subject of the paragraph, this polemical 
work was still an unaccomplished project. ‘Concerning these,’ he says, 
‘I will write more in detail at a future time.’ The supposition that the 
Dialogue was not yet written, though projected, is quite consistent with 
the fact, that the discussion which it reproduced purported to have been 
held during the pontificate of Zephyrinus. The Refutation indeed was 
not written till after the death of Callistus, the successor of Zephyrinus. 
But, as Callistus only held the see for four years (219—223), no long 
time need have elapsed between the supposed date of the discussion 
and the publication of the Dzalogue, so that no dramatic propriety 
would be violated. But on either supposition, whether the Déalogue 
existed already, or was only planned in the author’s mind, the fact 
would explain why he is satisfied with this very cursory notice of the 
Montanists in his great work. 

From this Dialogue also Stephanus Gobarus (4. 20) may have 
quoted, when, as represented by Photius, he stated ‘what opinions the 
most holy Hippolytus held concerning the Montanists.’ The account 
of these heretics in the Refwtation is almost too short to explain this 


1 Ref. Haer. viii. 19. Another case in 
point is the article on the Quartodecimans 
(viii. 18), who are dismissed still more 
summarily. Hippolytus had discussed 
them in his treatise On the Passover. 
In all these three cases Bunsen (A7- 
polytus 1. pp. 376, 382, 385) supposes 
that our manuscript has preserved only 
an abstract of what Hippolytus wrote. 


CLEM. II. 


The account I have given in the text 
seems to me much more probable. At 
the same time I am disposed to think 
that the Refutation was left unfinished by 
its author, and that he had intended to 
expand these meagre articles, making use 
of his special treatises for this purpose. 
This hypothesis will explain much which 


needs explanation in the form of the work. 


25 


386 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 

language. And, if the Latin of the Pseudo-Tertullian at all adequately 
represents his earlier work, the Compendium also was equally brief. 
Indeed in the later work he does little more than repeat the statements 
of the earlier respecting these heretics. 

It only remains to enquire, whether the extant fragments of the 
Dialogue are consistent with the hypothesis that Hippolytus was the 
author. 

As regards style, the work might well have been written by this father; 
though any inference drawn from such scanty extracts can have but little 
value. The matter however presents some difficulty. The inference 
has been often drawn from the passage quoted above (see p. 381)’, that 
the writer of the Dialogue considered the Apocalypse of S. John to bea 
forgery of Cerinthus; and, if this inference were true, my hypothesis 
must be abandoned; for Hippolytus not only quoted largely from the 
Apocalypse as a work of S. John, but also, as we have seen, wrote a 
book in its defence. This adverse interpretation however may reason- 
ably be questioned. It is difficult to see how an intelligent person 
should represent the Apocalypse as teaching that in the Kingdom of 
Christ ‘men should live in the flesh in Jerusalem and be the slaves of 
lust and pleasures,’ and again that ‘a thousand years should be spent in 
marriage festivities®.’ It is hardly less difficult to imagine how a man 
of great learning, as the author of the Dza/ogue is represented to have 
been, could have reconciled such a theory with the known history and 
tenets of Cerinthus. It must be confessed indeed that Dionysius of 
Alexandria appears so to have interpreted the language of Gaius in the 
Dialogue. At all events he speaks of some previous writers (twés Tov 
Tpo nov) as maintaining that the Apocalypse was written by Cerinthus, 
and describes their views in language somewhat resembling the passage 
of the Dialogue (Euseb. H. £. vii. 25 ; comp. ill. 28); though he him- 
self, while questioning the Apostolic authorship of the book, has the 
good sense and feeling to reject this solution as untenable. It is not 
so clear that Eusebius also understood the passage in the same way. 


1 Neander (II. p. 441 Bohn’s transl.) 
writes thus: ‘Moreover it deserves con- 


know in what respect the opinions of 
these two fathers were contrasted by 


sideration in this respect, that by Stephanus 
Gobarus the judgments of Hippolytus and 
of Gregory of Nyssa respecting the Mon- 
tanists are set one against the other, so 
that we may conclude that the former 
belonged to the defenders of Montanism.’ 
And others have attributed Montanizing 
views to Hippolytus. But we do not 


Stephanus, if they were contrasted. At 
all events Hippolytus in the Refutation 
speaks quite as strongly against the 
Montanists as the case justifies. 

2 The word ydauos however need not 
signify a marriage festival, as it is used 
elsewhere of festivities generally; e.g. 
LXxX, Esth. iv. 22. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 387 


On the other hand Theodoret adopted a different interpretation. 
‘Cerinthus,’ writes this father, ‘also invented certain revelations pre- 
tending to have seen them himself (Ws avros rePeapévos). Against him 
not only have the above-named persons written, but with them also 
Gaius and Dionysius the Bishop of Alexandria (4. 12 d).’ So 
interpreted, the passage signifies that Cerinthus set himself up for ‘a 
great apostie’ who had revelations’: and this is more in accordance 
with his attitude towards S. John as it appears in other ancient notices. 
But, whatever be the exact bearing of the words ws vad amocroXov 
peyadov yeypaypevor, the description is inappropriate to the Apocalypse 
of our Canon. Nor indeed is it likely that an orthodox presbyter of the 
Roman Church should have so written of a book which a contemporary 
presbyter of the same Church reverenced as the genuine work of an 
inspired Apostle; for the author of the Déa/ogue does not write as one 
who is putting forward an opinion which would be contested by his own 
compeers. 

If may be said, however, that at all events Gaius attacks the millen- 
narians, whereas Hippolytus himself held millennial views. But both 
propositions involved in this statement are open to question. Gaius 
did indeed condemn a sensuous millennium, but it is by no means clear 
that the passage goes so far as to condemn Chiliastic doctrine in all its 
forms. On the other hand it is not certain that Hippolytus was a 
Chiliast at all, while it is quite certain that he must have scouted all 
Chiliastic views which wore a sensuous garb. As regards the first point, 
he does indeed maintain that the world will last six thousand years, cor- 
responding to the six days of creation, and that afterwards will come the 
reign of Christ, of which the Sabbath is the type’, but the parallel is not 
pressed so far as to insist upon the same duration for his antitypical 
sabbath as for his antitypical working-day; and he elsewhere speaks of 
the second Advent in such a way as to leave no room for a millennium. 
It is at least remarkable, that though he again and again enlarges on 
eschatological subjects he is wholly silent on this one point, even where 
the subject would naturally lead him to state the doctrine, if he held 
it*. But, if it is hardly probable that Hippolytus held Chiliastic opinions 


1 See the parallel given by Routh (II. p. 
139) from Apollonius in Euseb. 7.Z. v. 18, 
fuipovmevos Tov amrdcTOAOY, KaboNKHY TWA 
guvTatdmevos emicro\nv, speaking of one 
Themiso, a Montanist. The more natural 
interpretation of the words however seems 
to be, that Cerinthus palmed off his 


forged Apocalypses under the name of 
some Apostle, perhaps S. Peter. 

2 Hippol. Fragm. 59 (on Daniel), 
p- 153 (Lagarde). 

° See the treatise on Antichrist through- 
out (especially c. 44 sq), besides several 
fragments bearing on the subject. 


25—2 


388 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


of any kind, it is quite certain that he would have condemned, as strongly 
as any one, the sensuous conception of the millennium attributed by 
Cerinthus in the Dza/ogue. ‘Inthe resurrection,’ he writes, ‘men shall be 
as angels of God: that is to say, in incorruption and immortality and 
immutability (apevoia). For incorruptible being is not born, does not 
grow, does not sleep, does not hunger, does not thirst, does not toil, 
does not suffer, does not die, is not pierced by nails and spear, does not 
sweat, does not shed blood: such beings are those of the angels and of 
souls released from bodies; for both these are different in kind from 
(Erepoyevets), and alien to, the visible and corruptible creation of the (pre- 
sent) world’.’ 


When the above essay was written, I had thought also that the 
Heads against Gaius, which are mentioned in Ebedjesu’s list (A. 37) 
might have been this very Dialogue of Gaius and Proclus, which Euse- 
bius mentions; and that owing to a careless heading, or to a superficial 
impression derived from its opening sentences, it might have been taken 
to be written against Gaius, because the interlocutor Proclus, who 
perhaps opened the debate, was found arguing against him. ‘Thus the 
last vestige of evidence for the existence of Gaius as distinct from Hip- 
polytus would have disappeared. But only last year Prof. Gwynn of 
Dublin discovered and published from Dionysius Barsalibi several frag- 
ments from this very treatise, in which Hippolytus maintains against 
Gaius the genuineness and authority of the Apocalypse of S. John 
(see below, p. 394 sq). Gaius therefore is alive once more, though he 
seemed to me to be dead. But, whether this is really Gaius the Roman 
presbyter or another, may perhaps be still an open question. 


§ 5. 
THE LITERARY WORKS OF HIPPOLYTUS. 


With most writers the obvious order would be the life first and the 
works afterwards. The works are the fruit and consequence of the life; 
the works live and flourish after the life is ended. But with Hippolytus 
it is convenient to reverse the natural order. We know next to nothing 
about Hippolytus except what we learn from his own works; and, as the 
genuineness of the productions ascribed to him is beset in many cases 
with great difficulties, we are quite powerless to deal with the life, until 
the preliminary questions affecting these are first settled. 


1 Hippol. Fragm. 9, p. go (Lagarde). 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 389 


In the following account I have been greatly assisted by J. A. Fabri- 
cius Bib/. Graec. vu. p. 183 sq (ed. Harles); Bunsen Aippolytus and 
flis Age \. p. 514 sq (1854); Caspari Zaufsymbol u. Glaubensregel 11. 
P- 377.8q; and especially Salmon in Smith-Wace’s Dict. of Christ. 
Biogr. Ul. p. 91 sq s. v- ‘ Hippolytus Romanus,’ whose list is the most 
careful and complete. 

His work may be divided conveniently for my purpose into four 
classes ; 

(a) Biblical and Exegetical ; 

(Bs) Theological and Apologetic ; 
(c) Historical and Chronological ; 
(p) Herestological. 


Where a strictly logical classification is impossible, and where in many 
cases either from the character of the writing itself or from the defect 
of our information we may doubt where to place any particular work, 
this rough division will suffice. 


A. BIBLICAL AND EXEGETICAL. 


1. Zhe Muratorian Canon. ‘The reasons for assigning this work to 
Hippolytus require to be stated in full, and are given in a separate 
section. See below, p. 405 sq. 

2. On the Hexaemeron. This work on the days of Creation seems 
to have been well known in early times. It is mentioned in several 
lists, and Jerome (42. 8. g) tells us more especially that S. Ambrose in 
his extant work on the same subjects made great use of it. Some frag- 
ments are given in Lagarde, p. 123-141. The reference of Jerome to 
the charge brought against himself of misinterpretation in explaining 
the odd and even days of Creation (AZ. 8. d) must be to this work. 

3. On the Sequel to the Hexaemeron. This work (eis ta pera Hv 
é€ayprepov) is mentioned by Eusebius and others. The commentary /x 
Genesim, included by Jerome in his list, is probably the same. It would 
deal with certain passages in the patriarchal history. Jerome elsewhere 
(Af. 8. c) gives a mystical interpretation of one of these from 
Hippolytus. Isaac symbolizes God the Father, Rebecca the Holy 
Spirit, ete. 

4. On Exodus, only in Jerome’s list. It is questionable whether 
» won 7 peyadn in Theodoret’s quotation (42. 12. b) has anything to 
do with the Song of Moses Exod. 15. 

5. On the Benedictions of Balaam. ‘This work is quoted by Leon- 


390 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


tius of Byzantium (AA. 21. b), but there is a v. 1. “ABpaap for Badaap 
(see Lagarde, p. 140). The blessings of Balaam are a more likely 
subject to have been chosen by Hippolytus; and a copyist would be 
tempted to substitute the commoner word ’ABpaap. The extract itself 
contains nothing which is decisive. 

Fabricius (11. p. 33 sq) gives extracts from some Arabic mss at 
Oxford of a Catena on the Pentateuch, which contains numerous pas- 
sages ascribed to ‘Hippolytus the expositor of the Targum.’ We are 
not encouraged either by the source of these extracts, or by their con- 
tents, to regard them as a genuine work of our Hippolytus. 

6. On Elkanah and Hannah. ‘Vhis discourse is twice quoted by 
Theodoret (4A. 12. a, b). 

7. On Saul and the Witch of Endor (repi Saovd kai 7iOwvos) or, as 
it is described on the chair, [eis tyv ey|yaorpiuvOov. It is found also 
in Jerome’s list. This same incident is made the subject of a discus- 
sion by Hippolytus’ contemporary Origen ; and his representation of it 
was considered so important that it was specially answered by Eusta- 
thius of Antioch. ‘The two tracts have been recently edited together 
by Jahn in Gebhardt u. Harnack Zexte u. Untersuchungen, 1886. 

8. On the Psalms. Theodoret (AR. 12) quotes from the com- 
mentary on the 2nd, the 23rd, the 24th, and (if he means this by 
Tv wdonv THY peyadnv), the 119th Psalm. See also in Migne (p. 611) 
a fragment on the 77th Psalm, published by Bandini (Catal. Cod. 
Graec. Medic. 1. p. 91). There is likewise a possibility that the Demon- 
stration against the Jews may be a commentary on Ps. 1xix. 

There is also a long passage extant (Lagarde, p. 187 sq) entitled the 
‘hypothesis’ or ‘introduction of Hippolytus the bishop of Rome to the 
Psalms,’ which seems to show the influence of Origen’s Hexapla (Over- 
beck Quaest. Hippol. p. 6 sq). The genuine introduction of Hippolytus 
appears to be preserved in the corresponding ‘Syriac (Lagarde’s Azad. 
Syr. p. 83), and confirms Overbeck’s view, as pointed out by Salmon 
(‘Hippolytus Romanus,’ p. 103). The writer of the extant Greek frag- 
ment has worked together materials of Hippolytus and Origen. We find 
a characteristic trait of Hippolytus which appears much more definitely 
in the Syriac than in the Greek. In the Chronicon he enumerated the 
72 nations of the earth (25 from Shem, 15 from Japhet, and 32 from Ham); 
and in the Phzlosophumena (x. 20) he refers to his enumeration. Now 
in the Syriac fragment he tells how David’s four chief singers had each 
72 players of instruments under him, corresponding to the 72 nations, 
which again he distributes in the same way, 25 to Shem, 15 to Japhet, 
and 32 to Ham. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 391 


9. On the Proverbs, mentioned in several lists. Some fragments 
are given in Lagarde, p. 196; and one long additional passage in Migne 
p. 616 sq from Mai 762. WVov. vil. il. p. 71 (1854). 

10. Ox Ecclesiastes, mentioned by Jerome. <A quotation is given 
by S. de Magistris as from Anastasius of Sinai, but it is not in the printed 
editions ; comp. Lagarde p. 201. 

11. On the Song of Songs in several lists: see Lagarde p. 200 sq. 
Apparently extant ina Syriac translation; Assem. 270/. Orient. 1. p. 607. 

12. On Lsaiah, mentioned by Jerome. Theodoret (42. 12. a) 
quotes from the beginning of it. See Lagarde Azppol. p. 142 and 
Anal. Syr. p. 87. 

13. On Jeremiah. Atleast Assemani (4707. Or. 1. p. 607) mentions 
the existence of such a work, but does not state whether it is a com- 
plete commentary. 

14. Ox parts of Ezekiel, in the list of Eusebius. The work on ‘the 
four living creatures’ is mentioned by Assemani (472 Orv. 1. p. 607) 
as extant in a Syriac translation. 

15. Ox Daniel, in most of the lists, though not in Eusebius. 
Apparently a very popular work and several times quoted (42. 8.h, 18, 
32, 33, 35). This work is the subject of a careful monograph by 
Bardenhewer (1877), who had pointed out that the long and important 
Chigi fragment (Lagarde p. 151 sq) does not preserve the Commentary 
of Hippolytus in the original form. For the fragments known when this 
work was written see Lagarde p. 145 sq, Migne p. 633sq. Quite recently 
a very important discovery has been made. Georgiades has published in 
the “ExxAnowaorixy “AdyGea, May 1885 for the first time, Anal. Syr. zepi 
opacews TOD tpopyTod AavijAr Aoyos 8’, and is preparing a greater work for 
which he is collating in the libraries of Europe. Meanwhile Kennedy 
(Dublin 1888) has reprinted the Greek text with an English translation. 
As the fourth book contains the last six chapters, Georgiades infers that 
Asyos a contained the History of Susannah, Aoyos f’ the Song of the 
Three Children, and Aoyos y the earlier portion of the Canonical 
Daniel. On p. 13 & TH zpo TavTys BiBAw oceonpavtac we ought pro- 
bably in the light of this new discovery to see a reference to the 3rd 
book, as the prophet was divided in Hippolytus. Hippolytus states 
(p. 42) that our Lord was born on viii Kal. Jan. on the 4th day, in the 
55th year of Augustus being the 5500th year from Adam; and that He 
was crucified in His 33rd year, on viii Kal. Apr. on Friday (zapackevj) 
in the 18th year of Tiberius, in the consulship of Rufus (Fufius) and Ru- 
bellio, or (as it is elsewhere expressed) ‘duobus Geminis’ (see I. p. 253). 
He thus places the Crucifixion on March 25 a.D. 29, and the Birth on 


392 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


Dec. 25 B.C. 4, which he regards as the 42nd of Augustus. If this 
be the genuine text of Hippolytus (and there seems no reason to 
doubt it), the information is highly important. It shows that the date 
which we find elsewhere for the Crucifixion in the Liberian chronicle 
expresses Hippolytus’ deliberate view. This date also of the Crucifixion 
is involved in the Paschal Tables. For the reasons which led Hippolytus 
to fix on this day, though not the real full-moon in A.D. 29, see Salmon 
in Smith-Wace Dict. of Christ. Biogr. s.v. ‘Chronicon Canisianum’ 
1. p. 506; ‘Hippolytus Romanus’ 111. p. 92 sq; and Hermathena 1. p. 96. 
But it has a still more important bearing. In the corresponding frag- 
ment in the Chisian fragment of Daniel (Lagarde p. 153) we have 
exactly the same statement érafe 5€ TO TpiaxooTd Tpitw ere, though 
without the same particulars. Salmon (ermazh, |.c.) expresses his sur- 
prise that, while Hippolytus defends the authenticity of the fourth 
Gospel and founds his chronology of the passover on S. John (see U1. 
p. 104), he has not in the Paschal Tables and in the Chronicle made the 
usual inference from S. John’s account as to the duration of our Lord’s 
ministry. This indeed would be the more surprising because his 
master Irenzeus not only does this, but exaggerates the inference from 
S. John, alleging the tradition of the elders that Christ’s ministry ex- 
tended over many years and thus refuting the Valentinian argument 
for their thirty ceons derived from the thirty years of Christ’s earthly 
life’. He therefore supposes that ‘thirty third’ was a transcriber’s cor- 
rection in the Chisian fragment to improve the chronology. Now 
however that this new authority is discovered it seems impossible to 
maintain this view. If the crucifixion which he certainly places ‘ duobus 
Geminis’ Le. A.D. 29, and the duration of our Lord’s life to His 33rd 
year, are both inconsistent with the reckonings of the Chronicle and the 
Paschal Tables, the inconsistency must be allowed. The real difficulty 
is with the Paschal Tables, where the renecic xc is placed on iv Non. 
Apr. in the 2nd year of the first cycle, and the ta@oc xc on viii Kal. 
April in the 16th year of the second, thus making an interval of 31 
years within a few days between the two, it being assumed that the 
renecic means the visitation. As the Commentary on Daniel was 
apparently written much earlier than the other works, perhaps Hippo- 
lytus saw some way meanwhile of fitting in the three passovers of 
S. John into his later chronology. At all events he cannot have been 
unaware of the difficulty. 

In the ordinary Greek Bibles Susannah precedes, the Song of the 
Three Children follows, and last comes the Book of Daniel proper, 


1 Tren. Haer, ii. 22; see Essays on Supernatural Religion, p. 245 sq. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 393 


This was doubtless the case with the copy of Hippolytus. The long 
fragment (Lagarde p. 145 sq) relating to Susannah has every appearance 
of being the introduction to the whole work. MHippolytus begins by 
explaining why, though the events took place later, they are recorded 
at the beginning of the work (9 ioropio. yeyevnrar VOTEpoV, mpoeypadyn be 
Ts BiBAov zpwrys); for it was customary, he adds, for the scribes to 
record things in reversed order (voteporpwra), as we find with many 
visions of the prophets. It is needless to say that Susannah signifies 
the Church, and the two elders are the two peoples, the Jewish and the 
Gentile. This mystical interpretation constituted its great attraction to 
the fathers. But what is the Zz¢#/e Daniel, which according to Ebedjesu 
(A. 36) Hippolytus commented on? It is commonly explained of the 
ordinary LXx apocryphal additions to Daniel (Susannah, the Three 
Children, Bel and the Dragon); but these would all be included 
ordinarily under Daniel, and in Ebedjesu’s list Susannah is specially 
mentioned. In Wright’s Syriac JZSS Lrit. Mus. 1. p. 19 (see above, 
p- 350 sq) there is a fragment from the ‘ Daniel the less (or the youth) 
on our Lord and the end of the world.’ It seems to be a distinctly 
Christian apocryphal writing. Daniel is represented as preaching the 
future judgment in the language of S. John’s Gospel ‘He will come to 
His own, and His own will not recognise Him...I am not able to ex- 
plain who He is, but by the Spirit in a mystery. The servant is not able 
to overcome his master, but I give signs and preach concerning Him.’ 

The book recovered and published by Georgiades evidently preserves 
the Commentary of Hippolytus in its original form. Bardenhewer had 
surmised that in the long fragment of the Chisian ms (Lagarde 
p. 151—168) it was much compressed; and this new discovery has 
confirmed his suspicion. 

Moreover this new discovery throws some light on the date of the 
work. Bardenhewer (p. 68), impressed by the language used of the 
persecutions of the Church, places it as early as 202. To this early date 
Salmon (111. p. 104) objects, calling attention to the fact that according 
to Eusebius (. £. vi) Judas, writing on the 70 weeks of Daniel, brought 
his chronography down to the roth year of Severus and maintained that 
the coming of Antichrist was imminent (767 réte wapetvac), and he argues 
that at least a dozen years must have elapsed to ‘allow the minds of the 
Christians to cool down.’ But now that we have the complete words 
of Hippolytus, we see that the excitement was still at a red heat and 
that probably this treatise was written to calm men’s fears. He 
mentions apparently this very Judas; ‘I will relate,’ he says, ‘what took 
place not long ago (ro ovpPav ov rpo wodAvd xpovov) in Syria,’ where a 


394 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


certain leader of the Church led himself and others astray, persuading 
‘many of the brethren with their wives and children to go out into the 
wilderness to meet Christ.’ He adds that if his wife, who was also a 
Christian, had not been wiser than himself and prevailed upon the gover- 
nor, he would have slain them all as robbers. He mentions also another 
ruler of a church in Pontus, whom I do not know whether it is possible 
to identify, ‘a pious and humble man, but with no firm grasp (u7 rpocéywv 
aggadds) of the scriptures,’ who, misled by visions, staked his credit on 
the immediate coming, and the people sold their lands accordingly. 

16. On Zachariah, mentioned by Jerome. 

17. On S. Matthew. This is not included in Jerome’s list, but he 
himself (4. 8. i) especially elsewhere mentions Hippolytus as having 
written on this Gospel. De Magistris has given an extract on éovovos 
in the Lord’s prayer, purporting to come from Hippolytus (Migne 
p- 700); and quite recently Gwynn has printed and translated from the 
Syriac of Dionysius Barsalibi (Hermathena vu. p. 137, 1889) a long and 
important comment on Matt. xxiv. 15—22, which may have come from 
this work. Indeed Barsalibi (p. 142) seems to state this ‘in the 
Commentary on the Gospel,’ as if distinguishing it from an earlier 
quotation taken from some other work. Assemani (4702. Ov. 1. p. 607) 
mentions Hippolytus as writing on the five persons omitted in S. 
Matthew’s genealogy. 

18. From the way in which they are quoted by Theodoret (42. 
12. b, c) Zhe Discourse on the Distribution of the Talents, and The 
Discourse on the Two Thieves would seem to have been separate 
homilies, not portions of a Commentary. 

What may be the source of the fragments relating to the early 
chapters of S. Luke (Lagarde p. 202), we do not know. There is no 
notice of any Commentary on this Gospel. They may have been taken 
from the zepi oixovoyias, or from almost any of his theological works, 

19. Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of S. John. From the 
preposition (vzép, not wep) and from the association of the two works 
together, it is a safe inference that this was an apologetic work, directed 
against those persons who objected to both works alike, because they 
described our Lord as the Adyos; but they must have contained much 
exegetical matter. Indeed we may suspect that Epiphanius borrowed 
the name aAoyo ‘the irrational ones,’ from Hippolytus; for these jokes 
are very much in his way; e.g. voytos, avonros (1x. 10), and dokos, doxetv, 
doxytai (vill. 1). Dionysius Barsalibi states that Hippolytus, like Irenzeus, 
holds the Apocalypse to have been written by John the Evangelist under 
Domitian (Gwynn Hermathena vu. p. 137). 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 395 


The Heads against Gaius are mentioned in the list of Ebedjesu 
(AR. 37) as a separate work. But they have every appearance of being 
extracts from that part of this apologetic work which relates to the 
Apocalypse. I have already considered what relation these bear to the 
notices of other writers relating to Gaius the Roman presbyter (p. 388). 


B. THEOLOGICAL AND APOLOGETIC. 


20. Demonstratio c. Judacos ( Arobextixn mpos ‘lovdaiovs), A large 
portion of this treatise was first published by Fabricius (11. p. 2 sq) from 
a Vatican MS communicated to him by Montfaucon. 

But besides this Greek portion De Magistris (p. 435 sq) connected 
with it, as part of the same work, a Latin treatise commonly printed — 
among the spurious works of Cyprian (eg. Hartel’s edition, ul. 
p- 133 sq). So far as I can discover, he had no ground whatever 
except his own arbitrary assumption for assigning it to Hippolytus. 
At least he gives none. If there is no reason for assigning this work to 
Cyprian, it seems even less possible to maintain the Hippolytean 
authorship. Yet Bunsen (I. p. 450) accepts it without a question, 
describing it as ‘far more interesting than the part preserved in the 
Greek text.’ The connexion of this Latin tract with the Greek fragment 
is purely arbitrary. On this subject see Draseke Jahrb. f. Prot. Theol. 
XII. p. 456 sq (1886). 

This might seem at first sight to be part of his commentary on the 
69th Psalm. But the mutilated title on the Chair cannot be so well 
supplied as by [mpoc toyc 1oyAajioyc. Moreover the Jews are directly 
addressed again and again, @ ‘lovdate, & “Iovdaio. Again, though it is 
largely taken up with the exposition of this one psalm, it is not wholly 
so. Lastly; the sequence of scriptural authorities quoted (p. 66 sq 
Lagarde) Aavid 6 cos xpiotos, ws 0 péyas “lwB, depw Oy és pecov Kat THY 
mpodyteiav Yodopwv, kat tadw o Aavid év Wadpots, kal radw Yodromuv, 
points to a more general treatise than the exposition of an individual 
psalm. 

21. On the Nature of the Universe or, as it is described on the 
Chair, Against the Greeks or Against Plato or Concerning the Universe. 
I may observe by the way, that according to the general arrangement 
of titles (see p. 325) xpovixoy is a distinct work from zpos “EAAnvas 
k.t.’., and that the two should not be fused, as is sometimes done. 
Thus the genuineness and identity of the work are established on the best 
possible authority. Nevertheless Photius (42. 32. a) found it ascribed 
in his copy to Josephus; but he saw that this was impossible owing to 


396 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT, 


its distinctly Christian theology. He adds that he has found it stated 
in some notices that it was really written by Gaius the Roman presbyter, 
the author of the Labyrinth. This Labyrinth, as I have shown elsewhere 
(see above, p. 379), is probably the tenth book of the Phzlosophumena, 
in which Hippolytus distinctly mentions himself as having written a 
treatise Concerning the Nature of the Universe (Ref. x. 32). Photius 
further mentions the report that, having been left anonymous, it is 
assigned by some to Josephus, by others to Justin Martyr, and by 
others to Irenzeus, just as some assign the Zadyrinth to Origen. In the 
so-called John Damascene (Sacr. Parallel. u. pp. 755, 789) it is twice 
quoted, and ascribed in the one passage to Meletius, in the other to 
Josephus. By Joannes Philoponus (Lagarde, p. 124), who gives a few 
lines, it is ascribed to ‘Josephus the Hebrew’ and entitled wept rjs tod 
mwavtos airias. In the ms from which Hoeschel first printed the 
important fragment (Lagarde p. 68) in his notes to Photius (Phot. 
Op. iv. p. 362 Migne) it was ascribed to Josephus, and seems to have 
borne the title rept THs Tod wavtos aitias 7 ovaias. The resemblances of 
language and substance bespeak the same authorship with the Phzloso- 
phumena, even if we had not the author’s own certification (see 
Wordsworth, p. 211 sq). Wordsworth (p. 306) gives the latter part of 
Hoeschel’s fragment (from p. 27, 1. 5, 6 péyas Tav duxaiwy x.7.. Lagarde, 
onward), where it is carried a few lines farther from an Oxford Ms, 
Barocc. 26, which however had been previously printed by Hearne. 
This additional part contains the apocryphal quotation, 颒 otis dv evpw 
vpdas, érl TovTos Kpiv@, which is quoted by Justin Martyr and several 
fathers (Resch Agrapha p. 112 sq, 226 sq, 290 sq, in Gebhardt u. 
Harnack Zexte u. Untersuch. vy. Hft. 4, 1889). This is quoted as from 
Ezekiel (i.e. the pseudo-Ezekiel) by some of the fathers; and it is 
noticeable that Clem. Alex. Quis div. Salv. 40 (p. 957) after xpwvo ends 
the quotation in the same way as Hippolytus, xai wap’ exaora Boa to 
TéAos TAVTwV. 

In the long extant fragment Hippolytus addresses the Greeks more 
than once, and he mentions Plato by name (p. 70, Lagarde). Photius 
also says that he refutes Alcinous ‘concerning the soul and matter and 
resurrection,’ and shows after the manner of the Christian apologists 
generally, and indeed of Josephus, ‘the much greater antiquity of the 
Jews than the Greeks’ (4. 32. a). Alcinous is not mentioned in the 
extant fragments. 

In the passage of the Phdlosophumena (x. 32) he expounds briefly 
the cosmogony which was the foundation of this treatise. God was 
absolute and alone. He created from simple elements, fire, spirit, 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 397 


water, and earth. Those creatures which are composed of more than 
one element are capable of dissolution. The soul is pure air or spirit 
(zvevpa). The great interest in the extant fragment is the application 
of his cosmogony to explain the intermediate state, which was a favourite 
subject of Hippolytus. 

22. An exhortation addressed to Severina (mpotpertixos pos SeBy- 
petvav), This is mentioned on the Chair, and it is generally identified 
with mpos BacwWida twa erucrody twice quoted by Theodoret (42. 12. 
b, c). The fragments have reference to the Resurrection, and more 
especially to Christ as the arapyy. No princess bearing the name 
Severina is mentioned anywhere either in inscriptions or in literature. 
Bunsen supposed that she was a daughter of Alexander Severus, but he 
only married in 229, and his daughter, if he even had one, can only 
have been four or five years old at Hippolytus’ death. Le Moyne 
identified her with Severa the wife of Philippus; and Dollinger (p. 25) 
with Julia Aquilia Severa the second wife of Elagabalus. But no 
reason is given why either of these should have been called Severina. 
As no princess of the name is known, it is perhaps better to identify 
the Baoris of Theodoret with Julia Mammea the mother of Alexander. 

22*. A letter to a certain princess twice quoted by Theodoret (4X. 
12. b,c). See the last section. 

The quotation in Anal. Syriac. p. 87 sq (Lagarde) belongs not im- 
probably to the same work. It runs as follows ; 

‘OF HIPPOLYTUS BISHOP AND MARTYR On the Resurrection to 
the Empress Mammea; for she was the mother of Alexander who was 
at that time emperor of the Romans.’ 

‘Now the cause of the heresies of the Nicolaitans was first brought 
forward in like manner by Nicolas—he was one of the deacons who were 
elected at the first and is recorded in the Acts—when he was troubled 
by strange spirits saying that the resurrection had taken place; sup- 
posing that the resurrection was to believe in the Messiah and to be 
baptized, not meaning the resurrection of the flesh.’ 

To him Hippolytus goes on to trace the errors of Hymenzus and 
Philetus and of the Gnostics; and he couples with them the false 
teachers at Corinth, explaining S. Paul’s language ‘we have this treasure 
in earthen vessels’ of the gift of immortality; for ‘what is our dead 
flesh but these vessels before mentioned, into which the treasure of 
incorruption being put makes them immortal ?’ 

This may be the passage to which Stephanus Gobarus refers 
(AR. 20), but the same opinion was expressed by Hippolytus in both 
his general works on Heresies. 


398 EPISTLES OF S, CLEMENT. 


23. On the Resurrection, mentioned by Jerome (AR. 8. b), and 
on the Chair (zrepi @cod Kai capKos avactacews). 

24. A Homily on the praise of our Lord and Saviour (rpocopsdta 
de Laude Domini Salvatoris) mentioned by Jerome as having been de- 
livered before Origen. I shall have occasion to refer to this again, as 
it is one of our very few chronological land-marks (see below, p. 423). 
It is possible that this homily is the zept oixovouias of the Chair and 
Ebedjesu (4. &. 37). 

25. On Christ and Antichrist. This work is mentioned by Jerome 
under the title ‘de Antichristo,’ and under the further title wept Xpucrod 
kat “Avttxpiotov by Photius who read it. 

A spurious work bearing the title wept tis ouvtedeias Tod KOopoV Kal 
Tept Tod Avtixpiotovu Kal eis THV devTépay Tapovalav Tod Kupiov ypav Inood 
Xpiorov was published by Joannes Picus (Paris 1556), and still retains a 
place in the editions (e.g. Fabricius 11. p. 4 sq, Lagarde p. 92); but it is 
universally condemned as spurious. It begins “Ezevdy) of paxapioe x.7.X. 

The genuine treatise, which was read by Photius, entitled zepi rod 
cwoTnpos ndV “Inood Xpiotod Kai wept tod “Avtexpiorov was first published 
by Gudius (Paris 1611), and will be found in Fabricius 1. p. 4 sq and 
in Lagarde p. 1—36. It is apparently almost complete. It is addressed 
to one ‘brother Theophilus,’ possibly like the Theophilus whose name 
the Acts bears on the forefront, an imaginary person; and, as it deals 
with prophecy affecting the future of the Roman empire, Hippolytus 
not unnaturally cautions his friend in the language of S. Paul to 
Timothy to guard the deposit carefully, and only to commit it to faithful 
and discreet disciples. The general scheme of the world’s history and 
the end of all things is the same which this father has evolved 
from Daniel’s prophecy as described above; though in some respects it is 
more fully drawn out. He deals with the mystical number of the beast 
in the Apocalypse, mentioning the alternative explanations Teitan, 
EYANOac, and AaTeiNoc, as Irenzeus has done before him (/Zaev. v. 30. 1), 
and deciding in favour of the last (p. 26). For other obligations of 
Hippolytus to his master in the work on Antichrist see Overbeck p. 70 sq. 

On the whole there seems to be reasonable ground for Overbeck’s 
contention (p. 88 sq), that this work was written at a time of perse- 
cution, and therefore presumably in the age of Severus, about A.D. 200. 
The awe of the Roman power, and the warnings of caution, both point 
in this direction. The coincidences of interpretation, which he mentions 
between Hippolytus and Origen, are curious but not sufficient, I think, 
to establish on either side any direct obligation of the one from the 
other ; which is improbable in itself. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 399 


26. On the Holy Theophany (eis ta ayia Oeopavea). This is a 
discourse on the Baptism of our Lord, preserved in a Gale ms Trin. 
Coll. 0. 5. 36 at Cambridge. It was probably addressed to candidates 
when they presented themselves for baptism (see Wordsworth, p. 224). 
Though it is nowhere quoted (at least under this name), so far as I am 
aware, by ancient writers, there is nothing which Hippolytus might not 
have written. 


C. HISTORICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL. 

27. Chronica. This work is mentioned on the Chair, and even 
without this certification it contains unquestionable internal evidence of 
its authorship. The original Greek is lost; but it is extant in two 
Latin translations, of which the one first published by Canisius may 
be conveniently consulted in Ducange Chron. Pasch. 11. p. 96 sq (ed. 
Bonn.) under the title Zzer Generationis; the other, being incorporated 
in the collection of the Chronographer of 354, is admirably edited by 
Mommsen. In this latter connexion I have had occasion to speak of it 
at length in my previous volume (I. p. 258 sq). It is brought down to 
A.D. 234 (the xiith year of Alexander), when doubtless it was com- 
pleted. It is not in any strict sense a chronicle, but is partly ethno- 
graphy and partly chronography. One of its main purposes, as with 
most early apologists, was to show the superior antiquity of the Jews to 
the Classical nations of antiquity. 

28. Paschal Tables’. This record is found inscribed in full on the 
sides of the Chair, where it is described as amodeéis ypdvwv tod racyxa 
kata |ta| év t@ mivax. The more important parts of it are given above 
(AR. 2). It is a calculation of the times of Easter according to a 
cycle of sixteen years from a.D. 222—333. Salmon however has given 
strong reasons (//ermathena 1. p. 88 sq; Smith-Wace Dict. of Christ. 
Ant. s.v. ‘Hippolytus Romanus’ 11. p. 93) for supposing that it was 
issued A.D. 224. It has received great attention from Scaliger, Bucher, 
Bianchini, and others; and more recently from De Rossi and from 
Salmon, who have rendered very efficient service. The table not only 
calculates the Easters for more than a century, but likewise fixes all 
those mentioned in the Old Testament. Thus it affords many tests for 
establishing the authorship of works ascribed to Hippolytus, as well as 
for the criticism of his life in other ways. I shall have occasion more 
than once to refer to it for these purposes. 

1 This work is mentioned by Eusebius _ construction the calculation was found to 
and Jerome, as well as by others, and be incorrect, and it had to be abandoned 


seems to have excited considerable at- in favour of other systems. 
tention, though within a few years after its 


400 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT 


D. HERESIOLOGICAL, 


29. The Compendium against all the Heresies, an early work, founded 
on the lectures of Irenzeus. This will be considered immediately in a 
section to itself. See below, p. 413 sq. 

29*. Against Noetus. Reasons will be given presently for sup- 
posing that this is only the peroration of the previous treatise ; which is 
known to have ended with the heresy of Noetus. 

29**, Avainst the Heresy of Artemon. The reasons for assigning 
this work to Hippolytus have been given already (p. 377 sq). 

Only one objection of apparent force to the Hippolytean authorship 
is alleged by Salmon (p. 98). The anonymous writer against Artemon 
(Euseb. 7. Z. v. 28) speaks of Victor as the 13th bishop of Rome from 
Peter; whereas in the Liberian list Cletus and Anacletus are made two 
distinct persons, so that he would be the 14th. I have anticipated this 
objection, and shown already (1. p. 282 sq) strong reasons for believing 
that Hippolytus cannot be made responsible for these blunders in the 
earlier part of the papal list. 

30. Against Marcion. This treatise is mentioned by Eusebius 
and Jerome and by others, and seems to have been one of considerable 
importance. As the fundamental idea of Marcion’s theory was the 
dual principle of good and evil (Ref Haer. vil. 30 avtirapabeots ayabod 
Kal KaKOv, Vil. 31 9 TpwTy Kat Kaapiwtary Mapkiwvos aipeois €€ ayabovd 
KQL KAKO TV oveTacw Exouca), there is every reason to think that this 
is the same treatise which is designated on the Chair ‘ Concerning the 
Good and whence cometh the Evil. 

31. Concerning Spiritual Gifts (xapwopartwv) the Apostolic Tradition. 
This work is mentioned on the Chair, but its purport has been differently 
explained. For reasons which I have given in another instance (p. 395), 
we must regard this as a single title, and not, as has been suggested 
(see Caspari 111. p. 390), separate it and regard it as giving two distinct 
works; (1) wept yxapicparwy, and (2) aoarodixy mapddocs. The 
Apostolic use of the word xapicpara seems to furnish the safest key to 
the purport of this work. In his discourses on the ‘Witch of Endor’ 
and the ‘Blessings of Balaam’ Hippolytus sought to explain some of the 
anomalies attending the bestowal of these graces, and it seems probable 
that in this treatise he attempted to give something like a systematic 
exposition of the whole subject based upon the Apostolic teaching. 
The vagaries of Montanism more especially would force it on his notice, 
as pressing for some reasonable treatment. How far and under what 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 401 


circumstances was the presence of moral or intellectual obliquity 
consistent with the bestowal of such exceptional graces from above? 
In fact all those questions which are suggested by S. Paul’s account of 
the abuses in the Corinthian Church, and many more which start up 
when we stir the question ourselves, must have been more rampant in 
early ages, when the disciples were face to face with similar phenomena 
in heathendom. | 

This I believe to have been the intention of our author’s treatise 
respecting charismata. On the other hand a wholly different explanation 
has been sometimes given of it. It is supposed to have been a code 
of Church ordinances or constitutions regulating the appointment to 
ecclesiastical cffices. Though this view does not commend itself at 
first sight, it can claim a large amount of traditional support of a certain 
kind. I cannot however reckon in this the statement of Jerome (AR. 
8. f) who quotes Hippolytus as explicit on the point whether fasting 
should be observed on the sabbath and whether there should be a 
daily celebration of the eucharist. He might have delivered himself of 
such dicta in many other places, as in his treatise on the Hexaemeron 
or in his books on the Paschal Festival or in his Demonstration against 
the Jews. But there is extant in the Alexandrian Church a code of 
38 Canons first published by Ludolf (a.p. 1691) and bearing the name 
of ‘ Abulides,’ which is only another transliteration of Hippolytus, here 
styled ‘first patriarch of the city of Rome’ and ‘chief bishop of the 
city of Rome’; though Wansleb who first called attention to these 
canons (1672, 1673) did not know who could be meant. These have 
been recently re-edited by Haneberg Canones S. Hippolyti Arabice 
(Monachiu 1870), who has given reasons for supposing that they were 
originally written in Greek. Connected with these are the dsataéers tov 
avTOY ayiuv arocToAwy Tepi xelpoTovLaV Oud IroAvrov, as they are called 
in the Ms from which Lagarde has edited them (J/omac. 380), and their 
designation is similar in others (see Caspari 111. p. 387). Corresponding 
to the 8th Book of the AZostolic Constitutions are two early elements 
in Greek, from which it was apparently compounded and amplified : 
(1) Avdackadia tav ayiwy adrootéhwv Tept xapitpatwv Corresponding to 
Apost. Const. vil. 1, 2 (Rel. Jur. Eccl. Ant. p. 1 sq, Lagarde), which 
contains a sort of preface concerning spiritual gifts; and (2) Avaraéets 
«.7.A. as already given, corresponding to Agoszt. Const. vii. 4 sq (p. 5 sq) 
on ecclesiastical offices, etc. The name of Hippolytus is attached to 
this latter only. Yet here we have seemingly the explanation which we 
seek. Not improbably to these ecclesiastical rules were prefixed (with 
modifications) some remarks of the genuine Hippolytus from the work 


CLEM. II, 26 


402 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


whose title is given on the Chair; and in this way he came to be 
regarded as the author of the Canons themselves. It is hardly probable 
that even in their present comparatively simple form they can have 
been his product, as they are attributed to the several Apostles, ‘I Peter 
first,’ ‘I the beloved of the Lord,’ etc., and prefixed with the fiction 
‘We the twelve Apostles of the Lord met together in conjunction with 
Paul the vessel of election our fellow-Apostle and James the bishop 
and the rest of the presbyters and the seven deacons.’ We have also 
Canons extant in Syriac designated ‘Ordinances of the Apostles given 
through Hippolytus’ (Wright’s Syrzac Catal. of MSS of Brit. Mus. 1. 
Pp. 949, 1033, 1037). All these Canons which are ascribed to 
Hippolytus are apparently simpler and allied forms of the ordinances 
in the present 8th Book of the AZostolic Constitutions. As against the 
supposition of the Hippolytean authorship however of the portion zepi 
xapirp.arwv, Caspari (111. p. 389) observes that it presents no coincidences 
of conception with the parts of the genuine Hippolytus where we should 
expect to find them, the conclusions of the fefutatio and of the 
Treatise against Voetus ; whereas several may be found with the other 
parts of the Apostolic Constitutions. On the other hand I note—what 
seems to me a more weighty consideration on the other side—that in 
this very short treatise consisting of five octavo pages great emphasis is 
laid on two topics which are characteristically Hippolytean; (1) The 
enumeration of the prophetesses, to which Hippolytus devotes a section 
in his Chronicon (Mommsen p. 641, Ducange 11. p. 108); (2) The stress 
laid on the history of Balaam, which Hippolytus made the subject of 
a special treatise (see above, p. 389). We can imagine how Hippolytus, 
starting from the discussion of the yxapiopara generally, might have 
been led to speak about some of the special gifts mentioned in 
S. Paul’s two lists (1 Cor. xii. 28, Ephes. iv. 11), and that some later 
editor, working up the material of Hippolytus and others, would give to 
it the name of this father. The fact that Hippolytus is designated ‘an 
acquaintance (yvwpyzos) of the Apostles’ by Palladius (4. 11), as soon 
as the early decades of the fifth century, is significant in this connexion. 
It seems to indicate that some such work had been already attributed 
to him ; and at all events it shows that a spurious progeny was fathered 
upon him as coeval with the Apostles. The next writer who so designates 
him, 70d adauovd Kal yvwpiwov tov arocréAwv (AX. 16), lived in the middle 
of the sixth century. There seems therefore to be some ground for the 
opinion of Bunsen (see esp. II. p. 412 sq) and others, that the treatise 
mentioned on the Chair lies at the root of the tradition respecting the 
authorship ; but when with him we expunge the ‘ We the Apostles’ and 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 403 


other dramatic parts, we introduce a vital change into the document, 
which is altogether capricious, and we have no basis of criticism for the 
reproduction of the Canons of Hippolytus, if he drew up any. 

This appears to me the most probable account. At the same time 
I do not wish to speak with any confidence; for this would not be 
justified without a thorough investigation of the origin and development 
of the Afostolic Constitutions such as I cannot pretend to have given. 

32. On the Passover. This work must be carefully distinguished 
from the Paschal Cycle with the Paschal tables engraved on the 
Chair. It is mentioned separately in the lists both of Eusebius and 
of Jerome. From the reference in the Chron. Pasch. (4A. 22) we find 
that it consisted of more than one book. Along with Irenzeus and (so far 
as we know) all the Asiatic fathers of the school of S. John’, Hippolytus 
maintained that our Lord Himself was the true Passover, suffering on 
the 14th Nisan, and thus superseding the legal Jewish passover. This 
position he took up also in both his general books against the heresies, 
the early Compendium and the later Refutatio. It may be regarded 
therefore as written to refute the Quartodecimans, as the fragments in 
the Chron. Pasch. (42. 22) show. 

33. The Philosophumena or Refutation of All Heresies, his final 
work, probably left incomplete at his death. This will demand a 
section to itself *. 


SPURIOUS HIPPOLYTEAN WORKS. 


(rt) The treatise Contra Beronem et Helicem (?) haereticos de Theo- 
logia et Incarnatione Sermo is now almost universally allowed to be 
spurious, though accepted as genuine by Dorner (Lehre v. der Person 
Christi 1. p. 536 sq) and by Bunsen (1. p. 448 sq) in our own generation, 
as at an earlier date it had been defended by Bull. Its rejection by most 
recent critics, e.g. Haenell, Kimmel, Fock, Dollinger, Overbeck, Caspari, 
Draseke, and Salmon, has left it without a friend; and I have no inten- 
tion of defending a hopeless cause. 

