Third Dissertation

THIRD DISSERTATION

On other works of Clement of Alexandria, whether genuine or false, published or unpublished, and on those which he promised he would write, and on the various chronologies represented by him.

CHAPTER FIRST

On the book which is inscribed as the eighth of the Stromata.

^A 333 ARTICLE I. Analysis of this book.

The author of this book makes it manifest to all that the most ancient philosophers, just like Christians, professing true philosophy, were entirely alien to all contention and doubt, or from the vice of a litigious, doubtful, and always uncertain mind. On the contrary, the younger ones, as he says, philosophers led by the vanity of empty praise, are carried away to useless trifles, as much by deceiving others as by bickering. But Christians, having rejected all contention, seeking truth from the sacred Scriptures by questioning and answering for an honest end, obtain not only that, but also knowledge.

Then our author explains briefly by what reason and method we might be able to arrive at the true demonstration of that which is sought. Therefore, first, he says, we must know what a name and a statement, or a proposition concerning the thing sought, signify. Secondly, it must be sought whether that which is announced in speech or proposition truly exists. Thirdly, it must be investigated what its nature is and whether it transcends the given order. But if there is no controversy about these things, but a unanimous consensus of all, that must be established as the principle of the doctrine. This he attempts to demonstrate more clearly by the sole example proposed.

He says, however, that demonstration, like faith, knowledge, and foreknowledge, is twofold. For one sort flows merely from hope and opinion; the other flows from knowledge, and for that reason is a stable, firm, and properly called demonstration. But since an indication and a syllogism differ in that the indication denotes only one thing, while the syllogism infers a third from two premise propositions, hence the same becomes the case: that if these be certain and true, then it is a demonstration; otherwise it will be mere reasoning.

Since, however, philosophers profess that there are certain principles which cannot be demonstrated, from this our author concludes that all demonstration is in reality reduced to faith, which cannot be demonstrated. But after these, there are other principles of demonstrations, he says, which appear evidently from sense and intelligence. Wherefore, if any discourse out of those things which are credible can rightly prove those things which are not yet probable, this we call the essence of demonstration. But when we recur from those things which have been demonstrated to those which are per se credible, and which are plainly evident to intelligence and sense, then that is called resolution.

From which the author again gathers for him who wishes to demonstrate something that there must be the greatest care regarding the truth of propositions, but the least regarding words. He ought, however, to always assume true propositions and elicit the ^B conclusion from them. Furthermore, before that which is sought, there is something prior which is believed without any demonstration, and from there one must proceed to the investigation of other things.

And so that it may be understood more clearly by all how all these rules of demonstrations are to be observed, our author applies them one by one to demonstrate this proposition: "Whether the fetus, which is carried in the womb, is an animal." And that, indeed, after he has discoursed upon it at length, he concludes from it that demonstration is a discourse which proves one thing from others, the principle of which is posited as that which is evident to sense and intelligence. From these, also, the first demonstration is made, and the others in turn, which can no longer be called a first demonstration.

But after he said that there are not principles of many kinds, but only of different kinds, he then refutes the opinion of the Pyrrhonists, by which they had established *epochē*—that is, the withholding of assent, or that error by which they had dreamed that nothing is certain at all but all things are doubtful and uncertain. He confesses, nevertheless, that sometimes assent is rightly withheld, either because of the weakness of the mind, or the obscurity of the thing itself, or arguments of equal weight. And there, in the Greco-Latin editions of the works of Clement, the first part of this book ends.

In the second part, the author explains what must be done before definitions, divisions, and demonstrations; what induction contributes to them; how a definition is made from division; and how, through induction, the universal is collected from particulars. Afterward he reveals what induction, division, demonstration, and definition produce. Since, however, knowledge exists when the cause of a thing is known, for that reason he shows that the cause is fourfold, namely, material, efficient, formal, and final.

Having taken up the example of a man immediately after, he makes it plain that a definition is constituted from the genus of the object itself and its ultimate difference. ^C Division, however, he says, is threefold: of a genus into species, of a whole into parts, and finally of the thing itself into its accidents; but only the first is properly called division. Although, however, there are various species, either common to many or ^D proper to some, yet each one constitutes its character and nature, or, as they say, its essence. Wherefore, he who has the knowledge of any thing will give its definition; but conversely, he who is ignorant of the definition of a certain thing will never have the knowledge of it. But in the definitions of any particular thing…

^A the property of the thing, just as the power of laughing in a human being, occupies the place of a sign rather than demonstrating its nature. Our author, however, clearly shows that there are various definitions: some general, taken from the ten categories; others minor; and finally, others minimal.

There, moreover, he again warns that the primary reasons why consent is withheld are the inconsistency and mutability of the human mind, and the diversity and discrepancy of things; and that from this, judgments, cares, and even the various opinions of philosophers arise in human affairs.

Again, he says that in a word there are three things: names, thoughts, and the things signified by the names. But since there are infinite names, and for that reason no knowledge could be given, grammarians reduced them all to twenty-four elements.

From these, which are expressed by nouns and verbs, some are said with a connection, and they make a perfect speech. But others are brought forth without connection, just as the ten categories, which fall under matter, and from which one only is said and referred to another. Furthermore, those which lack matter can be understood only by the mind, and through its first application. But whatever things are placed under the categories, they are either synonymous, or heteronymous, or polyonymous, or denominative, or homonymous: which our author defines and explains one by one.

Thence he comes to the explanation of causes, of which, as he speaks, some are said to be procatarctic, others synectic, some assisting, and some without which not. Having explained each in order, he concludes that only the synectic, or efficient, are causes properly so called.

Then he considers whether causes are corporeal, as some wish, or, as it pleases others, incorporeal. Afterwards, he proves that there are sometimes many causes of the same effect, either remote or proximate, and that these are truly and properly causes; just as that which prevents something is called its cause, but by no means that which does not prevent it. But there are four, as he repeats: efficient, material, formal, and final. That, too, he continues, without which the thing is not done, is indeed a cause of it, yet not properly called, but an assisting one. A synectic, or efficient, cause, however, does not need time to act when it has found that upon which it acts, both apt and disposed. Thus also some procatarctic causes need time, for which others have no need.

Our author immediately makes it clear that the same thing cannot be the cause of itself, nor can causes of itself be causes, but that there are many, indeed that the effects of one and the same cause can be contradictory. Meanwhile, he reveals how various and manifold are the obscure causes, and he discusses again about procatarcetic, synectic, concausal, and assisting causes, according to nature, and, as they say, accidental and occasional ones. Finally, having made clear the distinction that exists between a concausal and an assisting cause, he puts an end to his book.

ARTICLE II.

It was observed by us that Clement, at the end of the seventh book of the Stromata, promised that he would write another, which without doubt ought to have been called the eighth book of the Stromata. Whether he kept his word, and truly composed this book, and finally whether this one, of which we have exhibited an analysis, or another ^B is the eighth book of the Stromata, must be examined by us in our usual way.

And first, indeed, that Clement fulfilled his promises and published an eighth book of the Stromata, will without doubt seem to many to be capable of being proved by the testimony, not at all uncertain, of Eusebius as well as Jerome, Photius, and others. For these are the very words of Eusebius concerning it: "As far as Clement is concerned, his eight books of the *Stromateis* exist." But that learned man would not state with such confidence that these eight books existed in his own time, unless he had seen with his own eyes and perused the eighth, just as he had the seven previous books of the Stromata. To Eusebius in this manner Jerome subscribed: "There are borne his distinguished volumes... from which those are the *Stromateis* books eight." Finally, to omit others, Photius very clearly handed down that he had found in a very old copy the same number of Clementine Stromata books.

But that the eighth book of these Stromata is the one about which we are disputing, some have certainly thought could be proved, because it is, as the same Photius ^C testifies, in certain copies, as he says: "The eighth *Stromateus*, as also the remaining seven books, is inscribed, and it begins: 'But neither the most ancient philosophers,' and what follows." Yet in the editions of the Clementine works, the title of this book is the same, and the beginning is the same. From which it seems not absurdly to be collected that for a long time, and even before the age of Photius, it was believed by many that this was truly the eighth book of the same Clement’s Stromata, and that it was to be held as his genuine work.

But although the same title and beginning of this book are represented by Photius as in the printed editions, it does not therefore follow that what Photius had read in his copy after the first words was entirely the same as those which are now read in the vulgar works of our Clement. And indeed, Photius himself immediately appended these words to those which were cited by us: "But this book of the *Stromata* in some places does not hand down sound doctrine, yet not as the *Hypotyposes*. For it even opposes many things which were said there." By which words he signifies that some things occurred in that book, as in Clement’s *Hypotyposes*, which were repugnant to the dogmas of our sound and orthodox faith, while others were things by which some errors, dispersed in the *Hypotyposes*, were impugned. But in the book in question, we read nothing at all that makes for or against the Christian religion or its doctrine. And indeed, from the analysis of it which we have given, it will be manifest to all that nothing at all is treated in it, except what pertains to logic and dialectic. ^D Therefore, the book perused by Photius seems to have had nothing in common with the one which has been published in Greek and Latin type, except for the proem or preface, which contains only what the author begins to argue about concerning the reason and method of demonstration.

However the matter may stand, it appears to us to be entirely certain and manifest that this commentary which we are discussing neither is, nor can ever be called, the eighth book of our Clement’s Stromata. For it is utterly abhorrent not only from this inscription and title of the *Stromata*, but also from the manner in which our Clement wrote his *Stromata*, and from its scope and end. For it is established, as has been demonstrated by us above, that the name of *Stromata* was prefixed by him to the other seven books to signify that they were composed with various dogmas sprinkled here and there, and digested in no certain order. Then indeed he, as we also [alt-version omitted]

[...in unfolding the sacred mysteries of our religion to Christians, he mixed their explanation with an explanation of pagan dogmas, and interrupted his own discourses, and on purpose digressed from his proposal far too often. Finally, no other was the end and scope of Clement, as we have seen thus far, in writing the books of the Stromata, than to demonstrate to Christians the true and orthodox doctrine of our religion, and the summit to which they always ought to strive, its perfection. Yet, nothing at all of all those things is found in this pseudo-eighth book of the Stromata; but it is a treatise on logic only, or dialectic, as we have said, which regards and pertains no more to Christians than to pagans and any other men whatever.

Do you wish, from those things which are treated in this book, to have its falsehood demonstrated to you most evidently? To us, certainly, that is ready and easy. For the author of this book tosses this question ^A into every part: "Whether a fetus in the womb is an animal"; so as to make it manifest to the reader from thence how the rules of demonstrations proposed by him ought to be observed by all. But surely Clement of Alexandria is not to be believed to have proceeded to such a degree of blindness or inconsistency as to bring forward such a question, above countless others, as an example in the eighth book of his Stromata, when in the fifth book of the same Stromata he proposes it as an example of questions, concerning which, as we have said elsewhere 51, a Christian man ought not to busy himself.

Furthermore, this treatise does not appear to be complete. For although its beginning on the codices of Photius was the same as in the already published Works of Clement, they consider that something of it had been excised, which should not have been omitted by the author. And certainly in his Greco-Latin editions this book is divided into two ^B parts, and to the second part this title is prefixed: "The starting points and ends of questions surrounding these, and regarding those things which are in them." But why a similar title was not inscribed on the first part, no true and certain reason can surely be offered. But if you were to answer and demonstrate that this epigraph had been intruded into the text from the margin of some codex written out by a Greek hand, we would not indeed resist: but the integrity of this dissertation will not be proven to anyone by that. For in the Clermont codex this whole second part, as we noted above, is entirely absent, and no trace of it exists therein. We will, therefore, be easily persuaded that this treatise, in ancient manuscript codices, was transcribed by copyists and librarians, as is wont to be done, after the seven books of our Clement without any title at all, and that afterwards the inscription of the eighth book of the Stromata was added to it by other unlearned men. It must be admitted, however, that this error is very old, and perhaps older than the time of Photius, that is, the tenth century of the Church. But that is surely none the less a mistake and a fault for that reason—indeed, it must be called greater, the more ancient it is. Wherefore Photius did not dare to assert that this writing was in reality the eighth book of the Stromata. For he only advised us that this book was found inscribed in this way in some manuscripts, but in others the title of the same book was: "Who is the rich man that shall be saved," and that its beginning was deduced from these words: "He who [gives] laudatory [discourses]," etc. But whether this book should be called the eighth book of the Stromata by a better right is now to be investigated.

CAPUT II.

ARTICULUS I.

Ab initio of this book 52 the author convinces those base [men] ^C that they are not only sycophants, but also impious and insidious, who, when they ought to heal the pestilential disease of avarice and pride in the rich, favor, nourish, and exacerbate it with flattering and deceitful obsequiousness and praise. But for the procuring of the salvation of the rich, he says, there is need of a doctrine which demands a strong, excellent, and justice-tenacious mind, a word by which he might be able to fully persuade his brethren.

Furthermore, the salvation of the rich, as he continues 53, seemed more difficult than that of the poor, because some, having heard the words of Christ: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven," despaired entirely of the future salvation of the rich. Others, however, rightly understanding these words of Christ, neglected all those things which are necessary for preparing for it. The author declares, indeed, that these words were spoken by him to those upon whom the virtue of Christ and the ray of truth have shone. Wherefore 54, he who is held by a sincere love of the brethren, ought to explain the words of Christ to the rich in such a way—neither by rising up too insolently nor by flattering too blandly—as to demonstrate that they have not been repulsed from the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom. But then it is incumbent upon him to prove that there is no place for fear for them, if they have complied with the mandates of Christ, and that the crown of eternal life promised for good works is to be won by them, just as the palm of the contest is won by athletes through labor and exercise. After these things 55 he prays to Christ, that He might suggest and inspire in him a discourse by which he may be able to fully persuade his brethren of that.

These things having been thus prefaced, he exhibits all the words of Christ from the Gospel of Mark concerning the rich man and his own apostles, which had troubled some, and observes that the same are represented in the books of the other evangelists, with only a few things changed whose meaning is the same 56.

Then, having set out to explain these, he observes first that the discourses of Christ are not to be taken carnally, but the spirit latent in them is to be investigated skillfully and sagaciously, and attention must be paid to the mind of the Savior Himself, and to that which is arcane and hidden in the meaning.

Secondly, 57 he observes that the question proposed by the rich man was worthy of Christ, and most suitable. Since, however, the rich man had called Christ good, from thence Christ Himself, as our author says, having taken the occasion, most prudently converted the mind of this rich man to the good God, the first and only bestower of eternal life. For this knowledge is the beginning of all documents regarding life. And indeed God must first be acknowledged, then the greatness of the Savior, through whom grace and truth were made, just as the law indeed was given through Moses, but which alone did not suffice for salvation. Wherefore the rich man, who had fulfilled that from his first age, yet rightfully and deservedly demands and begs for that from Christ. But Christ ^D him what had always been read...

^A obeyed him, not rebuking, but cherishing and loving him. Nevertheless, he pronounced him still imperfect; as one who had been idle in the concerns of eternal life, and had not yet arrived at the fullness and perfection of the Mosaic law, namely, the faith of Christ. Therefore, Christ answered him: "If you wish to be perfect," that is, if you—who, as our author says, are endowed with a sincere power of will, and with your whole heart desire to be perfect—would attain this perfection. But because he did not wish this with his whole soul, having heard the following words of Christ, "Go, sell what you have," he went away sad.

But our author shows that these things are not to be understood in a literal and obvious sense, so that by these it is signified that the rich are bound to abandon all their goods, wealth, and patrimony, just as Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Crates either abdicated [their possessions] or left them either to their own [people] or to the first comer; but only that it is commanded that the unbridled greed for riches and the stain of avarice be torn out by the root; and that men should use their wealth, riches, and other goods well by bringing aid to the needy, the poor, and the destitute. ^B For he clearly makes it known that riches are not of themselves either evil or good, but are such by their use. And from thence he gathers that what Christ said—that they must be sold—is to be understood of the affections and perturbations of the soul. For after the wealth is left behind or cast away, one can, even if destitute, be rich in vices and affections. Therefore, he again contends that not useful but harmful riches, not otherwise than the vices, sicknesses, and affections of the soul by which we make bad use of our supplies and wealth, are to be clearly and utterly removed and rejected.

Furthermore, a soul altogether empty and naked of these must follow Christ, who is the way to those who have a pure heart. But the soul of him who is rich in perverse desires is impure. For he alone abounds in true and good riches who acknowledges that they are gifts of God, and that he possesses them not so much as his own as for the cause of needy brethren. Therefore, a man who is not in the least enslaved to them carries the loss of them with an even mind, and because of this is truly poor in spirit. On the contrary, he who bears them in his mind and thinks of increasing them daily is entangled in the snares of the world. From which our author elicits a double conclusion: first, that riches are either good or bad according to their use. Then, indeed, these words of Christ: "The rich shall hardly enter into the kingdom of God," ^C are not to be received in a literal sense, but in a more subtle one. For our salvation is not placed in the possession of them, as he clearly shows by the example of the body.

