The apostolic fathers ... by the late J.B. Lightfoot

ν᾽ 7 εἶν . a state NAS ‘ ; .
’ ty Ἀ Ὅν ΑΔ 6:9 ἊΝ
᾽ νυ » Η > 4 . we
. Ἷ * ν᾿ ’ 4 ἡ: .
+» ᾿ νιν , wee *
. . ᾿ Ἃ a ΝΑ mR A ἣ fr Noe yh
ὶ ΩΝ ᾿ aah!
᾿ ὶ ᾿ 4a +e *
. ᾿ Wi the ~~) et sorte a eee tebe
ὃ $ ἌΧΗ i ς ΝᾺ H Cia
᾽ εὖ Ἢ J ἐν * te ce
y "ἢ . .Ν 1 a et ae εις δ
᾽ ε SWwhew' ἮΝ ' , Sere bios OY Ὁ SA ῊΣΝ Porte TiS
Ἢ ‘ , ‘ vols (hats + sae 4 αν ν καὶ RSL ees
J Υ̓ ‘ ν τὺ " sino eee “τ lw by " ἐν ἐνῶ, be
° 4 Ν ᾿ ᾽ Ta
' ν ee | > " ts , ὁ ‘> . .
4 Ν Ἢ ᾿ "»» »
᾿ ‘ ἊΝ ᾿ Ν sos . .
. ’ , 1] . 4 ν s ‘ ‘
ἦ , ὶ 4 ᾿
‘ »' AS ᾿ 4 ‘ .
4 ᾿ Ἂν . ᾿ ᾿
ὲ Οὐ ~~ . ν \ : yy
Ἂ ah ns ay we
7 ᾽ J . . , Ἵ
. ἴ \ +e ὙἹ
. ‘ Ἢ . **
ὰ ᾿ x .
ὶ Ἢ om τὸ ett be Mae eats
‘ Σ Ὑπ| ἱ ῃ δ»
‘ ΕἾ» A ἢ
th τῷ
( τ ᾿ H oh as
΄ 4 ς ὁ t ᾧ με ΣῈ
͵ Μ v . gan teh ” Ma ‘ ω -- ἘΠΙΦΙ :
* r =. font ‘
. δεν
J ‘
J cS ify ᾿
ψ" να." ὁ νι
, Ἵ μετ δα μρτς
δὲ pe.
, a " ΡΥ ΧΩ,
᾿ ᾽ : 4 ᾿ , νι ἂν Pie eae ed
«͵ Eros ΗΝ Ἢ ΤΩ ν᾽ eo
Pt 4% Pees ee) γι
hy i : i “4 “τον
ῃ ‘ ewer e Tis t ie Lk |
; ᾿ Ἢ οὐδῷ Aa
ret . ιν ὁ εν ΔΑ 4 sas eee
4 shige sepytens
re, bun doe ἕ erred 4 Ἂν Furey
ἈΝ at τς
$ oki ear ree oe Se pons nn an ξεν ig
bah δὴν : εν Set StF
nee : : ἜΝ Boks ae 1 γεν ato oh
> ese AL : -* Α wipe att AS? ffl ak
= : eases ws) poe see ADs -
get ; eer ot wd oe) » im
᾿ τ ᾿ ν᾽ Ὁ st ἡ λακὰ Ἡ 24
ἴ ΕΝ a 4d τὴν apf ott Soy
98} rt eae ὁ: ‘ Sed ἢ
ΕΥ̓ vas be eet heh ῦ ἡ νἀ ο δεν 2f4 ‘
ΨΥ ΕΣ p br tek Pare ᾿ Ἅ Bair leet
; hs rs ᾿ 4 iy , Heiner at geht th Atte
ἱ ἜΧΩ = tp? ' eget wate eer ἡ e Eee d oF oe
ὁ Ὁ o% a haere Pirie Te its

pea Pe re se

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation

https://archive.org/details/p1 apostolicfatheO2clemuoft

aa tT? ΠΟ ἢ ᾿
a ly ᾿ wai ἢ
, aay s petit i ὶ 7
Wine!
" 7 \ ΤΩ
i} " i
τὴ i:
=
an
j {
‘rR
$
΄
i 4
Ἐν

Wi ky eal

mee APOSTOLIC FATHERS

FIRST PART

ἈΠΟ ΠΕ

AS4s(

eee OSTOLIC FATHERS

PART lI.

aeeclLE MENT OFRCROME.

A REVISED) LEX FT

With INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES, DISSERTATIONS,
AND TRANSLATIONS.

BY THE LATE

feo LiGH? POOF, DD, D.CL, LEDs

LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM.

νΟΙ. 1].

London :
MACMILLAN AND CO.
AND NEW YORK.

1890

[Ail Rights reserved.|

Cambridge :

PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. Ἵ a’ ἘΝ
:
S = ‘
᾿ ¥ , Ce |
f 7 y
} +
y ou ν᾽ + Χ
4 é “is 74
_
_
<> bd ὃ

TABLE“ ΘΕ CONTENTS:

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 S. CLEMENT.

INTRODUCTION. IgI—210
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]. Harnack’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 [208---210].

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

1. JHE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS. 241—305
2, AN ANCIENT HOMILY, 306—316

vi 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.

1, ANCIENT REFERENCES TO HIPPOLYTUS. 318—365

1 Hippolytus [318—324]. 2 Chair of Hippolytus [224-526]. 3 Eu-
sebius [326, 327]. 4 Liberian Chronographer [328]. 5 Epiphanius [328].
6 Apollinaris? [328]. 7 Damasus [328, 329]. 8 Hieronymus [329—331].
9 Rufinus [331]. τὸ 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 C&cumenius [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. 3 Caro

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.

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

377—388

TABLE OF CONTENTS. _ vii

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

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

mm. Jae 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].

4. THE COMPENDIUM AGAINST ALL THE HERESIES. 413—418

8. THE REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES. 418

9. TABLE OF THE LITERARY WORKS OF HIPPOLYTUS. 419—421

10. LARLY AND MIDDLE LIFE OF HIPPOLYTUS. 422, 423
His connexion with Irenzeus [422]. With Origen [423].

"τ 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 Dollinger [430—432]. Most probably ‘bishop of
the Gentiles,’ with Portus as head-quarters [433, 434].

ieaeiPrOLVTUS THE PRESB YTER. 435, 430

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

1. LATER VEARS, BANISHMENT, AND DEATH. 430—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].

Vili TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE
1s. 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 5. Laurence [455]. Importance and
architectural history of the basilica of 5. Laurence [456—458]. Keliques
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].

17. SPURIOUS ACTS OF HIPPOLYTUS.

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--51ῇ i

2, INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER. 518—532

TO

Gib CORINTHIANS.

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 ὃ 57 ἀνθ᾽
ὧν yap ἠδίκουν to the end of ὃ 63. In the Second Epistle it breaks
off at ὃ 12 οὔτε ἄρσεν οὔτε θῆλυ τοῦτο, the end of the manuscript
being lost. The so-called ν ἐφελκυστικὸν 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 ἐφελκυστικὸν 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 ἐφελκυστικὸν 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.

1--ὖ

4 THE EPISTLE OF S. 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 zestore 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 —

Where our chief authority (A) deserts us, it is necessary to be espe-

and from memory. 1
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 cne |
Greek manuscript (C) which we possess here. In these same parts I |
have uniformly inserted the v ἐφελκυστικόν, 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”

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

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 ree
ference to the page of Potter’s edition is added.

> et” opt ἘΝ - ;
wee Σ ᾿ a ἢ
“Ὁ “ALY
AY ἃ & sn ᾿

ὦ» eeé ᾿ ar f

Z
we

ΠΡΟ KO PANG lO.Y.C.

‘H ’EKKAHCIA τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ παροικοῦσα Ῥώμην

TTPOC κορινθιογοὶ For the titles of this epistle in the several authorities

ΞΕΕῚ ΤΡ}: 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.
P- 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
mused. (7. 5. iv. 23.

This address is imitated in the
openings of three early Christian
documents at least; (1) The Z/zs¢e
of Polycarp, see 1. p. 149; (2) The
Letter of the Smyrne@ans, giving an
account of Polycarp’s martyrdom,
see Jenat. and Polyc. 1. p. 610 sq;
(3) The Afostolic Constitutions. For
other openings which it has influenced
(though in a less degree), see the note
On παροικοῦσα below.

I. παροικοῦσα] ‘sojourning tn,
(1) The primary idea in this word is
transitoriness. The distinction be-
tween πάροικος a ¢emporary and κάτ-
οἰκὸς a Permanent resident appears
from Philo Sacr. Ab. ef Cain § τὸ
(I. p. 170) ὁ yap τοῖς ἐγκυκλίοις μόνοις

ἐπανέχων παροικεῖ σοφίᾳ, ov κατοικεῖ,
de Conf. ling. § 17 (I. p. 416) κατῴ-
κησαν ws ev πατρίδι, οὐχ ws ἐπὶ ξένης
παρῴκησαν, Greg. Naz. Ογαΐ. xiv (I.
Pp. 271) τίς τὴν κάτω σκηνὴν καὶ τὴν
ἄνω πόλιν (διαιρήσει); τίς παροικίαν
καὶ κατοικίαν; Ογαΐ. vii (I. p. 200) ἐκ
τῆς παροικίας εἰς τὴν κατοικίαν μετα-
σκευαζόμενοι : Comp. Gen. xxxvi. 44
(XXXVil. I) κατῴκει δὲ Ιακὼβ ἐν τῇ γῇ οὗ
παρῴκησεν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ἐν γῇ Χαναάν,
Heb. xi. 9, Luke xxiv. 18. Thus πάρ-
οἰκος, παροικεῖν, παροικία, are said of
the captivities of Egypt (Acts vii. 6
from LXX, ΧΙ]. 17) and of Babylon
(Theoph. ad Aut. iii. 25, 28). See
especially the uses of παροικεῖν, κατοι-
κεῖν, 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. 1 G. 3595 οἵ re πολῖται
καὶ of πάροικοι πάντες (Comp. 7. 1625,
1631, 2906, 3049). The Christians are
no citizens on earth. They dwell in
the world as aliens, ξένοι, παρεπίδημοι,
mapotkou, T Pet. 1. 17, i) IT; comp.
Heb. xi. 13. So too Clem. Rom. ii.

6 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῇ παροικούσῃ Κόρινθον, κλη-

τοῖς, ἡγιασμένοις ἐν ἜΣ: Θεοῦ διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου

3 παντοκράτορος] A; τοῦ παντοκράτορος C (comp. Ap. Const. 1. 1).

§ 5 καταλείψαντες τὴν παροικίαν τοῦ
κόσμου τούτου (comp. C. 7. G. 9474
τοῦ βίου τούτου τὴν παροικίαν), Lp. ad
Diogn. 5 πατρίδας οἰκοῦσιν ἰδίας ἀλλ᾽
ὡς πάροικοι᾽ μετέχουσι πάντων ὡς πο-
λῖται καὶ πάνθ᾽ ὑπομένουσιν ὡς ξένοι" πᾶ-
σα ξένη πατρίς ἐστιν αὐτῶν καὶ πᾶσα
πατρὶς ξένη, where the writer is de-
scribing the Christians. A good
illustration of this sense of παροικεῖν
is Orig. c. Cels. 111.29 αἱ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ
ἐκκλησίαι, συνεξεταζόμεναι ταῖς ὧν παρ-
οἰκοῦσι δήμων ἐκκλησίαις, ὡς φωστῆρές
εἰσιν ἐν κόσμῳ, 20. 30 ἐκκλησίας τοῦ
Θεοῦ παροικούσας ἐκκλησίαις τῶν καθ᾽
ἑκάστην πόλιν δήμων. Compare also
the parable in Hermas 1725. 1.1. In
the prologue to Ecclesiasticus οἱ ἐν
τῇ παροικίᾳ are the Jews of the dis-
persion, so that παροικία is almost
equivalent to διασπορά; and, as the
latter word is transferred to the
Christian people, the spiritual Israel
(τ Pet. 1. 1 παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς), 50
is the former. Hence the form of
address here, which appears also
Polyc. Phil. τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῇ
παροικούσῃ Φιλίππους, Mart. Polyc. ἡ
παροικοῦσα Σμύρναν κιτ.λ., Dionys. Co-
rinth. in Euseb. 27. Z. iv. 23 τῇ παροι-
κούσῃ Τορτύναν, Epist. Gall. in Euseb.
4... ν. τ οἱ ἐν Βιέννῃ καὶ Λουγδούνῳ τῆς
Γαλλίας παροικοῦντες δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ.
From this the substantive παροικία
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. πάσαις
ταῖς κατὰ πάντα τόπον τῆς ἁγίας καὶ
καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας παροικίαις, Dionys.
Corinth. [?] in Euseb. H. £. iv. 23
ἅμα ταῖς λοιπαῖς κατὰ Κρήτην παροικίαις,
Iren. in Euseb. H. Z. ν. 24 εἰρήνευον

5 αἰφνι-

τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν παροικιῶν ἐν ais ἐτηρεῖτο,
Apollon. in Euseb. 27. £. v. 18 ἡ ἰδία
παροικία αὐτὸν ὅθεν ἣν οὐκ ἐδέξατο :
whence parochia, parish. Τὶ seems —
not strictly correct to say that παροι-
kia Was equivalent to the later term
διοίκησις ; for παροικία, though it is
sometimes a synonyme for διοίκησις
(e.g. Conc. Ancyr. Can. 18), appears to
have been used much more generally.
The explanation often given of παροι-
kia, as though it denoted the aggre- —
gate of Christian communities in the
neighbourhood of a large town, re-
ceivesnocountenancefrom the earliest
usage of πάροικος, etc. ; for the prepo-
sition is not local but temporal, and
denotes not proximity but transzto-
viness. For the accusative after παροι-
κεῖν see the note on Polyc. PAz/. inscr.

I. κλητοῖς κιτ.λ.] Taken from the
salutation in 1 Cor. 1. 1, 2, ἡγιασμένοις
ev Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις. 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 ἡγιασμένοις, ‘ conse-
crated to be God’s people,’ see the
notes on τοῖς ἁγίοις Phil. i. 1

3. χάρις K.T.A.] χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη
is the common salutation in 5. Paul,
excepting the Pastoral Epistles. With
the addition of πληθυνθείη however it
occurs only in the two Epistles of —
S. Peter, from whom probably Cle-
ment derived the form, as the First

ee ee

1] TO THE CORINTHIANS.

ih

ας ΄σ ΄σ 7 ες ~ I¢ ‘
ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. χάρις ὑμῖν Kal εἰρήνη ἀπὸ παντο-

κράτορος Θεοῦ διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ πληθυνθείη.

\ \ 3 > ,
I. Ava tas αἰφνιδίους καὶ ἐπαλλήλους γενομένας

δίους] αἰφνηδιουσ A. yevoudvas| C;
Epistle is frequently quoted by him.
In Jude 1 we have ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ
εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη.

παντοκράτορος] The LXxX rendering
of ΓΊΝ ΔΚ in the expression ‘ the Lord
of Hosts’ (see Stanley, Fewish Church
I. p. 87), apparently not a classical
word. In the New Testament it
eccurs once only out of the Apoca-
lypse, 2 Cor. vi. 18, where S. Paul is
quoting from the Lxx. So again
§§ 2, 32 (LXX), 56, 60, 62 (comp. ὃ 8
παντοκρατορικῷ), Polyc. Pfzd. inscr.,
Herm. Vs. iii. 3 (Szm. 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 παντοκράτωρ, ‘om-
nipotens’ is the survival of the fittest,
its defunct rivals being ‘ omnitenens,’
‘omnipollens,’ etc. Conversely the
Latin ‘omnipotens’ is sometimes
translated by παντοδύναμος for παν-
τοκράτωρ ; comp. Caspari Quellen 2.
Gesch. α΄. Taufsymbols 111. pp. vi, 24,
204 Sq, 209-212. The two occur to-
gether in the Liturgy of S. James,
ἅγιος εἶ, παντοκράτωρ, παντοδύναμε
(Swainson’s Greek Liturgies p. 270
sq).

I. ‘Weshould 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

ae evag A. S has a present; comp. ὃ 9.

were modest ; your wives were quiet
and orderly.’

5. τὰς αἰφνιδίους κιτ.λ.] 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. Vzt. Afol/. vii. 4 distin-
guishes two kinds of tyrants of which
Nero and Tiberius respectively are
the types—the one passionate and
reckless (ὁρμώσης καὶ ἀκρίτου), the
other stealthy and treacherous (vzo-
καθημένης), 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 (Domt.
11) in language closely resembling
Clement’s, ‘non solum magnae sed
et callidae zwzofinataegue saevitiae.’
Compare the accounts in Euseb.
H. E. iii. 17 sq, Chron. an. 95, Dion
Cass. Ixvil. 14, Suet. Domiz¢. 12, 15.
So Mart. Ign. 1 speaks of οἱ πολλοὶ
ἐπὶ Δομετιανοῦ διωγμοί (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

ἡμῖν συμφορὰς Kal περιπτώσεις, ἀδελφοί, βράδιον νομί-
ζομεν ἐπιστροφὴν πεποιῆσθαι περὶ τῶν ἐπιζητουμένων
παρ᾽ ὑμῖν πραγμάτων, ἀγαπητοί, τῆς τε ἀλλοτρίας
καὶ ξένης τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ, μιαράς καὶ ἀνοσίου

t ἡμῖν] AS; καθ᾽ ἡμῶν C.

damna 8, which evidently represents περιπτώσεις (see I. p. 136).
See below § 4, where S makes the same change.
3 παρ᾽ ὑμῖν πραγμάτων] A; πραγμάτων map ὑμῖν C; |

ἀγαπητοί S; om. Ο.
diov] βραδειον A.

and patron (as 1 venture to think),
Flavius Clemens, a kinsman of the
emperor, fell a victim; see I. 33 56.
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.

ἐπαλλήλους] ‘ successtue, repeated,
a comparatively late but common
word, eg. Philo zz Flacc. 14 (11. p.
534 M.) ras συνεχεῖς καὶ ἐπαλλήλους
κακώσεις, Plut. Pomp. 25 κινδύνοις
ἐπαλλήλοις Kat πολέμοις ; see Lobeck
Paral. p. 471. It is restored indeed
by Hermann in Soph. A zz. 57, but this
restoration is very doubtful, and the
word there must have the sense ‘re-
ciprocal.’ For ἐπαλλήλους γενομένας
comp. Alciphr. ZZ. 1. 23 χιὼν πυκνὴ
καὶ ἐπάλληλος φερομένη. Other-
wise we might read ἐπαλλήλως, which
occurs £pzst. Gall. ὃ 14 in Euseb.
Wee, wT

I. νομίζομεν]!θΕ The whole passage

mepimTw@aes] A; περιστάσεις C; lapsus et

ἀδελφοί) A;
βρά-

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.” The 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 ὑμῶν, but παρ᾽ ὑμῖν; and ra ἐπι-
ζητούμενα Means simply ‘the matters
of dispute,’ not ‘desiderata,’ as it is
sometimes rendered, ἐπιζήτημα 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 (ὃ 47 αὕτη ἡ
ἀκοὴ) wrote this letter unsolicited.

4. ξένης] Doubtless the right read-
ing; comp. Clem. Hom. vi. 14 ὡς adn-
θείας ἀλλοτρίαν οὖσαν καὶ ξένην. No
sense can be made of ἕένοι. The
doubling of epithets (ἀλλοτρίας καὶ
ξένης) is after Clement’s manner,
especially in this opening chapter ;
ἐς. papas καὶ ἀνοσίου, προπετῆ καὶ
αὐθάδη, πανάρετον καὶ βεβαίαν, etc.

5. πρόσωπα] Not simply ‘persons’
but ‘vingleaders’; comp. § 47, and

SC νον να συ ον

a Ὄ ὌὔὌἈτ: πὸ

i| TO THE CORINTHIANS. 9

VA « > ig if ~ \ > ,
ςστάσεως, ἣν ὀλίγα πρόσωπα προπετῆ καὶ αὐθάδη

7 > ΄- > , > i? of \
ὑπαρχοντὰ εἰς τοσοῦτον ἀπονοίας ἐξεκαυσαν, ὥστε TO

ΜΌΝ \ ΄ \ ΄σ > , 3 /
σεμνὸν καὶ περιβόητον Kat πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἀξιαγά-

πητον ὄνομα ὑμῶν μεγάλως βλασφημηθῆναι. τίς γὰρ

παρεπιδημήσας πρὸς ὑμᾶς τὴν

dub. 5. ἀγαπητοί] AC; om. 5.

πανάρετον καὶ βεβαίαν

4 ξένης] CS; ἕενοισ A. 8 βλασ-

φημηθῆναι] A; βλασφημεῖσθαι C; ut laederetur or laedatur (Ώ 2) 5, which

perhaps represents βλαφθῆναι.

see the note on Ign. Magn. 6. The
authors of these feuds are again men-
tioned as few in number, § 47 dv ev
ἢ δύο πρόσωπα στασιάζειν πρὸς τοὺς
πρεσβυτέρους.

6. εἰς τοσοῦτον κιτ.λ.] ‘have kindled
to such a pitch of recklessness’ ; comp.
§ 46 εἰς τοσαύτην ἀπόνοιαν ἐρχόμεθα.
Editors have taken offence at the
expression, but its awkwardness is
no sufficient reason for altering the
text; comp. § 45 εἰς τοσοῦτο ἐξήρισαν
θυμοῦ. Otherwise ὑπὸ ἀπονοίας might
be read. In ἀπόνοια shamelessness
rather than /ol/y is the prominent
idea, so that the ἀπονενοημένος is de-
scribed by Theophrastus (Char. xiii)

. as one wholly devoid of self-respect.

ΘῸΝ isn 470tro
σεμνὸν τῆς περιβοήτου φιλαδελφίας:
comp. Ign. 221. ὃ ἐκκλησίας τῆς δια-
βοήτου τοῖς αἰῶσιν.

8. ὄνομα ὑμῶν] ‘your reputation’ or
‘character’ or ‘worth. See the note
on Ign. Ephes. 1 τὸ πολυαγάπητον
ὄνομα ὃ κέκτησθε φύσει. 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 βλασ-
φημεῖν τὸ ὄνομα, where there is no
qualifying pronoun or adjective,
means ‘to speak evil of,’ ‘to blas-
pheme the Name,’ 1.6. of Christ or of
God; e.g. 2 Clem. 13 ἵνα τὸ ὄνομα δι᾽
ἡμᾶς μὴ βλασφημῆται, Clem. Alex.
Strom, iii. 6 (p. 532) δι᾿ ods καὶ τὸ

TO σεμνὸν k.T-d.|

ὄνομα βλασφημεῖται. For this abso-
lute use of τὸ ὄνομα, which is not
infrequentin earlier Christian writers,
see the note on Ign. Aphes. 3, and
comp. Phil. 11. 10 (with my note).
It might be thought that ro ὄνομα
ὑμῶν here would mean ‘the name of
Christ which you bear’; but this
would have been expressed other-
wise, e.g. James 11. 7 βλασφημοῦσιν
TO καλὸν ὄνομα TO ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς,
Herm. Sim. viii. 6 ἐπαισχυνθέντες τὸ
ὄνομα Κυρίου τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς.
It is hardly necessary to add that
βλασφημεῖν is frequently used of
calumniating or maligning human
beings; eg. Rom. xiv. 16 μὴ βλασ-
φημείσθω ὑμῶν τὸ ἀγαθόν (comp. ill.
8).

τίς yap κιτ.λ] The whole pas-
sage as far as ἐπορεύεσθε is quoted by
Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 17 (p. 610) vai
μὴν ev τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῇ ὁ
ἀπόστολος Κλήμης καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν τύπον
τινὰ τοῦ γνωστικοῦ ὑπογράφων λέγει,
Tis γὰρ κιτ.λ.

9. παρεπιδημήσας] This ‘bimaris
Corinthus’ was ἃ 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.
LTE Ae Diogenes is repre-
sented as visiting it (Dion Chrys.
Orat. viii. p. 151 ed. Emper) ὅτι πλεῖ-
στοι ἄνθρωποι ἐκεῖ συνίασι. ..καὶ ὅτι ἡ
πόλις ὥσπερ ἐν τριόδῳ τῆς “Ἑλλάδος

“2
aa).

10 THE EPISTLE OF 8. CLEMENT [1

ε ΄σ “ 3 3 ie ᾿ “ Id \

ὑμῶν πίστιν οὐκ ἐδοκίμασεν; THY TE TwHpova Kat

> - > > hee Ια 3 24 , i \ \

ἐπιεικῆ ἐν Χριστῷ εὐσέβειαν οὐκ ἐθαύμασεν ; καὶ TO

- / ~ 9. 7 ἡ 5

μεγαλοπρεπὲς τῆς φιλοξενίας ὑμῶν ἦθος οὐκ éxnpvEev 5

\ ? i ~ Ia ᾿

καὶ τὴν τελείαν καὶ ἀσφαλῆ γνῶσιν οὐκ ἐμακαρισεν 5

/ ~ \ ~~ /

ἀπροσωπολήμπτως γὰρ πάντα ἐποιεῖτε, καὶ τοῖς. νομι-
΄σ ΄σ > ie if ΄ ε

μοις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπορεύεσθε, ὑποτασσόμενοι τοῖς ἡγου-

er \ \ / /
μένοις ὑμῶν καὶ τιμὴν THY καθήκουσαν ἀπονέμοντες

1 ὑμῶν πίστιν] AC; πίστιν ὑμῶν Clem 610. 2 ἐπιεικῆ ἐν] CS Clem;
ἐπιεικηνν A. 3 οὐκ] AC; om. S. 4 ἀσφαλῆ] ac@adnv A. 5 ampoo-
ὡπολήμπτως] A; ἀπροσωπολήπτως C Clem (edd.). ἐποιεῖτε] εποιειται A.
τοῖς νομίμοις] τοισνομοισ A; zu lege (NDIA) S; ἐν τοῖς νόμοις C3 ἐν τοῖς
νομίμοις Clem, which is approved by Wotton and others. The rendering of 5
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 radu;
(3) νόμιμον is elsewhere translated by ND1D3) (νόμος) in this version (comp. 88 3, 40).

ἔκειτο. So also it is called the περί-
maros or ‘lounge’ of Greece ; see| Dion
Chrys.] xxxvil. p. 522 with the context,
ὡς ἕνα τῶν πολλῶν καὶ κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν
καταιρόντων εἰς Κεγχρέας ἔμπορον ἢ
θεωρὸν ἢ πρεσβευτὴν ἢ διερχόμενον.
Hence there was an abundant de-
mand for hospitality there ; see below
on § 10 φιλοξενίαν, § 35 ἀφιλοξενίαν.

mavaperov| Not found either in LXx
or New Testament, but a favourite
word with Clement: see §§ 2, 45, 57,
60, with the note on ὃ 57. He de-
lights in such compounds, e.g. παμ-
peyeOns, πανάγιος, παμπληθής, παντε-
πόπτης.

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

TO μεγαλοπρεπὲς x.t.A.]| For the
reproof lurking under this allusion
to their past hospitality, see the note
on ἀφιλοξενίαν § 35.

4. γνῶσιν] Here used generally.

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

5. ἀπροσωπολήμπτως] For this ad-
verb see I Pet. i. 17, Barnab. 4. For
the forms, -λήμπτως, -λήπτως, see
Winer’s Grammar p.53(ed. Moulton).
For an instance of the capricious
orthography of both our MSS comp.
§ 12 συλλη[μ͵]ψομένους, συλλη μ]φ-
θέντας.

τοῖς νομίμοις] ‘by the ordinances’ ;
so ὃ 3 ἐν τοῖς νομίμοις τῶν προσ-
ταγμάτων αὐτοῦ πορεύεσθαι, ὃ 40 τοῖς
νομίμοις τοῦ δεσπότου ἀκολουθοῦντες,
Hermas V7s. i. 3 ἐὰν τηρήσωσιν τὰ
νόμιμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. The phrase τοῖς
νομίμοις πορεύεσθαι Occurs LXX Lev.
XVili. 3, Xx. 23, and ev τοῖς νομίμοις
πορεύεσθαι Jer. xxvi (xxxill). 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. τοῖς ἡγουμένοις] i.e. the officers
of the Church, as ὃ 21 τοὺς mponyov-
μένους ἡμῶν : comp. Heb. xili. 7 μνη-
μονεύετε τῶν ἡγουμένων ὑμῶν οἵτινες
ἐλάλησαν ὑμῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, and
again xiii. 17, 24; Hermas Vzs. ii. 2,
ill. Q οἱ προηγούμενοι τῆς ἐκκλησίας.

TO THE CORINTHIANS. it

it)
~ 3 ε ΄- , VA 7 \ \
τοις Tap υμιν πρεσβυτέροις" VEOLS ΠΕ μετρια Kal σεμνα
΄- , 7 5 > \ ΄-
νοεῖν ἐπετρέπετε' γυναιξιν τε ἐν ἀμώμῳ καὶ σεμνῇ
\ a , , > ~ /
Kal ayn συνειδήσει πάντα ἐπιτελεῖν παρηΎγελλετε,
, , \ of ε = af >
στεργουσας καθηκόντως τους avopas EAUTWYV* EV TE TW
i lod ~ ς \ \ \ icy
κανόνι τῆς ὑποταγῆς υπαρχουσας TA ΚΑΤ ΤῸ TOV OLKOV
Cn > “- >’ / / /
TEMVWS OLKOUDYELV ἐδιδάσκετε, σανυ σωφρονούσας.
e ee
I have adopted νομίμοις from Clem, but ἐν is not wanted (see the explanatory
note) and was probably his own insertion.
εσθαι A. 7 ὑμῶν] AS; om. C.
8 tuw] AS; ἡμῖν Ὁ. 9 ἀμώμῳ καὶ σεμνῇ καὶ ayy] AC; ἁγνῇ καὶ
ἀμώμῳ S (certainly omitting καὶ σεμνγ), but the transposition of ἁγνῇ and ἀμώμῳ

may be due to the convenience of translation; see above, I. p. 137-
κουργεῖν} A; οἰκουρεῖν (but apparently y has been erased) C; curam-gerentes

6 ἐπορεύεσθε)] CS Clem; πορευ-
καθήκουσαν] καθικουσαν A.

13 οἱ-

operum (studiose agentes in operibus) 5. See the lower note.

Similarly οἱπροϊστάμενοι ὑμῶν, τ Thess.
v. 12. The reference therefore is not
to civil officers, as some take it; and
the πρεσβυτέροις in the next clause
refers to age, not to office, as the
following νέοις shows. The ‘pres-
byters’ or ‘elders,’ properly so called,
are exhausted in τοῖς ἡγουμένοις, 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, προηγούμενοι;
πρεσβύτεροι, νέοι, γυναῖκες, Occur in
succession. There is the same diffi-
culty about the use of πρεσβύτεροι in
connexion with νεώτεροι in 1 Pet. v.
isa, Polyc. Pfiz/. 5, 6.

9. ἐπετρέπετε] ‘ye enjoined, as
e.g. in Plat. Legg. p. 784 C, Xen.
Anab. vi. 5. 11 (see Kiihner’s note).

γυναιξίν τε κιτ.λ.] See Polyc. Phi.
4 ἔπειτα καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας κιτ.λ., where
Polycarp follows Clement’s language
here and in § 21.

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

accordingly. For the change from the
dative (γυναιξὶν) to the accusative
(στεργούσας) comp. Mark vi. 39 ἐπ-
ἔταξεν αὐτοῖς ἀνακλιθῆναι πάντας, Acts
xv. 22 ἔδοξεν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις κοτιλ.
ἐκλεξαμένους ἄνδρας ἐξ αὐτῶν πέμψαι,
and see Jelf’s Gram. SS 675, 676.

ἔν τε τῷ κανόνι k.T.A.]| 1. 6. ‘not over-
stepping the line, not transgressing
the limits, of obedience’; e.g. ὃ 41 μὴ
παρεκβαίνων τὸν ὡρισμένον τῆς λει-
τουργίας αὐτοῦ κανόνα. On the me-
taphor οἵ κανών, ‘a measuring line,
see Galatians vi. 16, and the note on
§ 7, below.

13. οἰκουργεῖν] ‘to ply their work
in the house” The classical forms
are oikoupos, oikoupeiv, and these pre-
vail even at the Christian era and
much later; e.g. Philo de Sfec. Leg.
31 (Il. p. 327) θηλείαις (ἐφαρμόζει)
οἰκουρία, de E-vecr. 4 (11. p. 431) yuvat-
kas σώφρονας οἰκουροὺς καὶ φιλάνδρους,
and the illustrative passages in Wet-
Stem om, Pits i, 5.. Bub, in, Trees
σώφρονας, ἁγνάς, oikoupyovs, ἀγαθάς,
ὑποτασσομένας τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν,
which passage Clement may have
had in his mind, the great prepon-
derance of the best authorities have

12 THE EPISTLE OF 5. CLEMENT [11

rH:

Πάντες τε ἐταπεινοφρονεῖτε, μηδὲν ἀλαζο-

ς id fal ΩΝ ς ΄
νευόμενοι, ὑποτασσόμενοι μᾶλλον ἡ ὑυποταάσσοντες,

οἰκουργούς, not οἰκουρούς; and this
reading the ablest recent editors
(Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott
and Hort) have adopted. In this
passage of Clement also A has oik-
ουργούς, and so apparently it was
read originally in C, but the y has
been erased. Bryennios says ‘veo-
τέρα χεὶρ ἀπήλειψε τὸ γ᾽ 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 οἰκουρ-
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. 11. 5. The Syriac here is
PITIYI }DSNI7, the same rendering
being given in the Peshito and Har-
clean in Tit. 11. 5. It seems to repre-
sent οἰκουργούς rather than oixoupous,
the first element of the word (οἶκος)
having been already exhausted in
the translation of the preceding ra
κατὰ τὸν οἶκον and therefore not
needing repetition. Perhaps how-
ever it may be intended to combine
the ideas of -oupyety and -ουρεῖν. The
same verb is more commonly a ren-
dering of μεριμνᾶν or ἐπιμελεῖσθαι.

Il. ‘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-

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

2. ὑποτασσόμενοι k.T-A.] See Ephes.
v. 21, Phil. ii. 3, Rom. xii. 10, 16, and
i Pet. v. Seva.)

3. ἥδιον κιτ.λ.] Doubtless a refer-
ence to our Lord’s words recorded
Acts Xx. 35, μακάριόν ἐστιν μᾶλλον
διδόναι ἢ λαμβάνειν ; 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. Mor. p.
778 C’Emixoupos Tov εὖ πάσχειν TO εὖ
ποιεῖν οὐ μόνον κάλλιον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἥδιον
εἶναί φησι, and for the Stoics, Seneca
Efpist. \xxxi. ὃ 17 ‘Errat si quis bene-
ficium accipit libentius quam reddit’
(both quoted by Wetstein on Acts
es):

τοῖς ἐφοδίοις κιτ.λ.} 1. 6. ‘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 viatici quam viae,’
Epictet. Déss. ili. 21. 9 ἔχοντάς τι
ἐφόδιον τοιοῦτον eis τὸν βίον, Plut.
Mor. p. 160 Β ὡς μὴ μόνον τοῦ ζῆν
ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ ἀποθνήσκειν τὴν τροφὴν
ἐφόδιον οὖσαν ; comp. Dionys. Corinth.
in Euseb. A. 25. iv. 23 ἐκκλησίαις
πολλαῖς ταῖς κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν ἐφύδια
πέμπειν. It is the same sentiment
as 1 Tim. vi. ὃ, ἔχοντες διατροφὰς καὶ
σκεπάσματα τούτοις ἀρκεσθησόμεθα.
The idea of sfiritual sustenance
seems to be out of place here, though
ἐφόδια not unfrequently has this sense.
For this and other reasons the words

¥

11] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 13

a ͵ Ἂ , ~~ / ~ ~
HAION AIAONTEC ἢ AAMBANONTEC, τοῖς ἐφοδίοις τοῦ Θεοῦ

3 τοῦ Θεοῦ] A; τοῦ Χριστοῦ CS.

τοῖς ἐφ. Tou Θ. ἀρκ. must be connected
with the preceding clauses, so that
the new idea is introduced by καὶ
προσέχοντες. The Syriac version in-
deed attaches καὶ προσέχοντες to the
preceding sentence, but it manipu-
lates the words following, as if it had
read τούς τε λόγους... .ἐνεστερνισμένοι
(om. ἦτε).

τοῦ Θεοῦ] The reading τοῦ Χρισ-
τοῦ 15 accepted by Bryennios and
Hilgenfeld (ed. 2) on the authority
of C. On the other hand Harnack
retains τοῦ Θεοῦ; 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 λόγος
for πνεῦμα 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 (267. 126) complaiis of
Clement’s language in this epistle
ὅτι ἀρχιερέα καὶ προστάτην τὸν Κύριον
ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐξονομάζων οὐδὲ
τὰς θεοπρεπεῖς καὶ ὑψηλοτέρας ἀφῆκε
περὶ αὐτοῦ φωνάς, he cannot have had
τοῦ Θεοῦ in his text. But, as the
declaration of Christ’s divinity lurks
under the reference of the pronoun
αὐτοῦ, 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 Lz¢tle Labyrinth(H. E.v.28; see
Routh Re. Sacr. 11. p. 129) mentions
Clement with Justin, Miltiades, and
Tatian, besides ‘several others,’ a-
mong those ἐν ois θεολογεῖται ὁ
Χριστός. Routh (p. 145) supposes
Clement of Rome to be meant (as
also does Bunsen, //zApol. I. p. 440),
because the author of the Little
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 εὔσπλαγχνος Θεὸς
καὶ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς οὐκ
ἐβούλετο... ἀπολέσθαι μάρτυρα τῶν
ἰδίων παθῶν, 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, Ἰουστίνου καὶ Μιλτιάδου καὶ
Τατιανοῦ καὶ Κλήμεντος καὶ ἑτέρων πλει-
ovey, 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, τὰ yap Eipnvaiov re καὶ
Μελίτωνος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν Tis ἀγνοεῖ
βιβλία; 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. EPISTLE’ OF 8:'‘CLEMENT [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 χυ instead of
θυ, and θυ instead of xv, are equally
common with scribes.

(2) On the other hand, if we have
a deliberate alteration, the chances
that Χριστοῦ would be substituted
for Θεοῦ are, I think, greater than the
chances of the converse change.
Such language as αἷμα Θεοῦ, παθήματα
Θεοῦ, 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) πῶς οὖν γεγράφατε
ὅτι Θεὸς 6 διὰ σαρκὸς παθὼν καὶ ava-
στάς ;...οὐδαμοῦ δὲ αἷμα Θεοῦ δίχα σαρ-
κὸς παραδεδώκασιν αἱ γραφαὶ ἢ Θεὸν διὰ
σαρκὸς παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα. 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. τ ἐν αἵματι Θεοῦ, where
Χριστοῦ is substituted for Θεοῦ ; Rom.
6 τοῦ πάθους Tod Θεοῦ pov, where this
interpolator softens down the lan-
guage by inserting Χριστοῦ before
τοῦ Θεοῦ pov, while others substitute
τοῦ Κυρίου μου or τοῦ Χριστοῦ). 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

Χριστοῦ for τοῦ Θεοῦ. The language
of Anastasius of Sinai (Hodeg. 12,
13, Ρ. 97 sq) shows that these pas-
sages of earlier writers (he mentions
among others Ign. Rom. 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 (272. i.
124) Says Θεοῦ πάθος οὐ λέγεται, Χρισ-
τοῦ yap τὸ πάθος γέγονε κιτιλ. On the
other hand, it might be said that the
Monophysites themselves would be
under a temptation to alter yu into
θυ; 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 τοῦ Χρισ-
rov (thus assumed to be the original
reading) had been in direct connexion
with τὰ παθήματα, a change in this
direction would not be improbable ;
but it would never have occurred to
any one to alter τοῖς ἐφοδίοις τοῦ
Χριστοῦ into τοῖς ἐφοδίοις τοῦ Θεοῦ,
because there happened to be the ex-
pression ra παθήματα αὐτοῦ in the
next sentence, so that αὐτοῦ would
naturally be referred to the genitive
after τοῖς epodios. It would have
been much simpler to change αὐτοῦ
into τοῦ Θεοῦ at once. (ὦ) Secondly,
the dates are not favourable to this
supposition. The MS which has Θεοῦ
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 τοῦ Χριστοῦ
(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 Θεοῦ to Χριστοῦ, there may also
have been an exegetical reason. The
word ἐφόδιον, viaticum, was used espe-
cially of the eucharistic elements (e.g.
Lit. D. Marc. p. 29, Lit. D. Lacob. 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 τὰ παθήματα τοῦ Θεοῦ 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 ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν
αἵματι Θεοῦ, Ign. Rom. 6 ἐπιτρέψατέ
μοι μιμητὴν εἶναι τοῦ πάθους τοῦ Θεοῦ
μου, Melito (Routh Δί. Sacr. 1. p.
122) ὁ Θεὸς πέπονθεν ὑπὸ δεξιᾶς Ἴσ-
ραηλίτιδος, Test. x22 Patr. Levi 4
ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει Tov ὑψίστου (a very
ancient writing ; see Galatians p. 307
sq), Tatian ad Graec. 13 τοῦ πεπον-
θότος Θεοῦ, Tertull. de Carn. Chr. 5
‘passiones Dei,’ ad Uvor. 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.
i775, 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.
Ῥ. 340 sq, Otto Corp. Afol. Christ.
IX. p. 445. The nearest parallel in
the New Testament is Acts xx. 28,
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἣν περιεποιή-
σατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου ; but
even if τοῦ Θεοῦ 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’ (ὃ 7); and
that throughout this epistle he applies
the term Θεὸς 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 (ἢ 58 ζῇ yap ὁ Θεὸς κιτ.λ.) 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 Θεῷ. And after all the
alternative remains which Abbot is
disposed to favour (p. 343), that Cle-
ment wrote αὐτοῦ negligently, not re-
membering that rod Θεοῦ 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
τοῦ Θεοῦ or τοῦ Χριστοῦ. This will
depend partly on the connexion of
the sentences. If the punctuation
given in my text be retained, rov
Θεοῦ is almost necessary ; for ra ἐφύ-
δια then refers to the ordinary means
of subsistence. Hilgenfeld reads and
punctuates τοῖς ἐφοδίοις τοῦ Χριστοῦ
ἀρκούμενοι καὶ προσέχοντες, 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 [ΠῚ

/ \ / = 2
ἀρκούμενοι: καὶ προσέχοντες τοὺς λόγους αὐτοὺ ἐπι-

~ / = ~ 7 Α A
MEAWS ἐνεστερνισμεένοι NTE τοῖς σπλάγχνοις, καὶ τὰ

παθήματα αὐτοῦ ἦν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ὑμῶν.

Οὕτως εἰ-

ρήνη βαθεῖα καὶ λιπαρὰ ἐδέδοτο πάσιν Kal ἀκόρεστος

/ > ᾽ TA \ Us y μ᾿ ἫΝ
πόθος εἰς ἀγαθοποιίαν, καὶ πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου 5

2 ἐνεστερνισμένοι] C3 εστερνισμενοι A.
5 mAnpns..exxvols.. ἐγίνετο] AC; plenae effustones...erant S,

δετο A.

4 λιπαρὰ ἐδέδοτο] λειπαραεδε-

as if πλήρεις ἐκχύσεις... ἐγίνοντο, for the plural here cannot be explained by rvzbz7.

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

I. τοὺς λόγους] For the accusative
after προσέχοντες compare e.g. Exod.
XXXIV. II πρόσεχε σὺ πάντα ὅσα ἐγὼ
ἐντέλλομαί σοι, Is. 1. 10 προσέχετε νό-
pov Θεοῦ, Neh. ix. 34 οὐ προσέσχον
τὰς ἐντολάς (ν. 1.) σου καὶ τὰ μαρτύριά
σου.

2. ἐνεστερνισμένοι] ‘ye took them to
heart, i.e. τοὺς λόγους, which is the
accusative to ἐνεστερνισμένοι as well
as to προσέχοντες ; SO § 12 εἰσδεξα-
μένη αὐτοὺς ἔκρυψεν. For ἐνστερνί-
ζεσθαι compare Clem. Alex. Paed. i. 6
(p. 123) τὸν σωτῆρα ἐνστερνίσασθαι,
Euseb. Mart. Pal. ὃ μείζονα τοῦ σώ-
ματος τὸν λογισμὸν ἐνεστερνισμένη, 70.
11 μνήμας αὐτῶν (τῶν γραφῶν) ἐνεστέρ-
νιστο, 20. Laud. Const. 5 ὃ 5 τῶν ἐκεῖ
φώτων ἄλεκτον πόθον ἐνεστερνισμένος,
A post. Const. procem. ἐνεστερνισμένοι
τὸν φόβον αὐτοῦ, 2b. ν. 14 ἐνστερνισά-
μενος αὐτόν. There seems to be no
such word as στερνίζεσθαι, and there-
fore ἐνεστερνισμένοι Must be read. If
ἐστερνισμένοι Could stand, Cotelier’s
explanation would probably be cor-
rect, ‘Clementi ἐστερνισμένοι sunt,
qui Latinis pectorosi, homines lati
capacisque pectoris (2 Cor. vi. 11),
as the analogy of σπλαγχνίζεσθαι
suggests ; and later critics seem to
be wrong in making it equivalent to
ἐνεστερνισμένοι, Which owes its trans-

itive sense to the preposition.

τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ κιτ.λ.}] Compare
Gal. iii. 1 οἷς κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμοὺς Ἰησοῦς
Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος, of
which Clement’s expression is per-
haps a reminiscence. In this passage
it has been proposed to read μαθή-
para for παθήματα ; and the confusion
of μαθητής, παθητής, in Ign. Polye.
7, and μαθήματα, παθήματα, 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 τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Yet (1) The
parallels quoted in the note on rod
Θεοῦ prove that no alteration is need-
ed, since τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ would be
a natural expression to a writer of
this age; (2). The reading μαθήματα
would destroy the propriety of the
expressions in the parallel clauses as
read in the MS, ἐνεστερνισμένοι refer-
ring to τοὺς λόγους and πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν
to τὰ παθήματα, ‘the words in your
hearts, the sufferings before youreyes’;
(3) While τὰ παθήματα is a common
expression in the New Testament,
being used especially to denote the
sufferings of Christ, the word μάθημα
does not once occur either there or

1] TO THE CORINTHIANS. ΠῚ

J ᾽ \ / eh 7 CAs -

ἐκχυσις ἐπὶ παντας ἐγίνετο μεστοί τε ὁσίας βουλῆς
> ΕΝ “ / > 5) > , ἢ area 7

ἐν ἀγαθῇ προθυμίᾳ pet’ εὐσεβοῦς πεποιθήσεως ἐξετεί-
\ ~ ε a \ Poy 7 7ὔ

ΤΕ Τας χείρας υμωὼων σρρος τον παντοκράτορα Θεον,
\ ε »;) / af of ε /

ἱκετεύοντες αὐτὸν ἱλέως γενέσθαι, εἴτι ἄκοντες ἡμαρ-

\ 5 - ¢ \ \ chal IN
2 TETE. ἄγων ἣν ὑμῖν ἡμέρας TE καὶ νυκτὸς ὑπὲρ πάσης

6 ὁσίας] AS; θείας C: see the lower note.

A. ἐξετείνατε] A; ἐξετείνετε CS.
note. ἄκοντες] AC; ἑκόντες 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.
μαθητὰς (for μαθήματα), which ap-
proaches more nearly to the original
Hebrew; (4) Though ra μαθήματα τοῦ
Θεοῦ might stand, still ai διδαχαὶ τοῦ
Θεοῦ (Or some similar expression)
would be more natural.

3. εἰρήνη βαθεῖα] 4 Macc. iii. 20
βαθεῖαν εἰρήνην διὰ τὴν εὐνομίαν ἡμῶν
εἶχον, Hegesipp.in Euseb. 27. 25. iii. 32
γενομένης εἰρήνης βαθείας ἐν πάσῃ ἐκ-
κλησίᾳ, Athenag. Suppl. 1 ἡ σύμπασα
οἰκουμένη τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ συνέσει βαθείας
εἰρήνης ἀπολαύουσιν, Liturg. S. Basil.
Ρ. 165 (Neale) βαθεῖαν καὶ ἀναφαίρετον
εἰρήνην, Euseb. Vt. Covst. ii. 61.

5. ἀγαθοποιΐαν] ‘ beneficence’; again
just below and §§ 33, 34: comp. 1 Pet.
Iv. 19, Test. 122 Patr. Jos. 18. The
allied words occur several times in
S. Peter: ἀγαθοποιεῖν τ Pet. ii. 15, 20,
ili. 6, 17; ἀγαθοποιός, 1 Pet. ii. 14.
While καλοποιΐα regards the abstract
character of the action, ἀγαθοποιΐα
looks to its results and more especi-
ally to its effect on others.

6. ὁσίας] For the confusion of
ocioc and θεῖος comp. δὲ 14, 21, and
see above I. pp. 138, 140. For ὁσίας
see § 45 ἐν ὁσίᾳ καὶ ἀμώμῳ προθέσει,
ἢ κό διὰ τῆς ὁσίας παιδείας αὐτοῦ ; for
| θείας, § 40 τὰ βάθη τῆς θείας γνώσεως.
There might possibly be a question
which of the two words should be read
here: but (1) we have a combination

CLEM. II.

ἡ πεποιθήσεως] πεποιηθησεωσ
9 ἱλέως] A; ἵλεων C: see the lower
ἡμάρτετε! AC; peccabatis (huapravere) S.

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

9. ἱλέως γενέσθαι)͵ The adverb
ἱλέως is recognised by Hesychius, but
no instances are given in the lexicons.
As it appears only to occur in the
expression ἱλέως γίνεσθαι (Bull. de
Corr. Hellén. Χι. p. 453 (1887) μήτε
οἱ θεοὶ ἱλέως αὐτῷ γένοιντο, 2 Mace. ii.
22, Vil. 37, x. 26), it is probably a
grammatical mistake of the later lan-
guage, the true construction being
forgotten and the word being erro-
neously treated as an adverb (ἱλέως
instead of ἵλεως). 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 ἱλέως, where the
common text has a proper grammati-
cal construction ἵλεω γενομένου, ἵλεω
γενέσθαι, ἵλεω γενόμενον. In Herm.
Vis. ii. 2, Sz. 1x. 23, we have the ex-
pression ἵλεως γίνεσθαι, but the con-
text fails to show whether ἵλεως is
treated as an adverb or an adjective.
E. A. Sophocles Lex. s.v. gives an
instance of the adverb ἱλέως from
Moschion, and the inscription above
quoted proves it to be a possible
word.

10. ἀγὼν nv κιτ.λ.] Comp. Col. ii. τ.

ἡμέρας τε καὶ νυκτὸς] Hilgenfeld
calls attention to the fact that the

2

18

\
τῆς εϑελζστητος, εἰς τὸ σώζεσθαι μετὰ δέους καὶ
συνειδήσεως τὸν ἀριθμὸν τι τῶν €KNEKTWY αὐτοῦ"

THE EPISTLE OF 5: CLEMENT

εἰλι-

κρινεῖς καὶ ae NTE καὶ ἀμνησίκακοι εἰς ἀλλήλους"

πάσα στάσις καὶ πάν σχίσμα βδελυκτὸν ὑμῖν" ἐπὶ τοῖς

-~ / ΄σ Le ΄ ΨΥ
παραπτώμασιν τοῖς πλησίον ἐπενθεῖτε" τα υσπτερηματα 5

1 μετὰ δέου:] C3 μετ᾽ ἐλέους (ελαιουσ A) AS.

νεισ Α. 3

ἀκέραιοι] ἀκερεοι A.

2 εἰλικρινεῖς] ειλεικρι-
ἀμνησίκακοι] C3 αμαμνησικακοι A.

So I read the ms with Tischendorf, but previous editors gave it αναμνησικακοι.

4 βδελυκτὸν] A; add. ἣν C, and so probably 5.

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,
ἘΠῚ 10, ΣΙΝ II, xx. 10; in S. Paul al-
ways ‘night and day,’ 1 Thess. 11. 9,
1 τὸ, 2 1 Π655.: π|.. 8.1 Lim. Vy, 5,2
Tins 1 3; while by S. Luke either
order is used indifferently in both the
Gospel (ii. 37, xviii. 7) and the Acts
ike 24, oeeed. | xxXVI. 7).

I. ἀδελφότητος] A word peculiar to
S. Peter in the New Testament; 1
Pet 1 17, v. 9. 50 Polyc. \Pzz7. τὸ
‘fraternitas, where the Greek is not
extant; Herm. J/and. ὃ.

μετὰ δέους] I have ventured to
adopt this reading, as other recent
editors have done, on the inferior au-
thority of C (meta A€oyc for mete-
Aeoyc), because it rescues the passage
from a difficulty and so commends it-
self. By this combination μετὰ δέους καὶ
συνειδήσεως the whole clause is trans-
ferred from God to the believer, and
συνειδήσεως becomes intelligible. With
the whole expression comp. Liturg.
D, Facob. Ρ. 55 (Neale) δὸς ἡμῖν, Κύ-
ple, μετὰ παντὸς φόβου καὶ συνειδήσεως
καθαρᾶς προσκομίσαι κιτιλ. For the
idea of fear as an agent in the work
of salvation see Phil, ii. 12; and for

5 τοῖς πλησίον] A;

the expression pera δέους Heb. xii. 28

λατρεύωμεν εὐαρέστως TH Θεῷ pera εὐ-
λαβείας καὶ δέους (the correct reading),
an epistle which has largely influ-
enced Clement’s language elsewhere.
For the use of συνείδησις here comp.
§ 34 συναχθέντες TH συνειδήσει.
notes inward concentration and as-
sent. Zahn (Go¢z. Gel. Anz. Nov. 8,

1876) still retains the reading per ἐλέ- —
ous, explaining itof brotherly kindness _
shown towards offenders, and pro- |

poses συναθλήσεως for συνειδήσεως. He
might have quoted A fost. Const. 11. 13

+ Ay > , \ > Lad ν᾿

ἔπειτα μετὰ ἐλέους καὶ οἰκτιρμοῦ καὶ
, ~ υκας , > 3

προσλήψεως οἰκειοῦ ὑπισχνούμενος αὖ-

τῷ σωτηρίαν for this sense. Lipsius
(Fenaer Literaturz. Jan. 13, 1877)

accepts pera δέους, but holds by his —
conjecture συνδεήσεως (Academy, July
9, 1870), though it is now rendered |

unnecessary. Donaldson (Theol. Rev.
Jan. 1877) sug
ελεύσεως.

2. συνειδήσεως]
ἐλέους be retained, συνειδήσεως must
mean ‘with the consent of God,’ but
this is hardly possible. I had ac-
cordingly hazarded the conjecture
εὐδοκήσεως (EyYAOKHCeWwC for οὐνει-
AHCEwcC), which is less violent than
συναινέσεως, συνείξεως, συνδεήσεως, and
other emendations. This conjecture
struck me before I was aware that
Davis had suggested συνευδοκήσεως,
of which word-I cannot find any in-

τῶν δ

It de- ἣ

gests μετὰ τελείας συν- —

If the reading 3

t
Ὶ

eS

11] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 19

ἢ > lo » > 7ὔ > / Ss 9 ΑΓ} 7ὔ 3
αὐτῶν ἴδια ἐκρίνετε' ἀμεταμέλητοι NTE ETL πασὴ aya-
Ε t L
fh a > n 3: > , ΜΝ /
θοποιΐᾳ, ETOIMO! ΕἰἸσ πὰν ΕργΓῸν ἄγδθον" TH παναρέετω
\ B ie », / / ’ . 3 ΄- 6)
Kal CENATMLW TOALTELA KEKOG MN MEVOL πάντα EV TW go ω

΄ qn \ 7 \ A /
αὐτοῦ ἐπετελεῖτε: τὰ προστάγματα Kal Ta δικαιώματα

~ 7ὔ > \ \ , n ! ε ral 2 !
TOU Κυρίου ἐπὶ τὰ TAATH TAC KAPAIAC ὑμῶν ἐγέγραπτο.

πλησίον (; vicinorum S.
αἰτοιμοι A.

I. p. 126).

stance. The clause would then mean
‘of His mercy and good pleasure’:
comp. § 9 ἱκέται γενόμενοι τοῦ ἐλέους
καὶ τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ. The lexi-
cons supply a few instances of the
form εὐδόκησις (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. xi. 26 (Luke x. 21),
Eph. i. 5,9, Phil. ii. 13. If however
we accept δέους (see the last note), no
emendation is needed.

Tov ἀριθμὸν x.7.A.] See the note on
§ 59, where the same expression oc-
curs. So too in our Burial Service,
“shortly to accomplish the number
of Thine elect.’

εἰλικρινεῖς καὶ ἀκέραιοι] For εἰλικρι-
veis, see Philippians i.10; for ἀκέραιοι,
Philippians i, 15.

3. ἀμνησίκακοι] So we have ἀμνη-
σικάκως below, § 62. Comp. 752. viz
Patr. Zab. 8 ἀμνησίκακοι γίνεσθε, Clem.
Alex. Strom. vii. 14 (p. 883) ἀμνησί-
κακον εἶναι διδάσκει, Hermas Mand. ix.
αὐτὸς ἀμνησίκακός ἐστι, and so Stvoni.
il, 18 (p. 398) δι᾿ ἀμνησικακίας.

5. τοῖς πλησίον] A brachytogy for
τοῖς τῶν πλησίον. Jacobson quotes
Eur. Hec. 996 μηδ᾽ ἔρα τῶν πλησίον.

6. ἀμεταμέλητοι x.t.d.] 1.6. ‘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 ἕτοιμοι κιτ.λ. is from
Titus ili. I πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἑτοί-

6 ἴδια] C; δια A; ἰδίᾳ 8.
8 σεβασμίῳ] A, and so apparently 5; σεβασμιωτάτῃ C (see
9 ἐπετελεῖτε] επετελειται A.

7 ἕτοιμοι]

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

8. πολιτείᾳ] ‘the graces of your
heavenly citizenship’; see Phil. 1. 27,
Ephes. ii. 12, 19. For πολιτεία, πο-
λιτεύεσθαι; see S§ 3, 6, 21, 44, 51, 54.

9. αὐτοῦ] 1.6. τοῦ Θεοῦ, understood
from τῇ παναρέτῳ καὶ σεβασμίῳ πο-
λιτείᾳ; Comp. ἃ 54 τὴν ἀμεταμέλητον
πολιτείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ.

τὰ προστάγματα] The two words
occur together frequently in the LXx :
see esp. Mal. iv. 4, and comp. I Sam.
xm Zh. Fizeks! χὶ 20; MVM Ὁ SX.) ΤΠ:
ete:

IO. ἐπὶ τὰ πλάτη κιτ.λ.] Taken from
the ΤΙΧΧ of Prov. vii. 3, ἐπίγραψον δὲ
ἐπὶ τὸ πλάτος τῆς καρδίας σου, Where
πλάτος Corresponds to the Hebrew mb
‘a tablet.’ The phrase is repeated in
the LXX with slight modifications in
Prov. xxii. 20, and in some copies
also im) Prov. ii: 3); ΠῚ there 15
nothing corresponding inthe Hebrew
of Prov. xxii. 20. Wotton’s state-
ment that πλάτος occurs in this sense
‘passim’ in the LXX is erroneous.
From this LXX reading the expres-
sion τὸ πλάτος τῆς καρδίας is not un-
common in the Christian fathers (e.g.
Iren. i. praef. 3, and other passages
quoted by Wotton), and τὰ πλάτη
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 πλάτος and πλακός), since

2—2

20

ΤΙῷ.Ο

, \ /
ἐπετελέσθη TO γεγραμμένον"
ἐπλδτύνθη KAI ἐπδχύνθη κἀὶ ATTEAAKTICEN ὁ ἡγὰπημένοου:

, σι \ , yo \ ΄,

Ἔκ τούτον ζῖλος καὶ φθόνος, [καὶ] ἔρις καὶ στάσις,

\ / Id \ > /
διωγμὸς καὶ ἀκαταστασία, πόλεμος Kal αἰχμαλωσία. 5

ε > Chery > \ \ > ͵ Ἐν.“

οὕτως ἐπηγέρθησαν οἱ ἄτιμοι ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐντίμογςο, οἱ ἀδοξοι
ἘῸΝ \ > , er tee 5: «ἢ \ 7 --.
ἐπι TOUS ἐνδόξους, οἱ ἀῴφρονες ἐπὶ τοὺς φρονίμους, οἱ

νέοι ἐπὶ Toyc πρεοβυτέρογο.

1 ἐδόθη] δοθη A.

σεν Α.

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

Ili. ‘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. πλατυσμός] ‘enlargement, room
to move in, i.e. freedom and plenty,
opposed to θλίψις, στενοχωρία, avay-
kn; aS 2 Sam. xxii. 20 προέφθασάν pe
ἡμέραι θλίψεώς μου καὶ ἐγένετο Κύ-
plos ἐπιστήριγμά μου καὶ ἐξήγαγέν με
εἰς πλατυσμὸν καὶ ἐξείλετό pe, Ps.
CXxvil. 5 ἐκ θλίψεως ἐπεκαλεσάμην τὸν
Κύριον καὶ ἐπήκουσέν μου εἰς πλατυσ-
pov: comp. Ps. xvii. 20, Cxviii. 45,
Ecclus, xlvii. 12. See also the oppo-
sition of ἐν εὐρυχώρῳ and στενοχω-
ρεῖσθαι, Hermas Mand. v. 1 ἐν εὐρυ-
χώρῳ κατοικοῦν ἀγαλλιάσεται. Hence
the Latin use of αζαίαγε, dilatatio.

2. ἔφαγεν k.T.A.| A very free quota-
tion from the LXx of Deut. xxxii. 14,

THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

Πᾶσα δόξα καὶ πλατυσμὸς ἐδόθη ὑμῖν, Kat

3ιτἀπελάκτισεν] CS, Deut. xxxii. 153 απεγαλακτι-
4 καὶ ἔρις] A; ἔρις (om. καὶ) CS.
(which probably represents ἄπεστιν); ἀπέστη C, which is nearer to the Lxx of Is.

[πτ

"E@aren Kal ἔπιεν Kal

\ = ͵ ἐν Ἷ
διὰ τοῦτο πόρρω᾽ ἄπεοτιν
8 ἄπεστιν] A; est S

15, καὶ αἷμα σταφυλῆς ἔπιεν (v. 1. ἔπιον)
οἶνον" καὶ ἔφαγεν Ἰακὼβ καὶ ἐνεπλήσθη
καὶ ἀπελάκτισεν ὁ ἠγαπημένος, ἐλιπάνθη,
ἐπαχύνθη, ἐπλατύνθη. It diverges still
more from the original Hebrew.
Justin Dial. 20 (p. 237 B) quotes the
same passage, but his quotation has
no special resemblances to that of ©
Clement. ;

4. ζῆλος κιτλ.] The words occur in —
an ascending scale: fs¢ the inward —
sentiment of division (ζῆλος develop-
ing into φθόνος) ; zext, the outward
demonstration of this (ἔρις develop-
ing into στάσις) ; Jastly, the direct
conflict and its results (διωγμός, ἀκα-
ταστασία, πόλεμος, αἰχμαλωσία).

(pros καὶ φθόνος] These words oc-
cur together also below, §§ 4, 5:
comp. Gal. v. 20, 21, Zest. xii Patr.”
Sym. 4 ἀπὸ παντὸς ζήλου καὶ φθόνου.
For the distinction between them 566
Trench WV. 7. Sym. ser. 1 ὃ xxvi, and —
Galatians |.c. Ζῆλος 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 φθόνος ; but, if unduly che-
rished, it will lead to this; ὃ 4 διὰ
ζῆλος Δαυεὶδ φθόνον ἔσχεν, Plat. MZe-
mex. Pp. 242 A πρῶτον μὲν ζῆλος ἀπὸ
ζήλου δὲ φθόνος, AEsch. Agam. 939

on

ut]

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

2:1

ε ' \ > / > > ? / of \
H AIKAIOCYNH Και εἰρηνῆ; εν Tw απολείπειν ΕΚαστον TOV

/ ~ “- Ne) > / > ΄σ ’ ΄σ
jo poBov τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἐν τη πίστει αὐτου ἀμβλνυωπῆσαι

\ > / a L > “ /
μηδὲ ἐν τοις νομιμοις τῶν TPOTTAYMAT WY QUTOU TOPEU-

εσθαι μηδὲ πολιτεύεσθαι κατὰ TO καθῆκον τῷ Χριστώ,

ἀλλὰ ἕκαστον βαδίζειν κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τῆς καρδίας

~ lo ΄σ —~ of ΄σ 3 /
αὐτοῦ τῆς πονηρᾶς, ζῆλον ἀδικον Kal ἀσεβῆ ἀνειληφο-

> ey \ ’ Pde 2 \ ,
TAS, Ou οὗ καὶ BDANATOC EICHABDEN EIC TON KOCMON.

lix. 14 ἀφέστηκεν, given in the lower note; see above, I. p. 124 sq.
λείπειν] ἀπολειπὶ A}; ἀπολιπεῖν C, and so probably S.

9 ἀπο-
10 πίστει] πιστι

A. 13 ἀλλὰ] AC, but Bryennios prints ἀλλ᾽, as if this were the reading

of C.

ὁ δ᾽ ἀφθόνητός γ᾽ οὐκ ἐπίζηλος πέλει,
Arist. Ahet. ii. 4 ὑφ᾽ ὧν ζηλοῦσθαι
βούλονται καὶ μὴ φθονεῖσθαι.

5. ἀκαταστασία] ‘tumult’; comp.
Luke xxi. 9 πολέμους καὶ ἀκαταστασίας,
2 Cor. xii. 20 ἔρις, ζῆλος... ἀκαταστα-
cia, James iil. 16 ὅπου yap ζῆλος καὶ
ἐρίθεια, ἐκεῖ ἀκαταστασία KT).

6. οἱ ἄτιμοι κ.τ.λ.] Is. ili. 5 προσ-
κόψει τὸ παιδίον πρὸς τὸν πρεσβύτην,
ὁ ἄτιμος πρὸς τὸν ἔντιμον.

ὃ. πόρρω ἄπεστιν κ.τ.λ.] Is. lix. 14
καὶ ἡ δικαιοσύνη μακρὰν ἀφέστηκεν.

10. ἀμβλυωπῆσαι)] ‘grown adim-
sighted’. The Atticists condemned
ἀμβλυωπεῖν and preferred ἀμβλυώτ-
τειν ; Thom. Mag. p. 39. The word
and the form ἀμβλυωπεῖν are as old
as Hippocrates, Progm. 1. p. 38 (ed.
Foes.). In the LXx it occurs 1 Kings
xiv. 4 (displaced and found between
xil. 24 and xii.25in B). But in most
places where it occurs there is a v. 1.
ἀμβλυώττειν. Comp. a Gnostic writer

in Hippol. Ref. v. 16 (p. 133 ad fin.).

12. τὸ καθῆκον τῷ Χριστῷ] The ex-
pression has a close parallel in Phil.
i. 27 ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ
πολιτεύεσθε, from which perhaps it is
taken. The emendations suggested
(Χριστιανῷ or ἐν Χριστῷ for Χριστῷ)
are therefore unnecessary.

14. ζῆλον κιτ.λ.] Comp. § 45 ἄδικον

τῆς καρδίας] CS; om. A.

15 kal] AC; om. S.

ὧῆλον ἀνειληφότων.

15. καὶ θάνατος κιτ.λ.] From Wisd. ii.
24 φθόνῳ δὲ διαβόλου θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν
εἰς τὸν κύσμον ; 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. ii. 29 (p. 39) ὁ Sara-
vas...ep’ ᾧ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν θανατῶσαι
αὐτοὺς φθόνῳ φερόμενος, ἡνίκα ἑώρα
τὸν Αβελ εὐαρεστοῦντα τῷ Θεῴ, ἐνερ-
γήσας εἰς τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν καλού-
μενον Kaiv ἐποίησεν ἀποκτεῖναι τὸν
ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν ΓΑβελ, καὶ οὕτως
ἀρχὴ θανάτου ἐγένετο εἰς τόνδε τὸν κύσ-
μον κ-Οτ.λ.

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

/ \ e/ \ > ͵ Se ͵ i
IV. [Γέγραπται yap οὕτως" Kai ἐγένετο μεθ᾽ Hme-
pac, ἤνεγκεν Κάϊν ἀπὸ τῶν KAPTION TAC PAC θγοίὰν TH Θεῷ,

kal Ἄβελ ἤνεγκεν KAl AYTOC ἀπὸ τῶν πρωτοτόκων τῶν προ-

BATWN Kal

ἐπὶ Ἄβελ Kal ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις ayto¥, ἐπὶ δὲ Kain καὶ ἐπὶ 5.
TAIC θγοίδιο AYTOY οὐ προρσέοχεν.

KAl οὐνέπεοεν τῷ προσώπῳ ΑΥ̓ΤΟΥ͂.

Καϊν,
1 οὕτως] AS; om. C.
3 προβάτων] AC;

9 ἐὰν] A; ἂν 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 ζῆλος
of Cain, iii. 23. 4, iv. 18. 3 (see the
last passage especially). 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 Κάϊν ; comp.
Clem. Hom. iii. 42 τὸν μὲν πρῶτον
καλέσας Κάϊν, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται ζῆλος, ὃς
καὶ ζηλώσας ἀνεῖλεν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ
ἔΑβελ. In ἃ previous passage (ili. 25)
this pseudo-Clement calls Cain ἀμ-
φοτερίζον ὄνομα, because διχῆ ἔχει τῆς
ἑρμηνείας τὴν ἐκδοχήν, ἑρμηνεύεται γὰρ
καὶ κτῆσις (MIP) καὶ ζῆλος (NIP) κιτ.λ.
The interpretation κτῆσις is adopted
by Philo de Cherud. 15 (1. p. 148), de
Sacr. Ab. et Ca. τ (1. p. 163), god Det.
pot. ins. τὸ (I. p. 1907), εἴ, and by
Josephus Azz. i. 2

I. καὶ ἐγένετο κ-τ.λ.] Gen. iv. 3—8,
quoted almost word for word from
the Lxx. The divergences from the
Hebrew text are very considerable.

7. τῷ προσώπῳ] The case is diffi-
cult to account for, except as a very
early transcriber’s error in the ΤΧΧ ;

THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

ἀπὸ τῶν CTEATWN ,AYTON.

INA TI περίλγπος ἐγένου;

add. αὐτοῦ S, with Lxx.
προσώπῳ] A with the LXX; τὸ πρόσωπον CS, in accordance with what follows. —
11 ἄρξεις αὐτοῦ] A; αὐτοῦ ἄρξεις C. S has the same —

Kal ἐπεῖδεν ὁ Θεὸς
κἀὶ ἐλγπήθη Καϊν λίὰν

Ka Na τῇ

2 τῷ Θεῷ] AS; τῷ κυρίῳ C, with the LXx.
γ τῷ

4 ἐπεῖδεν] επιδὲ A.

for the form of the Hebrew is the
same here as in the following verse, —
where it is translated συνέπεσεν τὸ
πρόσωπον, and the dative though in- —

telligible is awkward.

9. οὐκ ἐὰν ὀρθώς κιτιλ.] The mean- ὃ
ing of the original is obscure, but the

LXX translation which Clement here
follows must be wrong. The words

ὀρθῶς διέλῃς stand for mnad an

(‘doest good, at the door’), which the

translators appear to eis under- |

Kal εἶπεν ὁ Oedc πρός

CYNETTECEN τὸ

#

[Iv "ἡ ᾿

stood ‘doest right to open’; πη]655. as

indeed they read ΠῺΣ for AMD, 845.

seems more probable (for in the older i
characters the resemblance of ὃ and —
At all events it

would seem that they intended διέλῃς —

5 is very close).

to refer to apportioning the offerings

(comp. Lev. i. 12, where it represents —
mn3 and is used of dividing the
and they might have under-

victim):
stood the offence of Cain to consist

in reserving to himself the best and —
see Philo®
Quaest. in Gen. i. ὃ 62—64 (1. p. 43

giving God the worst :

sq, Aucher), de Agric. 29 (I. p. 319),
and de Sacr. Ab. et Ca.
(I. p. 171 sq, 176 sq), in illustration
of this sense.
however frequently give it a directly

moral bearing, explaining ὀρθῶς μὴ

13, 20 5617

The Christian fathers

ιν] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 23

TIPOC@MON COY; OYK\EAN ὀρθῶς προσενέγκῃς ὀρθῶς δὲ μὲ

o AIEAHC, ἥμάρτες; FCYYACON’ πρός ce ἢ ATOCTPOMH δΥ̓τοῦ,

KAl CY ἄρξεις AYTOT.
Vf

MON δύτοῦ. διέλθωμεν εἰς TO TIEAION.

Kal εἶπεν Kain πρὸς Ἄβελ TON ἀλελ-

KAl ἐγένετο EN τῷ

EINAl AYTOYC ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ ἀνέοτη Kain ἐπὶ Ἄβελ τὸν AAEA-

φὸν δὐτοῦ καὶ ἀπέκτεινεν ἀὐτόν. Ὁρᾶτε, ἀδελφοί, ζῆλος

skal φθόνος ἀδελφοκτονίαν κατειργάσατο.

διὰ ζῆλος

- \ ς ΄ > \ 5 / ᾽ \ , 3 a
ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν Ιακὼβ ἀπέδρα ἀπὸ προσωπου Hoav

order as A, but this would be most natural in the Syriac.
This addition is found in some Mss of the LXx.

AC; add. zgztur (=6n) S.
πεδίον] παιδιον A.
ἀγαπητοί 5; see above, § 1.
A; ζῆλον C,

διέλῃς to refer either to the obliquity
of Cain’s moral sense or to his un-
fairness in his relations with his bro-
ther, e.g. Iren. iii. 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, ete., Origen Sed. zx
Gen. (11. p. 30) οὐ διεῖλεν ὀρθῶς" τῆς
θείας νομοθεσίας κατεφρόνησεν κ.τ.λ.

10. ἡσύχασον] The word corre-
sponds to the Hebrew a> ‘lying,’
which the LXxX have treated as an
imperative ‘lie still’; comp. Job xi.
19. Much stress is laid on ἡσύχασον
by Philo de Sobr. τὸ (1. p. 400), and
by early Christian expositors, e.g.
Clem. Hom. iii. 25, Iren. 1]. cc.

12. διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πεδίον] 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. (11. p. 39) ev τῷ “Ἑβραϊκῷ
τὸ λεχθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Kaiv πρὸς τὸν ΓΑβελ
οὐ γέγραπται καὶ οἱ περὶ ᾿Ακύλαν ἔδειξαν
ὅτι ἐν τῷ ἀποκρύφῳ φασὶν οἱ Ἑ βραῖοι
κεῖσθαι τοῦτο ἐνταῦθα κατὰ τὴν τῶν
ἑβδομήκοντα ἐκδοχήν. These or similar

13 πεδίῳ) παιδιω A.
15 κατειργάσατο] AS; κατειργάσαντο.

12 διέλθωμεν]

14 ἀδελφοί] AC;
ζῆλοϑ]

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 τὸ πεδίον.

15. διὰ ζῆλος] On the two declen-
sions of ζῆλος see Winer ὃ ix. p. 78,
A. Buttmann p. 20. Clement (or his
transcriber) uses the masculine and
the neuter forms indifferently.

16. ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν] So § 31 ὁ πατὴρ
ἡμῶν ᾿Αβραάμ, ὃ 60 καθὼς ἔδωκας τοῖς
πατράσιν ἡμῶν, ὃ 62 οἱ προδεδηλωμένοι
πατέρες ἡμῶν (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 5. Paul
(Gali τ 2. 0; 20; (Rom, iv. 11, 18,
ix. 6—8)-or Justin (Vad. 134), might
refer to spiritual rather than actual
parentage; comp. I Pet. ill. 6 Σάρρα...
ἧς ἐγενήθητε τέκνα. So too Theophi-
lus of Antioch (quoted by Jacobson),
though himself a Gentile, speaks of
Abraham (ad Axfol. 111. 28, comp. tii.
24) and David (iii. 25) as ‘our fore-
father.’ To these references add 2d,

24 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

[1v 2
TOU ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ. ζῆλος ἐποίησεν ᾿Ιωσὴφ μέχρι θα-
ζῆλος

΄ > fi M oD ΄σ > \ ΄ Φ \ B
φυγεῖν nvaykacey Mwvonv ἀπὸ προσώπου Φαραὼ Padct-

νάτου διωχθῆναι καὶ μέχρι δουλείας εἰσελθεῖν.

λέως Αἰγύπτου ἐν τῷ ἀκοῦσαι αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁμοφύλου
Tic ce κἀτέοτηοεν κριτὴν ἢ AIKACTHN ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν; μὴ ANE- 5.
λεῖν με οὐ θέλεις, ὃν τρόπον ἀνεΐλεο ἐχθές τὸν Αἰγύπτιον;
διὰ ζῆλος ᾿λαρὼν καὶ Μαριὰμ ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς
ηὐλίσθησαν. ζῆλος Δαθὰν καὶ ᾿λβειρὼν ζῶντας κατή-

ΕῚ c \ \ y \ \ A
yayev εἰς ἅδου, διὰ TO στασιάσαι αὐτοὺς πρὸς τὸν
161

2 εἰσελθεῖν] A; ἐλθεῖν C, and so probably 5.
ἄρχοντα καὶ δικαστὴν CS, with the LXx.

χθὲς (,
ηυλησθησαν A.
διὰ ζῆλον (.

7 διὰ! ΟΝ; οἷ: Ἂς

Δαυεὶδ] δᾶδ AC.

iii. 20 οἱ Ἑβραῖοι, ot καὶ προπάτορες
ἡμῶν, ap ὧν καὶ τὰς ἱερὰς βίβλους
ἔχομεν κ-τ.λ.

5. τίς oe x7.A.]| From the LXx of
Exod. ii. 14, which follows the He-
brew closely, inserting however χθές
(or ἐχθές). Clement has κριτὴν ἢ for
ἄρχοντα καί, perhaps from confusion
with Luke xii. 14 κριτὴν ἢ μεριστήν
(the best reading, though A and some
others have δικαστὴν ἢ μεριστήν). The
LXX is quoted more exactly in Acts
vii. 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 (ἀπὸ προσώπου Φαραω), but also
of his fellow-countrymen (ἐν τῷ ἀκοῦ-
σαι αὐτὸν x«.tT.A.), aS in the parallel
case of David below.

7. ᾿Δαρὼν «.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. τὸν θεράποντα κιτ.λ.} The ex-
pression is used of Moses several

See the lower note.
ζῆλος] A; ζῆλον C.
ζῆλος] S; διαζηλοσ A; διὰ ζῆλον C.

5 κριτὴν ἢ δικαστὴν] A;
6 ἐχθὲς] Δ;

8 ηὐλίσθησαν
10 διὰ ~dos] A;

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

times, e.g. Exod. iv. 10, xiv. 31, Num.
xi. 7, 8, Josh. viii. 31, 33: comp. below
§§ 43, 51, 53, Barnab. ὃ 14, Just. Mart.
Dial. 56(p.274 Ὁ), Theoph. ad Aztol.
ili. 9, 18, etc. ὋὉ θεράπων τοῦ Θεοῦ
was a recognised title of Moses, as
ὁ φίλος τοῦ Θεοῦ was of Abraham.
10. Δαυεὶδ] Or perhaps Δαυὶδ.
There is, so far as I know, no au-
thority for Δαβὶδ, except in com-
paratively recent MSs. Yet Hilgen-
feld reads Δαβὶδ. Funk says ‘C Δαβὶδ
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; δὲ 18, 52, as well as here.
Il. ὑπὸ τῶν ἀλλοφύλων] The Phi-
listines, I Sam. xxi. II, xxix. 4 sq.
12. ὑπὸ Σαούλ] 1 Sam. xviii. 9 ‘And
Saul eyed (ὑποβλεπόμενος 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

ok eee

v| TO THE CORINTHIANS. 25

το θεράποντα τοῦ Θεοῦ Μωύσῆν. διὰ ζϊλο. Δανεὶδ φθο-
νον ἔσχεν οὐ μόνον ὑπὸ τῶν ἀλλοφύλων, ἀλλὰ καὶ
ὑπὸ (αοὺλ [βασιλέως ᾿Ισραὴλ] ἐδιώχθη.
V. (AAN ἵνα. τῶν ἀρχαίων ὑποδειγμάτων παυσώ-
μεθα, ἔλθωμεν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἔγγιστα γενομένους ἀθλητάς"
τολάβωμεν τῆς γενεᾶς ἡμῶν τὰ γενναῖα ὑποδείγματα.
Διὰ ζῆλον καὶ φθόνον οἱ μέγιστοι καὶ δικαιότατοι
Λλαβω-

\ 5) ΄- ε “ \ \ > /
μεν προ ὀφθαλμῶν ἡμῶν τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἀποστόλους"

/ > / Ni cf / af
στύλοι ἐδιώχθησαν καὶ ἕως θανάτου ἤθλησαν.

the orthography of the word.
A; ἀπὸ τοῦ Σαοὺλ C.
των] ὑποδιγματων A.

11 ὑπὸ] A; ἀπὸ C.
βασιλέως Ἰσραὴλ] AS; om. Ὁ. 13 ὑποδειγμά-

15 γενναῖα] yevvea A. 16 μέγιστοι] CS;
..oTo A. The word μέγιστοι was rejected by Tischendorf and several editors
(myself included) as insufficient for the space, and some other word substituted to

12 ὑπὸ Σαοὺλ]

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. ἔγγιστα] ‘very near,’ as com-
pared with the examples already
quoted. The expression must be
qualified and explained by the men-
tion of ἡ γενεὰ ἡμῶν 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 (1. 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 ἡ
γενεὰ ἡμῶν 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.

ἀθλητάς] See the note on
Polyc. 1.

Ign.

17. στύλοι] See the note on Gala-
tians 11. 9, where it is used of 5. Peter
and other Apostles. The accentua-
tion στύλοι is there discussed, and it
has the support of C here.

18. ἀγαθούς] So too Clem. Hom.
i. 16 ὁ δ᾽ ἀγαθὸς Πέτρος προσπηδήσας
κιτιὰλ., quoted by Harnack. Editors
and critics have indulged in much
licence of conjecture, suggesting
ἁγίους, πρώτους, θείους, etc., in place
of ἀγαθούς. 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 πρώτους). Nothing
can be farther from the truth. The
word ἀγαθοὺς 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 [ν

Πέτρον, ὃς διὰ ζῆλον ἄδικον οὐχ ἕνα οὐδὲ δύο ἀλλὰ

ε y \ « Υ 5
πλείονας ὑπήνεγκεν πόνους, καὶ οὕτω μαρτυρήσας͵ ἐπο-

1 Πέτρον, ὃς] C; ...οσ A; Petrus 5. Before the discovery of C, the lacuna of A

was filled up [ὁ Ilérp]os or [Iérp]os.

The true reading could not have been fore-

seen. 2 ὑπήνεγκεν] ὑπήνεγκε C; and so doubtless S, which has 93D fulz,

portavit (see § 14).

I. Πέτρον «.7.\.] A passage in
Peter of Alexandria (de Poenzt. 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 ὑπέδειξεν 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.
H. £. ii. 25) states explicitly that they
went to Italy and suffered martyr-
dom there κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν. 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. H. £. ii. 25); see also Lac-
tant. de Mort. Pers. 2, Euseb. Dem.
Ev. 11. 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 Δίου.
Test. extr. Can. Rec. Ἐν. p. 68. This
subject is further discussed in the
excursus S. Peter in Rome appended
to the first volume.

As regards A, Young read ὑπέμεινεν; but Mill and others

But noi 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 (I. 6.), writing
from Corinth to the Romans, dwells
with emphasis on this bond of union
between the two churches: comp.
F Cori ie 12; tie 22.

2. μαρτυρήσας] ‘having borne his
testimony. The word μάρτυς 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, iii. 14), and His μαρτυρία
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 μάρτυς, μαρτυρεῖν, were used
absolutely to signify martyrdom;
Martyr. Polyc. 19 sq, Melito in
Euseb. 27. £. iv. 26, Dionys. Corinth.
20. ii. 25, Hegesippus 2d. ii. 23, iv. 22,
Epist. Gall. zd. v. 1, 2, Anon. adv.
Cataphr. 2. v. 16, Iren. Haer. 1. 28.
I, lil. 3.3, 4, Π1. 12. Omie ΕΘ 5. ΘΕΟΣ
Still even at this late date they con-
tinued to be used simultaneously of
other testimony borne to the Gospel,

v| LOO THE. CORINTHIANS: bale

ρεύθη εἰς τὸν ὀφειλόμενον TOTOV τῆς δόξης.

διὰ ζῆλον

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

ὑπήνεγκεν᾽.

hand Tischendorf sees part of an H.

According to Jacobson ‘hodie nihil nisi ytt restat’.

On the other

1 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. 27. £. 111. 20, 32, by Apollonius
20. v. 18 (several times), and in a
document quoted by Serapion 2d, 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:
οὐχ ἅπαξ οὐδὲ δὶς ἀλλὰ πολλάκις
μαρτυρήσαντες καὶ ἐκ θηρίων αὖθις
ἀναληφθέντες.. οὔτ᾽ αὐτοὶ μάρτυρας ἑαυ-
τοὺς ἀνεκήρυττον οὔτε μὴν ἡμῖν ἐπέτρε-
TOV τούτῳ τῷ ὀνόματι προσαγορεύειν
αὐτούς GAN εἴποτέ τις ἡμῶν Oc ἐπιστο-
λῆς ἢ διὰ Adyou μάρτυρας αὐτοὺς προσ-
εἶπεν, ἐπέπλησσον πικρῶς᾽ ἡδέως γὰρ
παρεχώρουν τὴν τῆς μαρτυρίας προσ-
nyoplay τῷ Χριστῷ τῷ πιστῷ καὶ ἀλη-
θινῷ μάρτυρι...καὶ ἐπεμιμνήσκοντο τῶν
ἐξεληλυθότων ἤδη μαρτύρων καὶ ἔλεγον"
ἐκεῖνοι ἤδη μάρτυρες οὗς ἐν τῇ
ὁμολογίᾳ Χριστὸς ἠξίωσεν ἀνα-
ληφθῆναι, ἐπισφραγισάμενος av-
τῶν διὰ τῆς ἐξόδου τὴν μαρτυρίαν"
ἡμεῖς δὲ ὁμόλογοι μέτριοι καὶ ταπει-
voi (Euseb. 7. 5. v. 2). The distinc-
tion between μάρτυς and ὁμολογητής
(more rarely ὁμόλογος), 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 ὁμολογία in Strom. iv. 9,
Ῥ. 596; comp. also Tertull. Prax. τ
“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. JZarz.
Pal. τι πρὸ τοῦ μαρτυρίου διὰ καυτή-
pov ὑπομονῆς τὸν τῆς ὁμολογίας διαθ-
λήσας ἀγῶνα.

Thus the mere use of μαρτυρεῖν 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, Hzst. 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 ἕως θανάτου
70Ancav; (2) The emphatic position
of μαρτυρήσας 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. 7. 2.
ll. 23 καὶ οὕτως ἐμαρτύρησεν) and
of Symeon (Euseb. 4. £. ill. 32 καὶ
οὕτω μαρτυρεῖ); (4) Dionysius of
Corinth couples the two Apostles to-
gether, as they are coupled here, say-
ing ἐμαρτύρησαν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν
(Euseb. H. 2. 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. τὸν ὀφειλόμενον τύπον] The ex-
pression is copied by Polycarp (Phz/.
9), where speaking of S. Paul and
the other Apostles he says, eis τὸν

28 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [v

καὶ ἔριν Παῦλος ὑπομονῆς, βραβεῖον ὑπέδειξεν, ἑπτάκις. -

1 καὶ 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 καὶ
ὁ or καὶ simply. βραβεῖον] βραβιον A. ὑπέδειξεν] ἔδειξεν (; tulit (por-
tavit) 2D S. As regards the reading of A, there is some doubt. Young printed
ἀπέσχεν, but Mill formerly and Jacobson recently read the MS y....€N. Ac-
cordingly Wotton and most later editors have written ὑπέσχεν. With respect to the
Y my own observation entirely agrees with Tischendorf’s, who says ‘ post βραβιον
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,

ὀφειλόμενον αὐτοῖς τόπον εἰσὶ παρὰ τῷ
Κυρίῳ. So Acts i. 25 τὸν τόπον τὸν
ἴδιον (comp. Ign. Magn. 5), Barnab.
19 τὸν ὡρισμένον τύπον, and below
§ 44 τοῦ ἱδρυμένου αὐτοῖς τόπου. An
elder in Irenzeus (probably Papias)
discourses at length on the afferent
abodes prepared for the faithful ac-
cording to their deserving, Haer. v.
36. I sq.

I. βραβεῖον] 5. Paul’s own word,
PGorux 24, Phil. 111: 12: See also
Mart. Polyc. 17 βραβεῖον ἀναντίρρη-
Tov ἀπενηνεγμένον, Tatian ad Graec.
33 ἀκρασίας βραβεῖον ἀπηνέγκατο: and
comp. Orac. «720. 11..45.} 149. The
word is adopted in a Latin dress,
bravium or drabium, and occurs
in Tertullian, in the translation of
Irenzeus, and in the Latin versions
of the Scriptures.

ὑπέδειξεν] ‘Pointed out the way to,
taught by his example’; comp. § 6
ὑπόδειγμα κάλλιστον ἐγένοντο ἐν ἡμῖν.
The idea of ὑπέδειξεν 1s carried out
by ὑπογραμμός below; for the two
words occur naturally together, as in
Lucian Rhet. Praec. 9 ὑποδεικνὺς τὰ
Δημοσθένους ἴχνη..-παραδείγματα mapa-
τιθεὶς τῶν λόγων οὐ padia μιμεῖσθαι...
καὶ τὸν χρόνον πάμπολυν ὑπογράψει τῆς
ὁδοιπορίας: 50 ἐλπίδας
and ὑπογράφειν ἐλπίδας are converti-
ble phrases, Polyb. ii. 70. 7, v. 36. 1.

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

« ,
ὑποδεικνύειν

my edition, and it was accepted by
Gebhardt (ed. 1); though in his later
edition Gebhardt has adopted the
simpleverb éeéevfromC. 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 ὑπέδειξεν is supported by
a passage in the recently discovered
work of Macarius Magnes Afgocr. iv.
14 (p. 181, Blondel), where speaking
of S. Peter and S. Paul he says,
ἔγνωσαν ὑποδεῖξαι τούτοις [1.6. τοῖς
πιστεύουσιν), ποίοις ἀγῶσιν ὁ τῆς πίσ-
Tews συγκεκρότηται στέφανος. 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; ὑπέμειναν evoe-
Bas διδάσκοντες, τῶν ἀδικουμένων ὑπέρ-
paxot, πολλὰ.. τῷ κόσμῳ μηνύσαντες,
τοῦ βίου τὸ τέλος ἀπήντησεν, μέχρι
θανάτου.. -προκινδυνεύσωσι, τῆς εὐκλείας
τὸν ἔπαινον, οἱ γεννάδαι, ἀνὰ τὴν οἰκου-
μένην, βραβεῖον.. κτώμενοι, τύποι ἀν-
δρείας... γενόμενοι, πολλὰ τῶν καλῶν
ἀγωνισμάτων, τῆς διδαχῆς καὶ τοῦ κηρύγ-
ματος, μαρτυρίου δόξαν, πικραῖς...βασά-
νοις, ὑπομονῇ πολλῇ; γενναίως φέρειν. It
seems highly probable therefore that
the use of ὑποδεικνύναι in this some-
what strange connexion was derived
by him from the same source. Comp.
also ΖΦ 2: Gall. § 23 in Euseb. @. Z,

v] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 29

δεσμὰ φορέσας, puyadevOeis, λιθασθείς, κῆρυξ γενό-

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.
quum paullo minus appareat, possit erasum credi’.

Tisch. says ‘2
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 ὑπέδειξεν to ἔδειξεν see the lower

note.

v. I eis τὴν τῶν λοιπῶν ὑποτύπωσιν
ὑποδεικνύων ὅτι μηδὲν φοβερὸν ὅπου
πατρὸς ἀγάπη, μηδὲ ἀλγεινὸν ὅπου Χρισ-
τοῦ δόξα. S. Paul himself says (Acts
XX. 35) ὑπέδειξα ὑμῖν ὅτι κιτιλ. C 15
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 βραβεῖον by certamen,
corresponds fairly with ὑπέσχεν sug-
gested by some editors ; but this was
certainly not the reading of A.

énraxis| In 2 Cor. xi. 23 S. Paul
speaks of himself as ἐν φυλακαῖς πε-
ρισσοτέρως ; 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 Caesarea and at Rome to the
five punishments which S. Paul men-
tions in 2 Cor. xi. 24. But the πεντά-
kus 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. puyadevbeis| We read of 5. 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 Beroea (xvii.
14), and perhaps from Corinth (xx. 3).
Some of these incidents would be
described by φυγαδευθείς, but it is
perhaps too strong a word_to apply
to all. On φυγαδεύειν, which though
found even in Attic writers was re-
garded by purists as questionable,
see Lobeck PAryn. p. 385. The read-
ing ῥαβδευθείς (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 25)
which was proposed to fill the lacuna
in A is objectionable, because the
form ῥαβδίζειν alone is used in the
Lxx and O. T. (and perhaps else-
where, in this sense).

λιθασθείς] 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.
xi. 25) ἅπαξ ἐλιθάσθην. See Paley
Hor, Paul. iv. § 9.

κῆρυξ] S. Paul so styles himself
2 Tim. i. 11. Epictetus too calls his
ideal philosopher κῆρυξ τῶν θεῶν, Diss.
iii, 21. 13, 1. 22. 09. The Stoics, like
the Christians, were essentially κήρυ-
kes in their mode of action. The
picture of Diogenes at Corinth, given
in Dion Chrysost. Oraz. viii, ix, might
stand mutatis mutandzs for 5. Paul.
The word is accentuated κῆρυξ (not
κήρυξ) 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 [ν

᾽ ΄“ = \ - / A lon
μενος ἔν TE TH ἀνατολῆ καὶ ἐν TH δύσει, TO γενναῖον
a 7 : ᾽ ΄σ γ 7 ὃ ΄ ὃ ὃ 7
τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ κλέος ἔλαβεν, δικαιοσύνην διδαξας

ε \ / 7 , , ἐ
ὅλον τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθὼν

1 te] AC; om. 9:

2 πίστεως] πισταιωσ A.
σύνης CS, connected by punctuation in both these authorities with ἔλαβε.

δικαιοσύνην} A}; δικαιο-
Bryen-

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

I. τὸ γενναῖον k.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. ὅλον τὸν κόσμον k.T.A.] In the spu-
rious letter of Clement to James pre-
fixed to the Homilies it is said of S.
Peter 6 τῆς δύσεως TO σκοτεινότε-
pov τοῦ κύσμου μέρος ὡς πάντων
ἱκανώτερος φωτίσαι κελευσθείς ... τὸν
ἐσόμενον ἀγαθὸν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ μηνύ-
σας βασιλέα, μέχρις ἐνταῦθα τῆς Ῥώμης
γενόμενος.. αὐτὸς τοῦ νῦν βίου βιαίως
τὸ ζῆν μετήλλαξεν (δ 1, p. 6 Lagarde).
This passage is, I think, plainly
founded on the true Clement’s account
of S. Paul here; and thus it accords
with the whole plan of this Judaic
writer in ¢vansferring the achieve-
ments of S. Paul to S. Peter whom
he makes the Apostle of the Gentiles :
see Galatians p. 315.

τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως] ‘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 (¢. A.D. 180) an
anonymous writer mentions his hav-
ing gone thither; ‘Sed et profec-
tionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam
proficiscentis, /rvagm. Murat. (pp.
19, 40, ed. Tregelles, Oxon. 1867; or
Westcott Hzsz. of Canon p. 517, ed.
4). For the expression τὸ τέρμα τῆς
δύσεως pointing to the western ex-
tremity of Spain, the pillars of Her-
cules, comp. Strab. 11. 1 (p. 67) πέρατα

δὲ αὐτῆς (τῆς οἰκουμένης) τίθησι πρὸς
δύσει μὲν τὰς Ἡρακλείους στήλας, il. 4
(p. 106) μέχρι τῶν ἄκρων τῆς ᾿Ιβηρίας
ἅπερ δυσμικώτερά ἐστι, ili. 1 (p. 137)
τοῦτό (τὸ ἱερὸν ἀκρωτήριον) ἐστι τὸ δυτι-
κώτατον οὐ τῆς Εὐρώπης μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ
τῆς οἰκουμένης ἁπάσης σημεῖον περα-
τοῦται γὰρ ὑπὸ τῶν δυεῖν ἠπείρων ἡ
οἰκουμένη πρὸς δύσιν, τοῖς τε τῆς Εὐρώ-
πης ἄκροις καὶ τοῖς πρώτοις τῆς Λιβύης,
ili. 5 (p. 169) ἐπειδὴ κατὰ τὸν πορθμὸν
ἐγένοντο τὸν κατὰ τὴν Κάλπην, νομίσαν-
τας τέρμονας εἶναι τῆς οἰκουμένης... «τὰ
ἄκρα, 20. (p. 170) (nrew ἐπὶ τῶν κυρίως
λεγομένων στηλῶν τοὺς τῆς οἰκουμένης
ὅρους (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 Brit. Eccl. Ant. Ὁ
I, Stillingfleet Orzg. 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. \.
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

7 \ - / e/
Kal μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, οὕτως ἀπηλλάγη
΄ > \ Ae Te , ἢ ε a
TOU κόσμου καὶ εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη, ὑπομονῆς
VA /
γενόμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμος.

Didache p. py’.
mundo S (see the note on ii. ὃ 10).

Philem. 22) would suggest. Those
who maintain that this first Roman
captivity ended in his martyrdom
are obliged to explain ro τέρμα τῆς
δύσεως 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
Szttengesch. Roms Τ1. p. 43, with his
references.) On the other hand Phi-
lostratus says that, when Nero ban-
ished philosophers from Rome, Apol-
lonius of Tyana τρέπεται ἐπὶ τὰ ἑσπέ-
pia τῆς γῆς (iv. 47), and the region
which he visited is described imme-
diately afterwards (v. 4) ra Γάδειρα
κεῖται κατὰ TO τῆς Εὐρώπης τέρμα
(quoted by Pearson Menor Theol.
Works τ. p. 362). This is the natural
mode of speaking. It is instructive
to note down various interpretations
of ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως 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
(ὑπὸ for ἐπὶ) the supreme power of
the west’ (Wieseler, Schaff). Such
attempts are a strong testimony to
the plain inference which follows from

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

5 τοῦ κόσμου] AC; ab hoc

ἐπορεύθη] AC; susceptus est (ἐπήρθη Ὁ) S.

the passage simply interpreted.

4. ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων] ‘before rulers’ ;
comp. § 37 τοῖς ἡγουμένοις nuav...Tov
βασιλέως καὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, ὃ 51 οἱ
ἡγούμενοι Αἰγύπτου, ἃ 55 πολλοὶ βασι-
λεῖς καὶ ἡγούμενοι, δ 61 τοῖς τε ἄρχουσιν
καὶ ἡγουμένοις ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. The
names of Nero and Helius (Dion
Cass. [Χ11]. 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 μαρτυρία ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων took
place in the extreme west (as Hil-
genfeld argues), for there is nothing
to show that ἐπὶ ro τέρμα x.r.A. and
μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων are in-
tended to be synchronous. Indeed
the clause καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως
ἐλθὼν seems to be explanatory of the
preceding δικαιοσύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν
κόσμον, and the passage should be
punctuated accordingly.

6. ὑπογραμμός] ‘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 §§ 16, 33; comp. 2 Macc.
11 28; 29. 1 Pet. 1) 21: Polycs 2A. 8.
Clem. Hom. iv. 16. The classical
word is ὑπογραφή. For an explana-
tion of the metaphor see Aristot. Gew.
Aun. ii. © (1. p. 743) καὶ yap οἱ γραφεῖς
ὑπογράψαντες ταῖς γραμμαῖς οὕτως ἐνα-
λείφουσι τοῖς χρώμασι τὸ ζῶον. The
sister art of sculpture supplies a simi-
lar metaphor in ὑποτύπωσις, the first
rough model, 1 Tim. i. 16,2 Tim. 1. 13.

2
Va,

THE EPISTLE OF 8S. CLEMENT

[v1

- ΄ 7 ,
Τούτοις τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ὁσίως πολιτευσαμένοις

> > i .« a
συνηθροίσθη πολὺ πλῆθος ἐκλεκτών, οἵτινες πολλαῖς

> \ “-- if € / ‘
αἰκίαις καὶ βασάνοις, δια ζῆλος παθόντες, ὑπόδειγμα

3 ζῆλος] A; ζῆλον C, and so again in the next line.
5 Δαναΐδες καὶ Aipxat] A ; davatées καὶ δείρ καὶ C : danardes et
I am not prepared to say now that the word is written AAaHaiAec as 1

χθισαι A,
dircae 8.

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. πολὺ πλῆθος] 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 ἐν ἡμῖν will mean ‘among
us Roman Christians,’ and the aikia
καὶ βάσανοι 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 πολὺ πλῆθος.

πολλαῖς αἰκίαις «.t.A.] ‘dy or amid
many sufferings. Previous editors
have substituted the accusative, πολ-
has αἰκίας; but, as the dative is fre-
quently used to denote the means,
and even the accessories, the circum-
stances (see Madvig Gr. Synz. § 39
sq), I have not felt justified in alter-
ing the reading. In this case διὰ
ὥλλος παθόντες will be used absolute-
ly, and πολλαῖς αἰκίαις κ-ιτ.λ. will ex-
plain ὑπόδειγμα ἐγένοντο.

5. Δαναΐδες καὶ Δίρκαι] 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 διωχθεῖσαι] διω-

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 11, 12;
and for illustrations comp. Fried-
lander Szttengeschichte Roms τι. 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 Daedalus (26. 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 (Weronische Christenver-
folgung 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] TO THE

/ > / 2
καλλιστον eyEevoYTO ἐν

first edition.

just as in these scenic exhibitions
Orpheus was torn to pieces by a bear
(Martial Sfec¢. 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
πολλὴν ἄθλησιν ὑπεμείνατε παθημάτων,
τοῦτο μὲν ὀνειδισμοῖς τε καὶ θλίψεσιν
θεατριζόμενοι, but here θεατριζό-
μενοι is best explained by 1 Cor. iv.
9 θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν TO κόσμῳ k.T.X.,
| 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 abiisse videtur.’ But he can
only quote for the former ἐς τὸν τῶν
Δαναΐδων πίθον ὑδροφορεῖν Lucian 77m.
18, which is hardly to the point, as it
merely denotes labour spent in vain.
Clement of Alexandria indeed (.S¢romz.
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
(δ 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.

ἡμῖν.
Aipkart, αἰκίσματα δεινὰ καὶ

CORINTHIANS. 33

διὰ Gros διωχθεῖσαι

- 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

1) which I placed in the text in my
first edition, γυναῖκες, νεάνιδες, παιδί-
σκαι; as highly probable and giving
an excellent sense; ‘ Women, tender
maidens, even slave-girls’: comp.
August. Serm. cxliii (ν. p. 692 sq)
‘Non solum viri sed etiam mzlieres
et pueri et Awe//ae martyres vicerunt,’
Leo Serm. Ixxiv (I. p. 294) ‘ Non so-
lum virl 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 παιδίσκη in Hel-
lenistic Greek see the notes Galatians
Tanz

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

΄ “ \ \ ΄σ 7ὔ if /
ἀνόσια παθοῦσαι, ἐπὶ Tov τῆς πίστεως βέβαιον δρόμον

sf 4 an ε ~ ~
κατήντησαν, Kal ἔλαβον γέρας γενναῖον αἱ ἀσθενεῖς TH

σώματι.

ἠλλοίωσεν
NYN OCTOYN
ζῆλος Kat
μεγάλα ἐξερίζωσεν.

5 ὀστέων] οσταιων A; ὀστῶν C.
κατέσκαψε C.

in 1844. The fact of its having
occurred independently to two minds
is a strong testimony in its favour.
Bunsen (Azppolytus τ. p. xviii, 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 καὶ δοῦ-

Aa. Lagarde (Armen. Stud. p. 73)
conjectures ἀναλκίδες καὶ κορικαί ;
Haupt (Hermes 11. p. 146, 1869)

suggests ἀμνίδες δίκαιαι, Comparing
Clem. Alex. Pvotr. 12 (p. 92) ai τοῦ
Θεοῦ θυγατέρες, ai ἀμνάδες ai καλαί.

2. κατήντησαν κιτ.λ.} The verb
καταντᾶν signifies to arrive at a desti-
nation, and the corresponding sub-
stantive κατάντημα is ‘a destination, a
goal,’ Ps. xix. 6: comp. Schol.on Arist.
Ran. 1026 (993) ἐλαῖαι στιχηδὸν ἵσταν-
Tal, οὖσαι κατάντημα τοῦ δρόμου.
Thus 6 βέβαιος δρόμος ‘the sure course,’
1.6. the point in the stadium where
the victory is secured, is almost equi-
valent to ‘the goal.’ For καταντᾶν ἐπί
comp. 2 Sam. iii. 29, Polyb. x. 37. 3,
χῖν. 1. Ὁ;

7 ἐξερίζωσεν] A; ἐξερρίζωσε C.

> 7 A a! “ 4

Gros ἀπηλλοτρίωσεν γαμετας ἀνδρῶν καὶ
Niece \ oN - \ es Os ὦ ῃ a

τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ TOU TATPOS ἡμῶν Αδαμ, Τοῦτο

εκ τῶν ὀοτέων MOY KAl CAPZ ἐκ TAC CAPKOC ΜΟΥ. 5

᾽ / / so of
ἔρις πόλεις μεγάλας κατέστρεψεν καὶ ἔθνη

6 ἔρις] ἐερεισ A. κατέστρεψεν] AS;

9 ὑπομνήσκοντεΞ] A;

4. τοῦτο νῦν κιτ.λ.] From the LXx
of Gen. ii. 23, which corresponds with
the Hebrew.

6. ὥῆλος καὶ ἔρις] The two words

occur together, Rom. xiii. 13, 2 Cor. —

xli. 20, Gal. v. 20: see above, § 3.

πόλεις μεγάλας k.7.A.| See Ecclus. |
XXVill. 14 πόλεις ὀχυρὰς καθεῖλε kat —

οἰκίας μεγιστάνων κατέστρεψε. 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 δον. Test. 1. p. lvi (ed. 7),
A. Buttmann Gramm. p.28 sq. Most
editors needlessly alter the read-
ing to ἐξερρίζωσεν. Compare μεγαλο-
pnpova ὃ 15, φυλλοροεῖ ὃ 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. ὑπομνήσκοντες] Comp. Orph.
Hymn. \xxvii. 6 (p. 345, Herm.) φιλά-

vit]

WAT;

/ \ \ ε \ ε 7
τες ἐπιστέλλομεν, ἀλλὰ Kal ἑαυτοὺς tUTOMYnoKOYTESsT*

TO THE CORINTHIANS. 25

rl 7 ic ΄σ ~
Ταῦτα, ἀγαπητοί, οὐ μόνον ὑμᾶς νουθετοῦν-

\ ΄σ ᾽ ΄σ ? \ \ 3 \ ΄
οἐν Yap τῷ αὐτώ ἐσμὲν σκάμματι, καὶ ὁ αὐτος ἡμῖν
Ϊ \ / \ / \ \ \
ἀγὼν ἐπίκειται. Διὸ ἀπολείπωμεν Tas κενὰς καὶ μα-

/ / συ Lee | \ 3 = \ \
ταίας φροντίδας, καὶ ἔλθωμεν ἐπὶ Tov εὐκλεῆ καὶ σεμνὸν

a / ΑΗ , Nis) i \ \
THUS παραδόσεως ημων κανονα. και ἴδωμεν τι καλον και

ὑπομιμνήσκοντες (.
ἡμῖν C; dub. 5.

γρυπνος ὑπομνήσκουσάτε πάντα (a refer-
ence given by Hefele). So also μνή-
σκομαι in Anacr. ap. Athen. xi. p.
463 A μνήσκεται εὐφροσύνης (which
editors perhaps unnecessarily alter
into μήσεται Or μνήσεται). 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 ὑπομιμνήσκοντες, as it
does here (see I. p. 126 sq). There is
the same divergence of form in the
MSS of the spurious Ignatius, 7.475. 9.

10. σκάμματι] ‘lists’ The σκάμμα
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 Corp. Juscr. no
2758, with the references in Krause
Fiellen. τ. p. 105 sq, and for its meta-
‘phorical use Polyb. xl. 5. 5 οὐδὲ ἐπὶ
τοῦ σκάμματος ὧν τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον,
Epict. Diss. iv. ὃ. 26 εἰς τοσοῦτο
σκάμμα προεκαλεῖτο πάντα ὁντιναοῦν.
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. Po/yc. 6 with the

to ἐν γὰρ] AS; καὶ yap ἐν C.
11 ἀπολείπωμεν] A; ἀπολίπωμεν C.

ἡμῖν ἀγὼν] A; ἀγὼν
12 εὐκλεῆ] ευκλαιη A.

notes. Inthe phrase ὑπὲρ τὰ ἐσκαμ-
μένα πηδᾶν, ἅλλεσθαι (e.g. Plat. Crat.
Ρ. 413 A, Lucian Gad/. 6, Clem. Alex.
Strom. v. 13, p. 696; see below on
κανὼν), ‘to do more than is required
orexpected,’ ra ἐσκαμμένα is thetrench
cut at the end of the leap beyond the
point which it is supposed the great-
est athlete will reach (Pind. Wem. v.
36 μακρὰ δὴ αὐτόθεν ἅλμαθ᾽ ὑποσκάπ-
τοι Tis’ ἔχω γονάτων ἐλαφρὸν ὁρμάν).
Krause indeed (fe//en. I. p. 393)
interprets ta ἐσκαμμένα of the line
marking the leap of the preceding
combatant, but this explanation does
not account for the metaphorical use.

ὁ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν ἀγὼν] See Phil. i. 30
Tov αὐτὸν ἀγῶνα ἔχοντες οἷον εἴδετε ἐν
ἐμοί.

II. ἐπίκειται] ‘awazts’,; as Ign.
Rom. 6 ὃ τοκετός μοι ἐπίκειται : Comp.
Heb. xii. I τὸν προκείμενον ἡμῖν a-
yava, Clem. Rom. 11. § 7 ἐν χερσὶν ὁ
ayov.

κενὰς καὶ μάταιας] ‘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. 16; comp. he-
oph. ad Aut. 111. 3, Plut. Vzt. Artax.
DOr. DP. 111 A

13. τῆς παραδόσεως] The lacuna was
variously filled so long as A was our
only authority, the best suggestions
being τελειώσεως and ἀθλήσεως. The

3—2

36 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

[vir

tA - , aa.
τί τερπνὸν καὶ τί πρόσδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ ποιήσαντος

ἡμᾶς.

> \ ory ἴω ~ \ ΄
ἀτενίσωμεν εἰς TO ALUA TOU Χριστοῦ καὶ YVWMEV

5) ΄σ \ - J \ \ ε if
ὡς ἔστιν τίμιον τῷ πατρί αὐτοῦ, ὅτι διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν

7 > \ \ ~ Ie / /
σωτηρίαν ἐκχυθὲν͵, παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ μετανοίας χάριν

3 τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ] S; τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ τῷ Θεῷ C; τωθεω[καιπατρἼ)ιαυτου A,
presumably. An upright stroke (probably 1) and a portion of a preceding letter

(which might be p) are visible.
if 6 τι 2d quod.

See the lower note.
4 μετανοίας χάριν] AC ; weravolay 5. Bensly points out that

ὅτι] S translates as

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

SMD NT, XID.

true reading could hardly have been
anticipated ; but it adds to the close-
ness of the parallel in Polycarp PAz/.
7 διὸ ἀπολιπόντες THY ματαιότητα τῶν
πολλῶν καὶ τὰς ψευδοδιδασκαλίας ἐπὶ
τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἡμῖν παραδοθέντα λόγον
ἐπιστρέψωμεν, a passage already
quoted by the editors. By τὸν τῆς
παραδόσεως ἡμῶν κανόνα 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. ὃ 19 ἐπὶ τὸν
ἐξ ἀρχῆς παραδεδομένον ἡμῖν τῆς εἰρή-
yns σκοπόν (to which passage again
Polycarp is indebted), § 51 τῆς mapa-
δεδομένης ἡμῖν καλῶς καὶ δικαίως opo-
φωνίας. Clement’s phrase is borrow-
ed by his younger namesake, Strom.
i. I (p. 324) προβήσεται ἡμῖν κατὰ τὸν
εὐκλεῆ καὶ σεμνὸν τῆς παραδόσεως Ka-
vova.

κανόνα] This is probably a con-
tinuation of the metaphor in σκάμμα:
comp. Pollux iil, 151 τὸ δὲ μέτρον
τοῦ πηδήματος κανών, ὁ δὲ ὅρος τὰ
ἐσκαμμένα᾽ ὅθεν ἐπὶ τῶν τὸν ὅρον ὑπερ-
πηδώντων οἱ παροιμιαζόμενοι λέγουσι πη-
dav ὑπὲρ τὰ ἐσκαμμένα. See § 41 (with
the note). Thus κανὼν will be the
measure of the leap or the race as-
signed to the athlete.

τί καλὸν κιτ.λ.] From Ps. cxxxii. 1
ἰδοὺ δὴ τί καλὸν ἢ τί τερπνόν KT.

5 ὑπήνεγκεν] A; sustulit Δ S; ἐπήνεγκες.

διέλ-

I. mpoadexrov ἐνώπιον] So ἀπόδεκ-
Tov ἐνώπιον, I Tim. li. 3 τοῦτο καλὸν καὶ
ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν
Θεοῦ, of which Clement’s language
here seems to be a reminiscence:
comp. I Tim. v. 4, where καλὸν καὶ is
interpolated in the common texts |
from the earlier passage. The simple |
πρόσδεκτος appears in the LXX, Prov.
xl. 20, xvi. 15, Wisd. ix. 12 (comp.
Mart. Polyc. 14), but the compound
εὐπρόσδεκτος is commoner in the
N. T., and occurs three times in Cle-
ment (§§ 35, 40 twice).

3. τίμιον τῷ πατρὶ] Compare τ Pet.
i. 19 τιμίῳ αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ
ἀσπίλου Χριστοῦ.

πατρὶ] The lacuna after τῷ Θεῷ
in A must, I think, be supplied by
καὶ πατρὶ rather than πατρὶ alone for
two reasons; (1) If πατρὶ were con-
tracted tpi, aS is most usual in the
MS, the letters would not be sufficient
to fill the space; (2) We find ὁ Θεὸς
καὶ πατὴρ frequently in the Apostolic
writings followed by τοῦ Κυρίου, etc.
(eg. Rom. xv. 6, 2 Cor. 1. 3, tam
I Pet. i. 3, Rev. i. 6), whereas 6 Θεὸς
πατὴρ is never so found. In fact with
any genitive following, the alternative
seems to be ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ or Θεὸς
πατήρ. On the other hand ὁ Θεὸς
πατὴρ occurs once only in the N. T.
(Col. iii. 17, with a v.L), and there it
is used absolutely. On the whole

vil]

ε ᾿ς
5 UTNVEYKEV.

TO THE CORINTHIANS. 37

/ > \ ΄ \
διέλθωμεν εἰς τὰς γενεας πασᾶς, καὶ κατα-

/ J 2 “ \ a , / oS
μάθωμεν OTL Ev γενεᾷ καὶ γενεὰ μετανοίας τόπον ἔδωκεν

ε ‘ / ~ Uf 2 = ae) 5) /
ὁ δεσπότης τοῖς βουλομένοις ἐπιστραφηναι ἐπ αὐὑτον.

lanl / We \ ε fy ΕῚ /
Νῶε ἐκήρυξεν μετάνοιαν, καὶ οἱ ὑπακούσαντες ἐσωθη-

θωμεν eis].....wuevers A ; διέλθωμεν (om. es) C ; transeamus super S (which probably
represents διέλθωμεν eis). In Rom. v. 12 εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν

both Pesh. and Harcl. have “2 Ἵ2Ψ not by ay as S has here. In ὃ 4 διελθεῖν

els is rendered by Ὁ ay. The verb διελθεῖν is frequent in the 1 ΧΧ.
7 ὁ δεσπότης] AC; om. 5.

AC; om. S.

however the correct reading is pro-
bably preserved in the Syriac, the
different positions of τῷ Θεῷ in the
two Greek Mss showing that it wasa
later addition.

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

διέλθωμεν x.7.A.] This passage is
copied in Afost. Const. 11. 55 0 yap
Θεὸς, Θεὸς ὧν ἐλέους, ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἑκάστην
γενεὰν ἐπὶ μετάνοιαν καλεῖ διὰ τῶν δι-
καίων...τοὺς δὲ ἐν τῷ κατακλύσμῳ διὰ
τοῦ Νῶε, τοὺς ἐν Σοδόμοις διὰ τοῦ
φιλοξένου Λώτ (see below § 11) κ'τ.λ.

6. γενεᾷ καὶ γενεᾷ] ‘each successive
generation. A Hebraism preserved
in the LXX, Esth. ix. 27, Ps. xlviil. 11,
ἘΠ Ξε I, Xc. I, etc.: comp. Luke 1.
50 γενεὰς καὶ γενεάς (vv. ll.).

τόπον] The same expression διδόναι
τόπον μετανοίας occurs also in Wisd.
xii, 10; comp. Heb. xii. 17 μετανοίας
τόπον οὐχ εὗρεν, Tatian. ad Graec. 15
οὐκ ἔχει μετανοίας τόπον, Apost. Const.
ii. 38 τόπον μετανοίας ὥρισεν, ν. 19
λαβεῖν αὐτὸν τύπον μετανοίας. The
corresponding Latin ‘foenttentiae
focus’ occurs in the celebrated letter
of Pliny to Trajan Plin. et Tray.
Epist. 96. The emendation τύπον
is not needed.

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

καὶ]

(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 swdmdsséon; but it must be
ascribed in some degree to the spirit
of the writer himself.

8. Noe ἐκήρυξεν κιτ.λ.}] 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 δικαιο-
σύνης κῆρυξ. The preaching of Noah
however is one of the more promi-
nent ideas in the Sibylline Oracles ;
see especially i. 128 sq. Νῶε δέμας θάρ-
συνον ἑὸν λαοῖσί τε πᾶσι κήρυξον
μετάνοιαν κιτιλ. This passage,though
forming part of a comparatively late
poem, was doubtless founded on the
earliest (pre-Christian) Sibylline (ii.
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 5, CLEMENT [vil

σαν. ᾿Ιωνᾶς Νινευΐταις καταστροφὴν ἐκήρυξεν, οἱ δὲ 5
μετανοήσαντες ἐπὶ τοῖς ἁμαρτήμασιν αὐτῶν ἐξιλάσαντο
τὸν Θεὸν ἱκετεύσαντες καὶ ἔλαβον σωτηρίαν, καίπερ
ἀλλότριοι τοῦ Θεοῦ ὄντες.

VIIL.

y ἘΠ ἘΝ, \ (fe 2 / \ 5 \
πνεύματος ἁγίου περὶ μετανοίας ἐλάλησαν, καὶ AUTOS

ε =~ > > \
Oi λειτουργοὶ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ 5

1 οἱ δὲ] ( ; ode A; οἵδε 5.
5. 5 λειτουργοί] λιτουργοι A.

3 ἱκετεύσαντες] A; ἱκετεύοντες C, and so apparently

wv

8 μετὰ ὅρκου] AC ; Bryennios reads μεθ᾽ ὅρκου

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 Auf/ol. 111. 19 Noe κα-
ταγγέλλων τοῖς τότε ἀνθρώποις μέλλειν
κατακλυσμὸν ἔσεσθαι προεφήτευσεν av-
τοῖς λέγων᾽ Δεῦτε καλεῖ ὑμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς
εἰς μετάνοιαν" διὸ οἰκείως Δευκαλίων ἐ-
κλήθη ; 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. Δεῦτε καλεῖ
-..Oe0s εἰς μετάνοιαν. As Josephus also
quotes the Sibyllines, he too in his
account of Noah (Azz, 1. 3. 1 ἔπειθεν
ἐπὶ TO κρεῖττον αὐτοὺς THY διάνοιαν Kal
τὰς πράξεις μεταφέρειν, 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 AZo-
calypse of Paul § 50 (quoted also by
Hilgenfeld) ἐγὼ εἰμὶ Νώε...καὶ οὐκ
ἐπαυσάμην τοῖς ἀνθρώποις κηρύσσειν"

Μετανοεῖτε, ἰδοὺ γὰρ κατακλυσμὸς ἔρχε-
ται (p. 68, ed. Tisch.). A passage
cited by Georg. Syncell. (Chron. 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
flenoch pp.xxxviii,lxi. See also below
§ 9, with the note on maduyyevecia.

I. καταστροφήν] ‘overthrow, ruin’ ;
comp. Jonah iii. 4 καὶ Νινευὴ κατα-
στραφήσεται.

4. ἀλλότριοι κ-ιτ.λ.] ‘aliens from —
God, i.e. ‘Gentiles’: comp. Ephes.
il. 12 ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολιτεί-
ας τοῦ Ἰσραήλ... .καὶ ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ.
Both ἀλλότριοι and ἀλλόφυλοι 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. Οἱ λειτουργοὶ] i.e. the prophets ;
though they are not so called in the
LXxX or New Testament.

8. Za yap ἐγώ κιτ.λ.] Loosely quoted
from Ezek. xxxill. I1 ζῶ ἐγώ, τάδε
λέγει Κύριος, οὐ βούλομαι τὸν θάνατον
τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς ὡς ἀποστρέψαι τὸν ἀσεβῆ
ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ζῆν αὐτόν.
ἀποστροφῇ ἀποστρέψατε ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ
ὑμῶν᾽ καὶ ἵνα τί ἀποθνήσκετε, οἶκος Ἴσ-

ραήλ; K7T.A.

vit | TO THE CORINTHIANS.

oo

δὲ ὁ δεσπότης τῶν ἁπάντων περὶ μετανοίας ἐλάλησεν
μετὰ ὅρκου" Ζῶ γὰρ ἐγώ, λέγει Kypioc, oY BoyAomal TON
QANATON τοῦ ἁμάρτωλοῦ, WC τὴν METANOIAN™ προστιθεὶς
καὶ γνώμην ἀγαθήν: Metanoricate, οἶκος ᾿Ιεσρδήλ, ἀπὸ τῆς

RNOMIAC ὑμῶν: εἶπον τοῖς yloic TOY λὰοῦ Moy’ "EAN ὦσιν

which has no manuscript authority.
προστηθεισ A.
(εἰπών) S.

10. Meravonoare x.7.d.] It is usual
to treat these words as a loose quo-
tation from Ezek. xviii. 30 sq οἶκος
Ἰσραήλ, λέγει Κύριος, ἐπιστράφητε kai
ἀποστρέψατε ἐκ πασῶν τῶν ἀσεβειῶν
ὑμῶν...καὶ ἵνα τί ἀποθνήσκετε, οἶκος
Ἰσραήλ ; διότι οὐ θέλω τὸν. θάνατον τοῦ
ἀποθνήσκοντος. 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. 11), as given in the
preceding note. See however what
follows.

11. Ἐὰν ὦσιν k.t.A.| This passage is
generally considered to be made up
of Ps. ciii. 10, 11 οὐ κατὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας
ἡμῶν ἐποίησεν ἡμῖν οὐδὲ κατὰ τὰς ἀνο-
μίας ἡμῶν ἀνταπέδωκεν ἡμῖν᾽ ὅτι κατὰ
τὸ ὕψος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἐκρα-
ταίωσε Κύριος τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς
φοβουμένους αὐτὸν, and Jer. ili. 19, 22
καὶ εἶπα, Πατέρα καλέσετέ pe καὶ ἀπ᾽
ἐμοῦ οὐκ ἀποστραφήσεσθε... ἐπιστρά-
gyre υἱοὶ ἐπιστρέφοντες καὶ ἰάσομαι τὰ
συντρίμματα ὑμῶν, together with Is. 1.
18 καὶ ἐὰν ὦσιν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι κ.τ.λ.
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
ἐὰν ὦσιν πυρρότεραι κόκκου καὶ μελανώ-
τεραι σάκκου κιτ.λ.: for the passage of
Isaiah, from which they are supposed
to be loosely quoted, is given as an
tndependent quotation immediately

11 ὑμῶν] AS; τοῦ λαοῦ μου C.
Ἐλν] AC; καν [9] or καὶ ἐὰν 5.

yap] AS; om. C. 9 προστιθεὶς]
εἶπον] AC; dum dicis tu

afterwards. (2) The expression προσ-
τιθεὶς καὶ γνώμην ἀγαθὴν 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, καὶ ἐν
ἑτέρῳ τόπῳ, 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) οὐ βούλομαι τὸν θά-
νατον τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ ἀλλὰ τὴν μετά-
νοιαν᾿ κἂν ὦσιν ai ἁμαρτίαι ὑμῶν ὡς
φοινικοῦν ἔριον, ὡς χιόνα λευκανῶ, κἂν
μελάντερον τοῦ σκότους, ὡς ἔριον λευκὸν
ἐκνίψας ποιήσω, and Paedag. i. 10
(p. 151) φησὶ yap διὰ Ἰεζεκιήλ᾽ ᾿Ἐὰν
ἐπιστραφῆτε ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας καὶ
εἴπητε, Πάτερ, ἀκούσομαι ὑμῶν ὡς λαοῦ
ἁγίου. Thus it seems to follow either
(1) That in the recension of the can-
onical Ezekiel used by the two
Clements the passage xxxill. 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 THE EPISTLE’ ‘OF |S: CLEMENT

[ VIII
δὶ AMAPTIAI ὑμῶν and τῆς γῆς ἕως τοῦ OYPANOY, Kal ἐὰν
ὦσιν πγρρότερδι KOKKOY KAl MEAAN@TEPAI CAKKOY, Kal ἐπὶΞ
cTpamAte πρός me ἐξ ὅλης TAC κἀρδίδο Kal εἴπητε, Π]άτερ,
ἐπακούήοομδι ὑμῶν ὧς AdOY ἁγίου. καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ τόπῳ
λέγει οὕπως" Λογοδοθε Kal καθδροὶ γένεσθε: ἀφέλεοσθε TAC
TTONHPIAC ἀπὸ τῶν ψγχῶν ὑμῶν ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθδλμῶν
ΜΟΥ TIAYCACHE ἀπὸ τῶν πονηριῶν ὑμῶν, μᾶθετε KAAON
ποιεῖν, EKZHTHCATE KPICIN, ῥήοδοθε ἀδικούμενον, KPINATE

ὀρφὰνῷ Kal δικδιώσάτε χηρὰ, Kal AeYTE καὶ λιελεγχθῶμεν,

3 καρδίας] A; ψυχῆς Ο5.
οὕτως] A}; οὕτως λέγει CS.
γένεσθε] γενεσθαι A.
παυσασθαι Α.
(om. καὶ) 5.

(Ant. x. τ. 1), οὐ μόνον οὗτος (Ἱερεμίας)
προεθέσπισε ταῦτα τοῖς ὄχλοις ἀλλὰ
καὶ ὁ προφήτης ᾿Ιεζεκίηλος πρῶτος
περὶ τούτων δύο βιβλία γράψας κατέ-
λιπεν. 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 (¢. Afzon. i. 8) and elsewhere
appears not to recognise this second
Ezekiel, this solution is perhaps more
probable. Or again his text may be
corrupt, β΄ (ΞΞ δύο) having been merely
a repetition of the first letter of βι-
Bria. See also the remarks of Ewald
Gesch. des V. 157. 1V. p. το. Apocry-
phal writings of Ezekiel are men-
tioned in the Stichometry of Nice-
phorus (see Westcott Cazon p. 504),
and from the connexion (Bapovx,
᾿Αββακούμ, ᾿Εζεκιήλ, καὶ Δανιήλ, Wevd-
επίγραφαλ) 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 λαοῦ ἁγίου] C Clem 152; Aawayw A.
λούσασθε] λουσασθαι A.
ἀφέλεσθε] αφελεσθαι A; ἀφέλετε C.
8 ῥύσασθε] ρυσασθαι Α.
χήρᾳ] As χήραν C; dub. 5.

5 λέγει
kat] A; om. 65.
ἡ παύσασθε]
9 καὶ δικαιώσατε] AC; δικαιώσατε
καὶ διελεγχθώμεν] και... ελεχ-

for Tertullian (de Carn, Christ. 23;
comp. Clem. Alex. Stvom. vii. τό,
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, ev ois ἂν ὑμᾶς καταλάβω, ἐν
τούτοις καὶ κρινῶ (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. Dza/. 72,
p. 298) and Zephaniah (Clem. Alex.
Strom. ν. 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-

Ix|

ΛΈΓΕΙ: KAL EAN Q@CIN Al

χιόνὰ λεγκὰν ὦ"
ἐὰν θέλητε καὶ

κἀνῶ. KAl

HE φάγχγεςθε: ἘΔΝ
MAXAIPA ὑμᾶς κὰτέδετδι"

TAYTA.

AMAPTIAL

EICAKOYCHTE MOY,

TO THE CORINTHIANS. 41

ὑμῶν WC φοινικοῦν, WC

2. \ 5: ς Π c By
EAN AE WCIN WC KOKKINON, ὡς EPION A€y-

\ > \ nn
TA ATABA THC

λὲ MH θέλητε MHAE EICAKOYCHTE MOY,

TO γὰρ οτόμὰ Kypioy €AdAHCEN
/ Ss - \ > \ > ΄σ ,

παντας οὖν TOUS ἀγαπητοὺς αὐτου βουλόμενος

μετανοίας μετασχεῖν, ἐστηρίξ ει Tw παντοκρατορικῷ

βουλήματι αὐτοῦ.

y ΄σ ~ ete ΄
TX. Διὸ ὑπακούσωμεν τῇ μεγαλοπρεπεῖ καὶ ἐνδόξῳ

θωμεν A;
see above, I. p-. 143
ἘΧΧ. 13 φάγεσθε] φαγεσθαι Α.
om. S with the Pesh.

pose was the case with Clement’s
citation from Ezekiel; for he writes
αὕτη ἡ περικοπὴ ἡ ἐκ τῶν λόγων τοῦ
ἐγγεγραμμένη ἔν
τισιν ἀντιγράφοις τῶν ἐν συναγωγαῖς
᾿Ιουδαίων, πρὸ γὰρ ὀλίγου χρόνου ταῦτα
ἐξέκοψαν κιτιλ. On the apocryphal
quotations in Clement see below S$
13, 17, 23, 29, 46 (notes).

2. μελανώτεραι] The comparative
μελανώτερος 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 μελανός -- μέλας,
on which see Lobeck Paral. p. 139.
Another late form of the superlative
is μελαινότατος.

σάκκου] Comp. Rev. vi. 12 καὶ ὁ
ἥλιος ἐγένετο μέλας ὡς σάκκος τρί-
xwos, Is. 1. 3 ἐνδύσω τὸν οὐρανὸν σ κό-

> , a 2 ‘
Ἱερεμίου ετι εστιν

τος καὶ ὡς σάκκον θήσω τὸ περιβό-
λαιον αὐτοῦ. It was a black hair-
cloth. Thus Hilgenfeld’s emenda-
tion λάκκου is superfluous, besides
being out of place, for the comparison
is between garment and garment.
The σκότους of the existing text of
Clem. Alex. may at once be rejected.

4. ev ἑτέρῳ τόπῳ] Is. i. 16—20.
The quotation is almost word for

καὶ διαλεχθῶμεν C; loguamur cum alterutro (om. καὶ with Pesh) S:
10 λέγει] A; add. κύριος CS, with Hebrew and

θέλητε] θεληται A. 14 γὰρ] AC;

word from the LXX. See Hatch
Essays in Biblical Greek p. 177, for
the various readings in the MSs of
the Lxx and in the quotation. It is
twice quoted by Justin Martyr, Aol.
i. 44 (p. 81), i. 61 (p. 94), and the first
verse again in a third passage, Dead.
18 (p. 235); but his quotations do
not agree verbatzm one with another.
Almost all the various readings of our
authorities here, καθαροὶ (καὶ καθαροὶ),
ἀφέλεσθε (ἀφέλετε), καὶ δικαιώσατε
(δικαιώσατε), χήρᾳ (χήραν), δεῦτε καὶ
(δεῦτε), διελεγχθῶμεν (διαλεχθῶμεν,
etc.) are found in the Mss of the LXxX
or in Justin or in both.

9. δικαιώσατε χήρᾳ] ‘give redress
to the widow, preserving the same
construction as in κρίνατε ὀρφανῷ.
The LXx however has the accusative
χήραν in the second clause though
with a various reading χήρᾳ.

10. λέγει] SC. ὁ Κύριος, which words
occur in the LXx of Isaiah in accord-
ance with the Hebrew.

16. παντοκρατορικῷ] Apparently the
earliest instance of this word; comp.
§ 60.

1X! “Let us therefore ‘obey’ ‘His
gracious summons. Let us contem-
plate the bright examples of obedi-

42 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

[1x

/ > ~ nf / U as 7 \ ΄σ
βουλήσει αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἱκέται γενόμενοι τοῦ ἐλέους καὶ τῆς
, - ῇ An ΄ \
χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ προσπέσωμεν καὶ ἐπιστρέψωμεν ἐπὶ
2 \ ΄σ / \ f
TOUS οἰκτιρμοὺς αὐτοῦ, ἀπολιπόντες THY ματαιοπονίαν
, ” \ A 49 , " - 5 ,
τήν τε ἔριν καὶ TO εἰς θάνατον ἄγον ζῆλος. ἀτενίσωμεν
is τοὺς τελείως ἃ Ϊ μεγαλοπρεπεῖ δό
εἰς τοὺς τελείως λειτουργήσαντας TH μεγαλοπρεπ En

αὐτοῦ. λάβωμεν Evy, os ἐν ὑπακοῇ δίκαιος εὑρεθεὶς.

1 γενόμενοι] AC; but S seems to read γινόμενοι.
amodurdévres] AC ; but S apparently ἀπολείποντες.
λειτουργήσανταΞ] λιτουργησαντασ A.

3 οἰκτιρμοὺς] οικτειρμουσ Α.
5 τελείως] AC; τελείους 5.

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

3. ματαιοπονίαν)] The word occurs
in Classical writers, e.g. ΕἸΠΕ. Aor.
119 E, Lucian Déal. Mort. x. 8 (1. p.
369) ; comp. Theoph. ad “οἰ. ii. 7,
12, iii. 1. Polycarp, Phzl. 2, appa-
rently remembering this passage has
ἀπολιπόντες τὴν κενὴν ματαιολογίαν
καὶ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν πλάνην. But this
does not justify a change of reading
here ; for ματαιοπονίαν, 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.
Ματαιολογία occurs I Tim. i. 6.

4. ἀτενίσωμεν κιτ.λ.] Clement of
Alexandria Stvom. iv. 16 (p. 610), after
giving an earlier passage from this
epistle (see ὃ 1), adds εἶτ᾽ ἐμφανέστε-
pov ᾿Ατενίσωμεν κιτιλ. down to ‘PaaB
ἡ πόρνη (ὃ 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. τῇ μεγαλοπρεπεῖ δόξη] The same
expression occurs) in.2 .Pet,: ἴ᾿ 17.
The word μεγαλοπρεπὴς is frequent
in Clement, §§ 1, 19, 45, 58, 61, 64,

ἐλέους] ελαιουσ A.
7 θάνα-

and just above (comp. μεγαλοπρέπεια
§ 60). It is only found this once in
the ΝΥΝ ΤΣ

6. Ἐνώχ] Clement is here copying
Heb. xi. 5 ᾿Ενὼχ μετετέθη τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν
θάνατον καὶ οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο (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.

δίκαιο] The book of Enoch is
quoted as ᾽᾿Ενὼχ ὁ δίκαιος in Test. xit
Patr. Levi 10, Juda 18, Dan. 5, Benj.
9. 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. For this
reflexive use of αὐτοῦ see A. Buttmann
p.98 sq. Comp. also §§ 12, 14, 30.

8. παλιγγενεσίαν i.e.‘a second birth,
a renewal, of the world after the
flood; as Orac. «576. i. 195 (comp.
Vil. II) καὶ δεύτερος ἔσσεται αἰών,
words put into the mouth of Noah

σι

x] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 43

/ [4 land /
μετετέθη, Kal οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῦ θάνατος.

~ A
Nowe πιστὸς

GC \ \ > / 3 > / /
εὑρεθεὶς διὰ τῆς λειτουργίας αὐτοῦ παλιγγενεσίαν κόσμῳ

᾽ / \ id 3 > - e id \ 5)
ἐκήρυξεν, Kal διέσωσεν δι’ αὐτοῦ ὁ δεσπότης Ta εἰσελ-

/ ᾽ € 7 a 3 δ 7
IO θόντα εν OMOVOLA Coa εἰς Τὴν κιβωτόν.

X. Αβρααμ, ὁ φίλος προσαγορευθείς, πιστὸς εὑ-

τος] A; ὁ θάνατος C.
λειτουργίᾳ C.
dominus universt 55 ND).

himself. See Philo ΚΖί. Moys. ii. 12
(ii. p. 144) παλιγγενεσίας ἐγένοντο rye-
μόνες καὶ δευτέρας ἀρχηγέται περιόδου,
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 τὰς
ἐκπυρώσεις καὶ Tas παλιγγενεσίας εἰσ-
ηγούμενοι τοῦ κόσμου, Marc. Anton.
xi. I τὴν περιοδικὴν παλιγγενεσίαν τῶν
ὅλων (with Gataker’s note). For
Christian uses see Suicer s.v. Any
direct reference to the baptismal
water (λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας, Tit. 111.
5), as typified by the flood (comp.
1 Pet. iii. 21), seems out of place here ;
but παλιγγενεσία appears to allude
indirectly to the renewal of the Corin-
thian Church by repentance. See
the next note.

10. ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ] An indirect reference
to the feuds at Corinth. Even the
dumb animals set an example of
concord ; see below ὃ 20 τὰ ἐλάχιστα
τῶν ζώων τὰς συνελεύσεις αὐτῶν ἐν
ὁμονοίᾳ καὶ εἰρήνῃ ποιοῦνται. The word
ὁμόνοια 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 διὰ τῆς λειτουργίας] AS (but λιτουργιασ A); ἐν τῇ
9 ὁ δεσπότης] S translates the word here and in other passages
11 πιστὸς] πιστισ 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.’

11. ὁ φίλος] From Is. xli. ὃ ‘Abra-
ham my friend’ (LXX ὃν ἠγάπησα):
comp. 2 Chron. xx. 7, and see the
passages of the LXxX quoted by
Roensch Zeztschr. f. Wiss. Theol.
XVI. p. 583 (1873). See also James
11. 23 καὶ φίλος Θεοῦ ἐκλήθη, and below
δ 17 φίλος προσηγορεύθη τοῦ Θεοῦ.
In the short paraphrase of the Alex-
andrian Clement this chapter relating
to Abraham is abridged thus, ’ASpaau
os διὰ πίστιν καὶ φιλοξενίαν φίλος Θεοῦ
πατὴρ δὲ τοῦ Ἰσαὰκ προσηγορεύθη ;
and it has therefore been suggest-
ed to read Oy didoc for o φιλου.
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 Few7sh
Church 1. p. 13. So too Clem. Hom.
XVili. 13 οὕτως δύναται... οὐδὲ Ἐνὼχ ὁ
εὐαρεστήσας μὴ εἰδέναι οὔτε Νῶε ὁ δί-
καιος μὴ ἐπίστασθαι οὔτε ᾿Αβραὰμ ὁ
φίλος μὴ συνιέναι, 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-

A4 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [x

᾿ ~ € y lA a cay. ΄
ρέθη ἐν τῳ αὐτὸν ὑπήκοον γενέσθαι τοῖς ρήμασιν Tou
Θεοῦ.

fol - δια ΄σ / “ \
ἐκ τῆς συγγενείας αὐτοῦ Kal EK τοῦ οἴκου TOV πατρος

τ ΄σ Ie > ΄σ “ > ~ 4
οὗτος Ov ὑπακοῆς ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τῆς γῆς αὐτοὺ και

αὐτοῦ, ὅπως γῆν ὀλίγην καὶ συγγένειαν ἀσθενῆ καὶ οἶκον
μικρὸν καταλιπὼν κληρονομήσῃ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τοῦ 5
Θεοῦ. λέγει γὰρ αὐτῷ" Ἄπελθε ἐκ TAC ΓΗ͂Ο coy Kal ἐκ
τῆς ογγγενείδο coy καὶ ἐκ TOY οἴκου τοῦ πᾶτρύς Coy εἶς THN
γῆν HN ἂν col λείξω, Kal TOIHCH ce εἰο ἔθνος μέγὰ KAl εὖ-
λογήσω CE KAl μεγάλγνῶ τὸ ONOMA COY, KAl ECH εὐλογημέ-
NOC’ Kal eYAorHcw Toye EYAOPOYNTAC CE KAI KATAPACOMAI
τοὺς KATAPWMENOYC CE, KAI EYAOTHOHCONTAI EN 60] -πᾶσδι Al
φγλδὶ τῆς γῆς. Kal πάλιν ἐν τῷ διαχωρισθῆναι αὐτὸν
ἀπὸ Λὼτ εἶπεν αὐτῷ 6 Θεός: ᾿Αναβλέψδο τοῖς ὀφθὰλ-
MOIC COY, 'λε ἀπὸ τοῦ τόπου, OY νῦν οὐ εἶ, πρὸς BOPpAN Kal AIBA
Kal ANATOAAC Kal OAAACCAN’ ὅτι TACAN THN γῆν, HN Cy ὁρᾷο,

3 ovyyevelas] συγγενιασ A.
ράσομαι] A; καταράσσομαι C.

5 ἐπαγγελίας] επαγγελειασ A.
15 ἣν] AS; om. Ὁ. 16 αἰῶνος] A; τοῦ
19 ᾿Εξήγαγεν] A; ἐξήγαγε δὲ CS. a1 τοὺς dorépas] AC;

24 γήρᾳ] γήρει C; see the note on § 63. 25 τῷ
Θεῴ] AS; om. C. For a similar omission see Ign. Kom. 4. πρὸ } A; els C5
super S (with the Hebr. and Pesh. of Gen. xxii. 2, where the LXx has ἐφ᾽ or ἐπὶ).

19 KaTa-

αἰῶνος C.
add. τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 5.

stolic age, that Philo once inadver-
tently quotes Gen. xviii. 17 ᾿Αβραὰμ
τοῦ φίλου μου for τοῦ παιδός μου and
argues from the expression, de Sodr.

of the Lord.’ Later Rabbinical illus-
trations of this title will be found in
Wetstein on James ii. 23, and espe-
cially in Beer Leben Abraham’s, notes

II (I. p. 401), though elsewhere he
gives the same text correctly de Leg.
All. iii. 8 (1. p. 93), Quaest. tn Gen. iv.
21 (p.261 Aucher). At a much earlier
date one Molon (Joseph. c. 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 πατρὸς
φίλον, apparently reading OA IN as
if it were OM7AN. And in the Book of
Jubilees c. 19 (Dillmann in Lwald’s
Fahrb. il. p. 15) it is said of this
patriarch that ‘he was written down
on the heavenly tablets as a friend

427, 431, 950. Comp. Tertull. adv.
Fud. 2 ‘unde Abraham amicus Dei
deputatus ?’

6. "Απελθε κιτ.λ.] From LXX Gen.
xii. I—3 with slight but unimportant
variations. In omitting καὶ δεῦρο
after τοῦ πατρός σου Clement agrees
with A and the Hebrew against the
common text which inserts the words.
He also reads εὐλογηθήσονται with A
against the common text ἐνευλογηθή-
σονται, but εὐλογημένος where A has
εὐλογητός. See Hatch Biblical Greek
p. 154 for the various readings in this
passage in the Mss of the 1ΧΧ, in Acts

x1] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 45

col A@CW AYTHN KAI τῷ crmépmati coy ἕως ai@noc’ kal

>

ποιήσω TO CTépMa COY ὧς THN ἄμμον TAC γῆς: εἰ AYNaTal
Tic ἐξὰριθμῆσδι THN ἄμμον TAC γῆς, κἂὶ TO οπέρμὰ coy
> , \ , / 3 , c \
€ZapiomHOHceTal Kal πάλιν λέγει" ᾿Εξήγαγεν ὁ Oedc TON
"ABpaaM Kal εἶπεν ἀὐτῷ: ἀνάβλεψον εἶς TON οὐρανὸν Kal
APIOMHCON TOYC ACTEPAC, εἰ AYNHCH ἐξὰριθμῆοδι AYTOYC*
οὕτως €cTal TO cmépma coy: ἐπίοτεγοεν δὲ ‘ABpadm τῷ
a ape) ͵ > a > ’ Ἃ , \
Θεῷ, KAI ἐλογίσθη AYTG@ EIC AIKAIOCYNHN. Διὰ πίστιν Kat
iE 20 7} 2 > can 2 / \ δι ε “-
φιλοξενίαν ἐδόθη αὐτῷ νιος ἐν γήρᾳ; καὶ OL ὑπακοῆς
ἢ \ / ~ ~ \ « ~ > /
T POONVEY KEV αὐτὸν θυσίαν τῳ Θεώ προς EV των OPEWV
Φ af 9 ΄σ΄
ὧν ἔδειξεν αὐτῷ.
\ / 4 > ΄ \ ,
ΧΙ. Διὰ φιλοξενίαν καὶ εὐσέβειαν Λὼτ ἐσώθη ἐκ
7 ΄σ , / / \ \ A
Codouwr, τῆς περιχώρου πάσης κριθείσης διὰ πυρὸς καὶ
/ , , ε / / \ > /
θείου: πρόδηλον ποιήσας ὁ δεσπότης, ὅτι τοὺς ἐλπίζον-
ΟΡ. > \ ? > / Y \ ς ~
τας ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν οὐκ ἐγκαταλείπει, τοὺς δὲ ἑτεροκλινεῖς
ὀρέων] οραιων A. 28 xpibelons] A, as I read it. Tischendorf, with whom

Wright agrees, reads it κριθησὴσ and appeals to the photograph. The photo-
graph seems to me more like κριθεισησ, and another inspection of the Ms itself

confirms me.
θιου A.
and so too apparently S; εἰς αὐτὸν C.

vii. 3, and in Philo Migr. Abrah. τ (1.
p- 436). Clement agrees with Philo in
quoting ἄπελθε for ἔξελθε.