Anastasius the Apocrisiarius, or Papal Nuncio at Constantinople (a.p. 
665), saw this work at Constantinople and made a few extracts from it, 
which are preserved (AR. 24). It is quoted also (AR. 30) by Nicephorus 
of Constantinople [t a.p. 828]. The manuscripts vary between “HAckos 


1 This is distinctly the case with rest of the school; see Zssays on Super- 
Claudius Apollinaris, whose language satural Religion, p. 237 Sq- 
Hippolytus closely resembles; and there 2 [The section in question was never 
is no ground for separating him from the written. | 


26—2 


404 EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT. 


or “HXtxlovos (“HAtkiwvos) as the companion heretic of Bero or Vero. 
But no Helix or Helicion is mentioned in the extant fragments; whereas 
in one place we read (p. 61, Lagarde) Bypwy tis vayyos pel? Erépwv 
twav THY BaXevtivov davraciav adevres x.t.’. There can be little or 
no doubt therefore that Fabricius (Hippol. Of. 1. p. 225) was right in his 
conjecture 7Aikwtov atpetixov for “HAukos tav aiperuxov. On the title 
see Draseke Zahrb. f. Prot. Theol. x. p. 342 sq. 

Of this Vero or Bero we never hear in the heresiological writers of 
the fifth and earlier centuries. This would be astonishing if the treatise 
had been genuine or even early. Epiphanius and Philaster and Theo- 
doret—the two former especially—are eager to make their list as com- 
plete as possible. Moreover all the three were acquainted with the 
writings of Hippolytus; and therefore their silence would be the more 
inexplicable ; for nothing else so explicit or so important was written 
by Hippolytus on questions of Christology, and we should have expected 
frequent references and quotations to it. 

Moreover, when we investigate the fragments themselves, the trea- 
tise condemns itself by its style and substance. It is much more philo- 
sophical in its language than Hippolytus itself. It uses terms and modes 
of thought which betoken a later stage of the Christological controversy. 
On this point however it should be observed that xévwow is probably a 
false reading and that we should probably read éevwow instead (Draseke 
l.c. p. 344 Sq). Bunsen, accepting the work as genuine, considers one 
expression only ék ris mavayias aevraphévov Mapias to be interpolated 
(1. p. 448). Ifthis had been the only difficulty, we should have agreed 
with him that it ‘proves nothing against the authenticity of the work.’ 
But, as Dollinger (p. 319 sq) points out, the terminology bristles with 
difficulties on the supposition that it was a work of the beginning of 
the first half of the third century. Fock and Dollinger connect it 
with the Monophysite disputes, and assign it to the sixth or seventh 
century. The subject has more recently been investigated by Draseke 
(Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. XX1X. p. 291 sq, 1886), who would assign it to 
a somewhat earlier date. He ascribes it to the Apollinarian school, and 
supposes it to have been written not later than the early decades of the 
fifth century (p. 318). I need not pursue the subject further. It has no 
bearing on my theme, the life and opinions of Hippolytus, though not 
without an interest for the later stages of the Christological controversy. 

(2) <A story told at length by Palladius (4A. 11), in which a virgin 
was placed in great danger to her chastity by the iniquity of the magistrate, 
and only rescued by the continence and purity of a youth to whom her 
honour was to be sacrificed, 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 405 


(3) The Arabic Catena on the Pentateuch, of which mention has 
been made already (p. 390). 

(4) The treatise De Consummatione Mundt, which for some time 
took the place of the genuine work De Christo et Antichristo; see 
above, p. 398. 

(5) The Afostolical Canons, which however are perhaps not without 
some foundation of fact; see above, p. 401 sq. 


§ 6. 
THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. 


In the early part of his work (faer. 1. 15, 16) Irenzeus quotes, 
from one whom he describes as ‘the divine elder and herald of the 
truth,’ some verses (éupérpws) written against the Valentinian heretic 
Marcus. They run as follows ; 


EidwAoroe Mapxe Kat teparocKore, 
GOTPOAOYLKYS EMTELPE Kal MayLKHS TEXVNS, 
dc dv Kparivers THS wAaVys Ta Sidaypara, 
onpeia O€LKVUS TOS UTO Gov TAAYWLEVOLS, 
aroctatikns Suvapews eyxeipnpmara, 

ad gow xopnyet Gos TaTHp Zatav aei 

du ayyeAukns Suvapews “Alalnd roreiv 
Exwv oe Tpodpomov avTiGéov Tavovpyias, 


some slight corrections being made in the sixth line on which all 
critics are agreed, and which are suggested by the ancient Latin 
version. It will be observed that our poet is very fond of trisyllabic 
feet, and that more especially he affects anapzests in the fourth and 
fifth places. I should add that, as the editors give his text, he does 
not shrink from a spondee zz guarto ; but we might easily relieve him 
of this monstrosity by reading dvvayos in both cases, thus giving him 
two more of his favourite anapzests instead. 

In this instance the editors could not well go wrong; for they were 
warned by éumérpws that some verse was coming, and have printed 
accordingly. But elsewhere, where there was no such warning, they 
are altogether astray. Thus in Haer. ii. 17. 4 (a passage preserved 
only in the ancient Latin version) Irenzus is made to write ; 


‘Aquae mixtum gypsum dans pro lacte seducat per similitudinem 
coloris, sicut quidam dixit superior nobis de omnibus qui quolibet 


406 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


modo depravant quae sunt Dei et adulterant veritatem /nz Ded lacte 
gypsum male miscetur,’ 
where the Claromontane ms has ‘veritatem Dei, Lacte,’ etc. This is 
the correct reading (zz being a repetition of the previous mz), but not 
the correct punctuation. The sentence should run, 


‘Dei lacte gypsum male miscetur,’ 
which in Greek is 


@cod yaAaKte plyvuTa: yuwos KaKos, 


so that the mixing of chalk and water with milk is not a discovery of 
modern civilisation. I may mention by the way that not a few of our 
homely proverbs are anticipated by the fathers. A lively writer like 
Jerome would furnish several examples. One occurs to me at the 
moment, ‘equi dentes inspicere donati,’ ‘to look a gift horse in the 
mouth,’ which Jerome calls ‘a vulgar proverb’ even in his own day 
(vil. p. 538, Vallarsi). 

Nor is this the only instance in which the editors of Irenzus 
have been at fault. In AHaer. 1. praef. 2 likewise this father quotes one 
whom he styles in the same way (0 kpeitrwv ypdv, here however rendered 
melior nobis in the Latin), and who is doubtless the same person. Here 
the original Greek is happily preserved, which I will write out as it 
ought to be written, separating the prose from the verse (without how- 
ever altering a single word); 


ec 4 an e ral A ~ , A aA 
Kaas vro TOU KPELTTOVOS NMOV ELPNTaL éTL TMV TOLOUTWY [Trav atpeTiKar | 
o 
OTL 
\ 
AWov tov Tipov 
, x» \ , / 
opaparySov ovTa Kat moAuTipynToV TLC 
7 \ 
varos évufpile. dua TéxvNs 
a \ ~~ e / / 7 
TOpOMOLOYLEVy, OTOTAV py apy oO oGévwv Soxinacar Kat 
\ db \ , 
téxvn duedeySar THY Tavovpyws yevomevnv 
gq SY 
oTrav be 
eTULLyN 
ce A > \ a» , > , 
0 xaXKos €is TOY apyupoV, Tis evKOAWS 


an > , /, 
duvyoerae TOUTOV QAKEPALWS SoKi paras 


where however for axepaiws we should probably read axépacos, as the 
Latin has ‘rudis quum sit.’ Very slight alterations would bring more 
of the context into the verses. Thus opowvpevy might be substituted 
for zapopovovpevyn, and orav yap for oray 6é, the Latin having ‘quum 
enim.’ But this is sufficient to show that several verses are embedded 
in a passage which the editors print continuously as prose. Probably 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 407 


‘our superior’ in the two last passages is the same with the ‘divine 
elder’ who writes against Marcus in the first. 

The employment of verse or of rhythm for theological teaching was 
not uncommon in these early ages. The heretics had their own psalms, 
in which they propounded their favourite doctrines. From the orthodox 
point of view Clement of Alexandria, at the close of his Paedagogus 
(I. p. 312 sq), has written a metrical hymn in honour of Christ for 
educational purposes. An anonymous contemporary of Clement, who 
has been identified for excellent reasons with Hippolytus, is quoted by 
Eusebius (4. Z. y. 28) as referring to the ‘numerous psalms and songs’ 
(Wadpot ooo: «at wdat) written by believers in which Christ is spoken of 
as God. Again; in the fourth century the notorious Za/za of Arius, 
which was sung in the streets and taverns of Alexandria, will occur to 
us on the one side, and the poems of the elder and younger Apollinaris 
on the other. More especially, where a memoria technica was needed, as 
in the list of the Canon, verse was naturally employed as a medium. 
In the last quarter of the fourth century we have two such metrical 
lists of the Scriptures—the one by Amphilochius, the other by Gregory 
Nazianzen. 

The AZuratorian Canon was discovered and published by Muratori 
in 1740 from a MS in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, originally taken 
from the ancient monastery of Bobbio. It contains a canon of the 
New Testament. It is mutilated at the beginning so that it commences 
in the middle of the second Gospel; and it ends in the midst of an 
account of certain apocryphal books. Muratori himself attributed it to 
Gaius, the contemporary of Hippolytus, who flourished under Zephyri- 
nus. All the necessary information respecting the text will be found 
in Tregelles’s Canon Muratorianus (Oxford, 1867), and in Westcott’s 
History of the Canon Appx C. 

It is generally allowed that this catalogue emanated from Rome, as 
indeed the mention of ‘the city’ implies. Of its date we may say that 
it is ascribed by different critics to various epochs between about a.D. 
160 and A.D. 220. The general opinion also is that the document was 
written in Greek and that we possess only a not very skilful, though 
literal, translation, greatly corrupted however in the course of transmis- 
sion. On the other hand Hesse in his important monograph (Das 
Muratoriscthe Fragment, Giessen 1873) maintains that Latin was the 
original language; and he has succeeded in convincing Caspar (Zau/- 
symbol Ill. p. 410) and one or two others. His reasons however seem 
to me to be wholly inadequate. Thus he lays stress on such forms as 
Spania, catholica, etc., maintaining that these are admissible in Latin, 


408 EPISTLES OF °S.’ CLEMENT. 


This may be perfectly true, but proves nothing. I cannot doubt that 
the usual view is correct. The literature of the Roman Church was 
still Greek, as we see from the example of Hippolytus; even though 
Victor, being an African, may have written in Latin. Moreover I 
am quite unable to explain the phenomena of the document, if it is 
preserved to us in its original language. The whole cast and connexion 
of the sentences are Greek. In answer to this view, it is urged that on 
this hypothesis the document ought to lend itself easily for retranslation 
into Greek, and that the Greek reproduction ought to throw back light 
on the meaning of the Latin. To this objection the following pages 
will, I trust, be a sufficient answer. 

But it does not seem to have occurred to anyone that the original 
document was written in verse, like the corresponding lists of Amphilo- 
chius and Gregory Nazianzen. Yet the more I study the work, the 
stronger does this conviction grow. Neither in phraseology nor in 
substance does it resemble a prose document. ‘There is an absence 
of freedom and equability in the treatment. ‘This is the more remark- 
able where the writer is dealing with a mere list pure and simple. It is 
obvious that he has to grapple with a medium which constrains him 
and determines what form any particular statement shall take. 

The Muratorian Fragment has been translated into Greek prose by 
Lagarde for Bunsen (Axalecta Antenicena 1. p. 142 sq), and by Hilgen- 
feld (Einleitung in das NV. T. p. 97 sq). Either of these translations 
would, as it seems to me, justify the contention that Greek was the 
original language of the fragment, for it reads so much more naturally 
than in the Latin. I had not read either of these when I made my own 
verse renderings ; but I note with satisfaction that the last words of the 
fragment, 


Asianum Cataphrygum constitutorem, 
are translated unconsciously by Hilgenfeld into an iambic line, 

tov tov ’Aciavav Katadpptywov Katacrarny, 
as I had translated it, except that I should substitute xara ®pvyas for 
Karadpvywr, since the Montanists are always (so far as I have noticed) 


called in Greek ot ®ptyes or ot kata Ppvyas, never ot Karadpvyes, at 
all events for some centuries’. But would not ‘constitutor’ be a strange 


1 They are oi Pp’yes in Clem. Alex. 
Strom. iv. 13, p. 605; 20. vil. 17, p. 605; 
Hippol. Haer. viii. pref., 19, x. 25; 
Pensehs) a. 2.) tv, 07,..¥. 163° but [ol] 
Kata Ppvyas Ps-Tertull. [Hippol.] adv. 


Omn. Haer. 7 ‘qui dicuntur secundum 
Phrygas,’ Euseb. @. 2. il. 255 ¥aginee 
vi. 20; Epiphan. aer. xlviil. 12, 14, pp. 
413, 416. In the title of Epiphanius we 
have karagpuvyaoray, but this is probably 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 409 


word for a ‘founder’ in an original Latin prose document? Why also 
should these Cataphrygians be called Asiatic, except that an epithet was 
wanting to fill up a line? 

Again: the author of Supernatural Religion, . p. 385, accuses the 
writer of this Canon of going so far as to ‘ falsify’ the words of S. John’s 
First Epistle in his zeal to get evidence for the apostolic authorship of 
the Fourth Gospel. He was a clumsy blunderer, if this were his design; 
for his abridgment has considerably weakened the force of the onginal. 
But his motive, I believe, was much more innocent. He had to 
squeeze the language of the epistle into his own verse; and accordingly 
he wrote (as represented by his translator), 


dicens in semetipsum quae vidimus oculis 
nostris et auribus audivimus et manus 
nostrae palpaverunt haec scripsimus vobis, 


which may have run in the Greek ; 
Neyo 
és éavtov: ofOarpotow a & éwpdxapmer, 
Kakykoapev Tots woiv, at O nuav xépes 
eunradynoay, tu avT éypawaper. 
Now let us see what can be made of some longer passages ; 
(x) 
acta autem omnium apostolorum 
sub uno libro scripta sunt Lucas obtimo Theophi- 
lo comprendit quia sub praesentia ejus singula 
gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem Tetri 
evidenter declarat sed et profectionem Pauli ab ur- 
be ad Spaniam proficiscentis. Epistulae autem 
Pauli quae a quo loco vel qua ex causa directae 
sint volentibus intelligere ipsae declarant. 
Primum omnium Corinthiis scysma heresis in- 
terdicens deinceps Galatis circumcisionem 
Romanis autem ordinem scripturarum sed et 
principium earum esse Christum intimans. 
aN aroatoAwy 
mpaces atavtwv BiBdiov vp ev yeypaypevas 
Aovkas Kpaticty @eoditw ovdAdapBaver, 
QUTOU TApOVTOS Ws EkaoT empaTTETO’ 
a corruption for trav xara Ppvyas, though Monk, Serm. 130 (p. 1845, Migne). 
this error is older than Antiochus the 


410 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


c ‘\ / > 5 , e + , 
ws Kal paxpav [y azdvtos y ovyn| 7abos 
> 

Ilérpov zpodaiver kak wodews 8 eis Szraviav 
IlavAov mopeiav éxropevopévov cadas. 
IIavAov 8 émicroAat tives, éx Tivos TOToD, 
> / ED) of > a 
ereoTtaAnoav, 7 Tolas e& aitias, 

A 3 \ a / a 
dnAotow avtrai toto. BovAopévois voetv* 

~ / 

TpaTov ye TavTwv aiperews Kopww6lors 

PY , > , 
oxic, amtayopevwv, eita Tadaras mepitopny, 

lal e Bsa. 5 
ypapav d€ “Pwpaiourr tagiv, adda Kal 
> \ reed \ + 8 /, ; 
apxnv éxetvwy Xpiotov ovta deuxviwv. 


For the form and quantity of this last word there is good Attic authority 
(Menander in Fragm. Comm. Graec. Iv. pp. 93, 245). As regards the 
martyrdom of S. Peter and the journey of S. Paul to Spain, there can be 
little doubt, I think, as to the meaning. As S. Luke only records what 
took place within his own cognisance, his silence about these two 
important facts is regarded as evidence that they happened in his 
absence. But whether or not some words have fallen out in the Latin, 
such as I have given in the Greek, ‘semote [quum esset, silentium 
ejus| evidenter declarat,’ I will not venture to say. 


(2) 
fertur etiam ad 
Laudicenses alia ad Alexandrinos Pauli no- 
mine finctae ad haeresim Marcionis et alia plu- 
ra quae ad catholicam ecclesiam recipi non 
potest fel enim cum melle misceri non con- 
gruit. | 
heperar d€ Kat 
n Aaodixetow, 4 8 “AXdeEavdpedow ai, 
mpos Mapkiwvos aipeow meracpevat 
ovopate IlavAov: moda + aA’ a Kabodukny 
ouK avadexeobar duvatov eis éxxAnoiav' 
ov ovpdéeper yap peédite piyvucbar xoAnv, 
which last line reminds us of the language of the earlier poet who wrote 
against the heretic Marcus. 
(3) 
pastorem vero 
nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe 
Roma Herma conscripsit sedente cathe- 
dram urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio eps fratre 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. ALI 


ejus et ideo legi eum quidem oportet se pu- 
blicare vero in ecclesia populo neque inter 
prophetas completum numero neque inter 
apostolos in finem temporum potest. 


tov 6€ Tlowweva 
XV A e , s Lal ‘ 
VEWOTL KOLPOLS YmETEpOLS Ev TH ToAEL 
‘Pwpyn ovveypawev éerixabnpevov Iiov 
‘Eppas xabédpav rhode “Pwpaiwv rodews 
\ 
éexkAnolas adeAdos av émirKoToV* 
ov 3 5 > , / > > 3 , 
woT ovv avaywwokey pév, ev O éxxAyola 
A / 
ov OnuoctevecOai ode TH AAD xpewv' 
ovd év tpodytas Svvatov ovde ovvtedciv 


) , 5 > \ ° / / 
amootoAwy és apiuov eis TéAos yxpovor, 


where I am disposed to think that ‘completum numero’ is a clumsy 
translation, perhaps corrupted by transcription, of the idiomatic Greek 
ouvteXeiv és apiOpnov, ‘ to be classed among the number’; but it would 
not be difficult to substitute a more literal rendering of the Latin. In 
this passage the repetitions ‘in urbe roma,’ ‘urbis romae,’ ‘sedente 
cathedram,’ ‘ ecclesiae episcopus,’ lead me to suspect that we have here 
some surplusage introduced for the sake of foreigners, when the original 
document was translated into Latin for the use of (say) the African 
churches; but I have given them the benefit of the doubt, and 
retranslated them. 

But if this catalogue was originally written in Greek verse, who was 
the poet? In a paper written some time ago (Hermathena 1. p. 82 sq) 
on the ‘Chronology of Hippolytus’ Salmon (p. 122 sq) discussed at 
length the notice of the authorship of Hermas, which the Muratorian 
Canon has in common with the Liberian Catalogue, of which the earlier 
portion is attributed on fairly satisfactory grounds to Hippolytus. He 
there maintains that the writer’s ‘nuperrime temporibus nostris’ cannot 
be too strictly pressed; that a change came over the Church after the 
age of Irenzus and Clement of Alexandria, who both quote the 
Shepherd with deference; that this change took place in the interval 
between the two treatises of Tertullian, De Oratione and De Pudicitia, 
the work being treated with respect in the former and rejected in the 
latter, as having been classed ‘ by every council of your churches among 
false and apocryphal books’; and that the statement in the AZuratorian 
Canon was the great instrument in effecting this change. The 
Muratorian Canon on this showing therefore may be placed at the 
close of the first century or the beginning of the second, so that there 


412 EPISTLES OF 8S.) CLEMENT. 


is no difficulty in ascribing it to Hippolytus, or at least in assuming it 
to have been known to him, and thus to have suggested the note which 
we find in the Liberian Catalogue. As however I do not see that 
Salmon elsewhere (Smith and Wace, Duct. of Christ. Biogr. ss. vv. 
‘Hippolytus,’ ‘Muratorian Canon’) has so ascribed it, though he still 
maintains the later date, I presume that he has changed his mind. 

Now I should not be prepared to attribute an influence so great to 
this document, especially if it came from Hippolytus, who was at 
daggers drawn with the heads of the Roman Church. But nevertheless 
I am ready to accept the Hippolytean authorship. To this view I am 
predisposed by the fact that there was no one else in Rome at this 
time, so far as we know, competent to produce it. It agrees in all 
respects with the Canon of Hippolytus; both in its rejection of the 
Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and its accept- 
ance of the genuineness of the Apocalypse. Moreover the language 
used of the Shepherd of Hermas is strongly in favour of the 
attribution to Hippolytus. But I seem also to see elsewhere direct 
evidence of the Hippolytean authorship. Among the works of 
Hippolytus, whose titles are inscribed on his Chair, we read 
@Aalictacactacrpadac. If correctly copied, this represents dat 
eis macas Tas ypadas, ‘odes’ or ‘verses on all the Scriptures.’ This 
might represent two titles; (1) wdai, and (2) eis tacas tas ypadas. In 
this case the wdat would only be available as showing that Hippolytus 
wrote metrical compositions, of which these verses on the Canon might 
be one; and «is racas tds ypapas would represent his exegetical works 
which, as we learn from Jerome, were numerous, though it would be an 
exaggeration. But against this separation two objections lie: (1) In no 
other case in this inscription are titles of two works run together in one line 
(see above, pp. 325, 395). Thus yponikoon has a line to itself, though 
only one word. (2) The inscriber has already named the commentary 
‘On the Psalms,’ not to mention the treatise on the ‘Witch of Endor’ 
(tHv éyyaotpivvOov) and the ‘Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse 
of John,’ which might all have been dispensed with, if «is macas tds 
ypapas were a comprehensive description of his commentaries and other 
exegetical works. What then were these ‘odes referring to all the 
Scriptures’? Might they not describe two metrical compositions 
relating to the Canon of the Old and New Testament respectively, of 
which the latter only is preserved, being itself mutilated at the 
beginning? If this were not sufficient to account for the expression, 
the collection might, hke Gregory Nazianzen’s, have included poems 
“On the Patriarchs,’ ‘On the Plagues of Egypt,’ ‘On the Decalogue,’ 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 413 


‘On Elijah and Elisha,’ ‘On the Miracles of Christ,’ ‘On the Parables 
of Christ,’ etc. But this seems to me unnecessary. Before the extant 
leaves in the ms, which begin abruptly in the middle of the description 
of S. Mark, a sheet or sheets are wanting, and these may have contained 
the Canon of the Old Testament. This was at least as important as 
the Canon of the New in the eyes of the early fathers, and’ precedes it 
in almost every ancient list, e.g. in Athanasius and Epiphanius, in 
Amphilochius and Gregory Nazianzen. ‘The fragment on the Canon is 
followed in the ms by a passage from S. Ambrose (De Adrah. i. 3, 
S§ 15, 16, Of. 1. p. 289); and Jerome tells us (Zfis¢. Ixxxiv. 7) of 
S. Ambrose that he ‘sic Hexaemeron illius [Origenis] compilavit, ut 
magis Hippolyti sententias Basiliique segueretur.” If Jerome does not 
treat the two works of Hippolytus eis rnv éLanuepov and eis ta peta TV 
é€aypepov as one, at all events Ambrose would use the second as freely 
as he used the first. May we not then have here possibly (I will not 
Say more) a passage from a Latin translation of Hippolytus, which 
Ambrose borrowed verbatim ? 

If Hippolytus be the author of this Canon, it was probably one of 
his earliest works. He seems to have died about a.p. 236, being then 
in advanced age. Thus his birth may be placed about a.D. 155—160. 
His literary activity began early; for his Compendium on Heresies for 
various reasons which I will explain presently cannot well be placed 
after about A.D. 185 or 190. In this case he might say with only a 
- natural exaggeration that Hermas wrote the Shepherd ‘temporibus 
nostris,’ according to his own view of the authorship, which may or may 
not have been correct. 

I may add that in the above translations I have avoided many 
metrical licenses which Hippolytus might have used. My task would 
have been much easier if I had indulged in such monstrosities as we 
find even in cultured writers like Amphilochius and Gregory Nazianzen, 
writing on the same theme. 


§ 7. 
THE COMPENDIUM AGAINST ALL THE HERESIES. 


A work by Hippolytus ‘against all the Heresies’ was widely known 
among early writers. It is mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome, it 
supplied Epiphanius and Philaster largely with materials, and it is 
probably quoted by the Roman Bishop Gelasius. Photius (42. 32. b) 
has described this work, which he calls ovvrayywa ‘a compendium,’ 
rather fully. 


414 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


He speaks of it as a little book (BiBAdapiov). It comprised thirty- 
two heresies, beginning with the Dositheans and ending with Noetus 
and the Noetians. It was founded on some lectures of Irenzeus (ope- 
Aodvros EHipynvaiov), in which these heresies were submitted to refu- 
tations (éA€yxeus vroBAnOjvar). It was clear, grave, and terse in style; 
though it fell short of the Attic diction. It was not absolutely accurate 
in some respects, as for instance in stating that the Epistle to the 
Hebrews was not written by S. Paul. 

When the great work of Hippolytus—the so-called Philosophu- 
mena—was discovered and published for the first time by Miller, who — 
however ascribed it to Origen, several critics, who discerned the true 
authorship, believed that this was the identical work described by Photius. 
Bunsen for instance was very positive on this point; though in his 
later edition he speaks more circumspectly. But a careful inspection 
showed that the identification was impossible. In the first place Photius 
calls the work which he describes ‘a little book.’ Now the Phzlosophu- 
mena is a large book, even in its present mutilated condition; and when 
it comprised the whole ten books—of which two are lost—could not by 
any figure of language be called BiBAdaprov. Least of all, would it be 
designated a ‘Synopsis,’ or ‘Compendium’; for it is even diffuse in the 
treatment of most heresies of which it treats at all. Secondly; by no 
feat of arithmetic can the number of heresies which it includes be 
summed up as thirty-two. TZird/y,; it neither begins nor ends like the 
work described by Photius. The first heresy dealt with is not the 
Dosithean, but the Naassene; and the last is not the Noetian, but the 
Elchesaite. Of its relation to Irenzeus I shall have to speak presently. 

But though the Phzlosophumena is not the identical treatise men- 
tioned by Photius, it recognises the existence of that treatise ; and it 
does so in such a way as to show that the two were the work of the 
same author. At the commencement of this longer work the writer 
states (AR. 1. a) that long ago (mado) he had written to expose 
and refute the doctrines of the heretics, not minutely (xara Aerrov), 
but roughly and in their broad features (adpouepds); that they had failed 
to profit by his moderation, and that now he must speak more plainly 
and warn them of their eternal peril. Here then we have a description, 
as having been written at a much earlier date, of the ‘Compendium’ 
seen by Photius. 

But is this ‘Compendium’ still extant in any form or other? At 
the close of the Praescriptio Haereticorum of Tertullian is added, asa 
sort of appendix, a brief summary of heresies, which has long been 
recognised as the work of some other author besides Tertullian. As 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. AI5 


this list begins with the Dositheans, it was a somewhat obvious con- 
jecture that we have here a Latin translation or abridgement of Hip- 
polytus’ work. This conjecture is as old as Allix Fathers vindicated 
touching the Trinity p. 99, who is quoted by Waterland (Works v. 
p. 227); but to Lipsius (Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, Wien 1865) the 
merit is due of rescuing the theory from the region of conjecture and 
placing it on a solid scientific basis. 

The list of the Pseudo-Tertullian contains about thirty-two heresies, 
one or two more or less, for it is not possible in every case to determine 
whether a particular designation is intended to specify a separate 
heresy or not. Moreover it begins, as I have said, with the Dositheans, 
as Photius describes the Syz¢agma of Hippolytus as beginning; but 
instead of ending with Noetus, it substitutes another monarchian, 
Praxeas. How this came to pass I shall explain presently. 

But the great testimony to the identity of the Pseudo-Tertullian with 
Hippolytus is derived from a different source. Two later writers on 
heresies, Epiphanius and Philaster, have very much in common. They 
wrote about the same time. Epiphanius commenced his work in the 
year 374, and the 66th of the 80 sections was written in 376. The date 
of Philaster’s work cannot be decided with absolute certainty, but it 
_ seems to have been written about 380. Thus there is no chronological 
impossibility in the common parts having been derived by Philaster 
from Epiphanius. But the independence of the two is shown incon- 
testably by the two following considerations. 

(1) The same thirty-two heresies which appear in the Pseudo- 
Tertullian run like a back-bone through the works of Epiphanius and 
Philaster, being supplemented in different ways by the two writers at 
divers points, as far as the close of the second century when Hip- 
polytus wrote. 

(2) After the close of the second century, they have nothing in 
common, which suggests any plagiarism on either side. 


The following list of heresies in the three writers, carried down as 
far as the Arians, will make these phenomena plain: 


EPIPHANIUS PSEUDO-TERTULLIAN PHILASTER 
Ophites 
Cainites 
Sethites 
Barbarism 


Scythism 


416 


EPIPHANIUS 


Hellenism :— 
Platonists 


Pythagoreans 


Stoics 
Epicureans 
Samaritans :— 
Gortheni 
Sebuaei 
Essenes 
Dositheus 
Judaism :— 
Scribes 
Pharisees 
Sadducees 


Hemerobaptists 


Ossenes 
Nazarenes 


(Nagcapaitor) 


Herodians 
Simon Magus 
Menander 
Saturninus 
Basilides 
Nicolaitans 
Gnostici 
Borborians 
(Barbelites) 


Carpocrates 
Cerinthus 
Nazarenes 
(Nafwpator) 
Ebionites 


PSEUDO-TERTULLIAN 


Dositheus 


Sadducees 
Pharisees 


Herodians 
Simon Magus 
Menander 
Saturninus 
Basilides 
Nicolaitans 


Ophites 
Cainites 
Sethites 
Carpocrates 
Cerinthus 


Ebionites 


EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT. 


PHILASTER 


Dositheus 


Sadducees 
Pharisees 
Samaritans 


Nazarenes 
(Nazaraei) 
Essenes 
Heliognosti 
Frog-worshippers 
(Ranarum cultores) 
Musorites 
Musca-accaronites 
Troglodytes 
De Fortuna Caeli 
Baalites 
Astarites 
Moloch-worshippers 
De Ara Tophet 
Puteorites 
Worshippers of the Brazen 
Serpent 
Worshippers in subterranean 
caves 
Thammuz-mourners 
Baalites (or Belites) 
Baal-worshippers 
de Pythonissa 
Astar and Astaroth-worship- 
pers 
Herodians 
Simon Magus 
Menander 
Saturninus 
Basilides 
Nicolaitans 
(isti Barbelo venerantur) 


Judaites 


Carpocrates 
Cerinthus 


Ebionites 


EPIPHANIUS 


Valentinus 
Secundus 
Ptolemaeus 
Marcosians 
Colarbasus 
Heracleon 
Ophites 
Cainites 
Sethites 
Archontici 
Cerdon 
Marcion 
Apelles 
Lucian 
Severians 
Tatian 
Encratites 
Cataphrygians :— 


Montanists 
Tascodrugites 
Pepuzians 
Quintillians 
Artotyrites 
Quartodecimans 
Alogi 
Adamians 
Sampsaeans 
(Elkesaeans) 


Theodotus 


Melchizedekites 


Bardesanes 
Noetians 


Valesians 

Cathari 

Angelici 
Apostolici 
Sabellians 
Origenaeans 

Paul of Samosata 
Manichaeans 
Hierakites 
Meletians 


Arians 


CLEM. II. 


PSEUDO-TERTULLIAN 


Valentinus 
Ptolemaeus 
Secundus 
Heracleon 
Marcus 
Colarbasus 


Cerdon 
Marcion 
Lucan 
Apelles 


Tatian 


Cataphrygians :— 


secundum Proclum 
secundum Aeschinem 


Blastus 
Theodotus 


Melchizedekites 
(Theodotus IT) 


Praxeas 


(end) 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 


PHILASTER 


Valentinus 
Ptolemaeus 
Secundus 
Heracleon 
Marcus 
Colarbasus 


Cerdon 
Marcion 
Lucan 
Apelles 


Tatian 


Cataphrygians 


Theodotus 

De Patris et 
Filii substantia 

Melchizedekites 


Noetians 


Sabellians 
(Praxeans) 
(Hermogenians) 

Seleucus 

Hermias 

Proclianites 
(Hermeonites) 

Florians 
(Carpocratians) 

Quartodecimans 

Chilionetites 

Alogi 

Manichaeans 

Patricians 

Symmachians 

Paul of Samosata 

Photinus 

Arians 


417 


418 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


The original treatise of Hippolytus closed with the heresy of Noetus. 
In place of Noetus, the Latin abridgement substitutes another mon- 
archian, Praxeas. With this Praxeas we are chiefly acquainted through 
the tract of Tertullian directed against him’. He came to Rome 
during the pontificate of Zephyrinus (c. A.D. 199—217), with whom his 
doctrines found favour, as we learn from Hippolytus that he embraced 
monarchian views. ‘This is the pontiff respecting whom Tertullian 
writes (c. 1) ‘Duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romae procuravit, prophetiam 
expulit et haeresim intulit, paracletum fugavit et patrem crucifixit.’ 
He moreover says that Praxeas had influenced this bishop by repre- 
senting his predecessors as having maintained the orthodox doctrine 
(praecessorum ejus auctoritates defendendo), just as the same charge is 
brought against the contemporary monarchians, Artemon and others, 
by the author of the treatise directed against them, presumably 
Hippolytus. There can be little doubt therefore that Tertullian 
writes during the episcopate of Zephyrinus*. It seems clear also that 
Tertullian borrows from Hippolytus, and not conversely. 


[This section was never finished ’®. ] 


§ 8. 
THE REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES. 


[See above, p. 403. Not written. | 


1 See the article Tertullian wider 2 I have stated elsewhere that Victor 
Praxeas by Noedechen in $ahrd. f. was the bishop attacked by Tertullian: 
Protest. Theol. X1v. p. 576 sq (1888), in but I am now convinced that Zephyrinus 
which the relations of Tertullian to is meant. 

Hippolytus are traced, showing that the 3 [For the approximate date of the 
African father is indebted to the Roman, Compendium see below, p. 426.] 
and not conversely. 


PIPrFOLYTUs OF PORTUS. 419 


§ 9. 


TABLE OF THE LITERARY WORKS OF HIPPOLYTUS. 


We are now in a position to tabulate the various writings of 
Hippolytus by the aid of our chief authorities Eusebius, Jerome, 
Georgius Syncellus, Ebed-Jesu, Photius and Theodoret ; and to com- 
pare the table thus obtained with the list of works inscribed on the 
Chair. It will be noticed that the results are fairly satisfactory. If we 
may consider ourselves justified in supposing that we have in the 
Muratorian Canon and in the Liber Generationis translations of the 
@dal cis macas tas ypadas and the xpovxa respectively (see above, 
I. p. 258 sq, Il. pp. 399, 405 sq), in almost every other case we can 
identify the works mentioned on the Chair with the help of the several 
lists of Hippolytus’ writings, as they occur in the patristic notices of the 
saint. Of these lists that of Jerome is the most complete. Again, 
extracts of some of the works themselves survive in the pages of 
Photius, Theodoret, etc., and throw much light on the scope and 
contents of the several treatises. It would be premature to conclude 
that an absolute identification has in every instance been established. 
Doubtless in the light of fresh discoveries our present results will 
require modification. But it is fair to say that the table given below 
has been worked out at an expenditure of considerable care and 
attention. 

The writings of Hippolytus are arranged and numbered in the order 
given in § 5 of this chapter (see above, p. 388 sq), where the arguments 
for the identification of the various writings will be found stated at 


greater length. 


27—2 


Trees 


ah VD OLD | 104 





















anjLoyoup 70 207 geet QoL OripyyT -OuD 10H ete 
(z£ *yp) snuswmogy $ (FI ane sa “DI PLON DID\ PPI | 43 alt S79 YN S10 ad asfaqoo0d Pr ay alapmy PLM¥ not daua 61 
qr ay 
yo10posy,], z¥r/oan1g amLapyns amt alt S79 
(2°2I *‘yP) JerOpoay_T, SvLoliy ong saoxt $79 a 
(I'S °Y PH) “UOLTIPY mnapyjzpvyy ue *1U1u0d Lr 
: sypods 
SD3d YON SYIDYDL 
SD}OLADL SDYYP S79 UVIADYIDZ UT QI 
(r€ ‘VF) seping £ (ze ‘y F) Snaaponoz 
sniuawindy) £ (9 *1€ “yP) sunoyg £(g1 yx nodym nor anys 
“yP) smiyeasny {(Y *§ yp) snwAuossr zy \laany anjaalinid3 -anl AML \Yliany 10» yawUvng a Sr 
Wana say, vLoypn \4rna5aq, aoL day 73 ¥y 
Log 
"I 4O ‘791g “Wassy) wmnr2U202f wW2 bare ¢y 
amid 
(v ‘1 *yR) JeA0poay ], “Od AML DYYOL S79 wavs uy tI 
2N40I22 
nLvnon PL $79 | -uvQUNIIQUDIUT nnop OL $73 ri 
IISVUSIIIDE ACT O1 
(r¢ 
“YP) Sepmng soLamroyoz eeahe SDL S)9 S22QAIQLOAT ICT 6 
q Se °ur 
"WV P) XIXO SAIXX ‘IIIXx “II "Sg JOIOpOSY TL S2UJDST IAT Snoryn[ fA sQot 573] 8 
DSSiU 109 
OY IAT 73 INDS OT -anjdLovd[ha ake 573] L 
(q “eer yy) 
J2IOpOI, avaay,, at yo aya AV, aoL $79 9 
(q ‘0% *y Pp) snijuoaT 
(ripndgy, ‘| *A) Wpvyng nor rm7zA0yQ> 10 c 
UMINpOXT uy F 
aodanl. aodan 
(9 °g ‘yp) snuuos1pyT 039 at pLa pL $79 wuasauay ug | -v$2 alt pian pL $73 ¢ 
(3 ‘p *g ‘y PF) snuAuosatHy aodanlin39 alt $19 | uodauanxary uy aodanlin3a aks $73 z 
spp 
[oun uvrsojpvanpy | -vdX svt Snopu ae I 
OILADAXY ANV TVOIIdIg “Ww 
SHIVNOS YAHLO ORI TUES NR a en SOW ANOMELE SAIGTSAT YIVFHD HHL = SNXOM 





= <_< Sa” SERRE TG i SSS EN Ra a EE ee Set Se 














‘ (@ "1€ 
‘YP) snyoyg sogaidagvy ‘vasrinopoo0yig 
(22 yy) “eT 
“U0, s79lAl33 vXovu o1 79 $(12 *YP) 
‘yoseg ‘uolyd wvXovu anojpdy nor dan 















DYISDT I wXopu nor dru 
sio0gndnu lxVoLo 

-oup amiprloidnX ras 1g 

AQNDN OL 

a3g9s OX NOQDADL dau | OF 








1uau 
~01MD]Y vtIU0D 






nam xdvy Sod nam ndny Soda 





€b -d apavde'yT aotkony 2703070 ale $79 

(9 *zI ‘“yP) JoIOpoayT, Sogaidagvy 
sodyinlo §(e°1€ “yR) snoyg vamnzidy , 
sodu {(€1 *ypP) snisvpan wnzsasavy 
witowaue S(q *1€ ‘wE) snnoyd 401nQ 
-1V 91g am3.03d10 vLow § (1% “yP) “yoseg 
uoryD vndnLago s13039d19 SPL svovuD SodL 











$13.0 SASAAIDY 513.030 
-2010 SDMIOY SDL 1MN | saU2uO SHSLIApPP | -7O SOL SHOPLY sodu 





6z 





TVOIOOTOISHYH A, °C 























Dagan ‘ys audnddvap IMAL ht 
wXOPL NOL AON uouns unsoguiag | at amagdX ams ch a9 [pL] vLvy vXopu 
[seeorgn.4auay 139tT7 | -utsn43970¥339 A0L | 29 avyssog ouvy|ar wvXopu gor ydau| QOL amagdX sizraggup 8% 
(91 ‘YP) (é) “ys49g “TEAD agnraodX | Lz 
TIVOINOLSI FT 





ANV ‘IVOIDOTONOUHD) °*D 





| gz 





Eb -d apresey wiaapporg why vx 579 
(9. “rt 
‘YF) suoyd 20L07;dX11a9 yor noL0id yx pau 





OJStdYIUUP IT 
StLOJDAIDS* ULOC] ap 





















snjv/020570 203.u -nv’T ap pNN0.00d u snj[r/o20470 yan] bz 
(Foy py) seuy svj0dvghy wy sma nv10nap smaopLonap 
Wan $(t% *yP) ‘yey *9U0D Sn7Ao0yoIg 2032 IUOUJIIAANSIM ACT soxdv0 WH 203Q du €z% 





(‘seT) Lg -d ‘1hg *jeuy wvavuuvpy pr 
(9 ‘q “eI “yP) 

Jo1oposyL, “Yot01u> var, vQ7yr0v—) sodu 
(v “If ‘yy) 
sntjoyg § (4 1 ‘ywpy) snyAjoddrzy s700 

SQLapL ROL Sut 1d9u 10 ‘sQLanu nor 2d>u 





anaiadliug 
-9% Sod soNIL3dLod x wu 

SOLADIL AOL 

qa 10 L DAMLDYIT 
sod yor snalyyry , Sodu Iz 
Snoj[ngnoy, sor sed] o% 











422 BPISTLES OF |3. CLEMENT: 


S 10. 
EARLY AND MIDDLE LIFE OF HIPPOLYTUS. 


At different points in his life Hippolytus was brought into personal 
contact with two great fathers of the Church, in youth or early manhood 
with Irenzeus, and in middle age with Origen. If we are able approxi- 
mately to fix these dates, we shall obtain chronological landmarks of 
some value, where all is uncertain. 

1. The connexion of Hippolytus with IrEN#Uus is obvious on all 
hands. To Irenzus he was largely indebted in both of his general 
heresiological works—in his early Compendium, which was avowedly 
founded upon the lectures of Irenzeus, and in his later Phi/osophumena, in 
which he borrows large passages, sometimes with and sometimes without 
the name, from the written work of his master. Moreover it is hardly 
possible to read any considerable fragment of his other extant works 
without stumbling upon some thought or mode of expression which 
reminds us of Irenzeus or the Asiatic elders. 

When and where then was this personal communication held? Hip- 
polytus might himself have migrated, like Irenzeus, from Asia Minor in 
early life ; and thus the instructions which he received from his master 
may have been given in his original Asiatic home. But his extant 
writings contain no indication that he was ever in the East, and we 
therefore look to Rome itself, or at all events not farther than the South 
of Gaul, for the place of his Christian schooling. We are thus led to 
enquire when Irenzeus is known to have settled in the West, and more 
especially when he is known to have visited Rome. 

If the story in the Appendix to the Moscow ms of the Letter of the 
Smyrneans be correct, Irenzeus was teaching in Rome at the time of 
Polycarp’s death a.p. 155. At all events he paid a visit of longer or 
shorter duration to the metropolis about a.p. 177, at the time of the 
persecutions in Vienne and Lyons, after which he himself became 
bishop of Lyons in succession to the martyred Pothinus*. But there is 
no reason for supposing that these two occasions exhausted his 
residence at Rome. 

On which occasion can Hippolytus have attended his lectures? 
Irenzeus’ extant work on Heresies was written as far as the 3rd book 
(ili. 3. 3) during the episcopate of Eleutherus (c. A.D. 177190) and as 


1 Jonat. and Polyc. 1. p. 432 ed. 1 (I- ed. 2). 
448 ed. 2); Il. p. 986 ed. 1 (III. p. 402 a Luseb. Alte Va ay Be 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 423 


he leaves the reference to this episcopate untouched (viv...rdv. 77s 
emioKko7s...katTéxet KANpov ’EXevepos), it is a reasonable, though not an 
absolute, conclusion that Eleutherus was still living when the work was 
finally published. The earlier work however of Hippolytus, the 
Compendium, was founded on the lectures, and (as we may infer from 
the notice) betrayed no knowledge of any published work of his 
master. On the other hand the later treatise, the P/zlosophumena, 
quotes large passages, sometimes by name, from the extant work of 
Irenzus. These facts seem to show that the Compendium of Hippolytus 
_ was written before the publication of the latter, i.e. at all events before 
A.D. 190. And we should probably be right in assuming that the 
lectures were held not later than A.p. 177, and before Irenzeus became 
bishop of Lyons. 

2. We are told by Jerome (42. 8. b) that Hippolytus held in 
presence of ORIGEN who was then at Rome ‘a homily on the Praise of 
the Lord (zpocouirta de Laude Domini Salvatoris'). Of Origen we 
are told in his own language that he had ‘desired to see the ancient 
Church of the Romans’ (evéapevos tv dpyatotatny “Pwpaiwy éxxcAyolav 
idetv), and that accordingly he went there in the time of Zephyrinus 
(c. A.D. I99—217), and after staying a short time (ov 7oAv diarpivas) he 
returned to Alexandria (Euseb. % Z£. vi. 14). It would seem from 
this language that it was his only visit to the capital of the world. 
_ Considering the chronology of Origen’s life, who was born about 
A.D. 185 or 186, this visit would probably be paid towards the close ~ 
of Zephyrinus’ episcopate. 

At this time Hippolytus must have been at the height of his 
activity. Before the close of the previous century, as we shall see, he 
was probably consecrated by his patron Victor to the episcopate with 
the charge of the miscellaneous population at the Harbour of Rome; 
and, when Origen visited the metropolis, his feud with the heads of the 
Roman hierarchy must have been raging. __ 

It will be observed that, in repeating this incident, Photius (A202. 
121) by a strange blunder has ascribed to Hippolytus (42. 31. b) what 
Jerome (AR. 8. b) tells us of Ambrosius, and thus makes Hippolytus 
the ‘task-master’ (€pyoduwxrys) of Origen. He must have misunderstood 
Jerome’s words ‘in hujus aemulationem.’ 


1, On the possible identity of this inthe list of Hippolytus’ writings on the 
homily with a work (epi ofxovouias) Chair, see above, p. 398. 
mentioned by Ebed-Jesu, and included 


424 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


Seat, 


WAS HIPPOLYTUS A NOVATIAN? 


About the year 407 the Spanish poet Prudentius paid a visit to 
Rome. Among other sanctuaries which he visited were the basilica 
and cemetery of Hippolytus on the north side of the Tiburtine Road, 
just beyond the walls of the city, of which he has left us an elaborate 
description in one of his poems (4A. 10). Among other statements 
he tells us distinctly (ver. 19 sq) that Hippolytus ‘had once dallied 
with (attigerat) the schism of Novatus’; that he was afterwards con- 
demned to be executed; that on his way to martyrdom the crowds 
of Christian friends who accompanied him enquired of him, ‘which 
was the better party’ (‘quaenam secta foret melior’), the Novatians 
or the Catholics; and that he replied, ‘Flee from the accursed schism of 
Novatus; restore yourselves to the Catholic people; let one only 
faith flourish, the faith that resides in the ancient temple which Paul 
claims and the chair of Peter. I repent me that I taught what I 
did; I discern as a martyr that reverence is due to that which I once 
thought alien to the service of God.’ It is unnecessary to enquire 
at present whether Prudentius in his description confuses two con- 
temporaries bearing the same name, Hippolytus the soldier and 
Hippolytus the presbyter. Recent archzological discovery has shown 
that this charge of Novatianism belongs to Hippolytus ‘the presbyter’. 

Among the many archeological gains which we owe to De Rossi, 
not the least is the restoration of the inscription placed by pope 
Damasus [A.D. 366—384] in this sanctuary of Hippolytus and read 
by Prudentius. Though he has amplified the words of Damasus (as 
the exigencies of his poem suggested) the close resemblances between 
the two forbid us to doubt about the source of his information. Now 
Damasus tells us (42. 7. a), likewise in verse, that ‘Hippolytus she 
presbyter, when the commands of the tyrant pressed upon him, is 
reported (fertur) to have remained all along (semper) in the schism 
of Novatus, what time the sword wounded the vitals of our Mother 
(the Church)’; but that ‘when as a martyr of Christ he was journeying 
to the realms of the saints, the people asked him whither they might 
betake themselves (procedere posset), he replied that they ought all to 
follow the Catholic faith.’ So he concludes 


Noster meruit confessus martyr ut esset ; 
Haec audita refert Damasus. Probat omnia Christus; 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 425 


‘Our saint by his confession won the crown of martyrdom. Damasus 
tells the tale as he heard i¢, All things are tested and proved by 
Christ.’ 