Therefore, he who, relying on the virtues, as he continues, does not use his fortune without faith and holiness, is of a pure heart and will enter into the kingdom of God. When, however, Christ said to the rich man: "Sell what you have," he did not command this to him in the sense that he should receive the price of the sold estates; but that he should acquire and obtain the good and holy affections of the soul, which are spiritual riches.

But that rich man who had questioned Christ, not perceiving the sense of this response, went away sad; and he, not otherwise than the disciples of Christ themselves, who had recently been admitted into his family, despaired of the future salvation of the rich. Christ, however, answered ^D them, that a man, not by his own, but by divine power, when he shall sincerely desire the absence of vices and affections, is able in reality to obtain this eternal salvation.

Upon hearing which, Peter said that he had left all things, that is, the vices and sicknesses of the soul, so that he might follow Christ. By Christ, however, he received the answer that he who has left a father, that is, he who prefers—more than Christ—him whom he fears, nor to those who occupy themselves with things that impede salvation, will receive a hundredfold. Which is surely to be understood in the same way concerning mother, brother, sister, and other parents, and even concerning riches.

But because Christ added, "with persecutions," etc., our author distinguishes a double persecution; one, indeed, coming from without, namely from men or diabolical suggestion. The other, however, and that most grave, is interior, and arises from the impious desires of a depraved soul and from perverse affections. With this second persecution, therefore, he who has brethren, carnal delights, and any carnal pledges, ought to leave them all and choose the Savior as the consoler and patron of his soul, who is about to give him eternal life.

Finally, in the last words of Christ: "The last shall be first," etc., although a meaning not a little recondite lies underneath; yet, because they contributed nothing to his argument about the rich, our author decided that he should supersede their explanation. For he declares that he has sufficiently performed his duty, since he has proved that the way to the heavenly kingdom is by no means closed to the rich by Christ, provided that, by obeying his commands, they use their riches well. Otherwise, it will be easier for the camel, about which he had argued in another book, to pass through the eye of a needle than for them to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

With all the words of Christ thus explained one by one, our author shows that riches are not disapproved by Christ, nor is it commanded that they should be thrown away: but that we are informed by him how they are to be used, and how eternal life is to be acquired. In order to assert this more firmly, and to show what hope of obtaining salvation was given to the rich by Christ himself, or what [hope] had been taken away, he there straightway tests this by the very mandate of Christ himself: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your soul and strength," [and proves] there is clearly nothing greater.

For when by the second commandment he orders one's neighbor to be loved as oneself, from thence our author gathers that he wills that God be loved by man above himself. And by the name of neighbor, as is shown by the parable of the Samaritan proposed by Christ, any man whatsoever is to be understood, and the same Christ who healed the wounds of our sins is called that pious Samaritan. Christ, therefore, continues he, who spent so much effort on healing us, ought to be loved just as God. But he is loved by him who obeys and complies with his will and precepts.

Then, furthermore, the faithful disciples of the same Christ are to be honored and cherished, in whom whatever is done, this he writes as having been done to himself. For he calls them children, boys, infants, friends, and little ones, of whom the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John. Therefore, if anything is dispensed to them from the mammon of iniquity, the reward of the giver will never perish. But Christ wishes it to be bestowed not only upon those demanding and importunately asking, but [that they should be] sought out first, among whom the benefit may be bestowed without murmuring, sadness, and distinction of persons, not once and again, but perseveringly.

For one deformed, ragged, and weak is not to be repelled or treated unfairly; since interior opulence and beauty is included in an earthen vessel. Wherefore our author exhorts the rich man to instruct an army with his faculties and wealth, and to gather together retainers, namely, the aged, orphans, widows, and the poor, who by prayers, groanings, and tears may turn away the Emperor God, and by admonitions, rebukes, and counsels may add

^A to them, and converse with Christ, who now dwells within him. For some of them are the more illustrious, the more they have withdrawn themselves from the storms of the world and endeavor to hide their piety and holiness. Furthermore, these are heirs of God, and His true offspring and image; they have been sent into this world for the sake of exercising others and for the purpose of cultivating virtue or doctrine.

After this, our author offers a further reason why the wealthy should bring this aid to the needy: because God is love, and Christ not only took upon Himself the infirmities of men, but died for us, that He might teach us that we too must lay down our soul for our neighbors. But if we ought to face death for others, how much more are the wealthy bound to spend all their own goods, resources, and riches to relieve the destitution of the poor? This, indeed, he clearly confirms through the very words of John and Paul on charity.

From these, he says, it is understood who has a place in heaven or who does not. For just as he who is dead in sins is excluded from there, so God the Father most gladly receives there him who turns to Him with his whole heart. Hence our author ^B makes manifest what true repentance is, and what joy there is in heaven among the angels and God—who alone can forgive sins—for a sinner who is performing repentance. Moreover, he proves that the performing of such repentance requires the greatest diligence. For although ingrained, wicked emotions cannot perhaps be cut away instantly and all at once, they can yet be overcome through the power of God, the prayers and help of brethren, and true repentance and assiduous meditation. But to achieve this, it is necessary that a pious and holy teacher and governor be heeded, who with a salutary severity mixed with gentleness may arouse and sharpen, or soothe and entice the sinner; who may shed tears with him, and spend sleepless nights in praying to God for him; whom, in short, the sinner may fear, with whom he may grieve, and whose act of deprecating punishment he may forestall.

But that our author may more easily persuade us of this, he describes an entire history, in which John the Evangelist is narrated to have commended a youth, endowed with an elegant physical form and good character, to a bishop of a certain city not far from Ephesus. The bishop received this youth into his dwelling and home and, having educated him, shortly thereafter washed him in the sacred font of baptism. But when his care was gradually relaxed, the youth, having obtained premature liberty, joined himself to depraved and wicked men, and having become the leader of robbers, he surpassed the others in crimes. However, a little while later, John, returning, asked back from the bishop the youth he had entrusted to him. But having been informed by him of all ^C that had occurred, he immediately, without any delay, went to the youth, whom he brought to salutary repentance, and later restored to the Church.

Furthermore, from this narrative the same author concludes that he who does not perform repentance for his sins must blame neither God, nor riches, but himself. On the other hand, for him who has performed sincere repentance for his sins and truly has care for his own salvation, the heavenly Father will grant and bestow perfect absolution and eternal life.

ARTICLE II.

This treatise lay hidden for a long time indeed in the debris of libraries and the shadows of obscurity. For it is not eighty years since Matthæus Cariophylus, ^D the Archbishop of Iconium, found it at the end of various homilies of Origen in the Vatican library and rendered it into Latin. Michael Ghislerius, however, from this manuscript, and from this interpretation, and with the title of the last homily of Origen prefixed, had this same book printed and published at Lyons in the year 1623, together with his commentaries on Jeremiah, in Greek and Latin. But because the Greek text was very imperfect and was in many places defective and mutilated, and no other codex could be found by which it might be corrected, there were therefore in this edition also various gaps and hiatuses.

After this, however, when Ghislerius had discovered that this short work had not truly proceeded from Origen, but from our Clement of Alexandria, he corrected the error in his preface to those same commentaries on Jeremiah, and openly professed that it was rightly adjudged to the same Clement of Alexandria by Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius.

Moreover, in this edition of the book, the same Ghislerius added many notations, though brief ones, and only at the margin, by which he discussed in a few words matters he judged worthy of note in the author’s text, or argued against certain errors of his, as it seemed to him, or finally indicated other things which he desired to be read carefully by everyone.

Long after, after an interval of time, Combefisius, a famous writer of the Order of Saint Dominic, published another edition of this book, to which he inscribed the name of our Clement of Alexandria, in his *Auctarium* of the Greek Fathers at Paris in the year 1672, in Greek and Latin characters. In it, however, he provided a new Latin translation for the Greek text of the author and attempted to fill some of its hiatuses with his own conjectures. Many, however, which could hardly be restored by anyone without the help of manuscript codices, he left entirely intact.

Furthermore, he added to the very many and long notes and observations on this book, by which he strives to amend many words of the Greek text that had been wrongly written in the Greek codex, or which it seemed to him Cariophylus had taken in an opposite or contrary sense. He further attempts in his annotations to explain and clarify the author’s more obscure diction at times. Finally, in many places he tries to prove that the blot and stain of certain wicked errors, and especially the errors of Origen, which had been undeservedly fastened upon the author of this book by Cariophylus or Ghislerius, truly, if one believes certain learned men, he did not entirely vindicate and free him from, especially in the one place concerning the error, as they call it, of the pre-existence of souls of the same Origen. But of these things, later.

Furthermore, this book was printed at Oxford, from the Sheldonian Theatre, in Greek and Latin in the year 1683, in the name of Clement of Alexandria. But the whole book came forth such as it had been edited previously by Combefisius. To this edition, however, the prefect ejected all the observations previously published by others on this treatise, nor did he add anything other than a brief proemium, in which he strives to assert this book as belonging to Clement of Alexandria by the testimony and authority of Eusebius of Cæsarea, as well as of Jerome and Photius. To these, however, he observes that the final period: *διὰ τοῦ παιδός*, etc., had been added entirely absurdly by a copyist who wanted to sell the same treatise as a homily by Origen. But what if the author considered it to be retained in this book, which is composed of one or more homilies or discourses? But of these, below.

Finally, he made us aware that he had filled some gaps with very few words inserted, which, as we have already said, the old exemplar had otherwise

^A been lacking. But one might not unjustly call into question whether he rightly amended these mutilated and gaping passages, which he attempted to supply only by his own conjectures. For Ittigius, of whom we shall speak shortly, confesses that "the text of Clement still everywhere stands in need of a physician’s hands." Finally, the last edition of this book, inscribed with the same name of Clement, was published at Leipzig by that Thomas Ittigius in the year 1700. In his preface to it, he sagely observes a great deal concerning the various editions of this work, as well as of others of our Clement. There, however, he warns us that John Fell, the Bishop of Oxford, was the author of the previous edition, which he followed closely. Furthermore, he notes that some, such as Cotelerius, attempted an amendment of certain passages in this book; but that not a few mutilated and gaping parts still remain. Finally, he signifies that he has added all of Combefis’s notes to this little work, not indeed because they are to be approved everywhere, but because they contain some things not unworthy to be noted, and it can be easily detected where Combefis has pursued a penchant for parties rather than for truth. Finally, what our author narrates at the end of this book concerning a certain notable robber, who was brought by the Apostle John to better fruit and sincere repentance for his sins, these things were transcribed in almost the same words by Eusebius 87 in his *Ecclesiastical History*. Wherefore Valesius, for this narrative, as for the whole of Eusebius's *History* edited by him, has compiled various observations, by which he renders an account of the Greek texts as amended by himself from various manuscript codices. Furthermore, by other notes, he illustrates certain passages, and he strives especially to show by these words, *τὴν σφραγίδα τοῦ Κυρίου*, that the sacrament not of confirmation, but of baptism, is signified.

ARTICLE III.

Who is the author of this book, and what is its title; whether it is composed from a certain homily or certain discourses held to the people, for what reason it was published, whether it can be called the eighth book of the ^B *Stromata* of Clement of Alexandria, and at what time it was written.

From those things which we have said in the preceding article, it is certainly evident to all that this commentary has been attributed to two most illustrious writers. For by some it is adjudged to Origen, but by others to our Clement of Alexandria. Nor are there wanting arguments for the supporters of either opinion, by which each strives to defend and maintain his own sentiment.

And certainly those who think this treatise to have proceeded from Origen rely upon these supports of reasoning. In the first place, it truly bears the name of Origen in the manuscript Vatican codex. Then, his style, polished, mild, flowing evenly, and clear, seems to pertain more to him than to Clement, whose discourse in most of his works is more sublime and obscure. Thirdly, Cariophylus, or rather Ghislerius, were convinced that various errors of Origen are to be discovered in this work, which they note. Among these, the error is noted in particular by which Origen and other heretics used to prattle that the human soul existed before the body. Finally, the author of the same work sends us somewhere to his own exposition of principles and theology. But that ^C seems to be what is said to have been written by Origen on this subject.

On the other hand, others think that our Clement of Alexandria is the true and genuine author of this production; and that this can be concluded and demonstrated by the most invincible authority of Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius. For Eusebius and Photius most openly declare that the book was edited by the same Clement, inscribed with this Greek title: *Τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος*, "Which rich man is saved," or, "Which rich man can attain salvation." Which indeed we read asserted once and again by Eusebius. Finally, Jerome rendered the same epigraph in Latin: *Quisnam dives sit, qui salvetur*. Yet that title itself was not only prefixed to this work, but it ought to have been prefixed. For nothing else, indeed, than this subject is treated in that whole commentary. Furthermore, Photius says that these were its first words: *Οἱ μὲν τοὺς ἐγκωμιαστικοὺς λόγους* — which, indeed, in the same manner are exhibited in his editions, both Ghislerius’s and Combefis’s and others’. Finally, Eusebius asserts that he transcribed from this book the entire history of that young robber, who was converted by the Apostle John to sincere repentance for his transgressions and crimes. But this is also the very same which is found at the end of all editions of the same book, in the same words, if you except the errors of the scribes. But there is no one, as we think, who is a fair appraiser of things, who does not see that by these latter arguments this book is, with far better right, attributed to and claimed for Clement of Alexandria than for the former, Origen.

For, as for us, neither Cariophylus nor Ghislerius have declared whose notes they are, or by what hand, whether ancient or more recent, that Vatican codex was written, where they found that work transcribed after the homilies of Origen. To this is added that, even if the name of Origen be read written there, it will not, however, be so easily persuaded to those who cannot be ignorant of how frequent are the slips of scribes and copyists in copying the titles of books, and how great is the audacity and rashness in fabricating and inventing them.

As to the style and diction of this writer, Eusebius certainly and Photius, without doubt the best judges of Clementine and Origenian discourse, noted nothing at all in this book which could be said to be in any way whatsoever discrepant from and alien to the writing style of our Clement of Alexandria himself, or not at all congruent or suitable to him.

If anyone, however, should demonstrate this production to be different in style from other works of the same Clement, he ought to remember that the diction and the different mode of writing of the same authors varied according to the variety of place, time, persons, and subjects.

Errors, moreover, if any are detected in this book, and even that exposition of principles and theology to which the author sends us, do not argue that it was edited any more by Origen than by our Clement. For in that very exposition of principles and theology, the author says he has explained what that camel, of which Christ spoke, signifies. But you would seek this explanation in vain in Origen’s *Periarchon* books. But we shall dispute a little later about this very exposition, and about the stains of errors branded upon our author.

Wherefore, unless more valid arguments of greater weight are brought forward, we shall willingly accede to the opinion of those who have claimed this work for Clement of Alexandria. But what title Clement, or its author, inscribed upon it, we have already seen from Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius. But it is to be placed not in the number of homilies, but of his books.

^A It is clearly convinced by the most evident testimony of these three very learned men. For they all, by a great consensus, call this very work a book, and reckon it among the other books of our Clement.

But whether this book is composed of many [homilies], or of one certain homily, delivered by our Clement to the people of Alexandria, and afterwards, not without amplification, reduced to the form of a book, just as we do not dare to define it, so we cannot rashly say that hardly any semblance of a sermon survives in it any longer, nor any other characteristics than those of a book complete in all its parts. Some, however, have seemed to themselves to notice in it some marks of a sermon, to which, if you rightly show that our suffrage ought to be given, we will not altogether contradict.

But by what reason the author applied his mind to writing it, he declares in this manner: "Nothing is so helpful as to hear again the very words which, having been set forth in the Gospels, and not with sufficient just examination, but accepted by the hearers through the childishness of their mind, have heretofore troubled you." By these words, he makes it plain to all that there were some in his time whom the words of Christ to the rich man had troubled. For not receiving them in a true and right sense, they seemed to have lost all hope whatsoever for the salvation of the wealthy. Therefore, to soothe that commotion and perturbation, and to utterly root out from their minds the false opinion with which they were imbued, he indicates not obscurely that he has applied his mind to writing this work.

It is therefore far more difficult to say what place Clement gave to this book among his various works. In some codices, indeed, his eighth book of the Stromata, as Photius testifies, was inscribed [with this title]. But that this title is altogether false is, first of all, most evidently demonstrated by the fact that this book differs utterly from the very name of the Stromata, and from the very manner in which the books of the Stromata were written. ^B Indeed, these commentaries of the Stromata, as we have noted above from Clement himself, are various, and, as the name itself indicates, variously woven together, containing transitions from one thing to another, and by the series and context of the words, signifying one thing while indicating another. Concerning which, he speaks elsewhere thus: "Those things which, as occasion offered itself, came into my mind, and which are purged neither by order nor by diction, but are dispersed by design, the description of the Stromata is varied for us like a meadow."