12. ἐν τῷ διαχωρισθῆναι] The ex-
pression is taken from Gen. xiii. 14
pera τὸ διαχωρισθῆναι τὸν Λὼτ ἀπ᾽
αὐτοῦ.

13. ᾿Αναβλέψας κ-τ.λ.] From LXxX
Gen. xiii. 14—16, almost word for
word.

19. ᾿Ἐξήγαγεν] From LXxX Gen. xv.
5, 6, with unimportant variations.

24. φιλοξενίαν] 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 ἀφιλοξενίαν below, § 35.

Ι can see no traces of the left-hand stroke of an H.
mowjoas| AC; S translates as if ἐποίησεν.

29 θείου]
30 ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν] A,

25. πρὸς ἕν κιτ.λ.] Gen. xxii. 2 ἐφ᾽
ἕν TOV ὀρέων ὧν ἄν σοι εἴπω.

ΧΙ. ‘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. κριθείσης διὰ πυρὸς] Comp. 15.
Ixvi. 16 ἐν τῷ πυρὶ Κυρίου κριθήσεται
πᾶσα ἡ γῆ. The emendation καυθείσης
for κριθείσης is unnecessary as well
as weak.

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

30. érepoxduweis] ‘swerving aside,
especially in a bad sense; Epictet.

46

THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

[xI

“ / \ > \ / Ge
ὑπάρχοντας εἰς κόλασιν Kal αἰκισμὸν τίθησιν" συνεξελ-.

/ \ ΄σ ΄σ tf / ε TA
θούσης yap αὐτῷ τῆς γυναικὸς, ἑτερογνώμονος ὑπαρχού-

7ὔ 3 ΄σ ΄ / e/
Ons Kal οὐκ ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ, εἰς τοῦτο σημεῖον ἐτέθη ὥστε

(d > \ / € A J ~ € / / >
γενέσθαι αὐτὴν στήλην ἄλος EWS τῆς ἡμέρας TAUTNS, εἰς

\ \ > Ξ “ cy ee. G ὃ ,
TO γνωώστον εἰναι πασιν OTL OL δίψυχοι και Ol ισταζον-

1 κόλασιν] AC; but S translates as if κρίσιν.

2 €Trepoyvw@movos| C; A is

read ετερογνωμοσ by Tischendorf and Jacobson, ετερογνωμου by Vansitiart. 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 €ype@H on the oppo-

site side of the page.
om. C. 6 κρίμα] κρῖμα C.

Diss. 111. 12. 7 ἑτεροκλινῶς ἔχω πρὸς
ἡδονήν. See below, ὃ 47 τοὺς ἑτεροκλι-
νεῖς ὑπάρχοντας ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν. So €repo-
κλινία Clem. Hom. Ep. ad Jac. 15, said
of the ship of the Church heeling
over, when not properly trimmed.

2. érepoyvepovos] The word has
two senses, either (1) ‘dissentient,
otherwise-minded,’ Cyril. Alex. zz Es.
xlviii (ΤΙ. p. 642), lii (11. p. 736) ὁλοτρό-
πὼς ἑτερογνώμονας παρ᾽ ἐκείνους ; ΟΥ̓ (2)
‘wavering, double-minded’, Cyril.
Alex. Cord. Cat.in Ps. τ. p. 225 διψύχου
τε καὶ €Tepoyvepovos. As it seems to
be defined here by οὐκ ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ, the
first meaning must be adopted;
though Lot’s wife was also ἑτερογνώ-
pov in the other sense, and as such
is classed among οἱ δίψυχοι καὶ διστά-
ζοντες below. In ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ there is
again an allusion to the feuds at
Corinth ; see above § 9.

3. εἰς τοῦτο x.7.A.] Here ὥστε is
dependent not on εἰς τοῦτο, but on
σημεῖον ἐτέθη ; and εἰς τοῦτο ‘to this
end’ stands independently, being
afterwards explained by εἰς τὸ yro-
στὸν εἶναι κιτ.λ.

4. ἕως τῆς np. ταύτης | A pillar of salt
identified with Lot’s wife is mention-
ed as standing in Wisdom x. 7, ἀπι-
στούσης ψυχῆς μνημεῖον ἑστηκυῖα στήλη
ἁλός, and in Joseph. Azz. 1.11.4 who
says that he himself had seen it. So

The reading therefore is erepoyywpoo.
σημείωσιν] onutwow A.

3 τοῦτο] AS;
8 φιλοξενίαν]

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, Cavech. xix.
ὃ (p. 309), describes Lot’s wife as ἐστη-
λιτευμένη δι’ αἰῶνος. The region a-
bounds in such pillars of salt (see
Robinson’s Bzblical Researches, etc.
II. p. 108 sq). Medizval and even
modern travellers have delighted to
identify one or other of these with
Lot’s wife.

5. of δίψυχοι] The wordoccurs 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, Vis. 115. 2, 1.2, 3, 457,10, ἘΠ
iv. I, 2, Sz. vill. 7, etc., but especi-
ally Mand. ix, x. Comp. also Didache
4 ov διψυχήσεις πότερον ἔσται ἢ οὔ,
with the corresponding passage in
Barnab. 19. See below § 23 with
the note (comp. Clem. Rom. 11. § 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.’

ὃ. ‘Paa8] This account is taken

x11] TO THE CORINTHIANS.

47
\ - ΄ ΄σ / > ὔ \ 3
τες περὶ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δυνάμεως εἰς κρίμα καὶ εἰς ση-
/ ~ ~ /
μείωσιν πάσαις ταῖς γενεαῖς γίνονται.
/
ΧΙ]. Διὰ πίστιν καὶ φιλοξενίαν ἐσώθη ἹΡαὰβ ἡ
/ 4 fe \ ε \ 5 ~ ΄- ~ Ἁ
πόρνη" ἐκπεμφθέντων γὰρ ὑπὸ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ τοῦ Νανὴ
A 7 \ ~ ΄
κατασκόπων εἰς τὴν ‘lepiyw, ἔγνω 6 βασιλεὺς τῆς γῆς
v4 « “ \ ~
OTL ἥκασιν κατασκοπεῦσαι THY χώραν αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐξέ-

A, but CS repeat the preposition, see διὰ φιλοξενίαν. For C see Bryennios Didache
Pp: py’. ἡ πόρνη] A; ἡ ἐπιλεγομένη πόρνη CS; see the lower note. Q ἐκ-

πεμφθέντων] εκπεῴφθεντων A.
16 τὴν] A; om. Ὁ.
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
διὰ πίστιν καὶ φιλοξενίαν connects the
two aspects, to which the two Apo-
stolic writers severally direct atten-
tion, the πίστις of the one, the ἔργα
of the other; comp. §§ 31, 33, 34, 49
(notes). See also the note on the φιλο-
ξενία of Abraham § to.

7 πόρνη] For the insertion ἡ ἐπι-
λεγομένη 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
Hom. iii. § 3 (I. 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. 20.
vi. § 3 (p. 411). From a like motive
the Targum interprets the word in
Josh. ii. τ by δὲ ΣΡ 15 Ξ- πανδοκευτρία
‘an innkeeper,’ and so Joseph. “1511.
V. I. 2 ὑποχωροῦσιν εἴς τι καταγώγιον...
ὄντες ἐν τῷ τῆς Ῥαχάβης καταγωγίῳ,
etc. This explanation has been a-

τοῦ τοῦ] A; τοῦ (omitting the second τοῦ) C.
11 ἐξέπεμψεν] A; ἔπεμψεν C; dub. 5. For C see

dopted by several Jewish and some
Christian interpreters ; see Gesenius
Thes. 5. v. At, Pp. 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.
xxi, 315 6. Justi 77) rim, sen:
IVs 20% 12.

In Heb. xi. 31 also ἡ ἐπιλεγομένη
πόρνη is read for ἡ πόρνη 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 ὁμοίως δὲ
καὶ ‘PaaB ἡ ἐπιλεγομένη πόρνη διὰ τῆς
φιλοξενίας οὐ συναπώλετο τοῖς ἀπει-
θήσασι, δεξαμένη τοὺς κατασκόπους ἐν
εἰρήνῃ. Immediately before, this
father has mentioned Abraham and
Lot as examples of persons rewarded
for their φιλοξενία, so that he seems
to have had the passage of S. Clement
in view.

9. τοῦ τοῦ Ναυὴ] In the Lxx Num.
ΧΈΧΗ 12) Deut. xxxiti44) foshirvis6,
etc., he is called Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Navy,
and the same expression is adopted
here, though in the genitive it sounds
somewhat awkwardly.

It. αὐτῶν] Not αὑτῶν, as most edi-

48 THE EPISTLE OF 5. CLEMENT [x11

πεμψεν ἄνδρας τοὺς συλλημψομένους αὐτούς, ὅπως
ἡ οὖν φιλόξενος 'Ραὰβ

> / > \ Sf } 2 \ ε = ε \ A
εἰσδεξαμένη QAUTOUS εκρυψεν εἰς TO υπέρώον UTrO τῆν

συλλημφθέντες θανατωθώσιν.

/ > / A ΄ A ΄σ
λινοκαλάμην. ἐπισταθέντων δὲ τῶν παρὰ τοῦ βασι-
λέως καὶ λεγόντων: Πρὸς cé εἰσῆλθον οἱ KATACKOTIO! TAC 5
γῆς ἡμῶν: é@Zd4rare δύτογο, ὁ γὰρ βδοιλεὴς οὔτως κελεύει"
ἡ δὲ ἀπεκρίθη" EicAA@ON μὲν οἱ ANAPEC, OYC Ζητεῖτε,
πρός με, ἀλλὰ εὐθέως ATTAABON KAl πορεύήοντδι TH ὁλῷ᾽
ε / ? ΄ ᾽ / \ “ys \ \
ὑποδεικνύουσα αὐτοις ἐναλλαξ. Καὶ εἰστεν σρος TOUS

I ov\AnuWouevous] συλληψομενουσ A, though just below it has συλλημῴθεντεσ.
For the omission of « compare εκπεῴθεντων above. C has συλληψομένους, συλὰ-
ληφθέντες. For the orthography see § 1 ἀπροσωπολήμπτως. 5 λεγόντων] AC;
add. 2111 8. 8 ἀπῆλθον] A; ἐξῆλθον C.
g ἐναλλάξ] CS. For A, Tischendorf prints ex... as though the 2nd letter were
legible; but nothing more than Εἰ can be discerned, and the 1 might as well be

6 οὕτως]. .τωσ A; οὕτω C.

the upright stroke of N as of k.

tors print it; comp. § 9 and see the
note on Philippians 111. 21.

I. τοὺς συλλημψομένους 1.6. οἱ TVA-
λήμψονται. For this construction see
Winer ὃ xviii. p. 121, and the notes
Galatians 1. 7.

4. λινοκαλάμην] flax-stalks’ laid on
the flat roof of the house to dry; see
Josh. ii. 6. So Joseph. (Avwz. v. τ. 2)
explains it, λίνου yap ἀγκαλίδας ἐπὶ τοῦ
τέγους ἔψυχε. The word ὑπερῷον does
not occur in the original narrative,
which describes the men’s lurking
place as on the house-top (ἐπὶ rod
δώματος). But Clement would not
necessarily be familiar with Eastern
customs and might easily substitute
a wrong expression.

9. ὑποδεικνύουσα αὐτοῖς] Clement
must have made a slip of memory,
as he has done already in ὑπερῷον;
for in the original narrative Rahab
shows the opposite route not to the
king’s messengers but to the spies.

ἐναλλάξ] ‘zn the reverse’ or ‘oppo-
site direction.’ The word ἐναλλάξ has
twomeanings ; (1) ‘a/ternately, which

10 ἐγὼ] AS; om. C.

11 ὑμῶν] A;

is its more frequent sense; (2) ‘cross-
wise, or ‘inversely’; e.g. Aristot.
Anim. Hist. iii. 4 (p. 515, Bekker)
ἕτεραι (φλέβες)... φέρουσιν ἐναλλάξ, ἡ
μὲν ἐκ τῶν ἀριστερῶν εἰς τὰ δεξιά, ἡ δὲ
εἰς τὰ ἀριστερὰ ἐκ τῶν δεξιῶν. 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) καὶ ἐποίησεν ᾿Ιακὼβ ἐναλλὰξ
τὰς χεῖρας κιτιλ. Again in mathe-
matical language speaking of propor-
tion, ἐναλλὰξ is ermutando, i.e. the
inversion of the antecedents and
consequents, as defined by Euclid v.
def. 13 ἐναλλὰξ λόγος ἐστὶ λῆψις τοῦ
ἡγουμένου πρὸς τὸ ἡγούμενον καὶ τοῦ ἐπο-
μένου πρὸς τὸ ἑπόμενον : Comp. Aristot.
Anal, Post. i. 5 (1. p. 74), ii. 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.

11. ὁ φόβος κ-τ.λ.] The expression
does not occur in the 1,ΧΧ here, but

χη] TO THE CORINTHIANS.

49

ἄνδρας" Γινώοκογοὰ γινώοκω ἐγὼ ὅτι Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς
ὑμῶν TAPAAIAWCIN ὑμῖν THN γῆν TAYTHN, ὁ γὰρ φόβος καὶ
ὁ τρόμος ὑμῶν €TTETTECEN τοῖς KATOIKOYCIN AYTHN. ὧς ἐὰν
OYN γένητδι λαβεῖν AYTHN ὑμᾶς, AlACWCATE ME κὰἂὶ τὸν
οἶκον τοῦ πὰτρός ΜΟΥ. καὶ εἶπαν αὐτή" "Ectal ΟΥ̓ ποὺς WC
ἐλάληοσὰς ἡμῖν. ὧς ἐᾶν ΟΥ̓͂Ν γνῷς TAPATINOMENOYC HMAC,
CYNAZEIC πᾶντὰς TOYC COYC ὑπὸ τὸ τέγος Coy, κἂὶ διὰοωθη-
σον τὰι: ὅσοι γὰρ ἐὰν EYPEOACIN ἔξω τῆς οἰκίδο, ἀπολοῦν Τδι.
καὶ προσέθεντο αὐτῇ δοῦναι σημεῖον, ὅπως κρεμάση ἐκ

΄σ af > ΄σ ’ 7 ΄σ .« \
TOU OLKOU αὐτῆς KOKKLVOV, πρόδηλον σοιουντες OTL διὰ

om. CS.
posed in S.
λησας}] A; λελάληκας C.

φόβος, τρόμος] C; φοβοσ, ...μοσ A.
12 αὐτήν] AC; τὴν γῆν 5.

ὡς] AC; not translated in 5.

παραγινομένους] AS (by the pointing); παραγενομένους C.

The two words are trans-
ἐὰν] A; av C. 15 ἐλά-

ἐὰν] A; ἂν C.
τό τὸ τέγος σου]

τοτοεγοσσου A; τὸ στέγος (om. σου) C; tectum domus tuae S. See below. A

reads gov, not ov as sometimes stated.

(καὶ ὅσοι) S. ἐὰν] A; av C.
is common elsewhere; e.g. Gen. 1x. 2,
Deut. ii. 25, xi. 25. These passages
illustrate not only the combination
of φόβος and τρόμος, 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. ii. 9) the words καὶ κατέπτησ-
gov πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες THY γῆν ἀφ᾽
ὑμῶν, 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 LXx has only ἐπι-
πέπτωκεν yap ὁ φόβος ὑμῶν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς.
16. τέγος] The text of our au-
thorities makes it difficult to decide
whether we should read στέγος or
τέγος. The former occurs in the LXX
only once, Epist. Jer. 8; the latter
not at all in the Lxx, but in Aquila
Num. xxv. ὃ. In these passages
they are used for ‘lupanar’; and
τέγος especially has frequently this

bad sense elsewhere (e.g. Ovac.
Szbyll. iii. 186, v. 387). But the
CEM: II:

17 ὅσοι γὰρ] AC; et omnes illt qui

18 κρεμάσῃ] A; ἐκκρεμάσῃ CS.

word is perhaps not intended to bear
the meaning here.

18. προσέθεντο x.t.d.] ‘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,’ as e.g. Luke xix. II
προσθεῖσα εἶπεν, Acts Xil. 3 προσέθετο
συλλαβεῖν καὶ Πέτρον, and socommonly
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,’ appa rently taking
προστίθεσθαι ‘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. πρόδηλον k.7.A.] So Justin Dead.
{11 (p. 338) τὸ σύμβολον τοῦ κοκκίνου
σπαρτίου...τὸ σύμβολον τοῦ αἵματος
τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδήλου, δι’ οὗ οἱ πάλαι

4

50 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

[xu

! ΄- J / / ΄σ ~~
τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου λύτρωσις ἔσται πᾶσιν τοῖς

Ἶ \ \
πιστεύουσιν Kal ἐλπίζουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν Θεόν.

‘Opate,

> 7 3 A / > \ / 3 ~
ayannTol, ov μόνον πίστις ἄλλα προφητεία ἐν τῇ

\ ,
γυναικὶ γέγονεν.

XIII.

Ταπεινοφρονήσωμεν οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἀποθέμε- 5

΄σ \ / \ / A
νοι πᾶσαν ἀλαζονείαν καὶ τύφος Kat ἀφροσύνην Kat

1 τοῦ Κυρίου] AC; τοῦ χριστοῦ S (see the passage of Justin in the lower note).

2 καὶ ἐλπίζουσιν] AC; om. S.

πόρνοι καὶ ἄδικοι ἐκ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν
σώζονται κιτιλ., perhaps getting the
idea from this passage. Irenzeus (iv.
20. 12) copies Justin, ‘Raab ἴοτ-
nicaria conservata est cum universa
domo sua, fide signi coccini etc.’
See also Origen Jn Fes. Hom.
iii. § 5 (11: 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 πρόδηλος occurs twice be-
sides in Clement ὃ 11 πρόδηλον ποιήσας
ὁ δεσπότης ὅτι (the same construction
which we have in Heb. xii. 14 πρόδη-
λον ὅτι ἐξ ᾿Ιούδα κ.τ.λ.), ὃ 40 προδήλων
οὖν ἡμῖν ὄντων τούτων. It may be a
question in many passages whether
the preposition denotes priority in
time or atstinctness. In Demosth.
de Cor. 293 εἰ μὲν yap ἦν σοι πρόδηλα
τὰ μέλλοντα...τότ᾽ ἔδει προλέγειν, εἰ δὲ
μὴ προήδεις κιτιλ., 2. 199 εἰ γὰρ ἦν
ἅπασι πρόδηλα τὰ μέλλοντα γενήσε-
σθαι καὶ προήδεσαν ἅπαντες καὶ σὺ
προύλεγες. On the other hand πρόδη-
Nos frequently signifies ‘plain,’ ‘mani-
fest,’ ‘famous,’ ‘illustrious,’ and it is
explained by προφανής in the Greek
lexicographers.

3 ov] A; ὅτι οὐ CS.

ἀλλὰ] A; add. καὶ

3. ἀλλὰ προφητεία] So Origen zz
Fes. Hom. iii. § 4 (11. p. 403) ‘Sed et
ista meretrix quae eos suscepit ex
meretrice efficitur jam propheta etc.’

4. γέγονεν] The perfect tense yéyo-
vev, ‘zs found, must unquestionably be
the right reading here; comp. 1 Tim.
ii. 14 ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἐξαπατηθεῖσα ἐν παρα-
βάσει γέγονεν, where, as here, the
tense denotes the permanence of the
record and the example. See also
Gal. iii. 18 τῷ δὲ ᾿Αβραὰμ δι ἐπαγγε-
Alas κεχάρισται ὁ Θεός, iv. 23 ὁ ἐκ τῆς
παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, where
the explanation of the perfect is the
same. So too frequently in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, e.g. vii. 6
δεδεκάτωκεν, Xi. 28 πεποίηκεν.

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. ἀποθέμενοι κιτ.λ.}] So ὃ 57
μάθετε ὑποτάσσεσθαι ἀποθέμενοι τὴν
ἀλάζονα καὶ ὑπερήφανον τῆς γλώσσης
ὑμῶν αὐθάδειαν. Comp. Heb. xii. I
ὄγκον ἀποθέμενοι πάντα, James i. 21, I
Petit; 1.

6. τύφος] A neuter form like ἔλεος,
Gros, πλοῦτος, etc., for which see
Winer § ix. p. 78 and Jacobson’s
note on ζῆλος above § 4. For an ex-

Χαμ]

TO THE CORINTHIANS. 51

ὀργάς, Kal ποιήσωμεν TO γεγραμμένον' λέγει yap TO

΄σ Ned \ , ε \ 3 “ ' > a
πνεῦμα TO ἅγιον" Mi KayyacO@ ὃ coddc EN TH Copia ἀΥ τοῦ,

ς

MHAE ὁ

icyypdc ἐν TH ἰοχύϊ δυτοῦ μηλὲ ὁ πλογοιος ἐν τῷ

πλούτῳ αΥ̓τοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ὁ καγχώμενος ἐν Κγρίῳ κἀγχάσθω, τοῦ

͵
τὰ 3 \

\ . ' \ " /
ἐκζητεῖν AYTON κἀὶ ποιεῖν KPIMA KAI AIKAIOCYNHN’ MaALT TA

a 7 ἴω “ Ε σι e\ 3
μεμνημένοι τῶν λόγων τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ, ovs ἐλάλησεν

CS: 4 γέγονεν] A; ἐγενήθη C3; dub. S. See the lower note and comp. I.

p- 126.

6 ἀλαζονείαν] C; adagoviay A.

τύφος] A; τύφον Ὁ.

10 ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ὁ] A; ἀλλ᾽ ὁ C, and so perhaps 5.

ample of τύφος Jacobson here quotes
Conc. Ephes. Can. 8 (Routh Script.
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.
ἢ 490v. 44, 880v. 45, ed. Caillau), I have
| accentuated it according to this later
usage; see L. Dindorfin S7eph. Thes.
s.v. and compare the analogy of στῦ-
hos, στύλος, Galatians ii. 9.

ὃ. Μὴ καυχάσθω «.7.r.] 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. 10 runs ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν τούτῳ
καυχάσθω ὁ καυχώμενος συνιεῖν καὶ
γινώσκειν τὸν Κύριον καὶ ποιεῖν κρίμα
καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐν μέσῳ τῆς γῆς; 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. i. 31
καθὼς γέγραπται, 2 Cor. Χ. 17) ὁ καυχώ-
μενος ἐν Κυρίῳ καυχάσθω. The resem-
blance of Clement’s language to 5.
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. 10 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 ὁ
καυχώμενος ἐν Κυρίῳ καυχάσθω. The
former is the more probable hypo-
thesis. Iren. iv. 17. 3 quotes Jer. 1x.
24 as it stands in our texts. In
neither passage does the Hebrew
aid in solving the difficulty. In 1 Sam.
ii. 10 it is much shorter than and quite
different from the LXx. Lucifer pro
Athan. ii. 2 (Hartel, p. 148) quotes
it ‘non glorietur sapiens in sua sa-
pientia nec glorietur dives in divitiis
suis, sed in 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 ἐκζη-
τεῖν 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. xlii (20. Vet. Patr.
p- 1097, Paris 1624) quotes directly
from 1 Sam. 11. 10, and betrays no
connexion with Clement’s language.

12. μεμνημένοι k.t.A.| Comp. Acts
XX. 35 μνημονεύειν τῶν λόγων τοῦ Κυρίου
Ἰησοῦ, ὅτι εἶπεν κατιλ. See above ὃ 2
ἥδιον λαμβάνοντες κιτ.λ. (with the note),
where Clement’s language reflects
the context of this quotation.

4—2

52 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

διδάσκων ἐπιείκειαν καὶ μακροθυμίαν: οὕτως yap εἴπεν"
Ἐλεᾶτε ina ἐλεηθῆτε, ἀφίετε INA ἀφεθη ὑμῖν" ὧς ποιεῖτε,
οὕτω TOIHGHCETAI ὑμῖν: ὧς AlAoTE, οὕτως AOBHCETAI YMIN*
ὧς κρίνετε, OY TMC KPIOHCECOE’ ὧς YPHCTEYECOE, οὕτως YPH-
cTeyOHceTal ὑμῖν" ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε EN AYTG METPHOHCE-
rar ymin. Ταύτη τῆ ἐντολῇ καὶ τοῖς παραγγέλμασιν
τούτοις στηρίξωμεν ἑαυτοὺς εἰς τὸ πορεύεσθαι ὑπηκόους

5) ΄σ / / ΄
ὄντας τοῖς ἀγιοπρεπέσι λόγοις αὐτοῦ, ταπεινοῴρο-

1 ἐπιείκειαν] επιεικιαν A.

ἐλεεῖτε (. ἀφίετε] A; ἄφετε C.

places in this sentence where it occurs; so too A, except in the first, where it has
χρηστεύεσθε] χρηστευεσθαι A. 5 ᾧ
μέτρῳ... μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν] here, AS Clem; before ὡς κρίνετε κ.τΤ.λ.» C. ἐν
αὐτῷ] S; evavtn A; οὕτως C; om. Clem.
το πραὺν] A; πρᾶον C.

ουτω. 4 κρίνετε] κρινεται A.

πορεύεσθαι] πορεύεσθες.

2. ᾿Ἐλεᾶτε κιτ.λ.] The same saying
which is recorded in Matt. vii. I, 2,
Luke vi. 36—38, to which should be
added Matt. v. 7 μακάριοι of ἔλεήμονες
ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἐλεηθήσονται, Vi. 14 ἐὰν yap
ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις κ-τ.λ., Luke vi.
31 καθὼς θέλετε ἵνα ποιῶσιν k.T.A.
(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, ὃ 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
ἀφίετε καὶ ἀφεθήσεται ὑμῖν, ἐλεεῖτε ἵνα
ἐλεηθῆτε, but it can hardly be doubted
from his manner of introducing the
quotation (μνημονεύοντες ὧν εἶπεν ὁ
Κύριος διδάσκων), that he had this
passage of Clement in his mind
and does not quote independently.
See also Clem. Alex. Stvom. ii. 18
(p. 476) ἐλεᾶτε, φησὶν ὁ Κύριος «.7.X.,

ovrws] Ο; ««-τωσ A.

[x11

2 ᾿Ελεᾶτε] A;
3 οὕτως] C, and in all the other

7 στηρίξωμεν)] A; στηρίζωμεν C.
τὰ λόγια] A;

where it is quoted almost exactly as
here, except that ἐν αὐτῷ 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. “2052. Const. 11. 21,
Ps-Ign. Trad. ὃ.

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

4. ὡς xpnoreverOe] The corre-
sponding words in 5. Luke (vi. 36)
are γίνεσθεοἰκτίρμονες. In Justin Deal.
96 and Afol. i. 15 they are quoted
γίνεσθε δὲ χρηστοὶ καὶ οἰκτίρμονες, and
in Clem. Hom. 111. 57 γίνεσθε ἀγαθοὶ
καὶ οἰκτίρμονες. Theverbypnorever Oat
occurs I Cor, ΧΙ]. 4.

5. © μέτρῳ κ-τ.λ.] Quoted also in-
directly Clem. Hom. xviii. 16 6 μέτρῳ
ἐμέτρησαν, μετρηθῇ αὐτοῖς τῷ ἴσῳ. See |
Mark iv. 24, besides the passages |
already quoted from the other Evan- |
gelists.

8. ἁγιοπρεπέσι] Compare Polyce.
Phil. τ. This is apparently the earli-

|
gue i

x1v] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 53

a \ A €
νοῦντες. φησίν yap o

ὁ ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐπὶ TON TIPAYN KAI HCYYION KAl TPEMONTA MOY TA λόγιδ;

J , > \ ' 2 ,
ἅγιος Novos? Ἐπὶ Tina ἐπιβλέψω,

ἊΣ .« af
XIV. Δίκαιον οὖν καὶ ὅσιον, ἀνδρες ἀδελφοί, ὑπη-
ε > > 4 - oN = 3 3
κόους ἡμᾶς μᾶλλον γενέσθαι τῴ Θεῷ ἢ τοῖς ἐν ἀλαζονείᾳ
~~ 7 3 ~ >
καὶ ἀκαταστασίᾳ μυσεροῦ ζήλους ἀρχηγοῖς ἐξακολου-
θεῖν.

{ ε ,ὔ , oy AN ε 4 > “ ε
5 δυνον UTOLOOMEVY μέγαν, εαν ῥιψοκινδύνως ἐπιδώμεν εαυ-

βλάβην γὰρ οὐ τὴν τυχοῦσαν, μᾶλλον δὲ κίν-

\ a / ΄σ 3 / of > ,
TOUS τοις θελήμασιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, OLTLVES ἐξακοντί-
ol \ , > Nig A a
ζουσιν εἰς ἐριν καὶ στάσεις εἰς TO ἀπαλλοτριῶσαι ἡμᾶς
11 ὅσιον] AC; θεῖον S. See also §§ 2,
21. 12 ἡμᾶς] AS; ὑμᾶς C. γενέσθαι τῷ Θεῷ] A; τῷ θεῷ γενέσθαι

Cs. ἀλαζονείᾳ] adagovia A. 13 ζήλους] A; dou C. 17 ἔριν]
A; ἔρεις S (where the plural depends merely on rzézz, and would be suggested by

τοὺς λόγους C (with Lxx); dub. S.

σεις] στασισ 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.

9. “Emi τίνα κιτιλ.] A quotation from
the Lxx of Is. Ixvi. 2 with slight and
unimportant variations. For a dis-
tinction between πραὺς and ἡσύχιος
see Bengel on 1 Pet. iii. 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.’

11. Δίκαιον κιτ.λ.] This passage as
far as καλῶς ἔχοντος is quoted in
Nicon the Monk, in an extract given
by Cotelier from the Paris Mss Reg.
2418, 2423, 2424. He strings together
| with this passage quotations from δὲ
15, 46, of this epistle, and § 3 of the

the plural of the following word); αἱρέσεις C Nicon. See above, I. p. 125.
eis τὸ] AC; τοῦ Nicon.

,
στα-

Second. See the several references.

ὑπηκόους k.T.A.] For the stress laid
by Clement on the duty of ὑπακοή,
see S§ 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 58, 60, 63.

13. puoepov] The form μυσερὸς
occurs again below § 30; andin both
places the editors have altered it to
μυσαρός. 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 ἐκαθερίσθη is read
in the best MSS: see Tischendorf on
Acts x. 15 and proleg. p. 1 (ed. 7),
Winer ὃ v. p. 56. See also the form
puepay (for μιαρὰν) in Boeckh C. 7. G.
no. 3588. So likewise the play on
ἱερεύς, μιερεύς, in Afost. Const. 11. 28.
(C writes μυσαράν for μυσεράν in § 30,
but not so here).

ἀρχηγοῖς] Comp. ὃ 51 ἀρχηγοὶ τῆς
στάσεως.

I5. ῥιψοκινδύνως] ‘in a foolhardy
spirit’; Appian Czv.1. 103. It does
not occur in the LXX or New Testa-
ment.

16. ἐξακοντίζουσιν] The word here
appears to mean, ‘launch out.’ Gene-
rally, when it occurs metaphorically,

54 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xIv
τοῦ καλῶς ἔχοντος. χρηστευσώμεθα αὐτοῖς κατὰ THY
εὐσπλαγχνίαν καὶ γλυκύτητα τοῦ ποιήσαντος ἡμάς.
γέγραπται γάρ" Χρηοτοὶ €contal οἰκήτορες γῆο, ἄκδκοι
λὲ YTIOAEIPOHCONTAl ἐπ᾿ AYTAC’ οἱ δὲ TAPANOMOYNTEC ἐξο-
AEOPEYOHCONTAI ATT aYTAC Kal πάλιν λέγει" Εἴἷλον AceBA
ὑπερυψούμενον KAl ἐπδιρόμενον ὧς TAC KEAPOYC τοῦ Λιβᾶ-

NOY, κἀὶ πὰρῆλθον καὶ ἰδοὺ οὐκ HN, Kal ἐξεζήτηοὰ τὸν Τόπον

1 αὐτοῖς] A; ἑαυτοῖς CS.

am αὐτῆς] AC; om. S (by homceoteleuton).

θρευθήσονται C. See the lower note.

aceBnv A; τὸν ἀσεβὴ C3; there is the same v.1. in the LXx.
ἡ τὸν τόπον... εὗρον] AC; αὐτὸν καὶ οὐχ εὑρέθη ὁ τόπος
g ἐνκατάλειμμα] ενκαταλιμμα A; ἐγκατάλλειμμα

αἰπερομενον A.
αὐτοῦ (with the 1,ΧΧ) 5.

Ge το κολληθῶμεν] AC; ἀκολουθήσωμεν Nicon.

λόγους Or ϑἧ γλώσσας would be under-
stood, if not expressed.

I. αὐτοῖς] ‘towards them, the
leaders of the schism ; comp. 2 Thess.
ili, 15 μὴ ὡς ἐχθρὸν ἡγεῖσθε κιτιλ. This
must be done ‘in imitation of the com-
passion of the Creator Himself’ (κατὰ
τὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν k.T.A.); comp. Matt.
v. 44. Others substitute αὑτοῖς = ἀλλή-
λοις, but this is not so good. More-
over, as the contracted form αὑτοῦ
etc., for ἑαυτοῦ etc., seems never to
occur in the New Testament, it is a
question whether Clement would have
used it : see the note on αὐτῶν § 12.

2. εὐσπλαγχνίαν κιτ.λ.}] The same
combination occurs in Theoph. ad
Autol. ii. 14 τὴν γλυκύτητα καὶ ev-
σπλαγχνίαν καὶ δικαιοσύνην k.T.A. quoted
by Harnack.

3. χρηστοὶ «.7.A.] From Prov. ii.
21,22. The first part of the quota-
tion χρηστοὶ...ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς is found in A
with a very slight variation (and par-
tially in 5), but B omits the words ; the
second runs in all the best Mss of the
LXX, ὁδοὶ [δὲ] ἀσεβῶν ἐκ γῆς ὀλοῦνται, of
δὲ παράνομοι ἐξωσθήσονται ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς. In
quoting the latter part Clement seems
to be confusing it with Ps. xxxvii. 39
οἱ δὲ παράνομοι ἐξολοθρευθήσονται ἐπὶ

2 γλυκύτητα] γλυκήτητα C.

4 οἱ δὲ...

ἐξολεθρευθήσονται] A; εξολο-
5 Hidov] ιδον A. ἀσεβῆ]
6 ἐπαιρόμενον

12 Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς]

ro αὐτο, which occurs in the context
of his next quotation.

4. ἐξολεθρευθήσονται! On the vary-
ing forms ὀλεθρεύειν and ὀλοθρεύειν
see Tischendorf ov. Test. Ὁ. xlix.
Our chief Ms for the most part writes
the word with an «.

5. Εἶδον ἀσεβῆ κιτ.λ.] From the
LXxX of Ps. xxxvil. 36—38 with unim-
portant variations. The LXxX has καὶ
ἐζήτησα αὐτὸν Kal οὐχ εὑρέθη ὁ τόπος
αὐτοῦ. In the Hebrew there is
nothing corresponding to ὁ τόπος
αὐτοῦ. 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
(παρρησιάσομαι ἐν αὐτῷ). 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 καὶ ἐζήτησα αὐτὸν
k.T.A.; (2) For the most part he follows
Clement of Rome, e.g. in the remark-
able omission noted below (on ἄλαλα
γενηθήτω x.7.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

xv] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 55

3 a \ 2 2 , 3 ' \ > , a
aYTOY KAI οὐχ EYPON. MYAACCE BKAKIAN KAl TAE EYOYTHTA, ὅτι
ECTIN ENKATAAEIMMA ἀνθρώπῳ EIPHNIKG.

ΤᾺ ic - 7
XV. Τοίνυν κολληθώμεν τοῖς μετ᾽ εὐσεβείας εἰρη-

“ \ \ ΄ 5. we / / 3 /
νεύουσιν, καὶ μὴ τοῖς μεθ᾽ ὑποκρίσεως βουλομένοις εἰρή-
νην. λέγει yap που" Οὗτος ὁ Aadc τοῖο χείλεοίν με τιμᾷ,
ς \ ' BG) 1 > ἔν ryan a \ /

ἡ λὲ KAPAIA AYT@N πόρρω ATECTIN ATT ἐμοῦ. καὶ παλιν"
Τῷ cTOMaTI AYT@N EYAOPOYCAN, TH δὲ KAPAIA AYTON KATH-

5 PONTO.

A and apparently S; ὁ λαὸς οὗτος C.

13 ἄπεστιν] A Clem; ἀπέχει C Nicon; dub. 5.
your C; εὐλογοῦσι Clem. See I. p. 127.
κατηρῶντο] C (with LXx); καταρῶνται Clem; Tischendorf says of the

the LXx.

\ , / > , > \ “ '
Kat παλιν Neyer: “HrdtHcan ἀὐτὸν τῷ οτόμδτι

τοῖς χείλεσιν] AS; τῷ στόματι C.
14 εὐλογοῦσαν] A; εὐλό-
τῇ δὲ] AC Clem; καὶ τῇ 8, with

reading of A ‘xarnpovvro certum est,’ but Wright reads it κατηρωντο. I looked

several times and could not feel certain.

On such forms as κατήρουντο see

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

very words of the Roman Clement,
ταπεινοφρονούντων γὰρ ... τὸ ποίμνιον
αὐτοῦ, without any indication that he
is citing from another.

9. ἐνκατάλειμμα]) ‘a remnant, i.e.
a family or a memorial of some
kind, as in ver. 39 τὰ ἐγκαταλείμματα
τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἐξολοθρεύσεται: comp. Ps.
Xxxiv. 16 τοῦ ἐξολοθρεῦσαι ἐκ γῆς τὸ
μνημόσυνον αὐτῶν, 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. Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς] 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, ἐγγίζει μοι 6 λαὸς οὗτος ἐν
τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τοῖς χείλεσιν
αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν pe, they give the sen-
tence in a compressed form οὗτος ὁ
λαὸς (ὁ λαὸς οὗτος Matt.) τοῖς χείλεσίν

με τιμᾷ as here. Both Evangelists
have ἀπέχει with the LxXx, where
Clement has ἄπεστιν. 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 ὁ λαὸς otros stands
for οὗτος 6 λαός. Justin quotes the
Lxx, Deal. 78 (p. 305). For various
readings in the MSS of the Lxx and
quotations from it see Hatch 4zb/ical
Greek p. 177 56.

14. Τῷ στόματι κιτ.λ.] From LXx
Ps. lxii. 4, with unimportant varia-
tions.

εὐλογοῦσαν] for εὐλόγουν. See
Sturz Dial. Mac. p. 58, and the refer-
ences in Winer ὃ xiii. p. 89. In the
LXX here SB have εὐλογοῦσαν. Clem.
Alex. (edd.) quotes εὐλογοῦσι.

15. Ἠγάπησαν κιτ.λ.} From Ps.
Ixxvili. 36, 37 almost word for word.
᾿Ἐπιστώθησαν is here a translation of
\ONI, ‘were stedfast. Though nya-
πησαν is read by the principal Mss
(SB) of the LXx, the original reading
was probably ἠπάτησαν, as this corre-
sponds with the Hebrew. See also
Hatch Biblical Greek p. 204 sq.

56 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xv

αὐτῶν καὶ TH FADCCH δὐτῶν ἐψεύσαντο αὐτόν, ἡ δὲ KapAla
αὐτῶν οὐκ εὐθεῖ MET δύτοῦ, OYAE ETICT@OHCAN EN TH
διδθήκη ayToy. διὰ τοῦτο "AAaAa γενηθήτω τὰ χείλη TA
AGAIA τὰ λάλοῖντὰ KATA TOY AIKAIOY ἀνομίδν᾽" καὶ παλιν
"EZoAcOpeycal Κύριος πᾶντὰ τὰ χείλη τὰ δόλιὸ, rAQ@CCAN
METAAOPHMONA, τοῦς εἰπόντδο, THN FA@CCAN ἡμῶν μεγδλὺ-
νῶμεν, τὰ χείλη ἡμῶν TAP ἡμῖν ἐοτιν᾿ TIC ἡμῶν KYPIOC
€ctin; ἀπὸ TAC τἀλδιπωρίδὰς τῶν πτωχῶν KAI ἀπὸ TOY

1 ἐψεύσαντο] AS Clem; ἔψεξαν C. 3 διὰ τοῦτο] CS Clem; om. A.

γενηθήτω] A Clem; γενηθείη C.
Clem by homceoteleuton.

4 τὰ Nadobdvra...7a δόλια] S; om. AC

5 γλῶσσαν μεγαλορήμονα τοὺς εἰπόντα5] AS; καὶ

γλῶσσαν μεγαλορήμονα τοὺς εἰπόντας Clem; γλῶσσα μεγαλορήμων" καὶ πάλιν" Τοὺς

εἰπόντας 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. διὰ τοῦτο] 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.

ἤλλαλα 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 ἄλαλα γενηθήτω τὰ χείλη
τὰ δόλια are taken from the 1,ΧΧ, Ps.
xxx1.19. Those which follow are from
the LXx Ps. xi. 3—6 ἐξολοθρεύσαι
Κύριος πάντα τὰ χείλη τὰ δόλια [καὶ]
γλῶσσαν μεγαλορήμονα τοὺς εἰπόντας
κιτιλ. Since in the quotation of Cle-
ment, as it stands in the MS, γλῶσσαν
peyadopnpova has no government, it
seems Clear that the transcriber’s eye
has passed from one τὰ χείλη τὰ δόλια
to the other and omitted the intro-
ductory words of the second quota-
tion. I have therefore inserted the
words ἐξολεθρεύσαι Κύριος πάντα τὰ

6 μεγαλύνωμεν] A; μεγαλυνοῦμεν C Clem; dub. 5.

χείλη τὰ δόλια. Wotton and others
detected the omission but made the
insertion in the form καὶ Ἐξ. K. 7.
τ. y. τὰ δόλια καὶ. This does not
explain the scribe’s error. The kat
before γλῶσσαν μεγαλορήμονα; 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 LXxX it must
have been wanting. The Hebrew omits
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 εἶδον ἀσεβῆ
k.T.A. above) gives the passage, ἄλαλα
γενηθήτω πάντα τὰ χείλη τὰ δόλια καὶ
γλῶσσαν μεγαλορήμονα κ-τ.λ.; Inserting
καὶ before γλῶσσαν, 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 μεγαλορή-
μονα see the note on ἐξερίζωσεν § 6.]
7. map ἡμῖν] ‘in our power, our

xvi] TO THE CORINTHIANS. δ.

CTENAPMOY τῶν πενήτων NYN ἀνδοτήοομδι, λέγει Κύριος.
BHCOMAL ἐν οωτηρίῷ, TAPPHCIACOMAL ἐν AYTO.

XVI.

? ’ [i \ \ y ? >
OUK ETT αιρομεένῶν ἐπι TO σποιμνιον αὐτου.

Ταπεινοφρονούντων γάρ ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός,
τὸ σκήπτρον
[τῆς μεγαλωσύνης] τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ Κύριος [ ἡμῶν] Χριστὸς
᾿Ιησοῦς, οὐκ ἦλθεν ἐν κόμπῳ ἀλαζονείας οὐδὲ ὑπερηφα-

\ > \ \
vias, καίπερ δυνάμενος, ἀλλὰ ταπεινοφρονών, καθὼς τὸ

7 παρ᾽ ἡμῖν] A Clem; παρ᾽ ἡμῶν CS.
στήσομαι] αναστησομεν ἃ.
σωτηρίᾳ or ἐν σωτηρίῳ) S; om. C.
λωσύνης] AC; om. S Hieron.

χριστὸς CS Hieron.
AC [Hieron]; add. ἦλθεν 8.

own. It represents the Hebrew 13N8.
The dative is correctly read also by
Clem. Alex. and some mss of the
LXX ; but SAB have παρ᾽ ἡμῶν.

9. ἀναστήσομαι] The reading of
A αναστησομεν has arisen from ava-
στήησομε, Whence avacrnoowé: Comp.
αιχμαλωσιᾶ (αἰχμαλωσίαν) for αἰχμαλω-
σια (αἰχμαλωσίᾳ) in il. ἃ 6. So too
§ 41 συνειδησιν (συνειδηστ) for συνει-
dnou= συνειδήσει.

10. θήσομαι κ.τιλ.] “17 well 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. οὐκ ἐπαιρομένων k.t.d.] Comp.
1 Pet. v. 3, Acts xx. 29. The word
ποίμνιον occurs again S§ 44, 54, 57.

τὸ σκῆπτρον κιτ.λ.] The expression
is apparently suggested by Heb. i. 8,
where Ps. xlv. 6 ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ
ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου is applied to

14 ἀλαζονείας] αλαζονιασ A.

8 ἀπὸ] A; om. CS Clem.

9 ava-

το ἐν σωτηρίῳ] Clem; evowrnpia A; NIPVWDA (ἐν
The mss of the LXX vary.
ἡμῶν] A; om. C Hieron; dub. S, for 12 is
used equally for ὁ κύριος and ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν.

13 τῆς μεγα-

Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοὺς] A; ἰησοῦς
15 ταπεινοφρονῶν]

our Lord. Fell refers to the applica-
tion of the same text made by Justin
Dial. 63 (pp. 286 sq) to show ὅτι καὶ
προσκυνητός ἐστι καὶ Θεὸς καὶ Χριστός.
Jerome zz Jsaz, lii. 13 (IV. p. 612)
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. μεγαλωσύνη) 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. ἐν κόμπῳ κιτ.λ.] Macar. Magn.
Apocr. iv. 2 (p. 159) πολὺς yap οὗτος
τῆς ἀλαζονείας ὁ κόμπος.

ἀλαζονείας κιτ.λ.] The adjectives ἀλα-
ζὼν and ὑπερήφανος occur together,
Rom. 1. 30, 2 Tim. iii. 2. The one
refers to the expression, the other to
the thought; see the distinction in
Trench WV. 7. Sym. § xxix. Ist ser.

15. καίπερ δυνάμενος] This passage
implies the pre-existence of Christ ;
comp. Phil. ii. 6 sq os ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ
ὑπάρχων κιτιλ.; see the introduction
I. Ρ. 398 sq.

58 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xvi

A An) ie \ > Pee) P \ ᾿
πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον περὶ αὐτον ἐλαλησεν φησὶν yap"
Κύριε, Tic émicteycen TH ἀκοη ἡμῶν; Kal ὁ βράχίων Κγρίογ
τίνι ἀπεκδλύφθη; δνηγγείλαμεν ENANTION AYTOY, ὧς TIAIAION,
ὧς piza ἐν γῆ διψώομ' οὐκ ἔστιν εἶλοο aYT@, OYAE δλόξδ᾽
Kal εἴδομεν AYTON, Kal οὐκ εἶχεν εἶλος οὐδὲ KAAAOC, ἀλλὰ
τὸ εἶλος AYTOY ἄτιμον, ἐκλεῖπον πὰρὰ τὸ εἶλοο τῶν ἀνθρώ-
TWN’ ἄνθρωπος ἐν πληγῆ ὧν Kal πόνῳ Kal εἰλὼς φέρειν
MAAAKIAN, ὅτι ἀπέοτραπτὰι τὸ πρόσωπον AayTOY, ἠτιμάσθη
Kal οὐκ ἐλογίεθη. οὗτοο τὰς AMapTiac ἡμῶν φέρει Kal περὶ
ἡμῶν ὀλγνᾶάτδι, Kal ἡμεῖς ἐλογιοάμεθὰ AYTON εἶνδι ἐν TION®

3 ἀνηγγείλαμεν] ανηγγίιλαμεν A, παιδίον] AS; πεδίον C. 4 εἶδος
αὐτῷ] A (with LXx); αὐτῷ εἶδος C; and so S, but the order cannot be pressed in

this case.

5 κάλλος] AC; δόξαν 5, but NMAW is probably a copyist’s

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

6 ἐκλεῖπον] exAurov A.

2. Κύριε x.t-A.] A Messianic appli-
cation is made of this 53rd chapter
of Isaiah by 5. Matthew viii. 17 (ver.
A) iby: os. Mark, xv. 28 (ver. 12),
byn 5. Lukes xxii. 37 (vet. 12)» by
S. John i. 29 (ver. 4, 7), xii. 38 (ver. 1),
by Philip Acts viil. 32 sq (ver. 7, 8),
by 5S. Paul’ Rem. x. τὸ (ver. 1), and
byiso beterd i Pet ἢ 29. Ξῇ (ver 5,
9). Barnabas also (ὃ 5) applies ver.
5, 7,to our Lord; and Justin both in
the Afology and in the Dialogue
interprets this chapter so frequently:
see esp. Aol. I. 50, 51 (p. 85 sq),
Dial. 13 (p. 230 sq), in both which
passages it is quoted in full. For Jew-
ish Messianic interpretations of this
chapter see Hengstenberg Christol.
Il. p. 310 sq (Eng. trans.), Schottgen
Hor. Hebr. 11. p. 138 sq, and espe-
cially Driver and Neubauer 716 fif/ty-
third Chapter of Isaiah according to
the Fewish Interpreters, Oxf. and
Lond. 1877, with Pusey’s preface.

Clement’s quotation for the most
part follows the 1,ΧΧ tolerably closely.
The more important divergences
from the LXxX are noticed below.

τὸ εἶδος των ἀνθρώπων] AC; πάντας ἀνθρώπους S.

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

3. ἀνηγγείλαμεν κιτ.λ.}] The LxXx
reading here is devoid of sense and
must be corrupt, though the mss and
early quotations all present avnyyeiAa-
μεν. As this word corresponds to the
Hebrew 5Y") (Aq. Theod. ἀναβήσεται,
Symm. ἀνέβη), Is. Voss proposed
ἀνετείλαμεν (See Grabe Diss. de Variis
Vittis LXX p. 38); but even this
alteration is not enough, and we
should require ἀνέτειλεν. 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 Dza/. 42 (p. 261)
strangely explains ὡς παιδίον of the
child-like submission of the Church
to Christ. The interpretation of Ori-
gen ad Rom. viii. § 6 (Iv. p. 627)

xvi] TO THE CORINTHIANS.

Ὁ

Kal ἐν πληγῇ KAl ἐν κἀκώσει. AYTOC δὲ ETPAYMATICOH διὰ
τὰς AMAPTIAC ἡμῶν KAl MEMAAAKICTAI AIA τὰς ANOMIAC ἡμῶν.
TAIAEIA εἰρήνης ἡμῶν ἐπ᾽ AYTON' TH μώλωπι AYTOY ἡμεῖς
IAQHMEN. TANTEC WC TPOBATA ETAANHOHMEN, ἀνθρῶπος TH
ὁλῷ δ τοῦ EMAANHOH’ Kal Kypioc πὰρέλωκεν AYTON ὑπὲρ
τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. KAl AYTOC διὰ τὸ KEKAK@COAI οὐκ
ἀνοίγει τὸ οτόμὰ' ὧς πρόβατον ἐπὶ CarHN HYOH, KAI ὡς
AMNOC ENANTION τοῦ KEIPANTOC ἀφῶνοου, οὕτως οὐκ ἀνοίγει

τὸ CTOMA ἀὐτοῦ. ἐν TH τὰἀπεινώσει H KPicic δυτοῦ ἤρθη.

See the lower note for the LXx reading.

in CS. See the lower note.

13 παιδεία] παιδια A.
ἁμαρτιών] AC; rats ἁμαρτίαις S with the Lxx.

12 ἁμαρτίας, ἀνομίας] A; transposed
15 ὑπὲρ τῶν

See the lower note. 19 ἐν

τῇ ταπεινώσει] AC; add. ejus 5, where the punctuation attaches it to the previous

sentence. κρίσις] κρισεισ A.

is not quite clear. The fathers of
the fourth and fifth centuries gene-
rally interpret os ῥίζα ἐν γῇ διψώσῃ
as referring to the miraculous con-
ception, In the order ἐν. avr. os
mao. Clement agrees with SA Justin
p. 230 (p. 85, 260 sq, ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ);
and so the old Latin, e.g. Tertull. adv.
Mare. iii. 17 (and elsewhere) ‘annun-
tiavimus coram ipso velut puerulus
etc.’: but B has ὡς rad. ἐν. αὐτ., the
order of the Hebrew.

6. mapa τὸ εἶδ. τ. ἀνθρ.] The LXx
S, Clem. Alex. p. 440, παρὰ πάντας (S
corr. from παν) τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώ-
mov; B, Justin p. 230, Tertull. adv.
Mare. 111. 7, adv. Fud. 14, παρὰ τοὺς
υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ; A, Tertull. adv.
Mare. 111. 17, παρὰ πάντας ἀνθρώπους ;
Justin p. 85, Clem. Alex. p. 252, παρὰ
τοὺς ἀνθρώπους.

7. καὶ πόνῳ] Wanting in the LXx.
The words must have crept in from
below, ἐν πόνῳ καὶ ἐν πληγῇ; either by
ἃ 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. ἀπέστραπται] The original is

11919 DID IND, ‘as hiding the face
Srom him’ or ‘fromus.’ The LXXseem
to have adopted the latter sense,
though they have omitted 43919 ; ‘ /7zs
face ts turned away, i.e. as one
ashamed or loathed ; comp. Lev. xiii.
45.

12. ἁμαρτίας, ἀνομίας] So B, Justinp.
230; but SA, Barnab. § 5, Justin p.
85, transpose the words, reading avo-
μίας in the first clause and ἁμαρτίας
in the second.

14. ἄνθρωπος] ‘each man, distribu-
tive; a Hebraism not uncommon in
the LXX; and the use is somewhat
similar in John ii. 25, 1 Cor. xi. 28.

15. ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν] The LXX has
ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις, and so Justin pp. 86, 230,
Clem. Alex. p. 138; but Tertull. adv.
Prax. 30 ‘ pro delictis nostris.’

19. ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει κιτ.λ.] This pas-
sage is also quoted from the 1, ΧΧ in
Acts vill. 33 ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει [αὐτοῦ]
ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῦ ἤρθη, where the first
αὐτοῦ 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 l.c.;

60 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XVI

THN γενεὰν aYTOY Tic AIHfHceTal; ὅτι alpeTal ἀπὸ TAC γῆς
ἡ ζωὴ aytof: ἀπὸ TON ἀνομιῶν TOY AAOY MOY κει εἰς 9ANA-
TON. Kal δώσω TOYC πονηροὺς ANTI TAC TadAc αὐτοῦ Kal
τοὺς πλογοίογο ANTI TOY OanaToY ayToYy ὅτι ANOMIAN OYK
ἐποίηςεν, οὐδὲ εὐρέθη AdAOC EN TH οτόμδτι AYTOY. Kal
Κύριος BoyAeTal KAMAPICAl AYTON TAC πληγηὴσ' EAN AWTE περὶ
ἁμδρτίδο, H ψυχὴ ὑμῶν ὄψετδι σπέρμὰ MAKPOBION. Kal Κύριος
BoyAetal ἀφελεῖν ἀπὸ TOY TONOY τῆς ψυχῆς δγτοῦ, Aelzal
αὐτῷ φῶς kal TAACAl TH CYNECE!, AIKAI@CAL AIKAION €Y AOY-

a \ ¢ ῃ re ͵ \
AEYONTA TOAAOIC’ KAl TAC AMAPTIAC AYTMN AYTOC ANOICE! διὰ

1 τὴν γενεὰν] AC; καὶ τὴν γενεάν S.
ὄψεται] εψεται A.
The 1 which represents ἀπὸ before τοῦ πόνου is pointed as if = μέν.

lower note.

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

2. ἥκει] ἤχθη LXX and Tertull. adv.
Fud. το; but ἥκει is read by Justin
pp. 86, 230, though elsewhere he has
ἤχθη p- 261 (MSS ἤχθην), Comp. p.
317 ὅτι ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνομιῶν Tov λαοῦ
ἀχθήσεται εἰς θάνατον. As ἤχθη may
easily have been introduced from
ver. 7, ἥκει was perhaps the orig-
inal reading of the LXx; and so it
stands in some MSS in Holmes and
Parsons.

3. καὶ δώσω κ-τ.λ.] The LXxX clearly
means that the wicked and the
wealthy should die in requital for
His death; as Justin Déza/. 32 (p.
249) ἀντὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ τοὺς πλου-
σίους θανατωθήσεσθαι. 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 ἐν
τοῖς ἀνόμοις ἐλογίσθη is quoted in this
connexion, nor (I believe) in any fa-
ther of the second century nor even

2 ἥκει] AC; ἤχθη 5. See the
8 τῆς ψυχῆς] AC; ἀπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς S.
12 τοῖς]

in Tertullian or Origen.

5. οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος] So A in the
LXX, but SB (corrected however in
S by later hands) have simply ovde
δόλον, following the Hebrew more
closely. In 1 Pet. 11. 22 are) the
words ὃς ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν οὐδὲ
εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ, 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 καὶ οὐχ εὑρέθη δόλος p. 230, and
οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος p. 86, though in a
third passage he has οὐδὲ δόλον p. 330.
And so likewise Tertull. adv. Fud.
to ‘nec dolus in ore ejus inventus
est,’ Origen I.'p. 91, 11: pp) 250
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 οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος appears
are 50 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.

20

Ἐγὼ δέ εἶμι CK@AHZ

xvi] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 61

τοῦτο AYTOC KAHPONOMHCE! πολλούς KAl τῶν ἰοχγρῶν μεριεῖ
οκῦλδ᾽ ἀνθ᾽ ὧν πὰρεδόθη εἶς GANATON ἢ Ψυχὴ δυτοῦ KAI τοῖς
ἀνόμοις ἐλογίςθη: καὶ AYTOC AMAPTIAC πολλῶν ἀνήνεγκεν Kal
λιὰ τὰς AMAPTIAC δὐτῶν πὰρεδλύθη. Καὶ πάλιν αὐτὸς φησιν"
κἀὶ OYK ἄνθρωπος, ONEIAOC ἀνθρώπων
KAl ἐξογθένημὰ λὰοῦ. πᾶντεο οἱ θεωροῦντές με EZEMYKTHPI-
CAN με, EAAAHCAN ἐν YEIAECIN, EKINHCAN κεφάλήν, Ἤλπισεν
ἐπὶ Κύριον, ῥγεάσοθω aYTON, οωσᾶτω AYTON, ὅτι θέλει αὐτόν.
‘Opare, ἄνδρες ἀγαπητοί, τίς ὁ ὑπογραμμὸς ὁ δεδομέ-

ες 2 \ ς / .« > / ἢ
νος ημιν" Εἰ Yep O Κύριος OUTWS ἐταπεινοφρονησεν, Tl!

A; ἐν τοῖς C, and so probably 5, which has 3 not δ.
18 ὅτι] AC; εἰ 5.

17 ἐκίνησαν] εκεινησαν A.

6. τῆς πληγῆς] So SB Justin pp. 86,
230 ; but A (LXX) has ἀπὸ τῆς πληγῆς.
For καθαρίζειν or καθαίρειν τινός Comp.
Herod. i. 44. So the intransitive
verb καθαρεύειν (Plato 5 2257. viii. p.
356 E) and the adjective καθαρός
(Herod. ii. 38) may take a genitive.

δῶτε] So also LXX (SAB) and Jus-
tin pp. 86, 230 (MSS, but many edd.
δῶται). 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
δοῦναι περὶ comp. Heb. v. 3 περὶ ἕαυ-
τοῦ προσφέρειν περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν. The
meaning of the original is doubtful,
but δῶτε seems to be a rendering of
Dw’ taken as a second person, ‘ thou
shalt give. The reading δῶται ‘ gzve
himself? which some editors here
would adopt, is quite late and can
hardly stand.

7. Κύριος βούλεται κιτ.λ.1] The LXx
departs very widely from the Hebrew,
but its meaning is fairly clear. For
ἀφελεῖν ἀπό, ‘to diminish from, comp.
Rev. xxii. 19, Exod. v. 11, and so fre-

15 δὲ} AS; om. C.

quently. Tertullian however reads
τὴν ψυχήν ‘eximere a morte animam
ejus,’ adv. Fud. το. Πλάσαι (sc. αὐτόν)
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 yaw» stands in the
corresponding place in the Hebrew,
the original reading of the LXX was
probably πλῆσαι, as Grabe suggested
(Diss. de Vit. Var. LX X, p. 39). Com-
pare the vv. ll. ῥάσσει and ῥήσσει in
Mark ix. 18.

12. τοῖς ἀνόμοις] ἐν τοῖς ἀνόμοις LXX
(SAB), Justin pp. 86, 231, (though in
the immediate neighbourhood of the
first passage he has pera τῶν ἀνόμων,
p. 85); μετὰ ἀνόμων, Luke xxii. 37,
(+Mark xv. 28+).

14. αὐτός] Christ Himself, in whose
person the Psalmist 15 speaking.
Comp. ὃ 22, where αὐτὸς προσκαλεῖ-
ται has a similar reference. The
words are an exact quotation from
the LXxX Ps. xxii.6—8. The applica-
tion to our Lord is favoured by
Matt. xxvii. 43.

iO Ὁ Uroypappos | See the note
above on § 5.

62 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xvi

ποιήσωμεν ἡμεῖς οἱ ὑπὸ τὸν ζυγὸν τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ
Ov αὐτοῦ ἐλθόντες ;
XVII.

, \ ~ , ΄
μασιν αἰγείοις Kal μηλωταῖς περιεπατησαν κήηρνσσον-

\ / 3 7 .«“ 3 ΄
Μιμηταὶ γενώμεθα κἀκείνων, οἵτινες ἐν δέρ-

τες τὴν ἔλευσιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ: Ἀέγομεν δὲ ᾿Ηλίαν Kal
᾿ ἡ

᾿Ελισαιὲ ἔτι δὲ καὶ ᾿Ιεζεκιήλ, τοὺς προφήτας" πρὸς τού-

τοις καὶ τοὺς μεμαρτυρημένους. ἐμαρτυρήθη μεγάλως

2 ἐλθόντες] S$ ελθοντοσ A;
ἔτι δὲ] AS; om. C.

I ποιήσωμεν] A; ποιήσομεν C; dub. 5.
ἀπελθόντες C. 6 ᾿Ἑλισαιὲ] A; ’EXtooaé C.

kai] AC; om. S.
add. δὲ C.

renders e¢ dictt cogitans humiliter, videbo gloriam Det.

I. tov ζυγὸν τῆς χάριτος] A verbal
paradox, explained by the ‘easy yoke’
of Matt. xi. 29, 30. The following δὲ
αὐτοῦ 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 ὃ 954 (see the note there): but he
cites sofreely, abridging and enlarging
at pleasure, and interspersing his own
commentary (e.g. τὴν οὐχ ὑποπίπ-
τουσαν νόμῳ αἰνιττόμενος ἁμαρτίαν γνω-
στικῶς μετριοπαθῶν), 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 δέρμασιν κιτ.λ.] From Heb. xi.
37. For the prophets’ dress comp.
Zech. xiii. 4 ‘The prophets shall be
ashamed...neither shall they wear a

πρὸς rovros] AC; add. δὲ 5.
9 ἀτενίζων] A; ἀτενίσας C; ἀτενίσω S, apparently, for it

7 ἐμαρτυρήθη] AS;
ταπεινοφρονῶν] C;

garment of hair’ (where the LxXx
omits the negative and destroys the
sense, καὶ ἐνδύσονται δέρριν τριχίνην) ;
see also Bleek Hedr. l.c., Stanley’s
Stnat and Palestine Ὁ. 305. The
word μηλωτὴ is used in the LXX to
translate NIN, paludamentum, ‘a
mantle’; e.g. of Elijah and Elisha,
1 Kings xix. 13, 19, 2 Kings 11. 8, 13,
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
μηλωταῖς adds καὶ τριχῶν καμηλείων
πλέγμασιν, as after ᾿Ιεζεκεὴλ he adds
καὶ ᾿Ιωάννην, the former interpolation
preparing the way for the latter.

6. ᾿λισαιὲ] A frequent form in the
best MSS of the LXX (with a single or
a double σὴ, e.g. 2 Kings ii. 1 sq. The
editors have quite needlessly changed
it into Ἔλισσαῖϊῖον, which is the form
in Clem. Alex.

τοὺς προφήτας] Epiphanius has
been thought to refer to this passage
in Haer. xxx. 15, αὐτὸς (Κλήμης) ἐγκω-
μιάζει λίαν καὶ Δαβὶδ καὶ Σαμψὼν καὶ

Io

xvil]

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

63

᾿λβραὰμ καὶ φίλος προσηγορεύθη τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ λέγει

ἀτενίζων εἰς τὴν δόξαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ταπεινοφρονῶν: ᾿Εγὼ

ee A \ ῃ ͵ \ \ \ \ ef ΄
λέ εἶμι γῆ Kal σποδός. ἔτι δὲ καὶ πέρι ᾿Ιὼβ οὕτως YE-

γραπται" “laB δὲ HN AIKAIOC Kal ἄμεμπτος, ἀληθινός, θεο-

Γ ' 2 \ \ a \ “ἜΝ
ceBHc, ἀπεχόμενος ἀπὸ TANTOC κἀκοῦ ἀλλ᾽ AUTOS ἑαυτοῦ

κατηγορεῖ λέγων, Οὐδεὶς καθὰρὸς ἀπὸ ῥύπογ, οΥδ᾽ ἂν

ταπεινοῴρωνων A.
S with Lxx.

11 δὲ] CS Clem; om. A.
ἀληθινός] αληθεινοσ A ; ἀληθινὸς καὶ Clem 611.
AC Clem; πονηροῦ πράγματος (with 1,ΧΧ) 5.
A; contra seipsum dicens loguitur (as if κατηγορῶν λέγει) 5.

καὶ] AC [Clem]; om.
12 κακοῦ)
13 κατηγορεῖ λέγων] C;
οὐδ᾽

ἂν] C; οὐδ᾽ εἰ Clem; def. A. See the lower note.

πάντας τοὺς προφήτας 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. τοὺς μεμαρτυρημένους] ‘borne
witness to, approved, whether by God
or by men; see below, §§ 17, 18, 19,
gs, 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. φίλος προσηγορεύθη] Comp.
James ii. 23, and see above, ὃ τὸ with
the note.

9. τὴν δόξαν] i.e. the outward ma-
nifestation, the visible light and glory
which betokened His presence; as
e.g. Exod. xvi. 7, 10, xxiv. 16, 17,
ΒΕ τ 16, 22, xl. 28, 29, Luke ii. 9,
me or, xv. 40 Sq, 2_Cor. ill. 7 sq, etc.

ταπεινοφρονῶν] A favourite word
with Clement; see § 2, 13 (twice),
16 (three times), 19, 30, 38, 48. In
like manner ταπεινοφροσύνη and ra-
πείνωσις occur seyeral times. The
scribe of A reads ταπεινοῴρων ὧν here,
as he reads ταπεινοῴρον ov $19. In
both cases his reading must be cor-
rected. This verb occurs only once
in the LxXx (Ps. cxxxi. 2), and not
once in the New Testament.

Ἔγὼ δὲ κιτ.λ.] Quoted exactly from

the EXX Gen. xviii. 27.

II. Ἰὼβ ἦν κιτιλ.] A loose quotation
from Job i. 1, where SB have ἀληθι-
vos ἄμεμπτος δίκαιος θεοσεβής, and A
ἄμεμπτος δίκαιος ἀληθεινὸς θεοσεβής.

13. κατηγορεῖ λέγων] I prefer this
to κατηγορῶν λέγει OF κατηγορῶν εἶπεν.
Wotton is certainly wrong in saying
that he could read εἶπεν in A. There
is no trace of the word and cannot
have been any. He must have made
some confusion with the εἶπεν below,
which is blurred.

Οὐδεὶς «.7.A.] A loose quotation
from the LXx Job xiv. 4, 5.

οὐδ᾽ ἂν] All the best MSS of the
LXX agree in reading ἐὰν kal, which
many editors have preferred here.
On the other hand Clem. Alex. Strom.
iv. 16 (p. 611) has οὐδ᾽ εἰ, and as in
the rest of this quotation he follows
his namesake pretty closely, where he
departs from the 1,ΧΧ, he may have
done so in this instance. Origen,
who frequently quotes the text, gene-
rally has οὐδ᾽ ἂν (e.g. 11. p. 829) or
οὐδ᾽ εἰ (III. pp. 160, 685), but some-
times omits the negative. In Afost.
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 (I. p. 585),
who reads τίς γὰρ... «καὶ ἂν...

THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XVII

64

μιᾶς Hmépac ἢ ἢ ζωὴ δὐτοῦ. Mavons πιοτὸς én ὅλῳ TH
3, =| a / \ A = ᾿ς ΄σΥ
οἴκῳ aytoy ἐκλήθη, καὶ διὰ τῆς ὑπηρεσίας αὐτοῦ ἔκρινεν
ε \ J \ > 7 \ a 3 ,
ὁ Θεὸς ἈΔἴγυπτον διὰ τῶν μαστίγων καὶ τῶν αἰκισμα-
3 \ > ΄ \ if
ἀλλὰ κἀκεῖνος δοξασθεὶς μεγάλως οὐκ
> / > > cy) > \ ΄σ fp » ΑΕ
ἐμεγαλορημονήσεν, aX εἰπεν, ETL τῆς βατου χρήμαΞ5
~ lod / ͵ > > , a !
τισμοῦ αὐτῷ διδομένου, Τίς εἶμι ἐγώ, ὅτι με πέμπειο;

των αὐτῶν.

νεῖν

2 αὐτοῦ pri] AS (with Heb. iii. 2); om. C.
5 ἐπὶ τῆς βάτου] ε

rently) 5.
(or τοῦ) βάτου S; ἐκ τῆς βάτου Clem.

I. πιστὸς κιτ.λ.] He is so called
Num. xii. 7; comp. Heb. iii. 2. The
αὐτοῦ is τοῦ Θεοῦ, for the LXX has
μου.

2. ὑπηρεσίας] Comp. Wisd. xiii.
II, XV. 7.

ἔκρινεν x.t.A.]| Compare § 11 κρι-
θείσης διὰ πυρός. Moses was the
instrument in fulfilling the prophecy
uttered before, Gen. xv. 14 (comp.
Acts vii. 7) τὸ δὲ ἔθνος ᾧ ἐὰν Sovdev-
σωσι κρινῶ ἐγώ.

5. ἐμεγαλορημόνησεν] See the note
on ἐξερίζωσεν, ὃ 6.

ἐπὶ τῆς βάτου] 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 ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς βάτου χρηματισ-
μοῦ αὐτῷ διδομένου is in itself a very
awkward and unlikely expression.
Probably A read ἐπὶ τῆς βάτου or ἐπὶ
tov βάτου, 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, ὁ βάτος (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.

ἔκρινεν] AC; κρίνει (appa-

ΠΡῸΣ βατου A; ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς βάτου C3; ἐπὶ τῆς

See the lower note. 9 εἴπωμεν]
Hom. xvi. 14, Afost. Const. v. 20).
So we have ἐπὶ tov βάτου Mark xii.
26 (though with an ill-supported ν.1.),
but ἐπὶ τῆς βάτου Luke xx. 37. In
Justin Dza/. 60 (p. 283) we meet with
ἀπὸ τῆς βάτου, ὁ βάτος, ὁ βάτος, ὁ βάτος,
ἐκ τῆς βάτου, in the same chapter.
See on this double gender of the word
Fritzsche on Mark l.c.

6. Tis εἰμι ἐγώ] From Exod. ili. 11
τίς εἰμι ἐγώ, ὅτι πορεύσομαι K.T.A.

7. ἐγὼ δὲ «7.A.] From Exod. iv.
10 ἰσχνόφωνος καὶ βραδύγλωσσος ἐγώ
εἰμι.

ὃ, Ἐγὼ δέ εἰμι ἀτμὶς κιτ.λ.}] This
quotation is not found in the ΟἹά
Testament or in any apocryphal book
extant whole or in part. The nearest
parallel is James iv. 14, ποία yap ἡ
ζωὴ ὑμῶν ; ἀτμὶς [yap] ἐστε ἡ πρὸς ὀλί-
γον φαινομένη κιτιλ. Compare also
Hosea xiii. 3 ‘As smoke from the
chimney’ (or ‘the window’), where
the LXX seems to have translated
originally ἀτμὶς ἀπὸ ἀκρίδων (see Sim-
son’s Hosea p. 44), corrupted into
ἀπὸ δακρύων in B and corrected into
ἐκ καπνοδόχης from Theodotion in A;
and Ps, cxix. 83 ‘I am become like
a bottle in the smoke,’ where again
the LXxX mistranslates ὡσεὶ ἀσκὸς ἐν
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-

XVIIT] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 65

4.

ἐγὼ λέ εἶμι icyNd@@NOC Kal BpadyrAwccoc. Kal πάλιν
λέγει, Ἐγὼ Aé εἶμι ἀτμὶς ἀπὸ κύθρδα.
SOVIET

jh é \ «λ > ¢ / - 3: \
Aaveid; πρὸς ὃν εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς, EYpon ἄνδρα κἀτὰ THN

of ἊΣ
Τί δὲ εἴπωμεν ἐπὶ τῷ μεμαρτυρημένω

KApAlAN Moy, Aayeid TON TOY leccal, ἐν ἐλέει AIMNIW ἐχριοὰ
3 A \ \ > \ / \ \ / > ! ,
αὐτόν. ἄλλα καὶ αὐτὸς λέγει πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν" ᾿Ελέηοόν

A; εἴποιμεν C.
AS om. GC.

ed among S. Clement’s quotations
from apocryphal books, on which
Photius (476/. 126 ῥητά τινα ὡς ἀπὸ
τῆς θείας γραφῆς ξενίζοντα παρεισάγει)
remarks: see also §§ 8, 13, 23, 30, 46
(notes). Hilgenfeld supposes that the
words were taken from the Assumfp-
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 77voad. 392 sq ‘ Ut cali-
dis fumus ab ignibus Vanescit...Sic
hic quo regimur spiritus effluit’, M.
Anton. x. 31 καπνὸν καὶ τὸ μηδέν, Xil.
33 νεκρὰ καὶ καπνός ; so also Empedo-
cles (in Plut. Of. AZor. p. 360 C, quoted
by Gataker on x. 31) had said, wxv-
μοροι καπνοῖο δίκην ἀρθέντες ἀπέπταν.

κύθρας] Another form of χύτρας,
just as κιθὼν and χιτὼν are inter-
changed. The proper Ionic genitive
would be κύθρης, which is used by
Herodes in Stob. Floril. \xxviii. 6
(quoted in Hase and Dindorf’s Steph.
Thes.). Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 1 (p. 165)
has κυθριδίοις ; and for instances of
κυθρῖνος (for yutpivos) see Lobeck
Pathol. p. 209. In the text of Clem.
Alex. here χύτρας is read.

XVIII. ‘Again take David as an

CLEM, II.

10, 11 Δαυείδ] 6a5 AC. See above, ὃ 4.
τι ἐλέει] C; edXaver A; ἐλαίῳ S Clem (edd.).

το ὁ Θεός]
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. πρὸς ov] Comp. Rom. x.21, Heb.
i. 7, and see Winer § xlix. p. 424.

Evpoy κιτ.λ.] A combination of Ps,
Ixxxix. 21 εὗρον Δαυεὶδ τὸν δοῦλόν
μου, ἐν ἐλαίῳ ἁγίῳ μου ἔχρισα αὐτόν,
with 1 Sam. xiii. 14 ἄνθρωπον κατὰ
τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ, or rather with Acts
xiii. 22 εὗρον Δαυεὶδ τὸν τοῦ Ἰεσσαί,
ἄνδρα κατὰ τὴν καρδίαν pov (itself a
loose quotation from 1 Sam. ΧΙ]. 14).
In the first passage ἐλαίῳ the reading
of SA is doubtless correct, the cor-
responding Hebrew being}; though
ἐλέει is read by B. But Clement ap-
pears to have read édéecas our Greek
MSS testify. Similarly in § 56, when
quoting Ps. cxli. 5, he reads eAaoc
(i.e. ἔλεος) ἁμαρτωλῶν for ἔλαιον ἅμαρ-
τωλῶν. On the interchange of δι
and ε 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 ἐλαίῳ (if his editors
can be trusted), as he would do
naturally, if accustomed to this read-
ing in the Psalms.

12. ᾿Ελέησον κιτ.λ.] The 51st Psalm
quoted from the LXxX almost word for
word. The variations are very slight
and unimportant.

66 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XviIr

με, ὁ Θεός, KATA TO μέγὰ €AEOC COY, KAI KATA TO πλῆθος
τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν COY ἐξάλειψον TO ANOMHMA MOY. ἐπὶ πλεῖον
πλῦνόν με ἀπὸ τῆς ANOMIAC MOY, Kal ἀπὸ TAC AMAPTIAC MOY
KA@APICON με΄ ὅτι THN ANOMIAN MOY ἐγὼ γινώοκω, KAl ἡ
AMAPTIA MOY ἐνώπιόν MOY ECTIN AIA TANTOC. COl μόνῳ ἡμὰρ-
TON, KAl TO πονηρὸν ἐνώπιόν COY ἐποίηοδ' ὅπως AN AIKAIO-
Oc ἐν τοῖο λόγοιο COY, KAl NIKHCHC ἐν τῷ KPINECOAl Ce
iAoY γὰρ ἐν ANOMIAIC CYNEAHM@OHN, KAl ἐν AMAPTIAIC EKIC-
CHCEN Me ἡ μήτηρ μου. ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἀλήθειὰν HPATTHCAC’ TA
AAHAA κἂὶ τὰ κρΥφιὰ τῆς οοφίδς coy ἐληλωοᾶο μοι. βὰν-

2

1 ἔλεος] ελαιοσ A. 2 οἰκτιρμῶν] οικτειρμων A. ἐπὶ πλεῖον x.7.d.] C
omits the rest of the quotation from this point to ἐξουθενώσει (inclusive) at the end

2. ἐπὶ πλεῖον k.7.A.] 1.6. ‘wash me
again and again’. The Hebrew is

prosy or some other taint was purged
according to the law; see Lev. xiv.

‘multiply (and) wash me’.

6. ὅπως κιτ.λ.] This verse is quoted
also Rom. 111. 4. The middle κρίνεσ-
θαι, ‘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 κρίνειν, not κρίνεσ-
θαι.

7. νικήσῃς] Thefuturerkjoers isim-
probable (see Winer ὃ xli. p. 304),
especially with a preceding δικαιωθῆς ;
and the Ms A is of no authority where
it is a question between ἢ and εἰ.
The LxXxX text (SB) has νικήσῃς.

8. ἐκίσσησεν; ‘concevea’, 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. τὰ ἄδηλα κιτ.λ.] The LXX trans-
lators have missed the sense of the
original here.

11. ὑσσώπῳ] As one defiled by le-

4 sq, Num. xix. 6, 18, and Perowne
On the Psalms, ad loc.

12. ἀκουτιεῖς] For the word ἀκουτί-
few see Sturz de Dial. Mac. p. 144.
It was perhaps invented to translate
the Hiphil of prov.

16. εὐθὲς] A common form of the
neuter in the LXX, e.g. Judges xvii. 6,
xxi. 25, 2 Sam. xix. 6,16, Εἴς: agi
masculine εὐθὴς also occurs, e.g. Ps.
ΣΟΙ ΤΣ

19. ἡγεμονικῷ] The word occurs
frequently in the Greek philosophers.
The Stoics more especially affected
the term, τὸ ἡγεμονικόν, OF ἡγεμονικόν
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 ὃ 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 its
ἡγεμονικόν. The Stoic definition of
ἡγεμονικόν in the human being, as
given by Chrysippus, appears in

— et AAA AGE Be EA PDE τ" σ

Ee

XVIIT]

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

67

TIEIC ME YCCHMA, KAl KADAPICOHCOMAI’ πλγνεῖο ME, KAl ὑπὲρ

XIONA AEYKANOFCOMAI* AKOYTIEIC ME ATAAAIACIN KAl EYpocy-

NHN’ APaAAAIACONTAI

OCTA TETATIEINWMENA.

ἀπόστρεψον TO

προοωπόν COY ἀπὸ τῶν AMAPTIM@N MOY, KAI TACAC TAC ANO-

E€ZAAEIWON.

KAPAIAN KAOAPAN KTICON ἐν ἐμοί, ὁ

x 1 TINEYMA εὐθὲς EPKAINICON ἐν τοῖο ἐγκἄτοις MOY.

MH ATTOPIYHC ME ἀπὸ TOY προοώπου Coy, KAl TO TINEYMA TO

a , , 3 n
ATION COY MH ANTANEAHC ATT ἐμοῦ.

ATTOAOC MOL THN AfaA-

AIACIN TOY C@THPIOY COY, KAl πνεύματι ἡγεμονικῷ CTH-

of the chapter; see I. p. 128.

πλυνιεισ A.

Diog. Laert. l.c. τὸ κυριώτατον τῆς
ψυχῆς ἐν ᾧ ai φαντασίαι καὶ ai ὁρμαὶ
γίνονται καὶ ὅθεν ὁ λόγος ἀναπέμπεται.
Μ. Antoninus divides the human
being (11. 2) into three parts, σαρκία,
πνευμάτιον, ἡγεμονικόν, Which corre-
sponds to his triple division else-
where (iil. 16) σῶμα, ψυχή, νοῦς ; comp.
16, 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) πᾶσαι ai ἐπὶ ra
μέρη τοῦ ὅλου ἐξαποστελλύμεναι δυνά-
μεις ὡς ἀπό τινος πηγῆς τοῦ ἡγεμονι-
κοῦ ἐξαποστέλλονται, with the context.
It is identified by various writers
with the λόγος or with the νοῦς or
with the πνεῦμα or with the ψυχή,
according to their various philoso-
phical systems. In Latin it becomes
principatus in Cicero (de Nat. Deor.
le. ‘principatum id dico quod Graeci
ἡγεμονικόν vocant’) and principale in
Seneca (Z/. 92 § 1, 113 ὃ 23, and
elsewhere). So Tertullian de Resurr.
Carn. 15 ‘principalitas sensuum quod
ἡγεμονικόν appellatur,’ de Anim. 15
‘summus in anima gradus vitalis
quod ἡγεμονικὸν appellant, id est
principale.’

The Hebrew word 1°7), here trans-
lated ἡγεμονικόν, signifies ‘prompt’,

πλεῖον] πλιον A.
A. 10 gov] A (with LXx); om. S (with Hebr.).
16 éyxdro.s] ενκατοισ A,

ἡ νικήσῃς] νικησεισ
11 πλυνεῖς]

‘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 ἡγεμονικὸς suggested it
as an equivalent. Thus πνεῦμα nye-
μονικὸν 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 πνεῦμα ἡγεμονικόν,
‘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. 1. vii. § τ (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

2

68

PICON με.
, '

ETIICTPEWOYCIN ἐπί CE.

TAC C@THPIAC MOY.

CYNHN COY.

THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

AIAAZ@ = ANOMOYC TAC OAOYC

[xvuI

coy, Kai aceBeic

b¥cal me ἐξ δἵμάτων, ὁ Oedc, ὁ Θεὸς
APAAAIACETAL H FAM@CCA MOY THN λδικδιο-

Κύριε, TO cTOMA Moy ἀνοίξειο, KAl TA χείλη

> mn \ 3: ' “ > > , '
MOY ἀνᾶγγελει THN AINECIN COY’ OT! Εἰ HOEAHCAC OYCIAN,

EAWKA ἂν OAOKAYTMMATA οὐκ EYAOKHCEIC.

θγοίὰ τῷ Θεῷ

n , U \
TINEYMA CYNTETPIMMENON* KAPAIAN CYNTETPIMMENHN KAI TE-

, c \ 2 > ,
τἀπεινωμένην O Θεῦς οὐκ ἐξογθενὦὥσει.

~ > «
XIX. Τῶν τοσούτων οὖν καὶ τοιούτων οὕτως με-

μαρτυρημένων τὸ ταπεινοφρονοῦν

an ε vod 3 7, ς ΄σ > \
TNS ὑπακοῆς οὐ μονον μας ἀλλα

AY \ A
Kal TO ὑποδεὲς διὰ

\ \ \ a
καὶ τὰς πρὸ ἡμών

4.34 τὸ στόμα...τὰ χείλη] A; the words are transposed in S with the Lxx and

Hebrew.

om. C; καὶ οὕτως S.
11 ἀλλὰ] CS; αλλασ A.
γενεὰς) C.

by the words of the Psalm itself,
since τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιόν σου 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
πνεῦμα ἡγεμονικόν 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.

στήρισον] So SB read in the Lxx,
but A and others στήριξον. On
these double forms see Buttmann
Ausf. Gr. Spr. § 92 (I. p. 372); and
on the use of στήρισον, etc., in the
New Testament, Winer ὃ xv. p. Iot.
The scribe of A in Clement is in-
consistent; for he has ἐστήριξεν § 8,

στηρίξωμεν ὃ 13, but ἐστήρισεν § 33,

9 τοσούτων, τοιούτων] A; transposed in CS.
το ταπεινοφρονοῦν] ταπεινοῴρονον A; ταπεινόφρον C.
τὰς πρὸ ἡμῶν γενεὰς] AS; τοὺς πρὸ ἡμών (omitting

T2076] eA οἵα, 5: 13 αὐτοῦ] AC; τοῦ θεοῦ 8.

οὕτως] A;

and στήρισον here.

2. αἱμάτων] The plural denotes es-
pecially ‘bloodshed’, as in Plat. Legg.
ix. p. 872 E, and the instances col-
lected in Blomfield’s Gloss. to Aésch.
Choeph. 60: see also Test. xz¢ Patr.
Sym. 4 εἰς αἵματα παροξύνει, Anon.
in Hippol. Haer. v. 16 αἵμασι χαίρει ὃ
τοῦδε τοῦ κόσμου δεσπότης, Tatian. ad
Graec. 8, The same is the force also
of the Hebrew plural 097, of which
αἵματα here and elsewhere is a ren-
dering: comp. Exod. xxii. 1, 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. Τῶν τοσούτων x.t.A.| An imita-
tion of Heb, xii. 1,

TO THE CORINTHIANS: 69

ΧΙΧ]

/ y
γενεὰς βελτίους ἐποίησεν, τούς TE καταδεξαμένους τὰ

a , \ , κ >
λόγια αὐτοῦ ἐν φόβῳ καὶ ἀληθεία. Πολλῶν οὖν καὶ

μεγάλων καὶ ἐνδόξων μετειληφότες πράξεων, ἐπαναδρά-
| is μωμεν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς παραδεδομένον ἡμῖν τῆς εἰρήνης
σκοπόν, καὶ ἀτενίσωμεν εἰς τὸν πατέρα καὶ κτιστὴν τοῦ
σύμπαντος κόσμου, καὶ ταῖς μεγαλοπρεπέσι καὶ ὑπερ-
βαλλούσαις αὐτοῦ δωρεαῖς τῆς εἰρήνης εὐεργεσίαις τε
κολληθώμεν: ἴδωμεν αὐτὸν κατὰ διάνοιαν καὶ ἐμβλέψω-
j20pev τοῖς ὄμμασιν τῆς ψυχῆς εἰς τὸ μακρόθυμον αὐτοῦ

/ ΄σ old ε / N a
BovAnpa: νοήσωμεν TWS aopynTros υπάρχξει σγρος σασαν

\ ii a
τὴν KTLIOLVY αὐτοῦ.

14 πράξεων] ( ; πραξαιων A; add. τούτων, ἀδελφοὶ ἀγαπητοί 8.
AC; hujus mundi S; see above, § 5, and below, 11. ὃ 19.

17 κόσμου]
1g κολλη-

θώμεν] AC; consideremus (νοήσωμεν) et adhaereamus S, but this is probably one
of the periphrases which abound in S (see I. p. 136).

10. ταπεινοφρονοῦν] See the note on
ταπεινοφρονῶν above, § 17; and comp.
§ 38 below.

τὸ umodees| ‘submisstuveness’, ‘sub-
ordination’. This seems to be the
meaning of the word, which is very
rare in the positive, though common
in the comparative ὑποδεέστερος ; see
Epiphan. Haer. Ixxvii. 14 τὸ ὑποδεὲς
kal ἡλαττωμένον, a passage pointed
out to me by Bensly. Accordingly
in the Syriac it is rendered dimznutio
et demissto. Laurent says ‘Colo-
mesius male substantivo swdzectio
vertit; collaudatur enim ἢ. 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
ὑποδεής could have this meaning,
which belongs rather to ἐνδεής. It
might possibly mean ‘fearfulness’, a
sense assigned to it by Photius,
Suidas, and Hesychius, who explain
it ὑπόφοβος. But usage suggests its

connexion with δέομαι zzdigeo, like
ἀποδεής, ἐνδεής, kaTadens, rather than
with δέος t2mor, like ddens, repens.

12. καταδεξαμένους | Davies proposes
καταδεξομένους. The emendation would
have been more probable if the pre-
position had been different, διαδεξο-
μένους and not καταδεξομένους.

14. μετειληφότες] ‘participated in’,
i.e. profited by as examples. The
achievements of the saints of old are
the heritage of the later Church.

15. εἰρήνης σκοπόν] ‘the mark, the
goal, of peace’. God Himself is the
great exemplar of peaceful working,
and so the final goal of all imitation.

21. ἀόργητος] ‘calm’; Ign. Philad.
I, Polyc. PAzl. 12 (note). Aristotle
attaches a bad sense to the word, as
implying a want of sensibility, £7/.
Nic. i. 7. Others however distin-
guished dopynoia from ἀναισθησία (see
Aul. Gell. i. 27); and with the Stoics
it was naturally a favourite word, e.g.
Epict. Dzss. 111. 20. 9 τὸ ἀνεκτικόν, τὸ
ἀόργητον, τὸ πρᾷον, ill. 18. 6 εὐσταθῶς,
αἰδημόνως, ἀοργήτως, M. Anton. 1.1

THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xx

79

~ ff ~~ /
XX. Οἱ οὐρανοὶ τῆ διοικήσει αὐτοῦ σαλευόμενοι
‘
> / ε / ΄σ΄ ε / \ \ A
ἐν εἰρήνη ὑποτάσσονται αὐτῷ" ἡμέρα TE Kat νὺξ τὸν
/ Ce oe] 9 ΄σ y y w \ 3 /
τεταγμένον UT αὐτοῦ δρόμον διανύουσιν, μηδὲν ἀλλήλοις
3 / J i \ , > / \
ἐμποδίζοντα. ἥλιός TE καὶ TEANYN ἀστέρων TE χοροὶ
\ > > > € , / ie
κατὰ τὴν διαταγὴν αὐτοῦ ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ δίχα maons

/ 3 \\ > / 2 -
παρεκβάσεως ἐξελίσσουσιν τοὺς ἐπιτεταγμένους αὐτοῖς

ε /
ορισμους.

I διοικήσει] AC; δικαιώσει S apparently.
ἀστέρων τε χοροὶ] AC; but S translates as if dorepés re καὶ χόροι.

βάσεως] .apexBacews A; παραβάσεως C.

TO καλόηθες καὶ ἀόργητον. The word
does not occur in the LXxx 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. σαλευόμενοι) 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 ἐξελίσσουσιν below.
Σαλεύεσθαι 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, ili. 675, 714, 751.. On the
other hand Young would read μὴ
σαλευόμενοι; and Davies, improving
upon this correction, suggests ov
σαλευόμενοι, repeating the last letters

-sentences.

a a) \ A / > ~ lo
γῆ κυοφοροῦσα κατὰ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ τοῖς

4 τε καὶ] AS; καὶ (om. τε) C.
6 παρεκ-
In S it is rendered 272 omni egressu cursus

of αὐτοῦ. But such passages in the
New Testament as Matt. xxiv. 29,
Heb. xii. 26, 27, are not sufficient to
justify the alteration; for some ex-
pression of szo¢tzon is wanted. Not
‘fixity, rest,’ but ‘regulated change’
is the idea of this and the following
For this reason I have
retained σαλευόμενοι. In the passage
of Chrysostom quoted by Young in
defence of his reading, 22 Psalm.
cxlviii. § 2 (V. p. 491) οὐδὲν συνεχύθη
τῶν ὄντων" ov θάλαττα τὴν γῆν ἐπέκλυ-
σεν, οὐχ ἥλιος τόδε τὸ ὁρώμενον κατέ-
καυσεν, οὐκ οὐρανὸς παρεσαλεύθη κ.τ.λ.»
this father would seem purposely to
have chosen the compound παρασα-
λεύεσθαι to denote azsorderly motion.
The same idea as here is expressed in
Theoph. ad Autol. i. 6 ἄστρων χορείαν
γινομένην ἐν τῷ κύκλῳ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οἷς ἡ
πολυποίκιλος σόφία τοῦ Θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἴδια
ὀνόματα κέκληκεν, Comp. 20. 11. 15.

5. ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ] Naturally a frequent
phrase in Clement; §§ 9, 11, 34, 49,
50, comp. §§ 21, 30, 60, 61, 63, where
likewise the word ὁμόνοια occurs.

6. παρεκβάσεως)] The other reading
παραβάσεως destroys the sense. For
the whole passage comp. AZost.
Const. Vii. 34 φωστῆρες...
σώζοντες τὸν δολιχὸν καὶ κατ᾽ οὐδὲν
παραλλάσσοντες τῆς σῆς προσταγῆς. In
the immediate neighbourhood is the

> ,
ἀπαράβατον

ωι

xx] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 7k

> L oN \ fi > / \ Δ \
ἰδίοις καιροῖς THY πανπλήθη ἀνθρώποις τε Kal θηρσὶν Kal

πάσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὴν ζώοις ἀνατέλλει τροφήν, μὴ
[τὸ διχοστατοῦσα μηδὲ ἀλλοιοῦσα τι τῶν δεδογματισμέ-
νων ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. ἀβύσσων τε ἀνεξιχνίαστα καὶ νερτέ-
ρων ἀνεκδιήγητα κρίματα τοῖς αὐτοῖς συνέχεται προσ-

A \ y > 3 7 , \ \
τάγμασιν. TO κύτος τῆς ἀπείρου θαλάσσης κατὰ τὴν

tpsorum, which probably represents παρεκβάσεως, and where probably the reading

was διὰ for δίχα.
A; ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς C; in ila 8.

same quotation from Job xxxviii. 11 as
here in Clement.

ἐξελίσσουσιν)]Θ Comp. Plut. Mor.
p- 368 A τοσαύταις ἡμέραις τὸν αὐτῆς
κύκλον ἐξελίσσει (of the moon), Heliod.
Eth. v. 1408 δὲ περὶ τὸν νομέα κύκλους
ἀγερώχους ἐξελίττοντες (both passages
given in Hase and Dindorf’s S¢eph.
Thes.). Thus the word continues the
metaphor of χοροί, describing the
tangled mazes of the dance, as e.g.
Eur. 7voad. 3. The ὁρισμοὶ therefore
are their defined orbits.

9. ἐπ᾽ αὐτὴν] For the accusative
so used see Winer § xlix. p. 426.

ἀνατέλλει] Here transitive, as e.g.
Gen. iii. 18, Is. xlv. 8, Matt. v. 45;
comp. Epiphanes in Clem. Alex.
Strom. 111. 2, Pp. 512, ἥλιος κοινὰς
τροφὰς ζώοις ἅπασιν ἀνατέλλει (MSS
ἀνατέλλειν), which closely resembles
our Clement’s language here.

10. τῶν δεδογματισμένων κ.τ.λ.]
Comp. § 27 οὐδὲν μὴ παρέλθη τῶν δε-
δογματισμένων ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ.

12. κρίματα] ‘statutes, ordinances,
1.6. the laws by which they are
governed, as e.g. 2 Chron. xxx. 16
ἔστησαν ἐπὶ τὴν στάσιν αὐτῶν κατὰ
τὸ κρίμα αὐτῶν (‘as they were ap-
pointed’), 2 Chron. iv. 7 τὰς λυχνίας
κατὰ τὸ κρίμα αὐτῶν (Comp. ver. 20).
But κρίματα is very awkward, and
several emendations have been sug-
gested, of which κλίματα is the best.

8 πανπλήθη] A; παμπλήθη C.

9 ἐπ᾽ αὐτὴν]

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
κρίματα was written down by some
thoughtless scribe from Rom. xi. 33
ἀνεξερεύνητα τὰ Kpiuata αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀν-
εξιχνίαστοι αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ (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 κρυματα for κυματα. The
veprepa are the ‘subterranean regions’
regarded physically. Yet κρίματα 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 aveé-
txviaoros κρίμασιν. My attention has
been called also to the connexion of
words in Ps. xxxvi (xxxv). 5 ra κρίματά
σου [ὡσεὶ] ἄβυσσος πολλή.

13. τὸ kvtos| ‘the hollow, the basin,
as Ps. lxiv. 7 6 συνταράσσων τὸ κύτος
τῆς θαλάσσης. In Dan. iv. 8 τὸ κύτος
is opposed to τὸ ὕψος. Comp. also
Theoph. ad Autol. i. 7 ὁ συνταράσσων
TO κύτος τῆς θαλάσσης, and Afost.
Const. villi. 12 ὁ συστησάμενος a-
βυσσον καὶ μέγα κύτος αὐτῇ πε-
ριθείς.. πηγαῖς ἀενάοις μεθύσας...
ἐνιαυτῶν κύκλοις... νεφῶν ὀμβροτόκων

7 THE EPISTLE OF 5. CLEMENT

[xx

Lp \ > \ \
δημιουργίαν αὐτοῦ συσταθὲν cic τὰς ογνάγωγὰς οὐ παρ-

~ « \
εκβαίνει τὰ περιτεθειμένα αὐτῇ κλεῖθρα, ἀλλὰ καθως

΄ ΄σ΄ of a
διέταξεν αὐτῆ, οὕτως ποιεῖ.

1 δημιουργίαν] δημιουργειαν A.
κρυματα Α.

διαδρομαῖς εἰς καρπῶν γονὰς καὶ
ζῴων σύστασιν, στάθμον ἀνέμων
διαπνεόντων x.t.A., in which passage
the resemblances cannot be acci-
dental.

I. εἰς tas συναγωγὰς] From LXX
Gen. i. 9 καὶ συνήχθη τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑπο-
κάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς
αὐτῶν, wanting in the Hebrew. It
refers to the great bodies of water,
the Mediterranean, the Caspian, the
Red Sea, etc.

mapekBaivee «.T.A.]| From Job
XXxVilil. 10, 11 ἐθέμην δὲ αὐτῇ ὅρια
περιθεὶς κλεῖθρα καὶ πύλας, εἶπα δὲ αὐτῇ
Μέχρι τούτου ἐλεύσῃ καὶ οὐχ ὑπερβήσῃ,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν σεαυτῇ συντριβήσεταί σου τὰ
κύματα: comp. also Ps. civ. 9, Jer. v. 22.

4. ὠκεανὸς κιτ.λ.] This passage is
directly quoted by Clem. Alex. Strom.
v. 12 (p. 693), by Origen de Princ.
ii. 6 (1. p. 82, 83), Select. im Lzech.
Vill, 3 (III. p. 422), by Jerome ad
LE phes. i. 2 (Vil. p. 571). It must
also have suggested the words of
Irenzeus Haer. 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 ὁ πολὺς
kal ἀπέραντος ἀνθρώποις ὠκεανὸς used
by, Dionys. Alex. in EKuseb; 4, Ὁ:
vii. 21 may be derived indirectly
through Clement or Origen. On
Photius see below, p. 86.

5. ἀπέρατος] ‘zmpassable, as the
context shows, and as it is rendered
in the translation of Origen de Princ.
ii. 3 (‘intransmeabilis’), The com-
mon form in this sense is ἀπέρατος ;

συντριβήσεται] A; συντριβήσονται C.

εἶπεν yap: Ἕως ὧλε
3 οὕτως] A; οὕτω C. 4 κύματα]
5 ἀνθρ. ἀπέρ.] A; ἀπέρ.

though ἀπέραντος is read here not only
in our MSS, but by Clem. Alex. p. 693
and Dionys. Alex. in Euseb. 1. £. vii.
21, or their transcribers, and may
possibly be correct. Yet as I could
not find any better instances of this
use than Eur. (ed. 212, Atsch. Prom.
159 (where Blomf. suggests dzréparos),
and in both passages the meaning
may be questioned, I have preferred
reading ἀπέρατος as quoted by Origen
Select. in Ezech. viii. 3.

The proper meaning of ἀπέραντος,
‘boundless,’ appears from Clem. Hom.
Xvi. 17, XVii. 9, 10, where it is found in
close alliance with ἄπειρος. See also
Clem. Alex. Fragm. p. 1020. On the
other hand for ἀπέρατος comp. e.g.
Macar. Magn. A focr. iv. 13 (p. 179) pet
τῷ θέρει kal τῷ χειμῶνι πολὺς καὶ ἀπέρα-
The lines in A here are divided
attepan|toc ; and this division would
assist the insertion of the ν. An
earlier scribe would write ἀττερᾶ τοῦ
for attepaltoc. See Didymus £x2Zos.
Psal. 138 (p. 1596 ed. Migne) ei yap

TOS.

\ > iy ee > > > ‘ [
Καὶ ὠκεανὸς ἀπέραντος, ἀλλ ουν Και OL

per αὐτὸν κόσμοι ταῖς τοῦ δεσπότου
διαταγαῖς διϊθύνονται᾽ πάντα γὰρ τὰ πρὸς
αὐτοῦ γεγενημένα ὅποι[ὅποιαξϑ | ror ἐστὶν
ταγαῖς τῆς ἑαυτοῦ προνοίας διοικούμενα
ἰθύνεται. This language may possibly
have been derived from Origen, and
not directly from Clement. Anyhow
the recognition of both the various
readings, rayais, διαταγαῖς, is worthy
of notice.

οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν κόσμοι k.T.A.| Clement
may possibly be referring to some
known but hardly accessible land,
lying without the pillars of Hercules

ἵ
ΜΝ
|

ate

eee

ae .
_ Rd on ς oe te

xx |

ἥξεις, KAl TA KYMATA COY EN COI CYNTPIBHCETAl.

TO THE CORINTHIANS. 7.

\
ὠκεανὸς

΄, Me \ ε 3 / a ΄
ἀνθρώποις ἀπέρατος καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν κόσμοι ταῖς αὐταῖς

΄σ a , lf
ταγαῖς τοῦ δεσπότου διευθύνονται.

ἀνθρ. C.
Didym. See the lower note.

and in foreign seas: as Ceylon (Plin.
WV. H. vi. 22 ‘Taprobanen alterum
orbem terrarum esse diu existima-
tum est, Antichthonumappellatione’),
or Britain (Joseph. Ρ, F. ii. 16. 4 ὑπὲρ
ὠκεανὸν ἑτέραν ἐζήτησαν οἰκουμένην καὶ
μέχρι τῶν ἀνιστορήτων πρότερον Βρετ-
τανῶν διήνεγκαν τὰ ὅπλα). 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.] MWzrab. Ausc. § 84 p. 836,
ὃ 136 p. 844, Diod. v. 19, 20; see
Humboldt Lwam. Crit. 1. 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
iil. 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 1. 4 (p. 65), Plut.
Mor. p. 941, are much more remark-
able. The opinions of ancient writers
on this subject are collected and ex-

καιροὶ ἐαρινοὶ καὶ

ἀπέρατος] Orig; zztransmeabilis S; ἀπέραντος AC Clem, Dionys,
6 tayais] AC; διαταγαῖς 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 Ferdz-
mand and Isabella 11. p. 102. This
interpretation is quite consistent with
the fact that Clement below (§ 33)
speaks of the ocean as τὸ περιέχον
τὴν γῆν ὕδωρ.

At all events this passage was
seemingly so taken by Irenzeus and
Clement of Alexandria, and it is dis-
tinctly explained thus by Origen (Se/.
in Ezech. vill. 3 sq, de Princ. 11. 6)
who discusses it at great length. All
these fathers acquiesce in the exist-
ence of these ‘other worlds.’ At a
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 l.c. 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 /reland and the
Celtic Church Ὁ. 224 sq.

6. rayais| ‘ directions,’ as Hermes
in Stob. 2 εἰ. 1. 52. 40 ἐποπτὴρ τοίνυν

74 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xx

\ \ \ \ δ 9 2 /
θερινοὶ καὶ μετοπωρινοὶ καὶ χειμερινοὶ ἐν εἰρήνη μετα-
/ If £ \ \ \
παραδιδόασιν ἀλλήλοις. ἀνέμων σταθμοὶ κατὰ τὸν
> \ \ / ᾽ ΄σ ᾽ 7
ἴδιον καιρὸν THY λειτουργίαν αὐτῶν ἀπροσκοόπως ἐπιτε-
΄σ td \ \ / \ 7
Aovow" ἀέναοί τε πηγαὶ πρὸς ἀπόλαυσιν καὶ ὑγείαν
nan / 5 tA / \ \
δημιουργηθεῖσαι δίχα ἐλλείψεως παρέχονται τοὺς προς 5
΄σ > / / / 7 lon , a
ζωῆς ἀνθρώποις μαζούς. τά τε ἐλάχιστα τῶν ζώων Tas
/ ἜΣ ἐᾷ ἐζευῦς ΄σ
συνελεύσεις αὐτῶν ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ καὶ εἰρήνη ποιοῦνται.
- / / \ \ ἵ ΄σ
Ταῦτα πάντα ὁ μέγας δημιουργὸς καὶ δεσπότης τῶν
ε / 3 3 / ον: 7 ΄ a. 3
ἁπάντων ἐν εἰρήνη καὶ ὁμονοίᾳ προσέταξεν εἰναι, εὐεργε-

I μετοπωρινοὶ] μεθοπωρινοι A. μεταπαραδιδόασιν] A, and so app. S; μετα-

διδόασιν (Ὁ.
it had read ἀνεμοί τε σταθμῶν.
λειτουργειαν A.
S. ὑγείαν] A; ὑγίειαν C.

ταγῆς ἔσται τῶν ὅλων ὀξυδερκὴς θεὸς
᾿Αδράστεια, with other passages quoted
by Hase in Sveph. Thes.s.v. Origen
Sel. in Ezech. \.c., and apparently
also de Princ. |.c. (for the Latin is ds-
posttionibus), has διαταγαῖς, which
some editors adopt ; but he would
naturally substitute a common for
an unusual word, and his quotation
throughout is somewhat loose.

I. μεταπαραδιδόασιν] ‘ give way in
succession’; again a rare word, of
which a few instances are collected
in Hase and Dindorf’s Steph. Thes.

2. ἀνέμων σταθμοὶ] From Job
XXVlll. 25 ἐποίησεν δὲ ἀνέμων σταθμὸν
καὶ ὑδάτων μέτρα, 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 στάσεις, e.g. Polyb. 1.
75.8 κατά Twas ἀνέμων στάσεις, ix. 5.
23 ἐπιχώριοι τὰς τῶν ἀνέμων στάσεις
κάλλιστα γινώσκουσι: see Schweig-

hauser on Polyb. i. 48. 2. A good

4 ἀέναοι] A; ἀένναοι C.
5 πρὸς ζωῆς] A; πρὸς ζωὴν C. S translates

2 ἀνέμων] A; add. τε CS. S translates ventegue locorum as if

3 τὴν] AS; καὶ τὴν C. λειτουργίαν]
ἀπόλαυσιν] AC; add. τε

illustration of Clement’s meaning is
the noble passage in Lucretius v.
737 56.

3. ἀπροσκόπως)]) So again § 61
διέπειν THY ὑπό σου δεδομένην αὐτοῖς
ἡγεμονίαν ἀπροσκόπως. For the cor-
responding adjective ἀπρύόσκοπος,
which seems to have been a spe-
cially Pauline word (Acts xxiv. 16,
as well as 1 Cor. x. 32, Phil. 1746)
see Philippians l.c.

4. ὑγείαν] A common form in late
writers: see Lobeck Paral. p. 28
(with the references), Phryn. p. 493,
Pathol. p. 234. It is so written in
several inscriptions, and so scanned
in Orph. Hymn. \xxxiv. 8 (p. 350,
Herm.) ὄλβον ἐπιπνείουσα καὶ ἡπιό-
χειρον ὑγείαν (unnecessarily altered
by Porson, Eur. Oves¢. 229, into ἠπιό-
χειρ᾽ ὑγίειαν), and elsewhere. Editors
therefore should not have substituted
ὑγίειαν. Compare ταμεῖα ὃ 50.

5. τοὺς πρὸς ζωῆς μαζούς] The meta-
phor was perhaps suggested by Jer.
XVill. 14 (LXX) μὴ ἐκλείψουσιν ἀπὸ
πέτρας μαστοί, which however departs
from the existing reading of the He-
brew. For πρὸς ζωῆς, ‘ on the side of

ΧΧΙ] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 75

' ΄ \ i ΄σ N ΄σ iN

τὸ τῶν τὰ πάντα, ἱπερεκπερισσώς δὲ ἡμᾶς TOUS προσπε-

| / ΄σ a o \ ΄σ I ~

φευγότας τοῖς οἰκτιρμοῖς αὐτοῦ dia τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν
ca ΄σ Cry e tf \ (ἃ > \

᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὦ ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ μεγαλωσύνη εἰς τοὺς

2A an ιν ἢ ,
αἰώνας τῶν αἰώνων. aun.

ΧΧΙ.

> > / \ ε > / 5) “-“
‘Opate, ἀγαπητοί, pn αἱ εὐεργεσίαι αὐτοῦ

Θ \ he > / > Ce ce τὴ \ ’ ,
-5 at πολλαι γένωνται ELS κρίμα πασιν ἡμῖν, εαν μη ἀξίως

lan / \ \ \ Of 2 Mp
αὐτοῦ πολιτευόμενοι τὰ καλὰ καὶ εὐαρεστα ἐνώπιον αὐ-

΄σ ΄σ ? Δ
τοῦ ποιώμεν μεθ᾽ ὁμονοίας.

ea quae ad vitam, omitting μα ζούς altogether.
10 προσπεφευγότας)] AS; προσφεύγοντας C.
12 καὶ 7 μεγαλωσύνη] AC; om. 8.

if συλλήψεις) 8.
μοῖς] οικτειρμοισ A.

λέγει γάρ που Πνεῦμα

7 συνελεύσει5] AC; auxilia (as
11 οἰκτιρ-
15 εἰς κρίμα

πᾶσιν ἡμῖν] A; εἰς κρίματα σὺν ἡμῖν C (€EICKPIMATACYN for EICKPIMATTACIN) ;

in judicium nobis S; 5661. p. 142.

life, ‘conducive to life, comp. Acts
XXVil. 34 πρὸς τῆς ὑμετέρας σωτηρίας,
Clem. Hom. viii. 14 πρὸς κόσμου καὶ
τέρψεως, and see Winer καὶ xlvii. p. 391.
This sense of πρὸς is more common
in classical Greek.

7. συνελεύσεις] 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. i. 9 (quoted in Steph.
Thes.).

ὃ, δημιουργὸς] 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 11. pp. 11, 39, 91.

10. προσφεύγειν) Altogether a late
and somewhat rare word: see 1 Sam.
xxix. 3 (Sym.). It does not occur in
the LXx or New Testament.

12. ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ pey.| Soagain ὃ 64.
In the doxology Jude 25 also the two
words occur together; comp. Ecclus.
xliv. 2.

XXI. ‘His blessings will turn to

16 αὐτοῦ pri.] AC; om. 8.

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. ἀξίως modirevopevot] The ex-
pression occurs in Phil. i. 27. Cle-
ment’s language here is echoed by
Polycarp Phii. 5.

16. εὐάρεστα ἐνώπιον] Heb. xiii. 21;
comp. Ps. cxiv. 9.

17. λέγει yap x«.7.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 γυναῖκας nuov...dvedet αὐτήν, 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

1 ' 2 a \ . Gi ἢ ᾽
Κυρίου λύχνος ἐρευνῶν TA τὰμιεϊὰ TAC γδοτρόθο. Ιδωμεν
ΤᾺ 4 \ / Liao | -
πῶς ἐγγύς ἐστιν, Kal ὅτι οὐδὲν λέληθεν αὐτὸν τῶν
y
δί-

oy > 4 ~ ε ~ 3 \ ~ θ XH fi
καιον OUY ἐστιν MH ALTOTAKTELY Has απὸ TOU UVEAY-~

> © ΄σ 5 Χ ΄σ ΄σ πε /
ἐννοιῶν ἡμῶν οὐδὲ τών διαλογισμῶν ὧν ποιούμεθα.

ματος αὐτοῦ" μάλλον ἀνθρώποις ἄφροσι καὶ ἀνοήτοις 5 +
kal ἐπαιρομένοις Kal ἐγκαυχωμένοις ἐν ἀλαζονείᾳ τοῦ e
λόγου αὐτῶν προσκόψωμεν ἢ τῷ Θεῷ. τὸν Κύριον
᾿Ιησοῦν [Χριστόν], οὗ τὸ αἷμα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐδόθη, ἐντρα-
2 ἐστιν]

I λύχνος] C Clem 611; λυχνον A. ταμιεῖα] AC; ταμεῖα Clem.

AC; add. zodzs S.

Tew C. 5 μᾶλλον] AC; add. δὲ 5.
μενοι A. ἀλαζονείᾳ] adagovia A.
A; om. CS. νέους] ναιουσ A.

Πνεῦμα Κυρίου κιτ.λ.}] From Prov.
xx. 27, which runs in the ΤΧΧ φώς
Κυρίου πνοὴ ἀνθρώπων ὃς ἐρευνᾷ (€pavva)
ταμεῖα (ταμιεῖα) κοιλίας. A adds ἢ
λύχνος after ἀνθρώπων, but this must
originally have been a gloss suggest-
ing an alternative reading for das, as
Avxvos is actually read by Aq. Sym.
Theod. ; 566 ἃ similar instance of cor-
rection in this MS noted above on § 17.
Comp. also Prov. vi. 23 λύχνος ἐντολὴ
νόμου καὶ φῶς. from which passage
perhaps λύχνος came to be interpo-
lated here. Hilgenfeld prints λέγει yap
που πνεῦμα Κυρίου Λύχνος ἐρευνῶν K.T.A.
and finds fault with Clem. Alex. for
making the words πνεῦμα Κυρίου part
of the quotation (λέγει yap που ἡ γραφή
Πνεῦμα Κυρίου 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 ὃ 42. For the exact
words λέγει yap που see δὲ 15, 26, and
for other instances of λέγει (or φησί)
with no nominative expressed, δὲ 8,
ΤΟ, 16, 29, 30, 46. On the spelling of
ταμιεῖα (ταμεῖα) Clement (or his tran-
scriber) is capricious: see § 50 (note).

ὅτι] ΑΟ; om. (?)S.

4 λιποτακτεῖν] A; λειποτακ-
6 ἐγκαυχωμένοις)] εγκαυχω-
8 Χριστόν] A; om. CS. 10 ἡμῶν]
11 παιδείαν] παιδιαν A. τοῦ φόβου]

2. ἐγγύς ἐστιν) As below ὃ 27;
comp. Ps. xxxiv. 18, ΟΧΙΣ. 151, exlvg
18, Ign. Ephes. 15 τὰ κρυπτὰ ἡμῶν ey-
γὺς αὐτῷ ἐστιν (with the note), Herm.
Vis. ii. 3. There is no allusion here
to the nearness of the advent, as in
Phil. iv. 5 (see the note there).

οὐδὲν λέληθεν x.7.r.] This passage
is copied by Polycarp P&zZ. 4 καὶ
λέληθεν αὐτὸν οὐδὲν οὔτε λογισμῶν
οὔτε ἐννοιῶν. On διαλογισμοί, “Ζγτυαγαῖ

guestionings, see the note on Phil.

ine

4. λιποτακτεῖν] So αὐτομολεῖν be-
low, ὃ 28. Ignatius has the same
metaphor but uses the Latin word,
Polyc. 6 μήτις ὑμῶν δεσέρτωρ εὑρεθῇ:
see the note there.

On the authority of our older ms I
have preferred the form λιποτακτεῖν.
There is poetical authority for the
simple vowel in λιποτάξιον; 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: eg.
λιπαυγής, λιπόναυς, λιποναύτης, Ar
momvoos, λιποσαρκής, λιποψυχεῖν. The
grammarians differed on this point ;
see Choeroboscus in Cramer’s Anecd.

Xx1] £O° THE CORINTHIANS. 77

- \ / > 2 “ \
πώμεν: TOUS προηγουμένους ἡμῶν αἰδεσθῶμεν, τοὺς
/ e -~ / \ / /
|1o πρεσβυτέρους ημων τιμήσωμεν, TOUS VEOUS παιδεύσωμεν
| \ , πε , a - \ rs τς
THV παιδείαν του φόβου του Θεοῦ, τας γυναικας ἡμῶν
> \ \ > \ / \ > if ΄σ
ἐπὶ τὸ ἀγαθὸν διορθωσωμεθα: τὸ ἀξιαγάπητον τῆς
ς / 5 / \ 3 If =~ DA
ayvelas ἦθος ἐνδειξάσθωσαν, TO ἀκέραιον τῆς πραὕτητος
> ~ 4 9 , \ ᾽ \ => /
αὐτῶν βούλημα ἀποδειξάτωσαν, TO ETLELKES τῆς YAWo-
> ΄σ \ ΄σ > \ , \
το σῆς αὐτών διὰ τῆς σιγῆς φανερὸν ποιησατωσαν᾽ τῆν
/ > A \ \ / 3 \ => -
ἀγαπην αὐτῶν, μή κατὰ προσκλίσεις, ἀλλα πασιν τοῖς
13 ἁγνείας] αγνιασ A. Clem 612 has the order ἦθος τῆς
ἐνδειξάσθωσαν] AC Clem. Bryennios wrongly gives the reading of A

14 βούλημα] AC; NYDN)
16 προσκλίσει5]

INC ZOmMs 5.
ἁγνείας.
Clem as ἐνδειξάτωσαν (ad loc. and comp. p. ρκδ').

(καὶ βούλημα) 5. 15 σιγῆς] CS Clem; φωνησ A.
AS; προσκλήσεις C. This same itacism occurs several times in C, §§ 47, 50.

Graec. Bibl. Oxon. UW. p. 239 λέγει
ὁ ρος ὅτι πάντα παρὰ τὸ λείπω διὰ
τῆς εἰ διφθόγγου γράφεται, οἷον λειπό-
νεως, λειποταξία, λειποτάξιον, λειπο-
στράτειον᾽ ὁ δὲ ᾿Ωριγένης διὰ τοῦ ι λέγει
γράφεσθαι. There seems to be no
poetical and therefore indisputable
authority for the εἰ.

5. ap. Καὶ davonr.|] LXX Jer. x. 8
ἅμα ἄφρονες καὶ avonroi εἰσι, 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. ἐγκαυχωμένοις κιτ.λ.] See James
iv. 16 καυχᾶσθε ἐν ταῖς ἀλαζονείαις
ὑμῶν.

7. τὸν Κύριον κ-τ.λ.] Clem. Alex.
(p. 611 54), 85 commonly punctuated,
quotes the passage τὸν Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν
λέγω...οὗ τὸ αἷμα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἡγιάσθη"
ἐντραπῶμεν οὖν τοὺς προηγουμένους ἧ-
μῶν, καὶ αἰδεσθῶμεν τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους"
τιμήσωμεν τοὺς νέους, παιδεύσωμεν τὴν
παιδείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. A different punctua-
tion, καὶ αἰδεσθῶμεν᾽ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους
τιμήσωμεν᾽ τοὺς νέους παιδεύσωμεν κ.τ.λ.,
would bring the quotation somewhat
nearer to the original.

9. τοὺς προηγουμένους i.e. the offi-

cers of the Church ; see the note on
τοῖς ἡγουμένοις ἃ 1. The following
τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους must therefore refer
to age, not to office.

10. τοὺς νέους κιτ.λ.] Copied by Po-
lycarp Phil. 4 τὰ τέκνα παιδεύειν τὴν
παιδείαν τοῦ φόβου τοῦ Θεοῦ. Comp.
Prov. xvi. 4 (xv. 33) φόβος Κυρίου
παιδεία, and Ecclus. i. 27 where the
same words are repeated.

15. σιγῆς] They must be eloquent
by their silence, for γυναιξὶ κόσμον ἡ
σιγὴ φέρει. This meaning is so obvi-
ously required, that I had restored
σιγῆς in my first edition on the au-
thority of the Alexandrian Clement
alone in place of the senseless φωνῆς
of A. It is now confirmed by our
two new authorities. Hilgenfeld re-
fers to 1 Cor. xiv. 34 sq, 1 Tim. ii. 11.

τὴν ἀγάπην κιτ.λ.}] So too Polyc.
Phil. 4 ἀγαπώσας πάντας ἐξ ἴσου ἐν
πάσῃ ἐγκρατείᾳ. The numerous close
coincidences with this chapter in
Polycarp show plainly that he had
our epistle before him.

16. κατὰ προσκλίσεις] From 1 Tim.
ν. 21 μηδὲν ποιῶν κατὰ πρύσκλισιν.
The word πρόσκλισις occurs again

SS 47, 50.

78 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XXI

Ψ \ 4 € , af , \

φοβουμένοις Tov Θεὸν ὁσίως iconv παρεχετωσαν' Ta
~ qn an /

τέκνα ἡμῶν τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ παιδείας μεταλαμβανέτωσαν'"

, \ es) , ,

μαθέτωσαν, τί ταπεινοφροσύνη παρὰ Θεῴ ἰσχνει, Th

> £ ε Χ \ 5 Θ ΄σ δύ eee 13 3 “
ayarn ayvn Tapa TW ὕὍεω ουναται, πῶς ὁ do os αὐτου

\ \ , \ ᾿ ἢ τ» oe ἀν ee
καλὸς Kal μέγας Kal σώζων πάντας TOUS ἐν αὐτῷ OTIWS5

ἀναστρεφομένους ἐν καθαρᾷ διανοίᾳ" ἐρευνητὴς yap ἐστιν
ἐννοιῶν καὶ ἐνθυμήσεων" οὗ ἡ πνοὴ αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν ἐστιν,
καὶ ὅταν θέλη ἀνελεῖ αὐτήν.

ΧΧΙ͂Ι.

\ > \ \ ~ 4 “ ε / cf
mts καὶ γάρ αὐτος διὰ TOU πνευματος TOU aylou OUTWS

Ταῦτα δὲ πάντα βεβαιοῖ ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ πίσ-

προσκαλεῖται ἡμᾶς: Δεῦτε τέκνὰ, ἀκογοὰτέ MOY, φόβον
Kypioy διλᾶξω YM&c. TIC ECTIN ANOPWTOC ὁ θέλων ZOHN,
ArATTON ἡμέρδο ἰδεῖν APAGAC; TAYCON THN TA@CCAN Coy ἀπὸ

κακοῦ, Kal χείλη TOY MH AAAACAL δόλον" ἔκκλινον ἀπὸ

2 ἡμῶν] S Clem; ὑμῶν AC. μεταλαμβανέτωσαν] AC; μεταλαβέτωσαν

Clem. 3 ἰσχύει] wy A. 4 τῷ A; om. C Clem. αὐτοῦ] ACS;
τοῦ κυρίου Clem. 5 καὶ σώζων] AC; et ἤδεγαις et salvans 5; σώζων (om. καὶ)
Clem. ὁσίως] AC; θείως S. See above, §§ 2, 14. 6 διανοίᾳ] AC;

καρδίᾳ Clem. ἐστιν] AC; om. Clem.

As ἐνθυμημάτων Clem.

7 ἐνθυμήσεων] C3 ενθυμησαιων
8 ἀνελεῖ] A; ἀναιρεῖ CS. g δὲ] AC; om. S.
το οὕτω] AC; but Bryennios reads οὔτω without indicating that he is departing
from his Ms. 12 τίς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος] C omits from here to ῥύσεται αὐτὸν ὁ
Κύριος, and begins again εἶτα πολλαὶ ai μάστιγες τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ x.7.r. (1. 21).

I. ὁσίως] This word is best taken
with παρεχέτωσαν; for it would be an
unmeaning addition to τοῖς φοβουμέ-
νοις τὸν Θεόν.

6. ἐρευνητὴς κιτιλ.] As Heb. iv. 12

ful and God-loving, but threatening
utter destruction to the sinful and
disobedient’.

9. Ταῦτα δὲ πάντα κ.τ.λ.] 1.6. Faith
in Christ secures all these good re-

κριτικὸς ἐνθυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοιῶν Kap-
δίας.

7. οὗ..«αὐτοῦῦ A Hebraism, for
which see Winer § xxii. p. 161.

8. ἀνελεῖ] On the rare future Ad
of αἱρέω see Winer ὃ xv. p. 94 with
his references: comp. Exod. xv. 9,
@ @ivess. 11.6:

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-

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 αὐτὸς προσκα-
λεῖται see above, § 16 αὐτός φησιν, with
the note.

11. Δεῦτε κιτ.λ.] From LXX Ps. xxxiv.
11 sq almost word for word. The
differences are unimportant.

18. τὸ μνημόσυνον] See the note on
ἐνκατάλειμμα above § 14.

ἐκέκραξεν] In the existing text of

ΧΧΙΠ] TO THE CORINTHIANS.

79

15 KAKOY KAl ποίησον APAOGN* ZHTHCON εἰρήνην KAI δίωξον

AYTHN. ὀφθδλμοὶ Kypioy ἐπὶ Aikaloyc, KAl ὦτὰ αὐτοῦ πρὸς
AEHCIN AYT@N* πρόσωπον δὲ Κγρίογ ἐπὶ ποιοΐῖντδο KAKA
τοῦ ἐξολεθρεΐζοδλι ἐκ γῆς TO MNHMOCYNON AYTON. ἐκέκραξεν
ὁ δλίκδιος Kal ὁ Κύριος εἰοήκογοεν aYTOY Kal ἐκ πδοῶν
'οτῶν θλίψεων ἀὐτοῦ ἐρύολτο AYTON. πολλδὶ δὶ θλίψεις τοῦ

AIKAIOY KAl ἐκ TIAC@N pycetal ayton ὦ Kypioc: Elta’

TloAAal ai mactirec τοῦ ἁμδρτωλοῦ, τοὺς δὲ ἐλπίζοντδο
ἐπὶ Κύριον ἔλεος κγκλώσει.

> 7 \ if \ \

XXII. ‘O οἰκτίρμων κατὰ πάντα Kal εὐεργετικὸς

\ of / 3 \ \ ig > /

ἢ» πατὴρ ἔχει σπλαγχνα ἐπὶ τοὺς φοβουμένους AUTOV,

> / \ ΄σ \ 4 > > ΄ a

ἡπίως TE καὶ προσήνως TAS χαριτας αὐτοῦ ἀποδιδοῖ τοῖς

/ > > ε los Ἃ \ \ qn

προσέερχομένοις aUTW ἁπλῆ διανοίᾳ. διὸ μη διψυχώ-

μεν, μηδὲ ἰνδαλλέσθω ἡ ψυχὴ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ ταῖς ὑπερβαλ-

14 καὶ] A Clem (with Lxx); om. 5. χείλη] A; add. cov S Clem with the

eX: (Ὁ: 13): τό ὀφθαλμοὶ] A Clem (with A of LXx and Hebr); ὅτι ὀφθαλμοὶ
S (with BS of Lxx). πρὸς] A; εἰς Clem with the Lxx. 18 ἐκέκραξεν κ.τ.λ.]
See below. 20 θλίψεων] θλιψαιων A. αὐτοῦ] om. Clem. πολλαὶ ai

OriWers...6 Κύριος] S; om. A; def. C. 21 εἶτα] C; et tterum S, frequently a
translation of καὶ πάλιν, which possibly we should read here; but see below, ὃ 23,
μετὰ ταῦτα. 22 ai] ACS; μὲν yap Clem. τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ] AC; τῶν
ἁμαρτωλῶν Clem 1,ΧΧ. τοὺς δὲ ἐλπίζοντας] A Clem; τὸν δὲ ἐλπίζοντα CS with the Lxx

and Hebr. 23 ἔλεος] C Clem; ελαιοσ A. 24 οἰκτίρμων] οἰκτειρμων A.

Clem, Alex. this is read ἐκέκραξεν δὲ ὁ
Κύριος καὶ εἰσήκουσε, obviously a cor-
ruption.

20. πολλαὶ ai θλίψεις κιτ.λ.] This is
from Ps. xxxiv (xxxiii). 20, the verse
but one following the preceding quo-
tation. The LxXx however has the
plural τῶν δικαίων, αὐτούς, 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 Πολλαὶ ai, and should be
restored accordingly.

Πολλαὶ ai μάστιγες k.t-.| An exact
quotation from Ps. xxxii. 10 (LXX),
except that rods ἐλπίζοντας is sub-

stituted for τὸν ἐλπίζοντα.

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. ἰνδαλλέσθω] ‘tudulge 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 sv. 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

\ y ΄σ - / /
λούσαις Kal ἐνδόξοις δωρεαῖς αὐτοῦ. πόρρω γενέσθω ἀφ᾽
ς γα- ε \ « J / , , > c
ἡμῶν ἡ ypadn αὕτη, ὅπου λέγει" Tadaittwpol eicin οἱ
Aipyyol, οἱ AlcTAZONTEC τὴν YYXHN, οἱ λέγοντες, Tafta Hkoy-
CAMEN KAl ἐπὶ τῶν πάτέρων HMON, KAl ἰδοῦ TEFHPAKAMEN

1 πόρρω γενέσθω] AS; πόρρω γε γενέσθω C.
3 τὴν ψυχήν] Α; τῇ ψυχῇ C; dub. 5.

AS; αὐτοῦ C.

use of φαντάζεσθαι. The lexicons do
not recognize this use, but see Dion
Chrys. Orat. xii. 53 (p. 209 M) πρότε-
pov μὲν yap ἅτε οὐδὲν σαφὲς εἰδότες
ἄλλην ἄλλος ἀνεπλάττομεν ἰδέαν, πᾶν
τὸ θνητὸν κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ δύναμιν καὶ
φύσιν ἰνδαλλόμενοι καὶ ὀνειρώττοντες,
Sext. Emp. adv. Math. vii. 249 ἔνιαι
(φαντασίαι) πάλιν ἀπὸ ὑπάρχοντος μέν
εἰσιν, οὐκ αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ ὑπάρχον ἰνδάλ-
λονται κιτιλ., Xi. 122 ὁ τὸν πλοῦτον
μέγιστον ἀγαθὸν ἰνδαλλόμενος, Clem.
Alex. Protr. 10 (p. 81) χρυσὸν ἢ
λίθον ἢ δένδρον ἢ πρᾶξιν ἢ πάθος
ἢ νόσον ἢ φόβον ἰνδάλλεσθαι ὡς θεόν,
Method. Symp. vill. 2 ἔτι ἐνδημοῦσαι
τοῖς σώμασιν ivdaddovra τὰ θεῖα. (The
last two passages I owe to Jahn’s
Method. τι. p. 51; the others I had
collected before I saw his note.) So
ἴνδαλμα most frequently suggests the
idea of an unreal, spectral, appear-
ance, as Wisd. xvii. 3 ἰνδάλμασιν ἐκ-
ταρασσόμενοι, Clem. Hom. iv. 4 φαν-
τάσματά τε γὰρ καὶ ἰνδάλματα ev μέσῃ
τῇ ἀγορᾷ φαίνεσθαι ποιῶν δι’ ἡμέρας
πᾶσαν ἐκπλήττει τὴν πόλιν, Athenag.
Suppl. 27 αἱ οὖν ἄλογοι αὗται καὶ ἰν-
δαλματώδεις τῆς ψυχῆς κινήσεις εἰδω-
λομανεῖς ἀποτίκτουσι φαντασίας, where
he is speaking of false objects of wor-
ship.

2. Ταλαίπωροι κ.τ.λ.] The same pas-
sage is quoted also in the 2nd Epistle
ascribed to Clement (§ 11), being there
introduced by the words λέγει yap καὶ
ὁ προφητικὸς λόγος. Though the quo-
tation there is essentially the same,
yet the variations which it presents
show that it cannot have been de-

THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

[XXIII

2 αὕτη]

5 συνβέβηκεν]

See below, § 33.

rived directly or solely from the First
Epistle. Moreover it is there con-
tinued, οὕτως καὶ ὁ λαός μου ἀκαταστα-
σίας καὶ θλίψεις ἔσχεν, ἔπειτα ἀπολή-
Wera τὰ ἀγαθά. 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,

2, 53, and just below ταχὺ ἥξει
k.7.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 xiii. 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 ὁ προφητικὸς
λόγος and the form of the quotation
ὁ λαός μου «.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, ὦ
which was certainly known in the ἢ
early Roman Church; see Herm. Vzs. —j
ii. 3 ἐγγὺς Κύριος τοῖς ἐπιστρεφομένοις, —
ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἑλδὰδ καὶ Modad —
τοῖς προφητεύσασιν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τῷ
λαῷ, 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

XXIIT |

A; συμβέβηκεν C.

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.

οἱ δίψυχοι κιτ.λ.] Comp. James i. 8
ἀνὴρ δίψυχος ἀκατάστατος ἐν πάσαις
ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ. 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 διψυχία
and even speaks thereupon in the
context of the passage referring to
‘Eldad and Modad.’ For close re-
semblances to this quotation see l’7s.
ill. 4 διὰ τοὺς διψύχους τοὺς διαλογι-
(ομένους ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν εἰ ἄρα
ἔσται ταῦτα ἢ οὐκ ἔσται, Mand. ix. οἱ
γὰρ διστάζοντες εἰς τὸν Θεὸν οὗτοί εἰσιν
οἱ δίψυχοι κ-τιλ.

3. οἱ λέγοντες k.7.A.] 2 Pet. iii. 4
καὶ λέγοντες Ποῦ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῆς
παρουσίας αὐτοῦ; ἀφ᾽ ἧς γὰρ οἱ πατέρες
ἐκοιμήθησαν, πάντα οὕτως διαμένει ἀπ᾽
ἀρχῆς κτίσεως.

4. καὶ ἐπὶ! ‘also in the time of’.
Either the speakers use the first
) person ἠκούσαμεν as identifying them-
selves with the Israelite people of
past generations, or (as seems more
probable) ἐπὶ τῶν πατέρων must mean
‘when our fathers were still alive’,
i.e. ‘in our childhood and youth.’ It

CLEM. II.

πα ΕΟ ΘΟ eS Ξε---------ς-ς-ς-ς-ς--
5 ᾿Ξ =

TO) THE, CORINTHIANS.

5 Kal OYAEN ἡμῖν τούτων CYNBEBHKEN.

6 πρῶτον μὲν φυλλοροεῖ] AS; om. C. 7
ταῦτα] translated in S as if εἶτα, the καὶ being omitted.

SI

> > ‘ ͵
@ ANOHTOI, CYMBAAETE

EdYTOYC ZYAW* AABETE ἄμπελον πρῶτον MEN pyAAopoel,
εἶτὰ BAacTOC γίνεται, εἶτα φύλλον, εἶτὰ ἄνθος, Kal μετὰ

a 3: 3 \ a ε “- J >
TAYTA OMAZ, EITA CTADYAH TIAPECTHKY IA. Ορᾶτε, OTL €V

Kal μετὰ

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 ἐπὶ into ἀπὸ with
Young and most subsequent editors
(Jacobson and Hilgenfeld are excep-
tions), for ἐπὶ is read in both our
MSS, both here and in ii. ὃ 11.

6. λάβετε ἄμπελον κιτ.λ)] 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. iil. 24. 86 ws σῦκον, ὡς
σταφυλή, τῇ τεταγμένη w@pa τοῦ ἔτους,
iii. 24. QI τὸ φυλλορροεῖν καὶ τὸ ἰσχάδα
γίνεσθαι ἀντὶ σύκου καὶ ἀσταφίδας ἐκ
τῆς σταφυλῆς κιτιλ., Μ. Anton. xi. 35
ὄμφαξ, σταφυλή, σταφίς, πάντα μετα-
βολαὶ οὐκ εἰς τὸ μὴ ὃν ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸ νῦν
μὴ Ov.

φυλλοροεῖ] For the orthography
see the note on ἐξερίζωσεν ἃ 6.

8. mapeornkvia] “γῤο᾽; Exod. ix.
41 ἡ yap κριθὴ παρεστηκυῖα. So Theo-
phrastus Caus. Plant. vi.7. 5 παριστά-
μενος καὶ ἐξιστάμενος, of wine ripening
and going off (see Schneider’s note).
Similarly παραγίνεσθαι is used, e.g.
Herod. 1. 193. παραγίνεται ὁ σῖτος.
The words ὄμφαξ, σταφυλή, σταφίς
(ἀσταφίς), denote the sour, ripe, and
dried grape respectively ; see the
passages in the previous note, and add
Anthol. 111. p. 3, 1V. p. 131 (ed. Jacobs).

“Opare κιτ.λ.} 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 σταφυλὴ παρεστηκυΐῖα fol-

6

82 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [ΧΧΠῚ

an rye A 3 7 ~ ς \ ΄σ΄ 7
Kalpa ὀλίγῳ εἰς πέπειρον καταντᾳ O καρπος TOU ξύλου.
ἐ ἐ ἐ
7 \ \ / ta \ /
ἀπ᾽ ἀληθείας ταχὺ καὶ ἐξαίφνης τελειωθήσεται TO βού-
> ~~ / \ r fn J
λημα αὐτοῦ, συνεπιμαρτυρούσης καὶ τῆς γραφῆς OTL
TAyY HZel Kal OY χρονιεῖ, Kal ἐξδίφνης ἥξει ὁ Κύριος εἰς
τὸν NAON αὐτοῦ, κὰὶ ὁ ἅγιος ὃν YMEIC προοδοκᾶτε. 5
a /
XXIV. Katavorjowpev, ἀγαπητοί, πῶς ὁ δεσπότης
3 9
~ ς ΄- \ 7 id
ἐπιδείκνυται διηνεκώς ἡμῖν THY μέλλουσαν ἀναστασιν
᾽ Gy \ > \ 3 jf \ 7 ΄
ἔσεσθαι, ἧς τὴν ἀπαρχὴν ἐποιήσατο τὸν Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν
\ 3 ~ > / of 7 \
Χριστον ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστήσας. ἴδωμεν, ἀγαπητοί, τὴν

\ % / 7 / \ δὴ
κατὰ καιρὸν γινομένην ἀνάστασιν. ἡμέρα καὶ νυξ τὸ

1 πέπειρον] πεπιρον A.
εξαιχνησ Α.

ἡμῖν ἐπιδείκνυσι C; monstrat nobis perpetuo 5.
9 Χριστὸν] AS; om. C.
γινομένην] AC; add. ἡμῖν S.

ἤδη S.
A; in omni tempore S.

2 ἐξαίφνης} εξεφνησ A.

7 ἐπιδείκνυται διηνεκῶς ἡμῖν] A (but επιδικνυται); διηνεκῶς

4 ἐξαίφνης]

8 τὴν ἀπαρχὴν] AC; add.
Io κατὰ καιρὸν] C; κατακαι...
II κοιμᾶται...

ἡμέρα] AC; S renders as if it had read κοιμᾶται [ris] νυκτός, ἀνίσταται ἡμέρας.

lows immediately the sentence οὕτως
kal ὁ λαός μου κιτιλ.; the words ὁρᾶτε
κιτιλ. not only not being quoted but
being hardly compatible with the form
of the context as there given ; (2) ὁρᾶτε
is an expression by which Clement
himself elsewhere, after adducing a
quotation or an example, enforces its
lesson; as § 4, 12, 16, 41, 50.

I. eis πέπειρον] ‘to maturity’. The
construction καταντᾶν εἰς is Common
in the LXX and N.T.; see also above
ὃ 5.

4. ταχὺ ἥξει κιτ.λ.] A combina-
tion of Is. xili. 32 ταχὺ ἔρχεται καὶ ov
χρονιεῖ (comp. Hab. ii. 3, Heb. x. 37),
and Mal. iil. I καὶ ἐξαίφνης ἥξει eis
τὸν ναὸν αὐτοῦ Κύριος ὃν ὑμεῖς ζητεῖτε
καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς διαθήκης ὃν ὑμεῖς
θέλετε. The substitution of ὁ ἅγιος
for ὁ ἄγγελος κιτιλ. 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. ὃ 42 καταστήσω τοὺς ἐπισκόπους
κιτιλ., Where he cites Is. 1χ. 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 ἰδοὺ ἀπο-
στέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν 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. Apol. 34, Minuc. Fel. 48,
especially the passage of Theophilus,

ΧΧΥ]

διαλύεται.

article.

| which has many points in common
with Clement.

8. τὴν ἀπαρχὴν] 1 Cor. xv. 20
Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀπαρχὴ
| τῶν κεκοιμημένων ; Comp. ver. 23. It
is evident from what follows that
Clement has this 15th chapter in his
| mind.

10. κατὰ καιρὸν] ‘at its proper
season’, Inmy first edition I adopted
the reading κατὰ καιρούς, ‘at each
_ | recurring season’; as in the parallel
passage Theoph. ad Aut. i. 13 κατὰ
καιροὺς προφέρουσιν τοὺς καρπούς, but
in deference to the recently dis-
-\covered authorities, I now adopt
κατὰ καιρόν.

12. λάβωμεν] So again ὃ 37 λά-
βωμεν τὸ σῶμα ἡμῶν.

14. ἐξῆλθεν κιτ.λ.] The expression
is borrowed from the Gospel narra-
tive; Matt. xiii. 3, Mark iv. 3, Luke
xili. 5.

15. γυμνὰ] See 1 Cor. xv. 36 54,
rom which this epithet is derived.
[t denotes the absence of germina-
jon: see the rabbinical passages

7 « 7 » \ > /
ἡμέρα" ἡ ἡμέρα ἀπεισιν, νυξ ἐπέρχεται.
\ 7 7 ΄σ \ if. /
TOUS καρπούς" ὁ σπόρος πώς καὶ τίνα τρόπον γίνεται:

he sees part of a second H and would therefore read ἡ ἡμέρα.
once inspected this Ms, I could only discern a stroke which might as well belong to

TO-THE CORINTHIANS. 83

/ ~~ “ a « / >
ἀνάστασιν ἡμῖν δηλοῦσιν" κοιμᾶται ἡ νύξ, ἀνίσταται

λάβωμεν

Re G ͵ oa? 2 \ ΄σ J a
ἐξῆλθεν ὁ CTTEIPWN Καὶ ἔβαλεν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἕκαστον τῶν
/ e/ / > \ ond \
5 σπερμάτων, ἅτινα TETOVTA εἰς τὴν YHV Enpa καὶ γυμνὰ
ἜΝ Ὁ 3 ΄σ 7, ε 7, ~
εἶτ᾽ ἐκ τῆς διαλύσεως ἡ μεγαλειότης τῆς
7 fal / 4 > / WD tm OG \
προνοίας τοῦ δεσπότου ἀνίστησιν αὐτα, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς
/ af ΔΙ, 3 / /
πλείονα αὔξει και ἐκῴερει καρπον.
Oa "1S \ , ΄ \ ,
wuev TO παράδοξον σημεῖον, TO γινο-

> ΄σ ᾽ ΄- , -
μενον ἐν τοῖς ἀνατολικοῖς τόποις, τουτέστιν τοῖς περὶ

ἀνίσταται ἡμέρα] ἀνίσταται ἡ ἡμέρα C; ανισταταιη... A. After the H Tisch. thinks

Having more than

a M as to an Η; and the parallelism of the clauses suggests the omission of the
15 ξηρὰ καὶ γυμνὰ] AC; ξηρὰν S.

quoted by Wetstein on 1 Cor. l. c.,
and Methodius in Epiphan, Haer.
Ixiv. 44 (p. 570) κατάμαθε yap τὰ σπέρ-
pata πῶς γυμνὰ Kal ἄσαρκα βάλλεται
εἰς τὴν γῆν κιτ.λ.

16. διαλύεται] ‘vot’. Comp. Theoph.
ad Aut. i. 13 πρῶτον ἀποθνήσκει
καὶ λύεται. This analogy is derived
from 1 Cor. xv. 36; comp. John x11.
24.

18. αὔξει] Intransitive, as in Ephes.
ii. 21, Col. ii. 19. It is treated how-
ever as a transitive in the Syriac,
where αὔξει and ἐκφέρει have the
same subject as ἀνίστησιν.

XXV. ‘The phoenix is a 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—z2

84 THE, EPISTLE

τὴν ᾿λραβίαν.

OF 5. CLEMENT

[xxv

ec ’
ὄρνεον yap ἐστιν ὃ προσονομάζεται

1 ὄρνεον] ορναιον A.