It was very natural that the discoverer and restorer of the in- 
scription, which was the sole foundation (so far as we can see) of 
the story in Prudentius, should claim undue authority for its statements. 
To De Rossi it seems incredible that Damasus could have been mis- 
taken about events which occurred at least some 120 or I50 years 
before he wrote (according as the schism of Hippolytus was Novatianism 
or not, i.e. according as it dated from the age of Cornelius or from 
that of Zephyrinus and Callistus), especially as he had been reared 
from childhood amidst the services of the Church. But fivs¢ it must be 
observed that Damasus simply reports this as hearsay, emphasizing 
this fact by reiteration and leaving the conclusion to the judgment 
of Christ—for there is no ground for the inference that the ‘hearsay’ 
refers not to the lapse into Novatianism but only to the subsequent 
repudiation of it; and secondly we must remember that the whole 
history of Hippolytus was shrouded in obscurity to the Roman Christians 
in the age of Damasus; so much so that his much more learned 
but somewhat younger contemporary Jerome (4. 8. b), though in 
possession of a large number of works by Hippolytus, confesses 
his ignorance respecting the name of the writer’s see. This is a 
startling fact, and must be taken into account. Indeed the discovery 
of the inscription of Damasus is the more valuable, because it justifies 
the solution, which many had proposed on the publication of the 
Philosophumena to explain the account of Prudentius, namely that the 
Spanish poet had confused together an earlier outbreak of puritanism at 
Rome under Zephyrinus and Callistus with a later outbreak thirty years 
afterwards leading to the appointment of the schismatical bishop 
Novatian. The Novatianism of Hippolytus was a mere rumour which 
was circulated in Rome some four generations after his death. We 
are therefore entitled to weigh it on its own merits. Here two im- 
portant considerations must be taken into account. 

(1) The Novatian schism broke out in Rome in a.p. 250 and led 
immediately to the consecration of Novatian as anti-pope. A full 
blaze of light is suddenly poured upon this chapter in the internal 
politics of the Roman Church by the correspondence between Rome 
and Carthage preserved in the Cyprianic letters. The minor vicissitudes 
of the schism are there revealed; names are freely mentioned; the 
defections and recantations are recorded; and in short there is no 
period in the history of the Roman Church, until we are well advanced 


426 EPISTLES OF S.; CLEMENT. 


in the fourth century, of which we know so much. Even the Eastern 
Churches of Alexandria and Antioch took an active part in the contro- 
versy, and are represented in the extant literature of the schism. Yet 
from first to last there is not a mention of Hippolytus, the most learned 
man in the Roman Church before the time of Jerome ; whose lapse and 
repentance, emphasized still further by his martyrdom, would accentuate 
his position with respect to the schism. Who can believe it? Is the 
error of Damasus, who frankly acknowledges mere rumour as his 
informant, a difficulty at all commensurate to this? 

But besides the documents bearing directly on the Novatian schism, 
there is another place where we should almost certainly have found a 
reference to this passage in Hippolytus’ life, if it had ever occurred. 
The earliest western list of the bishops of Kome (given above, 
I. p. 253 Sq) was drawn up either by Hippolytus himself or by some 
contemporary, and ended with the death of Urbanus and accession of 
Pontianus [A.D. 230, 231]. Its first continuator extends the record 
from Pontianus [A.D. 231—235] to Lucius [a.p. 253, 254] and must 
have written immediately after the death of Lucius (see 1. p. 263). He 
starts with a notice of the deportation of Pontianus the bishop and 
Hippolytus ‘the presbyter’ to the ‘unhealthy island of Sardinia,’ men- 
tioning the divestiture or resignation of the former. In the interregnum 
between Fabius (Fabianus) and Cornelius [a.p. 250—251] he states 
that ‘ Moyses and Maximus the presbyters and Nicostratus the deacon 
were apprehended and sent to prison,’ and that ‘at that time Noyatus 
arrived from Africa and separated Novatian and certain confessors from 
the Church after that Moyses had died in prison’ after a captivity of 
neatly twelve months. - Again under Cornelius [a.p. 251—253], he 
mentions that during his episcopate ‘Novatus outside the Church 
ordained Noyatian in the city of Rome and Nicostratus in Africa,’ and 
that thereupon the confessors who separated themselves from Cornelius 
with Maximus the presbyter returned to the Church. ‘These are nearly 
all the notes which this continuator inserts in the period for which he is 
responsible, besides dates and numbers ; and they have reference either 
to Hippolytus or to Novatianism (see I. p. 255 sq; comp. p. 286 sq). 
Why does not this contemporary writer connect the one with the other, 
if history had connected them by the signal fact of Hippolytus’ adhesion 
and recantation ? 

(2) But secondly ; the extension of the life of Hippolytus beyond 
the middle of the second century which would be required if his 
Novatianism were true, introduces a serious difficulty into his chronology. 
I have already shown (II. p. 413 sq) that his early work, the Com- 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 427 


fendium on Heresies, was probably written at all events before A.D. 190. 
But, if the Novatianism be accepted as true, he must have lived more 
than sixty years after this work was published. Moreover the last 
notice, which we have of any event connected with his life, is the state- 
ment given above from the Papal Chronicle, which belongs to the year 
A.D. 235. Yet, if he were really a Novatian and perished in the Decian 
persecution (A.D. 250—252), he must have been alive some sixteen 
years afterwards. Not to mention, that the notice itself, by dwelling 
on the ‘unhealthiness’ of the island, suggests that he perished, as 
Pontianus also perished, an exile in Sardinia—a too probable result 
of such banishment to an octogenarian. 

I should add also that, though history does repeat itself, we need 
something more than a hearsay of the age of Damasus to convince us 
that the same Hippolytus should have ¢w7ce been in schism with the 
rulers of the Roman Church on the same ground of puritanism, and 
have ézwice suffered cruel persecution from the heathen rulers, whether 
as a confessor or as martyr. 

We may therefore safely accept the conclusion of those critics, 
Bunsen, Dollinger, and others, who explained the story of Prudentius 
by the facts related in the Phzlosophumena'—confirmed as this conclu- 
sion has subsequently been by the discovery since made that the story 
had no better foundation than a late rumour. 


Sen bed 


CHE SBE! OF" HIP POLY TES. 


Hippolytus speaks of himself as a bishop. He is so designated by 
others. What then was his see? Rome was the sphere of his activity 
while living. At Rome he was commemorated after death. All his 
recorded actions are connected with Rome or at least with Italy. 
Whether history or legend be interrogated, the answer is the same. We 
are not asked to travel beyond Italian ground, nor for the most part 
beyond the immediate neighbourhood of the world’s metropolis itself. 

Hippolytus was by far the most learned man and the most prolific 
writer which the Roman Church produced before Jerome. It is there- 
fore the more remarkable that any uncertainty should rest upon the 
name of his see. It is still more strange that the writers who lived 


* Wordsworth however (p. 158 sq) obliged to prolong the life of Hippolytus 
strives to maintain the accuracy of Pru- accordingly. 
dentius on this and other points, and is 


428 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


nearest to his own time and locality should most frankly confess their 
ignorance. 

Yet this is so. Eusebius (42. 3. d), who wrote within some eighty 
years of his death and was acquainted with several of his writings, tells 
us that he was a bishop somewhere or other (€répas ov...mpoeotws 
éxkAyoias). Jerome, who wrote a little more than half a century later 
than Eusebius, is equally at a loss (AR. 8. b). He is not dependent 
on this occasion, as on so many others, on his predecessor; he shows a 
larger acquaintance with the works of Hippolytus; he had habitually 
trodden the same ground, which Hippolytus trod when living. Yet he 
frankly confesses that he has ‘not been able to find out the name of the 
city’ of which Hippolytus was bishop. Bunsen indeed (1. p. 420) 
suggests that he could not tell, because he would not tell, and that his 
reticence in fact means ‘Non mi ricordo.’ For this imputation how- 
ever there is no ground. The one man of all others, whose antecedents 
placed him in the most favourable position for ascertaining the details 
of the earlier history of the Roman Church and who took special pains 
to preserve memorials of the martyrs—among others of Hippolytus 
himself—Pope Damasus, the older contemporary of Jerome, says 
nothing about his see, but calls him simply the ‘presbyter’ (4.2. 7. a), 
a term of which I shall have to speak presently (see below, p. 435 sq). 

At length when this silence about the see of its most illustrious 
writer is broken by the Roman Church, the notice betrays the grossest 
ignorance. Gelasius followed Damasus in the papacy after a lapse of 
about a century (A.D. 492—496). He refers to the Treatise on Heresies 
as written by ‘ Hippolytus bishop and martyr of the metropolis of the 
Arabians,’ i.e. of Bostra (42. 13). But this notice, though blundering, 
is explicable and highly instructive. Eusebius, describing the chief 
writers of a particular period, mentions that Beryllus was bishop of the 
Arabians in Bostra, adding ‘in like manner Hippolytus presided (as 
bishop) over some other church’ (érépas zov). In translating this 
passage Rufinus (42. 9) drops the érépas wov and renders vaguely, 
‘episcopus hic [Beryllus] fuit apud Bostram Arabiae urbem maximam. 
Erat nihilominus et Hippolytus, qui et ipse aliquanta scripta dereliquit 
episcopus.’ This might imply to a casual reader who had not the 
original before him that Hippolytus was a predecessor or successor of 
Beryllus in the same see of Bostra. 

The origin of this curious blunder has thus been satisfactorily 
explained, and it need not therefore give us any further trouble. 
Nevertheless it has given rise to some modern speculation, which 
cannot be passed by without a mention. Le Moyne (Varia Sacra tl. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 429 


prol. p. 28 sq, ed. 2) with much learning and ingenuity maintained that 
the see of Hippolytus was not the Port at the mouth of the Tiber, 
which he calls Portus Ostiensis', but Portus Romanorum or Emporium 
Romanum, the modern Aden, on the Red Sea*; and he succeeded in 
persuading several writers of great repute such as Cave, Spanheim’*, and 
others*. Latterly this view has found no supporters. Of a recent 
attempt by Erbes to utilise this supposed connexion with Bostra— 
though shown to be a blunder—in support of his own chronological 
theories, I have had occasion to speak already. The real value of the 
notice of Gelasius is the evidence which it affords, that even in his 
time nothing was known at Rome of the see of Hippolytus. 

The general opinion however makes him bishop of Portus the 
haven of Rome. This view prevailed before Le Moyne attempted to 
transfer him from the mouth of the Tiber to the mouth of the Red 
Sea. But Le Moyne’s attempt called forth a vigorous championship of 
the received view. At the instigation of Card. Ottoboni, bishop of 
Portus, his librarian Ruggieri, a man of learning and ability, addressed 
himself to the subject in a treatise De Portuenst S. Hippolyti Episcopt et 
Martyris Sede, which after many vicissitudes appeared at length as a 
posthumous work (Romae, 1771)°. This work has given its direction to 
later opinion on the question; and in our own generation, when the 
interest in Hippolytus was revived by the publication of the Phz/oso- 
phumena, there was a very general acquiescence on this point among 
those who differed most widely in other respects. 

Nevertheless it must be confessed that the ancient evidence is very 
defective. We cannot overcome our surprise that, if his see had 
been within fifteen or twenty miles of Rome itself, the popes Damasus 
and Gelasius should have been ignorant of the fact. But the difficulty 
culminates in the case of Jerome. He was well acquainted with the 
various works of Hippolytus. His own friend Pammachius built at 
this very Portus a ‘xenodochium®’ or ‘hospital for foreigners,’ which 


Mém. 1. p. 239, 672 sq. 
5 The circumstances attending the his- 


1 He does not however confuse Portus 
and Ostia (see p. 29 sq), as Wordsworth 


seems to think (p. 259, note 7). 

2 There is however, so far as I have 
seen, no evidence produced to show that 
the place was called Portus Romanus, 
its common name being Amportum Ro- 
manum. 

3 Op. 1. p. 777, Lugd. Bat. r7or. 

4 Not however Tillemont (as Words- 
worth says, p. 259), at least in my edition, 


tory of the composition and appearance 
of this work will be found in Words- 
worth, p. 260 sq. It is inserted in Lum- 
per, Wist. Sanct. Patr. Tom. viii, and 
again in Migne, Patrol. Graec. X. p. 395 
sq). 

6 Hieron. Ffzst. xvi. § 11 (I. p. 410) 
‘Audio te [Pammachium] xenodochium 
in Portu fecisse Romano,’ Zfzs¢. |xxvii. 


430 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


became known far and wide and in which Jerome expresses the greatest 
interest. Did Portus retain no memorial of its most famous bishop, who 
died a martyr only a century and a half before? 

Indeed the earliest authority for placing his see at Portus appears 
not at Rome nor in Italy, but in Constantinople and the East, two 
centuries and a half later than Jerome’s Catalogus. In the Chronicon 
FPaschale |c. A.D. 630] he is described as bishop ‘of the place called 
Portus near Rome’ (AR. 21)’. From this time forward he is 
occasionally so called, as for instance by Anastasius the Apocrisiarius 
or Papal Nuncio at Constantinople a.p. 665 (AR. 23); by Georgius 
Syncellus c. A.D. 792 (AR. 28); by Nicephorus of Constantinople 
Ta. D. 828 (AR. 29); and other later writers. The statements of 
Anastasius and of Nicephorus seem to be founded on the heading to a Ms 
of the spurious treatise Against Vero, which they both quote (see above, 
p- 403 sq). We may indeed suspect that this Constantinopolitan ms 
containing an often quoted and highly important dogmatic treatise 
(if it had only been genuine) was the single source of the story of the 
Portuensian episcopate, which seems to have been derived solely 
through Byzantine channels. The statement is found also in catenz 
and in other manuscripts containing extracts from Hippolytus. 

It should be added also that, besides the defective evidence, the 
argument which placed Hippolytus in the see of Portus was weighted 
with another serious objection, which was urged with fatal effect by 
Dollinger. Bunsen (1. p. 422 sq, 468 sq) projected into the times of 
Hippolytus an arrangement of the later cardinalate, by which the 
bishops of the suburban sees presided as titulars of the principal 
churches in the City itself. Thus Hippolytus, according to Bunsen’s 
view, while bishop of Portus, would have been likewise a member of the 
Roman presbytery. This solution was highly tempting; for it seemed 
to explain how Hippolytus, having a diocese of his own, should inter- 
fere actively in the affairs of the Church of Rome in the manner 
described in the Pizlosophumena. It is sufficient to say that Bunsen’s 
view involves an anachronism of many centuries. The development 
in the relations between the suburban sees and the papacy is traced 


§ to (I. p. 465), Ixvii. § 10 (I. p. 466) 
‘Xenochium in Portu. Romano situm 
totus pariter mundus audivit; sub una 
aestate didicit Britannia quod Atgyptus 
et Parthus noverat vere.’ For an in- 
teresting account of the extant remains 
of this xenodochium see De Rossi Su//. 


adi Archeol. Crist. IV. p. 50 Sq, P- 99 Sq 
(1866). 

1 On the mistaken supposition that we 
have here the words of Peter of Alex- 
andria, who flourished more than three 
centuries earlier, see above, p. 344. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 431 


by Dollinger (p. 105 sq); and the late growth and character of these 
relations are fatal to Bunsen’s theory. 

Here Dollinger was treading on solid ground. But, when he 
maintained that Portus was not at this time and did not become for 
many generations a place of any importance (p. 77 sq), he took up a 
position which it is impossible to hold. The rapid growth of Portus, 
from the time of its foundation, is sufficiently shown by the excavations 
of the present generation’, even if the extant notices had been in- 
sufficient. There is no a priori reason why it might not have been 
an episcopal see in the age of Huppelue if there had been a tittle of 
evidence to the fact. 

On the other hand Dollinger had his own solution of the difficulty, 
not less tempting but even less tenable. He supposed Hippolytus to 
have been not bishop of Portus, but of Rome itself. This was in fact 
the first papal schism, and Hippolytus was the first antipope. 

Against this solution three serious and indeed fatal objections lie. 
(1) It is not justified by anything in the language of Hippolytus himself. 
If he had put forward these definite claims, he must have expressed 
them in definite terms. On the contrary he only mentions vaguely his 
obligation, as a bishop, to stand forward as the champion of the truth. 
Of his adversaries he never says that they are not the lawfully con- 
stituted bishops of Rome, but implies that by their doctrinal and 
practical irregularities they have shown themselves no true bishops. 
His very vagueness is the refutation to this solution of a rival papacy. 
(2) The entire absence of evidence—especially in Rome and the West— 
is fatal to the supposition. There were several papal schisms in the 
third and fourth centuries—one more especially within less than twenty 
years of his death. Yet in none of these controversies is there any 
reference to this one which (if it had existed) must have set the deadly 
precedent. Moreover we have several lists of the popes dating from 
the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, but in not one of these is there a 
hint of Hippolytus as an antipope. (3) The evidence, when it does 
come, is hardly less conclusive than the silence. It is late; it comes 
from the East; and it means nothing or next to nothing. The first 
witness quoted is Apollinaris about a.p. 370 (AA. 6). It is a passage 
in a catena, ascribed, and perhaps rightly ascribed, to this father. But 
we should require far stronger evidence than we possess, to justify the 
improbable supposition that one who had the papal lists of Eusebius 
before him would have called Hippolytus ézioxoros “Powys, meaning 
thereby that he was bishop of the metropolis of the world. We must 


1 See esp. De Rossi Bull. di Archeol. Crist. Iv. pp. 37 sq, 63, 99 (1866). 


432 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


therefore suppose that part of the heading at all events is a later 
addition. After this we have no earlier witnesses than Eustratius 
c. A.D. 578 (AR. 18) and Leontius c. a.p. 620 (AR. 20). Consider- 
ing the late date of these writers, we must regard them as absolutely 
valueless to prove such a conclusion; more especially as the writers 
would know that Hippolytus was a bishop and that he lived in or near 
Rome, so that éricxoros “Pwuys would occur as a loose designation, 
if they did not take the pains to see whether his name was actually 
in the papal lists. 


But, though the testimony which makes Hippolytus bishop of Portus 
is late and valueless, the evidence connecting him with Portus is of a 
very different quality and much earlier in time. Prudentius, who visited 
the shrine of S. Hippolytus on the Tiburtine Way as we have seen soon 
after A.D. 400, and gives an account (doubtless imaginary in its main 
features) of the martyrdom, speaks of the persecutor as leaving Rome 
to trouble the suburban population and as harassing the Christians at 
the mouth of the Tiber (‘Christicolas tunc Ostia vexanti per Tiberina 
viros’). The tyrant, he continues, ‘extended his rage to the coast of 
the Tyrrhene shore and the regions close to sea-washed Portus.’ After 
devoting some thirty lines to describing the punishments inflicted there, 
he says that an old man (‘ senior’) was brought before the tribunal and 
denounced by the bystanders as the chief of the Christian folk (‘Christi- 
colis esse caput populis’). If this does not distinctly name him the 
bishop of Portus, it implies that he held a leading position in the Church, 
and that this was the scene of his clerical activity. Again after the 
martyrdom we are told of the disposal of his reliques ; 


Metando eligitur tumulo locus; Ostia linquunt : 
Roma placet, sanctos quae teneat cineres. 


Of his later connexion with Portus a few words will be necessary here- 
after. It is sufficient to say here, that for many centuries his memory 
has been intimately connected with this town. 

If then the see of Hippolytus was neither Portus nor Rome, what 
was it? But before seeking the answer, we are confronted with a pre- 
vious question. Had he any see at all, in the common acceptance of 
the term? It is now the received theory of the Christian Church, that 
a settled Christian land should be covered with sees, conterminous but 
not overlapping one another; that each is independent of its neighbour; 
and that an zmperium in imperio in an intolerable anomaly. The diffi- 
culties created at times by this theory are great. The Roman Church 
overcomes them by consecrating bishops zz partibus. The Roman con- 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. — 433 


gregations in England in our own time were ruled (owing to legal 
difficulties) for many years, much to the amusement of Englishmen, by 
a great Cardinal who was bishop of Melipotamus—a place of which 
they had never heard. The Anglican Church solves this difficulty in 
another way. Its exigencies require that there should be a bishop to 
superintend the English congregations of Asia and Africa; he is 
‘Anglican bishop in Jerusalem and the East,’ but Jerusalem is not his 
see. Still more necessary is it that the congregations on the conti- 
nent of Europe should have episcopal supervision. This is committed 
to the bishop of ‘Gibraltar.’ Here indeed Gibraltar is properly a see ; 
but the theoretical diocese consists of a garrison and its belongings, a 
harbour, two or three miles of rock, and whole troops of rabbits and 
monkeys. The main body of the human flock, which the bishop 
shepherds, is scattered about Europe and the Mediterranean, and would 
not be found more in Gibraltar itself than in the moon. When the 
bishop some years ago went to Rome to confirm the English residents 
there, Pio Nono is reported to have said humorously that he did not 
know till then that he was in the diocese of Gibraltar. No doubt 
when Hippolytus lived, the practice of the later Church had already 
become general, but it cannot have been universal. Indeed from the 
very nature of the case, the development of the system must have been 
more or less gradual; though it was the ideal at which the Church 
would aim. Less than a century had elapsed, when Hippolytus was 
born, since Timothy exercised episcopal functions in Ephesus, and 
Titus in Crete; but they were itinerant, not diocesan bishops. Even at 
the close of the second century exceptional cases would be treated in 
an exceptional way. The harbour of Portus, now fast supplanting Ostia, 
was thronged with a numerous and fluctuating population, consisting 
largely of foreigners—sailors, warehousemen, custom-house officers, 
dock-police, porters, and the like. A bishop was needed who should 
take charge of this miscellaneous and disorderly flock. He must be- 
fore all things be conversant in the manners and language of Greece, 
the Zingua franca of the East and indeed of the civilized world. Hippo- 
lytus was just the man for the place. He was probably appointed by 
bishop Victor (c. A.D. 190—200); for his relations to Victor’s successors, 
Zephyrinus and Callistus, forbid us to suppose that he owed any pro- 
motion to them, and indeed his account of Victor generally leads us to 
look upon this bishop as his patron. This hypothesis accords with his 
own language speaking of his position. He distinctly designates himself 
as holding the high-priestly or in other words the episcopal office ; he 
was described either by himself or by another’ as having been appointed 
1 Photius AR, 32. a; see above, p. 348. 
CLEM. II. 28 


434 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. | 


bishop of the Gentiles (éricxoros éOvev), thus indicating that he had 
charge of the various nationalities represented at Portus. This is 
obviously an archaic expression and may have originated in the time of 
Hippolytus. At all events in his extant great work, the so-called Phzdo- 
sophumena, he appeals in his concluding address (4A. 1. 1) to ‘Greeks 
and Barbarians, Chaldaeans and Assyrians, Aegyptians and Libyans, 
Indians and Aéthiopians, Celts and Latins on foreign service (ot orpary- 
yotvres Aartvot), and all those who dwell in Europe, Asia and Libya’ 
as their counsellor; where the limitation of the Latins seems to suggest 
that planted at Portus as his head-quarters, he regarded himself by 
virtue of his commission as a sort of episcopal Chaplain-general of the 
Forces. Moreover my theory harmonizes very well with another fact. 
The earliest bishop, connected with Portus after the age of Hippolytus, 
was present at the Council of Arles (A.D. 313); but unlike the other 
bishops mentioned in the same list (de civitate Eboracenst, de ctvitate Utica, 
etc.) he is called not de civitate Portuenst, but Gregorius episcopus de loco 
gut est in Portu Romae’, as if the same arrangement still prevailed, 
Portus being the residence of this Gregorius, but not strictly speaking 
his see. 

Occupying this ground, Hippolytus needed nothing more. Here 
was a sufficient fulcrum for his ecclesiastical lever. He was senior as 
bishop even to his ecclesiastical superiors Zephyrinus and Callistus. He 
held that, as a successor of the Apostles, he had a special gift of the 
Holy Spirit. By virtue of his office, he was an appointed ‘guardian 
of the Church’ (potpos THs éxxAnoias). He was a man of fiery dogmatic 
and moral zeal; and, when he saw, or fancied that he saw, the occupants 
of the Roman see swerving both from the one and from the other, he 
let fly at them at once. His position is quite intelligible. There is no 
evidence that he regarded them as deposed and, from his puritanical 
point of view, himself substituted in their place. But his language 
implies that in some sense he looked upon them as no true bishops.~ 
Probably, if he formulated his views at all, he would have said that 
their doctrinal and moral obliquities had placed their episcopal office 
and functions in abeyance for the time. 

If such was his position, we can well understand why Jerome could 
not discover his see. In fact he had no see to be discovered. But on 
the supposition that he was either a schismatical bishop of Rome or the 
lawful bishop of Portus, no explanation of this ignorance can be given. 


1 Labb. Conc. 1. p. 1454 (ed. Coleti). which bishops of Terracina, Praeneste, 
The previous year a Roman synod was Tres Tabernz, and Ostia are present, but 
held under Miltiades (zd. I. p. 1427), in no bishop of Portus; see Dollinger, p. go. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. | 435 


ae 
HIPPOLVTUS THE PRESBYTER. 


Hippolytus, the famous writer, unmistakeably describes himself as 
a bishop. He is so called also by all those from Eusebius and Jerome 
downward, who were acquainted with his writings. Yet in the only 
contemporary Latin document—indeed the only contemporary document 
—he is called ‘the presbyter.’ This is the designation which he bears 
also in Damasus, the next Latin writer who mentions him; and from 
Damasus it is adopted by Prudentius. What does this title mean? 
The contemporary document indeed seems to accentuate the appellation. 
The compiler of this portion of the Liberian Chronicle (c. a.p. 255) 
speaks of ‘ Pontianus the bishop and Hippolytus the presbyter.’ 

The position and influence of Hippolytus were unique among the 
Roman Christians of his age. He linked together the learning and the 
traditions of the East, the original home of Christianity, with the 
marvellous practical energy of the West, the scene of his own life’s 
labours. Not only was he by far the most learned man in the Western 
Church, but his spiritual and intellectual ancestry was quite exceptional. 
Though he lived till within a few years of the middle of the third 
century, he could trace his pedigree back by only three steps, literary 
as well as ministerial, to the life and teaching of the Saviour Himself. 
Irenzeus, Polycarp, S. John—this was his direct ancestry. No wonder 
if these facts secured to him exceptional honour in his own generation. 

The meaning of the word zpeoButepos, ‘the presbyter’ or ‘ elder,’ 
must be explained by the language of the school in which he was brought 
up. It does not represent office, but it expresses venerable dignity such 
as is accorded to those who are depositaries of the wisdom of the past. 
When Papias speaks of elders’, he means the Apostles and immediate 
disciples of the Lord—those who were ‘fathers of the Church,’ as we 
should say, to his own generation. When Irenzus speaks of ‘the 
blessed elder,’ he means Papias or his own master Polycarp or others 
belonging to the generation of Polycarp and Papias, albeit their younger 
contemporaries. When descending a generation lower still, we arrive 
at Hippolytus himself, we find that his favourite designation of his 
master Irenzeus is 0 poxapios mpecBirepos. In the fragment agaznst 
Noetus (p. 43, Lagarde) again Hippolytus uses the same language ‘the 
presbyters,’ ‘the blessed presbyters.’ The idea of clerical office, if 
involved at all (which I very much doubt) in this use of the term, is 


1 See Essays on Supernatural Religion, p. 145. 
28—2 


436 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


certainly not prominent. Assuredly Hippolytus does not confuse the 
presbyterate with the episcopate; still less does he deny that Irenzeus 
was a bishop, which everyone allowed him to be. This leading con- 
ception of ‘venerable authority’ then seems to have been inherited by 
Hippolytus’ own scholars and younger contemporaries in their use of 
the term. There was no man of his own age and surroundings who had 
the same claims to this title of distinction. An octogenarian, a widely 
learned divine, and a most laborious and influential writer, with such 
a spiritual pedigree—what member of the Roman Church, nay what 
Christian throughout the world, could compete with him ? 

When therefore the chronographer, who wrote less than twenty 
years after his death, states that in the year 235 ‘ Pontianus the bishop 
and Hippolytus the presbyter were banished together, he does not 
directly or indirectly disparage the latter in comparison with the former. 
Pontianus is ‘the bishop’ simply, for there was only one bishop of 
Rome. But Hippolytus has a title of his own, more honorable than 
any conferred by any office; just as Bede is called the Venerable. 
There are many bishops and many archdeacons, but there was only one 
Hippolytus and only one Bede. 

But, though this was the meaning of Hippolytus’ contemporaries, it 
does not follow that later generations understood the terms in the same © 
sense. When nearly a century and a haif later Damasus speaks of 
‘presbyter Hippolytus,’ he probably accepted the designation as he 
found it, but understood it according to the usage of his own time, of 
the priestly office or second order of the ministry; and Prudentius 
followed Damasus. Neither the one nor the other knew anything, 
except vaguely, about the history of Hippolytus, as their statements 
show. 

Thus therefore the use of the term in the Liberian Chronicle does 
not imply, as we might suspect (see I. p. 262), a denial of Hippolytus’ 
claims to the papacy, thus supporting Dollinger’s view that he was the 
first antipope. Still less does it imply that, though a bishop of a 
suburban see, he was a member of the Roman presbytery, according to 
Bunsen’s view. 


§ 14. 
LATER YEARS, BANISHMENT, AND DEATH. 
The episcopate of Victor was conterminous, roughly speaking, with 


the last decade of the first century. Dying towards the close of the 
century, he was succeeded by Zephyrinus. Zephyrinus held the 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 437 


episcopate for eighteen years or thereabouts; Callistus for five. After 
Callistus succeeded Urbanus about a.p. 230. Victor had been the 
friend and patron of Hippolytus. With his successors Zephyrinus and 
Callistus, our saint had a deadly feud. What may have been his 
relations to Urbanus we know not; but, as his quarrel was not with the 
pontificate but with the pontiffs, we may presume that harmony was at 
length restored. If any formal reconciliation was needed, it would now 
take place; and hence would arise the story of his exhorting all 
Christian people to unity, which afterwards was connected (as we have 
already seen) with his supposed lapse into Novatianism. From the 
accession of Urbanus we may suppose that there was a cessation of 
those dissensions within the Church of which Hippolytus had been the 
champion and ringleader. 

At the same time the Church of Rome enjoyed peace from external 
persecution. Early in the year 222 Alexander Severus succeeded to 
the throne. If he was not a convert himself, he was favourably disposed 
towards Christianity. The ladies of his family more especially held 
close relations with the great Christian teachers. Not only Origen in 
Alexandria, but Hippolytus in Rome, corresponded with one or other 
of the princesses. The thirteen years of the reign of Alexander marked 
an epoch of progress and development for the Christian Church. With 
Hippolytus himself it seems to have been the most fertile period of his 
literary life. The peace of the Church within and without left him more 
leisure for literary pursuits ; and the growing physical infirmities of age 
would direct him towards his intellectual resources, which he would be 
eager to turn to account for the instruction of the Church. In the first 
year of Alexander was published his famous work, the Faschal Cycle, 
which was afterwards chosen to decorate the Chair of his Statue, as his 
greatest claim to the recognition of posterity. In the thirteenth and 
last year of this same emperor was finished his almost equally famous 
Chronicle of the World (see 1. p. 259), which must have been about the 
latest literary product of its author. During this same period also he 
must have written his now famous Refutation of all the Heresies, which 
has laid these latest generations of Christian students under the deepest 
debt of gratitude and which perhaps remained incomplete when he was 
overtaken by banishment and death. To this same time belongs also 
the correspondence with Mammea. 

At length this long, laborious, and troubled life was closed by banish- 
ment and death. In the year 230 or thereabouts Urbanus had been 
succeeded by Pontianus as bishop of Rome. In February 235 the 
emperor Alexander was slain at Mayence together with his mother and 


438 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


chief adviser Mammea, the correspondent of Hippolytus and Origen. 
His successor Maximin adopted a wholly different policy towards the 
Christians. The Roman bishop was banished to Sardinia; and with 
him was sent the venerable Christian father Hippolytus. This was in 
the consulship of Severus and Quintianus, A.D. 235. Those modern 
critics who assign the position of antipope to Hippolytus give a plau- 
sible reason for this companionship in exile. They infer that the new 
emperor desired at once to rid the metropolis of the two rival leaders 
of the Roman Church, and so to restore peace in the city. No such 
explanation is needed. The pre-eminent influence of Hippolytus as a 
Christian teacher in the Western world would alone have singled him out 
for this exceptional distinction conferred by the persecuting tyrant’. 
We should do too great honour to Maximin, if we were to attribute to 
him any policy of statecraft. He was a fierce, blood-thirsty soldier, 
whose only idea of government was coercion®. Against the friends and 
adherents of Alexander and his mother Mammea he waged an 
implacable war. To have been a friend of Mammza was to be the 
unpardonable foe of Maximin. But Hippolytus was known to have 
corresponded with, and been trusted by, the deceased empress-mother. 
To Maximin, or to his adherents anxious to secure his favour in Rome, 
this would be sufficient to convict him*. It was not necessary that the 
emperor himself should have visited Rome. There were friends at 
hand ready to execute, or to anticipate, his commands in this matter. 

In the Zier Pontificalis (1. pp. 64, 145, Duchesne) the banishment 
of the two exiles is attributed to Alexander, the names of the same 
consuls being given as in the contemporary record. ‘This is unques- 
tionably a mistake. Maximin became emperor in March this year 
(A.D. 235); and the banishment was the result of the reversal of his pre- 
decessor’s policy (see I. p. Xciv). 

Our contemporary chronicler says nothing of the subsequent fate of 
Hippolytus. He was concerned only with the Roman episcopate, and 
the mention of Hippolytus is incidental. Of Pontianus he states, that in 
Sardinia he divested himself of the episcopate at the close of September 
in this same year (iv Kal. Oct.), and that Anteros was consecrated two 
months later (xi Kal. Dec.) in his place. Of his subsequent fate he 


1 Of the persecution of Maximin see 3 7b. 9, ‘Omnes Alexandri ministros 
Allard Les Chrétiens dans [Empire etc.  variis modis interemit: dispositionibus 
p- 418 sq. eius invidit: et dum suspectos habet 


2 Capitolin. Maximin 8 ‘Erat enim ei amicos et ministros eius crudelior factus 
persuasum nisi crudelitate imperium non est.’ 
teneri.’ 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. ~ 439 


says nothing; but by describing the place of banishment as ‘insula 
nociva’,’ he implies that it was fatal to both exiles. 

Sardinia was to Rome, what Portland is to England—a station of 
convicts who were condemned to hard labour in the quarries. By the 
irony of history, only a few years before, it had been the place of exile 
of Callistus, the great enemy of Hippolytus ; but Callistus had been 
pardoned, and returned to Rome, to succeed to the papacy (AZ. 1. f). 
Sardinia had been a favourite place of deportation for the tumultuous 
Jews who troubled the peace of the city. On one occasion Tiberius 
had banished no fewer than 4oo0 to this island’. When the displeasure 
of the Romans was transferred from the Jews to the Christians, the 
place of exile remained the same. Hence Jewish and Christian Sibyllists 
alike denounce this dread island. With the freedom of unverifiable 
prophecy they foretell that it shall be overwhelmed in the sea, shall be 
extinguished in ashes, and so forth, at the great retribution’; 


apd, viv ov Bapeia peradrAa€yn cis Téppyv. 


The old Greek proverb of ‘sardonic’ laughter—whether originating in 
the hideous grin produced by the bitter herbs of Sardinia or in some 
other way*—receives a new force and significance on the lips of these 
doleful prophets. Sardinia, the exultant persecutor, shall ‘laugh on the 
wrong side of her mouth,’ when the day of vengeance comes’. 


The same collection (a.D. 354), which contains the notice of the 
banishment of the two exiles, comprises another document (see I. p. 
249 sq), certainly not later than a.p. 335, and perhaps (so far as regards 
the particular notice) contemporary with the reference to the exile. This 
latter document deals with the depositions of the popes and martyrs. 
From it we learn that Hippolytus was buried on the Tiburtine Way and 
Pontianus in the Cemetery of Callistus on the same day, the Ides of 
August. ‘The close of the episcopate of Pontianus, whether by depri- 
vation or by resignation (see I. p. 286), was Sept. 28, 235. The Liber 
Pontificalis (1. pp. 64, 145, Duchesne) places his death on Oct. 30, 
A.D. 236. Ifthis date be accepted, the translation of the bones of the 


1 This might be true of the convict 3 Orac. Sibyll. vii. 96 sq; comp. also 
stations, but of the island generally very iii. 477. 
different language is held; Pausan. vii. 4 Virg. Aci. vii. 41 ‘Sardois amarior 
17. 2 Dapdw yap THv vnoov eis TA tducra _herbis’; see Pape-Benseler Griech. Wor- 
evdaiwova dvi “ENAddos opiow amédwxev, terd. s. v. Dapdw. 


said of an exchange of provinces which > Orac. Stbyll. i. 182 Zapddviov weldnua 
Nero made with the Senate; see Mar- vyeXdooere Groray Hén TovUTo K.T.X. The 
quardt Adm. Staatsverw. 1. p. 97. words are put into the mouth of Noah. 


2 Joseph. Azéig. xviii. 3. 5. 


440 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


two confessors must be deferred. As an imperial rescript was necessary 
before removing the body of an exile (see 1. p. 287), the day of deposi- 
tion could not be before the Ides of August 237, as De Rossi places it. 
But on the other hand, as I have pointed out (1. c.), the date of Pon- 
tianus’ death in the Liber Pontificalis is open to the suspicion of 
confusion ; and prudential reasons might have led the friends of the 
exiles from applying for the necessary permission during the tyrant’s 
lifetime. Maximin* was slain in April or May 238 (Clinton’s Fast. 
Rom. \. p. 252). On the whole therefore Aug. 238 seems more probable 
than Aug. 237. The death of Hippolytus may have occurred at any 
time from A.D. 235 to A.D. 238. 


§ 15. 
THE STATUE OF HAIPPOLVTUS. 


In the year 1551 a mutilated statue of a sitting figure was discovered 
in the Ager Veranus. The head and upper part of the body were 
wanting, and there was no name to identify it. Nevertheless its iden- 
tification as a figure of Hippolytus was undeniable, and has never been 
seriously questioned. It was found in the very place where Hippolytus 
had his chief sanctuary; it was evidently the representation of an eccle- 
silastic and a divine, and (as the chair suggested) probably of a bishop; 
it presented on the back and sides of the chair a list of theological 
writings, most of them known to be the works of Hippolytus; more 
especially there was a Paschal Canon constructed in the first year of 
Alexander. This completed the identification. 

This statue is now in the Lateran Museum, the upper part being 
restored. It is figured in several works relating to Hippolytus (e.g. 
Fabricius O/. 1. p. 36 sq; Bunsen I. frontispiece, see pp. 333, 423 Sq, 
460; Wordsworth, frontispiece, see p. 29 sq; and in other books (e.g. 
Kraus Die Christliche Kunst p. 111, 187; Real-Encycl. der Christ. 
Alterth. i. p. 660). The inscription—so far as it bears on our investiga- 
tions—has been given above (AR. 2). 

But what is the date of this erection? It has been variously assigned 
to different epochs from the third to the sixth century. I cannot doubt 
however that Dollinger (p. 291) and Funk (Zheolog. Quartalschr. 1884, 
p. 104 sq) and Salmon (Dict. of Christ. Biogr. s.v. Hippolytus Roma- 
nus Ill. p. 96) are right in giving the earliest date. The phenomena 
indeed are quite inexplicable in any later century. For 

(1) The statue is strictly historical. So far as it gives information, 


PAEPOLYTUS ‘Or :PORTUS: * 441 


this is borne out by what we know from other sources. But the notices 
of Damasus and Jerome and Prudentius show that the historical Hip- 
polytus had disappeared in the fourth century. Those twin giants— 
Ignorance and Myth—had piled their Pelion on Ossa, and stormed the 
citadel of the Truth with only too deadly effect on this occasion. The 
inscription on the statue would be possible in Hippolytus’ time or in 
the next generation ; but we can hardly conceive it at a later date. 

(2) The details of the inscription point to a contemporary record. 
The Paschal Chronicle is given the chief place, being evidently regarded 
as the chef d’ceuvre of the author—his great claim to posthumous fame. 
The cycle is calculated for the years a.D. 222—333. But long before 
this latter date the Romans had been obliged to abandon this cycle, if 
they ever adopted it, for a more correct system of calculation. Even 
as early as the year 243 there is evidence that its erroneousness had 
become too patent to be overlooked, and that a different cycle was 
calculated in order to take its place. In the year 236, the probable 
year of its author’s death, the full moon, as calculated by Hippolytus, 
ought to have fallen on April 5th, whereas it really took place very early 
in the morning of the gth. In the course of eighty years Hippolytus’ full 
moon would coincide with the actual new moon. See the calculations 
of Salmon Chronology of Hippolytus in Hermathena i. p. 82 sq. 

(3) These arguments seem conclusive. If any archzological con- 
siderations should appear to point in the opposite direction, they must 
be very strong to produce conviction. But in fact none such have been 
alleged. Some again have supposed that an older statue—intended for 
some one else—had been utilised and transformed into Hippolytus. 
For this there is no ground. But even, if it had been so, the fact 
would not affect the questions with which we are concerned. The 
arguments remain as strong as ever for the conclusion, that it could not 
have been transformed into Hippolytus and set up in the Ager Veranus 
to represent him after the third century, and probably not after the 
middle of the century. 

As I shall have occasion to show presently (p. 443), this parcel of 
ground on the Tiburtine Way, which became the Cemetery of Hippoly- 
tus was probably his own property. Thus his friends would be able to 
set up the statue without interference ; so that there was nothing to pre- 
vent its erection during his own life-time, though probably it belongs to 
some date immediately after his death. 

By a curious coincidence we have a contemporary representation 
not only of Hippolytus, but also of his great enemy Callistus. De Rossi 
(Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1866, pp. 17, 33) gives a contemporary pic- 


442 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


ture on glass which figures this pope’s head. If any reliance can be 
placed on the likeness, he was a person of grave and venerable appear- 
ance. At all events it is a singular phenomenon that the two earliest 
ecclesiastics of whom contemporary representations are preserved are 
these two deadly enemies. We only regret the more that the head of 
the Hippolytean statue is lost; but perhaps future excavations may 
disinter it. 


§ 16. 
POSTHUMOUS HONOURS AND SANCTUARIES. 


We have seen that the bodies of the two martyrs who had died in 
Sardinia-—Pontianus and Hippolytus—were brought back to find a 
resting place amidst the scenes of their former life and work. They 
were companions in their burial, as they had been companions in their 
banishment. The same Ides of August, presumably in the year 237 or 
238, saw them both deposited with all honours in the suburban Ceme- 
teries. But, though the day was the same, the place was different. 
Pontianus, the pope, was laid in the papal crypt then recently con- 
structed in connexion with the Cemetery of Callistus on the Appian 
Way, but already occupied by his successor Anteros who died after 
occupying the papal throne a few months (a.pD. 236) and thus preceded 
him to his grave. His companion in exile Hippolytus found his grave 
on another of the great roads which stretch across the Campagna—the 
Tiburtine Way. He was laid in a catacomb constructed on the Ager 
Veranus—an estate doubtless so called from some former owner. 

On this way to Tivoli, not far from the Pretorian camp and less 
than a mile from the City gate, we are confronted, at least as early as 
the fourth century, with two famous cemeteries standing almost face to 
face, each with its proper sanctuary, on either side of the road, which 
here runs roughly speaking from West to East. On the southern or 
right side is the more famous of the two, the Cemetery of S. Cyriace 
connected with which stands the Basilica of S. Laurentius selected by 
the latest of the popes, whose long tenure of office and notable career 
alike single him out from the long line of his predecessors, as his last 
resting-place by the side of the famous deacon of Rome. On the left 
hand of the same road and therefore to the North, between this Via 
Tiburtina and the Via Nomentana, is the site of the Cemetery and Basi- 
lica of S. Hippolytus. The two Cemeteries with their respective sanc- 
tuaries are quite distinct in ancient authorities; but owing to the fact 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 443 


that the shrine and Cemetery of S. Hippolytus were ruined and obscured 
or obliterated at a comparatively early date, and that many monuments 
were transferred from it to the larger and more distinguished sanctuary 
on the south side of the road, its memory was absorbed in the fame of 
the Basilica of S. Laurentius, and modern writers have inextricably 
fused and confused the two. The discoveries of recent years, inter- 
preted by the archeological genius of De Rossi, have corrected the 
error, and established the distinction beyond dispute. 

The sanctuary and cemetery of Hippolytus therefore, with which we 
are directly concerned, had no connexion originally with the famous 
basilica of S. Laurentius. Its site is on the sloping ground or ‘mons,’ 
as it is called on the left of the road, and therefore between the 
Cemeteries of S. Agnese on the Via Nomentana to the North and 
that of S. Laurentius (or more properly of S. Cyriace) on the Va 
Tiburtina to the South. Dated inscriptions have been found in these 
catacombs, ranging from the close of the third century to the beginning 
of the fifth’. As it appears to be called the Coemetertum Hippolytz, 
and as the genitive in such cases generally denotes the owner or 
founder of the place of sepulture, not the principal saint whose 
cultus was celebrated there, De Rossi reasonably conjectures that this 
cemetery was Hippolytus’ own possession®. This seems highly pro- 
bable for many reasons. It would account for the selection of the 
spot for his own grave; whereas the circumstances of his burial would 
have suggested some other locality, in closer proximity to Pontianus 
his companion alike in exile and in death. It would account, as I 
have already pointed out, also for the unique honour which was done 
to him in the erection of a statue on the spot, whether soon after his 
death or even during his life time, for it would be erected on his 
own estate. Considering his hostile relations to the heads of the 
Roman hierarchy during his life time on the one hand, and the 
persecutions to which he was subjected from the civil powers on the 
other, the circumstances must have been very favourable in other 


1 See Bull. di Archeol. Crist. Ser. iv. 


Ep. 40- 
* See Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1. c. p.« 
15 sq (1882); comp. Rom. Sott. 1. p. 


terio’ after ‘Ypoliti.” De Rossi gives 
other notices indicating that the proper 
name of these catacombs was Coemetertum 
S. Hippolytt. In the Martyr. Hieron. 


116 sq. The earliest notice of his burial 
(see above, I. p. 251) in the Defositio 
Martyrum of the Liberian Catalogue 
gives ‘ Ypoliti in Tiburtina et Pontiani in 
Calisti,’ where according to De Rossi we 
should understand ‘in ejusdem coeme- 


xiii Kal. Jul. the reading of the Berne 
MS is ‘Rome, in cimiterio Yppoliti via 
Tiburtina,’ where the common text has 
‘Romae Hippolyti,’ thus substituting an- 
other martyr Hippolytus for the place of 
burial. 


444 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


respects to enable his friends to do him this honour. However great 
their zeal, they must have been secure from molestation on either 
side; and only the absolute possession of the ground could have given 
them this security. 

Here then he was deposited on the Ides of August the same day on 
which he was commemorated in after ages for some centuries. But 
evil days soon overtook the Church of Rome. ‘The next century was 
crowded with other cares and interests, and the past was forgotten. A 
sponge passed over the records of Hippolytus and his times; and only 
the confused smear remained of a once exceptionally vivid and character- 
istic portraiture. ‘There were the schisms and feuds within the Roman 
Church itself—popes and antipopes; there were the persecutions which 
assailed the Christians from without, and bred endless perplexities 
of discipline within; there were the great dogmatic controversies which 
harried the universal Church from one end to the other; last, but not 
least, there were the first rumblings of the dark thunder-cloud in 
the Northern sky, the earliest inroads of those barbarian hordes who 
were destined before long to sweep away old Rome in desolation 
and ruin. At length towards the close of the fourth century on the 
accession of Damasus came a respite; when men could breathe again, 
and their interest in the past revived. 

Damasus (A.D. 366—384) was a great restorer of the sanctuaries of 
Rome. ‘The catacombs more especially, as the resting places of the 
martyrs, received his attention. In this pious work he was ably 
seconded by the famous calligrapher Furius Dionisius Filocalus, who 
describes himself as the ‘cultor atque amator’ of Damasus. Rarely 
if ever, in the history of the Church, has a great leader been fired 
with such zeal for recording the Christian heroism of the past and 
found so accomplished an artificer to carry out his designs. Rarely, if 
ever, has history stood in sorer need of such a chronicler’. Our only 
regret is that the knowledge of Damasus was not commensurate to his 
enthusiasm. 