Then, we have shown in the same place that the explanation of our sacred doctrine and of our more sacred mysteries is intermingled in these books everywhere with the exposition of the opinions and dogmas of the ethnic writers, and that Clement very often digresses from his purpose, and most frequently passes from one argument to another, and returns from the latter to the former. But on the contrary, in this book of which we are treating, there is great connection and coherence of speech, hardly any digression from the purpose, and no mixture at all of profane and ethnic dogma. Who then could induce himself to think that Clement of Alexandria, without having warned anyone beforehand, had given this work as the eighth book of the Stromata, which differs from the other seven no less than heaven differs from earth, and is in complete disagreement? ^C We are, indeed, not ignorant that these are the very words of Clement himself at the end of the seventh book of the Stromata: "And so, after this seventh book, let us take another beginning for those things which follow." But certainly, however much he may have said that the beginning of his eighth book of the Stromata would be different from the others, to whom, nevertheless, will it become credible that Clement—since, as we have observed, no one was ever warned by him anywhere—had treated an argument in that eighth book [that was] entirely different in material and method of writing from the preceding books, and utterly dissimilar? Nay, all will easily concede that, when towards the end of the seventh book Clement had written: "Let us approach what we have promised," he intended in the subsequent book, if indeed he ever composed it, to dispute about those things which he had promised in that same place he would dispute. But there he had bound his word that he would at some time impugn the errors of the ethnic philosophers, and of our heretics, and specifically of the followers of Prodicus and Marcion, and also treat of the marks and characteristics of the true Church, and of other matters, of which absolutely nothing, not even the slightest vestige, is found in the book of which we are treating. This book, therefore, is singular, altogether different from the seven books of the Stromata, and could by no right ever be called their eighth.

But at what time it was made public by Clement of Alexandria, if he truly was its author, is not altogether prompt and easy to tell. For we detect no other mark of that age in it, unless where the author sends us to his own exposition of principles and theology, ^D *τὴν ἀρχῶν καὶ θεολογίας ἐξήγησιν*. But if that tract, which in the third book of the Stromata he himself had promised to write more than once *De Principiis* against the Marcionites, is to be understood by this name, certainly he could not have applied his hand to this commentary either before the seven books of the Stromata were finished and absolute, or before the eighth, provided that it be proven he composed it. For we have indeed seen all the books of the Stromata so joined and coherent among themselves that no other work could have been interposed between them.

ARTICLE III.

We have said that the author of this book is, by some, accused of various errors, and especially of those of Origen, and is openly blamed. Whether, however, he is accused justly or unjustly, must be carefully examined by us. First, therefore, where this author of ours himself writes that the rich man, who has obeyed the commands of Christ, is worthy of a heavenly country for his good works, he then immediately adds: "In which he is gifted with a crown, and returns to the proclamation of the angels." But these latter words are branded with this grave censure on the margin of the Ghislerian edition: "The condemned opinion of Origen concerning the pre-existence of souls in heaven is hinted at." But that is said clearly unjustly and wrongly, as Combefis aptly notices. For after the apostles, nearly all the Fathers of the Church teach that we are pilgrims and guests in this life, and that we seek a heavenly country, to which, if we have been just, we shall return after death. For to it, indeed, we have a right by our first origin: but that, just as we lose it through original sin, and then through other more grievous sins committed afterwards, so we recover it through repentance, piety, and divine grace. Wherefore, when we die in what they call sanctifying grace, we are said, not altogether ineptly, to return to the heavenly country.

Not by any better reason are these words of our author, still regarding the rich man, argued to savor of the same error of Origen: "It is further from blame if, immediately from God providing the soul, *ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν νέμοντος*, it was introduced, *εἰσῳκίσθη*, into the house of such men (the rich) and their wealthy family, or, as Cariophylus translates, was sent into." For since the soul is said to be provided by God, by this manner of speaking it is certainly openly signified that it is created by God; and after its creation is introduced into a house enriched with wealth and riches, and, if you will, is sent into. But in vain, surely, and altogether wrongly, is this last word...

^A denied. And in truth, there is certainly no other reason why Cariophilus and Ghislerius seemed to themselves to detect in these and other words of our author the absurd opinions of Origen, than because they had falsely persuaded themselves that Origen was the parent and author of this book.

Our author is accused of another Origenian error when he writes the following concerning angels: "This is he who subjected the angels, and principalities, and powers, so that they might serve us in ministry, for a great reward. For they themselves also will be liberated from the vanity of the world in the revelation of the glory of the children of God." In this, he is without a doubt alluding to the words of the Apostle writing to the Romans: "For the creature itself also shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God."

Nevertheless, theologians acknowledge that he is truly guilty of an error condemned by the Church and the holy Fathers who said that the angels, being hitherto uncertain of their own salvation, await our liberation so that they too, according to the duties well or poorly performed toward us, may be afflicted with eternal happiness or eternal torments. Some have observed that this error was asserted by Origen in his books *De Principiis*, others in Book I of that work, chapters 7 and 8. But that is taught much more clearly by him in Book VIII, Chapter 7, in the Epistle to the Romans, and in Homily 43 on Luke, where the following is read: "And just as ^B a man, if he conducts well the dispensation committed to him, is praised by the Lord, and if badly, is subject to fault and vice, so too with an angel. For it is written in the Apocalypse of John: 'But thou hast a few names... and the angels to whom the churches were entrusted are accused.' Moreover, it happens frequently that while we are struggling, they do not fulfill their duty and are in fault." And no less clearly in the place we cited earlier: "For there is hope that at some time there will be a cessation from these corporeal and corruptible things. For this 'reasonable' creature has this expectation: that the revelation of the children of God might be made, for whose sake the angels are sent into ministry, so that they themselves also, with those to whom they have ministered, might receive the inheritance of salvation; so that of earthly and heavenly things there may be one flock and one shepherd, and God may be all in all." Now, some have thought that our author favored this opinion of Origen—not so much concerning the salvation of demons, as some say, but concerning the hitherto doubtful and uncertain salvation of the angels, who are set in charge of human guardianship.

But Combefisius thinks that his cited words can be explained in this more benign and orthodox sense: that the angels, who enjoy eternal and immutable—or, as the scholastics say, essential—beatitude, may metaphorically be said to rejoice and be glad, or grieve and weep, on account of us, according as we act well or badly. To us, however, it seems the less likely that our author had thought of this distinction between accidental and essential beatitude, devised by scholastic theologians, the more we clearly discern from his words that there is nothing from which such a distinction could be gathered.

Therefore, a more valid reason for excusing him could be sought from Augustine, who writes in this manner concerning this question and the cited words of the Apostle: "Then he said that the creature would be delivered from the servitude of destruction, from which we cannot believe that those who lead a most blessed life in the heavens have fallen. Nevertheless, nothing should be asserted rashly, but the divine words should be handled with pious diligence again and again; lest by chance that which groans and is in pain and is subject to vanity might be understood in some way so that it could be thought of, without impiety, as referring to the highest angels, as long as they are helping our infirmity. But whether this explanation which we have pursued, or some other exposition of this chapter is brought forward, only this must be ensured: that it does not violate or wound the Catholic faith. For I know that vain heretics have asserted many impious and inept things about this chapter." Thus, Augustine teaches that certain vain ^C

heretics ^A have existed who, as we have said, by perversely explaining the words of Paul concerning angels, have blurted out many false, absurd, and impious things. But although these same words of the Apostle concerning angels appear unable to be taken in such a way, nonetheless, according to his customary singular moderation and modesty, that excellent doctor admits that those who have interpreted them in some way that is neither impious nor absurd should not be rashly condemned. Moreover, our author, merely in passing, while aiming at those same words of the Apostle as we have seen, explained them very briefly concerning the angels. But there he is completely silent regarding the sense in which he thought they should be understood, or how the angels will be freed from the vanity of the world. By what right, therefore, can it be said that they were accepted by our author in a perverse and heretical sense? It is better to imitate the modesty of Augustine and not condemn him, for it cannot be known for certain in what sense he understood the words of the Apostle.

Furthermore, these words of our author, according to Ghislerius or even Cariophylus, seem to smell of Pelagianism ^B: "The man himself, applying effort by his own virtue, and studying and laboring so that he may become of a tranquil mind, and striving for apathy, achieves nothing from that; but if he burns with a more vehement desire for the visible object, by divine power, 'joining the power from God,' he becomes master of his desires. For God breathes upon willing minds." But it is far from the case that Combefisius supposed these things to smell of Pelagianism; rather, they seem to him a great commendation of grace and an explanation of our attempts at it with free will. For there, he says, human will is declared so useless without grace exciting it, that it cannot without new help from God become master of virtue and achieve apathy.

But it must be ingenuously confessed that there can be a twofold explanation and sense of our author's words. And first, they can signify a man, namely, the rich man, about whom our author is arguing, then achieving apathy—that is, the emptiness and immunity from perturbations or the perverse desire for riches—when he strives with all his strength, and employs every diligence so that he may be devoid of it and free, and divine grace approaches and is added to him. For the word "προσθήκη" signifies the same as augmentation, increment, and accession. In which sense it would be signified that divine grace is anticipated by human efforts, and is thereafter added to them. And this sense, even if it does not reek of Pelagianism itself, at least tastes and reeks of semi-Pelagianism.

Moreover, those who wish to have our author have alluded to the error of the Novatians in these words ^C are certainly looking for a knot in a bulrush: "If anyone... perhaps through ignorance, or involuntary accidents of life, after the seal (σφραγίς) and liberation from sins, has fallen into sins or debts, so that he is completely overwhelmed by them, that person is completely rejected by God and exists as a reprobate. For whoever turns to God with his whole heart, the doors are opened to him, and the Father receives the truly penitent son with a most willing spirit." For what, I ask you, even the slightest trace of the Novatian heresy can be detected there? What does it have to do with the power of remitting sins denied to the ministers of the Church, which was the head of this heresy, that it either looks to or approaches it? Nothing at all. For our author intended nothing else by those words, except that he who perseveres in sins is rejected and reprobated by God for as long as he is overwhelmed by them. But when he turns to God with his whole heart, and he is truly penitent for his sins, then the eternal Father will open the doors of salvation to him and he will be immediately received. For in the Greek text of our author, there is nothing to be changed in common with Cariophylus, ^D since it contains nothing at all but what is true and Catholic.

Indeed, does not no small amount of strength and firm support for this explanation of ours arise from the fact that we read later, expressly handed down by our author, that the thief and murderer was restored to the Church by the evangelist John through true repentance, as if by a certain second baptism? On account of which he added in the same place that in him is shown "a great document of sincere repentance and repeated regeneration, and a conspicuous trophy of the resurrection." By which words, indeed, the Novatian error is amputated at the root. For truly, the true and sincere repentance of sins committed after baptism is said to be as if a certain second baptism, on account of which John "κατέστησε," or "ἀπεκατέστεσε," that is, "restored," the thief to the Church. Which Greek word, indeed, so that we may note it in passing, Rufinus had rendered badly, as has been observed by others, into Latin as "appointed" (præfecit). For John did not immediately "appoint" the most wicked thief, however penitent, to the Church contrary to the established and solemn discipline of his fellow apostles, but "restored" him.

The second sense, however, can be that man arrives at this apathy, or emptiness of the perverse affection of riches, when divine grace is joined to him, or the help of preventing grace is granted to him: and aided by this divine help, he spends every effort so that he may obtain that apathy. This sense, however, is clearly sound and orthodox. But that this is the mind of our author can be inferred from the fact that he undertook to prove in that same place that this can be done not by men, but by God alone. When, therefore, he added there, "βουλομέναις μὲν γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς ταῖς ψυχαῖς συνεπιπνεῖ,"—"For God breathes upon willing souls," or rather, "simultaneously breathes and blows upon"—does he not by these words declare that God breathes simultaneously upon the souls of the rich who are willing, namely, by preventing and accompanying grace, by which they might be able to obtain that which without it they could never achieve? On account of which he had said earlier: "In man, as in a free being, there was the free choice of will; but in God, to give, as Lord and Arbiter. But He gives to those who are willing, and to those who are striving with the greatest zeal and praying; so that in this way their own salvation may exist. For God does not compel (for force is hostile to God), but He bestows to those who seek, and offers to those who ask, and opens to those who knock." By which words, indeed, he teaches that to a man through divine grace, even though he is acting and...

No one, therefore, should whisper to us anymore that the author of this book is Clement of Alexandria, who followed Hermas, who was not unjustly accused of Novatianism, step by step. For we have clearly shown that neither was at all entangled in this error, unless our mind deceives us, so that no one—not even that learned man who raised these things against us—could bring forward the slightest thing against the arguments we have brought forward.

Finally, our author is further criticized because, having abandoned and rejected the literal sense of the words of Christ proposed by himself, he seems to admit no other than the spiritual sense. For in pursuing that a little too much, they think he was wrong, because he argues about the abandonment of goods, property, and riches as if Christ had not exhorted his disciples to it. But besides the fact that there is no one who does not know that the ancient Fathers of the Church adhered more to the allegorical and spiritual sense of Scripture than to the literal, our author himself openly confesses that those very disciples of Christ had completely abandoned their hooks and nets, and their other goods, so that they might follow Him. Moreover, he insists upon the spiritual sense of Scripture for this reason most of all, because, as we have noted, the literal sense of the words of Christ had led many to despair of their eternal salvation. On account of which, so that he might recall them from despair to hope, he believed that it had to be proven to him, not so much [that] wealth and riches...

^A are to be prescribed and condemned as their misuse. Although, therefore, he may have proceeded elsewhere further than is fitting against the literal sense of Scripture, for this cause at least, which we have brought forward, some pardon must be granted to him.

Furthermore, to take a step from the errors into which our author has fallen to other matters, it is worth observing that he relates that John returned to Ephesus from the island of Patmos, "where he might appoint bishops, where he might organize whole churches, where he might enroll into the clergy some one person from those signified by the Spirit"—that is, partly that he might constitute bishops, partly that he might arrange and form whole churches, and partly also that he might separate and appoint to the clergy anyone designated by the Holy Spirit. And indeed from this passage, which Valesius amended from three manuscripts of the best quality, it is openly gathered that our author was there discoursing on the true ordination of the sacred ministers of the Church. And this should assuredly have been noted more carefully by us, because some had rendered this passage into Latin with a thoroughly perverse interpretation. But this lapse is easily to be pardoned in those who, when they fell upon corrupted codices, tried to interpret the depraved words of the Greek text with no malicious intent, but in good faith.

After these things, our author writes that a certain young man, who later became a leader of brigands, had been commended by the evangelist John to a bishop, who took him into his house and subsequently initiated him into the sacrament of baptism. Then our author immediately continues his narrative as follows: "Thereupon the priest relaxed somewhat in [his] former care and custody, since he had settled the young man with the most perfect guardian, namely, the signaculum of Christ." But the Greek words are these: Ὡς τὸ τέλειον αὐτῷ φυλακτήριον ἐπιστήσας τὴν σφραγῖδα τοῦ Κυρίου. What these mean, there is certainly no small discord and contention among certain celebrated writers of this age. For some think that the sacrament of confirmation is signified by them, others that of baptism. But these confirm and establish their opinion ^B both because, with this word σφραγίς, most of the most ancient Fathers of the Church have referred to baptism, and also because our author, as we have seen, spoke shortly before of the same baptism. But the same word could have been added by these men in confirmation of their view, [the word] which we have already seen used a little earlier by our author himself. "If anyone after the signaculum," he says, μετὰ τὴν σφραγῖδα, "the liberation from sins," etc. But when that [word] is joined to the other term, λύτρωσις, it certainly seems to signify there the sacrament of baptism rather than confirmation. Although, therefore, the name σφραγίς, of which we shall have to speak more than once hereafter, is used by the Fathers of the Church to signify both sacraments, yet it seems more probable that it is used by our author to signify baptism in the place cited higher up.

Cariophylus, however, or Ghislerius and Combefis, observed that the monastic order is excellently commended by these words of our author: "There are not wanting some who already among the elect shine with a greater excellence than the elect, and are the more illustrious the more they withdraw themselves, as if to a port, from the storm of the world, and receive their affairs into safety; who do not wish to appear holy, and if anyone should name them so, they blush; who, indeed, hide in their very breast ineffable mysteries, and despise their own nobility being exposed to human eyes. These, forsooth, Scripture calls the light of the world and salt of the earth." But by no reasoning ^C do these words prove that a monastic order was meant, because although that might be true, we nevertheless do not think it can be concluded thence that our author is speaking there of the monastic order, or even aiming at it. For he is disputing about all poor people without any distinction, and specifically about the aged, orphans, and widows, who, while living their life among other men, surpassed all others in piety and holiness; and who, by their pious manner of living, removed themselves from the storms of the world, and sedulously hid all their duties of piety and their holy actions from others, and held it as contemptible to have them exposed to human eyes. But that all these things could have been done without the profession of the monastic life, and had very often been done by many, no one, as we opine, will ever justly or deservedly gainsay.