I. ὄρνεον κιτ.λ.] 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 ἐμοὶ
μὲν ov πιστὰ λέγοντες. It is men-
tioned again by Antiphanes (Athen.
xiv. p. 655 B) ev Ἡλίου μέν φασι γίγ-
νεσθαι πόλει φοίνικας. 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 phcenix, 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 (lviii. 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. Ann. 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, guod 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
Elian (Ἰδέ. An. vi. 58), who lived
in Hadrian’s reign, alleges the phcenix
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 ἃ
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 (Vit. Afoll.
iil. 49) mentions the account without
recording any protest. I do not lay
any stress on such passing allusions
as Seneca’s (22. Mor. 42 ‘Ille alter
fortasse tamquam phoenix semel anno
quingentesimo nascitur’), or on de- |
scriptions in romance writers like |
Achilles Tatius (11. 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 δίκαιος ὡς φοῖνιξ ἀνθήσει
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
phoenix lengthen my days’ (comp.
Lucian Hermot. ὃ 53 nv μὴ φοίνικος
ἔτη Biwon), 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, ἡ ἡλικία μου ynpa-
get ὥσπερ στέλεχος φοίνικος, πολὺν
χρόνον βιώσω. The passage of Job
xxix. 18, in relation to the phcenix, is
the subject of a paper by Merx in
his Archiv. f. Wiss. 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. Pracp. Evang. ix.
29, Ρ. 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
cn the monuments to the present day
(see Wilkinson’s Anc. Egypt. 2nd
ser. I. p. 304, Rawlinson’s Herod. 11.
p. 122). Inthe Assumption of Moses
too, if the reading be correct (see
Hilgenfeld Nov. 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 pheenix (i.e.
with the beginning of a _phcenix-
period). Tacitus (Azz. vi. 28) says
that a phoenix had appeared in the
reign of Ammaszs. 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 Rel. Sacr.
Il. p. 256). For rabbinical references
to the phoenix, which seem to be
numerous, see Buxtorf Lex. Rad. s.v.
in, Lewysohn Zoologie des Talmuds
p- 352 sq; comp. Henrichsen 1: Ὁ
i. “p. 19." The‘ reference in’ a later
Sibylline too (Ovac. «526. viii. 139

86

ὅταν φοίνικος ἐπέλθῃ πενταχρόνοιο) 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 R6nsch in Hilgen-
feld’s Zeitschr. f. Wessensch. Theol.
XVII. p. 553 sq, 1874. Ronsch takes
the reading frofectio Phoentces, and
explains it of the ‘migration from
Phoenicia’, 1.6. Canaan, into Egypt
under Jacob. And others also take
Jynicis to mean Pheenicia, explaining
it however in different ways. See
Hilgenfeld’s note to Mos. Assumipt.
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, ili. 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. Ces. iv. 98, I.
p- 576). But for the most part it
was believed by Christian writers.
S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Caz. xviii. 8), 5.
Ambrose (see the quotations, I. 167,
172), Rufinus (Sywzb. 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 ἀκοὴν

THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

[xxv

ἀφῖκται πολλῶν πιστῶν τε Kal ἀπίστων.
On the other hand Euseb. (Vz¢. Const.
iv. 72) gives it merely as a report,
Greg. Naz. (Orat. xxxi. § Io, I. p.
562 Ὁ) says cautiously εἴ τῳ πιστὸς
ὁ λόγος, and Augustine de Anim. iv.
33 (20) (X. p. 404) uses similar lan-
guage, ‘Si tamen ut creditur’; while
Photius (7262. 126) places side by
side the resurrection of the phcenix
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. φοῖνιξ.

It is now known that the story
owes its origin to the symbolic and
pictorial representations of astrono-
my. The appearance of the phcenix
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 fierl iterumque significationes
tempestatum et siderum easdem re-
verti’. For the speculations of
Egyptologers and others on the
phoenix period see Larcher J/ém. de
2’ Acad. des Inscriptions etc. 1. p. 166
sq (1815), Lepsius Chronol. d. AegyHt.
p. 180 sq, Uhlemann Handb. d. Ae-
gypt. Alterthumsk. 111. p. 39 sq, 79
sq, IV. p. 226 sq, Poole Horae Ae-
gyptiacae p. 39 sq, Ideler Hand. der
Chron. 1. Ὁ. 183 sq, Creuzer Symd. u.
Mythol. τι. p. 163 sq, Brugsch Aegyf-
tische Studien in Zettschr. εἰ, Deutsch.
Morgenl. Gesellsch.X. p. 250 sq (1856),
Geograph. Inschrift. der Altaegypt.
Denkmialer 1. p. 258 (1857), Wiede-
mann 7216 Phoentx-Sage in Zettsc hr.
SJ. Aegyptische Sprache etc. XV1. p. 89
sq (1878), Lauth Die Phoentx-Periode
1880 (a separate issue of a paper in
Abhandl. ad. Bayer. Akad. der Wiss.).
The actual bird, around which this
mass of symbolism and of fiction has

i i Se ἢ

Ved Rage τ Se ee πο A ν

se

Xxv]

OTHE CORINTHIANS.

97

= ΄σ \ iP a BS!
pom τοῦτο μονογενες ὑπάρχον GE ἔτη πεντακοσια:

I povoyeves] μονογενησ A.

gathered, bears the name demu in
the Egyptian language and appears
to be the ardea cinerea (or purpurea),
a bird of passage; see Wiedemann
Lc. p. 104. ;

Thus the phcenix 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 (ἀποκατάστασιν
πολυχρόνιον), Hzerogl. 1. 34, 35, 11. 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 phoenix 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 SPzcz/. Solesm. 111. 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. τι. Symbol. der Christl. Kunst.
I. I, p. 454).

For the representations of the
phoenix in early Christian art see
Piper lc. Ὁ. 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 alwn. It is
significant that this use begins in the
time of Hadrian, the great patron
and imitator of Egyptian art.

I. povoyeves] ‘alone of its kind,
unique’. This epithet is applied to
the phoenix also in Origen, Cyril, and
Apost. Const. v. 7, and doubtless as-
sisted the symbolism mentioned in
the last note. The statement about
the phoenix in Apost. Const. φασὶ yap
ὄρνεόν TL μονογενὲς ὑπάρχειν K.T.A. 1S
evidently founded on this passage of
Clement; comp. e.g. εἰ roivuv...dv
ἀλόγου ὀρνέου δείκνυται ἡ ἀνάστασις
κιτλ. with Clement’s language in
§ 26. So also in Latin it is ‘unica’,
‘semper unica’, Mela 111. 9, Ovid Am.
11. 6. 54, Lactant. Phoen. 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 so/e bird, When to
enshrine his reliques in the Sun’s
Bright temple to Aigyptian Thebes
he flies’. Why does Milton despatch
his bird to Thebes rather than Heli-
opolis?

ἔτη πεντακόσια] The longevity of
the phoenix is differently stated.
Hesiod gives it (9x4x3X9=) 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; Cheeremon (in
Tzetzes Chil. v. 6. 395) 7006 years.
But, says Tacitus, ‘maxime vulgatum

88 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xxv

/ ἐς sf A 3 “ ΄ > ΄ ᾽ Ne

γενόμενόν TE ἤδη πρὸς ἀπόλυσιν TOU ἀποθανεῖν αὐτο,

na = ᾽ ἧς \ / 4 ΄σ

σηκὸν ἑαυτῷ ποιεῖ ἐκ λιβάνου καὶ σμύρνης καὶ τῶν
΄σ ’ « / col ,

AOLTWY ἀρωμάτων, εἰς ὃν πληρωθέντος του χρονου
4 / \ ~ A

εἰσέρχεται Kal τελευτᾷ. σηπομένης δὲ τῆς σαρκὸς

΄σ A ? ΄σ > / a
σκωληξἕ τις γεννᾶται, ὃς ἐκ τῆς ἰκμάδος τοῦ τετε-
/ ~ “5

λευτηκότος ζώου ἀνατρεφόμενος πτεροφυεῖ" εἶτα γεν-

~ ᾽ \ \ ~ 4 Ay

ναῖος γενόμενος αἴρει τὸν σηκὸν ἐκεῖνον ὅπου Ta
- - , , \ A ,

ὀστὰ τοῦ προγεγονότος ἐστίν, Kal ταῦτα βασταζων

/ > \ ΄σ > ΄σ Υ «“ἷ =~ 3 Υ͂,

διανύει ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿λραβικῆς χώρας ἕως τῆς Δίγύυπτου
2 / / \ / - vp

eis τὴν λεγομένην ᾿Πλιούπολιν: καὶ ἡμέρας, βλεπὸόν-

/ > A 3 \ A ~ ς / \ /
των πάντων, ἐπιπτὰς ἐπὶ τὸν TOU ἡλίου βωμὸν τίθησιν

1 te] A; δὲ CS.
AC; add. zz zllo 5.

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. τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτό] ‘so that tt
should die, explaining the preceding
γενόμενον πρὸς ἀπόλυσιν ‘at the eve of
its dissolution’; comp. ὃ 46 ἐρχόμεθα
ὥστε ἐπιλαθέσθαι ἡμᾶς. This con-
struction seems to me preferable to
connecting αὐτὸ with what follows,
as in the Syriac version; for in this
case I should expect that αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ
would stand in juxtaposition, as e.g.
ROU Vill. 23, 2 Cor. 1: Ὁ.

5. σκώληξ τις γεννᾶται] 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

3 τοῦ xpovod] AC; add. vitae suae S.
δὲ] AS; τε C.
the latter translating zascttur in ea illic.
λευτηκότος] τελευτηκοτοσ A; τελευτήσαντος C; 566 1. p.
ἐκεῖνον] AC; 5 adds ΠΥ ΠΠ 1,2 (ΞΞ κυκλόθεν αὐτοῦ).

4 τελευτᾷ]
5 γεννᾶται] A; ἐγγενᾶται CS,

ds] AC; ὅστις (apparently) S. TETE-
126. 7 σηκὸν
8 βαστάζων] Bacragov

found in the smouldering ashes; e.g.
Artemid. Oxezrocr. iv. 47 αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ
ποιησάμενος ἐκ κασίας τε καὶ σμύρνης
πυρὰν ἀποθνήσκει: καυθείσης δὲ τῆς πυ-
ρᾶς μετὰ χρόνον ἐκ τῆς σποδοῦ σκώληκα
γεννᾶσθαι λέγουσιν κιτιλ. (comp. Mar-
tial ν. 7). [{15 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. γενναῖος] ‘strong, lusty, as e.g.
Dion Chrys. vii. p. 228 Ε ἰσχυροὶ ἔτι
νέοι καὶ γενναῖοι Ta σώματα. It corre-
sponds to Ovid’s ‘Quum dedit huic
aetas vires’.

9. διανύει] ‘makes tts way’, fre-
quently used absolutely, e.g. Polyb.

——$$__ —.- —_ _

XXvI] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 89

/ \ J 3 / > € > ε -
αὐτὰ, Kal οὕτως εἰς τοὐπίσω ἀφορμᾷ. οἱ οὖν ἱερεῖς

\ \ ~ ΄ \ /
ἐπισκέπτονται Tas advaypadas τῶν χρονων καὶ εὑρισ-

\ ~ sf ’
κουσιν αὐτὸν πεντακοσιοστοῦ ἔτους πεπληρωμενου ἐλη-
/
15 λυθέναι.
XXVI.

e \ ~ e / / 7
εἰ O δημιουργὸς των ATAVTWY ἀναστασιν ποιήσεται

\ ὩΣ , Φ
Μέγα καὶ θαυμαστὸν οὖν νομίζομεν εἶναι,

Ξ 4 a , , ,

τῶν ὁσίως αὐτῷ δουλευσάντων ἐν πεποιθήσει πίστεως
= ¢ \ > > / , AS a \

ἀγαθῆς, ὅπου καὶ δι᾿ ὀρνέου δείκνυσιν ἡμῖν TO μεγα-

~ ΄σ > , > ΄σ / / \
2ολεῖον τῆς ἐπαγγελίας αὐτοῦ! λέγει yap πον" Kai

ἐξζανδοτήςεις ME KAl EZOMOAOFHCOMAI COI’ KAl ἐκοιμήθην

\ , iz \ a ?
KAl YTINWCa, ἐξηγέρθην, ὅτι CY MET ἐμοῦ εἰ.

A.
ἁπάντων (.
12 ἱερεῖ] AC; add. οἱ τῆς Αἰγύπτου 5.

ἴδ: 19 ὀρνέου δείκνυσιν] ορναιου δικνυσιν A.

20 ἐπαγγελίας] επαγγελειασ A.

iii. 56. I (ἀπό), iv. 70. 5 (ék), 11. 54. 6
(πρός). The word occurs above, ὃ 20.
The reading of A, διανεύει, is out of
place, for it could only mean ‘turns
aside’, i.e. for the purpose of avoiding.
Several instances of the confusion of
διανύειν and διανεύειν by transcribers
are given by Jahn Methodius U. p.
110.

13. τὰς ἀναγραφὰς] ‘the public re-
cords’; comp. Tatian ad Graec. 38
Αἰγυπτίων δέ εἰσιν ai ἐπ᾽ ἀκριβὲς xpo-
νων ἀναγραφαί. For the Egyptian
ἀναγραφαὶ see also Diod. Sic. i. 44, 69,
ἔπ 51,,Joseph. ὦ 22. τ. 654. The
recently discovered register of the
epiphanies of the bulls Apis is a par-
allel instance of such chronological
records; see Bunsen’s -gyft 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. Μέγα καὶ θαυμαστὸν] For the

9 διανύει)] C3 duavevee A; migrat volans 5.

ta
καὶ παλιν

11 πάντων] A;

ἐπιπτὰς] AS; om. C, doubtless owing to the following ἐπὶ.

I4 πεπληρωμένου] AS ; πληρουμένου
μεγαλεῖον] μεγαλιον A.
22 ἐξηγέρθην] A; καὶ ἐξηγέρθην CS.

same combination of epithets see
δὲ 50, 53.

17. ὁ δημιουργὸς κιτ.λ.] See above
δ 20, On this Platonic phrase com-
pare Jahn JJethodius 11. pp. 39, 91.

18. ἐν πεποιθήσει k.t.X. | ‘27 the con-
fidence which comes of honest faith’ :
comp. Ephes. iii. 12 ἐν πεποιθήσει διὰ
τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ, and below § 35
πίστις ev πεποιθήσει. The phrase πίσ-
τις ἀγαθὴ occurs Tit. ii, 10, where
however πίστις seems to mean ‘fi-
delity.’

19. τὸ μεγαλεῖον] ‘the greatness’;
comp. $$ 32,49. It occurs Acts ii. 11,
Luke i. 49 (v.1.), and several times in
the LXx.

20. λέγει yap που] Taken apparently
from Ps, xxviii. 7 καὶ avéOadev ἡ σάρξ
μου καὶ ἐκ θελήματός μου ἐξομολογήσο-
μαι αὐτῷ (comp. Ps. ΙΧΧΧν]]. 11).

21. ἐκοιμήθην κιτ.λ.] A confusion of
Ps. iii, 5 ἐγὼ ἐκοιμήθην καὶ ὕπνωσα,
ἐξηγέρθην ὅτι Κύριος ἀντιλήψεταί μου,
and Ps. xxiii. 4 οὐ φοβηθήσομαι κακὰ
ὅτι σὺ μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ εἶ.

gO THE EPISTLE OF S. ‘CLEMENT

[XXVI

| \ / hs K \ > ͵ \ ῃ , t
w/3 λέγει Al ANACTHCEIC THN CAPKA MOY TAYTHN THN
ANANTAHCACAN TAYTA TIANTA.

XXVIT.

€ \ ε ~ a fod 2 ΄σ- ? / \ >
al ψυχαὶ μων TW TLOTW εν Tals ἐπαγγελίαις Και TW

Ταύτη οὖν τῇ ἐλπίδι προσδεδέσθωσαν

δικαίῳ ἐν τοῖς κρίμασιν. ὁ παραγγείλας μὴ ψεύδεσθ
ικαίῳ ρίμασιν. payy pn Ψεύδεσθαι 5
΄σ ΄σ \ > ld \ \ 3 I
πολλῷ μᾶλλον αὐτὸς οὐ ψεύσεται: οὐδὲν yap ἀδύνα-
\ ~ - > \ \ ͵ >
Tov παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, εἰ pn TO ψεύσασθαι. ἀναζωπυρη-
Ss a if 3 ΄σ 3 ε “ \ / of
σάτω οὖν ἢ πίστις αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ νοήσωμεν ὅτι

/ 2 \ 2 = 2 > / ΄σ 7
πάντα eyyus avTw ἐστιν. ἐν λόγῳ τῆς μεγαλωσυνης

΄ "4 \ ΄ \ > ΄ /
αὐτοῦ συνεστήσατο τὰ TavTa, καὶ ἐν λογῳ δύναται τὸ

3 ῃ

\ ΄ ͵ > a a , ν ͵
αὐτὰ καταστρέψαι. Tic ἐρεῖ δὐτῷ" τί émoincac; ἢ τίς

2 , “ ͵ an > 1 > an 4 »
ANTICTHCETAl τῷ κρᾶτει τῆς icyyoc ἀὐτοῦ; ὅτε θέλει καὶ

Cun σα

1 σάρκα] σαρκαν A.
(ἀνατλήσασαν τὴ 8.
A=; om.'C; dub: 5.
7 7g] A; om. C3 see above, 8 21.

to τὰ πάντα] A, and so probably S; πάντα C.

15 of] A; om. C.

accidentally omits χειρῶν in recording the reading of C (p. 51).

16 ποίησιν] ποιησειν A.

2 ἀναντλήσασαν] A; ἀντλήσασαν C; foleravit
3 προσδεδέσθϑωσαν] AS; προσδεχέσθωσαν C.
τῷ δικαίῳ] A; δικαίῳ (om. τῷ) C, and so apparently 8.

4 ἐν]

τὸ] A, and so apparently S; om. C.
13 ποιήσει] AS; ποιήσαι C.

χειρῶν] ACS; Bryennios
17 τὸ στε-

ρέωμα κ.τ.λ.1 C runs τὸ στερέωμα" καὶ ἀκούονται αἱ φωναὶ πάντων βλεπομένων καὶ

ἀκουομένων" φοβηθῶμεν x.T.d., omitting many words.

I. Ἰὼβ λέγει] From 1,ΧΧ Job xix.
26 ἀναστήσει δέ μου TO σῶμα τὸ avav-
τλοῦν ταῦτα as read in A, but NB have
ἀναστῆσαι τὸ δέρμα μου τὸ ἀναντλοῦν (or
ἀντλοῦν) ταῦτα. The Hebrew original
is different from either. For the con-
fusion of ἀνατλῆσαι and ἀναντλῆσαι
in this passage of Job and in Prov.
ix. 12 see Schleusner Lex. Vet. Test.
s.v. ἀναντλέω, Field Orig. Hexapl. τι.
p. 36. It may be a question what
reading the Syriac translator had
here, but the same word 220 is used
elsewhere (e.g. Eus. 27. £. viii. 14) to
render ἀνατλάντες; see Payne Smith
Thes. Syr. s. V.

Harnack refers to the discussion
of this passage of Clement in Caspari
Quellen 5. Gesch. ad. Taufsymbols 111.

p. 15:

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. τῷ πιστῷ κιτ.λ.] Comp. Heb. x.
23 πιστὸς γὰρ ὁ ἐπαγγειλάμενος, and
ΧΙ ΤΙΣ

6. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἀδύνατον κ-τ.λ.] Com-
pare Heb. vi. 18 ἐν οἷς ἀδύνατον ψεύ-
σασθαι [τὸν] Θεόν, with Matt. xix. 26
(Mark x. 27); see also Tit. i. 2.

7. ἀναζωπυρησάτω] Intransitive; see
the note on Ign. Ephes. 1. Thecon-
text seems to suggest that ἡ πίστις
αὐτοῦ should be rendered ‘His faith-
fulness’, as in Rom. iii. 3; see Ga/a-
tiams Ὁ. 155.

Te a

Rasa 4

xxvii] UO THE CORINTHIANS. gI

ws θέλει ποιήσει πάντα, Kal οὐδὲν μὴ παρέλθη τῶν
δεδογματισμένων ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. πάντα ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ
εἰσιν, καὶ οὐδὲν λέληθεν τὴν βουλὴν αὐτοῦ, εἰ Οἱ οὐ-
PANOl διηγοῦνται λόξὰν Θεοῦ, ποίηοιν δὲ χειρῶν δὐτοῦ
ἀναγγέλλει τὸ οτερέωμδ᾽ ἢ ἡμέρὰ TH HMEPA EpeEyreTal PpAma,
KAl NYZ νυκτὶ ἀνὰγγέλλει γνῶσιν" KAl οὐκ EICIN λόγοι οὐδὲ
AdAlAl, ὧν οΥ̓χὶ AKOYONTAL Al φωνδὶ AYT@N.

XXVIII.

~ 5) 3 i oS
νων, φοβηθῶμεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀπολείπωμεν φαύλων Epywv

LZ io ’ὔ \ > 7
Πάντων οὖν βλεπομένων καὶ ἀκονομέ-

\ 2 of - a th ᾽ - =
μιᾶρας ἐπιθυμίας, {νὰ TW ἔλεει αὐτου σκεπασθώμεν
\ ΄σ / ᾿ > / ε ~
ἀπο τῶν μελλοντων κριμάτων. TOU γὰρ TIS ἡμῶν
altogether explained by the practice of abridging quotations (see I. p. 128).
18 ἀναγγέλλει] Α ; ἀναγγελεῖ S (with Hebr. and Lxx A); def. C. In the previous
line S has the present (ἀναγγέλλει). 18, 19 λόγοι, λαλιαί] S transposes these
words, as in the LXx. 19 ai φωναὶ] The text of S is perhaps corrupt here.
As it stands, the translator would appear to have had ταῖς φωναῖς NPP, instead of

dp, unless it is a very loose paraphrase. 20 οὖν] A; τε (ND) S; om. C

(see the note on τὸ στερέωμα κ.τ.λ.).

22 μιαρὰς] AS; BdaBepas C (see Bryennios Did. p. py’).
των κριμάτων] AC; τοῦ μέλλοντος κρίματος (TINYT NI") 5.

21 ἀπολείπωμεν] A; ἀπολίπωμεν C,
23 τῶν μελλόν-
The variation cannot

be explained by 722 here, and must have been deliberate; see also § 21.

9. ἐγγὺς αὐτῷ] So Ign. Ephes. 15
οὐδὲν λανθάνει τὸν Κύριον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ
κρυπτὰ ἡμῶν ἐγγὺς αὐτῷ ἐστιν, which is
perhaps a reminiscence of this pas-
sage: compare § 21 above.

ἐν λόγῳ κιτ.λ.] See Heb. i. 3 φέρ-
ὧν τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως
αὐτοῦ: comp. Wisd. ix. I. See the
introduction, I. p. 398, on the relation
of Clement to the Logos doctrine,

11. Tis ἐρεῖ αὐτῷ x.r.A.] From Wisd.
xii. 12 τίς yap ἐρεὶ Ti ἐποίησας ἢ Tis
ἀντιστήσεται τῷ κρίματί σου; Comp.
Wisd. xi. 22 κράτει βραχίονός σου τίς
ἀντιστήσεται; The expression τὸ κρά-
τος τὴς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ occurs in Ephes.
i. 19, vi. 10, The κράτος is the ἰσχὺς
exerted on some object.

13. οὐδὲν μὴ παρέλθη κιτ.λ.] Comp.
Matt. v. 18.

15. εἰ Οἱ οὐρανοὶ κιτ.λ.] ‘seeing

that The heavens etc? The εἰ is no
part of the quotation. So treated
the passage presents no difficulty ;
and the corrections proposed (e.g.
the omission of εἰ, or the reading καὶ
οἱ οὐρανοί) are unnecessary. Perhaps
also the καὶ before οὐκ εἰσὶν should be
excluded from the quotation in the
same way. The quotation is then
word for word (except the interchange
of λόγοι and λαλιαί) from the LXx
Ps. xix. I—3.

19. ὧν.. αὐτῶν] 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’.

92 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

[xxvulII

~ \ ΄σ ~ A > ~ ~
δύναται φυγεῖν ἀπο τῆς κραταιᾶς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ; ποῖος

΄ / ἴα 3 , 45. Ὁ 5 ᾽ τυ αν
δὲ κόσμος δέξεταί τινα τών αὐτομολούντων ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ;

λέγει γάρ που τὸ γραφεῖον: Ποῦ ἀφήξω καὶ ποῦ Kpy-

nde

fal > fa) > ‘ >
BHcomMal ἀπὸ TOY προοώπου οοὺ ἐὰν ἀναβῶ E1C TON OYPA-

NON, οὐ εἶ ἐκεῖ: ἐὰν ἀπέλθω εἰς TA ECYATA TAC γῆο, ἐκεῖ ἢ

λεξιὰ COY’ ἐὰν κατδοτρώοω εἰς TAC ABYCCOYC, ἐκεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα

5 el ἐκεῖ] A (with Lxx ABS); ἐκεῖ εἶ CS.
ἀποδράσῃ! A; ἀποδράσῃ (or ἀποδράσει) S; τις ἀποδρά-

7 οὖν] AC; om. 5.

2. αὐτομολούντων] See above, λι-
ποτακτεῖν ὃ 21, and the note on δεσέρ-
top Ign. Polyc. 6.

3. τὸ γραφεῖον] ‘the writing. 5.
Clement here seems to adopt the
threefold division of the Old Testa-
ment books which appears in Ecclus.
(prol.), in 5. Luke (xxiv. 44), in Philo
(de Vit. cont. 3, 11. p. 475), in Jose-
phus (c. “2. 1. 8), and generally. The
third division is called ra ἄλλα βιβλία
and ra λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων in Ecclus.,
ψαλμοὶ in S. Luke, ὕμνοι in Philo and
Josephus. Its more general name in
Hebrew was DANS, ‘the writings’,
translated sometimes by γραφεῖα,
sometimes by ἁγιόγραφα: comp. Epi-
phan. Haer. xxix. 7 (I. p. 122) οὐ yap
ἀπηγόρευται map αὐτοῖς νομοθεσία καὶ
προφῆται καὶ γραφεῖα τὰ παρὰ Ιουδαίοις
καλούμενα, and again map’ αὐτοῖς γὰρ
πᾶς ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ τὰ
γραφεῖα λεγόμενα κ.τ.λ., Mens. et Pond.
4 (Il. p. 162) τὰ καλούμενα γραφεῖα
παρά τισι δὲ ἁγιόγραφα λεγόμενα. 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 στιχηρεῖς. This does not
truly represent the Jewish tradition,
in which 1, 2 Chronicles alone be-
longed to the 0°21N35, while the his-
torical books generally were ranged

ἐκεῖ ἡ δεξιά σου] AS; σὺ ἐκεῖ εἶ C.

with the Prophets; see First Der
Kanon des Alten Testaments Ὁ. 10
sq, p. 55 sq. Elsewhere he uses
γραφεῖα more widely, Haer. xxvi. 12
(p. 94) ἄλλα μυρία παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς πεπλασ-
μένα γραφεῖα ; 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 τὰ καλούμενα γραφεῖα παρά τισι δὲ
ἁγιόγραφα. In the Classical language
(as also LXx Job xix. 24, Hex. Jer.
XVil. I) γραφεῖον is not ‘a writing’ but
‘a pen:

Ποῦ ἀφήξω] 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 καταστρώσω, ‘make my
couch,’ Clement conforms to the ori-
ginal ΠΝ ΝΣ where the LXx 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

XXI1X]

COY.

πάντα ἐμπεριέχοντος ; 5

TO THE CORINTHIANS. 93

a 53 > / a’ ΄σ 5) / ’ \ a \
ποῖ οὖν τις ἀπέλθη ἢ ποῦ ἀποδράση ἀπὸ τοῦ τὰ

XXIX. π᾿ οὖν αὐτῷ ἐν ὁσιότητι ve

XNS, ayvas Kal ἀμιάντους χεῖρας αἴροντες πρὸς αὐτόν,

~ \ ᾽ ~~ \ ᾽" / ε ΄σ
ἀγαπῶντες TOV ἐπιεικη και εὐσπλαγχνον πατερὰ ἡμῶν

« “ ΄ > 7 ε =
os ἐκλογῆς μέρος ἐποίησεν EaUTW.

γραπται"

ce C.

11 ἐπιεικῆ] επιεικὴην A.

version (ε in Origen) has στρώσω or
καταστρώσω (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. 27. £.
vi. 16, Epiphan. Wes. e¢ Pond. 18,
p. 174; see Hody de Bzbl. 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. iv. 22 (p. 625) quotes the
passage nearly in the form which it
has here (though substituting the LXx
καταβῶ for καταστρώσω), and doubt-
less derived it through the medium
of the Roman Clement, so that he is
not an independent authority.
ἀφήξω] The verb ἀφήκειν 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 «περ. p. 470 5.ν. ἀφήκοντος.

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, 1.
Ρ. 386 sq.

10. ἁγνὰς x.t-A.] 1 Tim, 11. ὃ ἐπαί-
povras ὁσίους χεῖρας, Athenag. Supp.
13 ἐπαίρωμεν ὁσίους χεῖρας αὐτῷ ; See
also Heliodorus the tragedian in Ga-

τὰ] A; om. C, and so probably S.
12 μέρος] A; add. ἡμᾶς CS.

Οὕτω γὰρ γέ-

Ὅτε διεμέριζεν ὁ ὕψιοτος ἔθνη, ὧς διέσπειρεν

9 οὖν] AC; om. 8.

οὕτω] οὕτως (.

len. de Antzd. τι. ἢ (ΣΙΝ: p. 145, ed.
Kuhn) ἀλλ᾽ ὁσίας μὲν χεῖρας ἐς ἠέρα
λαμπρὸν ἀείρας (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. ἐκλογῆς μέρος κ.τ.λ.] ‘has made
us Hts spectal portion, or rather ‘has
set apart for Himself a special por-
tion’. In either case the ἐκλογῆς μέρος
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
ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον iepa-
τευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν
καιιλ. See the notes on παροικοῦσα
and ἡγιασμένοις (ὃ 1). Thus μέρος ἐκ-
λογῆς here is coextensive with οἱ ἐκλε-
λεγμένοι ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χρισ-
τοῦ ὃ 50 (comp. ὃ 64). The words
μέρος ἐκλογῆς are not to be translated
‘a portion of his elect’ but ‘a portion
set apart by election,’ ἐκλογῆς being a
genitive of the same kind as in Acts
ix. 15 σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς, Iren. i. 6. 4 σπέρ-
ματα ἐκλογῆς. The expression therefore
has no bearing on the question whe-
ther Clement was a Jewish or Gentile
Christian. See the note on λαὸς below.

13. “Ore διεμέριζεν κιτ.λ.] From the
LXxX Deut. xxxil. 8, 9, almost word
for word,

94 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

[Sere

yioyc “AAdm, ECTHCEN ὅριὰ ἐθνῶν KATA ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων

OEY.

ἐγενήθη μερὶς Kypioy Adoc αὐτοῦ ‘lakwB, οχοίνιομὰ

' > αν εἶ , \ ε / / /
κληρονομίδς αὐτοῦ ‘IcpaHA. καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ τόπῳ λεγει"

Ἰδοὺ Κύριος AamBanel ἑδγτῷ ἔθνος ἐκ μέοου ἐθνῶν, ὥσπερ

I ἀριθμὸν] αριθον A.

I. κατὰ ἀριθμὸν κιτ.λ.] The idea
conveyed by the LXx 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 ἑκάστῳ
ἔθνει κατέστησεν ἡγούμενον καὶ μερὶς
Κυρίου Ἰσραήλ ἐστιν, and Fubilees § 15
(Ewald Fahré. 111. 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 Afost. 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 ; οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ διδοὺς καὶ
τοῖς Ἕλλησι τὴν φιλοσοφίαν διὰ τῶν ὑ-
ποδεεστέρων ἀγγέλων᾽ εἰσὶ yap συνδιανε-
νεμημένοι προστάξει θείᾳ τε καὶ ἀρχαίᾳ
ἄγγελοι κατὰ ἔθνη, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ μερὶς Κυρίου ἡ
δόξα τῶν πιστευόντων. 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 933 TBD) ; 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 ἐγενήθη] AC; καὶ ἐγενήθη S with LXx.

and the error can be easily explained.
The ends of the lines have got out of
gear; 2X10”, 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 pnoNn, which has thus
disappeared. The ‘sons of God’ are
mentioned Job i. 6, il. I, xxxviil. 7,
and in all places are translated (as it
appears, correctly) by ἄγγελοι [τοῦ
Θεοῦ] in the LXx; see Gesen. Zhes.
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.
8. 131 (p. 360 B) refers to the difference
between the Hebrew and LXx texts;
see also Origen 771 Num. Hom. xxviii.
§ 4 (IL. p. 385), 2 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. The writer
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. λαὸς] We have here the com-
mon antithesis of λαὸς ‘the chosen
people’, and ἔθνη ‘the Gentiles’ ; as
eg. Luke ii. 32, Acts iv. 27, xxv
17,’ 23, Rom. xv. ΤΟΣ 41, etc. eee
becoming the Aaos however the Is-
raelites do not cease to be called an
ἔθνος (see esp. Joh. xi. 50), but are
rather ἔθνος ἅγιον (as Exod. xix. 6,
I Pet. ii. 9) or ἔθνος ἐκ μέσου ἐθνῶν
(as below): so Justin Dza/. 24 (p. 242)

Xxx]

fO)- THE, CORINTHIANS. 95

5 AAMBANE! ANOPWITOC THN ATTAPYHN αὐτοῦ TAC ἅλω, Kal ἐξε-

AeYceTal ἐκ TOY ἔθνογο ἐκείνου ἅγιὰ ἁγίων:

XXX. ‘Ayiouv οὖν μερὶς ὑπάρχοντες ποιήσωμεν τὰ

ΟΥ

7 ᾿Αγίου οὖν] ΔΓΊΟΥΝ (the oy above the line being written prima manu) A;
ἁγία οὖν μερὶς S; ἅγια οὗν μέρη C. Seel. p. 143.

ἵνα γένηται ἔθνος δίκαιον, λαὸς φυλάσ-
σων πίστιν (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
abovethe noteson §1,and comp. below
ὃ 64 eis λαὸν περιούσιον, and especially
Justin Dza/. 119 (p. 347). I call at-
tention to this, because Hilgenfeld
(Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol. 1858,
p. 585, and here) distinguishes the
λαὸς of the first passage and the ἔθνος
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 ἔθνος
is plainly to the Israelites. See the
note on ἐκλογῆς μέρος above.

σχοίνισμα] ‘a portion measured out
by a line’ (see the note on κανών,
§ 7); ἃ common word in the Lxx
exactly representing the Hebrew an.

4. ᾿Ιδοὺ Κύριος x.t.A.] A combina-
tion of several passages ; Deut. iv. 34
εἰ ἐπείρασεν ὁ Θεὸς εἰσελθὼν λαβεῖν
ἑαυτῷ ἔθνος ἐκ μέσου ἔθνους ἐν πειρασ-
μῷ κοιτιλ., Deut. xiv. 2 καὶ σὲ ἐξελέξατο
Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου γενέσθαι σε λαὸν
αὐτῷ περιούσιον ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν
κατιλ. (Comp. vii. 6).

ὥσπερ λαμβάνει κιτ.λ] The pas-
sages most nearly resembling this
are, Num. xvili. 27 λογισθήσεται ὑμῖν
Ta ἀφαιρέματα ὑμῶν ὡς σῖτος ἀπὸ ἅλω
καὶ ἀφαίρεμα ἀπὸ ληνοῦ, 2 Chron. xxxi.

14 δοῦναι τὰς ἀπαρχὰς Κυρίου καὶ τὰ
ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων, Ezek. xlviii. 12 ἔσται
αὐτοῖς ἡ ἀπαρχὴ δεδομένη ἐκ τῶν ἀπαρ-
χῶν τῆς γῆς, ἅγιον ἁγίων ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων
κιτιὰλ. 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. S§
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
ἁγίων are the specially consecrated
things, the offerings or first-fruits, as
in the passages just quoted ; see also
Ἱξεν ΣΙ 22; Ezek xiii; 93), he ex-
pression is applied here either to the
people of God themselves, or to their
spiritual oblations (see below, δὲ 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. Ἁγίου οὖν μερὶς] i.e. ‘As the
special portion of a Holy God’:
comp. I Pet. i. 15 Sq κατὰ τὸν καλέ-
σαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον καὶ αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι ἐν
πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε, διότι γέ-
γραπται (Lev. xl. 44) “Aytou ἔσεσθε ὅτι
ἐγὼ ἅγιος. On the liturgical charac-

96 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xxx

΄ ~ , / LA ; /

τοὺ ἁγιασμοῦ πάντα, φεύγοντες καταλαλιας, μιαρᾶς TE
7 7 , \ \ ome

καὶ avayvous συμπλοκάς, μέθας TE Kal νεωτερισμοὺς

\ 7 A / \

καὶ βδελυκτὰς ἐπιθυμίας, μυσερὰν μοιχείαν, βδελυκτὴν

ε / \ ͵ ε ͵ > ͵

ὑπερηφανίαν. Θεὸς γάρ, φησιν, ὑπερηφάνοις Antitacce-

a \ ' , ΄ ey > ie
TAI, τὰἀπεινοῖς δὲ AiAwcIN χάριν. Κολληθώμεν οὖν ἐκεί- 5

ec ε “ 5) \ ~ ΄σ / 3 /

νοις ois ἡ χάρις ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ δέδοται. ἐνδυσώμεθα
\ ~ > he ᾽ \
τὴν ὁμόνοιαν, ταπεινοφρονοῦντες, ἔγκρατευομενοι, ἀπὸ
~ _ \
παντὸς ψιθυρισμοῦ καὶ καταλαλιᾶς πόρρω ἑαυτους
a » ͵ \ \ , ,
MOLOVVTES, εἐργοις δικαιούμενοι καὶ μὴ λόγοις. λέγει
yap: Ὃ τὰ πολλὰ λέγων KAI ANTAKOYCETAI’ Η ὁ EYAAAOC
οἴετὰι εἶνδι AIKAIOC; εὐλογημένος γεννητὸς γυύνδικὸς ὀλι-

, \ \ ? Gen ' ε af € =
FOBIOC’ MH TIOAYC EN PHMACIN ΓΙΝΟΥ. Ο ἔπαινος μων

2 ἀνάγνου) C; αγνουσ A. συμπλοκάς] AC; καὶ συμπλοκάς 8, rendering
the word however by contentiones (jurgia), and connecting μιαράς τε καὶ ἀνάγνους
with καταλαλιᾶς. te] AS; om. C. 3 μυσερὰν] A; μυσεράν (μυσαράν

(}.σε 65. μοιχείαν] μοιχιαν Α. βδελυκτὴν] A; καὶ βδελυκτὴν CS.
4 Θεὸ9] AC. Bryennios reads ὁ Θεὸς, as if it had some manuscript authority.

6 ἀπὸ] AS; om. C.

λιὰς.. ἑαυτῶν, connecting ἀπὸ παντὸς ψιθυρισμοῦ with ἐγκρατευόμενοι.

IAS omens

ter of the language here used, see
above, I. p. 387.

I. φεύγ. karad.| 1 Pet. ii. 1 ἀποθέμε-
νοι. «πάσας καταλαλιάς.

2. ἀνάγνους] Something may still
be said for Adyvous which I read in
my first edition after Colomiés ; comp.
Athenag. Suppl. 19 τοῖς ἀκολάστοις
καὶ λάγνοις, 21 Nayveias ἢ Bias ἢ πλεο-
νεξίας, Clem. Recogn. ix. 17 (the Greek
is preserved in Czesarius) μεθύσους,
Aayvous, Sayovavras, Acta Petri in
Isid. Pelus. 2:2. 11. 99 (see Hilgenfeld’s
Now, Test. extr. Can. Rec. 1. p.\70)
ὁ yap φιλοχρήματος οὐκ ἐχώρησε Tov
τῆς ἀκτημοσύνης λόγον οὐδὲ ὁ λάγνος
τὸν περὶ σωφροσύνης κιτ.λ., Clem. Alex.
Paed. 11. 10 (p. 222—225). The com-
mon form was λάγνος, the Attic
Aayyns; see Lobeck Phryn. p. 184.
Neither word (ἄναγνος or λάγνος) oc-

8 καταλαλιᾶς... ἑαυτοὺς] AC; S translates as if καταλα-

9 καὶ

10 ἢ] η A; εἰ C; ἣ (apparently) S, for it translates 2/e gui

curs in the Lxx or New Testament.

3. μυσερὰν) For this form see the
note on § 14.

4. Θεὸς γάρ κιτ.λ.] From Prov. iii.
34 Κύριος ὑπερηφάνοις κιτιλ. In 1 Pet.
ν. 5, James iv. 6, it is quoted ὁ Θεὸς
ὑπερηφάνοις x.t.A. The Hebrew has
simply N17 ‘he’.

8. Wu. καὶ καταλ.] See below, § 35.
The words occur together also 2 Cor.
ΧΙ]. 20; comp. Rom. i. 30 ψιθυριστάς,
καταλάλους.

9. ἔργοις δικαιούμενοι] See the note
at the beginning of § 33, and the in-
troduction, I. pp. 96, 397.

10. οτὰπολλὰ k.t.A.] Fromthe LXX
of Job xi. 2, 3, almost word for word.
It diverges widely from the Hebrew,
and the sentiment εὐλογημένος κ-ιτιλ.
has no connexion with the context.
It may be conjectured that the words

[5

ΧΧΧΙ] ἜΘ ΕΡΗ CORINTHIANS:

97
» 5 ἴω \ \ 3 ΕἸ ΄“ 3 \ λ
ἔστω ἐν Θεῴ καὶ μὴ ἐξ αὐτών, αὐτεπαινετοὺς γὰρ
μισεῖ 0 Θεός. ἡ μαρτυρία τῆς ἀγαθῆς πράξεως ἡμῶν
“ Ω > ~ ε ~
διδόσθω ὑπ᾽ ἄλλων, καθὼς ἐδόθη τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν
~ 7 / \ 3 ΄ \ / ~
τοῖς δικαίοις. θράσος καὶ αὐθάδεια καὶ τόλμα τοῖς
/ ε ΄σ ΄σ 3 ᾿
κατηραμένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ: ἐπιείκεια καὶ ταπεινο-
/ he ~ > 4G
φροσύνη καὶ πραὕτης Tapa τοῖς ηὐλογημένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ
Θεοῦ.
Oa

af fe e ε \ ΄σ ᾽ y
ἴδωμεν τίνες αἱ ὁδοὶ τῆς εὐλογίας.

an ky ~ , ot
Κολληθῶμεν οὖν τῇ εὐλογίᾳ αὐτοῦ, Kal
ἐ
> / \
ἀνατυλίξωμεν Ta

ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς γενόμενα. Tivos χάριν ηὐλογήθη ὁ πατὴρ

ἡμῶν ᾿Αβραάμ; οὐχὲ δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀλήθειαν διὰ πίσ-

/ > \ \ A / \
TEWS ποιησας 5 Ισαακ μέτα πεποιθήσεως γινωσκῶὼῶν TO

mulium dicit et audit in hac (hoc) quod qui bene loguitur, etc. 11 εὐλογημέ-
vos] A; om. C; S substitutes γεννητός, thus repeating the same word, 31 Thy,
12 ἡμῶν] AS; ὑμῶν C. 13 Θεῷ] A; τῷ θεῷ C. γὰρ] AC; om. 5.
14 ἀγαθῆ:] AS; om. C. ἡμῶν] A; ὑμών CS. 15 ἐδόθη] εδεηθη A.
17 ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ AS; om. C. See I. p. 125. ἐπιείκεια] επιεικια A.
18 πραὔτης:] A; πραότης (. S transposes ταπειψοφροσύνη and mpaiirns, probably

for convenience of translation; see I. p. 137.

γεννητὸς γυναικὸς ὀλιγόβιος crept in
from xiv. I βροτὸς γὰρ γεννητὸς γυναι-
κὸς ὀλιγόβιος, which may have stood
next to this passage in a parallel
column, and the εὐλογημένος will have
come from the first word of the next
verse, "3 misread 492.

11. γεννητὸς] See the note on Ign.
Ephes. 7.

12. Ὁ ἔπαινος κιτ.λ.] See Rom. ii.
29 οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλ᾽
ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, 2 Cor. x. 18 οὐ γὰρ ὁ
ἑαυτὸν συνιστάνων k.T.A.; Comp. I Cor.
iv. 5.

13. αὐτῶν] So read for αὑτῶν. On
the forms αὑτοῦ, αὐτῷ, etc., as inad-
missible here, see S§ 9, 12, 14, 32
(notes).

αὐτεπαινετοὺς] No other instance of
the word is given in the lexicons.

15. ὑπ᾽ ἄλλων] See Prov. xxvii. 2.

CLEM. II.

23 διὰ πίστεως] AS; om. C.

18. πραὔτης] This word is distin-
guished from ταπεινοφροσύνη, Trench
N. T. Syn. tst ser. ὃ xliv, and from
ἐπιείκεια 20. § xlill.

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. ἀνατυλίξωμεν] ‘uroll’, and so
‘pore over’; comp. Lucian Migr. 7
τοὺς λόγους οὺς τότε ἤκουσα συναγεί-
ρων καὶ ἀνατυλίττων.

22. 6 πατὴρ ἡμῶν] See the note on
ὃ 4.

23. οὐχὶ δικαιοσύνην κιτ.λ.] Com-
bining the statement of 5. Paul (Rom.
iv. I sq, Gal. ili. 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.

7

THE EPISTLE OF ΒΞ CLEMENT μος

98

μέλλον ἡδέως προσήγετο θυσία. ᾿Ιακὼβ μετὰ ταπει-
νοφροσύνης ἐξεχώρησεν τῆς γῆς αὐτοῦ ov ἀδελφὸν καὶ
ἐπορεύθη πρὸς Λαβὰν καὶ ἐδούλευσεν, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ
τὸ δωδεκάσκηπτρον τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ.

XXXII.

3 > “- 3 > /
νοήση, ἐπιγνώσεται μεγαλεῖα τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ δεδομένων

εὰ ef > ΄'
"Eav τις καθ᾽ ἕν ἕκαστον εἰλικρινώς κατα-

΄σ ~ e ~ \ ΄σ΄ Fr
δωρεῶν. ἐξ αὐτοῦ yap ἱερεῖς Kal λευῖται πάντες οἱ

λειτουργοῦντες τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ: ἐξ αὐτοῦ

1 ἡδέως] AC; καὶ ἡδέως 5.
ἃ ἐὰν) S, which is perhaps correct.
A. 7 δωρεῶν] δωραιων A.
ἱερεῖς C.

I. ἡδέως κιτ.λ.] 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. 1. 14. 4, on hear-
ing his father’s purpose he δέχεται
πρὸς ἡδονὴν τοὺς λόγους and ὥρμησεν
ἐπὶ τὸν βωμὸν καὶ τὴν σφαγήν. See also
Beers 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 de
Ἰσαὰκ σιγᾷ πεπεδημένος ὡς κριός, οὐκ
ἀνοίγων τὸ στόμα οὐδὲ φθεγγόμενος
φωνῇ τὸ γὰρ ξίφος οὐ φοβηθεὶς οὐδὲ
τὸ πῦρ πτοηθεὶς οὐδὲ τὸ παθεῖν λυπη-
θεὶς ἐβάστασεν τὸν τύπον τοῦ Κυρίου
κιτιλ., Where there is an obvious
reference to Is. lili. 7 in οὐδὲ φθεγ-
γόμενος φωνῇ. Philo de Abr. 32 (ΤΙ.
p. 26) is seemingly ignorant of this
turn given to the incident.

4. τὸ δωδεκάσκηπτρον] Equivalent
to τὸ δωδεκάφυλον, which occurs below
δ 55 and Acts xxvi. 7; for σκῆπτρον
(paw), ‘a branch or rod’, is a syn-
onym for ‘a tribe’; e.g. 1 Kings xi.
31, 32 καὶ δώσω σοι δέκα σκῆπτρα Kal
δύο σκῆπτρα ἔσται αὐτῷ, and again
ver. 35, 36 (see § 32); comp. 7.7 xii

oi] AC; om. (apparently) S.

5 ’Hav] conj.; def. A; ὃ ἂν C3; quae si (as if
See the lower note.

εἰλικριν ws] ιλικριν...
αὐτοῦ] 5; αὐτών AC. ἱερεῖς] Α ; οἱ

8 λειτουργοῦντες] λιτουργ...

Patr. Nepht. 5 τὰ δώδεκα σκῆπτρα τοῦ
Ἰσραήλ.

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. Ἔαν] Previous editors read εἰ;
but, though εἰ with the conjunc-
tive is possible (see PAzlippians iii.
11), it is rare and ought not to be
introduced unnecessarily.

εἰλικρινῶς] ‘distinctly, severally’.
It seems to be a military metaphor
from εἴλη ‘turma’; see the note,
Philippians i. το.

6. ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ] i.e. rod Θεοῦ. There
is a little awkwardness in the sudden
transition to ἐξ αὐτοῦ, which must re-

XXXIT] TO THE CORINTHIANS.

ΕΘ
7 “ \ \ / ~ ΄
ὁ Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα" ἐξ αὐτοῦ βασιλεῖς
\ a] \ ε / \ \ 3 / \ \
καὶ ἄρχοντες καὶ ἡγούμενοι, κατὰ τὸν ᾿Ιούδαν: πὰ δὲ
\ = 3 ‘a 3 3 lo i « ΄
λοιπὰ σκήπτρα αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐν μικρᾷ δόξη ὑπάρχουσιν,
5 Ἃ Cr ΄σ΄ . ΕΝ \ ,
ὡς ἐπαγγειλαμένου τοῦ Θεοῦ ὅτι Ἔοτδι τὸ crépma coy
- ς- 2 ͵ a > A ΄ ἔν ? ’
ὧς οἱ &ctépec τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Tlavtes οὖν ἐδοξάσθησαν
\ 3 ΄ 3 ΄σ δ). ΄σ af ΄σ \
καὶ ἐμεγαλύνθησαν ov Ov αὐτῶν ἢ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῶν ἢ

= y ἜΣ 7 > \ \ a
τῆς δικαιοπραγίας ns κατειργασαντο, αλλα διὰ τοῦ

τεσ A.
ἡγούμενοι. dé] A; re CS.
τάξει C. 12 τοῦ Θεοῦ] A; θεοῦ Ὁ.

fer to Jacob; but τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ δεδ.
δωρεῶν can only be said of God (as
in §§ 19, 23, 35), nor can vm αὐτοῦ
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. ἐξ αὐτοῦ] i.e. from Jacob. The
following clauses render it necessary
to read αὐτοῦ for αὐτῶν, which might
otherwise stand. For the whole pas-
sage comp. Rom. ix. 4, 5 ὧν... ἡ λα-
Tpela καὶ ai ἐπαγγελίαι, ὧν of πατέρες
καὶ ἐξ ὧν Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.

9. ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς] 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 ὃ 36. Comp. Ign. Phzlad.
9 καλοὶ καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς, κρεῖσσον δὲ ὁ ἀρ-
χιερεύς. 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 de-
scended from Levi, as Hilgenfeld (4-
post. Vat. p. 103, and here p. 98, ed. 2)
thinks. The Epistle to the Hebrews,

το κατὰ] AC; οἱ κατὰ S, this being a repetition of the last syllable of
Ἐπὶ αὐτοῦ} AS; om. C.

δόξῃ! AS ;

14 αὐτῶν] αὑτῶν Ὁ.

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 Ὁ. 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. #ragm. 17 (p. 856, Stieren)
likewise a double descent is ascribed
to our Lord ἐκ δὲ τοῦ Λευὶ καὶ τοῦ
Ἰούδα τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὡς βασιλεὺς καὶ
ἱερεὺς ἐγεννήθη. On the descent from
Levi see Sinker Zest. of Twelve Patr.
p. 105 sq.

10. κατὰ τὸν Ιούδαν] ‘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¢. xz Pair., e.g.
Jud. 1 ὁ πατήρ μου ᾿Ιακὼβ ηὔξατό μοι
λέγων, Βασιλεὺς ἔσῃ κατευοδούμενος ἐν
πᾶσι.

12. Ἔσται κιτ.λ.] Comp. Gen. xv. 5,
XXII 07, ΣΟΙ. Δ It is not an exact
quotation from any of these passages,
but most closely resembles the first.

14. δι αὐτών] Not αὑτῶν. See
above the notes on §§ 9, 12, 14, 30.

15. τῆς δικαιοπραγίας x.t.A.| Comp.

=?

THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XxxII

100

/ > ΄σ A c ~ io \ / > lat
θελήματος αὐτου. καὶ ἡμεῖς ουν; διὰ θελήματος αὐτου
κι rn 7 ~ e = 7
ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ κληθέντες, οὐ Ov ἑαυτῶν δικαιούμεθα
ΦΧ x ΄σ ε , / 9 ᾽ν, aN a [4 3Χ
οὐδὲ διὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας σοφίας ἢ συνέσεως ἢ εὐσεβείας ἢ
oS Ce 7 > ς I if a
ἔργων ὧν κατειργασάμεθα ἐν ὁσιότητι καρδίας, ἀλλα
rat a ne / \ 3 > 7A e
διὰ τῆς πίστεως, Ol ἧς πάντας TOUS aT αἰῶνος ὁ παν- 5
, \ 3 7 .: ᾽ ς / > \
τοκράτωρ Θεὸς ἐδικαίωσεν: ᾧ ἔστω ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς
΄' cont As: /
αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. GND.
By ΤᾺ 7 > 7
ΧΧΧΙΠ. Τί οὖν ποιήσωμεν, ἀδελφοί ; ἀργήσωμεν
> ΄σ 3 L \ ᾽ , \ y
ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγαθοποιΐας Kal ἐγκαταλείπωμεν THY aya-

1 αὐτοῦ] AC; τοῦ θεοῦ 5. καὶ ἡμεῖς...θελήματος αὐτοῦ] AS; om. C, by

homceoteleuton. 3 ἡμετέρας] nuepac A. 5 πάντας] A; ἅπαντας C.
τοὺς] του A. 6 τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων] AS; αἰῶνας C. See also
below, § 45. 8 Ti οὖν ποιήσωμεν, ἀδελφοί] AS; τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν, ἀγαπητοί C.
This variation is obviously suggested by Rom. vi. 1, where the argument is the

same; see I. p. 125.
ἀργήσωμεν] A; ἀργήσομεν (Ὁ.
A; καταλίπομεν C; dub. 5.

Tit. iii. 5 οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαι-
οσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς ἀλλὰ κατὰ
τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος K.T-A.

2. δι’ ἑαυτῶν) i.e. ἡμῶν αὐτῶν, as
ees. Rom, vill 23, 2 Cor. ἵ Ὁ; ii. 1, 8;
and commonly.

3. σοφίας ἢ συνέσεως] The words
occur together 1 Cor. i. 19 (from Is.
xxix. 14), Col. 1.93 so too σοφοὶ kai
avveroi, Matt. xi. 25 (Luke x. 21).
They are explained in Arist. Z7h.
Vic. vi. 7, 10. The first is a creative,
the second a discerning faculty.

6. ἡ δόξα] See the notes on Ga/a-
tians i. 5.

XXXIII. ‘What then? If we are
justified by /azth, 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 ἀδελφοί translated as if ἀγαπητοί see above, §§ 1, 4.
g καὶ] AS; om. C.
Io ἐάσαι ὁ δεσπότης] A; ὁ δεσπότης ἐάσαι C.

ἐγκαταλείπωμεν

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 οὐχὶ δικαιο-
σύνην καὶ ἀλήθειαν διὰ πίστεως ποιήσας;
So here, after declaring emphatically
that men are not justified by their
own works but by faith (ὃ 32 οὐ δὲ
αὐτῶν ἢ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῶν κοιτιλ., and
again οὐ διὰ.. ἔργων ὧν κατειργασάμεθα
ἐν ὁσιότητι καρδίας ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς πίστεως
κιτιλ.), 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: ὃ 1ὸ
of Abraham διὰ πίστιν καὶ φιλοξενίαν
ἐδόθη αὐτῷ υἱὸς κιτιλ., § 12 of Rahab

ΒΨ ΡΥ ΙΝ ee

XXXII | TO THE CORINTHIANS. IOI

anv; μηθαμῶς τοῦτο ἐάσαι ὁ δεσπότης ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν γε
γενηθῆναι, ἀλλὰ σπεύσωμεν μετὰ ἐκτενείας καὶ προ-
θυμίας πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐπιτελεῖν. αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ
δημιουργὸς καὶ δεσπότης τῶν ἁπάντων ἐπὶ τοῖς ἔργοις
αὐτοῦ ἀγαλλιᾶται. τῷ γὰρ παμμεγεθεστάτῳ αὐτοῦ
κράτει οὐρανοὺς ἐστήρισεν, καὶ TH ἀκαταλήπτῳω αὐτοῦ
συνέσει διεκόσμησεν αὐτούς: γῆν τε διεχώρισεν ἀπὸ
τοῦ περιέχοντος αὐτὴν ὕδατος καὶ ἥδρασεν ἐπὶ τὸν

γε γενηθῆναι] A; γενηθῆναι (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 γε.

14 ἀγαλλιᾶται)] A; ἀγάλλεται C Leont Damasc.

μεγεστάτῳ Leont Damase.

It is wanted here for the sense.

11 ἐκτενείας] exrevia... A.
παμμεγεθεστάτῳ)] AC; παμ-

15 ἐστήρισεν] AC; ἐστήριξεν Leont Damasc.
Τῇ] A Leont Damasc; ἐν τῇ Ο; dub. 5.

τό γῆν τε διεχώρισεν] C3 γὴν

TEs: o's ρισεν A; γῆν δὲ διεχώρισεν Leont ; γῆν δὲ ἐχώρισεν Damasc. 17 ἥ-

dpacev] AC Damasc ; ἕδρασεν Leont.

διὰ πίστιν καὶ φιλοξενίαν ἐσώθη. 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. ὃ 49 ἀγάπη κα-
λύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, ἀγάπη πάντα
ἀνέχεται κιτ.λ. (see the note there).
This studied effort to keep the 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 Ὁ. 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.

ὃ, Ti οὖν ποιήσωμεν] Evidently
modelled on Rom. vi. 1 sq.

10. ἐάσαι ὁ δεσπότης κιτ.λ.] True
to his dictum that everything is διὰ
θελήματος αὐτοῦ and nothing δι €av-
τῶν, he ascribes the prevention of
this consequence solely to God’s pro-
hibition. On ὁ δεσπότης see the note
above, ὃ 7. For the preposition in
ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν, ‘22 our case, comp. John xii.
ΤῸ: Acts τῷ 2.5. xxl. 2452) Cor. 1x: TA.

12. αὐτὸς yap x.t.A.| This passage
as far as αὐξάνεσθε καὶ πληθύνεσθε is
quoted (with some omissions and va-
riations) by John of Damascus Sacr.
Parall. (1. p. 310).

13. δημιουργὸς κιτ.λ.} So Clem. Hom.
xvii. 8 πάντων δημιουργὸν καὶ δεσπότην.

15. ἐστήρισεν]! See the note on
στήρισον § 18.

17. περιέχοντος) This has been
thought to imply an acceptance of
the theory of the ὠκεανὸς ποταμὸς
supposed to encircle the earth ; comp.
e.g. Herod. 11. 21 τὸ δ᾽ ὠκεανὸν γῆν
περὶ πᾶσαν ῥέειν, M. Ann. Seneca Suas.
1.1 ‘de Oceano dubitant utrumne
terras velut vinculum circumfluat.’
But, as Clement does not use the
word ὠκεανός, and as it is not un-

102 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XXX

ἀσφαλῆ τοῦ ἰδίον βουλήματος θεμέλιον: τά τε ἐν
αὐτῇ ζῶα φοιτῶντα τῇ ἑαυτοῦ διατάξει ἐκέλευσεν
εἶναι" θάλασσαν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ζώα προδημιουργή-
σας ἐνέκλεισεν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμει: ἐπὶ πᾶσι τὸ ἐξο-
χώτατον καὶ παμμέγεθες κατὰ διάνοιαν, ἄνθρωπον ταῖς 5
ἱεραῖς καὶ ἀμώμοις χερσὶν ἔπλασεν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος

χαρακτῆρα. οὕτως γάρ φησιν ὁ Θεός: Ποιήσωμεν ἂν-

θρωπον KAT εἰκόνὰ KAl καθ᾽ ὁμοίωοιν ἡμετέραν.

\ > "
Kal ΕἸΓ91-5

Ξ \ \ ” 3: \ 5 2 ͵ >
HCEN ὁ Θεὸς TON ἀνθρῶπον, APCEN KAI OAAY EMOIHCEN ay-

1 βουλήματος] AC; θελήματος Leont Damasc.
2 ἑαυτοῦ] AS; ἑαυτῶν C.

om. Leont Damasc.
προδημι..... σασ A; προετοιμάσας CS.

τά τε ἐν αὐτῇ. . δυνάμει]

3 προδημιουργήσας]
4 ἐνέκλεισεν] ἐνέκλισεν A. ἐπὶ

πᾶσι... ἄνθρωπον] AC; ἐπὶ τούτοις τὸν ἐξοχώτατον (ἐξότατον Leont) καὶ παμμεγέθη

ἄνθρωπον Leont Damasc 5.
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. προδημιουργήσας] i.e. before τὰ
ev τῇ yn ζῶα φοιτῶντα, which have
been already mentioned out of their
proper place.

4. ἐνέκλεισεν] ‘Sznuclosed within
their proper bounds’: see above § 20
τὰ περικείμενα αὐτῇ κλεῖθρα.

τὸ ἐξοχώτατον κιτ.λ.] Is this an
accusative after ἔπλασεν, ἄνθρωπον
being in apposition? Or is it ἃ
nominative absolute, referring to the
whole sentence which follows, ἄνθρω-
mov...xapaktnpa? On the construction
adopted depends the sense assigned
to κατὰ διάνοιαν which will mean
respectively either (1) ‘2 zztellectual
capacity’, referring to man; or (2) ‘as
an exercise of His creative intelli-
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 παμμέγεθες] A; παμμεγεθέστατον C. For

6 ἱεραῖς] AC; ἐδίαις αὐτοῦ Leont

the lips of Clement, and such a strong
expression as παμμέγεθες κατὰ διά-
νοιαν jars with his language elsewhere
about human intellect, e.g. §§ 13, 32,
36. The παμμέγεθες κατὰ διάνοιαν
therefore seems to have the same
bearing as τῇ ἀκαταλήπτῳ αὐτοῦ συνέσει
above. John of Damascus indeed
takes the sentence otherwise, but he
omits κατὰ διάνοιαν.

5. παμμέγεθες] The word does
not occur either in the LXxX or in the
G.T., but is foundin Symmachus Ps.
Ixvil (Ixvili). 31 συνόδῳ παμμεγεθῶν
(Field’s Orig. Hexapl. τι. p. 204).

6. dudpos] ‘faultless’, See the
note on μωμοσκοπηθέν, § 41.

7. Ποιήσωμεν κ-τ.λ.] A broken quo-
tation from the LXxX Gen. 1. 26, 27,
clauses being left out.

ὃ, εἰκόνα, ὁμοίωσιν], 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 εἰκὼν Θεοῦ,
whose χαρακτῆρα man bears, we are

XXXIV | TO THE CORINTHIANS.

103

Ἶ ΄- > / / > Id 2
τοτούο. TavtTa οὖν παντα τελειωσας ἐπήνεσεν αὐτὰ καὶ
he \ a > , \ ' >
ηὐλόγησεν Kal εἶπεν" Αὐξάνεοθε Kal πληθήνεοθε. Εἴδο-
« > af τ ΄ ’ > 7 e
μεν OTL ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς πάντες ἐκοσμήθησαν οἱ δί-
\ \ x € / oo \ /
καιοι" καὶ αὐτὸς οὖν ὁ Kuptos ἐργοις ἑαυτον κοσμήσας
> /
ἐχάρη.
15s προσέλθωμεν τῷ θελήματι αὐτοῦ ἐξ ὅλης ἰσγύος ἡμῷ
5 προσέελθωμ ; We p JS ἰσχύος ἡμῶν

of cy “ \ ε x 3. ἡ
EXOVTES OUVY τοῦτον TOY υπογράμμον QAOKVYWS

ἐργασώμεθα ἔργον δικαιοσύνης.
XXXIV. Ὃ ἀγαθὸς ἐργάτης μετὰ παρρησίας Nap-

Damasc. 8 εἰκόνα] Damasc adds ἡμετέραν and omits it after ὁμοίωσιν.
10 ἐπήνεσεν] AC; ἐπαίνεσεν Leont; ἐποίησεν Damasc.

avéavecOa A. πληθύνεσθε] πληθύνεσθαι A.

11 Αὐξάνεσθε)

ἌΓ.
AC; ἐκοιμήθησαν 8.

Α; τῆς ἰσχύος 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.

11. Αὐξάνεσθε «.7.4.] From the
LXx Gen. 1. 28.

Εἴδομεν] The sense seems to re-
quire this substitution for ἴδωμεν ; 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
ὁ Κύριος is meant ὁ δημιουργὸς καὶ
δεσπότης τών ἁπάντων, aS appears
from οὖν and from ἐχάρη taken in
connexion with what has gone before
{compare ἀγαλλιᾶται above).

12. ὅτι κιτ.λ.] If the reading τὸ be
retained, we must understand a cog-
nate accusative such as κόσμημα: e.g.
Soph. £7. 1075 τὸν det πατρὸς (sc.
στόνον) δειλαία orevaxovoa. This is
possible ; but the reading of A is dis-

12 ὅτι) CS; add τὸ A.
13 οὖν] A; δὲ CS.
See above, § 30, and comp. I. pp. 126, 141.

Εἴδομεν] Young (marg.); ἐδωμεν
ἔργοις] εγγοισ A. ἐκοσμήθησαν]
épyos] A; add ἀγαθοῖς CS.

15 ἐξ] A; καὶ ἐξ CS. ἰσχύος]

credited by the fact that the scribe’s
attention was flagging here, for he
writes eyyos for εργοις and (as we
have seen) ἰδωμεν for εἰδομεν. On
these grounds I proposed the omis-
sion in my first edition, and it has
since been confirmed by our new
authorities.

14. ὑπογραμμὸν] See the note on
5.

I5. προσέλθωμεν] The verb προσ-
έρχεσθαι occurs several times of
approaching God in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, and in the imperative
προσερχώμεθα more especially twice,
ἵν. 16, χ' 22. See also above: § 29
προσέλθωμεν οὖν αὐτῷ K.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’.

Ze)

104 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XXXIV

͵ Ἂν |

\ af roe YE > ΄σ sol \
βάνει Tov ἄρτον τοῦ ἔργου αὐτοῦ, ὁ νωθρὸς Kai παρ-
ειμένος οὐκ ἀντοφθαλμεῖ τῷ ἐργοπαρέκτη αὐτοῦ. δέον
ιμενος οὐκ αντοφθαλμ Ὁ EPYOTAPEKTH F
ἊΝ > / ne eas 3. > A,
οὖν ἐστιν προθύμους ἡμᾶς εἶναι εἰς ἀγαθοποιΐαν" ἐξ

a \ ΄ ῇ \ ~ 5 \
αὐτοῦ γάρ ἐστιν Ta πάντα" προλέγει yap ἡμῖν" ᾿ΙλΟΥ
ὁ Κύριος, καὶ 6 μιοθὸς aYTOY πρὸ προοώπογ ἀὐτοῦ, ATOAOF-

c , \ \ 3: > a / οὶ ς “ὮΝ

ΝΔΙ ΕκΚδοτῷ KATA TO EPLON AYTOY. ΠΙροτρέπεται ουν μας
if « = , healt) = \ 3 \
πιστεύοντας ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ μὴ ἀργοὺς
ὯΝ \ > af 3 / \ /

μηδὲ παρειμένους εἶναι ἐπὶ πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν" TO Kav-

> \ 7 4 > ΄σ ε
χῆμα ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ παρρησία ἔστω ἐν αὐτῷ: ὑποτασ-

1 ὁ νωθρὸς] AC; ὁ δὲ νωθρὸς 5.

AC. S translates as if it referred to προθύμους ὑμᾶς κ.τ.λ.
6 Ilporpémera:] προτρεπετε A.

κύριος (om. ὁ) C.

I. ὁ νωθρὸς x.t.r.| Both these
words occur in the epistle to the He-
brews, and nowhere else in the N.T.
For νωθρὸς see Heb. v. 11, vi. 12;
for παρειμένος, ib. xii. 12. The com-
bination appears in Ecclus. iv. 29
νωθρὸς καὶ παρειμένος ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις
αὐτοῦ, which passage perhaps Cle-
ment had in his mind.

2. ἀντοφθαλμεῖ) ‘faces’, as Wisd.
ἘΠῚ 14, Acts xxvii. 15, Barnab. § 5.
The word occurs frequently in Poly-
bius. Comp. ἀντωπεῖν Theoph. ad
Autol. i. 5, ἀντομματεῖν Apost. Const.
vi. 2. For ἀντοφθαλμεῖν itself see
Lit. D. Facob. p. 25 (ed. Hammond).

épyorapexty | ‘his employer’. Ihave
not found any other instance of
this word, which is equivalent to
ἐργοδότης. Compare also ἐργολάβος,
ἐργοδιώκτης (Exod. 111. 7, v. 6, etc.).

3. ἐξ αὐτοῦ] i.e. τοῦ ἐργοπαρέκτου
ἡμῶν.

4. ᾿Ιδοὺ ὁ Κύριος κιτ.λ.) The be-
ginning is a confusion of Is. xl. 1ὸ
ἰδοὺ Κύριος (ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν 5) Κύριος (om.
Κύριος sec. A) μετὰ ἰσχύος ἔρχεται καὶ
ὁ βραχίων add. αὐτοῦ A) μετὰ κυρίας"
ἰδοὺ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ
ἔργον ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ, and Is. [ΧΙ]. 11
ἰδοὺ ὁ σωτήρ σοι παραγέγονεν (σοι ὁ

ἐξ αὐτοῦ]
5 ὁ Κύριο] A;
7 πιστεύοντας] CS ;

3 nuds| AC; was S.

σωτὴρ παραγίνεται SA) ἔχων τὸν éav-
τοῦ μισθόν, καὶ τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ (om.
αὐτοῦ A) πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ: but the
ending comes from Prov. xxiv. 12 ὃς
ἀποδίδωσιν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ,
unless (as seems more probable from
the connexion) it is taken from Rev.
XXll. 12 ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχὺ καὶ ὁ μισθός
μου μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ ὡς τὸ
ἔργον ἔσται αὐτοῦ. Clem. Alex. Strom.
iv. 22 (p. 625) has the same quo-
tation, but is copying the Roman
Clement.

7. ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ] 1.6. τῷ μισθῷ, ‘with
our reward in view’. The position
of ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας is opposed to
such corrections as ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ or ἐπὶ
τὸ for the MS reading ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ; nor
does any alteration seem needed.

ὃ, μηδὲ παρειμένους κιτ.λ.] Comp.
2 Tim. ii. 21 εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν
ἡτοιμασμένον, 20. iii. 17, Tit. iii. 1, and
see above, ὃ 2. The μήτε after μὴ 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 μηδέ;
see the vv. ll. in Luke vii. 33, Eph. iv.
27. Our new authorities have con-
firmed the justice of this suspicion.

12. Μύριαι x.t.d.] Dan. vii. 10 (Theo-

XXXIV]

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

105

΄σ 7] ΄σ / \ ΄
τοσώμεθα τώ θελήματι αὐτοῦ: κατανοήσωμεν τὸ πᾶν

΄ a 2 ͵ 2 ΄ ΄ ΄ , 9 PS
πλῆθος τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ, πῶς Tw θελήματι αὐτοῦ

λειτουργοῦσιν παρεστώτες" λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή: Λλύριδι

μυριάλες TTAPEICTHKEICAN ἀὐτῷ, καὶ χίλιδι χιλιάδες ἐλειτούρ-

γοὺν ἀὐτῷ: Kal ἐκέκραγον" ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος Κύριος ca-

15 Βδώθ, TAHPHC πᾶρσὰ ἢ KTICIC τῆς δόξης AYTOY.

Καὶ ἡμεῖς

Gy , \ N \ Ez ΄σ 7,
οὖν, ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συναχθέντες τῆ συνειδήσει,

> \ / / \ \ 3 - 3
ὡς ἐξ ἑνὸς στόματος βοήσωμεν πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐκτενώς εἰς

\ / ε ΄σ΄ , - / \ > /
TO μετόχους ἡμᾶς γενέσθαι τῶν μεγάλων καὶ ἐνδόξων

om. A. See lI. p. 124.
τουργοῦσιν] λιτουργουσιν A.

Lxx and Hebr.

dot.) χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐλειτούργουν αὐτῷ
(ἐθεράπευον αὐτόν EXX) Kal μύριαι μυ-
ριάδες παρειστήκεισαν αὐτῷ, 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. 11. 7, 4, Euseb. Pracp.
Ev. vii. 15 (p. 326), Greg. Nyss. Hom.
vit in Eccles. (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. Kal ἐκέκραγον] A loose quotation
from LXX Is. vi. 3. "Exéxpayoy is an
imperfect of a new verb kexpayo
formed from κέκραγα ; see Buttmann
Ausf. Griech. Sprachl. ὃ 111 (1. p.
37).

15. Kat ἡμεῖς οὖν «.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
(δὲ 60, 61) had furnished a solid ba-

8 μηδὲ] C, and so probably 5; μήτε A.
13 ἐλειτούργουν] C3 λιτουργουν A. S translates
both this word and παρειστήκεισαν as presents.

12 λει-

15 κτίσι2}] AS; γῆ C with

16 τῇ συνειδήσει] AC; zz una conscientia S.

sis for such conjectures. Probst more
especially (Lzturg. d. drei 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 ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ
συναχθέντες (comp. Ign. Lphes. 13,
Philad. 4, Smyrn. 7, 8), ἐξ ἑνὸς στό-
ματος (comp. Rom. xv. 6), ἐκτενῶς (see
I. p. 385), etc.; (3) The quotation
ὀφθαλμός κιτλ. For more on this
subject see the introduction, I. p.
386 sq.

16. τῇ συνειδήσει] “271 heart, tn con-
sctousness’; comp. Eccles. x. 20 καί ye
ἐν συνειδήσει σου βασιλέα μὴ καταράσῃ,
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 ἐν ἀγαθῇ συνειδήσει,
or give τῇ συνειδήσει 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 συνδήσει or συνωδίᾳ.

106

ἐπαγγελιῶν αὐτοῦ.

THE EPISTLE OF 5. CLEMENT

[XXXIV

λέγει γάρ" Ὀφθδλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν

Kal OYC οὐκ HKOYCEN, κἀὶ ἐπὶ KAPAIAN ἀνθρώπου OYK ἀνέβη,

a ς , τ c , 3 ,
OCA HTOIMACEN TOIC YTTOMENOYCIN AYTON.

1 ᾿Οφθαλμὸς] A; ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς CS (with x Cor. ii. 9).
τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν] A; τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν CS (see

ἡτοίμασεν] A; add. κύριος CS.
the lower note).

I. ᾿Οφθαλμὸς «.7.A.] This quotation
occurs also in S. Paul 1 Cor. ii. 9
(where it is introduced by καθὼς γέ-
ypanra), in the form ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ
εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν Kal ἐπὶ καρδίαν
ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη ὅσα ἡτοίμασεν ὁ
Θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. It is cited
again in ii. 811 (comp. ὃ 14), Marz.
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 ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν
οὐδὲ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν εἶδον θεὸν πλὴν
σοῦ καὶ τὰ ἔργα σου ἃ ποιήσεις τοῖς
ὑπομένουσιν ἔλεον, but more nearly in
the Hebrew, ‘From eternity they
have not heard, they have not heark-
ened, neither hath eye seen a god
[or “Ὁ 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 οὐκ ἀναβήσεται αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὴν Kap-
δίαν...οὐ μὴ ἐπέλθῃ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὴν καρ-
δίαν. Clement mixes up 5. Paul’s
free translation or paraphrase from
the Hebrew (the latter words éca
ἡτοίμασεν 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 5. Paul. Fora similar
instance see above § 34 ἰδοὺ ὁ Κύριος
«7A. 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. S.

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.
zz Is. lxiv. 4, IV. p. 761; Prol.in Gen.
ΙΧ. p. 3. And Origen, zz Matth.
ΧΧΥΊ]. 9 (III. p. 916), says that S. Paul
quotes from the latter, ‘In nullo re-
gulari libro hoc positum invenitur,
nisi (εἰ μή, ‘but only’) in Secretis
Eliae prophetae’. This assertion is
repeated also by later writers (see
Fabricius Cod. Ps. V. T. τ p. 1073)
doubtless from Origen, but combated
by Jerome (Il. cc. and 2222. Ivii. ὃ 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. Vigdl. 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-
sion of Isaiah, this same father Yaer.
Ixvii. 3 (p. 712), where he quotes a

ig

XXXV|

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

107

XXXV. ‘Ws paxapia καὶ θαυμαστὰ τὰ δώρα τοῦ

5 Θεοῦ, ἀγαπητοί.

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 Vision 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 Himmelfahrt
24. Vision 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 A‘thi-
opic more nearly represents the ori-
ginal form of the work (see Liicke
Ofenbarung ad. 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.
V. 24, 26, 27, vi. 24. This perverted
use of the text was condemned by
their contemporary Hegesippus (as
reported by Stephanus Gobarus in
Photius 26/. 232), as contradicting
our Lord’s own words μακάριοι οἱ
ὀφθαλμοὶ ὑμῶν κιτιλ. 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 5. Paul, is not unnaturally
at a loss to know what Hegesippus
means by this condemnation (οὐκ οἶδ᾽
6 τι καὶ παθὼν μάτην μὲν εἰρῆσθαι ταῦτα
λέγει κιτ.λ.). On the use which some

\ >
(on ἐν adavacia, λαμπρότης ἐν δι-

modern critics have made of this re-
ference to Hegesippus in Stephanus
Gobarus, see Galatians p. 320.

For the connexion of this quotation
ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν κιτιλ. with the
earlier liturgies, see the introduction,
I. p. 389 sq.

Fabricius (p. 1073) quotes a par-
allel from Empedocles (fragm. Phi-
fos. 1. p. 2, ed. Mullach) οὔτ᾽ ἐπιδερκτὰ
τάδ᾽ ἀνδράσιν οὔτ᾽ ἐπακουστά, οὔτε νόῳ
περιληπτά.

3. ὑπομένουσιν] It is clear that
Clement wrote ὑπομένουσιν from the
words which follow at the beginning of
the next chapter τίνα οὖν dpa ἐστὶν τὰ
ἑτοιμαζόμενα τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν; where
he picks up the expression according
to his wont; see the note on § 46
τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν pou διαστρέψαι. On the
other hand S, having broken the
connexion by substituting ἀγαπῶσιν
for ὑπομένουσιν, re-establishes it by
the expedient of adding καὶ ἀγαπώντων
to ὑπομενόντων in ὃ 35. On this
reading (ὑπομένουσιν) 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. λαμπρότης] ‘cheerfulness, ala-
crity, strenuousness’, as e.g. Plut.
Vit. Cim. 17, Polyb. xxxii. 23. I (see

108 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [Χχχν

if > / 3 / / 3 /
καιοσύνη, ἀλήθεια ἐν παρρησίᾳ, πίστις ἐν πεποιθήσει,
ἐ
3 ~ \ Las ε ῇ / \
ἐγκράτεια EV ἁγιασμῷ" καὶ ταῦτα ὑπεπιπτεν πάντα ὑπο

\ , € ΄σ , ὯΝ of 9 \ \ ε ’
τὴν διάνοιαν ἡμῶν. τίνα οὖν ἄρα ἐστὶν τὰ ἑτοιμαζό-

΄ / δ \ \ \ ΄σ΄

μενα τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν; ὁ δημιουργὸς καὶ πατὴρ τῶν
7 ᾿ / \ , \

αἰώνων ὁ πανάγιος AUTOS γινώσκει THY ποσότητα καὶ

\ \ 3 ΄σ ε => ee 3 if € a
τὴν καλλονὴν αὐτῶν. ἡμεῖς οὖν ἀγωνισώμεθα εὑρεθῆναι

> a ΄σ ΄σ € / 5 / J ’
ἐν τῷ ἀριθμῷ τῶν ὑπομενόντων αὐτὸν, ὅπως μεταλα-

ΡῈ > f a ΄σ Δ, ΄“-
βωμεν τῶν ἐπηγγελμένων δωρεῶν. πῶς δὲ ἔσται τοῦ-

᾽ i? BUN > / oy / ς ~ \

το, ἀγαπητοί; ἐὰν ἐστηριγμένη ἡ ἢ διανοια ἡμῶν δια
7 \ \ if a ἢ > ΄σ΄ \ > 7

πίστεως πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν: ἐαν ἐκζητῶμεν Ta εὐαρεστα

καὶ εὐπρόσδεκτα αὐτῷ; ἐὰν ἐπιτελέσωμεν τὰ ἀνήκοντα

2 ἐγκράτεια] εγκρατια Δ. ὑπέπιπτεν πάντα] A; ὑποπίπτει πάντα ( : ὑπο-
πίπτοντα S, some letters having dropped out, Ὑττοττιτττεί ιττὰ Ϊντὰ. 4 kal
" ὑπο-
μενόντων] AC; add. καὶ ἀγαπώντων S. For the reason of this addition see the note
on ὃ 34 ὀφθαλμὸς k.7.d. αὐτόν] A; om. CS. 8 τῶν ἐπηγγελμένων δωρεῶν]
τωνεπηγγελμενωνδωραιων A; τῶν δωρεῶν τῶν ἐπηγγελμένων C, and so probably S.
g ἀγαπητοί] AC; om. 5. 7 ἡ] η A; ἡ (om. 9) C.
fidem S; πίστεως (om. διὰ) Α ; πιστῶς C. το ἐκζητῶμεν] A; ἐκζητήσωμεν C.
τὰ εὐάρεστα καὶ εὐπρόσδεκτα αὐτῷ] AS; τὰ ἀγαθὰ καὶ εὐάρεστα αὐτῷ καὶ εὐπρόσ-

πατὴρ τῶν αἰώνων ὁ πανάγιο5] AS; τῶν αἰώνων καὶ πατὴρ πανάγιος C.
> 7

διὰ πίστεως) Young; per

Schweigh. Lex. s.v. λαμπρός). Com-
pare the similar word φαιδρότης. The
position of λαμπρότης here seems to
require this sense, for all the words
in the parallel clauses ζωή, ἀλήθεια,
πίστις, ἐγκράτεια, refer to the moral
consciousness, not to any external
advantages.

I. πίστις ἐν πεποιθήσει] See the
note above, § 26.

2. καὶ ταῦτα 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. iii. 2
νῦν τέκνα Θεοῦ ἐσμὲν καὶ οὔπω ἐφανε-
ρώθη τί ἐσόμεθα.

5. πανάγιος] 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 Mace.
vil. 4, xiv. 7, are earlier.

9. διὰ πίστεως] The reading of the
Syriac version is unquestionably
right ; see I. p. 143. The omission of
διὰ in A may perhaps be explained by
the neighbourhood of διάνοια. Hil-
genfeld and Gebhardt read πιστῶς.
Lipsius (p.15) defends πίστεως, trans-
lating ‘cogttationes fidet’, but this
would require ai διάνοιαι τῆς πίστεως.

II. εὐπρόσδεκτα)] See the notes on
ὃ 7, 40.

13. πᾶσαν ἀδικίαν κ-τ.λ.] The whole
passage which follows is a reminis-
cence of Rom. i. 29 sq ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ
καθήκοντα... πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ πονηρίᾳ πλεο-
νεξίᾳ.. ἔριδος δόλου κακοηθείας, ψιθυρισ-
τὰς καταλάλους θεοστυγεῖς.. ὑπερηφά-
νους ἀλαζόνας.... ἐπιγνόντες ὅτι οἱ τὰ
τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες ἄξιοι θανάτου εἰσίν;

15

20

Ἢ

XXXV] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 109

TH ἀμώμω βουλήσει αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθήσωμεν TH ὁδῷ
η ἀμώμῳ y μ
“- 3 7 5) / 3 ἣν “ >
τῆς ἀληθείας, ἀπορρίψαντες ad ἑαυτών πᾶσαν ἀδικίαν
\ 3 7 y 7 Δ \ /
kal ἀνομίαν, πλεονεξίαν, Epes, κακοηθείας TE καὶ δόλους,
΄ \ ΄ 7, e
ψιθυρισμούς τε καὶ καταλαλιας, θεοστυγίαν, ὑπερη-
7 > ᾿ “ \ 3
φανίαν τε καὶ ἀλαζονείαν, κενοδοξίαν τε καὶ ἀφιλο-
7 - \ / \ qn >
ξενίαν. ταῦτα yap ol πράσσοντες στυγητοὶ τῷ Θεῷ
ε / 3 \ ε ’ > ld > \ \
ὑπαρχουσιν: ov μόνον δὲ οἱ πράσσοντες αὐτὰ, ἀλλα καὶ
/ \ ε / ~ A
λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφη" Τῷ de

c a 3 c , “ ͵ \ a \ , ,
AMAPTWAG εἶπεν ὁ Θεύς' “Ina τί cy διηγηῇ τὰ δικδιώμδτα

οἱ συνευδοκοῦντες αὐτοῖς.

ΜΟΥ, KAL ANAAAMBANEIC THN AIAOHKHN MOY ἐπὶ CTOMATOC COY;
ΟΥ̓ δὲ EMICHCAC TIAIAEIAN, KAI €ZEBAAAEC TOYC λόγογο MOY εἴς

δεκτα C,
AS; om. C.
ὑπερηφανίαν S.

14 ἀνομίαν] A; πονηρίαν CS (comp. Rom. i. 29).

15 καταλαλιάς] καταλιλιασ A. ὑπερηφανίαν te] AC; καὶ

16 ἀλαζονείαν] adagovia A. ἀφιλοξενίαν] CS; φιλοξενίαν
Α. 18 μόνον] μον A. 20 διηγῇ] A; ἐκδιηγῃῇ Ο; dub. 5. This is a
v.l. in the ΤΙΧΧ also. 21 ἐπὶ] A (as the Hebr. Sy); διὰ CS with the Lxx.
gov] μου A. So the MS seems clearly to read (as even the photograph shows),
though Tisch. gives it cov. 22 σὺ δὲ κιτ.λ.} C omits all to 6 ῥυόμενος (p. 111,

πλεονεξίαν]

1. 1) inclusive.
παιδείαν] παιδιαν A,

οὐ μόνον αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν (Vv. 1. ποιοῦντες)
ἀλλὰ καὶ συνευδοκοῦσιν (v. 1. συνευδο-
κοῦντες) τοῖς πράσσουσι. On the
reading ποιοῦντες, συνευδοκοῦντες, SUP-
ported by Clement’s language here,
see Tischendorf’s note.

16. ἀφιλοξενίαν] This was the sim-
plest emendation of the reading of A
(see the note on μὴ ἀτημελείτω § 38),
and it is now confirmed by our new
authorities. The word occurs Orac.
Sibyll. vii. 304 τῆς ἀφιλοξενίης ταύτην
τίσουσι πράπεζαν. Other proposed
readings were φιλοτιμίαν, φιλοδοξίαν,
φιλονεικίαν. 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-

After the omission comes καὶ ἐν τῷ τέλει θυσία αἰνέσεως κ.τ.λ.
ἐξέβαλλες] εξαβαλλεσ A; ἐξέβαλες 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 ὃ 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
(δ I τὸ μεγαλοπρεπὲς τῆς φιλοξενίας
ὑμῶν ἦθος), 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. Τῷ δὲ ἁμαρτωλῴ κ.τ.λ.] From
the 1 ΧΧ Ps. 1. τ6---23, with slight va-
riations, of which the more important
are noted below.

IIO THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XXXV

TA ὀπίσω. εἰ ἐθεώρειο κλέπτην, CYNETPEXEC ἀὐτῷ, καὶ META
MOIY@N THN μερίλὰ coy ἐτίθεις: τὸ οτόμὰ COY ἐπλεόνδοεν
KAKIAN, KAl H FA@CCA COY περιέπλεκεν AOAIOTHTA’ Κἀθήμενοο

\ n > la} ͵ \ \ n c n rn
KATA TOY AAEAMOY COY KATEAAAEIC, KAl KATA TOY YIOY THC

MHTPOC COY ETIDEIC CKANAAAON* TAYTA ETTOIHCAC Kal ECIFHCA’ 5

YTEAABEC, ANOME, ὅτι

TIAPACTHCW CE KATA πρόσωπόν Coy.

ECOMAI

a > ὦ ‘
co! Omoloc: ἐλέγξω CE Kal

cynete AH Tata, oF

ETIAANOANOMENO! TOY Θεοῦ, μήποτε ApTrACH ὧς λέων, καὶ

2 ἐπλεόνασεν] A; ἐπλεόναζεν 5.

ανομαι A; ἀνομίαν S. See the lower note.
κατὰ πρόσωπόν cov Tas ἁμαρτίας σου S. See the lower note.
see below; ἣν ACS (with some mss of the Lxx).

τοῦ Θεοῦ] AS; μου C.

3. καθήμενος} Implying deliberate
conspiracy ; see Perowne on Ps. 1. 1.

6. ἄνομε] LXX ἀνομίαν (B); but 5
has avope, though it is afterwards cor-
rected into avopeay (ἀνομίαν). ᾿᾽Ανο-
μίαν is read by Justin Dza/. 22 (p.
240), Clem. Alex. Sfrom. vi. 14 (p.
798); but ἄνομε Clem. Alex. Strom.
iv. 24 (p. 634). The Syriac does not
favour ἄνομε (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, avopa: (avope) and ανομιᾶ (= ἀνο-
μίαν). See the notes on ἀναστήσομαι
ὃ 5, and 7 δείξω just below. Though
ἄνομε makes better sense, the original
reading of the LXx here must have
been ἀνομίαν (not ἄνομε as Wotton
thinks); for the translators must
have misread FAN ΠῚ nf Thou
thoughtest, I shall surely be’, as if
mas man nt ‘Thou thoughtest
destruction (or iniquity), I shall be’,
since jn is elsewhere translated by
ἀνομία, Ps, lvii. 2, xciv. 20; and Theo-
dotion, whose version agreed with the
LXx (see Field’s Hexapl. ad loc.),
must have read it in the same way.

7. παραστήσω σε κ.τ.λ.] “17. well

13 ἀσθενείας] ασθενιασ A.

4 ἀδελφοῦ] αδελῴουσ A. 6 ἄνομεϊ
7 σε κατὰ πρόσωπόν σου] A;

το ἡ] LXx (BS)
αὐτῷ] AC; αὐτοῖς S.
14 τούτου] C; TOYTOY

bring thee face to face with thyself,
show thee to thyself in thy true light.’
The σε 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 2 Ζαΐζ. 22 (1.c.) and other wri-
ters supply an accusative τὰς ἁμαρτίας
gov, which is found also in a large
number of MSs (see Holmes and
Parsons).

8. ὡς λέων] 1.6. ‘lest he seize you
as it were a lion’. The words os λέων
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 δείξω] As 7 is read in the LXX
(BS) and in Justin l.c., and as the
parallelism in the opening of the
next chapter (ἡ ὁδὸς ἔν 7 εὕρομεν τὸ
σωτήριον κ-τ.λ.) seems to require it,
I have restored it for ἥν. For similar
corruptions in the MS A see ὃ I5 ava-
στησομεν (note), § 36 οσων, § 41 συνει-
δησιν, il. ὃ 6 αιχμαλωσιαν. If ἣν be
retained, σωτήριον must be taken as a

XXXVI] TO THE CORINTHIANS.

MH H ὁ PyGMENOC. OYCIA AINéCEWC δοξάσει ME, KAl ἐκεῖ

κι

ὁλὸς ἢ δείξω τῷ τὸ οωτήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ.
XXXVI.

σωτήριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν ἀρχιερέα τῶν προσ-

/ ε δ fe > fa 5) -“ ef \
Avtn ἢ OOOS, AYaTNHTOL, EV ἢ EVOOMEV TO

φορῶν ἡμῶν, Tov προστάτην καὶ βοηθὸν τῆς ἀσθενείας
ἡμῶν. διὰ τούτου ἀτενίσωμεν εἰς τὰ ὕψη τῶν οὐρανῶν'
διὰ τούτου ἐνοπτριζόμεθα τὴν ἄμωμον καὶ ὑπερτάτην
ὄψιν αὐτοῦ: διὰ τούτου ἠνεώχθησαν ἡμῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ

΄σ 7 \ / 2 \ / 7
τῆς καρδίας" διὰ τούτου ἡ ἀσύνετος Kal ἐσκοτωμένη διά-

(the superscribed y being Arima manu) A; τοῦτο S, and so ll. 15, 16, but not 1. 17,

ΠΡ: £12 1. 2:

τωμένη!] AC; ἐσκοτισμένη Clem 613.

nominative in apposition with ὁδός.
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 they that resist God’s will.’
12. τὸν ἀρχιερέα] This is founded
on the teaching of the Epistle to the
Ereptews (il: 17, ili. 1, iv. 14, 15, etc.),
of which Clement’s language through-
out this section is an echo. See
again S$ 61, 64. Photius (A702. 126)
alludes to these two passages in his
criticism of Clement, ἀρχιερέα καὶ
προστάτην τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν ἐξο-
νομάζων οὐδὲ τὰς θεοπρεπεῖς καὶ ὑψηλο-
τέρας ἀφῆκε περὶ αὐτοῦ φωνάς (see the
note, ὃ 2). The term ἀρχιερεὺς is
very frequently applied to our Lord
by the earliest Christian writers of
all schools; Ign. Phzlad. 9, Polyc.
Pe. 12, Test. xii Paty. Rub. 6,
Sym. 7, etc., Clem. Recogn. i. 48, Jus-

arevicwper] A; contemplemur (or contemplabimur) S; ἀτενίζομεν C.
15 ἐνοπτριζύμεθα] AC; videamus (or videbimus) tanquam in speculo 8.
χθησαν] A; ἀνεώχθησαν C; et aperti sunt S.

16 ἠνεώ-

ἡμῶν] AC; ὑμῶν S. 17 ἐσκο-

tin Dial. 116 (p. 344).

13. προστάτην] ‘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. προστάτις Rom. xvi. 2.

τῆς ἀσθενείας) In connexion with
the work of the great High-priest, as
in Heb. iv. 15.

15. ἐνοπτριζόμεθα] Christ is the mir-
ror in whom is reflected the faultless
countenance of God the Father (av-
τοῦ) ; comp. 2 Cor. ili. 18 τὴν δόξαν
Κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι, Philo Leg. AZ.
ili. 33 (1. p. 107) μηδὲ κατοπτρισαίμην
ἐν ἄλλῳ τινὶ τὴν σὴν ἰδέαν ἢ ἐν σοὶ τῷ
Θεῷ ; comp. John 1. 14.

ἄμωμον] ‘faultless’, ‘fleckless’, be-
cause the mirror is perfect. For the
meaning of ἄμωμος, see the note on
μωμοασκοπηθέν, ὃ 41.

17. διὰ τούτου κιτ.λ.] Quotedin Clem.
Alex. Strom. iv. τό (p. 613) ὃ ἐν τῇ
πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῇ γέγραπται,
Διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ ἀσύνετος. . «ἡμᾶς
γεύσασθαι.

ἡ ἀσύνετος κ-τ.λ.] Rom. i. 21 καὶ

rr2 THE “EPISTLE OR Sy CLEMENT: [XXXVI
νοια ἡμῶν ἀναθάλλει εἰς TO [θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ] φῶς: διὰ

is

ie 3 , / o ᾽ / Ve
τούτου ἠθέλησεν ὁ δεσπότης τῆς ἀθανάτου γνώσεως
στὸ “ a Ἂ 3 , a ͵ 2
ἡμᾶς γεύσασθαι: OC ὧν ATIAYTACMA THC MEFAAWCYNHC AY-
TOY TOCOYTM μείζων ECTIN ἀγγέλων, Scw διάφορώτερον
” ' / e/ ε a
ONOMA KEKAHPONOMHKEN. γεγρᾶσται γὰρ OUTWS* O ποιῶν
TOYC ἀγγέλογο AYTOY TINEYMATA KA) τοὺς λειτουργοὺς δύτοῦ
\ ' \ \ ~ en > ΄- v4 5
Typdc φλόγα. “Ent δὲ Tw υἱῷ αὐτοῦ οὕτως εἶπεν ὁ
/ cur ͵ 2 ‘ a , , »
OeamoTys: Yidc moy εἶ cy, ἐγὼ CHMEPON γεγέννηκά CE" Al-
THCAl πὰρ ἐμοῦ, KAI δώσω COI ἔθνη THN KAHPONOMIAN COY,
Ι τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς] A (with 1 Pet. 11. 9); τὸ φῶς S with Clem; τὸ
θαυμαστὸν φῶς C. 2 τῆς ἀθανάτου γνώσεω:}] AC ; mortis scientiae S (θανάτου
yvéoews), where τῆς has been absorbed in the preceding syllable of δεσπότης and
For an instance of θάνατος for ἀθάνατος see il.
5 ὄνομα κεκλη-

7 πυρὸς φλόγα]
13 τῷ θελήματι αὐτοῦ]

θανάτου is written for ἀθανάτου.
§ 19, and conversely of ἀθάνατος for θάνατος Ign. Zphes. 7.
ρονόμηκεν] A; κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα C (with Heb. i. 4).
A (with Heb. i. 7); φλόγα πυρὸς C (as Rev. ii. 18).

CS; τωθεληματιτωθελημα...... A, as correctly read by Tisch. The lacuna has space
for seven letters and should probably be filled up (with Tisch.) τιαυτου, the words

τῷ θελήματι being written twice over.

ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία,
Ephes. iv. 18 ἐσκοτωμένοι [v. 2. ἐσκο-
τισμένοι] τῇ Suavoia. These passages
are sufficient to explain how Clem.
Alex. in quoting our Clement writes
ἐσκοτισμένη, but not sufficient to justify
the substitution of this form for ἐσκο-
τωμένη in our text. See A. Jahn’s
Methodius τι. p. 77, note 453.

I. ἀναθάλλει κ-τ.λ.] 1.6. ‘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. 1 Pet. ii. 9 τοῦ εκ
σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος eis τὸ θαυ-
μαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς. See also Clem.
Alex. Paed. i. 6 (p. 117) πρὸς τὸ ἀΐδιον
ἀνατρεχόμενον φῶς and the note on
§ 59 below ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς «7A. It is
strange that editors should have
wished to alter ἀναθάλλει, which con-
tains so striking an image.

3. ὃς ὧν k.t.A.] The whole passage
is borrowed from the opening of the

18 εἰκτικῶς] ἑκτικῶς C3 leniter

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
ὄνομα, ‘title, dignity’, see Philippians
ΟῚ

5. ὯὉ ποιῶν «.7.A.] From Lxx Ps.
civ. 4. It is quoted exactly as in Heb.
i. 7, πυρὸς φλόγα being substituted
for πῦρ φλέγον of the LXX (BS, but A
has πυροσ dAeya which shows the
reading in a transition state).

8. Υἱός μου k.t.A.] From LxXx Ps, ii.7
word for word, after Heb. i. 5: comp.
Acts xiii. 33 (in 5. 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, αἴτησαι x.r.d.

11. Κάθου κ-τ.λ.] From LXX Ps. cx. I
word for word, after Heb. 1. 13.

XXXVII. ‘We are fighting as
soldiers under our heavenly captain.
Subordination of rank and obedience

XXXVII] TO THE CORINTHIANS. πη

\ \ ' ’ \ ! - ΓῚ \ /
ΠΟ ΚΑῚ THN KATACYECIN ΘΟ waa TEPATA THC ΓΗ, Kal παλιν

{id \ > “ ͵ > a “ ΕῚ A
λέγει πρὸς αὐτον' Kasoy ἐκ δεξιῶν Moy, ἕως ἂν θῶ
τοὺς ἐχθροήο COY ὑποπόλιον τῶν ποδῶν Coy. Τίνες οὖν

ε 3 δες ε lal \ 3 77 ΄σ /

οι ἐχθροί; οι φαῦλοι καὶ ἀντιτασσομενοι TH θελήματι
᾿ αὐτοῦ.

XXXVIL

\ , / ΄ ΄ Ud
META πασῆς EKTEVELAS EV τοῖς ἀμώμοις προσταγμασιν

Οτρατευσώμεθα οὖν, ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί,

> A , \ / =
αὐτου" KATAVOHOWMEV TOUS OTPATEVOMEVOUS TOLS nyov-

/ ΄σ cond > / ~ > ΄σ a
μένοις ἡμῶν, πώς εὐτάκτως, πώς ELKTLKWS, πῶς UTOTE-

(placide) NN3939 5; Εγέκτι!... A, as I read it. The first part has originally
been written €1€KT, but the | is prolonged and altered into an y, and an ! is
superscribed between € and k, so that it becomes evecxt-. So far I agree with
Tischendorf prol. p. xix. After this he reads w (‘non integra’); it seems to me
more like an | with a stroke of another letter which might be k, so that I read the
part before the lacuna evetx7ix. 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 εὐεικτω[σ], the reading of Tisch. But the uneven length of the
lines diminishes the force of this objection. See the lower note.

to orders are necessary conditions in
an army. 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. Στρατευσώμεθα]2 Cor. x.3, 1 Tim.
fis, 2 Tim. ii. 3, 4, Ign. Polye. 6.

17. κατανοήσωμεν κιτ.λ.] 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’.

τοῖς ἡγουμένοις ἡμῶν] ‘under our
temporal γηεε7γ5.. For this sense of
oi ἡγούμενοι see the note ὃ 5. On the
other hand οἱ ἡγούμενοι is used else-
where of the officers of the Church:
see §1 (note). For the dative after
στρατεύεσθαι see Ign. Polyc. 6 ἀρέσ-
κετε ᾧ στρατεύεσθε, Appian Bell. (τι.

CLEM. II.

i. 42 τοῖς ἐν αὐτῇ Ῥωμαίοις... ἐκήρυξεν...
στρατεύσειν ἑαυτῷ (where στρατεύσειν
is transitive).

18. εἰκτικῶς]} “ concessively. In
my former edition I had proposed,
with the evidence then before me, to
read εὐεικτικῶς. The adverb evedk-
Tws is recognized in the Etym. Magn.,
and of the adjective εὔεικτος the Lexi-
cons give several instances, e.g. Dion
Cass. Ixix. 20. On the other hand
of εὐεικτικός, -κῶς, though legitimate
forms, no examples are given in the
lexicons. But in the light of the
recently discovered authorities, εἰκ-
τικῶς seems to me more probable.

The alternative would be to read
ἑκτικῶς with C. The word ἑκτικῶς
means ‘habitually’, and so ‘fami-
liarly’, ‘easily’, ‘readily’ (1.6. ‘as a
matter of habit’); comp. Epict. Dzss.
ili. 24. 78 συλλογισμοὺς ἵν᾿ ἀναλύσῃς
ἑκτικώτερον, Plut. 7707, 802 F ἑκτικῶς
ἢ τεχνικῶς ἢ διαιρετικῶς, Porph, de

ὃ

THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XXXVI

ΤΠ

΄σ΄ \ , Ψ
ταγμένως ἐπιτελοῦσιν τὰ διατασσόμενα. οὐ πάντες
Fie ΝᾺ ot ΦΧ / δὲ ε / joe
εἰσὶν ἔπαρχοι οὐδὲ χιλίαρχοι οὐδὲ EKATOVTAPXOL οὐδὲ

/ 29\ \ a > te ἘΜ 3 -
πεντηκόνταρχοι οὐδὲ TO καθεξῆς: GAN ἕκαστος ἐν TH
2.) / δυν 9 if ς A - / \
ἰδίῳ τάγματι τὰ ἐπιτασσόμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ
τῶν ἡγουμένων ἐπιτελεῖ. οἱ μεγᾶλοι λίχὰ τῶν μικρῶν 5

S Sf ε \ ͵ “ , ,
ov δύνανται εἶναι, οὔτε οἱ μικροὶ AlyA TON μεγάλων: οΥ̓́Γ-

' , > > > \ / - ,
κρδοίο Tic écTIN ἐν πᾶσιν, Kal ἐν τούτοις χρῆσις. λαβω-

1 ἐπιτελοῦσιν] Α ; τελοῦσι C; dub. 5.
2 ἔπαρχοι] AC; S adopts the Greek word ὕπαρχοι, but it
does not necessarily imply any variation in the Greek text.

διατασσόμενα S.

Abst. iv. 20 τὸ αἴτιον τοῦ συμμένειν
εἴποις ἂν καὶ τοῦ ἑκτικῶς διαμένειν, Diod.
Sic. iii. 4 μελέτῃ πολυχρονίῳ καὶ μνήμῃ
γυμνάζοντες τὰς ψυχὰς ἑκτικῶς ἕκαστα
τῶν γεγραμμένων ἀναγινώσκουσι, 1.6.
‘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. Dass. ii.
18. 4 εἴ τι ποιεῖν ἐθέλεις ἑκτικόν. 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 ἑκτικῶς of C. The ey
(altered from εἰ, as it was first written)
must be explained by the preceding
ey of εὐτάκτως 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 twcey just
before. Whether this εἰ 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-

τὰ διατασσόμενα] AC; πάντα τὰ

4 ἐπιτασσόμενα]

tion to get a word with an adequate
sense; but on the whole it seems
more probable that he had eixtikwe
in his copy, and not extikwc as read
in C. If so, εἰκτικῶς 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 εἰκτικῶς or ἑκτικῶώς. In the Pe-
shito Luke vii. 25 N3°D5 stands for
μαλακός, and in the Harclean Mark
xill. 28 for ἁπαλός. Thus it seems
nearer to εἰκτικῶς than to ἐἑκτικῶς.
The word εἰκτικός occurs Orig. de
Princ. 111. 15 (1. p. 124), and occa-
sionally elsewhere. On these ad-
jectives in -ἰκός see Lobeck Phryn.
Ρ. 228.

I. οὐ πάντες κιτ.λ.] Comp. 1 Cor.
ΧΙ. 29, 30.

2. ἔπαρχοι κιτ.λ.] See Exod. xviii.
21 καταστήσεις [αὐτοὺς] ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν χιλι-
άρχους καὶ ἑκατοντάρχους καὶ mevTnKov-
τάρχους καὶ δεκαδάρχους (comp. ver. 25).
The reference here however is to
Roman military organization as the
context shows; comp. Clem. Hom. x.
14 ὅνπερ γὰρ τρόπον εἷς ἐστὶν ὃ Καῖσαρ;
ἔχει δὲ ὑπ᾽ αὐτὸν τοὺς διοικήτας (ὑπατι-
κούς, ἐπάρχους, χιλιάρχους, ἑκατοντάρ-
χους, δεκαδάρχους), τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον
kt’. The ἔπαρχοι therefore are
‘prefects’, ἔπαρχος being used especi-
ally of the ‘praefectus praetorio’, e.g.
Plut. Galb. 13, Otho 7; comp. Dion

XXXVIIT |

TOOTHE: CORINTHIANS. 115

μεν TO σῶμα ἡμῶν" ἡ κεφαλὴ δίχα τῶν ποδῶν οὐδέν
ἐστιν, οὕτως οὐδὲ οἱ πόδες δίχα τῆς κεφαλῆς: τὰ δὲ
ἐλάχιστα μέλη τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν ἀναγκαῖα καὶ εὔ-
χρηστά εἰσιν ὅλω τῷ σώματι: ἀλλὰ πάντα συνπνεῖ

\ e qn ΄ ~ > \ / 74 \
καὶ ὑποταγῇ μιᾷ χρῆται εἰς TO σώζεσθαι ὅλον τὸ

σώμα.

XXX VIII.

C I θ 5 - “-“ J \ - 3
ωὠζέσθω οὖν ἡμῶν ὅλον τὸ σώμα ἐν

A; ὑποτασσόμενα C. The converse error appears in the Ms of Ign. 221ε:. 2 ἐπι-

τασσόμενοι for ὑποτασσόμενοι.
Ir συνπνεῖ] A; συμπνει C.

Cass. Fragm. (v. p. 203 ed. L. Dind.)
αἰσχρόν ἐστι, Καῖσαρ, ἑκατοντάρχῳ σε
διαλέγεσθαι τῶν ἐπάρχων ἔξω ἑστώτων.
The χιλίαρχοι, ἑκατόνταρχοι, again are
the common equivalents for ‘tribu-
ni’, ‘centuriones’, respectively. But
for πεντηκόνταρχος 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 Taktik τ. Kriegswesen p.
41), the numerical relation of 50 to
100 has become meaningless.

3. ἕκαστος x.r.A.| I Cor. xv. 23
ἕκαστος δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι ; Comp.
below ὃ 41.

4. βασιλέως] Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 13 sq
εἴτε βασιλεῖ... εἴτε ἡγεμόσιν ; Comp.
Joh. xix. 15, Acts xvii. 7. The offi-
cial title of the emperor in Greek
was αὐτοκράτωρ, but βασιλεὺς is found
in common parlance, though the cor-
responding ‘rex’ would not be used
except in gross flattery.

5. of μεγάλοι κιτ.λ.] See Soph. 47.
158 (quoted by Jacobson) καίτοι opu-
Kpol μεγάλων χωρὶς σφαλερὸν πύργου
ῥῦΌμα πέλονται κιτιλ. (with Lobeck’s
note), Plato Leg. x. p. 902 E οὐδὲ γὰρ
ἄνευ σμικρῶν τοὺς μεγάλους φασὶν οἱ
λιθολόγοι λίθους εὖ κεῖσθαι, with the
remarks of Donaldson, Mew Crat.
$455, onthis proverb. I have there-
fore ventured to print the words as a

8 οὐδέν ἐστιν] A and so prob. S; ἐστιν οὐδέν C.
12 χρῆται] A; χρᾶται C: see the note on ii. ὃ 6.

quotation, and indeed Clement’s text
seems to embody some anapeestic
fragments.

6. σύγκρασις x.t.A.] This seems to
be a reference to Eurip. Pragm. £ol.
2 ἀλλ᾽ ἔστι τις σύγκρασις ὥστ᾽ ἔχειν
καλῶς, for Euripides is there speaking
of the mutual cooperation of rich and
poor: see the passage quoted from
the context of Euripides on ὁ πλού-
σιος 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
Stobzeus Fori/. xliii. 18, 20 (p. 82 sq,
Meineke). Comp. I Cor. xii. 24 ἀλλὰ
ὁ Θεὸς συνεκέρασεν TO σῶμα.

7. Λάβωμεν τὸ σώμα κ.οτιλ.)] Sug-
gested by 1 Cor. ΧΙ. 12 sq (comp.
Rom. xii. 4); see esp. ver. 22 ra do-
κοῦντα μέλη τοῦ σώματος ἀσθενέστερα
ὑπάρχειν ἀναγκαῖά ἐστιν. For λάβωμεν
see above, ὃ 5.

OXXV {ΠῚ o So therefore Jet (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.’

5-2

116 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XXXVIII

mo ~ \ / om 7
Χριστῷ Incov, καὶ ὑποτασσέσθω ἕκαστος τῳ πλησίον
lod sh 7 ΄σ ye ΄
αὐτοῦ, καθὼς καὶ ἐτέθη ἐν τῷ χαρίσματι αὐτοῦ. ὁ
3 \ \ 3 / \ > ~ ε \ 3 \ 3
ἰσχυρὸς μὴ ἀτημελείτω τὸν ἀσθενῆ, ὁ δὲ ἀσθενὴς ἐν-
Γ \ 3 , i / =
τρεπέσθω τὸν ἰσχυρὸν: ὁ πλούσιος ἐπιχορηγείτω TH
a ε \ \ ᾽ “ a a et a
TWTWXW, O δὲ TTWNOS ευὐυχαριστειτω Tw Θεῷ, ΟΤι ἔδωκεν 5
3 = ? Oe lox 5) a δι ve / ε \
αὐτῷ δι᾿ οὗ ἀναπληρωθῃ αὐτοῦ TO ὑστερῆήμα. O σοῴφος
ἐ
7 \ / ~ A 3 /
ἐνδεικνύσθω τὴν σοφίαν αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐν λόγοις GAN ἐν
af > qn - A ΄σ 7:
ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς: ὁ ταπεινοφρονών μὴ ἑαυτῷ μαρτυρείτω,
3 ὅν 5. ἘΠ ΠΣ ΝΣ ‘ \ ΄σ € € \
ἀλλ᾽ ἐάτω up ἑἕτερου ἑαυτὸν μαρτυρεῖσθαι. ὁ ὡγνὸς
ε Jn \ \ , ΄ “
ἐν τῇ σαρκὲ ἤτω καὶ μὴ ἀλαζονευέσθω, γινώσκων ὅτι
ἐ
1 Ἰησοῦ] A; om. CS. 2 καὶ] A; om. CS. 3 μὴ ἀτημελείτω]
μητμμελειτω As τημελειτω (omitting μὴ) CS. Obviously the « of ἀτημελείτω had
already disappeared from their prototype as it has from A, and the transcribers are
obliged to erase the counterbalancing negative μὴ in order to restore the sense;
see above, I. p. 143. ἐντρεπέσθω] C3 évrperérw A, retained by Gebhardt ;
but it is a soloecism. 7 ἐνδεικνύσθω) ενδικνυσθω A. ἐν λόγοι5] AC; λόγοις
μόνον Clem 613, ἐν épyous] A; ἔργοις C, thus omitting ἐν here, while conversely

Clem has omitted it in ἐν λόγοις. 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;

SES ll PD, Wis
see above, § 19.

I. ὑποτασσέσθω ἕκαστος «k.T-A.]
Ephes. v. 21; comp. 1 Pet. v. 5.

2. καθὼς καὶ ἐτέθη] sc. ὁ πλησίον,
‘according as he was appointed with
his special gift’; comp. 1 Pet. iv. 10
ἕκαστος καθὼς ἔλαβεν χάρισμα, I Cor.vii.
7 ἕκαστος ἴδιον ἔχει χάρισμα ἐκ Θεοῦ,
Rom. xil. 6 ἔχοντες χαρίσματα κατὰ
τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν διάφορα.

3. μὴ ἀτημελείτω] This reading
makes better sense than πλημμελείτω
(for Clement is condemning the depre-
ciation of others) and accounts more
easily for the corruption; see the
omission of a in ἀφιλοξενίαν ὃ 35.

4. ὁ πλούσιος x.t.A.] See Eurip.
Fragm. A©ol. 2 (of which the context
is cited above, ὃ 37) ἃ μὴ γάρ ἐστι τῷ
πένητι, πλούσιος δίδωσ᾽" ἃ δ᾽ οἱ πλου-
τοῦντες οὐ κεκτήμεθα, τοῖσιν πένησι

χρώμενοι θηρώμεθα. The resemblance

8 ταπεινοφρονῶν] A, and so prob. S; ταπεινόφρων C Clem;
μὴ ἑαυτῷ μαρτυρείτω] AC; μαρτυρείτω μὴ ἑαυτῷ Clem.

here confirms the conjecture that in
the earlier passage Clement has the
words of Euripides in his mind.

6. ἀναπληρωθῇ κ-Οτ.λ.] For the ex-
pression see 1 Cor. xvi. 17, Phil. ii.
30: comp. Col. i. 24.

6 σοφὸς k.t.A.] This passage down
to τὴν ἐγκράτειαν is quoted in Clem.
Alex. Strom. iv. 16 (p. 613) between
extracts from δὲ 40, 41 (see the notes
there).

10. ἤτω] ‘let him be it’. For this
emphatic use compare Ign. Efhes.
15 ἄμεινόν ἐστιν σιωπᾶν καὶ εἶναι ἢ Aa-
λοῦντα μὴ εἶναι, Tren. ii. 30. 2 οὐκ
ἐν τῷ λέγειν ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ εἶναι ὁ κρείττων
δείκνυσθαι ὀφείλει. I have preferred
Laurent’s happy emendation ἤτω to
ovyarw which has also been suggested,
both because it better suits the vacant
space in A, and because it is the

XXXVI] TO? THE CORINTHIANS.

ἘΠῚ
of / 3 ἘΠῚ 59 > ? > \ 2 , oy
ἕτερός ἐστιν ὁ ἐπιχορηγῶν αὐτῷ τὴν ἐγκράτειαν. ’Ava-
ἐέ ἊΣ / > / / 5 /
λογισώμεθα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐκ ποίας ὕλης ἐγενήθημεν"
a \ i? 3 7 \ /
ποῖοι Kat τίνες εἰσήλθαμεν εἰς τὸν κοσμον' ἐκ ποίου

’ὔ \ / ε / ε ΄ \ /
ταφου καὶ σκοτους O πλασας nas Kal δημιουργήσας
᾿ ΕΑΝ, > \ , x / \

i 15 ELONYaAYVEV ELS TOV KOO MOV αὐτοῦ, προετοιμαάσας “πῶς

7 a ε ΄ an
εὐεργεσίας αὐτοῦ πρὶν ἡμᾶς γεννηθῆναι.

Coie

TaUTa οὖν

/ 3 > - » \ / ?
σαντα ἐξ αὐτου ἔχοντες οφείλομεν κατα παντα εὐχα-

e €

wo 1

έ

ριστεῖν αὐτῷ"
3 /
ἀμην.

9 ἐάτω] ACS; ἐν τῷ Clem.

/ 3 \ 7A ΄σ΄ 047;
δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.

ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρου ἑαυτὸν] A; αὐτὸν ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρου Clem;

ἑαυτὸν ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρου C; S translates the sentence sed αὖ aliis testimonium detur (μαρ-

Tupelo Ow) super 1250.
Clem; dub S.
j: Luther. Theol. XX1V. p. 423).

p- 142.

ἑαυτὸν] AC; αὐτὸν Clem.
ἤτω] Laurent (his earlier suggestion had been ἔστω, Zettschr.
CS Clem omit the words ἤτω καὶ: see above, I.
In A the margin of the parchment is cut off, so that nothing is visible.

1o ἐν] AC; om.

There seems however to have been room for ἤτω, as the size of the letters is often

diminished at the end of the lines ; see below.

13 καὶ τίνες] C3 καιτι... A; om. S.

[1 ἐγκράτειαν] εγκρατιαν A.
εἰσήλθαμεν] ...σηλθαμεν A; εἰσήλθομεν C.

15 τὸν κόσμον] AC; S has hunc mundum, but it probably does not represent a

various reading ; see the critical note on ii. § 19.
εὐχαριστεῖν] evxapiort A.

κατὰ πάντα] AC; om. S.

form found elsewhere in Clement,
ὃ 48. Hort suggests στήτω, 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 σιγάτω seems
under any circumstances too long
to be at all probable. Hilgenfeld’s
reading, ὁ ἁγνὸς ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ καὶ [αὐτὸς]
μὴ ἀλαζονευέσθω, supplies the lacuna
in the wrong place. For the senti-
ment see Ign. Polyc. 5 εἴ τις δύναται
ἐν ἁγνείᾳ μένειν εἰς τιμὴν τῆς σαρκὺς
τοῦ Κυρίου, ἐν ἀκαυχησίᾳ μενέτω᾽ ἐὰν καυ-
χήσηται, ἀπώλετο (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 ὀφείλομεν] οφιλομεν 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.
Ῥ. 408 sq.

13. ποῖοι καὶ τίνες] I Pet. 1. 11 εἰς
τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρόν.

εἰσήλθαμεν] For the form see Winer
§ xiii. p. 86.

ἐκ ποίου τάφου x.t.A.] Harnack re-
fers to Ps. cxxxix (cxl). 15 τὸ ὀστοῦν
μου...ἐποίησας ev κρυφῇ καὶ ἡ ὑπόστασίς
μου ἐν τοῖς κατωτάτοις τῆς γῆς.

15. προετοιμάσας x.t.A.] See the
fragment from ‘the 9th Epistle’ of
Clement of Rome in Leontius and
John Sacr. Rer. 11 (Mai Script. Vet.
Nov. Coll. vil. 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

XXXIX. “Adpoves καὶ ἀσύνετοι Kat μωροὶ Kai

3 , / ae ς: \ , € \
ἀπαίδευτοι χλενάζουσιν Mas καὶ μυκτηρίζουσιν, ἑαυτοὺς

/ 3 / lon / > ~
βουλόμενοι ἐπαίρεσθαι TALS διανοίαις αὐτῶν.

τί γὰρ

/ a\ / > \ “ , /
δύναται Oyntos; ἢ τίς ἰσχὺς γηγενοῦς; γέγραπται yap"

Οὐκ HN μορφὴ πρὸ OPOAAMAN μου"

φωνὴν ἤκουον.

ἀλλ᾽ ἢ AYPAN καὶ

τί γὰρ; μὴ κἀθὰρὸς EcTal βροτὸς ENANTI

Kypioy; H ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων δὐτοῦ ἄμεμπτος ANHP; εἰ KATA

TTAIAWN AYTOY OY πιοτεύει, KATA AE ἀγγέλων AYTOY οκολιόν

1” Adpoves...amatdevror] AS; ἄφρονες καὶ ἀπαίδευτοι καὶ μωροὶ C.

6 καθαρὸ:] AC; xbsn corruptor S, perhaps connecting

ζουσιν] μυκτιρηΐζουσιν A.

2 μυκτηρί-

it with καθαίρειν, as if καθαιρέτης : see above, I.p.140. The translator however may

have had φθόρος in his text.
ἐναντίον 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.A.] Comp. Hermas
Sim. ix. 14 ἄφρων εἶ καὶ ἀσύνετος.

2. χλευάζουσιν κιτ.λ.] Ps. xliv. 14
(v. 1.), Ιχχῖχ. 4, μυκτηρισμὸς καὶ χλευ-
acpos; comp. Afost. Const. 111. 5 μυκ-
τηρίσαντες χλευάσουσι. In C ἑαυτοὺς
is connected with the preceding words
by punctuation.

4. γηγενοῦς] As a LXX word, ynyevns
is a translation of D4N in Jer. xxxil.
20. In Ps. xlix (xlviil). 2 οἵ re γηγενεῖς
kal οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων is a rendering
of YN 23 DA DIN 23 Di where the
next clause of the verse has πλούσιος
καὶ πένης. In Wisd. vii. 1 Adam is
called γηγενὴς πρωτόπλαστος. The
word occurs Zest. 725 Patr. Jos. 2,

ἔσται] AC; ἐστιν 5.
γε ACs 7.5:
this is due to the false pointing; see above, I. p. 138.

ἔναντι] A (with Lxx SA);
8 παίδων] AC; oferum S, but
αὐτοῦ] A; ἑαυτοῦ 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 ὁ ynyevns στρατὸς γι-
yavrov, Aristoph. Av. 824 οἱ θεοὶ
τοὺς γηγενεῖς ..- καθυπερηκόντισαν, See
Pape Worterb. d. Griech, Eigennam.
5. v.). Connected with this idea is
the translation of δ, where it
means ‘the shades of the dead’, by
γηγενεῖς in the LXxX of Prov. 1]. 18,
ix. 18; while in these and other pas-
sages the other Greek translators
(Theodotion, Symmachus) render the
same word by γίγαντες or Geopayxor:
see Gesenius 7hesaur. s. ν. SD 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’.

γέγραπται γάρ) A long passage
from the Lxx Job iv. 16—v. 5, the
words οὐρανὸς δὲ.. «αὐτοῦ being inserted
from Job xv. 15 (see below). The
variations from the LXX are for the

XXXIX|

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

[19

τι ἐπενόηςεν: OYPANOC AE OY KABAPOC ἐνώπιον ἊδΥ̓τοῦ" €d

IO Ag, οἱ KATOIKOYNTEC OIKIAC THAINAC ἐξ ὧν KAl AYTO! EK τοῦ

AYTOY πηλοῦ ECMEN* ETTAICEN AYTOYC CHTOC τρόπον, KAI ἀπὸ

πρωΐθεν ἕως ἑοπέρδο οὐκ ETI EICIN' Tapa TO MH δύνδοθδι

AYTOYC EAYTOIC BOHOACAI ἀπώλοντο. ENEDYCHCEN AYTOIC KAI

> ῃ \ \ \ 3: > \ '
ETEAEYTHCAN, πὰρὰ TO MH EYEIN AYTOYC COMIAN.

ETTIKAAECAI

I5 λέ, εἴ TIC COl YTAKOYCETAI, ἢ εἰ TINA ἁγίων ἀγγέλων ὀψῃ"

Kal γὰρ ἀφρονὰ ἀνδιρεῖ ὀργή, πεπλάνημένον δὲ OANATOI

οὐ] AC; om. 5.

πιστεύει] AC; πιστεύσει 5.
A επεσεν)ὴ; ἔπεσον αὐτοῦ S; see above, I. Ρ. 140.

11 ἔπαισεν αὐτοὺς] AC (but
σητὸς] σητον stands in A

(as I read it), by a transposition with the termination of the next word. Tischendorf

gave σητοσ, but afterwards acquiesced in my reading of the Ms.
12 ἔτι] AC; om. ὃς
σου C (with Lxx A).

τροποσ A; see the last note.
σοι] A, and so prob. S (with Lxx BS);

most part slight.

5. Οὐκ ἦν μορφὴ κιτ.λ.] The words
οἵ 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 οὐκ 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. εἰ κατὰ παίδων κ-τ.λ.} ‘seeing
that against His servants He ἐς dis-
trustful, and against (to the discredit
of) His angels He noteth some de-
pravity,”

9. οὐρανὸς δὲ x.t.A.| From Job xv.
15 (likewise in a speech of Eliphaz)
εἰ κατὰ ἁγίων ov πιστεύει, οὐρανὸς δὲ οὐ
καθαρὸς ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ. 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.

ἔα δέ, οἱ κατοικοῦντες) ‘how much

τρόπον] CS;
15 ev pri] AC; 7S.
ὄψῃ] A; dpe C.

more, ye that dwell’. In the LXx BS
read τοὺς δὲ κατοικοῦντας, but A éa δὲ
τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ‘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 πόσῳ μᾶλλον, to which
éa with this construction is an equiva-
lent, Job xv. 16, xxv. 6.

10. οἰκίας πηλίνας] The houses of
clay in the original probably signify
men’s bodies: comp. 2 Cor. v. I 7
ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους, Called
before (iv. 7) ὀστράκινα σκεύη. But
the Lxx by the turn which they give
to the next clause, ἐξ ὧν καὶ αὐτοὶ
κιτιὰλ., seem to have understood it
literally, ‘We are made of the same
clay as our houses’; ἐξ ὧν being ex-
plained by ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πηλοῦ.

II. καὶ ἀπὸ πρωΐθεν κιτ.λ.] καὶ is
found in BS but omitted in A. By
ἀπὸ πρωΐθεν x.t.A. 15 Meant ‘in the
course of a single day’; comp. Is.
XXXVill. T2, 13.

14. ἐτελεύτησαν] In the LXx A so
reads with all authorities here; but
BS have ἐξηράνθησαν.

16. ὀργή, ζῆλος] 1.6. indignation
against God, such as Job had shown,

120 THE EPISTLE ‘OF ‘SS. ‘CLEMENT [XXXIX

ζῆλος. ἐγὼ Aé E@paka ἀφρονδο Pizac BaddNTAac, AAA ey-
θέως ἐβρώθη AYT@N ἢ AlalTa. πόρρω γένοιντο οἱ YIOl
αὐτῶν ἀπὸ CMTHPIAC’ KOAABPICOEIHCAN ἐπὶ θύήρδιο ἡσοόνων,
Kal οὐκ €ctat ὁ ἐξδιροήμενοο" ἃ γὰρ ἐκείνοιο ἡτοίμδοτδι,

AIKAIO! ἔλοντδι: ἀἁὐτοὶ δὲ ἐκ κακῶν οὐκ ἐξδίρετοι ECONTAI. 5

1 δὲ] AC; om. 5.
a present.

2. δίαιτα] ‘their abode’; as e.g.
Le 19} Vill. Ὁ, 22, ΣΙ: LA, XXxIX, 0.

3. κολαβρισθείησαν) * mocked, in-
sulted’, as Athen. viii. p. 364 A καλα-
βρίζουσι τοὺς οἰκέτας, ἀπειλοῦσι τοῖς
πολλοῖς. Suidas after others says
κολαβρισθείη" χλευασθείη, extivax Gein,
ἀτιμασθείη- κόλαβρος yap καὶ κάλαβρος,
ὁ μικρὸς χοῖρος᾽ ἀντὶ τοῦ οὐδενὸς λόγου
ἄξιος νομισθεί. And 50 Bochart
Ffieroz. ii. § 57, 1. p. 707, ‘ κολαβρίζειν
Hellenistis conzdemnere, 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 κολα-
Bpi¢e, has also two substantives, κόλα-
Bpos or κάλαβρος (iv. p. 164 E, xv. p.
697 C) ‘a licentious song’, and καλα-
βρισμός (xiv. p. 629 Ὁ) ‘a certain
Thracian dance’. The latter is de-
fined by Pollux (iv. 100) Θρᾳκικὸν
opxnua καὶ Καρικόν. Here therefore
the derivation must be sought. The
jeering sallies and mocking gestures
of these unrestrained songs and dan-
ces would be expressed by κολαβρί-
ew. The reading of A in the Lxx
σκολαβρισθείησαν, compared with oxo-
ρακίζειν, might seem to favour the
other derivation, if there were suffi-
cient evidence that κόλαβρος ever
meant χοιρίδιον.

ἐπὶ θύραις ἡσσόνων] ‘at the doors
of their inferiors’. There is nothing
corresponding to ἡσσόνων in the He-

βαλόνταΞ] A; βάλλοντας C (with Lxx), and S also has
εὐθέως] A (with Lxx BS); εὐθὺς C (with Lxx A).
ἡτοίμασται] AC; ἐκεῖνοι ἡτοίμασαν S: for the 1,ΧΧ see below.

4 ἐκείνοις
5 ἐξαίρετοι]

brew, where ‘at the gate’ means ‘in
court, in judgment’.

4. ἃ γὰρ ἐκείνοις κιτ.λ.7 In the LXX
(BS) ἃ yap ἐκεῖνοι συνήγαγον (ἐθέρισαν
A), δίκαιοι ἔδονται κιτιλ. For ἐξαίρετοι
ἔσονται A has εξερεθησονται (i.e. ἐξαι-
ρεθήσονται). The LXxX in this verse
diverges considerably from the He-
brew. ἐξαίρετοι here has the some-
what rare sense ‘ rescued, exempt, as
e.g. Dion. Hal. A. &. 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 Anfinge 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| TOM THE, CORINTHIANS: EZ

ἵν ~ af , \
XL. Προδήλων οὖν ἡμῖν ὄντων τούτων, καὶ ἐγ-

/ > \ / ~ 7 / 7
κεκυφοτες εἰς τὰ βάθη τῆς θείας γνώσεως, παντα
πὸ J ΄ ΄ Lk
τάξει ποιεῖν ὀφείλομεν ὕσα ὁ δεσπότης ἐπιτελεῖν ἐκέ-
\ / y \
λευσεν κατὰ καιροὺς τεταγμένους" Tas τε προσῴφορας

εξερετοι A.
ἀδελφοί 8. ἐγκεκυφότες:] AC; ἐκκεκυφότες Clem.
Α. ὅσα] AC; stcut (ws?) 5.

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
Lenat. and Polyc. 1. p. 562 sq, ed. I
(p. 579, ed. 2).

6. Προδήλων κιτ.λ.) This passage
as far as καιροὺς τεταγμένους is quoted
in Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 16 (p. 613).

ἐγκεκυφότες)] ‘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 παρακύπ-
πε ΠΔΠῚΘ5 1,25, 1-Pet. 1. 12. The
word ἐκκεκυφότες in Clem. Alex. must
be regarded as an error of transcrip-
tion.

7. τὰ βάθη τῆς θείας γνώσεως] The
large and comprehensive spirit of
Clement, as exhibited in the use
of the Apostolic writers, has been
already pointed out (notes on §§ 12,
31, 33, 40). Here it is seen from a
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 ἡμῖν ὄντων] AC; ὄντων ἡμῖν Clem 613.

τούτων] AC; add.
8 ὀφείλομεν] οφιλομεν

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
βάθη τῆς γνώσεως (comp. I Cor. ii.
10) : see 5. John’s language in Rev. il.
24 οἵτινες οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τὰ βαθέα
τοῦ Σατανᾶ, ὡς λέγουσιν, which is
illustrated by Iren. Haer. ii. 22. 3
‘profunda Dei adinvenisse se dicen-
tes’, 11. 28.9 ‘aliquis eorum qui alti-
tudines Dei exquisisse’ se dicunt’,
Hippol. Haer. v. 6 ἐπεκάλεσαν ἑαυτοὺς
γνωστικούς, φάσκοντες μόνοι τὰ βάθη
γινώσκειν; compare the description
in Tertullian adv. Valent. 1 ‘Si
bona fide quaeras, concreto vultu,
suspenso supercilio, A/¢um est aiunt’,
and see Galatians p. 298. It is sig-
nificant too that γνῶσις is a favourite
word with Clement: see §§ 1, 36, 41,
and especially ὃ 48 ἤτω δυνατὸς γνῶσιν
ἐξειπεῖν (with the note). Again in
§ 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. τάς τε προσφορὰς 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 ἐκέλευσεν, so
that we read κατὰ καιρ. ter. τάς τε
προσφ. k.T.A.; but in this case we get
an unmeaning repetition, κατὰ καιροὺς
τεταγμένους and ὡρισμένοις καιροῖς k.T.A.
belonging to the same sentence: or

122 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XL

\ 7 > => 2 an \ > ΘῪ ων
καὶ λειτουργίας ἐπιμελως ἐπιτελεῖσθαι καὶ οὐκ εἰκῆ ἢ
᾽ / haut 7 5) 3 Ἑ iA a A
ἀτάκτως ἐκέλευσεν γίνεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ὡρισμένοις καιροῖς και
«“ σ΄ \ \ 7ὔ > = , > \
ὥραις: ποῦ TE καὶ διὰ τίνων ἐπιτελεῖσθαι θέλει, αὐτὸς
of ~ ε / > ΄σ / / { /
ὥρισεν TH ὑπερτάτῳ αὐτου βουλήσει iv ὁσίως πάντα

᾽ , > ἐ xf ~ id
γινόμενα ἐν εὐδοκήσει εὐπρόσδεκτα εἴη τῷ θελήματι 5

3 ΄σ « LM ΄σ / = a

αὐτοῦ. Ot οὖν Tots TPOTTETAYMEVOLS καιροῖς ποιουντες

ἐπιμελῶς] conj.; om. ACS, The reasons
ἐπιτελεῖσθαι καὶ] AC; om. S: see below.

I λειτουργίας] λειτουργειασ A.
for the insertion are given below.

2 ἀλλ] A; ἀλλὰ C.

3 ὥραις ποῦ τε] AC. S translates as if it had read ὥραις τέ

που. 4 ὑπερτάτῳ] A; ὑπερτάτῃ Ὁ ; see the lower note, “πᾶ above, I. p. 127.

πάντα] παντατα A; πάντα τὰ C. For S see below.

5 ev εὐδοκήσει] ΑΟ: 5

translates the sentence, ia ut, guum omnia pie fiant, velit ut acceptabilia sint volun-
tati suae, thus apparently taking ἐνευδοκήσει (one word) as a verb and reading

(2) after ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, in which case
ἐπιτελεῖσθαι must be governed by
ὀφείλομεν. But, with this construc-
tion (not to urge other obvious objec-
tions) there -is an awkwardness in
using the middle ἐπιτελεῖσθαι in the
same sense in which the active em-
τελεῖν has occurred just before;
though the middle in itself might
stand. (In James iv. 2, 3 however
we have αἰτεῖν and αἰτεῖσθαι side by
side.) I have therefore inserted ἐπι-
peA@s, supposing that the omission
was due to the similar beginnings of
the two words (as e.g. αἰώνιον for awov
awwviov ii. ὃ 9; see also the note on
ii. § 10 εὑρεῖν) ; comp. 1 (3) Esdr. viil.
21 πάντα κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ νόμον
ἐπιτελεσθήτω ἐπιμελῶς τῷ Θεῷ
τῷ ὑψίστῳ, Herm. Mand. xii. 3 τὴν
διακονίαν... τέλει ἐπιμελῶς. Thus the
passage reads smoothly and _intel-
ligibly. An alternative would be to
omit ἐπιτελεῖσθαι (and this is done
by the Syriac translator), as having
been inserted from below (διὰ τίνων
ἐπιτελεῖσθαι), and to take τάς τε
προσφορὰς καὶ λειτουργίας in appo-
sition with ὅσα, 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
δὲ προσφορὰς, as Tischendorf de-
ciphers A, but (unless I misread it)
it certainly has re, as also have CS.
On the Christian sense of προσφοραὶ
see the note on προσενεγκόντας τὰ
dapa § 44.

2. καιροῖς καὶ ὥραις] A pleonasm,
as in Dionys. de [socr. 14 (p. 561) μὴ
ἐν καιρῷ γίνεσθαι pnd ἐν ὥρᾳ, Plut.
Ages. 36 τοῦ καλοῦ καιρὸν οἰκεῖον
εἶναι καὶ ὥραν. The words differ only
so far, that καιρός refers to the 7tness,
apa to the appointedness, of the time.
Demosth. Olynth. il. p. 24 μηδένα
καιρὸν μηδ᾽ ὥραν παραλείπων shows
that ὥρα 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. ὑπερτάτῳ) I have not ventured
to alter the reading to ὑπερτάτῃ, since
even in classical writers compara-
tives and superlatives are sometimes
of two terminations; e.g. Thucyd. iii.
89, IOI, v. 71, 110, See Buttmann
Griech. Sprachl. § 60 anm. 5.

πάντα γινόμενα] I have struck out
ta before γινόμενα as a mere repe-
tition of the last syllable of πάντα

xt] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 123

\ > ~ 3 , 7 \ /
Tas προσφορὰς αὐτῶν εὐπρόσδεκτοί TE καὶ μακάριοι,
= - , a
τοῖς γὰρ νομίμοις τοῦ δεσπότου ἀκολουθοῦντες οὐ

7 ΄σ \ 5) ~ af /
διαμαρτανουσιν. Tw yap αρχίέερει ἴδιαι λειτουργίαι

[᾿ eee 2 \ = € ~ ἴδ ς
δεδομέναι ELC LV, KAL TOLS ἰιερευσιν ἰοιος O TOTOS

, \ ch AS ὃ , 5. ΠΕ
TPOTTETAKTAL, Kat λευΐταις lolat LaKOVLAL ETTLKELY-

εἶναι for εἴη. εἴη] A; add. πάντα C (thus repeating it a second time in the
sentence) ; for S see the last note.
9 ἀρχιερεῖ] AC; ἀρχιερεῦσιν S. This is probably due to a misapprehension of
the translator or of a scribe who supposed that the Christian bishops were meant.
10 ὁ τόπος] A; réros(om. 6) C. S translates as if it had read ἰδίοις τόποις.

tr λευΐταις...ἐπίκεινται] AC (but επικινται A); levitae in ministeriis propriis po-

6 mpooretaymévos| A; προσταγεῖσι (.

nuntur S.

and as interfering with the sense.
The omission of ra is confirmed by
the Syriac.

5. ἐν εὐδοκήσει) SC. τοῦ Θεοῦ. See
the note on ὃ 2. But possibly we
should here for E€YAOKHCEIEY-

IIPOCAEKTA read EYAOKHCEIOCY-
IIPOCAEKTA ; as in Epiphan. Haer.
Ixx. 10 (p. 822) εὐδοκήσει Θεοῦ.

9. τῷ yap ἀρχιερεῖ κιτ.λ.] This is
evidently an instance from the old
dispensation adduced to show that
God will have His ministrations per-
formed through definite Zersozs, just
as below (ὃ 41) οὐ πανταχοῦ x.t.d.
Clement draws an illustration from
the same source that He will have
them performed in the proper Places.
There is therefore no drect reference
to the Christian ministry in ἀρχιερεύς,
ἱερεῖς, Λευῖται, but it is an argument
by azalogy. Does the analogy then
extend to the ¢hvee 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 Philippians 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 ἐπισκόπων § 42,
and on ἐὰν κοιμηθῶσιν, διαδέξωνται
κιτιλ. ὃ 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 evde-
λεχισμοῦ ἢ εὐχῶν ἢ περὶ ἁμαρτίας καὶ
πλημμελείας below (§ 41), or to ἔπαρχοι,
χιλίαρχοι, ἑκατόνταρχοι, πεντηκόνταρχοι;
κιτιλ. above (ὃ 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 ¢hreefold 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. ἴδιος ὁ τόπος K.t.A.] ‘ The office
assigned to the priests ts special’.
On this sense of τύπος comp. below
ὃ 44 τοῦ ἱδρυμένου αὐτοῖς τόπου, and
see the notes on Ign. Polyc. 1 ἐκδίκει
σου Tov τύπον.

124.

THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

[XLI

e “. \ af σ΄ “. ΄- ,ὔ
ται: 0 λαϊκὸς ἄνθρωπος τοῖς λαϊκοῖς προστάγμασιν

δέδεται.

«“ἶ ς - ’ , > σι ΟΣ ΄
ΧΙ]. ἝὝκαστος ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί, ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ ταγ-

2 δέδεται] A; δέδοται CS.

I. λαϊκός] Comp. Clem. Hom. E-
pist. Cl. ὃ 5 οὕτως ἑκάστῳ λαϊκῷ ἅμαρ-
tia ἐστὶν κιτ.λ., Clem. Alex. Strom.
iii. 12 (p. 552) κἂν πρεσβύτερος 7 κἂν
διάκονος κἂν λαϊκός, 26. v. 6 (p. 665)
κώλυμα λαϊκῆς ἀπιστίας. In Tertul-
lian ‘laicus’ is not uncommon, e.g.
de Praescr. 41 ‘nam et laicis sa-
cerdotalia munera injungunt’. In
the LXX λαὸς is used not only in
contradistinction to ‘the Gentiles’
(see the note on § 29 above), but
also as opposed to (1) ‘The rulers’,
ep zChron: xxiv. 0, xxx. 24.) (2)
Geb hempriests . ἘΠῚ ixad: ΧΙΣ 27;
Mem 11 73. Avil. (1), 5: cxxivi. 2;
comp. Jer. xxxiv (xli). 19 τοὺς ἄρχοντας
᾿Ιούδα καὶ τοὺς δυνάστας καὶ τοὺς ἱερεῖς
καὶ τὸν λαόν. From this last contrast
comes the use of λαϊκὸς here. The
adjective however is not found in the
LXX, though in the other Greek ver-
sions we meet with λαϊκός ‘laic’ or
‘profane’ and λαϊκοῦν ‘to profane’,
Deut, ἘΣ Ὁ xxvii. 50) Ruth: 1. 12,
Τ can x4) dzek. vil. 22, xlvini. 1s.

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. εὐχαριστείτω)] The allusion here
is plainly to the public services of the
Church, where order had been violat-
ed. Thus εὐχαριστία will refer chiefly,

3 ὑμῶν] A; ἡμῶν CS.
A; εὐαρεστείτω CS. See the lower note.

4 εὐχαριστείτω]
συνειδήσει] συνειδησιν A. 5 μὴ

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 εὐχαριστία. 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; Philiy. ΟΣ "iva
li. I, etc.), and that of the Ignatian
Epistles (Phzlad. 4, Smyrn. 7) and of
Justin (AZo/. i. ὃ 66, p. 97 sq, Dial.
41, p. 260) where it is especially so
applied. For the ἴδιον τάγμα of the
people at the eucharistic feast see
Justin AZol. i. ὃ 65 (p. 97 Ὁ) οὗ (1.6.
TOU προεστῶτος τῶν ἀδελφῶν) συντελέ-
σαντος τὰς εὐχὰς καὶ τὴν εὐχαριστίαν
πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἐπευφημεῖ λέγων ᾿Αμήν...
εὐχαριστήσαντος δὲ τοῦ προεστῶτος καὶ
ἐπευφημήσαντος παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ κ.Οτ.λ.,
and again zd. ὃ 67 (p. 98 E). See
Harnack Der Christliche Gottesdienst
etc. (Erlangen, 1854).

Though the reading εὐαρεστείτω
is simpler, εὐχαριστείτω is doubtless
correct; comp. § 38 with Rom. xiv.
6, 1 Cor. xiv. 17. For another
instance of confusion between evapeo-
τεῖν and εὐχαριστεῖν in our authorities,
see § 62.

ev ἀγαθῇ συνειδήσει] Acts xxiii.
I, I Tim. i. 5, 19, 1 Pet. ii.=16.25e
comp. καλὴ συνείδησις, Heb. xiii. 18.
For an explanation of the reading
συνείδησιν in A see above ὃ 15.

6. κανόνα] Compare the metaphor
2 Cor. x. 13, 14) κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τοῦ
κανόνος and ὑπερεκτείνομεν: see also
the note on 8 7.

προσφέρονται) The present tense

XLI] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 125

/ Col PIE. “ 7
ματι εὐχαριστείτω Θεῴ ἐν ἀγαθῇ συνειδήσει ὑπάρχων,

\ , \ , = es
5 μὴ παρεκβαίνων τὸν ὡρισμένον τῆς λειτουργίας αὐτοῦ

/ / a 3
κανόνα, ἐν σεμνότητι. Οὐ πανταχοῦ, ἀδελφοί, προσφέ-

θ , > ὃ λ =~ N ᾽ ΄ * ie 2G 7 \
βρονται υσιαι EVOE εχίισμου 1] EUX WY 7 πέρι αμαρτιαᾶς Kal

παρεκβαίνων] AC (but παραικβαινων A); εἰ perficiens S.
6 προσφέρονται] AC; om. 5.

γιασ 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
προσφέρονται 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 Azz. ili. cc. 9,
1o (where the parallels to Clement’s
present tense προσφέρονται are far too
numerous to be counted), remember-
ing that the Aztguzties were pub-
lished A.D. 93, 1.6. 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. XVI. p. 338 sq (1848),
and the references in Derenbourg
LD Hist. et la Géogr. de la Palestine

λειτουργίας] λιτουρ-
7 εὐχῶν] A; προσευχῶν C.