Among the many saints of the past whose memory profited by his 
reverential zeal, was the martyred father of the Church, the venerable 
Hippolytus. Already a sanctuary enclosed the remains of the saint; 
but it was enlarged and beautified by Damasus, when on the defeat 
of the rival faction which had supported the antipope Ursicinus he 
received the allegiance of the whole Roman Church. The inscription 
commemorating the event runs as follows 


1 For an account of the inscriptions of | graphy—see De Rossi in Bull, dt Archeol, 
Damasus—their composition and calli-  Cvést, Ser. iv, III. p. 7 sq. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. | 445 


LAETA DEO PLEBS SANCTA CANAT QVOD MOENIA CRESCVNT 
ET RENOVATA DOMVS MARTYRIS HIPPOLITI’. 


It is conjectured that he received the submission of the opposite 
party in this very building. There would be a singular appropriateness 
in its selection for this purpose; since he supposed that Hippolytus 
had at one time favoured the antipapal schism of Novatian—a fore- 
runner of Ursicinus—and afterwards by an opportune recantation had 
recalled the people from the paths of error to the unity of the Church. 
This supposed incident in the saint’s career he commemorated in 
another inscription set up in the same building, to do honour to 
‘Hippolytus the elder’. 

But Damasus knew little or nothing beyond the fame of Hippolytus 
as a martyr, and probably as a writer. A confused rumour had reached 
his ears that Hippolytus had not been always on friendly terms with 
the popes his predecessors. He concluded therefore, being ignorant 
of the chronology of the saint’s life, that he must have been an adherent 
of the Novatian party (see above, p. 424 sq), the chief precedent, 
which history recorded of rival claimants to the papal throne, before the 
papal schism which amidst disgraceful and murderous riots had ushered 
in his own elevation to the see of S. Peter. 

At the beginning of the next century occurred the visit of the 
Spanish poet Prudentius to this shrine. 

His collection of hymns entitled Peri Stephanon or De Coronis, 
‘the crowns of the martyrs,’ consists of fifteen poems. Most of these 
commemorate Spanish martyrs like Vincentius and Eulalia, or martyrs 
already celebrated by festivals in the Spanish Church. But the largest 
space (2152 verses out of 3875) is devoted to four martyrs especially 
honoured in Rome, Laurentius, Romanus, Hippolytus, and Agnes, 
besides a short poem (66 lines) on the passion of S. Peter and S. Paul. 
Rome therefore may be said to have inspired the collection. But it 
will be observed that all the four were celebrated in the catacombs 
lying on the Tiburtine Way or near it. The celebration of the three 
former moreover took place at the same time of the year within five 
days of each other (Aug. 9, Aug. 10, and Aug. 13) and in the same 
locality, in the twin sanctuaries which stood vs @ vis on the Tiburtine 
Way. 

Of the connexion between the cultus of S. Laurence and S. Hippo- 
lytus I shall have much to say hereafter. But who was the other member 


1 AR. 7. b; see above, p. 329. 2 AR. 7. a; see above, p. 328. 


4.46 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


of the trio? Romanus is a strictly historical person. He was a deacon 
and exorcist who suffered in the persecution of Diocletian (a.D. 303), 
a native of Cesarea in Palestine or the neighbourhood, but actually 
martyred in Antioch and therefore unconnected originally with Rome. 
His fame is especially associated with a miracle, which (whatever may 
be the foundation of fact) is recorded by his contemporary and fellow- 
countryman, the historian Eusebius ; he astounded the bystanders by 
speaking distinctly after his tongue had been cut out’. 

This was unquestionably the Romanus who is celebrated in the poem 
of Prudentius. The poet dwells at great length on this very miracle, 
embellishing it with many hideous accessories. Moreover he adds the 
incident of a little child-——a mere infant—being summoned by Romanus 
from among the Christian bystanders and invited by the saint to bear 
testimony to Christ. The child did this to the edification of the by- 
standers, though at the cost of its own life. The incident of this 
infant martyr has no place in the contemporary record of Eusebius ; 
but it was attached to the story of Romanus at a very early date. I 
think I see the origin of this edifying appendage to the contemporary 
account of Eusebius. Some eulogist of Romanus, when he described 
the constancy of the saint under the threats of the tyrant, would apply 
to him, perhaps would put into his own mouth, the scriptural words 
Ps. vii. 2 ‘Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast Thou 
ordained strength because of Thine enemies, that Thou mightest still 
the enemy and the avenger.’ As a matter of fact S. Chrysostom, who 
nevertheless betrays no knowledge of the infant-martyr, uses this very 
text in his extant oration on Romanus*. It was only a single step to 
go from the abstract to the concrete, and to produce the babe in 
person. Accordingly another orator, apparently a younger contem- 


1 Euseb. Mart. Palaest. § g, in the form 
of this work attached to the Acclesiastical 
History. See also the other recension, 
preserved only in the Syriac which is 
translated by Cureton (pp. 6, 54). The 
story of Romanus is told likewise in the 
spurious work de Resurrectione, preserved 
only in Latin and ascribed to Eusebius, 
Op. VI. p- 1097 sq (Migne). The part 
relating to Romanus is given also in 
Ruinart Act. Sinc. Mart. p. 392. Evi- 
dently this is not a genuine work of 
Eusebius, as is apparent (if for no other 
reason) from the fact that Romanus is 
made not a cleric, but a soldier; of which 


transformation I shall have to speak pre- 
sently. Nevertheless it was written ori- 
ginally in Greek, as it shows again and 
again; e.g. ‘forte proferentium Judaeorum 
tres pueros’, a literal translation of the 
genitive absolute (rpodepévrwy ra&v "Lov- 
daiwyv, ‘the Jews alleging the case of the 
Three Children’), but utterly without 
sense in the Latin. It betrays the influ- 
ence of S. Chrysostom’s genuine oration 
(see the next note). 

Theodoret (Zpzst. 130, IV. p. 1218 
Schulze) mentions the name of the 
martyr, but nothing more. 

2 Chrysost. Of. 11. p. 616 (ed. Bened.). 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 447 


porary of the golden-mouthed, preaching likewise at Antioch on 
the Day of S. Romanus in a sermon which is wrongly ascribed to 
S. Chrysostom himself, makes Romanus ask that a babe (pédos) 
shall be brought in from the market-place, taken (it would appear) 
at hap-hazard; and a child is brought, testifies, and suffers accord- 
ingly’. At all events this addition to the original story must have 
been circulated before the age of Prudentius. Prudentius however 
knows nothing, or at least says nothing, about the infant’s name. By 
later martyrologists it is called Barulas or Baralas. This name appears 
in the Latin Martyrologies of Ado and others. 

Of the connexion of this Romanus—a Palestinian by birth and an 
Antiochene by martyrdom—not only with Rome but with the sanc- 
tuaries on the Tiburtine Way, we have ample proof, even if it might 
not have been inferred from his prominence in the collection of 
Prudentius. In the inscription, which was put up in the 13th century 
in the basilica of S. Laurence, we read 


CONTINET HOC TEMPLVM SANCTORVM CORPORA PLVRA 
A QVIBVS AVXILIVM SVPPLEX HIC POSCERE CVRA. 


Then, after mentioning Xystus and Laurentius with the first martyr 
Stephen, the inscription enumerates Hippolytus with his nurse Concor- 
dia and his family. Then follows next in order 


ROMANVS MILES. 


Of this inscription I shall have to say more presently*. For my 
immediate purpose this mention is sufficient. The time also of the 
festival of S. Romanus nearly coincided with those of S. Laurence 
and S. Hippolytus as appears from this notice in the Old Roman 
Martyrology (AR. 40. g), where we have in juxta-position 


v Id Aug. Romae, Romani militis 

Vigilia sancti Laurentii. 
iv Id Aug. Romae Laurentii archidiacon. martyris et militum clxv. 
Idus Aug. Romae, Hippolyti martyris cum familia sua, et 


S. Concordiae nutricis ejus ; 


1 Op. il. p. 618. The festival of S. 
Romanus was evidently a great day at 
Antioch and would give occasion to 
flights of Christian oratory which influ- 
enced the transmission and embellish- 
ment of the story. The oration of our 
pseudo-Chrysostom is one of these. Its 
genuineness is condemned on the ground 


of style; but the Benedictine editor adds 
(for reasons given) ‘ crediderem...esse 
cujusdam presbyteri Antiocheni, qui sub 
Flaviano alternas cum Chrysostomo con- 
cionandi partes ageret’; see also Tille- 
mont J/#ém. v. p. 206. 

2 See below, p. 461 sq, 469 sq. 


448 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


and we meet with similar notices in Florus-Beda and in Ado and 
the later Roman Martyrologists. 

There can be no doubt therefore that the Romanus of Prudentius and 
of the Roman Martyrologists is the same person with the Romanus of 
Eusebius and Chrysostom. But, if so, how do we explain two dif- 
ferences? (1) The Romanus of Eusebius is a cleric, a ‘deacon and 
exorcist’; but the Romanus of the Roman Martyrologists is a soldier: 
(2) The Romanus martyred at Antioch was commemorated on Nov. 18, 
but the Romanus of the Tiburtine way and of the Latin Church 
generally on Aug. g, the eve of S. Laurence. 

(1) As regards the profession of Romanus the testimony of Eusebius 
is quite distinct. This martyr was a deacon in one of the villages in the 
neighbourhood of his own Czesarea; but in all authors after Eusebius 
his clerical status has disappeared. Even Chrysostom, who was most 
favourably situated as to time and place for ascertaining the truth, seems to 
have regarded him as a soldier. He tells how Romanus kept together 
the army (orparo7edov) of Christ and shifted the shame of defeat from 
the Christians to the heads of the foes (ras tdv mroXeuiwv Kkedadds, 
p- 613). He represents the devil as desiring, by cutting out the 
martyr’s tongue rather than depriving him of life outright, to make him 
a witness of ‘the lapses and the disaster of his own soldiers’ (rav 
TTWPLATWV Kal THS Tvyuhopas TAY oiketwy oTpaTiwTav, p. 614). The second 
passage at all events does not look like a metaphor, though we might 
be inclined so to interpret the first. But whatever may have been 
Chrysostom’s own meaning, this figure of Christian warfare was doubt- 
less the bridge of passage from Romanus the cleric to Romanus the 
soldier. This appears in the development of the story, when we arrive 
at the pseudo-Eusebius, who may not improbably have written before 
the close of the fourth century and whose account appears to be 
influenced by the eulogium of S. Chrysostom. We are there told that 
Romanus arriving at Antioch, and finding that ‘many soldiers belonging 
to the Church had lapsed’ (multos milites cecidisse ecclesiae), pre- 
sented himself before the judge, and said; ‘Thou shalt not depart 
exulting, for God has soldiers who cannot be forced to submit’ (habet 
enim Deus milites qui superari non possunt). This ‘soldier of the 
Lord’ (Domini miles) accordingly resolves to show his own constancy 
by resistance. Though Romanus is not distinctly called ‘a soldier’ 
here, the language implies his military profession. To this account of 
the pseudo-Eusebius, which we have only in a Latin translation, the 
Latin Martyrologists seem from several indications to have been 
indebted. With them at all events he is unmistakeably a soldier. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 440 


Of the profession of Romanus the Spanish poet tells us nothing. 
So far as his direct language goes he might have been either a cleric or 
a soldier, but he describes him as a noble of ancient lineage (vetusta 
nobilem prosapia) who by his many services had won the first rank 
among the citizens (meritisque multis esse primum civem); and at 
the suggestion of the attendants, the offensive crowd (noxialem 
stipitem) are removed by the judge, that a man of illustrious rank 
might not be condemned by a plebeian sentence—a description which 
ill assorts with a simple deacon ministering in an obscure village of 
Palestine. We may reasonably assume therefore, that Prudentius too 
regarded Romanus as a soldier, if he had any distinct conception at all 
on this point. The poem on Romanus is the Aitce de resistance of the 
collection. It occupies not fewer than 1140 lines, nearly a third of the 
whole number. It is made the vehicle for an elaborate attack on the 
absurdities of idolatry, after the names of the apologists, with an 
accompanying defence of Christianity—neither the attack nor the 
defence wanting in vigour and eloquence of a certain kind. We may 
suspect that Prudentius, having little to tell of the saint himself, poured 
into this poem the contents of his poetical common-place book. But 
the immediate impulse to the poem seems to have been given by the 
festival which he witnessed on the Tiburtine Way. 

(2) But what shall we say of the time of the festival, Aug. 9th? 
Eusebius again is quite explicit as to the day of the martyrdom. His 
Romanus suffered at Antioch in the first year of Diocletian’s persecution 
on the 16th Dius, equivalent to xv Kal. Dec. (Nov. 18), or the 7th (it 
should be the 17th) later Teshri, as given in the Syriac recension, 
the same day on which his fellow-countrymen Alphzus and Zacchzeus 
were martyred at Czsarea. Accordingly we find this day assigned to 
him in the ancient Syriac Calendar, which must date from the latter 
half of the fourth century (the extant Ms bearing date 412). The 
festival therefore, as celebrated at Rome, must be the commemoration 
of some translation—probably the deposition of the reliques in this 
Roman sanctuary on the Tiburtine way. But the Roman Martyrologies, 
from the M€Jartyrologium Hieronymianum onward, preserve elsewhere 
the record of the true day of martyrdom. The fact is that the contents 
of the Syriac Martyrology, or of some allied Calendar, or both, were 
shovelled into this valuable refuse-heap of martyrological records which 
bears the name of Jerome, and so we find: 

xv Kal. Dec. In Caesarea natalis sanctorum...Alphaei, Zacchaei, 

Romani. 
xiv Kal. Dec. In Antiochia civitate, Romani monachi, Baralae ; 
CLEM. II. 29 


450 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


where we have a double entry of the same person. The corresponding 
notice in the Vetus Romanum is 


xiv Kal. Dec. Antiochiae Romani monachi et martyris, 


where the clerical character of Romanus is still preserved in ‘mo- 
nachus.’ Again in the later Martyrologists, Ado and his companions, 
the notice of Romanus of Antioch appears on one of these two days in 
December, where he is correctly described as a martyr in the persecution 
of Diocletian, where the prefect’s name Asclepiades is given (after 
Prudentius), and where the story of the child Baralas is likewise told. 

We are now in a position to say something more generally about 
this journey of Prudentius to Rome, so fertile in its poetical results ; 
and the investigation is not uninstructive. On his way from Spain to 
the eternal city he stops at forum Cornelit or Forum Syllae, the modern 
Imola; and there he pays his devotions at the shrine of the local saint, 
to which the cathedral of Imola is still dedicated—Cassianus the 
school-master martyr who was beaten to death with the tablets and 
stabbed with the stiles of the ungrateful urchins whom he had taught. 
Here he saw a picture—not less vivid and doubtless not less truthful 
than the representation of Hippolytus’ sanctuary of the Tiburtine Way 
which he describes afterwards—of the pedagogue done to death by the 
beardless monsters in revenge for the castigations of the rod which they 
must have richly deserved. This is the only poem in the whole 
collection which commemorates a martyr not connected either with his 
native Spain or with Rome the object of his visit. At Rome he would 
probably arrive before the festival of the Passion of S. Peter and S. Paul 
(June 29th). This indeed might have been the immediate aim of his 
journey, and would determine the time of his arrival in the city. He 
describes the unwonted stir among the Roman people, 


Plus solito coeunt ad gaudia; dic, amice, quid sit 
Romam per omnem cursitant ovantque. 


He pictures, though briefly, yet notwithstanding some difficulties with 
the vividness of an eye-witness, the two basilicas of S. Peter and S. Paul 
on either side of the river—their position and features; he describes the 
‘sacerdos,’ probably the Roman bishop, as busied from morning to 
night (so we may perhaps paraphrase the word ‘pervigil’), celebrating 
the sacred rites, first at the one and then at the other; he speaks of 
himself with the rest of the crowd as hurrying from the one to the other 


Nos ad utrumque tamen gressu properemus incitato, 
Et his et illis perfruamur hymnis ; 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 451 


and he concludes by appealing to all strangers, visitors like himself in 
the holy city, to profit by the occasion ; 


Haec didicisse sat est Romae tibi; tu, domum reversus, 
Diem bifestum sic colas memento. 


This poem was, it would almost seem, written for the occasion. But 
his chief interest gathers about the three festivals celebrated in the 
middle of August on the Tiburtine way—those of S. Romanus, S. 
Laurentius, and S. Hippolytus. The poem on S. Agnes was suggested 
probably by its proximity; for her martyrdom was celebrated at a 
different time of the year—in January. The eulogy of S. Cyprian may 
also have been prompted by this Roman visit; for his commemoration 
was celebrated in the cemetery of S. Callistus on xviii Kal. Oct. (Sept. 
15); but, as Prudentius himself says, Cyprian was celebrated all the 
world round, 


Praesidet Hesperiae, Christum serit ultimis Iberis. 


He was, writes the poet, though ‘proprius patriae martyr,’ yet ‘ore et 
amore noster.’ 


From this long digression on the hymns of Prudentius and more 
especially on Romanus, of which the motive will appear presently, 
I return to Hippolytus. Prudentius gives us a minute and accurate 
description of what he saw at the commemoration on the Tiburtine 
Way. There was the picture of the martyrdom over the tomb of the 
martyr, painted in vivid colours; the mangled limbs scattered here and 
there; the thorns and thickets stained with the vermilion blood; the 
weeping friends, following in the rear and gathering the remains into 
their bosom; one fondling his snow-white head, others his mutilated 
arms and legs; others wiping up with their clothes or with sponges 
the blood-bespattered ground, that nothing might be lost of the precious 
remains. He then describes the sanctuary itself; the crypt with its 
dark galleries, not far from the city walls; the subterranean recesses 
lighted here and there with windows in the roof, so that the sun’s 
rays poured in. Thither the martyr’s body was brought from Ostia, 
where the martyrdom took place, and there deposited in a shrine 
gleaming with solid silver. Lining the recess were slabs of smooth 
Parian marble adorned with gold. From morning to night the tide 
of worshippers flowed in constant succession, Romans and foreigners ; 
kissing the precious metal and pouring fragrant ointment on it, their 
faces bedewed with tears. Nobles and common-folk jostled each other 
shoulder to shoulder ; visitors, clad in festive white, thronged from all 


29—2 


452 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


parts; the roads poured in their contingent from every side—from 
Picenum and Etruria, the rude Samnite, the Campanian from lofty 
Capua, the citizens of Nola—husbands, wives, and children. Wide 
though the space, it was all too little for the dense multitudes. But 
hard by there is another temple ready to receive the crowds, towering 
upward with its lofty walls; a double range of columns supports 
the gilded beams of the roof; the aisles end in curved recesses; the 
central nave rises to a greater height; in front is a lofty tribunal 
approached by steps, whence the chief priest preaches God. With 
difficulty does even this larger edifice receive the surging and heaving 
crowds, thus opening a mother’s bosom to gather and cherish her 
children. ‘If my memory serves me aright,’ the poet adds, ‘beautiful 
Rome worships this saint on the Ides of August’; and he urges his 
bishop, Valerianus of Zaragoza, to whom the poem is addressed, to 
give a place among the annual festivals to Hippolytus, as places were 
already given to Cyprian, to Chelidonius, to Eulalia. ‘So,’ he con- 
cludes, ‘when thou shalt have filled the folds with milk-white lambs, 
mayest thou be borne aloft and join the company of holy Hippolytus.’ 
Evidently the cult of S. Hippolytus was at its zenith, when Prudentius 
visited the shrine; as it naturally would be after the recent architectural 
and decorative splendours lavished upon it by Damasus. 

Of the scene of this multifarious gathering no question can now be 
entertained. Recent excavations have laid open the subterranean basilica 
of S. Hippolytus on the north of the Tiburtine Way—the specus excep- 
tionally spacious for underground sanctuaries of this kind, lit from 
windows in the roof, substantially as it was seen by the eyes of Pruden- 
tius. Of this however I shall have to speak presently. But what was 
the larger edifice which received the throngs too great for the cavern 
beneath? Was it another basilica of S. Hippolytus above ground on 
or near the same site? Or was it the more famous sanctuary of 
S. Laurence on the south side of the road? Not unnaturally critics 
have inclined to this latter view. The excavations in the cemetery of 
Hippolytus have not proceeded far enough hitherto to enable us to 
form a confident opinion. But it must be remembered that at that 
remote age only the Constantinian basilica of S. Laurence existed— 
not a very spacious building on any showing. The churches of Xystus 
III (a.D. 440), of Pelagius II (a.D. 578), and of Honorius III (a.p. 
1216), were still unbuilt. The actual condition of the basilica of 
S. Laurence in the eye of Prudentius—a subject beset with considerable 
difficulties—will demand a few words of explanation presently. 

But what was this picture of the martyrdom so vivid in its details 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 453 


which Prudentius saw and described? The most improbable supposi- 
tion of all is that it represented the actual event. ‘It is more likea 
poet’s or a painter’s than a prefect’s deed,’ it has been truly said’, ‘to 
tear an old Christian with horses, whether because of his own un- 
luckily suggestive name or because of the tale of his namesake ’—the 
hero of the ancient Greek myth. Some have supposed therefore that a 
classical sculpture or painting of the son of Theseus, the hero of Greek 
tragedy, torn to pieces by horses, was discovered in the neighbourhood 
(Dollinger, p. 39 sq), or removed from elsewhere and placed in the 
chapel of his namesake. ‘This is a tempting explanation; but unless 
Prudentius has far exceeded the license of poets in his description, 
it will not suit the details. What are we to say of the collection 
of the reliques? What of the ‘venerable white head’ fondled in 
the lap of the disciples? What of the sopping and sponging up 
the blood? Obviously we have here not a work of Greek or Greco- 
roman art, but a product of Christian piety, resembling in its gross 
realism and bad taste, as well as its intensity and devotion, the pictures 
of martyrdom with which we are familiar a few centuries later. Cer- 
tainly it was not a sculpture, unless it had been painted over by some 
Christian artist; for Prudentius speaks of the vivid colouring, the purple 
and vermilion, of the scene. Moreover, though we should accept this 
- explanation of the picture on the Tiburtine Way, we have still to account 
for the similar painting which the poet saw on this same journey at 
Imola—the martyrdom of Cassianus not less realistic and described with 
equal vividness. The martyrdom of Cassianus at ali events had no coun- 
terpart in ancient Greek legend. De Rossi thinks and gives reason for 
thinking*, that this representation of Hippolytus’ martyrdom was painted 
on a very small scale—like a miniature or a Dutch work of art. This 
seems not improbable ; though no stress can be laid on the fact that 
recent explorations have not as yet brought to light any traces of its 
existence. Even if it had been a large fresco, we could not hope to 
discover any vestiges remaining in a place which has passed through so 
many vicissitudes as the sanctuary of S. Hippolytus. The most pro- 
bable explanation seems to be that, the manner of Hippolytus’ death 
being unknown and some concrete representation being necessary, this 
early Christian painter selected the fate of his mystical namesake as ‘a 
pictorial mode of writing above the shrine HIPPOLYTUS MARTYR®*.’ 


1 Benson Fourn. of Class. and Sacr. this article Ox the Martyrdom and Com- 
Philol. 1. p. 192. memorations of S. Hippolytus, which I 
2 Bull. di Archeol. Crist.1882,p.73 sq. have more than once quoted, was written 
3 Benson p. 210. I should say that without the knowledge of recent dis- 


454 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


After the visit of Prudentius we find no notice of this cemetery and 
crypt of S. Hippolytus for nearly a century and a half. Then, during 
the papacy of Vigilius (A.D. 537—555) a record is preserved of its 
restoration by one Andreas a presbyter, in an inscription of which 
fragments have been found on the spot itself and of which the con- 
cluding lines are’ 


PRAESVLE VIGILIO SVMP[SERVNT | ANTRA DECOREM 
PRAESBYTERI ANDREAE CVR|[A] PEREGIT OPVS. 


It was a season of great trouble and disaster to the Roman Church 
in many ways. Rome stood two sieges from the barbarians during 
this single episcopate, the one from Witiges in a.D. 537, 538, the other 
from Totila in a. D. 546, 547. The suburban churches and cemeteries 
were devastated and laid in ruins. It must have been on one of these 
occasions that the renovation of which the inscription speaks took 
place. 

As the writer apparently speaks of a ‘second’ devastation (ITERVM), 
it would seem to have been after the invasion of Totila that these 
repairs were undertaken*. This accords with the language above quoted 
which gives only the name of Vigilius as dating the epoch (‘praesule 
Vigilio’); whereas in another case, when the restoration took place 
presumably after the former siege by Witiges, we are told that pope 
Vigilius himself ‘hostibus expulsis omne novavit opus*.’ Vigilius was 
absent from Rome during the last years of his life. The writer in his 
account of these restorations under Vigilius mentions the skylights in 
the roof admitting the sun, which were a special feature of this sub- 
terranean church and which Prudentius had described a century and 
a half before—here specified as three in number—‘trinum stupuit per 
specula lumen.’ 

Connected with this group of saints commemorated in August on 
the Tiburtine Way was the cultus of S. Genesius, the Roman actor of 
pantomimes who is said to have suffered in the persecution of Diocletian. 
He is mentioned in the medieval itineraries in the entourage of 
Hippolytus as lying near Concordia, between Triphonia and Cyrilla. 
He must therefore have been buried in the cemetery of Hippolytus*. 


coveries, when it was still possible to 
maintain that the original Hippolytus of 
the Ager Veranus was not a cleric, but a 
soldier. 

1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 59 
sq, where the inscription is given in its 
correct form. The lacunz were incor- 


rectly supplied in an earlier number, 20. 
1881, p. 40. 

2 See Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 
61 sq. 

3 Comp. 2d. 1873, p. 46sq; 1876, p. 
125. 

4 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 23 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 455 


His day was vil Kal. Sept. (Aug. 25th). Nearly two centuries later 
than the above mentioned restorations of Vigilius, we find a successor 
of Vigilius, Gregory III [a.p. 731—741], restoring the roof of the 
Church of S. Genesius, and erecting an altar of the Saviour there 
(AR. 15 Ab). This was presumably some above-ground building erected 
in honor of Genesius within the precincts of the cemetery of Hippolytus, 
but we have no adequate information. 

Again there is silence for some centuries respecting the basilica of 
S. Hippolytus; but meanwhile important works were carried out on the 
opposite side of the Tiburtine Way in the more famous sanctuary of 
S. Laurentius, which in course of time had a fatal influence on the 
decadence and obliteration of the humbler cemetery and shrine. As 
the fate of the two is ultimately connected together, and as some 
account of the history of the Church of S. Laurence is therefore 
necessary for the appreciation of my particular subject, this will be a 
convenient point for a very few words of explanation. 


The honour paid to S. Laurence, the deacon of Sixtus III, who 
perished with his master in the Decian persecution, dates from the 
earliest times. He was the Stephen of the Western Church. ‘Quam 
non potest abscondi Roma,’ says Augustine, ‘tam non potest abscondi 
Laurentii corona’.’ ‘De beati solemnitate Laurentii,’ says the prayer 
in the oldest Roman sacramentary, ‘peculiarius prae caeteris Roma 
laetatur; cujus nascendo civis, sacer minister, dedicatum nomini Tuo 
munus est proprium’ (Zzturg. Rom. Vet. 1. p. 398, Muratori). His 
festival had a special vigil, which was celebrated from the earliest times— 
a peculiar honour bestowed on few saints besides. His name appears 
in calendars which can hardly date more than a generation after his 
death. It is no marvel then that the aureole which encircled the 


sq; comp. fom. Soft. 1. p. 178. There 
were two martyrs of this name; (1) A 
notary of Arles who suffered under Dio- 
cletian, A.D. 303; (2) A pantomime actor 
of Rome who suffered in this same year 
or (as some think) A.D. 285 or 286. They 
are both celebrated on the same day viii 
Kal. Sept. (Aug. 25) in Ado and the 
Latin Martyrologists; or on successive 
days, Aug. 24 and Aug. 25. De Rossi 
(1. c.) says that the Genesius of the Ager 
Veranus was the actor. It would seem 
to me difficult to say that there was no 
confusion between the two. In the Mar- 


tyrologium Vetus both the two are named 
on the same day Aug. 25, ‘Genesius mi- 
mus’ and ‘Genesius Arelatensis’; in the 
old Carthaginian Calendar only the 
former. In Prudentius (feristeph. 4), 
who was fresh from the Ager Veranus, 
Genesius of Arles is mentioned (ver. 36) 
among other martyrs at Czesaraugusta 
(Zaragoza). Was there only one Gene- 
sius after all—first notary and then actor ; 
just as there was only one Romanus and 
only one Hippolytus (see p. 462 sq, 
p- 460 sq)? 

1 Serm. 303, Op. V. p. 1233, ed. Bened, 


456 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 
heads of other neighbouring saints and martyrs—even of the famous 
Hippolytus himself—should have paled in the light of his unique 
splendour. 

How much truth there may be in the current story about the mode 
of S. Laurence’s martyrdom, we need not stop to enquire. His day 
was the fourth before the Ides of August, three days before the com- 
memoration of S. Hippolytus. As the deposition of Hippolytus on the 
opposite side of the Tiburtine Way probably took place some years 
before his death, we must regard the circumstance which brought them 
into close connexion in time as well as place, as a mere coincidence. 
But it was fraught with momentous consequences to his posthumous 
fame. . 

The architectural history of the basilica of S. Laurence is strangely 
complicated ; and the problems have only been solved (not yet com- 
pletely) in our own generation. The accounts given by Bunsen’ and 
older writers are altogether erroneous. The excavations of recent 
years, interpreted by the archeological knowledge of De Rossi and 
others, have gone far to solve the problem?. 

The original basilica of Constantine stood over the tomb of the 
martyr. It occupied, roughly speaking, the same site as the present 
chancel, 1.e. as the basilica of Pelagius II. It was orientated in the 
same way—the apse being at the West end, and the narthex at the East. 
At the same time that this pope built this church over the tomb, he 
adorned the crypt itself, in which the body lay, with exceptional splen- 
dours and endowed it with costly gifts. Damasus adorned his altar 
with gifts which he commemorated in an inscription on the spot 


HAEC DAMASVS CVMVLAT SVPPLEX ALTARIA DONIS 
MARTYRIS AEGREGII SVSCIPIENS MERITVM*. 


Before the close of the century [c. A.D. 400] we read of some works 

executed by one Leopardus, a priest—not unknown to us for his zeal 

on behalf of other sanctuaries—and commemorated by an inscription’. 
Towards the middle of the next century, the reigning pope Sixtus III 


1 Beschreibung der Stadt 111. Pt ii. p. 
312 sq. The error of these older writers 
in connecting this basilica with the name 
of Galla Placidia and thus throwing the 
architectural chronology into confusion is 
explained by De Rossi, Bull. di Archeol. 
Crist. 1864, p. 433 Luscr. Christ. Urb. 
Rom. 1. p. 105. 

2 See especially De Rossi Bull. di Ar- 


cheol. Crist. 1864, p. 42 sq; 1876, p. 22 
sq: and the important notes of Duchesne, 
Lb. Pont. 1. p. 197 Sq, 235 Sq, 310. 

3 Inscy. Christ. Urb. Rom. 11. pp. 82, 
117. 

* Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1867, p- 53 
sq; comp. Zuscr. Christ. Urb. Rom. 1. 


p- 155. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 457 


(A.D. 432—440) made a highly important addition to the buildings on 
this ground (42. 15 Bb). He not only adorned the existing confession 
of S. Laurentius with columns of porphyry and in other ways, the 
previous work of Constantine having probably suffered in the pillage of 
A.D. 410 under Alaric; but he built an entirely new and more spacious 
basilica to the West of the Constantinian church, so that the apses of 
the two buildings—the old and the new—stood back to back. This 
building of Sixtus corresponds with the nave of the existing basilica. 
Its apse was at the East end, and its narthex at the West. This 
basilica was termed ‘Dei genetricis,’ ‘of the Mother of God’; a 
designation which would seem especially appropriate at a time when 
the Nestorian controversy was agitating the Church. This is the 
‘basilica major,’ which in the Itineraries of the seventh century is 
distinguished from the ‘basilica ubi ipse modo requiescit’ (4. 38 b). 
It bears this name in two inscriptions of the fifth century found on the 
spot [IN BJ]ASSILICA MAXIO[RE], IN BASILICA MAIORE AD DOMNV 
LAVRENTIVM .. 

Again Pelagius II [a.p. 579—590] enlarged, raised, and generally 
rebuilt, the smaller basilica to the East, which rose over the body. The 
Liber Pontificalis 1. p. 309 (Duchesne) speaks of this work as ‘basilicam 
a fundamento constructam,’ and the existing building shows this 
language to be hardly an exaggeration. Owing to its superior splendour, 
when thus renovated by Pelagius, this building is described as ‘ basilica 
speciosior,’ ‘basilica nova mirae pulchritudinis,’ in the Itineraries 
(AR. 38 a b) to distinguish it from the larger basilica—the erection of 
Sixtus III to the West. We are told moreover that Pelagius dedicated 
his building to S. Sixtus, S. Laurentius, and S. Hippolytus. But there 
is reason to think that this threefold dedication is earlier than Pelagius. 
When Sixtus III built his new basilica ‘Dei Genetricis,’ he would 
naturally turn his attention to the dedication of the older building, 
which likewise owed new splendours to his munificence, and in which 
he himself was ultimately buried. What more natural then than that 
he should have associated in the dedication his martyred predecessor 
and namesake Sixtus II, who had been associated with S. Laurentius 
in his life and in his death? If so, Pelagius only accepted the triple 
dedication as he found it. But he commemorated it in a remarkable 
way. Over the arch of the apse he placed a mosaic representing the 
Saviour seated in the centre, while right and left of him were the two 
Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul, and the three saints of the dedication, 
with himself PELAGIVS EPISsc. the builder of the church somewhat in the 


1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1876, p. 22 sq. 


458 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


background. The point to be observed is that SCS YPOLIT, as here 
represented, has not yet lost his proper personality. Though associated 
with S. Laurence, he still remains the priest with the clerical tonsure, 
not the soldier with the military cloak; the doctor of the Church, not 
the warder and convert of S. Laurence. 

The last and greatest change was yet to come. Hitherto there were 
two basilicas, back to back; the larger—the building of Xystus—facing 
westward, and the smaller—the original erection of Constantine as 
rebuilt by Pelagius—facing eastward. In 1216 Honorius III broke 
through the apses and fused the two. Thus the building of Sixtus 
became the nave, and the building of Pelagius the chancel, of the 
combined basilica, as it still exists. The orientation therefore now 
conforms to our northern type, the chancel being at the East end and 
the vestibule at the West. Accordingly the mosaic set up by Pelagius, 
though undisturbed in its main features, no longer looks down the 
church according to the original design, but looks inward towards the 
east end. 


But, while the basilica of S. Laurence thus grew to greater magnifi- 
cence, the basilica of S. Hippolytus dwindled from small to less. In 
the middle of the eighth century the Lombards under Astolph swept 
over the land, extinguished the exarchate of Ravenna, and besieged 
Rome itself. The invader dug up and carried off the bodies of the 
saints and martyrs, as trophies, into his own country. What could the 
Romans do to meet these successive desecrations of the sanctuaries? 
The siege of Astolph was in A.D. 756. Of the succeeding popes some, 
like Paul I (a.p. 756—767) and Paschal I (a.p. 817-824) and 
Leo IV (a.p. 847——855) pursued the more timorous, but safer course 
of removing the sacred reliques from the suburban cemeteries to the 
churches within the city. This was only a more respectable form of 
body-snatching than the Lombard plundering itself. On the other hand 
Hadrian I (A.D. 772—795) and Leo III (a.p. 795—816) adopted the 
bolder policy of restoring the extra-mural sanctuaries. Of Nicolas I 
(A.D. 858—867) it is recorded that he made a visitation of the churches 
and cemeteries (‘sanctorum ecclesias ac coemeteria circuibat’)’; but 
whether this resulted in any definite policy with respect of the smaller 
suburban sanctuaries, we have not, so far as I know, any information. 
We read of this same pope as making certain gifts to the church of 
S. Laurence without the walls’. 

These vicissitudes of the papal policy were felt in the cemetery of 


1 See Rom. Sott. 1. p. 221. * Lib. Pont. 11. p. 166 (Duchesne). 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 459 


S. Hippolytus. Paul I, between a.D. 757 and a.p. 761, founded the 
church and monastery of S. Silvester in Capite, so called from the head 
of S. John the Baptist which was its most precious relique—opened 
several suburban tombs, and transferred to his new foundation the 
bodies of the saints and martyrs’. In the portico of the church he 
affixed two tablets containing respectively the names of the male and 
female saints thus translated; among whom are several from the 
cemetery of Hippolytus, more especially the body of Hippolytus him- 
self. Those parts of the inscriptions which refer to the saints buried 
in the Ager Veranus, will be found above (AR. 37 b). 

On the other hand in the Life of Hadrian I (a.p. 772—795) we are 
informed that this pontiff ‘restored the parts of the cemetery of 
S. Hippolytus which had fallen into decay from ancient times’, and 
likewise ‘the church of S. Stephen close to the aforesaid cemetery’ 
(AR. 15 Ac). It is not clear what building is meant by this last 
designation—whether the basilica of S. Hippolytus itself called the 
church of S. Stephen for some unknown reason or some chapel annexed 
to this basilica and dedicated to S. Stephen*. At all events it must 
be distinguished from the church of S. Stephen in the cemetery of 
S. Cyriaca on the opposite side of the Tuiburtine way; for the 
restorations of the two several churches of S. Stephen are mentioned 
separately in the Life of Hadrian (Zz. Pont. 1. p. 508, 511), and the 
situation of each is described *. 

Again; under Leo IV (a.D. 847—855) the policy of translation 1s 
substituted for the policy of restoration. This pontiff, having restored, 
enlarged, and beautified the basilica of the Quatuor Coronati on the 
Ceelian, in order to invest it with greater honour, deposited under the 
altar the body of Hippolytus and his family with others (4. 15 A e). 
This is the second body of S. Hippolytus, the first having already been 
translated by Paul I to S. Silvester. 

Lastly; at some later date, whether when Honorius III carried out 
his works in the basilica of S. Laurentius (A.D. 1216) or at some earlier 
point of time, the reliques in the cemetery of S. Hippolytus seem to 
have been swept wholesale into the church of S. Laurentius, probably 
because their own proper resting-place had now fallen hopelessly into 
ruin. An inscription, though probably a later (13th cent.) copy of the 


1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 37 [A.D. 468—483] Z2d. Pont. 1. p. 249. On 
sq. the two churches of S. Stephen see Bu//. 
2 76. 1882, p. 23 Sq, p- 53- adi Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 43 Sq, Pp. 52 
3 The church of S. Stephen connected sq. 
with S. Laurence was built by Simplicius 


460 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


earlier monument, was read by the pilgrims of the 13th and 14th cen- 
turies (42. 37 a), which enumerates these precious treasures and among 
them is a third body of Hippolytus. 

Thus our saint and doctor appears as 


forma tricorporis umbrae 


even in Rome itself; while, as we shall see presently, other bodies of 
Hippolytus were laid in other cities of Europe. I need not stop to 
enquire how far this multiplication of bodies was due to the practice of 
calling any limb of a saint the ‘body,’ even though it might be only a 
small portion, and how far it arose from the zeal which led to the eager 
identification of any remains which lay near the supposed place of sepul- 
ture with the saint who was the object of search. 


But, while the body of S. Hippolytus was undergoing this process of 
multiplication, his personality also was being subjected to a transfor- 
mation. Baronius accused even an early writer like Prudentius of 
confusing together the personalities of three distinct namesakes (p. 412): 
(1) the divine and father of the Church; (2) the martyr of Antioch ; 
(3) the soldier and gaoler of S. Laurence. He supposed that the Spanish 
poet had borrowed the Novatianism from the second, and the con- 
nexion with the Ager Veranus from the third, and had falsely attributed 
both the one and the other to the first, thus rolling the three into 
one. Other later writers also have adopted this view, with or without 
modifications. Possessing information which was not within the reach 
of Baronius, we are able to exculpate Prudentius from both these 
robberies. The attribution of Novatianism, as we now find (p. 424 sq), is 
much older than Prudentius; and, as a matter of fact, is attributed to the 
Roman divine some centuries before it is attached to the Antiochene 
martyr, so that the robbery is on the other side. Again, the supposed 
appropriation of the sepulchre in the Ager Veranus has arisen from 
an entire mistake; which it will be worth while now to explain. 

De Rossi has shown satisfactorily that the supposed confusion of 
Hippolytus the doctor and divine with Hippolytus the gaoler and 
convert of S. Laurence is not a confusion at all but a substitution. 
In fact they do not co-exist. We find no traces of Hippolytus the 
gaoler in connexion with the Ager Veranus—or indeed, any traces of 
his existence at all—till the 7th century at least. With Damasus and 
Prudentius the Hippolytus of the Ager Veranus is a priest. On the sar- 
cophagus of Apt (see below, p. 467), which may date from the fourth or 
fifth century, though connected with S. Sixtus, he is not only a priest, 
but a writer. He is a priest still in the mosaics put up by Pelagius, 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 461 


when this pope restored the basilica of S. Laurentius (c. A.D. 580); for 
he is clad in priestly robes. He is so represented likewise in other 
contemporary works of art, for instance in the mosaic in S. Apollinaris 
at Ravenna. The earliest work of art to which De Rossi can point as 
departing from this mode of representation is the Celimontane picture 

of the time of Formosus (A.D. 891—8g6), where he is clad in the 
- military chlamys'. 

What is the meaning of all this? As the basilica of S. Hippolytus 
dwindled into insignificance and fell into ultimate ruin, the cultus con- 
nected with it was transferred to the imposing church of S. Laurence 
on the opposite side of the way, while the bodies of the saints and 
martyrs, or such as still remained in the cemetery of Hippolytus, 
were transferred thither. Hence the desire to connect with S. Laurence 
historically those who were connected with him locally; and the various 
Acts of the Laurentinian Cycle started into being. Of these the most 
famous was Hippolytus himself, who had the chief place assigned to him 
in these Acts; while the other members of his entourage, such as Con- 
cordia, though originally they may have had no historical connexion 
even with Hippolytus himself, yet were woven into the story, owing to 
the fact that they were buried in the same cemetery. In the Martyr- 
ology of Ado (t A.D. 874) we have embedded great part of the Passzon 
of S. Sixtus, S. Laurentius, and S. Hippolytus, which included likewise 
the martyrdoms of these minor saints grouped around them, and seems 
to have served as a guide book for the pilgrims to this Ager Veranus’. 

But how was this transformation from the cleric to the soldier 
effected ? What was the main instrumentality which brought it about? 
I seem to myself to be able to answer this question with a reasonable 
degree of probability. 

At an earlier point in this investigation (p. 446 sq) I discussed the 
honours paid to the martyr Romanus in the Ager Veranus, though him- 
self connected with Czsarea and Antioch. I there pointed out that, 
though known to have been a cleric on contemporary authority, he was 
transformed into a soldier within two or three generations of his death; 
that some reliques were possessed or supposed to be possessed in the 
basilica or cemetery of S. Laurence; and that he was one of the group 
of martyrs celebrated in the Ager Veranus in August. His day was the 
eve of S, Laurence, as it appears in the Martyrologeum Vetus (AR. 40 g); 


v Id. Aug. Romae, Romani militis 
Vigilia sancti Laurentii, 


1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 34. 2 AR. 38; see below, p. 473. 


462 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


but in a list of the reliques on an ancient tablet found in S. Laurence 
(AR. 37 a), we read 


POST HOS IPOLITUS COLLIS RE 
LIGATUS EQUORVM 
CUM NUTRICE SUA CUM CUNC 
TA PLEBE SUORVM 
ROMANUS MILES, 


where the proper name would be easily overlooked and explained 
‘a Roman soldier’ as descriptive of Hippolytus. Though this actual 
tablet is probably not older than the 13th century, it is apparently a 
copy of an earlier inscription; and at all events the same connexion of 
names would appear in other documents relating to these martyrs. 
Thus, having himself been transmuted from a cleric into a soldier, 
Romanus handed on the same transmutation to Hippolytus. 

I am the more encouraged to believe that this is the real account of 
the change, because I find that in all essential respects Hippolytus the 
soldier is the mere double of Romanus the soldier. Both the one and 
the other suffer under Decius; both the one and the other belong to the 
band guarding Laurence; both the one and the other are cut to the 
quick by the good confession of the martyr-deacon, and seek baptism at 
his hands; both the one and the other are put to death; both the one 
and the other are buried by Justinus in the Ager Veranus. Only in 
the manner of their death there is a difference. While Romanus suffers 
in a common-place way, being beheaded, Hippolytus in accordance 
with the picture of the martyrdom seen by Prudentius is torn to pieces 
by horses. 

Moreover, there is much confusion about the day. The day of 
Romanus is first given by Ado as the eve of S. Laurence (p. 322), and 
he is mentioned in direct connexion with Hippolytus in the scenes 
immediately preceding the martyrdom of S. Laurence (p. 324). Then 
again he is stated (p. 325)-to have suffered ‘on ¢he very day (ipso die) 
on which the blessed Laurence suffered.’ This confusion is not insigni- 
ficant. 

Then again; there is a notice in the account of Hippolytus’ martyr- 
dom, which seems to be a faint echo of the transformation undergone 
by Hippolytus. Decius orders him to be ‘stripped of the dress which 
he wore as a Christian’ (‘veste qua induebatur habitu Christiano’) and 
‘to be clothed in the soldier’s dress which he wore as a Gentile’ (‘vestiri 
militari veste qua gentilis utebatur’). ‘Be our friend,’ says the emperor 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 463 


to him, ‘and in our presence resume the profession of a soldier which 
thou didst always follow’ (in conspectu nostro utere militia pristina 
quam semper habuisti)’. These Acts seem to have been written as I 
have said, specially for the use of pilgrims to the Ager Veranus; but in 
the church of S. Laurence the mosaic of Pelagius might still be seen, 
where Hippolytus was represented as a tonsured priest. Did not this 
discrepancy need some such reconciliation as the words here ascribed 
to Decius suggest ? 

Connected with the transformation of the priest into the soldier is 
the ‘familia,’ notably his nurse Concordia, who were martyred with him 
in the later form of the legend. The earlier calendars and liturgies 
speak of Hippolytus alone. In later documents and in later mss of 
the older documents, he is surrounded by his companion martyrs”. 


After the close of the ninth century we read nothing more of the 
basilica or cemetery of S. Hippolytus. Mention indeed is made of the 
‘Mount of S. Hippolytus*, the hill at the back of the cemetery in the 
rith century; but it is mentioned simply as a locality, without any re- 
ference to the sanctuary which once existed there. When Martin V in 
1425 gave permission for the removal of slabs and stones from the 
desolate suburban catacombs to construct the pavement of S. John 
Lateran*, the cemetery of S. Hippolytus was one of those rifled for this 
purpose, as the stones now embedded in the Lateran pavement show 
(see above, p. 329); though it is not mentioned by name. Yet the 
rifling was not complete; for the lower part of the statue of Hippolytus 
was discovered on the spot in 1551. At the revival of learning the 
individuality of the cemetery of Hippolytus had so entirely disappeared, 
that the basilicas and cemeteries on the two sides of the Tiburtine Way 
were hopelessly confused by historians and archeologists under the 
general name of the ‘Ager Veranus’; and so long as this confusion 
existed, no satisfactory results were possible. This hopeless state of 
things continued for more than three centuries. Only in our own gene- 
ration was this confusion dissipated by the archeological discoveries, 
interpreted by the antiquarian penetration and learning of De Rossi. 
The excavations more especially, which have been made since the year 
1880, have furnished a final answer to the main questions. 

On this Ager Veranus, to the left side of the Tiburtine Way, to one 
journeying from Rome to Tivoli, had been discovered three centuries 


1 See above, p. 358 sq. _3 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 423 
2 See the illustrations given by De Rossi comp. Rom. Sott. 1. p. 161 sq. 
Bull. di Archeol, Crist, 1882, p. 31 sq. 4 7b. 1881, p. 39 Sq; 1882, p. 42. 