Moreover, by the example of Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Crates, our author makes it manifest that, before the coming of Christ to us, there were certain voluntary poor men who renounced riches and liberally bestowed them upon the needy and destitute. Nevertheless, it is not narrated in one and the same way by ancient writers concerning those three philosophers. For Laertius, indeed, handed down these things to memory concerning Anaxagoras: "He granted his entire patrimony to his τοῖς οἰκείοις, kinsmen (or relations)." Contrariwise, however, Plato says: "Having received ample fortunes from his parents, he philosophized so foolishly and unwisely that he completely squandered them through negligence." But about the same Anaxagoras and Democritus, Cicero ^D handed down these things to writing: "What then, do we think that anything was lacking to Homer for the delight and pleasure of his mind, or to any learned man? Or if things were not so, would Anaxagoras or this very Democritus have left their fields and patrimonies to have given themselves with their whole heart to this divine delight of learning and searching?" To whom they left their fields and patrimony, the orator is silent; Valerius Maximus is silent also, and among Photius, Himerius the sophist, and others. But the same Cicero explains this a little more clearly concerning Democritus with these words: "He neglected [his] patrimony, [and] left [his] fields uncultivated, seeking what else than the blessed life?" Wherefore Philo concerning both, Anaxagoras as well as Democritus: "Anaxagoras," he says, "and Democritus the Greeks celebrate, because for the love of philosophy they left their estates to be grazed by cattle." The same thing, indeed, Plutarch, and Suidas concerning Anaxagoras, and Origen and Lactantius concerning Democritus, are read to have committed to writing.

But concerning Crates, these are the very words of Plutarch, to whom Hieronymus also assents: "Crates the Theban, when no one demanded anything of him, and he owed nothing to anyone, having turned away from the very dispensation of personal property and the cares and occupations of it, abandoned a property of nineteen talents, and having taken up the cloak and wallet, he fled to philosophy and poverty." Suidas, however, [says] otherwise: "The Theban," he says, "Crates sank [his] fortunes in the sea, leaving them useful to neither cattle nor men." Whence it can be gathered that this is the very one of whom Lactantius speaks, with the name omitted, in the manner: "What of him who, having reduced [his] patrimony into money, poured it into the sea? I doubt whether he was sane or insane. 'Depart,' he said, 'into the deep, evil cravings. I will sink you, lest I myself be sunk by you.'" Moreover, Antisthenes in Laertius spoke more aptly to the mind of our author: "having sold [his] patrimony—for he was indeed a man of noble birth—when he had gathered about two hundred talents, he distributed them to the citizens." Origen brought his own suffrage to him in these words: "It is common among the Greeks from their own commentaries... that Crates, that he might philosophize more freely, bestowed [it] upon the Theban people."

^A Whether Crates' fellow-citizens, or the Theban people, or the intimates of Anaxagoras—to whom it is said each of them left their goods—were in fact needy and poor, neither the writers praised by us, nor Laertius, have stated. Moreover, our author would have departed less from their opinion if, in his text, as in the ancient edition, we read the scriptural phrase "to the poor," *ptōchois*, or "to the fatherland" *patrisin*, or rather "to the fatherland," *patridi*. But however true this reading might be, many, as is evident from what has been said, would still remain who have entirely and thoroughly disagreed with this opinion.

Furthermore, you will find many fragments of this book, where only the name of Clement is cited, in the published *Parallels* of Saint John Damascene. Many things also from the *Stromata*, but especially from the *Paedagogus* of the same Clement—to say this in passing—will occur to you as having been excerpted in exactly the same way. But we have deemed it better to send you to the published books themselves, both of John Damascene and of Clement, where you will be able to find these without great labor.

Moreover, we have proved with arguments that are not weak, as we think, that neither this book nor the previous one could ever justly and deservedly be called the eighth book of the *Stromata*. In confirmation of this opinion, one can bring forward certain words of Acacius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, which cite the witness of our Clement of Alexandria, taken from the eighth book of the *Stromata*, just as it is cited by him. We read this in a Greek codex of the Royal Library, noted as numb. 2431, in which a Greek catena on the first part of Genesis is exhibited. ^B And there, in chapter III, 21 of the same Genesis, Acacius reports what our Clement had related in the third book of the *Stromata*, page 466, concerning Cassian in these words: "Cassian believes that the skins made into tunics are bodies, concerning which we shall show later that both he, and those who share his opinion, have erred, when we shall proceed to the explanation of the origin of man, following what must be said first." Then Acacius continues immediately: "And in the eighth *Stromateus* he rejects the opinion concerning the pre-existence of souls, saying in these words: 'God created us when we did not pre-exist. For it was necessary for us to know where we were, and [that we] pre-existed, and how, and why we have come here. But if we did not pre-exist, God is the sole cause of our generation, who created us when we were not, and likewise saves us once we are born. He who says that the skins are the sensible bodies will surely also admit that the tree of life is sensible. For after the tunics it is said: *Lest he take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever* (Gen. III, 22).'" And in the eighth book of the *Stromata* he rejects the opinion of those who claimed that souls existed before bodies, saying in these words: "God made us when we did not previously exist. For it was necessary to know also where we were, and that we pre-existed, and how, and for what cause we have come hither. But if we did not exist before, God alone is the author of our origin; inasmuch as He made us when we were not yet existing, and preserves us thus made. ^C But whoever says that the pelts are bodies endowed with sense, he will entirely have to admit that the tree of life is also endowed with sense. For after these tunics it was said: *Lest he take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.*"

Thus, as you see, Acacius transcribed two fragments of the *Stromata* of Clement of Alexandria, of which the first is said to have been taken from the third, and the latter from the eighth of his books. But from both of those fragments it can not absurdly be gathered that the eighth book of the *Stromata* promised by the same Clement had indeed been published by him, where he had promised to refute the errors of those heretics, as he had promised in book IV, page 510. However, because the cited eighth book of Clement and the work of Acacius have perished long ago, for that reason we do not dare to define with certainty whether in that catena of the Fathers, and in the works of Acacius himself, it was truly inscribed under the title of that eighth book of the *Stromata*, or whether someone erred in copying this title. And indeed, Clement promised other books about the soul, as will be said in the third article of the following chapter, where the words brought forth by Acacius could have similarly been written. ^D If, however, anyone can prove that Clement, having thereafter changed his plan, discussed in the eighth book of the *Stromata* those things which he had decided to treat in the books on the soul, and consequently that he is correctly cited by Acacius, we shall not at all oppose this.

Furthermore, in the possession of the learned and religious Father Michael Lequien of the Order of Saint Dominic, who has long been joined to us by friendship, there are certain Greek codices of the *Parallels* of Saint John Damascene, different from the published ones, where these things are read in chapter 18: "From the 8th *Stromata*: 'Charity rules the willing, but fear rules the unwilling; this latter is evil. But He who guides us toward the good leads us to Christ, and is salutary.'" Elsewhere, however, chapter 12: "Of the same, from the 8th *Stromata*: 'Let us fear not the disease from without, but our sins, on account of which is the disease; and let us fear the disease of the soul, not of the body.'" Then truly: "Of the same: Let it be settled by law against those who, when they ought to look upon venerable and divine things in a venerable and divine manner, [do not], that they bear the penalty of invisibility." In that place, however, without doubt the negation *ou* before *semnōs* has been omitted.

But the first fragment is found in the same number of words in the second part, § 26, of the *Opusculum* which, after all the books of the *Stromata*, has been published in the Greek-Latin editions of the works of the Clementines in Greek characters only, and then translated into Latin by Combefis in his *Auctarium* of the Greek Fathers. There, however, Combefis rendered those Greek words into Latin on page 201 as follows: "Charity commands those who are spontaneous; but to those who obey unwillingly, this fear is evil; but that which is for a beginning toward the good, leads to Christ, and exists as salutary." If, therefore, these words were indeed excerpted from this *Opusculum* by John Damascene, what else can be concluded from it, except that he, as will be demonstrated below in chapter 3, article 2, deceived by the false title of his codices, thought that this was the eighth book of the *Stromata* of our Clement of Alexandria? Furthermore, other fragments from the same *Opusculum*, which we will show to be imperfect and mutilated, could also have been missing. The same perhaps should be said concerning another fragment, which in the same codices of the *Parallels* of John Damascene, letter λ, chapter 1, occurs in a corrupt state, and is noted as having been delibated also from the eighth book of the *Stromata* of Clement. But because there are many errors of copyists of amanuenses in this fragment, perhaps someone will not absurdly suspect that they similarly erred in describing the name of the author or the book from which it had been taken. But we eagerly await that these things may be more clearly explained by the learned Father M. Lequien in the new edition of all the works of Saint John Damascene which he is preparing.

CAPUT III. Concerning the small work which, in the edition of the works of Clement of Alexandria published in Greek and Latin, has been printed with Greek type only.

ARTICLE I. Analysis of this Greek small work.

In the Greek and Latin editions of our Clement of Alexandria, after the eight works which we have discussed thus far, there has been appended a small work printed only in Greek and divided into two parts. The first is inscribed with this title: *Excerpts from Theodotus and the so-called Oriental teaching, around the time of Valentinus*. The second part of this small work, titled *Selections from the Prophetic Scriptures*, begins with those words which the author testifies were uttered by the three youths in the burning fiery furnace to bless God. He teaches that these words—"Blessed are you who look upon the abysses"—were spoken by the same Daniel in the same sense as these words by Enoch: "And I saw all things." Continuing with the first words of Genesis, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," he attempts to show by a certain testimony of the prophet Hosea that heavenly and earthly things are signified, and that the Son of God is the *archē*, or beginning. Further on, having cited other words of the same prophet and the subsequent words of Genesis, "The Spirit was borne over the abyss," he discourses at length on baptism.

In this first part of this small work, various passages of the Old and New Testaments are accumulated without any order and without coherence or connection, and they are generally not explained with correct and sound interpretations. For what, pray, is more alien and repugnant to the right and true sense of Holy Scripture than that which the author of this commentary handed down at its very beginning? For after having brought forward these words of Christ, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (in the text of Luke, "I entrust"), he immediately adds that the Savior commended his wisdom to his Father, both so that He might receive it and so that those from whom it could sometimes be taken away might not retain it. No one can fail to see how absurd and false this is. That author scatters and disseminates many other things here and there that are no less inept, ridiculous, and absurd. For he openly teaches that there are certain "spiritual bodies" belonging to demons, angels, and souls of a corporeal nature, and that the angels themselves were stained and cleansed by baptism. But to list individually the remaining errors, dreams, and ravings heaped together in this writing is as superfluous as it is to represent everything the author recounts ^A regarding the errors of Basilides and other heretics, and especially the Valentinians—about which we have already spoken sufficiently—such that he very often did not care to refute them.

^B Regarding these matters, Combefis informed us that he was long and deeply hesitant as to whether he should render this work into Latin, as we have said, or leave it in Greek only. Wherefore, having sought counsel from learned men and some prelates of the Church, he judged it better to leave such absurd ravings in Greek for those learned in Greek, than to set them before the eyes of everyone in the Latin tongue. For these things, if translated into Latin, could have offered very little utility or benefit, but a great deal of damage and detriment to many. Who, therefore, will deservedly demand that all the things which occur in this writing be explained by us accurately and in the wonted manner, just like the other things contained in the ^C lucubrations of the ancient Fathers of the Church, when so many men excelling in doctrine and ecclesiastical dignity have judged that they should be left only to those who are skilled in the Greek language? Let us now, therefore, come to the other part of this commentary, which Combefis thought should be presented to all in the Latin idiom.

Then, without any transition, he writes that goodness is commingled by God with fear when He permits the faithful to be vexed by certain evils. For this reason the elders, as he himself says, grieved vehemently unless they suffered daily some evil by which their sins might be expiated. For sins, indeed, ought to be feared more than the disease, ^D of which they are the cause. And certainly we hope for heavenly goods, and also for the paternal inheritance, the pledge of which we have already received. For the things of heaven, the Lord has shown the way, where He commands that, having cast aside the cares of earthly things, the kingdom of God should be sought first, and that our mind should be filled by God Himself. Moreover, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three, by whose witness and aid it is necessary that the commandments be perfectly observed.

The author then explains there what fasting mystically signifies, and what its effects are. He shows, however, that prayer is of greater virtue than faith, even if he who believes obtains the remission of sins. But God, by whose nod all things are done, sends prophets and apostles for the salvation of men, and through men He has begotten us, and instructed us, and bestows benefits. In addition to these things, He created us before we were, and subsequently saves us by His grace, if we are worthy. Furthermore, He is the one God who changes storms, times, fruits, and elements, and defines the beginning and end for each.

He, however, who from faith and fear arrives at knowledge (*gnōsis*), is now not a slave, but a son, who, freed from fear and advanced to charity, abstains from forbidden things and obeys the commandments. But Christ redeems with His precious blood and restores to liberty the sons, co-heirs, and friends, for whom the Father is in heaven. For charity governs them, just as for those who obey Him unwillingly, fear is an evil. Moreover, no one loves God according to the dignity which the author demonstrates to be supreme and infinite.

Although the soul, he continues, is moved by itself, yet that motion arises for it from the grace of God, who wills that what He grants to it as a good should be its own. And so God gave the soul the capacity to love, so that it might both be reminded of its duty, and that it, freely willing and choosing, might grasp and hold it. But Christ once, through the prophets and by assuming human flesh, spoke to us through Himself,

' ^A and healed the sick; but now he performs this through the apostles and teachers. For he was made man in order that he might obey the Father's will and look to the salvation of men. And indeed, by abolishing our sins, he blotted out the image of the earthly and old man, and imprinted that of the heavenly and new.

Subsequently, our author clearly shows how these words of John the Baptist are to be understood: "He that comes after me is mightier than I, whose fan is in his hand... but the chaff he will burn with fire," and also in what sense God is called by Moses "a consuming fire." And there he observes that among Heracleon and certain others, it was held that the ears of those cleansed by baptism were sealed with fire. But he refutes the opinion of others who, in these words of Christ: "I came to cast fire upon the earth," thought it signified a virtue which indeed purges the holy, but immerses and destroys the earthly.

Moreover, he offers reasons ^B why the elders did not hand down in writing the sacred doctrine which they preached, nor compose books about it. He reproves the Gnostics, who were more envious toward those within than those without, and he shows that knowledge and an understanding of sacred dogmas are both useful and necessary for all. But furthermore, he says, those in charge and those presiding have need of long experience and erudition, so that they may have all things examined, may turn disciples away from the errors of heretics, and may teach them how they might be able to impugn and defeat them. Furthermore, the integrity of life, as he says, and the innocence of character are placed beyond the risk of envy, hatred, and calumny.

Blessed, truly, is the old age of him who, by living, is rendered worthy of eternal life, and is troublesome to no one except a wicked man, but henceforth converses with that which is most excellent.

After these things, he relates ^C that Pythagoras thought that he who gave names to things was the most ancient of wise men. Wherefore, he who searches the sacred Scripture ought to elicit the hidden meaning from its words and names; having recognized the truth, however, he strives to arrive at the likeness of God. But whoever is clean and pure will attain to the divine doctrine and virtue.

Our author continues that the mysteries of knowledge are commonly mocked; to few, however, will they at first cause astonishment, but afterwards, having become accustomed to them and having driven away the darkness of ignorance, they will joyfully look upon the light of truth. There, however, he explains in what way truth is to be investigated. But Gnostic virtue, he says, that "Gnostic knowledge," renders a man adorned at once with contemplation and action, who, exercised in temperance and justice, and having meditated in the flesh the function of an angelic office, sacrifices his soul while in the body.

^D Thereupon, he immediately teaches how one must respond to Tatian, who had dreamed that these words of Genesis, "Let there be light," were those of one wishing. He adds, indeed, that this heresiarch said that women, on account of their hair and finery, are punished by the power set over these things. Moreover, he shows there that God's judgments are various. He makes us aware in a certain scripture, doubtless apocryphal, that it is asserted that discarded and aborted infants are handed over to a guardian and tutor angel to be nurtured and educated; and he introduces there certain words taken from the Apocalypse of Peter.