Ρ. 480sq. Seealso Grimm in Zeztsch,
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 ἀπὸ τῶν θυσιῶν
kal ἀπὸ πάσης πλημμελείας καὶ περὶ
ἁμαρτιῶν, 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.

ἐνδελεχισμοῦ] ‘of continutty,
perpetuity’, the expression used in
the LXx 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 (εὐχῶν) and expiatory offer-
ings (περὶ ἁμαρτίας ἢ πλημμελείας).
Of the last two words ἁμαρτία denotes
the sin-offering (ANON) and πλημμέ-
λεια the trespass-offering (OWN). A
similar threefold division of sacrifices
is given by Philo de Vict. 4 (Il. p. 240)
TO OAOKAUTOV, TO σωτήριον, TO περὶ ἅμαρ-
tias, and by Josephus Azz. ill. 9. I sq
ἡ ὁλοκαύτωσις, ἡ χαριστήριος θυσία,
ἡ ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτάδων (passages referred to
in Jacobson’s notes); see also Ewald
Alterth. des Volkes Isr. p. 52 56.
Here the θυσία ἐνδελεχισμοῦ stands
for the ὁλοκαυτώματα generally, as
being the most prominent type; and
in the same way the θυσία εὐχῶν, as
a part for the whole, represents the
peace-offerings (σωτήρια in the LXxX
and Philo) which comprised two spe-
cies (Lev. vii. 11—17), the vow or

126 THE EPISTLE OF 5. CLEMENT [XLI

Δ 3 \ / ΄ \
πλημμελείας, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ μόνη" κἀκεῖ δὲ οὐκ
> \ / / > 2 of [οὶ les
ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ προσφέρεται, ἀλλ᾽ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ ναοῦ

\ , \ \ /
πρὸς τὸ θυσιαστήριον, μωμοσκοπηθὲν τὸ προσφερο-

\ oe
μενον διὰ TOU ἀρχιερέως

ἴω ε 3 \ \
ywv. οἱ ovy mapa To

΄“ / jd \ / ᾽
TOLOUVYTES τι θάνατον {9 σροστιμον εχουσιν.

I πλημμελείαΞ] πλημμελιασ A; πλημμελημάτων (. S has ἃ singular.
AS; om. C (as ἃ pleonasm after ἀλλ᾽ ἤ).
4 τῶν] AC; ceterorum 8.

Sacrificia 8.
5 βουλήσεως] A; βουλῆς C; dub. 5.

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.

εὐχῶν] The v. 1. προσευχῶν 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 εὐχῶν is unquestionably right ;
for more especially in the later lan-
guage, while προσευχή is ‘a prayer’
in the more comprehensive sense,
εὐχή is ‘a vow’ specially. In the
LXX προσευχή is commonly a render-
ing of n>pn, but εὐχὴ of ὙΠ) or Ἵ).
For εὐχή ‘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) προσεύχεσθαι is
used of the same act. But, though
εὐχὴ might undoubtedly be said of a
‘prayer, supplication’, it is not so evi-
dent conversely that προσευχή 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 εὐχῆς throughout, though
an ill-supported reading προσευχῆς

~~ /
Kal τῶν προειρημένων λείτουρ-
΄σ ΄σ Me > ~
καθῆκον τῆς βουλήσεως αὐτοῦ 5

Ὁρᾶτε,

μόνῃ]
2 προσφέρεται] AC; offeruntur

λειτουργῶν] λιτουργων Α.
7 ὅσῳ] AC; add. γὰρ 8. κατη-

occurs in one instance. In Ps. ixi
(Ix). 6, where the word is 973, the LXX
(with Symmachus) have προσευχῶν,
but Aquila more correctly εὐχῶν, 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. ἔμπροσθεν κιτ.λ.)] The ναὸς is
here the shrine, the holy-place ; the
θυσιαστήριον, the court of the altar:
see the note on Ign. Ephes. 5. The
ἱερὸν comprises both. This distinc-
tion of ναὸς and ἱερὸν is carefully
observed in the N.T.: see Trench
N.T. Synon. ist ser. ὃ iii.

3. μωμοσκοπηθὲν] ‘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 μῶμος. Doubtless the
choice of this rendering was partly
determined by its similarity in sound
to the Hebrew 0419, for otherwise it
is not a very obvious or natural equi-
valent. [A parallel instance is the
word σκηνή, chosen for the same rea-
sons, as a rendering of Shechinah,
and carrying with it all the signifi-
cance of the latter.] Hence ἄμωμος
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

ΧΙ]

TO THE CORINTHIANS. 127

x J / / , /
ἀδελφοί, ὅσω πλείονος κατηξιώθημεν γνώσεως, τοσούτῳ

~ /
μᾶλλον ὑποκείμεθα κινδύνῳ.

XLIT. Οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἡμῖν εὐηγγελίσθησαν ἀπὸ τοῦ

Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ

Θεοῦ ἐξεπέμφθη.

ε \ “4: 3 \ > > Χ e
ὁ Χριστὸς οὖν ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ot

ξιώθημεν] καταξιωθημεν A, as Tisch. (pref. p. xix) reads it, but I could not see dis-

tinctly.
(om. 6) C.

μωμοσκόπος, μωμοσκοπεῖν, Which seem
to be confined to Jewish and Christian
writers: Philo de Agric. 29 (I. p. 320)
ous ἔνιοι μωμοσκόπους ὀνομάζουσιν, iva
ἄμωμα καὶ ἀσινῆ προσάγηται τῷ βωμῷ
τὰ ἱερεῖα κιτ.λ., Polyc. Phil. 4 πάντα
μωμοσκοπεῖται, Clem. Alex. Strom. iv.
18 (p. 617) ἦσαν δὲ κἀν ταῖς τῶν θυσιῶν
προσαγωγαῖς παρὰ τῷ νόμῳ οἱ ἱερείων
μωμοσκόποι, Apost. Const. ii. 3. γέ-
γραπται γάρ, Μωμοσκοπεῖσθε τὸν μέλ-
λοντα εἰς ἱερωσύνην προχειρίζεσθαι (a
paraphrase of Lev. xxi. 17).

4. ἀρχιερέως] Wotton suggests
ἱερέως, ‘quum sacerdotum inferioris
ordinis potius quam summi sacerdotis
Sit τὰς θυσίας μωμοσκοπεῖν᾽ ; but διὰ
τοῦ ἀρχιερέως x.t-A. belongs rather to
προσφέρεται than to μωμοσκοπηθέν, 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
διὰ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως κιτ.λ. 15 Comprehen-
Sive, so as to include all sacrifices.

5. τὸ καθῆκον κ-τ.λ.] ‘the seemly or-
dinance of Azs will.’ For the geni-
tive comp. Plut. 7707. p. 617 E ἐκ τῶν
‘Ounpov τὸ θεώρημα τοῦτο λαμβάνων
καθηκόντων.

6. τὸ πρόστιμον] 2 Macc. vii. 36.
᾿Επιτίμιον ᾿Αττικῶς, πρόστιμον Ἕλλη-
νικῶς Moeris 5. ν. ἐπιτίμιον. This is one

9 εὐηγγελίσθησαν] AC; evangelizaverunt (active) 5, Hilgenfeld
wrongly gives the reading of C ευαγγελίσθησαν.

το ὁ Χριστὸς] A; χριστὸς

11 ἐξεπέμφθη.. ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ] AS; om. C (by homceoteleuton).

among many instances of the excep-
tional character of the Attic dialect,
for πρόστιμον 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.7..] This sentence is
quoted by Clem. Alex. S¢vom. iv. 16
(p. 613).

7. γνώσεως] See the note on ra
βάθη τῆς θείας γνώσεως § 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.’

9. εὐηγγελίσθησαν] ‘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 ἡμῖν will be ‘for our
sakes’, It might bea question however
whether we should not read ἡμῶν, as
in the opening of § 44.

11. ἐξεπέμφθη) 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 οὖν

128 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xLu

ἀπόστολοι ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ" ἐγένοντο οὖν ἀμφότερα
εὐτάκτως ἐκ θελήματος Θεοῦ. παραγγελίας οὖν λαβόν-
τες καὶ πληροφορηθέντες διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ Κυ-
ρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ πιστωθέντες ἐν τῷ λόγῳ
τοῦ Θεοῦ μετὰ πληροφορίας πνεύματος ἁγίου ἐξῆλθον,
εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ μέλλειν ἔρ-
χεσθαι. κατὰ χώρας οὖν καὶ πόλεις κηρύσσοντες καθ-

/ a} \ ’ ΄σ΄ / ΄-΄ ,
tOTQAVOVY τας ἀπαρχας αὐτῶν, δοκιμάσαντες Tw TW VEU-

> ’ / 4 ὃ td ΄σ /
ματι, εἰς ἐπισκόπους Kal διακόνους τῶν μελλοντων

2 λαβόντες] AC; add. οἱ ἀπόστολοι 8.

4 ἡμῶν] A; om. C; dub. 5

(WD being the common rendering of ὁ Κύριος as well as of ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν).

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 ὁ Χριστὸς οὖν 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 7
πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥήματος
Χριστοῦ, I Cor. ill. 23 ὑμεῖς δὲ Χριστοῦ,
Χριστὸς δὲ Θεοῦ ; comp. also Rom. v.
τ τ ἰΘΌτο νι 13; \Gal. ἢ τὸ. My
punctuation has been accepted by
Gebhardt and WHarnack and _ by
Hilgenfeld (ed. 2), and is now con-
firmed by the Syriac version. For
the thought see Joh. xvi. 18 καθὼς
ἐμὲ ἀπέστειλας eis τὸν κόσμον, κἀγὼ
ἀπέστειλα αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ΧΧ. 21
καθὼς ἀπέσταλκέν με ὁ πατήρ, κἀγὼ
πέμπω ὑμᾶς. 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. παραγγελίας] ‘word of com-
mand’, received as from a superior
officer that it may be passed on to
others ; as e.g. Xen. Cyr. ii. 4. 2, iv.
Ber:

4. πιστωθέντες] 2 Tim. ili. 14 μένε
ev ois ἔμαθες καὶ ἐπιστώθης.

5. μετὰ πληροφορίας κ-τ.λ.} ‘wth
jirm conviction inspired ὧν the
floly Ghost’: comp. 1 Thess. i. 5 ἐν
πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ
πολλῇ.

7. καθίστανον] The same word is
used in Tit. 1.5 καταστήσης κατὰ πόλιν
πρεσβυτέρους. Both forms of the im-
perfect καθίστανον (from ἱστάνω) and
καθίστων (from ἱστάω) 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, καθεστανον
and καθιστᾶν.

χώρας] ‘country districts’, as op-
posed to towns ; comp. Luke xxi. 21,
Joh. iv. 35, Acts viii. 1, James v. 4.
Hence the ancient title ywperioxoros ;
see Philippians p. 230.

8. τὰς ἀπαρχὰς αὐτῶν] ‘the firsi-
Srutts of their preaching’ ; or perhaps
αὐτῶν refers not to the Apostles but
to the χώραι καὶ πόλεις, and is like the
genitives in Rom. xvi. 5 ὅς ἐστιν
ἀπαρχὴ τῆς ᾿Ασίας, 1 Cor. xvi. 15 ὅτι
ἐστὶν ἀπαρχὴ τῆς ᾿Αχαΐας, which pas-
sages Clement may have had in his
mind.

δοκιμάσαντες] 1 Tim. iii. 10 δοκι-

unr

XLU1] TO THE CORINTHIANS.

129

/ ; \ “- ΄“ ΄
το πιστεύειν. καὶ τοῦτο οὐ καινῶς, ἐκ yop δὴ πολλῶν

χρόνων ἐγέγραπτο περὶ ἐπισκόπων καὶ διακόνων'
οὕπως γάρ σου λέγει ἡ γραφή" Κατδοτήσοω Toyc ἐπι-
οκόπογο AYT@N ἐν AIKAIOCYNH KAl TOYC AIAKONOYC AYTON
ΕΝ TICTEl.

15 XLII.

/ A ~ x} ΄σ /
πιστευθέντες παρὰ Θεοῦ ἔργον τοιοῦτο κατεστησαν

\ 7 \ > ε > ΄
Καὶ τί θαυμαστὸν εἰ οἱ ἐν Χριστῷ
έ
\ lA .« \ , \ ͵
TOUS προειρημένους 5 ποὺ Και ὁ μακάριος πιοτὸς θερὰ-
> ΄ a >» oe ἔς \ ΚΣ
TWN EN ὁλῷ τῷ οικῷ Movons Ta διατεταγμένα αὐτῷ
έ

8 τῷ πνεύματι] AC; spirit
Io καινώς] AC; κενῶς 5.

7 καθίστανον] καθεστανον A; καθιστᾶν C.
sancto (or rather sanctos, for the word has γχὀρ) 5.

12 οὕτως] AC, but Bryennios tacitly writes οὕτω ; see the note on § 56.

μαζέσθωσαν πρῶτον, εἶτα διακονείτωσαν:
see below § 44 διαδέξωνται ἕτεροι
δεδοκιμασμένοι ἄνδρες.

τῷ πνεύματι] ‘by the Spirit’, which
is the great searcher, 1 Cor. il. Io.

9. ἐπισκόπους] 1.6. πρεσβυτέρους ;
for Clement thrice mentions ἐπίσκοποι
καὶ διάκονοι in conjunction (as in Phil.
i. I σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις), 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
ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος 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. 191 56:

12. Καταστήσω |Loosely quoted from
LXX Is. lx. 17 δώσω τοὺς ἄρχοντάς σου
ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ τοὺς ἐπισκόπους σου ἐν
δικαιοσύνῃ. Thus the introduction of
the διάκονοι 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 ἐπίσκοπος, ‘a
task-master’, see Philippians 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. πιστευθέντες] ‘entrusted with’.
The construction πιστεύεσθαί τι is
common in S: Paul; Rom: ii. 2;
τ Cor, ig, 17) Galeri: 75,8) 1) hess. 11: ἡ.
Kiet Ds 10: 153:

17. πιστὸς θεράπων κ-.τ.λ.] From
Heb. ill. 5 Μωῦσῆς μὲν πιστὸς ἐν ὅλῳ
τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ ὡς θεράπων, where there
is a reference to Num. xii. 7 οὐχ
οὕτως ὁ θεράπων μου Μωῦσῆς ἐν ὅλῳ
τῷ οἴκῳ μου πιστός ἐστιν. ON θεράπων
see above § 4. For the combination
of epithets here comp. Justin Dza/. 56
(p. 274) Μωῦσῆς οὖν ὁ μακάριος καὶ
πιστὸς θεράπων Θεοῦ κ.τ.λ.

9

130 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XLq1

/ > i > a ε a 7 ν \
πάντα ἐσημειώσατο ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς βίβλοις, w καὶ
/ \ ΄σ ~
ἐπηκολούθησαν οἱ λοιποὶ προφῆται συνεπιμαρτυροῦντες
΄σ > ~ / ΄- Vf 7
τοῖς Um αὐτοῦ νενομοθετημένοις. ἐκεῖνος yap, ζήλου
~~ 7 γε ~~
ἐμπεσόντος περὶ τῆς ἱερωσύνης Kal στασιαζουσῶν τῶν
΄ ΄σ sf =~ 3 / / /
φυλῶν ὁποία αὐτῶν εἴη τῷ ἐνδόξῳ ὀνόματι κεκοσμημε-
5, \ 7 la ΄
vn, ἐκέλευσεν τοὺς δώδεκα φυλάρχους προσενεγκεῖν
ITO ῥαβὸ : : ἑκάσ υλῆς κατ᾽
αὐτῷ ῥάβδους ἐπιγεγραμμένας ἑκάστης φυλῆς
af \ \ > \ of \ > / ΄
ὄνομα: καὶ λαβὼν αὐτὰς ἔδησεν καὶ ἐσφραάγισεν τοῖς
͵ = r eo a BN 3 ι
δακτυλίοις τῶν φυλάρχων, καὶ ἀπέθετο αὐτὰς εἰς THY
= , \ \ , κ A
σκηνὴν τοῦ μαρτυρίου ἐπὶ THY τράπεζαν τοῦ Θεοῦ:
\ 7 \ \ 3 7 \ aA ε 7
Kat κλείσας τὴν σκηνὴν ἐσφραγισεν τὰς κλεῖδας ὡσαύ-

\ \ , \ > 3 ΄σ 3 ? ἢ
τως καὶ τὰς θύρας" καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς" “ANApec ἀδελφοί,

Hc ἂν φγλῆς ἢ BdBAoc BAdcTHCH, ταύτην EKAEAEKTAI ὁ

Θεὸς εἰς TO ἱεράτεύειν κἀὶ λειτουργεῖν AYTO. πρωΐας
I ἐσημειώσατο] ἐεσημιωσατο A.

5 φυλῶν] AC; add. πασῶν [τοῦ] ᾿Ισραήλ 8.

8 αὐτὰς] AS; αὐτὸς (.

ἐσφράγισεν.

See I. p. I40.

2 ἐπηκολούθησαν] A; ἠκολούθησαν C.
κεκοσμημένη] κεκοσμήημενω A.

τοῖς] A; ἐν τοῖς C, a repetition of the last syllable of

11 κλείσας] κλισασ A. 12 θύρα9] 5; ῥάβδους AC.
15 Tov] A; om. C. 16 ἐπεδείξατο] ...δείξατο A;

I. ἐσημειώσατο] ‘recorded as a_ see above § 36.
sign’: comp. § II εἰς κρίμα καὶ εἰς 7. ἑκάστης φυλῆς} For the geni-
σημείωσιν πάσαις ταῖς γενεαῖς γίνονται. tive of the thing inscribed after ém-
Soin the narrative to which Clement γράφειν comp. Plut. 7707. 400 E τὸν
here refers, Num. xvii. 10 ἀπόθες τὴν ἐνταῦθα τουτονὶ θησαυρὸν ἐπιγράψαι τῆς

ῥάβδον ᾿Δαρὼν...σημεῖον τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν
ἀνηκόων.

ἱεραῖς] On this epithet see below,
ὃ 53.

2. οἱ λοιποὶ προφῆται] Moses ap-
pears as the leader of the prophetic
band, who prophesied of the Messiah,
in Deut. xvill. 15, as emphasized in
Acts iii. 21 sq, vii. 13.

3. ἐκεῖνος yap κιτ.λ.] The lesson
of this narrative is drawn out also by
Joseph. Anz. iv. 4. 2, and by Philo
Vit. Moys. iii. 21 (11. p. 162).

5. ὀνόματι] i.e. ‘dignity, office’, sc.
τῆς ἱερωσύνης ; aS ὃ 44 ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος
τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς. On this sense of ὄνομα

πόλεως.
be governed by κατ᾽ ὄνομα.

8. ἔδησεν κιτ.λ.}] This incident,
with the following ἐσφράγισεν τὰς
κλεῖδας ὡσαύτως, is not given in the
biblical narrative (Num. xvii). It
seems however to be intended by
Josephus (l.c.) τῶν τότε (te?) ἀνδρῶν
κατασημηναμένων αὐτάς, οἵπερ ἐκόμιζον,
καὶ τοῦ πλήθους, though his language
is obscure. Comp. Xen. /Ve//. iii. 1.
27 κατέκλεισεν αὐτὰ καὶ κατεσημήνατο
καὶ φύλακας κατέστησεν.

II. ὡσαύτως καὶ] So also ὁμοίως
καὶ Ign. Ephes. 16, το, Tradl. 13.

18. προεῖλεν] “ took out’. For this

Here however φυλῆς might —

unt

XLiv] TO THE CORINTHIANS.

121

Ι \ , , , \ 5 ἢ \
τὸ δὲ γενομένης συνεκάλεσεν πάντα τὸν ᾿Ισραήλ, τὰς

on

\ af
| 20 καρπον εχουσα.

ἑξακοσίας χιλιάδας τῶν ἀνδρών, καὶ ἐπεδείξατο τοῖς

΄ of λ ~

φυλάρχοις τὰς σφραγῖδας καὶ ἤνοιξεν THY σκηνὴν τοῦ

7 \ ~ \ δυ ἢ ὃ ν Α εν ε

μαρτυρίου καὶ προεῖλεν τὰς ῥάβδους: καὶ εὑρέθη ἡ
/ ΄: 5

ῥάβδος ᾿λαρὼν οὐ μόνον βεβλαστηκυῖα ἀλλὰ καὶ

τί δοκεῖτε, ἀγαπητοί; οὐ προήδει

ἐ

ee ~~ ~~ a/ i ᾽ >

Μωὺῦσῆς τοῦτο μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι; μάλιστα oer’ ἀλλ

ἵνα μὴ ἀκαταστασία γένηται ἐν τῷ ᾿Ισραήλ, οἵπως

> / > \ “ Naresh ΄- > ΄σ \
ἐποίησεν εἰς TO δοξασθῆναι TO ὄνομα τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ καὶ

/ Lal ec e / > \ IA ΄ Sk
μονου Θεοῦ" ω 2] δόξα εἰς TOUS ALWYAS Τῶν ALWYW).

3 4

ἀμήν.

XLIV. Καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἡμῶν ἔγνωσαν διὰ τοῦ

Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅτι ἔρις ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ

ἐπέδειξε C.
προεῖλε Ο; sustulit S.

17 τὰς σφραγῖδας] AC; om. 5.
20 δοκεῖτε] δοκειται Α.

18 προεῖλεν] προε.... A;
23 εἰς TO] A;

ὥστε C and so apparently 5. The variation is to be explained by the uncial letters,

EICTO, WCTE.
read τοῦ μόνου ἀληθινοῦ Θεοῦ.

sense of the active προαιρεῖν see Judith
Xlii. 15 προελοῦσα τὴν κεφαλὴν ἐκ τῆς
πήρας. Though it occurs compara-
tively seldom, it is a strictly classical
use, 6 penu promere; see the com-
mentators on Thucyd. viii. 90. The
much commoner form is the middle
voice with a different sense, προαιρεῖσ-
θαι pracferre, eligere.

20. ov προήδει κιτ.λ.] This passage
is loosely quoted or rather abridged
and paraphrased by one Joannes.
The quotation is given in Sfcc?/.
Solesm. 1. Ὁ. 293 (see above, I. p. 187).

23. τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ κιτ.λ.1 Comp. Joh.
XVii. 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

24 Θεοῦ] S; def. A; Κυρίου C. S translates as if it had
27 Κυρίου] ky CS; yy A.
ἔσται] AC; but S seems to have read ἐστιν.

ἔρις] ερεισ A.
ἐπὶ] A; περὶ 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. ἡμῶν] Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 2 τῆς
τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν ἐντολῆς, where
ὑμῶν (not ἡμῶν) is the correct reading,
as quoted by Hilgenfeld ; so that it is
an exact parallel to Clement’s expres-
sion. See the note on τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς
ἀποστόλους ἃ 5.

27. ἔρις ἔσται k.t-A.] See Tert. de
Bapt. 17 ‘episcopatus aemulatio scis-
matum mater est’, quoted by Har-
nack,

τοῦ ὀνόματος k.T.A.] On ὄνομα see
above S§ 36, 43. The ἐπισκοπὴ here
is of course the ‘ office of presbyter’,
asin, 1 ΤΊΤΩ. iii. 1.

9--2

132

ὀνόματος τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς.

THE EPISTLE OF ὅ. CLEMENT

[XLIV

A A , Ὁ» \ a ἢν
la TaAVTHV OVV THV ALTLAY

, 3 / , / \
προγνωσιν εἰληφότες τελείαν κατέστησαν τοὺς προει-

1 oy] AC; om. S.

3 μεταξὺ] μετοξυ A.

ἐπιμονὴν] επινομην] A;

ἐπιδομὴν C. S translates δ im medio (interim) super probatione (ἐπὶ δοκιμὴν or ἐπὶ

δοκιμῇ) dederunt etiam hoc ita ut st homines ex wis ete.

2. Tous προειρημένους] SC. ἐπισκό-
πους καὶ διακόνους, ὃ 42.

3. μεταξὺ] ‘afterwards’; comp.
Acts xiii. 42 εἰς τὸ μεταξὺ σάββατον,
Barnab. § 13 εἶδεν δὲ Ἰακὼβ τύπον τῷ
πνεύματι τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ μεταξύ, Theoph.
ad Axtol. i. 8, iii. 21, 23. See also
the references in Meyer’s note to
Acts l.c.

ἐπιμονὴν δεδώκασιν] ‘have given
permanence to the office’: comp.
Athenag. de Resurr. 18 δεῖται δὲ δια-
δοχῆς διὰ THY τοῦ γένους διαμονήν.
For ἐπιμονή (which occurs occasion-
ally also in classical writers of this
age) see Epist. Gall. ὃ 6 in Euseb.
v. 1, Tatian ad Graec. 32. This read-
ing was adopted by Bunsen, but he
wrongly interpreted it ‘life-tenure’
(see Zenat. von Antioch, etc. p. 96
sq, Wippolytus 1. p. 45 2nd ed); and
it has consequently found no favour.
The original author of this emenda-
tion ἐπιμονήν is mentioned by Ussher
(Ignat. Zpzs¢. proleg. p. cxxxvii) who
quoting the passage adds this note
in his margin; “ἐπιμονὴν D. Petrus
Turnerus [Savilian Professor at Ox-
ford, ¢ 1651] hic legit, ut continuatio
episcopatus ab apostolis stabilita
significetur; quod Athanasiano illi,
καὶ βέβαια μένει, bene respondet’.
Other suggestions, ἐπιλογήν, ἐπιτρο-
πήν, ἐπισκοπήν, ἐπιστολήν, ἀπονομήν, ἔτι
νόμον, are either inappropriate or di-
verge too widely from the authorities.
It seems impossible to assign any fit
sense to the reading ἐπινομὴν 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 (AAlian A. A. xii.
32), (2) ‘a bandage’ Galen XVIII. 1.
Ῥ. 791 (Kuhn)and frequently (see Hase
in Steph. Thes.). 1t might also consis-
tently with its derivation have the
sense ‘distribution, assignment’, like
ἐπινέμησις. 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
ἐπινομὴ the known meaning of ém-
vouis, ‘an after enactment’, ‘a codicil’
(so Rothe Anfange p. 374 sq; see
the note on κοιμηθῶσιν). 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
εδωκασιν after show that the scribe
of A wrote carelessly at this point.
Hilgenfeld (ed. 2), not knowing the
reading of S, conjectured ἐπὶ δοκιμῇ,
which he explains’ καὶ μεταξὺ
(‘jam conditis ecclesiis’) ἐπὶ δοκιμῇ
ἔδωκαν (τὸ ὄνομα τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς) ὅπως
(‘hac ratione inducta’) κιτιλ., adding
‘jam ecclesiarum ai ἀπαρχαὶ 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 ἐπινομὴν is retained by Laurent,
who explains it ‘adsignatio muneris
episcopalis’ (a meaning of ἐπινομὴ
which though possible is unsup-
ported, and which even if allowable

XLIV]

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

129

/ \ \ > \ ὃ ὃ y 4 BN
ρήμένους, καὶ μεταξυ ἐπιμονῆήν δεδώκασιν ὅπως, ἐὰν

κοιμηθῶσιν, διαδέξωνται ἕτεροι δεδοκιμασμένοι ἄνδρες

δεδώκασιν] εδωκασιν A; ἔδωκαν C.
and similarly S inserts hommes ex 115.

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 ἐπιβολήν. Hagemann (Δ ὃ-
mische Kirche p. 684) conjectures
ἐπινομίν, “ἃ. h. wenn diese Form des
Accusativs von erwopis nachgewiesen
werden k6nnte’; and Hort quite
independently suggested to me ‘ ém-
vopioa, or conceivably but improbably
ἐπίνομιν, as we have both χάριτα and
χάριν, νήστιδα and νῆστιν, κλεῖδα and
κλεῖν, and refers to Philo de (γεαί.
Princ. 4 (11. p. 363 M.) where Deu-
teronomy is so called (comp. Quzs
rer. div. 33, 51, 1. Pp. 495, 509).
Donaldsen conjectures ἐπίδομα ‘an
addition’ (Zheol. Rev. Jan. 1877, p.
45), and Lipsius ἐπιταγήν (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. Ὁ.
293) considers that ‘forma’ here repre-
sents ἐπινομή (so too even Ewald
Gesch. Vil. p. 269), congratulating
himself that the sense of ἐπινομὴ 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 ἐπινομή.

4 κοιμηθῶσιν] A; τινες κοιμηθῶσιν C,
dvdpes] AS; om. C.

For εδωκασιν it is a question whe-
ther we should read δεδώκασιν or
ἔδωκαν. The former involves a less
change, and the transition from the
aorist (κατέστησαν) to the perfect
(δεδώκασιν) may be explained by the
fact that the consequences of this
second act are permanent.

4. κοιμηθῶσιν] sc. of προειρημένοι,
i.e. the first generation of presbyters
appointed by the Apostles themselves;
and αὐτῶν too will refer to these
same persons. Rothe (l.c.) refers
both to the Apostles themselves.
He assumes Clement to be here de-
scribing the establishment of episco-
pacy properly so called, and supposes
ἐπινομή, which he translates ‘after-
enactment’, to refer to a second
Apostolic Council convened for this
purpose. I have discussed this theory
at length elsewhere (PAzlippzans Ὁ.
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 (καθίστανον
δοκιμάσαντες ὃ 42), and afterwards
(μεταξύ) provided for a succession so
that vacancies by death should be
filled by other approved men (ἕτεροι
δεδοκιμασμένοι ἄνδρες). The presby-
ters at Corinth, who had been rudely
ejected from office, belonged to these
two classes: some were appointed
directly by the Apostles (karacradevras
ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων) ; others belonged to the
second generation, having been ap-
pointed by the persons thus immedi-
ately connected with the Apostles
(κατασταθέντας ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρων ἐλλογίμων
ἀνδρῶν).

134 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

[XLIVv

\ la \ ὌΝ ΄ ?

τὴν λειτουργίαν αὐτῶν. τοὺς οὖν κατασταθέντας UT

3 ’ a\ \ ε aie / ? / 3 aA

ἐκείνων 4 peTagu ὑφ᾽ ἑτερων ελλογίμων ἀνδρῶν, συνευ-

΄ 3 if te

δοκησάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας πάσης, καὶ λειτουργήσαντας
7 ΄- qn A \

ἀμέμπτως TO ποιμνίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ ταπεινοῴρο-
[4 ε / ᾽ if

σύνης ἡσύχως Kal ἀβαναύσως, μεμαρτυρημένους TE πολ-
an \ £ , ὩΣ he sf

λοῖς χρόνοις ὑπὸ πάντων, τούτους οὐ δικαίως νομίζομεν

2 μεταξὺ] μετοξυ Α.
γήσανταΞ] λιτουργησαντασ A.
μένους] μεμαρτυρημενοισ Α.

I. τοὺς οὖν κατασταθέντας κατ.λ.]
This notice assists to determine the
chronology of the epistle. Some of
those appointed by the Apostles had
died (οἱ προοδοιπορήσαντες), but others
were still living (οἱ κατασταθέντες ὑπ᾽
ἐκείνων). See the introduction, I. p.
349. Here again μεταξὺ means ‘after-
wards’, as above.

2. συνευδοκησάσης κ-τ.λ.] 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 4 2257.
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. τῷ ποιμνίῳ tod Χριστοῦ] The
phrase occurs again §§ 54, 57 (comp.
§ 16). See also Acts xx. 28, 29, 1 Pet.
ieee

5. dBavavoas | ‘unassumingly’. The
adjective occurs Afost. Const. 11. 3
ἔστω δὲ εὔσπλαγχνος, ἀβάναυσος, aya-
πητικός, Where again it refers to
the qualifications for the ministry.
See below ὃ 49 οὐδὲν βάναυσον ἐν
ἀγάπῃ, οὐδὲν ὑπερήφανον, Clem. Alex.
Paed. iii. 6 (p. 273) μεταδοτέον φιλαν-
θρώπως, οὐ βαναύσως οὐδὲ ἀλαζονικῶς,
Job xli. 26 (Theod.) υἱοὶ βαναυσίας
(Heb. ὙΠ ‘pride, arrogance’). In

ἀνδρών] AC; add. ἐκλελεγμένους S.
5 aBavatows] aBavdows C.

Te] AC; om. S.

3 λειτουρ-
μεμαρτυρη-
6 τούτου:] AC; add.

Arist. Eth. Nic. ii. 7, iv. 2, Bavav-
σία is the excess of μεγαλοπρέπεια
‘lavish profusion’, the result of vz/-
garity. Somewhat similar is the
sense which the word has here and
in the passages quoted, ‘vulgar self-
assertion ’.

8. ἀμέμπτως καὶ ὁσίως] So 1 Thess.
ii, IO.

προσενεγκόντας τὰ δώρα] What
does Clement mean by sacrifices, by
gifts (δῶρα) 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 θυσία τῷ Θεῷ πνεῦμα συντετριμμέ-
νον, S$ 35, 36 θυσία αἰνέσεως δοξάσει
με καὶ ἐκεῖ ὁδὸς ἣ δείξω αὐτῷ τὸ σωτή-
ριον τοῦ Θεοῦ: αὕτη ἡ ὁδός, ἀγαπητοί,
ἐν 7 εὕρομεν τὸ σωτήριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν
Χριστὸν τὸν ἀρχιερέα τῶν προσφορῶν
ἡμῶν, τὸν προστάτην καὶ βοηθὸν τῆς
ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν, ὃ 41 ἕκαστος ὑμῶν,
ἀδελφοί, ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι εὐχαρισ-
τείτω τῷ Θεῷ ἐν ἀγαθῇ συνειδήσει
ὑπάρχων, μὴ παρεκβαίνων τὸν ὡρισμένον
τῆς λειτουργίας αὐτοῦ κανόνα, ὃ 52
θῦσον τῷ Θεῷ θυσίαν αἰνέσεως καὶ
ὑπόδος τῷ ὑψίστῳ τὰς εὐχάς σου κιτ.λ.
These passages are illustrated by
Heb. xiii. 15, 16, δι᾿ αὐτοῦ οὖν (i.e.
διὰ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως Ἰησοῦ, vv. 11, 12)
ἀναφέρωμεν θυσίαν αἰνέσεως διὰ παν-
τὸς τῷ Θεῷ, τουτέστιν, καρπὸν χειλέων
ὁμολογούντων τῷ ὀνύματι αὐτοῦ" τῆς

XLIv] TO THE CORINTHIANS. £35

’ \ ? \

ἁμαρτία yap οὐ μικρὰ
΄ af \ \ i \ ε /

ἡμῖν ἔσται, ἐαν TOUS ἀμέμπτως καὶ OTLWS TPOTEVEY-

ἀποβάλλεσθαι τῆς λειτουργίας.

/ \ ΄σ ΄σ > a 7 7
κόντας τὰ δώρα τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀποβάλωμεν. μακάριοι
΄ / / af
οἱ προοδοιπορήσαντες πρεσβύτεροι, οἵτινες ἔγκαρπον
\ / af \ > / 4 3 \ ΕῚ ΄
καὶ τελείαν ἐσχον THY ἀναλυσιν" οὐ yap εὐλαβοῦνται

οὖν S.
in 5. See the lower note.
AS; ἐστίν C.

δὲ εὐποιΐας καὶ κοινωνίας μὴ ἐπιλανθά-
νεσθε, τοιαύταις γὰρ θυσίαις εὐαρεστεῖ-
ται ὁ Θεός, 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. Const.
Apost. ii. 25 ai τότε θυσίαι νῦν εὐχαὶ
καὶ δεήσεις καὶ εὐχαριστίαι, ai τότε
ἀπαρχαὶ καὶ δεκάται καὶ ἀφαιρέματα
καὶ δῶρα νῦν προσφοραὶ αἱ διὰ τῶν
ὁσίων ἐπισκόπων προσφερόμε-
ναι Κυρίῳ κιτιλ., ὃ 27 προσήκει οὖν
καὶ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, θυσίας ὑμῶν ἤτοι
προσφορὰς τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ προσφέ-
ρειν ὡς ἀρχιερεῖ κιτιλ., ὃ 34 τοὺς
καρποὺς ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν
ὑμῶν εἰς εὐλογίαν ὑμῶν προσφέροντες
αὐτῷ (SC. τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ)...τὰ δῶρα ὑμῶν
διδόντες αὐτῷ ὡς ἱερεῖ Θεοῦ, ὃ 35 μη-
κέτι ἐάσας ὑμᾶς (ὁ Θεός) θύειν ἄλογα
ζῶα...οὐ δήπου καὶ τῶν εἰσφορῶν ὑμᾶς
ἠλευθέρωσεν ὧν ὀφείλετε τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν
καὶ τῶν εἰς τοὺς δεομένους εὐποιϊῶν
κιτιλ., § 53 δῶρον δέ ἐστι Θεῷ ἡ ἑκάστου
προσευχὴ καὶ εὐχαριστία. 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 ἀποβάλλεσθαι] C; ἀποβαλεσθαι A.
λειτουργίας] λιτουργιασ A.
9. μακάριοι] AC; add. γὰρ 5.

It is rendered by an active verb
8 ἔσται]

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 H6fling de Lehre der altesten
Kirche vom Opfer etc. p. ὃ sq (Er-
langen 1851).

10. ἔγκαρπον x.t.A.] The same com-
bination of epithets occurs again §
56 ἔσται αὐτοῖς ἔγκαρπος καὶ τελεία ἡ
πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν k.T.A.

11. τελείαν] i.e. ‘2% mature, ripe
age’, so that it has borne fruit (ἔγκαρ-
πον). Comp. the compound τελειο-
καρπεῖν Which occurs several times in
Theophrastus (e.g. AH7zst. 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.

τὴν ἀνάλυσιν] ‘their departure’ ;
comp: Phil. 1..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 προοδοιπορήσαντες.

οὐκ εὐλαβοῦνται μή] ‘they have no
Jear lest’: comp. 1 Mace. iii. 30, xii.
40 (v.1.). In Acts xxiii, 10 εὐλαβη-
θεὶς is a false reading,

136 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XLIV

’ \ lf ἂν ~ e , ~
μὴ τις αὐτους μεταστησήη ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱδρυμένου αὐτοῖς
J, 7 \ 4 7 ~~ uf ~
τόπου. ὁρώμεν yap OTL ἐνίους ὑμεῖς μετηγάγετε καλῶς

/ > ΄σ / a /
πολιτευομένους EK τῆς ἀμέμπτως αὐτοῖς + TETLUNMEVNS T

λειτουργίας.

XLV. φΦιλόνεικοι ἔστε, ἀδελφοί, καὶ ζηλωταὶ περὶ

΄ι , 3 /
τῶν ἀνηκοντων εἰς σωτηρίαν.

, / 3 A
EVKEKUPATE εἰς Tas

γραφάς, τὰς ἀληθεῖς, tas [Oia] τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ

2 μετηγάγετε] μεταγαγετε Α.

2 πολιτευομένους] AS; πολιτευσαμένους Ὁ.

ἀμέμπτως] AC; om. S, perhaps from a feeling that it was not appropriate with

τετιμημένης.
ἔστε) εσται Α.

S inserts a negative. See the lower note.
τὰς γραφάς] A; τὰς ἱερὰς γραφάς CS. This is probably

C; εἰ ἐγκεκύφατε S.

taken from ὃ 53 ἐπίστασθε τὰς ἱερὰς γραφὰς... καὶ ἐγκεκύφατε κ.τ.λ.
No better way of filling the lacuna in A

τοῦ] CS; def. A: see the lower note.

2. τόπου] On the place of the de-
parted see the note on ὃ 5. There is
here also an allusion to the other
sense, ‘office’; see § 4o (with the
note).

3. tretiunuernst] ‘respected by
them’. So all the authorities. But
I am disposed to read rernpnyévns:
comp. I Thess. v. 23 duéurras...rnpn-
Gein. 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 τετιμημένης, explaining it ‘offi-
cio quo inculpabiliter ac legitime
honorati erant’, and supposing that
τιμᾶν τινί τι Can mean ‘aliquid alicui
tamquam honorem tribuere’. But
the passages quoted by them, which
seem to favour this meaning, Pind.
Ol. []. Pyth.] iv. 270 Παιάν τέ σοι τιμᾷ
φάος, Soph. Anz. 514 ἐκείνῳ δυσσεβῆ
τιμᾷς χάριν [comp. also “17. 675], are
highly poetical. Moreover even in
these the expression must be referred
to the original meaning of τιμᾶν, ‘to
respect (and so ‘to scrupulously ob-

4 λειτουργίας] λιτουργειασ A.
6 τῶν ἀνηκόντων] C (as I had conjectured); .. ανηκοντων A,

5 Φιλόνεικοι] φιλονικοι A,
ἐνκεκύφατε] ev...... τε As ἐγκεκύφατε

7 τὰς διὰ

serve’) a thing for a person’ (comp.
e.g. Eur. Orest. 828 πατρῴαν τιμῶν
χάριν with Soph. Azz. l.c.); and thus
they afford no countenance for a pas-
sive use TipacGai τινι ‘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. £.
X. 4 yepapa φρονήσει mapa Θεοῦ τετι-
μημένε, Const. Ap. ii. 26 ὁ ἐπίσκοπος
οὐ Θεοῦ ἀξίᾳ τετιμημένος. If τετιμημέ-
νης can stand at all here, it must
mean ‘respected’, i.e. ‘duly dis-
charged’. Hilgenfeld (ed. 2) speaks
favourably of rernpnperns.

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

Shh 85. τ J 29\ af ΛΝ
ἁγίου: ἐπίστασθε ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄδικον οὐδὲ παραπεποιη-

fi? / 3 =~
μένον γέγραπται ἐν αὐταῖς.

3 ε / ,
οὐχ εὑρήσετε δικαίους

ἀποβεβλημένους ἀπὸ ὁσίων ἀνδρῶν: ἐδιώχθησαν δί-

> ς A / a / 3 € \
Kalol, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ ἀνόμων ἐφυλακίσθησαν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ

> UA 2 Λ ε \ / 5) ,
ἀνοσίων" ἐλιθάσθησαν ὑπὸ παρανόμων" ἀπεκτάνθησαν

\ lot \ sf — ἢ
ὑπὸ τῶν μιαρὸν καὶ ἄδικον ζῆλον ἀνειληφότων.

occurred to me in my first edition than τὰς τοῦ.

ταῦτα

I saw that the ῥήσεις of all previous

editors could not stand, as the usual expression is either πνεύματος ἁγίου or τοῦ

πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου.

143. ταῦτα] AC; καὶ ταῦτα 5.

5. Φιλόνεικοι ἔστε κιτ.λ.] By read-
ing τῶν ἀνηκόντων, instead of μὴ ἀνη-
κόντων (by which previous editors
supplied the lacuna of A), I changed
ἔστε 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.
Menta, t Pet. 1115. There is a
Θεοῦ ζῆλος, and in some sense also a
Θεοῦ φιλονεικία. My conjecture was
approved by Tischendorf and ac-
cepted by Gebhardt, and is now con-
firmed by C. S translates ἔστε as an
indicative, and is obliged in conse-
quence to insert a negative with ἀνη-
κόντων, thus falling into the same trap
as the editors. Compare Barnab.
δ 17 ἐλπίζει μου ἡ ψυχὴ τῇ ἐπιθυμίᾳ
μου μὴ παραλελοιπέναι τι τῶν ἀνηκόντων
εἰς σωτηρίαν. For ἀνήκειν εἰς see also
Ign. Philad. 1, Smyrn.8, Polyc. Phil.
13. For τὰ ἀνήκοντα with a dative
see 85 35, 62.

6. ἐνκεκύφατε] See the note above
§ 4o.

7. τὰς διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος] The emen-
dation τὰς τοῦ πνεύματος, which I pro-
posed somewhat hesitatingly, was
adopted by Gebhardt in place of
the ῥήσεις πνεύματος of previous edi-

8 ἐπίστασθε] επιτασθαι A.
Ce εὑρήσετε] C3; ...upnoerar A; zmvenitis (a present) 5.
νόμων] C3; ὑποπα. «νομων A; ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ παρανόμων S: see l. p. 142.
τῶν] A; ἀπὸ τῶν C; ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ (or ἀπὸ) τῶν S. See the last note.
(as I had conjectured, ed. 1); μιαρῶν AS.

9 γέγραπται] A; γέγραπτο
12 ὑπὸ παρα-
13 ὑπὸ
μιαρὸν] C
ἄδικον] AC; ἀδίκων S: see 1. p.

tors. It is confirmed to a greater
extent than I could have hoped by
CS, which have ras διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος.
It is difficult however to see how
there was room for so many letters
in the lacuna of A; for the space
left for τασδιατου 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 διὰ in brackets.

8. παραπεποιημένον] ‘ counterfeit,
spurious’, For the metaphor see
Basil. (?) zz saz. i. 22 (I. p. 416 E)
μήπου κίβδηλος ἢ δραχμή, τουτέστι, μή-
που δόγμα παραπεποιημένον, with the
whole context in which the metaphor
is developed. So παραποιεῖν Justin
Dial. 69, 115, παραποίησις Iren. i. 9. 2.

11. ἐφυλακίσθησαν] Many editors
read ἐνεφυλακίσθησαν, but this is open
to objection, for there seems to be
no authority for a verb ἐμφυλακίζω ;
and indeed such a compound is hard-
ly possible, for φυλακίζω is derived
not from φυλακὴ but from φύλαξ.

13. μιαρὸν] The emendation (μιαρὸν
for μιαρων) which I made in my first

138 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [xiv

M4 > > af 7 \ of τ
πάσχοντες εὐκλεώς ἤνεγκαν. τί γὰρ εἴπωμεν, ἀδελ-
7 \ \ ΄σ / \ \ / >
got; Δανιὴλ ὑπὸ τῶν φοβουμένων τὸν Θεὸν ἐβλήθη εἰς
΄ὔ / \ / \ \
λάκκον λεόντων ; ἢ ᾿λνανίας καὶ ᾿λζαρίας καὶ Μισαηλ
\ ΄σ / A la af
ὑπὸ τῶν θρησκευόντων τὴν μεγαλοπρεπῆ καὶ ἔνδοξον
΄σ 7 3 f /
θρησκείαν τοῦ ὑψίστου κατείρχθησαν εἰς κάμινον πυρος:
~~ a fe 7 3 a Mf
μηθαμῶς τοῦτο γένοιτο. τίνες οὖν οἱ ταῦτα δρασαν-
Ἁ \ / , , 3 ΄
τες; οἱ στυγητοὶ καὶ πάσης κακίας πλήρεις εἰς τοσοῦτο
Py 7 ma el, \ CMe {; \ > "4 /
ἐξήρισαν θυμοῦ ὥστε Tous ἐν ὁσίᾳ Kal ἀμώμῳ προθέσει
, ΄σ΄ ΄σ΄ Φ qn \
δουλεύοντας τῷ Θεῷ εἰς αἰκίαν περιβαλεῖν, μὴ εἰδότες

I εὐκλεώς] ευὐκλαιωσ A.

εἴπωμεν] εἰπομεν A; εἴποιμεν C3 dicam (εἴπω) 8.

5 τοῦ ὑψίστου] AC. The present text of S has N97 τοῦ Κυρίου, but this is

doubtless a corruption of ND 2 τοῦ ὑψίστου.
7 στυγητοὶ] CS; στυητοι A.
the last syllable of the preceding word -ets).

σαν Ὁ.

edition is now confirmed by C. For
the confusion of o and ὦ in A com-
pare εἰπομεν just below, and see above,
I. p.120. Here the immediate neigh-
bourhood of τῶν would suggest the
change to a transcriber. Compare
§ I puapas καὶ ἀνοσίου στάσεως, ὃ 3
(hrov ἄδικον καὶ ἀσεβῆ ἀνειληφότας.

5. Opnoxeiav| The word is here
used in its correct sense (see Trench
NV. T. Syn. ist ser. ὃ xlviii); for the
incident turns on an act of external
worship.

6. μηθαμῶς κ-.τ.λ.] 1.6. ‘Let us not
entertain the thought, let us not so
pervert facts’.

8. ἐξήρισαν] ‘persisted in strife’.
So Plut. Pomp. ὃ 56 οὐκ ἐξερίσας ἀλλ᾽
οἷον ἡττηθείς, Appian. Bell. Civ. ii.
151 φιλονεικότεροι δὲ τοῖς ἐξερίζουσιν
ὄντες. So too ἐξεριστής Eur. Suppl.
894, ἐξεριστικός Diog. Laert. x. 143.
For the whole expression comp. ὃ 1
εἰς τόσουτον ἀπονοίας ἐξέκαυσαν. Hilgen-
feld reads ἐξηρέθισαν, but this, besides
being unsupported and unnecessary,
would give a wrong meaning, for épe-
θίζω, ἐξερεθίζω, are transitive.

9. περιβαλεῖν] ‘to drive round’,

κατείρχθησαν] A; καθείρχθη-
eis] AS; om. C (owing to
9 περιβαλεῖν] AC; zaciant S.

If the reading be correct, the idea of
the preposition (as in περιπίπτειν)
must be ‘sudden and complete
change’. But I cannot find any
parallel; for in Eur. Hel. 312 φόβος
yap és τὸ δεῖμα περιβαλών p ἄγει the
meaning of the word is wholly differ-
ent. Elsewhere (see Schweighauser
Lex. Polyb. s.v. περιβάλλεσθαι) περι-
βάλλειν has been substituted for παρα-
βάλλειν, and this may possibly have
been the case here. So Heb. xiii. 9
περιφέρεσθε and παραφέρεσθε are con-
fused. Comp. § 55 παρέβαλεν. Our
Greek Mss however are agreed in
reading περιβαλεῖν here.

10. ὑπέρμαχος κιτ.λ.] Ὑπέρμαχος is
said of God, 2 Macc. xiv. 34 (comp.
Wisd. x. 20): ὑπερασπιστὴς is fre-
quently so applied (especially in con-
nexion with βοηθός), Ps. xvill. 2, XXvill.
7, 8, XXXili. 20, CXIV. 17, 18, ΤΟΥ ΕΘΝ
comp. ἃ 56 πόσος ὑπερασπισμός ἐστιν.

11. ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει] The same
expression occurs I Tim. iii. 9, 2 Tim.
i, 2; comp. lon. ἡ χυζέ gy.

παναρέτῳ] See the note on § 1.

14. ἔγγραφοι) ‘recorded, notable,

famous’. The word occurs also ina

on

Io

15

XLvI| TOOTHE CORINTHIANS.

139
J εἰ, ἘΔ € ΄ Ἧς τε ΄ ᾽ ΄

ὅτι ὁ ὕψιστος ὑπέρμαχος καὶ ὑπερασπιστής ἐστιν τῶν
ro ἧς / ΄σ ΄ > ’

ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει λατρευόντων τῷ παναρέτῳ ὀνο-

΄ - ᾽ὔ 5) \ 3. “" “ /

ματι αὐτοῦ: ὦ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰώνας τῶν αἰωνων.
/

apny.
\ > i > / 7 AY le 3 ΄

τιμὴν ἐκληρονόμησαν, ἐπήρθησαν τε καὶ ἔγγραφοι ἐγέ-

ε \ ε , ? / / \
οἱ δὲ ὑπομένοντες ἐν πεποιθήσει δόξαν καὶ

> \ Qn a qn 7] a \
vovto ἀπὸ Tov Θεοῦ ἐν τῷ μνημοσύνῳ αὐτῶν εἰς τοὺς
/
μην.
he > ε Hf “ \
Τοιούτοις οὖν ὑποδείγμασιν κολληθῆναι Kal

αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.
XLVI.
ἡμᾶς δεῖ, ἀδελφοί. γέγραπται yap" Κολλᾶοθε τοῖς ἁγίοιο,

12 τῶν αἰώνων] S; τωναι.... A; om. C. See above, § 32. 14 ἔγγραφοι]
C (as conjectured by Laurent p. 424); emag¢po A. For ἔγγραφοι ἐγένοντο S has

scriptt sunt.
17 οὖν] AC; om. S.

fragment ascribed to our Clement in
Joann. Damasc. Ec/og. i. 49 (Il. p. 752
ed. Lequien) ὅθεν ἔγγραφον περὶ αὐτοῦ
(i.e. τοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ) ἱστορίαν γενέσθαι
φκονόμησεν ; but see especially Herm.
S7m. V. 3 ἔσται ἡ θυσία σου δεκτὴ mapa
τῷ Θεῷ καὶ ἔγγραφος ἔσται ἡ νηστεία
αὕτη (comp. VYzs. 1. 3 ἐνγραφήσονται
εἰς τὰς βίβλους τῆς ζωῆς), Apost. Can.
δ 19 ὁ γὰρ ἐμπιπλῶν ὦτα μὴ νοοῦντος
ἔγγραφος λογισθήσεται παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ,
§ 29 ὁ γὰρ θησαυρίζων ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ
ἔγγραφος ἐργάτης λογισθήσεται παρὰ
τῷ Θεῷ (Lagarde’s Rel. Fur. Eccles.
pp. 78, 79, see Hilgenfeld Mov. Test.
extr. Can. IV. pp. 102, 104; this
writing elsewhere bears traces of the
influence of Clement’s epistle, e.g. in
§ 23 which reproduces the language
of Clem. ὃ 40). It is however un-
necessary to substitute ὑπὸ for ἀπὸ
with Hilgenfeld; e.g. in this very
chapter we have ἀποβεβλημένους ἀπὸ
ὁσίων ἀνδρῶν: see also I Cor. i. 30,
James i. 13, with the examples in
Winer ὃ xlvii. p. 389. The phrase
TO μνημύσυνον αὐτοῦ, Or αὐτῶν, iS Com-
mon in the Lxx. It might be a
question here whether we should
read αὐτοῦ or αὐτῶν, but ὃ 26 τὸ μνη-

15 αὐτῶν] A; αὐτοῦ CS.
18 Κολλᾶσθε] κολλασθαι A.

16 ἀμήν] AC; om. 8.

μόσυνον αὐτών (and indeed the general
use of the genitive with μνημόσυνον in
the Lxx of the persons whose memo-
rial is preserved) points distinctly to
αὐτῶν.

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. Κολλᾶσθε x.7.A.] This quota-
tion is no where found in the Old
Testament. The nearest approach is
Ecclus. vi. 34 tis σοφός ; αὐτῷ προσ-
κολλήθητι. Similar words however
occur in Hermas V7s. iii. 6 μηδὲ κολ-
λώμενοι τοῖς ἁγίοις, S772. vill. 8 οἱ ἐν
ταῖς πραγματείαις ἐμπεφυρμένοι καὶ μὴ
κολλώμενοι τοῖς ἁγίοις, Sz. ix. 20
οὐ κολλῶνται τοῖς δούλοις τοῦ Θεοῦ.
It is perhaps another of those apocry-
phal quotations to which Photius
alludes (see the notes on δὴ 8, 13, 17,

140 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

ὅτι οἱ KOAA@MENO! AYTOIC APIACOHCONTAI.

[XLVI

\ / ᾽
καὶ παλιν εν

ε ῇ 7 / ‘ > 4 > 1 > a >” \
ἑτέρῳ τόπῳ λέγει" MetA ἀνδρὸς ἀθῴου ἀθῷος ἔσῃ Kal

μετὰ ἐκλεκτοῦ

οτρέψειο.

> ‘ 4 \
EKAEKTOC ἔσῃ Kal

μετὰ οτρεβλοῦ Alda-

a 5 - ,ὔ \ , a
κολληθῶμεν οὖν Tots ἀάθῳοις καὶ δικαίοις

\ fe > \ - Col .« 7 ᾽} \
εἰσὶν δὲ οὗτοι ἐκλεκτοὶ Tov Θεοῦ. “Iva Ti Epes και

, \ , , ᾽ὔ
θυμοὶ καὶ διχοστασίαι καὶ σχίσματα πολεμὸς TE ἐν

ὑμῖν ;

2 oN Qe ἈΠῸ ἡ πε \ ν. ἃ
4) OVXL EVA Θεὸν EXOMEV Kal EVA Χριστον και εν

6 πόλεμός τε] AC; S has the plural (as determined by vzbuz) πόλεμοί τε and
adds et contentiones δὲ ΤῊ 21, which probably represents καὶ μάχαι, since the same
word elsewhere stands for μάχαι (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. ὃ (p. 677) γέγραπται δέ, Μετὰ ἀνδρὸς
ἀθῴου ἀθῷος ἔσῃ καὶ μετὰ ἐκλεκτοῦ
ἐκλεκτὸς ἔσῃ καὶ μετὰ στρεβλοῦ δια-
στρέψεις" κολλᾶσθαι οὖν τοῖς ἁγίοις
προσήκει ὅτι οἱ κολλώμενοι αὐτοῖς ἁγιασ-
θήσονται, 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 : κολληθῶμεν
οὖν τοῖς ἀθῴοις καὶ δικαίοις" εἰσὶ δὲ ov-
τοι ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ" γέγραπται yap"
Κολλᾶσθαι (κολλᾶσθε) τοῖς ἁγίοις, ὅτι
οἱ κολλώμενοι αὐτοῖς ἁγιασθήσονται (see
above § 14).

2. Mera ἀνδρὸς κ-τ.λ. 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. ἔρεις κιτ.λ.] The words are ar-
ranged in an ascending scale; see
the notes on Galatians v. 20,21. Θυ-
pol are ‘outbursts of wrath,’ as in l.c.
Διχοστασία is weaker than σχίσμα, as

it is stronger than στάσις ὃ 51: as
στάσις developes into διχοστασία, so
διχοστασία widens into σχίσμα.

6. πόλεμός τε ἐν ὑμῖν] comp. James
ἵν τὸ

7. οὐχὶ ἕνα Θεὸν κιτ.λ.] From Ephes.
iv. 4 Sq ἑν σῶμα καὶ ἐν πνεῦμα,
καθὼς καὶ ἐκλήθητε ἐν μιᾷ ἐλπίδι τῆς
κλήσεως ὑμῶν" εἷς Κύριος, μία πίσ-
τις, ἐν βάπτισμα, εἷς Θεός... ἑνὶ δὲ
ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν ἐδόθη ἡ χάρις K.T.A. 5
comp..1 Cor. vill. 6, xii. 12. sq. >see
also Hermas Szw. ix. 13 ἔσονται εἰς
ἐν πνεῦμα, εἰς ἐν GOpa...kal ἦν αὐτῶν
ἐν πνεῦμα καὶ ἐν σῶμα, ix. 18 ἔσται ἡ
ἐκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἕν σῶμα, μία φρόνη-
σις, εἷς νοῦς, μία πίστις, μία ἀγάπη,
Ign. Magu. 7.

This mention of Θεός, Χριστός,
πνεῦμα, has a parallel in the reference
to the Trinity quoted by S. Basil (de
Spir. Sanct. xxix, 111. p. 16) as from
our Clement, but not found in our MS
and probably belonging to the lacuna
from § 58, (7 yap ὁ Θεὸς καὶ ζῇ ὁ Κύριος
Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.
Owing to this parallel, I have taken ἕν
πνεῦμα 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, καὶ pia κλῆσις ἐν Χριστῷ; but
the construction is doubtful. The
construction and punctuation has

XLVI]

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

141

΄ a , \ 2 \ 249 ε are \ ,
πνευμὰ τῆς χάριτος TO ἐκχυθὲν εφ μας: καὶ pla

~ ~ .« A ΄ \ - A
κλῆσις ἐν Χριστῷ; ἵνα τί διέλκομεν καὶ διασπῶμεν τὰ

’ ΄ ΄σ \ / \ \ ~ \
TO μελή τοὺ Χριστοῦ, και στασιαζομεν προς TO σωμα TO

᾽ \ oy , > ἢ 3 / / 4
ἴδιον, καὶ εἰς τοσαυτήν ATOVOLAYV ἐρχόμεθα WOTE επι-

λαθέσθαι ἡμᾶς ὅτι μέλη ἐσμὲν ἀλλήλων; μνήσθητε

- (i ? “-“ fo) fA ε cE x / Sen
τῶν λόγων ‘Incov τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμων" εἰπὲν γαρ᾽ ΟΥδῚ

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.

9 διέλκομεν] AS; διέλκωμεν C.
ἡμῶν ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ CS.

been confirmed by the Syriac, since
I first proposed it.

12. μέλη ἐσμὲν] Rom. xii. 5 of πολλοὶ
a PBF oS 5) n A ‘ >
ἕν σῶμα ἐσμεν ev Χριστῷ, TO δὲ καθ
εἷς ἀλλήλων μέλη.

13. Οὐαὶ κ.τ.λ.} Twodifferent sayings
of our Lord are here combined. The
jirst is recorded in Matt. xxvi. 24,
Mark xiv. 21, οὐαὶ δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ
> , > ee [2] -~ 3 /
ἐκείνῳ δι᾿ οὗ 6 υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παρα-

, " \ 53 2 A > ΕἸ > ,
δίδοται καλὸν ἦν αὐτῷ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη

Ε 5 ox e
ὃ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος ; and more briefly
in Luke xxii. 22, πλὴν οὐαὶ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ
ἐκείνῳ δί οὗ παραδίδοται. The second
runs in Matt. xviii. 6, 7, ὃς δ᾽ ἂν σκαν-
δαλίση ἕνα τῶν μικρῶν τούτων τῶν
πιστευόντων εἰς ἐμέ, συμφέρει avT@ ἵνα
κρεμασθῇ μύλος ὀνικὸς περὶ τὸν τρά-
χῆλον αὐτοῦ καὶ καταποντισθῇ ἐν τῷ

, - , 3) iN teh} /
πελάγει τῆς Oaddoons...ovai τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ
dv οὗ τὸ σκάνδαλον ἔρχεται: in Mark
ix. 42, ὃς ἂν ox. €.
ἐμέ, καλόν ἐστιν αὐτῷ μᾶλλον εἰ περί-
κειται μ. OV. π. τ. TP. αὐτοῦ καὶ βέβληται
εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν: in Luke xvil. 1, 2,
Led , > “ ‘ , ‘
ἀνένδεκτόν ἐστιν τοῦ Ta σκάνδαλα μὴ
ἐλθεῖν, πλὴν οὐαὶ δι’ οὗ ἔρχεται" λυσι-
τελεῖ αὐτῷ εἰ λίθος μυλικὸς περίκειται
π. τ. Tp. αὐτοῦ. καὶ ἔρριπται εἰς τὴν
θάλασσαν, ἢ ἵνα σκανδαλίσῃ τῶν μικρῶν
Hermas 7s. iv. 2 has
oval τοῖς ἀκούσασιν τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα Kal

T. plo T. Ts We εἰς

, σ΄
τουτῶν ενα.

παρακούσασιν᾽ αἱρετώτερον ἦν αὐτοῖς τὸ
μὴ γεννηθῆναι : and in Clem. Hom.
xii. 29 a saying of our Lord is quoted,

13 Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν] A; τοῦ κυρίου

τὰ ἀγαθὰ ἐλθεῖν δεῖ, μακάριος δὲ δι’ οὗ
ἔρχεται" ὁμοίως καὶ τὰ κακὰ ἀνάγκη
ἐλθεῖν, οὐαὶ δὲ δι’ οὗ ἔρχεται. 8. 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 7 ἕνα τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν
μου σκανδαλίσαι 15 not a more violent
change than is found in many of his
Old Testament quotations; e.g. the
perversion of Is. lx. 17 at the end of
§ 42. See also the fusion of different
passages in δὴ 18, 26, 29, 32, 35, 39,
50, 52, 53. The quotation of Clem.
Alex. Stvom. 111. 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-
foremore likely to have been changed;
(2) Clement of Alexandria, S¢vom.
ili. 18 (p. 561), so read the passage in
the Roman Clement ; (3) The word
διαστρέψαι explains the sequel τὸ
σχίσμα ὑμῶν πολλοὺς διέστρεψεν (‘per-
verted not one, but many’), it being

THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XLVI

142

τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ: KAAON HN AYT@ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη, ἢ
a > a , a 3 a nites
ENA τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν MOY CKANAAAICAI* κρεῖττον HN AYT@

περιτεθῆνδι μύλον Kal κατὰποντιοθῆνδι εἶς THN θἄλδοοδν,

H ENA τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν
Ἁ ,
πολλοὺς διέστρεψεν,
\ > ΄
λοὺς εἰς δισταγμον,

ΜΟΥ AIACTPEYWAal.

\ / € o
TO σχισμα υμων

\ ᾽ / af
πολλοὺς εἰς ἀθυμίαν ἔβαλεν, πολ-

\ i/ € ΄σ 3 , \
TOUS TavTas ἡμᾶς els λυπην" και

7 =~ /
ἐπίμονος ὑμῶν ἐστιν ἡ στασις.

1 οὐκ} As μὴ Ὁ.

μου σκανδαλίσαι AC. See the lower note.

πάντας S. ἡμᾶς] AS; ὑμᾶς C.

after Clement’s manner to take up
and comment on a leading word in
his quotations; e.g. $14 ἀνθρώττῳ
eipHNiko followed by § 15 κολλη-
θῶμεν τοῖς per εὐσεβείας εἰρηνεύ-
ουσιν, ὃ 27 ὧν οὐχὶ AKOYONTAI
followed by § 28 πάντων οὖν βλεπο-
μένων καὶ ἀκουομένων, δ2Ζοἐ ΓΕΝΗΘΗ
mepic Kypfoy...arla Afiwn fol-
lowed by § 30 ᾿Αγίου οὖν μερίς; ὃ
300€0c...AfAwWCIN χάριν followed
by οἷς ἡ χάρις ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ δέδοται,
§ 34 ὅοὰ HTO{MACEN τοῖο YTIO-
MENOYCIN AYTON followed by § 35
τίνα οὖν apa ἐστὶν Ta ἑτοιμαζόμενα
τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν; ὃ 55 ὁλὸς ἤ
λείξω ἀὐτῷ τὸ CWTHPION TOY
Θεοῦ followed by § 36 αὕτη ἡ ὁδὸς...
ἐν 7 εὕρομεν τὸ σωτήριον ἡμῶν,
§ 36 ewe ἂν θῶ Toye €xy@poye
κιτιλ. followed by τίνες οὖν of ἐχθροί,
§ 46 (just above) μετὰ ἀνλρὸς
ἀθῴου ἀθῷος ἔσῃ Kal μετὰ
ἐκλεκτοῦ ἐκλεκτὸς ἔσῃ followed
by κολληθῶμεν οὖν τοῖς ἀθῴοις...
εἰσὶν δὲ οὗτοι ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὃ
48 ἀνοίξατέ MO! TTYAAC AIKAIO-
CYNHC k.7.A. followed by πολλῶν οὖν
πυλῶν ἀνεῳγυιῶν ἡ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ
αὕτη ἐστίν, § 50 ὧν ἀφέθηοσὰν al
ἀνολλίδι κιτιλ, followed by ὃ 51 ὅσα
οὖν παρεπέσαμεν.. .ἀξιώσωμεν ἀφ εθῆ-
ναι ἡμῖν, ὃ 57 KATACKHNWCEI ἐπ᾽
ἐλπίλι πεποιθώς followed by ὃ

4 τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν μου διαστρέψαι] S Clem; τῶν μικρῶν

6 τοὺς πάντα9] AC; τοὺς δὲ
Ir αὐτοῦ Te...’ Απολλῴ] Aj ἑαυτοῦ καὶ

οϑ,'νακατασκηνώσωμεν πεποιθότες
κα. I have collected these ex-
amples, because this characteristic
determines the readings in three
passages of interest (here and S§ 35,
57; comp. also § 51), where there are
variations,

6. δισταγμόν] The word is rare,
but occurs in Hermas S7zm. 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.’

ὃ. τὴν ἐπιστολὴν] 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 Irenzus (i. 8. 2)
writes ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους (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

on

Io

XLVIT| TO THE CORINTHIANS.

XLVILI.

J a cy /
Πᾳαύλου Tov ἀποστόλου.

[43

/ \ \ ΄σ΄
"AvaraBete τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τοῦ μακαρίου
7ὔ ~ Ore ᾽ > ΄“ ΄σ
ἡ ΠῚ

ρωτον υμιν EV ἀρχῇ του

τ fe 7 ον ΕῚ 7 - 3 ,
εὐαγγελίου ἔγραψεν; €7T ἀληθείας πνευματικῶς επε-
΄ > ~ \ Co \ i?

στειλεν ὑμῖν περὶ αὐτου TE Kal Κηφά τε καὶ ᾽λπολλω,
\ \ \ , , ε τὰ ia) > > «
διὰ τὸ καὶ τότε προσκλίσεις ὑμας πεποιῆσθαι" ἀλλ᾽ ἡ
ἀπολλὼ καὶ κηφᾶ, C, thus conforming the order to 1 Cor. i. 12 (comp. iv. 6). 5. has
the same order as A, but omits τε in both places. It also repeats the preposition

before each word, but no stress can be laid on this (see above, I. p. 137).
12 mpookNices] A; divisiones S; προσκλήσεις C. For this itacism see above ὃ 21.

Orig. c. Cels. i. 63 ἐν τῇ πρὸς Τιμόθεόν
φησι, 111. 20 τῇ πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς,
Method. Sym. iii. 14 (p. 22 Jahn)
λαβέτω δὲ pera χειρὸς ὁ βουλόμενος τὴν
πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολήν, Macarius
Magnes Afocer. iii. 36 (p. 131 Blondel)
καὶ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους δὲ ἐπιστολῇ
λέγει Περὶ δὲ τῶν παρθένων ἐπιταγὴν
Κυρίου οὐκ ἔχω κιτιλ., Hieron. 45 2252.
lii. 9 (I. p. 264) ‘lege Pauli epistolam
ad Corinthios, quomodo diversa mem-
bra unum corpus efficiunt’, Anast.
Sin. Hodeg. 12 (p. 97) ἐκ τῆς πρὸς
Κορινθίους, and Chrysostom in his
preface to the Colossians (XI. p. 322
B, ed. Bened.) refers to 2 Timothy as
ἡ πρὸς Τιμόθεον (ἐπιστολή). 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.
μακαρίου] Polyc. Phil. ὃ 3 τοῦ μακα-
ρίου καὶ ἐνδόξου Παύλου, 20. § Τὶ
‘beatus Paulus.’ This passage of
Clement is perhaps the earliest in-
stance of the specially Christian sense
of paxdapios: comp. Rev. xiv. 13
μακάριοι οἱ νεκροὶ οἱ ἐν Κυρίῳ ἀποθνή-
σκοντες ἀπάρτι. In ὃ 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. ΤΙ

διὰ Κλήμεντος τοῦ μακαρίου πρεσβυ-

τέρου, and even in later writers.

9. πρῶτον] ‘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 ¢2me purely,
in which case it adds nothing to ἐν
ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ; or (2) of guality
purely, as if it signified the primary
value and excellence of the injunc-
tion.

ἐν ἀρχῇ k.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. PAz/. 11 ‘in
principio’. It is quite impossible that
ἀρχὴ Tov εὐαγγελίου 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’).

Il. περὶ αὐτοῦ re ΚΛ I Cor. i.
1o sq. The party whose watchword
was ἐγὼ Χριστοῦ 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. προσκλίσεις] See above on ὃ 21.

THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [XLvIt

144

“Ἐν , ΄σ- ᾽ é

πρόσκλισις ἐκείνη ἧττον ἁμαρτίαν ὑμῖν προσήνεγκεν

΄ \

προσεκλίθητε γὰρ ἀποστόλοις μεμαρτυρημένοις καὶ
a \ \ /

ἀνδρὶ δεδοκιμασμένῳ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς. vuve δὲ κατανοήσατε

,ὔ 0 Fics / \ \ \ a /
τινες UMas διέστρεψαν καὶ TO σέμνον Τῆς περιβοήτου

φιλαδελφίας ὑμών ἐμείωσαν.

/
λίαν αἰσχρά ;

7 \
αἰσχρά, ἀγαπητοί, καὶ

/ ἀνάξια τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ἀγωγῆς
καὶ ἀναξἕ ῇ ριστῷ ἀγωγῆς,

ἀκούεσθαι τὴν βεβαιοτάτην καὶ ἀρχαίαν Κορινθίων ἐκ-

7 ΠΣ X if y 7ὔ \
κλησίαν ov ἕν ἢ δύο πρόσωπα στασιάζειν πρὸς τοὺς

/
πρεσβυτέρους.

I πρόσκλισις] πρόσκλησις C; προσκλησεις A.
προσήνεγκεν] A; ἐπήνεγκε C, and so apparently 5.

so apparently S.
2 προσεκλίθητε] A; προσεκλήθητε C.

J > \ / 5) nx
καὶ αὕτη ἡ ἀκοὴ οἱ μόνον εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐχώ-

ἧττον] A; ἥττονα C, and

μεμαρτυρημένοις] AS; δεδοκιμασμένοις

C, which reads conversely μεμαρτυρημένῳ for δεδοκιμασμένῳ in the next line.

3 παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς] AS; map’ αὐτῶν C.
βεβαιοτάτην, as if βεβαιότητα.
ANGE Tom. 5-

2. μεμαρτυρημένοις] ‘ attested, fa-
mous’: see the note on §17. So Ign.
Eph. 12 Watdov...rod μεμαρτυρημένου.

3. ἀνδρὶ δεδοκιμασμένῳ] Apollos
therefore is not regarded as an Apo-
stle; see Galatians pp. 96, 98.

4. τὸ σεμνὸν κιτ.λ.] Comp. § I dare
τὸ σεμνὸν καὶ περιβύητον Kal πᾶσιν ἀν-
θρώποις ἀξιαγάπητον ὄνομα ὑμῶν μεγά-
λως βλασφημηθῆναι.

5. αἰσχρὰ καὶ λίαν αἰσχρά] Comp.
§ 53 ἐπίστασθε καὶ καλῶς ἐπίστασθε.
See also Theoph. ad Aufol.i. 17 καλὰ
καὶ καλὰ λίαν, Hippol. p. 36 (Lagarde)
πάντα μὲν καλὰ καὶ καλὰ λίαν τὰ τοῦ
Θεοῦ, Clem. Recogn. 111. 25 ‘ Ignoras,
O Simon, et valde ignoras’, and per-
haps Hermas AZand. viii. ov δοκεῖ σοι
ταῦτα πονηρὰ εἶναι καὶ λίαν πονηρὰ τοῖς
δούλοις τοῦ Θεοῦ ; (if this be the right
punctuation). The very words αἰσχρὰ
καὶ λίαν αἰσχρὰ occur in Maximus (9)
on Jude 7 in Cramer’s Catena p.
157.

6. ἀγωγῆς] ‘education’, ‘training’,
as below § 48. The word is used

5 ἐμείωσαν euiwoay A.
6 Χριστῷ] AC; add. ἑησοῦ 5.

4 περιβοήτου] AC; om. S translating
αἰσχρά, ἀγαπητοί]
ἀγωγῆς] AS; ἀγάπης C.

commonly of any systematic disci-
plinary or scholastic training.

7. ἀκούεσθαι] 1.6. ‘It is a disgrace-
ful state of things, that z¢ should be
reported, the word ἀκούεσθαι being
dependent on αἰσχρὰ... καὶ ἀνάξια. I
mention this, because the construc-
tion is generally mistaken; some
editors wanting to understand δεῖ
and others substituting ἀκούεται for
ἀκούεσθαι. For the plural αἰσχρὰ
κιτιλ. see Jelf’s Gramm. § 383.

ἀρχαίαν] 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. πρόσωπα] ‘Persons’, or rather
‘vingleaders’; as in ὃ τ. See the
note on Ign. Magu. 6.

9. ἀκοὴ] 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

ΧΙ, 1] TO THE CORINTHIANS.

145

5 \ \ > \ ΄-
pnoev ἀλλα καὶ εἰς TOUS ἑτεροκλινεῖς ὑπάρχοντας ap
e “ J \ 7 ! a
ἡμῶν, ὥστε Kal βλασφημίας ἐπιφέρεσθαι Te ὀνόματι
Κ 7 ὃ \ \ ς / > / e ΄ \ 7
υρίου διὰ τὴν ὑμετέραν ἀφροσύνην, ἑαυτοῖς δὲ κίνδυνον
͵
ἐπεξεργαζεσθαι.
7 Ss ~ y
XLVI. Ἐξἕάρωμεν οὖν τοῦτο ἐν τάχει καὶ προσ-
Uf ΄σ / A / /
πέσωμεν τῷ δεσπότη καὶ κλαύσωμεν ἱκετεύοντες αὐτόν,
4 cf f > ~ Chon Wed \ \
ὅπως ἵλεως γενόμενος ἐπικαταλλαγήῆ ἡμῖν καὶ ἔπι τὴν
\ a ͵7ὔ Cr \
σεμνὴν τῆς φιλαδελφίας ἡμῶν ἁγνὴν ἀγωγὴν ἀποκατα-

/ e “ 7 \ , 3 ΄- > \
oTNoH nas. muAn yao δικαιοσύνης AVEWYULA εἰς ζωὴν

" καὶ AC; om. 8. [1 ἡμῶν] AS; ὑμῶν C. 12 ἑαυτοῖς δὲ] Α ; ἑαυτοῖς
τε Ο; et vobis tpsis 5. 16 ἵλεως γενόμενος] A; γενόμενος ἵλεως C. ἡμῖν]
AS; ὑμῖν C. ἐπὶ τὴν x.7.d.] S translates loosely restituat nos ad priorem illam
modestiam nostram amoris fraternitatis et ad puram illam conversationem, but this

probably does not represent a various reading.
dveqryvia εἰς ζωὴν] A; εἰς ξωὴν avewyvia CS.

18 ἡμᾶς] AS; ὑμᾶς C.

the ears of S. Paul (1 Cor. v. I ὅλως
ἀκούεται κιτιὰλ., Xl. 18 ἀκούω σχίσματα
κιτιλ., comp. i. 11). It is quite ἃ mis-
take to suppose that the Church of
Corinth had formally and by letter
asked advice; see the note on § 1
νομίζομεν K.T.A.

10. ἑτεροκλινεῖς] See the note on
Gar.

Il. ὥστε... βλασφημίας ἐπιφέρεσθαι]
‘so that you heap blasphemies’; ἐπι-
φέρεσθαι being middle as frequently
elsewhere, and the subject being ὑμᾶς
or possibly τοὺς ἑτεροκλινεῖς ὑπάρχον-
τας. Comp. Rom. ii. 24 τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα
τοῦ Θεοῦ Sv ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς
ἔθνεσιν, καθὼς γέγραπται.

12. κίνδυνον] i.e. the danger of in-
curring God’s wrath, as ὃ 14 κίνδυνον
ὑποίσομεν μέγαν, ὃ 41 τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον
ὑποκείμεθα κινδύνῳ.

13. ἐπεξεργάζεσθαι] “τυϊίλαϊ to cre-
ate’; for this is the force of ἐπί, as in
Demosth. de Cor. p. 274 ἕν δ᾽ ἐπεξειρ-
γάσατο τοιοῦτον ὃ πᾶσι τοῖς προτέροις
ἐπέθηκε τέλος. Here ἑαυτοῖς will be
equivalent to ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς : see the note

CLEM. 11.

17 ἡμῶν] AS; ὑμῶν 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. ἐπικαταλλαγῇ!] While no other
instance of the verb ἐπικαταλλάσσειν
is given in the lexicons, the sub-
stantive appears in Theophrast. Cha-
ract. 26 τοῦ χαλκοῦ τὴν ἐπικαταλλαγήν,
where it seems to signify ‘the dis-
count’.

τὴν σεμνὴν κιτιλ.] The expression
is copied by Clem. Alex. Strom. iv.
17 (p. 613) ἡ σεμνὴ οὖν τῆς φιλανθρω-
πίας καὶ ἁγνὴ ἀγωγὴ κατὰ τὸν Κλήμεντα
τὸ κοινωφελὲς ζητεῖ, where the insertion
of καὶ relieves the sentence. Comp.
the words at the close of this chapter.
᾿Αγωγὴ is ‘conduct’, as in ὃ 47: see
also 2 Tim. iii. 10, Esth. ii. 20, x. 3,
2 Macc. iv. 16, vi. 8, xi. 24.

ΤΟ

146

THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

[XLvit1

4 \ Uf 2 ͵ , ͵
αὕτη, καθὼς γεγραπται" ANOIZATE MO! πύήλδο AIKALOCYNHC,

ἵνὰ EICEAQWN EN ayTaic ἐξομολογηοωμὰι τῷ Kypi@* aYTH

ἡ πύλη τοῦ Kypioy, δίκδιοι eiceAeYCONTAI EN aYTH.

σολ-

΄' > a ᾽ ΄ € ’ / e/ > \
λῶν οὖν πυλῶν ἀνεωγυνυιῶν, ἡ ἐν δικαιοσύνη αὕτη ἐστιν

ἘΣ eh “ 3 ἼΣ ΄ Ψ € 3 7 \
nH ἐν Χριστώ, ἐν ἢ μακαριοι παντες OL εἰσελθόντες καὶ 5
t

1 αὕτη] A; ἐστὶν αὕτη C, and so apparently S.
2 wa] S Clem; om. AC. See the next note.
γήσομαι C with Clem. See above, I. p. 143.
9 διακρίσει] C; διακριακρισει A, as read by Tischendorf; see prol. p. xix.

ἀνοίξατε] AC ; αεγὶ S.
ἐξομολογήσωμαι AS; ἐξομολο-
5 ἢ] 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.

ἤτω γοργὸς ἐν ἔργοις, ἤτω ἁγνός]

Clem (see below); ἤτω ἁγνός AC. S has sit homo (quispiam) fidelis, sit validus,

I. ᾿Ανοίξατε «.7.A.] From the LXx
Ps. cxvili. 19, 20, word for word. This
passage, as far as ἤτω γοργὸς ἐν ἔργοις,
is loosely quoted with interpolations
of his own by Clem. Alex. S¢vom. 1,
7 (p- 338 sq), who gives his authority
as 6 Κλήμης ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπι-
στολῇ. Elsewhere Strom. vi. ὃ (p.
772), after quoting Ps. cxvili. 19, 20,
he adds (by a lapse of memory) ἐξη-
yovpevos δὲ τὸ ῥητὸν τοῦ προφήτου
Βαρνάβας ἐπιφέρει, ἸΤολλῶν πυλῶν
ἀνεῳγυιῶν...οἱ εἰσελθόντες, though a
few sentences below he cites the words
ἔστω τοίνυν πιστός... μᾶλλον μείζων
εἶναι, 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. ἐξομολογήσωμαι] The best MSS
of the Lxx have ἐξομολογήσομαι,
which is substituted for the conjunc-
tive by most editors here, but ἐξο-
μολογήσωμαι will stand; see Winer
§ xli. p. 300. Hilgenfeld inserts ἵνα
before εἰσελθών, following Clem. Alex.
Strom. 1. 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. πολλῶν οὖν πυλῶν κιτ.λ.] Per-
haps a reference to our Lord’s saying,
Matt. vil. 13, 14.

5. ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ] John x. 9 ἐγώ εἰμι
ἡ θύρα, Hermas .5277,2. ix. 12 ἡ πύλη ὁ
υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστί (and the whole sec-
tion), Ign. Phzlad. 9 αὐτὸς ὧν θύρα τοῦ
πατρός, Clem. Hom. ii. 52 διὰ τοῦτο
αὐτὸς ἀληθὴς ὧν προφήτης ἔλεγεν, Ἐγώ
εἶμι ἡ πύλη τῆς ζωῆς κιτιλ., Hegesipp.
in Euseb. H. 45. ii. 23 ἀπάγγειλον
ἡμῖν τίς ἡ θύρα Tov ᾿Ιησοῦ.

6. ὁσιότητι κιτ.λ.] The usual com-
bination of ὅσιος and δίκαιος. See
the note on ii. § 5.

7. To τις πιστός K.T.A.] 1.6. ‘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 ᾧ μὲν yap διὰ τοῦ
πνεύματος δίδοται λόγος σοφίας, ἄλλῳ
δὲ λόγος γν ὥσεω ς κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα,
ἑτέρῳ πίστις ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ πνεύματι.
Unless Clement is using this lan-
guage without warrant, the temper
of the factious Corinthians of his

--- -. —

TO THE CORINTHIANS. 147

XLVI]

, \ , 2A
κατευθύνοντες THY πορείαν αὐτῶν ἐν ὁσιότητι καὶ
7 / / > - ᾽
δικαιοσύνη, ἀταράχως παντα ἐπιτελοῦντες. ἤτω τις
,ὔ of \ = ΄σ > >
πιστός, ἤτω δυνατὸς γνώσιν ἐξειπεῖν, ἤτω σοφὸς ἐν
/ ΄ a} \ 2) Sf 7
διακρίσει λόγων, ἤτω Ὑγοργος ἐν ἔργοις, ἤτω ayvos:
tf \ > ΄ 3 7 .«
τοσούτω γὰρ μᾶλλον ταπεινοφρονεῖν οφείλει, ὅσῳ
scientiam possideat (possidebit), laboret (laborabit) sapiens in interpretatione verb-
orum, sit purus in operibus. This represents substantially the same Greek with
AC, except that ἤτω δύνατος γνῶσιν ἐξειπεῖν, ἤτω σοφὸς x.T.X. must have been

corrupted into ἤτω δύνατος, γνῶσιν ἕξει, πονείτω σοφός, as Bensly points out.
Io τοσούτῳ γὰρ] AS; Clem τοσούτῳ (om. yap) C; τοσοῦτόν τις 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. γνῶσιν ἐξειπεῖν] ‘to utter, ex-
pound a yvaors’, i.e. ‘to bring out the
hidden meaning of a scripture’. For
this sense of γνῶσις see the note on
Barnabas § 6. The possession of
γνῶσις was an old boast of the fac-
tious Corinthians, I Cor. vill. I, 10,
11, 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 xvill. 24).

9. διακρίσει) The reading of A
(if it be correctly given διακριακρισιν)
is a corruption of διακρισιν (-- δια-
κριστ) which itself arose out of δια-
κρισι and this out of διακρίσει: see
for other instances of a like error the
note on ἀναστήσομαι ὃ 15. Otherwise
διακρίσεσιν might be read (see above,
I. p. 120, for similar corruptions), as
the plural διακρίσεις occurs Rom. xiv.
I διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν, 1 Cor. xii. 10
διακρίσεις πνευμάτων.

ἤτω γοργός] ‘let him be energetic’.
In later writers γοργὸς is ‘active,
quick, strenuous’; e.g. Dion. Hal.
de Comp. Verb. p. 133 (Reiske) ro

μὲν αὐτῶν [τῶν κώλων] γοργότερον τὸ

ταπεινοφρονεῖν ὀφείλει] AC Clem; ὀφείλει ταπεινοφρονεῖν
ὀφείλει] οφιλει A.

ὅσῳ] AC Clem; ὅσον Anton Max.

δὲ βραδύτερον, Epict. Dzss. 11. 16. 20
ἐν μὲν τῇ σχολῇ yopyol καὶ κατά-
γλωσσοι, iii. 12. IO ἄσκησον, εἰ γορ-
γὸς εἶ, λοιδορούμενος ἀνέχεσθαι k.T.X.,
M. Antonin. xii. 6 εἰ οὖν γοργὸς εἶ,
ταύτην θεράπευσον. 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) αὐτίκα ὁ Κλήμης ev
τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῇ κατὰ λέξιν
φησί, τὰς διαφορὰς ἐκτιθέμενος τῶν
κατὰ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν δοκίμων, ἼἬτω τις
πιστός, ἤτω δυνατός τις γνῶσιν ἐξειπεῖν,
ἤτω σοφὸς ἐν διακρίσει λόγων, ἤτω
γοργὸς ἐν ἔργοις, and Strom. vi. ὃ (p.
722 54) ἔστω τοίνυν πιστὸς ὁ τοιοῦτος,
ἔστω δυνατὸς γνῶσιν ἐξειπεῖν, ἤτω σο-
φὸς ἐν διακρίσει λόγων, ἤτω γοργὸς ἐν
ἔργοις, ἤτω ἁγνός" τοσούτῳ γὰρ μᾶλλον
ταπεινοφρονεῖν ὀφείλει, ὅσῳ δοκεῖ μᾶλ-
λον μείζων εἶναι: ὁ Κλήμης ἐν τῇ πρὸς
Κορινθίους φησί. 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.

10--2

148 THE-EPISTLE ‘OF S CLEMENT [xiv

΄ > ἫΝ \ ΄σ \
δοκεῖ μᾶλλον μείζων εἶναι, Kal ζητεῖν TO κοινωφελὲς
~~ \ A ΄-
πᾶσιν καὶ μὴ τὸ ἑαυτοῦ.
7 ΄σ , A
XLIX. ‘O ἔχων ἀγάπην ἐν Χριστῷ ποιησάτω τὰ
΄ ~ , A Ἁ ~ td
τοῦ Χριστοῦ παραγγέλματα. Tov δεσμὸν τῆς ἀγάπης
΄σ ΄σ / / A ΄ ΄σ
τοῦ Θεοῦ τίς δύναται ἐξηγήσασθαι; τὸ μεγαλεῖον τῆς 5
- 3 - / ᾽ \ 3 Se A ey, > «
καλλονῆς αὐτοῦ TIS ἀρκετος ἐξειπεῖν; Το ὕψος εις ὃ
3 / ς 9 ΄ > / / 9 9 7 an
avayel ἡ αγαπή ἀνεκδιήγητον ἐστιν. ayarn Koda
€ - ~ ~ 9 ’ / - e -
ἡμᾶς τῷ Θεῷ: ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιών"
/ / a2 a. , ~~ A ν
ἀγάπη πάντα ἀνέχεται, πάντα μακροθυμεῖ" οὐδὲν βά-

1 μείζων] AC Clem; om. Anton Max. 3 ποιησάτω] CS. So also
Tischendorf reads A, but other collators give it typyoarw. I could not satisfy
myself. On the first two inspections I inclined to τηρησατω, but on the last to

TOLNTATW.
I Joh. v. 2.
but this is a lapse of the pen.

I. μᾶλλον μείζων] See Matt. xxiii.
11. For the double comparative see
the note on Philippians i. 23. An-
tonius Melissa Loc. Comm. 11. 73 (34)
and Maximus Sevm. 49 both quote
this sentence as from Clement in a
somewhat different form, τοσοῦτόν τις
μᾶλλον ὀφείλει ταπεινοφρονεῖν, ὅσον
δοκεῖ μᾶλλον εἶναι: but they cannot
be regarded as zudependent authori-
ties for omitting μείζων, 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
μᾶλλον with δοκεῖ.

(nrew κιτιλ] I Cor. x. 24 μηδεὶς
τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ζητείτω ἀλλὰ TO τοῦ ἑτέρου,
and 726. ver. 33 μὴ ζητῶν τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ
σύμφορον ἀλλὰ τὸ τῶν πολλῶν. For
ζητεῖν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ see also I Cor. ΧΙΠ]. 5,
Phil it 21:

τὸ κοινωφελές] ‘the common ad-
vantage’; comp. Philo de Foseph.
I. p. 47 Μ. διὰ τὸ κοινωφελὲς φθάνοντα
τοὺς ἄλλους, Μ. Anton. iii. 4 χωρὶς
μεγάλης καὶ κοινωφελοῦς ἀνάγκης, A fost.
Const. vi. 12 συζητοῦντες πρὸς τὸ

There are various readings ποιῶμεν, τηρῶμεν (both well supported) in
6 ἀρκετὸ] ACS. Bryennios represents C as omitting ἀρκετὸς,

ἐστίν. ἀγάπη] A; ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη Ὁ.

κοινωφελές.

XLIX. ‘Who shall tell the power
and the beauty of love? Love unites
us to God: love is ail 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. Ὁ ἔχων κ-τ.λ.] This resembles

our Lord’s saying in John xiv. 15 ἐὰν

ἀγαπᾶτέ pe, Tas ἐντολὰς Tas ἐμὰς τηρή-
σετε (ν.]. τηρήσατε) : comp. I Joh. v.
I—3.

4. τὸν δεσμόν] i.e. ‘the binding
power’: comp. Col. iii. 14 τὴν ἀγάπην
ὅ ἐστιν σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος.
This clause is quoted by Jerome ad
Ephes. iv, τ (VI. p. 606) ‘Cujus rei et
Clemens ad Corinthios testis est,
scribens Vinculum charitatis Det qui
(guts) poterit enarrare 2)

6. ἀρκετὸς ἐξειπεῖν] Previous edit-
ors had misread the ms A, and writ-
ten ἀρκεῖ, ὡς ἔδει, εἰπεῖν. For the
construction of ἀρκετὸς see I Pet. iv. 3.
The word occurs also Matt. vi. 34,

XLIX |

εὐαρεστεῖν ἐστιν τῷ Θεῷ) 5.
δέδωκεν C.
18 τῶν ψυχῶν] AS; τῆς ψυχῆς C.

x. 25, Hermas Κ725. iii. 8.

TO ὕψος x.t.d.] See the elabo-
rate metaphor in Ign. Ephes. 9 ava-
φερόμενοι εἰς τὰ ὕψη διὰ τῆς μηχανῆς
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κιτιλ. The passage of
Clement from this point, as far as
τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Χριστοῦ (ὃ 50), is
loosely quoted and abridged by Clem.
Alex. Strom. iv. 17 (p. 613 56).

8. ἀγάπη καλύπτει x.t.A.| ‘throws
a veil over, omits to notice, forgets,
Jorgives’. The expression is taken
from 1 Pet. iv. ὃ (comp. James v. 20),
which again seems to be a loose quo-
tation from Prov. x. 12, where the
original has p'ywecd> ‘all sins’ for
‘a multitude of sins’, and the LxXx
rendering is still wider, πάντας δὲ
τοὺς μὴ φιλονεικοῦντας καλύπτει φιλία.
For this Hebrew metaphor of ‘ cover-
mic’ see Ps, xxxii. 1, Ixxxv. 3, Neh.
ili. 37 (iv. 6).

9. ἀγάπη πάντα ἀνέχεται] An imi-
tation of 1 Cor. xill. 4, 7, ἡ ἀγάπη
pakpoOupet...mavra στέγει.. «πάντα ὑπο-
μένει : and indeed the whole passage
is evidently inspired by S. Paul’s
praise of love. The juxtaposition of

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

149

‘to vavoov ἐν ὠγάπη, οὐδὲν ὑπερήφανον: ayarn σχίσ
pro yarn, pnp yarn σχισμα
i a” / / 7 / m=
οὐκ ἔχει, ἀγάπη οὐ στασιάζει, ἀγάπη πάντα ποιεῖ ἐν
~~ , ’ / ε 3
ὁμονοίᾳ: ἐν TH ἀγάπη ἐτελειώθησαν πάντες οἱ ἐκλεκτοὶ
“ ion / : ᾽ le Δ Of / > ΄σ ΄σ
τοῦ Θεοῦ: δίχα ἀγάπης οὐδὲν εὐαρεστὸν ἐστιν τῷ Θεῷ:
> > / / ε “ ε / . N \
ἐν ἀγάπη προσελάβετο ἡμᾶς ὁ δεσπότης" διὰ τὴν
/ « 7 \ € > \ ἘΝ Co SH
Is ἀγάπην, ἣν ἔσχεν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, TO αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν
ε \ ε “΄“ > > \ ς , ε ΄σ 5) ΄
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστος ὁ Κύριος ἡμών ἐν θελήματι
΄- \ 7 \ a \ ΄σ \ \
Θεοῦ, καὶ τὴν σάρκα ὑπερ τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμών καὶ τὴν
δι \ a ΄σ΄ ΄-
ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν.
The whole of the preceding passage is disturbed in CS by false punctuation.
8 πλῆθος] AC; but S translates NVW ‘ meurum.’
and so Clem (except that he omits ἐστιν); Deo placere nemo potest (as if οὐδενὶ

14 ἡμᾶς] AS; ὑμᾶς C.
16 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς] AS ; ἰησοῦς χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμών C.

13 οὐδὲν. «τῷ Θεῴ] AC,

15 ἔδωκεν] A;

the language of 5. 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 Galatzans p.
323, with notes above §§ 12, 33.

βάναυσον] ‘ coarse, vulgar, self-as-
serting, arrogant’, See the note on
ἀβαναύσως § 44.

10. σχίσμα οὐκ ἔχει κ.τ.λ.] 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’.

12. ἐτελειώθησαν) 1 John iv. 18 ὁ δὲ
φοβούμενος οὐ τετελείωται ev τῇ ἀγάπῃ.

14. διὰ τὴν ἀγάπην κιτ.λ.] Comp.
John xv. 12, Gal. ii. 20, Ephes. v. 2.

17. καὶ τὴν σάρκα] Wotton quotes
Iren. v. 1. 1 τῷ ἰδίῳ αἵματι λυτρωσαμέ-
νου ἡμᾶς τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ δόντος τὴν
ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχών καὶ
τὴν σάρκα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀντὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων
σαρκῶν, which seems to have been
taken from this passage of Clement.

150

L.

> ΄ \ > / > lo af
ἐστιν ἡ ἀγαπη, Kal τῆς τελειότητος αὐτῆς οὐκ ἐστιν

THE EPISTLE OF 5. CLEMENT

[τ

« “ iA ΄σ , \ ’
Ορᾶτε, ἀγαπητοί, πῶς μέγα καὶ θαυμαστόν

> “4 7 ec \ 2 Yale! ε = 3 \ ἃ 3\
ἐξηγησις" τις LKAVOS EV AUTH εὑρεθῆναι, €l My OUS αν
“ ς ΄ , ἢ ΤᾺ \ 3 7 > \
καταξιώση ὁ Θεός; δεώμεθα οὖν καὶ αἰτώμεθα ἀπὸ
my 73 ἐν 3 =~ 4 3 ? , € = /
Tou ἐλέους αὐτοῦ, ἵνα ἐν ayary εὑρεθώμεν δίχα προσ-
΄ 7, ᾽ e i = 3 \
κλίσεως ἀνθρωπίνης ἄμωμοι. αἱ γενεαὶ πᾶσαι ἀπὸ
2 \ 4 = € , =~ ? 2 e > 3 “
Adap ἕως τῆσδε ἡμέρας παρῆλθον, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ ἐν ἀγάπη
2 ἡ ἀγάπη] A; ἀγάπη C. αὐτῆς A; αὐτοῦ C. S translates ejzsdem (psius)
perfectionis. It seems to have had αὐτῆς and made it agree with τελειότητος.
οὐκ ἔστιν x.T.d.] AC; S translates son est sermo ullus sifficiens ut invenratur, thus

reading ἐξήγησίς τις and making ἱκανὸς feminine. 3 ἐξήγησις] εξηγησεισ A.
εἰ μὴ] AC; S apparently adds ἐν ἀγάπῃ καὶ, but a false punctuation has confused

the translation of the whole context.

οὗς ἂν καταξιώσῃ] Tischendorf seems to
N

have rightly deciphered A as reading OYCAKATAZIWCH, though the superscribed

Ν 15 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 andlove. For then our sins
will be forgiven us: we shall inherit
the blessing promised to the elect of
God through Christ.’

2. τῆς τελειότητος κιτ.λ.] See I John
iv. 18 οὐ τετελείωται ἐν TH ἀγάπῃ, above
δ᾽ 49 ἐτελειώθησαν, and below οἱ ἐν
ἀγάπῃ τελειωθέντες ; Comp. 1 John ii.
Sea weet

3. ἐν αὐτῇ evp.] Comp. Phil. iii. 9.

6. ai γενεαὶ πᾶσαι] Comp. ὃ 7 εἰς
Tas γενεὰς πάσας.

8. χῶρον εὐσεβῶν] ‘the place as-
signed to the pious’, like τὸν ὀφειλόμε-
νον τύπον τῆς δόξης ὃ 5, or τοῦ ἱδρυ-
μένου αὐτοῖς τόπου § 44. See the note
on ἢ 5; Δη4 comp. Iren. v. 31. 2(quoted
by Wotton here) ai ψυχαὶ ἀπέρχονται
els Tov [ἀόρατον] τόπον τὸν ὡρισμένον

4 καταξιώσῃ] 5; καταδιώξη C. For the reading of A see
δεώμεθα] supplicemus Ὁ

Ban τὸ θα A; δεόμεθα C3; I had conjec-

ἀὐταῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, κἀκεῖ μέχρι THs
ἀναστάσεως φοιτῶσι, περιμένουσαι τὴν
ἀνάστασιν κιτιλ. See also Afost.
Const. viii. 41 χῶρος εὐσεβῶν ave
μένος κιτιλ., Lebas-Waddington Asie
Mineure Inscr. 168 εὐσεβέων χῶρον
δέξατο πᾶσι φίλον. For χῶρον εὐσεβῶν
the existing text of Clem. Alex. has
χώραν εὐσεβῶν, ‘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 χῶρος, rather than χώρα, 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 Εὐσεβῶν χώρα and EvocBov
χῶρος; see Bentley's Dissert. on Pha-
lar. ν {1 po.238,/edieDyce):

9. ἐν τῇ ἐπισκοπῇ K.T.A.| Luke xix.
44 τὸν καιρὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς σου, 1 Pet.
ii. 12 δοξάσωσιν τὸν Θεὸν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπι-
σκοπῆς, ΝΥ 154. iil. 7 καὶ ἐν καιρῷ ἐπι-
σκοπῆς αὐτῶν ἀναλάμψουσιν, Polycra-

ou

10

15

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

1]

ἢ} A \ ~ ΄σ ΄ of a
τελειωθέντες κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ yap ἐχουσιν χῶρον

151

’ Ley A if > ΄σ > ΄- qn
εὐσεβῶν" ot φανερωθήσονται ἐν TH ἐπισκοπῆ τῆς βα-
ἐ

7 a ΄σ / if > , 3 \
σιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ. γέγραπται γαρ᾽ Εἰεέλθετε εἶς τὰ

ς

TAMEIA Μικρὸν OCON ὅσον, ἕως OY πὰρέλθῃ ἢ ὀργὴ καὶ

θυμός Moy, KAl MNHCOHCOMAl HMépac ἀγδθῆς Kal ἀνδοτήσω
ς a 2 a a ε a , > >

YMAC ἐκ τῶν θηκῶν YMON. μακαρίοι MEV, ἀγαπητοί,
> \ , ~ “ 3 = > ε /

εἰ Ta προστάγματα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐποιοῦμεν ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ
> ἢ 2 \ 3 = ai De y \ ς /

ἀγάπης, εἰς TO ἀφεθῆναι ἡμῖν Oe ἀγάπης Tas ἁμαρτίας.
tured δεώμεθα (ed. 1). οὖν] AC; add. ἀγαπητοί 5. αἰτώμεθα] AS ;
αἰτούμεθα C. 5 αὐτοῦ] AC; τοῦ Θεοῦ 5. προσκλίσεως} A; προσκλήσεως
C; adhaerentia S. On this itacism see above, § 47. 7 τῆσδε ἡμέρας] A;
τῆς ἡμέρας τῆσδε C; while Clem has τῆσδε τῆς ἡμέρας. The reading of S is inde-

terminable. Ὁ ot] AS; οἱ δὲ C. 10 Θεοῦ] CS; .y A; Tischendorf
reads xy; but I could only see y, the first letter being hopelessly blurred.

εἰσέλθετε] CS; evoed.... A.

LXX, but the other authorities point to εἰσέλθετε.
12 θυμός] θυ... A; ὁ θυμός C.

ταμιεῖα (.
15 ἡμῖν] AS; ὑμῖν C.

tes in Euseb. 2.7. £. v. 24 περιμένων
τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐπισκοπὴν ἐν 7) ἐκ
νεκρῶν ἀναστήσεται.

10. Εἰσέλθετε κ-τ.λ.] A combination
of passages. The opening is taken
from the LXX Is. xxvi. 20 εἴσελθε εἰς
τὰ ταμεῖά σου, ἀποκλεῖσον τὴν θύραν σου,
ἀποκρύβηθι μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον, ἕως ἂν
παρέλθῃ ἡ ὀργὴ Κυρίου : the close pro-
bably from Ezek. xxxvii. 12 ἀνάξω
ὑμᾶς ἐκ τῶν μνημάτων ὑμῶν. The in-
termediate words καὶ μνησθήσομαι
ἡμέρας ἀγαθῆς 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 ὃ 52. The
combination of the two passages
from different prophets was probably
suggested by the verse in Isaiah
which immediately precedes the
words quoted, ἀναστήσονται οἱ νεκροὶ
καὶ ἐγερθήσονται οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις ([5.
ἘΣΤΙ: 19). Comp..5, Esdr. ii. 16᾽ “εἴ
resuscitabo mortuos de locis suis et
de monumentis educam illos ete.’

It is quite possible that A read εἴσελθε with the

11 Tapeta] Tama A;
13 ἦμεν] CS; ἐσμεν A.

11. ταμεῖα] ‘the inner chamber’,
ὙΠ. On the form see Lobeck Phryn.
p. 493, Paral. p. 28. The same ten-
dency to elide the « before ec appears
in ὑγεία § 20. In ὃ 21 however our
chief MS writes ταμιεῖα.

ὅσον ὅσον] Comp. Heb. x. 37 (with
Bleek’s note).

ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός] ὀργὴ is the settled
temper, ‘anger’; θυμὸς the sudden
outburst, ‘wrath’. See the distinc-
tion) ans Tréeneh’s ZV. 7.) Syn st
ser. § xxxvii, and to the passages
there collected add Joseph. 4. F. ii.
8. 6 ὀργῆς ταμίαι δίκαιοι θυμοῦ καθεκ-
τικοί, Hermas JJand. v. 2 ἐκ δὲ τῆς
πικρίας θυμός, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ θυμοῦ ὀργή,
Κι πολ.

14. ἐποιοῦμεν] If the reading be
correct, the point of time denoted in
ἐσμὲν must be the second advent, so
that the deeds of this present life are
regarded as past.

ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ ἀγάπης] ὃ 49 ἀγάπη πάντα
ποιεῖ ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ. ;

15. δι ἀγάπης] ‘through God’s love’,

152 THE EPISTLE OF 8S. CLEMENT [1

γέγραπται γάρ' Λλὰκᾶριοι ὧν ἀφέθησαν ai ἀνομίδι καὶ
ὧν €MEKAAYDOHCAN al ἁμδρτίδι: MAKAPIOC ANHP OY OY μὴ
Aoricutal Κύριος AMapTiAN οὐδέ E€cTIN EN τῷ οτόμδτι ayTlOy]
λόλοο. οὗτος ὁ μακαρισμὸς ἐγένετο ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐκλελεγ-
μένους ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου 5
ἡμῶν, ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν.
I μακάριοι] μακακαριοι A. 2 οὗ] A; @ CS. There is the same ν. ]. in
the LXx. 5 τοῦ Θεοῦ] A; Θεοῦ C. 7 παρεπέσαμεν καὶ ἐποιήσαμεν]

CS ; mape...uev A. See the lower note. 8 ἀφεθῆναι ἡμῖν] CS, and so pro-
bably A. See the lower note. 10 THs ἐλπίδος] AC ; spec 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 ὃ 49
δίχα ἀγάπης k.T.A.

I. Μακάριοι κ-τ.λ.] From the LXx
of Ps. xxxil. I, 2, word for word, as
read in A (S writes αφειθησαν). For
οὗ B has ᾧ. In Rom. iv. 8 it is a
question whether οὗ or ᾧ is the cor-
rect reading.

4. οὗτος ὁ μακαρισμός] Suggested
by Rom. iv. 9, where after quoting
the same passage from the Psalms
S. Paul continues, ὁ μακαρισμὸς οὖν
οὗτος ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομὴν κιτιλ. For
μακαρισμὸς See also Rom. iv. 6, Gal.
iv. 15 (note).

7. παρεπέσαμεν καὶ ἐποιήσαμεν]
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

pitas jectmus. But what was the

reading of A? The editors have
hitherto given παρέβημεν ; but the
older collators Young and Wotton
professed only to see mape...uev, and
after C was discovered, Gebhardt
(ed. 2), observing that nothing was
said either by Tischendorf or by my-

11 φόβου] AC; add.

self ‘de litera B adhuc conspicua’,
suggested that the reading of A was
not παρέβημεν but παρεπέσαμεν and
that the following words καὶ ἐποιήσα-
μεν were omitted owing to homeeote-
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 tt followed by a curved letter
which might be ¢. 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 παρεπέσαμεν.
This reading is favoured by the words
which follow καλὸν yap ἀνθρώπῳ ἐξο-
μολογεῖσθαι περὶ τῶν παραπτωμάτων
(see the note on § 46), as also by
the loose paraphrase of the younger
Clement Strom. iv. 18 (p. 614) ἢν δὲ
kal περιπέσῃ ἄκων τοιαύτῃ τινὶ περι-
στάσει διὰ τὰς παρεμπτώσεις τοῦ ἀντι-
κειμένου, Where περιπέσῃ 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

Io

11]

11.

πὸ CORINTHIANS:

153

/ S , \ (}
“Oca οὖν παρεπέσαμεν καὶ ἐποιήσαμεν διά

΄σ - le a Ἐν Awe
τινος τῶν TOU ἀντικειμένου, ἀξιώσωμεν ἀφεθῆναι ἡμῖν"

AW = / « \ “ \ ’
καὶ ἐκεῖνοι δέ, οἵτινες ἀρχηγοὶ στάσεως καὶ διχοστασίας

> “ > 7 \ \ ΄σ > / a
ἐγενήθησαν, ὀφειλουσιν TO κοινὸν τῆς ἐλπίδος σκοπεῖν.

S \ \ “ \ 5) / / ε \
οἱ yao μετὰ φόβου καὶ ἀγάπης πολιτευόμενοι ἑαυτοὺς

θέ a Sry, / 3 \ ἢ»
ἐλουσιν μάλλον αἰκίαις περιπίπτειν ἡ τοὺς πλησίον,

det 8.

12 θέλουσιν] AC; cogunt (coarctant) S.

αἰκίας] οἰκιαισ A.

Tischendorf (prol. p. xix) considers that it is altered into αἰκιαισ prima manu, but

I could not distinctly see this correction.

τοὺς πλησίον] AC ; τοῖς πλησίον S,

which also omits δὲ ἑαυτῶν, 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. διά twos κιτ.λ.] ‘by any of the
wiles (or of the ministers) of the ad-
versary’.

8. τοῦ ἀντικειμένου] So ὁ ἀντίδικος
1 Pet. v. 8, and perhaps ὁ ἀντενεργῶν
Barnab. ὃ 2. ‘O ἀντικείμενος itself is
not so used in the New Testament
(except possibly in 1 Tim. v. 14), but
occurs Mart. Polyc. 17, and in later
writers.

ἀφεθῆναι ἡμῖν] So the lacuna in
A is now supplied in our new
authorities in place of συγγνώμην.
Among other suggestions I had pro-
posed ἀφεθῆναι in my notes ; comp.
δ 50 εἰς τὸ ἀφεθῆναι ἡμῖν...γέγραπται
γάρ- Μακάριοι ὧν ἀφέθησαν κιτιλ. 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 [συγ ]γνωμ[ίην! ; literarum yvop
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 ἀξιοῦν. I had urged that
the instances where ἀξιοῦν appears
to govern an accusative of the thing
claimed (e.g. Dan, ii. 23, Esth. v. 6,
ix, 12, Xen. Mem. 111. 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 συγγινώσκειν,
συγγνώμη; ever saidof 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
συγγνωμὴν would not fit into these
indentations but that αφεθηναιημ[ εν}
might.

9. διχοστασίας] See the note on
ὃ 46.

10, τὸ κοινὸν τῆς ἐλπίδος] Comp.
Ign. "2165. 1 ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινοῦ ὀνόματος
καὶ ἐλπίδος with the note.

154 THE EPISTLE OF 5. CLEMENT

Cn \ ε lol / , aN ~
μάλλον δὲ ἑαυτῶν καταγνωσιν φερουσιν ἢ τῆς παρα-
/ Ce ~ \ / ε i \
δεδομένης ἡμῖν καλῶς Kal δικαίως ὁμοφωνίας. καλον
N > 7 ~ ΄σ΄ if
γὰρ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐξομολογεῖσθαι περὶ τῶν TapaTTwpa-

ΠῚ ΄σ \ 7 > lanl \ 3 /
τῶν ἢ σκληρῦναι THY καρδίαν αὐτοῦ, καθὼς ἐσκληρύνθη

(re

ἡ καρδία τῶν στασιαζόντων πρὸς τὸν θεράποντα τοῦ 5

Θεοῦ Μωῦσῆν: ὧν τὸ κρίμα πρόδηλον ἐγενήθη. κατέ-
βησαν yap εἰς ἅδου ζῶντες, καὶ θάνατος ποιμὰνεῖ
AYTOYC. Papaw Kal ἡ στρατιὰ αὐτοῦ Kal πάντες
οἱ ἡγούμενοι Αἰγύπτου, τὰ τε ἅρματὰ καὶ οἱ ἀναβάτδι
αὐτῶν, οὐ OL ἄλλην τινὰ αἰτίαν ἐβυθίσθησαν εἰς θά-

\ 3 / \
λασσαν ἐρυθρὰν καὶ ἀπώλοντο, ἀλλὰ διὰ TO σκλη-

5 στασιαζοντων) A; στασιάντων 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; ἄνθρωπον C. See the lower note.

θερά-
9 Αἰγύπτου] 5; .««ὑπτου A;

αὐτοῦ C. Perhaps the archetype of C was partially erased here and ran a..v.7ov.

ἀναβάται] ἀναβάταις C.

2. καλὸν...7] Matt. xviii. 8, Mark

ix. 43,45; see Winer Gramm. § xxxv.
p. 255.

4. okAnpovar x.t.A.] Ps. xcv. 8;
comp. Heb. iii. 8, 15, iv. 7.

5. τὸν θεράποντα] See the various
reading in C. Moses is called ἄν-
θρωπος τοῦ Θεοῦ, Deut. xxxiii. 1, Josh.
xiv. 6, 1 Chron. xxii. 14, 2 Chron.
xxx. 16, Ezra ili. 2. Familiarity with
the phrase (which 15 especially
prominent in Deut. xxxili. 1, where
it prefaces the Song of Moses) would
lead to its introduction here. Else-
where (§ 53) C alters the designation
θεράπων τοῦ Θεοῦ in another way.
On the other hand θεράπων τοῦ Θεοῦ
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. κατέβησαν yap k.t.A.] Num. xvi.

10 ov] a A.
13 γῇ Δίγύπτου] ynayv... A; Αἰγύπτῳ CS.

12 αὐτῶν] here A; after καρδίας C.
14 Mwiicéws] μωυσεω A;

32, 33 ἠνοίχθη ἡ γῆ καὶ κατέπιεν αὐτούς
οὐνκαὶ κατέβησαν αὐτοὶ καὶ ὅσα ἐστὶν
αὐτῶν ζῶντα εἰς adov. Comp. Apost.
Const. ii. 27 Δαθὰν καὶ ᾿Αβειρὼν ζῶντες
κατέβησαν εἰς ddov καὶ ῥάβδος βλασ-
τήσασα K.7.A. (comp. § 43); see also
2D) WES:

7. ποιμανεῖ] Clement is quoting
from Ps. xlviii (xlix). 14 ὡς πρόβατα
ev ἅδη ἔθεντο, θάνατος ποιμανεῖ αὐτούς.
The reading could not have been
foreseen, and the lacuna in A was
supplied with κατέπιεν, before our new
authorities revealed the true reading,

9. τά τε ἅρματα καὶ οἱ ἀναβάται]
The expression is borrowed from the
Mosaic narrative, where it occurs
several times, Exod. xiv. 23, 26, 28,
comp. xv. 19, Jer. li (xxviii). 22, Hagg.
li, 22.

12. τὰς ἀσυνέτους καρδίας] As Rom.
ΠΤ ΡΝ
καρδία.

Lil.

3 , ς > , > ΄-
ἐσκοτίσθη ἢ GQOuveTos αὐτῶν

‘The Lord of the universe

Io

Lu|

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

ss)

΄σ > ΄σ \ id , \ \ /
puvOnvat αὐτῶν Tas ἀσυνέτους καρδίας μετὰ TO γενέσ-

\ - \ \ 2 . - ὙΠ \
θαι TA σήμεια καὶ TA TENPATA CUT ΔλΔίγύπτου διὰ
ἐ

τοῦ θεράποντος τοῦ Θεοῦ Μωὺῦύσέως.

LIL.

᾿λπροσδεής, ἀδελφοί, ὁ δεσπότης ὑπάρχει

΄σ ε 7 ΣΝ > \ / > \ \ >
τῶν ἁπάντων, οὐδὲν οὐδενὸς χρήζει εἰ μὴ TO ἐξο-
—t

~ 2 ΄σ
μολογεῖσθαι αὐτῷ.

φησὶν γὰρ ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς Aaveid:

᾿Εξομολογήοομδι τῷ Κγρίῳ, kal ἀρέσει ἀὐτῷ ὑπὲρ μόοχον

3

νέον κέρατὰ ἐκφέροντὰ κἂὶ ὅὁπλδο: IAETWCAN πτωχοὶ καὶ

2 ͵ \ μ , an a a ͵
20 €YPPANOHTWCAN. καὶ πάλιν λέγει" Ofcon τῷ Θεῷ θγοίὰν

AINECEWC KAI ἁπόλος τῷ ὑψίοτῳ τὰς εὐχᾶς οου᾽ KAI ἐπι-

μωσέως C.

16 οὐδὲν] .. δεν A; om. CS.

τὸ] A; τοῦ C. The οὐδὲν

has obviously been omitted by carelessness before οὐδενὸς, and thus has necessitated

the further change of τὸ into τοῦ.
oad AC. See above, § 4.
τῶσαν}) AS; om. C.

21 ἐπικάλεσαι] επικαλεσε 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. ᾿Απροσδεής] ‘wants nothing be-
sides’. Comp. Joseph. Azz. viii. 4. 3
ἀπροσδεὲς yap τὸ θεῖον ἁπάντων (with
the context), Act. Paul. et Thecl.
δ 17 (p. 47 Tisch.) Θεὸς ἀπροσδεής,
Clem. Hom. xi. 9 ὁ Θεὸς yap ἀνενδεὴς
ὧν αὐτὸς οὐδενὸς δεῖται, Epist. ad
Diogn. 3 ὃ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν
γῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς... οὐδενὸς ἂν
αὐτὸς προσδέοιτο τούτων κιτιλ., Α-
thenag. Suppl. § 13 ὁ τοῦδε τοῦ παν-
τὸς δημιουργὸς καὶ πατὴρ... ἀνενδεὴς καὶ
ἀπροσδεής, ὃ 29 ἀνενδεὲς...τὸ θεῖον,
Resurr. ὃ 12 παντὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἀπροσ-
δεής, Tatian ad Graec. 4 6 γὰρ πάν-
Tov ἀνενδεὴς οὐ διαβλητέος ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν
ὡς ἐνδεής, Theophil. ad Aut. ii. 10
dvevdens av. See also Acts xvii. 25
with the passages from heathen wri-
ters collected there by Wetstein.
This was a favourite mode of speak-

17 αὐτῷ] AC; add. μόνον 5.
1g νέον] vacov A.

Δαυείδ]
19, 20 κέρατα... εὐφρανθή-

21—2 καὶ ἐπικάλεσαι.. δοξάσεις pe] AS; om. Ο.

ing with the Stoics. The parallel
passages quoted above would sup-
port the connexion of τῶν ἁπάντων
either with ἀπροσδεὴς or with ὁ δεσ-
πότης. The latter seems more forcible
and more natural here, besides that
ὁ δεσπότης τῶν ἁπάντων is a Common
phrase in Clement, S§ 8, 20, 33. It
is however connected with ὁ δεσπότης
in the Syriac.

18. ᾿Εξομολογήσομαι x.t.A.] Comp.
Ps. lxix. 31, 32, καὶ ἀρέσει τῷ Θεῷ ὑπὲρ
μόσχον νέον κέρατα ἐκφέροντα καὶ ὁπ-
λάς" ἰδέτωσαν κι-τιλ. The introductory
words ἐξομολογήσομαι τῷ Κυρίῳ are
not found in the context, though they
express the sezse of the preceding
verse αἰνέσω τὸ ὄνομα x.t.A., and occur
frequently elsewhere.

20. Θῦσον κ-τ.λ.} The first part
θῦσον.. δοξάσεις με 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 θυσία τῷ Θεῷ πνεῦμα συν-
τετριμμένον.

156 THE EPISTLE OF S, CLEMENT

κἄλεολ! ME EN HMEPA θλίψεώς coy, Kal ἐξελοῦμδί ce, Kal

AozZAcelc Me’ θγοίὰ γὰρ τῷ Θεῷ TNEYMA CYNTETPIMMENON.
ἘΠῚ:
« \ / 3 7 \ ᾽ , 3 \ /
ἱερᾶς ypadas, ἀγαπητοί, καὶ ἐγκεκύῴφατε εἰς Ta λογια
Μωὺῦυ-

/ \ / ? \ a] \ ,
σέως γὰρ ἀναβαίνοντος εἰς τὸ ὄρος καὶ ποιήσαντος

> / 4 \ Las) 32 / \

Erioracbe γὰρ καὶ καλώς ἐπίστασθε Tas
΄ ΄ 3 2 / 53 ΄σ ΄

τοῦ Θεοῦ: εἰς ἀνάμνησιν οὖν ταῦτα γράφομεν.

τεσσεράκοντα ἡμέρας καὶ τεσσεράκοντα νύκτας ἐν
νηστείᾳ καὶ ταπεινώσει, εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Θεός"
Λλωγοῆ, ΛΛωγοῆ, κατάβηθι TO τἄχος ἐντεῦθεν, ὅτι HNOMHCEN
ὁ λὰύς coy o¥c ἐξήγαγες ἐκ γῆς Airymtoy’ πὰρέβησὰν TAyyY

1 gov] A; om. 9. 3 ἐπίστασθε] επιστασθαι A. yap] AC; add.
ἀδελφοὶ S, omitting ἀγαπητοὶ 1. 20; see above, § I. 4 καὶ ἐγκεκύφατε)
CS; .. εκυφατε A. 5 γράφομεν] 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 ἀναβαίνοντος] A, not
ἀναβάντος as Jacobson would read; for the ! is distinct and cannot have formed
the first stroke of N as he supposes; ἀναβάντος 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 ...0 A; ὡς πρὸς (or ὡς
els) 5. 7 τεσσεράκοντα] τεσσαράκοντα 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.

I. ἐξελοῦμαι] For this future see
Buttmann Gr. Sprachl. 11. p. 100,
Winer Gramm. § xciv. Clem. Alex.
Strom. iv. τὸ (p. 614), after διὰ ras

tas ἱερὰς ypapas] Comp. Polyc.
Phil. 12 ‘Confido enim vos bene
exercitatos esse in sacris literis et
nihil vos latet’. “So 2 Tim. iia

[urn

παρεμπτώσεις τοῦ ἀντικειμένου (already
quoted p. 152), goes on μιμησάμενος
τὸν Δαυὶδ ψαλεῖ ᾿Εξομολογήσομαι κ.τ.λ.
ἜΠΡΝ συντετριμμένον, 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. ἐπίστασθε x.t.A.| For the form
of the sentence see the note on § 47
αἰσχρά, ἀγαπητοί, καὶ λίαν αἰσχρά.

[τὰ] ἱερὰ γράμματα, the only passage
in the New Testament where this
epithet is applied to the Scriptures.
It occurs above § 43, and in 2 Macc.
Vlii. 23, and is so used both by Philo
and by Josephus.

4. ἐγκεκύφατε] See the note on ὃ 4o.

6. ποιήσαντος] ‘sfent, as several
times inthe N.T. See the references
in Grimm’s Clav. Nov. Test. 5.ν. ποιεῖν
it. Ὁ; Β΄ 527 (66. Thayer):

8. εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτὸν κιτ.λ.] The first
part, as far as μᾶλλον ἢ τοῦτο, is taken
from Deut. ix. 12—14, which how-
ever commences somewhat differently
kal εἶπε Κύριος πρός με ᾿Ανάστηθι, κατά-
βηθι τὸ τάχος, the remainder following

τόσ

1.111] TO THE CORINTHIANS.

17
ἐκ τῆς ὁλοῦ Fc ἐνετείλω ἀγτοῖο, éTOIHCAN EayTOIC χω-
’ \ > ku \ > kal srg ᾿
NEYMATA. και ELTTEV υριος προς αυτον Λελᾶληκὰ προς
cé ἅπαξ καὶ Alc λέγων, Ἑώρδκὰ τὸν AAON τοῦτον, KAI iAOY
ἐστιν οκληροτράχηλοο᾽ ἔδοόν με ἐξολεθρεῦολι AYTOYC, Kal
ἐξαλείψω τὸ ὄνομὰ αὐτῶν ὑποκάτωθεν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ
͵ > 3: , \ \ ‘ \ “
TOILca@ ce εἰς ἔθνος MELA Κὰὶ BAYMACTON KAI πΠολὴὶ MAAAON
a \ =) “: A a , ΕἸ
ἢ τοῦτο. Kai εἶπεν Λλωγοῆς: ΛλΛηθὰμῶο, Κύριε: ἄφες TEN
ἁμαρτίαν τῷ λδῷ τούτῳ F κἀμὲ ἐξάλειψον ἐκ Βίβλου Ζών-

“ἡ ΄ 3 , NX i? 3 y
TON. ὦ μεγάλης ἀγάπης; ὦ τελειότητος ἀνυπερβλήτον"

9 Μωὺῦσῆ, Μωῦσῆ] ..onuwvon A; μωσῆ, μωσῆ C (this MS is most capricious, and
both before and after this uses the other form uwvojs); om. S. TO ἐκ γῆς
Αἰγύπτου] C3 εκγησ....... v A; ἐξ Αἰγύπτου S, with the Hebrew. 11 ἐποίησαν
AC (Lxx A with the Hebr); καὶ ἐποίησαν 5. The καὶ appears in Β of the
TL One χωνεύματα] AC; χώνευμα (owing to the absence of v7bwz) S. In the
Lxx A has χωνευτά, B χώνευμα with the Hebr. 14 ἐστιν] def. A; ἐστι CS with
Clem. The editors (myself included) following Young had supplied the lacuna in
A with λαός from the Lxx (ἰδοὺ λαὸς σκληροτράχηλός ἐστιν), though Potter (Clem.
Alex. Strom. iv. 19, p. 617) had warned them that Clement of Alexandria supplied

the right word (ἐστιν).
ἔασον.
S apparently.
hoc S.

the LXx very closely (compare also
Exod. xxxii. 7, 8). After μᾶλλον ἢ
τοῦτο the parallel narrative in Exod.
xxxii is taken up, and the substance
of vv. 10, 31, 32 is given in a com-
pressed form. See Barnab. § 4 λέγει
yap οὕτως Κύριος, Maton, Μωῦσῆ, κα-
τάβηθι τὸ τάχος, ὅτι ἠνόμησεν ὁ ads
σου οὺς ἐξήγαγες ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, and
again ὃ 14 εἶπεν Κύριος πρὸς Μωῦσῆν,
Μωῦσῆ, Μωῦσῆ, κατάβηθι τὸ τάχος ὅτι
ὁ λαός σου ὃν ἐξήγαγες ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου
ἠνόμησεν. The coincidence in the
repetition of the name Μωῦσῆ, Μωῦσῆ,
is not sufficient to show that the one
writer was indebted to the other (as
Hilgenfeld seems to think, here and
Ῥ. 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

ἔασον] AC; καὶ ἔασον S.
ἐξολεθρεῦσαι] ....εθρευσαι A; ἐξολοθρεῦσαι C ; ἐξολεθρεύσω (or -λοθρεύσω)
17 εἶπεν] def. A; εἶπε.

19 ὦ μεγάλης] A; μεγάλης (om. ὦ) (Ὁ.

In the LXx B has καὶ νῦν

Thy ἁμαρτίαν] AC; peccatum

both writers from Exod. ili. 4.

16. θαυμαστὸν] So quoted also by
Clem. Alex., but it is ἰσχυρὸν in the
Lxx. The combination μέγα καὶ
θαυμαστὸν occurs also §§ 26, 50.

πολὺ μᾶλλον ἢ τοῦτο] 1.6. πλεῖον
τούτου, an attempt to render the
Hebrew idiom 43) 25, ‘greater
than it’. See ii. ὃ 2 from Is. liv. 1.

Clem. Alex., Strom. iv. 19 (p. 617)
αὐτίκα οὐχ ὁ Μωῦσῆς k.t.v., para-
phrases the remainder of this chapter
from καὶ εἶπεν κιτ.λ., giving the same
quotations as the Roman Clement.

19. ὦ ὦ] According to the rule of
the grammarians the interjections
should be so accentuated, not ὦ, ὦ ;
see Chandler Greek Accentuation
§ 904, p. 246 sq. The editors here
vary

158 THE EPISTLE OF 8. CLEMENT (um

/ le \ / > ΄σ a}
παρρησιάζεται θεράπων πρὸς κύριον, αἰτεῖται ἀφεσιν

~ / \ \ 9 ΄σ ΄“ > ~
τῷ πλήθει ἢ καὶ ἑαυτὸν ἐξαλειφθῆναι μετ᾽ αὐτών ἀξιοῖ.

> > CS pis > ᾽}
LIV. Tis οὖν ἐν ὑμῖν λον τίς we

τίς are ea anes ἀγάπης:

στάσις καὶ a Kal τ 4, 1: Benepe ἄπειμι οὗ 1

βούλησθε, καὶ

ποιῶ τὰ προστασσόμενα

Εἰ δι᾿ ἐ

> 7
ELTTATW*

ὑπὸ τοῦ

7 , \ 7 qn ~ 3 7
πλήθους: μόνον τὸ ποίμνιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰρηνευνέτω

\ - ,
META Τῶν καθεσταμένων πρεσβυτέρων.

1 θεράπων] AS; δεσπότης C.

ἐγὼ ἐκχωρῶ (apparently) S.
κλαιοσ A. το τόπος] τοπωσ A.

1. θεράπων] Bryennios adopts the
reading of C δεσπότης; i.e. ‘as 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 ts the
Lora’s and the fulness thereof. This
has been the conduct of the true
citizens of God’s kingdom in all
ages.’

3. Tis οὖν κιτ.λ.] This passage, as
far as καθεσταμένων πρεσβυτέρων, 15
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 ὑπομνηματισμοί, which I have
elsewhere (I. Ῥ. 327 sq) given reasons
for supposing to have been the ‘ Me-
moirs’ (ὑπομνήματα) 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 ὑμῖν] AS; ἡμῖν C.
pnuévos| AC; plenus (tmpletus) S. See the lower note.
6 βούλησθε] βουλησθαι A.

΄- ΄
τοῦτο O ποιη-

4 πεπληροφο-
5 ἐκχωρῶ] AC;
9. κλέος]

12 πολιτείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ] A; τοῦ Θεοῦ

being consecrated by S. Peter, may
have acted as he here advises others
to act, and have refrained from active
ministrations (παραιτησάμενος ἤργει)
till the deaths of Linus and Cletus.
Compare Cic. pro 7711. ὃ 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 ὑπομνηματισμοὶ
which supplied Epiphanius with his
quotation, or from the collection which
the Syriac writer had before him.

4. πεπληροφορημένος] 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 πεπλη-
ρωμένος, ‘ filled full’; but of this sense,
though natural in itself, the lexicons

Io

τῶ

LV]

ε val 7 a 3 lo /
σας ἑαυτῷ μέγα κλέος ἐν Χριστῷ περιποιήσεται, καὶ

΄σ ᾽ὔ / 3 £
πάς τόπος δέξεται αὐτον"

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

159

\

TOY yap Kypioy § γῆ καὶ τὸ

' 3a ἊΣ / \ > ,
πλέρωμὰ AYTAC. ταῦτα οἱ πολιτευόμενοι THY ἀμεταμέ-

/ = ~~ / \ /
λητον πολιτείαν TOU Θεοῦ ETOLNTAV και ποιησουσιν.

LV. “Iva δὲ καὶ ὑποδείγματα ἐθνῶν ἐνέγκωμεν᾽"

\ ΄σ / ΄σ > /
moNANol βασιλεῖς Kal ἡγούμενοι, λοιμικοῦ τινος ἐνστάν-

΄- ς \
Tos καιροῦ, χρησμοδοτηθέντες παρέδωκαν ἑαυτοὺς εἰς

πολιτείαν (.
para C.

13 ὑποδείγματα] AS (72buz however being omitted); ὑπομνή-
ἐνέγκωμεν] AC ; add. vodis S.

14 πολλοὶ...καιροῦ] C3 γε

reges et magnates e principibus populorum, qui quum tempus afflictionts vel famts
alicujus instaret populo 5. This is unusually paraphrastic, but perhaps does not
represent a various reading. There is however a confusion of λοιμός and λιμός.

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. vill. 11 ἐπληροφορήθη καρδία
υἱῶν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῦ ποιῆσαι
τὸ πονηρόν, the corresponding Hebrew
is 35 xdp, ‘the heart was full to do
etc.” The word seems to be confined
almost exclusively to biblical and
ecclesiastical writings.

8. καθεσταμένων] ‘duly appointed,
as described in the earlier chapters,
$ 43,44 (rods κατασταθέντας Um ἐκείνων).

10. τοῦ yap Κυρίου k.r.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. πολιτευύμενοι... πολιτείαν] The
idea of a spiritual polity to which the
several members owe a duty is pro-
minent in the context (e.g. ὑπὸ τοῦ
πλήθους), and is still further developed
by the comparison with secular states
and statesmen inthe following chapter.

12. πολιτείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ] Comp. Zar.
Polyc. 17 τὴν ἀνεπίληπτον αὐτοῦ πο-
λιτείαν.

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

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. πολλοὶ βασιλεῖς x.t.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 λοιμικός τις καιρὸς is a type of
the sort of crisis which called forth
these deeds of heroic self-sacrifice.
Origen (2 Foann. vi. § 36, IV. p. 153)
refers to this passage, μεμαρτύρηται
δὲ καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὅτι πολλοί
τινες, λοιμικῶν ἐνσκηψάντων ἐν ταῖς
ἑαυτῶν πατρίσι νοσημάτων,
σφάγια ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινοῦ παραδεδώκασι"

c ‘
εαὐυτοὺυς

καὶ παραδέχεται ταῦθ᾽ οὕτως γεγονέναι
οὐκ ἀλόγως πιστεύσας ταῖς ἱστορίαις ὁ
πιστὸς Κλήμης ὑπὸ Παύλου μαρτυρού-
μενος. [ἢ several other passages also
(ei Celsz1:) 51. 10. Ὁ» 240.) eee eer,
Xxvilil. §14, IV. p. 393; ad 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

/ / εἢ \ - ~ / \
Oavatov, ἵνα ῥύσωνται διὰ τοῦ ἑαυτῶν αἵματος τοὺς

,
TONLTAaS.

\ / / .« ‘
πολλοὶ ἐξεχώρησαν ἰδίων πόλεων, ἵνα μὴ

fe ΄ 3 / \ ~
στασιάζωσιν ἐπὶ πλεῖον. ἐπιστάμεθα πολλοὺς ἐν ἡμῖν

/ e \ > / v4 e ων y
παραδεδωκότας EAUTOUS εἰς δεσμα, οσως ETEPOUS AUT Pw-

σονται.

i \ \ > ~ ε , > ΄
λαβόντες τὰς τιμὰς αὐτῶν ἑτέρους ἐψωμισαν.

\ \ / > / \
πολλοὶ EaUTOUS παρέδωκαν εἰς δουλείαν, καὶ

πολλαὶ

γυναῖκες ἐνδυναμωθεῖσαι διὰ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ

5 παρέδωκαν] A and so S (apparently) ; ἐξέδωκαν C.
S has a singular.
12 δι’ ἀγάπην... λαοῦ] AC; propter amorem

C (see Bryennios Didache p. py’).
9 THs πόλεως] AC ; urbe sua ὃ.

2. πολλοὶ ἐξεχώρησαν κιτ.λ] 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 E-xveo, st plus quam tibi [120]
guam| expedit crevi’ (Seneca Efist.
86).

3. ev ἡμῖν] 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 ὃ 6, ἐν ἡμῖν 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. λυτρώσονται] This construction

δουλείαν] A; δουλείας
8 Ἰουδὶθ] ιουδειθ A.

of ὅπως 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 λυτρώ-
σωνται, though both our Greek MSS
have λυτρώσονται.

6. τὰς τιμὰς αὐτῶν] ‘the value of
themselves” The form αὑτῶν (adopt-
ed by Hilgenfeld) must certainly be
rejected from the New Testament,
and probably from Clement also: see
above 9, 12, I4, 30, 32.

ἐψώμισαν] The word is used se-
veral times in the Lxx and gener-
ally as a translation of δ᾽ ΝΠ ‘to give
to eat’: comp. also 1 Cor. xia
Like so many other words (e.g. yop-
τάζεσθαι, 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 Corinthians |.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.

πολλαὶ γυναῖκες x.t.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

wn

LV | TO THE CORINTHIANS. 161

ἐπετελέσαντο πολλὰ ἀνδρεῖα. ᾿Ιουδὶθ ἡ μακαρία, ἐν
συγκλεισμῷ οὔσης τῆς πόλεως, ἠτήσατο παρὰ τῶν
πρεσβυτέρων ἐαθῆναι αὐτὴν ἐξελθεῖν εἰς τὴν παρεμβο-
λὴν τῶν ἀλλοφύλων: παραδοῦσα οὖν ἑαυτὴν τῷ κιν-
δύνῳ ἐξῆλθεν δὲ ἀγάπην τῆς πατρίδος καὶ τοῦ λαοῦ

τοῦ ὄντος ἐν συγκλεισμῷ, καὶ παρέδωκεν Κύριος ᾽Ολο-

, 3 \ , ᾽ « ΔΙ (δ 7 \
φέρνην ἐν χειρι θηλείας. οὐχ ἥττονι και ἢ TEAELA κατα

civitatis patrum suorum et propter populum 5.

14 θηλείας] θηλιασ A.

(already quoted p. 156); and some-
times he gives the very words of the
elder Clement, e.g. ἡ τελεία κατὰ πίστιν
Ἐσθήρ. 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. Ἰουδὶθ] 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, Ezz. in die
Apokr. τ. τ. p. 28, and elsewhere),
followed by Baur (Lehrd. der Christl.
Dogmeng. ed. 2, p. 82, and in other
places), Hitzig (Zeztschr. fiir Wis-
senscth. Theol. 1860, II. 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
Eml. p. 127 sq, in the Kuragef.
Hlandb. zu den Apokr., Ewald Gesch.
des Volkes Isr. iV. pp. 396, 541 sq,
Westcott in Smith's Dictionary of
the Bible 1. p. 1174, besides R. A.

CLEM. 1,

t

13 συγκλεισμᾷ] συγκλισμω A.

ἥττονι] ἡττονει A; ἧττον CS.

Lipsius (Zeztschr. fi Wissensch. 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 Fidische Quellen zur
Fudithsage (Zeitschr. f. Wissensch.
Theol. 1867, X. p. 337 Sq). Formore
on this subject see the introduction,
Eps 353 sd

12. τοῦ λαοῦ] ‘the chosen people’
(see the note on § 29), and thus op-
posed to ἀλλόφυλοι.

14. ἐν χειρὶ θηλείας] Taken from
Judith xiii. 15 ἐπάταξεν αὐτὸν ὁ Κύριος
ἐν χειρὶ θηλείας, XVI. 5 Κύριος παντο-
κράτωρ ἠθέτησεν αὐτοὺς ἐν χειρὶ θηλείας.
The expression ἐν χειρὶ therefore
would seem to be the common Ara-
maism, equivalent to dua: see the
note on Galatians 111. 19. On the
other hand the construction παρα-
δοῦναι ἐν χειρί (or ἐν χερσίν) is com-
mon in the LXX as an equivalent to
παραδοῦναι eis χεῖρας: e.g. the same
expression 9) jm) is translated first
καὶ παρέδωκεν ev χειρί (A) and then καὶ
παρέδωκεν εἰς χεῖρας in Josh. x. 30, 32.

I]

162 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [Lv

/ i J \
πίστιν ᾿Εσθὴρ κινδύνῳ ἑαυτὴν παρέβαλεν, ἵνα TO δωδε-
a \ / Ck x
κάφυλον τοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ μέλλον ἀπολέσθαι ῥύσηται" διὰ
a 4 7 ~ f
yap τῆς νηστείας Kal τῆς ταπεινώσεως αὐτῆς ἠξίωσεν

\ / ΄ \ a aay: ᾿ A LO \
TOV TAVTETOTTTHYV δεσπότην, Θεον τῶν ALWYWY" OS LOWY

\ \ rn a 9 - > , \ i τ
το TATELVOY τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῆς ἐρύσατο TOV Aaov, ὧν 5

lA
χάριν ἐκινδύνευσεν.

LVL.

\ ~ ee if \ -~ at
Kat ἡμεῖς οὖν ἐντύχωμεν περὶ τῶν Ev τινι

/ 4 oJ - ~ ,
παραπτώματι ὑπαρχόντων, ὅπως δοθῆ αὐτοῖς ἐπιείκεια

\ / > \ Ὧν ᾽ \ \ ea 3 A
καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνη εἰς TO εἰξαι αὐτοὺς py ἡμῖν ἀλλα

τ τὸ δωδεκάφυλον] A; δωδεκάφυλλον C ; tribum S.

Α; ταπεινώσεως C.

3 τῆς ταπεινώσεως]

4 δεσπότην] A; om. C obviously by homeeoteleuton. 5

has sfectatorem universi et dominum saeculorum deum, as if the order had been

δεσπότην τῶν αἰώνων θεόν.

5 ἐρύσατο] A; ἐρρύσατο C.

ὧν χάριν

ἐκινδύνευσεν] AC (but ἐκινδύνευσε C); ex tis propter quae erat [ populus| in 2ε71-

culo S, probably only a mistranslation.

I. τὸ δωδεκάφυλον] So Acts xxvi.
7, Protev. Facob. ὃ 1; see above τὸ
δωδεκάσκηπτρον § 31 with the note.

3. ἠξίωσεν] ‘desired, entreated’,
with an accusative of the person and
without any dependent case or clause
expressing the thing asked: as e.g.
1 Macc. x1. 62 καὶ ἠξίωσαν οἱ ἀπὸ Γάζης
τὸν Ἰωνάθαν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς δεξιάς,
Clem. Hom. iil. 55 πρὶν αὐτὸν ἀξιώ-
onte. With an infinitive or a final
clause added this use of ἀξιοῦν τινὰ is
more common. On another more
questionable construction of ἀξιοῦν
see above § 51.

4. παντεπόπτην] So below ὃ 64,
Polyc. Phil. 7, Clem. Hom. iv. 14, 23,
Vv. 27, vill. 19. The word is not found
in the Lxx or New Testament. In the
Orac. Sibyll. procem. 4 πανεπόπτης
occurs; and in heathen writers zap-
ὅπτης is a common epithet of Ζεύς.

Θεὸν τῶν αἰώνων] ‘the God of all
the ages’: comp. πατὴρ τῶν αἰώνων
§ 35, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν αἰώνων 1 Tim. i.
17; comp. Ps. cxlv. 13 ἡ βασιλεία
σου βασιλεία πάντων τῶν αἰώνων. The
devil on the other hand is the god

7 τῶν... ὑπαρχόντων] AC; gue appre-

(2 Cor. iv. 4) or the ruler (Ign.
Ephes. 19) of this age or zon (τοῦ
αἰῶνος τούτου). 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. ἔν τινι παραπτώματι K.T.r.] See
Gal. vi. 1, of which this passage is
perhaps a reminiscence. The ἡμεῖς
and ἡμῖν seem to refer especially to
the rulers of the Church and to con-
trast with the ὑμεῖς, the leaders of the
feuds, at the beginning of § 57.

8. ἐπιείκεια] ‘a spirit of concession’.
See the notes on ὃ I ἐπιεικῆ and ὃ 13
ἐπιείκεια, The context here points to

LVI] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 163

i A 7 4 ΄σ J \ aS 3 ΄ SYA
τὸ τῷ θελήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ. οὕτως yap εσται αὐτοῖς εγ-

καρπος καὶ τελεία ἡ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τοὺς ἁγίους μετ᾽
οἰκτιρμῶν μνεία. ἀναλάβωμεν παιδείαν, ἐφ᾽ ἡ οὐδεὶς
ὀφείλει ἀγανακτεῖν, ἀγαπητοί. ἡ νουθέτησις, ἣν ποιού-
μεθα εἰς ἀλλήλους, καλή ἐστιν καὶ ὑπεράγαν ὠφέλιμος"
πρ κολλᾷ γὰρ ἡμᾶς τῷ θελήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ. οὕτως γάρ

c

εἰ Nef / , > ' ͵ 1
φησιν Oo ἅγιος λογος" TlaiAcYWN ἐπδλιλεγοέν με ὁ Κύριος,

κἀὶ τῷ OANATW OY TAPEAWKEN Me. Ὃν γὰρ ἀγὰπᾷ Κύριος
hensi sunt S (comp. Gal. vi. 1). 8 ἐπιείκεια] επιεικια A. το οὕτως] AC.
Bryennios here, and again six lines below, tacitly reads οὕτω, and is followed by
Hilgenfeld. C however has its usual contraction for -ws, not for -w, and therefore

agrees with A in both places. 11 ἡ πρὸς... ἁγίους] AC; szve im deum sive in
τὸν] A; om. C. 12 οἰκ-
13 ὀφείλει] οφιλει

sanctos S, as if it had read ἢ... ἢ for καὶ... καὶ.
παιδείαν] παιδιαν A.

τιρμῶν μνεία] οιἰκτειρμωνμνια A.
ἊΝ νουθέτησις] νουθετησεισ A.

its derivation and primary meaning,
eis τὸ εἶξαι αὐτοὺς k.T.A.

10. ἔγκαρπος καὶ τελεία] See the
note on ὃ 44, where there is the same
combination of epithets.