464 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


ago, as we have seen, the actual statue of Hippolytus. Here also, at a 
later date, was found an inscription REFR[1I|GERI[0]. TIBI. DOMNVS. IPPO- 
LITVS. SID (sit). Hence also probably came later still a sepulchral stone 
bearing the words AT. IPPOLITV. SVPER . ARCOSOLIV, which found its way 
into the Vatican Museum®*. At length in 1881 the excavations were 
commenced on this site in right earnest*, and resulted not only in the 
discovery of the inscriptions recording the works of Damasus (A.D. 366— 
384) and of Vigilius (A.D. 537-555), as mentioned already (pp. 328 sq, 
424, 454), but in the actual disinterment of the subterranean basilica 
of Hippolytus, as described by Prudentius and as repaired by Vigilius. 
It is much larger than such subterranean chapels to the Catacombs 
generally, as the description of Prudentius would lead us to expect. It 
exhibits the isolated altar on the bema of the apse, as described by this 
same poet. It shows traces of the three windows overhead ‘trinum per 
specula lumen,’ as specified by Vigilius, so as to throw a flood of light 
into this under-ground church, a feature which impressed Prudentius, 
though he does not mention the actual number of these lights. It 
is obviously however not in the state in which it was left by Damasus, 
but bears traces of the subsequent repairs of Vigilius. Thus inscrip- 
tions of the age of Damasus, and later, no longer stand in their original 
position, but have been displaced, so that in some instances they are 
partly concealed. One such Damasian inscription TIMOTEVS. PRESBYTER 
in the true Filocalian character (see above, p. 444) must have stood 
originally in the front of an ‘arcosolium.’ It is now used to construct 
one of the steps to the bema*. Again the walls, as seen by Prudentius, 
were lined with glistening white marble; they are now covered with 
plaster’. 


Three other sanctuaries of S. Hippolytus in Rome and Italy deserve 
a passing notice. 

(1) During the papacy of Siricius (A.D. 384—399) one Ilicius a 
presbyter erected all the buildings which were to be seen in connexion 
with the church and monastery of S. Pudentiana along the Vicus 
Patricius (now the Via Urbana), beginning with the MEMORIA SANCTI 


1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 45. 

290. pias. 

3 7b. p. 56 sq- 

4 See Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 
68, Tav. 1, ii. 

5 This Timotheus must have been a 
person of some importance in the history 
of the Church. Our first impulse is to 


identify him with the Timotheus of Ostia, 
whose ‘depositio’ is Aug. 22 (xi Kal. Sept.) 
in the Liberian list. He would thus add 
another to the saints of the Ager Veranus 
celebrated in August. This Timotheus 
however is stated by Ado (and the same 
is implied in the Liberian list) to have 
been buried in the Cemetery of Ostia, 


HIFPOLYTUS ‘OF “PORTUS. 465 
MARTYRIS IPPOLYTI’. This was the period, as we have seen (p. 452), 
when the fame of Hippolytus reached its zenith owing to the devotion 
of Damasus; and Siricius, the next successor of Damasus, was the very 
man to give further encouragement to it, since it is especially recorded 
in his honour on his tomb that the malcontents of the anti-Damasian 
faction were at length united under him’. The same reason therefore 
which had led Damasus to show his reverence for Hippolytus in the 
sanctuary on the Tiburtine Way, as the champion of unity in the Church 
in the midst of schism, would lead Siricius also to heap additional 
honours upon him. But why the selection of the Vicus Patricius and 
the church of S. Pudentiana for this memoria? De Rossi (Bull. di 
Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 16) answers that Hippolytus probably lived in 
the Vicus Patricius or gathered a Christian congregation there for 
worship. This must be taken as a mere conjecture, like the similar 
conjecture respecting the house and memorza of Clement which I have 
dealt with elsewhere (I. p. 94). But the connexion of the suburban 
cemeteries on the Tiburtine way with the priests of the ‘title’ of this (the 
third ecclesiastical) region—on the Esquiline including S. Pudentiana 
and S, Praxedis—from the fifth century at least is a matter of certainty. 
These priests seem to have served these cemeteries, and grants of 
graves were made by them or their prior. Thus we have mention ina 
sepulchral inscription dated A. D. 491 of a grave acquired by one Fausta 
in the cemetery of Hippolytus a. pre. TIT. [P]RAx[SEDIS]*. Elsewhere 
in this same cemetery was found belonging to the year 528 the grave 
of one HILARVS. LICTOR (lector). TT. PVDENTIS*; and again another of 
one PB. PRIOR’, whose name is mutilated and who doubtless belonged 
to this same region and title. It is probable therefore that the presbyter 
Andreas, who under Vigilius (see above, p. 454) repaired the basilica of 
S. Hippolytus, was the prior of this title®. 

(2) The next Italian sanctuary, which claims a mention in con- 
nexion with Hippolytus, is Portus, the haven of Rome. From what I 
Of pope Simplicius (A.D. 468—483) we 
are told that he arranged respecting the 


1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1877, p. 15 
sq; 1882, p. 15 sq. 


2 See Duchesne £70. Pont. 1. p. 217. 

3 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 65 
sq. 

4 Resoconto det Cultori di Archeologia 
Cristiana 1883, April 1, (Roma 1888). 

5 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. \.c. 

6 On the connexion of the cemeteries 
on the Tiburtine Way with the ‘tituli’ of 
this region see Rom. So¢t, 111. p. 516 sq. 


CLEM. II. 


service at ‘regio III ad sanctum Lauren- 
tium’ among other similar arrangements 
in other ‘regiones’. On the tituli ‘ Prax- 
edis’ and ‘ Pudentis’ (or ‘Pudentianae’) see 
also Duchesne Notes sur la Topographie de 
Rome au Moyen Age p. 22 sq (Rome 1887), 
extracted from the A/dlanges d’ Archéo- 
logie. 


30 


466 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


have said already and shall have to say hereafter, it will be apparent that, 
whether he was actually bishop of Portus or not, no other place—hardly 
even the Ager Veranus—is more closely identified with his name by 
history and tradition alike. The tower of a ruined church in Portus— 
a landmark seen afar over the surrounding waste—still bears his name. 
Of Leo III (a. p. 795—816) we are told that he gave certain cloths to 
the ‘basilica beati Yppoliti martyris in civitate Portuense,’ one to cover 
his body (super corpus ejus), and another for the great altar (Zzd. Pont. 
11. p. 12, Duchesne). Whether it is mentioned at an earlier date, I 
know not. The ruins are said to belong to the eighth century. The 
well is also shown, in which according to the Portuensian version of the 
legend his body was drowned. It is in the /so/a Sacra’, the island 
made by the original mouth of the Tiber and by the channel cut for 
the works of Claudius and Trajan at the new Port. Of the identification 
of Hippolytus with an early Portuensian martyr Nonnus, and of his 
association with the virgin Chryse in the spurious Acts of the latter, I 
shall have to speak presently (see below, p. 474 sq). 

Though events were preparing the way, as I have shown, for a 
bishopric at Portus in the age of Hippolytus, the permanent see seems 
not to have been established till the next century. In the middle ages 
and afterwards it ranked second of the suburbicarian sees, Ostia taking 
the precedence. 

(3) At the ancient Forum Semproni, the modern Fossombrone, in 
the valley of the Metaurus on the Flaminian Way about 165 miles from 
_ Rome, there exist to the present day two castles called respectively by 
the names of S. Hippolytus and S. Laurence—the same two saints who 
were celebrated on the Tiburtine Way in the middle of August. Now 
we find in the Hieronymian Martyrology*® under Feb. 2nd 


iv Non. Feb. Romae Foro Sinfronii, via Flaminia, miliario ab urbe 
centum septuaginta quatuor Laurentii, Hippolyti, 


and again under Aug. 6 


viii Id. Aug. Laurentii, Hippolyti, et militum centum sexaginta 
duorum, 


in the common text, or as it is otherwise read ‘militum clxv.’ Com- 
paring these notices one with another and with the actual fact relating 


' For the ancient works at Portus see medieval and later condition comp. Nibby 
Lanciani Ancient Rome in the light of — Analisi 11. p. 602 sq, and see Benson 
Recent Discoveries p. 231 sq. For the Yourn. of Class. and Sacr. Philol. i. p. 
Christian remains esp. De Rossi Bud/. di 202 sq. 

Archeol. Crist. 1866, p. 37 sq. For the 2 See above, p. 356. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 467 


to Fossombrone, we cannot doubt that De Rossi is right in reading 
‘milliario’ for ‘militum’ in the second passage, the word having been 
contracted into ‘mil’’; and in the first passage we should probably 
substitute clxiiiii for clxiiiii Indeed the 165 soldiers cannot be ex- 
plained otherwise; for they have no relation to the more modest 
‘familia’ of 18 or 19 persons which forms the entourage of our 
S. Hippolytus in the later form of the legend. With this correction 
the earlier notice (Feb. 2) will in all likelihood represent the anniversary 
of the dedication of the sanctuary of these two saints at Fossombrone, 
whither probably the oil or some other relique of them was taken, 
while the latter (Aug. 6) represents the annual celebration of their 
proper festival in the Ides of August celebrated likewise at Fossombrone, 
as it was celebrated at Rome. In fact both these notices seem to have 
been introduced into the Hieronymian hodge-podge from some Umbrian 
or North Italian document. 


The reverence paid to this saint outside of Italy need not occupy us 
long. We have seen (p. 452) that Prudentius recommended his own 
superior, the Archbishop of Zaragoza, to introduce the cultus of Hippo- 
lytus; but whether the advice was taken we do not know. At all events 
he has a place in a Carthaginian Calendar of the fifth or sixth century, 
where the usage was closely allied to that of the Spanish Church; and 
in the Gothic Missal, which exhibits the liturgical practice of the Visigoths 
in Spain in the seventh or eighth centuries (4A. 39, 40). In France the 
remarkable sarcophagus at Apt near Avignon is proof of the spread of 
his fame* in the fifth(?) century. Again we find at Arles an early 
church dedicated to him. In the year 973 one Theucinda petitions the 
Archbishop of Arles to be allowed to ‘rebuild and restore’ ECCLESIAM 
IN HONORE BEATI YPOLITI DEDICATAM, which must therefore have been 
in existence long before*. But his greatest fame in this country is 
connected with the great Abbey of S. Denis near Paris. About the 
year 764 Fulrad Abbot of S. Denis brought the bones of S. Hippolytus 
from the Ager Veranus and laid them for a time in his newly founded 
Abbey Fulrado-Villiers, thence called St Hippolyte or St Bilt; whence 
they were translated shortly after his death (c. 785) to S. Denis. 
Hippolytus was here celebrated as at Rome on the Ides of August, and 
his martyrdom was represented as in the picture seen by Prudentius in 
the Ager Veranus. But he was no longer the cleric, but the soldier, 


1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 36. 3 See De Rossi /uscr. Christ. Urb. 
2 7b. 1866, p. 33 sq; 1882, p. 35. Rom. il. p. 267. 


30—2 


468 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


no longer the doctor of the Church but the convert of S. Laurence; 
for the transformation had already been made. About the year 1159 
pope Alexander III visited S. Denis and, on enquiring whose bones a 
certain reliquary contained, was told those of Hippolytus. ‘I don’t 
believe it, I don’t believe it,’ said the pope bluntly, ‘I supposed that 
he Jay still in the City.’ He had only too much reason for his scepti- 
cism ; for he might have known that Rome itself contained no less 
than three bodies of S. Hippolytus, one in S. Silvester, a second in 
the Quatuor Coronati, and a third in S. Laurence. The saint himself 
however would stand no trifling. His bones rattled and rumbled in 
the reliquary, like the roar of thunder, till the pope cried out in terror, 
‘I believe it, my lord, I believe it, my lord; do keep quiet.’ The 
pope made his peace by erecting a marble altar in the oratory of the 
saint’. 

Nor was this the only body of Hippolytus outside Rome. ‘There 
was, or is, another in the church of S. Julia at Brescia; and another 
in S. Ursula at Cologne; besides heads and limbs here and there 
elsewhere. 


ony? 
SPURIOUS ACLS OF LIPlPOLy TCs. 


The only Acts of Hippolytus which can pretend to retain even a 
faint echo of genuine history are those given in the poem of Prudentius 
(see p. 332 sq); and even at this early date as we have seen fact is 
choked by fiction. The later Acts have no historical value at all; but 
they throw some light on the legendary Hippolytus. 

These later Acts belong to two separate cycles ; (1) Zhe Laurentian; 
(2) Zhe Portuensian. The connexion with the true Hippolytus is in 
both cases local, not historical. In the former the link is the Ager 
Veranus, the site of Hippolytus’ burial place; in the latter it is the 
Port of Rome, the site of his practical activity while living. 


(i) Acts of the Laurentian Cycle. 


We have seen already (p. 458 sq) that owing to the decadence and 
ruin of the basilica and cemetery of S. Hippolytus the chief memorials 
of the saints and martyrs once existing there were transferred to the 


1 Acta Sanct. Bolland. Aug. 111. p. 9; I. p. IgI. 
comp. Fourn. of Class. and Sacr. Phitlol, 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 469 


neighbouring sanctuary of S. Laurentius. The effect of this trans- 
ference made itself felt on the legend. Henceforward Hippolytus 
became more than ever a companion and attendant of S. Laurentius, 
while at the same time he was gradually transformed from a cleric into 
a soldier. 

The extant inscription in the Church of S. Laurentius (42. 37) is 
an instructive comment on this developement. The enumeration of 
the sacred reliques there deposited begins with the names of the three 
persons to whom the church was dedicated by Pelagius (see above, 
Pp. 457) together with S. Stephen the first deacon and prototype of 
S. Laurence. It ends with the popes who were buried there, Hilarus, 
Zosimus and Sixtus III,* together with Pelagius who built the enlarged 
basilica. Of these it is not necessary to say anything more. Our 
concern is with the intermediate names ; 


Ipolitus collis religatus equorum ; 
Cum nutrice sua cum cuncta plebe suorum 
Romanus miles, Triphonia, Virgo Cirilla, 
Et quadraginta quos passio continet illa, 
Justinusque sacer defunctos qui tumulabat, 
Ciriace vidua quae sanctos clam recreabat, 
Cujus matronae fuit haec possessio cara, 
Ipsius nomen specialiter optinet ara, 
Martir Ireneus qui tecum, martir Abundi, 
Decedens sprevit fallacis gaudia mundi. 


The ancient itineraries show us that of the persons here named, 
Concordia and the supposed ‘familia’—the ‘cuncta plebs suorum’—were 
originally buried in the crypt of Hippolytus, as were also Tryphonia 
and Cyrilla, the reputed wife and daughter of Decius Czesar (4 2. 38 b). 
On the other hand, Romanus and Justinus, Abundius and Irenzeus, lay 
in the cemetery on the opposite side of the way in which stood the 
basilica of S. Laurence, as did also Cyriace who, as here stated, was 
probably the original possessor of the ground and gave her name to 
this cemetery. 

Of those buried in the cemetery of Hippolytus, Concordia, as we 
learn from the itineraries, lay ‘ante fores,’ i.e. of the crypt or chamber 
where Hippolytus himself lay. In another chamber (‘altero cubiculo’), 
lay the two martyrs, Tryphonia the wife and Cyrilla the virgin daughter 
of Decius—both done to death by this tyrant’s command. ‘Thus the 
sepulchre of Concordia was between the vault of Hippolytus and that 


1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1881, p. 86 sq. 


470 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


of the two royal martyrs—‘between the two,’ as one of the itineraries 
says (AR. 38 b, where read ‘inter utrosque’). Concordia is commonly 
called the nurse (‘nutrix’), but in the earliest of the itineraries the wife 
(‘mulier’) of Hippolytus. These date from the 8th century. As no 
record is found in history of any wife and daughter of Decius (whichever 
Decius is meant), who bore the names Tryphonia and Cyrilla, it has 
been proposed to read ‘ancillae mulieris’ for ‘mulieris’ in the Martyro- 
logies: so as to bring the statement within the range of probability; 
but we are dealing with romance, not with history, and in romance such 
conjectures are futile as well as unnecessary. Who Concordia may 
have been, we have no means of ascertaining. It is not probable that 
she had any other connexion with Hippolytus except the double proxi- 
mity of the place of sepulture and the time of celebration. This local 
and temporal neighbourhood would be sufficient to suggest the historical 
connexion, of which there seem to be no traces before the eighth cen- 
tury. But what shall we say of the ‘familia’ xviiil (or xvill) in number? 
The attachment of this ‘familia’ to Hippolytus seems to be later— 
though probably not much later—than his connexion with Concordia 
herself; for it occurs in the Old Roman Martyrology. In the earliest 
of the itineraries, where she is the ‘mulier’ of Hippolytus, the ‘familia’ 
is not mentioned at all. Even in the Aieronymian Martyrology—the 
great storehouse of martyrological notices, historical and legendary, 
early and late—it has not yet found a place. The number was origin- 
ally xviiii (=xix) and not xviii, as appears not only from the oldest of 
the itineraries in which it is mentioned, but also from Ado and others. 
A figure would be easily dropped by transcribers. I believe that I 
see the origin of this number xviiii (xix). The next day to Id. Aug. is 
xix Kal. Sept. But the Ides of August is the day of Concordia, as well 
as of Hippolytus. What if the ‘familia’ of Hippolytus has originated 
in some calendar for August set up either in the Ager Veranus or else- 
where, which ran thus 


ID. AVG. HIPPOLYTI ET CONCORDIAE ET FAMILIAE EIVS . XIX. 
KAL. SEPT.. EVSEBII PRESBYTERI ET CONFESSORIS etc. 


the next important celebration being the festival of Eusebius on xix 
Kal. Sept. at least in some calendars, e.g. the Old Roman (Patrol. Lat. 
CxxIlI. p. 166, Migne), and the xix has got detached from the following 
words and appended to the preceding? I should add that I cannot 
lay the same stress as De Rossi on the notice in the zeronymian 
Martyrology, which gives under viii Kal. Mart. 


Romae via ‘Tiburtina ad sanctum Laurentium natalis sanctae Con- 
cordiae, 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 471 


as though this gave the original day of S. Concordia’. It seems to me 
that the confusion of the cemetery of S. Laurence with that of S$. Hip- 
polytus shows the comparatively late date of this notice and therefore 
deprives it of any special value. Whoever she may have been, her 
original connexion seems to have been with the Hippolytean cemetery 
on the Tiburtine Way; and there she was celebrated on the Ides of 
August. I suppose therefore that we have in the Hieronymian Mar- 
tyrology a confused notice of some translation of Concordia similar to 
those which we have already considered in the case of Romanus (p. 449) 
and of Hippolytus himself (p. 439 sq). Even if De Rossi were right 
about her proper ‘natal day,’ my explanation would hold equally well: 
since it depends solely on the date of her celebration on the Tiburtine 
Way, about which there can be no doubt. 

Whoever Tryphonia and Cyrilla were, they need give us no trouble. 
Their days are respectively xv Kal. Nov. (Oct. 18) and v Kal. Nov. 
(Oct. 28) in the Calendars and Martyrologies, e.g. Ado. ‘They may 
perhaps have suffered in the Decian persecution about the same time 
with S. Laurence; though there is some confusion between Decius and 
Claudius (Gothicus) in the notices of the persecuting tyrant (as for 
instance in Ado); but their connexion with the Hippolytean legend is 
due to the fact of their graves being situated near the chambers of 
Hippolytus and Concordia. 

Nor need I spend any time on investigating whether the saints 
buried on the right side of the Tiburtine Way in the cemetery of 
Cyriace were historically connected with S. Laurence. Of Romanus 
I have spoken already (p. 446 sq). 

The full-blown legend of S. Laurence and S. Hippolytus is found 
in Ado, and runs as follows : 

On the roth of August (iv Id. Aug.) S. Laurence suffered. Sixtus 
on his way to martyrdom had entrusted all the treasures of the Church 
to him. A certain widow Cyriace, living on the Ceelian, had hidden 
several clerics and others in her house from the persecution and with 
her he deposited the treasures, at the same time healing her miraculously 
of many pains in the head. In the Vicus Canarius he found many 
Christians congregated in the house of Narcissus; he distributed money 
among them; and he restored his sight to one Crescentio who was 
blind. Decius, hearing of these hidden treasures in the keeping of 
Laurence the archdeacon of Sixtus, hands him over to Valerian the 
prefect, who puts him in charge of one Hippolytus as warder. 
Hippolytus, seeing him work a miracle on another blind man, one 


1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 24 Sq, p- 32. 


4.72 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


Lucillius, is converted and baptized. Meanwhile Valerian presses 
Laurence to give up the treasures. Asking for time, he gathers 
together the almsmen and almswomen of the Church, and tells Valerian 
that these are the treasures. He is beaten and otherwise tortured byDecius 
for his effrontery. ‘Then he is restored to the keeping of Hippolytus. 
One of the soldiers, Romanus by name, seeing the conduct of S. Laurence, 
believes and is baptized. He is beaten and beheaded by order of Decius 
on v Id. Aug., the day before S. Laurence. S. Laurence himself is 
then brought before Decius; and after suffering the most excruciating 
tortures is roasted to death on a gridiron. In early morning Hippolytus 
carries off the body, wraps it with linen cloths and spices, and delivers 
it to Justinus the presbyter. The two go by night to the Tiburtine 
Way to the farm of Cyriace in the Ager Veranus—the same widow with 
whom Laurence had been at night—and lay him there on iv Id. Aug. 

The same day at Rome one hundred and sixty-five soldiers suffered. 
Then were martyred Claudius, Severus, Crescentio, and Romanus, on the 
same day as S. Laurence, the third day after the passion of S. Sixtus. 

On the Ides of August suffered Hippolytus under Decius the emperor 
and Valerian the prefect. This Hippolytus the ‘vicarius’ had been 
baptized as already stated by S. Laurence. Returning home after the 
burial he was seized and carried before Decius. Here he was com- 
pelled to strip off his Christian garment and put on ‘the military dress 
which he wore as a Gentile.’ Then Valerian rifled his house of its 
treasures and dragged out ‘all his Christian family.’ He and his house- 
hold were led outside the walls on the Tiburtine Way. ‘The latter were 
beheaded—male and female—nineteen in number. Hippolytus himself 
was yoked to untamed horses and thus dismembered. They were all 
buried by Justinus the presbyter in the same plain ‘juxta nympham’’ 
by the side of the Ager Veranus. 

At the same time perished Concordia, the nurse of Hippolytus. She 
was put to death by the same Valerian, and her body thrown into the 
sewer. ‘Thirteen days after her death a soldier, Porphyrius by name, 
came to Irenzus the sewer-keeper (‘cloacarius’), who was secretly a 
Christian, and told him where the body might be found having jewels 
or gold concealed about it, as he supposed. No such treasure however 
was discovered ; but Irenzeus, assisted by a Christian Abundius, took 
the body to Justinus, who buried it by Hippolytus and the others. 

1 <Juxta nympham’ referstothe springs p.190. They were near the Nomentan 
of waters in the neighbourhood, which Way and were called S. Petri, because 
were found infiltrating the soil in the SS. Peter was reported to have baptized 


recent excavations; see Bull. di Archeol. there. 
Crist. p. 19, p- 523 comp. Lom. Soét, 1. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. A73 


On vii Kal. Sept. (Aug. 26) Irenzeus and Abundius were ordered by 
Valerian to be themselves enclosed in a sewer (‘incloacari’) and so 
perished. They were buried by Justinus ‘in the crypt near S. Laurence.’ 

On xv Kal. Nov. (Oct. 18) died Tryphonia the wife of Decius 
Ceesar. Overawed by the divine vengeance which had overtaken her 
husband after his murder of S. Sixtus and S. Hippolytus, she with her 
daughter Cyrilla had sought baptism at the hands of Justinus. She was 
buried ‘ near Hippolytus in the crypt.’ 

On viii Kal. Nov. (Oct. 25) 48 soldiers were baptized together by 
pope Dionysius [the successor of Sixtus, A.D. 259—268]. They were 
beheaded by command of the emperor Claudius [A.D. 268—270] and 
buried by Justinus the presbyter and John on the Salarian Way ‘in 
clivum Cucumeris’; also other 121 martyrs. Among these were Theo- 
dosius, Lucius, Marcus, and Petrus, who asked the honour of being 
beheaded first. The record is found, adds Ado, in the ‘ Passio sanc- 
torum martyrum, Sixti, Laurentu, et Hippolyti.’ 

On v Kal. Nov. (Oct. 28) perished Cyrilla the daughter of Decius 
by order of the emperor Claudius. She was buried by Justin the pres- 
byter with her mother near S. Hippolytus. . 

On xv Kal. Oct. (Sept. 17) died Justinus, who had buried so many 
martyrs. His place of sepulture was on the Tiburtine Way near 
S. Laurence. Laurence had come to him to the ‘crypta Nepotiana’ 
in the Vicus Patricius, and asked him to distribute the treasures com- 
mitted to him by S. Sixtus to the poor. He won renown by the glory 
of his confession in the persecutions of Decius, Gallus, and Volu- 
sianus, 

It is clear that Ado takes this account of these martyrs from a 
written document, the Passion of S. Sixtus, $. Laurentius, and S. Hip- 
polytus, to which he refers. It contained not only the Acts of the three 
principal martyrs, and of others belonging to the Tiburtine Way ; but 
also of others who perished and were buried on the Salarian Way. 
These latter seem to have been added, simply because they were reputed 
to have been buried by the same Justinus. 

These Acts quoted and probably abridged by Ado are doubtless the 
document which is called Passio ILLA in the inscription of the 13th 
century found in the basilica of S, Laurence (42. 37). It seems to 
have served as a sort of guide book to the pilgrims in the Ager 
Veranus. 

The Acts, printed by Lagarde (p. xiii sq) from the ms Brit. AZus. 
11880 of the ninth century and bearing the same name, are much 
briefer. An abstract of them is given above (42. 45). The two seem 


474 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


not to have anything in common except the main outlines of the story 
of the connexion of Laurence with Sixtus and of Hippolytus with 
Laurence. Perhaps however they may both have been founded on 
some very simple earlier Acts; but the characteristic of the Adonian 
account—the working up of the history of the saints and martyrs 
buried in the Ager Veranus into a single narrative—is entirely wanting. 


(2) Acts of the Portuensian Cycle. 


These Acts are quite independent of the Laurentian, and centre 
about the person of one Chryse or Aurea, a virgin martyr and prin- 
cess of royal blood. Hippolytus only plays a very subordinate 
part, and (as we shall see presently) his name seems to have been 
introduced as an afterthought. So far as there is any historical back- 
ground at all, it consists of a group of Portuensian martyrs. No longer 
the Ager Veranus, but the Port of Rome, is the centre of interest. 
Moreover the personal surroundings of Hippolytus are all different, 
being largely clerics. 

The persecutors are Claudius, ‘the impious tyrant,’ and the ‘ vi- 
carius’ Ulpius Romulus. Our first impulse is to identify the perse- 
cuting emperor with Claudius Gothicus (a.p. 268—270), because this 
identification reduces the anachronism toa minimum. But this sovereign 
is not known to have been guilty of any persecution. Moreover Cen- 
surinus, one of his victims, is represented as saying that Jesus Christ 
‘condescended to come from the Father zz his own times (ev Tots 
npeTépots Katpots) and to be born of a virgin’s womb.’ It would appear 
therefore that Dollinger (p. 42) is right in supposing that the hagiologist 
intended the first emperor of this name; or that, if he did not, he con- 
fused the earlier Claudius with the later. The name Alexander in place 
of Claudius in some recensions of the Latin copies seems to be a substi- 
tution to conform to the tradition of the more popular Laurentian Acts. 

Censurinus, a leading man of the magistracy (r#s tod paywropiov 
efovoias), is first apprehended and imprisoned at Ostia. There he is 
fed and cared for by Chryse; and receives the ministrations of the pres- 
byter Maximus. Several of his guards, whose names are given—among 
these Taurinus and Herculianus—seek baptism. ‘Then the bishop 
Cyriacus comes by night, ‘seals,’ and anoints them. We have then the 
story of a certain shoe-maker (oxvtevs), whose son is raised from the 
dead, baptized under the name Faustinus, and carefully tended by 
Chryse. For this offence she is accused of magic, and subjected to the 
wheel and other tortures. ‘Then Archelaus the deacon, Maximus the 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 475 


priest, and Cyriacus the bishop suffer. At this point of the narrative 
we hear again of the soldiers, who had been converted by the ministra- 
tions of Maximus. They are condemned to death and suffer. Of all 
the rest, who are not here again mentioned by name, we are told that their 
bodies were laid near the sea on the Ostian Way on vi Id. Aug.; but of 
Taurinus and Herculianus we are informed that they were buried in 
‘the Port of Rome.’ Chryse’s turn comes at length. After being 
beaten to no effect, as she only received fresh accessions of strength, 
she was drowned in the sea with a heavy stone about her neck. 
At this point, when the narrative is more than three-fourths over, the 
name of Hippolytus first occurs. Her body floated to the shore, was 
gathered up by ‘the blessed Nonus, also surnamed Hippolytus’ (Novos 
0 kat wetovopac Geis ‘Irmodvtos), and buried ‘on her own estate, where also 
she lived, outside the walls of the city of Ostia, on the ix Kal. Sept.’ 
Then the torture of Sabinianus the procurator is related for not revealing 
her concealed treasure; whereupon Hippolytus provokes the wrath of 
the persecutor by his denunciations, and is condemned to death for 
this inopportune interference. He is sunk in the pit of the haven called 
Portus (eis tov BoOvvov roprov tov avayopevoyevov IIdprov) on xi Kal. 
Sept. At his death the voices of infants are heard for the space of a 
whole hour giving thanks to God. 

The remaining paragraphs of the story recount the martyrdom of 
Sabinianus and his burial by Cordius (Concordius). 

Now in the earliest extant Western Martyrology, which is embedded 
in the work of the Liberian Chronographer (A. D. 354) and which itself 
cannot be later than a.p. 335 (see above, I. pp. 248, 250), we have this 
notice, which throws a flood of light on the Acts of Chryse: 


Non. Sept. (Sept. 5th) 
Aconti, in Porto, et Nonni et Herculani et Taurini. 


These were doubtless genuine martyrs of Portus, though whether 
they suffered in the Decian persecution or later we cannot tell. But 
the notice had lost the first name by mutilation before it reached our 
hagiologist ; and the three other names only are utilized. Whence the 
story of Chryse herself was derived, I need not stop to enquire; nor 
is it worth my while to spend time on the other adornments of these 
Acts. 

The real interest gathers round Nonnus. Whether this was the 
Latin word Nonus (like Septimus, Decimus, etc.) or the Greek word 
Nonnus or Nunnus, we may question. Probably it was the latter, but 
anyhow the meaning of the Greek word would attach itself to it, and it 


476 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


would suggest a cleric. Originally, as is quite evident, the notice had 
nothing to do with Hippolytus, and the connexion required some ex- 
planation 6 kal perovouacGeis or (as it is in the corresponding Latin) ‘qui 
et iam Ypolitus nuncupatur.’ But the great cleric connected with 
Portus, the patron saint of the place, was Hippolytus the theologian. 
Hence Nonnus must be Hippolytus. Moreover he is 0 rpeoPurepos ; 
for Portus knew nothing of Hippolytus the soldier, but only of 
Hippolytus ‘the elder.’ 

The remains of an ancient sarcophagus, ascribed to the fourth or 
fifth century and commemorating Taurinus and Herculanus without any 
mention of Nonnus' have been found, which seems to show that these 
two were buried in a separate locality; as indeed the Acts might lead 
us to expect. 

Of the other martyrs mentioned in these Acts some are recognized 
in the Martyrium Hieronymianum, where we have the notices 


xi Kal. Sept. Et in portu Romano peregrinorum martyrum. 

x Kal. Sept. In portu urbis Romae natalis sancti Hippolyti qui 
dicitur Nunnus cum sociis suis. In Ostia natalis 
sancti Quiriaci, Archelai, 


Hippolytus himself having likewise been mentioned on a previous day 
(xiii Kal. Sept.), but without the description ‘qui dicitur Nunnus’ (see 
AR. 40 f). 

The Greek Acts were first published by S. de Magistris, from whom 
Lagarde has taken them. The Latin Acts will be found in Act. Sanct. 
Bolland. Augustus IV. p. 757 sq. The Greek seems certainly to be 
the original; the story would probably be compiled in this language 
for the sake of the foreigners frequenting Ostia and Portus. In the 
Latin the exordium more especially is expanded, so as to give Chryse 
the principal place on the canvas. | 


The AZenea borrowed some features from the Laurentian Acts ; 
others from the Portuensian. They are brief, but they show a late 
development of the legend. 


We may follow the growth of the legend a step further. In 
the middle of the fifth century there lived a more famous Nonnus, 
bishop of Edessa or of Heliopolis or of both, to whom is due the 
credit of having converted the courtesan Pelagia. S. Peter Damianus 
(c. A.D. 1060) fuses this Nonnus with Hippolytus (4X. 45). He 
makes this conversion of Pelagia the crowning feat of Nonnus-Hip- 


1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1866, p. 49. 


HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. A77 


polytus after bringing 30,000 Saracens over to the faith of Christ. 
Then he resigns his bishopric, leaves Antioch his native country, and 
retires to the mouth of the Tiber. His glorious martyrdom there 
consummated, and the miraculous voices of the infants giving thanks to 
God, are a proof that the resignation of the episcopate may on 
occasions be possible without offending God. 

The caprices of tradition would not be complete, unless supplemented 
by the conceits of criticism. Baronius (p. 411) surmised that Callistus 
would not suffer so valuable a man as Hippolytus to return to Arabia, 
but created him bishop of Portus, that he ‘might have him ever close 
by his side as an adviser in perplexities’, thus bestowing upon him 
‘a see of no great labour (modicae curae) but of amplest dignity.’ 
Strange irony of fate! 


I have thus attempted to trace the marvellous vicissitudes of this 
strange eventful career—marvellous in life, and still more marvellous 
after death. The appearances of this one personality in history and in 
legend are as manifold and varied as the transformations of his name; 
Hippolytus with the Greeks and Romans, Iflites with the Syrians and 
Chaldeans, Abulides with the Copts and A‘thiopians, Polto with the 
Italians, Bilt with the French. 


ToAAGY GvopaTwv popdy pia. 


~ 


‘ry j (Ta) 


\" 








A. SAINT PETER IN ROME. 


[This excursus is printed in the incomplete state, in which it was left at Bishop 
Lightfoot’s death. } 


BB LHe EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 


[Found among the Bishop’s miscellaneous papers. The essay is undated, but it 
was apparently written before the publication of Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition.] 


EY; 


ent PRRER IN" ROME 


(ee subject which I purpose discussing in the present Appendix is 

essentially mixed up with controversy; but I hope to treat it as 
little controversially as possible. It would be impossible to overlook the 
momentous inferences which depend, or have been thought to depend, 
on the results of the investigation; but I shall pursue it, as far as pos- 
sible, as a historical study. Where it is not a question of history it is 
a question of exegesis. The purely theological aspects, however im- 
portant, have no place here. The first section, which has the closest 
bearing on theological controversy, seemed necessary as an introduction 
to the rest, because it sets forth the incidents which form the basis of 
discussion. 


ei. 


THE PROMISE AND THE FULFILMENT. 


Even a cursory glance at the history of the Apostles, so far as it 
appears in the Gospel records, reveals a certain primacy of S. Peter 
among the twelve. He holds the first place in all the lists; he has a 
precedence of responsibility and of temptation; he sets the example of 
moral courage and of moral lapse. Above all he receives special pas- 
toral charges. 

The latest of these is the threefold injunction to feed the flock of 
Christ. He is appealed to by his patronymic the son of Johanan, the 
son of God’s grace (S. John xxi. 15, 16, 17). In the other evangelists 
his father’s name appears under its more familiar abridgement Jonas or 
Jona, thus being commonly confused with the ancient prophet’s name 

CLEM. II. 31 


482 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


‘the dove’; but in this latest command, as given by S. John, the name 
appears in full, Johanan, the grace of God, because our Lord would 
remind him that he bears about with him in his very name the obliga- 
tion to the pastoral charge and the promise of grace to fulfil the same, 
though here again transcribers have substituted the more usual form, 
thus obscuring the significance. 

The case is somewhat similar in the earlier charge to S. Peter, with 
which I am directly concerned, ‘Thou art Cephas, and upon this rock 
will I build My Church.’ Here also the Apostle’s name involves a 
prophecy, which should be unfolded in the future history of the Church. 
It is important therefore to enquire in what sense the Church of Christ 
shall be built upon the rock. 

Patristic interpretations of the earliest and last ages are mainly 
twofold. 

(1) The rock is Christ Himself. This was the opinion to which 
S. Augustine, the great theologian of the Latin Church, inclined. 
Having frequently, as he confesses, explained the ‘rock’ of S. Peter 
himself, as his master S. Ambrose had done before him in a well-known 
hymn, he took occasion in his after-thoughts to express his misgivings 
as to this explanation. The passage is sufficiently important to deserve 
quotation in full (Refract. 1. 21, Op. 1. p. 32). 


In quo dixi in quodam loco de Apostolo Petro quod in illo 
tamquam in petra fundata sit ecclesia; qui sensus etiam cantatur 
ore multorum in versibus beatissimi Ambrosi ubi de gallo galli- 
naceo ait 


Hoc ipsa petra ecclesiae 
Canente culpam diluet; 


sed scio me postea saepissime sic exposuisse quod a Domino 
dictum est Zu es Petrus...meam, ut super hunc intelligeretur quem 
confessus est Petrus dicens, Zu es Christus filius Dei vivi; ac sic 
Petrus ab hac petra appellatus personam ecclesiae figuraret, quae 
super hanc petram aedificatur, et accepit claves regni caelorum. 
Non enim dictum est illi Zu es petra, sed Tu es Petrus; petra 
autem erat Christus quem confessus Simon, sicut eum tota ecclesia 
confitetur, dictus est Petrus. Harum autem duarum sententiarum, 
quae sit probabilior, eligat lector. 


Here, though he gives the alternative, he himself evidently leans to 
the interpretation which explains the rock of Christ Himself. This is 
likewise the view of Cyril of Alexandria, who commenting upon Isaiah 
xxxill. 16, ‘ His place of defence shall be the munitions of rocks; bread 


SAINT PETER IN ROME. 483 
shall be given him; his waters shall be sure,’ writes, ‘And it is probable 
that our Lord Jesus Christ is named a rock for us in these words; in 
Whom like a cave or like some sheepfold the Church is meant, which 
has its permanence in prosperity sure and unshaken; for Zhou art 
Peter, says the Saviour, and on this rock I will found My Church’ etc., 
the bread and the water being spiritual sustenance’. 

(2) The rock is connected with S. Peter, being either his confes- 
sion or his faith or some other moral or spiritual qualification, capable 
of being shared by others. 

This alternative has already appeared in the exposition of S. Augus- 
tine. The most explicit declaration of it, however, is found in the 
typical passage of Origen Comm. in Matt. [xvi. 13] Tom. xu. § 10. ‘But 
if we also, like Peter, say, Zhou art the Christ the Son of the living God, 
flesh and blood not having revealed it to us, but the Spirit from heaven 
having illumined our heart, we become a Peter and it would be said to 
us by the Word, Zhou art Peter and so forth. For every disciple of 
Christ is a rock, from whom all they that partake of the spiritual rock 
which follows did drink; and upon every such rock the whole doctrine 
of the Church and the polity in accordance therewith is built... But if 
thou supposest that the whole Church is built by God on that one 
Peter alone, what wouldest thou say concerning John the Son of 
Thunder, or any one of the Apostles? Otherwise shall we dare to 
say that against Peter especially the gates of hell shall not prevail, but 
that they shall prevail against the remaining Apostles?... Are then the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter alone and 
shall none other of the blessed Apostles receive them ?... Many there- 
fore shall say to the Saviour, Zhou art the Christ the Son of the living 
God...and if any one saith this to Him, flesh and blood not revealing 
it, but the Father which is in heaven, he shall obtain the promises (rév 
eipnuevwv), as the letter of the Gospel says, to that particular Peter, but 
as the Spirit teaches, to every one who becomes like that Peter. For 
all become namesakes (zapdvupor) of the rock who are imitators of 
Christ the spiritual rock, etc....and so forth as far as shall not prevail 
against tt. What is ‘it’? Is it the rock on which Christ builds His 


1 Cyril. Alex. Zz Zsaz. Lib. iii. Tom. 
III., p. 460 elds 5€ 64 mou kai mérpay 
nuty ovouacbat dia TovTwy tov Kiprov 
t a 5] a \ ’ 2 <1 f 
nuav Inooty tov Xpirdv, ev w Kkabdrep 
Tt omnAaoy 7 Kal mpoBdrwv onKds 7 éK- 
kKAnola voetrac dogarty Kal dxpddavrov 
éxouca Thy eis TO eb etvar diauovynyv. Ld 


yap ef Ilérpos x.7.X. Yet only a little later 
in the same work he gives a somewhat dif- 
ferent interpretation, ‘the unshaken faith 
of the disciple’, Zz JZsaz. Lib. iv. Tom. 
II., p- 593 emt ra’rn TH WéTpA Oeuehiwow 
fou Tiy exkAynolav’ TéTpav oiua Aéywv TO 
dxpadavtov eis rictiw Tod “waOnrod. 


ee 


A484 EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT. 


Church ; or the Church itself, for the expression is ambiguous; or the 
rock azd the Church, being one and the same thing ?’ 

With more to the same effect; where nothing could be fuller or 
more explicit than the language. 

This with some modification is the universal interpretation of the 
fathers for many centuries with those few exceptions represented by 
S. Augustine’s after-thoughts, who explain it of Christ the rock. They 
understand it to mean S. Peter’s confession or S. Peter’s faith or 
S. Peter’s firmness. In other words it is some quality or action in the 
Apostle at this crisis, which calls forth the Lord’s promise, and to which 
the same promise attaches wherever it is found in others. Thus Chry- 
sostom says (/z Matth. Hom. liv. p. 548 A, Ul. p. 108, Field) éri tavrn 
TH TETpA oikodouyow pov THY éxxAynoiay, TOvTETTL, TH TicTEL THS Opodoyias. 
Thus again Cyril of Alexandria, as we have seen, explains zérpav... 
A€ywv TO axpadavrov eis TioTW TOD pabyrTod. 

The lesson which the great Alexandrian father, Origen, draws from 
the Lord’s promise to Peter is recognised also by his contemporary, 
the great African father, Cyprian. He too distinctly states that nothing 
is given to Peter here which is not given to all the Apostles; but 
he superadds another inference. From the fact that a single Apostle 
is the recipient of the general promise he derives the further lesson 
of the unity of the Church. Writing on this special subject (De Unit. 
Eccl. 4, p. 212 ed. Hartel), he explains 

‘The Lord speaketh to Peter: Z say unto thee that thou art Peter, 
and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it....I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; 
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven. 
He builds His Church on one, and although He gives equal authority 
to all His Apostles after His resurrection (et quamvis apostolis omnibus 
post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat) and says, As AZy 
Father sent Me, so send I you. Receive the Holy Spirit ; whosesoever sins 
ye remit they shall be remitted, and whosesoever sins ye retain they shall be 
retained ; yet, that He might declare the unity, He arranged the origin 
of the same unity to begin from one by His authority (tamen ut uni- 
tatem manifestaret, unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua 
auctoritate disposuit). The rest of the Apostles verily were what Peter 
was, endowed with an equal partnership of honour and power (pari 
consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis), but the beginning pro- 
ceeds from unity (exordium ab unitate proficiscitur) that the Church 
of Christ may be shown to be one, which one Church also the Holy 
Spirit in the Song of Songs defines and says AZy dove zs one, etc.’ 


SAINT PETER IN ROME. A85 


This statement however was very unsatisfactory to a later age; 
and the sentence ‘et quamvis apostolis etc.’ is interpolated thus 

et quamvis apostolis omnibus parem tribuat potestatem, unam 
tamen cathedram constituit et unitatis originem [atque] orationis suae 
auctoritate disposuit; hoc erant utique et ceteri quod Petrus, sed 
primatus Petro datur ut una ecclesia et cathedra una monstretur: 
et pastores sunt omnes, sed grex unus ostenditur, qui ab apostolis 
omnibus unanimi consensione pascatur etc. 

Again after the words ‘exordium ab unitate proficiscitur’ comes 
another interpolation 

et primatus Petro datur, ut una Christi ecclesia et cathedra una 
monstretur, et pastores sunt omnes, sed grex unus ostenditur, qui ab 
apostolis omnibus consensione pascatur. 

Cyprian also elsewhere (Z/7s¢. xxv. 16, p. 820, ed, Hartel) has recourse 
to the same argument. 

Qualis vero error sit et quanta caecitas ejus qui remissionem 
peccatorum dicit apud synagogas haereticorum dari posse nec permanet 
in fundamento unius ecclesiae, quae semel a Christo super petram 
solidata est, hinc intellegi potest quod soli Petro Christus dixerit: 
guaecum@gue ligaveris super terram erunt ligata et in caelts, et guaecumgue 
solveris super terram erunt soluta et in caelis, et iterum in evangelio 
[quando] in solos apostolos insufflavit Christus dicens: Accipite Spiritum 
sanctum ; st cujus remtseritis peccata remittentur tli; et st cujus tenue- 
ritis, tenebuntur. Potestas ergo peccatorum remittendorum apostolis 
data est et ecclesiis quas illi a Christo missi constituerunt et episcopis 
qui els ordinatione vicaria successerunt. 


But, though for controversial aims there is little to choose between 
the two interpretations which divided patristic opinion for many 
centuries, we cannot let the matter rest here. An essential difference 
lies at the root of the two explanations. We are fain to ask, Is Christ 
the rock, or is Peter the rock, on which the Church is built (however 
we may explain the latter alternative)? Exegetically they have nothing 
in common. 

Now there are two arguments which mainly weigh with those who 
explain the rock of Christ, (1) the one from the etymology; (2) the other 
from the zmagery. 

(1) The etymological argument is based on the different form of 
the words zerpa, zérpos, the rock, the stone. The one should signify 
the whole mass; the other the detached piece. Hence the one 
appropriately denotes Christ the body ; the other Peter the member. 


486 EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT. 


The force of this argument however is altogether shattered on two 
considerations; (i) S. Peter’s name was Aramaic §5‘3, before it was 
Greek Iérpos, and in the Aramaic form the one word serves for ‘a rock’ 
and ‘a stone’; (11) When Grecized, the proper name became perforce 
Ilérpos, a masculine form being necessary, just as it would have been 
Ilérpa, 1f a woman’s name had been wanted. 

(2) The zmagery supplies, or seems to supply, another potent 
argument. In the Old Testament the Lord Jehovah is the rock on 
which His people Israel is built. In the New, Christ is in like manner 
the solid basis on which the Christian Church rests. More especially 
is this the case when the image takes the definite form of a building. 
Should we not expect, that the same application of the image would 
be carried out here? 

As a question of fact, however, Scriptural analogy does not subject 
us to the tyranny of one application of the image. The relation of 
Christ to His Church, regarded as a building, is represented in two 
different ways. 

(i) He is the foundation (Oemedwos 1 Cor. iii. 12). The Evangelist 
is the architect who must erect his building on this, that it may stand. 
In this sense He is not only the foundation, but the only palpable 
foundation. 

(ii) He is the chief-corner stone (axpoywviatos Ephes. il. 20) which 
binds the parts of the building together (é€v © waca oixodopy cvvap 
podoyoupevy k.t.A.). In the latter sense the Apostles and prophets of the 
Christian ministry are themselves regarded as the @euéAvos on which 
the edifice is built (érouxodounGévres ert TO Oepedin Tdv azogTOAwV Kal 
mpopytav). 

This latter is the application in the Apocalypse (xxi. 14) where the 
Church is not a house, but a city, and its twelve foundations are the 
twelve Apostles. It appears also in S. Peter (1 Pet. 11. 4 sq) where stress 
is laid on Christ as the chief corner-stone, though the corresponding 
function of the Apostles as @euéAvos is not mentioned. 

It will be seen then that Scriptural analogy leaves us quite free in 
the application of the image; and our only guide is the logical 
connexion of the passage. But here there can be little doubt that 
the sense points not to Christ the speaker, but to Peter the person 
addressed, as the rock. After the opening sentence, ‘Blessed art thou, 
Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, 
but My Father which is in heaven,’ which only then obtains its full 
significance, when we remember (as I have already pointed out) that 
Barjona, as interpreted by the form in the parallel passage in S. John. 


SAINT PETER IN ROME. 487 


means Bar-johanan, Son of the Grace of God, the words which follow 
are directed with all the force which repetition can give them to the 
person addressed. ‘And I say unto chee (xayw d€ oor A€yw) that thou 
art Peter (ore od ef Ilérpos), and upon ¢/zs rock (éri tavty TH 7érpa) 
I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
it, and I will give shee (8do0w cot) the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; 
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,’ 
ete. 