Afterward, he briefly interprets certain verses of the seventeenth psalm, namely 26, 45, and 51. He says, however, that the endurance of evils is good on account of the fruit thereof. But one who is continent is not, in that very moment, immune to these passions. But when the habit has been added, he is no longer merely continent, for he has attained it, so as to be in one condition and in the Holy Spirit. Moreover, passions are called such by the suggestion and motion of the spirit. But reason does not command that we depart from the creature, but that we use it well and without the depravity of passions.

Dehinc ^A he next relates what Peter in the Apocalypse determined concerning aborted infants—to whom a better lot falls—and concerning their future salvation. He also explains to us what he means when, in the same book, he wrote that from milk, flowing from the breasts of women and congealed, tiny but flesh-eating beasts are produced. Finally, he makes plain what a certain elder taught concerning the manner in which the soul of a man is infused by an angel who is in charge of human generation, and how it comes to pass that the fetus is an animal in its mother's womb.

Then the author immediately enters upon an exposition of the eighteenth psalm, and shows which are the heavens that declare the glory of God, what is the firmament by which the work of His hands is announced, what day pours forth speech to day, and what night shows knowledge to night. But he adds two things there. And first, indeed, that the devil, who knew that the Lord was to come, and the demons, who thought that Solomon was the Lord before he sinned, did not recognize Christ's divinity until He had risen from the dead. Then he warns us that it was commanded to men by Enoch, in writing, that they had learned from the transgressor angels not only astronomy and divination, but other arts as well.

He continues ^B and, in explaining the fourth verse of the same psalm, observes that stars are spiritual bodies, to which the administration of things is common with the perfect angels, in such a way, however, that they are not the cause of them, but are only signs.

In this following verse, however: "In the sun he has set his tabernacle," he wants there to be a hyperbaton, so that it must be transposed after the following verses. There, however, he says that Hermogenes opined that the Savior had placed His body in the sun. But then, with the testimony of Pantaenus interposed, he brings forward another interpretation of the same words, but an obscure one, and not entirely sound. And he himself adds a third interpretation of his own, but one no more true or catholic than the second.

After these things, he briefly discusses other verses of the same psalm, namely the eighth, tenth, twelfth, and fourteenth, having passed over the three intermediate ones. But the rest which he had pursued are entirely missing in the published copies, nor could they be restored or patched up from elsewhere.

^C ARTICULUS II. Concerning the author of this epitome and these excerpts.

From the analysis of this work, and from the title of both of its parts, it is manifest, and ought to be posited beyond controversy, that it was compiled from various opinions, which were not arranged in any order at all, nor were they connected or coherent with one another. Whence, however, and from whose lucubrations the writer of this epitome culled all these things, is argued among the learned men of our age. For some think that Theodotus, whose name is read prefixed to the first part of this writing, was one of the teachers of our Clement of Alexandria, whom he testifies at the beginning of the Stromata to have originated from Palestine, and that Clement himself composed this work from his doctrine, which he therefore called the *Oriental Teaching*. But the conjecture of these authors is truly very light and of minimal importance. For they have not proven it by any argument or reason up to now, nor will they ever be able to prove it. For it does not escape us that Theodotus is not once in ^D

the first part of this work cited, but from that it is not at all certainly concluded that he was not the instructor of Clement of Alexandria. ^A For in that place, he is first argued to have fallen into the error of those heretics who chattered that God the Father had suffered. Then he is still called by our author a supporter and patron of the fictitious and ridiculous Pleroma of the Aeons, which we saw above (book 2, dissert. 2, ch. 4, § 1) was erroneously devised by Valentinus and his followers and preposterously peddled. But Clement of Alexandria, in the very books of the *Stromata* where he is praised, asserts firmly, as we have shown, that the sacred and orthodox dogmas of our religion were maintained and defended by all the instructors whom he mentions. Therefore, this Theodotus, a supporter and assertor of so many errors, could not have been one of those whom Clement called his masters.

Others, therefore, think this epitome was either excerpted from the books of the *Hypotyposes* published by our Clement, or that it exhibits and comprises the fragments of the books of several. Their author, he says, ^B "If he seems to think correctly in some things, in others he discourses again in an altogether impious and fabulous manner." And lest anyone should claim that was said by him without cause, after he reported many errors disseminated in the same books, he signifies that he has omitted many others, which are far more numerous and almost infinite. From these books, therefore, they think that all those found in this epitome were gleaned.

To this is added that the author of this epitome, when in its second part he presents the exposition of certain verses of the eighteenth psalm handed down by Pantaenus, he is called by him in these words: Ὁ Πάνταινος ἡμῶν, "Pantaenus our own." But Clement, according to Eusebius, in his *Hypotyposes* books, calls Pantaenus his master (Greek: διδασκάλου τοῦ Πανταίνου) by name, explaining whatever he had received from his predecessors and the traditions which he had left to his descendants. Who then would not easily allow himself to be persuaded that that interpretation of Pantaenus brought into this epitome, which we note, was sipped from the very same *Hypotyposis* books? Finally, John of Damascus reported a certain testimony in the name of Clement of Alexandria, which is truly found in these *Selections*.

But others, not in the least defeated by these arguments, will deny their support to this opinion because of the various 347 errors which the same Photius represents as coming from the *Hypotyposes* books, almost none of which are found in this epitome. On the contrary, as we have said, many errors, ravings, and fabrications of the heretics, and especially of the Valentinians, occur in it, which Photius does not say he found in the *Hypotyposes* books, but which are refuted and fundamentally destroyed in the genuine works of our Clement, as was observed by us in the previous dissertation. ^C Then, by the author of these excerpts, Pantaenus is not called his master, but Πάνταινος ἡμῶν, "Pantaenus our own," that is, either a defender of the same doctrine as him, or one born from the same people and from the same nation.

Lastly, the passage cited by John of Damascus proves nothing other than that in the manuscript codex of these *Selections* which he used, the name of Clement is inscribed: but that this inscription is true, it will not be possible to demonstrate by any reason to those who have learned from almost infinite examples that it was often the bad habit and utterly intolerable impudence of library copyists, by which, in order to gain greater authority for the works they had transcribed, they would prefix the name of a most ancient or most learned writer to the front of them.

Therefore, anyone can more easily convince us that both parts of this small work, which they concede to be by one and the same author, were not compiled from the *Hypotyposes* of Clement of Alexandria, nor from his other books. For in no way can this be concluded from the title of this work or from its text. Rather, ^D arguments of a certain old man are proposed there which are altogether absurd and ridiculous, by which he wished to prove that what is carried in the mother's womb is an animal. But we observed above that this question is proposed in those books as an example by our Clement, which ought never to be moved by Christians.

We shall therefore not reluctantly subscribe to the opinion of those who have proven that this dissertation proceeded from some writer, one of the heretics, and of certain Valentinians in particular, rather than from the Catholic side. And certainly, if the title prefixed to this small work is true, as it appears to be, and sincere, there was no need for such contention in seeking its author. For from it, one can indeed not undeservedly conclude that the whole of that same small work was sipped from the doctrine of Theodotus and the Oriental heretics, who were undoubtedly heretics. But who that Theodotus was is surely difficult to say. Some, however, think he was a Byzantine by origin and a tanner by trade, who later denied that Christ was God, whom he had denied before tyrants, as we shall say elsewhere. To others, indeed, this seems to be the Theodotus whom Eusebius mentions as the first of the pseudo-prophets of Montanus and Priscilla, whom he holds as a sort of procurator and one blown by the same insane spirit. But if Theodotus is called the same in the title of this epitome as in its text, he is certainly different from the others, and perhaps with no less right he can be called a follower of the Valentinian heresy. Be that as it may, these writings are certainly not of such moment, nor is their author of such authority, that we should consume greater effort in inquiring into his name.

ARTICLE III.

Since the second part of this small work seemed worthy to Combesis and others to be rendered into Latin, it must be demonstrated in a few words what ought principally to be noted in it. We shall therefore first observe the title prefixed to it: "Selections from the Prophetic Scriptures," which seems to have proceeded not from its author, but rather from some idle copyist. For from the very analysis of it presented by us, it will be possible for no one to be unaware that many things are discussed in it which are far from being selections from the Prophets' *Scriptures*. For we have noted many things there sipped from certain apocryphal books; and more things are brought forth by its author which either oppose the sacred oracles of the prophets or were not taken from their books. Which indeed will become even clearer from what is to be said shortly. Next, it must be noted that the book of Enoch is cited twice in this writing, and in the second place these things are brought forth from it: "Now, however, Enoch also says that the transgressing angels taught men astronomy and divination and the remaining arts." But we have seen in the genuine works of our Clement, namely in the fifth book of the *Stromata*, that it was expressly handed down that the transgressing angels disclosed many secrets, not indeed to men, but by name to women, and whatever came into their knowledge. I would therefore like you to skillfully weigh whether that Cle-

[The beginning, as provided by the context of the requested output, is the first page of the chapter:]

[LATIN COLUMN]

drawn from the same apocryphal book of Enoch. The Apocalypse attributed to Peter is also read, cited in three places, and in the former part it is asserted not only that there will be salvation and happiness for infants who are aborted and handed over to the instruction of angels, but also a ridiculous opinion is offered concerning certain carnivorous tiny beasts, produced from milk flowing from the breasts of mothers. ^A In the second, the Savior is called both law and Word. Now, it has already been noted by us that the same and final passage of this apocryphal book is cited by Clement of Alexandria. There, too, we observe some things concerning the false Apocalypse of Peter.

In a certain marginal note, Combefis observes that a singular and clearly false opinion is attributed by the author of these excerpts to Pantaenus, whom he calls his teacher, which is not greatly different from the error of Hermogenes regarding the body of Christ being placed in the sun. But nothing else appears to have been culled from Pantaenus there, except the rule established by him that the present is more frequently used for the future in the sacred Scriptures, and the future for the present. By this rule established by him, our author interprets these words: *He hath set his tabernacle in the sun* (Ps. XVIII, 6), in a truly singular and false explanation. Furthermore, we have discussed the errors of Hermogenes above in book II, dissert. 2, chap. 8, art. 1.

Indeed, another opinion of Tatian is rejected by our author, by which he wrongly contended that those words of Genesis: *Let there be light*, were the words of one wishing. But from that, it can be confirmed—what we noted above in book II, chap. 6, art. 2—that this Tatian, no differently than Marcion, falsely taught that there were two gods. Truly, if our author refuted this error of Tatian, he certainly did not refute the other opinion which he constantly attributes to him regarding hair and the world, ^B undoubtedly feminine, that women are punished by virtue for these things.

Furthermore, we have more than once made mention of Heracleon, who, as our author reports, would mark with fire the ears of those who were being initiated by baptism. See above Lib. II, dissert. 2, chap. 4, art. 3, § 3, and dissert. 2, chap. 43, art. 2 of this book.

Shortly after citing the words of Christ: *I am come to send fire on the earth* (Luc. XII, 49), our author added these words: "Namely, the virtue which might cleanse the holy, but might—as some say—submerge and destroy the earthly (in Greek δύναμιν ὑλικῶν ἀφανιστικήν, a power exterminating the earthly, or rather, the material)." But Combefis noted in the margin that this is a Gnostic error regarding the abolition of the body. But that certainly had to be proven by some reason, or it had to be designated who those Gnostics were. For are not other heretics rather designated by these words—whether Valentinians, or Montanists, or others who called themselves spiritual and the Catholics *psychikous* (fleshly)? ^C And were they not boasting that they were of a nature such as to be animal and even carnal and material? Nor shall we disagree with those who have demonstrated that the Valentinians are denoted by our author. For from them, not only three genera of men were constituted, as we have seen—namely one spiritual, the second animal, and the third material—but they also said that certain souls were by their nature evil and not capable of receiving the seed.

Furthermore, the author mentions certain Gnostics, undoubtedly different from those mentioned above, even though our author shortly after rebukes them by name; yet he himself had said before: "He who has believed has obtained the remission of sins from the Lord: *ὁ δὲ ἐν γνώσει γενόμενος, ἅτε μηκέτι ἁμαρτάνων, παρ' ἑαυτοῦ τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν λοιπῶν κομίζεται* (He, however, who has come into knowledge, since he no longer sins, obtains from himself the remission of the rest)." Combefis, for the sake of explanation, added in the margin: "As if by earning, by which grace he has been justified." But we see nothing in that text of our author which leads us to this explanation. Wherefore it will perhaps seem more likely that he there struck at the error of certain pseudo-Gnostics who, professing spiritual life, boasted that they had at some point reached that state in which they could no longer sin.

Many others, whether from various apocryphal books, as we have seen, or without any cited author, our writer simply puts forward false opinions, and especially concerning the stars and angels, which he does not care to refute, nor to reveal what must be avoided in them, or at least to point it out. Nevertheless, some things healthy, correct, and orthodox appear in this epitome. For, to pass over other things which are sufficiently understood from his analysis, that is indeed true and orthodox, and often handed down and asserted by the ancient Fathers, which he set forth in these words: ^D "Our Savior was baptized, though he himself did not need it, so that he might sanctify all waters for those who were to be regenerated." But just as it is the duty of a good writer to write what is correct and healthy, so it ought to be his office and duty, if he is compelled to propose anything false and absurd, either to refute what is harmful in them, or at least to brand them with some note so that the unwary might not be deceived. But by what necessity our author was compelled to hand down such absurd and ridiculous figments of opinions, whether from himself or from the lucubrations of another writer, we will confess to be entirely unknown to us.

Finally, we will observe that this treatise is not perfect, and that there are still many gaps in it, and places truncated and mutilated, and finally that many things are wanting at its end, which either perished through the injury of time, or were subtracted and torn away from the manuscript codices.

CAPUT IV.

- ARTICULUS I. Analysis of these Adumbrations.

These Adumbrations were written on the first Epistle of Peter the Apostle, and Jude, and the first and second Epistles of John. But they are not continuous and uninterrupted commentaries on those entire Epistles, but rather brief narrations only on certain of their verses, or only on a part of those same verses, and often they exhibit only little notes and observations. Furthermore, the author begins from the first Epistle of Peter, but only from the third verse of its first chapter. Thence...

he proceeds to the fifth, and then to the ninth, tenth, twelfth, fourteenth, twenty-third, and twenty-fifth, omitting all others. From the second chapter, he explains no verses other than the ninth and the twenty-third; just as from the third chapter he interprets only certain parts of the fifteenth, eighteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, and twenty-second verses. Similarly, in the following fourth chapter, he makes certain observations on the tenth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and seventeenth verses. But from the fifth chapter, he touched upon nothing except a portion of the tenth and fourteenth verses.

He begins his exposition of the Epistle of Jude from its starting point—because Jude in the beginning does not call himself the brother of the Lord, but a servant. Having explained this, he comes immediately to the fifth verse, and others following it, up to the fourteenth verse, on which he presents only brief, and sometimes very minimal, observations. Hence he skips to the nineteenth verse, and afterward transcribed the twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, and twenty-third, omitting certain words, and notes nothing on them except for a few words of the twenty-third. Then, indeed, he explains the twenty-fourth somewhat more fully: and finally makes it manifest why Christ, near to death, answered the chief priest, who was questioning Him, that He was truly the Son of God.

In a plainly similar way, the first Epistle of John is expounded by our author. For first he reveals how beautifully the beginning of this Epistle agrees and corresponds with the beginning of the Gospel according to John. Then, indeed, he narrates the second verse of the same chapter, the fifth, the second part of the seventh, and finally the tenth. From the second chapter, he discusses the second part of the first verse, and after these the third, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and this word of the twelfth, "little children." Afterward, however, he explains the thirteenth, as well as the sixteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth, twenty-second, twenty-third, and the second part of the twenty-ninth. From the third chapter, he interprets the other part of the first verse, and immediately the second, eighth, ninth, tenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, and lastly the twentieth. For he records the words of the following verse, but observes nothing in it. Furthermore, he expounds two, and no more, verses of the fourth chapter, namely the second and the eighteenth. He then takes a step toward the explanation of certain verses of the fifth chapter, namely the second part of the sixth and seventh verses; and after these, the explanation of the fourteenth verse, and of another portion of the nineteenth and twentieth verses.

Lastly, our author briefly proposes to us the argument of the second Epistle of the same John, which he opines was written to virgins, no less than to Babylon, which had the name Electa. From that whole Epistle, however, he alone explains the tenth verse, with all others being entirely omitted.

ARTICLE II. On the editions, author, and title of these Adumbrations.