II. ἡ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν κιτ.λ.] i.e. The
record of them before God and the
Church will redound to their benefit,
and they will receive pity. The ex-
pression ἡ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν μνεία is al-
most equivalent to the Old Testa-
ment phrase μνημόσυνον ἔναντι Κυρίου,
iexod. xxvii, 23, xxx. 16, Is. xxii. 18,
Ecclus. 1. 16, comp. Acts x. 4. See
also ὃ 45 ἔγγραφοι ἐγένοντο ἀπὸ τοῦ
Θεοῦ ἐν τῷ μνημοσύνῳ αὐτῶν.

τοὺς ἁγίους] ‘the Christian brother-
hood’, as in the Apostolic writers:
comp. Ign. Smmyru. 1, Mart. Polyc.
20. See 2 Cor. viii. 21. Two other
interpretations have been proposed :
(1) ‘the saints’, i.e. the beatified dead,
in which case ἡ πρὸς τοὺς ἁγίους μνεία
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

οἱ ἅγιοι frequently has, e.g. Job
xv. 15, Zech. xiv. 5, Ecclus. xlv. 2,
Tobit viii. 15, 1 Thess, iii, 13 (pas-
sages quoted by Hilgenfeld). This
is a possible interpretation (comp.
1 Tim. v. 21 διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον
τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῶν
ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων), but the com-
mon usage of of ἅγιοι in the Apostolic
writings is a safer guide.

12. ἀναλάβωμεν παιδείαν] ‘let us
receive correction’; comp. Heb, xii. 7
εἰς παιδείαν ὑπομένετε K.T.A.

13. ἡ νουθέτησις] On the difference
between νουθεσία (vovOérno.s) and

'παιδεία, see Trench WV.7. Sym. Ist ser.

§ xxxli; comp. Ephes. vi. 4. On the
forms νουθεσία, νουθέτησις, see Lobeck
Phryn. p. 512.

16. Παιδεύων k.7..| From the LXx
Ps. cxviii. 18 word for word.

17. “Ov yap ἀγαπᾷ κιτ.λ.] From LXX
Prov. iii. 12 word for word, as SA;
but for παιδεύει B has ἐλέγχει. The
Syro-Hexaplar text wavers, giving the
equivalent to παιδεύει in the text and
to ἐλέγχει in the margin. In Heb.
xii. 6 it is quoted with παιδεύει as

tI—2

164 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

[LvI

παιδεύει, MACTIFO! AE πᾶντὰ YION ON πὰρἀλέχετδι" TMTaideycel

me γὰρ, φησιν, λίκδιος ἐν ἐλέει Kal ἐλέγξει με, FédAcoct δὲ

AMAPT@AG@N μὴ AITTANAT@ THN KEAAHN MOY. καὶ πάλιν

λέγει" Λλακάριος ἄνθρωπος ON ἤλεγξεν ὁ Κύριος, νουθέ-
c

\ >

\ , mayen
THMA δὲ TIANTOKPATOPOC MH ATTANAINOY* ἀὐτὸ

γὰρ ἀλγεῖν
ποιεῖ, KAl πᾶλιν ἀποκδθίοτηοιν" ETTAICEN, KAI δὶ χεῖρες
AYTOY iACANTO. εξᾶκιο εξ ἀνάγκῶν ἐξελεῖται CE, ἐν δὲ τῷ

͵
ε ' 3 ΄ ! , > a caer, ͵ 2 ’
EBAOMW ΟΥ̓Χ AYPETAI COY KAKON’ EN λιμῷ PYCETAI CE EK BANA-

> ᾿ \ > \ , , \ > ‘
TOY, EN πολεμῷ AE EK yeEIpoc cIAHPpOY AycCcel cE" KAI ATO
MACTIFOC FAWCCHC οὲ κρύψει, KAl οὐ MH MOBHOHCH κἀκῶν
ἀνόμων

AAIKMN KAT

ἐπερχομένων"

2 dlkaos] AS; κύριος C.
See the lower note.
depends on the absence of rzdzz.
sent ἂν in 5.

KATATEAACH, ἀπὸ δὲ

ἔλεος] ελαιοσ A; ἔλεον (i.e. ἔλαιον) C and so 8.
3 ἁμαρτωλῶν] A; ἁμαρτωλοῦ C, and so S, but the singular
4 ov] A; ὃν ἂν C. There is nothing to repre-
5 ἀπαναίνου] AC; rejictat {or rejzciamus) S, and so the Pesh.

8 οὐχ ἅψεται] οὐκοψεται A; οὐ μὴ ἅψηται C; non attrectabit S. Both readings

are found in the mss of the Lxx.

ἐν λιμῷ] AC; add. δὲ 5. 12 οὐ μὴ

Φοβηθῇ9] A; οὐ φοβηθήση C. Both readings are found in the mss of the Lxx.

here: in Rev. iii. 19 both words are
combined, ἐγὼ ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ, ἐλέγχω
καὶ παιδεύω. Clem. Alex. Paed. I. 9
(p. 145) has παιδεύει, but his quotation
is perhaps not independent of the
Roman Clement. On the other hand
Philo de Conj. Erud. grat. § 31 (1.
Ῥ. 544) quotes it with ἐλέγχει. This,
which corresponds with the Hebrew,
was probably the original reading of
the LXxX, and all the texts with ma
δεύει may perhaps have been derived
directly or indirectly from the quota-
tion in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
I. Παιδεύσει κιτ.λ.] From Ps. cxli.
5, word for word, if we read ἔλαιον.
Our chief MS however has ελαιοσ, i.e.
ἔλεος (for so thescribe generally writes
the word; see I. p. 121). On the
other hand, the original reading of
the LXX was unquestionably ἔλαιον
(ἔλαιον is the oz/, €daws the olzve-
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 jaw ; but ἔλαιος (1.6. ἔλεος)
might not unnaturally be substituted
by some early transcriber on account
of the preceding ἐν ἐλέει. 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 ἔλεος (ἔλαιος)
and ἔλαιον (ἔλεον) in the liturgies
see Swainson’s Greek Liturgies pp.
xliii, 90, 127, 265, 331; where the
answer of the people, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη,
becomes by expansion ἔλεον (ἔλαιον)
εἰρήνης, θυσίαν aivecéws. The sym-
bolism of the o/zve as denoting peace,
and the manifold ritual uses of oz/
(see Smith-Cheetham Dicz. of Christ.
Antig. p. 1453 54) would assist in this
confusion.

4. Μακάριος k.7.d.] From LXx Job
v. 17—26 as read in BS, with slight
and unimportant differences. The

Io

Lv11| TO THE CORINTHIANS.

165
θηρίων ἀγρίων OY μὲ φοβηθῆς. θῆρες γὰρ ἄγριοι εἰρηνεὺ-

COYCIN COI’ εἶτὰ γνώσῃ, ὅτι εἰρηνεύήσει COY ὁ οἴκους. F δὲ

AlAITA TAC CKHNAC Coy OY MF AMAPTH, γνώσῃ δὲ ὅτι πολὺ
| το τὸ CTEpMd Coy, TA AE TEKNA COY ὥσπερ TO TIAMBOTANON
᾿ τοῦ ἀγροῦ" ἐλεύσῃ δὲ ἐν τάφῳ ὥοσπερ citoc ὥριμος κἀτὰ
κἀιρὸν θεριζόμενοο, ὥσπερ θημωνιὰ AAWNOC KAO’ PAN
cyNkomicdeica. βλέπετε, ἀγαπητοί, πόσος ὑπερασπισ-
μός ἐστιν τοῖς παιδευομένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ δεσπότου: πατὴρ

| δ 3 \ 3\ / 3 \ 9 a ς ΄σ \ a
j20yap ἀγαθὸς wy παιδεύει εἰς TO ἐλεηθῆναι ἡμᾶς διὰ τῆς

ες 7 7] “σ΄
ὁσίας παιδείας αὐτοῦ.

LVIL.

yap] AC; δὲ 5.
ACs Οχαν 9:
παμβήτανον (.

18 συνκομισθεῖσα] συ.....σθεισα A; συγκομισθεῖσα C.

13 εἰρηνεύσει)]) AC; εἰρηνεύει 5.
14 σου] AS; om. C.
16 ἐλεύσῃ! AC; but Bryennios tacitly prints ἐλεύσει.

€ ΄- ΩΝ ε \ \ ΄σ ly
γμεῖς οὖν, οἱ τὴν καταβολὴν τῆς στάσεως

ἡ δὲ δίαιτα.. ἁμάρτῃ]
15 παμβότανον] LXX; ...... τανον A;

20 ἐλεηθῆναι] CS;

...nOnvac A. Tischendorf justly remarked on the common restoration νουθετηθῆ-
vac; ‘id vix recte, quum syllabae non ita dirimi solent [i.e. νουθετ[ηθηναι)]. Re-

quiritur potius simile verbum ac πτο[ηθηναι.᾽

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. οὐχ ἅψεται for οὐ μὴ ἅψηται),
are insignificant.

7. ἑξάκις κιτ.λ.] 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.
ἘΠῚ 2 (seven, eight); Exod. xx..5, etc.
(three, four); Job xxxiii. 29 Hebr.
(two, three).

10. κακῶν] The LXX text prefixes
ἀπό (SBA). In the Syriac version
ἀδίκων is made dependent on κακῶν
‘the evils of the unrighteous’.

12. θῆρες γὰρ κ-ιτ.λ.] As in the vision
of Hermas [725. iv. 1, 2, where the
wild beast is thus pacified.

13. ἡ δὲ δίαιτα] ‘the abode’; see
above § 39. The Hebrew is quite

21 madelas| C3 π..διασ A.

different.

15. τὸ mapBoravov] ‘the manifold
herbage’. It seems to be a ἅπαξ
λεγόμενον till quite a late period.
There is nothing in the Hebrew
(awy) to explain the adoption of so
unusual a word.

16. ev τάφῳ] A Hebraism for εἰς
τάφον ; see another instance on ὃ 55
παρέδωκεν ἐν χειρί.

17. θημωνιὰ] A word, it would ap-
pear, almost confined to the Lxx,
though θημὼν is as old as Homer,
Od. v. 368.

18. ὑπερασπισμὸς] ‘protection’, 2
Sam. xxii. 36, Ps. xviii. 35, Lam. 111. 64,
Eccles. xxxi (xxxiv). 19. It does not
occur in the New Testament. See
the note on ὑπερασπιστὴς above, ὃ 45.

20. ἀγαθὸς ὧν] ‘of His kindness’
(as e.g. Ps. xxiii. 1), corresponding
to ov yap ἀγαπᾷ x.t.d. above.

LVII. ‘And do you leaders of the
schism submit to the elders, and ask

166 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [11

lA σ΄: / \
ποιήσαντες, ὑποτάγητε τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις καὶ παι-
/ / \ id
δεύθητε εἰς μετάνοιαν, κάμψαντες τὰ γόνατα τῆς
ας ͵7ὔ td / A
καρδίας ὑμῶν: μάθετε ὑποτάσσεσθαι, ἀποθέμενοι τὴν
/ / ΄ 7 qf ,
ἀλαζονα Kal ὑπερήφανον τῆς γλώσσης ὑμών αὐθα-
of 7 σ΄: a z ΄
δειαν: ἀμεινον yap ἐστιν ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ ποιμνίῳ TOUS
ω \ \ 3 7ὔ ε ~ a >
Χριστοῦ μικροὺς καὶ ἐλλογίμους εὑρεθῆναι, ἢ καθ
€ \ ΄σ p39 ΄σ > ΄σ 3 7 > ΄σ
ὑπεροχὴν δοκοῦντας, ἐκριφῆναι ἐκ τῆς ἐλπίδος αὐτοῦ.

of \ Υ͂ ε td A > \ ͵
οὕτως γὰρ λέγει ἡ πανάρετος σοφία" ᾿Ιλοὺ Tporcomal

4 ἀλάζονα] AC; ἀλαζονείαν 5.

γίμους] A; add. ὑμᾶς C. S is doubtful.

δάξω] AS; διδάξαι C.
(Cintas A; si (qv) S.

ὅταν] οταρ 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. vor. τοῖς πρεσβ.] The same ex-
pression occurs, I Pet. v. 5.

2. κάμψαντες κιτ.λ.] Compare the
expression in the prayer of Manasses
(Afost. Const. ii. 22) viv κλίνω γόνυ
καρδίας. So too Greg. Naz. Carmi. ii.
50, ver. 58 οὔποτέ σοι κάμψω youvar
ἐμῆς Kpadins (Il. p. 946, Caillau), and
similarly Sir C. Hatton to Q. Eliza-
beth (Froude’s Hzstory ΧΙ. p. 166) “1
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. ἀλάζονα καὶ ὑπερήφανον] See
Trench JV. 7. Sym. 1st ser. § xxix.

7. δοκοῦντας) ‘held in repute’;
see the note on Ga/atians ii. 2.

10 ὑπηκούσατε] AC; ὑπηκούετε S.
14 ὑμῖν pri.] AC; ὑμῶν 5.

6 ἐλλο-

9 δι-

13 ἡνίκα ἂν]
15 παρῇ] Cs .«ρὴ
16 Artis] A; add. καὶ στενοχωρία C, ἃ

γλώσσης] A; γλώττης C.
8 Ἰδοὺ] AC; add. yap S.

τῆς ἐλπίδος αὐτοῦ] i.e. τοῦ Χρι-
στοῦ, either a subjective or an ob-
jective genitive, ‘the hope which He
holds out’ or ‘the hope which reposes
in Him’.

8. ἡ πανάρετος σοφία] The Book
of Proverbs, besides the title com-
monly prefixed to the LXx Version,
Παροιμίαι or Παροιμίαι Σαλομῶντος, is
frequently quoted by early Christian
writers as ἡ πανάρετος σοφία ‘the Wis-
dom which comprises all virtues’
(for mavaperos comp. ὃ 1); see esp.
Euseb. 4. £. iv. 22, where speaking
of Hegesippus he says, οὐ μόνος δὲ
οὗτος ἀλλὰ καὶ Εἰρηναῖος καὶ ὁ πᾶς
τῶν ἀρχαίων χορὸς πανάρετον σοφίαν
τὰς Σολομῶνος παροιμίας ἐκάλουν. Some-
times it bears the name σοφία sim-
ply; e.g. in Just. Mart. Dzad. ὃ 129
(p- 359 A), Melito in Euseb. 4. Z.
iv. 26, Clem. Alex. Protyv. ὃ ὃ (pp
67,68), Paed. ii. 2 (p. 182 ἡ θεία σοφία),
Strom. ii. 18 (p. 472), Orig. Hom.
xiv in Gen. § 2 (11. 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 mp3n,

|
.
.

1.511]

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

167

ὑμῖν /EMAC πνοῆς: ῥῆσιν, διλάξω AE ὑμᾶς τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον.

το ἐπειδὲ ἐκάλουν KAI OYY YTHKOYCATE, KAl ἐξέτεινον λόγογςε

καὶ OY Mpoceiyete, ἀλλὰ ἀκύρογο ἐποιεῖτε τὰς ἐμὰς Boy-

\

n c

Adc τοῖο δὲ ἐμοῖο ἐλέγχοιο FEOF CATE’ TOIFAPOYN κἀγὼ

TH YMeTEPA ἀπωλείὰ ἐπιγελάσομδι, KATAYAPOYFMAL δὲ ἐνίκὰ

n 3: c “ 2 \ c ” > ͵ ς tas ”
AN EPYHTAL YMIN OAEBPOC KAI WC AN AMIKHTAL YMIN ADNO

ἔρχηται ὑμῖν θλίψις KAI πολιορκίδ.

15 O0pyBoc, F δὲ KATACTpOmH ὁμοίὰ κὰἀτδιγίδι πὰρηῖ, ἢ ὅτὰν

ECTAI γὰρ, OTAN ἐπικὰ-

familiar combination in S. Paul, Rom. ii. 9, viii. 35. S has affictio (δον δ.) et
angustia (δὰ ΔΓ) quae a proelio (NIP }O1); where affictio represents θλίψις

and angustia quae a proelio is a paraphrase of πολιορκία.

The alternative that

angustia quae a proelio represents στενοχωρία καὶ πολιορκία, treated as a ὃν διὰ δυοῖν,

is not likely.
wanting also in the Lxx.

‘Wisdom’, by rabbinical writers (see
Furst Kazon 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 Eér.
8 (1. p. 362), though Philo himself
quotes the book as παροιμίαι 720. § 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 ἡ πανάρετος
σοφία is given, not only to the canoni-
cal Book of Wisdom, but also to the
apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon
(Method. Symp. 1. 3, ii. 7, noted by
Hilgenfeld; Epiphan. de Mens. et
Pond. ὃ 4,1. p. 162 ed. Petau; Greg.
Nyss. ¢. Hunom. vii, 11. p. 638, Paris
1638; [Athanas.] Syzops. ὃ 45, 11. p.
132 F, τῆς σοφίας Σολομῶντος τῆς λε-
γομένης παναρέτου ; and others: and
its title in the list of books prefixed
to A is σοφία ἡ πανάρετος), 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 Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Σειρὰχ ὁ τὴν
καλουμένην πανάρετον σοφίαν συντάξας,

The space in A will not admit καὶ στενοχωρία, and these words are
ἐπικαλέσησθε)] επικαλεσησθαι A.

Hieron. £2700. 2% 1 787. δῶζ, WX" p:
1293, etc.). Joannes Damasce. de Fid.
Orth. iv. 17 (1. p. 284) says ἡ mavape-
Tos, τουτέστιν ἡ Σοφία τοῦ Σολομῶντος
καὶ ἡ Σοφία τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, thus including
both these apocryphal bocks under
the term, but excluding Proverbs
which he has before mentioned as
παροιμίαι ; and so Jerome Praef. 271
Libr. Salom. (1X. p. 1293) ‘ Fertur et
mavaperos Jesu filii Sirach liber et
alius Ψψευδεπίγραφος 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 ἁγιόγραφα or γραφεῖα, is some-
times called ANSN ‘ Wisdom’ (Fiirst
l.c. p. 55), because it comprises Pro-
verbs and the allied books, as it is
elsewhere called ψαλμοὶ or ὕμνοι (see
above § 28) from another most im-
portant component element.

Ἰδοὺ κιτ.λ.}] A close quotation
from the LXX Prov. i. 23—33. The
variations are unimportant, and not
greater than between one MS and
another of the LXx.

168

AECHCOE ME,

ME KAKO! Kal

Aé φόβον tof Kypioy oY προείλδντο,
προσέχειν BOYAAIC, EMYKTHPIZON AE Emoyc ἐλέγχογο᾽

OYN EAONTAI TAC ἑδγτῶν

EAYT@N AcEBElAC TTAHCOHCONTAI‘

͵ ͵ ᾿
TIOYCy PONEYOHCONTAI, Kal

ἐμοῦ AKOYWN KATACKHNOCE!

THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

ἐγὼ δὲ OYK EICAKOYCOMAI
ΟΥ̓Χ €YPHCOYCIN’
OAOY

€ZETACMOC δοεβεῖς ὀλεῖ" ὁ

ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι

[τὶ

ὑμῶν: ζΖητέοουοίν

ἐμίσηοδν γὰρ COMIAN, τὸν

OYAé ἔθελον EMaic

τοιγὰρ-
Kal τῆς

TOYC, KApTroyc,

. NH-

ς \

Ae

ἀνθ᾽ ὧν γὰρ HAIKOYN

πεποιθώς, KAI HCY-

χάσει ἀφόβως ἀπὸ TANTOC KaKOY.

1 ζητήσουσιν] ζητήσουσι C3 ζητ.......
προείλαντο] προειλα...

A3 ζητοῦσιν (?) S.
A (as in the Lxx; Tischendorf who formerly read προσιλα

3 τοῦ! A; om. C.

afterwards accepted my reading of A); προείλοντο C (see above, I. p. 127); elege-

runt 8.

7 ἐξετασμὸς ἀσεβεῖς ὀλεῖ] C3 enguisttio impiorum perdit ipsos 8.

8 πεποιθώς] confidens S, using the same expression which occurs just below (8 58)

as the rendering of πεποιθότες; om. C:

6. πλησθήσονται] Our principal MS
(A) fails us at this point. The letters
πλησθησον 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. ἐξετασμὸς] ‘enguiry’, ‘investi-

gation’, i.e. ‘trial and judgment’,
as in Wisd. iv. 6. The Hebrew
however is πον, ‘security’, i.e.

‘false confidence’; which the LXx
translators seem either to have mis-
read or to have connected with byw,
‘to ask, enquire’. In the earlier
part of the verse the LXx departs
widely from the Hebrew.

8. πεποιθώς] This word does not
occur in the great MSS of the Lxx
(SBA); nor indeed, so far as I know,
is the reading κατασκηνώσει ἐπ᾽ (v. 1.
ev) ἐλπίδι πεποιθώς found in any MS
of this version, though ἀναπαύσεται
ev εἰρήνῃ πεποιθώς appears in place of
it in no. 248 (Holmes and Parsons),
this last being a Hexaplaric reading
(see Field’s Hexafla ad loc.). Clem.

see the lower note.

10 mavayly| C;

Alex. however clearly so quotes it,
Strom. 11. 22 (p. 501 sq) ἡ mavdperos
Σοφία λέγει" “O δὲ ἐμοῦ ἀκούων κατα-
σκηνώσει ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι πεποιθώς" ἡ γὰρ τῆς
ἐλπίδος ἀποκατάστασις ὁμωνύμως ἐλπὶς
εἴρηται" διὰ [1]. διὸ] τοῦ Κατασκηνώσει
τῇ λέξει παγκάλως προσέθηκε τὸ Πε-
ποιθώς ; though elsewhere, Strom. 11. 8
(p. 449), iv. 23 (p. 632), he has
ἀναπαύσεται ἐπ᾽ εἰρήνης (- vy) πεποιθώς.
It is clear that πεποιθώς is genuine
in the text of our Clement; since he
dwells upon it in the beginning of
the next chapter, κατασκηνώσωμεν
πεποιθότες 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

EE on OR

Io

μι
σι

1.111] TO THE CORINTHIANS.

169

LVIIL. ‘Yrakovowyev οὖν τῴ παναγίῳ καὶ ἐνδόξῳ
ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ, φυγόντες τὰς προειρημένας διὰ τῆς
σοφίας τοῖς ἀπειθοῦσιν ἀπειλάς, ἵνα κατασκηνώσωμεν
πεποιθότες ἐπὶ τὸ ὁσιώτατον τῆς μεγαλωσύνης αὐτοῦ
ὄνομα. δέξασθε τὴν συμβουλὴν ἡμῶν, καὶ ἔσται
ἀμεταμέλητα ὑμῖν. ζῇ γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς καὶ ζῇ ὁ Κύριος
᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἥ τε πίστις
καὶ 4 ἐλπὶς τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν, ὅτι ὁ ποιήσας ἐν ταπει-
νοφροσύνη μετ᾽ ἐκτενοῦς ἐπιεικείας ἀμεταμελήτως τὰ

S translates as if ἁγίῳ. In ὃ 35 πανάγιος is fully rendered. 11 φυγόντες] ;
φεύγοντες (9) S. 13 ὁσιώτατον] C; S renders as if ὅσιον, but the translator’s
practice elsewhere in rendering superlatives is so uncertain, that no inference can

be drawn as to the reading.
2] CS; Basil omits this second ζῇ.
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. παναγίῳ] So also above, § 35 ;
see the note there.

Il. τῆς σοφίας] Wisdom is re-
presented as the speaker in the pas-
sage of Proverbs just quoted. More-
over this name Σοφία was given to
the whole book ; see above, p. 166.

12. katacknvocaper|‘dwellin peace’.
As the common LXxX rendering of
ἸΏ, for which purpose it was chosen
doubtless in part owing to the simi-
larity of sound (see the note on μωμο-
σκοπηθέν, ὃ 41), it implies the idea of
‘rest, peace’.

15. dpetrayéAnta] A somewhat
favourite word of Clement, S§ 2, 54.
So ἀμεταμελήτως, below. For the
plural see Kuhner Gramm. 11. p. 59 sq.

ᾧ yap κιτ.λ.] This passage is quoted
by 5. Basil, de Spir. Sanct. 29 (111.
p- 61); see above, I. p. 169, where the
quotation is given. For the form of
adjuration ζῇ ὁ Θεὸς.. ὅτι, ‘As surely
as God liveth...so surely’, comp. ζῇ
Κύριος ért...which occurs frequently

14 ἡμῶν] add. ἀδελφοί [μου] S.

15 Kal
Κύριος] twice in S, at the end of one line

ins ΠΡ ΣΧ eo. 1) Samy xx 3; παν
16, xxix. 6, I Kings xxil. 14, 2 Kings
Ven 20, ΕΟ 50 too Rom: xiv) ΤΙ
ζῶ ἐγώ, λέγει Κύριος, ὅτι ἐμοὶ k.rA.
(where 5. Paul is quoting loosely
from Is. xlv. 23, combining it how-
ever with the ζῶ ἐγὼ κιτιλ. of Is.
xlix. 18); comp. 2 Cor. i. 18, and see
Fritzsche Kom. II. p. 242 sq, ΜΠ
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 τε πίστις
k.T.A. are Obviously in apposition to
the preceding words. For ἐλπίς,
meaning ‘the object of hope’, see the
note on Ign. Magu. 11 ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν ; comp. I Tim, 1. 1.
On the other hand the sense of πίστις
is different in Ign. Smyrn. 10 ἡ
τελεία πίστις, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (see
the note there).

17. τῶν exdrextov| Α favourite

word with Clement, §§ 1, 2, 6, 46, 49,
2, 59.

18. per exrevods ἐπιεικείας] The

phrase occurs again below, § 62. It

170 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

[Lv

«ε \ = ia / I? \ /
ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ δεδομένα δικαιώματα καὶ προστάγματα,

τε 3 4 Ae / af 3 \ > \
οὗτος ἐντεταγμένος Kal ἐλλόγιμος ἔσται εἰς TOV ἀριθμὸν

τῶν σωζομένων διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι᾿ οὗ ἐστιν αὐτῷ

ες 0 3 \ In lon Sf
ἡ δόξα Els TOUS αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.

LIX.

ἀμήν.

2 \ / 3 / ΄σ αν.) 3 “
Εὰν δέ τινες ἀπειθήσωσιν τοῖς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ 5

cot / ᾽ν J / \
Of ἡμῶν εἰρημένοις, γινωσκετωσαν OTL παραπτώσει καὶ

7 3 “ ε \ 3 ε - \ 3 fo
κινδύνῳ ου μικρᾳ E€AUTOUS ἐνδήσουσιν, ημεις δὲ ἀθώοι

I καὶ προστάγματα] Cs; om. 5.

is a sort of oxymoron, or verbal para-
dox, like ‘strenua inertia’, ‘lene tor-
mentum’: for ἐπιείκεια involves the
idea of ‘concession’; comp. 1 Thess.
iv. 11 φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν. So
Greg. Naz. Orat. iv. 79 (1. Ρ. 116),
speaking of Julian’s persecution, says
ἐπιεικῶς ἐβιάζετο. The substantive em-
εἰκεια occurs also S$ 13, 30, 56: the
adjective ἐπιεικής, I, 21, 29. The fre-
quency of these words aptly indicates
the general spirit of the letter; see
the note on § 1, and the introduc-
Lion, Ip. 97.

2. ἐλλόγιμος] Used here, as in
§ 57, for those who have a place
among the elect of God: see also
S$ 44, 62. Comp. Plato Phzleb. 17 E
οὐκ ἐλλόγιμον οὐδ᾽ ἐνάριθμον.

τὸν ἀριθμὸν] As above §§ 2, 35,
and below § 59, with the note.

3. τῶν σωζομένων] ‘of those that
are in the way of salvation’, as
Luke xiii. 23, Acts ii. 47, 1 Cor. i. 18,
5. (ΘΟΣ. 1 15. Phe) opposite: is) οἱ
ἀπολλύμενοι, I Cor. i. 18, 2 Cor. ii. 15,
iV. 5, 2. 1 hessian iro: (ΟΠ: ialso
Clem. Hom. xv. 10, Apost. Const.
vill. 5, 7,8. In the Afost. Const. viii.
5 (comp. v. 15) the words are τὸν
ἀριθμὸν τῶν σωζομένων 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

It ἄθραυστον] C; add. deus S.

the number of His elect through
Jesus Christ, who called us from
darkness to light. Open our eyes,
Lerd, 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. ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ] i.e. τοῦ Θεοῦ. In
the same way they again claim to
be speaking with the voice of God
below, ὃ 63 τοῖς ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν yeypappe-
νοις διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος : Comp.
δ 56 μὴ ἡμῖν ἀλλὰ τῷ θελήματι τοῦ
Θεοῦ. See also Ign. Phzlad. 7 τὸ
πνεῦμα ov πλανᾶται, ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ὄν...
ἐλάλουν....... Θεοῦ φωνῇ, where a simi-
lar claim is made.

6. παραπτώσει] ‘fault’, “ trans-
gression’; Jer. xxii. 21. Comp. Justin
Dial. 141 (p. 371). It does not occur
elsewhere in the LXxX, nor at all in the
N.T., though παράπτωμα is common.
Polybius uses it several times: comp.
also Sext. Empir. adv. Math, i. 210.

Io

LIx] TO! THE CORINTHIANS:

iva

ἐσόμεθα ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς ἁμαρτίας" καὶ αἰτησόμεθα,
ἐκτενῆ τὴν δέησιν καὶ ἱκεσίαν ποιούμενοι, ὅπως τὸν
ἀριθμὸν τὸν κατηριθμημένον τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν
ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ διαφνλάξη ἄθραυστον ὁ δημιουργὸς
τῶν ἁπάντων διὰ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου παιδὸς αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ
Χριστοῦ, δι’ οὗ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ σκότους εἰς φώς,

a > / 3 > 7 / ’ ͵ > -
ἀπο ἀγνωσίας εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν δόξης ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ.

153 Χριστοῦ] C; add. domini nostri S.
a clerical error in transcribing the Syriac suffix.

7. ἀθῷοι] As above, ὃ 46. For
the whole expression, ἀθῷος εἶναι ἀπὸ
ἁμαρτίας, comp. Num. v. 31.

9. τὸν ἀριθμὸν κιτ.λ.} See Rev.
vii. 4 sq. The same phrase τὸν ἀριθ-
μὸν τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ has occurred
already ὃ 2. In one of the prayers
in the last book of the Afostolic
Constitutions (viii. 22) we have ὁ τὴν
τοῦ κόσμου σύστασιν διὰ τῶν ἐνεργου-
μένων φανεροποιήσας καὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν
τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν σου διαφυλάττων, where
the expression here is combined with
another which occurs below (ὃ 60) ;
thus clearly showing that the writer
borrows directly or indirectly from
Clement.

11. ἄθραυστον] The word does not
eccus) ini the: ΠΧ or ΝΗ, It is
however not uncommon in classical
writers: eg. Dion Cass, lili. 24
ἄθραυστον καὶ ὁλόκληρον τῷ διαδόχῳ
τὴν πόλιν παρέδωκεν, Which passage

illustrates its sense here. Comp.
Apost. Const. viil. 12 διαφυλάξῃς
ἄσειστον.

ὁ δημιουργος κιτ.λ.] The same phrase
occurs above ὃ 26; comp. ὃ 33. For
δημιουργὸς see the note on § 20.

12. τοῦ ἠγαπημένου παιδὸς K.t.d.| So
again lower down in this chapter,
διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου
παιδός σου, and Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ παῖς
σου. It is worth observing in con-
nexion with the other coincidences,

ἡμᾶς] C; meS; but this is doubtless
14 ἀπὸ] C3 καὶ ἀπὸ 5.

that these expressions ὁ ἠγαπημένος
(ἀγαπητὸς) παῖς σου, ὁ παῖς σου; Occur
several times in the prayers in the
Apost. Const. vill. 5, 14, 39, 40, 41.
Comp. also Lfzst. ad Diogn. ὃ,
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. xlii. 1,
quoted in Matt. xii. 18 ἰδού, ὁ παῖς
μου ὃν ἡρέτισα, 6 ἀγαπητός pov [eis]
ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ Ψυχή μου ; where παῖς
is ‘servant, minister’ (Ἴ2})). Comp.
AGts iid, 12: 20. νὰ 2,» 50. but the
higher sense of υἱὸς was soon im-
ported into the ambiguous word sats:
e.g. Apost. Const. vill. 40 Tov povoye-
νοῦς σου παιδὸς ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 215.
ad Diogn. 8, Iren. iii. 12. 5, 6, etc.;
and probably Mart. Polyc. 14 ὁ rod
ἀγαπητοῦ παιδός σου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
πατήρ. And so Clement seems to
have used the word here.

13. exadecev x.t.A.] From 1 Pet.
ii. 9 τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς
τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς. The epithet
θαυμαστὸν which is wanting here is
supplied by § 36 (as read in the
Greek MSS) ἀναθάλλει εἰς τὸ θαυ-
μαστὸν [αὐτοῦ] φῶς, where however
the epithet is omitted in the Syriac
and in Clem. Alex.

14. ἀγνωσίας] ‘stubborn ignorance’,
a stronger word than ayvoias: comp.

172 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [nix

\ ars / 3 7 3. ἢ A) oe y /
[Aos ἡμῖν, Κύριε], ἐλπίζειν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀρχεγόνον πάσης
/ Sf / > iv \ , \ ΄σ /
κτίσεως ὄνομα Tou, ἀνοίξας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς THs καρδίας
΄- 3 \ , \ / “ > ες a
ἡμῶν εις TO γινώσκειν DE, TOV μόνον YYICTON EN YYPHAOIC,

a cay, 2 \ a a
ATION ἐν ALIOIC ANATTAYOMENON, TOV TATIEINOYNTA YBPIN
dws att

1 Ads ἡμῖν, Κύριε] om. CS; see below.
καρδίας] cordium S.

sanctum S 3; see below.
ὑψίστοις C; see the lower note.

cf Pet. u. 15. It occurs also Job
xxxv. 16, Wisd. xiii. I, 1 Cor. xv. 34.
See also Clem. Hom. ii. 6, ii. 47,
ives, XVill. 13, 18.

eis ἐπίγνωσιν δόξης] Comp. AZosz.
Const. vill. 11 ὁ διὰ Χριστοῦ κήρυγμα
γνώσεως δοὺς ἡμῖν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς
σῆς δόξης καὶ τοῦ ὀνόματός σου.
The language of Clement here seems
to be inspired by Ephes. i. 5 sq.

I. ἐλπίζειν] Some words have been
omitted in the Greek MS, as the first
editor has correctly seen. The words
supplied in the text, Δὸς ἡμῖν, Κύριε,
will suffice. The same omission
existed also in the text from which
the Syriac Version was made. In
consequence of this, σου, σε, σε, σου,
ἐπαίδευσας, ἡγιάσας, ἐτιμήσας, are there
altered to avoid the abrupt transition
from the third person to the second ;
and at length words are inserted
before ᾿Αξιοῦμεν 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
ἄνοιξον for ἀνοίξας: 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, xxiii. 22,
etc. (see Winer § Ixiii. p. 725). But
the phenomena of our two authorities
show that Bryennios was right.

dpxeyovov] i.e. ‘Thy Name which
was the first origzn of all crea-
tion’, πάσης κτίσεως being governed
by adpxeyovov. As an active sense

wv A .
2 ὄνομά σου] C3 nomen ejus

3 oe] C3 cum S. ὑψηλοῖς]
5 διαλύοντα] dissipantem S. ἐθνῶν]

is obviously wanted, it must be
accented ἀρχεγόνον, not ἀρχέγονον,
as by Bryennios: comp. [Aristot.]
de Mund. 6 {p. 399 Bekker) διὰ
τὴν πρώτην καὶ apyatoyovoy αἰτίαν,
where again we should accentuate
ἀρχαιογόνον, for the expression is
synonymous with 6 πάντων ἡγεμὼν
τε καὶ yevérwp which follows imme-
diately after. So too perhaps even
in Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 16 (p. 810)
τὴν apxeyovoy ἡμέραν, for just below
it is defined as πρώτην τῷ ὄντι φωτὸς
γένεσιν: but in Clem. Alex. Pvotr.
5 (p. 56) τὸ πῦρ ὡς ἀρχέγονον σέβοντες
it may be doubtful whether the fire
is regarded as a principium prin-
cipians (apxeyovov), or a principium
principiatum (ἀρχέγονον). In Greg.
Naz. Op. I. p. 694 we have ro
ἀρχέγονον σκότος. The word occurs
also Iren. i. I. 1 (twice), I. 5.-2, E
9. 3, in the exposition of the Va-
lentinian system, where likewise the
accentuation may be doubtful. It
is not found in the Lxx or N. T.
Editors seem universally to accen-
tuate it dpxéyovos (see Chandler’s
Greek Accentuation § 467); but, I
think, on insufficient grounds.

2. τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς x.7.A.] suggested
by Ephes. i. 17 sq ev ἐπιγνώσει av-
τοῦ, πεφωτισμένους τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς
τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ εἰδέναι ὑμᾶς
κιτιλ. See also above ὃ 36 ἠνεώχθη-
σαν ἡμῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ τῆς καρδίας.
Comp. 7272αγί. Polyc. 2, Apost. Const.
Vii. 39.

3. γινώσκειν x.7.A.] Comp. John

—— eee eee eee ee ee eee

LIX |

ΤΟ THE, CORINTHIANS:

173

ς U \ , \ > a
YTEPHPANON, TOV AIAAYONTA AOLICMOYC εθνῶν, τὸν ΤΟΙ-

a 3 a \ c an
OYNTA TaATTEINOYC εἶς ὕψοο καὶ TOYC YYHAOYC TATIEINOYNTA,

\ ͵ \
TOV TAOYTIZONTA KAl TITWYIZONTA, TOV ATOKTEINONTA κδὶ

. iA y , , \
ζῆν ποιοῖντὰ, μόνον εὐεργέτην πνευμάτων Kal Θεὸν

’ / > ͵ 2 a > '
πάσης σαρκος, TOV ἐπιβλέποντὰ ἐν τὰϊς ABYCCOIC, TOV

C3 ἀνθρώπων (=avwr) 5.
την] C3; εὑρετήν S.

xvii. 3 ἵνα γινώσκωσίν σε τὸν μόνον
ἀληθινὸν Θεόν.

τὸν μόνον κιτ.λ.] Apost. Const. viii.
5 0 ὧν μόνος ὕψιστος...ὁ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς
κατοικῶν.

ὕψιστον κιτ.λ.] From the Lxx Is.
ἵν]. 15 ὁ ὕψιστος ὁ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς κατ-
οἰκῶν τὸν αἰῶνα, ἅγιος ἐν ἁγίοις
ὄνομα αὐτῷ, ὕψιστος ἐν ἁγίοις ἀνα-
παυόμενος. So in the prayer AZost.
Const. viii. 11 ὕψιστε ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, ἅγιε
ἐν ἁγίοις ἀναπαυόμενε, doubtless taken
from Clement. Similarly the ex-
pression ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις ἀναπαυόμενος in
other liturgies, D. Marc. pp. 178, 189,
D. Facob. p. 49 (comp. p. 29), S.
Chrysost. p. 94 (ed. Hammond).

I have substituted ὑψηλοῖς, as the
reading both of the Lxx and of the
Apost. Const. Moreover the Syriac
here translates by the same words,
ΝΥ 23 NOW, which render ὕψιστος,
ev ὑψηλοῖς, in the Hexaplaric Version
of Is. lvii. 15: thus using two differ-
ent words. This however is not de-
cisive in itself.

4. τὸν ταπεινοῦντα κιτ.λ.}] From
Is. xiii. 11 ὕβριν ὑπερηφάνων ταπει-
νώσω.

5. τὸν διαλύοντα] Probably from
Ps. xxxiii. 10 διασκεδάζει βουλὰς ἐθνῶν,
ἀθετεῖ δὲ λογισμοὺς λαῶν.

ROA Job? Va τι
τὸν ποιοῦντα ταπεινοὺς εἰς ὕψος καὶ
ἀπολωλότας ἐξεγείροντα, 15. Χ. 33 τα-
πεινωθήσονται οἱ ὑψηλοί, Ezek. xxi. 26
ἐταπείνωσας To ὑψηλὸν καὶ ὕψωσας
τὸ ταπεινόν, 20. XVil. 24 ἐγὼ Κύριος ὁ
ταπεινῶν ξύλον ὑψηλὸν καὶ ὑψῶν ξύλον

τὸν ποιοῦντα

8 ζῆν ποιοῦντα] redimit et vivificat S.

εὐεργέ-

ταπεινόν. See also Matt. xxili. 12,
Luke xiv. 11, xviil. 14.

7. τὸν πλουτίζοντα x.t-A.]| From
1 Sam. ii. 7 Κύριος πτωχίζει καὶ πλου-
τίζει, ταπεινοῖ καὶ ἀνυψοῖ. Comp. also
Luke't. 53. See Greg: Naz. Οζαΐ. 42
$5 (I. p. 751) ὁ πτωχίζων καὶ πλου-
τίζων Θεός, ὁ θανατῶν καὶ ζωογονῶν
K.T.A.

τὸν ἀποκτείνοντα k.T.A.| Deut. xxxii.
30 ἐγὼ ἀποκτενῶ καὶ ζῆν ποιήσω,
1 Sam. ii. 6 Κύριος θανατοῖ καὶ ζωογονεῖ:
comp. 2 Kings v. 7 ὁ Θεὸς ἐγὼ τοῦ
θανατῶσαι καὶ ζωοποιῆσαι;

8. εὐεργέτην] Comp. Ps. cxv. 7 ἐπί-
στρεψον, ψυχή μου...ὅτι Κύριος εὐηρ-
γέτησέ oe. So too Liturg. 1). Marc.
p. 188 ψυχῆς evepyera.

πνευμάτων κιτιλ.} Modified from
Num. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16. See also
§ 62 δεσπότης τῶν πνευμάτων καὶ
κύριος πάσης σαρκός, with the parallels
in the note. Comp. Lzturg. 7). Facob.
Ῥ. 45 μνήσθητι, Κύριε, ὁ Θεὸς τῶν πνευ-
μάτων καὶ πάσης σαρκός.

9. τὸν ἐπιβλέποντα κ-τ.λ.] Ecclus.
xvi. 18, 19, ἄβυσσος καὶ γῆ σαλευθή-
σονται ἐν τῇ ἐπισκοπῇ αὐτοῦ, ἅμα τὰ
ὅρη καὶ τὰ θεμέλια τῆς γῆς ἐν τῷ
ἐπίβλεψαι εἰς αὐτὰ τρόμῳ συσσείονται.
Comp. Liturg. S. Basil. p. 106 ὁ
καθήμενος ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης καὶ ἐπι-
βλέπων ἀβύσσους. For the unusual
ἐπιβλέπειν ἐν, ‘to look into’, or
“at?, comp. Eccles, ii. 11;,2 €hron.
XV. 9.

Tov ἐπόπτην κιτιλ.)] See Ps. xxxii
(xxxili). 13, which passage Clement
may perhaps have had in mind, as

174 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT (urx

/ 3 / / \ ΄σ /
ἐπόπτην ἀνθρωπίνων ἔργων, τὸν τῶν κινδυνευόντων
/ \ a > 2 A \ \
βοηθόν, τὸν τῶν ἀπηλπιομένων οὠτῆρὰ, TOV πάᾶντος
, εν \ , \ ͵
πνεύματος κτίστην καὶ ἐπίσκοπον, τὸν πληθύνοντα
af > \ -~ \ 3 7 ᾽ lf \ >
ἐθνη ἐπὶ γῆς Kal ἐκ πάντων ἐκλεξάμενον τοὺς aya-
΄- 7 Ning) ~ - ΄σ΄ > ͵ fe
movras σε διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου παιδὸς 5
ἀξι-

πὰ A U4 \ Lf ‘ > ͵
ουμεν σε; δέσποτα, ΒΟΗΘΟΝ yever Oat KA ANTIAHTITOPA

ὩΣ = 2 , , /
σου, OL ot ἡμᾶς ἐπαίδευσας, ἡγίασας, ἐτίμησας.

ἡμῶν.

\ > 7 ς ΄σ - a \ \
TOUS ἐν θλίψει ἥμων σωσον᾽ τοὺς ταπεινοὺς

I τῶν κινδυνευόντων] Ζ]ίογηι7)2 qui affiguntur S, but it is probably a loose para-

phrase. 5 σεῖ C; eum S.

ἡμᾶς ἐπαίδευσας,

6 σου] (; cus 5.

ἡγίασας, ἐτίμησας] enstruxit nos et sanctificavit nos et honoravit nos S. ἀξιοῦ-

μεν κιτ.λ.] S prefixes et dicemus ili cum supplicatione.
S; om. C. It seems to be required, as Hilg. and Gebh. have seen.

he has already adopted an earlier
verse of the same Psalm in this con-
text. For ἐπόπτης comp. 2 Macc. vil.
35 τοῦ παντοκράτορος ἐπόπτου Θεοῦ,
Esther ν. I τὸν πάντων ἐπόπτην Θεόν.

I. τὸν τῶν κινδυνευόντων κ.τ.λ.]
Judith ix. 11 ἐλαττόνων εἶ βοηθός,
ἀντιλήπτωρ ἀσθενούντων, ἀπεγνωσμένων
σκεπαστής, ἀπηλπισμένων σωτήρ. For
ἀπηλπισμένοι comp. Is. xxix. 19,
Esth. iv. ad fin. See also Liturg.
D. Marc. p. 181 ἡ ἐλπὶς τῶν ἀπηλ-
πισμένων (comp. Lzturg. S. Basil.
p. 122), Act. S. Theodot. ἃ 21 (in Rui-
nart) ‘Domine Jesu Christe, spes
desperatorum’.

3. πνεύματος κτίστην] Zech. xii. 1
Κύριος.. πλάσσων πνεῦμα ἀνθρώπου ἐν
αὐτῷ, Is. ἵν]]. 16 πνεῦμα παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ
ἐξελεύσεται, καὶ πνοὴν πᾶσαν ἐγὼ
ἐποίησα. In Amos iv. 13 we have ἐγὼ
οὐὐκτίζων πνεῦμα, Where it apparently
means ‘the wind,’ but might easily
be understood otherwise.

ἐπίσκοπον) Job x. 12 ἡ δὲ ἐπισκοπή
σου ἐφύλαξέ μου τὸ πνεῦμα, τ Pet. ii.
25 τὸν ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶν
ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, Wisd. i. 6 ὁ Θεὸς...τῆς
καρδίας αὐτοῦ ἐπίσκοπος ἀληθής. Comp.
Liturg. D. Mare. p. 181 ἐπίσκοπε
πάσης σαρκός.

7 σε] so apparently
δέσποτα]

6. ἀξιοῦμεν κιτ.λ.1 See the prayer
in the Afost. Const. viii. 12 ἔτι
ἀξιοῦμέν σε.. ὅπως πάντων ἐπίκουρος
γένῃ, πάντων βοηθὸς καὶ ἀντιλήπτωρ
(with the context), which is evidently
indebted to this passage of Clement.
Comp. Ps. cxviii (cxix). 114 βοηθός
μου καὶ ἀντιλήπτωρ pov εἶ σύ.

8. τοὺς ἐν θλίψει κιτ.λ.1] Compare
the prayer in Lzturg. D. Marc. p. 185
λύτρωσαι δεσμίους, ἐξέλου τοὺς
ἐν ἀνάγκαις, πεινῶντας χόρτασον,
ὀλιγοψυχοῦντας παρακάλεσον,
πεπλανημένους ἐπίστρεψον, ἐσκο-
τισμένους φωταγώγησον, πεπτωκότας
ἔγειρον, σαλευομένους στήριξον, νε-
νοσηκότας ἴασαι....... φρουρὸς ἡμῶν
καὶ ἀντιλήπτωρ κατὰ πάντα γενό-
μενος, where the coincidences are
far too numerous and close to be
accidental. See also Afost. Const.
11. 6.

10. ἀσεβεῖς] Comp. § 3 ζῆλον ἄδικον
καὶ ἀσεβῆ ἀνειληφότας. The reference
in ἀσεβεῖς is not to unbelievers, but
to factious and unworthy members of
the Church. For this word Geb-
hardt (Zectschr. f. Kirchengesch. 1. p.
307, and ad loc.) conjectures ἀσθενεῖς ;
and this may have been the reading
of 5. But the occurrence of τοὺς

LIX]

3 / \ , af
eAE€noov ° TOUS TETTTWKOTAS εγειρον ἕ

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

175

- / -
τοῖς δεομένοις

> / \ > = af \ / a
ἐπιφάνηθι: τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς ἴασαι: τοὺς πλανωμένους TOU

= SDs , wart \ ΄σ ,
Aaov σου ἐπίστρεψον" χορτασον τοὺς πεινωντας" λυ-

\ / ro) > , \
τρωσαι τοὺς δεσμίους ἡμών" ἐξαναστησον Tous ἀσθε-

vot £ \ 2 ΄“ ͵
νοῦντας" παρακάλεσον τοὺς ὀλιγοψυχοῦντας" γνώτω-

, / \ my / \ c \ ' \
cAN OE πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, OTL cy εἶ ὁ Θεὸς mONOC, καὶ

΄σ \ ΄ \ ε a , \
᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ παῖς σου, Kal ἡμεῖς Aadc coy kai

πρόβατὰ τῆς NOMAC Coy.

domine bone Ὁ.
10 ἐπιφάνηθι] C3 ἐπιστράφηθι 5.
S; see the lower note.
presented in S.

ἀσθενοῦντας just below is a serious
difficulty, and on this account I have
hesitated about accepting it. It is
not sufficient to answer with Harnack,
‘aoOevodyres animo, ἀσθενεῖς Corpore
imbecilles sunt’; for both words are
used indifferently either of physical
or of moral weakness. Supposing
that ἀσεβεῖς were the original read-
ing, the rendering of S may repre-
sent either ἀσθενεῖς (a corruption of
ἀσεβεῖς) OY νενοσηκότας (a substitu-
tion of a familiar liturgical form, as
appears from Lit. D. Marc. Ὁ. 185,
quoted above). The Syriac word
here, N73, is the same as in the
Peshito Luke ix. 2 ἰᾶσαι τοὺς ἀσθε-
Comp. Polyc.
Phil. 6 ἐπιστρέφοντες τὰ ἀποπεπλανη-
μένα, ἐπισκεπτόμενοι τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς,
which, so far-as it goes, is in favour
of Gebhardt’s emendation.

τοὺς πλανωμένους κιτ.λ.] Ezek. xxxiv.
16 τὸ πεπλανημένον ἐπιστρέψω (where
B has τὸ πλανώμενον ἀποστρέψω).

II. λύτρωσαι τοὺς δεσμίους] 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

veis (ν. 1. ἀσθενοῦντας).

8 τοὺς ταπεινοὺς ἐλέησον) om. S, owing to the homeeoteleuton.
ἀσεβεῖς] C3 aegrotos (ἀσθενεῖς or νοσοῦντας ?)

14 σε] See Bryennios Didache p. py.
15 ὁ παῖς σου] add. dilectus (ὁ ἠγαπημένος) 8.

It is unre-

early Church in the ages of per-
secution: comp. Heb. x. 34, xiii. 3,
and see the note on Ign. Smyru. 6.
A prayer for those working ‘in the
mines’ is found generally in the
early liturgies; comp. Afost. Const.
Vill. 10 ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐν μετάλλοις Kal ἐξο-
ρίαις καὶ φυλακαῖς καὶ δεσμοῖς ὄντων
διὰ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου δεηθῶμεν,
Liturg. 7). Marc. p. 181 τοὺς ἐν φυλα-
καῖς ἢ ἐν μετάλλοις...κατεχομένους πάν-
τας ἐλέησον, πάντας ἐλευθέρωσον, Lit.
D. Fac. p. 44 μνήσθητι, Κύριε......
Χριστιανῶν τῶν ἐν δεσμοῖς, τῶν ἐν
φυλακαῖς, τῶν
ἐξορίαις, τῶν ἐν μετάλλοις καὶ βασάνοις

ἐν αἰχμαλωσίαις καὶ
καὶ πικραῖς δουλείαις ὄντων πατέρων καὶ
ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν.

12. ἐξανάστησον «.t.A.] Comp. I
Thess. v. 14 παραμυθεῖσθε τοὺς ὀλιγο-
ψύχους, ἀντέχεσθε τῶν ἀσθενῶν, quoted
by Harnack.

13. γνώτωσαν κ-Οτ.λ.} I Kings viii.
60 ὅπως γνῶσι πάντες οἱ λαοὶ τῆς γῆς
ὅτι Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸς Θεὸς καὶ οὐκ
ἔστιν ἔτι, 2 Kings xix. 19 γνώσονται
πᾶσαι at βασιλεῖαι τῆς γῆς ὅτι ov
Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς μόνος (comp. Is. xxxvil.
20), Ezek. xxxvi. 23 γνώσονται τὰ ἔθνη
ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι Κύριος κιτιλ. Comp. John
ἘΜ se

Τρ.

ἡμεῖς K.7.A.] From Ps. xcix (c).

176 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [Lx

\ \ / ~ U , A
LX. Cv τὴν ἀέναον τοῦ κόσμου σύστασιν διὰ
“ > / > / 4 , Ἁ
τῶν ἐνεργουμένων ἐφανεροποίησας: σύ, Κύριε, τὴν
3 / / \ / ~ ΄σ
οἰκουμένην ἐκτισας, ὁ πιστὸς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς γενεαῖς,
7 ΡΞ 7, \ > Tan \
δίκαιος ἐν τοῖς κρίμασιν, θαυμαστὸς ἐν ἰσχύϊ Kal μεγα-
/ ε \ > ~ / \ ‘ A > ΄σ
λοπρεπείᾳ, ὁ σοφὸς ἐν τῷ κτίζειν καὶ δυνετὸς ἐν τῷ 5
\ ’ / \ σι Ψ' A
Ta γενόμενα ἑδράσαι, 0 ἀγαθὸς ἐν τοῖς ὁρωμένοις καὶ
\ a / \ / > σι \ > ͵
πιστὸς ἐν τοῖς πεποιθόσιν ἐπὶ OE, EAEHMON KAI Οἰκτιρ-
, Ge it \ > / € ~ \ \ > / \
mon, ἄφες ἡμῖν Tas ἀνομίας ἡμῶν Kal Tas ἀδικίας καὶ

1 Σὺ] add. γὰρ 5.
word in the same way.
5 ὁ σοφὸς] C; σοφὸς (om. ὁ) S.
nus), probably χρηστός, S.

ἀέναον] ἀένναον C3; comp. ὃ 20, where C writes the
τοῦ κόσμου] add. hujus S, as in other passages.
kal] C; om. S.

10 καθάρισον] καθαρεῖς C; purifica S: see below.

7 πιστὸς] mitis (benig-

12 καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἁπλότητι] om. C; restored by Bensly from S, which has e¢

2 γνῶτε ὅτι Κύριος αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ Θεός...
ἡμεῖς [δὲ] λαὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ πρόβατα τῆς
νομῆς αὐτοῦ : comp. 2d. lxxviii (ἸΧΧΙΧ).
17, xciv (Xcv). 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. Σὺ τὴν ἀέναον κιτ.λ.}] The main
part of this sentence is borrowed in
Apost. Const. viii. 22 (quoted above
on ὃ 59 τὸν ἀριθμόν κιτ.λ.). Comp.
Wisd. vii. 17 εἰδέναι σύστασιν κόσμου
καὶ ἐνέργειαν στοιχείων.

διὰ τῶν ἐνεργουμένων κ-τ.λ.] 1.6.

‘didst reveal the inherent constitution
of the world by the succession of
external events’; comp. Rom. i. 20.
The word φανεροποιεῖν is late and
somewhat rare.

3. 6 πιστὸς κι.λ.} Deut. vil. 9
Θεὸς πιστὸς ὁ φυλάσσων διαθήκην... εἰς
χιλίας γενεάς.

6. ἑδράσαι] Comp. Prov. viii. 25
πρὸ Tov ὄρη ἑδρασθῆναι.

ὁ ἀγαθὸς κ-ιτ.λ.] 1.6. ‘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 ἔστιν δὲ πίστις...
πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος ov βλεπομένων.
For ὁρωμένοις Hilgenfeld has ἐρω-
μένοις; Harnack and Gebhardt (fol-
lowed by Lipsius Yen. Lit. Jan.
13, 1877) read σωζομένοις, the latter
having previously conjectured ὡρισ-
μένοις (Zedtschr. f. Kirchengesch. 1.
p. 307); Zahn proposes ὁσιουμένοις
(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] TO THE CORINTHIANS. 177

\ / \ z \ ΄
TA παραπτωματα και πλημμελείας. μὴ λογίση πασαν

/ / \ = > \ ΄
ὡμαρτίαν δούλων σου καὶ παιδισκῶν, ἀλλὰ καθάρισον
Oui \ \ a a ,ὔ \ ;
ἡμᾶς τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῆς σῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ κατεύθγνον

\ , e “aay > ς , \ /
TA AIABHMATA ἥμων EN OCIOTHTI Καὶ δικαιοσύνη καὶ

ε i? , , \ . \ \
απλοτητι KApAIAC πορεγεοθὰι Καὶ TIOIEIN TA KAAA KAI

2 ,

ey , \ > fe ~ > 7
EYAPECTA ENWTTION σον Kal EVWTLOV των αρχοντῶν

ἡμῶν.

ς a > > \ J \ a ΄ Ps

ἡμᾶς εἰς ἀγαθὰ ἐν εἰρήνη, εἰς TO σκεπασθήῆναι ἡμᾶς τή
ἐ

fo fA > ͵ \ ͵ , >
Val, δέσποτα, ἐπίφανον TO πρόσωπόν coy ἐφ᾽

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 ἐν εἰρήνῃ]
pacis S; but this is probably due to an error of Syriac transcription, since a single

letter (4 for 1) would make the difference.

Wisd. xiii. 1, ἐκ τῶν ὁρωμένων ἀγαθῶν
οὐκ ἴσχυσαν εἰδέναι τὸν ὄντα οὔτε τοῖς
ἔργοις προσχόντες ἐπέγνωσαν τὸν τεχ-
νίτην. The language in the latter
part of the sentence is suggested by
Ecclus. ii. 10 sq τίς ἐνεπίστευσε
Κυρίῳ καὶ κατῃσχύνθη ;...διότι οἰκτίρ-
μὼν καὶ ἐλεήμων ὁ Κύριος, καὶ ἀφίησιν
ἁμαρτίας.

7. ἐλεῆμον κιτ.λ.] A very frequent
combination of epithets in the 1 ΧΧ.

10. καθάρισον] This is perhaps the
simplest emendation of καθαρεῖς, the
reading of the MS, which cannot
stand ; καθάρισον having been written
καθάρεισον, and the two last letters
having dropped out. Otherwise we
might read καθάρῃς. Bryennios, Hil-
genfeld, and Gebhardt tacitly retain
καθαρεῖς. For the expression comp.
Num. xiv. 18 καθαρισμῷ ov καθαριεῖ
τὸν ἔνοχον, quoted by Bryennios.

11. τῆς σῆς ἀληθείας] See John
XViil. 17 ἁγίασον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ
k.T.A.; COMP. Χν- 3.

κατεύθυνον «.7.A.| Ps. xxxix (xl). 3
κατεύθυνε τὰ διαβήματά pov, Cxviii
(cxix). 133 τὰ διαβήματά μου κατεύθυ-
voy κατὰ τὸ λόγιόν gov. The phrase
κατευθύνειν τὰ διαβήματα occurs also

CLEM. II.

Ess xxxvi (&xxvil). 25, ΒΟ xx. 27.
The word διαβήματα, ‘steps’, is rare,
except in the LXX and writers influ-
enced by it.

12. ἐν ὁσιότητι k.7.A.| 1 Kings ix. 4
σὺ ἐὰν πορευθῆς ἐνώπιον ἐμοῦ, καθὼς
ἐπορεύθη Δαυεὶδ, ἐν ὁσιότητι καρδίας.

15. ποιεῖν, κιτιλ.} Deut. xiii. 18
ποιεῖν τὸ καλὸν καὶ τὸ ἀρεστὸν ἐναντίον
Κυρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ σου : comp. Zé. vi. 18,
MIDS. 285 ΣΙ Οἱ

15. ἐπίφανον] Ps. Ixvi (Ixvii). 1
ἐπιφάναι TO πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς :
comp. Ζ xxx (xxxi). 18, Ixxix (Ixxx).
3.7, τῷ; CxVill (XIX), 135. So, also
Liturg. D. Mare. p.179, Apost. Const.
vill. 18, 37.

16. els ἀγαθὰ) See Jer. xxi. Io
ἐστήρικα TO πρόσωπόν μου ἐπὶ τὴν
πόλιν..«οὐκ εἰς ἀγαθά; comp. Amos
ix. 4, Jer. xxiv. 6. For εἰς ἀγαθὰ see
also Gen. I. 20, Deut. xxx. 9, etc,
Comp. Liturg. D. Facob. p. 44
μνήσθητι.. «πάντων eis ἀγαθόν.

σκεπασθῆναι) For this connexion of
σκεπάζειν comp. Is. li. 16 ὑπὸ τὴν
σκιὰν τῆς χειρός pov σκεπάσω σε
(comp. Wisd. v. 17, xix. 8), Deut.
XXxili. 27 σκεπάσει σε...«ὑπὸ ἰσχὺν
βραχιύνων ἀενάων : and for the anti-

12

178 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [Lx

͵ a na \ ~ MN /
χειρί coy TH Kpataid καὶ ῥυσθῆναι ἀπὸ πάσης duap-
an ͵ ͵ an c i \ en ~
Tias τῷ Bpayioni coy τῷ ὑψηλῷ: καὶ ρῦσαι ἡμᾶς

a

\ 60 ε , \
απὸ OSs ομονοιαν Kal

τῶν μισούντων ἡμᾶς ἀδίκως.
εἰρήνην ἡμῖν τε καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν τὴν γῆν,
καθὼς ἔδωκας τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν, ETIKAAOYMENON OE 5
αὐτῶν ὁσίως én Ticte! καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, [ὥστε σώζεσθαι ἡμᾶς]

, , A , \ ,
ὑπηκόους γινομένους TW TaAVTOKPaATOPL Kal TAVADETW

6 ὁσίως] 8 ; 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 et 2m veritate oboedientes fuerunt nomini tuo

etc., thus connecting ἐν ἀληθείᾳ with the following clause.

ἡμᾶς] om. CS; see below.

ὥστε σώζεσθαι

ἡ παντο-

κράτορι καὶ παναρέτῳ] The words are transposed in 5, but this does not imply

thetical χειρὶ κραταιᾷ, βραχίονι ὑψηλῷ,
Exod. vi. 1, Deut. tv. 34, v. 15, Vil
τ ix ΟΝ ΣΙ 2, Kecvise, Jers: ΧΧΣΙ͂Σ
Goa): 27, Ezek, x00, 32; 32.

3. τῶν μισούντων κιτ.λ.}] Comp.
Justin. Aol. i. 14 (p. 61) τοὺς ἀδίκως
μισοῦντας πείθειν πειρώμενοι, quoted
by Harnack.

5. ἐπικαλουμένων x.t.A.| Ps. cxliv
(cxlv). 8 πᾶσι τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις αὐτὸν
ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. For ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ
comp. I Tim. ii. 7.

7. ὑπηκόους k.t.A.| This might
be a loose accusative, referring to
the datives ἡμῖν τε καὶ πᾶσιν «.T.A.;
comp. Ephes. i. 17, 18 δώῃ ὑμῖν
πνεῦμα codpias...... πεφωτισμένους
τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς κιτιλ., Acts xxvi. 3
ἐπὶ σοῦ μέλλων σήμερον ἀπολογεῖσθαι,
μάλιστα γνώστην ὄντα σε κιτιλ., and
see Winer ὃ xxxiii. p. 290, ὃ Ixiii.
pp. 709 sq, 716, Kihner 11. p. 667 sq.
But a double transition, πατράσιν,
ἐπικαλουμένων, γενομένους, would be
very harsh; and for reasons which
are stated in the introduction (1. p.
145 sq), I cannot doubt that some
words have dropped out, such as I
have inserted. Bryennios supplies
καὶ σῶσον ἡμᾶς; Gebhardt reads
ὑπηκόοις γενομένοις ; and Hilgenfeld
alters the whole sentence. Lipsius

(Fen. Lit. Jan. 13, 1877) would insert
ἐπικαλοῦμέν σε ῥῦσαι τοὺς before ἐν
πίστει κιτιλ.

παντοκράτορι] So Hermas [725. iii. 3
τῷ ῥήματι τοῦ παντοκράτορος καὶ ἐν-
δόξου ὀνόματος. At first it had oc-
curred to me to read παντοκρατορικῷ,
as it occurred to Gebhardt, and as
Hilgenfeld actually reads; comp. § 8
τῷ παντοκρατορικῷ βουλήματι αὐτοῦ.
The expression παντοκρατορικὸν ὄνομα
occurs in Macar. Magn. Agocr. iv. 30
(p. 225). The omission of -κῷ 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 Lxx παντο-
κράτωρ seems to be always applied
directly to God either as an epithet
of Θεὸς or Κύριος, or independently;
and so in Clement himself, inscr., 2,
32. But the sense of τὸ ὄνομα, as
almost an equivalent to ὁ Θεὸς (see
[Clem. Rom.] ii. § 13, and the note
on Ign. Ephes. 3), explains the ex-
ceptional usage here and in Hermas.

παναρέτῳ k.T.A.] For this expression
comp. ὃ 45, and for the word πανάρε-
tos the note on § 1.

8. τοῖς τε ἄρχουσιν κιτ.λ] The

Io

LxI]

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

179

a af \ ε / ε A
ὀνόματί σου, τοῖς TE ἀρχουσιν καὶ ἡγουμένοις ἡμῶν

\ ΄σ ΄
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

ΠΧ.

Οὐ, δέσποτα, ἔδωκας τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῆς βα-

(i > ΄ \ ~ ~ \ ? ὃ 7
σιλείας αὐτοῖς διὰ τοῦ μεγαλοπρέπους καὶ ανεκοιηγη-

\ / e ΄“ \ ε \
TOU κράτους σου;ς εἰς TO YlYWOKOVTaAS ἡμᾶς Τὴν VUTO

΄ 3 = 7 δό \ \ e / 6
σοῦ αὐτοῖς δεδομένην ὀξαν καὶ τιμὴν ὑποτάσσεσθαι

3 - \ ? / “- θ / , R € ὃ ,
αὐτοῖς, μηδὲν ἐναντιουμένους τῷ θελήματι σου" οἷς δος;

any different Greek text: see above, I. p. 137.

ἐντίμῳ, SAPD (see § 3).

Also παναρέτῳ is translated as if

But a single letter would make the difference, NIN

excellentt. Elsewhere $33 ND is the translation of πανάρετος (see §§ 1, 2, 45,
57); and the translator might here consider himself excused from the repetition of

mav- which occurs in both words.
te] C3; καὶ τοῖς S.

punctuation, which I have adopted,
was suggested to me by Hort. It
accords with the preceding words
εὐάρεστα ἐνώπιόν σου Kal ἐνώπιον τῶν
ἀρχόντων ἡμῶν; it disposes of the
superfluous αὐτοῖς (see however ὃ 21,
note); and it throws Σύ into its
proper position of prominence; e.g.
ὃ 60 Σὺ τὴν ἀέναον κιτιλ. and ὃ 61
just below, Σὺ γάρ, δέσποτα κτλ.
See Athenag. Suppl. 1 εὐσεβέστατα
διακειμένους καὶ δικαιότατα πρός τε τὸ
θεῖον καὶ τὴν ὑμετέραν βασιλείαν ;
comp. Theoph. ad ΑἸ το. i. 11, who
quotes Prov. xxiv. 21 Τίμα, υἱὲ, Θεὸν
καὶ βασιλέα x.t.A. The previous edi-
tors have all connected the words
τοῖς Te ἄρχουσιν κιτιλ. 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

See also on παναγίῳ above, ὃ 58.
10 ἔδωκας] add. zzs S.

8 τοῖς
14 δὸς] 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. τῆς βασιλείας] ‘of the sove-
reignty’, 1.6. ‘of the secular power’.
For the genitive comp. Dan. xi. 20
πράσσων δόξαν βασιλείας, 20. 21 ἔδω-
κεν ex αὐτὸν δόξαν βασιλείας. The
βασιλεία is the secular as contrasted
with the spiritual power; and, as
such, it is frequently opposed to
ἱερωσύνη, e.g. Apost. Const. 11. 34 ὅσῳ
ψυχὴ σώματος κρείττων, τοσούτῳ ἱερω-
σύνη βασιλείας (comp. vi. 2), Zest.
Duod. Patr. Jud. 21.

13. ὑποτάσσεσθαι αὐτοῖς κ.τ.λ.}
See 1 Pet. ii. 13, 15 ὑποτάγητε πάσῃ
ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει διὰ τὸν Κύριον... ὅτι
οὕτως ἐστὶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ;
comp. Rom, xiii. 2
τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ διαταγῇ ἀν-
θέστηκεν.

14. δὸς κιτ.λ.] In accordance with
the Apostolic injunctions, Rom. xiii.
Fis, ΜΠ 111. 35.0) Pet ii bese
comp. Wisd. vi. 1 sq. See also Polyc.
Phil. 12. For other passages in
early Christian writers relating to
prayers for temporal rulers, sce

12---2

> ,
ὃ ἀντιτασσόμενος

180

THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [LXI

ki ε , 3. ε ΄ 9 , > A
Uple, υγιειαν». ELOnVHV, ομονοιᾶν, εὐσταθειαν, Εἰς: TO
/ 9 \ \ \ ΄σ Ve 3 cod ’
διέπειν αὐτοὺς τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ δεδομένην αὐτοῖς ἡγεμονίαν
> / \ is vA us “
ἀπροσκόπως. σὺ yap, δέσποτα ETOUPAVLEs βασιλεῦ

΄ eed , a uA A > / / \
τῶν αἰώνων, δίδως τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων δόξαν καὶ
\ \ / > \ ΄- ~ / ,
τιμὴν Kal ἐξουσίαν τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὑπαρχόντων" σύ,
Κ / ὃ 10 \ \ 5 ΄σ A \ A \
vole, διευθυνον τὴν βουλὴν αὐτών κατὰ τὸ καλὸν καὶ
΄ , / J /
εὐάρεστον ἐνώπιον σου, ὅπως διέποντες ἐν εἰρήνη καὶ
.Λ 5 - \ ε \ “- 3 a / 3
πραὕτητι εὐσεβῶς τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ αὐτοῖς δεδομένην ἐξου-
, « / , ς , \ “-
σιαν ἵλεω σου τυγχάνωσιν. Oo μονος δυνατὸς ποιῆσαι
΄σ A / \ “~ \
ταῦτα καὶ περισσότερα ἀγαθὰ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, σοὶ ἐξομο-
9 ἵλεώ σου τυγχάνωσιν] tranguille compotes fiant auxilii quod (est) a te 5, ob-
viously a paraphrase. 13 γενεὰν] C3 γενεὰς 5. 16 καὶ] S; om. C.
The clause is translated in S ‘et de 175 (rebus) scilicet (3) quae in ea (religione),
guae maxime utiles sunt illis qui volunt dirigere vitam (conversationem) excellentiae
et pietatis et juste, as if the translator had read τῶν ὠφελιμωτάτων δὴ (Ὁ) ἐν αὐτῇ

ἐνάρετον...διευθύνειν. At all events he must have had a text which a corrector
had emended by striking out or altering εἰς, so as to govern βίον by διευθύνειν :

Bingham Avz. xiii. 10. 5, Harnack Θεὸς τῶν αἰώνων. Here the Eternal

Christl. Gemeindegottesd. Ὁ. 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. εὐστάθειαν) ‘stability’, ‘tran-
guillity’, comp. ὃ 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 οὐκ ἐῶντες τὴν βασιλείαν εὐστα-
θείας τυχεῖν, Wisd. vi. 26 βασιλεὺς
φρόνιμος εὐστάθεια δήμου.

3. ἀπροσκόπως) ‘without stum-
bling’, ‘without any jar or collision’ ;
as ὃ 20 τὴν λειτουργίαν αὐτῶν ἀπροσ-
κόπως ἐπιτελοῦσιν.

βασιλεῦ τῶν αἰώνων] 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;
sce also Liturg. | DisFac. Ὁ 40!
Comp. ὃ 35 πατὴρ τῶν αἰώνων, § 55

King is tacitly contrasted with the
temporary kings, the βασιλεὺς τῶν
αἰώνων with the βασιλεῖς τοῦ αἰῶνος
τούτου (comp. Ign. Rom. 6).

6. διεύθυνον] As above § 20. Other-
wise it is not a common word, and
does not apparently occur at all in
the Lxx'or ΝΣ:

10. μεθ’ ἡμῶν] As Luke i. 72
ποιῆσαι ἔλεος μετὰ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν,
Ζὖ. x. 37, and so probably Acts xiv. 27,
xv. 43 comp. Ps. \exviii- (Cxix): G5
χρηστότητα ἐποίησας μετὰ τοῦ δούλου
σου. It is the Hebraism py πῶν.

II. ἀρχιερέως x.t.A.| See the note
on § 36.

12. ἡ δόξα κιτ.λ.] See the note on
§ 20. It is a favourite form of dox-
ology in Clement.

13. εἰς γενεὰν γενεῶν] i.e. ‘the
generation which comprises all the
generations’; as Ps. ci (cii). 24 ev
γενεᾷ γενεῶν τὰ ἔτη σου : comp. Ephes.
lil, 21 τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων. This is

Lx11| TO. THE. CORINFHIANS: 181

/ \ ~ fe , ΄
λογούμεθα διὰ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως καὶ προστάτου τῶν
΄σ΄ ε ΄σ > ~~ ~ > eo «ς i \
ψυχῶν ἡμών ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, δὲ ov σοι ἡ δόξα καὶ
ε / \ ΄σ \ Ἁ ~
ἡ μεγαλωσύνη Kal νῦν Kal εἰς γενεὰν γενεῶν καὶ εἰς
Π fn ΄ 30, Κ 7
TOUS αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. any.
15 TOOL: ΠΙερὲ μὲν τῶν ἀνηκοντὼν ™ θρησκείᾳ ἡμῶν,
\ ΄σ > , 3 > / , ΄ 7
καὶ τῶν ὠφελιμωτάτων εἰς ἐνάρετον βίον τοῖς θέλουσιν

εὐσεβῶς καὶ δικαίως διευθύνειν [τὴν πορείαν αὐτῶν],

\ \
περὶ yap
\ / \ / > / 3
πίστεως καὶ μετανοίας καὶ γνήσιᾶας AYaTHS καὶ ες

ἵ
|
δὶ
᾿

΄- > 7 ~ aS ? /
ἱκανῶς ἐπεστείλαμεν ὑμῖν, ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί.

see above, I. pp- 144, 145. In the Syriac we should probably read ΠῚ ΞΔ for
NIVDW, i.e. 2 pietate (Ξ-Ξ: εὐσεβῶς) for et fietatis. 17 τὴν πορείαν αὐτῶν]
om. CS: see below. 19 ἐγκρατείας] NNIY by super continentia (as if
ὑπὲρ ἐγκρατείας) S, for another preposition (201) de) has been used before for
περί. Perhaps however the insertion of a different preposition is a mere rhetorical
device of the translator; or ὃν 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 εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν
or εἰς γενεὰν καὶ γενεὰν, 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. τῶν ἀνηκόντων] With a dative
as in § 35; see the note on Ign.
Philad. 1. It has a different con-
struction, ἀνήκειν eis, ὃ 45. See the

note there.

τῇ θρησκείᾳ ἡμῶν] Comp. § 45 τῶν
θρησκευόντων τὴν μεγαλοπρεπῆ καὶ
ἔνδοξον θρησκείαν τοῦ ὑψίστου. This
passage explains the force of the
words here: ‘that befit men who
serve the one true God’.

16. ἐνάρετον] See the note on Ign.
Philad. τὸ

17. διευθύνειν] The MS is ob-
viously defective here ; and we must
supply some such words as τὴν
πορείαν αὐτῶν (see § 48), or τὰ διαβή-
ματα (ὃ 60), or perhaps with Bryen-
nios τὴν βουλὴν αὐτῶν (ὃ 61). See
the introduction, I. p. 145 sq.

18. ἱκανῶς ἐπεστείλαμεν) Bryennios
has called attention to the similarity
of language used by Irenzus, when
describing this epistle, ili. 3. 3 ἐπὶ
τούτου οὖν τοῦ Κλήμεντος, στάσεως
οὐκ ὀλίγης τοῖς ἐν Κορίνθῳ γενομένης
ἀδελφοῖς, ἐπέστειλεν ἡ ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐκ-
κλησία ἱκανωτάτην γραφὴν τοῖς Κο-
ρινθίοις.

182 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [LXI

/ ΄σ Me ᾿
κρατείας καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ ὑπομονῆς πάντα τόπον
> / ε , ΄ € Ὑπὸ 3
ἐψηλαφήσαμεν, ὑπομιμνήσκοντες δεῖν ὑμάς ἐν δικαιο-

“ \ > / \ ? “- ΄
σύνη καὶ ἀληθείᾳ καὶ μακροθυμίᾳ τῷ παντοκράτορι
rant ~ ~ di
Θεῷ ὁσίως εὐαρεστεῖν, ὁμονοοῦντας ἀμνησικάκως ἐν
, \ ΄σ \
ἀγάπη καὶ εἰρήνη μετὰ ἐκτενοῦς ἐπιεικείας, καθὼς Kal
/ "2 ΄ /
οἱ προδεδηλωμένοι πατέρες ἡμῶν εὐηρέστησαν ταπεινο-
Cal AY A \ , \ \ \ /
φρονοῦντες τὰ πρὸς TOV πατέρα Kal Θεὸν καὶ κτίσ-

1 τόπον] add. scripturae 5. 4 εὐαρεστεῖν] S; εὐχαριστεῖν C: see the
same confusion above, § 41. The reading of S was anticipated by Hilg. and Gebh.
5 καθὼς καὶ] καθὼς (om. καὶ) 8, 7 Θεὸν καὶ κτίστην] universi creatorem
deum (θεὸν παγκτίστην ?) S; comp. 8 19. 8 πρὸς] 5; 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. - g ἤδιον] ἣ δ ὧν S, which translates the clause, e¢ haec
tanto sint (erunt) per ea guae monuimus. The translator has had a corrupt text and

has translated it word for word, regardless of sense. ἐπειδὴ σαφῶς ἤδειμεν

I. πάντα τόπον κιτ.λ.} ‘we have schisms, who are bidden to harbour

handled every topic’ ; Bryennios adds
by way of explanation, μάλιστα δὲ τῶν
ἁγίων γραφῶν, thus taking πάντα τό-
mov to mean ‘every passage’; and
so it is rendered in the Syriac Ver-
sion, ‘place of Scripture’. In this
sense τύπος occurs above in the ex-
pression ἐν ἑτέρῳ τόπῳ, δὴ 8, 29, 46.
But this meaning does not seem at
all natural here, where the word is
used absolutely. For τόπος ‘a topic,
argument’, comp. e.g. Epict. Déss.
i. 7. 4 ἐπίσκεψίν τινα ποιητέον τῶν
τόπων τούτων, li. 17. 31 ὅταν τοῦτον
ἐκπονήσῃ...τὸν τόπον, and see other
references in Schweighzeuser’s index
to Epictetus, s.v. For Ψψηλαφᾶν
comp. e.g. Polyb. vill. 18. 4 πᾶσαν
ἐπίνοιαν ἐψηλάφα.

4. εὐαρεστεῖν] Doubtless the cor-
rect reading, as it explains the sub-
sequent εὐηρέστησαν. For another
example of the confusion of evapec-
τεῖν, εὐχαριστεῖν, in the authorities,
see ὃ 4I.

ἀμνησικάκως) See ὃ 2 ἀμνησίκακοι
(with the note). This word involves
an appeal to the sufferers from the

no grudge.

5. μετὰ ἐκτενοῦς κιτιλ.] See the
note on § 58, where the same ex-
pression occurs.

6. of προδεδηλωμένοι x.t.d.] See
§$ 17, 18, 19; comp. also ὃ 30 ἐδόθη
[ἡ μαρτυρία] τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν τοῖς
δικαίοις, and § 31 ἀνατυλίξωμεν τὰ
ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς γενόμενα᾽ τίνος χάριν ηὐ-
λογήθη ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν ᾿Αβραάμ; κ.τ.λ.
For this use of πατέρες in speaking
of Jewish worthies, see the note on
δ 4.

Io. ἐλλογιμωτάτοις See the note
on ὃ 58 ἐλλόγιμος.

ἐγκεκυφόσιν]ἠ Comp. ὃ 53 καλῶς
ἐπίστασθε τὰς ἱερὰς γραφάς, ἀγαπητοί,
καὶ ἐγκεκύφατε εἰς τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ,
with the note. For the word ἐγκύπ-
τειν see the note on ὃ 40.

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

Lx]

i >
την Kal πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους.

TO THE CORINTHIANS. 183

\ ~ /
καὶ TaAUTA TOGOUTW

ἥδιον ὑπεμνήσαμεν, ἐπειδὴ σαφῶς ἤδειμεν γράφειν

΄σ , ~ \ d /
ιο ἡμᾶς ἀνδράσιν πιστοῖς καὶ ἐλλογιμωτάτοις καὶ ἐγκε-

ie \ / ΄σ 7 ΄ ΄:-
κυφύσιν εἰς τὰ λόγια τῆς παιδείας τοῦ Θεοῦ.

ΦΙΧΤΙΙ.

\ 5 2 - ΄, \
Θεμιτον οὐν “ἐστιν TOLS TOLOUTOLS καὶ

/ ε ,ὔ / Ὁ 7 ΄ \
τοσούτοις ὑποδείγμασιν προσελθόντας ὑποθεῖναι τὸν

/ \ \ - a / ? /
Tpaxnrov Kal TOV τῆς ὑπακοῆς TOTOV αναπληρώσαντας

γράφειν] guia sctlicet manifeste est tis; oportuit enim (μὲν) ut scriberemus S, i.e.
ἐπειδὴ σαφῶς ἢ" det (or ἔδει) μὲν yap γράφειν κιτιλ. Again a corrupt reading, or

rather a false division of the words, has been translated almost verbatine.

For the

facility with which yap might be omitted or inserted before γράφω, see Ign. Rom. ἢ.

το ἐλλογιμωτάτοι:ς] doctis S.
nostrum et subjiciamus nos S.

13 ὑποθεῖναι τὸν τράχηλον] inclinemus collum
14 ἀναπληρώσαντας... ἡμῶν] twplentes in-

clinemur illis qui sunt duces animarum nostrarum S3 ἀναπληρῶσαι 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. Θεμιτὸν] The use of this word
seems to be extremely rare, except
with a negative, ov θεμιτόν (e.g. Tobit
ll. 13) or ἀθέμιτον (see below).

τοῖς τοιούτοις κιτ.λ.] ὃ 46 Τοιούτοις
οὖν ὑποδείγμασιν κολληθῆναι καὶ ἡμᾶς
δεῖ x.7.A. For τοιούτοις καὶ τοσούτοις
comp. § 19.

13. προσελθόντας] ‘having acceded
to, attended to, assented to, studied’,
ΠΡ ἢ 25»; ΟΟΙΠΡΟ 1 Timi/ivir.3 εἰ
τις ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ καὶ μὴ προσέρχεται
ὑγιαίνουσιν λόγοις. So we find προσ-
ἔρχεσθαι ἀρετῇ ‘to apply oneself to
virtue’, Philo de Migr. Abr. 16
(I. p. 449); προσέρχεσθαι τοῖς νόμοις
‘to study the laws’, Diod. 1. 95;
προσέρχεσθαι τῇ σοφίᾳ, τῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ,
‘to become a follower of wisdom, of
philosophy’, Philostr. Vzt. 42. i. 2
(iin 2), fil. τὸ (p. 50), comp. .LXxX

Ecclus. vi. 26 ὁ προσελθὼν αὐτῇ (1.€.
τῇ σοφίᾳ) ; προσέρχεσθαι φόβῳ Κυρίου
‘to give heed to the fear of the Lord’,
LXX Ecclus. 1. 30; προσέρχεσθαι μη-
devi τῶν εἰρημένων Philo de Gig. 9 (1.
Ρ. 267); προσέρχεσθαι τῷ λόγῳ, Orig.
c. Cels. ili. 48. These senses are
derived ultimately from the idea of
‘approaching a person as a disci-
ple’; e.g. Xen. Mem. i. 2. 47 ὧνπερ
ἕνεκεν kal Σωκράτει προσῆλθον.

ὑποθεῖναι τὸν τράχηλον] ‘ submit
your neck’. ive: “to: «the; pyoke”);
comp. Ecclus. li. 26 τὸν τράχηλον
ὑμῶν ὑπόθετε ὑπὸ ζυγόν (comp. 26. vi.
2.52.5). ΕΠ ΡΙ ἐδ: 7) σῖθεν IVs Wil ἢ
παρέδωκας δοῦλον, ὑπέθηκας
τὸν τράχηλον. So too Acts xv. 10
ἐπιθεῖναι ζυγὸν ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον. The
expression is used in ἃ different
sense in Rom. xvi. 4 ὑπὲρ τῆς ψυχῆς
μου Tov ἑαυτῶν τράχηλον ὑπέθηκαν,
where it means ‘laid their neck on
the block’, not ‘pledged their lives’,
as Wetstein and others take it.

14. τόπον ἀναπληρώσαντας ‘fo ὁε-
cupy the place’, ‘fulfil the function’;
comp. I Cor. xiv. 16 ὁ ἀναπληρῶν
ἰδιώτου, Where the

\
σαυτον

; Ὲ
τὸν τόπον τοῦ

184 THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT [ΠΧῊ]

Cree ws

προσκλιθῆναι τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν ἀρχηγοῖς τῶν ψυχῶν
ἡμῶν, ὅπως ἡσυχάσαντες τῆς ματαίας στάσεως ἐπὶ τὸν
προκείμενον ἡμῖν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ σκοπὸν δίχα παντὸς μώμου
καταντήσωμεν. χαρὰν γὰρ καὶ ἀγαλλίασιν ἡμῖν παρέ-
ἕξετε, ἐὰν ὑπήκοοι γενόμενοι τοῖς UP ἡμῶν γεγραμμένοις 5
διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐκκόψητε τὴν ἀθέμιτον τοῦ

/ ε - > \ \ \ af « > /
ζήλους ὑμῶν ὀργὴν κατὰ THY ἐντευξιν ἣν ἐποιησάμεθα

\ 3 iy Ny ie / ᾽ - σ᾿. ΄σ
περι εἰρήνης καὶ ομονοίας εν τῆδε τη ἐπιστολῇ.

2 ἡσυχάσαντες] guiescentes et tranquilli S.

4 ἀγαλλίασιν] add. magnam S.

choice of this elaborate expression
is probably a studied paradox to
bring out the honourable character
of a private station; τόπος denoting
official position or dignity (see above,
S$ 40, and the note on Ign. Polyc. 1),
while ἰδιώτης implies the opposite of
this. So too here the object may
be to enhance the important faction
of obedience. See Clem. Hom. iii.
60 τὸν ἐμὸν ἀναπληροῦντα τόπον, and
comp. Joseph. .5. 7. v. 2. 5 στρατιώ-
του τάξιν ἀποπληροῦντα.

I. προσκλιθῆναι κ.τ.λ.]} These
words are wanting in the Greek
Ms, and I have restored them by
retranslation from the Syriac: see
the critical note. The true Jartisan-
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 μυσεροῦ ζήλους ἀρχηγοῖς ἐξα-
κολουθεῖν, ὃ 51 ἐκεῖνοι οἵτινες ἀρχηγοὶ
τῆς στάσεως καὶ διχοστασίας ἐγενήθη-
σαν, § 47 διὰ τὸ καὶ τότε προσκλίσεις
ὑμᾶς πεποιῆσθαι ... προσεκλίθητε γὰρ
κιτιλ., ὃ 50 ἵνα ἐν ἀγάπῃ εὑρεθῶμεν δίχα
προσκλίσεως ἀνθρωπίνης ἄμωμοι (comp.
§ 21 μὴ κατὰ προσκλίσεις). The com-
mand to choose the right partisan-
ships here has a parallel in § 45
φιλόνεικοι ἔστε...περὶ τῶν ἀνηκόντων
εἰς σωτηρίαν (see the note) The

5 γεγραμμένοις] add. vobis 5.

/
Ἔπεμ-
3 μώμου] add. et scandalo 5.
ἡ ἔντευξιν]

Syriac is MNT ΠΡ. yD
NWaIT NII. For j39n) I cannot
think of any word so probable as
προσκλιθῆναι, Since 13 is a common
translation of κλίνειν, and in ὃ 21
προσκλίσεις isrendered NONI NNIID7;
though προσκλίνεσθαι, πρόσκλισις, are
rendered otherwise, but variously, in
S$ 47, 50, Acts v. 36,1 Tim. v. 21. On
the other hand N72 ‘ductores’
might be variously rendered. It most
commonly represents ὁ ἡγούμενος (ὅδ 1,
32, 37 in a double rendering, 55, Heb.
ΧΙ]. 7, 17, 24); but elsewhere ἡγεμών,
καθηγητής, ὁδηγός, etc., even βουλευτής.
I have given ἀρχηγός, because it
brings out the contrast which Cle-
ment seems to have had in his mind.
In §§ 14, 51, however, ἀρχηγός is ren-
dered otherwise, NW'7, NIW, and so
commonly.

2. στάσεως] Comp. Clem. Hom.
i. 4 τῶν τοιούτων λογισμῶν ἡσυχάζειν.
This construction follows the analogy
of verbs denoting cessation, etc.
(see Kiihner 11. p. 341 sq). It is un-
necessary therefore to read ἡσυχασά-
ons, as Gebhardt suggests.

3, σκοπὸν] Comp. § 6 ἐπὶ τὸν τῆς
πίστεως βέβαιον δρόμον καταντήσωμεν,
and § 19 ἐπαναδράμωμεν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς
παραδεδομένον ἡμῖν τῆς εἰρήνης σκοπόν,
which explains the idea in the wri-
ters mind here. The expression

LXIv|

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

185

\ Ay 9} \ ) / 4 ,
ψαμεν δὲ Kal ἄνδρας πιστοὺς Kal σώφρονας, ἀπὸ νεό-

/ 4 4 3 lf ? eon
IO TNTOS ἀναστραῴφεντας ἕως γήρους ἀμέμπτως EV ἡμῖν,

- of \ - \ ~
οἵτινες Kal μάρτυρες ἔσονται μεταξὺ ὑμῶν καὶ ἡμῶν.

΄ \ /
τοῦτο δὲ ἐποιήσαμεν

.«“
ἐνα

Ian 4 ΄σ (haere
εἰδῆτε OTL πᾶσα ἡμῖν

δ oe > A / -
φροντὶς Kal γέγονεν καὶ ἔστιν εἰς TO ἐν τάχει ὑμᾶς

εἰρηνεῦσαι.

LXIV. Λοιπὸν ὁ παντεπόπτης Θεὸς καὶ δεσπότης

΄σ , \ “
τῶν πνευμάτων καὶ Κύριος

supplicationem et exhortationem 5.
τινες καὶ! S; οἵτινες (om. καὶ) C.

itself is perhaps suggested by Heb.
ΧΙ. I τρέχωμεν τὸν προκείμενον ἡμῖν
ἀγῶνα. For σκοπόν comp. Phil. 11]. 14.

μώμου] ‘fault, defect’: see the
note on μωμοσκοπηθέν ὃ 41. In the
Old Testament it is always a trans-
lation of p19 ‘a blemish’.

4. χαρὰν «.t.A.] As in Luke i. 14
(comp. Matt. v. 12, Rev. xix. 7); see
also Mart. Polyc. 18. This combi-
nation of words χαρὰ καὶ ἀγαλλίασις
does not occur in the Lxx.

6. διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος])͵ See
the note on § 59 τοῖς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ δι᾽
ἡμῶν εἰρημένοις. Harnack takes these
words with ἐκκόψητε, but this does
not seem so natural.

ἀθέμιτον] Acts x. 28, 1 Pet. iv. 3;
and so too 2 Macc. vi. 5, vii. I, x. 34.

7. ζήλους] See the note on § 4.

ἔντευξιν] This should probably be
explained of the ‘appeal’ to the Cor-
inthians themselves; see the note on
[Clem. Rom.] ii. § 19. It might how-
ever refer to the foregoing ‘ prayer’
to God for concord; comp. e.g. 1 Tim.
ll. I, iv. 5, Herm. Mand. x. 2.

9. ἄνδρας] Claudius Ephebus and
Valerius Bito, whose names are given
below, ἃ 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.

/ ΄ € 5) ΄
πάσης σαρκὸς, ὁ ἐκλεξα-

9 δὲ καὶ] 5.; δὲ (om. καὶ) C. 11 οἵ-
15 Λοιπὸν] C; ««ἰπὸν A; λοιπὸν δὲ 5,

10. γήρους] So Luke i. 36 γήρει
(the correct reading), and in several
passages in the LXx, e.g. Ps. xci (xcii).
14 γήρει, 1 Kings xiv. 4 γήρους,
Ecclus, vill. 6, etc., with more or less
agreement in the principal MSS; so
also Clem. Hom. iii. 43. On this
form see Winer Gramm. ὃ ix. p. 73 sq,
Steph. Zhes. s.v., ed. Hase. Our MS
has also γήρει above in ὃ 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. Λοιπὸν] For λοιπὸν or τὸ λοι-
mov, with which 5. Paul frequently
ushers in the close of his epistles,
see Philippians iii. 1. The happy
conjecture of Vansittart which I
adopted in my first edition is con-
firmed by our new authorities.

παντεπόπτης] See the note on § 55.

Θεὸς...τῶν πνευμάτων K.7.A.] Num.
XXVll. 16 Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς τῶν πνευμάτων
καὶ πάσης σαρκός (comp. Xvi. 22): see
also Heb. xil. 9 τῷ πατρὶ τῶν πνευμά-
των, Rev. xxil. 6 Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς τῶν
πνευμάτων τῶν προφητῶν.

16. ὁ ἐκλεξάμενος] See Luke ix. 35
ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος (the correct
reading, though there are vv. ll,

186

THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT

[LXIV

A lA 3 ΄σ A \ ε ἴω > > a
μενος τὸν Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν καὶ ἡμᾶς dv αὐτοῦ

εἰς λαὸν περιούσιον, Own πάση ψυχῆ ἐπικεκλημένη τὸ
ριούσιον, δῴη πάσῃ ψυχῇ μένῃ

\ hie εν 7 - ,
μεγαλοπρεπὲς Kal ἅγιον ὄνομα αὐτοῦ πίστιν, φόβον,

3 / / , ᾽ “ ε /
εἰρήνην, ὑπομονήν, μακροθυμίαν, ἐγκράτειαν, ἁγνείαν

\ iA 3 > / ~ ᾽ ᾿ 5
καὶ σωφροσύνην, εἰς εὐαρέστησιν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ 5

1 nuas] AS; ἡμεῖς C.

μίαν] As καὶ μακροθυμίαν CS.
ἐγκράτειαν καὶ ἁγνείαν 85.
ὀνόματι] AC; add. sazcto S.

ἐκλεκτός and ἀγαπητός). So too Luke
xxliil. 35 ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκ-
λεκτός : comp. I Pet. ii. 4.sq. Harnack
refers to Hermes Szm. v. 2 ἐκλεξά-
μενος δοῦλόν τινα πιστὸν Kal εὐάρεστον
ἔντιμον, where the servant entrusted
with the vineyard represents Christ.
It is clear from Enoch xl. 5, xlv. 3, 4,
li. 3, liii. 6, Ixii. 1, that ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς was
a recognized designation of the
Messiah.

I. ἡμᾶς δι’ αὐτοῦ] Ephes. i. 4 καθ-
ὡς ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ἐν αὐτῷ (1.6. ἐν
Χριστῷ).

2. εἰς λαὸν περιούσιον] Deut. xiv.
4 καὶ σὲ ἐξελέξατο Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου
γενέσθαι σε λαὸν αὐτῷ περιούσιον ;
comp. Ζὖ. vii. 6, xxvi. 18, Exod. xix. 5,
Ps. cxxxiv. 4, Tit. il, 14 καθαρίσῃ
ἑαυτῷ λαὸν περιούσιον. In the LXX
λαὸς περιούσιος is a translation of
mbip ny, the expression doubtless
present to S. Peter’s mind when he
spoke of λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν (1 Pet.
ii. 9). In Mal. iii. 17 πολ is trans-
lated eis περιποίησιν in the LXx, and
περιούσιος by Aquila. As mbap ἰ5
‘peculium’, ‘opes’, (bap " acquisivit’),
περιούσιος Would seem to mean ‘ac-
quired over and above’, and hence
‘specially acquired’ with a meaning
similar to the classical ἐξαίρετος. It
was rendered at once literally and
effectively in the Latin Bible by
‘peculiaris’. See my Revision of the

3 μεγαλοπρεπὲς καὶ ἅγιον] AC; sanctum et decens
(tn) magnitudine et gloriosum S$; see above, I. p. 137.
μονήν] AC; et timorem et concordiam et amorem et patientiam S.

φόβον, εἰρήνην, ὑπο-
4 μακροθυ-

ἐγκράτειαν, ἁγνείαν] AC (but αγνιαν Δ); καὶ
5 καὶ σωφροσύνην] AS; σωφροσύνην (om. καὶ) C.
6 ἀρχιερέως] AC; add. magni 5.

7 δόξα]

English New Testament p. 195 sq
(ed. 2).

ἐπικεκλημένῃ}] ‘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 λαὸς περιούσιος ;
but with this meaning the common
constructions in biblical Greek would
be ἐφ᾽ ἣν (or ἐφ᾽ 7) ἐπικέκληται τὸ
ὄνομα αὐτοῦ (e.g. Acts xv. 17, James
il. 7, and freq. in the LXX), or τῇ ἐπι-
κεκλημένῃ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ (15. ΧΙ], 7).

4. ἁγνείαν καὶ σωφροσύνην] So too
len. Ephes. 10; comp. Tit. ii. 5
σώφρονας, ἁγνάς.

5. εὐαρέστησιν] The word occurs
Lest. LICePat hs ΠΝ Δι,

6. ἀρχιερέως καὶ προστάτου] See
the note on § 36 above, where the
expression is expanded.

7. δόξα καὶ μεγαλωσύνη) 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
ἡ τιμὴ Kal ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς
αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.

LXV. ‘We have sent Claudius
Ephebus and Valerius Bito to you.
Let them return to us quickly accom-

Lxv]

TO THE CORINTHIANS.

187

cod 2 , ΄σ ΄σ ~
διὰ TOU ἀρχιερέως καὶ προστάτου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ"

δι οὗ αὐτῷ δόξα καὶ μεγαλωσύνη, κράτος, τιμή, καὶ
Lov αὐτῷ δοξ Mey nN, Ko » τιμή,

΄σ re \ IRF a see
νυν καὶ εἰς TAVTAS TOUS ALWYAS Τῶν αιῶώνων.

ἀμήν.

LXV. Τοὺς δὲ ἀπεσταλμένους ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν Κλαύδιον

7 \ 3 4 / \ \ / 2
τοξφηβον καὶ Οὐαλέριον Βίτωνα σὺν καὶ Φορτουνάτῳ ἐν

AC; πᾶσα δόξα S, which omits the following words καὶ μεγαλωσύνη, κράτος, τιμή,

καὶ νῦν καὶ.
om. 8.

καὶ] om. Ὁ.

τιμή] A; καὶ τιμή C.
10 καὶ Οὐαλέριον] AC; Valertum (om. καὶ) or et Alerium S; but this

8 πάντα] AC;

is doubtless owing to the accidental omission of a 1 before Θ᾽" δὴ) by a Syrian

scribe.

σὺν (om. καὶ) 85.

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.’

9. Κλαύδιον κιτ.λ.}] 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 Czesars. 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 Philippians 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. d. Griech. Eigennamen s.v.
Birwy). For instances in Latin of

Βίτωνα] AC; om. 5. The punctuation of both C and S is faulty
here, in separating names which belong to the same person.
Φορτουνάτῳ])] A; Φουρτουνάτω C; Frutunato S.

σὺν καὶ 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. σὺν καὶ Φορτουνάτῳ] For the
position of καὶ comp. Phil. iv. 3 pera
καὶ Κλήμεντος (quoted by Laurent
p- 425). Hilgenfeld adds ‘from the
Assumption of Moses’ Clem. Alex.
Strout. vi. 15 (p. 806) σὺν καὶ τῷ
Χαλέβ. The clever emendation of
Davies σὺν Γαΐῳ Φορτουνάτῳ 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.
xvi. 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, note 3, p. 62, note I.

ev εἰρήνῃ κιτ.λ.} 1 Cor. xvi. 11 mpo-
πέμψατε δὲ αὐτὸν ev εἰρήνῃ.

188

THE EPISTLE OF S. CLEMENT. [LXV

oes \ ΄σ ᾽ , 3 id \ € ~
a
εἰρηνήῇ μετα Xapas εν τάχει ἀναπέμψατε Ζρος ἽΝ S5
« ΄σ \ 7 ἜΣ; ΄ epg
ὅπως θᾶττον τὴν εὐκταίαν Kal ἐπιποθήτην ἡμῖν εἰρηνὴην
i “ 3 A / \ ἘΠῚ πὸ
καὶ ὁμόνοιαν ἀπαγγέλλωσιν' εἰς τὸ τάχιον Kal ἡμᾶς
a \ a ,ὔ ro
χαρῆναι περὶ THs εὐσταθείας ὑμῶν.
if lod 7 ΄σ a a -
Ἢ xapis τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν 5
\ \ / ~ ΄ / e \ ~
καὶ META πάντων πανταχῆ τῶν κεκλημένων ὑπὸ τοῦ
sp | > 3 = ? ὌΣ 3 a / , ΄ \
Θεοῦ καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ" δι’ οὗ αὐτῷ δόξα, τιμή, κράτος καὶ
f uw ry \ - 2 OF. 3 A
μεγαλωσυνη, θρόνος αἰώνιος, ἀπο Τῶν αιώνῶὼν εἰς TOUS
2. κα ΄σ 7 id
αἰώνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμην.

I ἀναπέμψατε] ανεπεμψατε A. 2 ἐπιποθήτην] A; ἐπιπόθητον C. εἰρήνην
καὶ ὁμόνοιαν] AC; ὁμόνοιαν καὶ εἰρήνην 8. 3 ἀπαγγέλλωσιν] A (the first ἃ being
supplied above the line but prima manu); ἀπαγγείλωσιν C. τάχιον] raxero A.
4 εὐσταθείας] evotabiac A. 7 καὶ δι αὐτοῦ] AS; δι αὐτοῦ (om. καὶ) C. τιμὴ
«οἰ ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων] 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

the doxology to Clement’s normal type; comp. e.g. 88. 32, 38, 43, 45, 50-

AS; καὶ εἰς C.

ὃ εἰς]

For the subscriptions in our authorities see above, I. pp. 117, 122, 131:

2. θᾶττον] This form is doubly
strange here, as it does not occur in
the New Testament, and Clement
uses the usual τάχιον two lines be-
low. Θᾶττον however is found in
Mart. Ign. 3, 5, Mart. Polyc. 13, in
which latter passage θᾶττον and ra-
xeov occur in consecutive sentences
as here. Both our MSS agree in
reading θᾶττον here, and τάχιον just
below.

εὐκταίαν The word does not oc-
cur in the LXx or New Testament,
though common in classical Greek.

ἐπιποθήτην͵] As an adjective of
three terminations; comp. Barnab.
S 1 ἡ ἐπιποθήτη ὄψις ὑμῶν, where
Hilgenfeld unnecessarily reads ἐπιπό-
θητος. 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 sq.

4. εὐσταθείας] ‘tranguillity’ ; comp.
Wisd. vi. 26, 2 Macc. xiv. 6. On ev-
σταθεῖν see the notes to Ign. Polyc. 4.

6. καὶ pera πάντων x.t.d.| For a
benediction similarly extended see
I Cor. 1. 2 σὺν πᾶσι τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις
τὸ ὄνομα K.T.A.

8. θρόνος αἰώνιος] This doxology
is imitated in 727αγ71. Poly. 21 Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ ᾧ ἡ δόξα, τιμή, μεγαλωσύνη,
θρόνος αἰώνιος, ἀπὸ γενεᾶς εἰς γενεάν.
Here θρόνος αἰώνιος seems to be
thrown in as an after thought, the
ascription having ended with καὶ
μεγαλωσύνη ; and the idea of αἰώνιος
is prolonged by the thrice repeated
αἰώνων, αἰῶνας, αἰώνων.

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, ‘ediva).

THE SO-CALLED

ΕΓ ΟΝ] EPISTLE OF 5. CLEMEND

TRreeCORINTHIANS.

AN ANCIENT HOMILY.

I.

E have seen that the 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 προς κορινθιουο 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, 1. 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 least 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 thé First Epistle is universally attributed to Clement, the
balance of external testimony is strongly opposed to his being regarded

192 THE EPISTLES OF S CLEMENT.

as the author of the Second. It is first mentioned by Eusebius, who
throws serious doubts on its genuineness (47. Z. ili. 37). After describing
the First he adds, ‘I should mention also that there is said to be a
Second Epistle of Clement (ἰστέον δ᾽ ws καὶ δευτέρα τις εἶναι λέγεται Tod
Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολή) : but we do not know that this is recognised like the
former (οὐ μὴν ἔθ᾽ ὁμοίως τῇ προτέρᾳ καὶ ταύτην γνώριμον ἐπιστάμεθα) ; for
we do not find the older writers making any use of it (ὅτι μηδὲ καὶ τοὺς
ἀρχαίους αὐτῇ κεχρημένους ἴσμεν). 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 τοῦ Κλήμεντος ὁμολογου-
μένη γραφή). And in other passages, where he has occasion to
speak of it, he uses similar expressions, ‘¢4e Epistle of Clement’, ‘the
acknowledged Epistle of Clement’ (4 Z. 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. Til. 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, @. ΖΦ. iii. 16, iv. 22:
Dionysius, 7. Z. iv. 23. The words of
the latter are τὴν σήμερον οὖν κυριακὴν
ἁγίαν ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν, ἐν ἣ ἀνέγνωμεν
ὑμῶν τὴν ἐπιστολήν, ἣν ἕξομεν ἀεί ποτε
ἀναγινώσκοντες νουθετεῖσθαι, ὡς καὶ τὴν
προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν.
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 τὴν προτέραν meant che former
of Clement's two epistles —a meaning
which the context does not at all favour
and which the grammar excludes, for then
we should require τὴν προτέραν τῶν διὰ
Κλήμεντος γραφεισῶν.

5. The passages from these, and later
fathers, to whom I shall have occasion
to refer, are given in full above, I. p.

153 56.

AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 193

of Clement which might be accepted as genuine had fallen within the
range of their knowledge.

Early in the gth century Georgius Syncellus still speaks of ‘the one
genuine letter to the Corinthians’ (Chronog. a.D. 78, τ. p. 651, ed. Dind.);
and later in the same century Photius (4707. 113) writes, ‘The so-called
Second Epistle (of Clement) to the same persons (the Corinthians) is
rejected as spurious (ws νόθος arodokipacerar).’

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 imphes that even in his day some persons
were disposed to accept it. At a 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 TrmoTHEus of ALEXANDRIA (I. p. 180 sq) in the middle
of the 5th century and in SEvERusS of ANTIOCH (1. 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 PsruDO-JUSTIN has been
discussed above (1. p. 178 sq). To the 6th century also may perhaps
be ascribed the AposroLicaL 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 DoroTHEus 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 Nicon of
RuA&THUS (see the notes, ὃ 3). If in the Stechometria attached to the
Chronography of NicrepHorus (ta.p. 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 Δ 2226 to the
Corinthians? We have seen that it is called an /fzst/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 Severus 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 ms 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 54:
CLEM. II. 13

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 (4707.
126 βιβλιδάριον ἐν ᾧ Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολαὶ πρὸς Κορινθίους β΄ ἐνεφέροντο,
compared with 7101. 113 ἢ λεγομένη δευτέρα πρὸς τοὺς αὐτούς) ;
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 ἢ

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 ?

(1) 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 homily.

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’ (δὲ το, 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 (Spic. 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 (λόγῳ) 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.’ (δ 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 (ὁ προεστώς) in a discourse (διὰ
λόγου) gives instruction and invites (his hearers) to the imitation of these
good things. Then we all mse in a body and offer up our prayers’
(Afol. i. 67, quoted in the notes on ὃ 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, ὁ προεστώς, 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 Origen*. As a rule, this function belonged to

1 Exception has been taken to this
expression μετὰ τὸν Θεὸν τῆς ἀληθείας.
Zahn (Gott. Gel. Anz. p. 1418) and
Donaldson (Z%eol. Rev. January, 1877,
p- 46) propose λόγον for Θεὸν, while
Gebhardt suggests τόνων or τόνου (TONQN
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
λέγει ὁ Θεός, § 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.

4 See p. Ixxii, note 11, p. 138 (ed. 2).
So also Hilgenfeld, p. 106 (ed. 2).

9. The objections raised in his case

13—-2

196 THE EPISTLES OF 8. 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 Afostolici 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
Cesarea (Euseb. 1. £. vi. 19), writing to
Demetrius of Alexandria, defend them-
selves for according this privilege to
Origen, as follows: προσέθηκε δὲ τοῖς
γράμμασιν, ὅτι τοῦτο οὐδέ ποτε ἠκούσθη
οὐδὲ νῦν γεγένηται, τὸ παρόντων ἐπισκόπων
λαϊκοὺς ὁμιλεῖν, οὐκ 010’ ὅπως προφανῶς οὐκ
ἀληθῆ λέγων. ὅπου γοῦν εὑρίσκονται οἱ
ἐπιτήδειοι πρὸς τὸ ὠφελεῖν τοὺς ἀδελφούς,
καὶ παρακαλοῦνται τῷ λαῷ προσομιλεῖν
ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων ἐπισκόπων, ὥσπερ ἐν Λαράν-
δοις Εὔελπις ὑπὸ Νέωνος καὶ ἐν ᾿Ικονίῳ
Παυλῖνος ὑπὸ Κέλσου καὶ ἐν Συννάδοις
Θεόδωρος ὑπὸ ᾿Αττικοῦ τῶν μακαρίων ἀδελ-
φῶν" εἰκὸς δὲ καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις τόποις τοῦτο
γίνεσθαι, ἡμᾶς δὲ μὴ εἰδέναι.

1 See Bingham Azzzg. xiv. 4. 2, 4»
Augusti Christl. Archdol. V1. p. 315 Sq,
Probst Lehre wu. 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 possibly 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. i).

I think also that the reader would
gather from the manner in which I am
mentioned by Harnack (p. lxvi, note 2,
p- Ixxv) 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’.

(ii) As regards the audience addressed by the preacher Corinth
has highest claims. If the 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
(εἰς τοὺς φθαρτοὺς ἀγῶνας καταπλέουσιν, ὃ 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 εἰς tov Ἰσθμόν, or εἰς Κόρινθον, 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 exzempore 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 νεωστί,
μοι δοκεῖν, καταπεπλευκότι, where the word
is used absolutely, we naturally under-
stand the place in which the speaker is
at the time.

3 § 19 μετὰ τὸν Θεὸν τῆς ἀληθείας ἀνα-
γινώσκω ὑμῖν ἔντευξιν εἰς τὸ προσέχειν
τοῖς γεγραμμένοις, ἵνα καὶ ἑαυτοὺς σώσητε

καὶ τὸν ἀναγινώσκοντα ἐν ὑμῖν. It is

possible however, that the homily was
originally delivered extempore and taken
down by short-hand writers (ταχυγράφοι,
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.
“1.4. vi. 36): and Origen himself on one
occasion (Comm. 771. Zoann. 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, καὶ of συνήθεις δὲ ταχυγράφοι
μὴ παρόντες τοῦ ἔχεσθαι τῶν ὑπαγορεύσεων

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 decuments. 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:

ὰ
KAHMENTOC TIPOC KOPINOI0YC

with or without the addition emictoAn ; while the homily which stood
next in the volume might have had the heading

B
TTPOC _KOPINOIOYC

with or without the addition λόγος or omiAla, just as Orations of Dion
Chrysostom bear the titles tpoc adeZanApeic, Tpoc attameic; the author
of the sermon however not being named. In the course of transcription
the enumeration a, B, 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, 1. p. 117). This fact however cannot

ἐκώλυον ; comp. Photius Μ᾽ 121. 121. At alternative is suggested by Harnack

a later date this became a common mode
of preserving pulpit oratory: see Bing-
ham ἌΣ xiv. 4. τ 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-
sarium IV. Ὁ. 642 sq (ed. Henschel) 5. v.
Vota, together with the references col-
lected in Mayor’s Bib. Clue to Lat. Lit.
p- 175 sq. See also Contemporary Re-
view October 1875, p. 841 note. This

Zettschr. 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 (δέ. 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 1.

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, ἰστέον δ᾽ ws καὶ
δευτέρα τις εἶναι λέγεται τοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολή᾽ οὐ μὴν ἔθ᾽ ὁμοίως τῇ
προτέρᾳ καὶ ταύτην γνώριμον ἐπιστάμεθα, ὅτι μηδὲ τοὺς ἀρχαίους αὐτῇ
κεχρημένους ἴσμεν (7. 25. iil. 38). The hearsay implied in λέγεται
may refer equally well to the authorship as to the contents of the

that the space left between the top of
the leaf and the text varies from 4 to ? of

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. Α΄. 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 ζ 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

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 Zeitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte 1. p.
264 Sq, Ρ. 329 sq, as well as in the prole-
gomena to the 2nd ed. of the Padres
Apostolict Pt. i, p. Ixiv sq. He stated
this view first in a review of the edition
of Bryennios in the 7heologische Literatur-
zettung Feb. 19, 1876.

3 Z. f. K. 1. p- 269 sq; Prol. p. Ixiv,
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 Quaest. 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 al 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 iternal 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 I. p. 178 sq, and the notes on 9. 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 AZpost. Const. i—vi.
Zeitschr. f. d. hist. Theol. 1842, IV. p. 143 4 Prol. po lzx. sq@iconipi τ, ae
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 da¢e 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. Harnack, as the result of a

1 § 12 τοῦτο λέγει ἵνα ἀδελφὸς K.T.X.
On the other hand Hermas (JZand. iv. τὴ
writes ᾿Εντέλλομαί σοι, φησί, φυλάσσειν
τὴν ἁγνείαν" καὶ μὴ ἀναβαινέτω σου ἐπὶ
τὴν καρδίαν περὶ γυναικὸς ἀλλοτρίας ἢ
περὶ πορνείας τινὸς ἢ περὶ τοιούτων τινῶν
ὁμοιωμάτων πονηρῶν" τοῦτο γὰρ ποιῶν
ἁμαρτίαν μεγάλην ἐργάζῃ" τῆς δὲ σῆς
μνημονεύων πάντοτε γυναικὸς οὐδέ-
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. f. X. 1.
p- 348) quotes Vis. ii. 2 τῇ συμβίῳ cov

ποτε ἁμαρτήσεις.

τῇ μελλούσῃ σου ἀδελφῇ, as showing
that Hermas looked upon the single life
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 /%s. 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
But the fact
remains that the direct language of the
one is in favour of latitude, of the other
in favour of restraint.

give counsels of perfection.

2 Tertull. de Pudic. 10 ‘scriptura Pas-
toris quee sola moechos amat...adultera et
ipsa et inde patrona sociorum,’ 20. 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, 1.6. 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 Α.Ὁ. 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 βιβλία), 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 Irenzeus,
and of Clement of Alexandria, i.e. from the iast 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

17. f. K. τ. p. 363; 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 (δ 10 κακοδι-
δασκαλοῦντες) were led to antinomian inferences. ‘They inculcated an
indifference (ἀδιαφορία) 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 isa
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.D. 140:
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 the rela- Z.f. K.1. pp. 359, 360.
tion of the writer to Gnosticism is justly * See Jgnat. and Polyc.1. p. 374, ed. 1;
insisted upon by Harnack Pro/. p. Ixxii, Ρ. 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 5. 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
5. 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.

(1) In the first place Bryennios (p. pv6’) 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-

ivvamiack ΖΚ ΟΣ ps Axx, 2.076 7. τ:
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. lxxii, Z. f. K. 1. p.
359-

+ 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 (δ 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’ (ὃ 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. (11) 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 (δὲ 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 Epistle 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 S. 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 φιλοπονεῖν is the true reading, and that φιλοσοφεῖν,
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.

ἘΠ See) pp. ἈΠΕ τοῦ He explams
§ 17 εἰ yap ἐντολὰς ἔχομεν... ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώ-
λων ἀποσπᾶν καὶ κατηχεῖν 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 Lren. i. § xxix p. 53.

4 Compare the note on this word
φιλοπονεῖν ὃ rg with that on μεταλήψεται

8 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 φιλοποιεῖν as the
correction in C. It should be φιλοπο-
νειν.

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 (zs. 11. 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’ (πέμψει οὖν Κλήμης εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις" ἐκείνῳ 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, 1. 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

ἐπιτέτραπται).

1 Strom. 111, 13, p- 552 (quoted below,
Ρ- 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
passage was still mutilated, the opinion

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
to Cassianus, ἐν rots παραδεδομένοις ἡμῖν

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.

τέτταρσιν εὐαγγελίοις οὐκ ἔχομεν τὸ ῥητόν,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ Kar Αἰγυπτίους. 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 Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους
ἐπιστολὴ β΄.

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 (δ 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 sinners whom Christ
came especially to save (ὃ 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 (ὃ 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 (ὃ 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 (Ueber 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, XLII. 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 (δ 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? (δ 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 (δ 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 rise 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 (δ 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 (δ 11). The signs, which shall herald
the approach of His kingdom, Christ has foretold. Zhe 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 (ἢ 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 S. CLEMENT.

must close with it and escape condemnation (ὃ 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 (ἢ 17). Let us be found among His thankful servants. In the
midst of temptations, I strive after righteousness (ὃ 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. ᾿λδελῴφοί, οὕτως δεῖ ἡμᾶς φρονεῖν περὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ

~ ~ lo / Ν
Χριστοῦ, ὡς περὶ Θεοῦ, ὡς περὶ κριτοῦ ζώντων Kat

νεκρῶν.

καὶ οὐ δεῖ ἡμᾶς μικρὰ φρονεῖν περὶ τῆς σωτη-

[προς Kopinoioyc B.] The authorities for this title will be found on I. pp.

ΠΤ 122, 131 56:
1 ἡμᾶς] 5; ὑμᾶς 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. ᾿Αδελφοί κιτ.λ.] The opening of
the epistle, as far as παθεῖν ἕνεκα
ἡμῶν, 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 Epistle 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 (4767. 126) remarks on the
opening of this epistle, contrasting

3 ἡμᾶς] S; ὑμᾶς C.

it with the First as respects its
Christology, ἡ δὲ δευτέρα καὶ αὐτὴ vov-
θεσίαν καὶ παραίνεσιν κρείττονος εἰσάγει
βίου καὶ ἐν ἀρχῇ Θεὸν τὸν Χριστὸν
κηρύσσει: see the notes on §§ 2, 36,

"58, of the First Epistle, and the re-

marks in I. p. 398 sq.

2. κριτοῦ κιτιλ] The expression
occurs in Acts x. 42 (in a speech of
S. Peter): comp. 2 Tim. iv. 1, 1 Pet.
iv. 5. See also Barnab. § 7, Polyc.
Pune.

3. μικρὰ φρονεῖν] ‘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 πτωχοὶ τῇ διανοίᾳ ᾿Εβιωναῖοι τῆς
πτωχείας τῆς διανοίας ἐπώνυμοι, ἐβιὼν
[12] γὰρ ὁ πτωχὸς παρὰ “Ἑβραίοις
ὀνομάζεται, Cc. Cels. il. I (1. p. 385), 27
Matth. t. xvi. § 12 (11. p. 734) τῷ
᾿Εβιωναίῳ καὶ πτωχεύοντι περὶ THY εἰς
Ἰησοῦν πίστιν, and again 7” Gen. 212
Fom.8s°(1. p. 68); Enuseb. AZ.

ili. 27 ᾿Εβιωναίους τούτους οἰκείως ἐπε-

14—2

212 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

[1
, ε = > “ \ a ε ~ \ A > -
plas ἡμῶων" εν TW γαρ φρονεῖν ημας- μικρα πέρι QAUTOU,
Kat

lon € ε ΄σ ,
περὶ μικρῶν [ ἁμαρτάνουσιν, καὶ ἡμεῖς} ἁμαρτάνομεν, οὐκ

3 ~ ε id ε
μικρὰ καὶ ἐλπίζομεν λαβεῖν. οἱ ἀκούοντες ὡς
Ὁ 7 , 2 “ Ngee \ / \ 3 A ΄

εἰδότες πόθεν ἐκλήθημεν καὶ ὑπο τίνος καὶ εἰς ὃν TOTO,
¢ ε / > i \ ~ 4 £ =

καὶ ὅσα ὑπέμεινεν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς παθεῖν ἕνεκα ἡμῶν.
τὴ - 3 ~ “ 3 / Ξ aX i2

τίνα οὖν ἡμεῖς αὐτῳ δώσομεν avTyucbiav; ἢ τινα

\ oS ec Ca Pe hes! af 5 / \ 3 -

KapTrOV ἀξιον ov ἡμῖν αὐτος ἔδωκεν; πόσα δὲ αὐτῳ

2 λαβεῖν] A; ἀπολαβεῖν C. The reading οἵ S is uncertain, for bap (the word

used here) occurs elsewhere indifferently as a rendering of both λαμβάνειν and ἀπο-

λαμβάνειν, e.g. below §§ 8, 9, 11-

4 ἁμαρτάνουσιν, καὶ ἡμεῖς] S; om. AC: see the lower note.

ws περὶ CS Sever Timoth; worep A.
7 καρπὸν] AC;

add. offeremus illi S. This however does not perhaps imply any additional words

φήμιζον of πρῶτοι πτωχῶς Kal ταπεινῶς
τὰ περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ δοξάζοντας, Eccl.
Theol. i. 14 oi πρωτοκήρυκες ᾿Εβιωναίους
ὠνόμαζον “EBpaikn φωνῇ πτωχοὺς τὴν
διάνοιαν ἀποκαλοῦντες τοὺς ἕνα μὲν Θεὸν
λέγοντας εἰδέναι καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος τὸ
σῶμα μὴ ἀρνουμένους τὴν δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ
θεότητα μὴ εἰδότας, with other pas-
sages collected in Schliemann (76-
ment. Ὁ. 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. of ἀκούοντες] ‘we who hear,
according to the text of the Greek
Mss. For the article compare Clem.
Rom. ὃ 6 ai ἀσθενεῖς τῷ σώματι, and
see below ἃ 19 μὴ ἀγανακτώμεν οἱ
ἄσοφοι; but the expression is awk-

ward and misplaced. Young sug-
gested καίτοι 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 (4767. 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 &
αὐταῖς νοήματα ἐρριμμένα πως Kal ov
συνεχῆ τὴν ἀκολουθίαν ὑπῆρχε φυλάτ-
τοντα. 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 1 have placed in brackets
and removes the difficulty.

6. ἀντιμισθίαν] The word occurs
Rom. i. 27, 2 Cor. vi. 13, Theoph. ad
Autol. 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 τί ἀνταποδώσω τῷ Κυρίῳ κιτ.λ.;

8. ὅσια] ‘mercies, kindnesses, as it

on

η AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 213

? 7ὔ J \ ΄σ \ aaa. 3 / ε \
ὀφείλομεν ὅσια; TO φώς yap ἡμῖν ἐχαρίσατο, ὡς πατὴρ
A - «. 7 3 y ¢ ΄σ a
υἱοὺς ἡμᾶς προσηγόρευσεν, ἀπολλυμένους ἡμᾶς ἔσωσεν.
΄σ Ss > 3 ΄σ ,ὔ \ \\ / ei
το ποῖον οὖν αἶνον αὐτῷ δώσωμεν ἢ μισθὸν ἀντιμισθίας wy
ἐλαβ : me) 7 διανοίᾳ, προσκυνοῦντες λίθους
ομεν; πηροὶ ὄντες TH διανοίᾳ, πρ
\ / \ \ \ of \ , a
kat ξύλα καὶ χρυσὸν Kal ἄργυρον καὶ χαλκὸν, ἔργα
3 7 \ 7 a .« af \ i) 3 \
ἀνθρώπων" καὶ ὁ Bios ἡμῶν ὅλος ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἦν εἰ μὴ

7 > 7 οὶ / \ 7
θάνατος. αμαυρώσιν ουν πέερικείιμένοι Kat TOLAUTHS

in the Greek text.

A; δώσομεν αὐτῷ C.

A; χρυσὸν (om. καὶ) CS.
οὐδὲν ἀλλο C; and so apparently S.
ritatem 8.

is used in the Lxx Is. lv. 3 (quoted in
Acts xill. 34 δώσω ὑμῖν τὰ ὅσια Δαυεὶδ
τὰ πιστά) for ODN: see Wolf Cur.
Philol. p. 1197. Ina parallel passage
2 Chron. vi. 42 the LXxX has τὰ ἐλέη.
In this case ὀφείλομεν will have a
pregnant sense, ‘we have received
and should repay’ Perhaps how-
ever it is simpler to take ὅσια as
‘yeligtous duties’ (e.g. Eur. Suppl.
308 ὅσια περὶ θεούς). The distinction
between ὅσια ‘what is due to God’
and δίκαια ‘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. 7745. 5. vv. δίκαιος and
See also below, δὲ 5, 6.

ὡς πατὴρ κιτ.λ.} The reference
is perhaps to Hosea ii. I καὶ ἔσται
ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς Οὐ ads
μου ὑμεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ Θεοῦ
ζῶντος, more especially as applied
by S. Paul Rom. ix. 26. See also
the quotation in 2 Cor. vi. 18 καὶ
ἔσομαι ὑμῖν εἰς πατέρα Kal ὑμεῖς ἔσεσθέ
μοι εἰς υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας (a combina-
tion of 2 Sam. vii. 14 and Is. xliii. 6),
and τ Joh. iii. 1 ere ποταπὴν ἀγάπην
δέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ πατὴρ iva τέκνα Θεοῦ
κληθῶμεν.

με
οσιος.

δὲ] A; γὰρ S; om. C.

10 ποῖον οὖν] C; ποιουν A; ποῖον S: see above, I. p. 144.

11 πηροὶ] A; caect S; πονηροὶ C.
ἔργα] AC; ἔργον 5.

8 ὀφείλομεν] οφιλομεν A.
αὐτῷ δώσωμεν]
12 καὶ χρυσὸν]

18 ἄλλο οὐδὲν] A;

14 dpatpwow] AC; Ζαγέαηε obscu-

10. δώσωμεν ‘can we give?’ The
reading of C disposes of the gram-
matical difficulty presented by a
future conjunctive, δώσωμεν ; see
Winer Gramm. § xiii. p. 89 and is
perhaps correct. Of all such future
conjunctives however δώσω is perhaps
the best supported; see 720. § xiv.
Pp. 95:

11. πηροὶ ὄντες «.t.d.] Arist. Eth.
Nic. i, 10 rots μὴ πεπηρωμένοις πρὸς ἀρε-
τήν, Ptolemzeus ad Flor. (in Epiphan.
Haer. xxXiii. 3, Ὁ. 217) μὴ μόνον τὸ τῆς
ψυχῆς ὄμμα ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ τοῦ σώματος
πεπηρωμένων. Inthe New Testament
πηροῦν, πήρωσις, Occur occasionally
as various readings for πωροῦν, πώρω-
σις, but are not well supported: see
Fritzsche Rom. 11. p. 451 sq.

προσκυνοῦντες x.T-A.] The writer
of this epistle therefore is plainly
a Gentile Christian: comp. § 2 ἢ
ἐκκλησία ἡμῶν, and the introduction
p- 205.

13. ὁ Bios] Their Bios was not ζωὴ
but θάνατος : see the note on Ign. Rom.
7. Comp. 1 Tim. v. 6 ζῶσα τέθνηκεν.
See also the passage of S. Augustine
quoted by Harnack, Οὐ, i. 6 ‘in is-
tam dico vitam mortalem an mortem
vitalem nescio,’

214 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. {1

ἀχλύος γέμοντες ἐν TH ὁράσει, ἀνεβλέψαμεν ἀποθέμενοι
ἐκεῖνο ὃ περικείμεθα νέφος τῆ αὐτοῦ θελήσει. ἠλέησεν
γὰρ ἡμᾶς καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἔσωσεν, θεασάμενος ἐν
ἡμῖν πολλὴν πλάνην καὶ ἀπώλειαν, καὶ μηδεμίαν ἐλπίδα
ἔχοντας σωτηρίας, εἰ μὴ τὴν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ.
γὰρ ἡμᾶς οὐκ ὄντας καὶ ἠθέλησεν ἐκ μὴ ὄντος εἶναι

ἡμάς.
IL.

Εὐφράνθητι, cteipa ἢ OY TIKTOYCA’

ta

4
ΡΗ͂Ζον Kal

n >

BOHCON, ἢ οὐκ W@AINOYCA, ὅτι πολλὰ TA TEKNA TAC ἐρήμου

μᾶλλον ἢ TAC €YOYCHC TON ANAPpa.

A Ὅν 2 '
O εἴπὲν εὐφράνθητι

2 τῇ αὐτοῦ θελήσει] A; τῇ θελήσει αὐτοῦ C; woluntate nostra S, as if αὑτῶν.
4 πολλὴν πλάνην] AC; hunc omnem (=tantum=rTooabryr) errorem multum S.
ἐλπίδα ἔχοντας] C3; edmidavexovres A. S evidently read as C, though it trans-

lates by a finite verb, e¢ guod ne una quidem 5265 salutis sit nobis.
ἐκ μὴ] A; ἐκ τοῦ μὴ C.

AC; 8 S.

I. ἀνεβλέψαμεν] Comp. ὃ 9.

ἀποθέμενοι k.t.A.] The language
here, though not the thought, is
coloured by Heb. xii. I τοσοῦτον
ἔχοντες περικείμενον ἡμῖν νέφος
μαρτύρων, ὄγκον ἀποθέμενοι πάντα
κιτιλ. For the construction περικεῖσθαί
τι ‘to be enveloped in or surrounded
by a thing) see Acts xxviii. 20, Heb.
Vin 2

5. ἔχοντας] sc. ἡμᾶς. If this read-
ing be correct it is perhaps go-
verned by θεασάμενος rather than
by ἔσωσε, ‘and this though we
had no hope.” But ἔχοντες 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
οἱ ἀκούοντες).

ἐκάλεσεν γὰρ κιτ.λ.] Rom. iv. 17
καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα, Philo
de Creat. Princ. 7 (11. p. 367) τὰ γὰρ
μὴ ὄντα ἐκάλεσεν εἰς τὸ εἶναι : Comp.
Hermas [725. I. 1 κτίσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ
ὄντος τὰ ὄντα, Mand. 1 ποιήσας ἐκ

6 yap]
8 εὐφράνθητι] AC; add.

τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς TO εἶναι Ta πάντα,
Clem. Hom. iii. 32 τῷ τὰ μὴ ὄντα εἰς τὸ
εἶναι συστησαμένῳ.

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, 7 came not to
call just men but sinners. Such
sinners were we.’

ὃ, ΕἙὐφράνθητι κιτ.λ.} From the
1ΧΧ 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. 88 c. Philo also
allegorizes this text (god Omn. Prob.
ib. 2, 11. p. 449), but in a wholly dif-
ferent way.

11. ἡ ἐκκλησία ἡμῶν] i.e. the Gen-
tile Church, called ὁ λαὸς ἡμῶν 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

> ,
ἐκαλεσεν 5

Io

15

u|

CTEIPA H OY TIKTOYCA, ἡμᾶς e€lTev* στεῖρα

AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 215

\ > ε
yao nv ἢ
> / ε ΄σ \ ΄σ ΄ 81. ἂς 4 « A 5.
ἐκκλησία ἡμῶν πρὸ TOU δοθῆναι αὐτὴ τεκνᾶ. 0 δὲ εἶπεν
' ς 2 ͵ ΄“ 7 \ \
BOHCON ἢ οὐκ WAINOYCA, τοῦτο λέγει: Tas προσεύυχας
ε “ ε ΄σ 3 / \ \ \ / « ε
ημων απλως ἀναφέρειν προς τον Θεον Mn, WS a
7ὔ ΄σ « LO; “ \ \ ’
ὠδίνουσαι, ἐγκακῶμεν. ὃ δὲ εἶπεν ὅτι πολλὰ TA TEKNA
“- > , a BY πὸ , \ ” 3 \ af
THC EPHMOY MAAAON H THC EXOYCHC TON ANAPA, ETEL EOHMOS
3 7 > 3 \ ~ ΄σ ε \ ες ἴω \ δὴ
ἐδόκει εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ λαὸς ἡμῶν, νυνὲ δὲ πισ-
he / > Lf a 7 af
τεύσαντες πλείονες ἐγενόμεθα τῶν δοκούντων εχειν

Θεόν.

γάρ, λέγει, S. ῥῆξον] AC; καὶ ῥῆξον 5. 12 ἡμῶν] AC; om. 5.
13 τὰς προσευχὰς] AC; τὰ πρὸς τὰς προσευχὰς (or τὰ πρὸς εὐχὰς, as suggested

καὶ ἑτέρα δὲ γραφὴ λέγει ὅτι Οὐκ ἦλθον κὰ-

by Bensly) 5. See above, I. p. 141.
15 ἐγκακῶμεν] A; ἐκκακῶμεν C.
om. Ο.

the old dispensation. Justin uses the
text in the same way as our Pseudo-
Clement.

14. μή, ὡς κιτ.λ.] If the order of
the words be correct they can only
mean ‘let us not 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 ἡ οὐκ ὠδί-
vovoa, of which the natural explana-
tion is so obvious. For ἐγκακῶμεν
Cotelier and other editors would sub-
stitute ἐκκακῶμεν; but this is a mis-
take, as authority is against ἐκκα-
κεῖν and for ἐγκακεῖν : see the note on
Galatians vi. 9. :

17. ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ] For the pre-
position after ἔρημος comp. Jer. ΧΧΧΊΠ
(xl). 10 (ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπων καὶ κτηνῶν),
xxxiv (xli). 22 (ἀπὸ τῶν κατοικούντων),
xliv (li). 2 (ἀπὸ ἐνοίκων). The word
involves asecondary idea of severance,
and so takes ἀπό.

18. πλείονες] Writing about this
same time, Justin Martyr gives a si-
milar account of the greater numbers
of the Gentile Christians: Aol. i. 53
(p. 88 B) πλείονάς τε καὶ ἀληθεστέρους

14 αἱ ὠδίνουσαι) AC; ἡ ὠδίνουσα S.
17 Tod] A; om. C. 19 δὲ] AS;

τοὺς ἐξ ἐθνῶν τῶν ἀπὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων καὶ
Σαμαρέων Χριστιανοὺς εἰδότες.

τῶν δοκούντων ἔχειν Θεόν] ΗἸ]-
genfeld quotes from the Praedicatio
ere τῇ (Clem. Alex, “Sizomz, vi, 15
(p. 760) μηδὲ κατὰ ᾿Ιουδαίους σέβεσθε"
καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι, μόνοι οἰόμενοι τὸν
Θεὸν γινώσκειν, οὐκ ἐπίστανται
(comp. Orig. 27 Foam. xiii. § 17, IV.
p. 226).

19. ἑτέρα δὲ γραφὴ] Thus the
Gospel, treated as a written docu-
ment, is regarded as Scripture like
the Old Testament. Comp. Barnab.
ὃ 4, and possibly 1 Tim. v. 18. See
above, the introduction p. 202.

οὐκ ἦλθον κιτ.λ}] The quota-
tion agrees exactly with 5. Mark ii.
17, but might also be taken from S.
Matthew ix. 13 οὐ yap ἦλθον κ.τ.λ.
On the other hand in 5. Luke (v. 32)
the form is different, οὐκ ἐλήλυθα κα-
λέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς
μετάνοιαν. Comp. also Barnab. ὃ 5 οὐκ
ἦλθεν καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτω-
λούς (where the words εἰς μετάνοιαν,
added in the late MSS, are wanting in
ἀν), and Justin “202. i. p. 62 C οὐκ ἦλ-
Gov κ. δ. ἀ. ap. εἰς μετάνοιαν.

216

THE EPISTLES OF 5. CLEMENT.

[τ

, ͵ 3 \ ς , ΄σ 4 e/ ~
Aécal δικδίογο, ἀλλὰ AMaPT@AOYC. τοῦτο λέγει, OTL δεῖ

\ > / Me > ~ 7 3 / \
Tous ἀπολλυμένους σωζειν" ἐκεῖνο yap ἐστιν μέγα Kal

, 3 A ε ω ; 3 \ \ /
θαυμαστόν, οὐ Ta ἑστῶτα στηρίζειν αλλαὰ Ta πιπ-

TOVTAa.

« \ ε \ sf)’ ΄ A
οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἠθέλησεν σῶσαι Ta

if A if \ \ ,
ἀπολλύμενα, Kal ἔσωσεν πολλούς, ἐλθὼν καὶ καλέσας 5

ἡμᾶς ἤδη ἀπολλυμένους.
1Π|.

~ > af uA ~
Τοσοῦτον οὖν ἔλεος ποιήσαντος αὐτοῦ εἰς

e la) “ Uf e/ ΄ ε ΄σ a =~
ἡμᾶς: πρῶτον μέν, OTL ἡμεῖς οἱ ζώντες τοῖς VEKPOLS

΄ > / \ 3 =~ > a c) \
θεοῖς ov θύομεν καὶ οὐ προσκυνοῦμεν αὐτοῖς, ἀλλα

a} 3 3 a \ ie “ > / / ς
εγνωμεν δὶ αὐτου τον TATEPA THS αἀληθείας" “Τί ἢ

- \ / ) \ \ ~ > Ἔτι Sal:
γνώσις κι πρὸς αὐτόν, ἢ TO μὴ ἀρνεῖσθαι Ov ov ἔγνωμεν

3 ΄ - id \ \ 3 /
αὐτόν; λέγει δὲ Kal αὐτός"

4 οὕτως] οὕτω C.
ἔλεος] ελαιοσ A.

ΑΟ; τίς δὲ 5.
θείας C: see above, I. p. 127.

ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων] AC; om. S.

4. σῶσαι k.t.A.| Luke xix. 10 ἦλθεν
ὁ υἱὸς Tod ἀνθρώπου ζητῆσαι καὶ σῶσαι
τὸ ἀπολωλός (compare the interpola-
tion in Matt. xviii. 11), 1 Tim. i. 15
Ἴ. X. ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἁμαρτωλοὺς
σῶσαι.

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. τοῖς νεκροῖς θεοῖς] Wisd. xv. 17
θνητὸς δὲ ὧν νεκρὸν ἐργάζεται χερσὶν
ἀνόμοις" κρείττων γάρ ἐστι τῶν σεβασ-
μάτων αὐτοῦ, ὧν αὐτὸς μὲν ἔζησεν ἐκεῖνα
δὲ οὐδέποτε.

12. λέγει δὲ καὶ αὐτός κι.τ.λ.] Nicon
(see above on the First Epistle §§ 14,
15) quotes this passage from the

Χριστὸς] AS; Κύριος C.
9 καὶ ov προσκυνοῦμεν avrois] AS; om. C.
AC; S translates as if it had read ἔπειτα δὲ ὅτι ; see above, I. p. 142.
11 γνῶσις] γνωσεισ A,

ἢ] AC; om. S.
The testimony of S cannot be alleged in such a case,

TON OMOAOrHCANTA με [END-

7 οὖν] AC; om. S.
ἀλλὰ]
10 τίς]
ἡ πρὸς αὐτόν] AS; τῆς ἀλη-
ἀρνεῖσθαι] add. αὐτὸν C.

12 αὐτόν] AS; om. C.

13 αὐτὸν] AC. S adds etiam

Second Epistle; καὶ ὁ Κύριος λέγει
Τὸν ὁμολογήσαντα...τοῦ πατρός pou" ἐν
τίνι δέ... τῶν ἐντολῶν. Cotelier (on
Clem. Rom. § 14) mentions the fact,
but does not give the quotation in
full.

Tov ὁμολογήσαντα κιτ.λ.} A free
quotation of Matt. x. 32 (comp. Luke
ἘΠῚ 8).

ἐνώπιον k.t.A.| The omission in S
is probably correct, the words having
been inserted by scribes from a well-
known evangelical passage, Luke
xll.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. ἐὰν οὖν] “27 after all, of only.
For similar instances of the use of οὖν
see Hartung Partihel. 11. 11.

,

207

THON TON ἀνθρώπων], OMOAOTHCW AYTON ἐνώπιον TOY TATPOC

Iv] AN ANCIENT HOMILY.

ὩΣ > 3 \ \ ad FUN = €
Moy. οὗτος οὖν ἐστὶν ὁ μισθὸς ἡμῶν, ἐὰν οὖν ὁμο-

r5 λογήσωμεν δι’ οὗ ἐσώθημεν. ἐν τίνι δὲ αὐτὸν ὁμολο-
γοῦμεν; ἐν τῷ ποιεῖν ἃ λέγει καὶ μὴ παρακούειν αὐτοῦ
τῶν ἐντολῶν, καὶ μὴ μόνον χείλεοιν aYTON τιμᾶν ἀλλὰ
ἐξ ὅλης κἀρδίδο kai ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διὰνοίδο. λέγει δὲ καὶ
ἐν TW ᾿Ησαΐᾳ' ‘O Aadc οὕτος τοῖο χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἢ δὲ
20 KAPAIA AYT@N πόρρω ἀπεοτιν ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ.

TV. Μὴ μόνον οὖν αὐτὸν καλῶμεν Κύριον, οὐ
γὰρ τοῦτο σώσει ἡμᾶς. λέγει γάρ" Οὐ πᾶς ὁ λέγων
mol, Κύριε, Κύριε, cwOHceTal, AAN ὁ ποιῶν THN AIKAIOCYNHN.
ὥστε οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτὸν ὁμολογῶμεν,
ὁ μισθὸς ἡμῶν]
17 αὐτὸν τιμᾶν] AC; debe-

ego (κἀγώ) as in Matt. x. 32.
AC; merces magna S.

14 pov] AC; om. S.
οὖν] A; om. CS.

mus tnvocare (vocare) eum S, as if ὀφείλομεν αὐτὸν ἐπικαλεῖσθαι (καλεῖν). 18 τῆς]
A; om. Ὁ. diavoias] AC; δυνάμεως 5. δὲ] yap AS; om. C. το ὁ]
ο (i.e. ov) A. 20 αὐτῶν] AS; αὐτοῦ C. ἄπεστιν] A; ἄπεστιν (or éoTw)

5; ἀπέστην C.
24 αὐτὸν] αὐτων A.

21 οὖν! AS(?); om. C. 22 owoet] AC; σώζει 8.
ὁμολογῶμεν] A; ὁμολογήσωμεν C.

lessness. We must not fear men
but God. For Christ Himself has

18. ἐξ ὅλης κιτ.λ.} A reference
ultimately to Deut. vi. 5 ; but as both

words διανοίας and καρδίας 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 ἐξ ὅλης
τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς
σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου καὶ ἐξ
ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου (comp. Matt. xxii.
7, ΤΠ ΚΕ Σ᾿ 27).

19. ‘O λαὸς οὗτος «.7.A.] From Is.
xxlx. 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-

warned us that, though we be His
most familiar friends, yet if we do
not His commandments, He will re-
ject us.’
22. Οὐ mas ὁ λέγων κιτ.λ.] From
Matt. vii. 21 οὐ πᾶς ὁ λέγων μοι, Κύ-
͵ 3, , > \ ,
ple, Κύριε, εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασί-
λειαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ποιῶν τὸ
θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς
> ΄ .
οὐρανοῖς (comp. Luke vi. 46 quoted
below). Justin (Afod. i. τό, p. 64 A)
gives the exact words of S. Matthew
(except οὐχὶ for ov). Clem. Hom. viii.
, ΄ ad la \ >
7 has τί pe λέγεις Κύριε, Κύριε, καὶ ov
ποιεῖς ἃ λέγω ; Which closely resembles
Luke vi. 46 τί δέ με καλεῖτε, Κύριε,
Κύριε, καὶ οὐ ποιεῖτε ἃ λέγω; comp.
Clem. Hom. viii. 5 οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ πιστεύειν
διδασκάλοις καὶ κυρίους αὐτοὺς λέγειν
ἡ σωτηρία γίνεται.

218 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [τν

3 “ 3 la e / 5) ΄σ A ΄σ A
ἐν τῷ ἀγαπᾶν ἑαυτούς, ἐν τῷ μὴ μοιχᾶσθαι μηδὲ
~ \ rn 5) ΄-
καταλαλεῖν ἀλλήλων μηδὲ ζηλοῦν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγκρατεῖς
3 > / 3 / \ tA 3 IZ
εἰναι, ἐλεήμονας, ἀγαθούς: καὶ συμπάσχειν ἀλλήλοις
3 i \ ~
ὀφείλομεν, Kal μὴ φιλαργυρεῖν.
ε ΄σ \ \ 3 -- > /
ὁμολογῶμεν αὐτὸν Kal μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἐναντίοις" Kal οὐ
΄ ΄σ ΄σ \ > 7 ΄σ Ω \ \
δεῖ ἡμᾶς φοβεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους μᾶλλον, ἀλλὰ τὸν
[4
Θεόν.