The promise must therefore, as I understand it, describe some 
historical manifestation which sprang from S. Peter himself, ‘not from 
a confession or a faith or a constancy such as thine, but from ¢hy 
confession, ¢/y faith, zy constancy.’ As a matter of exegesis, it seems 
to be more strictly explained wot of Peter himself; for then we should 
expect éwi go. rather than ézi tavty 7H rétpa; but ‘on this constancy, 
this firmness of thine, to which thy name bears witness, and which has 
just evinced itself in thy confession.’ 

Though it denotes a certain primacy given to S. Peter, yet the 
promise is the same in kind—so far Origen is right—as pertains to 
all the faithful disciples, more especially to all the Apostles. It is 
said of Peter here ; but it might be said, and is said elsewhere, of the 
other Apostles. They too are the GeueAvor (Ephes. ii. 20, Rev. xxi. 14); 
they too have the power of the keys (John xx. 22 sq). © 

But still it is a primacy, a preeminence. There is a /zstorical, 
as well as a numerical value, in the order tpdtos Sipwv o Aeyopevos 
Ilérpos (Matt. x. 2) in the list of the Apostles. In what does this 
primacy consist ? 

Obviously Peter cannot be the rock, in any sense, which trenches 
upon the prerogative of Christ Himself. His primacy cannot be the 
primacy of absolute sovereignty: it must be the primacy of /zstorical 
inauguration. When we turn to the Apostolic records, we find that 
this work of initiation is assigned to him in a remarkable way in each 
successive stage in the progress of the Church. The same faith, the 
same courage, which prompted the confession and called forth the 
promise of Christ, follows him all along, leading him to new ventures 
of faith. 

But, lest we should misinterpret the position thus assigned to him 
and attribute to it a continuity and permanence which does not belong 
to it, he vanishes suddenly out of sight; another more striking person- 
ality assumes the chief place, and achieves conquests which he could 
not have achieved; his name is hardly ever mentioned. He has 
fulfilled his special mission, and his primacy is at an end. 


488 EPISTLES OF S, CLEMENT. 


I ventured to say above (p. 481) that the primacy of $. Peter was 
manifested not only in the preeminence of his faith and courage, but 
in the preeminence of his lapse and fall. Of the eleven faithful Apostles 
he exhibited the most disastrous failure of faith, a failure which was 
aggravated by the circumstance that it followed immediately upon his 
confident assertion of fidelity (Matt. xxvi. 35). 

In the Christian dispensation the redemption is the sequel to the 
fall. In the individual believer the sense of weakness must precede 
the gift of strength. ‘When I am weak, then am I strong.’ Strength 
is made perfect out of weakness. 5 ES LE JOT Seay Master 
beforehand (Luke xxii. 31) that he, must ‘be sifted as wheat’ by 
temptation. This is the price to be paid, that when at length con- 
verted (ov mote émuotpéas) and not till then, he may ‘strengthen the 
brethren.’ Hence his fall. Not till after his fall the threefold charge 
is given him (John xxi. 15—17) to feed the sheep and lambs of Christ’s 
flock. The charge is given specially to him, because he bears a special 
love to Christ. 

Then comes the resurrection. The Lord is removed, the Apostles 
meet together with Peter at their head (Acts i. 13). At the first 
meeting of the general body of disciples he takes the initiative, and the 
vacant place in the college of the Apostles is filled up (i. 15 sq). 
On the day of Pentecost he addresses the multitudes of Jews and 
strangers, but it is especially mentioned that he was not alone re- 
sponsible (ovv rots evdexa, il. 14). As with the appeal, so with the 
response. ‘The conviction and the conversion of the assembled crowd 
is communicated not to Peter alone, but to Peter and the rest of 
the Apostles (ii. 37, pos tov Ilérpov kat tovs Aourovds aroaroXovs), though 
Peter is necessarily the spokesman. 

So Peter asserts his primacy in the foundation of the Christian 
Church. For a long period it remains a strictly Hebrew Church, as 
the Israelites were a strictly Hebrew people. Here not unnaturally 
Peter takes the initiative at all the great crises of its development. 
The first occasion when it exercises its miraculous power of grace and 
healing Peter is the chief agent (iii. 1 sq). Yet even here he is not 
allowed to act alone. The solidarity of the Apostolate is vindicated in 
the Apostolic record. The association of John with him is emphasized 
with almost irksome reiteration at each successive stage in the incident 
(iii. ver. 1 ILérpos 8 xat Iwdvys avéBawor, ver. 3 idev Terpov Kat ‘Iwavny, 
ver. 4 atevioas Sé [lézpos eis aitov ov TO “Iwavy etrev BXéov eis yuds, ver. 
II KparovvTos Sé avtod tov [lérpov Kat tov “Iwavyy, iv. ver. 19 0 de Llérpos 
kat "lodvyns dwoxpiévres). After the first gift of grace, comes the first 


SAINT PETER IN ROME. 489 


visitation of anger in the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira. Peter 
asserts his primacy here also (v. 3 sq); and the guilt is punished. 

Between Judaism and Heathendom is a great border-land. ‘There 
are the Samaritans, who can hardly be classified with the one or the 
other. These must be drawn within the fold. It is a fresh venture of 
faith, and Peter has the courage to push the frontier forward into the 
enemy’s country. But here again he does not act alone. The mission 
to Samaria, which gives its sanction to Philip’s action, is the mission of 
the whole apostolate, and here again John is associated with him (vii. 
14 of & “lepocodAvpos amdatoAo...améoteav pos avrovs Llérpoy kat 
‘Iwavynv). But this new conquest involves a new difficulty. The 
Christian Church in the early centuries was assailed by two opposite 
forms of heresy in diverse modifications, Ebionism and Gnosticism, 
the aberrations of Judaic and Gentile thought respectively. The first 
beginnings of both these conflicts are discerned in the infant Church ; 
and in both Peter stands in the van of the fight as the champion of the 
Church. He had confronted the leaders of the Jewish hierarchy (iv. 
18 sq, v. 28 sq); and he was now brought face to face with Gnosticism 
in the person of Simon Magus, ‘the father of the Gnostics.’ Thus his 
primacy was vindicated in the conflict with heresy also. 

But the great conquest of all still awaited him. The Church must 
become a world-wide Church. A thousand religious fences must be 
broken down; a thousand prejudices of convention and tradition must 
be sacrificed; a thousand cherished safeguards, which had hitherto 
been the life and the purity of the nation, must be abandoned. Who 
would have the courage to face a change so mighty? By virtue of his 
primacy Peter is chosen as the recipient of this revelation of revela- 
tions. He is taught by a special vision to regard nothing as common 
or unclean, whereas the law divinely imposed on his country had re- 
garded very many things as common and unclean. Yet unhesitatingly 
he obeys the command. Cornelius the heathen is baptized ; and at 
one stroke all the privileges of the Christian Church are laid before the 
whole heathen world. Do we marvel that this vision, which was at- 
tended by consequences so momentous, was emphasized at the time by 
a triple repetition (x. 16 rotvro dé éyevero ézi tpis), and that the recorded 
vision itself is enforced upon ourselves in the reiteration of the historian 
(&) -Z0.Sq,' Xi..4 sq)? 

Thus the Lord’s promise is fulfilled: the primacy is completed; the 
foundations are laid on the rock, whether of Peter’s confession or of 
Peter’s courage or of Peter’s steadfastness. From this time forward the 
work passes into other hands. The ‘wise master-builder’ piles up the 


490 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


later storeys of the edifice, for which his manifold gifts and opportunities 
had fitted him—his Hebraic elementary training, his Greek academic 
culture, his Roman political privileges. Paul completes what Peter had 
begun. The silence of the later Apostolic history is not less significant 
than the eloquence of the earlier as to the meaning of Peter’s primacy. 
In the first part he is everything ; in the subsequent record he is no- 
where at all. He is only once again mentioned in the Acts (xv. 7), and 
even here he does not bear the chief part. Where the Church at large, 
as an expansive missionary Church, is concerned, Paul, not Peter, is the 
prominent personage: where the Church of Jerusalem appears as the 
visible centre of unity, James, not Peter, is the chief agent (Acts xii. 17, 
evi bs, xx1./1S, Gal. u. 9, 12). Peter’ retains’ the first place, as mis- 
slonary evangelist to the Hebrew Christians, but nothing more. 
Moreover, when S. Paul appears on the scene, he is careful to 
declare emphatically his independence and equality with the other 
Apostles. ‘I reckon,’ he says in one place, ‘that I fall short in no 
whit of the very chiefest Apostles’ (2 Cor. xi. 5 pndev torepnKevar Tov 
UrepAiav drootdAwv); then again while devoting two whole chapters to 
recording the achievements of his Apostleship, he repeats almost the 
same words, ‘I am become a fool; ye have compelled me; for I fall 
short in no whit of the very chiefest Apostles, even though I am 
nothing’ (2 Cor. xii. 11). Accordingly he claims all the privileges of 
an Apostle (1 Cor. ix. 5). Moreover especially, he asserts his absolute 
equality with Peter (Gal. ii. 7 sq); and he gives practical proof of his 
independence by openly rebuking Peter, when Peter's timidity en- 
dangered the freedom and universality of the Church. If there was any 
primacy at this time, it was the primacy not of Peter, but of Paul. 


§*2i 
THE ROMAN VISIT OF PETER. 


The work of the primacy being completed as I have described it in 
the last section, and S. Peter being miraculously delivered from prison, 
we are told that having sent a message to James and the brethren he 
went out and departed to another place (Acts xii. 17 e&eAOwv éropevOn 
cis repov tézov). This has been supposed to mark the crisis when he 
transferred his residence to Rome and his labours to the far west. 

There is nothing in the language itself, except its mysterious vague- 
ness, which could suggest such an inference, which is quite inconsistent 
with known facts. The simple interpretation is doubtless the correct 


SAINT PETER IN ROME. A4QI 


one, that he retired out of the way of Herod. Indeed so important a 
fact as his visit to the metropolis of the world would not have been 
slurred over in this way. When we meet with him again he is still in 
the East; at the Council of Jerusalem about a.p. 51 (Acts xv. 7); and 
at Antioch a little later (Gal. 1. 11). Indeed his recognised position 
as the Apostle of the Circumcision would suggest Palestine as his head- 
quarters and the East as his sphere of action. Whether within the next 
few years he paid a visit to Corinth or not (1 Cor. i. 12, 2 Cor. i. 19, 
x. 12 sq) I need not stop to enquire. A personal visit is not required 
to explain the power of his name with a certain party at Corinth; and 
the silence of S. Paul, though not conclusive, is unfavourable to any 
visit to Greece. 

One thing seems quite certain. The departure from Jerusalem 
during the persecution of Herod took place about a.p. 42; the Epistle 
to the Romans was written about a.p. 58. During this period no 
Apostle had visited the metropolis of the world. If silence can ever be 
regarded as decisive, its verdict must be accepted in this case. S. Paul 
could not have written as he writes to the Romans (1. 11 sq, xv. 20—24), 
if they had received even a short visit from an Apostle, more especially 
if that Apostle were S. Peter. 

Nevertheless reasons exist—to my own mind conclusive reasons— 
for postulating a visit of S. Peter to Rome at a later date, on which 
occasion he suffered martyrdom there. If these reasons are not each 
singly decisive, the combination yields a body of proof, which it is 
difficult to resist. 

(1) InS. Peter’s First Epistle, he sends a salutation at the close 
(v. 13) to his distant correspondents in Asia Minor; ‘The fellow-elect 
(lady) in Babylon greeteth you, and so doth Marcus my son.’ Who or 
what is meant by ‘the fellow-elect’? On turning to the opening of the 
Epistle, we find that it is addressed ‘to the elect sojourners of the 
dispersion (ékAexrots rapemidyp.ors Suaczropas) in Pontus, Galatia, etc.’ and 
this suggests that ‘the fellow-elect’ at the close is the Church from 
which he writes. Indeed there is no individual woman, for whom we 
can suppose such a salutation appropriate, for we can hardly imagine 
S. Peter’s wife, if she were still living, placed in this prominent position. 
Nor again is the context 9 év BaBvAdve ocuvexAexty natural as the 
description of a person. I should add also that several early authorities 
(including ») add éxxAnoia; and that the figurative expressions in this 
epistle (i. 1 tapervdnpos Siacopas, Comp. ii. 11) are in character with 
this interpretation. 

The Second Epistle of S. John presents a close parallel. A saluta- 


492 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


tion is sent in the opening verse to the elect lady (ékAexry xupiq) ; at 
the close is a message ‘the children of thine elect sister (t7s adeAdys cov 
Ths ékXexTys) salute thee.’ The intermediate language shows that we 
have here the personification of the communities. It is not an inter- 
change of greetings between individuals, but between Churches; see 
for instance ver. 4, ‘I have found some of thy children walking in the 
truth;’ ver. 6, ‘this is the commandment which ye heard from the 
beginning ;’ ver. 8, ‘look to yourselves’ after the warning of Antichrist ; 
ver. 10, ‘if any one cometh to you and bringeth not this doctrine.’ 

But what is this fellow-elect congregation in Babylon? Can we doubt 
that it is the Church in Rome? It cannot be the Egyptian Babylon, 
which was a mere fortress (Strabo xvi. p. 807). If therefore it was not 
the Great Babylon, it must have been Rome. To this latter more 
especially the mention of Mark points; for Mark is designated by 
a very early tradition as S. Peter’s companion and interpreter in 
Rome. ‘This appears from Papias and the Elders, whose traditions are 
reported by him (Euseb. H. £. ii. 39); from Irenzeus (/Zaer7. iil. 1. 1) ; 
from Clement of Alexandria (Euseb. & Z. i. 15), and from Origen 
(Op. ul. p. 440 Delarue ; comp. Euseb. & Z. vi. 25), the writing of his 
Gospel being connected with the preaching of Peter in Rome. This 
tradition is in full accordance with the latest notices in the New 
Testament (Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 11), which represent 
him either as staying in Rome or journeying towards Rome. 

Nor was Babylon a new name for Rome, dating from the Neronian 
persecution. It had been a mystical name for this world-wide power 
with the Jews before it was inherited by the Christians. As such it 
appears even in the early Szbylline Oracles (v. 158). 


Kai pdrێer rovtov Baby avtyv te BaBvdAdva 
‘Iradias yalav & as «ivexa moAAol dAovTo 


c ¢ 
EBpaiwv ayo mictot Kai vaos adnOys. 


(2) The prophecy in John xxi. 18 ‘ When thou shalt grow old, 
thou shalt stretch out thy hands and another shall gird thee, this He 
said signifying by what death he should die,’ has always been explained 
of the crucifixion of S. Peter; and it is difficult to see what other 
explanation can be given. Nothing, it is true, is here said about the 
place of martyrdom. But the crucifixion of S. Peter is always con- 
nected by tradition with Rome, and with no other place. It would 
be arbitrary therefore to separate the locality from the manner of 
martyrdom. Unless we accept the Roman residence of S. Peter, we 
know nothing about his later years and death. 


SAINT PETER IN ROME. 493 


(3) The reference in the Second Epistle of S. Peter (i. 14) has 
much the same bearing as the last; ‘Knowing that the putting-off of this 
tabernacle is at hand, as the Lord Jesus Christ also declared unto me.’ 
It may be said indeed that grave doubts are thrown on the genuineness 
of this document. If it were otherwise than genuine it would express 
from another quarter the belief of the early Church respecting S. Peter’s 
death ; for it certainly belongs to the primitive ages. 

(4) The Epistle of the Roman Church to the Corinthians, by the 
hand of CLEMENT OF Rog, belongs to the year 95 or 96. The writer, 
turning aside from the Old Testament worthies, of whose heroism he had 
spoken, directs the attention of his readers (c. 5) to the examples of 
Christian athletes who ‘lived very near to our own times’. He reminds 
them of the Apostles who were persecuted and carried the struggle to 
death (€ws Gavatov 7OAncav). There was Peter, who after undergoing 
many sufferings became a martyr and went to his appointed place 
of glory. There was Paul, who, after enduring chains, imprisonments, 
stonings again and again, and sufferings of all kinds, preached the 
Gospel in the extreme West, likewise endured martyrdom and so 
departed from this world. If the use of the word paprupyoas in both 
cases could leave any doubt that they suffered death for the faith, 
the context is decisive. But why are these two Apostles, and these 
only, mentioned? Why not James the son of Zebedee? Why not 
James the Lord’s brother? Both these were martyrs. The latter 
was essentially ‘a pillar,’ and his death was even more recent. Obviously 
because Clement was appealing to examples which they themselves had 
witnessed. Paul was martyred in Rome, as is allowed on all hands. 
Is not the overwhelming inference that Peter suffered in this same city 
also? This inference is all the more certain, when we find that outside 
this testimony of Clement tradition is constant in placing his death at 
Rome. 

(5) Some ten or twenty years later, in the early decades of the 
second century, Icnatius (Rom. 4) on his way to martyrdom writes to 
the Roman Church: ‘I do not command you, like Peter and Paul; 
they were Apostles, I am a condemned criminal; they were free; I am 
a slave until now.’ Why should he single out Peter and Paul? He is 
writing from Asia Minor ; and the locality therefore would suggest John. 
He was a guest of a disciple of John at the time. He was sojourning 
in the country where John was the one prominent name. The only 
conceivable reason is, that Peter and Paul had been in a position to 
give directions to the Romans, that they both alike had visited Rome 
and were remembered by the Roman Church. 


494 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


(6) Papras of Hierapolis may have been born about A.D. 60—7o, 
and probably wrote about A.D. 130—140. He related on the authority | 
of the presbyter John, a personal disciple of the Lord (Euseb. #. £. 
ill. 39) that Mark, not being a personal disciple of the Lord, became a 
companion and interpreter (épuyvevtys) of S. Peter, that he wrote down 
what he heard from his master’s oral teaching, and that then he 
composed this record. 

I have no concern here whether this is or is not the Second Gospel, 
as we possess it. For my immediate purpose this notice suggests 
three remarks; (i) When Mark is called épyunvevrns ‘the interpreter’ 
of Peter, the reference must be to the Latin, not to the Greek language. 
The evidence that Greek was spoken commonly in the towns bordering 
on the Sea of Galilee, and that S. Peter must therefore have been well 
acquainted with it, is ample; even if this had not been the necessary 
inference from the whole tenour of the New Testament. (11) This 
notice seems to have been connected by Papias with 1 Pet. v. 13, 
where Mark is mentioned in connexion with the fellow-elect in 
Babylon, presumably the Church of Rome. Papias was acquainted 
with, and quoted from, this Epistle of S. Peter; for Eusebius tells 
us that he ‘employs testimonies’ from it: and it is plain also from the 
context of the passage cited by Eusebius that Papias had spoken 
at greater length about the connexion of Mark with Peter, ‘as I said 
(ws épyv)’; (111) Papias was so understood by writers like Irenzeus, who 
had his book before them. It seems a tolerably safe inference there- 
fore that Papias represented S. Peter as being in Rome, that he stated 
Mark to have been with him there, and that he assigned to the latter 
a Gospel record which was committed to writing for the instruction of 
the Romans. 

(7) Drtonysius ofr CorInTH, from whom Eusebius gives an extract 
(77. £. ii. 25), writes as follows :— 

‘Herein ye also by such instructions (to us) have united the trees 
of the Romans and Corinthians, planted by Peter and Paul (rv azo 
Ilérpov kai TavAov duteiav yevnbetcav “Pwpaiwy te Kat Kopw6iwv ouve- 
kepacare). For they both alike came also to our Corinth and taught 
us; and both alike came together to Italy, and having taught there 
suffered martyrdom at the same time (xara tov avtov Kaupov)’. 

This letter was written about A.D. 170 in answer to a communi- 
cation from the Romans under his contemporary bishop Soter (see 
I. p. 369). Ineed not stop to enquire whether the correct reading is 
putevoavres Or hoityoavtes. The statement may be taken as repre- 
senting the belief of both Churches. The expression xata tov avrov 
xaipov need not be pressed to mean the same day or the same year. 


SAINT PETER IN ROME. 495 


(8) IrEN#UuS about A.D. 190 is still more explicit (aer. ili. 1. 1) :— 

‘Matthew published also a written Gospel (ypadyv evayyediov) 
among the Hebrews in their own language while Peter and Paul were 
preaching and founding the Church in Rome. Again after their 
departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also 
handed down to us in writing the lessons preached by Peter.’ 

A little later he says (Haer. ili. 3, 2, 3); ‘The greatest and most 
ancient Churches, well known to all men, the Churches of Rome 
founded and established by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and 
Paul [hand down] announced to mankind that tradition and faith, 
which it has from the Apostles reaching to our own day through its 
successions of bishops. So having founded and built up the Church 
the blessed Apostles entrusted the ministration of the bishopric to 
Linus.’ | 

Irenzeus spent some time in Rome about A.D. 177, and appears to 
have paid repeated visits. 

(9) The MuratToriAN Canon is generally placed about a.p, 170. I 
have given reasons already (11. p. 405 sq) for surmising that it may have 
been an early work of Hippolytus, the pupil of Irenzeus, in which case 
it may date twenty years later. The writer explains that S. Luke in 
the Acts of the Apostles only records incidents which took place in 
his presence, and that therefore his silence about the Martyrdom of 
S. Peter, or the journey of S. Paul to Spain, evidently shows that 
he was not present on either occasion. Though the actual text is not 
certain in all points, there can be no reasonable doubt that this is the 
meaning of the words. 

(10) The testimony of CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 193—217) 
in the Ayfotyposets appears from Eusebius (7% Z. vi. 14). He stated 
that ‘when Peter had preached the word publicly in Rome and 
declared the Gospel by the Spirit, the bystanders being many in 
number exhorted Mark, as having accompanied him for a long time 
and remembering what he had said, to write out his statements, and 
having thus composed his Gospel, to communicate it to them; and 
that, when Peter learnt this, he used no pressure either to prevent him 
or urge him forwards.’ See also Adumbr. p. 1007 (Potter). 

(11) The testimony of TERTULLIAN is chiefly of value as showing 
the prevalence of the tradition in another important branch of the 
Church at the close of the second and the beginning of the third 
century. The passages need no comment. 

Scorpiace 15. 

‘We read in the lives of the Czsars, Nero was the first to stain the 


496 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


2 


rising faith with blood. Then Peter is girt by another, when he is 
bound to the cross; then Paul obtains his birth-right (consequitur 
nativitatem) of Roman citizenship, when he is born again there by 
the nobility of martyrdom.’ 

De Baptismo 4. 

‘Nor does it matter whether they are among those whom John bap- 
tized in the Jordan or those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber.’ 

De Praescriptione 32. 

‘The Church of the Romans reports that Clement was ordained by 
Peter.’ 

De Praescriptione 36. 

‘If thou art near to Italy, thou hast Rome, whence our authority 
also is near at hand. How happy is that Church on whom the 
Apostles shed all their teaching with their blood; where Peter is 
conformed to the passion of the Lord, where Paul is crowned with 
the death of John, where the Apostle John, after being plunged in 
boiling oil without suffering any harm, is banished into an island.’ 

(12) Garus the Roman presbyter, of whom I have had something to 
say already (see above, I. p. 377 sq), lived under Zephyrinus and was a 
contemporary of Hippolytus [c. a.D. 200—220] if not actually identical 
with him. Arguing against the Montanists of Asia Minor, who asserted 
the precedent of Philip’s daughters for their special views about pro- 
phecy, he claims for his own Church the authority of the Apostles 
S. Peter and S. Paul, whose martyred bodies repose in Rome :— 

‘But I can show you the trophies (the reliques) of the Apostles. 
For if thou wilt go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, thou wilt find 
the trophies of those who founded this Church.’ 


This shows that at least at this early date the sites of the graves of 
the two Apostles were reputed to have been the localities where now 
stand the basilicas of S. Peter and S. Paul. 

(13) ORIGEN in the 3rd volume of his Explanation of Genesis (as 
reported by Eusebius Z. Z. il. 1; comp. Orig. Of. 11. p. 24 Delarue) 
related that Peter ‘appears to have preached in Pontus and Galatia and 
Bithynia, in Cappadocia and Asia; when at last he went to Rome and 
there was gibbeted head downward, having himself asked to suffer so’; 
and that Paul ‘having fully preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem 
as far as Illyricum, afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome in the time 
of Nero.’ 

(14) LAcTANTIUS. 

Instit. Div. Ww. 21%. 

‘He disclosed to them all things which Peter and Paul preached at 


SAINT PETER IN ROME. 497 


Rome, and this preaching remained in writing for a record: wherein 
among many other marvellous things, this also etc.’ 


But when shall we suppose that this visit to Rome took place? We 
have seen (see above, Il. p. 491) that as late as a.p. 58, when S. Paul 
wrote to the Romans, his claim to Rome as virgin soil so far as regards 
any Apostolic ministrations is fatal to a prior date for the visit. For 
the next four or five years we have sufficiently precise information in 
the Apostolic records to preclude this period also. S. Paul spends 
two years in captivity at Czesarea, and in the autumn of a.p. 60 he 
sets sail for Rome, arriving there in the spring of 61. In Rome he 
is detained two whole years a captive, and then presumably in 63 he is 
released. 

His release is not dependent on any one consideration, but is 
inferred from several. (i) Early tradition speaks of his paying the 
intended visit to Spain, of which he speaks in the Epistle to the 
Romans (xv. 28); (ii) He tells the Philippians that he looks forward 
to being released shortly (i. 25, i. 24), and he is so hopeful that he 
bids Philemon prepare a lodging for him (ver. 22); (iii) The phenomena 
in the Pastoral Epistles cannot in most instances be placed during the 
period included in the Acts; (iv) The date given for his martyrdom by 
the best authorities is the last year of Nero, which was three or four 
years after the fire which led immediately to the persecution of the 
Christians. 

But, if he was released, it must have been before the outbreak of the 
persecution, since so prominent a leader of the Christians could hardly 
have escaped, if he had still been in the hands of his Roman masters. 
During the period then of his first and second captivities, i.e. between 
A.D. 63—67, we are led to find a place for S. Peter’s visit. Thus it will 
not clash with S. Paul’s relations to the Romans, and might well have 
taken place without our finding any notice of it either in the narrative 
of the Acts or in the letters of this Apostle. 

S. Peter would then arrive in Rome in the latter part of 63 or the 
beginning of 64. The Neronian persecutions broke out soon afterwards, 
and he would be one of the most prominent victims. This accords 
with the ancient tradition of the different places of sepulture of the two 
Apostles. Gaius the Roman tells us, that whereas Peter was buried in 
the Vatican, Paul found his resting-place on the Ostian Way. The 
Vatican gardens were the scene of the hideous festivities, in which the 
victims of the fire suffered, and among these (we may assume) was 
S. Peter (a.D. 64). On the other hand an isolated victim who was put 


CLEM. II, 32 


498 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


to death some years later (say A.D. 67), as was presumably S. Paul’s case, 
might meet his death anywhere. 

On the occasion of this visit to Rome, as we have seen, S. Peter 
wrote his Epistles. As I am desirous of avoiding controverted docu- 
ments, I shall say nothing about the Second—nor indeed is it necessary 
for my purpose—but confine my attention to the First. Do we find 
then in this First Epistle any confirmation of the view here suggested of 
the date of S. Peter’s visit ? 

(1) It was written during a season of persecution. No other book 
of the New Testament, except the Apocalypse, is so burdened with the 
subject. The leading purport of the letter is to console and encourage 
‘his distant correspondents under the fiery trial which awaited them. 
Nothing in the previous history of the Church answers to the conditions. 
It was no isolated, capricious attack, but a systematic onslaught. Though 
it raged chiefly at Rome, its effects were felt in the provinces also. More 
especially was this the case in Asia Minor, which S. Peter had in view. 
The letters to the Seven Churches in the Apocalypse are evidence of 
this; and the mention of the martyr Antipas (ii. 13) emphasizes the 
fact. ‘The emperor’s example had let loose the dogs. 

‘Now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness by reason of mani- 
fold temptations, that the trial of your faith being more precious than of 
gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto 
praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ’ (i. 6, 7). 

‘Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles, that whereas 
they speak against you as evil doers, they may by your good works, which 
they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation’ (il. 12). 

‘If ye suffer for righteousness sake, happy are ye; and be not afraid 
of their terror, neither be troubled...... having a good conscience, that 
whereas they speak evil of you as of evil doers, they may be ashamed 
that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ ; for it is better, if 
the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing than for evil doing’ 
(iii. 14, 16, 17). 

‘Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to 
try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you; but rejoice 
inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings’ (iv. 12, 13). 

‘If ye be reproached for the Name of Christ, happy are ye; for the 
Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you; on their part He is evil 
spoken of, but on your part He is glorified...If any man suffer as a 
Christian let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this 
behalf’ (iv. 14, 16). 

‘Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God’ (v. 6). 


SAINT PETER IN ROME. 499 


‘Whom resist, stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions 
are accomplished in your brethren which are in the world’ (v. 9). 

These passages point to the crisis, when the persecution had already 
broken out, or was imminent, and therefore were probably written not 
earlier than the summer of 64. 

(2) The date thus suggested agrees with other indications. With 
two Epistles of S. Paul more especially the writer shows a familiar 
acquaintance—the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the 
Ephesians. The one was written to Rome; the other from Rome. 
They both partake of the character of circular letters. They are there- 
fore just the two Epistles which would be most accessible to a person in 
S. Peter’s position. The Epistle to the Romans was written in a.D. 58, 
but the Epistle to the Ephesians not till a.p. 63. 

The following are the parallels to the Epistle to the Romans, and 
the reader may satisfy himself as to their pertinence. 


Romans iv. 24 i Pen 1 3 
VL 7 iv. FE, 2 
vi. 18 il. 24 
vill. 18 Work 
Vill. 34 Ill. 22 
1X. 33 li. 6 sq 
xl. I ll. 5 
Xi. 2 Li Fe 
xii. 3—8 lv. 10, II 
Xl. 9, 10 L22, 1 Fy 
Xlil. 14—I19 ii. 8—r12 
xill. I—7 mie A 


The parallels to the Epistle to the Ephesians are equally striking. 
We have seen that the oldest tradition, as recorded by Gaius, re- 
presents S. Peter as buried in the Vatican and S. Paul on the Ostian 
Way. But it says nothing about the martyrdom of the two Apostles 
being synchronous. Dionysius of Corinth states that they were martyred 
Kata Tov avtov Kxatpov, but the expression must not be too rigorously 
pressed, even if the testimony of a Corinthian could be accepted as 
regards the belief in Rome. On the other hand Prudentius (Perzsteph. 
xii. 5) and others represent them as suffering on the same day, though 
not in the same year. This highly improbable statement must have 
had some foundation in fact. What was it? In the list of depositions 
incorporated by the Liberian chronographer (a.D. 354) we find 
i Kal Jul. Petri ad Catacumbas 
et Pauli Ostense Tusco et Basso cons. [A.D. 258]. 
32—2 


500 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


Now at one time the bodies of the two Apostles were lying in the 
Cemetery on the Appian Way, properly called ‘Ad Catacumbas,’ in a 
‘loculum bisomum,’ which may be seen to this day and over which 
Damasus (A.D. 366—384) placed the inscription 


Hic habitasse prius sanctos cognoscere debes, 

nomina [limina?] quique Petri pariter Paulique requiris; 
discipulos Oriens misit, quod sponte fatemur: 

sanguinis ob meritum Christumque per astra secuti 
aetherios petiere sinus et regna piorum. 

Roma suos potius meruit defendere cives ; 


by which he simply meant that the East gave these two Apostles to 
Rome, where they became Roman citizens. It isin fact the same which 
Tertullian expresses in a passage quoted above (Scorp. 15). ‘ Paulus 
Civitatis Romanae consequitur nativitatem, cum illic martyrii renascitur 
generositate.’ But being strangely misunderstood it gave rise to the 
legend that the Greeks attempted to carry off the bodies of the two 
Apostles, but being pursued threw them down in the Catacombs’. 
Plainly however the day, the 29th of June, was not originally regarded 
as the day of martyrdom of the two Apostles, but the day of their depo- 
sition on some occasion. What then was this occasion ? 

The mention of the consulship happily fixes the year. This must 
refer to the temporary deposition of the bodies in the catacombs of 
S. Sebastian ; and the notice probably ran originally 


il Kal. Jul. Petri et Pauli ad Catacumbas Tusco 
et Basso cons. 
but the chronographer of 354 or some intermediate copyist knowing 
that S. Paul’s body lay in his time on the Ostian Way altered it accord- 
ingly, inserting ‘Ostense’ after the name of this Apostle®. This was a 
few weeks before the martyrdom of Xystus II, who suffered Aug. 6, 
A.D. 258. The two bodies, we may suppose, were deposited in S. Sebas- 
tian for a time, while their permanent memoriae were being erected, 
which were afterwards developed into the basilicas of S. Peter’s at the 
Vatican and S. Paul’s on the Ostian Way. But this temporary deposi- 
tion fixed the festival of their common celebration in Rome and gave 
rise to the story that they were martyred on the same day*. On the 


1 See a good article Das Alter der  Apocr. Apostelgesch. U1. 1. p. 392 Sq. 


Graber u. Kirchen des Paulus u. Petrus $ It is actually entered in Ado, under 
in Rom by Erbes in Brieger’s Zettschr. June 29, ‘Romae natalis beatorum Apo- 
J: Kirchengesch, Vu. p. 1 sq (1885). stolorum Petri et Pauli, qui passi sunt 


2 This is the explanation of Erbes, sub Nerone, Basso et Tusco consulibus,’ 
p- 28, and it is accepted by Lipsius See Erbes, Zc. Pp. 30, 


SAINT PETER IN ROME. 501 


other hand the true tradition of their suffering in different years survived 
to the time of Prudentius, albeit he assumed that it referred to succes- 
sive years. In connexion with this temporary deposition we may place 
the notice said to be found with exceptional uniformity in all the Mss 
of the Hieronymian Martyrology on Jan. 25 


Romae translatio Pauli Apostoli 


which would probably be the day of the restoration to his permanent 
resting-place, but which was ordered at a later date to be celebrated as 
the day of his conversion. 


§ 3. 
THE TWENTY-FIVE YEARS’ EPISCOPATE. 


The twenty-five years of S. Peter’s episcopate had at one time a 
sentimental and might almost be said to have a dogmatic value. It 
was unique in the history of the papacy. Though the records of certain 
periods in its career, more especially its earlier career, are scanty, we 
know enough to say with certainty that no later bishops of Rome held 
the see for a quarter of a century until our own day. Now however all 
is changed. The papacy of Pio Nono has been unique in many ways. 
It has seen the declaration of papal infallibility: it has witnessed the 
extinction of the temporal power; and, last of all, it has exceeded by 
more than a year the reputed term of S. Peter. The twenty-five years 
therefore have ceased to have any dogmatic or sentimental importance ; 
and, in dealing with them critically, we need have no fear lest we 
should be doing violence to any feelings which deserve respect. 

But there is a still prior question to be settled before we discuss the 
length of S. Peter’s episcopate. Was he bishop of Rome at all? He 
might have been founder or joint founder of the Church there, without 
having been regarded as its bishop. No one reckons S. Paul as first 
bishop of Thessalonica or Philippi, of Corinth or of Athens, though 
these Churches owe their first evangelization to him. 

Now I cannot find that any writers for the first two centuries and 
more speak of S. Peter as bishop of Rome. Indeed their language is 
inconsistent with the assignment of this position to him. When Dionysius 
of Corinth speaks of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul as jointly planting 
the two Churches of Corinth and of Rome, he obviously cannot mean 
this; for otherwise he would point to a divided episcopate. The language 
of Irenzeus (iil. 3. 3) again is still more explicit. He describes the 
Church of Rome as founded by the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul, who 


502 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


appointed Linus bishop. After him came Linus; after Linus, Anencletus; 
after Anencletus ‘in the zizrd place from the Apostles Clement is elected 
to the bishopric,’ and the others, when any numbers are given, are 
numbered accordingly, so that Xystus’ is ‘the sixth from the Apostles,’ 
and Eleutherus the contemporary of Irenzus ‘holds the office of the 
episcopate in the twelfth place from the Apostles.’ This is likewise the 
enumeration in the anonymous author of the treatise against Artemon 
(Euseb. H. £. v. 28) probably Hippolytus, who numbers Victor ‘the 
thirteenth from Peter.’ 


1 See on this passage the remarks in in the text of Irenzus see the note on I. 
I. pp. 271, 284. For the discrepancies p. 204. 


B. 


THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 


a Epistle, which bears the name of Barnabas, stands alone in the 

literature of the early Church. The writer is an uncompromising 
antagonist of Judaism ; but, beyond this antagonism, he has nothing in 
common with the Antijudaic heresies of the second century. These 
later heretics, Gnostic and Marcionite, took their stand on a dualism in 
some form or other. They postulated an opposition between the Old 
Testament and the New. In Marcionism, which flourished about the 
_middlé of the second century, this doctrine assumes its extreme form. 
The Old Testament—so Marcion affrmed—was the work of the 
Demiurge, whose tyranny over mankind Jesus Christ, the son of the 
Good God, came to destroy. The antagonism was absolute and com- 
plete ; the warfare was internecine. Of such a doctrine the Epistle of 
Barnabas exhibits not the faintest trace. On the contrary, the writer 
sees Christianity everywhere in the Lawgiver and the Prophets, He 
treats them with a degree of respect, which would have satisfied the 
most devout rabbi. He quotes them profusely, as authoritative. Only 
he accuses the Jews of misunderstanding them from beginning to end. 
He even intimates that the ordinances of circumcision, of the Sabbath, 
of the distinction of meats clean and unclean, as having a spiritual or 
mystical significance, were never intended to be literally observed, 
though on this point he is not quite explicit. 

Who then was the writer of this Epistle? At the close of the 
second century Clement of Alexandria quotes it profusely, ascribing it 
to ‘the Apostle Barnabas’ or ‘the Apostolic Barnabas’ or ‘the Prophet 
Barnabas’ ; and, lest any doubt should be entertained as to the identity 
of the person bearing this name, he in one passage describes the author 


504 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


as ‘Barnabas who himself also preached in company with the Apostle 
(i.e. S. Paul) in the ministry of the Gentiles’? Yet elsewhere* Clement 
himself refers anonymously to the explanation which our Barnabas gives 
of the prohibition against eating the flesh of ‘the hare and the hyena,’ 
and criticizes it freely. He declares his acquiescence in the symbolical 
interpretation, but he distinctly repudiates the statement on which our 
author founds it as a physical impossibility. It seems clear therefore 
that notwithstanding his profuse and deferential quotations he does not 
treat the book as final and authoritative. A few years later, Ongen 
also cites this work with the introductory words, ‘It is written in the 
Catholic (i.e. General) Epistle of Barnabas.’ ‘The earliest notices how- 
ever are confined to the Alexandrian fathers ; and elsewhere it does not 
appear to have been received with any very special consideration. 
Altogether the position, which it occupies in the Codex Sinaiticus, may 
be taken to represent the highest distinction to which it ever attained. 
It is there placed, not with the Catholic Epistles, which would have 
been its proper rank, if it had been regarded as strictly canonical, but 
after the Apocalypse, in company with the Shepherd of Hermas, as a 
sort of Appendix to the sacred volume. 

This prominence it doubtless owed to the belief that it was written 
by Barnabas the Levite of Cyprus, the companion of S. Paul. Later 
criticism however, with very few exceptions, has pronounced decidedly 
against this view, which indeed is beset with many difficulties. But on 
the other hand this work is in no sense apocryphal, if by apocryphal we 
mean fictitious. There is no indication, direct or indirect, that the 
writer desired to be taken for the Apostle Barnabas. On the contrary, 
when he speaks of the Apostles, his language is such as to suggest that 
he was wholly unconnected with them; and he merely addresses his 
‘sons and daughters,’ as a teacher who had important trusts to com- 
municate. How the name of Barnabas came to be attached to the 
Epistle, it is impossible to say. An early tradition, or fiction, represents 
Barnabas as residing at Alexandria; but this story might have been the 
consequence, rather than the cause, of the name attached to the letter. 
Possibly its author was some unknown namesake of this ‘Son of 
Consolation.’ 

At all events we can hardly be wrong in ascribing to it an Alexandrian 
origin. Its mode of interpretation is Alexandrian throughout ; and its 


1 Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 7 (p. 447 ed. is not beyond the reach of doubt. See 
Potter), 20 (p. 489), v. 10 (p. 683). also Strom. ii. 15, ‘p. 464, where Bar- 
2 Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 10 (p. 220,221 nabas is mentioned by name. 
ed. Potter). It is true that the reference 


THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 505 


earliest reception, as we have seen, is connected with this Church. 
The beginnings of Christianity at Alexandria are wrapped in obscurity. 
It would be as rash to reject confidently, as to adopt confidently, the 
tradition which represents Mark, the ‘cousin’ of Barnabas, as its 
evangelist. But on the other hand it seems certain that the Alexandrian 
Church was a flourishing community at an early date. Doubtless 
Apollos was not the only ‘learned Jew of Alexandria,’ who was brought 
to the knowledge of the Gospel during the lifetime of S. Paul. The 
Epistle to the Hebrews is steeped in the learning of Alexandria, and 
was probably written by a member of this Church. When Hadnan 
visited this city in the autumn of 4.p. 130, he found the Christian 
Church an appreciable influence in society, extending itself and _pros- 
elytizing in all directions. ‘I have become familiar with Egypt, which 
you praised to me,’ he writes to his brother-in-law Servianus afterwards ; 
‘it is fickle, uncertain, blown about by every gust of rumour. Those 
who worship Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to Serapis 
who call themselves bishops of Christ. There is no ruler of a synagogue 
there, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, 
a soothsayer, a quack. The patriarch himself, whenever he comes to 
Egypt, is compelled by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship 
Christ’ (Vopiscus Vita Saturnini 8). No stronger testimony to the 
growing power of the Christian Church could be desired than these 
sarcasms of the sceptical emperor. The Epistle of Barnabas may be 
regarded as a product of these conflicts between Jews and Christians 
which Hadrian here describes. The antagonism between the discordant 
elements which made up the population of Alexandria, is a matter of 
history; and in the general mé/ée the feuds between Jews and Christians 
for some generations bore no insignificant part. 

The birthplace of this Epistle then seems tolerably certain ; but its 
date is more open to dispute. It was certainly written after the first 
destruction of Jerusalem under Titus to which it alludes, and it was 
almost as certainly written before the war under Hadrian ending in the 
second devastation, about which it is silent, but to which it could hardly 
have failed to refer, if written after or during the conflict. The possible 
limits therefore are A.D. 70 and A.D. 132. It would be mere waste of 
time to discuss any theories which go beyond these boundaries. But 
within this period of sixty years various dates have been assigned to it. 
Among the advocates of an earlier date we may single out Weizsacker, 
who places it under Vespasian (A.D. 69—79); while Volkmar, who 
throws it forward to the time of Hadrian (a.p. 119—138), may be 
taken to represent the champions of the late date. Of the intermediate 


506 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


position, occupied by several critics of reputation, Hilgenfeld may be 
regarded as a typical champion, who dates it during the reign of Nerva 
(A.D. 96—98). 

The conclusion depends mainly on the interpretation of two pas- 
sages in the Epistle itself. 

The first is the more important. ‘The writer warns his readers that 
‘the last scandal, or offence, is at hand,’ in other words that the great 
and final conflict, which is destined to try the faith of the believers, 
is fast approaching, and he calls their attention to the signs of the last 
days, as foretold in Daniel, in the following words :— 

‘And so also says the prophet; Zen kingdoms shall reign upon the 
earth, and after them shall rise up a little king, who shall lay low three of 
the kings in one (tpets bf ev rGv BactAéwv). In like manner Daniel saith 
concerning the same; And J saw the fourth beast wicked and strong and 
untoward beyond all the beasts of the earth, and how that ten horns sprang 
up out of it, and out of them a little horn (as) an offshoot (wapadvas.ov), 
and how that it laid low three of the great horns in one (vd & Ttpia Tav 
peyddwv Kepatwv). Ye ought therefore to understand’ (§ 4). 

The first passage is taken from Daniel vii. 24: the second from an 
earlier verse in the same chapter. But, like the Old Testament citations 
in this writer generally, they are quoted with a degree of freedom which 
is, or ought to be, highly suggestive when we come to deal with 
evangelical quotations in the earliest fathers. 

Of the interpretation the so-called Barnabas says nothing. He is 
evidently referring to the Roman emperors, and common prudence 
therefore gags his lips, when he would speak of their overthrow. He 
leaves the solution to the intelligence of his hearers. 

When we attempt to read the enigma, we must remember that the 
writer applies to his own times language which was intended to describe 
something wholly different. We may therefore expect to find some 
wresting of the imagery to adapt it to contemporary events. But on 
the other hand it must have exhibited coincidences sufficiently patent to 
strike the ordinary mind. Otherwise the writer would not have ventured 
to leave the application of the prophecy to his readers. He must have 
discarded the prophecy as unfit for his purpose unless it had told 
its own tale, if he did not venture to expand it. And again; we may 
look for the key to the exposition in those modifications of the original 
words which the writer introduces. The most important of these is the 
twice-repeated expression vd’ €v—‘in one’ or ‘at once.’ The original 
prophecy contains no hint that the three kings shall suffer at once or 
are closely connected together. Lastly; the little horn in the original 


THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 507 


prophecy is plainly the Antichrist; for he is described as making 
war against the Saints and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of 
Days came, and judgment was given to the Saints of the Most High; 
and the time came that the Saints possessed the kingdom (vii. 21, 22). 
This fact was too patent to be overlooked, and is recognised in all 
patristic interpretations of the prophecy. It is impossible therefore to 
suppose that our Barnabas could have interpreted the little horn in any 
other way. Bearing these conditions of the problem in mind, we may 
proceed to investigate three solutions of the enigma which have been 
offered. - 

1. In the first place then Weizsacker reckons the ten Cesars from 
Julius to Vespasian continuously, Vespasian being the tenth. So far he 
adopts the simple and natural reckoning. But he supposes Vespasian 
to be the little horn, and the three kings humbled by him to be Galba, 
Otho, Vitellius. These identifications must be discarded for several 
reasons. In the first place Vespasian is made the little horn, while at 
the same time he is one of the great horns. Next; Vespasian, though 
he humbled Vitellius, can in no sense be said to have humbled Galba 
and Otho. Indeed, so far was this from being the case, that Vespasian 
throughout identified himself with the cause of Galba, and the first 
measure of his reign was the vindication of the memory of this prince 
(Tac. Hist. 1. 6, iv. 40). Lastly; this interpretation altogether sets 
aside the distinctive character of the little horn as the Antichrist. 
Vespasian was never so regarded by the Christians. During his reign 
they had an entire immunity from persecution, and so rapidly did their 
influence grow that they even made converts in the imperial family 
itself. Toa strongly Antijudaic writer, like Barnabas, more especially 
Vespasian, the scourge of the Jews and the instrument of God’s 
vengeance on a rebellious people, must have been regarded in a directly 
opposite light. 

2. Hilgenfeld reckons Domitian as the tenth king. He omits 
Julius as not having been an emperor strictly so called, and Vitellius as 
never having been recognised in Egypt. The little horn according to 
his solution is Nerva, a feeble and insignificant prince, who subverted 
the dynasty of the three great emperors of the Flavian family— 
Vespasian, Titus, Domitian. But this theory again is open to very 
serious and (as it seems to me) fatal objections. In the first place 
there is no parallel elsewhere to this mode of reckoning, which makes 
Domitian the tenth, and not the twelfth of the Czsars. Whatever 
might be said in favour of excluding Julius from the enumeration, the 
exclusion of Vitellius is indefensible. It is a mistake to maintain that 


508 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


he was never recognised by the Alexandrians. True, his name does not 
occur, or at least has not yet been discovered, on the hieroglyphic 
monuments of Egypt; but, as his reign only lasted a few months, this 
proves nothing. His name is equally conspicuous by its absence in the 
Latin Inscriptions of Asia, of Greece, of Thrace and Illyricum, of 
Cisalpine Gaul, of Spain, of Britain, and throughout the whole collection 
of Greek Inscriptions. On the other hand, as an evidence that he was 
recognised in Egypt, we have coins of this reign struck at Alexandria. 
And in the Sibylline Oracles, which in some cases at least emanated 
from this country, he has his proper place’. The lists of the Roman 
‘kings’ which they give begin with Julius and include Vitellius, ac- 
cording to the ordinary practice. As Vitellius, like Otho, was duly ac- 
knowledged by the Senate, and took possession of the Capital, no one at 
a subsequent period would have disputed his claim to appear in the list. 
This sanction gave to Otho and Vitellius a position in history which was 
never accorded to pretenders like Civilis. 