Those Adumbrations, or rather very brief notes and observations, were published in print not only in the Parisian and our Lyonese Library of the Fathers, but also at Oxford in the year 1683, and at Leipzig in the year 1700, after the treatise "Who is the rich man that shall be saved?" of which we spoke above, they were made public. Those, moreover, who were in charge of those editions inscribed the name of Clement of Alexandria upon this little work. ^A They strive to prove that this inscription is true, and that these Adumbrations were written by Clement of Alexandria, by the authority of Cassiodorus, and these words of his: "In the canonical Epistles, Clement, an Alexandrian presbyter, who is also called Stromateus—that is, in the first Epistle of St. Peter, the first and second of St. John, and of James—has explained certain things in the Attic style. Wherein he spoke many things subtly, but some things incautiously: which we have arranged to be translated into Latin in such a way that, with certain stumbling blocks removed, his purified doctrine might be more safely imbibed." Now, they deduce that the Adumbrations of which we are disputing are these very ones which Cassiodorus commemorates; because he openly testifies that in those which proceeded from Clement of Alexandria, the entire Epistles of these apostles were not exposed, but from them certain things were explained in the Attic style, from which he himself deliberately excised some things said incautiously. But from the analysis of these Adumbrations—of which we are treating—presented by us, it is evident that very many places of these four apostolic Epistles were entirely omitted in the same Adumbrations without any note or explanation.

The Bishop of Oxford, however, thinks that they are a part of the *Hypotyposes* of Clement, and that Cassiodorus, who calls Clement "Stromateus," translated the Greek word, *hypotyposes*, into Latin as *adumbrationes*. In confirmation of this conjecture, these words of Eusebius concerning the same Clement may perhaps be brought forward: "In the books of the *Hypotyposes*, to speak in one word, he composed a compendious narration of the Scriptures of both Testaments, not even omitting those Scriptures which are disputed among many: I refer to the Epistle of Jude, and those of Barnabas, and the remaining Catholic Epistles." What else, you will say, do these Adumbrations contain, except a compendious narration, as we have said, of those Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude, which Eusebius testifies were thus exposed by Clement? What indeed of the fact that this can still be bolstered by the authority of Photius, who, although somewhat more obscurely, nevertheless wrote to the same sense: "The *Hypotyposes* indeed contain a discussion of some places of the Old and New Testament, which he also summarizes and interprets"?

But these conjectures will seem to many little probable, and without doubt very weak. For since the books of the *Hypotyposes* have been lost for many centuries, by what means, I ask, will anyone ever be able to prove that those Adumbrations about which we are disputing were collected from those *Hypotyposes* books? Moreover, Cassiodorus, who had seen these Adumbrations written in Greek, and had ordered them to be translated into the Latin tongue, speaks of them as a certain distinct work of Clement, separate from the books of the *Hypotyposes*.

It is not less uncertain, furthermore, whether Cassiodorus, in the place cited by us, made mention of these Adumbrations of the Epistles of Peter, Jude, and John. For, in the first place, he makes mention of an Epistle given by James, but not by Jude. Nor should you say that by the accustomed negligence of library scribes the name of James was substituted for Jude in the text of Cassiodorus. For this can be proved by no authority of codices or editors or manuscripts, nor by any other reason. ^B Secondly, Cassiodorus warns us that he had removed from those commentaries of Clement of Alexandria on the three apostolic Epistles which he had at hand the stumbling blocks of errors, so that his sound and right doctrine could be more safely imbibed. Yet in these Adumbrations, which are the subject of the question, some errors still remain, which ^{C D}

Cassiodorus should have pruned away no less than other things. Indeed, that this will be manifest to everyone from those things which are to be said in the following article.

Since, therefore, it has not been proved by any sufficiently valid reason hitherto that these adumbrations were either excerpted from the works of Clement of Alexandria, or composed separately by him, we shall more easily agree with those who demonstrate that they proceeded from a writer not entirely orthodox, but rather one addicted to the parties of the heretics.

It can be proved by arguments of somewhat greater weight that the inscription of "Adumbrations" was prefixed to this work. For Labbeus testifies ^A that he saw these little commentaries "written by hand on the membranes of an ancient codex, which was once of the monastery of St. Mary of Mount Dei, where they are inscribed as Adumbrations." Nor is there any place for doubting that in the manuscript codex, from which they were published in the Latin press, they were marked with this same title, by which they are also praised by Faber Stapulensis.

Furthermore, if anyone asks us why that little work was called by that name, we shall reply that it was so inscribed because it does not present complete and in all respects perfect commentaries on the Epistles of Peter, Jude, and John, but only light ones, as is clear from what has been said, exhibiting and representing their images and likenesses. And that is certainly not poorly signified by the name "adumbration."

350 ARTICLE III. New notes and observations on these adumbrations, or little commentaries.

Although this little work is very short, we do not think it has reached us entirely whole and uncorrupted. For instance, to this first verse of the first chapter of the second part of the first Epistle of John: "And if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ," ^B these things are written: "For just as there is an advocate for us before the Father, even so is there the advocate whom he deigned to send after his assumption. [For these primary virtues, and the first-created, existing immovable according to substance, effectively produce diverse operations along with the subject angels and archangels, with whom they are equivocally called. Thus also Moses calls the virtue of Michael the angel by the angel nearest to him and the lowest. Likewise we also find in the holy prophets, but to Moses indeed a near and neighboring angel appeared. He heard him, and Moses spoke to him manifestly face to face. But to other prophets, according to the operation of the angels, a certain movement happened, just as of those hearing and seeing. Therefore they alone heard, and they alone perceived, just as is manifested in Samuel. Elisha also alone heard the voice by which he was called. If, however, it were a manifest and common voice, it would be heard by all present: now, however, it was heard only by him in whom the movement, which was made by the angel, was operating.]," but this entire fragment, which is not small, enclosed in brackets, has absolutely no connection or affinity with what precedes and follows, nor with the words of the Apostle John himself, which are being explained. And so it was perhaps added by some idle writer, or moved from its place by the negligence and drowsiness of the scribes. ^C For it seems to look rather to those things which our author had said before regarding the third chapter, verse 22, of the first Epistle of Peter, in this manner: "To the angels subject to him, who are the first order: and to the subject powers, which are of the second order: and also to the subject virtues, which are declared to belong to the third order."

Whatever opinion, however, is asserted about the addition of this fragment to our author, it is asserted that the higher angels act in human affairs through other inferior ones, and speak with men. For in the Epistle of Jude, verse 9, he observed this: "But Michael is called here, who was disputing with the devil through a near angel." But if we pass from the good angels to the bad and prevaricating ones, he affirmed without hesitation, a little above, in the sixth verse of the same Epistle, that these apostate angels "had been thrust down into a place near the earth, that is, into the dark air." Yet Petavius, in *Theological Dogmas*, vol. II, book III, chapter 4, shows that this was the opinion of the ancient Fathers of the Church. But he could have added our author to these writers.

We must further note that our author does not entirely adhere to the Vulgate version of the Catholic Epistles. However, he follows it so often that it can hardly be called into doubt by anyone that it was read by him, or—if he was a Greek—by his interpreter, and was in use for this purpose. Sometimes, however, but rarely, he departs a little bit as much from it as from the Greek text of those same epistles. But whether it can be collected from this that those words, which differ from the Vulgate version and the Greek text, were merely rendered from memory, we prefer to hear others rather than to assert anything.

We must note, moreover, why and how our author judged the Gospel to have been written by Mark. For he pronounces thus on this matter ^D: "Mark, the follower of Peter, with Peter publicly preaching the Gospel in Rome before certain Caesar-courtiers and bringing forward many testimonies of Christ, requested by them, so that they might be able to commit to memory what was being said, wrote from those things which were spoken by Peter, the Gospel which is called 'according to Mark'." For who, I ask, besides this author, said that Mark wrote his Gospel because he had been requested by certain Caesar-courtiers who had heard Peter preaching? And certainly Clement of Alexandria, to pass over others, felt far otherwise. For in the books of his *Hypotyposes*, as we have seen elsewhere from Eusebius, Mark is said to have composed the Gospel after many, who had heard Peter preaching, had exhorted him to write it. But there, nothing occurs about Caesar-courtiers, and much less about "certain" ones; but we read of "many" indefinitely, in Greek πολλους. Whether it can be inferred from this that these adumbrations are wrongly ascribed to our Clement of Alexandria, we do not dare to assert with complete confidence. For it can be that he, in his lost books, sometimes reported various and even contrary opinions on the same matter.

Yet our author came closer to the opinion of the same Clement in the words which are immediately added by him: "Just as Luke also, having executed the Acts of the Apostles in his style, recognized, and translated the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews." But he had already previously judged the same Epistle to the Hebrews, whose first words he cited, to Paul. But by the authority of Eusebius, already cited by us in Dissertation 2, chapter 4, article 2, we have shown that the opinion of Clement was entirely the same both concerning the Acts of the Apostles and concerning this Epistle to the Hebrews.

But the same author of ours dissents from others when he discusses those to whom the second Epistle of John was given, as follows: "The second Epistle of John, which was written to the virgins, is most simple. It was written, however, to a certain Babylonian, by name Electa." And indeed this Epistle is directed to Electa, and to the

^A children of her, that is, her sons. But could that Epistle ever have been given to virgins unless Electa’s children were truly virgins? To whom, however, I ask, has this been proven up to now?

Furthermore, among those who have considered the writer of this little work to be Clement of Alexandria, or some other person older than the Nicene Council, it has been, in the first place, worthy of great attention that he asserts and preaches not once concerning the supreme divinity of the Son of God, Christ the Lord. For he defends and upholds it with such evidence and clarity that nothing clearer could seem to be desired by anyone. For he concludes his own exposition of the Epistle given by Jude in this way: "In the Gospel according to Mark, the Lord, being asked by the chief priest if he himself were Christ the Son of the Blessed God, answering said: 'I am; and you shall see 351 the Son of Man'..... But in other Gospels it is said that, to the chief priest asking if he himself were the Son of God, he did not answer to the contrary. But what did he say? 'You say it'; answering well enough. For if he were to say: 'As you understand, he would indeed lie, not confessing himself to be the Son of God; for they did not understand it that way concerning him. But by saying: 'You say it,' he spoke truly. For he confessed that to be true, which they were saying in words, although they did not understand." Thus, this is the reasoning of our author. Christ would have lied if, being asked by the chief priest whether he was the Son of God, he had answered what that chief priest understood by this interrogation. For he did not believe him to be God, but only a man. Wherefore Christ answered: "You say it"; and thus he spoke truly. For by these words he confessed that he was not only a man, as they assumed, but was the true Son of God, just as they themselves were saying. Why, however, I ask you, has our author argued in this way, unless because he was completely persuaded that Christ is true God, just as the Father is?

Observe, I beg you, whether our author has spoken only from memory when he said that it was written in the other Gospels: "You say it." For that occurs only in the Gospel of Luke, where it is narrated that Christ answered thus not only to the chief priest, as our author says, but to the elders of the people, the chief priests, and the scribes. But these things are by the way.

But how, someone will argue, can the Son be said always to have been without a beginning, who is begotten by the eternal Father, and therefore had a beginning? But we shall answer this by saying that the Son of God is said to be without beginning, or without source, because, since he was begotten from the Father from all eternity, he had no beginning in time; since no point of time can be assigned at which he, when he had not existed before, began to be and to exist. In the very same sense, the most learned and most ancient Fathers of the Church, who spoke after the Nicene Council, said without doubt that the Son of God is without beginning, or ἄναρχον. But so that we might not name them all individually by their own names, which would be useless, let it suffice to prove it by the authority and testimony of one of them and another author, who are above any exception. Therefore, let Cyril of Alexandria first come forward, whose words are these: "As the Father," he says, "himself lacks a beginning, and is in no way made; so also the Word, who proceeded from his very substance, lacking a beginning, ἄναρχος, will be without time, nor is he made, just as neither is he who begat him." In the same manner also, Gregory Nazianzen argues against the Eunomians, Orat. 35, a little after the beginning, p. 765: "What therefore, you will ask, if the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal with the Father, what can be brought forward, but that they, just like him, are also without a beginning? Because they are from him, although not after him. For that which lacks a beginning is also eternal: but that which is eternal does not immediately lack a beginning as well, so long as it is referred to the Father, as if to a beginning and source. Therefore, they do not in the least lack a beginning in regard to the cause (it is clear, however, that a cause is not altogether more ancient than those of which it is the cause; for the sun does not precede light in time), but in regard to time, they are without a beginning, however much you might terrify simpler minds with word-tricks." Therefore, our author was able correctly, just as those most learned writers, to say that the Son of God, although he was eternal just like the Father, is nevertheless ἄναρχον, and without a beginning of time. For his eternal generation preceded all time, and no moment of time can be designated before which he did not exist.

^C Furthermore, our author asserts the divinity of Christ much more clearly and lucidly, where he interprets the beginning of the first Epistle of John in this way: "What it says, 'From the beginning,' the presbyter was explaining in this way, that the beginning of the generation is not separated from the beginning of the Creator. For when he says: 'What was from the beginning,' he touches upon the generation without a beginning of the Son existing with the Father. 'Was,' therefore, is significative of eternity, of one not having a beginning, just as the Word himself, that is, the Son of God, subsists one with the Father according to the equality of substance; he is sempiternal, and unmade. What the Word always was is signified by saying: 'In the beginning was the Word'. There he teaches most openly that the generation of the Son of God is eternal and without beginning, and that this is the sempiternal Word, and of the same substance and nature as his eternal Father. And indeed he declared this most lucidly, not only in his own words, but from the beginnings of this canonical Epistle itself, as well as those of the Gospel of John, which are clearly similar and consonant."

Nor was it enough for him to have affirmed that so expressly, but again a little later: "By the appellation of the Father," he says, "he signifies that the Son also was always without a beginning." But in so small a work, does not this repetition most clearly show that nothing was more at heart to our author than that he should deliver and inculcate this doctrine to everyone?

^D Nor must he be heard who might object to us that these words which we have recorded of our author, who is older than the Nicene Council, did not proceed from him, but from Cassiodorus, or from him who, at his command, rendered these sketches into Latin. For Cassiodorus openly indeed declares that he removed certain stumbling blocks from them, but he nowhere said that anything was ever added to them by himself or by another. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether this little work of sketches is the very one of which Cassiodorus made mention.

But that, in truth, seems less sound and orthodox, which our author wrote concerning the human soul, at the first chapter of the first Epistle of Peter, verse 5, in this manner: "It appears that the soul is not naturally incorruptible, but by the grace of God, through faith, and justice, and through the intellect, it is made perfect and incorruptible." How, however, is man's soul "not naturally incorruptible," which, since it is entirely of spiritual substance, and therefore consists of no body and no parts, can never die, nor be corrupted? To these things, indeed, that dogma of the Catholic Church concerning the immortality of the human soul has been so expressly defined and established by the Fathers of the same Church, and in the divine books of Holy Scripture, that whoever has denied it is rightly and deservedly held to be a heretic.

We indeed know that it is noted on the margin of the library of the Lyonnais Fathers that these words of our author can perhaps be explained, "either as concerning perfect incorruptibility, and supernatural glory, or because the soul does not depend on its own nature, as God does, but on the efficient cause, namely, from God." But the author of this annotation has indeed rightly, perhaps, [used] the word "perhaps," which is doubt-

such is the mind of the soul, he added it there. For the soul is quite clearly 352 called by our author not naturally immortal, but as attaining immortality only by the grace of God, through faith and justice, or its own good works. But that this is entirely false, no Catholic man will surely deny.

What, indeed, of the fact that a little later he says concerning these words of Peter: *Being born again, not of corruptible seed*, he adds by way of explanation only this: "Therefore, the soul is corruptible, which is poured out together with the body, as some think." Truly, you will say, he is not reporting his own opinion there, but that of others. Be it so. But why, I ask, did he put forward this and no more? Why does he not explode or impugn this error? Why does he not brand it with some mark at least, or oppose it with the true opinion? Furthermore, can it not be gathered from these things, not unreasonably, that these *Adumbrations* are entirely different from those which Cassiodorus, having edited them from Clement’s *Stromata*, took care to have translated into Latin by another learned in Greek? For indeed, since the words transcribed by us can scarcely, if at all, be explained in a correct sense, and serve as a stumbling block to many the unwary, the pious man would surely have excised them with no less diligence than he testifies he did other things which he removed from this little work.

These things can indeed be confirmed by what our same author stated in the eleventh verse of the subsequent Epistle of Jude: *Woe to them, for they have gone in the way of Cain*, saying this and no more: "Thus also we are subject to Adam's sin, according to the likeness of sin." Is this not clearly the pure and unadulterated error of the Pelagians, who deny original sin, an opinion proscribed by all orthodox Fathers and councils? We know, indeed, that by our author it is not openly defined there that this is the only way and the sole reason why we are subject to Adam's sin. But, without a doubt, because of such a brief and harsh discourse on original sin, he will seem to some—if not rightfully, perhaps—suspect, if not conscious, of the corrupt Pelagian error. For what prevented him from adding something there to explain his mind more clearly regarding original sin?