/ 9 \ > > Lal ul > ca ‘
Κύριος" Ean ἧτε met ἐμοῦ ογνηγμένοι EN τῷ κύλπῳ MOY

tA ΄σ΄ ᾽
ἐν τούτοις τοῖς ἔργοις

\ ~~ ΄σ΄ ΄ 7 >
διὰ τοῦτο, ταῦτα ὑμῶν πρασσόντων, εἶπεν ὁ

καὶ μὴ ποιῆτε τὰς ENTOAAC MOY, ἀποβάλῶ ὑμᾶς Kal ἐρῶ

1 ἀγαπᾶν AC; add. τοὺς πλησίον ἡμῶν ὡς S: see above.
ὑμῶν] As ἡμῶν CS.

οφιλομεν Α.
ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ μου] AC; 2721 uno sinu S.

I. μηδὲ καταλαλεῖν x.t.A.| James
iv. II μὴ καταλαλεῖτε ἀλλήλων. See
also Hermas J/Zand. 2 πρῶτον μὲν
μηδενὸς καταλάλει, with the whole
section.

3. ἀγαθούς] ‘kindly, beneficent,
as Tit. 11. 5, 1 Pet. ii. 18; and so pro-
bably 1 Thess. iii. 6.

5. ov det ἡμᾶς κιτ.λ.] Comp. Acts
iv. 19, V. 29.

8. Ἐὰν ἦτε κιτ.λ.] Not found in
the canonical Gospels, and perhaps
taken from the Gospel of the Egyp-
tians, which is quoted below; see
δὲ 5, 8,12. The image and expressions
are derived from Is. xl. 11 τῷ βραχίονι
αὐτοῦ συνά ἕξει ἄρνας καὶ ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ
αὐτοῦ βαστάσει. 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 συνάγειν ἐν κόλπῳ, “ 20
gather in the lap, see LXX Prov.
XXX. 4 (xxlv. 27). The image is car-
ried out in the language of the next
chapter, ἔσεσθε ὡς ἀρνία κ.τ.λ.

IO. ὑπάγετε κιτ.λ.} The parallel
passage in S. Luke xiii. 27 runs καὶ ἐρεῖ;

4 ὀφείλομεν
8 Κύριος] AC; ἰἐησοῦς S.

9 ποιῆτε] As ποιήσητε C. 12 παρ-

Λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐκ οἶδα [ὑμᾶς] πόθεν ἐστέ"
ἀπόστητε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ πάντες ἐργάται ἀδι-
κίας. Thisis much closer than Matt.
vii. 23. The denunciation is taken
from Ps. vi. 9 ἀπόστητε dm ἐμοῦ πάν-
Tes οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι THY ἀνομίαν. Com-
pare the quotations in Justin AZol.
i. 16 (p. 64 B) καὶ τότε ἐρῶ αὐτοῖς"
᾿Αποχωρεῖτε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, ἐργάται τῆς avo-
μίας, Dial. 76 (p. 301 D) καὶ ἐρῶ αὐτοῖς-
᾿Αναχωρεῖτε am ἐμοῦ. 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. τὴν παροικίαν] ‘our sojourn-
tug im,’ i.e. ‘our dalliance with’: see
the note on παροικοῦντες in the open-
ing of the First Epistle.

15. Ἔσεσθε x.r.A.| This is a close
parallel to Luke x. 3 ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς
ὡς ἄρνας ἐν μέσῳ λύκων (comp. Matt.
x. 16). As however Peter is not men-

v|

ANOMIAC.
V. Ὅθεν, ἀδελφοί,

΄σ 7 /
οἰκίαν TOU κόσμου τούτου

AN ANCIENT HOMILY.

καταλείψαντες

219

IO YMIN* YTArETE ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ, οὐκ OIAA ὑμάς πόθεν ἐοτέ, epratal

τὴν παρ-

\ / a
ποιήσωμεν TO θέλημα τοῦ

καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς, καὶ μὴ φοβηθῶμεν ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ τοῦ

/ iy 4 \
15 KOOMoU TOUTOV. λέγει yao

! , 2 \ \
méca λύκων᾽ ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ

«

/ 4 ε > ' 2
O Κύριος Εσεοθε ὧς Apnia ἐν

ς Cay , 2 ᾿
ὁ Πέτρος αὐτῷ λέγει" Edn

οΥ̓͂Ν Διλσπὰράξωοιν οἱ λύκοι τὰ ἀρνία; εἶπεν ὁ ᾿Ϊησοῦς τῷ

/ \ ’ \ > ' \ ’ \ \
Πέτρῳ" Mi MOBEICOWCAN TA APNIA TOYC AYKOYC META TO

> a > ,
ΔΊΤΟΘΔΑΝΕΙΝ AYTA.

οικίαν] AC; παροιμίαν 8.
A; ἀποκτέντας (.

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 δὲ 4, 8,12. As the
same metaphor of the lambs occurs
in the apocryphal quotation just above
(ὃ 4), they were probably taken from
the same context. Photius (ῤΖόζ.
126) remarks on the number of apo-
cryphal quotations in this Second
Epistle, πλὴν ὅτι ῥητά τινα ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς
θείας γραφῆς ξενίζοντα παρεισάγει, ὧν
οὐδ᾽ ἡ πρώτη ἀπήλλακτο παντελῶς.
(For apocryphal quotations in the
First, which however are chiefly from
the Old Testament and therefore not
50 prominent, see the notes S§ 8, 13,
17, 23, 29, 46.)

19. καὶ ὑμεῖς κιτ.λ.] The apocry-
phal citation again runs parallel to
the canonical Gospels, Matt. x. 28
καὶ μὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεννόντων
τὸ σῶμα, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν μὴ δυναμένων
ἀποκτεῖναι" φοβήθητε δὲ μᾶλλον τὸν
δυνάμενον [καὶ] ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα ἀπολέ-
σαι ἐν γεέννῃ, Luke xii. 4, 5 μὴ φοβη-
θῆτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεννόντων τὸ σῶμα
καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα μὴ ἐχόντων περισσότερόν

19g φοβεῖσθε] φοβεισθαι A.

Kal ὑμεῖς μὲ φοβεῖοθε TOYC ἀποκτέννον-

3
ἀποκτέννοντας]

τι ποιῆσαι" ὑποδείξω δὲ ὑμῖν τίνα φοβη-
θῆτε. φοβήθητε τὸν μετὰ τὸ ἀποκτεῖναι
ἔχοντα ἐξουσίαν ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς τὴν γέεν-
ναν" ναί, λέγω ὑμῖν, τοῦτον φοβήθητε.
The saying is quoted also in Clem.
flom. xvi. 4 μὴ φοβηθῆτε ἀπὸ τοῦ
ἀποκτέννοντος τὸ σῶμα τῇ δὲ ψυχῇ μὴ
δυναμένου τι ποιῆσαι᾽ φοβήθητε δὲ τὸν
δυνάμενον καὶ σῶμα καὶ ψυχὴν εἰς τὴν
γέενναν τοῦ πυρὸς βαλεῖν, and in Justin
Afol. i. 19 (p. 66 Β) μὴ φοβεῖσθε τοὺς
ἀναιροῦντας ὑμᾶς καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα μὴ
δυναμένους τι ποιῆσαι, εἶπε, φοβήθητε
δὲ τὸν μετὰ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν δυνάμενον καὶ
Ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα εἰς γέενναν ἐμβαλεῖν.
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 τὴν γέενναν Tov πυρὸς (in the
quotation of the Homilies) might
have come from Matt. xvili. 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 φοβήθητε

220 [v

L

THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

TAC YMAC KAl MHAEN ὑμῖν AYNAMENOYC ποιεῖν, ἀλλὰ φοβεῖοθε
TON META TO ἀποθὰνεῖν ὑμᾶς ἔχοντὰ EZOYCIAN ψυχῆς KAI
' an a > ͵ ͵ \ /
COMATOC, TOY BAAEIN εἰς γέεννδὰν πγρόο. Kae ψινώσκετε,
> ᾽ J ε ᾽ 7 ε 2 σ / / =
ἀδελφοί, ὅτι ἡ ἐπιδημία ἡ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ τῆς
\ fe / 3 \ {2 \
σαρκὸς ταύτης μικρὰ εστιν Kal ὀλιγοχρονιος" ἡ δὲ
> , “- a / \ /
ἐπαγγελία TOU Χριστοῦ μεγάλη καὶ θαυμαστὴ ἐστιν,
i? an if \ ~
Kal ἀνάπαυσις τῆς μελλούσης βασιλείας καὶ ζωῆς
> / / oO if ἊΝ -~
αἰωνίου. Ti οὖν ἐστὶν ποιήσαντας ἐπιτυχεῖν αὐτῶν,
3 \ \ ε 4 \ ᾿ς 3 if \ \
εἰ μὴ TO οσίως Kal δικαίως ἀναστρέφεσθαι, καὶ Ta
\ fal ¢€ > ΄ ε na \ \ 3 ~
κοσμικὰ ταῦτα ὡς ἀλλοτρια ἡγεῖσθαι καὶ μὴ ἐπιθυμεῖν
1 φοβεῖσθε] φοβεισθαι A. 3 πυρός] AC; om. 5.

Χριστοῦ] C; Κυρίου 5.
SE 7 avaravois| As ἡ ἀνάπαυσις C.

6 ἐπαγγελία]
ἐστιν] AC; om. (apparently)

8 τί... ἐπιτυχεῖν] AC3 guid
igitur est td quod facit ut attingatis 5. The translator seems to have had ποιῆσαν
for ποιήσαντας in his text, and to have wrested the grammar to make sense of

επαγγελεια A.

it. 11 yap τῷ] A; τῷ yap C.
αὐτὰ C.

γοῦν, λέγει, τὸν μετὰ θάνατον δυνάμενον
καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα εἰς γέενναν βαλεῖν,
and p. 981 ὁ σωτὴρ λέγει φοβεῖσθαι
δεῖν τὸν δυνάμενον ταύτην τὴν ψυχὴν
καὶ τοῦτο τὸ σῶμα τὸ ψυχικὸν ἐν γεέννῃ
ἀπολέσαι : 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.’

ἀποκτέννοντας)] The passages quot-
ed in the last note show that the
substitution of ἀποκτείνοντας is quite
unnecessary. For the form ἀποκτέν-
νειν see Winer ὃ xv. p. 95 (note), A.
Buttmann p. 54.

4. ἡ ἐπιδημία) ‘sojourn’: comp.
παρεπίδημοι Heb. xi. 13, 1 Pet. i. 1,
li. 11. See the note on παροικίαν
above, which contains the same idea.

7. καὶ ἀνάπαυσις] ‘namely, rest.
For this use of καὶ see the notes on
Galatians vi. 16.

ὃ. τί οὖν κιτ.λ.] ‘ What then is tt

13 λέγει δὲ] AC; λέγει yap καὶ S.

ταῦτα] AS;
14 ἐὰν] C; add. οὖν

ἐπιθυμεῖν] επιθυμει A.

possible for us to do that we may ob-
tain them, but to walk holily and
righteously. Thus τῷ, which some
would substitute for τό, interferes with
the construction. For ὁσίως kai δικαίως,
implying duties to God and to man
respectively, see the note on ὅσια
δ᾽ 1: comp. ὃ 6 ἔχοντες ὅσια καὶ δίκαια.

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. Οὐδεὶς κτλ] Luke xvi. 13
οὐδεὶς οἰκέτης δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις
δουλεύειν...οὐ δύνασθε Θεῷ δουλεύειν

wn

15

20

vi] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 221

΄σ > A ΄σ 3 ~ ΄σ 7 ~
αὐτῶν; ἐν yap τῷ ἐπιθυμεῖν ἡμᾶς κτήσασθαι ταῦτα
΄ ς ΄σ ΄σ /
ἀποπίπτομεν τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς δικαίας,
/ \ « , > \ Sue 1 ‘
VI. Λέγει δὲ ὁ Κύριος: Οὐδεὶς οἰκέτης λύήνατδι Aycl
’ ’ γ΄ ε ~ / \ ΄σ
κυρίοις. AoyAeyein. ἐὰν ἡμεῖς θέλωμεν καὶ Θεῴ δουλ-
/ \ -~ ? / Cae eres) / ͵ \ \
εὐειν καὶ μαμωνᾳ, ἀσυμῴορον ἡμῖν ἔστιν. Ti fap τὸ
ὄφελος, EAN TIC τὸν KOCMON ὅλον κερδήσῃ THN δὲ ψυχὴν
κ af \ < ε 2) AS \ ¢ / /
ZHMIWOH; ἔστιν δὲ οὗτος ὁ αἰὼν καὶ ὁ μέλλων δύο
ΕῚ / ὮΝ If 7 \ \ \
ἐχθροί: οὗτος λέγει μοιχείαν Kat φθορὰν καὶ φιλαρ-
/ \ 3 / 3 ΄ \ / > /
yuplay καὶ ἀπάτην, ἐκεῖνος δὲ τούτοις ἀποτάσσεται.
3 f ἊΣ lo / y ΜΝ ~ \ ε - (i
ov δυνάμεθα οὖν τῶν δύο φίλοι εἶναι: δεῖ δὲ ἡμᾶς τούτῳ
5 If 2 / > 6 fy θ J βέλτ ἤ,
ἀποταξαμένους ἐκείνῳ χρᾶσθαι. οἰωμεθα ὃτι βελτιον

Ss 16 τὸν κόσμον ὅλον] τὸν κόσμον (om. ὅλον) C; omnem hunc mundum S$,
but the insertion of zc probably does not imply any different reading from ‘A:

see above, I. p. 141, and comp. below § 19.

(perhaps ἀπολέσῃ) S. 18 καὶ φθορὰν] AC; om. 8.
τοῖς τοιούτοις S. See conversely below on p. 2221. 8.
οἰώμεθα] οἰόμεθα ACS. S also adds δὲ ἀδελφοί.

χρῆσθαι(.

καὶ μαμωνᾷ. The words are the same
in Matt. vi. 24, excepting the omis-
sion of οἰκέτης.

15. τί yap τὸ ὄφελος κιτ.λ.] 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 τὸ ὄφελος ;) of
our pseudo-Clement.

17. ἔστιν δὲ οὗτος ὁ αἰὼν x.r.d.]|
See the notes on Galatians i. 4. Com-
pare also Clem. Hom. viii. 21, xx. 2.

18. φθορὰν] Either (1) corrupt-
ness, profligacy generally, as in 2 Pet.
i. 4, il. 12, 19; or (2) in a more special
sense, as Plut. Crass. 1 τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς
φθορᾶς ἀπολυσάμενος, Mor. p. 89 B
κριθῆναι φθορᾶς. The connexion with

17 ζημιωθῇ] AC; perdat
1g Tovras] AC;
21 χρᾶσθαι) A;

μοιχεία here points to this latter sense;
comp. Barnab. 10 ov μὴ γένῃ potxos
οὐδὲ POopevs, Philo de Spec. Leg. 11
(II. p. 310 M) ἀδελφὸν μὲν καὶ συγγενὲς
ἀδίκημα μοιχείας φθορά, Epictet. Dess.
il. 22. 28 ἀκρατεῖς καὶ μοιχοὺς καὶ
φθορεῖς, Iren. Haer. i. 28. 1, Clem.
Hom. iv. 16, 24.

20. τούτῳ ἀποταξαμένους] ‘bidding
Jarewell to this? Act. Paul. et Thect.
5 οἱ ἀποταξάμενοι τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ, Ign.
Philad. \1 ἀποταξάμενος τῷ βίῳ. The
word is fairly common in the New
Testament; see Lobeck Phryz. p. 23.

χρᾶσθαι] ‘consort with as a friend,’
according to a common sense of the
word. The editors have substituted
χρῆσθαι for the reading of the older
MS; but there is sufficient authority
for χρᾶσθαι in later writers: see Lo-
beck Phryn. p. 61, Buttmann “πο
Sprachl. ὃ τος (1. p. 487), Veitch ,»-
regular Verbs s.v. xpdopa. For the
form in a comp. ovyxpacda Ign. A7agn.
3, παραχρᾶσθαι A fost. Const. vi. το.

222 THE EPISTLES OF 5. CLEMENT. [vi

> 42 / a v4 \ \ 3 ’ \
ἐστιν τὰ ἐνθάδε μισῆσαι, ὅτι μικρὰ Kal ὀλιγοχρόνια καὶ
Υ ? a \ ᾽ ~ \ ’ \ \ of
φθαρτα-" ἐκεῖνα δὲ ἀγαπῆσαι, τὰ ἀγαθὰ καὶ ἀφθαρτα.
΄σ \ \ / ~ ~ if /
ποιοῦντες yap TO θέλημα τοῦ Χριστοῦ εὑρήσομεν ava-
A / \ ΄σ ΠΥ ΄σ ,

παυσιν" εἰ δὲ μήγε, οὐδὲν ἡμᾶς ῥύσεται EK τῆς αἰωνίου
/ \ / ΄σ ΄σ ΄σ
κολάσεως, ἐὰν παρακούσωμεν τῶν ἐντολῶν αὐτοῦ.
/ \ e \ “ i 4 2 \ > a
λέγει δὲ καὶ ἡ γραφὴ ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιεζεκιήλ, ὅτι ᾿Εἂν ἀνδοτή
Νῶε Kai Ἰὼβ Kai Δάᾶνιηλ, oY ῥύοοντδι τὰ τέκνὰ ἀὐτῶν ἐν
΄σ 3 7 3 4 \ € ΄σ / 3
TH αἰχμαλωσίᾳ. εἰ δὲ καὶ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δίκαιοι οὐ

2 ἀγαθὰ καὶ] ἀγαθὰ τὰ AC; om. 5. 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.
5. γὰρ! ΔΘ; Ὅπι: (Ο. ἀνάπαυσιν] AC; add. guae illic S, as if it had read τὴν
ἐκεῖ, but this may be only a translator’s gloss. 4 ἡμᾶς) AC; om. S.
6 δὲ] AC; γὰρ 5. ἐν τῷ] AC; τοῦ 8. 8 αἰχμαλωσίᾳ] C3 αιχμαλωσιᾶ
Α. οἱ τοιοῦτοι] AC; οὗτοι S: see conversely above on p. 221]. 19.
AG; om. 9.

δίκαιοι
οὐ δύνανται] here, A; after δικαιοσύναις in C; but S has appa-

4. αἰωνίου κολάσεως] The ex-

pression occurs Matt. xxv. 46.

6. ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιεζεκιήλ] Abridged from
Ezek. xiv. 14—20, being taken es-
pecially from ver. 14 ἐὰν ὦσιν οἱ τρεῖς
ἄνδρες οὗτοι ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῆς Νῶε καὶ
Δανιὴλ καὶ Ἰώβ, and ver. 18 οὐ μὴ ῥύ-
σονται υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας. The words
ἐν τῇ αἰχμαλωσίᾳ 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 AZost. Const.
ii. 14. Chrysostom also makes the
same change in two passages quoted
by Cotelier, Hom. xlitd in Gen. (IV.
Ῥ. 436) and £xp. zm Ps. xlvili (V. p.
210).

9. Oukavcocvvas| The plural, as
in Deut. ix. 4 (v.1.), 6, 1 Sam. xxvi.
253: Ezek. 111. 20, xxxin. 15, decclus.
xliv. 10.

Il. τὸ βασίλειον] ‘the kingdom,

as in fest. 172 Patr..Jud. 17522, 55.
Orac. Sib. 111. 159, Gaius (Hippoly-
tus?) in Euseb. 97. £. iii. 28, Hip-
pol. Fragm. 59, 103, 105 (pp. 162,
181, 182, Lagarde), Euseb. 27. £. viii.
17, Epiphan. Haer. li. 9 (p. 432).
Thus there is ample authority for
this sense of βασίλειον. 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. xxi. 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 βασίλειον would
have a parallel in S. Anselm Cur
Deus homo ii. 16 ‘ut nullus palatium
ejus ingrediatur.’

12. παράκλητος] ‘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. 11. 1 παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν
πατέρα. So above § 3 τὸν πατέρα τῆς

ΜΕ τ “ρφπΦφροἕΨἍΨρρ“ἍονὍὥ«ονΨσἔοέἔΠοῆποΕῃΙηυυυ

ΤΟ

15

vit] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 22%

δύνανται ταῖς ἑαυτῶν δικαιοσύναις ῥύσασθαι τὰ τέκνα
αὐτῶν: ἡμεῖς, ἐὰν μὴ τηρήσωμεν τὸ βάπτισμα ἁγνὸν
καὶ ἀμίαντον, ποίᾳ πεποιθήσει εἰσελευσόμεθα εἰς τὸ
βασίλειον τοῦ Θεοῦ; ἢ τίς ἡμῶν παράκλητος ἔσται,

\ \ > ᾽ oy ε
ἐαν μῆ εὑρεθῶμεν εργα EXOVTES ὅσια καὶ δίκαια ;

ΜΠ:

“Wate οὖν, ἀδελφοί μου, ἀγωνισώμεθα,

3 , J 3 \ e 5 , Na ned > \
ELOOTES Οι ἐν χέρσιν O AYWY, Καὶ OTL ELS TOUS φθαρ-

\ > / fi 3 ,
Tous ἀγῶνας καταπλέουσιν πολλοί, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντες

rently the same order as A.
το αὐτῶν] A; om. CS.
Ae om. CS:

9 ῥύσασθαι τὰ τέκνα] A; τὰ τέκνα ῥύσασθαι C.
βάπτισμα] AC ; add. guod accepimus 8.
μου] A; om. C. As S always adds the possessive pronoun

14 οὖν]

where the vocative ἀδελῴοί stands alone in the Greek, its testimony is of no value

here: see above § 6.

16 καταπλέουσιν] AC; certant (=dywvrifovra) S, but
it probably does not represent a different reading in the Greek.

Lower down

S translates καταπλεύσωμεν descendamus in certamen.

ἀληθείας, and see on this subject
Westcott Cazon p. 157 sq.

13. ὅσια καὶ δίκαια] See the notes
on §§ 1, 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. ἐν χερσὶν ὁ ἀγων] ‘ The contest
zs at hand, as Xen. Cyr. ii. 3. 2”Av-
Spes φίλοι, ὁ μὲν ἀγὼν ἐγγὺς ἡμῖν:
comp. Clem. Rom. 7 ὁ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν
ἀγὼν ἐπίκειται. The reading ἀγὼν
for aiwn is doubtless correct, and
this is not the only instance of the
confusion of the two words: see Hase
and Dindorf Stefi. Thes. p. 593 s.v.
ἀγών, and to the references there
given add A‘sch. Agam. 495, and
see 4 Macc. ix. 23, xl. 19. For ép
χερσίν, ‘at hand) see Plut. Vit. Cleom.

22 οὐκ ἐλάττονα τῆς ἐν χερσὶ δυστυχίαν,
Vit. Brut. 36 ἐν χερσὶν ἔχων τὰς ὑπὲρ
τῶν ὅλων πράξεις, etc.: Compare ὑπὸ
χεῖρα, Hermas [Κ725. iii. 10 (with the
note).

ὅτι eis τοὺς POaprovs κ-ιτ.λ.} An
echo of 1 Cor. ix. 24, 25 πάντες μὲν
τρέχουσιν, eis δὲ λαμβάνει τὸ βραβεῖ-
ov and ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν ἵνα φθαρτὸν
στέφανον λάβωσιν, ἡμεῖς δὲ ἄφθαρτον.
Comp. Lucian Azachars. 13 εἶπέ μοι,
πάντες αὐτὰ λαμβάνουσιν οἱ ἀγωνισταί;

ΟΣ, οὐδαμῶς ἀλλὰ εἷς ἐξ ἁπάντων ὁ κρα-

τήσας αὐτῶν (a passage of which the
context presents several coincidences
with S. Paul; see Clark’s Pelofon-
nesus p. 50), Seneca 12. Ixxvili. ὃ τό
‘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. καταπλέουσιν] ‘resort’; comp.
Plut. 7707. p. 81 E καταπλεῖν yap ἔφη
τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐπὶ σχολὴν ᾿Αθήναζε.

224

THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

[vin

΄ > \ ε \ if \
στεφανοῦνται, εἰ μὴ οἱ πολλα κοπιάσαντες καὶ κα-

΄ 3 i
AWS αγωνισαμενοι.
στεφανωθώμεν.

΄ ἊΣ J « 7
ἡμεῖς οὖν ἀγωνισώμεθα, iva πάντες

4 / \ eQ i \ 3 -
ὥστε θέωμεν τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν εὐθεῖαν,

~ "7 \ \ 3 \ /
ἀγώνα τὸν ἄφθαρτον, καὶ πολλοὶ εἰς αὐτὸν καταπλεύ-

\ 5) 7, θ / ‘ 60 > \
σωμεν καὶ ἀγωνισωμεῦα, ἵνα καὶ στεφανωθώμεν" Kal

t εἰ μὴ AC; (Aun A) add. solum S.
curramus); θῶμεν AC. See the lower note.

S. & καὶ ΠῚ AC; om. 5:

Compounds of πλεῖν are sometimes
used metaphorically, as ἐκπλεῖν (He-
rod. ili. 155 ἐξέπλωσας τῶν φρενῶν),
ἀποπλεῖν (Aristoph. 77”. 11. p. 907 Mei-
neke ἀποπλευστέ οὖν ἐπὶ τὸν νυμφίον);
διαπλεῖν (Plato Phaed. 85 Ὁ διαπλεῦ-
σαι τὸν βίον). But καταπλεῖν can
hardly be so explained here; and we
must therefore suppose that the allu-
sion is to the ἁλιερκὴς ᾿Ισθμοῦ δειράς
(Pind. /s¢hm. 1. 10), which would na-
turally be approached by sea. Livy
(xxxiii. 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. /stim. p. 45 ἐν τῇ καὰ-
λίστῃ τῶν πανηγύρεων τῇδε καὶ ὀνομασ-
τοτάτῃ k.t.A. (see Krause /Yed/en. 11. 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, as in 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. Oraz¢. viii,
ix).

I. komiaoavres] A word used
especially of training for the contest :

3 θέωμεν] conj. (so too S distinctly
4 εἰς αὐτὸν] AC; 2” certamen
ἀγωνισώμεθα] AS; ἁγνισώμεθα C.

see the notes on Ign. Polyc. 6 and
Philippians ii. 16. For the connexion
here comp. 1 Tim. iv. 10 καὶ κοπιῶμεν
καὶ ἀγωνιζόμεθα (the correct reading).

3. θέωμεν] For the accusative
after this verb see Lobeck Paral.
p-.511;,comp. also Cic; ΟἿ i: πὸ
‘stadium currit’ (from Chrysippus).
The reading of the Greek MSS,
θῶμεν, can hardly stand. It is
explained as referring to the dyo-
νοθεσία; but in this case the
ἀγωνοθέτης should be God Himself
(see Tertull. ad Mart. 3); and
moreover θῶμεν τὴν ὁδὸν is in itself
an awkward expression. Gebhardt,
having read θέωμεν in first edition,
has returned to θῶμεν 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 θέωμεν on account of the
words immediately following,
πολλοὶ εἰς αὐτὸν καταπλεύσωμεν, and
he argues ὁ δὲ ἄρτι ἀγωνιζόμενος χρείαν
οὐκ ἔχει εἰς τὸν ἀγῶνα κατελθεῖν, as if
the reading θέωμεν involved a hys-
teron-proteron. But in fact this
clause introduces an entirely new
proposition, of which the stress lies
on πολλοί ; ‘let us not only take part in
this race (θέωμεν τὴν ὁδόν), but let us
go there zz great numbers and con-
tend (πολλοὶ καταπλεύσωμεν καὶ ἀγωνι-
σώμεθα). On the other hand it has
not been shown that θεῖναι τὴν ὁδὸν
or τὸν ἀγῶνα can be said of the com-

ν
και

σι

Io

AN

vit] ANCIENT HOMILY.

2015

\ , fe
εἰ μὴ δυνάμεθα πάντες

=~ aX , \
στεφανωθῆναι, κἀν ἐγγὺς
fo) / / ΣᾺ Ἔ “ ΄σ΄ «“ἶ ε \
Tov στεφάνου γενώμεθα. εἰδέναι ἡμᾶς δεῖ, ὅτι ὁ τὸν
φθαρτὸν ἀγῶνα ἀγωνιζόμενος, ἐὰν εὑρεθῆ φθείρων,
μαστιγωθεὶς αἴρεται καὶ ἔξω βάλλεται τοῦ σταδίου.
/ - € \ “ > Ἢ > los / /
Ti δοκεῖτε; ὁ τὸν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀγῶνα φθείρας, τί
ἡ εἰδέναι] A; add. δὲ CS.

δοκειται Α.

ὁ] here A; before ἀγωνιζόμενος, C.
φθείρας] A; φθείρων C, so apparently S.

10 δοκεῖτε]

batants themselves. Bryennios in-
deed explains it θῶμεν ἑαυτοῖς ἢ
προθώμεθα, but this explanation stands
self-condemned by the necessity of
using either the reflexive pronoun
(ἑαυτοῖς) or the middle voice (mpo-
θώμεθα) to bring out the sense. The
construction which we have here
occurs from time to time with θέειν,
but is more common with τρέχειν,
because the verb itself is more com-
mon; e.g. Heb. xii. 1 τρέχωμεν τὸν
προκείμενον ἡμῖν ἀγῶνα (see Bleek’s
note). Polybius (i. 87. 1, xviii. 35.
6) has the proverb τρέχειν τὴν ἐσχάτην.

5. καὶ εἰ μὴ δυνάμεθα κιτ.λ.] 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. I. p. 170 sq.
This passage is quoted loosely by Do-
rotheus Doctr. xxiii ὡς λέγει καὶ ὁ ἅγιος
Κλήμης, Κἂν μὴ στεφανῶταί τις, ἀλλὰ
σπουδάσει μὴ μακρὰν εὑρεθῆναι τῶν στε-
φανουμένων.

6. κἂν ἐγγὺς κιτ.λ.] See Joseph.
Β.. 7. 1. 21. ὃ ἄθλα μέγιστα προθεὶς ἐν
οἷς οὐ μόνον οἱ νικῶντες ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ μετ᾽
αὐτοὺς καὶ οἱ τρίτοι τοῦ βασιλικοῦ
πλούτου μετελάμβανον. Comp. Afost.
Const. ii. 14.

8. φθείρων] ‘ vétiating.’ The word
is used of violating the conditions of
the contest, e.g. by making a false

CLEM. II.

start or cutting off a corner or trip-
ping up an adversary or taking any
underhand advantage: comp. Epi-
phan. Haer. lxi. 7 παραφθείρας ἀγῶνα
ὁ ἀθλητὴς μαστιχθεὶς ἐκβάλλεται τοῦ
ἀγώνος (quoted by Cotelier). The
word is specially chosen here for the
sake of the neighbouring φθαρτόν
ἀφθαρσίας. See Chrysippus in Cic.
Of. iii. 10 ‘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 Cad. non tem. cred. 12 ὁ μὲν
ἀγαθὸς
κακουργεῖ... ὁ δὲ κακὸς ἐκεῖνος καὶ ἄναθλος

δρομεὺς... τῷ πλησίον οὐδὲν
ἀνταγωνιστὴς. ..ἐπὶ τὴν κακοτεχνίαν ἐτρά-
mero κιτιλ. The turn given to the
image in φθείρων was perhaps sug-
gested by 2 Tim. ii. 5 ov στεφανοῦται
ἐὰν μὴ νομίμως ἀθλήσῃ (comp. Epictet.
Diss. 111. 10, 8 δός μοι ἀπόδειξιν εἰ
νομίμως ἤθλησα-).

9. μαστιγωθείς] i.e. by the ῥαβδοῦ-
χοι or, as they are sometimes called
(e.g. Lucian Hermot. 40), μαστιγο-
φόροι. Pollux (iii. 153) furnishes also
a third name, μαστιγονόμοι. Compare
Herod. viii. 59 ἐν τοῖσι ἀγῶσι οἱ προεξ-
ανιστάμενοι ῥαπίζονται, Thucyd. v. 50
ἐν τῷ ἀγῶνι ὑπὸ τῶν ῥαβδούχων πληγὰς
ἔλαβεν, Lucian adv. ]ηαοεί. 9, Piscat.
33. On these police see Krause He/-
len. I. 1. pp. 112 Sq, 139, 142, 144, II.
2. p. 46 sq. See Schweighaeuser
on Epictet. Dzss. 111. 15. 5 (p. 689).

αἴρεται) ‘zs removed,’

15

226 THE EPISTLES OF 5. CLEMENT. [vit

ΞΕ ΄σ \ Ἁ / Up \
παθεῖται; τῶν yap μή τηρησάντων, φησίν, τὴν σῴρα-
γῖδα ὁ οκώληξ AYTON οὐ τελευτήσει κἀὶ τὸ TYP ἀὐτῶν
οὗ οβεοθήοσετδαι, κἀὶ ECONTAI εἰς ὅρδοιν πᾶσῃ οδρκί.

VIII.

3 \ an ΄΄ 7
πηλὸς γάρ εσμεν εἰς την χειρα TOU τεχνίτου.

“5 ? \ em ἃ = /
‘Ws οὖν ἐσμεν ἐπὶ γῆς, μετανοήσωμεν"

\ Υ ὍΝ ΄σ lo \ -
τρόπον γὰρ ὁ κεραμεύς, ἐὰν ποιῆ σκεῦος Kal ἐν ταῖς
ερσὶν αὐτοῦ διαστραφῆ ἢ ae ιβῆ, πάλιν αὐτὸ
χερσιν ce Πα [1115
δ μ᾿ 3. A , 5 \ 7 a
ἀναπλάσσει: ἐὰν δὲ προφθάση εἰς τὴν κάμινον τοῦ
\ > \ ~ ἀξ, / 3 ~ J \
πυρὸς αὐτὸ βαλεῖν, οὐκέτι βοηθήσει αὐτῷ: οὕτως Kal
a e/ \ , a / > ~ \
ἡμεῖς, EWS ἐσμὲν EV τούτῳ τῷ κοσμῳ, ἐν TH σαρκι

1 παθεῖται] A; πείσεται C. 2 τὸ πῦρ αὐτῶν] AS; τὸ πῦρ (om. αὐτῶν) Ὁ.

6 ποιῃ] A; ποιήσῃ C, but the present tense is wanted here; see below.
here, A; before διαστραφῇ, CS thus altering the sense.
7 ἢ] AS; om. C.

τοῦ πυρὸς] AC; om. 8, but see the next note.

doubtful.

burat id et pereat (perdatur) S.

I. τὴν σφραγῖδα] By a compari-
son with § 6 ἐὰν μὴ τηρήσωμεν τὸ βάπ-
τισμα, it appears that baptism is here
meant by the seal. So again § 8 τη-
ρήσατε τὴν σφραγῖδα ἄσπιλον. Comp.
Hermas Sz. viii. 6 εἰληφότες τὴν
σφραγῖδα καὶ τεθλακότες αὐτὴν Kal μὴ
τηρήσαντες ὑγιῆ K.T.A., «5771. 1x. 16 ὅτ-
αν δὲ λάβῃ τὴν σφραγῖδα...ἡ σφραγὶς
οὖν τὸ ὕδωρ ἐστίν κιτιλ., also Sz.
Vill. 2, ix. 17, 31, Clem. Hom. xvi. 19
TO σῶμα σφραγῖδι μεγίστῃ διατετυπω-
μένον (with the context), Act. απ.
et Thecl. 25 μόνον Sos μοι τὴν ἐν Χρισ-
τῷ σφραγῖδα, Hippol. Axntichr. 42
(p. 119, Lagarde), Cureton’s Azczent
Syriac Documents Ὁ. 44. So of Aber-
cius it is said (en. and Polyc. 1. p.496)
λαμπρὰν σφραγεῖδαν ἔχοντα. Suicer
s.v. quotes Clem. Alex. Quis div. salv.
39 (p. 957), Strom. ii. 3 (p. 434), and
later writers. Barnabas § 9 speaks
of circumcision as a σφραγὶς after 5.
Paul, Rom. iv. 11. But it may be ques-
tioned whether 5. Paul (σφραγισάμενος
2 Cor. i. 22, comp. Ephes. iv. 30) or S.

καὶ]
ἐν] A; om. C; S is
8 ἀναπλάσσει] A; ἀναπλάσει C.

9 βαλεῖν] AC; add. et com-

It is not probable however that any corresponding

John (Rev. ix. 4 τὴν σφραγῖδα τοῦ Θεοῦ
ἐπὶ τῶν μετώπων) used the image with
any direct reference to baptism.

2. ὁ σκώληξ κιτ.λ.] Anaccurate quo-
tation from the Lxx of the last verse
of Isaiah (Ixvi, 24) 6 yap σκώληξ αὐτῶν
x7.A. The denunciation is uttered
against τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῶν παραβεβη-
κότων, and the context does not con-
tain any reference to the broken seal.

VIII. * We? are ‘as ‘clay Gn“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, 770 ye kept not that
which ts small, who shall give you
that which is great?’

4. ‘Qs οὖν] ‘While then? For this
sense of ws see ὃ 9 ὡς ἔχομεν καιρόν,
with the note.

aA
OV 5

vit] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 227

« 9 ’ \ / 3 J ΄σ

ἃ ἐπράξαμεν πονηρὰ μετανοήσωμεν ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρ-
/ e/ ΄σ \ ~ / c/ af

dias, ἵνα σωθῶώμεν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου, ἕως ἔχομεν Kat-
\ A \ 3 ΄ e ΄σ > ~

pov μετανοίας: μετὰ yap τὸ ἐξελθεῖν ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ
΄ 3 / , > ΄ > , ‘\

κόσμον, οὐκέτι δυνάμεθα ἐκεῖ ἐξομολογήσασθαι ἢ με-

΄' af J > / if \ 7
τανοεῖν ETL. WOTE, ἀδελφοί, ποιήσαντες τὸ θέλημα
΄- \ \ 7 « \ /

TOU πατρὸς Kal τὴν σάρκα ἁγνὴν τηρήσαντες καὶ Tas

> \ ~ / / / \ ἤ

ἐντολὰς τοῦ Κυρίου φυλαξαντες ληψόμεθα ζωὴν αἰώ-

νιον. λέγει γὰρ ὁ Κύριος ἐν τῷ EevayyeNiw: Εἰ τὸ

. yee yao ρ ; YYENG

μικρὸν OYK €THPHCATE, TO μέγὰ TIC ὑμῖν δώσει; λέγω

words stood in the Greek text.
οὕτω Ὁ. tr 4] C; sz guid 9:
dum S; ὡς ἔτι C,
IAS ome Ge

AC; add. super nostris peccatis S.

16 σάρκα] C; σαρκαν A; add. ἡμῶν 5.

5. πηλὸς yap ἐσμεν x.t.r.] The
image of Jeremiah xviii. 4—6, adopt-
ed by 5. Paul Rom. ix. 21. The pre-
sent passage is suggested rather by
the prophet than by the Apostle.
The image is drawn out in Zest. riz
Patr. Nepht. 2, and in Athenag.
Suppl. 15.

6. ποιῇ σκεῦος καὶ κιτ.λ.} 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 che
making (ποιῇ), happens wxder the
hands of the potter (ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν
αὐτοῦ διαστραφῇ); and not afterwards,
as ποιήσῃ...ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ καὶ διασ-
τραφῇ would imply.

7. συντριβὴ] Rev. il. 27 ὡς τὰ
σκεύη τὰ κεραμικὰ συντρίβεται.

πάλιν αὐτὸ ἀναπλάσσει] Hilgen-
feld refers to Theoph. ad Auxtol.
li. 26 καθάπερ σκεῦός τι, ἐπὰν πλασθὲν
αἰτίαν τινὰ σχῇ; ἀναχωνεύεται ἢ ἀνα-
πλάσσεται εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι καινὸν καὶ
ὁλόκληρον ; see the references there
given by Otto.

8. ἐὰν δὲ προφθάσῃ κ.τ.λ.] ‘ When

βοηθήσει] A; βοηθεῖ CS.

ἔχομεν καιρὸν] A; καιρὸν ἔχομεν C.
τοῦ κόσμου] AC; τῆς σαρκός 5.

οὕτως] A;
12 ἕως] A;
13 μετανοίας]
14 ἐξομολογήσασθαι
Is ποιήσαντε:] AC; add. οὖν (Ὁ) 5.

Τὴν] “AB Cig (Ce

He has once cast it into the fiery
Jurnace, He will no more come to its
rescue. προφθάνειν occurs Matt. xvii.
25 and several times in the LXx.

16. τὴν σάρκα ἁγνὴν κ-τ.λ.} Act.
Paul. et Thecl. 5 μακάριοι οἱ ἁγνὴν τὴν
σάρκα τηρήσαντες, 12 τὴν σάρκα μὴ
μολύνητε ἀλλὰ τηρήσητε ἁγνήν.

18. Εἰ τὸ μικρὸν κιτ.λ.] Probably
a quotation fused from Luke xvi. 10
ὁ πιστὸς ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ Kal ἐν πολλῷ πισ-
τός ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ ἄδικος καὶ
ἐν πολλῷ ἄδικός ἐστιν᾽ εἰ οὖν ἐν τῷ
ἀδίκῳ μαμωνᾷ πιστοὶ οὐκ ἐγένεσθε, τὸ
ἀληθινὸν τίς ὑμῖν πιστεύσει; and Matt.
XXV. 21, 23, ἐπὶ ὀλίγα ἧς πιστός, ἐπὶ
πολλῶν σε καταστήσω. Irenzeus (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 δὲ 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-

τ "5

228

c Led μὲ

rap Υμιν ὅτι

Cae Ret Hin:

THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

[νΠ|

ς ‘ > > , ‘ > a
Ὁ TICTOC EN EAAYICT@ KAI EN TIOAAW THI-

, > “- , 7 δ
ἄρα οὖν τοῦτο λεγει" Τηρήσατε THV

, ε A \ \ a sf e/ x
σάρκα ayynv καὶ τῆν σφραγῖδα ἄσπιλον, ἵνα τῆν

[αἰώνιον] ζωὴν ἀπολάβωμεν.

I πολλῷ] AC; πολλοῖς 8.
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 (ρ. 336) ἵνα ἐπὶ τῷ μικρῷ πιστὸς
εὑρεθεὶς καὶ τὸ μέγα πιστευθῆναι δυνηθῇς.

2. ἄρα οὖν] A favourite colloca-
tion of particles in 5. Paul: see Fritz-
sche on Rom. v. 18. The accentua-
tion dpa οὖν is erroneous.

τοῦτο λέγει] ‘He means this’: as
in § 2 (twice), § 12. See the note
on Galatians 111. 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. ἄσπιλον] For τηρεῖν ἄσπιλον
comp. 1 Tim. vi. 14, James i. 27.

4. αἰώνιον]! The omission in the
Syriac is probably correct; comp.
§ 14 τοσαύτην δύναται ἡ σὰρξ αὕτη
μεταλαβεῖν ζωὴν κιτιλ., § 17 συνηγμένοι
ὦμεν ἐπὶ τὴν ζωήν. The epithet may
have been inserted from the expression
just above, ληψόμεθα ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
Similarly in John xx. 31 αἰώνιον is
added after ζωὴν by NCD etc., and
in 1 Tim. vi. 19 τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς
(from ver. 12) is substituted for the
less usual τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς by several
authorities. In Luke x. 25 Marcion
read ζωὴν without αἰώνιον (see Tertull.
c. Marc. iv. 25), and so one Latin copy.

ἀπολάβωμεν) ‘secure. The pre-
position implies that it is already
potentially our own, so that we are
only recovering a right: see Gala-
tians iv. 5 with the note.

4 ἀπολάβωμεν] A; απολαβητε CS: see the

The licence in the change of per-
sons (τηρήσατε, ἀπολάβωμεν) has of-
fended the transcribers here, though
occasionally indulged in even by
the best writers in all languages,
eg. 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 ἐθανατώθητε, καρποφορήσωμεν, Vili.
15 ἐλάβετε, κράζομεν, 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 μὴ λεγέτω τις κιτ.λ.] This
passage, as far as ἀποληψόμεθα τὸν
μισθόν, 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. 1. p. 185. The sentence
εἷς Χριστὸς... ἡμᾶς ἐκάλεσεν is also
quoted by Timotheus of Alexandria;
568 1. Ρ- 180:

αὕτη ἡ σὰρξ «.t.A.] Difficulties
on this point were very early felt and
met by 5: Paul, 1 Cor*xv.12:sqn a
little later the precursors of Gnosti-

Ix] AN ANCIENT HOMILY.

220

IX. Καὶ μὴ λεγέτω τις ὑμῶν, ὅτι αὕτη ἡ σὰρξ

3 7 ΕΣ Sas
οὐ κρίνεται οὐδὲ ἀνίσταται.

a 5 , ,
γνώτε: ἐν τίνι ἐσωώθητε,

ἐν τίνι ἀνεβλέψατε, εἰ μὴ ἐν TH σαρκὲ ταύτη ὄντες:
ίνι ἀν | μὴ ἢ σαρ ] :

5 tus] AC; S translates, as if it had read μηδείς.

cism boldly maintained that the only
resurrection was a Spiritual resurrec-
tion (2 Tim. 11. 18). It afterwards
became a settled tenet of the Gnostic
sects to deny the resurrection of the
body: see Polyc. 2 121. 7 os ἂν μεθο-
δεύῃ τὰ λόγια τοῦ Κυρίου πρὸς τὰς ἰδίας
ἐπιθυμίας καὶ λέγῃ μήτε ἀνάστασιν μήτε
κρίσιν εἶναι, Justin Dzad. 8ο (p. 306 D)
εἰ yap καὶ συνεβάλετε ὑμεῖς τισὶ Aeyo-
μένοις Χριστιανοῖς...οἱ καὶ λέγουσι μὴ
εἶναι νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν ἀλλ᾽ ἅμα τῷ
ἀποθνήσκειν τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν ἀναλαμ-
βάνεσθαι εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, μὴ ὑπολάβητε
αὐτοὺς Χριστιανούς x.7.A., Iren. ii. 31.
2 τοσοῦτον δὲ ἀποδέουσι τὸν νεκρὸν
ἐγεῖραι.. «αἱ ne quidem credant hoc in
totum posse fierl ; esse autem resur-
rectionem a mortuis agnitionem ejus,
quae ab eis dicitur, veritatis’ (comp.
Wate 2) Aci ΤΩ. δὲ DPhecl. τῇ
ἡμεῖς σε διδάξομεν, ἣν λέγει οὗτος ἀνά-
στασιν γενέσθαι, ὅτι ἤδη γέγονεν ἐφ᾽ οἷς
ἔχομεν τέκνοις, καὶ ἀνιστάμεθα Θεὸν ἐπε-
γνωκότες ἀληθῆ, 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 S77. v. 7 τὴν σάρκα
σου ταύτην φύλασσε καθαρὰν καὶ ἀμίαν-
τον, ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ κατενοικοῦν ἐν
αὐτῇ μαρτυρήσῃ αὐτῇ καὶ δικαιωθῇ
σου ἡ σάρξ' βλέπε μήποτε ἀναβῇ ἐπὶ

6 οὐδὲ] A; οὔτε(.

τὴν καρδίαν σου τὴν σάρκα σου ταύ-
την φθαρτὴν εἶναι καὶ παραχρήσῃ
αὐτῇ ἐν μιασμῷ τινί κιτιλ. So too
Ps.-Ign. 775. 2 ἕτεροι δὲ [λέγουσιν]
ὅτι ἡ σὰρξ αὕτη οὐκ ἐγείρεται, καὶ δεῖ
ἀπολαυστικὸν βίον ζῆν καὶ μετιέναι.
See also (πο, Σ Cels. v. 22 This
practical consequence our writer
seems to have distinctly in view S§ ὃ»
9. (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 ἀδιαφορεῖν εἰδωλοθύ-
των ἀπογευομένους καὶ ἐξομνυμένους
ἀπαραφυλάκτως τὴν πίστιν κατὰ τοὺς
τῶν διωγμῶν καιρούς : 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. i. 24. 6). This is a con-
stant charge in Tertullian. See on
this subject Ritschl A/thath. Kirche
p- 495 sq. This view again seems to
be combated by our writer, S$ 4, 5,
Fi 10:

Schwegler Machap. Zettalt. τ. 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.
p. 115 sq.

7. ev tim] ‘7a whai, not ‘zn
whom, as the following εἰ μὴ ἐν τῇ
σαρκὶ shows.

ἀνεβλέψατε] ‘ye recovered your
sight’; comp. § 1 τοιαύτης ἀχλύος
γέμοντες ev TH ὁράσει ἀνεβλέψαμεν kK.T.A,

230 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [1x

~ Ss e - ε \ ~ / A /
δεῖ οὖν ἡμᾶς ws ναὸν Θεοῦ φυλάσσειν τὴν σαρκα"
« / \ ᾽ ΄σ \ / rt
ὃν τρόπον yap ἐν TH σαρκὶ ἐκλήθητε, Kal ἐν TH
\ ? Υ Ae A ε e , e
σαρκὲ ἐλεύσεσθε. εἰ Χριστὸς ὁ Kupios, ὁ σώσας
΄σ \ \ ἣ ΄“΄ “ If A
ἡμᾶς, ὧν μὲν TO πρῶτον πνεῦμα, ἐγένετο σὰρξ Kal
4 ~ / ef \ = , a
οὕτως ἡμᾶς ἐκάλεσεν, οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν TAaVTN THS
, \ If r 53
σαρκὶ ἀποληψόμεθα τὸν μισθόν. ἀγαπῶμεν οὖν ἀλ-

΄ e/ af A 3 \ 7 ΄
λήλους, ὅπως ἔλθωμεν πάντες εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ

Θεοῦ.

Γ yA A ΄σ lol rn
ws ἔχομεν καιρὸν τοῦ ἰαθῆναι, ἐπιδώμεν ἑαυ-

2 καὶ ἐν τῇ capkl...6 σώσα9] AC; et im carne venit christus dominus (noster),
unus extstens, ts gui salvavit 5. This may be explained by the obliteration of some

letters, so that ἐλεύσεσθε was read ελ...θε, and translated as if ἦλθε.

σεσθε] ελευσεσθαι A.
note.

change.
carne S Timoth Fragm-Syr.

I. os ναὸν Θεοῦ x.7.A.] See Ign.
Philad.7 τὴν σάρκα ὑμῶν ὡς ναὸν Θεοῦ
τηρεῖτε: Comp. I Cor. iii. 16, 17, Vi.
19, 2 Cor. vi. τό, and see Ign. Ephes.
g. 15 (with the notes).

3. ἐλεύσεσθε] Not, I think, εἰς
τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, as Harnack
takes it, but εἰς τὴν κρίσιν.

εἰ Χριστὸς κιτ.λ.} The reading εἰ
for εἷς, 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 εἷς ἐστὶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός,
but εἷς 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. εἰ Ἰησοῦς,
or EIOIC i.e. εἰ ὁ Ἰησοῦς. The confu-
sion would be easier, as the preceding
word ends in €.

4. ov μέν] As though the sentence
were intended to be continued in a
participial form γενόμενος δέ.

TO πρῶτον πνεῦμα] The doctrine
of the pre-existence of the Son, as

3 ἐλεύ-

εἰ] Fragm Syr; εἷς ACS Timoth: see the lower
4 πνεῦμα] AS; λόγος C: see above, I. p. 125, for the motive of this
ἐγένετο] AC; add. δὲ S Timoth Fragm-Syr.

kal οὕτως] A; καὶ οὕτως καὶ C.

σὰρξ] AC; ix
5 ἐκά-

the Logos, is here presented in a
somewhat unusual form ; comp. how-
ever Hermas Szm. v. 6 τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ
ἅγιον, TO προόν, TO κτίσαν πᾶσαν THY
κτίσιν, κατῴκισεν ὁ Θεὸς εἰς σάρκα ἣν
ἐβούλετο, ix. 1 ἐκεῖνο γὰρ τὸ πνεῦμα
ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστίν, Theoph. ad Au-
tol. ii. 10 οὗτος οὖν ὧν πνεῦμα Θεοῦ καὶ

3 \ Ν , \ , ς ,
- ἀρχὴ καὶ σοφία καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου

κατήρχετο εἰς τοὺς προφήτας καὶ δὲ
αὐτῶν ἐλάλει κιτιλ., Tertull. adv. Mare.
iii. 16 ‘spiritus Creatoris qui est
Christus,’ Hippol. c. Veet. 4 (p. 47
Lagarde) λόγος σὰρξ ἦν, πνεῦμα ἦν,
δύναμις ἦν κατιλ. See especially Dor-
ner Lehre von der Person Christi 1.
p- 205 sq.

ὃ. ὡς ἔχομεν καιρόν] ‘while we
have opportunity’: comp. Gal. vi. 10
(with the note), Ign. Smyrn. 9 ὡς
ἔτι καιρὸν ἔχομεν. Another instance
of ὡς, ‘whzle, occurs above, § 8.

10. προγνώστης] Justin Aol. i. 44
(p. 82 B), Tatian ad Graec. 19, Theoph.
ad Autol. ii. 15.

11. τὰ ἐν καρδίᾳ] 2 Chron. xxxil. 31
εἰδέναι Ta ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ, Deut.
Vili. 2 διαγνωσθῇ τὰ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου,

Ix] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 221

A ΄σ / ΄σ ΕῚ 7 > ~ /
Tous τῷ θεραπεύοντι Θεῷ, ἀντιμισθίαν αὐτῷ διδόντες"
\ ΄σ » 5) rf 7

το ποίαν; τὸ μετανοῆσαι ἐξ εἰλικρινοῦς καρδίας: προ-
, , ’ “ ,ὔ \ ὅν - \
γνώστης yap ἐστιν τῶν πάντων Kal εἰδὼς ἡμῶν τὰ
lon 53 lol Ss > 7 \ \

ἐν καρδίᾳ. δώμεν οὖν αὐτῷ αἶνον αἰώνιον, μὴ ἀπὸ
ἐς ΄ > \ \ 3 \ 7 .«“ ε =
στόματος μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπὸ καρδίας, ἵνα ἡμᾶς
\
yap

ποιοῦντες

\ cy δ ΄
Kal EL7TTEVY 0 Κύριος"

ve e ε ,
προσδέξηται ws υἱούς.
15 Ἄλελφοι

TATPOC MOY.

MOY OYTOI EICIN οἱ TO O€AHMA τοῦ

λεσεν] AC; add. existens in carne (ὧν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ) S, but this may be only a gloss
of οὕτως and probably does not represent any additional words in the Greek text.
οὕτως sec.] A; οὕτω C. 6 ἀποληψόμεθα] αποληψομαιθα A. οὗν} AS;

omc.
ιλικρινουσ A.
corde nostrum S.
CS: 13 ἡμᾶς] AC; καὶ ἡμᾶς 5.

1 Sam. ix. 19, εἴο. Hilgenfeld reads
Ta ἐνκάρδια, saying of A “ἐνκάρδια (5.
ἐγκάρδια) c. cod., Jun., ἐν καρδίᾳ ceteri
edd.’ But, inasmuch as an iota sub-
script or adscript never appears in
Mss of this date, the transcriber could
not have written ἐν καρδίᾳ otherwise
than he has done. Moreover, since év
καρδίᾳ and ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ occur number-
less times in the 1,ΧΧ, whereas the
adjective ἐγκάρδιος 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 διορῶν τὰ ev καρδίᾳ (for ἐγκάρ-
δια) λόγος. The word ἐγκάρδιος how-
ever is legitimate in itself.

12. αἶνον αἰώνιον] This is doubtless
the right reading; see above, I. p.
120 and the note on εὑρεῖν below
ὃ 10. Comp. Afost. Const. 111. 1 τὸν
αἰώνιον ἔπαινον.

15. ᾿Αδελῴφοί μου x.t.A.] Matt. xii.
49 ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί
pov’ ὅστις γὰρ ἂν ποιήσῃ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ
πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς, αὐτός μου
ἀδελφὸς καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ μήτηρ ἐστίν
(comp. Mark ili. 35); Luke viii. 21

9 τῷ θεραπεύοντι] AC; add. nos 5.
11 τὰ ἐν καρδίᾳ] ταενκαρδια A; τὰ ἐγκάρδια C3 ea quae in
12 αἷνον αἰώνιον] αἰώνιον (om. awov) A; αἶνον (om. αἰώνιον)

το εἰλικρινοῦς]

15 ποιοῦντες] πουντεσ A.

μήτηρ μου καὶ ἀδελφοί μου οὗτοί εἰσιν,
οἱ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀκούοντες καὶ
ποιοῦντες. Epiphanius, //aer, xxx. 14
(p. 139), gives the saying Οὗτοί εἰσιν
οἱ ἀδελφοί pov καὶ ἡ μήτηρ, οἱ ποιοῦντες
τὰ θελήματα τοῦ πατρός μου, 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,
Ec. Proph. 20 (p. 994) ἄ ἄγει οὖν εἰς
ἐλευθερίαν τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς συγκληρονό-
μους υἱοὺς καὶ φίλους" ᾿Αδελῴοί μου
γάρ, φησιν ὁ Κύριος, καὶ συγκληρονόμοι
οἱ ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός
μου, where the context shows that
συγκληρονόμοι is deliberately given as
part of the quotation. Omitting καὶ
συγκληρονόμοι and inserting οὗτοί εἰσιν,
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, ἀδελφοί pou, ποιήσωμεν τὸ θέλημα

- \ ΄ , ΄ εὐ , ‘
τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς, ἵνα ζησωμεν, και

΄ “- \ ᾽ / \) \ /
διώξωμεν μᾶλλον τὴν ἀρετήν, τῆν δὲ κακίαν κατα-

,ὔ ε , ° ε ω « ~ \
λείψωμεν ὡς προοδοίπορον τῶν ἁμαρτιὼν ἡμῶν, καὶ

1 ἀδελφοί μου] A; ἀδελφοί (om. μου) C; ἀδελφοὶ καὶ ἀδελφαί [μου] 5. On the

uncertainty respecting the pronoun in S in such cases see below, ὃ 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. ἵνα ζήσωμεν] To be connected
not with τοῦ καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς, but with
ποιήσωμεν.

4. προοδοίπορον) ‘a forerunner’;
for κακία is the evil disposition, while
ἁμαρτία is the actual sin. On κακία
see Trench J. 7. Sym. ist ser. ὃ xi,
where he quotes the definition of
Calvin (on Ephes. iv. 32) ‘ Amzmz
pravitas quae humanitati et aequitati
est opposita et malignitas vulgo nun-
cupata.’ The substantive προοδοίπο-
pos seems to be very rare, though the
verb mpoodouropety occurs occasion-
ally.

6. ἀγαθοποιεῖν!] See the note on
the First Epistle ὃ 2 ἀγαθοποιΐαν.

7. tevpeivt]| sc. εἰρήνην ; ‘ 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 οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπον
εὑρεῖν (ἐκείνους) οἵτινες κιτιλ.; but for

eras ‘gui faciunt, ought we not

4 προ-

to read eras ‘gui transeunt,

thus more closely representing παρά-
γουσι, which however it mistranslates?
Previous editors have supposed the
error to lie in ἄνθρωπον, written ANON
in the Ms. Accordingly ANON (i.e.
ἂν Θεόν) has been suggested by Wot-
ton ; OYNON (i.e. οὐρανόν) by Davies;
and AINON (αἶνον) by Hilgenfeld.
But in the first correction the ay is
grammatically inexplicable ; and the
second and third give unnatural ex-
pressions. I believe the mistake is
in €YPEIN, and should suggest
€IPHNHNEYPEIN or EIPHNEYEIN,
or still better E€YHMEPEIN. If
εὐημερεῖν ‘to prosper’ be adopted,
the writer seems to have in mind
Ps. xxxiv. 9 sq φοβήθητετὸν Ki-
ριον πάντες... οὐκ ἔστιν ὑστέρημα τοῖς
φοβουμένοις αὐτόν.. φόβον Κυ-
ρίου διδάξω ὑμᾶς. τίς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος
ὁ θέλων ζωήν, ἀγαπῶν ἡμέρας ἰδεῖν
ἀγαθάς;...ἔκκλινον ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ
ποίησον ἀγαθόν, ζήτησον εἰρήνην
καὶ δίωξον αὐτήν, 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 εὐημερεῖν, evnuepia, comp.
2 Macc. v. 6, viii. 8, x. 28, xii. 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. ὃ 9 αἰώνιον for αἶνον αἰώνιον,

x] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 33

5 φύγωμεν τὴν ἀσέβειαν, μὴ ἡμάς καταλάβη κακα.

9 \
εαν

\ 7 3 ΄σ , ε ΄σ > /
yao σπουδάσωμεν ἀγαθοποιεῖν, διώξεται ἡμας εἰιρηνή.

\ f \ \ Cet 8 a7 ε ΄ »ὕ
Διὰ ταύτην yap τῆν αἰτίαν οὐκ ἔστιν Τεύρεῖν! ἀν-

οδοίπορον] AC; proditorem (as if προδότην) S. This rendering again may be due to

the obliteration of some letters in the word.

6 γὰρ] AS; δὲ C.

πουντεσ for ποιοῦντες, ἃ 11 ασουκ for
ἃς οὖς οὐκ. See also in the First
Epistle § 11 ετερογνωμοσ, § 25 τε-
λευτηκοτοσ, ὃ 32 ἡμερασ (for ἡμετέρας),
etc., and (if my conjecture be correct)
ὃ 40 the omission of ἐπιμελῶς before
ἐπιτελεῖσθαι. Lipsius (Academy July
ΟΣ 1870 ΘΟ. Jen. 77, 13 Jan.
1877) would read οὐκ ἔστιν εἰρήνη
ἀνθρώποις οἵτινες k.T.X.

Hilgenfeld (ed. 2, pp. xlvili, 77)
supposes that there is a great lacuna
at this point οὐκ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν ἄνθρω-
mov | οἵτινες παράγουσιν φόβους ἀν-
θρωπινούς κιτιλ. 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

ἁμαρτιῶν] A; ἁμαρτημάτων Ὁ.

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 στίχοι x’,
ῥητὰ κε. As Nicephorus (see I. p.
196) gives the numbers of στίχοι in
the two Clementine Epistles as ,B,’,
Bryennios supposes that x’ here is
an error for ,By’,the ,8having dropped
out. But, as Hilgenfeld himself has
pointed out, as the pra, 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,”0or as) 10:3 In my:
translation the two Epistles take up
respectively 341 and 1oj pages, these
numbers being almost exactly as
lOve 3:

(2) Again; though the two frag-

234 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [x

θρωπον, οἵτινες παράγουσι φόβους ἀνθρωπίνους, προη-
ρημένοι μᾶλλον τὴν ἐνθάδε ἀπόλαυσιν ἢ τὴν μέλλου-
σαν ἐπαγγελίαν. ἀγνοοῦσιν γὰρ ἡλίκην ἔχει βάσανον
ἡ ἐνθάδε ἀπόλαυσις, καὶ οἵαν τρυφὴν ἔχει ἡ μέλλουσα
ἐπαγγελία. καὶ εἰ μὲν αὐτοὶ μόνοι ταῦτα ἔπρασσον,
ἀνεκτὸν ἦν νῦν δὲ ἐπιμένουσιν κακοδιδασκαλοῦντες

\ 3 7 / 3 > / 4 \ e/
Tas ἀναιτίους ψυχάς, οὐκ εἰδότες ὅτι δισσὴν ἕξουσιν

\ / if \ - ΄σ
τὴν κρίσιν, αὐτοί τε καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες αὐτῶν.

ΧΙ.

τ ΄σ 53) 3 ~ ld ,
Ημεῖς οὖν ἐν καθαρᾷ καρδίᾳ δουλεύσωμεν

I προῃρημένοι! προαιρούμεθα AC. S translates, as if it had read προαιρούμενοι,

which was also conjectured by Bryennios.
ἡλίκην] ἡληκὴν A.
5 ἐπαγγελία] επαγγελεια A.

3 ἐπαγγελίαν] επαγγελειαν A.
ἀνάπαυσις (.

2 ἀπόλαυσιν] AS; ἀνάπαυσιν (.
4 ἀπόλαυσι:] AS;
6 ἀνεκτὸν ἦν] AC; 5

translates erat wis 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.
χχχῖν. 9 54 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
(καθόλου, τὰ φεῦκτα, ὑπόθεσις Kal ὕλη,
τὰ ἀσπαστὰ, kat εὐχήν), 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. οἵτινες] ‘men who, the antece-
dent being the singular ἄνθρωπον.
This grammatical irregularity is not
uncommon : see Jelf’s Gramm. ὃ 819.
2: ἃ.

παράγουσι κ.τ.λ.] “ Ζγηιήγοάπεε (instil)
fears of men’: comp. § 4 οὐ δεῖ
ἡμᾶς φοβεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους μᾶλλον
ἀλλὰ τὸν Θεόν. The passages in the

lexicons will show that Hilgenfeld’s
correction παρεισάγουσι for παράγουσι
is unnecessary. He rightly explains
the words (Afost. Vat. p. 118) torefer
to those Gnostics who taught that
outward conformity to heathen rites
was indifferent and that persecution
might thus be rightly escaped: comp.
κακοδιδασκαλοῦντες below, and see the
note above on ὃ 9 αὕτη ἡ σὰρξ κιτ.λ.

3. ἐπαγγελίαν] i.e. the subject,
the fulfilment, of the promise, as e.g.
Acts i. 4, Gal. ili. 14, Heb. vi. 15.

6. ἀνεκτὸν ἢν] For the imperfect
see Winer ὃ xlii. p. 321.

κακοδιδασκαλοῦντες) Ign. Philad. 2
κακοδιδασκαλίας. So καλοδιδασκάλους,
Tit,

7. δισσὴν «7.A.] For the form
of the sentence comp. Gen. xliii. 11
καὶ τὸ ἀργύριον δισσὸν λάβετε. Comp.
Afost. Const. v. 6 καὶ ἑτέροις αἴτιοι
ἀπωλείας γενησόμεθα καὶ διπλοτέραν
ὑποίσομεν τὴν τίσιν.

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-

Io

15

x1] AN ANCIENT HOMILY.

235

τῷ Ocew, καὶ ἐσόμεθα δίκαιοι: ἐὰν δὲ μὴ δουλεύσω-
μεν διὰ τοῦ μὴ πιστεύειν ἡμᾶς TH ἐπαγγελίᾳ τοῦ
Θεοῦ, ταλαίπωροι ἐσόμεθα. λέγει γὰρ καὶ ὁ προ-
φητικὸς λόγος" Tadait@pot εἶσιν οἱ δίψγχοι, οἱ διοτά-
ZONTEC TH KapAida, οἱ λέγοντεο' Tafta πᾶντὰ HKOYCAMEN
KAl ἐπὶ τῶν TATEPWN ἡμῶν, ἡμεῖς δὲ HMEPAN ἐξ ἡμέρδο
προοδλεχόμενοι οὐδὲν TOYTMN EWPAKAMEN. 'ANGHTOI, CYM-
βάλετε EAyTOYC ξύλῳ, AABETE AMTIEAON’ πρῶτον MEN φγλ-
Γίνετδι, META TafTa ὀμφὰξ, εἶτὰ

λοροεῖ, εἶτὰ BAactoc

different Greek. 7 ἀναιτίους] ανετιουσ A. 10 sq δουλεύσωμεν διὰ τοῦ
μὴ πιστεύειν κ.τ.λ.1 Α ; δουλεύσωμεν διὰ τὸ μὴ πιστεύειν κιτ.λ. C3 πιστεύσωμεν, διὰ

τὸ δεῖν πιστεύειν K.T.r. 8.
9. 14 πάντα] A; πάλαι CS.

AC; om. S. ἐπὶ] AC; ἀπὸ S.
A; φυλλορροεῖ 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. καθαρᾷ καρδίᾳ] 1 Tim. i. 5, 2
Tim. 11. 22 (comp. Matt. v. 8), Her-
mas )7s. 111: 9.

12. ὃ προφητικὸς λόγος] See 2 Pet.
1. 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) τῇ καρδίᾳ]
τὴν ψυχὴν (2) πάντα] om. (3) ἡμεῖς
δὲ.. ἑωράκαμεν] καὶ ἰδοὺ γεγηράκαμεν
καὶ οὐδὲν ἡμῖν τούτων συνβέβηκεν (4)
ἀνόητοι] ὦ ἀνόητοι. (5) γίνεται] add.
εἶτα φύλλον, εἶτα ἄνθος καὶ. (6) οὕ-
τως καὶ κ-ιτ.λ.] 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 ταλαίπωροι] AC; vere (ἀληθῶς or ὄντως) misert
ἠκούσαμεν] A; ἠκούομεν CS.

15 καὶ]

17 μὲν! AC; om. 9: φυλλοροεῖ]

18 μετὰ ταῦτα] AS; εἶτα C.

First. At the same time the coinci-
dence of two remarkable quotations
in this very chapter (see below on οὖς
οὐκ ἤκουσεν x.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 (υἱοὶ
after ἡμεῖς δέ, and ἔτι 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. ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας] ‘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 8. CLEMENT. [x1

CTAPYAH TAPECTHKYIA’ οὕτως Kal ὁ AAdC MOY AKATACTACIAC
\ ' 32: 32: > ! \ > , of
Kal BAIPEIC ECYEN’ ETEITA ATTOAHYETAL TA APA. Were,
> i? \ ΄σ 3 \ > , e
ἀδελφοί pov, μὴ διψυχώμεν, ἀλλὰ ἐλπίσαντες ὑπο-
/ .« \ \ \ , ‘ F
μείνωμεν, ἵνα καὶ Tov μισθὸν κομισώμεθα. πιοτὸς γὰρ
> hae) ͵ \ , > , e /
éctin ὁ ἐπάγγειλάμενος Tas ἀντιμισθίας ἀποδιδόναι ἑκα-

αὺ ᾽ 3 ~ \ oO / \
στῳ τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ. ἐαν οὖν ποιήσωμεν THY δικαι-

if > / > ΄σ 3 , > \ /
οσύνην ἐναντίον τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἰσηξἕομεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν

1 σταφυλὴ] AS; βλαστὸς C. ὁ λαός μου] AC; add. πρῶτον 5. 2 ἔπειτα)
επιτα A. 3 ἀλλὰ] ἀλλ᾽ C. 4 wa] AC; om. S. 8 οὖς
οὐκ ἤκουσεν οὐδὲ ὀφθαλμὸς εἶδεν] AC (but A acovx for ασουσουκ)ὴ ; oculus non
vidit et auris non audivit (transposing the clauses) S. This latter is the order in
1 Cor. iii. 9, and in Clem. Rom. 34. 9 εἶδεν] ev A. 12 ἐπειδὴ]

3. μὴ διψυχῶμεν] See the note on monly translated here ‘in horas’,

the First Epistle § 11.

4. πιστὸς yap «7.A.] Heb. x. 23
πιστὸς yap ὁ ἐπαγγειλάμενος.

5. ἀποδιδόναι ἑκάστῳ «.t.d.] Matt.
xvi. 27, Εοτη, 1ἴ Ὁ, Rev. xxi. 12: “See
also the quotation given in the First
Epistle, § 34. :

7. εἰσήξομεν) ‘Vocem εἰσήκειν non
agnoscunt lexica’, Jacobson. It oc-
curs as early as Aischylus, and
several instances of it are given in
Steph. Thes.

8. οὖς «.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 2.6 two shall be one,
and the outward as the inward, and
the male with the female, neither
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. καθ᾽ ὥραν] ‘detzmes,’ ‘tempes-
tive,’ according to its usual meaning ;
e.g. Job v. 26, Zech. xi 1. , Ttascom-

‘from hour to hour’.

13. ἐπιφανείας) This word, as a
synonyme for the παρουσία, occurs in
the New Testament only in the Pas-
toral Epistles, 1 Tim. vi. 14, 2 Tim.
i. 10, iv. I, 8, Tit. ii. 13; compare the
indirect use in 2 Thess. ii. 8 τῇ ἐπιφα-
veia τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ.

14. ὑπό τινος] By Salome. This
incident was reported in the Gospel
of the Egyptians, as we learn from
Clem. Alex. S¢vomz. iii. 13, p. 553 (in
a passage quoted from Julius Cassi-
anus), where the narrative is given
thus: πυνθανομένης τῆς Σαλώμης, πότε
γνωσθήσεται τὰ περὶ ὧν ἤρετο, ἔφη ὁ
Κύριος, Ὅταν τὸ τῆς αἰσχύνης ἔνδυμα
πατήσητε, καὶ ὅταν γένηται τὰ δύο ἕν,
καὶ τὸ ἄρρεν μετὰ τῆς θηλείας οὔτε
ἄρρεν οὔτε θῆλυ. To this Clement
adds ἐν τοῖς παραδεδομένοις ἡμῖν τέτ-
ταρσιν εὐαγγελίοις οὐκ ἔχομεν τὸ ῥητὸν
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ κατ᾽ Αἰγυπτίους. Similar
passages from this gospel and ap-
parently from the same context are
quoted by Clement previously, Stvom.
iii. 6 (p. 532) τῇ Σαλώμῃ ὁ Κύριος
πυνθανομένῃ μέχρι πότε θάνατος ἰσχύ-
σει..«Μέχρις ἄν, εἶπεν, ὑμεῖς αἱ γυναῖκες
τίκτετε, and Strom. ill. 9 (p. 539 54)

> -~ ΄ὕ A ‘\ ‘ >
κἀκεῖνα λέγουσι τὰ πρὸς Σαλώμην ei-

———————— °°

Io

X11] AN ANCIENT HOMILY.

237

΄σ \ / \ / « > ay
αὐτοῦ καὶ ληψόμεθα Tas ἐπαγγελίας, as οὖς οὐκ Hkoy-
CEN οὐδὲ ὀφθάλμος εἶλεν, οὐδὲ ἐπὶ KAPAIAN ἀνθρώπου
ἀνέβη.

XII.

i ~ 3 9 / \ / 3 \ 2 af
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀγάπη καὶ δικαιοσύνη, ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ol-

7 5 e/ \
Εκδεχώμεθα οὖν καθ᾽ ὥραν τὴν βασιλείαν
\ cee > Ὁ ν > > 9
δαμεν τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ Θεοῦ. ἐπερω-
\ \ 3 \ ε i ε / / e/
τηθεὶς γὰρ αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος ὑπὸ τινος, πότε ἥξει
A; ἐπεὶ C, or so probably 5. 13 émipavelas] επιφανιασ A. τοῦ Θεοῦ]

AC; αὐτοῦ 5. 14 ὑπό Twos] AC; add.
τῶν ἀποστόλων S. The addition is unfortunate, for the questioner was Salome; see

ἐπερωτηθεὶς] A; ἐρωτηθεὶς C.

the lower note.

ρημένα, ὧν πρότερον ἐμνήσθημεν (Strom.
iii. 6, just quoted) φέρεται δὲ, οἶμαι,
ἐν τῷ kar’ Αἰγυπτίους εὐαγγελίφ᾽ φασὶ
γὰρ ὅτι αὐτὸς εἶπεν ὁ σωτήρ, Ἦλθον
καταλῦσαι τὰ ἔργα τῆς θηλείας. ..ὅθεν
εἰκότως περὶ συντελείας μηνύσαντος τοῦ
Λόγου, ἡ Σαλώμη φησί" Μέχρι τίνος οἱ
ἄνθρωποι ἀποθανοῦνται ;... παρατετηρη-
μένως ἀποκρίνεται ὁ Κύριος, Μέχρις
ἂν τίκτωσιν αἱ γυναῖκες...τί δέ; οὐχὶ καὶ
τὰ ἑξῆς τῶν πρὸς Σαλώμην εἰρημένων
ἐπιφέρουσιν οἱ πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ τῷ κατὰ
τὴν ἀλήθειαν εὐαγγελικῷ στοιχήσαντες
κανόνι; φαμένης γὰρ αὐτῆς, Καλῶς οὖν
ἐποίησα μὴ τεκοῦσα... ἀμείβεται λέγων
ὁ Κύριος, Πᾶσαν φάγε βοτάνην, τὴν δὲ
πικρίαν ἔχουσαν μὴ φάγῃς. One of the
sayings in the last passage is again re-
ferred toin Exc. Theod. 67,p.985, ὅταν
ὁ σωτὴρ πρὸς Σαλώμην λέγῃ μέχρι τότε
εἶναι θάνατον ἄχρις ἂν αἱ γυναῖκες τίκτω-
σιν. 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 τί δὲ οὐχὶ x.7.A.3 for τί δέ; οὐχὶ
κιτιλ. in Strom. 111. 9), and the ex-
pressions λέγουσι, οἶμαι, φασί, 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

ἥξει] AC; σε, (a present) 5.

of our Lord’s utterances as reported in
the authentic Gospels, though entirely
in keeping with the tone of Grzeco-
Egyptian speculation. Epiphanius
thus describes this apocryphal gospel
(Haer. \xii. 2, p. 514) πολλὰ τοιαῦτα ὡς
ἐν παραβύστῳ μυστηριωδῶς ἐκ προσώπου
τοῦ σωτῆρος ἀναφέρεται. (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, καλῶς οὖν ἂν
ἐποίησα for καλῶς οὖν ἐποίησα. 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.
11. cc.), and by the Sabellians Epi-
phan. faer. |.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 Aegypt. 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

~ y = a 32 \ , a ‘
αὐτοῦ ἢ βασιλεία, εἶπεν" Ὅταν éctai τὰ δύο EN, Kal TO
ἐζῶ ὧς τὸ ἔσω, KAl τὸ APCEN μετὰ TAC θηλεῖδο, ΟΥ̓́ΤΕ
7 ” = 1 , \ a v4 ~
Xpcen οὔτε θῆλγ. Τὰ Ayo δὲ ἕν ἐστιν, ὅταν λαλῶ-

ε ~ ᾽ , \ > \ ΄ 2 ,
μεν ἑαυτοῖς ἀλήθειαν, Kat ἐν δυσὶ σώμασιν ἀνυποκρί-

7 / / \
τως ein μία ψυχή. καὶ

I sq τὸ ἔξω ὡς τὸ ἔσω] AS; τὰ ἔξω ὡς τὰ ἔσω C.
4 ἑαυτοῖς] C; αὐτοισ A; nobis S, which represents

3 δύο δὲ] A; δὲ δύο 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 δὲ 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 (ὃ 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 δύο δὲ ἔν] 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
Syuip. 191 Ὁ ὁ ἔρως. .-ἐπιχειρῶν ποιῆσαι
év ἐκ δυοῖν καὶ ἰάσασθαι τὴν φύσιν τὴν
ἀνθρωπίνην (quoted by Lagarde Rel.
Fur. Eccl. p75):

4. ἑαυτοῖς] “210 one another, as
eo. Ephes. iv, 32, Gol. “ii. 13, τὸ;
1 Pet. iv. 8, 10. If the reading of

To €2Z0 ὧς TO ECO,

TOUTO

2 θηλείας] θηλιασ A.

the MSS be correct, it must be aspi-
rated αὑτοῖς, and this form is perhaps
less unlikely than in the earlier and
genuine epistle (see the notes there
on δὲ 9, 12, 14, etc.). The expression
occurs in Ephes. iv. 25 λαλεῖτε ἀλή-
θειαν ἕκαστος μετὰ τοῦ πλησίον αὐτοῦ.
5. τὸ ἔξω ὡς τὸ ἔσω] 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. iii. 13, p.
553, quoted above), who thus appears
to have connected ra δύο ἕν closely
with τὸ ἄρρεν peta τῆς θηλείας and in-
terpreted the expression similarly.
See Hippol. Haer. v. 18 (p. 173 sq)
καὶ ἔστιν ἀρσενόθηλυς δύναμις καὶ ἐπί-
νοια, ὅθεν ἀλλήλοις ἀντιστοιχοῦσιν....ἕν
ὄντες... ἔστιν οὖν οὕτως καὶ τὸ φανὲν ἀπ᾽
αὐτῶν, ἕν ὄν, δύο εὑρίσκεσθαι, ἀρσενόθη-
Aus ἔχων τὴν θήλειαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, 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. 1. p. 72 E) ‘Unde Domi-
nus in mysterio dixerat: Si non fece-

xu] AN ANCIENT HOMILY.

239

λέγει: τὴν ψυχὴν λέγει TO ἔσω, TO δὲ ἔξω TO σῶ-
μα λέγει. ὃν τρόπον οὖν σου τὸ σῶμα φαίνεται, οὕ-
TWS καὶ ἡ ψυχή σου δῆλος ἔστω ἐν τοῖς καλοῖς ἔργοις.
καὶ τὸ APCEN μετὰ TAC θηλείδο, οὔτε ἄροεν OYTE ΘΗ͂ΛΥ,

ἑαυτοῖς. δυσὶ] A; δύο. 5 τὸ ἔξω] ὡς τὸ ἔσω AC; τὸ ἔσω ὡς τὸ ἔξω 5.
6 τὸ ἔσω, τὸ δὲ ἔξω] AS; τὸ ἔξω τὸ δὲ ἔσω C. 7 oUTws| οὕτω C. 8 δῆλος]

A; δήλη ΓΟ. 9 θηλείας] θηλιασ A.

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).

ὃ, δῆλος] The lexicons give only
one instance of this feminine, Eurip.
Med. 1197 δῆλος ἦν κατάστασις. Com-
pare τέλειον in Ign. Phzlad. τ.

9. καὶ τὸ ἄρσεν x.t.r.] 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 θυμός, the female
ἐπιθυμία, 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 ἀποστᾶσα τοῦδε τοῦ
σχήματος ᾧ διακρίνεται TO ἄρρεν καὶ τὸ
θῆλυ, ψυχὴ μετατίθεται εἰς ἕνωσιν, οὐθέ-
τερον οὖσα. It appears from the con-
text that our preacher’s interpretation

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 (S§ 6, 8, 9, 14, 15) are
as applicable to continency in wedded
as in celibate life. Comp. e.g. Clem.
Flom. 111. 26 γάμον νομιτεύει...εἰς ay-
veiay πάντας ἄγει.

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 οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ, Gal.
lili. 28. It 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 θυμὸς
and ἐπιθυμία. See also the views of
the Ophites on the ἀρσενόθηλυς (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 ἀρσενόθηλυς had their
origin in the cosmical speculations
embodied in heathen mythology ;
see Clem. Hom. vi. 5, 12, Clem. Re-
cogn. i. 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

240 THE EPISTLES: OF S. CLEMENT. [x1

~ / 4 > \ > \ 3 \ sek a
τοῦτο λέγει, ἵνα ἀδελφὸς ἰδὼν ἀδελφὴν + οὐδὲν Ἐ Φρονῇ
΄σ i? \ ΄σ΄ \ > “~ >
περὶ αὐτῆς OnAvKOV, μηδὲ φρονῆ τι περὶ αὐτοῦ ἀρσενικον.
mo ~ / 7
ταῦτα ὑμῶν ποιούντων, φησίν, ἐλεύσεται ἡ βασιλεία

τοῦ πατρός μου.
ΠῚ:

/ 3 \ \ 3 lé
νήψωμεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀγαθόν"

᾿λδελφοὲ touvt ἤδη ποτὲ μετανοήσωμεν"

μεστοὶ γάρ ἐσμεν πολλῆς

3 / “ A /
ἀνοίας καὶ πονηρίας. ἐξαλείψωμεν ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν Ta πρό-

1 τοῦτο] 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 οὖν.

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, πᾶσαν φάγε
βοτάνην, τὴν δὲ πικρίαν ἔχουσαν μὴ
φάγῃς, 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
πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν ἀλλ᾽ ov πάντα συμ-
φέρει, and to accord with the Apos-
tle’s injunctions respecting marriage.

I. οὐδέν] The previous editors,
while substituting φρονῇ for φρονεῖ,
have passed over οὐδέν in silence.
But with φρονῇ we should certainly
expect μηδέν. The reading οὐδέν
can only be explained by treating
οὐδὲν θηλυκόν aS a separate idea,
‘should entertain thoughts which
have no regard to her sex,’ so as
to isolate οὐδέν from the influence of
ἵνα; but the order makes this ex-
planation very difficult. The gram-
mars do not give any example of
the use of ov (οὐδέν) which is ana-
logous; see Kihner II p. 747 sq,

οὐδὲν φρονῃ] οὐδὲν φρονεῖ C.

2 μηδὲ]
5 ᾿Αδελφοὶ οὖν] ᾿Αδελῴφοί [μου] S,

As S commonly renders ἀδελῴοί alone by °AN fratres mez, it is

Winer § lv. p. 599 sq. The sentence
is elliptical, and words must be
understood in the second clause,
μηδὲ [ἀδελφὴ ἰδοῦσα ἀδελφὸν] φρονῇ
καιτιλ. 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 μηδ᾽ ἥδε; but ἥδε.. αὐτοῦ
does not seem a natural combination
of pronouns here.

3. φησίν] It does not follow that
the preacher is quoting the exact
words of the Gospel according to
the Egyptians; for φησίν may mean
nothing more than ‘he says in effect,’
‘he signifies.’ See e.g. Barnab. 7
οὕτω, φησίν, οἱ θέλοντές pe ἰδεῖν x.7.X.,
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 φησίν
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.

se)

xu]

AN ANCIENT HOMILY.

241

7 ΄σ ΄
τερα ἁμαρτήματα, καὶ μετανοήσαντες ἐκ ψυχῆς σωθῶ-

μεν.

καὶ μὴ γινώμεθα ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι: μηδὲ θέλωμεν

ΤΑ ε a 4.77 ’ \ \ a of 3 ,
μόνον ἑαυτοῖς ἄρέσκειν, ἀλλα καὶ τοῖς ἔξω ἀνθρώποις
> \ =~ / / NR. > - \

Ἐπ TH δικαιοσύνη, ἵνα τὸ ὄνομα OL ἡμᾶς μὴ βλασφη-
ἐ

“- / \ \ \ \ ey ͵

μῆται. Λέγει yap καὶ 6 Κύριος Διὰ πᾶντὸς τὸ ὄνομᾶ ΜΟΥ

” > a a ” \ / Sant >on
BAACDHMEITAI EN πᾶσιν τοῖς EONECIN’ καὶ παλιν OYai AP ON

uncertain whether the translator has μου in his text.

domini S. ἡμᾶς] S; ὑμᾶς C.
petra] add. δι᾽ ὑμᾶς 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. οὖν] This particle cannot stand
after the vocative, and indeed is
omitted in the Syriac. Perhaps οὖν
is a corruption of pov, as ἀδελφοί
μου occurs several times, $$ 9, 10, 11;
or the scribe has here tampered with
the connecting particles, as he has
done elsewhere (§ 7 ὥστε οὖν, ἀδελφοί
pov), and in this case has blundered.

6. νήψωμεν ἐπὶ x.t.A.] 2 Tim. 11. 26
ἀνανήψωσιν...εἰς τὸ ἐκείνου θέλημα,
I Pet. iv. 7 νήψατε εἰς προσευχάς,
Polyc. Phil. 7 νήφοντες πρὸς τὰς εὐχάς.

7. ἐξαλείψωμεν] Harnack quotes
Acts iii. 19 μετανοήσατε οὖν καὶ
ἐπιστρέψατε εἰς τὸ ἐξαλειφθῆναι
ὑμῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας.

9. ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι)] Ephes. vi. 6,
Col. iii. 22. See also the note on
ἀνθρωπαρεσκεῖν Ign. Rome. 2.

10, ἑαυτοῖς] ‘one another,

CLEM. II.

i.e.

πᾶσιν] om. 8.

II τὸ ὄνομα] add.
12) καὶ! S; om. €, * 13 βλασφη-
πάλιν Oval δι᾽ ὃν] 5; διὸ C. See

‘our fellow-Christians, as rightly
explained here by Harnack; comp.
§ 4 ἐν τῷ ἀγαπᾶν ἑαυτούς, ὃ 12 λαλῶμεν
ἑαυτοῖς ἀλήθειαν, but not ὃ 15.

τοῖς ἔξω ἀνθρώποις) ‘the heathen.
For the expression of ἔξω see the
note Colossians iv. 5.

II. τὸ ὄνομα] ‘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. Διὰ παντὸς x.t.A.] From the
LXX Is. hi. 5 rade λέγει ὁ Κύριος, Av
ὑμᾶς διὰ παντὸς τὸ ὄνομά μου βλα-
σφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. The Syriac
translator inserts 6” ὑμᾶς, and omits
πᾶσιν ; but these are obvious altera-
tions to conform to the familiar Lxx
of Isaiah.

13. καὶ πάλιν Οὐαὶ κιτ.λ.}] 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 homceoteleuton), 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

bal \ 3, ’ 3 / σ΄ 5
Βλδοφημεῖτδι τὸ ὄνομά Moy’ ἐν τίνι βλασφημεῖται ;
3 ΄ \ ~ ε ΄σ a / \ af 7
ἐν τῷ μὴ ποιεῖν ὑμᾶς a βούλομαι. τὰ ἔθνη γάρ,
’ 7 “- / ε ΄σ \ ~ “-
ἀκούοντα ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ἡμῶν τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ,
ε \ \ / + ,
ws καλὰ καὶ μεγάλα θαυμάζει: ἔπειτα, καταμαθόντα
\ / ~ e/ af sf ΄ € / -“-
τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν OTL οὐκ ἔστιν ἀξια τῶν ρημάτων ὧν 5
/ a} 3 fe , ei
λέγομεν, ἔνθεν εἰς βλασφημίαν τρέπονται, λέγοντες
ὧν = , \ / « \ ,
εἶναι μῦθόν τινα καὶ πλάνην. ὅταν yap ἀκούσωσιν
Cie εὐ ee / 4 e \ 2 ͵ coon eet a
παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ὃτι λέγει ὁ Θεος ΟΥ̓ χάρις ὑμῖν εἰ ἀγὰπᾶτε

, c

ToYc AfAaTT@NTAC YMAC, ἀλλὰ χᾶρις ὑμῖν εἰ ἀγὰπᾶτε TOYC

1 ἐν τίνι] add. δὲ S: comp. 8 3.
3 ἡμῶν] 5; ὑμῶν Ὁ.

add. τότε 8.

difficulty. If the first quotation Διὰ
παντὸς κιτιλ. is taken from Is. lii.
5, whence comes the second Οὐαὶ
k.7.A.2 The explanation seems to
be, that Is. 111. 5 itself was very
frequently quoted in the early ages
Οὐαὶ δ᾽ ὃν (or δι’ οὗ) κιτιλ. (See
instances collected in the note to
Ign. Zyvall. 8), though there is no
authority for it either in the LXX 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. ἐν τίνι κιτ.λ.] 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 ταῦτα ὑμῶν ποιούντων k.T.d., ὃ 14
τηρήσατε τὴν σάρκα x.t.A. The read-
ing of the Syriac, μὴ ποιεῖν ἡμᾶς a
λέγομεν, is obviously a correction
to overcome this difficulty. For other
examples where this preacher begins
his explanations with ἐν rim see

S$ 3, 9-

4 ἔπειτα] add. δὲ 5.
S, the word being doubtless added to bring out the force of μῦθον.

2 ὑμᾶς ἃ βούλομαι] ἡμᾶς ἃ λέγομεν] 8.
7 μῦθόν τινα] add. delzriz
9 ἀλλὰ]

10 ἐχθροὺς] add. ὑμῶν 5. The addition of pronouns is very

3. τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ] A synonyme
for the Scriptures ; comp. Rom. iii.
2; ‘Heb; ve"12-<Glem:y Roni 1ojag 3:
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. 1. £. iii. 39 Ματθαῖος.. συνε-
γράψατο ra λόγια, which must have
been nearly contemporaneous; see
Essays on Supernatural Religion p.
170 sq. Similarly our author above
§ 2 quotes a gospel as γραφή.

4. ἔπειτα κιτ.λ.] Apost. Const. 11. ὃ
ὃ τοιοῦτος... βλασφημίαν προσέτριψε τῷ
κοινῷ τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ,
ὡς μὴ ποιούντων ἐκεῖνα ἃ λέγομεν εἶναι
καλὰ k.T.A.

ὃ. λέγει ὁ Θεός] ‘ God saith.’ The
passage quoted therefore is regarded
as one of τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ. As the
words of our Lord follow, it might
perhaps be thought that the expres-
sion λέγει ὁ Θεός refers not to the
Divine inspiration of the Gospel,
but to the Divine personality of
Christ, of whom the writer says § 1
οὕτως δεῖ ἡμᾶς φρονεῖν περὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ
Χριστοῦ ὡς περὶ Θεοῦ. But, not to

XIV]

το ἐχθροὴς Kal TOYC MICOYNTAC YMAC’

AN ANCIENT HOMILY.

243

- e/
ταῦτα ὅταν ἀκού-

σωσιν, θαυμαζουσιν τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς ἀγαθότητος"

«“ἶ Δεν J 3 ΄ \ > 3 >
οΟοταν δὲ ἴδωσιν OTL οὐ μονον TOUS μισουντας OVK αγα-

πὶ 3 Ce τῷ ΑΙΝΝ ἢ \ ᾽ ΄σ ΄σ
πῶμεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι οὐδὲ τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας, καταγελώσιν

e ΄σ ~ AY
ἡμῶν, καὶ βλασφημεῖται TO ὄνομα.

XIV. “ὥστε, ἀδελφοί, ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ

\ € A πὶ 7 > - > / ΄σ f
TAT POS HRV Θεοῦ ἐσόμεθα ΕΚ Τῆς ἐκκλησίας Ths σρω-

A ~ - \ / \ tA 3
της; τῆς πνευματικῆς, τῆς προ ἥλιου καὶ σελήνης ἐκτισ-

common in §; ahd I have not thought it necessary to record several instances

which occur below.
translation.
add. τοῦ Χριστοῦ S.

14 καὶ] om. S.

mention that such a mode of speak-
ing would be without a parallel in
the early ages of Christianity, the
preceding τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ deter-
mines the sense here.

Ov χάρις «.t.A.] A loose quotation
from Luke vi. 32, 35 εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς
ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἐστίν ;
«πλὴν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμών...
καὶ ἔσται ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολύς. For the
use of χάρις comp. I Pet. ii. 19, 20.

II. ἀγαθότητος] ‘goodness’ in the
sense of ‘kindness,’ ‘ beneficence,’
as ἀγαθοποιεῖν 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 ἀγαθωσύνη.

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 ὅτι] om. S, perhaps owing to the exigencies of
βλασφημεῖται] add. οὖν S.

τὸ ὄνομα]

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. τῆς πρώτης κιτ.λ.] 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 ὁ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ
εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ ἐν τοῖς ἐπου-
ρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ, καθὼς ἐξελέξατο
ἡμᾶς ἐν αὐτῷ πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου
οὐ προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς υἱοθεσίαν 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 zeon ‘Ecclesia,’ thus car-
rying the Platonism of our pseudo-
Clement a step in advance.

17. πρὸ ἡλίου k.t.A.] This expres-
sion is probably taken from Ps.
Ixxi (Ixxii). 5 συμπαραμενεῖ τῷ ἡλίῳ

16—2

244

THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

[xiv

μένης" ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ποιήσωμεν TO θέλημα Κυρίου, ἐσόμεθα

ἐκ τῆς γραφῆς τῆς λεγούσης Ἐγενήθη ὁ οἶκός. ΜΟΥ

CTTHAAION ληστῶν.

lal ΄σ εν e/ ~
ἐκκλησίας τῆς ζωῆς εἶναι, ἵνα σωθώμεν.

2 ἐκ τῆς γραφῆς τῆς λεγούσης] ex zis de quibus scriptum est S.
οὖν] C; ὥστε, ἀδελφοί [μου] S, omitting οὖν.

καὶ πρὸ τῆς σελήνης γενεὰς γενεῶν

and 2d. ver. 17 πρὸ τοῦ ἡλίου διαμενεῖ

τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ; for though in these
passages, as the Hebrew shows, πρὸ
has or ought to have a different
meaning (Aquila eis πρόσωπον τῆς
σελήνης, Symmachus ἔμπροσθεν τῆς
σελήνης), yet it was commonly so
interpreted, as appears from Justin
Dial. 64 (p. 288) darodeixvurat...dre
οὗτος (i.e. ὁ Χριστός) καὶ πρὸ τοῦ
ἡλίου ἦν, in proof of which statement
he cites the passages just quoted ;
comp. 7. 45 (p. 264) os καὶ πρὸ
ἑωσφόρου καὶ σελήνης ἦν, 34 (p. 252),
76 (p. 302); and so Athanasius c.
Arian. i. 41 (1. p. 351) ef δὲ καί, ws
ψάλλει Δαυΐδ ev τῷ ἑβδομηκοστῷ πρώτῳ
ψαλμῷ, Πρὸ τοῦ ἡλίου διαμένει τὸ
ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, καὶ πρὸ τῆς σελήνης εἰς
γενεὰς γενεῶν, πῶς ἐλάμβανεν ὃ εἶχεν
ἀεὶ k.t.A. Similarly too in his ...120-ς.
in Psalm, \xxi (1. p. 897) he explains
the two expressions, vv. 5, 17, πρὸ
αἰώνων and πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου
respectively. Meanwhile Eusebius
Comm. in Psalm. ad loc. (OP. V. Pp.
800 ed. Migne) had mentioned and
rejected this meaning; ov γὰρ πρὸ
τῆς σελήνης, τούτεστι πρὶν γενέσθαι
τὴν σελήνην, ἀλλ᾽
ἔμπροσθεν ἡγούμενος τῆς σελήνης.

For the idea see esp. Hermas zs.
li. 4 Tis οὖν ἐστίν; φημί. Ἢ ᾿Ἐκκλησία,
φησίν. εἶπον οὖν αὐτῷ, Διὰ τί, οὖν
πρεσβυτέρα; Ὅτι, φησίν, πάντων πρώτη
ἐκτίσθη" διὰ τοῦτο πρεσβυτέρα, καὶ διὰ
ταύτην ὁ κόσμος κατηρτίσθη, quoted by
Bryennios. Comp. also Orig. ἐς. Ces.
vi. 35, where speaking of the phrase

‘ a
ἐνώπιον ὥσπερ Kal

J ΩΣ / A ΄-
ὥστε οὖν αἱρετισώμεθα ἀπὸ τῆς

af
οὐκ οἴομαι

3 ὥστε
See above, p. 240.

ἀπορροίας ἐκκλησίας ἐπιγείου which
Celsus had attributed among other
absurdities to the Christians, he
writes, raya ἐλήφθη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑπό τινων
λέγεσθαι ἐκκλησίας τινὸς ἐπουρανίου
καὶ κρείττονος αἰῶνος ἀπόρροιαν εἶναι
τὴν ἐπὶ γῆς ἐκκλησίαν. And see the
passages quoted in the notes on
τὰ βιβλία κιτιλ. and ἀντίτυπον. Hil-
genfeld quotes Clem. Alex. Strom.
iv. ὃ (p. 593) εἰκὼν δὲ τῆς οὐρανίου
ἐκκλησίας ἡ ἐπίγειος (this father has
just before cited Ephes. v. 21 sq,
Col. iii. 18 sq), 2%. vi. 13 (p. 793)

Cane a ‘ ‘ > if mi
αἱ ἐνταῦθα κατὰ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν προκοπαὶ

, Ἂν > - ,
«ὐὐμιμήματα, οἶμαι, ἀγγελικῆς δόξης
κἀκείνης τῆς οἰκονομίας τυγχάνουσιν

ἣν ἀναμένειν φασὶν αἱ γραφαὶ τοὺς κατ᾽
ἴχνος κιτιλ.

2. ἐκ τῆς γραφῆς 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 μὴ σπήλαιον λῃστῶν ὁ οἶκός μου, οὗ
ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ
x.T.A., to which also our Lord alludes
(Matt. xxi, 139, Miark ΧΙ 17, yluke
xix. 46). For the application here
comp. Afost. Const. 11, 17.

3. ὥστε οὖν] A pleonasm which
our author repeats elsewhere; 85 4, 7.

αἱρετισώμεθα)] ‘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. τῆς ζωῆς] Harnack writes ‘Iu-
daeorum synagoga est ecclesia mor-

xiv]

\ ε ΄ ΄ «“ /
56€ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν OTL ἐκκλησία
\ \ ? ' c \ ‘

λέγει γὰρ n γραφὴ “Enoincen ὁ Θεὸς τὸν

Χριστοῦ"

AN ANCIENT HOMILY.

245

Cara C@MA €CTIN

By ” \ A \ af \ y
ἄνθρωπον Apcen Kal BAAY’ TO ἀρσεν ἐστὶν ὁ XpioTos,

~ \ τ \ 7 \ fy
τὸ θῆλυ ἡ ἐκκλησία" Kal ὅτι Ta βιβλία Kal οἱ ἀπόστο-

8 τὸ θῆλυ] C; καὶ τὸ θῆλυ 8.
Lrophetarum 5.

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. σῶμά ἐστιν Χριστοῦ] Ephes. i.
23 τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἥτις ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα
αὐτοῦ; comp. 20. iv. 4, 12 sq, 16,
25; 50) Rom: ΧΠ 5; '1,Cor.x. 17,
Mii ta—2 7h Colles. 18, (245° 110 10,
11: 15:

6. πποίησεν, Κατ Δ] Gen. i. 27
ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, κατ᾽
εἰκόνα Θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν" ἄρσεν καὶ
θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς. The applica-
tion seems to be suggested by 5.
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
μυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστίν" ἐγὼ δὲ
λέγω εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ [εἰς] τὴν ἐκκλη-
σίαν.

ὃ. καὶ ὅτι] 5οπθ words have
evidently dropped out in the MS
here: see the introduction, I. p. 144
sq. The lacuna is conveniently sup-
plied by λέγουσιν δῆλον after ἄνωθεν,
as I have done. This seems to me
better than the more obvious solution
of Bryennios, who would attach this
ὅτι to the preceding ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, and
understand merely φασί or διδάσκουσι
or the like. The Syriac translator
omits the ὅτι and inserts a λέγουσι
or some similar word. This is
clearly an arbitrary correction.

τὰ βιβλία καὶ of ἀπόστολοι] This is

καὶ ὅτι] atgue etiam S.

τὰ βιβλία] add.

a rough synonyme for the Old and
NewTestaments respectively. Though
the Apostolic and Evangelical writ-
ings are elsewhere in this epistle
treated as γραφαί (ὃ 2) and even as
λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ (ὃ 13), being thus co-
ordinated in point of authority with
the Old Testament, yet the term
τὰ βιβλία, ‘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 ReZ. Sacr. 1. p. 15;
comp. Anastas. Of. p. 860, Migne)
says, Παπίου τοῦ πάνυ τοῦ Ἱεεραπολίτου
τοῦ ἐν τῷ ἐπιστηθίῳ φοιτήσαντος, καὶ
Κλήμεντος Πανταίνου τῆς ᾿Αλεξαν-
δρέων ἱερέως, καὶ ᾿Αμμωνίου σοφωτά-
του, τῶν ἀρχαίων καὶ πρώτων συνῴδων
ἐξηγητῶν, εἰς Χριστὸν τὴν
ἐκκλησίαν πᾶσαν τὴν ἑξαήμερον νοη-
σάντων. We might almost suppose
that Anastasius was here alluding
to our pseudo-Clement, if he had
not in a parallel passage (p. 962

\
και

246

THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

[XIV

if ia io \ ᾿
λοι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν οὐ νῦν εἶναι, ἀλλὰ ἄνωθεν [ λέγουσιν,

΄σ Ὧν \ / ε Ni τοὶ ὁ - ε ΄σ >

δῆλον)" ἦν yap πνευματική, ὡς καὶ ὁ Ιησοῦς ἡμῶν, ἐφα-
᾿ \ ΟΜΝ] 3 / ~ ε ΄“ / e lo ᾽ὔ

νερώθη δὲ ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἵνα ἡμᾶς σώση

ον 7 \ \ ὌΝ > ΄ 3 -~ \
ἡ ἐκκλησία δὲ πνευματικὴ οὖσα ἐφανερωθη ἐν TH σαρκί

1 οὐ νῦν] add. dicunt 5.

λέγουσιν δῆλον] om. CS; see the lower note.

2 ὡς Kal ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἡμῶν, ἐφανερώθη δὲ x.7.d.] e¢ vir etus autem (δὲ) spiritalis est, ts

qui est iesus christus dominus noster, manifestatus est autem, etc. S.

Migne), where he is again enume-
rating ancient interpreters who ex-
plained the statements respecting
paradise in Genesis as eis τὴν Χριστοῦ
ἐκκλησίαν ἀναφερόμενα, specified Κλή-
μης ὁ Στρωματεύς. 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 ecclestarum, 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 ἡμε-

a confirmation of his view in πόλει
Θεοῦ ζῶντος Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ...
πανηγύρει καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων ἀπο-
γεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς (xii. 22, 23).
Again such words as Apoc. xxi. 9, 10,
THY νύμφην τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ apviov...
τὴν ἁγίαν Ἱερουσαλὴμ καταβαίνουσαν
ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, would
suit his purpose admirably.

I. οὐ νῦν κιτ.λ.] “ποέ now for the
first time, but from the beginning’.
For this sense of ἄνωθεν see Luke
i. 3, Acts xxvi. 5; comp. Justin Dad.
24 (p. 242) ὥσπερ ἄνωθεν ἐκηρύσσετο,
2b. 63 (p. 286) ὅτι ἄνωθεν ὁ Θεὸς...
γεννᾶσθαι αὐτὸν ἔμελλε, where it is an
explanation of πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐγέννησά
σε. Harnack compares Gal. iv. 26,
etc., but the opposition to viv here
suggests the temporal rather than
the local meaning of ἄνωθεν.

2. 6 Ἰησοῦς ἡμῶν] SC. πνευματικὸς
ἦν, 50 that ὁ Ἰησοῦς, not ἡ ἐκκλησία,
is the nominative of ἐφανερώθη : comp.
ὃ 9 Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος, ὁ σώσας ἡμᾶς,
ὧν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα, ἐγένετο
σὰρξ καὶ οὕτως ἡμᾶς ἐκάλεσεν. For
ἐφανερώθη δὲ κιτιλ. comp. I Pet. 1.
20 Χριστοῦ προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ
καταβολῆς κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δὲ
ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου (vl. ἐσχάτων) τῶν χρύ-
νὼν Ov ὑμᾶς κιτ.λ.

3. ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν] ‘when
the days were drawing to a close’,
‘at the end of all things’; a not
uncommon LXxX expression, Gen.
xlix. 1, Deut. iv. 30 (v.1), Dan. ii.
285%: 14, Hesitit., δ. Miciwavenm);sand

Χιν] ΑΝ

ANCIENT HOMILY.

247

A a CoA «“ 27 ε oS 4 5 \
5 Χριστοῦ, δηλοῦσα ἡμῖν ὅτι, ἐάν τις ἡμῶν τηρήση αὐτὴν
ἐν τῆ σαρκὲ καὶ μὴ φθείρη, ἀπολήψεται αὐτὴν ἐν τῷ
4 pk Bn bee 1 ] f

/ at ας ἢ ε « 3 , ᾽
πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ" ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ αὕτη ἀντίτυπος ἐστιν
“Ὁ \ iy \ I 7 A
TOU πνεύματος" οὐδεὶς οὖν TO ἀντίτυπον φθείρας τὸ

ρῶν] cemporum 5. 7 ἀντίτυπος] ( ; typus S, and so τὸ ἀντίτυπον just below;
but this is probably owing to the poverty of the language.

so 2 Pet. ii. 3, but in Heb. i. 2 the
correct reading is ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν
ἡμερῶν.

4. ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ Χριστοῦ] When Christ
took a bodily external form, the
Church did the same. Moreover this
external form might be said to be
ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, since the Church
exists by union with Him.

5. τηρήσῃ αὐτήν] ‘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 παραστῆσαι
ἔνδοξον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, μὴ ἔχουσαν
σπῖλον ἢ ῥυτίδα K.T.A.

6. ἀπολήψεται αὐτήν] i.e. by being
incorporated in the celestial, spiritual
Church.

8. τὸ ἀντίτυπον] ‘the counterpart,
or copy’. The Platonic doctrine of
ideas underlies these expressions.
The αὐθεντικόν is the eternal, spiritual
archetype, the orzgimal 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 (1. p. 116) προεκόμισε χεῖρα
ὁλόγραφον αὐθεντικήν, i.e. ‘written
from first to last by his own hand’,
The ἀντίτυπον is the material, tem-
porary manifestation, the imperfect
and blurred ¢vauscrifit of the original :
comp. Synes. δ 2252. 68 (p. 217) rots
Taxvypapos τὰ ἀντίτυπα δοῦναι τῶν
τότε γραφέντων ἐπέταξα, Epist. in
Athan. Aol. c. Arian. 85 (1. p. 158)
τῷ ἀντιτύπῳ τοῦ θείου γράμματος. For
ἀντίτυπον, thus contrasted with the
heavenly and true, comp. Heb. ix. 24
ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν, where the
ἀντίτυπα are defined in the context
as τὰ ὑποδείγματα τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς
and the ἀληθινά as αὐτὰ τὰ ἐπουράνια.
See also the anonymous Valentinian
in Epiph. Haer. xxxi. 5 (pp. 168, 169)
ἀντίτυπος τοῦ προόντος ᾿Αγεννήτου, av-
τίτυπον τῆς mpoovons τετράδος. And
more especially for the pseudo-Cle-
ment’s teaching here compare the
Valentinian language, Iren. i. 5. 6
ὃ δὴ καὶ αὐτὸ ἐκκλησίαν εἶναι λέγουσιν,
ἀντίτυπον τῆς ἄνω ᾿Ἐκκλησίας.
In such senses ἀντίτυπον depreciates
relatively ; and with this meaning
the material elements in the eucha-
rist were commonly called by the
fathers ἀντίτυπα of the body and
blood of Christ,e.g. Apost. Const. v.14,
Vi. 30, vil..25: see Suicér Zhesis.v,
On the other hand ἀντίτυπον is some-
times opposed to τύπος, as the fin-
ished work to the rough model, the
realization to the foreshadowing, in
which case it extols relatively; comp.
WP Ret i. 21,

248

3 \ /
αὐθεντικὸν μεταλήψεται.

THE EPISTLES OF 5. CLEMENT.

[Χιν

/ ᾿ lol /
dpa οὖν τοῦτο λέγει, ἀδελ-

/ A , « ~ id
poi, Τηρήσατε THY σάρκα ἵνα TOU πνεύματος μετα-

λαβητε.

3 \ Υ͂ Ss \ , \ 3 /
εἰ δὲ λέγομεν εἰναι THY σάρκα τῆν ἐκκλησιαν

\ \ ~ , af Ἐν ς ε / \ ᾿-
καὶ τὸ πνευμα Χριστόν, αρὰ ουν O ὑβρίσας την σαρκα

e/ \ > 7,
ὕβρισεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν.

΄σ / J /
ψεται τοῦ πνεύματος, ὅ ἐστιν ὁ Χριστος.

΄ 5 “
ὁ τοιοῦτος οὖν οὐ μεταλή-

7
TOT AUTH

δύναται ἡ σὰρξ αὕτη μεταλαβεῖν ζωὴν καὶ ἀθανασίαν,

“ 3 “ ~ / fos c ,
κολληθέντος αὐτῇ τοῦ πνευματος TOU αγίου.

af
OUTE

> - “ ᾽} “ae ray ε ; ς
ἐξειπεῖν τις δύναται οὔτε λαλῆσαι ἃ ἡτοίμδοεν ὁ

Κύριος τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς αὐτοῦ.

XV. Οὐκ οἴομαι δὲ ὅτι μικρὰν συμβουλίαν ἐποιη-

/ \ / a / /
σάμην περὶ ἐγκρατείας, NV ποιήσας TIS οὐ μετανοήσει;

1 μεταλήψεται) CS.

In C however it was first written ἀπολήψεται, and μετα is
written above by the same hand. See the note on φιλοπονεῖν below, ὃ 19.

4 ὁ

ὑβρίσας...τὴν ἐκκλησίαν] ἐξ gui contumelia affecit carnem suam contumelia affecit
carnem christi ecclesiam S. This might possibly represent ὁ ὑβρίσας τὴν σάρκα
[τὴν ἰδίαν, τοῦ χριστοῦ τὴν σάρκα] ὕβρισεν, τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, the words in brackets
having been omitted in C by homeeoteleuton; but I am disposed to regard it as

I. dpa οὖν 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, § ὃ
ἄρα οὖν τοῦτο λέγει Τηρήσατε THY σάρκα
ἁγνὴν κιτιλ. It is almost impossible
however to trace the connexion of
thought in so loose a writer.

3. τὴν σάρκα] as being the dody
of Christ. This language does not
occur in S. Paul, for in Ephes. v. 30
ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ is an interpolation.
The relation of Christ to the Church
is represented by S. Paul as that of
the dead to the body, whereas here it
is that of the sfzrz¢ 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
Stn

7. μεταλαβεῖν] With an accusa-
tive, as eg. Acts xxiv. 25, and com-
monly in classical writers. On the
different sense of the two cases with
this verb see Kihner II. p. 294 sq.
The propriety of the change here
will be obvious. Similarly ro av6ev-
τικὸν μεταλήψεται above.

8. τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου] See
above, I. Ρ. 125. The language here
is still more unguarded than in § 9.

9. ἐξειπεῖν] ‘express’; Clem. Rom.
48

ἃ ἡτοίμασεν] A reference to the

Το

15

290

xv] AN ANCIENT HOMILY.

249

3 \ \ € \ if > \ A /
ἄλλα Kal ἑαυτὸν σώσει Kaue τὸν συμβουλεύσαντα.
\ 3 \ / \
μισθὸς yap οὐκ ἔστιν μικρὸς πλανωμένην ψυχὴν Kal
> , > / > \ ~ 7 \
απολλυμένην ἀποστρέψαι εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι. ταύτην yap
af / ΄σ ΄σ ΄σ 5 7
ἔχομεν τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἀποδοῦναι τῷ Θεῷ τῷ κτίσαντι
e ΄σ \ ς ff \ Li \ \ > ,
ἡμάς, ἐὰν ὁ λέγων καὶ ἀκούων μετὰ πίστεως Kal ἀγάπης
\ fe \ > 7 > / 5 3.5 e 3 /
καὶ λέγη Kal econ: ἐμμείνωμεν οὖν ἐφ᾽ ols ἐπιστεύ-
“ Nae J , 2 a
σαμεν δίκαιοι Kal ὅσιοι, ἵνα μετὰ παρρησίας αἰτώμεν
\ \ \ / 3: a a > a 2? \ ,
τὸν Θεὸν τὸν λέγοντα Ἔτι λὰλοῦντός coy ἐρῶ idAoy πᾶρ-
- \ \ > / \ /
ΕἸΜΙ τοῦτο Yap TO ῥῆμα μεγάλης ἐστὶν ἐπαγγελίας
΄ / \ \ / / 3
σημεῖον: ἑτοιμότερον γὰρ ἑαυτὸν λέγει ὁ Κύριος εἰς

A / ~ > ~
TO διδόναι TOU αἰτοῦντος.

merely a paraphrastic rendering of S.

λέγων καὶ ἀκούων] S translates as if it had read 8 re λέγων καὶ ὁ ἀκούων.
πίστεως καὶ ἀγάπης] cum caritate et cum fide S, transposing the words.
repetition of the preposition see above, I. p. 137.

΄ > ΄
τοσαύτης ουν χρηστοτητος

11 ἐποιησάμην] add. ὑμῖν 8. ΤῊ ὁ
μετὰ
On the

22 εἰς TO διδόναι τοῦ αἰτοῦντος]

in illud ut det petitionem ejus qui petit ab ipso S, thus supplying a substantive to

govern τοῦ αἰτοῦντος and mistaking the sense.

23 τοσαύτης...μεταλαμβάνοντες]

guoniam igitur hac jucunditate et bonitate dei jucundamur S.

same passage of which part has been
already quoted by our preacher at
the end of ὃ 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. οἴομαι͵)]͵ The word has oc-
curred twice already in this writer
SS 6, 14.

13. καὶ ἑαυτὸν κιτ.λ.} 1 Tim. iv. 16

kal σεαυτὸν σώσεις καὶ τοὺς ἀκούοντάς
σου. See also below, ὃ 19. Harnack
quotes Barnab. I μᾶλλον συγχαίρω
> Led Ε) , “ μὴ > ΄-
ἐμαυτῷ ἐλπίζων σωθῆναι, ὅτι ἀληθῶς
βλέπω ἐν ὑμῖν ἐκκεχυμένον..-πνεῦμα.
14. μισθὸς κιτ.λ.] James ν. 20 ὁ ἐπι-
΄ Ε A > , c “
στρέψας ἁμαρτωλὸν ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ
αὐτοῦ σώσει ψυχὴν ἐκ θανάτου κοτ.λ.
16. ἀντιμισθίαν] A favourite word
with our author, especially in this
connexion; see the note on ὃ 1.
19. δίκαιοι kai ὅσιοι] See on §S§ 1, 5.
20. Ἔτι λαλοῦντος x.7.A.] Is. lviii.
c ‘ > ‘ , » ΄σ
9 ὁ Θεὸς εἰσακούσεταί σου, ἔτι λαλοῦν-
Tos σου ἐρεῖ Ἰδοὺ πάρειμ. Comp.
Afost. Const. iii. 7, where, as here, it
is quoted ἐρῶ (though with a v.1.),
probably (as Lagarde points out)
from a confusion with Is. lxv. 24 ἔτι
λαλούντων αὐτῶν ἐρῶ, Ti ἐστιν; So too
it is given ‘dzcam’ in Iren. iv. 17. 3,
but ἐρεῖ in Justin Dal. 15 (p. 233).
“ > a > ‘ > ΄“
23. του αἰτοῦντος] SC. εἰς TO αἰτειν
‘more prompt to give than the asker

250 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [xv

μεταλαμβάνοντες μὴ φθονήσωμεν ἑαυτοῖς τυχεῖν τοσού-
των ἀγαθών. ὅσην γὰρ ἡδονὴν ἔχει τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα
τοῖς ποιήσασιν αὐτά, τοσαύτην κατάκρισιν ἔχει τοῖς
παρακούσασιν.

XVI. “ὥστε, ἀδελφοί, ἀφορμὴν λαβόντες οὐς
μικρὰν εἰς τὸ μετανοῆσαι, καιρὸν ἔχοντες ἐπιστρέψωμεν
ἐπὶ τὸν καλέσαντα ἡμᾶς Θεόν, ἕως ἔτι ἔχομεν τὸν
παραδεχόμενον ἡμᾶς. ἐὰν γὰρ ταῖς ἡδυπαθείαις ταύ-
ταις ἀποταξώμεθα καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἡμῶν νικήσωμεν ἐν

I τοσούτων] (; τοιούτων (9) 8.

σοῦ] domini nostri 1651 christi S.

is to ask’; as in the Collect ‘more
ready to hear than we to pray’. The
Syriac translator has misunderstood
the sense.

XVI. ‘Therefore let 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. ἀφορμὴν λαβόντες) So Rom.
vii. 8, 11. Conversely ἀφορμὴν δι-
Sova, 2 Cor. v. 12, 1 Tim. v. 14, Ign.
Trall. 8.

6. καιρὸν ἔχοντες] 50 ὃ 8 ἕως
ἔχομεν καιρὸν μετανοίας, § 9 ὡς ἔχομεν
καιρὸν τοῦ ἰαθῆναι.

7. τὸν παραδεχόμενον)] It is yet
the καιρὸς εὐπρόσδεκτος (2 Cor. vi. 2).

ἡδυπαθείαις] See again § 17. Not

5 5 ἀδελφοί] add. ἀγαπητοί 8.
δεχόμενον] πατέρα δεχόμενον (IIPA for ΠΑΡΑ) C; patrem qui accipit 8.

8 παρα-
11 ’In-
τό κρείσσων νηστεία προσευχῆς] Ὁ;

a Biblical word. On this word, which
was highly distasteful to the Stoics,
see Wyttenbach on Plut. Mor. 132
c. It occurs at least as early as
Xenophon, Cyr. vii. 5. 74.

9. ἀποταξώμεθα) See on § 6.

11. ἔρχεται x.7.A.] Mal. iv. 1 ἰδοὺ
ἡμέρα ἔρχεται καιομένη ws κλίβανος.

13. twes} This is obviously cor-
rupt, though both our authorities
are agreed, I think that for rwes we
should probably read [ai] δυνάμεις,
the expression being taken from Is.
XXXIV. 4 kal τακήσονται πᾶσαι ai δυνά-
pets τῶν οὐρανῶν ; comp. Afpoc. Petr.
in Macar. Magn. iv. 7 (p.165, Blondel)
kal τακήσεται πᾶσα δύναμις οὐρανοῦ.
Where the MS was torn and letters
had dropped out, it might easily be
read tinec. Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 7, 10,
Orac. Sib. 111. 689 sq, Melito Afol. 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. ὦ
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

~ \ - \ > / =~ \ ,
Io TW My ποιέειν TAs ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῆς Tas Tovynpas, μετα-

ληψόμεθα τοῦ ἐλέους ᾿Ι]ησοῦ.

/ Nee 3:
Γινώσκετε δὲ ὅτι ἔρχεται

af ε c , Ge / c ' ' \
ἤδη ἡ ἡμέρὰ τῆς κρίσεως WC κλίβανος κἀιόμενοο, Kal

᾿ ͵ a > a \ ΄ ~
TAKHCONTal {τινες τῶν OYpAN@N, καὶ πᾶσα ἡ γῆ ὡς

> \ \ / \ / , \
μόλιβος ἐπὶ πυρὶ THKOMEVOS, καὶ τότε φανήσεται Ta

/ \ \ af a 3 fe
15 κρυῴφια καὶ φανερὰ ἔργα τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

\
καλὸν οὖν

/ If / /
ἐλεημοσύνη ὡς μετάνοια ἁμαρτίας: κρείσσων νηστεία

προσευχῆς; ἐλεημοσύνη δὲ ἀμφοτέρων: AFI Ne" [πῶς

bonum jejunium, oratio, S; but probably }! has dropped out.
would bring the Syriac into conformity with the Greek.

add. melior (κρείσσων) 8.

Quaest. ad Orthod. 74 probably refers
to this passage: see I. p. 178 sq.

14. μόλιβος] This seems to be the
correct form in the LxXxX generally,
Exod. xv. 10, Num. xxxi. 22, Job
xix. 24, etc. Both μόλιβος and μόλιβ-
dos are certified by their occurrence
in metre.

15. κρύφια καὶ φανερά] An exhaus-
tive expression: comp. Wisd. vii. 21
ὅσα τέ ἐστι κρυπτὰ καὶ ἐμφανῆ ἔγνων.

καλὺν οὖν κιτ.λ.7 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, 4724/. 126, quoted above,
δι. This however may be doubt-
ful. The preacher seems to be
thinking of Tobit xii. ὃ, 9 ἀγαθὸν
προσευχὴ μετὰ νηστείας Kal ἐλεημοσύ-
νης καὶ δικαιοσύνης... καλὸν ποιῆσαι
ἐλεημοσύνην ἢ θησαυρίσαι χρυσίον᾽
ἐλεημοσύνη γὰρ ἐκ θανάτου ῥύεται καὶ
αὕτη ἀποκαθαριεῖ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν, where
the first sentence as read in S is
ἀγαθὸν προσευχὴ μετὰ νηστείας καὶ
ἐλεημοσύνη μετὰ δικαιοσύνης ὑπὲρ ἀμ-
φότερα. Here the very same function
ex θανάτου ῥύεσθαι, 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 ἐλεημοσύνη δὲ]

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 some words had been trans-
posed and others perhaps omitted.

16. ὡς μετάνοια ἁμαρτίας] ‘as repent-
ance frou 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
ἐλεημοσύνη here has its restricted
sense of ‘almsgiving’, as in every
passage where it occurs in the N.T.

17. ἀμφοτέρων] See Ecclus. xl.
24 ὑπὲρ ἀμφότερα ἐλεημοσύνη ῥύσε-
tat, where however the ἀμφότερα
are ἀδελφοὶ καὶ βοήθεια εἰς καιρὸν
θλίψεως.

ἀγάπη δὲ κιτ.λ.] 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 καλύψει πλῆθος
ἁμαρτιῶν seems still to be used of the
sins of others, but in the sense of

252 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [xvi

λύπτει πλῆθος AMAPTION’ προσευχὴ δὲ ἐκ καλῆς συνει-
δήσεως ἐκ θανάτου ῥύεται. μακάριος πᾶς ὁ εὑρεθεὶς
ἐν τούτοις πλήρης" ἐλεημοσύνη γὰρ κούφισμα ἁμαρ-
τίας γίνεται.

XVILI.

μή τις ἡμών παραπόληται.

/ oy 4 / /
Μετανοήσωμεν οὖν ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας, iva
> \ \ a]
εἰ yap ἐντολας ἔχομεν,
«“ σα id \ ΄σ τ ᾽ >
ἵνα καὶ τοῦτο πράσσωμεν, ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων ἀποσπᾶν

7 ἵνα καὶ τοῦτο πράσσωμεν] so apparently S; καὶ τοῦτο πράσσομεν (om. ἵνα) Ge:
Similar omissions of ἵνα appear in AC in ὃ 48 ἐξομολογήσωμαι (where S is correct),

and in S itself in ii § 11 κομισώμεθα (where AC are correct).

10 περὶ] C; ad

(adversus) S, as if πρός: but it perhaps does not represent a different reading.

\ , U Η
12 προσέχειν καὶ πιστεύειν] S; πιστεύειν καὶ προσέχειν C.

‘burying them from the sight of
God, wiping them out by the con-
version and repentance of the sinner’.
On the other hand our preacher
seems certainly to take it as mean-
ing ‘atones for a multitude of one’s
own sins’, as it is taken by some
modern commentators: and so too
Tertull. Scorp. 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 Quis 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 Stvowm. 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 ἀφέωνται
αὐτῆς αἱ ἁμαρτίαι ai πολλαί, ὅτι ἠγάπη-
σεν πολύ---Δὴ 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, καλῆς συνειδήσεως] Heb, xiii.
18. A commoner expression is ἀγαθὴ

“14. els οἶκον ἀπαὰ-

συνείδησις ; see the note Clem. Rom.
41. For καθαρὰ συνείδησις see Clem.
Rom. 45 with the note.

2. ἐκ θανάτου ῥύεται] This is said
of ἐλεημοσύνη in Tobit iv. 10, xii. 9
(already quoted); and of δικαιοσύνη,
which also signifies ‘almsgiving’, in
Prov. x. 2, xi. 4; but not of προσευχή.
See the note on καλὸν οὖν k.t.A. above.

3. ἐν] Comp. Ecclus. 1. 6 σελήνη
πλήρης ἐν ἡμέραις.

ἐλεημοσύνη γὰρ k.t.A.] Prov. xvi. 6
(xv. 27) ἐλεημοσύναις καὶ πίστεσιν
ἀποκαθαίρονται ἁμαρτίαι, Ecclus. iil. 30
ἐλεημοσύνη ἐξιλάσεται ἁμαρτίας : Comp.
Dan. iv. 24 τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου ἐν ἐλεη-
μοσύναις λύτρωσαι (Theod.).

κούφισμα ἁμαρτίας) i.e. ‘removes
the load of sin’, as with Bunyan’s
pilgrims. So 3 Esdr. viii. 83 ov, Κύ-
ple, ὁ κουφίσας τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν,
comp. Ezr. ix. 13 ἐκούφισας ἡμῶν τὰς
avop.las.

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

10

ΧυΠ]

AN ANCIENT HOMILY.

253

A ~ / ΄σ \ + 7
καὶ κατηχεῖν, πόσω μάλλον ψυχὴν ἤδη γινώσκουσαν

A \ ΄ / / Ss ~
Tov Θεὸν ov δεῖ ἀπόλλυσθαι; συλλάβωμεν οὖν ἑαυτοῖς

\ \ 3 “ > , \ \ ’ " Jf
καὶ TOUS ἀσθενοῦντας αναγειν περι TO ayalov, OTT WS

a vA ᾽ / > ἢ ‘
σωθώμεν ἅπαντες" Kal ἐπιστρέψωμεν ἀλλήλους καὶ

/
νουθετήσωμεν.

of ~~ /
Kal μὴ μόνον αρτι δοκῶμεν προσέχειν

7ὔ lod ΄ ΄σ \ -~
καὶ πιστεύειν ἐν τῷ νουθετεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς ὑπὸ τών πρεσ-

fe > A Niguel > SO > ΄σ
βυτέρων, ἄλλα καὶ ὅταν εἰς οἰκον ἀπαλλαγωμεν, μνη-

λαγῶμεν] C; domum dimtssi fuerimus et cessaverimus ab omnibus S. The variation
might easily be explained by an omission in C owing to homeeoteleuton, but it is
more probably a periphrastic rendering of S to express the full force of ἀπαλλάτ-

τεσθαι: 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. Μετανοήσωμεν x.t.A.] The ex-
pression μετανοεῖν ἐξ ὅλης [τῆς] καρδίας
has occurred already § 8, and will
occur again § 19; comp. also § 9
μετανοῆσαι ἐξ εἰλικρινοῦς καρδίας.

6. παραπόληται)]͵ ‘perish by the
qway, i.e. ‘unexpectedly, through care-
lessness, without sufficient cause’; as
e.g. Lucian Gymn. 13 ὁρῶ οὐδενὸς
μεγάλου ἕνεκα παραπολλυμένας, Vigr.
13 δέδοικα μὴ παραπόληται μεταξὺ
λουόμενος, Hermot. 21 περιόψει pe
παραπολόμενον.

ἐντολὰς ἔχομεν] It was our Lord’s
command, Matt. xxviii. 19 sq; comp.
Mark xvi. 15. If we adopt the reading

of the Greek MS, καὶ τοῦτο πράσσομεν
must be taken as parenthetical so
far as regards the structure, ‘and we
obey this command’; so that azo-
σπᾶν will then be governed by ἐν-
Todas ἔχομεν.

9. συλλάβωμεν κ.τ.λ.] ‘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 καί. For ἑαυτοῖς
see the note on ὃ 13; and for ἀνάγειν
comp. Clem. Rom. 49.

11. καὶ ἐπιστρέψωμεν] to be con-
nected with συλλάβωμεν, and not
made dependent on ὅπως, as it is
punctuated by Bryennios.

12. μὴ μόνον apte «.t.rA.] This
clearly shows that the work before
us is a sermon delivered in church ;
comp. ὃ 19 pera τὸν Θεὸν τῆς ἀληθείας
ἀναγινώσκω ὑμῖν ἔντευξιν κ-ιτ.λ.

13. τῶν πρεσβυτέρων] ‘the pres-
byters, who delivered their exhorta-
tions after the reading of the Scrip-
tures; see the note on ὃ 19 μετὰ
τὸν Θεὸν «.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 , id \ 3
μονεύωμεν τῶν τοῦ Κυρίου ἐνταλμάτων, καὶ μὴ ἀντι-
/ > a ~ “ 3 “ 3 A
παρελκώμεθα ἀπὸ τῶν κοσμικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν, ἀλλὰ
/ ᾿ /
πυκνότερον προσερχόμενοι πειρώμεθα προκόπτειν ἐν
- ~ - / .« if \ \
ταῖς ἐντολαῖς Tov Κυρίου, iva πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ φρο-
a y as \ \ / > \
VOUVTES συνηγμένοι ὠμεν ἐπὶ τὴν Conv. εἶπεν yap ὁ
Κύριος "Epyomal CYNarareiN πᾶντὰ τὰ ἔθνη, φγλὰς Kal
Ξ ΄σ΄ \ / A ς / ~ > f
rA@ccac: τοῦτο δὲ λέγει τὴν ἡμεραν τῆς ἐπιφανείας
a ε ? \ i > «ἶ \ \
αὐτοῦ, ὅτε ἐλθὼν λυτρώσεται ἡμᾶς ἕκαστον κατὰ τὰ

/ ~ \
ἔργα αὐτοῦ. καὶ

» ι ͵
ΟΨΟΝΤᾺΙ THN AOZAN

= \ \
αὐτοῦ καὶ TO

/ e " \ id > he A
KPATOS οἱ ἄπιστοι, και ξενισθήσονται ἰδόντες τὸ βα-

3 προσερχόμενοι] ( ; προσευχόμενοι 8.

7 τὴν ἡμέραν] super (de) die 8.

9 τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ κράτος] sloriam ejus in robore et potestate S. This again
might be explained by an omission in C owing to the repetition of similar begin-
nings of words, τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ [κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν (or τὴν ἰσχὺν)] Kal τὸ Kpdros;

but such an expression in Greek would be very awkward.
therefore that robur et potestas is a double rendering of τὸ κράτος.

third person, by a common form of
speech, to avoid egotism: comp. e€.g.
Clem. Rom. 63 ἡσυχάσαντες τῆς pa-
ταίας στάσεως... καταντήσωμεν.

I. ἀντιπαρελκώμεθα] ‘be dragged
off in the opposite direction’ ; comp.
Pers. Saz. v. 154 ‘duplici in diversum
scinderis hamo’. The lexicons do
not give this word.

2. κοσμικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν] The ex-
pression occurs Tit. 11. 12. The word
κοσμικὸς iS apparently not found in
the LXx, and only once besides (in
a somewhat different sense) in the
ΝΎ" Heb. 1x. 1.

3. πυκνότερον προσερχόύμενοι] ‘com-
ing more frequently’, i.e. ‘to this
place of meeting’, or perhaps ‘to
the presence of God’ (comp. Heb.
x 1, 22, Clem: Romi’23."20)) ἢ
these injunctions to more frequent
services, see the note on Ign. EZ.
13 σπουδάζετε πυκνότερον συνέρχεσ-
Oat; comp. ib. Polyc. 4 πυκνότερον
συναγωγαὶ γινέσθωσαν. The Syriac
reading however may be correct.

It is more probable
The preposi-

5. ὁ Κύριος] 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.r-A.] From Is. xvi. 18
ἔρχομαι συναγαγεῖν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη καὶ
τὰς γλώσσας, καὶ ἥξουσι καὶ ὄψονται
τὴν δόξαν pov. There is nothing cor-
responding to φυλὰς 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. ili. 7 πάντα τὰ ἔθνη
φυλαὶ καὶ γλῶσσαι in the LXx.

7. τοῦτο δὲ λέγει] ‘but by this he
means’: see the note on § 8,

τὴν ἡμέραν «t.A.]| The same ex-
pression has occurred § 12, where
see the note on ἐπιφανείας.

8. λυτρώσεται] It is called ἡμέρα
ἀπολυτρώσεως in Ephes. iv. 30. For
other passages, where ἀπολύτρωσις
refers to the final redemption, see
Luke xxi. 28, Rom. viii. 23.

ἕκαστον k.t.\.] As only those who

Io

15

xvil| AN ANCIENT HOMILY.

255

,ὔ ΄σ / 3 “5 La) / 3} TING ἀτεῖν res
σίλειον Tou κόσμου ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ λέγοντες, Οὐαὶ ἡμῖν,
J \ oO \ I \ > > / \
OTL σὺ ἧς καὶ οὐκ ἤδειμεν καὶ οὐκ ἐπιστεύομεν, Kal

Ε > £ ~ , σ΄: > /
οὐκ ἐπειθόμεθα τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις τοῖς ἀναγγέλλουσιν

΄ ~ / “ ἢ , > a >
ἡμῖν περὶ τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν" καὶ Ὁ οκώληξ AYTON ΟΥ̓
τελεγτήςει κἀὶ τὸ πῆρ δγτῶν OY CBECOHCETAI κἀὶ ECONTAI
> σ ' ' \ / 7, , -
εἶς Spacin πάσῃ capki. THY ἡμέραν ἐκείνην λέγει τῆς

«.« sf \ > ε« 7 \

κρίσεως, ὅταν ὄψονται τοὺς ἐν ἡμῖν ἀσεβήσαντας καὶ
3 \ > \ > ~ ΄σ ε
παραλογισαμένους Tas ἐντολὰς ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. οἱ

\ / 7 / \ /
δὲ δίκαιοι εὐπραγήσαντες Kal ὑπομείναντες Tas Baca-

tion (in place of the conjunction) may then be accounted for in two ways; (1) The

translator read κατὰ κράτος for καὶ τὸ κράτος ; or (2) A Syriac transcriber inadver-

tently wrote 3 for 1. The latter explanation seems to be more probable: see

above, p. 181. το idévtes] C; εἰδότες (from céo|res) S. II τοῦ

κόσμου] mundi huius S. See the note on § 19 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ.

-

Se λέγοντες] et teenc 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 λυτρώσεται.

9. καὶ ὄψονται], A continuation
of the quotation from Isaiah, the
intervening words being a paren-
thetical explanation. See also Matt.
xxiv. 30, Rev. i. 7.

10. ξενισθήσονται]͵ ‘shall be a-
ΩΣ, as 1 Pet..iv. Δ. 12. The
active ξενίζοντα, ‘ perplexing’, ‘amaz-
ing’, occurs in Acts xvii. 20. This
sense is found in Polybius and from
his time onward. See also the note
on ἕξενισμόν, Ign. Ephes. το.

τὸ βασίλειον] ‘the kingdom’ or
‘ sovereignty’; see the note on ἃ 6.
We must understand ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ
‘in the hands, in the power, of Jesus’,
as in the common idiom εἶναι ἔν τινι:
see Rost u. Palm Griech. Worterd.
s.v. ἐν 1: 2. b.

12. σὺ ἧς] ‘Thou wast He’; see
esp. John viii. 24 ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσητε
ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς

ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ] om.
17 ἡμῖν] 5; ὑμῖν C.

ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν, 2. ver. 28 τότε γνώ-
σεσθε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, xiii. 19 ἵνα
πιστεύσητε...ὅτι ἐγὼ εἰμι. The
preacher seems to be alluding to
this language of our Lord, as re-
corded by St John.

14. ὁ σκώληξ κιτ.λ.] From Is. ]xvi.
24, the last verse of the prophet.
Our preacher has already quoted
this passage, § 7; see the note there.

17. ὅταν ὄψονται] ‘when men shall
see’, the nominative being sug-
gested by the preceding εἰς ὅρασιν
πάσῃ σαρκί. For the future indica-
tive with ὅταν see Winer xlii. p. 388;
but no dependence can be placed on
the MS in such a case.

18. παραλογισαμένους] ‘played false
with’, ‘attempted to cheat’; see
Ign. Magn. 3 τὸν ἀύρατον παραλογί-
ζεται (with the note). See 4 Esdr,
vii. 72 with Bensly’s note (p. 63).

19. εὐπραγήσαντες] If the reading
be correct, it must mean ‘having
been virtuous’ and not (as else-
where) ‘having been prosperous’ ;
comp. δικαιοπραγεῖν.

256 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [xvi

\ / A ε 7 ΄ ~ e/
vous καὶ μισήσαντες Tas ἡδυπαθείας τῆς ψυχῆς, ὅταν
/ Ms ΤᾺ if A
θεάσωνται τοὺς ἀστοχήσαντας Kal ἀρνησαμένους διὰ
΄σ , ΠῚ \ ΄σ A \ 3 ΄ e/ ,
τῶν λόγων ἢ διὰ τῶν ἔργων Tov ᾿Ιησοῦν, ὅπως κολά-
oS / \ 3 , sf 7
ζονται δειναῖς βασάνοις πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ, ἔσονται δόξαν
΄ ΄ lod / 4 \
διδόντες τῷ Θεῷ αὐτῶν, λέγοντες ὅτι "EoTar ἐλπὶς 5
΄ , ~ « ,
τῷ δεδουλευκότι Θεῷ ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας.

XVIII.

, ΄σ , ΄σ ΄σ΄ \ \ > a
στουντῶν, Τῶν δεδουλευκότων Tw Θεῷ, καί ΜΉ εκ Τῶν

Καὶ ἡμεῖς οὖν γενώμεθα ἐκ τῶν εὐχαρι-

͵ > ~ \ \ 3 \ \
κρινομένων ἀσεβῶν. Kal yap αὐτὸς πανθαμαρτωλὸς

ΩΣ \ / \ \ , ? hee) J a’ 3
ὧν καὶ μήπω duywy Tov πειρασμον, ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι ὧν ἐν 10

2 διὰ] ἢ διὰ 5.
5 διδόντες) S; δόντες C.

I. ἡδυπαθείας] See the note on §16.

2. ἀστοχήσαντας)] ‘missed the
mark’, ‘gone astray’; see 1 Tim.
1 Ὁ; vi. 21, 2 Tim: ii, 19. ‘The word
is not uncommon in Polybius and
later classical authors.

4. πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ᾽ Matt. ili, 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. πανθαμαρτωλός] The word is
not given in the lexicons. Compare
πανθαμαρτητός Afost. Const. vii. 18,
Barnab. 20 (where the MSS agree in
writing it without an aspirate), παντά-
δικος Philo de Creat. Pr. 3 (11. p. 362).

11. ὀργάνοις] ‘the custruments,
engines’; comp. Ign. Rom. 4. The
word does not occur in the N.T.;
and in the LXxX it seems to be ap-
plied only to musical instruments,

4 πυρὶ] C3 δ zgne S.
7 οὖν] add. ἀδελφοί [μου] 8.
φεύγων C; S has D'S which perhaps represents φυγών.

ἔσονται] add. ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει 8.

Io φυγὼν]
15 ἔντευξιν 7 C;

or military engines, or the like.
The metaphor here 15 probably
military; comp. 2 Macc. xii. 27
ἐνθάδε ὀργάνων καὶ βελῶν πολλαὶ
παραθέσεις, and see Ephes. vi. 16
ta βέλη τοῦ πονηροῦ [τὰ] πεπυρωμένα.
The preacher finds himself ἐν ἀμφι-
Bor», the enemy having environed
him with his engines of war.

12. δικαιοσύνην διώκειν] A phrase
occurring in the Pastoral Epistles,
1 Tim. vi. ΕἸ; 2 Tim, ii. 22\(comp:
Rom. ix. 30).

κἂν ἐγγύς] ‘at all events near,
if I cannot actually reach it’. For
this use of κἂν comp. Ign. Ephes. 10
κἂν ἐκ τῶν ἔργων, 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.

257

μέσοις τοῖς ὀργάνοις τοῦ διαβόλου, σπουδάζω τὴν
δικαιοσύνην διώκειν, ὅπως ἰσχύσω κἀν ἐγγὺς αὐτῆς
γενέσθαι, φοβούμενος τὴν κρίσιν τὴν μέλλουσαν.
XIX. “ὥστε, ἀδελφοὶ καὶ ἀδελφαί, μετὰ τὸν
15 Θεὸν τῆς ἀληθείας ἀναγινώσκω ὑμῖν ἔντευξιν εἰς τὸ
προσέχειν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις, ἵνα καὶ ἑαυτοὺς σώσητε
καὶ τὸν ἀναγινώσκοντα ἐν ὑμῖν: μισθὸν γὰρ αἰτῶ ὑμᾶς
τὸ μετανοῆσαι ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας σωτηρίαν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ

\ , - \ / \ A
ζωὴν διδόντας. TOUTO γὰρ σοιησαντες σκοσῖον σασιν

supplicationem, zd est, admonitionem S; clearly a gloss. See I. p. 141. S
governs τῆς ἀληθείας by ἔντευξιν. 17 τὸν ἀναγινώσκοντα ἐν ὑμῖν] me gui lego
vobis verba (or oracula) det S. 19 σκοπὸν] S; κόπον C. This reading of 5

was anticipated by Bensly, Gebhardt, and Hilgenfeld.

belief obscure our sense of right and
wrong ; and our understandings are
darkened by our lusts. Let us prac-
tise righteousness. Blessed are they
who obey these precepts. They may
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.’
14. ἀδελφοὶ καὶ ἀδελφαί] Comp.
δ 20. So Barnab. 1 υἱοὶ καὶ θυγα-
τέρες, Rel. Fur. Eccl. p. 74 (Lagarde).
pera τὸν Θεὸν κ-τ.λ.] 1.6. ‘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 Aol.
i. 67 συνέλευσις γίνεται kal τὰ ἀπομνη-
μονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων ἢ τὰ συγ-
γράμματα τῶν προφητῶν ἀναγινώσκεται,
μέχρις ἐγχωρεῖ" εἶτα, παυσαμένου τοῦ
ἀναγινώσκοντος, ὁ προεστὼς διὰ λόγου
τὴν νουθεσίαν καὶ πρόκλησιν τῆς τῶν

CLEM. II.

καλῶν τούτων μιμήσεως ποιεῖται ; Orig.
c. Cels. ii. 50 καὶ δ ἀναγνωσμάτων
καὶ dua τῶν εἰς αὐτὰ διηγήσεων προτρέ-
ποντες μὲν ἐπὶ τὴν εἰς τὸν Θεὸν τῶν
ὅλων εὐσέβειαν καὶ τὰς συνθρόνους ταύ-
Tn ἀρετάς, ἀποτρέποντες δὲ k.t.d. ; Apost.
Const. ii. 54 μετὰ τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν καὶ
τὴν Ψαλμῳδίαν καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ ταῖς γρα-
φαῖς διδασκαλίαν. See also the notes
on $17 μὴ μόνον ἄρτι x.t.A. and the
introduction, p. 195. For the ex-
pression ὁ Θεὸς τῆς ἀληθείας see
$ 3 τὸν πατέρα τῆς ἀληθείας (comp.
§ 20). Its use here as ἃ synonyme
for the Scripture is explained by the
preacher’s language above § 13, τὰ
λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ, λέγει ὁ Θεύς.

15. ἔντευξιν] ‘appeal’ ‘entreaty’;
as e.g. Justin Aol. 1. 1 (p. 53);
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. ἵνα καὶ κιτ.λ.] Comp. Ezek. iii. 21.

18. μετανοῆσαι x.t.A.] See the note

δ 17.