Moreover this theory fails, like the last, in not recognising the little 
horn as the Antichrist. The persecution, which had harassed the 
Christians under Domitian, ceased under Nerva, for whose memory in 
consequence they always had a kindly regard, as their benefactor. 
Hilgenfeld is therefore obliged altogether to ignore the Antichrist in 
his interpretation. Nor again could Nerva be said without excessive 
straining of language to destroy the three kings ‘in one’ or “at 
once.’ Vespasian, the earliest, and Titus the next of the Flavii, died in 
their beds seventeen and fifteen years respectively before the accession 
of Nerva. 

3. The solution of Volkmar is exposed to still greater ob- 
jections than the two theories which have been considered hitherto. 
Like Hilgenfeld, he omits Julius and Vitellius, so as to reckon 
Domitian the roth king; but he takes the three kings to be the three 
successors of this last-named emperor, Nerva, Trajan, and Hadrian. 
They are said to be three in one, because Trajan was adopted by 
Nerva, and Hadrian by Trajan. The writer therefore, living in the 
time of Hadrian, looks forward to the appearance of the Antichrist in 
the person of Nero or Domitian vedivivus, who shall crush Hadrian 
and end the dynasty. This theory has the merit of seeing the Anti- 
christ in the little horn ; but this is its only advantage. Its enumeration — 
of the Czesars is exposed to the same objection as the last; and its 
explanation of the three kings in one seems altogether impossible. 
Nerva had been already dead for twenty or thirty years on this 


1 Orac. Sibyl. V. 35, VIII. 50, XII. 5. 


THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 509 


hypothesis, and yet the writer is looking forward to the advent of a 
conqueror who shall smite and humiliate him. Again; the connexion 
of these three emperors was very slight, the adoption of the successor 
in each case having been made shortly before the death of the pre- 
decessor. And though this seems to be a less serious objection than 
the preceding, the three kings are enumerated over and above the ten, 
whereas the language suggests that they were in some sense comprised 
in the ten. 

The solution, which I venture to offer, has not, so far as I am aware, 
been given before. We enumerate the ten Cesars in their natural 
sequence with Weizsicker, and we arrive at Vespasian as the tenth. We 
regard the three Flavii as the three kings destined to be humiliated, 
with Hilgenfeld. We do not however with him contemplate them as 
three separate emperors, but we explain the language as referring to 
the reigning sovereign, Vespasian, associating his two sons Titus and 
Domitian with himself in the exercise of the supreme power. At no 
other point in the history of the imperial household do we find so close 
a connexion of three in one, until a date too late to enter into 
consideration. And lastly; we interpret the little horn as symbolising 
the Antichrist with Volkmar, and we explain it by the expectation of 
Nero’s reappearance which we know to have been rife during the reign 
of Vespasian. No other epoch in the history of the Cesars presents 
this coincidence of the three elements in the image—the ten kings, the 
three kings, and the Antichrist—so appropriately. For these reasons 
we are led to place the so-called Barnabas during the reign of 
Vespasian (A.D. 70—79). 

The enumeration of the ten kings speaks for itself; but the 
significance of the three kings requires some illustration. When Ves- 
pasian assumed the supreme dignity, the power of the empire was 
sustained by Titus among the legions, while it was represented by 
Domitian in the capital (Tac. His¢. iii. 84, iv. 2, 3). The three were 
thus associated together in the public mind, as no three persons 
had been associated before in the history of the Empire. Immediately 
on the accession of their father the two young men were created 
Czsars by the Senate and invested with the title of ‘Principes Juven- 
tutis.’ The first act of Vespasian was to associate Titus with himself as 
colleague in the consulship, while Domitian was made pretor with 
consular power. Several types of coin, struck during this reign, 
exhibit the effigy of the reigning emperor on the obverse with figures 
of Titus and Domitian on the reverse in various attitudes and with 
various legends, An extant inscription, on a marble (Eckhel Doctr. 


510 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


Num. Vi. p. 320 sq), which has apparently served as a base for three 
busts, commemorates the emperor and his two sons in parallel 
columns, Vespasian’s name and titles occupying the central column. 
‘Along this path (to glory)’, says the elder Pliny (4. @ ii. 5) ‘now 
advances with godlike step, accompanied by his sons, Vespasianus 
Augustus the greatest ruler of any age.’ The association of Titus with 
his father’s honours was close and continuous. He was seven times 
colleague to the emperor in the consulate during the ten years of 
Vespasian’s reign. He was associated in the Pontificate, the Censor- 
ship, and the Tribunician Power, which represented respectively the 
religious, the moral, and the political authority of the sovereign. From 
the moment of his return to Rome after his Eastern victories ‘he never 
ceased,’ we are told, ‘to act the part of colleague and even guardian of 
the empire!’ The title Imperator itself was conferred upon him’, so 
that the language of the elder Pliny is perfectly correct, when he speaks 
of ‘imperatores Caesares Vespasiani, pater filiusque’ during the life- 
time of the father®*, On the other hand the relations of Vespasian 
towards his younger son were never cordial. But the good nature and 
generosity of Titus interposed to prevent any open breach between the 
two. He represented to his father that the safety of the empire was 
dependent on the harmony of the imperial household; and the 
baseness of Domitian was in consequence overlooked. Coins were 
struck, which had on the obverse the two sons of Vespasian, with the 
legend TVTELA . Avcyst1*. At the triumph after the close of the Judaic 
war, ‘Vespasian,’ says one who witnessed it, ‘preceded in a chariot, and 
Titus followed, while Domitian rode on horseback by the side, himself 
splendidly habited and mounted on a horse which was a sight to see”.’ 

Here then were the very three kings of whom the prophecy spoke. 
It is true that the obvious interpretation of the words pointed to three 
several kings belonging to the ten who are mentioned just before, whereas 
the so-called Barnabas found the three combined in one of the ten 
together with his sons and colleagues in the kingship. But this mani- 
pulation was forced upon him by the stubbornness of contemporary 
facts; and he calls attention to it by repeating the expression ‘three in 
one,’ which has no place in the original. 

But what will be the end of this threefold kingship? It would be 


1 Suet. Zz¢. 6 neque ex eo destitit pare WV. H. ii. to. 


participem atque [etiam] tutorem imperii 3 So Titus himself is called Titus Im- 
agere. Compare Plin. Pamneg. 2. perator Caesar, VV. H, il. 22. 
2 But not as a przenomen, Eckhel vI. 4 Eckhel vi. 3209. 


361 sq. See Pliny WV. Z. vii. 50; com- 5 Joseph. B. J. Vil. 5. 5. 


THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 511 


treason to give utterance to the thought which was passing through his 
mind. He therefore leaves the riddle to the intelligence of his readers. 
And this he might safely do. Ever since the reported death of Nero, 
expectation had been rife on the subject of his reappearance. He was 
thought to live retired beyond the Euphrates, where he was watching 
his opportunity to swoop down upon the Roman Empire and avenge 
himself on his enemies’. The wish was father to the thought. For 
Nero, monster though he was, possessed some popular qualities which 
made him a favourite with the masses. One after another pretender 
took advantage of this expectation. One false Nero started up im- 
mediately under Galba. He was caught at Cythnus and put to death ; 
but it was thought necessary to take his body to Rome that the public 
mind might be disabused*. A second appeared about a.p. 80 under 
Titus, gathered followers on the banks of the Euphrates, and ultimately 
fled for refuge to the Parthians*. A third, if he be not the same with 
the last mentioned, threatened the peace of the Roman Empire under 
Domitian about a.D. 83°. Even in the early years of the second cen- 
tury Dion Chrysostom could still write, ‘To the present time all men 
desire him to be alive, and the majority even trust that heis®.’ This 
belief chimed in with the Christian expectation of the speedy coming 
of Antichrist and the end of all things. This persecutor of the dis- 
ciples, this prodigy of wickedness and audacity who outraged humanity 
and defied nature, the son who murdered his mother, the engineer 
who would sever the Isthmus and join the two seas—who could he be 
but the very man of sin, the Antichrist, or the forerunner of the Anti- 


christ? Accordingly in an early apocryphal writing, the Ascension of py 2 ' 


Isaiah, it is said that in the last days Belial shall appear ‘in the form of 
a man, of the king of unrighteousness, of the matricide,’ and shall ‘ per- 
secute the Church’. In this respect Christian anticipation only kept 
pace with Jewish. Two Sibylline Oracles, which date about a.p. 80— 
both apparently Jewish, and one of them written in Egypt—dwell on 
this expected return of the matricide, this final scourge of the human 
race, which shall precede the advent of Messiah’s reign; and from these 
earlier Sibylline Oracles it is transmitted to the later. The belief in- 
deed lingered on for several centuries. In the age of Jerome and 
Augustine some were still found to entertain this opinion. Even S. 
Martin of Tours himself is credited with it by a contemporary and 


1 Suet. Wer. 57. > Dion. Chrysost. Ovad. xxi (p. 504 ed. 
20 hag. £78st. 1s 'S, .G Reiske). 
® Zonaras xi. 18 (p. 578). 6 iv. 2 sq (p. 17 ed. Dillmann, 1877). 


+ Suet. Ver. 57. 


ae 


512 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. 


friend. But it was during the continuance of the Flavian dynasty that 
the expectation was at a white heat. 

Here then was the little horn of Daniel. What more appropriate ? 
The little horn is represented as springing up from the ten, and yet not 
counting as one of the ten. It is in fact an offshoot, an excrescence. 
Hence our Barnabas, with his own interpretation of the prophecy in 
his mind, unconsciously quotes this word ‘ excrescence’ (tapadpvaduor), 
as if it were part of the text. 


CLEM. II. 


EE) GLE SS 


I. INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES. 


Ul. JNDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 


INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES. 


The asterisks mark the passages in which the resemblance is close, and 
which therefore are printed in the text as quotations. 


(1) Zhe Epistle of S. Clement of Rome. 


Genesis a. Hee ciart auch ed caw 20 
ef Oey a i eee ee 33 
yi Tt Se en ee one 6 
PRUC MER Pi rete dessa da die: 4 
WM ESE 88 apo. ok vases «03 10 
St ay ye Ae. eee IO 
ce TEN? Ls ee ee 10 
Ae Bia dr acta dew cpt + Sa 10, 32 
ELON Eg rae «coy | 2h t one a's 17 
5 S11 ay a a Io 
BMD AEP she he «eh asin ¥o0 ss 33 
car hey Oe Peepers 32 
ROMRM EUS eT EA vu. scahy « «swe sans onsices 4 
Pe MBEAN oie A ce SUS dei F7 
ci cals re ere. OER 17 
ca ee are oer 60 
REM E Se 20g SBE ose wihsli sb kas 51 
MEL, BOL ARE SBT. sw sinue' 53 
OS RS 9 I 
eR ena cao <> 05°52 I 
LT De lies 7 a Sey ee ae 17, 43 
XVL, 22 seeeeseeereseeeeneees 59 
BEM SP e a eck chage see ce sss 29 
ee ae Se eee 59 
ReCMIELONOEIY “IV. 34 oy5.. Ioan sce sc ee ee 29 
CD ee ee aoe 60 
Te SEP cc 050%- oth pea teak 53 
eR tee meee Sve 60 
PANN ate erika en 64 
Pe ROME OS Or esac Ata at caupe ss 29 
EME ERS BOA, a. nc causes 3 
MORONEY BEY 8 aaa teeake seca 59 
Joshua re eae ee ere es 12 
MERLE S18) EO os ono at ae wvigs va dete 12 
PRU TAS 2. conecsemedtedes 18 
MMOS EM A sch cc te cages vente acts 60 
EPCRA TO ecw ondpssensssye es qs 59 
Job REE Bote taeeiaa Lebo easms 17 
be AG ST ee ee ee 30 
SM CEISUL oa ceecs ts sede cos 30 


Job 


Psalms 


SPO e ee ee eeresreneee 
ee ee ee 


Cee eee meee eee ee enee 


XXVIll. 25 
"XXXVill, 10, II 


eee eee weeeee 


ee 
ewe 
“I 


iil. 5 
xi (xii). 3 sq 
XVil (XVIii). 25, 26.......+. 
XVIii (xix). 
xxi (xxii). 6sq 
"Sxl (SMW A Bocuse 
Xxili (xxiv). I 
"xvi (EXVIR). Fons fn. cea: 
XXX (xxxi). Ig 
XXX1 (xxxli). I, 2 
XXX1 (XXXII). IO ........000. 
XXXii (XxXxill). 13 
XXXI] (XXxXIlll). 10 
XXXIli (Xxxiv). 20 
Exxiit (xxxiv),. FUSq 55245 
XXXVI (xxxvii). 365q...... 
Swe) (GU Ate s adv 
Pulviad (xix). 4 Pgs. co ctnsns 
*xlix (le 54,. 55 
* xls. (]) FOS o5) axeaan apace 
*] (li). 1 sq 
vist, (Dati) 4 sd) sc. cee 
Tevi (IXvil). 5 ssc 2.teesneaees 
*)xvili (Ixix). 31, 32 
*Ixxvii (Ixxviil). 36, 37 ... 
*Ixxxvili (Ixxxix). 21 
*xcix (¢), 2 
*cit (cil) 8G; Bie eee 
*ettl (€1¥).. des shqgee te senses 
Tex: (Cx). 
*cxvii (cxvili). 18 


SS ahi 


ee 


ed 


Mh eR Re ek oe 


setae eee eee 


* OK 


eee ee eee esas 


see eee eee 
eee eeeeee 


ee 


* 
“% 
* 
* 
precesee e bit en aoe 
* 


eee ee 


eee eee ee 


ee 


516 


Psalms *cxvii (cxvili). 19, 20...... 48 
Pexvill (CRIK). SEM vss enchay 59 

Feil ACKIR). AS (ea ratee 60 

SeeKK (CER RU  o kse sen oe 7 

*cxxxvlii (cxxxix). 7Sq ... 28 

* cece KEK), 15 econ ans 38 

ides Mt (ea os ae Se Be 

POKY (CKIV), Oi osabsnce-neas 60 

VETS 1A BASH y ca. sescwee son encere 57 
Fal PoE VO cuiayi ae sek aane. see 14 

WAALS EB yin ad oe teee se veeuue 56 

Pail FAM asta lenbaien etna ss fs 30 

POWER hide nadie ans careless 2 

SAE tetas hae Reaanoeasduk’ 49 

ee ee ee ee 21 

PURE: ee oss putas boat pwn is 34 

Rare OS vataos.. ayes va veWawns 8 
TR ae eee 3 

SONG 8 itt 24 Gio ERD Soap can AG 34 

SATS 9 ge Sapa eee aia 59 

BRITA, Atk Unto heee anes 23 

UE RWIL IO a ae teea vanstoade sas 50 

Poe E ae Ca ee Se ee 15 

Pde oA he cakitw shied vo veniswn sen 34 

BUSS 0 Kwek. Ban tess ceses ens io, 17 

eT Gees OA ee eee 60 

PAMAS RS i jboss peek ds sn seecns 59 

AUME MMA apices xte vadend nol 3 

Te AE ee 42 

PARAECOEM A copie sitnittne svasauns 34 

PARAM ISG: Has ck cess cuse > se 16 

PARAW MALE p tou Poche deli 0% ois o's'e 0 34 

by es eh ae Se iZ 

ey | Re Se II 

Betenatall Mii. 0) 22 6h. ies ses ees 8 
PRBS OMAN citeccns sence 13 

WIA IMI EY Shapiro ox res neue 20 

PPR MNOS Ose ah oe oa ois 60 

Hzelsel = “xviii: 3O5q 2.5. 65.2....000 00. 8 
gee C2 nee eee 8 

SERIE Veit le cdsns swan ce 59 

CRICK WAR RE eo: ats wines soi 50 

wily TS Been 9 ge ory ee ee 29 

Bieta ee VEE. EO |... 22 Levoca ase rc ones 34 
(ELEY S CRN ih Ue a ioe ea 223 
MPMRE Na (TAM, EA) bre nanr re carace asassnees 59 
ERA Eas Wabash tas tu wintoacds 55 

PGE Ry Bie vis shircads whos anne 55 

MG PR A Sahai td eps venkes = 
bd katt Os Ub eee ee 24 

ecciis smal My BO F250) cis wetieed vase 59 
24 LUBY | AA er 6 

Ee EVs ghia Aga ae eee Be ae rs 
PINs hg TC eta tee coco sss 13 

pS Go fas Se 48 

PRM est datbewveesses ves 24 

ARVO ec Parasth tebe kayensve a. 13 

CRI, Oey Wh devatascep uns ® 46 

PREM OER: hoGk trakie oseeve vine 46 

IAEA CAN 22. ++. 05 wikeweneivatsshves'ces 24 
PAW SE 2 aah ayes Sate een <p ono 23 


INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL 


PASSAGES. 
S. Mark *vit. 6. .s..0-- cosh 15 
ix, 4225). 46 
*xiv. BE lab deaphee pe 46 
me Lake i, Tg) ‘Gisnespschasteseeuamene 63 
“Vi. 3OSq)<05,asnna-n ene 13 
KUL. Tg svcadsceboaedeeateee 4 
"S11. Bcc caonset aiochang ieee 24 
©. John | XK. Oiisciscssecxsyg beeen 48 
RIV. X56 cca ccvovests se eeeeeee 49 
KVL. 3 sacaknchevectaees cn aeeee 59 
VIL LF. spvertenssevcen eee 60 
Acts *x5i15 780)" coh cote es eee 18 
"EK. 35 ss vasa eke eee 2 
KX, SE ose ncenaavoekesenseeeeee 13 
601) Ae GPE ee rate 41 
Romans. 4. @T- .cc. cscs eee 36, 51 
1. 20.5q (..2-besasrocugnemeee 35 
TD, Bg ayn <cpiecseeteee eee 47 
Py Acs Pee SR 50 
Wi, TSQ \.paskedavencaaeyers 33 
a Cor, 1s Tg saayswednwaedeeeeenen pref. 
1. TOSG “isstoasbennapkeareem 47 
ig PPAR ts 34 
Th. HO 535014. Ecko 40 
1K: G4 dpckpoexetenn coe 5 
Xs: B45 29 ian ageeeea nena 48 
KUL, By). .0s cages see eee 48 
xi. tasq Lactic eo] 
Kil. Bs BG", Aatemeereernete 37 
pat a PEA 49 
XV 2B ivcoh tadee seers wees 37 
XV. BO ct..keceaeers span 24 
> 4 ME te et 65 
KWL EY * cee sh soko 38 
@ Cor.) 7%: 835 Rae ee 41 
XI, 2 380 3c veasev sees eee 5 
Galatians aii; 2 /.i0)hesctssge.seee eee 2 
Ephesians | 1.175... -gpecuneteee 59 
iv..g:Sq .h.$, ths ene 46 
iV. 18) stesdelseeeecngeeeee 36 
5 Fie reer eme y= Sih 38 
Philippians i, 27° .<223s.-sjeeenoseee 3 
Fe: Re he 4 
Ld. 20. sosagocetn veer eee 38 
Ui. TD)! \.cennsh deesee ee ieemene 50 
LiL. “Tg actsus dyes vetdse eee 5 
IV LS pices: eye 47 
Colossians Si, 3): eee 2 
x "Timothy i.) 87) !iss;et.--eeeeeeeee 61 
11.3 scandsladsaeete wee v4 
Oe eee ee ane 60 
CO REPRE, Pe Ses 29 
1 OR 45 
fils 10! .0s0se este eaeaeeee 42 
A aN re 21 
2 Timothy 1:3) 32: :tiecehetsadtrs is hea 45 
IV. GO cidecoyeeee eee eee 44 
Titus Ds. ShddeZavabodabeneneonereee I 
apt MER AR PRE SE Pee 2 
Hebrews i. 3 :.i250).4n255 2s eee ee 27 
*L. 3) 4} Sy Te 8 eee 36 


INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES. 


BPGIMGWS: 1. Siveissesiiaaventsrcssccdarss 16 James Price Ee 49 
Tih. By Pi asa ae teete ts aks Epo Tee CLR Ty Ba; 2). ncctundee sokera eoeaeee pref. 
MTs <5fi.<ors sae dente toes oreo 43 IZ, G) Sicaivss eden vataemeeeee 7 
IVS EEspucuivescedesess cet eteo 21 He: Tisicisseeesmeedese renee 30 
Whe EO med deeoadeee teste geven es 27 Il. Qe eseresesesecccneaseeees 36, 59 
ER LEG Citinanvantcbs canes -~ 12 Abe Aw WG pllereee cake ene 1 
Mig BY, Wri nua derwevenles is 50 27 Eg © Geers ree het mors a 4: 2 
Mis Ei evar cath secase suse 9 EW. GF Ys cintlute deteetier sane 49 
ahr Ts a. ane NS Lae 20 We TO. ie core 38 
Ma DZ vids xyacisesssenaeas vs 17 BVT oo fe dete aeeedees 2 
BAR. Ee nang susie Cs 13, 19, 63 PS Batok tJ. tA re 30 
pO ae a ene eee 56 WisRi give woxhiteee eee 38 
0 Se en 64 Wil Qian sis cecesangoennanaiees 2 
ey Eee, Oe CL ee Ee G4 sie eben Ry Mé es cceks chev vencuceeee pref. 
RAPT OE ete en | cre 10 He, BP bedenas'ds aug seeegcemnee 9 
5 it Ady ea a I diy Rua suceae trad tas soee eames 7 
BAD y DAO. ote. 558.6 I Us D) 241i eGR 2 epee 44 
RAM BEM ins pbasdese excesses 21 1 John 2 ho pereiaes ee ds Saeshi pe 49, 50 
James VCAMN ei LACS SeP iS cas cvees ge Revelation Sods Fes Re eee 34 
YS a ae A 30 
(2) An Ancient Homily. 
PIS 1 HOE) | chests wosen eet eied nee ia... Sx Lukes) *waustons pete 9 
Psalms WEG box variates (8.660: 4 a Pa RR A ee NE 5 
Leu 826) MeL ee ne ae 17 pan ery Wy Maer aime ene A A 5 
CTL En Se cal (US re i Se 16 TRU. Bi esau OR aot ete P 
Meta Ba MREMCMIEY 0 Getta cadiee ins 3 *EVis BOQ .chissgeseesine eae 8 
SAV od fs heuaree eevee ces 16 TEVA DS Bass SORE see 6 
7 PA ee Re oe rae 4 BIKY1O4' 2.3 Ae 2 
VLE eter ce © creer pore Es, unets WIMEQiicc ot eco theese t3 
“FL SM OR SS ESSE Se le BS Se 2 EVs, EQ i635 534 Sg ee 4 
SUNG OM.) ot ean ie wats ctdns 15 Wer BO. Wik des sudo sree 4 
GENE ES wie Scenes essewaoars Fz We 20 ie cde 20 
PIE GA a AUT, svautk dec ig “EROURARS > “IV SR uy. 20k: 5 I 
PSPCHMAN.. ANU 459 Gite. .tei.csee. ses 8 Vile Oy PELL ee ae 16 
re SE ie, CA oe, a ee coe ee 6 TRADE) oe .L pe ikace ee eae 8 
Hosea AT) eae pee: ae ee i etCor, Ti Qires tik sp devel ese BE, Fa 
Es IMA Ei A, cada et kek get 16 Dich ag 5s st es 7 
SERNA AEE sudan does vucisives 49° Galatians... wig GO 401.455.2412 ee 9 
TE 7 SERRE, ES EPO ore @. 2iphesians.” 1992) cA ka ee I4 
ORCS Ria eee Oe E Ee ae 4 AWE LPTs fe ene 1g 
ah 3 ay eae eee 2 Wis! Oa) Sia ces 13 
Sean a eet eee tee sea eee ar Bee" CMe aIA TIS EIR) BM, otis avemtealcareunes 13 
555 A DESC, Noe =) Timothy eine 6 ec ae ee 20 
pMibe Ath. buch vend Siessyb ales 9 IWNEG Gis. Ri ES 15 
NTRS BOB seach toc aces shvia co's 6G, (Hebrewsi. 7m 23 ik see Bi 
BAM Dd BAG Repel ovads 8 BILR hae ee I 
WP |e Eh hoe: her aa ar ee 6 IS HEY 6A PAA OE ee 16 
eae eh IG! BR O21. aes Sete hae 2 James TOE Di. A ae 4 
MAP AEN«. cha ekethdycs cae a 6 PME WON SWichiovds cacrcnmaverecms 16 
EO oe La A GaN ihe ais hie (Se Petes) Five Bo ttn hemes ae 16 
eR FaRMILA TIZiS. Aiscivecesad s dae che 47... SBeter Le) FG) | Svs er IT 
MABE OSs veto, ce etaeds 13 


i. 


INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 


Abbreviations employed, 4 

Abdo and Sennes, martyrs, 363 

Abraham; in Clement’s Epistle, 43 sq; 
his title 6 Pidos, 43, 63 

Abulides, Egyptian name for Hippoly- 
tus, 401, 477 

Abundius, Abundus; in the Laurentian 
Acts, 353, 469 sq, 472 sq; his burial- 
place, 469; Ado of Vienne on, 360; 
inscription relating to, 351 

Acontus, a martyr of Portus, depositio of, 
355» 475 

Aden; never called Portus Romanus, 
429; its usual name, 429; not the 
see of Hippolytus, 429 

Ado of Vienne; on the martyrdom of 
Laurence and Hippolytus, 357 sq, 
448, 450, 471 sq; source of his in- 
formation, 473 

Agapitus, in the Laurentian Acts, 353, 
354 357 ; at 

Ager Veranus; its position, 442; the 
name, 442 sq; cemeteries at, 442 sq; 
burial-place of Hippolytus, 440, 442; 
probably on his property there, 441, 
4433; his statue discovered in, 463 sq; 
other martyrs buried there, 462; con- 
fused medieval use of the term, 443, 
463; De Rossi’s excavations, 443, 453; 
463; inscriptions found at, 464; history 
of Hippolytus’ basilica there, 444 sq, 
451Sq,459; the basilica disinterred, 452, 
464; Hippolytus’ bones translated from, 
351 Sq, 459,467 sq; other reliques trans- 
ferred and the cemetery rifled, 351 sq, 
459 Sq, 463, 468 sq ; commemorative in- 
scription, 351, 459, 462, 469; medieval 
acts and guide books written for pil- 
grims to, 463, 473; the Laurentian 
Acts linked with, 468 ; the expression 
juxta Nympham, 359, 472 

Agnes (S.); her cemetery, 443, 445, 451; 
her day, 451; Prudentius’ poem on, 
445, 451; her connexion with other 
martyrs commemorated by Prudentius, 


445, 451 


Alcibiades and the Book of Elchasai, 
323.59 

Alcinous, heretic, 347, 396 

Alexander III at S. Denis, 468 

Alexandrian Church, its origin and early 
character, 504 sq 

Alexandrian Ms, Clementine matter in 
the; title, 191, 198 sq; mutilations 
and lacunze, 240, 263 sq; corruptions, 
54, I10, 124, 138, 232 sq5 Hiishoee 
plicit mention of 2 [Clement] as the 
work of Clement of Rome in, 193, 200 

Almsgiving, its importance in 2 [Clement], 
251 

Alogi, the name perhaps traceable to 
Hippolytus, 394 

Ambrose (S.), his literary obligations to 
Hippolytus, 413 

Ambrosius, Origen’s ‘task-master’, 330; 
confused by Photius with Hippolytus, 
348, 423 

Amphilochius, metrical list of the scrip- 
tures by, 407, 408, 413 

Anacolutha in Clement’s Epistle, 11 

Anastasius Apocrisiarius, on a spurious 
Hippolytean work, 344, 403 sq 

Anastasius of Sinai; quotes Hippolytus, 
345, 421; onthe Eternal Church, 245 sq 

Ancient Homily; see Corinthians, Second 
Clementine Epistle to the 

Andreas of Czsarea, mentions Hippo- 
lytus, 340 

Andreas the presbyter; restored Hippo- 
lytus’ basilica, 454, 465; perhaps prior 
of the title of the third ecclesiastical 
region, 465 

Antichrist, treatise of Hippolytus on ; 
notices, 330, 345, 348, 349; extant, 
398, 405; character, 398; date, 398; 
Nero as Antichrist in Barnabas, 507, 
508, 509; in other documents, 511 sq 

Antipodes, early fathers on the, 73 

Apocalypse of Elias, 106 

Apocalypse of S. John; not considered 
by the Gaius of Proclus the work of 
Cerinthus, 381; hence no argument 


INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 


against the identification of Gaius and 
Hippolytus, 386 sq; Hippolytus’ view, 
394; Dionysius of Alexandria mistaken, 
386; how far Gwynn’s discovery modi- 
fies this argument, 388 

Apocryphal quotations in Clement, 39, 
52, 64, 80, 95, 139, 1413 in 2 
[Clement], 218, 219, 227, 235, 236 sq 

Apocryphal writings ascribed to O. T. 
prophets, 39 sq; invented by Gnostics, 
106 

Apollinarian expressions anticipated in 
early orthodox writings, 14 sq 

Apollinaris, a notice of Hippolytus wrong- 
ly ascribed to, 328, 431 sq 

Apollonius on the character of Domitian, 7 

Apollos, not reckoned an apostle by 
Clement, 144 

Apostolical Constitutions; imitates Cle- 
ment’s Epistle, 5, 70, 71, 125, 134, 171; 
172, 173, 174, 176; Hippolytus’ name 
attached to a form of, 401 sq; illustrates 
2 [Clement], 222, 249; and cites it as 
genuine and canonical, 193 

Apt, the sarcophagus at, a testimony to 
Hippolytus’ fame, 467 

Arabic Catena on the Pentateuch ascribed 
to Hippolytus, 348, 423 

Archelaus the deacon, in the Portuensian 
Acts, 356, 364, 474, 476 

Arsis, Assis, the island at Portus, 341 

Artemon, the treatise against; assigned 
to Gaius, 348, 377; identical with the 
Little Labyrinth, 378, 380, 385, 421; 
and the work of Hippolytus, 380 sq; an 
objection of Salmon’s considered, 400; 
see Little Labyrinth 

Ascension of Isaiah; date, 106; probably 
extant, 107; not quoted by S. Paul, 
106; makes Nero Antichrist, 511 

Assumption of Moses; an alleged quota- 
tion in Clement from, 65, 81, 86; on 
the phoenix, 85; minor reference to, 
187 

Athletic metaphors in 2 [Clement], 223 sq 

Atlantis, 73 

Augustine (S.), on S. Matt. xvi. 18, 19, 
482, 483 

Aurea, in the Portuensian Acts, 362, 474; 
see Chryse 


aBavatvows, 134 

ayaboroia, ayaboroeiv, 17, 232 
ayadorns, 243 

ayloypagpa, titles applied to the, g2, 167 
dytot (oi), 163 

aylompémns, 52 

ayvwota, 171 

aywyh, 144, 145 

aywy and aidy confused in Mss, 223 
adedpdrns, 18 

aOXety with acc., 259 


519 


dO pavoros, 171 

aiuara, plur., 68 

alvov aiwviov, 231 

aiperifew, 244 

aKourifew, 66 

axpoywv.atos, of Christ, 486 

adnbeia (4), 195, 216, 257, 260 

adNérptos, dAAdPuNOs, 38 

avmnros, 259 

auBruwretv, duBrudsTTEW, 21 

AMETAMENNTOS, GMETAMEARTWS, 19, 169 

duvnoikakos, 16, 182 

Gpwuos, 102, III, 126 

dvaryvos, 96 

avaypagpn, 89 

avafwirupew, intrans., go 

avadvots, 135 

avaréXXewv, trans., 71 

GVATUNITTELY, Q7 

avedet, form, 78 

avyjxew, constr., 108, 136, 181 

avOpwrdperkos, 241 

avtixeiwevos (0), 153 

avTimic bia, 212, 213, 231, 236 

avTimapeAKew, 254 

aQvTituTov, 247 

avTopbahmetv, 104 

aévovv, constr., 162 

adpynros, 69 

amépatos, amépavTos, 72 

amoxrévvey, form, 220 

amo\auBavew, 228 

amoNUTpwols, 254 

amovo.a, 9 

dméaroXo (oi), of writings in N. T., 202, 
245 

ampoodens, 155 

am pooKoTws, 74 

AT POT WTOAHUMTWS, IO 

apxeTos, 148 

apoevddnrus, 239 

apxeyovos, accent, 172 

apxXn Tov evayyeNiov, 143 

apxuepevs, of Christ, 111, 123 

aceBys, 174 

dcoogos, 258 

domtdos, 228 

doroxeiv, 256 

arnuedew, 116 

avevTikov, 247 

avrematveTos, 97 

apnKew, 93 

apiiogevia, Log 

dpopunv didovar, AauBavew, 250 


Babylon; in S. Peter’s Epistle, 491 sq; 
as a name for Rome, 492 

Balaam, the Blessings of, 343, 389, 400, 
02 

Eerise called sppayis, 201, 226 

Baralas, Barulas, in the story of Roma- 
nus, 446 sq, 449 sq 


520 


Bardenhewer, 366, 391, 393 

Barnabas, the Epistle of; its character, 
503; author, 503 sq; canonicity, 504; 
country, 504 sq; date, 505 sq; test 
passages as to date, 506; theory of 
Weizsacker, 505, 507; Hilgenfeld, 506, 
507; Volkmar, 505, 508 sq; the theories 
criticised and date suggested, 509; the 
threefold kingship and the coming of 
Antichrist explained, 509 sq 

Baronius, 373; 477 

Basil (S.) quotes Clement, 140, 169 

Bensly and the Syriac Version of the 
Clementine Epistles, 36,-47, 69, 147, 
158, 176, 215, 255) 257 

Benson, Archbishop, on Hippolytus, 367, 
453, 466 

Bero, a spurious Hippolytean work a- 
gainst, 345, 346, 403 sq 

Bianchini, 367, 399 

Bilt (S.); French name for Hippolytus, 
477; the Abbey of, 467 

Bishops, itinerant and extra-diocesan, 432 
sq; illustrated by the episcopate of 
Hippolytus, 432 sq 

Bito, 185, 187, 305 

Book of Jubilees, 44, 94 

Bostra; Hippolytus associated by Gela- 
sius with the see of, 340, 428; the error 
traced, 327, 331, 428 

bravium, 28 

Brescia, reliques of Hippolytus in S. Julia 
at, 468 

Bryennios ; his edition of Clement, 47, 
172, 178, 181, 234, 243) 244, 2573 
criticised, 14, 21, 30, 38, 77, 78, 90, 96, 
129, 148, 158, 172, 177, 182, 224, 233; 
245, 260; assigns 2 [Clement] to Cle- 
ment of Rome, 204 sq 

Bucher, 399 ; 

Bucina; mentioned in the Liber Pontifi- 
calis, 340; its position, 340; the read- 
ing of the passage, 340 

Bunsen, 34, 132, 1341 367, 378, 385; 395: 
3972 402; 403, 404, 427, 428, 430) 


Bavavoos, 149 

Baovrela, opposed to iepwotvn, 179 
Bacideov, 222 

Bacireds TOV aiwvwy, 180 

Baros, gender, 64 

BiBrla (7a) of O. T., 202, 245 
Bios, 213 

Brarrew, 260 

Prac gnpev, 9 


Cain, meanings given to the name, 22 

Callinicus the tribune, in the Acts of 
Laurence, 362 

Callistus, bishop of Rome; his life and 
relations to Hippolytus, 320 sq, 431 sq, 


INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 


437, 439; his cemetery, 328, 442, 4515 
his portrait extant, 441 

Canon; in the time of Clement, 205 sq ; 
of 2 [Clement], 202, 204, 205 sq, 242, 
245 Sq ; 

Canons ascribed to Hippolytus, 401 sq 

Carpophorus, Callistus’ master, 320 sq 

Caspari, 367, 401 Sq, 403, 407 

Cassianus, picture seen by Prudentius 
representing the martyrdom of, 450, 
453 

Cassianus, Julius; quotes the Gospel of 
the Egyptians, 207, 236 sq, 238, 239; 
his controversy with Clement of Alex- 
andria thereon, 207, 236, 239 

Cemeteries; (1) of S. Agnes, 443, 445, 
451; (2) of Callistus, position, burials 
and commemorations, 328, 442, 4513 
(3) of Cyriace, name, 469, 4723; posi- 
tion, 442 sq, 469; called the Cemetery 
of S. Laurence, 442 sq; basilica of S. 
Laurence at, 442 sq; the church of S. 
Stephen at, 341, 459; saints and popes 
buried in, 442, 469, 471; reliques trans- 
ferred from the cemetery of Hippolytus 
to, 351 sq, 459, 468; commemorative 
inscription, 351, 459, 469; (4) of Hip- 
polytus; see Ager Veranus 

Censurianus, in the Portuensian Acts, 361, 
364, 474 Sq 

Cerinthus as author of the Apocalypse of 
S. John, 381, 386 sq 

Chair of Hippolytus, 324 sq, 395, 400, 
412, 419Sq, 440, 463sq; see further 
fippolytus of Portus 

Chiliasm in Hippolytus and other early 
writers, 387 sq 

Christology; of Clement, 13 sq, 57, 91, 
102, 205; of 2 [Clement], 200, 205, 
211, 230, 248; of other early writers, 
13S 

Chronica of Hippolytus; notices of, 325, 
395, 421; identification of, 399, 419; 
date of, 437 

Chronicon Paschale; quotes Hippolytus, 
344, 403, 4213; a passage wrongly 
ascribed in, 344 

Chronology of our Lord’s life in Hippoly- 
tus’ system, 391 sq 

Chryse, in the Portuensian Acts, 361, 
3648q, 474 Sq 

Chrysostom on Romanus, 446, 448 é 

Claudius Ephebus, 185, 187, 305 

Claudius Gothicus, in the spurious Acts 
of Hippolytus, 471, 474 

Claudius, in the Laurentian Acts, 358, 


472 

Clemens, Flavius, his relations to Clement 
of Rome, 8 

Clement of Alexandria; quotes Clement 
of Rome, 4, 9, 39, 42, 52) 54, 55, 56, 
62, 65, 72, 75) 77sO3) 104, tke 


INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 


121, 127, 140, I4], 145, 146 Sq, 149, 
164, 168, 172; his use of the Gospel of 
the Egyptians, 207; does not know 
2[Clement], 192; is not its author, 204, 
206 sq; on S. Peter at Rome, 495 

Clement of Rome; see Clement, Epistle 
0 

dada mentioned in Hermas; according 
to Harnack distinct from Clement of 
Rome, and author of 2 [Clement], 207 sq 

Clement, Epistle of; Mss and Versions, 
3, 13; other sources of evidence for, 
4; titles, 5; date, 8, 25, 125, 134, 144, 
185; the writer a Hellenist Jew, 23, 
205; his personal relation to the 
Apostles, 25; his mention of S. Peter, 
493; hiscomprehensiveness, 121; com- 
bines the teaching of S. Peter, S. Paul 
and S. James, 47, 97, 100, 149; his 
tolerance, 149, 170; his christology, 
13 Sq, 57, 91, 102, 205; the Epistle 
known to the author of 2 [Clement], 
235; the styles compared, 205; the 
opening words imitated, 5; translation, 
271 sq 

Clement, Spurious Epistle of, see Cor- 
inthians, Second Clementine Epistle to 
the 

Clementine Homilies; imitates Clement, 
52; and 2 [Clement], 217, 219; relative 
positions of S. Peter and S. Paul in, 30 

Cleomenes, the Noetian, at Rome, 319 sq 

Cologne, reliques of Hippolytus at, 468 

Compendium against all Heresies; an 
early work of Hippolytus, 414; its 
date, 426 sq; not the Philosophumena, 
414; probably survives in a Latin 
summary in the Praescriptio of ps- 
Tertullian, 386, 414 sq; references to, 
400, 413 sq 

Concordia, the ‘nurse’ of Hippolytus; 
in the Laurentian Acts, 353, 3543; in 
Ado of Vienne, 359 sq; in Florus- 
Bede, 357; her burial-place, 351, 469sq; 
her day, 356, 470; originally ‘mulier,’ 
470; when added to the story of Hip- 
polytus, 463; her connexion with him 
merely local, 470 

Constantinopolitan Ms, corrigenda in the 
collation for this edition, 268 

Cooper, B. H., 33 

Corinth, as a halting-place between the 
East and Rome, 

Corinth, Church at; feuds in the, 20 sq, 
43, 120 Sq, 133, 143 Sq, 158 

Corinthians, Pauline Epistles to the; 
allusions in Clement’s Epistle to, 142 
sq; both Epistles known to Clement, 
I42 sq; source of a quotation in 
1 Cor. 11. 9, 106 sq 

Corinthians, Epistle of Clement to the; 
see Clement, Epistle of 


521 


Corinthians, Second Clementine Epistle 
to the; the title in Mss, and deduc- 
tions, 191, 198, 211; not the work of 
Clement, 191 sq, 204 sq; external evi- 
dence, 192 sq; accepted by the Mono- 
physites, 193; the appellation ‘ Epistle 
to the Corinthians,’ 193 sq; from in- 
ternal evidence a homily, 194 sq, 2533 
probably delivered in Corinth, 197, 
224; extempore or from manuscript? 
197; then read publicly and attached 
to Clement’s Epistle, 197 sq; not So- 
ter’s letter, nor Dionysius’ reply, 196 
sq; not by a layman, 195, 253; Har- 
nack’s theory of its Roman origin, 199 
sq; the resemblances to the Shepherd 
of Hermas, 200 sq; date, 201 sq; its 
evidence to the canon, 202 sq; ortho- 
doxy of the writer, 202; the form of 
Gnosticism attacked in, 203; acquaint- | 
ance of the author with the writings 
of S. Paul and S. John, 204, 222; with 
Clement’s Epistle, 235; the author, not 
Clement of Rome (Bryennios’ view), 
204 sq; not Clement of Alexandria 
(Hilgenfeld’s view), 206; not the Cle- 
ment of Hermas (Harnack’s view), 207 
sq; a Gentile Christian, 205, 213, 2143 
its literary merit, 208; lacunze in the 
archetype of our MS real and supposed, 
233 Sq, 2453 analysis, 208 sq; transla- 
tion, 306 sq 

Cotelier, 143, 215, 216 

Cotterill, 115 

Crescentio, Crescentius, Crescentianus, 
in the Laurentian Acts, 353, 358, 471 
oq 

Cureton, 193 

Cyprian on S. Matt. xvi. 18, 19, 484 
sq; interpolations in the passage, 484 
sq 

Cyriace; in the Laurentian Acts, 353, 
358, 469 sq, 471 sq; inscription re- 
lating to, 351; gave her name to the 
cemetery of S. Laurence, 342, 459; 
probably owned the ground, 469; see 
Cemetertes 

Cyriacus, the bishop, in the Portuensian 
Acts, 364, 475, 476; in Roman 
martyrologies, 356; in Florus-Bede, 


357 

Cyril of Alexandria, on S. Matt. xvi. 18, 
19, 482 sq 

Cyrilla; in the Laurentian Acts, 353, 
354, 360, 4733 inscriptions relating to, 
351, 3523 references to, 3533 her 
identity, 470; her burial-place, 469 sq; 
date of her martyrdom, 471; her day, 
471; her connexion with Hippolytus 
local, 471 

Cyrillus of Scythopolis on Hippolytus, 


343, 421 


522 


Kad’ wpav, 236 
Kaipos and wpa, 122 
KaKoOLOacKaNelV, 234 
KahaBpicuds, KdAaBpos, 120 
Kavu, 11, 36 
KATaVTGY, 34 
KaTamdew, 223 
KATOLKEW, TApOLKElY, 5 
KeKparyelv, 105 
Kpué, accent and use, 29 
kisoav, 66 
koAaBpifew, 120 
KoTLav, 224 
Kogmikds, 254 
kpluara, reading, 71 
KUOpas, KvOptvos, form, 65 
KUTOS, 71 

i] 


xaplouara, Hippolytus’ treatise respecting, 
400 Sq, 421 

xpacba, form, 221 

xXwpa, 128, 150 


Damasus, bishop of Rome; his episco- 
pate, 444; inscription on Hippolytus 
by, 328 sq, 424 Sq, 444 Sq; read by 
Prudentius, 424; makes Hippolytus a 
Novatian, 425, 445; the result of a 
confusion, 425 sq; calls him ‘pres- 
byter,’ 424, 428, 435; other inscrip- 
tions of, 375, 464, 500; beautifies the 
basilica of Hippolytus, 329, 444 sq 

Daniel, commentary by Hippolytus on, 
391 Sq; patristic notices of, 343, 345, 
346, 348, 349, 350; Bardenhewer on, 
391; Georgiades’ discovery of, 391; 
Kennedy’s edition of, 366, 391 

Davies, 69, 70, 232 

De Magistris, 365, 368, 394, 395, 476 

De Rossi; his writings on Hippolytus, 
366, 368; discovers inscriptions illus- 
trating Hippolytus, 329, 351 sq, 374 
sq, 443 sq; on the Paschal Tables of 
Hippolytus, 399; on his cemetery in the 
Ager Veranus, 443, 453, 463; on his 
memoria in the Vicus Patricius, 465 ; 
on the picture of his martyrdom seen 
by Prudentius, 453; on the Acts of 
Hippolytus, captain of brigands, 373 
sq; on the Cemetery of Callistus, 374 
sq; on the day of Concordia, 470 sq 

Decius; death of the emperor, 362, 364; 
in the Laurentian Acts confused with 
Gothicus, 471; his alleged wife and 
daughter martyred, 470 

Denis (S.), monastery of ; bones of Hip- 
polytus brought to the, 467; Alexander 
III at the, 468 

Deuteronomy xxxii. 8, 9, reading of, 93 
s 

iain with Proclus; see Proclus, 

Dialogue with 


INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 


Dialogues, early Christian, real and 
fictitious characters in, 381 sq 

Dionysius of Alexandria, on the Apoca- 
lypse, 386 

Dionysius of Corinth; on the martyrdom 
of S. Peter and S. Paul, 26, 27, 494; 
the Second Clementine Epistle un- 
known to, 192; and not his work, 197 

Dionysius Barsalibi, Hippolytean frag- 
ments discovered in, 388, 394 

Dodwell, 206 

Dollinger ; on Hippolytus of Portus, 368, 
403, 427, 430 Sq, 440; on Hippolytus 
of Antioch, 371; on Severina, 397; on 
the Treatise against Bero, 404 

Domitian ; his close association with Ves- 
pasian and Titus in the empire, 509 sq; 
character of the persecution under, 7, 
175; allusions in Clement’s Epistle to 
this persecution, 7, 175 

Donaldson, 133, 195 

Dorner, 403 

Dorotheus the Archimandrite, quotes 2 
[Clement], 193, 225 

Draseke, 404 

Duobus Geminis Cons. as the date of the 
Crucifixion; probably due to Hippoly- 
tus, 391 sq; light thrown on this by 
the treatise on Daniel, 391 sq 


Aavaides cai Alpxat, 32 sq 
Aaveld, form, 24 

deomérns, of God the Father, 37 
d7Aos, fem., 239 

Onucoupyos, 75, 89, 171 

dvavvew, 88 

duevOUvew, 73, 180, 181 
duoikyots, 6 

dicraypos, 142 

dupuxeiv, Supuxla, dipuxos, 46, 236, 258 
SwiexdoxnnTpor, 98 
dwiexddvrov, 162 

dwow, form, 213 


Ebedjesu, the catalogue of; Hippolytus’ 
works in, 350, 393, 398, 419 Sq, 4235 
the Heads against Gaius mentioned in, 
350, 388; the Little Daniel, 393 

Ebionites; attacked in 2 [Clement], 211, 
229; their name, 211sq; their christo- 
logy, 211 sq; their Gospel, 231 

Elchasai, the book of, 324 

Eldad and Modad; history of the work, 
80; its relation to 2 Peter, 235; quoted 
in Clement’s Epistle, 65, 80; and in 2 
[Clement], 235 