But concerning the first verse of the first Epistle of John, our author produced these things in his writings regarding the flesh of Christ touched by John's hands: "It is reported in the ^A *Traditions* that John, because the body was external, put his hand into the depths, and that the hardness of the flesh offered no resistance to him, but provided a place for the disciple's hand." But what these *Traditions* were, no one will easily guess. For it has already been observed by us, that the *Traditions of Matthias* are cited by Clement of Alexandria; but perhaps by the name of *Traditions* our author designated those pseudepigrapha of John or *Acts of the Apostles* praised by Ephrem, which Augustine and Epiphanius rank among the apocryphal scriptures and testify to have been used only by heretics. Be that as it may, it is certainly true and certain that the *Traditions* praised by our author were entirely false and apocryphal. For we read nothing in the sacred Gospels about the flesh of Christ, which felt no resistance to John as he touched it.

Nor should you say that there is a copyist's error in our author’s text, and that instead of John, one should write Thomas, to whom Christ, as is narrated in the Gospel of the same John, offered his body to be touched. For there is nothing there at all, not even the slightest word, about the flesh of Christ yielding to him as he touched it. Furthermore, since our author used the word "it is reported," he surely indicates not vaguely that these *Traditions* were of no great moment or great authority, nor ever perused by himself.

Finally, these words of the same Epistle of John, chapter II, verse 13: *Young men... you have overcome the wicked one*, are explained by our author thus: "The wicked one signifies the arrogance of the devil. But the children know the Father; inasmuch as they have fled from idols and have been called to the one God." Whether these things were noted by him for the reason that, when he was committing them to writing, there were still some pagans and idolaters, no sufficient or considerate evaluator of matters will perhaps dare to define with certainty from these few and not very clear words of his. Furthermore, even if many idolaters still existed then, it could not therefore be concluded that he flourished in the earliest times of the Church, unless it were known to us in which region these *Adumbrations* were edited by him. For it is certain that the cult of idols persisted in some regions much longer than in others.

CHAPTER V.

Of the lost works of Clement of Alexandria, and of those which he promised he would write.

ARTICLE I.

Of the lost books of the Hypotyposeis of Clement of Alexandria, and of certain fragments of them and his other writings.

Besides all those things we have discussed, it is certain that many more works were edited by Clement of Alexandria, the loss of which is the more to be deplored, in that the sacred documents of our religion asserted in them, and the moral precepts handed down, could have been more easily made known to us.

The most important among so many works, long since lost, were undoubtedly the eight books of the *Hypotyposeis*, about which Eusebius narrates: "There are also eight other books of his, inscribed with the title ^B *Hypotyposeis*, in which he explains whatever he had received from his predecessors, and the traditions which he had left to posterity." Jerome indeed says: "His magnificent volumes are cited, full of erudition and eloquence, concerning both Divine Scriptures and the instrument of secular literature, of which there are eight books of *Stromata*, eight books of *Hypotyposeis*." This he says, and no more.

But because these books have long since perished, it seems difficult for some to say what their scope was, or what their argument. Yet both are clearly enough indicated by these words of Eusebius: "In the books of the *Hypotyposeis*, to speak in one word, a compendium of both Testaments of Scriptures..."

^A he instituted a painstaking narration, not omitting even those scriptures about which there is disagreement among many. I mean the Epistle of Jude, and those of Barnabas, and the remaining Catholic Epistles, and the Revelation which is called Peter's. He affirms, moreover, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is Paul's, but that it was written first in the Hebrew tongue, inasmuch as it was for the Hebrews; and that Luke, having zealously translated it into the Greek tongue, published it for the Greeks. Whence the same color of diction is found in that Epistle and in the Acts of the Apostles. He observes that this titular inscription was correctly and orderly omitted by the apostle Paul. For when he was writing to the Hebrews, who had long before imbibed a wrong opinion of him and held him in suspicion, he used prudent counsel, and did not wish to frighten them by placing the inscription of his name at the very beginning. Then, a little later, he uses these words: "Now, as the blessed presbyter used to say, since the Lord, as the apostle of the Almighty God, had been sent to the Hebrews, Paul, out of modesty—inasmuch as he had been sent to the Gentiles—does not inscribe himself as apostle of the Hebrews, both because of his reverence for the Lord and because, as an extra measure, he, the herald and apostle of the Gentiles, was writing to the Hebrews." Moreover, in the same books, Clement reports a certain tradition concerning the order of the Gospels, which he had received from the older presbyters, in this manner: "He used to say that those Gospels were written first which contain the genealogy. But the Gospel of Mark was written on an occasion such as this: When Peter had publicly preached the word of God in the city of Rome, and had proclaimed the Gospel, moved by the Holy Spirit, many who were present urged Mark, since he had long followed Peter and remembered what he had said, to write down the things which had been preached by the apostle. Mark therefore composed the Gospel and imparted it to those who asked him for it. When Peter learned of this, he neither forbade it entirely nor did he encourage it to be done. But John, the last of all, when he saw that the contents pertaining to the body of Christ had been delivered in the other Gospels, moved by the divine Spirit, wrote a spiritual Gospel at the request of his acquaintances."

We have cited this passage of Eusebius, long though it may be, the more willingly because it is thereby the more clearly evident how certain his testimony is concerning those books, which he declares had not been read carelessly; and of what great weight his authority in this matter ought to be. But there he not only openly displays the argument and scope of these books to us, but also presents certain fragments from them, by which it can be gathered how our Clement treated the argument he had proposed for himself.

From this we also learn that by the name *Hypotyposeis*—which some have translated into Latin as "Institutions," others as "Informations," or "Dispositions"—Clement meant nothing other than a compendious narration of all the books of Holy Scripture, and even of the apocryphal ones; or, short commentaries on the Old and New Testaments and certain apocryphal lucubrations. To this opinion of Eusebius, Photius, whom we are soon to cite, gives full support, except that he declares that not all, but only some passages of the Old and New Testaments were explained by Clement in these books of the *Hypotyposeis*.

Furthermore, Eusebius noted nothing in them that he did not believe to be altogether sound and orthodox. He narrates many things there which are plainly worth knowing, which we have endeavored, to the best of our ability, to elucidate and illustrate in our previous dissertation with our notes and observations. But from this account of Eusebius—who found in these books nothing but what is true and in agreement with the dogmas of our faith—Photius differed greatly in his opinion, and arrived at a judgment of those same *Hypotyposeis* of Clement that was far different. But it is worth the effort to hear him narrating this in his own words ^A: "The *Hypotyposeis*," he says, "contain a discussion of certain passages of the Old and New Testaments, which he also explains and interprets summarily. But although he seems to think correctly in some things, in others, however, he discusses matters in an altogether impious and fabled way. For he asserts that matter is eternal, and falsely imagines that ideas are introduced as if by certain decrees. He also numbers the Son among created things. Regarding these [matters], he prodigiously dreams up the migration of souls and many worlds before Adam. Furthermore, he derives Eve from Adam, not as the sacred books teach, but ^B obscenely and impiously. He also dreams that angels had congress with women, and that children were born from them. Moreover, he is found to have made up that the Word did not become flesh, but only appeared so. In addition to this, he is found to have feigned two Words of the Father, of which the lesser seemed to mortals [to be the one that became flesh]: nay, not even this. For he writes thus: 'The Son is indeed called the Word, equivocally, in relation to the paternal Word. But this is neither that Word which became flesh, nor is it the paternal Word itself: but a certain power and potency of God, as it were flowing from the Word itself, which, having become a mind, has permeated the minds of men.' All these things he attempts to support with testimonies from Scripture. Although he utters six hundred other blasphemies with his voice, either he himself, or someone else who has assumed his person. Clearly, he has filled the eight books themselves with these portents of blasphemy by harping on the same things repeatedly, and here and there, and confusedly, as if smitten with stupor, in producing the Scriptures. The scope of the whole work, however, seems to have been the interpretation of Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, the Epistles of St. Paul, and the Catholic [Epistles], and finally of Ecclesiasticus. This, meanwhile, he himself admits: that he had been a disciple of Pantaenus."

From these words of Photius, it is first of all most clearly evident that those eight books of the *Hypotyposeis* were accurately perused by him, just as they were by Eusebius; since he represents not only a clear analysis of them, but also a certain fragment, drawn from them, which he transcribed word for word, as it seems. But then he explicitly explains there what the argument of this work was, as we have already said, what the author's scope was, and how, and how many of the sacred Scriptures—both books and Epistles—he himself had interpreted. ^C

But because Eusebius affirms that many more books of the Old and New Testament were explained by Clement in these *Hypotyposeis* than Photius does, whence, you will ask, did such a great disagreement arise between Photius and Eusebius, who, as we have seen, had read these books most carefully? And whence that dissension? But weigh, I pray, whether that is to be attributed to the various codices which each of them used. For Eusebius seems, not without reason, to have possessed the complete codices of this work, but Photius, the mutilated ones, corrupted by heretics after the time of Eusebius.

And indeed Eusebius, who discusses these *Hypotyposeis* of Clement of Alexandria quite copiously and at length, as has been noted, did not signify that he had found in them any of the errors mentioned by Photius. How then could it be that so many and such great errors were scattered and disseminated in those codices which Photius used, and yet did not occur in the other, older ones perused by Eusebius; unless these books were depraved and adulterated by certain scoundrels and impious heretics? In this way, some things that those wicked men could not corrupt seem not without reason to have been cut away and amputated from those books, while others were...

added, inserted, and intruded ^A nefariously for the defense of their own perverse opinions.

Nor does Photius himself retreat from this opinion, who, since he could by no means persuade himself that the errors mentioned by him had been truly handed down by Clement, deliberately added: "or he himself, or someone else having put on his persona, inserted so many and such great monsters and prodigies of errors into these books."

But what of the fact, observed by us in previous dissertations, that certain errors—and especially concerning the intercourse of angels with women—are found in the genuine works of Clement of Alexandria? But in the same place we made it manifest that he steadily and clearly propounds the true and orthodox doctrine concerning the one world, concerning matter created by God, concerning the one and divine Word of the eternal Father, concerning the true flesh assumed by Him, and above all concerning His supreme divinity, which is exactly the same nature as that of the eternal Father. So many, and indeed repugnant and contrary errors to these sacred dogmas, ^B Clement could not have asserted and disseminated in his *Hypotyposeis* unless struck by truly incredible blindness.

Wherefore Rufinus, rightly and aptly for our purpose, writing concerning the adulteration of the books of Clement of Alexandria, wrote this: "Clement of Alexandria, presbyter and master of the Church, designates in almost all his books the glory and eternity of the Trinity as one and the same, and sometimes we find certain chapters in his books in which he calls the Son of God a creature. Is it credible that so great a man, so Catholic in all things, so learned, should either have thought things contrary to himself, or have left behind written things that it is impious not only to believe, but even to hear, concerning God?"

We know, indeed, that it has seemed to some that these books of the *Hypotyposeis* were composed by Clement of Alexandria before he was fully and perfectly imbued with all the true documents of the Christian religion. But that is said entirely without foundation. For it is sufficiently proved, if we are not mistaken, from the things already said, that these books were adulterated by heretics and foully corrupted.

Nor should you say that the same books could not have been corrupted by them in so many places. For it stands as a fact, throughout those and even earlier times, that the impudence of those heretics proceeded so far that, as we have not once noted, they laid violent hands upon many other lucubrations of the holy Fathers of the Church, and even upon the divine books of the Holy Scripture, by which they foully stained and deformed them with various amputations, interpolations, and additions of this kind.

Nor are those to be listened to who would object to us that Photius, through great negligence, attributed to Clement those things which he was reporting not from himself, but from the perverse opinion of heretics. For why, I ask, when Photius was discussing other works of Clement—and especially the books of the *Stromateis*, where he is read to have brought forth the errors of so many heretics and pagans—did he not assign them to him as well? Furthermore, Photius was more discerning ^C and sharp-sighted than to be unable to distinguish what had proceeded from Clement or from others in the *Hypotyposeis*; nor was he so mendacious and fraudulent as to attribute to Clement countless errors which Clement himself indicated belonged to others. Finally, even though Photius discusses very many writings and compositions of other authors, and exhibits an epitome of them, yet nowhere is he accused by anyone of such negligence and error, or of fraud, deceit, and lying.

But those who, with no author cited and no reason brought forward, would separate the *Hypotyposeis*, the writer of which is Clement of Alexandria, from the author of the *Stromateis*, are no less abhorrent to the truth; for they suppose that it is some other person. For from those things which we have reported from Eusebius and Photius, this false opinion is overturned from its foundations. Do you wish for this to be demonstrated yet more evidently and more powerfully, if possible? Hear the same Eusebius ^D saying these things concerning Clement of Alexandria: "Then also at Alexandria," he says, "applying himself to the same studies of the divine Scriptures with Pantaenus, flourished Clement... who also in the books of the *Institutions* [Ὑποτυπώσεις] written by himself, clearly names Pantaenus as his teacher." And it seems to me that he designates the same person in the first book of the *Stromateis*, etc. Could Eusebius have asserted in clearer words that Clement of Alexandria is the true parent and author of the *Hypotyposeis* no less than of the *Stromateis*? But I am ashamed to waste time and effort in refuting so vain an opinion, or rather, the dream of a waking man.

Nor must time be spent in refuting those who suspect that these books perished just because they were teeming with errors. For everyone knows that this was the lot and fortune of not only the worst, but also of the best books, and those published by the most ancient and learned Fathers of the Church. Who also is unaware that certain harmful and pestilential lucubrations of heretics and pagans have lasted longer than others which were composed by orthodox writers for the defense of the Christian religion and the explanation of its dogmas, and which could have been of the greatest utility to all? Nor is it necessary to prove this by a long and useless induction, which is demonstrated most brilliantly from the lost books of our Clement, about which we shall soon dispute.

Furthermore, Eusebius in his *Ecclesiastical History* cites these books of the *Hypotyposeis* of Clement quite often, and sometimes exhibits certain fragments of them. For besides those which we brought forth from his book VI, chapter 14, page 215 et seq., the fifth book of the *Hypotyposeis* is cited by him earlier in book I of the *History*, chapter 12, page 30; the sixth and seventh later in the same book of the *History*, chapter 1, page 58, and chapter 9, page 46, and chapter 15, page 53.

Many more fragments from these same books of our Clement have been excerpted by Oecumenius. The first, indeed, is taken from his third book of the *Hypotyposeis*, in the commentaries on his first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter XI, 40, page 526. The second, described from the fourth book of the same *Hypotyposeis*, occurs in the commentaries on the same second Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter V, 16, page 637. The third, from the same book of the *Hypotyposeis*, in these commentaries in the following chapter, verse 11, page 645. The fourth, from the fifth book of the same *Hypotyposeis*, in the commentaries on the Epistle to the Galatians, chapter V, 24, page 763. The fifth, from the seventh book of the *Hypotyposeis*, in the commentaries on the first Epistle to Timothy, chapter II, 6, volume II, page 220. The sixth, from the same book of the *Hypotyposeis*, in the commentaries on the same Epistle, chapter III, 16, page 229. The seventh, again from the same book, in the commentaries on the same Epistle, chapter V, 8, page 257. The eighth, on verse 10, page following, from the same book. The ninth, again in the same place in verse 21, page 242, from this very book. The tenth, from the same book still, in the same commentaries on chapter VI, 13, page [missing], in the commentaries on chapter II, 2 of the subsequent Epistle to Timothy, page 249.

Furthermore, John Moschus in the *Spiritual Meadow*, chapter 176, reported a certain fragment from book V of the *Hypotyposeis* concerning the baptism of the apostles. But all those excerpts in these books of Eusebius, Oecumenius, and John Moschus, which are in everyone’s hands, since they can be found by anyone...

easily, we have therefore thought it superfluous and useless to describe them here.

Furthermore, it has been observed by some that Fronto once wrote to Savile that the complete work of those Hypotyposes of Clement is preserved at the Alexandrian patriarchate. But would that it had been transported to these regions! For perhaps a more certain judgment could be formed not only concerning its fragments, but even concerning that whole work itself.

Moreover, many other fragments occur in the catenae, especially those of the Greek Fathers, cited merely by the name of Clement; consequently, whether they were taken from his Hypotyposes or from his other writings is truly most difficult to say. And indeed, in the catena on the book of Job which Nicetas, patriarch of Heraclea, adorned, you will find a long fragment on that same book of Job, chapter 1, verse 21, attributed to Clement of Alexandria, but with no specification of which of his works it is; you will find very few of its initial words, not without some variant readings, in the fourth book of the Stromata, page 538. Therefore, if anyone were to say that the rest which follows was written by our Clement, he must certainly confess that those things, and thus that whole fragment, were culled either from his Hypotyposes or from some other lost work of his. We suspect, however, that no more than what we have noted of Clement’s words are exhibited in that entire fragment. For all the remaining parts seem to us to be nothing other than an exposition and amplification of Clement’s opinion, just as Nicetas interpreted it.