17

258 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [XIX

- {A if ~ he \ \ ᾽ /
τοῖς νέοις θήσομεν Tots βουλομένοις περὶ THY εὐσέβειαν
\
καὶ μὴ
> ΄σ of \ > ΄σ ε ν᾽ «
ἀηδώς ἔχωμεν καὶ ἀγανακτῶμεν οἱ ἄσοφοι, ὅταν τις

καὶ τὴν χρηστότητα ποῦ Θεοῦ φιλοπονεῖν.

ἡμᾶς νουθετῇ καὶ ἐπιστρέφη ἀπὸ τῆς ἀδικίας εἰς THY
δικαιοσύνην. ἐνίοτε γὰρ πονηρὰ πράσσοντες οὐ γινώ-
σκομεν διὰ τὴν διψυχίαν καὶ ἀπιστίαν τὴν ἐνοῦσαν ἐν
τοῖς στήθεσιν ἡμῶν, καὶ ἐεκοτίομεθὰ THN AIANOIAN ὑπὸ
τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν τῶν ματαίων. πράξωμεν οὖν τὴν δι-
καιοσύνην ἵνα εἰς τέλος σωθῶμεν. μακάριοι οἱ τούτοις

ε 7 = , \ / l
ὑπακούοντες τοῖς προσταγμασιν᾽ κἀν ὀλίγον χρονον

2 φιλοπονεῖν] manifestent amorem laboris S: see Michaelis in Castell. Zex. .57)7.
Ρ. 656. The scribe of C has first written φιλοσοφεῖν, but has afterwards corrected

it so as to be read φιλοπονεῖν.

siptentes S. 5 ἐνίοτε] 5; ἔνια C.

See p. 206.

3 οἱ ἄσοφοι] C3 tanguam illi in-

11 τῷ κόσμῳ] S; add. τούτῳ C. I have

the less hesitation in striking out τούτῳ 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.
ἀθάνατον] S; δὲ θάνατον C. The correction was obvious, even before the reading
of S was known; and the only question was whether to read τὸν δ᾽ ἀθάνατον or

2. φιλοπονεῖν] Ecclus. Prol. τῶν
κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν πεφιλοπονημένων.
The word occurs in classical writers
of the best age.

3. μὴ ἀγανακτῶμεν] Clem. Rom.
56 παιδείαν ef 7 οὐδεὶς ὀφείλει
ἀγανακτεῖν.

ot ἄσοφοι] ‘fools that we are’, for
this is the force of the article; comp.
δ 1 of ἀκούοντες (with the note). For
ἄσοφος 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. διψυχίαν]͵ As above ὃ 11 μὴ
διψυχῶμεν. See the notes on Clem.
Rom. 11,23. To the references there
given add Barnab. 19 ov μὴ διψυχήσῃς
πότερον ἔσται ἢ οὔ.

7. ἐσκοτίσμεθα κιτ.λ.] From Ephes.
iv. 17, 18, ἐν ματαιότητι τοῦ νοὸς av-
τῶν, ἐσκοτωμένοι (V. 1. ἐσκοτισμένοι)

τῇ διανοίᾳ ; comp. Clem. Rom. 36 ἡ
ἀσύνετος καὶ ἐσκοτωμένη διάνοια ἡμῶν.

10. ὀλίγον χρόνον κιτ.λ.] Comp.
1 Pet. i. 6 ὀλίγον ἄρτι, εἰ δέον, λυπη-
θέντες, ν. 10 ὀλίγον παθόντας. For
κακοπαθεῖν see 2 Tim. ii. 9, iv. 5,
James v. 13; comp. συγκακοπαθεῖν,
2 ΕΠ ΤΙ 1 Sa, 55:

12. καρπὸν τρυγήσουσιν] Hos. x. 12
σπείρατε ἑαυτοῖς εἰς δικαιοσύνην, τρυ-
γήσατε εἰς καρπὸν ζωῆς.

13. μακάριος αὐτὸν κιτ.λ.] See Hip-
pol. de Univ. p. 69 (Lagarde) ἡ τῶν
πατέρων δικαίων τε ὁρωμένη ὄψις πάν-
τοτε μειδιᾷ ἀναμενόντων τὴν μετὰ
τοῦτο τὸ χωρίον ἀνάπαυσιν καὶ αἰωνίαν
ἀναβίωσιν.. ἀλλὰ καὶ οὗτοι [οἱ ἄδικοι]
τὸν τῶν πατέρων χορὸν καὶ τοὺς
δικαίους ὁρῶσι, καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ τούτῳ
κολαζόμενοι... καὶ τὸ σῶμα.. δυνατὸς
ὁ Θεὸς ἀναβιώσας ἀθάνατον ποιεῖν,
and lower down ἀποφθέγξονται
φωνὴν οὕτως λέγοντες, Δικαία σου ἡ
κρίσις, and again τὸ πῦρ ἄσβεστον

τ

20

ΧΧ] AN ANCIENT HOMILY.

259

, - / \ ’ ΄-
κακοπαθήσωσιν ἐν τῷ κόσμω, τὸν ἀθάνατον τῆς ἀνα-
fe \ / \ Oy / ε >
στάσεως καρπὸν τρυγήσουσιν. μὴ οὖν λυπείσθω ὁ εὐ-
/ \ > \ ~ ~ / a 7
σεβής, ἐὰν ἐπὶ τοῖς νῦν χρόνοις ταλαιπωρῆ" μακάριος
> \ 7 ff ΄σ of \ ~ /
αὐτὸν ἀναμένει XPOVOS' ἐκεῖνος ἄνω μετὰ τῶν πατέρων
> / > / > \ 3 , 2. σ
ἀναβιώσας εὐφρανθήσεται εἰς τὸν ἀλύπητον αἰώνα.
3 \ ὌΝ... A \ 7 ε a
XX. ᾿ᾳαλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνο τὴν διάνοιαν ὑμῶν Tapac-
/ .« ld \ 2y/ ΄σ \
σέτω, OTL βλέπομεν τοὺς ἀδίκους πλουτοῦντας, Kal
΄ \ a ~ id
στενοχωρουμένους τοὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ δούλους. πιστεύωμεν
ὩΣ ᾽ \ ‘ 7 > - ΄- 3 a
οὖν, ἀδελφοὶ καὶ ἀδελφαί: Θεοῦ ζῶντος πεῖραν ἀθλοῦμεν,
\ , - κα πο τῇ - ,
καὶ γυμναζόμεθα τῷ νῦν βίῳ ἵνα τῷ μέλλοντι στεφανω-

τὸν ἀθάνατον.
for ἀθανάτου γνώσεως in S itself.

For another instance of the same error comp. ὃ 36 θανάτου γνώσεως

12 τρυγήσουσιν] delectabuntur...in S, i.e.

τρυφήσουσιν ; for the same word (ODA) and its derivatives are used to translate

τρυφή. ὃ το, and τρυφή, ἐντρυφᾶν 2 Pet. il. 13.
to χρόνος and punctuates after πατέρων.

S has ἡμῶν) μὴ ταρασσέτω τὴν καρδίαν ὑμῶν Rup 783.
19 Θεοῦ] ὅτι θεοῦ 5.

πιστεύομεν C.

διαμένει...σ κὠληξ δέ τις ἔμπυρος κιτιλ.
(comp. § 17). These resemblances
suggest that our Clementine homily
was known to this writer.

15. avaBiwoas| 2 Macc. vii. 9 ἀπο-
θανόντας ἡμᾶς ὑπὲρ τῶν αὐτοῦ νόμων
εἰς αἰώνιον ἀναβίωσιν ζωῆς ἡμᾶς ἀνα-
στήσει.

ἀλύπητον] ‘tnaccessible to sorrow’,
stronger than ἄλυπον ; comp. C/evz.
Hom. xi. 17 σὺν ἡμῖν τὸν ἄλυπον
αἰῶνα κληρονομῆσαι.

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. ἐκεῖνος] S attaches this
τό μηδὲ ἐκεῖνο.. .ταρασσέτω] CS (but
18 πιστεύωμεν] S;

be the glory for ever.’

16. ᾿Αλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνο κιτ.λ.] This
passage is quoted loosely and with
some omissions in the Sacr. Paral.
(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; ¢€.8. μὴ ταρασσέτω τὴν
καρδίαν ὑμῶν is substituted for μηδὲ
ἐκεῖνο τῆν διάνοιαν ὑμῶν ταρασσέτω,
after John xiv. I, 27; and εὐσέβειαν
is substituted for θεοσέβειαν, after
Ly Bim; νι: 5:

19. πεῖραν) For the accusative after
ἀθλεῖν comp. eg. Plato Leg. viii.
p. 830 A, Plut. ΚΖ. Demetr. 5; and
for such accusatives generally see
Kihner 11. p. 264. For an elaborate
application of the same metaphor
see § 7.

17—2

260 THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT. [xx

a ~ \ \ sf
θῶμεν. οὐδεὶς τῶν δικαίων ταχὺν καρπὸν ἔλαβεν, ἀλλ᾽

> / > / 3 \ \ \ a / -
ἐκδέχεται αὐτόν. εἰ γὰρ τὸν μισθὸν τῶν δικαίων ὁ
\ / / , > / ΄σ \
Θεὸς συντόμως ἀπεδίδου, εὐθέως ἐμπορίαν ἠσκοῦμεν Kat
Ε] / > ~ \ 3 7 5 \
οὐ θεοσέβειαν: ἐδοκοῦμεν yap εἶναι δίκαιοι, οὐ TO
> \ \ [4 Id \ Ὧι ~
εὐσεβὲς ἀλλὰ TO κερδαλέον διώκοντες" καὶ διὰ τοῦτο

θεία κρίσις ἔβλαψεν πνεῦμα μὲ ὃν δίκαιον, καὶ ἐβά-

ρυνεν δεσμοῖς.

Τῷ μόνω Θεῷ ἀοράτῳ, πατρὶ τῆς ἀληθείας, Te

5» 7 reer \ a \ \ Cal
ἐξαποστείλαντι μιν τὸν σωτηρα Kal ἀρχήγον τῆς

ἀφθαρσίας, δι οὗ καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν ἡμῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν

1 ταχὺν] C Rup; celeriter (ταχὺ) S, using the same adverb which renders συντό-

pws just below.

σεβὲς] C Rup; θεοσεβὲς S.

4. θεοσέβειαν] See 1 Tim. ii. 10.
It occurs occasionally in the LXx.

5. διὰ τοῦτο x.7.A.] 1.6: Son 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 βλάπτειν is used especially of Di-
vine vengeance surprising its victim,
checking and maiming him in his
mudacareers δε ΠΟΤ: 2. 1.105
ἀλλά νυ τόν γε θεοὶ βλάπτουσι κελεύθου,
zb. xiv. 178 τοῦ δέ τις ἀθανάτων Brae
φρένας, Xen. Symp. viii. 43 ἢν μὴ
Θεὸς βλάπτῃ, Plut. Vit. Caes. 45 ὑπὸ
Θεοῦ μάλιστα βλαπτομένῳ τὴν γνώμην
€ouos «7... Trag. in Lycurg. «
Leocr. p. 159 ὅταν yap ὀργὴ δαιμόνων
βλάπτῃ τινά, TOUT αὐτὸ πρῶτον, ἐξαφ-
αἱρεῖται φρενῶν τὸν νοῦν τὸν ἐσθλὸν
κιτιλ., and so frequently. Sordid
motives bring their own punishment
in a judicial blindness (βλάπτει πνεῦ-
pa). The aorist here has its common
gnomic sense, and is the most ap-
propriate tense: see Kiihner 11. p.
136 sq. Previous editors seem to

δεσμοῖς) 5; δεσμὸς C.
add. domini nostri iesu christ: (in apposition) S.

3 συντόμως ἀπεδίδου, εὐθέως] CS; εὐθέως ἀπεδίδου Rup.
4 οὐ θεοσέβειαν] CS; οὐκ εὐσέβειαν Rup.

οὐ τὸ] CS; οὐ διὰ τὸ Rup. 5 ev-
8 τῆς ἀληθείας]

9 ἡμῖν τὸν σωτῆρα καὶ ἀρχη-

have mistaken the sense. Bryennios
says μὴ ὃν δίκαιον, τούτεστιν, ἀδίκως,
but it is not clear what he means.
Hilgenfeld reads δεσμούς, 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 VI/I, ‘ By that
sin fell the angels’.

8. Τῷ μόνῳ Θεῷ ἀοράτῳ] Comp.
1 Tim. i. 17 ἀοράτῳ μόνῳ Θεῷ.

πατρὶ τῆς ἀληθείας] As in § 3. So
also ὁ Θεὸς τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ 19. The
Syriac translator takes ‘the Truth’
here to denote Christ Himself (John
xiv. 6); comp. Orig. c. Cels. viii. 63
ὑπὸ TOU Θεοῦ καὶ THs μονογενοῦς αὐτῷ
ἀληθείας. So Papias (Euseb. 217. 2.
ill. 39) speaks of Christ’s personal
disciples as receiving commandments
ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας.

-

Ο

xx] AN ANCIENT HOMILY. 261

\ \ > , / 3 ΄σ « ὃ / 3 \ I-A
καὶ τὴν ἐπ ουρανιοὸν ζωην, αὐτῷ [2 o€a εις TOUS ALWYAS

΄- oy /
τῶν αἰωνων. ἀμην.

γὺὸν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας] salvatorem et principem vitae et salutis nostrae Ὁ. Il ζωήν]
C; delectationem (SDI) S; which word elsewhere is a rendering of τρυφὴ (see
above, § 19) or of ἀπόλαυσις (see i ὃ 20). αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα] atgue etiam Jesu christo
domino nostro cum spiritu sancto gloria et honor et imperium (i.e. ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ τιμὴ
καὶ τὸ κράτος) 8.

9. τὸν σωτῆρα κιτ.λ.} Acts v. 31 ρίας. Comp. pest. Vienn. 17 (in
ἀρχηγὸν καὶ σωτῆρα compared with Euseb. 27. £. v. 1) ἀρχηγὸν τῆς ζωῆς
lil. 15 τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς ζωῆς : see also τοῦ Θεοῦ.

Heb. iil. 10 τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτη-

Ai y pt end ¢
} ae Pa in i
nil 43 Ἵ Ha
. ΔΙ 0} 7 i‘
Va Κι fe ee
Pilea 10's Lue
ΓΝ,

ΒΕΚῚ qt
ais ar

Page

26.

27.
28.

29.
30.
34.

μ᾿

The lacune tn the Alexandrian

[TTpoc] Kopin@1oye

[Ἢ ἐκκλη]σία...ἢ παροι-
κοῦσα [Ῥώμην]

τῇ πα[ροικού]σῃ

2 ἡγι[ασμέν]οις...τοῦ [Κυρώυ

to

ἡμ]ῶν.. [χάρις υμῖν.. «παν-
το κράτο]ρος

[Διὰ τὰς] αἰφνιδίους...[γε-
νομ]ένας

[περιϊπτώσεις.. [νομ]ίζομεν

πεποιῆ σθ]αι

[πα]ρ᾿ ὑμῖν... [τ] ῆς τε

ὑποτάσ[σἼἠοντες

λαμβαν]οντες

ἀρ[κ]ούμενοι

Διὰ ζῆλον καὶ φθόνον ot
μέγιϊ]στοι

στύλ[οι ἐδιώ]χθησαν...ἕως
θανάτου ἠθλησαν]

πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἡμών] ...
ἀποστόλουΪς

Πέτρον] ὃς... οὐχ [ἕνα οὐΪ]δὲ
δύο

ὑπ[ήνεγκεν] πόνους... μαρτυ-
τς

ὀφειλ[όμενον]... διὰ ζῆλο[ ν

καὶ ἔριν] Παῦλος... [ὑπέ-
δει]ξεν

[φυγα]δευθείς ...γ[ ενό]μενος

ἐΐν τῇ] δύσει

κατή ντηῖσα v|

Page
34. 4
5
ὅπ 9
Io
ET
12
13
26:7, 5
2
3
4
5. 75
6
40. 9
ἅτ. τῷ
48. 5
6
7
ὃ
9
49. 10

Manuscript.

τοῦτ[ο]

ὀστέων μ[ ου]

ὑπομνήσκουΪτες]

σκάμματι]

ἐπίκειται]... κενὰς [καὶ]

ἔλθω[μεν]

τ[ῆς
ἴδωμεν

παραδό]σεως τες [καὶ

[καὶ τί πρό]σδεκτον ... τοῦ
trou noavt jos

[arevio |omev...[ καὶ γνῶμεν

TO Θεῷ [καὶ warp |i αὐτοῦ

[σωτ]ηρίαν...τῷ κόσμῳ

[διέλθ]ωμεν....[καὶ] καταμά-
θωμεν

γενεᾷ [κα]ὶ...ἔδω[κ]εν

[δ]ιελεχθῶμεν

[αἱ] ἁμαρτίαι... ὑμῶν [ὡς]

[πρὸς σὲ εἰσῆλ]θον

[γῆς ἡμῶν]... γὰρ βα[σι-
λεὺς οὕ]τως

εἰσῆλθον [μὲν οἱ ἀν]δρες

[ἀλλὰ εὐθέ]ως....πορεύον[ ται
7 685)

ἐναλλαξ!]

γ[ινού]σκουσα... .ὅτι [Κύριος
ὁ Θεὸς]

ὑμῖν [τὴν πόΪλιν ταύτην.
Omitted in the colla-
tion. For πολιν C has

i

264

Page

THE EPISTLES OF S.

49. 12 ὁ [τρόΪμος...τοῖς Kal rou ]-

5°
55-
56.
63.

64.

65.

68.

13

iL

oO "μι

on

μι

κοῦσιν
γένηται]
αὐτο[Ὁ)]
δικαιοσύν[ην]
διδάσκοω[ν]...[οὕ͵τως
ἐλεηθ[ῆ]τε... ως] ποιεῖτε
ποιηθήσεται ὑμῖν] ..δοθή-
σεται [ὑμῖν]
κριθήσεϊσθε ws χ]ρηστεύ-
εσθε.. χρη[στευθή σεται
με[τρεῖτε]
[ταύτῃ τ]ῇ..-παραγγέλ[ μα-
σιν]

ἑαυ[ τοὺς εἰ]ς

[ὄντα]ς... αὐτοῦ τΊ]απεινο-
φρονοῦντες

[φησὶ]ν γὰρ. ..[ἐπι]ϊβλέψω

[ἡσ]ύχιον

[δί]καιον

[κ]αὶ πάλιν
τῇ γλώσσῃ ad[ tov
[αἸὐτῶν

A

κατηγ} ορεῖ λέγων].. «ἀπὸ pu-
πίου οὐδ᾽ ἂν

αὐτο[Ὁ]...ἐν ὅλῳ [τῷ

οἴκῳ] αὐτοῦ...[ὑπηρε]σίας

Αἰ[ἴγυπτον]...[αἰκι]σμάτων

κἀκεῖνος]

ἐμ[εγα]λορημόνησεν.... ἐ[πὶ
τῆς] βάτου

διδο[ μέ]νου...πέμπί εἰς]

βρ[α]δύγλωσσος

ἐξαλειψ ον] ...ἐν ἐμο[{]

ἀπο[ρίγψῃς...[καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα

ἀντανέλῃς ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ... τὴν
ἀγαλ[λίασιν

τ]οῦ σωτηρίου... [ἡγεμο]

νικῷ

διδά Ew ἀνό]μους...ἀ σεβεῖ]ς

Page

68.

70.

79.

82.

83.

89.

CLEMENT.

WwW dnd

GQ Ota Gr

17

10
20
20
21
22

ῥῦσαί) με

τῆς [σωτ]ηρίας....[ἀγαλ]λιά-
σεται.. .[δικ]αιοσύνην

[ἀν]οίξεις

ἀναγ[ γ]ελεῖ...[θ]έλησας

ἐμποδί Cjovra...aaré| p ov

διαταγὴν [αἸὐὐτοῦ

[π]αρεκβάσεως.. .[το] ὺς ἐπι-
τεταγμένους

πρ[όσωπον δὲ]

[τοῦ ἐξολε]θρεῦσαι... μνη-
μ[όσυνον]

ὁ δίκαιος]... αὐτ[ οὔ καὶ ἐκ]
πασῶν

α[ὐτοῦ ἐρύ]σατο

μάστιγες ]...ἐλ[πίζον]τας

κυκλώσε[ι]

κ[αὶ εὐερ]γετικὸς

ἐπὶ τοὺς] φοβουμένους

ἠπίως [τε] καὶ... αὐτί οὐ]

προσερχομένοι ς]

τὴν ἀπαρχῆν]

ἐκ νεκ[ρῶν]

κατὰ και[ρὸν]...ἡμέρ[ α καὶ]

δηλοῦσιν]...

ἡμέρα !Ί...... ἐπέρχεται λά-
βω]μεν

[πώς καὶ] τίνα τρόπον

[ἐξῆλθεν ὁ σἸπείρων.. .[ἕκα-
στο]ν

πε σόντα]

δι[αλύεται]...ἡ μεγαζλειό-
τ]ης

[ἀνίστησιν

πλείονα]

[ἴδω |μεν...[γιν]όμενον

[τό]ποις

[λ]έγει

[κ]αὶ ἐκοιμήθην

ἐξη[ γ]έρθην....[ κα]ὶ πάλιν

Page

go.

I

91. 24

98.

1τοο.

ΙΟΙ.

102.

105.
ΠΕ:

I

mam ons Am BW N

+
Ooo

Le I nO ne ee
Aum B&W ND κ᾿

μι
~I

THE ALEXANDRIAN MANUSCRIPT.

[τὴ]ν σάρκα μου

πεποιθήσεως γινώσκων

ἡδέως προσήγετο... ταπει-
νοφρ[ οσύνης]

αὐτοῦ δι᾿ ade] pov

πρὸς Λαβὰν]... ἐδόθη αὐτῷ]

τοῦ [Ἰσραήλ

ἐάν] τις... εἰλικριν] ὥς]

[με]γαλεῖα...δεδομέ[νων]

ἱερεῖς]

λειτουργ] οῦν [τες

πίστί ε]ως

ἀγαθοποιῖ[ ας]

δεσπότ[ης]

μετὰ ἐκτενεία! ς]

ἀγαθ]ὸν]

d[ εσπό]της...ἔρ[γοις]

αὐτ[ οὔ] sec.

ἐστήρισεν]

συνέσει διεκόσμησεν ....
[διεχώρισεν

[ἐπὶ τ]ὸν

1 Bov|Ajpa|ros

17

αὐτῇ ζ]ώα.. .[διατ]άξει

θάλασσαν κ ]αὶ...προδημι-
eee

[δυ]νάμει

[κα]ὶ.. [ἀνθρωπΊον

[π]λῆθος

κ[αὶ τὴν Kata σχεσιν....τί ἧς
γῆς]

αὐ] τόν: κάθου]... ἕως av [θώ

τοὺς] ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπό-
diol v τῶν πο͵δῶών

ἐχθροί]... ἀντιτασσ[ όμενοι]
«ὐνθελήμα τι

αὐτοῦ]

avo| pes ἀδελ)φοί

exteveia|s ἐν τοῖς] ἀμώμοις

[αὐτοῦ]... στρα revo |wévous

Page
IIL Bs
114.
115.

116.

ἘΠῚ.

118.

121.

13a:

137.

on

205

ἡ μῶν ]...εὐεικτικ[ ὡς]

ἐπιτελο[Ὁ |ow... πάντες]

ὅλο[ν]

ὅλ[ον]

ὑποτασσέσ(Ἶ ὦ]

καθὼς]

μαρτυρείτ[ w |

LL ap |rupeta bar

[ἤτω] καὶ...γινώσ[κων ὅτι

ἕτ]ερος... [αὐτῷ] τὴν... .ἀνα-
λογι[σώμ]εθα

ποίας [ὕλης]

τίϊνες εἰ]σήλθαμεν ... [ἐκ
ποί]ου

[ὁ πλά]σας

[εἰσηἼγαγεν ... [προ]ετοιμά-
σας

[αὐτ]οῦ...[ταῦ]τὰ

[ὀ]φείλομεν

ΕΠ:

[ἀ]ῴρονες

ἐ[κέλ]ευσεν

[καὶ ἐπι]δείξατο

[tas σφρα]γῖδας....τὴ} ν σκη-
vnv|

προε[ῖλεν τὰς] ῥάβδους

ῥ[άβδος]... βεβλαϊ στηκυῖα]

mp| oder |

μέλλειν [ἔσεσθαι

ἀκ[αταστα] σία... οὕτως

ἐποί]ησεν...τ[ὸ ὄνο]μα

μόνου [Θεοῦ]

πολιτευομένους]

φιλόνεικ[οι]

[τῶν] ἀνηκόντων... ἐν[ κεκύ-
φα]τε

[τὰς τοῦ] πνεύματος

[ὅτι οὐ]δὲν... παραπε[ ποιη]-
μένον

[οὐ χ εἰ ὑρήσετε

266

Page
TS 7:

138.

139.

140.

150.

τ τς

12:

153.

154:

Io

Oo 9 τὼς Qu BB ow |

Io
ἘΨ
12
13
14

μι
ow Ob G&G Ὁ fF Go

\o

Io

3

THE EPISTLES SOF 5: “CLEMENT.

ἀποβεΪ BAnp.|évovs ..
wx Onoav

. [ἐδι]-

ε Ν > /

ὑπὸ avo| ww |v

[ἀν]οσίων ... ὑπὸ zal ρα]νό-
μων

[ὑἹπὸ τῶν....[αἸνειληφότων

[εἸύκλεως.... [τί] γὰρ

[ἐβλήθη

[ἢ] ᾿Ανανίας

[πα]ναρέτῳ

ἡ δόξ[α εἰῆς.. «τῶν αἰώνων

αἀ]μήν ...[ο]} δὲ ὑποἰ[ μέ
νοντες

[κ]Ἰολληθῶμεν

εὑρε[ θῆναι]

[ὁ Θεός: δεώμε]θα...ἀπ|ὁ

τοῦ ἐλέ]ους...[εὑρεθώμεν |

ἀνθρωπίνης ].. -«πᾶσα[ι ἀπὸ

᾿Αδαμ] ἕως...παρῆ λθον]

τελειωθέν τες]... ἔχουσιν]

φανερ[ὠθήσονἾται ... βασι-

λ[είας]
τοῦ [Θε]οῦ...εἰσέλ[θετε)
ὅσον ὅσ|ον]
θυ[μός].. ἡμέρ[ας]
[ἐκ] τῶν θηκῶν
[προσ]τάγματα.... ἐϊν ὁ]μο-
νοίᾳ
ἀφεθή] ναι]
ἀφέθησαν
ἐπεκα[ λύ]φθησαν....α] νὴρ]
ἁμαρτίαν]... αὐτί οὐ]
ἐϊγέ]νετο
ἡμ[ ὧν]... α[ io |vev
Ὅσα [οὖ]ν παρε πέσαΪμεν
[το] ἀντικί ειμένου....[ἀφε-
θῆναι ἡμῖν]
οἵτι[ν]ες ἀρχηγ] οἱ]
ἐγεν[ἤ]θησαν

τῶν] παραπτωμάτων

Page

154.

E55:

156.

157:

6 [κρί]μα...κατέβ[ η]σαν
7 ζώΪν]τες ... θάνατος
μανεῖ

ποι-

8 αἰύὐτούς... στρα[τιὰ αὐτ]οῦ
9 ἡγούμενοι
[ἀναβάϊται
10 [αἰτία]ν
τι [ἐρυθρ]ὰν...[τὸ σκλ]ηρυνθῆ-
ναι

Αἰγ]ύπτου τον

12

ΠῚ

ἀσυΪνέτου]ς

[ra σημ]εῖα [καὶ].. Αἰγύ-
[πτου]

[τοῦ θ]εράποντος...[Μ]ωῦ-
σέωΪ]-]

[6] δεσπότης

[οὐ δὲν... ἐξ]ομολογεῖσθα:

[ὁ ἐϊκλεκτὸς

ἐξομολογήσοϊ μ]αι

π[ά]λιν

14

1 ailvé|oews

3 ἐπίστασ[θε ta |s

4 [καὶ ἐγκ]εκύφατε

5 [Θεοῦ εἰς ἀνάμνησιν... «ταῦ-
τα [γράφομεν]

6 ἀναβαίνοντος εἰῇς...ποιή-

σαντος

΄
τεσσερ]άκοντα sees τεσ[σερά-

~

κοντ͵α

8 [καὶ ταπειν]ώσει.. αὐτὸν [ὁ
Θεός]

ο [Μωὐν]σῇ Μωὐσῆ... [τὸ τάχος]
ἐντεῦθεν

10 [6 λαός σήου.. [Αἰγύπτο]υ

τι ἐκ [τῆς ὁδοῦ]...[ἐποίησα]ν

12 [καὶ εἴπεΪ]ν...λελάληΪ καπρὸς]

13 [ἑώρακα] τὸν λαὸν

14 [ἐστιν σ]κληροτραάχηλος...
[με ἐξολ]εθρεῦσαι

15 ἐξαλείψω τ]ὸ ὄνομα... ὑπο-

κάτωθεν]

Page

THE ALEXANDRIAN MANUSCRIPT.

157. 16 [σε εἰς ἔ]θνος...[ καὶ πολ]ὺ

165.

166.

167.

17

5

16

17
18

το

20

EF

12

=o

14

15

[καὶ εἶπεν Μ] ὐσῆς... Κύριε
[ἄφες τὴν]

[τὸ σπέρμα σου] τὰ δὲ τέκνα
...[70 παμβό]τανον

ἐλεύσ[η δὲ ἐν τάϊ]φῳ... ὥρι-
pols κατὰ

και]ρὸν... ὥσπερ θημω]νιὰ

συϊνκομι]σθεῖσα ... ἀγαπη-
[τοὶ πόσος]

τοῖς παιδευομένοις ... δε-
σπόΪτου πατὴρ

γὰρ] ἀγαθὸς... .παιδε[ύει] εἰς
τ[ ὁ ἐλε]ηθῆναι

π[αι]δείας

[τῆς] στάσεως

ὑποταϊ yy |re παι[ dev |-
θητε

κάμψαντες]

αὐθάξδ] eva |v

[ἐν] τῷ ποιμνίῳ

προήσομαϊι

ὑμῖ]ν... [δὲ ὑμᾶ]ς

ἐπί εἰδὴ ἐκάλουν].. .ὑπηκού-
σαΪτε καὶ ἐξέτειΪνον

οὐ [προσείχετεΪ]... ἐπο[ιεῖτε
τὰς ἐμὰς]

ἐμ[ οἷς
[ροῦν κἀγὼ]

ἀπωλείᾳ ἐπιγελάσομαι...

ἐλέγχοις] οὖν τοιγα-

[ἡνίκα

ἂν] ἔρχηται... ὄλεθρο[ς καὶ
ὡς ἂν αἸφίκηται

θ] όρυβος ἡ δὲ]...κ[αταιγίδι
παρῇ

Page
167. 16
168. ἢ

267

ὑμ[ῖν OAdhs]...y[dp, ὅταν
ἐπιϊκαλέσησθε
[οὐκ εἰσακούσομαι... ζητί ἡή-

σουσιν]

2 εὑρήσουσιν]... [τὸν

3 δὲ φό]βον ....

προείλαϊ ντο
οὐδὲ]

προσέχειν βουλαῖς ]...ἐμοὺ[ s
ἐλέγχους]

Tals ἑαυτών].. [καὶ τῆς

ἑαυτῶν ]...πλησθήσουϊΪται...

At this point the Ms breaks off

4
5
6
until
EO5: 15
16
ESO; 1
2
3
218. 4
5
6
7
8
9
227. Τῇ
15
po i
235. ἘΠ
12
13
14
15
239. 6
8
240. I

οὐὐλο]ιπὸν.... Θεὸς [Kat]
[πά]σης

[τὸ]ν Κύριον

[εἰς λαὸν... .[ψ]υχῇ
μεγαλο[ π]ρεπὲς...[π]ΐίστιν
ὀφείλο[ μεν]...τ[ οὐτοις]
[αὐτὸν] καὶ

το[ὺς] ἀνθρώπους

δ[α].. πρασσόν[των]
ἐμο[Ὁ]...μο[0]

pol]

dovAeve tv]... δ ουλ]εύειν
ἀσύμφο[ρ]ον
στεφα[ν]ωθῆναι

[τῇ] ἐπαγγελίᾳ
ταλαίπωροι]... προ hy |ruxds
εἰσ]

τῇ] καρδίᾳ...πά[ντα]

πα[ τέ]ρων

ἐν τ[ οἷς] καλοῖς

τοῦτο. oe

Here the MS ends.

THE EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

Corrigenda in the collation of the Constantinopolitan us [(].

Page

48. ἀλλ᾽ εὐθέως

70. οὐρανοί (om. ot)

72: παρατεθειμένα
οὕτως

A
καιρὸν καὶ
wn Loy
ποῦ οὖν TLS
Ν Ἂν
μιαρὰς καὶ (OM. τε)
J Ν
μέθας τε καὶ

3 ἣν tal a
12. εὐαρεστείτω τῷ Θεῷ
3 “-“
ἐνδελεχησμοῦ
143. 12 ἀλλὰ ἡ πρόσκλισις
156. καλῶς (Om. καὶ)

\O
oO
Nw nNonN ΕΒ NO FH HH WH WN HH CO

Ν 3 id
προς αναμνησιν

al re

i

ἢ "

§ y sal a ie κι a
i ane ΠΣ eid “ig ie
; Ἶ -

im
ant ὌΝ
sie

Ah τῇ εν
δ» εἰν ᾿

it his ti, OFS. CLEMENT

TO

ΕΗ CORLNRHATANS:

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 AI-
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

272 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, more 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 veady 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; A/y beloved ate and drank
and was enlarged and waxed fat and kicked. Wence 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

TOPTHE CORINTHIANS. 273

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 zt 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? 77 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 unte 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. 11. 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
Dircet, 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, 772s 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, saith the Lord, 7 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 from your iniquities ; learn to do good; seek out judgment ;
defend him that 15 wronged: give zudgment 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 wll
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.

g. Wherefore let us be obedient unto His excellent and
glorious 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 father’s 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
211 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 percervest that we are coming, thou
shalt gather all thy folk beneath thy roof, and they shall be saved ;
Jor 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, Let
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 receive
mercy ; forgive that it may be forgiven to you. As ye do, so
shall it be done to you. As ye give, so shall it 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, it
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, Upon whom shall I look, save upon him
that ἐς 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 it; but they that transgress shall be destroyed utterly from
zt. And again He saith; 7 saw the ungodly lifted up on high
and exalted as the cedars of Lebanon. And I passed by, and
behold he was not; and 7 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, They loved Him with their mouth, and
with their tongue they led unto Him, and their heart was not

TO THE CORINTHIANS. 279

upright with Him, neither were they stedfast in Hrs 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, satth the Lord. I 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 a child 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 His
face ts turned away. He was dishonoured and held of no account.
He beareth our sins and suffereth pain for our sakes: and we
accounted Him to be in toil and in stripes and in affliction. And
He was wounded for our sins and hath been afflicted for our
iniquities. The chastisement of our peace is upon Him. With
His bruises we were healed. We all went astray like sheep,
each man went astray in his own path: and the Lord delivered
Him over for our sins. And He openeth not His mouth, because
He ts afflicted. As a sheep He was led to slaughter; and as a
lamb before his shearer is 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 iniquities 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
in His mouth, And the Lord destireth to cleanse Him from

280 S. CLEMENT OF ROME

His stripes. If ye offer for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived
seed. And the Lord desiveth 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 1s 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 J 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 7 am dust and ashes.
Moreover concerning Job also it is thus written; And Fob
was righteous and unblameable, one that was true and honoured
God and abstained from all evil. Yet he himself accuseth
himself saying, Vo man is clean from filth; no, not though his
life be but for a day. Moses was called faithful 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, 1 am feeble of speech and slow of
tongue. And again he saith, but / 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 15 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
Ll conceived, and in 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 7 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
vejoice. Turn away Thy face from my sins, and blot out all
mine iniquities. Make a clean heart within me, O God, and
renew a right spirit in mine inmost parts. Cast me not away
Jrom 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
wm Thy righteousness. Lord, Thou shalt open my mouth, and
my lips shall declare Thy praise. For, tf Thou hadst desired
sacrifice, I 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. Day and 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 zzfo 115 reservoirs,
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, Ze
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 ts 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.
But the face of the Lord is 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 5. 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; Wretched ave 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 it sheddeth tts 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 Hts
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; And Thou shalt raise me up, and I will praise Thee; and
7 went to rest and slept, 7 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 proclameth 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 1s 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,
He 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; Behold, the Lord taketh for
Himself a nation out of the midst of the nations, as a man taketh
the firstfruits of his threshing-floor; and the holy of holies
shall come forth from that nation. i

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; For God, He saith, resisteth 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. Let us 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, 7hy 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, Behold, the Lord, and His reward ts before His
face, 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 1s full of Hs 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
glorious promises. For He saith, Eye hath not seen, and ear hath
net 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? Vet thou didst hate instruction, and
didst cast away My words behind thee. [f 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 5, 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 is the way wherein 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 His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of
fire; but of His Son the Master said thus; Zhou art My Son,
7 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 enemtes 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 it is written; 7ere
was no form before mine eyes; only I heard a breath and a
voice. What then? Shall a mortal be clean in the sight of the
Lord; or shall a man be unblameable for his works? seeing
that He ts distrustful against His servants, and noteth some
perversity against His angels. Nay, the heaven is not clean in
His sight. Away then, ye that dwell in houses of clay, whereof,
even of the same clay, we ourselves are made. Fle smote them
like a moth, and from morn to even they are no more. Pecause

19—2

292 S. 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, if perchance one shall obey thee, or tf thou shalt see one of
the holy angels. For wrath killeth the foolish man, and envy
slayeth him that is gone astray. And I 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
mnfertors, 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 from 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 we//
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,

Oy 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; Wzth the guiltless man thou shalt
be guiltless, and with the elect thou shalt be elect, and with the
crooked thou shalt deal crookedly. Wet us therefore cleave to the
guiltless 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
if 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 is 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; \ove
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 7 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 tniquities
are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. blessed is the man to
whom the Lord shall impute no sin, neither is 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; 7 well 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 rejoice. 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 1s 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
eniquity: they have transgressed quickly out of the way which thou
didst command unto them: they have made for themselves molten

TO THE CORINTHIANS. 299

emages. 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; Nay, 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; Zhe 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 is 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

te ΒΕ 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 I 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 is 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
eat 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 adzdest
Flighest in the high, Holy in the holy; who layest low the inso-
lence of the proud ; who scatterest the imaginings 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
im 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 im holiness and righteousness
and singleness of heart, and to do such things as are good
and well-pleasing in 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 im 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 5. 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. In that He said, Rejoice, 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, / 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. his 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, 7.115 people honoureth Me with their
lips, but their heart 1s 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 shkad/
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 15 it, of a man gain the whole world and
Sorfeit 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 $0b 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 all 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, Zeer 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, /f ye kept not that which is
little, who shall give unto you that which is great? For I say
unto you that he which is faithful in the least, ἐς faithful also im
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.

I1. 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 its leaves, then a shoot cometh, after
this a sour berry, then a full ripe grape. So lkewise 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 tt 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

B12 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. Nherein 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, 72 zs xo
thank unto you, tf ye love them that love you, but this ts thank
unto you, if ye love your enemies 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 a
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, MZy house was
made a den of robbers. So therefore let us choose rather to be of

BY, ANYVUNKNOWN: AUTHOR. 253

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, Whales thou art still speaking, 7 will say, Behold,
7 am here. For 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 Jove 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. Herein 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 Ther
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-

216 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 we are 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.

JAG
PIPPORY TUS .OFWRORd US:

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? MHas 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 Phz/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-

318 EPISTLES OF 5. 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, 1.
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.

Seid
ANCIENT REFERENCES TO HIPPOLYTUS.

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. Hrppotytus [c. A.D. 230].

(a) Refutatio Haeresium i. prooem. (p. 2, Miller).

Οὐδένα μῦθον τῶν παρ᾽ “Ἕλλησι νενομισμένων παραιτητέον. πιστὰ yap
καὶ τὰ ἀσύστατα αὐτῶν δόγματα ἡγητέον διὰ τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν τῶν aipe-
τικῶν μανίαν, ot διὰ τὸ σιωπᾶν ἀποκρύπτειν τε τὰ ἄρρητα ἑαυτῶν μυστήρια
ἐνομίσθησαν πολλοῖς Θεὸν σέβειν: ὧν καὶ πάλαι μετρίως τὰ δόγματα ἐξεθέ-
μεθα, οὐ κατὰ λεπτὸν ἐπιδείξαντες, ἀλλ᾽ ἁδρομερῶς ἐλέγξαντες, μηδὲν ἀξιον
ἡγησάμενοι τὰ ἄρρητα αὐτῶν εἰς φῶς ἄγειν, ὅπως OU αἰνιγμάτων ἡμῶν ἐκθε-
μένων τὰ δόξαντα αὐτοῖς αἰσχυνθέντες μήποτε καὶ τὰ ἄρρητα ἐξειπόντες

322 ’ > / , he a 3 / , \ > , >
ἀθέους ἐπιδείξωμεν, TAVOWVTAL [re] ΤῊ αλογίστου γνωμης και ἀθεμίτου επίχει-

HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 319

, > 99 Ν ε - Ν M2 > \ Ἀ ε / ς3 ,
ρήσεως. ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ ὁρῶ μὴ δυσωπουμένους αὐτοὺς τὴν ἡμετέραν ἐπιείκειαν
~ > an
μηδὲ λογιζομένους, ὡς Θεὸς μακροθυμεῖ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν βλασφημούμενος, ὅπως ἢ
N93 a
αἰδεσθέντες μετανοήσωσιν ἢ ἐπιμείναντες δικαίως κριθῶσι, βιασθεὶς πρόειμι
΄, 3. ns NY ἐ ἘῸΡ , A ed 3 ΕΑ δ eS
δείξων αὐτῶν τὰ ἀπόρρητα μυστήρια...ταῦτα δὲ ἕτερος οὐκ ἐλέγξει ἢ τὸ ἐν
> A G4 / , > ,
ἐκκλησίᾳ παραδοθὲν ἅγιον πνεῦμα, οὗ τυχόντες πρότεροι οἱ ἀπόστολοι μετέ-
- - e ε ~ , / ~
δοσαν τοῖς ὀρθῶς πεπιστευκόσιν: ὧν ἡμεῖς διάδοχοι τυγχάνοντες τῆς TE
3. A ta a
αὐτῆς χάριτος μετέχοντες ἀρχιερατείας τε καὶ διδασκαλίας Kal φρουροὶ τῆς
» “-“ ΄’΄ > >
ἐκκλησίας λελογισμένοι οὐκ ὀφθαλμῷ νυστάζομεν οὐδὲ λόγον ὀρθὸν
σιωπῶμεν K.T.A,

This extract is taken from the text of Diel’s Doxographi Graeci (Berolin. 1870);
the remaining extracts, from the edition of Duncker and Schneidewin.

(ὁ) Ref. Haer. vi. 42 (p. 202).
ν᾿ ν᾿ uae , , > a i *
Kai γὰρ καὶ ὁ μακάριος πρεσβύτερος Εἰρηναῖος παρρησιαΐτερον τῷ
9 , δ ἣν cal , Ν 3 ’ > ,ὔ ε
ἐλέγχῳ προσενεχθεὶς τὰ τοιαῦτα λούσματα καὶ ἀπολυτρώσεις ἐξέθετο, ἀδρο-
μερέστερον εἰπὼν ἃ πράσσουσιν, οἷς ἐντυχόντες τινὲς αὐτῶν ἤρνηνται οὕτως
’ SN 3 a“ , Ν Ν ea , 3
παρειληφέναι, ἀεὶ ἀρνεῖσθαι μανθάνοντες. διὸ φροντὶς ἡμῖν γεγένηται ἀκρι-
/ 2 A Ν 3 a a a Ν > An / A
Béorepov ἐπιζητῆσαι καὶ ἀνευρεῖν λεπτομερῶς, ἃ Kal ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ λουτρῷ
’ὔ
παραδιδόασι κ.τ.λ.

(c) Ref. Haer. vi. 55 (p. 221 sq).

ΔΑ παρατιθέναι μοι οὐκ ἔδοξεν, ὄντα φλυαρὰ καὶ ἀσύστατα, ἤδη τοῦ μακα-
ρίου πρεσβυτέρου Ἑϊρηναίου δεινῶς καὶ πεπονημένως τὰ δόγματα αὐτῶν διε-
λέγξαντος, παρ᾽ οὗ καὶ αὐτῶν ἐφευρήματα [παρειλήφαμεν] ἐπιδεικνύντες
αὐτοὺς Πυθαγορείου φιλοσοφίας καὶ ἀστρολόγων περιεργίας ταῦτα σφετερι-
σαμένους ἐγκαλεῖν Χριστῷ ταῦτα παραδεδωκέναι.

(d) Ref. Haer. ix. 6, 7 (p. 278 sq).
Πολλοῦ τοίνυν τοῦ περὶ πασῶν αἱρέσεων γενομένου ἡμῖν ἀγῶνος μηθέν ye
3 , a , a ε , pe pa 9 ΄
ἀνεξέλεγκτον καταλιποῦσι, περιλείπεται νῦν ὁ μέγιστος ἀγὼν, ἐκδιηγήσασθαι
Ν ὃ λέ ἕ Ν 3 Jone ear) > ΄ ε / ὃ 3 ΑΝ > 0 A Ν
καὶ διελέγξαι τὰς ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν ἔπαναστάσας αἱρέσεις, δι᾿ ὧν τινες ἀμαθεῖς καὶ
τολμηροὶ διασκεδαννύειν ἐπεχείρησαν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, μέγιστον τάραχον κατὰ
, cal lal cal tal
πάντα TOV κόσμον ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς πιστοῖς ἐμβάλλοντες. δοκεῖ yap ἐπὶ τὴν
lal -“ vd
ἀρχηγὸν τῶν κακῶν γενομένην γνώμην ὁρμήσαντας διελέγξαι, τίνες αἱ ταύτης
Ὁ Ν al ¢ a
ἀρχαί, ὅπως εὔγνωστοι αἱ ἐκφυάδες αὐτῆς ἅπασι γενόμεναι καταφρονηθῶσι.
΄,ὕ “ ἃ ΄ a , a τα
Τεγένηταί τις ὀνόματι Νοητός, τῷ γένει Spupvatos. οὗτος εἰσηγήσατο
“ 9 ae , , - , κ \ , > ,
αἵρεσιν ἐκ τῶν Ἡρακλείτου δογμάτων: οὗ διάκονος καὶ μαθητὴς γίνεται “Ext-
ει A at /,
γονός τις τοὔνομα, ὃς τῇ Ῥώμῃ ἐπιδημήσας ἐπέσπειρε τὴν ἄθεον γνώμην. ᾧ
΄ὔ Ν 4 ἊΝ ΄, ? ,ὔ “ ΕἸ 4 > ¢
μαθητεύσας Κλεομένης, καὶ βίῳ καὶ τρόπῳ ἀλλότριος τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἐκρά-
\ , ἊΝ ys A , ΄, , \ 9 ΄
τυνε τὸ δόγμα, κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ Ζεφυρίνου διέπειν νομίζοντος τὴν ἐκκλησίαν,
> ὃ Ν 25 ΄ \ ic: oKE ab ᾿ [ὃς] a ΄ ὃ , 06
ἀνδρὸς ἰδιώτου καὶ αἰσχροκερδοῦς: [ὃς] TO κέρδει προσφερομένῳ πειθόμενος

, A A A , ΄ \ SN ε ,
TUVEXWPEL TOLS προσιουσι τῳ Κλεομένει μαθητεύεσθαι, και QUTOS vTOO vUpo-

320 EPISTLES OF 8. CLEMENT.

a , A ~

μενος TO χρόνῳ ἐπὶ τὰ αὐτὰ ὥρμητο, συμβούλου καὶ συναγωνιστοῦ τῶν κακῶν
+ : eer ig - Ν ΄, ἈΝ ‘A 3 ~ ν > 3 Ν
ὄντος αὐτῷ Καλλίστου, οὗ τὸν βίον καὶ τὴν ἐφευρεθεῖσαν αἵρεσιν μετ᾽ οὐ πολὺ
3 , , \ Ν ΄,ὔ ‘ Lal /
ἐκθήσομαι. τούτων κατὰ διαδοχὴν διέμεινε TO διδασκαλεῖον κρατυνόμενον
καὶ ἐπαῦξον διὰ τὸ συναίρεσθαι αὐτοῖς τὸν Ζεφυρῖνον καὶ τὸν Κάλλιστον,
καίτοι ἡμῶν μηδέποτε συγχωρησάντων, ἀλλὰ πλειστάκις ἀντικαθεστώτων

Ν 3 Ἂν Ν , ee , Ν 3 "A ε
πρὸς αὐτοὺς καὶ διελεγξάντων καὶ ἄκοντας βιασαμένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὁμολο-

Cal a Ν Ν 7 9 , oh \ a 2 , , ε ’ὔ΄
γεῖν: οἱ πρὸς μὲν ὥραν αἰδούμενοι καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας συναγόμενοι ὡμολό-
3 > ‘ Ἄδα. Ἂν Ν TEN Ul 2 kd

youv, pet ov πολὺ δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν βόρβορον ἀνεκυλίοντο.

(e) Ref. Haer. ix. 8 (p. 280).

3 “ -“

Αλλ᾽ εἰ καὶ πρότερον ἔκκειται th ἡμῶν ἐν τοῖς Φιλοσοφουμένοις ἡ δόξα
«ε / > , a A \ “ μὰ ‘\ a 5) ,
Ἡρακλείτου, ἀλλά γε δοκεῖ προσαναπαραχθῆναι καὶ νῦν, ὅπως διὰ τοῦ ἐγγί-
ovos ἐλέγχου φανερῶς διδαχθῶσιν οἱ τούτου νομίζοντες Χριστοῦ εἶναι μαθη-

,ὔ 3 με 3 ἣν “ “-“
TQS, οὐκ οντας, ἀλλα τοῦ σκοτεινοῦ.

(f) Ref. Haer. ix. 11—13 (p. 284 sq).
Ταύτην τὴν αἵρεσιν ἐκράτυνε Κάλλιστος, ἀνὴρ ἐν κακίᾳ πανοῦργος Kai
ἣν τὴν αἵρ ρ » ἀνὴρ ; ΡΎ
ὮΝ \ >: ΄ θ , \ Ais A 6 ΄ ‘ Z ἊΣ
ποικίλος πρὸς πλάνην, θηρώμενος τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς θρόνον. τὸν Ζεφυρῖνον,
»” 3 , Ν > ΄ Ν 3, wn 3 a id a
ἄνδρα ἰδιώτην καὶ ἀγράμματον Kal ἄπειρον τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν ὅρων, ὃν
’, , Ἂ 39. 4 3 , 5 > Ce 5 δ +
πείθων δόμασι καὶ ἀπαιτήσεσιν ἀπειρημέναις ἦγεν εἰς ὃ ἐβούλετο, ὄντα dwpo-
, ~ > A > a
λήπτην καὶ φιλάργυρον, ἔπειθεν ἀεὶ στάσεις ἐμβαλεῖν ἀναμέσον τῶν ἀδελφῶν,
ai ἂν \ > , ve 7 ’, ν Ν ε - 4
αὐτὸς τὰ ἀμφότερα μέρη ὕστερον κερκωπείοις λόγοις πρὸς ἑαυτοῦ φιλίαν
, Ἂς -“ Ν 3 , / A “ ‘\ 2 2Q7
κατασκευάζων, καὶ τοῖς μὲν ἀλήθειαν [λέγων ὅμοια] φρονοῦσι ποτὲ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν
-“ > ’ὔ lal \ a
τὰ ὅμοια φρονεῖν [λέγων] ἠπάτα, πάλιν δ᾽ ad τοῖς τὰ Σαβελλίου ὁμοίως, ὃν
Ἂν > A ἐξέ ὃ ’ θ a > 3 A Bape Rep, wn 6
καὶ αὐτὸν ἐξέστησε δυνάμενον κατορθοῦν. ἐν yap τῷ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν παραινεῖσθαι
> 3 , εἴ x 4 a , Stow. e 2 2 mS ,
οὐκ ἐσκληρύνετο, ἡνίκα δὲ σὺν τῷ Καλλίστῳ ἐμόναζεν, vr αὐτοῦ ἀνεσείετο
Ν ‘ ΄ Ν / [202 ΄ νι ῳ -“ ε Ν
πρὸς τὸ δόγμα τὸ Κλεομένους ῥέπειν φάσκοντος τὰ ὅμοια φρονεῖν. ὁ δὲ
΄ κ᾿ \ , 3 in > Se > , oo» ε ΄ >
τότε μὲν THY πανουργίαν αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐνόει, αὖθις δὲ ἔγνω, ws διηγήσομαι μετ'
Ν Ν a , , yy / > Ν 5
οὐ πολύ. αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν Ζεφυρῖνον προάγων δημοσίᾳ ἔπειθε λέγειν: “Eyo οἶδα
“ ᾿ eno aA κ \ 30 Ae 207 \ x
ἕνα Θεὸν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, καὶ πλὴν αὐτοῦ ἕτερον οὐδένα γενητὸν Kai παθη-
> Py ε ΄ ΟῚ
τόν: ποτὲ δὲ λέγων: Οὐχ ὁ Πατὴρ ἀπέθανεν, ἀλλὰ ὁ Yios: οὕτως ἄπαυστον
a a , - \ , , ε εκ >
τὴν στάσιν ἐν τῷ λαῷ διετήρησεν: οὗ τὰ νοήματα γνόντες ἡμεῖς οἱ συνεχω-
a ἄν 7 eed ΄ δ κα A > ΄ ἃ > see.
ροῦμεν, ἐλέγχοντες καὶ ἀντικαθιστάμενοι ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀληθείας: Os εἰς ἀπόνοιαν
a \ ΄ es a τ ν τὴ δὴ ¥ ..5 ΄
χωρῶν διὰ τὸ πάντας αὐτοῦ τῇ ὑποκρίσει συντρέχειν, ἡμᾶς δὲ Ov, ἀπεκάλει
cia , 3 a A ΄ Ν > a ca Nite , Ν ,
ἡμᾶς διθέους, ἐξεμῶν παρὰ βίαν τὸν ἐνδομυχοῦντα αὐτῷ ἰόν. τούτου τὸν βίον
a“ 5 Ν ΄, A ‘\ > τ ’, en iA
δοκεῖ ἡμῖν ἀγαπητὸν ἐκθέσθαι, ἐπεὶ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον ἡμῖν ἐγεγόνει,
A Cal A 4 ‘ > ’ Ν ’΄
ὅπως διὰ τοῦ φανῆναι τοῦ τοιούτου τὴν ἀναστροφὴν εὐεπίγνωστος καὶ τάχα
a a 27 ε Ν ΄ 9 as
τοῖς νοῦν ἔχουσιν εὐήθης γένηται ἡ διὰ τούτου ἐπικεχειρημένη αἵρεσις. οὗτος
> , > \ παν τ ¥ ε , ε ν᾿ ΄ a ῃ δ. ἐὰν
ἐμαρτύρησεν ἐπὶ Φουσκιανοῦ ἐπάρχου ὄντος Ῥώμης: ὁ δὲ τρόπος τῆς αὐτοῦ
4 5
μαρτυρίας τοιόσδε ἦν'
¥
Oixérns ἐτύγχανε Kaprodopov τινὸς ἀνδρὸς πιστοῦ ὄντος ἐκ τῆς Καί.

3.“ ΄ 5 re bo “ δὴ ε cal μα. οὐκ ὀλίνο
σαρος οικιᾶς. TOUTW oO ap7Topopos, ate ON ὡς TLOTW, XPU- γον

HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 321

Ὁ
κατεπίστευσεν, ἐπαγγειλάμενος κέρδος προσοίσειν ἐκ πραγματείας τραπεζι-
a ‘ Ν ,ὔ A a e
τικῆς: ὃς λαβὼν τράπεζαν ἐπεχείρησεν ἐν TH λεγομένῃ πισκινῇ πουπλικῇ, ©
οὐκ λέ θῃ a ΄ > 0 ε ν a \ 15 Ν a
ὀλίγαι παραθῆκαι τῷ χρόνῳ ἐπιστεύθησαν ὑπὸ χηρῶν καὶ ἀδελφών προ-
΄ A , ε Xi 5 , Ἂν , ey , e A
σχήματι τοῦ Kaprodopov. ὁ δὲ ἐξαφανίσας τὰ πάντα ἡπόρει. οὗ ταῦτα
, 3 \ 5 “ 4 ε 3 “
πράξαντος οὐκ ἔλιπεν ὃς ἀπαγγείλῃ τῷ Καρποφόρῳ: ὁ δὲ ἔφη ἀπαιτεῖν
’,΄ > > “-“ ~ nw
λόγους παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ. ταῦτα συνιδὼν ὁ Κάλλιστος καὶ τὸν παρὰ τοῦ δεσπότου
, ὃ ε ΄ 8:1: . \ \ \ , , a
κίνδυνον ὑφορώμενος, ἀπέδρα τὴν φυγὴν κατὰ θάλασσαν ποιούμενος: ὃς
ε Ν a“ A ΄ - \ 5» , ΩΣ , “
evpwv πλοῖον ἐν τῷ Iloptw ἕτοιμον πρὸς ἀναγωγήν, ὅπου ἐτύγχανε πλέον,
> , > 4 ~ ’ ay
ἀνέβη πλευσόμενος. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ οὕτως λαθεῖν δεδύνηται: οὐ yap ἔλιπεν ὃς
? ay an K , \ , ε δὲ > Ν ‘ ‘ δ re
ἀπαγγείλῃ τῷ Kapropopw τὸ γεγενημένον. ὁ δὲ ἐπιστὰς κατὰ τὸν λιμένα
A -“ -“ “ >
ἐπειρᾶτο ἐπὶ τὸ πλοῖον ὁρμᾶν κατὰ [τὰ] μεμηνυμένα: τοῦτο δὲ ἦν ἑστὸς ἐν
- lal ε
μέσῳ τῷ λιμένι. τοῦ δὲ πορθμέως βραδύνοντος ἰδὼν πόρρωθεν ὁ Κάλλιστος
τὸν δεσπότην, ὧν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ καὶ γνοὺς ἑαυτὸν συνειλῆφθαι, ἠφείδησε τοῦ
ἣν, ὧν ἐν τῷ ίῳ γνοὺς v συνειλῆ . ἠφείδη
~ ν᾿» a , »” ε Ἁ " Ν ve (3 Ἂς
ζῆν καὶ ἔσχατα ταῦτα λογισάμενος ἔρριψεν ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν. οἱ δὲ
“ / 3 \ , »” 3 Ν > ᾽ὔ tal X 3 Ἂν
ναῦται καταπηδήσαντες εἰς τὰ σκάφη ἄκοντα αὐτὸν ἀνείλοντο, τῶν δὲ ἀπὸ
“- A , , Ν «“ ~ / \ 3 δ 3
τῆς γῆς μεγάλα βοώντων" καὶ οὕτως τῷ δεσπότῃ παραδοθεὶς ἐπανήχθη εἰς
XN ε , aA c 4 ΕῚ , , , Ν ὃ ’ ε
τὴν Ῥώμην, ὃν ὁ δεσπότης εἰς πίστρινον κατέθετο. χρόνου δὲ διελθόντος, ὡς
, Ν
συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι, προσελθόντες ἀδελφοὶ παρεκάλουν τὸν Καρποφόρον,
“ ἐξ ΄ a ἮΝ ΄ ‘ ὃ , , SSN ε x no»
ὅπως ἐξαγάγῃ τῆς κολάσεως τὸν δραπέτην, φάσκοντες αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖν ἔχειν
v2 ~ > ὔ ε δὲ K ’ ε vA , “ Ν ἰδί
παρά τισι χρῆμα ἀποκείμενον. ὁ δὲ Καρποφύρος, ὡς εὐλαβής, τοῦ μὲν ἰδίου
4 Qua a a Ay 0.5.
ἔλεγεν ἀφειδεῖν, τῶν δὲ παραθηκῶν φροντίζειν---πολλοὶ yap αὐτῷ ἀπεκλαίοντο
ὁ “ A A Ay
λέγοντες, OTL τῷ αὐτοῦ προσχήματι ἐπίστευσαν τῷ Καλλίώστῳ, ἃ πεπιστεύκει-
‘ A > / 3 “ > 4 c Ν Ν μ᾿ > /
gav—kai πεισθεὶς ἐκέλευσεν ἐξαγαγεῖν αὐτόν. ὁ δὲ μηδὲν ἔχων ἀποδιδόναι,
Ν Ψ > , ‘\ , Ν A cal / Ἢ
καὶ πάλιν ἀποδιδράσκειν μὴ δυνάμενος διὰ τὸ φρουρεῖσθαι, τέχνην θανάτου
> , ἂς ’ rd > , «ε > ὯΝ 7 > ἊΝ,
ἐπενόησε, καὶ σαββάτῳ σκηψάμενος ἀπιέναι ὡς ἐπὶ χρεώστας, ὥρμησεν ἐπὶ
αὐ \ ~ », A
τὴν συναγωγὴν τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων συνηγμένων, Kal στὰς κατεστασίαζεν αὐτῶν.
ε δὲ θέ ἘῸΝ 3 ἴον > / αν Ν nN ἈΝ 2 tA
οἱ δὲ καταστασιασθέντες ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἐνυβρίσαντες αὐτὸν καὶ πληγὰς ἐμφορή-
Ν lal
σαντες ἔσυρον ἐπὶ τὸν Φουσκιανὸν ἔπαρχον ὄντα τῆς πόλεως. ἀπεκρίναντο
Ἂς ’΄ ε Lal , can , >
δὲ τάδε: Ῥωμαῖοι συνεχώρησαν ἡμῖν τοὺς πατρῴους νόμους δημοσίᾳ avayt-
, ® NES \ Seas, , CAA ΄, >
νώσκειν, οὗτος δὲ ἐπεισελθὼν ἐκώλυε καταστασιάζων ἡμῶν, φάσκων εἶναι
/ an A a
Χριστιανός. τοῦ δὲ Φουσκιανοῦ πρὸ βήματος τυγχάνοντος καὶ τοῖς ὑπ᾽ Ἴου-
ὃ ’ὔ ri , Ν A OME > “ > Zr ε >
αίων λεγομένοις κατὰ τοῦ Καλλίστου ἀγανακτοῦντος, οὐκ ἔλιπεν ὁ ἀπαγ-
/ a ΄ Ν ΄ ε \ , SiN \ a A
γείλας τῷ Καρποφόρῳ ta πρασσόμενα. ὁ δὲ σπεύσας ἐπὶ TO βῆμα τοῦ
> ’, > / / / / Ν ἈΝ > ~ fe > , >
ἐπάρχου ἐβόα: Δέομαι, κύριε Φουσκιανέ, μὴ σὺ αὐτῷ πίστευε, οὐ yap ἐστι
ἦν a 5 7 ε
Χριστιανός, ἀφορμὴν δὲ ζητεῖ θανάτου χρήματά μου πολλὰ ἀφανίσας, ὡς
> , “~ Ν > ’ ε \ “~ , ε a“ ~
ἀποδείξω. τῶν δὲ ᾿Ιουδαίων ὑποβολὴν τοῦτο νομισάντων, ὡς ζητοῦντος τοῦ
-“ -“ ‘
Καρποφόρου ταύτῃ τῇ προφάσει ἐξελέσθαι αὐτόν, μᾶλλον ἐπιφθόνως κατε-
-“ ~ Ν
βόων τοῦ ἐπάρχου. ὁ δὲ κινηθεὶς ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν, μαστιγώσας αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν εἰς
4 Χ / \ ΄ Ὄπ "Ὁ > \ oo” , 6 /
μέταλλον Zapdovias. μετὰ χρόνον δὲ ἑτέρων ἐκεὶ ὄντων μαρτύρων, θελήσασα
ε > Ν
ἡ Μαρκία ἔργον τι ἀγαθὸν ἐργάσασθαι, οὖσα φιλόθεος παλλακὴ Κομόδου,

΄, \ , 3. " ρῶς ἢ aA > , >
προσκαλεσαμένη τὸν μακάριον Οὐΐκτορα, ὄντα ἐπίσκοπον τῆς ἐκκλησίας κατ

CLEM. II. 21

322 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

8. δ σαν as ΄ ,ὔ Ὁ 3 ΄ ΄ ε Ν , 3
ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ, ἐπηρώτα, τίνες εἶεν ἐν Sapdovia μάρτυρες. ὁ δὲ πάντων ava-
Ν ΜΌΝ Se ὦ Ν a , 3 μι > x Ν vA 3
δοὺς τὰ ὀνόματα, τὸ τοῦ Καλλίστου οὐκ ἔδωκεν, εἰδὼς τὰ τετολμημένα παρ
> a a ma a 3 ͵ ε / Ν a , , Ν
αὐτοῦ. τυχοῦσα οὖν τῆς ἀξιώσεως ἡ Μαρκία παρὰ τοῦ Κομόδου, δίδωσι τὴν
, Ν iA Ν ᾿ς / ἃ
ἀπολύσιμον ἐπιστολὴν Ὑακίνθῳ τινὶ σπάδοντι πρεσβυτέρῳ, ὃς λαβὼν διέ-
9 Ν 7 A. Ν a Β΄ λα lal a a , 9
πλευσεν εἰς τὴν Ξαρδονίαν, καὶ ἀποδοὺς τῷ κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ τῆς χώρας ἐπι-
, 3 / Ν , Ν Ὁ ΄ ¢ Ἂς fad
τροπεύοντι ἀπέλυσε TOS μάρτυρας πλὴν τοῦ Καλλίστου. ὁ δὲ γονυπετῶν
\ ΄ er \ ὍΡΟΝ a > , \ Msi sk ,
καὶ δακρύων ἱκέτευε καὶ αὐτὸς τυχεῖν ἀπολύσεως. δυσωπηθεὶς οὖν ὁ Ὕακιν-
3 re τὴ Ly, ΄ / Ss la ΄
θος ἀξιοῖ τὸν ἐπίτροπον......, φάσκων θρέψας εἶναι Μαρκίας, τασσόμενος
ΝΥ ε Q Ε] ΄, Ν Ν ΄, e
αὐτῷ τὸ ἀκίνδυνον: ὁ δὲ πεισθεὶς ἀπέλυσε Kat τὸν Κάλλιστον. οὗ παραγε-
/ ε Οὐϊ ΄ » fA) aN a ΄ aN 3 Ν + Ἂ >
νομένου ὁ Οὐΐκτωρ πάνυ ἤχθετο ἐπὶ τῷ γεγονότι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ εὔσπλαγχνος ἦν,
Ls Syd DN / δὲ \ e Ἂν λλῶ »” ὃ 3 \ ι ἢ Ν Ν
ἡσύχασε: φυλασσόμενος δὲ τὸν ὑπὸ πολλῶν ὄνειδον (οὐ γὰρ ἦν μακρὰν τὰ
ἘΠ᾿» 9 a λ ,ὕ ) ” = τ A K , > , ΄,
ὑπ᾽ αὑτοῦ τετολμημένα), ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοῦ Καρποφόρου ἀντιπίπτοντος, πέμπει
aN f 3 mA 6 / eed: DLA as 9 a θ᾽ -
αὐτὸν καταμένειν ἐν ᾿Ανθείῳ, opicas αὐτῷ μηνιαῖόν τι ἐκτροφῆς. μεθ᾽ οὗ
cal ’ Ν Ν Ν Ν [4 a“
κοίμησιν Zepuptvos συναράμενον αὑτὸν σχὼν πρὸς τὴν κατάστασιν τοῦ
΄ χη A 307 a \ A \ 2 AN a? ΄ > κ᾿
κλήρου, ἐτίμησε τῷ ἰδίῳ κακῷ, καὶ τοῦτον μεταγαγὼν ἀπὸ τοῦ ᾿Ανθείου εἰς τὸ
/ 2 7.4 Ν ΝΣ ἣν , na ε
κοιμητήριον κατέστησεν. ᾧ ἀεὶ συνὼν καί, καθὼς φθάσας προεῖπον, ὑπο-
I 3 Ν ,ὔ 5 ’ ΄ a Ν / , ,
κρίσει αὐτὸν θεραπεύων, ἐξηφάνισε μήτε κρῖναι τὰ λεγόμενα δυνάμενον μήτε
Aa \ a / 3 ΄ ΄ 2 A Ν a 2 a
νοοῦντα τὴν τοῦ Καλλίστου ἐπιβουλήν, πάντα αὐτῷ πρὸς ἃ ἥδετο ὁμιλοῦντος.
7] ‘ \ A ,ὔ Ν / ,ὔ ΗΒ ΝΑ, fal ν
οὕτω μετὰ τὴν τοῦ Ζεφυρίνου τελευτὴν νομίζων τετυχηκέναι οὗ ἐθηρᾶτο, τὸν
e Ν a > fal \ Ν / ψ
Σαβέλλιον ἀπέωσεν ὡς μὴ φρονοῦντα ὀρθῶς, δεδοικὼς ἐμὲ καὶ νομίζων οὕτω
, 2 ie Ν A \ tI / / c ae 4
δύνασθαι ἀποτρίψασθαι τὴν πρὸς Tas ἐκκλησίας κατηγορίαν, ws μὴ ἀλλοτρίως
a > 4 i, Ν a AO) ee / ΄ ,
φρονῶν. Hv οὖν γόης καὶ πανοῦργος Kal ἐπὶ χρόνῳ συνήρπασε πολλούς.
” Ν Ν Ἂ ΒΝ, ΕῚ / 3 aA / \ 3 / Ν “ 7
ἔχων δὲ καὶ τὸν ἰὸν ἐγκείμενον ἐν TH καρδίᾳ, καὶ εὐθέως μηδὲν φρονῶν, ἅμα
A nw > “
δὲ καὶ αἰδούμενος τὰ ἀληθῆ λέγειν, διὰ τὸ δημοσίᾳ ἡμῖν ὀνειδίζοντα εἰπεῖν,
δίθεοί ἐστε, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ ZaBeAXiov συχνῶς κατηγορεῖσθαι ὡς
Ue Ν ΄, / > ~ 9 U ὃ sf ‘ /
παραβάντα τὴν πρώτην πίστιν, ἐφεῦρεν αἵρεσιν τοιάνδε, λέγων τὸν Λόγον
aN > xe, Ἂν ἂν ἂν / ς ἄγε νὰ ‘\ 2 a ἌΝ \
αὐτὸν εἶναι υἱόν, αὐτὸν καὶ πατέρα ὀνόματι μὲν καλούμενον, ἕν δὲ ὃν TO
a 3 / 3 + Ξ mf Ν er 9 Ν - Ν Eee
πνεῦμα ἀδιαίρετον: οὐκ ἄλλο εἶναι πατέρα, ἄλλο δὲ υἱόν, Ev δὲ Kal TO αὐτὸ
lal » y+ 4
ὑπάρχειν: Kal τὰ πάντα γέμειν τοῦ θείου πνεύματος τά TE ἄνω καὶ κάτω" καὶ
> mel ~ / Ν “ 3 4 Ν Ν / > ‘
εἶναι τὸ ἐν TH παρθένῳ σαρκωθὲν πνεῦμα οὐχ ἕτερον Tapa τὸν πατέρα, ἀλλὰ
a > ν Ν
ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτό. καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι τὸ εἰρημένον: οὐ πιστεύεις ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν
Ὁ ὶ καὶ ὃ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί; τὸ μὲν γὰρ βλεπόμενον, ὅπερ ἐστὶν
τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί; μὲν γὰρ μενον, ὅπερ
a Ν , Ν an en an “ >
ἄνθρωπος, τοῦτο εἶναι TOV υἱόν, TO δὲ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ χωρηθὲν πνεῦμα τοῦτο εἶναι
Q , 5» ΄ὔ ὔ > An δύ 6 ΄ / \ [2.2 ip Ne id ε \
τὸν πατέρα: ov yap, φησίν, ἐρῶ δύο θεούς, πατέρα καὶ υἱόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἕνα. ὁ yap
> > nw / Ν ΄ XN 4 5 v2 ε 2
ἐν αὐτῷ γενόμενος πατὴρ προσλαβόμενος τὴν σάρκα ἐθεοποίησεν ἑνώσας
ε lal +) 7 a ε x “-“ θ 7 Ν εχ “ 6 / Ν a aA
ἑαυτῷ, καὶ ἐποίησεν ἕν, ws καλεῖσθαι πατέρα Kai υἱὸν ἕνα θεόν, καὶ τοῦτο ἕν
ay / \ ὃ ΄ θ 3 ὃ , Ἀζ εῖοι \ , θ ΄, a
ὃν πρόσωπον μὴ δύνασθαι εἶναι δύο, καὶ οὕτως τὸν πατέρα συμπεπονθέναι τῷ
ea > Ν ΄ ΄ Ν ΄ Ἅ Sen 3 ΄
vid: ov γὰρ θέλει λέγειν τὸν πατέρα πεπονθέναι καὶ ἕν εἶναι πρόσωπον ......
> la) ‘ > Ν Ἷ ,ὔ (se ine ἂν Ay, Ὧν ,
ἐκφυγεῖν τὴν εἰς τὸν πατέρα βλασφημίαν ὁ ἀνόητος καὶ ποικίλος, ὁ ἄνω κάτω
x ~ 3 ΄ a XN Ν
σκεδάζων βλασφημίας, ἵνα μόνον κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας λέγειν δοκῇ, ποτὲ μὲν
A a
εἰς τὸ Ξαβελλίου δόγμα ἐμπίπτων, ποτὲ δὲ εἰς TO Θεοδότου οὐκ αἰδεῖται.

HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS.: ipa

A c , / ’ “-“ Ν A 3 ,
τοιαῦτα ὁ γόης τολμήσας συνεστήσατο διδασκαλεῖον κατὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας
φ ὃ ὃ LE Ν A \ \ Ν ἡὃ δ “ > 6 ΄ a
οὕτως διδάξας, καὶ πρῶτος Ta πρὸς Tas ἡδονὰς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συγχωρεῖν
ἐπενό λέ Gow ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀφίεσθαι ἁμαρτίας. ὁ γὰρ παρ᾽ ἕτέ ὶ
ἐπενόησε, λέγων πᾶσιν ὑπ Ὁ ἀφίεσθαι ἁμαρτίας. γὰρ Tap ἑτέρῳ τινὶ
, Ν ΄ Ν » ΕΝ c ΄ 7 > ’,
συναγόμενος καὶ λεγόμενος Χριστιανὸς εἴ τι ἂν ἁμάρτῃ, φασίν, οὐ λογίζεται
ἢ a Le 6 , 9 δῷ A 3. ANNE ἜΧΩ τῷ ial >
αὐτῷ ἡ ἁμαρτία, εἰ προσδράμοι τῇ τοῦ Καλλίστου σχολῇ. οὗ τῷ ὅρῳ ape-
΄ Ν ΄ ΄ ov NIP ACSEN a Ce 2
σκόμενοι πολλοὶ συνείδησιν πεπληγότες ἅμα τε καὶ ὑπὸ πολλῶν αἱρέσεων
> ΄ ” A , e 7? a
ἀποβληθέντες, τινὲς δὲ Kal ἐπὶ καταγνώσει ἔκβλητοι τῆς ἐκκλησίας ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν
A , \ a A -
γενόμενοι, προσχωρήσαντες αὐτοῖς ἐπλήθυναν τὸ διδασκαλεῖον αὐτοῦ. οὗτος
/ c ’ XN [i lal
ἐδογμάτισεν ὅπως εἰ ἐπίσκοπος ἁμάρτοι τι, εἰ Kal πρὸς θάνατον, μὴ δεῖν
’, 8. ΔΝ / 4 Py) ἣν , Ν ὃ ΄΄
κατατίθεσθαι. ἐπὶ τούτου ἠρξαντο ἐπίσκοποι καὶ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ διάκονοι
δέ Ν ’, / 6 5 4 > δὲ , 5 λ ΄ a
ἔγαμοι καὶ τρίγαμοι καθίστασθαι εἰς κλήρους: εἰ δὲ καί τις ἐν κλήρῳ ὧν
Ν “ la ε \ ε ’ ‘
γαμοίη, μένειν τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ ὡς μὴ ἡμαρτηκότα: ἐπὶ τούτῳ
la 9. A \ ε \ A > fe ε ,ὔ Ν , > «ε Ῥ >
φάσκων εἰρῆσθαι τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀποστόλου ῥηθέν: σὺ Tis εἶ ὁ κρίνων ad-
/ Ἂν \ a / \ A
λότριον οἰκέτην; ἀλλὰ καὶ παραβολὴν τῶν ζιζανίων πρὸς τοῦτο ἔφη
/ ΜΝ ‘\ 7 , a“ , , > a >
λέγεσθαι: ἄφετε τὰ ζιζάνια συναύξειν τῷ σίτῳ, τούτεστιν ἐν TH ἐκ-
, Ν ci ΄ > Ν \ ‘ ἣν A tal 3 ε ͵ὕ
κλησίᾳ τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας. ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν τοῦ Νῶε εἰς ὁμοίωμα
2 λ te 3, ΄ 2 e Ν ΄ Ν x , \ τς \ ΄ Ν
ἐκκλησίας ἔφη γεγονέναι, ἐν ἣ καὶ κύνες καὶ λύκοι καὶ κόρακες καὶ πάντα τὰ
Ν x > , - / A Ss > 3 /, ε , VS,
καθαρὰ καὶ ἀκάθαρτα: οὕτω φάσκων δεῖν εἶναι ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ὁμοίως" Kal ὅσα
\ A \ 3 7 , -
πρὸς τοῦτο δυνατὸς ἦν συνάγειν οὕτως ἡρμήνευσεν, οὗ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ ἡσθέντες
a , ΄ὕ Η͂ ΄ ε rn \ A @ A
τοῖς δόγμασι διαμένουσιν ἐμπαίζοντες ἑαυτοῖς τε καὶ πολλοῖς, ὧν TO διδασκα-
λ , / 4 DN ὃ ‘ Ν Xr @ , “ 5 \ + λ ὃ ἣν \
ew συρρέουσιν ὄχλοι. διὸ καὶ πληθύνονται γαυριώμενοι ἐπὶ OXAOLS διὰ τὰς
ε 3 a > Δ ε ΄ Ὅ , 3Q\ ε lal
ἡδονάς, as ov συνεχώρησεν ὁ Χριστός: οὗ καταφρονήσαντες οὐδὲν ἁμαρτεῖν
, ῃ δοὺς 5, a > a κ \ \ \
κωλύουσι, φάσκοντες αὐτὸν ἀφίεναι τοῖς εὐδοκοῦσι. Kal yap καὶ γυναιξὶν
ΕΝ > 'Ψ > Ne 4 > , > 74 nN ¢€ A 367 δ
ἐπέτρεψεν, εἰ ἄνανδροι εἶεν καὶ ἡλικίᾳ γε ἐκκαίοιντο ἀναξίᾳ ἢ ἑαυτῶν ἀξίαν μὴ
, lal \ δὴ / a μὲ μ᾿ ἃ Ἂ One
βούλοιντο καθαιρεῖν διὰ τὸ νομίμως γαμηθῆναι, ἔχειν ἕνα ὃν ἂν αἱρήσωνται
΄ eee. ” > ΄ Ν A / 3 Nig .8. Ν Ν
σύγκοιτον, εἴτε οἰκέτην εἴτε ἐλεύθερον, καὶ τοῦτον κρίνειν ἀντὶ ἀνδρὸς μη
" a , >
νόμῳ γεγαμημένην. ἔνθεν ἤρξαντο ἐπιχειρεῖν πισταὶ λεγόμεναι ἀτοκίοις φαρ-
a Ν \ Ψ' / ἊΝ
μάκοις καὶ περιδεσμεῖσθαι πρὸς τὸ τὰ συλλαμβανόμενα καταβάλλειν, διὰ τὸ
rs , lol ‘
μήτε ἐκ δούλου βούλεσθαι ἔχειν τέκνον μήτε ἐξ εὐτελοῦς, διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν
« ε lal 7 > , ΓΥΣ ὦ
καὶ ὑπέρογκον οὐσίαν. ὁρᾶτε εἰς ὅσην ἀσέβειαν ἐχώρησεν ὁ ἄνομος μοιχείαν
\ , 3 A 2 A , Vensrn ΄, a , ε \ ε
καὶ φόνον ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ διδάσκων: καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις τοῖς τολμήμασιν ἑαυτοὺς οἱ
5 “ a 4
ἀπηρυθριασμένοι καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἀποκαλεῖν ἐπιχειροῦσι, Kat τινες νομί.
͵ πον γαῖ , , , ΄
ζοντες εὖ πράττειν συντρέχουσιν αὐτοῖς. ἐπὶ τούτου πρώτως τετόλμηται δεύ-
" + ᾿
τερον αὐτοῖς βάπτισμα.
ca) EA} ΄ 4 ΄
Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν 6 θαυμασιώτατος Κάλλιστος συνεστήσατο, οὗ διαμένει τὸ
»" Ν Ν ’ὔ Ν I “ Ἶ A
διδασκαλεῖον φυλάσσον τὰ ἔθη καὶ τὴν παράδοσιν, μὴ διακρῖνον τίσι δεῖ
na a δυο ΄,ὕ he \ / ans) a Ν Ὗ fot Ἄς ἢ
κοινωνεῖν, πᾶσι δ᾽ ἀκρίτως προσφέρον τὴν κοινωνίαν: ab οὗ καὶ τὴν τοῦ ονό-
lal \ δὴ , a ,
patos μετέσχον ἐπίκλησιν καλεῖσθαι διὰ τὸν πρωτοστατήσαντα τῶν τοιούτων
/
ἔργων Κάλλιστον Καλλιστιανοί.
“ 4 XN ‘
Τούτου κατὰ πάντα τὸν κόσμον διηχηθείσης τῆς διδασκαλίας, ἐνιδὼν τὴν
΄, > \ ΄ Ν > / / 3 4 ,
πραγματείαν ἀνὴρ δόλιος καὶ ἀπονοίας γέμων, ᾿Αλκιβιάδης τις καλούμενος,

ἌΣ ΠΞΕΞ

“= “<=

324 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

> “ > . , an , , e ‘\ Ν 3 lA ΕἸ ’ὔ
οἰκῶν ἐν ᾿Απαμείᾳ τῆς Συρίας, γοργότερον ἑαυτὸν καὶ εὐφυέστερον ἐν κυβείαις
a A fal 4, 4 4 ¢
κρίνας τοῦ Καλλίστου, ἐπῆλθε τῇ Ῥώμῃ φέρων βίβλον twa, φάσκων ταύτην
a a > A
ἀπὸ Ξηρῶν τῆς ἸΠαρθίας παρειληφέναι τινὰ ἀνδρα δίκαιον Ἤλχασαΐ.

(5) Ref. Haer. x. 1—5 (p. 310).
, + > a , fol \ a βου 4Ὰ 7 :
1. Τάδε ἔνεστιν ἐν τῇ δεκάτῃ τοῦ κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἐλέγχου
2. ἐπιτομὴ πάντων τῶν φιλοσόφων,
3. ἐπιτομὴ πασῶν [τῶν] αἱρέσεων,
4. καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσι, τίς ὁ τῆς ἀληθείας λόγος.
‘ ΄ fal Ie ea, > , 7¢é 3 Ν ΄
5. τὸν λαβύρινθον τῶν αἱρέσεων οὐ βίᾳ διαρρήξαντες, ἀλλα μόνῳ
΄“ 3 ’’
ἐλέγχῳ ἀληθείας δυνάμει διαλύσαντες, πρόσιμεν ἐπὶ τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπό-

δειξιν κιτ.λ.
(2) ‘Ref. Laer’ =. δ. 0: 311).

A a Q7
Συμπεριλαβόντες τοίνυν τὰ πάντων τῶν Tap Ἕλλησι σοφῶν δόγματα ἐν
, λί X δὲ lal ε ’ » , aA δ ‘ λ θ vas
τέσσαρσι βιβλίοις, Ta δὲ τοῖς αἱρεσιάρχαις ἐν πέντε, νῦν τὸν περὶ αληθείας

λόγον ἐν ἃ ἐπιδείξομεν, ἀνακεφαλαιούμενοι πρῶτον τὰ πᾶσι δεδοκημένα.

() Refi aer. x. 35 (0. 551}

Ἦσαν δὲ οὗτοι ὁβ ἔθνη, ὧν καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα ἐκτεθείμεθα ἐν ἑτέραις βίβλοις.

(ΠΩ acr, x. 32 (p. 324).
Εἰ φιλομαθήσουσι καὶ τὰς τούτων οὐσίας Kal Tas αἰτίας τῆς κατὰ πάντα
4 > ν». ” > » Cen , 7
δημιουργίας ἐπιζητήσουσιν, εἴσονται ἐντυχόντες ἡμῶν βίβλῳ περιεχούσῃ
“-“ an > “
Περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας" τὸ δὲ νῦν ἱκανὸν εἶναι ἐκθέσθαι τὰς ai-
pi τῆ
΄, aA 3 ΄ 7 A A ΄ \ , a“ ΄ 20°
tias, as ov γνόντες Ἕλληνες κομψῷ TO λόγῳ τὰ μέρη τῆς κτίσεως ἐδόξασαν
τὸν κτίσαντα ἀγνοήσαντες.

(2) Ref. Haer. x. 34 (p. 338).

Τοιοῦτος ὁ περὶ τὸ θεῖον ἀληθὴς λόγος, ὦ ἄνθρωποι “Ἕλληνές τε καὶ Bap-
βαροι, Χαλδαῖοί τε καὶ ᾿Ασσύριοι, Αἰγύπτιοί τε καὶ Λίβυες, Ἰνδοί τε καὶ
"52 " / Ν ε a a , ε Ν 3 ΄
Αἰθίοπες, Κελτοί τε καὶ οἱ στρατηγοῦντες Λατῖνοι, πάντες τε οἱ τὴν Εὐρώπην
᾿Ασίαν τε καὶ Λιβύην κατοικοῦντες, οἷς σύμβουλος ἐγὼ γίνομαι, φιλανθρώπου
λόγου ὑπάρχων μαθητὴς καὶ φιλάνθρωπος, ὅπως προσδραμόντες διδαχθῆτε

παρ᾽ ἡμῶν, τίς ὁ ὄντως Θεός.

2. CHAIR OF HippoLyTus [c. Δ Ὁ) 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. Jnscr. Graec. 8613 (Iv. p. 280).

A.

[προς τογς 1oyAa]ioyc
[περι οικονομήιδο
[εἰς τοὺς Ψ]δλμουο
[eic THN er ]ractpimy@on
5 ΥὙΠπΠῈρ TOY KATA IW
ANHN
€YAPPeAlOY Kal ἀπὸ
KAAY PEWC
περι YAPICMATON
10 ATTOCTOAIKH TIAPAAO
CIC
XPONIKGON
TIpoc E€AAHNAC
KAl πρὸς TIATW@NA
15 H ΚΑΙ ΠΈΡΙ TOY TIANTOC
TIPOTPETITIKOC προς CE
BHPEINAN
ATTOAEIZIC YPONODN
TOY TIACYA
20 KATA εν τῷ TIINAKI
W@AAI IC TIACAC TAC Γρὰ
Mac
ΠΕΡΙ OY KAI CAPKOC
ANACTACEWC
25 ΠΕΡῚ TATABOY ΚΑΙ
ΠΟΘΕΝ TO KAKON

In 1. 2 the remaining letters might be part of -was or -μιὰς or -vias. In 1. 14
πάτωνα is obviously an error for πλατωνα. In 1. 20 κατὰ is apparently an error for
κατα τὰ and not for καθα (as taken by Kirchhoff). In 1. 21 if the first word is cor-
rectly read ὡδαι, the second cs is an itacism for εἰς.

326 EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT.
B.

eTOYC A BaciAelac AAEZANAPOY AYTOKPATOPOC Efe
NETO H Al TOY TIACYA EIAOIC ATIpElAIAIC CABBATOD EM
BOAIMOY MHNOC [ENOMENOY ECTAI TOIC EZHC ETECIN KAO
ὧς YTOTETAKTAl EN TO) THNAKI ETENETO AE EN TOIC πάρω
YHKOCIN KAB@C CECHMEIWTAI ATIONHCTIZECOAl AE

ΔΕΙ OY AN ENTIECH 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 πάθος ypictoy.
Seven cycles are given so as to exhibit the relations of the days of the
week to the days of the month.

(:
ETE] AAEZANAPOY KAICAPOC
τῶ ἃ APXH
Al KYPIAKAL TOY TIACYA KATA ETOC
Al AE TIAPAKENTHCEIC AHAOYCI THN AICTTPOEZ.

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, 1.6. from A.D. 222
to A.D. 333, calculated in accordance with the above cycle. The dis
πρὸ ἕξ is the dissextum, and the παρακεντήσεις (‘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.

2. HUSEBIUS: [Ic Δ ἢ: 225]:
(a) Histor. Eccles. ii. 25.

Οὐδὲν δ᾽ ἧττον καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἀνήρ, Taios ὀνόματι, κατὰ Lepuptvov
Ῥωμαί eyovus ἐπίσκοπον: ὃς δὴ Πρόκλῳ τῇ ἡ Φρύ i 3
wpatwv γεγονὼς ovov: os δὴ Πρόκλῳ τῆς κατὰ Φρύγας προϊσταμένῳ
“ἢ > if ὃ x 6 ‘ 3 ἈΝ ὃ ὯΝ lal ἮΝ cal ὃ» 5 θ a
γνώμης ἐγγράφως διαλεχθεὶς αὐτὰ δὴ ταῦτα περὶ τῶν τόπων, ἔνθα τῶν
εἰρημένων ἀποστόλων τὰ ἱερὰ σκηνώματα κατατέθειται, φησίν"
> \ N \ ΄ a > , ” a ΠῚ \ ΄
Ἐγὼ δὲ τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ἀποστόλων ἔχω δεῖξαι. ἐὰν γὰρ θελήσῃς
> a 5: “ς Ν Ν AEN \ τῶν \ 3 ΄ὔ CHL \ 4
ἀπελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν Βατικανὸν ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν Ὥστίαν, εὑρήσεις τὰ τρό-
a \
Tala τῶν ταύτην ἱδρυσαμένων THY ἐκκλησίαν.
ἡ Ἡ. ἘΣ ies:
,
Kara τοὺς δεδηλωμένους χρόνους ἑτέρας αἱρέσεως ἀρχηγὸν γενέσθαι
des - "
Κήρινθον παρειλήφαμεν. Taios, οὗ φωνὰς ἤδη πρότερον παρατέθειμαι, ἐν

~ , 3 nn ζ , a“ Ἀ “ > “~ “2 é
TH φερομένῃ αὑτοῦ ζητήσει ταῦτα περὶ TOU αὑτοῦ γραφει

HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 327

> 5 ε °.

᾿Αλλὰ καὶ Κήρινθος ὁ dv ἀποκαλύψεων ws ὑπὸ ἀποστόλου μεγάλου

΄ ΄ εκ ε > > , Cy erat , as
γεγραμμένων τερατολογίας ἡμῖν ws dv ἀγγέλων αὐτῷ δεδειγμένας ψευδό-
μενος ἐπεισάγει, λέγων μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἐπίγειον εἶναι τὸ βασίλειον

A = \ ΄ 9 ΄ Nn me A > δ \ \ ΄

τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ πάλιν ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ἡδοναῖς ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ τὴν σάρκα
, , ἊΝ > \ ε , a“ lal lol a
πολιτευομένην δουλεύειν. καὶ ἐχθρὸς ὑπάρχων ταῖς γραφαῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ

ἀριθμὸν χιλιονταετίας ἐν γάμῳ ἑορτῆς θέλων πλανᾶν λέγει γίνεσθαι.

(¢) , Fiest. Ecc. τ 3%.
A A = a ΄ ΄ 9 / ΄
Καὶ ἐν τῷ Γαΐου δέ, οὗ μικρῷ πρόσθεν ἐμνήσθημεν, διαλόγῳ Πρόκλος,
\ ἃ > a \ , \ ~ ΄ \ A θ ΄ > A
πρὸς ὃν ἐποιεῖτο τὴν ζήτησιν, περὶ τῆς Φιλίππου καὶ τῶν θυγατέρων αὐτοῦ
- r “ τ
τελευτῆς συνάδων τοῖς ἐκτεθεῖσιν οὕτω φησίν:
lol /
Mera τοῦτον δὲ προφήτιδες τέσσαρες at Φιλίππου γεγένηνται ἐν ‘lepo-
νὰ a Ν Ἂν 3 7 ε ’, > aA > Ν » A“ Ν c “ ‘
πόλει τῇ κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν: ὁ τάφος αὐτῶν ἐστὶν ἐκεῖ, καὶ ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς
αὐτῶν.
ΟΥ̓ ἘΣ ἜΣ νὴ 20:
τι ΄ ͵ ΠῚ
"Hxpalov δὲ κατὰ τοῦτο πλείους λόγιοι καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ ἀνδρες, ὧν
aS > ΄ ἃ Ν 3 , ΄ + a / ε “-“
καὶ ἐπιστολάς, ἃς πρὸς ἀλλήλους διεχάραττον, ἔτι νῦν σωζομένας εὑρεῖν
4 \ \ > ec oa / “ 3 7 , κ᾿
εὔπορον. at καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐῤφυλάχθησαν ἐν τῇ Kat Αἰλίαν βιβλιοθήκῃ πρὸς
an / ,
τοῦ τηνικάδε τὴν αὐτόθι διέποντος ἐκκλησίαν ᾿Αλεξάνδρου ἐπισκευασθείσῃ,
3 3 e ‘\ > Ν ‘ Wi an \ a ε , > \ > Ν
ab ἧς καὶ αὐτοὶ τὰς ὕλας τῆς μετὰ χεῖρας ὑποθέσεως ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ συνα-
=~ ΄ A , \ > a κ᾿ ΄
γαγεῖν δεδυνήμεθα. τοῦτων Βήρυλλος σὺν ἐπιστολαῖς καὶ συγγραμμάτων
διαφόρους φιλοκαλίας καταλέλοιπεν. ἐπίσκοπος δ᾽ οὗτος ἣν τῶν κατὰ
Βόστραν ᾿Αράβων: ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ Ἱππόλυτος, ἑτέρας που καὶ αὐτὸς προ-
p ρ ᾽ p ρ
[2 «ὦ δ >
εστὼς ἐκκλησίας. ἦλθε δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς καὶ Tatov Aoywratov ἀνδρὸς διάλογος
‘\ - , “ NX , [2
ἐπὶ Ρώμης κατὰ Ζεφυρῖνον πρὸς Πρόκλον τῆς κατὰ Φρύγας αἱρέσεως ὑπερ-
᾿ς e A > \ \ ,
μαχοῦντα κεκινημένος, ἐν ᾧ τῶν Ov ἐναντίας τὴν περὶ TO συντάττειν καινὰς
r ~ ων /
γραφὰς προπέτειάν τε καὶ τόλμαν ἐπιστομίζων τῶν τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἀποστόλου
A tal 4 Ν ε / Ν ,
δεκατριῶν μόνων ἐπιστολῶν μνημονεύει, τὴν πρὸς “Ε βραίους μὴ συναριθμήσας
lal a A ε > na
ταῖς λοιπαῖς: ἐπεὶ Kat εἰς δεῦρο παρὰ Ῥωμαίων τισὶν οὐ νομίζεται τοῦ

3 , fF
αποστόλου τυγχάνειν.

(4). Hist, Beck vi.b22.

Tore δῆτα καὶ Ἱππόλυτος συντάττων peta πλείστων ἄλλων ὑπομνημάτων
καὶ τὸ περὶ TOY TACYA πεποίηται σύγγραμμα, ἐν ᾧ τῶν χρόνων ἀναγρα-
φὴν ἐκθέμενος καί τινα κανόνα ἑκκαιδεκαετηρίδος περὶ τοῦ πάσχα προθεὶς ἐπὶ
τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος ᾿Αλεξάνδρου αὐτοκράτορος τοὺς χρόνους περιγράφει. τῶν δὲ
λοιπῶν αὐτοῦ συγγραμμάτων τὰ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλθέντα ἐστὶ τάδε: εἰς THN
EZAHMEPON, εἰς τὰ μετὰ τὴν ἐἑξδέμερον, πρὸς MAPKI@NA,
εἰς TO ACMA, εἶς μέρη τοῦ ἰεζεκιήλ, περὶ τοῦ πάοχὰ, πρὸς
AMACAC τὰς alp€ceic’ πλεῖστά τε ἄλλα καὶ παρὰ πολλοῖς εὕροις ἂν

σωζόμενα.

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 1. p. 250, 264) and may have been much earlier.

(6) Catalogus Episcoporum (see above, 1. 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. EPIPHANIUS [c. A.D. 375].

HHaeres. ΧΧΧΙ. 35 (p. 205).
tal “- A “ 32 -“ ε

Ἡμεῖς δὲ ἀρκεσθέντες τοῖς τε παρ᾽ ἡμῶν λεχθεῖσιν ὀλίγοις καὶ τοῖς ὑπὸ
-“ tol > / ΄ -“ ~ , \ ~ ‘A
τῶν τῆς ἀληθείας συγγραφέων τούτων λεχθεῖσί τε καὶ συνταχθεῖσι, Kat
ὁρῶντες ὅτι ἄλλοι πεπονήκασι, φημὶ δὲ Κλήμης καὶ Εἰρηναῖος καὶ Ἱππόλυτος
καὶ ἄλλοι πλείους, οἱ καὶ θαυμαστῶς τὴν κατ᾽ αὐτῶν πεποίηνται ἀνατροπήν,
οὐ πάνυ τι τῷ καμάτῳ προσθεῖναι, ὡς προεῖπον, ἠθελήσαμεν, ἱκανωθέντες τοῖς

προειρημένοις ἀνδράσι κ.τ.λ.

6. APOLLINARIS? [c. A.D. 370].

Mai Script. Veter. Nov. Collect. τ. Ὁ. 173.

ε

᾿Απολιναρίου... Εὐσέβιος ὁ Παμφίλου καὶ Ἱππόλυτος ὁ ἁγιώτατος ἐπί-
σκοπος Ῥώμης ἀπεικάζουσι τὴν προκειμένην τοῦ Ναβουχοδονόσορ ὅρασιν τῇ
τοῦ προφήτου Δανιὴλ ὀπτασίᾳ.

A comment on Daniel 11. 34 in ἃ 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) Lnscriptio in Coemeterio Hippolytt.

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

eer

~~ eS ee έν σα

HIPPOLYTUS ‘OF PORTUS: 329

This inscription is preserved in a S. Petersburg ms (formerly of
Corbei, and afterwards of 5. Germain des Pres) which contains a
sylloge of inscriptions, and is described in Bull. di Archeol. Crist.
1881, p. 554. The sylloge is printed in De Rossi’s Zuscr. Christ. Urb.
Rom. τι. 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 Bull. l.c. p. 26 sq. It is headed kn seo Hppolite martprae, 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.

(ὁ) 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]
S ERVATVRA DECVS PERPETV|AMQUE FIDEM]
HAEC OMNIA NOVA QUAEQVE VIDIS LE[O PRESBYT|ER HORNAT,

where the first six lines give an acrostich LEonis, and gwaegue 15
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 (Bull. 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. 76. 1882, p. 176). It was found in the vestibule
leading to the crypt of S. Hippolytus.

8. HreRONyMUS [A.D. 378—400]
(a), De Vir. ΖΗ τὸ:

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.

(4) De Vir. Ml. 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, ἐννεακαιδεκαε-
τηρίδα Composuit, occasionem dedit. Scripsit nonnullos in scripturas
commentarios, e quibus haec repperi: zz Hexaemeron, in Exodum, in
Canticum Canticorum, in Genesim, in Zachariam, de Psalmis, in Esaiam,
de Daniele, de Apocalypst, de Proverbiis, de Ecclesiaste, de Saul et Pythontssa,
de Antichristo, de Resurrectione, contra Marcionem, de Pascha, adversus
Omnes Hereses, ef TPpOCOMIAIAN de Laude Domini 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 ei 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 ἐργοδιώκτην eum
Origenes vocat.

(c) £pist. xxxvi. τό 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, etc.’

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.

(4) 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:
(6) fist. xx. 4 ad Magnum (I. p. 429, Vallarsi).
Hunc [Clementem] imitatus Origenes decem scripsit Stromateas,

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 ieiunandum 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.

ἢ ἜΣ \xxxiv.1 7. {1 ps 29).

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.’

(ἡ Comm. in Matt. i. praef. (vil. 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 τι. 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. Rurinus [f4.D. 410].

Fist. 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 8. 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.

το. 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
IO 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.

|
q
|
,

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

HPPPOLYTUS ‘OF PORTUS: 333

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

100

105

110

115

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.

Ille 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

155

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 virl.

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 laceris.

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 exsequiis.

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

339

336 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

Illustratque dies limina vestibuli.
Inde, ubi progressu facili nigrescere visa est
160 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 :
165 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,
170 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.
175 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,
180 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.
185 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
190 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.
195 Iam cum se renovat decursis mensibus annus,
Natalemque diem passio festa refert,
Quanta putas studiis certantibus agmina cogi,
Quaeve celebrando vota coire Deo?

200

210

215

220

225

230

235

HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS.

Urbs augusta suos vomit effunditque Quirites,
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 dubium est, ampla fauce licet pateat.

Stat sed iuxta aliud quod tanta frequentia templum
Tunc 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.

37

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.

rif “PALLADIUS )[C./A.Do4 an}.
fTist. Lausiac. 148 (Patrol. Graec. XXXull. p. 1251, Migne).
Ἔν ἄλλῳ βιβλιδαρίῳ ἐπιγεγραμμένῳ Ἱππολύτου τοῦ γνωρίμου τῶν
ἀποστόλων εὗρον διήγημα τοιοῦτον.
Hiyeveotary τις καὶ ὡραιοτάτη παρθένος ὑπῆρχεν ἐν τῇ Κορίνθῳ κ.τ.λ.

12. THEODORET [4.Ὁ. 446].
(2) Dialogus i (tv. p. 54 sq, Schulze).
ΤΟΥ͂ Arioy ἱππολύτου EmICKOTOY KAl μάρτυρος, EK TOY
Adroy τοῦ εἰς τὸ Κύριος ποιμδίνει me’
καὶ κιβωτὸς δὲ ἐκ ξύλων κ.τ.λ.
ΤΟΥ͂ ΔΥτοΟΥ͂ ἐκ τοῦ. λόγου τοῦ εἶς τὸν ἐλκὰνάν Kal THN
ANNAN.

>

"Aye δή μοι, ὦ Σαμουήλ, κ-.τ.λ.

TOY aytoy ἐκ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ εἰς τὴν ἀρχὴν TOY Hcaloy.

Αἰγύπτῳ μὲν τὸν κόσμον ἀπείκασε κ.τ.λ.

(ὁ) Dialogus ii (IV. p. 130 sq).

TOY Arloy ἱππολύτου ἐπιοκόπου KAl MApTypoc, ἐκ TOF
λόγου TOY εἶς THN τῶν TAAANTON AIANOMHN.

Τούτους δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἑτεροδόξους φήσειεν av τις γειτνιᾶν K.T.A.

an > na > n \ ᾿ ‘ > n

TOY 4YTOY EK TEC Tpoc BACIAIAA TINA ETTICTOAHC.

᾿Απαρχὴν οὖν τοῦτον λέγει τῶν κεκοιμημένων, ἅτε πρωτότοκον τῶν
νεκρῶν κ.τ.λ.

τοῦ δὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ λόγουγ τοῦ εἰς τὸν ἐλκὰνάν κὰἀὶ εἰς
THN ANNAN.

A AN ~ nw lel ἯΝΪ > \ Ἂς
καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τρεῖς καιροὶ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ προετυποῦντο εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν

σωτῆρα κ.οτ.λ.

HIvPOLyY EUS OF PORTUS, 339

> \ \

τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ TOY λόγου TOY εἰς THN WAHN THN Me-
raAHN.

‘O τὸν ἀπολωλότα ἐκ γῆς πρωτόπλαστον ἄνθρωπον x.7.X.

τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς ἑρμηνείὰς τοῦ 8΄ ΨψΔλμΟΥ͂.

Οὗτος ὁ προελθὼν εἰς τὸν κόσμον Θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἐφανερώθη κ.τ.λ.

a 3 n a , ι ‘ ,

τοῦ ἀὐτοῦ ἐκ TOF λόγου Eic TON KP YAAMON.

Ἔρχεται ἐπὶ τὰς οὐρανίας πύλας, ἄγγελοι αὐτῷ συνοδεύουσι κ.τ.λ.

(c) Dialogus iii {πν. p. 232 sq).

TOY ἁγίου ἱππολύτου ἐπιοκόπου Kal μᾶρτυρουο'" ἐκ τῆς
πρὸς Βδοιλίλδὰ τινὰ ἐπιοτολῆο.

᾿Απαρχὴν οὖν τοῦτον λέγει τῶν κεκοιμημένων, ἅτε πρωτότοκον τῶν
νεκρῶν κ.τ.λ.

τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ λόγου εἰς τοὺὴς AYO AHCTAC.

3 ΄ὕ ΄ \ A , A a ΄ - Ky te \ \

Αμφότερα παρέσχε TO τοῦ Κυρίου σώμα τῷ κοσμῳ, αἷμα TO ἱερὸν και
ὕδωρ τὸ ἅγιον κ-.τ.λ.

(4) Haereticae Fabulae ii. 3 (τν. p. 330).

κατὰ τούτου δὲ [τοῦ Κηρίνθου] οὐ μόνον ot προρρηθέντες συνέγραψαν,
ἀλλὰ σὺν ἐκείνοις καὶ Τιάϊος καὶ Διονύσιος 6 τῆς ᾿Αλεξανδρέων ἐπίσκοπος.

(ὃ Haereticae Fabulac ii. αὶ (ν. p. 331).

καὶ Θεόδοτος δὲ 6 Βυζάντιος 6 σκυτεὺς ταὐτὰ τούτῳ [τῷ ᾿Αρτέμωνι)
πεφρονηκὼς ἑτέρας ἡγήσατο φρατρίας. τοῦτον δὲ ὁ τρισμακάριος Βίκτωρ
ὁ τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπος ἀπεκήρυξεν, ὡς παραχαράξαι πειραθέντα τῆς ἐκκλη-
σίας τὰ δόγματα. κατὰ τῆς τούτων αἱρέσεως ὁ CMIKPOC συνεγράφη
λάδύρινθοο, ὅν τινες Ὡριγένους ὑπολαμβάνουσι ποίημα, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ χαρακτὴρ
ον \ / ” S38 aA a” ” , ΄, 3
ἐλέγχει τοὺς λέγοντας. εἴτε δὲ ἐκεῖνος εἴτε ἄλλος συνέγραψε, τοιόνδε ἐν
αὐτῷ διηγεῖται διήγημα. Νὰατάλιον ἔφη τινά, κ-τ.λ.

(f) Haereticae Fabulae iii. τ (τιν. p. 340 56).

κατὰ τούτων [τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν] καὶ ὁ προρρηθεὶς συνέγραψε Κλήμης καὶ
Εἰρηναῖος καὶ ᾿Ωριγένης καὶ Ἵππόλυτος ἐπίσκοπος καὶ μάρτυρ.

(6) Haereticae Fabulae iii. 3 (τν. p. 342).

‘ \ , i ny (Har) A \ , ΄

κατὰ δὲ Πρόκλου τῆς αὐτῆς αἱρέσεως [τῆς κατὰ Φρύγας] προστατεύ-
σαντος συνέγραψε dios, οὗ καὶ πρόσθεν ἐμνήσθημεν.

(1) L£pistolae 145 (ιν. p. 1252).

‘ ε δ, ΄ 3 ΄ A ’ Ν ΕἸ tal

καὶ ot τούτων πρεσβύτεροι ᾿Ιγνάτιος καὶ Πολύκαρπος καὶ Eipnvatos
καὶ Ἰουστῖνος καὶ Ἱππόλυτος, ὧν οἱ πλείους οὐκ ἀρχιερέων προλάμπουσι
μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν μαρτύρων διακοσμοῦσι χορόν.

22—2

340 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

13. GeEtastus [A.D. 492—496].

Bibl. Patr. vu. 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).
Περὶ δὲ τοῦ θεοπνεύστου τῆς βίβλου ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις Βασίλειος καὶ Τρηγόριος
ὁ θεῖος τὸν λόγον καὶ Κύριλλος καὶ Παπίας καὶ Εἰρηναῖος καὶ Μεθόδιος καὶ

ε id € is Ν /, 3 / ΄
Ἱππόλυτος, οἱ ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ πατέρες, ἐχέγγυοι πιστώσασθαι.

(2) Ln Apocalyps. xiil. τ.

Τοῖς δὲ ἁγίοις Μεθοδίῳ καὶ Ἱππολύτῳ καὶ ἑτέροις eis αὐτὸν τὸν
> , ‘ A , 9 , > a ΄ a ,
ἀντίχριστον τὸ παρὸν θηρίον ἐξείληπται, ἐκ τῆς πολυταράχου τοῦ βίου
τούτου θαλάσσης καὶ πολυκύμονος ἐξερχόμενον κ.τ.λ.

Hippolytus is also quoted on xiii. 18 and on xvii. 10 (comp.
Cramer’s Catena, p. 385).

15. LIBER PONTIFICALIS [C. A.D. 530, A.D.?].

On the two recensions of the Zzber Pontificalis and their respective
dates see above, I. p. 303 sq.

A. Relating to S. Hippolytus.
(a) Vita Pontiani [Α.Ὁ. 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 WV. Z. iii. 8, § 92, Steph. Byz. s.v.
The latter however wrongly calls it a ‘ city’ of Sicily.

(b) Vita Gregorit 7.17 [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

(ἡ Vita Hadriani |a.D. 772—795] 1. p. 511.

Simul et cymiterlum 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.

(4) Vita Leonis 777 |a.D. 795—816] 11. 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.

(Ὁ) Vita Leonts IV [4.Ὁ. 847—855] 11. 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 familiis numero xvill... pariter sub sacro altare
recondens locavit.

70... 11: a E25:

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,

p- 199.

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 Δ.Ὁ. 432—-440] 1. p. 233 56.

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 77 [a.D. 579—590] 1. p. 309.
Hic fecit supra corpus beati Laurenti martyris basilicam a funda-
mento constructam et tabulis argenteis exornavit sepulchrum ejus.

(4) Vita Hadriant [a.D. 772—795] 1. 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.

(6) 28. p.. 594.
In ecclesia vero beati Laurentii martyris atque levite foris muros
huius civitatis Romae fecit vela etc.

(f) 2. Ρ. 505.

Item ipse ter beatissimus praesul in basilica maiore, quae appellatur
sancte Dei genetricis, qui aderat iuxta basilicam sancti Laurentii
martyris adque levite ubi eius sanctum corpus requiescit, foris muros
huius civitatis Romae, obtulit vela de stauracim etc.

(g) 7. 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
eius 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 elus.

(A)M 26 SIE:

Fecit autem idem praesagus antistes in confessione beati Laurentii
foris muros imaginem ex auro purissimo in modum evangeliorum,
eiusdem beati Laurentii effigies continentem, etc.

HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 34

(SS)

16. CyYRILLUS OF SCYTHOPOLIS [c. A.D. 555].

Vita S. Euthymii p. 82 (Hippol. Of. τ. p. ix sq, Fabricius).

"Erous πέμπτου ἑξηκοστοῦ τετρακοσιοστοῦ κατὰ τοὺς συγγραφέντας
χρόνους ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων Ἵππολύτου τοῦ παλαιοῦ καὶ γνωρίμου τῶν
ἀποστόλων καὶ ᾿Επιφανίου τοῦ Κυπριώτου κ.τ.λ.

17. GREGORY OF TourRs [c. A.D. 577].

Uist. Lane i 59. (i, p.147 Sg, αὶ Arndt et Krusch).

Sub Decio vero imperatore...Xystus Romanae ecclesiae episcopus
et Laurentius archidiaconus et Hyppolitus ob dominici nominis confes-
slonem per martyrium consummati sunt.

18. EUSTRATIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE [c. A.D. 578].
Adv. Psychopannychitas το (Hippol. Of. τι. p. 32, Fabricius).
λέγει TOINYN ἱππόλγτος ὁ MApTYC KAl ἐπίοκοπος PamHc
EN τῷ δεγτέρῳ λόγῳ εἶς TON AANIHA TOIAYTA.

, > ἘΝ 17) “ a a ΕΝ
Τότε μὲν οὖν συστὰς ᾿Αζαρίας ἅμα τοῖς λοιποῖς δι᾿ ὕμνου κ-.τ.λ.

Ig. STEPHANUS GOBARUS [c. A.D. 575—600?].
Photius ibliotheca 232 (p. 291 8).

"Ere δὲ ποίας ὑπολήψεις ἔσχεν Ἵππόλυτος καὶ “Exipavios περὶ Νικολάου

cal ἣν - la / Ni τς ὁ cal 5 “ ΄
του ἕνος των @ διακόνων και OTL ἰσχυρῶς αὐτου KATAYLVWO KOUG LV, K.T.A-

an \ x «ε ‘\ ,
Ὅτι Ἱππόλυτος καὶ Εἰρηναῖος τὴν πρὸς “EBpaiovs ἐπιστολὴν Παύλου
οὐκ ἐκείνου εἶναί φασι.

Τίνας ὑπολήψεις εἶχεν ὁ ἁγιώτατος Ἱππόλυτος περὶ τῆς τῶν Μοντανιστῶν
αἱρέσεως, καὶ τίνας ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις τῆς Νύσσης Γρηγόριος.

20. LEONTIUS ΟΕ ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΟΜ [c. A.D. 620].
(a) De Sectis Act. ii. § 1 (Patrol. Graec. LXXXvVI. p. 1213, Migne).
"Byévovto δὲ ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς γεννήσεως τοῦ Χριστοῦ μέχρι
-“ / 4 / Ν / σῷ 3 Γι ε

τῆς βασιλείας Κωνσταντίνου διδάσκαλοι καὶ πατέρες olde’ ᾿Ιγνάτιος ὁ
Θεοφόρος, Hipynvaios, Ἰουστῖνος φιλόσοφος καὶ μάρτυς, Κλήμης καὶ
ἹἽππόλυτος ἐπίσκοποι Ῥώμης, κ.τ.λ.

(0) ¢. Mestorium et Eutychem Lib. i (tb. p. 1312).

τοῦ ArioY ἱππολύτου ἐπιοκόπου Kal μᾶρτγρος ἐκ τῶν
εὐλογιῶν TOY BAAAAM.

Iva δειχθῇ τὸ συναμφότερον ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ K.T.A,

344 EPISTLES OF 8. CLEMENT.

21. CHRONICON PASCHALE [c. A.D. 630].

p. 12 sq (ed. Bonn.).

Ἵππόλυτος τοίνυν ὁ τῆς εὐσεβείας μάρτυς, ἐπίσκοπος γεγονὼς τοῦ
καλουμένου Πόρτου πλησίον τῆς Ῥώμης, EN τῷ πρὸς ATIACAC TAC
AIPECEIC οὐντάγμδτι ἔγραψεν ἐπὶ λέξεως οὕτως.

«ε - Ν > ¢ ΄ A τα ,ὔ Ν [2 3 ’,’ ν

Opa μὲν οὖν ὅτι φιλονεικίας τὸ ἔργον. λέγει yap οὕτως ἐποίησε TO

id ε Ν ’ »“ ε ΄ὔ΄ ἌΝ Ν 5 Ν nm a ΄ ε

πάσχα ὁ Χριστὸς τότε τῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἔπαθεν" διὸ κἀμὲ δεῖ, ὃν τρόπον ὁ

Κύριος ἐποίησεν, οὕτω ποιεῖν: πεπλάνηται δὲ μὴ γινώσκων ὅτι ᾧ καιρῷ

ἔπασχεν ὁ Χριστὸς οὐκ ἔφαγε τὸ κατὰ νόμον πάσχα, οὗτος γὰρ ἢν τὸ
πάσχα τὸ προκεκηρυγμένον καὶ τὸ τελειούμενον τῇ ὠρισμένῃ ἡμέρᾳ.

καὶ πάλιν ὁ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ λύγῳ τοῦ περὶ TOY Arloy
TACYA ογγγράμματοο εἴρηκεν οὕτως"

Οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἐσχάτοις K.T.A.

Wordsworth (pp. 51, 267) ascribes this passage to Peter of Alexandria, and so
apparently did Bunsen (Wordsworth p. 51, Ddllinger p. 19) in his earlier work, but in
his second edition (1854) he does not say anything of the kind (1. 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 ἀειπαρθένου καὶ κατὰ ἀλήθειαν θεοτόκου Μαρίας (p. το),
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. Cone. vil. p. 287 (ed. Coleti).
TOY Arloy immoAYTOY ἐπιοκύποΥ Kal MApTypoc ἐκ TOF
περὶ θεολογίδο λύΓΟΥ.
Τὸ θέλειν ἔχει 0 Θεός, οὐ τὸ μὴ θέλειν, κιτ.λ.
70. NIL Ps 1293.

ΤΟΥ͂ Arioy immoAYTOY ἐπιοκόπου Kal μᾶρτγρος ἐκ TAC
εἰς TO TACYA EZHTHCEWC.

Ὅλος ἣν [ἐν] πᾶσι καὶ πανταχοῦ, γεμίσας δὲ τὸ πᾶν «K.T.A.

23. ANASTASIUS APOCRISIARIUS [Α.Ὁ. 665].

Lpist. 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

4
|
|
|

᾿
a atl i ni alll a a νῶν,

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.

τοῦ ἁγίου ἱππολύτου ἐπιοκόπου πόρτου, ἤγουν TOY λι-
μένος PQ@MHC, κἀὶ μᾶρτυρος τῆς ἀληθείδο, ἐκ TOY KATA
Βήρωνος kal HAiKoc (Vv. 1. ἡλικίωνοο) τῶν δἱρετικῶν περὶ
θεολογίὰς κἀὶ CAPK@CEWC KATA CTOIYEION λύΓογ, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή;
ἽΑγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος Κύριος σαβαώθ, ἀσιγήτῳ φωνῇ βοῶντα τὰ σεραφὶμ τὸν
Θεὸν δοξάζωσι"

᾿Απειροδυνάμῳ γὰρ θελήσει τοῦ Θεοῦ κ-ιτ.λ.

24. ANASTASIUS SINAITA [c. A.D. 680].
(a) Hodegus 23 (Patrol. Gracc. UXXXI1X. p. 301, Migne).
Ἱππολύτου ἐπιοκόπου ῥώμης ἐκ TOY περὶ ANACTACEWC
KAl ἀφθὰροίδο λόΓοΥ.
"Ἔσονται, φησίν, ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει οἱ ἀνθρωποι κ.τ.λ.
(ὁ) Quaestiones 4τ (p. 592, Migne).
Ἱππολύτου ἐκ TOY εἶς TO ACMA ACMATOON.
Kai ποῦ πᾶσα ἡ πλουσία αὕτη γνῶσις ; ποῦ δὲ Ta μυστήρια K.T.X.
(ὃ Quaestiones 48 (p. 604, Migne).
ἱἹππολύτου ἐκ TOY εἰς TON AANIHA.
Tov yap σιδηρῶν κνημῶν τῶν νῦν ἐπικρατουσῶν ἐπὶ τὰ ἴχνη τῶν ποδῶν
K.T.A.
25. PsEUDO-JOHN oF Damascus [c. A.D. 700?].
(a2) Sacra Parallela Rupef. (Op. τι. p. 787, Lequien).
TOY ἁγίου ἱππολύτου βώμηο.
ταῦτα δὲ κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην ἔχομεν διηγήσασθαι, ὅπως τὴν ὑπόνοιαν, K.T.A.
(ὁ) Sacra Parallela Rupef. (Op. τι. p. 781).
Ἱππολύτου ἐπιοκόπου βώμης περὶ χριοτοῦ KAl TOY ANTI-
ΧΡΙΟΤΟΥ.
ἀλλὰ τούτων ἐν προοιμίῳ εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ εἰρημένων.
26. GERMANUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE [c. A.D. 720].
Rerum Eccl. Contempl. (Patrol. Graec. Xcvil. p. 417, Migne).

- Xe ΄ « ΄ © A
Τοῦτο καὶ Ἵππόλυτος Ῥώμης καὶ ὁ ἅγιος Κύριλλος λέγουσιν ἐν τοῖς

346 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

Ἁ (0 , Τὰ 3 - > - ε -“ a
περὶ τοῦ ᾿Αντιχρίστου λόγοις αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ ἑξακισχιλιοστῷ πεντακοσιοστῷ
ἔτει τὴν μέλλουσαν παρουσίαν ἔσεσθαι.

See Overbeck Quaest. Hippol. p. 30 sq.

27. PsEuDO-CHRYSOSTOM [A.D. ?].

De Pseudo-prophetis (Chrysost. Of. VII. app. p. 79).

Ποῦ ᾿Ιγνάτιος τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ οἰκητήριον; ποῦ ὁ Διονύσιος τὸ πετεινὸν τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ; ποῦ ἹἽππόλυτος ὁ γλυκύτατος καὶ εὐνούστατος;

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.).

Ἱππόλυτος ἱερὸς φιλόσοφος ἐπίσκοπος Πόρτου τοῦ κατὰ τὴν Ῥώμην
σφόδρα διαπρεπῶς ἤνθει ἐν τῇ κατὰ Χριστὸν φιλοσοφίᾳ, πλεῖστα ψυχωφελῆ
συντάττων ὑπομνήματας εἴς τε γὰρ τὴν ἑξδήμερον KAI εἶς τὰ
META THN €ZAHMEPON, εἰς πολλὰ τε τῶν προφητῶν, MAAICTA
ἰεζεκιὴλ KAl AANIHA τῶν μεγᾶλων, ἔτι μὴν EIC τὰ ACMATA KAl
εἰς AAAAC TANTOIAC πὰάλδιὰς Kal νέδο γράφᾶο, ἐν οἷς καὶ εἰς
THN ἐν πᾶτμῳ τοῦ θεολόγογ ἀποκάλυψιν, πρὸς Μμὰρκίωνὰ
καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς AIPECEIC, καὶ τὸν. EZKAIAEKAETHPIKON TOY πᾶοχὰ
KANONA ἐξέθετο περιγράψας εἰς τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος ᾿Αλεξάνδρου τοῦ Μαμμαίας
τούτου, καὶ συντόμως φάναι θεοφραδὴς ποταμὸς τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ζώντων ναμάτων
γέγονε, τὸν μαρτυρικὸν περιθέμενος στέφανον πρὸς τῷ τέλει.

(ὁ) Chronographia p. 685 (ed. Bonn.).

πάνυ yap ὀλίγον περὶ τῶν κατὰ τούσδε τοὺς χρόνους ἱερῶν καὶ μακαρίων
πατέρων ἐπιμνησθείς, Κλήμεντος λεγομένου Στρωματέως, ᾿Ἱππολύτου τοῦ
ἱερομάρτυρος, ᾿Αφρικανοῦ τοῦ ἱστορικοῦ, Διονυσίου τοῦ μεγάλου ᾿Αλεξαν-

δρείας, καὶ ἀλλων.

29. NiIcEPHORUS [Tf A.D. 828].

Antirrhetica ii. 13 (Spicil. Solesm. τ. Ὁ. 347).

TOY ἁγίου ἱππολύτου ἐπιοκόπου πόρτου Kal μᾶρτγροο ἐκ
TOY KATA BHPWNOC KAI ἡλικίωνος τῶν δἱρετικῶν λόγου οὗ
ἢ ἀρχή; ἽΔγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος.

Ἃ ,
To yap ἄπειρον κατ᾽ οὐδένα λόγον ἢ τρόπον K.T.A.

HIiPPOLYTUS ‘OF PORTUS. 347

30. GEoRcIUS HaMARTOLUS [c. A.D. 810].

Chronicon iii. 134, p. 336 (Migne, Patrol. Graec. cx. p. 521).

Od μὴν δὲ ἀλλὰ Kat ὁ θεῖος Ἵππόλυτος Ῥώμης περὶ τοῦ κηρύγματος
καὶ τῆς τελειώσεως τῶν ἀποστόλων διεξιὼν ἔφη" ᾿Ιωάννης [δὲ] ὁ ἀδελφὸς
Ἰακώβου κηρύσσων ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ τὸν λόγον [τοῦ εὐαγγελίου] ἐξωρίσθη ἐν
Πάτμῳ τῇ νήσῳ ὑπὸ Δομετιανοῦ βασιλέως Ῥώμης, κἀκεῖθεν πάλιν εἰς
"Edeoov ἐκ τῆς ἐξορίας ἀνακληθεὶς ὑπὸ Νερβᾶ καὶ τὸ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν εὐαγγέλιον
συγγραψάμενος, ἔνθα καὶ τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν θεασάμενος ἐτελεύτησεν, οὗ τὸ
λείψανον ζητηθὲν οὐχ εὑρέθη.

τὸ PHOTIUS) [c¢. A.D. S50},

(a) Bibliotheca 48.

YN ΄ 6 1 , \ a ' Cah 9 ON E22 >
νεγνώσθη ᾿Ιωσήπου περὶ TOY TANTOC, ὃ ἐν ἀλλοις ἀνέγνων ἐπιγρα-
΄ \ a κι \ Sees, > PND δὲ \ x 7
φόμενον περὶ τῆς TOY TANTOC aiTiAc, ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ περὶ τῆς τοῦ
\ > ͵ ΕΣ δὲ > ὃ Ν Xx δί ὃ / δὲ > > a
TANTOC oYclac. ἔστι de ἐν δυσὶ λογιδίοις. εἰκνυσι δὲ ἐν αὐτοῖς
/ / a
πρὸς ἑαυτὸν στασιάζοντα Πλάτωνα, ἐλέγχει δὲ καὶ περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ ὕλης
Ν 3 / 3 7 > ΄ Ν δῷ seach, > 4 Ν
καὶ ἀναστάσεως ᾿Αλκίνουν ἀλόγως τε καὶ ψευδῶς εἰπόντα, ἀντεισάγει δὲ
‘ > ΄ κ᾿ , a ε ΄ δή , ΄ ΄φ
τὰς οἰκείας περὶ τούτων τῶν ὑποθέσεων δόξας, δείκνυσί τε πρεσβύτερον
na > , ~
Ἕλληήνων πολλῷ τὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων γένος. δοξάζει δὲ συγκεῖσθαι τὸν ἀνθρωπον
> \ \ a \ 9 Ἀν 3 , ἃ Ν \ > /
ἐκ πυρὸς Kal γῆς καὶ ὕδατος, καὶ ἔτι ἐκ πνεύματος, ὃ καὶ ψυχὴν ὀνομάζει.
Ν e ΄ > “-“ , ῳ ΄ὔ
περὶ οὗ πνεύματος αὐταῖς λέξεσιν οὕτω φησί.
΄ 7 a ,
Τούτου τὸ κυριώτερον ἀνελόμενος ἅμα τῷ σώματι ἔπλασε, καὶ διὰ
3... σῷ / a
παντὸς μέλους καὶ ἄρθρου πορείαν αὐτῷ κατεσκεύασεν. ὃ τῷ σώματι
Ν Ν Ν \ , na J A 4 A ,
συμπλασθὲν καὶ διὰ παντὸς διικνούμενον τῷ αὐτῷ εἴδει τοῦ βλεπομένου
fe ΄ Ἂ tees Ν ἐν ε , \ Ν ΄, see)
σώματος τετύπωται, τὴν οὐσίαν δὲ ψυχρότερον UTapxXEL πρὸς τὰ τρία, OL ὧν
͵
“ ἊΝ
τὸ σῶμα συνήρμοσται.
> A lal > , Ἂς 3 ,
Οὕτω μὲν οὖν ἀναξίως τῆς τε τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων περὶ ἀνθρώπου φυσιολογίας
a > \ Ν lol m4 3 a Ν Ἂς λό 3 / ὃ LE Ν
ταῦτα εἰπὼν καὶ τῆς ἄλλης αὐτοῦ περὶ τοὺς λόγους ἀσκήσεως, διέξεισι καὶ
Ν “ ᾿ tal Ἂν , ~ a > A
περὶ τῆς KoTpoyovias κεφαλαιωδῶς. περὶ μέντοι Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ
»Ξ aA - ἜΤ SLEEN > ΄ Ξ
Θεοῦ ἡμῶν ὡς ἔγγιστα θεολογεῖ, κλῆσίν τε αὐτὴν ἀναφθεγγόμενος Χριστοῦ,
\ Ν > A ΕΣ / 3 ΄, > / 7
Kal τὴν ἐκ πατρὸς ἄφραστον γέννησιν ἀμέμπτως ἀναγράφων. Ὅ τινας
m4 ἊΝ > lal c > / 4 ‘ , > / AN
ἴσως καὶ ἀμφιδοξεῖν, ὡς ᾿Ιωσήπου εἴη τὸ συνταγμάτιον, ἀναπείσειεν. οὐδὲν
ἊΝ hrs A \ > ~
δὲ τὸ τῆς φράσεως αὐτῷ πρὸς TA ὑπόλοιπα τοῦ avdpos ἀποδεῖ.
- A “ > ε ΄ >
Evpov δὲ ἐν παραγραφαῖς ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ λόγος Ἰωσήπου, ἀλλὰ Tatov
‘ , > (per , ¢ re κ᾿ ᾿
τινὸς πρεσβυτέρου ἐν Ῥώμῃ διατρίβοντος, ὅν φασι συντάξαι καὶ τὸν λὰ-
δ ΄ a “
BYPINOON’ οὗ καὶ διάλογος φέρεται πρὸς Πρόκλον τινὰ ὑπέρμαχον τῆς τῶν
Μοντανιστῶν αἱρέσεως. ἀνεπιγράφου δὲ καταλειφθέντος τοῦ λόγου φασὶ
\ \ > , 3 ΄ \ et) ΄ A ΄ " ‘
τοὺς μὲν ᾿Ιωσήπου ἐπιγράψαι, τοὺς δὲ ᾿Ιουστίνου τοῦ μάρτυρος, ἄλλους δὲ

σ
Kipynvatov, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸν Λαβύρινθόν τινες ἐπέγραψαν ᾿Ωριγένους. ἐπεὶ

348 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

of a a μῇ
Γαΐου ἐστὶ πόνημα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ τοῦ συντεταχύτος τὸν Λαβύρινθον, ὡς καὶ
> x > nw , Leal A 4 ε Lal > ‘ ἃ
αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ τέλει τοῦ Λαβυρίνθου διεμαρτύρατο ἑαυτοῦ εἶναι τὸν TTEPI
a a \ a 2 EA
τῆς TOY TANTOC οὐείδο λόγον. εἰ δ᾽ ἕτερος καὶ οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν, οὕπω
μοι γέγονεν εὔδηλον. τοῦτον τὸν Tatov πρεσβύτερόν φασι γεγενῆσθαι τῆς
ΑΕ ’ τὸ ,ὔ 3. EX 3». Ν if ~ > ,
κατὰ Ῥώμην ἐκκλησίας ἐπὶ Ovixtopos καὶ Ζεφυρίνου τῶν ἀρχιερέων, χειρο-
a X 3. ἘῸΝ ΝΥ 9 a aS, U Ν Wt? λό
τονηθῆναι δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπον. συντάξαι δὲ καὶ ἕτερον λόγον
Ψ, a ' c , "
ἰδίως KATA τῆς APTEMMNOC AIPECEWC, καὶ KATA πρόκλογ δὲ σπου-
δαστοῦ Μοντανοῦ σπουδαίαν διάλεξιν συντεταχέναι, ἐν ἣ τρισκαίδεκα μόνας

ἐπιστολὰς ἀριθμεῖται ἸΤαύλου, οὐκ ἐγκρίνων τὴν πρὸς Ἑβραίους.
(ὁ) Bibliotheca 121.

c , \ c
ITTOAYTOY KATA AIPECEMN BIBAIAAPION.
5 ΄ , c
Ανεγνώσθη βιβλιδάριον ἹἽἹππολύτου: μαθητὴς δὲ Εἰρηναίου ὁ Ἵππό-
> κ᾿ ,
Autos. ἦν δὲ TO σύνταγμα κατὰ αἱρέσεων λβ΄, ἀρχὴν ποιούμενον Δοσι-
, ΄ cal A
θεανούς, καὶ μέχρι Νοητοῦ καὶ Νοητιανῶν διαλάμβανον. ταύτας δέ φησιν
ἣν A ε A - ε ,
ἐλέγχοις ὑποβληθῆναι ὁμιλοῦντος Εἰρηναίου, ὧν καὶ σύνοψιν ὁ Ἱππόλυτος
΄ 4
ποιούμενος τόδε TO βιβλίον φησὶ συντεταχέναι. τὴν δὲ φράσιν σαφής ἐστι
΄
καὶ ὑπόσεμνος καὶ ἀπέριττος, εἰ καὶ πρὸς τὸν ᾿Αττικὸν οὐκ ἐπιστρέφεται
+” a ΄ μὲ ε
λόγον. λέγει δὲ ἀλλα τέ τινα τῆς ἀκριβείας λειπόμενα, καὶ ὅτι ἡ πρὸς
if ᾿ ΠΕΡ Ο;
c \ “- 3 » τὸ
Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολὴ οὐκ ἔστι τοῦ ἀποστόλου Παύλου. λέγεται δὲ οὗτος
Ἂς Lad Cal A νὰ Ψ, 3 Ly Lal Ἂς / id
καὶ προσομιλεῖν τῷ λαῷ κατὰ μίμησιν "Apryévors, οὗ καὶ συνήθης μάλιστα
Sir) \ an ΄ ε an ε \ / oy iS ἊΝ / c
καὶ ἐραστὴς τῶν λόγων ὑπῆρχεν, ὡς Kal προτρέψασθαι αὐτὸν τὴν θείαν ὑπο-
”~ /,
μνηματίσαι γραφήν, ἐγκαταστήσας αὐτῷ καὶ ὑπογραφέας ἑπτὰ ταχυγράφους
- - “- 3 Ἄ
καὶ ἑτέρους τοσούτους γράφοντας εἰς κάλλος, ὧν ἣν καὶ τῆς δαπάνης αὐτὸς
aA “. 3 Lal > ἊΝ
χορηγός᾽ καὶ ταῦτα ὑπηρετούμενος αὐτῷ ἀπαιτεῖν αὐτὸν ἀπαραιτήτως τὸ ἔργον,
> = \ > IN 14 > a a > a 4 43 ,ὕ “
ἐξ οὗ καὶ ἐργοδιώκτην ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν παρὰ ᾿Ὡριγένους κληθῆναι,

πλεῖστα δὲ καὶ οὗτος λέγεται συγγεγραφέναι.

(c) Bibliotheca 202.

ἱππολύτου €MICKOTOY KAl μᾶρτγρος εἰς TON AANIHA
ἕρμην εἰ δ᾽ KAl λόγος περὶ YpicTOY Kal ANTIYPICTOY.

3 , ς , > hd Ν , ε / > Ν la

Ανεγνώσθη ᾿Ἱππολύτου ἐπισκόπου καὶ μάρτυρος ἑρμηνεία εἰς τὸν Δανιήλ.
κατὰ λέξιν μὲν οὐ ποιεῖται τὴν ἀνάπτυξιν, πλὴν τὸν νοῦν γε, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν,
οὐ παρατρέχει' πολλὰ μέντοι ἀρχαιοτρόπως καὶ οὐκ εἰς τὸ ὕστερον διηκριβω-

, ΄ aN che MA > Ἃ ” δί Ne Cure, Ξ \ Ν

μένον καταλέγει. ἀλλ᾽ ἐκείνων οὐκ ἂν εἴη δίκαιος λογον ὑπέχειν" τοὺς γὰρ
3 Ν , ΄ 3 , 3 a a , 3 2
ἀρχὴν θεωρίας καταβαλλομένους ov δίκας ἀπαιτεῖν τῶν παρειμένων, ἀλλ
> a ΄ 2A lal 2 a a aa ὙΠ ee: Ἃ ΄ a
ἀγαπᾶν μάλιστα αὐτῆς τε τῆς ἐπιβολῆς καὶ ἐφ᾽ ὅσον av καταλήψεως τών
διασκοπουμένων προχωροίη. τὸ δὲ τὴν τοῦ ᾿Αντιχρίστου παρουσίαν, καθ᾽ ἣν
καὶ ἡ τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ κόσμου τοῦδε συντέλεια ἵσταται, μήδε τοῖς μαθηταῖς
δεομένοις τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἀποκαλύψαντος, εἶτα αὐτῶν ταύτην πεντακοσίοις

3, 3 Ν ts nw c / ¢ ε Ν lal > Ν is “
ετέσιν απὸ Χριστοῦ ὑπαχθέντα περιγράψασθαι, WOAVEL τῶν ATO πρωτῆὴς του

HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 349

, tal , A , \ /, cal
κόσμου καταβολῆς ἑξακισχιλίων ἐτῶν συντελουμένων, καὶ τὴν διάλυσιν αὐτοῦ
a a ἴω , ΄
ἐφεστάναι, τοῦτο καὶ θερμοτέρας ἂν εἴη τοῦ προσήκοντος γνώμης, καὶ ἡ
3 ’ 3 ,ὔ 3 , > > > > / aA 3, /, ε
ἀπόφασις ἀνθρωπίνης ἀγνοίας, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐπιπνοίας τῆς ἄνωθεν διελέγχει. ἡ
δὲ , wt. A Ν 7 ON ΕἸ {2 , a ec s 5 Ν
E φράσις αὐτῷ τὸ σαφὲς ὅτι μάλιστα οἰκειουμένη πρέποι ἄν ἑρμηνεία, εἰ καὶ
Χ 3 A ΝΜ , Ν a
τοὺς ᾿Αττικοὺς ov τι μάλα θεσμοὺς δυσωπεῖται.
ve ’ A ee ΄, \ n \ . ͵
Συνανεγνώσθη αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕτερος λόγος περὶ YPICTOY KAI ANTIYPIC-
> εο ὦ SIAN a Xo ἰδέ ὃ , Ν Ν a 4
TOY, ἐν ᾧ ἢ τε αὐτὴ τῶν λόγων ἰδέα διαπρέπει, Kal TO τῶν νοημάτων

ε , , SS ΄
ἁπλούστερον τε και αρχαιόοτροτπον.

32. CEcUMENTUS [c. A.D. 9909].
In Apocalyps. Praef. (Cramer’s Catena p. 173).
Πρὸς τούτοις καὶ Ἱππολύτῳ τῷ Ρώμης προέδρῳ ἐν TH TOY E1C AANIFA
EPMHNEIA λόγου.

33. ZONARAS [Ὁ A.D. 1120 ?].

(a) Anna. vi. 4 (p. 267).

Ἔν δὲ τῷ πρὸς Ἕλληνας αὐτοῦ λόγῳ, ὃς KATA TAATWNOC ἐπιγέγραπται
περὶ τῆς τοῦ TANT OC AITIAC, οὗ καὶ ὁ ἅγιος Ἰωάννης Δαμάσκηνος μνείαν
πεποίηται ἐν τῇ πονηθείσῃ αὐτῷ βίβλῳ τῇ καλουμένῃ Παράλληλα, ταῦτά

φησι: πάντες γὰρ δίκαιοί τε καὶ ἀδικοι ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου, κ-τ.λ,

(2) Annal. xii. 15 (p. 620).
Tore OvpBavod τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς τῆς Ῥωμαίων πόλεως προεστῶτος καὶ
ε ΄ 4 aN ε ΄ Ν ᾿ς 5. 4, a δι Be: /
Ἱππόλυτος ἤνθει ἀνὴρ ἱερώτατος καὶ σοφώτατος ἐπίσκοπος τοῦ κατὰ Ῥώμην
, ΄ ἃ \ \ , ΄ ΄ =
Πόρτου γενόμενος, ὃς καὶ πολλὰ συγγράμματα συνεγράψατο, διάφορα τῆς
θείας γραφῆς ἐξηγησάμενος.

Sa, WSUIDAS) [Ὁ Ὁ) Τ1Θ 6 ἢ
Ρ. 1058, ed. Bernhardy.
‘Immodvutos* οὗτος ἔγραψεν εἰς TAC ὁρᾶςειο TOY AANIHA ὑπόμνημα
καὶ εἶς τὰς πὰροιμίὰς COAOM@NTOC.

35. NICEPHORUS CALLISTUS [c. A.D. 1300].

Ficcles. £L65i,, We 21:

Τοῖς δὲ κατὰ Σευῆρον χρόνοις καὶ “ImmoAvtos ὁ Πόρτου τῆς Ῥώμης
ἐπίσκοπος γεγονὼς ἀκμάζων ἦν. καὶ δὴ πολλῶν ὑπομνημάτων συνετῶς
αὐτῷ γεγραμμένων, καὶ τὸ περὶ τοῦ πᾶοχὰ ἐκτίθεται σύγγραμμα, ἐν ᾧ τῶν
χρόνων ἀναγραφὴν ἐκθέμενος καί τινα κανόνα ἑκκαιδεκαετηρίδος περὶ τοῦ

’ὔ A 9) N Ν a ΕἸ ΕἸ x [able ὃ ’, \ ,
πάσχα προθεὶς ἐπὶ τὸ TPWTOV ETOS Αλεξανὸρου περιγράφει TOUS χρόνους.

350 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

id ‘\ > fol ΄ “ , 5 5 / > ‘ c , 3
τὰ YE μὴν αὐτου συγγραμμᾶτα ταῦτα εἰσι βιβλίον ΕἸΟ THN ΕξΔΗΜΕΡΟΝ
ἕτερον εἶς τὰ META ἐξδήμερον. ἀντιρρητικὸς πρὸς μᾶρκίωνδ' εἶς

δὴ ἦν tal ' , ἀντ" , ‘ “

TO ACMA τῶν δομάτων. εἶς μέρη τοῦ ἰεζεκιηλ' περὶ τοῦ TACYA’
CYNTAPMA πρὸς TACAC TAC alpéceic βιωφελέστατον' περὶ TAC
πὰρογοίὰς TOY ἀντιχρίοτογ. περὶ ANaCTAcEewcC: Kal ἄλλα πλεῖστα.
εἶς ZAYAPIAN’ περὶ ψαλμῶν: εἰς τὸν Hicalan’ εἰς τὸν δὰνιηλ'
περὶ ATTOKAAYYEWC περὶ πὰροιμιῶν᾽ περὶ CAOYA κἀὶ πύθων οὐδ᾽
περὶ ETAINWN τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ἰηςοῦ χριοτοῦ" ἐν οἷς παρόντος
3 , ie A ἣν Ν lal Ψ' Ε / 4 a Ν
Ὠριγένους ὡμίλησε. τινὰ δὲ τῶν συγγραμμάτων ἐπιλήψιμα ἔχων, τῷ περὶ
Χριστοῦ μαρτυρίῳ μετὰ ταῦτα τελειωθεὶς τὸν τῆς ἀγνοίας ἀπετρίψατο

a 5 e Sa , 3 4 > / a s 5
μῶμον. ἐξ ὧν φασι καὶ ᾿Ὡριγένην ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκέναι ταῖς θείαις ἐπιβάλλειν
γραφαῖς. τοσαῦτα δὲ καὶ τὰ Ἱππολύτου.

36. EBED-JESU [c. A.D. 1300].

Catalogus c. vii (Assemanus Bibliotheca Ortentalis 11. Ὁ. 15).

Κύριος Ἱππόλυτος μάρτυς τό ποῦ walrlaaar’ a.
καὶ ἐπίσκοπος ἔγραψε βιβλίον esas jaw madanmdaKa
περὶ οἰκονομίας Kal ἑρμηνείαν Ὥσθο ττδιαλῖϑπο Δὰν

lol ~ Ν ,
Δανιὴλ τοῦ μικροῦ καὶ Yovoavvas

waza παλιν Acsais

2 ΟΝ. \ssals στο

καὶ κεφάλαια κατὰ Taiov

καὶ ἀπολογίαν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀποκαλύ- :
eds meal Ans s»sazanama
Kal τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰωάνου piwdes waa ata

τοῦ ἀποστόλου καὶ εὐαγγελιστοῦ. m\solviar’a einen le

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 οἰκονομίας (ver. 3) is the
right translation, the corresponding Syriac word being an ordinary
rendering of οἰκονομία 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 472. Orient. tv. Ὁ. 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

᾿
᾿
ὃ
Ἷ

ᾧ

HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 351

(Catal. of Syr. MSS of Brit. Mus. τ. 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 ΤῸ RELIQUES.

(a) Lnscriptio in Basilica S. Laurentii.

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
10 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
xiith century. For the reference in ‘passio illa’ see below, p. 473-
In the inscription itself, 1. 13 MILES is written MILEX, and in |. 29 YLARVS

is XLARVS.
(2) Lnscriptio in Ecclesia S. Silvestri.

Yh IN DNI HEC EST NOTICIA NATALICIORUM

N
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 (1.6. August). This table of
the inscription, relating to the male saints, was known long ago, and will
be found in Muratori (ov. Thes. p. MCMLXVI.

M4 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
Ὁ. 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. SCAE CYRILLAE

This table, relating to the female saints, has been pieced together
recently by De Rossi; see Bull. dt Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 39 56.

These were the reliques taken from the demolished and rifled
suburban cemeteries and placed by Paul I between a.p. 757—761 in
his monastery of S. Silvester in Capite.

38. ITINERARIES.

These extracts are taken from De Rossi Roma Softterranea τ. p.
144 sq, where the documents are described and their dates fixed. The

extracts are on pp. 178, 179.

HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. a5

Oo

(a) Ltinerarium Codicis Salisburgensis [a.D. 62 5---6 381.