Elkanah and Anna, treatise of Hippolytus 
to, 338, 390, 420 

Encratites and the Gospel of the Egypt- 
ians, 237 Sq, 240 

Endor, the witch of, Hippolytus’ work 
ON, 325, 330, 400, 412, 420 


INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 


Enoch called 6 dikatos, 42 

Ephebus, 185, 187, 305 

Epigonus, the pupil of Noetus, 319 

Epiphanius; an alleged allusion to Clem- 
ent’s Epistle explained, 62, 117; quotes 
another passage second-hand probably 
through Hegesippus, 158; date of his 
work against heresies, 415 ; his indebted- 
ness to Hippolytus, 413, 415sq; quotes 
from the Ebionite Gospel, 231 

Episcopacy in Corinth in Clement’s time, 
120 Sq, 123, 129, 133 

Erbes, 372, 429 

Eugenius, in the Laurentian Acts, 353 

Euripides quoted in Clement’s Epistle, 
115, 116 

Eusebius; on 2 [Clement], 192, 199 sq; 
probably knew the work, 199 sq; on 
Romanus, 446; on the works of Hip- 
polytus, 327, 389 sq, 419 sq; on Hip- 
polytus himself, 326 sq; ignorant of 
the facts of Hippolytus’ life, 428; on 
Gaius, 326 sq, 377 Sq, 380 sq, 384; on 
Hippolytus the brigand, 373 

Eusebius the presbyter, in the Portuen- 
sian Acts, 364 

Eustratius, on Hippolytus, 343, 420 

Ezekiel; apocryphal works ascribed to, 39, 
40; perhaps quoted by Clement, 39; 
bipartite division of the canonical book 
of, 40 


Ey ypagos, 139 

eyKapdos, 231 

éykapmros Kal TéNeLos, 135, 163 
eyxUmrTew, 121, 156, 182 
€LKTLK@S, IIZ 

eitAuxpwas, 98 

eis yeveay yeveav, 180 
elonKew, 236 

EKNEKT) KUPLA, 490 Sq 
€xNexTs, 169 

extevys, 169, 182 

EKTLKOS, 113 

eAeav, form, 52 

EA\NOyLwos, 170, 182 
eupurakifew, 137 

ev xetpl, 161; &v XEpaly, 223 
evadrdé, 48 

evapeTos, 181 

evVOENEXLT MOS, 125 
EVKATANELM A, 55 
evomTpigerOat, III 
evorepvigerbar, 16 

évTevius, 257 

éfalperos, 120, 186 

efdxis, ev 66 TH EBSdum, 165 
eLaxovTifew, 53 

efeTreiv, 248 

egeNiooew, 71 

efehoUpat, form, 156 
eLepifew, 138 


523 


é£epifwoev, spelling, 34 

éferacuos, 108 

efoNeOpevew, 54 

érdArAndos, 8 

émapxXos, I14 

emecepyaverbat, 145 

emLOnuia, 220 

emeikera, 10, 162, 169, 182 

eTLKATAaAAGTTEW, 145 

ETLLOVI, 132 

ETWOLN, 132 

erimé@nros, form, 188 

émioxomos and mpecBvrepos in Clement’s 
Epistle, 129 

émiaToAn (7), where more than one Epistle 
exists, 142 

émripdvera, 236 

éewOmTns, 173 

EpyomapeKTns, 104 

épis and kindred words, 20, 140 

ETEpoyvwapwy, 46 

ETEpoKAW HS, 45, 145 

evdoknots, 18, 123 

EVELKTLK@S, I13 

evnuepetv, evnumepia, 232 

evOns, form, 66 

evKTatos, 188 

evTpayelv, 255 

evaTabea, 180, 188 

evxaploTia, evxapioTely, 124 

evX}, Mporevx7, 126 

€pbdiov, 12, 15 


Hryewovixov, 66 sq 

Tyovpevot, mponyovmevoc, of Church of- 
ficials, 10, 77, 113 

novirddewa, 250, 256 

neépas Kal vuxTos, order, 17 


Fabian, bishop of Rome, divides the city 
among the seven deacons, 372 

familia of Hippolytus, 351, 354, 356, 357; 
359, 47° 

Faustinus, in the Portuensian Acts, 474 

Felicissimus the deacon, in the Lauren- 
tian Acts, 357 

Filocalus the calligrapher, 444, 464 

Fock, 403, 404 

Fortunatus, 187, 305 

Fossombrone, cult of Hippolytus and 
Laurence at, 466 sq 

Fulrad; brings bones of Hippolytus to 
France, 467; his abbey St Bilt, 467 

Funk, 440 

Fuscianus, city prefect, 320, 321 


Gaia, Gaius, in legal formule, 382 

Gaius, the Roman presbyter; Eusebius 
on, 326 sq; Jerome on, 329, 378; Pho- 
tius on, 347, 3778q3 treatises ascribed 
to, especially the Dialogue against Pro- 
clus, 377 sq, 407; all belong to Hip- 


524 


polytus, 13, 377 sq; Gaius perhaps 
Hippolytus’ prenomen, 381; all par- 
ticulars about Gaius and Hippolytus 
identical, 382, 383; probably the same 
as Hippolytus, 318, 496 ; the reference 
in the Mss of the martyrdom of Poly- 
carp, 383; on the Apocalypse, 386; on 
the millennium, 387 sq; style and mat- 
ter of the Dialogue, 386; his date, 496; 
on the graves of S. Peter and S. Paul, 
26, 496, 497, 499; the Heads against, 
in Ebedjesu’s catalogues, 350, 395; 
fragments discovered by Gwynn, 366, 
380, 388 

Games, Greek words adopted by the 
Romans relating to, 35 

Gass, 200 

Gebhardt; on Clement’s Epistle, 172, 
174, 176,177, 178, 184; on 2 [Clement], 
195, 224, 240, 257 

Gelasius; quotes Hippolytus, 340, 421; 
confuses his see, 428 

Geminus of Antioch, 331, 371 

Genesis iv. 3—8 explained, 22 sq 

Genesius, martyr, in the Laurentian Acts, 
353; buried in the cemetery of Hip- 
polytus, 454 sq; his church restored 
by Gregory ITI, 340, 455; two martyrs 
of the name mentioned, 455; but per- 
haps only one person, 455 

Geography, speculations of the ancients 
in, 72 sq 

Georgiades discovers Hippolytus’ com- 
mentary on Daniel, 391 sq 

Georgius Hamartolus on Hippolytus, 347 

Georgius Syncellus; list of Hippolytus’ 
works in, 346, 419 sq; does not accept 
2 [Clement], 193 

Germanus of Constantinople on Hip- 
polytus, 345 

Gnomic aorist, 260 

Gnosticism; its apocryphal works, 106; 
its expressions anticipated by Clement, 
121; the form attacked in 2 [Clement], 
203, 228 sq 

Gospel of the Egyptians; its character, 
237; held in esteem by the Gnostics, 
2373 quoted in 2 [Clement], 202, 207, 
218, 219, 236 sq; and by Clement of 
Alexandria, 207, 236; who had never 
seen it, 237 

Grabe on 2 [Clement], 194, 196 

Greeks, Treatise against the, by Hip- 
polytus, 325, 395 fea Tents: 

Gregory Nazianzen, metrical list of the 
scriptures by, 407, 408, 413 

Gregory of Tours, on Hippolytus, 343 

Gregory III restores the church of 
Genesius, 340, 455 

Gudius, 398 

Gwynn; discovers fragments of the Hip- 
polytean Heads against Gaius, 366, 


INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 


380, 388; of the Hippolytean com- 
mentary on S. Matthew, 366, 394 


ynyevys, 118 

ynpous, ynpet, form, 185 

yous, 121, 147 

yopyos, 147 

ypagetov, ypapeta, of the Hagiographa, 
92, 167 

ypagdy, ypapat, of N. T. writings, 202, 
215, 242, 245 

ypapal iépar, of O. T. writings, 156 


Hadrian I; restores the cemetery of 
Hippolytus, 341, 459 sq; the church of 
S. Stephen, 341, 459; and the church 
of S. Laurence, 342 

Hadrias, in the story of Hippolytus the 
brigand, 373, 374: 376 

Hagemann, 133, 208 

Haneberg, 401 

Harnack; on Clement’s Epistle, 33, 49, 
69, 90,90, 317, 133, 136, 172,095, 
176, 185, 186; on the country of 
2 [Clement], 199 sq; theories on its 
authorship, 195,-196, 207 sq; on the 
mode of its delivery, 198; on its date, 
201, 2043 ON passages in it, 213, 230, 
241, 244, 246, 249, 250, 254, 260 

Hebrews, Epistle to the; imitated in 
Clement’s Epistle, 10, 18, 37, 42, 455 
50, 57, 62, 68, 75, 78, 91, 99; imitated 
in 2 [Clement], 214, 236, 246, 252; 
Gaius and Hippolytus on its authorship, 
348, 378 

Hegesippus; shows no knowledge of 
2 [Clement], 192; Epiphanius’ in- 
debtedness to, 158 

Herculanus; in the Portuensian Acts, 474 
sq; a genuine martyr of Portus, 475; 
his day, 355, 4753 depositio of, 3553 
sarcophagus commemorating, 476 

Herenius, in the Laurentian Acts, 353 

Hermas, the Shepherd of; its date, 411, 
413; illustrates Clement’s Epistle, 46, 
76, 81, 118, 140, 141, 142, 144, 146, 
165, 178, 185, 186; its resemblances 
to 2 [Clement] considered, 200 sq; 
the doctrine of the heavenly Church in, 
200, 244; of the pre-incarnate Son, 200, 
230; calls baptism a ‘seal,’ 201, 226; 
its teaching on marriage, 201; on 
Judaism, 201; the Clement mentioned 
in, 107 sq; illustrates 2 [Clement], 214, 
218 

Hesse on the Muratorian Canon, 369, 407 

Hexaemeron interpreted of Christ and 
the Church, 245 sq 

High-priesthood of Christ in Clement’s 
Epistle, 99, 111, 123 

Hilarus, inscription relating to, 351 

Hilgenfeld; on Clement’s Epistle, 15, 17, 


INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 


41, 71, 81, 95, 99, 106, 108, 117, 131, 
F352; 136, 46, 0475 1575 Wy TOT, 172, 
176, 177, 178, 187, 1953 identifies 2 
[Clement] with the Letter of Soter, 196; 
on passages in 2 [Clement], 227, 228, 
231, 232, 233, 234, 244, 250, 257, 2603 
on the date of the Epistle of Barnabas, 
506, 507 Sq, 509 ; 
Hippolytus of Portus; interest in his 
personality, 317; discovery of the Philo- 
sophumena, 317, 378, 414; the earliest 
papal catalogue probably drawn up by, 
317; contemporary notice of him in 
the Liberian Catalogue, 318; ancient 
references to, 318 sq; extracts from his 
writings bearing on his history, 318 sq; 
his relations with Zephyrinus and Callis- 
tus, 320 Sq, 370, 431 Sq, 4373 chair of, 
324, 412, 4403 its date, 324, 440; the 
inscription on, 324 8q, 419 sq; the Pas- 
chal Cycle on, 326; significance of the 
discovery, 443; his early and middle life, 
422 sq; a pupil of Irenzeus at Rome, 
383; his indebtedness to Irenzeus, 422; 
date of their intercourse, 422 sq; his 
connexion with Origen, 330, 423; not a 
Novatian, 424 sq; the story traceable 
to Damasus’ extant inscription, 424 sq, 
445; ignorance and conflicting state- 
ments as to his see, 427 sq; his 
association with Bostra based on an 
error, 428 sq; evidence for Portus as 
his see late and scanty, 430; yet his 
connexion with Portus undeniable, 432 
sq, 465 sq; character of his bishopric 
there, 432 sq; Le Moyne’s theory, 
429; Bunsen’s theory, 430; Dollinger’s 
theory of an antipope, 431 sq; evi- 
dence of the Philosophumena here, 
434; by whom appointed bishop, 433; 
later years and literary activity, 436 
sq; his banishment, 328, 427, 438; 
its date, 438; died in banishment, 427, 
439 sq; date of his death, 440; his name- 
sakes, (i) Hippolytus, the martyr of 
Antioch, 370 sq; (ii) Hippolytus the 
Alexandrian, 372; (iii) Hippolytus, 
Greek captain of brigands, 373 sq; 
(iv) Hippolytus the warder of S. Lau- 
rence, no such person, 376; (v) Hip- 
polytus of Thebes, 377; his identity 
with Gaius considered, 377 sq; his 
literary works, (a) biblical and exe- 
‘getical, 389 sq; (4) theological and 
apologetic, 395 sq; (c) historical and 
chronological, 399 sq; (d) heresio- 
logical, 384 sq, 400 sq; spurious Hip- 
polytean works, 403 sq; table of his 
literary works, 419 sq; editions of 
them, 365 sq; his title ‘the presbyter’ 
represents dignity, not office, 424, 428, 
435 sq; on the theology of Clement, 


525 


13 sq; 2 [Clement] known to, 258; on 
the authorship of the Apocalypse, 386, 
394; his chronology of our Lord’s life, 
391 sq; perhaps invented the term 
Alogi, 394; his depositio, 439, 442, 
444; his day, in calendars, 355 sq; 
in the Liberian Catalogue, 355; in 
itineraries, 353 sq; his burial-place in 
the Ager Veranus, 442 sq; probably 
his own property, 441, 443; its proxim- 
ity to the cemetery of S. Laurence, 442, 
444; his cult in Damasus’ time, 465; 
as described by Prudentius, 332 sq, 445 
sq, 451 sq; his basilica in the Ager 
Veranus, 4448q; enlarged by Damasus, 
445 Sq; described by Prudentius, 451 sq; 
verified by excavations, 452, 464; re- 
stored by Andreas the presbyter, 454, 
465; his reliques transferred to the 
basilica of S. Laurence, 459; and else- 
where, 459, 467 Sq; inscriptions on 
these translations, 351, 461 sq, 469; 
his story attached to S. Laurence, and 
he himself transferred from cleric to 
soldier, 402, 458 sq, 468 sq; becomes 
Hippolytus the warder, 376, 468 sq; 
a confusion with the soldier Romanus, 
462; evidence of this transference in 
the Latin Acts, 462 sq; his sanctuary 
in the Vicus Patricius, 464 sq; in 
Portus, 465 sq; his well shown there, 
466; in Fossombrone, 466 sq; outside 
Italy, 467; especially in France, Arles, 
S. Denis, 467; Spurious Acts of; 
(i) the Laurentian Cycle, 468 sq; here 
the warder, 471 sq; (ii) the Portuensian 
Cycle, 474 sq; here the presbyter and 
his personality grafted on to Nonnus, 
476; confused by Peter Damian with 
the bishop of Edessa, 476; his names 
in different countries, 477 

Hippolytus, bearer of a letter 
Dionysius of Alexandria, 372 

Hippolytus, Greek captain of brigands; 
his story and companions, 373 sq; acts 
and inscriptions relating to, 373 sq 

Hippolytus, martyr of Antioch; Dollin- 
ger’s theory of a confusion untenable, 
371; a real person, but invested with 
attributes of Hippolytus of Portus, 372 

Hippolytus of Thebes, 377 

Hippolytus, son of Theseus, his story 
adapted to his Christian namesake of 
Portus, 370, 453 

Hippolytus, warder of S. Laurence; no 
such person, the story a growth out of 
that of Hippolytus of Portus, 376, 402, 
458 sq, 468sq; see Wippolytus of Portus 

Hoeschel, 396 

Honorius III transfers Hippolytus’ 
reliques to the cemetery of S. Laurence, 


459 


from 


526 


Hort, 117, 1335 179; 369 


Iflites, the name of Hippolytus among 
the Syrians and Chaldzeans, 477 

Ignatius; shows coincidences with 
Clement’s Epistle, gt, 99, 117, 186; 
his allusion to S. Peter an argument 
for S. Peter’s Roman visit, 26, 493 

llicius the presbyter; erects a sanctuary 
to Hippolytus in the Vicus Patricius, 
464; reason for the choice of this 
locality, 465 

Irenzeus; at Rome, 422, 495; Hippolytus 
his pupil there, 383, 422; Hippolytus’ 
literary obligations to, 422; imitates 
Clement, 149, 150; does not accept 
2 [Clement], 192; the title ‘presbyter’ 
as used by, and as applied to, 435; on 
the Roman visit of S. Peter, 495; 
fragments of poetry embedded in the 
works of, 405 sq 

Irenzeus the cloacarius, in the Laurentian 
Acts, 359, 360, 472 sq 

Irenzeus a martyr, inscription to, 351 

Isaac, a willing sacrifice, 98 

Isaiah lili, notes on, 58 sq 

Isthmian games ; alluded toin 2[Clement], 
197, 223 sq; their importance at that 
time, 224 

Itineraries illustrating Hippolytus and 
Laurence, 352 sq, 469 sq 


iepwatvn, opposed to Bacidela, 179 
ihéws, adverb, 17 
ivdddrco Oa, tvdadwa, 79 Sq 


Jacobson, 27, 28, 41, 46, 71, 146, 156, 236 

James v. 20 explained, 251 

Jerome; on 2 [Clement], 192; on Hip- 
polytus, 329 sq, 389 sq, 419 sq; his 
ignorance of the facts, 425, 428, 429 sq 

Jews, treatise against the, by Hippolytus, 
325s 3955 421 

Joannes Philoponus, a mistake of, 394 

Job iv. 16—v. 5, notes on, 118sq 

John (S.), the Gospel according to, 
known to 2 [Clement], 204, 222 

John the Deacon quotes Clement’s Epi- 
stle, 133 

John of Ephesus, source of his information 
about Clement’s Epistle, 158 

Josephus; 38, 39 sq, 98, 125, 130, 161, 
184; a work of Hippolytus assigned to, 


Judith ; reference in Clement’s Epistle to, 
161; date of the book of, 161; Volk- 
mar on this, 161 

Julianus, in the Laurentian Acts, 353 

Justin Martyr; passages illustrating Cle- 
ment’s Epistle, 49, 55, 57, 588q, 178; 
illustrating 2 [Clement], 214, 215, 217, 


INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 


218, 221; his description of Christian 
services supported by 2 [Clement], 195 
Justina, in the Laurentian Acts, 353 
Justinus; in the Laurentian Acts, 353, 
354, 462, 472; in Ado of Vienne, 358 
sq, 473; his burial-place, 351, 469; in- 
scription naming, 351 


Kennedy’s edition of the Hippolytean 
fragments on Daniel, 366, 391 


Labyrinth; mentioned by Photius, 347 sq, 
377, 378 sq, 382; not the Little Laby- 
rinth, but by the same author, 377, 378 
sq; identical with the summary in Phi- 
losophumena Book x, 379 sq, 396, 421; 
see Little Labyrinth 

Lagarde; on Clement’s Epistle, 34; on 
Hippolytus, 363, 364, 366, 401, 421, 
473,476; onthe Muratorian Canon, 408 

laicus, 124 

Lateran Council quotes Hippolytus, 334, 
421 

Laurence (S.); his story in Florus-Bede, 
357 Sq; in the Menea, 361 sq; in the 
Latin Acts, 363 sq; his companions, 
353 Sq, 471 Sq; inscription relating to 
his reliques, 351 sq; their position in 
itineraries, 352 sq; his cemetery (see 
Cemeéteries); honours paid him in Rome, 
455 sq; his day, 355 sq, 456; basilicas 
to, 452, 456; notices of them in the 
Liber Pontificalis, 341 sq, 457; that 
seen by Prudentius, 456 sq; their archi- 
tectural history, 456 sq 

Laurent on Clement’s Epistle, 28, 33, 69, 
116, 139, 187 

Laurentian Cycle of the Acts of Hippoly- 
tus, 468 sq; documents and inscriptions 
illustrating, 351, 352 Sq, 357 Sq, 361 sq, 
363 sq; mutual relation of the docu- 
ments, 473 

Laymen; part played by, in early Chris- 
tian services, 195 sq; the case of Origen, 
195 sq; 2 [Clement] not by a layman, 
195, 253 ‘ 

Le Moyne; on Severina, 397; on the see 
of Hippolytus, 429; his edition of 
Hippolytus, 366 

Leo III decorates the basilica of Hippo- 
lytus in Portus, 341, 466 

Leo IV transfers reliques of Hippolytus 
to the Quatuor Coronati, 341, 459 

Leontius and John quote Clement’s Epi- 
stlestor,) 727 

Leontius of Byzantium on Hippolytus, 
343» 389, 420 set. 

Levi, our Lord’s connexion with the tribe 
of, 99 

Liber Generationis, a translation of Hip- 
polytus’ Chronica, 399, 419 

Liber Pontificalis, notices of Hippolytus 


INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 


in, 340 sq; in error as to his banish- 
ment, 438; notices of S. Laurence in, 
341 SQ) 457 : 

Liberian Catalogue; on Hippolytus, 318, 
328; its silence on his Novatianism, 
4263; the word ‘presbyter’ in, 436 

Liberian chronographer on the depositio 
of S. Peter and S. Paul, 499 sq 

Lipsius; on the lists of heresies in Epi- 
phanius etc., 369, 415 sq; on Clement’s 
Epistle, 71, 99, 108, 109, 132, 133, 160, 
161, 176, 178, 196, 233 

Little Labyrinth; Theodoret on the, 339, 
377; is the Treatise against Artemon, 
378, 380, 385, 400, 421; not the Laby- 
rinth mentioned by Photius, 377, 378 sq; 
by the same author, 379; the author 
Hippolytus, 380sq; see Labyrinth 

Liturgical expressions in Clement’s Epi- 
stle, 93, 95, 105, 107, 170 Sq 

Logos- -doctrine; see Christology 

Lot’s wife, 46 

Lucillius, in the Laurentian Acts, 472 

Ludolf, 401 


Adyns, Ad-yvos, 96 

Aaikés, Natkovv, 124 

Nap poTns, 107 

Aads, 94, 124, 161; mepiovaros, 186 
ANecroupyds, of O. T. prophets, 38 
Luvoxahdun, 48 

Nurordxrew, form, 76 


Macarius Magnes illustrates Clement’s 
Epistle, 26, 28, 57, 72, 178 
Mammeza; Hippolytus’ correspondence 
with, 338, 339, 397) 4373 her death, 
8 


43 

Marcellus the deacon, in the story of Hip- 
polytus the brigand, 373, 374 

Marcia befriends the Christians, 321 sq 

Marcion; later than 2 [Clement], 203; 
treatise of Hippolytus against, 327, 330, 
346, 421 

Marcus the Valentinian, verses written 
against, 405, 410 

Maria, in the story of Hippolytus the 
brigand, 373 sq, 376 

Mark (S.); his Gospel traditionally con- 
nected with S. Peter’s preaching at 
Rome, 492, 494; 495; meaning of épun- 
veuTns as applied to, 494 

Martana, in the story of Hippolytus the 
brigand, 373, 374 

Martin of Tours on the reappearance of 
Nero, 511 

Matthew xvi. 18, 19, patristic interpreta- 
tions of, 482 sq 

Maximin, the emperor; his character, 
438; his persecution, 438; his death, 
440 

Maximus, in the Portuensian Acts, 364 


527 


Melito on the sacrifice of Isaac, 98 

Meneza on the martyrdom of Hippolytus, 
361, 372, 476 

Metrical; passages embedded in Irenzus, 
405 sq; doctrinal treatises, 407; lists 
of Scripture, 407 sq 

Miller publishes the Philosophumena, 
317, 367, 414 

Molon, 44 

Monophysite expressions anticipated in 
the Apostolic Fathers, 14 sq 

Moses, a title of, 154 

Muratorian Canon; a translation, 407; 
from Greek verse, 408 sq; reasons for 
assigning the original to Hippolytus, 
389, 411 Sq, 495; on S. Peter and 
S. Paul, 4953 reference to the spiritus 
principalis in, 67 sq; date, 495 


Maka pos, 143 

MadrAov peifwv, 148 

paptupety, udptus, in Christian writings, 
26 sq 

Mactryoby, wactryopépot, macTiyovdmot, in 
athletic contests, 225 

paraotrovia, 42 

peyanrorperns, 42 

peNavwrepos, form, 41 

peta Séous, reading, 18 

perahauBdvew, with acc., 248 

pera, 132, 134 

meratrapadddvat, 74 

Enrw7H, 62 

MONLBos, MONLBSos, 251 

povoryevys, of the phoenix, 87 

pvoepos, form, 52, 96 

@uos, MwuooKkotreiv, 126, 185 


Narcissus, in the Laurentian Acts, 360, 471 

Nemeseus, in the Laurentian Acts, 353 

Neon, in the story of Hippolytus the 
brigand, 373, 374, 376 

Nero; character and date of the perse- 
cution under, 7, 32, 497; his popu- 
larity, 511; expectation of his reap- 
pearance, 509 sq; personifications of, 
511; as Antichrist, 511 sq 

Nicephorus of Constantinople; quotes 
Hippolytus, 346, 403; 2 [Clement] in 
the Stichometria of, 193, 233 

Nicephorus Callistus on Hippolytus, 


349 Sq | ( 

Nicolas I beautifies the basilica of S. 
Laurence, 458 

Nicon the Monk; quotes Clement’s 
Epistle, 53, 140; and 2 [Clement], 
193, 216 

Noah preaches repentance, 37 sq 

Noedechen, 418 

Noetus, Hippolytus and, 319, 348, 400 

Nonnus; the name, 475; in the Portu- 
ensian Acts originally distinct from 


528 


Hippolytus, 476; a genuine martyr of 
Portus, 475; mentioned in the Libe- 
rian depositio, 355, 475; in Jerome, 
356; identified with Hippolytus, 466, 
475 sq; further confused by Peter 
Damian, 362, 476 

Nonnus, bishop of Edessa; his date, 
476; his see, 476; converts Pelagia, 
476; confused by Peter Damian with 
Hippolytus, 362, 476 

notarii, 197 

Notation employed in this edition, 4 

Novatianism of MHippolytus, alleged, 


3575 42489, 445 


voulecia, vovOérnats, 163 
vwOpdos, 104 


(Ecumenius on Hippolytus, 349, 420 

Ophites, teaching of the; as to marriage, 
237, 239; as to jealousy, 22 

Origen; at Rome, 423; meets Hippo- 
lytus there, 330, 423; his ‘taskmaster’ 
Ambrosius, 330, 348, 423; preached as 
a layman, 195 sq; employed shorthand- 
writers, 197; on the Eternal Church, 
2443; on 1 Pet. iv. 8, 252; on S. Matt. 
xvi. 18, 19, 483sq; on S. Peter’s visit 
to Rome, 496; mentions Clement’s 
Epistle, 159 

Ostia; its relation to Portus, 429, 433, 
466; in Prudentius associated with 
Hippolytus, 333, 335; 432 

Ostian Way, the traditional place of 
S. Paul’s burial, 496, 497, 499sq 

Overbeck, 390, 398, 403 


oi @&w, 241 

olomat, olwmeBa, 221, 244, 249 

dmoNoynTIS, Ouddoyos, in Christian writ- 
ings, 27 

oudvora, 70 

dvoua, 9, 112, 130, 131, 241 

opyavoy, 256 

épy7 and Oupds, 151 

doa, Govos, 17, 212; Kal dixaa, 146, 213, 
220, 223, 249 

ovv, 217, 241 


@ ®, accent, 157 
wpa and Kaipds, 122 
Ws, ws ovv, 226, 244, 249 


Palladius on Hippolytus, 338, 402, 404 
Pammachius, xenodochium at Portus of, 


42 

Paris on the Eternal Church, 245; on 
the Roman visit of S. Peter, 492, 494; 
the word ‘presbyter’ as applied to, 435 

Paschal I, translations of reliques by, 


458 
Paschal Tables of Hippolytus, 324 sq, 


INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 


399, 403; their date, 437; when aban- 
doned, 399, 441; significance of their 
prominence on the Chair, 441 

Passio illa; references to, 352, 469, 4733 a 
guide-book for pilgrims to the Ager 
Veranus, 473; quoted and abridged by 
Ado, 473 

Paul (S.); in Rome, 29, 497; his release, 
497; his visit to Spain, 30; his subse- 
quent arrest and death, 497; not 
martyred with S. Peter, 497 sq, 499; 
origin of the conjunction of their names, 
499 sq; buried in the Ostian Way, 
496, 497 sq; his reliques temporarily 
deposited with S. Peter’s in the cata- 
combs of S. Sebastian, 500; festival of 
his translation, 501; his relation to 
S. Peter in the Church generally, 
489 sq; in Rome particularly, 491, 


497549 

Paul I; transfers reliques to S. Silvester 
in Capite, 351, 352, 459; commemo- 
rative inscriptions, 352, 459 

Paulina, in the story of Hippolytus the 
brigand, 373, 374, 376 

Pelagia converted by Nonnus, bishop of 
Edessa, 362, 476 

Pelagius II; his basilica in honour of 
S. Laurence, 342, 456sq; his dedi- 
cation of it, 457, 469; commemorative 
inscription, 341 Sq 

Peter (S.); character of his primacy, 
481 sq; our Lord’s promise, 481 sq; 
twofold patristic interpretation of the 
word ‘rock,’ 482 sq; exegetical con- 
siderations, 485 sq; result, 486; his 
primacy evidenced in action, 487 sq; 
his relations to S. Paul, 489 sq; his 
visit to Rome, 26, 490sq; external 
evidence for it conclusive, 409 sq, 
491 sq; its date, 491, 497 sq; his rela- 
tions to S. Paul there, 491, 497 sq; his 
First Epistle written during persecution, 
498 sq; date of his martyrdom, 26 sq, 
497$q; not martyred with S. Paul, 
497 Sq, 499; origin of the conjunction 
of their names, 499 sq; buried in the 
Vatican Way, 498, 499; his reliques 
temporarily deposited with S. Paul’s 
in the catacombs of S. Sebastian, 500 ; 
his traditional twenty-five years’ epis- 
copate, 501 sq; was he ever reckoned 
a bishop of Rome? 500 

Peter (S.), First Epistle of; written in a 
time of persecution, 498 sq; its date, 
499; its coincidence with S. Paul’s 
Epistles, 499; explanation of ch. iv. 8, 
149, 2513; the allusion to 7 cuvexXexT7 
in, 491 sq 

Peter (S.), Second Epistle of; its authen- 
ticity, 493, 498; an apparent coinci- 
dence in Clement’s Epistle with, 37; 


INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 


perhaps not independent of the book 
of Eldad and Modad, 235 

Peter Damian confuses Nonnus, bishop 
of Edessa, with Hippolytus, 362, 476 

Peter of Alexandria; a passage in the 
Chronicon Paschale wrongly ascribed 
to, 344; imitates Clement’s Epistle, 26 

Philaster; date of his work on Heresies, 
415; his indebtedness to Hippolytus, 


413, 415 Sq E 
Philo; illustrates Clement’s Epistle, 44, 
45, 98, 130, 164, 183; illustrates 


2 [Clement], 214 

Philosophical terms adopted by Clement 
and others, 66 sq, 69, 75, 89, 155, 247 

Philosophumena; its discovery, 317, 4143 
editions, 365 sq; the work of Hippo- 
lytus, 377, 378 sq, 403, 4213; extracts 
and patristic notices, 318 sq, 327, 330, 

346; passages from Irenzeus incorpo- 

Dies in, 422; the Summary in the 
Tenth Book published separately and 
called the Labyrinth, 379 Sq; 396; its 
evidence as to Hippolytus’ see, 434; 
see Labyrinth, Miller 

Phoenix ; in the classics, 84; growth of 
the story, 88; its general acceptance, 
84sq; its adoption by Jewish and 
Christian writers, 85 sq; its explana- 
tion, 86; chronoiogy of its appearances, 
85, 87, 89; in Christian art, 87; in 
Egyptian hieroglyphics, 87 

Photius; notices of Clement in, 13, 14, 
72, 86, 139; rejects 2 [Clement], 193, 
194, 211, 212, 219; on works of Hip- 
polytus, 347 sq, 396, 419sq; on Gaius, 
347Sq, 377; a blunder of, 423 

Pitra, 1 

Plato, Hippolytus’ treatise against, 325, 
347) 395 Sd 

Polto, Hippolytus’ 
Italians, 477 

Polycarp, Martyrdom of; see Smyrneans, 
Letter of the 

Polycarp, Epistle of, imitates Clement’s 
Epistle, 5, 11, 27, 42, 52, 156, 162 

Pontianus, bishop of Rome; his episcopate, 
437; banishment, death and depositio, 
328, 438 sq, 4433 burial-place, 442; 
the notice in the Liber Pontificalis, 340; 
date of the close of his episcopate, 439 

Porphyrius in the Laurentian Acts, 472 

Portuensian Cycle of Acts of Hippolytus, 
474 sq; documents illustrating it, 355, 
361, 364 sq; their mutual relation, 476 

Portus, the harbour of Rome, 429; its 
relation to Ostia, 429, 433; its growth 
in importance, 429, 431, 4333 intimately 
connected with Hippolytus’ history, 
466; in what sense his see, 430 sq, 432 
sq; the ruined church bearing his 
name, 466; the well of his traditional 


CLEM. II. 


name among the 


529 


martyrdom, 466; the Isola Sacra, 466; 
gifts of Leo III to, 341, 466; date of 
the foundation of a permanent see at, 
466; its position among suburbicarian 
sees, 466; xenodochium at, 429 

Portus Romanus, as a name for Aden, 
429 

Potter, 157 

Praxedis (S.), connexion of this Church 
with Hippolytus explained, 465 

Preaching in the early Church, 195 sq 

Presbyter; as a designation of Hippolytus, 
424, 428, 435 sq; a title of dignity, 
435; not of office, 435; to whom ap- 
plied, 435 

Primitivus, in the Laurentian Acts, 353 

Proclus, Dialogue with; patristic notices 
of, 326, 327, 329, 348, 379, 381; the 
author Hippolytus, 377 sq; Gaius the 
name of the orthodox disputant, 381 
sq; argument from matter, 384 sq; 
from style, 386 sq 

Proverbs, titles of the book of, 166 sq 

Prudentius; on Hippolytus, 332 sq; his 
visit to the basilica of Hippolytus, 424, 

date and circumstances of this 


4455 
visit, 424, 450; the basilica described, 
332 Sq, 451; also the picture of Hip- 


polytus’ martyrdom, 451, 453 sq; de- 
scription of the commemoration, 451; 
of the basilica of S. Peter and S. Paul, 
450; present at the feast of their 
passion, 450; subjects commemorated 
in his Hymns, 445, 449; the Roman 
saints associated with the Tiburtine 
Way, and the month of August, 445, 
451; onthe Novatianism of Hippolytus, 
424; on Romanus, 445, 449 

ps-Chrysostom on Hippolytus, 346 

ps-John Damascene on Hippolytus, 345, 
396, 419 sq 

ps-Justin ; date and country, 200; perhaps 
refers to 2 [Clement], 193, 200, 233, 
234, 250, 256 

ps-Tertullian, obligations of the Prae- 
scriptio to Hippolytus, 386, 414 sq 

Pudentiana (S.), the church and mon- 
astery of; its position, 464; date, 464; 
Hippolytus’ sanctuary at, 464 sq; its 
connexion with him explained, 465 


maniyyeveria, 42 

TwauBdravov, 165 

Tmavay.os, 108, 169 

TavapeTos, 10, 19, 138, 166, 178 
TwavOapapTwros, tavGauapTyTos, 256 
TavTaduKos, 256 

mavremomTns, 162, 185 
TWAVTOOUVA{LOS, 7 

TWAavTOKparoptKds, TWavTOKpaTwp, 7, 41 
mapayyeNla, 128 

Tapayew, 234 


34 


530 


TAapaKANTOS, 222 

mapadoyiverbat, 255 

mTapatroueiv, 137 

mapatoN\Nta bat, 253 

TapaTTwaos, 170 

mapapudd.ov, 506 sq, 512 

Taporkeiv, Tapotkla, 5, 218 

marépes, of O. T. worthies, 23, 182 

memrol@nats, 89, 108 

meptovatos, 186 

mWETpos, TETPA, 482 Sq 

Wnpos, Tnpovv, THPWOLS, 213 

mddTos, TAAE, 19 

TAATUG HOS, 20 

mdetv, compounds of, used metaphorically, 
224, 

mAnpopopew, 158 

MT poaipetv, 130 

TpoyvwoTns, 230 

mpodnros, 50 

mpoodotmopos, 232 

mpba dexros, 36 

mpocéxew, with acc., 16 

mT pocépxetOar, 183 

mpookNweo Oar, mpdaokNuols, 77, 143, 184 

MpooTarns, 111 

mpooTiLov, 127 

mpoopevyew, 75 

mpoowrorv, ‘ringleader,’ 8, 144 


gyno, not introducing a quotation, 240 

POeipew, in athletic contests, 225 

POopa, 221 

gtdokevia, stress laid by Clement on, 45, 
109 

gidorrovety, reading, 206, 258 

giros Geod, the title, 43 

powe, 84 sq 

puyadevew, 29 

puddopoety, spelling, 81 


yyragav, 182 
Yuutfev, 160 


Quatuor Coronati, reliques of a 
transferred to the, 341, 459, 4 

Quotations in Clement’s pedey canon- 
ical (see Zudex of Scriptural Passages) ; ; 
classical, 115, 116; apocryphal (see 
Apocryphal); combined and loose, 51, 
52, 65; 89, 92, 95, 99, 104, 106, 129, 
141, 151, 156; leading words comment- 
ed on in, 141 sq 

Quotations in 2 [Clement]; canonical (see 
Index of Scriptural Passages); apo- 
cryphal (see Apocrypha!) 


Rahab, 46 sq 

Refutation of All Heresies; see Philoso- 
phumena 

Resurrection of the body denied by the 
Gnostics, 229 


INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER 


Richardson, E. C., 365 

‘Rock’ in S. Matthew xvi. 18, interpre- 
tations of the word, 482 sq 

Romanus, martyr; his story in the Lau- 
rentian Acts, 353, 354, 446, 448 sq, 
472; in Ado of Vienne, 358, 448; 
associated with the Tiburtine Way and 
the month of August, 445, 447; com- 
memorated by Prudentius, 445; origin- 
ally a deacon, 446, 448; transformed 
into a soldier, 446, 448 sq; ampli- 
fications of his story, 446, 448 sq; day 
of his martyrdom at Antioch, 449; of 
his festival, 356, 447, 448, 449 Sq, 472; 
the commemoration in August a trans- 
lation, 449; his burial-place, 469; 
inscription relating to, 351, 447, 469; 
his connexion with Hippolytus, 462 

Rome, Church of; its history in the 
second century obscure, 317; light 
thrown on it by Hippolytus, 317 sq; 
and by the Novatian schism, 425 sq; 
Sabellianism in the, 319 sq 

Rothe, 132, 133 

Routh, 379 

Rufinus; on 2 [Clement], 192; on Hip- 
polytus, 331 

Ruggieri, 370, 429 


peWoxwdvvws, 53 


Sabellianism; at Rome, 319 sq; favours 
the Gospel of the Egyptians, 237 
Sabinianus, in the Portuensian Acts, 365, 


475 

Salmon; on the chronology of Hippoly- 
tus, 370, 389, 390, 392, 399, 440 sq; 
on the treatise against Artemon, 400; 
on the treatise de Psalmis, 390; on 
the Muratorian Canon, 411 sq 

Salome in the Gospel of the Egyptians, 
236 sq 

Sardinia; Callistus banished to, 321 sq; 
Hippolytus and Pontianus banished to, 
328, 427, 438 sq 

Scaliger, 399 

Scarlet thread, patristic interpretations 
of the, 49 sq 

Schneckenburger, 237 

Schwegler, 229 

Scriptures, designations in 2 [Clement] of 
the, ypadal, 202, 215; Ta Adyia Tod 
Ocov, 203, 2423 Ta BiBrla Kal oi amé- 
OTOAOL, 202, 2453 0 Oeds Tis addnOelas, 
195) 257 

Severina, Hippolytus’ treatise to, 325, 
397) 421 

Severus, in the Laurentian Acts, 353 

Severus, Alexander; his reign, 437; kill- 
ed by Maximin, 437; befriends the 
Christians, 437 


INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 


Severus of Antioch quotes and accepts 
2 [Clement], 193, 211, 212 

Shorthand writers employed by the 
fathers, 197 sq 

Sibylline Oracles; illustrate Clement’s 
Epistle, 37 sq, 109, 162; designate 
Rome Babylon, 492; and Nero Anti- 
christ, 511 

Simferosa, in the Laurentian Acts, 353 

Simplicius, bishop of Rome, arrange- 
ment of regiones by, 465 

Siricius, bishop of Rome; honours to 
Hippolytus in the time of, 464 sq 

Sixtus III, basilica built to S. Laurence 
by, 341; 450 sq hig 

Slaves, their liberation a Christian duty, 
160 

Smyrnzans, Letter of the; imitates 
Clement’s Epistle, 5, 188; the Gaius 
mentioned in the, 383; on Irenzeus at 
Rome, 422 

Sophocles perhaps quoted in Clement’s 
Epistle, 115 

Soter, bishop of Rome; his letter to 
Corinth read publicly, 192; not 2 
[Clement], 196 

Stephanus Gobarus, identification of Hip- 
polytean treatises mentioned by, 343, 
385, 397 

Stephen (S.), the two churches at Rome 
to, 341, 459 

Stoic division of human nature, 66 

Suidas on Hippolytus, 349, 420 

Syriac version of Clement’s Epistle, 3 sq 

Syriac writer, anonymous, quotes Cle- 
ment’s Epistle, 158 


OUKKOS, 41 

cahever Oat, 70 

onmeovv, 130 

TKa MA, 35 

Zogia (7), 7 wavdperos Lodia, as a title 
of Proverbs, 166, 169; of apocryphal 
books of Wisdom, 167 

copés, auveTés, 100 

oTaO mds, OTAOLS, 74 

oTnpicov, oTnpitov, form, 68, 101 

oTUXos, accent, 25 

cuwvaywyt, 72 

ouveldnots, 18, 57, 124 

guvek\exTH, 7 €v BaBvAOML, 491 sq 

auvédevots, 75 

oppayis, of baptism, 201, 226 

awfdmuevor (oi), 170 


Tacteus, in the Laurentian Acts, 353 

Taurinus; in the Portuensian Acts, 474; 
a genuine martyr of Portus, 475; his 
day in the Liberian chronographer, 
355 475; his depositio, 355; sar- 
cophagus commemorating, 476 


331 


Temple sacrifices; classification of, 125; 
Clement’s Epistle on, 125 

Tertullian; quotes from and _ illustrates 
Clement’s Epistle, 82, 128, 131; on 
the phcenix, 85, 86; quotes from an 
apocryphal Ezekiel, 40; his christology, 
15; on S. Peter and S. Paul in Rome, 
26, 495 Sq 

Theodoret; on Hippolytus and his works, 
338 Sq; 377, 389S8q, 419Sq; on Gaius, 


37 

Theophilus of Antioch; borrows from 
Clement’s Epistle, 54, 82; from 2 
[Clement], 227; from Sibylline Oracles, 


3 

Theophilus, addressed in Hippolytus’ 
treatise on Antichrist, 398 

Theucinda restores Hippolytus’ church at 
Arles, 467 

Thompson, E. M., 152, 153 

Tiburtine Way; see Ager Veranus 

Timotheus of Alexandria quotes and 
accepts 2 [Clement], 193, 211, 212, 218 

Tischendorf on Clement’s Epistle, 25, 
27, 28, 45, 46, 48, 55, 109, 113, 114; 
£IQ;: 122, £375 146, )548,, F5Oomes. 
153, 156 

Titus, the emperor, closely associated 
with Vespasian and Domitian in the 
empire, 509 sq 

Trinity, the doctrine in Clement’s Epistle, 
140, 169 

Triphonia, Tryphonia, in the Lauren- 
tian Acts, 473; references to, 353, 
3543 imscriptions mentioning, 351, 
352, 469; her burial-place, 469; date of 
her martyrdom, 471; her day, 471; 
explanation of ‘wife of Decius,’ 470; 
her connexion with Hippolytus merely 
local, 471 


TAY], 73 

Tametov, Tamecov, 76, 151 
Tatrewogpovetv, 63, 69 
Taxuypapo, 197 

TEYOS, 49 

TENELOKAPTELV, 135 

Tépua THS DUTEWS, 30 
Tiudobat, constr., 136 
TOTOS, 27, 37, 123, 182, 183 
TUTos and avtituTov, 247 
Tugos, form, 50 


Oarrov, form, 188 

Geetv, with acc., 224 

Geuédos, of Christ and His apostles, 486 
Geurds, 183 

Oeds THs ddnGelas (6), 195, 257, 260 
GeocéBera, 260 

Onuwv, Onuwrid, 165 


532 


Ulpius Romulus, in the Portuensian Acts, 
361, 362, 364 Sq, 474 Sq 

Urbanus, bishop of Rome; his episco- 
pate, 437; his relations with Hippo- 
lytus, 437 

Ursicinus, antipope, and the basilica of 


Hippolytus, 444, 465 


bryela, form, 74 
brepacmicuos, 165 
birepdées (70), 69 
vrépuaxos, 138 
droypaupos, 31, 61, 103 
Umodeckvivar, 28 
vroriévat Tpaxnrov, 183 


Valentinian language found in the Ig- 
natian Epistles, 203; in 2 [Clement], 
203, 243, 247: argument of date there- 
from, 203 

Valeria, in the story of Hippolytus the 
brigand, 373, 374, 376 

Valerian the prefect, in the Laurentian 
Acts, 357 8q, 471 sq; his death, 362, 


394 
Valerianus, bishop of Zaragoza, 452, 


497 

Valerius Bito, 185, 187, 305 

Vansittart, 185 

Vatican Way, the traditional burial-place 
of S. Peter, 496, 497, 499 sq 

Vero; see Bero 

Vespasian; his position in the list of 
Czesars, 507 sq; associates Titus and 
Domitian with himself in the empire, 
599 Sq 

Victor, bishop of Rome; his episcopate, 
436; probably appointed Hippolytus 
to Portus, 433; Hippolytus’ account of 
him, 321 


pl 


t, 
¥ 


\ 
5 


INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 


Vicus Patricius, sanctuary of Hippolytus 
in the, 464 sq 

Vigilius, bishop of Rome; sieges of 
Rome during his episcopate, 454; de- 
struction and restoration of Hippoly- 
tus’ basilica in his time, 454, 465 

Volkmar; on the date of Clement’s 
Epistle, 8; of the book of Judith, 161; 
of the Epistle of Barnabas, 505, 508 sq 


Wansleb, 401 

Weizsacker on the date of the Epistle of 
Barnabas, 505, 507, 509 

Westcott, 161, 218, 219, 223, 231 

William of Malmesbury, Guide to Rome 
by, 353, 373 

Wocher, 197 

Wordsworth, 331, 344, 367, 370, 396, 
427, 429 

Wotton on Clement’s Epistle, 27, 117, 
127, 134, 149, 150, 152, 232 


Xystus I, bishop of Rome, inscription 
relating to, 351 


Young, Patrick; on Clement’s Epistle, 
26, 28, 70, 81, 90, 103, 108,143, meas 
157; on 2 [Clement], 212 


Zahn on Clement’s Epistle, 18, 176, 195, 
198 

Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome; his episco- 
pate, 436; his relations to Hippolytus, 
319 sq, 348, 431 Sq, 437; Eusebius on, 
327; Jerome on, 329; attacked by 
Tertullian, 418 

Zonaras on Hippolytus, 349 

Zosimus, inscription relating to, 351 


in 


CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 


/ 

















Date Due 


oo 
RS 
tc 
* . 
ms 
rood 


ae 4, 


| 
j 
| 


Library Bureau Cat. No. 1137 





ELL§ BINDERY 


ALTHAM, MASS. 
JAN, 1951 


Gr Mas OTe ees! 
iii 





Bre oul, AGe hoa 3 Lesa te? 


Apostolic Fathers (Early 
Christian collection). 


The Apostolic Fathers 


BE. 664%, AG2 -L3a2i13° 1890 A¢2 


Apostolic Fathers (Early 
Christian collection). 


The Apostolic Fathers 


ee 


Porat 


See att coment nie ak aie cat a Mate at 
Se oS MOAI Rs tt aw i A 


peg rithasn gw 7 
eA NE” Sei UIs AAD WING Te 
PLL oanseunasite’ 


I Aa aT a ai Ai A St Og eae A 


‘ - ; : i" te 
be serene 5 # = CM al OS 8 Se Oe arte AES Nyda Nad 
can singe 

mouse : oa : ee ee 


DM SO GA te AM Oe 


ee EP. 
et 


ein gong rn adv hanpares ar - x ’ nareben on Re een etAte a teak