Nor can it be indicated more easily from which of Clement’s books the same Nicetas culled those things which he declares he transcribed in that same catena, both in Job 34:7 and in Matthew 5:43. But those things which he attributes in the same place to our same Clement, in Matthew 11:31 and 32, we judge to have been drawn from his *Paedagogus*, book I, chapter 11, page 132, just like other things which we judge were drawn for that same chapter, Matthew 11:46, from his *Paedagogus*, book II, chapter 12, page 206. However, in these two latter passages, Nicetas does not express the words of Clement, but expresses and amplifies his mind and sentiment.

In the catena on Luke, however, published by Balthasar Corderius, some fragments of Clement are represented quite verbatim, as in Luke 13:14, where an excerpt from *Paedagogus*, book I, chapter 6, page 96 is read. Furthermore, in Luke 10:14, another fragment from chapter 11, page 132, which we also saw cited in the superior catena. Item, in Luke 17:16, from *Paedagogus*, book II, chapter 2, page 154, page 155, and page 156. But in these places he follows the interpretation of the books, and there some things were undoubtedly added by the compiler of the catena. Finally, two other locations occur in Luke 2:33 and 16:22, which we were unable to ascertain as to where or from which of Clement’s books they were taken. Moreover, other things similar to these will undoubtedly be found in other catenae, regarding which the same must be said as is said of these. Wherefore, let this suffice for having noted them.

It is also no longer necessary for us to present the various and prolix fragments of the books of our Clement, which were cited and transcribed by Eusebius in his *Ecclesiastical History*, and especially in his books of the *Evangelical Preparation*, and certain others by Epiphanius and Rufinus. For since they have been sufficiently indicated by us in these dissertations at their proper place, we have not judged it necessary to do anything further.

ARTICLE II. On other missing works of Clement of Alexandria, and on some fragments of them.

Among other lost works of our Clement of Alexandria, there is enumerated by Eusebius ^A *Περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα* (On the Pascha) treatise, and more simply by Photius, *Περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα*, but in Latin by Jerome, *De Pascha liber unus* (One book on the Pascha). On what occasion Clement wrote this book, we learn from the same Eusebius. For after he spoke about the book which Melito had published on the same subject, he then immediately subjoined: "Clement of Alexandria makes mention of this book in his work *On the Pascha*, ἐν ἰδίῳ Περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα λόγῳ. And he testifies that Melito’s book gave him the cause to write it. But what was treated in that book, the same Eusebius later discoursed upon as follows": <In the book, however, which he composed on the Pascha, he affirms that he was compelled by his acquaintances to commit to writing for posterity the traditions which he had received from the older presbyters. He makes mention in the same short work of Melito and Irenaeus, and of several others, whose narrations he also brings forward. >

In the preface, however, of the *Chronicon Paschale* or Alexandrian Chronicle, falsely inscribed under the name of Peter, bishop and martyr of Alexandria, two fragments of this book are exhibited in this manner on page 7: <But also Clement, most holy presbyter of the Alexandrian Church, a most ancient man, and one who was not far removed from the apostolic times, teaches similar things in his book *On the Pascha*, writing thus: "Therefore, the Pascha having been sacrificed by the Jews in past times, the Lord ate it, keeping the feast. But after he preached, he himself who was the Pascha, the Lamb of God, as a sheep led to the slaughter, he immediately taught his disciples the mystery of the figure on the fourteenth day, upon which also they asked him: Where dost thou want us to prepare for thee to eat the Pascha?" Therefore, on this day, both the sanctification of the unleavened bread and the preparation of the feast took place. Whence John, where he wrote about the disciples having now righty prepared on this day that they might be washed by the Lord, subjoins: "Our Lord suffered on the following day, while he himself was the Pascha, sacrificed by the Jews." And after other things: "After this, therefore, on the fourteenth, when he suffered, having been brought to the palace in the morning, the chief priests and scribes did not enter the praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but that they might freely eat the Pascha." To this accounting of the days all the Scriptures agree, and thus the Gospels are consistent with one another. Furthermore, the resurrection itself testifies to this: for he rose on the third day, which is the first week of the harvest, on which the pontiff is also commanded by the law to bring the sheaf. > The Greek words, however, whoever wishes to read them, will easily find them in the place cited by us.

We have also suffered the loss of two other commentaries of Clement, which are called by Eusebius ^D *Διαλέξεις περὶ νηστείας, καὶ περὶ καταλαλιᾶς* (Discourses on fasting, and on evil-speaking), and by Photius, *Περὶ νηστείας, καὶ περὶ καταλαλιᾶς*, and by Jerome, *De jejunio disceptatio, de obtrectatione liber unus*.

We have lost a third book of Clement, which is called by the same Eusebius: *Ὁ προτρεπτικὸς εἰς ὑπομονὴν ἢ πρὸς τοὺς νεωστὶ βεβαπτισμένους*: <An exhortation to patience, written to the neophytes. >

Eusebius proceeds, and indicates a fourth with these words: <καὶ ὁ ἐπιγεγραμμένος Κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός, ἣ πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαίζοντας, ὃν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τῷ δεδηλωμένῳ ἐπισκόπῳ ἀνατέθεικεν>: <and the book which is inscribed *Ecclesiastical Canon*, or *Against those who follow the errors of the Jews*; which he indeed dedicated to the aforementioned bishop Alexander. > But Photius, *Περὶ κανόνων ἐκκλησιαστικῶν, κατὰ τῶν...*

On Ecclesiastical Canons, against those who follow the errors of the Jews*, ^A clearly refers to the same. Finally, Jerome: *On Ecclesiastical Canons, and against those who follow the error of the Jews*, one book, which he properly dedicated to Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem. From the not obscure words of these three most learned men, and from their entirely certain testimony, it is evidently gathered that this was one book only, in which our Clement indeed refuted—not the canons of the apostles, as some have wrongly supposed, collected by him—but the errors of the Jews by ecclesiastical rules, that is, as it seems, by the Holy Scriptures.

Others, however, opine that these errors were those of Christians who celebrated the holy Pascha according to the Jewish custom on the fourteenth day of the moon. These indeed defend their opinion by citing the words of Eusebius, undoubtedly *against the Judaizers*, as some say. But because Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius have indicated to us in that place another book of Clement, *On Pascha*, in which that subject was undoubtedly treated, who could easily persuade himself that two books on the same subject, but inscribed with different titles, were composed by our Clement? Could there not be other errors of the Jews concerning Christ, the observance of the Mosaic Law, etc., which could have been attacked and refuted by him in this later book?

Furthermore, a certain fragment of this book is found in an edition, as yet unpublished, of the *Antirrheticus* of Nicephorus of Constantinople against the Iconoclasts, which is described in two Greek manuscripts of the Royal Library, and a third in the Colbertine. The first Royal codex, numbered 1989, is of venerable antiquity and appears to have been written eight hundred years ago. The other, more recent, number 1826, was transcribed from that former one. In both these codices we read these Greek words of that fragment: *On the Against the Judaizers; Solomon, son of David, etc.*

Besides, in the *Lausiaca Historia* of Palladius, chapter 139, it is narrated that a certain virgin, near death, gave to her mother the work of our Clement of Alexandria on the prophet Amos, so that she might hand it over to the exiled bishop. The words of Palladius are these: *“When she had given to her mother the work of Clement the Stromatist on the prophet Amos, she said to her: Give this to the exiled bishop... and she passed away that very night.”* These things are there, nor is there more about that commentary of our Clement. Wherefore what specifically that was, and whether it was excerpted from the books of the *Hypotyposes*, certainly cannot be divined.

Nor is the book of Clement of Alexandria ^C *On Providence* more known, from which St. Maximus the Confessor inserted two fragments into his works. The first, indeed, on page 144, is held in these words: *Of the most holy Clement, presbyter of Alexandria, from the book On Providence: Substance is in God. God is divine substance, etc.* The second, however, on page 152 at the same place, is represented thus: *Of Clement the Stromatist, from the discourse On Providence: Will is a natural power, etc.*

However, that former fragment is found in a certain not very old paper manuscript of the Royal Library, signed with note 2431, in the same number of words, with these exceptions: *Substance is that which subsists through all.* But these things are immediately added: *Nature is so called from having been born; the first substance is everything which subsists by itself, as a stone is called substance. But the second substance is growth-capable in that it grows and perishes, as a plant. But the third substance is animate, endowed with sensation, which is the animal, the horse. The second substance is animate, endowed with sensation, rational, which is man. Whence each one also has been made, as existing from all, having a soul that is immaterial and a mind that is the image of God.* (Nature is named from that which is born. The primary substance is all that which subsists by itself, just as a stone is called a substance. The second substance, however, is that which has power of growth, since it increases and perishes, like a plant. The third substance, however, is animate and endowed with sensation, like an animal and a horse. Another substance is animate, endowed with sensation, and rational, like man. Wherefore each one was made, and he who consists of all these, has a non-material soul and a mind which is the image of God.)

In the same Royal codex there is also described this fragment from the same book of Clement of Alexandria, as is said there: *Of the most holy and most blessed Clement, presbyter of Alexandria, the Stromatist, from the discourse On Providence: What is God? God is, etc.*

Regarding this *On Providence* of Clement, since more does not suffice, whoever he may be, and whether in citing it there was no negligence of writers or scribes, and no slip or error, who will properly show this, he will truly deserve very well of us and many others.

Finally, Sozomen, among various historians, enumerates ^D *Clement and Hegesippus, most wise men, who succeeded the apostles closely.* But Valesius thinks this should be understood regarding Clement of Rome, who is said to have composed the books of the *Recognitions*. For he not only existed before Hegesippus, but is also called a companion and successor of the apostles. Then, truly, the works of Clement of Alexandria carry more of a historical form and appearance than the *Recognitions* of Clement.

But, to confess the truth, these reasons seem to us of little validity. Besides the fact that the work of the *Recognitions* is pseudepigraphical, as we said elsewhere, it was certainly not the custom of ancient writers, in naming authors, to always follow chronological order. Secondly, Clement of Alexandria, as we have also seen elsewhere, declares himself close to the first successors of the apostles. Finally, far more chronologies are exhibited in the first book of the *Stromateis* of our Clement of Alexandria than in those *Recognitions*. Which indeed, although it may be very easily evident to anyone reading these books, will nevertheless be rendered more plainly and manifestly from the same chronologies of our Clement of Alexandria, which will be presented by us a little later. Nothing, therefore, as it seems to us, can prevent Clement of Alexandria, praised by Sozomen, from being accounted in the number of chronographers because of these chronologies. But if the matter stands thus, this work of Clement should certainly not be counted among his lost labors.

ARTICLE III. On certain books and commentaries which Clement of Alexandria promised he would write.

Our Clement declares in these words that he had put off to another time a certain treatise on secret mysteries, undoubtedly to be published: *“It is manifest,” he says, “that there is another kind of discourse, the institution of which is to teach what is indeed subtle, and spiritual, and which follows an accurate method of treatment, and is engaged in contemplating secret mysteries. But let this be deferred for the present.”* Whether, however, he fulfilled his promise, and published any special commentary on that matter, is hitherto unknown.

That he had publicly brought forth the study which he himself testifies to having composed in these words is a matter without doubt: “We have treated at greater length of the fact that neither in the names of parts pertaining to intercourse, nor in nuptial congress—in which are used names that are by no means worn out by common usage—is there the naming of that which is truly shameful.” ^A Yet it may deservedly be called into doubt whether he treated that subject in a separate commentary or in one of the books he had already composed. Be that as it may, it seems beyond doubt that, long ago, the loss of this study had already occurred.

Clement himself further testifies to books written by him on *Continentia* [Continence] and *De nuptiis* [On Marriage]. For of the first he speaks thus: “And this has been declared by us in the book *De continentia* (ἐν τῷ Περὶ ἐγκρατείας).” Of the second, however: “And how,” he says, “it befits a wife to live together with her husband, and concerning the administration of the house, and the use of servants, and what things ought to be done by her separately, and the time for marriage, and concerning those things which pertain to women, we discourse in the book *De nuptiis*.” In these words Clement explains that many things were treated by him in this book, and perhaps explains the subject matter of the entire book. It seems, therefore, to be a singular work, the loss of which is to be lamented all the more, the greater the fruit and utility it could have been to us.

Concerning the offices of bishops, presbyters, deacons, and widows, Clement again promises in these words that he will say something: “But very many other precepts which pertain to elect persons are written in the holy books; these indeed for presbyters, others truly for bishops, others for deacons, but others for widows, concerning which there will be another time to speak.” ^B Yet it cannot be certainly gathered from this that any special work or commentary on them was published by him in writing.

Clement promised that he would write still more in his books of the *Stromata*. For first, after he reported the various opinions of philosophers concerning the ultimate end and blessedness, he immediately added these words: “But the things which are said against those sentiments which have been stated will be said in their own time.” He pledges, therefore, that he will write something against these opinions of the philosophers, or rather, their errors. But whether he sufficiently fulfilled his promise has been discovered by no one.

Later, when he refutes the Marcionites: “But against them indeed,” he says, “when we shall treat of the principles, we shall discourse most accurately.” And again, a little later: “But when we shall treat of the principles, then we shall also consider these contradictions, which the philosophers tacitly signify and the Marcionites decree in their dogmas.”

He also promises another tract against the same heretics, *De anima* [On the Soul], in these words: “Against whom there will be another time to speak when we shall treat of the soul.” ^C And not content to have said this once, he promises elsewhere that he would produce several books both *De anima* and *De prophetia*: “But how this division takes place—that is, how the grace of the Holy Spirit is infused into our minds to lead to belief, and what the Holy Spirit is—will be given by us in the books *De prophetia* and *De anima*.”

Yet consider whether that work must be called something else, concerning which he himself writes shortly before these words: “We shall treat of the fact that there is one God, who is preached through the Law, and the Prophets, and the Gospel.” But certainly, the commentary against heresies was clearly different from these books, concerning which he says there in the same place: “But that this is the Father of the Son, the creator of all things, we have deferred to that contemplation in which we have proposed to discourse against the heresies.” But I implore you, do not induce into your mind that he fulfilled his promises at the end of the seventh book, where he discourses concerning various heretics. For while he shows there whence heresies and heretics received their name, he does not dispute against their errors.

Against the errors of Cassian concerning the human soul, that it existed before the body, and concerning the coats of skin of Adam and Eve, Clement signifies in these words that he would one day dispute in his tractate on the origin of man, or book: “But Cassian thinks the coats of skin are bodies, concerning which we shall later show that both he and those who feel the same as he does have erred, when we shall proceed to the exposition of the origin of man, to which those things that must be said first follow.” ^D Where, however, and whether in the eighth book of the *Stromata*, which we have seen cited by Acacius, bishop in Caesarea in Palestine, Clement disputed concerning the origin of man and against the errors of Cassian, we show is neither certain at all, nor discovered.

Clement further testifies that he had in mind at some time to overthrow the heresy of Prodicus itself: “But in its own time something will be said against the impious cognition of those cursed ones.” But he could easily have accomplished this in his tract *De hæresibus*.

Clement had also sometimes thought to fight against the impious dogmas of Basilides concerning the *metempsōsis* [transmigration of souls] and the devil: “To those dogmas, indeed,” he says, “whether the soul migrates from bodies into bodies, and concerning the devil, it will be said in its own time.”

“But what things are said concerning the limbs of God are to be understood allegorically; in the passage of time,” says Clement, “we shall open this in its proper place.” But by these words, no special future writing on this subject seems to be indicated. We have also noted that another tract concerning angels was promised by him in a manner not entirely dissimilar.

At the end of the sixth book of the *Stromata* are also read these words of Clement: “But what kind of person the Gnostic is in the contemplation of natural things, may it be shown afterwards: *ep’ an peri geneseōs kosmou dialambanein arxōmetha* [when we shall begin to discourse concerning the origin of the world].” But these latter words seem to allude more to those things which he had said a little before concerning the origin of the world, rather than to other things that were to be said concerning it. And in fact, he only discourses on the Gnostic thereafter.

Finally, at the end of the seventh book, after he had declared the marks and characters of the true Church, he then immediately added this: “*tauti men oun kai eis hysteron* [these things, then, also until later], and concerning these indeed it will be said later.” Whether, however, he himself delivered his own work, and published this and other writings promised by him into the light, is certainly all the more difficult to say, as there is greater silence of ancient writers concerning them, and as it is more uncertain whether any of them ever came forth to the public.