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 5. Genisius martyr. Postea pervenies ad ecclesiam 5. Laurentii; ibi
sunt magnae basilicae duae in quarum quis speciosiorem et pausat,
et est parvum cubiculum extra ecclesiam in hoc occidentur. Ibi
pausat 5. 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 5. Justinus, et iuxta eum
S. Crescentius martyr, et multitudo sanctorum, longe in spelunca deor-
sum 5. 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 1. 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.p. 635—645 |.

Juxta Viam Tiburtinam (prope murum civitatis ecclesia est S.
Januarii episcopi et martyris, eademque via) ecclesia est S. Agapiti
multum honorabilis martyrum corporibus. Et prope eandem viam
ecclesia est 5. 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 5. 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 eius: 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. 11 read ‘sepultae’.

(c) Notitia Portarum Viarum Ecclesiarum |A.D. 648—682].

Sexta porta et via Tiburtina, quae modo dicitur S. Laurentil, iuxta
hanc viam iacet S. Laurentius in sua ecclesia et Habundius martyr.
Et ibi prope in altera ecclesia pausant hi martyres, Ciriaca, Romanus,

CLEM. 11. 23

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 xvili [v. Δ 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 Einstedlensis [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 11. 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.

(ὃ Missale Mixtum Mozarabicum (Patrol. Lat. Uxxxv. p. 816 sq).

Hunc [Laurentium] Hipolitus dum sibi traditum asservaret custodia
militari ete.
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.

(4) Breviarium Gothicum Sanctorale (Patrol. Lat. Uxxxvi. p.
1134 Sq).
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

Hine 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 Bullettino p. 30 sq (1882).

40. CALENDARS AND MARTYROLOGIES.

(a) Liberian Chronographer |a.D. 354].
Successio episcoporum (Mommsen, p. 635; see above, 1. 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).
viii 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.

(ὁ) Ancient Syriac Martyrology |c. a.D. 350?] ed. Wright, pp. 4, 8.
Jan. 30. In the city of Antioch, Hippolytus.
Aug. τ. On the same day, the commemoration of Xystus, bishop
of Rome.
(c) Calendar of Polemius Sylvius [a.v. 448].
111 Idus Aug. Natalis 5. Laurentii mart.
ii Idus Aug. Hyppoliti mart.
(4) Consular Fast? [Δ.Ὁ. 493].
Decio 11 et Rustico [a.p. 251].
His coss. passus 5. Laurentius 11 Idus Augusti.
(ὃ Kalendarium Carthaginense.

viii Idus Aug. sancti Systi episcopi et martyris Romae.
111 Idus Aug. sancti Laurenti.
Idus Aug. sancti Hippoliti.

23—2

356 EPISTLES OF 8S. CLEMENT.

(f) Martyrologium Hieronymianum (Hieron. Op. X1. pp. 551;
585 56).

iv Kal. Febr. In Tursia, Constanti, Hippolyti episcopi de an-
tiquis.

ili 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, Cornell, etc.

xiii Kal. Sept. In Portu Romano, natalis sancti Hippolyti mar-

tyris. In Sardinia natalis sancti Luxuril, etc.

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.

».-:
ee OT ΠΤ “Ἕν

(9) Martyrologium Vetus Romanum (Patrol. Lat. ΟΧΧΊΠΙ. pp. 147,
165, Migne).
ili 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. Fiorus-Bepa [c. A.D. 870].

Patrol. Lat. Xciv. pp. 827, 999 sq.

iii Kal. Febr. [Vacat].
vii Kal. Aug. Romae 5. Xysti episcopi.

BIBPOLY TUS: OF PORTUS: 307

vi Idus Aug. Natalis 5. Cyriaci.

vIdus Aug. _ Vigilia S. Laurentii. Eodem die Romae S. Romani
militis, qui confessione S. Laurentil 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. Apo OF VIENNE [1 A.D. 874].

Martyrologium (Patrol. Lat. ΟΧΧΙΤΙ. pp. 224, 318 sq, Migne).

ΠΙ ΚΑΙ. 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 ete.

[Sixtus, Felicissimus, and Agapitus, are beheaded with others. |

V ID. AUG.

Vigilia sancti Laurentil.

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 15

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 Augusti.
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 exsequlis
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

HIPPOLYYTUs ‘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 (4 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 el; 51 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 S. 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, viii
Kalendas Septembris.

KVIKAL. \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 ΚΑΙ, NOV.

Item Romae sanctae Triphoniae uxoris Decii Caesaris ; quae, viro
suo post interfectionem beatorum Sixti et Laurentii 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. Menza [a.p. ?].
Jan. 30 (p. 230, ed. Venet. 1877).

4 - ε Ἂ ε ve ε , / c , \ Col Ἂς;
Αθλησις τοῦ ἁγίου ἱερομάρτυρος Ἱππολύτου πάπα Ῥώμης καὶ τῶν σὺν
3 fox ’, oh a Ν fal fal
αὐτῷ Kevooupivov, SaBaivov, Χρυσῆς, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν"
Τόλμῃ θάλασσαν Ἱππόλυτος εἰσδύνει
οἷα κροαίνων ἵππος ἐν λείῳ πέδῳ
Γ ἧς #
« / 4 fal be Cees
Ἱππόλυτον πόντου τριακοστῇ ἔκτανε ῥεῦμα.
Αὕτη ἡ ἱερὰ ὁμήγυρις ὑπῆρχεν ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας Κλαυδίου, ἡγεμονεύοντος
’, fal Ν > / ε ἧς , Ν ε Ν “
βικαρίου τοῦ καὶ Οὐλπίου Ῥωμύλου καλουμένου" καὶ ὁ μὲν Κενσουρῖνος,
, BY \ a in) 3 ΄ ay. aS \ ,

μάγιστρος ὧν καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ ἀγαπώμενος, ἐσέβετο τὸν Χριστὸν λεληθότως
καὶ τῶν Χριστιανῶν ὑπερησπίζετο᾽ γνωσθεὶς δὲ ἀπεκλείσθη ἐν φυλακῇ᾽
ἔνθα νεκρὸν ἀναστήσας ἔπεισε πάντας τοὺς στρατιώτας πιστεῦσαι τῷ
Χριστῷ᾽ οἵτινες προστάξει τοῦ τυράννου ἀπεκεφαλίσθησαν, καὶ σὺν αὐτοῖς
ἢ μακαρία Χρυσῆ καὶ ὁ ταύτης ὑπουργὸς YaBaivos, πρότερον πολλὰς
ὑπομείναντες τιμωρίας διὰ τὸ διακονεῖν τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ τοὺς ἰχῶρας αὐτῶν
ἐκμάσσειν καὶ ἑαυτοὺς ἀλείφειν.

Ταῦτα μαθὼν ὁ μακαριώτατος πάπας Ἱππόλυτος, ζήλῳ θείῳ κινηθείς,
> Ὁ ΟΝ \ ΄ \ , ε Ne ΄ a A
ἦλθε καὶ ἤλεγξε τὸν τύραννον κατὰ πρόσωπον. ὁ δὲ ὑπερζέσας τῷ θυμῷ
πρῶτον μὲν αὐτὸν ἐβασάνισε μετὰ τῶν ἀκολουθούντων αὐτῷ πρεσβυτέρων
καὶ διακόνων καὶ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου" εἶτα δήσας αὐτῶν τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας
> “ a “ , ΕΣ Ν 4 > ’
ἐν τῷ βυθῷ τῆς θαλάσσης ἔρριψε, καὶ οὕτως ἐτελειώθησαν.

This is found also in the AZenologium of Basil (Patro?. Graec. ΟΧΥΊΙ.
p. 285, Migne) almost verbatim; but the words τοῦ καὶ Οὐυλπίου
‘PwptAov καλουμένου are omitted. Hippolytus however is called πάπα
simply without the addition of ‘Pons.

August 1oth (p. 53).
Τῇ ( τοῦ αὐτοῦ μηνὸς μνήμη τῶν ἁγίων μαρτύρων Aavpevtiov ἀρχι-
διακόνου, Ξύστου πάπα Ῥώμης, καὶ ἹἹππολύτου.
* Χ %
Tov Ἱππόλυτον ἱπποδέσμιον βλέπω
ἐναντίον πάσχοντα τῇ κλήσει πάθος.
ὥπτησαν δεκάτῃ Λαυρέντιον ἠῦτε ἰχθύν.
[The charge of Xystus to Laurentius and the Martyrdom are then
recorded as in the Latin Acts. ]
Εἰσαχθεὶς 3) Λαυρέντιος ὁ ἀρχιδιάκονος Kal Ta ἱερὰ χρήματα ἀπαιτού-
μενος, αἰτήσας ἁμάξας καὶ λαβὼν τοὺς χωλοὺς καὶ ἀναπήρους, οἷς διένειμε τὰ

΄ Ν a ε , » , ΝΜ Ν ‘ ΄ Δ
χρήματα, και ταις ἁμάξαις ἐπιστιβάσας, Ἤγαγε προς τὸν βασιλέα: οὺς

362 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

ἰδὼν καὶ ὀργισθεὶς κελεύει τὸν ἅγιον Λαυρέντιον τυφθῆναι σφοδρῶς, εἶτα
βληθῆναι ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ. ἐν ἧ J ἰᾶτο πά ὅ ὃς αὐτὸ
97 n ακῇ. ἐν ἣ γενόμενος ἰᾶτο πάντας ὅσοι πρὸς αὐτὸν

> ΄ Lr. ? , ΄ 7 ε a ΄
ἐφοίτων, ᾧ ἂν ἕκαστος κατείχετο νοσήματι. ἅπερ ὁ τριβοῦνος Καλλίνικος

[
βλέπων, ὁ καὶ τῇ εἱρκτῇ ἐπιστατῶν, ἐπίστευσε τῷ Χριστῷ καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη.
Ν aA LN / c 7 td a “a ‘ Ν Χ
μετὰ τοῦτο δὲ παρίσταται ὁ ἅγιος Λαυρέντιος τῷ βασιλεῖ, καὶ μὴ πεισθεὶς
θῦσαι τοῖς εἰδώλοις ἐπὶ ἐσχάρας ἁπλοῦται, κάτωθεν ὑφαπτομένου πυρός:
καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ τῷ Θεῷ εὐχαριστήσας ἀφῆκε τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ κηδείας τῆς
> la ἈΝ “κε , ,
ὀφειλομένης παρὰ τοῦ ᾿Ιππολύτου τυγχάνει.
Τοῦτο γνοὺς ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ μεταπεμψάμενος αὐτὸν ἐκέλευσε κινάραις
an na > 7 Int fol > , ε ΕἸ ec je A
σιδηραῖς μαστιγωθῆναι, εἶτα ἵπποις προσδεθῆναι ἀγρίοις: ὑφ᾽ ὧν ἐπὶ πολὺ
, A A Ἂς an / , Ry τ. mae / ε Ἃ
συρόμενος τῷ Θεῷ τὸ πνεῦμα παρέθετο. λέγεται δὲ ὅτι τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἡμέρᾳ
μετὰ τὸ παθεῖν τὸν ἅγιον Ἱππόλυτον Δέκιος καὶ Οὐαλλεριανὸς καθήμενοι ἐπὶ
τῶν ἵππων αὐτῶν τοῦ ἀφικέσθαι πρὸς τὸ θέατρον ἐξέπνευσαν, κράξας ὁ
Δέκιος ἐν τῇ ὥρᾳ τοῦ θανάτου αὑτοῦ: Ὦ Ἱππόλυτε, ὡς αἰχμάλωτον οὕτω
δεδεμένον ἀπάγεις με; ἔκραξε δὲ καὶ ὁ Οὐαλλεριανός: Πυρίναις με κατήναις
ou éX ‘ cal δὲ δὴλ / θ᾽ OX: \ ἣν " “} 4 ’
τως ἕλκεις; τοῦτο δὲ δῆλον γέγονε καθ᾽ ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην, καὶ πάντες
> ‘0 κε , a K ΄ eon Ἴ a X Een ee δόξ 3 ᾿
ἐστερεώθησαν τῇ πίστει τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς
αἰῶνας. ἀμήν.
The same account is given in a much abridged form in the Meno-
logium of Basil (Patrol. Graec. Cxvil. p. 580, Migne).

44. S. Perrus Damianus [c. a.D. 1060}.

Epistola ad Nicolaum 77 (Hippol. Of. τ. 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.

ee a eee eee

HAPPOLYTUS ‘OF -PORTUS: 36

Oo

45. Passio SANCTI Sixt1 LauRENTI HIPPOLyTI.

LHippolytus 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, HippoLyt1, AUREAE, ETC.

LTippolytus Romanus, p. v (ed. Lagarde).

MAPTYPION τοῦ ἁγίου KYPIAKOY, ἱππολύτογ, MazZIMoOyY,
XPYCAC, KAl τῶν λοιπῶν.

Ἔν ταῖς ἡμέραις Κλαυδίου τοῦ παρανόμου βασιλέως, παρόντος βικαρίου
Οὐλπίου ἹΡωμύλλου, μέγιστος ἀνήφθη διωγμὸς τοῖς τηνικαῦτα οὖσιν Χριστια-
νοῖς. ἣν οὖν τις ἀνὴρ Κενσουρῖνος κ.τ.λ.

[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. |

, ε Ν wa 3 “ ¢ rt an
Tore ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἅπαντες αὐτῶν, 0 τε Φῆλιξ, Μαέιμος, Tavptvos, Ἕρκου-
΄ 7 / A ~ ~
λιανός, Νεβέριος, Stopaxwvos, Μῆνας, Κομμόδιος, Ἑρμῆς, Μαῦρος, Εὐσέβιος,
« , 3
Ῥωστίκιος, Μονάκριος, ᾿Αμανδῖνος, ᾿Ολύμπιος, Κύπριος, καὶ Θεόδωρος ὁ
la) 5, ε Ν Ψ Ν Ν ΄ a , ,
τριβοῦνος, ἔβαλον ἑαυτοὺς ἅμα πρὸς τοὺς πόδας TOD μακαριωτάτου Μαξίμου
τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου.

[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. |

“Ἢ Ν Ne ‘ »“"
Ταυρῖνον δὲ καὶ “EpxovAvarov ἐν τῷ Πόρτῳ Ῥώμης κατέκρυψεν.

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. |

A ‘ a , Sita
᾿Ἐκέλευσε δὲ πάλιν λίθον μέγαν δεσμευθῆναι Kata τοῦ τραχήλου αὐτῆς
Ν hd A > “ , εἶ Ad SAS; A ηΧλθ .
καὶ οὕτως κρεμασθῆναι ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ" ἥστινος τὸ ἅγιον σῶμα περιῆλθεν ἕως
Lo) 3 A -“ ε / 4 ε Ἂν Ν ε δὰ
τοῦ αἰγιαλοῦ: ὅπερ ὁ μακαριώτατος Novos ὁ καὶ μετονομασθεὶς ᾿Ἱππόλυτος
, ἈΝ a / > a 397 3A ΄, 4 Ν ΄
συνήγαγεν, καὶ τοῦτο κατέθαψεν ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ αὐτῆς χωρίῳ, ἔνθα καὶ κατῴκει,

nw - A - ’ὔ
ἔξω τῶν τειχέων τῆς ᾿Οστησίας πόλεως τῇ πρὸ ἐννέα Kadavddv Σεπτεμβρίων.

[Then follows the apprehension of Sabinianus a Christian, the pro-
curator (ἐπιμελητὴς) of that district, who is ordered to discover the
whereabouts of Chryse’s treasures. Romulus orders him to be cruelly
tortured. |

~ μι > , ε , ε / ε γε 5 Ἂν ΝΜ
Τοῦτο δὲ ἀκούσας 6 μακαριώτατος Ἵππόλυτος ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐλθὼν ἔστη
> , act fe \ A A nm > βετὴ ν
ἐνώπιον τοῦ Ῥωμύλου καὶ λαμπρᾷ τῇ φωνῇ εἶπεν: Ὦ ἀθλιε κιτ.λ.
A 3 ΄,
ταῦτα ἀκούσας 0 ἀσεβέστατος Ῥώμυλος ἐθυμώθη σφόδρα καὶ προσέταξε
Ν ΄ 5 a \ Ν fa , 5 ΄ a
τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰς χεῖρας δεδεμένον εἰς βόθυνον κατακρημνισθῆναι.
a > , ε ΄ , Η a , 3 κ᾿ ΄ ΄,
τοῦ ovv μακαρίου ᾿Ἱππολύτου βυθιζομένου ἐν τῷ τείχει εἰς τὸν βόθυνον πόρτον
ἣν > 4 , ° + \ > 4 ε Ν ΄
τὸν ἀναγορευόμενον ἸΠόρτον (sic), ἄφνω φωνὴ ἠκούσθη ὡσεὶ διαστήματος
+ a an aA Ν ~ “
ὥρας μιᾶς, καθάπερ νηπίων λεγόντων εὐχαριστίας τῷ Θεῷ: καὶ ἐν τῷ ταῦτα

-“ 32 - A“ A“ -“ Lal
εἰπεῖν ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα τῷ Κυρίῳ τῇ πρὸ δεκαμιᾶς Kadavddv Σεπτεμβρίων.

[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 PAz/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 ibliographical Synopsis of Antentcene

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 Pzlosophumena 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 AzZ/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,
Ῥ. 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 Antiquae τι. Ὁ. 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 RUuE Orig. Oger. τ. p. 872 sq (1st book of Philosophumena).

Diets Doxographi Graect p. 144 sq δὲ, 553 sq (Berolin. 1879). 1st
book of Philosophumena.

DUNCKER ET SCHNEIDEWIN S. Hippolyti Episcopi et Martyris Refuta-
tionts Omnium Haerestum Libri Decem (Gotting. 1859).

Fapricius (J. A.) S. Hippolyti Episcopi et Martyris Opera Vol. τ. (1716),
Vol. τι. (1718) Hamburg. Works omitting Phlosophumena.

GALLAND. Sibliotheca Patrum τι. p. 409 sq.

Tewpytadns (B.) περὶ ὁράσεως τοῦ προφήτου Δανιήλ, in ᾿Εκκλησιαστικὴ
᾿Αλήθεια 1885 May.

Gwynn Hermathena vi. Ὁ. 397 sq Hippolytus and his Heads against
Caius; ib. vil. p. 137 (1889) Hippolytus on S. Matthew xxiv. 15—
es

HANEBERG Canones S. Hippolyti Arabice etc. (Monachii 1870).

KENNEDY (J. H.) Commentary of St Hippolytus on the Book of Daniel
(Dublin 1888).

LAGARDE /ippolytus Romanus (Lips. et Lond. 1858). Works omitting
Philosophumena.

Analecta Syriaca p. 91 sq (Lips. et Lond. 1858). (Fragments. )

Le Moyne Varia Sacra τ. 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. vii.

Biblioth. Nov, Patr. vu. Pars ii.

HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 207

Micne Patrologia Graeca X. p. 201 sq (Paris, 1857). Works omitting
Philosophumena.

MILier (E.) Ovigenis Philosophumena (Oxon. 1851). (Editio princeps
of great part of the Phzlosophumena).

Mommsen Uedler den Chronographen vom Jahre 354, p. 549 sq (Leipz.
1850), an extract from the Adbhandl. der Konigt. Sachs. Gesellsch.
d. Wissensch. The Chronica in the second Latin version, with
the accompanying works.

Routu Scriptorum Ecclestasticorum Opuscula τ. Ὁ. 45 sq (ed. 2, Oxon.
1840) Contra Haeresim Noett.

TREGELLES Canon Muratorianus (Oxf. 1867).

WorvswortH Aippolytus 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 Histoire des Persétcutions pendant la premitre moitié du Trotsi¢me
Siecle Ὁ. 195 sq (Paris 1866).

ARMELLINI (T.) De prisca refutatione Haereseon Origents nomine ete.
commentarius (Romae 1862).

Aust (B.) Les Chrétiens dans 1 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 5. ann. 226, 229, 11. p. 407, 409 sq
(Venet. 1738).

BaxMANN Die Philosophumena u. die Peraten in Zeitschr. f. die Histor.
Theol. (1860).

Benson (E. W., now Arcupp.) Journal of Classical and Sacred Philolog
1. p. 188 sq (1854) On the Martyrdom and Commemorations of
Saint Lippolytus.

Brancuin1 (F.) De Kalendario et Cycdo Caesaris et de Paschali Canone
S. Hippolyti ete.

BoLLaND. Acta Sanctorum Januarius 11. Ὁ. 1027 (Jan. 30 De S. Hippolyto
Presbytero Antiocheno), Augustus 1. p. 4 sq (Aug. 13, De S. Mart.
Romanis Hippolyto Concordia etc.), wv. p. 504 sq (Aug. 22, De S.
Hippolyto Episc. et Mart. in Portu Romano), τν. p. 755 sq (Aug. 24
De SS. Aurea seu Chryse Virgine, Censorino, etc.).

Bunsen (Cur. C. J.) Hippolytus and his Age (ed. 2, London, 1854).

Caspari Quwellen sur Geschichte des Taufsymbols etc. 11. p. 374 56
(Christiania 1875).

Cave Scriptorum Lcclesiasticorum Historia Literaria 1. p. 102 sq.

368 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

Cruicr Etudes sur de nouveaux documents des Philosophumena (Paris
1853). Histoire de l’Eglise de Rome sous les Pontificats de δ.
Victor, de S. Ziphirin, et de S. Calliste (Paris 1856).

Dre 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.

I, pp. ὃ, τὸ sq,’ 22, 25, 47,1708 sents π(πϑό easing
di S. Lorenzo fuor le mura; UU. p. 33 (1864) Scoperte nella
basilica at S. Lorenzo nell’ agro Verano; τι. p. 41 sq (1864)
Le due basiliche di S. Lorenzo nell’ agro Verano; Iv. p. 1 sq,
p- 17 sq, p. 65 sq, p. 77 sq (1866) Lsame archeologico ὁ critico della
storta di S. Callisto narrata nel libro nono det Filosofument ;
Iv. p. 37 sq, 63 (1866) Z monumenti cristiani di Porto; 1. p. 99
(1866) Lo Xenodochio di Pammachio in Porto; Vv. p. 49 sq (1867)
I monument del secolo quarto spettanti alla chiesa di S. Pudenziana.

Serte Terza.

I. p. τό sq (1876) Scoperte nell’ agro Verano ὁ nel Sotterraneo
Cimitero di Ciriaca; τ. p. 145 sq (1876) <Arcosolio dipinto del
Cimitero di Ciriaca etc.; 1. Ὁ. 5 sq (1877) 21 museo epigrafico
Cristiano Pio-Lateranense (see Ὁ. 15 Sq); VI. p. 5 sq (1881)
La Silloge epigrafica dun codice gia corbeiense etc.; V1. p. 26 sq
(1881) Llogio Damasiano del celebre Ippolito 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 Zosimo sepolto in
S. Lorenzo nell’ agro Verano.

Serie Quarta.

I. p. 9 sq (1882) 2 Cimitero di S. L[ppolito presso la Via
Tiburtina e la sua principale cripta storica ora dissepolia ; τ. p. 176
(1882) Continuazione delle scoperte nella cripta storica e nelle
adjacenti gallerte del cimitero dt S. Ippolito; τι. p. 60 sq (1883)
Iscrizione storica det tempi di Damaso papa nel Cimitero di .5.
Ippolyto; iW. p. 7 sq (1884, 1885) 7 Carmi di S. Damaso; Vv.
Ῥ. 60 sq (1887) Zhe Hippolytus of the Appian Way.

Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae 1. p. UXx1x sq De Hippoliti
Cyclo inventione, etc.; 11. p. 72 sq Sylloge Centulensis Ὁ. 82.

Roma Sotterranea 1. Ὁ. 178 sq, 181, LVotices in the Itineraries; Ὁ. 263
sq The Hippolytus of the Appian Way; τι. p. 2354 The Hippolytus
of the Appian Way; 1. p. 193—226 (The Acts of Hippolytus and
the Greek Martyrs, and the Arenartum Hippolytt), 301—312, 317.

DGLLINGER Hippolytus and Kallistus (Regensburg 1853).

HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 369

DRASEKE Zu Pseudo-Hippolytos (Contra Beronem etc.) in Jahrb. f. Protest.
Theol. X. p. 342 sq (1884); Zu Hippolytos’ Demonstratio adv.
Judaeos, ib. Xu. p. 456 sq (1886).

Beron und Pseudo-Hippolytos in Zeitsch. f. Wiss. Theol. Xxx. p. 291
sq (1886).

DucuEsneE (L.) Lider Pontificalis Tome 1 (1886); Tome τι, Fascicule
i (1888).

Erses Die Lebenszeit des Hippolytus nebst der des Theophilus von Antio-
chien in Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol. xiv. p. 611 sq (1888).

Fapsricius Libliotheca Graeca vu. p. 183 sq, ed. Harles 1801.

Funk Theolog. Quartalschr. Lxi. p. 277 sq (1881) Lst der Bastlides der
Philosophumen Pantheist? Lx. p. 423 sq (1881) Ueber den
Verfasser der Philosophumenen ; LXVi. p. 104 sq (1884) Die Zeit
der Hippolyt-statue.

GRUBER Die Ophiten (Wiirzburg 1864).

GUNDERT Zettschr. f. Luther. Theol. Xvi. p. 209 Sq, XVII. pp. 37 Sq,
443 56.

GUTSCHMID (A. v.) Ueber die Verhiltniss d. Hippolytischen Liber Genera-
tionts etc. 2u Julius Africanus (1856).

HacGEMANN Die Rémische Kirche (Freiburg 1864).

HAarRnack Dogmengeschichte 1. Ὁ. 437 sq and elsewhere (1886).

Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus (Leipzig 1873),
Zettschr. f. Histor. Theol. p. 170.

Heinrict Die Valentianische Gnosis etc. (Berlin 1871).

Hesse (F. H.) Das Muratorische Fragment (Giessen 1873).

HILGENFELD Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. v. p. 400 sq (1862) Der Gnosticis-
mus und die Philosophumena; XX. p. 228 sq (1878) Der Basilides
des Hippolytus.

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
Leitschr. f. Kirchengesch. τ. p. 481 sq (1878) Das ursprungtliche
Basilidianische System.

Juncmann WD2ssertationes in Histor. Eccles. p. 173 sq (Ratisbon
1880).

Kinet (E. J.) De Hippolyti Vita et Scriptis (Jena 1839).

LANGEN (J.) Geschichte der Rémischen Kirche (Bonn 1881).

Lipsius (R. A.) Quellenkritik des Epiphantos (Wien 1865).

Die Quellen der Aeltesten Ketzergeschichte (Leipzig 1875).
Smith-Wace Dict. of Christ. Biogr. tv. s.v. Valentinus.

CLEM. 11. 24

370 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

LumpErR Histor. SS. Pair. vu. p. 1 sq (Aug. Vind. 1791); reprinted in
Migne.

No.tEe Zheolog. Quartalschr. 1862 p. 624 sq

OVERBECK Quaestionum Hippolytearum Specimen (Jena 1864).

R&vILLE (A.) Revue des Deux Mondes 1865, 11. p. 892 ; Saint Hippolyte
et la Socitté Chretienne de Rome au commencement du IIT, Siecle.

RoEPER (G.) Philologus vil. p. 511 sq, 607 sq, 767 (1852).

Ruccerius (Const.) De Portuensi S. Hippolyti Episcopt et Martyris
Sede etc. (Romae 1771), reprinted in Lumper and in Migne.
SALMON in Smith-Wace Duc. of Christ. Biogr. τ. Ὁ. 506 sq, 509,

Chronicon Canisianum, Chronica Horosit; τι. p. 679 Gnosticism ;
ul. p. 85 sq, Wippolytus Romanus ; τν. p. 80 Ophites etc.
Hermathena 1. p. 82 sq (1874) Chronology of Hippolytus; Xt.
p. 389 sq (1885) Cross-references in the Philosophumena.
Infallibility of the Church, p. 382 sq (London 1888).
SmeEpt Dissertationes Selectae (Ghent 1876) De Auctore Philosophumenon
p- 83 sq.
TILLEMONT Mémoires 11. p. 238 sq, 672 sq.
Un tuorn Das Basilidianische System (Gottingen 1855).
VoLKMAR LZippolytus und die Romischen Zeitgenossen (Zurich 1855).
Westcott Canon of the New Testament Appendix C (ed. 6, 1888)
Muratorian Canon.
WorpswortH (Bp Chr.) S¢ Hippolytus 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) Hippolytus the martyr of Antioch. Dollinger (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. τι. 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 Hieronymian Martyrology we have under ili 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 ΟἿ
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. ///ustr. 64), where
Hippolytus and Beryllus this notice is he describes him as ‘ Antiochenae eccle-
taken from Euseb. H. 2. 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 Mena, 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, is 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 (7. £. vi. 46) mentions among others one
addressed to the Romans, which he describes as διακονικὴ διὰ ἹἽππολύτου.
This Hippolytus therefore must have been the delegate who was
charged with delivering the letter. What may have been the purport of
this letter διακονικη, de ministerits or de diaconis, we cannot say. But as
we are told on contemporary authority (see 1. p. 255) that Fabianus
bishop of Rome (1 Α. "ἢ. 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 (AZZ. 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 Leber 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
notariis 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

ai

. so se

i aN i Serle ed

ΝΥ ΨΥ Oe on Son ec he ne ee ee

ἣν oe ee

εὐ ee ἡ το Φ 4

BIPPOLYTUS OF -PORTUS: 9

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) ippolytus the Greek captain of brigands. In the LVotitia
Portarum, Viarum, Ecclesiarum, or guide book of the close of the
7th century, which William of Malmesbury has appended to his Ges¢a
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. Wt. 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’’ [a.D. 265], but the persecut-
ing emperor is represented to be Decius [a.D. 250—252] and the
Roman bishop Stephen [a.D. 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 ‘arenarium’ with the rest v Id. Nov. Nine months later two

1 De Rossi has been able to explain 2 The present text says ‘venit quidam
how a false consular date became attached Hippolytus diaconus noctu’; but obvi-
to this persecution, Bul. 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 (Δ΄. S. 111. 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.
ΧΙ K. JUN.

These inscriptions are given by De Rossi Lom. Soft. 111. p. 194 (comp.
I. p. 263) and in Luser. Christ. Urb. Rom. τι. 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 (Aud/. 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. u. p. 23; comp. Luscr. Christ. Urb. Rom. i.
Ρ. 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 /mscr.
Christ. Urb. Rom. τι. 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
Fieronymian Martyrology under xiii Kal. Jul., where the notice as
corrected by De Rossi (Rom. Sott. τ. p. 264; comp. Ul. 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. /enat. and Polyc.,
Lp. 066, ed. 15 p. 683, 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 A/Zartyrology under vi Kal. Noy.
The bodies of Hippolytus, Adrias, Maria, Neon and Paulina were de-
posited in 5. 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 Sq, p. 301 sq (see Tav. 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 Rom.
Soft. ut. p. 215, Bull. dt Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 48.

(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 Martyrology, ofthe more famous Hippolytus; see Rom.
the scribe has inserted VIA TIBVRTINA, Soft. 11. p. 198.
thus confusing this arenarium on the Ap-

|

HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 77

(5) Aippolytus of Thebes, a writer of the eleventh century; on whom
see Fabricius B7b/. Graec. vil. 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 Ἱππόλυτος ὁ Θηβαῖος. In Niceph. Call.
Hf. E. ii. 3 a fragment of this writer is given as from Hippolytus ὃς
Iloprov τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπος ἐτύγχανεν wv. He was the
author of a Chronicle (χρονικὸν σύνταγμα). The accounts De Duodecim
Afpostolis and De Sepiuaginta Discipulis, which have sometimes been
included in the works of our Hippolytus, are his.

ὃ 4:
CALOS OR VELEPPLOEV ROS: 2

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 Dralogue with Proclus, directed against the Montanists.
It is quoted several times by Eusebius, who mentions Gaius as the
authori: 2. 11 25°. 79.) 11, vi. 20)

(2) A treatise on the Cause of the Universe, directed against the
Platonic doctrine. Photius (AR. 32. a) states that certain persons
attribute it to Gaius. Aconsiderable fragment of this work is extant.

(3) The Δί Labyrinth, from which long quotations are given by
Eusebius, and which is mentioned by name by Theodoret (42. 12 e).
Of the relation of this work to the Zadbyrinth 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 (ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἀνήρ); that he was a man of great learning
(λογιώτατος) ; 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 Zreatise against Artemon may be conveniently taken first. There
cannot be much doubt that this treatise is identical with the Lzttle Laby-
vinth mentioned by Theodoret (AR. 12. 6). 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.

The testimony of Photius (4... 32. a) requires careful scrutiny.
After discussing the authorship of the Zveatise on the Universe he men-

ὶ
“
{
i
"
;
ἱ
᾿
’

HIPROLYTUS OF “PORTUS. 379

tions marginal notes (ἐν παραγραφαῖς) 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 JDralogue is extant against a certain Proclus,
champion of the Montanist sect; which (treatise On 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 Zyeatise 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 Labyrinth? Shall we identify it
with the Little 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 Little
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 PAzlosophumena 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 roth 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 Zadyrinth 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 Zzt#e
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 Phzlosophumena gives an
additional confirmation of the Hippolytean authorship of the treatise
Against Artemon. Even before the discovery of the PAilosophumena,
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 ov Hippolytus? identified the Little Labyrinth of Theo-

380 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 JVature 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 Aefutatio
distinctly claims it as his own work; and no case has been made out for
denying the Refufatio 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 αὐ the works ascribed to the former belong rightly to the
latter. Only here and there a correction of statement has been rendered
necessary in the foregoing paragraphs by further knowledge. So far |
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 Zadyrinth 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 ἀλλὰ καὶ Χριστοῦ" καὶ πάλιν ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ἡδοναῖς
Κήρινθος ὁ δι ἀποκαλύψεων ὡς ὑπὸ ἀπο- ἐν ἹἹερουσαλὴμ τὴν σάρκα πολιτευομένην
στόλου μεγάλου γεγραμμένων τερατολογίας δουλεύειν. καὶ ἐχθρὸς ὑπάρχων ταῖς γραφαῖς
ἡμῖν ὡς δ ἀγγέλων αὐτῷ δεδειγμένας τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀριθμὸν χιλιονταετίας ἐν γάμῳ
ψευδόμενος ἐπεισάγει, λέγων μετὰ τὴν ἑορτῆς θέλων πλανᾶν λέγει γενέσθαι.
ἀνάστασιν ἐπίγειον εἶναι τὸ βασίλειον τοῦ * Gruter, DCCCCLXXXIX. 4.

382 EPISTLES OF 5. 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 Διάλογος Tatov καὶ Tpdxdov
(or πρὸς Πρόκλον) ἢ κατὰ Μοντανιστῶν. 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 Lefutation 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 Afo/. 3 ‘Nemo re-_ chief disputant on the right side is a
tractat, ne ideo bonus Gaius et prudens third person, the writer himself is sup-
Lucius, quia Christianus’; 2. 48 ‘At posed to be present. Another instance
enim Christianus, si de homine hominem _ of an early polemical writing thrown into
ipsumque de Gaio Gaium repromittat.’ the form of a dialogue is the dispute of

2 The work of Minucius Felix stands Archelaus and Manes. (Routh’s fel,
midway between the two; for, while the Sacr. v. p. 3 sq.)

«τᾶ, Ἀν ιν ee eee eae

— ψξ, ὰ 1-

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 (47. 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 Irenzeus the
disciple of Polycarp by Gaius who also was intimate with Irenzeus®.’
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 Irenzeus. 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 Irenzeus 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. Im the close of the Elpnvatov μαθητοῦ τοῦ ἸΠολυκάρπου, ὃς καὶ
treatise, which is wanting, he may have συνεπολιτεύσατο τῷ Hilpnvalw; or, as it
alluded to his episcopate more directly, in appears in the Moscow MS, ἐκ τούτων οὗν,
connexion with the Gentiles to whom ὡς προλέλεκται, τῶν τοῦ Εἰρηναίου ovy-
this peroration is addressed. γραμμάτων Τάϊος μετεγράψατο (see Jgnat.

2 ταῦτα μετεγράψατο μὲν Τάϊος ἐκ τῶν and Polyc. 111. 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’ (17. £. 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 Procius, 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 Czesarean 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 Refufation, 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

FIPBOLYTUS 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 Re/wzation 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 efutation 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 D/éalogue, so that no dramatic propriety
would be violated. But on either supposition, whether the Dzalogue
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 Déalogue also Stephanus Gobarus (A. 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 Refifation is almost too short to explain this

1 Ref. Haer. viii. το. Another casein The account I have given in the text

point is the article on the Quartodecimans
(vili. 18), who are dismissed still more
summarily. Hippolytus had discussed
them in his treatise On the Passover.
In all these three cases Bunsen (}712-
polytus 1. pp. 376, 382, 385) supposes
that our manuscript has preserved only
an abstract of what Hippolytus wrote.

CLEM. II.

seems to me much more probable. At
the same time I am disposed to think
that the Re/utation 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 Dzalogue 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 Déa/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 (τινὲς τών
πρὸ ἡμῶν) 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. ili. 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 (11. p. 441 Bohn’s transl.)
writes thus: ‘Moreover it deserves con-
siderationin this respect, that by Stephanus
Gobarus the judgments of Hippolytus and

know in what respect the opinions of
these two fathers were contrasted by
Stephanus, if they were contrasted. At
all events Hippolytus in the Refetation

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

speaks quite as strongly against the
Montanists as the case justifies.

2 The word γάμος however need not
signify a marriage festival, as it is used
elsewhere of festivities generally; e.g.
Lxx, Esth. iv. 22.

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 (ὡς αὐτὸς τεθεαμένος). Against him
not oniy have the above-named persons written, but with them also
Gaius and Dionysius the Bishop of Alexandria (AA. 12 d).’ So
interpreted, the passage signifies that Cerinthus set himself up for ‘a
great apostle’ 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 ὑπὸ ἀποστόλου
μεγάλου γεγραμμένων, 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 Dza/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 faras 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

HIPPOLY TUS OF PORTUS:

1 See the parallel given by Routh (11. p.
139) from Apollonius in Euseb. /7.Z. ν. 18,
μιμούμενος τὸν ἀπόστολον, καθολικήν τινα
συνταξάμενος ἐπιστολήν, 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.

53 Hippol. Fragm. 59 (on Daniel),
p- 153 (Lagarde).

9. 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 Dzalogue. ‘In the resurrection,’ he writes, ‘men shail be
as angels of God: that is to say, in incorruption and immortality and
immutability (dpevoia). 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
(ἑτερογενεῖς), 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 (AR. 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.

ὃ 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. g, p. go (Lagarde).

HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 389

In the following account I have been greatly assisted by J. A. Fabri-
cius L262, Graec. vit. p. 183 sq (ed. Harles); Bunsen /Z/ippolytus and
flis Age τ. p. 514 sq (1854); Caspar Zaufsymbol u. Glaubensregel i.
P- 377 54; and especially Salmon in Smith-Wace’s Dict. of Christ.
Biogr. ul. Ὁ. 91 sq 5. 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 ;

(B) Theological and Apologetic ;
(c) Historical and Chronological ;
(0) Herestologtcal.

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 (AX. 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 (42. 8. 4) must be to this work.

3. On the Sequel to the Hexaemeron. ‘This work (εἰς ta μετὰ τὴν
ἑξαήμερον) is mentioned by Eusebius and others. The commentary Zx
Genesim, included by Jerome in his list, is probably the same. It would
deal with certain passages in the patriarchal history. Jerome elsewhere
(AR. 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
ἡ on ἡ μεγάλη 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 (AR. 21. Ὁ), but there is a v. 1. ᾿Αβραάμ for Βαλαάμ
(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. This discourse is twice quoted by
Theodoret (AR. 12. a, Ὁ).

7. On Saul and the Witch of Endor (περὶ Σαοὺλ καὶ πύθωνος) or, as
it is described on the chair, [eis τὴν ἐγ]γαστρίμυθον. 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 τ. Harnack Zexte u. Untersuchungen, 1886.

8. On the Psalms. Theodoret (AR. 12) quotes from the com-
mentary on the znd, the 23rd, the 24th, and (if he means this by
τὴν ὠδὴν τὴν μεγάλην), the 119th Psalm. See also in Migne (p. 611)
a fragment on the 77th Psalm, published by Bandini (Cata/. Cod.
Graec. Medic. 1. p. 91). ‘There is likewise a possibility that the Demon-
stration against the Jews may be a commentary on Ps. Ixix.

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 Aad.
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.

HIPPORYT US sOF -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 B76/. Nov. vit. 11. p. 71 (1854).

το. Ox £Lcclesiastes, 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 in a Syriac translation; Assem. A7b/. Orient. τ. p. 607.

12. On Lsaiah, mentioned by Jerome. Theodoret (4A. 12. a)
quotes from the beginning of it. See Lagarde “οί. p. 142 and
Anal. Syr. p. 87.

13. On Jeremiah. Atleast Assemani (4762. Or. τ. p. 607) mentions
the existence of such a work, but does not state whether it is a com-
plete commentary.

14. On parts of Ezekiel, in the list of Eusebius. The work on ‘the
four living creatures’ is mentioned by Assemani (4762. Or. τ. p. 607)
as extant in a Syriac translation.

15. On 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 ᾿Εκκλησιαστικὴ ᾿Αλήθεια, May 1885 for the first time, Anal. Syr. περὶ
ὁράσεως τοῦ προφητοῦ Δανιὴλ λόγος δ΄, 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
λόγος α΄ contained the History of Susannah, λόγος β' the Song of the
Three Children, and λόγος γ΄ the earlier portion of the Canonical
Daniel. On p. 13 ἐν τῇ πρὸ ταύτης βίβλῳ σεσήμανται 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 vii 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 (παρασκευῇ)
in the 18th year of ‘Tiberius, in the consulship of Rufus (Fufius) and Ru-
bellio, or (as it is elsewhere expressed) ‘duobus Geminis’ (see 1. p. 253).
He thus places the Crucifixion on March 25 Α.Ὁ. 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.p. 29, see Salmon
in Smith-Wace Dict. of Christ. Biogr. s.v. ‘Chronicon Canisianum’
I. p. 506; ‘Hippolytus Romanus’ 111. Ὁ. 92 sq; and Hermathena τ. 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 ἔπαθε δὲ τῷ τριακοστῷ τρίτῳ ἔτει, though
without the same particulars. Salmon (/ermath. |.c.) expresses his sur-
prise that, while Hippolytus defends the authenticity of the fourth
Gospel and founds his chronology of the passover on 5. John (see 11.
p. 104), he has not in the Paschal Tabdes 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 zons 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 piaces ‘duobus
Geminis’ i.e. 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 Tadles, where the renecic xc is placed on iv Non.
Apr. in the 2nd year of the first cycle, and the tadoc 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. Hippolytus begins by
explaining why, though the events took place later, they are recorded
at the beginning of the work (ἡ ἱστορία γεγένηται ὕστερον, προεγράφη δὲ
τῆς βίβλου πρώτης); for it was customary, he adds, for the scribes to
record things in reversed order (voreporpwra), 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¢tde Daniel, which according to Ebedjesu
(AR. 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 AZSS Brit. Mus. τ. Ὁ. 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-
piain 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
Ρ. 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 (11. 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 τότε παρεῖναι), 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 (τὸ συμβὰν ov πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου) 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 (μὴ προσέχων
ἀσφαλῶς) of the scriptures,’ who, misled by visions, staked his credit on
the immediate coming, and the people sold their lands accordingly.

16. Ox 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 ἐπιούσιος
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 (4767. Or. τ. 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. Ὁ, c) Lhe 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 περὶ οἰκονομίας, or from almost any of his theological works.

19. Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of S. John. From the
preposition (ὑπέρ, not περί) 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 Λόγος; but they must have contained much
exegetical matter. Indeed we may suspect that Epiphanius borrowed
the name ἄλογοι ‘the irrational ones,’ from Hippolytus ; for these jokes
are very much in his way ; 6.5. νοητός, ἀνόητος (ix. 10), and δοκός, δοκεῖν,
δοκηταί (vill. 1). Dionysius Barsalibi states that Hippolytus, like Irenzeus,
holds the Apocalypse to have been written by John the Evangelist under
Domitian (Gwynn Hermathena Vi. 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 (Amodektixn πρὸς lovdaious), 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 (e.g. Hartel’s edition, mr.
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 (1. 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. αὶ Prot. Theol.
XI. 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 toyAalioyc. Moreover the Jews are directly
addressed again and again, ὦ ᾿Ιουδαῖε, ὦ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι. 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) Δαυὶδ ὁ σὸς χριστός, ws ὁ μέγας ᾿Ιώβ, φέρω δὴ ἐς μέσον καὶ τὴν
προφητείαν Σολομών, καὶ πάλιν ὁ Δαυὶδ ἐν ψαλμοῖς, καὶ πάλιν Σολομών,
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) χρονικῶν is a distinct work from zpos “Ἕλληνας
x.7.., 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 1 have shown elsewhere
(see above, p. 379), is probably the tenth book of the PAzlosophumena,
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. τι. 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 περὶ τῆς τοῦ
παντὸς αἰτίας. 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 περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς αἰτίας ἢ οὐσίας. ‘The resemblances of
language and substance bespeak the same authorship with the Pzoso-
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, ὃ μέγας τῶν δικαίων «.7.A. Lagarde,
onward), where it is carried a few lines farther from an Oxford ms,
Baroc. 26, which however had been previously printed by Hearne.
This additional part contains the apocryphal quotation, ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἂν εὕρω
ὑμᾶς, ἐπὶ τούτοις κρινῶ, 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. ν. 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 κρινῶ ends
the quotation in the same way as Hippolytus, καὶ παρ᾽ ἕκαστα βοᾷ τὸ
τέλος πάντων.

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 P/zlosophumena (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
(πνεῦμα). 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 (προτρεπτικὸς πρὸς Σεβη-
petvav). ‘This is mentioned on the Chair, and it is generally identified
with πρὸς βασιλίδα τινὰ ἐπιστολὴ twice quoted by Theodoret (AR. 12.
b,c). The fragments have reference to the Resurrection, and more
especially to Christ as the ἀπαρχή. 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 βασιλὶς of Theodoret with Julia Mammeea the mother of Alexander.

22*, A letter to a certain princess twice quoted by Theodoret (AR.
12. b, c). See the last section.

The quotation in Ana/. 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 Hymenzeus 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 (περὶ Θεοῦ καὶ σαρκὸς ἀναστάσεως).

24. ΑἹ Homily on the praise of our Lord and Saviour (προσομιλία
de Laude Domint 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 περὶ οἰκονομίας of the Chair and
Ebedjesu (A. #. 37).

25. On Christ and Antichrist. ‘This work is mentioned by Jerome
under the title ‘de Antichristo,’ and under the further title περὶ Χριστοῦ
καὶ ᾿Αντιχρίστου by Photius who read it.

A spurious work bearing the title περὶ τῆς συντελείας τοῦ κόσμου καὶ
περὶ τοῦ ᾿Αντιχρίστου Kal εἰς τὴν δευτέραν παρουσίαν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ 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 “Ezrevd7 of μακάριοι κ.τ.λ.

The genuine treatise, which was read by Photius, entitled περὶ τοῦ
σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ περὶ τοῦ ᾿Αντιχρίστου 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 τειτὰν,
eyAN@ac, and AaTeiNnoc, as Irenzeus has done before him (27.467. 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 4.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.

σῶν προ, SEO SS

= anaes aa.

More

eee

HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 399

26. On the Holy Theophany (εἰς τὰ ayia θεοφάνεια). 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. τι. p. 96 sq (ed.
Bonn.) under the title Z7/er 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 (1. p. 258 sq). It is brought down to
A.D. 234 (the xuith 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 ἀπόδειξις χρόνων τοῦ πάσχα
κατὰ [τὰ] ἐν τῷ πίνακι. 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 (/fermathena τ. p. 88 sq; Smith-Wace Dict. of Christ.
Ant. s.v. ‘Hippolytus Romanus’ 111. 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. £. ν. 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 Ὁ
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. vii. 30 ἀντιπαράθεσις ἀγαθοῦ
καὶ κακοῦ, Vil. 31 ἢ πρώτη καὶ καθαριωτάτη Μαρκίωνος αἵρεσις ἐξ ἀγαθοῦ
καὶ κακοῦ τὴν σύστασιν ἔχουσα), 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 (χαρισμάτων) 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) περὶ χαρισμάτων, and (2) ἀποστολικὴ παράδοσις. The
Apostolic use of the word χαρίσματα 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

FLEPPOLYTUS 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 5. Paul’s account of ὦ
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 offices. 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
(Monachii 1870), who has given reasons for supposing that they were
originally written in Greek. Connected with these are the διαταξεις τῶν
αὐτῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων περὶ χειροτονιῶν διὰ Ἱππολύτου, as they are called
in the ms from which Lagarde has edited them (AZonac. 380), and their
designation is similar in others (see Caspari 111. p. 387). Corresponding
to the 8th Book of the Apostolic Constitutions are two early elements
in Greek, from which it was apparently compounded and amplified :
(1) Διδασκαλία τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων περὶ χαρισμάτων corresponding to
A post. Const. viii. 1, 2 (Rel. Jur. Eccl. Ant. p. 1 sq, Lagarde), which
contains a sort of preface concerning spiritual gifts; and (2) Avardéets
x.7.X. as already given, corresponding to Afost. Const. viil. 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: IT, 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. τι.
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 περὶ
χαρισμάτων, Caspari (1. 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 Noetus ; 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 χαρίσματα 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 (γνώριμος) of the Apostles’ by Palladius (42. 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, τοῦ παλαιοῦ καὶ γνωρίμου τῶν ἀποστόλων (AR. 16), lived in the middle
of the sixth century. There seems therefore to be some ground for the
opinion of Bunsen (see esp. 11. 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 Apostolic 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. (42. 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 Refucatio. It may be regarded
therefore as written to refute the Quartodecimans, as the fragments in
the Chron. Pasch. (42. 22) show.

332. The Philosophumena or Refutation of Al Heresies, his final
work, probably left incomplete at his death. This will demand a
section to itself”.

SPURIOUS HIPPOLVTEAN WORKS.

(1) The treatise Contra Leronem et Helicem (Ὁ) 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 τ. 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 (AZ. 24). It is quoted also (AR. 30) by Nicephorus
of Constantinople [Ὁ a.p. 828]. The manuscripts vary between Ἥλικος

1 This is distinctly the case with rest of the school; see Hssays 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 S. CLEMENT.

or Ἡλικίονος (Ἡλικίωνος) 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) Βήρων tis ἔναγχος μεθ᾽ ἑτέρων
τινῶν τὴν BaXevtivov φαντασίαν ἀφέντες x.t.A. There can be little or
no doubt therefore that Fabricius (Hippol. Οὗ. I. p. 225) was right in his
conjecture ἡλικιωτῶν αἱρετικῶν for Ἥλικος τῶν αἱρετικῶν. On the title
see Draseke Zahrb. 7. 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 Christolugy, 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 κένωσιν is probably a
false reading and that we should probably read ἕνωσιν instead (Dridseke
lc. p. 344 Sq). Bunsen, accepting the work as genuine, considers one
expression only ἐκ τῆς παναγίας ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας 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 (42. 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,

Fe πα θα»...

HiPPOLY ΘΕ ΟΝ 405

(3) The Arabic Catena on the Pentateuch, of which mention has
been made already (p. 390).

(4) The treatise De Consummatione Mundi, which for some time
took the place of the genuine work De Christo e¢ 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 (//aer. 1. 15, 16) Irenzeus quotes,
from one whom he describes as ‘the divine elder and herald of the
truth,’ some verses (ἐμμέτρως) written against the Valentinian heretic
Marcus. They run as follows ;

Εἰδωλοποιὲ Μάρκε καὶ τερατοσκόπε,
ἀστρολογικῆς ἔμπειρε καὶ μαγικῆς τέχνης,
δ ὧν κρατύνεις τῆς πλάνης τὰ διδάγματα,
σημεῖα δεικνὺς τοῖς ὑπὸ σοῦ πλανωμένοις,
ἀποστατικῆς δυνάμεως ἐγχειρήματα,

ἅ σοι χορηγεῖ σὸς πατὴρ Saray ἀεὶ

Ov ἀγγελικῆς δυνάμεως ᾿Αζαζὴλ ποιεῖν "

ἔχων σε πρόδρομον ἀντιθέου πανουργίας,

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 δυνάμιος 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 ἐμμέτρως that some verse was coming, and have printed
accordingly. But elsewhere, where there was no such warning, they
are altogether astray. Thus in //aer. iii. 17. 4 (a passage preserved
only in the ancient Latin version) Irenzeus 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 Jz Ded lacte
gypsum male miscetur,

where the Claromontane ms has ‘veritatem Dei, Lacte,’ etc. This is
the correct reading (¢z being a repetition of the previous 71), but not
the correct punctuation. The sentence should run,

‘Dei lacte gypsum male miscetur,’
which in Greek is

Θεοῦ γάλακτι μίγνυται γύψος κακώς,

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
(σι. p. 538, Vallarsi). :

Nor is this the only instance in which the editors of Irenzeus
have been at fault. In HYaer. τ. praef. 2 likewise this father quotes one
whom he styles in the same way (0 κρείττων ἡμῶν, 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);

Ἂν; εγυὺς a , ε lal »” ἈΛΕῸΝ, a iB, n e a
καθὼς ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος ἡμῶν εἴρηται ἐπὶ τῶν τοιούτων [τῶν αἱρετικῶν]
τ
ὅτι
0)
λίθον τὸν τίμιον
΄ »” Ν , Rp,
σμάραγδον ὄντα Kal πολυτίμητόν τισιν
7
ὕαλος ἐνυβρίζει διὰ τέχνης
Pe a Ν lal ε θέ ὃ , \
παρομοιουμένη, ὅποταν μὴ παρῇ ὁ σθένων δοκιμάσαι καὶ
/ 7
τέχνῃ διελέγξαι THY πανούργως γενομένην
ὅταν δὲ
3 An
ἐπιμιγῇ
ε Ν 3 Ν ” , 2508,
ὁ χαλκὸς εἰς τὸν ἄργυρον, Tis εὐκόλως
“ 5 Ψ' ,
δυνήσεται τοῦτον ἀκεραίως δοκιμάσαι;

where however for axepaiws we should probably read ἀκέραιος, as the
Latin has ‘rudis quum sit.’ Very slight alterations would bring more
of the context into the verses. Thus ὁμοιουμένη might be substituted
for παρομοιουμένη, and ὅταν yap for ὅταν δὲ, 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

HIFPOLYTUS 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 (#7. Z£. v. 28) as referring to the ‘numerous psalms and songs’
(ψαλμοὶ ὅσοι καὶ wdat) written by believers in which Christ is spoken of
as God. Again; in the fourth century the notorious Zalia 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 Muratorian 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. ΑΙ] the necessary information respecting the text will be found
in Tregelles’s Canon Muratorianus (Oxford, 1867), and in Westcott’s
flistory of the Canon Appx Ὁ.

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
Muratorische Fragment, Giessen 1873) maintains that Latin was the
original language; and he has succeeded in convincing Caspari (Zau/-
symbol 111. 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 doctfment. ‘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 (Analecta Antenicena 1. p. 142 sq), and by Hilgen-
feld (Linleitung 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 τῶν ᾿Ασιανῶν Καταφρύγων καταστάτην,

as I had translated it, except that I should substitute κατὰ Φρύγας for
Καταφρύγων, since the Montanists are always (so far as I have noticed)
called in Greek ot Φρύγες or of κατὰ Φρύγας, never ot Κατάφρυγες, at
all events for some centuries’. But would not ‘constitutor’ be a strange

1 They are οἱ Φρύγες in Clem. Alex. Omn. Haer. 7 ‘qui dicuntur secundum
Strom. iv. 13, p. 6053 20. vii. 17, p. 605; Phrygas,’ Euseb. 4. Z. ii. 25, v. 16,
Hippol. Haer. viii. pref., 19, x. 25; vi. 20; Epiphan. Maer. xlvili. 12, 14, pp.
Euseb. H. £. iv. 27, v. 16; but [oi] 413, 416. In the title of Epiphanius we
κατὰ Φρύγας Ps-Tertull. [Hippol.] adv. have καταφρυγαστῶν, but this is probably

HIBPOLYTUS 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, ττ. Ὁ. 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 original.
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 ;
λέγων
ἐς ἑαυτόν: ὀφθαλμοῖσιν a θ᾽ ἑωράκαμεν,
κακήκοαμεν τοῖς ὠσίν, αἱ θ᾽ ἡμῶν χέρες
ἐψηλάφησαν, ὗμιν αὐτ᾽ ἐγράψαμεν.
Now let us see what can be made of some longer passages ;
()
acta autem omnium apostolorum
sub uno libro scripta sunt Lucas obtimo Theophi-
lo comprendit quia sub praesentia ejus singula
gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem Petri
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.
ἀλλ᾽ ἀποστόλων
πράξεις ἁπάντων βιβλίον ὑφ᾽ ἕν γεγραμμένας
Λουκᾶς κρατίστῳ Θεοφίλῳ συλλαμβάνει,
αὐτοῦ παρόντος ὡς ἕκαστ᾽ ἐπράττετο"
a corruption for τῶν κατὰ Φρύγας, though Monk, Serm. 130 (p. 1845, Migne).
this error is older than Antiochus the

410 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

ε ‘\ Yd 3 5 ,ὔὕ ε \ ΄
ὡς καὶ μακράν [γ᾽ ἀπόντος ἡ σιγὴ] πάθος
5
Πέτρου προφαίνει kak πόλεως δ᾽ εἰς Saraviav
Ἅ nw
Παύλου πορείαν ἐκπορευομένου σαφώς.
Παύλου δ᾽ ἐπιστολαὶ τίνες, ἐκ τίνος τόπου,
> / Ἃ ’, 5] ye
ἐπεστάλησαν, ἢ ποίας ἐξ αἰτίας,
a 3 XN lal Va “
δηλοῦσιν αὐταὶ τοῖσι βουλομένοις νοεῖν"
tal , ld
πρῶτόν ye πάντων αἱρέσεως Κορινθίοις
tA > > , Ly T λ , ,
σχίσμ᾽ ἀπαγορεύων, εἶτα Τ᾽αλάταις περιτομήν,
“ ε
γραφῶν δὲ ῬΡωμαίοισι τάξιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ
3 nt > ’, ἈΝ » ΄ὔ
ἀρχὴν ἐκείνων Χριστὸν ὄντα δεικνύων.

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.
φέρεται δὲ καὶ
ἡ Λαοδικεῦσιν, ἡ δ᾽ ᾿Αλεξανδρεῦσιν αὖ,
πρὸς Μαρκίωνος αἵρεσιν πεπλασμέναι
ὀνόματι Παύλου: πολλά τ᾽ ἀλλ᾽ ἃ καθολικὴν
οὐκ ἀναδέχεσθαι δυνατὸν εἰς ἐκκλησίαν"
οὐ συμφέρει γὰρ μέλιτι μίγνυσθαι χολήν,
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: 4II

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.

τὸν δὲ Ποιμένα
κ a ε , 3 A ,
νεωστὶ καιροῖς ἡμετέροις ἐν τῇ πόλει
ε , / > , ,
Ῥώμῃ συνέγραψεν ἐπικαθημένου Πίου
aA “a ε ,ὔ
Ἕρμᾶς καθέδραν τῆσδε Ρωμαίων πόλεως
ἐκκλησίας ἀδελφὸς ὧν ἐπισκόπου"
σ 5 5 > , , 5» > > ,
ὥστ᾽ οὖν ἀναγινώσκειν μέν, ἐν δ᾽ ἐκκλησίᾳ
“ ’,
οὐ δημοσιεύεσθαί ode τῷ λαῷ χρεών᾽
οὐδ᾽ ἐν προφήταις δυνατὸν οὐδὲ συντελεῖν

> , 5 5 Ss > , ,
ἀποστόλων ἐς ἀριθμὸν εἰς τέλος χρόνων,

where I am disposed to think that ‘completum numero’ is a clumsy
translation, perhaps corrupted by transcription, of the idiomatic Greek
συντελεῖν ἐς ἀριθμόν,“ 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? Ina 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 Irenzeus 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 Ovatione 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 A/uratorian
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 8. 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, Dict. 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
waAalictacactacrpadac. If correctly copied, this represents «dal
εἰς πάσας τὰς γραφάς, ‘odes’ or ‘verses on all the Scriptures.’ This
might represent two titles; (1) δαί, and (2) εἰς πάσας τὰς γραφάς. In
this case the δαὶ would only be available as showing that Hippolytus
wrote metrical compositions, of which these verses on the Canon might
be one; and εἰς πάσας τὰς γραφὰς 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 yponikqn 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’
(τὴν ἐγγαστρίμυθον) and the ‘Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse
of John,’ which might all have been dispensed with, if εἰς πάσας τὰς
γραφὰς 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, like 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 5. Ambrose (De Adbrah. i. 3,
Rens, 160, Of) ep) 280). and Jerome tellsius: (Zprs¢y Ixxxivey 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 τὴν ἑξαήμερον and εἰς τὰ μετὰ τὴν
ἑξαήμερον 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 verbatem ὃ

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.

δ 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 (4A. 32. b)
has described this work, which he calls σύνταγμα ‘a compendium,’
rather fully.

414 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

He speaks of it as a little book (βιβλιδάριον). It comprised thirty-
two heresies, beginning with the Dositheans and ending with Noetus
and the Noetians. It was founded on some lectures of Irenzeus (ὁμι-
λοῦντος Εἰρηναίου), in which these heresies were submitted to refu-
tations (ἐλέγχοις ὑποβληθῆναι). 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 PAzlosophu-
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 βιβλιδάριον. 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. Zhzrd/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 Pzlosophumena 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 (πάλαι!) he had written to expose
and refute the doctrines of the heretics, not minutely (κατὰ λεπτόν),
but roughly and in their broad features (adpouepas); 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, as a
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: 415

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 Syxfagma 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

(Νασσαραῖοι)

Herodians
Simon Magus
Menander
Saturninus
Basilides
Nicolaitans
Gnostici
Borborians
(Barbelites)

Carpocrates
Cerinthus
Nazarenes
(Nafwpator)
Ebionites

EPISTLES OF 5. CLEMENT.

PSEUDO-TERTULLIAN

Dositheus

Sadducees
Pharisees

Herodians
Simon Magus
Menander
Saturninus
Basilides
Nicolaitans

Ophites
Cainites
Sethites
Carpocrates
Cerinthus

Ebionites

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

CEM. 11.

PSEUDO-TERTULLIAN

Valentinus
Ptolemaeus
Secundus
Heracleon
Marcus
Colarbasus

Cerdon
Marcion
Lucan
Apelles

Tatian

Cataphrygians :—

secundum Proclum
secundum Aeschinem

Blastus
Theodotus

Melchizedekites
(Theodotus 11)

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 5. 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 Zertullian wider 2 T have stated elsewhere that Victor
Praxeas by Noedechen in Yahrb. f. was the bishop attacked by Tertullian:
Protest. Theol. ΧΙΝ. p. 576 sq (1888), in but I am now convinced that Zephyrinus
which the relations of Tertullian to [5 meant.

Hippolytus are traced, showing that the Ὁ [For the approximate date of the
African father is indebted to the Roman, Compendium see below, p. 426.]
and not conversely.

HMIPEOLYTUs. OF PORTUS. 419

ὃ 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
ᾧδαὶ εἰς πάσας tas γραφὰς and the χρονικὰ 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.

SEO pe Ph AIPUNDPHAOLD ΠΟΛῪ SmaAnyon
anjAoYoup Wy 60} | -OY0Ig NOL ὦ 101] τοι yr noah Anas
(z£ yp) smusumogy ‘(FI “yP) svorpuy | -v[ pLnyxvmyppay | 43 alt 529 my 510 a3 ag apv20g aq alapmy ὉΨῸΣΝ not daua 61
(q "21 YP)
joroposy,T, Alivloan1g amLapynt amt aul $73
(9°21 “7 67) JrIOpoay_T, sprolly ong 580. 579 ᾿
Tac “UOIDIET 2,2) 9922) 7}. 141 *2/2u0, :
(1 8 "ay 7) “WOTeLH YHOYY τι 2 ae
SD3d ἸῸΝ SDIDYDL
SN}OLADL SDY\'D S79 UDIADYIDZ UT gI
(FE -yR) sepmng (ze *y PF) Snaaponoe
sniuswnog) { (9 1 7}}) snnoyg (81 ἸῸΝ nodym not aonnk
07) snijerjsny f(t 8. “Χ}}7) snwAuosaiyy | Y“rany anjaalirida | -90, ams γί) ΤῸΝ yung aq Cy
τ Yana Jay, Ὁ. ΟἹ ΧΌΥΙ χ 1.591, (0. lidar! 579 FI
(209
Ἵ Ἢ “790g “wassy) mprUataf 22 "2209 1
παρα
(Ὁ "ΟΙ “yYP) JeIOposyy, -0dL AML Ὄχχοι 519 mpwsy up ZI
MUNAOI0
nino pL S79 | -uvQeunsyUvIUT TOD QL S79 If
IISDISHIIGE AT ΟΙ
(FE
“Δ ΕΓ) Sepmnsg soLamroyoz ee SDL 579 S21QAA2OAT 8 6
q ΒΟ ΟῚ
ΧΡ) XIXO SAIXX “ΠΙΧΧ “IT "541 191Οροϑι], S2UDST IT snonlyn[ A 540. 573] 8
DSS7U 406 ]
OY Ὁ 29 NDS aq -anjdtovd[Aa at 572] iy
(q “Ὁ "οἱ yp)
JoIOPOoYL Anaay alt ἸῸΝ ayanA\ GY, ἀρ. 579 9
(q οὐ "7}7) 5} Π0ΟΘΊ .
(ἹΡΌΝ, Ἵ Δ) Mpoymg (οι mova 70 ς
7,71} ΟΧ uy +
aodanilz aodar!
(0 8 ‘yF) snurduorat py 703) ak. pL pL 519 2415 2742.) uz | -l.039 at Ὁ 190] pL S73 ¢
(8 Ῥ 8 ‘y) snwduoraryy aodanlin32 abt $79 | worswuanxazy 167 aodanlin39 aks 519 ᾿ Pa
ὟΣ
[2εο24.,) unrtojvanyy | -ndd 50... ΒῸ ΟΌ 579 wgch Ι

OILADAXY ANV ἸΝΟΙΊΒΙΗ “Vv

β 5 ὉΠ ἢ
STINNOS AXFHLO ASHITTIT | was ςηδίοπο | SAWANONGZIN 5274 5752 5 YIVHD FHL SYYOM

ToL OT OTA πα teeth Nes ἐς λύκοι εἰ © Aneta fiancee’ Senn όχι, οἶς τῷ
(το yy) “eT

‘U0D s19lAl32 vXovu o1 579 $(1% “YP)

‘yoseg το vXovu nojpdp nor you

EF -d Θρι 9 aoLlkony 7.99070 alt 513

(9 "οἱ ΧΕ) Jo10poay_y, sogandagoy
sodwirlo ἐ(Ὁ “τ sy R) sntjoyg vamnz.dy ,
sodu (ΕἸ ΕΠ) smisejar) 2,47115)2. 4272
pisos %(q “18 “7 07) snnoyg 401g
-\ gig ama0zd10 pLvy £(1% "7 07) “yoseg
“ποι 0 Ὁ 0.0 513.0307Ὁ Sor svoDUD 5001",

[szetotgvaauay 42927 |
(91 “Χ}}) (ὁ) ῃάος “TAD

€+ -d apresey wraanporg why v1 $73
(Omen
Δ ΕΠ) 5 ΠΟΥ 4 20L9;dX1La9 yor aoLoidy d3.u

(Fey Py) ‘seuy 507,00 ΦΌ ἸῸΝ sma onLovan
qdau «(τὉ *yP) ‘yey ‘ou, sw7Loyorg yan
( 90:1) 28 “ἃ άς ‘euy τε δηλ. pr
(9 4 “1 Ρ)
Ἴ9ΙΟΡΟΘΙΓΙ, ἰμγο...01..3 ὍΛ... ὈΡΊΥΊΟΌΡΙ sodu
(6 “1 yp)
snjoyg ἐ(Σ Ἴ -yPy) 581Λ|οἋ1}] 5Όγοᾳο
SQLavu AOL Slt η03.. 10 ‘soLaDu not 109.

DYISDT 2

au

wamndny sodu | -owinpy vsjJUoD

$13.0
-2010 SPLIOY SDL ΤῸ

S2Sa4a0Y
Sauio 5715.422}} Ε΄

aga
wXopu ROL Aor
~1.43039Q7039 AOL

20uUD? 1». ἀοφγτώ22
7a avyssng ouvy

OIStAYIYUP 27
SLLOJDQIDG* ULOCT 2p
5ΏΊΥΟΛΟ.70 1043... -07 ap 0X 1110000 u

PUOLZIIAANSIM 9(7

wXopL not γ03.ν

namxdny sod

$73.03d
“70 SPL SoODLD 500.»
. : ‘

‘Ly aipndivan
alt amagdX ams ὦ
a2 wXopu not 2d39u

| w&
s1009ndnL ἰμγγγ0...0
τοῦ amipriordnX ydau τὲ
AaQNDN OL |
13902 ἸῸΝ) ΠΟρΘΌΛ Ὁ. 103.ι of
0%
| 62

IVOIDOIOISAUALT ὋἋὋ

1) Ό 7. HL

43 [pL] ὉΨΌΥ vXovu
QoL amagdX 5131300.ΜΌ Sz
amy1aodX | fz
TVOINOLSI FL

GNV TIVOIDOTONOYHD Ὁ

ge

Sz

S03[ 11020470 1039. Fz
smanpLovap

soxdno ἸῸΝ 0390. 109. [17
anaadug

9% Sodu SonrLuadLodu το
SOLADL NOL
103. ἸῸΝ (L DAMLDY]T

| sodu yor svalyy, Sedu Iz

500) [ὍΘ ΠΟΤ, SROL sod] Yd

OILAD

-OT0dY GNV IVNIYLOOG “g

422 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

§ ΤΟ:
EAREVGAND MID DEE LINE OF ΡΟΣ VEU S.

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 Irenzeus 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 Pz/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, Irenzeeus 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
(11. 3. 3) during the episcopate of Eleutherus (c. A.D. 177—190) and as

1 Jenat. and Polyc. τ. p. 432 ed. 1 (I- ed. 2).
448 ed. 2); 11: p. 986 ed. 1 (III. p. 402 2) Bruseb. 57: ν- 4; 5:

HYIPPOLY TUS: OF PORTUS:. 423

he leaves the reference to this episcopate untouched (νῦν...τὸν τῆς
ἐπισκοπῆς. . κατέχει κλῆρον ’EXevOepos), 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/z/osophumena,
quotes large passages, sometimes by name, from the extant work of
Irenzeus. ‘These facts seem to show that the Compendium of Hippolytus
was written before the publication of the latter, 1.6. 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 (AR. 8. b) that Hippolytus held in
presence of ORIGEN who was then at Rome ‘a homily on the Praise of
the Lord (προσομιλία 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’ (εὐξάμενος τὴν ἀρχαιοτάτην Ῥωμαίων ἐκκλησίαν
ἰδεῖν), and that accordingly he went there in the time οἵ Zephyrinus
(c. A.D. 199—217), and after staying a short time (οὐ πολὺ διατρίψας) he
returned to Alexandria (Euseb. H. £. 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 (4202.
121) by a strange blunder has ascribed to Hippolytus (47. 31. b) what
Jerome (AR. 8. b) tells us of Ambrosius, and thus makes Hippolytus
the ‘task-master’ (ἐργοδιώκτης) of Origen. He must have misunderstood
Jerome’s words ‘in hujus aemulationem.’

1 On the possible identity of this in the list of Hippolytus’ writings on the
homily with a work (περὶ οἰκονομία) Chair, see above, p. 398.
mentioned by Ebed-Jesu, and included

424 EPISTLES OF 8. CLEMENT.

Siri:

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 archeological discovery has shown
that this charge of Novatianism belongs to Hippolytus ‘the presbyter’.

Among the many archzological 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 (4A. 7. a), likewise in verse, that ‘Hippolytus che
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 it. ΑἸΙ 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 150 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 frs¢ 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.D. 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&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 54) 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 [4.p. 253, 254] and must
have written immediately after the death of Lucius (see I. 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 Novatus
arrived from Africa and separated Novatian and certain confessors from
the Church after that Moyses had died in prison’ after a captivity of
nearly twelve months. Again under Cornelius [A.D. 251—253], he
mentions that during his episcopate ‘Novatus outside the Church
ordained Novatian 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 (11. p. 413 sq) that his early work, the Com-

HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 427

pendium 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 ¢wzce been in schism with the
rulers of the Roman Church on the same ground of puritanism, and
have fzezce 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 Przlosophumena'—-confirmed as this conclu-
sion has subsequently been by the discovery since made that the story
had no better foundation than a late rumour.

Ὁ Τ2:
ἜΧΕ ΘΕ ΟΣ PO LEVERS:

Hippolytus speaks of himself as ἃ 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

1 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, teils
us that he was a bishop somewhere or other (ἑτέρας zov...mpoeotws
ἐκκλησίας). Jerome, who wrote a little more than half a century later
than Eusebius, is equally at a loss (AR. 8. Ὁ). 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’ (42. 7. a),
a term of which I shall have to speak presently (see below, p. 435 54).

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. 492496). 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’ (ἑτέρας που). In translating this
passage Rufinus (42. 9) drops the ἑτέρας που 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 1.

HMEPPOLYTUS (OF aRORTUS. 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 Portuensi S. Hippolyti Episcopi 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 Phzloso-
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”’

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 Fortus Romanus,
its common name being Laportum Ro-
manum.

3 Of. τ. p. 777, Lugd. Bat. r7or.

4 Not however Tillemont (as Words-
worth says, p. 259), at least in my edition,

or ‘hospital for foreigners,’ which

Mém. 111. p. 239, 672 sq-

> The circumstances attending the his-
tory of the composition and appearance
of this work will be found in Words-
worth, p. 260 54. It is inserted in Lum-
per, “7151. Sanct. Patr. Tom. viii, and
again in Migne, Patrol. Grace. X. p. 395
sq).

6 Hieron. Apzst. lxvi. § τὶ (I. p. 410)
‘Audio te [Pammachium] xenodochium
in Portu fecisse Romano,’ Zf7st. Ixxvii.

430 EPISTLES OF 8. 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 Cazalogus. In the Chronicon
Paschale {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. Ὁ. 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 catenze
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 Philosophumena. 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

§ τὸ (I. p. 465), Ixvii. § 10 (I. p. 466)
‘Xenochium in Portu Romano situm
totus pariter mundus audivit; sub una
aestate didicit Britannia quod A‘gyptus
et Parthus noverat vere.’ For an in-
teresting account of the extant remains
of this xenodochium see De Rossi Azd/,

di Archeol. Crist. IV. p. 50 54, P- 99 54
(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.

EAPPOLYTUS ‘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@ 271071 reason why it might not have been
an episcopal see in the age of Hippolytus 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 ἐπίσκοπος Ῥώμης, 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 54, 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.D. 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 ἐπίσκοπος Ῥώμης 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 dmperium 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 partzbus. ‘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 /éngua 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 (ἐπίσκοπος ἐθνῶν), 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 PAz/o-
sophumena, he appeals in his concluding address (4A. 1. 1) to ‘Greeks
and Barbarians, Chaldaeans and Assyrians, Aegyptians and Libyans,
Indians and Aethiopians, Celts and Latins on foreign service (ot στρατη-
yoovres Λατῖνοι), 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.p. 313); but unlike the other
bishops mentioned in the same list (de c/vitate Eboracenst, de civitate Utica,
etc.) he is called not de civitate Portuenst, but Gregorius episcopus de loco
gui 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’ (φροῦρος τῆς ἐκκλησίας). 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 (2d. 1. p. 1427), in no bishop of Portus; see Ddllinger, p. go.

HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 435

Sars
TIPPOLVRUS THE PRESBVTER.

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, 5. 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 πρεσβύτερος, ‘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 Irenzeus 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 ὁ μακάριος πρεσβύτερος. 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 Zssays 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 half 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 1. 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. he 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 Mammza.

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 Mammeea, 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, Α.Ὁ. 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 Mammeza 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 Liber 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 7, 9, ‘Omnes Alexandri ministros
Allard Zes 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 (AX. τ. 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 4000 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*;

Σαρδώ, viv συ βαρεῖα μεταλλάξῃ εἰς τέφρην.

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.p. 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 Lzber
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
stations, but of the island generally very
different language is held; Pausan. vii.
17. 2 Σαρδὼ yap τὴν νῆσον εἰς τὰ μάλιστα
εὐδαίμονα ἀντὶ Ἑλλάδος σφίσιν ἀπέδωκεν,
said of an exchange of provinces which
Nero made with the Senate; see Mar-
quardt Wom. Staatsverw. 1. Ὁ. 97.

2 Joseph. Antig. xviii. 3. 5.

3 Orac. Sibyll. vii. 96 sq; comp. also
iii. 477-

4 Virg. Zcl. vii. 41 ‘Sardois amarior
herbis’; see Pape-Benseler Griech. Wor-
terb. 5. ν. Σαρδώ.

5 Orac. Stbyll. i. 182 Σαρδόνιον μείδημα
The
words are put into the mouth of Noah.

γελάσσετε ὅποταν ἥξῃ τοῦτο K.T.Xr.

440 EPISTLES OF 5. 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 (I. c.), the date of Pon-
tianus’ death in the Zzder 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. τ. Ὁ. 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.
ΧΕ SATE TE OTE LO LVS

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-
siastic 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 Of. 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 Dée Christliche Kunst Ὁ. 111, 187; Real-Encycl. der Christd.
Alterth. τ. p. 660). The inscription—so far as it bears on our investiga-
tions—has been given above (AX. 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 (Zzeolog. 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,

HIPPOLYTUS OF 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 9th. 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 τ. p. 82 sq.

(3) These arguments seem conclusive. If any archeological 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 bélongs 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 5. 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.

§ τό.
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.p. 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 Preetorian 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 Vza
Tiburtina and the Via Nomentana, is the site of the Cemetery and Basi-
lica of 8. 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 archzological 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 5. Agnese on the Via Nomentana to the North and
that of S. Laurentius (or more properly of 5. Cyriace) on the Via
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 Coemeterium 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. dt Archeol. Crist. Ser. iv.
I. p- 49-

“See Bull. de Archeol. Crist. \. c. p.
15 sq (1882); comp. Rom. Sott. 1. Ὁ.
116 sq. The earliest notice of his burial

terio’ after ‘Ypoliti.. De Rossi gives
other notices indicating that the proper
name of these catacombs was Coemeterium
S. Hippolyti. In the Martyr. Hieron.
xiii Kal. Jul. the reading of the Berne

(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-

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.

AAA EPISTLES OF 8. 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. di Archeol.
Damasus—their composition and calli- Cvés¢. Ser. iv, 111. p. 7 54:

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 Perz 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 5. Peter and 5. 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. ro, and Aug. 13) and in the same
locality, in the twin sanctuaries which stood vs ἃ 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. 220: 2 AR. ἡ. a; see above, p. 328.

EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

446

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 Czsarea 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. vill. 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. § 9, in the form
of this work attached to the Acclescastical
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 Resuwrrectione, 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 (προφερόντων τῶν “Tov-
δαίων, ‘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 (Zfis¢. 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 (βρέφος)
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 5. Hippolytus as appears from this notice in the O/d Roman
Martyrology (AR. 40. g), where we have in juxta-position

v Id Aug. Romae, Romani militis

Vigilia sancti Laurentii.
iv Id Aug. Romae Laurentiiarchidiacon. martyris et militum clxv.
Idus Aug. Romae, Hippolyti martyris cum familia sua, et

S. Concordiae nutricis ejus ;

1 Op. 1. 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 77έηι. 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. 9, 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 (στρατόπεδον) of Christ and shifted the shame of defeat from
the Christians to the heads of the foes (τὰς τῶν πολεμίων κεφαλάς,
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’ (τῶν
πτωμάτων καὶ τῆς συμφορᾶς τῶν οἰκείων στρατιωτῶν, p. 614). Thesecond
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 27 με 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. gth?
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 Alpheus and Zacchzeus
were martyred at Czesarea. 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 Martyrologium 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 8S. 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 Cornelii 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 peopie,

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 5. 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. ‘hither 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.p. 440), of Pelagius II (a.p. 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

HIBPOLYTUS 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 like a
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 Greeco-
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 all 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 On 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 (Α. Ὁ. 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. Ὁ. 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. 50
sq, where the inscription is given in its
correct form. The lacunz were incor-

rectly supplied in an earlier number, 2d.
1881, Ρ. 40.

2 See Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p.
61 sq.

3 Comp. 24. 1873, p. 46sq3; 1876, p.
125.

4 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 23

HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 455
His day was vill 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 5. 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. τ. 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. Rom. Sott. 1. p. 178. There <tyrologium Vetus both the two are named

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-

on the same day Aug. 25, ‘Genesius mi-
mus’ and ‘Genesius Arelatensis’; in the
old Carthaginian Calendar only the
former. In Prudentius (Levzsteph. 4),
who was fresh from the Ager Veranus,
Genesius of Arles is mentioned (ver. 36)
among other martyrs at Czeesaraugusta
(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 8. 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 archzological 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, 1.6. 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.p. 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 11. 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. 11. p. 105.

See especially De Rossi Bull. di Ar-

cheol, Crist. 1864, Ὁ. 42 sq; 1876, p. 22
sq: and the important notes of Duchesne,
Lib. Pont. 1. p. 197'Sq, 235 Sq, 310.

3 Inscr. Christ. Urb. Rom. ΤΙ. pp. 82,
onze

4 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1867, Ὁ. 53
sq; comp. Znscr. Christ. Urb. Rom. 11.

p- 55>

HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTUS. 457

(A. D. 432—440) made a highly important addition to the buildings on
this ground (4. 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’ (AR. 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.D. 579—590] enlarged, raised, and generally
rebuilt, the smaller basilica to the East, which rose over the body. The
Liber Pontificalis τ. 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 EPISC. the builder of the church somewhat in the

1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1876, Ὁ. 22 56.

458 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

background. ‘The point to be observed is that 505 YPOLIT, as here
represented, has not yet lost his proper personality. Though associated
with 5. 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 5. 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 5. 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.p. 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 Lom: «δῦ χ25 1: Ὁ. 221: 5. Lib. Pont. τι. p. 166 (Duchesne).

HiPPOLYTUs ‘OF -PORTUS: 459

5, Hippolytus. Paul I, between a.p. 757 and a.p. 761, founded the
church and monastery of S. Silvester in Capite, so called from the head
of 5. 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 Ὁ).

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 Tiburtine way; for the
restorations of the two several churches of S. Stephen are mentioned
separately in the Life of Hadrian (212. Pont. τ. p. 508, 511), and the
situation of each is described ®*.

Again; under Leo IV (a.p. 847-855) the policy of translation is
substituted for the policy of restoration. ‘This pontiff, having restored,
enlarged, and beautified the basilica of the Quatuor Coronati on the
Ccelian, in order to invest it with greater honour, deposited under the
altar the body of Hippolytus and his family with others (42. 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. 32 [A.D. 468—483] 216. Pont. 1. p. 249. On
sq. the two churches of S. Stephen see Au/Z.
2 7b. 1882, p. 23 Sq, Ρ-. 53- di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 43 Sq, Pp» 52
3 The church of 5. Stephen connected 564:
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 (4 R. 37 a), which enumerates these precious treasures and among
them is a ¢hzrd 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 5. 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-exzst. 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 (tf a.p. 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 Czesarea 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 5. Laurence, as it appears in the AZartyrologium Vetus (AR. 40 g);

v Id. Aug. Romae, Romani militis
Vigilia sancti Laurentii,

1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist, 1882, p. 34. * AR. 38; see below, p. 473.

462 EPISTLES OF 5: 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 the 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

HIFEOEYTUS ‘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
tith 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 54; 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[1|GERI[0]. TIBI. DOMNVS. IPPO-
LITYS. 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. identify him with the Timotheus of Ostia,
2 76. p. 48. whose ‘depositio’ is Aug. 22 (xi Kal. Sept.)
3 7d. p. 56 sq. in the Liberian list. He would thus add
4 See Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. another to the saints of the Ager Veranus
68, Tav. 1, ii. celebrated in August. This Timotheus

5 This Timotheus must have been a however is stated by Ado (and the same
person of some importance in the history is implied in the Liberian list) to have
of the Church. Our first impulse is to been buried in thé Cemetery of Ostia.

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 memoria of Clement which I have
dealt with elsewhere (1. 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 in a
sepulchral inscription dated a. Ὁ. 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 HILARYS. 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

HiEPOLY TUS OF” PORTUS.

Of pope Simplicius (A.D. 468—483) we
are told that he arranged respecting the
service at ‘regio 111 ad sanctum Lauren-
tium’ among other similar arrangements
in other ‘regiones’. On the tituli ‘ Prax-

1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1877, p. 15
sq; 1882, p. 15 sq.

2 See Duchesne 1:70. Pont. 1. p. 217.

3 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1882, p. 65

56.

4 Resoconto det Cultori di Archeologia
Cristiana 1883, April 1, (Roma 1888).

5 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1. c.

6 On the connexion of the cemeteries
on the Tiburtine Way with the ‘tituli’ of
this region see Rom. Soft, 111. p. 516 sq.

CLEM. II.

edis’ and ‘ Pudentis’ (or ‘Pudentianae’) see
also Duchesne Wotes sur la Topographie de
Rome au Moyen Age p. 22 sq(Rome 1887),
extracted from the A/“anges 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. Ὁ. 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 (Zzb. Pont.
1. 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 AHzeronymian 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

1 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 ourn. of Class. and Sacr. Philol. τ. p.
Christian remains esp. De Rossi Bu//. 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 clxiiii. 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 (47. 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 5. Denis brought the bones of 5. 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 /rscr. Christ. Urb.
2 7b. 1866, p. 33 sq; 1882, p. 35. Rom. 11. p. 267.

30—2

468 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

no longer the doctor of the Church but the convert of 5. 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 lay 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.

§ 17.

SRORTOSS VA CLS (OL LELPROENATOS.

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) The 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.

(1) 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. Ul. p.g; 1- p. 191-
comp. Fourn. of Class, and Sacr. Philof.

HIPPORY TUS 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,
Ῥ. 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 Ceesar (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 54.

470 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

of the two royal martyrs—‘between the two,’ as one of the itineraries
says (AR. 38 Ὁ, 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 δίῃ 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 he 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’ xviii (or xviil) 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 O/d 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 Mieronymian 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 xvilii (=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 xviiil (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.
ΚΑΙ. 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 O/d Roman (Patrol. Lat.
CXXIII. 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 eronymian
Martyrology, which gives under viii Kal. Mart.

Romae via Tiburtina ad sanctum Laurentium natalis sanctae Con-

cordiae,

ἘΠΡΡΟ 5 OF PORTUS: 471

as though this gave the original day of 5. 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 5. Laurence. Of Romanus
I have spoken already (p. 446 sq).

The full-blown legend of 5. 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 Cyniace, 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+

472 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 Irenzeus 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. Feéri, because
were found infiltrating the soil in the S. Peter was reported to have baptized

recent excavations; see Bull. di Archeol. there.
Crist. p. 19, p» 523 comp. Lom. Sott. 1.

HIPPOLY TUS OF -PORTUS. 473

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 5. 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 vili 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.p. 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, Laurentii, 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 5. 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, S. 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 5. 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 4rit. AZus.
11880 of the ninth century and bearing the same name, are much
briefer. An abstract of them is given above (AX. 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 τοῖς
ἡμετέροις καιροῖς) 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 (τῆς τοῦ μαγιστορίου
ἐξουσίας), 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 (σκυτεύς), 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
ὁ καὶ μετονομασθεὶς Ἵππόλυτος), 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 (εἰς τὸν βόθυνον πόρτον τὸν avayopevopevov Idprov) 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. Ὁ. 354) and which itself
cannot be later than a.D. 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 5. 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 καὶ μετονομασθείς 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 ὁ πρεσβύτερος ;
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 Aenea 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 (Af. 45). He
makes this conversion of Pelagia the crowning feat of Nonnus-Hip-

1 Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1866, p- 40.

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
Chaldzans, Abulides with the Copts and A‘thiopians, Polto with the
Italians, Bilt with the French.

πολλῶν ὀνομάτων μορφὴ μία.

ΝΥ͂Ν

AWike ᾽

ΟΣ

mak, EINE ID Se

F A. SAINT PETER IN ROME. [a

Ἷ
ΤΩ

᾿ [This excursus is printed in the incomplete state, in which it was left at Bishop
Lightfoot’s death. ]

B. THE 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.] _

a
bo aes

Δ.

SAINT, PETER) ΝΘ

ΕΠ Ὲ 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.

§ 1.
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 5. 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 weil-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 Ambrosii 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, wt super hunc intelligeretur quem
confessus est Petrus dicens, Zu es Christus filius Det vivt; 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
xxxili. 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 Zhow art
Peter, says the Saviour, avd 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. ὃ το. ‘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 (τῶν
εἰρημένων), 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 (παρώνυμοι) of the rock who are imitators of
‘Christ the spiritual rock, etc....and so forth as far as shall not prevail

against it. What is ‘it’?

1 Cyril. Alex. Zz Jsat. Lib. iii, Tom.
IIl., p. 460 εἰκὸς δὲ δή που καὶ πέτραν
ἡμῖν ὠνόμασθαι διὰ τούτων τὸν Κύριον
ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Χριστόν, ἐν ᾧ καθάπερ
τι σπήλαιον ἢ καὶ προβάτων σηκὸς ἡ ἐκ-
κλησία νοεῖται ἀσφαλῆ καὶ ἀκράδαντον
ἔχουσα τὴν εἰς τὸ εὖ εἶναι διαμονήν. Σὺ

Is it the rock on which Christ builds His

γὰρ et 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 Zsaz. Lib. iv. Tom.
Il., p- 593 ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ θεμελιώσω
μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν" πέτραν οἶμαι λέγων τὸ
ἀκράδαντον εἰς πίστιν τοῦ μαθητοῦ.

3I—2

484 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

Church ; or the Church itself, for the expression is ambiguous; or the
rock and 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 (Jz Matth. Hom. liv. p. 548 a, π᾿. p. 108, Field) ἐπὶ ταὐτῃ
τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω pov τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, τούτεστι, TH πίστει τῆς ὁμολογίας.
Thus again Cyril of Alexandria, as we have seen, explains πέτραν...
λέγων τὸ ἀκράδαντον εἰς πίστιν τοῦ μαθητοῦ.

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: 7 say unto thee that thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shalt
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 JZy
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 is one, etc.’

SAINT PETER IN ROME. 485

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 (221: 2. Ixxv. 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 :
quaecumgue ligaveris super terram erunt ligata et in caelis, et quaecumgue
solveris super terram erunt soluta et in caedis, et iterum in evangelio
[quando] in solos apostolos insufflavit Christus dicens: Accipite Spiritum
sanctum ; st cujus remiseritis 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 eis 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 πέτρα, πέτρος, 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 5. CLEMENT.

The force of this argument however is altogether shattered on two
considerations ; (i) 5. Peter’s name was Aramaic N5'D, before it was
Greek Heérpos, and in the Aramaic form the one word serves for ‘a rock’
and ‘a stone’; (ii) When Grecized, the proper name became perforce
Πέτρος, a masculine form being necessary, just as it would have been
Πέτρα, if 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 (θεμέλιος τ Cor, 111. 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 chzefcorner stone (ἀκρογωνιαῖος Ephes. ii. 20) which
binds the parts of the building together (ἐν ᾧ πᾶσα οἰκοδομὴ συναρ
μολογουμένη k.7.A.). In the latter sense the Apostles and prophets of the
Christian ministry are themselves regarded as the θεμέλιος on which
the edifice is built (ἐποικοδομηθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ
προφητῶν).

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 5. 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 θεμέλιοι 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 ¢hee (κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω) that thou
art Peter (ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος), and upon 2115 rock (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ)
I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it, and I will give ¢hee (δώσω σ οἱ) the keys of the kingdom of heaven ;
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,’
εἴς.

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, ἐὰν constancy.’ Asa matter of exegesis, it seems
to be more strictly explained of of Peter himself; for then we should
expect ἐπί σοι rather than ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ; 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 θεμέλιοι (Ephes. 11. 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 Aéstorical,
as well as a numerical value, in the order πρῶτος Σίμων ὁ λεγόμενος
Πέτρος (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 estorical
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 5, CLEMENT.

I ventured to say above (p. 481) that the primacy of 8, 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. Peter is warned by the 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 (σύ ποτε ἐπιστρέψας) 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 (σὺν τοῖς ἕνδεκα, 11. 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 (11. 37, πρὸς tov Πέτρον καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀποστόλους), 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 (ili. 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 Πέτρος δὲ καὶ Ἰωάνης ἀνέβαινον, ver. 3 ἰδὼν Iérpov καὶ Ἰωάνην,
ver. 4 ἀτενίσας δὲ Πέτρος εἰς αὐτὸν σὺν τῷ Ιωάνῃ εἶπεν Βλέψον εἰς ἡμᾶς, ver.
11 κρατοῦντος δὲ αὐτοῦ τὸν Πέτρον καὶ τὸν Ἰωάνην, iv. ver. 19 ὁ δὲ Πέτρος
καὶ ᾿Ιωάνης ἀποκριθέντες). 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 (viii.
14 οἱ ἐν ᾿εροσολύμοις ἀπόστολοι... ἀπέστειλαν πρὸς αὐτοὺς Ilérpoy καὶ
ἸἸωάνην)., 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 τοῦτο δὲ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ τρίς), and that the recorded
vision itself is enforced upon ourselves in the reiteration of the historian
(x το ὦ; Χ11} 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,
XV. 13, xxl. 18, Gal. 11. 9, 12). Peter retains the first place, as mis-
sionary 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 μηδὲν ὑστερηκέναι τῶν
ὑπερλίαν ἀποστόλων); 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.

Sites
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 ἐξελθὼν ἐπορεύθη
cis ἕτερον τόπον). 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. 491

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. 1. 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. 5. Paul
could not have written as he writes to the Romans (i. 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 (ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς) 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 7 ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή natural as the
description of a person. I should add also that several early authorities
(including ») add ἐκκλησία; and that the figurative expressions in this
epistle (i. 1 παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς, Comp. 11. 11} are in character with
this interpretation.

The Second Epistle of S. John presents a close parallel. A saluta-

492 EPISTLES ‘OF 5S. CLEMENT,

tion is sent in the opening verse to the elect lady (ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ) ; at
the close is a message ‘the children of thine elect sister (τῆς ἀδελφῆς σου
τῆς ἐκλεκτῆς) 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 xvii. 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 5. Peter’s companion and interpreter in Ὁ
Rome. This appears from Papias and the Elders, whose traditions are
reported by him (Euseb. #. Z. iii. 39); from Irenzeus (//aer. ill. 1. 1) ;
from Clement of Alexandria (Euseb. 4% £. 11. 15), and from Origen
(Op. 11. 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 Szbyl/ine Oracles (v. 158).

Καὶ φλέξει πόντον βαθὺν αὐτήν te BaBvAdva
Ἰταλίας γαῖαν θ᾽ ἧς εἵνεκα πολλοὶ ὄλοντο

Ἑβραίων ἁγιοι πιστοὶ καὶ ναὸς ἀληθής.

(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 (ἕως θανάτου ἤθλησαν). 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, lhkewise endured martyrdom and so
departed from this world. If the use of the word μαρτυρήσας 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 (Hom. 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) Paptas of Hierapolis may have been born about a.D. 60—70,
and probably wrote about a.D. 130—140. He related on the authority
of the presbyter John, a personal disciple of the Lord (Euseb. &. Z.
iii. 39) that Mark, not being a personal disciple of the Lord, became a
companion and interpreter (ἑρμηνευτὴς) of 5. 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 ἑρμηνευτὴς ‘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. (ii) 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
(ὡς éfyv)’; (iii) 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) Dronystus oF CorintH, from whom Eusebius gives an extract
(#7. £. 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 (τὴν ἀπὸ
Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου φυτείαν γενηθεῖσαν Ῥωμαίων τε καὶ Κορινθίων ovve-
κεράσατε). 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 (κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν).

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
φυτεύσαντες Or φοιτήσαντες. The statement may be taken as repre-
senting the belief of both Churches. The expression κατὰ tov αὐτὸν
καιρὸν need not be pressed to mean the same day or the same year.

SAINT PETER IN ROME. 495

(8) Τπενῦϑ about A.D. 190 is still more explicit (aer. 111. τ. 1) :--

‘Matthew published also a written Gospel (γραφὴν εὐαγγελίου)
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 (/aer. 111. 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 MuraToriaNn 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 Hyfotyposeis appears from Eusebius (77. £. 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 Czesars, Nero was the first to stain the

496 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

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) Gatus the Roman presbyter, of whom I have had something to
say already (see above, Il. 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 5. 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 Lxplanation of Genesis (as
reported by Eusebius 4. Z. iii. 1; comp. Orig. Of. τι. 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.

LSE DITO. AT.) ΣῈ:

‘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.D. 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 Cesarea, 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, 11. 24), and he is so hopeful that he
bids Philemon prepare a lodging for him (ver. 22); (11) 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 5. 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’ (i. 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, τό, 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).

i
"9
bi
;
7
’
a

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
5. 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 iy. 24 ΤΡΕΕῚῚ. 2:
wis Wey ῈΣ; Ζ
vi. 18 il. 24
vill. 18 Va
vill. 34 ill, 22
1.33 ll. 6 sq
ἜΠΕΙΤ τ τ
ἘΠῚ 2 1. 14
ΧΙ. 3—8 ἼΣ ΤῸ; ΤΊ
ἈΠ g, 10 1: 2.5.. 11: 7
ΧΙ. 14—19 ill. 8—r12
ΧΙ]. I—7 Is 23 ΤῊ

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
κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν, 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 (Peristeph.
xli. 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
iii 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 is in 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

11 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. 11. τ. p. 392 564.

Graber u. Kirchen des Paulus u. Petrus 5. It is actually entered in Ado, under
in Rom by Erbes in Brieger’s Zeitschr. June 29, ‘Romae natalis beatorum Apo-
jf. 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, /.c. p. 30,

a ee ae

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 Hzeronymian 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 VEARS’ EPISCOPATE.

The twenty-five years of S. Peters 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 5. 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 Irenzus (ill. 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 8. CLEMENT.

appointed Linus bishop. After him came Linus; after Linus, Anencletus;
after Anencletus ‘in the ¢zrd piace 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 Irenzeus ‘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 1.
I. pp. 271, 284. For the discrepancies pp. 204.

B.

GEE EPISTLE, OR BARNABAS:

[ ‘HE Epistle, which bears the name_of-Barnabas,-stands—alone-in-the

a en ea writer. 15 μετ

ι ae net ‘Gao
Wee the ας τον τ στ τε "eet
]

: These CS 1
ater heretics, Gnostic and_Marcionite, took their_stand_on_a.dualism-in- 08 ὃ:

some form or oth Th

_..some form or other, They postulated an opposition between the Old .
Testament_and the New, In Marcionism, which flourished about, the
-middle of the second century, this doctrine assumes its extreme form. _
The Old Testament—so_ Marcion affirmed—was the work of the
rhose_ tyranny over mankind Jesus Christ, the son of the.

Good God, came to destroy. The antagonism was absolute and cams.
plete ; the warfare was internecine.

_ Of such a doctrine the Epistleof
sBarnabas_ 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 precy 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

- ae

58
>

504 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

s ‘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.ouwr
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, Origen
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 y
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 apocrypha! 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 nnponnecies with them; and he merely addresses his
‘sons_and_ daughters,’ as ἃ h Ϊ me

peer on Pas See

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 _

orl retation is Alexandrian throughout ; and it

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, Ρ- 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 Hadrian
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 maybe
_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.
slate_is more_open_to—dispute._It was_certainly written after the first 4,39
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.p. 70 and Δ. Ὁ. 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 Weizsiacker,
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 (τρεῖς ὑφ᾽ ἕν τῶν βασιλέων). 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 (παραφυάδϑιον),
and how that it laid low three of the great horns in one (ὑφ᾽ ἕν τρία τῶν
μεγάλων κεράτων). Ye ought therefore to understand’ (ὃ 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 ὑφ᾽ €v—‘in one’ or ‘at once.’ The original
prophecy contains no hint that the three kings shall suffer δὲ ποθ οἱ.

are closely connected together. Lastly ; the little horn in the original ,

ΤΌΞΟ, "
ee εκ σοι τ

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 507

«prophecy is plainly the Antichrist ; for he is described 35. 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 Weizsiacker 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. “ist. 11. 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, hike Barnabas, more especially
Vespasian, the scourge of the Jews and the instrument_of God’s _

Ygngeance on a a rebellious people, must have been regarded in a.directly
o~..Opposite

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 redivivus, 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 Cesars 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, VIIl. 50, XII. 95.

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 Czsars 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 Czesars 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. “71:7. 111. 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
Ceesars 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 Daoctr,

510 EPISTLES OF S. CLEMENT.

LVum. 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 (VV. #. 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 . AvGvsTI*. 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. 7772. 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. Paneg. 2. perator Caesar, Δ. 27. ii. 22.
2 But not as a prenomen, Eckhel v1. 4 Eckhel vi. 329.

361 54. See Pliny WV. Z. vii. 50; com- 5 Joseph. 2. J. Vil. 5. 5.

ἐπα AA

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.p. 88*. 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 he 155. 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
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. 8ο---
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. 5 Dion, Chrysost. Orat. xxi (p. 504 ed.
4) Tac. Hist. ii. 8, 9: Reiske).

3 Zonaras xi. 18 (p. 578). § iv. 2 sq (p. 17 ed. Dillmann, 1877).
4

Suet. Ver. 57.

512 EPISTLES OF 8. 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’ ebpiee ese
as if it were part of the text.

CLEM. II.

CS:

I. INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES.

E ) Il. JWVWDEX 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.

Genesis

Exodus

Leviticus

Numbers *

Deuteronomy * iv. 34

Joshua

1 Samuel

1 Kings
2 Kings
Job

(1) Zhe Epistle of S. Clement of Rome.

SUSU OY Seu Saale nee sarees ες 20
ΣΟ, 5 29. ΧΦ ὙΤΡΡ τ ὍὕττὉτὐ- 23
PIS 2S ON Ρ ee Ace τ πτ 6
AL ESUSGR seat ΤΣ τς ὙκῸ ΤΡ ces 4
ip Sav ole SO lmenc secgeaphicasesrlecas Ιο
ἘΠ τ πον ττοτιοτς 10

ἜΧΟΙ ΣΤ ΞΕ ον Manecos ance neers 10
th aia (Ol bennonorccecncere 10, 32
SRV OT ee cee ἘΣ 17
DOSS 7 lM Ne ποῆπ τούησνς ττς 10

MMI oe ΤΣ ποττερτον το τοθος 32

RV ν τ ΡΣ Εν ἐν τοῦτο οτος 32

IN ΤΑ thse on ce Sarat setae ts 4
ἜΠΟΣ ΤΠ πεν τ οτος 17
ΣΤΟΝ Pere rceecten cess ΟΣ 17
Siler Top cise. oop oncth «asnattaiii: 60
adhe 29; 2 8 Περι 51
PSS alls ΤΟΣ 12 BY) τ. ὑπο τς 53
BRUINS Δ τε τος ΠΝ ceeds sy I

ΟΡ shoe ΡΣ Poel

Rd Fala am ae velgeone ΤῊΣ 17) 43

VLD Din da ceaeacbause erect 50

KVL 2 os cinuet sates site aern 29

ἈΠ ἽΠΠΟΣ lyeeaiatbe Ἐν eos Sire 59

Side cepameonere 29

VII. OM crctaacd acne centile 60

bigs wii 2 σΟ WesRee aearrncm one Base 53

de CIM a neearonteree cor Cater 60
bb Shi ti eeceperren ey τόσο ρο τι ον 64
ΤΕΣ ΚΠ ANG Been γι: τὴ: 20
SENCRSLe TAS ELSES elec ΤΗΣ 3
sb 6 SUL 210 hapen Serr ey SGORCO ARE 59
ities 26a] τ... 12

ΤΙ ΝΥ OM sccioeauvateeeentincs: 13
ΧΙ, Ug. adanenap cxtuabatases 18
ib εν δ ΑΝ ἀν τες 60
PREXS OM rae Sense anata: 59
PIED στὴν τεσ ΚΘ ΝΗΣῸΣ 7
LV oe HOS ne Secon eerste wean ter 30
Val SOU week cl ccnacd Saantea sre 30

Job

Psalms

ΞΕ
Pee eee eee teens

XXVIl. 25
XXXViil. TOL

Ti ΠΡ
xi (xii). 3.54
rain (τ BE AO oc cuedoce
xara (babs), TSG] ssoncseanone
*xxi — 6sq
XIU (KEL) pete rgd πη
xxiii (xxiv). I
*xxvii (xxviii). 7

XXX (Xxxxi). τὸ
ἜΣΤΙ (ἘΞ SND
ἘΣΣΙ (KONE) SOV τ ere ene
XXXxii (Xxxill). 13
XXX11 (XXxiil). 10
XXXIli (xxxiv). 20
Scan (Koanys WHE codoon
XXXVI (XxXxXVil). 36Sq......
eheooab (edb), 5
xiv (el) Τῶν το τοτεντν

Se σεν

ἘΣ ἊΣ nea Me Ἀν eee

*
*

*
*
ὡς
*

tee eee eee
Sey

eee ee ces ver eeeeee

Lx) (cit) εν πεν
ib ora (bays) We ie asndee sot don anc
*Ixviii (Ixix). 31, 32
*Ixxvii (Ixxviil). 36, 37 .
*Ixxxvill (Ixxxix). 21
*xcix (c). 2
* Gly (Cll) s LO aie rece daees

*exvii (cxviii). 18

516 INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES.

Psalms) ΧΟ (GXVAll) 10, 20 «τ΄: 40'S. Marke avi “Ole ci asckctecermeteneaes
SCxvill (xix) mens τ: 59 Ἔχ WD Bien cei cat eect teams
ἜΠΟΣ CXUx.)s 52 τ πος 60 δεν τε ΝΣ
Gem (BSS ST Goonogeboace 7 WS; Wouke mega προ. ΠῚ
*cxxxvili (cxxxix). 78q ... 28 PVA τ τ
I CRKOKINCN (GX) Seth π᾿ eee 38 MANS SUA was ecidee saccomsenccnens
Pexli(Cxll) 5 6 oeaetes oe ceo 57 ia VEO een rt NEE
ΟΣ (OKIW) Orcs es aes nae 60° °S. Jolin <a. Gis.cictntcet censor
IPLOVErDS sies2 SSC ττιοττ νοι τετε του cen 57 Ἀν Ἐν Ἐς
PUL ον DW degetccsestetis es ssc 14 Pig hy MaRS ee BORCEEBAOOEDCOA
πα τ ee cae etocce accents: 56 KOVAL 09) Yeas eeneceniniectne
ἘΠ Sia) uso oe eedeosdes ες δ 30 =. Acts ἜΚ DOVE Lichen creceeescnares
“AWG 6} GedodanodoaoucaaHNbSHone 2 ὑός Che ee ee Α ποσο
ἜΣ ΣΟ πνοιὴ τον τιον: 49 Be AES RR RR PRE SCC At Crit
PERIOD Wark aonns os a eee Se 21 KEM? Th) dvcseeate aoe tenes
BX UD Bos atatee tacts Re cists 54. ROMANS |) soi meee cee eee
SACI ἡ MMOIS | conc aa chee shits cance 8 TBRCION SSG yaa qaeissuaeeccqo scons:
“iit be ao badnonmpaposocaneo see 3 11. 24s wecstuaseconcavncceeene
ἀν ΡΝ ΤΡ Τ᾿ 34 ᾿Ξ τ ΠΠ π᾿
ἜΧΗΙ δ τε πη τς 59 WAG) HSCS Ro ncdboongcuons unos
BRA. Bie 22 το τρρς πεσε ῖεος “5 τὰ Core ᾿ς (hj 2 nchsing sea soasaee ΤῈ:
Who hip 20 πέρ Φ0ΠΕπ::..: 50 IM TOSG πον δι δος ΤῈ
πο bs tae fan oF ΤΥ CN UOOF On COE 15 MLL, WO areaatipnsee cn peat ome ate
FRO tides teases cedeeesescates 34 ASL OR eas a ΤΣ
RUS ctivesdtuessstecsasaes 10, 17 TRS! πα οτος τα ΟΣ
τον tekstas. oetesie cass. 60 S245 130 ΠΥ
PUVA ΓΙ noticnstinss hoick winaiees 59 SELLS Ὁ, aee decease See cies
NAS MDA Ὁ ΤΠ ΥΣ ue ce acteies 3 RAL OSG acest ear ace cee
ἘΠ ἄτας προς 42 ἘΠῚ Ὁ ΘΟ ον uence
PURE «660s δι tots ΝΣ 34 ΠΩΣ ene rh REP ες
PISA MUSG Oc ὅπ ἀπ δ dodsesees 16 RVD Zsa ree ecw eee
mem ΡΥ tea rails vesien 34 ἘΚ τρις τ acts
ἜΣ τ 72. csenGe 13 Pd baal! Game ἰ δν ΣΎ ΣΉΕ τς ΜΕΝ
Ἰσυ LOW She tebe cain νον II RVI Saeed singe steers
jeremiah “iil, ΤῸΝ 22. || 1........Ψ.: 3. 42° Core Sie Ree: on Aer gee
PIRV295 HOAU MS Fan πεν τοῖς 13 KUN DS'SO he τατον το το πο ἢ
κυ Δ ΤΑΝ ΡΡΈ ΕΝ ον donne 20, “Galatians? ollie sett ΠΥ eee
PKA LOM ese ἐπ Στ ονοτν σεν Go . Ephesians 1 y7sq’™,<)..nccseosseeee
Ezekiel erexvill. GO'SGias. λό. το... 8 TVsed SG ΡΝ ΠΤ ese
ap'ote thy Velo As na aranerocenne 8 LV. 18 ΠΣ
ἌΣ ΧΊνε ΓΟ ποτ τὴ εν τονικπιος 59 Ve (QTM ΡΟ τ. -
XXXVI SDE eect sic cnce Bo. Philippiansie οὐ see eeee eee
KAVA ON? Wn otet eee vecec eee 29 1; ASOP ποτε Στ
Daniel se pavil, το ΤΡ δ τ aces sees 34 11: £3 OP eer sem etaneseereee
Malach) Ὁ ail. ts Sista ΤΣ το νον νύοις 23 π| τ ΝΑ eee ΝΥΝ
Πα πα, 0. 59 1 Ty! cihenaciewaaecerncooates
ΧΙ EH (tg har GOCE EEE MSE 55 ΕΣ ἘΠ cece
ΧΡ scan creer 5B EC olossians Wr τ ἘΠΕ saeco
WWASCOMIS ON 2a Eta aladeieessesie cess 3. Sr Timothy ai07 eavicsesr chen smesesanees
PKI 2 Pe srsarseesasese sess 27 ἘΠ τ τ.
ἘΠΟΟΙΠΕ τ OXVinsTS ΠΟ τ εν νκονεν νον 59 Bs Ge ΚΘ sean
ἀν}: MAN Mes Aeteccace sews 6 15 Fate eae oer teecapseneece
Spe ΘΠ σιν ἐν. 7 BE ror aerate cwasciuinss 13 ἀπο Dulas πος ΤῊΣ
Ἐπ TOR ect bo νον τος 13 111. πὸ τ πε τ
WML ΠΣ id ere λςς.οὐπίος 48 VDT rates cemreseaneeeeeete
PERRY ae UAE sas sus 24.2 Timothy tsa autistic eee
PVPS. δὴ ΤΣ tases shee 13 VAG κου ΚΝ ΡῈ
Ἔχ ΤΙ. Ὁ Ὁ 7 Meret ΠΡ ἐνὸν τσ 46 ‘Titus Uy UNA δεῖς ΠΕ gseceeares
eX Vae alg Hh Mae MEE oe oe cs 46 gp UU Ban Cs ah cea Se Sy
5. Marks -Miving it, Bea Aas cot ates 24... WELEDre WS τ eRe Seton oe eee
Bs

INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES.

Hebrews i. 8 ....eeccecceceeseceereeess 16 James Si) Gis) egubaopaqsodndeqddess ete 49
112 cs-tscoaenancseeesn=re* Mme Betek | iet 2h anc oasecsc tes ὦ pref.
PTET Bt | caaecceneneanose=exrne™= 43 1, 10. -sececoccereeneceeresees 7
ij JIG}, cenecnnecoooonodoabooods 21 ππέοΠΠΠπΠΠ τ τ πὴ 30
τ 1ϑΨἔὁΕοὁσΠἘΠοῃπσοὍοὁέοΝι 1: 27 TL. Q.sseeseeeceeseeeeenenees 36, 59
1X. TQ) seeccoonaesaeecseveness* 12 1 CEQueNGh neers accsien-nne= 1
Ko DS vevcecvacecesmarerenccs 27 Freeh dy flee cecenbecoseccceocucc: 2
KL 5 ceeescecnsecenecewerenes 9 Tita: fo, eccadoraneanecanescoonsG 49
FSi, JIG) sancnosanoododeudocotaut 20 ἵν ile) cpgooobondecanioogesacac% 38
MIs. 37 cecserseconaseeennesose 7 LV. 1 ccecseeneceeseeeeecerees 2
Say, Th gsehesloonadess 15. [Ὁ 03 έΨΕἔψΨψΓΠσΠΕέὁΕΠΨ,ὍὁοΠρ}[οὌΠιὋ[ΠΠ" 30
Kile ρέροψΨσοι. 56 a Ponerepenpereccosiccu wont 38
ΧΙ Q τ᾿ 64 Wil Qies- sce candace 1 2
KUL. U7 ooeccevececuvenoanessees 4 2 Peter σοι. τ ΠῚ pref.
KHL, 2 ..eeeseecersecerencees 10 πρΨέΕΠσψΨΠΨἘΠσέσΠνΨΠὍΠὋΠΕᾶΨἌἍἝἔζΚΔΕ[ιο2ΕἘὭοΗ. τοΠοὍ 9
| eee I M5 geeesescveeecnscennceenars 7}
ἘΠῚ πὴ ZA veoveeveeceeserers I Sty 0) apokbocvacuooondeqosuace 44
ἘΠῚ Gt τ 21 1Jjohn this 1s). Asangoporindoog S650. 49, 50
James τ 110) BepaconnobudecnoseeooseC ar Revelation *xxil. ΤΠ. 110 34
τ (Seog are aco eaborignesoeoncd 30
(2) An Ancient Homily.
Genesis ἢ 1 π2|π τη της τ 5 πα νου 9
Psalms ρρἔἘΕοΠσἔΕΠσσΠΠὋΒβᾳ}ι. 4 Ἀπ... ΠΡ 5
Ixxi (Ixxii). 5, 17 seers 17 Se 4:5..- Ὄπ ia" 5
Proverbs *X. 12 vsscsscescrscereessertes 16 BXUUL 27. sceeccseececeererees 4
Tenia te {XIE yen nneeniseosseeines 3 απ TO cceceeeeeeceeeeeeeers 8
FXXXIV. 4... ὌΠ τό Ἀν 12. τοῦτο τ ττηοποι τὴ 6
1. π|πι53 4 Sab hile) ΟΡ τορος τος 2
Fil, τ... 12 +<Acts TL, τὸ... ΠῚ 13
ἘΠ}: 2 ἵν τὸ πππφἕψἂΠΦὋἘΕΠὭδὸέΈᾳἘσόσππ 4
sd att A ee 15 Ve 20 - Ὁ || 4
ἘΠχν]. 18 564 «0166 6 κλλλλλελλε 17 Ve BU - ΠΠΠΠΠΠ 20
bd bras OY eee Paig Romans (Welle cena an a I
Jeremiah Xvill. 4.561 --.+ccesccerererrs 8 Vii. 8, 1ἰΠτ || Ὁ 16
Ezekiel *xiv. 14SQ .-.Ὁ 6755 72 275 7555 6 Ἐπ :.:--- 8
Hosea fA Siege μι πριν οὐ9ϑη:.γ5: 108 ι τοῦ. Li, Qceoseccenseeesseneseeees hig 1!
Malachi “iv. 1 - {010 0 50 16 1X. 24, 25 Ὁ ΠΣ ἢ
S, Matthew 111. 12 .---seeeerereer sees 17 Galatians Ns1p Ae) Hocoresaebosnocccocséncc 9
sh BY eee 6 Ephesians *i. 23 «-----ssseveeeneceeeenes 14
ΠῚ 2121... 1: {τ|Ὁ2 3 97:5: 4 Hiv. 17) 18. .-ττοπητν τεῦ 5: 19
Fix, 13 wececccecccnececenseces® 2 νι (oy) ἰῷ Ὴτ τὸ 13
52, 912) ggenancosocoegncounosycc 5 Colossians bit: 2.2. οὐ τευ ocoduasoScondcoc 13
He BD || πη 3 1 Timothy ih et aotavouensnaesese=e" 20
Fils 40... 11 9 ἵν. τό .- Ὁπ| τ 15
sue 20 ce dedeeaeeenes= nae" 6 Hebrews *x. 25. sccscsssneeeseerersseees 11
ΧΧΥ. 21) Weceseeceecsceecees ὃ ats Le ponroscenacobouss srcoct I
XXV. 46 ccccseseeceneneereres 6 Mills TB, τ πριν 16
ἘΠ Πα σι τρροὃΠροψιοᾳ΄ᾳοὡ«εΕεἔΠῚ πον" 2 James 0. 4
111. 206. cceeseceecereeeeenees 6 ΤΠ πρὸ... τ οὐ τος 16
IX. 43 csecocceasercenssveenees 17 τὐβείοενν MviS ile es 16
Poke) 111 τῇ is oeevtndiennenesneewse® τ 2 Beers yy RiLQ: ieadcaseterentn ee anes J
Ἔν]. 32, 35 “5455 5522 22 2575 13

INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.

Abbreviations employed, 4

Abdo and Sennes, martyrs, 363

Abraham; in Clement’s Epistle, 43 sq;
his title ὁ φίλος, 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

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, 459,407 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, 4513
her day, 451; Prudentius’ poem on,
-445, 4513; her connexion with other
martyrs commemorated by Prudentius,

445) 451

Alcibiades and the Book of Elchasai,
323 Sq

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, rg1, 198 sq; mutilations
and lacunz, 240, 263 sq; corruptions,
57, 110, 124, 158, 222 565. ΠῚ Ξ ex:
plicit mention of 2 [Clement] as the
work of Clement of Rome in, 193, 200

Aimsgiving, its importance in 2 [Clement],
251

Alogi, the name perhaps traceable to
Hippolytus, 394

Ambrose (S.), his literary obligations toe
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, r1

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 Czesarea, 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,
Boy (Oily Seley Oy 150... Santa! ia 11
[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

Apolios, 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 pheenix, 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

ἀβαναύσως, 134

ἀγαθοποιΐα, ἀγαθοποιεῖν, 17, 232
ἀγαθότης, 243

ἁγιόγραφα, titles applied to the, 92, 167
ἅγιοι (ol), 163

ἁγιοπρέπης, 52

ἀγνωσία, 171

ἀγωγή, 144, 145

ἀγών and αἰών confused in MSs, 22
ἀδελφότης, 18

ἀθλεῖν with acc., 259

519

ἄθραυστος, 171

αἵματα, plur., 68

alvov αἰώνιον, 231

aiperifew, 244

ἀκουτίζειν, 66

ἀκρογωνιαῖος, of Christ, 486

ἀληθεία (ἢ), 195, 216, 257, 260

ἀλλότριος, ἀλλόφυλος, 38

ἀλύπητος, 259

ἀμβλυωπεῖν, ἀμβλυώττειν, 21

ἀμεταμέλητος, ἀμεταμελήτως, 19, 169

ἀμνησίκακος, 16, 182

ἄμωμος, 102, 111, 126

ἄναγνος, 96

ἀναγραφή, 89

ἀναζωπυρεῖν, intrans., go

ἀνάλυσις, 135

ἀνατέλλειν, trans., 71

ἀνατυλίττειν, 97

ἀνελεῖ, form, 7

ἀνήκειν, constr., 108, 136, 181

ἀνθρωπάρεσκος, 241

ἀντικείμενος (ὁ), 153

ἀντιμισθία, 212, 213, 231, 236

ἀντιπαρέλκειν, 254

ἀντίτυπον, 247

ἀντοφθαλμεῖν, τος

ἀξιοῦν, constr., 162

ἀόργητος, 69

ἀπέρατος, ἀπέραντος, 72

ἀποκτέννειν, form, 220

ἀπολαμβάνειν, 228

ἀπολύτρωσις, 254

ἀπόνοια, 9

ἀπόστολοι (oi), of writings in N. T., 202,
245

ἀπροσδεής, 155

ἀπροσκόπως, 74

ἀπροσωπολήμπτως, 10

ἀρκετός, 148

ἀρσενόθηλυς, 230

ἀρχεγόνος, accent, 172

ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 143

ἀρχιερεύς, of Christ, 111, 123

ἀσεβής, 174

ἄσοφος, 258

dominos, 228

ἀστοχεῖν, 256

ἀτημελεῖν, 116

αὐθεντικόν, 247

αὐτεπαινετός, 97

ἀφήκειν, 93

ἀφιλοξενία, τοῦ

ἀφορμὴν διδόναι, λαμβάνειν, 250

Babylon; in S. Peter’s Epistle, 491 sq;
as a name for Rome, 492

Balaam, the Blessings of, 343, 389, 400,
02

Baptism, called σφραγίς, 201, 226

Baralas, Barulas, in the story of Roma-
nus, 446 54, 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
Weizsicker, 505, 507; Hilgenfeld, 506,
507; Volkmar, 505, 508 sq; the theories
criticised and date suggested, 50g; 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 ame 36, 47, 69, 147,
158, 176, 215, 255, 257

Benson, I neaiee. on Hippolytus, 367,
453)

ge a spurious Hippolytean work a-
gainst, 345, 346, 403 sq

Bianchini, 367, 399

Bilt (S.); French name for Hippolytus,
4793 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 Hippolytusin S. Julia
at, 468

Bryennios ; his edition of Clement, 47,
172, 178, ISI, 234, 243, 244, 2575
criticised, 14, 21, 30, 38, 77, 78, 90; 96,
120, 148, 158, 172, 177, 192, 224, 233;
245, 200; assigns 2 [Clement] to Cle-
ment of Rome, 204 sq

Bucher, 399

Bucina; mentioned in the Liber Pontif-
calis, 340; its position, 340; the read-
ing of the passage, 340

Bunsen, 34, 132, 134, 367, 378, 385, 505»
8307; 492, 403, 404, 427, 428, 430]

βάναυσος, 149

βασιλεία, opposed to ἱερωσύνη, 179
βασίλειον, 222

βασιλεὺς τῶν αἰώνων, 180

βάτος, gender, 64

βιβλία (τὰ) of O. T., 202, 245
βίος, 213

βλάπτειν, 260

βλασφημεῖν, 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» 430; his cemetery, 328, 442, 4513
his portrait extant, 441

Canon; in the time of Clement, 205 sq ;
of 2 [Clement], 202, 204, 205 sq, 242,
245 ἐπι

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 5. Agnes, 443, 445,
δύ (2) ‘of Callistus, position, burials
and commemorations, 328, 442, 451;
(3) of Cyriace, name, 469, 472; 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
Hippolytus 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,
13 sq

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, 301 sq

Chryse, in the Portuensian Acts, 361,
3648q, 474.54

Chrysostom on Romanus, 446, 448

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) 425 52) 54) 58, 56,
62, 65; 725 755 773 93, 104, III, 116,

INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.

121 507, τᾶ» τὴν, τὰ» τάδ! 5η: 140;
164, 168, 1723 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

Clement, mentioned in Hermas; according
to Harnack distinct from Clement of
Rome, and author of 2 [Clement], 207sq

Clement, Epistle of; Mss and Versions,
3, 13; other sources of evidence for,
Mcutitles, 53) 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; his comprehensiveness, 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 5

Clement, Spurious Epistle of, see Cor-
tnthians, 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, 354; 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, 9

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,
142 sq; source of a quotation in
1 Cor. 11. 9, 106 sq

Corinthians, Epistle of Clement to the;
see Clement, Epistle of

Sar

Corinthians, Second Clementine Epistle
to the; the title in MSs, and deduc-
tions, 101, 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, 253;
probably delivered in Corinth, 197,
2243; 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, 214;
its literary merit, 208; lacune in the
archetype of our Ms real and supposed,
233 Sq, 245; analysis, 208 sq; transla-
tion, 306 sq

Cotelier, 143, 215, 216

Cotterill, 115

Crescentio, Crescentius, Crescentianus,
in the Laurentian Acts, 353, 358, 471
=

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 54; inscription re-
lating to, 351; gave her name to the
cemetery of S. Laurence, 342, 459;
probably owned the ground, 469; see
Cemeteries

Cyriacus, the bishop, in the Portuensian
Acts; 364, 475, 4763. in) sRoman
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, 473; inscriptions relating to,
351, 3523; references to, 353; 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

καθ᾽ ὥραν, 236

καιρός and wpa, 122
κακοδιδασκαλεῖν, 234
καλαβρισμός, κάλαβρος, 120
κανών, II, 3

καταντᾶν, 34

καταπλεῖν, 223

κατοικεῖν, παροικεῖν, 5
κεκράγειν, 105

κῆρυξ, accent and use, 29
κισσᾶν, 66

κολαβρίζειν, 120

κοπιᾶν, 224

κοσμικός, 254

κρίματα, reading, 71
KUOpas, κυθρῖνος, form, 65
κύτος, 71

χαρίσματα, Hippolytus’ treatise respecting,
400 Sq, 421

χρᾶσθαι, form, 221

χώρα, 128, 150

Damasus, bishop of Rome; his episco-
pate, 444; inscription on Hippolytus
by, 328 sq, 424 Sq, 444 54; 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, 403; 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, 3643
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 xxxil. 8, 9, reading of, 93
sq

Dialogue with
Dialogue with

Proclus; see Proclus,

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 5. 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 καὶ Δίρκαι, 32 sq
Δαυείδ, form, 24

δεσπότης, of God the Father, 37
δῆλος, fem., 239

δημιουργός, 75, 89, 171

διανύειν, 88

διευθύνειν, 73, t80, 181
διοίκησις, 6

δισταγμός, 142

διψυχεῖν, διψυχία, δίψυχος, 46, 236, 258
δωδεκάσκηπτρον, 98
δωδεκάφυλον, 162

δώσω, form, 213

Ebedjesu, the catalogue of ; Hippolytus’
works in, 350, 393, 398, 419 Sq, 423;
the Heads against Gaius mentioned in,
350, 388; the Little Daniel, 393

Ebionites; attacked in 2 [Clement], 211,
229; their name, 211 sq; 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, 399, 420

Encratites and the Gospel of the Egypt-
jans, 237 Sq, 240

Endor, the witch of, Hippolytus’ work
On, 325, 330, 400, 412, 420

INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.

Enoch called ὁ δίκαιος, 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, 415sq3 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

ἔγγραφος, 139

ἐγκάρδιος, 231

ἔγκαρπος καὶ τέλειος, 135, 163
ἐγκύπτειν, 121, 156, 182
εἰκτικῶς, 113

εἰλικρινῶς, 98

εἰς γενεὰν γενεῶν, τ8ο
εἰσήκειν, 236

ἐκλεκτὴ κυρία, 400 54
ἐκλεκτός, 169

ἐκτενής, 169, 182

EKTLKOS, 113

ἐλεᾶν, form, 52

ἐλλόγιμος, 170, 182
ἐμφυλακίζειν, 137

ἐν χειρί, τότ; ἐν χερσίν, 223
ἐναλλάξ, 48

ἐνάρετος, τ81

ἐνδελεχισμός, 125
ἐνκατάλειμμα, 55
ἐνοπτρίζεσθαι, 111
ἐνστερνίζεσθαι, τό

ἔντευξις, 257

ἐξαίρετος, 120, 186

ἑξάκις, ἐν δὲ τῷ ἑβδόμῳ, 165
ἐξακοντίζειν, 53

ἐξειπεῖν, 248

ἐξελίσσειν, 71

ἐξελοῦμαι, form, 156
ἐξερίζειν, 138

523

ἐξερίζωσεν, spelling, 34

ἐξετασμός, 168

ἐξολεθρεύειν, 54

ἐπάλληλος, 8

ἔπαρχος, 114

ἐπεξεργάζεσθαι, 145

ἐπιδημία, 220

ἐπιείκεια, το, 162, 169, 182

ἐπικαταλλάσσειν, 145

ἐπιμονή, 132

ἐπινομή, 132

ἐπιπόθητος, form, 188

ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος in Clement’s
Epistle, 129

ἐπιστολή (ἢ). where more than one Epistle
exists, 142

ἐπιφάνεια, 236

ἐπόπτης, 173

ἐργοπαρέκτης, 104

ἔρις and kindred words, 20, 140

ἑτερογνώμων, 46

ἑτεροκλινής, 45, 145

εὐδόκησις, 18, 123

EVELKTLK@S, 113

εὐημερεῖν, εὐημερία, 232

εὐθής, form, 66

evUKTatos, 188

εὐπραγεῖν, 255

εὐστάθεια, 180, 188

εὐχαριστία, εὐχαριστεῖν, 124

εὐχή, προσευχή, 126

ἐφόδιον, 12, 15

ἡγεμονικόν, 66 sq

ἡγούμενοι, προηγούμενοι, of Church of-
ficials, 10, 77, 113

ἡδυπάθεια, 250, 256

ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, order, 17

Fabian, bishop of Rome, divides the city
among the seven deacons, 372

familia of Hippolytus, 351, 354, 356, 357;
359, 470

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, 466s

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-
tis on, 347, 377 54 treatises ascribed
to, especially the Dialogue against Pro-
clus, 377 sq, 4073 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 III, 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

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

ynyevns, 118

γήρους, γήρει, form, 185

γνῶσις, 121, 147

γοργός, 147

γραφεῖον, γραφεῖα, of the Hagiographa,
92, 167

γραφή, γραφαί, of N. T. writings, 202,
215, 242, 245

γραφαὶ iépa, 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, 99, 117, 133, 136, 172, 175,
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, το, 18, 37, 42, 45,
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, 475; depositio of, 355;
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,

a δ νθιυυννδ μμμδιυ μον νιν... “ὦ. οὔἶἦἧἦνἍ ς “τῶ; 3}ᾺὍΝὍΝὍ ὦ ἑν ὦ...

INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.

41, 71, 81, 95, 99, 106, 108, 117, 131,
132, 136, 146, 147, 157, 160, 161, 172,
176, 177, 178, 187, 195; 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,
500, 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,
3173; 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, 440; its date, 324, 440; the
inscription on, 324 sq, 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; Ddllinger’s
theory of an antipope, 431 sq; evi-
dence of the Philosophumena here,
4343; 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, 373 565
(iv) Hippolytus the warder of 5. 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; (4) 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,
4443; his cult in Damasus’ time, 465;
as described by Prudentius, 332 sq, 445
sq, 451 sq; his basilica in the Ager
Veranus, 444 Sq; enlarged by Damasus,
445 8q; 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, 468 54; see ippolylus of Portus

Hoeschel, 396

Honorius III transfers Hippolytus’
reliques to the cemetery of S. Laurence,

459

from

526 INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.

Hort, 117, 133, 179, 369

Iflites, the name of Hippolytus among
the Syrians and Chaldeans, 477

Ignatius; shows coincidences with
Clement’s Epistle, 91, 99, 117, 186;
his allusion to S. Peter an argument
for S. Peter’s Roman visit, 26, 493

Ilicius 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 5. Peter, 495;
fragments of poetry embedded in the
works of, 405 sq

Trenzeus 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

ἱερωσύνη, opposed to βασιλεία, 179
iNéws, adverb, 17
ἰνδάλλεσθαι, ἴνδαλμα, 79 54

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,
325» 395» 421 :

Joannes Philoponus, a mistake of, 394

Job iv. 16—v. 5, notes on, 118 sq

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, 5854, 178;
illustrating 2 [Clement], 214, 215, 217,

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
56, 4733 his burial-place, 351, 4693 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, 4213
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 Menza, 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
Cemeteries); honours paid him in Rome,
455 54; 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 56, 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-
stle, ror, 117

Leontius of Byzantium on Hippolytus,
343, 389, 420 ᾿

Levi, our Lord’s connexion with the tribe
of,

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,
3283; its silence on his Novatianism,
426; 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

λάγνης, λάγνος, οὔ

λαϊκός, λαϊκοῦν, 124

λαμπρότης, τοῦ

λαός, 94, 124, τότ; περιούσιος, 186
λειτουργός, οὗ O. T. prophets, 38
λινοκαλάμη, 48

λιποτάκτειν, form, 76

Macarius Magnes illustrates Clement’s
Epistle, 26, 28, 57, 72, 178

Mammeza; Hippolytus’ correspondence
with, 338, 339, 397, 4373 her death,
438

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, 405; meaning of ἑρμη-
νευτής 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

Menzea on the martyrdom of Hippolytus,
361, 372, 476

Metrical; passages embedded in Irenzeus,
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, 495; reference to the spiritus
principalis in, 67 sq; date, 495

μακάριος, 143

μᾶλλον μείζων, 148

μαρτυρεῖν, μάρτυς, in Christian writings,
26 sq

μαστιγοῦν, μαστιγοφόροι, μαστιγονόμοι, in
athletic contests, 225

ματαιοπονία, 42

μεγαλοπρεπής, 42

μελανώτερος, form, 41

μετὰ δέους, reading, 18

μεταλαμβάνειν, with acc., 248

μεταξύ, 132, 134

μεταπαραδιδόναι, 74

μηλωτή, 62

μόλιβος, μόλιβδος, 251

μονογενής, of the phoenix, 87

μυσερός, form, 52, 96

μῶμος, μωμοσκοπεῖν, 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,

Qs

Niggas 1 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 54; 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, 47

notaril, 197

Notation employed in this edition, 4

Novatianism of MHippolytus, alleged,

357; 42459; 445

νουθεσία, νουθέτησις, 163
νωθρός, 104

CEcumenius on Hippolytus, 349, 420

Ophites, teaching of the; as to marriage,
237, 2393 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,
24.1.5 ON τ Pet. ἵν, 8. 252; On w~Matt.
xvi. 18, 10; 483sq; on 5. 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, 338» 432

Ostian Way, the traditional place of
5. Paul’s burial, 496, 497, 499sq

Overbeck, 390, 398, 403

οἱ ἔξω, 241

οἴομαι, οἰώμεθα, 221, 244, 240

ὁμολογητής, ὁμόλογος, in Christian writ-
ings, 27

ὁμόνοια, 70

ὄνομα, 9, 112, 130, 131, 241

ὄργανον, 256

ὀργή and θυμός, 151

ὅσια, ὅσιος, 17, 212; καὶ δίκαια, 146, 213,
220, 223, 240

οὖν, 217, 241

ὦ ὦ, accent, 157
wpa and καιρός, 122
ὡς, ὡς οὖν, 226, 244, 249

Palladius on Hippolytus, 338, 402, 404
Pammachius, xenodochium at Portus of,

29

Papias; on the Eternal Church, 245; on
the Roman visit of 5. 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, 4413; significance of their
prominence on the Chair, 441

Passio illa; references to, 352, 469, 4733 ἃ
guide-book for pilgrims to the Ager
Veranus, 473; quoted and abridged by
Ado, 473

Paul (S.); in Rome, 29, 4973 his release,
497; his visit to Spain, 30; his subse-
quent arrest and death, 497; not
martyred with S, Peter, 497 sq, 4993
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,

407 564

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, 456 sq; 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, 490 sq; 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 Sq; not martyred with S. Paul,
497 54, 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, 251; the allusion to 7 συνεκλεκτή
in, 401 sq

Peter (S.), Second Epistle of; its authen-
ticity, 493, 498; an apparent coinci-
dence in Clement’s Epistle with, 37;

oe

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, 3443 imitates Clement’s Epistle, 26

Philaster; date of his work on Heresies,
4153 his indebtedness to Hippolytus,

413, 415 Sq ‘
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 54, 403, 421; extracts
and patristic notices, 318sq, 327, 330,
346; passages from Irenzeus incorpo-
rated in, 422; the Summary in the
Tenth Book published separately and
called the Labyrinth, 379 sq, 396; its
evidence as to Hippolytus’ see, 4343
see Labyrinth, Miller

Phoenix ; in the classics, 84; growth of
the story, 88; its general acceptance,
84 sq; its adoption by Jewish and
Christian writers, 85 sq; its explana-
tion, 86; chronology of its appearances,
85, 87, 89; in Christian art, 87; in
Egyptian hieroglyphics, 87

Photius; notices of Clement in, 13, 14,
72, 86, 1393; 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, 133

Plato, Hippolytus’ treatise against, 325,
347: 395 54

Polto, Hippolytus’ name among the

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 8q; 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.

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,
445; date and circumstances of this
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,
4513; 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

παλιγγενεσία, 42

παμβότανον, 165

πανάγιος, 108, 169

πανάρετος, 10, 19, 138, 166, 178
πανθαμαρτωλός, πανθαμαρτητός, 256
παντάδικος, 256

παντεπόπτης, 162, 185
παντοδύναμος, 7

παντοκρατορικός, παντοκράτωρ, 7, 41
mapayyeNla, 128

παράγειν, 234

34

Jo?

παράκλητος, 222

παραλογίζεσθαι, 255

παραποιεῖν, 137

παραπολλύσθαι, 253

παράπτωσις, 170

παραφυάδιον, 506 sq, 512

παροικεῖν, παροικία, 5, 218

πατέρες, οἵ O. T. worthies, 23, 182

πεποίθησις, 89, 108

περιούσιος, 186

πέτρος, πέτρα, 482 Sq

Tnpos, πηροῦν, πήρωσις, 213

πλάτος, TAGE, τὸ

πλατυσμός, 20

πλεῖν, compounds of, used metaphorically,
224

πληροφορεῖν, 158

προαιρεῖν, 130

προγνώστης;, 230

πρόδηλος, 50

προοδοίπορος, 232

πρόσδεκτος, 56

προσέχειν, with acc., 16

προσέρχεσθαι, 183

προσκλίνεσθαι, πρόσκλισις, 77, 143, 184

προστάτης, 111

πρόστιμον, 127

προσφεύγειν, 75

πρόσωπον, ‘ringleader,’ 8, 144

φησίν, not introducing a quotation, 240

φθείρειν, in athletic contests, 225

φθορά, 221 ;

φιλοξενία, stress laid by Clement on, 45,
109

φιλοπονεῖν, reading, 206, 258

φίλος Θεοῦ, the title, 43

φοῖνιξ, 84 54

φυγαδεύειν, 20

φυλλοροεῖν, spelling, 81

ψηλαφᾶν, 182
ψωμίζειν, 160

Quatuor Coronati, reliques of Hippolytus
transferred to the, 341, 459, 468

Quotations in Clement’s Epistle; canon-
ical (see Lrdex 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
Lhdex of Scriptural Passages); apo-
cryphal (see Apocryphal)

Rahab, 46 sq

Refutation of All Heresies; see Phz/oso-
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, 3173; light
thrown on it by Hippolytus, 317 sq;
and by the Novatian schism, 425 54;
Sabellianism in the, 319 sq

Rothe, 132, 133

Routh, 379

Rufinus; on 2 [Clement], 192; on Hip-
polytus, 331

Ruggieri, 370, 429

ῥιψοκινδύνως, 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 54;
on the treatise against Artemon, 4.00 ;
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, γραφαί, 202, 215; Ta λόγια τοῦ
Θεοῦ, 203, 242; τὰ βιβλία καὶ οἱ ἀπό-
στολοι, 202, 245; ὁ Θεὸς τῆς ἀληθείας,
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

Sizicius, bishop of Rome; honours to
Hippolytus in the time of, 464 sq

Sixtus III, basilica built to S. Laurence
by, 341, 456 sq ah

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
ἴο, 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

σάκκος, 41

σαλεύεσθαι, 70

σημειοῦν, 130

σκάμμα, 35

Σοφία (ἡ), 4 πανάρετος Σοφία, as a title
of Proverbs, 166, 169; of apocryphal
books of Wisdom, 167

σοφός, συνετός, 100

σταθμός, στάσις, 74

στήρισον, στήριξον, form, 68, rol

στύλος, accent, 25

συναγωγή, 72

συνείδησις, 18, 57, 124

συνεκλεκτή, ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι, 491 sq

συνέλευσις, 75

σφραγίς, of baptism, 201, 226

σωζόμενοι (οἷ), 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

50:

Temple sacrifices; classification of, 125;
Clement’s Epistle on, 125

Tertullian; quotes from and _ illustrates
Clement’s Epistle, 82, 128, 131; on
the phoenix, 85, 86; quotes from an
apocryphal Ezekiel, 40; his christology,
15; on 5. Peter and S. Paul in Rome,
26, 495 Sq

Theodoret; on Hippolytus and his works,

3384» 377, 389 54, 419 sq; 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, I14,
[105 ΠΣ 1575. 1405) 1405) 050) penn.
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 inscriptions 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

ταγή, 73

ταμεῖον, ταμιεῖον, 76, 151
ταπεινοφρονεῖν, 63, 69
ταχυγράφοι, 197

τέγος, 49

τελειοκαρπεῖν, 135

τέρμα τῆς δύσεως, 30
τιμᾶσθαι, constr., 136
τόπος; 275 535 28. 182; 155
τύπος and ἀντίτυπον, 247
τύφος, form, 50

θᾶττον, form, 188

θεεῖν, with acc., 224

θεμέλιος, οἵ Christ and His apostles, 486
θεμιτός, 183

Θεὸς τῆς ἀληθείας (ὁ), 195, 257, 260
θεοσέβεια, 260

θημών, θημωνιά, 165

532 INDEX OF SUBJECT-MATTER.

Ulpius Romulus, in the Portuensian Acts,
361, 362, 3648q, 474 Sq ὅτ
Urbanus, bishop of Rome; his episco-

pate, 437; his relations with Hippo-

lytus, 437
Ursicinus, antipope, and the basilica of

Hippolytus, 444, 465

ὑγεία, form, 74
ὑπερασπισμός, 165
ὑπερδέες (70), 69
ὑπέρμαχος, 138
ὑπογραμμός, 31, 61, 103
ὑποδεικνύναι, 28
ὑποτιθέναι τράχηλον, 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» 3745 376 -

Valerian the prefect, in the Laurentian
Acts, 357 Sq, 471 sq; his death, 362,
364

Valerianus, bishop of Zaragoza, 452,

497

Valerius Bito, 185, 187, 305

Vansittart, 185

Vatican Way, the traditional burial-place
of 5. Peter, 496, 497, 499 sq

Vero; see Bevo

Vespasian; his position in the list of
Czesars, 507 54; associates Titus and
Domitian with himself in the empire,
590 56

Victor, bishop of Rome; his episcopate,
436; probably appointed Hippolytus
to Portus, 433; Hippolytus’ account of
him, 321

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

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

Weizsicker 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, 99, 103, 108, 143, 152,
157; on 2 [Clement], 212 ~

Zahn on Clement’s Epistle, 18, 176, 195.
198

ΠΕΣ ΤΙ bishop of Rome; his episco-
pate, 436; his relations to Hippolytus,
319 sq, 348, 431 Sq, 4373 Eusebius on.
3273; Jerome on, 329; attacked by
Tertullian, 418

Zonaras on Hippolytus, 349

Zosimus, inscription relating to, 351

πὰ ὥνμ Be Te eS BUY

BR
60 Apestolic feathers

AR? The apostolic feathers
1989

pt.1v.2

6.7

ROBA

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

eh CIM “
Taupe be SOF
in ere |
4

eB ἀν WHO t 4 { ἢ

PRP ET ΡΝ ΚΕΝ a ¢ 3 eer

felted TR wee St ᾿ Spe lids ated ἐστε ΡΥ ΉΣ
ΜῈ δν 4: Aone take: ἘΠῚ
teen i

ἌΝ ΡΝ
᾿ ae Peake peepee
tert ΠΡ ΠΩ.

ἢ
ξιγηνδε
“
ΜΗ ν eh
ὃ = Pat 8
ιν ξ Saeed eh ; ana
Pasar ty tts i Pitot
ΡΤ, τ ;
ΠΡ
ene
Le

--
We"
regan’

ate

9.98

rd
Hob HEY
Stee

Teas

sy

κ᾿ wae ae
art PFN A

ΤῊ pias a
sete et
τῶ ce

Soe
a

ot ΟΕ
ΠΕ
NER

se

δύο χυν τ κν
Aten νάνι κα
υ Rea

᾿
es ae we
ἜΝ ῥς
Ai WA, 4,

he
OM as
σὰ τε τηρῆσαι, Masaya
7 ᾿ τῷ νυ"
ἘΣΎ NN ntou ἢ ΠΝ ἫΝ ΤΑΝ ΤΙΝ
ὁ τὰν ΡΝ ah as ny ads 1
ἔρις ane Suit \ ih
ὧν Sh a Pyke yea anit . Ve iNet
Ἐπ γενον:

“δ ὦ Ἐν

ne
eke!
‘ ss pangaen aN δὲ ἥ i
ce an i il
isbah cererk ᾿ i ee Ἀ

i

ὯΣ
ΜΝ ht
ἮΝ

᾿
Delete PW
4

.

eee
rans

4 * Aine ak εὐ τὴν
neh test! J PCH HERE
ete Wee 3 . ἐὰν waa
ee ἊΣ a \
AWPU hie b Avs ot I γ ΝΗ
rite Hee ἱ iat ἢ ti υ
ὶ a i ἮΝ ἢ ‘ ᾿ ἀν Sry i ᾿ ΠΣ
ἘΝ ἀν BL) Tae 4 at